The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.775 Cemetery Ln.A007-02CASE NUMBER A007-02 PARCEL ID # 2735-122-09019 CASE NAME 775-777 Cemetery Lane DRAC PROJECT ADDRESS 775 Cemetery Lane PLANNER James Lindt CASE TYPE DRAC Variance OWNER/APPLICANT Chet Winchester- Yoki Weiman REPRESENTATIVE Gretchen Greenwood DATE OF FINAL ACTION 4/16/02 CITY COUNCIL ACTION PZ ACTION Reso. #12-2002 ADMIN ACTION Approved BOA ACTION DATE CLOSED 4/23/02 BY J. Lindt PARCEL ID: |2735-122-09019 DATE REVD: ~ 1/39/02 - #COPIES:~ - EASENO|A007-02 CASE NAME:|775-777 Cemetery Lane DRAC PLNR; 4 AM<*15 /7 jf PROJ ADDR:~775 Cemetery Lane CASE TYpl DRAC Variance STEPS:F- OWN/APP: Chet Winchester- Yo ADR]775 & 777 Cemetery L C/S/Z: ~Aspen/CO/81611 PHN:]925-7714 REP:~ Gretchen Greenwood ADR:~520 Walnut Street C/S/Z:~Aspen/CO/81611 PHN~925-4502 FEES DUE:|500 D FEES RCVD:~ Need Fee STAT: r- REFERRALSj REF:| , BY| ~ DUE:| MTG DATE REV BODY PH NOTICED 1 - DATE OF FINAL ACTION:~ 41161 0- CITY COUNCIL: REMARKS~ pz: R CÂ»412 -2Â¢012 BOA: CLOSED: ] L**L BY: 1 1. 6-4 ulc~lf- DRAC: PLAT SUBMITD: | PLAT (BK,PG):| ADMIN:i A-fP/bl/EC# 2 DEVELOPMENT ORDER ofthe City of Aspen Community Development Department This Development Order, hereinafter "Order", is hereby issued pursuant to Section 26.304.070, "Development Orders", and Section 26.308.010, "Vested Property Rights", of the City of Aspen Municipal Code. This Order allows development of a site specific development plan pursuant to the provisions of the land use approvals, described herein. The effective date of this Order shall also be the initiation date of a three-year vested property right. The vested property right shall expire on the day after the third anniversary of the effective date of this Order, unless a building permit is approved pursuant to Section 26.304.075, or unless an exemption, extension, reinstatement, or a revocation is issued by City Council pursuant to Section 26.308.010. After Expiration of vested property rights, this Order shall remain in full force and effect, excluding any growth management allotments granted pursuant to Section 26.470, but shall be subject to any amendments to the Land Use Code adopted since the effective date of this Order. This Development Order is associated with the property noted below for the site specific development plan as described below. Joachim Weimann & Chet Winchester, 775 & 777 Cemetery Lane, Aspen, CO 81611 Property Owner's Name, Mailing Address and telephone number Lot 4, Block 1, West Aspen Subdivision Legal Description and Street Address of Subject Property Residential Design Standard Variance approval to construct garage doors that face the street that are forward of the front fagade, and approval for double stall doors Written Description of the Site Specific Plan and/or Attachment Describing Plan Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 12-2002,4/16/02 Land Use Approval(s) Received and Dates (Attach Final Ordinances or Resolutions) April 27,2002 Effective Date of Development Order (Same as date of publication of notice of approval.) April 28,2005 Expiration Date of Development Order (The extension, reinstatement, exemption from expiration and revocation may be pursued in accordance with Section 26.308.010 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code.) Issued this 27th day of April, 2002, by the City of Aspen Community Development Director. 6.--L- 0ife Ann Woods, Community Development Director MEMORANDUM To: Planning & Zoning Commission acting as the Design Review Appeals Committee THRL: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson. Deputy Director. .LAa FROM: James Lindt. Plan-ner 3-L_ RE: 775 and 777 Cemetery Lane Garage Variances- Continuation of April 2nd Public Hearing DATE: April 16.2002 .- r A 4. APPLICANT: Chet Winchester and Joachim Weimann 4 PARCEL ID: 2735-122-09-019 , I 1, ADDRESS: 775 and 777 Cemetery Lane â€¢r :-* -1-* 12,-kirâ‚¬*-i ZONING: R-15 (Medium Density Residential) . '11' r CURRENT LAND USE: 15.002 sq. ft. lot . containing a duplex under construction lit. -/+ - 1 PROPOSED LAND USE: The applicant proposes to PROCESS: construct a double two-car garage in front of the All applications for appeal from the existing duplex with the garage doors facing the Residential Design Standards of Section street. In order to do so, the applicant is seeking a 26.410 must meet one of the following Variance from the Residential Design Standards review standards in order for the Design earage location requirements. The applicants are & W Review Appeal Committee to grant an also requesting a Variance from the Residential exception. namely the proposal must: Design Standards to allow for double stall garage doors on both units. a) Yield greater compliance with (See Exhibit A for a description of the specific the goals of the Aspen Area standards.) 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. Background: Chet Winchester and Joachim Weimann ("Applicants"), represented by Gretchen Greenwood, architect, are requesting approval for a variance from two residential Design Standards as follows: c. On lots of at least 15,000 square feet in size, f.-4.-4/-- ,, the garage or carport rff-- /-/ may be forward of the --7-3> / front fagade of the house only if the garage doors or carport entry are perpendicular to the street (side-loaded). The illustration above demonstrates how a garage may be forward of the primary residence if it is side-loaded. f. The garage doors shall be single stall doors. The applicant had received approval on building permit plans (see plans site plan attached as Exhibit "B") that show the garage doors on both sides of the proposed duplex as being perpendicular to the street and that contain single stall doors as the Residential Design Standards require. The applicant feels that the approved configuration of the garages will not allow for a safe turning radius out of the garage stalls. The applicant requests a variance from the residential design standards to allow for the garage doors to face the street and to have double stall garage doors with the appearance of single stall doors. The applicant proposes to landscape the area between the duplexes that is currently shown as asphalt for vehicular circulation under the approved, complying garage configuration on the approved building permit plans. Staff Comments: The Planning and Zoning Commission denied the variance requests at their April 2nd meeting. However. the Commission passed a motion to allow for the Applicants to come back with a different design that better addresses the concerns of the Commission. Among the Commission's concerns were that the garagedoors still looked like garage doors. Several of the Commissioners requested that the AppliERIiCELdeors-that Zonot-givethe aggearance of being garage doors. Additionally, the Commission requested that the Applicants explore utilizing_grass pavers and/or providing additional landscaping in the front yard area to provide additional screening. The Applicant feels that the new garage door design and landscape plan (attached as Exhibit 13 ) meets the concerns that the Commission expressed at the April 2nd meeting. .Ihe- Alicant_has changed the garage doors to try and 10â‚¬-as_much-like the facaste_of.lhe Structure_aspossible._rtie Applicant_has_.pmpasviadditional shrubbery and_ -landscaping within the area between the front property line and the proposed driveway area. - Staff still does not feel that the lot has unusual site-specific constraints that would necessitate the variance or that the proposed design more effectively addresses the issue that the given standards respond to. Therefore, Staff cannot support the variance requests. However, Staff 2 believes that the new proposed garage door design and additional landscaping is more in keeping with what the Planning and Zoning Commission requested at the April 2nd Meeting. The landscaping that is proposed within the front yard setback better screens the presence of the garage doors from Cemetery Lane. Therefore, Staff feels that the proposed design better addresses Review Standard B than the previous design. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the variance request to allow for garage doors to face the street on the proposed garages located forward o f the duplex, and the variance request to allow for double stall garage doors be denied. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE STATED IN THE POSITIVE): "I move to approve Resolution No. 12-, Series of 2002, approving variances from Residential Design Standards, to allow two garages that are located forward of the duplex at 775 and 777 Cemetery Lane. to contain garage doors that face the street and to allow for double stall garage doors finding that the applicable review standards have been met". ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria & Staff Findings Exhibit B -- Revised Garage Door Design and Landscape Plan r le) 1 f 3 i Resolution No.12 (SERIES OF 2002) RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ACTING AS THE DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE APPROVING RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD VARIANCES FOR GARAGE LOCATION AND TO ALLOW DOUBLE STALL GARAGE DOORS AT 775 AND 777 CEMETERY LANE, LOT 4, BLOCK 1, WEST ASPEN SUBDIVISION, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel No. 2735-122-09-019 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Chet Winchester and Joachim Weiniatin, seeking variances from Section 26.410, Residential Design Standards, seeking relief from the garage location requirement and the single stall garage door requirement. The applicant's properly is located at 775 and 777 Cemetery Lane, Lot 4, Block 1, of the West Aspen Subdivision. Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, the applicants property is a 15,002 sq. ft. lot with a proposed duplex and located in the R-15 Zone District; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.410.020 of the Aspen Municipal Code, Community Development Department staff reviewed the applicant's proposed application for compliance with the Residential Design Standards Section of the Aspen Municipal Code and found the submitted development application to he inconsistent with Standard 26.410.040(C)(2)(c) and 26.410(C)(2)(f), Garage; and WHEREAS, Section 26.410.020(0 of the Aspen Municipal Code provides that if an application is found by Community Development Department staff to be inconsistent with any item of the Residential Design Guidelines. the applicant may either amend the application or appeal staff's findings to the Design Review Appeal Committee pursuant to Chapter 26.222, Design Review Appeal Committees and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.410.020(B) of the Aspen Municipal Code, the applicant submitted a request for a I ariance from Standard 26.410.040(B)(1) of the Aspen Municipal Code to the Design Review Appeal Committee as it applies to garages; and WHEREAS all applications for appeal from the Residential Design Standards of Section 26.410.040 must comply with the following review standards in order for the Planning and Zoning Commission acting as the Design Review Appeal Committee or other decision making administrative body to grant an exception. namely the proposal must: a) Yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, b) More effectively address tile issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or a) Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints; WHEREAS, the Community Development Director, after review of the requested variances, initially recommended denial for tile requested variances from the residential design standards for garage location and single stall garage doors; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing at a regular meeting on March 19, 2002, the Planning and Zoning C o 111 r i l i s s i i ) 1 1 tabled the public hearing to April 2, 2002. The Planning and Zoning Commission denicel the proposed variance requests by a vote of four to three (4-3); and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved a reconsideration of the action by a vote of seven to zero (7-0) to allow the Applicants to revise their design and tabled the Public Hearing to April 16,2002: anc!. WHEREAS, the Applicants revised their proposed design in an attempt to better meet the Variance Review Standards; and. WHEREAS, the Community De,clopment Director, after review of the revised design, recommended denial of the requested variances from the residential design standards for garage location and single stall garage doors; and, WHEREAS, at a regular meeting on April 16, 2002 the Planning and Zoning Commission acting as the Design Review Appeal Committee, approved with conditions, variances from the gara,ge location standard and single stall garage door standard of Section 26.410.040(C)(2) of the Aspen Mullicipal Code as it applies to Residential Design Standards for Lot 4, Block 1 of the West Aspen Slibilivision by a vote of five to zero (5-0). Finding that the variance requests 1) yielded grcater compliance with the AACP, and 2)more effectively addressed the issue or problem that the given standards respond to. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission: Section 1 That proposed variances for garage placement and single stall garage doors for the proposed duplex at 775 and 777 Cemetery Lane. Aspen, Colorado, are approved pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.410.040(C)(2), garage location of the Residential Design Standards allowing two garages to be constructed forward of the duplex with street facing garage doors and double stall garage doors with the following condition: 1. The Applicant shall install all ol the landscaping shown on the proposed landscape plan no later that August 1.2002. 