The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.apz.20000919 AGENDA · ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 4:30 PM SISTER CITIES ROOM I. COMMENTS A. Commissioners Planning Staff C. Public II. MINUTES FROM 7/18, 8/15, ANDg/5 "/~ ~0 III. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST IV. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS A.CODE AMENDMENT- HISTORIC INVENTORY INCENTIVES, AMY GUTHRIE, OPEN AND CONTINUE TO 10/17 B. HISTORIC INVENTORY 2000 UPDATE, AMY GUTHRIE, OPEN AND CONTINUE TO 10/I 7 ,.~.tL~'-r- C. q,l' CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION LOTSrl2 AND 12A DRAC, D. t/'~ 1270 SNOW'BUNNY LANE DRAC, FRED JARMAN- ~__. E. (f~1285 RIVERSIDE DRIVE DRAC, FRED JARMAN F. V. ADJOURN TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE. WE RECOMMEND APPLICANTS ARRIVE AT LEAST ¼ HOUR PRIOR TO THE SCHEDULED TIME. 510PQ�1 (50WTR� ILEVATI e— v �\-------------------------� 4I tuo a I z� ri � E O Ul ci f ' r I 4 �5 o I I a �' lu I Z IL — .. . I I� ----------------------�—\y I I rr tip--_ 1 r r r c FRONT (NEST) Sl.ZVAT14N 1ME O T IrL@V TIOU MEMORANDUM TO: Design Review Appeal Committee THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director FROM: Nick Lelack, Planner RE: Callahan Subdivision Lots 12 and 12A — Residential S1 Variances for Non -orthogonal Windows and a Drivew�aC Standard Exceeding 2-feet in the Front Yard Setback Y Cut DATE: September 14, 2000 APPLICANT: Barbara Fleck REPRESENTATIVE: Jeffrey Hancox LOCATION: Callahan Subdivision EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant ZONING: R-15 LOT SIZE: 92,316 sq. ft. 2.. • tl ar.o-1 FAR: Allowed: 6,731 sq. ft. Proposed: 6,658 sq. ft. SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting Residential Design Standards variances for non -orthogonal windows, and for a driveway cut in excess of two (2) feet within the front yard setback. REVIEW PROCEDURE The Design Review 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) a more effective method of addressing standard in question; or, C) clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. STAFF COMMENTS: Barbara Fleck ("Applicant"), represented by Jeffrey Hancock of Robert Trawn & Associates, is requesting approval for two Residential Design Standard variances — one from the Windows standard and the other from the Parking, Garages, and Carports standard. The property is located in the Callahan Subdivision near Highway 82. The lot is surround by the City of Aspen boundary, Crystal Lake Road (private), and the Roaring Fork River. The house will be barely visible from any roads or streets, and only the immediate neighbor to the north, located in the County, will clearly see the house. 1. Windows — Non -Orthogonal Land Use Code Section 26.410.040(1))(3)(b) Windows states that "No more than one non -orthogonal window shall be allowed on each facade of the building. " The Applicant has proposed between two (2) and seven (7) non -orthogonal windows on each facade of the house. The illustration to the right shows exam les of non- rth 1 _;&[11 Orthogonal IMEMMI p o ogona windows. The non -orthogonal window at the far right is the best example of the type of windows proposed for this house. Although the proposed house will be barely visible, Staff does not believe any of the variance criteria have been met to warrant the granting of a variance. Staff believes the house can be designed to meet this standard because the lot is vacant. 2. Parking, Garages and Carports Code Section 26.410.040(C)(2)(d) states, "When the floor of a garage or carport is above or below the street level, the driveway cut within the front yard setback shall not exceed two (2) feet in depth, measured from natural grade. Currently, one curb cut exists from Crystal < 2' Lake Road to Lot 12; this curb cut is used for an access easement to the neighboring lot in Pitkin County. Nevertheless, this access can and should be used to access Lot 12 rather than creating a second curb cut to access the lot, particularly, because developing a second access requires removing dense vegetation and filling significantly more than two feet. The photographs on the next page show the existing driveway to neighboring lot and the location of the proposed new driveway. If this variance is approved, both driveways will remain. Staff recommends denial of this request finding that the proposed variance does not meet any of the review criteria and needlessly destroys dense vegetation near the Roaring Fork River. Staff strongly believes this is the perfect opportunity for shared access. � MAW r fa �, #� 4 ?s t I i RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending denial of the Residential Design Standard variances, finding that the review criteria are not met for either request. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE STATED IN THE POSITIVE: "I move to approve Resolution No.'> , Series of 2000, approving the Residential Design Standard variances for a single family residence at Lots 12 and 12A, Callahan Subdivision." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit B -- Development Application EXHIBIT A 981 KING STREET REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS SECTION 26.410 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS The Design Review Appeal Committee (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) a more effective method of addressing standard in question; or, c) clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Variances are requested from the two (2) standards: 1. Section 26.410.040(D)(3)(b) Windows. "No more than one non -orthogonal window shall be allowed on each facade of the building." 