HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.drac.overlay.19940907`` AGENDA
OVERLAY ZONE DISTRICT SUBCOMMITTEE
September 7, 1994
Regular Meeting
Pitkin County Courthouse, First Floor Meeting Room
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
4:00 I. Roll Call
4:05 II. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair
4:15 III. Comments (Committee members, Staff and public)
IV. New Business
4:25 A. 1106 Waters Avenue u/~ -
4:45 B. 1460 Sierra Vista Drive
5:15 C. - 1357 Mountain View Drive biL
`,.._
5:45 V. Adjourn
,,""^
ft
MEMORANDUM
TO: Overlay Zone District Sub-Committee
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Deputy Director
RE: Lee FAR Overlay Review
DATE: September 7, 1994
SUMMARY: This review is based on the General Guidelines found in
the recently adopted Neighborhood Guidelines for design and
character. Special Review is mandatory and because the parcel is
less than 9,000 square feet (8,617 sq. ft.) compliance with the
review is also required.
Planning staff believes that this project substantially complies
with the General Guidelines.
APPLICANTS: Harlan and Jeff Lee, represented by Wayne Stryker.
LOCATION: 1106 Water Avenue, the parcel is zoned R-15.
STAFF COMMENTS: Please refer to the application information for
the complete representation of the proposal. Because the site is
within the Base of Aspen Mountain neighborhood, both the General
Guidelines and the guidelines for the Base of Aspen Mountain
(Chapter 6 of the Guidelines) will apply to this review. Rather
than discuss each Guideline, staff will highlight only those
guidelines which are pertinent to this project as pinpointed during
staff's study.
The applicant proposes to add an additional 350 square feet onto
the existing single family residence to create a new master
bedroom. With the additional square footage the entire structure
represents 92$ of the allowable floor area of the site. The
proposed addition will pop up above the existing roof line on the
north side of the home and will be set back from the front
elevation of the home by approximately 22 feet.
General Guidelines: The General Guidelines are meant to be broad
in nature and address design variables that are common to all
areas.
Mass and Scale -
1.iBUildings should help establish a sense of human scale that is
inviting to pedestrians.
,_ response: The new addition is stepped back from the front of the
existing home and does not add elevation on the street front. From
Waters Avenue, there is only one point that this addition will be
visible because of the heavy vegetation shielding the northern half
of the building.
2. New buildings should appear similar in scale to those in the
established neighborhood, or to the scale that is desired for the
neighborhood.
response: Although the addition will be the tallest point of the
Lee residence it is similar in height with the closest structure
next door to the south. The neighborhood reflects a variety of
residential scales although most homes on Waters Avenue are set
back and exhibit various roof lines among tall dense vegetation.
3. The street elevation of a building should be designed to appear
in scale with those seen traditionally.
response: As stated above the proposed addition is set back from
the front elevation of the home by approximately 22 feet.
Building Form -
5. All buildings should use roof and building forms that establish
a sense of visual continuity for the community, by repeating
typical form.
response: The addition replicates similar horizontal patterns of
the existing building and mimics the lines of the front entryway
and garage. However, the addition adds a vertical height element
that unfamiliar in the rest of the structure. Perhaps with steeper
pitch of the new roof or greater overhangs the addition match the
scale of the existing building more accurately.
Base of Aspen Mountain Neighborhood Guidelines - The Base of Aspen
Mountain continues to exhibit diversity in architectural character
and building scale. A mix of building sizes, forms and types is
seen. Building materials continues to be varied, even more so than
historically. Stucco, brick and wood are common. STreets are
clearly defined in the neighborhood.
The proposed addition on the Lee residence is compatible with the
specific Guidelines for this neighborhood.
S T RYK ER / BR OW N
A R C H I T E C T S P C
August 31, 1994
Ms. Kim Johnson
Historic Preservation Planner
Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
re: Harlan and Jeff Lee House, 1106 Waters Avenue, Aspen, Colorado
Dear Ms. Johnson:
Enclosed is our proposed plan for the Lee Residence Addition which
incorporates the design suggested by Neighborhood Character Design
Guidelines. The following is an analysis of the original home and goals of
creating an appropriate design for the proposed addition.
