Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.drac.19980709DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION July 9 1998 Chairperson Steve Buettow called the special Design Review Appeals Commission meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. with members Bob Blaich, Mary Hirsch, Gilbert Sanchez and Tim Mooney present. Roger Moyer was excused. Staff members present were David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney, Mitch Haas and Julie Ann Woods, Community Development, and Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. Sworn in: Janver Derrington, Sunny Vann, Graeme Means. COLAS CONDOMINIUM, 341 - 351 PARK AVENUE Gilbert Sanchez stepped down due to a conflict of interest. David Hoefer stated for the record the notice was provided and the board had jurisdiction to proceed. Janver Derrington represented Colas Developments for this wavier of Residential Design Standards related to FAR increases due to volume for glazing in the “no window” zone. He said the lot was unusual because it wasn’t on an actual street but had a spur access off Park Avenue through an easement on another person’s property. He illustrated the windows would face a bank of condominiums on the opposite side of the river preventing views of Aspen Mountain. He said the windows would not face a street and the vaulted ceilings make it dark without the additional glazing. Derrington said there would not be a significant impact because the neighbors were all behind. He gave the over-view of the neighborhood. Hoefer noted that staff needed to present. Julie Ann Woods, staff, noted the three review standards were not addressed. it was not in greater compliance with the ¬ AACP it does not more effective address the issue of problems and it was not ­ ® clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to site specific constraints. Woods said it did not minimize glazing. Woods pointed out there was a revised version of the drawings. Mary Hirsch said these windows were for light because the view would not come form these windows. Bob Blaich stated that he walked into that building today, and part of the view was blocked because of the low setting. He said the houses were side by side in that location. Tim Mooney inquired about an additional roof segment. Derrington replied it was a beam end that projected out of the log columns. Mooney said that you knew all 1 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION July 9 1998 along when you designed the roof line that you wanted the glazing. Derrington said they thought it would be nice and tried to get by without it but the river set back requirement made the shapes different. Blaich said the architect designed it knowing what the rules were; the rules were not changed. Hoefer noted the hardship could not be self-imposed; the original design created the problem. Derrington said this was the option the owner wanted. He said there was talk of the residential design standards being revised, which probably won’t happen before this project was done. Blaich complimented the architect on the design on a very tight site. He said that the neighbors across the river would be looking at a better site with these buildings from what was there. He understood why the rules were written, but was sympathetic to a variance. Mooney spoke about the SilverLode projects that were approved and the monster home (in the county) on an old mining claim that was lit up like a Christmas tree. He said these buildings were in his neighborhood and did not seem that significant a problem, but there will now be lights standing above the river being seen through the glazing. Mooney noted the problem was lights remaining on all night. Blaich stated there were ways to design a house with out having the lights shining out; it was accomplished with a physicist’s house in the west end. Hirsch stated there were reasons for the criteria for granting the variance; not because it won’t make an impact on neighbors. She said just because other housing had something before Ordnance 30 was adopted, doesn’t have anything to do with anything. Those reasons were not viable for granting a variance. Hirsch stated this house was planned knowing this would not work without a variance. Hoefer stated that was a good point; this was not a board of equity, as much as you may want to be; the criteria must be followed and justified. Blaich said that we have to look at what was done in the past and in the future. Derrington said it was in keeping with the neighborhood; homes facing the river. Buettow noted the people across the river would be impacted by the lights at night and exterior lighting. Derrington answered there would be a few outside sconces, which would not shine directly out and no flood lights. Buettow asked if these were spec houses. Derrington replied that one would be retained by Mr. Talbot and the other either sold or rented. Buettow stated that shades would lessen the light impact. Blaich said that could not be monitored. 