Notices mailed ' secretary

LpA/t Lil- 1 8 *2

PITKIN COUNTY

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

0461-343-04- oop-

DATE 6- 3 { 4- 19 9-9 CASE #70-

APPLICANT ·dE-RT / Lcoke 66611')PHONE 303 (22 4 01 -%1 1MAILING ADDRESS / 59§-C ca ArrE 'u .4,1 22(c <19 -)C-'£.CY>-2SS. 42 5/ESL/OWNER FEE-H--r acke- (06(-3 ct • 1 PHONE :303 9 z 9 - 4 3 9 2 4

9-3 6 - 2 732 01/ --26 -MAILING ADDRESS Q 607€ 0 16 -3 0 /O W .,(1 \A..! 0 ..Av

,

LOCATION OF PROPERTY i S S.CD 4 A-Te«3 /%1 0 (c) 1/7<3£0/7-*RS.66-3

4 A·1--200.A. 6 CDLE) SY-tot.01--n rt.»'<3 (0 f / /9 54'i?

Any pertinent data must accompany this application, and will bemade part of this Case. The Board may return this applicationif it does not contain all the facts in question.

n

Applicant Signatur, ,<L///

(To be completed by the Zoning Department)

Provisions of the zoning resolution requiring the Zoning Officialforward this application to the Board of Adjustment, and reasonsfor not granting a building permit:

The applicants are requesting a 26' front yard and 22' west side yard setbackvariance due to steep topography, narrow lot width, and downzoning. The propertyis only 220 feet wide, where the RS-30 zone district requires 400'.

Zoning Official 771#c,<fC€ ku,_...10

Application filedr-il,·CLU / 41 /9 89 Date .(1- Ai / 1 3 '/ 9 89

Notices mailed ' secretary<k6 A / m ./.1'la/

0(}00(}1

. .

N CL

..

-7\1

..

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

BEFORE THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING OR USEVARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW:

Pursuant to Pitkin County Resolution of June 5, 1955, asamended, a Public Hearing will be held in the District CourtRoom,Pitkin County Court House, Aspen, Colorado, (or at such otherplace as the meeting may then be adjourned) to consider anapplication filed with the said Board of Adjustment requestingauthority for variance from the provisions of the County ZoningResolution.

All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited toappear and state their views, protests or objections. If youcannot appear personally at such meeting, then you are urged tostate your views by letter, particularly if you have objection tosuch variance, as the Board of Adjustment will give seriousconsideration to the opinions of surrounding property owners andother affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the requestfor variance.

THE PARTICULARS OF THE HEARING AND OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE AREAS FOLLOWS:

Date and time of meeting: July 11, 1989 at 5:15 PM

Name and Address of Applicant:Luke and Susan Hecht

1550 GatewayOld Snowmass, CO 81654

Property Location or Description: Lot 17A, Block 2, Filing 2,Gateway to Old Snowmass, 1550 Gateway, Pitkin County, Colorado

Requesting approval for a 26 foot front yard setback variance anda 22 foot west side yard setback variance where 100 feet and 50feet respectively are required in the RS-30 zone district, forthe construction of a residential garage.

Duration of Variance: Temporary Permanent: X

THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

Joanna S. Schaffner> Secretaryl

0(100{12

G.44/69..

(3·-; too Louu·r-1 13<DRE0 02 Ao-604>1-}ne:u,7Dr LE.AS€ (Flue EL>COSCO my APPolody/OL) 4,2.- 1957-43*CiC.U G et A G'Gel ·70 AC,co,J COus¥roor/642 ON A GA-LAG<c

A.T 97 7 ACCSOw Ai- EXS(On,CE 10 -1-46 GATE(u4--t ma,9Surbo'uts,elj. A-5 90.3 (524,01 0022 l.0-1 1 Ae€ 1--2 AC_recISAub Ae€ eitic_ ouot'2- 30 0£. 40 Ac€G Zok.)/ 1JG,

I HE e Uces€So .Su €Ud( 5140(.0 S 746 6 A €46 Em.le- 1

.SED=01-14 F€27- Freon, -NE €eog-·r L,•ue (slefrt.9- AL-0-rte€lr-j t/6£47 C€27- Feotn 1-4€ S/OE CIA/C k.)04(016080/ws/OU COUED»/7-3, 70€- A/FER 40€7-9 02TWE 4(ws E 49,3 442,366 SCOPES DOwv Uic)/A.ST, Awe 07 A (« S U u 063 ,€ABC€ Inpeaer-{CAL

70 Bo/(-0 1-VE 660636< Al-_ -T'/E- "'Ewo 62 07-4€ De,c,€t•/4- '/IA-) 1980, A UAL,604€7 ovas APPROOuto F-be 1-46--

40(47 /00 OF 7-VE 1/003 6 DUE -1-0 7-9/3 1-(ALOS£,/ P.