DESCRIP'T'ION OF THE PROPOSAL
This house was originally built in the 'chalet' style around the early
1970's. It was crudely constructed of concrete block walls with .stucco finish
and heavy timber framework sided with dark, rough-sawn wood siding. Major
elements of the. house would not have met current .construction standards
such as the foundation, insulation, glazing, electrical etc.. In 1988 the house
was reconstructed by the Lees. The form and massing of the house as it faced
the street were not changed although the finishes and detailing were redone in
a more contemporary expression.
The proposed. second story addition of an Office/Study Room is
compatible with the original architectural style and is compatible with the
Design Guidelines.
3 0 0 5 S P R I N G S T R E E T S U I T E 3 0 0
A S P E N C O L O R A D O 6 1 6 1 1
3 0 3~ 9 2 5~ 2 2 5 4 9 2 5 2 2 5 8 (FAX )
_" Kim Johnson letter p,2
August 31, 1994
General Guidelines:
1. This proposal retains a sense of human scale in keeping w/ the existing
street edge:
2. This second story edition will appear similar in scale to adjacent houses
and is in a scale desirable for the neighborhood.
3. The street elevation is composed of an assemblage of smaller forms
resulting in a two-story facade in keeping with the guidelines.
4. The building entrance is unchanged but exists in a way that is perceivable
as intimately connected to the facade and the driveway.
5. The new addition is similar to the predominantely low-pitch residential
roof form along this street. The ..application of woo d siding returns the
facade to it's original chalet style mix of wood and stucco.
6. The addition retains the orientation of the original house which is
directionally consistent with the intent of the property lines -and street
curve.
7. The building entry exists at street level.
8. The location of the second story addition does not appear to interfere
with the solar access to adjacent properties with the exception of
obscuring very late afternoon sun to the property immediately to the
southeast.
9. The proposal retains the use of stucco integral to the chalet style and
reincorporates wood accents on the. upper level that is compatible with
this style. Stucco and wood are two of the most common building
materials in this neighborhood. The proposed roof material will be wood
shingles identical to existing roofs.
10. This house benefits from possessing a thick screen of scrub oak between the
house and the street which screens the house and enhances a sense of
intimacy, however the proposed second story addition will be .more
noticeable from the street.. The windows are scaled for both view and solar
access. Their vertical orientation is consistent with the guidelines. The
wood trim of the windows is to be thin enough to not appear as clumsy
when viewed together with the existing trimless windows, but will be
~- substantial enough to be compatible to the chalet style.
.. Kim Johnson letter p, 3
August 31, 1994
11. No new skylights are proposed.
12. No revisions to the garage are proposed.
13. No revisions to the driveway are proposed.
1 4. Services areas are not applicable.
15. Preserving historic structures not applicable.
16. Adjacent historic properties not applicable.
Goals for the Base of Aspen Mountain Neighborhood:
This proposal is consistent with the Base of Aspen Mountain neighborhood in
that the pedestrian experience is enhanced by the addition of variety to the
facade .and relief from the existing long roof line.
The views to the mountain from this property, adjacent properties and the
street are not impacted.
The proposal promotes a sense of visual integration by the repetition. of the
low slope roof lines. and enhancing the original chalet style architecture.
The proposed design .respects the guideline for. the Base of Aspen Mountain
neighborhood specifically in the following ways:
53. a. By breaking up the volumes into smaller components the
apparent mass is minimized.
b. The additional building mass does not impact icing
conditions on public walkways.
c. The addition increases the vertical orientation of the
existing home which is preferred in the guidelines.
d . The overall house will appear as a collection. of modules
comprising a .single structure.
e. The building retains the desirable aspect of stepping down as it
approaches the street and the neighboring houses.
Kim Johnson letter p.4
August 31, 1994
Building Form Guidelines:
54. a. The buildings along Waters Avenue are .quite varied and this
addition will conform. in a rectalinear way to -the variety that is
desired.
b. The proposed low-pitch gable roof form is consistent with
the existing home and with the other roofs of the
neighborhood.
Site Plan:
55. a. The first floor is at street grade.
56. a. The low roof lines, narrow driveway and dense landscaping create
an intimate scale .that. is inviting to pedestrians.
