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