The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.308 N 1st St.A15-96DRAC Review - 308 N. ist bt. (1204/ ful ottl- \ jacittd 7-#3- S 7 SELOAD SUMMARY SHEET - C OF ASPEN DATE RECEIVED: 2/16/96 CASE# A15-96 DATE COMPLETE: STAFF: Amy Amidon PARCEL ID # 2735-124=12-100 PROJECT NAME: DRAC Review - 308 N. 1 st Street Project Address: 308 N. 1 st Street APPLICANT: Michael Ernemann Address/Phone: P.O. Box 4602 Aspen, CO 81612 925-2262 REPRESENTATIVE: Same Address/Phone: FEES: PLANNING $450 # APPS RECEIVED 1 ENGINEER $0 # PLATS RECEIVED 1 HOUSING $0 ENV HEALTH $0 TYPE OF APPLICATION: TOTAL $450 Staff Approval 2900 4/1 UAL) Review Body Meeting Date Public Hearing ? P&Z C]Yes C]No ICC E]Yes EJNo CC (2nd reading) E]Yes C]No REFERRALS: E City Attorney D Aspen Fire Marshal Â£ CDOT E City Engineer E City Water D ACSD E Zoning El City Electric m Holy Cross Electric m Housing 3 Clean Air Board Il Rocky Mtn Natural Gas U Environmental Health Il Open Space Board m Aspen School District U Parks 0 Other: Il Other: DATE REFERRED: INITIALS: DATE DUE: APPROVAL: Ordinance/Resolution # Date: Staff Approval Date: Plat Recorded: Book , Page CLOSED/FILED DATE: INITIALS: ROUTE TO: Millic NOTICE B~milip'p~ PLACE#&*OF= .JWE. Â£* OPEâ€ž-&â€¢-'gil. VUE-; , 1-9 OF E;TAORTA â€¢U,TED -2 'Et.LO >,r #/> 70#4* OfWPT*< - 76- .. 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 Ernemann. LOCATION: 308 N. First Street. ZONING: R-6 STAFF COMMENTS: 1. 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. Il. 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. 111. Waiver requested- A. Standard: "All single family homes... must have a street-oriented entrance and a street facing principal window...On corner lots, entries and principal windows should face whichever street has a greater block length." B. Standard: "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 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 facader 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 970.925.2266 Design Review Appeal Committee c/o Community Development Department Aspen City Hall 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 308 N. First Street Lots K,L, M & 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 corner lots, entries and principal 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 a non-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 vehiculartraffic 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 60% 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 cottonwood and spruce trees. Forthe development of anew house on the subject property it is requested that the "Build - To" requirements of Ordinance 30 be waived. Respectfully submitted, Mlcnae#-d. Ernemann AIA /Mil 3 E AUD u..1- 0,9 -- c=:=E..0 1 Tv 0,3. 9 1 5 750 - 09Â· 11/6 .1 tic>04 1 (,zo.+Lk-- -ribogir E- 1 r- f It. 4.3 -lp'; 1 6. 1 - 4 - I' - ' ./1 _ 42 '96 9Â· *LEA A '24' 4 -1.. _- - - - - - t... i.~ u= ,.=!16 .; % 0 1 0 r - 11 5 ALor Â· 1 . I 2 N"41 /20 96.7*/ .8 1 -1 72 1 1 P QU, T 1. 1 tilh#4 *' 12/AA to' ' . '' r 31 ./0 0/be ~-1 '-i .. 1 ' ' 1 V 96 8 1 0 1. 1 - 1 ib. 5,9 /rAG,f~ , 1.' -// 7 4 U I 6 97 8' ZI~ 1 1 1 2 1 Lr=] '.Â£00/7 1; - . -*. . 4 L 96 9 ve:1%19 2 : .1 '. 1, 7 -- fi-,1...5 , I'lll '.01- 6 ' 0 . i '4 U 1 3. 11':. 1*'4~ a %. 1 As'.I 97.3 ' ~ I72 OT /0 LoT Al . 2 1 8 \ 2 rÂ¢%7- ~ Â·L -1-ar'2*,2 218 LoT L - 7- tsr 7.- 5 . 