HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.308 N 1st St.A15-96 .SELOAD SUMMARY SHEET- C' OF ASPEN
DATE RECEIVED: 2/16/96 CASE# A 15-96
DATE COMPLETE: STAFF: Amy Amidon
PARCEL ID# 2735-124-42-100
PROJECT NAME: DRAC Review - 308 N. 1st Street
Project Address: 308 N. 1st Street
APPLICANT: Michael Ernemann
Address/Phone: P.O. Box 4602 Aspen, CO 81612 925-2262
REPRESENTATIVE: Same
Address/Phone:
FEES: PLANNING $450 #APPS RECEIVED 1
ENGINEER $0 #PLATS RECEIVED 1
HOUSING $0
ENV HEALTH $0 TYPE OF APPLICATION:
TOTAL $450 Staff Approval
PCB 11 -to J
Review Body Meeting Date Public Hearing?
P&Z ❑Yes ❑No
CC ❑Yes ❑No
CC (2nd reading) EYes ❑No
REFERRALS:
❑ City Attorney ❑ Aspen Fire Marshal ❑ CDOT
❑ City Engineer ❑ City Water ❑ ACSD
❑ Zoning ❑ City Electric ❑ Holy Cross Electric
❑ Housing ❑ Clean Air Board ❑ Rocky Mtn Natural Gas
❑ Environmental Health ❑ Open Space Board ❑ Aspen School District
❑ Parks ❑ Other: ❑ Other:
DATE REFERRED: INITIALS: DATE DUE:
APPROVAL: Ordinance/Resolution # Date:
Staff Approval Date:
Plat Recorded: Book , Page
CLOSED/FILED DATE: INITIALS:
ROUTE TO:
r1 .,_„._. MINIMili WA,,.• , ' ,„ , --
As en/Pitkin Community U: '',Cr ' '4,',Mvavipt-sf;,,,,,,,404 re.:040,----4. -' .stm _
p
Development Department � '"'
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611 , ,a"
(970) 920•-5090
iF'
City Land Use Application Fees: — -��5� O�> .
00113 63850-041 Deposit
-63855-042 Flat Fee --
-63860-043 HPC
-63885-268 Public Right-of-Way -_ ------
-63875-046 Zoning & Sign Permit ._ — ---
- MRO I 1 Use Tax -----
County Land Use Application Fees:
00113-63800-033 Deposit ----
-63805-034 Flat Fee -
-63820-037 Zoning — -------
-63825-038 Board of Adjustment ____—- -----
1 Referral Fees:
00113-63810-035
County Engineer -.
00115-63340-163 City Engineer ----- -
00123-63340-190 Housing ---- --
00125-63340-205 Environmental Health —
00113-63815-036 County Clerk --_- _
Sales: - - �"-
00113-63830-039 County Code _ — -
-69000-145 Copy Fees
Other
Total L 3 (()
Name: '.I/--" , I - *
Date:e�Check:1b5
L Project: GY►�YI nc-�-rat-�
Address: N1 1't■
Case No: fl1 lr ----
No.of Copies
Phone:
MEMORANDUM
TO: Design Review Appeals Committee
FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer
DATE: February 15, 1996
RE: 308 N. First Street- Appeal from Design Standards
SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to demolish the existing house on the site
and construct a new building. Waiver of Ordinance #30 standards, as described
below is requested.
PROJECT REVIEW PROCESS AND STAFF EVALUATION
The Committee may grant an exception to the design standards for any of the
following criteria:
a) yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community
Plan;
b) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or
provision responds to; or
c) be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site
specific constraints.
APPLICANT: Michael Ernemann.
LOCATION: 308 N. First Street.
ZONING: R-6
STAFF COMMENTS:
I. Background - Staff has met with the architect on several occasions to
discuss the two Ordinance #30 standards listed below. The applicant
approached DRAC for a workshop to discuss the building orientation and has
now submitted an application for review and appeal of the Design Standards. No
design is submitted at this time, as the architect wishes to resolve these
threshold issues before proceeding. Full Ordinance #30 review will still be
required of the building once designed.
II. Site Description - The property is 12,000 sq.ft. The existing house is a
Victorian, which was substantially remodeled over time and was removed from
the Historic Inventory in 1992.
III. Waiver requested-
A. Standard: "All single family homes... must have a street-oriented
entrance and a street facing principal window...On corner lots,
entries and principal windows should face whichever street has a
greater block length."
B. Standard: "On corner sites where fewer than 75% of the residential
buildings on the face of a block are located within two (2) feet of a
common setback line, a minimum of 60% of at least one of the
street frontages of a proposed project's front facade must be
located within two (2) feet of the minimum setback."