2. Section 26.410.040(C)(2)(d) Parking, Garages, and Carports. "When the floor of a garage or carport is above or below the street level, the driveway cut within the front yard setback shall not exceed two (2) feet in depth, measured from natural grade. 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: Staff does not believe this standard has been met. This is a vacant parcel and the house can be designed to meet the standard, including the windows. In addition, one curb cut already exists to serve the property; the proposed second driveway cut that would require fill in excess of two (2) feet is not in greater compliance with any goal of the AACP. Staff does not believe this standard has been met for either variance request. b) a more effective method of addressing standard in question; or, Staff Finding: Staff does not believe the proposed non -orthogonal windows or additional driveway requiring in excess of two (2) feet of fill more effectively address either standard in question. Staff does not believe this criteria is met for either variance. c) clearly necessary for reasons offairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Staff Finding: Staff does not believe any unusual site specific constraints exist on this lot that would warrant granting the requested variances. No site characteristics impact window designs. And, one driveway already serves the property, so unusual site specific constraints do not exist to justify a second driveway, particularly because the new driveway would cause the removal of dense vegetation and unnecessary fill on the environmentally sensitive site. A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL COMMITTEE APPROVING VARIANCES OF THE WINDOW AND PARKING, GARAGES AND CARPORTS RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS FOR A PARCEL LOCATE AT LOTS 12 AND 12A, CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION, CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. Parcel ID # 2737-181-32-012 Resolution No. _ Series of 2000 WHEREAS the applicant, Barbara Fleck, represented by Jeffrey Hancox, Robert Trawn & Associates, has requested variances from the Window Residential Design Standard for more than one (1) non -orthogonal window per facade, Land Use Code Section 26.410.040(D)(3)(b); and from the Parking, Garages and Carports Residential Design Standard to fill more than two (2) feet in the front yard setback for a second driveway Section d 26.410.040(C)(2)(d), for the property located at Lots 12 and 12A Callahan Subdivision, , WHEREAS all applications for appeal from the Residential Design Standards of Section 26.410.040 must meet one of the following criteria in order for the Design Review Appeal Committee or other decision making administrative body to grant an exception, namely the proposal must: a) yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan; b) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or c) be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints, and WHEREAS the Planning Staff, in a report dated September 14, 2000, recommended denial of both variances finding that none of the above criteria have been met; and, WHEREAS during a public hearing, which was legally noticed, was held at a regular meeting of the Design Review Appeal Committee on September 14, 2000, at which the Committee considered and approved a variance from the Window Residential Design Standard, by a vote of _to_ L-J; and, WHEREAS during a public hearing, which was legally noticed, was held at a regular meeting of the Design Review Appeal Committee on September 14, 2000, at which the Committee considered and approved the variance from the Parking, Garages and Carports Residential Design Standard, by a vote of _to_ L-�• NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Design Review Appeal Committee: That the Residential Design Standard variance from the Window standard for more than one (1) non -orthogonal window per facade; and for a variance from the Parking, Garages and Carports Residential Design Standard for a second driveway for a property located at Lots 12 and 12A Callahan Subdivision, with the following condition: 1. All prior City of Aspen land use decisions for this property and subdivision shall remain in full force and effect. APPROVED BY THE COMMITTEE at its regular meeting on the 14th day of September, 2000. APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney ATTEST: City Clerk CAhome\nick)\Active Cases\Fleck.doc DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL COMMITTEE: Chair MAY-12-2000 FRI 04:17 PM FAX NO, LAND USE APPLICATION PROJECT: Name: � L/`✓ l ��5 of 7 ` Location: L„ 7Ay--c ''.AD (Indicate street address, lot &; block number, legal cription where appropriate) APPLICANT: Name: 9-ZA-FA Address Phone #-: c' f,:-7> 97-c--) REPRESENTATIVE: Name: !:q ['.6y,A7� Address:,Aur u Phone ft: TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): ❑ Conditional Use ❑ Conceptual PUD ❑ Conceptoi] Historic Devt. ❑ Special Rcvicw ❑ Final r'UD (& I'UD Amendment) ❑ Final Histodc DcvelopmQnt Design Review Appeal Conceptual SPA ❑ Minor I Iistoric Devt. GMQS Allotment ❑ Final SPA (& SPA Amendment) ❑ Historic Demolition GMQS Exemption ❑] Subdivision ❑ Historic Design,- tlon ❑ ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream ❑ Subdivision Exemption (includes ❑ SmalI Lodge Conversion/ Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiurnization) Expansion Mountain View PIane ❑ Lot Split ❑ Temporary LJsc ❑ Other: ❑ Lot Line Adjustment ❑ Text/Map Amendment EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) P r PROPOSAL: (description o('proposed btjildings, uses, modifications, etc.) Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: S '-] Pre -Application Conference Summary AtLacliment #1, Signed Fee Agreement (� Response to Attachment 77'2, Dimensional Requirements Dorm ❑ Response to Attacluncnt 43, Minimum Submission Contents ❑ Response to Attacl=ent 44, Specific Submission Contents Response to Attachment 45, Review Standards for Your Application Ma�JUN 7 2000Z1 2, 35Py1 PM ROBERT TROWN & ASSOC FAX N0, N0. 948 P, 1 Uri/ 1G Project: Applicant: Location: Lono District: Lot Size: Lot Area: ATTACHMENT 2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMEws FORM c � (For tlie pupposcs orcalculating FI or Area, of Aroa ma tic dcciuoacl for areas within the high water mark, elsements, and steep slope$. Please refer to the definition of trot Area in the Municipal Code,) Comrncrcial net leasable; Existing; Number of residential units: Nuiubcr of bedrooms: Exi.rtsr�:__.,_., Proposed,�,.YY Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only). DIMENSIONS: C) Allowabl®:_ & 6i 64B Floor Area; Principal bldg. height: Existing, Fxisting; ,Proposed; .41lomiablc;.YA-lgk—PrOPOsed;� ��' t �`• Access. bld g. height: Existing' _• 1lpwctbla; �,w. ", PTc�hoseci.•__ _� 071-Site narking: Eai s'lfng: RBtI uiraci; Proposed: _ .,—. aB Sits coverage; 1i x sling:__ Required- 1'roposacl; % Opetz Space: L'xls'ttn�t: -lter�uirecl: Proposed: Front Setback-, Requir�c�•�._„M,. Roar Setback: • isring: ,Required, 1'roposed: Combined F/R.: Required, Proposed. Side Setback: &fsttn ' Requfro cl;_ Proposed: Side Setback; Existing:_—.,, � Required. --Proposed,-_, Combined Sides, Existing: .-Required: rropos�d• rmitie encroachments', — Variations �X1S1111�' Roll-Cvi�fu tJT requested: V- June 1, 2000 Mr. Nick Lelack City Planner Community Development 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Lot 12 and 12A Callahan Subdivision Dear Nick: Regarding the residence mentioned above, please review the submittal seeking a variance for more than one non -orthogonal window per elevation. Attachment 5 Review Standards: Design Review Appeal Committee B) The proposed design more effectively addresses the issue or problem. The site is very private by nature of its location in Callahan Subdivision. The surrounding area is dense w/ trees and shrubbery. We believe that there is no historic precedence in the immediate vicinity as the adjacent residence on Lot 6 was built in 1970's. Lot 12 also backs up to the County, which has no restrictions concerning non - orthogonal windows. We therefore designed the house focusing on massing and it's relationship to the site. The non -orthogonal windows are in keeping with the stylistic aspects of the house, and we feel that without them the particular old world mountain chalet characteristics that we are seeking to obtain would be lost. We also plan to plant vegetation in keeping with the existing conditions directly adjacent to the building envelope, which will further shield the proposed structure from any neighboring views. Please give me a call with any questions. Sincerely, Av JeR. Hancox Project Architect 25 Lower Woodbridge Rd. - Suite 104-B - P.O. Box 6820 • Snowmass Village, CO 81615 - (970) 923-2644 - FAX (970) 923-2599 c W CL N Q eIr ms � C3 DD s m ti �!{ 0 .Q Q s 0 c L U .Q .Q z CD OD CD m Q a CD 07 W u Ll -Cl I M-5 " CIA Mm,"S- ... � Lots 12 & 12A MLW Amy Guthrie, 02:45 PM 7/24/00 -0600, driveway cuts X-Sender: amyg@comdev • , X-Mailer: QUALCOMM,Windtows Erid'ona,Pro, Versiod ,4!'2.2 Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 14:45:25 -0600 To: juliew@ci.asperi.co.us, joyceo@ci.aspen.co.us, chrisb@ci.aspen.co.us, nickl@ci.aspen.co.us,' fredj@ci.aspen.co.us, saraho@ci.aspen.co.us, jamesl@ci. aspen. co. us From: Amy Guthrie <amyg@ci.aspen.co.us> Subject: driveway cuts Here's the language in the code that came up recently... Section 21.16.060 Page 1 of 1 In residential districts R-6, R-15, R-30, R-40 and RR and in Conservation (C) District there shall be allowed one (1) curb cut of ten (10) feet in width for each building site with sixty (60) feet or less frontage. For building sites with over sixty (60) feet of frontage, the curb cut shall be either ten (10) feet in width for a single driveway or eighteen (1.8) feet in width for a double driveway. Printed for Nick Lelack <nickl@ci.aspen.co.us> . 9/14/00 MEMORANDUM To: Design Review Appeals Committee (DRAG) THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director d4" FROM: Fred Jarman, Planner RE: 1270 Snowbunny Lane Garage Variance DATE: September 14, 2000 Front view of the proposed two -car garage facing SnowbunnyLane e In front of the existing duplex APPLICANT: Joe Allen Porter PARCEL ID: 2735-013-13-001 ADDRESS: 1270 Snowbunny Lane, Lot 7, Block 2 of the Snowbunny Subdivision ZONING: R-15 (Medium Density Residential) CURRENT LAND USE: 21,227 sq. ft. lot containing an existingsingle ble story duplex PROPOSED LAND USE: The applicant proposes to construct a two-c the existing duplex. In order to do so, the applicant is seekinga Varir garage m front of Residential Design Standards garage location requirements. once from the STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant, Joe A. Porter, seeks a variance from Section 26.410 Guidelines from the garage location requirement for 1270 Snowbu ny La Residential Design 2 of the Snowbunny Subdivision (See Exhibit A for a description o t Lane, Lot 7, Block standard.) All applications for appeal from the Residential Design f the specific 26.410 must meet one of the following review standards in order fo the Desards of Section Appeal Committee or other decision making administrative bodyto the Design Review namely the proposal must: grant an exception, a) Yield greater compliance witl the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan; b) More effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or c) Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site -specific