HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.drac.overlay.19950503AGENDA
OVERLAY SUBCOMMITTEE
May 3, 1995
Regular Meetinq
2nd Floor Meetinq Room, City Hall
4:00 I. Roll Call
II. Comments (Committee members, Staff and public)
III. Old Business
.~
,~^
A. 926 E. Hopkins- Table to May 30
4:05 B. 844 Roaring Fork Drive<il~~-J3~~~~-~~~'~-.~.
IV. New Business
4:25 A. Mittendorf
4:45 B. 125 Park Avenue jo~~~'~"dl~1~~36
5:00 V. Adjourn
C ~ Z ~-,~t~.,
MEMORANDIIM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
Overlay Zone District Sub-Committee
Kim Johnson, Planner
Farish FAR Special Review
Continued Hearing
(844 Roaring Fork Road)
May 3, 1995
On April 5, 1995, this item was introduced to the FAR Committee.
The project had previously been reviewed and approved by the
Planning and Zoning Commission for compliance with the Hallam Lake
Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) review. During the FAR
review, Committee members from the P&Z became aware of the complete
demolition aspect of the project, and felt this was an issue
relating to the previous P&Z hearing. The FAR Committee decided
to table this item to April 25.
On April 25, the FAR Committee was not able to complete the review
because of time constraints of P&Z members and staff who had to
proceed to a P&Z meeting. The FAR review was tabled to May 3,
1995.
Also on April 25, staff presented to P&Z the determination of the
City Attorney that the P&Z could move to rehear the Hallam Lake ESA
review. The P&Z did so move by a vote of 4-0 (2 abstentions) to
place the item on its June 6 agenda.
Recommendation: Specific to the FAR Overlay review, staff is
recommending approval of the new structure based on the
Neighborhood Guidelines applicable to the project. This
recommendation and any findings of the FAR Committee is not binding
on any past or future P&Z action on the site.
__
q
MEMORANDIIM
TO: Overlay Zone District Sub-Committee
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner
RE: Farish Residence - 844 Roaring Fork Drive
DATE: April 5, 1995
SIIMMARY: This project is located outside of the six neighborhoods
with specific design guidelines, therefore only the general;"
guidelines (Chapter 1 of the "Neighborhood Character Guidelines")
will be applied. The subject lot is 30,400 s.f. with a maximum and
proposed FAR of 5,424 s.f. (100%). Because the lot size exceeds
9,000 s.f. the special review process is mandatory but compliance
with the Committee's findings is advisory only.
APPLICANT: Mrs. Steven Farish, represented by Dick Fallin
LOCATION: 844 Roaring Fork Drive, directly north of Hallam Lake
and ACES.
y 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 city-wide general
guidelines. No conditions are recommended for approval.
This project has been reviewed by the Planning and Zoning
Commission for compliance with the Hallam Lake Bluff
Environmentally Sensitive Area review. The P&Z approved their
review with some conditions that do not impact this FAR review.
STAFF EVALIIATION: The existing 1,878 s.f single story home will
be demolished except for some of the original foundation and
replaced with a 5,424 s.f. two story building. There are
substantial trees on the site which have directed for the most part
where development can reasonably occur. The orientation of the
structure and its site elements (garage, landscaping, driveway,
etc.) is not changing, although the structure does come forward to
the 25' front setback. The proposed height is 25 feet, up from the
existing 10' 8".
The added story will be approximately centered in the structure so
that the street frontage will be minimally impacted.
1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PARISH FAR OVERLAY REVIEW
844 Roaring Fork Drive
Aspen, Colorado
The applicant proposes to significantly alter and made additions to her existing
single family residence. The lot area is 30,400 sq. ft. in area and is in the City of
Aspen Zone District R-15, which allows a 5424 sq. ft. F.A.R. plus a 500 sq. ft.
garage. This lot is not located in an identifiable neighborhood zone as shown on
the Neighborhood Character Design Guideline Map.
The existing structure is a small, one-story two bedroom house adjacent to
Hallam Lake. The location on Hallam Lake requires that this project undergo a
special review for the Hallam Lake Environmentally Sensitive Area. The Hallam
Lake Bluff Review standards specify that a "top-0f-slope" is to be established
that restricts above grade development within fifteen feet of this line. This top-
of-slope effectively determines the rear set back line for the property, which in
this instance, reduces the development area by approximately one-half. In
addition, the lot has many mature trees within this area that the applicant
requires to remain.
These restrictions determined that few options were available for the new
development as can be seen on the site survey plan.
The new house will be a one-and two-story structure massed to allow one-story
elements around the perimeter and atwo-story element in the middle. Access to
the house determined that the garage and entrance face the street, which most
of the houses on Roaring Fork Drive do since there is no alley.
The following are responses to the General Guidelines for All Core Area
Neighborhoods of the Neighborhood Character Design Guidelines far Core Area
Neighborhoods in the City of Aspen.
"All buildings should help establish a sense of human scale that is inviting
to pedestrians."
The proposed development is composed of small facade areas along the
street surrounding a central two-story element, and is screened by the
existing mature trees.
Building Materials
9: "Use natural, indigenous building materials to establish a sense of
continuity throughout the community."
This proposals uses vertical cedar siding and cedar shingle roofing.
Architectural Features
10. "Architectural features that enhance the pedestrian experience are
encouraged."
The applicant believes this guideline has been met for the proposed
structure.
11. "Minimize the visual appearance of solar collectors and skylights."
