Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutExhibit C - Review Criteria1 Exhibit C Residential Design Standards Variation Review Criteria Section 26.410.020.D, Residential Design Standard Variation Review Standards. An application requesting a variation from the Residential Design Standards shall demonstrate and the deciding board shall find that the variation, if granted would: 1. Provide an alternative design approach that meets the overall intent of the standard as indicated in the intent statement for that standard, as well as the general intent statements in Section 26.410.010.A.1-3; or Staff Response: Section 26.410.030.B.1 – Articulation of Building Mass: The intent of this standard is to “reduce the overall perceived mass and bulk of buildings on a property as viewed from all sides.” Designs should provide articulation to prevent large expansive walls and designs should convey similar forms to historical development in Aspen. This standard is identified as critical in the infill area. Designs should change the plane of the sidewall and step down to one story in the rear. Three options are provided in the code to comply with this standard. The third option is a one-story step-down at the rear of the structure. On the west façade the proposed design meets Option 2 – Off-Set One-Story Ground Level Connector because a 5’ setback from the primary sidewall is provided within 45’ of the front most wall. To comply with that standard, a 5’ setback must be provided within 45’ on each side of the structure. On the east side the step-down doesn’t occur until 54’. On the east façade, the proposed design uses changes in wall plane, fenestration, and materials to articulate the façade. The design provides includes visual interest and a variety of textures that it helps to break up the wall plane and prevents the wall from appearing as overly large or expansive. On this façade a ~14’ setback is proposed from the side wall at 54’. Although this is 9’ beyond the step-down requirement for Option 2, it is almost three times the minimum required setback. This further contributes to the proposed design resulting in an appropriate or reduced perceived mass on this side. Although the dimensions of the design don’t fit squarely in any of the three options provided, there are elements of options 2 and 3 that are provided. A one-story element makes up approximately a third of the overall length, is at the rear of the structure and is consistent with historical architectural development patterns in Aspen. The garage is one story, to the rear, with a two-story primary massing element to the front of the lot. The two- story component, although one side wall does not meet the step-down dimensional requirement, it does use design elements that achieve the intent of the standard. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Section 26.410.030.E.2 – Window Placement: The intent of this standard is to “to preserve the historic architectural character of Aspen by preventing large expanses of vertical glass windows that dominate street-facing façades. Overly tall expanses of glass on a street- facing façade do not relate well to human scale. Designs should utilize windows that provide a sense of demarcation between stories and pedestrian scale. Where an upper 2 story window is located directly above a lower story window, a gap with no window should be provided between them that is easily recognizable from the street and clearly differentiates lower and upper stories. This standard is important in all areas of the city.” Staff has found that the proposed window that spans two stories contains mullions that break up the appearance as a single large piece of fenestrations, a metal screen is used to provide visual interest, and the relative width of the window compared to the rest of the front façade result in minimal impact and a design alternative that meets the intent. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. Staff Response: There are no site-specific constraints or existing conditions that would prevent compliance with the Residential Design Standards, Staff finds this criterion to be not met.