Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.drac.19970327AGENDA DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE March 27,1997 Thursday Special Meeting City Council Chambers, City Hall 4:00 I. Roll Call II. Minutes III. Committee Comments IV. New Business 4.05 A. 533 West Smuggler Street Co~~nuc~ +° s1~1oi:? • Patrice Kahn, represented by Janver Derrington Appeal of "Inflection" Standard V. Adjourn REMINDER: THIS COMMITTEE MEETS THE SECOND THURSDAY OF EVERY MONTH (IF NEEDED) AT 4:00 P.M. MEMORANDUM TO: Design Review Appeal Committee (DRAG) FROM: Mitch Haas, City Planner 1111Y THRU: Stan Clauson, Community,,,"""000D111eiiivelopment Directo~~ 1/ Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Director RE: 533 West Smuggler Street, Appeal of "Inflection" Standazd (26.58.040(E)) DATE: Mazch 27, 1997 SUMMARY: Pursuant to Chapter 26.58, Residential Design Standazds, Section 26.58.020(B), of the Aspen Municipal Code, "an applicant shall prepare an application for review and approval by staff. In order to proceed with additional land use reviews or obtain a Development Order, staff shall find the submitted development application consistent with the Residential Design Guidelines." This Section goes on to state that "if an application is found to be inconsistent with any item of the Residential Design Guidelines the applicant may either amend the application or appeal staff's findings to the Design Review Appeal Board (DRACJ pursuant to Chapter 26.22, Design Review Appeal Board. " The applicant is requesting a variance from the "Inflection" standazd (described below) in order to allow the proposed design of asingle-family dwelling at 533 West Smuggler Street. The application is attached as Exhibit "A." APPLICANT: Patrice Kahn, represented by Janver Derrington of Charles Cunniffe Architects. BACKGROUND: Community Development Department staff reviewed the application to construct a residential unit at 533 West Smuggler Street for compliance with the "Residential Design Standazds," (See attached Exhibit A). Staff found that the proposal is not in compliance with the "Inflection" Standazd, Section 26.58.040(E), which reads as follows: If the street frontage of an adjacent structure is one (I) story in height for a distance of more than twelve (12) feet on the side facing a proposed building, then the adjacent portion of the proposed building must also be one (I) story in height for a distance of twelve (12) feet. It is the Planning Director's interpretation that this standard requires that, in those areas where the house to the east of 533 W. Smuggler is one (1) story, all adjacent portions of the house proposed for 533 W. Smuggler must also be one (1) story for a distance of at EXHIBIT I` ]east twelve (12) feet inwazd from that portion of the proposed structure closest to the shazed lot line toward the opposite ]ot line. On February 27, 1997 the DRAC found that the design, as then proposed, did not comply with standard 26.58.040(E), and must be redesigned to comply with said standazd. Since then, the applicant has made a number of revisions to the proposed design. Staff continues to find that the revised design does not comply with the "Inflection" standazd; however, the applicant has requested that the DRAC review the revisions and consider granting a variance. Before taking into account the design revisions, the standazd under which the requested vaziance is sought must be pointed out. The applicant is seeking a variance from the "Residential Design Standards" pursuant to a finding by the DRAC that the proposed design "more effectively addresses the issue or problem the given standard or provision responds to." In staffs opinion, the "Inflection" standazd is intended to respond to the issue of new construction overshadowing and dwarfing adjacent, existing structures by not respecting or responding to, through sensitive design, the mass and scale of the portions of the existing structure that aze closest to the proposed building. In considering the variance request, the DRAC must decide whether or not the proposed design more effectively addresses this issue than would a redesign that meets the standazd. The Proposal The applicant has, as mentioned above, made a number of revisions to the proposed design since the February 27, 1997 DRAC heazing. Most notably, the applicant has shifted the location of the proposed structure