HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.05.08
MINUTES
April 4, 2006
Pitkin County
Board o£ Adjustment
Present: Mike Cooper
Rick Head, Co-Chair
Patrick McAllister
Absent: Jim Rifkin, Co-Chair
Isabel Day
Bob Throm
Staff: Joanna Schaffner, Zoning Officer
Head opened the meeting at 5:34pm.
01-2006 Beaver Run Ranch
c/o Floyd Watkins
6090 Woody Creek Road
Representing the applicant, attorney, Dave My1ar presented the
application requesting a 50 foot Side Yard Setback variance
where 50 feet is required on this 45 acre parcel in the RS-20
zone district to permit an existing gazebo constructed without a
permit.
The affidavit of posting was presented.
Head asked Mylar why this application is being heard when the
structure encroaches onto adjacent Forest Service land without
authorization from the Forest Service.
Mylar acknowledged that the structure was constructed without a
permit and that a portion of the gazebo encroaches onto Forest
Service lands. The applicant believed that no permit was
necessary to construct a gazebo. An application to the USFS has
been filed with the USFS under the small tracts act which allows
the Federal government to sell lands, and to exchange or modify
boundaries. The application may take up to two years to be
decided. If approved, the lot line will be adjusted to eliminate
the encroachment. If the application is not denied, the
encroaching portion of the structure will be removed.
Mylar presented plans of the 500 sf gazebo and a detached bar
and showed how 2.5 feet of the structure encroaches across the
OOOOd1 ~~
lot line. He again stated that the applicant is willing to
remove the portion of the structure located on USFS lands if the
Board requires him to do so. He also stated that the structure
is not visible from the County road.
Mylar reviewed the landscape plan for the area, and explained
how the landscaping was intended as restoration of the previous
dumpsite. He pointed out the detached bar, tepee, chuck wagon
and other features.
Mylar gave a brief history of enforcement actions undertaken by
the County since the 1990's against the property, and explained
how this application resolves a part of those issues. Head
asked that if the variance were granted conditioned on removal
of the structure in two years if the application before the USFS
is denied, how will the County know to follow-up in two years.
Schaffner suggested that the Board not grant a conditional
approval. The County can impose its own conditions if it
chooses, and they will probably not want to wait another two
years to finally resolve this issue. Cooper stressed that, as
shown in the past, the Board does not have the ability to
enforce any kind of follow-up. He cited irrigation as an
example.
Mylar presented to the Board affidavits from James G. Pratt and
Dale Dillingham. Pratt testified that he lived on the ranch
with his family from 1950-1970, and that the boundary line was
determined between his father and a representative from the USFS
back in 1964 when they wished to erect a fence along the lot
line. Dillingham testified that he was hired by Mr. Floyd
Watkins to clean up the old dump site that was previously
located in this area, and to prepare it to be landscaped.
According to the affidavit, Mr. Watkins believed that the fence
erected in 1969 was located along the lot line, and that this
was confirmed by the realtor Terry Liming (Ute City Realty) and
a survey. Mr. Dillingham was present to answer any questions.
Mylar stated that there was no survey done at the time Mr.
Watkins purchased the ranch. He relied upon statements made by
these people at the time.
Head asked if there were any objections to the request.
Schaffner replied no. Head asked the Board if they wished to
conduct a site visit? The Board replied no. He then asked if
the monuments used were the historic monuments for the site?
Yes. Head stated that the affidavits were persuasive, but asked
what hardship was being claimed?
00000?
Cooper acknowledged that there was no visible impact from the
road, however, expressed concern that public lands were
impacted. He informed My1ar that three affirmative votes were
necessary for the variance to be granted. The applicant may
wish table the application until the next month when more Board
members can be available. He asked if there would be a hardship
if the applicant waited another month.
Mylar stated that an Earthmoving permit for an irrigation pond
was being held up until this violation has been resolved. The
pond will augment the irrigation needs of the property.
McAllister stated that he was not interested in the encroachment
onto the USFS parcel, only the subject site. He felt that the
Board had no say about what was happening on the Forest Service
property. He said that it made no sense to him to remove the
structure and to replace it elsewhere. This violation has been
in the process too long. The hardship, he suggested, is
peculiar, practical difficulties and undue hardships.
Head made a motion to table the application until next month.
McAllister seconded the motion. Mylar asked what might be
different next month? Cooper was concerned with setting
precedent, legal issues surrounding the Forest Service
encroachment, and the inability to effect enforcement after the
fact.
Mylar again stated their willingness to remove the offending
encroachment within 35-40 days or as soon as the snow is gone.
The storage area can be added back on once the lot line is
adjusted. The Board agreed that was senseless. Schaffner
stated that the County will require removal of the structure on
USFS land even if the Board grants the variance.
Head rescinded the motion.
Cooper made a motion to approve the application based on
peculiar and unusual difficulties. McAllister seconded the
motion. The variance was granted by a vote of 3-0.
03-2006 Montgomery, Catherine
Lots 21, 22, and 23
Crystal River Park Subdivision
Aka 200 Crystal Park Drive
000003
Architect, Nancy Smith was present representing the applicant in
a request for a 72 foot Major Road setback variance where 100
feet is required from the Highway 133 right-of-way for the
construction of a new single-family residence.
The Affidavit of Posting was presented
the public to comment on this case.
Smith explained that the subdivision was
The previous lot owner had merged three
received a variance in 1998 to place the
the three lots. The new owner wishes to
house. She showed the Board a site plan
She stated that CDOT had no objection to
There was no one from
platted in the 1960's.
lots together and
house in the middle of
relocate the proposed
and photos of ,the site.
this request.
McAllister noted that without a variance the applicant would be
unable to build?
He made a motion to approve the request based on downzoning.
Head seconded the motion. The variance was granted based on a
vote of 3-0.
04-2006 Terman, William J.
229 Wrights Road
Aspen, CO
Attorney, Rick Neiley and architect, Jack Miller were present
representing the owner in a request for a 27 foot rear yard
setback variance where 30 feet is required and a 12 foot side
yard setback variance where 15 feet is required on this 33,312
sf lot in the R-30 zone district for the construction of a new
single-family residence.
The Affidavit of Posting was presented. No one from the public
was present to comment on this application.
Neiley stated how the existing residence will be removed. A
recorded 1041 site plan was presented. The site is encumbered
with slopes in excess of 45%. He briefly explained various
boundary and title issues with the site. Access to the site is
from an easement off of Wrights Road. He argued that meeting
the required setback would result in pushing the house to the
rear of the approved building envelope which is already
restricted due to the slope.
Cooper stated that this request has no (negative) public
impacts.
0~~~~~
C~
McAllister made a motion to approve the request based on
topographic hardships. Cooper seconded the motion and the
variance was granted by a vote of 3-0.
05-2006 Smith, Jane
321 Sopris Creek Road
Basalt, CO
Applicant, Jane Smith and her representative, Steve Atchison
were present requesting a 12.5 foot rear yard setback variance
where 30 is required on this 3.72 acre parcel in the AFR-10 zone
district to allow a barn constructed without a permit to remain.
The Affidavit of Posting was presented. There were no members
of the public to comment on this case.
McAllister disclosed for the record that a possible conflict of
interest might exist, but once the issue was explained, the
Board found no conflict.
The applicant submitted letters supporting her request from
Michael Ernemann, Dick Bird, Jan and Terry Haugen and the Emma
caucus.
Smith explained that the barn was constructed in 1988 and was
cited in 1990 for having been constructed without a building
permit. She bought the property in 2004. When she tried to apply
for a building permit in April, she was informed of an illegal
structure on the site. The ~~barn" also contains an illegal
caretaker dwelling unit. She presented pictures of the
structure.
Head asked if anyone could suggest a hardship?
McAllister made a motion to approve the request based on
peculiar, practical difficulties. Cooper seconded the motion.
The variance was granted by a vote of 3-0.
.,/ Administrative Approval
~~D~n~
Bishop, Archer
Lot 2, Aspen Gol£ Course Properties
AKA 3960 Highway 82
Schaffner reminded the Board of case 08-2005, where the
applicant requested a side yard setback variance to construct a
garage into the side yard setback. Resolution 08-2005 approved
a 10 foot side yard setback variance where 20 feet is required
due to downzoning. She presented the site plan.
The garage is presently under construction. The owner now
wishes to extend a deck already in the setback. The deck is
located off the second story on the west side of the existing
residence. Schaffner reviewed the plans with the Board.
Because the hardship remains the same, Schaffner asked the Board
if they are inclined to administratively approve the deck
encroachment or if they would like to see a new application.
Schaffner cautioned the Board that the Land Use Code does not
allow for 'Administrative" approvals. Does the Board believe
this request is significant enough to warrant a new application?
The applicant understands that you may believe the request is
different enough to warrant a new application.
Head stated that the garage had more impact than this deck. He
made a motion to approve the deck administratively because of
the same hardship. Cooper seconded the motion. The variance
was granted by a vote of 3-0.
McAllister made a motion to app
2, 2006 meeting. Head seconded
approved by a vote of 3-0. The
Respectfully submitted,
anna S haf r Date
oning Officer
rove the minutes from the March
the motion. The minutes were
meeting was adjourned.
e ,
1-~-c~
is Head, Date
Co-Chair
000006
f ~
NICOLE PIERCY, A.I.A.
