Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.92.16 PZTRIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJIISTMENT JAN ~ 0 1992 DATE '/7 APPLICANT ~u~ihC-J~ C , /~,gn(~JrU MAILING ADDRESS CASE ~ ~/~~~T PHONE g 2 "7- 3 oy o OWNER "2o.~'C, '~ C. ~ ~.A +.5.4~ PHONE ( Z. 7 3c~y CJ MAILING ADDRESS ~r~ /~/ ~'-~ C (~~ h ! ~ O • n' ~ ~ I Z LOCATION OF PROPERTY ~ `I 5 S ~4~.a-f i _ Any pertinent data must accompany this application, and will be • made part of this Case. The~Board may return this application if it does not contain all the facts in questi Applicant Signature `` (To ba completed by the Zoninq Department) Provisions of the zoning resolution requiring the Zoning Official to forward this application to the Board of Adjustment, and reasons for not granting a building permit: Requesting: i »-3~ Zone District Lot Size :Z ~ ' Front Yard Setback Variance, where fOC~ ' is required. ' Rear Yard Setback Variance, where ' is required. ' Side Yard Setback Variance, where ' is required. ' Side Yard Setback Variance, where ' is required. ' Height Variance, where ' is required. Square Feet where a maximum of sq. ft. is allowed. Other: Zoning Official ~lcu~~r_~~ Application filed o2- (0-~ a- Parcel ID No. 02~~ 3~3-03 _ pf~ Date of Meeting 3'.3-~0~--. Notices Mailed ~~l y~gy Secretary Refer Resolution to Building Department , _; Yes ; _; No ~~~~~1 Oi Zq ~ F ~j -'`'1 _~ M NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO ADJACENT PROPERTY O~PNERS BEFORE THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING OR USE VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW: Pursuant to Pitkin County Resolution of June 5, 1955, as amended, a Public Hearing will be held in City Council Chambers, City Hall, First Floor, Aspen, Colorado (or at such other place as the meeting may then be adjourned) to consider an application filed with the said Board of Adjustment requesting authority for variance from the provisions of the County Zoning Resolution. All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited to appear and state their views, protests or objections. If you cannot appear personally at such meeting, then you are urged to state your views by letter, particularly if you have objection to such variance, as the Board of Adjustment will give serious consideration to the opinions of surrounding property owners and others affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request for variance. THE PARTICULARS OF THE HEARING AND OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE ARE AS FOLLOWS: Date and time of meeting: Owner: Name and Address of Applicant: Property Location or Description: March 3, 1992 at 5:15 p.m. City Hall, 1st Floor Council Chambers Ronald Kanan Ronald Kanan P.O. Box 649 Aspen, CO 81612 Lot 2, BLock 4, Filing 2 Gateway to Snowmass Mesa Subdivision Requeatinq approval for a 25 foot front yard setback variance, where 100 feet is required in the RS-30 zone district, for construction of a single-family residence. Approval of this variance would allow the structure to be 75 feet from the Kanan's front yard property line. VARIANCES GREATER OR LESS THAN REQUESTED COULD BE GRANTED. Duration of Variance: Temporary Permanent X THE PITKIN COUNTY BO RD OF ADJUSTMENT Cind L. hristensen, Secretary N KANAN CONST M ~ -/ EtUX F94y ASPF N, C.( 7 f-31 Ci t ;..' f ~OI~,I KANAN t L ~.Y V ~ ~~ ~/7Y~ ~ //-L C G ~~ C ~~ L`~ ~n ~" ~~ -~ ~ 01 i i~ r i~ s3~~ - :~~ i. u ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ I ~(~ o ,~ ~•-~ OOpOC3 ~,~:: ~p~~, ~a~e ~Gl,~ oa39 ~~,+ }~ 11 ~~ S,no ~ , 8~t~~~`I C1v~,~,~~~b ~I.,s PD tax ~(a~ ~'~em ,Co ~ ~I~iZ ti'1~~1,48-~-. 1~,Y,d,ti~,~ 115' ~~ca, ~ SI . ~I~, d , t~J ~ b'}~c13 ~-vtD Cl..l~ ~d~ ~p Y~x ro~53 ~'~^'',Co. ~1~ IZ ~7 ~ Se'~,~UZti~ K~b~. ~~ (fox 5~5 y2S i-r . Snm;~i ~ `mT . ~~0 35 00000: • ~. - , ,~.. -~ '' 4 .. ~ ,. - - - ~, l I ~ F/L /NG / Cf ~ , ~ -` F/L /NG Y I m N F/L /N6 ; I ~ x B 3~ a Q Q B OCK I O Q ® J O L O © O 0 // Q n 4 ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ TR 0 B~ sO / ~ a s0 © ~ O ~M. ~ 0 ~ ® ~ ~ O ® ~ (` c lJ T ~ O g® O ~ // 9 O / .