Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.drac.19960808DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE AUGUST 8, 1996 Chairman Steve Buettow called the meeting to order at 4:15 p.m. with members Sven Alstrom, Dave Johnston, Roger Moyer and Jake Vickery present. Member Robert Blaich was excused. Minutes MOTION: Johnston moved to approve the minutes of July 11, 1996. Seconded by Alstrom. All in favor, motion carries. There were no comments from the public on items not on the agenda. 501 West Smuggler Suzanne Wolff, Planner said this is an existing residence the applicant proposes to add a new entry vestibule on the west side of the house, they are requesting a waiver of the volume standard to accommodate this addition, prior to FAR changes, related to ordinance 30 the house was under the allowable FAR, because of the doubling of areas within the “no window zone” it is now over the FAR. Wolff stated since this entry will not impact either of the street facades, Staff recommends the Committee grant a waiver of the volume standard to allow this addition of 105 s.f. Johnston asked what the use of this entry vestibule will be. Wolff responded in their letter of application it will be a mud room. Alstrom stated for the record the photographs helped. MOTION: Alstrom moved to grant a waiver of the volume standard for 501 W. Smuggler to allow an addition of 105 s.f. No additional FAR will be available to the property under current FAR calculations. Seconded by Johnston. All in favor, motion carries. Jake Vickery and Roger Moyer seated. Steve Buettow stepped down. 1 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE AUGUST 8, 1996 923 E. Hyman Avenue Wolff stated the applicant, Phil Schrager is represented by Gibson Reno and propose to build a new residence on this lot, it does not comply with the volume and inflection standards of ordinance 30, the adjacent parcel on the East side is a designated historic resource. Wolff said ordinance 30 identified these windows within that area inappropriate due to issues of scale, Staff agreed windows on the South side will be o.k. to maximize exposure to the sun and views of Aspen Mountain, regarding inflection a one-story element must be provided the full length of the lot line that is adjacent to a one-story structure, the structures on the East side is one-story. Wolff stated their interpretation is there should be 12’ of one-story structure on that side, there is one constraint, a covenant of the lot split states the parcel to the East of the historic rock maintain a 10’ west side yard setback to distance this development from the duplex being built on the lot next door, therefore their building envelope is 5’ narrower than would otherwise be allowed. Staff recommends to meet the inflection standard that they provide a 7’ one-story element the full length of the east facade of the structure and allow windows to violate the volume standard on the South facade only. Proof of notification provided Roy Parsons, architect stated they feel this design as it is not only meets but exceeds a lot of the language of the design guidelines, heights are within or below the acceptable height guidelines and they have incorporated steeper pitches, they tried to approach massing by breaking up the elements along the front facade, they have a clearly defined entry, mixing of window sizes, they tried to break up the massing so along the front facade it has the one-story look the elements of the two-story building behind it are smaller in scale and step back from the street, the front porch is stepped back creating the face of the two-story element well behind the adjacent portion of the street facing building. Parsons stated they feel they have not only exceeded or met the standards of the design guidelines but have more than answered the constraints they have been given and think this is the best solution possible and the friendliest way of dealing with their neighbor rather than being closer to them. 2 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE AUGUST 8, 1996 Augie Reno, Gibson Reno stated the majority of the trees along the eastern section of the parcel exist and are mature trees, there are a few trees they will add in the back. Reno said they feel the design of the one-story porch going the entire length of the building, which is 12’ does comply with the inflection part of ordinance 30. Johnston said the applicant submitted elevations to the Planning and Zoning Commission and asked if they were still true. Parsons stated the modifications that may come as a result of putting in proper dimensions and making working drawings are minimal. Stan Clausen, Community Development Director said it has been stated that this project meets the inflection standard, Staff believes it does not meet the inflection standard, what Staff has given over to the Committee is an appeal from the applicant with respect to the inflection standard. Clausen asked the Committee to respond if this is an appropriate design, if this meets the intent of the standard. Vickery asked if the 12’ is measured parallel to the street. Clausen responded it is parallel to the street. Moyer asked what the applicant meant by it may have to be closer if one- story is required. Parsons responded the upper level comes across the narrow section with three basic building elements, a kitchen, living room and a study area. Parsons said if they have to shift them over they will have to rearrange the floor plan in such a way to accommodate those programmatic needs. Parsons stated if they are required to have 12’ of depth of a one-story element, the only way they can accomplish that is to take the lower level to the setback line. Vickery asked Clausen if the 12’ is measured from the property line. Clausen responded it is measured from the closest building element. Public asked why it is 10’ on one side and only 5’ on the other. 