HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.85.28
.
.
Kandi Shaffran moved that the following be adopted:
BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
OF THE COUNTY OF PITKIN
STATE OF COLORADO
RESOLUTION NO.85-28
Lazy Glen Greenhouse and Nursery, c/o Frank LaGioa
8465 Highway 82, Snowmass
WHEREAS, the subject property is within the unincorporated area
of Pitkin County, Colorado; and,
WHEREAS, the Board of 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, 30-28-118(2) (C); and,
WHEREAS, based on the evidence presented, the Board of Adjustment
makes the following findings:
1. Proper notice procedures, including the
notification of all adjoining property
owners, has been shown by the applicant.
2. The required hardship or practical difficulty
has been established.
3. Granting such relief will not cause substan-
tial detriment to the public welfare and will
not substantially impair the intent and
purpose of the Zoning Resolutions and the
zoning maps.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the applicant's request for a
a 120' front yard setback variance from the 200' highway setback
for construction of greenhouse addition
Additional conditions or restrictions:
WARNING: Any violation of the terms of this resolution may
result in rehearing and possible revocation.
Bob Throm second the adoption of the foregoing Resolution. The
roll having been called, the vote was as follows:
Joe Zanin - yes
Kandi Shaff ran - yes
Bill Lukes - yes
Bob Throm - yes
Evan Gull - yes
The Resolution was adopted by vote of the Board of Adjustment of
the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado.
DATED:
The Board of Adjustment of
Pitkin County, Colorado
Attest:
o .f\ ,,(t_~ ,-[2..c,t--
Secr tary
&-m~
, Chai rman
CI"'(""~'''l
\.J \.J oJ ,~
.
.
BOOK soa PAGE816
RESOLUTION OF 'fHB Pl'rltIN couJI'.n PLAJlNING ARD ZORING COMMISSIOR
GRAllI'UNG A GROlrrB MNAGBME!I'r PLAR EXBMPUOR
'to 'fHE LAZY GLEN GRBBRBOOSE ARD RORSBIlY
Resolution Ro. 86--1--
WBBIlBAS, the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission (herein-
after "Commission") reviewed an application submitted by Frank LaGioia
(hereinafter "Applicant") requesting a growth management plan exemption
for a 750 square foot addition to the existing Lazy Glen Gree~ouse, and
WHBIlBAS, the Commission conducted a meeting on this application
on November 27, 1985, which was continued to January 7, 1986 at which
time ev idence and testimony was presented with respect to said appli-
cation.
,
ROW, THEREFORE, BE l'l RESOLVED by the Commission that it does
hereby grant approval of a growth management plan exemption to the
applicant SUbject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall grant a fishing easement along the
Roaring Fork River. This easement should run the length of
the property and extend five feet fro~.the high water mark.
2. The applicant shall obtain a variance from the Board of
Adjustment for construction in the 200 foot setback and
expansion of a non-conforming use before any building permit
is issued for this project. By its approval of this GMP
exemption, the Commission is making no statement whatsoever
in favor of either of these requests. The Commission does
wish to state for the record that it finds that the use of
the site is over-extended, but given the zoning in the area,
a location for this use needs to be maintained.
APPROVED by the commission at its regular meeting on January 21,
1986.
Pl'lUR COUI1'lY PLARIIIRG ARD
ZOlfIBG COJUlISSIOR
By
Suzanne
Peter Guy, A
ke , Chairperson
Chairperson
ATT ES'l' :
~Drrl;
Barbara Norris
Records Administrator Assistant
k-
>Ill.
~
-
."
~
~,..
_0
a::,,,
0'"
~i!
:DCI>
'">
...'"
0",
:D,."
o=-
'"
::It
~
7"'oJ
.A,
to
......
0)
t.)
16
~
gi
I" f 1, ('t,"""'l r)
V'lJ\JV\)~
.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
.
DATE 9l!i'P1 .;1/) 19 \('(
APPLICANT ~ 6/-.7 .6~~{JSG" MI/I? ADDRESS
OWNER ~'IIJ04 JlJI+1'G/I+1U i ADDRESS
LOCATION OF PROPERTY ~~~ ~fI' ~
5/06t.U}11 ~ ) I CoW' fi/~Slf
CASE#
8.r;. .~G)
PO.!3&-{ 30"""2-'
54;11 IS"
Any pertinent data must accompany this application, and will be made part 0
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:
bloJr.>
DF
15'1-1$'" t4"
C:;/I..f!:6C~ n:>
6()(i;6
.
of HUJ~ t,... is
,
~oFT
&0'
.-..---.......---
I f~fo:>~ I
E;I(./'E./' J.jb f-Q",~
5(.3'
*' l.t"~e
. \0.,.5'5
Applicant Signatur~..l?jJ. ;tg.~~
Provisions of the zoning resolution requiring the Building Inspector to
forward this application to the Board of Adjustment and reason for not
granting a buiding permit: .