~ ~ I ~ ~ © . e Y BL ' T ® ~ m B OCA O ~~ 3 ; ` Y' b o ,o o ~~ B 0 O O ~ OBL CK O O O // O ~ F/L/N 3 F/L/NG I F/L /N6 / Y ~ ~ / ~~ ~ I ~ KALE SCALE/ X200' OATE REVISIONS L PURPOSE HOLY CROSS DETAIL MAP n.T ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION GATEWAY OF SAClWMASS ,oy~ayba „P~ ,ao. n.nn LNVAt avo~le xceA GLENWGGD SPRING ~ aG VPWiE S. COLORADO MESA S 4B0/V/S/O N CiOLORADD ,~ EAGLE $TPiE b COUHiY TpYNy11P MY Iq, ORIRIHG OEIT. MOLV CRO$$ELECLRIC ~SN..IRC. COLD, rBS. R.B6W T/ AREA oneRM ar n~c..,,, bnaav$o av cR$caEO ar obrE / P/TK/N . SEC.J~ ,~~ ~~ °'OOOU~5 t (~ « E o ~,S~o `~ 1 ~2 M o ~'rJ. ., r i1 Ld:~.'i 1~ ~DL..d~ o • Lh~1 ~1"A~?'r (.o,V~;~,2uc~~cr~ S.N~,tiLY~t>CCt1~{ r `., ~ ~c~ is T 4 y ~% v ~ 1 ,i ,'I C_ ALL RON KANAN , (3037 J20-2333 KANAN CONST. INC. ;sc~T pr.~L'1 ~f LoT Z ~'t~~.i_ ~ f=tu~w Z GATEWAY TO SNOWMASS MESA SUBDIVISION • t-+~f FuTFZY E~.E VAT I O~ ,., `. II~tL'Din\~o lntdM~~ R~U ~i_~.t.:•~ ;T.la[LuCED KANAN CON~T pox e~n~ A:~r~i:N, co E:~ ~ a ~ ; , RON KANAN ~~}-S ~ (~~,,,~ is t 7"7 :_:,_~ ~ ~tO•=1D C~~'I.0 ~.( T Y~G 1 V~ ~0 ~/tA.tiJCG~ ~~ ~m'• lG-/ IT rj rnr ~r3Gac i•U~t{'~~5% -----.. / ~/14P/~cA"f~ fJS~ ~ ~A2(s~4(~~aNC'o-vUta''S ~7 ~n 5~ w ~ s (a a'° ut~ C~.~Cn-kNLL -til~c.U L~5 S s~A/L~,v~ ~r-..-~ Fw~.~. ~ ~ S ~+f-~. ~` i2~N ~, ~rz, ~ -5-~4~w Spa ~r ~ ~~ S~«,S ~~ ~~2 ooouo~ .,7 __--, ~~~~~ ~own~ 0~-~D ~~~ r~-~-v SN''~Y SL~`~c~J. ~ ° ~~ o'er-~,,~, , ~ f~ s ~ ~-~{ ~ ~~ March 20,1992 To: Pitkin County Board of Adjustment Dear Board Members; The Gateway to Snowmass Mesa Subdivision Homeowners Board feels Mr. Kanan's variance request should be granted. The entry from Gateway Road is the only logical solution for obvious reasons. Sincerely, f r' `_ Bill Landman G.S.M.H.p.B. O~Q13~g w -~_ .. ~;.R !: _ ._ -~ -~~r,. ,.V:a. / ' Fr1~ n `;'~ 192 r ;~ Ei~ 9 ._....::~,~,~ sti - :. ~ - !` ^p EN1PfTKfN PLANNING OFFICE '~ ~ _ - - ~ ` ' _:- t365outh Galerw Street -- _ _ --Aspen,-Colorado 81611 - - _ (303) 920.5090 .•. -AND USE APPLICATION_FEES j; city . --OOti9 :~ ~-~-63250134 "..: .GMP/CONCEPTUAL - ;.-3270-136 ~,"-GMP/FINAL •° - ~ -63260-137 - ; _ c SUBfCONCEPTUAL ' - ~, ~, -63300-139 ~ ` ~SUB/FINAL _ _ '..33310-140 - -ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS ' `,-33320-141 ALl 1-STEP APPLICATIONS/ ' ~ ~ CONSENTAGENDA ITEMS ~ -" '~ REFERRAL FEES, 00125 -63340-205 ~ ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 00123 ~, -63340-190 : HOUSING 00115 33340-163 ENGINEERING SUBTOTAL County 00113 33160-126 GMP/GENERAL -63170-127 GMP/DETAILED 33180-128 GMP/FINAL 33190-129 SUB/GENERAL 33200-130 SUB/DETAILED -63210-131 SUB/FINAL 33220-132 ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS 33230-133 ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS ~,y- CONSENTAGENDAITEMS - - 33450-146 BOARO OF ADJUSTMENT J REFERRAL FEES: 00125 33340-205 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 00123 -63340-190 HOUSING 00113 33360-143 ENGINEERING PLANNING OFFICE SALES ' 00113 33080-122 CITY/COUNTY CODE 33090-123 COMP. PLAN 33140-124 COPY FEES -- -~--- 39000-145 -- OTHER ._ ~ V.J - 7 Name: '-~~'+'1 '._..ln ~Vf'1r~'J:- a Address: '3 .~. ~~~y_ / Check # ~ ~~ -~ Copies received: SUBTOTAL --~~~ TOTAL c/ Phone: ~ -' 3 ~ / J // Project?~~ ~ ,%r^r .e2~rL% .3 .~- /-~ Date: ~~ -~~-~ ~=-~ QOOU~~3 ~ >~.~ County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE BY } ss. POSTING OF A VARIANCE HEARING State of Colorado } BEFORE THE PITKIN COIINTY BOARD OF ADJIISTMENT The undersigned, being first duly sworn, deposes and says as follows: I - ~~~.AZi~ ~' <<~Hv'ti-/ , 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 in 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 f ~ , • 19 ~ 2, to the ~r {~ day of /~ Ao~C~ , 19~- Must a posted for at least nine (9) full days before g da ). s Signature Subscribed and sworn to,,be^f ore me this ,~ ~~ ~" day of 1'l~~'l~-1~ I , 19,~, by ~.Oi'~G ~ ~~~ ~_ . ~ G ~'~1C~ ~'~l. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL. My Commission expires - ' t S - a Notary ublic's 'gnature ~'HE BANK ~;t~ ,a~~~-u Address .~ ~' r . x~ OQQ~ ~ ~ `. . ~4 it r•,. :~ .~ ~. 1 -• ~~~ A' ~ 1 1~ .~ ~1 "~,~~ r J}; . ~.,'.: J.. ~l ,..,.~ a '+~~'' d• i~ '1 i, t ~.