3 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE AUGUST 8, 1996 Reno responded they are required to have a minimum 5’ setback on either side for this lot because of the square footage they are required to have 15’ overall, for example they could have 5 and 10, 7.5 and 7.5, ect... Reno said added to that there is a deed restriction on this parcel because the adjoining parcel made a deal with the city to require a 10’ setback from the western side. Parsons stated the main, primary window is to the South off of the living room and there are five dormers, they propose glass within the no window zone. Parson said the living room is the most critical because it is South facing, the primary view looks across the alley directly at Aspen Mountain, they do not feel there would be any break in the intent of the design standards. Parsons stated the dormer windows are a result of the massing and breaking of the roof planes, in addition the roof peaks have truss elements at each location which help obscure the upper portion of the dormers, he said they have provided 9’ of glazing and feel it should not be detrimental to the scale of this house and would like to maintain the continuous window, the side windows are not visible from the street, removal of the windows may be detrimental to the character as well as cutting out light and view for the owners. Parsons stated they are asking a two-fold waiver that they be allowed to have the South facing living room window and the dormer elements without the volume FAR increase. Reno stated his understanding of why these elements were brought into ordinance 30 had to do with scale, they wanted to get away from large entries and portions of glass that gave a different scale to the street, particularly from a pedestrian access. Reno said in reality they are allowed to put glass from the floor to 9.5’ and then not allowed to have glass up until 12’ and above that glass is allowed, with the dormers they do not have more than 9.5’ of glass for what they are asking, the difference is the window sill comes up 3.5’ and the trusses on the outside obscure some of that, so in reality it is less than 9.5’. Mr. Robinson asked what the height of the buildings would be. Parsons responded the center ridge is about 31.5’ above existing grade, the other is at 27’. Public asked if they knew the height of Chateau Blanc as a point of reference. 4 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE AUGUST 8, 1996 Parsons stated that it is considerably higher and has a flat roof, they are about 1/2 level above existing grade. Ron Kanan, representing the adjoining property owner “the rock” stated they are in favor of this design as it is proposed, they like the idea of the porch and think it is probably the best scenario with conditions, they are a little worried about the sq. ft., they are also in favor of the glass in the dormers and feel it encourages more to happen up in the roof areas which helps break up the roof mass, when you take away the glass you take away the reason for a dormer. Kanan stated it is hard to take away the view of Ajax Mountain. Alstrom stated that he finds certain aspects of the design very pleasing, he said that Reno’s office has stumbled on a really nice cascading roof affect to break up massing and thinks it is demonstrated very well in this design, he is concerned with the east elevation and agrees with Staff comments on the inflection standard, inflection is very difficult to define and a difficult standard to communicate. Alstrom said he did not have a problem with the volume standard issues they are presenting, he thinks the volume standard needs to be redefined and amended to deal with view oriented glazing as well as passive solar, the only thing he does not care for is the two-story high masonry walls with the cascading roof lines, he suggested setting the second floor masonry back one foot so the building also cascaded with the roof and that would be an acceptable compromise for him, if the walls cascaded with the roof he would say the reflection problem goes away. Johnston said he thinks the two-story walls are a big consideration but he thinks the attempt has been made and is very pleased with the roof design, the building needs to go with it a little bit and agrees with Alstrom on some of those comments. Vickery agrees with what has been said and reminded the Committee of the criteria used to make these determinations. Moyer stated in HPC one of the elements they dealt with as a result of the AACP when a house has a large wall going from the front corner to the rear corner, against an adjacent structure it is always looked at unfavorably, but Alstrom’s comments of the compromise might work, he would ask for more than a foot he would like to see two, the heaviness of the stone lends to the long wall, he has no problem with granting relief on the windows. 5 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE AUGUST 8, 1996 Reno said the definition of what inflection really means needs to be looked at very seriously, when reading this it can be interpreted, understood or it can be confused in a number of different ways. MOTION: Moyer moved to grant a variance to the inflection standard, requiring that the second story on the East elevation be moved in between 12 and 24 inches to be dealt with by Staff and the volume standard is waived meaning the windows for the South and all the dormers. Seconded by Johnston. All in favor, motion carries. Buettow stepped down. Vickery asked if they had plate heights over 10’. They do not. Vickery stated if they were using the old volume standard relating to plate heights they would not have an FAR penalty. Buettow reseated. Upper East Side Townhouses Bob Nevins, Planner stated this project is in the William’s Addition which is somewhat different than other parts of town in that the lots are 125’ deep vs. 100’, this lot is 7500 s.f. the width is 60’ not 75’, they have a different setback standard than the typical R-6. Nevins said the lot orientation is different, they go in an East/West direction the original townsite is on a North/South axis. Buettow asked if this is the rear lot and does not include the front. Nevins said it is the front only, it is a duplex lot. Buettow stated the southern most lot is the one-story existing house. Nevins responded that is correct. Vickery asked if there is a special provision in the zoning code that duplexes are allowed in R-6A zone. Nevins responded it is the special addition criteria that says “lots annexed subsequent to January 1, 1989 can have a full duplex”. 