HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.drac.overlay.19950627AGENDA
OVERLAY SUBCOMMITTEE
June 27, 1995
Regular Meeting
2nd Floor Meeting Room, city Hall
4:00 I. Roll Call
II. Comments (Committee members, Staff and public)
III. New Business
4:05 A. Bellock/ Morrison
4:20 B. Allen- E. Francis
C~ ~~ 0 ~ ~,{r~,., (/,~
5:00 V. Adjourn ~~~ ~ ~~~~~~ `~, ~~(
L
MEMORANDUM
TO: Overlay Zone District Sub-Committee
FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer
Mary Lackner, Planner
RE: Bellock/Morrison - Red Butte Drive
DATE: June 27, 1995
------------------------------------------------------------------
SIIMMARY: This project is located in the Red Butte Subdivision
which is not located with a specific neighborhood area, but it is
subject to the general guidelines of the "Neighborhood Character
Guidelines".
Compliance with the Committee's findings is advisory, as the lot
area is 35,485 sq.ft. The proposed F.A.R. (5,230 sq.ft.) is 95%
of the allowable.
APPLICANT: Chuck Bellock, represented by Stan Mathis.
LOCATION: Lot 6, Red Butte Subdivision.
STAFF COMMENTS: Please refer to the application for the complete
~~ representation of the proposal. Planning staff finds that some
aspects of the project are not in compliance with the general
neighborhood guidelines.
Mass and Scale
1. All buildings should help establish a sense of human scale
that is inviting to pedestrians.
2. New buildings should appear to be similar in scale to those
in the established neighborhood, or to the scale that is
desired for the neighborhood.
Response: The traditional character of the Red Butte Subdivision
is 1960's suburban ranch style, split level, and two story
residences. The proposed structure is proposed with a maximum
height of 27 feet. Building components are designed to be in
proportion to the scale of the structure and do not appear
monumental. To reduce the perceived scale and mass of the
building, the garage should be separated into its own detached
structure.
The existing neighborhood residences are setback from the main road
100 to 150 feet. The proposed residence will be 78 feet from the
road, which presents a significant difference from the existing
built environment. Staff would not want the house to be located
any closer to the river because of the river impacts that could
.- result. Since the house requires a closer encroachment to the
street than the traditional nature of the subdivision, this is an
indication that the proposed residence is out of scale with the
existing neighborhood.
Garages
12. Minimize the visual impact of garages.
Response: The garage doors have been oriented to the side yard and
therefore not highly visible from the street. As mentioned in Mass
and Scale above, staff recommends that the garage be separated into
its own building.
Driveways
13. Minimize the visual appearance of driveways and parking
surfaces.
Response: The proposed circular driveway in the front of the
residence and the access drive to the garage create significant
paved and parking surfaces. Staff believes these hard surfaces are
excessive and can be reduced if the garage was put into a separate
structure and the driveway redesigned.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the project be revised as
described. In it's current form, the residence has some
inconsistencies with the "Neighborhood Character Guidelines" and
should be revised as requested.
fiA'r u, 1995
ASPEN NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER
DESIGN COMMITTEE
Cf0 ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
CITY OF ASPEN
130 SOUTH GALENA STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
RE: BELLOCKIMORRISON RESIDENCE -LOT 6, RED BUTTE SUBDIVISION OR
1420 RED BUTTE DRIVE, ASPEN, COLORADO
COMMITTEE MEMBERS;
THE FOLLOWING IS A DESCRIPITION OF THE EXISTING tVEIGHBORH00D
CHARACTER IN WHICH THE PROPOSED RESIDENCE IS TO BE LOCATED.
THE fEIGHBORHOOD IS ZOPJED R-15. THE MAJORITY DFTHE STRUCTURES ARE
SIPJGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES, A FEW HAVING A.D.U.S. THE RESIDENCES ARE
FOR THE MOST PART LOCATED OhJ LOTS THAT RANGE IN SIZE FROM
28,000 S.F. TO 35,000 S.F. THE FLODR AREA OF THESE RESIDENCES VARY
FROt1 APPROXIMATELY 3,000 S.F. TO 5,500 S.F. THERE IS A MIX OF
ARCHITECTURAL STYLES ALONG RED BUTTE DRIVE. HOWEVER, MOST
STRUCTURES HAVE PITCHED ROOFS AND ARE RANCH STYLE AND SPLIT LEVEL
WITH A FEW 2 STOREY RESIDENCES. THE RESIDENCES ON THE EAST 51DE OF
RED BUTTE DRIVE ARE SITED AS CLOSE TO THE ROARING FORK RIVER AS
POSSIBLE, THEREBY CREATING LARGE FROIVT YARDS. HOUSES ON THE WEST
SIDE APPEAR TO BE AT THE MIN FRDNT YARD SET BACt, OF 25 FT.
MATERIAL USE INCLUDES STUCCO, STONE, WOOD SIDING, METAL ROOFING,
ASPHALT SHINGLES, ETC. FINIALLV, MOST SITES ARE FLAT AND WELL
b'EGETATED ESPECIALLY ALONG THE RIVER.
THANK VOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION IN THIS MATTER.
BEST
K
MAY 8, 1995
ASPEN NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER
DESIGN COMMITTEE
CIO ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
CITY OF ASPEN
130 SOUTH GALENA STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
ATTN: KIM JOHNSOPI
RE: BELLOCK/MORRISON RESIDENCE -LOT 6, RED BUTTE SUBSIVISION
1420 RED BUTTE DRIVE, ASPEPI, COLORADO
DEAR COMMITTEE MEMBERS,
THE APPLICANT, CHUCK BELLOCK, IS REQUESTING AN APPROVAL FOR A
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE THAT HAS AN AFFORDABLE DWELLING UNIT FOR A
TOTAL OF 5,230 S.F.
