HomeMy WebLinkAboutlanduse case.boa.305 S Aspen St.016-77
'fJf/i:1\1 'J'ri""!'I'" or 7e) IlliG AD j'I':lf'F'IT
1\ L,,_, 1j"("lJ JI t'",,"] ,.Lv'I..I,
Cl TY or: !\'jl)[JJ
Di'.lE -1!lAY. akT11.9?
A r PEL LJ\NT~8NJfJ__ H.J~iJEJ,.Jl1\L&....__ADD Ii E S S&)(
CP,S E NO. _ 11- /J:__._
g 1.5/ IlsPE J1J f_J/I>
\
O~I N E R
._n____________._______.,.__._.Pf!ONE ~~ ~ __________
/J,f1&;F~fLJLJlilJVJl.I:L_AD D I: E ss JdlfYJ E _ il.s._At3QJi.E._______
L 0 CAr I 0 iJ 0 F FRO F I' R T Y ,_ S.Jl!;__{S_,,-lls.Pf /IJ-.S-L.......____________.._
7flJ-t 4t:...f-/~ ,9 -//)1) '7r; JI.-:L] k .-'.-.,-------)--
\ ,). l' e e.~ ':J. ,i U !1i ~ e r 0 r ~) u d 1 V 1 Sit) n t$ \.. l';'. (_ 0 t No.
Building Permit Applicbtion and prints or any other' pertinent
dato must aCCO!:'l~~'(~ny thi~ appi ication, and vii 1 1 be made part of
,... f' C J="
Ln,) ....
NO.
THE BOARD WILL RETURN THI~ APPLICArIO~ IF IT DOES NOT CONTAIN
ALL THE FACTS IN QJ~STION.
D[SCRIPlIOi~ OF PROPOSED EXCEPTICiI'J SHO\!IflG JUST]FICAT!nn~;:
s~~~.
::1'-:-9 II
Z"tl39# ****10.0(1
Will you be represented by counsel
? Yi's___No.lL
SIGNED:_f)~
Appell ant
_~_.._u~~_'___.,___~___._____~~_~_.~___~_________._____._.__
-~..----..._._~-_.._--~------------_..._..,-_.._._._~._--_._.._-_.--_.---~--~ .
PRO V I S ION S 0 F THE Z 0 N I II G 0 R D ! Ii p, N CE R E Q U j R I N G TilE 8 U II. [) I N G Iii S P E C TOR
TO FORWARD THIS APPLICATION TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND REASON
FOR NOT GRANTING:
APPLICATION IS MADE FOR A VARIANCE TO PERMIT A BALCONY
AND STAIRWAY TO BE BUILT INTO THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD.
The proposed construction will extend approximately
four feet into the side yard. The required side yard is five
feet. Sec. 24-3.4
Area and bulk requirements
RMF Zoning District
Chief Building Inspector
.. ----..---..---s-fi1TlJ-.S~--_.'-m_-'.------ -,,---- - .--
,
PERM!T REJECTED, DAlE DECISJO~
Clay n:: h;!I! M~yring
..<1, --' _.n illITE
. . -()..k'/lM-e4 ..-.
.. !--
Ai' P LI U\ 1 TC,,: F lL L1i
Ii fIT Ell Ii I~ A in N (;
~,; i\ j l r: [I
_~ f" C !'! :' 1 i'-, ! ~ Y
-
-
,.,
....
NOTICE OF PUBLIC h~ARING
Case No. 77-16
BEFORE THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
TO ALL PROPERTX OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING OR USE VARIANCE
DESCRIBED BELOH:
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 ~uch other place as the meeting may be then adjourned) to
consider an application filed with the said Board of Adjustment requesting
authority fori variance f~om the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter
2LI, Official ~ode of Aspen. All persons affected by the proposed vqriance
are invited tp appear and state their views, protests or objections. If
I '
you cannot appear personally at such meeting, then you are urged to state.
YOlr vi.ews 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.
