HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.307 W Francis St.A4-96 CA LOAD SUMMARY SHEET - CITY ASPEN
DATE RECEIVED: 1/16/96 CASE# A4-96
DATE COMPLETE: STAFF: Dave Michaelson
PARCEL ID# 2735-124-23-003
PROJECT NAME: Eberstein Garage Addition
Project Address: 307 W. Francis St.
APPLICANT: Pat and Brian Eberstein
Address/Phone: 307 W. Francis St. (970) 544-0525
REPRESENTATIVE: River Studio Architects (William Limpsey)
Address/Phone: 414 N. Mill St. 925-3734
FEES: PLANNING $450 #APPS RECEIVED 8
ENGINEER $0 #PLATS RECEIVED 8
HOUSING $0
ENV HEALTH $0 TYPE OF APPLICATION:
TOTAL $450 Staff Approval
Review Body Meeting Date Public Hearing ?
P&Z ❑Yes ❑No
CC DYes ❑No
Los,e,CC (2nd reading) ❑Yes ❑No
REFERRALS:
❑ City Attorney El Aspen Fire Marshal ❑ CDOT
❑ City Engineer ❑ City Water ❑ ACSD
El Zoning El City Electric ❑ Holy Cross Electric
El Housing El Clean Air Board El Rocky Mtn Natural Gas
El Environmental Health ❑ Open Space Board El Aspen School District
El Parks El Other: ❑ Other:
DATE REFERRED: INITIALS: DATE DUE:
APPROVAL: Ordinance/Resolution# Date:
Staff Approval Date:
Plat Recorded: Book , Page
CLOSED/FILED DATE: INITIALS:
ROUTE TO:
ry
January 31, 1996
•
•
Bill Lipsey
•
414 N. Mill Street ASPEN•PITKIN
Aspen, CO 81611 PLANNING&ZONING DEPARTMENT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
• RE: Ordinance 30 Design Review for the Eberstein residence, 307 W. Francis
Dear Bill:
On January 30th, City of Aspen Community Development staff reviewed the above
project for compliance with the Design Guidelines (Ordinance 30.) Based on staff's
review, the proposed design is is not in compliance with standards in effect at the time of
review.
Specific criteria not met with the current design are as follows:
•
1. "For any dwelling unit which can be accessed from an alley or private road entering at
the rear or side of the dwelling unit, the garage shall only be excluded from floor area
calculations up to two hundred fifty (250) square feet per dwelling unit if it is located
on said alley or road. (p. 4 and 17)" This provision has existed in the code since at
least 1990. The FAR for the garage will be calculated as subgrade area, based on the
method described on pg. 5 of Ordinance#30.
2. "If.a driveway to a garage is below natural grade within the required front setback the ,
resulting cut cannot exceed two (2) feet in depth, measured from natural grade (p. 5)"
As amended in Ordinance #50, Series of 1995..
3. "All portions of a garage, carport or storage area parallel to the street shall be recessed
behind the front facade a minimum of ten (10) feet (pg. 5 and 17)."
. 4. "Garages below natural grade...shall meet one of the following conditions: All
•
elements of the garage shall be located within fifty feet of the rear lot line, or all
elements of the garage shall be located farther than one hundred fifty feet from the
front lot line, or the vehicular entrance to the garage shall be perpendicular to the
front lot line (p. 5 and 17)"
•
5. " For single family homes and duplexes with attached garages or carports, the width
of the house must be at least five (5) feet greater than the width of the garage along its
•
130 SOUTH GALENA STREET • ASPEN,COLORADO 81611 • PHONE 303.920.5090 • FAX 303.920.5197
Printed on recycled paper DIRECT FAX LINE:303.920.5439 -
street facing frontage. The garage must be set back at least ten (10) feet further from
the street than the house. (p. 15)"
According to Bill Drueding, excavation for the garage within the setback does create a
setback encroachment issue which would have to be resolved by Board of Adjustments.
The definition of yard states that a slab which is in excess of thirty inches above or below
natural grade may not project into the required yard(setback.)
It is our recommendation that your application be forwarded to the Design Review
Appeal Board for their February 15th meeting. Even if the board grants the requested
variances to Ordinance#30, a variance request will be needed at the Board of
Adjustments for both the setback encroachment and a possible FAR increase if no
additional FAR is available to cover the portion of the garage that will be counted. In the
alternative, the entire review may be handled by the Board of Adjustments on their next
available meeting date, generally on the second Thursday of each month.
Sinc ly, /
AI y A 'don
ty •,f Aspen Community Development
cc: Dave Michaelson, Deputy Planning Director
Bill Drueding , Zoning
MEMORANDUM
TO: Design Review Appeals Committee
FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer
DATE: March 1471996
RE: 307 W. Francis, Eberstein- Appeal from Design Standards
SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to construct a single stall garage, partially
below grade, facing the street. Waiver of Ordinance #30 standards, as
described below is requested.
In addition, the applicant must request a number of variances from the Board of
Adjustments. A setback variance is needed due to the driveway slab being
within the frontyard setback. An FAR bonus is needed because the only way to
receive the 250 sq.ft. garage exemption is if the access is taken from the alley.
(Under the old rules, the project was 4' below maximum FAR. Given the
changes in FAR calculation as instituted by Ordinance #30, the project gained
some FAR due the elimination of the old "volume" calculation, but loses FAR
because the new volume calculation finds that there are windows in the "no
window zone" causing the associated interior space to be counted at 2:1. An
FAR bonus must cover this deficit and also the square footage that will be
charged to the garage.)
Thirdly, the Board of Adjustments would be asked to vary the maximum grade
allowed for driveways, which is 12%. The Engineering Department must be
petitioned on this matter and may not approve the variance.
PROJECT REVIEW PROCESS AND STAFF EVALUATION
The Committee may grant an exception to the design standards for any of the
following criteria:
a) yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community
Plan;
b) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or
provision responds to; or
c) be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site
specific constraints.
APPLICANT: Pat and Brian Eberstein, represented by River Studio Architects.
LOCATION: 307 W. Francis Street.
ZONING: R-6
STAFF COMMENTS:
I. Background - During staff review for compliance with Ordinance 30
Design Guidelines, staff indicated that the project was not in compliance with a
number of Ordinance #30 standards as well as zoning and engineer
requirements. The applicant has submitted an application for review and appeal
of the Design Standards.
II. Site Description - The property is 6,000 feet. The grade slopes
downward from west to east. The existing house on the site was substantially
remodeled in the early 1990's.
III. Waiver requested-
A. Standard: "If a driveway to a garage is below natural grade within
the required front setback the resulting cut cannot exceed two (2)
feet in depth, measured from natural grade."