15 March, 2006
Joanna SchafFner,
Aspen Pitkin Country Community Development Department
130 South Galena Street,
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Bishop Residence -proposed deck extension
Dear Joanna,
Archer Bishop owns a 4.7 acre lot located at 39600 Hwy 82 -parcel
ID #2735-111-07-002. In July 2005, Dr Bishop was granted a setback variance
for the development of a new garage. The variance was granted due to hardship
created by the down zoning of the propperty, the original Side yard set back was
20' and the new side yard set back is 30' and the unusual shape and
shallowness of the existing building envelope.
The Bishops propose an additional encroachment into the side yard set back w/an
extension to an existing deck. The existing deck is located on the west side of the
house and encroaches into the now 30' setback. It faces towards Pyramid Peak and
away from the highway. The extension would be a continuation of this deck to the
south-east - it does not encroach the original 20' side setback.
The sub-division, Golf Course Properties Lot Split has 2 tots. The building envelopes
are located away from each other -there is no visual contact between houses,
therefore the deck would not create an additional visual impact. The Bishop's property
is also surrounded by the Moore Open Space and cannot be seen from any other
neighboring properties.
I have attached photos of the existing house and deck, taken from the drive and
yard. The deck as shown from the yard view is not visible from the drive and/or
neighbors. We appreciate your consideration in this manner.
Sincerely yours,
Nicole Piercy, A.I.A.
ARCHITECTUiZE AND INTERIOR DE51GN
P. O. BOX 9801, ASPEN, COLORADO 81612-9801
52 NIGHT HAWK DR., ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (forUPS & FEDEX only)
970-948-5689 cell 970-544-6967 office 970-544-6903 fax
00000
0
0
0
0
a
~~~
4'~
;v~
~~~
,~r~s
~~_~~
~~~s
• I
C ]I
M
z v
3 C
V ~ ~
o~o~
moo.~1
W ~ X
~YYV`°C
.tea ~
m
A Z
v
G7
O
r
n 3
O ~
C O
~ rn
rn 3
rn
r
z
rnNCn
C
rn rn
~ ~
r ~
O ~
v
~ ~
°s
~~~
~~
~~
°s~
T~
~~
~~~
~~
~~ ~ ~
€~
~~ ~
~ T
~~
~~
0
.e lo.@o Q
bl L~
~~~p ~~ ~ ~
~~
~~ ~
.g
q
g
~ ~~ =ago=
'~
Ad ~~
0
0
0
0
c.,~
s'
v
d
K
0
d
}
~o
m N
m
;n
Q ~
O
z
m
D
N
-i
s
4
K
0
4
K
9
s!
n
4
K
f'
r
0
d
L
•
•
• 8T
~~~~~ BISHOP D~GK ,rF
~ ~ LOT 2 GOLF COURSE PROPERTIES, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, 81 6 1 1 ~~ ~
p P 8M NICOLE PIFRGY FINHOLM A~RGHITEGTS * °~°
P.O.BOX9801, ASPEN, COLORADO, 81612 9-10-948-5689
• •
000010
~~:'
4: '~, ~,
';',
l' ~~
<9
O
O
N
U
OL
v
W
1
W
U
Z
W
cS)
W
flL
W
O
N
m
~~ .~ - ~ ;.
~,
s
r4"r ,
~;,~ ga
`''. ~ _ yr, 'tic.
~~
~.,~
^. ~,/ ~M'
.. ~._ ~.
~ ~ "" '~ ~,
. ~ ~ °.
BISHOP DECK EXTENSION -, ~>C/~T'~~/~ 1~~C:~ MA1zCH 2006
~~~
'~-xT~~ i
,, _ ..
•
Chairperson
RESOLUTION OF THE PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
GRANTING A SETBACK VARIANCE FOR
LOT 2, GOLF COURSE PROPERTIES
Resolution No. 08-2005
u
m
nm~
~ w,nm
M °mm
•-, N ~
N a r
r rn.
LS7 n m
m
~~ m
~m
~~ ~
~~ a
U
~~
~.
~~ o
_U
2
~~ Y
F
6
~~ `v
0
~~
a
~~~
~~
w
WHEREAS, Archer Bishop, owner of Lot 2, Golf Course Properties, is requesting a 10 foot side
yard setback variance for the construction of a detached garage; and
WHEREAS, 30 feet is required on this 4.7 acre parcel in the AFR-2 zone district; and
tDov
WI-IEREAS, the parcel is also known as Highway 82; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Adjustment is vested with the power to grant or deny such variances by
virtue of Title II, Section 7-10.30, Pitkin County Code (Land Use Code) and Colorado Revised
Statutes, 1973, 30-28-118(2) (C); and,
WHEREAS, based on the evidence presented, the Boazd of Adjustment makes the following
findings:
1. Proper notice procedures, including the notification of all 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 TT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment, that a 10 foot Side Yard
Setback Variance be granted for the construction of a detached garage as shown on Exhibits A and
B, due to downzoning.
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
Colomdo.
DATED: July 5, 2005 The Board of Adjustment of
Pitkin County Colorado
ATTEST:
,~ .,.~ ~~4~~~0,, ~/~Zlo~
Joanna ~. ~chaffn~r~ -
County Zoning Officer
Pazcel ID# 2735-111-07-002
'7 ~ [~ _ ds
Ri' H d,
~~~~1?
~yy`.y~,: E! y 3..
~9s„~3
33' a s aYen~Nze ~a5a
R 3~~y Et: r~ ~ 3~~3a
'~' =s Z M SE '32P~js?W W ~=2'o-
,y`~x--..,2
-.= d ~~s a 'i x `°v_.'~t3`~ 9~°„j3 'I
~ -3 U Sg} f r ~~ - i 5p~4 i z Sat:a[ i
is W t3,a }* i s axP s 2 g~ 4§~?:
Q 1 a ~3 r 4i
3 ~t~a
p J j: o:e ~ t:?s =-
a~• F ,Y i
J e~.~l~d a. 4 .,. 3
I
f~
;~ I
I
I,
. z; ' it
{r.J~.
J ( Y{%' I •
g N ~'~ `
~ ~,:. .~
~ O ~rrr'
J a~
} f ~
i/ < h
In f'V W ..,. rv~ il.!d~~7''4~ 8 u
z O O .~°~y ~ i~ 3 1,~4~ °~ ~ ~~ kl
d ~ ~~ / / ~~ I I II
U !:
/ / z
~ 1`
~~\ ~1~
x~y~, ,.\ ~~\ \ \~ . I ' l
~~ \ \\ ~_ \ ~ \' I j
~i:~ `~~, ~\ ~~_ ~ 5 ~ nap
~a~ h~. ~~ ~ ~_ .. gyz
sx , ~ '~
~ i ~; ~~s ti I m i"e I~ F
~ o o ~'s ax~~ €
= gel ~~ ~ae k_
~~~ ~~.
iv^~~i
0 013 ~`~ ~ ~ ~ P
O
Y;
t:
0
J
]°'°^
lY mon
y~jo°o
jai`
~ o
O
W
1'
2
d5~
?§4
:f F
~~ji
S2l
~~~
frg'
¢•`.~
z
~P~~
9yy~~
~$F~
9€_3
LL
.~.
M B
~'. Nm
o ~ ~
N N O
N •~ ~
t p1 N
Ln a m
m
~~
~~ m
~~~,
~~
u°
~~~ r
z
~~ o
-- V
r
- Y
r
a
~~
0
6
~~ >
_~
to
„~ ~ _, ~ ~ ,~r ~Q
l"
.~
S
f
~~
~~
.y .~
`~
~` ~<
* v
~' .L
3
:~~ ,~
,~i
~~~
'f3
~`.tj
a~
~~
J
L
,1
L
1-
~ ',
_~
^~s~
_~
a'
~`
sJ
~~
ry
.N.
M m
w N m
('~f ~ m m
~ N O
N ""
t Oi N
117 a" m
m
m
m
0
U
}
H
7
O
Z
H
a
0
a
~-3
ooooi~~
9~
,~
'Y
\~
0~
~_
,~ee,_
~V
~e
~J
~~
j~
..~~
~~
tt^~`\
4J
`~
-- • •
MINUTES
Meeting of the
Pitldn County Board of Adjustment
July O5, 2005
Members Present: Rick Head, Co-Chair Jim Rifkin, Co-Chair
Bob Throm Michael Cooper
Members Absent: Deanna Olsen
Staff Present: Joanna Schaffner, Zoning Officer and acting secretary
Head opened the meeting at 5:30pm. Cooper arrived after the beginning of the meeting.
CASE #06-2005
Sopris Mountain Equity Venture
Requesting a 90 foot Major Road Setback variance and a 20 foot Front Yazd Setback Variance
where 100 feet and 30 feet respectively are required for the construction of a single family
residence and detached garage on this .46 acre pazcel.
The Affidavit of Posting was presented. A letter objecting to the request was submitted by David
Finholm, representing adjacent property owner, Richard Lewis. Finhohn was present.
Julie Ann Woods was present on behalf of Mitch Haas who represents the Applicants in their
request. Woods presented maps of the subject pazcel located three miles east of Aspen. The
subject site is an oddly shaped .5 acre pazcel containing wetlands and the Roaring Fork River.
