The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.drac.overlay.19950530 4 _, ~.,... AGENDA OVERLAY SUBCOMMITTEE ''~ May 30, 1995 Regular Meeting 2nd Floor Meetinq Room, City Hall ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- 4:00 I. Roll Call II. Comm ents (Committee members, Staff and public) III . New Business T, ld~~~ ~"'~~~~~ ~ ~ i Hi hfi ~ ~ 4:05 A. W. Franc s, rs e 6 ~9 4:20 ~~ 616 W. Hopkins, Hirshfield IV. Old Business 4:45 A 936 King Streeter ?___ r~~ 5:00 B. 926 E. Hopkins, Braden (table) 5:00 V. Adjo urn ,,,..,, t°- MEMORANDUM TO: Overlay Zone District Sub-Committee FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner RE: 616 W. Hopkins Special Review DATE: May 30, 1995 SUMMARY: This project is located in the Shadow Mountain neighborhood, therefore both the general guidelines (Chapter 1 of the "Neighborhood Character Guidelines") and the specific guidelines for Shadow Mountain (Chapter5) will be applied. The applicant requests approval for demolition and reconstruction of a single family residence with an attached accessory dwelling unit. The allowable FAR for this 6,000 sq. ft. lot is 3,240 sq. ft. The proposed FAR is 3,396 sq. ft., which represents the maximum plus an additional 156 s.f. "bonus" for an accessory dwelling unit. The ADU will be processed as a conditional use review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The special review process is mandatory. Because of the lot size, compliance with any Committee findings is also mandatory. APPLICANT: Mr. and Mrs. Robert Hirschfield, represented by David Brown LOCATION: 616 W. Hopkins Ave. (Lots O and P, Block 25, Townsite of Aspen) STAFF COMMENTS: Please refer to the application for the complete representation of the proposal. Planning staff finds that the proposed residence is in substantial compliance with the general and specific neighborhood guidelines. The existing residence will be demolished except for the fireplace and a small portion of the west side of the building which encroaches into the side yard setback. The mature vegetation on the site provides a substantial amount of screening towards the street. The new attached garage is accessed from the alley. The following guidelines apply to this proposal: 1) Architectural features that enhance the pedestrian experience are encouraged. Response: In its current design this house has many rectangular 1 shapes joined by varying roof gables which really break up the mass. The entry porch is well scaled to the structure and to the ~'~ street. 2) Use of building forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in Aspen. The proposed roof pitches and building forms are compatible with the neighborhood. 3) Use of natural, indigenous building materials. The use of stone and wood for siding and wall shingles is different from the existing building, but are compatible with materials commonly used in the neighborhood and rest of Aspen. 4) Minimize visual impact of garages. The new garage will access from the alley and is partially covered by a second floor deck. Parking is provided in the garage and apron 5) Yard Areas The proposed additions maintain all of the current yard areas and trees along the frontage, which are important on this site. 6) Building Orientation The entry faces the street, but the southeast corner is oblique to the street at ground and second levels, and the southwest corner is oblique to the street on the second floor. This design does not satisfy the requitement to "reflect the platted grid where it exists, by orienting building walls such that they reinforce the perception of the neighborhood grid." The architect should revise the first floor at the southeast corner for a more rectangular footprint, reflecting the grid pattern. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Committee approve the request to exceed 85% of the allowed FAR at 616 W. Hopkins Street with one condition: i) The applicant shall redesign the southeast corner of the first floor for a more rectangular footprint at the street frontage. Additional Comments: 2 e '' BLOCK 25 «~~ ~„ _.~ APPLICANT: ADDRESS: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ZONE DISTRICT: LOT SIZE (SQUARE FEET): EXISTING FAR: ALLOWABLE FAR: PROPOSED FAR: EXISTING NET LEASABLE (COMMERCIAL): PROPOSED NET LEASABLE (COMMERCIAL): EXISTING % OF SITE COVERAGE: PROPOSED % OF SITE COVERAGE: EXISTING % OF OPEN SPACE (COMMERCIAL): PROPOSED % OF OPEN SPACE (COMMERCIAL): EXISTING MAXIMUM HEIGHT: PROPOSED MAXIMUM HEIGHT: PROPOSED % OF DEMOLITION: EXISTING NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: PROPOSED NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: EXISTING ON-SITE PARKING SPACES: ON-SITE PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: SETBACKS: EXISTING: Front: Rear: Side: Combined Front/Rear: Mr. and Mrs. Robert Hirschfield (rgpresentedbvStrvker/Broe^~ °-^t+++~s) ~,an oo ~/ SF enen , ~~ ~_a.. ~......e~ _ aanv S F 2234/6000- 37°/ 2400/6000- 40°/ Principal Bldg: ~~''0^°'°a ~°^^~sorv~g: Principal Bldg: +/ 24' /Accessory B~1 g: ALLOWABLE: 13.25, Front: ±7' Rear: 12' Side: 20'25' +/- Combined Front/Rear: EXISTING NONCONFORMITIES/ PROPOSED: 10, Front: 11 S' 10, Rear: 18.5' 15, Side: 15' 30,_ Combined Front/Rear: 30' ENCROACHMENTS: -----~__ :_.,. ..:a.. ~..a.,,.v a~ ~/_ VARIATION REQUESTED (eligible for Landmarks Only: character compatibility finding must be made by HPC): FAR: SETBACKS: Front: Rear: side: Combined Front/Rear: Minimum Distance Between Buildings: Parking Spaces: Open Space (commercial): _ Height (Cottage Infill Only): _ Site Coverage (Cottage Infill Only): _ ~Xtl3) SSZZ'SZ6 i~5 OL6 Ii9I8 oavxo~c,,. .easy 'oos ar.ns'~~~s ~~mws x~nos oos Jd 'SZJflZIHJ2I~1 NM02I$ iuax,CH.L $ u~ew~v,) NOLLF~AON~2I /NOI,LIC_.._. J SNDIdOH'M 9i9 d W P 0 V O (Xtl3) 8SZZ'SZ6 6SZ'` ~L6 ~ tt9t8 oavxo~o~.,,,,~ .pro 'pp£ a„ng'Laaa1S oNartS Eunog OOE Jd ~S,LJg.I,IHJ~I~' AIM02I$ iaaxxui S F~-- ~--- v _~ ,~ ~ ~ - N -' r opeioloJ'u; ~ NOLL~'AONd2I /NOI,LIC.,,,~ SNDIdOH 'M 9L9 ~I ~~I LLB l~ O ~,- . ~ 1 ~____ ---~ O ~~ ~° opeioioJ'uadsy NOI,LHAONd2I /NOI,LIQQ`d S1~iDIdOH 'M 9L9 ~~ ~~ ~a ~Xdd) 85ZZ'SZ6 i~SZZ'SZ6'OL6 ii9i8 oovaoio~ 'rraasy 'oosanns'~~~s ~~s Enos oos Jd 'SZJ3ZIHJ2IF7 NM02I$ ixaxxui g d~ ll1 3 z O ~n 0 opeioloJ'uads• ~~ (Xtl3) 8SZb'SZ6 VSZZ'S' LT9L8 oavxo~o~ 'n NOI,I,`dAON~2I /NOI,LIQQ 'oos~s'~~~s ~~s Enos oos SNDIdOH'M 9i9 Jd 'SZJg,I,IHJTI~ NMO~Ig iuaxxu.t g p _ ------~ I ~ I t - ---i -1 -__ ___ J I ---- --~ I --- I i i I -- -- - --~ - -+ _4 ~~, ~ ,~ ~\ ~_ 2 .~ ~J O ~" o ~ _, a t (~ 0 ~Xt+3) 8SZZ'SZ6 bSZZ'SZ6'OL6 ii9i8 oovaozo~ 'Naasy 'pp£arrnS"taaxig ocuxdg t-.nog 00£ Jd ',S'.L J 9 Z I H J 2IF7 NIMO~I$ /~I3xA~I.L S -71~'d.l-~jj ~~~ i-b' S ' ~. /c ~ GiNl ~I ~ o {-f opeioloJ'aadsy Noli~noN~u /NOI.Iaaa~ SAIDIdOH 'M 9L9 a~ -~ ~°~`b - ';' y,, ~Z 1 ''4. ~, NJ _- ~~ ~~~ 1 T' ~rnl ~ ;,l F i~- i _-.---_~ a x ~. ° t _ ~~~ ~ ~- - - I I I 1 ~---- ~ ~~'4~- yrrdN~ ~ aN I oy N~ I~G~~ t------ i ~ I f \, ~ i ~~ ~ C1~3N . I p•~1~~c-:rte n~N ~ ~ ~ i ~ :'\ ~ ~ ~~ -~--------~-----t \\ ~~ . I '~ i ~._-__..~c_.--- I { I I ,. i -----r-----------f ~. ~ ~ ~ •, ~ , , I ~------------1 ... ~_.- i ~~~~ ~- L(~, ~_ _i ~I I .~a i i'; ~'',, `Y~ ~ - Z S s ~sa ~XYd) BSZZ'SL6 65ZL'9~ LI9I8 oavxoio~'NS.._o 'QQE armS'.L931I.LS `JNQIdS H1ROS 00£ Jd 'SyJg,LIHJ~I~' NMOTI$ /ZI3~Ii2I.Ls ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ rL ~ ~~ ~ ~~ 5 3 ~ ~ r I( ~ 'a ? i t y ~' --- }~ ~Z _ ' 3 ^~~~ N ~~ 3 opeiojoJ'aad~ ,l NOI.LF~AON~?I /NOI.LIQQ . SAtDIdOH 'M 9L9 E- _ ~ Nt~W-~ al.a~U.rWz~d ~I ~ ~~ ~r i .il~Wtt~~ ~ll~oiX~ ~`g~ ~_. _. ~ O- ~{~ ^! _O -, 0 (XV3) 8SZZ'SZ6 bSZZ 6 II9I8 oavao~o~ .~V 'OOga~rng'13Ha1S ~waaS ~oS 00£ JAI ~S Z J 9 Z I H J ZId NMO~I$ /~IH~I,i~IZ S P + - - -- - - - - - - - + `~Jtf.~1.~ G~1.VI 1 ~;,~}rY~~-p~ ~7N ~~Gi-~~~i u~'~12 i8+~ x R 5~i t ___.~.._.__... __ I I ~ I I I I I 5 ------ -------- ~ I I -rt r --~ opeioioJ 'us NOI.LFIAOI~I~?I /I~IOI.LIQ~ S1~iI~IdOH 'M 9i9 V n (Xtl3) 85ZZ'SZ6 DSZZ'f ~ opezojoJ'aad~- t, IZ9IS oavxmo~ NOI.L`dAONd2I /NOI.LIQC 'pp£ auns'~aa.~g owaaS ~oS OOE SNI>IdOH 'M 9Ly Jd 'SZJ~ZIHJ2I~' NMOTI$ /~Iff~I,i2IS S i ~/ I I ~ ~I ~/ \ ~ \ ,' ~ ~ ,~ i ~~ i ~ ~ i i ~ k~ s 4 ~~ ~XV3) SSZZ'SZ6 65 )L6 ii9i8 oavxolo;; ..arid 'ooearrns'~~~s ~~as cos oos ~a 'sz~ssiH~u~7 xn~-oug iuaxxui g P opexojo'', 1 Noii~noN~u ~NOI.i~c,..~ S1~iDIdOH 'M 9L9 F~ 0 Z Z f` V T O ~~ O MEMORANDUM TO: Overlay Zone District Sub-Committee FROM: Leslie Lamont, Deputy Director Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 61U West Francis FAR Overlay Review DATE: May 30, 1995 SUMMARY: This review is based on the General Guidelines found in the recently adopted Neighborhood Character Guidelines and the specific guidelines for the West End Neighborhood.. Special Review and compliance with the review is mandatory because the parcel is 4500 square feet. Planning staff believes that this project substantially complies with the General Guidelines and the guidelines for the West End. APPLICANTS: Dr. Robert Hirschfield represented by Dave Panico LOCATION: 610 West Francis ZONING: R-6 STAFF COMMENTS: Please refer to the application for a complete representation of the proposal. Planning Staff finds that the project is substantially in compliance with the Neighborhood Character Guidelines. The steep roof pitches, presence of porches and other one story elements and placement of the second story within the roof mass help the structure to appear in scale with the surrounding neighborhood. There are many smaller historic structures in the area of this lot, but none on this blockface or on the opposite blockface. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the development at 610 W. Francis Street as proposed. 