12~_,~~~~ ~-1:~~{i J'^~ ~ (2f/~~ ,r:2-
Ij/-;;:'- _/ '-I J;...~~ ".u....c ~<H;t--! ~ ~l~,,--
~ r ... /'-{ I I ~,"'::'-...
~/J/J"d//.~.~;t/J~' 0:1." "0
~'- ~ t
.....
Building Inspe~t~r
~" .
'I
'-..11
./
Date Permit rejected:
Board decision
Application filed
Date
,
) 'I'
Mailed
Secretary Board of Adjustment
11I,fll~..r"~"3
v....I'J.J ~.~
---
.
.
LIST OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS:
1.' Roger W. & Marjory A. Samuelson
P. O. Box 267
Snowmass, CO 81654
2. Vince L. Shively
P. O. Box 402
Akron, CO 80720
3. Ray A. Toland
P. O. Box 10478
Aspen, CO 81611
4. James Anthony Solo
P. O. Box 1284
Carbondale, CO 81623
5. Barta Family Company
P. O. Box 184
Basalt, CO 81621
6. Greg N. Long
P. O. Box 10262
Aspen, CO 81611
7. Harry H. Baumann
P.O. Box 416
Aspen, CO 81611
8. Wayne Ethridge
P. O. Box 6089
Snowmass Village, CO 81615
9. John Sealander
P. O. Box 1803
Aspen, CO 81611
Crr''''''''''',l
',! \oJ '.J '_.
.
------
.
:':':-~-""""-~::
I 4"",, .._.~~_.. ~"
../ ~-J.,.... ;' _ ~"
- '" ;;.<jYj:,v ;
. , ~"""","'
---.,~ nt">6'~~
/ I.
--------- -.......
'"''''''
"--'"'.
"
~TJ ~~,
LJ [,1 W
4\ 42. 43
\,
,-
~~>,
~<O\
< , ;\'\'-.'0,-.,
-':~:::;" /', "'\, "
", ",,''o is' '\."
.. ~ 'o; " 'o~:;- "-" '-"
-". '--, - ~'- "\
'. -q .,- .
" .. . ""
- - "~- "-
f--" / -', _,_, _
-." - .:. ',.--
'~. ~ \ .........
,,--,\ '~ "
"
''o '
"'o
,
",
......../
45
/-.
~,-,J !l
~/I-
:::s:n 'ot?f
~~"-'
:"-]f :]
48"-S:
~, "
. . ~~"
"
--- .
~l;:'\._.._.__" . ~/ ,
"., '------..
~ ~~":>:->--:::": '0 "" c "
" ".. ',O;} ,
'-,
-
rl''''''I'''~
.'I! .
II ,~
'4lIl 7:-:-1
I," ....J,:--,. "'I
,-' ..~f:l./ .
t ':/'
/: " fl.
"A>.
"
'"
,
/.
"
".s.. ",
....b--~ ' .'..... ':'\
... -... ......
~~'~.... "
...... c).~ "
........ '-" ,,/
'5~. '('>."" ,.
"~:--,.
....,~ ~"'-
- ~~.....~
-,
"
'.
-.....".
. ,
jl':-iJi?-= =
'0 E ~ _ _~ ^^
',' ',i... ~ __ 'i'V
",'...,;: :'- --,
~.- ',',,')
~"..
I~'~
11',(....0"-
C'-JU
-
, .",,"
.
.
MEMORANDUM
Date:
October 15, 1985
TO: File
SUBJECT:
Lazy Glen Greenhouse
ltrl
FROM:
Patsy Newbury, Zoning Official
A stop work order was posted on Friday, September 13, 1985, for
building without a permit at Lazy Glen Greenhouse. The
non-conformity lies in retail sales in bedding plants and flower
shop. The entire use is within the 200' setback. According to
Section 18-1 of the Pitkin County Land Use it is also stated that
non-conforming uses cannot be expanded in any way.
