Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.drac.19961212DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 1996 Chairperson Steve Buettow called the meeting to order at 4:35 p.m. with members Sven Alstrom, Robert Blaich, Jake Vickery and Dave Johnston present. Other staff members present were Suzanne Wolff and Bob Nevins. MINUTES MOTION: Bob Blaich moved to adopt the minutes from 9/19/96. Second by Sven Alstrom. ALL IN FAVOR, MOTION PASSED . COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Jake Vickery asked the status of Ordinance 30. Steve Buettow replied that Amy Amidon was working on it and waiting for the contract people to finish their part. Buettow said P & Z was scheduled to review Ordinance 30 in December. Suzanne Wolff remarked that was off of the schedule now for December. Bob Blaich asked for more specific information on it. No public comment. 510 RACE/511 SPRUCE - ZUPANCIS Bob Nevins refreshed the commission about the property location at the corner lot Race Street, South Avenue and Walnut Street. He said the last time this came to ° DRAC the units were at a 45 angle to capture the view and minimize the impact of South Avenue. One of DRAC’s concerns was the duplex access from Race Street created a long driveway with difficulty getting past the first unit. Nevins further commented another concern was the way the units were orientated to Walnut and Race Street. Steve Buettow questioned the impact on the central tree. Nevins said the central tree was a pivot point and at the time the units were connected by a breezeway on the second floor. He noted that Gretchen Greenwood researched the orientation of the units towards their respective streets. He said the drive was split and each unit has it’s own garage with a separate entrance onto Race and onto Walnut. Jake Vickery asked if the driveways were canted at angle. Nevins showed elevations with Race to the East and Walnut to the West. Dave Johnston noted the 1 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 1996 complex was still at an angle, so the elevations did not seem to be true on the street side. Nevins said the elevations relate to the site plan and the units look like single family homes. Buettow remarked that he had asked for a parallel front to the street and the elevations were disappointing. He noted there was no apparent front door entry off the street either. Nevins will forward the comments about the Race Street entry to the architect. Buettow requested some actual street elevations. Vickery asked if the rest of the houses have a really strong setback. Buettow answered they did on Race Street. Vickery asked if Nevins was looking for action on this one. Nevins stated this was brought back to DRAC to work on the entry points and garage. Sven Alstrom commented the design was slightly better and liked the solar orientation of the project. He said that a site plan is needed and a landscape plan. Johnston said the site lent itself to some points of Ordinance 30. Vickery said if it ° was solar, it would be a late afternoon solar because of the 45 angle. He stated there needed to be more information supplied on this case with 50 scale drawings, etc. MOTION: To return the Gretchen Greenwood project for Zupancis to DRAC. ALL IN FAVOR, MOTION PASSED. 650 SNEAKY LANE - JORDAN RESIDENCE Suzanne Wolff introduced Ron Robertson, representative for the applicant. She explained the applicant is constructing an addition to the existing residence and there are two standards requiring a waiver. Wolff said the first is the street orientated entrance. She commented the entry door is not located on the street facade and it seems the doorway could be reoriented to face the street. Wolff stated the second standard relates to the “no window zone”. The few windows in the master bedroom face south in this long north - south orientation. Staff recommends waiver of that standard. Wolff said staff did not recommend approval of the street entrance orientation waiver. Robertson brought the site model. He said through previous remodel, the entry doesn’t have a door facing Sneaky Lane. He said currently there is parking under the living room and the front door entry is also there. Robertson wanted to keep as much of the existing house as possible and add to it where available. Robertson said the deck above the current entryway leaks onto the people coming into the residence. Jake Vickery asked if the door and the window were switched would that help the entry orientation and noted the deck could be waterproofed. Bob 2 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 1996 Blaich asked where the access door was for the deck. Robertson showed the access on the second floor from the dining room. Blaich said the only disadvantage of the current entry is the dripping from the deck. Robertson replied there was no parking on Sneaky Lane and the driveway ends under the current living room next to the entry. Steve Buettow stated that someone driving by would see a house with a front door and activity. Blaich said there are five doors going to the house and it is difficult to find the front door. Robertson noted the other doors were solid wood and front door has glass in it, so it is a subtle entry. Sven Alstrom said the model shows a nice niche for the doorway at night with a covered area (mass created) indicating the entry. Alstrom commented that Sneaky Lane is a Suburban neighborhood rather that a platted Townsite. He further stated in this setting it works, it is a nice sheltered area. Blaich commented the entryway is friendly but may not literally adhere to Ordinance 30. He said it must have been challenging to add to this house. Vickery looks for a strong entrance from the