Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.drac.20000406DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION - Minutes April 6, 2000 Steven Buettow, Chairperson, called the Special Design Review Appeals Commission meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. with members Steve Buettow, Bob Blaich, Tim Mooney, Mary Hirsch and Jeffrey Halferty present. Staff members present were Amy Guthrie and Nick Lelack, Community Development; David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. REVIEW CRITERIA : a) yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan; b) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or c) be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST None. Sworn-in: Dow Hickam, Stephen Stout, John W Miller, Gail Schwartz, Karen Desenberg. PUBLIC HEARING: 1560 SILVERKING DRIVE – DESIGN GUIDELINE VARIANCES FOR SECONDARY MASS, ONE-STORY ELEMENT, NON-ORTHOGONAL WINDOW, & NON-STREET FACING ENTRY Steven Buettow opened the hearing. Nick Lelack presented the notice and an additional photo will be provided. The applicant Dow Hickam and his representative Stephen Stout were present. Lelack explained that the property was located at 1560 Silver King Drive and that there were 4 variances requested: secondary mass, one-story element, non- ¬ ­ ® orthogonal window, & non-street facing entry door. ¯ Secondary Mass - Land Use Code Section 26.410.040(B) Building Form states ¬ that “the intent of the building form standards is to respect the scale of Aspen's historical homes by creating new homes which are more similar in their massing...” Specifically, the Secondary Mass standard requires that all new structures shall locate at least 10% of their total square footage above grade in a mass which is completely detached from the principal building, or linked to it by a subordinate connecting element. Accessory buildings such as garages, sheds, and Accessory Dwelling Units are examples of appropriate uses for secondary mass. 1 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION - Minutes April 6, 2000 Community Development Staff was concerned about the massing of the proposed single family residence at 1560 Silver King Drive. The proposal included a house that was largely set into the hillside with no secondary mass. The front facade of the new house would be located approximately where the back of the existing house was located. Therefore, the front facade of the new house would be set back approximately 30-35 feet from the front facade of the existing house and 10 feet higher. The existing house was located about 10 feet above Silver King Drive, so the base of the new house would be about 20 feet above the street. In addition, the proposed ridge and roof height would be approximately 36 feet tall. As a result, the ridge & roof height will be approximately 56 feet above the street. One-Story Element - Land Use Code Section 26.410.040(D)(2) Building ­ Elements – One Story Element states that “all residential buildings shall have a one- story street facing element the width of which comprises at least twenty (20) percent of the building's overall width.” For example, a one story element may be a porch roof, architectural projection, or living space.” This proposed house does not include a one-story element. Staff has been working with the Applicant to develop a design that meets this standard, but at the time this memorandum was submitted for the packet, an acceptable design was not submitted. The Building Elements design standards are intended “to ensure that each residential building has street-facing architectural details and elements which provide human scale to the facade, enhance the walking experience, and reinforce local building traditions.” Entry Door - Land Use Code Section 26.410.040(D)(1) Building Elements – ® Street Oriented Entrance and Principal Window states that “ All single family homes, Sub-subsection townhouses and duplexes shall have a street-oriented entrance...” a. specifically requires that “ the entry door shall face the street and be no more than ten feet (10'0") back from the frontmost wall of the building. Entry doors shall The Applicant contends that the code is not not be taller than eight feet (8’0”).” clear and subject to interpretation on whether the entry door must be street-oriented or street-facing, and therefore designed the house with a street-oriented front door. Staff believed the code was absolutely clear on this standard. Section D – Building Elements and Subsection 1 – Street Oriented Entrance and Principal Window describe the purpose and intent of the design standards. The sub-sub sections describe how the residential design standards were to be implemented for different building elements. Therefore, the sections were not contradictory and not subject to interpretation; instead, the sections follow a logical and orderly path from intent and purpose to implementation. 2 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION - Minutes April 6, 2000 Again, Staff believed this residential design standard was important to achieve the Building Elements design standards, which were to ensure that this residence had street-facing architectural details and elements which provide human scale to the facade, enhance the walking experience, and reinforce local building traditions. This was not the forum to discuss code interpretations. Staff did not believe the variance criteria had been met to approve this request. Windows – Non-Orthogonal - Land Use Code Section 26.410.040(D)(3)(b) “ No ¯ more than one non-orthogonal window shall be allowed on each facade of the The Applicant has proposed three non-orthogonal windows on the front building.” facade of the building. The proposed house will be prominently located in a highly visible setting on the mountainside above the golf course – it is being situated to maximize views from the house and, therefore, views of the house. The three non- orthogonal windows are located in three separate gables on the south facade, street- facing facade. The proposed center window will have a base of approximately 14 feet and sides of about 12 feet. The adjacent windows will be in the same configuration with bases of about 12 feet and sides of about 10 feet. The Applicant questioned Staff’s interpretation of the term “facade” as used in the Land Use Code and pointed out in the application letter. Again, this was not the forum in which to discuss code interpretations. Staff did not believe the variance criteria were met to approve this request. Dow Hickam stated a difference of opinion than that of staff. He said they were due a