Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.drac.overlay.19940927f ~ ~,,_. t ,. A G E N D A ---------------- OVERLAY ZONE DISTRICT SUBCOMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING September 27, 1994, Tuesday 4:00 P.M. Commissioners Meetinq Room Pitkin County Courthouse, 506 E. Main St. I. COMMENTS Committee Members Planning Staff Public II. MINUTES III. NEW BUSINESS A. Robinson - 1245 Riverside Drive, Leslie Lamont B. Morrow - 1120 Black Birch, Kim Johnson IV. ADJOURN MEMORANDIIM T0: Overlay Zone District Sub-Committee FROM: Leslie Lamont, Deputy Director Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: Robinson FAR Overlay Review DATE: September 27, 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 although the parcel is 9,750 square feet so compliance with the review is voluntary. Planning staff believes that this project substantially complies with the General Guidelines. APPLICANTS: Gretchen and Elliot Robinson, represented by Kim Raymond. LOCATION: 1245 Riverside Dr., 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 not within a "core neighborhood", only the General Guidelines found in Chapter 1 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 applicants propose to add an approximately 1,405 (as measured in floor area) addition onto their existing single family residence to create a new dining/kitchen area, living room, and bathroom. With the additional square footage the entire structure represents 99$ of the allowable floor area of•the site. The proposed addition is a new level to the main level of the house. 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. Buildings should help establish a sense of human scale that is inviting to pedestrians. 1 response: From Riverside Drive a pedestrian will view the southeast elevation of the home. The two story gable is a tall and flat plane. Staff would recommend that the applicant change the windows slightly or add some horizontal elements/projections to break up the tall, flat facade. 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 architectural style of the homes along Riverside Avenue are varied. The majority of the homes are set back from the street and surrounded by mature vegetation. Although the new addition onto the Robinson residence is a significant amount of floor area which makes the home one of the largest in the area, it does not bring the home closer to the street or impact the surrounding vegetation. The home is only visible from the front drive. 3. The street elevation of a building should be designed to appear in scale with those seen traditionally. response: In addition to adding more articulation to the front facade, staff would recommend that the garage door be altered so it appears that there are two doors which should help scale down the visual impact of garage doors as seen from the ,., street. 4. Building entrances should be similar in scale to those seen traditionally. response: As part of the new addition, the applicants are adding a sloped, gable roof over the entry door to provide a better human scale. 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 two new gable roofs that are being added will be a slope of 8/12 which is more in line with other homes in the neighborhood verses the flat roof of the existing home. The new addition proposes more definition and articulation to the existing home which currently has too many blank and undefined walls. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this addition with the recommendation that the two story southeast elevation is changed to create horizontal elements to break of the tall, blank wall. In addition staff would recommend that the existing two car 2 garage door be altered to simulate two doors on the garage. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the Robinson Special Overlay Review with the recommendations outlined in staff's memo dated September 27, 1994." ATTACHMENTS: A. Application B. Submitted Plans 3 ~(,(,I o~ d- Gretchen B. Robinson 1245 Riverside Drive Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 920-4560 September 6, 1994 City of Aspen Planning Office 130 S. Galena Aspen, Co 81611 RE: SPECIAL REVIEW; Lot 14, Block 1, Riverside Subdivision To Whom it May Concern: The following is a description of my perception the neighbor- hood where I live with my wife and daughter, in the Riverside Subdivision. Most of the homes have been here since the late 60's and early 70's. The predominate type of construction is wood frame with same sort of trim, either brick or stone. Most are two story; many have had the second level added after the initial construction. The neighborhood has an abundance of mature landscaping, giving the area a feeling of seclusion and privacy from the street and from each other. The proposed addition to our home will not change this. The streetscape will remain the same, virtually screening the addition from view from the street, except at the driveway. We are planning this addition to our home to accommodate our growing family. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, ~~ Kim Raymond September 6, 1994 City of Aspen Planning Office 130 S. Galena Aspen, Co 8161 I RE: SPECIAL REVIEW; Lot 14, Block 1, Riverside Subdivision To Whom it May Concern: First, a little background on the house at 1245 Riverside Dr. The house was originally fairly small with roofs with a very slight slope. The house was remodeled and added onto in 1988 when it was owned by the Melvilles. My client, Elliott Robinson, purchased the home in 1991. The building, as it is now, has a series of almost flat roofs. The addition in 1988, included adding a new entry vestibule. This addition was quite tall, with no overhangs and a new entry porch with metal pipe railing; giving the home a contemporary, rather stark look. Tn working out the design of the proposed addition to this home, I fast of all tried to incorporate all the needs of my client's growing family. Additionally, [attempted to fashion the design in accord with the new neighborhood chazacter guidelines and bring the house more in line with the chazacter of the existing neighborhood. Please keep in mind, that starting with an existing building, the options are limited. The proposed addition includes adding a new level to the existing main level of this multi-level house. We aze also replacing