Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.drac.overlay.19941005AGENDA ----------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- OVERLAY ZONE DISTRICT SOBCOMMITTEE October 5, 1994 Regular Meeting Aspen City Hall, Second Floor Meeting Room ---------------------------------------------------------------- 4:00 I. Roll Call 4:05 II. Comments (Committee members, Staff and public) III. New Business 4:15 A. 808/810 Bonita Drive 4:30 B. 904 E. Cooper Avenue , 5:30 IV. Adjourn _r RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ~.~. OVERLAY REVIEW BOARD OCTOBER 5, 1994 Meeting was called to order by Chairman Jake Vickery. Answering roll call were Robert Blaich, Sara Garton, Tom Williams, Donnelley Erdman, Bruce Kerr and Jake Vickery. 808/810 BONITA DRIVE Amy made presentation as attached in record. David Brown, architect for project: Showed pictures of neighborhood. I think what we are showing here is a relatively small addition relative to some of the other homes in the neighborhood. This isn't a very large lot. I think adding the dormers facing the street we have created a broken-up mass that in the long run is more in keeping with the typical scale and character that Aspen has come to know over the last ten years. And Godzilla doesn't live here. Sara: In looking at this property over the weekend I think what you are proposing is a great improvement. I agree with staff, I couldn't figure out where the entrance was on that house. .. David: If you face the door--the door is facing the side. So you don't walk straight in the door. At the same time once you walk in the driveway, you do walk directly into the door. So the entry is identified clearly by dormers. Primarily it is to keep privacy from the public areas from one unit to the other. This is a duplex. It is a neighborhood full of duplexes. Creating privacy for the occupant to bar-b-que, entertain, whatever, is very difficult. So in trying to bring that public space in the entry slightly to the side so you are not bar-b-queing or smoking chicken and it goes into the other person's living room. And to create a public outdoor space with some privacy and separation from your adjacent neighbor is part of the goal. Donnelley: I think the solution is very good. The only area that one can deal with in terms of the general neighborhood guidelines is where is the entry. But it is a good rationalization for keeping away--the entry is also slightly elevated which is a public, private space and it is a very efficient way--have fewer openings. It has multiple use. It is not just saying something to the street for symbolic purposes. It is a door that will be used constantly and will be open a lot of the time. David: Along that line I was reading in the guidelines was not having an entry that is too important--too self-conscious. And I think this does that. OVERLAY10.5.94 ~,.~ Bob: That is a very interesting point you make there. I think some of the houses that have been categorized as monster homes-- a lot of it has to do with their overblown entries--tremendous big doors and windows, etc. It might have the street presence but it looks more like a marquis than a door. And there are appropriate places for that. I went down and looked at the property too. I agree with Sara. I think it is a great improvement over the existing structure. David: One other thing to think of in the context is that this is a remodel. The goal here is not to tear it down--not to start over but to do a small addition to make it more liveable for the families that live there. Families with children. So that it works internally and externally on the site. One of the really unfortunate things about this building is there is no relationship between the interior space and the back yard. So that is another thing we are trying to achieve is doors, passage and access to play areas in the back. MOTION Donnelley: I move since we cannot approve the remodel and addition to 808/810 Bonita that we commend it. You are commended. Tom seconded the motion with all in favor. 904 EAST COOPER AVENUE Jake: I will take time here for Mark's benefit to review what we are doing here. City Council passed an ordinance that said that projects that want to build more than 80°s of their FAR on lots that are below 9,OOOsf have to come before this committee for a guidelines review. And this committee is a subcommittee of two other commissions half P&Z and half HPC. The limits of this review are of mass and scale components from the Neighborhood Character Guidelines. So we don't get into more detail review of things like materials etc unless they are somehow directly tied back to scale or massing. What we are really asking people to do is just take a look at the context of the surroundings of their site or project and kind of survey it and see what sort of conclusions they can draw. And then respond to their conclusions in their design. This is not meant to be any kind of design committee or limitation on personal or aesthetic freedoms. ,'°°' 2 OVERLAY10.5.94 Amy Amidon, Planner: Mary and I worked on this evaluation together. The site is located in the east Aspen neighborhood on a lot that is less than 9,OOOsf. So this is mandatory review and mandatory compliance in order to exceed 85°s of the FAR. Both general and specific guidelines were applied to the project. Under each category which is mass and scale and building form, we sited all of the applicable guidelines and then discussed them. Starting with mass and scale: Our response to the guidelines was that the structure is fairly block-like. It does have some variations especially the second story in the form. But there is not much broken down into a smaller recognizable form or module. The guidelines specifically recommended a maximum 15 to 30 feet as a width for any facade and that is not met on a couple of elements. And there is no stepping down in height to acknowledge that the neighboring structure is a small victorian. we recognize that having a detached garage would have helped to make this project appear to be slightly smaller structures. In terms of building form the guidelines state that gable form steep slopes are preferred. It does not rule out mansard or hip type of roof as this is. But I think gable form does tend to draw the eye down to a lower height. It makes the wall-plain appear not to be so tall. There are a number of gable forms around this building including shallow-pitched gables and the ski architecture of chalet style buildings nearby. The Chateau Blanc building directly behind this does have a similar roof to what is proposed here. Site Design: There is a concern from the Zoning Dept that this project would not meet the open space requirement although Stewart has told me that in a previous--the project did have a permit a couple of years ago and it is expired. But at that time it did seem to meet the open space requirement. So I am really not certain about that. Architectural features: Here we sited the windows on the southeast corner of the house. There are some full 2-story windows proposed there. We talked about this in terms of scale--not the type of window or anything like that and that these were especially troublesome to the small victorian building next door. Also porches are an element that the guidelines encourage. This may not be a location along Hwy 82 that porches be a particularly pleasant feature. And there are balconies on the second floor. 0... 