.
I went to the site on Saturday, September 14, 1985, and saw the
beginning wall of a building with no foundation. Frank Lagoia,
the owner, said it was a temporary building although it is a full
frame construction. It is totally in the required 200' setback.
He stated that he had a cancellation of a $15,000 order, and was
stuck with the plants which were indoor plants, and at this time
of year require heat at night to keep them from freezing which is
an honest situation.
In summary, even if it were not a non-conforming use, (or is it)
the entire operation is inside the setback required (200') along
Highway 82 West.
There does not seem to be a cure for his problem. Even if he got
a setback variance he still has a retail use problem or do you
consider the nursery and greenhouse conforming without the
antique shop. The antique shop appears to have been discon-
tinued. Landscape business?? Where is it as fire zones are
concerned. To tell the truth, I'm confused about what nursery,
flower production (3-3.30) is. Does this include greenhouses?
If so this is a conforming use in the AF-l zone. Lot size is
also less than the required 10 acres.
At the present time the property is only leased from the owner of
the mobile home park.
PN/ar
('lr'~ III .." f'.('
,,' :'_1 '-J ~".a
...
2
w
~
~
~
i: w
~ D
!: CJ
a. 2
.-
2 D
w .J
a. -
,.. :J
ID
.J
cl:
2
o
i5
w
II
...
2
w
~
...
II
2 ~
- w
~D
...
- CJ
a. 2
.-
2 D
w .J
a. 5
- ID
~ .J
cl:
2
o
i5
w
II
W
Oa:
-W
1-0
Oa:
Zo
Z~
Oa:
i=O
03:
We.
a:O
~I-
g~
w
Oa:
- W ~
I- 0 ~
Oa:~
ZO~
~~~
i=O~
03:~
We.
a: 0 ...
a: lO
Ol-~
o en ~
o r2J ~
...
lO
-g
...
lO
'"
o
..J
,Q
o
..,
'"
'"
'"
Oe >-
'" ...
~ "
0."
Sl ,Cl
"'~
J:. .
...~
"'0_
"u
co.... Qi
'" 0 E
~ '" lO
il " '"
'" 0 '"'
:::I .- C
~ i 'c
:: .9 m
.- > >
J:. ,",0
... " '"'
-g .- '"
... ;= ;=
&l,g.!!!
a-.ES
" lO
.- ~ Q)
>-... 0
lO",,,,
~ C co
:E 6 0
........."0
~~u
lO lO ~
J:.J:.O
-.
-",,,,
" "
lO lO
'"
.~
E >-
'" ...
~ "
0."
~8
J:. .
... >-
." .~
"U ..
lO... '"
'" 0 E
~ '" lO
il " ...
'" 0 '"'
= .- c
... ......-
....!!!"
'" 0 ~
en .- Q,)
.- > >
J:. ,",0
... " '"'
-g .- '"
... ;= ;=
&l,g.!!!
i.E !
.5 '" 19
>.;; U)
lO", 0
"',,'"
.~ ::I ~
J:. 0 0
......-
'" '" 0
.. .. U
lO lO ~
J:.c~
-",,,,
" "
lO lO
~~
~~
:':\~~
~,Vl
~~
'B\:
...
Q,)::= 'j' ,:;,,:,, cu
c .......; en .5 ~
o"C Q) c:': ... Q,)
", ~ ;: ",.:: '" ...
'" !;l lO E '" 0 5i
.c ... E Q) co C c7i
>o,^~omca
lO",:CO"'E~
E cu ... ~ :Ii CD ...
~... .. CD O"'C CD
... co == > en CJ.
o en 0 ... ....- >
.. " " .E '" E lO
.. 0 '"
Q)'+:;~lG:.cSE
O..! .- +:: :::I ... C
EO::: 0- '" 0 0
'S; 0 5 > ... '';=:
o Go) .!a -S E"'.s .~
c>.c::s 0>'
"'.8'" ca cn.cc.c
co .c co'"
of; lO ... ~ 0 ~ '" 0
_ . Q) ':; ca '., 0 c .c
", J:. .. 0;: lO . 0 ....
.S! ... cu Q. - ~ c. 0
.... _ 1:: 0 .2 .- :::I ....
.- .-... > ....
o'E.~Q.c>>ca'5m
C ::I C c..J: ... .- E
en = ca ... o.c
~ '" E "'... .;="
Q) .!a E .c g c ..
