The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutcoa.lu.sr.926 E Durant Ave.A14-97 CA~~OAD SUMMARY SHEET - CITY 9J'..i<\sPEN DATE RECEIVED: 2/24/97 DATE COMPLETE: PARCEL ID # 2737-182-37-005 CASE# Al4-97 STAFF: Julie Anne Wood, PROJECT NAME: Project Address: APPUCANT: ... .AddressJPhone: OWNER: AddressJPhone: REPRESENTATIVE: Gibson-Reno Architects. L.L.C AddressJPhone: 210 E. Hyman Ave. Brass Bed DRAC Review 926 E. Durant Ave. Silverstream L.L.P 307 South Mill S1. Aspen, CO. 925-3883 RESPONSffiLE PARTY: Applicant Other Name/Address: FEES DUE PLANNlNG ENGINEER HOUSING ENV HEALTH CLERK TOTAL $450 $0 $0 $0 $ $450. FEES RECEIVED PLANNING $450. ENGINEER $ HOUSING $ ENV HEALTH $ CLERK $ TOTAL RCVD $450. TYPE OF APPLICATION Staff Approval # APPS RECENED 8 # PLATS RECENED 8 GIS DISK RECEIVED: P&Z CC CC (2nd readin ) No No No REFERRALS: o City Attorney o City Engineer (DRC) o Zoning o Housing o Environmental Health o Parks DATE REFERRED: o Aspen Fire Marshal C City Water o City Electric o Clean Air Board o Open Space Board o Other: o CDOT o ACSD o Holy Cross Electric o Rocky Mtn Natural Gas o Aspen School District o Other: INITIALS: DATE DUE: APPROVAL: OrdinancelResolution # Staff Approval Plat Recorded: Date: Date: Book ,Page CLOSEDIFILED DATE: "l/;r/C).tb ROUTE TO: 0~ INITIALS: 9~ ,-.,-., To: _ \JI,'~ Arnl'\e I~ /~. D.,.u. TRANSMIITAL Project: 1?> ~'S~ 2:---..-J. / Arch. proj. # q~zA Date: ~ Iz+/ "'1 We Transmit: xHerewith _Under Seperate Cover _Per Your Request Via: Mail ~ Messenger Fax _Federal Express UPS The Following: _Specifications _Drawings Addenda _ Payment Application Product Literature _Samples Change Order Shop Drawing X- Other Copies: q I Date: :2/z.-V "7 -zl 'Z4:! Iff For Your: Information _Record / Use _Review ~pproval ~ Dist. to Parties Action Taken: ~pproved Reviewed Revise & Resubmit Make Corrections _Submit Specific Item _No Exceptions _Rejected Description: j1 fZA~, "'fs;D~ ArrIIUf~ ~ LETTER GIBSON. RENO . ^ R. CHI TEe T S, L.L,C.. DIU 210 E. HYMAN NO 202 ASPEN COLORADO 81611 , 970.925.5968 fACSIMilE 970.925.5993 P.O. BOX 278 117 N. WillOW N"2 Copies To: (With encl.) TELLURIDE COLORADO 81435 970.728.6607 fACSIMilE 970.728.6658 Submitted bY:--fZt p~~ " ~. DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE .~ FEBRUARY 27,1997 377 SIL VERI.ODE DRIVE............................................................;............................................................................1 533 WEST SMUGGLER...........................:.................................................................................................................3 926 EAST DURANT - BRASS BED...........................................................................................................................5 MINIJTES.....................................................................................................................................................................7 8 ~ ~ DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 27, 1997 Chairperson Steve Buettow called the special meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. with members Gilbert Sanchez, Roger Moyer, and Dave Johnston present. Members Bob Blaich and Jake Vickery were excused. Other staff present were David Hoefer, Sara Thomas, Mitch Haas, Amy Amidon and Julie Ann Woods. 377 SIL VERLODE DRIVE David Hoefer asked the applicant if the notice was posted 5 days prior to the hearing. David Panico said it was noticed. Hoefer expressed the committee had jurisdiction to proceed. Sara Thomas, staff, stated the applicant requested a waiver from the Ordinance 30 Standard to the garage setback requirement. She explained this was an uphill lot and visibility from the street is very minimal. David Panico, architect for the applicant (Alice Brien), stated the lots were minimally buildable lots in this subdivision. He said the access points were tortured at the downhill side of any of the grades. Panico said there would probably be