Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.82.10Bole Throm ~ t:~~~~ ~ ~~t~ ~;~, , ; . ~~ .1:~~Vi?~i l.i:~i;_ r Lilt, k~C~ <n.iOj:tec.,. 4:J~1'OItI~ T;?c;r;C?hD OI~ :,D,.iU '!'rC';N;. C)I' Tlti: COIII;'_Pi' C)F }'1`I'1:.TP1 S`PAT'. C?}' Ci)J,U:v ~T)0 I~:I~c)I:uTI:uJ~ J~~~~. 82-9 Stutsman-Gerbaz, Inc., State Highway 82 1`7IIL,Rr;~S,. t}rt su.}_~_jc:CC k~.rvt?erty .is v;~ tk~i3~a the unincorporated area of Pii.kin C'f~UYl~y', C'Oli:i`dCio~ d.i?d, v7iII:J?t~l~:~, the }3oar_:1 0~_ ~+.d.jt~_~trtent is ves~ ed with the newer_ to grant or deny such v<aria.nc~:~ by v~~.tue vi `iitl_e T7, eci:ion 16--.1.3, Pitkin County C'ude (L,and Use CCC~.~ ~ an(~ Co.i. Or"Ciiiv .riC'_V1Sed StaL'UteS, 1`}; ~'J, .S Ci-2s3 --]-iv l2~ ~C~ , c7nd, 47I.1,.ILr:AS, bas~~c;i o,z the evidence presented, the P.oard of Adjustment makes tl:e following firr<~.;_ricrs 1. Prol~~er notice Y~rocedures, including the notification of all adjornin~~ property owners, has been shown by the applicant. ?.. The required hardship or pract:icai difficulty has been established. 3. Granting such relief c.•ill not. cause substantial detriment to t:he public welfare anal wi_11 not substantially impair the intent: and purpose of the Toning Resolutions ar~d the zon.isrg mars. IVCl4, THER_rPORE, Pr, IT RESOLVED that the ap}?1ir:-tnt's rec*uest for a 3 foot sideyard setback variance to construct an addition Addi.ticrial conditions or restrictions: 4.7AP.!7INC~i Any viclati.on of the i~erms of this resol.uti_on may result in rc-hearing c-uica possible revcc~+tion. Nandi Shaffran seconded the ado~;Lion of the foregoing Resolution. The roll hav5.ng been calf ed, the ~~ot:e was a.s follows Bill ",4ason - yes Dottie Fox - yes Clark Smyth - yes Joe Zanin - yes Bob Throm - yes Kandi Shaffran - yes The P~ so_f.ut:ion t:~~ts ado1~~L.:c. by vote of the. Board of hrj justment of i.he County of 7'_t.}:.irr, St,~(.e c::~ Col.o:.:~:dii. vn'}'T'U: '.1ay 25, 1982 `T'ile TiCc,rU of :~d;ilrst:mc:nt Of F;.tl:~n County', Color_uclu 11 t.t-c't: i ,1 ..".~crc~i r~,' %~ - ~'ha'i.r.m,~l, 1-ti Il i1.1 ..Jiu~U GF I'~U~u:.iii,~tlT •- i t• ' ~ County of PitN,in Oate MaY 5 ~q 82 . Applicant STUTSMAN-GERBAZ, zrac. Address O~tner Address Location of Property Attached as Exhibit "A" Case d . . ~\ _(Attached) •Anyi pertinent data must accompany this application, and Trill be made a ~~art of this Case too. The 3oard may re~urr. this application if it does not contain all tFe facts in question, Applicant`s description of proposed variance shcV;ing justification: This is an application for a variance from 200 ft. .setback on Colorado State Highway 82 and a sideyard setback variance permitting a 27 ft. setback in a zone where 30 ft. is required. The proposed improvements are the subject of a special review application which has been approved by the Pitkin County Plan- ning & Zoning Commission and is pending before the Board of Pitkin County Commissioners. A copy of the application is attached hereto as Exhibit "B". The Applicant urges that because of the current condition and topography of the property, which were not created by the Applicant sub- sequent to the adoption of the Pitkin County Land Use Code that the strict application of the setback regulations would result in peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties to, and exceptional and undue hardship upon the Applicant in that the initial structure was erected prior to zoning, the structure is not capable of relocation, and impacts are minimal. The adjoining property owners are members of the Stutsman and Gerbaz families. ~ LEONARD M. OATES, Agent and Attorney for Stutsman-Gerbaz, Inc. . Applicant Si r~na ture ~,ll~,.l~ %~~ ~~~ _ ~ l Pro:'isior„ of the zoning resolution reyuirir~g the Building Inspec~or to fon•,ard this • . applicatioa to the board of Adjustment and reason for not rantin a bu; ~~' ~. ~/j // 9 g 'lding permit: ter-.. t/// d f`~ ~l ~; ~L ~~ L4 L,G .. J f t't L / / v ! ~J • ~ ~ c~~Z ~--C' • ~.,L t-c_.