~ E ...... 0 C .-
mOo ... ',t:i 0 ...
.c ~ u ... 0 u ._ C.
mc......""CCJc'$E
:& Q) g IV 0 .2, u ':
.c .......cSo
= ... 0 m Q,) .- 0
o c"'C..... ... C ... cu
> O::sf.:cac..5
c.ocu'Cii"'--
::s >.cLL.E ~o
~
~
~
.t:
",::: oi ,,'e '"
c ........: en._ ~
o"'C Q) I: :: ... Q)
", ~ ;: '" 0:: '" ...
'" !;l lO E '" 0 5i
.c ... E Q) ttI C c7i
~o.!a~Smca
E~of;.E"E~
~... .. a; 0 ~ :a
... co == > In (.)
o en 0 ... ....- >
;= 6 " .E !;l E lO
'" .., tl III :J5' S E
o.!!!.- '.t:i ::s ... c
EO::: 0;: '" 0 0
'S' 0 0 > ... ..,
o Q)'S!! .c Em.c .S:!
=>'5'5 '0>'
....8 co cn.Q c.c
ca J: cO....
of;lO.t:~Oo~"'2
'" .. lO'- ,,-
"C .r:::. :> .- tQ .. 0 "-
.!!~CDa.-!C.O
... _ 10 002.-" .
',j:i',j:iu"'>~ 1:
o c .- Q, CD cv .z:. CD
c::::lcQ,.z:.....2E
>cn::::lcv...o.z:.
.Q '" E "'... .;= 6
CD'!!! E J:. ",U C .. CIt
~E'" oc'-
CD 0 0 t::: ',j:i 0 ...
.&: f U ... 0 U .- Q,
",o.'Q",,,,,,;E
:; CD ceo.a U .::
.z:. ...'" c ~ 0
::::I ... 0 Q) Q)'- 0
o c "'C ~ ... C ... Q)
> 0 :3 ~ .2 cv Q,.s
0. 0 '" 0.. ~ - ...
:::l>..cLL2~o
~
c
"
E
~
~
c,
"
OM
g>....
:CO)
::1Il
~ .
",Ill
~N
,elll
~ Gl
2"
il 0
c,J:
~11.
~
~
lO
o
~
c
"
~~
c,
"
OM
......
~O)
::1Il
~~.;,
~N
,elll
~Gl
2 "
ilO
c,J:.
"11.
..
C
Gl
E
1:
as
c.
Gl
o
III
"
:2
~
It-
'"
...
lO
o
C:~n,..n,....,
., ,., o.J'J I
....
....
<0
....
CO
o
1 <'
'0 0(
U I-
,,'
!. !a
(( :c
I-
IoU
>
o
:E
IoU
~
I-
o
Z
o
C
Q.;
"
o
J:.
Q.
::J
III
....
....
<0
....
CO
o
1 <'
'0 c(
U I-
,,'
~ !:a
(( :c
I-
IoU
>
o
:E
IoU
~
I-
o
Z
o
C
Q.;
"
o
J:.
Q.
.
.
MBII>RA!lOOIll
TO: Bill Mason, Chairman of the
Board of Adjustment
FROM:
Cindy M. Houben, Planning Office ~
Board of Adjustment - Lazy Glenn Approval
October 11, 1985
RE:
DATE:
===:==:=======::================:=====:==:======================
It has come to my attention that the Lazy Glenn will be expanding
thei r commercial space by the addition of thi s greenhouse. The
Pitkin County Land Use Code requires that the applicant go through the
growth management procedure or growth management exemption procedures
outlined in the Code. This requires a Land Use application action by
the Board of County Commissioners. Therefore, it is the Planning
Office's determination that the Board of Adjustment should not take a
formal action on the request until such time as a land use approval is
obtained.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I
try to attend your meeting on Tuesday, the 15th.
questions, please don't hesitate to call.
will per sonally
If you have any
(~~ 1 ~.~ ~~' :~8
.
Lazy Glen Inc.
P.O. Box 24
Snowmass, Colorado 81654
303/927 -3632
.
Pitkin County Board of Adjustments
3e"tember 20. 1985
Lazy Ulen Inc.
grants Frank LaGiola,
its lessee,
"ermission to
feelS tnat tile
expand the Lazy Glen Greenhouse.
circumstances oictate this rigllt.
Lazy Glen Inc.