2 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION July 9 1998 No public comments. MOTION: Tim Mooney moved the Design Review Appeals Committee deny the waiver request and the FAR be calculated at 2 square feet for the area in the 9’ to 12’ “no window” zone, or that project be redesigned to conform with the standard for 341-351 Park Avenue. Mary Hirsch second. Roll call vote; Hirsch yes; Blaich no; Mooney yes; Buettow no. MOTION FAILED 2-2. Discussion: Mooney stated there were other design alternatives in order to accomplish better natural light openings. Buettow said it wasn’t just a light issue; the house sits low with their view cut off. Hirsch stated there was plenty of view. Derrington asked if the windows on the top were included in the motion. Buettow stated in the beginning it was set as one motion from the staff memo. The motions were combined; the board concurred. MOCKLIN SUBDIVISION David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney, stated for the record an affidavit of notice had been provided which indicated the posting occurred; the board had jurisdiction to proceed. The applicants representatives, Sunny Vann and Graeme Means were sworn-in. Mitch Haas, staff, stated there were 3 variances (all building orientation) requested; each to be handled separately. Lots #1, 2, 4, 5 & 6 request a variance from the ¬ orientation of the principal mass of the buildings be parallel to the street they face or tangent to the mid-point of the arc on a curved street. The standard as it was being applied was to the internal roads which serve the homes. Haas illustrated the directions of the buildings if orientated to meet the standard on a blueprint. Staff felt the approved building envelopes caused a site specific constraint and for reasons of fairness would approve the variances. The discussions included definition of a street in a subdivision, vehicular access, private and public streets, elevations, prior site constraint approvals and ordinance 30. Gilbert Sanchez inquired about Lot #3. Means replied that it was owned by Peter Mocklin and not part of the review. Mooney asked where the access road was 3 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION July 9 1998 located. Vann answered they were subject to ordinance 30 and the access point was defined by the subdivision. Hoefer noted it was the platted access. Means stated the intent of the subdivision was clearly defined by the lot lines with buildings rectilinear to each other. If they had to comply with ordinance 30, it would look like someone threw dice for building alignment with the streets. Haas stated the second variance had to do with corner lots (both street facing ­ facades at the principal mass, must be parallel to the road). This variance request applied to Lot #6 only and faces 3 roads. Staff believed this was a site specific constraint. Haas explained the third variance request on Lot #4 was for the street facing ® principal window. The dining room and living room windows face Gibson and Lone Pine instead of the access road, which more effectively address the standard. Means said the mini-master window read like a living room type of window; designed with an alcove identical to a living room/dining room/family room. He said the access and sun were on the other side of the house. Bob Blaich said the access road was like an alley. He stated these homes would be very visible from the city in terms of impacts due to the scale of the (baronial) buildings. The commissioners discussed the non-compliance with ordinance 30. Buettow asked about the three street facing garages. Means replied there were owners for these two homes. He said the garages on the right were set back about 25’. Sanchez shared Blaich’s concern with the scale of these homes. He said the access road was being created as a street; the houses needed to address the street to comply with ordinance 30. Haas noted there were one story elements, but not a front porch. It complied with the volume standard when re-designed. Means stated the intention was to comply with the standards. Vann commented the intent was to comply with all the other standards determined by staff; this orientation would be preferable. Hirsch asked why review lot orientation regarding the volume issues when the house was not designed. Haas replied that on Lot #4, the house would be re-designed. Kristin Geeger, resident of the Mocklin Apartments, was concerned about the immenseness of the project’s effect on them. She said their views may be at stake and understood there was nothing that could be done about the size. 4 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION July 9 1998 MOTION: Mary Hirsch moved to approve the variance as stated in ¬ the community development staff memo dated July 9, 1998 for Lots #1, 2, 4, 5 & 6 from the orientation of the principal mass of the front elevation of buildings shall parallel the building envelope, street facing, for reasons of fairness due to the unusual site specific. Gilbert Sanchez second. APPROVED 5-0. MOTION: Gilbert Sanchez moved to approve the variance as stated ­ in the community development staff memo dated July 9, 1998 for Lot #6 with 3 street presence, based upon unusual site specific constraints. Mary Hirsch second. APPROVED 5-0. Motion: Bob Blaich moved to deny variance request as stated in the ® community development staff memo dated July 9, 1998 for Lot #4. Mary Hirsch second. APPROVED FOR DENIAL. 5-0. ans asked for latitude on design for the house and street presence. That would be a staff decision, with no variance request. Means asked if a porch was considered a one story element for the 20%. Haas replied yes. Meeting adjourned. Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 5 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION July 9 1998 COLAS CONDOMINIUM, 341 - 351 PARK AVENUE ................................ ................................ ..................... 1 MOCKLIN SUBDIVISION ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 3 6