Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19950727 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL BOARD JULY 27, 1995 In attendance were: Steven Buettow, Robert Blaich, Marta Chaikovska, Roger Moyer, Jake Vickery and Sven Alstrom. ELECTION Hoyer nominated Steve Buettow for Chairman. Blaich seconded. There were no other nominations. Voting commenced, vote was unanimous in favor, motion carried. Moyer nominated Jake Vickery for Vice-Chairman. Alstrom seconded. There were no other nominations. Voting commenced, vote was unanimous in favor, motion carried. BOARD COMMENTS Blaich asked, who is the alternate? Amy Amidon of staff answered, Marta. Vickery stated, I have one comment, maybe, at some point, if we could have some kind of a training session, or something like that. Amidon responded, we are actually planning on doing a joint training session of HPC and P&Z on August 22, or something like that. So, we are going to do that. Vickery asked, what is our meeting schedule, basically, is it once a month, twice a month? Amidon stated, my understanding, from the ordinance, which I don't have in front of me, says that you will meet once a month; I think it says on a Thursday. I suppose we can go with Thursdays, if everyone wants to. The HPC members have said before they want to meet at 3:00 p.m., that they didn't want anymore night meetings, and you all said 4:00 p.m. was the earliest you could be here. Is that what we want to do? Vickery stated, the Board meeting Thursday is really important to me. DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL BOARD JULY 27, 1995 ~idon stated, well, for now, we'll stick with Thursdays at 4:00 p.m. Vickery asked, is that the second Thursday of the month? Amidon stated, I guess so. I think we are going to try to hold to only one meeting a month. Hoyer stated, in regards to issues that are brought before the Design Review Appeal Board, is there public notice? Amidon answered, no. Hoyer stated, public notice is not required? Amidon replied, no. PUBLIC COP~ENTS There were no public comments. 1225 SNOW-BUNNY LANE Amy Amidon of staff presented and stated, we met with the architect team a few weeks ago and discussed with them that their design did not meet the building orientation requirement; that a primary mass of building be parallel to the street they face or on a curvilinear street, it has to tangent to the mid-point of the arch. Amidon stated, they have presented a number of drawings. Their representation is that for a duplex, given to the fact that their site is somewhat pie-shaped, with the setbacks and all, they can't meet that standard. Leslie and I reviewed it and we find that it may, in fact, be difficult for them to meet the letter of the law on the standard, but that there is opportunity for them to rotate the building somewhat to become more parallel to the street. That may not be true of the current design, it may require as much as reducing these to single stall garages. One other possibility that I talked to Chuck Roth about was that the two bedrooms could be sort of stacked where the driveways would come in from either side. We thought that that might be an acceptable solution; at least it is another option. 2 DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL BOARD JULY 27, 1995 Amidon continued stating, our recommendation is that we grant a variation of that design standard, but with the condition that the home be rotated somewhat more to be more in keeping with the standard. Janver Derrington made the applicant's presentation and presented maps of the site, photographs showing the adjoining house, now and after photographs of the proposal, and the house on the opposite side of the street. He presented a petition from neighbors requesting the preservation of a hedge of lilacs that surround the Snowbunny site. (Petition attached in record.) Derrington stated they intended, and always did intend, to preserve the lilac hedge. He stated, we have shown in this scheme of loop drive, and we have no problem with one of the recommendations in Amy's memorandum of eliminating that to just one. He stated, the house was in keeping with the neighborhood character, the need for a two-car garage, and that they had done their best to preserve as many of the existing trees as they could. Blaich asked, Amy, when you suggested rotating it, did you know that was going to be in conflict with the setbacks? Amidon stated, that's why I said, we're suggesting to rotate this design, that it was going to have to be modified somehow. She showed on the maps what she suggested. Derrington stated, then, I'm confused, because that is completely at odds; that's going the other direction, that's facing farther away from the street still. Amidon stated, well, it says the primary mass of the building has to be tangent to the arch, so, you would be in compliance that way. A suggestion was made by Vickery but Derrington made an argument against it, stating that there was no realistic way to configure it without completely destroying any usable back yard. (The clerk apologizes, but the tape was not clearly audible during these comments, so editing was done.) Buettow stated, I just made a sketch of their design and turned it, just as Jake suggested, and I lined it at this part of the site, right over here, which pretty much complies with the regulation, and it is pretty much the mass of the building actually within the 3 DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL BOARD JULY 27, 1995 setbacks. There was discussion between the Board and the applicant regarding Buettow's sketch. Hoyer asked, Amy, we're only looking at, then, the orientation of the building and the situation of the garages, correct? Amidon answered, right. Hoyer asked, and you feel that the building is compatiable with the neighborhood mass and scale, and the neighborhood character guidelines fit in? Amidon anwered, no, we're not using the neighborhood character guidelines at all. Ordinance 30 has a certain set of standards that relate to not having more than 70% of the whole building varied, and reflection, and all those things. We're not discussing neighborhood character or architectural style, or anything like that. Hoyer stated, we don't even have the specifics, or at least I didn't. I'm still dealing with HPC and the neighborhood character guidelines, and looking at this building in regards to those and the existing neighborhood it's abortion, but if we're not dealing with those, then, it's fine. Stan Clauson of Community Development stated, Roger, if I may, let me amplify that. What we have done, and possibly the memorandums that are sent out need to be adjusted in the manner that we present them by showing you the way in which all the other standards, checklist standards, are met. Hoyer stated, you see, we haven't been briefed. This is our first meeting. Clauson stated, this is a kind of working out for all of us. Moyer stated, the only thing I'm doing is how it relates to HPC, and how we look at things, which is different. Clauson stated, the purpose of this is to provide relief from the specific design standards which cannot be met by a particular proposal. In this case, Amy and staff review the applicant's drawings and find that they have met the design standards that are specified by Ordinance 30, with the