The particulars of the hearing and of the requested variance are as follows:
Date and Time of Meetin&:
Date:
Time:
June 30, 1977
4:00 PM
Name and address of Applicant for Variance:
Name:
Address:
'\
Daniel Hindelang
Box.8l5l, Aspen, CO
Location or descr!E!.~on o~ro~rty:
Locat~on: 305 S. Aspen St.
Descr~ptlon: Block 69, Lots G, H, I
Variance Req.~lested:
Application is made for a variance to permit a balcony and stairway to be built into
the required side yard. The propsed construction will extend approximately four feet
into the side yard. The required side yard is five feet.
Duration of Variance: (Please cross out one)
~~ Permanent
THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUS'nmNT
BY _tJ\t;, k~ ~-u.1AI( kv
" . Chairman t!
U({vCu:'J .pcck-ZA((lo'{
...
~ fl c /<./1. T . oJ u..-!i
C,f'Y\ C It:\~t(
Gll 'f. -S-r;, C.
AspEN ,&/..
13 (ocK. ~ cr
LoTs E c( F
t" i\
S;(\iow9 IJ..H,.J L01 ~
(jwl\ll.:i'1.~
~Iod( (., '1
NoRmA t.-.. .(jolIE
8D'f- 4(=,0 I
f1,SfcrJ(Colu- \il('l(
LoTs
E IJrI y~ of P
~ IiLL 04' ()
J
C OL\.j\J1Itrs"ISlF.. Assoe..ir:lT0;.
Got< as-G. G /6cK.. (.,'1
A<;;,<iJ EN, (1 0 I 0 . L 'I R rt C'
, 0 IS T 0
/ C ~I Jo~\&\
l. DCf"'/l.. ~..... )
"-
tRilrVC.',S, "dlo"--(1kky
P Q. -9.,0)( b'f..!;
lIs.p~f'J ,C"o('D.
r{ f UO\'J
r:s \ D cJ( ~ Co
l-oT.s Ii) (3, <I L.) .QO'oft
--_..."..~.------
T~\E:. HfflfCl\--.QOr0C
H ouJ; E D\' IkfClv ) I r0c. ,
(Sot< 7Q'l
ASfF- IV e D In
\
I3L~d
S \~ I ~
41Loc.K Co8
,--
TO
FROM
· City Clerk Office
~ SUBJECT
"__ABE
Board of Adjustment Application
Submitting the following for Board Meeting:
_PLY
t
R.dif/"" . 4S 471
Daniel Hindelang
Box 8151
Location: 305 S. Aspen St.
CITY OF ASPEN
Box V
Aspen, Colorado 80.611
DATE 6
77
SIGNED
Clayton Meyring
SIGNED
1 AND 3 WITH
DATE
WITH
,.....
-
/
~
I,
,J. ~;.
CITY OF""ASPEN
130 south galena street
aspen, eolorad(~"' 81611
,
AGENDA
ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS
JUNE 30, 1977 - 4:00 PM
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS - CITY HALL
/-
I. Approve Minutes
II. New Business
Case No. 77-16 Daniel Hinde1ang
Case No. 77-17 John Werning
Ill. Schedule Next Meeting
IV. Adjourn
--
,
~.
"
-
-
, ...
"
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
'OlIN \0 C. ro HorC~lt B. B. ... t. CO.
Regular Meeting
Board of Adjustments
June 9, 1977
The meeting was called to order at 4:05 p.m. Josephine Mann, Gil
Colestock, Fred Smith, Remo Lavignino and Charles Paterson were
present. Also present was Clayton Meyring from the building department
and City Attorney Dorothy Nuttall.
Mann moved to approve the minutes from May 19, 1977. Smith seconded.
All in favor; motion approved.
Cases 77-7 Meyring stated that he had not heard anything further on the Pielstick
Russell Pielstick case. Representatives from cases 77-7 and 77-13 did not appear at
and 77-13 the meeting. The Board decided to wait until the end of the meeting
David Hopkins to move to abandon them. /
Case No. 77-14
Bayard Y.