2. The garage doors shall be iii compliance with the plan, which was marked as Exhibit #1 at the public hearing ofArril 16,2002. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on April 16, 2002. APPROVED AS TO FORM: DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE: City Attorney Jasmine Tygre, Chair Planning and Zoning Commission ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk c :\My Documents\Current Cases\DRAC\1270SnowbunnyVarianceMemo.doc Resolution No. 11/ (SERIES OF 2002) RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ACTING AS THE DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE APPROVING RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD VARIANCES FOR GARAGE LOCATION AND TO ALLOW DOUBLE STALL GARAGE DOORS AT 775 AND 777 CEMETERY LANE, LOT 4, BLOCK 1, WEST ASPEN SUBDIVISION, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel No. 2735-122-09-019 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Chet Winchester and Joachim Weimann, seeking variances from Section 26.410, Residential Design Standards. seeking relief from the garage location requirement and the single stall garage door requirement. The applicant's property is located at 775 and 777 Cemetery Lane, Lot 4, Block 1, of the West Aspen Subdivision, Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, the applicant's property is a 15,002 sq. ft. lot with a proposed duplex and located in the R-15 Zone District; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.410.020 of the Aspen Municipal Code, Community Development Department staff reviewed the applicant's proposed application for compliance with the Residential Design Standards Section of the Aspen Municipal Code and found the submitted development application to be inconsistent with Standard 26.410.040(C)(2)(c) and 26.410(C)(2)(f), Garage; and WHEREAS, Section 26.410.020(C) of the Aspen Municipal Code provides that if an application is found by Community Development Department staff to be inconsistent with any item of the Residential Design Guidelines, the applicant may either amend the application or appeal staffs findings to the Design Review Appeal Committee pursuant to Chapter 26.222, Design Review Appeal Committee; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.410.020(B) of the Aspen Municipal Code, the applicant submitted a request for a variance from Standard 26.410.040(B)(1) of the Aspen Municipal Code to the Design Review Appeal Committee as it applies to garages; and WHEREAS all applications for appeal from the Residential Design Standards of Section 26.410.040 must meet one of the following review standards in order for the Planning and Zoning Commission acting as the Design Review Appeal Committee or other decision making administrative body to grant an exception, namely the proposal must: a) Yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, 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; 7 WHEREAS, the Community Development Director, after review of the requested variances, initially recommended denial for the requested variances from the residential design standards for garage location and single stall garage doors; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing at a regular meeting on March 19, 2002, the Planning and Zoning Commission tabled the public hearing to April 2,2002. The Planning and Zoning Commission denied the proposed variance requests by a vote of four to three (4-3); and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved a separate action by a vote of seven to zero (7-0) to allow the Applicants to revise their design and tabled the Public Hearing to April 16.2002; and, WHEREAS, the Applicants revised their proposed design to better meet the Variance Review Standards; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director, after review of the revised design, recommended denial of the requested variances from the residential design standards for garage location and single stall garage doors; and, WHEREAS, at a regular meeting on April 16, 2002 the Planning and Zoning Commission acting as the Design Review Appeal Committee, approved variances from the garage location standard and single stall garage door standard of Section 26.410.040(C)(2) of the Aspen Municipal Code as it applies to Rssidential Design Standards for Lot 4, Block 1 of the West Aspen Subdivision by a vote of D to D COE)Â· fl AfothVÂ¥ *4 4-6%& 714,4 99't\Jv' 1,Wkâ€¢. Â£6*Â¢),â€¢â€¢.Aw Wul *CA , p) 4 61. >1 '10Â»,2 fl,W , 5 >4. O, fa 610. 4- > i 1, L/k NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission: 54-0.â€¢daâ€¢J c.piA'AA tz -,p.1 13 + . Section 1 That proposed variances for garage placement and single stall garage doors for the proposed duplex at 775 and 777 Cemetery Lane, Aspen, Colorado, are approved pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.410.040(C)(2), garage location of the Residential Design Standards allowing two garages to be constructed forward of the duplex with street facing garage doors and double stall garage doors. 4, A tic* 4011.-012 E.11.-Rdl : APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on April 16,2002. APPROVED AS TO FORM: DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE: -F l. City Attorney Jasmine Tygre, Chair Planning and Zoning Commission 0 4,4 cd. T-, 61 8 -Al Ar, ciLM $ 61#li \A-6 11,~~,11,1 %'ll jo.nU,_1,3 0 ~16 Pr-A> k 8 200 2 . t ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk C:\My Documents\Current Cases\DRA(11270SnowbunnyVariance,Memo.doc 9 EXHIBIT A REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS SECTION 26.410 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS Tile Design Review Appeal Committee (DRAC) may grant relief from the Residential Design Standards at a public hearing if the variance is found to be: a) in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP; or, b) a more effective method of addressing standard in question; or, c) clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. 26.410.040 Parking, Garages and Carports The intent of the following parking, garages, and carport standards is to minimize the potential for conflicts between pedestrian and automobile traffic by placing parking, garages, and carports on alleys, or to minimize the presence of garages and carports as a lifeless part of the streetscape where alleys do not exist. 1 he code specifically indicates that for all residential uses that do not have access from an alley or private road, the following standard shall be met: c. On lots of at least 15,000 square feet in size, the garage or carport maybe forward Of the front fagade of the house only if the garage doors or carport entry are -- perpendicular to the street (side loaded). In response to the review criteria for a DRAC variance, Staff makes the following findings: a) in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP; and, Staff Finding Staff feels that the increase in the proposed front yard landscaping as a result of the variance would be beneficial, however, staff also feels that allowing for both garages to face the street will detract from the friendly, pedestrian feel of the residences. Therefore, staff does not feel that the proposal brings the design of the duplex into greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff feels that the proposed variance simply provides a tradeoff, it would bring the proposed design in greater compliance with one goal and it would remain out of compliance with another AACP goal. Staff finds this criterion not to be met. b) a more effective method of addressing standard in question; or, 4 Staff Finding Staff finds that the proposed garage is allowed to exist in front of the front fa~ade of the house because it is on a lot greater than 15,000 sq. ft. However, as indicated in the standard, it must be side loaded as illustrated in the diagram above. The applicants propose two front loaded garages, thereby requiring a variance from Residential Design Standards. This standard, as indicated above, is intended to minimize the presence Of garages and carports as a lifeless part of the streetscape Staff finds that the proposed street-facing garages significantly goes against what this standard was written to address and minimize. Staff does not feel that the proposal is an effective manner of addressing the intent of the standard subject to the variance. Staff finds this criterion not to be met. c) clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Staff Finding The subj ect lot is flat and contains no unusual site constraints. Staff feels that the Applicant' s design is driving the need for the proposed variances and not unusual site constraints as the land use code requires for granting a variance of this nature. Staff finds this criterion not to be met. f The garage doors shall be single stall doors. In response to the review criteria for a DRAC variance, Staff makes the following findings: a) in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP; and, Staff Finding Staff does not feel that the proposal to allow for double stall garage doors yields greater compliance with the AACP. The Residential Design Standards that apply to garages are intended to minimize the presence of garages as a lifeless part of the streetscape where alleys do not exist. Staff feels that it is important to break up the mass of the garage doors so that it does not dominate the street facing view of the proposed duplex. Staff finds this criterion not to be met. b) a more effective method of addressing standard in question; or, Staff Finding Staff does not feel that the proposal for double stall garage doors that have the appearance of single stall garage doors is a more effective method of addressing the standard in question. It is still obvious that the there is only one door rather than two. Staff finds this criterion not to be met. c) clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. 5 Staff Finding Staff does not feel that there are unusual site-specific constraints on the subject site. The design of the duplex is driving and creating the site-specific constraints. The parcel is over 15,000 square feet and presents no topographic or other unusual site constraints. There have been several other similar 15,000 square foot parcels in the area that have been recently developed with duplexes that meet the design standards in which the applicants' are requesting relief from. Staff finds this criterion not to be met. 6 Entry . .Ir,Tw..g- - -1.1. Note: ty pil,oâ€¢ed S-Iica. Woma.(# 1,_ 1 Cuy 01 Aspen, Comeliry La- Tram 1 Se,nent 1, Plan and Proll*, Shiet 52, p-pued by Lods -d A-oci///4 Inc. 1 i-ER*lzrak~ 1 1 1 Winchester 1 d 9.--- 0 Residence i . 0.: 0 F t?: IE 1 .. Weimann 1 Residence 1. . 1 11. -. O 0 , 1 t. 4 E,dstimg Blue Spruce Trees - ! .. . . - l-1 m*6 + 4k. i. 1 "ll'illillillill, ----I-lt- , .... 0. A -V-~ .. - Existing Blue Spruce Trees 5*Green Shfubs_ .0_ - ~ i . l .. &P ' Flowers . '4$-744 . 4 Vâ€¢ # t te Auto Coun 8 - 0 + . 4.. --.- ti p i . . .. . I - . 6 . : 1-- .r . . Â·HI,[00 Pi)46 b ; 1 5'-Hip,L. HIÂ» FIR# *r,P / I . I . 31*0 #494160) . je 4 1 .4 . .... . . . I .4 ..... , --- .. 21 â€¢ I ... Proposed Nge Pa ... I . . It .. . I ,. .... . . . I ... . I . . Â· Proposed L nds*ng by City of Aspen Pafks Deparunent. . .. . . . I - ... .. - 11 -1 W~cheeter -WahÂ¥tarâ€¢ Schematic Landscape Fl,MO Driveway Entry Study GREG MomAN A}iE-AssoEiI;E-iKE-------------7757777--CimBEiry Lane *0~ LE.iscape A.dbitect=e - Enâ€¢pi==-tal Maning 217 sâ€¢- S/.1.I 1-4 blin * A~,$ abl-do SUU ecals: r=10'-0" H o F-1-4- ropetty Une =======================~7/ ee~============â€¢==========,% Ae===============~~~==:~~ ammaaegama~~~~ .------------6 -A~%~I~=m====I=I -I------------ -1----04.-------------------- ~1::::====2~i--I-.-=..I-.Â£----I---I--.Il-.I-I.-----~.-.-6 -li~il.-I.I.- ~1::::....=.A.'-~--~---:432:.=.-------------= -1-~-1.- -Ii......--I.....--..- ============â€ž2 -1~=~- -Ii - --Il--lar.---I --..------- Imill ./Rfiq:::::::::::~:::1 ..... -a.-1....r...................1::::1:::1----:1---././ ....................u,Aci'... I m Elip::::::::::~~57 .#H--; -1-1 -1"0 *mi-~Iâ€¢ Ilitil-.E i.-1 --'.-----, =I-ii -lilli. ...i----1 j.2.2./............ -Ii=----5 ='.t 2%, 9.0 lix Cal - ./. - ill ":13, .VAI.imil ...A=VA~~4w ; Il- Ill"24/ -4--- :-4-'. 6- 5Â¥ -7 / Ilif .11 I.-1 .la' I' / .*lllll=llllllliili,I=~am . i..lim'111.11111.ilill@tim" 111==/11-,==â€ž910/=///,1 :R i . ... ./._ 2./.Ill- 1/"__ F*=.-.1/"I ~- . 04 .---'...d--di"././.6, --1/,---- - .!11 4 ... =il--~- .Mil --1 1,1, - ...= 1 ....01 ,/1"& i=~ :1-.0 -----, ,'.r.m./"I/ ..1 W........ - ...1 -1......El.....al............/.1..... . .... .... . I I - -0.- .. 0 .. . - .. DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE (DRAC) CRITERIA 26.222.010: Criteria for Appeal of the Residential Design Standards Any appeal for exemption from the Residential Design Standards should simply and ~uccinctly identi fy why, if granted, the exception would: 4~) Yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan, and (2) A. More effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to, or ---lill-Iill- --< 0C Be clearly necessary for reasons o f fairness related to unusual site specific - constraints. MEMORANDUM To: Planning & Zoning Commission acting as the Design Review Appeals Committee THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director<0(i) FROM: James Lindt, Planner IL-- RE: 775 and 777 Cemetery Lane Garage Variances- Continuation of April 2nd Public Hearing DATE: April 16, 2002 41* * 1. 