Sincerely,
/ f,;
Wayne Stryker, AIA
Ud
~ ~
~» ~ ~ v
~z
~~~
~~
C=
0
s
s
S
~~
~~
s~
~v
a
s
k
Aug. .BI 'y4 10:10 0000 THE LEE GRDUP~ IIJC. TEL310-821-464 PRGE 02
1 _
August 31, 1994
Ms. Leslie Lamont
Acting Planning Director
Aspen-Pitkin County Planning Department
1301 S. Gelana
Aspen, Colorado 91611
I2E: 1106 Waters Avenue
Remodeling
Dear Leslie:
Waters Avenue is a street of mixed types of housing from single '
family detached, condominiums, apartments and a motel-type hotel.
Dramatic changes have taken places on Waters Avenue. The street's
,,, ,,, single family homes have had major additions, remodeling and new
homes built in the last seven (7) years.
1106 Waters Avenue was remodeled in 1986 (mostly interior).
The proposed addition of an office,~study over the existing master
bedroom is designed by Wayne Stryker, AIA. It's design is in
Keeping with the existing home and fits with the two homes on
either side of 1106. They both had extensive 2-story additions to
their existing 2-story homes. The home directly across the street
is a new 2-story home replacing a one story home.
Sincerely,
e
NARLAN LEE
cc: Chron
,.~~-
VV ~7
TO: Overlay Zone District Subcommittee
THRU: Leslie Lamont, Deputy Planning Director
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner
Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: Stauffer FAR Overlay Review
DATE: September 7, 1994
SUMMARY: This review is based on the General Guidelines found in
the recently adopted Neighborhood Guidelines for design and
character. Because of its location in the Cemetery Lane area and
the parcel size of 16,074 s.f. the comments from the staff and
review committee are advisory only.
Planning staff believes that this project substantially complies
with the General Guidelines. Certain changes are recommended to
enhance the proposal's compliance with the Guidelines.
APPLICANTS: John and Leslie Stauffer, represented by Don Huff.
LOCATION: 1460 Sierra Vista Dr. (Lot 37, West Aspen Subdivision
Filing #2) The parcel is zoned R-15.
STAFF COMMENTS: Please refer to the application information for
the complete representation of the proposal. Because this site
does not fall within an area which is subject to specific
neighborhood design guidelines, the General Guidelines apply in an
advisory capacity only. Rather than discuss each general
Guideline, staff will highlight only those guidelines which are
pertinent to this project as pinpointed during staff's study.
This remodel and expansion of an existing single family residence
proposes a floor area ratio (FAR) of 100$ allowed for the parcel.
The existing FAR is 4,311 s.f. The proposed FAR will be 4,811
s.f., plus 719 s.f. of allowable above grade deck. The development
includes an above-grade accessory dwelling unit. The most
important changes to the exterior of this residence will be the new
two-car garage added on the south side, the new master suite on a
second floor above and behind the garage, an enhanced entry area
on the east side, and a redesigned structure over the swimming pool
on the north side. The large, exterior mechanical devices for the
pool room will be replaced with interior equipment.
This project will require conditional use approval from the
~'^ Planning and Zoning Commission for the proposed accessory dwelling
unit. Also needed is a 4' front yard setback variance from the
`'^~' Zoning Board of Adjustment for the new garage.
General Guidelines: The General Guidelines are meant to be broad
in nature and address design variables that are common to all
areas, and particularly those areas which are not addressed by
design guidelines for specific neighborhoods.
Mass and Scale -
1. Buildings should help establish a sense of human scale that is
inviting to pedestrians.
response: The revision of the front of this building includes
keeping the front-most portion one story and stepping back the two
raised portions toward the center of the building. Adding design
details of windows, overhangs, and wing walls towards the street
is an improvement over the basic blank wall which currently exists.
This parcel bounds the public golf course on its north side.
Because of this, staff considered the changes to the rear of the
residence. The enclosed swimming pool faces the north. This room
is being immediately rebuilt for safety reasons due to severe
leakage and a rotting roof structure. The new room will have a
lowered plate height and will replace the flat roof with a low-
gabled roof. These changes will soften the visual impact and
increase the interior volume of the space. The current 1,470 s.f.
roof-top deck will be removed with the old roof and be replaced by
- a 280 s.f. deck. The old industrial-grade heat/vent system will
be replaced with modern efficient equipment indoors.
