The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.drac.19960919AGENDA ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE September 19, 1996 Regular Meeting Basement, City Hall S15T~z5 CITY M£~1J6r ?~ODM 4:00 1. Roll Call 11. Comments (Committee members, Staff and public) III. New Business 4:05 A. 851 Ute Ave., Unit C Piss ~D ~ ~ LL I N Ill/oR 4:20 B. Weinberg residence, Meadows Road {~qs5~ 4:50 C. 918 E. Cooper 'I~flss a=D 5:20 IV. Adjourn -!I MEMORANDUM TO: Design Review Appeal Committee FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer DATE: September 19, 1996 RE: 851 Ute Avenue, Unit C-Appeal from Design Standards SUMMARY: The applicant requests a waiver of the Ordinance #30 standard related to "volume" for an addition to an existing structure. APPLICANT: Dick Friedman, represented by Harry Teague Architects. LOCATION: 851 Ute Avenue, Unit C ZONING: R-6 PUD I. Background- The project is a remodel at the rear of the existing building. Staff has found that the proposed new windows violate the volume standard and the applicant wishes to pursue a waiver. II. Site description- The unit is part of the Black Swan Condominiums, set in a wooded location at the base of Aspen Mountain. 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 (9) and fifteen ~. (15) feet above the level of the finished floor. f~ 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: The standard addresses a scale issue, and is meant to discourage two story windows. In this particular project, there is a break between the window units and they are located in an area which is not visible from the street. c) be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Staff response: The variance is not related to site constraints. V. Recommendation- Staff recommends DRAC waive the volume standard finding that the windows in question do not violate the intent of the standard and that they are screened from the street by their location and surrounding vegetation. ATTACHMENT 1 SEP 13 1936 4 ~ b'.. LAND USE APPLICATION FORM ~ ..;,4 T 1. Project name ~Ql~f>MAfi/ R7: MDDb-L- ~"F'lt~~~' 2. Project location ?~ 51 U7~ ~}V~. unfv' ~ ,aSP~ri „ !.O (31611 (indicate street address, lot and block number or metes and bounds description) 3 Present zoning K-6 ? U.'p 4. Lot size l~, 731 sg~k'J-. 5. Applicant's name, address and phone number KIGk-~K'D ~IFr~7'lAN ~617J ~/5/-~3U0 6. Representative's name, address, and phone number /-/AQK.7 ~GU><- fk2G6>^!Tf-~a"S h'/z ~Y Mi~h_- sT. f(-SP~I co. S 16II ~y7v) g25•Z556 ' 7. Type of application (check all that apply) Conditional Use ~ Special Review 8040 Greenline Stream Margin Subdivision GMQS allotment _ View Plane Lot Split/Lot Line Adjustment Conceptual SPA _ Final SPA _ _ Conceptual PUD _ Final PUD _ Text/Map Amend. _ GMQS exemption _ _ Condominiumization_ Conceptual HPC Final HPC Minor HPC Relocation HPC Historic Landmark Demo/Partial Demo Design Review 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) z,2705c~~~ 3"t3EDP-G0'~`l ~ANDDMfN1UM WIT~1-lN ~4 c~Mpi~x or= 'ravoZ. ~ ~re.£UfouS RPPC~.OV9'f.5 - 5~~ A?fiiKlil;D 9. Description of development u SD i AQ hS iT ~ftZT,Qf1~15 TD ~AGftD~ 'PSIi~tP-~P)U-tS B~~se~ q' grin ~z' ~4 ~ ~ 10. Have you completed and attached the following? Attachment 1-Land use application form / Response to Attachment 2 / Response to Attachment 3 H A R R Y T E A G U E A R C H I T E C T S Daslgn Revlew Appeal Spec'rfic Submission Requirement: 6 For 851 Ute Avenue unlt C we are requesting a variance of Section 2, (D) Volume. so far as lt pertains to facade penetrations between 9' and 12' A.F.F. . The elevation in question lies in ckue proximity to the north facing hillside of Aspen Mountain and away from any high traffic area. The substantial tree cover to the south masks the already minimal nature of this alteratan. As the elevation exists there is 1115q.ft. of glazing between g' and 12'. After the alteration this will increase to28.5sq.ft. of glazing between 9' and 12'. The additional glazing is an attempt to bring natural light farther back into the Irving area and increase solar heat gain in winter We do not feel that this compromises the intent of the 'Residential Design Standards" given the present non-conforming condkion and remote location. J W 0 w Z J P- i St .y.:. 