The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutcoa.lu.sr.926 E Durant Ave.A14-972737-182-37-005 A14-97 Brass Bed DRAC Review Sca,N tub 9/./g' l� ,�:� - 3 �- nos Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 920-5090 City Land Use Application Fees: 00113-63850-041 Deposit -63855-042 Flat Fee -63860-043 HPC -63885-268 Public Right -of -Way -63875-046 Zoning & Sign Permit -MRO I I Use Tax 10000-67100-383 Park Dedication 15000-63050-480 AH Commercial 15000-63065 482 AH Residential County Land Use Application Fees: 00113-63800-033 Deposit -63805-034 Flat Fee -63820-037 Zoning 63825-038 Board of Adjustment Referral Fees: 00113-63810-035 County Engineer OO115-63340-163 City Engineer 62023-63340-190 Housing 00125-63340-205 Enviromnental Health 00113-63815-036 Countv Clerk 00113-63812-212 Wildlife Officer Sales: 00113-63830-039 County Code -69000-145 Copy Fees Other Name: 6/zSD/l Address: Sz/i �e o R Phone: /V , Go Total Date: v� Check: �3 / Project. Case No: 4 / _ No. of Copies 47--�7~/ CAS(JOAD SUMMARY SHEET - CITY QW. SPEN DATE RECEIVED: 2/24/97 CASE # A 14-97 DATE COMPLETE: STAFF: Julie Anne Wood,, PARCEL ID # 2737-182-37-005 PROJECT NAME: Brass Bed DRAC Review Project Address: 926 E. Durant Ave. APPLICANT: Silverstream L.L.P Address/Phone: 307 South Mill St. Aspen, CO. 925-3883 OWNER: Address/Phone: REPRESENTATIVE: Gibson -Reno Architects. L.L.0 Address/Phone: 210 E. Hyman Ave. RESPONSIBLE PARTY: Applicant Other Name/Address: FEES DUE FEES RECEIVED PLANNING $450 PLANNING $450. # APPS RECEIVED 8 ENGINEER $0 ENGINEER $ # PLATS RECEIVED 8 HOUSING $0 HOUSING $ GIS DISK RECEIVED: ENV HEALTH $0 ENV HEALTH $ CLERK $ CLERK $ TYPE OF APPLICATION TOTAL $450. TOTAL RCVD $450. Staff Approval REFERRALS: ❑ City Attorney ❑ City Engineer (DRC) ❑ Zoning ❑ Housing ❑ Environmental Health ❑ Parks DATE REFERRED: ❑ Aspen Fire Marshal C City Water ❑ City Electric ❑ Clean Air Board ❑ Open Space Board ❑ Other: INITIALS: APPROVAL: Ordinance/Resolution # Staff Approval Plat Recorded: CLOSED/FILED DATE: q INITIALS: ROUTE TO: ��,.� ❑ CDOT ❑ ACSD ❑ Holy Cross Electric ❑ Rocky Mtn Natural Gas ❑ Aspen School District ❑ Other: DATE DUE: Date: Date: Book Page • • To: J TRANSMITTAL Project:Sg�� v Arch. proj. # 9G Date: 2 /0.+ / �{7 We Transmit: >< Herewith _Under Seperate Cover _Per Your Request Via: _Mail Messenger _Fax _Federal Express UPS The Following: _Specifications Drawings _Addenda _Payment Application _Product Literature _Samples _Change Order _Shop Drawing Other For Your: _Information _Record / Use _Review _Approval Dist. to Parties Action Taken: _Approved _Reviewed _Revise & Resubmit _Make Corrections _Submit Specific Item No Exceptions _Rejected Copies: Date: Description: Copies To: Submitted by: 2t,�� L E T T E R 01 3 q'0, �' ./ •.;'w0- %-W op 11Y1I :. i 000 210 E. HYMAN N" 202 ASPEN CO LO RA DO 81611 970.925.5968 FACSIMILE 970.925 5993 P.O. BOX 278 117 N. WILLOW N" 2 TELLURIDE (With encl.) COLORADO 81435 970.728.6607 FACSIMILE: 970.728.6658 0 0 ;. I) GOVE 533 WEST SMUGGLER.............................................................................................................................................3 926 EAST DURANT - BRASS BED...........................................................................................................................5 u ►t DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 27, 1997 Chairperson Steve Buettow called the special meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. with members Gilbert Sanchez, Roger Moyer, and Dave Johnston present. Members Bob Blaich and Jake Vickery were excused. Other staff present were David Hoefer, Sara Thomas, Mitch Haas, Amy Amidon and Julie Ann Woods. David Hoefer asked the applicant if the notice was posted 5 days prior to the hearing. David Panico said it was noticed. Hoefer expressed the committee had jurisdiction to proceed. Sara Thomas, staff, stated the applicant requested a waiver from the Ordinance 30 Standard to the garage setback requirement. She explained this was an uphill lot and visibility from the street is very minimal. David Panico, architect for the applicant (Alice Brien), stated the lots were minimally buildable lots in this subdivision. He said the access points were tortured at the downhill side of any of the grades. Panico said there would probably be other requests similar to this one because of the steep slopes. He noted for the garage to meet the intent of Ordinance 30 a vast amount of excavation in the front yard would be necessary to get the driveway low enough to gain access to it. This would also create a "pit" in the front yard and the residence was about half of the allowable FAR. Roger Moyer asked if this was part of Williams Ranch and was a photo available for the approach to the site. Panico said it was part of the Williams Ranch and supplied a photo. Moyer questioned the only approach to the house being underneath. He asked if the garage was protruding from the house or was there a portion of the house above