HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.drac.19990107DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION January 7, 1999
COMMISSIONER STAFF AND PUBLIC COMMENTS
CONFLICT OF INTEREST ...................................................................................................................................... 1
RIVER BLUFF TOWNHOUSE CONDOMINIUMS. 155 LONE PINE ROAD. UNITS #2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, ]0, 11
AND 12 -VOLUME STANDARD -WINDOWS .................................................................................................... 1
4
DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION January 7,1999
Chairperson Steve Buettow called the Design Review Appeals Commission
meeting to order at 4:12 p.m. with members Bob Blaich, Gilbert Sanchez, Roger
Moyer and Tim Mooney present. Mary Hirsch was excused.
Staff members present were Mitch Haas, Community Development, and Jackie
Lothian, Deputy City Clerk.
COMMISSIONER, STAFF and PUBLIC COMMENTS
Bob Blaich stated there was a list of DRAC projects and City Council and
Community Development were working on the revisions for Ordinance 30.
Roger Moyer said the new Community Banks Building street facing wall was only
concrete block, not very inspiring architecture, which received comments from the
public. He asked for clarification on the approval including brick on street facing
walls. Blaich noted the P&Z approval seemed to include brick. Steve Buettow
stated that Cap's was all concrete block. Mitch Haas said there were different
proposals with different banks, he'll look into the proposal.
Buettow asked for DRAC meetings to begin at 5:00 p.m. The members agreed.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
None.
PUBLIC HEARING:
RIVER BLUFF TOWNHOUSE CONDOMINIUMS, 155 LONE PINE
ROAD. UNITS #2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9,10,11 and 12 -VOLUME STANDARD -
WINDOWS
Mitch Haas, staff, stated the request was to pop-out the roof, gable and enclose the
balcony. The floor height was really about 6' to 7' instead of a 9' difference
because of the roof stepping down. He said the staff felt the design as proposed
would read as less than nine feet since it would be viewed from below, a very
steep hill. Haas noted if the variance requests were not approved, then maybe
something other than glazing would be used. The existing balconies filled with
snow from the current roof design sloughing or shedding the snow; this design
would shed snow to the side and was south facing providing more light. The
balcony would no longer exist but become part of the master bedroom floor area.
DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION January 7, 1999
Haas stated the original intent of the glazing standard was to preclude the
grandiose areas of glazing. This glazing did not extend from the first to the
second story of living space.
Gilbert Sanchez questioned the geometry of the gable form because there were
other ways to increase the height and windows. Yong, architect, replied that from
the ideas a more traditional era was being brought out to break up the exterior of
the facade. He said the overall height of the glazing, through the triangle, was less
than 9 feet. Yong noted the intent of the ordinance was met.
John Ginn, public, stated he was the developer of the project as well as a neighbor
and resident. He said they were not notified in time to get in on this meeting and
probably wanted to be on the next one. Some of the owners have proposed a
different cover over the balcony. Ginn provided photos with drawings on them;
he respectfully requested the meeting be tabled so other owners could study the
plans and be part of this application. Haas noted the other homeowners were too
late to be part of this application.
Ginn said the west wall would block the view of one of the units. Jerry Ginsberg
stated the issue that Mr. Ginn spoke about was an internal homeowners
association issue and not an ordinance 30 issue. Haas stated there couldn't be
glazing over 9' above the floor. Tim Mooney noted that if the other unit did not
do the remodel then the view would be blocked, but that was an internal issue not
a variance concern.
Sanchez stated the real purpose of the ordinance 30 issue was the relationship to
context. This building has it's own context, not in a neighborhood. He supported
the notion of the windows but found the architecture problematic. He felt that the
gables diminish from the integrity of the architecture and therefore he could not
support the variance request. Buettow agreed the Victorian element did not fit the
modern style of the building. Yong said there could be a more modern approach
by using different expressions of details.
Buettow noted a volumetric model or other line drawings would have helped the
board members understand the architecture. Roger Moyer stated this was a
window/glass issue and not a design issue. Sanchez stated these were design
issues. Blaich noted from prior meetings, that these discussions had helped
~, applicants re-design better projects.
2
DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION January 7.1999
MOTION: Bob Blaich moved to approve the variance from the
Volume provision of the Residential Design Standards as it applies to
the proposed remodel of Units 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the River
Bluff Townhouse Condominiums, as indicated in Exhibit A. These
approvals are based on a finding that the proposed design more
effectively addresses the issue or problem given standard or provision
responds to. Roger Moyer second. Roll call vote: Mooney, yes;
Sanchez, no; Moyer, yes; Blaich, yes; Buettow, yes. APPROVED 4-1.
Haas noted that next month the other 3 units would be coming before this
commission for the same request. Blaich asked why they had to go through the
process again instead of a staff sign-off. Haas noted the city attorney would have
to approve this process.
MOTION: Tim Mooney recommended the Community Development
director treat the future application of the next three units of the River
Bluff Townhouse Condominiums as an incidental sign-off knowing the
circumstances are exactly the same as to what was approved by DRAC
on January 7,1999. Roger Moyer second. APPROVED 5-0.
Meeting adjourned.
~• -
ckie Lothian, eputy City Clerk
3