JI wopr -7-40 T 14/ b 2.4 PLA, 9% 146 26AjouS 02'C

oue- APPGICANDO. ZE* Auf of 14€ SOACD 440€-

Auy Qu¢57 ©03 /// 6-jout,0 BE WAP/)9' TO al€ET-

1 Le 11 4 900 A-r Youe COA/Ut 4/60 C (E.

OU CS 1 20 07/

tu i<:g. 50:., 1-4·r.·a-

-·--- .- -4 - 3 --- · - - " hECEIVE:B:ZONING

JUN 14 38.

DEPARTE'.

SPEN·: 000003

1 131 214 1

klec,-rr- * 4770« Goe- U.UC E-40-3602.uT P€opejeif OL 1,u'E-€'S.

---

%4-13-€.I#U L.·6 LL ' - ----045-7 -6-B07 go '

5'-39'TAU CO 8/65-9

L L)Aut b 16-OJOC

873 90

SK.,O.Urn'413 C O__fldrof

11\,c_t».._OLS eu

/SVS CA,la.//11 - f,bS Lou77863 C.0

bbc_. Bu.. (..Rew#'J

60 J7 Lic,41- W tu. €,0

1,00.-•'hASJ (0 8tGyv31 4 457. f*£.A-7.1-rf

R 0, Bof 84-7 643 Da CO 8 f G / L . -

(A s __A u.u i (ACTE€-

49'4 Deneot i-

/-450(/254 0-0 _8*6

/AECEIV\ ZONING

JUN 14 1983--4, DEPARTMENT . -\<1SPEN,6,-KIN//

000004

1

1

1

1

1

1

'i

i ,) Ill

1

anning Office t- >-4 -" 4-'665 B

R 0/,60?; :· 2:.1.7[i

1 uncla,met --&:./.I-* 0Attempte"-·. -·. 2-: ...1... 1 V. · rle!»1 55: 4 /

NIc Sudi 12:*.-__r.ur-:,1. =4_No such Ni:r'· ·- 2-2

Do not u.i:.!! ... 4..5 -i·.2·v-t

\12_ 0Au O <Oe.KJ LIC_Bo, 8734

5kjawinAU C O 8(651.U. 10

-

state your views by letter, particularly if you have objection tosuch variance, as the Board of Adjustment will give seriousconsideration to the opinions of surrounding property owners andother affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the requestfor variance.




1550 GatewayOld Snowmass, Co 81654



Duration of Variance: Temporary Permanent: x


02 4 f>-2Affnerl

0432.-- 1.- 32•-Joathha S. Sch Secretary

000005

Galena

CO 81611.

rn) Auu - Ael'Eft.- or AT444 Del cori-- A,lp/CES-5

De»·iute_ Colo€ADO 314 ts MU

80106

ic:· ii

·· 4

(323.- I ./444,0'ir.3 / 7 J ·'51 .-

cannot appear personally at such meeting, then you are urged tostate your views by letter, particularly if you have objection tosuch variance, as the Board of Adjustment will give seriousconsideration to the opinions of surrounding property owners andother affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the requestfor variance.







.jDuration of Variance: Temporary Permanent: X


A P

AffnerlCh©Da. B. 12£ 4->1 L.X.

Joana S. Sch iecretary

000006

L.Eucrl tj€*el Allou Coe. (/Act,luce Appactdl'jou

PIPPL[ cA ivT- s f\'\ e. ,- 3-Us Luos 1-lEC->-ll-

Le-r- 1 -/ A 1 1- il_l U Lr..1 (J <*

l.

0 ,rea A--1 -ic> S ruc».3,- V\&21 --

b Le>LE *1'4151 4 Sulhalut Ble>J

040 JVoMkes.j _ 9102>VOCO,/ .

L

34044,ASS066€.< 2 0

-,0

4/64-T- 4/ C G. £00

r----:r - - -- -- -- - - ---7 -9ECEIVE*\71'INIA

0000()7

IL :; lit i 1.,2.

.. ..

1 1 1.

