Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.775 Cemetery Ln.A007-02 ~ CASE NUMBER PARCELID# CASE NAME PROJECT ADDRESS PLANNER CASE TYPE OWNER/APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE DATE OF FINAL ACTION CITY COUNCIL ACTION PZ ACTION ADMIN ACTION BOA ACTION DATE CLOSED BY r) A007-02 2735-122-09019 7.75-777 Cemetery Lane DRAC 775 Cemetery Lane James Lindt DRAC Variance Chet Winchester- Yoki Weiman Gretchen Greenwood 4/16/02 Reso. #12-2002 Approved 4/23/02 J. Lindt r'1 () , i;? ~ r~ DEVELOPMENT ORDER of the 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, "V"sted 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 facade. 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. ~ 1 Ie Aun Woods, Community Development Director . ;iJi f\, n MEMORANDUM To: Planning & Zoning Commission acting as the Design Review Appeals Committee THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director~ FROM: James Lindt, Planner S'L-- RE: 775 and 777 Cemetery Lane Garage Variances- Continuation of April 2nd Public Hearing DATE: April 16, 2002 ApPLICANT: Chet Winchester and Joachim Weimann PARCEL ID: 2735-122-09-019 ADDRESS: 775 and 777 Cemetery Lane ZONING: R-I5 (Medium Density Residential) CURRENT LAND USE: 15,002 sq. ft. lot containing a duplex tmder construction PROPOSED LAND USE: The applicant proposes to construct a double two-car garage in front of the existing duplex with the garage doors facing the street. In order to do so, the applicant is seeking a I Variance from the Residential Design Standards garage location requirements. The applicants are also requesting a Variance from the Residential Design Standards to allow for double stall garage doors on both units. (See Exhibit A for a description of the specific standards.) PROCESS: All applications for appeal from the Residential Design Standards of Section 26.410 must meet one of the following review standards in order for the Design Review Appeal Committee to grant an exception. namely the proposal must: a) Yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan; b) More "ffectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or c) Be clearly necessary for reasons offaimess related to unusual site-specific constraints. f\, n 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, the garage or carport may be forward of the front fa~ade 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 plarls 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 t e ara e doors still look,ed like garage doors. Several of the Commissioners requested that the Applican oors that do not give the appearance of being garage doors. Additionally, the Commission requested that the Applicants explore utilizing grass pavers and/or providing additionall<mdscaping 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 tp.at the Commission expressed at the April 2nd meeting. .Ihe. A licant has changed the garage doors to try and look as much Ilike the facade of the structure as pOSSI e. e Icant additional shrubbery and . andscaping withm 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 ,....." n 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 20d Meeting. The landscaping that is proposed within the front yard setback bett"r 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. T2.., 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 \> \7 ~{\ '(fl~ ,~'vv / \ -; G~f' ~) ~ / 3 i 1': f L r (""'1 I'") REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS SECTION 26.410 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS EXHIBIT A 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 Parkin!!;. Gara!!;es 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 fiet in size, the garage or carport maybe forward of the front far;ade 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 Findin!!; 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 standardl in question; or, i , , \ 1 i , ~ , 4 ;- i "......" r-) Staff Finding Staff finds that the proposed garage is allowed to exist in front of the front fa9ade of the house because it is on a lot greater than l5,000 sq. ft. However, as indicated in the standard, it must be side loaded as illustrated in the diagram above. The appliicants 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 rlelated 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 r-J n 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 J ~j I) Jf ~. ..111 g! IJiJl ~ -,0 ~ .- it... ~ ~ i ~ ,./ ~ 1rztJ,-: . # .. ~ 4111-.. .. . ~"':;.A . ~" r" . . ~ . . .$ ~ ~ - -----_:..- ~ , p . ... ~~. - . : ~ :. ~'. .1L .~~~ :. . ~~~ ~ : ~''-J .~. ". '. . ~ . -~ _\ ,~ ~ -- '-CD ~(J CDi ..-5:2 cf/) .- CD . 3: a; . . f" t .- . ,~ <::::! ~. l . 28 to CD .i'l ;: ex: . . . . i ! . I '. I . ~ S' 'o' _.~ . . .' ..1 , G- . . : .' , . . . . f"'\ b :r aUn !.lJedoJ~r .~. . . a . . I' .' . . : .' ~ + .. . ';1, ~ . . . .' J .1 i I . . I ~ '/:;';-~- . J -., 1"'., r, (\ I . . LJIH .Il5: ~ ~h ,J ..(1.1 . ,'"'I '\I nl ~ IWI ., ~~b\:l A IHI '\-r't :,Lr d (~f:=; ~ Wr~W IHI' D rF~1 . - ~I Il;;~ . "" N. . . . . ' t-- ~. L l~ 'liM' -,- ~l' ~.c.c ~ ~~ ~ I I /' _ ~,eE Q) g g c Cl U) Oc ~ (j) :s 0, ._ '0 en c ..... ~ 1= = =11I .1= :=i II'" 'In ~ I=: = LI ~ nn . IYfJ 1ft. .~ ,I....... -. ~ +-; u ~ /-lJ "" "" n ~cf--< .//, ~- ..