3 OVERLAY10.5.94 Garages: We talked at an earlier meeting that the alleyscape may be considered an important pedestrian streetscape. In that case on the north elevation the building has very large garage doors dominating it and maybe something can be done to break that up. Impacts on historic buildings: Again there is no stepping-down in scale to acknowledge the importance of the next door building. The wall looms above it--the east wall. In conclusion staff found that the proposal is not in compliance with several aspects of the guidelines and warranted denial of the requested 85o FAR. With that amount would be about 500 foot reduction in the building as you see it now. Donnelley: Jake, you said that the only aspect of the design guidelines we can consider is mass and scale. Am I under a delusion that this is the only item that we cannot address building form, site plan materials? Amy: I think what Council had specifically said, when they passed this program, what they did not want us to deal with building materials and architectural features in terms of saying that this window form doesn't suit the committee or something like that. But everything else was OK. They wanted us to focus on scale and things like that. Donnelley: So the elements that staff has dealt with, we are also to deal with. Amy: Yes. Bruce: I think Amy said it correctly. I just read through the ordinance. The ordinance says that our primary focus shall be elements of mass and scale. But it doesn't exclude us from considering other elements as outlined in the Neighborhood Character Guidelines. Stuart: The current owner who is under contract to sell it wanted to build this project for himself a couple of years ago. He is a well-renowned architect and has quite a bit of accreditations. He is in California. He designed this and he was familiar with the neighborhood. Then he went further and hired Sutherland Fallen here in town so as to meet County and local codes and further insure getting it through the Building Dept. So it did have a full permit. It expired a year ago. He didn't build through financial reasons. And the Zoning cleared it. The only mention in the Zoning notes that I have was the skylight on the top of the roof. And there was mention of areaways. He left ~.., that up to the Building Dept. So there is enough egress. The way 4 OVERLAY10.5.94 I understand it now is the areaways is not an issue. We could cut it down to where it is just minimal access required by the Building Dept. They signed off on it. The permit was ready. A demo permit was issued. The foundation excavation permit was issued. And then the full permit was ready to pick up. There is completed plans on it. And it has been through all that process. So it is way past conceptual stage. And then this summer Betty and Buz DeValsa got interested in the property and bought it with the plans. They like the plans and they went to the effort and wrote a letter to the committee directed to Stan Clauson, City Planning Director. He then read the letter into the record as follows: "Mr. DeValsa and I are under contract to purchase the property located at 904 E. Cooper. We have been looking for a home in Colorado for quite a few years. And Last August we found exactly what we have been looking for. We spent 4 days in the Aspen and Vail areas looking for a perfect location. When we noticed the "For Sale" sign on 904 E. Cooper we inquired at the realtor's office and there we viewed a rendering of the proposed duplex that we felt was architecturally correct for the location and the floor plan is close to what we would find accommodating for us, our grandchildren and children. The architecture, it appears handles the adjacent properties very nicely. The building north of the property is quite tall and not pleasing to view. Placing the garage for this home opposite these on the alley with an offset of the second floor breaks up the straight-up elements usually found in alleys but still gives mass to the north side of the new residence. The west elevation of the building facing West End Street was handled in an architecturally pleasing manner by having a setback of the second floor with other vertical breaks in materials. Viewing the property from East Cooper also was addressed with recesses on the second floor which after standing at the intersection and looking at all the surrounding buildings, breaks up the monotony of a straight-up 2-story structure. And this residence at the corner of East Cooper and West End would help enhance the neighborhood. The last face of the building has many architectural breaks and without the straight 2-story wall against the neighbors to the east. We thank you for your time and consideration and would appreciate your approval so we can start construction as soon as possible." The main thing I noticed is that this structure does step back and ,..-. it has a lot of angles. The roof portions are a 7-12 pitch. And ~..... 5 OVERLAY10.5.94 it doesn't resemble the building on the alley because this is basically the second story of the Chateau Blanc. And basically the shingles act as just a wall sheathing. Another issue was mass and scale is that the proposed structure is under 25 feet. So by not having a pitched roof it cuts off 3 or so feet because there is a 28 foot ridge maximum. So if it was a pitched and clear to the ridge it would be that much more. So the structure isn't over 25 feet at any place. And in just looking around the neighborhood--cattie-corner is a building that is not going to disappear any time soon. Right here is tall--both of these are almost 3 stories straight up. Right across the Ski Co employee housing which is--who knows what they are going to do with that some day? But as it stands right now it is straight up. Across the street to the south is the Ute Park Place employee housing for the Ritz and another set of condos right directly south that are basically 2 stories and 2 and 1/2 stories straight up. And this is the new structure going up--the townhomes that will come right to the corner, cattie corner from the this proposed structure. They have a break-line there of a minor roof but basically they are straight up. - Then going on down the street you have the Greystones and of course what is right across from City Market. And those are basically all straight up. To the east is the victorian extravaganza on the corner there--straight up. It has a lot of every Curley-que you can design. It is straight up. Next door it is straight up. Then we come to the historic small structure which is 60 feet away- -67 feet away from this building--60 feet away from the property line of the proposed structure. I don't know what is planned--it is currently for sale. My understanding talking to Doremus and other people is that it is going through a lot split and I think currently right now it is to be approved for a duplex on a single family home. And he said the historic structure has a low priority. I don't know if that means it has to be kept or torn down. In any case there is going to be a lot of mass built on that lot which is 4 city lots. I have the plat of the next door lot. It is 4 city lots. There is 2 city lots between this corner lot and the small structure. And then another city lot that when the tan and turquoise building starts. The neighborhood is quite a mis-match. I feel like this starts stairstepping down from almost a 30 foot tall building behind here to 25 feet on down to the streetscape. And this is the view from Cooper Avenue right here from south West End. So obviously we have -.