The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutpitkin.boa.92.18 PITRIN COUNTY HOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DATE March 12, 1992 APPLICANT Martin Schlumberger MAILING ADDRESS 312E AABC, Aspen, CO. 81611 OWNER Martin Schlumberger MAILING ADDRESS 312E AABC, Aspen, CO. .81611 CASE # Pf:ONE 925-8360 PHONE 925-8360 LOCATION OF PROPERTY 2527 Lower River Rd. Snowmass CO 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 question. Applicant Signature (TO be completed by the Zoaing 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: f1'~-I Zone District Requesting: _ Lot Size ' Front Yard Setback Variance, where ' 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. s4 Other: Zoning Officia Application filed 5 /(p -~~ Parcei ID No. ~ I b1 V o~ - D~ -OJ Date of Meeting ~ - 1 Notices Mailed _ ~~~~'~t Secretary ~/ Refer Resolution to Building Department ~ _ , Yes ~ - , No J 0 0 0 0 ~1 ~ Z~G" V/ i /-.i I~ l~ f-~ ~ U NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OT4NERS 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: April 7, 1992 at 5:15 p.m. City Hall, 1st Floor Council Chambers Martin Schlumberger Martin Schlumberger 312F AABC Aspen, CO 81611 2527 Lower River Road Requesting approval for a 24 inch height variance, where 6 feet is required per the Pitkin County Land Use Code, for construction of a fence to surround the above-referenced property. The granting of this variance would create an 8 foot high fence. VARIANCES GREATER OR LESS THAN REQUESTED COULD BE GRANTED. Duration of Variance: Temporary Permanent X ADJUSTMENT L~ ChYi~stensen, Secretary ~, P, OVI~~V 4 MARTIN SCHLUMBERGER 312E AABC ASPEN, CO. 81611 March 1?_, 1992 Pitkirr County Board of Adjustment Aspen/Pitkin Planning & Zoning Department 130 South Galena Aspen, CO. 81611 RE: Height Variance Application To Wliorn it May Concern: We are requesting a 54" height variance for a fence on tFre Schlurnber-ger Property, to comply with the Division of Wildlife Park License regulations. (Chapter 11, Article I, #4; please see enclosed) TFris variance is hereby requested as it is needed to meet the standard fencing requirements for a gamo park producer's ranching facilities. Thank you. Enclosure ~~U~~~~ Respectfully Submitted, • MARTIN SCHLUMBERGER • 312F AABC ASPEN, CO, 81611 Schlumberger Residence: Listing of Adjacent Property Owners n1 Jack $ Gee Gee Harrow q~3 -3143 2489 Lower River Rd, Snowmass, CO. 81654 Chuck Cherek ~~p ~ c/o C.R,C. Enterprises P: O. Box 10400 Aspen, CO. 81612 ' (~ ~ U.k~.\\5' ~~,O.PJ.fb-~ V~1]~- Ova ~a,,9,-C;,~ 10-~~ . ~ Jessie $ Connie Upchurch ~~C' I~~t~ 503 Alta Drive ~n (~;~~ Ft. Worth, TX. 76107 ! United States Government/ Bureau of Land Management P,O. Box 1009 Glenwood Springs, CO. 81602 ~-~ y ~ - ,?j°y Rooooo4 • VICINITY/DIRECTIONAL MAP From Aspen, take Highway 82 downvalley. Just beyond the Aspen Village Trailer Park take a right onto the Gerbaz Rd turnoff. Proceed over the bridge and the Railroad tracks. Then take a sharp left onto Lower River Road. From that point clock 2.2 miles. The property is located on the right and the driveway is marked by a red panel gate. (If you go too far you will approach the Harrow sign and driveway also on the right) ,gf ~'~ ~,^"Ybv P~ytt RPx'P -` -~^o?!, \(o-~1M'J {LyrY ~IVff RGF . ~~~ I ~, iyigty '.,__._ ~.__.. __ .. _.