Itt

1,

1

1

i

i

IX O

Ry

449

ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICF130 South Galena Street

Aspen, Colorado 81611(303) 920-5090

LAND USE APPLICATION FEES

City

00113 -63250-134

-63270-136

-63280-137

-63300-139

-63310-140

-63320-141

GMP/CONCEPTUAL

GMP/FINAL

SUB/CONCEPTUAL

SUB/FINAL

ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONSALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS/CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS

REFERRAL FEES:

00125 -63340-205 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH

00123 -63340-190 HOUSING

00115 -63340-163 ENGINEERING

SUBTOTAL

County00113 -63160-126

-63170-127

-63180-128

-63190-129

-63200-130

-63210-131

-63220-132

-63230-133

-63450-146

GMP/GENERAL

GMP/DETAILED

GMP/FINAL

SUB/GENERAL

SUB/DETAILED

SUB/FINAL

ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS

ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS/

CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

REFERRAL FEES:


00123 -63340-190 HOUSING

00113 -63360-143 ENGINEERING

PLANNING OFFICE SALES

00113 -63080-122

-63090-123

-63140-124

-69000-145

CITY/COUNTY CODE

COMP. PLAN

COPY FEES

OTHER

SUBTOTAL

TOTAL ' 0

Name: tak-2- /Actf--0 Phone:

Address: · ·Project: Ef -33

Check # Date: 6-/4- %9Additional billing: #of Hours:

0(}0009

7

\4

1-0 L I b, 9 Lot 17A

OCL.82 9312

Note: N

7.5 foot easements in-side all lot lines I

£\:29°11'00'7le: 15-9.63'

80.143' ...G

1 JUN 14 1989DEPARTMENTASPEN/PITK,N

O1

UlC

0

I

60

01

1_dt '01-/

t

L 00

'00.rte

l 11049°00' 00"W 220.70

60' ·v.jild.e ·rijtt- 05 - 4.(CllLot 17A,

Legal Description: Block 2, Gateway of Snowmass Mesa Subdivision, Filing No. 2, Pitkin Coun-ty, Colorado.

I hereby certify that on May 13, 1981 (updated on April 25, 1989) a survey was performed byme on the above described parcel of land. A two-story frame house was found to be on saidparcel as shown on this plat. All easements, encroachments and rights-of-way in evidence orknown to me are shown. This survey is true and correct to the best of my knowledge andbelief.'

fc»11\L_ C¢Oiled Fout,Aw€ 09 6142:469 11> 690 5 4LACE g-ECU

00By: . . 000008

Syd:My Liticome P.L.S. 14111

\\\\\\Unt'1111/moo 33tj>q-ove«-e-·A- SUN-veg4§449.fl?/$06*fA 1 525-CD Ga:·bzuualf _3€.00.4 U

g :€ 97:59 1 Sylol»¥\,La.ss, C-6jto·rableO. 2 '

*,3 14111 Apj or LINES IN SPACE1%... .92

44*41 LANS * SYDNEY LINCICOME ( L.S. 14111)4/4/0111'Im\\\\\\6 BOX 121 CARBONDALE, COLO. 303-963-3852

..I 2.-5 ,/.rd 19,89 1 SCALE:I"=50'




Pursuant to Pitkin County Resolution of June 5, 1955, asamended, a Public Hearing will be held in the District CourtRoom,Pitkin County Court House, Aspen, Colorado, (or at such otherplace as the meeting may then be adj ourned) to consider an

application filed with the said Board of Adjustment requestingauthority for variance from the provisions of the County ZoningResolution.






Property Location or Description: Lot 17A, Block 2, Filing 2Gateway to Old Snowmass, 1550 Gateway, Pitkin County, Colorado




Affher 1upt-- A tk-

JO S. Sch Secretaryalina

hoen/Pitkin Planning Office+Ti/Of,JABI

LE=1._ . ™,-· _ 3 1--I-.,==:KI-7ZIL

S. GalenaAspen, CO 81611

=*N z .25 35.424, L_tA '•: 1.-J;Ir

< JUL-7'83

A J Au e ·-1 (ACTE'L-- Nor AT

44 4 De·'cori ADOL€%5Det-tute_ Coco€Roo

..714 f 580106

MOT 01.1.TVERABLE <SZ--ASI'.El C/,- jgld. 11 (W'.RD 4-1 MLM E-: 4 19i.REIL i · -

KA **AA MAil A t'




Pursuant to Pitkin County Resolution of June 5, 1955, asamended, a Public Hearing will be held in the District CourtRoom,Pitkin County Court House, Aspen, Colorado, (or at such otherplace as the meeting may then be adj ourned) to consider an

application filed with the said Board of Adjustment requestingauthority for variance from the provisions of the County ZoningResolution.










