The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.drac.19970710AGENDA DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE July 10,1997 4:00 p.m. Thursday Regular Meeting City Council Chambers, City Hall 4:00 L Roll Call II. Minutes III. Comments (Committee, Staff and Public) R 4:05 IV. New Business A. 411 Lacet Lane (Barb's Way, Lot 2, Lacet Subdivision) -Sleepy Bear Residence - Scott Samborski -appeal of volume standard. 4:35 V. Continued Business (6/25/97) A. 315 Lake Avenue -Robert Colman - design standard waiver will present at meeting. 5:00 VL Adjourn MEMORANDUM TO: Design Review Appeal Committee (DRAG) THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development D}recto~F Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Directo~/~~/ FROM: Mitch Haas, City Planner ~~ RE: Sleepy Beaz Residence (Lot 2, Lacet Subdivision), Appeal of the "Volume" Standazd (26.58.040(F)(12)) DATE: July 10, 1997 SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting a variance from the "Volume" standazd (described below) in order to allow the proposed design of asingle-family dwelling on Lot 2 of the Lacet Subdivision (on Barb's Way). The, application is attached as Exhibit «A ,> 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 frnd 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 [DRAG] pursuant to Chapter 26.22, Design Review Appeal Board." APPLICANT: Mr. Scott Samborsk~, BACKGROUND: Community Development Depaztment staff reviewed the application to construct a residential unit on Lot 2 of the Lacet Subdivision for compliance with the "Residential Design Standards," (See attached Exhibit A). Staff found that the proposal is not in compliance with the "Volume" standard, Section 26.58.040(F)(12), which reads as follows: For the purpose of calculating floor area ratio and allowable floor area for a building or portion thereof whose principal use is residential, a determination shall be made as to its interior plate heights. All areas with an exterior expression of a plate height of greater than ten (10) feet, shall be counted as two (2) square feet for each one (1) square foot of floor area. Exterior expression shall be defined as facade penetrations between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above the level of the finished floor, and circular, semi-circular or non-orthogonal fenestration between nine (9) and fifteen (I S) feet above the level of the finished floor. Simply put, as it relates to the subject case, this standazd requires that there be no windows (facade penetrations/fenestration) in any azeas of the first or second floors that lie between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above the height of the floor (plate height). That is, there can be no windows between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above either the first floor or the second floor. As proposed, the "south" elevation is the only elevation that does not contain any violations of the "volume" standazd. On the east elevation, the lower parts of three windows aze between nine and twelve feet from the height of the first story's finished floor, while multiple windows extend higher than nine feet from the level of the second story's finished floor. This latter example (second story windows) is also true of the north and west elevations. Given the lack of compliance with the "volume" standazd, the applicant was left with the choice of pursuing one of the following three (3) options. First, the applicant could accept the two-to-one (2:1) floor azea penalty while ensuring that the entire building, including FAR penalties, would fall within set FAR limitations. Second, they could redesign the proposed structure such that the new form would comply with the "volume" standazd, as well as the rest of the residential design standards. Lastly, the applicant could appeal staff s findings to the Design Review Appeal Boazd. If a variance is to be granted, it would have to be based on one of the following three criteria: (a) the proposed design yields greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan; or, (b) the proposed design more effectively addresses the issue or problem the given standard responds to; or, (c) a variance is cleazly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Rather than accept the floor area penalty or redesign the proposed residence, the applicant has chosen go before the DRAC to seek a variance from the "volume" standazd. The applicant has indicated that if a variance is not granted, the house will be redesigned to comply with the volume standazd, as well as the rest of the residential design standards, by removing the windows that do not comply. Accepting the FAR penalty is not a viable option in this case, as the proposed design would build to the maximum allowable FAR, exclusive of FAR penalties or bonuses. STAFF COMMENTS: As mentioned above, there are three (3) criteria on which the DRAC can base a decision whether or not to grant a variance. The following contains staff s analysis of these criteria as they relate to the presently requested variance. First, the