many of the existing windows in the rest of the house to make them not only fit in with the design better, but also for energy concerns. Following is a description of the ways we strived to meet the character guidelines. Since this project is not in any of the specifically named azeas, the general guidelines were followed. ~/Fax (303) 544-9255 ~ Box 1458 ~ Aspen, Colorado • 81612 ~~ Adagio Design Custom Homes A. Preserving established neighborhood character where it exists: This is not a neighborhood that is particularly historic; this subdivision was built in the previous 2030 years. In the proposed addition, we will be using siding that matches the existing, and replacing the contemporary looking rail- ing with one of wood. Most of the homes in the area aze set off the street and have an abundance of landscaping to screen them from the street. We are not going to disturb the existing vegetation with this addition, respecting the existing streetscape. (See photos) B. To enhance the livability of individual neighborhoods for their residents: Riverside Dr. offers a very inviting pedestrian experience. With the abundance of natural vegetation mixed with little pieces of landscaped azeas, the pedes- trian gets a feeling of being removed from the city. The new design has brought back the human scale to the entry by adding a sloped, gable roof over the Entry door, giving the building's entrance more defmition. The peak of this new roof, is below the existing vestibule roof, giving the sense of a small front porch. The new roof on the building will have a slope of 8/12, being more in line with the other houses in the neighborhood than the existing flat roof. C. Encourage creativity in new design: To have this project continue to fit in with the neighborhood, we aze using siding to match the existing, vertical wood siding and similar trim details. We have attempted to fmd the balance between similazity with surrounding buildings and an interesting new design. The basic roof line is in line with many of the homes in the azea; a simple gable roof. We have added a dormer and have the eave line ending at different levels to be break up the perceived mass of the roof and make it more interesting to the passer-by. D. To preserve individual historic resources of Aspen: Since this is not a very historical neighborhood, the new addition has been designed with the view of enhancing the current neighborhood with a quality building, using building materials that are existing and compatible. , E. To promote the use of alternative modes of transportation: The entrance to this subdivision is off Hwy 82, very near a bus stop. Since the streetscape of this area is very pleasing, with off street parking and the natural vegetation, residents find it enjoyable to walk through their neighborhood. The proposed addition to this home will not adversely affect this setting. Our addition will be screened from the street for the most part, with the new roof peaking out from behind the trees. The following information addressed how the design of the addition meets the criteria of the general guidelines for all Aspen core area neighborhoods. 1. Mass and Scale The new roof at the entry helps add the human scale to the entrance of the building. The roof design on the new upper level is sloped, rather than flat like the existing roof This helps the perception of the building to be smaller, less massive. On the Northwest side of the building, the face of the addition steps back from the existing level below twice, breaking up the mass of the elevation and keeping more space between the living azeas of this house and the house behind. this also breaks up the mass of the new roof, giving an interesting eave line. The flat roof, above the new entry steps down from the new gable roof, tying the new design in with the remaining, unchanged portion of the building, that has flat roofs. The new windows on the Southeast elevation are smaller in size and vertical, which is more in line with the traditional building styles. 2. Building form The new design for this structure is simple, with two main gables over rectangulaz shapes. The interest in this design is in the way these simple forms are used in different ways. The overhangs and the steepness of the sloped roof are modest, staying in harmony with the traditional styles in Aspen. 3. Site design The site design for this project was established many years ago. The proposed addition is not going to change the site design since the addition is on top of the existing building. 4. Building materials The sense of continuity throughout the neighborhood remains intact with the new addition [o this house. The existing building materials on the house aze in line with the rest of the neighborhood, and will be matched with the new ones. -- - - ~~y ~; ~' ~ ~ ~~ / ' ~'a ~,6 ~ ~., ' l '+I mss, ~) ~\J', ~~ J ' /`~~ \\ ,y u o ~ ~ UGG ER '~'-c, ' , '„ A\ ~~ ,~ ~ Q Q .~ e O 0 OF 0 0 0 ~~" TO: Overlay Zone District Subcommittee THRU: Leslie Lamont, Deputy Planning Director FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: Morrow FAR Overlay Review DATE: September 27, 1994 --------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- SIIMMARY: This review is based on the General Guidelines found in the recently adopted Neighborhood Guidelines for design and character. Because of its location on Black Birch Drive (in the Cemetery Lane) area and parcel size of 15,113 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 recommendations are being made to enhance the proposal's compliance with the Guidelines. APPLICANTS: Darrell and Virginia Morrow, represented by Chris Ridings, Bill Poss and Associates LOCATION: 1120 Black Birch Dr. 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 99~ allowed for the parcel. The existing FAR is 2,520 s.f. The proposed FAR will be 4,320 s.f. The reconstruction will bring a front yard setback, encroachment into compliance with the 25' front yard setback required by the R- 15 zone district. The homeowner's association has reviewed the plans and approved them, including variances to the subdivision's covenanted setbacks which are more stringent than the City's setbacks. This project must also be reviewed by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission for "stream margin review." This is scheduled for October 4, 1994. 