1 _ - ~-- CAP I.9E I /29.4 --_ I ~ ~~ I ~~~~~' ~, O yl ro/// j/ o ~I Y /~/~ /i j / a -. - _~~ ~/ ~ ~jj j I '' i i / ~/ i w / ~,3 ~ 'm ~ _ 0 Z TUB // / / CONC./ I/ P40 __ PJWEN TEE d TV ____ I .-~ ~ ~ FOUND CITY MONUMENT --- - WOOD FENCE b // ~ _ ~~ O ~"" . ~' G~~ ~~ D no 0 _ra~fila ~. - /lt c ~.t~l~- ~, ;'(~R ~o ~~ ~ ~~1 ~/~ d 0 i ~~ f~ S~"/~ ~ ~ N D o / 0 o ~,,~ - z ~= ~ ~' S =i n a~~ =i ~ ~rn r L m z ~~ rn Irn ~- vii .~ -°a- V (~ C. c~ i~ i D C rn r rn r G ~~ N N -B- { y~ I V _., ~, !! ,~~ ,. x ~ `. ~ ~v.-=<_ ,;~ ,~ / s~ i j O ~ ~- ~, ~~ ~~ ~ -~_ ~_.. ~~~ ~, __ 0. _-_~ .~ _ ~~ ~-- ,. ~ p -~ ~rt r r~ p ., ~ 0 c- z rn r rn G D- 0 z ~~._ 0 -~ r rn ---i 0 z APPLICANT: ~~11L 9 CL"RS9 IZDE~fLr i-112-~~t~L~ ADDRESS: (pIO W. FfLD~NC~~i ZCNE DISTRICT: LOT SIZ= (SCUARE Fc"7): EXISi1NG FAA: ALLCWABLE FAA: PRCPCSEO FAR: BUSTING NF LEASABLE (mmmerda~: PRCPCSEO NE L 4SABLE (commerce: E9STWG °'. CF SITE COVERAGE PRCPCSE7 %CF S(iE COVE9ACE: EXISTING Y.OFCPEV SPACE (Cammerdaq: PRCPCSc"7i "'. CF CPEN S?A~ (Cotmner.): EtlSTING MAXIMUM HEiGHi: Pr'v~doa191do • 221 •~ / AenP~N Rmrt: PRCPOSFJ MAXIMUM HEiCFIT: Pr'vidral Elde • 2~1t I Arr~N PRCPCSc7~ aCFCEi4CLCfiCN: EXSTING NUMEER OF 8E7RCOMS: PRCFdSE~i NUMEER CF EEIRCOMS: EXISTING ONSiTE PARKING SPACES: ONSITE PARKING SPACES RECUIRED: 3 ~aA K EXISTING: i II ALLOWABLE: I PRCPOSEll: ll Front I~-.r~• u Front . M I~ FronC Rear: p Rear: M~CI~{~~{1,,//~Iy~D{}II ,,Pear. l~l Side: Side: ~.[~ ule- C;.mhirted FronURear. t:omhined FrURr. ~ Combined FrantlRear EXISTING NCNCCNFCRMRIES! ENCROACHMENTS: NON ' VARIAT'CNS FECUESTPD ~elioihle for ~ andmarks Only character camoafibility findng m~~ ~ made by HPC1: FAR: ~~~ D"isTance Between Ba7dng5: SETBACKS: Front: P~n9 Spaces: Rear. Open Space (Cammerdal): Side: Heigh (Catlage Infill Only): Ccmbined FRIRr: Site Coverage (Cottage Infill Only): war 4~Jm ~ MS KIM JOHNSON 130 S. GALENA ST. ASPEN, CO. DEAR KIM, AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF MR. & MRS ROBERT HIRSCHFIELD, I AM SUBMITTING THIS APPLICATION FOR THE F.A.R. OVERLAY REVIEW FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 601 W. FRANCIS ST. THE HIRSCHFIELDS WOULD LIKE TO MAKE RENOVATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING RESIDENCE PRESENTLY,COMPRISED OF 1974 SQ. FT IN 2 STORIES ABOVE GRADE AND A 600 SQ. FT. BASEMENT. THE RESIDENCE IS LOCATED IN THE WEST END NEIGHBORHOOD. AS TO THIS PROJECT'S COMPLIANCE WITH THE GENERAL GUIDELINES, I WILL ATTEMPT TO ADDRESS THEM POINT BY POINT. MASS & SCALE THE PROJECT AS IT IS PROPOSED, WILL (RELATIVE TO IT'S IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS) BE PERCEIVED AS RATHER SMALL. THE RESIDENCE IMMEDIATELY TO THE WEST WILL TOWER OVER THIS PROJECT. THE HOUSES TO THE SOUTH AND DIAGONALLY ACROSS THE CORNER OF FIFTH AND FRANCIS ARE BOTH QUITE LARGE COMPARED TO THIS RESIDENCE. DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET TO THE EAST IS AN OLDER, SMALLER HOUSE PROBABLY BUILT IN THE LATE 1800'S OR EARLY 1900'S. ACROSS THE STREET TO THE NORTH IS A 1 STORY PANABODE STRUCTURE TYPICALLY BUILT IN THE 1950'S. BECAUSE IT IS SURROUNDED BY THESE OPPOSITES IN SIZE, THIS PROJECT WILL FIT PERFECTLY AS A MEDIAN STRUCTURE. THE PROPOSED RESIDENCE WILL BE PERCEIVED AS A ONE STORY STRUCTURE WITH A DORMER ROOF TO TRAFFIC ON 5TH STREET. THE ROOF VOLUME RISES TO THE WEST SO AS TO HIDE THE LARGER HOUSE TO THE WEST. THE MASSING ELEMENTS OF THIS HOUSE ARE IN KEEPING WITH THOSE SEEN TRADITIONALLY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WITH ONLY THE EXISTING NORTH AND THE PROPOSED WEST WALLS BEING LONGER THAN 20 FT. THE WINDOWS AND DOORS ON ALL ELEVATIONS, EXCEPT THE SOUTH, WILL BE OF TRADITIONAL SCALE. THE WINDOWS FACING THE ALLEY WILL BE TALL ANp WIDE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF VIEWS AND SOLAR GAIN POTENTIAL. THE STREET ELEVATION WILL BE TRADITIONAL IN NATURE WITH A SLIGHTLY RAISED PORCH WRAPPING THE SOUTH EASTERN END OF THE HOUSE. THE FASCIA AND WINDOW HEAD HEIGHT ARE IN KEEPING WITH THOSE FOUND ELSEWHERE IN THE WEST END. THE ENTRANCE WILL BE OF A TRADITIONAL SCALE. BUILDING FORM THE BASIC FORM OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL BE RECTANGULAR WITH A DORMER ELEMENT SKEWED AT 45 TO THE MAIN STRUCTURE. A ROUNDED 'BOW' ELEMENT ADDS VISUAL INTEREST TO THE FIRST FLOOR PORCH AREA, BUT THE ROOF FORM IS STILL RECTANGULAR. THE ROOF FORMS ARE ALL GABLE AND OF A PITCH THAT IS TRADITIONAL TO THE WEST END. THE PORCH PROVIDES THE DEEP OVER HANGS DESIRED BY YHE GUIDELINES. SITE DESIGN THE MAIN ENTRANCE ADDRESSES FIFTH STREET AND IS LOCATED IN THE LONGEST AND MOST PROMINENT FACADE OF THE STRUCTURE. THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, THAT WILL BE RETAINED, SITS CLOSE TO THE NORTHERN SET BACK. THE RESIDENCE TO THE WEST IS SITUATED SIMILARLY. THIS SAME HOUSE SITS CLOSE TO OR ON IT'S SETBACK TO THE SOUTH. THEREFORE THE CONCEPT OF RESPECTING THE EXISTING SETBACKS SHOULD BE