~~ ~ "\. U ,[II . '\111 (!:p - ~~ ~ LJ ..s:: N Q 0 ~ 0 ~ eN U) "LtJ) ~. s... <I- ~ ..... . ~ .....z Q ~ s... ~ ..s:: U ~. s:: ~ -1 ~ ~ ~ ,~ E ~ U t'-- t'-- t'-- - 1.0 t'-- t'-- ^~-._",-'~~", ^'<<,...,C.-r"':,"~;.;:::,:':i7"!'c<17"'~""'~"'~":"'~-' I.w. I H\. "-Y " ,...~'"".,,'....a.-"u.'. rr 1 ~ rR. q=7 . '..., <S6, . ~ .~n r I ~AJ ..... \: 1. ~ ;t:~-~ .-1- .c 0 .c .- ell ... 0 E - Q)' ell Q) E 0 c - Q) 0, U) > -, 3: Q) Cl 0 C C '0 0 .- C "C - 0 ~ fI) " 1:1:'1 \'-~ If1\; ~. ^ r~~ '. rr "l.) ~~ , ~ TII m m .+H . == ~~ ,. ,.. )-~ '. ~ ~~ .~ n~~'..L~ . Inl ~ - m ~ . j~H mrn (\ 'ij{ ~ ~l 'I m1 11I1.f - r---- ,. I, I: en (.) s;::. en ~ .- ~ en 'l)l s;:: s: ~ . E c.il:'il! z '.~ ..... __ ,l! '" C/)fl,..... 'U. "'_!! ~ \00.- <(;: . ... ~::: U e~ , 01:;0 ~ .gg . < ~. ~ w~ en o.~ ." z,: ....... .( Z~ \S) Z z~ < ...1Il en ;:;'Ut ..s:: ~ :.: ~ fII!i K,r! (.) ." .'01 r- .., uJr ~ JlJ~'i ~ ellt. ~ ~j!J /' ~ r') r~ 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 v1;uccinctlY identify why, if granted, the exception would: G _ Yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community r/ ~ Pl~md. (-t- More effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision ~~ Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. ~ , r'\ MEMORANDUM () To: Planning & Zoning Commission acting as the Design Review Appeals Committee THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director~ FROM: James Lindt, Planner .::::-:s-L-- RE: 775 and 777 Cemetery Lane Garage Variances- Continu21tion of April 2nd Public Hearing DATE: April 16, 2002 ApPLICANT: Chet Winchester and Joachim Weimann PARCELID: 2735-122-09-019 ADDRESS: 775 and 777 Cemetery Lane ZONING: R-l5 (Medium Density Residential) CURRENT LAND USE: 15,002 sq. ft. lot containing a duplex under construction PROPOSED LAND USE: The applicant proposes to construct a double two-car garage in front of the existing duplex with the garage doors facing the street. In order to do so, the applicant is seeking a Variance from the Residential Design Standards garage location requirements. The applicants are also requesting a Variance from the Residential Design Standards to allow for double stall garage doors on both units. (See Exhibit A for a description of the specific standards. ) PROCESS: All applications for appeal from the Residential Design Standards of Section 26.410 must meet one of the following review standards in order for the Design Review Appeal Committee to grant an exception, namdy the proposal must: 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 si1!e-specific constraints. t""') n 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, the garage or carport may be forward of the front fa~ade ofthe 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 pl:m (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 fa~ade 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 I""'; n 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 20d 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): "] 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 I') () 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 fat;ade 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 AACPj 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 standa.rd in question; or, 4 (""'; n Staff Finding Staff finds that the proposed garage is allowed to exist in front of the front fa9ade of the house because it is on a lot greater than 15,000 sq. ft. However, as indlicated in the standard, it must be side loaded as illustrated in the diagram above. The appliclmts propose two front loaded garages, thereby requiring a variance from Residential Dtlsign 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 rellated to unusual site specific constraints. Staff Finding The subject lot is flat and contains no ,unusual site constraints. Stafffeds 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 thtl 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 standa.rd 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 ^ 1_' 1--'0 tr'( t{AO ~(~ Vvrn Ctl U i(. Lj 7; r;; 10 ..L -'b ~ MEMORANDUM Ce,l;1f(~u.. c.c 7-0 to oj~WL -ttl-e.Wl &-0 C0~1? ~C;tr Planning & Zoning Commission acting as the Design Review Appeals CO,Rmittee( ~ p JJ,iI\l ~ Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director 9 V /J J ~,~ ~ Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director J- fl- ;J""'- I\i~ James Lindt, Planner <1l-- \ ,.?/"\ \ l To: THRU: FROM: RE: 775 and 777 Cemetery Lane Garage Variances- Continuation of March 19'h Public Hearing DATE: April 2, 2002 ApPLICANT: Chet Winchester and Y oki Weiman PARCEL ID: 2735-122-09-0l9 ADDRESS: 775 and 777 Cemetery Lane ZONING: R-l5 (Medium Density Residential) CURRENT LAND USE: l5,002 sq. ft. lot containing a duplex under construction PROPOSED LAND USE: The applicant proposes to construct a double two-car garage in front of the existing duplex with the garage doors facing the street. In order to do so, the applicant is seeking a Variance from the Residential Design Standards garage location requirements. The applicants are also requesting a Variance from the Residential Design Standards to allow for double stall garage doors on both units. (See Exhibit A for a description of the specific standards. ) PROCESS: All applications for appeal from the Residential D(:sign Standards of Section 26.410 must meet one of the following review standards in order for the Design Review Appeal Committee to grant an exception, namely the proposal must: a) Yield greater compliance with the goalls of the Aspen Area Community Plan; b) More effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or 6+e1JC2- t -- hC)'f'o..s5Cf)rer~ - cre:or9 ~ .