Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.drac.19990408AGENDA DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE Special Meeting April 8,1999 5:00 p.m. Thursday Sister Cities Meeting Room, City Hall I. Roll Call II. Comments (Committee, Staff and Public) III. Minutes IV. Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest V. Continued Public Hearing (4/1/99): ~~~~'k.~'~_ ~'_~;-off -~ A. 1340 Red Butte Drive, Wildman Residence, `J Appeal of the "Volume" standard VI. Adjourn ~~ MEMORANDUM TO: Design Review Appeal Committee (DRAG) THRU: Julie Ann. Woods, Co.'mrmu/nity Development Directo~ ~ FROM: Mitch Haas, Plannerl{,~ from the "Volume" (26.58.040(F)(12)) Provision of the Residential Design Standards RE: 1340 Red Butte Dr~~~i"'v111e~~^(Wildman Residence), Request for a Variance DATE: April I, 1999 SUMMARY: Pursuant to Chapter 26.58, Residential Design Standards, Section 26.58.020(B), of the Aspen Municipal Code, "an applicarn shall prepare an application for review and approval by staff. In order to proceed wish additional land use reviews or obtain a Development Order, sk ff 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 tlae Design Review Appeal Board [DRAG] pursuant to Chapter 26.22, Design Review Appea[ Board. " Community Development Department staff reviewed the application for an addition to an existing residence at 1340 Red Butte Drive for compliance with [he "Residential Design Standards," (See attached Exhibit A). Staff found that the proposal is not in compliance with the "Volume" standard. The applicant is requesting variances from this standard (described below) in order to allow the proposed design. The application is attached as Exhibit "A." The staff and DRAG reviews are limited only to those portions of the structure that are proposed for alterations (the addition only). 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: (i) 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. Staff is recommending denial of the variance request, finding that the proposed design does not meet any of the three aforementioned standards. APPLICANT: Dorothy Wildman, represented by Jennifer Cohen of Charles Cunniffe Architects. LOCATION: 1340 Red Butte Drive (Lot 1, Block 2, Red Butte Subdivision) is located on the north side of Red Butte Drive (between the street and the Roaring Fork River) across from the intersection of Sage Court. See attached vicinity map, Exhibit B. STAFF COMMENTS: Section 26.58.040(F)(12), Volume The proposed addition contains violations of the "Volume" standard on its east, south, and north elevations. The portion of the "volume" standard relevant to this project reads as follows: For the pzrrpose 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 expressiar shall be defrned as facade penetrations between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above the level of the finished floor, and circular, semi-circ:dur or non-orthogonal fenestration between nine (9) and fifteen (15) feet above the level of the finished floor. Simply put, 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 finished floor. Thus, one might describe the area lying between nine and twelve feet above the finished floor as the "no window zone." Sheet A2.0 depicts the existing conditions at the area of the proposed addition, and the existing windows already violate the volume standard. Nevertheless, all new residential additions, irrespective of "nonconforming" status, are required to comply with the provisions of the Residential Design Standards unless varied by an entity with the authority to do so. Sheet A3.1 of the architectural drawings submitted as part of the application (Exhibit A) shows the elevations of the proposed addition. On the .wq east, south, and north elevations, all windows labeled with a D, E, F, G, H, or J violate the volume standard. 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 penalty or redesign the proposed residence, the applicant has chosen to seek a variance from the "volume" standard. Consequently, if a variance is not granted, the applicant would have to redesign to comply with the volume standard. If a variance is to be granted, it must be justified according to one of the three variance criteria. Staff s review of the application relative to said standards is provided below. An appeal for exemption jrom the Residential Design Stnnrlnrds nmy be granted if the exception world: (l) yield greater compliance wiUr the Aspen Area Commrnity Plnn; RESPONSE: There is nothing about the subject proposal that would further the goals, standards, or objectives outlined in the Aspen Area Community Plan. An appeal for exemption jrom t/re Residential Design Stmulnrds nrny be granter! if the exception would: (2) more effectively address the issrre or problem a given standnrrl or provision responds to; or, RESPONSE: According to the proposed revisions to the Residential Design Standards, the purpose/intent of the "Volume" standard "is to ensure drat 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 proposed code amendments do not hold any force in the review of current applications, staff feels this information might be helpful in understanding the issues/concerns that the volume standard attempts to address. Staff believes the proposed design would have little to no impact on the street-facing architectural detailing, human scale, or pedestrian experience associated with the residence, and staff recognizes that the proposed addition will be set back more than ninety (90) feet from Red Butte Drive (see site plan, Exhibit A). However, based on a strict reading of the standard, staff finds that the proposed design does not satisfy the criterion of 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. Therefore, while