HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.83.04•
1(~ t 1 1 •`. I'1~ ~'•; I110VUd t".;lat t}lC f 0110`,41nC~ ti:~!.~ aUOptCi!
BEF'C~RF: THE BOARD OF ADJU; T^;ENT
OF THE COUNTY OF PITt'I";
STATE OF COLORADO
P.ESOLUTION NO. ~~.~-
iIi c~~l-L [~~r~ 11c_~ I I <`,' , i~~lt 1 , lil ~~c.l: 5 , i~n~~ l lt1't~~>d S/i~
L~IIiERrAS, the subject prcperty i.s wit_hin the unincorporated area of Pitkin
County, Colorado; and,
,vtii,:~~'.h_~, Ln<' RO~1]"d Ot T1!]L'i:t.._..t L: V!3>tE'C: W]-ttl t!1e ;~OWC'r t0 errant Or deI1`/
SliCh VarianCG`~ ~~'.' V1rtUe Or .1-tli: II, $eCt10I] ]E~-1.3, Plt}:ln COUnt1~ COdC
(Land ,'se Code) and Color~,r;;, Revised Statutes, 173, 30-?&--118 (2) (C) ; and,
p7HF:?I;AS, :-used nn the evicL~nc~~ presented, the Board of P.djustment makes the
fol]owinq findings:
1. Proper notice nr~,-~edure~s, includinn the notification of al. ]. adjorninc~
property o'.aners, ~.., i:,een shown :~`,' the a1-~-~'_ic<::t.
?. The recrui-rug h,~1~~_;hi:~ or practical di{ficult`Y' has been estaY;lished_
~. Grar~~in« such ~ _.. -. .i.ll not cause substantial detriment t~: the
}~tlbli_c ',~'c~l `,.r~ ._.. ... ~ i not st>bstanti~:1_ly impair the intent .end
pU1"r+OSe Of th(' C.T.1_~i'-i _ ~.SOl.]tlOns dnC} the ?OnlIlU mans.
410F;, _'E:Y2F:FOk PE IT i.i;:,~_ ~,~ `hc,_ the ai.piicant'' rec,uest `or a
i,:.
,, lii ~~i~t1~n~- f~~' ~r~Il-~uc~I•; ~',tri;?E~~•~, P~Ii' 1~?~~ ,~ciii ti_~ln r,f
ci ;; 1'c~I~n{1c~t1ti~~.
Additional coniiti_ons or_ r~>strict.ior.s:
.i. ~~ ~ <<~.it i tl seconded the adoption of the foregoir.c{ Resolution. The roll
having beer: called, the vote was as follows:
F3i.11 i~1;ts~n - y-es Jo~~ Zanin - ~,~e:~
Dc~t t~ ~: Fr» - Vrs Bi 11 Lukes - n~~
The Resolution was adopted by vote of the Board of Adjustment of the County
of Pitkin, State of Colorado.
DATED: 1larch 29, li)~,; The Board of Adjustment of Pitkin
County, Colorado
Attest: , ~ ~ ~_
~ ~ tIC~ . rf`~., r1r T _. _
~('_CrC't~1.rt1
• County of Pitkin •
Date ~ /lam/ 19.
//
Applicant, rte- C~ /~~~,/ P~•-
Case # ~ _ y
Address ~(j ~i q ~~ v u ur`~ ~,r It ~,,~
Address OG 3`I ~e~_~<<~c~~ c~v ~ GQrZ .
Location of PropertyLOt 1,Block 5,Knollwood Subdivision
(Attached)
Any pertinent data must accompany this application, and will be made a part of
this Case X10 . .
The Board may return this application if it does not contain all the facts in.
question. Applicant's description of proposed variance showing justification:
The existing structure was built in 19~ when there were no set-back require-
ments(100') off Highwa 8 urrently th outh wall of the structure sits back
50.90' off the highwa~. would like to remodel the entire structure by
adding another 1000 square eet,half of which would be a greenhouse that
would extend 12''~beyond th uth wall.
This woad be the only ogical and practical place to put the greenhouse
and would serve to provide ~Oo of the heating needs of the entire structure.
The other proposed extensions to the existing house would not violate any
~zrrent setback requirements now in force.
