HomeMy WebLinkAboutlanduse case.boa.1451sierravistsdr.011-81
t
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Case No. ill 11
BEFORE THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
'1'0 ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING OR USE VARIANCE
nESCRIBED BELOW:
Pursuant to the Official Code of Aspen of June 25, 1962, as amended,. a
public hearing will be held in the Council Room, City Hall, Aspen, Colo-
rado, (or at such other place as the meeting may be then adjourned) to
consider an application filed with the said Board of Adjustment requesting
authority for variance from the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter
24, Official Code of Aspen. All persons affected by the proposed variance
are invited to appear and state their views, protests or objections. If
you cannot appear personally at such meeting, then you are urged to state.
yo~views by letter, particularly if you have objection to such variance,
as the Board of Adjustment will give serious consideration to the opinions
of surrounding property owners and others affected in deciding whether to
grant or deny the request for variance.
~
(
c
~
;
I
,
i
i
f
The particulars of the hearing and of the requested variance are as follows:
,
,
I
Date and Time of Meeting:
Date: December 10
T. '
l.me: 4:00 p.m.
1981
Name and address of Applicant for Variance:
Name: M. Oliver
Address: 201 N. Mill Street., Suite 106, Aspen
Location or description of property:
Location: 1451 S'
D . ti lerra Vista Drive
escr1.p on: SEE ATTACHED
Lot 27, Block 1, West Aspen Subdivision
Variance Requested: I ' ,
t was the lnterpretatlon of the Building Department and the Aspen
Boa:d,of Appeals and Examiners that the structure violated section 24-3 7 ( ) (') f the
Munlclpa1 Code. . g l 0
Th " " .
e sun scoop. w~s determlned to be part of the structure rather than mechanical equipment
as the owner has lndlcated. The design does not meet the intent of the code.
Duration of Variance: (please cross out one)
'I''"''1For ary
Permanent
THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
BY Remo T..qV;:Jp-n;nn rh::l;....TTI~......
Virginia M.. .Beall. Deputy City Clerk
"
,
. .j )f>[J\l TO BOAHD OF ZON I NG
Cl TY OF ^SPErl
I JUCf'T''''
flU J .Iklll
DATE
28 October 1981
CASE NO.
ADDRESS 201.N. Mill St.,'Suite 106, Aspen .
APPELLANT M. Oliver by Gary A. Wright.
.
PHONE
925-5627 '
OWNER
M. Oliver
.'
ADDRESS
lOCATION OF PROPERTY 1451 Sierra Vista Drive
Lot" 27, Block 1, West Aspen Subdivision
.r ~(Street. & Number of Subdivision Blk. & l.ot No.r-
Building Permft Application and prints or any other pertinent
data must accompany this application, and will be made part of
C^SE NO.
THE BOARD WILL RETURN THIS,APPlICATION IF IT DOES NOT CONTAIN
AL[ THE FACTS IN QUESTION.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED EXCEPTION SHm~INGJUSTIFICATIONS: section 2-22
The Owner applied for a building permit with a set of plans prepared by a local architect. It
was the belief'of the architect am owner that although a portion of the structure extended 19
inches above 25 feet above grade level, the "sur! scoop" (an active solar device) was included
within the execption for "mechanical equiptment" allowed by the Municipal Code !l24-3.7(g)(1).
The Board of Appeals and Examiners met on 41 October 1981 and interpeted that the "sun scoop"
did not fall within the intended exception. A Building Permit was issued pursuant to the plans
supplied. Now, if this variance is denied, the owner will suffer a .hardship for his detrimental
reliance on the approved plans. Plans based on a reasonable', although accordio:} to the Board,
incorrect interpetation of the Municipal Code. It is unfortunate that nowhere is rrechanical
equiptment defined to include or exclude an active solar collector. In this case there is an'
area where sunlight heats the air within the rolle,ctor space and then using large fans redis-
tributes the air to the livio:} areas of tm heme. It is urged that tm owner not: I::e penalized
by this retrospective application of the Board of Appeals interpetation of !l24- 3.7 (g) ( 1 ) . The
effect of grailting this yariaI}ce will I::e minimal, allowio:} tm active solar collectors to extend
aproximately 19 inches above the allowed might, but still se feet 0 imneys etc.
SIGNED:
OWner will be represented by Gary A. Wright, attorney
PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRING THE BUILDING INSPECTOR
TO FORWARD THIS APPLICATION TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND REASON
FOR NOT GRANTING:
It ~as the interpretation of the Building Department and
the Aspen Board of Appeals and Examiners ~h~t the structure
violated section 24-3.7 (g)(i) of the Munlclpal Code.
The "sun scoop" was determined to be part of the s~ruc:ture
~ather than mechanical ~quipment.as the owner has lndlcated.
The design does not mee~the intent of the code,
~;r~'r~
i St ~ , .
PERMIT REJECTED, DATE
APPLICATION FILED
MAILED
-
~~
S gne
"~
."""','
.
