The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutpitkin.boa.83.09 County of Pitkin Date Aoril 11 19..]L Case # <93 - 7 Applicant BURTON F.GOLDBERG Address 1099 WILLOUGHBY WAY, ASPEN Owner . BURTON F. GOLDBERG Addres s P.O. Box 11507, As pen Location of Property 1099 Willoughby Way (Attached) Any pertinent data must accompany this application, and will be made a part of this Case No. The Board may return this application if it does not contain all the facts in question. Applicant's description of proposed variance showing justification: requesting a floor area variance for the construction of a solar greenhouse. Amount over allowable square footage for construction is.343 square feet. ~J\(}(~ T~ '.~~R\Ov~ (?GL~~ . Applicant Signat~~~lo.... ~" i~_ Provisions of the zoning resolution requiring the Building Inspector t forwar: this application to the Board of Adjustment and reason for not grantino a building permit: . Building Insp. Signature Date permit rejected: Board decision Application filed: Mailed: Date: Secretary, Board of Adjustment ( \ ~ ~. '.'" I' ~ "",, '1 . .,','..J' '- -' .... ADJACENT OWNERS CERTIFICATE TO Lot lA Pitkin Green Subdivision " LOT 1 PITKIN GREEN SUBDIVISION Julia Childs Augur Box 4389 Aspen, Colorado 81612 LOT 2 PITKIN GREEN SUBDIVISION Patricia Moore 610 E. Hyman Aspen, Colorado 81612 LOT 11 PITKIN GREEN SUBDIVISION J. Ray Pryor Earl R. Feldman 955 Eudora Apt. 1608 Denver, Colorado 80220 LOT 12 PITKIN GREEN SUBDIVISION Bruce and Susan Konheim 513 N. Roxbury Drive Beverly Hills, California 90210 METES AND BOUNDS - NORTH OF SUBJECT PROPERTY Elizabeth Paepke 999 Lakeshore Drive Chicago, ILL 60611 (lIf~r..."'-",."r') '. '._~ "-" ~.. ~ 0> *'D ~ 2 " iilO> )>)>O'O>;:;:<D 0-+-1 -+ ::: 0. 0 C ::J _. X "J <Do>o.o=o.01~en<D ~ ~ ::!: m 9: (ij' s: 0> '< r ::J <D 0 01 ,~ 0 <D 9: ai' Q - o.~S'''''';:tm3O:o. o.--+"Q<D < <D01o> CO>"Jo::JO::JO>::J ::!. g <D :S. 0' ~ ~. '0 0. ~<Dco.:iE<Doo>OJ ~ ~. m <D 0 ~ i5 c ::J ~;; n:> ~. ~ 0 -. :3 ~'"J-+::J3-+0>"J 0>00-00>"J30> =3:iEmo::J<Do3 ~ --::J 01 01 '< 0'_ -. ::J .-+ -+ "J <D 0 GJ o 0. (ij 0 C!2. 0 0> 0 _ ::JO_::J::J3CTO> OO'<DO ,:<.-+01 'U;o01<D<D "J'{' 0> 3 -. -+ to 0 0> -+ ..-+o..-+o...::rro-'-+o 0>0>"J<D<D''<:iEt6 ::J::J<DO<Do.o=., '<O><D'x<DC-o 02Ul::J<D(ij~;~c 30o.::J~'OCl::J <DU Cl::J013 Cl <D to <D~~ 0> =? ~ i ...... 0''0 -- -en 0 :;E ~ ~. iil ~ g <3 ~ "J o::J~,~:iE-<<D ,0 <D:J _. -l -+ ....'~~en:Jo>ffi rom 0 -+en en :J , "01:iEO,01o.o "J<D<Do<D'O_c -. 0. , 0> <D 0> s: ., to 01 :JOlJ<. "J:iE0'3"J<Dm<D . ;+<DQ?.oo>~o. "Jo=.C::J)><D 0>0>0>010.,0> oC"J<D0>3< _01o~- <D ::J <D 0' "J <6- 0 0 o.-+O'<D"Jo., <D "J,< '< -+ Q?. 0> ;::. ~. (ij 0> ~ 01 ::J ~""".............,- (Ceo 0"J01<D3-<CD 0<D0>00 T <6' ::J _, <D <D O"Jo.01<Dc:g ''-+O'OO::J<D 0'0 .-+<D'O 0.. ::!. 0> ffi Q <D ~ s: o ::J , III ::J , ~ T<D -, 0'''' <O>nl <D~ <01= ::J'" ~=. 0 -'< "J CQ Q QCQ 60(1)0 ~ c (J).(J) -.uCQ <f ~(1)~o CQ(J) I -od CQ oc 0 o~ c (1) ~ ("r..'....~"~J : - ~' \..f -___ ...# , . a-' University of Colorado Health Sciences Center Division of Cardiology School of Medicine University Hospital 4200 East Ninth Avenue Denver, Colorado 80262 (303) 394-7761 O. g. April 22, 1983 Ms. Scilla Higham c/o Burton Goldberg Box 11507 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Dear Hs. Hiqham: Enclosed is a copy of the survey on our lot line done by Mr. Jim Reeser of Alpine Surveys on October 24, 1980, and a copy of the letter that I sent to Mr. Goldberg on January 20, 1981. As we discussed on the phone, Dr. Feldman and I have no objection to the variance application for a solar qreenhouse by Mr. Goldberg. We will look forward to meeting you the next time either one of us are in Aspen at a time when you are there. It was nice talkinq to you on the phone. Sincerely, ~~~ J. Ray Pryor, M.D. Professor of Medicine Division of Cardioloqy dll Enclosure (\ r I" _f'-'" .