B. Standard: "All portions of a garage, carport or storage area parallel
to the street shall be recessed behind the front facade a minimum
of ten (10) feet."
C. Standard: "Garages below natural grade...shall meet one of the
following conditions: All elements of the garage shall be located
within fifty feet of the rear lot line, or all elements of the garage
shall be located farther than one hundred fifty feet from the front lot
line, or the vehicular entrance to the garage shall be perpendicular
to the front lot line."
D. Standard: "For single family homes and duplexes with attached
garages or carports, the width of the house must be at least five (5)
feet greater than the width of the garage along its street facing
frontage. The garage must be set back at least ten (10) feet further
from the street than the house.
IV. Recommendation -The committee has three standards for granting
variances:
a) yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community
Plan;
Staff response: The proposal is not in direct conflict with the AACP, nor
does it further any of its goals.
b) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or
provision responds to; or
Staff response: Ordinance #30, as well as other areas of the code, clearly
discourage having garage access from a street as opposed to an alley.
c) be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site
specific constraints.
Staff response: The only practical difficulty to placing the garage on the
alley are building improvements made by the property owner. A fenced in
patio at the rear of the property could be altered to accomodate a parking
space.
Staff recommends DRAC deny the variance request finding that none of the
variance criteria are met.
• ATTAC13MENT 1
IAND ASE'BPPLICATICH REM
1) Project Name • Elbe. OE., 4.00tTiOtJ
2) Project Location 2,07 L PRA4.1G Ir GrT. ; -LOT, F iatd0 EDI_ L 4, , •
C t TY 4A-4.0 "-ow►.c - of 4.6Pet4 . COuU-r r of ?I T K I tJ , T11:1"£ C7F c. OLC12.A c)
(indicate street ad dress, lot & block member, legal description mere
appropriate)
3) •Present Zaiing 42-CO 4) Lot Size loos tOO' (tp,00d )
5) App ir:ant's Name, Address & Phone # PA-r1 4.1.4 to 8R1it.4-1 e-b'5.944TE1►.1
307 W. F12.A4.1C15 GAT. 46961J Co -f.3t( tI (9?O) ,44- d5,25
6) Reiaesentative's Name, Address & Phone # 124\./eR 'TU 010 A.9.e.+4 tT -C-1-6
C w tt.LtAr i 4 t4 +.t. A.69EA..11 CO £ t Zto t t (970)cIZS- 5134
7) Typel of AppLicaticn .(please check all that apply): . d
Oonditienal Use Conceptual SPA Qonoeptua1 Historic_ Dev.
Special Review - Final SPA Final Historic Dev. •
8040 GreenLine Conceptual IUD - Minor Historic Dev.
Stream Margin • Final RID Historic Demolition
Mountain View Plane • Subdivision Historic Designation
. tiai• Text/Map Am meet G Allotment
Split/Int x Design Review ncorPtion
Adjustment Appeal Board
8) Description of Existing Uses • (nnaber and-. type of existing structures;
approximate sq. ft.; number- of bedrooms; any previous approvals granted to the
Prof r Y).-
• _ - 4 • _•_� r] FAt-t t t_ 0 W LL
04 • F . • t_t1 s . . n iJ .
9) Description of Development Application
REQU€AT v.642.14610E. APPEtovAt_ "c0 C.0.16TRtlC.-r A 1-GAP.. bELOi..t
09.A0E 1_1NDE'R P.XthTtNCi .tOU4E.
A
10) Have you attached the following?
•Ce4 Resixnse to Attachment 2, Minimm Submission Contents
-re", Response to Attachment 3. Specific Sutnini i on its
Date: 1/15/96
To: Design Review Appeals Committee, City of Aspen
Owner: Pati & Brian Eberstein
Address: 307 West Francis Street
Legal: Lots F & G, Block 42, City and Townsite of Aspen
OVERVIEW
The Owners' of this existing house need a single car garage. Because of the
constraints created by the existing footprint there appears to be only one
realistic location for this addition: under the existing bedroom on the Francis
Street side of the house with a ramped driveway accessing from Francis
Street. The existing footprint, height, site coverage, setback and massing will
not be affected by the proposed addition. It should be noted that the recent
addition to this house was used as an example of good design at the Design
Symposium that lead to Ordinance 30.
VARIANCE ISSUES
1. F.A.R.: A 250 sf F.A.R. exclusion is allowed for garages. The F.A.R. of this
proposed below grade garage calculates out to be 89 sf and thus is "O.K." The
F.A.R. of the existing house was under the allowable maximum as calculated
at the time the last addition was built in 1994. Thus F.A.R. appears not to be
an issue in this application. (The proposed garage could have been built
under the zoning that existed previous to the adoption of Ordinance 30.)
2. Driveway below natural grade in front setback: A below grade garage is the
only feasible solution on this site thus a below grade driveway is required. A
hardship variance is needed to bypass this stipulation. By taking advantage of
a natural drop in existing grades along Francis Street, the depth of the
proposed driveway below ajoining grade can be markedly reduced. The
driveway will be perpendicular to the front lot line thus meeting that
requirement of Ordinance 30 for garages below grade.
3. Garage to be recessed behind front facade minimum 10 ft.: A natural
change of grade exists on Francis Street that helps reduce the steepness of the
proposed garage access driveway. The garage needs to be located on the left
side of the Francis Street elevation of the house under an existing bedroom in
order to take advantage of this beneficial change in grade and the other site
constraints. A hardship variance is required to bypass the 10 ft. setback
requirement.
Development Application • Eberstein House • 307 West Francis Street • 1/16/96 • page: 1
CONCLUSION
The proposed new single car garage is adjacent to the 2 car wide driveway of
the adjoining house to the East on Francis Street. As such, it does not impact
directly upon either of the neighbors pedestrian entrances. Furthermore, the
proposed new garage door would be more than 50% below grade and thus
would have less visual impact than a door at grade might have on the
streetscape.
The existing footprint of the house at 307 West Francis is constrained such
that there is only a single reasonable location for the proposed single car
garage addition. For reasons of fairness based on the physical circumstances
and constraints of this site we ask that the required variances be granted.
Development Application • Eberstein House • 307 West Francis Street • 1/16/96 • page:2
CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP
Pitkin County Title, Inc . , a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent in the
State of Colorado hereby certifies that BRIAN EBERSTEIN AND PATI EBERSTEIN,
are the owners in simple of the following described property:
LOTS F AND G,
BLOCK 42 ,
CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN
COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO.
