HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.drac.19971009AGENDA
DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE
October 9,1997
4:00 p.m.
Thursday
Regular Meeting
City Council Chambers, City Hall
4:00 I. Roll Call
II. Minutes
III. Comments (Committee, Staff and Public)
4:05 IV. New Business
A. "Win River" Residences on Lots 1 & 2 of
the Kastelic Subdivision/PUD (570 & 580
S. Riverside Avenue, respectively)
Appeal of the "Volume" Standard
5:00 VI. Adjourn ~~ ~ ` ~' ~ n.~ Y ` -: -,~. ,
~~~ ~ --
r
MEMORANDUM
TO: Design Review Appeal Committee (DRAG)
THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Directo~~
Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Director
FROM: Mitch Haas, City Planner
RE: "Win River" Residences on Lots One and Two of the Kastelic
Subdivision/PUD (570 and 580 S. Riverside Avenue, respectively)
Appeal of the "Volume" Standazd (26.58.040(F)(12))
DATE: October 9, 1997
SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting variances from the "Volume" standazd
(described below) in order to allow the proposed designs of two (2) single-family
dwellings on Lots 1 and 2 of the Kastelic Subdivision/PUD (on South Riverside Avenue).
The application is attached as Exhibit "A."
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 find 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 [DRACJ pursuant to Chapter 26.22, Design Review Appeal
Board. "
APPLICANT: Mr. Larry Winnennan of the Win-River L.L.C., represented by Mr.
Bill Campbell, azchitect.
BACKGROUND: Community Development Department staff reviewed the application
to construct single-family residences on Lots 1 and 2 of the Kastelic Subdivision/PUD for
compliance with the "Residential Design Standards," (See attached Exhibit A).
Originally, the proposed designs complied with each of the provisions of the Residential
Design Standazds; however, the applicant has since decided to alter both of the designs in
a manner that does not comply with the "Volume" standazd, Section 26.58.040(F)(12),
which reads as follows:
For the purpose of calculating floor area ratio and allowable floor area
for a building or portion thereof whose principal use is residential, a
determination shall be made as to its interior plate heights. All areas with
an exterior expression of a plate height of greater than ten (10) feet, shall
be counted as two (2) square feet for each one (1) square foot of floor
EXHIBIT
.~
area. Exterior expression shall be defined as facade penetrations between
nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above the level of the finished floor, and
circular, semi-circular or non-orthogonal fenestration between nine (9)
and fifteen (1 S) feet above the level of the finished floor.
Simply put, as it relates to the subject case, this standazd requires that there be no
windows (facade penetrations/fenestration) in any azeas that lie between nine (9) and
twelve (12) feet above the height of the floor (plate height). As proposed, the "west"
elevations (for both Lot One and Lot Two) aze the only elevations that contain violations
of the "volume" standazd and aze, thus, the elevations for which variances are being
requested.
The second sheet of the submitted plans for Lot 1 (570 S. Riverside Ave.) show the
original design, which complied with the volume standazd; notice the sepazation between
the windows in the dormers of the west elevation and the glazing below (no glazing
between nine and twelve feet above plate height). The third sheet in this set represents
the proposed design of the west elevation. The proposed design contains palladian
windows in the dormers, and glazing extending from the base of the palladian windows
down to the top of the french doors. The result is approximately seventeen (17)
uninterrupted, vertical feet of glazing. As no glazing is permitted between nine and
twelve feet above plate height, the proposal represents a violation of the volume standazd.
The third sheet of the submitted plans for Lot 2 (580 S. Riverside Ave.) show the original
design, which complied with the volume standazd; notice both the sepazation between
the window in the dormer of the west elevation and the glazing below (no glazing
between nine and twelve feet above plate height) and the even alignment on the height of
all the second story windows. The second sheet in this set represents the proposed design
of the west elevation. The proposed design does not contain a sepazation between the
dormer window and the french doors below, and the proposed height of every window on
the second story has been increased to the point where they extend beyond nine feet
above plate height. The result, in this one elevation, is approximately twenty (20)
windows in violation of the volume standazd.
Given the lack of compliance with the "volume" standard, the applicant is left with the
choice of pursuing one of the following three (3) options. First, the applicant could
accept the two-to-one (2:1) floor azea penalty while ensuring that the entire building,
including FAR penalties, would fall within set FAR limitations. Second, they could
redesign the proposed structure such that the new form would comply with the "volume"
standazd, as well as the rest of the residential design standards. Lastly, the applicant
could appeal staffs findings to the Design Review Appeal Boazd. If variances aze to be
granted, each would have to be based on one of the following three criteria:
(a) the proposed design yields greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen
Area Community Plan; or,
(b) the proposed design more effectively addresses the issue or problem the given
standard responds to; or,
(c) a variance is cleazly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site
specific constraints.
Rather than accept the floor azea penalty or redesign the proposed residence, the applicant
has chosen go before the DRAC to seek a variance from the "volume" standard.
