Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.drac.19980514AGENDA DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE May 14, 1998 4:30 p.m. Thursday Special Meeting Sister Cities Meeting Room, City Hall 4:30 I. Roll Call II. Minutes - 10/9/97 & 03/12/98 III. Comments (Committee, Staff and Public) 4:30 V.A. SilverLode Lot 8 O Building Orientation -garage placement ~~"J~' S-° ~ OO Volume Standard -glazing 9'- 12' above floor p~.ht,~ 5-p a h°` IV.B. SilverLode Lot 9 OO Building Orientation -garage placement A fl°~'oyEb 5 _Q ® Volume Standard -glazing 9'- 12' above floor Da-4»o 5 _p IV.C. Bell Mountain Townhomes -East Cooper Street - OO Volume Standard -glazing 9'- 12' above floor OO Building Elements Standard -one story element along 20% of street frontage Ca+~171~ ~~% f~ ~~r/9g IV.D. 1240 Riverside Drive OO Volume Standard -glazing 9'- 12' above floor "'oaP 'n OO Building Orientation parallel to street 'r~~(`/g 5:30 V. Adjourn i ~a. MEMORANDUM TO: Design Review Appeal Committee THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Develop t Director Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Director _ , FROM: Christopher Bendon, Planner 9n RE: Silverlode Subdivision Lot #8 -- Pu71i~H ring DATE: May 14, 1998 SUMMARY: The applicant, Greg Simmons, is requesting a waiver of the Residential Design Standard concerning garages and the window penalty for Lot #8 of the Silverlode Subdivision. Waiving this garage standard will allow the garage, as designed, to be less than 10 feet behind the main facade. Waiving the window standard will allow for windows between 9 and 12 feet above each plate, and non-orthogonal windows up to 15 feet above plate, without the Floor Area penalty. Staff recommends granting the variance for the placement of the garage, with conditions, and denying the window variance. APPLICANT: Greg Simmons. Represented by David Waugh, Architect. LOCATION: Silverlode Subdivision Lot #8. ZONING: AHl-PUD. Free-Market Residential portion of subdivision. REVIEW PROCEDURE: 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) amore effective method of addressing standard in question; or, c) clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. BACKGROUND: This lot is one of the free-market lots created by the Silverlode Subdivision, a private sector affordable housing project. The three-year period of vested rights, exempting these lots from the floor area penalties of Residential Design, has expired. The property must conform to all aspects of Residential Design unless specifically exempted by the DRAC. GARAGE: The applicant's proposed development is not in compliance with the following Residential Design Standard: A[I portions of a garage, carport, or storage area parallel to the street shall be recessed behind the front facade a minimum of ten (10) feet. 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; or, Staff Findine: The proposed variance is not in greater compliance with the goals of the Community Plan. b) amore effective method of addressing standard in question; or, Staff Findine: The design is not more effective than the standard. However, this is the best design for a garage in the Silverlode subdivision which staff has reviewed. The applicant has mitigated the garage appearance by providing two single doors and by providing a porch element closer to the street than the garage. c) clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site -- specific constraints. Staff Findine: Properties in this subdivision are difficult to access with a car due to the steep terrain, building envelope designations, and predetermined access points. This waiver is necessary and the resulting design is appropriate for the site. WINDOWS: The applicant's proposed development is subject to a FAR penalty with the following Residential Design Standard: All areas with an exterior expression of a plate height greater than 10 feet shall be counted as 2 square feet for each 1 square foot of Jloor area. Exterior expressions shall be defined as facade penetration between 9 and Il feet above floor level and circular, semi-circular, or non-orthogonal fenestration between 9 and I S feet above floor level. 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; or,. Staff Finding; The proposed variance is not in greater compliance with the goals of the Community Plan. The AACP specifically rejects two-story window expanses. 2 b) amore effective method of addressing standard in question; or, Staff Findine: The design is not more effective than the standard. The standards specifically says no windows in this area unless the house size is reduced by the Floor Area penalty. c) clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Staff Findine: There are no site specific constraints for this property which necessitate larger windows. The applicant has provided "views of Aspen Mountain" as a site specific constraint producing a hardship on the property. In staff's estimation, the views do not represent a hardship and are, in fact, a significant benefit to the property. Furthermore, 9' high windows do not prevent the owner from enjoying those views unless the owner is taller than 9'. Staff also believes the community's view of Smuggler Mountain, and of this house, are important. Residential Design is an Ordinance passed for the benefit of the residents who look at other people's houses and who enjoy good architecture. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends DRAC grant a variance for the placement of the garage, with conditions, and deny the request to waive the window penalty for lot #8 Silverlode Subdivision. 1. The garage shall be developed as proposed in this application unless it is designed further from the street than the front facade. 2. The garage shall be developed with two single doors. 3. All other aspects of the "Residential Design Standards," as amended, shall apply at the time of building permit application. 4. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to grant a waiver of the Residential Design Standard for placement of the garage as proposed, with the conditions listed in the Staff memo dated May 14, 1998, and deny the request to waive the Floor Area penalty regarding window placement for Lot #8 of the Silverlode Subdivision,." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -Application LAND USt HF'YLIGA t IUN PROJECT: - ,, ~ ~ ~ ~<~-: Name: 3 13 ~ I Ly~(~ L.OL' li ~fz,ly~ Location: LOT ~j S I L1/~2 I.OD~ (Indicate street a dress, lot & bloc:: number, legal description where appropriate) APPLICANT: Name: G 1zriGt S I I''1 >`'I o~ 5 Address: I Iq ~~~2 ~1y~ . -#~ 12 ~S~~N , Ga• 816I 1 Phone ~`: ~°~~~~ `j'Z4 - `-I ~ I ~J REPRESENTATIVE: Name: pl+y I b Wa UC.~ }~ I.,IAUG~} ~ 1a55d~ IA'T"~5 Address: y13o 1'?U(.~ P1~5D D1z. N-32p ~yUL1~EIZ , CO.80303 TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check ail that applg ~: ^ Conditional lise (] Conceptual PGD ~ Special Review a Final PL'D :;~~: ?CD.Amendment) Design Review r\ppeal v~ Concean:al SPA ~ G~1QS Allotment L. Finai SPA r~ SPA Amendment) ~ Subdi~ isicn GMQS Exemption iJ ES,4 - 84?0 Greenling. Stream ~ Subdi~: isicn Exemption (includes "fargin. Hallam Lake Bluff. condominiumizatiun) Mountain View Plane [] Lot Spiit (J Temcwran Cse Lut Line :Adjustment ~ Test:l4ap Amendment ^ Conceptual Historic Devt. iJ Final Historic Deveiooment ^ Minor Historic Dent. [1 Historic Demolition f i Historic Designation ^ Small Lodge Convarsien.' Expansion Cj Other: EwSTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildim~s. uses. previous approvals, etc:) V~c~NT PND - PROPOSAU I description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications. etc.) SINGI.!