6 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE AUGUST 8, 1996 Gretchen Greenwood, architect stated one reason they are here is because the site has specific characteristics that prevent a building from meeting the design standards, the main reason is the lots get their view and their sun from the south, when this was annexed into the city these lots were protected because at the time there were no design regulations. Greenwood stated every side yard setback is 10’ and leaves a very narrow building envelope, in addition a concern is that buildings do not become elongated, the front and side yard setbacks on a 60x125’ lot is a total of 30’ in this particular neighborhood the historical building pattern has been to enter the front door off of Race Street because it is more pedestrian oriented. Greenwood said the concept of this was to create a yard, an entry off the alley, a yard and an entry off the other side, she said they are trying to use both Spruce and Race Street as public right-of-ways. Nevins stated the lots to the east of Spruce Street do not have alley access. Greenwood said they do not want to have garages on Race Street but maintain a really nice street view because it is used heavily by pedestrians, the one car garage is recessed 27’ into the interior of the property so the impacts are minimal, she feels the intent of the inflection standard is met, by requiring a 12’ one-story structure the mass will push the building out on the sides the present site coverage is 300 s.f. less than what is required, the goal of this design was to minimize the structure on the site. Greenwood said any other solution would be detrimental to the neighborhood and Race Street, an elongated building would not be the best for the neighborhood, there is a 50 s.f. covered entry on the street facade, there is a window with header heights at 8’ with a beam across and a window 2.5’ above that so she is in the “no window” zone and she does not feel as though that will look like two-story space and does not feel that standard is applicable to this situation. Moyer asked if the applicant had looked at a shared driveway. Greenwood stated they did and the building became elongated, they have a very narrow building envelope to deal with. Greenwood noted they also could not with the setback requirements, they are already putting a hard surface on Spruce Street because that will be the front entry, it would be black topping 10’ in front of the Harris’s property. 7 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE AUGUST 8, 1996 Nevins stated that given the situation, Greenwood has come up with a very innovative solution to a duplex on a very narrow lot and in response to the particular neighborhood. Jon Busch, public said his real concern is the issue of setbacks, he is 15’ from the street and the Harris’s are 20’, he can sympathize with Greenwood’s desire to preserve some view for the Harris’s so they can still see the mountain, he stated that he worries if the envelope is changed to push the buildings out towards the street and alley because it will erect a big wall to everyone down the alley. Moyer asked if Busch was satisfied with the design as it is drawn. He said he is. Buettow asked if he was satisfied with the one-story inflection element from the street side. Busch said he likes the idea of the garage being recessed under the house. Dave Harris, public lives next door to the property stated that he is very happy with the plans and does not know how it can be done any better, if this is altered he will not be able to see the mountain. Robert Zupancis, public said the one thing in the neighborhood that stayed the same is Race alley, he supports what Greenwood is doing by not building a massive wall of garages on the alley, he likes that she is taking the neighborhood into consideration. Nevins said he Greenwood have met several times and she clarified point by point what the design is and that is why he feels standards C,E and F have been met. Johnston asked Mr. Harris’s if he was happy with this design, he went to the site and it is pretty close and he felt it would extremely impact him. Harris responded he compares it to the recent affordable housing project that was proposed for the site. Mrs. Harris stated that someone else could have brought in something much higher and they are not getting into the setbacks, they always knew something was going to be built there and Greenwood has designed something they can live with. 8 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE AUGUST 8, 1996 Alstrom stated he agrees that stepping development down in height to respect smaller buildings in the vicinity has not been met, he does not have a problem with the lightwells or the garage doors relevant to the neighborhood. Alstrom said he would like to see the inflection brought up to the entry level, he feels the entry is a little out of scale and if it were reduced in height it would start to be a continuous inflection. Alstrom stated they may not want to resolve window ordinance language better, that way they can review all the windows. Buettow asked if the applicant would re-look at the entry, in terms of adjusting the scale. Greenwood stated she did not have a problem with that, although, she has met the standard. Moyer asked why the entry itself actually faces South and not the street. Greenwood responded it is for noise, they live in a very urbanized area and is probably the busiest area in Aspen, year round. Moyer stated that he did not have a problem with the window wells, he asked the question about the garage because he thinks Staff needs to encourage people to look at shared driveways and get them off of the street. Moyer said that he had a sense of unfriendliness because the entries did not face the street. Johnston said he is concerned that if another house does go up the only elevation we end up seeing are the two ends so along lines he was concerned with how the entry reads at that level, when that next development goes up the nice elevation will be lost. Nevins agreed with Johnston they need to look at those windows, right now it is pretty attractive but when the next house does come in it may impact some of the privacy issues. Vickery commented that he feels the project fails to meet the intent of the ordinance, his major concerns are the end elevations and their relationship to the streets, he is willing to accept Race as a street and he does not have a problem with the garages. Vickery said overall the massing is very monolithic, he stated the unusual site condition of east/west orientation has been dealt with the other he does not think the east and west elevations are restricted in what they can be because of that particular position. 9 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE AUGUST 8, 1996 Buettow stated that he is pleased the neighbors liked the design, he does not mind the garages and Greenwood did a good job making the single garages fairly insignificant, at least setback, the principal window and the living space on the street side is kind of a stretch but is workable. Johnston said he does not see the connection between the pedestrian and the house, he thinks it is worth being in the position to see it again. Nevins stated that Greenwood has broken a duplex into basically two single family houses with zero lot line, the easy solution would be two car garage along the alley and then the front along Spruce street that would be two side by side units, he thinks she has done a good job breaking it into two single family, small cottages. Nevins stated the comments on the friendliness and to work on the east, west elevations are excellent because they are very important. MOTION: Alstrom recommended that Design Review Appeals Committee grant approval of the project with the waiver’s requested in A-F but that the applicant be required to resolve, with Staff the entries to meet the inflection standard B and the street oriented entrance standard C and the principal window standard D with regard to the streetscape. Seconded by Moyer. All in favor, motion carries. 