1 The most important changes to this residence will be the new second floor, a vaulted single story addition and garage added on the south side, and a circular paved entry court. 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 moving the front wall back four feet to comply with required 25' setback. Except for the front corner of the garage, the structure recedes from the street. The street elevation on the west side is well punctuated with modest scale windows, roof gables and overhangs. 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 of "~^_ single family structures. The neighborhood is located in a rather lush, well-treed area next to Castle Creek. This provides screening for many of the homes. Most surrounding homes are modest to large. From the street, this home will not be overwhelming because it is setback behind the circle driveway and will retain much of the native vegetation. Site Design - 6. Orient primary entrance of a building toward the street. response: Good focus is provided to the entry by including a balcony and gable over the doorway. Garages - 12. Minimize the visual impact of garages. response: The garage is entered from the side, although it somewhat faces Black Birch Drive to the north. The west wall contains windows and other trim typical to the house so that it appears "well connected" design-wise. Driveways - 13. Minimize the visual appearance of driveways and parking 2 surfaces. response: The revision greatly increases the amount of area devoted to auto parking and access by creating a circle court. It is strongly recommended that the owners consider a "grass-Crete" paving system to soften the appearance of the space while still providing a vehicular surface. BTAFF RECOMMENDATION: This is an advisory review only and the following recommended change would be voluntary by the applicant: 1. Introduce a "grass-Crete" type pavement in the entry court to soften the appearance of the substantial driveway court. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the Morrow Special Overlay Review with the recommendation outlined in staff's memo dated September 27, 1994." 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Amy Amidon, City of Aspen Planning Department FROM: Chris Ridings DATE: September 6, 1994 RE: MORROW RESIDENCE, 1120 BLACK BIRCH DRIVE, ASPEN Attached is the Neighborhood Character Guidelines application package for the Morrow Residence located at 1120 Black Birch Drive, Aspen, Colorado. Please review the following list of application items. 1. Preapplication Conference Summary 2. Deposit of $1,074.00 3. Application Form 4. Applicant Payment Agreement (4 pages) 5. Letter Authorizing Representation of Applicant 6. Disclosure of Ownership 7. ,Vicinity map 8. Homeowners Association Letter of Approval 9. Zoning Analysis 10. Homeowners Variance Approval 11. Property Owners Neighborhood Description 12. Neighborhood and Project Description (2 pages) 13. Photographs of Existing Structure 14. Photographs of Surrounding Neighborhood 15. Existing Floor Plans 16. Site Survey 17. Site Plans 18. Proposed Floor Plans 19. Proposed Elevations If you find anything missing or need further information please call, 925-4755. `w..~.- 605 EAST ,MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 87677 TELEPHONE 303/925-4755 FACSIMILE 303/920-2950 ,~. .;~ ~y~ - ~- - _- -T~:; >~;.~ - _~;; ITEM 1 5 e.~y + y _ ~ ,. ~ to-... ~ 4.~- t _ i~: '. -~ - t~ N a t, . :.ll.,..,_ : . i , Cily of Aspcn T' c~ Pre-Application ConCerencc Summary i - ' ), fey ~+ ' ^lfa e. ~/~P ljl l ) >. . , %%ILaw. autalt Applionl'3 fl o 1 1 c ' RCprGt<nlatlv<'3 rlWn< S `~-C - - h Owner'sName M n / -. ' . L.. `. .a-r T ~ Typc a( Application ~ %12-T12 r . ~~ ~' ~- ~ Desrnption or We praJRUdeve ulnnnn Uewg rpqumeJ ~ -=. 7.,,_u,, t i[~ ;: - b US ~ Tx applianl has hcen reyue+tal Iv retlrvnd Io the following irons and pravitle the fallowing ._ ,-:T - rCpafl3: _ - J Use CoJ<Sttlion Cunnu<ttls nn L __ yy a~.x 7Nfiw ~ffn . ~ __g9~'b2, ~ _ 'a p / I s ~ ncin 'rhe review is: & only (CC only) IP&Z mJ CG Heferrnl ABe ., i ~ ~~ (( ~~/fr ~a,3, rublie llcarwg: (Y~7 not ~y~~ I)gxrilfor the AnPl alimt RCVKw: Itclcrnl a<oa:y Om rw. 9/ --~ (AJdI(IV al boars arere uu ed al a rare vi 3T~iJ/ Ir~ . , / lp M~/~J - .Gra 'iv APyly Suhnul tl¢ rulbwin< lu(m vun inu: 9r1 (1 ~ ~ ~~ ¢6'~-~~IX I. rrun( or nwnenhia „' 1. 5 encd fcc a<rccul<n1. J. Appii<anl's Iama.:.AJrcss uul IckVhvv< number n a Ielter tignnl 6y the applicaul -- r _ whldl 'tlY tPll6 tl0. 'Imc. tddreS3 a nl Illcllh c nuwbcr ui IhC rcOrC3cnlaliv<. <W 111 IIC lphnC.llip 1 $ ~l7 ~ ~[.~/'~n /~ i I r 3 ' C 1 S b +ICIx1 kct 1 ua v ~ i . ~ es wl 1 x r ~,-Y 5 / G ttq ct or II e a Plnc tVy p au v IosN use31, uKll Jmg miili - i - a le w w ~Nyx.'S, ~SY~ary IIIICr cgnni Jn¢ tlm reyuesl (ex C Sl(C<I atlll<$3 :111(1 I[QtI (IGXnn11 V11 of IIIC IIMIKrIy. _ ), And IR' by I I' v Dally nap hKaung II < p3rc I wilhin the GIy of Axpcn. _ all {11.111 ~nCI11JC 'rnlKrly 10111taritl, lot IILC. praflY3CJ 100033. a11J IIIIy31 Cll 5i1< a ~w .~ ~' p - (CllYrf3 (Jninageway3, Arnlne, rivers. ete.J - ,~ . _ 9. T ~ - Ip. 1 1 _ _ _ .,Tt - ~1. _ 1 HICK a<III: a<CJ w 1)<Snhmiu<d it <ir<ICd: _: -1. (~ -%-, y - a. List of aJjxull prvlKrly uwacrs wilhin JW f<d or the rvhjed prolxny wish aJJresse. _ - _ h. Silt Phmot _.._ , .. .. .~....>.. .. e. I'roo(o( legal acrns Iv the Imael. J. Hiriurie Preservalivn Colnmiuion reviewiappmval- ' ~':~~::j :~i'~, : L~~' _ r } } _._ 5.' APPLICANT: ADDRESS: ZCNE OtSTA1CT: LOT S1Z= (SCUARE FEc^ i ]: EXISTING FAA: AC10WA8LE FAR: PRCPQSE~7i FAR: EXlS71NG NET LEASABLE (commend): PRCPCSc7 NET LEASABLE (ccmmen~: EX1Si WG Ye OF STiE COVEi~IAGE: PRCPCSED°'. CF SITE CCVEaACc Darrell & Virginia Morrow 1120 Black Birch Drive R-15 (PUD) -~ 15,113 s.f. (13,338•s.f. above water) 2,520 s.f. 4,384 s.f. 4,320 s.f. Existing footprint 1294/13,338 = 9.79 New footprint 13,338 =24.79 IXiSTING da OFCPEN SPACE (Commend): PRCPCSE7 : CF CPEN SPACE (Contmer.): EXISTING MAXIMUM HE~GHT: P9CPCSc'7c MAXAfUM HEIGHT: PROPOSED <CFOEMCLITICN: EXISTING NUMBER CF 8E7RCOMS: PROPOSc'"7c NUMBER CF8E7RCCMS: EXISTING ONSfiE PARKING SPACES: ONSTiE ?ARKING SPACES REQUIRED: ~: EGSTING: Front 25 Rear. 10 Side: 10 Combined FranURear. EXISTING NONCCNFCRMTTIES/ EidCRQACHMENTS: N•w• N. . Pr~lWda : 2 4 ~ I Ac;.2sscrv PIrSr Pritacal Bldo : 2 6 ~ I Atsracrv R4M: less than 509 4 5 4 