exception of, the particular 4 DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL BOARD JULY 27, 1995 standards that have been pointed out, the curvilinear street, the principle mass of the building. That's really the issue that is before us. Philosophically, what Council and the work that was done that established Ordinance 30 was attempting to do, was to rule out some of the ambiguity from the neighborhood character guidelines and replace them with a set objective design standards which would be clearly able to be met, or not able to be met, and reviewed by staff for the requirements. In the case where they would not be able to be met, this committee, the Design Review Appeal Board, has the responsibility to look at that particular standard in light of the three possible reasons why it might waive the standards in each case. So, essentially, what the charge is to the committee, is to see if it is appropriate to waive that particular standard, if not, then, the committee will not waive the standard and the applicant would be required to re-design the project in such a way as to meet the standards. Hoyer asked, Amy, has the neighborhood community around this structure objected at all, was there a public notice? Amidon responded, no, there's no public notice at all. There wasn't for the neighborhood character guideline review, either. Buettow stated, the reason I did that sketch there was because the way I saw this issue was; Amy said their review revealed that the project complied with all the regulations except for the way the building is set on the site. In their letter there, they said that the site constrained their design, so, I just "tweeked" it around to see if it actually would fit. So, the way that I see it is that we can see from my sketch, that pretty much, the building fits on the site with the changing of the orientation, with the exception of a few encumbrances, which would require a side-yard setback. So, if the committee is comfortable with requiring that versus the line up the way it is, is kind of how it needs to be resolved. Blaich stated, you said this building was designed before? Derrington replied, we were designing it prior to going through the hearings, and we probably had everything all put together, then they treated us tangent to the Board and the arch, and all that "stuff", and at the last minute, it was a last minute addition, which kind of caught us off-guard. We were going to try to work with these guidelines and we thought we had it all put together 5 DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL BOARD JULY 27, 1995 until that last minute addition. We thought it was a good site plan regardless, because it reflects the angle of the adjoining house to the street and it protects the rooms with a nice yard with a big lilac hedge in it, and mature Spruce trees, and so forth. Alstrom stated, well, before I reach a conclusion, I would vote for tabling today, because I would look procedurally to see what staff's response to each of the design standards are. Because I think once it reaches the Appeal Committee we should be looking to see if it is in compliance with all of the design standards, in spite of the staff ruling that says that they are. So, I'd like to see some more proof that its met the other design standards, before it reaches the Appeal Committee. I do agree that, similar to other appeal committees, unless we have a good reason, otherwise, it is kind of like a hardship case. That's kind of how I feel about this particular case in front of us. Amidon stated, this is just a brief reminder, this is not like the Board of Adjustments where you have a hardship, it is somewhat different. Alstrom stated, it is still an appeal, so, I'm not convinced that this requirement couldn't be met, looking at the documents we have, and Steve's proposal. Hoyer stated, if the neighborhood itself and all the people around it, don't object, I would probably not be too concerned. But what I am saying, if I was in the neighborhood and looking at this, I would find it pretty objectionable and I would wonder, that all the things that we have been doing all these years, how this managed to get through because it doesn't seem to have much to do with all the work that we did on the neighborhood character guidelines, and all the design seminars we went through etc., etc., I am questioning why I am even sitting here as I look at this, and secondly, I just don't understand where we are going if this is what we are going to get. I thought we were going to get a lot better, and even though you have the argument in this neighborhood that there are a couple of things like this already designed, but just grossly overscaled, everything else around them, the neighborhood has changed. If the neighborhood wants to go that direction, I have no objection to that, but if the neighborhood doesn't, then I would table it and I would would really want to know how it got this far, and how we can save neighborhoods in the future. DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL BOARD JULY 27, 1995 Vickery asked, is there anybody here from the public to speak to this issue? Howie Mallory stated, I live across the street and I'm a little confused about the process because I have seen the agenda, it shows that the public is able to speak, but there has been no public notice that there is the opportunity to speak, and clearly, no one's here from the area because they didn't know anything about it. I'm only here because I happened to run into Roger, so, it's really by coincidence. Hallory stated, in commenting on the design, one way or the other, that is a serious admission on your part. I'm not personally clear on the total approval process that goes on down the line from here. What does bother me, a little bit, perhaps by some confusion, but nonetheless, by virtue of any citizen who lives in the area, I'll express my opinion. The expectation of the neighborhoods is that there is a neighborhood characteristic guideline, and you say that's not being adhered to, we're not applying this in this case; I'm dismayed and confused why that is not being done, because that was the whole intent behind the creation of Ordinance 30. That was the momentum behind the Ordinance 30. So, the public has to be informed, and you have to explain to the public why the neighborhood characteristic guidelines are not going to be complied with. Derrington stated, there was a public hearing on Ordinance 30, there were several meetings and I attended all of them, and a lot of people spoke. This is not intended to be like a neighborhood, subdivision design review board that's impowered to decide whether shingles or shakes, or metal roof, or whatever it is that they want; that isn't what this committee is about. They are to review the standards that are set forth in Ordinance 30. Derrington added, if the staff reviews this and says that you are in compliance with all of these; and we worked on the drawings where we have minimum required setbacks of the garages, we had the percentage of the frontage of the house to the garage, and the percentage of the one-story element to the mass of the building, and the changes of breaking up the principle mass of the building, etc., etc.; but these are all met, and if we had met this other guideline, we wouldn't be here, you