ENCUMBRANCES : Deed of Trust from : Brian Eberstein and Pati Eberstein
to the Public Trustee of the County of Pitkin
for the use of : Pitkin County Bank & Trust Co.
original amount : $990, 000 . 00
dated : February 22, 1995
recorded : March 14, 1995 in Book 776 at Page 118
reception no. : 379706
Subject to easements and rights of way of record.
This certificate is not to be construed to be a guarantee of title and
is furnished for informational purposes only.
PITKIN COUNT i ITLE, INC.
4
BY: '. .� . . .. al
author .ignature
CERTIFIED TO: DECEMBER 21, 1995 @ 8 : 30 A.M.
ORDER NO. 1066
. ,,,«, . , . .R .. "x'..,Ljeal•"4liK.lraltlli .1';
DEED OF TRUST
PARTIES:Thia Deed of Trust is made on FEBRUARY 22, 1995 ,among the Grantor, BRIAN EBERSTEIN AND PATI
EBERSTEIN IN JOINT TENANCY
("Borrower"),the Public Trustee of PITKIN
County.in the State of Colorado I"Trustee"1, and the Beneficiary, PAIN COUNTY BANK & TRUST CD.
whose address is 534 E. HYMAN AVE. — BOX 3677 ASPEN. CO 81612
("Lender").
CONVEYANCE: For value received, Borrower irrevocably grants and conveys to Trustee, in trust, with power of sale, the real estate described
below and all rights,easements,appurtenances,rents, leases and existing and future improvements and fixtures(all called the"property").
BORROWER'S MAILING ADDRESS: 6561 CLIr•F BROJK , DALLAS AS TX 75251
(Street/ (City) (Stets) (Zip Code)
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 0307 WEST FRANCIS STREET , ASPEN ,Colorado 81611
(Street) (City) )Zip Code)
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOTS F AND G, BLOCK 42, CITY AND TUWNSITE OF ASPEN,
COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF O LORADO
79 708 B-776 P-118 03/14/95 02:45P PG 1 OF 2 RFC DOC
SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CLERK & RECORDER 10. 0(71
located in PITKIN County, Colorado.
TITLE:Borrower covenants and warrants title to the property, except for encumbrances of record, municipal and zoning ordinances, current
taxes and assessments not yet due and
SECURED DEBT: This deed of trust secures to Lender repayment of the secured debt and the performance of the covenants and agreements
contained in this deed of trust and in any other document incorporated herein. Secured debt, as used in this deed of trust, includes any
amounts Borrower owes to Lender under this deed of trust or under any instrument secured by this deed of trust and all modifications,
extensions and renewals thereof.The secured debt is evidenced by(List all instruments and agreements secured by this deed of trust and
dates thereof.):
PROMISSORY NOTE DATED 2/22/95 IN THE AMOUNT OF 5990,000.00 IN THE NAME OF BRIAN AND
PATI EBERSIEIN
The above obligation is due and payable on FEBRUARY 22, 2000 if not paid earlier.
The total unpaid balance secured by this deed of trust at any one time shall not exceed a maximum principal amount of NINE
HUNDRED NINETY THOUSAND AND NO/100* * * * * * * Dollars($ 990.000.00 1, plus interest,
plus any amounts disbursed under the terms of this deed of trust to protect the security of this deed of trust or to perform any of the
covenants contained in this deed of trust,with interest on such disbursement.
❑Future Advances:The above debt is secured even though all or pert of it may not yet be advanced. Future advances are contemplated
and will be secured to the same extent as if made on the data this deed of trust is executed.
IVariabia Rate:The interest rate on the obligation secured by this deed of trust may vary according to the terms of that obligation.
❑ -
•py of the loan agreement containing the terms under which the interest rate may vary is attached to this deed of trust and
a.- a part hereof.
RIDE--. ❑commercial ❑ ❑
SI c ATURES By signin• •slow, -•rrower agrees to the terms end covenants contained d f trust,including those on page 2 and in
an ri•. re sig • by Bono er described above.Borrower also acknowledges rec • p f this d ed of true
lab I,
• T P•d I EBERSTEIN
ACKNOWLEDGMENT:STATE OF COLORADO, , County ss:
This instrument was acknowledged before me this 2Z - day of „4„........ 41/2,7
by BRIAN E BEIRSTEIN AND PATI EBERSTEIN
(TRio(s))
corporate or a�,401 100,1104, (Noma of Corporation or Partnership)
Partnership
Ef
Acknowledgment fa a_•••a•a•e �H on behalf of the corporation or partnership.
).•
Witness my hand end official seal.
My commission expires: �ij1 � U8 LTG ga, 0
MY CO s24 1 6yW/�a L �`�1 `(Not �' b((cl
October
tii11N COLORADO
®1985 BANKERS SYSTEMS,INC.,ST.CLOUD,MN 06301(1-800.397-23411 FORM OOP-MTG•CO 7 /91 (page 1 of 2)
� P•
2/22/95 UCC-1 UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE
FINANCING STATEMENT
1ST DEBTOR CHECK IF APPLICABLE
SSN/FED Tax ID .460-72-5920 Check One: ❑ Business ❑ This statement is to be recorded
a Personal in the real estate records ONLY.
Name Last,lstl .ESERSTEIN, BRIAN Li This statement is to be filed in real
Street .6561 CLIFFBROOK estate AND UCC records.
City, State, Zip .DALLAS, TX 75251 ❑ The debtor is a transmitting utility.
For Office Use Only
IIitl1111111111111.tt„1II,ItIIIIIIIlII1IItlttltttll
CLERK OF PITKIN COUNTY
380190 B-777 P-552 03/31/95 03:03P PG 1 OF
SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CLERK & RECORDER 10C D01
•
10. 00
Fold Here
2ND DEBTOR ❑ Additional debtor(s) on attachment PLEASE CHECK APPROPRIATE BOX.
THIS IS SIGNED BY THE
SSN/FED Tax ID .458-82-5202 Check One: fit Business SECURED STATEMENT
Y INSTEAD OF THE
❑ Personal DEBTOR TO PERFECT A SECURITY
Name (Last,tat) •EERS"I'EIN, PATI INTEREST IN COLLATERAL
Street .6561 CLIFFBROOK ❑ Already subject to a security
City, State, Zip .DALLAS, TX 75251 interest in another jurisdiction
when it was brought into this
state, or when the debtor's
1ST SECURED ❑ Additional secured party on attachment location was changed to this
PARTY state;
❑ Which is proceeds of the original
collateral described below in
which a security interest was
perfected;
Name (Last,1st) .P1T BANK & TRUST ❑ As to which the filing has lapsed;
or
Street . 534 E. HYMAN AVE. - BOX 3677 ❑ Acquired after a change of name,
City, State, Zip ,ASPEN, co 81612 identity or corporate structure of
the debtor.
