HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.82.08
e
-
Clark Smyth
moved that the following be adopted:
BEFORE. THE BOARD OF ADJUSTHE~T
OF THE COUNTY OF PITKIN
STATE OF COLORADO
RESOLUTION NO. 82-7
John Bruegge" Lot 3, Block 2, 3rd Filing, Gateway of Snowm'ass
WHEREAS, the subject property is within the unincorporated area of Pitkin
County, Colorado; and,
WHEREAS, the Board of Adjustment is 'Tested 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 B9ard of Adjustment makes the
following findings:
1. Proper notice procedures, including the notification of all adjorninq
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 substantial detriment to the
public welfare and will not substantially impair the intent and
purpose of the Zoning Resolutions and the zoning maps.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the applicant's request for a
31'front.yard setback variance for construction of solar Greenhouse
Additional conditions or restrictions:
WARNING: Any violation of the terms of this resolution may result in rehearing
and possible revocation.
Bill Lukes seconded the adoption of the foregoing Resolution. The roll
having been called, the vote was as follows:
"
Bill J-fason - yes
Dottie Fox - yes
Clark Smyth - yes
Joe Zanin - yes
Evan Gull - yes
Bob Throm - yes
Kandi Shaffran - yes
The Resolution was adopted by vote of the Board of Adjustment of the County
of Pitkin, State of Colorado.
DATED:
May 25, 1982
The Board of Adjustment of Pitkin
County, Colorado
~ ~~ cLvi-^.-l ~ ; J-.. m Cl "'-
secretlary
~ v
B:/ // /71a4nz
Chairman
Attest:
I"''"''''',.......
\... ",'~' I ...
Aph I
; Applicant J ol1~
Odner do hI'}
/'1 _ 19~
13l--1/1 eJ ~v
Rh:.AeC(Q e.....
\J<-J
APPrtlL TO BOARD OF ^DJUSTt-1ErlT
e County of Pitkin i~_~'~C-~)
aC\.- \'!~ .
- '\.~ .:.
~.~ 'S ~ ?-\,,\~ . , Case H
c '}...l\~ ,
.'\ Address PO.),o7 '.5I7v,,",MYlSs-
....~.-!,
,;:~~ ' ;-1...
Date
i{J)-
l?
Address Po. ao 7
<;;"l?tJ ,,; >YlI1-s'<:,
0&1 tr /6'51
0". ~/~s-1
Locati on of Property 1-;'+-3
R/oeJc 2-
3,..d r;!,v,cy
.
, G,r/e u,/ A &f -; q~ $'/1("I/WI f}s<; )1,esA
1
50-bA IIJ/S,,,.u
(Attached)
/my pertinent data must accompany this application, and \'1i11 be made a j)art of this
Case ria.
The Board may returr. this application if it does not contain all the facts in question.
Appl icant lS descri pti on of proposed va ri ance s hO\'/i ng just; fi cati on:
. VY"Opd:Bd
if Arj,q~G>
IS
'10
A //p w
II
solAr . '3' yee,rt h O<1<:;~' .~.
ho"'W e -.. -r k. $ "t7"h{/d
16e
kw.~ It'
o ill
,The-
S';?f t-h..
Grad
o~ .~.1
~... e.<7- ~ hi"t..e . t., Cj I . .{IrQ'W' 'rA~
y1..e-~d.~r;.. he..' 0;"'/ rh e. . SO'ft~
e. '{I ~+'."I1 /J ~c k. ..4- Rp;,;-/l.--
p i~~ e..- -;- h e. n e(.'lx€.,;T
. STr~'e. +-,. : T h.e..' p r~ p~se-d
/JIttr A-",d . w,;7..dd e.-i't'-eY\4
pArr: C1-P- rh.€.-
G toe e.l'\ hr..t'\;'o:..
3 l. M""';~ .. i-J.,t4ot
.'
.I
. .
