HomeMy WebLinkAboutresolution.drac.005-97RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL COMMITTEE
GRANTING A VARIANCE FOR THE FUCHS RESIDENCE LOCATED AT
SILVERLODE SUBDIVISION LOT #10 (NO ADDRESS), ASPEN, COLORADO
Resolution #97 -
WHEREAS the applicant, Ricki and Peter Fuchs, represented by Richazd Klein, has
requested a variance of "Residential Design Standard" 26.58.040(A)(3), requiring gazages
to be set back at least ten feet further from the street than the house, for the property
located at Silverlode Subdivision Lot #10 (no address); and,
WHEREAS all applications for appeal from the Residential Design Standazds of Section
26.58.040 must meet one of the following criteria in order for the Design Review Appeal
Committee or other decision making administrative body to grant an exception, namely
the proposal must:
a) yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan;
b) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standazd or provision
responds to; or
c) be cleazly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific
constraints, and
WHEREAS The Planning Staff in a report dated May 14, 1997, recommended granting
this variance, with conditions; and,
WHEREAS a public hearing, which was legally noticed, was held at a regulaz meeting
of the Design Review Appeal Committee on May 22, 1997, at which the Committee
considered and approved the application, with conditions, by a vote of 4 to 1, finding the
variance met criteria C) clearly necessary for reasons of fairness considering site specific
constraints.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Design Review Appeal
Committee:
That the variance of standard 26.58.040(A)(3), mandatory garage setback, for the single
family residence at Silverlode Subdivision Lot #10 (no address), Aspen, Colorado, is
approved, with the following conditions:
1. To the extent practical, the applicant shall construct retaining walls with boulders, or other
natural materials, and minimize the extent of concrete facing.
2. As proposed, the applicant's development proposal is subject to 8040 Greenline review and
'~' approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission and an insubstantial Plat Amendment
approval by the Community Development Director as required in the Municipal Code. In no
way shall this approval imply approval of any other required approval.
3. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public
meetings with the Design Review Appeal Committee shall be adhered to and considered
conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions.
APPROVED BY THE COMMITTEE at its regular meeting on the 22 day of May,
1997.
APPR D AS TO F(ORM~
..~J
City Attorney
ATTEST:
~~
ckie Lothi ,Deputy City Clerk
DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL COMMITTEE:
e Bue 'air