___ i B~dBe q~z~ '" ~c "~.. GSQot/ ;, ' OOOOU~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~O ~ • ~ ~nCe~SPea-F~aKJ ~W/REMAKERS Wiremakers Ltd - Wodd leaders in performance wire farming products New Zealand is a land o(3 million people and 60 million sheep. The economy is based on agriculture. Situated some 1200 miles southeast ' of Australia, the land covers an extreme range of climatic and environmental conditions. Farm and horticultural management has been of keyimportance to New Zealand and has created many advanced and innovative animal handling techniques. Fencing has had to keep pace with rapid changes in farm management style and has had to perform in vast acreages of salt laden coastal regions and on high country grasslands near and often above the snow line. New Zealand also has large desert regions wetlands and (arm fields bordering tropical ~~ rain forests. A Great Testing Ground Since the 1850's 'Wiremakers' is the culmination of many of New Zealand's grand old names in (arming and combines the experience of lessons learnt, with the demanding and widening needs of today's agricultural world.' W iremakers' have the manufacturing ability and the development and back-up expertise to service their worldwide network of agents and distributors. Our'one•word' ... Wiremakers, stands for product choice, service and technical support. ~L The Tightlock Tension Curve \ ((// makes Installation a breeze Every Tightlock knot ~ firmly gr(ps the horizontal and vertical ~ wires. The line wires (horizontal) feature a tension curve in every space between stay wires (venicle). This curve allows (or the ~i correct fence tension to _4. ~.'~.u be achieved 'visually'. I1 (The shape is reduced by about half when the - 1 ~ C~~an5._ t, _ I _ ,~ e _ n60 correct tension is TT~t tl.r lrJkVIX -1 reached). _ ;',q i' t WIR! OUAL ITT SPECIFIGI wan ananvrh TIONS aa.. wvlvaa I:bw eoatlaol '4" Designatl0n Mlnlmum T¢nslle Mlnlmum Mean e f; i` NOIISOIItOI ISOHTIHigh Tensile) 62pkgF 230g/m2 390g/m2 4kil r;?:'C: LInB W1~8S 112'hgaug¢.O.WB'1 111b2IDFl IO.B9oz/k21 n.2BOx/k21 ~ 1"' YBrtlCOl 2.SOMT 350kgF 230g/m2 350g/m2 ~ ~ i SLnT Wires IMetlWm Ten511¢I " y yi ~ k 112Ngau9e.0.098 1 Ir1210F1 IO.6Wx/H21 111501/fpl ~' 1 ~q~6 23a110wtensllel 216k r // t~ t"i ~~ ? r k ItNet Wlre " g 2a00/m2 35pg/m2 (J I ( hw•- f T}' 113HgaU9¢.0.066 1 13611bf1 IO.BOOx/k21 11.150z/k21 .. Mean Knot nkgr 4. _. Strength nsTltH 11/18/91 CHAPTER 11, WILDLIFE PARR LICENSES ARTICLE I - GENERAL PROVISIONS #1100 - DEFINITIONS A. "Domestic animals" means those animals which through long association with humane have been bred to a degree which has resulted in genetic changes affecting the color, temperament and conformation, or other attributes of the species to an extent that makes them unique and distinguishable from wild individuals of their apacies. The following animals are considered domestic and are exempted from the requirements of Commission regulations: Domestic dog (Can familiarie) including hybrids with wild canida Domestic cat (Felix catue) including hybrids with wild felines Domestic horse (Ewua caballue) including hybrids with Equua asinue Domestic sea, burro, and donkey ( us asinus) Domestic cattle (Boe taurue and Boa ndicue) Domestic sheep (OVie arle9) Domestic goat (CBDra h cue) Domestic swine (Sue a o a domestics) Llama (Lama lama) Alpaca (Lama pdC09) Camels (camelus bactrianus and came a dromedariue) Domesticated races of hamsters (Meeocrieetua Spp.) Domesticated races of mink (Muatela vison) Domesticated races of guinea pigs (Cavia porcellus) Domesticated races of gerbils (Merionea uncuiculatus) Domesticated races of chinehillae (Chinchilla laniaer) Domesticated races of rata (Ra tua norvebicua and Rattus rattus) Domesticated races of mice (Mus musculue) Domesticated races of European rabbit (Orvctolaws cuniculus) Domesticated races of chickens (Gallus al us) Domesticated races of turkey (Meleacria oallooavo) distinguished morphologically from wild birds Domesticated races of ducks and geese (Anatidae) distinguishable morphologically