~ !~ ` ~ ~%'f ~C. .. i%L'~' C.. ...(~ v j"L..~'_~i.G L/ ~-E:.' LL ~ -.~-~ ~•'~- LG. tL-mom. C'~-cC._ ' '7/`i G ~.'Y ~- ~, ~~f~ ~~~t;~~t~..<~.~ , ~~w~:-.t~t~~c~~~/.;:~rr ng Ins,. Si~natur~--- -~,, °`~.--~ ~ ~ J ti.- ~ ti. Date permit rejected: `~ Board Decision Application Filed: •~- Date: ~. Mailed: .• Secretary, Eiosrd of Adjustment • ... • Re: Addition to Building (shop) at Stutsman-Gerbaz 5/4/82 Address List Donald Ensign and Sue MacMichael 415 So. Spring Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Jerry Gerbaz and Judy Gerbaz P.O. Box 1964 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Richard Stutsman and Dolores Stutsman P.O. Box 188 Aspen, Colorado 81612 H. F. Gerbaz and Eva Gerbaz P.O. Box 219 Woody Creek, Colorado 81656 Douglas N. Gerbaz c/o H. F. Gerbaz P.O. Box 219 Woody Creek, Colorado 81656 Dolores Stutsman, Trustee P.O. Box 188 Aspen, Colorado 81612 ,. _.~ f • E X H I B I T "A" A parcel of land situated in Lot 7 of Section 6, Township 9 South, Range 85 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, lying Westerly of the Westerly right-of-way line of State Highway No. 82, said parcel of land is described as follows: Beginning at~a point whence the Northwest Corner of said Section 6 bears: N.28°31'45" W. 863.60 feet; thence N.77°08'32" E.303.53 feet, to a point on the westerly right-of-way line of said highway; thence S.21°25'21" E. 300.00 feet along the Westerly right-of-way line of said highway; thence 5.30°08'44" W. 184.25 feet; thence N.40°08'44" W. 485.42 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning. :~< ' ~ •~ , APPENDIX B •. * PROJECT NUMDER~ , • PIThI~1 COC~~ITY Section/Parcel t'.. , •><• ~~~. ' "'`''~~' LAID USE APPLICATION FORM DATE SUDMITTED , ~-- :.~. • TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT: , 2:L1ME STUTSMAN-GERBAZ, INC. ~ 1 ADDftJSS c/o OATES, HUGHES & KNEZEVICH, P.C., 600 E. Hovkins Ave.. Asneg_ CO R, 11 PHONE (303) 920-1700 27AME OF PROJECT STUTSMAN-GERBAZ SHOPS (Enclosure of Open Stora{;e and Increase in , ' Shop Area) PROJECT LOCATION: (On attached sheet, locate on zoning map, showing boundaries of any natural hazard and resource areas, any other special -•- •' ~ regulatory districts, Section 5, Land Use Code; and locate ~~ ~~ on appropriate CSU/ERA Maps any areas not covered by the . above.) TOTAL AREA 2 Acres ± , FD:ISTIt:G USE(S) Maintenance shops and storage area for STUTSMAN-GF.,$$A~ Shnns P1:OPOSED USE(S) Enclosure of existing open vehicle storage area on North end of , (appropimate square existing building (28' W x 78' L -= 2,184 f square feet) and footage for each) addition of storage and working shop area on real of existir~shop building (18' W x ,108'4" L -= 1,950 ~' square- .feet) (see attached site l~tst• PRESENT ZONIr:G OF SITE AF-1 DESCRIFTIOiJ OF LAND USE PROPOSAL The Stutsman-Gerbaz shops have been situate in their current location since 1967 At the time the shops were built the property on which the same are situate were unzoned. The property was subsequently rezoned and thereby , the use was made a non-conforming property use.• By action of the Board of County • Commissioners in its Resolution 79 42 _ ,,•the non-conformine use of the shoes , was classified as a "Pubic Service Use", thereby making it a Use by Special Review and thereby a permitted use. Therefore, pursuant to (continued on followine vaQ~. TO BE COMPLETED 5Y ?'FIE PLA.~I.IING OFFICE '. TYPE OF APPLICATION': REZOtJZNG - ~ SUBDIVISION • P.U.D. F.XEMPTIOri SPECIAL REVIEW ~ •35-acre + SUF3DIVZSI0;1 • ' BUILDING PERIdITrREVIEW • RL'VIEII PHASE: PRE-APPLICATION ~ l~~ ~ Q ~Z DATE COI4FLETEO _ GEIIERAI. SUB:IISSZON P. A ION DATE • BOARD ACTIOY '. DATE •' DETAILED SUf3:dZSSION P.C. ACTION DATE • BOARIS ACTION DATE • ~ t ~ . :~- FfIZAL rLAT ~ LOARD ACTIOti DATE i n ,,,.