wouldn't even see it, and we DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL BOARD JULY 27, 1995 would be done. That's the way the ordinance is written, and now if that's a flaw in the ordinance, that isn't our fault. Clauson stated, let me respond to some of the things that Howie has stated because I think it is important to get a perspective on this and recognize that this is the first meeting on a complicated and new procedure. The design guidelines are no longer a factor on reference any portion of the ordinance. So, that needs to be understood. It might be helpful to the committee, when you are evaluating it, whether or not the standard should be waived, but as far as this committee being a general design review committee, that possibility was weighed among other various alternatives when the ordinance was developed and it was rejected. Council, based on testimony that they received, did not opt for a general design review committee which would function based on the neighborhood character guidelines. What they chose instead was a set of design standards which were devised to help address some of the most significant issues that were identified in respect to buildings. (The clerk apologizes, but some specific words were not audible due to traffic noises during Mr. Clauson's comments, so, therefore, I hope Mr. Clauson's comments are understood.) The committee is really in a position to find relief. I think two suggestions were made; one, that we provide the entire record of how the standards are met, and that will certainly happen in the future meetings forthcoming. The other suggestion, which was Howie's, that some kind of notice be provided, that clearly state, a newspaper notice, that the Design Review Appeal Board was considering on the cases, is probably a point well taken, and one that we will see if we can comply with. Those two suggestions, and no doubt, other suggestions that arise as we muddle through, will be listened to. Amidon stated, I think Stan's covered it, but I just wanted to clarify that the document, the neighborhood character guidelines, is no longer on the table, but the new standards do ask you to respect the existing neighborhood; being one-story when your neighbor is one-story, or aligning setbacks, things like that. So, it's still there. Alstrom stated, I think that this should be part of the record that we prefer, in being an appeal, that's sort of the last public opportunity with regard to what Roger is saying. I think the committee should, perhaps, make a resolution to City Council to require public meetings. DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL BOARD JULY 27, 1995 Chaikovska stated, I agree about the public notice, this is an appeals process, but I'm a little unclear about going over other standards, whether they have been or not. As I understand it, the ordinance provides that staff goes through those, and the purpose of Ordinance 30 is to make it more objective than we had before. For us, I don't think that it is our position, unless the ordinance has changed, for us to review the standards that they have already reviewed and approved, because that would mean that we would have a say in whether or not other things should be changed or not. This strikes me, today, at least, that we have one issue, and one issue only, unless the ordinance has changed, and that is, does this come under the review of these three points, and could we, or could we not, provide these people a variance. Ail the other issues are irrelevant; there is no public notice requirement right now, so they are not required to go back and do a public notice and if we want to do that let's go back and change the ordinance, but it's not fair to an applicant to come here now and have different rules set up than what we had set up by the ordinance as we speak. Buettow stated, I'm just thinking along the line of what Harta said, and that our choices are either to accept the project as it sits on the site and has been presented by the applicants, or require it to be turned and come into compliance with Ordinance 30, and as we see on the schemes; it can be with a few "tweeks", you know, it probably would require the applicant to go for a variance, and slightly change his design around. Those seem to me to be the choices, and so, other things, do we have enough information to make that choice, and do we want to make that choice? Vickery stated, I have one question, and I want to bring this back into focus and then see if we can move on and make a resolution. In the new Ordinance 30, what are the rules regarding garage doors and driveways, and frontyards, isn't there a requirement in there? Amidon replied, the garage has to be 10 ft. behind the front facade of the building or the garage doors have to be perpendicular to the street. Alstrom stated, what I am really saying, as a reviewer on the Board, is that if I am voting on this today, I would vote against the exception, and I'd really prefer the applicant to table and DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL BOARD JULY 27, 1995 show us the footprint modified to fit the orientation requirement; if I had documentation of how well it passed on the other standards, I would be more prepared, but at this time I'm strongly against it. Derrington stated, all of these things were discussed in a public hearing, and one thing that was discussed, was when it looked like you were going to be tossed around from committee to committee, and you are going around like a ping-pong ball on a pin ball machine affect; Stan specifically said that was not their objective and the Board was not to be as hard-lined as others; P&Z and the HPC, and so forth. Staff reviews these things, it is not a matter of how well you comply with this, it is did you, or didn't you. That's it, and there's no scoring mechanism. Derrington stated, we have met the spirit of this. Clauson stated, may I respond to this, because I think it's necessary. First of all, with respect to the manner in which staff scores the checklist; staff does not score the checklist, that is, there is no plus or minus or anything applied to the manner in which the project that comes before staff needs to give the design standard; it simply does or doesn't. To the extent that there is a record, the record will show, for example, in respect to the garage being set back 10 ft. from the principle facade elevation; yes, this garage is set back from the principle facade elevation, period. So, you won't get anything more than that from the record. Clauson continued stating, the second thing is, that with respect to the ping-pong affect. We have hired any board or commission that would see a project in the course of a review of an application to waive the design standards in the same manner this Board would if they felt that the goals met. If the project were, because of the variance request of adjustment, the Board of Adjustment might grant variances, also waive a specific design standard because they thought in the context of the project that that was the thing to do. So, it would not be necessary to go first to one, and then the other. Clauson added, it seems to me that in this case, there are three factors; there's the design of the structure, there's the nature of the site, and there are the rules that apply to