(., f""lI 1 . . .....1 ..........J I L. i '\ ~. ':, -" .'\ . .U April 22, 1983 Pitkin County Board of Adjustments Aspen, Colorado He: Zoning Variance Burton Goldberg Gentlemen, This letter is to inform you that I have no objections to the variance requested by my neighbor r<r. Goldbere;. The area in question is behind his house and poses no problems that I can see. Thank you for your cooperation. Cordially yoUrf.3, Bruc e Konheirr; Lot 12 Pit:~in C(Junl,y ::;ub,:Lvision I have hand delivered this to Mr. Goldberg to give to you. ("',....,"""".,- , ,)) -:::;;~ ~.., RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ""C C. t HO(CI([L B. a. a- L. c.). BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT April 26, 1983 Members Present: Bill Mason, Chairman Paul Krausch Bill Lukes Alternates: Kandi Shaffran The meeting was called to order at the Commissioner's Room, but because the room was occupied the meeting was moved upstairs to the Court Room. Mason questioned if there were any questions or additions to be made to the minutes from the previous meeting. Shaffran pointed out that P & Z was misspelled. Lukes moved to approve the minutes. Shaffran second the motion. Vote was taken and all were in favor. 83-8 Stanley E. FurrlSusan Johnk Furr Lot 1, Block 4, 2nd Filing, Gateway of Snowmass Mesa SiD, requesting a 30' front yard setback to construct single family residence. The Furrs were there to represent themselves. Stanley Furr explained to the Board that due to the topography their access had been cut in such a way that created a setback problem from the front yard. Also, the setback system was installed in 1973. Furr presented to the Board a letter from the Homeowners Association. Mason read the letter into the minutes and they had no objections to the proposed construction. Shaffran stated that she had a lot in the area and could sympathize with the topography problem. Mrs. Furr pointed out that it was an ideal building spot on the lot. Mason stated that there were no objections in the file from the adjacent property owners. Mrs. Furr pointed out that the driveway was already in. Lukes questioned Patsy Newbury if the Furr's needed a 70' setback variance instead of a 30' because the driveway makes the area a front yard. It was determined that Lukes was correct and it was determined that a 75' front yard setback variance was necessary. Lukes felt that if the house was placed in any other area it would increase the visual impact. Mason agreed. Krausch motioned to grant a 75' front yard setback variance based upon topographical hardship. Shaffran second the motion. Vote was called for and all were in favor. Burton F. Goldberg 83-9 1099 Willoughby Way, requesting a floor area variance for the construction of a solar greenhouse. Amount over allowable square footage for construction is 343 square feet. Charles Fagan was there to represent Mr. Goldberg. He explained that the owner wanted to build a solar greenhouse that would come over from the back of the house and face south. He explained that most of the proposed greenhouse would be higher than the house to attain that southern exposure. He presented some photographs of the house and property to the Board members. Fagan pointed out how the house was placed into the hill- side. He explained that much of the square footage of the house is subterranean. He felt it was a good basic solar design. He explained that there was a ranch in the back of the property and the addition would not bother anyone. Fagan stated that they sent out letters and received no complaints. These letters were then entered into the record. The file had no letters in them previously. Shaffran questioned the square footage count. Patsy Newbury, from the Building Department explained that credits were given for garage. Fagan pointed out how the architect had done the count. .