HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.82.15a~
DOttle FOX ir'UV~ i.ht.it' l}~n Jullo~9~r~r{ }v_~ .;(ioJ~tcr,~
IiI;I'OkI~. TiIE LJhlzli.0i~' ?YDJU~'".T'P.L;'~1'%
OI' `1'Iir COU;ITS' OP I'ITF;I:N
STA'1'I: 07' COLORI?DO
Rl.sci,vTloN No. 82-15
Richard/Julie Lindner, Lots 8 & 9, Block 19, Roverside Add.
L<iIIERrT.~, t}ro subject I~ropetty is c.~ithin the unincorporated area of: Pi.t'~cil:
County, Colorado; and,
YIIii:ItT'I:S, the Roard of_ Adjustment is eested with the Hower to grant or deny
st~rh variances by virtue of Title I:i, ec'~ion 16-1.3, Pitkirr County Co~~xe
(J -ind lise Code) and Colorado Fwised Statutes, 15+73, 3~J-7.~;--11: (21 (C) ; ,-~r;,l;
WIii;IZrA:', based otin t.h.e evidence presented, the Board of Adjustmer,~ m:k~s the
folloi~:ing findings:
1. Proper notice procedures, including the notification of all adjorning
property owners, has beer_ shown by the applicant.
2. The required hardship or practical difficulty has been estab]_ished.
3. Grar~tinR such relief will not cause substa~~tial detriment to tiie
public welfare and will not substantially i~np~.ir the irtEnt «rd
purpose of the Zoning Resolutions and the zoning maps.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that- the applicant `s ~s'eaues+~ {`or a
26.5 frontyard setback variance for construction of a garage and a
l~c'~cz-0.~~orf~le~or~~~~~ns ~riancteict°ion~assive solar entryway and "direct gain"
passive solar system on south side of house.
~•7AF:NING: Any violation of the terms of this resolution may result in reh~arirg
and possible revocation.
Joe Zanin seconded the adoption of the ioregoiYlg Resolution. The ro1.l
havin~l been called, the vote was as follows:
Bill Mason - yes
Dottie Fox - yes
Clark Smyth - yes
Paul Krausch -- yes
Joe Zanin -yes
The Resolution was adopted by vote of the I3oar.d of Adjustment o{ the: County
of Pitkin, State of Colorado.
UATI.D: June 29, 1982
The Pozrd of. ?~d•iustment of F'itkin
County, Cal~rado
Attest:
~_
Sc>cratlr' -
Chcai.z-marr
~t'PI:/`,!. 1~0 i:?lli?B C'r" i~,GJUS7t'iFt17
' ~ ~ County of Pitt;in ~ ~• ~ '
'Late ~~.a~~ 2' i~ , ~ •.
Case N n'~ - 1
Anpl ican~~ .,;ichard ~. ..~. ~uli~ ~ . windier ~,udres UJ37 i~:G,aK1:~lmin~~ i{d.
Corner
s a.me
location of Property
Address same
pots ~ c; g, Lloc~~ 19, ~tiuerside ~ddit'ion
(Attached)
Any pertinnn~ data must accompany this application, and will be made a ,part of this
Case too. __` _~ ,.
'the 3oard may return this application if it does not contain all t};e facts in question.
Appiicar,r.~s de_cription or pro~:osed variance sho~;ing j~.~stif?cation:
'Phis variar:ce is requested for twc reasons: .
(1 j I'o al-low i~uilding of a ~~r•o~osed three-car araLe ire .
~rorit of, and attached to, the exis~;:ing house, vrhic~r).
would encroach into the front ~'e'toac:k a distance of
three ar~d a half feet . ~ -
(2 ~`.~'o allow buildin;~; of a Mass-enclosE;d .~~assive solar
entryv.~a.y aior,.U.~the Sutzth side of . r~ro~~osed y;ara~e, • which
~.~~ou7_d ,~ ns'uz^e more efficient heat retention: and solve the
•r.,rob i-em of the roof r;itch which: crates a hazard iaZ the
~ ~ ',vi~ter due to ?.ce wild-u.~ caused ~~y melt~i :z snow c~ri~~~xiin~
~_
- - off th~~ rcof directly onto) the ~:resen~ e.~try stairvva.y.' .
. ~ . ~- .
~ . Appi i cant S. mature ~,~,, ~ ~~-~_~-~;,~~
Fro:~isior,s of the ~on:ng resolution reuuirir,y the Bui3ding'Inspector to fcn'~ard this
. applicatioa to the 5oard of Adjustnent and •easo fo~~ not crantirsg a building pgrry~it::
-~
Sze ' ~ .~.~~c w'Q.J u~~' ~ /~~zG~' -~,C~~.~Li.c ~ uL'~u,-E~ / k
L/ y~~~ ._ s yy~ 7 -_~~U Lrlu:; _-Cu-~~LE'.~'".G~' ~1~l.',~~~LL'G~-. ~i"~--.',,~ // ~
~._~~ ~lL..u S1 L Y~-L' ~.. +;~ t ~/`' (. , .-L N- /~ ~ l ' ' ' ~ . ~~ `.i' G C..•L C. ,
• _ :~~t ~~Z'-`~~~-, ~~ $uiiding Insi.. SigRaturz~ ~~~i `~% 1,:.:~~.~,~1
Date permit rejected: ~ - - ~ ~ ~--~ .