~ y r ' ~ -~ !d F/L/NG / O O O O ~ C O ~ © Y O c 9 p /O ~ ~ // F/L /N6 / ~I flEVISIONS d PUflEOSE HOLY CROSS SCALE/ X200' DETAIL MAP 3Ji ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION +ro'iw'roa~~a~ Juy. narnn ~ylwc ~~ xcu. GATEWAY OF SM~WA/ASS r~~S ^c Vrwre GLENWOOp SPRINGS, COLIXtgpO MESA SU O/Y/S/ON w * y •' ~' ~ _ ~ I C, ~ F/L /NG P F/L /N6 I x B C 3~ P 0 3 O O9 B ACA' I O ~' /P h C O O © ~ (/t O // K 4 ® ~ e~° O ~ © / ~ ~ O O O ~O ®® ~ ~ ~~ ® C // ~ ~ ~ OI k ~ ®T I 0 o eL© T Di 'f 3 ® 6a ~ ~ O O e~,v T BL CK ~ O F/L /N 3 F/L /NG P J~ I ~~,~~ SCgLE GATE COLORADO 34 EAGLE sT^TE • coVxrv .. raxx~sNn Mu No rro"c Darr. nocrcxossececrns assN..INC. COLO. 7.BS. 7/ °N av i'o.-.,, awnoveo ev P/TA'/N"+~ 'BGW. AREA eEO evev oarE / // _ EC.3I 3I ~~ ~~ 000013 ,r #344470 O5/~_ 92 11:34 Rec 2.00 BK. 677 50 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc 9.~~0 RESOLIITION OF TBE PITRIN COUNTY, COLORADO BOARD OF ADJIISTMENT GRANTING SETHACR RELIEF FOR RONALD C. RANAN RESOLIITION NO. 92-16 WHEREAS, Ronald C. Kanan, owner of a tract of land situated at Lot 2, Block 4, Filing 2, Gateway to Snowmass Mesa Subdivision, also known as 1495 Gateway Road, requests a 25 foot front yard setback variance, where 100 feet is required in the RS-30 zone district, for construction of a proposed driveway; and WHEREAS, the subject property is within the unincorporated area of Pitkin County, Colorado (as described in Exhibit "A", attached); and, WHEREAS, the Board of Adjustment is vested with the power to grant or deny such variances by virtue of Title II, Section 16-1.3, Pitkin County Code (Land Use Code) and Colorado Revised Statutes, 1973, 30-28-118(2) (C); and, WHEREAS, based on the evidence presented, the Board of Adjustment makes the following findings: 1. Proper notice procedures, including the notification of all adjoining property owners, has been shown by the applicant. 2. The required hardship or practical difficulty has been established. 3. Granting such relief will not cause substan- tial 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 25 foot front yard setback variance be granted due to downzoning and topographical hardship, as per the plans submitted (Exhibit uBu). WARNING: Any violation of the terms'of this resolution may result in rehearing and possible revocation. ...a ~r~ #344470 05/07/9 1;34 Rec 5.00 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Resolution No. 92-~ Page 2 Bf:: 677 PG ~a Doc 5.00 The Resolution was adopted by vote of the Board of Adjustment of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. DATED: April 7, 1992 The Board of Adjustment of Pitkin County, Colorado ATTEST: ~<,Ce-s Cind L. Christensen, Secretary Evan Gull, Acting Chairman 000015 r #344470 05/0?/92 11:34 Rec $.00 BY 677 PG 52 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk. Doc 'b.00 EXHIBIT "A" Legal Description for property owned by RONALD C. RANAN Lot 2, Block 4, Filing 2 Gateway to Snowmass Mesa Subdivision Pitkin County, Colorado 0001 ~ ~XN~QiT ..s ~n~~ sc C „> oooo~~ [ i~ ~ ,~ l; f ~4~ Pr ~ ~r A [s 7' L CERT11=1CATION 1, GUV:G u. ^ICDDI OE, HCfiEUY CCFi]FY iFHi iH1S H ^', _~_p~'![p r'r~Jn I~ILLI~:yafES [14 h SUH98V nhDE uN]EF MY SUP[HV N'DJN:A), ~' ~ .., .., 'a ,. ~ , Minutes Pitkin County Board of Adjustment April 7, 1992 Members Present: Evan Gull, Acting Chairman Rod Dyer Stan Mathis Ted Guy Members Absent: Rick Neiley John Wheeler Staff: Joanna Schaffner, Zoning Enforcement Gull opened the meeting at 5:20 p.m. and introduced the Board to those present. A presentation was made to Kandi Shaffran commending her service to the Board. Resolution 92-A was read into the record, Guy moved to adopt this resolution and Mathis seconded the motion with all in favor. A plaque was presented to Kandi recognizing her years of service, along with a letter from the BDCC and Board of Adjustment. Case #92-16, Kanan, Ronald L2 B4 F2 Gatewav to Snowmass S/D Ronald Kanan was present to request a 25 foot front yard setback variance, where 100 feet is required in the RS-30 zone district for construction of a driveway. This case was tabled at the March 3 meeting. Mathis moved to reopen Case #92-16 and Dyer seconded the motion. Kanan presented to the Board a letter from the President of the Board of Gateway to Snowmass Mesa Homeowners Association. Gull read the letter into the record stating that the request for the proposed entry be granted as it is the only logical solution. Mathis moved to grant a 