. Applicant s~.nat:re ~~
Pro'lisior.:s of the :zoning resolution requiritlg the Buildiil9 Inspec:or to fOll'/ard this
.. ap~2~ i o:::o/~~ B~:~d "~f;~ u~ t;';~~:dr?:i~~~27"~t9.rf~:i~b ~_~~~ :e~:~~rmi t:
. <J. , ., jl. 't{. ~< ~c' -c v ?{..r S-<.-/..{ ..-<-/!L./.../,-/: 1.-- ~j': . f .' .I.~,/ .,. ~.;
~_ /J.;?u. /? . .' . , '/. '"'___ /
. .. Building Ins',. SifJl1ature-- /~ // I/~..i-J" I
t' _ ~ (~
Date permit rejected:
Board Decision
~pplication Filed:
Hailed:
Da te :
Secretary, Goard of Adjustment
(.~."',.~"..,.,...~'
\... ' .J .~ ." ...WiI
-- ,
m::i': Till.; 1'1'1'1:1 U CU,;:in: LOAHD OF JiU~~T:'lENT
'l\) ALL PhOPEETY mltJEW:; MTEC1T.D BY THE I:!:I}UES'l'I:D ::~C11Hl:G 0,'.. USE Vli.IU7.:.:C.:: DESCHlLiED r.::U":;:l:
PurSuilnt to Pitklll County Pc~;oluti::);l of: cIune 5, If'5:-;, as amcnd('(;" a. PubJic Hc"rin'l
".'il1 be beld jl' tite Countl CC:;:'li~:.;.iOfj(2r::; Poc:r., Pitkin CC;Ulity Court 1'01:'::0, i\::;PCll, Cc;101.cldo,
(or ilt ~;UC!l other pl:,cC' il:::; tLe: mc~eti!lq :1131' then be ac}jou.l:'lul) to COll:,;jc:cr <::n upplic,t:lOll
filed with thc~ ~iJ.id I3(,,:uc1 of ;,rlju::;tri1cnt rcqucsLing auUlo;:i:.y for vil~io.nce frellll the
provL:;ions of tiw County ZQning Ecsoll.i.tjcm.
All persons affcctpd by the propos~d variance arc invited to cppc~r and sto.te ~h0ir
vie'ds I prot..::::;ts or ot,jections. If you C.:L'1DOt. appear r'",r~;olJ2..11y at ~'uch ::1cetj nq, tL;:c;'l you
an: urged to :;t....:'.:o 'lour views by leLtor, partic1..:.1a.rly if yc...,~ hilve objcc:-~ion to such
variance, as the BOilrd of ;'dju::; Lmcnt will give seriou::; co~:-:;: c:~ratiOI1 to::, the op.inic~~; cf
sun:oundinS! ~-;1.0~)ert.,r OWllcrs &nd other affcctf d j_11 deciding '~,:iet;lCr to 0:-ant or dc:.y t;iC
request for va ri2...'1. ce .
THE PIIP.TICUL\RS OF TEE ET::iHU!,G l\ND O? '1'iLe REQUESTED ~;;~RI1"};CE ;'P-E ;.5 FOLLC\'iS:
Date ann t-~_:-y:; of TI!2ctin'j '_...Lw<.y__2.5, :1 Htl:~
_, ;::.t ---.!i~LCL-_ 0 I clock....l2.!JL
Name arId lIc::::!rcss of Ap'!:Jlica..'1.t for Variance:
John Bruegger, P.O. Box 2U7, Srrowmass, CO
81654
Location of l,'ropcrty or Description:
Lot 3, Block 2, 3rd Filing Gateway of Sno~nasR Mes~ SID
Variance Requested:
a 31' front yard setback variance for construction of a solar
greenhouse.
~jration of Variance:
Permanent
xxx
Te:-::.:')o r ary
Conditi0n:
,
\,
~'HE PITKIN COuNTY BOi'.RD Oi:' 1\D':;UST:'1[;N']'
----ffi~ 9 {'\\ (~0~
Bill !-Jason, Chall.::lan
C." If '" ,. 'OJ ..... ') ~ ~ J
;" ,. '", j; .___ ...1 ,
.
