Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.87.24'~ BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT to ~~. ~ a. c ,z ,e "'' ~' I 8 DATE ~ -.( 19 ~ CASES o R .,,x - - ~ ~~ ~ r: , . rf.x , v~tid.rcr.y'~"m rv . „a a roG ~ , d.< LY., 3.a. .. ~ , a 's , ~ a.... u ...,,~11 n / n f ~J~ .. -'• .....ADDRESS ids" S ~~ ~ ~d~ A?PLICANT ~ `/ rr7 ~/ L~yP/d ~ -Fn/ l~,~c. ~r/~ J- n c ... g OfaNER ~7F-1'c/ ~cl? ~P -"1 ADDRESS O ~! ~ ~/!N././n o c-'~~v' ..- ,..,. t a. ~ .wY.3 « .v.n,~++. ~;n~" A n¢ mYQ".. a'.i+R.Np~k a ,t ,a.: p.~, ~», r, a, LOCATION OF PROPERTY return this ap licpton if Pt goes not contain all the fac' Applicant's descri, tioh of ro osed variance showing Any pertinent d to ust accompany this application, and will be made part this Case No. ~/-24m The Board may in question. justification: ~dr~d~.c~/ ~a ~....~xu.mxo9k ~y'lid nG. ~e •~. •, P ~ c' e t 5 +,/~ Va.< 'fe37 e~cJaS.~,.~e,, ~~n ! '! • S t/ d 5..:` °~'~ C{ r S "~nr ,> e2 S y ~d+ c 1 Q E / c ~ d ~~o w d ~! F ~~D d !- al l' « I ~ ~.. Applicant Signature~^^r~--'+1, ~~_~-~ Provisions of the zoning resolution requiring the Building Inspector to forward this application to the Board of Adjustmeht and rde.~ason for not granting a buidin~g) peermit: Q ~O ~U~t~G~~ ~~ ~. ~~ J~ `-'. /~7~ ~~hJ ~.R/~/~-LO,~µ/ti'Pi ./U"R'°'LC<i Ge~v//p"~ o~~"'~C~LA"P_''~ J U L/'/ ~J C// ° n ~/~ Q J/Yr"' ..1~~ . 'J /~- ~ ~' i ing Inspect /~"~ - ~, Board decis' ~ ., y,a*_e~~t re/c~`-°-a: „, ,- won " Date ;~~; i e~: _..,~ .a.- ~~*+ ~.~~ ,-~Secretar}~So3rfl' of Aa]ustment ._____J.._ _ _..._.._~_r T~__..._.-.._.._.;.__. ,._V~,.~_ ...,._., A °~. . NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING Oh: USE VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW: Pursuant to Pitkin County Resolution of June 5, 1955, as amended, a Public Hearing wi7.1 be held in the County Commis- sioners Room, Pitkin County Court House, Aspen, Colorado,'(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 County Zoning. Resolution. All persons affected b y 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 your vies by 'letter, particularly if you have objection to such variance,' as the Boar d, of Adjustment will give serious consideration to the opinions of surrounding property owners and other affected in deciding whether to grant or 'deny the request for variance. THE PARTICULARS OF THE HEARING AND OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE ARE AS FOLLOWS: Date and time of meeting: June 30, 1987 5:15 p.m. Name and Address of Applicant for Variance: Stefan Kaelin' 0561 Meadowood Drive Aspen, CO 81611 Location of Property or Description: 0561 Meadawood Drive Aspen, CO 81611 Variance Requested: 52 sq. ft. to the allowable floor area ratio Duration of Variance: Permanent: XX :Temporary, Condition: THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF"ADJUSTMENT _ ~ ~' ~~ti Evan Gull, Chairman t.,.`~s~ ~F~~' F: . .. ~ . n~ .,_ . ,; ..., _~ .,, e ._._.:. ;:. .~ ., _:_ _. ADJACENT LANDOWNERS TO LOT 2,BLOCK 1, MEADOWdOD SUBDIVISION.. ~, , ASPEN,C6: PROPERTY LOCATED, AT 056 t MEADOWOOD DR _,... _~... _ . ,_. M,......~., ... _., ..... OWNER: STE~PHAN KAELIN: HEIK,O H, AND LOUISE KUNN BOX 206 ASPEN, CO. 81612 SUE ROWAN PITTMAN 2225 DEVONSHIRE HOUSTON, TEXAS 77019 CARL R. AND CATHERINE M,:BERGMAN BOX 1365 ASPEN, CO. 81612 NIKLAUS G. AND ~ERTRUDE E. KUHN, BOX 8016 ASPEN, CO.81612 JAMES R.HARRIS, JR. AND MARY ANN HARRIS... 4204 RIDGEHAVEN COURT FORT WORTH, TEXAS 76116 JACQUELINE YELLIN BOX 9127 ASPEN, CO. 81612 RUSSELL NAND ELSIE`P: WOROBEG __ . _ 1640 OAK R1DGE PLACE WILLIAMSPDRT, PA. 17701 LESTER E: AND THELMA'W. ANDERSON BOX 61 ASPEN, 60:81612 lA.r:+-..Z~- ~~~~~~ r .. _,. iooo Noun Tno-a st. Aspen, Colorado 81et1 U.S.A. Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies z- w. 