it. Panico said the portion was above it and the site plan shows the one story garage with a deck on top. He said the entry is on top of the garage. Moyer said the application did not seem sufficient. Gilbert Sanchez asked why the garage was located in the center of the lot because it seems like a large amount of excavation. Panico said he was trying to break the 1 house into two separate elements because the house has no yard and this was a way to create an exterior private area. Moyer asked the commission and staff how these Williams Ranch lots would be handled since there would be more of the requests to this committee. Panico explained the design is almost dictated by the restraints of the site and the top of the roof would be all that would be seen from the street. Dave Johnston said this clearly does not meet Ordinance 30 but questioned the appropriateness of the height on the site. Steve Buettow asked if the driveway already existed. Panico said it was already cut in as part of the plat. Buettow stated there were three elements, two of which were very nice and one garage protrusion. He noted the garage being seen first, was one of the reasons that Ordinance 30 came about. Panico noted the garage was turned at an angle so it is not the first thing that you see but rather the main element of the residence is seen. Sanchez agreed with Johnston about the impact not being significant. He said the excavation in front of the bedroom window seemed unnecessary because it was the only flat area on the site. Buettow said the presence of the street scape with a dominant garage in front is for this committee to decide to approve or not. Panico commented there were extenuating circumstances regarding this house and Williams Ranch with a convoluted evolution of Ordinance 30. Sara Thomas explained the free-market portion of Williams Ranch is not subject to Ordinance 30 as it applies to floor area, however it is subject as far as the design review standards. Unfortunately this was not clarified when David Panico brought in a permit for the lot next door and it went through without having the design review standards applied to it. Thomas brought this to Panico's attention, but he was three days away from submission. Panico stated that the person has to be in the residence by October 1. MOTION: Dave Johnston recommended the Design Review Appeal Committee waive the standard that the garage must be setback ten feet from the facade of the house for the property located 377 SilverLode Drive, finding that criteria "c" has been met. Gilbert Sanchez second. Roger Moyer, Dave Johnston, Gilbert Sanchez for, Steve Buettow against. MOTION APPROVED 3-1. 2 DESIGN REVIEW PPEALS-COUJUITTEE -FEBQWV6� 533 WEST SMUGGLER Gilbert Sanchez stepped down on this issue. David Hoefer stated the applicant supplied notice which complied with the jurisdictional requirements of this committee and may proceed. Mitch Haas, staff, explained there was an oversight in the packet and the elevations included are incorrect and the revisions are replaced in the new handout. He said the "inflection standard" of Ordinance 30 which deals with one story elements of an existing structure and the element of a proposed adjacent structure. Staff felt that all elements of the proposed structure next door to an existing one story structure should also be one story for a distance of 12' toward the opposite lot line. Haas stated if a standard is up for interpretation, it would be best to refer to how that standard has been applied in the past. He referenced Jan Derrington's model to show where the one and two story elements are used. He pointed out the portion of the house (model) that does not meet that standard. Janver Derrington, architect for applicant, stated there was at least one project that was approved. He said a duplex at 1225 Snowbunny Lane went through after Ordinance 30 was adopted. He commented that the interpretation seems to have evolved since then. Derrington expressed the open area and two story element (a stair tower) with steep pitched roofs which is encouraged by Ordinance 30. He noted the footprint of the house is much smaller than the one next door that occupies three lots. He said that since the lot has huge spruce trees, the house is in scale in that setting. He felt that the application of the standard complied with the reasonable intent. Moyer asked for photos of the entire block. Derrington supplied the photos with the opposite side of the street also. He said there were 4 lots in this Carrish Subdivision. Moyer said the verticality of the house is still unique to that block. so, at present it is out of character and even with a new house on the corner. Buettow asked if the corner lot house would be demolished. Derrington stated that it would and since the lot had such huge trees on it, the new structure would probably be vertical also. Buettow asked if they were at the maximum height with this house. Derrington replied that they were slightly below the