constraints. The existing duplex is built out to the existing setbacks on both side yards and the front yard contains mature located in front of the duplex. There are many exitrees, which would need to be removed to accommodate a perpendicular approach to a garage stin which have front loaded g residences and duplexes in the area garages which extend past the front facade of the houses; howev most, if not all these houses and duplexes were constructed before ther, standards were drafted or received variances to allow their ce residential design current placement. Staff has consistently held that prohibiting a property °� their lot not to be considered a hardship. The applicant's owner to construct agarage /carport on which was subsequently converted to living space thereduplex once contained a garage, was not a hardship. Staff describes this in better detail by indicating that the lack of a garage in proposal 1) does not yield greater compliance with the oExhibit A. Staff finds that the Plan, 2) does not more effectively address the issue or L als of the Aspen Area Community responds to, and 3) is not clearly necessary for reasonsporoblem a given standard or provision specific constraints. t fairness related to unusual site - Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the variance request for garage locationbe denied because the ' proposed garage placement fails to meet one ofthereview standards listed above, which would allow a variance. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE STATED I «I move to approve Resolution No. N THE POSITIVE): Residential Design Standard variance —for Se�ies of 2000, approving a variance from Snowbunny Lane, Lot 7, Block 2 of the Snowbun placement for a duplex located at 1270 y Subdivision." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria & Staff Findings Exhibit B -- Parcel Location b Exhibit C -- Applicant's Letter & Plans Exhibit E -- Resolution No. Series 2000 REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS EXHIBIT A The intent of the following parking, garages, and carport . potential for conflicts between pedestrian and automobile standards is to minimize the and carports on alleys, or to minimize the presence of traffic by placing parking, garages, of the streetscape where alleys do not exist. The code garages and carports as a lifeless part residential uses that do not have access from an alley or indicates that for all shall be met: Y private road, the following standard c. On lots of at least 15, 000 square feet in size, the garage or carport maybe forward of the front fagade of the house only if the garage doors or carport entry are perpendicular to the street (side loaded). Staff Finding Staff finds that the proposed garage is allowed to exist i house because it is on a lot greater than 15,000 sq. ft n front of the front facade of the it must be side loaded as illustrated the diagram above However, as indicated in the standard, garage, thereby requiring a variance from Residential Design The applicant proposes a front loaded indicated above, is intended to minimize the presence ogStandards. This standard, as part of the streetscape. Staff finds that the proposed street-�Y�� es and carports as a lifeless the presence of a lifeless and vehicular dominated ed et facing garage significantly adds to written to address. streetscape for which this standard was Staff has traditionally held that the denial of the ability t does not constitute a hardship. Staff continues to maintain construct a garage on a propertydevelopment. Further, the applicant received a buildingin this position with this proposed in the existing duplex to a den on October 23, 1975 th reb permit to convert an existing garage property and allowing cars to be parked in the driveway. eliminating the garage on the EXHIBIT B 21 August 30, 2000 Design Review Appeal Committee 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Members of the Committee, Attached is an application for a design review f duplex at 1270 Snowbunny Lane in Aspen. This a garage addition to the condominium enclosures: s application includes the following 1 • Application form 2. Property survey showing the street address I A disclosure of ownership and legal description property 4. An 8 '/2 x 11" vicinity map locating 1 the r 5. A neighborhood block plan @ =0, property 6. A site plan at 1, = 10, 7. Building elevations at 1/8,, = 110" 8. A written explanation of the variance 9. Photographs of surrounding buildings ( Th 10. Letter from Robert Beals authorizing J ese will be submitted on Sept. 4) Joe and Pip Porter to act in his behalf. This application is being made jointly b the y owners of the two homes in the condominium duplex who are: j U Joe and Margaret Pip Porter 1270 Snowbunny Lane, 81611 Robert Beals 925-6840 1270 Snowbunny Lane, 81611 925-8267 Pip and Joe Porter are authorized to represent he applicants in the desi application process. Please refer to theletterfrom .Robert Beals. � review and o Sincerely, Pip Porter 08/28/00 23:56 F.,UT P. BEADS D.D.S., ., P.C. D1PLOMATE AMERICAN BOARD OF OIZAL IMPLANToj_OCY VC) August 283 2000 IN. SEDATION FOR DENTAL PROCgoURES Design Revicw APPcal Committee City of Aspen Community Develo went De 130 S. Galena St. P Department Aspen, Colorado Dear Sirs/Madam: FELLOWS►-NP: ACADEM) OF (:FNFRAI rjFNTLSTR) 1 am a joint applicant with Pip and Joe Porter fo garage addition to a condomin.i r the Design Review for a Aspen- umized duplex at 1270 Snow Bunny Lane ' Pe This letter 2s to inform you 6'It Pip and _toe Port Y � represent me in this application, er are a��thnn��d to - a..j ►s, 31201 C�12) 746-4578 • DESCRIPTION OF DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL SNOWBUNNY LANE GARAGE ADDITION TO 1270 August 21, 2000 