Hovdesven
Lavignino read the request for case no. 77-14 Bayard Y. Hovdesven.
An application was made for a building permit to build a commercial
building with an external floor area ratio of 1:1 which' would require
a variance from the required floor area ratio of 0.5:1 as described
in sec. 24-3.4 Area & Build Requirements NC(PUD) Zoning District, and
as amended by resolution of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
April 19, 1977.
Bob Hughes, lawyer for the appellant, presented his case. He circulated
preliminary sketch plans and photos of the property. Lots Rand S in
Block 106 are the last lots undeveloped in the NC zone. Thus he felt that
it is subject to unique circumstances. The property is not suited to
residential development given the nature of the block. The property
is adjacent to City Market and abutts the Durant Hall. It is also not
suited to a commercial project at one-half the size of the plans,
llovdesven 1 s proj ect would provide a nice transition from the stark
wall of the Durant NaIl, The 0,5: 1 zoning was a result of the Truman
project which is rather large compared to this project. The intent of
the neighborhood is to make it harmonize. Basement level parking would
consist of 6,000 square feet. The concept needs approval at this
juncture. Required parking will be provided: four units per every
1000 square feet.
A memo from the Planning Office was read into the minutes by Colestock.
The PO stated that (1) 'they strongly supported the 0.5:1 existing FAR
requirements for the NC zone and feel that Lots Rand S were properly
zoned; (2) extenuating circumstances do exist in that the Durant Hall
was built with a 2.5:3.0 FAR; (3) outside parking requirements are urged;
(4) site is subject to PUD.
Lavignino opened the meeting to the public. John Helmus representing the
Chateau Dumont and Chateau Chaumont presented his objections to the
building. There is a lack of parking in that area. There is a lack
of employee housing, The plan needs to be defined vis a vis the
basement. The density in that area is already high, The Chateaus would
like assurance that there would be no nightclubs or cabarets in that
area. Meyring stated that nightclubs were not allowed in that area.
Nr. Princeter from City Harkets wanted to have the parking situation
clarified. Smith said that there will be 24 underground. Four parking
spaces would be required per thousand. Princeter voiced an objection to
any variance in parking. Lavignino stated that Princeter should object
to parking when a parking variance is requested. lie then closed the
public portion of the hearing.
Paterson read a letter from Oates dated April 25, 1977, which
apologized for unproperly identifying block 106.
Regular Meeting Continued
Board of Adjustments
June 9 , 1977
. ,
Paterson felt that it was a reasonable request for that block since
the Durant Mall was so large. Colestock wanted to see more information
On the use and design of the building since the applicant wants to
double the density. Lavignino agreed with the ordinance in force.
However he felt that the density was of such a nature that it would not
be detrimental to the nature of the block. Mann regarded the request
as legitimate. She assumed that parking would be required. Unnecessary
hardship existed because of the character of the whole block and the
east wall of the Durant Mall. Smith felt that if this project were
approved it would be undermining the efforst of P&Z. Nuttall said that
these were the sorts of cases the Board was supposed to act on, Smith
stated that this was not a special case when asking to be exempt from
a code. The practical difficulty is the result of a Planning Office and
P&Z resolution which is law. Only five our of the eighteen lots are
overdeveloped. This is the only NC zone in the city. Smith wanted to
send the application to PUD. If they approve it then that is okay,
Lavignino stated that he agreed with Mann and Smith and would open the
meeting to the public again.
Hughes wanted to emphasize trying to get the buil)l.:ifg approved as he
felt it was tailor fit to that lot. It ties th~ock together, Since
it is the last NC it shouldn't matter. Hovdesvert said that the 0.5
to 1 FAR applied essentially to the Trueman project.
Colestock said that NC was spread through residential areas. A denser
building would create more traffic. Hughes said that the city was
spot zoned. When CC passed the resolution it was the only undeveloped
lot in NC. Smith stated that the Trueman property was undeveloped and
in the NC zone.
Paterson said that (1) he object to the east wall of the Durant Mall
and (2) the area is already a shopping center. Thus no extra traffic is
being caused. Hughes said that the scale should be considered.