Fold Here COLLATERAL CLASSIFICATION:
ASSIGNED PARTY ❑ Additional assigned party on attachment (Supply full description}
Accounts, Accounts Receivable
Name neat,rat, Fixtures
Street ❑ Proceeds
City, State, Zip Equipment, Machinery
(Collateral Description) ❑ Livestock, Farm Animals, Etc.
Et Contract Rights
SEE ATIACHED FOR BETE DESCRIPTION i51 Inventory
al Products
id Truck, Car, Vehicle
r - GENE' 10.TA GGIES
PIT - I,� U , Y BL
Debtor Signature(s) r'
ured Party Slgnatu esl
IN AND PPTT F�SF.R rnN S”) GAR Printed IV:-e( -- ——
S � •rimed Namela)
Tide MORMA LOAN OFFICER
Title
Mee.9/10/93)
Bankers Systems.Inc.,St.Cloud,MN f1.900-397-2341) Form UCC-1-LAZ-00 12/3/93
Original Copy-Filing Officer Second Copy-Secured Party
..
._ ,
. _,
PAIL 8RSIEIN --. . ' , .,-...
. . ... ,
c £ . C-a f S t r it + , .
., -,., _,,. - To whom it'"may concern:—
This letter is to certify that Bi11 :Lipsey of River
Studio Architects will be serving as our ag ent : in
application for a garage permit from the city :of
Aspen. Our property is located at 307' W.` Francis i n
the city of Aspen .' Please do not hesitate to contact
me if there is any further information -I can provide.
incerely ,
Pati : Eberstein
5 January 1996
(q-1o�54,4L.Ora2tj• •
t ,
s, 1
t. .5 t t
a t n '4,..,-,,,,'..,;,:,-..i..-;:,,,:,
r wtR �� N Y 7
fTS t
<t t TS
4 l'
A t d •
e. p
L ♦� Sf
a ,e:
DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION APRIL 11, 1996
Alstrom stated that in addition to our findings, DRAC can send recommendations
to other boards.
Amidon said the Planning Dept. is in the process of revising ord. 30, to try and
eliminate some of the problems it has created.
Vann said that section 7304, residential design standards 1) building orientation;
2) build to lines, primary mass; and on to number 6) is floor area. Vann stated that
FAR is clearly listed under the design standards.
Amidon responded that the volume issue is not listed and said this is long
standing, since ord. 30 has been written it has been understood that DRAC can't
vary on this issue.
Vickery asked if the garage space is in addition to the on site parking off the alley.
Lipsey said yes and they could not build an enclosed garage off the alley because
of set backs. Vickery asked if the board needed to seek legal advice on the FAR
issue. Amidon responded that she would meet with the Assistant City Attorney
for clarification.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Alstrom said that he wanted ord. 30 to be more of a design review committee
instead of a bunch of rules. Alstrom stated that this is a masterful example how
this house has been handled in the past and it is one of his favorite projects in the
West end, preceding ord. 30. Alstrom said the committee should look at the broad
reaching goal first, not the small issues, this is the first project that has come to
DRAC that is generally considered a good example of design fitting in the
community, he said he understands staffs criteria for evaluating solutions,
however looking at the site, in the past, to a pedestrian walking by, this house has
been a surprise. Alstrom said that a benefit of this garage will be that the flavor of
the house will be brought closer to the street and people will notice it more than
they would have otherwise. Alstrom said the board needed to respond to the
design review criteria and not just the rule book.
Mover stated that lie is not in favor of the project although he thinks it is a terrific
design, this house is an excellent example of infill, the garage is not an excellent
example of infill. Moyer said that prior to the design charett, there was a great
DESIGN REVIEW A_ WEALS COMMISSION - APRIL 11, 1996
deal of discussion, with community participation, concerning garages with
additions, it is a wonderful house, if you put the garage in, its a garage with an
addition. Moyer stated that one of the many neighborhood character guidelines,
that the public forum set up, was to get the garage off the street, and just because
the house to the East has a garage on the street, if you have one evil, you do not
create another. Moyer said that a garage is not a need, it is not something you
can't live without. Moyer also said that when you walk down the street the house
is a wonderful surprise, with a garage sticking out there it will not be a surprise.
Moyer stated that sometimes you have to give to get, and that is not happening
here, it's just asking for more, and everyone in Aspen comes in and asks for more,
this committee has not had a lot of sympathy towards that and he concurs with
staff, he reiterated that a garage is not a necessity and he respects Alstror's
comments and he respects the architect, the FAR issue is not one he wished to
discuss.
Vickery asked how far the face of the garage is set back from the property line,
Lipsey responded it is about 30' from the property line and about 50' from the
street. Vickery said in his opinion this house has a unusual sighting, and it would
be unrealistic to expect someone to move their house, remove existing retaining
walls, reconfigure spaces and windows to adapt them to a garage so that would be
located off the alley. He said the options of providing the garage off the alley had
been explored and he felt satisfied there are no viable options, he accepted the fact
that a single car garage is desirable and a necessary element in our climate.
Vickery said that because this is a single car garage, it has a lesser impact, and the
fact that the space is not required it is a voluntary situation. Vickery noted that
this calls for a tree to be removed and asked how big it is.
Lipsey responded that it is a 2' cottonwood and the applicant would have to go
through Parks to discuss mitigation on this so there is no net loss. Eberstein said
that the tree is not very healthy, the tree man said that the roots have grown into
the retaining wall.
Vickery did say that he was not in favor of moving existing trees. He said maybe
the driveway could curve around it, or come in at an angle, if you could leave the
tree there it may cut down on the visibility of the garage door.
DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION APRIL 11, 1996
thing to make new ordinances work for an existing structure. Vann said the prior
decisions were not made consciously to preclude a garage, but are the result of
several remodeling attempts on the building to address the various needs of the
people who owned it at the time.
Lipsey stated that there is not enough length given to get a legal size car in the
garage because of where the current retaining wall is, so the wall would have to be
demolished and some windows in the lower bedroom would have to be blanked
over in order to fit a garage in there. The garage would cast a perpetual north
facing shadow over the only outdoor space this house enjoys.
Vann said that assuming this owner or her predecessors made a conscious effort to
keep the scale of this building down, by not building up, it seems rough to
penalize them by saying they need to remodel the house in order to put a garage in
the back.
