Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.drac.19960509DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION MAY 9, 1996 Chairperson Steve Buettow called the meeting to order at 4:15p.m. with members Roger Moyer, Sven Alstrom and Robert Blaich present, Jake Vickery arrived late, and member Marta Chaikovska was absent. STAFF COMMENTS Amy Amidon, Staff added to the agenda a brief worksession on a project that was reviewed in the fall, Park Ave. Amidon said the Commission discussed the orientation of the building because they aren’t really off a street, the Commission asked the applicant to come back with some elevations. MOTION: Blaich moved to add the worksession to the May 9, 1996, agenda. Seconded by Moyer. All in favor, motion carries. There were no members of the public present. 307 West Francis Amidon said when we had this review in April there were three members present and all three needed to concur to approve, the vote was 2 in favor and 1 opposed so this application was tabled to get more members involved in the question. Amidon stated that the minutes from that meeting were in the packet. Buettow said that he had reviewed them carefully and asked Blaich if he had reviewed them. Blaich responded that he had. Amidon said that it has been determined that this body does have the ability to waive the volume standard, which penalizes windows in the “no window zone”, this would alleviate the applicants potential FAR problem, if this Commission waives that standard then they have enough FAR to do this project. Sunny Vann, representing applicant said the specific variances requested, under DRAC provisions are 1) the volume requirement, it is not an FAR request, but a request to weigh the volume criteria; 2) driveway access; 3) the garage setback and; 4) garages below natural grade. 1 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION MAY 9, 1996 Bill Lipsey, architect said they are requesting to add a single car garage that takes advantage of a natural change in grade that occurs in the middle of the property, it is fairly minimal it is not a double car garage door on the streetscape. Lipsey stated that they are doing it as tastefully as possible, they will have to remove a Cottonwood tree and will work with the Parks Department on the mitigation. Amidon stated that there are four standards that need waivers in addition to the volume calculation. Vann said there are several conditions that must be met if a garage is located below natural grade, none of which can be met by this particular proposal. Vann said all elements of the garage have to be within 50’ of the rear lot line, they can not do this, all elements shall be located further than 150’ from the front lot line, this lot is only 100’ deep, and the interest of the garage is perpendicular to the front of the house. Vann stated that it is important to note that this site is heavily vegetated, so much that you can barely see the front door of the house from the street, the majority of that will remain. Vann said he thinks these regulations are designed to help guide development so we get a minimal amount of impacts to preserve our neighborhoods, this represents a fairly sensitive way to incorporate a garage, we ask the Commission to look at the design, perhaps give us input on how it can be improved, and have an open mind in granting these particular variances. Blaich asked if the owners intend to sell this house, there was a “ ” sign for sale posted. Lipsey responded it is not out of the question. Vann said it was listed for sale, and the listing broker stated that it is no longer for sale, in talking with the applicant it was for sale, but if they can solve this problem they would like to keep the house Vann said clearly there is no guarantee it won’t be for sale sometime in the future. Blaich asked if we are dealing with a hardship for someone who will be living there or are we dealing with a way to sell the house. Vann responded that it‘s his understanding that we are dealing with a hardship for someone who wants to live there. Blaich said that the Cottonwood is 33”, 90” circumference, he does not know what the Parks Departments position will be on this. Vann said generally the Parks Department has been more amiable to Cottonwood trees as opposed to Spruce and Evergreens as well as cases when the trees themselves cause a hardship. Blaich asked what the mitigation may be on this. Vann responded that there is two kinds of mitigation; 1) any mitigation that may or may not be required by the Parks Department and; 2) any mitigation DRAC may require, not to compensate for the 2 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION MAY 9, 1996 loss of the tree, because that is really the Parks Departments perview, but what mitigation is necessary for the impact of this garage on the front of the house. Lipsey said there was some discussion of this tree at the previous meeting and as the landscaping stands now, you can not see this house and if a tree or two is removed people walking by would become more aware of the house and it may contribute to more of the streetscape. Buettow asked why the applicant does not want to put the garage in the back, off the alley, clearly this looks as if it could be pushed directly in the back and on the site visit he observed that there is a terrace in the area that could be put somewhere else or even on top of the garage. Lipsey responded that they did consider that, it is an obvious place to put it, if it worked there, we did not think it worked there because the outdoor terrace is the applicants only outdoor living area, it faces the sun, the southeast, it also faces Aspen Mountain, sitting on the terrace they can see the mountain, Lipsey said if the garage structure is built there that would be blocked, there is also a lightwell structure that is too close to the alley to allow a legal parking space or garage