HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.drac.19960808AGENDA
_________________________________________________________________
DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE
August 8, 1996
Regular Meeting
Basement, City Hall
4:00 I. Roll Call
II. Comments (Committee members, Staff and public)
III. New Business
a~
~
,. 4:05 A. 501 W. Smuggler _
~ ? r'-
~
..
4:20 B. 923. E. Hyman
4:50
C. ,~
Upper East Side Townhouses i} `; f^ ^°.
,,
5:30
D.
510 Walnut Street F.
~ _~ E -~
6:00 IV. Adjourn
A
71~. A
MEMORANDUM
,,.. TO: Design Review Appeal Committee
FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer
DATE: August 8, 1996
RE: 501 W. Smuggler Street- Appeal from Design Standards
SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to add a new entry vestibule of
approximately 105 sq.ft. to the existing house. Due to new methods of
calculating FAR, specifically the "volume" standard which doubles FAR in some
portions of the building, the house is now considered over the allowable FAR.
The applicant therefore requests waiver of the volume standard in order to
accommodate the small addition.
APPLICANT: Patricia Crown-Tapper, represented by Graeme Means and John
Olsen.
LOCATION: 501 W. Smuggler
ZONING: R-6
PROJECT REVIEW PROCESS AND STAFF EVALUATION
I. Background- In a preliminary review, staff indicated to the architect that
new FAR calculations would prohibit further construction on the site.
II. Site description- This is a corner lot in the west end, with an existing
residence. The lot size is 6,000 sq.ft. and the allowable FAR is 3,240 sq.ft. No
garage bonus would be given for this residence, since access is from the street,
not the alley.
III. Waiver requested-
A. Standard: "Floor area ratio sand allowable floor area for a
residential building or ~oortion thereof shall include a calculation
based on the relationship between every instance of the exterior
expressions and interior plate heights. All interior areas that
include exterior expression of a plate height greater than 10 (ten)
beet, shall be counted as two (2) square feet per each square
footage of actual floor area. Exterior expression shall be defined
as facade penetrations befinreen nine (g) and twelve (12) feet
above the elevation of the finished floor, and circular, semi-circular
or non-orthogonal facade penetrations between nine (9) and fifteen
(15) feet above the level of the finished floor.
IV. Staff evaluation- The Committee may grant an exception to the design
standards for any of the following criteria:
a) yield 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 address the issue or problem a given standard or
provision responds to; or
Staff response: Ordinance #30 identifies windows within this zone as
inappropriate, due to issues of scale.
c) be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site
specific constraints.
Staff response:. Because this is an existing building, window ~ .,.
configurations pre-date Ordinance #30. If not for the volume standard,
the property has sufficient FAR to create the new entry. Staff finds that
the entry has no impact on the streetscape and therefore waiver of the
volume standard, for the purpose of creating 105 sq.ft. of allowable FAR is
appropriate.
V. Recommendation- Staff recommends DRAC grant a waiver of the
volume standard to allow an addition of 105 sq.ft. No additional FAR will be
available to the property under current FAR calculations:
VI. Recommended motion- "I move to grant a waiver of the volume standard
for 501 W. Smuggler to allow an addition of 105 sq.ft. No additional FAR will be
available to the property under current FAR calculations."
-~•~j,
MEMORANDUM
TO: Design Review Appeal Committee
FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer
DATE: August 8, 1996
RE: 923 E. Hyman Avenue- Appeal from Design Standards
SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to build a new residence. The home
violates aspects of Ordinance #30, namely "volume" and "inflection."
APPLICANT: Phil Schrager, represented by Gibson and Reno Architects.
LOCATION: 923 E. Hyman Avenue.
ZONING: RMF
PROJECT REVIEW PROCESS AND STAFF EVALUATION
I. Background- In a preliminary review, staff indicated to the architect that
two Ordinance #30 standards are not met by the design. Options were to amend
the proposed design or make an application to DRAC.
II. Site description- This is a 6,000 sq.ft. parcel in the east end. The
adjacent parcel on the east is a designated historic resource.
III. Waiver requested-
A. Standard: "Floor area ratio and allowable floor area for a
residential building or portion thereof shall include a calculation
based on the relationship between every instance of the exterior
expressions and interior plate heights. All interior areas that
include exterior expression of a plate height greater than ten (10)
-feet, shall be counted as two (2) square feet per each square foot
of actual floor area. Exterior exaression shall be defined as facade
penetrations between Hire (9) and twelve (12) feet above the
elevation of the finished floor, and circular, semi-circular or non-
orthogonal facade penetrations between nine (9) and fifteen (15)
feet above the level of the finished floor.
B. Inflection. If the street frontage of an adjacent structure is one (1)
story in height for a distance 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.
IV. Staff evaluation- The Committee may grant an exception to the design
standards for any of the following criteria:
a) yield 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 address the issue or problem a given standard or
provision responds to; or
Staff response: Ordinance #30 identifies windows within the "no window
zone" as inappropriate, due to issues of scale. Ordinance #30 also
provided, through the inflection standard, some amount of protection of
smaller structures' access to sun and views as well as a transition from
smaller existing homes in the neighborhood to larger scaled new
development. Neither issue is adequately addressed by the proposed
design.
c) be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site
specific constraints.
Staff response: The applicant is required to remain at a one story height
along the east lot Tine due to the nature of the neighboring structures.
Because the neighboring structures are one story for essentially the
length of the common lot line, the proposed residence must be as well.
The applicant has provided some one story porches in this area, (the front
porch meets the inflection standard), but for the remainder of the east
facade there is a two story element and a one story porch which is only 4
feet wide.
The applicant does have an unusual constraint in that a covenant on the
sale of the property required that they maintain a 10' west sideyard to
distance their development from the duplex being built on the historic rock
site. This makes their building envelope 5 feet narrower than would
otherwise be allowed.
Staff recommends that the two story area on the west facade be altered to
be one story in height and that the entire west facade be required to be
one story in height for a width of 7 feet (to account for the 5 feet setback
issue).