them. You have the ability to waive the rules for certain reasons, the site is pretty much given, the site of the structure can always be changed. So, 10 DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL BOARD JULY 27, 1995 it's really up to the committee to decide whether changing the rule or requesting a design to be re-structured or modified. Howie Hallory asked, is there any more public comment? Vickery stated, yeh, go ahead, Howie. Hallory stated, I appreciate your discussion, but I think, in context of this being an appeal process, which to me is implicit requiring public input, that your ordinance is flawed by having a requirement to have a public notice, because there is no way the neighborhood can see how you grade it with respect to the tests, whatever characteristics, neighborhood character guideline characteristics are. I think you are eliminating a critical element of the whole intent behind the neighborhood character guidelines by not allowing the public to see the process that you have already gone through. So, again, that's why I would request that you table it, so at least the public feels like it has had a chance to accept that you, Amy, and your department, have represented the neighborhood. There's no way that the neighborhood feels that you have represented them; there's no way they know that you have, let's put it that way. Vickery stated, anyone from the public that wanted to speak speak to this issue, has spoken, is that true? (There was no response.) O.K., let me bring it back to the committee. Derrington stated, I have a few points I would like to make. Vickery stated, Jan(ver), I think we have had enough, O.K. I want to bring it back to the committee; I think we understand your arguments and issues, here. Derrington stated, O.K. Vickery stated, number one, there are five things that are on my mind, right now. They have been brought up in this discussion; I think they are all important things to look at. Vickery continued saying, first of all, I think the Board needs to look and see if it is clear enough on its purpose at this time to be able to move forward on, really, any issues at all. I mean, are we clear enough on what the standards are, and I think we need to look at that and say, yes we are, or no, we aren't. 11 DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL BOARD JULY 27, 1995 Secondly, the issue of public input. I think public input is important, however, we can sit in judgement, I think, of what is before us because we are mainly focused on the site specific constraints that are operating here, that are restricting the applicant from conforming to the standards that are established. Vickery stated, in regards to the ping-pong affect, another reason that you would have to be required to go to the Board of Adjustment is because you don't change your design; well, like he is, if it necessitated a design change of some sort to accommodate the standard or the rule that's applicable. There might be some consideration for the applicant in the fact that this is a new set of rules, that there were some projects that were kind of in the design pipelines, so to speak, and maybe they haven't had adequate time, and there is an issue of fairness to them because of the implementation of the new rules. Vickery continued, the fifth thing I want to do is bring it right back to the specific standard that is involved here, which is the orientation of the structure towards the street. With that, I would like to kind of poll the Board. Does the Board feel that they are clear on their purpose at this time, and can move forward and vote on this issue? Blaich stated, I do. Chaikovska stated, yes. Buettow stated, yes. Alstrom, yes, with some reservation on the public notice. I would like to see us make a resolution on the public notice issue. Vickery stated, O.K., I'll take that as a, yes. The public input, right now; Howie, it is a very good suggestion, but until the tone has changed we can make a recommendation, and so forth. If the Board feels that they will be getting new information from the public that they don't already have; do you feel that way, or do you feel you have enough information in terms of the site plans in the applicant's presentation? 12 DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL BOARD JULY 27, 1995 Hoyer stated, I think there are two issues with public notice. The first is, I think that staff, as they go through the process, should have public notice, so that the public can come in and talk to Amy or Leslie, and say, we have these concerns about this project, and that input can be put into a judgement as far as dealing with the specifics. Then, the applicant goes to appeal, the public is already on notice and will be sent a notice that the applicant is coming to appeal, and then, the public can make comments to the Board. I think that's imperative; to me, the process is grossly flawed, so, I will make a resolution tonight, from this Committee, to Council, that public notice is a requirement. So, those are my comments. Alstrom stated, I agree with that. Vickery asked Buettow, do you agree with that? Buettow answered, yes, definitely. Vickery asked, what about the action before us tonight? Blaich stated, I would like to speak to that. I think the ordinance says, it is, as it is, and if you haven't read it, I think that's a mistake on someone's part, not to be familar with it before coming to the meeting. I think in all fairness to this project, I think we should vote on it, it can go several ways, and if it is voted down they're going to have to come back with change in design, and if the public notice is then, going to be put forth, we'll have that input. I really don't think we should table it, based upon the rules that we are supposed to live under, right now. That's my comments on it. Alstrom stated, I think the building is fairly affirmative, the rules are fairly temporary, so, I'm obviously opposed to approving an exception for this orientation requirement for this project, at this time. Blaich stated, I state for clarification, I said we have to vote on it. Buettow stated, the compliance with the particular item in the codes, is that this project is definitely not in compliance, the way I see it, because I explored the site, and I turned the design myself, I do see a way it can come into compliance with just minor variations in the design. 