Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.drac.19960215___ .,, j ~._ t i AGENDA ~ DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE February 15, 1996 Regular Meeting Basement, City Hall 4:00 I. Roll Call and approval of December 14, 1995 minutes II. Comments (Committee members, Staff and public) III. Old Business 4:05 A. 307 W. Francis -+C~~c~ w'~ i ~l t`I~9~ 4:30 B. 308 N. First 5:00 V. Adjourn r 1 ~.{ ~ Qv o v tno-}- yo u ~ /~-~ G6 i-.-tl ~ CC~~ 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Design Review Appeals Committee FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer DATE: February 15, 1996 RE: 307 W. Francis, Eberstein- Appeal from Design Standards SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to construct a single stall garage, partially below grade, facing the street. Waiver of Ordinance #30 standards, as described below is requested. In addition, the applicant must request a number of variances from the Board of Adjustments. A setback variance is needed due to the driveway slab being within the sideyard setback. An FAR bonus is needed because the house has been developed in a manner which does not allow a garage to be placed on the alley (without some demolition of the structure) and the only way to receive the 250 sq.ft. garage exemption is if the access is taken from the alley. Under the old rules, the project was 4' below maximum FAR. Given the changes in FAR calculation as instituted by Ordinance #30, the project gained some FAR due the elimination of the old "volume" calculation, but loses FAR because the new volume calculation finds that there are windows in the "no window zone" causing the associated interior space to be counted at 2:1. An FAR bonus must cover this deficit and also the square footage that will be charged to the garage. Thirdly, the Board of Adjustments is asked to vary the maximum grade allowed for driveways, which is 12%. The Engineering Department must be petitioned on this matter and may not approve the variance. PROJECT REVIEW PROCESS AND STAFF EVALUATION The Committee may grant an exception to the design standards for any of the following criteria: a) yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan; b) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or c) be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. .__ APPLICANT: Pat and Brian Eberstein, represented by River Studio Architects. LOCATION: 307 W. Francis Street. ZONING: R-6 STAFF COMMENTS: 1. Background -During staff review for compliance with Ordinance 30 Design Guidelines, staff indicated that the project was not in compliance with a number of Ordinance #30 standards as well as zoning and engineer requirements. The applicant has submitted an application for review and appeal of the Design Standards. II. Site Description -The property is 6,000 feet. The grade slopes downward from west to east. The existing house on the site was substantially remodeled in the early 1990's. III. Waiver requested- A. Standard: "If a driveway to a garage is below natural grade within the required front setback the resulting cut cannot exceed two (2) feet in depth, measured from natural grade." B. Standard: "All portions of a garage, carport or storage area parallel to the street shall be recessed behind the front facade a minimum of ten (10) feet:' C. Standard: "Garages below natural grade...shall meet one of the following conditions: All elements of the garage shall be located within fifty feet of the rear lot line, or all elements of the garage shall be located farther than one hundred fifty feet from the front lot line, or the vehicular entrance to the garage shall be perpendicular to the front lot line." D. Standard: "For single family homes and duplexes with attached garages or carports, the width of the house must be at least five (5) feet greater than the width of the garage along its street facing frontage. The garage must be set back at least ten (10) feet further from the street than the house. IV. Recommendation -The committee has three standards for granting variances: a) yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan; Staff response: The proposal is not in direct conflict with the AACP, nor does it further any of its goals. b) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or Staff response: Ordinance #30, as well as other areas of the code, clearly discourage having garage access from a street as opposed to an alley. c) be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Staff response: The only practical difficulty to placing the garage on the alley are building improvements made by the property owner. Staff recommends DRAC deny the variance request finding that none of the variance criteria are met. 1) ATE 1 • rArm vs>±' APPISCATZCN F~Idi Project Name 6~E.fihTEl-.1 C~ARAC9E. AOOITIO~J 2) Project Incation ~,O'7 W FRAFJGIG 5T ~ L~TG~ F 110 C~ P~LOGK 4'~ GITY a.NO Tb~uh~Tt. CyF AhPFa.l . GOUi.1'rY OF PITKItiI. hTATE C3F cO~ORtaa (indicate sheet a~d~~s, lot & block IaLtbeSr legal descsipti,on ~-~ Ta~ri xf-n) I 3) Pre,ent Zonis 4Z-u .. 