The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.drac.overlay.19950228-~ AGENDA OVERLAY SIIHCOMMITTEE February 28, 1995 Regular Meeting 2nd Floor Meeting Room, City Hall -------- 4:00 2. Roll Call II. Comments (Committee members, Staff and public) III. New Business 4:05 A. 1011 and 1015 E. Hopkins Avenue 4:35 V. Adjourn l/ ~~ (. ~.c~ (.~~" G~-Oc.~4.~~ n i 1 i y' ~s„._ MEMORANDiTM ,. TO: Overlay Zone District Sub-Committee FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 1011 and 1015 E. Hopkins Ave. DATE: February 28, 1995 SIIMMARY: 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 will be applied. The applicant requests approval for construction of a new duplex on a vacant lot. The proposed FAR for this 7,500 sq.ft. RMF lot is 3,840 sq.ft., which is the maximum allowable. The special review process is mandatory as is compliance with the Committee's findings. NOTE: Elevations of the east and west facades were not provided in the application. These should be presented at the meeting. - APPLICANT: Harold Dude and Thomas Fellman, represented by Gibson and Reno Architects. LOCATION: The eastern half of Lot C, all of Lot D, And all of Lot E, Block 33, City of Aspen. STAFF COMMENTS: Please refer to the application for the complete representation of the proposal. Planning staff finds that this project is substantially in compliance with 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 have been highlighted below. The applicable general and specific guidelines have been grouped together by subject. STAFF EVALIIATION: Mass and Scale Guidelines: 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. 17. New buildings should be sensitive in scale to existing, smaller buildings in the neighborhood. ~..-- Response: In general, Staff finds that the project is compatible _ with the neighborhood in many respects, including pedestrian scaled details and building form. The neighborhood contains a few single family and duplex structures, but in general is multi-family. East ~`~ Hopkins Avenue is an important pedestrian corridor as many people walk along this street to access the pedestrian bridge. The existing grade on this side of the East Hopkins Avenue is significantly higher than it is on the opposite side of the street, creating a natural barrier between the house and the pedestrian. The adjacent affordable housing project which is currently under construction dealt with this situation unsuccessfully in Staff's opinion, by excavating the ground and locating garages along the street. Not only are the garages "unfriendly" to the pedestrian, but the building appears to be even taller and more massive. Staff finds the current applicant's approach more appropriate. The height and general form of the duplex closest to the river has been repeated in the affordable housing project and to some degree in the duplex currently under review. Staff suggests that the architect emphasize this relationship by creating a step down in height of some element on the street facade. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Committee approve the request to exceed 85$ of the allowed FAR at 1011 and 1015 E. Hopkins Avenue, and that the architect consider designing some element of the new structure that steps down in height approximately five feet on the north facade. Additional Comments: APPLICATION SUBMISSION Ordinance No. 35,1994, City of Aspen The name of the applicant is: Purchaser: Mr. Hazold Dude 6585 Dillman Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33416 (407)683-4795 (407)683-2363 (Fax) Current Owner: Mr. Thomas Fellman 801 North 96th Street Omaha, Nebraska 68114 (402)392-1800 (303)925-6538 (402)392-2502 (Fax) Architect Representative: Gibson & Reno Architect 202 East Hyman, Suite 202 Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-5968 (303)925-5993 2. The Street address is 1011 and 1015 East Hopkins. The legal description is the eastern half of Lot C, all of Lot D, and all of Lot E, Block 33, East Hopkins Avenue; otherwise known as Lot 2 Fellman Lot Split, as recorded October 31, 1994 in Plat Book 35 at page 67 as Reception No. 375935. 