variance under the AACP to be compatible with the AACP being the only secondary mass in compliance in the whole neighborhood. Hickam stated moving the house up the hill gave it less of an impact. He said the house was a single story house with a walkout basement because of the lot. He said the actual standard of street facing was met; it didn’t meet the parallel aspect. He disagreed with only one non-orthogonal window because the AACP called for unique architecture and this design met that standard of uniqueness. He didn’t feel getting variances would cause any problems. Stephen Stout, representative for the applicant, stated that most of the architecture was developed on flat lots and this lot was not flat. Stout presented photos of the street, noting the houses with angled entries. Stout said the street orientated and street facing were different. John W. Miller, public, said it was an attractive house and understood that Amy and Nick (staff) were paid to enforce the rules. Miller thought the windows were more attractive but the height was a problem and asked for control over the height. He 3 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION - Minutes April 6, 2000 mentioned that it was 10 feet higher than the house next door. Miller said this would be more visible from Hwy 82 and felt that this would look like a hotel. Gail Schwartz, public, said that keeping in the spirit was for lower scale dwellings and the new homes going in were in excess of what existed. She said this would be 58 feet above street level. Schwartz noted the butte was a solar collector. She said the house was 6000 square feet with 6 bedrooms and bathrooms, which was out of scale for the neighborhood. Karen Desenberg, public, said the non-orthogonal windows were okay but the home was out of scale with the neighborhood. She noted that people were taking a better view of their neighborhood and to limit the sizes with one-story elements. Bob Blaich said that the neighborhood was eclectic and issues with the design guidelines were to fit into the neighborhood. Blaich stated that the applicant met with staff and the house could have been designed to the code specifications. Blaich noted that if the house would be positioned down further it would work better with the total appearance in the neighborhood. Jeffrey Halferty stated that most of the houses in the neighborhood predated Ordinance 30. He voiced concern for the height and the continual massive homes that will scar the land forever. He agreed with staff and the architecture could have been accommodated. Halferty said that he respected the contextual aspects of the neighborhoods. Halferty stated that protecting the wildlife and natural landscape should be accomplished. Tim Mooney said that the lot dictated what went on it and drove the design but the secondary mass of the little building did not complement the design. Mooney said the design worked for the lot and felt that they could change the windows. Mooney said that this side of the street had different site constraints than the other side of the street. Mary Hirsch stated that just because something was done before a new rule was made doesn’t mean that it was a good thing. Hirsch stated concern for the site restrictions that were on the lot when it was purchased and the house that was designed did not fit onto the site. Hirsch said these neighbors were trying to preserve this as a friendly and real neighborhood. Hirsch said this was going to be an in your face home and was not in keeping with the spirit of the neighborhood; the total concept of this house was not friendly. 4 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION - Minutes April 6, 2000 Steven Buettow said the wishing well building was the intent of the secondary mass but the large porch was not in the spirit of the standard. Buettow said that the windows have been maximized and the door was not inviting but private. He said that the natural bench was below where this house was being proposed. Stephen Stout responded that he tried to design within the FAR and they were 750 square feet under the allowable. He said that less than 3000 square feet were above ground. Stout said it was a 36-foot structure with the walkout. He said they were under the height limit and went 3 levels. Stout noted that the driveway was the existing driveway and the 5 parking spaces would take cars off the street. Nick Lelack said that there were 7 parking spaces counting the 2 in the garage. Karen Desenberg stated that she lived next door and there were unobstructed views at the level that the old house was at and that it was not necessary to go up as high as the proposed new house to obtain a view. Gail Schwartz stated that this was a poor application of the one-story element and that the one-story element needed to be part of the mass. She noted that the brick retaining wall was going to be seen from the highway as well as the neighborhood. Nick Lelack stated that Staff recommended denial of the four (4) Residential Design Standard variances for a property located at 1560 Silver King Drive. MOTION: Bob Blaich moved to approve Resolution # 1, Series of 2000, approving the 4 Residential Design Standard variances from Secondary Mass, One-Story Element, Street Facing Entry Door, and 2 Non- Orthogonal Windows for a single family residence at 1560 Silver King Drive. Mary Hirsch second. Roll call vote: Halferty, no; Mooney, abstain; Hirsch, no; Blaich, no; Buettow, no. DENIED 4-0. Adjourned at 6:35 Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 5 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION - Minutes April 6, 2000 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE 1560 SILVERKING DRIVE NAME OF PROJECT: Secondary Mass, One-Story Element, Street Facing Entry Door, and two (2) Non-Orthogonal Windows Jackie Lothian CITY CLERK: Nick Lelack STAFF: Dow Hickam WITNESSES: ¬ Stephen Stout ­ John W. Miller ® Gail Schwartz ¯ Karen Desenberg ° EXHIBITS: Staff Report ¶ Affidavit of Notice · Board Criteria Sheet ¸ Model (demo only) ¹ Photo board of neighborhood (demo only) º MOTION: Bob Blaich moved to approve Resolution # 1, Series of 2000, approving the four (4) Residential Design Standard variances from secondary mass, one-story element, street facing entry door, and two (2) non-orthogonal windows for a single family residence at 1560 Silver King Drive. Mary Hirsch second. Roll call vote: Halferty, no; Mooney, abstain; Hirsch, no; Blaich, no; Buettow, no. DENIED 4-0. VOTE: YES 0 NO 4 STEVE BUETTOW YES NO x MARY HIRSCH YES NOx BOB BLAICH YES NO x TIM MOONEY abstain JEFFREY HALFERTY YES NOx DRACFORM.DOC 6