THE LOT IS APPRO}tIMATELY 35,485 S.F. OF WHICH APPRO}{IMATELV 2,982
S.F. IS UNDER WATER RESULTING IN A NET LOT AREA OF 32,503 S.F. FOR
THE PURPOSES OF FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS. THIS SIZE LOT IN THIS
ZONED AREA (R-15} ALLOWS A STRUCTURE OF 5,500 S.F.
SINCE THE LOT IS GREATER THAN 9,000 S.F. THE DESIGN COMMITTEE'S
REVIEW IS ADV150RY.
THE SITE IS OUTSIDE OF THE BOUNDRV OF ANV OF THE FIVE RESIDENTIAL
NEIGHBORHOODS AS SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED VICINITY MAP. THE
COMMITTEE REVIEW STANDARDS WILL BE BASED ON THE GENERAL GUIDE-
LINES FOR ALL CORE AREA NEIGHBORHOODS. THEREFORE, THE DISCUSSION
THAT FOLLOWS, RESPONDS TO CHAPTER 1 OF THE ASPEN NEIGHBORHOOD
CHARACTER DESIGN GUIDELINES.
MASS & SCALE
i } THE SCALE AND PROPORTION OF THE VARIOUS BUILDING COMPONENTS
ARE SMALL IN SCALE TO THE OVERALL MASS OF THE BUILDING. ALL
BUILDING COMPONENTS BEGIN AND END WITHIN ANY ONE FLOOR LEVEL.
THE OVER HANGS AND RECESSED SPACES ARE MOT TO LARGE SO AS TO
CREATE A MONUMENTAL SCALE.
2} THIS STRUCTURE 15 51MILAR IN SCALE AND MASS OF THOSE IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD.
3} THE STREET ELEVATION OF THIS 5TRUCTURE DOES APPEAR TO BE IN
SCALE WITH THOSE SEEN TRADITIONALLY AND THE ARCHITECTURAL
FEATURES ARE IN SCALE.
4) THE ELEVATIONS INDICATE ND GRAND ENTRY
BUILDING FORM
5) (a, b ,c,] ALL OF THESE GUIDELINES ARE FOLLOWED IN THE PROPDSED
STRUCTURE.
SITE DESIGN
6} THE PRIMARY ENTRANCE IS ORIENTED TO THE STREET AND ITEMS a, b, & d
ARE FOLLOWED.
7} [a, b,1 THESE GUIDELINES ARE FOLLOWED IN THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE.
8} THIS STRUCTURE DOES NOT AFFECT SOLAR ACCESS TD ADJACENT SITES.
BUILDING MATERIALS
9} [a, b, c, d, e1 ALL OF THESE GUIDELINES ARE FOLLOWED IN THE PROPOSED
STRUCTURE.
ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES
10} [a, 6, c, d, e1 ALL OF THESE GUIDELINES ARE FOLLOWED.
1 1} THERE ARE NO SOLAR COLLECTORS OR SKYLIGHTS.
GARAGES
12} THE IMPACT OF GARAGE MIPIIMIZED BV ORIENTING THE DOORS AWAY
FROM THE STREET AND INTERGRATING IT INTO THE MASS OF THE HOUSE.
DRIVEWAYS
13} ABOUT 50~ OF THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY IS BEING REUSED AND A LAND-
SCAPED AREA AT THE CIRCULAR DRIVE IS PROVIDED.
SERVICE AREAS
14} 5ERVICE AREAS WILL BE SCREENED.
IMPACT ON HISTORIC BUILDINGS
15 & 16} THESE GUIDELINES ARE FOLLOWED.
APPLICANT:
ADDRESS:
ZONE DISTRICT:
LOT SILK (SCUARE FE:'~:
EXISTING FAR:
ALLOWABLE FAR:
PRCPCS"cD FAR:
E:(1STING NEi LEASABLE (pmmercal):
PRCPCS"cD NF LE4SABLE (pmmeraan:
EXISTING%OF SITE COVEaACE:
PRCPCScD o CF SRE C.7VE9AGE:
EXISTING ~e CF CPEN S?ACE (Cammerr2l):
PRCPCSED % CF OPEN SPACE (Commer.):
E(ISTING MAXIMUM HEiGiii:
PACFOScD MAXIMUM HEiGiiT:
PRCFOSED oOFDEMCLffICN:
EXISTING NUMBER OF BEDROOMS:
PRCFOSED NUMEER OF BEDROOMS:
S"(P~N Mik~l"~ Wiz. ~I-~~c. ~~l~ock;
I d-'Zo ~~ D121 I~~ , ~l~N
~Z' 15 M~V~I(~M Df.U~~~~l'TY
35, ~a5s,t^ .
Iii°o
~* ~~('
EXISTING ON-SITE PARKING SPACES:
ON-SITE PARKING SPACES RECUIRED: ~J
'TA K;
EXISTING: ALLOWABLE: PROPOSED: I~
Front: Front ~S Front: ~
Rear:
Rear. T
Rear. {
Side: Side: to Side: 3 '
Combined FronURear. Combined FrURr: t , A Combined FronURear.