4, ~~~; ~t~l 6 6 .• O L U C N Q U Z LLI Q w 5 ~, C 0 m v __. __ _ .. .gym: ,u., .,... ,. .,.,,,...._ s..nx. ^~~.4-h%;F /~' Q 3 ~~ •.. ~ ' ~ a . , e ) < e s O i LL (•(11 IE:~ Z 111) ` n.) m f W ) 3 1 O a a f ..., ~,{~ ~ 9 a 0 f {~ t... o 9 1111 m II j~/~ ~ -„ „ ~ 5 a o ' a 9 ~ Ir S A W e ~~ 6~ f 5 ~~q9~ ~oo g $ooe Ig~a~tiRiEE~ $ i~~g~ 'i e e ~~ ~ 6 . .~ ~$ MEMORANDUM TO: Design Review Architectural Committee FROM: Bob Nevins, City Planner RE: Weinberg Residence, Waiver of Ordinance 30 Design Standards DATE: September 19, 1996 SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting a waiver of the residential design standazds relating to "street facing principal window" and "gazage setback from the street" for a proposed single-family residence on Meadows Road. The azchitect has outlined his design approach for the residence in a letter and it is attached as Exhibit A. APPLICANT: Jay Weinberg, as represented by Mazk Wazd, azchitect. LOCATION: Lot 2 of the Westview Lot-split, Meadows Road. ZONING: Moderate Density Residential (R-15). PROJECT REVIEW and STAFF EVALUATION: I. Background: The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing residence and to construct a new single-family home on Lot 2 of the Westview Lot-split. A conditional use application for an Accessory Dwelling Unit is being reviewed by Planning and Zoning Commission on September 17. The ADU is proposed to be located below the new garage. II. Site description: The site contains 17,689 sf. There exists a level building pad along Meadows Road with the remainder of the site sloping steeply downhill to the west. The proposed residence is situated on the flat, upper level of the site. III. Waiver requested: A. Building Orientation Standazd: 2. 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. B. For single-family homes and duplexes with attached garages or carports, the gazage must be set back at least ten (10) feet further than the house. e. N. 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: Not applicable to this proposal. B. more effectively address the issue or problem a given standazd or provisions responds to; Staff response: The principal window standazd is to encourage more social and visual interaction between the residence and the street. The proposed residence is set back considerably from Meadows Road. In addition, a dense stand of trees and shrubs screen the property from public view. The proposed residential entryway is designed to provide visual access into the main living azea of the house. Lights from the home should be visible to the street to create a residential ambiance. Staff believe that given the setback of the house from the street, the dense vegetative buffer and the mixed-use chazacter of the immediate neighborhood, the proposed design meets [he intent of the standazd while addressing the special neighborhood constraints. Staff recommend that the principal window standard be waived in this instance. C. be cleazly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints; The site is constrained in terms of its access and buildable azea. The property is also located within a unique neighborhood setting. There aze a limited number of single-family homes along Meadows Road and they aze set back considerably from the street. This provides a needed buffer between the private homeowners and the guests of the Aspen Meadows Campus. V. Recommendation: Staff recommend to DRAC that the principal window and gazage set back standazds be waived for the proposed Weinberg residence. ~o-f- z lJl,~ -~~~ P.,oaot . i ,~`- ~~~ WARD and ASSOCIATES inc architecture and planning September 13, 1996 ttE (hdinance 36 Varlaene The Welnburg Raldouy Wratrlew kspea, Cobrndo To Whom It May Concern: The site far the proposed residence is unique and dictates some akernate design appraodtes fa a single family home. Fusl and foreasost, the 'front' of the lot g ntx adjacent to a street/R.O.W. and it's access is through the adjoining lot via a drissway easement. The lot u separated