Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.03.11 PARCEL ID:' 2737-173-07-109 DATE RCYD: ' 7/28/2003 # COPIES:- CASE N0 r:003 11 CASE NAME: Phillip Colver Setback Variance PLNR: Joanna Schaffner PROJ ADOR:.. 855 Mountain Laurel Drive CASE TYP'. Setback Variance STEPS:r~ OWNIAPP: C. Phillip Colver ADR 855 Mountain Laurel D CIS/Z: Aspen CO 81611 PHN: 925 4088 REP: C. Phillip Colver ADR:. Same C!S/Z: Same PNN:. Same FEES DUE: $525 FEES RCVD: $525 #15342 REFERRALS HOA REF:~~ BY. J. Schaffner DUE: MTG DATE REV BODY PH NOTICED 9/2/03 BOA I 8/13103 ~`'''''- DATE OF FINAL ACTION:. 9/2/2003 1 REMARKS BOA reso to clerk 10/9/03ryt (~G+ ~p ~, tp /~(p (O(Z~ ~~3/~ DATE CLOSED: ~ BY: Isabel Calderon 00(lU~l d-~ 3~ '~I II it II I III II II II I I II "x99632 3 10/ 10/2003 11 . 2:'.A sr! v1a oavls a1rK1N couNTr co R 0 00 D 0.00 RESOLUTION OF THE PITKLN COUNTY, COLORADO BOARD OF ADJt1STMENT GRANTING A VARIANCE FOR C. PHIL.LIP COLVER Resolution No. 2003-11 WHEREAS, C. Phillip Colver owner of 855 Mountain Laurel Drive, is requesting a. ] 0 foot Front Yard setback variance for the construction of a garage; and WHEREAS, 30 feet is required for this 30,002 square foot lot in the R-15-A Zone I>istrict; and WHEREAS, the parcel is described as Lot 93, Mountain Valley Subdivision; and WHEREAS, the Board of Adjustment is vested with the power to grant or deny sudh variances by virtue of Title Il, Section 7-10.30, Pitkin County Code (Land Use Code) and Colorado Revised Statutes, 1973, 30-28-1 l8(2j (C); and, WHEREAS, based on the evidence presented, the Board of Adjustment makes the following findines: 1. Proper notice procedures, including the notification of al] adjoining property owners, has been demonstrated. 2. The required hardship or practical difficulty has been established. 3. Granting such relief will not cause substantial detriment to the public welfare and will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the Zoning Resolutions and the zoning maps. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment, that a ] 0 foot Front Yard Setback Variance be granted for the construction of a garage as shown on Exhibits A and B due to topographic hardships. WARNING: Any violation of the terms of this resolution may result in rehearing and possible revocation. The Resolution was adopted by vote of the Board of Adjustment of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. DATED: September 2, 2003 ATTEST: ~~ , n~>~ ,fie-r-/`t r11s_,~' I~-(~-u~ ~Toanna S. Schaf&~ei date `County Zoning Officer The Board ofAdjustmcnt of Pitkin County, Colorado date ~a , , d ~~ v ,j c ~. y- ¢ .~ G 2 c J ' -~ c-: f y ~ 1~ ~ Y 3 rt L V U [. ~/o J 2 -~-. A P ~ _ y n / ~ __-_-~ __ 1 -u a s C ~ e r° Aa ly c ~y ` 0 ~ C1 I / j \/~jJ 4 \ V / / ~/ i S.T.~jY n` ~ ~ \ ~ ~- ~~\ i. \ l !. L . ~\ 1 ' ~ n d~ ~ > ~`~~ J Q v d I L I ~ . e\_, ` s 3 J ` 000003 1: W I I~ I I I i I- =- -~ ~x~~~b~~ O R _~ V ~ 1_ ~\ O ~ 4 ~ { 4 ~ ~~ ~ ~ - v ~ ~ a ~ ° ,, . _ n ~ _ _ _ yes ° L _ J N y V y f0 ~ 6 N y R m \ b M T J T ~ Y n _ I _ l { n ,~ ly T ~ .( w 7 V ` Ii/~"~~V Syr II ~ J ~ ~ /III ' ' ~ ~- trM^ trni ~ i.q - `~ { L I I 1 ~I l e ~f ~~ 1 ~ 1 ~ l ill I ~Iil II III I I IIIllollll Iill~l I II ~ I II00 096 0 00i ~ : zsa a a- ~= -, ~ C, c- t t~ F ~ Q° `a ~9 ti r Z ~ ~ < ~ t C 3 U v = ~ ~~ ~ U (~ C~ Q` E N N m .-. O N~Mm o m m m ~ O B ~ ~ ~ n ~ m m m 0 v 0 u z_ Y F R N Q Q u~ N OODUU4 i L_ i % ~ ~_ --~ I 1 i L I~ YFti ~ I + .7~ ~ _ _ ~ ii i _V 4e. i~ ~~ V " j~ U R W _~ _, 2 • i MINUTES September 2, 2003 Meeting of the Pitkin County Board of Adjustment Members Present: Rick Head Jim Rifkin, Chair Mike Cooper Bob Throm Deanna Olsen Taber Sweet, Alternate Members Absent: Patrick McAllister. Alternate Staff: Joanna Schaffner, Zoning Officer and acting secretary Rifkin opened the meeting at 5:07 pm. Case 2003-11 Colver, Phillip 855 Mountain Laurel Drive Lot 93, Mountain Valley Subdivision Mr. Colver was present to request a 10 foot front yard setback variance where 30 feet is required on this 30,002 square foot lot in the R-li-A zone district for the construction of a residential garage. He submitted the Affidavit of Posting and several photos of the site. Mr. Richard Haberman, President of the Mountain Valley Homeowner's Association was present and stated that the Association had no objection to the request. Mr. Colver stated that the subdivision road was not constructed as platted in 1969'. When he bought the lot in 1971, the road was unfinished and they never