EXISTING NONCONFORMITIES/
ENCROACHMENTS:
VARIATION R (',I1FSTC0 raligihla far I en m rks Only ch2ra t r gm ?fibiliN findino m Est tp m-d trv HPC1:
FAA: Minimum Distance Between Bulcings:
SETBACKS: Front: Parking Spaces:
Rear: Open Space (Cammerdal):
Side: Height (Cottage Infill Only):
Combined FrtJRr: Site Coverage (Cottage Infilt Only):
{,XKtil~4 I~tot75tr. WILL ~~ To'fiA4.L`('.I'~~,
s l :-
r
ti
~' ~' a
~'
J/~ '~ a
a
~` ~ m ~emalery ~'~
tte o`
J
~¢a~ m
I
"r ___ ...... _.
it.ldl ~
--__.- Wimp
~V
~ ~~~
L~~
/ 'Y
4
yr
n
e 4
s~ ,a
5 ~Y j
3 ~ ' ~~
~/ ~~
r
`/I
~2~' m 9
B a ~I
~.,___
~~ v
~~ ~
~°
y 0
9m and
cj E~
X50' c
F L~
__~~
t yC
O N
O m
L 2°
~ `l
C -
L U Sr
/~°r°
/ :` `
N
Y;
v
°~/~////L''~
n \/
n ~ aµeP 6
51 ~ ~
~. ~
'o
U
~ I/
/
~l 3m ~ ~~
id w~ / au3 jreM J`aP w ~
~y /au/ Pp ~ - ~
e`F ! 6 a Q'
is °/ S ~ ~ 6 YQ
x /S a/° N &g v~ 2
a /g a° u~a° _°~.. _.
°., Silver 8 Oueen
~ /j/n, q y` ur Gondula
a ~ N a ~ `r
i4ad_ s ~ c
m r Q /g e~Ba d' ~ ~ °° v
y p a ~E xs
D i` r'" l4 :u:x
9 /S /s/ am rvm~dUU
7 ~Ux i
/ P4= fr U li.
x
s
A~aa L?uo` '': yo
~~.ac_ [" _ _~ C ~u
.E L.~.c.LS.. 5. .5-. ~.TZ~U
v~!1 VI ~°VI~VIN VINO VI .p~
\ x`I~zwMs3w~sur
U iUCJ j .UV i ix [qx,
:U i iU
,;_;_;
ea s;, ;~_'~;
eeK
v gu E °~ ~~SN °s~9pp
T ism a._rn`~^oo66>>S.j
bo wUUUUUxxxxxxxx:
°°.Hapeayy
5 c
r~. v~br~hrl rl r~r~n
a riSU(~`~Awti-f
~~ i "'U WIiW ~^C
~~aN E3o~,` iW i iU~
od °~
;ti j I
w i~ v ''
sq qx
J p iV et usyy ~
~_'~ v W~'a VUu
f .7 C VI ~ 1 >.
~~
MEMORANDUM
TO: Overlay Zone District Sub-Committee
FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: Allen- E. Francis Street
DATE: June 27, 1995
SUMMARY: This project is located in the Smuggler Mountain
neighborhood, therefore both the general guidelines (Chapter 1 of
the "Neighborhood Character Guidelines") and the specific
guidelines for Smuggler Mountain (Chapter 4) will be applied.
Compliance with the Committee's findings is advisory. The proposed
F.A.R. (4,171 sq.ft.) is 98~ of the allowable.
APPLICANT: Doug Allen, represented by Stan Mathis.
LOCATION: E. Francis Street, see metes and bounds description.
STAFF COMMENTS: Please refer to the application for the complete
-°^^ representation of the proposal. Planning staff finds that several
aspects of this project are not in compliance with the general and
- specific neighborhood guidelines.
STAFF EVALUATION:
Mass and Scale
1. All buildings should help establish a sense of human scale that
is inviting to pedestrians. 2. New buildings should appear to be
similar in scale to those in the established neighborhood, or to
the scale that is desired for the neighborhood.
36. New buildings should be similar in scale to traditional
residential buildings of Aspen.
Response: The traditional character of this neighborhood is that
of small houses. Recently it has transitioned to much larger and
often overscaled residences. The proposed house does not relate
well to the pedestrian, either on E. Francis or on Gibson Avenue,
where part of the roof may be seen. The house steps up the
hillside and presents a three story facade. The streetscape is
given little acknowledgement.
Building Form
5. All buildings should use roof and building forms that establish
a sense of visual continuity for the community, by repeating
typical forms.
37. Use building forms that are similar to those seen
traditionally in Aspen.
Response: Some of the new houses in this area have flat roofs.
In this case the flat roof contributes to the non-residential scale
of the structure by making the building very block-like, with
little change in surface.
Architectural Features
10. Architectural features that enhance the pedestrian experience
are encouraged.
Response: The entry level of the house is mostly garage doors.
The entry might benefit by the addition of a porch or roof overhang
to suggest that the door, and not the garage, is the way that
people are to be welcomed into the house.
Garages
12. Minimize the visual impact of garages.
Response: As mentioned above, the garage doors are too prominent
an element. Some effort should be made to orient them in different
"~»..- directions if possible.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the project be revised as
described. In it's current form, the new residence does not meet
the "Neighborhood Character Guidelines" and should not be permitted
to exceed 85$ of the allowed F.A.R.
Additional Comments:
~~
-~
~ 7
~~
APPLICANT: I~
ACCRESS:
ZONE CISTnICT: j~}'SO
lCT Sim {SCUARE ~ci]: ~ ~ ~ 352' ~'~~~
E<1~1NG FAR: ~ ~'
ALLCWAEI_ FAF.: q~~4 ~~ ~ ~AP/ D ~Q` N ~
~ ~lN~~
FRCFCS~ FAR: fl0 e o 5 ~
EGSTING NE- L4SA2l_ (t~mme.~cat):
PRCFCSE7 NEi LE4SABLE (ccnmettwdj:
EQSitNG a CF S~ i cc CCVE4.4G='
r^RCFCSE7 o CF ~, i c CrVEv1GE: 25 °l~
EXISTING <CFCFEVS?ACS(Commen~:
?RCFCSE7i eCFCF~lS?ACE_(C.:mmer.):
E<ISTiNG MAXIMUM HEGHT: P"+!~+?Id n-: 2.~ ~T !Ar__~4axv?1da.