from wild birds Domesticated races of European ferret ( uste a putoriua) Feral pigeons ( o umba domeatica and Co umb 1'v a) and domesticated races of pigeons Domesticated races of guinea fowl (Numida meleacris) Domesticated races of peafowl ( avo cristatus) Domesticated ostrich (Struthio Spp.) Domesticated rhea (Rhea Spp.) Domesticated emu (Dromiceius Spp.) Domesticated bison ( so bison) including hybrids with domestic cattle Reindeer (Ranoifer tarandus) Yak (Boe arunniens) Hembers of the subfamily Phaiaianae not native to North America except choker partridge, grey partridge, red legged partridge and ring-necked pheasant. O~t1007 ~. i 11/18/91 c. All parks shall have the capability to handle and mark live captive ungulates without relying solely on the uea of drugs. d. All parks shall have isolation facilities de- signed to prevent intermixing with other captive wildlife and free-ranging wildlife. 4. All facilities licensed to hold captive ungulates and all other species of mamaals except earnivorea shall have perimeter fences designed to meat the following minimum requirements: a. conventional fences - minimum eight (8) feet above ground level of which at least the bottom six (6) feet moat be mesh (maximum mesh size shall be 12-1/2" X 7^). Remaining two (2) feet may be smooth, barbed or woven wire with strands spaced not more than ten (10) inches apart. Hi-tensile fences shall be at least eight (8) feet above ground Level. b. Hinimum wire gauges - 12-1/2 gauge - conventional fence, 14-1/2 gauge - woven hi-tensile. c. All gates entering animal holding facilities which are holding animals shall be locked, con- secutive (double) or self-eloeing gates when animals are present. d. Poets - four. (4) inch minimum diameter wooden or equivalent. Spaced no more than 50 feet apart (60 foot spacing is allowed if there are at least two (2) steel poets between the wood poets). There shall be- a poet or stay (wood or steel) every 20 feet. Poets must be at least 8 feet above ground level. Corners shall be braced wood or equivalent material. e. Existing hi-tensile smooth wire fences shall be modified with stays spaced at minimum intervals of 8 feet. All facilities licensed to hold captive earnivorea shall meet the following requirements: a. Hinimum height of 8 feat with top or 10 feet with canteliver with 2 livestock-type electrified wires. Walls shall extend three feet below ground if woven wire, solid walla one foot. If the substrate will not permit sub-surface con- atruetion, 9 gauge chain link shall extend 3 feet inside on the surface. This shall be securely anchored. (1) All facilities that only contain members of the family Canidae may have a minimum height of eight (8) feet, provided there are two (2) electrified wires - one on the top and one at the bottom. ~_ +~~ Ut10008 Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office County Board of Adjustment 130 Soixth Galena Aspen, CO F31611 Dear Sirs: :~ April 1, 1992 One Tandy Center Plaza Fort Tr7orth, TX 76102 Re: Requested variance for 2527 Lower River Road Enclosed is a copy of the Notice of Public Bearing to Adjacent Property Owners received by me on March 31, 1992. In as much as only 6 days remain before the Hearing and due to the fact that :,uch short notice of this action prevents me from attending the Hearing or investigating all the facts, it is difficult for me to make any knowledgable comment. I will, however, comment as best I can given the little information given in the Notice. It would seem to me that a~ fence with a height of 8 feet would be an eyesore and cannot understand what circumstances could necessitate such height. If the fence were to be built around a small