% ~~MI~Y ~Id~N~~ Have you attached the following? e Pre-Application Conference Summary Attachment ~1, Signed Fee Aarccmcnt " ~ Response to Attachment #2. Dimensional Raquiremeats Form ~ Response to Attachment n3, Minimum Submission Contents ~ Response to Attachment »-4, Specific Submission Contents ® Response to Attachment ~~, Review Standards Yor Your Application PEES DUE: S ~ ~~ ©~ RECEIVED M aY 0 1 1998 ASPEN 1 PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ATTACHMENT2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project: Appiicart: Location: Zone District: Lot Size: Lot Area: (for thu purposed of calcuiaune Floor .arez, Lot Area may he reduced Ior areas within the hiy water mark. easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: E.cisring: Proposed: - Ntunber of residential units: FYisting•_ O Proposed.• Number of bedrooms: Existing' O _ .Proposed: y Proposed °ro of demolition (Historic properties only): N a DIMENSIONS: FIoorArea: ~ristnTg: - - .~11!v.~'ahla: 3~ ~,~3 Pruno.sed: 3(a3.- Principal oldg. height: Existing. - _.3i:nti~abie: 301 Propv.+ea• 3o i :access. bids. height: £sisting: ~ _-IJlouai;ir ~Pronnsed -' On-Site parkin,: Edsrng: - Required: 2 Propvsed: y' 4~5 Site ::overage: Existing: ~ Required• Proooszd: 1 ~7,~ °'o Open Saace: Cxis~ixg: ' __Reouired: Proposed ~1-~•.5 Front Setback: Eristino: : _Reouired• 13~Z~_Propos2d.' ~y _ Rear Setback: E.t;isring Required: 3~ Proposed: pl_p° Combined FIR: Eci.rrinc: Required: r'lI,1Z Propvsed' ~ I~Oa Side Setback: Existing:_,~_ I u Required: IO Proposed:_~I -6 Side Setback: Erisr.:z:; _. ' Required: ~_Proposed.• 21 ~-(}~ Combined Sides: E.rist.'ng~ J Required: ~ Proposed: 32~'~u Existin; non-conformities or encroachmenu: N4lJE Variations requested: li 2. S~~Y~ ~b~ l.~t' g 5~~~ ~~ `fir ~/IGItii j 4 __M~`_(~_ ~i;, __ ~_' -' _ .fir . . `_ ~ ~ ,_ .~ -. ~ ~ ' . -- ~ - `~ ., - / ~ _ '~ LOT 1 ~.~,, ~~_ \ c ~ \ ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ / ~~ ~( `''~l b ,` ~ ~ ~., ~ `~ ~ /'~ ~ ~ `/ / ~ ~ ~1_ ~ i ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~1`~ / <. , dr i .~ j . ~ `'~ / ~ ~ ~ B ~ ~ ~ 1 ` ~<`, ~ t \ ~; `G .\ ' /.~ \ r O ` . ~ ~ ~ . i ~ ~ ~-_ \~ '~ ~ 6~ / r~ - - Q 0 ,~ r ,, o - ~. I 8O t ~ ~ ~~~oci~te~ architecture ~ planning ~ polar deign April 30, 1998 Dlr. Chris Bendon City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Design Review Appeals Board Lot 8, Silver Lode Dear Chris, i LaF g We are requesting a variance on the above mentioned 'lot due to taro factors. The first is the garage setback is not the required ten feet back form the building face. This could not be achieved in the design because of the topography of the site. We have mitigated the presence of the garage by recessing it four feet from the building face on one bay aad ten feet on the second bay. The front bay will be twelve feet from the more predominant covered porch face. The porch will extend across half of the building and will feature river rock columns and a copper roof. The second reason for requesting a variance is the high glass windows in our design. We are requesting that the penalty be removed from the FAR calculation because of the tremendous views that the lot captures of the entire valley. As the home can be seen throughout the valley, we feel it is important to establish an appealing elevation. The turned roofs also reduce the primary mass and add character to the home. Due to the burying of the-house into the hillside, and to the site configuration, the proposed encroachment will not hinder any other views of surrounding neighbors. 4730 tetile maa.dr. bunlder; coloradn • 80303 •303.494.7494 ~ ~~soci~te~ architecture ~ planning ~ solar design April 30, 1998 Mr. Chris Bendon City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Design Review Appeals Board Lot 8, Silver Lode The proposed project for Lot 8 mzets the following criteria for the requested variance: Garage setback variance- Due to the topography of the site, we are requesting a variance on .the 10' setback from building face to garage.' The steepness of the site would not allow for a side load garage without unreasonable earth retention. High window FAR penalty We are requesting this variance based on asthetic reasons due to the incredible views offered by this site. Based on the site configuration, the proposed encroachment will not hinder any other views of surrounding neighbors. 4730 tnbls me~a.da ~ boulder, Colorado •.80303 •303.494.7494 0 W U ~~ as m Qa I ~2 Q ~ ~~~: ~~ ~ `.c --, t- i ,~. ~ ti ^~ ~ ,~ -~-- '~ L 7 13 L. ~~ =~~~ r ~~ I , v, ~ i ~, - - - i ~~ I ~ ,~ ~p ~ I~ ~ 4 ~ '~ ~ ~ T ; ~ ~~ i L I ~~ 4l. 4' Is ~ `\ i T ~~ ~_y G. pr. -- _- ; ~ '. M ~ ~ _- - _, ti. ~' .: ---~ `~ ~ '4 ~ , M1 \ "`~ V ~V \ ~ ` ' ~ J \ .1~ \ ~ ~~ ~~ 1{ ~ 1 l ` ^ v 1 F I ~~ ~ ~ ~~ -... --.~--~-t-1_ . z 0 t_ ~ti .u j ~ ~ ~ •.9- -... ,~ z 0 3 ~p 0 r --~ 1 1 - 1 --- - ~_ - --- - % --•- _- _ .-- ~~- ~• ~ _., ~ 1' \~ ' N Sy3g'23~ W 1 _ ,'~ 1 I ~ -_ o 1 1 1 I _ T yd _- 1 1 ~p~q 1 ~ p.~i sr 1 1 1 ~ 3 ~m 1 ~J _._ ~__~-.._ ------_ _. z 1 a ~.X I _ 1 i r- I '~ ~- -- O rc' ~, ~,_~ ~~ ~~ ~ I ~4 -IC = - 1 ----- ~' ti 1 1 -- -_ - --- ----- __ --- 1 ~__~ " ~ 1 ~~ 1 1 1 -- t----------_. 1 1 ~n ~_'il.~tl_~_-. --_--- v+oo1 1 1 1 ~-_ 1 1_ 1 I _.__~ I 1 _._... _ __ 0Q-t-._-__- I 1 eon ___-._-____ _I______.. j. __ _ 1 I 1 1 I __ -1--- __. -__~_ .-_. J _ ___ . _.__._____._ __. ___.- ._ .1 ~NaO f ~H WIn I i / _, t - t _ -._-_~ /// ___ _- N1 1 ZI 1 / _ I '1 1 1 _. 1 _ __~~ _~11 1 it V~ -- 4-~- 1 1 1 ~- -- _ _ _ --__~ o~ •s~~-___- -- ~ •~2~\ ~ ti ~~pf I _._____. 1 _______. _.-'. ~.' _ . _. 1 - _ ___.__-. - 1 __ __ __ ~._ .. _ _1 1 ~ 1 1 <<~, 1_____._-___.-_....___.___ 1 -________ _ 7 ~1~~ __ ~ _ _ -~~~ .~~ _.. _.- \ s~ ~ \ ~ ~v.$ MEMORANDUM TO: Design Review Appeal Committee THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Developm t Direa~e~/~y Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Director ~~(~-.. ((// FROM: Christopher Bendon, Planner ~~ 04. RE: Silverlode Subdivision Lot #9 -- Public Hearing DATE: May 14, 1998 SUMMARY: The applicant, Greg Simmons, is requesting a waiver of the Residential Design Standard concerning garages and the window penalty for Lot #9 of the Silverlode Subdivision. Waiving this garage standard will allow the garage, as designed, to be less than ]0 feet behind the main facade. Waiving the window standard will allow for windows between 9 and 12 feet above each plate, and non-orthogonal windows up to 15 feet above plate, without the Floor Area penalty. Staff recommends granting the variance for the placement of the garage, with conditions, and denying the window variance. APPLICANT: Greg Simmons. Represented by David Waugh, Architect. LOCATION: Silverlode Subdivision Lot #9. ZONING: AH1-PUD. Free-Market Residential portion of subdivision. REVIEW PROCEDURE: 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) amore effective method of addressing standard in question; or, c) clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. BACKGROUND: This lot is one of the free-market lots created by the Silverlode Subdivision, a private sector affordable housing project. The three-year period of vested rights, exempting these lots from the floor area penalties of Residential Design, has expired. The property must conform to all aspects of Residential Design unless specifically exempted by the DRAC. GARAGE: The applicant's proposed development is not in compliance with the following Residential Design Standard: Al[ portions of a garage, carport, or storage area parallel to the street shall be recessed behind the front facade a minimum of ten (10) feet. 