Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.drac.19980528AGENDA DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE May 28,1998 ~~~ Thursday Special Meeting City Council Chambers, City Hall 4:00 I. Roll Call II. Comments (Committee, Staff and Public) 4:05 III. 1240 Riverside Drive OO Volume Standard -glazing 9'-12' above floor, OO Building Orientation parallel to street ~`~oUBD ~¢~o 5:00 IV. Adjourn MEMORANDUM TO: The Design Review Appeal Committee THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Deputy Director FROM: Mitch Haas, Planner ~~ RE: 1240 Riverside Drive request for Variances to the "Building Orientation" (Section 26.58.040(,x)(1)) and "Volume" (Section 26.58.040(F)(12)) provisions of the Residential Design Standards DATE: May 14, 1998 SUMMARY: Pursuant to Chapter 26.8, Residential Design Standards, 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 staff's findings to the Design Review .Appeal Board (DR.4CJ pursuant to Chapter 36.32. Design Review Appeal Board. " Community Development Department staff reviewed the application to construct asingle- family residence on the 1240 Riverside Drive site for compliance with the "Residential Design Standards," (see Exhibit A). In staffs review, it was determined that the proposed designs violate both the "Building Orientation" standard and the "Volume" standard. Thus, the applicant is requesting variances from the "Building Orientation" and "Volume" standards (described below) in order to allow for approval of the architectural designs as proposed. See Exhibit A, letter from Gibson-Reno Architects requesting variances from the requirements of Ordinance 30. Pursuant to Section 26.22.010 of the code, an appeal for exemption from the Residential Design Standards may be granted if the exception would: (1) yield greater compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan; (2) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or, (3) be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. APPLICANT: August R. Reno of Gibson-Reno Architects. LOCATION: The site in question is located at 1240 Riverside Drive (Lot 9, Block 1 of the Riverside Subdivision). The Riverside Subdivision is south of Highway 82 and the Lacet Subdivision. STAFF COMMENTS: Section ?6.~8.040(A)(I), Building Orientation The "Building Elements" standard mandates that "the orientation of the principal mass oJ~all buildings must be parallel to the streets they face... On curvilinear streets, the principal mass of all buildings must be tangent to the midpoint of the arc. " According to the pending revisions to the Residential Design Standards, the intent of the "Building Orientation" standard "is to encourage residential buildings that address the street in a manner which creates a consistent facade line' and defines the public and semi public realms. " The above described intent of the "Building Orientation" provision explains the issue or problem to which the standard is a response. Since the proposed design does not yield greater compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan, if the requested variance is to be justified, it would need to be on the grounds that the proposed design is necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints, or that the proposed design more effectively addresses the street in a manner which creates a consistent facade line and defines the public and semi-public realms than would a design in accord with the exact letter of the standard. The proposed building would have approximately 66% of its front facade parallel to the street, and the remaining 34% of the residence would be oriented toward the southwest. The applicant provides three (3) reasons for requesting a variance to the building orientation standard. First, the property was chosen for its excellent views of Aspen Mountain to the southwest, Independence Pass to the south, and Smuggler Mountain to the east. The proposed orientation of the building is intended to take advantage of these views, while still maintaining an orientation to the street. The second reason for requesting this variance relates to the topography of the site. At the northwest and central sections of the property, the grade is relatively flat; however, the southwestern and southern portions of the site begin to drop off in grade. Consequently, the applicant desires to site the building either parallel to or directly perpendicular to the grade in order to avoid difficulty in construction and having visible grade differentiation on the finished exterior walls. Finally, over eighty (80) percent of the