MOOT. THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE IS ORIENTED SO THAT IT WILL REINFORCE THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD GRID. THE ENTRANCE WILL BE AT OR SLIGHTLY ABOVE STREET LEVEL. THE PROPOSED ADDITION WILL BLOCK EAST LIGHT FROM THE FIRST FLOOR OF THE ADJACENT RESIDENCE TO THE WEST. THERE ARE TWO SMALL WINDOWS ON THAT FACADE PRESENTLY BLOCKED BY FENCES AND TREES. BUILDING MATERIALS THE USE OF CLAPBOARD SIDING WILL HELP BRING ANY PERCIEVED HEIGHT PROBLEMS DOWN. THE USE OF A STONE BASE AND 'WATER TABLE' BANDING GIVES A TRADITIONAL SCALE TO THE HOUSE AND SPECIFICALLY THE PORCH. THE ROOF WILL BE WOOD SHINGLES STAINED BLACK OR COMPOSITION SHINGLES. METAL ROOFING MAY BE USED ON THE PORCH. ARCHITECTUAL FEATURES WINDOWS WILL BE A COMBINATION OF TRADITIONAL DOUBLE HUNGS IN COMBINATION WITH FIXED GLAZING AND WILL BE OF PEDESTRIAN SCALE. THE PORCH COLUMN WILL HAVE A NON TRADITIONAL FLAVOR TO BREAK FROM TRADITIONAL ARCHITECTURE. THE MAIN ENTRANCE WILL BE CLEARLY DEFINED. SKYLIGHTS WILL BE LOCATED IN AREAS THAT CAN NOT BE SEEN FROM THE STREET. GARAGES THE GARAGE IS TO BE LOCATED AT THE REAR OF THE HOUSE AND IS TO BE ACCESSED FROM THE ALLEY. THE DRIVEWAY SLOPE WILL MEET THE MUNICIPAL CODE. PARKING AND DRIVEWAYS (SEE ABOVE) PARKING WILL BE ALONG ALLEY. (SEE SITE PLAN) SERVICE AREAS SERVICE AREAS WILL BE LOCATED ON THE ALLEY (SEE SITE PLAN) IMPACT ON HISTORIC STRUCTURES THE EXISTING RESIDENCE IS NOT A HISTORIC STRUCTURE. DESIGN GOALS FOR THE WEST END NEIGHBORHOOD DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE RESIDENCE IS LOCATED ON A 4500 SQ. FT. LOT AND THEREFORE CAN BE COMPRISED OF ONLY 2820 SQ. FT. OF F.A.R., THE PROPOSED RESIDENCE ATTAINS GOAL ONE BY PRESERVING THE SCALE OF TRADITIONAL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES. THE ENTRY FACADE ADDRESSES THE STREET AND IT'S MOST PROMINENT FEATURE IS A LONG PORCH WITH A PEDESTRIAN SCALE. THE5E ELEMENTS HELP ATTAIN GOAL TWO. THE DESIGN INCORPORATES BOTH PORCHES, DORMERS AND VERTICALLY PROPORTIONED WINDOWS AND THEREFORE ATTAINS GOAL THREE BY PROMOTING THE DESIRED VISUAL INTEGRATION. DUE TO THE SMALL SIZE OF THE LOT AND THE NEED TO INTERGRATE INTO THE DESIGN AN EXISTING STRUCTURE, IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO INCORPORATE THE DESIRED ELEMENTS OF GOAL FOUR. ~.. H I RSCHP I ELL 344 PEic RPP. aS C~~ ~~ c~tafe~. c~no~fu~ ~oG ~uiP.o~i~ aired C~ Ctd~ ain~ ~'~/iu • ,~, ,,, ~,~ a, mac. ~~'r~ ~ f ~ `~ ~~1•. ~? a~er1/a> ..wvf~eu~& a.~r ~~~ asri$ Aau:aQ /~~i~o <$r~~ F; 3, ~s/°i~i ••~~• Pa«+co ..~-ac rt.~.o .~ ~pr»r.QC{~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~/°La"~ ~d ...Rad 'alio~~rcc. ~'+ ~ 'ole /net . " l,~ftw~ Ig/ ~ "~ erlvoa~ ~Jba-~~c~ ~'~* ~~~ ~sn wt`. have ,doh a -~-• ~' ~ x`1°0" ~:,rx ~ 9 !~. ~ ~~ ~- rt aN~ d~ c~aRau~ ~ czer•~- ~t r~, c~ 0L bran ux ~a •+~r omrr-~/%~ ~+-S~ ,,~{ CQ~e.e KoRt. ~i~E! ~n ohs A~ w~a~ nR. ~ ~ HIRSCHFIELD 344 P03 APR 09 '95 19:48 d~/~. ~~C~7~.ed~ ~9tdti~il.Pi ~ .~o plc ali.K.~,a t~-- vG ~.. ~G ..gi6aE r ~ ~,,cl~,'v~tc~isr~.'/~ec. rv~+of- ~.w~:ola~, ~~i.~ ,~,~, ,GtJ.e~i ,rc~c dt ~ t ~ ~r~s ~ ..~:~ ~ ~y~,(e•~iOO~. $fo `sic ~~ '~~e ~r.,~e/' ~" ~ ~ aL ff ~ //a~n~~ 4. ct ~i~/~w~e yK.~.~ A'$°~"y y~„ ~~~. ham, .~1 ~.~. `.~." '~"''"',+~~ ~.~,ol ~.e ~+. ,w,,[ ~.c tae. .~:.~~ •~ ~ F:~.c 't s~rCe. w~j~,~ e~ cs.+i'!/ .~ ~ ~"~ ,,~y,- t~K 'fit. ;II t~ R. ~ca-h ~is~ c?A ~~ w~ ~ ~tcaro- 7~r, 6v''~ ~++°'~",~ U,,' !~i Sit !fit ~ ~ ardc ~y ~IK ~~ k,`o~f ~~~ ~ A I- l._. ~ Y ~i 0 r. z ~ -~ -~ -~ ~~ rn o~ rn ~, 0 ~.a-~-„t -- r~ _ ~_-- - - --- -_ _ ~ 1 ,y ~ 1' ~ ' ~__ ~ ~~ i ~ ~ I ~; 1~ ~ - i ~, , -cr ,~ -~ r-~ i ~ ~ s v ~ +--- ~? ~_- - - ~ ~ ~-_ r r~+ HIRSCHFIELD 344µP04 RPR 09 '95 19:49 f 1 ~ ~ , I'} ~ ~~~ .D a~ O r ~ ~ ,.w ~j .D Wr ~ y ~ ~ ~ ''1 ~`. a to eft yI .L.. ~ 9 V ~ m f4 "+ ~~ ~ ?G ~ ~ t ~ ~ N ~ N O ~ ~ C i. r~=' ~u3 .'.~ ac S L' '~ S: ? T. ~. ~: "1 w ',' ~ ~. ~ t A ..r n.. r- !~ i J7 st J7 O C I ~ t '4 (~t «. .w ti ~ ~ 'R rs~ ,f 2 ~ " j Y N w 1 V• 1 1 m ?^ T, s Z ~ I ~' ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ,? i ~ ,z m ~ w` i ~ v 3 zn~rn~y -1 t ,~ ~ - ~. ~ 5e f~ ~r, o 4 -rt S ~' . m C m i.~.. TI O ~ 1 O m i ...0 ~ N m ~^,,. U 4 2 ~. :~' ~• 'O:iy'~ ~ ~ L~ m ~: ~ r~ ~~. ~ U~ I. m yo l m 'ty~r" _ Z ~ i ~ ~~ ~ - C *~` 7 S V m ~ ~.. ~ ~ - - w ~ + ~ ,C. j ... u ~ .L ~' U cts ~~ ~ - },;:, r ;' ~ ~ fw ~. lie q.+. I ~ K ~ ~ +fj S I rr .. ,. rn r _ .., ~: 'l G H t-' C .t. 1 ~w - c a ~ .ae,'. Z G- pp i c, a ~ ;. ~ ~ , L~ ~ r wdn n ~..4 f~ C ''F~^ r r+ ~ I ! r ~~ .. .. _. __ __.____.._.._ ..-_.--._.__ __.. _____. _.