as faz to the west as possible while still complying with the minimum side yazd setback of five (5) feet. The lot adjacent to the proposed five (5) foot setback is vacant. This shift enabled an extension of the one-story porch on the front (north elevation) of the house so that it wraps around to the east side of the house and provides aone-story element adjacent to the one-story portions of the existing structure on the adjoining lot. This porch would, it should be noted, be set back ten (10) feet from the shared property line. In effect, the closest two-story element of the proposed structure would be approximately twenty-seven (27) feet away from the one-story portions of the existing structure on the adjoining lot. The reason that this revised design still does not comply with the "Inflection" standazd is the fact that the one-story element (porch) of the proposed structure would have a depth of just six and one-half (6.5) feet, as opposed to the required twelve (12) feet. The applicant points out the fact that the distance from the easternmost portion of the one-story porch to the westernmost portion of the porch is some twenty-six (26) feet. However, as staff notes, the one-story element of the proposed building closest to the adjacent structure has a width of only six and one-half (6.5) feet. The twenty-six (26) foot width is arrived at by wrapping cone-story element of six and one-half (6.5) feet in width around atwo-story section of the structure. Although granting of a variance based on the circumstances of one specific situation should not be construed as a precedent for granting similaz variances (i.e., based on same design standazd or variance criterion) in other situations with differing circumstances, the applicant has requested that a particulaz case involving a variance from the "Inflection" criterion be brought to the attention of the DRAC. The particular case of interest was located at 923 East Hyman Avenue (Schrager House). In 923 East Hyman case, the applicant was granted a variance permitting aone-story element of seven (7) feet in width for the length of its entire east facade. While this project was granted a variance from the inflection standazd, the variance was granted "for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints," namely, a setback requirement established in the contract to purchase the property. The lot now in question, 533 West Smuggler Street, does not contain any unusual site specific constraints that require a variance for reasons of fairness. Rather, the site in question has inherently more flexibility than most lots because both it and the adjacent property to the west are vacant. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the DRAC review the proposed design and site circumstances in order to determine whether the proposed design "more effectively addresses the issues" that the inflection standazd responds to than would a redesign that meets the standazd. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit "A" -Submitted application package March 17, 1997 Design Review Appeals Committee ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT City of Aspen, Colorado re: Re-submission for appeal review residence for 533 West Smuggler Aspen, Colorado Gentlemen: ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIORS Following your review and rejection of our previous proposal as not conforming to the side yard Inflection Standard of Ordinance 30 on February 27, 1997, we have revised our proposal. We took your suggestion to study extending the one story porch element back around the stair tower and revised our sketches and the study model to show it to the City Planning staff. We had a meeting with them on March 7 and discussed the merits of our proposal. We have pushed the house to the West as far as possible, which allows the porch roof to be 8 ft. deep at the stair tower and still fit inside the required East side yard setback. The staff commented that this does not technically meet the minimum 12 ft. depth in their interpretation of the Inflection Standard. However, we pointed out that along the street frontage elevation, the width of the porch is now 27.75 ft., narrows to 8 ft. and then widens to 1 1 ft. at the point where it is parallel with the back edge of the one story garage of the adjoining house. Thus, the average width (depth] of the proposed one story element