510 Walnut Street - ZUPANCIS Roger Moyer stated that Walnut Street is not a street but rather an alley full of cars and the highway in front is landscaped by trees. He said the building did not have to line up on Race Street or Walnut Street in a linear fashion. Gretchen Greenwood said the tree was protected by the tree ordinance. Sven Alstrom said the reason the rotation was more acceptable was because of the solar enhancements. Greenwood commented that it did allow the building to be stepped back. 10 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE AUGUST 8, 1996 Robert Zupancis stated that he grew up on this lot and as a kid there were probably 8 cars a day that went past and now there are probably 3,000 each day. He said that when Greenwood came up with the idea to change the orientation of the building it made sense not to stare at or hear the cars. Zupancis said the tree was planted by his family and everyone has told him to cut it down, but he has not done it. He said the angles of the house may help the survival of the tree. His goal is to save most of the trees. He said the hardship would be the traffic mitigation, and the project does do that. Greenwood said there is a covered porch on the east entrance (South Street) and the west side is also street level on Walnut. She explained that the street facing windows of the living room standard has been met. She stated that there was a break up of the overall massing of the building, the roof line steps down considerably. Greenwood noted that the street facades are Race Street and Walnut and the lightwells are on South Street. She asked for clarification and approval of the placement for the lightwells because there are bedrooms below grade. Greenwood stated more discussion was needed for the building orientation, windows above the 9 ft plate height, along with the street facade and the location of the light wells. Sven Alstrom explained Ordinance 30 was being looked at by HPC, P & Z and DRAC with suggestions taken by Community Development. He said Ordinance 30 needed a Residential, Commercial, West End and Smuggler side. Alstrom said without a landscape plan it was difficult to review. Zupancis said there will be mitigation for the sound with extra insulation, maybe no windows that open on that side of the house. He said by turning the building both psychologically and actual sound will help. Dave Johnston questioned the 19’ rear yard setback. Greenwood said the setbacks varied around the building. Nevins stated there was a variable setback in the city, which makes it difficult to calculate. He explained that anywhere along the building where 2 points are equal, it is the setback. Johnston said that the landscape with all the tree is great, you cannot even see into the property. Greenwood replied that 50% of those trees will be removed by the EPA action. 11 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE AUGUST 8, 1996 Greenwood noted the view is an advantage to be taken. Nevins commented that Greenwood’s design of breaking up the residences around the tree is done well to minimize the mass of the building. Buettow asked how large the tree really is because the drip line is right up to the building and could impact the building. Greenwood answered those were the bottom branches and if you go up two or three feet. She said there would be a fence around the tree during construction. Alstrom heard from landscape architects that preventative care can be taken now to preserve the tree. He said the tree was an integral part of the design. Buettow asked why the two lightwells were shown on one plan and not the other. Greenwood stated that lightwell would have to be reworked. Davis said it doesn’t work. Greenwood said the plans were conceptual. She said they haven’t really had that many meetings and wanted to get the approval for ° the 45 before going further. Buettow liked the design around the tree but what if the tree dies. He said there are many exemptions because of the tree and it will be impacted. Zupancis asked the commission to look at the lot because there were four or five other trees the same size scattered about the lot. He said it was a bit of a gamble with the design around the tree. Greenwood said it was a nice separation for people living in both units. Alstrom noted it was also a gamble transplanting a tree. He said treat the tree like you are going to transplant it and it will probably be okay. ° John Busch, public, stated the 45 angle is fine but was concerned about the orientation of the driveway. He said Walnut Street serves the Bennis house and Greenwood house and many other houses access off of Race Street which is very narrow with a lot of traffic. He said a single driveway could come into the garage because there is so much driveway access on Race Street. Vickery stated that many structures are not street orientated. He said that there are lots of opportunities to take of a view and orientated the structure to the street. He noted that the entries are confusing in the relation to the street. Vickery understood wanting the views and the sun which is a great driving principal but not convinced the awkward entries are the answer the street key. Johnston said the neighborhood approach seems to be vague. He said if the 12 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE AUGUST 8, 1996 connection piece was at the front level instead of above which increases the roof line by a third, there would be more of a two house feeling. He liked the ° idea of the 45 angle but asked which neighborhood is addressed. Zupancis noted the trees are important here and should also focus on his other lot. Alstrom favored the project but Zupancis should consider there is not a full committee tonight so you may want to table. He advised the applicant to provide a detailed Landscape site plan showing the final light wells and driveway. Davis asked if they could take Moyer’s conditions to be added. Buettow said the