~. ,.,,.- LAND USE APPLICATION FORM • • (continued from Page 1) Section 7-1.10 as a Use by Special Permit its expansion may be considered under a Special Review Application. The currently existing situation is that because of space constraints vehicles are stored outside and brought into the existing shop only to have main- tenance performed. Storage has been open and exposed on the west and north sides of the existing building. By enclosing the north side of the building, vehicles can be stored out of sight and the elements. No maintenance or repair activity is proposed in the enclosure of the north side of the existing building. The proposed addition on the east side of the existing building will provide a dual function of storage and an additional service and maintenance area. Vehicular access will be from the north side of the building. Vehicles will then be serviced by moving service equipment and tools back and forth from the existing building which will continue to operate as a maintenance area by putting access doors between the existing building and proposed addition. .Only a very small amount of excavation will be necessary at the very southeast corner of the proposed addition inasmuch as the existing toe of the slope accommodates the proposed addition. Obviously, because it is behind the existing building, the proposed addition will not be visible from Highway 82. Its effect will be to remove from v3.ew the heavy equipment which presently is stored in the parking areas to the west of the existing building. The same screening result will be accomplished by permitting the enclosure requested on the north side of the existing building. A rendering is included on the attached site plan. The aggregate of the building improvements have been designed to harmonize with the exist- ing building and to give, to the extent possible, a symetrical effect. The total building will be finished in earth tone to make it blend, to the extent possible, into the hillside which provides its backdrop. No additional utility services will be required by the addition and enclosure. The applicant feels that the net effect of the improvements will be to unclutter the shop complex and minimize its visual impact on Colorado Highway 82. Copy of Public Service Use Resolution attached. Copy of Ownership & Encumbrance Report on property attached. It should be noted in consideration of this applicatio and/or screening required pursuant to Resolution 79-42-was not recommendation of the former County Engineer and former County due solely to the lack of any definitive location of Highway 8 conditions remain to be completed at such time as the alignmen determined. n that the berming performed at the Manager, George Ochs, 2 improvements. The t of Highway 82 is ~, ., A)>~cnc]ix d PITKIN COUNTY L/l.~D USE• ~t'LICATION FOKI•i C I F G I SUMMARY OF FI11I)1ttG5 ltl:(,lUIRt:D BY Rf:VIEW PttASE • Directions: Any applicant for a development requiring a permit under . this code shall be responsible for showing conformance with any applicable pDli•cies~of_Section.2 as listed below. The applicant shall submit those • -'•• •r-~%-y~s~c~~snents~ nacessary~to show conformance with these policies and the •• telated,general zegalations of Section S.' Upon submission of the applica- __.tinn and all submission contents, the Planning Office shall distribute a_ same to appropri~te.rnferral agencies which shall indicate its certifica- ...~... -.~..~--~'~t"n•+n---~tt.:--ro~ir:cation -of the proposal as being in conformance with - policies and as satisfying :submission requirements and review guidelines ..._. _.