,Board Decision
Application Filed: ~ ~-~ Date•
FSaiied:
Secretary, Eioard of Acijustn~ent
:~Lc7Ai.=,iiT t{l;t'~.`Z~L' lic'~Ii a':{;~
' '~L'err~t' ': i~0'Oer'ta :.i000Ar1C1"i, ~7~5 i'-• ~urlin;, i:Y11Ca~;0, y11inU1S bUu14
J`UidA`~J~.Y, rilliam ~. , I- . U. ~3ox .~, ~s•>en, C'olorado ?1b21
harry i.i. :iC cJaYlet ~,.. "rede2'iC~~,t'.U. :-iOX 1.UOG~, S?JP.:i, t/GlOra!~O :~1tJ~ 2
i`:ar~aret _,. ,.anon, l:;ox ~O~Y~; ~sy,en, ~~~olorado `2012
:i
:
Da t C '
'ApPlic~,nL ..~. , ~. ..
O~me r
.,;erne
Location of Property
CGU~IIy ~7 t' i' 3 l'r;;,'1
~~
Case }1
.: h:.~: 1:.1;.1 ,l. .
Address :.,;.r,:F~
_ ~'~LOrI
~~ttdCflC(i~
My pertin~n~ data ;gust ar_company this application and gill be rnad~ a ,part of this
Case t;o.
The 2oard~r*~y return. this application ir" it does not con~ain all ti;e r'act~ in u
- kpplicanr. s c~~~ription or" proposed variance shc;,in ;~ ~.• `~ g e~tio;;.
g ,,.~stif;ca,,~on:.
. ~ ~i'his variance iU re~~uested for t~,~~c reasons
(1) To allow i~uil;din~ of a :~ronosed three-car ~ara~e in
frorit of, and attached to, tr?e existine; house, vrhic:~.
` vrould e croaciz into the front ~e'tback a distance of
three an,1 a half feet: ~ ~ ~ •
(2) ''i'o alloz~r buildir.~; of a glass-enclosed passive solar
• entryvray aion,~ t:ne suuth side of . ~,ronosed ~~ara;e, • :vhich
~.vould ,ins'ure more efficient heat retention: and solve ti:e
problem of the roof pitch which: c.:^Eates a hazard in the
~ vrinter due to ice build-up caused by melti~.L~ ~•^nyy riri~~r,in=;
- off th~~ rooms directly onto the i:resen~G "e:ntr;• stair,~ray.' .
(3) Add "direst gain" passive solar systemy fo» .thermal .mass ~ .
. .storage ~_sauth~ side of •house .as .per attached Solar
• ~. Recommendation ,,#1 by Sunrise Solar Desi Assistance •
. - Company. ~ •
• ~ .~ ~..
.Applicant Si cnsture ~ ~ - ~ ~ •
• Pro:•ision; o. the zcn:ng resolution reyuirii~y the Bui7d;ng~~In,pootor to fcr~,~rard this
applicatiorzlto the Board or" adjustment and reason for not Granting ~: building per•nzit:
Buildin Ins,. Sigfzature •
Date perrzi t rejocted: Eioard Decision
f~p~lication Filed: Date•
l~Sailed:
SccrcL~~ry, Gojrd of Adjustment
• 't'erry .~~ c?oberta Uoodrich 2 t
/,,; ~, ~ 2 ~5 1~. Jurl.in~,, Chicr~..~-~o, illinoi~~ ;;Oc~14
',t~.~~•ii, ',Viilia:~ a., I . i.'. :.>o:: ,::, ;t:;re.z, L''olora~io ~l~ll
I,arr;• :.. :: ~aiict ~. Frederic':, r .~. ..;ox 1~~UU5, nsf;•~n, Colorado r,lcil2
•~.a"Taret ~;. ic.£ic;un, pox .,0!~,1~,. ~:~,~cn ~ '~ -,
• .;oyorado ~lbl~.
•
~~
COI AR DESIr,v <~ .A5515rANCE
COMPANY
June 9, 1982
Rick and Julie Lindner
c/o Aspen Realty
Box 2191
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear 13ick and Julie:
As you requested, I have reviewed your house plans and site drawing for the purpose of
recommending how passive solar features can most effectively be added.
From our discussion, I know that you are fully aware that improved energy
conservation, such as furnace efficiency and moueable insulation for glass areas, is a
first priority which should be pursued in addition to passive solar. With this in mind, I
am proposing an aggressive passive solar strategy which can be very effective in your
cold, "sunny" climate.
If you desire additional design assistance beyond the following conceptual information,
computer simulatidns can be performed to quantify the unproved performance you
might expect from these modifications.
DIRECT GAIN
The simplest and most "direct" approach to passive solar is Direct Gain. With this
approach, the warm winter sun is admitted through windows or skylights "directly" into
the interior of your home. South glass is by far the best, but note that east and west
glass receives 50°'o as much as south glass. Make use of east and west sun in winter,
but watch out for the unwanted heat in summer.
