The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.307 W Francis St.A4-96J - - 2735-124-23-003 A4-96 ____* Eberstein Garage Addition 19 - A 2- 03- j Â»- C .OAD SUMMARY SHEET - CITY ASPEN DATE RECEIVED: 1/16/96 CASE # A4-96 DATE COMPLETE: STAFF: Dave Michaelsor PARCEL ID # 2735-124-23-003 PROJECT NAME: Eberstein Garage Addition Project Address: 307 W. Francis St. APPLICANT: Pat and Brian Eberstein Address/Phone: 307 W. Francis St. (970) 544-0525 REPRESENTATIVE: River Studio Architects (William Limpsey) Address/Phone: 414 N. Mill St. 925-3734 FEES: PLANNING $450 # APPS RECEIVED 8 ENGINEER $0 # PLATS RECEIVED 8 HOUSING $0 ENV HEALTH $0 TYPE OF APPLICATION: TOTAL $450 Staff Approval 1 2, - . i-- .i Â·-'â€¢ --- 72 P&Z C]Yes C]No Ce C]Yes UNO CC (2nd reading) C]Yes C]No ) 1-2>YA- | REFERRALS: m City Attorney U Aspen Fire Marshal m CDOT U City Engineer U City Water U ACSD U Zoning El City Electric U Holy Cross Electric El Housing U Clean Air Board El Rocky Mtn Natural Gas U Environmental Health Il Open Space Board U Aspen School District U Parks Il Other: El Other: DATE REFERRED: INITIALS: DATE DUE: APPROVAL: Ordinance/Resolution # Date: Staff Approval Date: Plat Recorded: Book , Page CLOSED/FILED DATE: INITIALS: ROUTE TO: - i v.'22â‚¬7 Vi,n -1 . 4- .Â· 369*-*z,. L~, EL , 4 0\rcA'-1<2.-_. - vcy/ c evic-# AL-191 1 l/,1.1 31 5 '1 f V - 02,1 'f LeÂ¢> ADEL'bÂ«521 ln g> -\-02 ~~Â·~~iit--Â· 4--3 9'' JÂ» *'<5.Lkiew ! (eAn .- 1,<5> u'(5@'jit 754v 65ldli...1.f~>~64.:1 -1 6,-Iot.,h / n,r .23 -fr 2/9-\Cl-1 0/14 Ar u 66/ January 31, 1996 Bill Lipsey ASPEN Â· PITKIN 414 N. Mill Street Aspen, CO 81611 ' PLANNING & ZONING DEP.ARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMFNT DEPARTMENT RE: Ordinance 30 Design Review for the Eberstein residence, 307 W. Francis Dear Bill: On January 30th, City of Aspen Community Development staff reviewed the above project for compliance with the Design Guidelines (Ordinance 30.) Based on staff' s review, the proposed design is is not in compliance with standards in effect at the time of review. Specific criteria not met with the current design are as follows: 1. "For any dwelling unit which can be accessed from an alley or private road entering at the rear or side of the dwelling unit, the garage shall only be excluded from floor area calculations up to two hundred fifty (250) square feet per dwelling unit if it is located on said alley or road. (p. 4 and 17)" This provision has existed in the code since at least 1990. The FAR for the garage will be calculated as subgrade area, based on the method described on pg. 5 of Ordinance #30. 2. "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 (p. 5)" As amended in Ordinance #50, Series of 1995. 3. "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 (pg. 5 and 17)." 4. "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 (p. 5 and 17)" 5. " 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 , 130 SOUTH G.ALENA STREET Â· ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 Â· PHONE 303.920.5090 Â· FAx 303.920.5197 Printed on recycled paper DIRECT FAx LENE: 303.920.54439 street facing frontage. The garage must be set back at least ten (10) feet further from the street than the house. (p. 15)" According to Bill Drueding, excavation for the garage within the setback does create a setback encroachment issue which would have to be resolved by Board of Adjustments. The definition of yard states that a slab which is in excess of thirty inches above or below natural grade may not project into the required yard (setback.) It is our recommendation that your application be forwarded to the Design Review Appeal Board for their February 15th meeting. Even if the board grants the requested variances to Ordinance #30, a variance request will be needed at the Board of Adjustments for both the setback encroachment and a possible FAR increase if no additional FAR is available to cover the portion of the garage that will be counted. In the alternative, the entire review may be handled by the Board of Adjustments on their next available meeting date, generally on the second Thursday of each month. Sincpy. /1 A 1/\Â»/2 U fl Ady *idon Clty 4 Aspen Community Development ec: Dave Michaelson, Deputy Planning Director Bill Drueding , Zoning MEMORANDUM TO: Design Review Appeals Committee FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer DATE: March 14 1996 Â»Fl C ic 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 frontyard setback. An FAR bonus is needed because 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 would be 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. 11. 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. 111. 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. A fenced in patio at the rear of the property could be altered to accomodate a parking space. Staff recommends DRAC deny the variance request finding that none of the variance criteria are met. NrnCER,ENT 1 IAND USE APPLICATICN ECEM 1) Project Name EERESÂ»TE\64 0494(32. 40DLTION 2) Project Iocatim -107 W. FRAWC 16 BT. 3 LOTâ‚¬> F A.,40 0 PbLOCK 4,3, CITY Â»40,-TOQUe\-re OF- Aepekl , COUUT-r OF 'PITKI J, aTATE Cp cou:>luhoo (indicate street ackiress, lot & block Inmber, legal description where apprcpriate) 3) Present Zoning 9.-U 4) Iat Size 00> ,000 ((9,000*3 5) Applimrlt's Nanie, Address & Ehcne # PATI Aug 612,IAU E,teR;,Te.iu 807 W. F~$*UC 16 6-1-. 462â‚¬61 CO 81* I I (470; 544- OSQG 6) Representativels Name, Address & Ehone # At VEEA 4,TU DIO A.9.c,4 LTEECT* (WiLLIAM L.,Peer) Al* d. tnic-L- 4-r. 46Pe,4, CO 81<911 (978)959-95134 7) gYPJ of AIplicatirn (please check all that apply): .. arniitional Use Ocnceptual SPA ancepilal Histaric Dev. Special Review Â· Final SEA Final Histcric Dev. 1 8040 Grnenl ine Ocnceptual RID Minor Historic Der. Stream Margin Â· Â·- Final POD Historic Demolition Mountain View Plane Subdivision _ Historic Designaticn ationÂ· - Ted/Mep Amendment - (29]S Allotment Iot Srlit/Lot Iine ~ Design Review QUS Egemptian Adjustment =--L Appeal Board Description of Existing Uses Â· (runber and. type of existing structures; ag=ocinate sq. ft; number of bedrocms; any previous approvals grarrted to the prxperty). OuE- 4 bEOP-DOM ~ O *TORY *LUGLE FAMILY DWELLIUe Â· APPROKIMATELY &040 6&.PT. PLU* 818 64. FT. tbatnERT. 9) Description of Develciment Applicaticn RE,Que,*T VAR\AUCE APPADVAL TO CO#4 TR-uCT A \-CAR bal-OW Â®RAOâ‚¬. eAR,Lee. Uk\DER BXL*Ttkle fADU46 . 1 10) Have you attached the following? YE* Response to Attad]Inent 2, Minimm Suhnissicn contents YE'b Response to Attadlment 3. Specific Suhnission Contents 8 1 1.lilli ... 