did what was on the original plat. Technically, the land belongs to the County, however, he has been maintaining the "road" as a private driveway for the last thirty plus years. The County said they will vacate the road. Cooper asked if when the County vacated the road, would a variance still be necessary? Colver stated no. Colver stated that according to the county engineer, Bud Eylar, the owership of the land would go back to the Homeowners Association. Cooper suggested that perhaps the vacation of the road doesn't really make a difference. Since there; is no opposition from surrounding homeowners, and since he knows the area and believes there would be no negative impact to the public he was inclined to approve the request. Cooper then moved to approve the request due to topographic hardships. Throm seconded the motion and it passed 5-0 with Sweet not voting. 000005 2003-7 Kelley, Peter 42553 East Highway 82 Lot I1, Mountain Valley Subdivision Architect, Kevin McLeod and Peter Kelley were present to represent Mr. Kelley in his request fora 100 foot Major Road setback variance where 100 feet is required from the East Highway 82 right-of--way for the re-construction of an existing berm that will exceed 30 inches in height, a 50 foot Major Road setback variance for the construction of a duplex, and a 10 foot side yard setback variance where 10 feet is required for the construction of an 8 foot high fence. This site contains 17,163 square feet and is zoned R-15-A. Schaffner presented the requests to the Board. McLeod presented the Affidavit of Posting. Riflin asked Schaffner if there was any opposition to the request. Schaffner stated that she had not heard from the Homeowners Association, and that one neighbor above and behind the Kelley lot was concerned from a visual perspective but did not file a formal complaint. Haberman was present and stated that the HOA has no problems with the requests. He believes that the concerns of the neighbors can be worked out, one neighbor was concemed about the height of the structure. McLeod stated that the 100 foot setback takes all of the building space away from the lot. He indicated the 100 foot setback on the site plan. He stated that they were staying away from slopes on the back side of the lot. Variances are necessary to rework the existing berm and to continue an existing 8 foot fence along the lot line. Kelley stated that a previous variance was granted for the existing fence to screen headlights from the highway. Throm stated that he remembered that case. McLeod stated that neither one of the adjacent property owners have objected. Riflcin asked about the height issue. McLeod stated that the proposed duplex is within the county height limit. The neighbor, Ms Cooney, requested a berm behind the house, but McLeod stated that a berm on the slope would not be effective. McLeod stated that there will be landscaping but did not have a copy of the plan with him. Haberman has already seen the plan. Native vegetation will be maintained and spruce and aspens will be added. Haberman believes this will allay the neighbor's fears. The applicant agreed to work with the HOA. McLeod stated that the ridge will be about four feet above the road. Throm moved to approve the three variance requests due to downzoning and topographic hardships. Cooper seconded the motion and it passed 5-0 with Sweet not voting. UUUUU6 2003-8 Vanderpol, Jeff 103/105 Lupine Drive Lot 32, Mountain Valley Subdivision Architect, Kevin McLeod was present to represent Vanderpol in his request Fora 30 foot front yard setback variance where 30 feet is required on this 17,500 square foot lot in the R-15-A zone district, for the construction of a new driveway and related improvements that will exceed six feet (6') in height. McLeod submitted the Affidavit of Posting. Schaffner explained how the 30 inch rule was changed by the BOCC last September to allow a six foot grade change for driveways. She commented that she has not heard from the Homeowner's Association, although Mr. Haberman is still present, and she has not received any objections from any of the neighbors. McLeod showed a site plan indicating fifteen and thirty percent slopes. The building envelope allowed by setbacks allows for development on slopes in excess of 30°~b. The existing parking is located off of the property. Anew 10% driveway constructed to reach the building envelope will require a significant cut. Haberman said that the Association had no objection. McLeod stated that the County Engineer, Bud Eylar was pleased that the existing conditions were to be removed (ie, parking on the road) and that he favored the two access drives. Head moved to approve the request based on topographic hardships. Olsen seconded the motion and it passed 5-0 with Sweet not voting. 