houses on Riverside Drive are not oriented in a manner parallel to the street. In fact, five (~) of the six (6) houses nearest to the subject site are not parallel to the street; is would be reasonable to assume the reasons for this condition revolve around views and topography. Like the other houses in the area, the existing house at 1240 Riverside Drive is not parallel to the street but, rather, is oriented along a southeast/northwest axis. Thus, requiring that 100% of the front facade be oriented toward the street would result in a residence that is different from all the surrounding houses. Staff feels that the proposed design, with its 66% street orientation and 34% southwesterly orientation more effectively addresses the street in a manner which creates a consistent ,~.. ~. facade line and defines the public and semi-public realms than would a design in accord with the exact letter of the standard. This assessment is largely based on reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints concerning the surrounding structures and topography. Thus, staff recommends granting the requested "Building Orientation" variance because of reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints, and because the proposed design more effectively addresses the issue to which the given standard is a response. , Section 26..i8.Od0(F)(12), Volzeme The proposed design contains multiple violations of the "Volume" standard on its south, southwest, and east elevations (please refer to Exhibit A). The "volume" standard reads as follows: For the purpose of calculating floor area ratio and allowable floor area for a bz~ilding 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 grenter than ten (10) feet, shall be counted as two (2) square feet for each one (1) square foot of floor area. Exterior expression shall be defined as facade penetrations between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above the level of the finished floor, and circular, semi-circular or non- orthogonal fenestration between nine ("9) and fifteen (1 ~) feet above the level of the finished floor. Simply put, as it relates to the subject case, this standard requires that there be no windows (facade penetrations/fenestration) in any areas that lie between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above the height of the first or second story floors (plate height). Given the Zack 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 area penalty for each violating window 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" standard, as well as the rest of the residential design standards. Lastly, the applicant could appeal staffs findings to the Design Review Appeal Board. Rather than accept the floor area penalties (the design utilizes close to all of the allowable floor area for the site) or redesign the proposed residence, the applicant has chosen to seek a variance from the "volume" standard. Consequently, if variances are not granted, the applicant would have to create new designs that would comply with the volume standard. If a variance is to be granted, it must be justitied according to one of the three variance criteria outlined above (on page one of this memo). According to the pending revisions to the Residential Design Standards, the purpose/intent of the "Volume" standard "is to ensure that each residential building has street facing architecrtiral details and elements which provide human scale to the facade, enhance the walking experience, and reinforce local building traditions." Although pending code amendments do not hold any force in the review of current applications, staff felt this 3 information might be helpful in understanding the issues/concerns that the volume standard attempts to address. Since the proposed design does not yield greater compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan, if the requested variance is to be justified, it would need to be on the grounds that either the proposed design is necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints, or the proposed design more effectively provides street-facing architectural details and elements which provide human scale to the facade, enhance the walking experience, and reinforce local building traditions than would a design that meets the exact letter of the "Volume" standard. [n terms of site specific constraints, as explained in the "Building Orientation" section above, the property was chosen for its excellent views of Aspen Ntountain to the southwest, Independence Pass to the south, and Smuggler Mountain to the east. The proposed