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 garage could 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 markedly 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 garage needs to be located on the left side of the Francis 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 â€¢ Eberstein House â€¢ 307 West Francis Street â€¢ 1/16/96 â€¢ page: 1 ./ 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 car 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 â€¢ Eberstein House â€¢ 307 West Francis Street â€¢ 1/16/96 â€¢ page: 2 4 - CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP Pitkin County Title, Inc., a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent in the State of Colorado hereby certifies that BRIAN EBERSTEIN AND PATI EBERSTEIN, are the owners in simple of the following described property: LOTS F AND G, BLOCK 42, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. ENCUMBRANCES: Deed of Trust from : Brian Eberstein and Pati Eberstein to the Public Trustee of the County of Pitkin for the use of : Pitkin County Bank & Trust Co. original amount : $990,000.00 dated : February 22, 1995 recorded : March 14, 1995 in Book 776 at Page 118 reception no. : 379706 Subject to easements and rights of way of record. This certificate is not to be construed to be a guarantee of title and is furnished for informational purposes only. PITKIN COUNTY,*ITLE, INC. BY: ~~04â€ž authoriz*d mignature CERTIFIED TO: DECEMBER 21, 1995 @ 8:30 A.M. ORDER NO. 1066 . .' .tâ€¢'*4..#'.49"B,VIT- ' filt",5/01"KilZAINIL ; r:K-?'.fj:AIR"'Chilit. V.â€¢M'4"AA#t Windill'll'llib"LOI'l,LI""160"'12"*C, 4, 6' B. #354308 02/24/93 16:14 Rec .5.00 BK 704 PG 480 1* AA, Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $77.00 'L O WARRANTY DEED 3) ..'.A'll-'',:I Z Z 5 N lu Grantor, CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, whose address is P.O. Box 130, Snowmass, iâ‚¬ls) .9. 4 0 Â· - Colorado 81654, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, for the consideration of Seven ,/104' 4 e & 1 Hundred Seventy Thousand Dollars ($770,000.00), in hand paid, hereby sells and conveys to de c Cliffbrook, Dallas, Texas 75270, the following real property in the County of Pitkin, and **P 0 M 24 47 BRIAN EBERSTEIN AND PATI EBERSTEIN, as joint tenants, whose address is 6561 4.*? t-4 State of Colorado, to wit: tti 4 0 t.Â»11 Lots F and G, Block 42, 1144 City and Townsite of Aspen, .' 19 with all its appurtenances, and warrants the title to the same, subject to the lien for ad . , valorem taxes for the current year and the reservations contained in the deed recorded "Â·f w .. 3 December 5, 1887 in Book 59 at page 127, Pitkin County, Colorado records, 1 952 Signed this l ( *Â£' day of February, 1993. 0 6 5 -6- 618 ,~ Christopher H. Smith ~ .r STATE OF COLORADO ) ./.1 6 ti ) SS. - . 1 14[1 COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this /8 day of February, WU i .4 .:1 1993, by Christopher H. Smith. .''." d - '. r f , A- j~.Â¥4nfs*Tny hand and official seal. 4 Â·o . ' :'.'Â· tdOT]0[7:,4~~ission expires: L. ~c, 2,6-2,4-2 / 77 /99\. 0.4 67 ' '"1 *43 U D ,\Ck,t~,~02 3 9,0 Cr.r Notary~u~~~ 'AelÂ¥-7 41 me wia M L 40 74%3 , , I I ly/*312,3 3 2 b . 0 431 , 4 , 4 , I i; 4:-t-,4-~ 222 I , r ' ur.. Â· ... . .Â» , . I . . rn , .' ~ --~~ 0518 23~~ ~ 0 re DEED OF TRUST PARTIES: This Deed of Trust is made on FEBRUARY 22. 1995 , among the Grantor, BRIAN EBERSTEIN AND PATI EBERSIEIN IN JOINT TENANCY ("Borrower" 3, the Public Trustee of PITKIN County, in the State of Colorado ("Trustee"). and the Beneficiary. PrIKIN CIX]NrY BANK & TRUST CD. whose address is 534 E. HYMAN AMIE. - BOX 3677 ASPEN. CO 81612 ("Lender"). CONVEYANCE: For value received, Borrower irrevocably grants and conveys to Trustee, in trust. with power of sale, the real estate described below and all rights, easements, appurtenances, rents, leases and existing and future improvements and fixtures (all called the "property"}. BORROWER'S MAILING ADDRESS: 6561 CLIFPBROOK rIX , 75251 IS'reet} (CIty) tState) [ZIp Codel PROPERTY ADDRESS: 0307 WEST FRANCIS STREEr , ASPEN , Colorado 81611 {Street) (Clty) ,ZIp Code) LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOTS F AND G, BLOCK 42, CITY AND TOWNSI'IE OF ASPEN, (Â¤.INTY OF PI'IKIN, STATE OF OOLORAIX) 379706 B-776 P-118 03/14/95 02: 45n' PG i OF 2 REC DOC SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CLERK & RECORDER 10.00 located in PITKLN County, Colorado. TITLE: Borrower covenants and warrants title to the property, except for encumbrances of record, municipal and zoning ordinances. current taxes and assessments not yet due and SECURED DEBT; This deed of trust secures to Lender repayment of the secured debt and the performance of the covenants and agreements contained in this deed of trust and in any other document incorporated herein. Secured debt. as used in this deed of trust. includes any arnounts Borrower owes to Lender under this deed of trust or under any instrument secured bv this dead of trust and all modifications. extensions and renewals thereof. Tile secured debris evidenced by (List all instruments and agreements secured by this dead of trust and dates thereof.>: PROMISSORY NCIE DATED 2/22/95 IN THE AMOUNT OF 8990.000.00 IN THE NAME OF BRIAN AND PATI EBERSIEIN The above obligation is due and payable on FEBRUARY 22, 2000 <f not paid earlier. The total unpaid balance secured by this deed of trust at any one time shall not exceed a maximum principal amount of NINE H[INDRED NINETY 'I'HOUSAND AND NO/100* ****** Dollars ($ 990,000.00 1, plus interest, plus any arnounts disbursed under the terms of this deed of trust to protect the security of this deed of trust or to perform any of the covenants contained in this deed of trust, with interest on such disbursement. U Future Advancam: The above debt is secured even though all or part of it mav not yet be advanced. Future advances are contemplated and will be secured to the same extent as if made on the date this deed of trust is executed. IZVariabl, Rate: The interest rate on the obligation secured by this deed of trust may vary according to the terms of that obligation. 0 A-eopy of the loan agreement containing the terms under which the interest rate may vary is attached to this deed of trust and ~ma~fe a part hereof. RIDE,tâ€¢f"~ClÂ¢ornmercial 1~1 0 SIGNATURESÂ¢By signiqg-Â·15*iS~, 1~rrower agrees to the terms and covenants contained 1,-tus deed.01 trust. including those on page 2 and in ( any rid*re ~gpid by Borro,fer described above- Borrower also acknowledges reiâ€¢flt c''f â€¢,E~py~f t hisdedof-tiustÂ· 11$:tym>.0~- d-% PAPI EBERSTEIN ACKNOWLEDGMENT: STATE OF COLORADO, 12,114:.4 . County ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me this -71 - day of 'gk-44&11-i,7 by BRIAN EBERSTEIN AND PATI EBERSIEN / (Title (s)) Corporate or .