Lavignino said that the hardship is not scale, but the fact that it is
the only undeveloped lot on the block and other property owners enjoy
privileges which Hovdesven would not enjoy. Before a variance is
granted he wanted to see a reconnnendation from P&Z. Colestock said that
the code is designed to benefit the majority of people in the area and
the decision should not be dependent on a reconnnendation from P&Z.
Hughes requested that the request be tabled indefinately.
Smith moved to table the variance requested until it is refiled. Colestod
seconded the request, All in favor, motion passed.
Case No. 77-15
Francis
Hhitaker
Lavignino read the variance request for Case No. 77-15 Francis Hhitaker
for a building permit to build a second story apartment which would have
no side yard.
Mr. and Mrs. Hhitaker were present and presented their case. They said
that it was difficult to find employee housing. A second floor apartment
seemed a reasonable way to fulfill part of this need. This request
would be for the maximum use of the lot. The alternative would be to
tear down the historic building and put in a two story apartment. The
apartment would have two bedrooms and two baths.
Lavignino closed the public portion of the hearing.
Mann said that the existing building with no side yard represents a
practical difficulty. It the existing wall was not used as a bearing
wall the room would have a width of 15 feet which is not practical for
a housing unit. Paterson said that he agreed with a 15 foot room being
too small and that it should be built on a bearing wall. Nothing would
be gained by setting this back five feet since the lot next door has
........,
;.)
" ' ,
"-'" ... ,.I'
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
rOlllt.~ C_ F. IHlrtKEl ~. ~. PI. l. t(l.
Board of Adjustment
June 9 , 1977
Regular Meeting Continued
, ,
Cases 77-7 and
77-13
a building set way back. Paterson favored the variance. Smith
supported because it tackles an existing problem. It will probably
stay employee housing because the buy downstairs has a forge.
Colestock supported all the statements and said that he was pleased to
see someone doing something about employee housing. It will not create
ingress or egress problems. Lavignino had nothing to add as he concurred
with all statements made.
Whitaker said that access to the housing was from Monarch Street on a
driveway.
Lavignino closed the meeting ,to the public.
Mann moved that this variance be granted because of practical difficulties
of the existing structure and the need to use a bearing wall which is
in existence. This is a special condition and circumstance which is not
due to the applicant. It does not apply to other people in the area, It
does not adversely affect purposed of the general plan. Smith seconded.
All in favor; motion passed.
Colestock moved to consider Cases No. 77-7 Russell A. Pielstick and
77-13 David L. Hopkins as abandoned by the applicants. Smith
seconded the motion. All in favor; motion passed.
Smith moved to adjourn the meeting at 5:45 p.m. Mann seconded. All
in favor, meeting adjourned.
f:.[VlO, (J,~v~
Elisabeth Sherrill, Deputy City Clerk
,..
APf'U\L TO lJIW:D Of ZO:WiG A])"U:;T1H]!T
CITY OF r\~;r[]J
D/\lE -I)1.IJY, d,~)1j? CASE NO. ~I2-J!t:___
ArPELLAIH LBNjf./-__ HJeJilEJ.flrU;___ADDRFSsBob 8,1.51 ff,s,PEtV__ CJ/\)
\
,', ______,_____________PflOflE ~.::~Jj~
o ~IN E R{j,fl.f\Llg L1i /LV .JJil_J11JLG_ ADD!: E S S _S,I1(11fi..__ .fl:;,___A/3 i) i/E_____. __ __
---------_._-------~
L 0 C t, TIC' il 0 F PRO r [' R T Y _ s.D!;_{S_,,--_As.P;://J-.S.J~._____
Ti1Lo-c.JL6L__iDL~___Gy_)/".:L___________ ___,_
\Stl'ee': ,~ !;umlJer or ~;ubdivisiDn ulk. I:, Lot ~io,)
/-
B u 'i 1 d 'I n g Per t;l i t !\ P P 1 i c " t i 0 " co n d p r-i 11 i S 0 1- any 0 the!' per tin e Ii t
d 2 t Q III us t ,,( CO!l F,~ r: y t Ii Lap p 1 i cat i (J n, and II i 11 be rr ad (' par t (I f
CASE NO,
--_._._-----_._--~--_._----
THE I3 0 I' i<D \.! lL I. R f:T URN T HIS !\ P P Ll C J\I IOU I r IT DOE S fj 0 T COin A ll~
1\1.1. TH[ Fi\CTS Iii r)J!:STIOti.