Joa]?fPa S. Sch

4-7\ .1 X.,

(SecretaryAffnerl

VV 7

02==»C

C 00°09&

K L 0 2:831•=29; F< -1 9O 6% L ··21 0;

c' Itt 4 6 0 9 12 g

VI

J»kff'0 4 t,

4 1

r·:ID. I

212.&; 4%',* 1

1 V al 1 1 IiiOr,

SMAR,10*... I

2

JUL 10

.b&431-

J \Gas*31

90!110 Duluueld '190!d/ue{ISVj \ A 01-1.1Lt-Iff-' ' XEZI

F.'!gooK J J J ;Zo? 333RESOLUTION OF TIIE PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

GRANTING SETBACK RELIEF FOR LUKE HECHT

RESOLUTION NO. 89-33

WHEREAS, Luke Hecht, owner of Lot 17A, Block 2, Filing 2, Gatewayto Snowmass Subdivision, requests a 26 foot front vard setbackvariance and a 22 foot west side yard setoack variance, for tneconstrucnion of a residential garage; and

WHEREAS, the subject property is within the unincorporated areaof Pitkin County, Colorado, (as described ln Exhibit "A"

attached); and,

WHEREAS, the Board of Adjustment is vested with the power togrant or deny such variances by virtue of Title II, Section16-1.3, Pitkin County Code (Land Use Code) and Colorado RevisedStatutes, 1973, 30-28-118(2) (C); and,

WHEREAS, based on the evidence presented, the Board of Adjustmentmakes the following findings:

1. Proper notice procedures, including the

notification of all adjoining property

owners, has been shown by-the applicant.

The required hardship or practical difficultyhas been established.

Granting such relief will not cause substan-tial detriment to the public welfare and willnot substantially impair the intent and

purpose of the Zoning Resolutions and thezoning maps.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment, thata 26 foot front yard seroack variance and a 22 foot west sideyard setback variance be granted as shown on the plans submitted(Exhibit "3"), due to downzoning.

WARNING: Any violation of the terms of this resolution mayresult in renearing and possible revocation.

i (3

2· an

U r-

1.

0

Mt

O 0 CD

0

m

Resolution No. 89-

Page 2

DECK 599 u.:2559

The Resolution was adopted by vote of the Board of Adjustment ofthe County of Pitkin, State of Colorado.

DATED: July 11, 1989 The Board of Adjustmentof Pitkin County, Colorado

ATTEST:

n An /36212. UJ D / .·'C L'. OAA·-1 2 A..

0Joanna Schaffntr,Secretary

94/ C:6 1 -l

Kandi Shaffr'an,Chairman

..

wook 5,99 piGE 500Exhibit "A"

Legal Descriptionfor property owned by

Luke Hecht

Lot 17A, Block 2, Filing 2, Gateway to Snowmass Mesa Subdivision,Pitkin County, Colorado

Boo;. 599 =46:561L: 27'i!00·/ iX·'59 63 1 ·- , Exhibit "Tk"

14.4.· 94 4-14'30" E -80.,43·

Yr

f , J " 0.-L,L :D,-1 Lot f 74

0 - 41 12.0A ' l

/9..01>0-- 54-3(.03.0

1.\/'/

c·z lines 1 . L_gu -1

2 - .,1.Or)< 3.rotbus'

24_-49 00' ec' v: 222.73' -

25:-:7:.or

60'c= 17 A,

2, Gateway ot1, Co:creco,

' 1./1

1UL'12 700»w-O:-«CLA'0 cO:

Snowness Mes, Subtivision, Filing No. 2, Pitkin Coun-

--:'7 :-E: 2,9 Mey '3, 'DE'I (c;catet on Acrj! 25, 1989) e su·vey kas performet DyDve ces:-:Dec parcel Of lens, A :40-story frame house wes founo to be or. se:C

*1 9 easener.:5, en:roacnmen-3 and rights-of-•Ev in evioence orre sn=wr. Tn:s zi-vey .s true and correr: to ine Des: of my knowleage and

31 * 42 5<,L·A:J CluEC t.

0 1,1

1..:Ime

.yip T o v esjoi= %=>LO- 44 2·t4,600· Rt?/p _£222"; 49,934 . 55= 34-#a.15 7.od- v 1

#-3.3. 1 .9.1 0% SV=fLOV·LASS 1RE:. 14.111 Agi JrE=t LINES IN SPACE..ff

SYDNEY UNCICOME (LS. 14!11)/,·:AL412WU•*.. 323-96 2-3852

2-5 k.w L, 1.089 SCALE:'' : 53 '

1,

I.