~S~ I, (] c) Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. - ~\;~\<v, ~ ; 1MpGd- 0(' ~iJi'JSfJI . VeJOl/'7 e>f1\v+ - ,0 . I" 11 V\ \ v-A. I ?::--~../ .~ ; tIIpaGf r'\ rJ 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 front fa~ade 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 ofthe 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 applicimt 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 rf:viewed 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 ~ n 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 19'h. 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 , ~ f\, f REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS SECTION 26.410 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS EXHIBIT A The Design Review Appeal Committee (DRAC) may grant relief from the Residential Design Standards at a public hearing if the variance is fOWld 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 ca~orts 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 far;ade 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 complian(:e 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 r1 'J Staff Finding Staff finds that the proposed garage is allowed to exist in front of the front fayade 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 appli'~ants 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 relat€,d to unusual site specific constraints. 5 t) CJ 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 - ~ fif~ - - j~j . III !U). jsl ,-,. .5 i~ . t!:1 ! cl-' U) 8.,.:~ 1~"''i GifO~l ~.tB'cWl5. II) Q) ~ t- <I> o 2 0. (/) Q) ;:) ffi Ol c:: ~ dj -..-,-'.~___"_...,_w._" -'"-------~''',..~,.".,.,., .. . . . ~ ~ } ~p,. :.. ,-, . +. '-<I) .$C) ooc (1)<1) "c-o C).- COO .- <I) 3;: a: . ~ c w. . I"" <I) CC) CC <<1(1) E:E 'CD ~ ~a: . 1"". b ,. aun ~adOJ~ r II) m t- ~ c% Q) ;:) III Ol c 1il dj .'- \\Ole,) ~ - .... ~A... . . "'I.r;:, # ~ ~ ~ /)J f)O' ". ..; ~ 1:: III ~ ~ III . C- . ~ - . ~ '0 .~ () : .~ . . . . -g . . ~ , C- . , .' . .' .' . .' . .' . . '. l' ~ . . . .' . .' . . . .' ,. , t a. ~ .I d: ,. t>> t\i Cl) K:fij --l t~ Q Cl) ~~ ]E \\l,Cl) --1<...) .2t"- ~t"- ~t"- ~- ~~ ~t"- .,.; c ~ ~ OJ E 0 0 fig ~ .. ...-... - Cll C'i~tti 0.. 0.. CII c +it- 'lii ~ Ill! ._ I (j) E ~.i8 <( - .e ;g~ 0 .5 ~&t~ ~ nu () I"'" . B v . . Ol c '5. .. C a.. >- Cll ! en i~.Q () (j) "0 l<cal c Gi o~l j "0 "'0~12! OJ 0...._ Co (j) za..o 8. e 0.. . . ..0..6 - '.' ""'\, t. (, I () ~ CD CD I - C,,) I Cl.) (/) c: 6 s;: CD CD . \\'l .J::-o . .. ....I C,,).- < >> c:(/) ~ .- CD >>'- ~a: '3~ ::s Cl.) ~ E ~ Cl.) . >>u ~ I \\'l l'- ~ c 1- -0 l'- w ;/ Cll l'- // e .- S- ....... / D LO / / l'- / l'- / . / CD c: C,,) _I c:c: (tj~ E.- 'CD ~ ~a: ~ r'i -~~. " . ~~j ~ ~11~ () 8 ~l'l ~ 'Il~ j ill .c ~. ). ia ~ ~ II 0.. OJ ~ .- ~lh In ~ ~- a~ ~ 8- e .... 0.. ~ . . (' $ \ f ~ . -+= aU!1 >\oaqtas f""'\ .. , ", aU!1 AJ,JadOJd 'p.~ I -. 'co . eLl ..... -.. 1 111I I~ u.J -I co <( , 0 'II 0 0 -I 0 0 ,~ 0 - 0 0 0 <( I I I Z :r:: X > > > > ;1"'""\ u u u <( CO CO CO U"l ...J <( - Cl::: u... ~ m mill ;~ ~ ~ U. r CL.. l. N N ~ M <C m ";t mil ";t m~ '<t ~l M u. (-\ N N N N I I \1' I 0:: z :r:: /~ z r > > > - </l </l ,./ '...., 'Vl V) r..I co co co co ~ ~III ~M : ".' ....:>, .... .... ..- , ~ ";t ~II ";t ~~ ";t i N N N I I I Z I X > > > </l </l " .</l co co co .lrg1 o I~'~ 0 --~~ ~ , !!. co I I 111I o 0 ~ III ~ co co ;1"'""\ .,-..., <-' ~ ffi a. Q) E C\r g Q 0 ~ .::: 10_ .... -.. ~ ~ C'i~tII 0.. CII :O:lI- 'lU c: l'CI! ._ I ! E j.ij (j) <( o lj: '0 C 0 .- ~.t"C .~ fJ!~ () f""": . ~ . Ol ~ ~J!.9 c: '0. "CQ.>o (\l en i,.:,g 0 (j) !c(c'i "0 c a; o~1 j "0 "o~l" Q) 0..._, a. (j) ZQ.(,) 8. e 0.. . f""", C]) C(,,) CC ca~ E.- .- C/) C])C]) ~a: . += SUn >to~qlas f""" .. aun AuedOJd '- . . ;/ / ;/ / -0 ;/ (\l / e / // '0 Q) € Q) $ / .8- e 0.. ;/ ;/ ,/ ..c 1il 0.. ~ Co m 8. e 0.. ~ . ,.... cu . s:: . \'\'S <.....\ ~ :;., >,L 1~ ~ E (j) cu :;.,U \'\'Sf:'- ~f:'- ~f:'- 1.. _ Dlr) f:'- f:'- ~ i Iii .~ ~~ J ~W h ~~'i ~ ~'Il~ ~ Jl~ ..c ~Il. ~ ~ II 5: ~ tt~ ::> c,:l] ail ~ ~ s: (\'i. <.....I ~ >> >>L \S ~ ::3 ~ ~ E m ~ >>u (\'it--- -0 ~t--- ;- t'll .~ t--- / e ,/ L-.. / Dtn ,./' t--- ,/ t--- / / / E ". o C'l g ~ ltl_ C=~"'tti of! III ;0- 'lO l'Cl! ._ El'Cl.ig ,2..JlI:(I) c~o< .- ai~ ~l-o ~ ~ 5j(l) li ~j ~ ...en.;., in ~..: J:l j<i:al Gi8.0E~ "'o~l'" 0...._ a. zn.O .,..; c: E t t'll a. OJ a ~ t'll 11. c: ~ (f) <( - o .~ () >-. .0 OJ c: '0.. l'Cl g "0 C j "0 OJ (f) 8. e 11. I . . . . . . uO-.6 t. '-Q) .$0 ooc Q)Q) ..c:-o 0.- COO .- Q) ~a: .,. " . . . c;~;)-- . ~ ... c W . Q) Co CC ct1~ E.- .- 00 Q)Q) ~a: . --- +: eU!1 >joeqles :!J. .1'-0" .. eU!1 AlJedoJd .c iii 11. ell ~ III al. ~ ~ 11. " - . . (' i,",\ ~ i ~Jli ;: N~ h~h ~ ~'Il~ l ~j~ ~ ~ Ii -- ~jh ~ ~!ai! .,.; ~ 1:: C/) ~ Q) ~ ~ ~C) t- ~ ~ ~ (1l 2 ~ .... a.. 0. . ~ C/) . . Q) ~~ ::;) 1i5 <( 01 '0 c ~ ~ r.:) 0 . 'x I . LU .~ ~ + . .[ . r ~ . ~ . ~ /)1 f)O. -m . ~ . a.. . . . ~ CIi' ... Itl Ii! ... - fej. 1ii'!(/) Isf f'. 'tin I c~..l CiS 8. .~ l~i'i ! o~l ~~tla , . . . /""",, ~ + .' ~, P ," . t. - -------- 1oooQ) .