__,,.,-.,.~f_x~7~'~nt_.genz~:l•=r-egula~tions. Referral agencies shall also indicate •rhether further study in a later review phase is required and any further recommendations or conditions, attach.:nc) comments and returning sar.-e to .._ the Planning Office. ..: .~ STITDY;RI+O,[IJ.BEA._ ..~11LICY. FACTOP. . .. _ _ )CAL REVIEW- CERTIFICATZO~I ~CJ.~'DITZC:IS ~G STAFF YES NO ANp~ INITIALS DATE RECOtuK~rroa- • TIONS '1. PA GS DS ,FPS &ot inconsistant Planning ~~ with Master Pla Office _ -- --- - -- _ • Saxe :of Growth y. ~._. ~.. ~. ~ ., ...-....... 2• --- - - - 'Hazard ~ Resourc Planning • ~ Areas Office GcoloEic • .. Hazards • • .- ~~ Floodplains Areas • Wildlife .. • Z-*ildfire Radiation ' Soils/Erosion County Ex- - ~ ~ tension . ~ .Agent r ~ f ~:3... ' ~ "-~.. ..~•...~ `rrracta~I~• . •.~. Planning _ - ~ -'•_ ~csources Office ~ -• •_ _ _ ...r .. . _.1.ir~eral1 _ - . • • ~ ~ - ~ SleSetable • . ~ • - .. ! ~ 1'A~'p PYC-Application DS ~ Detailed' Submission • GS p General SuSmission FP ~ Final Plat • - • • • i ' ` t_ ~ ~~~_ ..~,. ~, . „' • , . ~~ ' ~ ~!_ r _ t~ Ap~-cndix t3 •• ~ Ytl'rltl COU;t?Y LA-1D USL•' APPLI~ION t'OItM .~ - STUDY REQUIRED POLICY FACTOR LOCAL REVIEW- . INC STAFF • , 4. PA CS DS FP Agricultural Planning - Conservation Office a- • 5. ~• i Scenic Quality Planning Office 6..__. __._ I,Tater~ Supply Environ- _ . mental • - . ~ Health '''` ~•. •'• •3. ~ _ Sewage Dis- Environ- _ __ _ ^ . .. ~ posal mental • ~ ~ Health ` ~~ - 3: __._ bioise Environ- - _ _ ~ mental Health -• 9. __.. Air Quality Environ- ____ . ~ mental ' ...... Health ~ C. •::~ ~ ~ .:_ llisroric~ - •~ Historical ` - - - ~ -. Ar~clLacalogical ~ Society _. > -. - - .. ~ .. Resources t . t1i~'~ (. • CERTIFICATIOK CONDITIONS YES NO AND YNITIALS DATE EtECO61NtENDA- TIONS ' ,. I i y cndix B Y.Iti COUttTY LARD 1J5£ APPLICATION FOF.K _ ~~ ,~ ~ ' 't LOCAL REVIEW- CERTIFICIA•TION CONDITIONS ...r.. -REQUIRF'D ' POLICY FACTOR INC STAFF YES NO DATE AND REC nt,- ••• .~ j . INITIALS TIO~S , • ,• ~~ PA CS D8 FP • Road/Trails County Engin- ~ I ~t ~~ ~ ~'-" '-' "- Design 6 Con- ~ eer ! • struction t • Impact on ~ ~` J ~ \•/ • • Road system .. • • `" .. • Maintenance _ .• . _ provisions ~~.; Drainage County :' ~ ' • ~ -- - Engineer ~ ~. . ~ • • •• 3 Impact on. County c _ "r ' • ..__ _ _ _ xransportation Engineer ~~+ _ ' lmpact on Public Planning Office ~- 4. _.__ _ _ Facilities/ __ _ ~ [~-M.. _ • Services ~ ( ~~~ Solid Waste Count En in- y g • «. ~. - • Disposal 6 sneer ~ y ' ~ Collection ~ • ~ Fire S Police Shea if f / • ~"'"'" _ Protection, Fire Dist. ~..~ . Response ..• Service . ;"~'°' • Sanitary County ..~.. Land Fills Engineer ~~ ' 'Hospital Hospt sal ``''~ Capacity Board ~~~~.- • Library Sub- Library ,' ~~~ • • station' Site Board . i ' Postal ~ ~•- ce 'Post Off . ~~ • Substation Service _' • Site ' . = ~~._ 1• ~ - .. _. r ~~ . • ~ ~ • . ~ .. /lppcndix D ~ . PITKIN COUNTY LAt7D USE APPLICATION FORM ~ . STUAY REQtyIRF.D POLICY FACTOR LOCAL REVIEW- --- CERTIFICATION NO COND^NIDONS ING STAFF YES . • ~ INITIAL DATE RECO~L`tENDA- . ~ TIONS s pA GS DS FP' • Extension of Rocky Mt. _ "' '-' utilities, Natural Gas ' a:~ter and Aspen/.Holy ' ~ ~ ses~•er Cxoss Electric • Mountain Bell ' t - Municipal Water .• b Sewer Dist.s • ' - ~~Poblic shops, County garages, yards Manager - ' Recreation Sites City Recreation • ~ .~ • IS. ~ Co.-~tribution to Housing _ -- '-" Sousing Stock Coordinator I6. 1S~un-made Hazards/ Building _ _ . _ Safety Official 17~ iFildlife Colo.Div. of _ _ _ _ Preservation Wildlife .. ~ - - I8. Energy Building • Conservatioa Official • : 1g. . Qater Resources District'Water _ _ ___. w Impact. Court 2Q, Final Plat County Engineer. `- `-; `- ____ ' Contents ~ Attorncy,Plan- • ring Office . • • i • ~~ • • • ' J ` \ A-1 ~1. ~ • ~• V ~ ~+ J v - ~ ~ . • .. .. . ; I~cview P~ccduro Yypc~ of t+coposeta . tcQulrlnp ~rmil• . ~ 1.Itcton~ng ~. Special i:twicw Us0 ~ • . ~. Ituild~nq r`crmrt ncviCw . '. ~. Subdivision • • tS.Planncd Unit Development • Commor- Proecdunr---- - - - ' Scctton 6 . Pre-Application Conference • s . Optional Review by P b 2~ • ~ ~ - • ~ ' Siatt Review . • ' • P b 2 f:ccommendation ' . General Submission.. , , .