2003-14 Two Mile Ranch, LLC -This application was withdrawn by applicant 2003-15 Feldman, Gary 4076 Lower River Road Mr. Feldman was present to request a 30 foot front yazd setback variance where 30 feet is required on this 21,380 square foot parcel in the AFR-10 zone district for the construction of asingle-family residence and gazage. Schaffner presented the case to the Board. The existing carport located within the Rio Grande right-of--way will be removed. The driveway will be realigned, and a new garage is proposed. Steep slopes to the river limit the building envelope for the garage to the top of the slope near the north lot line. The proposed garage will be constructed on stilts to avoid development on the slopes. The existing residence lies within the setback and will be demolished. Anew larger home will be constructed in its place and needs a variance to increase the amount of encroachment within the setback. She stated that approval for an Administrative 1041 Hazard Review was granted. A letter from Mike Hermes, of the Roaring Fork Railroad Holding Authority (RFItHA), stated that RFRHA had no objections to the request. Feldman is in the permitting process with RFRHA now. ~U~~~7 There have been no objections from any neighbors. Neighbors Tom and Cindy Hanson were present to learn more about what was planned for the site. They stated that they had no objection to the request. Rifkin asked about the Affidavit of Posting. Feldman stated that his architect had it and that he was not yet present. Head moved to approve the request due to topographic hazdship subject to receiving the Affidavit of Posting. Throm seconded the motion and it passed 5-0 with Sweet not voting. 2003-7 Raines, Doug Lot 6, Filing 1, Brush Creek Subdivision This application has been tabled until next month. 2003-7 Chesley, Paul and Anderson, Alexander 43351 East Highway 82 Attorney, Tom Smith and architect, Dillon Johns were present to represent the owners in their request fora 50 foot Major Road setback variance where 100 feet is required from the Highway 82 right-of--way for the construction of asingle-family residence on this 12.27 acre parcel in the AFR-10 zone district. Rifkin stated that he understood there were many people present opposed to the request. He stated that the applicant would first present their case, then the public would be heard. Schaffner outlined the case. Although the lot is 12 acres in size, the building envelope approved in the 1041 Hazard Approval is limited by wildlife, steep slopes and debris flow hazards. Calls were received from people who were not neighbors but who recreate along Highway 82 and who stated that it seemed like a big house for a tight, little spot. Smith and Johns presented many photos of the site as well as of existing developments within the East Highway 82 100 foot setback. They illustrated the boundaries of the building envelope, the location of the various 1041 hazards, and where the 100 foot and 50 foot setbacks bisect the pazcel. Johns indicated that this is the only place on the entire parcel that can be developed. Smith explained that there are at least three approvals on this parcel. A 1041 was approved in 2000, another 1041 was approved in May 2003 which superseded the first approval, and a Scenic Overlay approval was also granted. Visual impact issues were addressed in the Scenic Review, and FAR was addressed in both 1041 approvals because they specifically recognize the ability to build 5,750 square feet on this site. Smith stated that it is not for the Board of Adjustment to concern themselves with visual concerns or FAR issues. Both issues were already addressed by the County. Smith stated that a topographic hardship exists because this envelope is surrounded on three sides by slopes where the County prohibits development. The proposed house size DU~U~g is allowed by the zoning and confirmed by the 1041 approvals. Any concerns regarding these issues should have been presented during the other reviews. Photos of other development within the East Highway 82 100 foot setback were reviewed. Smith stated that with regard to setbacks and