13 DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL BOARD JULY 27, 1995 Vickery stated, do you feel like you need to table it to get public input, or do you feel you have enough input to make a decision? Buettow stated, well, I prefer some public input from the neighbors but that's not within the ordiance, right now, so, yes. Derrington asked Clauson, do I understand you to say, that you have empowered committee to waive the setback requirements, if they feel that is a justification. Clauson answered, no. Derrington asked, then how do you avoid the ping-pong affect? Clauson stated, if you go to the Board of Adjustment, because you feel you have hardship that justifies a variance and are granted a variance, but at the same time there is a design standard that is also an issue, the Board of Adjustment may provide relief on that design standard. Vickery stated, I'm going to take that as a "yes", from the Board as a whole, O.K., to go forward. Third thing is, the fact that this is a new set of rules, a new kind of board, and does there want to be latitude towards the applicant on the basis of the fact that he had some design efforts going on prior to the enactment of the law, or whatever. Anybody have any feelings about that? Buettow stated, the tangent to the circle in the arch has always been in there, and I happen to know that this applicant has come forward in meetings and he spoke. Vickery stated, so, that was in the proposed ordinance from the very beginning? Alstrom stated, they are asking for an exception, so, they have decided to go to the wire on this issue, and basically, I'm saying no, on that issue. The building's permanent, this process is being worked out; I realize they are a new applicant, but due to the lack of public input, I just have to say, the permanance of the building weighed against no public input, I've got to stick up for the neighborhood fairness, even though this applicant is in the middle of the process. Vickery stated, so, O.K. can I interpret that generally as a "yes" to go forward, if the feeling is that the applicant has had adequate time to respond to these new rules? The rules have been out there long enough to be public knowledge, everybody's O.K. with that? There were no comments from the commission. 14 DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL BOARD JULY 27, 1995 Vickery stated, we have three standards, a, b, and c. I'll just read them: The committee may waive design standards when one of the following criteria are met; a. yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan; b. more affectively address the issue or problem at given standard or provision response to; or c. clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraint. So, I think it's our job to make a finding relative to those three standards addressing the issue of the alignment to the street. MOTION Blaich stated, I move to grant a variation of the residential design standards for building orientation finding that the shape of the parcel presents specific restraints with the following conditions: the low axis of the home shall be rotated in a counter clockwise direction, and only one curb cut shall be provided for access to the garages. Hoyer seconded. Voting commenced, vote was 4 in favor, one opposed (Alstrom), motion carried. Discussion of Motion Blaich stated, I would like to say something about why I'm supporting staff on this, that is, if we do get feedback from the neighborhood it is going to be on issues that are different than this; whether this house is perpendicular to the street or not, I suspect this is not going to be one of the biggest issues, it is whether the house is appropriate scale, size, design, all the other things, which we're not dealing with. I've been to the site, I've looked at the neighborhood; I don't live in the neighborhood, but I think it is an appropriate house for that neighborhood, in terms of the design. It isn't an issue for me because that that's not what we are dealing with. 15 DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL BOARD JULY 27, 1995 Hoyer stated, part of the process is also how the structure relates to the streetscape, and I'm wondering if the landscape might not be looked at before I continue. In our other committee we could make a recommendation or a condition that could be worked out between the applicant and staff, or can that be done here, as well? Here's what I was thinking of, as we focus on the structure, we don't the garage or driveway, particularly driveways, to be dominant. Another part is dealing with landscaping, I notice that these two garages have a division between them and I was wondering if some landscaping could be used between the divisions to soften the affect on the garage. Vickery stated, so, basically, we have a motion and seconded. This motion really responds to criteria ~c., clearly necessary for reasons of fairness or unusual site specific constraints. Amidon stated, before you vote on that, maybe you should be more specific about what rotated further means exactly, since Leslie, Stan, or I are the ones who will look at this thing and sign a building permit. Alstrom stated, we can say, more in compliance with the requirement for orientation to 3rd Street. Amidon asked, five or six inches? Blaich stated, my feeling was that that was a staff decision to work it out with the architect and the developer. Hoyer stated, if it can't be worked out, then, they have to come back. Blaich stated, part of the reasons I support that rotating, is the less obvious those garages are, the better. The more you can rotate that house on the property, the less you are going to see the confrontation of the garages and the parking on the street on the street side. Vickery stated, I want to be sure which way you are rotating the duplex. Derrington held up his drawings and stated, this is the original, we feel that that brings the garages from the street more effectively. 16 DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL BOARD JULY 27, 1995 Blaich stated, well, I said in my motion that there was confusion from staff whether it should be southeast, southwest, and you have to clarify that. Amidon stated, we were suggesting that instead of turning the garages so that they were more visible to the street, that the building be turned so that they were less visible to the street. Hoyer stated, it is interesting, because, even this little orientation gets down to overall design. So, ultimately, you come down to overall design, and basically, as far as the neighborhood goes, it doesn't work. Now, if the neighborhood doesn't object, then, they can do what they want to do. But the overall design, from what I see, and all the things we've worked on for years, this building doesn't work. Alstrom stated, I agree with that. Hoyer stated, that's why you are having a problem deciding which way to put it. I'm not here to design a building. Alstrom stated, if the committee would look at rear yard that goes with the two orientations, I think I would like to speak in support of what Roger said, that we do on an appeal, need to look at all the criteria, because if you look at the rear yard, we are supposed to be looking at the street orientation, but if you look at the rear yard created by both schemes, I think that the scheme that we are saying we like better creates a better rear yard, in addition to, better street orientation. That's why I think we need to be able to look at all issues. Blaich stated, well, if I can respond to that; you are asking for changes in the ordinance. Alstrom stated, what I am saying is, what kind of rear yard is being created by the changed orientation. I would say this looks like a better rear yard, to me. Amidon stated, but there's nothing in the checklist that discusses the quality of someone's open space. Vickery stated, let me bring it back for a second; I think, first of all, we need some clarity on the motion. Let's talk about the 17 DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL BOARD JULY 27, 1995 long axis of the structure and let's talk about you want the axis rotated more toward the southeast, which is the lower right hand side of the sheet, or the long axis rotated more to the southwest, which is the lower left hand side of the