___._ __Y_. .. ~ ~ TO: Overlay Zone District Sub-ICommittee / FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner `~/ ~~~( ~~ RE: Allen Residence Special Review / DATE: May 30, 1995 SUMMARY: This project is outside of the identified neighborhoods in the Design Guidelines, so the review will be limited to the general guidelines (Chapter 1). The applicant requests approval for a new residence. The proposed FAR for this 6,691 sq. ft. AH zoned lot is 2,839 sq. ft. or 97% of the maximum allowed FAR. Compliance with the Committee's findings is mandatory. The Planning Office recommends tabling of the review so that the entry can be lowered to be closer to street level. APPLICANT: Doug Allen, represented by Stan Mathis LOCATION: Lot 4 LaCet Subdivision (F.K.A. East Cooper Affordable Housing Subdivision) STAFF COMMENTS: Please refer to the application for the complete representation of the proposal. Planning staff finds that this project does not meet the general guideline specific to street level entries. We recognize that the driveway and garage solutions are problematic given the lot size, slope, and configuration of the lot and irrigation ditch. One condition is recommended for approval. STAFF EVALUATION: The proposed home is a three level structure with the garage facing the private road (Barb's Way). The entry to the home is on the top floor, accessed by two flights of covered exterior stairs. According to the application, the height to the tallest ridge will be 30 feet. Mass and Scale Guideline #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. Response: The LaCet Subdivision will contain homes in the 2,500 s.f. range. Surrounding properties include multi-family structures, lodges and single family units. The proposed structure is set into the hillside. Portions of the lowest level are exposed 1 i i \~~` , ~.? (!~~ ~ ~~ =~ o ~;; ~ ~~~ ~ f ~_ ~`` ~ > G G~ E RAP?-- r~ } ~,~ E e .~ ~ o ~: ~ ~ `c; ,~ (~ ~~~ ....... . ........... . 0 0 - ,c rt ~ /.3:c A o oiR ~l 0 0 DOUGLAS P. ALLEN ~..- 225 North Mill Street, Suite 210 Aspen, Colorado 81611 May 8, 1995 Neighborhood Character Design Committee City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Allen Residence--Lot 4, East Cooper Affordable Housing Subdivision Dear Committee Members: The above-referenced lot is in a newly created subdivision scheduled to have mix of 4,000-5,000 square foot single family residences and multi-family employee housing units. The subdivision is located between Highway 82 and Riverside Subdivision and between the Crestahaus Lodge and two story apartments. The character of the neighborhood is varied with no particular design style or material usage. The lot is small with the Riverside Irrigation Ditch running on two sides of the lot and the centerline of the Lacet Court as one of the property boundaries. The site slopes to the Northeast and has heavy vegetation along the Southwest side of the lot. Thank you. ~Y~ /~^~ l.~ Dougl P. Allen LTR~tti2 ~,,"' FEBRUARY 28, 1995 ASPEN NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER DESIGN COMMITTEE CIO ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE CITY OF ASPEN 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 STAN MATf~S ATTN: KIM JOHNSON RE: DOUG ALLEN: LOT 4 EAST COOPER AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMMITTEE MEMBERS; THE FOLLDWING IS A DESCRIPITION OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER IN WHICH THE PROPOSED RESIDENCE IS TO BE LOCATED. THERE ARE A VARIETY OF USES IN THIS PART OF ASPEN. THEY RANGE FROM SMALL MOTELS {CRESTAHAUS}; LARGE HOMES AT THE ASPEN CLUB SUB- DI~rISION; THE ASPEN ATHLETIC CLUB; A THREE STOREY EMPLOYEE HOUSING COMPLE;{; AND A SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION THAT DEFIES ANY DESCRIPTION OF CONTINUITY. THE DIVERSE DE'~IELOPMENT OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD IMPLIES THE PROPOSED RESIDENCE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORING USES, ST'~LE, SCALE AND MATERIALS- BEST ;~Np STAN MA~HIS P~rM~YC FOR DOU ALLEN Post Office >,„~;n Colorado 81612 303/920-1a3a ~„ THE PROPOSED SITE IS BORDERED ON THE N.E. BY A 3 STOREY EMPLOYEE HOUSING COMPLEX; ON THE SOUTH BY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES OF 4,000 S.F., ON THE NORTH BY AN OPEN SPACE AREA BORDERED BY APARTMENTS AND ON THE WEST BY MEDIUM DENSE ASPENS AND A 1 112 STOREY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND BARN ON THE WEST. THE SITE IS HIDDEN FROM HIGHWAY 82 BY THE EMPLOYEE HOUSING PROJECT. IT IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO RELATE THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE TO ANY EXISTING RESIDENCE IN THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOOD OF THE RIVERSIDE ADDITION. THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE IS 3 STOREYS WITH THE ENTIRE FLOOR AREA LOCATED WITHIN ONE STRUCTURE. THE SIZE OF THE BUILD- ING ENVELOPE DOES NOT ALLOW SECONDARY STRUCTURES A5 SUGGESTED OPENINGS IN THE EXTERIOR WALLS OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE ARE 2 TO 3 TIMES TALLER THAN WIDE. THE NUMBER AND SIZE OF WINDOWS DO NOT OVER POWER THE EXTERIOR WALL SURFACE OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE. 3} THIS GUIDELINE IS DIFFICULT AND PERHAPS INAPPROPIATE FOR THIS SITE WITH AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE CONFIGURATION OF THE LOT IE. IS NOT RECTANGULAR AND NOT A STANDARD ASPEN TOWNSHIP LOT {BASED ON 30', 45', OR 60' WIDE X 100' DEEP}. 