HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.570 S Riverside Ave.A73-97
.11I.--
.1"""\
..-,
"
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Design Review Appeal Committee (DRAC)
Stau Clauson, Community Development Directo~
Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Director
Mitch Haas, City Planner K
THRU:
FROM:
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" Standard (26.58.040(F)(12))
DATE:
October 9,1997
SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting variances from the "Volume" standard
(described below) in order to allow the proposed designs of two (2) single-family
dwellings on Lots 1 and 2 of the Kastelic SubdivisionlPUD (on South Riverside Avenue).
The application is attached as Exhibit "A."
Pursuant to Chapter 26.58, 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 [DRAC] pursuant to Chapter 26.22, Design Review Appeal
Board"
APPLICANT: Mr. Larry Winnerman of the Win-River L.L.C., represented by Mr.
Bill Campbell, architect.
BACKGROUND: Community Development Department staff reviewed the application
to construct single-family residences on Lots I 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 Standards; however, the applicant has since decided to alter both of the designs in
a manner that does not comply with the "Volume" standard, 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
.
~.
~.
.
area, Exterior expression shall be defined as facade penetrations between
nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above the level of the finished jloor, and
circular, semi-circular or non-orthogonal fenestration between nine (9)
andfifteen (15) feet above the level of the finishedjloor.
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 floor (plate height). As proposed, the "west"
elevations (for both Lot One and Lot Two) are the only elevations that contain violations
of the "volume" staudard and are, 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 standard; notice the separation 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 standard.
The third sheet of the submitted plans for Lot 2 (580 S. Riverside Ave.) show the original
design, which complied with the volume staudard; notice both the separation 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 separation 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 standard.
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 area 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"
staudard, as well as the rest of the residential design standards. Lastly, the applicant
could appeal staffs findings to the Design Review Appeal Board. Ifvariances are 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,
./
, ,_0
,-.,
~.
(c) a variance is clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site
specific constraints.
Rather than accept the floor area 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 are not granted, the applicant would have to either revert to the
previous designs or create new desigrls that would comply with the volume standard, as
well as the rest of the residential design standards.
STAFF COMMENTS: As mentioned above, there are three (3) criteria by which the
DRAC can decide whether to grant a variance. The following contains staffs analysis of
these criteria as they relate to the presently requested variances.
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" standard is intended to respond to the issue of new construction
containing windows that are 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 appear 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
area 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 staudard. 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 standard.
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 upward 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 westward vistas from within the houses. The applicant feels these
desires represent unusual site specific restraints that require a variance for reasons of
,
I"""'.
.1"""'.
fairness. In staff s opinion, the desires outlined by the applicant do not represent nnusual
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 market 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 parcel are not of a nature that require construction of windows in violation of
the staudard. 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" staudard. There are no unusual site specific constraints on the subject
parcel that would justify a variance.
While staff realizes that the literal application of the residential design standards 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 standards would be
continuously eroded if variances were arbitrarily granted because a staudard 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 clearly 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" staudard. This recommendation is based on the
finding 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 variance request, directing the
applicant to redesign the residence to comply with all of the residential design standards,
including the "volume" standard."
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit "A" - Submitted application package
".-."
.~.
AGENDA
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 SubdivisionIPUD (570 & 580
S. Riverside Avenue, respectively)
Appeal of the "Volume" Standard
5:00 VI. Adjourn
I'"'-
,-.
ATTACHMENT 1
LAND USE APPLICATION FORM
,. Pro~n~ ~~~.~ O,~.2
\~ecttr!fn":( . ~. ~~ -= A\J. A.~~ (
(indicate street address, lot and block number or metes and bounds description)
3. PresentzoningY. I~ 4. Lotsize 50,~ f 44,100
5. Applicant's name, address and phone number Lu It-.).. ~ 11@J':L LLc...
G. tl)IL\l~.-'.....(.rtn1 q?..o- 111;,61
6. Representative's name, address, and phone number W.
'2.:
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
TextlMap 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) ~.p,' ~€.-::.\ 0.-'")., 1\1 WI:t- 'f A.rv.J\J. U\..lCEQ.. J
(l,;)U~\l'2Uc:tt-t)k> t!U ~ La\".. ~-rpnr.~ c...ooo i
~."7()O ~.F.
9. Description of development application ~~ of '31~,~
"Z.t... S"8.t/4-0 $\ (12.)