Request to allow a two -car garage to be added in the front driveway 270 Snowbunny Lane. The garage would provide accommodations for one duplex at of duplex units. The Residential Design Standards (Section 26.410. °ne car for each of the 04 garages that do not have access from alleys or private roads shall0) indicate that from the street than the front -most wall of the house, or ma be be set back 10' farther facade of the house, perpendicular if the garage doors are e Y forward of the front p to the street. The duplex is located on a pie -shaped lot and the building extends to both side -yard setbacks. The combination of the Pie -shaped lot an it impossible to add a garage that is set back from t Black of side -yard building area make front the street. We request that the Design Review Appeal C of the build or at right angle to p the 10' setback guidelines for reasons of hardshipand fairness Ittee grant a variance from specific conditions. ss related to unusual site We have tried to find a solution that provides access from exis minimum Impact on sun exposure and light, is architecturallycompatible with the co g bedrooms, has existing building, preserves existing trees on the lot and respects yard setbacks. We have looked at a variety of alternatives to accom sting front and rear reviewed several of these alternatives with the city planning staff. push this and have This plan has been designed to make the garage a The building form is compatible with the existing building.ppealing from the street as possible. with peeled log posts and rustic garage doors areg o beRoof overhangs supported utilized. The the duplex is to be remodeled to repeat the peeled to colentry on one side of compatible with the residential design standards for s reef orie °make the entry more fed entry doors. ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM I. Project name L 1\ N E� t G, �-AP' N l�o� n� mi N i 2. Project location l ^fZ..A,C� r-- Di J (indicate street address, lot and block number or met es and bounds description) 3. Present zoning I 5. Applicant's name, address and phone number - �d 6. Representative' 9 C- C s name, address, and phone number a 'T E rL 0 S A A ?. Type of application (check all that apply); Conditional Use Special Review Conceptual SPA Final SPA — Conceptual HPC 8040 Greenline Stream Margin Conceptual PUD — --- Final HPC Minor HPC Subdivision Final PUD TextlMap Amend. — Relocation HPC — GMQS allotment -_. GMQS exemption Historic Landmark View Plane Condominiumization-7 Demo/Partial Demo Lot Split/Lot Line _ Design Review Adjustment Appeal Committee 8. Description of existing uses (number and e approximate sq. ft., number of bedrooms �p of existing st�ng structures, property) E- ��Y previous approvals granted to the l 11 I — A 9. Description of development application 10. Have you completed and- attached the followin ? L� Attachment 1- Land use application form 9 1-1. Response to Attachment 2 �� Response to Attachment 3 PIP PORTER ATTORNEY AT LAW August 30, 2000 Design Review Appeal Committee 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Members of the Committee, This letter is to confirm that the owners of the property located at 1270 Sn are the following: owbunny Lane Unit 101: Joe and Margaret Ann Pip Porter. The existing mortgage is with Homeslde Lending. To my best information and belief, there are no judgments) lien contracts or other agreements affecting the parcel. s, easements, Unit 102: Robert P. Beals. The existing mortgage is with Chase Manhattan Corporation, P.O. Box 9001068, Louisville, KY 40290-1068. Tom best Mortgage and belief, there are no judgments, liens, easements, contracts or other t information affecting the parcel. r agreements All of the owners of the two respective sides of the duplex areapplying f development review. or the I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Colorado. M S Registration Number is 17487. y upreme Court Sincerely, P Margaret Pip Porter 600 EAST HOPKINS STREET SUITE 302 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (970)925-8318 FAX 925-9398 EXHIBIT D Resolution No. (SERIES OF 2000) RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS APPROVING RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD VARIANCE COMMITTEE LOCATION FOR 1270 SNOWBUNNY LANE, SNOWBUNN FOR GARAGE Y SUBDIVISION, LOT 7, BLOCK 29 CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY COLOR -ADO. Parcel No. 2735-013-13-001 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received a Joe Porter, seeking a variance from Section 26.410 Residential Designn application from Gui garage location requirement. The applicant's property is located at 1270 Snowbunny Lane delines from the Lot 7, Block 2 of the Snowbunny Subdivision, Aspen, Colorado; an , d WHEREAS, the applicant's property is an 21,227 sq. ft. lot with a and located in the R-15 Zone District; and n existing duplex WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.410.020 of the Aspen Municipal Community Development Department staff reviewed the applicant's Code, compliance with the Residential Design Standards Section of the Aspen Municipal for found the submitted development application to be inconsistent with P n Municipal Code and 26.410.040(C)(2)(c), Gam; and h Standard WHEREAS, Section 26.410.020(C) of the Aspen application is found by Community Development DepartmentMunicipal Code provides that if an any Item of the Residential Design Guidelines, the applicant may to be Inconsistent with application or appeal staff s findings to the Design Review �, � either amend the Chapter 26.222, Design Review Appeal Committee; and PP al Committee pursuant to WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.410.020(B) of the Aspen Muni applicant submitted