1

"'

,1

,1



TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTEDZONING OR USE VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW:

Pursuant to Pitkin County Zoning Resolution of June 5, 1955,as amended, a Public Hearing will be held in the DistrictCourtroom, Pitkin County Court House, Aspen, Colorado, (or atsuch other place as the meeting may then be adjourned) toconsider an application filed with the said Board of Adjustmentrequesting authority for variance from the provisions of theCounty zoning Resolution.

All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited toappear and state their views, protests, or objections. If you

cannot appear personally at such meeting, then you are urged tostate your views by letter, particularly if you have objection tosuch variance, as the Board of Adjustment will give seriousconsideration to the opinions of surrounding property owners andothers affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the requestfor variance.

DATE AND TIME OF MEETING: July 11, 1989 at 5:15 PME

Smith, Grafton: (renotification) requesting a 90' front yardsetback variance and a 10' north side yard setback variance where100' and 30' respectively are required in the AF-1 zone district,for the construction of a residential house. Property Location:Silverbrick Lot "A'I, Smuggler Mountain, Pitkin County, Colorado.

New Age Partnership:setback variance and a

50' is required in thea satellite dish and aLocation: 0156 Letey L

requesting a 40' northeast side yard35' east side yard setback variance whereRS-20 zone district, for the placement offuel storage tank respectively. Property

ane, Woody Creek, Pitkin County, Colorado.

D.R. Group: requesting a 10' west side yard variance and a 6'west side yard variance where 10' is required in the R-15 zonedistrict, for the construction of a retaining wall, and for theplacement of a compressor unit respectively. Property Location:Lot A, Swales Lot Split, 230 West Reds Road, Red MountainSubdivision, Pitkin County, Colorado.

Pardee, Lee: requesting an 80' front yard setback variance where100' is required in the AF-1 zone district, for the constructionof a house. Property Location: Lot 88, Starwood Sixteen, PitkinCounty, Colorado.

Rogers, Bernard: requesting a 55' front yard setback variancewhere 100' is required in the AF-1 zone district, for the

construction of a residential garage. Property Location: 118

Woods Road, Woody Creek, Pitkin County, Colorado.

.

Damon, Ron: requesting a 32' front yard setback variance where100' is required in the RS-30 zone district, for the addition ofa second level, a porch and an entryway. Property Location: Lot

1, Crystal View Heights Subdivision, Pitkin County, Colorado.

Kalnins, Shirley: requesting a 20' front yard setback variancewhere 100' is required in the AF-1 zone district, for the

replacement of a roof. Property Location: 0107 Sage Brush Lane,Lot 13, Block 2, Filing 2, Brush Creek Village, Pitkin County,Colorado.

Evins, Tom: requesting an 84' front yard setback variance where100' is required in the RS-30 zone district, for an addition to aresidential house. Property Location: 0127 South Bill CreekRoad, Carbondale, Pitkin County, Colorado.

Van Domelen, Peter: requesting a 5' north side yard setbackvariance and a 30' rear side yard setback variance where 50' and50' respectively are required in the RS-30 zone district, for theconstruction of a house. Property Location: Lot 4, Block 1,Filing 3, Gateway of Snowmass Mesa Subdivision, Pitkin County,Colorado.

Hecht, Luke: requesting a 26' front yard setback variance and a22' west side yard setback variance where 100' and 50'

respectively are required in the RS-30 zone district, for theconstruction of a residential garage. Property Location: Lot

17A, Block 2, Filing 2, Gateway to Snowmass, Pitkin County,Colorado.

Submitted to the Aspen Times on June 27, 1989To Be Published in the Aspen Times on June 29County PO #44365

, 1989.

.

Minutes

Pitkin CountyBoard of Adjustment

July 11, 1989

Members Present: Kandi Shaffran, Chairman Evan Gull

Peter Dobrovolny Stan Mathis

Rick Neiley David Brown

John Ostwald

Mary Lackner, Pitkin County Zoning Enforcement Officer, was

present with staff recommendations.

Shaffran opened the meeting at 5:15 PM. Shaffran introduced the

Board members to the public, including the Board's newest

members, John Ostwald and David Brown.

Shaffran began the meeting with "Old Business". There were no

minutes from the previous meeting. The Secretary informed theBoard that public notice had been reposted in the Aspen Times forGrafton Smith as required in the May meeting. Also, there hasbeen no response from either the Fischer or the Wilfongrenotification of adjacent property owners as per the Junemeeting. These three cases are now considered closed. Finally,the Board was reminded that there was still no decision reached

regarding the Mera Bank/Chalk Exploration addition.