FAR, the request is not out of character with what is going on in the neighborhood. Riflin asked if any Board members had questions. Cooper asked Smith if he were involved in any of the prior approvals. Smith stated that he was not. Cooper asked how many posted, public hearings were held. It was figured that at least three posted, public hearings were held before this meeting. Rifkin now turned to members of the public that were present to object to the variance request. Attorney, Lance Cote, representing adjacent property owner, Alan Potamkin was first to object. Cote stated that if the house were redesigned, the variance could be less intrusive into the 100 foot setback. Throw stated that they are not an Architectural Design committee. Head stated that Cote's paint is not germane to the hardship. Cote azgued for a balance between the hardship vs. the need for the variance. A redesigned house wouldn't need a 50 foot setback, but maybe just a 30 foot setback. Throw stressed again that they do not review design issues. Cote then stated that as requested, the applicant has not shown an adequate topographic need for the variance. Head asked what would the significance be in moving the structure back another .30 feet? Cote responded that the hardship to the public would be reduced. Throw asked ~~hat was the hardship to the Public? Cote responded that the Northstar Nature Preserve and trail were across the street. Throw responded that those do not impact this lot. Cote stated that the purpose of the setback is for the public benefit off the highway, and if you reduce the encroachment into the setback, you reduce the impact on the public. Throw stated that he did not agree with Cote's point. Cooper asked if Cote was present or if his client had representation at any of the other public meetings. Cote stated that he was not and that he did not know about other representation. Attorney, Jennifer Causing, was present representing the Preserve Homeowner's Association. Cooper asked if the HOA were conterminous with the subject property. Causing stated yes. Throw asked if she had a plat showing the location of the HOA lands. She did not have a plat but stated that the HOA land was right across the sl:reet from the subject property. Throw stated that he wanted to see it on a map to see how it relates to the subject property, and if Causings did not have a plat there was nothing to discuss. Rifkin did not agree and suggested Throw use his imagination. Causing raised safety issues with the proposed development, stating that the location of the house is on a curve. She stated that Section 3-50-020 B of the Land Use Code pertaining to Road setbacks states that "in order to provide essential sight distances along arterial highways, major roads, and collector streets for vehicular traffic and pedestrians entering and leaving such rights-of=way, uses other than structures, (including off--street f.1O00G9 parking signs, and lights) shall meet the following minimum setbacks: Major roads: 50 feet". Our position is that this is a safety concern. There is no topographical necessity to allow the house a 50 foot setback. If the house were located further back on the lot, it would provide a more visual allowance for traffic coming into Highway 82. Head stated that these arguments are not germane to this meeting, that the applicant is requesting a setback variance from the highway, and that the BOA routinely approves these requests. Cooper asked Causing if she was present at the three previously posted meetings, and she responded that she was not. Cooper asked if the HOA had sent anybody to any of the three previously posted meetings. Causing did not know. Diane Stouffer was also present to oppose the request. Ms Stouffer lives "up the highway" from the subject site, and stated that she is opposed because of the visual scenic comdor and the proposed master plan which is not yet adopted. She doesn't believe the site was previously posted. Someone ?disagreed, stating that he himself posted the sign. Rifkin again stated that they are considering a topographic hardship, and that the BOA does not have the authority to determine whether or not the other meetings were correctly posted. The BOA can only determine whether or not there is a solid basis to grant or deny a topographic variance. Stouffer then stated that she did not understand what is the hardship. The owner bought the property knowing it would be difficult to develop. The BOA