maximum height K DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 27,1997 with the cupola. Haas stated the real intent of this standard was so that a new house did not "loom" over the adjacent house by size and scale. Johnston said from the model the entry looked very small with the two masses on either side. he commented that the mass down -played the entry. Amy Amidon gave background on Ordinance 30. She said that this was one of the very few provisions (especially in the West End) to protect Victorians from becoming overwhelmed by the new construction. She stated that the interpretation should not be changed across the board for this standard. Moyer responded that this is the reason we have Ordinance 30 and it does not meet the standard. Buettow said that when Ordinance 30 was originally discussed the "inflection" referred to street scape. MOTION: Roger Moyer moved that the Design Review Appeals Committee find the design as proposed does not comply with standard 26.58.020(B) of the Aspen Municipal Code and must be redesigned to comply with said standard. Dave Johnston second. Dave Johnston and Roger Moyer voted to approve and Steve Buettow denied. MOTION, APPROVED TO DENY 2-1. Moyer asked Amidon if the applicant could come up with a solution without a complete re -design. Amidon answered if the applicant could find one of the three standards to comply with then maybe a compromise could be achieved. Haas stated they would work with the applicant. Derrington asked if the roof element was the reasonable approach because he was not sure what was expected. Johnston did not mean it as a directive, but was open to any discussion. Moyer noted it was up to the applicant and not to this committee to re -design. Derrington asked if the element had to be inward 12' all the way from the side yard to the back of the garage area. Buettow believed that was the motion. Moyer said that the project should take on the character of the block and asked if the material to be used was stucco. Derrington affirmed. Moyer felt stucco did not lend itself to the character of Aspen. Amidon said that if they met with staff, and the re -design met the standard, the applicant would not have to come before this committee again. C! 1 Steve Buettow stepped down. David Hoefer asked for the posting of the notice. Augie Reno, Architect for Silverstream, provided the notice. Hoefer stated that the notice met the requirements and the committee had jurisdiction to proceed. Julie Ann Woods, staff, explained the Brass Bed Lodge has been an on -going project that was recently approved by the Board of Adjustment for a carport at the rear of the property. She continued that they were also approved by the City P & Z for a change in use (from 29 units to 6 units) and a voluntary ADU. She said they wanted to make some changes to the exterior elevations of the existing building and realized that the building did not comply. The window standard and the height measurement were the reasons for the Ordinance 30 Review. Woods stated the building is non -conforming to the Ordinance 30 height standard and the way that height is measured. Hoefer stated that this committee could review the height standard even though the building existed prior to Ordinance 30. Moyer said since this committee could review the height standard, then the applicant would not have to go before the Board of Adjustment. Woods commented the changes to the building will make it look more residential, adding more windows. Reno introduced Rob Tobias, Silverstream Representative, and noted the building has been vacant since it was constructed 8 or 9 years ago. He said the project will enhance the neighborhood once completed. Reno said in 5 or 6 areas the glass exceeds the 9' and 12' band area. He noted the property has nice views and the big band on the building blocks the views. Reno commented the purpose of Ordinance 30 was to prevent the large plate glass walls from the 1 st floor to the 3rd floor. He said the amount of glass proposed, 3' would be the maximum with those elements broken up by the balconies and the band. Reno stated that the glazing does not start until 9' from the floor and is only 8' of glass. He said the window does not start at the floor but about 3' above. He noted that the elements occur on portions of the building that are significantly setback from the property line. He said the relationship between pedestrian and building are from 30' to 48' apart. 