In terms of the volume standard, staff recommends that windows be
allowed in the "no window zone" on the alley facade, to take advantage of
views and southern light, however all other windows must comply.
V. Recommendation- Staff recommends that the two story area on the west
facade be altered to be one story in height and that the entire west facade be
required to be one story in height for a width of 7 feet (to account for the 5 feet
setback issue). Windows are allowed to be in violation of the volume standard
on the south facade only.
VI. Recommended motion- "I move to grant a variance to the inflection
standard, requiring that the project include a one story element, 7 feet in width
for the length of the east facade. The volume standard is waived for the south
facade."
4
,i
Attachment 8
County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT
} ss. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS
State of Colorado } SECTION 6-205.E. For D,B,A.C.
I Roy B, Parsons IIT, A.I..A,
being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally
certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements
pursuant to Section 6-205.E. of the Aspen Land Use Regulations in
the following manner:
1. By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto,
by first-class postage prepaid U. S. Mail to all owners
of property within three hundred (300) feet of the
subject property, as indicated on the attached list, on
'~". _. 199_ (which is days
.~ ~.',r,~''.~1' ~"~~r~' ~~aring date of ) .
,~~`«~ ~-,'~~' '
,"~' ~ conspicuous place on the subject
x
;:.. ~ . , .
-. - `, fib`
,
~'- ~-~-=~-'-~ ~~ ~ '~--; ~ be seen from the nearest public
~
`'
~,~,~~ ~ ',~" . ":~ aid sign was posted and visible
r
'~
'
_,~~;
'~~ # ~;?
"':, 2nd day of August 1996
,
.
.. f , ~~, J _
4! ?~; ~dls~ t August 199 6 , (Must be
"' it ,`~~ E ,F ~ r ~; : F `
~ e ~ 5)
.Y ^~ ~`~, ~'` '~~~~
` ` '~
s full days before the hearing
~' ~~=~~ ----~" ~~~;~~~+~k`.n~' ~~' ".`~ . of the posted sign is attached
.,~, .
~~'~ igned before me this ~ Say of
~u~r ~c S.,T ~ 19 6 . by
~, fO~e-~-~ _
~CTNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEtiL
Commission expire ~ _
~. otary Public
July 25, 1996
Aspen/Pitkin County Community Development Dept. ' ~ `"''
130 South Galena ""`"'~~
Aspen, Colorado 81611 ~~'
~~ ,~~ ,i
RE: Schrager Residence ~;~ ~~
Design Review Appeal Committee ,; ~
923 E. Hyman
Aspen, Colorado " ""
.~~iiii
~~ ~
We are submitting the enclosed application for a Design Review
Appeal for the proposed residence located at 923 E. Hyman in
Aspen, Colorado. ' ' r
Enclosed is Attachment 1, Land Use Application Farm and ~--, __.\,__~ _ --~___ -
Attachment 3 Specific Submission Requirements. ~-"
The following addresses Attachment , 2,General Submission G 1 gs~ ~ ~ R E N 0
~~
Reyuirements: ~ ~ ~
1. See enclosed authorization letter.
~„
2. The street address is:
923 East Hyman Avenue ~,~~ ~
Aspen, Colorado 81611 ~ ~ ~~~ ~~„~i~~,
~,~~
The legal description is:
Lot 2 Kentco Lot Split
Aspen, Colorado 81611 ~ ~~, . ~ ~, ~ a ~ ~
3. See enclosed Disclosure of Ownership
4. See enclosed vicinity map. ~, ~ , ~;~ ,,, ,,~
Thank you for your time in reviewing our request for the ~ .~
Design Review Appeal. Please contact me with any further
questions regarding this application. ""`'"""
~ ~,i ~,~z:~nc ~
xii.,,
Respectli,lly,
Roy B. Parsons III, AIA ~'-"'~~~""~'~
ATTACHMENT 1
LAND USE APPLICATION FORM
1) Project Name Schrager Residence
2) Project Location 923 E.:Hyman
Lot #2 Kentco Lot Split
(Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate.)
3) Present Zoning RMF 4) Lot Size 6000SF
5) Applicant's Name, Address & Phone No.: Phll Schrager; Pacesetter Corp.
4343 S. 96th, Omaha, NE 68127; 1-800.228-9273
6) Representative's Name, Address & Phone No.: Gibson & Reno Architects L.L.C.
210 E. Hyman Ave., Suite 202, Aspen, CO.81611 970 925-5968
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.
Sveam Mazgin _ Final PUD _ Historic Demolition
Mountain View Plane _ Subdivision _ Historic Designation
Condominittmization _ TexdMap Amendment _GMQS Allotment
Lot Split/Lo[ Line % Design Review Appeal Committee
Adjustment _GMQS Exemption
8) Description of Existing Uses (number and type of existing structures; approximate sq. ft.; number of
bedrooms; any previous approvals granted to the property).
The Lot is currently vacant. The Lot is part of an approved Lot Split.
9) Description of Development Application:
Appeal staff findings concerning compliance with Residential Design Guidelines
10) Have you attached the following?
YeS Response to Attachment 2, General Submission Requirements
YeS Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Requirements
schrlnd.doc
July 24, 1996
Mr. Phil Schrager
Pacesetter Corp.
4343 5.96th
Omaha NE. 68127
(800) 228-9273
Aspen/Pit]dn Community Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Please accept this letter a9 authorization for the firm of Gibson and Reno Architects
L.L.C., located at 210 E. Hymaa Avenue, Suite 202, Aspen, Colorado 81611,
(970) 925-5968 to submit and pmcess the Application for the Design Review Appeal
Committee oa my behalf, and to represent my interests at any related moctings, hearings,
or presentations.
CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP
Pitkin County Title, Inc., a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent in the
ate of Colorado hereby certifies that PHILLIP SCHRAGER is the owner in fee
mple of the following described property:
LOT 2,
KENTCO LOT SPLIT, according to the Map thereof recorded February 7, 1994 in
Plat Book 33 at Page 82.
COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO.
Subject to encumbrances, easements and rights of way of record.
„
This certificate is not to be construed to be a guarantee of title and
is furnished for informational purposes only.
PITKI COUNT I LE, INC.
BY:
authori s gnature
CERTIFIED T0: 29, 1996 @ 6:30 A.M.
ORDER N0: 1097
Z
~~
P
J ~., ~°
~ 4
~. U
~ Q
r~.~~F Qo
J ~ .. VP•
1 -Z\ ~ ro
N
W mrrbn
°rv Iy
U
o ~/
I = Sre~
N ~
o•
/ q~/ ~
N Si e 9
_ see "'~
e '
P
re h
P
~.°ce rca deP •~
Q eC
_ _5 ' G` 0~
o ~
? n W r..
s
~~~
4 C
~ acs~~r ova_e~.
GonOdffi'
3 y
Q/ ,p ~~
z /
• d~
`
/
Q
0a~ ~
~¢ 3 ~Iee P' ~S~
F h 0 9r r ~~
'
.. ' ~ o e~ G c
8 LL ~
D h
. e
~
r0 eft
P
0 ~ ° 6
G 2' ~ q
's //
m '~
F,°/ ~/y
/
~c ~ ~
• o~ ~ T c e
d a° C IS Oq Soffit
``/ odo , `r
`,, o,~
°'P 8 p f
7 p ~~
s ,y,
% ~~,
'
rs
~
9
slV'B.. ~ ~
et
a.. ar Or ~e n0'
~ \ vl Arwaus.~~b
~ ~ h `\\
t
~
"_`
( •~
__.~l
~
- _ C~
o ~
.~..--" 1 oZ--.. ~
r~_
'~e~n orv ~" end
~C
e .
~~
a
N F~ a
Me~o~ P
~
° ~ G~~
~'
o
V x
i
J r
~ro
,0 u0p.y u~
"'n
'G oun,.oooarv ~F
~'
k,~
,~fl
i~
~~~'
~,
q
u
~
. o
~ .o
s u.,..
`'~
y ~
i`
,
5Q
U
ATTACHMENT 3 '"
SPFCIFIC Si1BMiSSiON RFOi1iRF.MF.NTS
This section is to be included as part of the Design Review Appeal for 923 East Hopkins.
1. Enclosed is a Neighborhood Block Plan at 1" = 50'.
2. Enclosed is a Site Plan at 1 "=10' with adjacent building footprints.
3. Enclosed aze Floor Plans, Building Elevations and Building Sections at 1/8" =1'-0".
4. Enclosed is an FAR/Primary Mass Analysis.
5. Enclosed aze 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 fmdings.
The guidelines we wish to appeal are as follows:
A) Inflection for an adjacent structure
B) FAR Increase due to volume
1) Primary window facing an alley
2) Secondary accent gables facing street
A written explanation of our appeal is as follows:
A) Inflection: The interpretation of Staff, as we understand it, is that because an
adjacent building on the east side of our lot is one story, our project must be one
story for at least 12 feet of depth for the entire length of the east property line. We
wish to appeal this fmding and/or waive the Inflection requirement for the
following reasons:
We feel this project not only meets the intent of the Design Guidelines, but it
exceeds the requirements in many areas including:
- Street facing entry, and street facing principal Dining Room window
- Covered entry porch of approximately 130 SF
- One story street facing element that exceeds 100% of overall width.
- Primary Mass of less than 50% of allowable FAR, located away from street
facing facade.
- Street Facade includes stepped wall planes, gable roofs, bay windows,
reduced building mass and a mixing of materials that enhances the overall
character of the neighborhood.
- The east facade includes 40' of one story massing, adjacent to the non-
street facing one story cabins on the adjacent property.
2. This project is located on Lot 2 of the Kentco Lot Split. Lot 1 contains a large
rock of Historic significance and any project built on this adjacent lot must protect
the view of that rock. As a result, the City has approved a reduction in setback
along their East property line, which is our West property line. As a response to
this reduced setback, a condition was placed on the sale of our lot to maintain a
10'-0" setback on the West side of the property. This condition crowds an already
narrow site.
We have taken several measures to minimize impacting the adjacent property to
the east. These include: siting the building approximately 4'-0" from the east
setback line for a total of 9'-0" from the property line; including 40'-0" of one story
building mass along the east side; and stepping the eastern most portion of the
street facing facade back from the street, thus enlarging the porch depth.
3. Staffs interpretation is not consistent with the written language of the
Inflection guideline. The Guideline states "If the street frontage of an adjacent
structure is one (1) story in height for a distance more than twelve (12) feet on the
side facing a proposed building, then the adia n nn rtion of the proposed
building must also be one (1) story in height for a distance of twelve (12) feet."
The Guideline only identifies that the adjacent portion is required to be one story
and gives no directive concerning the "distance" of twelve (12) feet. It does not
state that this twelve feet is depth or width nor does it state anywhere that the
entire portion of the proposed building is effected, only the adjacent portion. Due
to compliance with property lines and setbacks, our project is set back from the
street by approximately 30'. The adjacent "Street Facing" one story cabin, which
does not comply with current property lines and setbacks, is set back from the
street approximately 12'. (See Site Plan and Block Plan). The result is that none of
our proposed building is adjacent to any portion of this adjacent "Street Facing"
one story structure. We believe that the Inflection Guideline, as written, is vague
and our design was based on the language of the Guideline, not its "intrepretation".
If we are required to comply with Staffs "interpretation" of the Inflection
Guideline, the impact on the design would drastically affect the upper level of the
house and we do not have enough room between setbacks to adjust the current
plan. The result would be an unfair loss of program space for the Owner. The
options for redesign would require us to move the building closer to the adjacent
property on the main level, so we could achieve 12' of depth. This would be
less desirable for both parties and is a less acceptable result that would contradict
the "design intent".