3. A current copy of the survey is attached as prepared by Alpine Surveys, Inc., Job. No. 94.20.3 4. A copy of the current title insurance is attached per Stewart Title of Aspen, Inc., 620 East Hopkins, Aspen, Colorado 81611,(303)925-3577; Fax (303) 925-1384. 5. A vicinity map is attached with the proposed duplex drawings. February 15, 1995 Amy Amidon Page 2 If I have forgotten anything, I would greatly appreciate it if you would contact me. Also, if you should have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Thank you for your assistance. Respectfully yours, Augu G. Reno, AIA February 15, 1995 Page 2 Application Submission 6. The neighborhood is located in the RMF zone district of Aspen. The character of the existing neighborhood is primarily multaamily residential with a small mix of single family and duplex residences. The existing buildings are all arranged rectalineaz with most of the entries oriented toward Hopkins Avenue. The adjacent buildings on the same block as the proposed duplex all contain gable-type roofs, which aze oriented towards Hopkins Avenue. There aze also a number of flat roofed and hip type roofs located within the neighborhood. Materials that are commonly used on the adjacent buildings are both horizontal and vertical wood siding; stone; wood cedaz shake and asphalt roofing; and a small amount of stucco. The scale of the adjacent buildings aze moderate, however each one of them has broken up the mass through the use of smaller elements. These include roof intersections, porches, modulation of the wall facades, and use of different materials on the facade. All of the adjacent buildings have been sited to create a front yazd and in this all are approximately ten (1) feet deep from the property line to the building (or approximately forty (40) feet from the edge of Hopkins Avenue to the building). The windows that are used in the adjacent buildings aze all vertical and the entrances are of a small human scale and cleazly identifiable. ~.. February 15, 1995 Application Submission page 3 7. The proposed residential duplex compliments the neighborhood by keeping the mass of the structure in scale with the adjacent buildings. This is achieved by making each of the units twenty five (25) feet in width, which was a traditional characteristic for single family houses. Added to this is the facade being broken up mass-wise through the use of a small scale porch; shifting of the units in the North/South direction by five (5) feet; placement of vertical type landscaping (deciduous type trees) between the units; and the use of an Architectural bay help to break up the mass of the street facade. The use of different materials on the facade also help to break-down the scale. Wood cedar shake roofs are proposed, which was typical or at least similar to traditional roofing materials. Horizontal wood shingle siding for the upper portion of the building will help keep the building to more of a human scale from the perspective of decreasing the verticality. The "small ,~ piece characteristics of the siding will also break up the facade into a much smaller feeling. The use of stone at the base of the building (street level) is seen on some of the adjacent buildings and is being proposed for the duplex. This feature also breaks up the verticality of a building; is a practical use of material regarding our climate, primarily snow accumulation along building walls. The proposed building has been designed with vertical type windows (primarily double hung) with true divided light glazing. This aspect helps to break the scale down even further. .,, February 15, 1995 Application Submission Page 4 Finally, the landscaping, especially the existing that occurs between Hopkins Avenue and the North facade of the building helps screen and softens the building from the street. With the additional proposed landscaping, the building will be broken up in the EasUWest direction to separate the mass of the two (2) units. 