FRGPCSEJ MAXIMUM HEiG'riT: Pritdc2l E!d o.: 2C~ ~7 / AG^.~CN B!da:
FRCFCS~ ; CF CE'ACLfi iCN: ~
h-r~
EC]STING NUMEE:i CF EERCCMS:
PRCFCS~ NUMBE9 CF BEJRCCMS: 3 f laC~ ~
' N~b
EXISTING CN.StiE PARKING SPAC
cS:
CN-S i c ?ARKING S?ACES REQUIRED: 'h ' ~' fKLVtlrl[:, U
TaA :<
~
EXISTING:
Franc ALLOWABLE: PROPOSED:
FranL- ~
Front: 5
~-
Pear: _
Rear.
Rear. I
Side: Side: 5de:
~
Combined FronURear. Gambined FrURr. Combined FronUReai:
EXISTING NONCONWRMRIES!
E'VCRGACnMEVTS:
~/AAIAT'CNS PECUES T ~9 lPiioitla for I a ndmarks Cnly- chara_C,er rmcafibiliN findino must be made 6v HPC1:
FAR: Minimum Cis!<nce BetwEan B~ilaings:
SETBACKS: Front: Parldnq Spaces:
Rear; Cpen Space (Commercfl):
Side: Height (Cottage Infiil Oniyj:
Ccmbined FrtJRr: Site Coverage (Cottage Infiil Only):
LAW OFFICES OF
DOUGLAS P. ALLEN
225 North Mi!( Street, Suite 210
Asyen, Colorado 81611
Douglas P. Allen
Patricia K. Massender
May 9, 1995
City of Aspen
Community Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Allen Residence--East Francis/Oklahoma Flats
To Whom It May Concern:
(970J 925-8800
FAX (970J 925-9398
This letter constitutes authorization for Stan Mathis, Architect, to submit plans on my
behalf for both neighborhood character review, accessory dwelling unit review, and building
permit application for the above property.
DPA/pjh
L7'R
~~1Y,
J..
ougl .Allen
i
DOUGLAS P. ALLEN
225 North Mill Street, Suite 210
Aspen, Colorado 81611
May 9, 1995
Neighborhood Character
Design Committee
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Allen Residence--East Francis/Oklahoma Flats
Dear Committee Members:
The above-referenced lot is in a subdivision with a mix of old smaller single family
residences, multi-family residences, a mobile home park, and several new single family
residences in excess of 5,000 square feet. The character of the neighborhood is varied with no
particular design style or material usage. This lot slopes to the North and has vegetation along
the South side of the lot with lazge newer houses adjoining to both the South and the West.
LTR10.32
May 9, 1995
ASPEN NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER
DESIGN COMMITTEE
Attention: Kim Johnson
c/o Aspen/Pitldn Planning Office
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Doug Allen Gibson Avenue Residence
Deaz Committee Members:
The applicant, Doug Allen, is requesting an approval fora 4,844 squaze foot single
family residence in the R-30 zone. The loot is 10,352 square feet which allows a structure of
4,171 squaze feet. This floor area is inclusive of a 350 squaze foot ADU.
Since the lot is greater than 9,000 square feet, the Design Committees review is advisory.
The site is outside of the boundary of any of the five residential neighborhoods as shown
on the attached vicinity map. The Committee review standards will be based on the general
guidelines for all core azea neighborhoods. Therefore, the discussion that follows, responds to
Chapter 1 of the Aspen Neighborhood Character Design Guidelines.
Mass and Scale
1. The scale and proportion of the various building components are small in scale to the
overall mass of the building. All building components begin and end within any one floor level.
The over hangs and recessed spaces aze not too lazge so as to create a monumental scale.
2. The proposed structure is not similaz in scale to other buildings.
3. This guideline is difficult and perhaps inappropriate for this site with an understanding
of the configuration of the Lot lE is not rectangulaz and not a standazd Aspen Township lot
(based on 30', 45', or 60' wide x 100' deep).
4. The elevations indicate no grand entry.
Building Form
5. This building form does not meet the guidelines.
Site Desigg
6. The primary entrance is oriented to the street.
7. A, B guidelines are met.
8. This structure does not affect solaz access to adjacent sites.
Building Materials
9. Even though the proposed structure is not clad in natural materials, it does fit the
context of the neighborhood given there is a mix of materials used throughout the neighborhood.
Architectural Features
10. These guidelines aze not met.
11. There aze no solaz collectors or skylights.
Garaees
12. Due to the size of the building envelope, there aze not many options, other than what
is shown, for the position of the garage.
Driveways
13. The driveway shown is the only way to access the lot.
Service Areas
14. Service azeas will be screened.
Fact on Historic Buildings
15. These guidelines are followed.
16. These guidelines are followed.
j
a:cznd uiF2rr 1
I11ND USE APPLICIITSON FC~Trf
Z) Projoct Name
2) Project Lxat
(inlicazte street address, lot & hlodc ra~ber, legal arcs-;T.>t-;on c~Y~eL,e - .
appropriate) ~7 z .