glazing is intended to take advantage of these views. With regard to the proposed design more effectively providing street-facing architectural details and elements which provide human scale to the facade, enhance the walking experience, and reinforce local building traditions than would a design that meets the exact fetter of the "Volume" standard, staff feels that the requested variance should be granted on these grounds. Of the elevations for which "volume" variances are requested (south, southwest, and east), only the southwest elevation would have an impact on the scale of the structure in relation to the street. The other two facades would not be visible from the street, and the southwest elevation would be only partially visible from the street. Also, on each of the facades for which "volume" variances are requested, the noncomplying glazing resides in gable-ends and is broken up or obscured with either terrace railings or gable wood trusses. The glazed gable ends accompanied by gable wood trusses make use of materials and design features that will effectively provide architectural details and elements that reinforce local building traditions. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the DRAC approve: (1) a variance from Section 26.58.040(A)(1), Building Orientation, of the Residential Design Standards based on a finding that the proposed design more effectively addresses the issue or problem the given standard or provision responds to, and is necessary for reasons of fairness related to site specific considerations; and, (2) a variance from Section 26.58.040(F)(12), Volume, of the Residential Design Standards based on a finding that the proposed design more effectively addresses the issue or problem the given standard or provision responds to. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit "A" -Submitted application package 4 E~~ DESCRIPTION The Project consists of a new single family residence. We are requesting variances related to the "no window zone" and "street orientation". We feel this Project not only meets the intent of the Desigm Guidelines, but it exceeds the requirements in many areas including: 1. Street facing entry and principal room window. 2. One (1) story street facing element that covers ninety (90%) per cent of the overall width. 3. Covered entry porch of approximately one hundred (100) square feet. 4. Primary Mass of less than fifty (~0%) per cent of the allowable FAR. S. Street facade includes stepped wall planes, gable roofs, reduced building mass, mixing of building materials, introduction of roof forms, such as dormers, belvederes, and chimneys that enhances the overall character of the neighborhood. 6. A one (1) story building massing adjacent to the non-street facing South property line. On the Southwest, South and East exterior elevations of the building we are requesting relief from the "no window zone" standard of the guidelines. Our reasons for this request are threefold. Two (2) of the three (3) facades will have no visual impact on scale or massing regarding the street facade. These facades are not visible from the street. The third facade, the Southwest is only partially visible. The second reasons is based upon the fact that on each of these facades the glazing begins at the floor of the upper level and the building mass and scale is broken up by the first floor treatment of the facade; one (1) story building mass and use of different materials. The third reason for our request is based upon the fact that this property was chosen for its exceptional views and orientation. Each of the facade views are outstanding; Southwest: Aspen Mountain; South: Independence; East: Smuggler Mountain. The design of the windows is intended to take advantage of these views. In each case the glazing is broken up with either terrace railings or gable wood trusses. Meeting the required "no window zone" would obscure the majority of the view (the view angle is upwards from the floor level) and would not have any impact or improve the character of the neighborhood. Riverside Drive Estate April 1~4, 1998 Page 2 We are asking that these windows be waived. The windows add to the character of the elements, introduce natural light into the interior, and have no impact on the mass and scale of the house. Removing these windows would only detract from the overall character and would not contribute to or improve the intent of the Residential Design Guidelines. Our second variance request relates to building orientation. Our proposal includes having approximately sixty six (66°.'0) percent of