street and this does not have one. He said it did not conform to the intent of Ordinance 30. He noted it conformed by providing a 50 sf porch but the general strong statement of the front entry was not there. He said he will be in the minority denying waiver to this entry. Buettow agreed with Vickery of the intent of Ordinance 30. Vickery stated it is like giving a face a mouth. Blaich said it was a cozy entrance and each case is site specific. Alstrom noted that many of the houses with huge entrances actually do not have the front doors at those places. He said maybe there should be different rules for subdivisions. Dave Johnston disagreed that an pointing to the door might be necessary, it arrow would be hard to tell which was the front door. He said he liked the door where it was placed but this was a courtyard with two doors. Buettow summarized by looking at the intent of the Ordinance which is the emphasis the street with sultry of the covered entry and the enclave behind the fireplace. Buettow stated that from a drive-in point of view, this would address the intent of the Ordinance and shuffle the doors around. Blaich asked if the door could be placed at an angle. He said it would be an interesting way to solve the problem of the entry standard. Robertson said part of process lead to this design and if the entry were angled would the commission waive the standard. 3 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 1996 Alstrom repeated that Ordinance 30 needs to be reviewed. He liked Philip Johnson’s processional architecture and not to mandate everything. He said the subdivision and urban areas can and should be different because Ordinance 30 is for the west end. Blaich noted there should be a way to track the Ordinance 30 waivers to the standards. Buettow disagreed with Alstrom because the Ordinance was to enhance the pedestrian visual experience walking past the front of this residence knowing clearly where the entrance is. He noted that putting the doorway under the articulated shape from the front would be the clearest way to show the entrance. Robertson said if the door were place under the window they would not be having this discussion because it would comply with Ordinance 30. He noted that this is a unique neighborhood with no street parking and the door facing where the people come to, makes sense. Buettow said after hashing out many viewpoints, a decision needs to be made. Vickery said there are two issues here; the purpose of Ordinance 30 to encourage property owners to make a statement to the street and a contribute to the streetscape and neighborhood. He stated that is not rigidly structured but the design meets the intentions of the Ordinance. He wanted to make it part of the relationship to the street. Vickery said there are a plethora of trees at the front of the residence. He complemented the applicant on the presentation of drawings and model. Buettow noted this presentation gives a clear picture. MOTION: Bob Blaich recommended to approve the request to waive the volume standard finding the proposed windows are not visible from the street and provide additional sunlight to the residence with minimal exposure. Alstrom second. ALL IN FAVOR, WAIVER APPROVED. MOTION: Bob Blaich r ecommended waive the “street orientated entrance” standard finding the proposed entry although does not meet the intent of Ordinance 30 but there are special circumstances on this residence. Alstrom second. 3 - 2 WAIVER APPROVED. (Johnston, Blaich & Alstrom in favor, Buettow & Vickery opposed) Bob Blaich asked to keep the records on this case. 1205 RED BUTTE DRIVE - ELKINS 4 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 1996 Suzanne Wolff introduced Kevin MacLeod, architect for applicant. She stated the applicant proposed to construct a detached two story Accessory Structure adjacent to a single family residence. She noted the lower level is a two car garage with an office/exercise room above. She said some of the standards do not apply but the ones require waiver from are building orientation and the requirement of the garage setback. Wolff said the orientation and location of the garage was determined by the steep slope adjacent to the house. It’s on the corner or Red Butte Drive and Overlook Drive which goes steeply up the hill and is not your average grid type of intersection. Wolff commented the garage is located to minimize disruption of the slope as far back from the street as possible. Staff recommended the standards be waived because the importance was to fit into the slope than disturb the slope. MacLeod noted that Wolff summed up the requests of orientation square to the house. He brought some photos and the site plan. He said the hillside would be up to the gable on the second floor if the 10’ setback were achieved from the residence. Dave Johnston thought the project was site sensitive, and liked it. MOTION: Jake Vickery moved to approve the application of 1205 Red Butte Drive, Elkins residence, waiving the standards regarding the building orientation and orientation of the garage appropriately based on the topography of this lot. Dave Johnston second. ALL IN FAVOR, WAIVERS APPROVED. Meeting adjourned at 5:50 p.m. Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 5 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 1996 MINUTES ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 1 COMMISSIONER COMMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 1 510 RACE/511 SPRUCE - ZUPANCIS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 1 650 SNEAKY LANE - JORDAN RESIDENCE ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 2 1205 RED BUTTE DRIVE - ELKINS ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 4 6