adjoining the neighbor's house is equal to or greater than the minimum 12 ft. standard. We believe this is in compliance with the spirit and intent of the side yard inflection standard, if not the letter of the technical interpretation by staff and is deserving of a variance by DRAC. Particularly in view of the precedent set by your having granted a variance for the residence at 923 East Hyman in August of 1996. In that proposal, the street elevation one story porch element was interrupted by a two story element toward the front of the lot which extends 17 ft. back before a 4 ft. deep stepped- down one story roof element is introduced which then extends on back to a one story element, which is a roof deck over the garage, similar to our proposal. The two story element at 923 East Hyman is only 9ft. away from the adjoining one story element on the lot to the East as compared to our proposal of 15 ft. at the narrowest point which is 56 ft. back from the front (street) property line. At the closest point to the street, the two houses in our proposal are 50.5 ft. apart. We believe this is much more gentle on the "streetscape" than the one which granted a variance to last August. EXHIBIT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS 520 EAST HYMAN SUITE 301 ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 970/925-5590 FAX 970/925-5076 In consideration of the above, we respectfully request that you grant a variance to the side yard Inflection Standard for 533 West Smuggler at your next meeting on March 27, 1997. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, alluK Ja er Derringt~ nclosures ALLEY 90UNDARIES 7E ENCE SETBACKS POUNDARIES 533 W.SMUGGLER STREET SMUGGLER STREET PORCH STUDY (SIDE YARD INFLECTION) A RESIDENCE FOR CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS A1.3 SITE PLAN ~ 533 W. SMUGGLER N6" : 1'-0" ASPEN, COLORADO ssa can mow pE • sort rn • .ewntm men • w: ~mnsssso • rAC w»:sson vo r. mrouoo ~~. • nuumor. eo mns • rzsr: sovno-sne • rue wms-rser A2.1 LOWER LEVEL PIAN ~. _ ~~-0" ~\ A RESIDENCE fOR 533 W. SMUGGLER ASPEN, COLORADO CHARLES CUNNIFFf ARCHITECTS sza un muw nve • wirt ~m • nsnH, m mm • nu: mamo-ssso • snc man:ssmc sso c miawoo nsc • scuumsx. m nns • seE: wvrso-sne • sne wsmems~ 2 - - ARESIDENCE FOR CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS • MAIN LEVEL ~ S33 W. SMUGGLER PLAN l9' = 1'-0" ASPEN, COLORADO sa un mMw nvc • suirt ~m • nvw, m mm • re[:.wsmsssso • sue mmssan sso E mLOUOO ~~. • nuuuo[. m nns • nu: ~avno-ene • ne<mvne-rsa T i ~ i ~~~ ~ ~ ~ i Q POWDER ;.-, A RESIDENCE F~ AA ~~ /'1L.3 UPPER LEVEL ~ 533 W. SMUGGLER PIAN 1H" = i'-0" ASPEN, COLORADO BREPKFAST PJi ~. f ~~ ~~ ~~ I(ITCHEN PANTRY SfiDNG DECK DECK I~ L--~----~ '~ DINING ROOM G ~~~=% SEE IXPo/ LMNG ROOM ~IRCI~ITECTS so Iwsi mwrv AYE • sulrt Jm • Asve+, m mm • Ju[: xiwn-ssw • vnc xi»xs.mn IIO E QICR'N' AYE • RLLIItlDE CD fl~15 • 19f: NYRFJn1' fNC lPN]F9sU FIflEPLYE --- ---/ L -~ T ~ q!2 TYP. UND. F- _j ~[s\ / __~__ _ / / I~ RNF ~ \y A I / I ' ~ W I/J PT.GF PD C \ RE AT II' E X/SfWG GR40E ~ lPl2 TYP. ya \ ~ F- -j \ ~L xrx l/J PT.GF P/TCNEO I RCOF RE/GM AT ~~YY ~X2 ~ ~ -~ zr-a a~vE EXISTING GRADE - ~ \ _. ~ l1L.4 A RESIDENCE FOR 533 W. SMUGGLER CHA HITEC TS i . ~ ROOF PIAN ` ~~ - ~ -0" ASPEN, COLORADO va Enn mmw AvE • sirtrt m • A{IEN, m mm • mt: wNUSSSa • /AC ms/sa ll0 E. (U100.~D(1 AH. • IFLLU.VOE CO flay • IEIF: bYRFIIJI • fAl lONlb-95 n G ~ 7J ~~ ~z n N 0 Z r -~ G Z v N ~~ ~ ' rn ~_ r -~ ~z 5 33 Wl. FFE ARCHITECTS 521E NYMAN SURE 361 ~ ASPFA, CU 61611 TELE: 3Q{/5155596 FA%: 303/9?<r5W6 1fi EC6l6RA66 AVE • 66%2BGI • iELLUAI6EC061435 • iELE363R7&3TJ6 • FAX3Ri/7?&~6i o f6AVAIGNf tffi pUAtfG pINNIFAE ,WtlIItFCfG A5'P.EN, GDI...C~R,4D0 ~ 7tl ~~ ,9 = J~ P 1~ 0; II m -~ z m 0 z 0 m tR r m Y 0 533 W. SMUG~YLE K CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS ©^ A " ~ Szl E AvwAA ~ surTE ~ ~ ASPEA, m eisn ~ TEIP Smr91s5E96 FAZ: 76t/9?S5W6 R 5~>/FV GDLORA P O 720 EC6l6AAD0 AVE. ~ W%zep • iElE9A19EFA AtIJS • TELE 7N/7'~JiJB • FAX JOJ/T~-9567 ~ • / o ~PYRI6N11ffi. CMAALES WINIFFE AAgIAFCfS __ ~ W __ o V ~ o a u m Y r ~ 0 W J' Z m -; I i I _' ii I I ' I I I .I ---- -- I I I ~____:___:_- _-~ ~ _ o I Y I I ~ I------; ~---_ 1 I ~ ~~ ~~ I I I rn i"-- I ? ~-- `- I I ~-----_; a a_ .- ~ I---- I __ ~ --•-- J I _ I ~ - I f 'ai I I N I _ I I 3 - ,, -------- I I ,,Y > I I M o., ~ a o L. 1S H1~Id .________ N i i ---- J W I °I `V I ~o