Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.drac.19971009DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE OCTOBER 9,1997 Chairperson Steve Buettow called the special meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. with members Mary Hirsch, Dave Johnston, Bob Blaich and Gilbert Sanchez present. Roger Moyer arrived at 4:10 p.m. David Hoefer, assistant city attorney, and Mitch Haas, community development, were also present. Buettow polled the board regarding changing the meeting time for the Design Review Committee from 4:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. The Committee agreed with the time change although staff objected. MOTION: Mary Hirsch moved to ch ange the meeting time for the Design Review Committee from 4:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. Gilbert Sanchez second. ALL IN FAVOR, APPROVED. “WIN RIVER” RESIDENCES ON LOTS 1 & 2 OF THE KASTELIC SUBDIVISION/PUD (570 & 580 S. RIVERSIDE AVENUE) APPEAL OF THE “VOLUME” STANDARD (26.58.040(F)(12) David Hoefer, assistant city attorney, asked for the affidavit of notice. Herb Klein, attorney for applicant, stated that the architect, Bill Campbell, had the notice and could not be in attendance because of an emergency down valley. Klein said Campbell was to lead this meeting and apologized for not having the notice. Mitch Haas, Staff, asked if the sign for the notice was posted. Larry Winnerman, applicant, said he thought a sign was posted. Mary Hirsch commented that she and U.S. West had trouble locating this property and had not noticed a sign. David Hoefer said with this situation, the board cannot proceed without the notice, unless one of the two parties would testify that the notice was mailed and posted. Mr. Winnerman said he would be happy to do that. Hoefer asked what and when notice was given. Winnerman said the normal sign was placed on the property and the regular notice was given. Hoefer stated the board could conditionally proceed, with the condition that affidavit for proof of notice must be submitted within 5 days. He further stated that if this notice was not submitted, then the meeting was null and void. Haas explained the applicant requested a variance from the volume standard for two ADU’s (on Lot 1 & Lot 2 Kastelic Subdivision) alongside the Roaring Fork River. 1 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE OCTOBER 9,1997 Haas commented that the applicant was changing the west elevation. He noted the site plan had not really changed but noted on the plans the separation between the dormers was where the 9’-12’ “no window” zone existed and that was where the change has occurred. The proposed design shows the window in the dormer comes down to the top of the French doors and every other window has been raised above 9’. Haas said the homes were built to the maximum FAR and the reason for the variance request was due to re-design. Haas explained the 3 criteria are: 1. to better comply with the AACP (which did not apply); 2. better responding to the issue or concerns of the volume standard (non-complying windows cannot better address the standard than to comply to the standard); 3. clearly necessary for reason of fairness due to unusual site specific constraints (the applicant requested the variance be based upon this standard). Haas stated the applicant requested windows in the 9’-12’ “no window zone” in order to have views of Aspen Mountain because of the unusual site specific constraints due to fairness. Staff’s opinion was that this was not an unusual site, but a site that was commonly found throughout town. Haas said the site was not the reason for 9’-12’ windows, but a change in the design. He noted that based upon the re-design, staff recommended denial of the variance. Klein asked that the committee look at the community interest that is being served given the property location on an private access easement without pedestrians. He said that he was involved in the development of Ordinance 30, so he is familiar with those concerns. Klein said the street scape is not at risk here. He noted the windows are broken up with an articulated facade. He commented that it doesn’t appear to be one of those obtrusive designs, but rather architecturally keeping the primary viewplane of Aspen Mountain. Klein said this was a natural design element. Winnerman stated the architect assured him the design met with all the appropriate energy situations and legal limits on the glass area. Dave Johnston noted the curved elements on 580 Win-River with the South elevation raised. Roger Moyer asked the reason for not having a site plan. Gilbert Sanchez questioned the elevations on the plans that were submitted. Haas spoke to Campbell who said it was the west elevation on Win-River 1. Winnerman said there were large spruce trees screening the property. 