proposed design has virtually no relation to the Aspen Area Community Plan, and staff can find no connection whatsoever between the proposed design and the goals of the Plan. Therefore, if a variance is to be granted, it should not be based on this criterion. _ Next, the "volume" standazd is intended to respond to the issue of new construction containing windows that aze not in scale with neighborhood context in terms of providing an appropriate "solid-to-void" ratio on each of the structure's facades. The intention was to prohibit windows that appeaz to span from the first level of a residence to the level(s) above and to maintain a pedestrian scale. While the existing houses on both sides of the lot in question contain some fairly lazge azeas of glazing, they do not appeaz to have any windows that span beyond the limits of the floor/story on which they aze located. However, 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. In staff's opinion, having the non-complying windows cannot legitimately be said to more effectively address the issue than would a design without windows in violation of the standazd. Lastly, a variance can be granted if it is found to be cleazly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. While the site is not located in the original townsite or on the grid street system, the site specific constraints of the subject pazcel aze not of a nature that require construction of windows in violation of the standazd. That is, the topography, setback requirements or other constraints do not dictate that the only feasible or fair way to develop the site would be with violations of the "volume" standard. There are no unusual site specific constraints on the subject parcel that would justify a vaziance. While staff realizes that the literal application of the residential design standards is not always appropriate outside of the downtown core, it is nonetheless a requirement of the Land Use Code. That is, the intent and legitimacy of the standazds would be continuously eroded if variances were azbitrarily granted because a standazd was thought of as "applicable versus non-applicable," or "appropriate versus inappropriate." Rather, variances should be granted if and only if one of the three criteria by which variances could be granted is cleazly being met. In this case, staff does not believe the proposed design meets any of the variance criteria. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the DRAC deny the variance request, and direct the applicant to redesign the residence to comply with all of the residential design standazds, including the "volume" standazd. This recommendation is based on the finding that the project, as proposed, does not satisfy any of the three criteria by which a vaziance can be granted. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to deny the variance request, directing the applicant to redesign the residence to comply with all of the residential design standazds, including the "volume" standazd." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit "A" -Submitted application package June 20, 1997 ~1MBERI,IN~ OUSTOM BUILDING CO¢4 Design Review Appeal Committee Boazd Members: Please accept this application to request a variance on our project located at 411 lacet lane in Aspen. The vaziance we aze requesting is very simple and is in reference to the ordinance 30 provision that does not allow "Facade penetrations between 9 and 12 feet. As shown on our proposed drawings, we would like to request a vaziance to allow several very important view windows to be located within this location. In addition to view, these windows add some very important azchitectural interest to the home, and do not look in any way shape or form like a "Mcoy" house. I have been told that the ordinance is headed for some revisions in the neaz future. And also I am very aware the reason for this particular aspect of the code and how it came '`'° about. We feel that lacet court is a very unique little street with a certain chazacter to it that should not dictate design restrictions on our windows. As you will note, everything else on this plan meets the requirements as faz as porches, garages, and an unimposing front door. Thankyou M. Scott Samborski +..., Timberline Custom Building Corp. • Post Office Box 184 • Aspen, Colorado 81612 • Telephone & Fax 970/920-4068 CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP Pitkin County Title, Inc., a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent in the ~" `.e of Colorado hereby certifies that SCOTT SAMBORSKI, DALE HOWER AND FELIX R are the Owner in Fee Simple of the following described property: LOT 2, LACET SUBDIVISION, according to the Plat thereof recorded July 15, 1994 in Plat Book 35 at Page 10. COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. ENCUMBRANCES: Deed of Trust from : Scott Samborski, Dale Hower and Felix Hower to the Public Trustee of the County of Pitkin for the use of Pitkin County Bank & Trust Compan to secure 555,500.00 dated April 24, 1997 recorded April 30, 1997 reception no. 403928 Subject to easements and rights of way of record. This certificate is not to be construed to be a guarantee of title and is furnished for informational purposes only. PITKIN COUNTY TI LE, INC. BY: authoriz d ignature IFIED TO: JUNE 12, 1997 C~ 8:30 A.M. ATTACIiMENT 1 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1. Project name -S~t ~v/~c'~, 2. Project location G~r~~- !