1*... ... APPLICANT: Chet Winchester and Joachim Weimann ~ . PARCEL ID: 2735-122-09-019 ADDRESS: 775 and 777 Cemetery Lane -1-,---~-7,2- 6.: . 9 ZONING: R-15 (Medium Density Residential) 4 En CURRENT LAND USE: 15,002 sq. ft. lot e. 9.1~ - *:22*i-2 containing a duplex under construction 6,2 -: 1..............Ill' 1-9,1/14/1,Al .,i.t- ./. PROPOSED LAND USE: The applicant proposes to PROCESS: construct a double two-car garage in front of the All applications for appeal from the existing duplex with the garage doors facing the Residential Design Standards of Section street. In order to do so, the applicant is seeking a 26.410 must meet one of the following Fariance from the Residential Design Standards review standards in order for the Design garage location requirements. The applicants are Review Appeal Committee to grant an also requesting a Variance from the Residential Design Standards to allow for double stall garage exception, namely the proposal must: doors on both units. a) Yield greater compliance with (See Exhibit A for a description of the specific the goals of the Aspen Area standards.) 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. Background: Chet Winchester and Joachim Weimann ("Applicants"), represented by Gretchen Greenwood, architect, are requesting approval for a variance from two residential Design Standards as follows: e. On lots of at least 15,000 square feet in size, -0-* Â»533EA -/ the garage or carport -/ may be forward of the front fafade of the house -< only if the garage doors or carport entry are perpendicular to the street (side-loaded). The illustration above demonstrates how a garage may be forward of the primary residence if it is side-loaded. f. The garage doors shall be single stall doors. The applicant had received approval on building permit plans (see plans site plan attached as Exhibit "B") that show the garage doors on both sides of the proposed duplex as being perpendicular to the street and that contain single stall doors as the Residential Design Standards require. The applicant feels that the approved configuration of the garages will not allow for a safe turning radius out of the garage stalls. The applicant requests a variance from the residential design standards to allow for the garage doors to face the street and to have double stall garage doors with the appearance of single stall doors. The applicant proposes to landscape the area between the duplexes that is currently shown as asphalt for vehicular circulation under the approved, complying garage configuration on the approved building permit plans. Staff Comments: The Planning and Zoning Commission denied the variance requests at their April 2nd meeting. However, the Commission passed a motion to allow for the Applicants to come back with a different design that better addresses the concerns of the Commission. Among the Commission's concerns were that the garage doors still looked like garage doors. Several of the Commissioners requested that the Applicant find doors that do not give the appearance of being garage doors. Additionally, the Commission requested that the Applicants explore utilizing grass pavers and/or providing additional landscaping in the front yard area to provide additional screening. The Applicant feels that the new garage door design and landscape plan (attached as Exhibit "B") meets the concerns that the Commission expressed at the April 2nd meeting. The Applicant has changed the garage doors to try and look as much like the fagade of the structure as possible. Additionally, the Applicant has proposed additional shrubbery and landscaping within the area between the front property line and the proposed driveway area. Staff still does not feel that the lot has unusual site-specific constraints that would necessitate the variance or that the proposed design more effectively addresses the issue that the given standards respond to. Therefore, Staff cannot support the variance requests. However, Staff 2 believes that the new proposed garage door design and additional landscaping is more in keeping with what the Planning and Zoning Commission requested at the April 2nd Meeting. The landscaping that is proposed within the front yard setback better screens the presence of the garage doors from Cemetery Lane. Therefore, Staff feels that the proposed design better addresses Review Standard B than the previous design. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the variance request to allow for garage doors to face the street on the proposed garages located forward of the duplex, and the variance request to allow for double stall garage doors be denied. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE STATED IN THE POSITIVE): "I move to approve Resolution No. , Series of 2002, approving variances from Residential Design Standards, to allow two garages that are located forward of the duplex at 775 and 777 Cemetery Lane, to contain garage doors that face the street and to allow for double stall garage doors finding that the applicable review standards have been met". ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria & Staff Findings Exhibit B -- Revised Garage Door Design and Landscape Plan 3 Resolution No. (SERIES OF 2002) RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ACTING AS THE DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE APPROVING RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD VARIANCES FOR GARAGE LOCATION AND TO ALLOW DOUBLE STALL GARAGE DOORS AT 775 AND 777 CEMETERY LANE, LOT 4, BLOCK 1, WEST ASPEN SUBDIVISION, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel No. 2735-122-09-019 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Chet Winchester and Joachim Weimann, seeking variances from Section 26.410, Residential Design Standards, seeking relief from the garage location requirement and the single stall garage door requirement. The applicant' s property is located at 775 and 777 Cemetery Lane, Lot 4, Block 1, of the West Aspen Subdivision, Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, the applicant's property is a 15,002 sq. ft. lot with a proposed duplex and located in the R-15 Zone District; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.410.020 of the Aspen Municipal Code, Community Development Department staff reviewed the applicant' s proposed application for compliance with the Residential Design Standards Section of the Aspen Municipal Code and found the submitted development application to be inconsistent with Standard 26.410.040(C)(2)(c) and 26.410(C)(2)(f), Garage; and WHEREAS, Section 26.410.020(C) of the Aspen Municipal Code provides that if an application is found by Community Development Department staff to be inconsistent with any item of the Residential Design Guidelines, the applicant may either amend the application or appeal staffs findings to the Design Review Appeal Committee pursuant to Chapter 26.222, Design Review Appeal Committee; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.410.020(B) of the Aspen Municipal Code, the applicant submitted a request for a variance from Standard 26.410.040(B)(1) of the Aspen Municipal Code to the Design Review Appeal Committee as it applies to garages; and WHEREAS all applications for appeal from the Residential Design Standards of Section 26.410.040 must meet one of the following review standards in order for the Planning and Zoning Commission acting as the Design Review Appeal Committee or other decision making administrative body to grant an exception, namely the proposal must: a) Yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, 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; 7 WHEREAS, the Community Development Director, after review of the requested variances, initially recommended denial for the requested variances from the residential design standards for garage location and single stall garage doors; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing at a regular meeting on March 19, 2002, the Planning and Zoning Commission tabled the public hearing to April 2,2002. The Planning and Zoning Commission denied the proposed variance requests by a vote of four to three (4-3); and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved a separate action by a vote of seven to zero (7-0) to allow the Applicants to revise their design and tabled the Public Hearing to April 16, 2002; and, WHEREAS, the Applicants revised their proposed design to better meet the Variance Review Standards; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director, after review of the revised design, recommended denial of the requested variances from the residential design standards for garage location and single stall garage doors; and, WHEREAS, at a regular meeting on April 16, 2002 the Planning and Zoning Commission acting as the Design Review Appeal Committee, approved variances from the garage location standard and single stall garage door standard of Section 26.410.040(C)(2) of the Aspen Municipal Code as it applies to Residential Design Standards for Lot 4, Block 1 of the West Aspen Subdivision by a vote of to C_-_3. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission: Section 1 That proposed variances for garage placement and single stall garage doors for the proposed duplex at 775 and 777 Cemetery Lane, Aspen, Colorado, are approved pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.410.040(C)(2), garage location of the Residential Design Standards allowing two garages to be constructed forward of the duplex with street facing garage doors and double stall garage doors. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on April 16,2002. APPROVED AS TO FORM: DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE: City Attorney Jasmine Tygre, Chair Planning and Zoning Commission 8 ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk C:\My Documents\Current Cases\DRAC\1270SnowbunnyVarianceMemo.doe 9 EXHIBIT A REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS SECTION 26.410 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS The Design Review Appeal Committee (DRAC) may grant relief from the Residential Design Standards at a public hearing if the variance is found to be: a) in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP; or, b) a more effective method of addressing standard in question; or, c) clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. 26.410.040 Parking, Garages and Carports The intent of the following parking, garages, and carport standards is to minimize the potential for conflicts between pedestrian and automobile traffic by placing parking, garages, and carports on alleys, or to minimize the presence of garages and carports as a lifeless part of the streetscape where alleys do not exist. The code specifically indicates that for all residential uses that do not have access from an alley or private road, the following standard shall be met: c. On lots of at least 15,000 square feet in Ul size, the garage or carport maybe forward -4 of the front fagade of the house only if the -0 -/ garage doors or carport entry are --~ / -,0.3>' perpendicular to the street (side loaded). In response to the review criteria for a DRAC variance, Staffmakes the following findings: a) in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP; and, Staff Finding Staff feels that the increase in the proposed front yard landscaping as a result of the variance would be beneficial, however, staff also feels that allowing for both garages to face the street will detract from the friendly, pedestrian feel of the residences. Therefore, staff does not feel that the proposal brings the design of the duplex into greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff feels that the proposed variance simply provides a tradeoff, it would bring the proposed design in greater compliance with one goal and it would remain out of compliance with another AACP goal. Staff finds this criterion not to be niet. b) a more effective method of addressing standard in question; or, 4 Staff Finding Staff finds that the proposed garage is allowed to exist in front of the front faGade of the house because it is on a lot greater than 15,000 sq. ft. However, as indicated in the standard, it must be side loaded as illustrated in the diagram above. The applicants propose two front loaded garages: thereby requiring a variance from Residential Design Standards. This standard, as indicated above, is intended to minimize the presence Of garages and carports as a lifeless part of the streetscape Staff finds that the proposed street-facing garages significantly goes against what this standard was written to address and minimize. Staff does not feel that the proposal is an effective manner of addressing the intent of the standard subject to the variance. Staff finds this criterion not to be met. c) clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Staff Finding The subject lot is flat and contains no unusual site constraints. Staff feels that the Applicant's design is driving the need for the proposed variances and not unusual site constraints as the land use code requires for granting a variance of this nature. Staff finds this criterion not to be met. Â£ The garage doors shall be single stall doors. In response to the review criteria for a DRAC variance, Staff makes the following findings: a) in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP; and, Staff Finding Staff does not feel that the proposal to allow for double stall garage doors yields greater compliance with the AACP. The Residential Design Standards that apply to garages are intended to minimize the presence of garages as a lifeless part of the streetscape where alleys do not exist. Staff feels that it is important to break up the mass of the garage doors so that it does not dominate the street facing view of the proposed duplex. Staff finds this criterion not to be met. b) a more effective method of addressing standard in question; or, Staff Finding Staff does not feel that the proposal for double stall garage doors that have the appearance of single stall garage doors is a more effective method of addressing the standard in question. It is still obvious that the there is only one door rather than two. Staff finds this criterion not to be met. c) clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. 