In a direct gain home, you should add mass materials like brick and stone if the total
area of south facing glass exceeds 6~:b of the floor area of the room the glass is in. As
you can see, that's little more than you have now; so you should add mass, and that's
not too easy.
,,,,.,
1114 E. JAMISON PL. • LITTLETON, COLORADO 80122 • 303/794-8520
•
Rick and Julie ~indnQr
June 9, 1982
Page Two
Recommendation #1 (see Illustrations 1 and 2)
•
Add eight (8) to ten (10) feet to the entire south end of your house. The structural
support for the floor should be designed to support two (2) to three (3) inches of
concrete covered with some type of tile. This concrete and the could add as much as
260 square feet of thermal mass storage to the main living area of your home.
On the lower level, create light wells which can get south winter sun down into your
lower level. Use tiles on the concrete floor and insulate the outside of the new
foundation wall with two (2) inches of styrofoam. Stucco the inside of the wall. This
will leave the wall and~floor available as thermal mass.
Recommendation #2
The most effective way to heat a room with the sun is to let the sun shine directly into
it, as I've stated above. But if you want to go farther, you could also add a sunspace or
greenhouse. This could be added to the south side of your house or along; the south side
of your garage, as we had discussed.
In either case, you should be able to close the sunspace off at night from the rest of
the house.
The sunspace along the south side of your garage could serve both as an air lock entry
and as a "walk-in hot air collector." It would be shaded partially in the morning, but
would still receive enough sun to help heat your house. You should not add thermal
mass, brick walls and the like to this sunspace. You don't want to store heat out there.
You should move the warm air which accumulates by fan into the main part of your
house.
If you move the stairs into this sunspace, as we discussed, the door at the top of the
stairs would facilitate the movement of warm air without a fan by natural convection
(see Illustrations 1 and 3).
Well, this gives you a couple of alternatives or combinations to consider. Let me know
what you decide and if I can be of further assistance.
Since y,
Bruce C. Bt a ~i
President
SUNRISE
A-~+r-~ K,,~~ : ~ ~ u us-r~~-n~,S, i~ z~ 3
~~sc„ut
~,,. `a ~.,,,~-.
..J
•
SOLAR DESIGN & ,aS515TANCE
COMPANY
RESUME
~~
Bruce C. Baccei
1114 East Jamison Place
Littleton, Colorado 80122
(303) 794-8520
SUNRISE
Bruce Baccei is President of SUNRISE-Solar Design & Assistance
Company. The company specializes in energy conservation and
passive solar design for a wide range of building types and
sizes. As the name implies the company also provides Education
' .and technical assistance services to builder/developers,
lenders, realtors, architects, engineers, and other interested
groups.
Baccei and his staff maintain a valuable balance between
practice and theory through their dual involvement in actual
design and construction projects and in teaching, education,
and consulting. The building projects give them first hand
information on the problems and opportunities which are brought
to 'light by actual field applications. The teaching/technical
assistance activities enable them to remain current with the
latest technical developments in their field.
PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE
For three and one half years Baccei was a group manager at
the Solar Energy Research Institute (SERI) where he headed
a staff of eight to twelve and two notably successful DOE/SERI
programs. The Passive Solar Manufactured Buildings Program,
a nationwide program,, assisted twenty-three of the United
State's leading building manufacturers in. their efforts to
design, construct, and test prototype passive solar buildings.
~ • s rw ~> >~ ~~
~~ ~ .. ~
1114 E. ~An11SON Pl. • UTTEETON. (:OLORADO 8012 • 303%794-8520
• •
These twenty-three manufacturers produce mobile, modular,
panelized, pre-cut, metal, and pre-cast concrete buildings
for residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural
uses. The participating manufacturers included six of the
twenty-five largest home producers in the United States and
the nation's largest producer of metal buildings, 'Butler.'
The second program under his management was the Solar Home
Builders Program. This program was acclaimed by many as the
most effective and efficient program conducted by the Depart-
ment of Energy. The program assisted thirteen Denver area
home builders in designing, constructing, marketing, and
testing passive solar homes. The program was conducted with
unprecedented speed. It moved from announcement of a com-
petitive selection, to receipt of proposals, to award of
contracts all in six weeks. right months later twelve passive
solar homes were open to the p~:blic for a sixteen day period.
During that Passive Solar Tour of Homes 100,000 people went
through those twelve houses.
The key to this ~pragram's success was a si:Aipl~ified contract and
:simplified management.
Prior to SERI, Baccei was in the Army for eleven years, where
he gained valuable experience working with people - leadership..
He attained the rank of Major. His last two assignments were
r
at the Corps of Engineers District Office in Norfolk, Virginia
and at the United States Military Academy at West Point,
New York.
In Norfolk he designed passive solar buildings for Army
Reserve training, a thirty-five building complex at Fort
Pickett and a weekend training center in Churchland, Virginia..
At West Point, Baccei was an Associate Professor, organizing
and teaching courses to cadets in the areas of computer
applications (FORTRAN and computer graphics) and architec-
tural design.
.~ • •
Earlier gears in r_he Army included experience as a company
commander in Vietnam and a platoon leader at sort Carson.