Lipsey stated that the site falls off quite a bit, one end of the site is four and a half
feet lower than the other end of the site, so the applicant is already halfway to
floor above the garage that would be completely below grade. Lipsey said the
garage would not have the kind of impact that ord. 30 was trying to prevent which
is made by a two car garage with an overhead garage door at grade. This garage
door would be a single car garage door below grade.
Vann stated that this would allow the applicant to add the garage without
increasing the building-footprint and without increasing the building FAR by a
significant degree, obviously there is no ability to recess the garage on the front of
the house a minimum of 10' behind the front facade. Vann stated that the house
next door has a double garage on the streetscape, the other criteria that it should be
a minimum of 50' from the rear cannot be done without substantial renovation to
the building, the lot is only 100' deep and could not be more than 150' from the
front yard, , the width of the lot does not permit a perpendicular garage in the front
yard set back, those are limitations imposed by the site and the footprint of the
existing building. Vann said that the applicant does meet a partial criteria that, the
width of the house must bey at least 5' greater than the width of the garage. Vann
stated that in regulatiyns'such as ord. 30, we should be looking at the substantive
impact'of the request not the specific letter of the law, and that is not to say that
we shouldn't apply our regulations and apply them fairly. Vann said that he
��ould ask the DRAC board to decide among themselves if the construction of
DESIGN REVIEW AY „ EALS COMMISSION -- APRIL 11, 1996
what is a modest garage, 100% below grade, that has no significant impact in
terms of FAR and does not significantly alter the footprint of the building, the
height of the building or any other aspect of the building streetscape in a
significant manner, warrants being denied under the criteria Staff has previously
mentioned.
Pat Eberstein, applicant stated that she loved the West end and waited a long time
for the opportunity to buy a house there, she said that she wanted to keep it
beautiful and everything she did, she felt was keeping with the area, the tours
come by her house all the time. Eberstein said she felt like she kept getting caught
in the "cracks" between one law being in effect and then another law or rule is
enacted. Eberstein stated that she is one of the little guys in the West end and sees
big monstrosities going up and she said it is very hard for her to look at it as being
fair.
Ramona Markalunas, public stated that the landscaping and the topography of this
lot on a hillside, it drops off so that there is almost a natural path for a driveway,
which is screened by the landscaping on the lot. Markalunas said the house sits so
far back on the lot, that you would have to be looking for the garage door to even
see it.
Lipsey stated that the existing house if figured under the old regulations was up to
the FAR, when figured under ord. 30, gives us over 100sq.ft. of FAR, if the
windows are not counted.
Mover asked Amidon to comment on the FAR issue.
Amidon stated that DRAC does not have the ability to grant the applicant relief
from the doubling of the FAR. DRAG only has the ability to waive the design
review standards, not issues related to FAR, and that is why it was recommended
that the applicant ask the Board of Adjustment for that relief.
Vann stated that is not very clear if you read the ordinance.
Lipsey stated that the BOA interprets regulations extremely literally an&they do
not consider aesthetic issues at all, they figure things mechanically and
mathematically, there is no area of interpretation with them, and there is with
DRAC.
DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION APRIL 11, 1996
Vice-Chairperson Jake Vickery called the meeting to order at 4:15p.m. with
members Roger Moyer and Sven Alstrom present. Members Steve Buettow and
Robert Blaich were excused and Marta Chaikovska was absent.
Alstrom disclosed the appearance of a conflict of interest, but felt he could still
vote on the issue, both the board and the applicant did not have a problem with
Alstrom staying seated.
MINUTES
MOTION: Moyer moved to approve the minutes of February 15,
1996. Seconded by Vickery. All in favor, motion carries.
Vickery opened the public hearing.
307 West Francis
STAFF COMMENTS
Amy Amidon, Staff stated that this is a proposal to construct a single stall garage,
partially subgrade, and accessed from West Francis Street. Amidon said there
would be variances requested from the Board of Adjustments, the slab for the
driveway is in the front yard setback, and they need an FAR bonus, in addition the
applicant is asking the Engineering Department to allow them to exceed the
maximum grade allowed for driveways. Amidon stated that there are four waivers
requested from ord. 30, A) if a driveway to a garage is below natural grade within
the required front setback, the resulting cut cannot exceed 2' in depth measured
from natural grade, B) all portions of a garage, carport or storage area parallel to
the street shall be recessed behind the front facade at a minimum l Oft., C) garages
below natural grade shall meet one of the following conditions: 1) either or all
elements of the garage shall be located within 50ft. of the real lot line, this is not;
2) all elements of the garage shall be located farther than 150ft. from the front lot
line, this is not; 3) or the vehicular entrance to the garage shall be perpendicular to
the front lot line, this is parallel, D) for single family homes and duplexes with
attached garages or carports, the width of the house must be at least 5ft. greater
than the width of the garage along the street facing frontage, the garage must be
set back at least l Oft. further from the street than the house, this does not. Staff
DESIGN REVIEW A_ : EALS COMMISSION APRIL 11, 1996
finds that none of the standards for a variance to ord. 30 are met, and recommends
that no variance be granted.
Bill Lipsey, Architect representing the applicant stated that he was the architect on
two remodeling of this property, the first remodeling attempted to keep the
victorian thread and connect it to the history of Aspen, the second was when the
applicant purchased the house, the addition was primarily to the rear of the house
with a basement structure under the addition. Lipsey said that in order for the
basement structure to have light there is a lightwell and a very small patio, he
stated that they did not want to add to the front of the house even though it is
house set back further from the street than any other house on the block, ironically
this house was pictured as an example of a project that showed how you could
build to the maximum FAR, of an existing house in the West end and not impact
the street. Lipsey stated that it is difficult to fit additions to older houses that have
a certain character and come under the umbrella of new ordinances, in this case,
ord. 30. Lipsey said that earlier decisions that went into the design of the house,
precluded putting a garage in the rear, and we did not anticipate nor set aside
space for a garage in the rear.
Sunny Vann, representing the applicant stated that the allowable FAR on this site
is approximately 3240sq.ft., if the FAR of the house is calculated under ord. 30, it
is about 3700sq.ft., it is that figure, because there are two windows in the house
that exceed a certain height and penetrate the wall, therefore triggering the
calculation of the rooms the windows are located in, at twice the normal standard.