8. Attached are drawings that include: Site Location/Zoning Map Site/Landscaping Plan Lower Level Floor Plan Mid Level Floor Plan Upper Level Floor Plan North Exterior Elevation South Exterior Elevation Block Streetscape Elevation During the actual presentations, I will have additional photographs showing the Block and Buildings across the street. "~.._.. FEB-08-1995 12 21 FROM ASPF~IiPITKIN BLDG DEPT TO 9-9255993 P.02 I _ ... ~~ APPLIGANi: ADDRESS: ZONE D4STRICT: LOT SIZE (SQUARE FEET): EXISTING FAR: ALIAWABLE FAR: PROPOSED FAR: EXISTING NET LEASABLE (commerdal): PROPQSED NET LEASABLE (ca[nmeroial): EXISTING %OF SITE COVERAGE: PROP0.SFD % OF S11'E COVERAGE: EXISTING %OFOPEN SPACE (Gommerdan: PROPOSED %OF OPEN SPACE (Commer.): EXISTINGMAXIMUMREIGHT: PROPOSED MAXIMUM HEIGHT: PROPOSED %OF OE610LRION: EXISTING NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: PAOPOSED NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: EXISTING ON•SITE PARKING SPACES: ONSITE PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: Mr_ Harold Dude lV /H N F~fISTING S• N ~ A ALLOWABLE: PROPOSED: I'i Front: Front i n f r Front: + ^ Reer Rear: 1 0 f t. Rear: i i s f r Side: Side: S f t m i t,,,t,<1 1 2. s 5de: 5; f r ~+ Combined FronVRear. Comtiured FNRr: ~; a Combined FrontlRear. I ~,..A-- EXISTING NONCANFORMRIES/ ENCROACHMENTS: FAR: nr , z Madmrun Di5t3nGe Be0Nee0 Blil3ngt SETBACKS: Front' Farldrrg SPA: Rear: open Space (Gommerdal): Side: Height (Cottage lr~l Only): ' Combined Frt1Rr: Stie coverage (cottage Infilt only): 16 3840 Square feet ~ -- I N/A ~ 5 each unit; 10 total ._ i ~l .. I ~ ,~ '•, ,- '"' ~~j'~ .,~ ~- 0' o ~, , ~ -~ ~' ~~~ -- ~~ ~~ ~I ~ i i ~ ~ I i ~_ , -- - r \ `/ i _ i / \~ _ _ ~ I y i .- J ~. I ~' ~ ~ i '~ ~ l~ ~-~ ~ 1` a ~L ~ 1. ~ ! /~ ~ .n' , y- l i --1 , `] C, ~ L~-~ .k ~. ,. . ~ _. ~,-~'~ ~ -- -1 - ~~ .f~ ,, ~ l--r'~ 1 I' ~ ~ ~~~-- ' • ~- '. ~~ ~ L ~ ~ ~6 ~ ~.. ~ ~_ i _ _ _ tel. \~ ~~ ~ /~ ~~ i~ ( ~~ L - ~ ~ z ~ ~ ~ L `G i s 0 7 J -~ i --f J ~ i , ; , ~,'~ r: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~\` ~ rte' ~': " r~ /. _ _~_T -' ~~~ ~, Iy _ ~~- ; ;\~ ~!~ ilk ~ 1 ' ~_ ` <~~~~~~'~ ~ ~~ r ~ T~ ~ y ~ ~ '~.~ .;-- Y ~` ~-- ~~~ _1 1' , '~i ~ _J~' i ~. _ ~~ II 11 1\~ - _ 1, n ~ ~'`'"T'1 i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ i ~ , ~1' ~ - ,'~, ~ ~ ~ i r ~" ~ i -~' -- `_, ' ~~ WTI ~ i~ ~~o ~ 1i1~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~I~ -~~ j ~ - ~ ~ :-_~ ~ ~ ~ 'I 'I r ~~ t ~ I \ ~ h r" `~ ' '- .. - ~, I ~~ ~v'~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ _, ~' ~ - - _ ~ v. ~~ ti i l 1 ~'~ h/ ~ f ' is ax~3~3i~ ' ~'. / r a ..: , _ _ :', ~'~ ~' ` I X { ~ , r~~~-T-~-~~, ~ ,~ fir- - ' - ~'=' I G~~ ~ ~-~ ~~ t r , V- ~I _ 1 I I ~i '' i -~ 1 ~ v3br ~xiva "~v... \. sue, { ~ P ^r~~ ~ o "` J lI ~' ' IS x3 153n . ~ ,., > ~ ~ 3. ~ ~~ ~+ ~ r ~ l ~ ~ I ~~ ~" '3dv ~ i ~~ I I __ 1 1 z ,' O~ ~ ~,~ n ~~ Y ~on owu~rna ~~ , r, •~~~:alrn AB NMO 119 t0 OOtlFlOl00'N3dSV ZOZ31S'3f1N3AVNVWAH1SV301t S10311HOHV ' ON3F!'8 NOSB~J a~dnQ su~~doH ~.se~ 5 L O L '3 L L O /~ w z YI a I i ., ~~ ~~ ,~ J ~ J i \, ~~ u 0 ~- ~_ a v ~~ ~ m J Q ~~ 0 ~ \ ~- a I ~I o w ~c ~ ~ ~ +' .~ goo-°~ WJJmW~ l l9lB OOtlliOl00'N3dStl ' ZOZ 31S'3f1N3Atl NVW11H is OlZ S10311H0litl ' ON3Fi'B NO$9~J «, onuxrua ~, iv :~awNa xe~dnp su~~doN ~ss9 .9 L O L '3 L L O L ~'O9d;3tra airs .