other requests similar to this one because of the steep slopes. He noted for the garage to meet the intent of Ordinance 30 a vast amount of excavation in the front yard would be necessary to get the driveway low enough to gain access to it. This would also create a "pit" in the front yard and the residence was about half of the allowable FAR. Roger Moyer asked if this was part of Williams Ranch and was a photo available for the approach to the site. Panico said it was part of the Williams Ranch and supplied a photo. Moyer questioned the only approach to the house being underneath. He asked if the garage was protruding from the house or was there a portion ofthe house above it. Panico said the portion was above it and the site plan shows the one story garage with a deck on top. He said the entry is on top of the garage. Moyer said the application did not seem sufficient. Gilbert Sanchez asked why the garage was located in the center of the lot because it seems like a large amount of excavation. Panico said he was trying to break the 1 ~. ~. .~ DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 27,1997 house into two separate elements because the house has no yard and this was a way to create an exterior private area. Moyer asked the commission and staff how these Williams Ranch lots would be handled since there would be more of the requests to this committee. Panico explained the design is almost dictated by the restraints of the site and the top of the roof would be all that would be seen from the street. Dave Johnston said this clearly does not meet Ordinance 30 but questioned the appropriateness of the height on the site. Steve Buettow asked if the driveway already existed. Panico said it was already cut in as part of the plat. Buettow stated there were three elements, two of which were very nice and one garage protrusion. He noted the garage being seen first, was one of the reasons that Ordinance 30 came about. Panico noted the garage was turned at an angle so it is not the first thing that you see but rather the main element of the residence is seen. Sanchez agreed with Johnston about the impact not being significant. He said the excavation in front of the bedroom window seemed unnecessary because it was the only flat area on the site, Buettow said the presence of the street scape with a dominant garage in front is for this committee to decide to approve or not. Panico commented there were extenuating circumstances regarding this house and Williams Ranch with a convoluted evolution of Ordinance 30. Sara Thomas explained the free-market portion of Williams Ranch is not subject to Ordinance 30 as it applies to floor area, however it is subject as far as the design review standards. Unfortunately this was not clarified when David Panico brought in a permit for the lot next door and it went through without having the design review standards applied to it. Thomas brought this to Panico's attention, but he was three days away from submission. Panico stated that the person has to be in the residence by October 1. MOTION: Dave Johnston recommended the Design Review Appeal Committee waive the standard that the garage must be setback ten feet from the facade of the house for the property located 377 SilverLode Drive, finding that criteria "c" has been met. Gilbert Sanchez second. Roger Moyer, Dave JOhnston, Gilbert Sanchez for, Steve Buettow against. MOTION APPROVED 3-1. 