~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ~ 't c. f. HOECKEL B. B. & l. C;}. Page 2 Board of Adjustment April 26, 1983 Krausch stated that the Augur's had contacted him and had several problems regarding the variance request. He listed the complaints as the following: (1) Not keeping with the original plan for F.A.R. to maintain a certain character. (2) Too much traffic and this would be increased after the addition. (3) Too much construction going on at site. (4) Felt original agreement regarding the artist studio had been breached. They reported that the studio had become a tenant occupied unit. Krausch stated that they wanted to know if the studio was included in the F.A.R. count. Newbury stated that it was. Krausch concluded by stating that the Augur's wanted to be on record as objecting. Fagan stated that one person was living at the residence and no one was living in the studio. The caretaker lived at the other wing. Mr. Goldberg's secretary had also spoken with Mrs. Augur. The secretary had explained that the construction would be on the other side from Mrs. Augur and she had seemed satisfied with that. Krausch questioned about someone living in the studio. The secretary explained that Mrs. Augur did not live at her house but rented it out, and that no one was living at the studio. Fagan explained that the house started out as a one bedroom cottage. Goldberg then build out piece by piece and the architect was attempted to put the pieces together smoothly. Fagan explained that they had been receiving too much direct sunlight into the frontroom and were having to shield that area, and the greenhouse would help because it would allow the heat to be focuse~ in one area and then circulated from there. Fagan agreed that there had been a great deal of construction at that site, but did not hear Mrs. Augur objecting to the proposed addition. Krausch agreed that she did not specify objection to the proposal. Lukes questioned Fagan upon what basis a variance should be given. Fagan pointed out the part about solar devices that was included in the guidelines given to the Board. Fagan felt that this was a well planned solar device. Lukes could not see the connection between solar design and the size of the house. Fagan explained that the architect was trying to coordinate the size of the solar greenhouse with the size of the house. The architect felt that to be effective the greenhouse must be this size. It was determined that the size of the greenhouse addition was 1935 square feet. Mason felt that the extra 343 feet was not necessary. Krausch had a problem with the legality. He felt that even if it was I' over the F.A.R., he could not see a way the Board could justify granting the request. Shaffran felt that the amount within the F.A.R. could do the job. Fagan pointed out that one problem was that they would be building it from the back over the main residence. Krausch and Shaffran felt that area could be cut back from the other part of the addition to allow enough footage in the greenhouse area. The .,~... RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ""'0 C. F. KO(CKEl B. B. ... L. C3. Page 3 Board of Adjustment April 26, 1983 Board members agreed that there was no hardship involved. Shaffran moved to deny the request based on lack of hardship. Lukes second the motion. Vote was called for and all were in favor. Meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, '----~\v dN -u ~ J ('h.fnf1"-. r'\0 \,..J (7.. /1,(1 ~~~. Chairman .. - Scanned 7/26/07 File Finders Box #10