Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.drac.19960919DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE SEPTEMBER 19,1996 Chairperson Steve Buettow called the special meeting to order at 4:10 p.m. With members Sven Alstrom, Bob Blaich, and Roger Moyer were present. Member Bob Blaich arrived late. Dave Johnston and Jake Vickery were excused. Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer, said that all three Board Members present (Steve, Sven and Roger) must concur, if there was a dissenting vote, the variance was denied. Amidon said that staff had been working on a major revision of Ordinance 30 and will be brought forward for your review. Bob Nevins, City Planner, said from the 8/8/96 meeting the Upper East Side Townhomes entry revisions orientation to the street were made by Gretchen Greenwood. He stated the comments this committee made last time were beneficial and made the project much better. Buettow said the entryway revision made the rock wall less foreboding. Alstrom said that the entryway now was more like the neighborhood. Buettow asked if Greenwood had brought in the Zupancis revisions. Nevins stated it had not been brought back but when it was, he would bring it back to this committee. There were no comments from the public on items not on the agenda. 851 UTE AVENUE, UNIT C Amidon stated the request was from a “volume” standard relating to large areas of glass. She said this unit was not visible from the street and located in a heavily wooded area. She noted there was a break between the glass. Amidon stated that staff recommended approval of this variance. MOTION: Moyer moved DRAC waive the “volume” standard to 851 Ute Avenue, Unit C, finding that the windows in question do not violate the intent of the standard and they are screened from the street by their location and surrounding vegetation. Alstrom Seconded. ALL IN FAVOR, MOTION PASSED. 1 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE SEPTEMBER 19,1996 WEINBERG RESIDENCE, LOT 2, WESTVIEW LOT SPLIT MEADOWS ROAD Bob Nevins, City Planner, introduced Gary Nichols and John Davis, Aspen Custom Builders, and Mark Ward, Architect on the project. Nevins said the applicant requested a waiver of Building Orientation Standard 2: A street facing principal window requires that a significant window or group of and windows of a living room, dining room or family room face the street. For single-family homes and duplexes with attached garages or carports, the garage must be set back at least ten (10) feet further than the house. Nevins explained the existing house was located on Meadows Road near the Meadows Campus. He said the existing house will be demolished and a new home built on Lot 2, Westview Lot Split. He stated the area was a densely vegetated lot. Nevins said the lot was in a residential area that lead into a commercial area (the Institute). He noted the principal window grouping at the entry level allowed light and views into the main part of the residence but did not directly lead into a living room or dining room in terms of the requirements. Nevins said the second request for the waiver was the garage which was actually recessed 20 feet behind the entry point from the driveway. He said that the garage was turned perpendicular to Meadows road, so there was no direct sight of the garage doors or open garage. Steve Buettow asked if the office space was a public room. Amy Amidon said it was not but they were looking for an active space. Ward said access to the site was not from the front of the lot but rather from an adjacent lot driveway easement. Ward stated that there will be French doors from the entry corridor to the office. There were no questions from the commission. MOTION: Moyer moved that the principal window and garage set back standards be waived for the Weinberg Residence Lot 2, Westview Lot Split, Meadows Road Subdivision. Alstrom seconded. ALL IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED . Buettow asked for any discussion from the commission. 2 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE SEPTEMBER 19,1996 Amidon asked if the commission wanted to attach a finding to the motion. Alstrom stated the feel of the area was one of a platted subdivision rather than a block grid. He said the driveway orientation was the kind of entry to a larger parcel where the rules of the orientation to the front street line were not as strong. Buettow asked if originally the provision was if the garage faced the street it needed to be set back, but if it was turned to the side then it could be out in front. Amidon stated all of the options for garages say they have to be pushed back and this was the reason for the waiver request. 