Vann said that in this particular case, the windows do not appear to be the type of
windows ord. 30 was trying to regulate, they are not obtrusive from the street nor
do they have an adverse affect on the streetscape. Vann said the garage in
question is under a portion of the house, it would be substantially below grade and
as a result, under ord. 30, it includes about 95 to 96 sq.ft. of FAR, if the applicant
was not penalized for the windows, sufficient FAR exists to accommodate the
garage in question without a variance and without a 200' bonus for garages
located off the alley. Vann stated that he reads ord. 30 to say that DRAC has the
latitude to vary the guidelines as they apply, therefore it falls within your perview
to decide if this home should be penalized for those two windows. Vann said that
he would ask that DRAC,grant the relief on the assumption that this house has
been a good example of what ord. 30 architecture was trying i.o accomplish, Vann
also said that it is one thing to start with a clean stretch of paper and come up with
a design that meets the spirit and the letter of the regulation, it is quite another
DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION APRIL 11, 1996
Lipsey said that he misunderstood the ord., he thought the driveway could not
come in at an angle or have any bends in it and there may be a way it could curve
or come in at an angle.
Vickery said that the setting of this house, with the trees in front of it provides a
very unique experience for the pedestrian walking down the street, he does not
feel that this proposal hurts that experience. Vickery said that the driveway should
only be used for access to the garage, there should be no cars parked in the
driveway, and the garage door should be kept closed as much as possible. Vickery
stated in reference to the window standard, this board has not felt that was in their
perview, and he would like to see the staff suspend the application of this until this
is resolved, he said the garage is not a sensitive situation, mainly because this
garage sits back and is tucked in, the applicant and architect have used the
topography creatively to minimize the effect of the garage even though it does not
meet specific ord. 30 requirements. Vickery said he did not have a problem
waiving standards A-D, finding that in the standard for granting variances, C)
practical difficulty, has been demonstrated.
Vann said that he feels the volume standard as it relates to window and FAR, is
clearly outlined as part of the design standards and he finds nothing saying that
DRAC can vary all design standards. Vann asked Amidon to verify, with the City
Attorneys office, if this is would be the boards perview. Vann stated that he
appreciates the desire not to have garages on the street scape, but they are not
prohibited, and by not precluding it and providing standards for when they can
occur, it is assumed that in certain circumstances it would be acceptable.
Lipsey stated that this is kind of a secret house, people walk by for weeks without
knowing it is there. Lipsey said there is a design paradox, that when you drop a
Victorian streetscape from the East into a mountain town, the houses that face
away from Aspen mountain want to face to Aspen mountain so they put there
public rooms to the North, they not only lose the sunlight they are penalized
because that is where the ordinances say they should put there garages.
Eberstein said that she has noticed an increase in crime and has had the window
broken out of her car which she feels is unique to the West end because there is a
lot of service help. Eberstein stated that she has looked into storing the car and it
is not very practical and is expensive, she said that she does not really like garages
DESIGN REVIEW A '�ALS COMMISSION APRIL 11, 1996
in general and did not want to put one on this house, but this was the only place it
could be unobtrusive.
The applicant asked to table the hearing:
MOTION: Alstrom moved to table 307 W. Francis to Thursday
April 18, 1996, to determine the finding of the Design Review
Appeal perview on FAR. Seconded by Vickery. All in favor,
motion carries.
MOTION: Moyer moved to adjourn at 5:40p.m. Seconded by
Alstrom. All in favor, motion carries.
Li
Amy G. Schmid, Deputy Clerk
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Design Review Appeals Committee
FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer
DATE: April 25, 1996
RE: 307 W. Francis, Eberstein-Appeal from Design Standards
SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to construct a single stall garage, partially
below grade, facing the street. Waiver of Ordinance #30 standards, as
described below is requested.
In addition, the applicant must request a setback variance from the Board of
Adjustments due to the driveway slab being within the frontyard setback. The
Engineering Department must be petitioned to allow a driveway in excess of 12%
grade.
Through this project, Staff has clarified with the City Attorney's office that DRAC
does have the ability to waive the FAR penalty for "volume," windows in the "no
window zone." Given that this house has pre-existing windows which violate the
standard, staff could support this waiver.
PROJECT REVIEW PROCESS AND STAFF EVALUATION
The Committee may grant an exception to the design standards for any of the
following criteria:
a) yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community
Plan;
b) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or
provision responds to; or
c) be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site
specific constraints.
APPLICANT: Pat and Brian Eberstein, represented by River Studio Architects.
LOCATION: 307 W: Francis Street.
ZONING: R-6
STAFF COMMENTS:
I. Background - During staff review for compliance with Ordinance 30
Design Guidelines, staff indicated that the project was not in compliance with a
number of Ordinance #30 standards as well as zoning and engineer
requirements. The applicant has submitted an application for review and appeal
of the Design Standards.
II. Site Description - The property is 6,000 feet. The grade slopes
downward from west to east. The existing house on the site was substantially
remodeled in the early 1990's.
III. Waiver requested-
A. Standard: "If a driveway to a garage is below natural grade within
the required front setback the resulting cut cannot exceed two (2)
feet in depth, measured from natural grade."
B. Standard: "All portions of a garage, carport or storage area parallel
to the street shall be recessed behind the front facade a minimum
of ten (10) feet."
C. Standard: "Garages below natural grade...shall meet one of the
following conditions: All elements of the garage shall be located
within fifty feet of the rear lot line, or all elements of the garage
shall_be located farther than one hundred fifty feet from the front lot
line, or the vehicular entrance to the garage shall be perpendicular
to the front lot line."
D. Standard: "For single family homes and duplexes with attached
garages or carports, the width of the house must be at least five (5)
feet greater than the width of the garage along its street facing
frontage. The garage must be set back at least ten (10) feet further
from the street than the house.
IV. Recommendation -The committee has three standards for granting
variances:
a) yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community
Plan;
Staff response: The proposal is not in direct conflict with the AACP, nor
does it further any of its goals.
b) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or
provision responds to; or
Staff response: Ordinance #30, as well as other areas of the code, clearly
discourage having garage access from a street as opposed to an alley.
c) be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site
specific constraints.
Staff response: The only practical difficulty to placing the garage on the
alley are building improvements made by the property owner. A fenced in
patio at the rear of the property could be altered to accomodate a parking
space.
Staff recommends DRAG deny the variance request finding that none of the
variance criteria are met.
AGENDA
DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE
May 9, 1996
Regular Meeting
Basement, City Hall
4:00 I. Roll Call
II. Comments (Committee members, Staff and public)
III. New Business
4:05 A. 307 W. Francis
4:45 IV. Adjourn
REMINDER: THIS COMMITTEE MEETS THE SECOND THURSDAY OF EVERY
MONTH (IF NEEDED) AT 4 P.M.
DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION MAY 9, 1996
Chairperson Steve Buettow called the meeting to order at 4:15p.m. with members
Roger Moyer, Sven Alstrom and Robert Blaich present, Jake Vickery arrived late,
and member Marta Chaikovska was absent.