DECISION
DATE IF HEARING
, DATE
.
SECRETARY
.
9 October 1981
MEMORANDUM:
TO: Board of Appeals and Examiners, Aspen, pitkin County, Co.
FROM: Gary A. Wright for Michael Oliver
RE: 1451 Sierra Vista Drive
Building Code/Zoning Interpretation
Aspen Code S24-3.7(g)(1)
-
This memorandum will briefly and concisely address the issue
that the integration by design of an active solar collector
system results in that collector being treated as mechanical
-equipment pursuant to Aspen Code S24-3.7(g)(1). The 30lar
collector is permitted to take advantage 'of the code allowance
for an additional five feet of height above the maximum roof
level.
Attached for the Board's benefit are two exhibits which
attempt to show:
(a) the maximum grade level permitted for the structure;
(b) the maximum grade level permitted for "solar
collectors"; and,
(c) to demonstrate how the integrated active solar
collectors are within the required maximum height for collectors
and mechanical equipment.
The issue here, on a technical level~is quite simple. Does
a owner who integrates an active solar collector system,
including mechanical devices, qualify to use the additional
height allowed for mechanical equipment, or should, in effect,
this same owner be penalized for designing and constructing an
integrated active solar device. Does integration by design work
to the owner's detriment?
It is respectfully urged that this City and County has
adopted the Pitkin County Land Use Code, including S20.18, and
has a policy of encouraging the use of renewable energy sources.
Many pro~isions and modifications have been made to our codes to
encourage this end. It is consistent with this position that we
should permit one who designs an integrated mechanical solar
collector system into a residence to use the additional height
allowance of S24-3.7(g)(1).
We would respectfully urge this Board to interpret Aspen
Code S24-3.7(g)(1) to include active-solar collective systems and
their support mechanics based on their function. One should not
be prohibited the benefit of. this code section simply because
these elements, although identl~al in function, are visually
integrated into the structure. It is urged that our requested
application of S24-3.7(g)(1) is consistent with the intent of the
code and as a consequence the Oliver residence should be allowed
to continue to completion consistent with the existing approved
plans.
y . Wr' g t
201 N. Mil tree~, Suite 106
Aspen, Colorado--81611
3-03-925-5627----- --
GAW/pk/C
,
I
. f
" s'
l ~~ ~
~
I .'
I ' ~
,
, .,;
,
, t"
1
l
; "
1 .: ,
"
, ::->
I
,
i
!
I
l
!
!
t
.~
"
~
I,;
~
. .
1
~
..
~
'"
,1
:~
i
!
.'
:.~
:~
"I
:~
,3
j .' /.
,I ."./
. #/
"t}:;
.,1'.:
.~" .'
'", Y'
APJ'J~^L '1'0 1I0^HlJ (JFM'PEM,;; A!W Ei:I,lIIiamS
Date 5LJ;2 Y / g /
- J I
~,. h /
Appellc.ni:. . / 1, c Ii ('
City or ^BpC~ll
.
o / /' 1/'(' 1/'
Casc No.
Addrcss / 7' /~ S, ~,:'//',j /~r t1
Otmcr
.. '1 It. ~-
~. /i ; .~;' C~.
Locati.on
Address
-. .-t' ,'. /;- .
/Ir- ( ,'" ....... '1 ... _ A
of }')'o')"" t" 1,-, / -. " J ,~. J " f, . /'. /'1
. i ~,J.. J --1_ ;,..," -- ... ..
. 1~Lrc(:l: &. ~~U1Hijl~r; SULJoivistonj
,
I . j~ " f ~ I
;' ,..: ':,. ..'1 '_ '-. r .
~'.J, V{y' ,y,~ '. "
. I' .
JHockJCc Lot)
Duildil1g Penilt <1pplic<ttion and J"lrints or any other pertinent data
must nccor::p<1ny thi.s- applicll tion, and \Y'i.ll be made a part of Casc
No;
The 13o<Jrd \.,i11 rcttlrn this application if it docs not contain all
the facts in que:; tion.
.
J)2scriptioil of pro1)osed ci:ception shOl,Jing justification .(use reverse
of appeal if ncce'E,,,ary):
2Cf~.7 (6t.I)
. ~
I .
.l{ ./.' 1.,:.7(j
Appa ant .
requiring the nuilding Inspector to
DO.crd of J'.ppeals and reason fOL not
Signed
Provisions of the huilding code
forward thic npplication to the
granting permit.
~ ~0.~.~J
. Slgnr:..'li
Date permit rejected
IIppl:i.c.1 t:ion [j led
Nailed .
,
c10A ~~ ,
--S La Lu SO
Dcci::;io!1 ,r~~c:.~LV Date
Date or TlC:lI: _ug. \O~
lO(,-o1 ~ \
1,jl!(:);C tary
'1)
~
~ r-
~ t
.
~~l:
1'1 I.
<:
<
><
--- -------
.
-,:.'