east entrance onto Race Street elevation does not open out ° to that street. He thought you could use Vickery’s idea using the 45 angle just dealing with the street face. He would like to follow up with the light well and Landscape plan. Vickery said the garage door and driveway be more subdued and played down. He noted that Walnut as the front yard needed that orientation designation. Johnston commented that tonight the accomplishment would be to direct conditions of Ordinance 30 (whether we agree or not) and vote to continue this review. Nevins reiterated the applicant sought a determination or waiver of standards for building orientation, strengthen street elevations and entrances. MOTION: Vickery moved to approve the “inflection” standard and standards A-G with the condition that the entries be re- studied to staff satisfaction conforming to street presence. Alstrom seconded. Alstrom added a detailed site plan for the principal facade with the light wells shown for staff approval. Vickery seconded amendment. ALL IN FAVOR, MOTION PASSED. DISCUSSION: Johnston wanted the accurate definition for the waivers from Ordinance 30. Alstrom noted the Ordinance came about because of the West End and this site can be reasonably applied for the waivers. Greenwood agreed that each applicant should be reviewed as site specific. Vickery hoped they could build a “streetscape”. Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. 13 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE AUGUST 8, 1996 Amy Schmidt, Deputy City Clerk Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk MINUTES ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 1 501 WEST SMUGGLER ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 1 923 E. HYMAN AVENUE ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 2 UPPER EAST SIDE TOWNHOUSES ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 6 510 WALNUT STREET - ZUPANCIS ................................ ................................ ................................ 10 14 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE AUGUST 8, 1996 15 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE AUGUST 8, 1996 510 Walnut Street - ZUPANCIS Roger Moyer stated that Walnut Street is not a street but rather an alley full of cars and the highway in front is landscaped by trees. He said the building did not have to line up on Race Street or Walnut Street in a linear fashion. Gretchen Greenwood said the tree was protected by the tree ordinance. Sven Alstrom said the reason the rotation was more acceptable was because of the solar enhancements. Greenwood commented that it did allow the building to be stepped back. Robert Zupancis stated that he grew up on this lot and as a kid there were probably 8 cars a day that went past and now there are probably 3,000 each day. He said that when Greenwood came up with the idea to change the orientation of the building it made sense not to stare at or hear the cars. Zupancis said the tree was planted by his family and everyone has told him to cut it down, but he has not done it. He said the angles of the house may help the survival of the tree. His goal is to save most of the trees. He said the hardship would be the traffic mitigation, and the project does do that. Greenwood said there is a covered porch on the east entrance (South Street) and the west side is also street level on Walnut. She explained that the street facing windows of the living room standard has been met. She stated that there was a break up of the overall massing of the building, the roof line steps down considerably. Greenwood noted that the street facades are Race Street and Walnut and the lightwells are on South Street. She asked for clarification and approval of the placement for the lightwells because there are bedrooms below grade. Greenwood stated more discussion was needed for the building orientation, windows above the 9 ft plate height, along with the street facade and the location of the light wells. Sven Alstrom explained Ordinance 30 was being looked at by HPC, P & Z and DRAC with suggestions taken by Community Development. He said Ordinance 30 needed a Residential, Commercial, West End and Smuggler side. Alstrom said without a landscape plan it was difficult to review. 1 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE AUGUST 8, 1996 Zupancis said there will be mitigation for the sound with extra insulation, maybe no windows that open on that side of the house. He said by turning the building both psychologically and actual sound will help. Dave Johnston questioned the 19’ rear yard setback. Greenwood said the setbacks varied around the building. Nevins stated there was a variable setback in the city, which makes it difficult to calculate. He explained that anywhere along the building where 2 points are equal, it is the setback. Johnston said that the landscape with all the tree is great, you cannot even see into the property. Greenwood replied that 50% of those trees will be removed by the EPA action. Greenwood noted the view is an advantage to be taken. Nevins commented that Greenwood’s design of breaking up the residences around the tree is done well to minimize the mass of the building. Buettow asked how large the tree really is because the drip line is right up to the building and could impact the building. Greenwood answered those were the bottom branches and if you go up two or three feet. She said there would be a fence around the tree during construction. Alstrom heard from landscape architects that preventative care can be taken now to preserve the tree. He said the tree was an integral part of the design. Buettow asked why the two lightwells were shown on one plan and not the other. Greenwood stated that lightwell would have to be reworked. Davis said it doesn’t work. Greenwood said the plans were conceptual. She said they haven’t really had that many meetings and wanted to get the approval for ° the 45 before going further. Buettow liked the design around the tree but what if the tree dies. He said there are many exemptions because of the tree and it will be impacted. Zupancis asked the commission to look at the lot because there were four or five other trees the same size scattered about the lot. He said it was a bit of a gamble with the design around the tree. Greenwood said it was a nice separation for people living in both units. Alstrom noted it was also a gamble transplanting a tree. He said treat the tree like you are going to transplant it and it will probably be okay. ° John Busch, public, stated the 45 angle is fine but was concerned about the orientation of the driveway. He said Walnut