-, , , , , , so - so days • Pu3fie Hearing • for revs ear • t3wrd Action - . • Rezoning ' Special Ftcview Use ' Bviidir•.g Permitrieview .• r •. . ~, .. • ~t3irilding Permit ~ • • Sett Review ~ ' • P Z. Z Recommendation Detailed Submission............ 60 - 80 days -• E>aarancti°" for revieVt** • . .; ' S:ar( Revic~v ' . ~ ~ Finest Plat• • ... • .. • • . 20 - 35 days t3~ard Action for nevi eV! • Subdivision PUO Y ~ ~ ' . ~Eluildino F'crmit PITY.IN COUNTY PI;aLIC -10i ICE ..°.EQUIRE;•fENTS • ' • ~• • !is a General Submission requirement, the Pitkin County Land Use Code requires the applicant to provide to the Planning Office a list of "names and (mailing) addresses of all 'holders of mi n~ra1 estates _(i ticl udi ng' nit ncral 1 essees) i n the property, and of adjacent (contiguous) land o~•mers (including L-hose separated from the property by a public road~or right-o`-way)"(Article 6-3.1). -These property o~~mer; will receive a ccpy of the public notice stating the hearing date for the subject property no later thar. 15 days prior to that hearing. _ • The applicant is also required to post a sign (on forms supplied by the ~~ - Planning Office) on the subject property at least 15 days prior to the public hearing (Article 6-3.4(d)(1). ~ ' * .This time frame does not include delays caused by requ©~ts for.further infor- , oration; tabling by the revie~ring board, etc. ,,-~.~,.,~,~ • ** A public hearing, and consequently ~n additional 35-40 days, niay be neces-~• sary if tlic drtailcd subtiiission is substantially changed from ttlc gcrteral '- • suUniission. ~,,, 02.03 6.03.02 d 6.02.03 Conceptual kevicw by,~c Planning Commission • A~~the ,~nlicant!s o t~i~, the application may be submitted to the Planning Corunission for a preliminary evaluation of the likely conformity of the proposal with the provisions of this ' Code. The discussion shalj be based on the information given in the conference with the staff. ~ _ •' .. • , • 6:03 General Submission ~ -- •_ - - s- 6.03.01 General • The general submission is the first formal stage of review for • planned unit developments and subdivisions and the only review ,'phase for building permit reviews, special review uses, and re- _ zonings. The applicant shall file an application with the Plan~iinq ~_ - ~Ofi<ice in accordance with requirements set forth below. . 6.03.02 Submission Contents shall include the following, where .applicable, submitted in accordance with general submission drawings and -• ~ report requirements (Section 6.03.03): : ~ ' lq: Application Fora - ,- =. b. bisclosure of Ownership • The applicar must pi vide _a^certificate from a licensed_*itle • nsuraRC.~.~..• nan _ attorney, which certificate shall set .• forth the names and addresses of all owners of the property including all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts, _ and agreements of record in the county which shall affect the • title to such property, and which certificate shall reflect that there is an established easement at least 30 feet in width • for ingress and egress and utilities to the property from a public road. Additionally, the applicant shall provide evidence • establishing his interest and right to use the property. Further, the names and addresses of all adjacent land owners shall be supplied, including those separated from the property by a public road or right-of-way. Property lines shall be shown on a map. • \c. A vicinity-top9graphy_map (which may be a U.S.G.S. 1" = 2000'. scale) shall locate the~roperty to surro_undinq areas and • shall indicate major land uses such as commercial, residential types, parks, public facilities, roads and other•significant natural and man-made features; subdivision boundaries; zone, tax•and other special district boundaries, for at least one- half mile on all sides of the property. .