25 foot front yard setback variance, for construction of a driveway, due to topographical hardship and downzoning. Dyer seconded the motion. Guy stated that he had voted against this at the March 3 meeting and would like to stay at that vote. Guy asked Dyer if he was in favor of this request (since he was not at the March 3 meeting), and Dyer said he was. Therefore, Guy changed his vote to an approval. All were in favor. ,Motion passed. Glenn Rappaport was present representing Alpine Logistics, Inc., to request approval for a 60 foot front yard setback variance, where 100 feet is required in the AF-1 zone district, for 1 ooools ~ ~ V construction of a residential garage; and a 30 foot front yard setback variance, where 100 feet is required for construction of a proposed single-family residence. The lot size is approximately 2.67 acres. Rappaport showed the Board on the plan what the applicant intends to accomplish. Photographs were shown to the Board illustrating where the addition will be located. Rappaport stated that they are trying to stay below the level of the road. Rappaport stated that Nicholas Lampiris, a Surface Geologist, did a survey and found the ground wet and the soils unsteady in certain areas of the property: Towards the north, the soils get even more expansive. Nick Lampiris' letter states that it is best to keep the proposed house and garage to the north so that the drainage areas below the tank site can be avoided. This property does not break a ridgeline. Gull stated that there is numerous correspondence in the file approving the variance requested. One from Michael Herron, representing the Liss' and himself as neighbors, stating that they have no objection to this request. Rappaport stated that one of the reasons for the location of the proposed house and garage was to stay away from the other neighbors and their viewplane. There was no public comment. After further discussion, Guy moved to grant a 30 foot front yard setback variance for construction of a proposed garage, and a 60 foot front yard setback variance for construction of a proposed single-family residence, per the plans submitted, due to topographical hardship and downzoning. Mathis seconded the motion and all were in favor. Motion passed. Case #92-17 Horn Glenn & Davis, Alice, 0180 Little Annie Road Glenn Horn and Alice Davis were present to request a 56 foot front yard setback variance and a 17 foot west side yard setback variance, where 100 feet and 30 feet, respectively, are required in the AF-1 zone district, for construction of an addition to a single-family residence. The existing house is approximately 2,627 square feet. Horn showed the Board where the existing house is located on the plot plan and where the proposed addition is to be. Horn stated that on one side of the house is a very steep slope, and on the other side, there is a hole. Horn also submitted pictures of the area showing the hardships of building the addition in other directions. This is an irregular shaped lot with topographic hardships. The addition will not impact the adjacent property owner. oooo~g ~ ~~ Horn submitted letters of support for the requested variance from Waddill Catchings, Castle Creek Investors Incorporated, Molly Heizer, Jordan Greengrass, and Randy Gold, all neighbors. There was no public comment. After further discussion, Guy made a motion to grant a 56 foot front yard setback variance and a 17 foot west side yard setback variance, due to nonconforming lot size and topographical hardship and per the plans submitted. Dyer seconded the motion and all were in favor. Motion passed. case sy~-ls. scnlumberaer. Martin 2527 Lower River Road Martin Schlumberger was present to request a 2 foot height variance, where 6 feet is the maximum for a fence within the setback. Schlumberger stated that he wants to raise elk and to comply with the Division of Wildlife regulations, he needs to have a fence 8 feet high. Gull asked if there was any public comment. Attorney Bob Gruder, representing neighbor Wade Kent, was present opposing the request. Gull also read a letter into the record from Constance J. Upchurch, also opposing this request. Wade Kent, who lives at the Harold place which is an adjacent property to