4) Iat size .rook too (to,ooo~) 5) Applircant's Name, Ad~+ess & Phone # QATI A~-ID 6R~A~.! ~.~TcRhT'E.1~.1 377 I.J. FRdwlGlS hT. ASPcrJ Co •SllP11 (9~0~ 544- oSrZ~ ~ ~x+e,attative's Name, A..~d & Phone # _R~ V E.R G.,TU D 10 / s0.G+-1 cT EG TGi C IJ~LLIAM LIPJEY~, Old il. t-il~.~ ~vT. p5pc~.l+ G~ Bl[nll (9")o1 92S -3'l3~ 'n 4~ of ~ lP~ c~er]c all trait aq~ly) .. .• ~Lt11I1a3: IISe __ ....~ ...~+~ SPA .. ~JtlBl Ai ~tt,ri r_ Dev. a. - 8040~7?rw Final SPA - - POD Fiffil Pi7D - 2!btmtain View Plane _ SUbdivieirn ginal Aicfirn-in_ ja?V, i Minor Aic!-~mir_ j~?y~ - [5wlr~nini,nni ~atim~ AID~It _ Q!J,bS Al10tIDPSlt - Int t ~~ ~ Design Review - ~ ~~°~ ~ Appeal Board g) ~-;,~r;rY,. of ~dstix~q IIses • (der acrl: type of ~iGtir~ st~~: ate sq. ft.: nmbez' of be~vcros; any pxeviais agawas granted to the prOpc~sty)'. . OUE- 4 2~EOF.OOM a 7 hTOLLY SI~IC~~.E. FA!-1i~,Y ~WEI..LI,.lC~ r APF'ROxinA-[EL~[ ~.OdO SQ. FT. PWb Alb hQ.F'T.~AhE.RE.+JT. 9) Description of Developeat Applicatial RGOi~Fh-r yA0.~Li~.ICE APP0.OVAL 'TO CO~.LhTRUCT A 1-GA0. 6ELObJ btWOE 6A'0.~t~G LS!-tDE'R ~XlhTt~.IC~ ~•IOUG~E. 10) Have you attac3~ed the follaaing? `<<h IaESj7Ci5B tD Attadmia7t 2, imm, Sl,t+niscinn ppntentg 'tEb Respatse to Atfad~estt 3. ~~• q,1+ni ~cirn g Date: 1/15/96 To: Design Review Appeals Committee, City of Aspen Owner: Pati & Brian Eberstein Address: 307 West Francis Street Legal: Lots F & G, Block 42, City and Townsite of Aspen OVERVIEW The Owners' of this existing house need a single car garage. Because of the constraints created by the existing footprint there appears to be only one realistic location for this addition: under the existing bedroom on the Francis Street side of the house with a ramped driveway accessing from Francis Street. The existing footprint, height, site coverage, setback and massing will not be affected by the proposed addition. It should be noted that the recent addition to this house was used as an example of good design at the Design Symposium that lead to Ordinance 30. VARIANCE ISSUES 1. F.A.R.: A 250 sf F.A.R. exclusion is allowed for garages. The F.A.R. of this proposed below grade garage calculates out to be 89 sf and thus is "O.K." The F.A.R. of the existing house was under the allowable maximum as calculated at the time the last addition was built in 1994. Thus F.A.R. appears not to be an issue in this application. (The proposed gazage mold have been built under the zoning that existed previous to the adoption of Ordinance 30.) 2. Driveway below natural grade in front setback: A below grade garage is the only feasible solution on this site thus a below grade driveway is required. A hardship variance is needed to bypass this stipulation. By taking advantage of a natural drop in existing grades along Francis Street, the depth of the proposed driveway below ajoining grade can be mazkedly reduced. The driveway will be perpendicular to the front lot line thus meeting that requirement of Ordinance 30 for garages below grade. 3. Garage to be recessed behind front facade minimum 10 ft.: A natural change of grade exists on Francis Street that helps reduce the steepness of the proposed garage access driveway. The gazage needs to be located on the left side of the Francs Street elevation of the house under an existing bedroom in order to take advantage of this beneficial change in grade and the other site constraints. A hardship variance is required to bypass the 10 ft. setback requirement. Development Application Eberstein House 307 West Francis Street 1/16/96 page: l CONCLUSION The proposed new single car garage is adjacent to the 2 car wide driveway of the adjoining house to the East on Francis Street. As such, it does not impact directly upon either of the neighbors pedestrian entrances. Furthermore, the proposed new garage door would be more than 50% below grade and thus would have less visual impact than a door at grade might have on the streetscape. The existing footprint of the house at 307 West Francis is constrained such that there is only a single reasonable location for the proposed single caz garage addition. For reasons of fairness based on the physical circumstances and constraints of this site we ask that the required variances be granted. Development Application Eberstein House 307 West Francis Street 1/16/96 page: 2 y ~ 5 W F ~~ s# ~ 4 ~& ~ ~ a ~ ; 0 ~~ ~ W 2 W ~ '¢¢ a ~y €I m ~ W ~t¢ ~(A(~A ~ ~ _ _1 ~ i i i i ~ I I I r--- ----I I I I i i I ~~~I ~---- ....... I I_. ----~ a ! I I I I ___J ---~ I I I ----~ I 6#~ ,a I I I I L---------- ----------J 3~ W N U 3 133x11.5 O21£'N ~~ pp tk g iFd ~ ~ ~--- I I I I aidi H S N v QI9 W ~--- I I I----- I I I ~----- 1332LL5 QNL'N i W aR ~ pR E~ m E 6 } N ~ ~3 s ~ Q ~ a ~a~~ ~$ y Y ~i ~.W ~m i ~= ~ S v~kl ii r ~- € ` a ~~ I y T II 0 C~ ^ ~~~ -~ 3~ a~ m v MEMORANDUM TO: Design Review Appeals Committee FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer DATE: February 15, 1996 RE: 308 N. First Street- Appeal from Design Standards SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to demolish the existing house on the site and construct a new building. Waiver of Ordinance #30 standards, as described below is requested. PROJECT REVIEW PROCESS AND STAFF EVALUATION The Committee may grant an exception to the design standards for any of the following criteria: a) yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan; b) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or c) be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. APPLICANT: Michael Ememann. LOCATION: 308 N. First Street. ZONING: R-6 STAFF COMMENTS: I. Background -Staff has met with the architect on several occasions to discuss the two Ordinance #30 standards listed below. The applicant approached DRAC for a workshop to discuss the building orientation and has now submitted an application for review and appeal of the Design Standards. No design is submitted at this time, as the architect wishes to resolve these threshold issues before proceeding. Full Ordinance.#30 review will still be required of the building once designed. II. Site Description -The property is 12,000 sq.ft. The existing house is a Victorian, which was substantially remodeled over time and was removed from the Historic Inventory in 1992. III. Waiver requested- A. Standard: "All single family homes... must have astreet-oriented entrance and a street facing principal window...On comer lots, entries and principal windows should face whichever street has a greater block length." B. Standard: "On comer sites where fewer than 75% of the residential buildings on the face of a block are located within two (2) feet of a common setback line, a minimum of 60% of at least one of the street frontages of a proposed project's front facade must be located within two (2) feet of the minimum setback." IV. Recommendation -The committee has three standards for granting variances: a) yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan; Staff response: The proposal is not in direct conflict with the AACP, nor does it further any of its goals. b) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or Staff response: The standards are directed at creating a dialogue between the pedestrian and structures by placing houses relatively close to the street and in a certain alignment. The proposal (although no real building design has been presented) is to pull the house back from both street frontages in order to meet setback requirements (given the location of a garage at 5' from the alley) and to preserved existing trees. Although this may be desirable to the applicant, it does not address the issue of a build-to line as intended in Ordinance #30. c) be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. - Staff response: The applicant has included a letter outlining the reasons for the variance request. In order to comply with the building orientation °-~'^' standard, which would require that the entrance to the house be placed on W. Hallam Street, the front of the house would be facing the Yellow Brick School and its associated congestion and noise issues. The applicant prefers to orient towards the residential area to the west. In order to meet the build-to line standard, the applicant would have to place at least 60% of either the south facade (facing the Yellow Brick School) or the west facade at the 10' minimum setback line. This project has identified a conflict between Ordinance #30 and setback regulations. The R-6 zone district requires this site to have a minimum 10' front yard setback and a minimum 10' rear yard setback, except that a garage may be 5' from the rear lot line. The combined front and rear setbacks must be 30' or greater. Therefore, if the project is to comply with the build-to line (10'), the rear yard setback must be 20'. (Because the site is a corner lot, the alley is the rear lot line, but either lot line along Hallam Street or First Street may be selected as the front lot line.) The standard is confusingly written as it refers to "at least one of the street frontages of a proposed project's front facade." It is staff's assumption that the standard is meant to say that 60% at least one of the street frontages must meet the build-to