STAFF COMMENTS
Amy Amidon, Staff added to the agenda a brief worksession on a project that was
reviewed in the fall, Park Ave. Amidon said the Commission discussed the
orientation of the building because they aren't really off a street, the Commission
asked the applicant to come back with some elevations.
MOTION: Blaich moved to add the worksession to the May 9,
1996, agenda. Seconded by Moyer. All in favor, motion carries.
There were no members of the public present.
307 West Francis
Amidon said when we had this review in April there were three members present
and all three needed to concur to approve, the vote was 2 in favor and 1 opposed
so this application was tabled to get more members involved in the question.
Amidon stated that the minutes from that meeting were in the packet.
Buettow said that he had reviewed them carefully and asked Blaich if he had
reviewed them. Blaich responded that he had.
Amidon said that it has been determined that this body does have the ability to
waive the volume standard, which penalizes windows in the "no window zone",
this would alleviate the applicants potential FAR problem, if this Commission
waives that standard then they have enough FAR to do this project.
Sunny Vann, representing applicant said the specific variances requested, under
DRAC provisions are 1) the volume requirement, it is not an FAR request, but a
request to weigh the volume criteria; 2) driveway access;'3) the garage setback
and; 4) garages below natural grade.
1
DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION MAY 9, 1996
Bill Lipsey, architect said they are requesting to add a single car garage that takes
advantage of a natural change in grade that occurs in the middle of the property, it
is fairly minimal it is not a double car garage door on the streetscape. Lipsey
stated that they are doing it as tastefully as possible, they will have to remove a
Cottonwood tree and will work with the Parks Department on the mitigation.
Amidon stated that there are four standards that need waivers in addition to the
volume calculation.
Vann said there are several conditions that must be met if a garage is located
below natural grade, none of which can be met by this particular proposal. Vann
said all elements of the garage have to be within 50' of the rear lot line, they can
not do this, all elements shall be located further than 150' from the front lot line,
this lot is only 100' deep, and the interest of the garage is perpendicular to the
front of the house. Vann stated that it is important to note that this site is heavily
vegetated, so much that you can barely see the front door of the house from the
street, the majority of that will remain. Vann said he thinks these regulations are
designed to help guide development so we get a minimal amount of impacts to
preserve our neighborhoods, this represents a fairly sensitive way to incorporate a
garage, we ask the Commission to look at the design, perhaps give us input on
how it can be improved, and have an open mind in granting these particular
variances.
Blaich asked if the owners intend to sell this house, there was a `for sale" sign
posted. Lipsey responded it is not out of the question. Vann said it was listed for
sale, and the listing broker stated that it is no longer for sale, in talking with the
applicant it was for sale, but if they can solve this problem they would like to keep
the house Vann said clearly there is no guarantee it won't be for sale sometime in
the future. Blaich asked if we are dealing with a hardship for someone who will
be living there or are we dealing with a way to sell the house. Vann responded
that it's his understanding that we are dealing with a hardship for someone who
wants to live there.
Blaich said that the Cottonwood is 33", 90" circumference, he does not know what
the Parks Departments position will) be'on this. Vann said generally the Parks
Department has been more amiable to Cottonwood trees as opposed to Spruce and
Evergreens as well as cases when the trees themselves cause a hardship. Blaich
asked what the mitigation may be on this. Vann responded that there is two kinds
2
DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION MAY 9, 1996
of mitigation; 1) any mitigation that may or may not be required by the Parks
Department and; 2) any mitigation DRAC may require, not to compensate for the
loss of the tree, because that is really the Parks Departments perview, but what
mitigation is necessary for the impact of this garage on the front of the house.
Lipsey said there was some discussion of this tree at the previous meeting and as
the landscaping stands now, you can not see this house and if a tree or two is
removed people walking by would become more aware of the house and it may
contribute to more of the streetscape.
Buettow asked why the applicant does not want to put the garage in the back, off
the alley, clearly this looks as if it could be pushed directly in the back and on the
site visit he observed that there is a terrace in the area that could be put somewhere
else or even on top of the garage.
Lipsey responded that they did consider that, it is an obvious place to put it, if it
worked there, we did not think it worked there because the outdoor terrace is the
applicants only outdoor living area, it faces the sun, the southeast, it also faces
Aspen Mountain, sitting on the terrace they can see the mountain, Lipsey said if
the garage structure is built there that would be blocked, there is also a lightwell
structure that is too close to the alley to allow a legal parking space or garage
given the setbacks required for a garage, it can't be done without destroying that
lightwell, tearing down the retaining wall and moving it 6-8' to the north.
Moyer asked if these same owners did the last addition. Lipsey said yes. Moyer
asked why wasn't a garage discussed and put on at that time. Lipsey responded
that the applicant was not familiar with the winters here and the problems cars
have sitting outside for a long period of time without being started, they had a very
tight lot and they wanted to maximize their addition, in terms of the public rooms
being on the south side and so forth, those were more important, at that time than
having a garage.
Alstrom asked what the existing front setback is. Lipsey responded it's 22'.
Alstrom asked what the combined front and rear setback is. Lipsey said it would
be 33', combined, the new garage does not put the house any closer to the street
than it is now. Blaich asked if there had been a response from the neighbors.
Lipsey said they did not get any phone calls. Vann said that the applicant talked
with the neighbor to the east who was amiable.
3
DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION MAY 9, 1996
Jake Vickery was not seated at the beginning of the meeting, but did participate at
the previous meeting and asked if he needed to be seated prior to the vote.
Vann stated that they do not have an objection to Vickery voting on this matter, he
was at the last meeting, because Vickery was in the Planning office we elected to
go forward because he had heard the presentation.
Vickery was seated.
Alstrom stated that he felt the same and thinks that because this meets the front
and rear setbacks in the zone district it alleviates his concern, and based on this
application, when we deal with a remodel we should look at the ordinance
differently and develop some guidelines to do that. Alstrom said this is a good
application in the sense that it brings to the board questions that we need to
resolve about remodels, it is one of the classic, good remodels with broken down
massing and fitting the small context, he is in favor of granting this variance.
Alstrom stated that intent is not the same as the Board of Adjustment, he does not
think this board should look at their reviews like that but to help applicants
maintain examples of demonstrated, good architecture.
Blaich said that in the previous minutes, Moyer stated that "a garage is not a
need", he could agree with that in one level but he lives in this neighborhood and
would not want to live without a garage in the neighborhood with the build up of
snow and leaving the cars on the streets is not a good solution, many cars are left
on the street during the winter and the City does not do anything about them, they
plow around them and it creates a lot of problems. Blaich stated that we should do
anything we can to alleviate that, he thinks that one of the reasons for such a.
committee is to deal with design issues and he know that when a variance i ike this
is granted for one person, someone else will come along and ask for the same, that
is the risk with granting any variance.