PUBLICATIONS
o Energy Conscious Design, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Norfolk, District, pamphlet, 1977.
o "Mass Producing Low-cost Passive Solar Buildings",
Solar Age, December 1979.
o "Denver Metro Home Builders Program",
Proceedings of the Sth National Passive Solar Conference,
American Section of ISES. October 1980.
o "Marketing Magic", Solar Aye, January 1981.
.,
o "Moving Energy Conserving Design Into the U.S. Buildings
Industry", Proceedings of IEA Conference, BerJ_in,
Germany, April 1981.
o "Passive Solar Energy:Climate Adaptive Architecture"
Presented at Solar Energy for the Caribbean,
Kingston, Jamaica, July 1981.
o "Passive Solar Energy: Climate Adaptive Architecture"
Presented at Enersol, Sao Paulo, Brazil, September 1981
Buenos Aires, Argentina, September 1981.
:o "A Solar Explosion", Presented at the AS/ISES Sixth
National Passive Solar Conference, Portland, Oregon,
September, 1981.
o "Climate Adaptive Architecture", URJA
y (Indian Journal of Energy), December 1981.
EDUCATION
Master of Architecture, University of Oregon, 1973
Bachelor of Science, United States Military Academy, 1967
PERSONAL
Born in Woodland, California, 10 September 1945
Married, four children
Enjoys: Sailing, handball, skiing, and solar architecture
,ti , „
• ~ •
^~
-ai
.. ~.
. !- ~ ~
,'
~_i
. ~
____ `• `
r
"-. ~ - + •t
I
1
•
~~
.. ., ~,
~~ ~
~ j
t
~.'
~ j ~ ~ ,, , ._ ~ ,....e,,.,, ~}
T ~ ~"
~ ~ r~
t ~ A ~; ~
8 ~;~
~,
E ~.. R. I' ,. .s.
-- - t ,_
i /r t i~ ~
'~s.:~t t
r
~, \
'.~"
( +~ .. r~
~, ..E~. ..~,' _ y~(..
b ,Y~ aMe- ~RF • 3
~~. .~
o: ~:"',..,, ,
-- - ~i
W
,~ ~ _ . r
,, ,. , , ..,~ ~, ~ r,
----• J ~. „.. ..
. .. ... ..
~ l.C.~S-t-~aT~aK z .
~' ~~,
~~~~.``r'''~'~''
'7;'r".~' a _ .
.,
_, ~
w ~
1 w...
.~ j
. ~ , :
~
p
n ! ~ ~ Cr..u~ r s :sue.
~-'~ f .. ~° ~ d~..ACae.
~~ ! ~ ~ " '.
. _ ~»~
~...,~~,. ~ U
u Wi
•
~w'F
e
~~a
r'+
~,, '~~
,z ~
~~
~g
i
~M1L
/ -n
fL~ ~ I
Y p/' ...
~'
~r }
t i
6 ~~
s
`ti L
~~I., t7
~t~
//I.p ...,r 1d ~. ~.~i ,IIII IV II Ir i II
~II~16 nr1~ u. ,Ills ilrl Iil ~~I I u. o
.r ,
r J~
.r Ir..~, I. II .iliI, IJili~:~
~~
11 l a ,.I _.u.ENlllll IIII I. I K at1_
~i~' ~ ~ ~. , r Li dl r r
I~
. +~~
~~
f~
~a.,~.
~~`
~'t
~~
L 111 t
ia~.
'- J
"...n. N
•.~~ •~.
~~
f `:.
c~ ! .
R
r ,p.: -;ia. I r.n ain ~~~.~~.il~~.~ i~rr JIiIIImI, ...i ,F. III ~_
I I u... r.. I.~Ir I I Iii
4 ..r ~ ,~~
S ~q
'~.II/~.rl.wi ala~lY~Ze.1 'J I^' , i "' ?i )h/ .-. ...
_.. ,I~„ - •'._+su~fy: .4~. -w.!'9.:M'L.'4V+J'uY.351., .a': :.. .. -.u.'.lc'.nnY S'.: n.. Ak...
.. _ .. ..,I'A:s.cl ~~'s.LA."e.'.. ~t'2'L.,~u..'1.:. '.6.Y.J!•.'d
~~ I ~ ~ _~~
f .~"`swli~.
^RADIORD rU6L18NIN0 CO., DENVER R E C O R D O F P R O C E E D I N G S
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
June 29, 1982
Members Present: Bill Mason, Chairman
Dottie Fax
Paul Krausch
Joe Zanin
Clark Smyth
Alternates: Bill Lukes
Bob Throm
Kandi Shaffran
The meeting was called to order by Bill Mason, Chairman, in the
Commissioners Room. Due to the election being held that evening
regarding the jail issue, the Board could not use this room. Mason
requested that someone recess the meeting to re-convene in the
City Council Chambers. Fox so moved. Krausch second the motion.
The meeting recessed to move into tl~e Chambers.
The meeting was re-opened for the regular Board of Adjustment for
June 29, 1982, in the City Council Chambers.
