Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.drac.20000713AGENDA DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE July 13, 2000 5:00 p.m. Thursday City Council Chambers, City Hall L Roll Call II. Minutes III. Comments (Committee, Staff and Public) IV. Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest V. Public Hearing A. 981 King St. D~~ t~4 3 -a B. 375 North Spring St. -Variances ~.~~~~ .4._~ VI. Adjourn TRRU: FROM: RE ~~ r MEMORANDUM - Design Review Appeals Committee (DRAG) Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director~'~ Fred Jarman, Planne~. Reich Variance DATE: July 13, 2000 APPLICANT: DRC Family Limited Partnership Device Reich, Owner REPRESENTATIVE: Alan Richman, Alan Richman Planning Services PARCEL ID: 2737-073-10-001 ADDRESS: 37~ North Spring Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 ZONING: R-30, Low Density Residential CURRENT LAND USE: 22,599 sq. ft. lot with three unoccupied structures. PROPOSED LAND USE: The applicant wishes to build a 4,157 sq. ft. two-story single-family residence and detached 800 sq. ft. Accessory Dwelling Unit. In order to do so, the applicant is seeking two (2) Variances from the Residential Design Standazds for building orientation and gazage setback. REVIEW PROCEDURE: Variances from the Residential Design Standards [Chapter 26.410.040], may be granted by the Design Review Appeal Committee pursuant to Chapter 26.222. yt ~~~ l Kl ~~ r.- NW' view of 375 North Aspen trees in front. Spring Street showing West view of property from N. Spring Street showing access onto property (proposed driveway access) and Francis Street Right-of--Way. STAFF COMMENTS: - The applicant, Denice Reich, represented by Alan Richman oirRichman Planning Services ~,^,Q and Geoffrey Lester of Chazles Cunniffe Architects, seeks two (2) variances from Section 26.410 Residential Design Guidelines for 1) building orientation for the proposed two-story "°W`" primary residence and 2) a garage_setback requirement for a front loaded two-caz attached gazage. (See Exhibit A for a description of the specific standazd.) The applicant's property is located in the Oklahoma Flats Addition adjacent to the Roaring Fork River. It should be noted; a small residence and two "storage structures" currently exist on the property. All of these structures will be removed prior to construction on a proposed residence. Most recently, the applicant received administrative approval from the Community Development Director for a Stream Mazgin Amendment to comply with newly adopted stream mazgin review criteria and an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) approval on June 20, 2000. The following discussion outlines Staff s position on the applicant's variance requests from residential Design Standards for building orientation and gazage setback. Staff Recommendation: (Exhibit A contains staff s fmdings related to the review criteria.) Staff recommends the variance request for "building orientation" be denied because it fails to address the street in a manner which creates a consistent "facade line," does not contribute to the streetscape, and further detracts from the established pazallel nature of existing residences in the neighborhood. Staff recommends the variance request for "parking, gazages, and carports" be approved ' because of existing site constraints and placement of the proposed location of the ADU which will effectively screen the garage and cazs from public view. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -Review Criteria & Staff Findings Exhibit B --Proposed Site Plan Showing Residence and ADU Location Exhibit C --Photo Documentation of Parcel and House Image Exhibit D --Parcel 2737-073-10-001 Location and Vicinity iVlap Exhibit E -- Application Letter Exhibit F -- Resolution No. ~ Series 2000 y,.z, // „ ' MEMORANDUM CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS ~~ 610 E. HYMAN, ASPEN, CO 81611 970/925-5590 970/920-4557 FAX ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIORS TO: City of Aspen Design Review Appeal Committee (DRAG) FROM: Geoffrey Lester with Alan Richman, Plann g Consultant DATE: June 22, 2000 PROJECT: Spring Street Residence (on behalf of Denice Reich) 375 N. Spring Street, Aspen, Colorado (Oklahoma Flats) JOB NO.: 0015 REGARDING: Variance Application On behalf of our client, we are submitting an application for two (2) variances for your review and consideration. The first variance request is for the garage location and the second variance seeks approval for the proposed house orientation to the primary street. The appropriateness of both requested variances is addressed below in further detail. Please find attached in 8 1/2 x 11 format the Land Use Application, Agreement with fee, the Dimensional Requirements Form, Applicant letter, Disciosure of Ownership and photographic exhibits supporting our variance request. In addition, in larger format we include the Neighborhood Block Plan with