There are no solar collectors proposed. Skylights occur at the west end
of the house as part of an octagonal room element which will be almost
entirely concealed by trees from the street
Garages
12. "Minimize the visual impact of garages."
The sites restrictions discussed previously precluded any options for the
location of the garage. The garage will be one-story with a hipped roof,
two doors with applied siding and trim to repeat the window scale used on
the main house. The slight oblique angle to the street should help
minimize the impact.
13~.. ~"M imize the visual appearance of driveways and parking surfaces."
This proposal utilizes all the suggestions except parking areas.
Service Areas
14. "Minimize the visual impacts of service areas as seen from the street."
The service area is on the east side of the house and will be screened
from the street with a fence and gate.
Imn^ct on Historic Buildings
15. "Preserve historic structures throughout the community."
not applicable to this proposal.
~....~ 3
~ ~ ~ t ~
\ 1~
\ \~ \ \ \\
\ \ 1
/~~~ t I'~ ~ ~~ `~ ~~ ~ I
~ ,~ Il~~~i~~~~~ ,
\1
i ~ ~ ~\
,.
~~ ~ : III i `11~
~ ~ ~ ,p I /~ I~ ~ ,
F I ~ ~ ~~ ,
~ ~~ ~!
W l i ~`~''1 I i ~
ai PI ~ , li ~ ~ ,
~~ ~ i ~_'~~~ ~ ~ i
1~ ¢ i ~I
~• ~ ~
~!i' ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~,P\
~ ~ I ~ QI
~ ~~~~•,~ V ~ 1',
IIrCA~~
i~~
2F ~~ ^ 5~~~~~'~ ~~ ?ydl~N NSI~Y~
_. Soi1bOV °xJ 2No~1VtlJ1°M
r r
.`. i 5 '
~ ~~
,:
~°
9'
r
or
za
i
__
I
i
0
MEMORANDUM
TO: Overlay Zone District Sub-Committee
~ ~s
FROM: Stan Clausofi~ommunity.Development Director
RE: Mittendorf Apartments Interim Overlay Review
DATE: 3 May 1995
SUMMARY: This review is for exterior renovation, including new
brick and stone facing, of an existing multi-family structure. The
existing structure is in excess of 85~ of its allowable FAR and,
although the increase in FAR is less than 100 s.f., since exterior
changes are proposed, Overlay Review is required. This review is
based on the General Guidelines and on the Design Guidelines for
the East Aspen Neighborhood which may be applicable to this
project. The applicant's representative has included a discussion
of the Base of Aspen Mountain neighborhood in his presentation.
This building, while not technically in that neighborhood, is could
appropriately be included there. The applicant has submitted a
dimensioned site plan showing the land parcel to be 9,000 s.f.,
therefore compliance with the review is required.
Planning staff believes that this project, with recommended
changes, generally complies with the General Guidelines and East
Aspen Neighborhood Guidelines, with some minor exceptions as noted
below.
APPLICANTS: Mittendorf Apartments Homeowners' Association,
represented by James P. Colombo
LOCATION: 450 Original Street (cnr. Durant Avenue), zoned R-MF.
STAFF COMMENTS: Please refer to the application information for
a more complete representation of the proposal. Because the site
is within a "core neighborhood", the General Guidelines found in
Chapter 1 of~ the Guidelines and the East Aspen Neighborhood
Guidelines (Chapter 2) will apply to this review.
The applicants do not propose to add any useable square footage to
the structure. The proposed renovations would result in a
technical increase in floor area of less than 100 s.f. Renovations
include brick casing of existing steel columns, partial enclosure
of open steel stairways and other facade elements with brick,
stucco, and stone facing, replacement of certain windows with
smaller units, and the installation of a brick and sandstone
corbelled cornice moulding. Proposed landscape improvements
include replacement of a wooden fence with a low masonry wall, two
additional trees, and reseeding or sodding. In addition, one
stairway at the west elevation will be removed and the balcony
~'""'"J facade will be continued in its place.
Mittendorf Apartments ~"~
3 May 1995
Page 2 "`~
General Guidelines: The General Guidelines are meant to be broad
in nature and address design variables that are common to all
areas. Recognizing that the Committee is dealing with an existing
structure, staff is presenting in this memo those guidelines which
are relevant to the proposed exterior renovation.
Mass and Scale -
1. Buildings should help establish a sense of human scale that is
inviting to pedestrians.
response: This area consists of larger buildings similar to the
Mittendorf Apartments. Remodeling which enhances a sense of human
scale, and which reduces the perceived size of structures and their
individual components would be consistent with this guideline. The
proposed renovations generally represent an improvement over the
existing materials and forms. Staff recommends however that the
central cornice element containing the legend "450" be
reconsidered. Its scale and central location, which does not
relate to the actual entries, is not consistent with the desire for
pedestrian-level enhancements. More could be done to relate the
stair entries to their facade element. "'""~
2. New buildings should appear similar in scale to those in the
established neighborhood, or to the scale that is desired for the
neighborhood; and
3. The street elevation of a building should be designed to appear
in scale with those seen traditionally.
response: The existing scale of the Mittendorf Apartments is not
unlike that of existing adjacent buildings and is generally
enhanced by the proposed materials and design.
9. IIse natural, indigenous building materials to establish a sense
of continuity throughout the community.
response: The proposed materials are consistent with existing
materials on the building to be retained and with materials on
adjacent buildings. The proposed materials will also soften the
appearance of the building by removing or covering the existing
steel elements.