5 (1 ALLQWABLE: PRCPCS©: Franc FronC Rear. ~ ~ Rear. Side: 10 5~de: Combined fflQyFlr. Combined FmnVRear. Existing structure extends into front setba VAgtATIONS gF01IFSTFO felirnhl /nr andmadrs Only character comoahtxTity firtdrtn m ~~ ~ m d by HP l: FAR: Mirtimtan Distance Be6veen B~Iangs SETBACKS: Front Partdng Spaces: Rear. Open Space (CommesQal): Side: Heigh (Cottage InSa Only): Combined FrURr: Site Coverage (Cottage Infip ONy): (1) VARIANCE granted by Homeowner's Association. ~~~M #3 ASPEN/PITKIN PLAIOTNING OFFICE Ciry of Aspen Development Application Fee Policy The City of Aspen pursuant to Ordinance 77 (Series of 1992), has established a fee structure for the processing of land use applications. A flat fee or deposit is collected for land use applications based on the type of application submitted. Referral fees for other City departments reviewing the application will also be collected when necessary. One check including the deposit for the'"Planning Office and referral agency fees must be submitted with each land use application, made payable to the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office. Applications will not be accepted for processing without the required application fee. A flat fee is collected by the Planning Office for Staff Approvals which normally take a minimal and predictable amount of staff time to process. The fee is not refundable. A deposit is collected by Planning when more extensive staff review is required, as hours are likely to vary substantially from one application to another. Actual staff time spent will be charged against the deposit. After the deposit has been expended, the applicant will be billed monthly based on actual staff hours. Current billings must be paid within 30 days or processing of the application will be suspended. If an applicant has previously failed to pay application fees as required, no new or additional application will be accepted for processing until the ~' outstanding fees are paid. In no case will Building Permits be issued until all costs associated with case processing have been paid. After the final action on the project, any remaining balance from the deposit will be refunded to the applicant. Applications which require a deposit must include an Agreement for Payment of Development Application Fees. The Agreement establishes the applicant as being responsible for payment of all costs associated with processing the application. The Agreement must be signed by the parry responsible for payment and submitted with the application in order for it to be accepted. The complete fee schedule for land use applications is listed on the reverse side. APPLICANT PAYMENT AGREEMENT ITEM 4 1994 CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE APPLICATION FEES CATEGORY HOURS BASE FEE' DEPOSIT I. GNIP1Subdivision/PUD/SPA 1. Conceptual Submission 25 2. Final Plat 14 II. Subdivision/PUD/SPA 1. Conceptual Submission 17 2. Final Plat 12 III. All "Two Step" Applications 13 $4,075:00 2,282.00 $2,771.00 1,956.00 $2,119.00 IV. All "One Step" Applications 6 $ 978.00 V. Consent Agenda Items/All Staff Approvals Flat Fee $ 215.00 VI. Referral Fees -Environmental Health and Housing 1. Minor Applications Flat $ 60.00 2. iVlajor Applications Fee 150.00 VII. Referral Fees -Engineering 1. Minor Applications Flat $ 96.00 2. iVlajor Applications Fee 242.00 Additional Billing $163.00 Refund Rate $163.00 ASPEN/PITKIN PLAS~INIl~TG OFFICE Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Develo,_pment Application Fees CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and y~~c.. ~-~ ~ ~G/ (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that Ciry of Aspen Ordinance No. 77 (Series of 1992) establishes a fee structure for Planning Office applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness. 3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full . extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and ' . CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties to allow APPLICAN'T' to make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to process APPLIC?,i~1T'S application: 4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and/or Ciry Council to enable the Planning Commission and/or Ciry Council to make legally required findings for project approval, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. 1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for 5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of application. completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an mitial deposit in the amount of $ which is for hours of Planning Office time, and if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT- shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY. for the processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing. CITY OF ASPEN APPLICANT By: ~_ Diane Moore City Planning Director By: l~l~,1o Q Q ~~ ~a3~E~t~l6~l~ cavRT-. )-E~ lrratl ! X -77n24~ Date• 25 Z June 7, 1994 City of Aspen Planning Office Aspen, CO 81611 Gentlemen and Ladies: ", I, Darrell C. Morrow, will be making certain applications for consent to modify and expand my home at Aspen which is situated at 1120 Black Birch on Lot 12, Black Birch Estates, being a part of the southwest quarter of Section 1, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the sixth prime meridian, Pitkin County, Colorado. Set forth below are my current addresses and telephone numbers. At present, my primary address is the one set forth first. Darrell C. Morrow Suite 2601, First City Tower 1001 Fannin Street Houston, TX 77002-6760 (713)651-2176 Darrell C. Morrow 1120 North Black Birch Drive .Aspen, CO 81611 (303)925-8621 The name, address, and telephone number of the representative authorized to act for me on all matters with the respect to my applications are set forth below: Bill Poss and Associates 605 E. Main Street Aspen, CO 81611 (303)925-4755 Sincerely, (~,~~ _~~'" "' Darrell C. Morrow LETTER AUTHORIZING REPRESENTATION OF APPLICANT ITEM 5 i4 ' OWNERSHIP ANO ENCUMORANCE REPORT 2397Ab Made For: Morrou/G8H STEIVART TITLC- OF ASPEN, INC. HERE6Y CERTIFIES from a scarclt of [he 6aoks in this office [hoc rite owner aC Lot 12, DLACK BIRCH ESTATES 5U80IV IS ZON County of Pitkin, Stateof Colorado Situated in du County of Pi[kin, Snrc of Colorado, appears ro be vested in dtn name of Iiarrell