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; or, Staff Finding; The proposed variance is not in greater compliance with the goals of the Community Plan. b) amore effective method of addressing standard in question; or, Staff Findine: The design is not more effective than the standard. However, this is the best design for a garage in the Silverlode subdivision which staff has reviewed. The applicant has mitigated the garage appearance by providing two single doors and by providing a porch element closer to the street than the garage. c) clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Staff Findine: Properties in this subdivision are difficult to access with a car due to the steep terrain, building envelope designations, and predetermined access points. This waiver is necessary and the resulting design is appropriate for the site. WINDOWS: The applicant's proposed development is subject to a FAR penalty with the following Residential Design Standard: All areas with an exterior expression of a plate height greater than 10 feet shall be counted as 2 square feet for each 1 square foot offloor area. Exterior expressions shall be defined as facade penetration between 9 and 12 feet above floor level and circular, semi-circular, or non-orthogonal fenestration between 9 and l.i feet above floor level. 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; or, Staff Findine: The proposed variance is not in greater compliance with the goals of the Community Plan. The AACP specifically rejects two-story window expanses. 2 b) amore effective method of addressing standard in question; or, Staff Findine• The design is not more effective than the standard. The standards specifically says no windows in this area unless the house size is reduced by the Floor Area penalty. c) clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specifrc constraints. Staff Finding There are no site specific constraints for this property which necessitate larger windows. The applicant has provided "views of Aspen Mountain" as a site specific constraint producing a hardship on the property. In staff's estimation, the views do not represent a hardship and are, in fact, a significant benefit to the property. Furthermore, 9' high windows do not prevent the owner from enjoying those views unless the owner is taller than 9'. Staff also believes the community's view of Smuggler Mountain, and of this house, are important. Residential Design is an Ordinance passed for the benefit of the residents who look at other people's houses and who enjoy good architecture. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends DRAC grant a variance for the placement of the garage, with conditions, and deny the request to waive the window penalty for lot #9 Silverlode Subdivision. 1. The garage shall be developed as proposed in this application unless it is designed further from the street than the front facade. 2. The garage shall be developed with two single doors. 3. All other aspects of the "Residential Design Standards," as amended, shall apply at the time of building permit application. 4. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to grant a waiver of the Residential Design Standard for placement of the garage as proposed, with the conditions listed in the Staff memo dated May 14, 1998, and deny the request to waive the Floor Area penalty regarding window placement for Lot #9 of the Silverlode Subdivision,." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -Application 3 -~ ~. _ _ _ LAND USt Ht'F'LIGATION „ .- _ _. PROJECT: Name: 2`1~ SILV~g- LOi~~ 1~2-IVY Location: LPr al i ~ I Lx/~ IZ. Lo ~7~ (Indicate street address, lot &; block number, lezal description where appropriate) APPLICANT: Name: G(2~LI S (M Mo N ~ Address: ~ I `1 Good ~>? ~~>% . # ~ 2 ~ mil; N ~ Go. S I is I I Phone =: Zo -`418 REPRESENTATIVE: Name: 17AV I t~ 1~bUl,, N WA l.Y~t~-I ~ GSSQC I aT~~ Address: 4 730 T48 L ~ M ~5A i7>? . H-3Zo P~'U Ln~R, CO. So3O3 Phone ~: ~?~03) ~-I~l~-f - TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that ai Conditional lise ri Conceptual PliD ^ Concepn:al Historic Dart. ~ Special Review ~ Final PL`D (~~. ?CD Amendment) ^ Final Historic Devzieome:u $1 Desi;n Review Appeal ~, Cnnceotaal SPA [] Nlinor Historic Dzy't. (_1 GSiQS Allounert [. Final SP.~;fi SPAAmendment) [ Historiebemoiition ~ !_i G~(QS Exemption [ Subdicisicn ^ Historic Desigttatien ~~ ESA - SOsQ Greenline, Stream [ Subdiciion Exemption (includes ^ Stnatl Lodge Conversion ~Iargir.. Hallam Lake Bluf£ condominiumizatior.) Expansion Mountain View Plane Lot Split ^ Temporary l:;e ~ (?they: Lot Line Ad;ustment ~ Tex~1-lap :amendment Ex15TING CONDITIONS: (description of uses. etc:} y,~~aNT LeNi~ PROPOSAL: idescription ofproposed buildings, ttses. modifications, etc.) sINc~L~ r-~M Il,Y i~S~~~N ~ Have you attached the following? ~ Pre-Application Conference Summarg• ~' Attachment :1, Signed Fee Agreement Response to Attachment ;#2: Dimensional Requirements Form Response to Attachment ~3. Minimum Subrnission Contents ® Response to Atachment .d, Specific Suonissien Comeau ~ Response to Atsactunent ~_, Review Standards for Your Application FEES DUE: S 4 5O.0© 2~ ATTACHMENT 2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project: Applicant: Location: Zone District: Lot Size: Lot Area: Commercial ne[ leasable: E.xisting:, Proposed: Number of residential units: E.xistin~•_ ~ Proposed: Number of bedrooms: Existit:.Q: T -.-Proposed: Proposed % of demolition (Historic. properties only): DIMENSIONS: Floor Area: EsistinR: - :-lltuwahle : ~ (4~ . 3 Prvposed: 3 ZSrJ Principal bldg. height: Crisrirrg: - __.-ltloti~ahte : 301 Proposedl• ~j01 Access. bldg. height: E.risri:ag: _4t!oticufile = - Proposed: _ On-Site parkins: E.astii~~: Required: 2 Prvpvsed: ~{ °.•o Site coverage: E:istir:g• - R~quired• Proposedf• I N!-( °'n Open Space: Eating- ~ _. --Required' Prvposed: S5,(,o Front Setback: Eiisting: _Required• 3Z Prnposec~' 1 u (oS-~ Rear Setback: Exi.rti-t; ~ Required: 38 Proposed.• 4 I ~-Oy CombinedF,~R: Existitt Required: - ~ Prvpvsed.• IOq~-0° Side Setback: Existin,;: _ _ _ Required: Ib Proposed.' l0~'~° Side Setback: ~:xirtirt;; '- Required: (~_ Propvsed: I n (3 -C' Combined Sides: Esicting - Required: ZD Proposed: 1 u 23 -(o Existing non-conformities or encroachments: No ~~ Variations requested: SE7$Ac-K ~~zaM ~~ z~ . , ,,,.. (for tho purpose, of calculating Floor .area, Lot Area may be reduced for arras within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) S~~Y~ ~n~ I.o? °i Strt rw ~vr V I G i ~ I_T'~ - - N(~ P _---- -- ~~ ____ ...~ w~..__~.~. _._.. ..~,,. ~,..-3v vc..lir P Ol ~~ ~. ~- jam- Jr / ~ J 111 ~ --.~.,._ ., n, i --- ~ -- ~ L T ~ ~ l~ ~~ ~..y T ~ ~ LOT 1 ' ~ ~.