10. Architectural features that enhance the pedestrian experience
are encouraged.
response: The Mittendorf Apartments have head-in parking across
the Original Street frontage and an unpaved walk along the Durant
Street frontage. No changes to these existing conditions are
Mittendorf Apartments
3 May 1995
Page 3
offered as part of this proposal. The rear window strips are
currently set in a vertical aluminum siding and are visible from
Durant Street. This rear facade would be considerably improved
under the proposal. The front facade would be made warmer in
character by the proposed changes in materials and window sizes.
Entrances to the upper level are defined by their protruding stair
towers, but bear little relation to the street because of the
parking in the front setback.
13. Minimize the visual appearance of driveways and parking
surfaces.
response: This substantial remodelling project does not address
this guideline. Areas which might be considered include: reducing
the number of pull-in parking spaces, providing access from the
street to the stair elements, using different paving materials to
differentiate between the street and sidewalk, parking, and
entryways.
Applicable East Aspen Neighborhood guidelines:
18. Building forms should appear similar to those used
traditionally in Aspen.
- 22. IIse natural or native building materials.
response: These guidelines have been covered under comments above.
26. Clearly identify the primary entrance.
response: Under this guideline, multi-family units are asked to
consider a central shared entry as a primary feature. While the
individual units of the Mittendorf Apartments each have their own
entry, a well-designed walkway leading to the street and connecting
with the internal walks would be a considerable enhancement. This
would likely require the elimination of one head-in parking space,
but would enhance the relation of the building to the street.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed
renovations with the exception of the central cornice feature which
staff believes is out of scale with the essentially linear
structure. Identification of the building address should occur at
pedestrian level. Further, staff recommends that the applicants
consider additional entry amenities which would soften the impact'
of the existing parking in the front setback. These might incliude
pavement differentiations and a landscaped walkway entrance.
.. ,....
Mittendorf Apartments ~'~e
3 May 1995
Paqe 4
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the Mittendorf Apartments
Special Overlay Review with the recommendations outlined in staff's
memo dated 3 May 1995."
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Application
B. Locational Plans
~'~
4
APPLICANT:
AOORESS:
ZONE DISTRICT:
LOT SIZE (SQUARE FEET]:
EXISTING FAA:
ALLOWABLE FAR:
PROPCSED FAR:
EXISTING NET lF4SABLE (wmmetda~:
PROPOS'c0 NE LEASABLE (commence:
EXIST WG Y.OF SITE COVERAGE:
PACPCS'cD ~ OF SITE COVERAGE:
~MITTENDORF APARTMENTS
450 ORIGINAL ASPEN, CO 81611
RMF
9,001 (SEE SURVEY)
9718 + sq. ft.
,_„gnns~
NO INCREASE- (SEE ATTACHED CLAUSON MEMO)
FriSAF
EXISTING a.OF OPEN SPACE (Cammen~:
PRGPOSc'D9.OFOPENSPACE,(Cartuner.): Nr1 ('HANr;F
E(ISTWG MAXIMUM HEIGHT:
PRCPOSc'D MAXIMUM HEiC'r(1':
PRCPGSED :OFDEMCLITION:
EXISTING NUMBER OF BEDROOMS:
PROPOSED NUMBER OF BEDROOMS:
EXISTING ONSITE PARKING SPACES:
ONSITE PARKING SPACES REQUIRED:
Pnriral RIM_• 2 0 ' 0 " ( g~~
Pr6r'nal Rk4~ • ~ '. ' 0 " / Pcce~rv BIdO'
15~
NOT DETERMINED •
NO CHANGE
11
I44T DETERMINED (NO CHANGE)
A K ;
EXISTING: ALLOWABLE:
Front: 5' to sBAfrssta Fitt
Rear. 6 ' Rear:
Side: 1;•' Side:
Combined FronVRear. > > ~ Combined FrgRr.
EXISTItVC`, N80NCONFORMRIESI balcony
ENCROACHMENTS:
VARIATION R O f D f Ilioible for Landmadcsw• character mmoahl:ifity findna must be made by HPCI:
FAR: hfirumiAil Distance Between BuTdings:
SETBACKS: Front: Paddng Spaces:
Rear. Open Space (Commeroal):
Side: Heigh (Cottage Infifl Only):
Combined FrURr: ,Site Coverage (Cottage Inf~ll Only):
PROPOSED:
10 ft, Front: NO ('RANGE
i n ft, pear: Nn r•unMr_F
~~ Side: NO--C.I3AAiGE
Combined FnmtlRear. N06E
~"'~
~.
12 April 1995
Mr. James P. Colombo, President
Colombo International, Inc.
623 E. Hopkins Street
Aspen, COQ 81611
Re: Mittendorf Apartrnents, 450 S. Original Street
Deaz Mr. Colombo:
ASPEN • PITKIN
PLANNING Q[ ZONING DEPARTMENT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Responding to your letter of 30 Mazch 1995, please be advised that I have determined
that the proposed brick and. stucco facing applied to the above referenced structure will
not constitute an increase in the non-conformity of the building with respect to F.A.R.
requirements. The calculated increase of 68.57 square feet over-the entire building does
not represent a significant change in the F.A.R. of the structure. Moreover, the
improvement will not increase interior or exterior useable spaces in any way.
It should be noted, however, that under the provisions of Ordinance 35, all development
in residential zone districts for properties which exceed eighty-five (85%) of the
allowable F.A.R. aze required to participate in a review by the Ordinance 35 Overlay
Committee. This ordinance exempts projects under 100 s.f. total only when the project
does not result in exterior changes. Since the proposed refacing will result in exterior
changes, this review will be required.