~;) a „811 GL of S o. ~~'~ ~~~~~ ~~~ -i 11918 OOtlkiOl00'N3dSV ' ZOZ31S'3f1N3AtlNVWAH1SV30tZ or+l~roua '~~~. S10311HOF1V ' ON3ki'B NO$8~'J «~ ~~,rea ~r :Aa~a x®~dnp su~~doH ~se~ 9 L O L "3 L L O at4~t~'Yl'63~;azra ar~n ~103fOFld n~ ; ~ =~~/I -u ~ I C~ 'ana'l t~ ~ W ~ of fii o • - - •, I _ ~ KL a+ia3roue ~~.da a-~ :~a 5bbl'yl cif ;azra aiv~a ~ . tt9t8 OOtltlOl00'N3dStl ' ZAL31S'3t1N3AtlNtlWAH13tl301Z S10311H~HV ' ON3k!'8 NO$B~J ~ su1~ off ~Se3 ,51.01. "3 4 L1 O-~a ~, ~ o r - r i _t f 'on or~uwda a9~/ ~JLb1 ~rl'GGlsl:~ra F Cm~ l tOt9 OOtldOl00'N3dStl ' ZOZ 31S'3f1N3Atl NVWAH 1Stl3 OlZ S10311HOtlV ' ON3tl 4 NO$9~J e~dnp su~~doH ~se5 5 L O L '3 L L O ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ sl ..~~~ ~ ~ y ~a ~ o ~ ~ ~. ~- u ~ ~~ i fl ~ ~ ~' U Q ~~n .. I ~ ~~ ~ ~. ~~ ~ 4 _;- n ~ n ~~ V ~~ s 'on orrvnrua 6bbl ~i'I'a~:~ra >: oq ariroue xi~'/ ua ruw 7 J --- ..~. Y $ 'X J ~ .. ~, Z 11918 OOVHO'1O~'N3dStl' ZOZ31S'3(1N3AVNVWAH1SV301Z 51O311HOtlV ' ON3tl R NO$8~J ~dhp su~~doH ~se3 91- O,L '8 1. 1- O J ~, n ~ ~;~~ J ~ i.. ~. Z s . r~l t I I II 1 I .. r I 1. ~ • `, ,~•°~ .~ ~~~ I _ __~ .^ oa y ao .n ,~ i Q I i ~I'I O ~~ -n s o~ OVERLAY SUBCOMMITTEE FEBRUARY 28, 1995 Meeting was called to order by chairman Jake Vickery with Sara Garton, Bruce Kerr, Robert Blaich and Don Erdman present. COMMITTEE COMMENTS Amy: The 904 E. Cooper project is getting ready to submit for a building permit and condition of approval was that they were to just show staff final design. The proposed changes on the E- L are the elimination of stone altogether. My concern is that they also changed the indentation going to the ADU and have made it a flat plane. I thought that might be something that you are not in favor of because it is the only break in the wall. There is a little over hang over it. Robert: They changed the material. Jake: Were the other elevations consistent to what was approved? Robert: At the last meeting they were not sure of the stone and have they make a choice on the stone yet. Amy: They have not indicated materials. On the connector they used to have the barrel roof and at the meeting they indicated they '°' wanted to go to a gabled roof and the commission said that was OK but it should still have a different roofing materials and they °- want it all shingle. I said we wanted to hold to the different materials so that the structures looked broken up. Sara: I think the owner liked the idea of wood shingles. Amy: It is a cost cutting issue now. Jake: We could add this to the agenda. MOTION: Robert made the motion to add 904 E. Cooper to the agenda; second by Donnelley. All in favor, motion carries. 1011 P.S1B 1015 E . HOPKINS AVENUE Amy: This is a proposed new duplex in the east aspen neighborhood. Because the grade on this side of the street is so much higher than the other side it has created a strange relationship between the buildings and pedestrians. I found the proposed building handled that situation better than the affordable housing one. My concerns or suggestions were that the form of the building has been carried across and I felt that maybe a lower one story or some element might be a good rhythm to keep. There is a five feet step between the buildings and possibly some other indentation could be made but the building is sort of U shaped. Scott Smith, Gibson Reno Architects: Things we took into OVERLAY SUBCOMMITTEE FEBRUARY 28, 1995 consideration were hopefully the same goals that you all have in terms of being compatible with the neighborhood characters within this one block. I am also trying to integrate the new building in with the existing building in the neighborhood and as best we could relate to the sidewalk or the walking experience that would occur down below. There is quite a level change at the existing bench. The house under construction now is providing 2 1/2 stories height of the building to the street side but cutting out part of the bench when this is almost three stories at street level. What we were trying to do to the duplex is set it back on the lot several feet further than the required setback to try and give us as much buffer as possible. Staggering the plans slightly to break up the building massing and