Martin Horowitz, Block 7, Lot 8, Brush Creek S/D 82-12
requesting a 65' frontyard setback variance for construction of
garage. P.4r. Horowitz, or a representative for Mr. Horowitz, was
not there. The case was placed last to see if anyone would show
up.
Richard Cashman, Lot 14, Orchard Estates 82-13
requesting a 50' frontyard setback variance and a lU' sideyard
setback variance to construct a garage/workshop and a variance for
a roof structure. John Huish was there representing Mr. Cashman.
Mason requested that the regular members vote, but wanted input from
the alternate members. Mr. Huish explained that the variance
requested is two-fold, (1) the variance on the sideyard to the east
of the existing residence is 10', which would give them a setback
of 20' in an area where 30' is required. The area was downzoned from
20' to 30', and with the existing facilities at the rear of the
property now, the variance would make it possible to add the garage/
workshop. (2) The frontyard setback variance requested would ,~
allow for the construction of a covering over the existing entry
way and drive, and also the construction of a proposed storm entry
on the north of the residence. He pointed out the entrance of the
residence on the plot plan. He stated that in the winter the owner
is plagued with snow and ice.
Mason questioned Newbury if there was a zoning change with the front
setback. Newbury replied that the front setback was originally 75'
setback. Mason stated that under the original zoning the applicant
would only need 25' setback variance. Fox questioned about the topo
of the lot. Huish answered that it was basically flat. Fox then
questioned if there was any other place to build the garage/workshop.
Huish stated that it would be desirable to attach it to the house.
The owner wants to keep it as close to the house as possible.
Mason stated that he didn't have any problem with the garage addition
because it falls within the original setback. He felt that there
was no case of downzoning for the 50' frontyard setback variance
because even at the original zoning for the property it would still
need a 25' frontyard setback,variance, Fox questioned if the owner
LJ
SRADIORD -UBLIeNING CO., DENVlR R E C O R D O F P R O C E E D I N G S
June 29, 1982 Board of Adjustment Page 2
would drive in from Apple Way to the garage. Huish replied that
that was correct and there would be a new driveway off of Apple
Way to the garage. Mason questioned if there was a sign posted.
Huish replied that there was. Throm questioned the size of the
driveway. Huish stated that it was 15' to 20' gravel. Krausch
asked for the dimensions for the garage/workshop. Huishlstated
that the garage/workshop would be approximately 27' wide x
55' long. Krausch verified that a 10' variance was necessary
for the garage. Krausch questioned how much of the 27' was garage
as opposed to how much is shop in the back. Huish explained that
the shop is at the extreme south end and the 27' allows for passage
from the house to the shop without having to climb over the cars.
Krausch questioned what would happen if the building was brought to
17' so as not to need a variance. Huish stated that that would be
unworkable. He stated that the owner owned a Cadillac and it would
not fit. The owner was requesting 3 stalls. Krausch wanted to know
what the proposed addition was. Huish stated that the house was
a terrible energy consumer and would like to put some space with
passive solar features. The proposed storm entry on the north side
is part of that energy improvement and at the extreme east end of
th~.t proposed addition would be another entry way with utility space.
Shaffran wanted to know if the access was going to change and if so
would that change be considered as their front. Newbury stated
that the driveway would still be on the other side and would be
considered duel fronts, but the original driveway was still considered
frontyard. Smyth wanted to know if the proposed addition would
need a variance also. Iiuish agreed that it would, but would be
possible to cut some space out of that and be able td stay within the
present setbacks. Smyth questioned if there was any objections from
the neighbors. Mason replied that there were no objections in the
file. Lukes questioned what the hardship involved was. Huish
replied that the garage space was necessary for the vehicles and
the increased use of the family for the sideyard variance, and the
frontyard variance is to improve the snow and ice situation in the
winter and the energy problem, Lukes wanted to know if there was
presently a garage on the west end of the residence. Huish replied
that there was. Mason wanted to know what that would be used for.
Huish replied it would be increased living space. Lukes suggested
that the present garage could have been added to and living space
been placed in another area, Huish stated that would have been more
difficult because of the way the house is framed and also due to
a new deck that was just added.
Smyth stated that he had trouble with the fact that the applicant
has a one acre flat lot and the garage would not be located some-
where else. Zanin stated that two years ago a request similar to
this was denied. Mason agreed and explained the situation to the
other members and the applicant. He stated that case was over the
previous zonin#;. Mason felt that if this request went over the
previous zoning it would have no hardship. He felt there was no
problem with the proposed garage, But the frontyard setback went
over the original zoning and he had a problem with that, Fox
suggested that he could have the airlock. I1~ason agreed, if the
applicant would stay within the original 75' setback, but that would
eliminate the shelter to drive under. Lukes stated that simply
because the lot has been downzoned does not mean the owner is entitled
to the variance. Krausch stated that he would feel inconsistent in
saying yes to this request after some of the requests that have been
turned down, He felt that there was plenty of space on lot to build.