$0 ooc Q)Q) ,C"O 0.- COO .- Q) ~a: . -~ c w . : -.. . . Q) Co CC (1jQ) E"O 'CD .~ ~a: . . I \ .' ' ." ""' b ;. sun AiedOJ~r ~ ~ I a: . . . .' ~ t- ~ 2 c% ~ ffi 01 C 1il ;H ,. . ,. ,~ _s;:: a.... (is ...l t~ I.) Q) \S)~ ~.E~ s;:: \\1 ~ -10 .2t' ~t' \\1t' E- ~LO ..s;::t' ~t' . n . . n ~~:,,} "'- .. r') n . "'- . I"'"', ("")1 , ,->. 26 AASHTO-Geometric Design of Highways and Streets THIS TURNING TEMPLATE SHOWS THE TURNING 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. , , " , , , , , , ,/ , ' '.' " , , , " ./~/.~"'-----~~ ~ . ... "'::::~"'" '. " ,~.~ ......... ~... ''"---4n. ,/' '>/ I ~ :.,,& q .\~>,"'''''''' I' '/ AtvlfV~ ~/ \, -', ~ '-' R... _t-.;/ .. / "IDf/JS 'v 45. '5' MAX'. : \ , , , , , , " , , , , , .....t{-.::_-- , , II I r ~' " ,'. 0 .' .' tS? / / ,/ " , ,o@, .,o ~" ___ ...",,..' ........... " " " / ,. / --- / --~;v=:--.._--- -...- ------- .-' ----- ". ~ -_....----~,~:------------------------- ,', , ' , , , , , " ,\ 't', ---",.......... , , , , , , , , , , , , " " '-......... ~;.o:............ ...... .. 0 ... "''''''' .~J " -\-,J ~~ , , " , " " ,,, , , , ' , " , , , ' : ... ~" I .. ~ " : '. 00 " I \, , " , " , ' , " " , , , , , : r;- , 0 , 0 , , '0 30 40 I 20 o ~ SCALE IN FEET Source' Texas State Department of Highways ~Jnd Public Transportation Figure 11-3. Minimum turning path for BUS design vehicle. ~ 22 AASHTO-Geometric Design of Highways and Streets ~\\l _t ~ 1;=i8= '" "' :;;:~03=~ "' " ." " =: =..c"''"O Q,I :;: '" " ~u;o::~== -0 a:: ~= =~ .... 5i;..='iij ~ '" '" <fJU=: ~.- ~~~~~ ,.; "" " ~~ ~ ~ ~ ;a= '" " :'; iii = <lol' ..:. Q,I "'~ s,s! s= oil '" ,- .. ~'aQ,.Q~~ "" U " :2 .!!..:.a:: "" .. '" ,... > .e-e=; oil '" 6 "' t: F:~F: " '" '" . 'iji ~ \\I.':' t . ~Ee:; i;; "' 8 .. oil ... '0 ~r:t:l~t=: " '0 to G,l.':' t . .f:l~e= ~ " '6 =-Q,l= oil ... ,,; as .....i.lJCI1~ " ~ .... "'~ '" :;s t: 's.!!=.!!':: =: '" 'c ._~.-.c <:> oil ~ N \\If =5-::: ~ 00_ f=o " '" ::l ;,U - '.:..!ii = ~ '" E " " '" ::l ~h; 5'S; oil ... ::i E cn=8-~ " 'c ..:. t ~~ '" ~ ... '" e=1l~ oil '" ~ ... Q,li::=\\l " i.IJ........ 8 = "- [g '" N .5:!"Srg ~ '" :!: ~B'" '" m ::i N .= < .( 00 .. 2:::- '3 8 :is .!!- '" ... .5< ~ B ~ ~f8 ~ El '" ;\ 'S 8.E.~ oo=-= ... ... I:: "0 '" g.s;:< ,S;!_~ "g'* lih g ~ ;J< ;J'! I:tl'S I:,j iil <:;! '" ~;;l~ '" ~.~~ 8- " g ~ ~ ~ r" '" ~ Qo 8.~F: ..~ .. .,; ~~~8 liiU - .~ ~.~ ~ " .!! ~ .!!8.s:!b5 ." .S .~..;s.;,!~ .S ~"~ .. '" . , . ~ 8 S 8., >!!:."'f-< c" '0 ~ = gp ,- ~< Sor.t.l .... .. 8- ~~.~~ .~~ 8 :S'~'E- '8 . ....:.a ~,,- Q >, ::E'l>;::I4:: ;as . '" "'-- . (\ (\ AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 9,?-5-77::; ~rn..eI0)1 !h.i 3 / if! Y / I , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: ,2002, STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) J... '" I 1.~ ItJt! ~ ({,.hl? I, -:, ",,~f2I',ye,. (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 of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section ofan official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. ~ Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide ;ji<'<l>a~dtwenty'si~ (26} inc~es high: and :vhich was composed ofletters not i'{'s-~'less, than one i'J1,',C, h In height. Said notice was posted at least ten (l~dayS t " prio;;o th~bl,iC hearingJ-lld was continuously visible from the da.y of , 'i tv!-. ,', ,200k, to and including the date and time of the public ': hearin . A holo ra h 0 the osted notice si n is attached her t 1'\ 1'\ .0..---,".---'''" 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 stifficient legal description of, and tlle notice to and listing of names and addresses of 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. . '~".4~ )Y4:k~- Si rtL The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this) <1 day of ~"r ---L-.. ,200,,2, by "l'66../:R ~ W~/\--...- WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires:bf' J ..:L3 7 ~OD 3> ) ) Notary Public ATTACHMENTS: COPY OF THE PUBLICATION PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL A GENCIESNOTICElJ BY NL4IL \ ) j .,c.. MAR-04-2002 MON 09: 56 AM,,~ '- FAX NO. .~, P. 03 1. CITY OF ASPEN 130 S GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81611 2. DANKS LAURA 845 CEMETERY LN ASPEN, CO 81611 3 HOMEYER EVE 810 CEMETf!RY LN ASPEN, CO 81611 1..\ BLACK BETSY P PO BOX 3904 ASPEN, CO 81612 5 SCHWARTZEDWARDHREV TRU 135 S LASALLE ST CHICAGO, II, 60603 <'0 WALL CHARLES R 188 E 70TH ST NEW YORK, NY 10021-5170 WEIMANN JOACHIM J & RENAl 775 CEMETERY LN ASPEN, CO 81611 1- ZANIN F AMIL Y INVESTMENTS 00308 MC SKlMMlNG RD ASPEN, CO 81611 ~ ORE BUCKET ASSOCIATES CONNERY ROUERT T C/O PO UOX 8749 DENVER, CO 80201 q CARRIS SANDRA L TRUST NUM 735 CEMETERY LN ASPEN, CO 81611 10 RED BUTTE CEMETERY POBOX 194 ASPEN, CO 8161 1 II JBL KEYSTONE LLC POBOX 8355 ASPEN, C081612 12. 20 BEERMAIULYNC 1443 DAHLIA ST DENVER, CO 80220 21 STERTZER EUANE C PO BOX 2746 ASPEN, CO 81612 HALL J DENNETT & CURJSTIN Z2 KENDALL PfITLLlP A 1227 ALTA VJSTALN#2 1915 WOOD AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 80907 l3 ESARY GARY S PO BOX 8725 ASPEN, CO 81612 23 ENGLANDER ALAN S TRUST 323 RAlLROAD A VB GREBNWICH, CT 06836 1 L\ STRICKSTElN FAMILY TRUST 24 HAMBE CAROLYN 12599 E SILVER SPUR 790 CASTLE CREEK DR SCOnSDALE, AZ 85259 ASPEN, CO 816 I 1 )5 GLEASON AUSTIN W & GEORGE 2900 HEARNE AVE SHREVEPORT, LA 71103 WINCHESTER ROBERT P PO BOX 5000 SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 Ib KOPF CAROL ANN & DONALD 25 ROWLANDS DONNA K W REVOCABL PO BOX 956 770 CEMETERY LN ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 17 HUDSON FRASHER ANN 616 TEXAS ST FORT WORTH, TX 76102 1~ CALLAHAN JOHN E CALLAHAN CYNTHIA A 750 CEMETERY LN ASPEN, CO 81611 /q HUTTON ROBERT C 725 CEMETERY LN ASPEN, CO 81611 2.'