2 ~, ~ DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 27,1997 533 WEST SMUGGLER Gilbert Sanchez stepped down on this issue. David Hoefer stated the applicant supplied notice which complied with the jurisdictional requirements of this committee and may proceed. Mitch Haas, staff, explained there was an oversight in the packet and the elevations included are incorrect and the revisions are replaced in the new handout. He said the "inflection standard" of Ordinance 30 which deals with one story elements of an existing structure and the element of a proposed adjacent structure. Stafffelt that all elements of the proposed structure next door to an existing one story structure should also be one story for a distance of 12' toward the opposite lot line. Haas stated if a standard is up for interpretation, it would be best to refer to how that standard has been applied in the past. He referenced Jan Derrington's model to show where the one and two story elements are used. He pointed out the portion of the house (model) that does not meet that standard. Janver Derrington, architect for applicant, stated there was at least one project that was approved. He said a duplex at 1225 Snowbunny Lane went through after Ordinance 30 was adopted. He commented that the interpretation seems to have evolved since then. Derrington expressed the open area and two story element (a stair tower) with steep pitched roofs which is encouraged by Ordinance 30. He noted the footprint of the house is much smallef'than the one next door that occupies three lots. He said that since the lot has huge spruce trees, the house is in scale in that setting. He felt that the application of the standard complied with the reasonable intent. Moyer asked for photos 6fthe entire block. Derrington supplied the photos with the opposite side of the street also. He said there were 4 lots in this Carrish Subdivision. Moyer said the verticality of the house is still unique to that block. so, at present it is out of character and even with a new house on the corner. Buettow asked if the corner lot house would be demolished. Derrington stated that it would and since the lot had such huge trees on it, the new structure would probably be vertical also. Buettow asked if they were at the maximum height with this house. Derrington replied that they were slightly below the maximum height 3 > /"'"".. DESIGN REVIEW APP~ALS COMMITTEE ~ FEBRUARY 27. 1997 with the cupola. Haas stated the real intent of this standard was so that a new house did not "loom" over the adjacent house by size and scale. Johnston said from the model the entry looked very small with the two masses on either side. he commented that the mass down~played the entry. Amy Amidon gave background on Ordinance 30. She said that this was one of the very few provisions (especially in the West End) to protect Victorians from becoming overwhelmed by the new construction. She stated that the interpretation should not be changed across the board for this standard. Moyer responded that this is the reason we have Ordinance 30 and it does not meet the standard. Buettow said that when Ordinance 30 was originally discussed the "inflection" referred to street scape. MOTION: Roger Moyer moved that the Design Review Appeals Committee find the design as proposed does not comply with standard 26.58.020(B) of the Aspen Municipal Code and must be redesigned to comply with said standard. Dave Johnston second. Dave Johnston and Roger Moyer voted to approve and Steve Buettow denied. MOTION. APPROVED TO DENY 2-1. Moyer asked Amidon if the applicant could come up with a solution without a complete re-design. Amidon answered if the applicant could find one of the three standards to comply with then maybe a compromise could be achieved. Haas stated they would work with the applicant. Derrington asked if the roof element was the reasonable approach because he was not sure what was expected. Johnston did not mean it as a directive, but was open to any discussion. Moyer noted it was up to the applicant and not to this committee to re-design. Derrington asked if the element had to be inward 12' all the way from the side yard to the back of the garage area. Buettow believed that was the motion. Moyer said that the project should take on the character of the block and asked if the material to be used was stucco. Derrington affirmed. Moyer felt stucco did not lend itself to the character of Aspen. Amidon said that if they met with staff, and the re-design met the standard, the applicant would not have to come before this committee again. 