Smyth suggested that there was another way of handling the desired
construction. Throm stated that he felt they were there to help any-
way they could where a hardship has been created. He stated that
he would vote for the airlock and proposed garage using downzoning
as the hardship. Mason agreed that the Board was usually granting
variances to help people out. Shaffran agreed that the Board does
^RADFORD rURL18HINC CO., DlNVCR R E C O R D O F P R O C E E D I N G S
June 29, 1982 Board of Adjustment Page 3
try to help with hardships, but the county had a reason to downzone,
and felt the downzoning hardship should be used when the setbacks
create a situation where nothing can be built. She felt, however,
if variances were granted just because they were downzoned, the
downzoning would have been rendered useless. Zanin motioned to
deny the variance due to lack of hardship. Krausch second the
motion. Vote was called for, All in favor. Motion seas denied.
Jack/Rita Ham, Snowmass Cottages, 9461 State Hwy 82 82-14
requesting a sign variance. Jack Ham and Jim Moran, his attorney,
was there to request the variance. Moran questioned what the compo-
sition of the Board for this case would be. Mason stated that Krausch,
Fox, Zanin, Smyth and Mason in case of a tie. Moran requested that
Fox excuse herself from consideration of this case on grounds that
during the preliminary hearing Fox was the complaining witness
and stated that it would make Moran and Ham more comfortable. Fox
questioned what would happen if she refused. Moran questioned Mason
what the public by-laws were concerning this. Mason did not know
of any. He stated that if there was any doubt in their own minds
they would excuse themselves. Fox Mated that she did not know what
conflict of interest she may have. Moran felt that with Fox as a
voting member the applicant will not get a fair hearing. Fox
stated that there were four other members voting who could vote against
her and she refused to excuse herself. Moran requested Mason to
excuse Fox from the case. Mason refused to do this. Moran then asked
the remaining members if his request offended any of them and would
create a bias opinion. The members expressed no problems.
Moran pointed out the plot plan that showed the cottages. He placed
three other plans on the wall that further explained the position
of the cottages, Moran stated that presently there was approximately
64 or 65 square feet of various signs at the location that was
very ineffective, The sign that the applicant wants to use is a
split face sign, in which one side would face each direction of the
road, reading Snowmass Cottages. The backs of the signs would
blend with the scenery and would not allow light through, The
applicant felt this type of sign was necessary for safety reasons.
The building codes states that the applicant is permitted to have a sign
and the applicant stated that he was within all requirements of the
code. Moran exhibited an aerial photo of the area, He felt placing
the sign in this manner would give people coming from downvalley a line
of site of about 200 or 300 feet which would allow reaction time. Also,
it was stated that there are some very nice trees in the area in
which the owner did not want to destroy as was previously suggested.
It was pointed out by Moran that Commissioner Childs has stated
that he was in favor of the split sign if it would save the trees.
Moran showed the Board the color chart indicating the earth tones
that would be used. Moran summed up his presentation by stating
that a variance for the sign was necessary and if the split sign was
not acceptable, the trees would be removed and one sign would be
placed there. Moran then showed some slides to the Board with regards
to the viewing coming to the cottages from both sides of the
Highway. Krausch was trying to relate the split signs with the ski
signs on the highway as you are coming to a ski area. Mason stated
that at the airport there are two signs and at the Airport Business
Center there are two signs. Fox stated that she had objected to
those also.
•
•
^RADFORD -UBLtiHiNO CO., D[NVCR R E C O R D O F P R O C E E D I N G S
June 29, 1982 Board of Adjustment Page 4
Luker questioned how the sign would be illuminated. Ham replied
that it was plastic, internally luminated by florescent tubes.
Luker asked if it would be similar to the old Plum Tree sign. Moran
was"not familiour with that sign. Mason pointed out how
dangerous the intersection at the cottages was. Krausch questioned,
if the patrol thought the sign was needed for safety reasons, why
something legal wasn't done. Ham replied that the reason is that it
isn't an incorporated village and that is what it takes to slow
the traffic down. Fox also mentioned that the state might do some
turn lanes to help the traffic situation. Moran wanted to remind
the Board that the fence marks the boundary between Mr. Ham's
property and the highway departments right-of-way and the sign
cannot be brought out between the highway and the fence. Slides
were shown with the other signs that are presently being used.
These signs would be taken down when the one split sign would be
placed up. Lukes expressed his opinion about the lighting of the
sign. He was against the use of lighting that is concealed within
the structure of the sign but regarding that a four practically
naked florescent tubes creating an ~.ncredibly bright and glarey
sign design which was not intended when the code was written.
Krausch requested an example from Lukes. Luker stated the
Plum Tree sign. Krausch wanted to know what he liked~.as a lighted
sign. Luker replied that indirect lighted signs such as the
Airport Business Center. Mason agreed, stating that he did not
approve of spot lights. Krausch questioned if Luker approved of
the Husky sign which is internally lighted, Luker said that that
was not an offensive sign. Moran assured the Board that the sign would
be lighted exactly as the code specified. Smyth felt that it was
a good idea to separate the faces on the sign. He motioned that per-
mission be granted to allow the sign with split sides. Fox argued
that there was other places for the sign even though she loved trees.
She felt that if you let one sign like that be erected, other
people will request such a sign and the Board will not have a leg
.to stand on. Fox felt that this would be weakening the sign code.