The building envelope approved through the 1041 Hazazd Review affords a narrow building
opportunity for the proposed 2,000 square foot residence.
Finhohn stated that since his letter was submitted, he realized that he had been misinformed and
that the structure would not be as close to his property as he thought. He did think that setbacks
in the Scenic Corridor should be respected.
Cooper stated that Finholm's azgument should have been made during the 1041 Hazazd Review,
and asked if he made his case to the P&Z. When Finholm stated "no", Cooper expressed that
then he couldn't "side with" Finholm.
Discussion ensued.
East of Aspen caucus member, Bob Oxenberg was present and pointed out that the 1041
approval was subject to Boazd of Adjustment approval. Cooper stated that that was always the
case.
Rifkin asked Finhohn if the variance were not granted, would the impacts be any different.
Finhohn stated no. He realizes a house will be built there, however, he would like to see a
landscape plan.
00001
Rifkin made a motion to approve the request subject to topographic hardships. Throm seconded
the motion and it passed 4-0.
Case #07-2005
Slater, Lawrence
Lot 4, Block 1, Aspen Highlands Subdivision
AKA 1072 Maroon Creek Road
Larry Slater and his azchitect, Daniel Ferguson were present to request a 30 foot Major Road
setback variance where 100 feet is required from the Maroon Creek Road right-of--way for an
addition to an existing single family residence on this 31,232 sf lot.
The Affidavit of Posting was presented. Schaffner stated that she received no objections to the
request.
Slater stated that the entire house is located within the required setback. Ferguson showed the
Boazd before and after plans of the proposed addition. Head asked if a 1041 approval had been
granted, and Slater stated yes.
Riflcin moved to approve the request due to topographic hazdship and downzoning. Cooper
seconded the motion and it passed 4-0.
Case #08-2005
Bishop, Archer
Lot 2, Golf Course Properties
AKA 39600 Highway 82
Nicole Piercy and Glenn Hom were present representing the applicant in his request fora 10 foot
East Side Yard setback variance where 30 feet is required on this 4.7 acre pazcel n the AFR-2
zone district for the construction of a garage.
The Affidavit of Posting was submitted. No letters of objection have been received.
Hom showed a plan of the unusually shaped lot, stated that the setbacks have changed since the
building envelope was approved as part of the Golf Course Properties Lot Split. Throm asked if
the change occurred under the current owner. They did not.
Photos were included in the Boazd's packets. Hom explained how the proposed garage is located
in the corner of a triangulazly shaped building envelope, behind large existing cottonwood trees,
and wouldn't be seen from the highway unless the trees lose their leaves. Piercy added that the
addition was roughly 800sf, one story, and couldn't be seen from the highway. Horn clarified
that an original request fora 200 foot setback has been withdrawn.
Susie Gazdner, representing the adjacent neighbor, was present to review the plans but had no
objection.
Throm moved to approve the request due to downzoning and topographic hardships. Rifkin
seconded the motion and it passed 4-0.
.........................................................................
Q~~~}~_~
Case #09-2005
HGL, Inc
Julie Wykoff and Rob Van Pelt were present to request an 8 foot Height variance where 4 feet is
allowed for the construction of a berm within a setback, a 6 foot height variance where 6 feet is
allowed for fences within a required setback, and 9 foot 6 inch height variance where 6 fee is
allowed within a required setback on this 5.31 acre pazcel in the AFR-10 zone district.
The Affidavit of Posting was submitted. There were no members of the public present to object
to the request.
Wykoff explained that this pazcel contains the Snowmass Creek Cottages located across from the
Snowmass Conoco on Highway 82 in the Snowmass Canyon. She desires to construct a 12 foot
high, undulating berm to block out negative impacts created by the highway. The berm will be
24 feet wide at the base. The existing bus stop is only 30 feet away from the closest cabin. On no
other bus stop along the highway is the bus stop located next to a private structure. Dust, noise,
lights, trash and bus exhaust, which is on top of the buses, all impact the cottages.
A four foot berm is allowed but cannot mitigate these impacts. The highway has been raised
above the level of her adjacent pazcel. Anyone standing at the bus stop could see over an 8 foot
high berm. Therefore the berm needs the added height to be effective. '
Also, a Holy Cross box must remain accessible from the side, so a 12 foot fence is proposed
where the berm cannot be constructed.
Head asked Schaffner why berms were restricted to four feet. Schaffner stated that the four foot
height restriction is for berms within setbacks only. Lazger berms must be located outside of
required setbacks. The County recently reduced the allowed height of berms from 6 feet to 4
feet.
The Board sympathized with Wykoff, but couldn't justify a berm three times lazger that what is
allowed. Wykoff countered that other berms higher than 12 feet have been approved elsewhere
along the highway. Head asked that since the County had problems with the height of existing
berms, what hazdship is there to triple what's now allowed.
Throm recalled the Palermo and Baum berms along the highway. Throm asked the Boazd how
those berms were different than what Wykoff was proposing. Rifkin explained that he didn't
recall the hazdships presented in either of those berms, but since those berms were approved, the
County decreased the height allowed for berms.
Cooper asked when Wykoff purchased the pazcel. She stated in Mazch, but it was off season and
she wasn't awaze of the terrible impacts. Cooper stated that the impacts existed for a long time.
Wykoff stated that she used to work at the cottages in the 1960's and1980's, but the highway was
lower and only two lanes at that time.
Throm asked Schaffner if the County was considering any new direction on mitigating physical
problems of living on Highway 82. Schaffner stated no. Throm asked if Wykoff could appeal
the issue with the BOCC. Schaffner stated that if the BOA denied the berm, Wykoff could
appeal the denial to the BOCC.
0~~~~7
Throm asked if CDOT took any of the property. Wykoff stated that a huge amount was taken.
The previous owner, John Ham, received a lot of money from CDOT, but didn't use any of it to
mitigate the highway impacts. Also, the main house is a historical stmcture and "is going
nowhere".
Head asked to move on to consider the proposed ranch gate. Wykoff explained that 13 feet 6
inches is required by the Fire Department, and she is asking for a little more height in case a
trailer with horses needs to come through the gate.
Throm suggested that Wykoff consult with the BOCC and CDOT regazding the berm and then
come back to the BOA. She can withdraw or table the application or the BOA can rule on it
now. She has a sense of how the vote may fall. Cooper concurred that several members of the
BOA saw merit in her application, but perhaps presented in a different way. Wykoff stated that
she would withdraw her application for the berm.
Rifkin made a motion to approve the gate due to safety issues described by the applicant. Throm
seconded the motion and it passed 4-0.
Case #10-2005
Ranch I, LLC
0270 Lost Basin Road
Patrick McAllister and Guideon Kaufman were present to represent the applicant in a request for
a 77 foot Front Yard setback variance where 100 feet is required to construct a ranchgate.
The Affidavit of Posting was presented. No objections were received by staff.
McAllister explained that the subject site is located at the intersection of Prince Creek and West
Sopris Creek Roads, and offered a map indicating the proposed location and the required setback
McAllister offered a topographic hardship for the proposed ranch gate. The existing driveway is
often mistakenly taken by people who come off Dinkle Lake Road with lazge vehicles. Coming
from Dinkle Lake Road, the topography is such that you cannot see a ranch gate were it at the
allowed location. The drive is narrow with ditches on both sides. People must either back up or
try to fora their lazge vehicles azound avoiding the ditch.
Rifkin moved to grant the variance due to topographic hazdship. Cooper seconded the motion
and it passed 4-0.
Case #11-2005
Ranch N, LLC
880 Lost Basin Road
Patrick McAllister and Guideon Kaufman were present to represent the applicant in a request for
a 16 foot 4 inch Height variance where 20 feet is allowed to construct a windmill.
The Affidavit of Posting was presented. No objections were received by staff.
McAllister explained to the Board that the subject ranch is an historic homestead. The applicant
proposes a historically accurate windmill to provide power for irrigation. The LUC doesn't
OOO~'lg
r
make height allowances for windmills. The height allowance is only 20 feet. The windmill
needs to be 36'4" high in order to harness the windpower.
Cooper asked what the visual impact would be from the public right-of--way. Kaufman stated
that the windmill couldn't be seen from anywhere in Pitkin County unless you were at the top of
Mt. Sopris.
Rifkin made a motion to approve the request due to practical difficulties. Throm seconded the
motion and it passed 4-0.
Review of Minutes:
Cooper moved to approve the minutes of the June 21, 2005 Special Meeting. Rifkin seconded
the motion and it passed 4-0.
Other:
The Boazd suggested a revision to the LUC to allow for the extra height on windmills.
Cooper asked that copies of the "charter" be copied one sided and distributed to the boazd
members.
There being no further business before the Boazd, Head made a motion to adjourn the meeting.
Throm seconded the motion, and it passed, 4-0.
Respectfully submitted,
e~ la OS
oanna S. ch ffner,' ate
oning Of icer
A
~-~~~5
c a , Date
Co-Chair
OOOU19
i8-05-1997 2:184M FRDM
Archer Bishop
39b00 SH 82
Aspen, Colorado 81611
June 1, 2005
Joanna Schwffner
Zoning Officer
Pitkin County Community Development Department
130 3. Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Authorization Letter
Dear Joanna:
~i s ~. , ,a
This letter authorizes Davis FScrn Incorporated to submit a variance
application for my lot located at 39600 Sx 82.