013-fe.U/Al of 5VIc1"/~19'5S Mesrl
A dj j4~Rnf 0-c'peyry OW,1e"s
1-0 I- ~
Black ~
3 RJ
Ker k G Me.... eel
r ,...is 't:. e. --A c .... G tv! 0 'r 11-7 F 14 YJ/I"/'f
j II (;> E <0 C. , l"'1tb>1 Tr/i I I
~h.,.y-l,,1Ie.) MIe-hfjAi1
'-I i? J(}~ k ';;l.
e
5<< ld i V 's I~ :-(
r: It~j
'-1"<-1.'5 -r
t./'8'S'/3
J..
'?.. h /(1-[1
Lot
D + If C!owtlfJlt 117
~ Gc!.itt!!-.rrll Pk~-1-Y1fi-".~t."f1
!60'f. 3..:z ~
A'5pe..,) (20 10 ~(b/ Z-
Lei- b-+7 8~k. 2
Joh /II C!:-h Hf> h111/f/
~ 'f. 3//
S i1o~l M RS 5 I C!o c:g. / t,s-1
Lo -f /6 B Irefi. I '3 rei r," I, "'-1
5 h j}t1 eo II. 6 rTC".. if
[3e.-H1 R." o,."te. if
Il~ F-I}w/II Or /
E. , J eb t:. L ) CLo/t7 'i II., J, ~
~ d-~ ~ v.;r-L
~) Lo i 5"
gtc..l z.
fVl ~c.hJ1e.J F~/n.
J .., d ,''#- J, B fI J,-VJi4"'d..
bo 9 Sf'VJ4.+fJt:7~ J P llit!. e
(})[ u!.. At] 0 J L I' I ~ ct's
/'~ B /o<!.,j:. I
~iE/~jv\ NANe-'{ Si1 ~bA)
Cf I ~ 0 v.J e, $..t F;;,a lr t h f (f1~ e
LJ1 k. G we. 0 cJ) C~ 1(,. C::;So ;2;l.t,
~ ~~~~
Lo+r
i<~VJ d* i1
f3 foC!-l<.. 'J-.
c., + Gw e.;11t~ c.
(3'0 'lC So I
5nocu i;1f4-55 ) do
~/fs,~'f
3 rd F.!tVfi
3 rd
r;!tvt1
b6hS/
3,....d f- I '
, 'IYli
"3.d h /ItA7
';;"rn ,1-11
('''''' .'.')
lro..... ~ '-..1 ....J' .....
~~~ .
.,~ ~r;:.
:t... ~~' 1:"" ~C'-Y. ~
'7 '4Z ~ .,
~.... ~'Y/, -+t/1': ~ ~~
#,. ,:/..~~ ~~>o. I
,~~.""' ,/
.~..,,~ ~ ,I
.~
, .. r---':;" -:-:/ ~ ~ IC
L:-)J-'~;~>~'~~,~", I-.;~~';~;~i:t ~ l
( ~'1YI4'B? \~~" ':;' ~, .
\" .. j~r ~_~::.~~~.~: ~ ? :: . ~
" /~.~.::.-..I -. '-...; ..
,~'n \.-.9/ ~ ~~'.', -~ '-~ . ~__----> ~
~N.PITKIN REGIONAL BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Shane A Ortell
116 '~~ J):r.
El J~\l, CO 81628
east; Main St;reet; . Aspen. Colorado 81611
47099
No.
$ ~'::> CO
County Treasurer's Office, Pitkin County, Colo.
Aspen. Colo.. Lj ! dt:4 19~
llrcriuAll of Tohn rrt... bnleaaer .
if 0~(\+U t10Q ond CO/, 00 .JJ uULLARS
-.J I
Account oL
Credit tc
bj, O~ A-d\ .
'-.)
.Fund.