=> OBRIEN MERLE JABLIN & TIlO 745 CEMETERY LN ASPEN, CO 81611 2"1- DRUIlDlNG WILLIAM L & mOM 735 CEMETERYLN#B ASPEN, CO 81611 -- p~v !'?JtppVViJ(J~~~~~TlI\ {Jj C{V\ ____ &~ hA C7j'-~- ,V A , J oolf" MEMORANDUM ~ _h' L '~4~,z1 ot ~ ColAO IT 10 ds~ I<fi Pliiicing & Zoning Commission acting as the Desig:Revi~t Appeals committe~~ ~c V\ n'1~ ~ U /) _ QG~~ {/OOwfd~ COl,0 ,e)v;t_'l::Y'lHRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director +0 0 -e-- 0lA.ft-'\ (beu "./ -:;.;-/ ~,Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director _;D O~J/I .' I A 10 () V --I/CC) " ""-1 ill. C)\ /11.. q/"0 J {II 0 ( ~ Vl 1, .1' \ Fil5M: James Lindt, Plann~ door -70- e? rqgQG' CJ 1/\ ~DV ~~ I ;, II p<?\.Vl\ Iv\~ . \ U RE: 775 and 777 Cemetery Lane Garage Variances 00 (' /1/\1.( <- ~-(tlJ-tl s ~ .~-::"d ' ~ '(0Q::ff~i/'- 1 V\. (? V'q {/iZf7( To: DATE: March 19,2002 ApPLICANT: Chet Winchester and Yoki Weiman PARCEL ID: 2735-122-09-019 ADDRESS: 775 and 777 Cemetery Lane ZONING: R-I5 (Medium Density Residential) CURRENT LAND USE: l5,002 sq. ft. lot containing a duplex under construction PROPOSED LAND USE: The applicant proposes to' construct a double two-car garage in front of the existing duplex with the garage doors facing the street. In order to do so, the applicant is seeking a Variance from the Residential Design Standards garage location requirements. The applicants are also requesting a Variance from the Residential Design Standards to allow for double stall garage doors on both units. (See Exhibit A for a description of the specific standards. ) PROCESS: All applications for appeal from the Residential Design Standards of Section 26.410 must meet one of the following review standards in order for the Design Review Appeal Committee to grant an exception, namely the proposal must: a) Yield greater compliance with the goalls of the Aspen Area Commu[Jity Plan; b) More effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or c) Be cleart nek~~r reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specifi~ constraints. SO~V\ ~(} I ~t~lAt,^\'~ CC?.! I QhQ 11\- V1 <!Zd:~ kJOV\ - V ()V If^. <") ~ { \ ( d~.i<2.{)+- tC)1J\- Ch:- 11 <0 LA. IAI V\3 Yo. 1 US ( -to b~;3;~ O(~ Ud(~~9\ c Ie/' 1__ (. - 5:;-QlA.d~ Vd +r6 m, '- or 00 CeCL-\ r;zfery f- Q /JL 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 front fa~ade 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 platls 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 applic,mt 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 fayade ofthe 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 l) 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 requirem(mt responds to. Staff believes that the direct intent of the aforementioned residential design standard is to minimize 2 r", ~ 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 ofthe 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 siite-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 Strmdards. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE STATED IN THE POSITIVE): "I move to approve Resolution No.Jd,.. 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 ("") 1"'\ , I 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 Parkine, Garaees 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 fac;ade of the house only if the garage doors or carport entry are perpendicular to the street (side loaded). ~L // _.~ ./-/- .~/ ----. 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 Findine 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 ofthe 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. 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 1he front fa9ade of the house because it is on a lot greater than l5,000 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 th,~ 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. Stafffe,~ls 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 tht: 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 iu 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 t'""\ n c) clearly necessary for reasons of fairness relat,~d to unusual site specific constraints. Staff Findiu2 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 W/AlcHc;s7Olt' W~/h1"N /CJWN~/ouS&S L4IJG Ltff ~ w.~r Su61l!tv/s;V1--, (Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) /i'1/1J? Ala / I( r"'\ .' LAND USE ApPLI.CA TION PROJECT: Name: Location: ApPLICANT: Name: C. f WI/1ch/~fp-. 0/(/ J1/t/lJ2ftn Address: 17$'177 Ct:.IH~7 LCUI.:. Phone #: q. I REPRESENTATIVE: Name: 1rl~ q I'tutUJtJocP Address: 5;'0 UAllnur S.f. Phone #: ~ d.?' If- ~O do- 1-- TYPE OF ApPLICATION: (please check all that apply): o Conditional Use 0 Conceptual POO o Special Review 0 Final POO (& POO Amendment) o Design Review Appeal 0 Conceptual SPA o GMQS Allotment 0 Final SPA (& SPA Amendment) o GMQS Exemption 0 Subdivision o ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream 0 Subdivision Exemption (includes Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Mountain View Plane Lot Split Lot Line Adjustment o o o o Temporary Use TextlMap Amendment o Conceptual Historic Devt. o Final Historic Development o Minor Historic Devt. o Historic Demolition o Historic Designation o Small Lodge Conversionl Expansion EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) I 7Ou.lJh()~ {'U1JIY~ PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) ;!dpV{ al'Q (. dOf/YS 'ttW1 Mm a41rl SaUJ/1.