'v~JUR25 ° F61 1€b7 0~=~\ County Board of Ad)ustment c/o Building Department (City & County) 506 East Main St. Aspens CO 81611 ~ , Aspen Instituee for Humandstic Studies June 25, 1987 County Board of Adjustment c/o Building Department (City & County) 506 East Main St. Aspen, CO 81611 NarthThird SY. ~ ' en Colorado 81611 U.S.A. 925.7010 da: AspenGs4 Colorado Re: Request for Variance - Lot 2, Block 1, Filing 1; Meadowood Subdivision (Stefan and Anastasia Kaelin - owners); June 30, 1987 Dear Board Members: As a resident of the Meadowood Subdivision and a past Board Member of the Meadowood Architectural Committee, I am concerned that if the variance that Mr. Kaelin is requesting is allowed, it could set a precedent. Z have no'objection to the design"of the 52 square- foot entryway that Mr. Kaelin wishes to build; my concern is the possible granting of a variance that would be setting a precedent in the subdivision. ~ ' To my knowledge, no variances have been granted by the Meadowood Architectural Committee or"the Pitk'in County Board of Adjustment during the twenty years T have resided in the Meadowood Subdivision. Is there an undue hardship on the part of Mr. Kaelin regarding his request for a variance from the County? Please see paragraph three (Variances), page three of the Protective Covenants of the Meadowood subdivision (copy of page 3 attached). I hope that the Board of Adjustment will review all the information,. presented in this case and come to the conclusion that since there is no undue hardship, that the variance should be denied. Sincerely yours, s~~~ A King R. Woodward KRW/ec .Attachment cc: Meadowood Homeowners Assoc. Board of Directors rp%T n `[' (,~isv ~:E'~yJ ,. .., . , of such work. In the event the. Architectural Committee fails to take any action,withi 0 ays after complete architectural plans for such • work have been submitted_to it, then ali of such submitted architectural plans shall be_deemed to be .approved. In the event the Architectural Committee shall disapprove any architectural plans, the person or .. ~ •.. .. association submttin such architectural laps ma appeal the mate S p.. , , ..._y .. ~ r to the next annual or special meeting of the vembers of MEADO@100D ECIdE OWNgRS ASSOCIATION, where a vote of at least two-thirds of the votes entitled to be cast at said meeting shall be required to change the ,~.. . , .. decision of the Architectural Committee. •q~ 3. Variances. Where circumstances, such as topography, location of property lines, location o: trees and brush, or other matters re- ... quire, the Architectural Committee may, by a two-thirds vote, allow reasonable variances as to any of the covenants contained in this in- strument, on such terms and conditions as it shall require; provided that no such variance., shall be finally allowed until 30 days after the Architectural Committez shall, have mailed„a notice of such variance„to each Member of MEADOZ•700~ HO;IH 04;\ERS ASaSOCiATIOV. In the event any three Members shall notify the Architectural Coa~mittee•in writing of their obJection to such variance within said 30-day period, the variance shall not be allowed,_.until such„time as it shall have been approved by a vote of at least two-thirds of the votes entitled to ,. ..: ,: ~.. r., .,. be cast at ah annual or special meeting of the members of :~EADOWOOD HOME OWNEr~S ASSOCIATIOY. 4. General Reeuirements. The Architectural Committee .shall 'exercise its best Judgment to see that all_improve:~ents, construction, landscaping, and alterations on the. lands within Meaaowood conform and harmonize with the natural surroundings and with existing structures ~ ,. as to external design, materials, color siting, height, topography, grade, and•finished ground elevation. The Architectural Co:.v,~ttee shall protect the seclusion of each home site from other hom s::es ~_ . insofar as' possible. • -3- EHISTIN6 fiIiRRGE ENISTIN6 HOUSE 7. O.~ RHFTEHS AAE 2Hi®Ul/FULI TNICK FIBER6LRSS INSUL. ~Y6' .Oi; PAOPRNEL 11 METAL HOOF" TO MATCH EHISTIN6 PITCH WILL MATCH EHi'STIN6. ~ 10' 0" ------r 2. Q„ /f ~~ / 7. 