I have tentatively penciled in your application for the Overlay Review Committee
meeting of 3 May 1995. Kindly contact Mary Lackner (Tel: 920-5106) for information
on prepazing and submitting an application for review by this committee. Please let me
know if I may. provide any additional.information or assistance:
~trulY Yo ~ -
Stan Clauson
Community Development Director
cc: Bill Drueding i
Mary Lackner -
13O SOUTH GALENA STREEE ASPEN, COIARAOO 31sn PHONE 303.92O:SO9O .. FAx 303.920.5197
' ~m~Pw DIRER PAx LINE: 303.920.SA39
/'~
f ¢ k`
& ~ f
'%.~' ,~,
Y, ~`
3 \
y„ ~ S i4
-M LZTEN~DO
`s x GrmN!Rb Rd.) - .. Aspen Mountain
A
~ rY ~' ~, r t' 1. ~- J`4`` ~, Juniata St:
,~ ` r 'a~ al . ChAlmlal G. ~t NsPen AIPt Rd Snark A WwnSt.
34. ~ 'I Summit St.
a ~, 4 , ~ P~ i~ Hala
i =. `ri ~ ~.Ea><~'O0d ~gp Ritetside Or.. - h' Ski CaP Rd. •I
~, ;~ .`,~ 'i ~..,~ Ory Q ; e (1 O~ ~~ a '. ~ Waters Ave. ~ loan 54 ;
Dean 6t
k~ `~N v ~ "A. >
`,`" +W; t s3CJaV C4 ~I~ r,vlp•".- Ayrgt~~ ',.~E St. F r .u. ,,~ O4rdMAVe ~~",rxu,~„r
' r4.cl~t ~S :pq p. fc`. N .,-a-~~ W~, ` r ~ °E.C A ~ W.~C'n~AvG. S~'` ,l
y } ~; s ~ ~`~~, ~ 5 .^~~ ~ nike In ~. s~~ ~ 4 St ~ ~' .~ ~ a ~ _ "Hmtan lttc t ~ .
e `r w~f '~ ,q•~ ~. Dale ~ ~ a :~ X' `,G~ ~Hgpknn we , f
g ~ ~
a
~~~~ ~. ~ ;~ " Std . ,. ~ ~~~ l' a "`. Bleeke
` ' ~N`Kin SL~ a' '~ ~ ~ •,~ L-~' Hallam
'r Malrlden Dr.- g
~ x Q
~"'''"' v. x`^'+ P n_~PukG ~ YSt Egleeker St. ~ ~ i3~ .. Francis
4 ~ ~ fit' `4 F _
ty N(,. ^~. ,f,~ ~ SmUgFt
'" a, ~ ~5 r~ ~.,. W ~ `/{_~j@ Luke ,. one S^"v~ ..
w t
~' ~ g''~af~, ° E \'> nr< 5~ ~ 4'' : CSMrt £ C/6aO^^ve. ~~dll ~ ~a,4a '^° ~ Nor,::
S,p z '~ta - .rv
~ -~ Free Silva Ct. Hunter ~ ~, 13
s„ t,, a ~ .. ~ .G.. Ctxnmuniry ~~} ayx° r ~ ast\e `
`'~" i ~' ~ CMter "9 tw '..C
r .. ~.~~, ~,.. .
;Wy s ~~g~e~,ytou ~ ~lv4Y ~w\S. e
' ° ^tdsq W r `~~
h
r.r '' ~t,.^~ b"' '. -,g~ s
~ ~~~r A t
~ ~i'~"tE t~ 3}~'~~~Y~a ~' ~ fi58?: ,r~tt t ' w *'?„~ E ~~` = ~/~W vv 1 ^• ~
s {~ ~~~ ~ ~-'~. ~ s :, n ~ _ ~~ Hunter Creek Rd P Y r Ridge PI.
3 t`' a"ts, x$j ~. ~~ z~E'' ~ ~ r~z ~ ~ ~ ~:b ,..k'~' ,
^ 1. 1~j f G L C.f~~ S 3~j~ ~~Y$. k ~( at ' ~ ;-. 3 F Y ~ ' 2
T ~ "' $~ . ~~ RP- k r ra. ~ x A T r r.'aii ,.:_p~,k~c ^3' Nrghtha~
a'~1 r r r t ~~, ~ ~ Fap ~
~~ ~i~11TV' ~ Ru ~`
r c.. ~,- . ..,..,,, ,wort Re
w
4
~C
82~
~r6R
~ -.
l7~{FJ~•~1'r
r~~
821 ~
~p~
o~i411~1A1~ ~r'r~~~'f
G I "I"(
19t~lRAhtT
MALL
..BAST
t~.+NT
w I,6T
Uo~.A.TioN o ~ At7,A
N .'f.h .
4
i~
GNA?BAU
~NAUMoNT
I C.I~A'('~A~-I
RUMvtiIT
~!''I'I ~
April 17, 1995
City of Aspen
Overlay Subcommittee-Ordiance #35
Attention: Amy Amidon
Mary Lackner
RE: Mittendorf Apartments
Overlay Subcommittee Chairperson,
As President of the Mittendorf Apartments Homeowners Association
I have been authorized by my associated owners to submit an
application to the Overlay Subcommittee for approval of exterior
changes to the Mittendorf Apartments.
I also authorize Colombo International, Inc. and Jim Colombo
to represent the Association in these and any subsequently
required proceedings.