given the setbacks required for a garage, it can’t be done without destroying that lightwell, tearing down the retaining wall and moving it 6-8’ to the north. Moyer asked if these same owners did the last addition. Lipsey said yes. Moyer asked why wasn’t a garage discussed and put on at that time. Lipsey responded that the applicant was not familiar with the winters here and the problems cars have sitting outside for a long period of time without being started, they had a very tight lot and they wanted to maximize their addition, in terms of the public rooms being on the south side and so forth, those were more important, at that time than having a garage. Alstrom asked what the existing front setback is. Lipsey responded it’s 22’. Alstrom asked what the combined front and rear setback is. Lipsey said it would be 33’, combined, the new garage does not put the house any closer to the street than it is now. Blaich asked if there had been a response from the neighbors. Lipsey said they did not get any phone calls. Vann said that the applicant talked with the neighbor to the east who was amiable. Jake Vickery was not seated at the beginning of the meeting, but did participate at the previous meeting and asked if he needed to be seated prior to the vote. 3 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION MAY 9, 1996 Vann stated that they do not have an objection to Vickery voting on this matter, he was at the last meeting, because Vickery was in the Planning office we elected to go forward because he had heard the presentation. Vickery was seated. Alstrom stated that he felt the same and thinks that because this meets the front and rear setbacks in the zone district it alleviates his concern, and based on this application, when we deal with a remodel we should look at the ordinance differently and develop some guidelines to do that. Alstrom said this is a good application in the sense that it brings to the board questions that we need to resolve about remodels, it is one of the classic, good remodels with broken down massing and fitting the small context, he is in favor of granting this variance. Alstrom stated that intent is not the same as the Board of Adjustment, he does not think this board should look at their reviews like that but to help applicants maintain examples of demonstrated, good architecture. Blaich said that in the previous minutes, Moyer stated that “a garage is not a need”, he could agree with that on one level but he lives in this neighborhood and would not want to live without a garage in the neighborhood with the build up of snow and leaving the cars on the streets is not a good solution, many cars are left on the street during the winter and the City does not do anything about them, they plow around them and it creates a lot of problems. Blaich stated that we should do anything we can to alleviate that, he thinks that one of the reasons for such a committee is to deal with design issues and he know that when a variance like this is granted for one person, someone else will come along and ask for the same, that is the risk with granting any variance. Moyer said he thinks there are two issues; 1) the design issue, whether it is applicable and; 2) Aspen is a business issue. Moyer stated that within a three block area there are, what some call “monster homes”, but what he calls homes built lot line to lot line, basically they are garages with an addition, a good example of that and why so many people who worked on the “Neighborhood Character Guidelines”, said lets get the garages off the street, is the house next door to the applicant. Moyer said the house next door is a prime example where the principal emphasis of the house is the garage, then the entry and then the house behind it. Moyer stated that he said he did not see a garage as a hardship, he thinks there is a need and told the applicant that he would love to have a garage but could not put one in, the same owner did a previous addition and did not address the garage, he thinks the tree is a 4 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION MAY 9, 1996 big issue and if it’s approved he thinks the tree can be left and the applicant can drive around it and have something other than a paved driveway. Moyer said that this is a real example that Aspen is a business, people come in here, buy a house and add on to max out all the rooms they can have, because it is a business, they are going to sell it, they go to the Realtor and they want to ask the maximum price and the Realtor says “you don’t have a garage”. Moyer stated that the Commission has to decide if they will deal with, just the design issue, which is easy the design is great, or will we back up all the people who spent hundreds of hours and the energy to stop this “madness”, even though this is a good design, it is still part of the garage on the street, and that is basically why he voted against it. Blaich stated that he understands what went into developing ordinance 30, he was involved in it to a degree and the house next door is a good example of a house none of us wants to see. Blaich said he does not know if the tree would survive putting the driveway around it, as far as business in Aspen, he knows its a business in Aspen that is why he asked, up front if this house is on the market and is this something to solve the sale problem, he said that he trusts the integrity of the two people representing the applicant. Vann said there are certain realities of what has happened in this community, one of them is that in the West end we have a lot of absentee people that live here and think they are viable parts of the community because of what they do and they participate in this community and he has always gotten upset when we lump them all into one category as being “bad” for this town, after all we did this ourselves, every regulation, every ordinance 30, every setback