from the sweet by a parcel of land of approximately ton feet wider AIw, [he west side of the bt drops elf crtrcmely and ii is not feasible [o build upon. The design approach was to put the entry toward the approach side of the lot and place the garage behind (ter the north} in a saondary location. This enables guest parking and a turnaround space which is rcqu'vcd for this lot. The garage doors are turned 90° to [hc slrecL The tea foot parcel V< land l5 bcrmcd up as well as landscaped which will greatly resolve concerns that ordinace 30 is addressing. With [he garage and entry located, the best places for the kitchen and 6vittg room are as per plan- TLo kitchen is adjacent to the garage and the living room is situated beyond the entry and also in a location to enjoy [he views. The family room is on the south with the windows to take advantage of the southern exposure. An alternate way to review this unique site could be that the Yron[' of the house is on the south because that is where the access is from. From this perspective, the garage meets ordinance 30 require-meets and there is a principle window facing the boot. Tn summarve, the design concerns that adinanec all addresses are non-existaa[ for fiat eesidenee. The garage is and cspcciaUy the garage doors, arc set beret and non-visible from Weslvicw. The uniqueness of the tut didates a design 6kc Ihis with the major mass of the house set far hack Crom [hC s[rcet. if you contidcr the front of the house [hc stwth s1de, then the requirement for a principle R9ndow is met as wetl as the garage being set bark. Duc to the separatutgparccl and fhc distance from the street to the lwuse, 1 feel the principle window requirement is not appropriate for this site. There are windows to the office on the Yront" and windows to the famiy room to the south. With the majority of the house set far away from the street, the impact of this desig:t upon the street wilt be minimal. Thank you for your consideration Sincc:rcly, ~~~~~ Mark Ward Architect pB4ti Cantor prom Court, BuRe A • Boulder, Colorado 80309 • 03031 442~1L0'1 Exhibit A L0'd b090STb£0£ 3Sd IN21f11 110D5 Q21pN NMtlW Wd 40:£0 '96-£T-d35 . ~ ur / pOifoP% .ON J..., r / .. ~ y ~ ~QjY ~ ` ' U Y~ ` -1 ~ WN O yy~~ .~~ _ ~ R 2 :.+- ~, ~1 .o ./ a o- , 1 N 1 s~T N~~ ~ i /' W ~ N J1 J W ~ ' d " ~' ~~~Y ~` MI 3~ O r ,\ V~ ~ .. M i _ Vie- ~.- ,.,~ ~~ ..~ ~ ,f -. ~ q y ~. , ,l _ ~ ~2= ~ .,, zt` ~ ,~ $ '~ _ .~ a s 1i~: ,, t e . ~ -- -- , y .-~ i '-~ . w . , , r' ~ ~ , ~J ~ I ~ ~ ' I ' N ..~ ./ ~ ~ Y i ~~~~I ' `ice ' _ r I '~" ~ .~' :± ~~ .`. ~~ ~ i + i ~ .~ ._: '.. 6_8.0 _ ~, ~- 4. _ ~,. -^ _ ~ _ /I ~ ii .... ~.. '.:/ ~.}lJ•~ ^r 1. ~ l ~ ' _ ~ ''~ _! 44.0 ~ .,, r,v-~-..~._.. .. ~~~ l .- - '- _ '.- 32.Q! ~" _. , . -- .' . ~ 36.0_^ - '- ~ ~.----- ~.-...,~~ _- AWE r~ ~ -~- ~~, --"" -' i "'-_ ~` ~ `) ,cosy ~ U p, N 5~ U4 ap c~ HN ~ '~ a gn .~~: ;, ' g~ '.r .._ i . -. ~ _ ~~ -r-- , ~ , s ~ ,, ~ -' ...,..V ,~ 7;S ~ _. 1 <~'. . i ~, .._~_~ I , I ~ ' I ~ - - O Y ~- -r S ~ ~ _ 1 1 ~ ` ~ •`` ~\\ ~~ V ~~ J u, ~ A 1 ~~ S -4 ~. a ,.T.. ~~ ,. , ~~ .. ~ .. _ ~, , ~. , ~ , .. ra ~' • ~ r ~~ , , t /':~i' ~ ~ 1 r ~ I I VJS' .. ~' = rl ~ ~ ~- '~; t ~ I I ~ ~,:: E ~ - rl ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'~ l _ j T ~ ZIP ~/ ~~ ~. ~ .~ ITT T ~ ~ ~ a , •. 1 "~' _t_G ~ ~ ~ >>s :ice I ^ - ~ `~K` I Gr - ! J ' ~ - a ~...~ lO ~ yM ~t . .k*z ~ ~. ~ ~ - Vii' e 1 ' `: ~q A F I L ~ T'w'{ ! ~ ~ ~t~s __i ~~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ,y •. .a f ` 1 ~ ?.-_ {~ qr ~ ~ .~ [ F~ ~ _ ~- K , i 1 ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,4 ~- ~ ` _ ~ i I ~ I ~ ~. I ,.t_ I 4 ,~ k ll iIEE//~ ~ R ~ I i ' - _ _ ~ T ~,I i ~ ~ _ S \ 1 ~ . ~.. ~ ~ - ) ~ r 4.s. ~ t t, = a n \ _ _ \ ~ _~ L ~~ , _ ~ 1 4 1 »~T~~. / ~ ~ T ~ - fit( S. ~ ` ~:' _ i s ~~. T r F.. 1. I tr i ym \'I ~ _ ~ f t ' }F '` ce , } 9 - - •.,. ~ ~ ~:.; -,' .; ~. ~~ ~' ~. •,:~~. "~a ~. ~ .~, . ~. °i• ~ '•~ :; ~~ , ~,~, . ~,, _,., ~; ,, .'4 ,~4t~Ijn~~: I~f '. T..' C ` ~ , 1 .. ~ F:`-. ~. ~ x r )~ + y .~.; S i 'G ~+x ~V ~~'e. ~F.. I+ t. ~' +, ib _ .:~~r f~ J ' 1 ..fit k ~ ~ i ~~ ~ ~~' ~i~:.. w e.x 1 1 ~'.