- I would also mention for your records that I am a legal
owner of one of the Mittendorf Apartments located at 450 Original
in the City of Aspen.
Sincerely,
T~ffJr»9 5 i? ,$9 T.Y~/yA.s -71 9
,,~,.~,,
..~~
MEMORANDUM
TO: Overlay Zone District Sub-Committee
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner
RE: 125 Park Avenue
DATE: May 3, 1995
SUMMARY: This project is located in the Smuggler Mountain
neighborhood, therefore both the genera 1. guidelines (Chapter 1 of
the "Neighborhood Character Guidelines") and the specific
guidelines for Smuggler Mountain (Chapter 4) will be applied. The
applicants request approval for a new duplex to replace an existing
duplex. The proposed FAR for this 7,688 sq. ft. R-6 lot is 3,721
sq. ft. The allowable FAR is 3,870 sq. ft. The new structure
will be 960 of the maximum FAR. The special review process is
mandatory as is compliance with the Committee's findings.
APPLICANT: Gary and Lucinda Nichols, represented by John Backman,
Studio B Architects
LOCATION: 125 Park Avenue, southwest corner of Park Avenue at Dale
Avenue)
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. No conditions are recommended
for approval.
STAFF EVALUATION: The new duplex will cover substantially less
site area than the existing duplex because it is a two story
building. Each unit faces a different street frontage. The
building will provide a one car garage and three exterior parking
spaces on the Park Avenue frontage and a two car garage and one
exterior space off of the alley. The height to the tallest ridge
will be 26 feet.
The designers have made great effort to break up the mass of the
duplex with varying siding materials and accents and creativity
with their use on the building. The wall and roof areas create
multiple at-grade and above-grade spaces. The four mature trees.
along the Dale frontage will be augmented with additional landscape
plantings on Park Avenue and the southern prioperty line.
Mass and Scale
Guideline #2. New buildings should appear to be similar in scale
1
to those in the established neighborhood, or to the scale that is i~
desired for the neighborhood.
Response: The building envelope is atypically shaped because of
the angled corner and street frontages. 'The applicant is
thoroughly utilizing second floor square footage which is
consistent with other building forms in the neighborhood. There
is variety in the proposed rooflines which helps break up the mass
of the building.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Committee approve the
request to exceed 85%, of the allowed FAR at 125 Park Avenue with
no conditions.
Additional Comments:
2
s~ o e 1 I y g i s
1 ~` ~4~
`~e
0~
,a
sdew ~(;iu~:,in Niue a;ea ;aafoad ^
I
xa~dna anuand ~agd 9ZL
~
_
A
a
7
O
°
? ~ a
a o
N
~
i
~
'a
O
Z O
r, .~
~
d J J
y
N y 1q
b N N
N N m
b
m ~ m
'
J
J
~ ~ H
e
C
O
m
O
Ot
C
1,x7
G
0
~V
`m
v
c
N
N
M J
N
'"
m
a~D
~ O1
V
C '- r pl
m
J J J
m
3. m ~ r
J !D ~ H
0
m
0
q N
b ~
r N
v v
Q
Q
F LL
M O
'" a
~~
N
`m
v
c
N
~ ~
N m
~~
N
Y
N
w
N
U
m
v
c
N
p O)
~~
N ~..-
m
0
O
O
`m
O
w a°
3 ~'
S
~C
•
C
n
e. ~
iY
~~
I
v
m v v
c m m
o v v
'
> >
0 0
a
o. n
N
m N N
10 m
a m
N a a
o ~ ~
Z m ~
w G
~ I
~ O
m ~
pp m m
~
~
m Q c c
0 O ~ ~ I.
m °
~ 0 N ~
f01 ~ N .- . I;
U ~ ~,.
C O y
!n O (n m
2 0 m 3 e W
6
3
5
n ~ •'~ tl~O
w z a
zo
Q N
y
~3 o=asg
~' ^ ao' c<o - fD
N
to
E ~ ~ ~
~ o cGn ~ ~
~ <
~ Q
~ O
~ ~
~.
~
'C D. Q
Iy ,
<
~ G d ~ ~
~
.
7
~
(y] ~ ~ ~
~
dQ ( y
ry
r
H w
r7 '0 .1 ~D ~9
~ ~ 00
_ O
..
G ry
00
~
~ t
N 'C7 ^ .7
c
F rn ccv ~°
~ ~
~ ~ ~
~• ~
.
y
N ry ~ ~
rn ~ ~~ o
H
~ ? Fo ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~"1 ~ ~
N
T£ ~ a~.
~
< ~ o ~
~ < ~ o
~ H
N
C
a
~ ~, ~
N
~
~
.-}~ ~
~ ~ry
p
d
7
g ~ F .
„
.~ O
n
y
o
+ ~ ~ X.
.
Vl ~ ~.
~ o ~
~' N H N
o w ~ ~
H G N O
= Q C
Q. ~ N ~
N ~
~_ ~ ~ ~
~ y ~ ~
~ w ~ ~e
ry ~ tlQ ~.
r~ +1 M
~ ~ ~ y
~ ~, ~
~ ~~ ~
y ~ r
~~. ~' w
H ~ ~
~+ y. ~.
~ ~'~
''
N Oo
~s
w ~,
~'~ ~
N
~~.~
N ~' N
p~i y
o ~ "
~ M
~'7 ~'~~
H ~ w ~ ~
^~ ua < as ~
~-°0.2~~
tl7C ~ n ^ n
o R. a °c ~
7 pi ,Gy ~~-n
O ~ ~ ~• ~
K
w .b ~ ~
u°a c 04
p, b ~ O
. ~ C ?