5 Staff Finding Staff does not feel that there are unusual site-specific constraints on the subject site. The design of the duplex is driving and creating the site-specific constraints. The parcel is over 15,000 square feet and presents no topographic or other unusual site constraints. There have been several other similar 15,000 square foot parcels in the area that have been recently developed with duplexes that meet the design standards in which the applicants' are requesting relief from. Staff finds this criterion not to be met. 6 to gont)004 9//6 +7~>~~ *b. MEMORANDUM re &1M, M U cc_ -7 -O Re q.-lkoy, t--11 4 M ED C (3 0 41 c 4-- t1 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission acting as the Design Review Appeals Co mittee THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director j 1 \ A-t2Fr FROM: James Lindt, Planner <31 RE: 775 and 777 Cemetery Lane Garage Variances- Continuation of March 19th Public Hearing DATE: April 2,2002 . APPLICANT: Chet Winchester and Yoki Weiman PARCEL ID: 2735-122-09-019 I K ADDRESS: 775 and 777 Cemetery Lane - 4-1/ $ 1 70 I., $ ZONING: R-15 (Medium Density Residential) 7--*- 1.. A.F.*0:9 - I :.. Â·it...#.5 1 CURRENT LAND USE: 15,002 sq. ft. lot 2. containing a duplex under construction - - ...g~ - *I PROPOSED LAND USE: The applicant proposes to 6 -_- construct a double two-car garage in front of the PROCESS: existing duplex with the garage doors facing the street. In order to do so, the applicant is seeking a All applications for appeal from the Fariance from the Residential Design Standards Residential Design Standards of Section garage location requirements. The applicants are 26.410 must meet one of the following review standards in order for the Design also requesting a Vallance from the Residential Review Appeal Committee to grant an Design Standards to allow for double stall garage exception, namely the proposal must: doors on both units. (See Exhibit A for a description of the specific a) Yield greater compliance with standards.) 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. 64Â« --- 0,+03692Â£/E~u- 0 P OoP - *Pre) \*261%*1~7-Goet , j Background: Chet Winchester and Yoki Weiman ("Applicants"), represented by Gretchen Greenwood, architect, are requesting approval for a variance from two residential Design Standards as follows: c. On lots of at least 15,000 square feet in size, --I the garage or carport ---7 -%)i** %-K- %*.I may be forward of the -Â«4*- ./ front faqade of the house only if the garage doors or carport entry are perpendicular to the street (side-loaded). The illustration above demonstrates how a garage may be forward of the primary residence if it is side-loaded. f. The garage doors shall be single stall doors. The applicant had received approval on building permit plans (see plans site plan attached as Exhibit "B") that show the garage doors on both sides of the proposed duplex as being perpendicular to the street and that contain single stall doors as the Residential Design Standards require. The applicant feels that the approved configuration of the garages will not allow for a safe turning radius out of the garage stalls. The applicant requests a variance from the residential design standards to allow for the garage doors to face the street and to have double stall garage doors with the appearance of single stall doors. The applicant proposes to landscape the area between the duplexes that is currently shown as asphalt for vehicular circulation under the approved, complying garage configuration on the approved building permit plans. Staff Comments: Staff still recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the proposed variances from the residential design standards finding that review standards B and C are not met by the proposal as was stated in Staffs memo and presentation on March 19th. However, at the March 19th meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission gave the Applicants direction to provide a more detailed landscaping plan and to have the Parks Department Staff review the plan to make sure that it is not in conflict with the Cemetery Lane Streetscape Plan that is being developed. The Applicants have provided the requested landscaping plan that is attached as Exhibit "B". The Parks Department has reviewed the proposed landscaping plan and feels that it is not in conflict with the Cemetery Lane Streetscape Plan due to the fact that they are now proposing to do no planting within the public right-of-way. The proposed Landscaping Plan also contains dimensions for the paved driveway area as requested by the Commission. The Community Development Department Engineer has reviewed the proposed turning radius and believes that there is enough room to safely exit all four parking areas within the garages. The Planning and Zoning Commission also requested that the Applicant provide a photo or rendering of the proposed garage doors to face the street. The Applicant has provided Staff 2 with the renderings that are attached as Exhibit "C". The proposed doors are circled and contain windows as was requested by the Commission at the Hearing on March 19th STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the variance request to allow for garage doors to face the street on the proposed garages located forward of the duplex, and the variance request to allow for double stall garage doors be denied because the proposed variances fail to meet the applicable review standards to allow for variation from the Residential Design Standards. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE STATED IN THE POSITIVE): i move to approve Resolution No. , Series of 2002, approving variances from Residential Design Standards to allow two garages that are located forward of the duplex at 775 and 777 Cemetery Lane to contain garage doors that face the street and to allow for double stall garage doors ". ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria & Staff Findings Exhibit B -- Proposed Landscaping Plan Exhibit C -- Rendering of Proposed Garage Doors 3 EXHIBIT A REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS SECTION 26.410 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS The Design Review Appeal Committee (DRAC) may grant relief from the Residential Design Standards at a public hearing if the variance is found to be: a) in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP; or, b) a more effective method of addressing standard in question; or, c) clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. 26.410.040 Parking, Garages and Carports The intent of the following parking, garages, and carport standards is to minimize the potential for conflicts between pedestrian and automobile traffic by placing parking, garages, and carports on alleys, or to minimize the presence of garages and carports as a lifeless part of the streetscape where alleys do not exist. The code specifically indicates that for all residential uses that do not have access from an alley or private road, the following standard shall be met: c. On lots of at least 15,000 square feet in size, the garage or carport maybe forward of the front fagade of the house only if the 13Â«1_1 - garage doors or carport entry are --- 33> 1,~0557- - perpendicular to the street (side loaded). In response to the review criteria for a DRAC variance, Staff makes the following findings: a) in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP; and, Staff Finding Staff feels that the increase in the proposed front yard landscaping as a result of the variance would be beneficial, however, staff also feels that allowing for both garages to face the street will detract from the friendly, pedestrian feel of the residences. Therefore, staff does not feel that the proposal brings the design of the duplex into greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff feels that the proposed variance simply provides a tradeoff, it would bring the proposed design in greater compliance with one goal and it would remain out of compliance with another AACP goal. Staff finds this criterion not to be met. b) a more effective method of addressing standard in question; or, 4 P Staff Finding Staff finds that the proposed garage is allowed to exist in front of the front faGa(le of the house because it is on a lot greater than 15,000 sq. ft. However, as indicated in the standard, it must be side loaded as illustrated in the diagram above. The applicants propose two front loaded garages, thereby requiring a variance from Residential Design Standards. This standard, as indicated above, is intended to minimize the presence of garages and carports as a lifeless part of the streetscape Staff finds that the proposed street-facing garages significantly goes against what this standard was written to address and minimize. Staff does not feel that the proposal is an effective manner of addressing the intent of the standard subject to the variance. Staff finds this criterion not to be met. c) clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Staff Finding The subject lot is flat and contains no unusual site constraints. Staff feels that the Applicant's design is driving the need for the proposed variances and not unusual site constraints as the land use code requires for granting a variance of this nature. Staff finds this criterion not to be met. f The garage doors shall be single stall doors. In response to the review criteria for a DRAC variance, Staff makes the following findings: a) in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP; and, Staff Finding Staff does not feel that the proposal to allow for double stall garage doors yields greater compliance with the AACP. The Residential Design Standards that apply to garages are intended to minimize the presence of garages as a lifeless part of the streetscape where alleys do not exist. Staff feels that it is important to break up the mass of the garage doors so that it does not dominate the street facing view of the proposed duplex. Staff finds this criterion not to be met. b) a more effective method of addressing standard in question; or, Staff Finding Staff does not feel that the proposal for double stall garage doors that have the appearance of single stall garage doors is a more effective method of addressing the standard in question. It is still obvious that the there is only one door rather than two. Staff finds this criterion not to be met. c) clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. 5 Staff Finding Staff does not feel that there are unusual site-specific constraints on the subject site. The design of the duplex is driving and creating the site-specific constraints. The parcel is over 15,000 square feet and presents no topographic or other unusual site constraints. There have been many other similar 15,000 square foot parcels in the area that have been recently developed with duplexes that meet the design standards in which the applicants' are requesting relief from. Staff finds this criterion not to be met. 6 Resolution No. (SERIES OF 2002) RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ACTING AS THE DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE APPROVING RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD VARIANCES FOR GARAGE LOCATION AND TO ALLOW DOUBLE STALL GARAGE DOORS AT 775 AND 777 CEMETERY LANE, LOT 4, BLOCK 1, WEST ASPEN SUBDIVISION, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel No. 2735-122-09-019 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Chet Winchester and Yoki Weiman, seeking variances from Section 26.410, Residential Design Standards, seeking relief from the garage location requirement and the single stall garage door requirement. The applicant's property is located at 775 and 777 Cemetery Lane, Lot 4, Block 1, of the West Aspen Subdivision, Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, the applicant's property is a 15,002 sq. ft. lot with a proposed duplex and located in the It-15 Zone District; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.410.020 of the Aspen Municipal Code, Community Development Department staff reviewed the applicant's proposed application for compliance with the Residential Design Standards Section of the Aspen Municipal Code and found the submitted development application to be inconsistent with Standard 26.410.040(C)(2)(c) and 26.410(C)(2)(f), Garage; and WHEREAS, Section 26.410.020(C) of the Aspen Municipal Code provides that if an application is found by Community Development Department staff to be inconsistent with any item of the Residential Design Guidelines, the applicant may either amend the application or appeal staff' s findings to the Design Review Appeal Committee pursuant to Chapter 26.222, Design Review Appeal Committee; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.410.020(B) of the Aspen Municipal Code, the applicant submitted a request for a variance from Standard 26.410.040(B)(1) of the Aspen Municipal Code to the Design Review Appeal Committee as it applies to garages; and WHEREAS all applications for appeal from the Residential Design Standards of Section 26.410.040 must meet one of the following review standards in order for the Planning and Zoning Commission acting as the Design Review Appeal Committee or other decision making administrative body to grant an exception, namely the proposal must: a) Yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, 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; 7 WHEREAS, the Community Development Director, after review of the requested variances, recommended denial for the requested variances from the residential design standards for garage location and single stall garage doors; and WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing at a regular meeting on March 19, 2002, and the Planning and Zoning Commission tabled the public hearing to April 2,2002; and, WHEREAS, at a regular meeting on April 2, 2002 the Planning and Zoning Commission acting as the Design Review Appeal Committee, approved variances from the garage location standard and single stall garage door standard of Section 26.410.040(C)(2) of the Aspen Municipal Code as it applies to Residential Design Standards for Lot 4, Block 1 of the West Aspen Subdivision by a vote of to C_-3. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission: Section 1 That proposed variances for garage placement and single stall garage doors for the proposed duplex at 775 and 777 Cemetery Lane, Aspen, Colorado, are approved pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.410.040(C)(2), garage location of the Residential Design Standards allowing two garages to be constructed forward of the duplex with street facing garage doors and double stall garage doors. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on April 2,2002. APPROVED AS TO FORM: DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE: City Attorney Jasmine Tygre, Chair Planning and Zoning Commission ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk C:\My Documents\Current Cases\DRAC\1270SnowbunnyVarianceMemo.doc 8 . Entry Note: -'11X Â¥*-2 '- 1 - - 1 & 27 Â£-fulliwamlmiltilll' cirl 1 Proposed Streetscape information from City of Aspen, Cemetery Lane Trail 2 / Entry 1 1-+ Segment 1, Plan and Profile, Sheet 52, & I prepared by Loris and Associates, Inc. 1 Winchester ' + + + Residence i r, 0 Â« 1 I . Weimann LIMAiS#Vi | 1. . Residence ~ ~ "20 1 1 - 0 0 Existing Blue Spruce Trees - Â· + / 4 1 1 . 90-2 .r 0\, - I A 1 19 1C - .. Deckluou rubi . 93an Shrubs_ _ _ ~ , Existing Blue Spruce Trees + 30 ~114 ~0$; CO~ Aspe Flagsto -Ently r ndcovers & Pe ial Flowers ..4 - Con ete Auto Court t\ -'. + 1 4 0 + 1 n,41/1 1- b rr W< 21. f .\4.. 6 110-I"/ 2, + .. .... '..4 421.1-.46.0 v -1 . I . 97 . I. . . I . /.0 . .. .. . ..... ... ..... .. ... . .. e . . e. . . I -- Fl-.--- - Proposed Bike Path f , 9. N I . ... . .... .. .. 0. .. 9 . .. 1 = .O. . , Proposed Landscaping by City of Aspen Parks Department. .. I . ... ! Wincheeter - Weimann Schematic Landscape FlanG * Driveway Entry Study r~ GREG MOZIAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC 775/777 Cemetery Lane 27 March 2002 1 1 Landscape Architecture * Environmental Planning 117 South Sp,ing Stmet Suite 202 Aspet Coloado *1611 Ph= Â¢9701 CS-8963 * Far (970& 95-1217 â€¢ Emuil: gÂ»ueroUet scale: 1"=10'-O" 1 -~ 54 0 *7 + : I - 4 4 44 Entry 1 Note: iuy Proposed Streetscape information from 1 4 L -1- Segment 1, Plan and Profile, Sheet 52, City of Aspen, Cemetery Lane Trail 1 IL--- 1 1 prepared by Loris and Associates, Inc. 1 1 1 Winchester 1 -1-61=-- 1 1 1 F stone Entry k Residence 1 .. 1 0 - :El 1 1 oi Weimanrl i.i i Â¢61 e Residence 1 1 1 mi 01 1 1 1 11 . 1 1 11 4 1 i ki / 1- 11 1 0 1 1 2Â» Â·\ U -â‚¬L 1 -/.- 11 1 //\ A/ 4 i 6 1 Planting Area ~ . ~f'' . Plantil*~rea -1 \ 1\1//4 jift -,/-, 4 - . 1 / oncrete Aute~904 0 / . / 1 \ t ! 1\ / 1 4/ /4 4 Ir-/ 40/ // 1 ,\*, ..0 - lEo" . .. ... , .. .. '..1 , X \ i//11- 9 7 - \(9. N \ 4 \ 9 1 1 -% 4- 1 - i 1.' Proposed Bike Path 1- 000_ i ~,E 410\ - \\ I , 1--- 0 2 p / Proposed Landscaping by City of Aspen Parks Department, â€¢ o , 1 . h , O \ 1 \X. Proposkiedge of road. \ \~ 01 -- - L. --r . 11 .-1 4 - Wincheeter - Weinann Driveway Study 'A'o Driveway Entry Study ~ GREG MOZIAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC_ 775/777 Cemetery Lane 27 M.ch 2002 L -1 Landscape Architecture â€¢ Environmental Planning 117 S-h Spâ€¢ing Semet Suite 202 * Aspen. Coloado S1611 scale: 1"=10'-O" A.A Phi (970 93-8963 + Fax Â¢970) 93-1217 â€¢ Enuit glull,iriet Property Line i j--1 -------------- -------- -------------- -H------ -------------- BSVN-000 BSVN-241 BSVN-242 BCVN-000 B -------------- 11 , 1 rt 1 / \\ 1 1 ilbf f I~ \V / \0~ d \ Vt Pr/ \ 1/ \\ \41 / r \ / \\\\ 1 t \ 1 \\ 11 h, 9 , 2.\ / A A\ , f \\ 1 1 \/ -ik /A \\ A/Al /t' 11\Kj IPO //11 , lili BSVH-000 BSVH-241 BSVH-242 -:#//mi././- BCVH-000 8 mFFF~ FlfÂ®]]1111 1 - Â· A -34 ~tr ~ - =~1 -ji i :9.- -14 ~\Nitlly/' , Nt Y r . 4 4 -~14 1 3 4 -~30 -ft VIL Al Ii /Allili\& 1 ,//(lili 1111* /41 1111111Â» f BSVX-000 BSVX-241 ~ BSVX1242.j - BCVX-000 E 11 1 I il N -------------- BSVN-233P 1 - g[JRFACE MATERIALS AVAILABLE 1 Entry ' 1 93 IF--7-1 - ' 1 Note: ~ Entry Proposed Streetscape information from 1 1 -1- City of Aspen, Cemetery Lane Trail Segment 1, Plan and Profile, Sheet 52, prepared by Loris and Associates, Inc. 1 1 1 Winchester I 1 -1-162 1 1 Fl stone Entry k Residence 1 . 1 . 1 Weimann i . i i Â® Residence 1 1 1 01 1 11 1 ,- 6 1 1 7 1 9/ 9 >fl 28 \ 4. 44 1-/2 7 ~ Planting Are~~ , , Plant*4Â« 71 < 122/ /,i . oncrete At*0914 I i \ 1 \\ 1 ' 1 // 34 - - -I - -/ 0 .0/ 4 1 \ , N / --- \ maximumbwidtd 1,// \ ).., J ).., '.0, 7. V 1 1/ 4 I \ 1. I . 1 1 1 / Ct< 1. Proposed Bike Path 1. 14 00 0 . 1 4/ - O - Proposed Landscaping by City of Aspen Parks Departrnent. 0 1/1.\ 4 1 Propos~edge of road. 0 - Wincheeter - Welmann Driveway Study 'A'* Driveway Entry Study r~I, GREG MOZIAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC_ 775/777 Cemetery Lane 27 March 2002 ~ ~ I.andscape Architecture â€¢ Environmental Planning 117 Seth Spling Stzeet Suite 202 0 Aipen. Coloado 81611 scale: 1"=10'-0" hk -A Ph: (9XÂ»925-8963 + Fax (90 92M217 * Email: sm,erotnet 140 *TH 4- j7 \4 1 Entry 1 1 1/5 1 1 ~ Entry 1- -1 Note: Proposed Streetscape information from 1 L -1- City of Aspen, Cemetery Lane Trail ~ Segment 1, Plan and Profile, Sheet 52, prepared by Loris and Associates, Inc. 1 1 1 1 -1 Winchester 1 1 Fl stone Entry k Residence 1 . C 1 1 1 1 Weimann i _~ i i fi Residence 1 1 1 01 1 : 11 11 1 1 /0 1 1 - 1 - 9/ 4 1 . b A-4----3/ -- 11 n y.j9/ 1 - 1 1/ Planting Area . 0 1 Plan*<#rea - . i / I 1 - , i I oncrete btal)gwfi' ~~~~~~\'i ; - 0 / Pix ' i / I \ . &/ . e 1 / \.0, .. ---#. x fi , , 0maximuntwidth ' /9 \ 3,4 /. f. 7/ U \ 11 \ ... 1 9/ . -Â· Proposed Bike Path k tu 64100 / -031 l\, p \- N~ lf - 0. Proposed Landscaping by City of Aspen Parks Department. 1 1 / O (ro \ O Propo~d edge of road. ~1 0 .. - - 1 - Wincheeter - Weimann Driveway Study 'A'o . _priveway Entry Study EY 6 -EEE---Riozia~i ~im-XmaÂ¥E--I27-------------------~~77577 7 7 Cemetery Lane 27 Merch 2002 ~ ~ 1 Landscape Architecture â€¢ Environmental Planning 117 So./h Spri.g Suite 202 â€¢ Ampen. Col=So 81611 ecale: 1"=10'-0" A1 -A Ph: 870 923-8963 Fax: MA)) 92>1217 - Emaib gÂ»lieroinct Ao P-1.H .. Properly Line Entry . - TTP~43*101 r /7,57nrn Note: Proposed Streetscape information from / Entry -'Wpx - City of Aspen, Cemetery Lane Trail L-1- Segment 1, Plan and Profile, Sheet 52, 1 F---- A~f..12blU/ 1 prepared by Loris and Associates, Inc. LIUÂ»Fli.IM</LI~* I Winchester + rt + Residence i I a '0Â¢Wk * 1 Weimann L.,Câ‚¬>a~1 1 t%*%2*>/ . 1' Residence ! I. . Â« 0 0 Existing Blue Spruce Trees - f + : 4- .. 0 +t-a '. 4 Deciduou rubs an Shn.lbs_~_ ' Existing Blue Spruce Trees Q Aspe Flagsto _EnY4'k --- r ndcovers & Pe lai Flowers / 4 / a 4*111,0/J*t t. Con ete Auto Court ><~_ - + E ~ + c I , I. .. 13 N / 0 + . A , , ..4 .L t. D. .-/1 . . '/I .. . . .. 1 . I .0 1 . .. I , I .. ..... . . .. ... . --. 1t----.--- Proposed Bike Path ' f \ C I .. .. ... . .. . t , 1,1/ 1 9 . . PP I . ....... .9 I 9 0 0 - 11 I. L . Proposed Landscaping by City of Aspen Parks Department. P .. --UP X... 1 .......OF . . 4 - Wincheeter - Weimann Schematic Landscape Flan@*Lu../ Driveway Entry Study r~ GREG MOZIAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 775/777 Cemetery Lane 27 March 2002 L 1 Landscape Architecture . Environmental Manning 117 South Spring St,ect, Suite 202 Aspen. Coloodo 81611 Ph: <970) 93-5863 â€¢ Faic (9705 925-1217 â€¢ Email: g.ueroinet ecale: 1"=10'-O" A- -/ H Q Â»T- + roperty Line EUROPEAN INSPIRATIONS 1 1 1 R.....././*I.* CARHO 2( 1< ifi * ......p-".......: 4 -r*V: ,-22.I '.{'2..ii- '~~.~'-'"-'- -~~. PROVENâ‚¬AL + 2 T--J 1 -[T- F[FF[Â®] [F[[[[[*TA CO~ 10 EED_ -------------- -------------- -------------- 1------------- -------------- ------------ BSVN-000 BSVN-241 BSVN-242 BCVN-000 BCVN-231 BCVN-232 3=F 11- <rn Frn :11-1 ET-r 11>t, lili 111 vs al 111 \11 1 1111/0 \lili 1111& dill 1 111/ / \ \] 1 1 111/// \\\11 1/. \71 11/ / \ \11 \\11 9// fol 1 4/ \.7 t F> <111 1/ / \\1,1 // \\1 v/ \N \04 1 1/ a I ! X\ // \\ \\ : l \\ \ V it //// \/ \I ,;f //// , I \\ \\ , f . \\ 1 1 . 1 , 1 11 \\ 1 1 /A \; 'A // t,14% ' /7/r \\ 7/1 . A i A\ A\ /A /A A\ / A\ JA , 'IN \ / A\ A \ 111 \ //111 110 . //011 4 111 , :11 PO' BSVH-000 BSVH-241 BSVH-242 BCVH-000 BCVH-231 BCVH-232 rr-FFFE] FF[FBTR ran nan Â·11-1 [Tr 1 \ 41 lili 11/, 3 11 l i l i K' 4111111//, Â·041111 ' 24, A ' . , .3~~f~, ,~~~/ \Ix/ \ / / \ YI'lly / , VI!~17 / \ \ 1111.115'' 31*; }it ki Â£ 131 -//9,\ ~ 3/ -tf -9 /4 /5 ' "20. 4 1.10 4(iN Ihi: Â·9[Illi|lit\ .gil Ill[hi\. -4(111111*; ,/(flillI[1* ..w'1111111* 'Allho, BSVX-000 BSVX-241 BSVX-242 BCVX-000 BCVX-231 BCVX-232 J 11 1 Â«19 Ell~ 11-i nt_ ------- I.----j-I - 21. 23 L 1 7 ......... BSVN-233P BCVW-231 BCVW-232 SURFACE MATERIALS AVAILABLE FOR CARROZZA AND PROVENCAL DOORS INCLUDE (4Â®Nb 1*Tyvek ip 4, Homewrap Tvvele 4/ 4@Â®) - lk,ek . Tyvekll, ea *4*#eWrap J~eWrap IBA 7.IMP 7.....& i ....... .... -9...Zin/....... lilli AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE R.EQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: qi-5-92 69-Â«efo, tj LeÂ»t , Aspen, CO Y SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEAIUNG DATE: , 20041 31 liN STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) I, 54(Al h,t- 472 f'&4 9' ),O (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication ofnotice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper o f general circulation in the City o f Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. ~><1 Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made o f suitable, waterproo f materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide , and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not ,c,' less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least ten (10) days prior to the gublic hearing and was continuously visible from the ~4 day of 11 h , BA . ,200 LÂ® U. 1rvâ€¢ v ~p, to and including the date and time of the public f 4 hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. ~ Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least ten (10) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class, postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property - subject to the development application, and, at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency, state, county, municipal government, school, service district or other governmental or quasi-governmental agency that owns property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether Such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses o f owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map has been available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. i 'A 44'*Ject-Â£_ ./F k Att.to f Sigrture -fL The foregoing "Affidavit o f Notice" was acknowledggd before me this j 4 day Of 'y--a--ir -1 -- ,20041, by ~1-:bit-/ IA. 2 .