D[SCRIPTIOii OF PROPOSED [XCEPTICitJ SHO\!IliG JUSTlFICi\TIml~;:
s~ ~~J~'
;~r" - 9 TI
Z0D39;t ""**::-1 D.'
H'i 'II Y (I u be l' e p r (' s en t (' d by co l: ,1 S R -J ? Yes _u____N (I..,.X_.
S I G 1\ ED: _ fJaA0ij-1iA,AjlbL~.'-..------- 'n
App("llant
-,,-. ----------.-----m------______,_._________________n____ _. ___.. __ _,s:_ _____ __ _
_. -..-.,.-.------~-,. -~--~----~_____. ..n__ .._.~___n____._____ __________<______._ ______~____.~_~_.______ __~_ "_________
PROVISIONS ~F THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRING TilE BUILtJING INSPECTOR
TO FOI,; i.;i\ fW 1H I S !H' F LJ C/H 101\) TO TH E r 0.1\ IW U F A D,lll S Hi E in i,NIl I~EI\S 0 N
FOR NOT GRANT1NG:
APPLICATION IS MADE FOR A VARIANCE TO PERMIT A BALCONY
AND STAIRWAY TO BE BUILT INTO THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD.
~ The proposed construction will extend approximately
four feet into the side yard. The required side yard is five
feet. Sec. 24-3.4
Area and bulk requirements
RMF Zoning District
Chief Building Inspector
S t ,1 t il \
-l~t' ~
Clay )ll'II';I'M~yring U ~
I'r C I ' J !';: Il i\ I [~
1'1 i~~I", !:I- ,1['(IIIl, /1/\11
r, I';' i I' i\ ;: ',' I; I III
! ; ,"I J I ; I . j : I /\::.~ ~; ( ;
..'''-',
j. : .' ~ : I :',
.........
'II I'
1 '"
-....I
1""'
, '-'"
'DJU.A s,~:
" .
......
.....;
~
, Tk, M/~MvG ~ -rL M
~OA-J;;T~ ~,e;~
~ ~ fA- ~ o;~OYV~
~ Jh:v. P C0J'L-Mc~ &- N.~
lW--o ~~ rm- ~~.
~: ~ A::d'~ ;;Z~
- ffl::~ $' me :tIP ~ '~
&j M~:( Y-tL4lL-,~ ~L /JjuuYt
A-O rtifr tJl.s; ,.a;e-~XJ ~ L1~
cRu{( Th ~ ~ ~ /YI14~ fK h-M.1AwtFfJ
UrvTtM ~1~. , , ' ,
~ ~ ~,V* A-Q~ (l>l ffi ~~<1
~\A 0-- kit 41)J/M:f!:uP ~ -00 ~
~L r ~tt .A-frJ1~ ~ ~ /}'L()
~~~~~,
,o/';'d0\j dU/(~ ~ ~ ~Mcr M~Q
::~~ ~~ t;r;i~7v?m4-
T I~ -0/ " ~ .~R A-it-",-€ CUt.-
~ . ~ 7 !t.(rA~:/8'?
