Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.drac.19960411DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION APRIL 11, 1996 Vice-Chairperson Jake Vickery called the meeting to order at 4:15p.m. with members Roger Moyer and Sven Alstrom present. Members Steve Buettow and Robert Blaich were excused and Marta Chaikovska was absent. Alstrom disclosed the appearance of a conflict of interest, but felt he could still vote on the issue, both the board and the applicant did not have a problem with Alstrom staying seated. MINUTES MOTION: Moyer moved to approve the minutes of February 15, 1996. Seconded by Vickery. All in favor, motion carries. Vickery opened the public hearing. 307 West Francis STAFF COMMENTS Amy Amidon, Staff stated that this is a proposal to construct a single stall garage, partially subgrade, and accessed from West Francis Street. Amidon said there would be variances requested from the Board of Adjustments, the slab for the driveway is in the front yard setback, and they need an FAR bonus, in addition the applicant is asking the Engineering Department to allow them to exceed the maximum grade allowed for driveways. Amidon stated that there are four waivers requested from ord. 30, A) if a driveway to a garage is below natural grade within the required front setback, the resulting cut cannot exceed 2’ in depth measured from natural grade, B) all portions of a garage, carport or storage area parallel to the street shall be recessed behind the front facade at a minimum 10ft., C) garages below natural grade shall meet one of the following conditions: 1) either or all elements of the garage shall be located within 50ft. of the real lot line, this is not; 2) all elements of the garage shall be located farther than 150ft. from the front lot line, this is not; 3) or the vehicular entrance to the garage shall be perpendicular to the front lot line, this is parallel, D) for single family homes and duplexes with attached garages or carports, the width of the house must be at least 5ft. greater than the width of the garage along the street facing frontage, the garage must be set back at least 10ft. further from the street than the house, this does not. Staff finds that none 1 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION APRIL 11, 1996 of the standards for a variance to ord. 30 are met, and recommends that no variance be granted. Bill Lipsey, Architect representing the applicant stated that he was the architect on two remodeling of this property, the first remodeling attempted to keep the victorian thread and connect it to the history of Aspen, the second was when the applicant purchased the house, the addition was primarily to the rear of the house with a basement structure under the addition. Lipsey said that in order for the basement structure to have light there is a lightwell and a very small patio, he stated that they did not want to add to the front of the house even though it is house set back further from the street than any other house on the block, ironically this house was pictured as an example of a project that showed how you could build to the maximum FAR, of an existing house in the West end and not impact the street. Lipsey stated that it is difficult to fit additions to older houses that have a certain character and come under the umbrella of new ordinances, in this case, ord. 30. Lipsey said that earlier decisions that went into the design of the house, precluded putting a garage in the rear, and we did not anticipate nor set aside space for a garage in the rear. Sunny Vann, representing the applicant stated that the allowable FAR on this site is approximately 3240sq.ft., if the FAR of the house is calculated under ord. 30, it is about 3700sq.ft., it is that figure, because there are two windows in the house that exceed a certain height and penetrate the wall, therefore triggering the calculation of the rooms the windows are located in, at twice the normal standard. Vann said that in this particular case, the windows do not appear to be the type of windows ord. 30 was trying to regulate, they are not obtrusive from the street nor do they have an adverse affect on the streetscape. Vann said the garage in question is under a portion of the house, it would be substantially below grade and as a result, under ord. 30, it includes about 95 to 96 sq.ft. of FAR, if the applicant was not penalized for the windows, sufficient FAR exists to accommodate the garage in question without a variance and without a 200’ bonus for garages located off the alley. Vann stated that he reads ord. 30 to say that DRAC has the latitude to vary the guidelines as they apply, therefore it falls within your perview to decide if this home should be penalized for those two windows. Vann said that he would ask that DRAC grant the relief on the assumption that this house has been a good example of what ord. 30 architecture was trying to accomplish, Vann also said that it is one thing to start with a clean stretch of paper and come up with a design that meets the spirit and the letter of the regulation, it is quite another thing to make new ordinances work for an existing structure. Vann said the prior decisions were not made consciously to 2 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION APRIL 11, 1996 preclude a garage, but are the result of several remodeling attempts on the building to address the various needs of the people who owned it at the time. Lipsey stated that there is not enough length given to get a legal size car in the garage because of where the current retaining wall is, so the wall would have to be demolished and some windows in the lower bedroom would have to be blanked over in order to fit a garage in there. The garage would cast a perpetual north facing shadow over the only outdoor space this house enjoys. Vann said that assuming this owner or her predecessors made a conscious effort to keep the scale of this building down, by not building up, it seems rough to penalize