Cb':e ~ ~2.-8
By
~
.T reasurer
C:D\~ -~\~
. Depu ty
THf C. F. HOECKEl (fl.. OEr-IVER
,. ~::W'
I
!~r: . af
~;I ~ /~ ;,j
~ 8/ l\:j /~~ ~
Dc:;:- ~fJ!
.0<, I ~
'~%Jjjte ;;:t:1
1!/ l\3
....
C
.;:,.
j / ,.
fI -.. /:
i'~
c:J ~ .
...0 (/)
-...oS
(" '... F......,~"" r
...... ..,.~ ..J
~e -)
m
m m
m Z
III .
rt
~ 'U
-
m -I
5' ~
-
m ..r,.. Z
rt .t~o; ~ ]]
., .~ ~4'~it ~
CD m
CD ~""+1 GJ
rt . .... ..~ ~. -
~... ~~~~, 0
. If" <i "."'~ ~ 0 z
$-' ~ A-<)"~ J>
~ ,.,,, c&
// ' ~"Y." ,/' r
J> m
III " .~~
'0 I ' c:
CD -
, r
~ '.
.. ... c
n -
z
0 GJ
6' tr.j f-' (/.)
., f-'f-'::r C
m ())~ m
a. C-j~~
0 ~
m ~~
~ ' f-' ]]
m 0 -I
'::J Ii
~ ()ic+ ~
~ 0- (!)
f-' m
f-' Z
00
f-' -I
())
l\:)
00
,
--
e
e
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO., DI[NVI:R
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
May 25, 1982
Members Present: Bill Mason, Chairman
Dottie Fox
Joe Zanin
Clark Smyth
Alternates:
Bob Throm
Bill Lukes
Evan Gull
Kandi Shaffran
Meeting was called to order by Bill Mason, Chairman, He asked
the Board if there was any questions about the minutes from the
last meeting and, if not, was there a motion to approve the minutes.
Bob Throm motioned to approve the minutes. Evan Gull second the
motion. All in favor. Mason questioned if there was any other
business that needed attention. Mrs, Horowitz was there to see
if a special meeting could be called,for her project, which was
delayed and unable to make this meetin~. Mason stated that the
variance request could not be heard this evening due to the fact
there was a lack of information available, lie stated that if a
large amount of cases came in for hearing within the next week or
so they would have a special meeting. However, at that time,
no application 8 had been submitted so whe would have to wait until
the next meeting, which would be June 29, 1982,
John Bruegger, Lot 3, Block 2, 3rd Filing, Gateway of Snowmass 82-7
requesting a 31' front yard setback variance for construction of
a solar greenhouse. John Bruegger was there to represent himself.
He stated that he wanted to extend a deck that is presently there
9 feet and put in glass for a greenhouse underneath, When the
present house was built the setback was 75 feet and now has been
designated 100 feet. He showed a photo to the members showing the
house up on the hill and not directly on the roadway. Mason
questioned how the County regulated where the setbacks were. Patsy
Newbury, Building Inspector, stated that they went by the survey.
Smyth stated that from the road the greenhouse would not be in
signt. Bruegger agreed that the work would be hidden. ~fason
stated that there was no objections from the adjacent property
owners. Dottie Fox stated that there was a sign on the property and
she felt that the spot Bruegger had chosen was excellent. Clark
Smyth motioned, due to downzoning, and solar reason if needed,
that the Board grant the variance. Bill Lukes second the motion.
Vote was taken. All in favor,
Phil Rapp, Crystal View Heights SID, Highway 133, Carbondale, 82-8
requesting a 50 foot front yard setback for construction of a new
single family residence. Terry and Jane Vogel was there to represent
Mr. Rapp. Vogel stated that an irrigation ditch that ran through
the property created a problem for placing the residence, Further
over on the property construction is not allowed. Which left
Vogel with the section of property which would put him within his
setbacks. He stated that originally the property was unzoned.
