Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19950627 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OVERLAY SUB-COP~ITTEE JUNE 27, 1995 Chairman Vickery opened the meeting at 4:00 p.m. and asked for roll call. Present were: Jake Vickery, Bruce Kerr, Donnelley Erdman. Excused were Robert Blaich, Roger Moyer, and Steve Buettow. COMMITTEE HE~BER COMMENTS There were no comments. STAFF HE~BER COMMENTS Amidon stated, I have one comment, this should be our last meeting. Vickery stated, there are some projects out there? Amidon stated, there are two that are sort of hanging; one of them is sort of across from Valley High, I think they were given some conditions they were supposed to work with Leslie and I on, and we haven't ever seen it. The other one is next door to Valley High, there was a garage up in the front, Bob Braden's property. He is supposed to be meeting with the Queen Victoria group at any time. I don't know exactly how we are going to resolve that one, but it is still hanging out there. Vickery stated, maybe, it could be referred to the new committee. Amidon answered, yes. Vickery asked, wasn't there one that Jack Hiller was doing? Amidon answered, yes, and I have that one with me. Kerr asked, can we discuss it? Amidon stated, well, I have inherited this project, so I actually wasn't sure it really needed to come back to you or not, so, I have it with me if you want to see it, but I've met with them about it. Kerr asked, do you have a model or something like that? Amidon answered, they gave us a doctored photo. Erdman asked, how are you going to constitute a new committee? Amidon answered, the ordinance actually said it would be 3 HPC members and 2 or 3 P&Z members, the same as this. I think P&Z has already possibly said who was going to do it, HPC hasn't talked about it. OVERLAY SUB-CO~ITTEE JUNE 27, 1995 PUBLIC COP~ENTS There were no comments. BELLOCK/MORRISON PROJECT Amidon of staff stated, actually, this is Hary's case, and I don't know where she is, so I'm scanning through this. It looks like the staff recommends that the project be revised; the front setback and the garage doors, possibly the garage should be separated as a detached structure. The proposed circular driveway in the front of the residence should be reduced. Stan Mathis represented the applicant, Chuck Bellock. Mathis said, I have read through the responses from staff, we are quandering here with the front yard setback versus the desire of the City, to be setback as far as we can in front of the Roaring Fork River. We modified what was previously approved through a Stream Hargin Review. We are back a greater distance in the new proposal. Hathis stated, as far as dividing the garage from the house itself, that is, I believe one of the directions that we tried to achieve on the west end, that doesn't work, at least in my opinion. However, we will eliminate the circular driveway. Erdman asked, where is the parking for the ADU? Mathis showed on the maps the area of the ADU parking. Kerr asked, where is it shown, Stan? Mathis stated, well, for some reason you "guys" are not looking at the same site plan that I am. Actually, Klm Johnson worked on this before Hary, and there has been sort of a leak here on staff members; I specifically delivered this site plan. There was some revision of the site plans and discussion at random. Erdman stated, staff has already made recommendations that the garage not be such a prominent feature as part of the main mass of the building. The 10 foot site plan, the circular drive is almost impossible, the turning radius is really tight, so I just wondered, what is being done with that? Hathis stated, we are going to eliminate that turnaround totally, and bring the driveway in around the north property line. 2 OVERLAY SUB-COP~ITTEE JUNE 27, 1995 Vickery stated, I'm lost, in terms of knowing where this thing is, this isn't a complete application, as far as I'm concerned. Hathis stated, I provided a complete application, and I have a letter that says so. The fact that we changed staff members, three times, is not my fault. Vickery stated, when we are talking about 78 feet, you are talking about the face of the garage wall? Hathis responded, 70 feet would probably be to the face of the garage. Vickery stated, so, to the face of the main building wall, that would be? Hathis answered, that would be more like another 24, all of 100 feet. Erdman stated, that 100 feet would be consistent with what else is going on in the neighborhood. Hathis stated, you can see on your site plan there is an indication of where the existing house sits now, and it's toward the river. So, I would say the face of the garage is probably 35 feet closer to the road than many of the houses down there, however, it's not the closest. Erdmann stated, it says here in terms of building form, all the guidelines are followed in the proposed structure, is that correct? Hathis answered, that is correct. Erdmann asked, and also in the architectural features, all the guidelines have been followed too? Hathis answered, yes. Kerr asked, staff brought up the circular drive, the entry, and the guest parking, and all that? I guess I'm not as troubled by the circular drive as it appears to be in front of the main entry where guests would pull in and park. I'm curious why we would eliminate the drive, and then leave the guests wondering where they are supposed to go. Amidon responded saying, I believe the reason that came up is because under driveways, in the general guidelines, it specifically says, we don't encourage circular driveways because it increases the amount