Please contact me if you have any questions. Thanks.
Sincerely,
v" _
ArcLez 8lshop
000022
I
~
ZiEller
u
~ ,.,
~ ~ ~
~ ..,,.,n..+.. .
.
L
ke `. ,..,,~
• ~`
.Y jWood ftull +.. ,,.^
,. ~ ,° .
_ .
.,
+ H /
+^
'+~ ~ ,
Sk
Llft
~
" Itid c
[\MUG{
'~ ,+
t riUl +A. r
1,
LLI",l
r,
"
u ,
, ~ P (y 4~~ n Hntt l'~
• ~•(nl P/I„ n1
,
. 1
..~...... .
~
/•5 ~+1llb
~
4..
111
p°
$
e
ln
./N
~ ~ lil+ ~ l, a/W '
P 4P+PWPr
.yt Jf.G~.i .nnn IP°Gk +
' 1l[.IP°~~WN ° :r.
.,Prq£.i
ni
~ ~~}
.~i:
~
~
,
fanny Hill ~ o ~ +W ' .
+ W 1
~ ~ Pv+4
Skl Litt ~ ~ c v.qu. l., a ,
` b
1~VO
1 ~
/Sam's Knob
/! Ski Lift
/ i .p ~ ~ ~ ;
i / w 'W `^;~°"•° ~ ~ Crack
I t° wo°°• P,crLH Naked
'~t ~/ o° ~ White River
. I Lady l ',2C ,
Burlingame .'+ Alpine/ Ski Lift 1 /VAtiollA/ forest
Ski Lift a (Spring •~ r F Funnel ~' ,
°g Ski Li~ 1 ~~Ski Lift i
k[•<.
' ~ ~ Q~\,; WLLLOUCga` EILERICKSONRO RedMountaina
- 1g '•~' ~, ~ RG Ranch i
-SiPGE RD ~ ( ~` pqr' Yy` WEST gE05 CS'9 S 2
UanPm I ---.'Til Ain a N 64 f\[.\;: pON RO<l0 OggW wRIGNTa r0 O ~ IdOUWT p
INhk ' ~I SIIVEgkI •I $g voeN Gr \ ¢/' oWq, RO WOTTON ~ NIOMTO~ k e0 EgST 4/.y 9
I NG ~ Rlack ¢o~ \ 4¢ gGNrP/ o PECK ~p 9iP N
` \ % ,..~~ ~! O pMEST ~ Ruch P m m "' ~\ i xo 90 ~ ~ q0 Z(~OJ. 9 TE9
.' G 9kE 0H MTN VIEW O O .~ei I.L. ~~It~Eln a RO 9 ~G~r1 O
\ GE Ep 1
~~~~ ~--- W OR ENOWBO aW m .' ~\', Reserve( OENNET BENCN p1D 9 M044'Tgll P90 ~
~+ ti eUNNY2' LT OQ pj: ~' \ y" Ro W Rfd O ^90
I~.i i{I~ O vay460 vD SnOLE' $'~n ~ PITk/H ~~IIOUC B~ X10 GE P 1tn.10N PLgCf
SIEPPP ror'~ R11pI1V ~!,. ~~. ~-~.Pi[kin S`PP 9~ EEV'~
~ j~.\ ~ pe1p`yJ°P cgs '.`,a~. `,"~or,F WY ~6ireenK ~S NJN`Epd`
::'~I a0 0? A\ PC i NO x .•1.SPen g10000~,W Ii ~0 PGev Wqv, i
PO 4 82 PO ~1~ W Meadows •--~., rµ 9 @y.~' YJ`~~ ~
Ii '. ~O' .~cpa'll \ eggNPRO Pggk q4 s ~ GILLISPIE PEARL IHdIIO/Ih.. 4 We \`ia~p pOp~.S
,' vi. Tennis Gu!: ~ el NO9TN m ~ ` ~ P 3 SP
Golf c cT ~~`'\ ~" ~8\.
1 CIIIIrSP •y", PggHCS y b ~'''\ ~ [,; p. 91.07. ~ =~N _'
CLEq N 9P' 1 •\.r LO~~ W TE
G r.. ~"~~ 8<'~~ ~~uEnd ~ ~ '~PPK ~:~ ~9 i ~ 21
c i ':I n ~ I~ mOP NALS M « ~ Ci . \ N +r O ~ ~ ~l
aA PP / LN (p . s "I"~t f - 'NgII`'e n S7 ST Oi I ..'rvC ~ ~i PUIN~yO~2
EE P x WP ,.v-. m1, y ~'~ ' /~ ST BIEEk '^ ~~ i SOUtX OiT Tf
P 4` - kINS 9V EE N ~ I AYE W
PZY QL ~ w a :Lull - m a
L. V e 2 i m OP ~ \ ~l \'SR MILL e \ E ~4IN Si y v+ a^ m a<~t\gryT Mqe~~ Q
b. oPC o u '+ !~ J ~ ~ o x 82 sT ~. tree \~ rat z
~q,`~N Lla,la,+..+NHI ~ o+S! ¢ ~ ~' ~ ~.\ n ~ ~ NoI>Kw q Sy J~~yai" w,o '
I.' , ~ i 4 V 5 G PO 0~ <i ..n'PO ~,' 00 Lt TR Gl OUD ~ COOP~4 NYygNq~ E ~ It w` '~F GVE'FN ST T t'P
a PPIMROSE E ', ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~_
I: = S1EVEPS GIP NNET OAl HT9 ( GPG~t 4A \r ~ W
:. LIEN eLUEeo 0p0 < pG9 <~ ~CIggE I I ~µ/_ST v ~ _`^'E K C y W ~~ i
I',; ~O dEp~ h F~ i `') Ul/.yy~g@AN~T~ i vim. 9lE O `ti ~~ WDAL
O 9EYTW PkSROq LN ~ WATER PL ~~/ / `w N ~~~ ¢AV~
~~:' m 3 <ONOj l '~I GST FqT ~qll+g~I~ qVE Kl6 '^
Ili ~ m P4PSCPOJO ~PVICEBERRY Oq~ li /\"\ 11 SUMMIT 51~ / Ole Y Wq)Eq ~ of~
GLEN O ?P S i 'll 1~ T°e SgYF,I
\ /
~: GARRY i OR 2 ~ , ~\, SPO S.
Or ° G L . _ . _ / '' (/ ~ ~ ~• aPO,yUTE Get E i ~h @ q v
~~ N I ~` ~ ~ ~~ 4 =II
f le ~.
- ,, o a° aL ~r /~+ ~y /( little Nell l ( e9~ o^ m _f l~tC qi~
N Po I' Ski Li}t 1 ~ ~ _ _
0
~q Ayw n
I" <po o w
POO.:QE4sG z m WEN I
- p' apo Direetiona .J
05 u 1. Drive downvalley from Aspen.
~' O00 tp"E- EE,A pO Y. The property is just after the round about on the left (south)
+~•~~ quuul ANllcn EGP ~- behind the cottognwood trees. y g
,. 3. Public notice si n will be nailed the bounder fence facin SH
'uvL IH4 Ih/Mi1'1~(;Tyh'~yPI:'yL Y1n E/Is (c(~PS ~~ ~ e2.
v. 0l NO WI° 'lµ~N ll4/ `rV V V ~ C~ V G ~l I
2J LII
B .r ~ D
Davis Horn~-
PLANNING & REAL ESTATE CONSULTING
June 6, 2005
Joanna Schaffner
Aspen Pitkin County Community Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Archer Bishop Arterial Highway and Side Yard Setback Variances
-- 39600 State Highway 82 (Lot 2 Golf Course Properties Lot
Split; PID # 2735-111-07-002)
Dear Joanna:
Archer Bishop ("applicant") owns a 4.7 acre lot located at 39600
State Highway 82 (Parcel ID # 2735-111-07-002) The lot is
legally described as Lot 2 Golf Course Properties Lot Split.
Attachment 1 is a June 1, 2005 copy of the Pitkin County Assessor's
Office Property Profile. The Profile establishes the property
owner and lists the names and addresses of the adjacent property
owners.
The applicant is represented by Davis Horn Incorporated, Planners
and Nichole Piercy Finholm, Architect in this request for a
Arterial Highway and Side Yard setback variances. Attachment 2 is
a June I, 2005 letter from Archer Bishop to Joanna Schaffner
authorizing Davis Horn Incorporated to submit this variance
request.
Section 3-50-020 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code categorizes
State Highway 82 (SH 82) west of Aspen as a "Arterial Highway."
The Code requires a 200 foot setback from Arterial Highways. The
subject site is zoned AFR-2 and as previously stated contains 4.7
acres. Section 3-50-50 of the Code, Area & Bulk Requirements,
requires improvements on the subject site to have a 30 foot side
yard setback.
This variance request describes the subject site and the
development history of the site and demonstrates compliance with
the Land Use Code variance standards listed in Section 7-10-030 of
the Code.