Vicinity Map .;A1), Site /Landscape Plan (A2), Significant Building Elevations of the main house and A.D.U. (A3), Civil Engineer Survey and a photographic panorama of the site and adjacent parcels. Project History: ^'~ Our client and her family have awned this unbuilt parcel for decades and have recently chosen to pursue construction of a single family residence. (Refer to the attached "Architectural Character and Scale" photographic reference for the desired building concept.) Our client has submitted an - amendment to her existing_Stream Margin Review approval as well as an A.D.U. application. Both applications have successfully been approved this month. The past several years spent in pre construction planninc and negotiations with the City have resulted in many compromises between our client's wishes and various city departments including City Engineering and the Parks Department. Several significant compromises are listed below: - The 1990 Stream Margin approval established a building envelope for this property with a 35' setback from the River. Discussions with City Planning staff have verified that this setback is greater than the 15' minimum setback th? would be established today if the parcel were to again go through Stream Margin Review. Our client has agreed to abide by this larger setback, which will retain an open feeling along this important City resource. - The City Engineer approached our client in 1999 regarding the need for the City to build a drainage swale in what would have been the continuation of Francis Street. Our client had intended to use Francis Street as access into the property, which would have permitted a side entry into the garage. However, our client accepted the request of the City Engineer and agreed to abandon this preferred access, in favor of the currently proposed access off of Spring Street. - Tree removal and mitigation negotiations with a City Official dictated that two groves of existing Cottonwood trees could not be removed, despite their location within the approved building envelope. Our client also intends to save many other existing trees along the Spring Street side of the property, limiting the options where a driveway access can be built. Based on these and other rpromises, the site specific constraii `o design a residence around. are significant. Therefore, we i~al it is fair to allow approval of the following two variances: P Garage Variance: ,.~ Due to the absence of rear alleys or private roads and other City negotiated site constraints, a rear c perpendicular facing garage is not possible. A perpendicular facing garage was actually preferable tcW our client, but the City's request to save the "A" and "B" groups of Cottonwood trees eliminated that option. (Refer to Sheet A2 for tree locations.) In addition, the Francis Street extension was abandoned by City Engineering in favor of a to be built drainage swale. City Staff suggested to our client that the garage orientation issue can be satisfactorily resolved by the placement of the detached A.D.U. directly in front of the garage as viewed from Spring Street. (Although this solution was determined to still require this variance.) This solution not only screens the direct view of the garage doors, but also hides any parked vehicles in the driveway. Please refer to Sheet A2 for further information. Finally, as shown in the attached photographs, most of the neighboring older and recently built houses have set a strong precedent for street facing garages. (Most right off the street, not set back.) Therefore, with all site constraints and precedents considered, we feel it is very fair to approve the garage variance as requested. House Orientation Variance: The obvious design theme in this specific neighborhood is to orient the house to the Roaring Fork River. History proves a strong precedent to this idea whether it be here in the Roaring Fork Valley or beyond. Even the neighborhood road layout is somewhat influenced by this natural geography. Our client wishes to follow suit with the primary house orientation to the river. This orientation decision leaves a subtle 16 degree offset from Spring Street. Beyond the desire of a riverfront orientation, a number of other factors have influenced the design: Our client requested the house to be of a simple, strong form and to be designed well below. allowable F.A.R. Designing the house and required A.D.U. to avoid the "A", "B" and easter group of existing street side trees, fall within the increased setbacks, and orient precisely to th, primary street is a challenging task. When studying the altemative street oriented versions, the house grew larger and more complicated due to the inefficient stepping to respond to the river setback line. It is our opinion that a smaller house footprint (albeit with a modest street orientation issue) and retaining more existing trees is preferred over the altemative solutions. 