has granted variances to house after house because of unnecessary and uncalled for hardships. Cooper asked if she or her representative was present at any of the three previously posted meetings. She asked why that question was relevant. Head stated that then was the appropriate time to address her concerns. Cooper added that over a long period of time, the property was posted for the public to attend. He stated that the County puts these lots through "an exhausting level of scrutiny. We are the last people in the food chain only dealing with a very small matter. The esthetic matters all came prior to us." Stouffer reiterated that she didn't believe that the property had been previously posted, she saw the sign and came to voice her objection. Throm offered that Ms Stouffer had another place to oppose the request, but it wasn't "in this room". Smith suggested that if she had concerns about the posting, she could bring them to the attention of the Planning Department, but they approved it and they always check on the notice. Maureen McCloskey was also present to oppose the request. Ms McCloskey lives about three miles up the road. She stated that the applicant knew what the building envelope was when they bought the lot. This is not a hardship. What if the next thing they want is a 15,000 square foot house? Moving the house forward will allow them more room to build a bigger house. Throm stated that that is a supplication which has no bearing here. McCloskey offered that the East Aspen master plan has a major goal to maintain a rural quality of the neighborhood, and to reduce the visual impact of houses. If you can't ODUUlU require landscaping, the only thing you can do is to maintain the setback from the: road. And to follow our master plan. Otherwise, what's the point of the plan? [f anybody who wants to change it can change it, or it should be changed to a 50 Foot setback for everybody and then they wouldn't have to be here. There is no consistency in the rules. The applicant has not shown any hardship. Richard Haberman was present and stated that he is one lot removed from the subject parcel. He asked if the lot was posted for this meeting. Schaffner stated yes. He questioned the hardships of other residences located within the 100 foot setback. Haberman stated that there is now a comdor of buildings along the highway as you leave town heading east He believes there is enough room within this envelope that a variance would not be needed. Head stated that they are not here to cite the house. Bob Lewis was also present. He stated that there are already so many exceptions to what the applicant is asking for, and that there are houses a lot closer to the highway thay it doesn't seem to make any difference. He drives into Aspen sometimes twice a day, and he wouldn't object to seeing a house there. Rifkin asked the Board if they had any comments. Olsen suggested to the architect that they could still build 5,750 square feet on the site and not have the encroachment that they do; perhaps if the comdor to the rear were shortened for example. It could easily be done. She agreed that they are not an Architectural Review committee, but asked, do we have a right to allow more vaziance than somebody actually needs? Smith responded that not a single application comes before the BOA that couldn't be redesigned. This building envelope was approved by the County for 1041 Hazards and Scenic Overlay. Olsen said that that was what she didn't understand. Head moved to approve the request based on topographic hardships. Throm seconded the motion and it passed 5-0 with Sweet not voting. Schaffner stated that appeals to this determination may be made to the Board of County Commissioners. Minutes: Head moved to approve the minutes from the July 8 and August 5 meetings. Olsen seconded the motion and it passed 5-0 with Sweet not voting. Head moved to adjourn the meeting. There being no further business before the ESoazd, the meeting was adjourned. #!*#***Rk~k#**&#**:k#***#*###*~k8:**#7~#*#**k***k~l:#*#*##****1~**#*kk***:kk***** ODUU11 Respectfully Submitted, Approved as submitted Approved with noygd change(s) `oanna S~ S haffn Acting Secretary flci Chairman (U -L~ -v 3 7 ~7 Date Date 000012 PITHIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Application Form DATE REPRESENTATIVE ~• / E-MAIL GO~~~ MAILING ADDRESS ~~ '/,~~<U ~ PHONE ~~C~ ~ ~L~`~~//~ k_tIJ ~~ FAX ~~~ ~- ~~V D /~6'Til/~~iiJ ~Cl/~ .~rll~/ OWNERI.