line. If the applicant is required to meet the build-to line on the Hallam Street side, than either the garage will have to be 20' from the alley, or a variance will be needed from the Board of Adjustments. If the applicant is required to meet the build-to line on the First Street side, than some of the mature trees in the area may have to be removed, and either the garage must be moved forward or a variance is needed. Staff recommends DRAC allow the variance request finding that 1) the proximity to the Yellow Brick School makes orientation towards First Street more appropriate and 2) meeting the build-to line on either the Hallam Street or First Street sides would require pulling development away from the alley (which is not the general pattern in the West End) and/or removal of existing trees. Staff also recommends as a condition of allowing a variance of the building orientation standard, that the wall surrounding the property must be lower and more open in character on the First Street facade, in order to preserve some connection between the house and the pedestrian streetscape. The Ernemann Group Architects PO Box 4602 Aspen, Colorado 81611 970.9252266 Design Review Appeal Committee Go Community Development Department Aspen City Hall 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 308 N. First Street Lots K,L, M 8 N, Block 56 City of Aspen, Colorado Dear Committee Members: We hereby request that you waive the following two requirements of Ordinance 30 for the above referenced property: 1. Section 7-304.1.b "On comer lots, entries and princpal windows should face whichever street has a greater block length." The greater block length in this case faces Hallam Street which is fronted on its opposite (south) side for the entire block length by the Yellow Brick Schoolhouse. The schoolhouse is anon-residential use with intrinsic uncompatibilities with the residential use of the subject property. Among the most evident conflicts generated by the school (especially the Day Care Center) are significant pedestrian and vehicular traffic and congested parking on Hallam Street and the resulting adverse audio and visual impacts. Further, the address and main entry of the existing house on the subject property is 308 N. First St., not Hallam St. For the development of a new house on the subject property, it is requested that the Ordinance 30 requirement that the main entry face the street with the greater block length, Hallam St., be waived. 2. Section 7-304-3.b. "...On corner sites where fewer than 75% of the residential buildings on the face of a block are located within two (2) feet of a common setback line, a minimum of 80% of at least one of the street frontages of a proposed projects' front facade must be located within two (2) feet of the minimum setback." This "Build - To" requirement of Ordinance 30 demands that 60% of one of the street frontages of the front facade must be located within 2 feet of the minimum setback. On the subject property the minimum setback for front yard is 10 feet. If the "Build - To" requirement is to be met, the rear yard would have to be 20 feet in order to comply with the 30 foot combined front and rear yard requirement of the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance, however, permits a minimum rear yard of 5 feet for garages entered from alleys. Thus, if the "Build - To" requirement of Ordinance 30 is met, the proposed garage with alley entry would not be able to be located within 5 feet of the alley, but would, because of Ordinance 30, have to be located at least 20 feet from the alley. Further, if the First Street frontage of the subject property were to be selected as the front yard, the Ordinance 30 "Build - To" requirement would force construction to occur in a zone that is presently heavily vegetated with mature corionwood and spruce trees. For the development of a new house on the subject property it is requested that the "Build - To" requirements of Ordinance 30 be waived. Respectfully submitted, I~p . Ernemann AIA is N 2 z .._ U V) ~ I Q E HA is N 2 N N Z T --~Tr------~ ---------- i I ~ -- ~ - i I ~ N ~ 0 I I ~ ~ I A l "~ °~~- L~JI ~ 6 -J1 ~°I° I a4~ °6 ~ Z o ~ ~ I N •p0 N ~~ ~~og •a°°~ W MAIN ST V N C C7 N S V N 3 C7 Z N 2 z D Z l24 N. 1~LR5t" 5T'1~~Er VIGIMI'("Y MAP I" = (a°~ W NALLAI~ S1 LLA1~ ST W BIEEKER 5T N.Maty z s s • Q - ~_ 3 m~~ w ~ ~Qaz~ c ~ ~ ~ N~ ~} j c _ ~~Z~- ~+ll ~ ~_'~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~d ~ °~ x 4 L ~ ~ ~ QO ;~~~ ,~ ~ ~ N ~~$~ i 4 ~ ~ ~. s~~~- ~ y ~ ~ Z ~ y~ ul ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~~N~ ~ J w ~il ,u til tU Sn ~ ~ ~ z Z ~ Z Z ~~~~~ c~~3~ S~ A~ 4 ~~ ,~ d d 1 'h'aY .in16 i r. 1'- ttl N1~aN 15.. N 9~ F ~1 ..~ C w uldot~ w ~.. ~ p z ~; 9 _~ ~.