of paving over. Kerr stated, I agree with not increasing the amount of pavement, but they also talk in the guidelines about entries, and how people get to the house, and if the drive is eliminated, then it is just kind of left out there in "no man's land". MOTION Erdman stated, I move that the Committee recommends the following changes to the Bellock/Horrison residence on Lot 6, of Red Butte Drive. The applicant will eliminate the circular drive entrance, as the applicant has agreed to do, and will redo the drive toward the north property line, that the point-of-entry into the house be 3 OVERLAY SUB-CO~ITTEE JUNE 27, 1995 emphasized as much as possible through use of both hard and soft landscape elements; that the prominence of the garage be reduced if at all possible by reducing the overhangs on the north and south to reduce the apparent size of the garage. Kerr seconded. Vote commenced, vote was unanimous in favor, motion carried. Discussion of Hotion Vickery stated, I support the motion. I find, and I'm not having too much trouble with the garage because it is a one-story mass, it seems that the mass is pretty well broken down. Anyway, those are my comments. ALLEN - E. FRANCIS STREET Amy Amidon of staff represented and stated, the project is in Oklahoma Flats, and staff has found that the project is not in compliance with the Neighborhood Character Guidelines for the following reasons: first, under mass and scale. The finish and character of the neighborhood was small-scale, single-family residences, this was changed to, generally, larger and often over- scaled residences. The house doesn't relate well to pedestrians on E. Francis Street or on Gibson Avenue, where a very small portion of the roofline may be visible to the street. The house steps up the hillside, presenting a three-story facade. In terms of building form, some houses in the area, new houses, have flat roofs, but it is staff's opinion, in this case, it adds somewhat less in residential scale of the project. In terms of architectural features, the entry level of the house is mostly garage door and there is not enought emphasis of where the entry itself lies. Again, in terms of garages, staff recommends that some effort be made to orient some of the garage in another direction. Stan Mathis presented for the owner, Doug Allen, stating, this is a fairly unusual little piece of property, a little irregular in its shape; we have some pretty severe topographical limitations. The property can only be accessed through the lower side of Francis Street extension (referring to site plan). The design proposes to build back into the hillside a little bit. Vickery asked, if you had to analyze how much of the site is 30% or less, what would you say? Hathis answered, probably 30% of that 4 OVERLAY SUB-COP~ITTEE JUNE 27, 1995 site is 30% or less. Vickery stated, in determining the amount of FAR for this, under the old code, would you just take the size of the site, and that's it? Hathis answered, that's right. Erdman asked, this is a duplex? Hathis answered, no, it is a single-family, with an ADU. Erdman asked, it's got four garages? Hathis answered, it's got four parking spaces. It was asked what zoning the property had. It was answered, it is R-15. Vickery asked if there were any other comments. Vickery stated, this whole slope thing isn't a factor on this house, under the old code? Hary Lackner of staff responded saying, if he applied before the revisions to the code, he is not subject to those. Vickery asked, how about maximum height "stuff". Lackner responded, they would have to comply under the code now. MOTION Kerr stated, in spite of finding (non-compliance) and staff's recommendation that the project be revised as proposed to meet a number of the Neighborhood Character Guidelines, we recommend that the applicant strongly look at those recommendations of staff; I make a motion to approve it, I guess. Erdman seconded. Voting commenced, vote was unanimous in favor, motion carried. Discussion of Motion Vickery stated, this says (referring to memorandum), "Staff recommends that the project be revised as described. In it's current form, the new residence does not meet the Neighborhood Character Guidelines, and should not be permitted to exceed 85% of the allowed FAR". Do you want to go with that, I would like it real clear? Kerr responded saying, my comment is, this is exactly the kind of house that we are trying to prevent, and somewhat, it is distressing that we have no means of dealing with it. The finding, which I think I did include in the motion, the finding that it's not in compliance, I know the public will say, how in the world did that thing get approved. Ail we can say is, we didn't approve it, but it slipped in. The applicant stated, if you go and look at this house when it is finished, it's going to be an award-winning architectural designed house. It is going to be much smaller visually than five new houses going in on this block right now, and physically it is much smaller than most of them. It is going to be in the hill, behind the trees, and on Gibson Avenue is it going to present a very low 5 OVERLAY SUB-COP~ITTEE JUNE 27, 1995 facade. I think you will have a totally different opinion when it is finished. Vickery stated, I would like to encourage you to articulate it a little bit more, in order to get some more interest. Break it up and play with it a little more, so it is not this long, continuous, consistent kind of treatment. Hathis stated, for the record, we did have a complete application, so there's no method in the future, that they could come back on