N ~
N ~
~ ~ ~
0 o b. ~
c ~' c o
G G ~ 3
~'G ~,~
d ~ ~~i
(D
c~D ~y ~ C
~ p 't1 `<
ti O ~
B yr
~~ ~'
~~~•~
n ~ ~ C
G ~
cz~°,
~~'~
a
~
~
~
~ ~ ~
~
~
~ c
O
~
~
c G
E
~
~ a ~
`~ ~ C ~• ~
w ~ ~
waro
d ~ ,
^ O ^~+
~
y
~
~ O
~
~ ~.
,
E
o ,
o °' v
c
o
7~' ~Fo
O
Hl
~ ~ 8
~ ~
a
~ ~ ~' ~ c
R ti ~ n.
". G
g ~ ~ C
a
~
~,
rJ' ~ '~G ~
N
d
7 p l1
y
O ~ ~^
N
~ O ~
~ ~ F
c w~~.
a °'^ c
•
N ~
r.
y ~ Q•
` ~
~
~
N
K
N
N
N
7
O
~
7~'
R
~
G
a
a
7
~
~
d
d _
7
.
~
~
, ~ n S
O ~ y T n X ' y m ~ 7 ~ .
,~ ^ Q m d
m
O A 7 O ~ m ~D .
7
~ ` m O S y " y ~ rZ
w d O 7 ! n A n, N ry N T d ~ ~ ~
p
~ 5~ ° ~ `°
~
_. ~
,~ ~' y °' 7 A' ~ `J
' io
~ F ~ c
a c
T a,
Fes' ~ .
_ „ o ~
'~ ~ v_
o . < ~ O ~ O 7 .b '.' A A O X
~ 7~ S ~
< N n d ~ 'O A 7 '~~ ~ 7 n
d ~ m 7 O a O ? • ~
m ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ n .Q y A rp
m 7 O O C d ~ 7 ~: ~ 7 .'cif Q, ~ S S ~~ d m
r ' n f .
~ O ~ °
~ 7 C_ N y f ~ 'D y ~ ~ '
O
°
~
O ~ y Q. ~ ^ y ~ ~ ~ ^ ~1 ~ ~ °
^
C
~ m
X
~ ~ o A w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~, n: ~ ~ ~ D
~ ~ ~D ~i 7
u y ~ ~ n w ,
^~ ~ ~ n' o ~ ° ~ ~ c
`° o
m y n .d. S ,d d Q C . ... n
a ~ o ti ~ ~ A c
v
~
"^ o
7 .
~ n,
.r
~ °
O
'O
a'
7
R
O a
n
m
C
~
y N
~,
~ ~ m O
.r.
N~
C
~.
b
,O.'
7 O
N ~ ~
~ 1 ~ ~ ~ 0. ~ Q ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ `~ O
d ~ £ N S n C
~ . Q. S < ~ ..
. .
.
'. ~ ~' c o o ~ o. T c a a ~ o
d ~, a ~. a' ~ ~ m ' a ~ m
,
,
,.,,
T
°
~ 5
m
„ c
a
T
- ~ .. • ~ a m ? o
~
~ C
s
C.
r m ~
%y ~~
" W ~
x
~ N
o°~~m ~
~'
~ ~ O, C
_
° "'
° ~m Omm ~
~
~
.9 ~
c] ° ~ ~'
o
NNmcc m
;~'m~ ~ .7
rt
o w ~ b ~~'~~ ~ S
~ ~ y ~,
b
~
~ N ~
VI m
A ~
t
A ~
~
1i ~
.
w
~
'D ~L
_
e
'f
~ ~ O
~
J
N C'~
0
B
d a W o n
~ ,~
~ ~_ ~
° T ~.
i
l d
y~
3
~
C C
T ? y ..
1--~
v ~
n
~
y ~
d ~ ~ A
w d ~ ~
~,
a 7 ~ _
0o
c m m
~ 'OU' _
.~+ ~ ~ m
n
^yU' ..
!t N p ~
ueid a}!S Pue ~ooa
~ I I xeldnQ enuand ~lagd 5Zt
11Nf11SV3 aOd
1f10Adl JN1~IliVd 03SISI3li
'5664 `ZL lllidll
L# 1N3WaN3WW11
~~~ ~
1
~~ ~
~ I '
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ I ~
i
i ~ ~
Q
m
Q
t
~ fir'- ~~ <r (h' , v` '
' ' :~ j~• ~ A ~~~-
ti.
I ~ ~•r,~
~~
~~
0
',~ ~ ~~
-- - ,r ~ x, ~-`~-S' gyp' - -
v
sv
D
c
m
rt
O
7
. -~
~
d. ~
;. ~
o ~
~
a
~
~ m
o
f/1
N
N
J d
... p~
=
a
O m
of ~
°o
~ n
.
~
fo
~ ~ n ? (n
~ °o a
' < n
m n ~ ~
!/~ m
a ?
fO w m
m
N o
m
~
s
N
~
~
W
f ~.
~ o
~
n
m
a
m
N
d
J
d_
C
V
V
m
v
0
3
0
y
~-----
-~
V
I
' ~ J !
~ ~
i',
1' ~ p
lOy On
O m ~» C ~ W ~ 31 ;
~. C m
m V ~ C. K
a ~• X
r
m
°-' -~
r m
r a
'~ .