~~~ 07L a. ~ } ~e,4-~~
~. ~~~ I tt2t l1w r/U7wZUi~~}i
64 1" C-~'-PI turLte ~~ ~ dn
~~~ ~ .~'-<"~--t 6, L1fp -)/~'1
~ ~f:I' (j 't "
~C~,~,
jJeL'! L~lO /J V/~Q..(1''-i
j
/
{IPr1[[\!. TO ];(Ji\[U! or 70:11 fiG f\D,J[JSTf"lr:iIT
CITY 01:
I\Sfl,il
~
DII '} E ~VIJ~,J______ ' C II S [ NO. __11:_L1__
f;PP E L Lf\i~T ~tA.L_,__6J.eJM.!.v..i_.~_.-IIDlJr{ E S sJ.d5__/:;.'-.&f-KJALL----
----,----r-)------~----- P II 0 II E ..J2s:...':.2-.-E 4 7
,~tl1/-W~r.H.uY'J---II IJ f) I~ ES S __f.O"L__~'__j~/' f-;~ ;==
OVlNEf(
LOCATIO!l or PROPERTY
---_._---
~~-/J;~:c1iJ~s,,,<c,7Jrri2- f.lxft~j f)
rf1.l' c e t (T:1 u m bel' 0 f Sub d 1 V 1 S 1 un Elk, [. l. uti: 0 , )
/"
Building Permit Applicdlion and prints Dr ~ny other pertinent
da to' n:ust ilCCGllipany thi S iJppl i ciiti on, ()fld vii 11 be mclde part uf
CASE 110,
THE EOt,RD \-!lLL RETURII THIS P,PPLIC/\TlOiJ IF IT DOES rWT
ALL T II E F II C T S I:~ '11J EST I 0 Ii ,
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED FXCEPTIOil SHmllHG JlISTIFICATlnr!S:
C01;Tfd~1
~/Vlarfl;Vj
u~J ~ 2
(' J /
e -XIS" (/1J5 IG Ie /; e r.;
{)f^/Ifloy't?'e vIJI+S
',' _0 '7~;
",,~-, }~~t ~,::.;....;:~~~70 f!
f-l)i {dON -'
I/v/K/j
(MM
,
Will yo~ be represented by counsel?
/
...!1:rM'fYj_
P1HIVISIOi':S OF TilE lOriIl:G OiiD1iL'\NCE 'nQUIRIN(; TiE BUILUr;iG INSPECTOi;
T 0 F C' '\ \' I~ i< ') TH 1 S M P i. I ct, T 1[1 :; TOT H EGO n:D 0 F p, D J 1I S H'i un AND R E[, SOl:
FOR NOT GRANTING:
APPLICATION IS MADE FOR A BUILDING PERMIT TO BUILD A ONE BEDROOM
UNIT AND TWO STUDIO UNITS ON AN EXISTING NINE ROOM LODGE AND TWO
BEDROOM DWELLING UNIT.
The existing lodge and dwelling unit is on a 4500 square foot lot.
With the existing two bedroom unit and proposed two studios and one
bedroom unit 5350 square feet of lot area would be required. Sec. 24-3.4
Area & Bulk Requirements. RMF Zoning District.
Lodges are not a permitted use in the R.M.F. Zone.
No additional structure not conforming to the requirements of the
zoning ordinance shall be erected in connection with such non conforming
use of land. Sec. 24 l2.2(d) Non conforming use of land,
Chicf Building Inspector
~tdtllS .
s -
- -J- -
~lj ~11'M~lyring
nA'1 [
Puni Ii I,~I ,II C llll. 111"11'
III lJ <;! 1"1
. /,I',I'I,':'! Il"i 1111 i'
IJ'IT I i I 'li'I" ::'[ [!(i
~".'"
.......
-'
1',,1111 ':
~-~ l l ~ :) l'f
"""
--
-
--
~'
BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION
1
General
Construction
Permit
6
CITY OF ASPEN
130 SOUTH GAL ENA STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
(3031 925,2020
::;
o
~~-i
",:eX
j;!m CIlI
",Z..,
;;;< 01
o )> :n,
::;; !: ~I
~O-
=>:)>CIl
o )>'
<:: -i I
'i m -01
"tIO ml
'" :e :nr
?J m $!
~:n -I'
'im-i
::; 01
~ i:=11
OJ -<
'"
\:)
~ I
'"
-"
~ II
Permit #
172-77
Applicant to complete numbered spaces only.