- ,'0 !t.iJf t!t:..val2t-n off D S U:.r- dw. 7u.tnll't ra~"ttj CUUJ. II'YJ~I'OV~ rf,:, .& lCUvL.u~NI., Have you attached the following? ,... - FEES DUE: $ o Pre-Application Conference Summary o Attachment #l, Signed Fee Agreement o Response to Attachment #2, Dimensional Requirements Form o Response to Attachment #3, Minim1lffi Submission Contents o Response to Attachment #4, Specific Submission Contents o Response to Attachment #5, Review Standards for Your Application j, ,....." 'A. t""\ . WEIMANN CONSTIWC1 IN March 4, 2002 City of Aspen Community Development Robert Winchester of777 Cemetery Lane (North Side of Duplex) and Joachim Weimann of775 Cemetery Lane (South Side of Duplex) request a variance to construct single .garage doors facing Cemetery Lane. . ! 0' . ! t Q;rh$'~ .~ 112 . dt/ /1 Ou I .~ /fM'tt' fI~,~ . 970-925-7714 775 Cemetery Lane . Aspen. Colorado 81611. t""\ r'\ ATTACHMENT;;! DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project: Applicant: Location: Zone District: Lot Size: Lot Area: Winclus.l&r. Mlmltl'J 7OU/J?howeJ ehd W//'JcIIt'J#-r' yak" Welhl/J.;...- 77'5. 777 ~/Meb7 L.u;.c.. IZ-- /5 /51.09 I K 1if9,1 1St OOS. 8d. (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: Nurnber of residential units: Number of bedrooms: Existing: Existing: Existing: ~ Proposed: Proposed:~3 Proposed: :~ Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): DIMENSIONS: Floor Area: Existing: Allowable:'1; '1"'- () Proposed: 'I;~~9 Principal bldg. height: Existing: Allowable: ,:;1.0 Proposed: ::1S' Access. bldg. height: Existing: Allowable: Proposed: On-Site parking: Existing: Required: 62 Proposed: 1./ % Site coverage: Existing: Required: NII1 Proposed: % Open Space: Existing: Required: "1fT Proposed: Front Setback: Existing: Required: ~S' _Proposed: .;16 I Rear Setback: Existing: Required: 10 I Proposed: /0 I Combined FIR: Existing: Required: tDJ Proposed: t?J' ' Side Setback: Existing: Required: /c/ ' Proposed: 10 , Side Setback: Existing: Required: ]roposed: Combined Sides: Existing: Required: ]roposed: Existing non-conformities or encroachments: ;Vont.. AJ -tW 13wldll1'j fyvnt qCVt:l?t:. LU11~ . r"'j f''\ 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 trat APPLICANT make payment of an 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 andlor 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 andlor City Council to enable the Planning Commission andlor City Council to make legally required [mdings 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 $ 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 ground,s 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: Julie Ann Woods Community Development Director By: Date: Mailing Address: g: Isupport\formslagrpayas.doc 1/10101 r") A IT ACHMENT 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 of the applicant. 2. The street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur. S l? a fIddz/N4l.f /I r:l 3. A disclosure of ownership of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of 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. An 8 1/2" x ll" 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 of Colorado. (This requirement, or any part thereof, may be waived by the Community Development Department if the proj ect 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. 1-10-202 6,37PM FROM~ t"'"'\ P_4 GRETCHEN GREENWOOD & ASSOCIATES, INC. ARCHITECTURE. INTERIOII DESIGN' PLANNING Januilry 10, 2002 To whom It may concern: Gretchen Greenwood of Gretchen Greenwood and ~=Clates, Archltects 15 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 questions you may have re~rdm'9 thls application to her. Sincerely, ~ I J~tJ.~~ ~ 1 '14 aM,1J\. Jachim Weimann C et Winchester t::')fl Will AtilT CTt:U:;_C:r_....~C"CM rf"llnaAn" .011:'11. TCI. ""^If>i'J~ .<"^^. ,....v. ......'''^.. ....... 1-10-202 6,35PM ~ FRON, ,-, P.1 I. 2. DRAG-Attachment 3 L / ) 9.; L' 7f'-b Attached please nnd the Gon~nt letter {rAK OtltLQI:> I'Ac Q.... 7'0 Attached please find the ZOnln'j statiStiCS as well as the '~I description and address of the proJect. ~ L A dl~l05ure of ownership lS attached.(&'" rHX TVPlL.} An 8-1/2 x I I VICInity Map IS attached. Attached please find the lmprovement survey Attached please fmd the exlstln'j and proposed "'lte plan. The wntten explanation 15 as follows; 3. 4. 