this project. You "guys" only had one sheet, and I think that's important. (Some of the plans did not get into the member's packets, and so did affect the course of the meeting and presentations). Vickery stated, what I have seen, what was brought here and presented here today, is not a complete application. The applicant and Hathis stated they had submitted complete applications. Amidon stated, I think the problem here is that all these things were submitted to Klm and then Klm left here job, and somehow some of the items were lost. Perhaps, there was a mistake. Vickery stated, it's not the applicant's fault, and I don't think it's going to change the outcome either. The applicant stated, I want you to understand that we did everything exactly the way it is supposed to be done. Kerr stated, you did in terms of process, you submitted everything you were supposed to submit, but you didn't design the house according to Neighborhood Guidelines; so, in that sense, you didn't do everything that you should have done. The applicant stated, I disagree with you, Bruce, there are houses in that neighborhood that are more contemporary than this one, and there are four or five of them. JACK HILLER - 1103 WATERS AVENUE Amidon presented for staff and stated, again, this was Kim's project, but my understanding of the discussion was, that you wanted some more definition of entry, you wanted the garage doors to be recessed a bit more, and a landscaping plan. (Amidon presented a drawing and presented). It appears, as far as I can tell, to meet the conditions you have placed on it. Kerr stated, so all they have done is demonstrate to staff that they are complying with the conditions we have placed on their approval? Amidon answered, yes. They got conditions, they got an approval with conditions. Vickery stated, they did, are you sure? OVERLAY SUB-COMMITTEE JUNE 27, 1995 It wasn't just a tabling? Amidon checked with Kathy Strickland, the clerk regarding the minutes and responded saying, we can double-check that. Strickland asked, what address was it, and what meeting was it at? Erdman answered, it was two meetings ago, it was the first Tuesday in June. Amidon stated, I mislead them, I didn't realize that it had been tabled; what Klm had reported back to me was, that they had conditions, but it was supposed to be worked out by staff. So, that's why it's not on your agenda. There was discussion at random regarding the entranceway, and garage. Kerr stated, I think as just a matter of process it's unfair to make any kind of a decision one way or the other. As much as I hate it, and I may not be around to do it, I think it is only fair to the applicant, to deal with it fully. He may be able to come in and offer perfectly good explanations for what he has got. Erdman stated, all I can recommend, is that we try to bend over backwards; we're not having any more official meetings, can we do it in a worksession, just a short worksession? Amidon answered, yes, I guess you can establish whatever concerns you have and work it out in a worksession, unless you want to call a meeting back together. Erdman stated, a worksession is unofficial, so that's the problem here. Vickery stated, is there any way to pass this on to the new Committee? Amidon stated, that could be a slow process. I guess what you could do is say what your concerns are and it could be worked out at the staff level or with a small group, and if that's not satisfactory to the applicant, then we can come back in a meeting. Vickery stated, we asked that the entrance be moved out, he didn't move it out, but he did move the garage back. So, by doing that, what it does, it increases the setback. The clerk, Kathy Strickland stated, Jake, maybe I can help you. (Reading from previous minutes), you said that it was suggested that we move it out. Jack said, we cannot move it out, because we would have to drop the ADU. I think that's why that was discussed. Vickery stated, there is argument that they should get this 15%, then they don't get it. If they don't get the 15%, then they just have to go for whatever they want under the new code, or something like that. OVERLAY SUB-CO~ITTEE JUNE 27, 1995 Erdman asked, he didn't say what the new FAR was, so we have no idea? Amidon answered, this cover sheet says total maximum, every square foot. Erdman replied, still. Vickery stated, there is concern about the second floor decks? Kerr said, I had a concern about that as it creates a black hole on the street. Erdman stated, I'm most worried about the entry. Vickery stated, Bruce has raised the point that we shouldn't take any action on this, whatsoever. Erdman stated, I said we could take action, but whatever action we take is going to require a response from the applicant. Vickery stated, can we just make some recommendations, and then, pass the responsibility on to staff to follow through on the thing. MOTION Vickery stated, I make a recommendation to approve conditional on applicant, providing a much-structured approach to emphasizing the entry, perhaps by using structural log elements to create an arcade. Reorganize the landscape plan by site landscaping elements which help to frame the entrance pathway and move the trees in such a way, not to obscure the front door, but to enhance its access. We recommend that staff follow through on these recommendations, and any questions regarding can be returned to the new Appeals Committee. Kerr seconded. Vote commenced, vote was unanimous in favor, motion carried. Meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Carrillo, Deputy City Clerk OVERLAY SUB-CO~ITTEE JUNE 27, 1995