1 ~,~ 40-- ROOF LINE OUEA ENTRY WRLLS ARE 2H6 WITH FULL F'1BER6~ASS INSUL SIDIN6IS iH6 T0•B SMOOTH CEOR~t EHCEPT STONE"I~ENEER' FADE 0N'ERGA SIDE OF 3'6" EHT. DOOR. DRIUEWA4 a ,,. ENTRY PLAN STEPHAN 1CAELhN ENTRY ADOiT10N 0561 MEAD.OW60b OR. SCRLEa /4"-i' DY CURTIS D. CLEVELAND ` 23 MAY,1987 Y TO OE HDDE'D 55SQ.`FT.` ._ :. 'LRGSTONE FLROR OVER b" CONC. SLRR / r., ...,n~u .. . , ._ . ,:. ..,_~.. :~~ ~..~:. ~E.~~s i ERISTING' GRRRGE WALL GRRRGEI ODD ~I I~ 3' 0" i 36' CONC. 1 ? FOUNDATION 1 a 10' 0" - a- 4' 0" --- SDUiR ElEU11TI~N STEFAN KfiELIN ENTRY ADDITION a~~~ ~Eaoawaaa a~uE ERBSTIN6 ROUSE WRLL DRIUEUIRY GRRDE BY CURTIS D. CLEUELRND 23 MRY,1987 ,. ~ . -~ ,~~ EHISTING 6RRR6'E R011F LINE ENISTIN6 NOUSE ENISTIN6 ORI!lEWRY ENTRY EAST ELEURTIQIN 1 1 ' 2" 8. ~ 0„ ~E 3'10" 1 GLRSSINSTRlLEO o THIS LOCRTI'ON FROM ENISTING ENTRY .~ T 0" -,> ~TEFAN ICf1ELlh1 Eh~TRY QQQ~T~a~_ - SGRLE; 1f4•+1. _. X561 MEfiD~LU~1~~~DF~It~E eY cuRTrs o. CLEOl:[RND 23 MAY19O7 Qt?~a~'~3 _. .~,.~ . .., ,.. ~ ~ ~.,.»; ~ ,~.~. .«,w: '~~~ r~ ,~n;kw , ., ~% f~;' p ~ j ~~ ~~ ~S +y. D G 4 MY ~~0 .., ~~~. ~~- ~ ~- o `,~, y d 7 V N .C lC 7 O w C9 7 H C C a H Q Q fN .~ to eD 90 ry F W O ~ O O V Z C O N S 6 Q i .. .. ~ t~ a 0 v `~ u +~ v C u p m w v s+ c ro au ~ ti 'O bD • ~ s+ a roro N •.+ ~ ov O m ,-~ u v _. I .~ m o, ~ ro u fA W G ~. G v ~o.oa r r ,,. i '.. i,. i y ,: "r 1ff ,. Melinda Pearson moved that the following be adopted: HBFORfi THS BOARD 0'F ADJUSTMfiNT OF THB COUNTY OF PIT'%IN STATE OF COLORADO RESOLUTION N0. 87-24 Stefan %aelin, 561 Meadowood Drive, Meadowoad Subdivision 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 Us'e Code) and Colorado Revised > C )~~C); and, ._ ., K.. Statutes 1973 30-28-I18 2"" "` WHEREAS, based on the evidence presented, tke Boa;d 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 pub"lic welfare and will not substantially impair 't he intent and purpose of the Zoning Resolutions and the zoning maps. NOW, THEREFORfi, BE IT Rfi50LVED that the applicant's request for 'a 52 sq. ft. floor area ratio'variance be 'denied due to tack o'f demonstrated hardship. Additional conditions or restrictions: WARNING: Any 'violation of the terms of this resolution may' result in rehearing and possible revocation. " Joe Zanin seconded the adoption of the foregoing Resolution. The roll having been called, "the vote was as follows: ~ `' Randi Shaffran - yes Melinda Pearson - yes Robert Miller - yes Joe Zanin - yes The Resolution was adopted by vote of the Board of Adjustment of the County of 'Pitkin, State of Colorado.' DATED: June 30, 1987 Attest: Secretary The Board of Adjustment of Pitkin County, Colorado ~~-~.~,.,~ Chairman ~ ~ i ~.., ~ .~ ,.. a ~. n ,~-, , <a _.. .. ,~ ~ a ~ .. _, , «`„ S ~ - ~ ~ e~ Minutes Pitkin County Board of Adjustment June 30, 1987 Members Present: Kandi 5haffran, Acting Chairman Melinda Pearson Robert Miller Joe Zanin ~ r, Patsy Newbury was present with staff recommendations. Shaffran g der. Pearson moved to approved the minu' ~. ca testfromethenla t meeting an3 site`vist as submitted. Miller seconded the motion. The motion carried 4 - 0. Erleyne Loucks was present. She was requesting a 70 ft: frontyard setback variance, an 8 ft. sideyard setback variance sideyard setback variance. The lot is only 80 ft. wideaanpo~20 ft. long. The septic system is located in the upper middle tion of the lot. the applcant''s neighbors, Jeff Kurtz and Dia Lynn were p-resent.