IV. Recommendation -The committee has three standards for granting
variances:
a) yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community
Plan;
Staff response: The proposal is not in direct conflict with the AACP, nor
does it further any of its goals.
b) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or
provision responds to; or
Staff response: The standards are directed at creating a dialogue
between the pedestrian and structures by placing houses relatively close
to the street and in a certain alignment. The proposal (although no real
building design has been presented) is to pull the house back from both
street frontages in order to meet setback requirements (given the location
of a garage at 5' from the alley) and to preserved existing trees. Although
this may be desirable to the applicant, it does not address the issue of a
build-to line as intended in Ordinance #30.
c) be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site
specific constraints.
Staff response: The applicant has included a letter outlining the reasons
for the variance request. In order to comply with the building orientation
standard, which would require that the entrance to the house be placed on W.
Hallam Street, the front of the house would be facing the Yellow Brick School
and its associated congestion and noise issues. The applicant prefers to orient
towards the residential area to the west.
In order to meet the build-to line standard, the applicant would have to place at
least 60% of either the south facade (facing the Yellow Brick School) or the west
facade at the 10' minimum setback line.
This project has identified a conflict between Ordinance #30 and setback
regulations. The R-6 zone district requires this site to have a minimum 10' front
yard setback and a minimum 10' rear yard setback, except that a garage may be
5' from the rear lot line. The combined front and rear setbacks must be 30' or
greater. Therefore, if the project is to comply with the build-to line (10'), the rear
yard setback must be 20'. (Because the site is a corner lot, the alley is the rear
lot line, but either lot line along Hallam Street or First Street may be selected as
the front lot line.)
The standard is confusingly written as it refers to "at least one of the street
frontages of a proposed project's front facade." It is staff's assumption that the
standard is meant to say that 60% at least one of the street frontages must meet
the build-to line. If the applicant is required to meet the build-to line on the
Hallam Street side, than either the garage will have to be 20' from the alley, or a
variance will be needed from the Board of Adjustments. If the applicant is
required to meet the build-to line on the First Street side, than some of the
mature trees in the area may have to be removed, and either the garage must be
moved forward or a variance is needed.
Staff recommends DRAC allow the variance request finding that 1) the
proximity to the Yellow Brick School makes orientation towards First Street
more appropriate and 2) meeting the build-to line on either the Hallam
Street or First Street sides would require pulling development away from
the alley (which is not the general pattern in the West End) and/or removal
of existing trees. Staff also recommends as a condition of allowing a
variance of the building orientation standard, that the wall surrounding the
property must be lower and more open in character on the First Street
facade, in order to preserve some connection between the house and the
pedestrian streetscape.
The Ernemann Group
Architects
PO Box 4602
Asper. Colorado 81611
970.925.2266
Design Review Appeal Committee
c/o Community Development Department
Aspen City Hall
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: 308 N. First Street
Lots K,L, M& N, Block 56
City of Aspen, Colorado
Dear Committee Members:
We hereby request that you waive the following two requirements of Ordinance 30
for the above referenced property:
1. Section 7-304.1.b "On corner lots, entries and principal windows
should face whichever street has a greater block length."
The greater block length in this case faces Hallam Street which is fronted
on its opposite(south)side for the entire block length by the Yellow
Brick Schoolhouse.The schoolhouse is a non-residential use with intrinsic
uncompatibilities with the residential use of the subject property. Among
the most evident conflicts generated by the school (especially the Day
Care Center)are significant pedestrian and vehicular traffic and congested
parking on Hallam Street and the resulting adverse audio and visual
impacts.
Further,the address and main entry of the existing house on
the subject property is 308 N. First St., not Hallam St.
For the development of a new house on the subject property, it is
requested that the Ordinance 30 requirement that the main entry face
the street with the greater block length, Hallam St., be waived.
2. Section 7-304-3.b. "...On corner sites where fewer than 75% of the
residential buildings on the face of a block are located within two (2)feet
of a common setback line, a minimum of 60%of at least one of the
street frontages of a proposed projects'front facade must be located
within two(2)feet of the minimum setback."
This"Build -To"requirement of Ordinance 30 demands that 60%of one
of the street frontages of the front facade must be located within 2 feet
of the minimum setback. On the subject property the minimum setback
for front yard is 10 feet. If the "Build -To"requirement is to be met, the
rear yard would have to be 20 feet in order to comply with the 30 foot
combined front and rear yard requirement of the Zoning Ordinance. The
Zoning Ordinance, however, permits a minimum rear yard of 5 feet for
garages entered from alleys. Thus, if the "Build -To"requirement of
Ordinance 30 is met, the proposed garage with alley entry would not
be able to be located within 5 feet of the alley, but would, because of
Ordinance 30, have to be located at least 20 feet from the alley.