them by saying they need to remodel the house in order to put a garage in the back. Lipsey stated that the site falls off quite a bit, one end of the site is four and a half feet lower than the other end of the site, so the applicant is already halfway to floor above the garage that would be completely below grade. Lipsey said the garage would not have the kind of impact that ord. 30 was trying to prevent which is made by a two car garage with an overhead garage door at grade. This garage door would be a single car garage door below grade. Vann stated that this would allow the applicant to add the garage without increasing the building footprint and without increasing the building FAR by a significant degree, obviously there is no ability to recess the garage on the front of the house a minimum of 10’ behind the front facade. Vann stated that the house next door has a double garage on the streetscape, the other criteria that it should be a minimum of 50’ from the rear cannot be done without substantial renovation to the building, the lot is only 100’ deep and could not be more than 150’ from the front yard, , the width of the lot does not permit a perpendicular garage in the front yard set back, those are limitations imposed by the site and the footprint of the existing building. Vann said that the applicant does meet a partial criteria that, the width of the house must be at least 5’ greater than the width of the garage. Vann stated that in regulations such as ord. 30, we should be looking at the substantive impact of the request not the specific letter of the law, and that is not to say that we shouldn’t apply our regulations and apply them fairly. Vann said that he would ask the DRAC board to decide among themselves if the construction of what is a modest garage, 100% below grade, that has no significant impact in terms of FAR and does not significantly alter the footprint of the building, the height of the building or any other aspect of the building streetscape in a significant manner, warrants being denied under the criteria Staff has previously mentioned. 3 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION APRIL 11, 1996 Pat Eberstein, applicant stated that she loved the West end and waited a long time for the opportunity to buy a house there, she said that she wanted to keep it beautiful and everything she did, she felt was keeping with the area, the tours come by her house all the time. Eberstein said she felt like she kept getting caught in the “cracks” between one law being in effect and then another law or rule is enacted. Eberstein stated that she is one of the little guys in the West end and sees big monstrosities going up and she said it is very hard for her to look at it as being fair. Ramona Markalunas, public stated that the landscaping and the topography of this lot on a hillside, it drops off so that there is almost a natural path for a driveway, which is screened by the landscaping on the lot. Markalunas said the house sits so far back on the lot, that you would have to be looking for the garage door to even see it. Lipsey stated that the existing house if figured under the old regulations was up to the FAR, when figured under ord. 30, gives us over 100sq.ft. of FAR, if the windows are not counted. Moyer asked Amidon to comment on the FAR issue. Amidon stated that DRAC does not have the ability to grant the applicant relief from the doubling of the FAR. DRAC only has the ability to waive the design review standards, not issues related to FAR, and that is why it was recommended that the applicant ask the Board of Adjustment for that relief. Vann stated that is not very clear if you read the ordinance. Lipsey stated that the BOA interprets regulations extremely literally and they do not consider aesthetic issues at all, they figure things mechanically and mathematically, there is no area of interpretation with them, and there is with DRAC. Alstrom stated that in addition to our findings, DRAC can send recommendations to other boards. Amidon said the Planning Dept. is in the process of revising ord. 30, to try and eliminate some of the problems it has created. 4 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION APRIL 11, 1996 Vann said that section 7304, residential design standards 1) building orientation; 2) build to lines, primary mass; and on to number 6) is floor area. Vann stated that FAR is clearly listed under the design standards. Amidon responded that the volume issue is not listed and said this is long standing, since ord. 30 has been written it has been understood that DRAC can’t vary on this issue. Vickery asked if the garage space is in addition to the on site parking off the alley. Lipsey said yes and they could not build an enclosed garage off the alley because of set backs. Vickery asked if the board needed to seek legal advice on the FAR issue. Amidon responded that she would meet with the Assistant City Attorney for clarification. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Alstrom said that he wanted ord. 30 to be more of a design review committee instead of a bunch of rules. Alstrom stated that this is a masterful example how this house has been handled in the past and it is one of his favorite projects in the West end, preceding ord. 30. Alstrom said the committee should look at the broad reaching goal first, not the small issues, this is the first project that has come to DRAC that is generally considered a good example of design fitting in the community, he said he understands staffs criteria for evaluating solutions, however looking at the site, in the past, to a pedestrian walking by, this house has been a surprise. Alstrom said that a benefit of this garage will be that the flavor of the house will be brought closer to the street and people will notice it more than they would have otherwise. Alstrom said the board needed to respond to the design review criteria and not just the rule book. Moyer stated that he is not in favor of the project although