2. One of the basic concepts behind the street orientation guideline is to provide residences that consistently relate to the built environment in orientation, scale and character. The proposed building orientation certainly addresses this concept as illustrated on the site plans. The recently built neighboring house to the south, 285 N. Spring Street, orients to the river /street in exactly the same fashion as our proposed house. This precedent makes it clear to us that our slightly angled house does directly relate to it's significant neighbor to the south and therefore will not be judged as "misaligned." If you visit that house, you will perceive that slight angle as a non issue. In a slightly broader context, the orientation of our proposed house with respect to both recently built neighbors to the south will be in alignment, the notable exception being that our house is set further back from the street which is mare desirable for this neighborhood. The position of the street oriented A.D.U. directly responds to the orientation of the several existing neighboring residences north of the site. The A.D.U. becomes somewhat of a hinge point mass that nicely adjusts the orientation back to the primary street. We feel our client's wishes of the proposed house orientation on this site have valid reasoning arr. precedent. In our opinion, this design certainly does not detract from the fabric of the neighborhood.. complements it. We feel it is very fair to approve the house orientation variance as requested. ExHIBIT A REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS Building Orientation The first request is a variance from the Residential Design Standazds for building orientation of the proposed residence. The applicant proposes to build a 4,157 sq. ft. two-story single- family residence oriented to the Roaring Fork River. The currently proposed position of the house is 16 degrees off pazallel from North Spring Street. Specific language and graphics referring to site design in Section 26.410 Residential Design Guidelines indicates the following: The intent of these design standards is to eneourat:e residential buildings that address the street in a manner which creates a consistent "facade line" and defines the public and semi-public realms. !n addition, where fences or dense landscaping exist, or are proposed, it is intended that they be used to define the boundaries of private property without eliminating the visibility of the house and front yard from the street. Building orientation The front facades of all principal structures shall be parallel to the street. On corner lots. both street facing facades must be parallel to the intersecting streets. On curvilinear streets, the front facade of all structures shall be parallel to the tangent of the midpoint of the arc of "' the street. (See diagram to the right) One element, such as a bay window or dormer, placed at - a front corner of the building may be on a diagonal from the street if desired. Yes. No. i I ~~ Ye~ / Staff Finding As proposed, the applicant wishes to orient the residence to the Roaring Fork River, which results in being 16 degrees off parallel from North Spring Street. The applicant contends that certain site requirements, such as avoiding the "A", "B", and eastern group of existing side trees, constrain the design possibilities making a parallel orientation a challenging task. The applicant has shown staff a design, which is pazallel to the street; however, this design was undesirable to the applicant. The applicant also contends that the proposed positioning of the residence should not be judged "misaligned" due to the current "off-pazallel" position of a neighbor's adjacent residence and will be set back from the street. Staff finds that 1) the neighboring residence (285 N. Spring Street) received a building permit prior to the adoption of Ordinance 30, Series 1995, which formally adopted the Residential Design Guidelines on June 13, 1995, and 2) these guidelines were drafted and adopted in duect response to developments such as the house orientation of 285 N. Spring Street. More than that, almost ail of the houses on both Bay Street and North Spring Street aze oriented towazds the street. These existing houses have a direct relationship to the streetscape on which they front. In the applicant's defense, the adjacent neighbor (28~ N. Spring Street) is roughly 15 degrees "off-pazallel" from the street but does not appeaz to be non-streets oriented. However, this residence does appear to be "off' just enough to detract from the rest of the residents in the neighborhood. It is the intention of the Land Use Code to keep this trend from reoccurring by utilizing the Residential Design Standards. It is for these reasons Staff does not support this variance so that an undesirable and contrasting building orientation is not continued in a unique neighborhood where almost all of the houses have a direct relationship to the street. Garage Variance The second