Further, if the First Street frontage of the subject property were to be
selected as the front yard, the Ordinance 30 "Build -To"requirement
would force construction to occur in a zone that is presently heavily
vegetated with mature cottonwood and spruce trees.
For the development of a new house on the subject property it is requested
that the "Build -To"requirements of Ordinance 30 be waived.
Respectfully submitted,
6179. Ernemann AIA
��
- du=A rya i �`�JS.
i1 • S
•
•
• a�
g 0 ,00'001 M..61h00. .
lil1 li
•
III
--------6-1" 1—.M.
1 11.11
;;-
- al
1i _ r ^— P1 •ili_._
ft ►r T -
ra....■...7■•••■vir---'
ih
i my
- `. N _. AI
)!
— i ra
. . 1
a.
fib
h e1140lb 1,10 b
•
L J L €l g
g Is
r b
6
g
1111'07 W14.
a.
0•
. •
■
•
v' O J
Z
v ,J 0
1 _ _ -
�.�.� -7r-
_ _
r 'hf M • i 09N4 Zy
tr.' 1 1.
NI i
14....c‘ /
0 l
N iffil. ki.:____.
4
t� V
q Q J 0 Q i"-'-')-.0..,
Nt
.r
4 ,
e g4 0
1
:;71 VV
a y
Ill 7 .. cy;:i
�s
iq Z LL 'O y N O
TT— s3
V:-... i'l 44
Vzi
�0 t rU �ti ti ► Q
o
, i li;1$ m
4 4.--.14,,,,.v.7,, 'PAP, 6-,, o''t,.:2.;A,-----. ',,-, ,,,
I 0 0
Of
b k.: k o
•
1 46 �y •
0, Q , V
0,
• TT 4,t _ „F t r u U. .
„tD +
f t
Q Z N u J1.'t't'a ! 0 9k `
r„
! , ',,.. ,.,\. rm ''"71"b<4),.; , 0-. . 1, . 11/47) y , ' Y
- - -- 3,6b,cs.tfi n.
` i -1Y
c
------2
6
ii
IQ
•A 0
f
d
..0 .1. "Q' e
� �Q
I 4
A 1 i
r ti
1 A • 1 .\
III
SI l
4 i„ 1 -t. .e_o, , _, ,,,, , o
1 ,,, k. A I &N. Q
14 5L
• r,. . ),t..1 ,„ ,
, (Li
a , , 1
, ..,,t di it
•
h
4
I
s
ffP ,
.q L._ p-
„ . a ,...„....
. r.-,— 7,....]
)S 1 11 ' ____
, .
, ,/,...
. .
. .. ,
• 1
. .i.,.
otit 1 , ;11 1
l'41'5 I , .
■
, s„,_
, :
„,
•
t 0
c
. 0 v)
0 0
A - _ J
i, It x. .11
al
I. 11 ‘411,
`.I .00 001 M .6f-.
jy 7 P• LL- Z a
rG fp Q
-H
ii - p• �
rLt 1
• rl 1t !I 1 Z'
II
if Tai
Q
i 2 .
1; 3 I .
i III
........, .° b Z
d Ei
g 77 _....„
�f cL rL . 1
•_ I\N
a IL" tr
• '' -
M•VII.4.0 1 I ,J~` ►u
-
W
in . I. l•
! ...
': - _' -1'-'-:- . ':. F:21 -crsres - .....-- ; . . ,
r ) f ,
..,. .
,• ,.,, ,
,,
, ,
. .
,. „ ..,,,„,„ ,,
,A.,, ,
. ,,.
.Od 'SI , V
• g--C-! - '---
.._--___._ __.-. __- _ c "�yy
40,
---:). 91/) ,.". ''.":<,I,-.
of
0 l '1
• v �'= i
n 1 �� N 0
f 7r, e4
t
et _4b�- G _
_
L
I-...
..,
ru ! , tit
Iry , \KC,.YCK ms's i __�-.- ; try,:
G 1'
• •U ) �n
J F j
` _ . I
�
1LJ
0'191 ,.r 1
i
`L4fr� „
4) ,
r N
•.
"�1 •.Gµ0+' t
s.
N
•
DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION FEBRUARY 15, 1996
Chairperson Steve Buettow called the meeting to order at 4:10, present were Sven
Alstrom, Roger Moyer, Jake Vickery. Marta Chaikovska and Robert Blaich were
excused.