~. got 2 streets to deal with and I think the stair-stepping back of 6 OVERLAY10.5.94 the roof serves the corner view very nicely. And it is approved for a duplex. It is a duplex lot. They are planning to live on both sides. It is not like it is going to be empty. The upstairs viewing this perspective is viewing this right here. I would like to note that the upstairs is quite broken. And this is roof decks. Bob asked for the entrances to be pointed out. Stuart: I know the guidelines talk about a human-scale type entries. Both of these entries are just 8 and 1/2 foot tall arches and they are slightly recessed. This one is recessed about 3 feet. This one is recessed off the west end about 8 feet. So it is a private entry recessed way back in there. On the first floor those entries are right here and here with both the garages in the alley. What this overlay doesn't show is that the first floor is broken up quite a bit. On the east property line where the victorian is 60 feet over it has a somewhat covered porch recessed underneath the roofline which will serve as stairs going down to the ADU. The mass is stairstepped back on all sides. The 2-story window referred to is on this corner of the property. It serves as a stairwell that goes up to the living and kitchen area. So they gain views toward Independence Pass and it gives the southern light and views of Ajax and Richman Hill all along there. So that was a main concern when the initial design was conceived was capturing those views while keeping the other windows fairly small scale. It is a very expensive detailing. And the buyers plan to build it as shown. So they are anxious to get going. As far as the front yard there was a comment on the site design that obviously 82 is here. You have got plenty of cars parking usually right in your front yard. So most of the yard was shifted to the southwest end side and I feel there is a lot of open space there. The garages are a little under 500 a side. And I see no problem with doctoring up the garage doors or something like that as far as making them look not so massive from the alley. But this is the building in the alley you look right across at from the alley. It is recessed carports and basically 3 stories straight up. The perspectives don't show it very well but there is quite a bit of drawback of up to 10 feet--12 feet along in here. The step backs are 4 to 6 to 7 feet. So there is quite a bit of depth before the second floor starts back up. And these are true roofs. They are not as shallow as the Chateau back here where they are ,... more like a wall-plain. OVERLAY10.5.94 The question is what is going to happen right next door? I don't know who is going to buy the project or what they are going to propose. I am sure it will be incorporated into the design of the new project. I have got to believe it is going to be a lot of mass right up against this property line also. Anything is not going to be as bad as what exists in the neighborhood now. As the entrance to Aspen I think it is a beautiful structure. It is more pleasing than anything on the block now. I like the design of the new stuff they are building right now. And the design that is proposed has a lot more stair-step than that. And I just think that anything that is built next door will be in the same scale as what these applicants are proposing. Tom: So this design is from about 2 years ago? Stuart: Yes. Shawn Hill is an architect. And he spent time here in Aspen and purchased the lot quite a while back. He just didn't hire an architect from out of state or anything. He was familiar with Aspen. It was going to be his personal residence and he was going to sell the other side probably. He designed it with his personal residence in mind. I have a stack of accolades that he has been written up about. Obviously he wanted to design something he was proud of. So it is just not a spec house deal trying to cram every square inch you can out of it for spec. As it turned out these buyers want to use the plans and they don't want to turn it into a spec project. They want to get it going and semi-retire up here and have a place for their kids and grandkids. So they are going to use it and live in it and build it as a custom home. Tom: So they are going to live in the whole thing? Stuart: Yes. Bob: I didn't understand that. It is a duplex. Stuart: It is a duplex. Bob: They are going to occupy the whole duplex? Stuart: They are going to personally occupy the south side. And then the north side for--they have quite a few kids and grandkids. Bruce: What is the allowable FAR for a single family? The same as a duplex? Amy: 6,004 feet. `..r 8 OVERLAY10.5.94 .. Leslie: For a duplex in the RMF 3,600sf. And then for a single family it is 3200. Bruce: How do they access the south unit from the garage? Stuart: The sidewalk on the side of the house it is the covered porch I mentioned. There is a door at one end of the covered porch and then the door to the south part of the house is right here on an angle. So it is all covered. Bruce: Through the Building Dept I am assuming we have provision that there be no lock-off door between these 2 units. There certainly has to be a divided wall between the 2 units. Is that correct? Amy: Well, the only time it has been reviewed by the Building Dept as a duplex. Bruce: But there is no way that they can come in. It is supposed to be a duplex. Stuart: It is divided. The ADU has lock-off doors into each of the units. They don't have any idea of opening this off into a single family. Obviously it couldn't be done through the Building - Dept. So they are looking at it as a duplex. And they like the plan. They don't want to start from scratch. And I think this is a lot more sensitive--the gable pitches that are mentioned in this neighborhood. I don't see any gable pitches. I went 2 blocks down each of the streets. But I am sure you are all familiar with the area. It is RMF. It has been dense for a long time. It is probably the most dense area in town and serves the ski industry more than any place in town. So that is what is frustrating as far as stairstepping down into the duplex and then into a single family that would possibly be next door. I think it addresses architectural appeal in the neighborhood very well. Sara: Stuart, I think our charge is not to re-design and create a new neighborhood. And that is sort of what you are suggesting that the neighborhood certainly needs upgrading. Our charge is to try to preserve the different characters that are in the different compass points of the City of Aspen. I have to say that this mass and scale neighborhood or the character guidelines. things that we can point out. That 85%- that you know if it were smaller somehow lot of the public's view. Actually that is the measuring point where we cut off a does not fit with this And there are a lot of -that is a reason there in Council's view and a is not my view but that nd look at these things. 9 OVERLAY10.5.94 .~., So you may like to be a forerunner for that neighborhood but that isn't what we are supposed to be doing. So the mass and scale is the big issue for me. It doesn't relate to it's neighbors. Stuart: Like neighbors like other points in town. Sara: No. It's neighbors on that block and neighborhood. Stuart: These 3 structures are 20 feet away from these property lines. They are just 10 feet across an alley--20 feet catty- corner, 25 feet catty corner to that_ corner right here. 20 feet to this. The Ritz housing in this is 40 feet--50 feet across the street. The current things that are being built and will be being built over the next year are just 50--75 feet away. Each one of those I have pointed out are 25 feet--30 feet straight-up structures. Sara: Well, there are ways to relate that would--it is a block- like structure that I feel there are ways you could design that and still probably have the same size building that would be more friendly to the neighborhood. Jake asked for public comment. There was none. Don: We are charged with finding a building compatible with or meeting the character guidelines. I think you are talking about one thing, Stuart, and we are thinking about other things. We are supposed to think about as to how this building satisfies or does not satisfy the character and guidelines of the east end neighborhood. And the first issue under the design guidelines is issue 17a under mass and scale--"This building should appear similar in scale to traditional residential structures". That is what we have to use as a basis for our decision. Not a lot of buildings which really have very little to do with traditional situations which exist in the east end neighborhood. That is what we are supposed to judge it on and not how it relates to buildings that have absolutely no reference to these guidelines. And we have a real problem here because I agree. the scale has been changed drastically in a very negative manner in this neighborhood and in the block we are discussing in particular and also across the street. But we have to decide on whether the scale of this building is similar to the ones that have been built recently. I mean recently in the 60s a lot of them that are really bad situations arose from the 60s and early 70s. We are not talking about style. We are not supposed to be talking about style. Stuart: I think this footprint right here is--I don't see how that is obtrusive to the character guidelines of any neighborhood. _.. 