provide close to a 40 foot steep landscaped area as somewhat of a buffer between the sidewalk and the building. Other ways to create scale measures was to integrate it into the neighborhood sort of create a visual bridge between some of the shapes of the housing project that is going up and the single family residence such as picking up on the gabled roofs and trying to break up the massing of the building. We are using traditional materials with the stone and wood lap siding and timber accents. The height of the building is several feet lower than the maximum height allowed. The height was broken up with bay elements to help break up the massing. The bay elements are important to the function of the plan. Donnelley: Why did you go to a cedar shake roof instead of a cedar shingled roof as the guidelines tend to call for shingled. Scott Smith: I am not sure there is any important reason for that. I believe the house on the corner has cedar shakes and that might have had something to do with it. Donnelley: Traditionally the shake roof is a larger scale and we tend to not look favorable on a shake as we would a shingle. Possibly it was an oversight. Scott Smith: I do not feel it is that important of an element. Sara Garton: Do either of you know why this is such odd terrain, is it from the mining days that the knoll or huge rise happened then suddenly it sinks to a flat area. This has nothing against the application but suddenly to the people across the street there are three homes there. The three buildings now have changed the neighborhood but you are within the code. Robert Blaich: The view is gone. Leslie: If this is the existing grade nothing can happen. 2 OVERLAY SUBCOMMITTEE FEBRUARY 28. 1995 Jake: It should be measured from the new grade if it is lower than the existing. Leslie: We are proposing to change that. Leslie: We use original natural grade and the county uses the later. Amy: Right now there are only sidewalks on the opposite side of the street. Jake: You are proposing steps in the right-of-way. Leslie: Typically the city does not accept permanent landscaping features in the right-of-ways. Robert Blaich: The drawings are misleading because it does show the planting on the street side but that is prohibited in that area. Sara: I do not know if a sidewalk will work on that side because not only does the affordable housing driveway aprons come all the way out Erindale's driveway comes all the way out also. It makes more sense of the sidewalk to be on the other side. v~-- Amy: I do not think you could get sidewalks across as this is a major pedestrian area. Leslie: The plan makes it look like the vegetation is intended to hide the exposure. Scott Smith: That would be the intent. It will be one story fully below grade except for the window well areas. Robert Blaich: In terms of following the plan with the landscaping and they decide not to do it and you then have the window wells sitting out there. What kind of control do we have with that. I feel that is a serious issue. Amy: I think if I would have recognized that it was going to be scooped out my comments would have been that it is not an appropriate location for window wells and in the neighborhood character guidelines light wells should not be on the primary facades of buildings. If there is a place on the side for windows wells maybe that should be looked at. Scott Smith: I think there are ways that we could deal with the grade and landscaping to hopefully accomplish the visuals from the street. 3 OVERLAY SUBCOMMITTEE FEBRUARY 28, 1995 Jake: There is a new building code that the light wells can only be three by three if they are deeper than 2 1/2 feet. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Donnelley: I mentioned already that the roof needs changes and secondly the roof eaves fascia is very heavy and tend to be more of a commercial or non-residential scale. I would recommend changing that. Also the discussion of the window wells on the street facade, that any window wells on the street facade we tend to discourage. Perhaps a smaller element that would supply light would be a better substitute. Sara: I understand the glazing on the south elevation but it might need addressed somewhat. Scott Smith: The south L is not something that could visually be seen. Sara: My only concern was the window wells and I am happy there will be a berm. Robert Blaich: You said earlier in your presentation you were trying to deal with the other dwellings that were existing or under -- construction and the one on the far right I would lean more heavily on in terms of scale and mass. Architecturally there is a lot of stone and those are things of concern. Jake: I feel the front grade is a unique situation to the site and I feel some sort of a port form would help lower the facade height. I would allow your roofing materials as it is on the east end and not in a heavy victorian area so there could be flexibility. Rustic detailing in Aspen in some areas is appropriate. The condition of the entire front block needs looked at by City engineering and let them tell us what there plan is in terms of pedestrian circulation and street scape and trees. The window wells have been addressed so I will not reiterate. Sara: I thought the railings helped. Jake: I feel it needs restudied. Scott Smith: I feel putting all the windows off to one side of the long room would be a lot less desirable. Donnelley: If you look at this in reality and where your grade is indicated at the street elevation the deck actually is a lid on the window well. It physically doesn't work. 4 OVERLAY SUBCOMMITTEE FEBRUARY 28, 1995 Scott Smith: The only way it would work is if the window well extended out beyond the deck. Donnelley: As it is draw it could not be built that way. Bruce: This is mandatory review and compliance. MOTION: Donnelley made the motion that the project at 1011 and 1015 E. Hopkins be approved because it is insubstantial compliance; however, the street side of lightwells shall be moved to sideyards. I will explain as two things cannot occupy the same space, a deck cannot occupy the space. Or you could remove the deck, one or the other however the lightwells would then have to be in compliance with other aspects of the code; second by Bruce. DISCUSSION Jake: What about sidewalk referral to city engineers. AMENDED MOTION: Donnelley amended the motion that the whole streetscape situation being sidewalk, pedestrian and the actual line of the street and how elevations would be dealt with should be referred to city engineering for clarification and design; second by Bruce. Scott Smith: If we can enlarge the one window well slightly to allow the deck to work without infringing on the setback would that be acceptable. Donnelley: I still do not know how two objects can occupy the same space at the same time. It is required egress. A cross section would be required to even answer that question. Jake: I would like to leave the applicant flexibility in dealing with the situation. Sara: I would like to see the railings retained. Jake: I feel the follow-up should be handled by staff. VOTE: All in favor of motion and amended motion, motion carries. Sara: The neighborhood drawings are terrific and it is one of the best applications for detailing. 5 OVERLAY SUBCOMMITTEE FEBRUARY 28, 1995 904 E. COOPER Robert Blaich: The applicant stated at the last meeting if they went to a different roof structure they might have to raise or lower the center roof. We need to look at the old and new drawings together. Leslie: I will tell the applicant it is too big of a change and we will have to schedule another meeting unless you do what was approved. MOTION: Sara made the motion to adjourn, second by Robert. All in favor, motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 6