SITE DESCRIPTION & BACKGROUND
Attachment 3, a vicinity map of the Aspen Area, shows the subject
site is located on the south side of SH 82 just west of the SH 82,
Castle Creek and Maroon Creek Roads intersection. The subject site
ALICE DAVIS, AICP 1 GLENN HORN, AICP
O O n (, ~ 215 SOUTH MONARCH ST. SUITE 104 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 970/925-6587 • EAX: 970/925-5180
Joanna Schaffner
June 6, 2005
Page 2
is bordered by SH 82 and the City of Aspen Golf Course to the
north; the Moore Family Open Space to the east and south; and Lot
1 Golf Course Properties Subdivision and the Clasen Pecjak
Subdivision to the west. The Aspen Tennis Club Subdivision is
located just to the west of the Clasen Pecjack Subdivision.
Attachment 1, the Property Profile, includes a map and list of
adjacent property owners. The subject site is in the foreground of
Pyramid Peak as viewed from SH 82.
Attachment 4 is a copy of the Golf Course Properties Lot Split Plat
(Plat BK. 18, P. 26) Attachment 5 is a copy of the Board of
County Commissioners Resolution 85-97 which granted approval of the
Lot Split Plat. Attachment 4, the Plat, shows the Subdivision and
Lot 2 have an unusual, triangular shape. The Lot 2 building
envelope is constrained by the triangular shape and the Arterial
Highway and side yard setbacks. Attachment 6 is an Improvement
Survey of Lot 2 which depicts the location of the existing single-
family dwelling unit on the property. Attachments 4 and 6 depict
a large cottonwood stand of trees located on the northeast side of
the building envelope which provides significant screening of the
house as viewed from State Highway 82. The topography of the Moore
Family Opens Space Parcel completely screens the house from Maroon
Creek Road and the Aspen round about. The improvements on the
subject site have been very carefully planned to not impede the
view of Pyramid Peak as viewed by people traveling on SH 82.
The 1985 approval process of the Golf Course Properties Lot Split
was quite controversial. In 1984, one large single-family dwelling
unit was proposed for the subject site. At the time, Pitkin County
was completing a two year public planning process to adopt the 1985
State Highway 82 Corridor Master Plan. The 1985 State Highway 82
Corridor Master Plan designated those "lands proximate to State
Highway 82 which are most visible from the roadway and which
constitute the visual entrance to Aspen" as the "Scenic Foreground
Overlay" (P. 27 of the Plan). Additionally, the Plan designated
one "Scenic View Plane" which encompassed the subject site.
Attachment 7 is a copy of cover of the Plan which depicts the view
of Pyramid Peak above the subject site. Attachment 8 is the "State
Highway 82 Corridor Master Plan: Future Land Scenic Foreground and
Transporation Plan" which designates a "Scenic View Plane" across
the subject site. The State Highway 82 Corridor Master Plan
"Future Land Use Element" includes the following recommendation for
lands affected by the Scenic View Plane designation:
"View planes from State Highway 82 determined to be highly
significant to the public are indicated on the map. These
2
Q~~U~~il
Joanna Schaffner
June 6, 2005
Page 3
scenic view planes should be preserved by encouraging site
planning which recognizes the designated view planes."
The 1994 Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) and the 2000 AACP both
clearly state that the 1985 State Highway 82 Corridor Master Plan
is still in effect.
In the fall of 1984, the Board of County Commissioners adopted a
development moratorium temporarily postponing development in the
State Highway 82 Corridor while the Master Plan was being completed
and a new land use zone, the Scenic Foreground Overlay, was
adopted. As part of the planning process, there was a community
debate regarding whether the City of Aspen and Pitkin County should
acquire the subject site to preserve views of Pyramid Peak.
Ultimately, the Board of County Commissioners decided not to
acquire the subject site and rely upon the new Scenic Overlay zone
as a planning tool to insure that development of the subject site
would not impact Scenic View Plane of Pyramid Peak.
In 1985, The Golf Course Properties Lot Split was one of the first
land use applications to be considered under the new Scenic
Foreground Overlay zone. The following Plat notes on Attachment 4
were products of the new review process and insured that
development of the subject site was consistent with the State
Highway 82 Corridor Master Plan process.
"No roof of any structure on Lots 1 and 2 shall extend
above the 7,940 floor elevation line as described on the
Plat for the Golf Course Properties Lot Split
Subdivision..."
The cottonwood trees on Lot 2 found to the north of the
designated building envelope shall be used as a visual
screen from State Highway 82 and shall not be removed."
Additionally, the Plat specifically, notes that the side yard
setback for Lot 2 is to be 20 feet (see Attachment 4).
COMPLIANCE WITH
LAND USE CODE VARIANCE STANDARDS
SECTION 7-10-030
Attachment 6, an Improvement Survey, depicts the location of the
existing house, the 20 foot side yard setback established by the
Golf Course Properties Lot Split Plat, the location of the
cottonwood trees referenced in the Lot Split approval and the
~~n~~O~
Joanna Schaffner
June 6, 2005
Page 4
proposed garage. Attachment 6 shows the proposed garage will not
affect the cottonwood trees or encroach upon the 20 foot side yard
setback. In 1994, the new Pitkin County Land Use Code required a
30 foot side yard setback for three to 20 acre lots in the AFR-2
zone, when only a 20 foot side yard setback was required in the
prior Land Use Code. The proposed garage will be within 20 feet of
the side yard property line when a 30 foot setback is currently
required. A 10 foot side yard setback variance is requested.
Attachment 9 is an 1/8" = 1 foot Site & Floor Plan depicting the
relationship of the proposed garage to the existing house, side
yard setback and the Arterial Road setback. Attachment 9 shows
that the proposed garage will encroach six feet within the 200 foot
Arterial Highway setback.
Attachment 11 is an architectural elevation of the Bishop Residence
Proposed Garage and Attachments 10 and 11 are photos of the
proposed site.
The subject site qualifies for a side yard variance and Major
Arterial Highway setback variance. Strict application of the
setbacks will create a hardship on the applicant due to the unusual
shape and shallowness of the subject site. There will not be
substantial detriment to the public good from granting the variance
requests. As demonstrated in the application, the intent and
purpose of the "comprehensive plan" (1985 State Highway 82 Corridor
Master Plan will not be impaired by approval of the requested
variances.
SUMMARY
This Variance application has described the subject site, the
development history associated with the site and demonstrated that
approval of the variance requests are warranted due to the hardship
created by the unusual shape and shallowness of the subject lot.
The following is a list of attachments to this application which
assist in understanding the request.
June 1, 2005 copy of the Pitkin County Assessor's Office
Property Profile - Proof of Ownership & List of Adjacent
Property Owners Names and Addresses
June 1, 2005 letter from Archer Bishop to Joanna
Schaffner authorizing Davis Horn Incorporated to submit
this variance request
OOO~f'?
Joanna Schaffner
June 6, 2005
Page 5
3 Vicinity map of the Aspen Area Depicting the Subject Site
4 Golf Course Properties Lot Split Plat (Plat BK. 18, P.
26)
5 Board of County Commissioners Resolution 85-97 which
Granted Final Plat Approval of the Golf Course Properties
Lot Split
6 Improvement Survey of Lot 2
7 State Highway 82 Corridor Master Plan: Cover
8 State Highway 82 Corridor Master Plan: Future Land Scenic
Foreground and Transporation Plan
9 1/8" = 1 Foot Site & Floor Plan
10 Architectural Elevation of the Bishop Residence Proposed
Garage
11 Photo of Bishop Residence Proposed Garage Location
12 Photo of Bishop Residence Height Poles
Please contact me if you would like additional information or would
like clarifications.
Sincerely,
DAVIS HORN INCORPORATED
GL HORN AICP
Bishop.Variance
5
0000?8
Account:
Tax Year:
Parcel:
Mill Levy:
Estimated Tax:
PROPERTY PROFILE
R012144 Account Type:
2005 Version:
273511107002 ArealD:
24.950000 APR District:
12,851.25 Status:
,•~ r:..,c~IT
1000
20050414000
008
103
A
* This Mill Levy is from the most recent tax roll
a~di~,dc~ressln;~o~lmaf~'4t~'<~ legalDescrlpt?~ ~..~:~~~' "~:.,~.'
BISHOP SANDRA 8 ARCHER JR
39600 HWY 82
ASPEN, CO 81611
cca" ; , s ~ f ~ t
x of fib $.
39600 E HWY 82
ASPEN, CO 81611
SSBSSmenT Ir1TOrmaTlOn
SUB:GOLF COURSE PRPRTIES LOT SPLIT L0T:2
~ RECEIVED
,IUN 0 12005
PMlan County
AESA9sOr
'mat? ~ 2,750,000 218,900 0 4.460
mP~otreme~q 3,720,900 296,180 9,114
~cem
~.'~fl~a _ 6,470,900 515,080 515,080
s ~~F.~KGnT ~i R.~. '~''~ ~ A:., ~ .'~X 7 ... +maF N.. .. .r ~~~ c~ ~"- a}~ t %~~~W1-~4 ~{.Y w .. .
a~' `~'~' 2,500,000 199,000 0 4.460
v m~"'~"
A.~R ~ ellt$a 2,941,100 234,110 9,114
,,~ v
xern
u~T4f~1" ~,Y'+: 5,441,100 433,110 433,110
_,
"'
PITKIN COUNTY
~~0~2~
J
U
Q
a
0
w
U
W }
J
a v o ?i a
a<
v a ~ 3 3
®~ I ',_
LC9
~
O ~
Q
Q
W
O
w ~ a
0
N
d
N
Z~
~~~
~g~
g5°
~$~~t
~8a""&
m~9
rc ¢sE9pg
~s~ s
R 4
~~~~~
GARDNER ALSTON J
LEE BARBARA
3155 ROSWELL RD #330
ATLANTA, GA 30305
273511107001
SHLOMOS ON THE GREEN
39551 HWY 82
ASPEN, CO 81611
273511109001
RECEIVED
JUN 0 i 2005
Ptdcin County
Assessor
MOORE THOMAS A 1/3
PO BOX 126
WOODY CREEK, CO 81656
273511300005
~D~~.~i
0
0
to ~ 0°
~a~~
i; i'
}~:l
i~a
2 ;,
S~i,
F,~;
~~s.
i
v2~~
~b:t
~~
y
~~
6A
A..°
a
n
~c
~ u
F°~
~g
y"`
/G;i///
%%/~
//
~~.