Schlumberger, stated that he is against this request. Schaffner stated that she spoke with the BLM, an adjacent property owner, and they said that as long as it is built on his property, they are not going to object to the request. Schlumberger stated that this is an AF-1 zone, an agricultural zone, and would like to pursue an agricultural endeavor of raising elk. Gruder stated that the neighbors are concerned about a structure in the setback. Schaffner stated that his area went through a 1041, and there was wildlife confirmed on the lot. The restriction was placed in this area for a 42" fence .height limit, which is typical wildlife standards. A 6 foot fence is permitted per the Pitkin County Land Use Code, in the setback, without a variance. Schaffner took this back to the Planning Office, they consulted with the Division of Wildlife, and Randy Cote verbally told Ellen Sassano of the Planning Office that the DOW did not have a problem with this fence going up. 3 .... John Olson, neighbor, stated that a 6 foot fence is not permitted. There are restricted covenants for this area which says a 5 foot fence is the maximum height. Lenny Oates, Attorney for Martin Schlumberger, stated that they take exception with the covenants. They have numerous examples of where that covenant has been violated and ignored through the years. Oates also stated that the covenants terminate on April 1, 1994, but can be amended by a vote of three-quarters of the property owners. , Olson also stated that there is another condition in the covenant that says you can have no commercial operation in the subdivision. Gruder stated that what is pertinent to the Board is that the Board of County Commissioners did set a fencing limit of 42" in this area. Gull stated that the covenants are not enforced by the Board, but if there was a 1041 imposed condition by the BOCC, Gull feels that he cannot provide a variance to a covenant which is provided by the BOCC. Olson stated that out of all the developmental reviews he has had to go through, the BOCC has always protected the wildlife and wildlife corridors (not just elk). There are a lot of animals in the area and an 8 foot fence would stop potential traffic flow of wildlife. Regarding the fence heights, through every 1041 review and building envelope review, he has had to deed restrict any development outside of the building envelope, but they also enforced the 42" height limitation, and made a special point into writing that into the covenants. Mathis asked if this area was mapped as a wildlife hazard area. Gruder stated that Randy Cote of the DOW has classified a lot of this area as a critical breeding wildlife area and they won't allow any building envelopes at the foot of the hill. Each piece of property has had fence requirements placed on them. Guy stated that he has to agree with Gull as to the condition of a 42" height limitation the BOCC placed on this property. Gull stated that if we establish that the covenant was placed by the Commissioners, he would not be willing to vote for it regardless of whether the DOW recommended the approval. The BOCC established this regulation and the Board of Adjustment has no authority to relieve this condition. Oates stated that it was their understanding. that the Planning Office took the position that if the DOW was content with the fencing as proposed, than that superseded the language in the specific approval relating to fencing. Schaffner stated that Ellen Sassano, County Planner involved with the Schlumberger 1041, was awaiting a letter from the DOW stating that they had no objections to this fence; she was also going to talk to Suzanne Konchan, 4 00021 ~' i .1 V County Planning Director, about whether or not it should go back to the BOCC. Oates stated that they would like to have the opportunity to come back and provide the Board with Mr. Cote's evidence, rather than continue at this time. Gull stated that he still would not vote for it without the BOCC's specific endorsement. After further discussion, Guy made a motion to table this case to the May 5, 1992 meeting. Dyer seconded the motion and all were in favor. Case #92-18. Aspen Village Jonsson Mats• Aspen Village Lot #6 Mats Jonsson was present to request