He pointed out a natural drainage ditch which he wanted to stay
away from. Mason stated that he had discussed the situation
with Newbury and that the Building Department was aware of all the
e
e
BRADFORD ptUBLlSHING CO.. Dl':NVER
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Page 2
Board of Adjustment
May 25, 1982
ditches on the property and she felt that this was the only .buildable
area on the property. He stated that it was another case
of downzoning. Throm questioned why the ower could not build in back
of the proposed site. Newbury answered that it was a subdivision
regulation. Fox questioned if there was a topographical dropoff.
Vogel pointed out the layout of the property. Fox verified that
there was a 50' setback need on the front and an 8' setback on the
side. Vogel stated that was correct, Smyth stated that he was
confused about the drainages. Vogel pointed out the natural
drainage to Smyth. Vogel stated that 47,5 was exactly what he
needed on the front for a setback. Lukes questioned about the
original zoning or normal zoning for that subdivision. Newbury
stated that it was unzoned at time of subdivision, Fox questioned
about checking the covenance of the subdivision and Newbury answered
that there was no covenance, Lukes was concerned about previous
decisions made in relation to prior zoning standards and how to
determine the amount now in question. Vogel told the Board that
this was an earth Sheltered home. Mason stated that there was no
objections from the adjacent property owners, Fox motioned that
the variance be granted for 47.5 foot front yard setback variance and
an 8 foot sideyard setback variance due to the topographical
configuration of land and the fact that there is drainage and because
of the downzoning, Joe Zanin second the motion, Vote was called
for and all was in favor,
Stutsman-Gerbaz, Inc" State Highway 82 82-9
requesting a 3 foot sideyard setback variance to construct an
addition. Dick Stutsman was there to represent Stutsman-Gerbaz,
He explained that they wanted to extend 28 feet on the end of
the existing building and on the back side for the proposed addition
of 1950 square feet. It would look the same as the building does
now. Mason stated that the existing building was built prior
to the 200 foot setback now in effect, Mason commended the owners
for keeping the property in such good shape, Smyth questioned
what the topographic consideration on the property mentioned on
the application was. Stutsman stated that if they built behind
the property there was a steep embankment that would need to be cut
into. Smyth asked about the other end and was told that there
was a firestation on that end, Lukes questioned what necessitates
the amount of variance requested. Stutsman answered that the amount
was determined by the length of the vehicles to be stored. Gull
stated that a variance would be necessary from the 200 foot
front yard setback and also the sideyard setback, The application
had to get a special review from P,& Z, because it was a non-con-
forming. It was stated that approval by the County was contigent
upon receiving the variance requested from the Board of Adjustment.
Throm questioned if the firestation was there when Stutsman originally
built the structure. He was told it was not, but had been built
after the 200 foot setback was brought into effect, Throm verified
that the 200 foot setback was a downzoning, He was told that was
correct. Throm motioned to approve the variances as a downzoning
matter on the front and a topographical hardship on the sideyard.
Kandi Shaffran second the motion. Vote was called for, all in favor,
e
e
8RAOP'ORO PURLlGHINCi CO., DI!NVE:R
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Page 3
Board of Adjustment
May 25, 1982
Stuart B. Duncan, 1246 Gateway Rd" Lot 19: Block 1, Filing 1
Gateway of Snowmass Mesa SID 82-10
requesting an 80 foot front yard setback variance and a 6 foot
rearyard setback variance to construct a two-car garage. Stuart
Duncan was representing himself. Duncan stated that this was the
only flat spot on the lot. He passed out photographs to the members
to show how the property looked and where his house and drive was.
He stated that the drive had always been in that location with a
parking area at the end and he had always intended to build a
garage there. Fox stated that she visited the site and felt it
was the only feasible area to build. Fox also pointed out there
was a bank that would hide the driveway, Fox questioned the zoning.
Newbury stated that on the back part of Gateway it is RS-30 and on
the front if is AF-1. Mason stated there was no objections from the
adjacent property owners. Fox motioned to approve the variance
because of topographical hardship of 80 feet on the front yard and
6 feet on the rearyard, Clark Smyth second the motion. Vote was
called for. All in favor.