B) FAR Increase due to volume:
1) Primary window facing alley: The orientation of this project is such that the main
entry, facing the street, is to the north. The primary window off of the living room
is to the south, looking forward Aspen Mountain and facing the alley. The roof
form is a gable end with a central ridge. The massing is broken up by an extended
terrace in front of the windows, a large stone chimney element and wood truss
accents. The view from the living room is exceptional and the window design is
intended to take advantage of this view.
We aze asking for the FAR increase for volume resulting from no expression of a
10' plate height to be waived. This request is based on the fact that this window
does not face the street and will have no visual impact on scale or massing from
the street facade. The request is also based on fairness to the Owner. This lot was
chosen for its view and its orientation. The FAR increase would add
approximately 720 SF of FAR to the project, which could not be absorbed by any
feasible re-design. Meeting the required "no window zone" would obscure the
majority of the view (the view angle is upwazds from floor level) and would not
have any impact or improve the intended character of the neighborhood.
2. Secondary Accent Gables: The design of this project includes several gable roof
and dormer elements, either facing the street or the sideyazds. The elements occur
within allowable heights and contribute to the desired character of the house as
well as the intent of the design guidelines. Each of these elements contains a wood
truss accent and an extended overhang. Behind these trusses is a window that
extends into the gable above the 10' plate height.
We are asking that the FAR increase for the volume in these spaces be waived.
These windows add to the chazacter of the elements, introduce natural light into
the interior, and have no impact on the mass and scale of the house. Removing
these windows above the 10' plate height from the building design would only ~^
detract from the overall chazacter and would not contribute to or improve the
intent of the Residential Design Guidelines.
atch3phil.doc
~/ i I i
I
----' I ~ I
---- I I I I
~ II I I ~
I---- I
I ~
I I
I I Z
. II ~ I ., I Iz~l I ' Q ~
-""-- Y < I ~- J ~
I~
------- ; a I ~ a -
/ ~ I
_____
.1 I 1
10_~i ~ I ~
I
I L_ .______._
~ I -
~ ~
~ I
~ ~ I~
' 1
I , '.
J
~ 1 I I ~
~ ; I
,,
,,
I
I I
D
1S ON 13A31~ O
o TO
-------- ------ ------- T
--I - -- I ~ ~ I O .~_.
I
:=-'
III A ''' _~
~ I F
I
I ~
I -- , /, f I ' I~ ,
I I I
I _______ ____________ _____I I _
I I ~ _ __ ~
(~ I~ -? j I i.. i I I ' Z
I TY^,
J I ICI _
~. ~ ~N gE a
~' N
~i ~ _ ~ ~ Z I I 0
Y ~
I
_I
I
I
I
~ ~ N +
I I
'; I I ~6 ~
'~----~ ~
i r- ----------------
I ~ I
_ I
/ I
1 I
I I
i ,~~!
.-- ~
o M
rn
I
I
I.
II
C
1S aN3 1S3M `
!!
July 25, 1996
Aspen/Pitkin County Community Development Department ~"` ~"
~~n,.,,ti
This application is for a Design Review Appeal at 923 E. Hyman. '~''
The legal description is Lot 2 Kentco Lot Split, Aspen, Colorado. n. ~~, ~~ ~
~:~ N~,
T'I.nOR RRA RATIn: ~~-^
Proposed:
TPP .R T.FVF. ;
1 "" ~ ~
.
a. FAR = 1499 SF ~nvin
^,,~
2. MATN .FV
a. FAR = 1468 SF
3. BASF. NT:
a. FAR = 156 SF
(7% exposed) __
4. DECKS:
Amount over 15% of Allowable 0 SF G I BS~ N' R E N D
5. . RA, nee iiirccrs i_i_.
460 SF of actual proposed garage space. n i
250 SF non-FAR with additional
5 allowable
210 SF x
~
. n,,~~.
1io i_ Fn
FAR = lO5 SF ~~ ,n,
6. TnT~i.S•i.S: 3228 SF
Allowable FAR (RMF Zone ~~~~'~ N
w/6000SF lot) = 3240 SF , „i ~'~;^~'~'
r~„~~
PRTMARY MASS:
~,,n,~,,;",.s
Wall area under Primary Roof:
22'-10" x 31'-6" = 719 SF ~,~c_~~~~~~ ~
FAR under Primary Roof: 70 °-'"°"'
1. Upper Level = 719 SF
2. Main Level = 648 SF
(includes 72 SF for Garage) ,. ~, ,;,,a ,,,
3. Basement= ~QfiSE ~-,; ~„~,i,~~~
(719 SF = 28.5% of SF) ~ '
TOTAL 1573 SF """'''~"
~ ~~i~,iinnc~
•
~ARY MASS PFR NTA =
PRTi si~is
.
~
1573 SF=3240SF= 48.5% ~;o;>wnr,o%
~,~r.~h,~~~
Z
~, Q
~l'W
M
~N
0
O
~',
~,
H
O
_Z
Y
O
O
J
3
W_
U_
Q
0
z
a
r Z
2
H
Q
W
,N
H
O
Z
_Z
Y
O
O
J
W_
U_
a
0
z
a
v
oavao~oo `N3dSt/ ~
"3/~b' NtIWJIH 1SV3 EZ6 z ._
E a a ' ~ ~ 3~N3QIS3a ~13Jt1aH~S m
~j
F 3a= ~ 6, q£i a $ §= lV
z = '= a-_ 4' s y; Q
r
Z
Q
J
a
O
O
J
W
J
W
W
J
W
3
0
J
4
`a
~,,.,_
s
v'
a
H ~ 3 ~
., oaeao~o~ `N~dS`d
'~Atl Nt~WJIH 1St/ EZ6
~~rv3ais~a a~~e-aH~s
- -_
w:
P A
~~ ~ ' ~ s ~ ,
j ---
,I i-
i ~ ~~, i
° ~ ~
~~ __ __-- - _ _ --- - -- - - IIII
~ ~, ~,
~,~
I ~ w
=i
J
i x i YI
w
W
a
0
a
Z
Q
J
a
0
0
J
LL
J
W
W
J
Z
Q
0
a
~ OabtiO"700 `N3dSb~
~~ '3/~tf Nb~WAH 1Stf3 EZ6
~ h g ~ ~ ~~rv~ais3a a~~daH~s
L
w:
O ~ S 4 yR Q S R y9
<
s r
~
V
Z
Q
J
a
0
O
J
LL
J
W
W
.~
a§
a ;~
~~
a
F
U
Ili Fd$s~
II ~
OatftiO-1O.O `N3dSt1
"3Atf Nb'WAH 1Stf3 EZ6
3~N3a1S3l~ ~13Jb~l~H~S
W
J
W
I- .