4 --.. ~ DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 27,1997 926 EAST DURANT - BRASS BED Steve Buettow stepped down. David Hoefer asked for the posting of the notice. Augie Reno, Architect for Silverstream, provided the notice. "Hoefer stated that the notice met the requirements and the committee had jurisdiction to proceed. Julie Ann Woods, staff, explained the Brass Bed Lodge has been an on-going project that was recently approved by the Board of Adjustment for a carport at the rear of the property. She continued that they were also approved by the City P & Z for a change in use (from 29 units to 6 units) and a voluntary ADD. She said they wanted to make some changes to the exterior elevations of the existing building and realized that the building did not comply. The window standard and the height measurement were the reasons for the Ordinance 30 Review. Woods stated the building is non-conforming to the Ordinance 30 height standard and the way that height is measured. Hoefer stated that this committee could review the height standard even though the building existed prior to Ordinance 30. Moyer said since this committee could review the height standard, then the applicant would not have to go before the Board of Adjustment. Woods commented the changes to the building will make it look more residential, adding more windows. Reno introduced Rob Tobias, Silverstream Representative, and noted the building has been vacant since it was constructed 8 or 9 years ago. He said the project will enhance the neighborhood once completed. Reno said in 5 or 6 areas the glass exceeds the 9' and 12' band area. He noted the property has nice views and the big band on the building blocks the views. Reno commented the purpose of Ordinance 30 was to prevent the large plate glass walls from the 1st floor to the 3rd floor. He said the amount of glass proposed, 3' would be the maximum with those elements broken up by the balconies and the band. Reno stated that the glazing does not start until 9' from the floor and is only 8' of glass. He said the window does not start at the floor but about 3' above. He noted that the elements occur on portions of the building that are significantly setback from the property line. He said the relationship between pedestrian and building are from 30' to 48' apart. 5 ~ .~. DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE FEBRlJARY27.1997 Reno stated the building is linear with two horizontal wings and a simple gable roof. He said the building has a strong mass (almost institutional) and they want. to break up the mass with the 6 gables in question (adding vertical). Reno said this existing building was brought into non-conformity by Ordinance 30 and felt that was a hardship. He noted they do not want to add to that non-conformity but are trying to relate to the existing ridge of the building. Reno stated from a construction stand point, also, it is easier to use the existing gables rather than lower them and have to reconstruct the entire building. Reno commented there will be new landscaping also, which will seem to lower the building. Tobias added that architecturally the gables are the same height as the existing roofline and seems more gentle. He said the Brass Bed was bought through fore- closure and wanted to do something other than a lodge. They want to enhance the neighborhood with a first class project. Johnston asked what the function was and why the front dormer was so high. Reno explained it was the fifth unit and faced north. Johnston asked if the ridge was going to be taller that the existing. Reno replied no, the dormers would go to the ridge line. Sanchez asked what dormers were above the height restriction. Reno said approximately 2' the way Ordinance 30 measures. Sanchez questioned the balconies provided separation from the tall glass areas. He asked if the balconies had open railings. Reno said the