request is a variance from the Residential Design Standazds for atwo-caz gazage setback. The applicant proposes to build an attached front loaded two-caz gazage to the proposed residence. The currently proposed position of the gazage extends ten (10) feet past the front most wall of the house. Specific language and graphics referring to site design in Section 26.410 Residential Design Guidelines indicates the following: The intent of the following parking, garages, and Alley carport standards is to minimize the potential for ~- conflicts between pedestrian and automobile --~ 4 No. 4 Yes. traffic by placing parking, garages. and carports ~ i ~ on allevs. or to minimize the presence ofgarages I Yes. and carports as a li{eless part of the streetscape 1 4 I ~ where allevs do not exist. ~ ~ For all residential uses, parking, garages, and `Street carports shall be accessed from an alley or private road if one ecists. (See diagram to the right) Staff Finding In this case, the applicant does not have a private road or access from an alley. The applicant intended to use Francis Street as the primary access to the property; however, the City Engineer determined the use of Francis Street to be solely committed as a natural swale for the North Spring Street area. Therefore the applicant must address the following criteria: 1 I ~- ~ 1 2Y+io I .k- x -*- a x.5 ~ The front facade of the garage or the front most supporting column of a carport shall be set back at least ten feet (10' 0 ") further from the street than the front most wall of the house. (See diagram to the left) Staff Comments The proposed gazage extends ten (10) feet past the front most wall of the house. This standard calls for a recessed gazage ten feet behind the front most wall of the house. Therefore the applicant is requesting a twenty (20) foot variance from this standazd. The applicant proposes to build a detached 800 sq. ft. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) to be located on the Northeast comer of the property. Staff 4 suggested that the current gazage orientation /placement could be satisfactorily resolved by the effective placement of the ADU to be directly in front of the gazage and therefore screened by the ADU. This proposed placement of the ADU not only screens the direct view of the gazage doors but also hides any pazked vehicles in the driveway. c. On lots of at least 15, 000 square feet in sire, the garage ar carport maybe forward of the front facade of the house only if the garage doors or carport entry are perpendicular to the street (side- loaded). Staff Finding The applicant's lot size is 22,99 squaze feet; therefore the gazage may be forwazd of the front facade of the house only if the garage doors aze perpendiculaz to the street. The applicant contends that due to the absence of rear alleys or private roads and other site constraints, a rear or perpendiculaz facing garage is not possible. The applicant preferred a perpendiculaz facing gazage; however, as per tree removal permits issued by City Pazks Department intended to save two sets of Cottonwood trees labeled '`A" and "B" which exist inside the building envelope, the applicant contends that their design respects this agreement but calls for a front loading gazage. In addition, side-loaded access to the site via the Francis Street right-of--way was eliminated as a result of its designation by the City Engineer as a drainage s~+ale. Therefore, as a result of these constraints, the applicant contends it is not able to produce a perpendiculaz garage design that takes advantage of this criterion. Staff agrees that the proposed garage design should be allowed in consideration of the current site constraints. ~~ D __ __ _ __. OKL4HOMA FLATS ADDITION •~ ~:. PK ~\NER FO POPR\~iG ~ SE~~oN /a7 ;Si eT_•f/% 50; je ~ ~-~ ~•• ~ •~" / ~• %' ./r•/./ /,.~ •L / ..% i ~ ;,~..~ ,- h .~ ~\ ~'~ ~. _ /~-7f 19P` ~ ~ i \~ I n O W I NI e / ' vE~~P~~ /~mE P~PPP~ /." G~~ / ~ON ~ ptt0 / ' ~ L N~c SON GR~ ~./ "~{~'..T"• ;~~, I d ~ \ \ i M -, ~`. 3E'M \ - A i ~ '7 A --- ~. ~~~--- ~, ~ v I ~~ ~ I ~~~ ,\ r~ '~ \) ~. / .A- ~`I ~~~ ~!S S/ \ ~j ~~ ~ ~~ ~"=, ~ .:~-~~ - N -~ id~ _ ~ -- .T ~ vk ~ .'/n I '© ~ J.q SPRING STREET ~ - :./~~ ~j ~_~ ~ AO.U. ~_~ ~-'~ ~ ~ - r Sf"?dCX LINE '1~." ° Jt '~ ~~ r~~ ~-~ ~ , ~ ~ iiD~ H ~1 \ J . •- K~p , --------------- ---- ---~~ bi '~ \ '~ b FfVlSfO^SREEr OE01CA'IdY nn'r `' ,nreee. ~'I IIj I= ~~~ ~ 'I a 1 ` I 1, 1\v/ 1 ~~ PHOTO DOCUMENTATION EXHIBIT C '~'[ i ; ~ (~.. ' %ar'+~- A ~i,6' Wis.:.. r ~ ~^~ onto property in 1998 6 .~ /Neighbor ;,"'~. Structure on property Existing Berm on southerly property line EXHIBIT D ~ PARCEL 2737-073-10-001 LOCATION AND VICINITY MAP _ _ _ _ .