10 '^ OVERLAY10.5.94 Donnelley: The problem we have is this building was designed long before we were even thinking of the guidelines. It is coming before us after those guidelines have been established. And there is nothing that says that this building is going definitely to meet those guidelines. The designer had no idea that this would be happening. Stuart: I think he was a forerunner in the sense that he put a lot of concern and design capability that he has into what he came up with regardless of what the City rules come up with. Donnelley: You have been addressing an awful lot of your attention to architectural style. You shouldn't even be addressing that issue. You say it is good. It is sensitive. It is a good design. We aren't even supposed to be listening to that. Stuart: And mass and scale. And the perspective shows how the mass and scale back away from the streetscapes. Donnelley: I was just going to say I think that Stuart is responding to the letter that was sent back. I think there is a lot of questions as to when Ord 35 was passed. A lot of people want to protect our town. Everyone says I love our little town. Some people want to keep it victorian. Other people want to--they have a different definition. Architecture is a very difficult thing to define. Tom: There wouldn't be an architectural school unless there were specific architectural things to teach. Basically. Stuart: There is a whole debate happening because of the McCoy house. It was 4 feet over the size of what it should have been. And there was a little house right next to it that was dwarfed. And I thought that was what the committee was charged with was to prevent that sort of occurrence from happening again with still allowing some diversity. Bob: That was only one example. There are a lot of other examples. I think first of all when this house was conceived of, the person doing it didn't have any feeling for this particular situation because it wasn't on the table. The neighborhood is an architectural bouillabaisse. There are all kinds of buildings over there. And I suppose that if such a committee had been established early on, some of those places wouldn't be the way they are. Unfortunately for this house the one next door is an older victorian structure. But I think if we continue to use existing buildings in the neighborhood as the reference point then we are ., not going to get anywhere with this because they are there and you -,~..: 11 OVERLAY10.5.94 ,. .. say OK let's build another one. You could have come in with a plan that looked just like one of the other buildings and said "Well, it fits the character guideline because it looks like the house or the building across the street or behind us. And we are never going to get any further down this process if we use that kind of reference point. I think the what we are speaking to again--we are not talking about the details, the fenestration, the small details of the house or the materials. We are talking about the mass and scale. I think what you are hearing is that it is inappropriate for that situation. Maybe in another location it would be a much larger lot and so forth, it might be perfectly all right. So we are not criticizing the design. That is not our roll. Stuart: The reason I am referring to the neighborhood so much is I don't know how many times through all the literature I have seen, it always stresses how it relates to the neighborhood. So I hope I haven't harped on that too much. The thing I have seen in print the most is how the proposed structure relates to the neighborhood. And this is a heck of a lot better looking than anything that is there as far as mass and scale that has been built in recent years even. It is a step in the right direction and I feel meeting the guidelines that are set. Bob: I would like to ask regarding the existing house that is right next door because it impacts that house more than it impacts other things. Amy: The property next door is listed on inventory of historic structures. I believe that Council has officially passed the lot split approval. HPC has review over any relocation, demolition, anything of that property. And HPC has not reviewed--as it stands right now the house is not moving from where it sits. In reference to it's status is that the committee uses a rating system-- significant being the highest, contributing being the middle and supporting being the lowest recognizing that the building may have gone through some changes and things that may have compromised it's integrity. This building is in the bottom category of supporting. And that doesn't affect HPC's review other than help them understand the property. I would like to add one thing in your discussion about the mass and scale. One of the guidelines I think is particularly important. It says "Your building should appear to be similar in scale to those in the established neighborhood or to the scale and desires of the neighborhood". Jake: On the larger issue and the problem that you brought up, ,..... Don, which is if you do review this area in the immediate vicinity ~ 12 OVERLAY10.5.94 <~,., of this building both across the street, across the alley and to the sides you do have large forms. If you were to sit down and say what is the FAR of these particular buildings they are going to be on the large size. And they are a lot of real mish-mash of architecture, a lot of vertical 2 story and 2 and 1/2 story surfaces. It is not a strictly single family residential area. It is duplexes and multi-family in this area. And just by having that kind of a zone in there we bring it up with these larger building. And it is interesting--that issue is extremely difficult--I find it extremely difficult in terms of relating to what is there now as a conjectural relatedness vs relating to something that is maybe more abstract and idealistic. Sara: By accepting this kind of mass and scale we are accepting the other large buildings that are there and creating a whole new character for that neighborhood. And I don't know if that is what we want to do. Jake: That character does exist there. Sara: A little bit. It is not I think desireable to have such long straight buildings on both sides of Cooper exiting town like that. It takes away everything that was ever there in that side - which was a small real labor-class neighborhood with little shops sometimes in the front of the house. And I would like to see us try to preserve what is still there. It is a mixed neighborhood. But I think introducing this kind of a form we sign the death nell for that whole block. Bruce: I know we are not supposed to talk about the design but I need to tell you I like the way the elevations look. However, this structure, I think, is too large for that site. It is unfortunate That your contract buyer is sort of bought into this plan and the plan is not approved. If this were a single family home that were down in the 3,OOOsf range or whatever the 850 