area of the property - say aroun~I a residence - it might be acceptable if the type of fencing was approved by the Board. Fencing of that height around the complete property I would be loath to approve. I repeat that these comments are made without full knowledge of all the facts. I will have to rely upon the judgement of my other affected neighbors and of the Board when making their decision in everyone's best interest. Respectfully, Constance J. Upchurch Owner - 2520 Lower River Road Snowmass, CO (31654 Enclosure ~> ~ <' ~ 992 . ... ; a' , ~ ' ` ~ a p~y~ a eo ny~ q ~9 ' w _x a ~y~ ~ a q$aG o.~ ~B' o.Ea 3y a °i a (d ~ ~ WyS ~ad M,G yWj 'O~Y7W~... . 3 ~~ :~~~°oOO.yca~~.°~~omap,~3~ ^ ~ .~ N N u'T'~~ q~ ~~' a p'm, ,a 03~~,°peo aa, °o. go' .a ~ a ~ ; m 3 u ~ ~.wo ~' ~ ~+ aao O m `~Ha; ~ ~0 m a a a y ~ O Kai a y' q.d msb. ;°'a °~.c da~~ a~~° ~u 3;? y;c 'd N~~ m +' y n W U.R,q ~.[ °~ Q mti,~ a d v m a m ~',a .d ... a a^, m ~a a my ~~ bae a~~paP. w3 w' ~+v'a ~7 a a m a.° ;~~a> ~ ~,y y a Q a s ~+'~ W U C ~. td ~'~~'~ ~~ ice" Xi fr A O.-. " 30 ~."" S0. .C a ~ am.C r U ~• ~' ~t, ~ ttl d ~' .r' a a a~ a.%p. .C BBa Q ~qq y pb~ a s 01 a y y _~ ~ a~i ttl ~ 3 ~ O d O pmp ^ L-'t^ f' b ygg .~ a aRf m a 0.y. a.,, ~~u 0 ~'w Fj ~ ~,a..m. = m ~ o $.c S.n7 y ey a„~a,pa.+," a Eb a O 'Y' y.C~ a any F.~. a F.CO OO~y+'7 ~ ~ M:f OoW '9my y~~~F amo.~pq. q pQ w a a A yh~`'' a o:c U a,g B ~.~ wCg~,mgx.~ a.~ 'k' d r. ....o .y .k w ~ a m.b ~+m iy'+.M a ~ ~ oa uw 3 m d~5 w a '° ~A,~~ ~ ~~ m~~ a a~ ~~~ °w q ~Cmxy g a$ ' iy 0.~ y'O y N 00 g d a M F Y,mtima4. ~ ~. c°ti° aY ro m mAe~pl ~,ml+ o~ ~~ ~ a300f .b~ ~O a.ry M ~^ OyQF q N a ~: ~ m a ~~ ~ M ~ioi m a ;~vs'q~ ~ as ~m~ o q'~ o w'o t wo ~ m .,.~ ~'a m °~..5, m G~°a'a,c"~aO ~ o$o :. ~~f G°~ " Q d p',Cm~ m n~~ aai ^~C ~a aai i7~ OD 61~ °' _, .,~~ Ei aFi ~ ap ,~.0 QF~Q q pia Q7 $'r.'O q ~.'',~ m ~j = O r m~ ~"~" .~.Sa ,.3 3 W a.9 .g .o ~ ~) ., ~ ~ a ~ ,. ' w T `~N M - m OC ~'~ k .. ~~$,?;ap, ,, mw>m,~m be ~~, ~mm ~.~ ~ ~ ~~~++~j '.C yy ~y QQQp ~ a y I ~` W m {a N~ m S Q O~ F O w ,, ~ O 1~,. ' _ ~ Eq c m , r m gq roQ ~? m .', o m ~ rn r p, y .6d Q r~' ma a~9 o a°l. a E°. y^a ~W ~M ^ ~w ..~ ; /yy'~~ f A.~ ~~~~~ aq~O^W.~ p'O n~CI ~~ e~p n', W-RP Oi nJil l+l~,y ~~ S~yx 7'a my'~~?+a ..qw °m ~'~m~~-1am ~~ ~~ '~" ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFI~°`' 'J - ... `"'-. _• "' 130 South Galena Street -,. - ~~ ~ ~ - ASPe!y Colorado 81671 - ~ - - - - - _ ~ ......- {303) 920-5090 - . LAND USE APPLICATION FEES CIry - _ -00113 `4;3250.134 GMP/CONCEPTUAL 3270.136 " GMP/FINAL -- ._'-63280-137 - SUB/CONCEPTUAL _ ~- - -63300-139 SUflrFINAL '-- -63310-140 ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS -- -63320-141 ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS/ -- CONSENTAGENDAITEMS REFERRAL FEES: 00125 -63340-205 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 00123 -63340'190 HOUSING 00115 -63340-163 ENGINEERING County SUBTOTAL 00113 $3160-126 GMP/GENERAL -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 X3230-133 ALL i-STEP APPLICATIONS CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS -63450-146 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REFERRAL FEES: 00125 00123 X3340-205 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 00113 -63340-190 HOUSING -63360-143 ENGINEERING PWNNING OFFICE SALES 00113 b3080-122 CITY/COUNTY CODE -63090-123 COMP. PLAN -63140-124 COPY FEES 4;9000-145 OTHER SUBTOTAL TOTAL Name: ..~ ~ ~ -" a one: ~= Address: ~ ~ .P'r -~F i<rn :, Project~_ ~~~~~ ~__ L Check # ---Ef~-~~ -~--- Date: 3 Copies received: Uf"~.