a request for a variance from Standard 26.410.040(B)(1) of Code, the Municipal Code to the Design Review Appeal Committee as it applies to garages; the Aspen and WHEREAS all applications for appeal from the Residential Design s Section 26.410.040 must meet one of the following review standard r Standards of es Review Appeal Committee or other decision making administrative o order for the Design bo exception, namely the proposal must: dy to grant an a) Yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community b) More effectively address the issue or problem a given standard Plan; to; or or provision responds d) Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual sites . specific constraints, 5 WHEREAS, the Community Development Director, after review of the requested variances, recommended denial for a variance from the residential design standards for garage location; and WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing at a regular meeting on September 14, 2000, the Design Review Appeal Committee, approved a variance from garage location standard of Section 26.410.040(C)(2)(c) of the Aspen Municipal Code as it applies to Residential Design Standards for Lot 7, Block 2 of the Snowbunny Subdivision by a vote of _to_(_�. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Committee: Section 1 That a proposed variance for a garage placement for an existing duplex at 1270 Snowbunn Lane, Aspen, Colorado, is approved pursuant to Section 26.410.040(C)(2)(c), garage y location of the Residential Design Standards. APPROVED by the Committee at its regular meeting on September 14, 2000. APPROVED AS TO FORM: DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE: City Attorney Robert Blaich, Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk C:\Nly Documents\Current Cases\DRAC\1270SnowbunnyVariancervlemo.doc MEMORANDUM To: Design Review Appeals Committee DRAG THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director FROM: Fred Jarman, Planner I. - RE: 1285 Riverside Drive Secondary Mass Variance DATE: September 14, 2000 APPLICANT: Dale Hower REPRESENTATIVE: John Galumbos and Rich Pavicek of Galumbos /Muir Architec ts PARCEL ID: 273 7-181-17-018 ADDRESS: 1285 Riverside Drive, Lot 19, Block 1, Riverside Subdivision As e Colorado p n, ZONING: R-15 (Medium Density Residential) CURRENT LAND USE: 11,341 sq. ft. lot containing an existing single-famil residence y ence PROPOSED LAND USE: The applicant wishes to raze the existing residence and build 4,291 sq. ft. two-story single-family residence and including an AccessoryDwelling • g a Unit. In order to do so, the applicant is seeking a Variance from the Residential Design Standards from the secondary mass requirements. STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant, Dale Hower, represented by John Galumbos and Rich Pavicek of 10 Residential Design Galumbos /Muir Architects, seeks a variance from Section 26 Guidelines from the secondarymass requirement. See Exhibit . specific standard.) The applicant's property is ll A for a description of the p Y ocated in the Riverside Subdivision. Once the applicant razes the existing single-family dwelling, she will be left with lot allowing full opportunity to design a structure, which meets the Residential s vacant e Standards. The design presented in this application does not meet the intent of the ign standard to break up the mass of the structure. Specifically, the design does not in subordinate linking element designed to reduce the mass of the proposed residence. a Further, property owners all over town satisfy this criterion with single-family h lots smaller than 11,000 square feet. This memo includes photo examples of s• gle omes on family homes in Aspen that meet the intent and letter of the code as consistently interpreted by Staff. Staff believes the applicant can meet the secondary mass standard fo which a variance is requested on this lot through revised architectural desi n more r to the site. g e suited Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the variance request for "secondary mass" be denied because i address the intent of the code regarding the breaking up of a large mass with a t falls to subordinate linking element. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE STATED IN THE POSITIVE): Series of 2000 "I move to approve Resolution No. � , approving the secondary mass Residential Design Standard variance for a single-family residence at 1285 Drive, Lot 19, Riverside Subdivision." Riverside ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria & Staff Findings Exhibit B -- Photo Documentation of Secondary Mass Exhibit C -- Parcel Location and Vicinity Map Exhibit D -- Applicant's Letter & Supporting Plans Exhibit E -- Resolution No. , Series 2000 2 REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS EXHIBIT A The intent of the following building form standards (secondary mass) is to respect the scale of Aspen's historical homes by creating new homes, which are more by promoting the development of accessory units off of the Cityalleys,similar in their massing, solar access. Specifically, the following secondary mass standard is itand t preserving massing of structures so that it humanizes the scale of the structure rather than to break up the massive forms to exist thereby dwarfing other adjacent structures the landscapethan allowing minimizing the pedestrian relationship to the structure. The code'specifically and indicates: 1• Secon ry Mass All new structures shall locate at least 10%of their total square footage above grade in a mass, which is completely detached from the principal building, or linked to it by a subordinate connecting element. Accessory buildings such as garages, sheds, and Accessory Dwelling