2. New buildings should appear similar in scale to those in the
established neighborhood, or to the scale that is desired for the
neighborhood.
response: The neighborhood is a broad mix of styles and sizes
including single family and duplex structures. The property to
the east is a very large monolithic duplex. To the west is a
modest ranch style home. From the street, this home will not be
overwhelming because it is deep rather than broad.
Site Design -
6. Orient primary entrance of a building toward the street.
response: The original home has a poorly defined entry which is
behind the gravel parking area on the west side of the house.
Because of this pre-existing condition, the designer has attempted
to add focus to the entry by including a vaulted gable over the
doorway. The gravel area will be eliminated and an entry court
will consist of a new walkway and decorative fencing.
Garages -
12. Minimize the visual impact of garages.
`~....-
response: The revised side-entry garage design is a vast
improvement over the current front-facing garage doors. However,
~~-~ staff does not support the requested 4' front yard setback
encroachment. Staff also believes that the drive-through
configuration for one garage bay be eliminated to reduce driveway
area and a garage door on the east side of the house.
Drivewavs
13. Minimise the visual appearance of driveways and parking
surfaces.
response: The revision greatly reduces the amount of area devoted
to auto parking and access by eliminating gravel parking. The
applicant is still retaining the two curb cuts and providing a
"drive-through" garage. Staff recommends that the drive-through
not be done and that the eastern driveway be eliminated in order
to comply further with this guideline and allow for more landscaped
area in the front yard. If a parking space for the accessory unit
is desired on this side of the house, it should be limited to a
grass-crete type parking pad at the southeast corner of the lot.
The applicant should also consider using grass-crete paving for the
driveway and apron in front of the garage.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This is an advisory review only and the
following changes would be voluntary by the applicant:
1. Eliminate the drive-through garage bay to reduce driveway area
and a garage door on the east side of the house.
`e,.
PROJECT DATA
PROJECT REFERENCE
PROJECT ADDRESS
LEGAL
ZONING DISTRICT
:Stauffer. Residence Remodel
Addition / A.D.U.
1460 Sierra Vista Dr.
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Lot 37, West Aspen Subd.
Filing No. 2
Aspen, Pitkin Co.,CO
R-15,Moderate-Density
Residential
OWNER John / Leslie Stauffer
1460 Sierra Vista Dr.
Aspen, CO 81611
(303)544-9657
ARCHITECT Don Huff & Assoc.
Architects * Planners
P.O. Box 388
Woody Creek, CO 81656
(303)925-4718
FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) ANALYSIS
Floor Area Ratio - Allowable @ Lot Lot Area of 16,074 sf
(FAR allow) + 250sf ADU 4,500 + 1074/100 x 6 =
bonus 4,814 sf FAR allow
Floor Area Ratio - Existin
(FAR exist)
Floor Area Ratio - Proposed
(FAR prop)
Deck Area Allowance
Main Level 2,353 sf
Lower Level; 1,958 sf
( Equivilent)
= 4,311 sf FAR exist
FAR exist 4,311 sf
New Constr. 500 sf
=4,811 sf FAR prop
FAR allow x .15 =
4,814 x .15 = 722 sf
Deck Exist. = 439 sf
" New = 280 sf
Deck total = 719 sf
A.D.U. Area 548 sf
S T A U F F E R R E S I D E N C E
1640 SIERRA VISTA DRIVE
ASPEN, COLORADO
SPECIAL REVIEW: Compliance With Neighborhood Character
Guidelines.
RESPONSE ITEM 6: Description
The proposed renovation addresses the following issues relevant
to current zoning criteria:
A. The addition of an Accessory Dwelling
Unit.
B. A Special Use Review permitting a 4'
encroachment in the 25' front yard setback
provision.
C. The addition of a 2nd level that entails
a proposed F.A.R. allowable, as defined
by the Zoning Ordinance for R15 district.
The design response involves renovation of the following areas:
ITEM I. The repair and reconfiguration of the
existing Pool Room, Roof and Deck above,
located at the northern most area of the
structure.
ITEM II. Converting the existing garage to an A.D.U.
ITEM ZII. Adding a new 2 car garage at the Southern
most portion of the structure.