Accepting the FAR penalty is not a viable option in this case, as the proposed design
would build to the maximum allowable FAR, exclusive of FAR penalties or bonuses.
Consequently, if variances aze not granted, the applicant would have to either revert to the
previous designs or create new designs that would comply with the volume standazd, as
well as the rest of the residential design standazds.
STAFF COMMENTS: As mentioned above, there are three (3) criteria by which the
DRAC can decide whether to grant a variance. The following contains staff s analysis of
these criteria as they relate to the presently requested vaziances.
First, the proposed designs have virtually no relation to the Aspen Area Community Plan,
and staff can find no connection whatsoever between the proposed design and the goals
of the Plan. Therefore, if any variances are to be granted, they should not be based on
this criterion.
Next, the "volume" standazd is intended to respond to the issue of new construction
containing windows that aze not in scale with neighborhood context in terms of providing
- an appropriate "solid-to-void" ratio on each of the structure's facades. The intention was
to prohibit windows that appeaz to span from the first level of a residence to the level(s)
above and to maintain a pedestrian scale. With respect to the proposed design of the west
elevations of Lots One and Two, the lack of separation between the palladian windows of
the dormers and the windows of the french doors could result in the perception of
windows that span from the second to the third level, even though they would not (there
is no third level). However, the goal of maintaining a pedestrian scale is somewhat
inapplicable on the subject lots, for the west elevations face the Roaring Fork River in an
azea that does not provide for pedestrian access. Further, the drive leading to the lots in
question is private, unpaved and does not contain pedestrian facilities (i.e., sidewalks).
Nonetheless, 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 standazd. In staffs opinion, having the non-complying windows cannot
legitimately be said to more effectively address the issue than would a design without
windows in violation of the standazd.
Lastly, a variance can be granted if it is found to be clearly necessary for reasons of
fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. The applicant puts forth the
proposition that since Aspen Mountain is located to the west of and above both lots, an
observer must look upwazd and to the west to obtain these views. Facade penetrations
between nine and fifteen feet above the level of the finished floor are being requested to
provide unobstructed westwazd vistas from within the houses. The applicant feels these
"~ desires represent unusual site specific restraints that require a variance for reasons of
.-
fairness. In staff's opinion, the desires outlined by the applicant do not represent unusual
site specific restraints requiring a variance for reasons of fairness. The DRAC process
was not created in order to provide sellers with the greatest possible mazket value, rather,
it was created to provide enough flexibility to be fair, not generous. While the site is not
located in the original townsite or on the grid street system, the site specific constraints of
the subject pazcel aze not of a nature that require construction of windows in violation of
the standazd. That is, the topography, setback requirements or other constraints do not
dictate that the only feasible or fair way to develop the site would be with violations of
the "volume" standazd. There aze no unusual site specific constraints on the subject
pazcel that would justify a variance.
While staff realizes that the literal application of the residential design standazds is not
always appropriate outside of the downtown core, it is nonetheless a requirement of the
Land Use Code. That is, the intent and legitimacy of the standazds would be
continuously eroded if variances were arbitrarily granted because a standazd was thought
of as "applicable versus non-applicable," or "appropriate versus inappropriate." Rather,
variances should be granted if and only if one of the three criteria by which variances
could be granted is cleazly being met. In this case, staff does not believe the proposed
design meets any of the variance criteria.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the DRAC deny the variance requests,
and direct the applicant to redesign the residence to comply with all of the residential
design standards, including the "volume" standazd. This recommendation is based on the
fmding that the project, as proposed, does not satisfy any of the three criteria by which a ~
variance can be granted.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to deny the vaziance request, directing the
applicant to redesign the residence to comply with all of the residential design standazds,
including the "volume" standard."
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit "A" -Submitted application package
ATTACHMENTI
LAND USE APPLICATION FORM
1. Project name - •2
2. Project location -•
(indicate street address, lot and block number or metes and bounds descr
~, C
3. Present zoning ~• 15 4. Lot size3~~~ ~' `}~('~ IOo
5. Applicant's name, address and phone number ~ ~ IJ - ~a l )131fZ L_l,G
1.. tr ) ~ k ~s`~_t...r~4-. ~ X120 - 1851
6. Representative's name, address, and phone number l,<1
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) ~ T. '~~ESt ~~ T/xr- ~ a y~ V • u U rJ~C2
C'~~~-rtr2~~ c~-c,uw o ~ ~b4 4~-t . ~t -~,;c G,; C
~.~nb ~F
9. Description of development application ~- sw.~c~ ~F 5~~p`
2f~. S8 • oq-o (F 1 t"ta1
10. Have you completed and attached the following?
/ .Attachment 1-Land use application form
Response to Attachment 2
/ Response to Attachment 3
z
EXHIBIT
PROJECT: Win-River, Kastelic Subdivision, Design Review Appeal
LOCATION: 570 & 580S. Riverside Avenue
Representative: Bill Campbell
OWNER: Winwin LLC
September 22, 1997
Description of proposal:
The applicant proposes to modify the existing Design Review approval for reasons of fairness related to
unusual site specific conditions. Aspen mountain is Iccated to the West and above both lots. Views of the
mountain require the observer to look up. Facade penetrations between nine and fifteen feet above the
finished floor level are being requested to provide an unobstructed westward vista. Increasing the
exterior expression of plate height as shown on the accompanying drawings requires a variance from
DRAC standards. The first elevation sheet shows the approved design. The second sheet shows the
proposed window changes. Notice that only the glass configuration has changed and that there are no
increases in building height.