5 Reno stated the building is linear with two horizontal wings and a simple gable roof. He said the building has a strong mass (almost institutional) and they want to break up the mass with the 6 gables in question (adding vertical). Reno said this existing building was brought into non -conformity by Ordinance 30 and felt that was a hardship. He noted they do not want to add to that non -conformity but are trying to relate to the existing ridge of the building. Reno stated from a construction stand point, also, it is easier to use the existing gables rather than lower them and have to reconstruct the entire building. Reno commented there will be new landscaping also, which will seem to lower the building. Tobias added that architecturally the gables are the same height as the existing roof line and seems more gentle. He said the Brass Bed was bought through fore- closure and wanted to do something other than a lodge. They want to enhance the neighborhood with a first class project. Johnston asked what the function was and why the front dormer was so high. Reno explained it was the fifth unit and faced north. Johnston asked if the ridge was going to be taller that the existing. Reno replied no, the dormers would go to the ridge line. Sanchez asked what dormers were above the height restriction. Reno said approximately 2' the way Ordinance 30 measures. Sanchez questioned the balconies provided separation from the tall glass areas. He asked if the balconies had open railings. Reno said the railing was wood with vertical openings. Moyer asked the purpose of the building and if it would be condominiumized. Reno stated there would be 6 two bedroom townhouses and an ADU. Moyer asked if the glass doors would be taller. Reno answered they would not be changed but the triangulated glass that is being added. He said the upper floor doors will be wider. Sanchez felt comfortable with the triangle glazing and the south side probably won't be seen from the street. He questioned the large gable on the north elevation with excessive glazing. Sanchez thought even a lower gable would accomplish the vertical break up of space. Johnston said the re -design was a welcome relief to what is there now, and the gables at the ridge line and below the ridge satisfied him. He commented that the dormer on the north was a little high and liked the look of the project. 0 Moyer said the south side, the height adjustment was valid. He stated the re- design was a welcome relief to the current state of the building. He noted the north side did not affect the street scape and felt the project was well done. MOTION: Dave Johnston moved that Design Review Appeal Committee waive the standard that FAR be calculated at 2 for the areas in the 9' to 12' "no window" zone for the Brass Bed located at 926 East Durant Avenue finding that criteria "c" applied and further recommended the height definition of 26.58.040F5 be varied to allow the existing height non -conformity of this building to continue because the shell of this building predates Ordinance 30. The height of this building was in compliance with then existing zoning when the original project was completed. Gilbert Sanchez second. ALL IN FAVOR, MOTION APPROVED. 3-0 MINUTES MOTION: Dave Johnston moved to adopt the minutes of 12/12/96. Seconded by Gilbert Sanchez. ALL IN FAVOR, MOTION APPROVED. 4-0 Julie Ann Woods stated for the record that Gilbert Sanchez was appointed to the Design Review Appeals Committee to serve as an alternate. Dave Johnston becomes a regular member. Meeting adjourned at 5:35 p.m. Akie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 7 • I� Memorandum TO: Design Review Appeal Committee THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director FROM: Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Director DATE: February 24, 1997 RE: Brass Bed Lodge--926 E. Durant Ave. --Appeal from Design Standards SUMMARY: The applicant requests a waiver of the Ordinance #30 standard related to FAR increase due to volume for glazing in the "no window" zone. Though the applicant is also requesting a waiver to allow new dormers in excess of the maximum height allowed in this zone district, the DRAC does not have authority to consider this item. This would require a hearing before the Board of Appeals. APPLICANT: Silverstream LLP LOCATION: 926 E. Durant Ave. ZONING: R-MF PROJECT REVIEW PROCESS AND STAFF EVALUATION Background: The proposed project is an existing lodge which was approved for a change in use to allow six free-market residential units and one employee deed restricted unit. It is approximately 15,356 s.f. Site Description: The structure is located on a relatively flat site east of the downtown core. Waiver Requested: Standard: "All areas with an exterior expression of a plate height greater than ten (10) feet, shall be counted as two (2) square feet for each one (1) square foot of floor area. Exterior expression shall be defined as facade penetrations between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above the level of the finished floor... " Staff Evaluation: The Committee may grant an exception to the design standards if the project as proposed is found to meet one of the following criteria: a) yields greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan: Staff Response: The project does not further any goals of the AACP. b) more effectively addresses the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; Staff Response: The waiver request does not address this criteria. c) be clearly necessary