Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.82.18Dottie FoX move that the S~ol].owinq bu ac7or~tcu~ BEI•'OI:E T1IE 1~OA1") OI' ADJUSTIIEI~IT OF `rHP COUidTY OF PITKIII STATh OF COLORADO FtI:SOLUTIUN NO• 82•-18 Daniel I1~a11, Lot 11, Orchard Estates WHEREAS, the subject property is within the unincorporated area of Pitkin County, Colorado; and, WHEREAS, the Board o.f Adjustment is vested 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-?.8-•1113(2) (C); and, WHEREAS, based on the evidence presented, the Board of Adjustment makes the folloc-,ing findings 1. Proper notice procedures, including the notification of all adjorninq property o~•ners, has been shown by the applicant. 2. The required hardship or nr_actical 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. y 1 NOW, THEF.EFORE, BE IT RESOLVF,D that the applicant's request for a a 11.6' sideyard setback and a 20' frontyard setback for construction of solar addition Additional conditions or restrictions: WARPdING: Any violation of the terms of this resolution may result in rehearing and possible revocation. Clark Smyth seconded the adoption of the foregoing Resolution. The roll having 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 I3oard of Adjustment of. the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. DATED: June 29, 1982 The Board of Adjustment of Pitl:i.n County, Colorado Attost: .0 `7''!~~~.~~ :.. •„-~. Chcti.rmtln ~,~~,,, ~_,. Secrete r • 0 OF ADJUS?t-9EttT COUflty Of f lt~;tl Oate ~ "/~ 19~'~ ~ Case ~ ~'a- i~ applicant ~~/YIE.G /~ /1~6IGL • Address ~.,~x••%~~7 -~~sgz~ ~p Orrrer ~j/~irE Address B/~~J Location of Property m,L~Gi~/~.~,1~ ~T.31"ES -~r~~// O©~~ ~,1~;,~,~Y~,,v~- ~~~~~,~/~~~,cT ~~ (Attached) Any pertinent data must accompany this application, and will be made a ,part of this Case tto. ~.. •, The 3oard may re~urr. this application if it does not contain all the facts in question. Applicant`s description o~ proposed variance shot;ing justification: `~~ ~ . ,~~ `~ ~ ~ • 1 ~~ °~~: ~ - . - ~ ~ ~~~~ .Applicant Signature ~~~_~' ,%~~~~~%~,~%.~k Pro:~isior,~ of the zoning resolution reyuirirry the Building Inspec~or to forti•,ard this -. application to the board of Adjustment a d reason for not granting a building per t: • Building InsN. Sinnature-- ~ ,, ;~/,,,~-,~,~12., -~ pate permit rejected: Board Decision Application Filed: Flailed: • t~OUNTY TREASUREk ' ~ 'e ~~~~~' PITKIN GdUNfiI~ A~[~AI~ E"AL~CiA~ Date: SCCretary, Goa rd ofi Adjustment • • ~ ~. ... F3DFORF; THE PITY,Iid CUUNTY ECARD OF ADJU.`iTC^,FiNT • ~ , TO' A1,J, PROPERTY O4filERS AFFECTED BY TFIE Rt'nUESTEJ ZONICiC; OR USE VARIACICE DESCRIBED 13ELU4l: Pursuant to Pitkin Ccunty Resolution of June 5,1955, as amended, a Public Hearin~~ will be held in the County Commissioners Room, Pitkin~County Court Fiouse, Aspen, Colo~udo, (or at such other place as the meeting may then be adjourned) to consider an application filed with the said Board of Adjustment requesting authority for variance from the provisions of the Cou.,ty Zoning P.esolution. All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited to appear and state their Views, protests or objections. Zf you cannot appear personally at such meeting, then you ttre urged to state your views by letter, particularly if you have objection to such variance, as she F;oard of Adjustment will give serious consideration to the opinions of surroandir.a ~ro_erty o4mers and other affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request for variance. TKE PP.RTICUI.,ARS OF THE :?FARING ACID OF Thy REQUESTED VAR.IFu~ICE PR:: AS FOLLOt':S: Date and time of meeting- June 2~9 1.98? ~ • ~ ~ p„1 at . 1 ~ o ~ clock-- - I4ame and Address of Applica.*~t for Variance Daniel- ~,~, Nall, P.O. Box 1397, Basa.]-t, CO 816.21 Iacation of ?roperty or Description: __ Lot 11, Orchard Estate Variance :requested: • ~. setback variance as shown on plot plan- f.or construction of solar addition. Duration, of Variance: ~ Permanent XXX Temporary Condition: TbiE PITKIN COLNTY BOARD Oe ADJUSTMENT Bill Mason, Chairman ..,...,~ ~~~-`io O ~~~ ~~° C~~73 G`~~fhs ~»~- >~n~- C~C~ 7~ ~~~~ ~nF ~~ ~6`~a ~ Z ~ ~ ~~s~ ~d: ~ ~1P~~ ~SPEN~PITKIN REGIONAL ~`~ ~ ~ ~: , , ~ . , J wof~ ~z -- ~,~T ~!1 BUILDING DEPARTMENT-_- _ _ ~ ~'~ ~~= ~~= ~-' G ~'b i. ~. rr __- -_ __ ~ :! r.~u ; i r t ~~~~1~ ~- 19 n \;'~ `~ . ~ ~ ~. E _ JUG o tu.ctta.6 m--f~~A Charles P. & Margaret Vermeyer ~ ~'- P.O. Box 126 Basalt, 7 51621 G , il.,, ,4 r \ • ~~ ~FO~~ t ~~rr__ 'li O ~, ,~ ''"'r S~ ~ . ~. ''T a06 East Main Street ~ Aspen, Colorado 81611 r T m T 0 0 x Lot 11, Orchard Estates - Urlit One, Pitkin County, Colorado. e~.i•...~C' ....) KElb r L .~ .. ~ ••'~isT'' ~~C ~~•~~ 6e`.~i~; ~°,: ~ : ~, ar'ye~~ t. ~:;~ 'Uczti i.,aa~~ E ~c~.t,~ ~e,~~wlt '! • ~`' ° ~ '~f'••SU...•.PQO E BY~ L/IVES /N SPACE pf ~~~ SYDNEY L/NC/COME (L.S. /4I//J BOX 121 CAKBONI~ALE, COLO. 303-963-3852 15 SuM~_?. 