requirement exacerbates the very problem we are trying to fix, every time someone buys a lot in the West end the first thing they ask is how much FAR is allowed, and with very few possible exceptions, they will build to the maximum FAR whether they need it or not because it is an investment and they are protecting that investment. Vann said the one thing they know about Aspen and Pitkin County is that the rules always change and are always more difficult, whether it creates value for people, whether it is being bought or sold to a certain extent really are not germane to a decision process, the issue is, is there sufficient flexibility within this type of guideline to accommodate the “odd ball” situation, we are not going to get smaller houses through the application of ordinance 30 hopefully, we will get houses that have less impact, but the spirit of what those are intended to do, to reduce the impact of a garage if it fronts on the street, can be met by this design. 5 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION MAY 9, 1996 Vickery apologized for being late and said he will stand on his comments on the record, he thinks that the applicants request is reasonable and every effort should be made to mitigate minimizing the impacts this situation would have on the street. Vickery asked what is the width of the garage. Lipsey responded that it will be 15’6” and the door will be a normal 8’ door, the applicant has not decided the surface of the driveway, it could be colored concrete, it could be textured, there are a number of options and we’re open to suggestions to make this as low key as possible. Vickery suggested that the applicant look into the “California” driveway which is two driving strips for the tires and in between is grass or some other material and instead of retaining walls consider other methods of retainage or slope treatment. Lipsey stated that he would love to keep the tree and misinterpreted the ordinance as saying that the garage has to be perpendicular to the street, meaning they wanted the driveway to be perpendicular to the grid, he now realizes that the garage doors were not supposed to be perpendicular to the street, so if there is a way to leave the tree they would like to do that. Blaich asked if the driveway could be 8’ which would leave a way to embank that or step it versus a sheer wall going down, snow removal will be the biggest problem. Lipsey stated that he thinks it will have to have snow melt. Blaich said that anything you can do to soften this thing to fit the rest of the house. Lipsey responded that is a good way to do it, keep the driveway narrow and slope the sidewalls as much as possible. Alstrom seconded Vickery’s comments on mitigation and he would be on Moyer’s side of the fence if this was a new building because he agrees with the tenant of ordinance 30, but he feels sensitive to the remodel issue here, to him this is a special case that does not establish precedent nor does it change the rules of ordinance 30. Moyer concurs with Vickery on the mitigation and suggested the language of the motion deal with the tree, materials, and direction of the driveway so when walking down the street and see a tunnel going into the house which will take away from what has been done architecturally. Vickery said it would be desirable to restrict parking on this driveway in the front yard setback. 6 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION MAY 9, 1996 MOTION: Blaich moved to approve the variances requested with the following conditions: 1) the applicant will narrow the driveway wherever possible; 2) will use appropriate driveway materials; 3) maintain the tree, the driveway may have to curve around it; 4) landscape appropriately to help soften the driveway; 5) limited use of driveway, no full time parking on the driveway, no parking in the front yard setback. Seconded by Alstrom. Discussion: Amidon stated that in addition to the variances requested, they need a waiver from the volume standard. Blaich amended motion to include waiver of volume standard. 6) waiver of volume standard. Motion carries 3-2 with Alstrom, Blaich and Vickery voting yes. Buettow and Moyer voted no. Parcel A, off of Park Avenue - Worksession Buettow stated that the Commission assigned viewplane and specific directions of how this home will face. Moyer said the Commission wanted to see South and West elevations. 7 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION MAY 9, 1996 Vickery asked if this is an ordinance 35 project. Amidon responded that it is ordinance 30, the applicant did not know where to orient the house, there is no street that is directly related. Vickery asked where the street is located. Charles Cunnife, applicant responded that it has no street and it looks like there was not a motion to make the park approach a street, the drive up behind Bibbig’s house, the houses are fairly consistent all around from each view. Cunnife said it is a tight little site and thought something that looked as if it had been there for a while would be appropriate. Moyer stated that the applicant has passed and has been approved. Amidon said the Commission wanted the applicant to bring back the South elevation to understand how it related to the pedestrian. Moyer asked, on the West elevation how far is the fence to Wilderness Park. John Wheeler, applicant said the fence is on the property line, for the most part, it may stray off a bit. Cunnife said it is 15’ from the stairs and 16’ from the house. Alstrom stated the applicant references ordinance 30 windows. Amidon said those are in the “no window” zone. Cunnife responded because it did not have a street frontage and ordinance 30, where we understood it was not allowing those type of windows towards the street, we wondered if those windows would be permitted. Cunnife said the owner really wanted these windows and pending revision to ordinance 