Street serves the Bennis house 2 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE AUGUST 8, 1996 and Greenwood house and many other houses access off of Race Street which is very narrow with a lot of traffic. He said a single driveway could come into the garage because there is so much driveway access on Race Street. Vickery stated that many structures are not street orientated. He said that there are lots of opportunities to take of a view and orientated the structure to the street. He noted that the entries are confusing in the relation to the street. Vickery understood wanting the views and the sun which is a great driving principal but not convinced the awkward entries are the answer the street key. Johnston said the neighborhood approach seems to be vague. He said if the connection piece was at the front level instead of above which increases the roof line by a third, there would be more of a two house feeling. He liked the ° idea of the 45 angle but asked which neighborhood is addressed. Zupancis noted the trees are important here and should also focus on his other lot. Alstrom favored the project but Zupancis should consider there is not a full committee tonight so you may want to table. He advised the applicant to provide a detailed Landscape site plan showing the final light wells and driveway. Davis asked if they could take Moyer’s conditions to be added. Buettow said the east entrance onto Race Street elevation does not open out ° to that street. He thought you could use Vickery’s idea using the 45 angle just dealing with the street face. He would like to follow up with the light well and Landscape plan. Vickery said the garage door and driveway be more subdued and played down. He noted that Walnut as the front yard needed that orientation designation. Johnston commented that tonight the accomplishment would be to direct conditions of Ordinance 30 (whether we agree or not) and vote to continue this review. Nevins reiterated the applicant sought a determination or waiver of standards for building orientation, strengthen street elevations and entrances. MOTION: Vickery moved to approve the “inflection” standard and standards A-G with the condition that the entries be re-studied to staff satisfaction conforming to street presence. Alstrom seconded. Alstrom added a detailed site plan for the principal 3 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE AUGUST 8, 1996 facade with the light wells shown for staff approval. Vickery seconded amendment. ALL IN FAVOR, MOTION PASSED. DISCUSSION: Johnston wanted the accurate definition for the waivers from Ordinance 30. Alstrom noted the Ordinance came about because of the West End and this site can be reasonably applied for the waivers. Greenwood agreed that each applicant should be reviewed as site specific. Vickery hoped they could build a “streetscape”. Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Amy Schmidt, Deputy City Clerk Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk MINUTES ................................ ................................ ................................ ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 501 WEST SMUGGLER ................................ ................................ ........... Error! Bookmark not defined. 923 E. HYMAN AVENUE ................................ ................................ ......... Error! Bookmark not defined. UPPER EAST SIDE TOWNHOUSES ................................ ....................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE AUGUST 8, 1996 510 WALNUT STREET - ZUPANCIS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 1 5 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE AUGUST 8,1996 MINUTES .......................................................................................................................................................1 501 WEST SMUGGLER ...............................................................................................................................1 923 E. HYMAN AVENUE ............................................................................................................................2 UPPER EAST SIDE TOWNHOUSES .........................................................................................................6 510 WALNUT STREET - ZUPANCIS ......................................................................................................11 15 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE AUGUST 8,1996 Augie Reno, Gibson Reno stated the majority of the trees along the eastern ~ section of the parcel exist and are mature trees, there are a few trees they will add in the back. Reno said they feel the design of the one-story porch going the entire length of the building, which is 12' does comply with the inflection part of ordinance 30. Johnston said the applicant submitted elevations to the Planning and Zoning Commission and asked if they were still true. Parsons stated the modifications that may come as a result of putting in proper dimensions and making working drawings are minimal. Stan Clausen, Community Development Director said it has been stated that this project meets the inflection standard, Staff believes it does not meet the inflection standard, what Staff has given over to the Committee is an appeal from the applicant with respect to the inflection standard. Clausen asked the Committee to respond if this is an appropriate design, if this meets the intent of the standard. Vickery asked if the 12' is measured parallel to the street. Clausen responded it is parallel to the street. Moyer asked what the applicant meant by it may have to be closer if one- story is required. Parsons responded the upper level comes across the narrow section with three basic building elements, a kitchen, living room and a study area. Parsons said if they have to shift them over they will have to rearrange the floor plan in such a way to accommodate those programmatic needs. Parsons stated if they are required to have 12' of depth of a one-story element, the only way they can accomplish that is to take the lower level to the setback line. Vickery asked Clausen if the 12' is measured from the property line. Clausen responded it is measured from the closest building element. Public asked why it is 10' on one side and only 5' on the other. DESIGN IZFVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE AUGUST 8,1996 Moyer asked if the applicant had looked at a shared driveway. Greenwood stated they did and the building became elongated, they have a very narrow building envelope to deal with. Greenwood noted they also could not with