Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.drac.19970410DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE APRIL 10, 1997 Chairperson Steve Buettow opened the regular meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. with Gilbert Sanchez, Roger Moyer, Bob Blaich, Dave Johnston and Jake Vickery present. Other staff present were Mitch Haas, Amy Amidon and Julie Ann Woods. MINUTES MOTION: Gilber t Sanchez moved to approve the minutes of February 27, 1997. Dave Johnston second. ALL IN FAVOR, APPROVED 533 WEST SMUGGLER Gilbert Sanchez stepped down. Mitch Haas, staff, explained this Committee found that the applicant did not comply with the “inflection” standard on 2/27/97. He said the applicant has made a number of revisions and staff felt these changes still have not complied with the “inflection” standard. The applicant is requesting a variance based upon the design more effectively addressing the issue or problem given standard or provision. In staff’s opinion, the “inflection” standard is intended to respond to the issue of new construction over-shadowing or dwarfing adjacent, existing structures by not respecting (responding) to the design, mass and scaled closest to the proposed building. Haas said this Committee has to decide if the new design more effectively addresses this issue than would a re-design. He summarized the changes made were the location of the entire structure moved as far to the West side (5’ side yard) as possible while maintaining the minimum setback requirements. He continued that this shift enabled an extension of the front porch to wrap around the side to the portions of the adjacent structure. Staff finds it still doesn’t comply with the “inflection” standard because the standard requires the one story element be 12’ in depth from the side and this is 8’ including the over-hang. Charles Cunniff, Architect, stated they were trying to comply with the “spirit” of the ordinance without necessarily being able to technically comply with it 100%. He said on the average there is more of the “inflection” than needs to be applied and they did not want to mirror what is across the way. He said the standard calls for a dimension and did not want to convolute the design just to comply with the ordinance. Bob Blaich asked if the sketch on the far right was the original proposal. 1 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE APRIL 10, 1997 Cunniffe explained his client wanted a “french country design” and were trying to pick up some of the shapes of the house next to it. He said the house next door had far less “inflection” with a variance to the over-hang and set back line. Blaich asked if the client was going to occupy this house. Cunniffe replied that it was not certain at this time. Haas explained that the variance had site specific constraints. Blaich said the scale of the house and the one on the corner was what was of concern. He stated the encroachment of this other house could be more than was expected. Cunniffe commented that the model depicted the context with what could be done. He said if someone else develops the parcel, that was what could happen within the code. Blaich said the block has a certain amount of integrity (in terms of architecture). He noted the “french country” goes against the neighborhood especially with the materials used. Roger Moyer asked Cunniffe to describe the neighborhood. Cunniffe said it was an eclectic neighborhood with very modern to Victorians inappropriately added onto, to low design content buildings. Moyer asked Amy Amidon if part of the design application process included a written statement of how their design worked within the neighborhood. Amidon answered that was in Ordinance 35 which was dropped when Ordinance 30 was adopted. Jake Vickery questioned the number of feet from the other house. Derrington said it varied. Richie Cohen, public, stated that his interest in this project varied, at one time owned the house that was being demolished and lived in that neighborhood for years. He said there was a variety of properties all around this house which reflect the character and part of the charm of the West End. Cohen did not think the intention of Ordinance 30 was to create a series of look a like Victorians or modern houses. His interest was also that of a Realtor as part of this transaction. He asked for approval of the variance. Vickery stated the design met the intent of the Ordinance. The applicant moved the house as far as he could to the opposite side as the existing one story house. He said there was a generous side yard set back and 16 ½ feet to the property line from the 2 story element of this house. Vickery noted that he did not have a problem with this project. Haas noted that staff was mandated to work within the “letter of the standards” and the Committee was to act within the variance criteria. (He personally agreed the 2 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE APRIL 10, 1997 intent was there). He said the variance criteria does not ask if the intent is being made. Haas stated there were 3 criteria: 1. the design more effectively addresses the issue or problem the given standard or provision responds to, 2. 3. Cunniffe stated there was deals with site specific restraints and the hardship. sufficient set back. Vickery supported the variance based upon criteria #1. Johnston appreciated the porch with a solution that worked. He said the model may not be accurate, but understood the intent. Blaich asked the purpose of the tower. Derrington answered that it was a stair tower with a powder room. Cunniffe said the tower was a feature to keep it Victorian. Blaich noted the variance was not the problem, but felt the house would look bigger built, than the model with the materials used which will dominate the neighborhood. He said the issue was not the design which was a dis-service to the neighborhood because they have done other houses that work in the neighborhood. Cunniffe commented they would continue to work with materials. Buettow noted that they have tried to be in compliance with the constraints. Moyer felt the house was charming but it did not belong in Aspen. He stated that the Committee would place itself in a very dangerous position voting in favor of the project. Moyer commented that Ordinance 30 came about for this very house but maybe Ordinance 30 is not strong enough to deal with houses like this and the McCoy houses. He said if this were a HPC project, Cunniffe has addressed the one element, but what about the one long wall on the other side. Buettow replied that it certainly brings back the appropriateness of materials and shapes which reflect the guidelines of Ordinance 35. Cunniffe said they might want to consider victorian sandstone and rather than stucco from a different country. Moyer thought that every person building a home in Aspen should consider how their house will work in the context of the area. He gave an example of a man who came to town, spent $8,000. on a an architect and was turned down by HPC for his project. Moyer continued that he took the man on a tour of the town and the man said he had made a big mistake and three years later still has not built on his lot. He said it was an amazing experience for him. Cunniffe noted that it was not neo-victorian. Moyer said that would not happen. Blaich noted that people who come and live in their own houses have more tender loving care put into them and the house fits into the neighborhood. He said the spec 3 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE APRIL 10, 1997 houses are the ones that do not fit into the neighborhood and sit vacant with for sale signs. Cunniffe invited the Committee to look at the house after it was built and realize that they listened to the Committee’s comments and the house then got better. Buettow commented that Cunniffe’s other houses in the area had been done well. MOTION: Jake Vic kery moved for the Design Review Appeals Committee to approve the request for a variance from the inflection standard (Section 26.58.040B) for 533 West Smuggler finding that the design currently proposed meets standard #1 the design more effectively addresses the issue or problem the given standard or provision responds to and deal with site specific restraints of the inflection issue. Dave Johnston second. Steve Buettow, Jake Vickery, Bob Blaich and Dave Johnston for, Roger Moyer against. APPROVED 4-1. Vickery discussed the vagueness of the standard. Blaich noted that there inflection should be serious consideration of the reworking of Ordinance 30. Julie Ann Woods replied that they have heard that loud and clear on Ordinance 30. Meeting adjourned at 5:15 p.m. Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk A work session on Water Place Housing foloowed the DRAC meeting. 4