ITEM IV. Adding a new Master Suite located above
the existing garage (proposed A.D.U.)
DESIGN CONCEPT
The proposed addition and renovation of the property reflects
a physical response that addresses several areas of architectual
design criteria:
A. Massing
B. Scale
C. Cohesive Building Elements
C1. Form
C2. Materials
C3. Construction Means
D. Neighborhood Compatibility
E. Function
F. Energy Conservation
G. Image
G1. Neighborhood
G2. Single Family Unit
H. Site Planning
ITEM I. POOL ROOM
Scope The Pool Room renovation entails the following
physical alterations that reflect design intentions
as described.
1. Lower existing wall height of the north, east,
and west walls and reconfiguring the existing
flat roof profile, and adjacent 1740 square foot
upper level deck to a gabled sloped roof area
and adjacent 280 square foot deck area.
Response * Lessens the scale and mass of the north facade.
* Provides a unifying format and reflects
established structure form and use of materials
and building, features: i.e., railing, roof slope,
fiasco detail, and roof material.
* Improves visual access from the living areas
located at the existing upper level.
* Eliminates perceived large scale commercial style
exterior mechanical equipment i.e., gas fired
air handler, and wall mounted commercial exhaust
fan.
* Increase in the perceived interior volume of
the space due to the cathedral ceiling form.
* Improved spacial scale by elimination of
approximately 1470 square feet of upper level
deck.
* Compliance of life safety issues: i.e., handrail
design, structural design, preservation of
building systems.
Scope 2. Replacement of mechanical equipment and building
envelope i.e., heat exchanger, dehumidifer, new
roof / insulation, new windows and vapor barrier
detail.
Response * Drastic improvement in the consumption of non-
renewable energy sources.
* Improved environment i.e., relative humid
temperature, and ventilation.
* Proper means of moisture retention reflecting
preservation of structural and building systems
elements.
* Improvement of visual and auditory impact to
neighboring properties.
ITEM II. ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT (A.D.U.)
Scope 1. Conversion and relocation of the garage.
Response * Reflects improvement of the visual impact of
the streetscape by eliminating garage doors on
the building facade that relates to the street.
* Creation of a much needed housing unit stipulated
for full time residents of the community.
* Provides the Owner with the option of 'on-site'
property management for security, maintenance,
and service issues.
ITEM III. GARAGE
Scope 1. Addition of new 2 car garage.
Response * Provides desired function of garage, i.e.
1. Direct interior access to living area.
2. Storage of vehicles and other items.
3. Drive thru ingress and egress.
4. Security of access and storage.
* Enhances massing that includes the upper level
building addition of item IV.
* Provides the design vehicle to implement
improvements of:
1. Design motif.
2. Screening Elements.
3. Perceived quality of material and
construction
4. Formatting unifying architectural
elements.
5. Relevant scale of form and detail.
ITEM IV. MASTER SUITE
Scope 1. Addition of New Master Suite above Garage.
RESPONSE * Improves Owner spacial relationships.
* Improves space planning, visual access, and
physical interactions.
* Enhances perceived, architectural image.
* Addresses criteria relevant to real estate
investment and provides responses that reflect
local property improvements of comparable scope.
The proposed renovation complies with current planning and zoning
ordinances, as per the Land Use Regulations, City of Aspen,
Colorado, 1990 including:
1. Site Coverage
2. Open space
3. Parking
4. Floor area ratio
5. Building height, A.D.U. criteria
6. Use
for the R.15 Zone District; and Neighborhood Character Design
Guidelines for Core Area Neighborhoods in the City of Aspen,
July 1994, as recommended by the Planning Department, City of
Aspen; and promotes a response that complies with issues relevant
to site planning, neighborhood character architectural design,
regional style, housing, and other criteria established by local
and regional development practices.
~~>
MEMORANDUM
TO: Overlay Zone District Sub-Committee
FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer and
Kim Johnson, Planner
RE: Allen Residence, 1357 Mountain View Drive (at the corner
of Mountain View and Cemetery Lane)
DATE: September 7, 1994
SUMMARY: This project is located in the Cemetery Lane area.