` They had no objections. Zanin asked if they had the Homeowner's Association approval. Loucks replied that there wasn't an association. Shaffran suggested for uniformity that the sideyard setback variances if granted should be both 8 ft. Zanin moved to grant 70 ft. frontyard setback variance, an 8 ft. sideyard setback variance and an 8 ft. sideyard setback variance due to downzonng. Robert Miller seocnded the motion. The motion carried 4 - 0. ~.aac o,-ca - uia L nn Lot 67 E lk Mountain Subdivision Dia Lynn was present. She was requesting a 70'ft. frontyard setback variance and a 10 ft. sideyard setback variance. She introduced her contractor., Jeff Kurtz to the Board. Lynn explained that they would like to build a solar home. With the original building site they had chosen, the solar access was blocked by the existing trees, because of that they had revised their plans. They did not want to lose all the trees. There is a 10 yr. old Blue Spruce tree that would block about 2 hours of a limited solar aspect. She explained to the Board that she no longer wanted to built the garage that was shown, but wanted to place the house where the garage would have been. The setback variance required would be the same. Kurtz submitted to the' Board, a signed sheet from the neighbors giving their blessing to madeo,riginal and revised plans. After some discussion, Miller a motion that. a 10 ft. side yard variance and a 70 ft. frontyard variance be granted due to solar access. Pearson seconded the motion. The motion passed 4 - 0. Case 87-24 ',- Stefan Kaeli'n - 0561 Meadowood Drive ~- .. ~, Stefan Kaelin was present. Curtis Cleveland, his contractor was also present. Cleveland explained that they were requesting en additional 52 square feet of floor area to construct an nclosed entry way to make the entry to the house work more efficiently. He continued that this is a two story roof shedding snow onto the entry way There was also a problem with opening he door, iaithout"`ste e~~nd i Cleveland continued that the plans h ad been a the Meadowood Homeowners Associa- tion last week Therepwasdable t tter of protest from King Wood- ward. He was concerned that the variance, if granted would set a precedent; he felt if there was no undue hardship the variance should be denied. Kaelin stated that the way the door is constructed now is not a hardship, but if someone was hurt, it would'be a hardship. He continued that they wanted to enclose the carport. The way the door is now, would not be an efficient entry way and would not look nice. He felt the proposed entry way, Kvould be an improvement to his house and to the Meadowood Subdivision. Woodward was present. He clarified that the Home- owners Association had not approved the project. They had simply put the burden of approval on the Board of Adjustment. If a variance was granted, they had no problem with the design. Woodward stated that he personally did not have a problem with the design, he was concerned with setting a precedent. Shaffran assured him that all cases were considered on a case by case basis. Woodward questioned if there was a hardship Under which a variance could be granted. Kaelin felt that the BAR restrictions' were to prevent someone from building a house that was too large for the lot, he felt that really did not apply in his case. 5haffran explained to Kaelin that the State only allowed the Board certain hardshi s u ggested eliminatin pFARnder which to grant a variance. Pearson su g from somewhere else, for example the carport. She did not see a hardship to grant a variance. The hardship was man made. Zan,in was in agreement that 'there was no basis to grant a variance.' Pearson moved that the variance be denied due to lack of demonstrated hardship. Zanin'seconded the motion. The motion passed 4 - 0. Bonn Young was present, He was requesting a 60 ft. frontyard setback variance. He explained that his lot was a one acre lot. It was downzoned in 1975. He wanted to add a garage. the garage were placed to the,. back of the lot, it would in workingrbeauthfullysandrheeating system. The solar system. is co' did not want to change that. He ntinued that it was not a topographical hardship, the lot was very flat. He considered a garage a necessity in their case; his wife is a mid-wife and delivers babies at alb hours ~of the night. Newbury asked Young if lie was aware that he had a height problem. He was not .and asked if a height variance could be granted as well. Shaffran explained that a new application would have to be submitted and a sign posted and neighbors notified. There were 2 .... . ~ ..... ..../ x Y", .rvwevv...nm wuw IN aR !.