railing was wood with vertical opemngs. Moyer asked the purpose of the building and if it would be condominiumized. Reno stated there would be 6 two bedroom townhouses and an ADD. Moyer asked if the glass doors would be taller. Reno answered they would not be changed but the triangulated glass that is being added. He said the upper floor doors will be wider. Sanchez felt comfortable with the triangle glazing and the south side probably won't be seen from the street. He questioned the large gable on the north elevation with excessive glazing. Sanchez thought even a lower gable would accomplish the vertical break up of space. Johnston said the re-design was a welcome reliefto what is there now, and the gables at the ridge line and below the ridge satisfied him. He commented that the dormer on the north was a little high and liked the look of the project. 6 --.. DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 27,1997 Moyer said the south side, the height adjustment was valid. He stated the re- design was a welcome relief to the current state of the building. He noted the north side did not affect the street scape and felt the project was well done. MOTION: Dave Johnston moved that Design Review Appeal Committee waive the standard that FAR be calculated at 2 for the areas in the 9' to 12' "no window" zone for the Brass Bed located at 926 East Durant Avenue finding that criteria "c" applied and further recommended the height definition of 26.58.040F5 be varied to allow the existing height non-conformity of this building to continue because the shell of this building predates Ordinance 30. The height of this building was in compliance with then existing zoning when the original project was completed. Gilbert Sanchez second. ALL IN FAVOR, '>: MOTION APPROVED. 3-0 MINUTES MOTION: Dave Johnston moved to adopt the minutes of 12/12/96. Seconded by Gilbert Sanchez.. ALL IN FAVOR, MOTION APPROVED. 4-0 Julie Ann Woods stated for the record that Gilbert Sanchez was appointed to the Design Review Appeals Committee to serve as an alternate. Dave Johnston becomes a regular member. Meeting adjourned at 5 :3.5 p.m. ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 7 .~ .~ Memorandum Design Revie Appeal Committee Stan Clauson, Community Development Director Lj (1 \ 'l~ . Julie Ann Words, Deputy Director~l February 24, !997 r ' Brass Bed Lo ge--926 E. Durant Ave.--Appeal from Design Standards I SUMMARY: The applicant equests a waiver of the Ordinance #30 standard related to FAR increase due to volume r glazing in the "no window" zone. Though the applicant is also requesting a waiver to 110w new dormers in excess of the maximum height allowed in this zone district, t e DRAC does not have authority to consider this item. This would require a hearing efore the Board of Appeals. TO: THRU: FROM: DATE: RE: I APPLICANT: Silverstream tLP LOCA nON: 926 E. Durant ive. ZONING: R-MF PROJF"'T RE1W PROCESS AND STAFF EVALUATION Background: The proposed p oject is an existing lodge which was approved for a change in use to al10w six free market residential units and one employee deed restricted unit. It is approximately 15,3 6 s.f. Site Description: The struct e is located on a relatively flat site east of the downtown core. Waiver Requested: Standard: "AI areas with an exterior expression of a plate height greater than ten (J 0) fe t, shall be counted as two (2) square feet for each one (1) square foot of floor are . Exterior expression shall be defined as facade penetrations between n ne (9) and twelve (12) feet above the level of the finished fl " oor.. . Staff Evaluation: The Comm ttee may grant an exception to the design standards if the project as proposed is found to meet one of the fol1owing criteria: a) yields greater compliance ith the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan: Staff Response: The p oject does not further any goals of the AACP. ~ .,......, I b) more effectively addresse1 