for reason of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Staff Response: Though the site does not specifically have physical constraints associated with it, it is an existing vacant building that is being modified in order to more adequately address the layout for six free-market units vs. 29 lodge units. In that regard, the applicant proposes to take advantage of the site and open up more views to Aspen Mountain, hence the proposal for more glass in the 9' to 12' "no -window" area. Though the applicant can propose glass in this area and meet the design standard, his FAR for this portion of the unit is multiplied by 2. This project does not have the FAR available to meet this standard, therefore the request to waive this standard. Though the applicant could remove the glass from these "no window" areas, the scale of these glass areas is not significant, and actually helps to break up the flat face of the existing facade. Though the applicant is asking for a variance to height, staff recommends that the pitch of the dormer roofs be reduced in order to conform with the maximum height requirement. This would require an increase in the "structure" to support a reduced pitch, according to the architect. Staff does not feel that the applicant will be able to show a "hardship" for such a variance request, and therefore recommends a redesign of the dormers pitched areas to conform with the standards. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Appeal Committee waive the standard that the FAR be calculated at 2 for the areas in the 9' to 12' "no window" zone for the Brass Bed located at 926 E. Durant Ave., finding that criteria "c" applies. Staff further recommends that the pitched roofs of the dormers that do not comply with the maximum height requirement be redesigned to comply. 0 • February 24, 1997 DAVID Aspen/Pitkin County Community Development Dept. GIBSON. 130 South Galena AIA Aspen, Colorado 81611 AUGUST RENO. RE: The Brass Bed AIA Design Review Appeal Committee 926 E. Durant Street Aspen, Colorado SCOTT SMITH. We are submitting the enclosed application for a Design Review Appeal AIA for the proposed residences located at 926 E. Durant in Aspen, Colorado. Enclosed is Attachment 1, Land Use application Form and Attachment 3, Specific Submission Requirements. A§ The following addresses Attachment 2, General Submission GIBSON • RENO Requirements: A R C 11 IIIT E C T S 1. See enclosed authorization letter. 2. The street address is: 210 E. HYMAN 926 East Durant Street No 202 Aspen, Colorado 81611 ASPEN The legal description is: COLORADO Lots P,Q,R and S 81611 Block 118 City of Aspen 303.925.5968 3. See enclosed Disclosure of Ownership FACSIMILE 4. See enclosed vicinity map 303.925.5993 Thank you for your time in reviewing our request for the Design Review Appeal. Please contact me with any further questions P.O. BOX 278 regarding this application. 117 N. WILLOW �1 NO 2 TELLURIDE COLORADO i 81435 Reno, Al / 303.728.6607 enclosures FACSIMILE 303.728.6658 0 • ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1) Project Name Brass Bed Lod= 2) Project Location 926 Fist Durant St. Los P,Q.R and S. Block 119 City Aspen of (Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate.) 3) Present Zoning RMF (L.P. Overlayl 4) Lot Size 13.800 SF 5) Applicant's Name, Address & Phone No. Silverst-rea_m L.L.P. 307 South Mill St.. Aspen, CO. 91611 925-3993 6) Representative's Name, Address & Phone No. Gibson -Reno Architects, 210 F. Hyman, Suite 202. Aspen. CO. 91611 1. i. C 7) Type of Application (please check all that apply): Conditional Use _ Conceptual SPA _ Conceptual Historic Dev. _ Special Review _ Final SPA _ Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline _ Conceptual PUD _ Minor Historic Dev. _ Stream Margin _ Final PUD _ Historic Demolition Mountain View Plane _ Subdivision _ Historic Designation Condominiumization _ Text/Map Amendment _ GMQS Allotment Lot Split/Lot Line X Design Review _ GMQS Exemption Adjustment Appeal Committee. 8) Description of Existing Uses (number and type of existing structures; approximate sq. ft.; number of bedrooms; any previous approvals granted to the property). Single structure- 15. 356 SF approved for 29 lodge nits. Construction presently incomplete 4 kitchens, 3 employee bedrooms 9) Description of Development Application: Conversion from lodge to 6 2 bedroom housing 10) residential_ units plus Have you attached the following? an affordable studio. X Response to Attachment 2. General Submission Contents X Response to Attachment 3. Specific Submission Contents bblandap.doc E • February 24, 1997 Silverstream L.L.P. C/O Swift Property Fun Inc. 307 South Mill Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 925-3883 Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Please accept this letter as authorization for the firm of Gibson -Reno Architects, L.L.C., located at 210 E. Hyman Avenue, Suite 202, Aspen, Colorado 81611, (970) 925-5968 to submit and process the Application for