~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ / ~ yr "~f ~o ~ _~ ~~ • ~ J~ \ . r ~ / ` ~ \ v \\` ~ : ~ ~' ~` / ~; ~ ~ ~ ~ S,t' / ~ (~ ~~ ' O Y __~ ~- -- ~ ~ ' ` f t ~ b t 'VJ` /1i~~ ~ 9 ~ _ 0 w~ugh ~ ~~~oci~te~ architecture ~ planning ~ solar design April 30, 1998 Mr. Chris Bendon City of Aspen 13b South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Design Review Appeals Board Lot 9, Silver Lode Dear Chris, Imo- ~ We are requesting a variance on the above mentioned lot due to two factors. The first is the garage setback is not the-required ten feet back form the building face. This could not be achieved in the design because of the topography of the site. We have mitigated the presence of the garage by recessing it four feet from the building face and twelve feet from the more predominant covered porch face. The porch will extend across half of the building and will feature moss rock and peeled log columns and a coaper roof. The second reason for requesting a variance is the high glass windows in our design. We are requesting that the penalty be removed from the FAR calculation because of the tremendous views that the lot captures of the entire valley. As the home can be seen throughout the valley, we feel it is important to establish an appealing elevation. The turned roofs also reduce the primary mass and add character to the home. Due to the burying of the house into the hillside, and to the site configuration, the proposed encroachment will not hinder any other views of surrounding neighbors. 4730 table meaa.dr. • boulder, colomdo.•..80303 • 303.494.749 w~ugh ~ ~~~oci~te~ nrehiteeture ~ planning ~ polar deign April 30, 1998 Mr. Chris Bendon City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Design Review Appeals Board Lot 9, Silver Lode The proposed project for Lot 9 meets the following criteria for the requested variance Garage setback variance- Due to the topography of the site, we are requesting a variance on the 10' setback from building face to garage. The steepness of the site would not allow for a side load garage without unreasonable earth retention. High window FAR penalty We are requesting this variance based on asthetic reasons due to the incredible views offered by this site. Based on the site configuration, the proposed encroachment will not hinder any other views of surrounding neighbors. 4730 tptils naeaa,dr. ~ boulder; Colorado • 80303 •303.494.749 ~~t D m I rn ~~ `~ r ~rn o~ rn r r ,. -0 r D z ~~ Ds 2$ a~ -~ ~ C I ~~ \\ _*.., Vl .~ ~- m _ ~_ C ~ ~` D 3~ \_~ \ \ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ` _ ~- ,, - ~~.~~~ -~~ =~ C -~ T ~_ V ~~~\\ \ l \ ~ r~ ~ '~ `~- - ,. ~ \ -~ V~`~ ~~ ~\ \ ~,~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~`L ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ---~ ~\ ,: ~' -_ ~,. ti ~_ a T :., ~~~p ,~~ . ~a . ~~~!v~Q Sa'}EI~OSS>? ~ t~~itEM ~ ~ ~ s OQ~d'?IO'I0~ 'N~dS~I ,L11~iKd0'I~A~Q S,L~ g ~ ~~H~QIS~2i .~QO'I 2I~A'[IS n \~ Z O ,~ +mi•,e,•coc • cceoe • .v~n~> '+•n~w • +v «.m nan au e R a~twp dos o acted a ami~3!9~18 Sa~~i.70SS~ ~ i~~ilEM a ~ OQd2i0'I0~ 'N~dS~ ,LI1~Yid0'I~A~Q S,L~ g ~ ~ ~~N~QIS~~I ~QO'I 2I~A'IIS ~ ~~ i ~i 0 ~-- a i ~~ ~ ~ 0 a ~~ ~ U~(LVVWW _ __ __ __ - ~vUin _ I~IWI~I~I~IzI~I~ ~~~ QQQQQQQQ ,~1 ~- '~~ ~ '" ~ i ,~~ __ ,' ~ ~~- /- r ,, i ,, ; . ~ --, -~- ~ ~ - -~ i __ , i ~,, H ~ = ~ ~~ i' ~ ~~ \" ~ ~, . ~ ,/ E-~ ~ o a . c~ %~~~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~' __ --- - ,- ~, ~ --o ~.-, - ~ ~, E \ ~ ~ 0 \ __ ~. U~. ~ ~~ 0 n ~ ` ~/ 1 R~ iJ 1 ~\ ~~. \ 1 `~ 1 / ~ • w\ \ ~ ~ ~\ ~~~ ;~:" ~~~ ~,,,s %~ ;, ~ .,_ .~ ~ ,- -- ,~~' N\ \ ``,~ o '~ ,- ~ ~_~ ~, \ ~j6 /~ ~ \ _ __ ~ ~ s~ . - ~ \ ~ ~r _/ ~ \ ,. ~ ~ ... ~ ~__ /~ ~ .4 \ , \ ~ \ __ ~- ~.. 1 \ - \ ~ - ~ ~ 1 \ ~ • ~ \ 1 ~_~..--- 5 „o==~ .I-5091 \ \` \` ~~ ~ • y , ~ ~~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~'- " \ ~ `\ ~ ` ~ _ _ \ ~ _ ~ ' \ / ~ `~ / ... - ,\_ _-. ~ ~__\ yC ,- --- ,. _, ,_ ,- __ /~ Attachment 8 W~ SI Lv~ ~~~ County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT } ss. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS State of Colorado } SECTION 26.52.060(E) I, ~A~/ ~ ~ ~~ u It }-~ ,being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements pursuant to Section 26.52.060(E) of the Aspen Municipal Code in the following manner: ~~~~ By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class postage prepaid U.S. Mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, as indicated on the attached list, on the day of , 199_ (which is _ days prior to the public hearing date of 2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from K. the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously from the ~ day of ~`Y , 199.$, to the 1'~'~'day of ~`~ , 199 8 . (Must be posted for at least tsx-~1$) full days before the hearing date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto. -~ ~ 1 l ~~ ~z~~- Signature Signe before me this ~1day of 199 by SAr~k. ~~- ~ ~~ WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My Commission Notary `fil I -1 `p-C~11AN _ !! ^^ Q -- -;- - ------- - W~ l Attachment 8 ~) Lv~~ LaDF County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT } ss. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS State of Colorado } SECTION 26.52.060(E) I, '~~~/ ~ ~ W/~ U l+ ~'~' ,being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements pursuant to Section 26.52.Ob0(E) of the Aspen Municipal Code in the following manner: '~i~~~ By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class postage prepaid U.S. Mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, as indicated on the attached list, on the day of , 199_ (which is _ days prior to the public hearing date of )• 2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen~froµm the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously from the ~' "_ day of ~~~ , 199 8 , to the ~ ~"~hday of ~AY , 199 ~ . (Must be posted for at least te~',~r{~9~ full days before the hearing date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto. 'U ~~ i Signature Signe before me thisay of 199~by WITNESS MY HAND AND OFJFICIAL SEAL My Commission expires: ~i ~~ ~ ~9 Notary 5~i41 q$ DR,~ G EXHIBITS* ~~L /~ ~op~ Lt~T ~ ,~- Lor-~7 AGENDA ITEM: Ldr~ ~ ~rq EXHIBIT NO. DESCRIPTION IN DEMO / 1~- S~~ /'y1~'y!o ~ G ~~ T~~ ~ ~c ^~°~ ~ / ~, „. __ ~ * "In" means the exhibit is introduced into the record. "Demo" means the exhibit is used only for demonstration or illustrative purposes. sI ~~/~ ~ ~~ WITNESS LIST *LL-r t-v T S/L/~~RLUD~ ~ ~ ~ AGENDA ITEM: ~ `~ ~ NAME OF W~I(TNESS: pp~ ' 1 .`JULLE y-~w~A~ WD 00~ Staff Person s. 7 a o~ n 1~~4 u c~-tf 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 1~. 16. * Includes staff persons, but excludes staff attorney and board members. ,~ IY~' ~- MEMORANDUM TO: The Design Review Appeal Committee THRU: Stan Clawson, Community Development Director n Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Deputy Director ~~. FROM: Mitch Haas, Planner ~~ RE: Bell Mountain Townhomes request for Variances to the "Building Elements" (Section 26.58.040(B)(1)) and "Volume" (Section 26.58.040(F)(12)) provisions of the Residential Design Standards DATE: May 14, 1998 SUMMARY: Pursuant to Chapter 26.58, Residential Design Standards, 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 "ijan 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. " Community Development Department staff reviewed the application to construct a multi- family structure on the site of the Bell Mountain Lodge for compliance with the "Residential Design Standards," (see Exhibit A). In staff s review, it was determined that the proposed designs violate both the "Building Elements" standard and the "Volume" standard. Thus, the applicant is requesting variances from the "Building Elements" and "Volume" standards (described below) in order to allow for approval of the architectural designs as proposed. See Exhibit A, letter from Gibson-Reno Architects requesting variances from the requirements of Ordinance 30. Pursuant to Section 26.22.010 of the code, an appeal for exemption from the Residential Design Standards may be granted if the exception would: (1) yield greater compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan; (2) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or, (3) be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. APPLICANT: David F. Gibson of Gibson Reno Architects on behalf of the Bell Mountain Limited Liability Company. LOCATION: The site in question is located on the northeast comer of Spring Street and Cooper Avenue in downtown Aspen. Surrounding structures include the Buckhorn Lodge to the east, the Chateau Aspen to the west, the Aspen Square building to the southwest, Ciry 3S Market and the Durant Mall to the south, the Hannah Dustin building and an A-frame structure to the north, and the Benedict Commons to the northeast. STAFF COMMENTS: Section 26.58.040(B)(l), Bzilding Elements , The "Building Elements" standard mandates that "all residential buildings must have aone- story street facing element the width of which comprises at least twenty (20) percent of the building's overall width." According to the pending revisions to the Residential Design Standards, the intent of the "Building Elements" provisions "is to ensure that each residential building has street facing architectural details and elements which provide human scale to the facade, enhance the walking experience, and reinforce local building traditions." The above described intent of the "Building Elements" provision explains the issue or problem to which the standard is a response. Since the proposed design does not yield greater compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan, if the requested variance is to be justified, it would need to be on the grounds that the proposed design is necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints, or that the proposed design more effectively provides street-facing architectural details and elements which provide human scale to the facade, enhance the walking experience, and reinforce local building traditions than would a design that meets the exact letter of the "Building Elements" standard. Given the fact that the proposed design attempts to make the most efficient utilization of the space available by incorporating garden level living areas, the exact letter of the standard becomes very difficult to apply. For instance, the Cooper Avenue elevation is 200 feet long and includes 159 lineal feet (approximately 80% of the front elevation) which is two and one-half (2.5) stories above grade, and 41 lineal feet (approximately 20% of the front elevation) which is garden level only. Therefore, there are no purely one story sections in the proposed buildings; thus, cone-story element would have to, in reality, be a one and a half story element and, as such, would not comply with the exact letter of the "Building Elements" standard. In order to meet the letter of the standard, the one story street facing element on a building with 200 feet of street frontage would have to be at least forty (40) feet long. Staff feels that the proposed design, with its garden level, one-story entrances, human-scale doors and first floor decks (above garden level) combined with the proposed landscape plan and walkways more effectively provide street-facing architectural details and elements which provide human scale to the facade, enhance the walking experience, and reinforce local building traditions than would a design that meets the exact letter of the "Building Elements" standard. In addition, staff feels that the site's location on the edge of the commercial core is more conducive to greater vertical massing than are the traditional residential areas, and that this location represents a site specific condition that would render the variance appropriate for reasons of fairness. In accordance with this assessment, staff 2 3(~ finds sufficient justification to recommend approval of the requested variance from the '`Building Elements" provision of the Residential Design Standards. Section 26.58.040(F)(12), Volume The proposed design contains multiple violations of the "Volume" standard (please refer to the letter and graphic from Gibson-Reno Architects, included with Exhibit A). The standard 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 feerfor each one (1) square foot of floor area. Exterior expression shall be defned 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 (1 S) feet above the level of the finished floor. Simply put, as it relates to the subject case, this standard requires that there be no windows (facade penetrations/fenestration) in any areas that lie between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above the height of the first or second story floors (plate height). As proposed, each of the four elevations contain at least one violation of the "volume" standard (for exact locations of these violations, please refer to the letter and graphic from Gibson-Reno Architects, included with Exhibit A). Given the lack of compliance with the '`volume" standard, the applicant is 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 area 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" standard, as well as the rest of the residential design standards. Lastly, the applicant could appeal staff's findings to the Design Review Appeal Board. Rather than accept the floor area penalty (the design utilizes all but twenty square feet of the allowable floor area for the site) or redesign the proposed residence, the applicant has chosen to seek a variance from the "volume" standard. Consequently, if variances are not granted, the applicant would have to create new designs that would comply with the volume standard. If a variance is to be granted, it must be justified according to one of the three variance criteria outlined above (on page one of this memo). According to the pending revisions to the Residential Design Standards, the purpose of the "Volume" standard, like the "Building Elements" standard, "is to ensure that each residential building has street facing architectural details and elements which provide human scale to the facade, enhance the walking experience, and reinforce local building traditions." Although pending code amendments do not hold any force in the review of current applications, it may be informative to note that the pending revisions to the Residential Design Standards recommend changing the "Volume" standard to read as 3 ~~ follows: "Street facing windows shall not span through the area where a second floor level would typically exist, which is between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above the finished first floor." This proposed language is intended to implement the above-stated purpose of the standard. The above described intent of the "Volume" standard explains the issue or problem to which the standard is a response. Since the proposed design does not yield greater compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan and is not necessary for reasons of faimess related to unusual site specific constraints, if the requested variance is to be justified, it would need to be on the grounds that the proposed design more effectively provides street-facing architectural details and elements which provide human scale to the facade, enhance the walking experience, and reinforce local building traditions than would a design that meets the exact letter of the "Volume" standard. Staff does not feel that the proposed glazing interferes with the ability of the architecture to accomplish the intent of the "Volume" standard. Furthermore, staff finds that many, or indeed most, of the windows for which a variance is required, would not violate the proposed revision to the "Volume" standard since most of the violating windows are not on the first story and none of the violating windows found on the lower levels appear to span through the area where a second floor would typically exist. Staff feels that the proposed design, with its garden level, one-story entrances, human-scale doors and first floor decks (above garden level) combined with the proposed landscape plan and walkways effectively provides street- facing architectural details and elements which provide human scale to the facade, enhance the walking experience, and reinforce local building traditions. In accordance with this assessment, staff finds sufficient justification to recommend approval of the requested variance from the "Volume" provision of the Residential Design Standards. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the DRAC approve: (I) a variance from Section 26.58.040(B)(1), Building Elements, of the Residential Design Standards based on a finding that the proposed design more effectively addresses the issue or problem the given standard or provision responds to, and is necessary for reasons of faimess related to site specific considerations; and, (2) a variance from Section 26.58.040(F)(12), Volume, of the Residential Design Standards based on a finding that the proposed design more effectively addresses the issue or problem the given standard or provision responds to. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit "A" -Submitted application package 4 3$ February 23, 1998 DAVID G 11150 N AIA Mr. Mitch Haas Community Development Department 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 12E: Bell Mountain Townhomes Dear Mitch: We wish to present the design of the Project to the Design Review Architectural Commission. We seek relief from two requirements of the Ordinance 30 design guidelines, to which we do not presently conform: 1.) The "Volume" requirement, which proscribes glazing between 9' and 12' above the floor, and, 2.) The "inflection" requirement which requires aone-story element along 20% of the street frontage. We feel that the mass and scale of the design on this central core site addresses these issues in the overall design, and we wish to have the opportunity for the Commission to review the design with us. Respectfully su d, /~~~ ~ David F. Gibson, AIA attachments cc: A. Richman haas223.1tr AUGUST ReNo nIA SCOTT SMITH AIA GIBBON ~ RENO A RCH I7 ECT5, L.L.C. ~~~ 210 E. HYMAN N°202 AsrEN COLORADO 81611 9709255968 FACSIMILE 970.925.5993 I'.Q_ BOX 273 117 N. WILLOW N~~ z TELLURIDE COLORADO 81435 970.728.6607 FACSIMILE `)70 728.6658 ~~~ a~~~ ~ ~ ~~ SiWOMNM01 NIV1N1'IOW 77ae Y m ,~ S G b IY ~ o'111u m ~ (~ ¢ ~ o, J ~ "Poi. ~ e 1 ~ ~. ~ ~: s; m''~ ~~, t ~' i P~ ~~ ~ '18 DNItldS w; ~C gg e O: °! ~' s V ~1 1 III `` 1 1 1 1~ , 1 1 `I 1 l 0 Z Q J a LL • 0 W 1- \\_ fA 6 n O U ~z c § ~ ;a GQ afCi o ~~ ~ :=_~ 9 r gag i{i y{ $ ta{i 1! ~ ~ 5 ~ fl2j+9 ` ~ rr ~ i tfi 6~ ~ ~ & m i $~j'~[~HNl~t~Q~. H[dl.~n~~ ZZ~g ~; _ ! EE ~ A E A g o z OQMppJ 'POdSY c f 3 ~ ~ 3 F 65~~k w ze-] ~ El~- ~s ~ ~ 9~2 ~ ~~ ~ ~"""', <, * 9 e I ~ a ~ SrINIOHNMO.L AI]V,(A1C10I'N TT3g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~E ~ ~ ~• EF : E ~ a ~ 0 Z Q J a ~~ ~ O O J LL O- o- O n . , b i ~ '. ~ ~~ 'g ,t - i% a 't j ~ ~ i a ` \ ~~ .~ - 1 3 i 1{ ~ d !!{{ f{ 3Y1 ifi z 7 Z M Z 2 n a, A 4z J ~ J w w J H q (n ,' ,.~.van.4 ~. r'ryawm,m..~.~w,a -~ J __._ -___.. ~` (~ z, 6~q e 'e?¢n a oavxmw•traasv Z~=_~ ~ ~®~? ~4 . ~ g~3~8 ~~ ~ n gg t a` g.. g S~[OHNAIO.L AIIU,LPIf10Y1i 1'I~H O: 4 „!S €t ~ ~ =_ ~~ €~ ~ f ~ ~ C7 r N Z cr a ~~ ~ Q a } ~ p ,~ © ~ ~ ,s o- p J !!ff tl ~ R ~ ~ Z ~ A LL E ~~ ~ 2 '~ ~ Z x o- ® ~ .a 6 i \' W > 3 4 a w o- o - z ~" o- N _ 9 8 n F ; 9 S 6 ' ai i o- ~~ ~ t 3 ~ rN- z d i M E[[ i1 Q- _ 55 _~ 1 ~ p' 3~ 3 T d i e O sn J `a 1 goo e g ~ - ~ }} ~ ~~ i i i i ,I O -__ o's; I .o... '- -.w ~ ~ ~ ' O µzµ~~ E ~y9 [ P4. jj ~y31 y3R §g ~ /~ ~~$G ,~ 4 OaYND"IOJ AIDdbY zs_i 8 E_~~ ~E ~ ~~;~~ ~~ ~ ~ W .~ `~ `: `~ `~ `; g ~ a ~ ~ a ~ S3i~IOHNMac AIPd,Id~[t1oY~I z7~g ~: ! _ ~ EE ~ °° ~~ EE ° E (> Z Q J a r z c:p o J LL c 9 ~- I ~e J W W J ~ ." o-e :,~A a`-~----~,V R (~ - L z 2 n ~a~ ii xia x ao n 4NU9F9o~m~nvlwa i ~ a , i Z 0 a W J W F Ul W 3 F W W tr F N Z 2 a N O W N O a 0 rc a W Q H Z O LLL r {ll W F z 0 a w J W F N Q W F N (7 Z 2 a rn __ L __.. - - - - - - ---- w 9 9 O ~';: 'fib `~ a: a ~' ~ ~ S3WOHNM01 NItl1Nf10W ~~38 ~ m q U ~ ~~ ~ n 1~~~~~ ~p ~, la en, I~R Z w. a: S3WOHNM01 NItl1Nf10W1139 ~. m. U N ~~° c~a ~ a $~a p Z O a W J W I F N >~ w~ J~ Wo Z p ii O r 'n x W ~ J ~ i W 5 m F y W W i 3 II 1 Z Y O Q W J W F W , 3 'r~ l ~Ts ~TB ~pp1~ Ad 9d dd ~~ ~d alp alm 8d d~e ~ ~ ;~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ i ~ a ~ ~ ~ S3WOHNM01 NIV1Nf10W 1139 ,4 a _tl O ~ x w J W Z F 0 Z ~. w: a:: 7 EE Z~- ~°~s ~ 4i ei~~9 ~ ~~ ~ O< ~'~ ` f U la sd ad ~d ~d it Z O i F w J o W F m ~ tl) ~ Q w f W ; N Z O Q~ W~ J~ W Z 0 Q w a J i W o J O N . Q °< w m 71 -~ m r m D -a O Z I n ~ i~ m m n N a 1 ~ m m o r m c a D -i ~ O ~ Z 0 r c 3 m O D N_ Z fl ao i N P ~~(' q~1 I~~ s a 0 z r m m r A O 2 m A 2 I N N O ~ c I ~ I S m I! r i m ~ , O Z ~m I r ~m P~ a- p~ ar ~~,P P~[ s i ~ ~I 0--~®~Q-c_-_~7®._-~~_. 9p _ Z 4~ 4I` QN ~F 4C°i~-~ ~ '~ pi N ~ I ...~ C 1 y Ik iS ;r 9 n r ,~ J e-e a a-. E_ ^O BELLMOUNTAIN TOWNHOMES o` r 3 m G) r D N Z O r N O c m r s N_ 2 m J N ~ ` ~°'` Ilia ~ IIII w N I FII' ~ g^ggg Pg el5`a~ f ~? ~~ s~ ei~ °q 8. 9E 4 °~~ ~ --~_-®_ ~ .-m County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT } ss. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATION State of Colorado } SECTION 26.2.060 (E) I, ~ `'~~ ~~" -"~~ ~ _ .being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally certify that I have compiied with the public notice requirements pursuant to Section 26.52.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Regulations in the following manner: 1. By mailing of notice, a U.S. Mail to all owners of property, as indicated on days prior to the which i~ched hereto, by first-class, postage prepaid three hundred (300) feet of the subject the -day of , .199_ !which is - date of ~ e on the subject property (as it could be seen ie said sign was posted and visible continuously ~F :v.~ Gs) ~~' 199 (1~fust be posted for at least pan (10) full graph of the posted sign is attached hereto. Signature Signed before me this `~' "~~'" day ~"~"~ ,199~by WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: ~~- 7 ZGb ~ ~j/ d' Notary is ~'~J~~~~- (_~/mar, ~~ Notary Public's Signature s1 i~/9 ~ ~~ WITNESS LIST* AGENDA ITEM: ~'~~-u-- ~'l~ NAME OF WITNESS: 1. ~T~ 2. _~. ~~ 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Staff Person * Includes staff persons, but excludes staff attorney and board members. 