the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; l" Staff Response: The \'. aiver request does not address this criteria. c) be clearly necessary for re son of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Staff Response: Tho gh the site does not specifically have physical constraints associated with it, it is an exi ing vacant building that is being modified in order to more adequately address the layout for six free-market units vs. 29 lodge units. In that regard, the applicant proposes to take advantage of the site and open up more views to Aspen Mountain, hence the proposal for more glass in the 9' to 12' "no-window" area. Though the applicant can propose gla s in this area and meet the design standard, his PAR for this portion of the unit is multipli d by 2. This project does not have the PAR available to meet this standard, therefore e request to waive this standard. Though the applicant ould remove the glass from these "no window" areas, the scale of these glass areas is no significant, and actually helps to break up the flat face of the existing facade. Though e applicant is asking for a variance to height, staff recommends that the pitch of he dormer roofs be reduced in order to conform with the maximum height requirement. This would require an increase in the "structure" to support a reduced pitch, accor~ing to the architect. Staff does not feel that the applicant will be able to show a "hardsh p" for such a variance request, and therefore recommends a redesign ofthe dormers pitc ed areas to conform with the standards. I i Recommendation: Staff rec mmends that the Design Review Appeal Committee waive the standard that the PAR be c lculated at 2 for the areas in the 9' to 12' "no window" . zone for the Brass Bed located at 926 E. Durant Ave., finding that criteria "c" applies. Staff further recommends that e pitched roofs of the dormers that do not comply with the maximum height reqUiremrt be redesigned to comply. \ I I I I I I ,-.. ,-,. , February 24, 1997 AspenlPitkin County Community Development Dept. 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: The Brass Bed Design Review Appeal ommittee 926 E. Durant Street Aspen, Colorado We are submitting the enclosed a1plication for a Design Review Appeal for the proposed residences locat d at 926 E. Durant in Aspen, Colorado. Enclosed is Attachment 1, Land se application Form and Attachment 3, Specific Submission Requireme ts. The following addresses Attachm nt 2, General Submission Requirements: I I I See enclosed authorizatiod letter. The street address is: I 926 East Durant S eet Aspen, Colorado 8 611 1. 2. 3. 4. The legal description is: Lots P,Q,R and S Block 118 I City of Aspen I See enclosed Disclosure o~ Ownership See enclosed vicinity map Thank: you for your time in revie Review Appeal. Please contact m regarding this application. g our request for the Design with any further questions enclosures DAVID GIBSON. AlA AUGUST RENO. AlA SCOTT SMITH. AlA GIBSON -RENO -ARCHITECTS. III 210 E. HYMAN NO 202 ASPEN COLORADO 81611 303.925.5968 FACSIMILE 303.925.5993 P.O. BOX 27B 117 N. WILLOW N'2 TELLURIDE COLORADO B1435 303.72B.6607 FACSIMILE 303.72B.6658 1) Project Name 2) Project Location .-.,. -., ATIACHMENT 1 AND USE APPLlCA TION FORM Present Zoning (Indicate street address, lot & lock number, legal description where appropriate.) 4) Lot Size 1 HOO SF 3) 5) Applicant's Name, Address & hone No. 6) Representative's Name, Addres 7) Type of Application (please ch all that apply): Conditional Use Special Review 8040 Greenline Stream Margin Mountain View Plane Condominiumization Lot SplitJLot Line Adjustment _ Conceptual SPA _ Final SPA _ Conceptual PUD inal PUD _ Subdivision _ extlMap Amendment _ Conceptual Historic Dev. _ Final Historic Dev. _ Minor Historic Dev. _ Historic Demolition _ Historic Designation _ GMQS Allotment _ GMQS Exemption I Appe.:!1 Committee I Description of Existing Uses (n\Jmber and type of existing structures; approximate sq. ft.; number of bedrooms; any previous approl1s granted to the property). 