3) P~sent zoning T cl~ 1~~t-~u~ 4) /Lot Size ~.~{, .~i~?
s) Applicant's Name, adazess & Phone # d~~~° t Y'~tL l.~N ~ 2~ZC, ~ o ~ ~ l I
(>) Iiep~sentative's Name, aaia~s & Phone 's c.ST/'~'IV /~'~"1`T ~S
.en -~~ is ~~ r.2,,d~~~.i ,? SOLO q z~-• ~~15
7) Type of Application (please c3~ec-3c all that apply):
~,Oorditional Use SPA Cbnoeptual Historic Dev_
...III~~_ Spacial Reviecr Final SPA Final Historic Dev_
_ St^Aam Man3in _
_ Mountain View Plane _
C7xYiciIIi nilm~i 7at10n- _
I~ Sp1it/Lat T•irw
A3j~ict~m..t
$) T1xt~-iTrrt-i m of F]Cl
apprvodmmte sq_ ft_:
PAY) -
Oorreptval FUD Minor Historic Dev_
Final FUD Historic Demolition
Subdivision Historic Designation
2~xt/Map Amen,~ent ~ G.~6 Allotaent
- ~ ~~~. - .
g Uses ' (num5er and type. of P,ri ter-; r ~r ~;
ber of bc~ou~s; any p=eviais approvals gfantc:d to the
yac~~.rr ter .
9) DcscLZption of Developmc~rt Am~catim
-f~NI~ITloft9~1. L9sE 1~~CC.O~/u- fi~12 ~t ~~O 5,F 5'f'UD~O
ft'~~
~.
lo) Have you attached the follovin~?
Response to Atta[3~erit 2, Minimm s,r+,,;Kirn Oont~ents
IN~or~e to AttaC'~1rt 3, Specific a,t-.,,fiction (bntent^, ~-
S Resportisa to Attadmprct 4, R°viea Standazds for Your application
ATTACfIMENT J
Specific Submission Contents: Development Application
for Conditional Use
The Development Application for.a..con~`.`ional use shall
include the following.
h,. A sketch plan of the site showing existing and proposed
features which are relevant to the T•eview of the
conditional use application; and
B.. If the application involves development of a new
structure c_ expansion or exte_ior remodeling of an
existing structure, proposed elevations of the stru~-
tune.
APPLICANT:
ADDRESS:
ZONE DISTRICT:
LOT SIZE (SCUAFiE ice i):
EXISTING FAA:
ALLCWAELE FAR:
PRCPCS~ FAR: '
(z} 3 O
E(ISTWG NE L4SAELE (pmmecr.'al):
PRCPCSED NET L45AELE (pmmerdai):
STING eCFSffECOVERACE:
PRCPCSED o CF SITE C0VE9AGE: /
25 ~( o
EXISTING °'<CFvPEV SPACE (Cammen~l):
PRCFGSc~i a CFOPEN S?ACE,(C.:mmer.):
E(ISTING MAXIMUM HEiGiiT: Pr+ncrai ~+.: 2S ~? I eaxv 9lda'
PRCPQSED MAXIMUM HE:CIiT: Pr~nccal Eida.: ZO ~t / Accesscrv Ekfa:
PRCFCS~ %CFDErACLTTICN:
EXSTING NUMEE30F EEORCCMS: M~'
PRCFCSE7i NUMEER OF BEDROOMS: ~J ~' JiI~ l~
E<ISTING ON-SITE PARKING SPACES: ~r
ON-Sffc PAAKING SPACES RECUIRED: ~ ~ ~ #~f~lXc.C~
S'cT9AC:<S:
EXISTING:
Front ALLDWAELE:
FranL- ~ PROPOSED:
Front:
26
:
Rear.
Rear. ~
Rear. _
-1~-
Side: Side: Side: ~-
.Combined FronURear: Combined FrURr. Combined FrongRear.
EXISTING NONCQNFQRMffIES/
ENCROACHMENTS:
VARIATIONS REQUESTED laliaihlP for Landm arks Onlr character pmcafibiiiN findn g must be made 6v HPC1:
FAR: M'~nimtrtn Distance Eetween ELiiryngs:
SETEACKS: Front: Parking Spaces:
Rear: Open Space (Cammercal):
Side: Height (Cottage Infiil Only):
Combined FrtJRr: Site Coverage (Cottage Infili Only):
Io~352 s,~,
m ... \ ~ 'v I a qrv U.
~_._ ;y. JS e0iudg q E cpz _ti h u - 6 ap~~.u/~~ •, V C iJ
Pa T'v ¢ ".cam •~" r ~~ ~ ~~_-'e cV-
:` GI°°~ _ !S! 1 a aS V °6/a O ! P e%a P
C e >, _ ° b ~
2~ °a°ea.- a q ~ I s ,`I~ / ~"31ru30 ~°p~ W a
wP J Q\ / u _ _ ~ I /uu/ /. AI ~ 0 d
~~Gle° °\~° oc° °~y\ i a~ a ~ aye
' ~Op~ `ea Q~°° Pd Wu/uOplY Pad v ~`e\° ! ` S ~ Y, 6 QQ
~: u
~ Q~3\i '~ o Ci S u4 uD _ O ~~$ilver y~Gueon
pG p`i a ~ h c~ ~ v
- Fj A v~ ~. uc m ~~ PIS ~tla d' ~ ~ s o
eD Q, r ~ °` y~E an
n .~. a°3 Q ,~1~\°J N N~ y ~ ~ I uOd r.~ y v: '^ m w b
°_ ~ -OCt~ ¢ x r1 ~l//Lakep ~p 4 .C °/u ~ ~.. r r ^^ ~ W ^ Z 4. S W
V ~ U
r + l e° L'1 Z~ y I ! /~4t ~: u Iii j
// ea ; a c r` "~ ~ 3 ;
~~, v° ~ _`-~ 6 Iwo ~ '°i i
e
u- oQaa ~ g ss5 ~ ~ V yF ~b ! ~ S o u i
vD asu o° /Y ~e ~2 Cc 41S A~aa ~>UO <y0
4 • r . i .. g
=° y ° ow P!/zMOpva ISVI1 g u u'O_ o o .... '~'2 .w ~
° Js wed ~ ~ o !
y N 4/b
a: 8Wd U 'OH/vm Y ~n v_ii: ~o "n .r a: rv v: n "o vi b `Q
~PL mJBaN ~ flly a i 0f .6, ": T l v. a: W M a: S W .n S W 'i
" /D Vro 6~ u :xz iU~ Ex iqa:.