This ex"ansion must conform to all Pitkin County buildinb codes
and must be performed in a workmanlike manner.
Lazy Glen Inc.
lias owned the greenhouse property fur over thir-
teen
years.
Tllis was long before tile valley waS down-zoneo.
hopes that the board will take this Into account
La"y Glen Inc.
while making its deciSion.
.~~~i
Te~Kirk. president
Lazy Glen Inc.
I ~, t (1I ,... ~ "(.1
,_;, "_,o_,.,J
.PEN.PITKIN .
REGIONAL BUILDING DEPARTMENr
DCORRECTION NOTICE
ftSTOP WORK ORDER
JoD Located atk'l ~( M~~~r
I have this day inspected this structure and these premises
and have found the following violations of City, County
and/or Colorado State laws governing same:
~~/' i'5,( 5'~
Z~ ~~~~~::-D /A!
A/oI'If -r:b1(R:J~/Y/.(1I{ tJ t-tS'6
1t1dHOr- 11G- /?x/-Wl{b?-: 0_
/ /1 r
J-:::2/11[) IY.d~ce e J.
/:;J .'/0 h>1--
You are hereby notified that nO more work may be done
upon the premises until the above violations are corrected. If
you do not communicate with this office now, this matter will
be referred to the appropriate authorities for enforcement.
Failure to correct the violations may subject you to a civil suit
for an injunction, or a fine, or both; or to misdemeanor crimi-
nal prosecution, which upon conviction may carry a sentence
of fine or impri nment, o( both.
Date
"spector for Building Department
. Building Department Phone 925-5973
Phone: Aspen, Colorado 81611
DO NOT REMOVE THIS TAG
.PEN.PITKIN .
REGIONAL BUILDING DEPARTMENT
DCORRECTION NOTICE
~STOP WORK ORDER
~ hLcEd ~Rr~lZY::
JOb Located at
I have this day inspected this structure and these premises
and have found the following violations of City, County
and/or Colorado State laws governing same:
)
';7L.LGGAt.. YtCO
&;,{~YiZu> c~f)
/M)I 0 .7L~~
;3& I'IfCy
/ /It dkJo ;::r
S"G, j'Sqr::.c:::C
C:.:1/1/?Zk"J ,4r;y Ai~~'I
7:~v~
You are hereby notified that no more work may be done
upon the premises until the above violations are corrected. If
you do not communicate with this office now, this matter will
be referred to the appropriate authorities for enforcement.
Failure to correct the violations may subject you to a civil suit
for an injunction, or a fine, or both; or to misdemeanor crimi-
nal prosecution, which upon conviction may carry a sentence
of fine or imprisonment, Of both.
Date
_&~
Phone:
spector for Building Department
Building Department Phone 925-5973
Aspen, Colorado 81611
DO NOT REMOVE THIS TAG
~
.
.
PITKIN COUNTY
BOARD OF AD3USTMENT
REGULAR MEETING
3ANUARY 28, 1986
MEMBERS PRESENT: 30e Zanin, Acting Chairman
Bill Lukes
ALTERNATES:
Spero Niarhos
Kandi Shaffran
Bob Throm
Peter Dobrovolny
Evan Gull
Bill Mason called the meeting to order. He questioned if the
members had any questions or comments on the October 15, 1985,
and December 17, 1985, minutes received in the mail. Zanin moved
to accept the minutes as typed and Shaffran second the motion. A
vote was taken and all approved.
Mason announced that he gave notice to the Pitkin County
Commissioners that he was resigning from the Board due to the
problem with the county's public liability insurance. He then
turned the meeting over to Zanin. Mason read a letter to the
Board from Paul Krausch, announcing that he, too, was resigning
from the Board due to the insurance situation. Throm stated into
the record that he felt that Pitkin County and the Commissioners
should give Mason the highest vote of thanks for his
contributions to this Board and other items throughout the years.
Mason stated that he appreciated everyone's dedication and work
over the years and he had enjoyed it. He then excused himself
from the meeting.
Throm suggested that the Board briefly review the discussion with
Tom Smith at the last meeting and maybe have a special meeting to
go over the situation. He felt this meeting should be with Tom
Smith. It was agreed that this would be arranged. Also, the
Board could take this time to work toward restructuring the Board
in light of the resignations.
30seph E. Edwards. 3r.