~1 County of Pitkin State of Colorado The undersigned, follows: I, } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE BY } ss. POSTING. OF A VARIANCE HEARING } BEFORE THE PITRIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJOSTMENT being first duly sworn, deposes and says as 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 theme day of lY1a'C~V , 19 9 ~- to the 7~ day of a0~ , 19Q~ (Must be posted for at least nine (9) full days before the hearing at App is n s Signature Subscribed and sworn to before me this ~ day of QOr-.P1 , 19~~ , by ~i..~x~[~'i WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL. My Commission expires: f~1y~13 No a y Public's Signature lac 3~ 1 ~as~,2#~ Ct~ . 8~ 6 Z 1 Address f~1 , fj. 00001 ' t' ~ ~;` ~ ~): Y',C a, 'a t .. ¢ ~ "~'!~ ~~ ~ j .~w``, ,, .~ y~'C: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW: Pursuant to Pitkin County Zoning Resolution of June 5, 1955, as amended, a Public Hearing will be held in the District Courtroom, Pitkin County Court House, 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 aze 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 Boazd of Adjustment will give serious consideration to the opimons of surrounding property owners and others affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request for variance. A VARIANCE GREATER THAN OR LESS THAN THAT REQUESTED COULD BE GRANTED. CORRECTION NOTICE Schlumberger, Martin: requesting approval fora 100' front yazd setback variance, and a 30' side and rear yard setback variance, where 100', 30' and 30', respectively, are required in the AF-1 zone district, to allow for the erection of an 8' high fence along all property lines. Property Location: 2527 Lower River Road. Submitted to the Aspen To Be Published in the County PO >Y Times on April 7, 1992. Aspen Times April 10, 1992. ooooi~ Minutes Pitkin County Board of Adjustment May 5, 1992 i Members Present: Rick Neiley, Chairman Evan Gull Stan Mathis Ted Guy John Wheeler Rod Dyer Mike Cooper Staff: Joanna Schaffner, Zoning Enforcement Neiley opened the meeting at 5:15 p.m. and introduced the Board to those present. Michael Cooper was introduced to the Board as a new member. Joanna Schaffner addressed the Board stating that Lenny Oates, representing Martin Schlumberger, has requested this case be tabled to July 7, 1992. Guy moved to table Case #92-18 until July 7, 1992, Mathis seconded the motion and all approved. Case_~92-20, Maaoon. Nancv, Lot R-73. Starwood Eleven Ted Guy stated that he wanted the record to show that he and Stan Mathis are abstaining from voting on this case as Mathis is representing this case. Stan Mathis was present to request an 80 foot front yard setback variance, and a 3 foot north 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. Mathis briefed the Board on the history of this property, stating that it was previously before this Board requesting a 6 foot front yard setback variance, which was granted. Mathis stated that previously the southeast side was considered the front yard. Mathis showed the Board the site plan and what is being requested. A kitchen addition would further extend up the hill into the corner of the site. The proposed addition would be back behind the house and would not affect the adjacent homeowners. Mathis stated that the lot is approximately 2.15 acres making this a nonconforming lot. Starwood Homeowner's Association has given their preliminary approval for the proposed addition. 