~ b
Z v
L
w.
. ~~
m` V s
`,
0
Q
W
J
W'
F-
W
3
b
a
I ~
oavao~oo `N3dStf
'il
Q ~ o ~ ~ '3Atf NtfWJIH 1St~~ EZ6
', ' R ~ ~ 3~N3aIS3~i ti3JtyaH~S
Z
O
Q
W
w
S
H
O
0
Z-
~.,
~- gg
O a ~ Yo P= ~o s Ys
m~ s _
Z
W
.J
W
N
Q
W
0
0
~ °~
~~ ~1
i
Oat/10-100 `N3dStf
"3Atf Nt/WJIH 1St73 EZ6
~ ~ ~ g ~ 6 3~N~a1S3l~ ti3JtY~iH~S
Z
c.u
~
~ Z
- ~i
~~
' ~~
tl' ~e
~
-
~.. .
s
S -5 £
P_ ~ .
s Y's
`
m
v
Q
Z_
Y
O
O
J
0
O
Z
J
Z
H
U
w
F-
N
Q
w
_z
Y
O
O
J
~.
_Z
J
Z
O
1-
U
W
of
~. ~.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Design Review Appeal Committee
FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer
DATE: August 8, 1996
RE: Upper East Side Townhouses- Appeal from Design Standards
SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to build a new duplex. The home violates
several aspects of Ordinance #30; namely "volume," "inflection," "street oriented
entrance," "principal window," "height," and FAR.
APPLICANT: Tony and Diane Rutgers, represented by Gretchen. Greenwood.
LOCATION: Spruce Street.
ZONING: R-6.
PROJECT REVIEW PROCESS AND STAFF EVALUATION
I. Background- In a preliminary review, staff indicated to the architect that.
Ordinance #30 standards are not met by the design. Options were to amend the
proposed design or make an application to DRAC.
II. Site description- This is a 7,500 sq.ft. parcel in the smuggler
neighborhood. -The axis of the lot runs essentially east-west, as opposed to the
north-south orientation of the historic townsite. The property is bordered by
Spruce Street and Race Street (which is a secondary, street which serves as an
alley).
III. Waiver requested-
A. Standard: "Floor area ratio and allowable floor area for a
residential building or portion thereof shall include a calculation
based on the relationship between every instance of the exterior
expressions and interior plate heights. All interior areas that
include exterior expression of a plate height greater than 10 (ten)
feet, shall be counted as two (2) square feet per each square
footage of actual floor area. Exterior expression shall be defined
as facade penetrations between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet
above the elevation of the finished floor, and circular, semi-circular
or non-orthogonal facade penetrations between nine (g) and fifteen ,,..,,
(15) feet above the level of the finished floor.
B. Inflection. If the street frontage of an adjacent structure is one (1)
story in height for a distance 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.
C. A street oriented entrance requires that at least one of the following
two conditions are met:
(1) The front entry door is on the street facade;
(2) A covered entry porch of fifty (50) or more square feet is part of
the street facade.
D. A street facing principal window requires that a significant window
or group of windows of a living room, dining room or family room
face the street.
E. Height. Exceptions for areaways, lightwells and basement
stairwells. An areaway, lighiwell or basement stairwell of less than
one hundred (100) square feet, entirely recessed behind the
vertical plane established by the portion of the building facade '"'*a
which is closest to the street, and enclosed on all four sides to
within eighteen (18) inches of the first floor level shall not be
counted towards maximum permissible height.
F. FAR (garages). For any dwelling unit which can be accessed from
an alley or private road entering at the rear or side of the dwelling
unit, the garage shall only be excluded from floor area calculations
up to two hundred fifty (250) square feet per dwelling unit if it is
located on said alley or road.
IV. .Staff evaluation- The Committee may grant an exception to the design
standards for any of the following criteria:
a) yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community
Plan;
Staff response: The project d~es'not further any goals of the NAACP.
b) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or
provision responds to; or
Staff response: The standards which are not met deal with issues of
scale, a front entry which addresses the street, stepping development
down in height to respect smaller buildings in the vicinity, discouraging
large lighiwells which create the appearance of a three story building, and
discouraging placement of garage doors on streets. Staff finds that the
project does not mitigate these impacts.
c) be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site
specific constraints.
Staff response: The building envelope is narrow due to the large
sideyard setback requirements of this parcel, therefore limiting the
applicant's ability to some extent to create a lot of "movement" in the
building design. Nonetheless, staff finds that the requested waivers,
excepting some variance from the volume standard to take advantage of
views, is not appropriate.
In terms of inflection, the adjacent building (north) is one story tall in its
entirety. The applicant is required to build no higher than one story for 12
feet of the width of the building for the length of the building. This
respects the neighbors access to sun and views and also creates a
transition from the smaller, existing buildings in the area to new, larger
development. This may be perceived as a hardship given that the
building envelope is 38'8" wide.
In terms of street oriented entrance, the front door does not face the street
and the covered porch is only 40 (not 50) square feet. Either the porch
should be enlarged by 10 square feet or the door rotated to face the
street.
The principal window must be for a public room, such as a living room,
because these are active spaces that are likely to be lit and provide some
animation on the streetscape. In this design, the principal window is in a
stairwell.