Lot 13, Block I, Aspen Highlands SID, 0280 Glen Eagles
requesting the Board of Adjustments to hear and decide
appeal, alleging that there is an error in the order,
requirement, decision or refusal made by an administrative
official creating an inability to obtain a building permit for
improvements to his garage. Joe Edwards was there to represent
himself. Edwards need an interpretation to the definition of
accessory use as stated in the code. He explained that the
placement of his garage was based on the placement of his house.
One location would have created the need for a U like turn to get
the car into the garage. By attaching the garage, it would cut
off valuable sun to the house. By placing the garage as he now
proposed, it allows the sun to reach the house, and allows the
car more accessibility to the garage.
86-01
Drive,
his
As stated in a letter to the Board of County Commissioners dated
January 7, 1986, Edwards outlined the sequence of events leading
to his meeting at this time with the Board of Adjustment.
Previously, Newbury had referred Edwards to Tom Smith, County
Attorney for clarification to her interpretation of accessory
use. According to Edwards, Smith's interpretation was that any
use which you normally find within a single family residence, the
principal structure, cannot be in an accessory building. Edwards
felt that to substantiate the interpretation, Smith pulled out
1
I
..
.
.
the words in the definition of accessory that talk about
subordinate use and incidental use, and then inflated the meaning
of those words. He argued that interpretation because there is a
mutual use of buildings. Also, now, he has been advised that a
heated corridor would make the habitable space legal, which he
felt was misrepresented to him at an earlier time.
Edwards wanted to have the Board look at the interpretation of
the definition of accessory use along with other interpretations
that have been made. He referred to the letter of January 7,
1986, to the Board of County Commissioners and read to the Board
the definition of accessory buildings as stated on page 2 of the
letter. He felt the question before the Board was what does that
definition mean. Edwards argued that Smith's interpretations
"tripped" up when going between accessory uses, attached garages
and detached garages. Edwards then referred to definitions of
"subordinate", "customarily" and "incidental" as stated on Page 3
of the January 7th letter. He cited the Colorado Courts
definition as stated on that same page. He quoted several
sections from Rathkopf, The Law of Zonin~ & Planning regarding
accessory uses. His readings were as follows: Pages 6, 10, 22
of the Accessory Use Section. He felt that the definition on
Page 22 was directly in contradiction with Smith's
interpretation. Edwards pointed out to the Board that he was
below 50% of the allowable F.A.R. for the lot size that he has.
He then referred to four (4) cases in the State of Colorado that
have had to interpret what the definition of accessory use is.
Holcolm vs City and County of Denver was about 12 dogs on the
premises and the City/County was charging that was in violation
because it was not an accessory use to the principal structure.
The Court held that it was sn accessory use and could not be
prohibited. They defined accessory or incidental use as a use
customarily incident to the principal use and so necessary and
commonly to be expected in conjunction therewith and it cannot be
supposed the ordinance was intended to prevent it.
Sheridan vs Kean, they defined accessory use as customarily
incident to the principal use, necessary or commonly to be
expected in conjunction therewith. It cannot be supposed that
the ordinance was intended to prevent it. Deemed to be permitted
by implication where the ordinance is silent on a particular
issue. Concept of accessory use relieves the municipality from
attempting to enumerate in this statute every possible approved
use. In this case, the use of trailers for a residence in sn
industrial zone was not accessory to the industrial zone.
Board of County Commissioners vs Thompson. They defined
accessory use as one subordinate to, clearly incidental to,
customarily in connection with, and ordinarily located in the
same lot as the principal use. They found that 60 junk cars and
other miscellaneous parts was not accessory to a residence.
Shumate vs Zimmerman. It held that under zoning ordinance
requirement, that accessory use be clearly incidental and
customary to and commonly associated with the use by right of the
resident, the repair and maintenance of a stock car, maintained
by a homeowner as a hobby, was a lawfully accessory use and the
use of his property as a single family dwelling.
Gull, for the Board's information, read from the Uniform Building
Code the definition of Occupant Group M, and Group R-3. If the
garage has habitable space, it then becomes a Group R-3, which
then puts another dwelling unit on the lot. Edwards argued that
a kitchen has to be present to create a dwelling unit and the
classification only dictates the type of construction necessary.
Lukes agreed that the structure would become a part of a
dwelling, not a separate dwelling unit. Lukes was against
looking at the use with the assumption that it may become an
illegal dwelling unit.
2
.
.
