Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.drac.19970410AGENDA DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE April 10, 7997 Regular Meeting Sister Cities Room, City Hall 4:00 I. Roll Call II. Comments (Committee members, Staff and public) III. Old Business 4:05 A. 533 W. Smuggler 4:45 IV. New Business A. Waterplace Housing- worksession 5:15 IV. Adjourn AGENDA DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE Apri110,1997 Thursday Regular Meeting City Council Chambers, City Hall 4:00 I. Roll Call II. Minutes III. Comments (Committee members, Staff and Public) IV. Old Business 4:05 A. 533 Smuggler Street Patrice Kahn, represented by Janver Derrington Appeal of "Inflection" Standard 4:45 V. New Business A. Waterplace Housing - Worksession 5:15 VI. Adjourn REMINDER: THIS COMMITTEE MEETS THE SECOND THURSDAY OF EVERY MONTH (IF NEEDED) AT 4:00 P.M. MEMORANDUM TO: Design Review Appeal Com1,mittee (DRAG) FROM: Mitch Haas, City Planner II lA~ /~ THRU: Stan Clauson, Community"""D"Me"11velopment Directof-~r/ Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Director RE: 533 West Smuggler Street, Appeal of "Inflection" Standazd (26.58.040(E)) DATE: Mazch 27, 1997 SUMMARY: Pursuant to Chapter 26.58, Residential Design Standazds, Section 26.58.020(B), of the Aspen Municipal Code, "an applicant shall prepare an application for review and approval by staff. In order to proceed with additional land use reviews or obtain a Development Order, staff shall f:nd the submitted development application consistent with the Residential Design Guidelines." This Section goes on to state that "if an application is found to be inconsistent with any item of the Residential Design Guidelines the applicant may either amend the application or appeal staffs findings to the Design Review Appeal Board [DRAG] pursuant to Chapter 26.22, Design Review Appeal Board. " The applicant is requesting a variance from the "Inflection" standard (described below) in order to allow the proposed design of asingle-family dwelling at 533 West Smuggler Street. The application is attached as Exhibit "A." APPLICANT: Patrice Kahn, represented by Janver Derrington of Chazles Cunniffe Architects. BACKGROUND: Community Development Department staff reviewed the application to construct a residential unit at 533 West Smuggler Street for compliance with the "Residential Design Standazds," (See attached Exhibit A). Staff found that the proposal is not in compliance with the "Inflection" standazd, Section 26.58.040(E), which reads as follows: If the street frontage of an adjacent structure is one (I) story in height for a distance of more than twelve (12) feet on the side facing a proposed building, then the adjacent portion of the proposed building must also be one (1) story in height for a distance of twelve (12) feet. It is the Planning Director's interpretation that this standazd requires that, in those areas where the house to the east of 533 W. Smuggler is one (1) story, all adjacent portions of the house proposed for 533 W. Smuggler must also be one (1) story for a distance of at EXHIBIT least twelve (12) feet inwazd from that portion of the proposed structure closest to the shazed lot line towazd the opposite lot line. On February 27, 1997 the DRAC found that the design, as then proposed, did not comply with standazd 26.58.040(E), and must be redesigned to comply with said standard. Since then, the applicant has made a number of revisions to the proposed design. Staff continues to find that the revised design does not comply with the "Inflection" standazd; however, the applicant has requested that the DRAC review the revisions and consider granting a variance. Before taking into account the design revisions, the standazd under which the requested variance is sought must be pointed out. The applicant is seeking a variance from the "Residential Design Standards" pursuant to a finding by the DRAC that the proposed x ` ~ design "more eJjectively addresses the issue or problem the given standard or provision Y responds to." In staffs opinion, the "Inflection" standazd is intended to respond to the issue of new construction overshadowing and dwarfmg adjacent, existing structures by not respecting