sheet. I think that needs to be clear. Vickery stated, as it is worded right now, let's say, long axis, southwest or southeast. This is moved southeast of what was previously, the long axis is southeastly rotated of what was previously submitted. Amidon stated, we have a clock-wise or counter clock-wise suggestion from the audience. Chaikovska stated, does it really matter which way the door is? They need to see which one works better, do you care which way it orients? Amidon stated, well, it's not my decision, but it affects how much of the garage is seen. Vickery stated, Well, I think the major entrance to the units are to the sides of the garage, true? Derrington stated, yes. Vickery stated, so, I'm assuming that if you turned it clockwise, more towards the southwest, you've got to be talking about this other design now. This one here. (Referring to drawings.) If you would turn that, you would be bringing the easterly wing of this thing down in such a way to somewhat bury the front door of the westerly unit. I should think, the way I would read the standard, you want to get the front doors facing frontal to the street, and that would indicate to me the counter clockwise rotation that is suggested in the other plan be drafted. Blaich stated, I think the other point, if you studied the photographs; as a matter of fact, I was just over there again today, and some of those photographs were taken earlier, I think, because the foliage isn't as thick as it is now, really it is hard to see anything on this property, and you are pushing the house back from the existing house. It is hard to see the existing house with the foliage. Clauson stated, so, the real issue, it seems, is screening the garages and maintaining the entries on the street, which it is 18 DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL BOARD JULY 27, 1995 important that the landscape plan address that, which it seems to do. Vickery stated, we need to move forward at this point, we have a motion, seconded, on the floor. Does anyone re-state the motion? This is what I think the motion is, and correct me if I am wrong, please. I move to grant a variation of the residential design standards for building orientation finding that the shape of the parcel presents a specific constraint with the following condition: the low axis of the home shall be rotated in a counter clockwise direction and only one curb cut shall be provided for access to the garages. Vickery asked, is that accurate, and ready for a vote? NOTION ON RESOLUTION Hoyer stated, before Howie leaves, before the next applicant comes, I would like to do two things. First of all, I would like to make a resolution from this committee that staff takes to Council, that public input be taken during the process of the appeal, and that public input be taken at the Design Review Appeal Board meeting, as part of the process and that be part of Ordinance 30. I so move, that resolution to the City Council, from staff, from this Committee, asking for public input. The motion was seconded. Discussion on Notion Chaikovska stated, this would be that everybody who is building a house must come for public notice? There were answers at random stating only those coming for design review. Chaikovska stated, O.K. then, you have to be specific, because you said, up for review. Hoyer stated, up for appeal. Chaikovska stated, all those that are up for appeal must be publicly listed, is what you asking it to be amended to. Hoyer stated, part of that motion is two parts. One, if people are going to come for appeal, before staff comes in here, staff has talked to the public. Haybe, it doesn't need to be that. Chaikovska stated, no, just for appeal, I would think. Otherwise, you are reviewing every single thing that they are reviewing, by the public. 19 DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL BOARD JULY 27, 1995 Clauson asked, Roger, would it be sufficient if we were simply to provide a notice in the newspaper and state that the Design Review Appeal Board is meeting at such-and-such a date. Hoyer stated, no, I think it has to go to the neighborhood, at least, posted on the property. Amidon stated, maybe, that's the better way to do it, not the newspaper, but posted on the property. Vickery stated, some sort of standard form of a notice in the paper, say a week before the meeting, and have the property posted a week before the meeting, or something like that. One of the things about the public noticing, at least in the old committee, the idea was that if this committee would be very efficient and not get behind this public noticing thing, which drags projects out at 30 or more days, and be able to really better serve people by not getting underneath all that "stuff" I think this committee needs to look at whether or not they have an expertise to make the kinds of judgements that are required to meet these three standards or criteria, and what benefit would public noticing be, that you couldn't otherwise anticipate. We're not granting variances. AMENDED HOTION ON RESOLUTION Hoyer stated, I move that this Committee send a resolution to City Council and that the Resolution state that all applicants coming before the Design Review Appeal Board have sufficient public notice so that the public of that neighborhood can respond. Hy suggestion is that the notice be done on a board, as all notices are, on site, and in the newspaper at a sufficient time before the meeting to let the public know that that is happening, or however staff wants to notify. The motion was seconded. Voting commenced, vote was unanimous in favor, motion carried. Hoyer stated, I would like to address Howie on another issue. Howie, I think, two issues. One, we are cast in a very unusual position, however, I think it is the neighborhood's responsibility, from associations, strengthen themselves so that these gastly projects do not affect the entire neighborhood. If the neighborhood is not interested in doing that, then, you are going to get more duplexes and tri-plexes, and so on, that affect the area. I think the neighborhoods have to organize, form your own association, your own guidelines. 20 DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL BOARD JULY 27, 1995 Alstrom stated, in fact, and Stan could correct me, but you could, in fact, appeal the issue to City Council. Hoyer stated, yes, in fact, the neighborhood could carry this on, if you wanted to. They are going to use the argument that you've already got one down the street, so, they are going to build another one. But the neighborhood could say, we've got one, we don't want anymore, and what are you "guys" going to do about it; you spend all this time and money on these Design Review Committees and we're still getting the same crap that we had before, that caused all this to happen in the first place. To me, I find this totally offensive to be sitting here, and to look at something that is totally inappropriate, totally inappropriate, it blows my mind. There was discussion at random among the Committee members regarding the Ordinance 30, neighborhood character guidelines, and City Council. Vickery stated, I think this whole deal of having a driveway come through the front yard and having these big garage doors in front is totally against the things we have been working for. This is a diagram