10. Have you completed and attached the following?
/" . Attachment 1- Land use application form
V Response to Attachment 2
....!::::::: Response to Attachment 3
r"\
r"\
WlnWln~U.C
317 Perk Ave.
A8peIl, CO 818'1'
920-1851
December 28, 19l16
T'owhcm'may~:
WlIIam 8. CamP:Md, AIvhilec;l PC, 175 s;g Hal Rd., EluaII, 00 811121.{j778, 927-4425, /$ my
"-'I'lJ>4."eln ItlIIII1eIa oor_'.'lI 1tle propenlee ~Wd 118 L.at 1 and l.ol2, Ka8teIic SUbdiYiIlion
-'looalectllll57O and 6/l S. AlveI8lde Av.. A8pen. CO.
\~
//1.:1/
to'"
,- ,
~.
I
./ 'Iff-Vie.; NC~ ,T tU;.Nt1./<-'I"YY1-4-"o/
I!'l~ N4r '~7 /-~/'.-1;.;e--
TOTFIL P. 131
.-...
.-...
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 Reviewapproval for reasons of fairness related to
unusual site specific conditions. Aspen mountain is located 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. I ncreasing 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.
.I..:.-.:;:..J-J,:;.:;>o ~~'.::;.I.MII r-f"C1..'11 'lJlnr:erm~n r,..,.'\"'~i:.i"j...'.J'';;~.I.'':;';'''';'' iU
~~to.':;"i;;J... r'.I::,J';;'
Ii"""'"
--,
-.
OaNSZWT AND AU~RnRi~ATTOR TO PR008SS ButLOrNa PBRMtT ANn LANO USE
APnrCII.~:rClf
rhe underoigned owners hereby authorize Larry winnerman whoae
address is 317 Park Ave., Aspen, CO. 81511, (pbone 920-1851), and
hi. .elected architect, attorney or other consultants, as
applioable, to process an a~plicaticn fer a building permit and any
and all other land ~ee appl~cation. neces.ary for or related to the
issuance ot a building permit f.or the follOWing property located in
the C1ty 0: AQ~cn: Lot 21 lASTEtIC SUBDIVISION, POD, accordinq to
the plat thereof rGcorded in Book 33 paqe 62 of the records of
pitkin County, Colorado.
!:lated: Oct;oher":<1, 1996
OWNERS J
~-
...... V)&i' d~'r.:;\.u:<./
MlR3!E CASEY /
1717 S. ~UL~lA~B ST.
Denver, CO. 90210
303-'i77-S916
CIS CASEY
1717 S. MILWAUKEE
Denver, CO. 80210
303-777-8916
wia\.eJA
TOTAL P.02
'.""";;:' ",,,-, , , .-.,..'............"" ....:....,;....""'-.,;.;
;'."J
~C-I~:;'C... r'.oJ.I.
OCT 2." "3,E; J:2i2iPWi.tS~O'iRr:(-\Rt(( :(A~'OrFlCES
.r'\,
, ,!'O I
';.4
CONSENT Uft AUtBORtzll.'rIOIf TO PROC!:~ll BUII/Due I"I!:!UUT AU>> 1,MlD '1C1J:i
APPLIC!ATIOV
,
'l'he Unci8l:lIi9n8c:i owner hereby .....d;ho..l...... LArry Wi.nnerman ",ho"e
addrelB is 317 Park Ave., Alpen, CO. B1611, (phone 920-1851), and
his selected architeot, Atto~ney or other consultant", 6.
applicable, to process en AiPlioation io~ a building permit and any
and all other land UII. appl catione neceesAry for or related to the
issuance at a b~ildin9 permi~ for thu following property located in
the City of Aspen: Lot I, KA5TELIC SUBDIVISION, ?UD, according to
the plat thereat recordt!d 1.n Bool\ 33 pe.g(/ &2 ot th.. reCQI'dB of
Pitkin county, Colorado.
Oateel October I~ 1996
OmlE1\:
B.A, POWELL LIMITED PARrNERSHIP
~' it
BY : ~ .AU}'tV
. ~ Jon on, General Partner
241I"Hioc n Valley Or.
Grand Junotion, CO. 61503
970"241~0271
...1nl"cPJ..2
r'-
..
~ \.. "
li~J~il ~~
.t 11 c c::
!it IS I Q)
II I a.
o
c(
,...:)
..
r'-.
v