Units are examples of appropriate uses for the secondary mass. Subordinate Linking Element Staff Finding The applicant is requesting approval for a variance from this standard indicating that the proposal more effectively addresses the issue or problem responds to thereby meeting criteria B. As stated abovethe given secondary mass standard is en standard or provision intended to break up the massing of structures so that it�humanizes the scale of the structure rather than allowing massive forms to exist thereby dwarfingother landscape and minimizing the pedestrian relationship to the structure. structuresre. , the Staff finds that the proposed residence design does not include a massing breakup as viewed from the front fagade. The standard indicates that secondary massingc completely detaching 10% of its total square footage above grade in a an s achieved by 1) mass Principal building; or 2) linking the secondary mass to the primary ma from the ss connecting element as illustrated in the sketch above. Staff has consistently maintained an ith a subordinate interpretation of the code language for secondary mass and it's associated subordinate linking element indicating that the subordinate linking element is not a two-story true feeling of mass separation should be visually achieved. element and that a It is for these reasons Staff does not support this variance so that an un contrasting building unique orientation is not continued in a uni neighborhooddesirable and of the houses have a direct relationship to the street. q where almost all 3 PHOTO DOCUMENTATION OF SECONDARY MASS EYHIBIT B Detached Secondary Mass PARCEL LOCATION AND VICINITY MAP EYxIBIT C 5 EXHIBIT E Resolution No. ` (SERIES OF 2000) RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE APPROVING RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD VARIANCE FOR "SECONDARY MASS" FOR RIVERSIDE SUBDIVISION, LOT 199 BLOCK 1,1285 RIVERSIDE DRIVE, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel No. 2737-181-17-018 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Dale Hower, represented by John Galumbos and Rich Pavicek of Galumbos / Muir Architects seeking a variance from Section 26.410 Residential Design Guidelines for secondary mass ' for a proposed two-story single-family residence. The applicant's property is located in the Riverside Subdivision, Lot 19, Block 1, 1285 Riverside Drive, Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, the applicant's property is an 11,341 sq. ft. lot with an existing single- family residence (proposed for demolition) and located in the R-15 Zone District; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.410.020 of the Aspen Municipal Code, Community Development Department staff reviewed the applicant's application for compliance with the Residential Design Standards Section of the Aspen Municipal Code and found the submitted development application to be inconsistent with Standard 26.410.040(B)(1), Secondary Mass. and WHEREAS, Section 26.410.020(C) of the Aspen Municipal Code provides that if an application is found by Community Development Department staff 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 Committee pursuant to Chapter 26.222, Design Review Appeal Committee; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.410.020(B) of the Aspen Municipal Code, the applicant submitted a request for a variance from Standard 26.410.040(B)(1) of the Aspen Municipal Code to the Design Review Appeal Committee as it applies to secondary mass; and WHEREAS all applications for appeal from the Residential Design Standards of Section 26.410.040 must meet one of the following review standards in order for the Design Review Appeal Committee or other decision making administrative body to grant an exception, namely the proposal must: a) Yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan; b) More effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or c) Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints; I WHEREAS, the Community Development Director, afte variances, recommended denial for a variance from the residential r review of the requested secondary mass for the proposed house; and entlal design standards for the WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing at a regular 14, 2000, the Design Review Appeal Committee, approved a variance meeting on September standard of Section 26.410.040(B)(1) of the Aspen Municipal Code as from secondary mass Residential Design Standards for Lot 19, Block 1 of the Riverside as it applies to — to e Subdivision by a vote of NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Committee: Section 1 That a proposed variance for a single-family residence at 1285 River Colorado, is approved pursuant to Section 26.410.040(B)(1),Sec ary Drive, Aspen, Residential Design Standards meeting Criteria B stating ondry Mass of the addresses the issue or problem a given standard or provision the proposal more effectively p ion responds to. APPROVED by the Committee at its regular meeting on September p r 14, 2000. APPROVED AS TO FORM: DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE: City Attorney Robert Blaich Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk C:\NIy Documents\Current Cases\DRAC\1285RiversideDrVarianceNlemo.doc 7 PHOTO DOCUMENTATION OF SECONDARY MASS Subordinate Linking Element Subordinate Linking Element Detached Secondary Klass Ew ,j PARCEL LOCATION AND VICINITY MAP EYHIBIT C ATTACHMENT 3 COMPLIANCE WITH RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS A. Site Design The intent of these design standards is to encourage buildings that address the street in a manner that creates a consistent "fagade line" and defines the public and semi- public realms, utilizing building