C. Narrou and [hoc the above described peppery appears ro 6e subject ro [he following 4100.00 A Deed oP Trust dated Ouly 1^_, 1985, e;:ecuted by Darrell C. Morrou, to the Publ is Trustee of Yi tV.in CwsrrGy, to secure an indebtedness of 531G, 000.00, in favor of First Nat ior~.sl b~anh. ire Aspen, recorded 7uly~IC, 1985 ire book 469. at Pape GG1 as keception No. CG 9609. NOTE: the beneP is ial intere=_t under said Deed oP trust uas assigned of record to Residential Funding Corporation, a~Delauar e~Cor post ion by Fir=_t Nat ienal bark in Aspen recorded August 8, 19aS in EaoY. 49? at Fage 64B as Reception No. C70425. NOTE: The Sene Pic ial interest under said Ueed of bust was assigned oP r=cord to First Wisconsin irust Cam pang as Srus tee by Resideni ial Funding Car post ion recorded Fehr uary C4, 193G in nook SOS at Page aaz as Recep~tior, No. C750aa. EXCEPT all easements, right-oGways, resvic:ionz and reservations of record. EXCEPT any and all unpaR3 taxes and assessments. This report does not r<tlee: any of the, following ma acts: 1) 6ankruomies which, from dam of adjudication of the most recent bankru pccies, an[edaa the rcoorc by ntnre than fourteen (! 4) years. ?J Suits and judgments which, from date of envy, mmdare dte rcoorc by mare than seven (7) years or until the governing statu ce of limitations has exoved, whichever is the anger period. 3) Unpaid tax liens which, from dale of payment, antedate cb<repore by more than seven (7) years Although we believe [he Cates stated are true, this CerriC¢ace is not [o be comcrued ss an abs[ncc of tide, not an opinion oC tide, nor a guaranty of tide, and it is undcrxood and agred char Stewart Tid< of Aspen, Inc., neither assumes, nor will be cltacged with any ,financial obliguimn or liability whawver, on any ssaw- menr contained herein. Dated at Aspen, Colorado, this 17ti~ day of October A.0. 1939 ac 0.00 A.H. STGIVART TITLEOP ASPEN, INC. 6Y ~Loy~ //iynat'~~ i 4itSG,1_Q6~tEd~6 (~NVNERSHIP {~ ~ '= E ~ r ; ;~ ",117;..} T i-. ""~' r -`3„ i . q .r.;,,: ~... 'p'i Y~ e~.., --- _ . ,'- -- 4 F ~^f' _ 2 ~~_____~ ~~ . ;~ ~0 9 S z 8 -Q ~ 14 13 N ' 12 e _ ~ / IC a I,' GT wi A~ C~~JG I HBY 9 Z 3 oR~~F 8 n 2 N q ~~ 9~F 9 9 I 16 BOG ~~ 7 '0 ': g 9 , 7~ ;j.'.~ `.;. 6 ~~ 6 .. •~~~....~. ~ Q ~~ ``~ 3 3 4 4 y 6 6 3 ~j Z I - Q 2 9 VIE'M ~ovNt p,~N 9 3 4 rf~~ I 2 I ~ ~ 1 Z 3 44 I ~~~ , sr+o` ~ 41/~j'~' ' 'Z 43 -- I D ~~ i'1dF~Ok~. ~,5~ ~~~i ~ rr'{ Mf4~ • ~ 23 i~~ i~~F CPUC ~~ ~ ~~ F/ 1110 Black Birch Dr. ;,suer. CO 81611 June 23, 2944 Mr. Darrell C. Mo:°row 213 Kensington Ct. Houston TX ~~024 Dear Darrell: The 31ack Bi:^ch Estates HOA Architec- tural Control Committee met on Wednesday, Jur.e 22, to review the revised plans Tor your resi9enre at 1120 Black Birch Drive. I am pleased to report that the revised plans were a?proved unanimously. 'tJe are glad that your archi~ects were able to maintain a ?leasing design despite the significant reduction in height. , Sincerely, Black '~~ ,h Estates HOA ACC 0 i relix .ogi ano, J_. cc: Joyce Grue.^.br~rg Sandra Johr.s~~n John P. Mascotte HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION LETTER OF APPROVAL ITEM 8 MORROW RESIDENCE ZONING ANALYSIS -STREAM MARGIN REVIEW AUGUST 26, 1994 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 12, Black Birch Estates Subdivision, Aspen, Colorado ZONE DISTRICT: R-15 (PUD) ~, DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS: susoiwsioN CITY CODE COVENANT S Minimum Lot Size: 15,000 s.f. NA Minimum Lot Width: 75 ft. NA Minimum Front Yard: 25 ft. 25 ft. Minimum Side Yard: 10 ft. 15 ft. (1) Minimum Rear Yard: 10 ft. 10 ft. (1) Maximum Height: 25 ft.(2) =24 ft. (1) Minimum Stream Setback: NA 15 ft. (1) NOTE: (i) Variance my be granted by homeowners associa[ion (2) 30 feet to ridge OFF STREET PARKING ROMTS: 1 spacelbedroom TOTAL LOT SIZE: 15,113 s.f. 1.775 s.f. below high water line 13,338 s.f above high water line ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA: 4,080 s.f. 304 s.f. 7 s.f./100 s.f. lot 4.384 s.f. Total Allowable EXISTING: Upper Level 1,038 s.f. Entry level 1.482 s.f. 2,520 s.f. Total Existing Existing FAR < 110 s.f.> to be demolished ADDITION: Upper Level 481.5 s.f. Entry Level 1,428.5 s.f. 1,910.0 s.f. NEW F.A.R. 4,320.0 s.f. Total Existing & Addition ZONING ANALYSIS ITEM 9 i1'_0 Black 3irc~ ter. _~>;en CO ?i6~i rugusz ;, l_994 '"C: ail Biack B_rci =s~a~2s Lc^Leowners Jl15J iCi : Se ~caCK ~ar_n;.CeS, LO ~3 i0. C aP:Q "10. _~ As o ~azureay, ~u_J 0, sve ^aQ ^ecerr2e .j ,c c_~ed `cr^s, ez~ed _rc.~~ ~uiy _ ~o Jui`; 29, a_i arorov_^.= ~:.e se~back var_=r.ces reaues~ee 'c~,r ;^e c^mers o' Lois c ?rd '_?. 'rle aisc rece_vee a ^,ncne Cai ~ ~0 znOY':.. US :^.a T. ._, =CC_ ~'_Ofla_ a7TJrOVa_ ':vaS `.'1e 'ia^_~^CoS --_.,- --2_"'~_C^c moo-_ ?J_-~'f2d :. ~Ca C- ~icC'.L ---...- ..a :aL25 :.0 [?L20Vf~2^Sti "'Ore =~?n r:Le°._•:~ :i`,2 .Li' -r•~n,Ui-2C. :.~I '^8 CCSe ^?r ~5. "'h° _:•-"'c;? ~OD~eS __e =-Vp 1'_?012 _Or __:SDeC- =_or- --- :^e ~ssoc_.-'_c^ __i2s ma_~=a-nee ~ ~ec- ..~~_,•..,I ;ol-,~ op~'_~rp ?L ~~'-2 ZCOVe ae:.re SS. r~~^?C''•L 'Jou ~-_ '!9__ Ct ;M1c _.._ ~^e _asL ^es_^.c"a2: :L Cn ~_-C,'. ~J~n''~J 'Ci•.:.C:~l:';[...J ;J GCi __Ca ~ _i+ . ~~ 'l~ _ 1p S_Qe"-~ J HOMEOWNERS VARIANCE APPROVAL ITEM 10 September Z, 1994 NEIGHBORHOOD DESCRIP'ITON The Black Birch Subdivision consists of eighteen lots, of which eight lots front on Castle Creek or Roazing Fork River, seven lots are situated on Overlook Drive which is about 50 feet above the cseek front lots, and three lots are situated at an elevation about mid-way between the others. A house has been but7t on each lot except one lot on Overlook Drive. Most of the houses in the neighborhood weze built about 20 years ago; :bout five houses were built in the last 10 years. Three of the houses were substantially reconditioned or added to in the Iast 10 years. Our house has not been substantially reconditioned or added to since its construction in 1973. The neighborhood is on a private street Several of the homes aze quite good; most are elegant but rustic. There is no uniformity of architecture. None is Victorian, four or five are "modem", and the remainder defy categori~stion. About one-half of the families in the neighborhood are full-time Aspen residents. We intend to be full-time Aspen residents. We believe that our proposed house will fit well is the neighborhood. We have shown our