#w",11"mu'* F f Nanne 01 Corporation or Partnership} '011.9..7**'* Acknowledgment ~-~ on behalf of the corporation or partnership. #F /#KO TAR '1:.i ' Witness my hand and official seal. ~ % <SH# i 1 <7 MY commission expiresÂ· <1'08 L\%*APW '*t==01- - L /(Not*+Ablic> MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: '41;,mwom '40&05<5:021 October 24, 1998 COLORADO 0 1985 BANKERS SYSTEMS, ING.. ST. CLOUD, MN 38301 11-800-397-23411 FORM OCP-NITG-CO 777/91 {page 1 of 2} UCC-1 UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE 2/22/95 FINANCING STATEMENT 1 ST DEBTOR CHECK IF APPLICABLE SSN/FED Tax ID .460-72-5920 Check One: U Business U This statement is to be recorded 2 Personal in the real estate records ONLY. Name Last, 1 8 .EBERSTEIN, BRLAN 2 This statement is to be filed in real Street .6561 CLIFFBROOK estate AND UCC records, City, State, Zip . DAILAS, 'IX 75251 0 The debtor is a transmitting utility. For Office Use Only ll',l0ll'',iII,lllll'1,lil,l,II'I,lllll'll'li'l',i]l CLERK OF PITKIN COUNTY 380190 B-777 P-552 03/31/95 03:03P PG 1 OF 2 REC DO[ SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CLERK & RECORDER 10.00 Fold Here 2ND DEBTOR E Additional debtorls) on attachment PLEASE CHECK APPROPRIATE BOX. THIS STATEMENT IS SIGNED BY THE SSN/FED Tax ID .458-82-5202 Check One: 2 Business SECURED PARTY INSTEAD OF THE O Personal DEBTOR TO PERFECT A SECURITY Name ta-, â„¢1 . E:BERSIFIN, PATI INTEREST IN COLLATERAL Street .6561 CLIFFBROOK E Already subject to a security City, State, Zip . DAILAS, TX 75251 interest in another jurisdiction when it was brought into this state, or when the debtor's 1ST SECURED U Additional secured party on attachment location was changed to this PARTY state; C] Which is proceeds of the original collateral described below in which a security interest was perfected; E As to which the filing has lapsed; Name (Last. 1.t) . PI'IKIN COUNTY BANK & TRUST CD. or Street . 534 E. HYMAN AVE. - BOX 3677 0 Acquired after a change of name, City, State, Zip .ASPEN, CO 81612 identity or corporate structure of the debtor. Fddi Here COLLATERAL CLASSIFICATION: ASSIGNED PARTY C] Additional assigned party on attachment (Supply full description) Name (Lut, 1.0 Accounts, Accounts Receivable Fixtures Street . O Proceeds City, State, Zip . 2 Equipment, Machinery (Cot:Unal Description) Livestock, Farm Animals, Etc. 2 Contract Rights SEE ATIAGED FOR CEMPLEIE DESCRIPTION 2 Inventory Products Truck, Car, Vehicle -, 15~ r - GENERAI,6#TANGIBLES - pIT 1&7'flUST ~~13~~~~ 7 (jl X - - l -4â€ž.... BY: 4/IZZL Debtor Signature{sl Â¥u,Â·ed Pafty Slgrlatur,(sl BRIAN EBERSTEIN AND PATI EBERSIEIN SGUIT GARCIA f i Printed Narne(3> V Printed Nam*Cs) MDRIGAGE LOAN OFFICER Tit!. Title IRev. 8/10/93} Bankars Systems, Inc., St. Cloud, MN fl-800397-2341) Form UCCÂ·t-LAZ-CO 1 2/3/93 Or'ign/ Copy - Anng Officer Second Copy - Secured Pany - 0 7.1 ' - , 11.1 ... 1 . PATI EBERSTEIN -: -~ -~ -- IC--- .4 : r .3.,L. '1-, . -t , I ' - I. 1. I. h ./. :." ... , , .||, ..1 , TorÂ·whom qi.t'may conc'ernif.'--,- ; , .- r . .1- . . 1.- 4,?. ..fx:. , . 'Â·-i-' This'letter isÂ· to certify that'Bill~,.Lipsey''of -River 4 - i -Â·, ,Studio Architects will be serving as.our;agent, in application for a garage permit from the cityof 4. r ' 7-~ Aspen. Our property is located at 307 W. Francis in the city of Aspen. Please do not hesitate to 'contact me if there is any further information I can provide. Sincerely, 4-2,2 92.4~2-Â· Pati Eberstein 5 January 1996 (410)544-06'19 , 1 ' 'b ti ... ... Â·. | ||"-| ' e/";'.1..-,4,-,A.,,. :Hi.4 K.:.30,Q* t.Â·Â·. 0.. . h..:<59~Fflf-i~ f.Â·~-/ 932 --/--- I DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION APRIL 11.1996 Alstrom stated that in addition to our findings, DRAC can send recommendations to other boards. Amidon said the Planning Dept. is in the process of revising ord. 30, to try and eliminate some of the problems it has created. Vann said that section 7304, residential design standards 1) building orientation; 2) build to lines, primary mass; and on to number 6) is floor area. Vann stated that FAR is clearly listed under the design standards. Amidon responded that the volume issue is not listed and said this is long standing, since ord. 30 has been written it has been understood that DRAC can't vary on this issue. Vickery asked ifthe garage space is in addition to the on site parking off the alley. Lipsey said yes and they could not build an enclosed garage o ff the alley because of set backs. Vickery asked if the board needed to seek legal advice on the FAR issue. Amidon responded that she would meet with the Assistant City Attorney for clarification. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Alstrom said that he wanted ord. 30 to be more of a design review committee instead o f a bunch of rules. Alstrom stated that this is a masterful example how this house has been handled in the past and it is one of his favorite projects in the West end, preceding ord. 30. Alstrom said the committee should look at the broad reaching goal first, not the small issues, this is the first project that has come to DRAC that is generally considered a good example o f design fitting in the community, he said he understands staffs criteria for evaluating solutions, however looking at the site, in the past, to a pedestrian walking by, this house has been a surprise. Alstrom said that a benefit of this garage will be that the flavor of the house will be brought closer to the street and people will notice it more tlian they would have otherwise. Alstrom said the board needed to respond to the design review criteria an,d not just the rule book. Moyer stated that [-le is not in favor of the project although he thinks it is a terrific design, this house is an excellent example of infill, the garage is not an excellent example of infill. Moyer said that prior to the design charett, there was a great DESIGN REVIEW 1 EALS COMMISSION APRIL 11. 1996 - - deal of discussion, with community participation, concerning garages with additions, it is a wonderful house, i f you put the garage in, its a garage with an addition. Moyer stated that one of the many neighborhood character guidelines, that the public forum set up, was to get the garage offthe street, and just because the house to the East has a garage on the street, if you have one evil, you do not create another. Moyer said that a garage is not a need, it is not something you can't live without. Moyer also said that when you walk down the street the house is a wonderful surprise, with a garage sticking out there it will not be a surprise. Moyer stated that sometimes you have to give to get, and that is not happening here, it' s just asking for more, and everyone in Aspen comes in and asks for more, this committee has not had a lot of sympathy towards that and lie concurs with staff, he reiterated that a garage is not a necessity and he respects Alstrom's comments and he respects the architect, the FAR issue is not one he wished to discuss. Vickery asked how far the face of the garage is set back from the property line, Lipsey responded it is about 30' from the property line and about 50' from the street. Vickery said in his opinion this house has a unusual sighting, and it would be unrealistic to expect someone to move their house, remove existing retaining walls, reconfigure spaces and windows to adapt them to a garage so that would be located off the alley. He said the options of providing the garage offthe alley had oeen explored and he felt satisfied there are no viable options, he accepted the fact that a single car garage is desirable and a necessary element in our climate. Vickery said that because this is a single car garage, it has a lesser impact, and the fact that the space is not required it is a voluntary situation. Vickery noted that this calls for a tree to be removed and asked how big it is. Lipsey responded that it is a 2' cottonwood and the applicant would have to go through Parks to discuss mitigation on this so there is no net loss. Eberstein said that the tree is not very healthy, the tree man said that the roots have grown into the retaining wall. Vickery did say that he was not in favor of moving existing trees. He said maybe the driveway could cul,ve around it, or come in at an angle, if you could leave the tree there it may cut down on the visibility of the garage door. DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION APRIL 11. 