Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.drac.20000713DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE JULY 13, 2000 Steven Buettow opened the Design Review Appeals Committee meeting held at the Pitkin County Library with Tim Mooney, Bob Blaich, Mary Hirsch and Jeffrey Halferty present. City staff in attendance: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney ; Joyce Ohlson, Nick Lelack, Fred Jarman, Community Development. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Jeffrey Halferty recused himself from the North Spring Street Item. PUBLIC HEARING: 981 KING STREET, THE SECONDARY MASS RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD, LOT 4, ASTOR SUBDIVISION Witnesses sworn in: Jeffrey Shoaf and Mark Hesselschwart. Steven Buettow opened the DRAC public hearing for 981 King Street. David Hoefer requested the notice for the hearing. Jeffrey Shoaf stated that he posted the notice 6 days ago with the properly size notice on the property. Hoefer stated the applicant was misinformed on the affidavit submission therefore it will be accepted th tomorrow, July 14 by 5:00 p.m. Nick Lelack stated that Jeffrey Shoaf was the applicant along with John Fullerton, the current owner. Lelack utilized a site map to delineate the property location, Lot 4 with an access easement to serve this property and photographs showing the setback from King Street. He stated the property would contain a conservation easement on the eastern portion of the property, which protected his view and provided a buffer between this property and Garrish Park. Leland read the standard: all new structures shall locate at least 10% of their total square footage above grade in a mass which is completely detached from the He said the principal building, or linked to it by a subordinate connecting element. proposal did not do that. The 3 conditions for approval are : greater compliance ¬ with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan; a more effective method of ­ addressing the standard in question clearly necessary for reasons of fairness ® related to unusual site specific constraints. He said that staff did not believe that these criteria have been met nor were there reasons for justification that these criteria could not be met since it would be a new structure. Jeffrey Shoaf stated that there were no objections from neighbors to the structure being one mass rather than a detached secondary mass situation. He said the comment from about 75% of the neighbors was that if it were all together then there was more yard. Shoaf read from Bill Lipsey’s letter stating that the 2-story garage wing was typical of attached garages in surrounding buildings on King 1 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE JULY 13, 2000 Street and it seemed unreasonable to conform with Design Standards created for other more traditional neighborhoods, which supported the variance request. Shoaf pointed out all of the attached garages in the area on a site plan. He asked who would benefit from the secondary massing. He said that Tom Issacs, Chet Maples, Jim Vickie and basically everybody else in the neighborhood signed these letters to demonstrate what he was doing was okay. He said the only detached garage in the neighborhood was one of the panna abodes across the street. Shoaf said this really wasn’t a level site and the house will not be any taller than the existing house. Mark Hesselshwardt, architect, explained that the additional space above the garage and above the pond as the sight lines across the pond, Garrish Park and up Independence Pass. He said this was the best place for the house because it was like a 2-story lot above the river with the best possible design for this specific site. Buettow stated the intent was to break down the structure into smaller homes with the articulation. Hesselshwardt responded that worked well in the west side of town but the footprint was smaller. Tom Issac, public, stated that he felt this was the best design for this site. Bob Blaich stated that he had not seen the letters prior but after looking at the neighborhood, he said that it fit into it and felt the variance should be allowed. Tim Mooney said that after seeing the neighborhood, it changed his mind about allowing the variance because putting it on paper did not show the same design as it was designed for the site. He said that no site work would be done because they were going to utilize the same site without more excavation, even though there was no sense of value to where the rooms in the house were placed. He stated that there was minimal thought to the design of the house itself. Jeffrey Halferty stated for the record that Bill Lipsey did add his garage and secondary massing did not always have to be a garage. He said that secondary massing could be an entry or an attached unit. He said that he commended the project with the pond and open space being kept. Halfery stated that he wanted secondary mass to remain honored but the architecture did not reflect it. He said that he felt that this request was to make the house large just for the sake of getting the garage inside the structure and then he could not support the variance. Mary Hirsch asked if the house was not going to be