` •.. A map or maps (submit 2 copies of each, plus additional copies necessary for referral agencies) showing, where applicable: • ~. ...~.w ~~~ ~~ t~~ • • .I ;., ; •_ . • a- •- . ' i t .• • 6.03.02 d-c • ~ '• ~~ A cenca~~tual dr~~.r{nn of t}fie lit nnA s~tro~t ls~ynut indicating the aNProxim~tc ac•ca of inclivivual lots and access to the proE~erty. The ~~rovisions made for adequate off-street parking (indicate total number of sp<zces) and school bus stops (to be approved by the school district). For special review uses, re- .. • zonings or building permit.review s)ivw proposed • structure or use placement on the lot. 2. S~nificant natur ~.,Ecatu~ces,.~f the site including • .streams, lakes, natural drainage lines,~vegetation .type and other similar features (reference maps of ~• Colorado •State~University, Envirorunental Resources Analysis). • 3. Zone district boundaries and bou ~aries pf anv areas• . ~ s •.z _e_ anu local interest adopted in Section 5 . (Part 9) of this Code. - . 4. Man made features such as existing buildings, irriga- tion ditches, utility lines and easements, bridges, " •~ culverts, drainage and sedimentation systems, mines, • or mine dumps: -- 5.•.General land use divis_io_n into residential types, •commerciaY,'lndustrial, community facilities, and open space including proposed boundaries of public use or common areas, noting any trails or parks to be dedicated to L•he public (P.eference.Aspen Area Trail •~ ~ System Map), total number of dwelling units, and total square feet of non-residential space. 6. Type and layni~~f water •sunolY and sewage ~.~catment ` sr tsm,,..prvpaseti. .. . ro saLcorspl.ies~n-ith, ~~,. Srufficicnt information to show that-th~~ _.Q° the policies (Section 2) and general regulations (Section S) _ ~~- - of this Code, and any other applicable state and local-laws. • The applicant shall show evidence of having considered the applicability of all policies of this Code (for reference see Section 2 or Summary of Findings Reo` iced attach^c~_'~o the application) acid through written documentary or map submission show the conformity of the proposal with each•policy or non- applicability of the policy to the proposal. Appropriate ' submission contents for each policy 'may be found.in the • relevant regulations of Section 5. • ti : • . ~ COUNTY TREgSURER 0 D ~ ._. MAY 101982 : PITKIN COUNTY ~pl,;pRADO 81611 ~{ 4'7500 ~ P r ~~ No. County Treasurer's Office, Pitkin County, Colo. Aspen, Colo. -r" ` ~' 19~Z~ ~ - `" `~ ~.~,~-e-,,,.-Z~t_ .~~z.-ri ~ "'~''~~ ~ - .DOLLARS Account of Credit to Fund. Treasurer $y -f- .Deputy THE C. E. MOECN EL C~.. DENVEN t / • ~ r~ .ri ,., f ~• NRADFORO -ueuaNiNC co., oeNVlR R E C O R D O F P R O C E E D I N G S BOARD OF ADJUSTPdENT May 25, 1982 Members Present: Bill ~dason, Chairman Dottie Fox Joe Zanin Clark Smyth Alternates: Bob Throm Bill Lukes Evan Gull Kandi Shaffran Meeting was called to order by Bill r~Iason, 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. :vlason 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 meetinP. '.Zason stated that the variance request could not be heard this evening due to the fact there was a lack of information available. IIe 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 5 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' frontyard 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 Blass for a greenhouse