Krausch felt that with the split sign, one would only be exposed
to one sign on each direction. Krausch second the motion with the
clause, to make it clear for the record, that this was not a pre-
cedent for future requests to the Board. 147ason agreed stating that
the owner is entitle to a sign and since the owner is restricted by
the highway right-of-way and a split sign is the best solution, but
this does not set a precedent. Fox suggested that when the inter-
section is changed and made safer and a single sign is reasonable,
could the variance be conditioned to be changed, Smyth questioned
if the signs have to have an annual review. It was stated that they
do not. Lukes suggested that Smyth ammend his motion to assure that
the lighting is indirect. r.4ason felt they had to go with the code
requirements and would need to rely on the building department
to regulate it. Fox questioned Smyth if he would consider the
amendment for future consideration of the necessity of the sign.
Smyth did not have a problem with that. Krausch did have a problem
with Fox's suggestion and objected to it. Smyth reverted to his
original motion to grant the variance request, with the understanding
that this does not set a precedent. Krausch second the motion.
Vote was taken, four for and one against, Fox voting against.
•
•
•RADFORD rUBLIBHING CO., OlNVlR R E C O R D O F P R O C E E D I N G S
June 29, 1982 Board of Adjustment Page 5
Richard/Julie Lindner, Lots 8 & 9, Block 19, Riverside Addition 82-15
requesting a 26.5 frontyard setback variance for construction of a
garage and a floor area ratio variance for passive solar entryway.
Richard Lindner was there representing welf. Pdason stated that he
had visited the site and the sign was in place. Lindner explained
to the Board that additional information had been received from a
solar expert which explains the third request included in the floor
area ratiq variance request. He explained that the first request
is,to allow building of a proposed 3 car garage in front of, and
attached to, the existing house which would encroach into the front
setback a distance of 3.5 feet. The setback is now 30'. The second
request is to allow building of a glass enclosed passive solar
entryway along the south side of the proposed garage, This would
insure more efficient heat retention and solve the problem of roof
pitch which creates a hazard in the winter with ice/snow build up,
The third request would be the recommendation to add a direct gain
passive solar system for thermal mass heat storage on the south side
of the house made by the solar consultant as per the information given
the Board. Fox questioned how much setback would be necessary for
that. Lindner replied that that was not an issue of setback but an
issue of the F.A.R. He stated that this was explained best in
illustration #2 of the packet submitted to the Board. Krausch re-
quested that Lindner explain the illustrations. Lindner gave a
brief explanation of the situation. Newbury gave a brief description
of the property location. Fox wanted to know what the setbacks on
the side were. Newbury replied that it was 10'. Mason felt the
garage would not be so far out that it would interfere with plowing.
Fox stated it looked like this was the only place to build. Mason
pointed out that this was an undersized lot, Fox motioned that the
variance be granted due to the topographical hardship and the solar
consideration for the solar addition. Zanin second the motion,
Vote was called for. All in favor.
Mark Pushkis, Lot B-10, Redstone Ranch S/D 82-16
requesting a 55' frontyard setback to construct residence. Pushkis
was there to represent self. He explained that the frontyard would
be on the south side and the porch side of the house was on the west
side. It4ason questioned Newbury if this request would fall within
the intent of the original setbacks. Newbury replied that it would.
Smyth verified that this was a three sided lot and if stayed within
the present 100' setback there would not be a buildable area, He
was told that was correct. Fox wanted to know what the topography of
the land was. Pushkis told her it was basically flat. Krausch
motioned to grant the variance due to downzoning. Smyth second
the motion. A vote was called for. All in favor.
William/Patricia Gates, 4074 River Road, ~Uoody Creek 82-17
requesting a 70' frontyard setback variance for construction of
a shed. William Gates was there to represent self. Gates explained
that the shed could not be built anywhere else on the lot due to the
topography. Mason wanted to know the location. Gates stated that it
was across from Stutsman-Gerbaz. The Board members were familiar
with this location. Fox wanted to know if this was the shed that
was already built. Newbury stated that there was a'shed on the back
that was suppose to come down under the last variance. Fox questioned
if the shed was down. Gates stated that it was not. Fox questioned
if that wasn't conditional with the previous variance granted.
Newbury stated that any decision made by the railroad regarding the
shed does not effect the decision of the Board, Gates explained that
they had a license from the railroad to use their land and the
agress road and shed was included in that license, which stated
that everything must remain exactly as it is. Fox questioned if
this made them in violatian with the last variance granted. Gates
pointed out the correct property line and the area that the railroad
requested the Gates to put up a chain link fence. It was determined
that a variance had been granted to the Gates to build the deck
contingent upon removing the shed. Gates disagreed saying that the
• • •
~RAOFORD rUBLiBHING CO., DCNVCR R E C O R D O F P R O C E E D I N G S
June 29, 1982 Board of Adjustment Page 6
variance was for the house, not for the addition. Krausch felt
that if the owner has not complied with a condition of a previous
variance, he was not inclined to grant another variance to the
applicant. Gates stated that there was no condition with regard
to the shed when the previous variance was granted, Throm suggested
that the present variance request be discussed until the files could
be brought before the Board explaining the previous variances
requested.' It was stated that the shed was under construction,
having been started without a building permit. This would not be
a livable space. The file was brought before the Board regarding
the previous variance granted. T,Zason read the minutes which were
from August, 1977, and it was concluded that there were no conditions
about removing the shed from the variance that was granted, Smyth
motioned to grant the variance request due to topographical restraints.