~ _ HOUSE IMAGES Primary Mass Standard: The DRAC guidelines ask for a comment on the Primary Mass Standard. It is our opinion that our design successfully meets those intentions with the detached A.D.U. mass. The requirement calls for at least 10% of the primary mass square footage to be visually detached from the principal building. "Accessory Dwelling Units are examples of appropriate uses for the secondary mass." In conclusion, we are asking for two individual variances on issues that may not meet the letter of the Residential Design Standards, but however deal with the site constraints and neighborhood context in a manner that we feel successfully meets the spirit of these guidelines. ... Architectural C~?aracter and Scale / , ~' . r The following photographs illustrate the existing precedent for street facing Garages in this neighborhood: 231233 SPR1tiG STREET ^,~ 285 SPRING STREET ~. ~~. .~- 606 SPRING STREET 270 SPRING STREET f A'",A, -~4. ~.r 3a0 SPRING STREET 42Q SPRING STREET 731 SAl' STREET 72? 8AY STREET 728 FRANCIS 730 FRANCIS SEP.26.2E~00 '3~ 16A"1 QTY fJP A3PEfJ -- MEMORAND'CTM TO: Desigl Review Appeal Committee THRU: Iulie Ann Woods, Co*nm„reify Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director FROM; Nick Lelack, planner N0.557 .~ RE: 981 King Street, Lot ~, Aster Subdivision -Residential Design Standard Variance for Secondary Mess DATE: July 13, 2 i Garrisb Park T.ot I King Street Lot 3 Lot4 (Recently Duplex at developed) 981 King St. APPLICANT: Yr~; John Fullerton & Je~ey 6hoaf F,ziatittQ: 3,000 square feet Propoaod: 4,780 aqume feet ~~~'ATn'Ej Allowed: 4,780 agtare feet Mark Iiesselshwerdt LOCATION: pyy~y PROCEDUYE 981 King Street The DeaiBn Review Appos] Committee (DRAG) may great relief from tho Reaidenial Assign Standards az a public Ct7aR8NT LeND ITSE: hearing if tho va[ieaee ib found to be: A) in greater Duplex oomplinax with the Eonls of the AACp; or, B) a more offeetive method of addressing standard in PsOP058D L,anm USE: question; Or, C} oleariy necessary for lessons of fairness Duplex related to unusual site apeeific constraints. ZONING: R.6 Su>rn-IARYS IAr Slza: The applicant is requesting a variance from the secondary mass Residential Design Standard, 17,883 ~~ ~EF.2E.2~E© 9'17RM CITY' ~F RSPEIJ N~•s ~ °•3 BT.iFF COMMENTS: John Fullerton and Jeffrey Shoaf ("Applicarrt'~, represented by A?ark Hesselshwerdt, is requesting approval fox a variance from the secondary mass Residential benign Standard for a new duplex to be located 981 King Street, Lot 4, Astor Subdivision. A duplex, including au employee unit deed t+estricted to Category 2, is currently located on the site and is proposed for demolition Land Use Coda Section 26,410,040(B) Building Form states that "the intent o{the building form standards is to respect the scale of Aspen's historical homes by creating new homes which are more similar in their massing..: ' SpeciScally,the Seoondary Mass standard requires that all new structures shall locate at least 1096 of tksb taral sgaara footage about grade to a mass which rs completely detached from tke ptftectpal btiildlnE, or dinktd to it by a sribordtnate connecting element. The illustration demonstrates how a secondary L~ mesa may be cotmected to a principal building with a linking ckmeett. The existing duplex is proposed to be demolished end replaced with a new duplex. The site is relatively flat, baroly visiblo from King Street, and canteens rto unusual site specific conshaints due to size, shape and topography. ~' . However, the owner of Lot 3, also Mr. Fullerton, has placed a restriction on Lot 4 that no development shall be located feather east than the boundary between Lots 2 and 3. The purpose of the restriction is to protect his views across the eastern half of Lot 4. The dotted lines on the msp show the approximate location of the "no dtrveloptneut area", and the arrow shows the direction of the view froth Lot 3 remain away from Garrish Park. The restriction effectively reduces the development area to approximately 9,000 square feet on the western side of the lot. SEP.26.2000 9~17RM CITY OF RSPEN NO.S57 P.4 ~~ Staff agrees that the development restriction imposed by the Lot 3 owner (who is also the Applicant for the variance) "cinches down" the development a duplex to a more compact area. Nevertheless, Staff' believes the Applicant can meet the secondary mass standard on this lot through revised architectural design more suited to the site. Property owners all over town satisfy tins criteria with duplexes on 9,000 square foot lots. In sum, Staff does not believe the review criteria are satisfied because the lot will be vacant after the existing duplex is demolished, therefore allowing far a full opportunity to design s sttttcture which meets the Residential Design Standards. The design does not include a linking element to reduce the mass of the proposed residence. Staff' believes the secondary mass standard could be met on this site. RECOMMENDATION: Stall ie recommending dental of the secondary mass Residential Design Standard variance for s property located 981 King Street, Lot 4, Astor Subdivision. RscOMMENDED bforlox (wLL Morrows Alts srwTED tN THE POSITrvE): "I move to approve Resolution No.'