Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.82.12• A,Pf ~l',t. ~0 f:Q„ng Of" ,'tDJ~.iS7t~1Ei1T . County of Pitf;in U•a to i"i,.~' %/ ~ ~ ~2 kpplica~rt , ~~~ ~-~-!/~,c Location of F;operty `J/~/ ~~`~~-_ {AttacheC) Jtny pertiner-~~ data must accompany this ap,lication, and wi11 be made a ,part of this Case too. ~`fhe 3oard may return this application if it does not contain all the facts in question. 9';ppl icanr's description or proposed variance shoY;ing justification: ~ _ ~~~C ice' r~c-c ~: y,_-~-rte «!s~1-c-- T~~- ,-r/-~~~ --S''~i"'=?'``',9J ~''~ - ,~f< - .~'l<~-,rte,/ ~,~ /~ T -~"- . .r ' ~ ~~ dam= •.E-,. /~' . ~~`/r~_ %s ~~~.~-- ~~ ~; _ ~ ~ ~-,~ ~~i~~~-s=ue,-. ~,,/~,~: • ,e~'>~ ~~ ~}'"`~'~. ice' ,~~~~:~..~ ~~~~~' ~, ~~ ~'> ~~~~ ~,~'~~; - ~~~ ..;~ :Ll • ,,~4~c-~12-'/ ,~ ./mil ~~1~~'.~.~ p ~ ~' . A p1 i cant Si c~nature ~~ %~;l'~ Pro:~isior„ of the _~on;:S resolution reyuiri;ry the Building. Inspector to for~•rard this . appli~c%/anon to the Board~of Adjustment and/ reas-on/, for not. granting /a bu/r~l~~S~~{`ing peermit: ._/ ''l~eJ ~-2~~ ~~ ~i.- off/ y~~~.-E' L~~' ~ vZ L''~.Cc-~ ~tJ ~2. L-i~t t..:~ EL''i / ~i!z~ ~ ~%-L C~C.~ 2 L~ . v ~ (/ ~' Building InsN. natur ~~ / ~ Date p°rmit rejected: Board Decision / ~,~ Replication Filed: t~ta 71 ed Date: i Secretary, Goa rd ofi Adjustrnertt ~ . .,; . •. Case ~ ~,Z..' l2_ Address ~~~' ~~ /~ ~~ ~~ Address i~''~>, ,~~ ~ ~,~~~-~, . .. ~~~~o ` ~,~ ~~ -~~~„ ,,~G`- ~ ` //. Sim ~~~--' ~~ ~7~j<a.!"i~-~-:~~: __._ ~~3~ , ~~ .---- ~; J ~/ / `2~~T` ~, ..~ ~) - _. . , ar ' '~ - • ,, J ~1 '" • ~ .. "''7 r' ~~ .l f r-` 1 i. /~ / / 7- /~•+ _ • \ (~ Ci ~ I r~~ 1.J J. f ~J~J L` EfV F' it 'r C C "? J '~ - ~,^~ 1601 SGUTH FECE.Rr<L BL VC. ~.:.~, ~;~ DF,NVER, COL CRACO BC~i 9 f ~ ~- TEL FFNONE ~ 63 °22-~ T-: 4 ~~. r :.. 2 ~ .. r~~ C_ see C•~~ _% ~ . ~'C.-=.:~ r ~5,= /'VE'NT ~G ~~;L C~S7~~ _~ ~.c. CCr2. SAC. _= G ~ - ~ .~ " /7 ~ ~ i /~' Jam" ~ i L r I ~ ~~ ~ . :~ .,~ ,~ ~ ~ '. ; ~ t ~ .. - ,~•• ^ " r ~~~ ..._ ~- rr ~. ~, ~ r ~ ~ ~ ti /' ~~ ~.i L.= ~~~',s,~ -~ ~ Lam' ~ ` ~ J ~` / ~ ` I• ~ , r r , 11 .. . ., ` / t ~ V ~ ~ i / ;/ i _1- o ~_~; , / ~., No. 4'7654 ~ ~~ County Treasurer's Office, Pitkin County, Colo. Aspen, Colo. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 19 ~ ~- J~~~~tC..l T L ~~P ltl~~ ~~ ~ ~ ---~`' DOLLARS ~) . - Account ot- bd o4- ~-~ d i . Credit to .Fund. l ~Cc -- (c33 I~ ~~ ` ~ Cass ~,- } By `I X ~ TNF C. F NO ECK EL C~. DENVER COUNTY TREASUREr. o ~~ x ,1 ~~~~ ~~ 5~ MAY 14 1982 ~ '1 ~~~' P~r-c,v couNrr ~n~ co~ow~oo ai6u Treasurer Deputy ~~ BRADFORD PURLIB HING CO., DENVCR RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD OF ADJUSTP~ZLNT May 25, 1982 Members Present: Alternates Bill A4ason, Chairman Dottie Fox Joe Zanin Clark Smyth Bob Throm Bill Lukes Evan Gull Kandi Shaffran Meeting was called to order by Bill rdason, 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 meeting, `.4ason 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 glass for a greenhouse underneath. ~Yhen 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, rvlason 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. "7ason 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 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. C~hich left Vogel with the section of property which would put him within his setbacks. Iie stated that originally the property was unzoned. FIe pointed out a natural drai.na~;e ditch which he wanted to stay away from. Mason stated that he had discussed the situation with PJewbury and that the Building Department was aware of all the • •RADFORD PUOLIBHING CO., DENVER R E C O R D O F P R O C E E D I N G S 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 sid2. 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, r,4ason 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. Mason stated that the existing building was built prior to the 200 foot setback now in effect, ..^,4ason 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, . frontyard setback and also the sideyard setback, The application had to get a special review from P,i I, because it was a noncon- 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 brout ht into effect, Throm verified that the 200 foot setback was a downzonin lle was told that was correct. Throm motioned to approve the variances as a downzonin; matter on the front and a topographical hardship on the sideyard, Iiandi Shaffran second the motion. Vote was called i'or. all in favor. ~ , lRADFORD PURLIBHIHG CO., DCHVCR 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 Mesa 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. 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-l, 114ason 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. llerb Paddock ~.nd 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 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, Lukes questioned what the hardship was. Paddock stated that there was not really a hardship, ho~~~ever, 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 woulcl 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 parkinm,. Sedaghi explained that i.f 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. Lukes suggested there was another solution even thot.igh it was not as comf'ortabl.e for the owner. Smyth agreed that there was other ways of doing it. ~ ~ BRADFORD FUBLI9HIN6 CO.. DENVER ~ ~ R E C O R D O F P R O C E E D I N G S Page 4 Board of Adjustment H4ay 25, 182 Smyth stated that if the building was new there might be a chance of granting the variance, Sedaghi 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 app]_ication 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. PQeeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Secretary _ ~j ~' `rte c~.o r/,, ti Chairman No 4'7654 County Treasurer's Office, Pitkin County, Colo. ~ f ~ Z -~~ 19-- . Aspen, Colo. ~, v_ ~hJ~~~ ~\~ ~~1~~ ~~ ~ ~ - .~ _ _ _ . DOLLARS i Account o ^ L -~~~i 1 Credit t~ ~.QI~, .J - Fund. By ~I `~ Treasurer T~eputy THE C. F. HOECK EL C~. DEvV ER LARGE PLAT(S) AVAILABLE TO VIEW AT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AVAILABLE TO BUY AT CLERK & RECORDER