5`l4I R$ 1~Ri~ G EXHIBITS* AGENDA ITEM: EXHIBIT NO. DESCRIPTION IN DEMO 1 f~Em ~ -/ Z- M~ ~ * "In" means the exhibit is introduced into the record. "Demo" means the exhibit is used only for demonstration or illustrative purposes. ~ V.l~ MEMORANDUM TO: The Design Review Appeal Committee THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Deputy Director FROM: Mitch Haas, Planner;~~ RE: 1240 Riverside Drive request for Variances to the "Building Orientation" (Section 26.58.040(A)(1)) and "Volume" (Section 26.58.040(F)(12)) provisions of the Residential Design Standards DATE: May 14, 1998 ~r~.tir~ ~ ,3~~ a~ ~~yN-~- SUMMARY: Pursuant to Chapter 26.58, Residential Design Standards, 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?3, Design Review Appeal Board. " Community Development Department staff reviewed the application to construct asingle- family residence on the 1240 Riverside Drive site for compliance with the "Residential Design Standards," (see Exhibit A). In staff s review, it was determined that the proposed designs violate both the "Building Orientation" standard and the "Volume" standard. Thus, the applicant is requesting variances from the "Building Orientation" and "Volume" standards (described below) in order to allow for approval of the architectural designs as proposed. See Exhibit A, letter from Gibson-Reno Architects requesting variances from the requirements of Ordinance 30. Pursuant to Section 26.22.010 of the code, an appeal for exemption from the Residential Design Standards may be granted if the exception would: (1) yield greater compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan; (2) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or, (3) be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. APPLICANT: August R. Reno of Gibson-Reno Architects. LOCATION: The site in question is located at 1240 Riverside Drive (Lot 9, Block 1 of the Riverside Subdivision). The Riverside Subdivision is south of Highway 82 and the Lacet Subdivision. STAFF COMMENTS: Section 26.~8.040(A)(I), Building Orientation The "Building Elements" standard mandates that "the orientation of the principal mass of all buildings must be parallel to the streets they face... On curvilinear streets, the principal mass of all buildings must be tangent to the midpoint of the arc. " According to the pending revisions to the Residential Design Standards, the intent of the ``Building Orientation" standard "is to encourage residential buildings that address the street in a manner which creates a consistent facade line' and defines the public and semi public realms. " The above described intent of the "Building Orientation" provision explains the issue or problem to which the standard is a response. Since the proposed design does not yield greater compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan, if the requested variance is to be justified, it would need to be on the grounds that the proposed design is necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints, or that the proposed design more effectively addresses the street in a manner which creates a consistent facade line and defines the public and semi-public realms than would a design in accord with the exact letter of the standard. The proposed building would have approximately 66% of its front facade parallel to the street, and the remaining 34% of the residence would be oriented toward the southwest. The applicant provides three (3) reasons for requesting a variance to the building orientation standard. First, the property was chosen for its excellent views of Aspen Mountain to the southwest, Independence Pass to the south, and Smuggler Mountain to the east. The proposed orientation of the building is intended to take advantage of these views, while still maintaining an orientation to the street. The second reason for requesting this variance relates to the topography of the site. At the northwest and central sections of the property, the grade is relatively flat; however, the southwestern and southern portions of the site begin to drop off in grade. Consequently, the applicant desires to site the building either parallel to or directly perpendicular to the grade in order to avoid difficulty in construction and having visible grade differentiation on the finished exterior walls. Finally, over eighty (80) percent of the houses on Riverside Drive are not oriented in a manner parallel to the street. [n fact, five (5) of the six (6) houses nearest to the subject site are not parallel to the street; is would be reasonable to assume the reasons for this condition revolve around views and topography. Like the other houses in the area, the existing house at 1240 Riverside Drive is not parallel to the street but, rather, is oriented along a southeast/northwest axis. Thus, requiring that 100% of the front facade be oriented toward the street would result in a residence that is different from all the surrounding houses. Staff feels that the proposed design, with its 66% street orientation and 34% southwesterly orientation more effectively addresses the street in a manner which creates a consistent facade line and defines the public and semi-public realms than would a design in accord with the exact fetter of the standard. This assessment is largely based on reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints concerning the surrounding structures and topography. Thus, staff recommends granting the requested "Building Orientation" variance because of reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints, and because the proposed design more effectively addresses the issue to which the given standard is a response. Section 26. i8.040(F)(12), Volume The proposed design contains multiple violations of the "Volume" standard on its south, southwest, and east elevations (please refer to Exhibit A). The "volume" standard reads as follows: For the purpose of calculating floor urea 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 frfteen (15) feet above the level of the finished floor. Simply put, as it relates to the subject case, this standard requires that there be no windows (facade penetrations/fenestration) in any areas that lie between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above the height of the first or second story floors (plate height). Given the lack of compliance with the "volume" standard, the applicant is 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 area penalty for each violating window 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" standard, as well as the rest of the residential design standards. Lastly, the applicant could appeal staff's findings to the Design Review Appeal Board. Rather than accept the floor area penalties (the design utilizes close to all of the allowable floor area for the site) or redesign the proposed residence, the applicant has chosen to seek a variance from the "volume" standard. Consequently, if variances are not granted, the applicant would have to create new designs that would comply with the volume standard. If a variance is to be granted, it must be justified according to one of the three variance criteria outlined above (on page one of this memo). According to the pending revisions to the Residential Design Standards, the purpose/intent of the "Volume" standard "is to ensure that each residential building has street facing architectzeral details and elements which provide human scale to the facade, enhance the walking experience, and reinforce local building traditions." Although pending code amendments do not hold any force in the review of current applications, staff felt this 3 ~~ information might be helpful in understanding the issues/concerns that the volume standard attempts to address. Since the proposed design does not yield greater compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan, if the requested variance is to be justified, it would need to be on the grounds that either the proposed design is necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints, or the proposed design more effectively provides street-facing architectural details and elements which provide human scale to the facade, enhance the walking experience, and reinforce local building traditions than would a design that meets the exact letter of the "Volume" standard. [n terms of site specific constraints, as explained in the "Building Orientation" section above, the property was chosen for its excellent views of Aspen Mountain to the southwest, Independence Pass