The reopening of the Mera Bank/Chalk Exploration case was delayeduntil all the Board members which had visited the site, were inattendance. Shaffran continued with the meeting.

Shaffran asked the applicants if their notice signs had beenposted, to which all applicants replied "yes".

Case #89-25, New Age Family

Woody CreekPaul Britvar, was present to

Partnership. He explained thatremoved, the request is for a 40variance only, to allow for thedish.

Partnership, 0156 Letey Lane,

represent the New Age Familysince the fuel tanks have been

foot northeast side yard setbackcurrent placement of a satellite

The Britvars have erected their satellite dish without necessarypermits and have since been notified by the Planning Office, thattheir dish has been placed within the required 50 foot front yardsetback. Britvar explains that existing, large cottonwood treesand newly planted nursery trees disabled him from placing thedish further towards the rear. Britvar emphasized that the dishwas installed to manufacturer's specifications.

According to Britvar, surrounding large trees and a nearbymountain range would block the signal were the dish to be moved.He added that he did not wish to crop the existing trees.

Letters expressing no objection from neighbors, Fox and Anderson,were read by Shaffran and submitted to the file.

Neighbors, Norma and Donald Roberts were present to object to thevariance request, stating that they are the neighbors mostaffected by the satellite dish. The Roberts claim that the dishwas placed in front of their front window, and that it obstructstheir view. The other neighbors, according to the Roberts,aren't "even in the vicinity".

Britvar informed the Board that trees and other vegetation hasbeen planted to help mitigate and "hide" the dish, however,Roberts countered that the trees Britvar planted would take up to15 years before the dish would be hidden.

Neiley asked Britvar what the hardship would be were the dish tobe moved back 40 feet to comply with setback requirement.Britvar replied that the greatest hardship would be financial.

Brown made a motion to reject the request for a satellite dishdue to lack of demonstrated hardship and practical difficulty.The motion was seconded by Dobrovolny and passed with a 5-0 vote,with Mathis and Neiley abstaining.

Lackner informed Britvar that the dish needed to be moved within30 days.

Case #89-26, D.R. Group, Lot A, Swales Lot Split, 230 West

Reds Road, Red Mountain Subdivision

The Secretary notified the Board that the D.R. Group applicationwas withdrawn from the agenda because of incorrect informationsubmitted with the application. Doug Boyles, representative forthe D.R. Group, requests to table the hearing until the August 1,regular meeting.

Shaffran made a motion to table the case until August 1, 1989.The motion was seconded by Dobrovolny and passed with a 5-0 vote.Brown and Ostwald did not vote.

Case #89-27, Pardee, Lee, Lot 88, Starwood Sixteen

Lee Pardee was present to request an 80 foot front yard setbackvariance for the construction of a residential house, on propertycurrently owned by HMS Associates. Pardee wishes to purchasethis parcel from HMS provided the requested variance is approved.

Pardee explains that although this lot in zoned AF-1, it is onlya two acre parcel. The required building envelope as prescribedby the Starwood plat, in addition to the requested setbacks

results in a parcel size which would conform to AF-2 zone

district. According to Pardee, "there is no way you can build ahouse in here and conform the AF-1 requirements".

The Starwood Homeowners Association reviewed and approved theplans at a meeting held July 10.

Neighbor, Barbara Fashing, was present to object to the variancerequest. Although Fashing admitted that she liked the house, shecontends that the house is inappropriately situated on the sitesince it does not run "with the lay of the land". She continued

that should this house be built, the property value of her homewould be greatly decreased. Fashing felt that Pardee was

requesting this variance only to capitalize on a better view andthat he should instead settle for the view originally intendedfor the lot.

Pardee countered that he has done everything, including movingthe location of the proposed residence three times, to conformwith the requirements of Starwood, which is why his house passedtheir strict review.

Gull explained that Pardee's compliance with the AF-1 zonesetback requirements, would result in a greater detriment toFashing than the granting of the variance request. He reasoned

that AF-2 setbacks would place the Pardee house further from theFashing house than AF-1 setback requirements.

Neiley commented that it wasn't up to the Board of Adjustment todetermine how a house should be oriented when the plans for thehouse have already passed an architectural control committeecomprised of neighbors.

Brown said he didn't feel that any future development on theproperty currently owned by Fashing would block the views of theproposed house since they were on different topographic levels;the Fashing house being higher in elevation than the Pardeehouse.

Neiley made a motion to grant an 80 foot front yard setbackvariance due to the non-conforming lot size, topography and shapeof the lot, with the condition that the applicant submit a letterof ownership approval from the owner. The motion was seconded byShaffran and was passed with a 5-0 vote. Brown and Ostwald didnot vote.