just to demonstrate, that, it is incredibly easy, in this particular plan, because all you do is put the garage doors on the opposite side of the building, and move it a little bit. You bring the driveway in, small driveway in the back here, access the back with the same identical garage as from the opposite side. By doing that, capture a real nice front yard, a usable front yard, and somehow get the articulation of where the entries are coming from the street. I think the real problem with this building was this whole business (showing on drawings), as opposed to coming back in a secondary place back in here. Alstrom stated, I really think what Jake just showed you is that, there are reasons, that on appeal, we should look at other issues. Clauson stated, Jake, let me go on record in saying that, there's nothing stopping you from simply turning something down, and saying, you're trying to force this footprint onto a site that doesn't accommodate it, and you are asking us to waive a standard; go back and do a different footprint. Vickery stated, I bet you he is thinking (applicant), well, I wonder if I can take what out of this Appeal Board to the Board of 21 DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL BOARD JULY 27, 1995 Adjustment, saying, heh, these "guys" made me do this, I need a variance on this side. Chaikovska stated, they may turn him down. Blaich stated, that's the "ping-pong affect" Alstrom stated, I'm only wanting to look at the record, I want to make that clear. I don't want this to be a total Design Review Board either, but second only perhaps to Roger, I feel very strongly that this is a very core example of what I expected to see brought to the Committee, and so, I want to see real proof in the record, I don't want to open up the whole issue, it all goes to what I call, relative merit. If this had been a better looking design, maybe I would have voted "yes" on the orientation exception, but because of what it looks like, I can only be so strict on that particular standard. Chaikovska stated, on all those discussions on Ordinance 30, they wanted to get away from subjective design review, which is what we had before. Alstrom stated, it is not subjective. There's two ways of processing information. Chaikovska stated, I disagree with you, I think you are saying that if I liked the project better, I might have been easier on them, but that's not the point. The point is, one issue, and one issue only comes before us, and that's what's built into the ordinance. Blaich stated, we have had this other review committee, that several of us were on, and we did make a number of design suggestions based on the guidelines we had to work with at that time. In some cases they were inacted and other cases, they were ignored. In some cases we had jurisdiction, and in other cases we had recommendation. In a recommendation, they didn't really have to do anything, right, they could just go back and business as usual, but some people did come back and listen to this. I think, there is nothing wrong with Jake, for example, saying to another architect, oh, this is another way to solve the problem. So, I don't object to that, but I think for now we have a Design Review Board in that sense, because there are four practicing and one non- practicing architects at this table right now, who would all probably design their house completely differently, and push more appropriately for the lot. That's not what we are dealing with; I 22 DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL BOARD JULY 27, 1995 think if we want to change that, then, that's something else. Otherwise, if we're not willing to accept it, I think any of us should not sit on this Board if we're not willing to accept the "30" I don't think "30" is a perfect thing, by any means, I think it was a compromise and we went through an awful lot. Alstrom stated, I seem to be in the minority in this last vote, but I think you have to be willing to listen to someone express concerns, because, yes, I'm going to vote on whether it meets that standard or not. Vickery stated, these are good discussions, but we need to go about our business, tonight. I'm sure we'll have more discussions. 765 CEMETERY LANE Amidon presented for staff and stated, there are two design standards not met here, the first is building orientation under the standard that requires that there must be a street oriented entrance and street-facing principle window. They don't have a street-facing principle window. Also, all portions of the garage, the carport and storage area parallel to the street shall be recessed behind the front facade by 10 ft. What is being proposed here, this is an existing duplex on Cemetery Lane, is a two-story addition to the west, the addition would include a garage bay and a two-story addition above that. Again, staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that the asked addition of the third garage stall and the front facade of the building does not meet the design criteria and should not be granted an exception. Additional parking or storage could be placed at the side or the rear of the structure. There's a mansard roof on the second story which does make it difficult to have large windows, so, maybe, there should be some latitude there. The applicant, Joe Zanine, made a presentation showing pictures of accesses off Cemetery Lane, and asked consideration in the windows and a two-car garage. He stated it was a hardship in that there was a certain amount of money he was able to spend on the project. (The clerk apologizes, again, but the applicant's words were not fully picked up by the microphone, so, therefore, I had to edit the comments. I hope this meets with the approval of the Board.) 23 DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL BOARD JULY 27, 1995 Chaikovska asked, how many square feet are you adding to this? Zanine answered, 732. Chaikovska stated, how much is the existing structure? Zanine answered, 1,540. Blaich asked, on the existing drive is there still going to just be dirt for a way of travel? Zanine answered, right now, we have gravel. Blaich stated, does that remain, gravel? Zanine answered, some day, if we can afford it, probably asphalt. Blaich stated, but, right now, it will be gravel. Blaich continued saying, another question is; I was over there and you've got a two- car garage, but there were at least three cars parked in front, a small truck and two cars, is that normal? Zanine stated he was trying to get rid of some of the cars. Blaich stated, the two garages, either they are not being used as garages, or they are full and you've got three more cars parked outside. Zanine stated it was not a normal situation. Alstrom stated, I think it is a small scale architecture and doesn't depart from the existing architecture and I have to, again, look at the overall project weighed against the exceptions he's asking for. I don't think what he is asking for, those particular requirements on a window and and an additional garage would make much difference; this looks like a relatively harmless addition as proposed. Chaikovska stated, the principle window doesn't bother me at all, I did want to ask a question of Amy in terms of the garage, was that to provide for a principle window? Change the garage location? 