8) 9) Description of Development A lication: Have you attached the fOllOwinf . :::~~:: :~ ~~:~~::~: ~: ~7;: ~::::::::: ~:::::: \ I I I I I I I 10) x X bblandap.doc Silverstream L.L.P. c/o Swift Property Fun Inc. 307 South Mill Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 925-3883 I ~ I , I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I Aspen/Pitkin Community DevelopLent Department 130 South Galena Street 1" Aspen, Colorado 81611 I I ~. February 24, 1997 Please accept this letter as autho. tion for the firm of Gibson-Reno Architects, L.L.C., located at 210 . Hyman Avenue, Suite 202, Aspen, Colorado 81611, (970) 92 -5968 to submit and process the Application for the Design Review Appeal Committee on my behalf, and to represent my interests at an related meetings, hearing, or presentations. I I . I Smcerely, I 4Q./---' I V-<:..&- / V~ I Robert J. Tobias, Managing Partner. Silverstream LLP II I f""1"\l"'\..;QC' ? I I .~ TITLE GUARANTEECOMP;.-) C U S TOr E R \ I I I I I I 'I I FUND, ~NC. I I \ I I DISfLOSURE STATEMENT Required by Senate Bill 91-14 D 1ST RIB UTI 0 N . ) -""1 October 16, 1996 Our Order No.: Q371443 Property Address: ASPEN, CO ~IFT PROPERTY ----307 SOUTH MILL ASPEN, CO 81611 Attn: ROB TOBIAS 303 925-3883 A) I The subject real troperty may be located in a special taxing district. B) A Certificate of may be obtained f Treasurer's autho axes Due listing.each taxing jurisdiction om the County Treasurer or the County ized agent. C) The information r garding special districts and the boundaries of such districts may be obtained from the Board of County Commissioners, thj County Clerk and Recorder, or the County Assessor. Required1bY Senate Bill 92-143 A) A Certificate of jaxes shall be obtained from Treasurer's autho ized I I I Due listing each taxing the County Treasurer or agent. jurisdiction the County r--. ,- -, , \ . , \. '\ ~ 1 /"" ~Ii .-......"...,..... : -.. ,r .'....7'.-- , ~. <~ ; "- i J. t~- I ,: Ml..-._ ...,.,<...: ( /"..". ",:: ".':,~:~ ':" .. Pr()jt'Cl Sire "."lU/J ft~ :"1~ '4 Ii It Il Af.' OlJJJtlli.n I TO Twin Lakes' .. ;-...-':" " '..~ Vicinity Map -, -, ATTACHMENT :3 SPFClFTC SUBMISSION REQumEMENTS This section is to be included as part of the Design Review Appeal for 926 East Durant. 1. Enclosed is a Neighborhood Block Plan a 1" = 50'. 2. Enclosed is a Site Plan (reduced to llxI7). 3. Enclosed are Building Elevations at 1/8" - 1'.0". 4. Primary Mass is an existing condition, proposed new construction does not increase primary mass. 5. Enclosed are 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 findings. The guidelines we wish to appeal are as follows: A) Existing height is non-conforming therefore, new dormers are non- conforming. B) FAR Increase due to volume for glazing in the "no window" zone. A written explanation of our appeal is as follows: A) Height Non-Conformity: The interpretation of Staff, as we understand it, is that because of a change in zoning as it applies to height calculations since the original project was completed, causes the existing building to be in non-conformity. We wish to appeal this finding and/or waive the height requirement for the following reasons: 1. The height of the existing building is non-conforming only because the finish grade of a portion of the lowest level is below the previous natural grade. Grades at the North, East and West Elevations as well as grade directly in front of the lower level terraces on the South side do not contribute to the "N on- Conformity" . 