Because the site does not fall within one of the neighborhoods
which is covered by specific guidelines, only the General
guidelines (Chapter 1 of the "Neighborhood Character Guidelines")
will be applied. Although the proposed new structure is at 96$ of
the allowed FAR (4,321 sq. ft.), the parcel is nearly 15,000 sq.
ft., so the special review is advisory only.
Planning staff finds that this project complies substantially with
the General guidelines, however, the following elements should be
discussed as possible improvements to the project's relationship
to the neighborhood.
APPLICANT: Douglas Allen.
.~. LOCATION: 1357 Mountain View Drive, Lot 1, Block 2, West Meadow
Subdivision, City of Aspen. The parcel is zoned R-15.
STAFF COMMENTS: Please refer to the application for the complete
representation of the proposal. Rather than discuss those aspects
of the project which meet the guidelines, staff has highlighted
only those guidelines which are pertinent to this review as
pinpointed by staff.
General Guidelines: The General Guidelines are meant to be broad
in nature and address design variables that are common to all
areas, and particularly those areas which are not addressed by
design guidelines for specific neighborhoods.
Building Form -
5. All buildings should use roof and building forms that establish
a sense of visual continuity for the community, by repeating
typical form.
Response: Most of the buildings in this area have very
low pitched roofs, and almost none have totally flat
roofs. Views are very important in this neighborhood and
the flat roof keeps the height low, however, a shallow
pitched roof might be more appropriate to this climate
and to the neighborhood.
r Site Design -
6. Orient primary entrance of a building toward the street.
Response: The building is oriented slightly towards the
northeast. Streets in this area are curvilinear, and
many lots are somewhat irregular. The layout of the
neighborhoods is not a uniform grid, however, most houses
are perpendicular to the street. The proposed
orientation is intended to maximize views and solar
access.
Architectural Features
10. Architectural features that enhance the pedestrian experience
are encouraged.
Response: The street elevations are broken up into many
roof planes which are visually interesting. However, the
Mountain View Drive facade of the building offers very
little definition in terms of porches, terraces or other
such features.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This review is advisory only and the
following changes would be voluntary for the applicant:
~,~„ 1. Consider creating a low pitched roof on the building.
2. Consider orienting the building so that it is
perpendicular to the street.
3. Consider adding a terrace or some features to the
Mountain View facade of the building to "soften" it.
r..r
DOUGLAS P. ALLEN
225 North Mill Street, Suite 210
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925-8800
FAX (303) 925-9398
..„~
August 31, 1994
Leslie Lamont, Acting Director
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Lot 1, Block 2, West Meadow Subdivision
Deaz Leslie:
This letter constitutes application for special overlay review for the above lot. In that
connection, I enclose the following:
1. Nine copies of this letter.
"' 2. My check in the amount of $489.00 payable to Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office.
~"° 3. Copy of commitment for title insurance reflecting ownership in my name.
4. 8-1/2 x 11-inch vicinity map locating the parcel.
5. Plans to be reviewed including the site plan.
6. My name, address, and phone number aze shown above. The street address of the
property is 1357 Mountainview Drive.
7. Photographs of other homes in the neighborhood.
As you probably already know, the Cemetery Lane-Mountainview Drive azea is a quite
mixed azea of mostly lower cost homes. Most of the homes in the neighborhood, unless they
have been recently built or rebuilt, have lower cost siding and roofmg materials with very many
with the more economical flat roofs. It is difficult for me to describe the existing character of
the neighborhood and the block other than to state it is very mixed with no particulaz
azchitectural character on this street or in the surrounding neighborhood. Unless the houses aze
of recent vintage, most of the houses that do not have flat roofs have low pitched roofs such as
2/12 roofs.
Leslie Lamont
August 31, 1994
"' Page 2
The house I am proposing to build will be surfaced with natural materials, i.e., stone and
stucco. It will be in the Frank Lloyd Wright azchitectural tradition with three separate roof
planes to break up and minimize bulk, with a lower roof toward the only adjoining home in the
subdivision. It has also received approval of the West Meadow Homeowner's Association after
a long approval process.
The proposed construction meets the general guidelines set out in the neighborhood
character design guidelines for core area neighborhoods in the City of Aspen, as follows:
1. Regarding Section 1. The scale is "pedestrian friendly" and in fact the structure could
be 5 feet higher than it is actually being built if a pitched roof were used.