a 20 foot front yard setback variance, a 4 foot rear yard setback variance, and a 4 foot south side yard setback variance, where 30 feet, 10 feet and 10 feet, respectively, are required in the SR zone district, for placement of a new mobile home. Gull read a letter into the record from the Aspen Village Management stating that they approve what is being requested. Jonsson stated that lots in Aspen Village are very small. Jonsson showed the Board on the plan where the new trailer would be set. All trailers are presently l0 feet off the road. The new trailer will be 16' X 70'. The trailer separations required per the Pitkin County Land Use Code are 10 feet from end to end or side to end. There was no public comment. After further discussion, Mathis moved to grant a 20 foot front yard setback variance, a 4 foot rear yard setback variance and a 4 foot south side yard setback variance, due to nonconforming lot size and practical difficulties, as per the plans submitted. Dyer seconded the motion and all were in favor. Motion passed. 5 OUOU22 The minutes were approved with the change made by Ted Guy, regarding page 4 when Ron Kanan wanted the record to state that he felt Guy had objections because of his and Guy's prior associations. Guy stated that Kanan had done a good job and did not realize that there were any problems. The Board moved to change John Wheeler from alternate to regular member. The Board also moved to elect Rick Neiley as Chairman. The meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m. Secretary 6 submitted, ~~~~~ Evan Gull, Acting Chairman O~OQLJ ~v~.v t ~J Minutes Pitkin County Board of Adjustment March 3, 1992 Members Present: Members Absent: Staff: Evan Gull, Acting Chairman John Wheeler Stan Mathis Ted Guy Rick Neiley Rod Dyer Joanna Schaffner, Zoning Enforcement Gull opened the meeting at 5:20 p.m. and introduced the Board to those present. Patricia and Houghton Trott were present to request approval for a 19 foot north side yard setback variance, where 30 feet is required in the AF-1 zone district; and a 1'8" height variance, where 12 feet is required per the Pitkin County Land Use Code, for an existing garage. Patricia Trott stated that they want to legalize this nonconforming structure before they sell the property. They had bought this property without knowing that the garage was built within the setbacks, was over the height limitation, and was built without a permit. There was no public comment. The lot size is 5.3 acres and would match an AF-2 zone. After further discussion, Wheeler moved to grant a 19 foot north side yard setback variance and a 1'8" height variance, per the plans submitted, due to practical difficulties not of the owner's making. Mathis seconded the motion and all were in favor. Motion passed. Jim Curtis was present to represent Peter Ziegler to request a 1'9" height variance, where 12 feet is required per the Pitkin County Land Use Code, for an addition to an existing structure. Curtis briefed the Board on the Ziegler's request. This is an existing caretaker unit. The Board of County Commissioners revised the code amendment on employee dwelling units that allow for bigger 1 00~~~4 -,: units. ziegler wants to add approximately 550 square feet to the rear of the 1500 square foot existing structure. The ridge is 15'10" and the height variance would enable the Ziegler's to tie into the existing structure. There was no public comment. After further discussion, Guy made a motion to grant a 1'9" height variance, due to practical difficulties, as per the plans submitted. Wheeler seconded the motion and all were in favor. Motion passed. Case #92 12 Raaflaub John "Hans" Tract 2 Prince Creek Villaae John "Hans" Raaflaub was present to request a 78 foot front yard setback variance and an it foot west side yard setback variance, where 100 feet and 50 feet, respectively, are required in the RS- 30 zone district, for construction of a proposed single-family residence. Raaflaub briefed the Board that there is about 5-1/2 acres on this lot. The building envelope was created by a 1041 Hazard Review that was granted in December 1991. Gull stated that this would be a downzoning issue as the setbacks are for a 30 acre lot and this is only 5-1/2 