'cr--*#07;F.2,& : Â·Â·~ ~' T,â€¢Ju r 2:fy; 14 /2004Â· Sg.FT. 1 41' â€¢ /"4 1 1 - 21 - '6; . c r>-4314,1 u.1. 40 e.4 5 / 1.'-1 :4 ' 2/ 1-7.- sir* 1 8,2 E J 75. 9(.0 ; ~ C -/4_~2/Â· Â°4 -4 1 , 9109 1â‚¬ i: - rlay/ i ' CA \I,he" 6 .7/1.....4 | ~ li 5/0, IS~ 0 ! 2 4l 11 Lt.L uill_ - Q 1- - . 34 2 fro,r * 42. to' : ' A , a 1 /3.4 HOUSE 3 5 I 1 1 96 ./.-r â‚¬1E~3-9& t- V 0 i :,410. = 294 j - -/ 2 . S 2 - 1 : 11 1 . I ./ -- 00 - Ii- lili 4.Â£01/ - :iii: /2 : FIRST F,OOR L â€¢ N. , 1-4 . '111!Lk 3 N r. 8.Al.: 100.0 6 1 4= 4. C:52'..â‚¬3 ' : -,2- -~i- P.j/<3' b vt-,IN ilÂ¢ 1 1< m -Illimll.WEII _ 414 - L . h '10. 11 \. 1 60 1 L.J~ 17 \ , 1 1 21 4 ,5/ j f-b_./ w;yul;'~-Q 2112.~ / 11 e. ..0,1 /3-Crix,wo Flet<Z; i 1 rb" CT//wo FK 01-Ir 16> 3 :1 I I I. 9*75' 6.1 -~e~Â¢~,i<w , Cze,~04- f,ZO,90.) ''i >: ,\ A 3 ' 14 7,09,r W 1500, 0 38.21 1 3 - , - 1, . - 40 t 1.1 O. 510Â£ 4.)4UC . 1/// //A Mand #wa 9 1 1- 1- 0 -Il - 0 4.1 + ]2, CON. . 0. -= 0 FO</ eaa=55 ...Z HALLAM STREET A,1-LAM SEÂ· 1Â£,L,2*-nli al. WAUB .=/'tlm"VA'".U.=Â¥ 16.=/00/1..... T. -ll-,1 .... - lilll/~I/9:1IR/",E, 77?e<e, Auâ‚¬e 522.artoc ate- C.*ilted fgz#, re,uft 1 "-o-291&~ 2*Â£;~Gr~~a 9*ks Al Â·- 4&/71 pretÂ» +ke Â» i ple/91 . ..r Â£ U COPELA 4 -Hit realt wAL L 5' Aaa reluck as K m-wund . ~df 2.-- Te Ved 8*ud,pe- W * flafte- 0.*el.>fe- ak-e- , com<44 Ulk 0.4.30 lowU - Â·tu Agun-eâ€¢:11 00 -Re'+ re:tiaÂ£12> 0 r, n 1 ..1 1!9 loy'gl Cco PÂ» .4ftz/-JaA 0 < JAN 1 8 1996 074* 64/2!30' Ff.1-9 1 1 1 Mwlp \ ~ 7;tese, AD â‚¬.tos ats ent*,de.0 t,n/4 10 Fr < 6 2,>7;7 5'280Â£1Â£. tef';'*843,62 40 not Mew- FEETEEBEEJSijE==~==~~FO%%9 eus:re. bwle! - A rgr,t-* 1 0'elÂ· 52> : 3O Rea}- + Frowl- 4 0 D 4.5' + ee' 0 50% 15 1 Qe.r 25' ~ i , 0 62/24 + Cke 2 40 St:% r. 15' + /15' 16 ': 37E7/ 15Er i 1 **71 + 16 be- ae, MUM . â‚¬ elbaÂ£k mllowed aÂ¥ tat, bul *44 A#K '1 <' 10â‚¬ 45' i CO a.14Te:AAL.9~hzl4617>us= Â»1&4Â».Â§ (23 \NAVE BKID To L,AeÂ» , i ... I ./ Ck. DUEY . Tv Â¢,1 u (-63 -â€ž----------=--1 U.-6- S B'oetr E- - i )*nr,rr- - f J , 1 '<747'1*=92 9 ** . II - -".~~ -5-447-: '' -- - - - 1- 1 - h I - ~ t..,2 . 1, 4-- 96 7' 7' '5' -11- CA,2,2,AGE , , i 14 - , 11 P.. 11:61.0 5 1 P-JO /02 t - ' 75, , t. 9/8 ' 14 4--. -- . --- ------4 96 4 ~: * lilli. 4- 2 .=- 1, t C,/9 'AGE ' 22 I 4 t ., = I ..1 f , r. 1, 1 - - ....Â£ -- .1 - - 1- '0 _ U r.-11 - .= 969 1 -------, ,Â· 1 --=-1 5 ~~ 97 8 11~ R! 1 1 11. ,41 -~,Ed,6 1-r . - ' 1414 .U -T- LoT L LOT /U 0 I - 1 1. 9 -1 n I - . U 0 h 194-,~ 2 - DR,r . â‚¬?1 1443. 1 -â€žA,ils,0 - , CJ 9 -9 Â·AL. 49.- - - .1 . Ca v Â·/ . .. 1 1 . '761 - 0 .Fia ",0 r..... . t - I , : fo'; 4 .;d Â£1 hu. C <74 1 /1 Â· M*12 2* 1/ litfU-Lt' : 1 ~ 41 1 /1 - 1 1 9 q . 7 ST.,Ar M~ ~ ~' -1 4/f=,24 4% u LX-me 1 t 3 + hOUSE .A C. ..ev C .,me 1 -9 h' 1- 7 *1---, 1 Fi- r- '!!i '4 L -14 ' .~11 , 4- 0 //6~57- n OOR _ Â· 2 - A&<&Â£ :4, 71 & lili ..,4 $ 7-R,1,2 /000 -. 1 ' 3 t. L 1 327&53,~ 2Â·. -I/' :42,1 1*We.0 1 LO '16 )12 -.--7/ - 1rill- ..C 719/4/0 - . 11 1 - i--t Ll 1 S. OÂ·1 -. - - *.. 1 " 1 6.Ll--1... - 1 97 7 . I zi 1. D. wl-_ _L - -~ 94: 14 a : - - ---ft b.. _ 4 'a . - - y 0 434*,Â·t.fr#rf- 4 4.-%7|$44 9,5.0 ,~1,1.//'W, /20 0+ C 2.3.po'J i ] 98.2 . E- :64 . - ' ~ h N 750091r W 15000~ i $ > . Â·l e Â·17' - 6,04 44/9,4 a=Â· . .1- Lr CON. 0 0 0 . T.// G. . e \ :Â£74 .Jssh.