he thinks it is a terrific design, this house is an excellent example of infill, the garage is not an excellent example of infill. Moyer said that prior to the design charett, there was a great deal of discussion, with community participation, concerning garages with additions, it is a wonderful house, if you put the garage in, its a garage with an addition. Moyer stated that one of the many neighborhood character guidelines, that the public forum set up, was to get the garage off the street, and just because the house to the East has a garage on the street, if you have one evil, you do not create another. Moyer said that a garage is not a need, it is not something you can’t live without. Moyer also said that when you walk down the street the house is a wonderful surprise, with 5 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION APRIL 11, 1996 a garage sticking out there it will not be a surprise. Moyer stated that sometimes you have to give to get, and that is not happening here, it’s just asking for more, and everyone in Aspen comes in and asks for more, this committee has not had a lot of sympathy towards that and he concurs with staff, he reiterated that a garage is not a necessity and he respects Alstrom’s comments and he respects the architect, the FAR issue is not one he wished to discuss. Vickery asked how far the face of the garage is set back from the property line, Lipsey responded it is about 30’ from the property line and about 50’ from the street. Vickery said in his opinion this house has a unusual sighting, and it would be unrealistic to expect someone to move their house, remove existing retaining walls, reconfigure spaces and windows to adapt them to a garage so that would be located off the alley. He said the options of providing the garage off the alley had been explored and he felt satisfied there are no viable options, he accepted the fact that a single car garage is desirable and a necessary element in our climate. Vickery said that because this is a single car garage, it has a lesser impact, and the fact that the space is not required it is a voluntary situation. Vickery noted that this calls for a tree to be removed and asked how big it is. Lipsey responded that it is a 2’ cottonwood and the applicant would have to go through Parks to discuss mitigation on this so there is no net loss. Eberstein said that the tree is not very healthy, the tree man said that the roots have grown into the retaining wall. Vickery did say that he was not in favor of moving existing trees. He said maybe the driveway could curve around it, or come in at an angle, if you could leave the tree there it may cut down on the visibility of the garage door. Lipsey said that he misunderstood the ord., he thought the driveway could not come in at an angle or have any bends in it and there may be a way it could curve or come in at an angle. Vickery said that the setting of this house, with the trees in front of it provides a very unique experience for the pedestrian walking down the street, he does not feel that this proposal hurts that experience. Vickery said that the driveway should only be used for access to the garage, there should be no cars parked in the driveway, and the garage door should be kept closed as much as possible. Vickery stated in reference to the window standard, this board has not felt that was in their perview, and he would like to see the staff suspend the application of this until this is 6 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION APRIL 11, 1996 resolved, he said the garage is not a sensitive situation, mainly because this garage sits back and is tucked in, the applicant and architect have used the topography creatively to minimize the effect of the garage even though it does not meet specific ord. 30 requirements. Vickery said he did not have a problem waiving standards A- D, finding that in the standard for granting variances, C) practical difficulty, has been demonstrated. Vann said that he feels the volume standard as it relates to window and FAR, is clearly outlined as part of the design standards and he finds nothing saying that DRAC can vary all design standards. Vann asked Amidon to verify, with the City Attorneys office, if this is would be the boards perview. Vann stated that he appreciates the desire not to have garages on the street scape, but they are not prohibited, and by not precluding it and providing standards for when they can occur, it is assumed that in certain circumstances it would be acceptable. Lipsey stated that this is kind of a secret house, people walk by for weeks without knowing it is there. Lipsey said there is a design paradox, that when you drop a Victorian streetscape from the East into a mountain town, the houses that face away from Aspen mountain want to face to Aspen mountain so they put there public rooms to the North, they not only lose the sunlight they are penalized because that is where the ordinances say they should put there garages. Eberstein said that she has noticed an increase in crime and has had the window broken out of her car which she feels is unique to the West end because there is a lot of service help. Eberstein stated that she has looked into storing the car and it is not very practical and is expensive, she said that she does not really like garages in general and did not want to put one on this house, but this was the only place it could be unobtrusive. The applicant asked to table the hearing: MOTION: Alstrom moved to table 307 W. Francis to Thursday April 18, 1996, to determine the finding of the Design Review Appeal perview on FAR. Seconded by Vickery. All in favor, motion carries. MOTION: Moyer moved to adjourn at 5:40p.m. Seconded by Alstrom. All in favor, motion carries. 7 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION APRIL 11, 1996 Amy G. Schmid, Deputy Clerk MINUTES ________________________________ ________________________ 1 307 West Francis ________________________________ __________________ 1 8