As of this writing, a letter from HMS Associates has been

received by the Planning Office.

Case #89-28, Rogers, Bernard, 118 Woods Road, Woody Creek

Builder, Michael Pines was present to represent Bernard Rogers ina request for a 55 foot front yard setback variance for theconstruction of a residential garage. The lot is in the AF-1

zone district, and is less than 30,000 square feet. The steep

topography on portions of the lot, plus terrain which reachesdown to the river, further reduce the area suitable for building.

Lackner informed the Board that the Rogers' house was built lastyear within the required setbacks because of a zoning oversight.

Pines explained how the house is a remodel of a house built in1956.

Neighbor, Eddy Ranier, was present in support of the variancerequest.

After reviewing the plans, none of the Board members opposed theproposed building site for the garage.

Gull made a motion to graifor the construction of a

plans, due to downzoning.was passed with a 5-0voting.

. a 55 foot front yard setback varianceresidential garage as submitted on theDobrovolny seconded the motion and it, with Brown and another member notvote

Case # 89-18, Mera Bank/Chalk Exploration. 0726 Red MountainRoad

Peter Van Domelen, Sr. was present to continue the request forconceptual approval for a 1000 square foot increase in FAR for aproposed addition which would connect a house and unfinishedaddition.

All previous motions made by the Board failed to pass.

Van Domelen introduced, Bob Hughes, who was present on behalf ofMera Bank. Hughes explained the situation in its entirety to theBoard. He stressed the non-marketability of the two lots andthat Van Domelen's client is the only person so far who hasexpressed an interest to complete the project.

Neiley explained to Hughes how the Board had difficulty indetermining a hardship. He continued that FAR variances are onlygranted under extraordinary circumstances, and that it was feltby the Board that in this case extraordinary circumstances didexist, which is why the Board entertained any motions at all.Neiley told the Board that he now agreed with Mathis, and thatwhat was realistically necessary, was to grant the minimum amountof FAR required to permit the connection of the buildings.Neiley continued that he would now, in retrospect, vote for themotion originally made by Mathis, and Gull agreed.

Mathis made a motion to grant an addition of up to 360 squarefeet specifically for the use of vertical circulation to connectthe addition to the existing house, and the footprint of whichshall not exceed 200 square feet, due to neighborhood health andsafety considerations. Dobrovolny seconded the motion and it was

passed with a 4-1 vote, with Shaffran holding the opposing voteand Brown and Ostwald not voting.

When asked if FAR may be removed from one area and added toanother, Mathis replied "yes".

Case #89-29, Damon, Frank, Lot 1. Crystal View HeightsRon Damon was present to request a 32 foot front yard setbackvariance for the addition of a porch and entryway. This one acrelot is zoned RS-30.

The existing house is located within the required setbacks. The

proposed addition will add area and bulk to the building and willincrease the non-conformity of the structure.

Damon explains that his home is currently a basement apartment.The proposed addition will serve as an additional fire exit andWill become the main level Of the house. This Will be in

conformance with building "Life and Safety Regulations".

Neighbor, Greg Emerine, was present in support of the variancerequest.

Gull made a motion to grant a 24 foot front yard setback variancefor the addition shown on the plans submitted, due to downzoning.Dobrovolny seconded the motion and it was passed with a 5-0 vote,with Brown and another member not voting.

Case #89-30, Kalnins, Shirley, Lot 13, Block 2, Filing 2,Brush Creek Village

Cary Plumley was present to represent Kalnins in her request fora 20 foot front yard setback variance for a new roof on anexisting, encroaching garage. The proposed roof would encroachan additional three feet into the setback. The one acre parcelis zoned AF-1.

Kalnins explained how the new roof line is designed to deflectheavy westerly winds over the house, and to catch snow as itdrops off ' the sloping roof so that it does not land in thedriveway.

Dobrovolny made a motion to grant a 20 foot front yard setbackvariance for a new roof, which includes the additional 3 footencroachment in the setbacks as on the plans submitted, based onthe fact that the garage already exists and has been downzoned.Gull seconded the motion and it was passed with a 5-0 vote, withMathis and Brown not voting.

Case #89-31, Evins, Tom, 0127 South Bill Creek Road,Carbondale

Tom Evins was present to request an 84 foot front yard setback

variance for a one acre parcel in the RS-30 zone district. 1existing house is currently within the required setback, aspredates zoning. The proposed addition to this house isencroachment of an additional four feet into the setback.