5. G. 7. The Deslgn Rules and Regulations requlre that . for all residential uses, parkmg, -aarages and carporl:5 shall be accessed from an alley Or pnvate road.' Dlrect entry mto a <;3iIra<;:je off the street IS not permItted. The rules also state that 'On lots of at least J 5,000 square feet In SiZe, the -aarage or carport rnayl:>e forward of the front of the hous,e only If the <;3iIra<;:je dOOr5 or carport entry are perpendicular to the sl;reet. " ThiS appllcabon seeks a variance from these rules clue to the followln-a reasons: I . The development lS a duplex WIth two <;3iIra-aes on eIther slde of the property. The distance between the two <;3iIra-ae doors when the <;3iIrage doors are perpendicular to the street does not allow for a safe turning radiance to get Into the <;3iIrn-aes. The SIte cannot accommodate thIS Desl-an Rule and ~ulatlon. Ref~~r to the Exlstm-a Site Flan. 2. When the gara<;:je doors are perpendIcular to the street, a Iar-ae area of asphalt 15 needed to create a turnm-a radlUS for both entrles to the '3arages, as well as the two parkm'3 areas. ThiS large a5phalt area does not allow for any landscaplng between the two bUlldln'35. When the <;3iIrage doors are facln'3 the street, the amount of asphalt 15 slgnlflcantly reduced. The tummg area lnto the 5tJ'eet facm'3 <;3iIrages can double as the parking area, thus reduclng the asphalt on the Site. A large landscaped yard and '3iIrclen carl be created between the bUlldlngs, thus creatJn'3 a much better street frontage for the nel-ahborhood. Refer to the attached Proposed Site Plan. The approval of thl5 Design Vanance would create a much better aesthetic 5treet fronta-ae. 1-10-202 6,35PM I!""""\ FRO~. ' f~ P.1 I. 2. DAAC-Attachment3 Lob) ~ 5" 7f'b Attached please find the Consent letter (rAK Oil(/(, lAc Q. 7 () Attached please find the Zomn'il statiStiCS as well as the 'e.aal description and address of the proJect. A / A disclosure of ownership lS attached.(~ rnx roPlc-) An 8--1/2 x 1 J VICInity Map 1$ attached. Attached please find the Improvement survey Attached please find the exlstJn'il and proposed Site plan. The wntten explanation 15 as follows: 3. 4. 5. G. 7. The D~lgn Rules and Regulatlons require that " For all reSIdential uses, parklng, garages and CIlrports shall be accessed from an alley Or private road.' D,rect entry Into a 'iJi'ra'iJ8 off the street IS not p~lnnltted. The rules also state that "On lots of at least 15,000 square feet 10 Size, the garage or carport maybe forward of the front of the house only If the 'iJi'ra'ije doors or carport entry are perpendIcular to the s'creet.' ThIS application seeks a variance from these rule:; ,due to the followm'ij reasons: J . The development 15 a duplex WIth two garages on e:rther Side of the property. The dIstance between the two garage doors when the 'iJi'rage doors are perpendicular to the street d~, not ..lIow for a safe turmng radIance to get Into the gara<a=. The 'Site cannot accommodate thIS Design Rule and R.egulatlon. Ref(~r to the Ex/stln'ij Site Plan. 2. When the '93ra'iJ8 doors are perpendicular to the street, a large are.1l of asphalt 15 needed to create.. turn 109 radlUS, for both entries to the garages, as well as the two parlan0 ..re.1lS. lh'5 large asphalt are<l does not allow for any landscaplng between the two buddm'ijs. When the gar..ge doors are facln'ij the street, the amount of asphalt l5 slgniflcantly reduced. The turnmg area mto the street faclng '93rages can double as the parkmg area, thus reduclIn'il the asphalt on the SIte. A lar'ile landscaped yard and 0arden can be created between the bUlldmgs. thus creating a much better street frontage For the neIghborhood. Refer to the attached Prop~;e:d SIte Plan. The approval of thiS Design Variance would create a much better aesthetlc street frontage. 1-10-202 6,36PM .-" FRO~ r",\ P.2 ATfACHMENT 4 . DRAC I . Attached plea:>e find the Nel'3hborhood Block Flan. 2. Site plan:> are attached With Attachment 3. 3. Attached please find the BtJildm-a EleV/ltlons, Il1Cluam'3 the propo:;ed new East eleV/ltlon. 4. Attached please find the Floor plans and roof plans. 5. A photo'3raphlc panorama will be presented at the' DRAC heann'3. G. A wrItten explanatlon of how the proposal meets the ReView standards lS as follows: ReView Standards I . The proposed de:>I'3n would create a lar-ae landscaped area, whlch IS m comphance with The A:>pen Area Communrty Pian. 2. The propo:;ed desl,!:!n would allow for a landscaped area to be bUllt between the duplex, thus reducIng the mass of thE: budding from the :>treet. The enttre Resldenttal Standards addresses thiS speclflC mass l5:>Ue. Wrthout thls proposal, the bUlldln-a Will "",ve a more ma5:>lve appearance, thus the solution more effectllvely addresses the de5l'3n standards. 3. Duplex lots can not create pnV/lte alleys to allow for '3arages to be perpendlcular to the street. The 5pace needed for entry and turnrng radIUS can not exIst, unless the Site 15 covered In asphalt. A smgle-famlly residence would allow It. The Resldenttal Deslgn standards do not address the 5peclflC needs of multt.famlly desl'3ns. Therefore, under thiS CIrCumstance, the better solLJtlon 15 to allow street frontage of the garages for easy a~ld $afe access and ample room to landscape thus reducmg the Visual mass of a duplex I:>uddmg. / 1-10-202 6,36PM FRr r) P.2 ATTACHMENT 4 DRAG I . Attached plea:;e find t/1e Neighborhood Block F'lan. 2. Site pla~ are attached'wlth Attachment 3. 3. Attached plea~ fmd the BUlldm<a Elevations, mcludm-a the proposed new East elevation. 