plans to many of our neighbors; all the opinions expressed to us have been favorable. The Architectural Control Committee of the Black Birch Homeowners Association has formally approved our plans. Respectfully submitted,~,/ ', Virginia D. Morrow ~~,~~ Q~" d7"L~Y~~ Darrell C. Morrow L•~dmO1S/'d®W~yh6or.m51 PROPERTY OWNER'S NEIGHBORHOOD DESCRIPTION ITEM 11 MORROW RESIDENCE 1120 BLACK BIRCH DRIVE BLACK BIRCH SUBDIVISION NEIGHBORHOOD DESCRIPTION The Black Birch Subdivision is located along the Roaring Fork River and Castle Creek. Most of the neighborhood is heavily forrested with heavy canopy of trees. There is little uniformity of architecture throughout the neighborhood. Building elements worth noting are steep sheltering roofs, compound building forms and native materials such as stone veneer and wood siding. Common elements of site design include screened views of building entrances located at, or around the center of the property, detached and attached garages located at the corner of front and side setbacks and driveways which extend into the center of the lot. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Morrow Residence is located on Lot 12 in the Black Birch Subdivision. The proposed remodel consists of a single story addition on the south side of the existing house, a second floor addition above the existing story, remodel of the existing deck, the addition of an exterior spa, the addition of a paved driveway, relocation of existing ditches and new landscaping. The FAR increase is a result of the owners desire to be full-time Aspen residents and have a home which would accommodate their extended family. The compliance with Neignborhood Character Design Guidlines are as follows: Mass and Scale. The building mass consists of exterior walls varying in height and a sheltering roof sloping down to a pedistrian level at much of the building perimeter. Dormer and gable roof slopes reflect sizes and shapes seen throughout much of Aspen. The existing building extends into the front setback. This non-conformance will be reduced by removing approximately 4 feet of the existing structure. Building Form. The building is a grouping of 3 rectangular forms with steeply pitched roofs, gable ends, substantial overhangs and dormers. Site Design. The primary entrance is oriented towards the street with the entry level elevation just above existing grade. There is no below grade living area or sunken terraces. The building orientation is a response to existing structure location, the adjacent stream and the typical neighborhood entrance setback. Solar access to adjacent properties is not a concern because of the heavy tree canopy and distance between structures. NEIGHBORHOOD AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ITEM 12 MORROW RESIDENCE 1120 BLACK BIRCH DRIVE BLACK BIRCH SUBDIVISION Building Materials. Proposed building materials include, native stone veneer, wood siding, wood beams, wood columns, wood trusses, stucco, wood trim and wood shingles or metal panel at the roof. Architectural Features. Windows and doors which are visable from the street and adjoining lot are of size and proportion which promote human scale. Windows which are not visable from the street and adjoining lot are sized to maximize views of the stream and surrounding landscape. The primary entrance location is clearly defined. Additional architectural features include curved wood trusses, wood rafter tails and substantial wood trim. Garage. The attached garage entrance is oriented at an angle to the street and is located near the front and side setback which is typical throughout the neighborhood. The width of the garage is less than 50% of the building frontage. Garage doors will be treated with wood siding. Driveway. The layout of the driveway creates car parking on the interior of the property and avoids pull-in parking along the street. Landscaping at the edge and center of the driveway will help reduce its scale. Walkways will be paved with a material different from that of the driveway. Service Area. Trash and recycle bins will be located in the garage until scheduled pick up. Impact on Historic Buildings. The existing structure is not located in a historic district and is not desingated as a historical building. 2 PHOTOGRAPHS OF EXISTING BUILDING ITEM 13 PHOTOGRAPHS OF SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD ITEM 14 PHOTOGRAPHS OF SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD ITEM 14 PHOTOGRAPHS OF SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD ITEM 14 PHOTOGRAPHS OF SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD ITEM 14 .., PHOTOGRAPHS OF SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD ITEM 14 :. ,~ -;~ ~ ,~ ,, ,; •3. ~, ~ ,,. ~~ \~ ~vJ ~ J ~ .. ~% ~" ~~ ,• ,, ,, ~ ,~G s~~'// ,'. c '.' 3' ~ ~ ~~ . ~ .'~ '. :. ~~ I ~ ~ ~ ~~ ;/ /~ / ~ ~/ ~ ~ 'y / / ~ / / < \ ~ / / ` ~~~~ --------~` ----- ~~``~~~ N j ---- ---------_---------~` ~~ \ .. u. i o `; ; ` •b ~ ~ ~~.` ____ `~______________-I /•/ I ~~kN}~V6 (~COM ~ i ~ i i _____ II _____ i_____ ~~ i 1 i I: i itl ~ ~ ~ ~ I I i .-. i J i ~S r- iK:TGHEV ~y I L_~ I II!I -~----------~ ,ial I,._____~___}-_ ~ ':7~ I: I r~~l ~1 i 1\ ~^ I . I I ~ -____ ~ i i~ - i ii i ii ~ ~~ ~~~1 i __ ~_ ~s I / /~ a a ._ ..... EXISTING PLANS ~,cisTi,u~j ~ LzJv~L PC~J 15.1 I/ I~ - ~ ~,~t< '~= - 0 / /. T ^~ i,\~ / /'~ `\~ // / ~ \1 ~. \~l \\ O \\yp ~_ ~~~.- .~~ -; ~ _;_,~ ~;, i~ u / ~ \~ ; _. _ , ~:; ~,. ~' i~ ~ ~~.,. [--_r---~--_i -~ ail I ~~ iii ,. ' ~' .,. o ii ;~~ - ---- -.; ~`' e` L: ~.; ~ ~ , -- - ~ i .,, [_ _-_--- t ----, ______---~~, is ~~ ~ ,i :.• i .. i _ ., ' ;: ..~~i.~---- ----- ' ~ ~~ ~ ,;3~eaM II iiI ~ ~I i~ I!J'~ ~----; --- i ~ `i i ~; ~ !~ ~~ ~ ~-~,~ ~g -_==_= ,, ~~ ,; ~, ----- ,~.