<: . jz4i _~ _~ no neighbors present. Pearson asked what prevented him from moving the garage back. Young replied that the proposed location was chosen to be as far away from his neighbors as possible'. Shaffran stated that if the garage were moved back, he would need a side yard setback variance,' and might impact the neighbors more. Zanin moved to grant a 60 ft. frontyard setback variance due to downzorring. Pearson seconded the motion. The motion carried 4 -0. Subdivision _. __,- _. 'Gretchen Greenwood was present representing Gwen Sharp. ... The applicant was requesting a sideyard setback variance. wouldwood explained that she was-not sure how much of a variance,., GreeP,be required. She explained tha£ the Tot was extremely stee She gave the Board a short history of the house. The ' hardship was topographical. There is no where else on the lot that a carport or anything else could be built. The current floor area of the house 668$ s f't. and the allowable FAR is 9s46emotefexceptlfortone housenownedbbyaBob Lortonla Greenwouse od Orton stating that he had no obJections. themsetback variancerwoulnto the record:`"Newbury explained that notfthensidedardesetback;d actually be for the frontyard setback, Y Shaffran asked if they were proposing PearsondasP to the lot line. Sharp replied that they were. ked if there were any neighbors present. There were not., Greenwood stated that every single owner n_ the subdivision had been notified. She continued that they were going before the Homeowners Association on the 21st bf Jury, they couldn't meet with them until after the decision 'of this Board. Shaffran questioned if there was confusion about whether the variance was for the front or sideyard in the notices that had been sent. askedwood stated that all owners had received plans. Pearson Green, how it was posted. Greenwood replied as a setback var- lance. After some discussion, Zanin moved that a 30 ft. front- yard setback variance be `gr`anted due to topography. Pearson a 0 lded the motion. Shaffran was. not comfortable with granting seconot line variance for' a carport. She didn't feel that was a hardship. Greenwood stressed that the carport would be un- obtrusive. Shaffran was impressed by the fact that .they had not built to their allowable FAR. The motion passed 4 - 0. Brad Knotts was present representing J.T. Zoline. The applicant was requesting permission to place a sign on the south end of their field stating the name of the ranch, the telephone number and "Horse Boarding". Knotts drew a rough sketch for the ibin what the si n would look li7te and where it w bP located, Board descr1sHpgopeptyedirectly acrossnfromathe1Pomegranate~Iould placed on h" nn, facing the highway, on a rocky knoll, setback 15 or 20 ft. Shaffran asked what color and material. Knotts replied it would be a wooden sign, brown or green; something subdued. Pearson asked if they would be comply with the Pitkin County Sign Code. Knotts replied that he would. Shaffran reminded Knotts that the code required that the applicant to come back to Board for a yearly review. Pearson moved to approve the placement of the sign. Zanin seconded the motion. The motion passed 4 - 0. 