$/JI 4,~I .469,>/ N rh ...ZI 4- I'=. a. 1*4-LAbA ST'f Bar HALLAU 511,~T 1'24 H. r rf:ST ST-Fter PUIWINS, L,Â«rtobi â‚¬TUPY Ne 2- ID =1/2,71 0 ....1 4018 01 8 -60.09.4 S F t,â€¢810 STREEr 4 /gp,IM,Pr.17 /41 .. ..,C 14.1914 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION FEBRUARY 15. 1996 Chairperson Steve Buettow called the meeting to order at 4:10, present were Sven Alstrom, Roger Moyer, Jake Vickery. Marta Chaikovska and Robert Blaich were excused. 1 MINUTES MOTION: Moyer moved to approve the minutes of December 14,1995. Second by Vickery. Motion carried, all in favor. STAFF COMMENTS Amy Amidon, Planning & Zoning, stated that the first item on the agenda 307 W. Francis is being tabled until March 14,1996. 308 N. FIRST STREET Amidon stated that there are two design standards that the DRAC have been asked to waive. The first item is the building orientation standard that requires that the building front be on the longer block face. The applicant does not wish to face Hallam Street because they are across from the Yellow Brick School which has noise and privacy concerns. They would like to face first street. The second item is the build to line. The build to line for a corner site requires at least 60% o f the front of the building be at the minimum set back, which in this case is 10 ft. Two problems will occur, first there are some existing trees in the area that may have to be removed. Secondly, if the project were required to meet this standard, there would be a conflict with ord. 30 related to setbacks. Ord. 30 requires a minimum front yard setback of 10 ft and are allowed a minimum 5 yard setback for a garage. However, the front yard has to total at least 30 ft. I f the applicant is required to build the project to the 10 ft. line they would have to have a 20 ft. rear yard setback. There garage has to be 20 ft. or more off of the alley. Staff recommends that the waivers are granted based on standard "C". Standard "C" states they are clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. One issue with this project is that DRAC does not actually have a building design on the table. The house will have to go through ord. 30 review. Amidon noted her approval with one condition, that the wall on the first street side of the property has to be lower and more open in character, currently it is a six foot privacy fence. Michael Ernemann, public, (architect), noted that the existing entrance, doorway and street address are currently on first street. Erneman stated that he would like to develop a building that will generate space rather than consume space. We would like to design a house pulled back from the street setbacks that results in a corner preserving the trees and open space. Buettow asked ifthe DRAC felt comfortable making a motion without a specific plan to look at relative to the items being talked about. Alstrom responded that he felt comfortable with it. Amidon inquired whether or not the additional building that exists on the first street side will be kept. Ernemann replied yes. Ernemann responded not knowing which rule should be dealt with, it is difficult to produce a meaningful design without a waiver of the setbacks. The house will go through the normal ord. 30 review. According to zoning, if you can access a garage from the alley, you do not have an option. Vickery stated that he did not have a problem with either request but did want to note variances will be needed for the two non-conforming structures. Ememann replied that the variances