Evins explained how this 700 square foot house is not meeting thedemands of his growing family. They propose an addition of 1500square feet, 550 square feet Of which will be outside the

original house footprint. The area proposed for outside thefootprint, is to enclose a basement entryway otherwise accessableonly from the outside. The proposed addition will increase theheight of the house to 23 feet.

Evins believes his plans are simple and environmentally feasible.No natural landscape will be disturbed. Pictures were presentedto the Board and added to the file.

Brown observed that were the house to conform with requiredsetbacks, it would be placed in the river!

Shaffran made a motion to grant an 84 foot front yard setbackvariance as shown on the plans submitted, due to downzoning.Dobrovolny seconded the motion and it was passed with a 5-0 vote.Brown and another member did not vote.

Case #89-32. Van Domelen, Peter, Lot 4, Block 1. Filing 3.Gateway to Snowmass Subdivision

Peter Van Domelen, Jr. was present to request a 5 foot north sideyard setback variance and a 30 foot rear yard setback variance.The Van Domelen lot is 1.05 acres and is zoned RS-30.

The Van Domelen lot is a corner lot of the subdivision and islocated, in part, on a ridge. He would like to build his househigh enough on the ridge to take advantage of the views, yet notso high as to block neighbor's views.

Van 'Domelen explained to the Board that half his parcel has asteep slope and that he is trying to avoid building on thatportion of the lot. He has worked with architects to design atiered house to minimize the impact on surrounding neighbors.

Neighbors, Norma Olsen, George and Karen Draper, Bill Landon, andWayne Price were present to oppose the variance request becausethey all feared their view would be obstructed. A letter of

opposition from neighbors, Joe and Janet Raczak, was read andadded to the file. Many neighbors were concerned with the heightof the building. Price felt the house was long in design,thereby exacerbating the problems. Landon invited the Board to .asite visit.

Gull explained to the Board that Van Domelen has the right tobuild up to 28 feet in height. In trying to mitigate the impactthis house will have on neighbors, the house was designed to be

only 18 feet in height from the existing grade. According to VanDomelen, if the variance request is denied and he must buildcloser to the slope, he will build his house higher than 18 feetin order to see over the ridge.

David Brown suggested that height poles be put in place and asite inspection made, whereby the impact on neighboring views canbe better judged.

Shaffran made a motion to postpone the hearing of this case untilThursday, July 13, 1989, at 8:00 a.m. Neiley seconded the motionand it was passed with a 5-0.vote.

(Please reference minutes for site visit.)

Case #89-33, Hecht, Luke, Lot 17A, Block 2, Filing 2, Gatewayto Snowmass Subdivision

Luke Hecht was present to request a 26 foot front yard setbackvariance and a 22 foot west side yard setback variance for theconstruction of a garage. The lot is 220 feet wide, and is zonedRS-30.

Hecht explained that the area north of the house and garageslopes down very fast, and makes it undesirable and impracticalto build the garage at the "end of the driveway". In 1980, a

variance was approved for the location of the house because ofthis hardship.

Gull made a motion to grant a 26 foot front yard setback varianceand a 22 foot west side yard setback variance as shown on theplans submitted, due to downzoning.

Shaffran made a motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion was

seconded by Dobrovolny and passed with a 5-0 vote, with Brownand another member not voting.

Respectfully Submitted,

gnaa retiofkj.A-)Jo*lna S./ Sch#ffner,

01 secketary

76- 3-- 4142-Kandi Slikffran,

Chairman

SPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFIC130 South Galena Street

Aspen, Colorado 81611(303) 920-5090

LAND USE APPLICATION FEES

City00113 -63250-134

-63270-136

-63280-137

-63300-139

-63310-140

-63320-141

GMP/CONCEPTUAL

GMP/FINAL

SUB/CONCEPTUAL

SUB/FINAL

ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS

ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS/


REFERRAL FEES:


00123 -63340-190 HOUSING

00115 -63340-163 ENGINEERING

SUB 0 AL

County00113 -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/


-63450-146 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

REFERRAL FEES:


00123 -63340-190 HOUSING

00113 -63360-143 ENGINEERING

PLANNING OFFICE SALES

00113 -63080-122

-63090-123

-63140-124

-69000-145

CITY/COUNTY CODE

COMP. PLAN

COPY FEES

OTHER

SUBTOTAL

TOTAL

Name: 1,(AkfL /tult- Phone:

Address: .project: 89 -33

Check # Date: 6-/4-%9Additional billing: #of Hours:

Notices mailed ' secretary

Documents

Transcript of Notices mailed ' secretary