JOB AODRESS
905 E. Hopkins
U:GAL I LOT NO. E~ of
1, OESeR, C and Lot
Lot I BLOCK
D 32
I lF1ACT ~~~~VI~(~Npen
(I) SLE ATTACHED SHEET)
Subdiv.
OWNER MAIL ADDRESS
liP
PHONE
2847
Box 9846
2, John Werning(Endeavor Lodge)
MAIL AOORESS
PHn~JE
L1ClNSE. NO.
CONTRACTOR
"
3.
self
ARCHITECT OR DESIGNER
MAIL ADUIH,SS
f'f,(.,NE
LICENSE NO.
4.
Jim Cook
ENGiNEER
MAIL ADDRESS
PI~ONL
LICENSE NO.
5,
USE OF BUILDING
6.
Lodge
[}{AOOITION
o ALTERATION
[J REPAIR
_. MOVE
o NEW
7. Class of work:
[J WRECK
8. Change of use from
Pl/~NCHlCl~ f If
VALIDATION
Change of use to
46.80
PfRMll '72.00
9. Valuation of work: S
15,000
10, REMARKS:
;!ilil ing /. lln its. and 1 i vi ng...x.QQIIL-~
old bath bein'1...!:~aced in new area.
Present has Q lodcre rpntal rooms anQ._
2 bed owners quarters.
""AL1'iB.80
**,~ ~-L~G.
1'71:1971
,\' 10 77
,.....AT!cR T/'P rE:<::
OccupancyC.roup
Division
I
,I
I
TI:pE of (:O",:'uol'.,)l1
s,z~ of 8\);'0"'0
(Total 5,~"ar(' f L)
No. 01 5tntlC~
Mal<. Dec. Load
llLQQ
2
Fi,e7Clne
Use Zone
Fir~ Sprinl<ll!r~ ReQuired
o Ye~ 0 No
APPROVED FOR ISSUANCE
APPLICATION ACCLPTED
PLANS CHECKFO
OFFSTRFFT PARKING SPACES:
I Uncovered
NO. of O.......,II"'Q U"'1~
C"vl"Ni
~dding 2 unit"
_ C~_
Special Approvals
BY
BY
BY
I
~!
DATE
DATE
DATE
REQUIRED
AUTHORI2ED HY
DATE
NOTICE
SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REQUIREf)- FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING,
HEATING, VENTIl/\TING OR AIR CONDITIONING.
THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION
AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WIlH1N 120 DAYS, DR IF CONSTRUC.
TION OR WORK IS SUSPENDED on ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF 120
DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS COMMEN.CED.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION
AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AI\'D COrHllCT. ALL PROVISIONS Of lAWS
P.ND ORDINANCES GOVERNING THIS TYPE OF WQHK W!LL f'E COMPLIED WITH
WHETHER SPECIFIED HEREIN 01'1 NOl HiE GHANTING OF A PEW,llT DOES NOT
PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL TH[ PHOVISIONS OF
ANY OTHER STATE OH LOCAL LAW HEGULATING CONSTRUCTION OR THE PEH"
FORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION.
ZONING
1--.
flIA!.l!! l)j 1'1.
f--
IIf'LDlf'l
----
:
S\)II IH ~',)1,1
r'i\HK D[ [ll! ATI,"N
Wi'll '{ 1 '\~'
I Nh.llll'l.
~-
I
I
1
,
I
I
PI HI I~ 1<;1'1 ("II VI
fi-c- (I~-
.
~~277ll7~""""":;"ON~ ~a '"'''' , .,--
'>GNA' '"'' U,'_"" ;, ,,, on,,,,,..,, nu",,, '" ./ _.___....Yxit/J;Jl,_______ ____.
WHITE - INSPECTOR'S COpy YEI LOW ASSESSOR'S C(lPY PINK nUll DINl; III I'AfHf\1lNT FILE
./ /1 ~
>
GOLD CUSTOMFR'S COPY
----