Applicant Signature ~/~,~~,,~ V "/7~
Provisions of the zoning resolution requiring the Building Inspector to forwarc
this application to the Board of Adjustment and reason for. not grartin a
build/ing permit: ~ ~ _ ;~ ~ g Z`
~f'~-~ G~(Ji~_acJ .Ua.~ r-~ ~`'~~--C-c'~~J~ _/-S7~ fit., wl t~c, /r~'~-~ .•~ `~~! ~~ E ~ / `a``~
.., .}.J ,//' ~i /J//~/,/ 1 ,-(._. ~`.t~-~ 1~% ~ js'.~ j~Z"./ y{1- t' L~~f~:'~/mod/./'] ~ ~_ : ~!f .aif
~, C L~-~~~'`~G~%6 LL..,~.r.L._-tom! ,~.L'7. C; //Y~ 2..,t-.L,.~.C~~ lQ" /'i .~ V
6J~ /i 1 ~~ i
`/ Building Insp . Signatur ,u*,Lr.,
Date permit rejected: Board decision
Application filed: Date:
Mailed
Secre~~ary, Board of Adjustment
~• ; ~ _.. _
~ - / 4' -83
~ ~~~~
~,
~~~.i! sl';s7
~ ~ ,.~
__
! ~ LU ~ ~r
i \ ~.
~ 7 ~G G~--S ~ 1
1
`` ~~ 11 /- ~ ~ G!J ~ ~ o ~t , l ~ oX ~ 57.-3
~ ~- ~ f~,, cad ~lC ~/
I~ Zak ~ ~~~ vc ~ S
j` ti~ u ~~ ~~~ s ~ ox ~mz~
~S-~1~ ~G , ~/G~~
~~ G67~- ~ /.~ l~C K
-+
t~~lv ~~
~~ ~J~ Z- ~/ / ,
V i S~~ ~2
Q ~/ C~ / ~u O oc~ ~ ~~ ~A~
f3 ~, ,
~~' '~~r C~ G 3 ~ ~~~a u~ ~- ~ ~~/~
as -
~` /~.r-~c. u C a ~~G i/
~ ) ¢/ ~
?
,,~~
~,'~;c'~e~pL'n/. ~ / ~ ~
' ~
~_ ,_
- ,
/~ ~Qc.~ _ /~ , ~..~
lc•.~E ~~ ~~~.~ G 2 ~Sl ~ ~wv ~ ~
~ /i ~ y~ s~- . -~ ~ ~ < <o
~ ~l~' fly/7
,, .
? SCG~ ~ l~4- v- ~'Z-
\.. 1. ~ .~ ..J
%,
J ~ ~G'~ CG/ ~~C l/
~ -
~ _ ---
~S;f~j, ~~ , ~/~`c~r vac ~m ~~_
~`; G~ - - -
- - --
~~ C a~ ~' _. _ ..._-
/`'
_ ,~~~ c~ o
c,. f- ~ p
~`~ ors /I.,r-/,. u C' c~ ~~G ~/
~~~ ~G
~ ~ ~
i'1
~ ~
,~ ~ ~~
// ~ `/fit- S-7`_' . ~~f c' ~.~ ~G~
-- _ ~~~
~? S"~~G~ ~ lbw ~ ,~'~ C ` ~ ~ t ~/ ~ v v ~ ~~
.' ~ ..
' PUBLIC Nn'l'ICL
hOTICh OI' PUBLIC 1I J;AItII~IG 131~I~ORT, 2'IIL 1~I'I'KIN COUNTY I3CArD OI' AUJUSTbiI:N'T
TO TO ALL PPOPEI.TY 0~7NERS AFI'IJCTI;1) 13Y THL ItL(ZUI;STLD ZGi1ING OR UST; Vr1RIAi~CE
DESCRIBED BLL0~7:
Pursuant to Pitkici County Zoning Resolution of .7une 5, 1955, 1s
amended, a Public Hearin; w~.ll be held in the County Commissioners
Room, Pitkin County Court IIouse, Asper. Colorado, (or at: such other
place as the meeting may then be adjc>urr.ed) to consider an application
filed r~ith the ;aid Board of Adjustment requesting authority for
varia:ce fi•o:n the provisions of the County Zoning Resolution.
All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited to
appear and state their views , protests , or objections . I f you cannot
appear psrsonally at such mooting, than you are urged •to state your
views by letter, particularly ii yon have objection to such varian ce,
as the Board of Adjustment «~ill give serious consideration to the
opinions of surrounding property owners ana others affected in deci.~dinl;
whether to grant or dany the request fo_• variance.
*~ATE AND TI`.'T~ OF ?~~ETIL'G: March 29, 198'3 at 5:15 o'clock P.M.
Nicolas Heller,•Lot i,.Block 5,.,Knollwood S/D, requesting a
37' highway 82 setback variance for the addition of a
greenhouse.
David Beck, Q104 Sagebrush Lane, Lot 14, Bloek 2, Filing 2,
Brush Creek Village, requesting a 10.62' frontyard setback variance
and 25.8' sideyard setback variance for construction of addition.
Gerald L. & Rheta Fulton, Lot 9 Double K Ranch ~/D requesting
an 80' frontyard setback variance•for a proposed addition.
A.T.C. Associates, Highland Inn, 1650 Maroon Creek Rd.,
requesting a 4' to 8' height variance and a 132' height
variance for a staircase.