wn vMin Erietpdasr u.c
317 PYkRtro.
Aspen, CO 81817
9R0-1BS1
l)saern6ar 23, 1906
To winrn tt msy onnoarn:
WUIam B. , /weidleot PC, 175 8i0 Hat Rd., Baartl, 00 81021.0778, 027-44Z$, is nfy
rep(seMMlNvs in matters oonoerniig itYD propdtke deaorixd as Lot t and Lot 2, lCefteMe 3ubdMfaiOn
and bested et ti70 and b8 8. Riwafds Ar., Aeper4 CO.
~-r~ '
':
TOTf~ P.01
_..-- roan rn.~wu_i. J_J1 t.~_ ...-.,. Ja:c..:y~ ~ . rJL.
lc c.)-17J0 d.•an:: -rt~_ i .,I nr:c
The uaderniclned o:unara hereby authorize Larry Hinnerman whose
address is 317 Perk Ave., Aspen, CO. 81611, (phone 920-1851), and
his selected architect, attorney or other consultants, ae
applicable, to process an applicaticn fcr a bnildinq permit and any
and all other lsnd ume applications necessary for or related to the
iasuanee o! a brildinq pasmit for the iollowi_ng property located in
the plat there f ~reeordedBinTSOOk 33 page 62~ofUt~hecrecords of
Pitkin County, Colorado.
Dated: October ~ 7, 1996
CiWNERSt` ._
H11k '~ CA aS'1 /
1717 8. 51~.C'?si~tCEB 9T.
Denver, CO. 80210
303-i77-8916
P CIS C S8
1717 9. HILWAUREE T.
Denver, CO. 90210
303-777-8916
+ie\C7A
ToTa~ P.ez
_ __ __ .~ u... .. u.. .~.. .~.~. ..i.].. i ~~.. ua.ru. ~ruauvr ~r .G IIJJC.'~ r.Ul
~~~? 2,3 '96 12~22PI1~Iy:ESfiP'~.IN STRE~T,~LR~ OFFICES
.., ~o~
The undezaigned owner hereby autliorizae Larry Winnerman whooe
addzeso is 31'1 Yark Ave., Aspen, CO. 81611, (pF.ona 9Z0-18511, and
hie selected architeoC] attorney or other conoultants, ae
applicable, to pzocoee an application for s building permit and any
and all other land use applications necessary for or related to the
issuance of a building permit for tho folloc+inq property located in
the City of Aagont Lot 1] !(ASTELIC 9UgDIVI5I0N, ;?UDC acco:dlr.g tc
the plat thoreof recorded in Hook 33 page 61 of the records of
Pitkin County] Colorado.
Dateds October /r{r 1996
OSPNER:
B,A. pOWELL LIMITED PrgTNSASHIP
SYt
e j~ Jo cn, General Partner
2414 Hidd n valley Dr•
Grand Junction, CO. 81503
970-261-0277
~~n\CDA.]
OD
lo: LHKKT W1MNtKl'fiPl tf'Om: KtKtl KLt1N ltl-1N-y! 1L:9Lpn p. L Of L
i j
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF COLORADO
COUNTY OF PITKIN
}
} se.
}
I, William Campbell, being duly sworn, state as follows:
I am the representative of Win River for a Design Review
Appeal Committee variance for Late 1 and 2, Kastelic
Subdivision\PUD. The public meeting of the committee was held on
October 9, 1997. I posted a sign on the property on October 2,
1997, notifying the public of this meeting and the sign remained on
the property until the scheduled meeting time.
FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETIi NOT.
William Campbel
Subscribed and sworn to before me this ~~ day of October,
1997, by William Campbell.
Witness my hand and official seal.
MY COMMISSION IXPIRES:
My commi seion expires : ~~eov to roan
~~
ary Public
EXHIBIT
3
n EXHIBITS*
~a~rc,
AGENDA ITEM: ~4-
~' ,, r; 2 5~0 ~ So ~' -r~crs~de~
~ ,,
~ ,lam
EXHIBIT
NO. DESCRIPTION IN DEMO
* "In" means the exhibit is introduced into the record.
~, "Demo" means the exhibit is used only for demonstration or illustrative purposes.
2.8 t-~'f I ~lu~l;n~