24 DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL BOARD JULY 27, 1995 Amidon stated, no, no. The recommendation from Leslie and I was that the principle window issue was not met, but it probably wasn't a critical issue. We are much more concerned with the addition of the garage right up the street. Clauson stated, I think the other non-conforming issue was the entry. Amidon stated, no, they have a street-facing entry. Clauson stated, so, it is only the garage. Blaich stated, well, I drove up and down there, back and forth, looking at that, and it's not a street, it's a highway, to start with. I object to one more garage door, I think it gets to look like a gas station with all the garage doors in there, but on the other side, if you don't allow the garage you've got a problem with the extension on the upper level because you are using this space below, unless you deny the garage and use that space for some other purpose, or possibly leave the entry where it is and move the garage over and position the entry and then split up the garages so you don't have the three garage doors. I don't have any feelings about the design issue because I think a lot of those houses in that neighborhood; this is not an issue, it is not going to destroy the fabric of the neighborhood. I would like to see it solved without having three garage doors on the front, but on the other side, I don't think that, in that location, on that site, this is a major issue. Hoyer asked, Joe, you could put the new garage addition on, which is to the south, right? Could you enter from the north and south and not have the doors on the street? Would that work? Zanine said that would not work. Hoyer stated, so, you are stuck. Your argument is on that highway, basically, all the houses, and you've got a garage in the street, there's no other place to put them. If you re-designed the project you could do a lot of neat things. Suppose you do it as it is drawn; the driveway now is really wide, it is all driveway, and you don't have a landscaping plan. Suppose you landscape it so that, basically, you narrow the driveway and create more yard and still have turnaround, is that something that could happen? Zanine stated, I think the driveway can be narrowed down somewhat. 25 DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL BOARD JULY 27, 1995 Hoyer stated, suppose we make it inexpensive. If the driveway were narrowed down, and you put a lilac hedge on that street, the property line, which is basically simple and which isn't asking too much money-wise or any great expense. It would soften the whole deal. Is that something that would work? Zanine thought it would work. Blaich asked, are you suggesting that in this area, that you have one garage going into the garages, and then, you soften this whole area with landscaping so you can drive into all three locations and still have some on-site parking. Hoyer stated, staff is denying the garage door; I'm trying to be pro-active here because again, we're not talking about any kind of design issue, we're dealing with the existing architecture, what ever it is. We're trying to be pro-active here. Hy question was earlier, when we had the 85% rule, and you wanted to exceed that, somebody came in here and they wanted to do something, but they had to get it together. Can we use that kind of justification in this situation with this Board, or is this not something we are allowed to do? If someone wanted to exceed their 85% FAR, heh, great, what are you going to give us for it? Are you going to give us a porch, are you going to give us this or that? So, what I am asking here, is, give them all this. Let him give us some lilac bushes, something that doesn't cost a fortune, screen the thing from the highway, it is going to benefit them, they are going to get more useable yard space and probably a nicer, little place. There was discussion at random regarding the landscaping, turning radius, and driveway. Blaich stated, it is a nice compromise and it is not a big investment, whatever kind of planting, evergreen, etc. Chaikovska stated, this way you get your garage. Alstrom stated, I want to point out, the solutions that Jake and Roger were sketching, sort of the arterial street, the standards were written more for a grided neighborhood street, so, in affect, the Committee is saying, we recognize the arterial street instead of the neighborhood street required standards. So, I think the 26 DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL BOARD JULY 27, 1995 community eventually is going to have a lot of work to do making resolutions on how we can manipulate on appeal. Clauson replied, I would say that it is a desired affect of Community Development and Engineering that we reduce the number of curb-cuts. Hoyer stated, and if we can do it without causing a lot of monetary expense to the applicant, we are doing a better job up here. Vickery stated, I also think that criteria in a. and b. give us some flexibility, because a. says, yield greater compliance with goals of Aspen Area Community Plan, that's pretty broad, and b. it says, and more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard provision response, why is it in there and what's it trying to accomplish. C. says, clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. That's the one that really makes, I think, the required finding based on site specific constraints so restrictively. MOTION Blaich stated, I move to grant a variation of the residential design standards for building orientation finding that the existing designed house does not easily allow for a principle window. I would like to change, then, I move to approve the garage on the basis that an appropriate landscaping plan will be developed, and you have had enough ideas today, and staff can interact with you on developing that, that would allow the garage, two entries, three- car garage and a beautification of the front of the property; with a single entry into the parking area. Hoyer seconded. Discussion of Motion Buettow stated, we need to clarify this resolution, because it doesn't state that it's going to be changed from a double-entry driveway to a single-entry driveway, that's one issue. The landscaping plan to be developed is another issue, and approval of the garage is the third issue, and a four issue is the livingroom window. Chaikovska stated, you have a double-entry driveway, wider than the double one, you might want to have somewhere in between the single and the double, to make it a little wider. 27 DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL BOARD JULY 27, 1995 Buettow stated, I know it shows that there's a double entry, double curb cut. Let's just say, it will be changed to a single curb-cut. There was discussion at random on the issue of curb cuts. AMENDED MOTION Blaich stated, I move to approve a variation of residential design standards for garages, allowing an additional garage with the stipulation that there is a single curb-cut and an appropriate landscaping plan to screen the property. Hoyer seconded. Voting commenced, vote was unanimous in favor, motion carried. The applicant asked for clarification on some follow-up and was advised by the Committee to work with staff regarding some of the suggestions and any follow-up. Meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Carrillo, Deputy City Clerk 28