Ordinance #30 changed the way that height is measured so that the
calculation is made to natural or finished grade, whichever is lower. An
exception is made so that for UBC sized lightwells, height will not be
measured from the bottom of the lightwetl. However, for lightwells of over
100 square feet (these are 140 square feet), height is measured from the
bottom of the lightwell. This puts the house at approximately 33 feet to
the 1/3 point and 40 feet to the ridge. Staff recommends the lighiwells be
reduced to 100 square feet.
Finally, the garage which faces Spruce Street will not receive an FAR
bonus, because it could be placed on the Race Street (alley) side. This ,..~
puts the project over the allowable FAR. If the inflection standard is met,
that may free up FAR to cover the garage. Otherwise it should be
relocated.
V. Recommendation- Staff recommends DRAC consider a waiver of the
volume standard for windows .which are not facing a street and discuss the
impacts of the inflection standard. All other revisions to windows, the entry,
lightwells, and the garage should be made as described above.
Zoning Analysis
Upper East Side
Aspen, Colorado
Lot Size: 7,500 Sq.ft.
Allowable Proposed
FAR: 3,840 Sg.ft. 3,824 Sq.ft.
West Side: 1,920 Sq.ft. 1,912 Sq.ft.
Garage: 250 Sq.ft. 250 Sq.ft.
Below Grade: Unlimited 1,100 Sq.ft.
Exterior Storage: 80 Sq.ft.
East Side: 1,920 Sq.ft. 1,912 Sq.ft.
Garage: 250 Sq.ft. 250 Sq.ft.
Below Grade: Unlimited 1,100 Sq.ft.
Exterior Storage: 80 Sq.ft.
Site Coverage: 35% of 7,500 Sq.ft.
or 2,625 Sq.ft.
Front and Rear Yard Setback: See Site Plan
Minimum of 10 feet/'I'otal: 30 Feet
Side Yard Setbacks: See Site Plan
Minimum of 10 feet each side/Total: 20 Feet
Height: 25 Feet
Decks: 15% of the FAR or 576 Sq.ft.
Parking: 2 per Unit
4
G
/.
0
N
01
ti
~~
t+
G
`~ N
`~ ~
J 1, ~~ ,~
` ,_,
2
vEN~E
SD~jH~
e
,O.
U
7
a
~ a
u ~
... --
~,,
. , _L
~ -
_ _o
~, -,, I _ _ _ _ ~,
W
J
i ~
~•! N
--- ~, -
---
.~ ` 1
o
tt i 1
L;~`'1 Q
-_~ I
~, ~~ _ ~
~,
~:
1 ,, ,
~~~
1
1 •- O
I~~'
N ~vEN~ ;
~S
~`,
R I l ~'
0
.,.. a_ l'e.. ,.. .. ..~k .. r~
Attachment 8
County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSIIANT
} ss. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGIILATIONB
State of Colorado } Ch~~{~v 26.22.070 $
being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally
certify that Z have complied with the public notice requirements
pursuant to of the Aspen Land Use Regulations in
-tea - - -
} ~
~. ~ ~ t~ached heret6,
to all o~ners
~ r S ~~~,~ ~ ~$'
~~ ~ ;~.
1' o-A'M. A ,:~ ...
posted for at least
on the subject
nearest public
d and visible
~'z.^ 199~f~,
(Must be
i
r ~-~
~~ :.
i ~ ;,t ~
,a ~•"~
full days before the hearing
date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached
hereto . ~'' '~ .~
Sign ure
(Attach photograph here) Sign d before me this 1 day of
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICrAL SEAL
My Commission expires: /_~ ~ ~~'_~~y /
Notary Public
~•
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM
DATE:
RE:
Design Review Appeal Committee
Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer
August 8, 1996
510 Walnut Street- Appeal from Design Standards
SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to build a new duplex. The home violates
the "building .orientation" standard, "street oriented entry," "principal window,"
"build-to line," "volume," "inflection," and "lightwells."
APPLICANT: Robert Zupancis and Silvia Davis, represented by Gretchen
Greenwood.
LOCATION: 510 Walnut Street, Lot 2, Zupancis Subdivision.
ZONING: R-6.
PROJECT REVIEW PROCESS AND STAFF EVALUATION
I. Background- In a preliminary review, staff indicated to the architect that
Ordinance #30 standards are not met by the design. Options were to amend the
proposed design or make an application to DRAC.
II. Site description- This is a 9,246 sq.ft. parcel in the Smuggler
neighborhood. A subdivision has been granted for the parcel. Development of
Lot 1 is not proposed for review at this time.
III. Waiver requested-
A. Building orientation. The orientation of the principal mass of all
buildings must be parallel to the streets they face. On corner lots,
both street-facing facades of the principal mass must be parallel to
the road. On curvilinear streets, the principal mess of all buildings
must be tangent to the midpiont of the arc.
8. A street oriented entrance requires that at least one of the following
two conditions are met:
(1) The front entry door is on the street facade;
~. y
(2) A covered entry porch of fifty (50) or more square feet is part of
the street facade.
~,
C. A street facing principal window requires that a significant window
or group of windows of a living room, dining room or family room
face the street.
D. Build-to lines. Corner sites are of particular importance in the
definition of street frontages. Therefore, on corner sites where
fewer than seventy-five (7'5) percent of the residential buildings on
the face of a block are located within two (2) feet of a common
setback line, a minimum of sixty (60) percent of at least one of the
street frontages of a proposed project's front facade must be
located within two (2) feet of the. minimum setback.
E. "Floor area ratio and allowable floor area for a residential building
or portion thereof shall include a calculation based on the
relationship between every instance of the exterior expressions and
interior plate heights. All interior areas that include exterior
expression of a plate height greater than ten (10) feet, shall be
counted as two (2) square feet per each square foot of actual floor
area. Exterior expression shall be defined as facade penetrations
between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above the elevation of the
finished floor, and circular, semi-circular of-non-orthogonal facade
penetrations between nine (g) and fifteen (15) feet above the level
of the finished floor.
F. Inflection. If the street frontage of an adjacent structure is one (1)
story in height for a distance 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.