underneath. i9hen 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 reulated 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. "Mason 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 dowtizoning, 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 S/D, Highway 133, Carbondale, 82-8 requesting a 50 foot frontyard 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. t~hich left Vogel with the section of property which would put him within his setbacl~s. He stated that originally- the property was unzoned. Iie pointed out a natural drainage ditch which he wanted to stay away from. I~iason stated that he had discussed the situation with Newbury and that the Buildin;; Department was aware of all the • BRADFORD /UBLIBHING CO., DENVER R E C O R D O F P R O C E E D I N G S Page 2 ~ Boar.d of Adjustment May 25, 1982 ditches on the property and she felt that this was the only buildable area on the property. Iie 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, T.iason stated that there was no objections from the adjacent property owners. Fox motioned that the variance be granted for 47.5 foot frontyard 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. P.4ason stated that the existing building was built prior to the 200 foot setback now in effect. ~riason 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. cull stated that a variance would be necessary from the 200 foot frontyard setback and also the sideyard. setback. The application had to get a special review from P,i 7, because it was a no ncon- 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 broutht into effect. Throm verified that the 200 foot setback was a downzoning. lIe 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. Iiandi Shaffran second the motion. Vote was called for, all in favor, .~ • • ORADFORD rUBL.iSNING CO., DCNVCR R E C O R D O F P R O C E E D I N G S Page 3 Board of Adjustment May 25, 1982 Stuart B. Duncan, 1246 Gateway Rd,, Lot 19; Block 1, Filing 1 Gateway of Snowmass ti4esa S/D 82-10 requesting an 80 foot frontyard 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. fie 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. 1~4ason 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 frontyard 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. Kerb Paddock and Vassar 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 the 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. Luker 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. Vassar Sedaghi stated to the Board that without the variance the building wou]_d 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 parlcinm.. Sedaghi explained that if the stairs go in the 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, pukes suggested there was another solution even thour•h it was not as comfortable for the owner. Smyth agreed that there was other ways of doing it. ~ epADFOHD -UOl.lBNING CO., DENVEq ~ R E C O R D O F P R O C E E D I N G S Page 4 Board of Adjustment A2ay 25, 1952 Smyth stated that if the building was new there might be a chance of granting the variance. Seda~;hi suggested that since the building was already there, that could be used as a hardship. ",4ason enter- tained a motion to either grant or deny the variance request. Kandi Shaffran moved 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. P~Ieeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, n ~ -f Y1 c,u~ ~~ 1 Secretary ~ Chairman ~l0 4'750 County Treasurer's Office, Pitkin County, Colo. _z - , c Aspen, Colo., ,, of ft ~.Rrr~ive~ ~>> ~` ;'i' /~, Account of ` Fund. Credit to y ~` g U' ~ - 19~2~ DOLLARS ~ Treasurer .Deputy I THE C. F. NOECK EL CD.. DENVER LARGE PLAT(S) AVAILABLE TO VIEW AT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AVAILABLE TO BUY AT CLERK & RECORDER