9~
,% E~ \
~g;
5
~~
b
~~~~
z~~
~~~
~~~
~~
~~
v
.1 \__X
c. ~~
< ~,x ~ '
~.
. V ,.
i~ ~.~ i~
~ ~.
i ~
/~
t~~
rp
"r n~
~ ~~
~~~
'1,
~ .
a~~~
p~9
~~
a.
~ & .~
F ls~~~
rg~~ - 7
~., ~ ~F3q
~'G (~
u ,aj~~V~
~~x~~
~~~
_~ ~~
F'
r
/ k~,
~{' .rN
~~~
i
~`~~ ,
3~
~~~J lv
~~iq0
~9~~jn
yF,;y~ O
k-n. r~
<~n
fiz~~
s "~
z,#aK
1n~
,~-~'
' ~~.~~
ti
~~~~
'r =~~~iD
o '~ ~ ~ F
~ ~~~Q~
g ~ SA~<
f, 'rte; ~i
~ ~ ~~
~~ n
V >
~~ x~
~ ~r
~~ ~~~c
F _..
/~ arc ~~-
~°~~~
~~~~~
A r
2
A
~~8~
mz~~
p~~d
~~~~
~~~€
~~~~
~~~
o gg-u
~~~ ~~~
Miry ~1~
D $H~ ~
~~~ ~ ~
d
;~ ~ >
~~~ ~
~~~~~~
~~ fi~~~
~~
\~
/ ~~ ~~
L~ n ~y~l• ~~2,1 ~ s~
s ~ ~ ~i
,,~~
~~~ ~~~
F ~ ~g s~ ~~
®~~ ~~~~
~~~~~~g
~~~ ~~.
~~~ ~~ ~~
~sa F~r~
~~ gb~~
o
~, a
~~~~
a A
a
n
X ~~~
°~•<
^~
... .
,,\ '~\
4~ ~ ~
~< ~
r'
a ° ~~
,,,~~,,~
r
1~
f ~ axg ~ G :o u> ~,
s~~~ „ ~ ~~ ~ ~s$~d~ ~~
z ~ ~~ a~ ~ ~v ~k8~~c ~~
~~~y _ ~ a 4 ~' drn, (q~~
3 V V ~ Sry
dpi ~3~ R ut ~3 ~
z ,~ bl ~S~ ie ~`, ark:: ?~
~ ~ x
~aY~l ~ ~~~R C.
~ > M ~~~
P, ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~ Yg~ 6
4
9 ~~~~I ~m N V~ &~~~_ ,
m I
iF is s
m
~~
~ ~€~ a~~~~~i y ~~~u~ ~
~3ai V i i5' ~~ ~' E '.
~~~ ~ ~ _.
bl
a
~~
~~ s
~ °:;
~~.
J~,.
RESOLUTION OF TAE EOARD OF COONTY COMlQSSIONERS
' OP PITRIN COUNTY, COLORADO, GRANTING DETAILED AND FINAL PLAT
APPROVAL TO TAE GOLP COURSE PROPERTIES LOT SPLIT
Resolution No. 85 - 97
.
WHEREAS, Golf Course Properties Associates, a Colorado General
Partnership (hereinafter referred to as "applicant"), is the owner of
.~.,
'`'t, ~ record of 9.9 acres of real property more specifically described as
iia,
,..d.;^-
~._ ~}., Lot 2, Iselin Subdivision; and
~±--a WHEREAS, the applicant has requested a 508 density reductton lot
'~_}~: split of said prc perty into two parcels each for single-f gaily use,
,;~ pursuant to election 4-6 .2 (e) of the Pitkin County Land Use Code; and
~`,~,.~ WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the Board of County
Commissioners at their re nul ar meeting on August 26, 1985 at which
time the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the
Planning Office. referral agencies and members of the general public
"`'` were acre
pled.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eoard of County Commis-
,~.«
t -,?: stoners of Pit ki r. County, Colorado, that Detailed and Final Plat
approval for the resubdivision of Lot 2, Iselin Subdivision, into two
_ separate parcels each for sin al e-family use is here b}> granted subject
to the following conditions:
-~ 1. Prior to recordation of Final Plat, the Applicant shall
,° '_ submit a signed agreement with the Aspen Consolidated
- Sanitation District to service both lots.
2. Prior to recordation of Final Plat, the applicant shall
submit a Final Plat to be reviewed and approved by the
P1 ar.nino Office and County Attorney. '.''he Plat shall
„ include, i.n addition to the standard plat language, the
,~;; following plat notes:
.
,~- a. r`o roof line of any structure on hots 1 and 2 shall
A'"4;' extend above the 7940' elevation line as designated on
~°~-` this Plat. In addition, the bu it di na envelope for Lot
1 shall be limited on the east by the 7916 foot
elevaticn lire.
b. The cottony: pod trees on I,oc 2 found to the I:or th of the
designated buil c.ing envelope shall be caed as a visual
screen from State J'iahway (!2 and shall not be removed.
c• t`,11 utilities; for Lots 1 arts] 2 nhall 6e utderorcund.
d. catecior liehtinc, on the site is subject to the
Pitkin county exterior Li nhtinn Code.
e. Lots 7 and 2 are subject. to a tJOr dic Trail Ea se rte nt an
identified or. tt;i~ Plat and conditions cf which are
nutlinea in an Ar.r cement a:: recorded in Ceok at
000033
f~
"
~i
1
r
~` Page _ in the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's
office.
f. T'r.is Fro pe rtv is subject to an Avi gati on Easement as
fn u.:d in
IIock
-
_ at Pa qe ___. in the Pitkin County
Clerk and £e corder's Office.
..
" a. This property is restricted against further develop-
:rent .
:~ h. This property is subject to an Access Agreement as
found ir, t3ook
_ ~
' at Page ___ in the Pitkin County
Clerk and P.ecordez's Office
s
~ .
y
_
.;,,_ ~~ i. The Plat shall reference the resolution
.•'"r ,_,, ,. approving
Detailed Submission and Fi ral Plat.
~~-:.~ ~
~:;' J• The Final Plat shall indicate that public rights-of-way
are to be dedicated
,.~. `-~ or the dedication language shall be
removed from the plat.
•"``~.~.
~,,;. ~~ k. The Final Plat shall include a signature blank for any
lienholder or
.,,. ; mortgagee of the property.
°'£- 3. Prior to zecordaticn of the Final Plat the Applicant shall
submit a r
i
ev
sed Subdivision Im nrov ements Agreement to be
reviewed and
approved by the Planning Office and County
Attorney, This Agreement shall
t
i
~! ou
l
ne and commit the
subdivision to the items listed a
"
"
s a
a
through "h" in
Condition 02 above. In addition, this Agreement
the A
h
ll
_- s
a
bind
pplicant to extending a minimum six inch (6") dectile
water main to the
ro
t
_~ p
per
y and install a fire hydrant in a
accordance with the C: t
of A
y
spen I9atet Department's main
extension policy.
4. Prior to recordation of Final Plat the proposed Trail
Easement and Improvements Agreement shall be reviewed and
apnroved by the Aspen Nordic ski Council, Planning Office
and County Attorney.
5- Prior to the recordation of the Fi ral Plat, the Aviga ti on
Easement shall be subr„fitted by the Applicant and reviewed
and aporov ed by the Planning Office and County Attorney.
6• All required documents referred to in this approval must be
recorded at the time of recordation of the approved plat of
the subdivision.
APPROVED by the Board at its regular meeting on September 9,
1985.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF PITRIN OODNTY, COLORADO
r ~iQ n~
Robert W Child, Vice-Chairman
ATTES
T.etr Scanlan, Oc put" County C7 crl:
OUflU34
Z'y`o
~~~~~'
C.`^}~>
o"s;€
W 1-0~0
g;
§A~3
~_~.
~~=R
a?
a^8
a '
1
I x=N
_~,
~=;~o
goo;
o'
~a^c
~ gnu
im $o£
~~oO
=o_
_~~-
0
=l
n
~ ~ _ \,,, m
I ~ \~~
~,.~\ _
I ~ r ,,~
y ~ \
\ \~
I ~ ~
~ ~\
~ „\\~ ~~.
\ ~, ~ ,,,
~ \ ~.