to the south, and Smuggler Mountain to the east. The proposed glazing is intended to take advantage of these views. With regard to the proposed design more effectively providing street-facing architectural details and elements which provide human scale to the facade, enhance the walking experience, and reinforce local building traditions than would a design that meets the exact letter of the "Volume" standard, staff feels that the requested variance should be granted on these grounds. Of the elevations for which "volume" variances are requested (south, southwest, and east), only the southwest elevation would have an impact on the scale of the structure in relation to the street. The other two facades would not be visible from the street, and the southwest elevation would be only partially visible from the street. Also, on each of the facades for which "volume'' variances are requested, the noncomplying glazing resides in gable-ends and is broken up or obscured with either terrace railings or gable wood trusses. The glazed gable ends accompanied by gable wood trusses make use of materials and design features that will effectively provide architectural details and elements that reinforce local building traditions. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the DRAC approve: (I) a variance from Section 26.58.040(A)(1), Building Orientation, of the Residential Design Standards based on a finding that the proposed design more effectively addresses the issue or problem the given standard or provision responds to, and is necessary for reasons of fairness related to site specific considerations; and, (2) a variance from Section 26.58.040(F)(12), Volume, of the Residential Design Standards based on a finding that the proposed design more effectively addresses the issue or problem the given standard or provision responds to. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit "A" -Submitted application package 4 5'3 EI~1~ DESCRIPTION The Project consists of a new single family residence. We are requesting variances related to the "no window zone" and "street orientation". We feel this Project not only meets the intent of the Desigm Guidelines, but it exceeds the requirements in many areas including: l . Street facing entry and principal room window. 2. One (1) story street facing element that covers ninety (90%) per cent of the overall width. 3. Covered entry porch of approximately one hundred (100) square feet. 4. Primary Mass of less than fifty (50%) per cent of the allowable FAR. 5. Street facade includes stepped wall planes, gable roofs, reduced building mass, mixing of building materials, introduction of roof forms, such as dormers, belvederes, and chimneys that enhances the overall character of the neighborhood. 6. A one (1) story building massing adjacent to the non-street facing South property line. On the Southwest, South and East exterior elevations of the building we are requesting relief from the "no window zone" standard of the guidelines. Our reasons for this request are threefold. Two (2) of the three (3) facades will have no visual impact on scale or massing regarding the street facade. These facades are not visible from the street. The third facade, the Southwest is only partially visible. The second reasons is based upon the fact that on each of these facades the glazing begins at the floor of the upper level and the building mass and scale is broken up by the first floor treatment of the facade; one (1) story building mass and use of different materials. The third reason for our request is based upon the fact that this property was chosen for its exceptional views and orientation. Each of the facade views are outstanding; Southwest: Aspen Mountain; South: Independence; East: Smuggler Mountain. The design of the windows is intended to take advantage of these views. In each case the glazing is broken up with either terrace railings or gable wood trusses. Meeting the required "no window zone" would obscure the majority of the view (the view angle is upwards from the floor level) and would not have any impact or improve the character of the neighborhood. ~~ Riverside Drive Estate April 14, 1998 `'-°•° Page 2 We are asking that these windows be waived. The windows add to the character of the elements, introduce natural light into the interior, and have no impact on the mass and scale of the house. Removing these windows would only detract from the overall character and would not contribute to or improve the intent of the Residential Design Guidelines. Our second variance request relates to building orientation. Our proposal includes having approximately sixty six (66%) percent of the house parallel to the street. The remaining thirty four (34%) percent of the house is turned to the Southwest. Here again, our reasons for this request are threefold. As I mentioned previously, the views aze exceptional to the Southwest, South and East. The road (Riverside Drive) is directly West. Orientation to views is critical for this parcel. Our second reason relates to the topography of the property. At the Northwest and central section of the property grade is relatively flat, however beginning at the Southwest and South section of the property grade begins to fall off. Due to this condition, ease of construction is desirable so that we are either parallel or directly perpendicular to grade. We were trying to avoid visible grade differences on our exterior walls. Thirdly, over eighty (80%) percent of the houses located on this street do not parallel the street. In fact, five (5) out of the six (6) houses that are nearest to this property are not parallel to the street. The reasons for this have to due with views and topography. It should be noted that the existing house on this parcel is not parallel to the street and is oriented along aSoutheast/Northwest axis. We are asking that total building orientation to the street be waived. We feel we have found a solution that solves all of the issues: street orientation, views, and topography. Forcing this building to comply with the street orientation would only make this structure different from all of the rest. `~.. h~~ fl ~- ~Q ~ U ,- ~ ..\ OOH. :~ 4 c ~ a e Q~ '~ "~rr~r~-~-~--`r~-rte-~ ~ f. ,, ..:, ::. Y Q \ ~v~~~ C ~ ~1 i ' ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ 0 d~-~,f~ 1 ~~I~I I I ~ Oadd0100 `N3dSd fl ~ ~ ! ~ ~ 3Alaa 3aISd3Ala ObZL ~. ~~ ~~d~ ~~ AQ yptyp 88 5ip5 Q ,~' L7 .., ~`~ d ~ ~ ~ -~ a a-. ~~ .~ r ~ A ~ 7 d u i '~ ar+v~ '~ 0 ~ Q~ ~ V i j ~ rt w U! rn l w ' 1--1 ,~ `_ o W W Q ~~ ~ ~V Q o d ~0 V ~ ~ J A c~- ~ ~7 ~~ ~ , ~7'~ ~J 0 r ~o r-~, _ I 1~ _ ~~1 i ~~ 1 1 _'- ~ ~~ ~~~ / ~ ; r ~ ~F s '~ -4 1 ,`~ '" / ~Q A ~5 / a~ / ~ --~-_ ~ ni..v g 1~ o, W r ~ ~ ~ v o~ ~ ~ b n~ ~ o ~~ - ~ a _ o~ n ~ ~a o ~. N 1240 RIVERSIDE DRIVE g hE k ~ ~ ~~ ~~`' ~ : ~~ :~a~ ~ _=p , . ASPEN, COLORADO ~ ° II~~Ili4~ I I I I I I t ~~I ° ~~'I d-~!~ ~ ~; V ~~ M 3AIliU 3aISli3Ala ObZI a, .. ~~ n ~Y u r~ ~Q .v ~a Y c0 Y r° o~ ~~ 4 -~__~ '~/ ~~o a~/ ~r 0 O^ \• O 1•` /I ~ 1 // ~1 / A V 1 - • -~ ~ ~ ~ '~~ t ~ / h ~~~.,~ -? y ~ r~ ~ a yr ~' / i ---~-- ~~ t~ w ~. f{II ~r 0 na ~ ~ I a ~ ~ ' ! ~ 1240 RIVERSIDE DRIVE ~r r u ~~ ~ J O ~ ~, ~~ ~Qr 0 -{ P ~~ ~ ~ ~ 1.1 ~al({ I I O a~8~~ ,, zF b ~ Q 3niaa aaisaania oval ~~ ~~`, ° ~ ¢ ~ ~~ ~ " ~ ~~ .~ ;_. 0Y F, U 0~ J~ Q ~~ h 0 0 ~ 4 ~~ o~ ~Q r---------~--------------y ~ ~ I i '` l .-~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~- `~ ~1 .___ 17F o~ ~~, . ` ` ~ J a e~ s~ 01~ ~' 0 0~ J~ ~~ ~e ~~ ~-- :~ e e ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ev -e a- .o 0 8 w O