918 EAST COOPER - APPEAL FROM DESIGN STANDARDS Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer, explained this duplex under construction on Cooper was part of a lot split and the other lot also had been reviewed by the Historic Preservation Committee. She said the applicant requested a waiver of the “volume” standard to take advantage of light and views from that site. Amidon stated that they recommend DRAC grant the waiver of the standard on the alley for these small windows and even on the East and West sides of the property for the stairwell. She said that this has very little impact on the neighborhood. Amidon stated that they are not recommending the waiver for the South elevation. She said there are several new houses under construction on East Cooper at the 10 foot minimum set back line and even though that was allowed by zoning it does create very close condition to the street. She said there is a very close relationship between street and building. Amidon noted this facade will be a very dominant and vertical element along the street with particularly tall glazing arching up into the gable. She said she understood that this was the best view towards Aspen Mountain. Amidon commented that the way this was treated the facade does overwhelm the pedestrian scale as it exists on East Cooper Avenue. Mark Ward, Architect, stated from the South Elevation the front of the building appeared to be at the same level as the pedestrian level. He said the glass was set back 12’ from the facade which broke up the view planes. He 3 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE SEPTEMBER 19,1996 noted that this was the best view and he felt the window configuration added to the architecture. John Davis, Builder, said the gable was plain without the glass. He stated the glass was only the width of the door. Davis noted that 4’ back into the living room that you can not see Aspen Mountain. He said there was only a 6’ window in a 16’ living room. Davis commented the 8’ door had a mullion break of a foot between the door and the window. Davis said that he would be willing to give up the other three waivers for this one because of the view of Aspen Mountain. Steven Buettow questioned the 12” header between the door and window. He said the way that the window was directly connected to the door was what the ordinance was specifically written to prevent. Buettow asked if they could show more separation (16” - 18”) between the window and the door. Roger Moyer asked if the glass was triangular instead would it be more appropriate or would it still conflict with the standard. Amidon said it did not matter if the opening were triangular or semi-circular, it still conflicted with the standard. Amidon noted that Steve’s idea addressed the standard better by looking for a break from tall single glazing. Davis said that facade still takes out the mountain view and that only sky was visible. Moyer asked the height of the door. Davis replied the door was 8’ without the mullion and little window was about 7’. Sven Alstrom said if the door was lowered to the side light height it might work better. Bob Blaich said he looked at the property, and asked why they did not just follow the gable. Buettow asked if header was larger (a separation of 18”) would that accomplished saving the view. Davis said that 18” would still provide the mountain view. Moyer said Ordinance 35 dealt with out of scale buildings and in this particular instance to deal with openings. He said that the 8’ door seemed extreme and not to human scale. Moyer noted (in this circumstance) if a door were 6’8” or 7” which is the height of the side light then he would allow for a larger header space. Moyer said the windows were strange and in conflict with Victorian architecture. He commented they look like a track home in most major cities and are very offensive in this sophisticated town. He asked to look at these openings as part of Ordinance 35. 4 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE SEPTEMBER 19,1996 Alstrom said the two oculars had a “Tudor flavor” which is not Aspen Victorian and to keep “it simple”. Moyer said if this were a motion to approve all sides except the South, with guidelines to staff lowering the door height, removing the top of the side light and work on a divider in a more appropriate window shape above. If staff dealt with these over sized doors, then Buettow asked if the doors and windows were scaled down to 6’8” and to separate the windows would work better. Davis said that would probably provide a better view of the mountain with a 6’8” door. MOTION: Moyer moved to recommend that DRAC waive the “volume” standard for the alley and side elevations and for the street elevation (the South Side) that the applicant lower the door height to a more appropriate size (6’8”), remove the top of the two side lights, install an appropriate (to be determined between the applicant and staff) break between the lower door and new window to be submitted (worked out between staff and applicant) for 918 East Cooper, City of Aspen. Blaich seconded. ALL IN FAVOR, MOTION PASSED. Meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m. Jackie Lothian Deputy City Clerk 5 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE SEPTEMBER 19,1996 851 UTE AVENUE, UNIT C ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 1 WEINBERG RESIDENCE, LOT 2, WESTVIEW LOT SPLIT MEADOWS ROAD ......................... 2 918 EAST COOPER - APPEAL FROM DESIGN STANDARDS ................................ ........................ 3 6