of the allowable FAR and if it were designed like that I could live with it. If it were a duplex so that it looks like a duplex instead of one big house, I guess that is my biggest problem with this project is that it appears to me looking at your drawings that it is one great big house. It doesn't really look like a duplex. I would be less concerned about the amount of FAR if there were some way that the house--that the duplex were split down the middle with a drop in the ceiling or something so that it would look like two places instead of one. That is really my biggest problem is that it has the appearance of being one great big house. Sure, you have got a step-back. You ,„~., have done the fenestration to pull it back and all of those things 13 OVERLAY10.5.94 are wonderful. But it still has the appearance to me of being one big house. And that is my main problem. Donnelley: I agree with Bruce that if it were broken up into two elements it would be a much more acceptable and satisfactory solution. It may be it could be done and still meet the space requirements of the owner and work out perfectly well. I would like to make a parenthetical comment which shows the difficulty of this neighborhood. All of the structures that have been built recently are designed with no reference to the context--historical references are rather weak. These are structures which are very sad and pathetic in Aspen. And to a certain extent this proposal is the same. If I were asked where the architect or where the references are, I would say southern California, west Las Angeles or perhaps Florida. There are no references here to anything that existed before or architecturally make much sense other than this particular building on this particular site. So I think it neither adds nor detracts from the neighborhood if it were to be built as_is in terms of if we didn't have to say "It is rather large and isn't broken up". But I think it is a very sad statement in a lot of ways. It just really doesn't help the neighborhood. Although that isn't in our purview. Bob: I have nothing else to add. Tom: The character of Aspen is made up of projects, whether they are great architecture or not, that refer--they were built that can be related to a time. And recently, being a member of HPC and seeing the projects that I have seen, almost everything that has come through and this includes Bill's is that these projects will never define "Now" in Aspen. This refers to something that cannot be defined of another kind- -of a past time. And I have a real difficulty with architects in Aspen who don't design "Now" and try to relate in some sort of cute way to some other time. And that is my objection to this. I also agree with what everyone else has said about it is just continuing a lot of buildings that are out of character with Aspen in my opinion. I hope I wasn't too subjective. I also feel that there are architectural things that are real and can be measured. Otherwise anybody could just do anything and with no order or proportion or the way and mass and the relationship of spaces and the sculptural quality. And so that is my lecture. 14 OVERLAY10.5.94 Bruce: I am not sure if I understood exactly your lecture. I don't have a problem with architects today designing a '94 or '95 building as being in Aspen. Where I have a problem is if that design is so large that it overwhelms everything else. The use of big stone and big timbers doesn't bother me particularly as long as the house is the proper scale to fit in with the neighborhood. It matters not to me if somebody uses the style of the '50s or the '60s or the '40s. I don't care if they use the style of the '90s. And I don't care if they use the Florida style for that matter as long as what they do doesn't overwhelm everything that is around it. Tom: I wouldn't agree with that. Jake: I agree with Bruce that the massing needs to be broken down farther than it already is. Preferably so that it appears to be two structures or as close to two structures or a duplex type of thing as possible. I appreciate the fact that the upper level is recessed back some from the lower level particularly along the west end. And I think even more than that kind of treatment on East Cooper side to be a pleasant thing. I also agree with Donnelley that the idea of references and try and connect to something that is local or regional either historical reference or climate logical or some reference to the mountains or to Aspen in general. I think that this neighborhood is problematic in terms of the other structures that are already there. And to hold you to a higher standard than those ones have been able to get through. It is tough. This is a site and it has an adjacent site which is for sale and open for development. Between the two of them it is a fairly important area and if done properly could help mitigate what is already there and help reinforce this area as a neighborhood. I am not ready to give up on it yet as a neighborhood area. I think some of the structures that are going on to the east--I walked down there today and they have a pleasant pedestrian feel to them. And they are reasonably large structures too. So I think it can be done. Bruce: I think it would be helpful to the applicant to know what your options are. That is assuming a denial. As I understand it your options are to do some sort of redesign and try to come back and still get what your applicant wants. The second option would be to reduce down to 85% and then you don't have to worry about it too much. On that size lot you probably wouldn't even have to come to us. OVERLAY10.5.94 Jake: Other options are you can appeal to City Council if you feel you want to go that step. You can appeal the decision of this board to City Council. You can wait 6 months till the end of this process and see what happens. This is a 6 month study period that the town has set up. The purpose of this board is really to allow projects that clearly conform to the guidelines to proceed ahead. And the ones that don't kind of get delayed pending the outcome of this review process. So that is another option. Just to wait and see how it all falls out. MOTION Donnelley: I move that the application for the duplex development at 904 East Cooper be denied in that it does not sufficiently meet the requirements of the Neighborhood Character Guidelines for east Aspen and the general neighborhood character guidelines in the specific area of mass and scale. Bob: I second that. Amy: I think I agree with Bruce and what he said. Presuming that possibly they would come back with revisions wanting to go up to their full FAR I think you ought to tell them what specific areas you think they could address unless you feel that without a major revision they could not meet the guidelines. Donnelley: I could add to that motion that since it is a duplex structure we would like to see a definite separation between the two elements and in that manner being apparent, mass would be reduced. And also a restudy of fenestration in the stair tower which is a double height, double story fenestration which is not typical of residential construction traditionally found in this area. This is not part of the motion but. I believe so many of the comments of staff are pertinent but not essential to the success of what a passing of this approval of this project. Window wells considering the size of them. Avery simple expedient of breaking down the apparent size of garage doors is something that is easily solved through the process and is not. essential to the success of the design. And the roof form is disturbing but certainly is not unique to this area. So I have a hard time saying the roof form should be restudied unless the applicant wishes to present a project of a totally different architectural character. It might be very nice but it probably wouldn't happen. Jake: The only other thing is that if we were to decide a specific guideline that we feel is non-conformity would be guideline #1. 