or responding to, through sensitive design, the mass and scale of the portions of the existing structure that are closest to the proposed building. In considering the variance request, the DRAC must decide whether or not the proposed design more effectively addresses this issue than would a redesign that meets the standard. The Proposal The applicant has, as mentioned above, made a number of revisions to the proposed design since the February 27, 1997 DRAC hearing. Most notably, the applicant has shifted the location of the proposed structure as faz to the west as possible while still complying with the minimum side yazd setback of five (5) feet. The lot adjacent to the proposed five (5) foot setback is vacant. This shift enabled an extension of the one-story porch on the front (north elevation) of the house so that it wraps azound to the east side of the house and provides aone-story element adjacent to the one-story portions of the existing structure on the adjoining lot. This porch would, it should be noted, be set back ten (10) feet from the shared property line. In effect, the closest two-story element of the proposed structure would be approximately twenty-seven (27) feet away from the one-story portions of the existing structure on the adjoining lot. The reason that this revised design still does not comply with the "Inflection" standazd is the fact that the one-story element (porch) of the proposed structure would have a depth ofjust six and one-half (6.5) feet, as opposed to the required twelve (12) feet. The applicant points out the fact that the distance from the easternmost portion of the one-story porch to the westernmost portion of the porch is some twenty-six (26) feet. However, as staff notes, the one-story element of the proposed building closest to the adjacent structure has a width of only six and one-half (6.5) feet. The twenty-six (26) foot width is arrived at by wrapping cone-story element of six and one-half (6.5) feet in width azound a two-story section of the structure. Although granting of a variance based on the circumstances of one specific situation should not be construed as a precedent for granting similaz variances (i.e., based on same design standazd or variance criterion) in other situations with differing circumstances, the applicant has requested that a particulaz case involving a variance from the "Inflection" criterion be brought to the attention of the DRAC. The particulaz case of interest was located at 923 East Hyman Avenue (Schrager House). In 923 East Hyman case, the applicant was granted a variance permitting cone-story element of seven (7) feet in width for the length of its entire east facade. While this project was granted a variance from the inflection standazd, the variance was granted "for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints," namely, a setback requirement established in the contract to purchase the property. The lot now in question, 533 West Smuggler Street, does not contain any unusual site specific constraints that require a variance for reasons of fairness. Rather, the site in question has inherently more flexibility than most lots because both it and the adjacent property to the west aze vacant. .RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the DRAC review the proposed design and site circumstances in order to determine whether the proposed design "more effectively addresses the issues" that the inflection standazd responds to than would a redesign that meets the standard. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit "A" -Submitted application package March 17, 1997 Design Review Appeals Committee ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT City of Aspen, Colorado re: Re-submission for appeal review residence for 533 West Smuggler Aspen, Colorado Gentlemen: ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIORS Following your review and rejection of our previous proposal as not conforming to the side yard Inflection Standard of Ordinance 30 on February 27, 1997, we have revised our proposal. We took your suggestion to study extending the one story porch element back around the stair tower and revised our sketches and the study model to show it to