`, ~ ~ Attachment 8 County of Pitkin } } ss State of Colorado } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS SECTION 6-205.E. I, U~~~ ~~U/. 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 the day of 199_ (which is days prior to the public hearing date 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 ~ day of ~~° ~ 199, '~ ' ' ~~~~ ~/~ 199. (Must be Before the hearing sign is attached ~.n ; r~ q.- _.. , :.,. _, _;;,,-emu. ~ - _ _...... - ~ _ _ _ _ . ~, ~~ day of 19 9 ~ by v, OFFICIAL SEAL s : } j ~-~ ~ 1y ck~ ~~ ( MEMORANDUM TO: Design Review Appeal Committee FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer DATE: September 19, 1996 RE: 918 E. Cooper- Appeal from Design Standards SUMMARY: The applicant requests a waiver of the Ordinance #30 standard related to "volume" for a new structure. APPLICANT: John Davis, represented by Mark Ward, architect. LOCATION: 918 E. Cooper Avenue ZONING: RMF I. Background- The project is a new duplex adjacent to a historic landmark. HPC reviewed the project for mass and scale issues. II. Site description- The lot is 6,000 sq.ft. and is being developed as a duplex. 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 (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: The standard addresses a scale issue, and is meant to discourage two story windows. Staff finds that the windows on the alley and the sides of the building may not be problematic, however, the windows on the street facade do emphasize the verticality and height of the building, which is set at the minimum setback. Therefore, staff does not recommend waiver of the volume standard for the street facing windows. c) be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Staff response: The variance is not related to site constraints. V. Recommendation- Staff recommends DRAC waive the volume standard for the alley and side elevations, but not for the street elevation. ~ww wago and assocwTES ihC tsrchit~cture and planning August 20, 1496 Aspen Community Development 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 418 East Cooper Design Review Appeal To Whom If May Concern: The requested variance is to allow the owner of the building presently undo cottstrucdon, to Instal! glass lutween 9' and 12' on the upper level floor plan only, The intent of the residential design standards in this regard was to discourage architects, owners and rnntractors from building two story glass entries. 'This is clearly not the rase at 918 Last Cooper. `The street elevation shows a simple one story entry/porch. Please note this property also has approval from rite Historic Preservation Committee as it relates to Aspen and the surreuruIing residences. Allnvring glass ben~een 9' and 12' will prrnide better news to Aspen Mountain and ri:ws to the north to Rcd Mountain. These are views of what is expected from an upper level floor in a location as like 918 East Ctxtper, Again, this request does not compromise the intent of ordinance #30 ('!he Residential Design Standards) but will enhance the ultimate final product frum h~th the inside and out. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Mark B. Ward Architect •tt4e t:.M.r tlr..n tom, eut~s w • Ooutelar, t~toredo eoao~ • t~l aao•~tao~ L0'd bB90STb£0£ 35dIN21f11 110'5 QMtlN JIMtlW Nd 8T: TO 96-60-d35 Attachment 8 County of Pitkin } } State of Colorado } I, AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT ss. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATION SECTION 6-205.E. U, 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 2 of property within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, as indicated on the attached list, on the day of 199(Q (which i ~ days prior to the public hearing date of / ~7 ~L ). 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 nd visible S continuously from the ~.3~~' ay of ~ 199, ~ ~Z ~~ ~~ ~ 199. (Must be _ fore the hearing `:_ l ~, man is attached - .- ~• ~ .. MJBLIC NOT1C.~. ~ -~ -•'~'~ __ - 11S ~~- day of TIME ,~-.,~...~.-..-<.- ..~-... 4 ~ ~ Pi ACE - - * ~ ~ . PURPOSE ' - - ,~~ ) OFFICIAL SEAL ..- +~ " - _ - ~ ~~res : ~ ~ ~OV~ --~-- ~~ - ~~ ?FFEREI • i :~ 3N ~ = r ...,..rrs~e~ :~- -