1 ~~~0~~ There was no public comment. After further discussion, Wheeler moved to grant an 80 foot front yard setback variance and a 3 foot north side yard setback variance, due to downzoning and practical difficulties. The Board has also determined that the front yard shall be the side along Danielson Drive. Dyer seconded the motion. All were in favor. Case #92-21, Palmiotto, Philip, Lot 21, Block 2, Crustal River Country Estates Rod Dyer and Michael Cooper will not vote on this case. Philip Palmiotto was present to request a 50 foot front yard setback variance, where 100 feet is required in the RS-30 zone district, for construction of a single-family residence. Palmiotto stated that the zoning on this property is RS-30. The lot is only 125 feet in depth• and it would make it impossible to build a home with a 100 foot front yard setback. Guy stated that the covenants for Crystal River Country Estates do not have any specific setback requirements. There was no public comment on this case. After a brief discussion, Guy moved to grant a 50 foot front yard setback variance due to downzoning, as per the plans submitted. Wheeler seconded the motion and all were in favor. Motion passed. Case #92-22, JBJN, Ltd. (John Armstronal, Lot 8, Block 4, Filing _2s Gateway of Snowmass Mesa Rick Neiley and Evan Gull will not vote on this case. John Spencer was present representing JBJN to request an 80 foot front yard setback variance and a 20 foot north side yard setback variance, where 10o feet and 50 feet, respectively, are required in the RS-30 zone district, for construction of a single-family residence. The lot is a nonconforming lot with .91 acres. The lot is a very steep lot which will require a steep driveway onto the property. Neiley asked why the location of the proposed home has to be so close to the front lot line. Spencer stated that if the proposed home is moved further down the hill, the grade of the road will be increased. Mathis asked if the plans had to be reviewed by the Homeowner's Association. Spencer did not know, but stated that John Armstrong had taken the plans to a Homeowner's Meeting last year, but was not sure what the outcome was. 2 0~0~16 Neiley asked for public comment. Patrick Kiltie asked where this house would be located in relation to Lot 7. Spencer stated that it would be behind and above it. Gull believed that the covenants for Gateway of Snowmass Mesa had the requirement of a 25 foot front yard setback variance. Guy asked Spencer if the house could be moved back. Spencer stated that he believed it could be. After further discussion, Guy made a motion to grant a 75 foot front yard setback variance and a 20 foot north side yard setback variance, due to downzoning and topographical hardship. Dyer seconded the motion and four were in favor, with Wheeler voting no. Motion passed. Case #92-24. Mollica. James. SE1/4 Sec 79 T9S R88W Dean Derosier (McLaughlin Water Engineers) and Nicki Lee (Swiss Village Homeowner's Association) were present representing the Swiss Village Homeowner's Association and the Mollicas, to request a 41 foot major road setback, where 50 feet is required per the Pitkin County Land Use Code, for construction of a chlorination facility. (Please note: The notification was made for a 9 foot major road setback variance, where 50 feet are required. It was decided by the Board that since all postings have a stipulation on them stating that a greater than or less than variance could be granted, further notification and review was not necessary.) Derosier Mated that the existing water system that feeds Swiss Village does not meet any State Health codes. The State has requested that Swiss Village immediately update their water system and bring it under compliance. The chlorination facility needs to be as close to the well site as possible. This property is owned by the Mollicas and would be hidden by many trees. This facility will be built to resemble the Mollicas' cabins. Derosier submitted pictures to the Board. Schaffner spoke with Chuck Dunn at the Highway Department on May 5, 1992, in which he expressed that the Highway Department had no concerns with the proposed development. Neiley also read the April 5, 1992 letter from Jim and Sharon Mollica into the record supporting this request. There was no public comment. After further discussion, Neiley moved to grant a 41 foot major road setback variance due to practical difficulties. Guy seconded the motion. All were in favor. 