J 9
0 `c > Cazlln Crook Df POWar i V ~? i l7 j j U
__ ~^ O c ~1 Ya.Ir i,i i i i i ( j i
e v_ )al
~'os ~\ ! ca emela7 Ln \JI. He,) n ~ '__`.__,\
~\
G\ Jr° ~ CC o ga G 0'1 m a O i i. i ~~.'_.~
~ Q.°°µ ~ p°~EC ayy y ~O.y o4°r 5 Cre¢µ/^ j i.i i i j [ Q !., a_.i
o ~` ao loft' GI 4a 0oC o n .. u . ~ e q 'o. "i N c N `u .~ i
n / N U'~ U
:~ a ~ Gem a~ U i ~ n ~ a ;g ~ ~ 9 , o o > > ~
J d/ \\¢ O O H ~•`oomouaL WUUC UUfi.TSSxa;,'~a:.
:nV/ • P i
QU C ~4 J ~ ; vl .D :~~ vl M. ~n "1 m e.
5 r° ~ U/NdJ uZ aH ~ S~ , W i i C7 G
v ~
.oy P/a/Na4J Y /
~~--_._.._.. yia1J ,~ U m is ` i.d
"~V ... O ~ .c i u ~ °.
_ Q u
qt' 'a J{' ~ ~ N J ~ N Q; _~ C
1: a 7`` `'~:It 91k,y}rdd~' ~ ~": U• •~ ~: ~!~ a7mww"ww'c~c~v7
~' ~ ~.
!+
:
1~1 {~"~i;l taf(' qY{i l~tl 11 ll'..!. 1 ay ~ i"~) 11 ~~ ~. ! ~ p ~`p. T, ` b '••~" u'~ 1~1 </~4
t ~ °y r ~
': : i.
r
N m 1
1 V~Y` Y •>
~ ~ m ( 1.:
0! C
~ V Y"" ~ a fA ~ p t
1I~L ~'.'~...._ v
1 '' 1°
h N p~Y ~ :
` E ~ E
_ ,. ~ E os ~ ~~ r t •t E
1
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
OVERLAY SUB-COMMITTEE JTJNE 27, 1995
Chairman Vickery opened the meeting at 4:00 p.m. and asked for roll
call.
Present were: Jake Vickery, Bruce Kerr,.Donnelley Erdman. Excused
were Robert Blaich, Roger Moyer, and Steve Buettow.
COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS
There were no comments.
STAFF MEMBER COMMENTS
Amidon stated, I have one comment, this should be our last meeting.
Vickery stated, there are some projects out there? Amidon stated,
there are two that are sort of hanging; one of them is sort of
across from Valley High, I think they were given some conditions
they were supposed to work with Leslie and I on, and we haven't
ever seen it. The other one is next door to Valley High, there was
~""` a ara e u in the front Bob Braden's
g g p property. He is supposed
to be meeting with the Queen Victoria group at any time. I don't
know exactly how we are going to resolve that one, but it is still
hanging out there. Vickery stated, maybe, it could be referred to
the new committee. Amidon answered, yes.
Vickery asked, wasn't there one that Jack Miller was doing? Amidon
answered, yes, and I have that one with me. Kerr asked, can we
discuss it? Amidon stated, well, I have inherited this project,
so I actually wasn't sure it really needed to come back to you or
not, so, I have it with me if you want to see it, but I've met with
them about it. Kerr asked, do you have a model or something like
that? Amidon answered, they gave us a doctored photo.
Erdman asked, how are you going to constitute a new committee?
Amidon answered, the ordinance actually said it would be 3 HPC
members and 2 or 3 P&Z members, the same as this. I think P&Z has
already possibly said who was going to do it, HPC hasn't talked
about it.
i
PUBLIC COMMENTS
~ There were no comments.
s
OVERLAY SUB-COMMITTEE JUNE 27, 1995
BELLOCIC/MORRISON PROJECT
Amidon of staff stated, actually, this is Mary's case, and I don't
know where she is, so I'm scanning through this. It looks like the
staff recommends that the project be revised; the front setback and
the garage doors, possibly the garage should be separated as a
detached structure. The. proposed circular driveway in the front
of the residence should be reduced.
Stan Mathis represented the applicant, Chuck Bellock. Mathis said,
I have read through the responses from staff, we are quandering
here with the front yard setback versus the desire of the City, to
be setback as far as we can in front of the Roaring Fork River.
We modified what was previously approved through a Stream Margin
Review. we are back a greater distance in the new proposal.
Mathis stated, as far as dividing the garage from the house itself,
that is, I believe one of the directions that we tried to achieve
on the west end, that doesn't work, at least in my opinion.
However, we will eliminate the circular driveway.
Erdman asked, where is the parking for the ADU? Mathis showed on
the maps the area of the ADU parking. Kerr asked, where is it
shown, Stan? Mathis stated, well, for some reason you "guys" are
not looking at the same site plan that I am. Actually, Kim Johnson
worked on this before Mary, and there has been sort of a leak here
on staff members; I specifically delivered this site plan. There
was some revision of the site plans and discussion at random.
Erdman stated, staff has already made recommendations that the
garage not be such a prominent feature as part of the main mass of
the building. The 10 foot site plan, the circular drive is almost
impossible, the turning radius is really tight, so I just wondered,
what is being done with that?
Mathis stated, we are going to eliminate that turnaround totally,
and bring the driveway in around the north property line.