16 OVERLAY10.5.94 Donnelley: General guideline #1--specific guidelines to the area is guideline #17. Bob: I will amend my second to the motion to incorporate what has been put into the option. Everyone then voted in favor of the motion. Meeting was adjourned. Time was 5:30 P.M. Janice Carney, City puty Clerk 17 ~, ~• MEMORANDUM TO: Overlay Zone District Sub-Committee FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 808/810 Bonita Drive DATE: October 5, 1994 SIIMMARY: 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. The project is a remodel and addition to an existing duplex. Although the resulting structure is to be 99~ of the allowed FAR (5,141.18 sq. ft.), the parcel is 18,753 sq. ft., so the special review is advisory only. APPLICANT: Chet Pohle, Robert Dick and Frank Dirkson, represented by Stryker/Brown. LOCATION: 808/810 Bonita Drive, Lot 20, West Aspen Subdivision, City of Aspen. The parcel is zoned R-15. STAFF COMMENTS: Please refer to the application for the complete representation of the proposal. Planning staff finds that this project complies with the General guidelines. The only elements of the proposal which generated staff discussion were the possibility of further breaking up the wall plane on the south elevation and more definition of the entryway. Overall, however, the project is very successful in reducing its apparent mass through varied roof lines, breaking up the building form intc modular elements and the concentration of taller portions of the building at the rear of the property. submitted. Staff recommends approval of the proposal as Additional Comments: STRYKER / BROWN A R C H I T E C T S P C September 20, 1994 Ms. Kim Johnson Ms. Amy . Amidon Planners Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 re: 808/810 Bonita Drive Duplex Renovation/Addition Lot 2Q, West Aspen Subdivision, Filing No. 1, Aspen, Colorado Dear Kim and Amy: Enclosed is our proposed plan for the 808/810 Bonita Drive Residence Addition which incorporates a .number of design concepts 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/ renovation. .The "character guidelines" for this neighborhood have not been established. However, we have endeavored to incorporate concepts deemed. appropriate for "Aspen" as a whole and interpreted for this neighborhood. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL This house was originally built in the (box with a slightly sloping roof) style in the mid 1960's. It was crudely constructed of frame walls with plywood-batten siding. Major elements of the house would not meet current construction standards for snow loads, structural design, insulation, glazing, electrical etc. No substantial remodels or renovation has occurred. The proposed' addition is compatible with the original architectural style of the existing duplex, of the neighborhood, and is compatible with the Design Guidelines. This addition/remodel enhances the livability of this duplex, and the neighborhood (by reducing site are devoted to parking/auto circulation, and increased landscaping area) The streetscape proposed will be mere inviting to pedestrians and bicyclists, thus encouraging alternative modes of transportation. The architectural massing, forms, materials and details proposed are a creative interpretation of styles traditionally found in Aspen. .. 3 0 0 $ 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 8 1 6 1 1 3 0 3~ 9 2 5~ 2 2 5 4 9 2 5 2 2 5 8 (FAX ) 7ohnson/Amidon letter 808/810 Bonita Drive Addition September 20, 1994 page 3 Site Desien 6. The renovation retains- the orientation of the original .house with primary entrances oriented toward the street. 7. The building entries are at an elevation consistent .with the existing entries. and similar to those commonly found in the neighborhood. Many of the homes in the neighborhood are split-levels as is this home with the primary entry being several steps above grade. 8. The location of this building and .it's renovation are centered on the property affording solar access for adjacent properties. Building Materials 9. The renovation proposes to use a greater amount of indigenous materials (i.e. stone) than is currently used. The stone is proposed to be expanded to include to the base of the porch helping to ground the .structure and establish a greater sense of continuity with other buildings in the area. Horizontal lap siding. is proposed for the. remaining portions of the super structure. The roofing material proposed for the project has yet to be selected although we anticipate either metal or shingles wil! be used: Architectural Features 10. Architectural features that enhance a pedestrian experience are included: These include a pattern of windows and doors that create a greater human scale than is currently found in the project. The treatment of architectural finishes and details are compatible with those found throughout the neighborhood. Log accents at entries and overhangs help provide appropriate regional flavor and style. The primary entries are clearly defined. 11. No new skylights are proposed. 5~ :g 8~ ~~ ~~ ~~'~8 ~~~ a ~~"="W ,i ~~ y~~ ya'~~ ad,~~?~o ?LLye I yyyy a !K .Lyad yKa~~Y~~-~ 5Lp ,{L5j ~g ~ 1L~.11 4 rc8 dl~~YE~ J~~t a0 ~4 ~~ ~ ~~ E S y. n~m4'9~W ^'4'4 ^~;d~l'~ci r:a~~i ~_a~i,/Ti~xx~~q Ti .m~ dSa E ~` i i i ~~ l i~ l e ILy$ ~d~ i ~ i ' ` ` ~ ~ e ~ edl ~! ~ f~ ib~ f ~~ t i~ y i i` e i jK %Sg E m EfEs~~~~~~~~~€~~~~~~ ~~~ I id eK I e lli~j~;{iii i ~ie.dd'f~ iili i6 ~y 1 ~ ij Io ~ 1 ~ i ~` ( i~ ~ `q~ jiS d~ ~~ ~ i i l~ <<mm~m~ ddd~~~e~8~; --- __ _ ~ SEVT BY~RICHLA~VD SALES CU. 9-15-94 7~17AM REEDLEY, CALIFORNIA 3039L52258;# 4/ B SEP 14 '9q 10:59 STR1'KER.iHR04R1 f1RCHS. p,giq ~,."'~. vwr~~ Dtck & Dickson/County Planning Dept. September 15,1994 p. 2 The proposed addition has been designed by Stryker/Brown Architects. It`s design is in keeping with the existing duplex end fits in well with the homes stlrroultding it. 'T'here are Several homes on the block as well as adjacent blocks that have 2 storles. I believe the addition is designed to make the duplex mare attractive anti in keeping with the character of Aspen than any of the existing homes in the neighborhood or than as the duplex itself currently stands. Sincerely, R,c-.~~ ~~.i.~, Robert Dick BUA Bo ' a D ., Aspen, CO Frank Dirkaan P 8>Io~ita r,, Aspen, 1~. # .mss 63 - 2 ~, ..~. r... -- --~' I I i I I I i i IL ~~ ~9 1. V I. n I s ~. a I i ---1 _~.„+, 6°~'' ATP' p ~ -i V ~; .. t-.._,.: y C... ~N'--: - - i--; .~ .-' i , ~ - ,~g ~- ~oart of said 1 y.N\ fkt ,~ , f t- ~~. ~'- ' ~ .. - it + . ~ i'b ~: t iryy ~ ,: ~ - t faaYa~ Ya7~a~fN//~`~ a ry: si ~,;t. ~. ~3 t _ ~,~~ '~ P~/~N . y Y~V 119- ~ ~ O N ~'v V S-P.~41.~'.~ . - : ` :._ 'L0:.:: 503-963-3y'.' . :;. .... :tM(. ~ 4.. .. Y 1.:__. ..... ' t: s _ < ,,-. ! I~IE(~~J1LA'II'II®~ ~tUIy1IAYlIAI~~ Yo ~ 3.F: - JURLSDICTION: - Aapen, Al SITE P] Location " Lot TA Weat Aapea Subdivision 18 A2 FLOOR - ZAIVIIJG: R-15. '-' : - Lof area 18,753 S.F. - A3 ELEVA ~8 :.:#x:. - - Yard Set Bach - ' ,5 t :''i Front 75 _ > ~ , { 33 Rear id ; -: a JO - - FAR Allowable 5,15.18 S.F. _ 33 ~ BLRIDING CODE 1991 UBC 'Ri.a~ Oocupanry R-3 - Type of Construction Type V ? ~ :" '~~ ._ ENERt;YCODL 1993 ModelErragyCode <,~;+ ,,,; n Minimum R Valuea L-ak ~k~s _ ~ '~ .: F .. .. Roof ~.. - R~0 . rti. ~ y ~,.` i - - Exterior Walla R-i9 ,~ ^~J.~ :" - Exterior Glazing- ~ R-2 ' YL 00 ~ _ .r ~ ~1_ t M ~~?~ , 79. r. ' 's ~t < - - ~ i `"s' ..''x1~iA. f ~ I _, r } y~ y u t ~ ,» : y. ' S V:TL^ .YW'fj .e ^ y .;cce Y~ t.