orientation and building to the setback lines. This building is oriented parallel to the tangent of the are of the street as required for curvilinear lots and the front fagade of the building is located within 5 feet of the front setback line. B. Building Form The intent of the building form standards is to respect the scale of the historical homes by creating new homes with similar massing. The secondary mass provision in the design standards and its related subordinate linking element is the aspect of the project that is being requested for a variance. While it is our feeling that the secondary mass is present as a form at the east end of the structure, the subordinate linking element is not a single story as recommended by Staff. C. Parking, Garages, and Carports The lot location of this project does not have access from an alley; thus the standards for access from the street have all been met. The living area on the first floor is at least 5 feet wider than the width of the garage. The front fagade of the garage is set back at least 10 feet further from the street than the frontmost part of the house. The overall width of the garage is less than 24 feet as required and the garage doors are single stall doors. D. Building Elements The intent of the standards for building elements is to ensure that each residence has street facing architectural details and creates a human scale to the fagade. The house has both a street facing entrance and a street facing principal group of windows as required. The entry door meets both requirements of being recessed not more than 10 feet from the frontmost wall of the building and it is only 8 feet tall. There is also a covered entry porch of at least 50 square feet as required. The requirement of the one-story element for at least 20 percent of the buildings overall width is met with the one-story shed element that begins at the stair element and continues east towards and in front of the garage. There is also a one-story element at the entry and west towards the living room. There are no windows located between the 9-12 foot height and all lightwells on the street facing side of the building are recessed behind the frontmost wall of the building. E. Context The standards of reinforcing the character of Aspen and the region have been met by the choice of materials on the building and their use. All of the materials used have all been utilized true to their characteristics. The standards of inflection have all been met by the design of the building. The structure to the east of the lot has a one-story element on the east side of its lot line; thus there is a one-story element on the east side of the proposed structure. The adjacent structure to the west of the lot contains a two-story element adjacent to the proposed structure. ATTACHMENT 4 DRAG SUBMISSION FOR VARIANCE The variance that is being requested concerns the Secondary Mass section of the Building Form design standards. The standard states that "All new structures shall locate at least 10% of their total square footage above grade in a mass which is completely detached from the principal building, or linked to it by a subordinate connecting element." While we feel that we have met the secondary mass clause of the standard with the street -facing gable above the garage, it is the feeling of Staff that the connecting element is not `subordinate' as is stated in the code. The variance is appropriate to maintain the "fagade line" of the street -facing elevation and is more appropriate to the intent of the design standards than if the elements were to become separate by changing the size of the connecting element. By changing the design the back of the building would no longer be screened from view by the connecting element and the street -facing fagade would no longer present a uniform fagade that addresses the street. Furthermore, the design is enhanced by the location of the connecting element and secondary mass element. This being that they are set back from the entry element and as one approaches the building will appear less dominate as forms and the street fagade will not appear as one single large mass. ATTACHMENT 5 REVIEW STANDARDS B. The proposed design more effectively addresses the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to. The variance requested for the building is for the secondary mass and the related subordinate connecting element. It is the understanding that the design standard in question is to help achieve two separate masses that appear to be linked by a smaller element that is subordinate in massing. The design achieves this standard by utilizing the street -facing gable above the garage to establish the secondary massing of the building. The linking element, while being two -stories, remains subordinate to the secondary mass and helps establish the street facing consistent "facade line" that is the intent of the Site Design. The linking element also screens the approach to the building from the back of the structure, which would become visible if the linking element were removed or changed in some way. This is important in maintaining the street -facing architectural elements and the scale of the building as one approaches the entry facade. A change to this element would diminish the street facing facade and the building would begin to appear as separate elements that in no way relate to the street. DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE CRITERIA DRAC may grant relief from the Residential Design Standards if the variance is found to be: In greater compliance with the goals of the AACP, or A more effective method of addressing the standard in question, or Clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific 7constraints.