1996 thing to make new ordinances work for an existing structure. Vann said the prior decisions were not made consciously to preclude a garage, but are the result of several remodeling attempts on the building to address the various needs of the people who owned it at the time. Lipsey stated that there is not enough length given to get a legal size car in the garage because of where the current retaining wall is, so the wall would have to be demolished and some windows in the lower bedroom would have to be blanked over in order to fit a garage in there. The garage would cast a perpetual north facing shadow over the only outdoor space this house enjoys. Vann said that assuming this owner or her predecessors made a conscious effort to keep the scale ofthis building down, by not building up, it seems rough to penalize them by saying they need to remodel the house in order to put a garage in the back. Lipsey stated that the site falls off quite a bit, one end of the site is four and a half feet lower than the other end of the site, so the applicant is already halfway to floor above the garage that would be completely below grade. Lipsey said the garage would not have the kind of impact that ord. 30 was trying to prevent which is macie by a two car garage with an overhead garage door at grade. This garage door would be a single car garage door below grade. Vann stated that this would allow the applicant to add the garage without increasing the building-footprint and without increasing the building FAR by a sigtiificant degree, obviously there is no ability to recess the garage on the front of the house a minimum of 10' behind the front facade. Vann stated that the house next door has a double garage on the streetscape, the other criteria that it should be a minimum of 50' from the rear cannot be done without substantial renovation to the building, the lot is only 100' deep and could not be more than 150' from the front yard., the width of the lot does not permit a perpendicular garage in the front yard set back, those are limitations imposed by the site and the footprint of the existing building. Vann said that the applicant does meet a partial criteria that, the width of the house must be at least 5' greater than the width o f the garage. Vann stated that Â·in reculations'such as ord. 30, we should be looking at the substantive impact'of the request not the specific letter of the law, and that is not to say that we shouldn't apply our regulations and apply them fairly. Vann said that he would ask the DRAC board to decide among themselves if the construction of DESIGN REVIEW A_ . EALS COMMISSION APRIL 11. 1996 what is a modest garage, 100% below grade, that has no significant impact in terms of FAR and does not significantly alter the footprint of the building, the height of the building or any other aspect of the building streetscape in a significant manner, warrants being denied under the criteria Staff has previously mentioned. Pat Eberstein, applicant stated that she loved the West end and waited a long time for the opportunity to buy a house there, she said that she wanted to keep it beautiful and everything she did, she felt was keeping with the area, the tours come by her house all the time. Eberstein said she felt like she kept getting caught in the "cracks" between one law being in effect and then another law or rule is enacted. Eberstein stated that she is one of the little guys in the West end and sees big monstrosities going up and she said it is very hard for her to look at it as being fair. Ramona Markalunas, public stated that the landscaping and the topography of this lot on a hillside, it drops off so that there is almost a natural path for a driveway, which is screened by the landscaping on the lot. Markalunas said the house sits so far back on the lot, that you would have to be looking for the garage door to even see it. Lipsey stated that the existing house if figured under the old regulations was up to - the FAR, when figured under ord. 30, gives us over 100sq.ft. of FAR, if the windows are not counted. Nlover asked Amidon to comment on the FAR issue. Amidon stated that DRAC does not have the ability to grant the applicant relief from the doubling of the FAR. DRAC only has the ability to waive the design review standards, not issues related to FAR, and that is why it was recommended that the applicant ask the Board of Adjustment for that relief. Vann stated that is not very clear if you read the ordinance. Lipsey stated that the BOA interprets regulations extremely literally andthey do not consider aesthetic issues at all, they figure things mechanically jand mathematically, there is no area of interpretation with them, and there is with DRAC. DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION APRIL 11. 1996 Vice-Chairperson Jake Vickery called the meeting to order at 4:15p.m. with members Roger Moyer and Sven Alstrom present. Members Steve Buettow and Robert Blaich were excused and Marta Chaikovska was absent. Alstrom disclosed the appearance of a conflict of interest, but felt he could still vote on the issue, both the board and the applicant did not have a problem with Alstrom staying seated. MINUTES MOTION: Moyer moved to approve the minutes of February 15, 1996. Seconded by Vickery. All in favor, motion carries. Vickery opened the public hearing. 307 West Francis STAFF COMMENTS Amy Amidon, Staff stated that this is a proposal to construct a single stall garage, partially subgrade, and accessed from West Francis Street. Amidon said there would be variances requested from the Board of Adjustments, the slab for the driveway is in the front yard setback, and they need an FAR bonus, in addition the applicant is asking the Engineering Department to allow them to exceed the maximum grade allowed for driveways. Amidon stated that there are four waivers requested from ord. 30, A) if a driveway to a garage is below natural grade within the required front setback, the resulting cut cannot exceed 2' in depth measured from natural grade, B) all portions of a garage, carport or storage area parallel to the street shall be recessed behind the front facade at a minimum 10ft., C) garages below natural grade shall meet one of the following conditions: 1) either or all elements of the garage shall be located within 50ft. of the real lot line, this is not; 2) all elements of the garage shall be located farther than 150ft. from the front lot line. this is not; 3) or the vehicular entrance to the garage shall be perpendicular to the front lot line, this is parallel, D) for single family homes and duplexes with attached garages or carports, the width o f the house must be at least 5 ft. greater than the width o f the garage along the street facing frontage, the garage must be set back at least 10ft. further from the street than the house, this does not. Staff .1 DESIGN REVIEW A EALS COMMISSION APRIL 11. 