2. Regazding Section 2. There aze houses of all sizes in the neighborhood, with two
very tall and large houses adjoining the reaz of my property and a large two-story duplex d~rectiy
across the street from my property. I have stepped the roof down as it approaches the house
next door and have located the house not less than 25 feet from each property line.
3. Regazding Sections 3, 4, and 5. All azchitectural features aze in scale with the Frank
" "' Lloyd Wright tradition including the entry. Although the design guidelines refer to steep slopes
,~„ on roofs, a flat roof was chosen lazgely because of neighborhood concerns about absolute height
of the roof. By using a flat roof, I was able to substantially reduce the real height of the
building and to further visually reduce it by placing the roof elements at three different levels.
4. Regarding Sections 6, 7, and 8. The site design complies with the site design criteria
shown in Paragraph 6 of the Design Guidelines. The entry is slightly above ground level. The
platted grid of the neighborhood does lazgely enforce the perception of the neighborhood grid
although the house has been slightly moved on the grid to take advantage of mountain views
from the reaz of the home. Regazding Guideline 7, there aze basically only raised foundations
and ground level entrys and the proposed house has an entry slightly above ground level. Solaz
access to adjacent properties is maintained.
5. Regazding building materials in Section 9, those stated in the Design Guidelines aze
not typical of this neighborhood. Thus, I have chosen "native" materials, i.e., indigenous stone
and stucco.
6. Regazding azchitectural features in Section 10, the windows, doors, and other features
you will note on the streetscape aze of a human scale and in the Frank Lloyd Wright tradition,
while the windows on the reaz aze somewhat larger to take advantage of the views of Pyramid
Peak and the surrounding ski mountains. The trim elements and detail are in the Frank Lloyd
~-. Wright tradition with the primary entry from the street being clearly defined as such.
7. Regazding Section 11, there are no solaz collectors or skylights.
Leslie Lamont
August 31, 1994
'~ -" Page 3
8. Regarding garages, while the garage is attached, it is on the side of the house with
the garage doors not directly visible from the street. The garage doors will have a wood
appearance to be compatible with the other wood on the exterior of the building. Thus, none
of the overall building front is allocated to garage.
9. Regarding Section 13--Driveways, the parking areas are to the side of the building
and the hard paving surface is minimized with the drive paving material different from that of
the street.
10. Section 14--Service Areas. There are no such and thus there is no visual impact.
11. Section 15--Impact on Historic Buildings. There is no adjacent historic building and
thus there is no such impact.
12. Section 16 does not apply.
In summation, I feel that this Frank Lloyd Wright style of home is a compliment to the
neighborhood and does certainly respect and improve the character of the neighborhood.
_,.
~Y~
t~
Dougla P. Allen
DPA/pjh
Enclosures
L1R\166
Douglas Peen
APPLICANT:
ADDRESS: 1357 Mountainview Drive
ZONE DISTRICT: R ~ 5
LOT SIZE (SQUARE FEET): 15 , 000
EXISTING FAA: None
ALLOWABLE FAR: 4499.5
PROPOSED FAR: 4321.7
EXISTING NET LEASABLE (commerdal}:
PROPOSED NET LEASABLE {commercial):
EXISTINGY°OFSffECOVERAGE: None--vacant lot
PROPOSED ~ OF SITE COVERAGE: 229
EXISTING Y.OF OPEN SPACE (Commerdal}: i
PROPOSED 9'. OF OPEN SPACE (Commer.): ~
EXISTING MAXIMUM HEIGHT: p~palg~• None /~ecr++evR4N• None
PROPOSED MAXIMUM HEIGHT: None
,,.,__ 25 feet /pcees.9orvBlda•
rrort`a~i o
PROPOSED%OFDEMOLRION: None
EXISTING NUMBEA OF BEDROOMS:
PROPOSED NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: 4
EXISTING ON-SITE PARKING SPACES: None
ONSITE PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: 4
. Tom'
EXISTING: ALLOWABLE: PROPOSED: -
25
Vacant
Front: ~-r--
Frant: x Front:
Rear
.
-
Rear:
Side: .
x
Rear
x Side: ~'
Side: -~'+--
x Combined FronURear.
Combined FronVRear: Combined FNRr.