- ~~4 '~~~ a.,'E F ~W' n - ~ . . \ H' i I F ,. ~. t I___;1 ~i II II i II I~ it ,~ . II __ II II i - I `~ ~ I ~ II I~ II ~I I I I~ I II t I' II I i~ ---4 I i I. II ~I I! Il II II II I I~_~ ir__1 L_ ~ -t{ I. I 1 ~ -.7-i i F a~ 1- F . ~ '~. I ~ ~ ~ ~ I. W li ,I - i r Y ,. ; }~KN~t+4 14~ ~ ' t ,~ r 11 I ` r a F ~~ xY !Y ~\~. n 1 ' 1 r~\- i'n Ft ~ ~+ 4 ~ zr t ~ 1 ~1 a ,, a ~~ ;, '= t N 1 ~ v ~. ) 'I r ~~ 3, r ~ 1 i l ~ tls 4 ~ !. ; r \ o iY \t;.. ] r} ~' v n , i _. t TM1 t4fa {7r ah.' t+ k~ yi J~. n Yx ~ ~ 1 y A aii~ v fi\ T ~~ i., .~ ~w~," n r, y a7 'i +'II.'~r 11 ~R .iL ~>'~ [ r "~ ~ U ". ~t:d ~~w i p ~ aft, kl.. 5 .. r 4•` at >< ~~ ,qr ~ryrya~~•,.11 'alts~~~'`4` \t f ~ , i-rsk ~r ..k JI 7 ~ _, ... \i% /" t ~5d T ,~ Yr , 'y,~a, ~,*T 1 Fr~«'>,lf ~ & 4' ~ ' ~'~ I i~~tv~n''R~''y~,,rt a! ~ ~~' "k`a ~,~ sv4 s~t - y 11 ~ t'~^ r^J yYY F d~ f 1 1 I y J 1 1 yMv iii{\II~.\{rjM W~412i4F\ Ti/1.~Ei+~7.: f iRt~ IN ~'' .r . Jal ~, r ..n.i. ..... t ~ `~ II `, ~. _ i ' ~ ~ ~ + i I -? i ~ ~. i ~ ~I ~ ~ ~I I , - - ;, _ I ~ i ~, II - i I . II, ~ '.. , I -1 ~ it :.~ ~ ~ I: w ~" 1 ` tr, . ~ - I I j a - ~ ;. ,~ ~ ~ i, ,... I I ~ n ~ I ~ F • L_ li I _ I ... , ~ I ~ _ i ~.] l i t- P i __ -_ 1 I, ~'~ ~: ; I ~~~ I i I i _ ~, ~~~; ..~ is 1 /: ~ j o I ~ .. - I ~_x+ ~. i I I i ~ L i' --ia ' .,~. ~'` ~' 1 ~ , ~{ ' I. 1 ! ( t 1. l 1\ t ! ~. F v s , 1 *y~ x` ~ , M ( { ' 1~ At 1 A ~' > ~ ~ i J ~ ,xt ~t rY 1,L'7~ ~~ (1 SLr ' r t ~+~ ~ ~' I y ~ .3•. i 1 t i ~ L by ti~ /vv~(f ' 4t 'L iT ' ~ ! 4 J~ .. t: ) jA /.'~ I r: r ~, • 1 ~ t r J r r LAY •'+A w}i'~pR4p ~~~Pt*.1 t yw ~~! tl } t yf~. ,~. !'. n a1 V: +t ( L . r:.. ... i ,, S i ~ , r . .. ~; r k + ' .'. r ~ J .. ~JJ y ~ $ s ~.1 T ~ 1 ~ UR~, 1 -:( ~ T ~, l r F y It ~~. 1 1 f W 1.t ~r ~ S r 1 1 r3 . S :~~. f ' 5~ Y' .F Y a ~: .,r~ r'Si^ . t~xy'a yr,t s• ~ , xi e.,4 r^.V~ < . ;~ ,.~~. ttl Af~x t 'i, s C~. s~~'.n' ~'. ry H~ s 3. r g 1 1 ~y ~ t .7 ;. 1~~« K ,qty tiff ^t ~, ~ p .: ~. r~xi y 11 R ~. „r, ~ k-M~.h.M1 h~ . <~ 0 fl3 fM1 lrb n i f ~S T + e ? * ., ~h~}~!•~r~~rl ~f uj U y t !tl S4 rJf rt Yi ~ f H Y'.. ~ '~:«+ 4 y~"ter, ~t'~~?~••' f`n KMt f "fir. rh'v° a `~1 M1 1 .rr~ ~,~ t ,~ gSr}4xey5a4 ,, r ~ yy ',~ t i 1~ I 1 s ~ 3 1 Y,i ? l: k S t { ~, ~ jY ~ M1t ~f~. ' Ac { ~. ¢ ~. y f f f ' 2 1f l F y 1 rY ~ r r -.t may.;r 1 • t~~~ 7~ iMQ ~. ~ r r4~~ e ,, w~~}tF~: ~`Y,. 'P r xr Xs'' ice? t ':y~, x { 1, ~ .t r Y .{ t T ~ 'Y. ° . v 's t r .} r t ~ .v ~ l rr `i ~. r' 'i f• 5 ft ` r s.. a r'i -:~ tr. ~ ._a '4 _.. .. _. .,. -~} ' r ' ~ , ~. : ,: :; : , ; ~~ ,~f , . f ,. ~`b~~ , ~ . , 1 " i E' r ~ N«~,1:: ` N IRK f I ~ ~ ~ 1 ' r H OpI -'.. } x ... '{ . i ~ •~'¢ 75x5.. y 'J4.. . ~; Y..a~ .i ~ ~.. i i ,•. 1 '. (. L: i..^: ~': f r7 ' T ~ _ ~ ~ t t ~ ~ 1 ~ I i t ~ t a >~', ~lt,~5+ 4,. 7 ) y ~ L y , "r\t~ / t; ly ~.~ r, Y '' ;^x T r.d ~ ems: t' t } IQ !r J ~ r ..i ',~ et 1 v ~s K ne •~ i .,.4 k r r { , F w .? r r 1 J~ t r r y ~ r~ + r IV_~vf l' t. w ~ ~' f y Qr,~', 11 i4Y ,! s, A y S ,!Y'Sr , .~.T I t .5 1 5 !' her ~ ~i .R9 ',i~( Tr Yr r~ \ 1 '~ y j .a y Y T M' '.{ A t }. N7 t. r L- ! , '~ \ .e t ~ {-...raf alC a C: f \k ~,r J .. iii ~.k y., {M`: :~ f F :s5 T r` - ~. it r.~ !i w ~,.t tiA Y a..'; .,, r n r iA0 1.t .. ` { Y.' + ~, f ~J .:! J 5 swf j,K~lJ •'~~ Y j { T t k- '. l [,~.. p i~9~ 1S L T~ ~ YVI,f' f ) f * f i =y_-. r of ~ a t ~ J5 r' r do ~ t tr ~ t J Ij t pJt i ti vy, f 7 yt~~ ~>, n S r a r ~r~y ~~.( F 1. ( I '" .~' w I V ~YIY } { ~. ~r `i i~4hr 4ql ti kilo ~3>~ ~~yYI Fa? J t .s J~' TM~~r Vrr i~^~~{.ISI ~, w F a a YE Tgr# ~ v - r !+a {t ~ y,5 L•+~ (. !J. r x r 'lfi J ~.,st~ r 4 '(~ tik r A• » t l r r r .e T. 4. T v r ed j l ~.d Y ,krt t117~ Y 3 • 64 M yT ' t..~ '' c 1 I ' i~ ' { 3w ~ 1R P' ;, }i , er ii Y~}{ " .fti. e~y +ik i' •L 7l,.~3 r~vi xi ~~ aa,t r ,~ t J .1t 1 "wi ? 1 ~ A fT~rt• t 1 ,~ r y F r ~ ArrJ.: ~ih Q,.~''~~'~~?i ~!_S,} ~.~vt ~,t ~r ~4 rJr ~ riA~ it i .~ 4. } f: w ~ ~t ~!i SC4~ 'a't ~.J ~ r ~'~r:, Y N i'~'i1 a Sr. ~'e. T~ ~ 1 .rtt~'d"1Ta . i~ d `t .Y } ,r ~~ r r 7. V a ~ 1 ~A .~atJ • i nA .. 1 4 1! r r '. .t~ f~ ~~ Ir~ &~ A~ ~ ~ # .. ~y°k! 1. I' ~ ,:~ r1 ~' ~r4.,f, V h 1 5 t rIF > ~ ~~ ~ ~}~t;.a~.,y?>ytGOtJl r 6 }r ' ri } + , v G ,~' iIc{ rr 1 rl G .i, r ~ s V'd ` L S•tM ~a'a`t` A • t t '.. 1 l i L T t.. ! s~ •r ' F '. Y1x k \' ` x t t ITI r l +t q R t? y~~ 1 J r t ~ - f a /t T fi SMr Y h n~ YI n~pi f M1 t r I k r~. ~ t a e r ~.. ) ` r~ t lYtix 1 -. rt 4 i{ t ri ` \\~ ~Jyy]]yy ' I J t ) ~u S'_-.: 4)t ~ F'~j.{fJ --{}..,~,~1 sa +. ~Yl. } f t t 1 t; b., t r 1'hr 'T '' 'fit r 1lM~y x '7 tl.Z ~ Lyy ^j,14 21T'< ? ~ t Y;v " ~ aX t b !' a \ ,- ( ly'!!v .1% x` # `~1{S J y F y r f , 'r t r ka r { { r~4 a , wn'. ~L 1,'. T , Y" ~?'* ~s3 t ~ rl a I v''a ~f r5 - r ~'r ~ t r ~ ~r <.t 1 ~ Nr J? f .i '~ y~'(r 'V '~'ij, K ' 'S' ~t t t r t '.~L 1 ` } tr J ly ;. r~'Y' tit ra ~J :F .~ 1 ` j.Z~ i ~ 1 Kd N` AI'v~ t' r t i \ m t,, kr ~ I '. ~. J n ~ F ~ rt ~ Y r a A a . ~# s't~J ". ' _; t , '-4. >` : tii ! o, , '~a typ a ,t J IY?~~~ ~~ F~, y. .. 1 r c ~ 1~ r t i`Tx y r AI. a s t F. 1 . 4 ,' 'ir f, ly R ' J t f a i ,. r r_ ~ , '!1 f 3 v ~,,~ ~r '.Y}ry~ /TfY In'"~ t % 1. t F f I ~`~ .V T4l I 'I t t ! }' ruin ;illc ~`~ 4 , I ~ .. r .' ,~( f r` , .l, • _ 3 i :8i, ~ 'S"} ~.+`~.ay+~s, t-r r.~. .t F,. 1~~{'r 5.,~: rj'~ ~~~r`' ~e rn:~ ? t ;;~ iwt'!.( t d>' ~Try'"r n{ /`J i 11 ~t r °,1~. U I YI t t ei r J t a x ~~,. Y y 'L r t 5 'ri ~' 1 s 1 ~! F J,kyR T y,•1 fyrv , ~ `K `L '.y J1y~'S~~,~ t:'g"tn4t 55~ 5 YyrrE r ti '.! li. ;, 'y: '++"n'^ ~t1\ eC'-1~lts~,: '.rJLL .Y h 1'S'+R'f M'7' ~.il.) :t r •' rl ~t'- J, ,` e r.+ a.~ 1 ~,~ t'}j:4 <4 \i ,'. - ~4gy 11.. r[,y~~~1 Wa ~i~ s r t1 ~ t , •~.\.; i atfp ~ `. }r' t ]?~:;4tra6 a~:f.~4!~;~~lk....:. ~ y~..l. 'GUT ., r.'ri}: Jet .. .L. :~1 2r10. ::~.c ac ra.` Kj it c''ct dnn\ J~?~ ~i?r IBS S' r ' . . ~ ,mot + +,,. +. ! ~M1 •. 1 ~ ' y r j C YJr> ~ I K n_ T-. 1 \ 1 19 l ~J J j ' } \ 1 t J, ^ r ' ' z ,. ~ + r :' : } 4. '~~ "` s ~.. i i a. f 4Y I r f `c!'Q •~ IJw 1 a ! F ' 6. !~ ~~ 1 a r 1 #! ;: l r,li\• ,:at., • '' j' ~ ~.. 7. : ` 1 .. r ,~y~ ' Y M..; 4 . ., tJ r , - I . ; f .' 1 • r r n a ~.r ~ ''r tr y T....*!tJ ri .)w r.• ~: ~• ~ i ~ ~ r • t yt i ~ . ~ i - 11 "...3,. .t r.: ~~1t.Q'W ~\*ysE ( ~/a, ~~ .,i ~I i, ~ ,.,. yJ} ~ ° i I r ( a o- r Y;r ~ .. ~ ( ~a .511 d ~ 7.tla ,.F a a14< i ~ l !`~': ~~ iT ° r*•i srv >t y .: ~a?^t. t~„n ~a:7~. .."?. . .i ~q"ti ~s .. ..~~(l.. )J1.i I i t . t t~ Y to < 11ff A x ~ a.:a .~ fed r. ~i r~l ~ ~,~F~ ~~ A - fir Jr....an 1 ~ .. , 1 f r ~. 1 s i, u~ )uns x frt.yis 1 "a• M ~i {x'~£ xn~ ', r I7' ~^ ~ a e. v, i.f ~t x. ?d ro }» . ~ X }}` ~ 5 d v I1 t x u-, 1 ~ i'x. - ; 1' 1 It < it v .. i~ a J k r.: f t 1 a 1r i ~F@, ~ 4x -.1 $[, r 1 .. - I I '~"I - ~-'K .F~' r.,. 7 L I f v +; I) F~ ~; '~ ~, ~ '` ' I a r at ~ ~.e . li t . 1 'i - 1 II r I { '.; : , I I I ~~,: II I , 11 `r .n I) .~ 1 + t I. ; `i; '' I. ~~ ; V ~1. ~ t 1. 4 + ~1 / r I I A I` rs r f(~ Ial ,~~ '' I 1 F {II ' AAAIII t J Y Y ~_ ,,.r I~ ~ ~3 ~- rat 1 ~ ~ Y^ f:~~.. I .. . i ^ a 1. I I . i, I ~'' I , s I I ~ '~ I ;. ~' . I . ,: :. I ;; .: it ' 1 ,^` 't I j .~~ x t' ~~. a w t.;. 1 -'~.l r~ • J s i .Y y". ':a Hn r ~ t :-,-Its '~ ' - t:. ~' t U S ~ 4 '14 ~r aI'~ 4 S ~a..' ~ ~ f ~, s n t: t ,+ / a r .y, R : ~ s^ Y; i a ~'? 1 i ") y~ r. S dtr'~.' 1 1 4 v~ ~, y ~ I.: i7 ~ ~/''~F 4 a ~ J w .q ~ ` °~ ~ ~" ~~' f Y ~~ '~'e~.'S~f ''• .1, .. +r 11 ~ } ~ .~ ,d • Y A a !. e ~. Yt r ~ ~ , ; v` ~, ~T,G r 9S M fi ;1 v , ` +~J`, „~f ':? t r 1 ~ y k. 4 , 1 r'.: { ~ 1. i' F, ~~ ~... t .. ~~ .1._ 4i T q ` ~ < .'.i, ~ J ~ ~' ~'ri ,r ~ 'C - 1 ar 1~ i.~•. IT iF "~'a .. .,._ Y / y d t '~ ~ L . t y V A _ xro A . v-:1 t1. 7. '~.~ 71 ,~ ` , 1 Y '~ 1 ' ~ ~ F' _ ~ " I< , . ~b . " ~ f . l -r , : ) , , I , y ' ~~ r.: s t ~fl / c.4 ` y t a ~ 1 n s t 1 Y- r r < t r ~~ e/ 1 " ~ djt ' jl y Fw .. 1 ,iF 2 ,, , `~h~ 4 r ` O a y ~ ' 1' "~r~ ; f } ~ Y Kf~ P yil a { ! 1 I ~ `I + ~ 1 l t . r " . iJ\~ \\ r ~., ~ ~ ~ I' _,.,...__. _...,.~..__....._w..__.~.~,.,._...~.~... k. __ ., I i .;~' . ._...... .,,..~.a..,.,..,....._ ,;:. ....w~......_......,.. _. ;;;: 5:. " ~j'~ > * // %/ ~ /i 3 p r 'i J ~\ ~ ~ ~ s ~ .. p ~ ,,~. i ~ o s --_ .f ,. 7 ~, ,,~_ ~ ~ ~ 2 _J I .R ~ ^I J ~ a c a _ __ 3 --- -- -- i i --; , \ ' ~ . ~~ ~ / _ ~~ ~, ~~' I ~~'' ~ I i .