1996 - finds that none of the standards for a variance to ord. 30 are met, and recommends that no variance be granted. Bill Lipsey, Architect representing the applicant stated that he was the architect on two remodeling o f this property, the first remodeling attempted to keep the victorian thread and connect it to the history of Aspen, the second was when the applicant purchased the house, the addition was primarily to the rear o f the house with a basement structure under the addition. Lipsey said that in order for the basement structure to have light there is a lightwell and a very small patio, he stated that they did not want to add to the front of the house even though it is house set back further from the street than any other house on the block, ironically this house was pictured as an example of a project that showed how you could build to the maximum FAR, of an existing house in the West end and not impact the street. Lipsey stated that it is difficult to fit additions to older houses that have a certain character and come under the umbrella of new ordinances, in this case, ord. 30. Lipsey said that earlier decisions that went into the design of the house, precluded putting a garage in the rear, and we did not anticipate nor set aside space for a garage in the rear. Sunny Vann, representing the applicant stated that the allowable FAR on this site is approximately 3240sq.ft., if the FAR ofthe house is calculated under ord. 30, it is about 3700sq.ft., it is that figure, because there are two windows in the house that exceed a certain height and penetrate the wall, therefore triggering the calculation of the rooms the windows are located in, at twice the normal standard. Vann said that in this particular case, the windows do not appear to be the type of windowsord. 30 was trying to regulate, they are not obtrusive from the street nor do they have an adverse affect on the streetscape. Vann said the garage in question is under a portion of the house, it would be substantially below grade and as a result, under ord. 30, it includes about 95 to 96 sq.ft. of FAR, if the applicant was not penalized for the windows, sufficient FAR exists to accommodate the garage in question without a variance and without a 200' bonus for garages located offthe alley. Vann stated that he reads ord. 30 to say that DRAG has the latitude to vary the guidelines as they apply, therefore it falls within your perview to decide if this home should be penalized for those two windows. Vann said that he would ask that DRAC,grant the relief on the assumption that thi's house has been a good example of what ord. 30 architecture was trying j.o accomplish, Vann a[so said that it is one thing to start with a clean stretch of paper and come up with a design that meets the spirit and the letter of the regulation, it is quite another DESIGN REVIEW aPPEALS COMMISSION APRIL 11. 1996 Lipsey said that he misunderstood the ord., he thought the driveway could not come in at an angle or have any bends in it and there may be a way it could curve or come in at an angle. Vickery said that the setting of this house, with the trees in front o f it provides a very unique experience for the pedestrian walking down the street, he does not feel that this proposal hurts that experience. Vickery said that the driveway should only be used for access to the garage, there should be no cars parked in the driveway, and the garage door should be kept closed as much as possible. Vickery stated in reference to the window standard, this board has not felt that was iii their perview, and he would like to see the staff suspend the application of this until this is resolved, he said the garage is not a sensitive situation, mainly because this garage sits back and is tucked in, the applicant and architect have used the topography creatively to minimize the effect of the garage even though it does not meet specific ord. 30 requirements. Vickery said he did not have a problem wGiving standards A-D, finding that in the standard for granting variances, C) practical difficulty, has been demonstrated. Vann said that he feels the volume standard as it relates to window and FAR. is clearly outlined as pait of the design standards and he finds nothing saying that DRAC can vary all design standards. Vann asked Amidon to verify, with the City Attorneys office, if this is would be the boards perview. Vann stated that he appreciates the desire not to have garages on the street scape, but they are not prohibited. and by not precluding it and providing standards for when they can occur. it is assumed that in certain circumstances it would be acceptable. Lipsey stated that this is kind of a secret house, people walk by for weeks without knowing it is there. Lipsey said there is a design paradox, that when you drop a Victorian streetscape from the East into a mountain town. the houses that face away from Aspen mountain want to tace to Aspen mountain so they put there public rooms to the North, they not only lose the sunlight they are penalized because that is where the ordinances say they should put there garages. Eberstein said that she has noticed an increase in crime and has had the window broken out of her car which she feels is unique to the West end because there is a lot of service help. Eberstein stated that she has looked into storing the car and it is not very practical and is expensive, she said that she does not really like garages . DESIGN REVIEW A :ALS COMMISSION APRIL 11. 1996 in general and did not want to put one on this house, but this was the only place it could be unobtrusive. The applicant asked to table the hearing: MOTION: Alstrom moved to table 307 W. Francis to Thursday April 18,1996, to determine the finding of the Design Review Appeal perview on FAR. Seconded by Vickery. All in favor, motion carries. MOTION: Moyer moved to adjourn at 5:40p.m. Seconded by Alstrom. All in favor, motion carries. 1 ... 1 - Amy G. Schmid, Deputy Clerk MEMORANDUM TO: Design Review Appeals Committee FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer DATE: April 25,1996 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 setback variance from the Board of Adjustments due to the driveway slab being within the frontyard setback. The Engineering Department must be petitioned to allow a driveway in excess of 12% grade. Through this project, Staff has clarified with the City Attorney's office that DRAC does have the ability to waive the FAR penalty for "volume," windows in the "no window zone." Given that this house has pre-existing windows which violate the standard, staff could support this waiver. 