2 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE OCTOBER 9,1997 Bob Blaich noted the south elevations had changed the smaller windows to large plate glass windows. He asked if these windows were also of concern. Winnerman said (looking at the floor plan) that the windows come together, with the same height, in the livingroom for the views of Aspen Mountain. Blaich questioned what variance was being requested. Haas answered that every second floor window was included in the request. Buettow asked if there was a pedestrian trail adjacent to the houses. Hoefer noted that there were different routes being discussed, one along the river and one behind the house. Klein warned that the potential of the trail location on this property had created some sensitive issues, and this variance should not be denied based upon that issue. Hoefer agreed that should not be a consideration in this deliberation. Blaich questioned the change in the design (height and relationship of the windows) for the development to be more salable or for the owner. Winnerman replied that the original approvals were done and then this was re-designed. He said one house was his own and the other was for sale with the best possible views of Aspen Mountain for that future owner. Moyer asked the square footage of each house. Winnerman replied approximately 5800 feet. Moyer said the plans did not help and felt this application was incomplete. Moyer asked the distance from the river. Winnerman stated that there was a 15’ setback from the top of slope and at least 50’ to the river bank. It was noted that there were many trees blocking the viewplane from houses across the river. Haas personally did not find the windows offensive, but said there was a difference between fairness and generosity. He commented that windows in the dormers were fair but windows along the entire west facade were for marketability. He said there were views of more than just the mountain, also views of the Roaring Fork River. Blaich asked if the variance could be broken down. Haas replied that each window could have a separate variance if the board so decided. Winnerman said that he did not know to whom the fairness applied, but wanted to have the opportunity to do this because he wanted to have the best possible views. Sanchez questioned the real value of the increased window heights under the roof eaves. He thought the view would be the soffit. Haas stated that 3 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE OCTOBER 9,1997 whether or not a variance was granted depended upon 1 of the 3 standards being met and not whether or not the project was on the grid. Buettow said there was a greater view potential with this re-design. He said the Ordinance 30 was done because of objection to the 2 story palladium windows exactly like what was drawn on these plans. Winnerman said the ordinance was created because of west end homes. Blaich defended Ordinance 30 in the west end and did not want to add exceptions to Ordinance 30. He noted that the first design was better in his opinion. Hirsch stated the property was in a very private section. She said that a person having the opportunity to make some money on a project was not a problem but the soffit view plane problems were real. Winnerman said if the variance was granted, he would look into that change. Johnston stated that he was frustrated because of the extremely incomplete application. He noted that there are now 4 windows instead of 2 being changed and the dormers change turned into the entire livingroom window facade. Johnston said the livingroom windows were added with no gain architecturally. He stated that form follows function. Sanchez felt this an appropriate site to grant the variance. He had concerns about the all the windows from an aesthetic and architectural point of view. He felt the pop-up elements acceptable but raising all the windows was not. Moyer said this was another anomaly of Ordinance 30. He said this was on a private country road, not in a neighborhood and whether or not he liked the architecture or not relevant was not with the issues. He agreed with the prior comments and especially the fact the application was incomplete. Moyer asked if they were turned down could they come back. He strongly suggested they have a more complete proposal. Winnerman said the windows needed to be ordered and time was money. He noted on Lot 2 there was no dormer and it had lower windows (this was his house). Winnerman wanted to design his house and the other houses he developed and if ordinance 30 did not apply, then he should be allowed to build this, and 4 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE OCTOBER 9,1997 the variance should be granted. Winnerman apologized for his architect not being present and not having the appropriate information. Buettow commented this was the first time a full board was present, so Mary Hirsch, as an alternate, was a non-voting member. Hirsch did not realize that she could not vote. Klein asked for a straw vote from the board. Hoefer noted the comments were heard and did not recommend a straw vote. He said they had the option to continue prior to the vote. MOTION: Gilbert Sanchez moved to approve the request for the variance from the volume standard for 2 single family dwellings on Lots 1 & 2, Kastelic Subdivision/PUD at 570 & 580 South Riverside Avenue, adding the condition of approval for proof of notice within 5 days of this meeting. Roger Moyer second. Bob Blaich, Gilbert Sanchez and Roger Moyer approved and Dave Johnston and Steve Buettow denied. APPROVED 3-2. Meeting adjourned at 5:20 p.m. Jackie Lothian Deputy City Clerk The notice was delivered to the Assistant City Attorney on 10/14/97. 5 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE OCTOBER 9,1997 “WIN RIVER” RESIDENCES ON LOTS 1 & 2 OF THE KASTELIC SUBDIVISION/PUD (570 & 580 S. RIVERSIDE AVENUE) APPEAL OF THE “VOLUME” STANDARD (26.58.040(F)(12) ...... 1 6