4. Attached please find the Floor plans and roof pl,ans. 5. A photo'1lraphlc panorama will be presented at the DRAG hearing. b. A written explanation of how the proposal meetl:i the Revlew standards lS as tollows: ReView Standards I . The proposed de:ilgn would create a Iar'1le landscaped area, which IS In compliance Wlth The A5pen Area CommUnity Plan. 2. The proposed design would allow for a land5Cap.!lGl area to be bUilt between the duplex, thus reducing the ma~ of thebuddlng from the street. The entire Res,denttal Standards addre::.se5 thiS specifiC mass Issue. Without thiS proposal, the bUlldln'1l \1VI11 have a more maSSlve appearance, thus the solution more effectively addresses the deSign standards. 3. Duplex lots can not create pnvate 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 resldence would allow It. The Re::'ldentlal DeSign _ &tandards do not address the specIfiC needs of multi-family desl<an&. Therefore, under thiS circumstance, th(: better solutIon IS to allow street frontage of the garages for easy and $afe access and ample room to landscape thus reducing the \~sU<l1 mass of a duplex bulidln<;3. ,~~ .-Sl d) - ...s:/' .x. jJJ q J~ s ()~ ~o ,\5) ,\.<? ~ ->s:~ Q) os: ~~~~ Oj~~~ . ~~'~~~, b \J\ ~o ^'5t.. "~'7'" ..., ".~... v..,;:,;,:c"I."'"'i''':;''''''' ,,"."",/,-' ,,', ;':"'" .i:;';_'."},.' :,',:'<__,;>;~~},;\ .}jlW~t "-'; ..~ ,.",.,.....w... ..:r~h, . '/" ?;'>i'7'~~ r. 1""""\ 1::15 j ~ OPI1JOloJ 'u~clsV 'i' l!88 ~ ~ ~ 1! ~~H!~ ~U'e"'][ Al~l~IlI~J LLlI9LL B~']8 ~ ~liU < 4>4>ii<! J;; UUT!lli!~ A\ -l~ls~q:lU! A\ ~ at'S..@ ~~ l- e z w = '" W 25 ZO- -9 > <N "'w co '=> - O-w W -0 ~ mi:: 0 u 0-_ LU cnz W W <C::> Cl '" Z 0::: '" 0 <( u ......J CEMETERY LANE L[) ... o N " Z o ~ w -' w W I- Vi II o I o o ~ . ~ i: >---- ED OF GRAVEL ...~ ....,.............. "'''-'i1P''UU'Old'--ua-JV''U'O!~J7MP8;:t,."tilt'''6ut:j''U"Old ON ->tl"OMaplS a:j.aJ~uo'J u"OIJ:j.sapad a...ln ~..JI". ~ ,,!!It ~ - 'Co " 00 . j!! i ~ OJ U\ ~ ~ vut-l--, 1:; ./C!J" m ~ ./ ~ ----.ii -./ ./ ./ ./ -_./ EDGE OFPAVEMrNT ./ Q >- 0:::: W f- W '2 w U I'--- I'--- I'--- ~ L() I'--- I'--- ~~o ~" '- .J! ~ ~li! ! .0' J J .' in ~ / n~ . ! ~~ ! ./' J '" ~i./ , / ; J .,; ;; ;; ~ - 201 ~ I , J \ ! ~ I . , ! .-- - ./ m c ., d a. ... -0 ~ "- . " L o 4- ~jlJOA~JlI ~. / ( I I -' <{ o '" Z.I ;::! <( ~ 0 II W ......J to , I D-.~ ~ ',~<( w',;]' f--" -<{ (J)~ ---I '/ ., " 0> o ~ o '~ ,': (IJ ;1 f{ Q,) 1""0 :;,'00 ""-+-' i~' ::s '0 - Ii ~ 'i: / / / , ~0 0~\0 I ~ rn 9''" 10 cJ "m go " '~:8~ r\\ Ji'c (f) :;}\;",~' ~.,:..J'-,.V ":''''',,,', ~:2 "",,' a. > ".' Q) 0 ~:::1 't' ;;r,' "'"cO'..... '''''. ::~: '6~ :0'1 c c .--~ ~ 8i C U :i o >. C ci 0:: " 0 0,' i Q) ~.-,i ,,'" " :g, " I -+-' :::J l...' 0 .- -0 ~ W' l= . (!1 c 1;) ,~. 0, w Og oi ~ I. . . j; (f) o~. ~ 11': V)'-"..2........... 1- ; o 0, -a: N Q) 0 ~ .s: ~ h~b.2g;!~ a o'~ (j)~! as ~ U1 ~ ~ vi i u -0' i :>...c (l) .....: :> r_, > (f) ~ (f)' > ~ g 2 e ~I ~ ,I t:""'"'I(J1 I- 0... d' to :.) ....... . . .i CI)~Nr'), . J . i .~ 0, :?'.': ~, i:t;..~ t :.. t il " r jl: '" t._._~.__". ~.",.:-~_.. ~ ;~g ~ ~~S .-,.. Q ~ - w o W Q:' lID-l /' "" I~ I ",,~~~i~ I A ~, ~ , ""I-- I ' '* ~ ~ f ~ ~"" '" r ~ = :3 C'-.J co ~ zg ~I ~@! <r;~ ::0 ~ cp (,) ~ ,. ~ ~ 1<---, .s-s -~ t ~ o '" c', "e ~ c <3 ~ '" 'E ~ c <3 . ~ '" .': 'cC:' f-,~---' OPllJOIO:) 'uadsy 5' ~88 ;; aU1l1 ^-mama:) UL/g1.1. :l: ~ I\.f) uUl!U1!a 1\I\.-Ja~saq:>u! 1\1\. ~>'~ i ~ Il~UI -< ., ~ a (J c5~ ____/_ cI\ G J~ r . ~ 6J~\1\ \II'S- t1\ 2 @ -,S~ .11-,9 ~ , " ~~ , :":::' , C~ ~ ~ 00 .S-,ll .1'-,' .I'-.L !) C:IJ o ~ u ~ , '" <:3 [r N 1",8- ~7 ~ """",.,l52;! j~lli :,I~~ ~ \ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 e~ i ---- 1"-/ ~(:.:::: !'~ I^ ' I .;:a;..... :, 1::,: ----- X RXI,h ':r;-. P!2QC + 0 F ..-. &3 Cl ~ , " o .,- '" c .' " o , ':I ~ , " '" , '" , ~~~~ --r- ( " ~ '-g .g ~ " ~ ~ '" ~ I -- .1'-,' "r--- ---- ---,- [] D~o~ t ~ o '" I i: _' j::;:.1;;':~::... =,~ t C a:: o o G: , Q3""" > . .3~ ~~! ~ N , N - o , '" Fr .----kJ , , , , , , , ~ .~ , '" -~ :,:It,, ,:, ~~.~ '" , I 1-- , : , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , : , , , '" -g . 1: .g ~ ell ~ . " .,"'. , " == :: " " " " " " " " -----; I -----"11 " " " " ll" '" :::::~ ; ~ " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " 1: <( Ii :!=: II c: :: :::> " " " " " " " " '-,k-cID -~ - -4J .9-,7.7- L ~ co::::::::::::: ~~~==,==, I, ~ ~ w -------- ----'- -------- ------ I- "" , --- , , , , , / / if::::: " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " , , , , , , , , , , . // rf " " " " " " " " " " " " ::::::::::::::::::::::: ~ => ~ ~ .g ro 'c => o ~ = c .E~/T""', "e : ~'" /.... I " //ll}:S:: ", ~/ '0 ~ \ """ (1 :z.- I t :: ::::: l :1 l\ '2.c: l: :: ::>=>: :l it : :1 1: : :: II I It :: l :1 . /1', . , , / I ' , " v, , >, ' .,gl ", ~1 ", ECl.>[ ;1 .....1 II 01 II 01 II , " , " , " , " , " , " 1 l[t..@ :@ ill"' E o o '" ~ c ." :::; I i I \::::. . I <,,' " .1"-.1 .1"-,' .~OI ,L .fOl-.OI ,0-,61 ____1: 'T '" 1------ "" w ~~~~ :=:s,- == - ~ - Cl 10 ~ , , , , , , , , , , , , o ~l "!: ~: -,Ei-l-- 0: 3:g[ o~, !~ ~ 1 :g.: :::;l ~ ~, 0' -.;' ro: Q31 ., - , = , ,!:!'I ~ , , , , I, ~' I l::- "L nr~~i ,0,6 .0-,01 ~ ~ ~ o '" .5 '2 '" -S e ro 1] , , '", c ~ = o " " u u " " " " " " " rr----- rr----- " " " " " /\i " CD :'=' c :::> ~ o o ~. c: cr o ~ !w E o o '" = ~ 'c c y~ (Z. ~ ':~,~-," @ , ".1 " I rl~' "': : ; . ': , ~~'O~J 'AfOl:l .Ol-,Z .' .100-.L .r .0t,Z ~'-.l .Ot-,Z- .01 .ot-,SI .f' .at-,r .z,r .ol-r ~ ct ~ ~.~".,.~~. ,._~,.,,~.tJ..,. ~~ .~.~ll r.~ :,;.,.)1,.,... !~ ,~'n m - 1~ ~ ~~ "'L,. , .1',' .101-.01 .1<-" -- , .0'.,6t .0 -,ar .OI-,Z ,ft! dl ~ .1'-.' c