G. Lightwells. All areaways, lightwells and/or stairwells on the street
facing side(s) of a building must be entirely recessed behind the
vertical plane established by the portion of the building facade
which is closest to the street.
IV. Staff evaluation- The Committee may grant an exception to the design
standards for any of the following criteria:
4
a) yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community
Plan;
Staff response: The project does not further any goals of the AACP.
w..u,
,t
b) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or
provision responds to; or
Staff response: No evidence has been presented that the applicant
attempted to respond to the issues-more effectively through their design
choices.
c) be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site
specific constraints.
Staff response: Due to the location of the site, on a busy street corner,
the east-west orientation of tots in the neighborhood, and the more
curvilinear pattern of the smuggler neighborhood, the applicant has
elected to rotate the building on the site. There is also a large tree near
the center of the parcel. Staff finds that it would not be difficult to turn the
building parallel to Walnut Street and South Street, however, the applicant
has presented a reasonable argument that this may not be desirable.
Because the building is not parallel to the front lot line, and Walnut Street,
the standards related to street oriented entrance and principal window are
not met. Front doors and windows are essentially facing Walnut Street
and Race Street, but at an angle. If DRAC finds that the building
` orientation is appropriate, then these standards must be waived.
Similarly, the building does not meet the build-to line requirement,
because no wall surface runs parallel to the lot lines.
In regard to the volume standard, Staff recommends that those windows
which are visible from South Street and Walnut Street be made to comply,
since these are the most public facades.
Lot 1, although it will be redeveloped at some time in the future, currently
contains a one story structure. The new duplex is required to step down
to a one story height for a distance of 12 feet along their common lot line.
The structure as proposed has a one story garage element, but other
elements are two stories high. This standard is also difficult to interpret
due to non-orthogonal orientation of the building.
Finally, staff finds that the lightvuells standard is not met, particularly the
most western one. ~ ~
V. Recommendation- Staff finds that the orientation of the building is the
threshold issue. If the building were parallel to the front lot line, many of the ~,
other Ordinance #30 violations would not occur. While the Smuggler
neighborhood in general has a curvilinear street pattern and unusually shaped -
lots, the Walnut Street area is more gridlike and has a functioning alley. This
parcel in particular is affected by traffic issues which may justify some degree of
moving away from the street.
'""",,,
GRETCHEN GREENWOOD & ASSOCIATES, INC.
..>
~~
~'1.
~~-~ e
~ ~
ARCHITECTURE INTERIOR DESIGN PLANNING ~ .. '_X
4':.-,
r..
K„~.:
a
To: Design Review Appeal Committee
From: Gretchen Greenwood, Architect for Robert Zupancis and Silvia Davis
Re: Residential Design Standards Appeal for 510 Walnut Street/Lot 2
Date: July 23, 1996
The Residential Design Standards (Ordinance 30) has been found by the Applicant
to be insensitive and unnecessarily restrictive to the site specific conditions at 510
Walnut Street. The applicable standard that this application appeals concerns the
following:
1. Building Orientation
The proposed two unit townhouse is proposed to sit at a 45 degree angle with
Walnut Street, instead of parallel to the street it is facing, which is South Street. The
reasons for this building angle are as follows:
1. The proposed two unit townhouse is located at 510 Walnut Street. The lot is
bordered by Gibson/South Street to the South, Walnut Street to the West and Race Street
to the East. This lot is in the middle of the highest density of Aspen. The particular
condition of the surrounding neighborhood includes high density employee housing, of
Centennial, Smuggler Mobile Home Park, Williams Woods, Williams Ranch, Hunter
Creek, and Lone Pine, that all account for high traffic volume. Two years ago, 3,000 car
trips a day were measured in front of this lot along South Street. The orientation of the
building reduces the impact of the noise and traffic on the proposed building.
2. The lots in the Williams Addition neighborhood are Aspen Townsite lots: Unlike the
West End, these lots are oriented on the long east-west axis of 125 feet with the north-
south axis running 60 feet. When this azea was annexed into the city, Williams Addition
was given the R-6 zoning and separate rules, such as a 10 foot minimum side yard setback
and permission to develop a duplex on 7,500 square feet. Due to the location of the sun
and the views, this development best serves the neighborhood by angling the building,
allowing for lots to the North to take advantage of the view and sun angles. The 45
degree orientation will allow the home to the North to have a good view plane of Aspen
Mountain. Fortunately, Lot 2 is large enough to allow a building to be a "good neighbor"
to the lots to the North. The view to Aspen Mountain is also in a 45 degree view plane
from the lot. '
520 WALNUT STREET • ASPEN,COLORA00 BI617 TEL; 9 70/92 5 4 5 02 • FAX: 970/925-7490
3. The predominant buildings in the neighborhood do not have a building orientation to
the streets that they face. The building orientation design standard may be applicable to
the West End, but in the Smuggler Neighborhood, buildings including Hunter Creek,
Smugger Mobile Home Park, and the single family building across the street, Centennial
and two more proposed buildings in the azea, have an angled orientation, typically to
Aspen Mountain. In addition, the streets in the neighborhood do not have a crisp grid
pattern, like the West End that would dictate a street facing facade. Maps will be
presented to illustrate this point at the meeting.
4. The site has a unique evergreen tree, that is 20 feet in diameter, in the middle of the
property. This tree was the major design pazameter for organizing the building location on
the site. In addition to the huge tree that the building is designed around, it is necessary to
access both buildings off the alley. The 45 degree access allows for good access to both
garages.
5. By orienting the building at a 45 degree, the building can be staggered, so that the east
side townhouse sits back from the west side by 34 feet. From South Street, more open
space is created for the street. If the buildings were not staggered, a canyon like effect of
buildings would occur along South Street.
6. The 45 degree orientation creating the staggering effect is more desirable to the
neighbors, as it creates more open space for the neighborhood.
In summary, the 45 degree orientation is the best workable solution for
maintaining the huge tree on the site, maximizing views and sun for the adjacent lots and
minimizing noise for the residents. There is no other solution for the site that is acceptable
for these specific site conditions.