Cindy Houben was there to represent the City of Aspen Planning
Office and Tom Smith. She referred to a letter dated January
27, 1986, from Tom Smith to the Board members. She read to the
Board the second paragraph of that letter and reaffirmed Smith's
point was that it has been the practice to interpret accessory
use in this way and the precedent that could be set here would be
very different from actions in the past. Lukes felt it was
irrelevant to worry about what label the rooms had, and did not
see a problem with having habitable space in the structure.
Throm did not feel there was logic in Smith's interpretation and
referred to the last paragraph in the same letter. Houben
explained that by connecting the residence with the garage using
the corridor, it made the garage a part of the principal
residence. Throm did not feel that was logical.
There were no letters in file from adjacent homeowners, however,
Tom Payne, an adjacent property owner was there to express his
opinion. Payne pointed out that the property has three separate
buildings, a principal residence, employee housing and space
being occupied over the garage. His opinion was that the nature
of the residence should not be changed, and giving other people
the option to change the nature of their property. He felt it
would be opening the code to numerous problems by deciding in
Edwards favor. And the concentration of people was being
increased in a single family area, which he was against.
Shaffran stated that each case was judged in an individual basis
and they were not setting a precedent nor changing the code.
Niarhos stated the definitions of "subordinate" and "incidental"
needed to be used in determining whether the studio was an
accessory use to the primary residence or not. Niarhos explained
that the corridor made the two structures one, where separately,
they were two separate structures that people dwelled in.
The action necessary for the Board to make was the interpretation
of accessory use and whether or not the improvements to the upper
floor of the garage are an appropriate accessory use. Shaffran
questioned why the request was turned down originally when a
corridor was suggested by the applicant. Newbury stated that
originally there was not a corridor proposed, and if there had
been the structure could have been 28' high and there could have
been habitable space. Edwards stated that he had been given a
different interpretation at the time of that discussion.
Niarhos questioned if the Board's interpretation of accessory use
would become the formal interpretation. Shaffran thought that
the Planning Office would take the Board's decision under
advisement because of the ambiguity of the code. Edwards stated
that the Planning Office, as a result of this case, has
undertaken a study to redefine, in more particularities,
accessory uses and reporting their findings to the Commissioners,
and probably during the next 60 to 90 days, be adopting another,
more particularized definition of accessory uses. Throm did not
feel that the decision of the Board on this case would be
interpreted historically, they were deciding on this case and its
merits only.
Shaffran moved that the definition of accessory use is ambiguous
and Edwards presented evidence that backed up his interpretation
of accessible use, and his interpretation can stand. Throm
second the motion. Shaffran, Throm, Lukes and Zanin voted in
favor. Gull opposed. Majority rules and the motion passed.
Lazy Glen Greenhouse and Nursery 85-28
c/o Frank LaGioa, 8465 Highway 82, Snowmass, requesting a 120'
front yard setback variance from the 200' highway setback for
construction of greenhouse addition. Mr. LaGioa was there to
represent himself. In September, 1985, LaGioa came before the
Board to request a variance to expand his commercial business by
adding to his greenhouse. At that time, he needed the additional
3
.
.
.
room due to over-buying. It was determined that he would need to
go through GMP approval prior to the Board acting on his variance
request. He received growth management exemption on January 21,
1986, and was back before the Board for review of his variance
request.
Resolution 86-03 grants approval of the GMP exemption with two
conditions: "1) The applicant shall grant a fishing easement
along the Roaring Fork River. This easem~nt should run the
length of the property and extend five feet from the high water
mark; and 2) The applicant shall obtain a variance from the
Board of Adjustment for construction in the 200 foot setback and
expansion of a non-conforming use before any building permit is
issued for this project. By its approval of this GMP exemption,
the Commission is making no statement whatsoever in favor of
either of these requests. The Commission does wish to state for
the record that it finds that the use of the site is over-
extended, but given the zoning in the area, a location for this
use needs to be maintained."
The Board discussed the fact that even though the Planning &
Zoning Commission had granted GMP exemption, the Board of
Adjustment did not have to grant his request for a variance and
acknowledged the fact that P&Z feels that the site is over-
extended. LaGioa pointed out to the members that he was, and had
been, striving to clean up that area, and the physical site made
it difficult to handle the problem.
Shaffran was pleased with the proposed placement of the addition,
feeling that it would be hardly noticeable from the road.