acres. Guy asked if there were any specific subdivision covenants that the homeowners had to abide by and Raaflaub stated that he was unaware of any. Guy asked if where the building envelope is shown was the only flat spot on the lot and Raaflaub stated that it was. Gull passed around the photographs submitted in the file. Gull read two letters into the record submitted by adjacent property homeowners, Mrs. Evelyn Bowers and Mr. Charles G. Plimpton, III, objecting to the request being made. - Guy stated that he believed a site visit was necessary on this case and would like to see the minutes on the 1041 hazard review. The memo on the 1041 review will be brought to the site visit. Guy moved to continue this case at a site visit to on Monday, March 9, 1992, at 8:30 a.m., at Tract 2, Prince Creek Village Tracts. Mathis seconded the motion and all were in favor. case 7L-1J aua+wauaoo u+.+•~~..~ - --- ---- -- Jim Curtis was present representing James and Diane Otis, owners of Snowmass Llamas & Alpacas, requesting a 7'6" height variance, where 12 feet is required per the Pitkin County Land Use Code, for an existing structure. Curtis stated that under the new employee dwelling unit provision that was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners, the Otis' 2 :;00025 M received permission from the BOCC to legalize and deed restrict an existing structure as an employee dwelling unit. This existing structure is 7'6° higher than what the Code allows. The structure will not be changed. There was no public comment. After further discussion, Guy moved to grant a 7'6" height variance, due to pre-existing conditions. Wheeler seconded the motion and all were in favor. Motion passed. Chuck Roth was present to request a 70 foot front yard setback variance, where 100 feet is required in the AF-1 zone district, for construction of a recreational cabin which will be approximately 550 square feet. Roth stated that they received a minor 1041 hazard review approval from the Planning Office. This 1041 review was for floodplain purposes. Roth stated that the topography is not steep, but there are alot of trees around the area. There was no public comment. Gull read the letter submitted by Thomas Kuekes, Acting District Ranger for the Forest Service, into the record objecting to Roth's request. Mathis asked Roth if the Forest Service was notified when the minor 1041 hazard review was done. There was a minor 1041 hazard review done on this property and Mary Lackner, County Planner, found that the building envelope and driveway were not in any 1041 areas of concern. The only referral was with the County Attorney who checked for merger. After further discussion, Guy made a motion to grant a 70 foot front yard setback variance, due to nonconforming lot size, and per the plans submitted. Mathis seconded the motion and all were in favor. Motion passed. Case #92-15, Baker, William & Erika. Lot 10, Holland Hills William Baker was present to request approval for a 60 foot front yard setback variance, where 100 feet is required in the AF-1 zone district, and a 116 foot Highway 82 setback variance, where 200 feet is required per the Pitkin County Land Use Code, for construction of a proposed addition to a single-family residence and construction of a proposed detached garage. Baker stated that this was a model home that was built to try and sell log homes. This is approximately a 1-1/3 acre lot and Baker stated that they would comply with Holland Hills covenants. 3 OODU26 ~ J y Guy stated that one of the Board's duties is to grant the minimum variance needed and believes there are other options for the proposed garage. There was no public comment. Guy stated that the Board should do a site visit after Raaflaub's and also have Schaffner show the Board the other Hiqhway 82 setback approvals for the Holland Hill area. Guy moved to table Case #92-15 to Monday, March 9, 1992, at 10:00 a.m., at Lot 10, Holland Hills. Mathis seconded the motion and all were in favor. Case #92 16 Kanan Ronald L2 B4 F2 Gateway to Snowmass S/D Ronald Kanan was present to request a 25 foot front yard setback variance, where 100 feet is required in the RS-30 zone district for construction of a driveway. Kanan stated that he has