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. 11. 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. 111. 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. A fenced in patio at the rear of the property could be altered to accomodate a parking space. Staff recommends DRAC deny the variance request finding that none of the variance criteria are met. AGENDA DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE May 9, 1996 Regular Meeting Basement, City Hall 4:00 1. Roll Call 11. Comments (Committee members, Staff and public) 111. New Business 4:05 A. 307 W. Francis 4:45 IV. Adjoum REMINDER: THIS COMMITTEE MEETS THE SECOND THURSDAY OF EVERY MONTH (IF NEEDED) AT 4 P.M. DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION MAY 9. 1996 Chairperson Steve Buettow called the meeting to order at 4: 15p.m. with members Roger Moyer, Sven Alstrom and Robert Blaich present, Jake Vickery arrived late, and member Marta Chaikovska was absent. STAFF COMMENTS Amy Amidon, Staff added to the agenda a brief worksession on a project that was reviewed in the fall, Park Ave. Amidon said the Commission discussed the orientation of the building because they aren't really off a street, the Commission asked the applicant to come back with some elevations. MOTION: Blaich moved to add the worksession to the May 9, 1996, agenda. Seconded by Moyer. All in favor, motion carriesÂ® There were no members of the public present. 307 West Francis Amidon said when we had this review in April there were three members present and all three needed to concur to approve, the vote was 2 in favor and j opposed so this application was tabled to get more members involved in the question. Amidon stated that the minutes from that meeting were in the packet. Buettow said that he had reviewed them carefully and asked Blaich if he had reviewed them. Blaich responded that he had. Amidon said that it has been determined that this body does have the ability to waive the volume standard, which penalizes windows in the "no window zone", this would alleviate the applicants potential FAR problem, if this Commission waives that standard then they have enough FAR to do this project. Sunny Vann, representing applicant said the specific variances requested, under DRAC provisions are 1) the volume requirement, it is not aa FAR request, but a request to weigh the volume criteria; 2) driveway access; 03) the garage setback and; 4) garages below natural grade. 1 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION MAY 9. 1996 Bill Lipsey, architect said they are requesting to add a single car garage that takes advantage of a natural change in grade that occurs in the middle of the property, it is fairly minimal it is not a double car garage door on the streetscape. Lipsey stated that they are doing it as tastefully as possible, they will have to remove a Cottonwood tree and will work with the Parks Department on the mitigation. Amidon stated that there are four standards that need waivers in addition to the volume calculation. Vann said there are several conditions that must be met if a garage is located below natural grade, none of which can be met by this particular proposal. Vann said all elements of the garage have to be within 50' of the rear lot line, they can not do this, all elements shall be located further than 150' from the front lot line, this lot is only 100' deep, and the interest ofthe garage is perpendicular to the front of the house. Vann stated that it is important to note that this site is heavily vegetated, so much that you can barely see the front door o f the house from the street, the majority of that will remain. Vann said he thinks these regulations are designed to help guide development so we get a minimal amount of impacts to preserve our neighborhoods, this represents a fairly sensitive way to incorporate a garage, we ask the Commission to look at the design, perhaps give us input on how it can be improved, and have an open mind in granting these particular variances. Blaich asked if the owners intend to sell this house, there was a 6~~for sale" sign posted. Lipsey responded it is not out of the question. Vann said it was listed for sale, and the listing broker stated that it is no longer for sale, in talking with the applicant it was for sale, but if they can solve this problem they would like to keep the house Vann said clearly there is no guarantee it won't be for sale sometime in the future. Blaich asked if we are dealing with a hardship for someone who will be living there or are we dealing with a way to sell the house. Vann responded that it' s his understanding that we are dealing with a hardship for someone who wants to live there. Blaich said that the Cottonwood is 33", 90" circumference, he does not know what the Parks Departments position willj be'on this. Vann said generally the Parks Department has been more amiable to Cottonwood trees as opposed to Spruce and Evergreens as well as cases when the trees themselves cause a hardship. Blaich asked what the mitigation may be on this. Vann responded that there is two kinds 2 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION MAY 9.1996 of mitigation; 1) any mitigation that may or may not be required by the Parks Department and; 2) any mitigation DRAC may require, not to compensate for the loss of the tree, because that is really the Parks Departments perview, but what mitigation is necessary for the impact of this garage on the front of the house. Lipsey said there was some discussion of this tree at the previous meeting and as the landscaping stands now, you can not see this house and i f a tree or two is removed people walking by would become more aware of the house and it may contribute to more of the streetscape. Buettow asked why the applicant does not want to put the garage in the back, off the alley, clearly this looks as if it could be pushed directly in the back and on the site visit he observed that there is a terrace in the area that could be put somewhere else or even on top of the garage. Lipsey responded that they did consider that, it is an obvious place to put it, if it worked there, we did not think it worked there because the outdoor terrace is the applicants only outdoor living area, it faces the sun, the southeast, it also faces Aspen Mountain, sitting on the terrace they can see the mountain, Lipsey said if the garage structure is built there that would be blocked, there is also a lightwell structure that is too close to the alley to allow a legal parking space or garage given the setbacks required for a garage, it can't be done without destroying that lightwell, tearing down the retaining wall and moving it 6-8' to the north. Moyer asked i f these same owners did the last addition. Lipsey said yes. Moyer asked why wasn't a garage discussed and put on at that time. Lipsey responded that the applicant was not familiar with the winters here and the problems cars have sitting outside for a long period of time without being started, they had a very tight lot and they wanted to maximize their addition, in terms of the public rooms being on the south side and so forth, those were more important, at that time than having a garage. Alstrom asked what the existing front setback is. Lipsey responded it's 22'. Alstrom asked what Dhe combined front and rear setback is. Lipsey said it would be 33', combined, the new garage does not put the house any closer to the street than it is now. Blaich asked if there had been a response from the neighbors. Lipsey said they did not get any phone calls. Vann said that the applicant talked with the neighbor to the east who was amiable. 