~ • •
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
BOARD OF ADJUSTb4ENT
R4arch 29, 1983
Regular t,-leeti_ng
P.4embers Present : Bi-11 ~~~~i~~,son, Chairman
Dottie Fox
Paul K.rausch
Bi-71 Luker
Joe lanin
Alternates: Bob Throm
Evan Gull
l~i.ll_ ~Iasotr cal_l~~l the regular me,_~ting of the Pi_tkin County Board of
:~d,justmc.r~1. tc? ordc~'~r. IIe questic~nc~d i. f_ theme wer~•e any corrections or
~zdc~litions to be made to t,lle n~l:inutc~5 frorrz thc~ last nieetinb. Dottie
hoa quost_iorled s_r st~~.te:rneni. that 's~Iason rn«de ~Lbout the Snowmass
C,'ottate Sign. R1<:c.son had .;tatc~d, `I felt tlic: ~,ir;n would be a dull
light'(Second page, upper p~irt.). 1~lason stated he hoped the sign
would be ,r du71 light. ~E~~~~x a.lso pointed. ou't trra.t i.n a statement
hi> made about 'the sign being put into •a mound' should read, 'on
a mound'. Joe Zan in movecJ to accept the minutes with the changes.
kill Luker second the motion.
Fox reported to the Board that
P ~; Z on April 5, presented by
Fox st,:lted that P & Z would be
c;oura~ecl that a representative
meeting when the~T reviewed P &
Ise ~vou l_d t:alk with Grice about
ghat would. go before P & L. K
Of'ric.e expose the Board to the
it ~;~es to P & Z.
the sign ordinance is coming before
Richard Grice of the Planning Office.
working on tT1e language and she en-
of the Board be at the Commissioner';s
Z's final draft. 1ti4ason stated that
the Planning Office recommendation
ra.ixsch requested that the Planning
Ordinance so input can be made before
~ricolas Feller, 83-4
Lot 1, Blocl~~ 5, Knollwood S/D, requesting a 37' highway 82 setback
~~a~•iance for the addition of a greenhouse. Heller was there to
re}~resent self. IIc explained that he proposed to build a greenhouse
on the side of hi.s residence. He was advised by the Building Dept.
cif the 100' setback from iIi_t;hway 82, which lea~~es his lot unbuildable.
ThE~ douse i s enuroachi n~; this l~xresent setba.cl: becau~~,e it was built
i n approxirnat<--:1 ~; 1~J70 bc> Care the zoning . Hc~ Mated that he wanted
to build the T~rc~enho~~~c: ~,ci tTi~~ south side w}~ic~.ii would cause him to
c,ncroach about 10' . ITe tatccl that he r;~ot ad~~ice From several
architects and he could not.: avoid encroachinrT. IIe or•i_g;inally
recluc~sted 12' but hacl rec~ilculated the distancF~~. Ilcller explained
th<:it: ~ of the addition is „rec.rrhouse anci ~ i.s a living room extension.
And he would build .-~ two car ,;arage on the north side of the property.
Fox questioned i_f the grey>nhouse was for solar purposes. Heller said
it, was. It wol.zld be prim~.i.rily~ used to generate 50o of the heating for
tl~c~ douse. IIe explained that. he would need to reinsrllate the walls.
~~TF~11_c~r ~;tated that i7e would. fit the garage into the required setbacks.
r -
RECORD OF PROCEEUI6VGS 100 Leaves
Board of Adjustment '4larch 29, 1983 Page 2
Heller explained that the addition to the living space came out to
the lines of. the house and the greenhouse addition goes beyond the
existing line of the house. Ileller pointed out the existing living
room, showing where the greenhouse would be attached to the south
side <t.s an extension to the living roorn, Fox felt that the Board has
,justifi.cation for solar purposes and since the amount is only 10'
She had no objection. Lukes pointed out that the house faced both south-
east and wouth-west, which would be equaa_ly usable for a solar addition
and questioned if IIell.er had considered the other side. Heller stated
that he was trying to wrap the greenhouse around, enclosing the
porch. 7anin, stating hc~ knew the location of the house, felt that
more sunlight vas av~.ii :lal_ile i n the position that Heller was proposing.
Fox motioned to grant. th<_~ vU.z:•i.ance request clue t,o topography of the
site and due to solar }~n_trposes. Zanin second the motion. ~~9hen vote
was called for Lukes votcad afainst , n-lason , ~I~ox Kra.usch and Zauin
voted for•.
David Bc~c;l~ 83-5
0104 Sagebrush Lane, Lot ]_~l, Block 2, Filink; ?, Brush Creek Village,
requesting a 1.O.G2' fronY,yar.d setback variance and a 25.8' sideyard
setback variance for construction of addition, Beck wa.s there to
represent self. Iie expla=fined the history of the house. IIe explained
that lie wanted to build a stairway and enclose the bottom half of
the house. The house i.s an A-frame and with three children he
needed the additional room. He explained that the property went
straight down in one direction and straight up in the other and what
lie was proposing was the only way. He would be adding an interior
stairway. Beck pointed out his neighbors to the Board members.