4ase o-r-~rx - ~nristine Sparovic Sparovic Lot Split 1-A eter 'Van 'Domelan was present representing the applicant, Christine Sparovic, who was also present. Van Domelan began that presently there is a garage attached to the house with a four foot overhang. The variance request was to extend the overhang from 4 ft. to 8 ft. to convert the garage to living quarters and have a porch on front. This would improve the appearance of the house. The porch would be at .ground level. The other request was to permit an addition. They wanted to remove the present structure which encroaches on the l00 ft. Highway 82 setback. There would be a very small additional encroachment. The P Thet wouldwould be 92 ft. from the Highway edge of right of way. y like to place a 4 ft. roof overhang on the addition. The original house was constructed in 1960. Sparovic was not required to get a variance at that time. Newbury explained that in 1965 the setback requirements were changed. She thought the highway was realigned about the time the house was built. Van Domelan explained that the river bordered the south side of the property; there are restraints imposed by the floodplain. Charles Cuniffe, the architect was also present. He explained that they were trying to add an addition that was clean and simple. Van Domelan explained that this was only the first step in the review process due to the fact that they were in the Highway 82 view plain. Pearson had a problem adding the 4 ft. overhang to the existing garage because it encroached further into the 100 ft. Highway 82 setback. Cuniffe explained that even with the additional overhang, the new front would be a much quieter look, it would help with the next step of the review process and it would give the house a covered entrance. Shaffran felt it was downzoning problem, the house was built prior to the current zoning. Pearson moved to grant a 51 ft. frontyard setback variance for the expansion of the roof over the existing garage and a I3 ft. frontyard setback variance for the proposed addition as demonstrated on the attached drawings. Zanin seconded the motion. The motion passed 4 - 0. -GJ - Jam P_5 K. Mnnro - James Moore was present. He was requesting a 258 sq. ft. variance to the allowable floor area ratio. He explained that there was supposed to be a cul-de-sac on Bighorn Lane. The owner of Lot 4 has extended his concrete driveway into the cul-de-sac. The owner of the lot right next to Moore's driveway has installed a gate into the cul-de-sac. He showed the Board where he would 4 ' ~ ~ ` a. like to place his garage. He spoke with his neighbors and he didn't think there was a problem. He placed the house and garage so'they would be located the farthest possible away from his neighbors. Shaffran read two letters into t$e record. The first was from William Ti pps stating that tte was in favor of the Board granting the variance. The second was from David Cham- berlin, his concern was the height of the proposed residence and whetfier it would block his view. Moore stated that he did not have 'a height problem. He didn't .feel that anything could be done about the cul-de-sac. He was the last person to fit in and he was just trying to make it work. He explained ghat from the driveway he would have to make a sharp turn, the extra space was necessary to turn into the garage and pull up and in. He checked with John Moore of the Homeowners Association. Pearson asked why didn't he design the house with the garage further back. Moore explained that the neighbor next to him was using part of his property. He had twa people close to him on'-both sides and no cul-de-sac. Pearson questioned giving an FAR variance to make a garage work. She found it hard to grant an FAR variance for topography Shaffran didn't feel it would be possible to call in all the neighbors that were encroaching, although it was a man- made problem, they did not have the enforcement to control situa- tions like this. Zanin pointed out that they had 'g'iven 4 or 5 nces for houses on that cul-de-sac. Zanin moved that a variance be granted for an additional 258 sq. ft. to the FAR be granted due to topography to be used for the garage only. Miller seconded the motion. The motion passed 4 - 0. Meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Secretary Chairman 5 _.. rt, . ~. ..~ ~- s , t .. _ ..~~.~~,-.,,~ ,._~ ..~ ~ ..M~.Kw