Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.drac.19970814_DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE AUGUST 14, 1997 ~OMMITTEE AND STAFF COMMENTS .............................................................................................................. ]~OT TWO (2~. OXLEY LOT SPLIT (UNADDRESSED LOT ON WEST SMUGGLER STREET) - APPEAL OF INFLECTION STANDARD ...................... ;~ ................................................. ~ ....................................................... 1 5 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE AUGUST 14. 1997 Chairperson Steve Buettow opened the special meeting to order at 4:10 p.m. with Gilbert Sanchez, Dave Johnston and Bob Blaich present. Roger Moyer arrived at 4:15 p.m. and Mary Hirsch was excused. Other staffpresen~ were David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney, Mitch Haas, Amy Amidon and Sara Thomas, Community Development Department. COMMITTEE AND STAFF COMMENTS Amy Amidon, Staff, spoke to Robert Coleman. He told Amidon that they were boxing in the columns and putting paint samples on the walls. NEW BUSINESS: LOT TWO (2). OXLEY LOT SPLIT (UNADDRESSED LOT ON WEST SMUGGLER STREET~ - APPEAL OF INFLECTION STANDARD David Hoefer stated the applicant provided.an affidavit showing the property was posted five (5) days prior to this meeting. He said the Committee had jurisdiction to proceed. Mitch Haas, Staff, explained the applicant, Charlie Kaplan, requested a variance from the inflection standard. He said the inflection standard was intended to address the issue of new construction over-shadowing or dwarfing adjacent existing structures by not respecting or responding to the mass and scale of the propositions closest to the proposed building. Haas stated the Board must decide weather or not the proposed design more 'effectively addressed this issue than would a re-design meeting the standard. He commented that the applicant responded to the intent of the standard by respecting the architectural scale and integrity of the existing structure rather than following the literal standard. Haas said the idea behind the open recessed porch under the glass second story could be called negatively inflected space. He noted the proposed design would not read from the street as a two story wall but with transparency and reflectivity, the comer glass element should minimize the overall mass and impact on the proposed structure closest to the miner's cabin. Staff felt this house would contribute to the eclectic nature of Aspen's residential neighborhoods. DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE AUGUST 14. 1997 Bob Blaich asked what modifications were made since the worksession. Kaplan explained that the design was more of a rectangle responding tO the new building next door which has an extended facade along the length. He said some windows were moved and the primary response was to the adjacent hous.e. He felt the second level would be transparent. Dave Johnston asked if the new house next door plans had been received. Steve Buettow said the owner of the new house was present with objections to the height on the model. Amy Margerum, adjacent property owner, said the angles and roof lines were not correct. Blaich asked if the mass would be less. Margerum stated the most striking differences were the angles on the model. Gilbert Sanchez said in the worksession the topic of the relationship with the front of the house and the property line was discussed. He asked if the relationship to the new house next door had been adjusted. Kaplan stated that it was setback 10' from the lot line. Buettow asked what the set back was for the existing house. · Kaplan said it was another 6' back. Sanchez noted the principal mass was still the front element Blaich said there was a compensation of openness because of the porch with the glass facade. He felt the elements of design were quite successful. Kaplan said the street wall was not an overbearing presence. Buettow asked if the reflective glass was a mirror glass. Kapjan replied that it would not be mirrored glass but reflective, with the ability see through it (to some extent). Buettow stated that mirrored glass is not translucent and forms a great mass. Kaplan answered that it would not be like office complex mirrored glass. He said they have not specified what materials would be used. Buettow explained that it made a big difference of what kind of glass would be used in this solution. Kaplan noted they have been successful creating this semi-transparent void. Buettow asked if it won't be mirrored but not transparent, but if the glass reflects clouds an trees.k would be very close to mirror glass and will look like a cube. Buettow asked why this building should be built in the Aspen West-End. He commented that a boxNlike design could be buik anywhere. Kaplan replied the west end has a fairly eclectic building fabric and this building added to that richness. He stated the glass responded to the various mountain views and the design was in response to the scale and context of the adjacent buildings. He maintained that the building responded to what Aspen was about. Buettow said they were trying to relate block fabrics and asked about the materials and colors 2 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE , AUGUST 14, 1997 for this building. He did not see this building relating strongly. Kaplan noted the base elements that wrap around the house would be a clapboard system, which responds to the west end. He said the horizontal siding with a stucco system and warm neutral colors. Kaplan said the street facing windows respond to the similarity of the neighborhood. Buettow stated there were not many large expanses of mirrored glass in the West End. Roger Moyer restated his view (from the previous worksession) was not particular to this type of architecture but found it interesting and could not prohibit it. He said the fake Victorian on Cooper looked like a neuvo-haunted house (amusing). He would hate to have a community that did not allow each extreme. Moyer voiced concerns about the mirrored glass, along with the type and color of the curtain wall system. Amidon commented that the Aspen Athletic Club building was quite beautiful with the glass appearing to have a floating roof without solid walls. Haas said that reflectivity (from his memo) was more transparent glass. Buettow pointed out that the Committee was at a stand-still. Kaplan stated the intent for the glass was as it appeared in the model presented (transparent glass). PUBLIC COMMENT: Amy Margerum, adjacent property owner, stated that it was a beautiful building but it looked like a commercial building. She said that after being present during the community design guideline meetings, she did not think that this is what the community intended. Margerum thought there were incentives for sloping roofs and front porches. She noted the front porch was to reinstate the relationship to the street and the feeling of neighborhood. Margerum said the process of meeting the design guidelines had been enlightening but was unsure if the process worked. She stated that they will be part of the neighborhood and this house seemed unfriendly in a neighborhood. Blaich said more architecture like this was needed in the community because too many house try to look like the Aspen of 25-100 years ago. He defended modem or contemporary architecture and would like to live in this house. Blaich questioned what would happen if this house was not built, what would be built on that lot. Haas explained that the code was written with enough flexibility to respect different styles of architecture. 3 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE AUGUST 14, 1997 Moyer asked if the front porch of this house coUld have a life of it's own that would interact with the neighborhood. Kaplan answered the porch faced north, but was designed for that part of the house to be occupied. Moyer asked what material the floor of the porch would be and if it was elevated. Kaplan replied the porch was elevated P/z' and (although not yet designed) the materials would be some type of stone paver. Blaich commented that north facing porches were not always utilized because of lack of light, street presence and facing away from the mountain. Sanchez noted the inflection issue was to be considered with the relationship to the new building and the existing building. He felt there was a sympathetic relationship and was comfortable approving the issue at hand. Johnston agreed with Sanchez. Buettow did not see much inflection and felt this was a glass box next to a Victorian. Kaplan felt the scale was similar to the house next door and felt the glass would be transparent allowing light to filter through. He said this house responded to the code and was 10' back from the lot line when only a 5' set back was required. MOTION: Bob Blaich moved to approve the requested variance from Section 26.58.040(E), Inflection, for the structure proposed to be ~built on Lot 2 of the Oxley Lot Split, finding the proposed design "more effectively addresses the issues" that the inflection standard responds to than would a redesign that meets the standard. Roger Moyer second. APPROVED 4-1. (Buettowagainst). Meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m. J~/.k. ie Lothian, Deputy Cit~-Clerk 4