the Design Review Appeal Committee on my behalf, and to represent my interests at any related meetings, hearing, or presentations. Sincerely, Robert J. Tobias, Managing Partner, Silverstream LLP WAND TITLE GUARANTEE. COMPO 1 C U S T O M E R D I S T R I B U T I O N October 16, 1996 Property Address: ASPEN, CO SWIFT PROPERTY FUND, INC. 307 SOUTH MILL ASPEN, CO 81611 Attn: ROB TOBIAS 303 925-3883 rl,, ; o= . Our Order No.: Q371443 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Required by Senate Bill 91-14 A) The subject real property may be located in a special taxing district. B) A Certificate of Taxes Due listing each taxing jurisdiction may be obtained from the County Treasurer or the County Treasurer's authorized agent. C) The information regarding special districts and the boundaries of such districts may be obtained from the Board of County Commissioners, the County Clerk and Recorder, or the County Assessor. Required by Senate Bill 92-143 A) A Certificate of Taxes Due listing each taxing jurisdiction shall be obtained from the County Treasurer or the County Treasurer's authorized agent. 0 u l Vicinity Map To Twin Lakes I� L u This section is to be included as part of the Design Review Appeal for 926 East Durant. Enclosed is a Neighborhood Block Plan a 1" = 50'. 2. Enclosed is a Site Plan (reduced to 11x17). 3. Enclosed are Building Elevations at 1/8" - l'-0". 4. Primary Mass is an existing condition, proposed new construction does not increase primary mass. 5. Enclosed are photos of site and surrounding buildings. Additional photos will be available at the review hearing if needed. 6. As outlined in Section 26.58.20, Procedure, of the Residential Design Standards, we wish to appeal Staffs findings. The guidelines we wish to appeal are as follows: A) Existing height is non -conforming therefore, new dormers are non- conforming. B) FAR Increase due to volume for glazing in the "no window" zone. A written explanation of our appeal is as follows: A) Height Non -Conformity: The interpretation of Staff, as we understand it, is that because of a change in zoning as it applies to height calculations since the original project was completed, causes the existing building to be in non -conformity. We wish to appeal this finding and/or waive the height requirement for the following reasons: The height of the existing building is non -conforming only because the finish grade of a portion of the lowest level is below the previous natural grade. Grades at the North, East and West Elevations as well as grade directly in front of the lower level terraces on the South side do not contribute to the "Non - Conformity". 2. The portions of the South Elevation that are below the previous natural grade are set back from the furthest south facade by 32-48 feet and set back from the street by 63-81 feet. Therefore creating very little visual impact on the street facing facade. • 0 Attachemnt 3 Specific Submission Requirements 926 East Durant Page 2 The proposed dormers added to the existing roof help to visually break up the mass of the main roof and lessen the severity of what is now considered a "non -conforming" element. If the dormer heights are reduced, more of the main roof mass will be visible. B. The interpretation of Staff, as we understand it, is that portions of the new dormers have glazing in some locations that is within the identified 9' to 12' above finished floor "No Window Zone" and therefore the FAR for spaces behind those locations must be counted twice. We wish to appeal this finding and/or waive the FAR increase for the following reasons: The intent of this guideline, as we understand it, is to discourage large two-story glazing elements but not to discourage the use of dormers to break up roof mass or not to allow views and natural light. The portions of glazing in question (see Elevations) is minimal and part of upper level dormers. 2. Several of the glazing elements have sills above the floor level. Although they have glazing above the 9'-0" AFF height, the overall height of the window does not exceed 9'-0". The result of deleting the glazing from these location is a possible reduction in the size of the dormers or eliminating them all together. This would detract from the overall design of the project and would not improve the intent of the Residential Design Guidelines. bbattch3.doc U) c3 Z _. uj V7�-- 940 I, -1 II i 1 1940 - r' ----- E. 01)RANI( Ayf - II II I l II L II tl t PL AN 01 ►_►_liiiuiol �I�I ail � I■Ii�l�i i f �Illill!I�' 1�'llllil ■ lm�0!1111111' IV! ' ■ j C.. pp, . .4 �r� • LT llllllll i 38' DURANT AVENUE 1 SITE PLAN Th -16 IN I� illl��lilli�'1! �h'flllllllil�r IIHI lip Non IP was N �Illlllf d111��41Pf'll@� II ail Y I�F11111111 11 ��I�—r!!�'lllllllllllllll will I NO IIIkN�' ��Illuu�i�mnwmumu� gollpiau Ili a4mxmivannm�am� im Ub low _ \ ... l I Mai ser111IIIIA111111 . VIEW FROM STREET LOOKING SOUTH (STRAIGHT -ON VIEW) 926 EAST DURANT VIEW FROM STREET LOOKING NORTH (STRAIGHT -ON VIEW) 926 EAST DURANT 0 0