~ ~7 /J/ / t--~/ MAILING ADDRESS ~~ (v~ LEGAL DESCRIPTION -Sc~,9: /rl DUr, SUBJECT PARCE7L ADDRESS ~~ PARCEL ID # zT~~l ~_~p ~~ LOT SIZE ~-9 -~~ S. Yom. SIGNATURE , PHONE 9~~ `- `Y- L~C~ it ~/a//~ ~/~ 3 ~ ~f -93 DISTRICT ~'`c ~C'~ (To be completed by the Zoning Department) CASE # ~~+~ C~, -1 ~ Application filed -7 Z 8 u ~ Date of Meeting ;/ Z.~ ~ 3 Notices Mailed ;' _ Refer to }-(i) A Zoning Official~.~a-~~r ~~: ;=~ ~,t Secretary e o,_-, 2 000013 C. Phillip Colver. Ph.D., P.E. OR55 Mwm/air? I,aurcl Jh ine A.t/~eit, Colorado X/611 Pharr 970-%?5-108N Fix: Y?S 1 Sd'6 F_maZL PCoGer(uJATTBLConr hdy 28,2003 Pitkin County Board of Adjustment City Hall Aspen, Colorado 81/il l Dear Board of Adjusuuent Tltis application is for a setback variance to build a 22 fl by 20 ft garage attached to my family home in the Mountain Valley Subdivision at 0855 Mountain Laurel Drive. I purchased this property, listed as Blk 3, Lot 93, in 1971 and built the residence in 1973. My family and 1 have lived here continuously since that lime. Our home is connected to Mountain Laurel Drive by a single lane driveway about I 1 ft wide and a little over 200Il long. The parking area in front of our home is 25 fi wide by Sll ft long. The drive was partially paved with asphalt in 1971 or 1972 as part of the origin, road work, but has not bccn nrainlained since [hat time by Pitkin County or other agency. The plat for the Third Filing of the MotlNain Valley Subdivision was accepted for tiling by Pitkin County on Fcbntary 9, 1970; the roadway for the Tlurd Filing section of Mountain Laurel Drive completed in 1972. At the tintc the roadway was constnucted, Mountain Laurel Drive was no[ constnucted as shown on the 1970 plat but the main roadway shown at 60 ft wide was terminated at die first tumround shown on the plat with a diameter of 100 ft diameter and that portion of roadway leading to our property constucted as a I 1 ft wide by 200 + ft long single Irate drive with a parking area oC 25 It by 511 ft in front of what is our home. While the origit><~I 1970 plat was approved and accepted by Pitkin Comity in 1971 and the road was to be maintained by Pitkin County, our driveway and the parking area in front of our home has never bccn maintained by Pitkin County; all scow removal, dm~eway mainlcnance and roadside planting of itrecs, Mowers and other vegetation has been IcCt solely to the responsibility of my family. It is ury understanding Crom Mr. Bud Evlcr, Pitkin County Engineer, that Pitkin County has no interest in utilizing our driveway and parking area for the fidure as it is not a public roadway and the drive provides access only to our home. Further, Mr. Eyler has told me Ihal he is going to itutiatc dtc right-of- way vaa~tion process ou the existing unconstmeted Pitkin County road right-of--way, which is our driveway and parking area. Our proposed 22 fl by 20 Ct garage extends out from our home, so that [he setback is approsintately 20 to 22 ft from the 1110 ft diameter turnaround that was never constructed but is shown on the 1970 plat. My family and I respectively request a variance to the Pitkin County setback rcquirmnenl so di<~l we may proceed with the couslntction of our garage. Thank you for your attention and consideration of this application. ~~~U1Y Sincerely, V ~ ~ n ~~ L a' f a r ~ W o ewu n v4n° ~ i iF u ~ F a w r ti' ~ ¢ 7LL~FiW Pc °ryoFjU- Y m ~u ~~~~Ou w m~ s 3 w i~ m {~- ~ `u m ~Nf ~~ Z ~~ WJ° a ° w P 3LL -¢i~aF W p "s°. -'.w W;~~~ iii '~<3 r' Q W na o' _waww4l W'2 w a r'- " ~ a ~ m_F~ 3V F¢ OS ~ 'N UF~W WG°3 pU d ufiN f i C) b bvaa ~_ i ~ ~, r a= (Q,` ~,~ C~ I ~LL ~ ? w • qWe~? Wyp_ wC N FW" G~a. r~ k z ~tt ~_ uw 80; ~ ~ ~ ~ V c ~~, ¢4k~v ~~ 'w aLL QEw so-; _ Yi W 'rc l~~,.W~~W.y i. N if1 3,' uo-. N @Wq Wp ~ ~ ~~d'v~i ~ a W ~ ~ p ~e ~ ~ ~ ~ - wY Rae~ti~'w~i: Im ~ > ~ _ ~ ~ ~ <4 a ~ u ~~' ~ ~ ~ ~' F- e , a~W ° a Q p°i~ W " ~ W 4 > J W 4 - V £ 4 4 ~ y ~ W Il Y om- Z O~~ F W ` Q P ~ i yyFY4 ° e ~ 2 , e Y s ~ J U °' F,m F v d ~ R V ~ v u 7 LLI _ Y F ~~ G ~ Wti~ ~,! ~ ~ -.~ a Qtt~y~ F ~ G ~ J/ w~a~ Q i N P ~ o~ d o t, C lAU s _ D r c o~r - m.~..ec ccs? - I : e j n J P9 ~4~ P ~ W ly i W~ l C >` yy O n!' n Y ~ _~b$ ~` M1~ ,,~ / ~~/ e u~ f \\ . i `t Nr 9 ~ti ~.a / E _ mar, _'..~, iv3x3+. - r. ~ I II ~J M~ L P NY J v` [ w m a~ U ~~I~~p, Pn SS :1 F~ °Yg v N 4 J Q e.i 9) 000015 ~~ vy ~_ C ~' F v, n n k ~e d + f. n (~ i yP x~i -s.~ _ _ C A W ~ P T v A ~ n ~ ~ ~~ n' ~ F", t-~ ~:: `] UUUI;l~ 1 ~ L~ U-l i ~1 ~_,rI~LI -- ~-°-~' ~~ ~i '~, ~ !, ~- e `~ to m F ~ H ~ ~\ 4 ~ ~ T ~~ ; fa 0 P < ... __-_. u ___. O y,, r - _.