the Homeowner's Association approval on his request. Schaffner informed the Board that the access which was approved is not the one that is shown on the submitted plans. The change in access now locates the house within the required front yard setback. The present access was put in without a permit and is the one which the Homeowner's would like (per Kanan). Gull stated that this would be a downzoning issue and would have no problem granting what has been requested. Guy stated that he agrees with Schaffner in that Kanan put in a temporary access without a permit hoping that a permanent access could be made out of it. Kanan wanted the record to state that he feels that Guy has objections because of Kanan's and Guy's prior associations. Guy stated that he believed Kanan has done a good job and was unaware there were any problems. Guy stated that he would vote against the variance request because of how Kanan went around the process. Mathis stated that he agrees with Gull in theory, but it is hard for him to get around the issue of how the access came about. It was mentioned that Kanan has the option to table until the next meeting when more Board members might be present to discuss the access/variance issue. Guy stated that he can't vote for the request because Kanan went around the process and if he would vote for the request, then anyone could submit plans, build what they want, and then come in ask for a variance. 4 ~~V vY 1 •~• v v:! Kanan stated that the existing access was excavated as a temporary "construction" access. Schaffner explained to the Board that an access permit is issued prior to issuance of a building permit, so that access to the lot can be obtained. Guy suggested that the case be tabled to April 7 when other members of the Board are present and Kanan could have a better chance at getting approval, if this would not stop the construction progress. Mathis suggested to Kanan to table this case until April 7 and bring a letter from the Homeowner's Association (or have a member present) stating their reasons for the preferred access. After further discussion, Mathis moved to table Case #92-16 to the April 7 meeting, with construction to continue until the access issue can be resolved. Guy seconded the motion and all were in favor. ****************************************************************** There will be a special presentation for Kandi Shaffran at the April 7, 1992 meeting. Chairperson will also be elected at the April 7 meeting. The minutes of the February 4, 1992, meeting were approved as written. The meeting was adjourned at 6:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, /lam - / A.t//A Cindy L. Christensen, Secretary Evan Gull, Acting hairman 5 OOOU.~'$ 0"pEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 920-5090 LAND USE APPLICATION FEES City 00113 -63250-134 GMP/CONCEPTUAL -63270-136 GMP/FINAL ~. -63280-137 SUB/CONCEPTUAL ' -63300-139 SUB/FINAL -63310-140 ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS -63320-141 ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS/ CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS ~' REFERRAL FEES. ! 00125 -63340-205 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTFI ! 00123 -63340-190 HOUSING 00115 -63340-163 ENGINEERING ~'~ SUBTOTAL County ! 00113 ~ -63160-126 GMP/GENERAL I -63170-127 GMP/DETAILED !~! 63180-128 GMP/FINAL !, -63190-129 SUB/GENERAL ~, -63200-130 SUB/DETAILED '~. -63210-131 SUB/FINAL -63220-132 ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS ! -63230-133 ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS II. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS I, F3450-146 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ' REFERRAL FEES: li 00125 -63340-205 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 00123 -63340-190 HOUSING 00113 -63360-143 ENGINEERING PLANNING OFFICE SALES ' 00113 -63080-122 CITY/COUNTY CODE -63090-123 COMP PLAN i -63140-124 COPY FEES i -69000-145 OTHER i~ i SUBTOTAL ~ ~~~--- ) i ! ~ TOTAL j Name: ~' ~ ' ~ 'r ; ' _'', Phone: ~..) ~~ - ~ ~ `! l i Address:, '' ;~"'c9~ ` Project ~}^';~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ I J ~ ^ ~ `/ ~ ! Check # ~ ' , Da[e: " ~ ~ ~~ ~I Copies received : #ot Hours._ Su i