"
:~
'.,
-.I
jj
1
r!
Ii'
I
~
~
ill
:r
I'll')
'1,'0"'
, ~
~h.")
:p'
8
I
'-.1
"'
. ~ I
J
~ , ~
I~~ w I
I
~ ~~~ ~,
. ~ C\ &.t: I tl
~~Z -_.__._.__._--~
; ~ I J-~,=~ 1 t!
; ~ \l:!lU; -
"- ~I
l~ ' r..l .... ...'dl
~i~~ ~ ~ ,- 2:!
\' ':"11-
) .. '2 "I
~ ~ ":"" I'
I ' ,~\.- I
I I I
n
-
r=
tl - .,1 , .1 -, I
, -
I
T
, I
,~. .
.
,
I , -
I
IT ~ -
\
I I
~
r-"'
/ I . I
I ,
> <
-----r'
"":.'1
,\~
,
I
~
\i
~
C)
~
z
u
"
, .
. "
'i
I-'
, ,.
\-.,
4-
I
~ ~
0
~~
~. ,
,
,~ ~ I .~
I ,
I ,
-,,] ,
-
I, . ..
-
I f ill
I
-ll~ I .- r'l
-~-1::-~':-" --,
Ij
J :._.1 ~-~._-
! -
_..:l I I r ., -
....... I ,
I
I
i-,. ,
[
I ( !
I
I I
- - I I
-< r
I ,
I
K ,
, ,
I
I
'. ~ ,
1
r ,
"
,
I
,
I
. ,
,
, . ~ ,.:.: -
I
I
,{. /
"
~-
~
,
\
(
I
1
~j;
...
.;: it:t
.~
i
:.Z.. :-
,
"
.~~
'-::.-/
---. .'
~/~
;//'31
-tF,<.9
-:#' ,<. h
#- /I'll
~e29
;!~~/Jr /f'7e.r7 d-,~/ler<s-
If'tt:'"~ s. 'r &",/1;e:, E /Ik t1&t//t:;?
/$9:> s: r.. .2),lve
rW7,.f '/AP/#UVI
~,r 6~O .
,2),/la/e/ //e./P1/~
&x c23t!~
//l/I;K~I!.//;f ~J~M //l..;vLr
Ilt!x /~1c,;Z- i
L4//)" / /{MJ/ae
"?.s7f/' s. i/6dcr
~J'~/'/ tJ; l ~t1;?37
Z/-'fVIe:t ~e4 p/a/a/"~
~X 02/~o?-r '_
--S~d.' ~. tJds. -'-
/~o1S- i #. s: I/: 2)rIYt: .
,...,
,...,
'"
ill N ,...,
on 00
b ,..., 0
N "0
...:l >< "
'"
~ 0 0
~ "0
~ 0 U
~ ~ "
<l.)
0.
~
~
.,J
s::
~
.,J
(J)
;:l
-.-,
'0
-t: s::
<tl
4-<E
o ~
-....
'0 <tl
~.s:: ri
<tlU ri
o \0
m. ri
o <Xl
s:: s::
Q1.....
o.s::s::O
(J) 01 QI '0
-t:<tlri<tl
> <tl ~
4-<<tl(90
OH ri
.s::0
>>O.,JU
.,J E ;:l
.,-1 OJ 0 ..
U OHIJ s::
QI
QI 00 0.
.s::.......l"'l (J)
\'4Uri-t:
-b l'
v ?/ /.t. 'l
"/ /, ~
j'j C"". '\>'
(~J~) .~'1
{/~_ .' ~X
'''' -
, ,
(
"(7
'\
1425 3ierra Vista Drive
Aspen, Colorado 81611
December 9, 1981
The City of Aspen Board of Adjustment
130 South Galen
Aspen, Colorado 81611
To the City of Aspen Board of Adjustment:
My name is David Walbert, owner of the duplex directly
bordering the 1451 Sierra vista Drive project in question.
My property lies on the southwest side of the building.
I am writing this letter because I will be out of town
on the date of the meeting.
My objection to the granting of a variance is that this
building has already been given a variance by the Home
Owners Association to encroach on the set back area
bordering my property. Thus, the building is closer to
my structure than it should be. with the increased height,
it seems to "tower" over my property. The original variance
allows a triangle shaped corner of the building to sit
within the set back area. This area was established
to give a sense of open space between the buildings in
the subdivision. This building, being as large as it is,
on a relatively small lot, certainly does not promote
that feeling. Therefore, no more variances should be given
to this project, which is already taking advantage of the
rules laid down to protect the other property owners.
Also, one other point on this project concerns the supposed
"sun scoops." If these structures are actually designed
as active solar collectors, why is om facing om direction,
and the other, for the second half of the duplex, facing
the completely opposite direction? It seems, with this
in mind, that they are just a part of the overall architectural
design of the building and certainly not a mechanical
equipment addition.
Thank you for considering my objections to the granting
of this variance.
7J;;:;'IJrJh-
David Walbert