-;.. CAJZÂ£/1 + Â·Â·Ci.1 ._ WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires:~)D- 3 1.3 CIO b al- Notary Public â‚¬.... :.of// < SARAH i 0% OATES ; '2 * coe, ATTACHMENTS: COPY OF THE PUBLICATION PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL MAR-04-2002 MON 09: 56 AM< <Fj~ FAX NO. -Â· P, 03 i . (- CITY OF ASPEN 10 RED BUITE CEMETERY 20 BEER MARILYN C 130 S GALENA ST PO BOX 194 1443 DAHLIA ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 8161 1 DENVER, CO 80220 2 DANKS LAURA 11 JBL KEYSTONE LLC 2 I STERIZER ELIANE C 845 CEMETERY LN P O BOX 8355 PO BOX 2746 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 3 HOMEYER EVE ~ Z HALL J BENNETT & CHRISTIN 22 KENDALL PHILLIP A 810 CEMETERY LN 1227 ALTA VISTA LN #2 1915 WOOD AVE ASPEN. CO 8 t611 ASPEN, CO 81611 COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 80907 14 BLACK BETSY P ' J 3 ESARY GARY S 23 ENOLANDER ALAN S TRUST PO BOX 3904 PO BOX 8725 323 RAILROAD AVE ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 GREENWICII, CT 06836 5 SCHWARTZ EDWARD H REV ~ STRICKSTEIN FAMILY TRUST 2~ BARABE CAROLYN TRU 12599 E SILVER SPUR 790 CASTLE CREEK DR 135 S LASAI,LE ST SCOTISDALE, AZ 85259 ASPEN, CO 81611 CHICAGO, lI. 60603 G WALL CHARLES R )5 GLEASON AUSTIN W & WINCTIESTER ROBERT P 188 E 70TH ST GEORGE PO BOX 5000 NEW YORK, NY 10021-5170 2900 HEARNE AVE SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO SHREVEPORT, LA 71103 816!5 WEIMANN JOACIIIM J & 16 KoFF CAROLANN & DONALD 25 ROWLANDS DONNA K RENAT W REVOCABL 775 CEMETERY LN PO BOX 956 770 CEMETERY LN ASPEN. CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 8 16 I 1 ~* 7.ANIN FAMILY INVESTMENTS R HUDSON FRASHER ANN 26 OBRIEN MERLE JABLIN & TIIO 00308 MC SKIMMING RD 616 TEXAS ST - 745 CEMETERY LN ASPEN, CO 81611 -- - ---- FORT WORTH, TX 76102 ASPEN, CO 81611 E ORE BUCKET ASSOCIATES j @ CALLAHAN JOHN E 23- DRUEDING WILI.IAM L & CONNERY ROBERT T C/O CALLAHAN CYNTHIA A THOM PO BOX 8749 750 CEMETERY LN 735 CEMETERY LN #B DENVER, CO 80201 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 C~ CARRIS SANDRA L TRUST 19 HUTTON ROBERT C NUM 725 CEMETERY IN 735 CEMETERY LN ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 222 - 14 .;'Imp':ftifMP'rlmr,ar,NeplllElilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll 114 ..1,1 . 1 1*267 ZI. 4::1 *t,*i r, 5<.11Â·%,A&...Â·,,4 Â·. . 1.-.- AÂ·#.c,/Aify42â‚¬ykfi#tÂ¢21Â·.6.-yÂ·.=.' 42:Â·Â·Â·' .;, ~ :Â·>41'aMt UL 1>:pt~,23 ~b t/~10 3~'t/' <'AX 1 r' MI'l~~~~ ~ 4:4.46'" 4.4-â‚¬3. 4,914' 2, 312Â·. 'Â· ~ ~:*.+ " â€¢'6â€¢Â·r: ' , ~, ~:UR*~JA.il.foles.0~1. tz- ' . .cte ...7.., ..4,4 - 2<- .4#b'4.:25-4.21Â£,b **02. 6 p. 1.114.1,1... I. / .4.XI-,1 9,464,-A 'I . U... 1 A 1 . .1-~,Â« â€¢ .4-4 ... - - uk . 4 . 4 Â· . L 1 9, 1 1 17,10 1,4 . 4 4 4 .3 44,39â‚¬,1 Â¥... 46'796'd . I. G'LÂ»/tot z b r . - 1, . $ . 1 C '14 .41 - 11 .-'i Â· -Al' 424*. b/#L-317+,9*%94.k: -1.# 1 -52 J - 0 1 Ziu .. 161,1 ..- . . ... .I-- I.,5 7 -/1,1 > ' '!%- Â·, '. ~ i, 1~0' Â·Â· ,0,ti ' Â» f 'I t: 9,4 1Â» 4 711 >'P .1 â€¢+ 4202, 4 +. .*-Â· N % Ina .9.1 - 0 , I 1 1- 1121 11 1... 1 5- 4 0 4 ..6 ..811 , , . . , 1 1 E + M.*If". -1 1 . ..., 4...... - 1 ./ .---t- -. 1. - R r. #r, *C p - 111 I -1 - ~11 41'i.21 1 2. A : Â»'' 'â€¢wl' , lilli, 1 -i- -TdÂ· ..111 , 11 . 1 ! .:lili lilli " I ...1 1 1 1 11 1111. 1.1 --- 44492 . 11 'lilli In'11,1 , Ilili. I '41 1 .; ; I , W.. 61: 1.-1. 0 '4. '#740*1. A.- - . ... 1 V @14 '1 - 1 1-1 4 4. , +-- *4101'ly . . 47 + 1 :10 + .m ..lu 1 1, 41 1 111111 4 14. 1 4 111 i ti# 1 , -r K.~ 14; * 11 04' I 1:.b:..111.~i:t-i 5,11-1.--l'f~. 2 ~ h . 1 1. -I----1/p. 61 r . ' 4/Â». 4 lip '1 j 1 , -.. 4| 1 .4 1-IL . 4 1.. L-1,11- . . '41 ' 1 4 ' ' I + 2 1. 1 9. , ..4 b l I I l $ 4 . 7 1-- 11 . - MI'. 4 1 . 7 *r 1 ':.1 .1 4. '44 A. ....., h., 4 - 1..14'fit.2 ./:4411 4 I 0 1 ~ 1 1 â€¢ , 4 .1 4 I . I 2- Â» 0 ' 1 4. . 1;f 1, , 0/ I r. a . rv (, 4 r.' .' I . 4 . 1...4 ~ ..+ , 1/ / 0.e'll' P. 411.11 1 4. '111 1 0: 7 0 1 h i ..0 I .46. ./ 1 . iII , ,'1111 4 It/ 1 1 4 ~ 11 lt,1111 j Â·..i ~.'i ;1 1 11, ./11 K , 4->..01>.1.1 1\ '' 4111=i. I J 1,6. T . ~5,24.42 *'At:141;:f<.f~Â·h;Â·ici~Â·Â·~ *t -Ifi~..- Pj,il; 2. 1 -... 4. 1 1.,f'-itt~~ ., 1..f '1.-lk-&46(7*'Fi.7.~pi: . I I '4 ' Ld- .4 d /1 , 1 - ..4 .4 r 9 I . 02Â·11 I .. u -ut i Â¥Ah.. ..4 8 r.0 â€¢ -A--. 2 .1 -1 L ?4615~3; ' 2-~zi@2â‚¬.:-*i:7*-. 1 4 - 2. I. - ... 1.- 110 2- . p Â·. Â· i'. T.- ..- + 1 .. r I Â· . .. =% .'.- + . .4 + t 1 r J-+2/ 33."'Atif. 2.j- ..1- 4.*/23&: : # -L. .,0, .tÂ· ./. Â¥ 1 -.Aphy. ,Â» ... r . 1 6 # r 742,4 '- IMMA. ...9 1 . uly ..A~.2...... .. -- 4 -Â· 7'6... i ' U . 42& .-9 .. --r-7-Ligam/FL~*-- -.t -~ 5* m,Â·. T 12%17*4 4 - . 0, _ i, t -- .2 -3-1... . â‚¬4...f. â‚¬ , 4. --1-- 91 42 #61-/ 4 1,56:, - . 11 111 -6 7 ~99 h 111 -r .11 I 1. 11Â· '1 1 '4 1114 4 i - 1 - '' 1 P ' r I. ' d 8, 1. 0, _ll.- 4.Y 1Â·ZU. h ./ 4 -.1 r' ~ - â€¢ '1 â€¢id: 26 AASHTO-Geometric Design of Highways and Streets THIS TURNING TEMPLATE SHOWS THE TURNJNG PATHS OF THE AASHTO DESIGN VEHICLES. THE PATHS SHOWN ARE FOR THE LEFT FRONT OVERHANG AND THE OUTSIDE REAR WHEEL. THE LEFT FRONT WHEEL FOLLOWS THE CIRCULAR CURVE, HOWEVER, ITS PATH IS NOT SHOWN. ,/ 70 J .' V / 1 -- 1 , / I / I U// Il /1 0 , , , I- 1 . , I - - I 1 - . , 0' i 1 I . 1 , I -*---- i--- :... I' , Â·Â· [45> I . 1 '. \. /fit*) wf MAL-t-Â«I- \49 /7, 46.-5>-- ,~ - ' \ , I 1 . \ f I # - /1 \ 4 ' 1 1, ' 1 N : 1 ; ., 9 ..\04' 1 j ..< 1 ' 1 1 I : I I - 1 Col * , Jol, 1 ' 11 1 25 1 7' ~ 0 ID 20 30 40 40' SCALE IN FEET Â· Source: Texas State Department of Highways and Public Transportation Figure 11-3. Minimum turning path for BUS design vehicle. Semi- Thrn- Passen- Semi- trailer pike Passen- ger Car Motor Semi- trailer Full Inter- Inter- Dou- ger Car with Home Pas- Single Single Articu- trailer Combina- Itailer State State Triple ble with Boat and Design Vehicle senger Unit IJnit lated Inter- tion Combina- Semi- Semi- Semi- Semi- Motor Travel and Boat Ippe Car Truck Bus Bus mediate Large tion Trailer 'rrailer Trailer Trailer Home Dailer Dailer 1tailer Symbol P SU BUS A-BUS WB-40 WB-50 WB-60 WB-62*WB-67**WB-96 WB-114 MH pyr P/B MIl/B Minimum 24 42 42 38 40 45 45 45 45 50 60 40 24 24 50 design turning radius (ft) Minimum inside 13.8 27.8 24.4 14.0 18.9 19.2 22.2 9.1 00 20.7 17 26.0 2.0 6.5 35 radius (ft) * Design vehicle with 48' trailer as adopted in 1982 STAA (Surface Transportation Assistance Act) ** Design vehicle with 53' trailer as grandfathered in 1982 STAA (Surface Transportation Assistance Act) Table 11-2. Minimum turning radii of design vehicles. 22 AASHTO-Geometric Design of Highways and Streets *= 0(74 65 24-Popt-) ble ~lit-39 M~sNPE Â°t /3/cul VA -- Bal u 0\Â« - looy MEMORANDUM A.1 1 -- câ€ž cs <t , ovc ST A fiÂ¥0\4 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission acting as the Design Revieyv Appeals Committee /1((A U.SCajoi MO 0 043,0 @/L b~OC16024~/34 ~011}klâ‚¬/rHRU : Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director -43>/A:re â‚¬, 727 u (01 Re ~ Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director o,+0 6 i 0100 0 4 -1-0 ' ~ F;;liftiames Lindt, Planner'Fi- - 4 (lkt ) 4-rqgo ) 9 6/00,1 -40- to cur /11 U'16 0 01 RE: 775 and 777 Cemetery Lane Garage Variances 10 Â°k /(k<t 1, i/U 4 T 53 32.- 5 &91 . DATE: March 19, 2002 --- Â¥30-flâ‚¬/1Â» 1 4 ( O 91(j tr U M. + /1 $44..... ......4 APPLICANT: Chet Winchester and Yoki Weiman PARCEL ID: 2735-122-09-019 . ADDRESS: 775 and 777 Cemetery Lane * 7 43?Â£ + ZONING: R-15 (Medium Density Residential) - ic # 4 -4~-13 1 CURRENT LAND USE: 15,002 sq. ft. lot - -il 4 4- 64.E .... 2 - - containing a duplex under construction 1 0 i:~4. PROPOSED LAND USE: The applicant proposes to ~ ~1Â· -*-,W- construct a double two-car garage in front of the Il.......................i............ 1 PROCESS: existing duplex with the garage doors facing the I All applications for appeal fromthe street. In order to do so, the applicant is seeking a Residential Design Standards of Section Variance from the Residential Design Standards garage location requirements. The applicants are 26.410 must meet one of the following also requesting a Variance from the Residential review standards in order for the Design Review Appeal Committee to grant an Design Standards to allow for double stall garage exception, namely the proposal must: doors on both units. (See Exhibit A for a description of the specific a) Yield greater compliance with standards.) the goals of the Aspen Area i 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. 3--oln bi 0 01 1 I Cl lf FK-~l a// 9 11(7 n - i/le) \Â«looo i / O c> Uu\ a/~ti- j Add#vm/s 1 A \1 (3% ,/a (ILA to 914 P fe U d 4,4 , - 54Â®3 avd 4-6 %10 l< al- 0(A GCLA 4 e re l-014 Q Background: Chet Winchester and Yoki Weiman ("Applicants"), represented by Gretchen Greenwood, architect, are requesting approval for a variance from two residential Design Standards as follows: c. On lots of at least 15,000 square feet in size, the garage or carport may be forward of the ---- -/Sm-/ //- -/- front faga(le of the house ----<67~ only if the garage doors or carport entry are perpendicular to the street (side-loaded). The illustration above demonstrates how a garage may be forward of the primary residence if it is side-loaded. f. The garage doors shall be single stall doors. The applicant had received approval on building permit plans (see plans site plan attached as Exhibit "B") that show the garage doors on both sides of the proposed duplex as being perpendicular to the street and that contain single stall doors as the Residential Design Standards require. The applicant feels that the approved configuration of the garages will not allow for a safe turning radius out of the garage stalls. The applicant requests a variance from the residential design standards to allow for the garage doors to face the street and to have double stall garage doors with the appearance of single stall doors. The applicant proposes to landscape the area between the duplexes that is currently shown as asphalt for vehicular circulation under the approved, complying garage configuration on the approved building permit plans. Staff Comments: There are many existing residences and duplexes in the area which have front loaded garages which extend past the front faga(le of the houses and have street facing doors; however, most, if not all these residences and duplexes were constructed before the residential design standards were approved. Staff also acknowledges that there are many residences in the Cemetery Lane area that have double stall garage doors. Staff believes that many of these residences that contain the double stall doors were constructed prior to the approval of the residential design standards as well. Site analysis indicates that proper and safe turning movements could be made on the site without variances. Staff finds that the proposal 1) does not yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan, 2) does not more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to, and 3) is not clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. Staff feels that the applicant' s design created and is driving the need for the requested variance. Staff believes that the granting of the variances in this situation will cause the garage doors to be the prominent feature to be seen from the street which does not more effectively address the standard that the garage placement requirement responds to. Staff believes that the direct intent of the aforementioned residential design standard is to minimize 2 the lifeless presence and appearance of garages doors and carports as part of the streetscape and not to break up the mass of the structure as the applicant indicated in their application material. The secondary mass standard that the approved building permit plans already meet is intended to break up the mass of the structure. Staff feels that the proposed variance is not necessary for the reason of fairness due to unusual site constraints. The lot is a conforming, flat lot with no site-specific constraints. Staff believes that the applicant's design creates the need for the proposed variance and not unusual site constraints. There are several duplexes in the Cemetery Lane area that have been constructed recently that meet the design standards that the applicant is requesting variances from. Of these duplex residences that staff is speaking of, several of them contain two five-hundred square foot garages. Therefore, staff cannot make a finding that the proposed variances are necessary for reasons of fairness due to site-specific constraints. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the variance request to allow for garage doors to face the street on the proposed garages located forward of the duplex, and the variance request to allow for double stall garage doors be denied because the proposed variances fail to meet the applicable review standards to allow for variation from the Residential Design Standards. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE STATED IN THE POSITIVE): "I move to approve Resolution No. ~~ Series of 2002, approving variances from Residential Design Standards to allow two garages that are located forward of the duplex at 775 and 777 Cemetery Lane to contain garage doors that face the street and to allow for double stall garage doors ". ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria & Staff Findings Exhibit B -- Approved Building Permit Plans Exhibit C -- Application and Plans 3 EXHIBIT A REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS SECTION 26.410 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS The Design Review Appeal Committee (DRAC) may grant relief from the Residential Design Standards at a public hearing if the variance is found to be: a) in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP; or, b) a more effective method of addressing standard in question; or, c) clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. 26.410.040 Parking, Garages and Carports The intent of the following parking, garages, and carport standards is to minimize the potential for conflicts between pedestrian and automobile traffic by placing parking, garages, and carports on alleys, or to minimize the presence of garages and carports as a lifeless part of the streetscape where alleys do not exist. The code specifically indicates that for all residential uses that do not have access from an alley or private road, the following standard shall be met: c. On lots of at least 15,000 square feet in size, the garage or carport maybe forward r . 