staff feels the proposal is rather "benign," staff finds that this criterion is not satisfied with the proposed design. An appeal for exemption from t/re Residential Design Standards may be granted ijtlre exception would: (3) be clearly necessary jor reasons ojfairness related to unusual site specific constraints. RESPONSE: [n terms of site specific constraints, there are no unusual physical conditions (i.e., topography, natural hazards, etc.) where reasons of fairness would dictate that the proposed noncomplying windows must be included in the design. While existing vegetation and setbacks from the street as well as from the neighboring property would aid in mitigating the impacts of the proposed addition, these are not unusual site specific constraints where reasons of fairness would make the proposed design necessary. In summary, staff recognizes that the proposed addition is relatively modest in scale and benign in impact. Staff further recognizes that the subject location is not within one of the historic, traditional neighborhoods of Aspen or on a grid street system. Nevertheless, since the proposed design does not, in staff s opinion, meet the strict standards of any of the three criteria for granting a variance, staff recommends denial of the request. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the DRAC deny the variance requests, and direct the applicant to redesign the residence to comply with all of the residential design standards, including the "volume" standard. This recommendation is based on the finding that the project, as proposed, does not satisfy any of the three criteria by which a variance can be granted. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to deny the variance requests, directing the applicant to redesign the residence to comply with all of the residential design standards, including the `volume' standard." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit "A" - Submitted application package Exhibit "B" - Vicinity Map ~a Ex~~er~ a -~~ _ -- `, 1= ,, CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS ©~ 610 E. HYMAN, ASPEN, CO 61611 970/925-5590 970/920-4557 FAX ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIORS DRAC Committee City of Aspen March 18, 1999 Wildman Addition We are asking a for a variance to the Ordanance 30 code that relates to windows being between 9' - 12'. As you can see from the existing drawings, the windows we are proposing are an existing condition. The following items are reasons that we feel this design solution is appropriate. 1. We are keeping the original intent of the design by keeping the same roof line and window configuration. This house has many different roof lines which give ii it's character, we are extending a portion of this roof to keep the uniqueness of the original design. 2. We are keeping the original layout of the windows by moving the same design forward and then finishing off the design. 3. The proposed elevation is not part of the front fapade and will not be seen from the street. County of Pitkin State of Colorado AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT ss. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATION SECTION 2652.060 (E) I, ~~N N I ~ ~-ofP2~N b!'~E'}i~RI,~S~(1NNI1~ F7Y'~l~eing or tEpresenting an Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requiremenu pursuant to Section 26.52.060 (~ of the Aspen Land Use Regulations in the following manner. N/f~ ~ 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 the nearest pub~~lic//way) and thaz the sa""i~~d"" sign was posted and visible continuously fro~tt the ~O day of Mltrw( ,199°I' (Must be posted for DIVE C~>) at leasttert{-1.0.).fbll days before the hearing date). A photograph of the gosted sign is attached hereto. (Attach photograph here) 1. w carrreswN ores ae-+oaoa~ WrINESS MY HAi~ID AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires : ~ ~~®-a2d0.1 Public's Signature FROM LINES INSPRCE -- 19709633052 03-19-99 11:14AM TO 9204557 P.2 yy~~~~S`~1'7°301= 1 (0'5.00 Lo~ 1 ~~ ~to~k z m 'v o~ ~o ~ ~ m J` ~ t~ ~ r . m ry c~ J!? ~/ y._o. ~ q . 7d "" ~i. ~ rCFr ' ~~ I ` `.!.~< ~ i~~i ~ ~A m J 1t .h !~ '^a r 1~ rv r ~._ ~'~ 2 ~\ ^' ~ ~ ~~ i ~' .. ----, 1 - -_._. , •.. C+~ ~~o~es ~oux.4~ re~.~- E cr~~ j o-~~d~~o:~as sQ~ P..o..t... mar_kcr~. ' r~s.Iwii l Legal Description: Lot' 1, Block ?_ Red Dutte Subdivision, City of Aspen, ` Pitkin County, Colorado. I hereby certify that on April 15, 1988 a survey was conducted by me and under my direct supervision of the above described parcel of land. All easements, encroach- ments and rights-of-way in evidence or known to me are shown. This survey is true and cor act to that of my knuwledye and belief. DY ~ -~cz. fiw`r_ SY Y c,cnme ... .~ Street Address: 1340 Red Butte Drive Aspen, Colorado • ~ - .. .Ly~'YO~/2'!iYli2,'Vl:......S~r~re.. v eY' p~ts~ ~ ,~ 49 L/lll~'~ /JV' e~'r ~e a ~ ~q SYDMEJ'.;EIIAI~E;{ 1J1 i i 21 BUX IEI~C C :.. . v use ? r s zs . v. ,i 9 -:... ...~ ' ~ _ . :_,_ G~~ ,,,~a ~;m~ rr,. ~a ~~,.~~~~~, FROM LINES IN S RCE 19709033052 03-10-99 11:14RM TO 9704557 P.2 !`tf-~l)! Holy ;~~~t. ;' ~e ~ .~3~~ fir,; ve A ••• i1N.~_~ca~-a3 ~~oua~_i7~~ r2SCxiv- E C~y~~ Q-Urldlca:~CS '3t~ P.c~..t....mar.~.~Str:1~., Leyal Description: Lot 1, Block ?Red Dutte. Subdivision, City of Aspen, i'~S 1 Hill Pltkin County, Colorado. I hereby certify that on Apri] 15, 1988 a survey was conducte direct supprvlslun of the above described parcel of land. All ments and rights-of-way in evidence or known to mP are shown. and cor act to that or my knuwled_ye and belief. Y y c rnme „ , -- Street Address: 1~~111 er. d by me and under my easements, encroach- Th1s survey is true 1340 Red Butte Drive Aspen, Colorado ...... G'!!1'~~'.Nl:.... . V'r wed ill