~ D m•
= D
m
_ y m
- io
- °'
m m f °° F
~
n m m
T ?7 ^ m m
w~
W
irL
125 Park Avenue Duplex
Ashen. Colorado
a ~r c h i t e c t s -
s l o a l! 4 a ~ e
uolXanal3 ~~alla) }SaM
d
xa~dna anuand ~laad 5Z L
. •___.-.r._~_
m m LL
~ t ~ ~ m LL
O .~ p = W j
Q = Q ~ Q. J
m
~ ;~
~ '~
~ G
as ~
_
Q ~ m ~ ~
.__. ... _..
V_ ..
t--
\/
LL. LL
LL m
C LL
m
J ~
~ m
m
J
rr0
V) Z
r-
i ~~ ~6
1
I
i
I
i
i
--~-
i
i
J
i
i
i
I
i
i
i
C
O
d
W
~lu
Im
4,
i
i
i
.
~,
~.'
mo
c
0 3
N
a
m
rt
0
7
ti------
~,
~,
~,
~~
i~
i
ii
~~
~~
I f-= .--~
~ ~
I i.
r-------
L~ ~
~ ~===-i====-
~~
I '-
~ --~
~ I ~.. .
it
I ~ ~-
I ~---- ~
~ - - -i
J i
I
~~
~~
I~
I~
I~
~~
~I
~-
r
m
c
m
T
~J
`J
125 Park Avenue Duplex
uoi~ena13 (anuand ~aed) }sea
opeao~o~ ua sd
s l o s l i y a r e
8 I I xa~dna anuand ~laad 5Z l
m m
L
t 'm
x m
_o m
Q = o
Q ii
K ~
~ C
K ~
d
~ ~ ~ F
„o;S
~/
`/ - -
~J
_ .
i p~~
,~ 1 ~
1
LL
LL
m
J
O
J
„~ tb
i-
i
i I
I ~
I
I
I~-7I
------~ I
~~
~~
I~
II
I~
II
I~
-----rtl
I~
I~
~I
~~
~i
. - _ _
LL
LL
LL
J
„o-,ol
„O-SZ
„~ ;G
~?
' .n, ~_- 1
~~ 1
J \ r ' ` `.
`.,. ,.
~. ' .h` Y
_„ .
.•a..-'.i '~ ~i ~~ ~~~",
C
O
d
W
d
C
m
Q
Y
L
a
a
t.
a
W m
i
11
O
r
e~
O
O
F-= ___
i~ i ~
_ f ~ ~
;;ti ` '
~,
c
m -'
~
"
~'
~
6 ~ ~
N
-z_
~Q
W
g
•.--~
~ - ~
.~
~
---1 ~
1
i ~._ ~.
t
~ ,~
~ N
._J
_ 'J
m
0 O
is
m
~
g i ~ ;NNehsMc (~ set
J
A ~ ac v ~ ~ c R ~
125 Park ~ Avenue Duplex
Aspen. Colorado
s l~ e~ l y o i e
a°~
Q
O~
.~ ~
~'`~'
i~c~~
~~ •~~~
~..
ELI
~~-
,''
(-~..~
~-
q ~i
.r
~~7 `~~-~
,a~-~l j;~~~~ (~
,'
i
..,~
~~
%~
A
~ ~
~~
I~ ~
uald aoold lanai ;aa.l;g
ea I a d
xaldna anuand ~lagd 5ZL pr
;.
~nuu-tl Nod
`` ;;
~~~~ ~~ n
C>~~--~
p~__~
~ L'~.
~~~ ~< <
t
o
~ ~' m
3 '-•-
.~
,II 3101
---,
~ ~
,.•'
I ;'
1%
~.:
i ~
:I /
_ ~
,~
~~F~~ I
$ ~ __~ .
y 7 t '
,~
g. ~
a
c
~a
a
O
LL
d
J
G1
•M
N r
125 Park Avenue Duplex
a r c h i t e c t s
Asnen. Colorado
MITTENDORF APARTMENTS
Jake: Compliance is required.
Stan Clauson, Community Development Department head: This
structure is on a lot 100 by 90 therefore it is a 9,000 sgft. lot
and under the terms of ord. 35 compliance is required. This is an
existing structure that is being renovated on the exterior with a
brick facing. It is at 100% of its FAR and the exterior
renovations which include brick facing would increase by 100 sgft.
the FAR and should they go to the Board of Adjustment for the 100
sgft. The interpretation was that this 100 sgft. was not usable
FAR and the Board of Adjustment review is not required. However,
since the structure exceed 850 of its FAR and the total proposed
project will result in an increase if FAR and because it also
includes exterior changes those things trigger an ord. 35 review.
The intent of this project is to reface and it is an non-historic
structure and built in 1963. It is a light structure in
appearance and based on a panel architecture. The rear facade has
vertical aluminum siding and the front which fronts on original
street uses a window system and the sides are brick panels that
are inserted between the structural elements with the Durant
Street side having them pierced by windows and the alley side
blank. What is being proposed here is to use masonry elements to
give a little more structure and presence to the building. The
structure is located in the east Aspen neighborhood and adjacent
to the base of Aspen. I reviewed to on the East Aspen Guidelines
and the General Guidelines. Since it is not a new structure being
proposed to the site the intent is the effect of the different
materials. Staff has no problem with the use of these materials.