30, because this has been an ongoing process, we did not know if there would be a revision and wanted to show the owner that we anticipated if there was a revision we could use those windows. Alstrom said he thinks the windows fit the architecture that is shown, his question is are they going to be there. Cunnife responded that it is up to the Commission. Buettow said the way ordinance 30 is written now, doesn’t the 3’ “no window” zone apply to all sides of the building. Amidon responded that as it stands right now, they can not do this without doubling the FAR in those rooms, but this Commission does have the ability to waive the standard if it is suitable, the applicant would need to post the property first because we have not been asked for any variances tonight. Buettow said it was the intent, in ordinance 30 to have the 3’ “no window” zone from the pedestrian viewpoint, a passing street or in this case where we have assigned public access. 8 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION MAY 9, 1996 Blaich said that if he understands it right, it was mostly addressing Palladian windows. Vickery stated that he did not know if it was clear, but all of ordinance 30 primarily focused on impacts of structures to one another and to the street. Blaich said the windows, to us add a little “funkiness” which fits that neighborhood and up in the park, you really can not see this house from the park, except maybe in the winter looking through the trees, it’s a good distance. Moyer said it is pretty hard to see from the bicycle path too. Buettow said we should give the applicant further comments on whether we think that part of the ordinance should deal only from the public street access. Alstrom stated that he would waive that on this particular building and site, he thinks we are grasping for a hierarchy of decision making on ordinance 30, when it’s on a street in the West end, when it’s on another street and when the street view is defined from a pedestrian point, neighborhood compatibility and compatibility with adjacent buildings. Alstrom said in this case he thinks we should waive the ordinance to help the applicant have a better visual house and sense of space in the house, he will be restricted by the energy code on the size of glass so we are not giving him carte’ blanche to have as much glass as he wants. Vickery said when this window rule was integrated with the FAR rule the old volume calculation was eliminated, in addition to that a new provision in ordinance 30 allows structures to go higher based on the 3rd point of the roof as opposed to the half mid-point of the roof, he thinks all of that is interrelated and is willing to consider giving relief on the window issue, but we have to pay attention to the fact that under those circumstances there is no longer a volume limitation so, in his opinion when someone requests relief under the “no window” zone they should present the FAR calculation as it was done under the old volume calculation, because there is no volume control anymore. Vickery stated that when ordinance 30 was passed part of the rational for allowing those changes in the roof pitch and removal of the old volume calculation was the thinking that this would be the replacement control on those aspects of a structure. Blaich stated what he thinks we were targeting is a lot of these oversized windows, whether they are Palladian or not, they were very big, he thinks it is a question of design and appropriateness, for him they are appropriate for this structure and the site of this structure. Blaich said this building, in another location might not be appropriate, this is the type of call we have to make, will it be beneficial to the 9 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION MAY 9, 1996 house and not negative to people who see the house, neighbors and people who go by it. Moyer said wasn’t the reason, really, to alleviate these grand entrances, it was a reaction to that. Buettow said that was his understanding, so there was some separation. Vickery said someone could build a three story high volume and would only pay for one floor area in FAR, under the old rules once your plate height went above 10’, the penalty kicked in. Buettow said we are dealing with this on a case by case basis. Alstrom said Vickery is pointing out that if we waive the requirement on windows, we could potentially allow them to go over their allowable FAR. Cunnife said if you do this on a case by case basis you can analyze that and in this case we do not have any plate heights over 10’. Cunnife stated that they came in to show the Commission the elevations but are not hiding the fact that they would like to see these windows, and we get the feeling that it is a likelihood that this could pass the approval process. Blaich stated that on the caretaker ADU, you will have a hard time with this one because there is an interior entrance going down into the living room and the Planning and Zoning Commission is taking some very hard-nosed positions to make sure that ADU’s are not just guest bedrooms. Buettow stated totally separate, no inter relations. Wheeler asked what if it is a personal attendant or works for someone in that capacity. Blaich said that issue has come up, in a particular case an applicant said a nanny should be able to hear the kids, P&Z said no, it has to have a separate entrance. Vickery said that he thinks P&Z will see a challenge on that at the City Council level because there is nothing in the deed restriction that says the ADU has to be rented or can not be used as part of the main house. Meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m. 10 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION MAY 9, 1996 Amy G. Schmid, Deputy Clerk 307 West Francis ________________________________ ___________________ 1 Parcel A, off of Park Avenue - Worksession _____________________________ 7 11