__ ~. _ I r _._- ______-_. _ ~-___.I y I I °a °3 6 I ~ c ~ 7r b~ c .u r u n / +, ~ \.` ~, ~~ __... i jl U W ~ ~ f~(• Y a ' f L a`* yl sY ~~ ~F G T F. K ~ ` Is C Yl\ ~~~ y. d~a, ay ,u s'.\( t°.` Z. ~. ee .ss P' ^,~~ ~ 3 i o+ f r d ~J I M' 7 -. ,_ 4 l; !~ _ ~n ~ a t > $ ~. rv 31 f~ _= ~~ o. ~^ ,n O Sh 000017 ~~. i ~,~' -~ ~~<_~ _i l i /~ a W ~~ c, r~ ~Y~ _ 3 _ m C, a ~ a a u ~ __ S ?` C C S n \~ 4 ~ j_ v Z i a skr "J. c 4 y J .. ~'r: ~ 3 ~,,. A- ~~ ~~ r. y T x o- Y ~ ;~ ~ ,~~ ~ ~, ~. r , ;.~. fa` n \Y ~ , q ^} ~ ~ ~ ~ 7. Yt ~ ~~ Y B~ a n. i ~ ~ ~'` ~ ~~ ~ pan _ ~. ~~ .,~ ~~:~=. .~, .,j .,. <{ i OOOU2 .ce< <_ .. i i,~ ~ ~y ~ j i I ~,. , { . ~~; ~~ ~ i ~ ~r.~_~ , -~, ~: 000022 a~ ~ ~ a~ ~ a ~, y:g rut - i~ • ~ ~ x u iu ~~.. .i ° . 5~ i f tl+ ~ F• •.d ., _ ~ ~.~• ;; , '\ ~x> A . , ; :, ; ~ ~, .o e ~' "~Y ~ , ~~ J . * ~~. - _ ~ ~ i ~ ~~c v + °Ar , 4 1 l ~~ ~~ ~ ~ Ay ry 'y. ~~ y ~~ yy{C~yA ~$ __ ,__ ~,__-.~.~.,n..n.,,.~~ s _ , F ~~ i n ~, 5 ~ {{a Y . ' ~ v:,py. _ .Mw* 5 a y ~W6s 15 ~s ~ ~ C 4M ~ y N K F -.m.~"~: +~ ' , Ate . ".:_- K'r :~ ', ~. r~; Sw~ x, ^ N ;y ~ ~.. ~~ # M1~ ~` ~( 1 ^ M v ~`,,m E ~P".. i i ~~~~` tl R~.,~ _ " i ~, _: _. ~„ aP ., qy .;- _ ~dSZ.. _- ..~ ~~4 ~ 8 y -i. 1 _ s y_ t ~ a < a _ ~ . "Yam. !+Y~. ~. ~~~~ ~ n _ y '~` . . ''.cr., ~ ~ ?~ r rb.. " • 6 ._n ~~ '~ ~~ b.' ;s i~J~ '~ i~g S! ~ ' .a i ~ rc't v~ t t ~yi ~,~'i~,~0~ r e ~l ~^ ~ 1 '~ f p~ , t ; C~ ~y4 ~1 ~J~apM1 _ 1 ( 1 ~ t tl f A ~ p ~ ~ 1~. yj ~. 1 '~` ,. ` ~~, ~ ,'k ~; e ~~ , i ~, ;_ ~ .. y~ t e e` S 1. f yj ., Y 3, t t C ,~ i ~ . ;~ ~ l S 2 •, ~"` +y~~, ~ ~ ' a, ,p 3~ R k`v^n n er !S 9 _~. s ~ ka (. # 7 a zQ $`~ d~ dr ~.. ~~, ~ '~ r 'h K 1 ~ ~ a ,, I I ~ 4 G _~ e ' ^' st ' S ~' ' ~~ ,' ` ~ ~; Y f )~ ~`Y 2 l r L , ~,~y ,. ,., - 'f: ,_<~ { sn. ~i yy i L i;±y 1 • ~ 1 4~ ~: ~i t i. A*1 J.. 'u i e. A x ,~, 8-- ~ r ~ ''~. A, ;` i ~ ~~+ ~~ ~ "` ~q. sn '~,'. ~~, . ~ ~; ~~ , ~' 4 -. °h .~ T r.:y,~~ ~yTM~_ _ 6 ~:~~ cw. •; . :: r~ _,_, r ~{ , 4 ~~ ~ ~ 'i KX } ~~ j6 ~ur~.ia ~ ~ f yoi _, ~ t ~;~ , f ~ , • --, r.^ w.,~ Y ,. 1~i ~ ~ ~Zn P~ ~ ~~"~ . ~, e .- 'c ~ay~iY 1 ~Y ~} @~ ~~ s ~a ~ ' •~,:~ .~ y~, E i 't y~~t r r v.: ~~ a " ~' i Ip ~ ~~ "? I w~ ~t _ 9 F ~ w ~~ x~ M.+ Se ~pC+ r ,,g ~ ~ ~*k~, ' ~ e~.- °~ .. -+s rr i~ i' A f w. K P rv ~~ '~ ., ~{~ A~ ' a ^,`. .av ~ 4 4., ~ ' ': 4r' ~ ~ i, $~" ~~ k ~, g1 t > ~t ~ .t { 1 .. i ~kto- ~ ~ ~ ~ A m ~ ~ .. ~ -~ y 1 .e ~ ~Y fmu6 L .. ~ er wvrll "'`~ sd ^ L i~ ~ w ~~ ;~° C. Phillip Colver. Ph.D., P.E. 0855 Moanlaire Lanre! Urrve Aspen, Colorado 81611 Plane: 970-925-1053 Fw: 925-7336 Emml: PC:nk~e>([U.~IT'IT3I.Com Julv 24, 2003 Property Owners Adjacent to Lot 93 in Mountain Valley Subdivision Lot 92 Patricia Callahan 184 Mountain Laurel Drive Aspen, CO 81611 Lot 94 William J. & Jayne L. Poss 605 East Main Strcct Aspen, CO 81611 Lo[ 76 Karen F Polsky Ken[ 106 Mountain Laurel Court Aspen, CO 81611 000029 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: Front Yard Setback Variance for Lot 93, Mountain Valley Subdivision NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will beheld on Tuesday, September 2, 2003, to begin at S:OOpm, or as soon thereafter as the conduct of business allows, in the Commissioner's Meeting Room in the Courthouse, 506 East Main Street, Aspen, before the Pitkin County Board of Adjustment, to consider an application submitted by C Phillip Colver, requesting a ] 0 foot front yard setback variance where 30 feet is required on this 30,(102 square foot lot in the R-I S-A zone district, for the construction of a residential garage. The property is located at 855 Mountain Laurel Drive, aka Lot 93, Mountain Valley Subdivision. For further information contact Joanna Schaffner at the Pitkin Community Developmient Deparhnent, (970) 920-5105. Pitkin County Board of Adjustment Published in The Aspen Times on August 23, 2003 Pitkin County Account No. 002.02 00003U AGENDA PITICIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT September 2, 2003 5:00 P.M. Pitkin County Courthouse CASELOAD: 2003-07 Paul Chesley and Alexander Anderson 43351 East Highway 82 Requesting a 50 foot Major Road setback variance where 100 feet is required from the Hi€;hway 82 right- of-way for the construction of a single family residence on this 12 acre parcel in the AFR- l 0 zone district. 2003-1 l Colver, C. Phillip 855 Mountain Laurel Drive, aka Lot 93, Mountain Valley Subdivision Requesting a 10 foot Front Yard Setback variance where 30 feet is required on this 30,002 square foot parcel in the R-15-A zone district for the construction of a residential garage. 