~cW ~~~ ~~~ t l g,C1sTt~, ~ PPG FEM 1~~ :1 ,'. ~~' ~, OVERLAY ZONE DISTRICT Minutes of September 27, 1994 Meeting was called to order by chairman Jake Vickery with Bruce Kerr, Donnelley Erdman, Sara Garton and Robert Blaich present. Excused was Tom Williams. COMMITTEE AND STAFF COMMENTS Kim Johnson, Planner: Included in the packet is the actual application information that we give to the applicants when they pre-ap with us. It should be kept as permanent records. ROBINSON - 1245 RIVERSIDE DRIVE Leslie Lamont, Planner: This parcel is over 9,000 sf. and the review is mandatory although compliance is voluntary. Riverside Drive is not in one of the core neighborhoods as identified by the guidelines so we used the general guidelines for our review. The homes on Riverside drive are buried in mature nature and are set back. The real view of this home that you get is when you are standing right in the drive. The applicants are proposing to add an addition on top of the home to create a new second story in adding approximately 1400 sf. onto the existing home. The primary comments that Amy and I have with regard to this structure is with the new addition you still have a straight flat south east facade. The new addition is adding a pitched roof and a more varied roof line than exists, but the facade still seems flat. Amy pointed out if the applicant also tried to break up the garage door and it would look like two garage doors it would better define the east facade. Amy: As a comment no changes are proposed to the garage. Kim Raymond, architect: I am representing Gretchen and Eliott Robinson. This house was remodeled in 1988 and they added siding to match the house. Elliott wants to take the siding off and let the windows show again on the garage doors but that is the only proposal to the garage at this point. On the front facade that Leslie is talking about it is hard to tell from the drawing because there are different planes. The main facade does stick out and there has been a lower gable roof added to break up the large plane and it is back about six feet and then the flat roof is back from that. In essence it steps back three times. The top left corner of the house is on a 45 degree angle so it breaks it up a little. Possible we can add another window to break up the plane. Until you get into the driveway you don't see the house due to the mature vegetation. On the backside, the north west elevation we tried to break up the massing of the building quite a bit with the eave line. The dormer area on the left is the closest to the property behind the house. I took Overlay Zone District Minutes of September 27, 1994 photos of the different houses on Riverside in order for the Board to visually see the neighborhood. There is a lot of vegetation in the neighborhood. We tried to put a steeper roof on this house instead of a flat one and have it go in to have more harmony with the traditional houses you see in town. We tried to make the front porch area more of a human scale by adding a sloped roof and add protection from the elements. The original survey show the size of the lot as being smaller as 8900 sf. It is actually 9700 sf. I am 80 feet below the allowable FAR. 4120 sf. is my allowable and the proposed brings it up to 4044 sf. COMMENTS & CLARIFICATIONS Donnelley: This house basically does not impact the neighborhood to an extent that I am worried about. My only concern is that the fenestration of the lower level and the fenestration of the upper level addition on certain of the elevations look so remarkably different it makes the addition look some what awkward but this is a design decision I do not think we have purview over because the fenestration in question is not visible most of the time. This is a larger lot in a heavy wooded area. Sara: Were the garage doors discussed already. I didn't feel like Staff did that it was too wide because I drove up to see it. What they are facing it with blends into the house that exists. Kim: It is all the same siding. Leslie: This is a real contemporary home in a more traditional neighborhood. The existing home and addition fits very well because of the scale and the mature vegetation and the way they oriented the house. With the addition and the new roof line of the addition it will blend with the surrounding homes that have pitched roofs. Jake: When I drove around the neighborhood this house was as close to the street as any of them. One of the things we would like to encourage as masses get close to the street that we step them down. You have two new gable ends that are kind of pushing out toward the street. We would encourage more stepping down. There are a lot of single story houses in that area. There are things that work well the entry which is modest. The use of the flatter roof pitch eight and twelve. By varying exterior materials you could may a layering effect that might further break down the scale. Some of the tall vertical walls might be broken by the use of trim. MOTION: Donnelley made the motion to approve the Robinson special overlay review with recommendations outlined in Staff's memo dated September 27, 1994 and in addition that the applicant study the 2 Overlay Zone District Minutes of September 27, 1994 possibility of breaking up large expanses of siding in the same plane with change of materials or trim that the applicant could consider. The garage door was mentioned; second by Sara. All in favor, motion carries. Leslie: We recommended that the two car garage be altered to simulate door doors. Donnelley: There was a recommendation to restudy the windows if possible but the applicant has responded that the owner does not wish to make that many changes. MORROW - 1120 BLACK BIRCK Kim Johnson, Planner: This application is on Black Birch Drive and the parcel is over 15,000 so we are in an advisory capacity. Staff feels that the project substantially complies with the general guidelines of the neighborhood guidelines and we wish to forward one recommendation specific to the change of space devoted to automobile access. Currently there is an entry drive which I believe is gravel and they intend to create a circle court. We recommend softening that impact with grass-Crete or something similar. The house itself does come forward to the setback line and the structure is being brought into conformance with a non- conforming front setback on the north corner. This site will also be the topic of a stream margin review at P&Z. The FAR is going up to 99% allowed for the site or 4320 sf. They are proposing to and retain landscaping along the street side. Robert Blaich: What is the current driveway paving. Chris Ridings, Bill Poss & Associates: We aren't sure yet and the grass-Crete is a good idea and I feel the clients would be receptive to it. Robert Blaich: I would support the grass-Crete. Chris Ridings: The existing structure is a one and two story building. We will reduce the non-conformance as Kim said by pulling