the City Planning staff. We had a meeting with them on March 7 and discussed the merits of our proposal. We have pushed the house to the West as far as possible, which allows the porch roof to be 8 ft. deep at the stair tower and still fit inside the required East side yard setback. The staff commented that this does not technically meet the minimum 12 ft. depth in their interpretation of the Inflection Standard. However, we pointed out that along the street frontage elevation, the width of the porch is now 27.75 ft., narrows to 8 ft. and then widens to 11 ft. at the point where it is parallel with the back edge of the one story garage of the adjoining house. Thus, the average width (depth) of the proposed one story element adjoining the neighbor's house is equal to or greater than the minimum 12 ft. standard. We believe this is in compliance with the spirit and intent of the side yard inflection standard, if not the letter of the technical interpretation by staff and is deserving of a variance by DRAC. Particularly in view of the precedent set by your having granted a variance for the residence at 923 East Hyman in August of 1996. In that proposal, the street elevation one story porch element was interrupted by a two story element toward the front of the lot which extends 17 ft. back before a 4 ft. deep stepped- down one story roof element is introduced which then extends on back to a one story element, which is a roof deck over the garage, similar to our proposal. The two story element at 923 East Hyman is only 9ft. away from the adjoining one story element on the lot to the East as compared to our proposal of 15 ft. at the narrowest point which is 56 ft. back from the front (street] property line. At the closest point to the street, the two houses in our proposal are 50.5 ft. apart.. We believe this is much more gentle on the "streetscape" than the one which you granted a variance to last August. CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS 520 EAST HYMAN SUITE 301 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 970/925-5590 FAX 970/925-5076 In consideration of the above, we respectfully request that you grant a variance to the side yard Inflection Standard for 533 West Smuggler at your next meeting on March 27, 1997. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, QItu~1 Ja er Derringtc nclosures C1~'~1 ASPEN W SMUGGLER ST j 0 NEIG BORHO BLO K PLAN '"~ ~ SCALE i ^= so• ----- ~ a 0 ALLEY 30UNDARIES 3E FENCE SETBACKS 30UNDARIES 533 W.SMUGGLER STREET SMUGGLER STREET PORCH STUDY (SIDE YARD INFLECTION) A RESIDENCE FOR CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS A1.3 ~ 533 W. SMUGGLER SITE PLAN N6" = 1'-0" ASPEN, COLORADO s:o EASi muw nsE. • smrt Jm • nsvm+,co msn • JEO: JoJ9JSSSSn • EAk Jass:s-sox ll0 E. CIXgI.WO AYE. • 1FLLnN0E CO TOS ' 1EIE'. ]OyRbl710' fAl ION[bi56) %A2.1 LOWER LEVEL PIAN ~. _ ~,-0• A RESIDENCE FOR 533 W. SMUGGLER ASPEN, COLORADO CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS s:o Ewn mw.w AYE • wirt 3m • Ann, ca mm • rtu: mxissssa • EAL 3osms.son l30 E CCICAACO AVF.' RWIWOF. CO BIO]5 • IEIF: 30N1&3718 • fNL 30YR&956) L L % a- _-, T BREAKFAST AR ~~ ~~ ~~ \ KRCHEN I / \ I ~ - POV/pER ~ PANTRY - SITTING ~ ~ ~-~ \\ \~ - ~ oecK A RESIDENCE F~ A ~ /~L„3 UPPER LEVEL ~ 533 W.SMUGGLER PIAN yH" = 1'-0" ASPEN, COLORADO DECK L - --; ~---~ rr-? DINING ROOM SEE rxxu FIREPLCf LIVING ROOM ~ K ~4RC-WITEC7S sa Wi metes •vE • sURE ]m • AvFx, W men • IiEF: wHxFS590 • iNl: ]mms-smz 330 E COLOVM'1 AVE.• RLLIIAIOE CO SN35 • IEIE: ]OYR63r3B ' iAC: IIlY116956) ^o -- I I `^~- oECrc E- I L - T I roa2 TYP. UND. -' / \ - / - -_-_ T 'FLAT' % v}. v ,~f ~ I T ~ % ~ ~ ~ ~ I I I ~ ~ ^ ^ l/3PT.Gf PITL \ HE AT 25' E X/SP.WG GRADE lGd2 TYP. b!~ I E_ WI\ l/J PT.GF P/TCHEO RWF MEIGIIT AT y 24-d A~/E ~8J2 _j ~ ~ EXISTING GRADE \wr. \ ~ A.~ A RESIDENCE FOR CHA HITECTS ~^ llL.4 ~ 533 W. SMUGGLER ROOF PLW ~~ ~~ - ~~-0° ASPEN, COLORADO sxo fur Hvwr nv[ • sme sm • nw[µ m mcn • rtu: wsms-ssvo • fu: w»zs-son • uo s. co~oxwo nn. • rzuuuoE. m mus • nu: xoNto-sne • vuc xavne-sscx S(731IN7tlY 39INMW S31tlYNJ ~Z6611N91tlAdW f95EW1/COC 7fY3 • BE1S9iUpC 7131 • SC1180'J301tl01131 • L9BZ %O8. 