4.yv,; "nh.- 5//Ly, \ 1 r Uw, 1 1 of the front fagade of the house only if the garage doors or carport entry are perpendicular to the street (side loaded). In response to the review criteria for a DRAG variance, Staff makes the following findings: a) in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP; and, Staff Finding Staff feels that the increase in the proposed front yard landscaping as a result of the variance would be beneficial, however, staff also feels that allowing for both garages to face the street will detract from the friendly, pedestrian feel of the residences. Therefore, staff does not feel that the proposal brings the design of the duplex into greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff feels that the proposed variance simply provides a tradeoff, it would bring the proposed design in greater compliance with one goal and it would remain out of compliance with another AACP goal. Staff finds this criterion not to be nlet. 4 b) a more effective method of addressing standard in question; or, Staff Finding Staff finds that the proposed garage is allowed to exist in front of the front fa~ade of the house because it is on a lot greater than 15,000 sq. ft. However, as indicated in the standard, it must be side loaded as illustrated in the diagram above. The applicants propose two front loaded garages, thereby requiring a variance from Residential Design Standards. This standard, as indicated above, is intended to minimize the presence Of garages and carports as a lifeless part of the streetscape Staff finds that the proposed street-facing garages significantly goes against what this standard was written to address and minimize. Staff does not feel that the proposal is an effective manner of addressing the intent of the standard subject to the variance. Staff finds this criterion not to be met. c) clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Staff Finding The subject lot is flat and contains no unusual site constraints. Staff feels that the Applicant' s design is driving the need for the proposed variances and not unusual site constraints as the land use code requires for granting a variance of this nature. Staff finds this criterion not to be met. f The garage doors shall be single stall doors. In response to the review criteria for a DRAC variance, Staff makes the following findings: a) in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP; and, Staff Finding Staff does not feel that the proposal to allow for double stall garage doors yields greater compliance with the AACP. The Residential Design Standards that apply to garages are intended to minimize the presence of garages as a lifeless part of the streetscape where alleys do not exist. Staff feels that it is important to break up the mass of the garage doors so that it does not dominate the street facing view of the proposed duplex. Staff finds this criterion not to be met. b) a more effective method of addressing standard in question; or, Staff Finding Staff does not feel that the proposal for double stall garage doors that have the appearance of single stall garage doors is a more effective method of addressing the standard in question. It is still obvious that the there is only one door rather than two. Staff finds this criterion not to be met. 5 c) clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Staff Finding Staff does not feel that there are unusual site-specific constraints on the subject site. The design of the duplex is driving and creating the site-specific constraints. The parcel is over 15,000 square feet and presents no topographic or other unusual site constraints. There have been many other similar 15,000 square foot parcels in the area that have been recently developed with duplexes that meet the design standards in which the applicants' are requesting relief from. Staff finds this criterion not to be met. 6 Resolution No. I 3Â·Â·. (SERIES OF 2002) RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ACTING AS THE DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE APPROVING RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD VARIANCES FOR GARAGE LOCATION AND TO ALLOW DOUBLE STALL GARAGE DOORS AT 775 AND 777 CEMETERY LANE, LOT 4, BLOCK 1, WEST ASPEN SUBDIVISION, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel No. 2735-122-09-019 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Chet Winchester and Yoki Weiman, seeking variances from Section 26.410, Residential Design Standards, seeking relief from the garage location requirement and the single stall garage door requirement. The applicant's property is located at 775 and 777 Cemetery Lane, Lot 4, Block 1, of the West Aspen Subdivision, Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, the applicant's property is a 15,002 sq. ft. lot with a proposed duplex and located in the R-15 Zone District; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.410.020 of the Aspen Municipal Code, Community Development Department staff reviewed the applicant's proposed application for compliance with the Residential Design Standards Section of the Aspen Municipal Code and found the submitted development application to be inconsistent with Standard 26.410.040(C)(2)(c) and 26.410(C)(2)(f), Garage; and WHEREAS, Section 26.410.020(C) of the Aspen Municipal Code provides that if an application is found by Community Development Department staff to be inconsistent with any item of the Residential Design Guidelines, the applicant may either amend the application or appeal staff's findings to the Design Review Appeal Committee pursuant to Chapter 26.222, Design Review Appeal Committee; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.410.020(B) of the Aspen Municipal Code, the applicant submitted a request for a variance from Standard 26.410.040(B)(1) of the Aspen Municipal Code to the Design Review Appeal Committee as it applies to garages; and WHEREAS all applications for appeal from the Residential Design Standards of - Section 26.410.040 must meet one of the following review standards in order for the Planning and Zoning Commission acting as the Design Review Appeal Committee or other decision making administrative body to grant an exception, namely the proposal must: a) Yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, 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; 7 WHEREAS, the Community Development Director, after review of the requested variances, recommended denial for the requested variances from the residential design standards for garage location and single stall garage doors; and WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing at a regular meeting on March 19, 2002, the Planning and Zoning Commission acting as the Design Review Appeal Committee, approved variances from the garage location standard and single stall garage door standard of Section 26.410.040(C)(2) of the Aspen Municipal Code as it applies to Residential Design Standards for Lot 4, Block 1 of the West Aspen Subdivision by a vote of to Cr -3. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission: Section 1 That proposed variances for garage placement and single stall garage doors for the proposed duplex at 775 and 777 Cemetery Lane, Aspen, Colorado, are approved pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.410.040(C)(2), garage location of the Residential Design Standards allowing two garages to be constructed forward of the duplex with street facing garage doors and double stall garage doors. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on March 19,2002. APPROVED AS TO FORM: DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE: City Attorney Jasmine Tygre, Chair Planning and Zoning Commission ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk C:\My Documents\Current Cases\DRAC\1270SnowbunnyVarianceMemo.doc 8 A._ _ LAND USE APPLICATION PROJECT: Name: '\MINCHEFTE< WEIMAN TOWN#JOUSES Location: -115-77-1 Canchrg Un c. Lar + Wesr Aip.n Subdwis,v,s. (Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) Mlin, No / A APPLICANT: )=reÂ· Chct Wmch,s*r . yoki 1/4/mitn Address: 775Â·177 ContÂ£*re LC+AC. Phone #: 415Â·1714 REPRESENTATIVE: -1=g . q r th,kL... 6~ ~; 1 t C,nl.0 004 Address: 5ao uh in ur s, . Phone #: 9 @6Â· 4 50 A TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): El Conditional Use E Conceptual PUD E Conceptual Historic Devt ~ Special Review Â£ Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) E Final Historic Development E Design Review Appeal El Conceptual SPA E Minor Historic Devt. E GMQS Allotment ~ Final SPA (& SPA Amendment) El Historic Demolition El GMQS Exemption ~ Subdivision E Historic Designation ~ ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream ~ Subdivision Exemption (includes U Small Lodge Conversion/ Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Expansion Mountain View Plane El Lot Split El Temporary Use 0 Other: ~ Lot Line Adjustment E Text/Map Amendment /20/di.,4/ As,gh 9wnfurds EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) Ubuahowl 0 onj &,tawL PROPOSAL: (desciption of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) Movâ‚¬ la'alt dows fen aorth 6-01 Soufl- 40 t.Ujf Cli,Vclfign off of sh,ict *w- 40 *Un,n, radj ug . Have you attached the following, 4,/MC //77~,2/OVU)<60â€¢t 04' 5 la.,Vi,//90/4, FEES DUE: S ~ Pre-Application Conference Summary ~ Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement E Response to Attachment #2, Dimensional Requirements Form El Response to Attachment #3, Minimum Submission Contents E Response to Attachment #4, Specific Submission Contents ~ Response to Attachment #5, Review Standards for Your Application ~ WEIMANN CONSTRIC N March 4.2002 City of Aspen Community Development Robert Winchester of 777 Cemetery Lane (North Side of Duplex) and Joachim Weimann of 775 Cemetery Lane (South Side of Duplex) request a variance to construct single ,garage doors facing Cemetery Lane. 4 r 494, N QÂ»L/ #4#bak / 14 . 970-925-7714 775 Cemetery Lane â€¢ Aspen, Colorado 81611 ATTACHMENT 2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM FTÂ«1. ~in lkâ‚¬&09- Yvi,man -7-ouvn house~ Applicant. Chcy Fl/mch e.i*r Â· yok/' 01/â‚¬.inla,"-D Location: 11 5Â· 7 17 C ,_ rMÂ© *â€¢ 7 L W- Zone District: A- 1 5 Lot Size: l63Â·09' K 98' Lot Area: 15,008.88. (for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing: Proposed: Number of residential units: Existing Proposed: 3 Number of bedrooms: Existing: 4 Proposed: 3 Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): DIMENSIONS: Floor Area: Existing: Allowable 4; la.O proposed 4,899 Principal bldg. height: Existing: Allowable: ao Proposed: nS' Access. bldg. height: Existing: Allowable: Proposed: On-Site parking: Existing: Required: j Proposed: 4.~ % Site coverage: Existing: Required. N?A Proposed: % Open Space: Existing: Required: Ar/A Proposed. Front Setback: Existing: Required: 75 ' Proposed: 25' Rear Setback: Existing: Required: /0 ' Proposed: to ' Combined F/R: Existing: Required: P00 Proposed: MN' Side Setback: Existing: Requtred: 10' Proposed: 10 ' Side Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed: Combined Sides: Existing: Required: Proposed: Existing non-conformities or encroachments: ./|/016 - ,!/ 640, .~/h y Variations requested: fist CUKAbil Dis,95 64%unel Gi,do -106 0:,4 -truâ‚¬f qaja*- dow s off of C Wy+10, L wki c. 0 ASPEN/PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for (hereinafter, THE PROJECT) 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 57 (Series of 2000) establishes a fee structure for Land Use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness. 3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties that APPLICANT make payment of art initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees additional costs may accrue following their hearings and/or approvals. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to process APPLICANT' S application. 4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and/or City Council to enable the Planning Commission and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project consideration, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. 5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of S which is for hours of Community Development staff time, and if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review at a rate of $205.00 per planner hour over the initial deposit. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing, and in no case will building permits be issued until all costs associated with case processing have been paid. CITY OF ASPEN APPLICANT By: By: Julie Ann Woods Community Development Director Date: Mailing Address: g:\support\forms\agrpayas.doc 1/10/01 1.-4 B Al-TACHMENT 3 MINIMUM SUBMISSION CONTENTS 1. Applicant' s name, address and telephone number, contained within a letter signed by the applicant stating the name, address, and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf o f the applicant. 2. The street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur 566 4 044$4*/ 04 3. A disclosure o f ownership of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting o f a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner' s right to apply for the Development Application. 4. All 8 1/2" x 11" vicinity map locating the subject parcel within the City of Aspen. 