built for 2 or 3 years or right away, why were they asking for the variance now; she questioned so the variance 2 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE JULY 13, 2000 could be sold with the property. Shoaf replied that he was not in a financial position to develop the property prior to that amount of time. Lelack noted that it also vested the property with the variance if the code changed prior to building permit issuance. Hirsch noted that it was a plus to gain support from the King Street neighborhood as a group. Hirsch said that she supported this part of the Land Use Code; she said that she would have to see a plan without the variance request. Buettow asked to separate out one corner in order to comply without a variance. MOTION: Tim Mooney moved to approve Resolution No. 02, Series of 2000, approving the secondary mass Residential Design Standard variance for a duplex at 981 King Street, Lot 4, Astor Subdivision. Bob Blaich second. Roll call vote : Mooney, yes; Buettow, no; Blaich, yes; Hirsch, no; Halferty, no. DENIED 3-2. PUBLIC HEARING: 375 NORTH SPRING STREET, DRC PROPERTY - BUILDING ORIENTATION VARIANCE AND GARAGE SETBACK VARIANCE Steven Buettow opened the public hearing. Jeffrey Halferty recused himself. David Hoefer stated that the notice was sufficient and the commission had jurisdiction to proceed. Hoefer stated for the record that 3 affirmative votes were necessary for DRAC approval. Witnesses sworn in : Alan Richman, Jeffrey Lester, Denise Reich. Fred Jarman said that there were 2 variance requests for the 375 North Spring Street, DRC property owned by Denise Reich. One was for a building orientation variance and the other a garage setback variance. He said the property was zoned R-30 and the proposal was for a single family 4,157 square foot two-story residence with an ADU and a garage. The proposal was to construct the house (16º) sixteen degrees off of parallel. The Residential Design Standards state that the house must be parallel to the street. He said the garage was proposed to be (10’) ten feet forward of the house and the Residential Design Standards dictate that attached garages need to be recessed from the front facade of the house by (10’) ten feet. Jeffrey Lester gave a photo essay of many street-facing garages in the neighborhood. 3 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE JULY 13, 2000 Jarman said that staff recommended denial of the building orientation but approval of the garage orientation. Jarman stated that the lot was greater than 15,000 square feet so the house could be moved on the lot. Jarman said that the standards were : greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan; a more ¬ ­ effective method of addressing the standard in question clearly necessary for ® reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. He noted that the applicant did have a design that met the standards. Alan Richman explained that the design style was sympathetic with the history of the neighborhood and the lot. He provided the chronological site constraints and background of the property. He stated the setbacks from the river and streets were more than adequate and would work with the city engineer. Richman said these were not typical site specific constraints that were typical to very many properties. Denise Reich noted there was a new house just built on Francis Street that was not parallel to the street. Reich stated that she never wanted to build on that lot and she stated that she was building the smallest house on the biggest lot that she could. She said that to bring the house parallel she would have to add square footage to the house. Jarman submitted two letters from neighbors that recommended denial. Lester said the ADU addressed the streetscape and garage orientation. Lester said that the house angle was modest and being close to the river was important. Richman stated that one way to think about this property was that it had two street fronts. Richman said that many more people would experience this house from the Rio Grande Trail than from Spring Street. Mooney asked if the ADU could street face. Jarman stated that the primary residence had to face street. MOTION: Tim Mooney moved to approve the Residential Design Standard variances for garage setback because of hardships of site constraints and building orientations for the Oklahoma Flat Addition, Lots 8, 9, 10, 11 and lot 7 Block 1 at 375 North Spring Street, finding that the front entrance of the ADU meets the criteria parallel street presence. Mary Hirsch second. Roll call vote : Mooney, yes; Buettow, yes; Blaich, yes; Hirsch, yes. APPROVED 4-0. Transcribed by Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 4 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE JULY 13, 2000 DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ................................ ................................ .......................... 1 981 KING STREET, THE SECONDARY MASS RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD, LOT 4, ASTOR SUBDIVISION ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 1 375 NORTH SPRING STREET, DRC PROPERTY - BUILDING ORIENTATION VARIANCE AND GARAGE SETBACK VARIANCE ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 3 5