Gene Bishop, 0194 Pacific Ave, Service Area 6, ABC 82-11
requesting a 7 foot sideyard setback variance for third floor exit
balcony and stairway. Herb Paddock and Nassar Sedaghi was there
to represent Gene Bishop, Smyth abstained from voting due to the
fact he is affiliated with the A,B,C" Paddock stated that the
setback was necessary on the south side of the building to accommodate
the placement of an exterior balcony and stairway, This is a re-
quired exit and stairway, This balcony would be to accommodate
~he employee unit that will be on the end of the building, Smyth
verified that the building was under construction at this time,
Paddock said that was correct, however, this appendage was not
under construction at this time. Smyth questioned if there was
a building permit for this and where the stairway was originally
shown. It was determined that the building permit was issued with
the stairway in a location that would not require a variance, Lukes
questioned what the hardship was. Paddock stated that there
was not really a hardship, however, this was necessary to maintain
the proper amount of parking spaces and to accommodate the third
floor balcony. Lukes stated that without a hardship he did not
know what basis to grant a variance on, Mason explained to the
applicants that what they defined as a hardship, which was a
hardship for them, was not the type of hardship with which the
Board could work with. Nassar Sedaghi stated to the Board that without
the variance the building would suffer aesthetically. Throm
questioned Sedaghi about the elevation of the building and the grade
across the property. Sedaghi explained the property to Throm.
Throm suggested another location for the balcony, however, Sedaghi
stated that would mess up the 'living room of the lower apartment.
Throm questioned if there was another solution. Sedaghi stated
that one set of steps could go down into a parking space. Smyth
agreed that the stairway was better the way Sedaghi proposed, but
he was unsure for what grounds the Board might have for approving
the request, Gull questioned Newbury why 2 exits was necessary
and she replied because of floor area. Throm questioned if the
parking space was not available would they be short.required parking
spaces. Sedaghi stated there was ample parking., Sedaghi explained
that if the stairs go in ~he other location available it will become
a hardship for the apartment below, blocking the view. Fox explained
that the concept made sense, but the Board was having trouble coming
up with a hardship. Fox questioned if there was any solar aspects
to the construction, Sedaghi stated there was not. Lukes suggested
thore was another solution even though it was not as comfortable
for the owner, Smyth agreed that there was other ways of doing it.
e
e
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO,. OI'!NVII!:R
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Page 4
Board of Adjustmcnt
May 2.5 I 1982
Smyth stated that if the building was new there might be a chancc
of granting the variance, Sedaghi suggested that since the building
was already there, that could be used as a hardship, ~ason enter-
tained a motion to either grant or deny the variance request,
Kandi Shaffran rnoved to deny the application based on the fact
that there is not a hardship that the Board can use to grant
the variance. Bill Lukes second the motion, Vote was called for,
all in favor.
Meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
~A..."'(,)AQ \......\ 't)....c 'hrrn(\~. 1
Secretary (}
f6CJJ. --(Y\ (...v) vv----
Chairman
", - cc. "".J
_ $~-~--~--
N 47099 - t Tr-easurer's Office, pitkin County, Colo. ~ 12"'. 19Y22
o. Coun y .' ~,
Aspen. Colo... .
" J"mll [Y\, 'pru~~ _----OOLLAR5
; iRtctiUM Of. ~d cD/ I L:[)- '---
-:\u)~ 1-1\)(2 0(\ ~-
Account of bJ. o~-~j~-' ~~~~~~ "61-::?>--------
- Fund, Treasurer
---
Credit to-
Cf:j\?io _(d:O\3
--:f'{)
__ Deputy
-
THE c. F. HOECKEl Cfl., DENVER
LARGE PLAT(S)
A V AILIBLE TO VIEW
AT COMMlTNITY DEVELOPMENT
A V AILIBLE TO BUY
AT CLERK & RECORDER