Vickery stated, I'm lost, in terms of knowing where this thing is,
this isn't a complete application, as far as I'm concerned.
Mathis stated, I provided a complete application, and I have a
letter that says so. The fact that we changed staff members, three
times, is not my fault.
Vickery stated, when we are talking about 78 feet, you are talking
about the face of the garage wall? Mathis responded, 70 feet would
probably be to the face of the garage. Vickery stated, so, to the
face of the main building wall, that would be? Mathis answered,
2
<..., OVERLAY SUB-COMMITTEE JUNE 27, 1995
w that would be more like another 24, all of 100 feet. Erdman
stated, that 100 feet would be consistent with what else is going
on in the neighborhood. Mathis stated, you can see on your site
plan there is an indication of where the existing house sits now,
and it's toward the river. So, I would say the face of the garage
is probably 35 feet closer to the road than many of the houses down
there, however, it's not the closest.
Erdmann stated, it says here in terms of building form, all the
guidelines are followed in the proposed structure, is that correct?
Mathis answered, that is correct. Erdmann asked, and also in the
architectural features, all the guidelines have been followed too?
Mathis answered, yes.
Kerr asked, staff brought up the circular drive, the entry, and the
guest parking, and all that? I guess I'm not as troubled by the
circular drive as it appears to be in front of the main entry where
guests would pull in and park. I'm curious why we would eliminate
the drive, and then leave the guests wondering where they are
supposed to go. Amidon responded saying, I believe the reason that
came up is because under driveways, in the general guidelines, it
specifically says, we don't encourage circular driveways because
it increases the amount of paving over.. Kerr stated, I agree with
not increasing the amount of pavement, but they also talk in the
._ guidelines about entries, and how people get to the house, and if
the drive is eliminated, then it is just kind of left out there in
t,.,. "no man's land".
MOTION
Erdman stated, I move that the Committee recommends the following
changes to the Bellock/Morrison residence on Lot 6, of Red Butte
Drive. The applicant will eliminate the circular drive entrance,
as the applicant has agreed to do, and will redo the drive toward
the north property line, that the point-of-entry into the house be
emphasized as much as possible through use of both hard and soft
landscape elements; that the prominence of the garage be reduced
if at all possible by reducing the overhangs on the north and south
to reduce the apparent size of the garage. Kerr seconded.
Vote commenced, vote was unanimous in favor, motion carried.
Discussion of Motion
Vickery stated, I support the motion. I find, and I'm not having
too much trouble with the garage because it is a one-story mass,
it seems that the mass is pretty well broken down. Anyway, those
are my comments.
ALLEN - E. FRANCIS STREET
`+~...~ 3
OVERLAY SUB-COMMITTEE JUNE 27, 1995
Amy Amidon of staff represented and stated, the project is in
Oklahoma Flats, and staff has found that the project is not in
compliance with. the Neighborhood Character Guidelines for the
following reasons: first, under mass and scale. The finish and
character of the neighborhood was small-scale, single-family
residences, this was changed to, generally, larger and often over-
scaled residences. The house doesn't relate well to pedestrians
on E. Francis Street or on Gibson Avenue, where a very small
portion of the roofline may be visible to the street. The house
steps up the hillside, presenting a three-story facade. In terms
of building form, some houses in the area, new houses, have flat
roofs, but it is staff's opinion, in this case, it adds somewhat
less in residential scale of the project. In terms of
architectural features, the entry level of the house is mostly
garage door and there is not enought emphasis of where the entry
itself lies. Again, in terms of garages, staff recommends that
some effort be made to orient some of the garage in another
direction.
Stan Mathis presented for the owner, Doug Allen, stating, this is
a fairly unusual little piece of property, a little irregular in
its shape; we have some pretty severe topographical limitations.
The property can only be accessed through the lower side of Francis .~,
Street extension (referring to site plan). The design proposes to
build back into the hillside a little bit.
~.
Vickery asked, if you had to analyze how much of the site is 30%
or less, what would you say? Mathis answered, probably 30°s of
that site is 30% or less. Vickery stated, in determining the
amount of FAR for this, under the old code, would you just take the
size of the site, and that's it? Mathis answered, that's right.
Erdman asked, this is a duplex? Mathis answered, no, it is a
single-family, with an ADU. Erdman asked, it's got four garages?
Mathis answered, it's got four parking spaces. It was asked what
zoning the property had. It was answered, it is R-15.
Vickery asked if there were any other comments. Vickery stated,
this whole slope thing isn't a factor on this house, under the old
code? Mary Lackner of staff responded saying, if he applied before
the revisions to the code, he is not subject to those. Vickery
asked, how about maximum height "stuff". Lackner responded, they
would have to comply under the code now.
MOTION
Kerr stated, in spite of finding (non-compliance) and staff's
recommendation that the project be revised as proposed to meet a
4
OVERLAY SUB-COMMITTEE JUNE 27. 1995
,,~, number of the Neighborhood Character Guidelines, we recommend that
the applicant strongly look at those recommendations of staff; I
make a motion to approve it, I guess. Erdman seconded. Voting
commenced, vote was unanimous in favor, motion carried.
Discussion of Motion
Vickery stated, this says (referring to memorandum), "Staff
recommends that the project be revised as described. In it's
current form, the new residence does not meet the Neighborhood
Character Guidelines, and should not be permitted to exceed 850 of
the allowed FAR". Do you want to go with that, I would like it
real clear? Kerr responded saying, my comment is, this is exactly
the kind of house that we are trying to prevent, and somewhat, it
is distressing that we have no means of dealing with it. The
finding, which I think I did include in the motion, the finding
that it's not in compliance, I know the public will say, how in the
world did that thing get approved. All we can say is, we didn't
approve it, but it slipped in.