4} THE ELEVATIONS INDICATE NO GRAND ENTRY BUILDING FORM sTa~y wens ;1R(,7nTECfU'RE :4'VD 6} PL1NNaVC Post Office 5} [a, b, c] ALL OF THESE GUIDELINES ARE FOLLOWED IN THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE. SITE DESIGN THE PRIMARY ENTRANCE IS ORIENTED TO THE STREET. 7} THE BUILDING ENTRY IS ON THE UPPER FLOOR. THERE IS A MIX OF RESIDENCES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HA`dE ENTRANCES EITHER AT GRADE OR 1 STOREY ABOVE GRADE. „~.w.il Colorado a~s~z 8} THIS STRUCTURE DOES NOT AFFECT SOLAR ACCESS TO ADJACENT SITES. 3031920-1434 LACET HOMEOWNERS ARCHT!'SCTURAL CONTROL COMMITlEB e!o B. 7.Olbd~+t 3~ltite 204, Piembmk Cenbr 1601118LwaT 6 Dower 16-9 811veetboeae, CO 10498 Septembu 12, 1994 Douglas P. Alla- 223 Narth Mill Stmt, Suite 210 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Deaf Daug: The An:hitectural Control Comatittee has approved the plans for your homc to be coastruated oa Lot 4. A oopp of these plans is attached to this kttcr end lttitlaled for idendflcation purposes. v~Y ~Y ~ ~~ ' 'E.T: '~ .g t ~ `~~~ John McCormick ET0lgtno LZ7Q1W0 SG /~/~..... ~ ~-/ 3: ~Qo ^S ~~ ., Y~ 9^_ ~8: ,~' k„ 4" Y 0 303 4 Y'k.: N ~' w~w'u i W ~ e~~~ O +{~. ~ 6 .YW U - e~ I Z '9 W q '.~. ~ 93 3~3~ 41 nt, S SDy°°. ' - ~^i ~.3p ~Q ~ Zi ~ 3 M ,~) yy W T (1, W V IY.2J Li ,. ,;' i .^ - I J ~~ 7I ~ 3°O~ 3~ } - - I o I-_ __ ~~ y I/i i ~' V ~~ ~. (~ N `\ pp^ -3• i ~ e ~. o i I / \ s v , s •~ A~.S~ .,~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ .~ ~~ ~// ~. ~~-~ ,~ ~., ~ ~ U z 0o- ; ' >- ~ [[ N ~ ~ (7 O fl. -O I._ - IJ ~ Q ~ z o W ~- .~ I WII V ~ J ~ DI s~~ au°~ O ~+ Y n O `z_.oma ¢o oma~ a Fa Qv~auY)VU Y~L mo+~ vNC°~ ~ ve[ goo on - _ir- nM1 h ~ w ~5 z jo =n vl Z W (L h ~ ~ __ B. :p ' _ w g Q R ~~,~ ,-,~ o / ~I, y / O ~ ~ i ~ Q I ,~ Y ~ :. ~ 111'1. _ `/~ / w F i _ .1~ I T-lF~ i ' ~ o I -~~' 1~~1 ~~ ~Y /tom- ~~/,~~ ~' - \ v~~ L.w ., :1-.:jam., ~ .. e I i \ ~ i ~, ~ _ _~- ~ i, I; ~ ..: r i ~ Is -~- I~ ~ ~ ~~~ I IIuI l i III: 's w " ~ - ^ y `[~ Z ~ ~ - 1 ,~ :~ ~ ~o ~W~~€ ~ ~~a o ftl9~ z ~x w 1 ~ ~;s~ ~ _ ii~~e 1 `~ ~'`~ ~ ~ ~f! v ~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~ q ° a a~ e~LL~' ~ 4a~ ~s~ E.1 ~ Gl7 Z ~ [~ E" Oh ~ii 1 9. ~d yaw ~~ ~g~ ~~ ~~ ~ o ~~~ 3 ,! ~ -~ - - I f ?~ I t -~ rt-- - T' , I 4 , a7-zl ',~ -~ r___ -~. i I_ ~_~ 1 I :::til I 4 I I -. 't'~ ~, i j i I ~-I ~I 1 ~ ! ,~ ~ i I ,~ I i! ; i I ~~ I I _ I ~ II r O I I ~ _ - ..'; I 1 ~ _. i ! e -\Pi. _» i.. _ --;/T.T - ,III I i YI I ' r~ _.=:5 I ~~ .- :.j 1 ~l _ _t --~ _ { --} I I _lil ~IIC ! !~ I jll Ill.; E pl~l~.l ~ iW ~ I W KI ! 1 I IY ! I ~ l I i I i l i I l I I l i I l j i I l i. i ~ I I II CI 1 it ~1- I iil~~~'iilltll I !~!illl!II, I ~ ~ j j III CCICCCC!CICIC ~__I__ ~.T.I~!.Tr „I.T,I„TAT .IC iCjC ~I_i~__ ~IIT!yIR I C _ RYI I Y C ~~ !C C - _ _ _ 1 ~ ~ _ w _ w I ~ CiCICIC;C~~IryICIC ;C'CICIC C C ~ J IC - I' ~ C - ~' _ ^ C I ! l YIZ Y'YYIYIYIY'Y ~ ~„'YIY~?iY Xi I Y ' Y Y Y Y IY Y ~ II I .I IIi 1111 1 I I~'~ rh ~ 1 djn n) INI I I i.,: I,~i~ 9 31~j:j:~: 81€!n16~nj51filelol . . :~~9tas ~l~ Bg~@ ".~ B o 5~ s `~ o w s . • 8 v ~ ~ s . . ~ ., ~ ! i~ i LL' .~~ y i e ~ ^ ry I 1 1 ~I~ial~~j~I3j~~~ 1 I ~!~~~~~ Y Y I~ y ~ q 9 ~ yy @ 5 p% @ yy 9 2 ,~ 1 ~ I IC 3I 8,~1~,59! ! ~I I ' • ~ ~ • ~ 999 ~ tl ill - ~ IC I I i~ < :i- I ~~.:w: It Ie .I . > s .. 3 ~~ $~~ 3 S Rt3 ~~~ d a~ :x ~~ ~ s ~: ~ hxg ?q ~: j 2=~ 79 ^ 3 ¢ ~ 8 - ; §g8 3$ Y~ 65 55 6 ~R A ° ~ ~ Ig! :~ a~ {I '_ ~~ 55y ~l.g4 •~ a~~$ de° d~ ~ ~ : ,t ~ i a 4 y~b~ ~~~ ~ ~ p ~A~B 8~f ; ~ i ~ f i . ~` = 1 E k Y Nrx ~ ~!I Jil ~!I HIV I t , j - ~ E G9 N ,. r'Z'i O ~ ~ `" % U <~•~F ~ a ~ b~ ~ ~ v~ ~ A4 W ~~ ~~~ N N w 4: rI -r n. ~ - ~ a ~ y W 1 N ~ .., 5 ` <~~ u~ _ ' ~ ~ `FCI ,may i~ G . ~,~ i ~ G: ~ !7 't ~ ~ d. ;~ t .r ---~-: ,~ ~, , ,_ , , n' r.! ~ i m' ~. i u~~ I i l ~ I ~ ~ ~- ., a -<< - ---3--- -_ _ i R ~ _~ a ~.-__. 1_~;__- - _ ~_ I ~ Y -+--- -- - ~ ~i _l <~ ~ ~~ ti ~ 0 ~ ~ M ~ M Q ~~ vi ~ p4 W ~~ ~~~ fIT ~, : ~ ~ 4r ~ .. l/~. 1Li~11 )1 M. 't •~ ~ w (3 p ~, ~ ~~L ~~ 5~ ~` }" 7'' jn T_ r > h F ~L' h 1 ___~l I 1 1 II .I I 1 II I II ~1 II 1 11 II II it li II II II II I II II I I ---Sl I 1 I 1 I ~~ 1 ~ I r--' II 1 II II I1 II II II i' II II II II I I1 --t~ ~' o , _ ~ J - L~' ~_ J~InN' 'JN IH In an' -lr _ 'll Y -~. r i i I~^' J J~J -,l I ~ ~ r 1 _ r__ ~~ +~ I 1 -LJ I.'m. _I ~ J^- J =. =~ h - ~ s ~~ -~ ' LL, \ `~ ~~ uI t ' I _ __ri II --~~ _"_'"__ ___l II II 11 ~~ 11 I~ II I1 II II II 1 1 ~ ~I I~ II I ` 1 --~ I 1 • I 1 I II I 1 I I II 11 ____~ 1 ____fl ~M _ ~ jv1 i~ I I ,I II P~ i. 1 1 ~ r~ ~~~' I I 1 I 1 ~ I I I II 11 ____*J ~ .