__l ,4 t a ,a __. (. ~. ~~ '~ _1. ;i t:'. ~\ ~ 1~.l~. y~~J ,~L r r I AVY Y MyfM~,f Y T!.'.~ ~j V Vr~ ~ S~nA : 5i L ~~\~~S l~t~ r`- ~' } t~R ~~ir 1 4 ~S/' 1 ~ ~4F... ~/<~A )' j"lrM.,; ! A ~ ,..~..: i x V l Y y , ~ * \. 1 V ~ V ~ ~ Y : .3 t ~ ~ 1 Y ~ ~ ~ .. ` ` 7,1 SR 11 r _ '~I ' ' y .fi ~ ;.A ~ tt~.. r:: j~~ ' ( _ ~ r # tt . .. . I ~ • ~ :~I ~ , , f I 1 '.~ ~J ~ I t '} '! y I1 1 j r ~ I I 21 • ] 1 1 C ~~ ~ ~ f i raw. ~ ' , ,~ }~i : ; , • <. -- _ i ~ ' r ~ , r Y { .j~ ' ~ ~ w I ` °f4 i ~t L 1 II ,1 L' I Y r 4 t 33F >. ~ ~'j ~• ~}}~ :f lttititill ' 2y„. I ~ ~~,, r. ` l \~ ~ V/ . ____ ~ _ . '~ V S i t I r¢rp.rj . 1 ~, ~ c r x r r I r~~ ~ , _ , ~~ ' • fi l M~ ¢ Y y' I ' Y - ~ 1 q J 4 l~ ' c: ~ ` . i ~ ~ . `j ..r t rF ,~11' Z ~~r * 4 t ~ ' ~ 4+ ~~ i ~ l { ~I S•'+?yY ~'fa tT~IJ 1 ' Y ~~ . . ~ .I h ~ ~ h Il a:F ' _ ~' '\'~ IG ). -. 'l" ~•i:Ef1v ~ :~-'ryFy \y, ~:~'. rw~~'r :1 .} y~~ ; p.11. A:, .VAS ~.: h Vt~l•!.~ivf¢+ ' `S ~IJ M1~ ..f .Y l,r ' RM1 y x (^{r~ Q ~ ~ a ~~. F •iPa! KiC~.~L+~,t4;)Y`~'M } 'CIA i, i.;~' . .. 4.'. . ~ .. . . ' ~ -~ ~ \'. to t (.. ~IA 1 , 1 '~ . ;~:' , ,,, I I ,~ `t `+`~ ~- -~ _L L +•-- ~i~ , MEMORANDUM TO: Overlay Zone District Sub-Committee THRII: Stan Clauson, City Planning Director FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer and Mary Lackner, Planner RE: 904 E. Cooper Avenue DATE: October 5, 1994 SUMMARY: This project is located in the East Aspen neighborhood, therefore both the general guidelines (Chapter 1 of the "Neighborhood Character Guidelines") and the specific guidelines for East Aspen (Chapter 2) will be applied. The project is a new duplex (the existing structure is to be torn down) and has a proposed FAR of 3,585 sq. ft. on a 6,004 sq. ft. lot. The special review process is mandatory as is compliance with the Committee's findings. APPLICANT: Helda Enterprises, represented by Stuart Lusk. LOCATION: 904 E. Cooper Ave., Lots K and L, Block 117 and Lot L, Block 35, City and Townsite of Aspen. STAFF COMMENTS: Please refer to the application for the complete representation of the proposal. Planning staff finds that this project is not in compliance with the several aspects of the general and specific neighborhood guidelines. Rather than discuss each guideline (including those which are met), only the elements of the proposal which warrant further discussion are highlighted below. The applicable general and specific guidelines have been grouped together by subject. NOTE: The attached drawings are somewhat faint and may be difficult to read in some areas. Staff requested improved prints and this seems to be the best that the applicant is able to supply. Other drawings may be available at the meeting. This project was forwarded to Bill Drueding, Zoning officer for comments. He indicated doubt that the project meets the open space requirements (window wells cannot be counted) and also stated that nothing, including the skylight and spas may extend above the 25' height limit. STAFF EVALUATION: Mass and Scale General Guidelines- 1. Buildings should help establish a sense of human scale that is inviting to pedestrians, 2. New buildings should appear to be similar in scale to those in the established neighborhood, or to the scale that is desired for the neighborhood, 3. The street elevation of a building should be designed to appear in scale with those seen traditionally. Specific Guidelines- 17. New buildings should be sensitive in scale to existing, smaller buildings in the neighborhood. Response: This structure is fairly block-like, with few breaks in wall planes or the roof. The mass is not broken down into modules or smaller units in any way (the guidelines recommend a maximum of 15-30' as a width for a facade). There is no stepping down in height to acknowledge neighboring smaller structures (namely a Victorian cottage immediately to the east). Locating the garage in a secondary structure would be appropriate and a good way to reduce the overall size of the residence. Building Form General Guidelines- 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 guidelines state that gable forms and steep slopes are preferred. This traditional roof form in this neighborhood does seem to be gable, from the steeply pitched Victorians to the shallow pitches on the chalet style buildings. The proposed mansard style roof is somewhat in keeping with the Chateau Blanc building directly to the north of it, but does little to bring the scale of the building down with respect to the adjacent historic building. Site Design Specific Guidelines- 19. Provide a front yard in all development. Response: As mentioned above, the project may not be providing enough open space. In addition, Staff finds that the windowwells may be overly large and could be reduced to increase yard space. Architectural Features General Guidelines- 10. Architectural features that enhance the pedestrian experience are encouraged. Specific Guidelines- 23. Use windows and doors that are similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally to help establish a sense of scale, 25. The use of porches is strongly encouraged. Response: The two story windows shown on the southeast corner of the building create an entirely new scale for the building and place a "monumentally" sized feature along East Cooper Ave. In is again small Victorian next tO the their location that building• the addition, the scale of The location of unsympathetic t° neighborhood. this feature• encouraged In this the usefulness of porches are a busy highway maY limit site along Gara es impact of garages. Minimize the visual a streetscape (alleys General Guidelines- 12• arage doors on if the alley is to be consider en) the g making Respense• edestrian corridors in somewhat, possibly aTe some octant p e softened doors. There are imp need to b two single which should be the north side maY look like an option each double door neighbOrh°od, detached garages in this considered by the applicant. Im act on Historic BuilBin s acts uildings should avoid negative imp General Guidelines-16• New b erties. not in any way on adjacent historic prop cop°sal does historic above, this P the neighboring less As described oharacter of becomes Respense. the scale or structures obscured by preservation of individual acknowledge then totally overshadowed and structure• if they are meaningful ment. osal is sufficiently in new develop that this prop ~~ to warrant ' Staff finds Character Guidelines the site of the meet the RECOMME?roATION: ,Neighborhood allowed FAR to r °ppositi°n tO eh nest to exceed $Smust be restudied the r q The proposal eceive approval. denial °f ft.) in order to r (3060 sq' cited above guidelines Additional Comments: - VA `a ., ~ ~IST1rt1Lr y,^,~ I L~-4~(Z11€'9D A-/v iQ C~~i~2. ~'~t ST' Oi= M.~.1 Y t-41 l~-} ~!~ i7~ ~(~R-TMC~+~I,'T~ lr"`r~ lO tZ- GorvOps I ~:, : R r~Z i~iovst ti cr ~ ~v;-~. ~- Sli-tt-P~ i~ P~~, ~T' lv ~~T ~ ~uTU2c {~Q~Posr=p N-t~C+ o~~- r; o~ ~PL~~ Tfl ~~T ~~ ISTi N c~- m ~s Vin; p s~,9-zc or= ~-f~.~ y~~s to 3~. t3~~C,'- l.1 i~ s~,u~.~vQcS w ~T~ ~sT ~Y ~~r ~~, ~,~ ~ceN~~E' OF CoorE2 ~ ~ W~ ~ ,f=Ni~ ~j' Tti~ ~~OGG's~p H~uS.~ v/~ R~~ 1`o iS~ SU/GT TGt.~ o Y~~ ~ o ~ p~~0 F~ier~~ /r ~/}~ f 55 u ~ o f-v iZ ~! s T! Ufa- 7~GC%7j1/'r~. / (~ Fi0 J ~ ~~w~llr W/~ 155U / G~~ .PUT ©%V NfJt-,d /~'~Y'0 /r'~~Z~/TS Ezl~'/~~ f'IQ©~05~ 0~516,U /frfS ~/Ct Ci~,~~~ , _ y~m,~-N ~c~u=~ ~u T'~CY mom . ~¢-z c. ~~~nvnk- 14.T S~cA~~ >Z~~ Lirv~t ~ ~ ~~~ TH~-S Fu.~r l~ r 5 i rtv~t. ~N t~eu-~S ~- T~tUs ~P~jC 7~ YF~KJ/~/CT !~ LOGi9-T~~'J Or"~ !~""~-~-L`'`1 11i~ t-K3c~5t w V'rS dR~ (~ t rtt/~-c.t..Y ~X~i (nN~~ _ ~ ~e~ P~~rr ~ s C~2e.~u ~Y vNO~~ eon.~~T' ~, i ~ ~S orr- ~ ~ P~i=y~ iw ~ rtt Ci~S~ r~ ~ LY, N~ ©csVN~ ~.,1/~,C 7tJ~ ~~i-5~ d ~v f~YUD ~LI~1J 7D BU%LI.J /~5 f~Ll~~ Wl~ ~Q~tJI(/ ~ jJl1/1.~~ii~j ' a7~1(iT~ ,~ ~'' ~~Z.~1 ~U , 'C1rJ~Y1/1~I I TT~~, ;~