One comment on #10, the architectural features enhance the
pedestrian experience are encouraged; The Mittendorf apts. have
head in parking across the Original Street frontage and an unpaved
walk along Durant Street frontage and no changes to the existing
are offered as part of the proposal. The rear windows are visible
from Durant St. and it will be improved on the proposal. The
front facade would be made warmer in character by the proposed
changes in materials and window sizes. Entrances to the upper
level bear little relations to the street because of the front
setback. Staff is recommending approval of the renovations. The
keystone feature in the cornice is a little more monumental than
the building can actually bear. It has no relationship to the
entrances and our guidelines do speak about emphasizing the
entrances in some way. Our primary recommendation is that this
project be approved without the keystone feature and that the
entrances be given some graphic designation as to the address or
unit numbers that are available rather than the monumental feature
in the center.
Stan: We also make a recommendation that the applicants consider
additional entry amenities which would soften the impact of the
existing parking in the front setback. These might include
pavement differentiation or landscape walkway entrance. At the
cost of one parking space they could develop a walkway. Once you
get past the cars that are parked in front there is an internal
walkway accessing the various units and accessing the stair
towers. There is nothing that leads you from the street to that
internal system. At the cost of one parking space they could
develop a walkway that was defined from the street. Then are ten
parking spaces and ten units. The ordinance would require 20
parking spaces so they are already under in terms of the ordinance
and probably at 10 parking spaces they do not wish to give up any.
I offer this as a consideration.
Jake: The entrance to the circulation could be addressed from the
Durant Street also.
Stan: There is a berm along the side which provides privacy to
some patio areas along the building. The answer would be yes but
the berm is fully planted.
Jim Colombo represented the homeowners: We have taken the
existing building and tried to make it integrate with existing
structures in the area. The Aspen East neighborhood has little
continuity except for brick facades. We used materials that would
match what is existing in the neighborhood. We have taken
existing steel columns and wrapped them in a brick detail to
create vertical columns in a masonry form. We added a front
parking wall which is a brick and masonry wall and we feel it does
define the entrance into the building. There are two designated
areas of entrances. There are also distinct walkways at those
locations. Once you are in, there is internal circulation which
2
allows transitions to the upper levels. I feel we have addressed
the distinct entry issue and we do not have a problem with putting
any type of legend or the address of the building at the entry
level for identification but we do feel the center cornice piece
is integral to the design of the building. We do not feel it is
out of scale and it is standardized throughout Aspen. Those are
the two items staff made comments on.
Steve: Your corbel piece is interesting and was there
consideration in having two over the two stairways so that if you
drove by and walked up the building it would call attention to the
double entry.
James Colombo: I feel it would look awkward. The center one
gives balance to the building. I feel they would become more
neutral.
Steve: Is the function of the interior remaining the same?
James Colombo: Yes and there was a unanimous approval of the
homeowners. I feel this design is a lasting look for Aspen.
Jake: Is the parking off-site.
James Colombo: The existing parking is partially on and partially
off and has been that way since it was developed. We are on about
8 to 12 feet of public property and there is no sidewalk.
Jake: Because the parking straddles it is on city property.
Stan Clauson: We are coming to a policy, where possible, that
parking will be eliminated on public property.
Jake: Do you have a sidewalk?
James Colombo: No and if the city were to come in and put a
sidewalk it could occur.
Jake: If the area was stripped and you got your ten spaces and
had an extra 15 feet could you use it for a pedestrian walk?
3
Homeowner: I live there and it is striped off now at 10 spaces
and it is tight. You wouldn't want to move it in as the car doors
would get hit.
Jake: Usually you provide an amenity when you are over the 850
and the parking situation is strange with part of it on city
property to begin with and lets say we let that go and concentrate
on a sense of sidewalk with a change of materials that would give
something to the street. Plus if you could do something different
with the brick that gives an expressing for the person walking
down the street rather than just cladding it. If that were done I
would say fine build to you 100% FAR as you are giving these
amenities to the street. You are in a weird situation as you are
already at that 100%.
James Colombo: We are giving several things to the pedestrian
street level one you are looking at a building that is consistent
in materials and a building that has taken blank windows and made
them different. We are taking a 1963 Howard Johnson style
building and creating a new style for the Aspen area. We are
putting in a low stone masonry wall and lighting at the top of the
wall. All of those things have been done at the pedestrian level.
In addition we are willing to look at the limited walkway areas
that you enter from the wall and possibly we could do a brick
treatment.
Jake: What we would consider to be a horrendous condition, we
would not allow any parking in the front yard setback.
James Colombo: I think I understand that but I feel that is not
under your purview at this review.
Steve: When you do have to asphalt the area you could do it in
another color.
Bruce: I feel that if this were a brand new building none of us
would buy into what is being proposed here but really all we are
talking about is the front and the facade changes. I would like
to see some other treatment of the address. The Brand bldg. is a
good example.
4
Steve: The building as presented fits into the neighborhood and
will be much nicer than what is there presently. The corbeling is
appropriate for the elevation.
MOTION: Jake moved that overlay committee approve the proposed
renovations with the removal of the central cornice feature and
further that the applicants consider additional entry amenities
which would soften the impact of the existing parking in the front
setback.
DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND
MOTION: Steve moved to approve the Mittendorf Apartments Interim
overlay review including the 450 address marker as shown on the
drawings; second by Bruce.
DISCUSSION
Jake: I think there is a better way to handle the marker.
Bruce: It strike me as overstating even though I second the
motion. My preference would be some other treatment but I will
vote for the motion as is.
VOTE: Passes 2 -1, Jake opposed.
5