H
rn
Z o
c
D
.. Ul
~~
v' P
tN0 ~ ~ C
wp0~
V ~ ~O
x<
ao m
°;
A Z
v
~~s
I
~~I
Iii
~ mpry
If r ~# ~ ~" a,~o
~_.. r.-f 9 .v
4 ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
,~ i~ 4b .SY ~Ap`
"~,; Faw~''-
~~~ -"
r~ _= -
~.
1Q
~_ ~ ~~
y\ ~
r\ 1/ / \\~ ~~ \~
p v ~ \ YA~A
P ~ \ I / V}~'f~
/J( \ \ yep
/ \\
,~,,-,
~o; ,,
z
/,,f.
'~~~i~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~~ .e~~ ~ ~e~
'~ _ ~ _ ~
>~ ~ ~~
~ ~ ~ ofi .,.
' A Ae ~ 6m
~ ~` m -~ ~ ~' •~ - r
~' '~ ~ \<
o >, ~
S~~' ~,
~~4 F.k
F
~
yR. o `
P`h
<
I ~~
'
s'r,r'fr?r.
i Aa
t I ^
I 6
~ I
~
';
gyp. ~
A
i
~
:
, :
z
v ~ L
4
~ ~
==~x
a
1 ° r
n
R ^_~ =a=~ ;= l 7==~~ ~
=r~ _ ~ ~ ~~_ ~ m no~F r
n,,= mom~Na ~m = m
?c~zf C god= fa ,
~. ~ W _ E
~ )
U
=
,.. £~""` ~ _
m2.~zco. op O ~
zc a o _ 077,,
c /
~
rdp 1
_= a €n~a~a=Px om n ~~m= ~
_ 'T
~ _
1 r
'fin
-m~S ~ O>~x~
3
C vim s^' 3 -
O J
- m~
im~'in ~ vc Nn^~~ 3
-
OO
N
,~
~Spop~~ om
" _ S
_
P +s~n5~ i5
3
o
TZD ~ ~~~_ioTOn 5
m ~R~ `~"'o
`s>x~
~i°^o~ x
~x*x~'o3?~
3NCO^ m=
~a~ _
o V
~
g mx>o
6~ ~
,,
G
~9
i~~, y.
~ S~
w
^~
~$
J9_
nrRz
£s4
?ic
., o ?
~c~
o'~
0
r
n ~
C 0
~ <
~ rn
Trn 3
V
rn
O O
I"f1 N U')
rn rn
~ ~
r ~
O
r
I~A02
is
a 1=.
m ~-~ , -.a
I ~ ,,
a
.T.
of 0
Cr ~'' i /
~r~_
w
d ~ ~~ ~~
/a~ rS~ zm ~'
o ll ~_~ l
i
.~
•
°~..-esq. :. I~. ,~F~0.
~., ,:.•~ r...~crv~T
STATE HIGHWAY 82
CORRIDOR MASTER PLAN
..
.:~~: _
`s ~r'F
Y
M d
..~r
00003
yC~ i • ~2 31
a^.
~ ~~ tii
~"~> :.
Prepared by the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
_ ,
<< ~,~'~
~•
d
3
N
N
d
d
d
Q
m
w
^.
7
m
Y
(A
a
m
v
x
7
V
m
7
0
m
•~ ®~ III ® j )) ®® ° m
y O A N O 9 m A r y ti
m 3 ~ m c m Y F m ~
s 3 m ~ _• o ~ a
n a N y ~ ~ ~ O n K
a° a~ H ~ m H ,y a
m < d A n m - o m
E m °1 m A a ,< m m
~ m y 9 _~ ~ n m m
V ~ ry N N ~! O
D ~ D ~ ° ~ ',' C ~ C
a ~ o m = < y' ~ n n
~ .~. m ~
a u ~ ~ ~ A ~
d A b `" m y
n _ ~
_ n
m m m A ~
Cr w s
a N °-'
O y _ _
N O r
.". N A
D ~
ti
~~
33s
~ ~ °o
v z m
0 0 ~:
N Q
m
d y 2
F F
N ~
_ ~ m
Ot N
N
~I w d
c a
3
w
'" ~
o
i N
o
e
O i
on i
' '
° - ~
O Y ~1 A
- m m i P i
o I :-
~ o n O N •.
_ ~•
=_
Y , (,
F=
° j r`
c
~ "
_
Y-) -
-
_ ~
_-.
c: ,
1
/~
(~
C
"1
~./
'~
A I
s ;~V I
- ~n
3
rt
•.
T
C
C
m
r
D
Z
C
m
C7
m
z
n
-n
^m^
Y/
~~
C
z
v
n
z
v
--i
D
Z
--1
D
_~
O
Z
v
r
D
Z
rF
I~
2
N
0
~.
0
.I
~'
:'
z ` I f Y
m 11 phhIJI
S i I~
D ^
0
T
z
0
a
T
ti
i;
m ::v:~:
m ::{ ::~
a \ •}:•
c ::
~~Ir. ~~
i /,1,111 ly l7.r~~:1
m IIi' 'I I'i '
N III ~LII II II ,;~
I111Lr1 E!~{, III "))':
.I ~IT1~1{li ..y ~:l.•
y/
i~'§
~ ..
• T~,
°": ~ ~ ~/
., .
..:,
_..a ..
i~ili~i~iiiil~i
;il~l~l~l~l~ ~I~I
ti y',fi}))j~ ~lj~) r)i li
} )
o fxJ) i t;•x)))S1E' jl
eo r fl r~k r~jT )' I
,. e I
)'~r }Y `t} r '!1
°1~~)j)fr))t r 11
E ~ II
~` (fF ir.~k ~ iYr II
' }sr ).x}E~11111
i r ii 1i. !. ,,)}}!ik it I~ 11
oo° , } k ) x)}' /. p• II,I III
o)'j!`,Ey )E r)')!}:jt.~r~ ii~iii~i'be,i~
o~)}r~ rtyr ) II~I~I~I~II IE
IIII !,
~ / ))r .Y 3..1 ,~), !~ I'I~I~IIIIIIII el
ii }' I~ I I I I I
~ °°!)iy},k~,) ! )' }); III I Ilile~l
i } ! Ill 1 I
)%rkl )r r} rrt I,YII ,Ili
! xr
//~~ ! `(
'r.Yrk. ,! ! r t! ,
''. re)r}r)~.}; tr)z 111 Iri
'^ oryi~)i rrrt I Ir 1?~
r ~Y~~.~
q '}.-
," ~)}}) t,)1 ~~
1, v.,.'.
' } }lifl !!~i t/III
o'j'sf>)~}~ rI~I~
, I
.,, j Y ~),. IEI I I I ~
.:,} III
/ 1
o ,))r II
o!I}) ,Ili
i)yj ,ICI
I'
°;f}!. lil
!' I
f~ I jX}i
~~iE))
}) r~) ~!
1
)i ~!}) }
i )~)~}III
I
}' ) I
~k4)~r`I; II
ly~lp°f~ll' ~) }I. III
I I_pllll ! i 1 }' II
II II )) 1 I
Ile r~) ,.)i E ~ 1 t.)/.}
r f}i} ~
r,'.E}}) fey}y
j. j; Ey,lod
i i yyY}ad'rj,
~~}} t) Y .) 900}) }~.
1y) )t)~)~r8yi
~ i ~ 1'ti r'i~}}}~}}}~~~~~~
II,yJ,II I)~f tFlll)I
1'1'1111 1111111 III
11.1.1_LLLI, I!
li ,I;I`~L;l~l
r' I~~la!~~~y,,l~il~
~:;d~
Y'
/~
li
hli ~
III IIIII II I I
~I~I~I~Ii III'I1
,I, I,I~I, I,yJ
1
~I f}
erxE
it f)1 R x.y, }
i. Y`o~!}}ji 1`
} )!}r a.
s y 1 r}}Jg~tbtl ~.},'irl r
rr~l'. )r tk )}' r
} rk $ ,}yry~
} ). y~y w~ ,
rr ry) rli)f } l.k, ,y.
2 t}L i}i~~r! ~.!,
r 1 }
y r'. }! f7 1} ~y0
!fE r)
I: 1 !~ 1~
'( EI I 1 ..
), Ij .• ,i1~i11~i~jl
`~ ~,'I IIII IIIIIIIIIIII 1
1 /11111111 11
b• li l'l 11'11 li+1.11 III~E~I 111
}f i 11'l61T~III II I111'l lyl
p~~ III' III IIIIilEtll ll i .
(~~ I .II i1.f~11111I 11 k
I 1 I'1 •IIIII E
I'll I ~JI 111111
IIIII 11111 III111~11111ty 1I '
I I I J 11111 1}I I{I '
I I ICI ~11 III III IEI II III~lII
(. IIIII 11 111111 II1I~Illlli'~~
11 E`IIIIIIIII
1 IIII IIIIIFI
'11~{ l I I I I I I I I 11'
II- IIIII 111111
')r III GIIII IIII II II II II II II III
-_ E II IrII IIIIIIII IIIIIIII(I
VIIIII1111~
II IIII IIIIII~I~
') I Ira 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 +I
I I I'I~1 1 I I I I!
y, I I I f•~I I I I I I
11111 .1111, I
dyllllill F11lTJ~II
n 1~. Y.I.I.1.
r ,I f i$ jE
II, e~)) ,',}T~~~
~ ): ~ ~~f r>) I
1' ... I)~~~~i)1=1
Elrf }T'rl)1)r )~~ )
'))))))rl! o
) ~
ri~)~)})2i 1) o
.)j5 ))}) j) ) )) °
)..~ )
iTll}~.} ~ } )
Il}}~~}) Er}~i.