Newbury stated that he had a 100' frontyard setback, Mason read a
letter from Robert Spencer, adjacent property owner, stating that he
had no objection, but felt it would be beneficial to his property
and the neighborhood as a whole. Newbury stated that much of the
house was encroaching the setback. The house was build prior to
the current zoning. Krausch moved to grant the request on the
grounds of downzoning making it impossible to improve upon the house.
Bill Lukes second the motion. All in favor.
Gerald L. & Rheta Fulton, 83-6
Lot 9, Double K Ranch S/D requesting an 80' frontyard setback
variance for a proposed addition. Fulton was there to represent
self. He gave a brief description of the history of the house. He
explained that he started with the intention of building in phases.
Since the construction of the first and second phase, which was done
i.n 1975 when the setback was 75', the area has been re-zoned and now
has a 100' setback. Fulton explained that the original house plans
showed the potential.. additic~ri, v~~ith a side c,f the house with only one
window which is the size of the door and the electrical stubbed in
in expectance of the addition . ?~.Ia.son stated that There were no
objections in the File from adjacent prol~~ert,E~ owners. Ilis access
is off Horseshoe Drive. Iira.ilsch questioned i.f the existing garage
would be converted into 1-t wing space. Fulton replied that it would
not be. Throm questioned the-~ topography and l~'ulton replied that it
,vas level. The addit:i-~~n would not be higher than exp.sting roof line.
Fox motioned to grant a vaz°I ance of 20 ` duE:~ +,~~~ the drnvnzoning .
Krausch second the motion. All in favor.
r
:. ,,, ~~K~~ a. ~. ~ ~. ~,.
• •
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Board of Adjustment rvlarch 29, 1983 Page 3
100 Leaves
ATV Associates, Highland Inn 83-7
1650 1laroon Creek Rd., requesting a 4' to 8' height variance and a
_13.1' height variance for a staircase. Joe Edwards and Joe Cooper
was there to represent the owners, along with the architect, Tom
Sopoci. Joe Edwards began by showing the members some additional
drawings that were not included in the packet. He explained that they
have received detailed submission approval from~P & C and the
County Commissioners and generally have had approvals from all`
levels of the process. Edwards explained that according to the
code the existing grade is used for the height determination, and
the Building Dept. is interpreting that to mean the grade before
man put the ski area there. They tried to go back and determine
what the natural grade was. He then pointed out the complex building
form, sitting on a knob of land, designed with "three fingers"
following the land form at three different elevations. He pointed out
the design on sheet X18. When connecting the three areas, a section
was necessary coming down the hill and the corners 'sti.ck out'.
Edwards explained that to create the desired skier circulation
fill was going to have to be brought in which ,would raise the buildings
up a bit and this created the height problem on the corners of the'
buildings. f~,d~vards introduced Sopoci to answer questions about the
usage and necessity of.' the extra height. Mason pointed out that the
original Highlands Inn Ilad rc~cei_ved a height variance also. Sopoci
had some overlay sheets to depict the original site. He then placed
overlay sheets to show the changes over the years in the grade. IIe
did. an overlay with the existing Highland Inn and the proposed
highland Inn grades. IIe explained how the buildings stepped down the
grade. Krausch questioned. if the developers would excede the height
restriction based upon the existing grade, Sopoci stated that in
one case the existing grade is slightly lower, so the 28' height
would be slightly lower also. Throm questioned what the commissioners
had felt about the height problem. Edwards stated that they had been
sent to the Board of Adjustment. Edwards also stated that the detailed
submission approval required them to come before the Board regarding
the height. The area of the height problem is at the end of the units
where an exit is and pointed out the area where the mechanical
ventilation exhausting equipment was for the kitchen of the restaurant.
'T'here would be no living units above the height allowance.
The Board members discussed the situation and the history of the
area. Fox felt that in this case it does not propose a problem but
she also felt that the 28' height limitation should be adhered to in
most cases. Krausch moved to approve the variance request based
on topographical hardships. Fox second the motion. Lukes asked to
be excused from the voting. Mason requested that Evan Gull vote.
?111 in favor.
?.Iason discussed the applicant, Rob Snyder, 1'oa• alt.ez•nate membership
to the Board. There was a discussion of what the I3oard is looking
I°or i.n a member. F'ox stated that it would be rood to have a down
valley representative. It wa.s determined -that they would continue
to look for an applicant for the second position.
Meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
~~~ ~~~~~
Chairman
Scanned 7/26/07
File Finders Box
#10
LARGE PLAT(S)
AVAILABLE TO VIEW AT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
AVAILABLE TO BUY AT
CLERK & RECORDER