2003-12 Kelley, Peter 42553 East Highway 82, aka Lot 11, Mountain Valley Subdivision Requesting a 100 foot Major Road Setback variance where 100 feet is required from the East Highway 82 right-of--way, for the re-construction of an existing berm that will exceed 30 inches in height, a 50 foot Major Road setback variance for the construction of duplex, and a 10 foot side yard setback variance where 10 feet is required for the construction of an 8 foot high fence. This site contains 17,163 squaze feet and is zoned R-15-A. 2003-13 Vanderpol, Jeff 103/] 05 Lupine Drive, aka Lot 32, Mountain Valley Requesting a 30 foot Front Yazd Setback variance where 30 feet is required on this 17,500 square foot lot in the R-15-A zone district, for the construction of a driveway and related improvements that will exceed six feet (6') in height. 2003-14 Two Mile Ranch, LLC -Application withdrawn by applicant -variance not required. 2003-15 Feldman, Gary 4076 Lower River Road Requesting a 30 Foot Front yard Setback variance where 30 feet is required on this 21,380 <.,quare foot parcel in the AFR-10 zone district for the construction of asingle-family residence and garage. 2003-16 Raines, Doug Lot 6, Filing 1, Brush Creek Subdivision Requesting a 13 foot front yard setback variance where 30 feet is required for the construction of asingle- familyresidence and a detached cazetaker dwelling unit (CDU), a I S foot front yard setback variance for a retaining wall linking the driveway to the CDU, a 30 foot front yard setback variance for a retaining wall on the east side of the property, and a 15 foot side yard setback variance where 20 feet is required for a retaining wall on the east side of the driveway. The parcel contains 2.33 acres and is zoned AFR-10. MINUTES: Please be prepared to comment/approve minutes from the July 8th and Aug ~`" meetings. PLEASE CONTACT JOANNA AT 920-5105 TO CONFIRM YOUR ATTENDANCE 000031 - --~ County of Pitl:in } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE; BY POSTING } ~s. OF A V'ARL4.NCE HEARING BEFORE State of Colorado ) THE PITI~' COUNTY B0.~1RD OF t~DJUSTMENT The undersigned, being first duly swl orn, deposes and says as follows: I, ~' ~h/ /~ ~ ~` ,being or representing an Applicant before the Pitkin County Board of Adjustment, personally certify that the attached photograph fairly and accurately represents the sign posted as Notice of the variance hearing on this matter m a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen/from the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously from the / ~ day of ~~ ~OQj ~---• = to the ~ day of, ZO~j(vlus ost d for at~~ t nine (9) full dar's before the hearing date). ~n 1 / 0 ~ .. (.Attach photograph here) BRING THIS FORIVI TO THE YTEETING Subscri d and svvo to before me this w day of~~ od~v - WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIFd, SEAL. ivly Commission expires: 2 d ~ 2m o S t~ J Not- ic's Signature OSSS IMLv~ l~t~'~ (Di'. ~SPC~1/ Address Co , S ~ ~~ ~ 000032 v a ( YR Ja o ~ ., } r k a `: "- • ? .; tr. .G~;~~'~ ,. i .'..~~ ~ ~ ^~ f n . ~~ <. ~,, . ~f r ". W R ~ ~ ~' Sj rn' ~A ~4. a 000033 ,v .. ~;4~'~ ~.. §. y Rj a J~A ' ~ -. ~ ' . 7;. ., ,, ,. ,. ; '~~. 'd ~n ~ .. Y, =` ..?} ^n am ~ f ~ I L~ ! ~ ~' ~ ~ : ygy~p"~, -i N } s ~'...Y' ~ 1 ° ~ ti ~! '~' s wa++;w:_ st ""r.' ,. 4 ~~ ~ 4 T e t' ` ~r"VD. - _h.. ~' a , r s _. '. - 1 ~ f 71~ 'T ~.n .. --1 . . 1 ;,_. _~ " 3~: ~ . ~ D •. _ •9R4 ag ~ a ~ ~ sr ~._ a _ ~ , '~ _, ,x~3E.i.-- ~ g p ' . t:' r... "~ ~~e"g'~ h i { , bas w a ~ F.'G ~,y j ~ "" ~ ~ } ~ ~a~q ,~ E k i ~ 'd r ~ ~ x i ~' F~ z ~.t,,,~' ~ d i ~ h ', .P S 'dh ~ x ~ r~~ q ~' ~, 3, ~" ~ w ~ FSb1 t fi ~ ~ lve~ R .Y y:~~,,y_ ~, x +e#' t , f ,~ a ~ I : , « -~ a 1 ': ~ • 1 } A 4f ? ~ ' e ' ~ ~ 4 {x • " i ~- ~~ '~ , ~~~ . ~ ' t ` "~ ..~- ~_^ ,..~ 2 J 00003~~ 000035 STA ~ , ~`~i ~ ';~-~ T (~~{i ~~ ~~ I ~I'E ~ - .~ , ' RADO CERTIFICATE j I, DONETTA DAVIDSON, Secretary of State of the State of Colorado, hereby certify that the following individual is appointed and commissioned a Notary Public for tlhe State of Colorado as of 12/08/2001, term to expire 12/08/2005 unless sooner concluded for cause. COLVER, A DOMINIQUE 855 MTN LAUREL DR ASPEN, CO 81611 Dated: November 21, 2001 DEPARTMENT OF STATE CwIUN['Y'Y DE T d r~,ryg rprp LaF:PART11~7 ,. Yi } r (ocn[y r~ i~ c ~ ~...,~, ~~ , i i is r~rn: ~i.