EJ!). .)~E E))) o°
i ~~J)?) E o°
\\
T"'\
1
\ / /~ '
~~
~.
~ ~
~.;•.
u
ap a~>. ;
__ -,0 1
y a I ;/;Iil
r,lllI h6h~I 11;1,
~I~a~dl~~1~1~1
lili lifpil Vil
Ililiel yllil
III II II
111111
J
~ ~~
~. ~~ n
~~
a;~-~ - - -- -` ~.~
/ ,
' \
i ~ '~
., ,
N ~ ~ ., ~ ,~
- ---
_- ._
1~ ~~
,~`_.-
r ~~`~ ~
~ ~ ~ fir,
~~ ~ ~ -
~t ~~ ~
3 ~""
~~
~~ -~ ~-
~~. ~~ ;_
~ - ~p ~Q
v
~ 9
`~.~
..\ \
,`\
b o000~8
r' / f
f ~ ~
`~
3 .~
l~! ~~
..1
`~ ~~
~, ~~~~
.,
~~p
}'}~ " R~
(11
11~'-
~~ i
~~.
ti,.
1\~
X
•,1 ~ - ~-
:_,
~:~; C
/j
1
Y E
t/
~ -~ 7900
f '/V,
p{t~_
f' ~ t
~ . ~.
-~'
~;
~o__ ~_
.~.~
~ti
--- ~
~_
~~~.:
1 `~
~\(~
!~
lal
tt;~
J`V
C.
Q
t~~.
~~
~~
~o~:
=~,
~~;
ffll^^ a'
O~oOOV c~~
~C
~r
U
L
~~sa
~`
~,
-.
~4.~
\„
x
r.
S' ~
Z
`~
~ i`1
~ p
~ ~}'.:
-~ f;
t
1
~1 "`
k r
~~
~ {.
-' P
ZT
r~:
r.. ;,.
~~
~s ..
4
~• ~~.
j~ -_,
;i;
",
;.a..,w~ ~ .~ ~ --
::,~; - ,
. ~ ..,, ChM
. }
I~-toP ~i ~51.~E1~lG
~~0004~1~~Tlo1~l
e`K
~~~~1, ..
_ ~'f~oPbSEp ~~rr?~~~
BISHOP'S I'R01'05ED GARAGE LOCATfON
LOOKING BACK TOWARDS EXISTING HOUSE
THE GARAGE EXTERIOR WILL MATCH THE EXISTING HOUSE
THE GARAGE RIDGE WILL MATCH THE EXISTING RIDGE
JOANNA SCHAFFNER HAS REVIEWED THE 51TE WITH THE
HEIGHT POLES AND RULED THAT NO FURTHER SCENIC
OVERLAY REVIEW IS NECESSARY.
B[SHOp fZ~51D[=NCE 39600 STAT[= HWY 82
A~U~~~nl n~A~n . , .~ :~~ :~:~~ I . ~
AGENDA
PITIaN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
July 5, 2005
5:30 P.M.
Pitkin County Courthouse
NEW BUSINESS:
06-2005 Lewis, Richard
Aka Sopris Mountain Equity Venture, Inc
Highway 82
Requesting a 90 foot Major Road setback variance where 100 feet is required from the East Highway 82
right-of--way, and a 20 foot Front Yazd setback variance where 30 feet is required for the construction of a
single-family residence on this .46 acre pazcel in the AFR-10 zone district.
07-2005 Slater, Lawrence
Lot 4, Block 1, Aspen Highlands Subdivision
Requesting a 30 foot Major Road setback variance where100 feet is required from the Mazoon Creek Road
right-of--way, for the construction of an addition to an exiting residence on this 31,232 squaze foot lot in the
R-30 zone district.
08-2005 Bishop, Archer
Lot 2, Golf Course Properties
Aka 39600 Highway 82
Requesting a 10 foot Side Yazd setback variance where 30 feet is required for this 4.7 acre lot in the
AFR-2 zone district, for the construction of a detached garage.
09-2005 HGL, LLC
26801 Highway 82, Snowmass
Requesting an 8 foot Height variance where 4 feet is allowed for the construction of a berm within a
required setback, a 6 foot Height variance where 6 feet is allowed for fences within a required setback, and
a 9 foot 6 inch Height variance where 6 feet is allowed within a required setback. This parcel contains 5.31
acres and is located in the AFR-10 zone district.
~~~O~t~
10-2005 Ranch I, LLC
Aka Tract 1, Bane Tracts
Requesting a 77 foot Front Yard setback variance where 100 feet is required for the construction of a ranch
gate on this 500 acre parcel in the RS-30 zone district.
11-2005 Ranch IV, LLC
AKA Tract 5, Bane Tracts
Requesting a 16 foot 4 inch Height variance where 20 feet is allowed for the construction of a windmill on
this 500 acre pazcel in the RS-30 zone district.
MINUTES:
Please be prepazed to comment/approve minutes from the June 21st meeting.
PLEASE CONTACT JOANNA AT 920-5105,
WHETHER OR NOT
YOU CAN ATTEND THIS MEETING
000044
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: Side Yard Setback Variance for Lot 2, Golf Course Properties
(Case 08-2005)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, July 5, 2005, to
begin at 5:30pm, 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 Archer Bishop, 215 South Monarch,
Suite 104, Aspen, CO 81611, requesting a 10 foot Side Yazd setback variance where 30 feet is
required on this 4.7 acre pazcel in the AFR-2 zone district for the construction of a detached
garage. The State Parcel Identification Number for this property is 2735-111-07-002.
For further information contact Joanna Schaffner at the Pitkin Community Development
Department, (970) 920-5105.
Pitkin County Boazd of Adjustment
Published in The Aspen Times Weekly on June 26, 2005.
Pitkin County Account No. 002.02
00(1043
~:.
County of Pitlsin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE BY POSTING
} ss. OF A VARIANCE HEARING BEFORE
State of Colorado } THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
The undersigned, bedg fast duly sworn, deposes and says as follows:
I, /y~~ N~~I~-C~/ / 'N~~~ ,being or representing an Applicant
before the Pitkia County Board of Adjtutment, personally certify that the attached photograph
fairly and accurately represents the sign posted as NoBce of the variance hearing on this matter in a
conspicuous place on fire subject property (as it could be seen from the nearest public way) and that
the said sign was posted and visible conrinuously from the 2~ day of ~ ~N2~ ; 200
to the ~ day ol<~, 2~ (:14ast be posted for at least nine (9) full days
before the hearing date).
Subscribe and sworn to before me this •^ti?
day of ~~ 2oa,~by w infaAlyti
(Attach photograph here)
BRII~G THIS FORA1 TO
THE MEETING - Vi'1TNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL.
,err ~~Ol O~ y^ . My Commission etcpires: /L~ - i` .'-~'~
. ~ ,~ ~
~, ~~~Nd 'y 'Public' ignatiue
~'•.
~°~~2/trlOa• ai)' S )7inN=KC°l /'(7G- C7%~,. c?o ,yt~6 I ~
Address
~~~~~~
^~ ~r- ~s. :,. ~F
a.. t ~ `" .^ .it'°'. ap Mme. RAhr' ..
ti._IM~9r~,._ .._. _ ..
}::n, ~ ~ s
{
~ + ~+
...,,m-'
SIP'".. ". -"; '~
w.~~ y ~. ~-~- r ~ yy-n
~„- .
CI~UNITY DE~'SLOPMENT DEPARTII~T
130 So-nli C:alena Street
Aspen t `ohrrado 81611
(9'~(i 5'LO-5526
Pitkin County
Land Use: _
172 Board of Adjuah Went. 6~_
159 County Land [ isc Codr _
173 Deposit _
174 Flat Fee _
162 Zoning and Sign _
169 Public Notice _
160 Planning Enforcement
175 Hearing Officer _
Referral Fees:
210 Airport _
LUCO1 County Clerk _
211 County Engineer _
194 Environmental Health _
208 Historic
198 Housing
190 Land Management
209 Redstone HPC _
206 Wildlife Officer
Building Fees:
170 Board of Appeals
135 Building Code Sales
105 Building Permit
100 Contractor License
120 Electrical Permit
195 Energy Code Review
115 Mechanical Permit
150 Plan Check
110 Plumbing Permit
130 Reinspec[ion
151 Aspen Sanitation
152 AVFD Fire Marshal
158 BFD Fire Marshal
Other Fees:
155 Use Tax
165 Copy
P7.005 Master Plan Copy _
Performance Deposit _
185 Park Dedication
186 Parking Cash in Lieu
IS GIS Requirements _
B1202 Road Impact Fee
B1203 School Impact Fee
TOT
A
L ~~ ~, ~-
~
^
r ' ,,
ADDRESS ROJEUCT 3 O~ \tt ~y
-~ch,~ _
(31Shon
PHONE:~~ Z - Q Z.~-1Z
CHECK# ~C~X 2 _
CASE /PERMIT#: # OF C
O
P
IE
S
:
DATE: 6 i7 /
,
~~.
~~
/
.,,
INITIAL:~C-