Moyer said he thinks there are two issues; 1) the design issue, whether it is
applicable and; 2) Aspen is a business issue. Moyer stated that within a three
block area there are, what some call "monster homes", but what he calls homes
built lot line to lot line, basically they are garages with an addition, a good
example of that and why so many people who worked on the "Neighborhood
Character Guidelines", said lets get the garages off the street, is the house next
4
DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION MAY 9,_1.996
door to the applicant. Moyer said the house next door is a prime example where
the principal emphasis of the house is the garage, then the entry and then the house
behind it. Moyer stated that he said he did not see a garage as a hardship, he
thinks there is a need and told the applicant that he would love to have a garage
but could not put one in, the same owner did a previous addition and did not
address the garage, he thinks the tree is a big issue and if it's approved he thinks
the tree can be left and the applicant can drive around it and have something other
than a paved driveway. Moyer said that this is a real example that Aspen is a
business, people come in here, buy a house and add on to max out all the rooms
they can have, because it is a business, they are going to sell it, they go to the
Realtor and they want to ask the maximum price and the Realtor says "you don't
have a garage". Moyer stated that the Commission has to decide if they will deal
with,just the design issue, which is easy the design is great, or will we back up all
the people who spent hundreds of hours and the energy to stop this "madness",
even though this is a good design, it is still part of the garage on the street, and
that is basically why he voted against it.
Blaich stated that he understands what went into developing ordinance 30, he was
involved in it to a degree and the house next door is a good example of a house
none of us wants to see. Blaich said he does not know if the tree would survive
putting the driveway around it, as far as business in Aspen, he knows its a
business in Aspen that is why he asked, up front if this house is on the market and
is this something to solve the sale problem, he said that he trusts the integrity of
the two people representing the applicant.
Vann said there are certain realities of what has happened in this community, one
of them is that in the West end we have a lot of absentee people that live here and
think they are viable parts of the community because of what they do and they
participate in this community and he has always gotten upset when we lump them
all into one category as being "bad" for this town, after all we did this ourselves,
every regulation, every ordinance 30, every setback requirement exacerbates the
very problem we are trying to fix, every time someone buys a lot in the West end
the first thing they ask is how much FAR is allowed, and with very few possible
exceptions, they will build to the maximum FAR whether they need it or not
because it is an investment and they are protecting that investment. Vann said the
one thing they know about Aspen and Pitkin County is that the rules always
change and are always more difficult, whether it creates value for people, whether
it is being bought or sold to a certain extent really are not germane to a decision
5
DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION MAY 9, 1996
process, the issue is, is there sufficient flexibility within this type of guideline to
accommodate the "odd ball" situation, we are not going to get smaller houses
through the application of ordinance 30 hopefully, we will get houses that have
less impact, but the spirit of what those are intended to do, to reduce the impact of
a garage if it fronts on the street, can be met by this design.
Vickery apologized for being late and said he will stand on his comments on the
record, he thinks that the applicants request is reasonable and every effort should
be made to mitigate minimizing the impacts this situation would have on the
street. Vickery asked what is the width of the garage. Lipsey responded that it
will be 15'6" and the door will be a normal 8' door, the applicant has not decided
the surface of the driveway, it could be colored concrete, it could be textured,
there are a number of options and we're open to suggestions to make this as low
key as possible. Vickery suggested that the applicant look into the "California"
driveway which is two driving strips for the tires and in between is grass or some
other material and instead of retaining walls consider other methods of retainage
or slope treatment.
Lipsey stated that he would love to keep the tree and misinterpreted the ordinance
as saying that the garage has to be perpendicular to the street, meaning they
wanted the driveway to be perpendicular to the grid, he now realizes that the
garage doors were not supposed to be perpendicular to the street, so if there is a
way to leave the tree they would like to do that.
Blaich asked if the driveway could be 8' which would leave a way to embank that
or step it versus a sheer wall going down, snow removal will be the biggest
problem. Lipsey stated that he thinks it will have to have snow melt. Blaich said
that anything you can do to soften this thing to fit the rest of the house. Lipsey
responded that is a good way to do it, keep the driveway narrow and slope the
sidewalls as much as possible.
Alstrom seconded Vickery's comments on mitigation and he would be on Moyer's
side of the fence if this was a new building because he agrees with the tenant of
ordinance 30, but he feels sensitive to the remodel issue here, to him this is a
special case that does not establish precedent nor does it change the rules of
ordinance 30.
6
DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION MAY 9, 1996
Moyer concurs with Vickery on the mitigation and suggested the language of the
motion deal with the tree, materials, and direction of the driveway so when
walking down the street and see a tunnel going into the house which will take
away from what has been done architecturally.
Vickery said it would be desirable to restrict parking on this driveway in the front
yard setback.
MOTION: Blaich moved to approve the variances requested
with the following conditions:
1) the applicant will narrow the driveway wherever possible;
2) will use appropriate driveway materials;
3) maintain the tree, the driveway may have to curve around it;
4) landscape appropriately to help soften the driveway;
5) limited use of driveway, no full time parking on the driveway,
no parking in the front yard setback.
Seconded by Alstrom.
Discussion:
Amidon stated that in addition to the variances requested, they
need a waiver from the volume standard.
Blaich amended motion to include waiver of volume standard.
6) waiver of volume standard.
Motion carries 3-2 with Alstrom, Blaich and Vickery voting yes.
Buettow and Moyer voted no.
7
•
Aspen/Pitkin Community
Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen,Colorado 81611
(303)920-5090 <I J a-3 �3
V735- 13‘L --
City Land Use Application Fees:
00113-63850-041 Deposit _
-63855-042 Flat Fee
-63860-043 HPC
-63875-046 Zoning&Sign Permit
- MR011 Use Tax
County Land Use Application Fees:
00113-63800-033 Deposit rJ . ::`J!7 C
-63805-034 Flat Fee
-63820-037 Zoning _.
-63825-038 Board of Adjustment
Referral Fees:
00113-63810-035 County Engineer _
00115-63340-163 City Engineer
00123-63340-190 Housing
00125-63340-205 Environmental Health _
00113-63815-036 County Clerk
Sales:
00113-63830-039 County Code
-69000-145 Copy Fees
Other
Total �,
Name: ( F ? v? .:r- Date:/-/ - Check//i('?
Address: � jr,.r Project.
Cased: fly-%
} Phone: `j r' i C;c No.of Copies