the setback requirements, they are already putting a hard surface on Spruce Street because that will be the front entry, it would be black topping 10' in front of the Harris's property. Nevins stated that given the situation, Greenwood has come up with a very innovative solution to a duplex on a very narrow lot and in response to the particular neighborhood. Jon Busch, public said his real concern is the issue of setbacks, he is 15' from the street and the Harris's are 20', he can sympathize with Greenwood's desire to preserve some view for the Harris's so they can still see the mountain, he stated that he worries if the envelope is changed to push the buildings out towards the street and alley because it will erect a big wall to everyone down the alley. Moyer asked if Busch was satisfied with the design as it is drawn. He said he is. Buettow asked if he was satisfied with the one-story inflection element from the street side. Busch said he likes the idea of the garage being recessed under the house. Dave Harris, public lives next door to the property stated that he is very happy with the plans and does not know how it can be done any better, if this is altered he will not be able to see the mountain. Robert Zupancis, public said the one thing in the neighborhood that stayed the same is Race alley, he supports what Greenwood is doing by not building a massive wall of garages on the alley, he likes that she is taking the neighborhood into consideration. Nevins said he Greenwood have met several times and she clarified point by point what the design is and that is why he feels standards C,E and F have been met. DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE AUGUST 8, 1996 Johnston asked Mr. Harris's if he was happy with this design, he went to the site and it is pretty close and he felt it would extremely impact him. Harris responded he compares it to the recent affordable housing project that was proposed for the site. Mrs. Harris stated that someone else could have brought in something much higher and they are not getting into the setbacks, they always knew something was going to be built there and Greenwood has designed something they can live with. Alstrom stated he agrees that stepping development down in height to respect smaller buildings in the vicinity has not been met, he does not have a problem with the lightwells or the garage doors relevant to the neighborhood. Alstrom said he would like to see the inflection brought up to the entry level, he feels the entry is a little out of scale and if it were reduced in height it would start to be a continuous inflection. Alstrom stated they may not want to resolve window ordinance language better, that way they can review all the windows. Buettow asked if the applicant would re-look at the entry, in terms of adjusting the scale. Greenwood stated she did not have a problem with that, although, she has met the standard. Moyer asked why the entry itself actually faces South and not the street. Greenwood responded it is for noise, they live in a very urbanized area and is probably the busiest area in Aspen, year round. Moyer stated that he did not have a problem with the window wells, he asked the question about the garage because he thinks Staff needs to encourage people to look at shared driveways and get them off of the street. Moyer said that he had a sense of unfriendliness because the entries did not face the street. Johnston said he is concerned that if another house does go up the only elevation we end up seeing are the two ends so along lines he was concerned with how the entry reads at that level, when that next development goes up the nice elevation will be lost. DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE AUGUST 8,1996 Nevins agreed with Johnston they need to look at those windows, right now it is pretty attractive but when the next house does come in it may impact some of the privacy issues. Vickery commented that he feels the project fails to meet the intent of the ordinance, his major concerns are the end elevations and their relationship to the streets, he is willing to accept Race as a street and he does not have a problem with the garages. Vickery said overall the massing is very monolithic, he stated the unusual site condition of east/west orientation has been dealt with the other he does not think the east and west elevations are restricted in what they can be because of that particular position. Buettow stated that he is pleased the neighbors liked the design, he does not mind the garages and Greenwood did a good job making the single garages fairly insignificant, at least setback, the principal window and the living space on the street side is kind of a stretch but is workable. Johnston said he does not see the connection between the pedestrian and the house, he thinks it is worth being in the position to see it again. Nevins stated that Greenwood has broken a duplex into basically two single family houses with zero lot line, the easy solution would be two car garage along the alley and then the front along Spruce street that would be two side by side units, he thinks she has done a good job breaking it into two single family, small cottages. Nevins stated the comments on the friendliness and to work on the east, west elevations are excellent because they are very important. MOTION: Alstrom recommended that Design Review Appeals Committee grant approval of the project with the waiver's requested in A-F but that the applicant be required to resolve, with Staff the entries to meet the inflection standard B and the street oriented entrance standard C and the principal window standard D with regard to the streetscape. Seconded by Moyer. All in favor, motion carries. ~o DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE AUGUST S, 1996 510 Walnut Street - ZUPANCIS Roger Moyer stated that Walnut Street is not a street but rather an alley full of cars and the highway in front is landscaped by trees. He said the building did not have to line up on Race Street or Walnut Street in a linear fashion. Gretchen Greenwood said the tree was protected by the tree ordinance. Sven Alstrom said the reason the rotation was more acceptable was because of the solar enhancements. Greenwood commented that it did allow the building to be stepped back. Robert Zupancis stated that he grew up on this lot and as a kid there were probably 8 cars a day that went past and now there are probably 3,000 each day. He said that when Greenwood came up with the idea to change the orientation of the building it made sense not to stare at or hear the cars. Zupancis said the tree was planted