EXISTING NONCONFORMITIESI None
ENCROACHMENTS: None
VARIATIONS REQUESTED fokaihle for Land marks Only character comoafibiliN finding must he made by HPC1:
Minimum Distance Between Buildngs:
FAR: ~
SETBACKS: Front: Parking Spaces:
Rear: Open Space (Commerdal):
Side: Height (Cottage Infill Only):
'
Combined Fn/Rr: itl Only):
Site Coverage (Cottage Inl
D~
~{
~ ~ /
To .,
Maio
• ._ ~ ~vT ~ 1+ ~
Munn Lak.
Alu YuY Dc..
Aspen SL....,....
Il.r sL..........._
B. BamW Ct..
Baaea Bent!
C...wdSL.._..__..........._......Hb
..... .......................H+3
r `.
GYau$1......_ ........ .. . .............X-3 Meadow d............ H-2 uRh
OarmirA Sl .......... .. ........G-H+3 Metlowmd On._.. ...G-X-3
Vy~~
Gibe Av_ ........... ..
........G-H-Sd
Meadow Rd.........
.....P9-J
~ ~
Gilhen 9l...._...._ . .... ...............H-3 Midlud Ar...._...... ......__XE-7
OlReepfe Sl ......... .... ...............F./ Mi1181.................... ..............61.3
IWIe SI ........... ..... .............G.3-S MauahS4........... ................G-H-S
f4alherln ....... .. ... ............G-N-2 Mnmuin Ykw Dr. ....._..........E2-l
HiR SI _ ................. ................H-5 Ml laurtl p ......... ......................1-8
HamYke Dr ........ .................B-3 kR laurtl Dr......... ...................1-li
Haphim Ar ............ .........G-H-]fi Nd AV.................. ............_.......H3
Huger SL .... .. ........ ................H-7 NaM S1.........._..... .._...._.......F-}1
Xwen ........ ............D-fig' Gdlfnai SI............. ..................H-16 Rcd'e 0.d.
Hymn Av .............. .........6N+6 Overlook Dr.......... .................... &3 Relml SI
Jum SL..... ... ._....... _.........._H+3 PaA AV ..............._. ..._................Hb RN/e Rd.
luniW .... ........... .................H-S Pak Ci r................. .._.................Hfi River Dr
Kinl k ................... ................Hfi Pend 54..............._ _........._.........P4 RivenHa
lake ...... .............. .............FG-/ PBw ln................ ._...._....._....F-S RivenXe
............... .................H-2 Powu PWU R0...... ._.....~.....P-0-l Rivenidc
Rd ............. ............ G-Sfi Prbmaa PUh...._.. ...__...._.......H-2 RwuingF
' Dr .................. ................I-lJ 1'app3 Smith 34..._......__....._..G-3 Rwrinl F
Magnifico Rd..._ ........ .................E~ Pyramid 0.d........._ ......_...._.......RI Sa/e p...
Main 51.._ .................. ....._..6N-S-3 Qame Sr........_...... ..._..._..........Hfi SHvuim
Marton Crtrk Rd ...... .........QH-1-2 Rxc SL.....,............ _.................GS Silver Ku
Muaar Dr.._ ........... ..................RI Red Bmm Dc........ ,....._...0.E-2-1 Smul/kr
M6kimming Rd...._
i ....._.....H-I-7
~ Red Moudaio Rd .. .............DG-SL Smuggler
A AI
.. _.. ... v •. :. r ~. ... ..
,,.•~
Nd wary ttrael d road u
11a1Md M IaaP6IX iWBd YI
aRw Ruidw. CorHVUCtion d
tIrNU b1d toads IllaY IN 1I1
PIORfON la p11a1118rNi.
Aspen
Yine Sa .......................................G-6 ~`
Walnw SL ....................... ............Gfi
Wuen AV ........................ ..............I6 '
Weu End SI .................... ..........H-Ifi
Weuview Dc .................. ...........1-7-!
Willoughby Wy ...............
WrilN Rd ....................... ......&F-S-S - To Twin Lahec,
............E-S ~ IndepeMe Paaa
rn:a M,u•s
Al
.
i ~ r .
... rq. •
w,..,.-
_. J_ _~ ... _.,._a. ~ .c ..~._..... <......._
...~
,¢