~a; 6eries of 2000, approving the secondary mass Residential Design Standard variance far a duplex at 981 ling Street, Lot 4, Astor Subdivision." ATTgC'~1rENT9: Exhibit A -Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit B -• Development Applieatiast SEP.2E.2~Df3 9~18aM CITY OF ASr~EM M0.557 °.S Exltisrl' A 981 KING STREET ItEVtT,W CRt7'E131A & STAFF FINDCVGS SECI'IbN 26.410 RESIDICNTLIL DESIGN 87'ANDARll5 The Resign Ttsviow Appeal Committee (DRAG) 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 affective method of addressing standard in question; or, c) clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to uutusual site specific constraints. Section 16~410.Od0(B)(I) ButldingForm -Secondary Mass. "~fll new structures shall Jocate at least 10% of their total square footage above grade in a mass which is completely detach¢d from the bariJding or /inlred to it by a subordinate connecting element " In response to the 'ew c ' for a DRAG variance Staffrnakes the following findings: a) in greakr compliance with the goals of the AACP; or, StaffFindine: Staffdoes not believe this oriteria is met for the variance request. The 2000 AACiS calls for the community to "Promote a standard of design that is of the highest quality and is compatible with the historic features of the community and environment." The secondary mass Residenti8l Design Standard implements this goal and philosophy by requiring the mass of cew structures to be broken up, and the architectural designs to both resemble the character of historic Aspen and to be harmonious with the existing built environment. Staff' feels that an architectural design can be attained for the site which better implements the AACP. b) amore effective method ojaddresaing standard in question; or, Staff Findiu¢: Staff does not be6evc the proposed residence provides any element which more eiTectivety addresses the sewndary mass standard. Staff does not believe this criteria is mac e) clearly necessary for reasons ojfairness related to unusual site spec(JTc consdalnts SEP.~5.2000 9~18fiM CITY OF ASPEN N0.557 P.5 The subject lot is relatively flat, and will have a restriction placed on the property that Prohibits development on most of the eastern half of the lot. The restriction cffertively reduces the development azea to approximately half of the Iot Ncverthcless, property owners across town ate able to meet this standard on similar lots with duplexes. Meeting this design criteria is a matter of architectural design attd not dictated by aortstraittts posed by the subject properly. Staff visited the site and believes that the standard can be met; for example, the garage could be detached from rho primary stttuKnre, or linked to it with a lirilcing pavilion or similar element. Stsff does not believe this standard is met. SEP.26.2000 5~19RM CITY OF RSPEtJ N0.557 =.7 A RE50LTJTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL C0117riIITTEE DENYING A VARIANCE OF THE SECONDARY hfASS RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD FOR A PARCEL LOCATED AT 981 KING STREET, LOT 4, ASTOR SUBDIVISION, CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. Parcel ID # 2737-074~d3-004 Resolution No. 0~, Series of 2000 R'13EREAS the applicant, John Fullerton and Jeffrey Sheaf, rep~cesented by Mark l~esselshwerdt, has requested a variance from the secondary mass Residential Design Standard, Land Use Code Section 26.410.040, for the property located at 981 King Street, Lot 4, Astor Subdivision; and, WHEREA5 all applications for appeal from the Residential Design Standards of Section 26.410.040 must meet one of the fallowing critazia in order for the Design Review APl'+~ Committee or other decision maldag administrative body m grant an exception, namely the proposal must: a) 3'uld (iron coR3pliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community plan; . b) more effectively address the issue or problem a gives standard or provision responds to; or e) be clearly necessaty for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints, and WHEREAS The Planning Staff, in a report dated July 13, 2000, recommended denial of the variance for secondary mass Residential Design Standard finding that none of the criteria for gianting the variances ate met; and, WHEREAS a public herring, which was legally noticed, was held at a regular meeting of the Design Review Appeal Committee on July 13, 2000, at which the Committee considered and approved the variance from the secondary mass standard, by a vote of three to two (3-2). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Design Review Appeal Committee: That the Residential Design Standard variance for secondary mass, Section 26.410.040, is denied far a duplex at 981 King Street, Lot 4, Astor Subdivision, Aspen, Colorado. DENIED BY THE COMMITTEE at Its resahir meeting on the I3a' day of July, 2000. APPROVED AS TO FORM DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL COMMITTEE: Ciry Attorney Clue