the house parallel to the street. The remaining thirty four (3d°,'o) percent of the house is turned to the Southwest. Here again, our reasons for this request are threefold. As I mentioned previously, the views are exceptional to the Southwest, South and East. The road (Riverside Drive) is directly West. Orientation to views is critical for this parcel. Our second reason relates to the topography of the property. At the Northwest and central section of the property grade is relatively flat, however beginning at the Southwest and South section of the property grade begins to fall off. Due to this condition, ease of construction is desirable so that we are either parallel or directly ''~" perpendicular to grade. We were trying to avoid visible grade differences on our exterior walls. Thirdly, over eighty (80%) percent of the houses located on this street do not parallel the street. In fact, five (5) out of the six (6) houses that are nearest to this property are not parallel to the street. The reasons for this have to due with views and topography. It should be noted that the existing house on this parcel is not parallel to the street and is oriented along aSoutheast/Northwest axis. We are asking that total building orientation to the street be waived. We feel we have found a solution that solves all of the issues: street orientation, views, and topography. Forcing this building to comply with the street orientation would only make this structure different from all of the rest. m oavao~oo Nadsv ~ .. o~ 4 ~!~ ~~ ~ ~ a ~- ~~ ~ a I~ ~ ~ p I 3AIa0 3aISa3Ala ObZ4 - ~ '. ~ 0 a°- d S a o. .a ra e~ ~rq a 3 M ~' m~ m ~ ~ . , ,_ se.o ai. ~ 0r r ~, ~ ~_ _ ~~ `~~ ~'--_ n~ ~ `/' ~ / ~ 0 / \~ ~~ I p ~~ . ,,, ~~ ~ `~ ,~' ~ ~ ~ _, ~~ i '" I / --,i / ~ ~ -- .o ~~ ~ ~$ ~ d r I d r o ~ w ~ ~' ~ J '~ ~;1 I ., ~ A ~ °N° !! 1240 RIVERSIDE DRIVE ~'~ i N 7~ tee..?? ~ a~ .~a3 ~ ;~~ I ASPEN. COLORADO ~r ro 0 .~ Ap ~ I~i~l~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~; ~~~ I e oavao~o~ `~adsv ~ a ~ g ~ g ~ 3Alaa 3UISa3Ala OtiZ4 _.... 1 Z _ _. ___~. W : ~ [~ xW ~ ~~ ~F ~ ~~ a O~ W R € ,, ~ ~ ~ E '~ - ~~ ru y y. u ~ ~ u o o .d a p ~ ~ Q Bs 4 ~~ I _ o wY J ~0 JJ fl I / ~~ ,~~ ~ ~ Cr ~ i - ~ _,- ~ ~ ~ I~' /1c o•~ i ~~ "~ ` / ~'~ J o !C .. U F ~ OJ ~A `F 's ,.~ ~~ ~~ b; x~ a r.. 1240 RIVERSIDE DRIVE ~ . u~ _~~ ~ . d~ =~a~ ~ __~`u,'•_ ASPEN, COLORADO ~~ ro o~ n ~~ i ~~~ ~~I~ I I Oanao~oo ~N3dSt/ a ~ , ~ ~ ~ 3Alaa 341Sa3Ala OtiZ4 1''. ~,~~~ W r ~ ~ ~ N ~W ~ ~ 1 ~ < .-. ~ i i~ Ft: ~~ r~ ti o ~;n 4 a W 1' _ o p~ ~ ~U 0 a r------ ~ -------------~--------~ r I s~ '~ r / t r 0 ~" r ~ + ~~~ ~ / ~ " ;, ~ ~ ~ / ~~ r i 3~' .~ ~ r i ~a~' ~~~ ~ ~r ~ 1 _ ~, ~ ~„~ / ~~ / ~~ .y ~~ I ~~`~~ ~D 0 r~ 0 ~~ o~ ~~ ~e .o l ~~~ ~. ~~ U~ ~ r C~ r 0 -~I n~ O '~ I I I ~ i Y l__l ~ ~ Q p LAN B .may A ~a v /A~~ r~ a o 4 ~ c ~ -Do _~ ~ n ~? rn ,~' "' < t :o m ;z o A m ~ ~- ~ ~ a a ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~' C7 ~ ~~,~ ~l i~dn RIVERSIDE DRIVE ~9 ay LJ ` "~ / , 12~ ~~~12s1 i~E '~-`~ County of Pitmen } t J State of Colorado } :~.FF'IDAVIT OF NOTICE Pv~RSIi:~`iT ss_ TO ~.SPEN L~~1D USE ItEGL~I-ATION SECTION Z5. :2.060 (E} T ~V~(l5~' ~ .being or representing an Appiicnnt to the City of :~,t~e:i, personally certtry that I nave complied with the public notice ~equiretnents pursuant to Sec'don ~6.~2.060 (E) of ttte aspen Land tise Reguiatzons in the following manner. 1. By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attac:ted 'Hereto, by first-class, postage prepaia L.S. Mail to all owners oz proDerv with three nu.*~dred ~3C0) fit of the ;ubiect propery, as indicated on the attac:~ed list. on the __._ day of , I59_ (wnic:l iS _ days prior to the public hearing date of ) 2_ By posting a sign in s conspicuous puce on [,he subiec: property (as it could be seen from the nearest public way) and thaz the said sib was pested and visible centinueusiv from the '~~ day or ~~_, 199 8 r Vlust be posted for at least ten (10) iu1 days before the nearing date). :~ ghoto~aph of the tr'~e attached hereto. WITNESS ~+S`~ HA1~iD ~~~ OFF~C T E.~L My commission-zxpires: ~^z4t_~ `_~ Notary Public Notary Public's Signature TO~~L P.%~! ~/aa~y~ EXHIBITS* ~L'~ AGENDA ITEM: 12401ftJC~bE ~I2. 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. I NGT?CE ~ ~~/9l a~~ WITNESS LIST* AGENDA ITEM: 120 ~1 r,aes~~ ?~ NAME OF WITNESS:~ - 1• ~,~ 7'~ Staff Person 2. ~-~d 3. 4. 5. GN ~-~2~~ G/p~,M~IELL 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. il. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. * Includes staff persons, but excludes staff attorney and board members.