2. The portions of the South Elevation that are below the previous natural grade are set back from the furthest south facade by 32-48 feet and set back from the street by 63-81 feet. Therefore creating very little visual impact on the street facing facade. I""' I""' Attachemnt 3 Specific Submission Requirements 926 East Durant Page 2 3. The proposed dormers added to the existing roof help to visually break up the mass of the main roof and lessen the severity of what is now considered a "non-conforming" element. If the dormer heights are reduced, more of the main roof mass will be visible. B. The interpretation of Staff, as we understand it, is that portions of the new dormers have glazing in some locations that is within the identified 9' to 12' above finished floor "No Window Zone" and therefore the FAR for spaces behind those locations must be counted twice. We wish to appeal this finding and/or waive the FAR increase for the following reasons: 1. The intent ofthis guideline, as we understand it, is to discourage large two-story glazing elements but not to discourage the use of dormers to break up roof mass or not to allow views and natural light. The portions of glazing in question (see Elevations) is minimal and part of upper level dormers. 2. Several of the glazing elements have sills above the floor level. Although they have glazing above the 9'-0" AFF height, the overall height of the window does not exceed 9'-0". 3. The result of deleting the glazing from these location is a possible reduction in the size of the dormers or eliminating them all together. This would detract from the overall design of the project and would not improve the intent ofthe Residential Design Guidelines. bbattch3.doc 0... IS ,.... ~ I i ! , ; '- . I , , ~; i i 1 . , , --' I ~ ; i1 I ,I , I! 1'1 II i !~ ~~l ! I : ~ , Iii l :il f '/I '---'I H ~ I, I, iI " ---I I ~ I I, I !I I r'1 .Jr- I \ :; 1 I " I " "'--j . I _~ I .,! :( I, i\j 1 \ I ! I, L \j i -, '^, (' ~ I t' { 1'-", ~~ / J \~J i I i A If I~.. ~i ii, \~ {J) l--~ ~\ \ '. \ \ \ \ i I 0; I i j i 1 , , , I \ , I I , I I ---::.=.:-----; r l ,\ I I \: j Ii ~ ~ \ .r ( ) , ~ i \ L ~ , (..... '\ I I"" 5, If "I i . ~'1 :::.r-' I , i T I i \ i i .,. _ , r - .... '\,...~ J r-- \ \ , I \ ~ r )(~-.....-...... :1 Ii, '\ \ ~ ) , \ , \1 \' \ \ \.6.. \> .< \ K) ! I r{J1 ! i '-:__ oS~~:::j I ", ----- *- ---~~::::;-~ i ~ I .... I \ 1 i I i I ...J j' ,-, z -(- -........ . I ~ I : : I .J C. ~ o n,~ I ~ I i i ,..; I i . ! i - i i I , '--- - --- - - ~ ;-----~t 1-- -~1 L---I 1 -.,: I ~, i I , - -----~ , I ! ~ ; -' / " 1 .~ ; :z < a:: ~ 'Il \ , , . I-_~-, ~l\ t '\ ! '-.----'H ~)'l I , - I ! I , I <. I I . / i ',c""___, - . I " , \; ~--1 )~. 1 : ;\--"""1.' ! i i i,..l , I : ~l' i I : ; ''-lj ! I 'I 1__..., 11~J ii\~, I! I \ --; -i ' : '::' ( ,I \~ ! : I ~--~ 'i v1\ U I : ! I I \ : : t , _ t ; : ( . I i \ : : \ '_/'~___..J "': ; : -~<.----i \\ -' '---..------ -" f, i f----- c ! , . ~---- ,-' . 'I ;",---..,J ( , ' . i I I \ I J r I 10 I ! i ; ~ - ~ , , , i \ I ~ ~ I : ! . t j ,: 'J '____-', - ----.... - r , ' , o ""' I I I i , .., I I I \ o 1 S 3~O o is ON3 o o ) 1 I II , , . , ~ , .... I ~I ~ . m "11 r )> z I !t I , . , i It-:- i 1 ' , '-. 1',: ~-- I. -..: I- .1 .. 1j..I' > .:-p . I I I I L-~l I- ~ - j ..:JI T - l " ~ -1 0( ~ . v/ :......:j- ,i ,. I. - . .. . . . I 100. .'l. .T~I... I,. ~~' - - I I ~ I t- ~p :12' '~ FC5")' , -1 -l.. I\,<! i,!jl. ; w..It' -!' ., . 1> '. m .. I -,. ~ IIII III , .C~ ,z . =< ~ :g in ~ Iii Cl . .1Jl11 . ~r ~ -,"m .~:o . ' m :0 . r 1> .; ~lI,a . UNIT 3 -4": TI c!] f 1. -- , ..1 IJ-:--~ m r. III - .+--'_ I ~ j - I I ~ ; i !m'\1 .~. : " 101.. ~ I . I~. 111 ""Im.i .~ , . ;g8 "m -:0 Zm Ci)o ..I~' r z I . .... I : l' ., I -J l ........ 1111" ....ri 'UNIT 4 ~ I ~ J ~ ~~T ~ -!b!11 2" ill .~ .. tn. ! c ~;I' ."'. "'fC:> '1. ,. .'_ ." , J .,.-: A.H. -~ r! : ~f ~ ~A :~.'l W'-1"~tT-:- . . ' 'I' . .1, . ., ._ " " I. j j I .. I, .! ~. j iii ~ 1 Ill. -If -= ,"s;; .... -l, i ~ ' ~ ~ - ~~ 1. 12'-0.. 6.-0.. "" .~ I I I ... ~II 0' ~II " , 'nl ~ m " o ~I " z ""'\ I I ; I I i ~l T , J: 1-- I I !!i ~ ~l ~I ~ '0 . ~l "1' , ~ '" D_ ." ~I Gl '" , I~ I I~ i 'I~ I ;g8 I . "m . -.' -:0 Zm Ci)o I : , , ( ., , ( .. I 1- o I L 0=- , c ---' 1 .~ .,. .,1.'1 _ ....1 . 'I ~. : ~ ~ . ~ ~ I ~ ~ I I I n .r n ~ -I. - ~ ...n r-; ,-, ,-, ,-, I.. , , . . ;t 6' I N ~ ~ . . I ~ II r d: <. ~ - o % .~ .n ~f l! I .-, ~ -, I