-r 4, F N ~ O ~ ~ ~ o ~,y~. ~ VIS 1~1 ~ ~'~1 V ~ t~l O Q~ I; ,. ht~; Q ~ ~ ~ 1,1 ~-~. -,~ °--f--~ i t_s-' ~- t ..~.... . -- ~'I L ~~ \ Y I aL d~ 3 u ~ d n F^_ F"- I I i 1 ~ ~ r,_ I 1f{ 7 J d ~, r - i '~=_'~ ~~ 1 r 1 P J J n ri_ -----------rl ~I i~ i' II I ~1 ~I ., 'i ~ 1 'i II I, I I ii I II II I I I I i I , I ~ I ~ I I I I I I I I I I -21 -_~ __.1~ -~~______fil ~I II li it I~ I II I~ 1 1 II I ~ I I~ I l it I it ~ I ~I ____: _______t Meeting was called to order by chairman Jake Vickery with Bruce Kerr, Roger Moyer and Steve Buettow present. Excused were Donnelley Erdman and Robert Blaich. LOT 4 EAST COOPER AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUB Amy: While staff recognizes that there are constraints on this lot due to topography and it is a non-conforming lot for the zone district. The concern with the project is that the entrance to the house does not come in at grade or the first floor level, a staircase runs up the side of the house and you enter at the second or third level. There is a lot of exposure of below grade space. With resolution of these issue we would recommend approval but we ask for restudy. Stan Mathis, architect: The site is small and for a resident occupied unit. When we started we were under the 85a rule for your review but when we take out the 20 foot right-of-way that goes from the center line of this property in and we have deduct that from purposes of density calculation then that throws us just into your review process. I have brought a full set of drawings. Since the envelope is so small we have no other place to park cars other than under the house so therefore we have the two car garage and a storage area on the lowest level and the only way we can access that is off Barb's Way. The garage doors are recessed back from the face of the building. There is a family entry at the lowest level. We chose to put the bedrooms above the garage and it is a three bedroom house. The overall dimensions are 44 by 40 feet to the outside of the stairs. That causes us to put the living room, dining room space on the upper floor causing a three story structure. I thought the stair was better on the outside to cut up that massive wall. There are a potpourri of housing styles in the neighborhood that have all different kind of materials. Barb's Way is a 12 to 13% grade. Stan: I have presented a letter from the homeowners architectural committee which gives approval of the plans. COMMITTEE MEMBER QUESTIONS Steve: Do you have a larger plan that shows the other lots in this subdivision or cul-de-sac. Stan: At the time we submitted that was not a requirement and I am sorry I don't. Steve: Along side the ditch did you consider putting the driveway and come in at that level. It seems natural to me. Stan: The riverside ditch there is an easement. The envelope goes toward town in a triangle. In order to get a driveway that started at the riverside ditch easement go 12 feet and have enough room to pull a car in it has to be at least 24 feet to swing in and out we are pushed so far down into lot four towards town that the triangular area is not usable. The riverside ditch is five feet on the property and the building envelope is another five feet. Stan: We have a 30 foot front yard setback that is imposed by the PUD. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Bruce: Who is going to live in the house? Doug Allen: I am. Bruce: Is the house on cemetery lane sold as I thought you were moving in there. Steve: When I looked at the site and plans having the garage down below makes your overall house plan and form awkward and it is not resolved very well in relationship to the site and neighborhood. having the driveway up above allows you to incorporate the sun and do a better design in relationship to the slope. Stan: We are still going to have a three story aspect on the downhill side of the house whether there is a garage there or not because we will have to put some part of the house down there. In my view putting a garage at a lower elevation did a couple of things for us one it kept the cars from the neighbors view and I feel we can landscape the roadcut far better here than if it were above. Doug Allen, owner: The garage is in the most hidden place now. Roger: Since the neighborhood committee approved and since it is only 2600 sgft. and you almost have to search out this house I concur with staff that it basically works. I agree with Steve that there are much better approaches to this instead of putting the garage on the street. They are really here because of an easement I would let it go the way it is. I would also prefer to see the entry on the second floor but support Stan's method that the steps do break up the wall. That entire area was lost before it came to us. You have the rock facing on the ground and there is a stucco wall down to it and I would recommend that maybe the whole bottom level be