~i-Ptr Gee (indicate street address, lot and block number or metes and bounds description) 3. Present zoning S~ 4. Lot size 5. Applicant's name, address and phone number S~er'~ S~ir3o~r~' /Jo /~S' ~1%~°,J Fe. 9~n-4~o6,P 6. Representative's name, address, and phone number S~-me- /s ,¢/~aye 7. Type of application (check all that apply): _ Conditional Use Special Review 8040 Greenline _ Stream Margin Subdivision _ GMQS allotment _ _ View Plane _ Lot Split/Lot Line Adjustment Conceptual SPA _ Final SPA _ Conceptual PUD _ Final PUD _ Text/Map Amend. GMQS exemption Condominiumization~ Conceptual HPC Final HPC. Minor HPC Relocation HPC Historic Landmark Demo/Partial Demo Design Review Appeal Committee 8. Description of existing uses (number and type of existing structures, approximate sq. ft., number of bedrooms, any previous approvals granted to the ~~W 9. Description of development ~ ~` - .ram t~ln/ 10. ave you completed and attached the following? Attachment 1-Land use application form Response to Attachment 2 _ Response to Attachment 3 ATTACHMENT3 SPECIFIC SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS All applications for DRAC review must include the following information: 1. Neighborhood block plan at 1"=50' (available in the City Engineering 7/a_ M ~,~ Department). Graphically show the front portions of all existing buildings ~~ ~~p on both sides of the block and their setback from the street in feet. p~.q~.l .ten Identify parking and front entry for each building and locate any accessory NLr n~~`=~. dwelling units along the alley. Indicate whether any portions of the houses immediately adjacent to the subject parcel are one story (only one living level). Site plan at 1 "=10'. Show ground floors of ail buildings on the subject parcel, as proposed, and footprints of adjacent buildings for a distance of 100' from the side property lines. Show topography of the subject site with 2' contours. /3. All building elevations, roof and floor plans at 1/8"= 1'0. V 4~ A graphic verification that the project meets or does not meet the "Primary ,~ Mass" standard. ~*. Photographic panorama. Show elevations of all buildings on both sides of =;,~ i a - M ~. c-+~s the block, including present condition of the subject property. Label SAID r-+-c photos and mount on a presentation board. tyro -~+s . 6. A written explanation of the requested variance and a discussion of why a variance would be appropriate and would not compromise the intended goals of the "Residential Design Standards." The applicant may provide any offsetting design features that may mitigate impacts of the variance requested. VICINITY MAP -_ -- --, ____w_ _.. ____ y O ~ ` ~ ` `.V i ~ ~~~ ~ ~ .. 1 H ~\~ ' ~ ; ~r~( E ~ ~ N~. ? r Prova ~ ``\ r ~ L ~q 4 .r~.~ ~ • ~ ,~ r! f mow'/,1yp {~, Crc<k L 6 cis_ _ ~ 's~M dQ. Pe qb _ _, ,q r P ` gage ( ~ r ~` ,~ ~ `> ~5 ?~/ ~~~ Aspen ,. ~AAYpo'tlmlt A~ A tlbl. `--~~~'~ \NL F \ Ninbr~ '~ ` ~ ~dp /~ ~ 1 4 R P ~\ \-_ib - re 4 In ;/ L ~ Is ry.p...d~.gkJx~.+.. v...l.. m~ i ra x~ S } ~I 8 ~ enaw..~n~ tc r er„edP~....f.r..~.~.v~.~nn ~ ¢'/~.T ynwn. Z I O ~ i e, o ~'! IMroonGmkAO.~, ~~~ ~ l 1 ~ f 1lq.. ~ _ - M/9 ~ ~} ~\ ~1 ~ .G. ~ r N.i''Rf5 `'^' hGra ~"1 jJ j f j `\ :1 $' °'" .:mss / __ 6. Ja `~ Ea L~• ~ 4 c/I{d/.c" ~ ~ ~... ~ ~~F ~~~ 1 -~ J ~ ,J ~ .a ti w.•ny~ ~ ~; ~' x N: ~ xr !`F~ ~ ~ `"d • - -~~ ..~~ ~ r `J •~ / ~ ~ ~" ~ ~~"PROJECT LOCATION ~ i \ .,{ 5 Laa. .~, < 'bxw is ` a~ ,_~ -~ ~a. . ~~~~~ a ~ ~. A Mm l..et „„~a„..M....• .-.. ~' Q~ ~® ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~~ s~ ~ ~~~ a ~ ~~~ N ~~ ~ a~ e~ ~~ ~i ;~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~; ~~ ~~ ~` ti _, - - - e, . sou m waa~ ~,,,ns~.~ya ems"'• ~ au aus_°u'ois'3 U9u °''~ ;95~ ~ lb.%~ . Ob54'S60L6'.i~11. ~~~INN~~ S~~~dH~ S1-~~llH~~d rn' - N "~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ s~ ~ ~ ~y _ ` x i 9 ~~ ~~ .~~ Nf ~~ _~ Y ~~ ~I C ~I a ~~ I ~ ~ ~ ~~ y ffi III ~ ~a ~ ~ ~j}j}[[~flfl[[YY ~~,` ~$~~~~~~~~~~@~~~~ ~1~~~~~~~~~aaaa~ ~ ~Q€'S$aat;~aaa~~aQ~~~dz~~2~2e.Ea~~~`~5t~4>isessE4..at ~~ a ~ $ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~WY~~~~~~~g~~~~a~~~~~~~~~~~~ e5~aE3~y4i~QttaEa'8t;~€aE.~~~r~~2$~a6sasnQaE~~~~~sa~ > ~~~~~a W~4W W4~ H u IIf14Q~g,~st4€313 C a :.r@QerEQ~is~aaa964g~ t t~ed~e6a8We~..~. s ~ ~ a ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ s~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ y ~ ~ $~~~~~~~~~LL i .. w_._so.NS.5~~5ae~a~8~easlsa oo'~°'O ~~~~ yO~ No~s~~~0s~s 21d~8 ~ld~- ~~ ~!$a k~ . ~~ ~~ ~~~~~~ ~~ I ~~ ~~ ~~ ~9~~ ~i ~ ~a~~~ a~~$~~~ !~ ~~~a ,a ~8~~ `~~ ~ ~~ ~~N~flll ~_ ~~~~~~~~ ~~~s ~~~~~~ ~I~III~~~n oa z ~ ~ ~ ~'~` ~ ~ ~~ m~~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ s s E i f : T si ' 'I ~ ~ I I VIII m d '~ ~.c •-___- a F a N '~ ~