Niarhos questioned if the greenhouse would be made accessible by
the public. LaGioa stated that it was not intended for public
use. Because of the heating situation, it would have to be tied
into the main business. There was no other location on the
property that this addition could be placed due to various
reasons.
Shaffran moved to grant the variance request due to the irregular
shape of the lot and the Board does not feel that the proposed
addition creates a greater impact on the 200' highway setback.
Throm second the motion. A vote was taken and all were in favor.
The motion passed.
Mr. Jay Kuhne 86-02
27239 E. Highway 82, Aspen,requesting a 80' front yard setback
variance and an 10' sideyard setback variance on the north side
for an addition to the residence. Steve Conger and Rod Dyer were
there to represent the owners. Conger explained that the present
structure was old and below building standards and the owner
wanted to make improvements. The original setbacks in the AF-l
zone was 75' for the front yard for residential. The current
setback is 100'. Conger was also requesting a variance for a
proposed swimming pool that was drawn on the plot plan.
Lukes questioned if a variance was necessary for a swimming pool
at grade. Newbury stated it was because it went below grade, as
a foundation and was required to be within the setbacks.
Shaffran thought the proposed location for the pool was safer
than locating the pool in the rear of the property under a power
line.
The proposed addition to the house that encroached would not have
encroached under the original setback requirements. Dobrovolny
questioned why the addition could not happen somewhere within the
current setbacks. Conger explained that the owner needed a bath
in that area. He pointed out a deck that was close to the
property line to the side that would be removed during the
remodel. Newbury advised the Board that the guest house was a
pre-existing use and grandfathered in when the zoning was changed
in that area, making it an allowable use at this time.
4
........
.
.
Lukes moved to grant the variance request for a 25' front yard
variance and the small amount necessary on the sideyard as shown
on the site plan introduced into the record for the addition to
the house and the two-car garage due to downzoning. Gull second
the motion. A vote was taken and all were in favor.
Lukes then moved to deny the request for a variance to put in a
swimming pool due to the lack of a hardship. Shaffran second
that motion. A vote was taken and all were in favor.
The meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
,
\ ~
1\ \..
'. x"\ \. ,~.......... '..... \ r- \_____
Secretary
5
.
.
PITKIN COUNTY
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SPECIAL MEETING
OCTOBER 15, 1985
Members present:
Bill Mason, Chairman
Paul Krausch
Joe Zanin
Alternates:
Bob Throm
Evan Gull
Peter Dobrovolny
Kandi Shaffran
Walter Rudisch
Lot 2, Wolfson S/D, 1214 Woody Creek Road requesting a
front yard setback variance for construction of storage
The owner was represented by Jana who works for Marty
Schlumberger. The Bo.rd members had a copy of the plot plan and
she pointed out where the existinw foundation was that the
proposed barn would go on. The foundation was placed at the time
when the residence was originally built. The front yard line was
considered Woody Creek Road at that time. There are presently
three road frontages to this property. If the side was
considered a sideyard the requirement would be 50' whereas if
considered a front yard there is a lOa' requirement. She
presented photos to the Board for their review of the property.
85-29
25'
garage.
Gull moved that it was the Board's interpretation that the side
should be designated as the sideyard which has a 50' setback and,
therefore, a variance is not necessary. Throm second the motion.
A vote was taken and .11 were in favor.
Lazy Glen Greenhouse & Nursery 85-28
c/o Frank LaGioia, 8465 Highw.y 82, Snowmass, Co, requesting a
120' front yard setback variance from the 200' highway setback for
construction of greenhouse addition. Mason briefed the Board
that Mr. LaGioia was at the last meeting to request assistance
from the Board. He needed to do the addition to the greenhouse
because of overstock and the upcoming cold weather. The feeling
from the Board at that time was if anything was allowed, it would
have to be toward the back of the property.
Mason now has a letter from the Planning Department, Cindy
Hou~en. which informed the Board that this would be expanding the
commercial space, requiring that the applicant go through the GMP
process. She requested that formal action not be taken by the
Board until the land use approval is obtained. When approval is
attained, LaGioia would need to return to the Board.
Mason advised that re-publication be made due to the amount of
time involved. Krausch moved to table the case due to the
recommendation of the Planning Department. Zanin second the
motion. A vote was taken and all were.in favor.
Meeting was adjourned.
)~~;;:Z)''Q_~s<:.A ~~,
J1u~0
Bill Mason, Chairman
Scanned 10/9/07
File Finders Box
#11