3 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION MAY 9, 1996 Jake Vickery was not seated at the beginning of the meeting, but did participate at the previous meeting and asked if he needed to be seated prior to the vote. Vann stated that they do not have an objection to Vickery voting on this matter, he was at the last meeting, because Vickery was in the Planning office we elected to go forward because he had heard the presentation. Vickery was seated. Alstrom stated that he felt the same and thinks that because this meets the front and rear setbacks in the zone district it alleviates his concern, and based on this application, when we deal with a remodel we should look at the ordinance differently and develop some guidelines to do that. Alstrom said this is a good application in the sense that it brings to the board questions that we need to resolve about remodels, it is one of the classic, good remodels with broken down massing and fitting the small context, he is in favor of granting this variance. Alstrom stated that intent is not the same as the Board of Adjustment, he does not think this board should look at their reviews like that but to help applicants maintain examples of demonstrated, good architecture. Blaich said that in the previous minutes, Moyer stated that "a garage is not a need", he could agree with that in one level but he lives in this neighborhood and would not want to live without a garage in the neighborhood with the build tip of snow and leaving the cars on the streets is not a good solution, many cars are left on the street during the winter and the City does not do anything about them, they plow around them and it creates a lot of problems. Blaich stated that we should do anything we can to alleviate that, he thinks that one of the reasons for sue,b a committee is to deal with design issues and he know that when a variance like this is granted for one person, someone else will come along and ask for the same, that is the risk with granting any variance. Moyer said he thinks there are two issues; 1) the design issue, whether it i s applicable and; 2) Aspen is a business issue. Moyer stated that within a three j block area there are, what some call "monster homes", but what he calls homes built lot line to lot line, basically they are garages with an addition, a good example o f that and why so many people who worked on the "Neighborhood Character Guidelines", said lets get the garages off the street, is the house next 4 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION MAY 9.1996 door to the applicant. Moyer said the house next door is a prime example where the principal emphasis of the house is the garage, then the entry and then the house behind it. Moyer stated that he said he did not see a garage as a hardship, he thinks there is a need and told the applicant that he would love to have a garage but could not put one in, the same owner did a previous addition and did not. address the garage, he thinks the tree is a big issue and if it's approved he thinks the tree can be left and the applicant can drive around it and have something other than a paved driveway. Moyer said that this is a real example that Aspen js a business, people come in here, buy a house and add on to max out al] the rooms they can have, because it is a business, they are going to sell it, they go to the Realtor and they want to ask the maximum price and the Realtor says "you don't have a garage". Moyer stated that the Commission has to decide if they will deal with, just the design issue, which is easy the design is great, or will we back up all the people who spent hundreds of hours and the energy to stop this "madness", even though this is a good design, it is still part of the garage on the street, and that is basically why he voted against it. Blaich stated that he understands what went into developing ordinance 30:he was involved in it to a degree and the house next door is a good example of a house none of us wants to see. Blaich said he does not know ifthe tree would survive putting the driveway around it, as far as business in Aspen, he knows its a business in Aspen that is why he asked, up front if this house is on the market and is this something to solve the sale problem, he said that he trusts the integrity of the two people representing the applicant. Vann said there are certain realities of what has happened in this community, one of them is that in the West end we have a lot of absentee people that live here and think they are viable parts of the community because of what they do and they participate in this community and he has always gotten upset when we lump them all into one category as being "bad" for this town, after all we did this ourselves, every regulation, every ordinance 30, every setback requirement exacerbates the very problem we are trying to fix, every time someone buys a lot in the West end the first thing they ask is how much FAR is allowed, and with very few possible exceptions, they will build to the maximum FAR whether they need it or not because it is an investment and they are protecting that investment. Vann said the one thing they know about Aspen and Pitkin County is that the rules always change and are always more difficult, whether it creates value for people, whether it is being bought or sold to a certain extent really are not germane to a decision 5 DESIGN REVIEÂ» APPEALS COMMISSION MAY 9.1996 process, the issue is, is there sufficient flexibility within this type of guideline to accommodate the "odd ball" situation, we are not going to get smaller houses through the application of ordinance 30 hopefully, we will get houses 1-hat have less impact, but the spirit of what those are intended to do, to reduce the impact of a garage if it fronts on the street, can be met by this design. Vickery apologized for being late and said he will stand on his comments on the record, he thinks that the applicants request is reasonable and every effort should be made to mitigate minimizing the impacts this situation would have an the street. Vickery asked what is the width of the garage. Lipsey responded that it will be 15'6" and thedoorwillbea normal 8' door, the applicant has not decided the surface of the driveway, it