3Atl00Xtl010730dL 911MiSE6/07i 1fY3 ~ 063Si2fi/WS 3131 11818 Q3'X3d$tl ~ lOC 31185 ~ NYWAH 3 OZS 51~311H~LV oa~'~o-~c~ ' N3d5'd '~ ~~ 5 n 2 9 U Z Z ~ v ~ a w w ~~ ~ ~ -- --~~ ~ = ac ~ 4 d1 0~, ~ w ~. ~ 511311N3Ytl 3331NMN1 S31tlNN726611N11tlW07® Odd~0~7 ~ N~as~ 19S8-NZ!/000 7IY3 • Ak£-NUJCO£3131 • S£Y1N 01'300101131 ~ £98Z%OA ~ 3~Y OOYtl010130R 9f1KSd6/COC 1013 0655SZ6If1IC 3131 1191N 01'N3dSY l0£ 31105 ~ XYNAN 3 OZS st~ai~H~av a~~~NNn~ sa~avN~ z13'1'~~nWS 'M ~~~ 2 0 'J1 v 1 o z ~ Q w ~ ~ w ~, n N ~ U ~ } ~ a ~ ~o ~ r ~, _' _ ~' '~ o - ~ ~ ~ p~ ~ ~ k1- ~` _. County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT } ss. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATION ~ State of Colorado } SECTION 2652.060 (E) I, aV1 V ~ I ?n 'C'~~ being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, person certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements pursuant to Section 26.52.060 (F7 of the Aspen }rand U Regulations in the following manner. ~o r a ~a ri a Kc~ re~cc~~,,..U. °~-~ ~}- ~ ~{j r-~ -~-{~_ ~S+.o~ r^ ~Z~,vcaw ~ ~a ( 'P~oar-d CD(~~G~ V 1. NA on the attached list, on the day of 2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously from the 2.15'~' day of a~Ll 199 (Must be posted for ~~~ at least fu 1 days before the hearing date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto. Mail to all owners of property WITNESS MY HAND A My commission expires Notary Public's Signature SEAL D~' Ca~bYQ~o EXHIBIT c~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 533 W SMUGGLER ST ~ -- . ' 2 STO~~' _ - - W I F E 187'1 SE i _.T BE OLIS ~~--T- ~ STO Y 1 ti ALLEY BLO K P --~j ~S ~ I '"- CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS 520 E. HYMAN SUITE 301 ASPEN, CO 81611 PHONE (970) 925-5590 FAX (970) 925-5076 ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIORS DATE: March 26, 1997 TO: Design Review Appeal Committee (DRAG) FROM: Janver Denington, AIA CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS RE: 533 West Smuggler St. Appeal of "Inflection" Standard [26.58.040 (Ejj Gentlemen: We have reviewed the memorandum from Mitch Haas which sets forth the City Planning Staff position on the revised variance request we submitted on March 17, 1997. We believe our submission is worthy of a variance as stated in the cover letter and will discuss its merits in the public hearing. However, we wish to clear up some mistaken representations of the facts contained in Mitch's memo regarding the variance that was granted for a similar situation at 923 East Hyman Avenue. After reviewing the submittal documents and the DRAG hearing minutes, it is correct that staff recommended a 7 ft. deep one story element the full length of the east facade of the structure. In the motion that was passed by DRAG to grant a variance, no mention of the 7 ft. element is made, but a requirement that the second story on the east elevation (kitchen element on north/street facing end) be moved in between 12 and 24 inches. What is cunently being constructed aT 923 East Hyman is as follows: The second story kitchen facade element (which is 18 ft. long on the North end of the East elevation) has been set back 12 inches from the facade of the first story below. With a 16 inch roof eave overhang, this provides a 2 ft. 4 inch "eyebrow" roof for The first 18 fT. back from the street behind the entry porch roof as shown on the photos we will submit at the hearing. This is certainly not the 7 ft. deep element Mitch says was to have been approved. Going on toward the South, the second story wall steps back another 3 ft. and again has a 16 inch overhang for the roof, thus providing a 5 ft. 4 inch deep roof element. This is still not the 7 ft. that planning staff recommended let alone the 12 ft. minimum requirement of the "inflection" standard. What is interesting about this is that in our submittal, the roof element of the porch at it's narrowest point alongside the stair element is 8 ft., not 6.5 ft. as stated in Mitch's memo. Although he states that a previously granted variance should not be construed "~" as a precedent for this project, we submit that it should be used as a frame of reference to establish an even handed approach to a similar situation. Derringtoi cc: farrell and Patric Ted Gardenschwartz Mitch Haas