MINUTES
MOTION: Moyer moved to approve the minutes of
December 14, 1995. Second by Vickery. Motion carried, all
in favor.
STAFF COMMENTS
Amy Amidon, Planning & Zoning, stated that the first item on the agenda 307 W. Francis
is being tabled until March 14, 1996.
308 N. FIRST STREET
Amidon stated that there are two design standards that the DRAC have been asked to
waive. The first item is the building orientation standard that requires that the building
front be on the longer block face. The applicant does not wish to face Hallam Street
because they are across from the Yellow Brick School which has noise and privacy
concerns. They would like to face first street. The second item is the build to line. The
build to line for a corner site requires at least 60% of the front of the building be at the
minimum set back, which in this case is 10 ft. Two problems will occur, first there are
some existing trees in the area that may have to be removed. Secondly, if the project
were required to meet this standard, there would be a conflict with ord. 30 related to
setbacks. Ord. 30 requires a minimum front yard setback of 10 ft and are allowed a
minimum 5 yard setback for a garage. However, the front yard has to total at least 30 ft.
If the applicant is required to build the project to the 10 ft. line they would have to have a
20 ft. rear yard setback. There garage has to be 20 ft. or more off of the alley. Staff
recommends that the waivers are granted based on standard "C". Standard "C" states
they are clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific
constraints. One issue with this project is that DRAC does not actually have a building
design on the table. The house will have to go through ord. 30 review. Amidon noted
her approval with one condition, that the wall on the first street side of the property has to
be lower and more open in character, currently it is a six foot privacy fence.
Michael Ernemann, public, (architect), noted that the existing entrance, doorway and
street address are currently on first street. Erneman stated that he would like to develop a
building that will generate space rather than consume space. We would like to design a
house pulled back from the street setbacks that results in a corner preserving the trees and
open space.
1
Buettow asked if the DRAC felt comfortable making a motion without a specific plan to
look at relative to the items being talked about.
Alstrom responded that he felt comfortable with it.
Amidon inquired whether or not the additional building that exists on the first street side
will be kept. Ernemann replied yes.
Ernemann responded not knowing which rule should be dealt with, it is difficult to
produce a meaningful design without a waiver of the setbacks. The house will go through
the normal ord. 30 review. According to zoning, if you can access a garage from the
alley, you do not have an option.
Vickery stated that he did not have a problem with either request but did want to note
variances will be needed for the two non-conforming structures. Ernemann replied that
the variances have been obtained.
George Vicenzi, public, (neighbor) requested that the DRAC preserve the trees.
Vickery asked if a motion could refer to preserving the tree.
Buettow stated that DRAC's purview is to yield greater compliance and effectively
address the issues. The first two requests are difficult to deal with when there are no
plans. Clearly DRAC would want to save the trees and we realize the problem with the
adjacent Yellow Brick School house.
Vickery replied that he felt the trees were justification for the second request.
Buettow asked if the site plans could be entered on the record. Vickery stated that he
thought it would be a good idea.
Ernemann replied that he has not designed the house yet.
Alstrom commented that the site plans showed the footprints within the boundaries that
are defined.
Ernemann stated the existing structures on that site that have over 3700 feet of site
coverage. The retaining of the two buildings along the alley, count against site coverage.
Vickery inquired what is the allowable FAR.
Amidon replied that it is 4080.
Ernemann stated that the FAR of the existing house is greater than allowable.
Vickery responded that the arguments are reasonable, the Yellow Brick School does
impact residential neighborhoods and the existing trees although, there is not a proposed
setback from the property line.
2
Ernemann stated that the setback may not be greater than what is allowed by zoning.
Vickery replied that it is determined by the location of the trees. Ernemann said that
would be the intent.
Amidon suggested that a condition be added stating that some element of the house is
close to the street.
Moyct responded that DRAC make it simple and facilitate it to make it work. This plan
is f'ot better not for worse.
MOTION: Moyer moved to waive the two requirements of
ordinance 30, section 7-304.1.b and 7-304.3.b, for 308 N.
First Street, Lots K,L,M, & N, Block 56, City of Aspen,
CO., based on standard "C", which states an "exception to
design standards be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness
related to unusual site specific constraints" with the
following conditions:
1) That the wall surrounding the property must be
lower and more open in character on the First
Street facade, in order to preserve some connection
between the house and the pedestrian street scape.
2) No removal of existing Conifer trees 4" or more in
diameter.
Second by Alstrom. Motion carried, all in favor.
Moyer asked if the house is on the registered inventory.
Amidon responded that the house was removed from inventory in 1992.
Buettow adjourned the meeting at 4:45pm.
Amy G. SO mid, Deputy City Clerk
3