rock. You break up that linear verticality and also from a maintenance standpoint you would have a lot less hassle than using stucco. It would soften it. Doug Allen: It is only a question of money. I would prefer to have stone there also. Bruce: What is the square footage of the house on cemetery lane? Doug: 4400 plus garage including the ADU. It has three bedrooms not including the ADU. There are 3 1/2 baths. It is a free market. it was a free market and not for a local. Roger: We have learned in HPC that everyone that comes in can Jake: I do not have a problem with the west and south elevations as they are straight forward. I do have a problem with the east and north. I don't have much of a problem with the Bruce: We approved a good size house at P&Z knowing full well that it was free market and not for a local. Jake: It is odd putting a deck up there with the stairway. I agree with staffs recommendation. Roger: This has the feel of a swiss chalet and if it were the deck would extend all the way out and also out over the stairway. What that would do is change the impression from the street and would bring it down a little. Secondly you might achieve a little different feel rather than having the chopped off overhang. Stan: On the east elevation we do extend it over the walkway. Doug Allen: It is intended to be a chalet and with the height limit we have you can't keep extending the eave because it gets too low. We put a roof over the stairs to protect it from snow. Stan: The stair does not hang out from the house. Roger: There is a wall that projects out and the stair goes onto that. Stan: If you have enough floor area you can come in with an entry on the entry level and go upstairs. Doug Allen: Chalets have exterior stairs that comes upstairs because the living area up stairs and the bedrooms downstairs. Stan: In the west end all the entries are at street level and over here there are different entries some one story down and some one story up. Jake: It is our job to make a finding based on the guidelines. Roger: The stairway as drawn is an open stairway wit a handrail. Suppose the stairway were enclosed the lower portion and it was a little less tall. Amy: I do not know what that does to the FAR. Stan: We have a right-of-way that is being taken out of our lot that puts us above the 85%. It is a drive to go up to the cul-de- sac. Jake: I don't have a problem with the style of architecture. Jake: The railing is solid and that makes it look heavy. Stan: I would be willing to make that an open hand rail. Roger: The stucco handrail would be less massive if it were open. Steve: If you are having the driveway down here and the public parking is in front of the garage on the driveway and your main entry to the house is a full story above that how are you going to get the people who park their car down below up to the house. Stan: We will have to have some kind of landscapped stairway. Doug: They will walk out on the street and go up. I do not want a landscaped stairway. Steve: I would have to walk three flights of stairs to get to the living room. MOTION: Jake moved to table the request to exceed the 85°s allowable FAR at Lot 4 Lacet Subdivision with the direction to restudy the entry so that it is closer to the street level and address other concerns about how one would enter the building and how one gets to the building having parked in the parking area from the garage. Further the use of materials to break down the vertical as there is a lot of stucco surface on all three layers and I would like to see a material study break down that mass. Regarding the handrail it needs restudied and more transparent, possibly the use of wood with openings. We have meetings on the 7th and 27th of June; second by Steve. Motion fails 2 -2. DISCUSSION Jake: I would like the entry defined even though it is an external entry, punched out a little so that it has presence. Stan: More expression on the front and we could agree with all three conditions. Steve: Someone visiting onsite should not have to walk out on the street so there should be a landscaped stone stairway to the entry. Bruce: I feel they have done the best they could dealing with the site. MOTION: Roger moved to approve the application for special review of Lot 4 Lacet Sub. with the condition that the lower level, north and east side have rock around to break up the mass and that the second story railing would be wood or a different material to make it softer and lighter and that there would be spaces involved. The wood lentils and ceils as drawn are wood to show the definition between the stucco. The entry to the second floor be more defined, more in scale with the other openies of the house and show that it is an entry. A landscaped path be installed from the garage platform to the entry; second by Bruce. Motion carries 3 -1. Steve opposed.