19f32 ~ SCALE~1~~= NOS Leal Description • • ACTIVE SOLAR SYSTEM Owners: Daniel M. & Merry Nall Location: Lot 11-Orchard Estates/Pitkin County Proposal: 200 sq. ft. greenhouse addition ' On the roof will be installed three 98SC Novan flat plate liquid col- lectors, fora closed loop domestic hot water heating system. This system will also heat a 360 gallon hot tub for additional storage mass and moisterizing supp l y i n w ~t;ter months . Greenhouse to have 144 sq. ft. of glazing of which 108 sq. ft. will be R-5 headwall. The remaining 36 sq. ft. of glazing in the kneewall will heat 550 gallons of water for mass heat storage, overwhich a planter bed will be built. Results: The Novan ststem will supply all domestic hot water needs in conjunction with a 120 gallon storage tank @ 160 degrees, plus a 65 gallon electric hot water heater for backup. This will be set with priority controls: a. domestic hot water b. hot tub @ 105 degrees Water wall and greenhouse mass will actively heat through a blower system, 865 sq. ft. of living space. Dollars savings would result in space heating of $648.00/annually. Domestic hot water savings $331.20/annually. Overall savings $979.20/annually. Additional benefits: a. year-round vegetables and/or flowers b. moisterizing home in dry winter months for more healthful environment c. fire exit at south end of home d. tax credit for federal and state on solar additions may be withdrawn in 1983, therefore, it is essential to build this addition in 1982. ~ ~, ., ., _ "~i No 48213 ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ County Treasurer's Office, Pitkin County, Colo. 1 Aspen, Colo., ~~ _ ~ ~ 19~`- iRrretup~ of ~~,~ ~.... ~~ `~I /' .~1' ~~' A -/~ 1~~.~ ~tiL-£~ ~~ DOLLARS ~ ~ ~_ Account o~ Credit to .Fund. L(~ ~-}~ / y~ ~ . -" ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ /, ~ .Treasurer Y 'NF C. i. NOECK EL C~>., DENy ER Deputy M" ..~~ Mi~~_ (, V c~ - ~' 2; Q ~l ,/ tty ./ i. -` ' _ ~-I ~ ~ J ( ~ ~ W -~- ~ ~ N ~~ ./ ~O Cd Cfl ~ ~ ~ Q FI W VCJ VN! ~~~ ~ • ,~ r a ~ ~ 0 C7 ~ w° +~ ~7 0 ~ ~ . V ~o ~ ~ U A : f~ 1. 1 _ j m . ~ -`~ ~-~ Q ~ Q ' r ~'r V ~ z ,a ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ Z N '~ H ~ a Z ~ W W a N ~ Q ~ N a • • ^RADrORD -UBLI6HIN0 CO., DENV[R 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 Fox 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 tine 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. Tyr. 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 10' sideyard setback variance to construct a garage/workshop and a variance for a roof structure. John Huish was there representing ~,ir. 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 tre 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 u L_J ^RADPORD rUDLIBNING 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. Huish stated that the garage/workshop would be approximately 27' wide x 55' long. Krausch verified that a 10' variance was necessary nor the garage. xrauscn questionea now mucn oz the ai~ 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 1?' 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 that 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. Iluish 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 zoning. DZason 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. n4ason 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 F3oard was usually grantinh variances to help people out. Shaffran agreed that the Board does • • •R.~O~ORD rUB LIBNING CO., DENVCR 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 was denied. Jack/Rita Ham, Snowmass Cottages, 9461 State Hwy 82 82-14 requesting a sign variance. Jack Ham and Jim :l4oran, 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 stated 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 Nlason 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. • • •RADrORD ^UBLIfMING CO.~ DCHVCR 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 Lukes questioned how the sign would be illuminated. Ham replied that it was plastic, internally luminated by florescent tubes. Lukes 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. Lukes stated the Plum Tree sign. Krausch wanted to know what he liked~.as a lighted sign. Lukes 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 Lukes approved of the Husky sign which is internally lighted, Lukes 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. Mason 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. u • •RADFORD PUDLI9HING CO., DENVCR 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 setbac$ variance for construction of a garage and a floor area ratio variance for passive solar entryway. Richard Lindner was there representing welf, P.4ason 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. Mason 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, Woody Creek 82-1? 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 violation 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 • •RADfORD -UflLIeHING CO., DENVCR 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. °,4ason 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-1. 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 th-at 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 • • lRAOPORD -USLI6HING 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~~~ 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 30%. 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, ~~ Chairman ~°-` County' Colo. pitkin rer's ~f f iCe, No 48213 Countyi~ Treasu Aspen. Col°'~ ~~ /~`/ LYttip~ D~~, ~ ~L~ . A~~OUnt ~- Fund' _--- Credit tO , !~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~Y ~~ 19-= DOLLARS 'j'reasurer Deputy LARGE PLAT(S) AVAILABLE TO VIEW AT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AVAILABLE TO BUY AT CLERK & RECORDER