.J
Clarification is required regarding the design standards that relate to the locations
of windows 9 feet above a finished floor, at a second story. This application assumes
that there is no FAR penalty for adding windows at a second story Living Room, nine feet
and more above the finished floor. This proposed window design is on the attached
drawings.
Clarification is required regarding the exception for area wells, lightwells, and or
stairwells entirely recessed behind the vertical pane established by the portion of
the building facade that is closest to the street that shall not be counted towards
maximum height. This application assumes that there is only one street facing facade,
which in this case is Walnut Street and Race Street. Since there is no proposed lightwell
at the street facades, the light well proposed off the lower level bedroom will not be
counted towazds maximum pernvssible height.
Zoning Analysis
Zupancis Duplex
Aspen, Colorado
Lot Size: 9,246 Sq.ft.
Allowable Proposed
FAR: 4,094 Sq.ft.
4,072 Sq.ft.
West Side: 2,047 Sq.ft. 2,234 Sq.ft.
Garage: 250 Sq.ft. [250] 80 Sq.ft.
Below Grade: Unlimited 748 Sq.ft.
TOTALS: 3,062 Sq.ft.(NIC Garage)
w/ 2 Car Garage @ 410 Sq.ft.
East Side: 2,047 Sq.ft. 1,758 Sq.ft.
Garage: 250 Sq.ft. [250] Sq.ft.
Below Grade: Unlimited 648 Sq.ft..
TOTALS: 2,406 Sq.ft. (NIC Garage)
w/1 Car Garage @ 250 Sq.ft.)
Total FAR: 4,094 Sg.ft. 4,072 Sg.ft.
Site Coverage: 30% of 9,246 Sq.ft. 2,692 Sq.ft.
or 2,774 Sq.ft.
Decks: 15% of 4,094 Sq.ft. 348 Sq.ft.
or 614 Sq.ft.
Front and Rear Yard Setback: See Site Plan
Minimum of 10 feet/Total: 30 Feet
Side Yard Setbacks: Varies/See Site Plan
Minimum of 10 feet each side/Potal: 29 Feet
Height: 25 Feet 25 feet to a Point 1/3 up from Eave
Parking: 2 per Unit per Residential Design Standards
Attachment 8
County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSIIANT
} ss. TO ASPEN LAND II3E REGIILATIONB
State of Colorado } ChCt~{-ev 26.22.070
I , S~ w~` ~l ~`~ G~i`S
being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally
certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements
pursuant to of the Aspen Land Use Regulations in
c:flQ~ Pv 2(~,lZ-70(3
the following manner: /
1. By mailing of notic a copy of which 's attached here 6
by first-class ostage prepaid .S. Mail to all ners
of propert within three h dyed (300) fee of the
ted on the atta ed list, on
_, 199_ (w ch is days
date of ) .
conspicuous place on the subject
be seen from the nearest public
d sign was posted and visible
day of 199_,
199_. (Must be
~S
-~ full days before the hearing
of the posted sign is attached
ture
before me this ~ _ day of
is uS- , 19 9 ` _ . by
MY HANL AN~i~ OF FICTAL SEAL
V - ~ ~ '..~..,-~-„+~~} ",,mss;/ ~
-1 _ w
------~
1~ a,
Memorandum
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Mayor and Council
Amy Margerum, City Manage~~
George Robinson, Pazks Director
August 21, 1996
Information Item: Lower Rio Grande River Park -Trail Amendment
Summary: The Lower Rio Grande River Park Improvements aze proceeding with
significant enhancements. The majority of the lower channel walk improvements have
been completed, including the flagstone entryways, the pocket rock gardens and the
`beach' azea at the middle drop pool. The trail grading work is complete with paving
anticipated for mid-September.
The basketball court has been staked out, however, in order to not impact the possible
future trolley needs for access to the property, the north-south trail that enters the park
area from Rio Grande Place must be re-aligned slightly. The trail would be moved just
west of the trees island on top of the berm. The court size was reduced by 15-20% to
help accommodate the trolley, but the court was still too close to the trail to make both,
work. There will be no impact to the field by this re-alignment and the move actually
improves the grade of the trail as it meets the connecting trail in the park. A small
Juniper tree may have to be moved to accommodate the trail move. An 8 1/2" x 11"map
is attached showing this minor amendment.
_~-
•wuwc
.~.._
~ ~////////® `~~~~JO`V\Q
v•~ ~.
.,~
~/
~. v\m \ ~%
~\\ ~~~_
\_.
/~ _. /~~
_~ ~
(~
... y
..~.~,
e
0
~Xt3'ITI N(~
TR~.- ~
~~«
\~
~~.~ Art~II \.
m~..m \ '\
P \
~,..G Y \\
~~~~=~~~
~a ~.__~ ~: ~.,..
Qg ~ \ Arco p3
C' y l
/ _,
~~~~~ ~;
~j ~i" -~ / ~ A\tta M1
~ `~~
~ ~
y~
~~ 3
~~
F.~, r~
i 6~_~~,~ ~w r
1~'oss ,BLS
FuTU t2G
TRo ~~Ey
i 1` ...•
~~, `. '>
• l \L
;:.
~i~,~
Exhibit 'C'
Sk'RtD53 _
aVw rl uev wtitF art.
•au a: SsYram NSr 4fR
aau spa.. a`•aw
aau w
axe. - s r.u•m
aaEa ...,a~.d
a~. ..m...~.~...
..E, a,.ma..
.aF., ~.~,...~.
STMBOIS
Q e..e~p.~t.~x~
U E•YW papa irs
O ~_~
~.H.:e,
,.r.., ,~aap.n.m-.4.~a..,.,.
.~.. r .mmr..~ra. r.... s..a....
ur_r ap.raru u.
\~____ -~
~~':;
Opt 4 A,~a ae -- - -- - -
~o-m; ,
~,
~~~
IAwFA Nr0 GRANDE PAil
Las+~ Y.dn n..