have been obtained. George Vicenzi, public, (neighbor) requested that the DRAC preserve the trees. Vickery asked if a motion could refer to preserving the tree. Buettow stated that DRAC's purview is to yield greater compliance and effectively address the issues. The first two requests are difficult to deal with when there are no plans. Clearly DRAC would want to save the trees and we realize the problem with the adjacent Yellow Brick School house. Vickery replied that he felt the trees were justification for the second request. Buettow asked i f the site plans could be entered on the record. Vickery stated that he thought it would be a good idea. Ernemann replied that he has not designed the house yet. Alstrom commented that the site plans showed the footprints within the boundaries that are defined. Ernemann stated the existing structures on that site that have over 3700 feet of site coverage. The retaining ofthe two buildings along the alley, count against site coverage. Vickery inquired what is the allowable FAR. Amidon replied that it is 4080. Ernemann stated that the FAR of the existing house is greater than allowable. Vickery responded that the arguments are reasonable, the Yellow Brick School does impact residential neighborhoods and the existing trees although, there is not a proposed setback from the property line. 2 Emernann stated that the setback may not be greater than what is allowed by zoning. Vickery replied that it is determined by the location of the trees. Ernemann said that would be the intent. Amidon suggested that a condition be added stating that some element o f the house is close to the street. f Moyer responded that DRAC make it simple and facilitate it to make it work. This plan is for better not for worse. MOTION: Moyer moved to waive the two requirements of ordinance 30, section 7-304.1.b and 7-304.3.b, for 308 N. First Street, Lots K,L,M, & N, Block 56, City of Aspen, CO., based on standard "C", which states an "exception to design standards be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints" with the following conditions: 1) 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 street scape. 2) No removal of existing Conifer trees 4" or more in diameter. Second by Alstrom. Motion carried, all in favor. Moyer asked if the house is on the registered inventory. Amidon responded that the house was removed from inventory in 1992. Buettow adjourned the meeting at 4:45pm. LU} Ul ;8 4/644 Amy G. Sf~mid, Deputy City Clerk 3 Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department % 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 920-5090 City Land Use Application Fees: 00113-63850-041 Deposit 4 AO, On (58.co 002) -63855-042 Flat Fee -.63860-043 HPC 63885-268 Public Rjght-of-Way -63875-046 Zoning & Sign Permit - MR011 Use Tax County Land Use Application Fees: 00113-63800-033 Deposit -63805-034 Flat Fee -63820-037 Zoning -63825-()38 Board of Adjustment Referral Fees: 00113-63810-035 County Engineer 00115-63340-163 City Engineer 00123-63340-190 Housing 00125-63340-205 Environmental Health 00113-63815-036 County Clerk Sales: 00113-63830-039 County Code -69000-145 Copy Fees Other Total 4 ,00 . 00 Name: MIC.hrk# b ne'll lof) 1 1 Date:~/lo/kiL Check: 7 7,35- Address: 0,. 4 602 Project: 11Â¥-11-1 f ju- til ) 0 3)1 ED gil,l-2 ACH ' Vt ~1ICL 54 Nt I )t Case No: hlf--96 Phone: No. of Copies