Zanin second the motion. Vote was called for, four was for and one
against. Krausch voting against, '
Daniel Nall, Lot 11, Orchard Estate 82-18 .
requesting a setback variance as shown on plot plan for construction
of solar addition. Nall was there to represent self, He explained
that the south end of the house is tihe only place where a solar green-
house could be installed and gain the solar benefit, The proposed
greenhouse is 200 square feet with 144 square feet of glazed area.
He explained how the heating process would work and carry the heat
into the bedrooms, also on the south side of the house, Mason
questioned Newbury what the original setbacks had been. Newbury
replied that they were 20' from the side. Newbury stated that
the subdivision was subdivided prior to zoning and wasn't zoned at
the time it was subdivided so the lots do not conform to present
zoning, which is AF-l. Krausch wanted to know the amount of variance
needed. 11.6' sideyard setback was necessary and approximately
20' frontyard setback was necessary. There were no objections from
the adjacent property owners. The sign was posted. Fox motioned
to approve the variances for the sideyard and frontyard be granted
because of the downzoning and for solar reasons. Smyth second the
motion. Vote was called for. All in favor.
Dr. John Shea, Lot 23, Ridge of Red Mountain 82-19
requesting a 27' frontyard setback variance for construction of a
single family residence. Dick Fallin was there to represent the
owner. Mason questioned if the sign was posted. Fallin stated that
there was not a sign posted. Mason explained that the Board could
not take action if the applicant has not placed a sign or proper
publication was made. Throm suggested that the Board could hear
the request and the sign be posted later, Mason explained that the
Board had never handled it that way before, Fallin suggested that
the Board could make comments regarding the application after the
last case is heard so he would have something to tell the owners.
Mason asked if the Board was willing to do that. They were willing
to take a look at the application. Lukes moved to table the Shea
residence until the next special or regular meeting, Mason dis-
agreed saying they were thinking about hearing the issue now, Mason
suggested that this case be recessed until a later date, Lukes
so moved and Smyth second, All in favor.
Dennis Krieger, Hwy 133, Crystal River 82-20
requesting an 8.5' sideyard setback variance for construction of
shed. Krieger was there to represent self. He explained that
they have an old shed that the roof collasped on this winter and he
produced a photo of the shed. The proposed shed would be replacing
the shed that collasped this winter and would be 8.5 feet short of
the 30 foot setback. This is a different shed from the other variance
•
^RAD/ORD PUBLI9 RING CO., DlNV[R R E C O R D O F P R O C E E D I N G S
June 29, 19$2 Board of Adjustment Page 7
that was granted to the Kriegers previously. This shed would be
for storage, lawn tools ect. The previous shed had a smaller~l~
foundation than the proposed shed, however, the proposed shed will
be less in size because it won't have the awnings that was on the
previous .shed. This shed would be wood whereas the previous shed
was metal. This shed is presently built but without a building
permit and the building department red-tagged the structure. Mason
questioned the situation when it was an existing building encroaching
the setbacks and it has to be repaired or rebuilt, Newbury states
the code states that the structure could be rebuilt if burned.
Smyth motioned that the variance be granted since the county wording
fails to include other disasters other than burning, Krausch
second the motion. Vote was called for. All in favor,
Mason then called for any corrections or additions to the minutes
from the last meeting. Fox moved to approve the minutes as typed.
Zanin second the motion.
Dr. Shea's case was resumed. Fallin explained that the encroachment
was necessary for a new residence. The reason for this was a sewer
easement that runs through the lower' half of the building zone.
The building zone is a little more than half of the lot, The other
part of the lot was designated as the greenline by the Planning
Commission due to the fact that it was over 300. The property be-
tween these two points is very narrow. The owners, Fallin explained,
would like to build a two story, four bedroom house. Fallin did not
feel that a height variance would be necessary. Fox questioned
what would happen when the road is plowed and the snow would pile
up. Fallin stated that a retaining wall would be placed on the north
side of the house to create proper drainage. Mason briefly described
the property in question. Fallin stated that he had checked about
bringing the house over into the sewer easement andthe sanitation
department was against that. Fox questioned about the size of the
house. Fallin answered that the house would be approximately 3800
square feet. Shaffran questioned if the homeowners association had
responded to the request. Fallin said that the issue had not been
presented to the association and there was no response from the
association in the file. Smyth felt that there was no other place
to build. Mason felt that the Board did not have a problem with
the request and would have to make approval based upon the sign being
posted. Krausch motioned that due to the topographical difficulties
of the lot along with the sewer easement, that the variance be
granted with the condition that the sign is posted and no objections
come within the ten day period and that the homeowners association
approves. Also, he included that hearing the case with the sign not
being posted does not set a precedent. Zanin second the motion,
Vote was called for and all in favor.
Meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully Submitted,
0~ Chairman
LARGE PLAT(S)
AVAILABLE TO VIEW AT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
AVAILABLE TO BUY AT
CLERK & RECORDER