could be colored concrete, it could be textured, there are a number of options and we're open to suggestions to make this as low key as possible. Vickery suggested that the applicant look into the "California" driveway which is two driving strips for the tires and in between is grass or some other material and instead of retaining walls consider other methods of retainage or slope treatment. Lipsey stated that he would love to keep the tree and misinterpreted the ordinance as saying that the garage has to be perpendicular to the street, meaning they wanted the driveway to be perpendicular to the grid, he now realizes th.at the garage doors were not supposed to be perpendicular to the street, so if there is a way to leave the tree they would like to do that. Blaich asked if the driveway could be 8' which would leave a way to embank that or step it versus a sheer wall going down, snow removal will be the biggest problem. Lipsey stated that he thinks it will have to have snow melt Blaich said that anything you can do to soften this thing to fit the rest of the house. I.ipsey responded that is a good way to do it, keep the driveway narrow and slope the sidewalls as much as possible. Alstrom seconded Vickery's comments on mitigation and he would he on Moyer's side of the fence if this was a new building because he agrees with the tenant of ordinance 30, but he feels sensitive to the remodel issue here, to him this is a special case that does not establish precedent nor does it change the rules of ordinance 30. 6 DESIGN REVIEv PPEALS COMMISSION MAY 9. 1996 Moyer concurs with Vickery on the mitigation and suggested the language of the motion deal with the tree, materials, and direction of the driveway so when walking down the street and see a tunnel going into the house which will take away from what has been done architecturally. Vickery said it would be desirable to restrict parking on this driveway in the front yard setback. MOTION: Blaich moved to approve the variances requested with the following conditions: 1) the applicant will narrow the driveway wherever possible; 2) will use appropriate driveway materials; 3) maintain the tree, the driveway may have to curve around it; 4) landscape appropriately to help soften the driveway; 5) limited use of driveway, no full time parking on the driveway, no parking in the front yard setback. Seconded by Alstrom. Discussion: Amidon stated that in addition to the variances requested, they need a waiver from the volume standard. Blaich amended motion to include waiver of volume standard. 6) waiver of volume standard. Motion carries 3-2 with Alstrom, Blaich and Vickery voting yes. Buettow and Moyer voted no. 7 Aspen/Pitkin Commu~ Development Department ' 130 South Galena Street -- Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 920-5090 0735-124-23 d)(33> City Land Use Application Fees: 00113-63850-041 Deposit -63855-042 Flat Fee -63860-043 HPC -63875-046 Zoning & Sign Permit - MR011 Use Tax County Land Use Application Fees: 00113-63800-033 Deposit 4(25,00 00%213 â€ž63805-034 Flat Fee -63820-037 Zoning -63825-038 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:LS KIC Name: Pati r/03Lit,Z) Â¥-06- Checkl//0 Ar- Address: 507 61 ,f>jew,i.*o Project:f*.2,62]ZuTA 6*14 9-~z ouGÂ¢25,06 Case No: fl L - 96} Phone: 905/- O.62 9 No. of Copies 7~7 :=.Lk-LiÂ· '49'F ------ v.--~1~~Z~@E;m~~-" - .-1-1-.-- THMjmWOMME~~et': *.,Â·......Â·tâ€¢ ~-,Â·.~Ut:Â·<9~Â·30*Â·'i, ~.,;ti*2' 50<~.La,?4..tÂ·*:WM?;4~?>(G'~Ar ~ .-Â·- '.. -- -9/.- -94.4, .4 .4â‚¬140*4:.1 .L -â€¢.Â·Â· s - 1 1 EtiftÂ·tf#42144: 4. C , r 1 1 1 48&*- 9 L * I *At::1!'*2' 96 97 98 99 r i~ ALLEY EXISTING REQUIRED (+TWO SPACES) OFFÂ·STREET PARKING -----------------7----------- --1 -34--T 1 1 1 1 11 . 1 11 1 1 1 , 1' : -1 1 , ' PROPEETY UNE, â„¢PICAL ... 1 1 1 1<\ ; - FOOTPRINT OF I 4; GROUND LEVEL i Â·Â·t I 1-11 1 i .sovt 1 1 1 â€¢ I 1 1 1 1. 11 1 1 - 1 - a 1 1 FOOTPRINT OF EXISTING BUILDING, TYPICAL ' 1 1 - 1- Â« 1 1 - 1 I t 1 m i Â·-Â·-----Â·Â·Â·~Â· ~-,~-~~~ ~~~~~ 1 Ill 1 - Et-1 1 1 1 - 4- 11 . el , 1 1 i , PROPOSED ~~ - 10 Sue-GRADE 1 1 1 G./495 -------M '-------4' 1 11 1 1 â‚¬-1 111 -16- (below Â®00+ rig :e.: 11 1 ; 100Â·-O- : 1 0,07 bedroom) 4---4 "" 1 1 1 .. , 1 I G.=90 -7 ... Qp-----AP 1, â€¢ IS -S . ~ 1100 1 - .1 L' 4.91 -E..92--:R. 1 1 1 L 1 - 1 ' 2 3 3 .lit' '- 1 1 ~Â·- FOOTPRINT OF 3\\\1 EXISTING BLDG. 99 1 \\ 7-790. 6. To REMAIN Â·*~ ~\.~~7~' PROPOSED lili - - -Ill'll - - I.---- - - ..I--I- - - I.-Il- - - ..1.-I...I ----LI- .....*I.- - - --Il - -- I.....Il- -- VEWAY ':. ~jÂ·**E L 96 94 - \\- EXISITING TREE \ TO BE REMOVED 1\ 97 L Â· - " -- -95 . e . e .e. e OF EXISTING PAVING . 0 0 . W~~ . 0 . . ill : Ill Ef lfI r----------------- r----------------7-------------------1 3,5:*Ar ca, ./- : , 1 48*y. 1 1 1 Z tj 8 4 ~4 - 1 1 1 [ WILUAM LIPSEYâ€¢AIAâ€¢PRINCIPAL ] 4 lili 1"7 RIVER STUDIO ARCHITECTS SITE PLAN 414 N. Mill Street Aspen, Colorado, 81611 SCALE: 1/10 = 1' 4 0.'. Phone: 303 925-3734 Fax: 303 925-8178 Print date: 1/1096 Issue: Date: C. Drawn by: LM Checked by: , 1 EL gl~- 0 0 m 0 li N APPROXIMATE GRADE AT BUILDINGS Praeet 6-P 0 [14 - - PROPERTY UNE, TYPICAL â‚¬Eanrn] L o ~ -p-~ 6'2~ - P 4/9,1 --[[1.*Mut f I APPROXIMATE GRADE AT STREET EBERSTEIN GARAGE - '~Â· ~1;#4i~ '~' -0-0--N EU]. , 1 -1 U El Sheet title: 4 1 9'lr-71-- ------ Â£ 1 SITE PLAN 1' 11 I I 11 3%-#.47- STREET ELEVATIO N 1 d -T 1. PROPOSED 1 Â·CAR SUB-GRADE Iâ€¢~ 4Â· ' .. .V I Sheet number: "1 -47-.iet., 1 .. GARAGE BELOW EXI*11NG ONE '" STolt< STRUCTURE IIi Â» Â·.Â· E :. 4 !,4.F b SUBJECT PROPER#Y ,%?644 - . . /2\ STREET ELEVATIONI ph 4Â· 1~Â·dli . $ /1= m ' 40, 3%11$6 = FecAL/k v~eÂ·. 7 -Â· oÂ· '114'' 'Â·1Â£76'7: .. D St ;4...t i Â© 1994 RIVER STUDIO ARCHITECTS ' .Wi Â·. Â·' r~ SO. ligÂ·:â„¢h SYMBOL LEGEND ~ PRIMARY ENTRANCE TO OWELUNG r Â«f 4 f A Eli L--3 [--1 \ 1 6--Ir - I p ~ -\- 1 r l ri FIi 1 - - F7*7 + -*----LJ LJ- ON-SITE PARKING SPACE (UNCOVERED, 1 r---1-7 jA 1*2412~0/8~ - Lf 2 \ 1.7.:,1 - 11. 1-4 \ \-1 \ L U A W- .4,2 1 DRA NO 1 9' :Vt#Â® 1 1~.i}1\1Â»L LY \ / . 1 Â® .4-9+5 ' City of A s p.lA\.~ , 1-77 f\- - - 1 inch = 50 feet 03 - -7 1 1 11 L_ 1 - __f--1 ~ 72111 f -7.~ i 1 j - 1-10 3 *, 0 1/ [2 4---C fi-P~ 7/3 - 0-1 Lf Â»- ~ 1 /2 r f En El 1 \\ -1 Aâ€¢-68Â·r - -7-- 1 7-- 3\ 1 6-13 f -1- -1-2 - Â¥i #4.-4 'li ~J L f----3 2 41 1 i f..A. ~ 4 I ~~ - 1_= - ~~~~~ ~-1-ip=-1 j--t ~_2 1 U \ 4 - --------~ T f- ' 4 0 - S [G,Tal ..1 1 1% \ 44 - 7-91 11-1 ~ p } 1 0 \ . .4 1 + 0 0 -1 ji 01 1 --*--' V 11 / 40 --uâ€¢46 F- ALOZY- - 1 1 aL- I r- 1 L- jil ~ 4 1 . V \\ 31 li j i 11. _ 4 2_, RIVER STUDIO ARCHITECTS [ WILLIAM LIPSEYâ€¢AIAâ€¢PRINCIPAL ] W H A LLAM ST 414 N.Mill Stteet 1 Aspen, Colorado, 81611 ' -- - . PhoneÂ· 303 923-3734 Fax: 303 925-8178 - F Prblf dateÂ· va/96 F 0 -1 1 3Â»-1 . 2 LI Date: 11-- jo LE -..nl -L_ [-1 r 4-1 L O o L; 1 - i -3 2 - -- Drawn by: ut 0 1 IL L--1 Chocked by: L P. Pmâ€¢ct: L L 3 --L =--t -1-If 0 UZ#- EBERSTEIN GARAGE Pll r-~' Shle, mb. h) 1 BLOCK PLAN - S#-t numb,r: BLOCK PLAN ~ r SCALE T â€¢ 50.0. 01994 RIVER STUDIO ARCHITECTS f , 19 ONZ N--~ 15 lbL N