5. A site improvement survey including topography and vegetation showing the current status of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the State o f Colorado. (This requirement, or any part thereof, may be waived by the Community Development Department if the project is determined not to warrant a survey document.) 6. A site plan depicting the proposed layout and the project's physical relationship to the land and it's surroundings. 7. A written description of the proposal and a written explanation of how a proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. 2 6 :37PM FROM A 1 GRETCHEN GREENWOOD & ASSOC/ATES, /NC 1 - i- ARCHITECTURE - INTERIOR DESIGN Â· PLANNING January j 0,2002 To whom it may concern: Gretchen Greenwood of Gretchen Greenwood and Associates, Architects is authorized to act on behalf of the owners Chet Winchester and Joachim Weimann. The office of the Architect is 520 Walnut Street, Aspen Colorado, 970-925-4502. Please direct any luestions you may have regarding this application to her. Sincerely, l~ , rt D~4~ /14 1 Â£44 04,41 J~,achim Welmann Chet Winchester J,-A .1 1-10-202 6=35PM FRO P. 1 DRAG-Attachment 3 1. Attached please find the Consent letter <FAK 626~ 06 -2.7 925.70* 2. Attached please find the Zoning statistics as wall as the legal descr'Ftion and address of the project A disclosure of ownership 1~ attached.~-~h% 6, /2457 An 8-1/2 xii Vicinity Map is attached. 5. Attached please find the improvement survey G. Attached pleaÂ® find the existing and proposed site Flan. 7. The wntten explanat~on B as follows: The Design Rules and Regulations require that " For all residential uses, parking, garages and carports shall be accessed from an alley or pnvate road." Direct entry into a garage off the street is not permitted. The rules also state that *On lots of at least 15,000 square feet in size, the garage or carport maybe forward of the front of the house only If the garage doors or carport entry are perpend,cular to the street." This apphcation steks a varlailce from these rules due to the following reasons: 1. The development s a duplex Mth two earages on either side of the property. The detance between the two garage doors when the garage doors are perpendicular to the street does not allow for a safe turrung radiance to get Into the garages. The site cannot accommodate this Design Rule and Regulation. Refer to the Existing Site Plan. 2. When the garage doors are perpendicular to the street, a large area of asphalt e needed to create a turning radius for both entries to the garages, as well as the two parking areas. This large asphalt area does not allow for any landscaping between the two buildinfjs. When the garage doors a re facing the street, the amount of asphalt is 51â‚¬Inificantly reduced. The turning area into the street facing garages can double as the parking area, thus reducing the asFhalt on the stte. A large landscaped yard and garden can be created between the buddnes, thus creating a much better street front;age for the neighborhood. Refer to the attached Proposed Site Plan. The approval of this Design Varlance would create a much better aesthetic street frontage. 1-10-202 6-35PM FROV P- 1 DRAG-Attachment 3 ~ 1. Attached please find the Consent letter 0'Â»0 2/~. GÂ¢> Pik Â·,7 Â£25 Â· 7000 2. Attached please find the Zoning statistics as well as the legal descr'Ftion and address of the project 3. A disclosure of ownership li attache:cl. ~-/99X 141<"61 4. An 8- 1/2 x i i Vicinity Map is attached. 5. Attached please find the improvement survey G. Attached please find the existing and proposed site plan. 7. The written explanation is as follows: The Design Rules and Regulations require that ~ For all residential uses, parking, garages and carports shall be accessed from an alley or private road." Direct entry into a garage off the btreat is not permitted. The rules also state that ~On lots of at least 15,000 square feet in size, the garaâ‚¬16 or ciarport maybe forward of the front of the house only if the garage doors or car~ort entry are perpendicular to the street." This application seeks a varlance from these rules due to the following reasons: 1. The development s a duplex w,th two earages on either side of the property. The distance between the two garage doors when the garage doors are perpendicular to the street does not allow for a safe turnme radunce to get mto the earages. The site cannot accommodate this Design Rule and Regulation. Refer to the Existing Site flan. 2. When the garage doors are perpendicular to the street, a large area of asphalt ts needed to create a turning radius for both entries to the garages, as well as the two parking areas. Thts large asphalt area does not allow for any landscaping between the two buildings. When tile garage doors are facing the street, the amount of asphalt ts significantly reduced. The turning area into the street facing garages can double as the parking area, thus reducing the asphalt on the site. A large landscaped yard and garden can be created between the buildings, thus creating a much better street frontage for the neighborhood. Refer to the attached Proposed Site Plan. The approval of this Design Variance would create a much better aesthetic street frontage. 1-10-202 6:36PM FRO P. 2 ATTACHMENT 4 DRAC j . Attached please find the Neighborhood Block Plan. 2. Site plans are attached with Attachment 3. 3. Attached please find the Building Elevations, includ,ng the proposed new East elevation. 4. Attached please find the Floor plans and roof plans. 5. A photographic panorama will De presented at the DRAG hearing. G. A written explanation of how the proposal meets the Review standards is as follows: Raview Standards 1. The proposed design would creats a large landscaped area, which 5 }n comphance w~th The Aspen Area Community Flan. 2. The proposed design would allow for a landscaped area to be built between the duplex, thus reducing the mass of the building from the street. The entire Res,dentel Standards addresses this specific mass Issue. Whthout this proposal, the bu,lding will have a more massive appearance, thus the solution more effectively addresses the de5ign standards. 3. Duplex lots can not create private alleys to allow for garage to be perpendicular to the street. The space needed for entry and turning radius cannot exist, unless the site is covered in asphalt. A single-family residence would allow it. The Residentlal Design standards do not address the specrfic needs of multi-family des,5. Therefore. under this circumstance, the better solution is to allow street frontage of the earage for easy and safe access and ample room to landscape thus reducing the visual mass of a duplex building. 1-10-202 6:36PM FR P. 2 ATTACMMENT 4 DRAC 1. Attached Please find the Neighborhood Block Plan. 2. Site plans are attached Â·with Attachment 3. 3. Attached please find the Building Elevations, including the proposed new East elevation. 4. Attached please find the Floor plans ariel roof plans. 5. A photographic panorama will be presented at the DRAG hear'~ng G. A written explanation of how the proposal meets the Review standards is as follows: Review Standards 1. The proposed design would create a large landscaped area, which 6 w comphance w~th The Aspen Area Communty Plan. 2. The proposed design would allow for a landscaped area to be built between the duplex, thus reducing the mass of the building from the strict. The enttre Residential Standards addresses the ~iecific mass Issue. Without this proposal, the building will have a more massive appearance, thus the solution more effectively addresses the design standards. 3. Duplex lots can not create private alleys to allow for garages to be perpendicular to the street. The space needed for entry and turning radius can not exist, unless the site 15 covered In asphalt. A single-family residence would allow it. The Residential Design standards do not address the specific needs of multi-family designs. Therefore. under this circumstance, the better solution 15 to allow street frontage of the garages for easy and safe access and ample room to landscape thus reducing the visual ma:35 of a duplex buildine. 1 DÂ©-the.0 4 04 0 v 1 - 4Â° ael-Lao b Mot c ..8 * , 14 1) 1,V -.4 61.Â·44*thy .t 2/ - E . 3-. Ct~ v> aacc ~~~4~-atija 1 ''.4--/1 4/- 4 Ouj Aa -\ L / 0 f ' , .aL--â€¢25.3.I 151 49 - 1 .~ . 1)/1 2 It@ 7 , FF.L~ .rn 1 ..- - '34 -ik 1 - 4 - 7 - .A 9/~ I - 1 CCUI . 1 ~ " FaL,of- br,- Sitback TY,44 T~~ ~â€ž3~~9:260&:la~;mi) EUZ *7 - OFf \ JUN - 7 On 1 .9.. 0 \ : SSÂ· f>Â¥ 10, 51.-5.t- - 1 11- D- - -W).. -4 - 17-4 : , 61, C 1 ZONING --9&.t \ -- 4-3 7 0 J- m - R C. \ fi = \ Gretchen 06 li - , LOT 4 4 L..42,Â£01 f: 9 & Associates, Inc. 2.4. AREA 44 -, 1 - ~r-* F '4 --- 11 Greenwood f 2- New 5' SE'~~ , c < A: 1 9 g 520 Walnut Street = 15.003 SO.FT +6 1 1 ~now Stora.gre. Ar-~ z ,1 6 m 1 . - 4 Fax 970-925-7490 1 1 970-925-4502 Aspen. Colorado 81611 " 1 57 U 1 / 1 C ' VATER \ \ C METER ~ 7ming De,c~intion Allowable LEGAL ADDRESS: LOT 4 WISTASPEN SUBDMSION ' 6. -Ii 10 4 . FILING NO. IA - --4- 1 ADDRESS: 775-777 CEMETERY LANE . ASPEN, COLORADO*1611 \ 1 --7 5 2 X th U U . 1 - PARCELID: 7 0 ZONING: R-15 Asphalt Paving LOT SIZE: 113.09' Fr. x 98' N. ...9../ M . b New Fence 1 -7 .1 1- 4 LE 1 P 1 - 13,002.82 SQ.Fr. h I. AÂ°w 0 41=) . EXISTING USES: DUPLEX ,, 1 4 d 444 1 11 EXISTING SQ.FT.: UNIT A. 1.500 SQ.rr. Â· Â«,4-, z UNIT B: 2.538 SO.FT. 1 0 , FU 2 -7 Â» * /40 I. 17 TO TAL: 4,038 Se. n. '1 1 1Â« 19 1 Â» EXISTING BEDROOMS: 2- New 1' ~rude Trees 'Â· L 6% ' \1 - 1 a .- UNITA: 4 BEDROOMS UNITE: 4 BEDROOMS . < .1 0 2 11 73 L- 2 * CrrY APPROVAL: LAND OSE CODE . Â·*44*, ~ ~ ~ - ~Â·~'i: " \ 1 0 tz. SECTION 26.58 t RISIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS _ ._. 22 r . 4 1 \ /2 0 0 ALLOWABLE FAR. 0 ABOVE GRADE: - = 1///////7/3/1 ~~~ ~ ~. Show Storage I c =22 W PROPOSED F.A.R.: (UNTT B) D \ 4 2 BASEMENT: m SQ.n. 1 Â· MAIN LIVEL: 1,430 SQ,FT. f dILÂ» 4 J ~ 641. . UPPER LEVEL: 711 ~VT. li -- ]1 L ~ GARAGE: 119 SQ.rr. 0%42 1 ------, 1 \ C In 0,1 (Gar4-11 4Ft -250 S*fl By 2= 119 Sq.FL) UN]T B VAR: 2.448 SO. Fr, 01 UPPER DICK: 200 30.Fr. 1 rap= PROPOSED FLOOR AREA: (UNrr A) & 3 BASEMENT: 19 SO/r. 19 1 MAIN LEVEL: 1.130 SO.Fr. . - GARAGE: 119 SQ.in UÂ®t- B,10. 1 U UPPER LEVEL: 711 SQ.Fr. 0 70,4 blot. m.,04, A., . 4000 S,Fl.\ Toto Both 2.) ToW A.~ PI. *ch,0,0 Ari â€¢ 2* Wt (Totâ€¢ both Unlts) UNIT A PAR, 2.44850.FT, 05 -Cirrfifiljil.... - 4, 0,- 4,OD *n UPPER DECK: 200 SO. rr. \ l. F I TOTAL PROPOSED FLOOR AREA: (UNrr UND B) - gplign L 6+-p e eatâ‚¬-i Yelwt I K- *2% 4% OPEN SPACE: NO REQUIREMENT ' SETBACKS: 1-- - 907 ~ y FRONT YARD SITE No TA- go \133Â»211 REAR YARD 10'-0" - -J P. SIDE YARD 10,-4. S 76026'30'W F- of 8164 9 2' Ir- 91:ock r*toi ' eg j91_.. ' HEIGHT: 25 FEET 25 FIXT PARKING: 2 SPACES REQUIRED .0 AFFORDABLE HOUSING IMPACT FEZ: 25' Front Y=â€¢ Setback LAND USE CODE SECTION 26.4 , A...# 1 : SCALE: 1/8--1.-0 TO BE DEFERRED 1. Snow Storage (See Site Plan) U/Â¥ 2. Trash receptacles and Recycling Bins kept in Garage- No Outside storage ~ . JO& 4 DATE ESUED: 12/1/00 3. Protect Site w/Construction Fencing-Provide Straw Bales - DRAWN BY: GG -__Outside Fencinq for Erosjon Control STRAW SALE BARRIER INSTALLATION aECKED BY: GG ..5 + f. - REVEIONS 1 ----- 33,6.. - vELWUp|VIWNE~-06*721 ; -./.: //iiiFM % m$"/"Il./."I/Ilffi~la"1~L-t 'Â· .% ...7-1 l~ SITE PLAN for 775/777 CEIVE-TERY LANE- 1.'. .. - - ~le,0,79 -- ... SCALE: 1/8" =1'- **=J<6/ i:,1,w- - - -- - INOTE: ARCHITECTURAL 100'-0" = SITE ELEVATION 7204'.5 RECEIVED 2.6./ --!11-111 1 DEC 18 2000 424 . 1-*. 9 A-3 9 ... f?.. 1 -1,7- 7-m 1 90,11. Af .-1-%- 4. --" c-*. ASPEN / PllKIN 1 = 10.- .,- 0.-en me.'. - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT UUBUII ou OPEJOIOO 'uadsv - - 201 LL/%11 10~ 96 Yord .-:12. :1 8 71 4.; f a. r + . â‚¬. Â·,Â· Â·~,~'34 ' ~41.4 - + (1) 7 (i 38'-10 19'-0- 10'-loy 3110" 5j' ~___~ 37 Â® Â© - 10- 12-- . 38'-0' -~-, 2'-10' ~. ~. 1'-li~ 1'-118 2'-10' 1'-4i 7Â· 19'-0Â· 2'-10' 3' 1 -104 3. 2'-10 04 10'-1Â® 4,-d. . R.0. - r.-ft ~ Face of Deck Above ---------- ------- ----- - 11 r 1 T N 11 k j 41. I 6 M~ /Â£/ell' fuÂ«Â« *42 11 G P I 42Â»11,11 1. . C~) . 1 1 1 1 r. t ..7 0 1 1 11 i i 11 It 11 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 ... 111 C 11 C . '' 3 1 k~ DO I 1, 1 0 1, 11 1 0 0 11 11 I Â» 1 11 : 11 - 11 7 11 11 11 - 11 I. ./ I K 11 1 # Da 1 - 3 1 4 0 11 0 11 : 1 1 1 1 - I 1! . a I I : 1 - 0 I. F 1 1% '1 1 cc H ' k r 1 1 11 1 Â»> 11 . 1 1 11 1 pÂ¥ 1 0 11 ~4 LO G, 11' 0 Z / . 20 1 1 Â® & 11 0 I E 0/ 3 1 1 11 .... EL: i : 2 1 11 1 1 025 I lif 1 1 :r: 1 1 1 NO 1 1 1 ... liE- I 11 1/ 3 '1) .. 11 0 1 F a. 0 1 1 .3 1 1 . â‚¬ --14 r= lili 11 - 3 1 0. CO 11--1%~11 C i- Â· E 2/ 4 Pi 1 1 I I E X 11 - - 1 1 Â£0 111 - - I 1 1 ------------------ - 5 1 5 ~7-7. 1 1 1- I 166 ./. N i tt =J 1 1 \11-1 1 . , 01 0 111 Yl . 11 1 crl 111 - 111 - .il. /11 4 Â© /2 1 1 - _ ~L- LET Ii.Rd gl 1 ' k Â® 11 Lil-- -41+103 I 1 1 - 1 Â· --- V 1 1 1 1 -1111~ 2))2 11= i j 5- 1 . . 11 1 1 / iii ' 4 L T. I , A 1 1 q j i _J Â° 1 011 01 1 Af- e 1.-- -- 14 1 Infl - N y 6 2 0 , N q ! O) f Z N :F 8'-4~ 61-Â·1~" ,- . M 0 %4' 3 E 14 1 0 0 - 15'-4' 22'-8' 4 0 â€¢ID 1 5 Â® * 7'-5Â¢ 8-4~ O 2 Â· O 2 0 -O f * r .= B 0 ' R Pt g ; Â§ R '11.1 >2 0, m -0 0 22'-8" 2#. . i.. 2 4 0 3. OR (53 . fi S i N flrip -2- 1 I 41 44_ P 6 Cl mo-1-$ mr E Winchester-Weimann M:niip QUQ b I /1 ,~..~t 775/777 Cemetery Lane ~ 89 30 * 4 2 9 & f 2 2 Fi .+ 01 , P ,~LEI (- i m Egrog 88* 6 Aspen, Colorado E- 0 12:7. E a Unit B 36* Guardroil 36" Guordrail Top of Plywood lf~Jllwell Below ~ ~ Lightwell Below Down 20'-0' s Appliance V }!un Down - RECEIVED