3 fl~oui~ Case #92-25 Brewer Jack Lot 1 Block 5, AABC Ted Guy and Stan Mathis will step down because of potential conflicts with this case. Tim Hagmar. was present, representing Jack Brewer, to request a 3 foot 6 inch front yard setback variance and a 3 foot 6 inch rear yard setback variance, where 30 feet and 10 feet, respectively, are required in the B-2 zone district; and a 3 foot 6 " arterial highway setback variance for construction of a new roof to an existing warehouse. Hagman submitted pictures showing the existing building, and gave a brief history of the building. Range Rover wants to put a dealership and service center in this building. To tie in with the historic character of the building and honor its historic significance in the area, the design of this addition is compatible with the existing building. Letters of support from John McBride, Steve Hansen and Stephen McDonald were read into the record. There is also a letter of support in the file from Roxanne Eflin, Aspen/Pitkin Historic Preservation Officer. There was no public comment on this case. After further discussion, Gull moved to grant a 3 foot 6 inch front yard setback variance, a 3 foot 6 inch rear yard setback variance, and a 3 foot 6 inch arterial highway setback variance, due to the unique conditions of the property not caused by the applicant and practical difficulties, pursuant to the plans submitted. Dyer seconded the motion and all were in favor. ******************************************************************* The minutes were approved with the change made by Ted Guy mentioning that Bob Gruder (for the Schlumberger case) was representing Wade Kent. The meeting was adjourned at 6:40 p Resp ctfully sub fitted, Cindy Ch istensen, Secretary 4 Q~~U1~ 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 BOCC 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 000019 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 X92-17 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. 2 ~D~~n~ 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. ~.aac m7c-ia. ~cntumneraer Mdrtln 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 U~~~21 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: ~~0026 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 Villaae 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 ~D~fl~3 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. Respectfully submitted, ~~~ stensen, Secretary Evan Gull, Acting Chairman 6 00002~s ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFI~ 130 Soulh Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 61611 (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 HEALTH 00123 -63340-190 HOUSING - 00115 -63340-163 ENGINEERING _ SUBTOTAL . County 00113 -63160-126 GMP/GENERAL -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 CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS $3450-146 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REFERRAL FEES: 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 -63140-124 COPY FEES ~- j -69000-145 OTHER F ~),s - SUBTOTAL TOTAL - . ~ ~ ~' ) . Pfi f~ / ~~~(G't , 1 Name: ; f .r , G - . - one: - _ ' r_ 7f-; ~ 1-Fz ~ ~` n v.. ~ Project: r"~' -' `-~ - '` Y,G^' Address: Z~~~ ~ 1~z- ~ Check # ~ L ' % Date: Copies received: n V~'7 #of Hours.