The applicant stated, if you go and look at this house when it is
finished, it's going to be an award-winning architectural designed
house. It is going to be much smaller visually than five new
houses going in on this block right now, and physically it is much
,,~,~ smaller than most of them. It is going to be in the hill, behind
the trees, and on Gibson Avenue is it going to present a very low
„~,, facade. I think you will have a totally different opinion when it
is finished.
Vickery stated, I would like to encourage you to articulate it a
little bit more, in order to get some more interest. Break it up
and play with it a little more, so it is not this long, continuous,
consistent kind of treatment.
Mathis stated, for the record, we did have a complete application,
so there's no method in the future, that they could come back on
this project. You "guys" only had one sheet, and I think that's
important. (Some of the plans did not get into the member's
packets, and so did affect the course of the meeting and
presentations). Vickery stated, what I have seen, what was brought
here and presented here today, is not a complete application. The
applicant and Mathis stated they had submitted complete
applications. Amidon stated, I think the problem here is that all
these things were submitted to Kim and then Kim left here job, and
somehow some of the items were lost. Perhaps, there was a mistake.
Vickery stated, it's not the applicant's fault, and I don't think
it's going to change the outcome either. The applicant stated, I
want you to understand that we did everything exactly the way it
is supposed to be done. Kerr stated, you did in terms of process,
you submitted everything you were supposed to submit, but you
5
OVERLAY SUB-COMMITTEE JUNE 27, 1995
didn't design the house according to Neighborhood Guidelines; so,
in that sense, you didn't do everything that you should have done.
The applicant stated, I disagree with you, Bruce, there are houses
in that neighborhood that are more contemporary than this one, and
there are four or five of them.
JACK MILLER - 1103 WATERS AVENUE.
Amidon presented for staff and stated, again, this was Kim's
project, but my understanding of the discussion was, that you
wanted some more definition of entry, you wanted the garage doors
to be recessed a bit more, and a landscaping plan. (Amidon
presented a drawing and presented). It appears,. as far as I can
tell, to meet the conditions you have placed on it.
Kerr stated, so all they have done is demonstrate to staff that
they are complying with the conditions we have placed on their
approval? Amidon answered, yes. They got condition~~, they got an
approval with conditions. Vickery stated, they did, are you sure?
It wasn't just a tabling? Amidon checked with Kathy Strickland,
the clerk regarding the minutes and responded saying, we can
double-check that. Strickland asked, what address was it, and what
meeting was it at? Erdman answered, it was two meetings ago, it ~w
was the first Tuesday in June.
Amidon stated, I mislead them, I didn't realize that it had been
tabled; what Kim had reported back to me was, that they had
conditions, but it was supposed to be worked out by staff. So,
that's why it's not on your agenda.
There was discussion at random regarding the entranceway, and
garage.
Kerr stated, I think as just a matter of .process it's unfair to
make any kind of a decision one way or the other. As much as I
hate it, and I may not be around to do it, I think it is only fair
to the applicant, to deal with it fully. He may be able to come
in and offer perfectly good explanations for what; he has got.
Erdman stated, all I can recommend, is that we try to bend over
backwards; we're not having any more official meetings, can we do
it in a worksession, just a short worksession? Amidon answered,
yes, I guess you can establish whatever concerns.;you have and work
it out in a worksession, unless you want to call. a meeting back
together. Erdman stated, a worksession is unofficial, so that's
the problem here. Vickery stated, is there any way to pass this
on to the new Committee? Amidon stated, that could be a slow
process. I guess what you could do is say what your concerns are -^~
6 ,_~
OVERLAY SUB-COMMITTEE
and it could
group, and if
come back in
be worked
that's not
a meeting.
JUNE 27, 1995
out at the staff level or with a small
satisfactory to the applicant, then we can
Vickery stated, we asked that the entrance be moved out, he didn't
move it out, but he did move the garage back. So, by doing that,
what it does, it increases the setback. The clerk, Kathy
Strickland stated, Jake, maybe I can help you. (Reading from
previous minutes), you said that it was suggested that we move it
out. Jack said, we cannot move it out, because we would have to
drop the ADU. I think that's why that was discussed.
Vickery stated, there is argument that they should get this 15°s,
then they don't get it. If they don't get the 15°s, then they just
have to go for whatever they want under the new code, or something
like that.
Erdman asked, he didn't say what the new FAR was, so we have no
idea? Amidon answered, this cover sheet says total maximum, every
square foot. Erdman replied, still.
Vickery stated,
Kerr said, I had
on the street.
there is concern about the second floor decks?
a concern about that as it creates a black hole
Erdman stated, I'm most worried about the entry.
Vickery stated, Bruce has raised the point that we shouldn't take
any action on this, whatsoever. Erdman stated, I said we could
take action, but whatever action we take is going to require a
response from the applicant.
Vickery stated, can we just make some recommendations, and then,
pass the responsibility on to staff to follow through on the thing.
MOTION
Vickery stated, I make a recommendation to approve conditional on
applicant, providing a much-structured approach to emphasizing the
entry, perhaps by using structural log elements to create an
arcade. Reorganize the landscape plan by site landscaping elements
which help to frame the entrance pathway and move the trees in such
a way, not to obscure the front door, but to enhance its access.
We recommend that staff follow through on these recommendations,
and any questions regarding can be returned to the new Appeals
Committee. Kerr seconded. Vote commenced, vote was unanimous in
favor, motion carried. ~
Meeting was adjourned.
\..~ ~
OVERLAY SUB-COMMITTEE
Respectfully submitted,
S~~`tQxom `-rte , ~Qhh,~~ly
Sharon M. Carrillo, Deputy City Clerk
8
JUNE 27, 1995
~,,,.,
~~