by his family and everyone has told him to cut it down, but he has not done it. He said the angles of the house may help the survival of the tree. His goal is to save most of the trees. He said the hardship would be the traffic mitigation, and the project does do that. Greenwood said there is a covered porch on the east entrance (South Street) and the west side is also street level on Walnut. She explained that the street facing windows of the living room standard has been met. She stated that there was a break up of the overall massing of the building, the roof line steps down considerably. Greenwood noted that the street facades are Race Street and Walnut and the lightwells are on South Street. She asked for clarification and approval of the placement for the lightwells because there are bedrooms below grade. Greenwood stated more discussion was needed for the building orientation, windows above the 9 ft plate height, along with the street facade and the location of the light wells. Sven Alstrom explained Ordinance 30 was being looked at by HPC, P & Z and DRAC with suggestions taken by Community Development. He said Ordinance 30 needed a Residential, Commercial, West End and Smuggler side. Alstrom said without a landscape plan it was difficult to review. DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE AUGUST 8, 1996 Zupancis said there will be mitigation for the sound with extra insulation, maybe no windows that open on that side of the house. He said by turning the building both psychologically and actual sound will help. Dave Johnston questioned the 19' rear yard setback. Greenwood said the setbacks varied around the building. Nevins stated there was a variable setback in the city, which makes it difficult to calculate. He explained that anywhere along the building where 2 points are equal, it is the setback. Johnston said that the landscape with all the tree is great, you cannot even see into the property. Greenwood replied that 50% of those trees will be removed by the EPA action. Greenwood noted the view is an advantage to be taken. Nevins commented that Greenwood's design of breaking up the residences around the tree is done well to minimize the mass of the building. Buettow asked how large the tree really is because the drip line is right up to the building and could impact the building. Greenwood answered those were the bottom branches and if you go'up two or three feet. She said there would be a fence around the tree during construction. Alstrom heard from landscape architects that preventative care can be taken now to preserve the tree. He said the tree was an integral part of the design. Buettow asked why the two lightwells were shown on one plan and not the other. Greenwood stated that lightwell would have to be reworked. Davis said it doesn't work. Greenwood said the plans were conceptual. She said they haven't really had that many meetings and wanted to get the approval for the 45° before going further. Buettow liked the design around the tree but what if the tree dies. He said there are many exemptions because of the tree and it will be impacted. Zupancis asked the commission to look at the lot because there were four or five other trees the same size scattered about the lot. He said it was a bit of a gamble with the design around the tree. Greenwood said it was a nice separation for people living in both units. Alstrom noted it was also a gamble transplanting a tree. He said treat the tree like you are going to transplant it and it will probably be okay. 12 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE AUGUST 8, 1996 John Busch, public, stated the 45° angle is fine but was concerned about the orientation of the driveway. He said Walnut Street serves the Bennis house and Greenwood house and many other houses access off of Race Street which is very narrow with a lot of traffic. He said a single driveway could come into the garage because there is so much driveway access on Race Street. Vickery stated that many structures are not street orientated. He said that there are lots of opportunities to take of a view and orientated the structure to the street. He noted that the entries are confusing in the relation to the street. Vickery understood wanting the views and the sun which is a great driving principal but not convinced the awkward entries are the answer the street key. Johnston said the neighborhood approach seems to be vague. He said if the connection piece was at the front level instead of above which increases the roof line by a third, there would be more of a two house feeling. He liked the idea of the 45° angle but asked which neighborhood is addressed. Zupancis noted the trees are important here and should also focus on his other lot. Alstrom favored the project but Zupancis should consider there is not a full committee tonight so you may want to table. He advised the applicant to provide a detailed Landscape site plan showing the final light wells and driveway. Davis asked if they could take Moyer's conditions to be added. Buettow said the east entrance onto Race Street elevation does not open out to that street. He thought you could use Vickery's idea using the 45° angle just dealing with the street face. He would like to follow up with the light well and Landscape plan. Vickery said the garage door and driveway be more subdued and played down. He noted that Walnut as the front yard needed that orientation designation. Johnston commented that tonight the accomplishment would be to direct conditions of Ordinance 30 (whether we agree or not) and vote to continue this review. Nevins reiterated the applicant sought a determination or waiver of standards for building orientation, strengthen street elevations and entrances. 13 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE AUGUST 8,1996 MOTION: Vickery moved to approve the "inflection" standard and standards A-G with the condition that the entries be re- studied to staff satisfaction conforming to street presence. Alstrom seconded. Alstrom added a detailed site plan for the principal facade with the light wells shown for staff approval. Vickery seconded amendment. ALL IN FAVOR, MOTION PASSED. DISCUSSION: Johnston wanted the accurate definition for the waivers from Ordinance 30. Alstrom noted the Ordinance came about because of the West End and this site can be reasonably applied for the waivers. applicant should be reviewed as site specific. build a "streetscape". Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Amy Schmidt, Deputy City Clerk Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Greenwood agreed that each Vickery hoped they could 14