back part of the building. The rest of the structure is the new addition which forms a kind of U around the site. Most of the houses in this neighborhood have a front setback quite away back into the site with a driveway that tends to penetrate into the middle of the site. Some are circular and some are just extra wide. The building itself is a series of pitched roofs and most are fairly steep at thirteen and twelve. The area over the new addition will be 24 feet high and the connecting section between the two is approximately 22 feet high. The building materials in the neighborhood have a little bit of everything. We have used a 3 Overlay Zone District Minutes of September 27, 1994 variety of materials on this building. We have tried to break up the massing with the dormer roofs and with the creation of the curves and gable ends and timber columns. The garage itself is a two door garage and as you approach the site at one point you look right at the garage door but as you drive by you drive by the side of the garage. We have tried to give that area residential character. The windows along the street side of the house are much smaller than they are on the other side and more in keeping with the human scale. On the river side of the house the windows are much larger as that is where the views are. The rest of the neighborhood has limited access at viewing these windows. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS Sara: There is no elevation indicating the garage. Chris: It would be similar to the west elevation where you see the two windows. Sara: If grass-crete can not be used to the climate maybe the use of colored gravel would work. Donnelley: I think a stream margin review will be interesting in this case because we have a reverse situation here where there are more pedestrians in the stream than there are on the street, therefore the argument that we are breaking down the scale on the street side I would rather see the scale be broken down on the stream side because there are a lot of fisherman and there are no pedestrians virtually as this area is the end of black birch. How this house appears from the street is less important to me than how it appears from the stream. Kim: I better clarify that when we go through stream margin review it is not a design review situation it is very limited to the impacts of the stream and vegetation. Donnelley: The house has more impact upon the stream than it has on the street oriented pedestrian and it is something that the city never dealt with before and is not dealing with it in this case. As far as the surfacing of the driveway goes if you drive down Black Birch there are a lot of parking and turnaround areas and the majority of which are gravel or aged asphalt. In this very suburban situation, rural situation one could put in asphalt and then chip-seal it which produces a gravel surface which is easy to maintain. The grass situation may be programmatic because there is shade here all the time and you cannot tell what will successfully grow. I would suggest the chipseal asphalt situation which is easy to maintain and has a rural gravel character. 4 Overlay Zone District Minutes of September 27, 1994 Sara: When looking at this application I wondered how visible it is from the Rio Grande Trail? Chris: The Rio Grand Trail is a good 300 feet from the property. Donnelley: The proposal shows a set back from the edge of the stream approximately fifteen feet. Actually it is much closer to the stream than it is to Black Birch drive. There are reasonably large areas of glazing on the east elevation. Kim: Lessen the amount of glass Chirs: Along the area of concern there are numerous trees and the section of the house exposed to the trail would be the area of the studio and master bedroom. Sara: Picnic Point is right across from the house and is very rural. Jake: I echo the concerns of Donnelley and Sara particularly in the larger window area. Possibly break that area down. You also have some very long ridges approximately 60 feet. Chris: This site is heavily vegetated and you will get glimpses of the house. Jake: My two concerns are the long ridges and the large array of glass and the impact on the river, stream side particularly viewed from either up on the hills or the surrounding vicinity. Donnelley: The area of glass is only interrupted by one horizontal mullion. That large expanse of glass facing east stands out. From an energy standpoint it is not good at all. Right next to the large spance of glass you have casement windows divided into six lights and then you go right into an almost commercial jump in scale, like a storefront. MOTION: Robert made the motion to approve the Morrow application with the recommendation in Staffs memo dated September 27, 1994 and I would like to state that the grass-crete type pavement have added to it and or appropriate; second by Bruce. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION Sara: I would like to see in the motion a concern about the amount of glass especially across from a public area. AMENDED MOTION 5 Overlay Zone District Minutes of September 27, 1994 Robert amended the motion to state that the Board has concern about the amount of glass on the east elevation across from a public area that could be viewed from the river or the point by pedestrians in that area. Bruce did not second the motion, motion dies for lack of second. Donnelley: I would like to earmark that room i.e. the livingroom spot. Restudy of the east glazing of the livingroom on the east elevation. Robert: I do not know how they would solve that problem but we have a concern about it and the applicant has heard that concern. Chris: That is a valid point. AMENDED MOTION Robert amended the motion that a restudy of the east glazing of the livingroom occur and that the Board has concerns on the amount of glass visible from a public area and the river by pedestrians; second by Sara. Jake: I still feel the ridge needs broken up. Robert: I am not sure it would be visible from the trail. MOTION VOTE: Question called, passes 4 to 1. Bruce opposed. MOTION: Jake made the motion to adjourn; second by Sara. All in favor, motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 5:15 p.m. 6 Overlay Zone District Minutes of September 27, 1994 ROBINSON - 1245 RIVERSIDE DRIVE 1 MORROW - 1120 BLACK BIRCK 3 7