Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.904 E Cooper Ave.A95-94 A G E N D A ---------------------------- OVERLAY ZONE DISTRICT SUBCOMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING January 4, 1995, Tuesday 4: 00 P.M. 2nd Floor Meeting Room City Hall I. COMMENTS Committee Members Planning Staff Public II. OLD BUSINESS A. 904 E. Cooper, Leslie Lamont & Amy Amidon III. ADJOURN MEMORANDUM TO: Overlay Zone District Sub-Committee FROM: Leslie Lamont, Deputy Director Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 904 East Cooper Street FAR Overlay Review DATE: January 4, 1995 SUMMARY: The review committee voted to table this application pending additional work by the applicant. The committee was pleased at the progress made with the site plan. However, the committee expressed concern that use of certain materials was creating a scale of the structure that was unacceptable in this neighborhood. Some committee members met with the applicant for a mini-workshop. The primary purpose of the meeting was to reaffirm for the applicant the committee's concerns and discuss some alternatives with the applicant and his architect. The applicant has submitted new north and west elevations. These were sent to us via the FAX therefore the quality is poor. APPLICANTS: Shawn Helda represented by Nello Gonfiantini III LOCATION: 904 East Cooper, Lots K&L, Block 117 Townsite of Aspen and Lot L, Block 35 East Aspen Addition Townsite of Aspen ZONING: R/MF (Residential Multi-Family) STAFF COMMENTS: Please refer to the application for a complete representation of the proposal. Another proposal for this site was reviewed by the sub-committee in October. The committee denied approval finding the proposed duplex was not consistent with the guidelines and did not consider the adjacent historic resource in the design of the new structure. The current application is a new proposal. The proposed development is a duplex structure located on the corner of East Cooper Avenue and West End Street. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the duplex development at 904 East Cooper Avenue with the following conditions of approval: 1 1. All material and design representations in the submitted packet and made at the meeting by the applicant or applicant's representative shall be adhered to by the applicant or the approval is void. 2 . The recessed spaces along the east elevation shall be restudied to create greater depth and further break up the scale on the east elevation. 3 . Parking space number 5 shall be a "grass-crete" finish to reduce the amount of paved surfaces at the rear of the parcel. 4. The applicant shall restudy the size of the two large windows on the west elevation of both units and the large window on the south elevation of the rear units to reduce their large scaled appearance. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the Special overlay Review for 904 East Cooper Avenue with the conditions outlined in staff 's memo dated January 4, 1995. " ATTACHMENTS: A. Amended Plans 2 DEC-22-1991 t5:00 FROM *(--ATHEXES* TO 130392129399 P.01 I a. ZO' d 600' 0N ZS: S T � �;4 13Q 0ZOZ-0Z6-20i= QI Ail J3d021d-an'10-N3dSU HSPEN-CLUB-PROPERTY ID:303-920-2020 4 s i 4 IiEC 22'94 15:52 Nc.009 P.03 IQ Id 66£6026MET QL *S3<3HltOw WD?JA £i:ST b66i-,LT-MQ I k rML.h i '�"._rt l riCf�C.7'�• 1 U 1JtJJJGV::JJ r.uL ' V t R^ 1 �I 1 I I i t �-... ..�� I� `� �� i L I � � it � is ,�i , �� �, ,:� �. ,. _ -:� �� �-�� - ... I I: ' i� � � � ; �,� � � : , I � �. .... . I ._ �. _;: __ _ , ' j� ,. ,�� i MEMORANDUM TO: Overlay Zone District Sub-Committee FROM: Leslie Lamont, Deputy Director Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 904 East Cooper Street FAR Overlay Review DATE: January 4, 1995 SUMMARY: The review committee voted to table this application pending additional work by the applicant. The committee was pleased at the progress made with the site plan. However, the committee expressed concern that use of certain materials was creating a scale of the structure that was unacceptable in this neighborhood. Some committee members met with the applicant for a mini-workshop. The primary purpose of the meeting was to reaffirm for the applicant the committee's concerns and discuss some alternatives with the applicant and his architect. The applicant has submitted new north and west elevations. These were sent to us via the FAX therefore the quality is poor. APPLICANTS: Shawn Helda represented by Nello Gonfiantini III LOCATION: 904 East Cooper, Lots K&L, Block 117 Townsite of Aspen and Lot L, Block 35 East Aspen Addition Townsite of Aspen ZONING: R/MF (Residential Multi-Family) STAFF COMMENTS: Please refer to the application for a complete representation of the proposal. Another proposal for this site was reviewed by the sub-committee in October. The committee denied approval finding the proposed duplex was not consistent with the guidelines and did not consider the adjacent historic resource in the design of the new structure. The current application is a new proposal. The proposed development is a duplex structure located on the corner of East Cooper Avenue and West End Street. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the duplex development at 904 East Cooper Avenue with the following conditions of approval: 1 1. All material and design representations in the submitted packet and made at the meeting by the applicant or applicant's representative shall be adhered to by the applicant or the approval is void. 2 . The recessed spaces along the east elevation shall be restudied to create greater depth and further break up the scale on the east elevation. 3 . Parking space number 5 shall be a "grass-crete" finish to reduce the amount of paved surfaces at the rear of the parcel. 4.- The applicant shall restudy the- size of the two large windows on the west elevation of both units and the large window on the south elevation of the rear units to reduce their large scaled appearance. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the Special Overlay Review for 904 East Cooper Avenue with the conditions outlined in staff ' s memo dated January 4, 1995. " ATTACHMENTS: A. Amended Plans 2 i i A G E N D A s OVERLAY ZONE DISTRICT SUBCOMMITTEE i REGULAR MEETING December 13, 1994, Tuesday 4:00 P.M. 2nd Floor Meeting Room City Hall I. COMMENTS Committee Members Planning Staff Public II. NEW BUSINESS A. 904 E. Cooper, Leslie Lamont & Amy Amidon III. ADJOURN CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen DATE RECEIVED: 12/02/94 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO. DATE COMPLETE: 2737-182-31-003 A95-94 STAFF MEMBER: LL PROJECT NAME: 904 E. Cooper Special Overlay Review Project Address: 904 E. Cooper Legal Address: APPLICANT: Helda Enterprises 920-2020 Applicant Address:_ 730 E. Durant Aspen CO REPRESENTATIVE: Stewart Lusk 920-3202 Representative Address/Phone:_520 E. Cooper Aspen, CO 81611 -------------------------- FEES: PLANNING $ 489 # APPS RECEIVED ENGINEER $ # PLATS RECEIVED HOUSING $ ENV. HEALTH $ TOTAL $ 489 TYPE OF APPLICATION: STAFF APPROVAL: 1 STEP: X 2 STEP: P&Z Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO CC Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO DRC Meeting Date --------------------------------- REFERRALS: City Attorney Parks Dept. School District City Engineer Bldg Inspector Rocky Mtn NatGas Housing Dir. Fire Marshal CDOT Aspen Water Holy Cross Clean Air Board City Electric Mtn. Bell Open Space Board Envir.Hlth. ACSD Other Zoning Energy Center Other DATE REFERRED: INITIALS: DUE: FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: INITIAL• City Atty City Engineer Zoning Env. Health Housing Open Space Other: FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: MEMORANDUM TO: Overlay Zone District Sub-Committee FROM: Leslie Lamont, Deputy Director Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer f RE: 904 East Cooper Street FAR Overlay Review DATE: December 13 , 1994 SUMMARY: This review is based on the General Guidelines found in the recently adopted Neighborhood Character Guidelines and the specific guidelines for the East Aspen Neighborhood. Special Review and compliance with the review is mandatory because the parcel is 6004 square feet. Planning staff believes that this project substantially complies with the General Guidelines and the guidelines for East Aspen. APPLICANTS: Shawn Helda represented by Stuart Lusk LOCATION: 904 East Cooper, Lots K&L, Block 117 Townsite of Aspen and Lot L, Block 35 East Aspen Addition Townsite of Aspen ZONING: R/MF (Residential Multi-Family) STAFF COMMENTS: Please refer to the application for a complete representation of the proposal. Another proposal for this site was reviewed by the sub-committee in October. The committee denied approval finding the proposed duplex was not consistent with the guidelines and did not consider the adjacent historic resource in the design of the new structure. The current application is a new proposal. The proposed development is a duplex structure located on the corner of East Cooper Avenue and West End Street. General Guidelines: The General Guidelines are meant to be broad in nature and address design variables that are common to all areas. Mass and Scale - 1. Buildings should help establish a sense of human scale that is inviting to pedestrians. 1 response: This design incorporates many elements that are of human scale. The building is divided into two primary forms each representing a separate dwelling unit. Taking advantage of the corner lot, the front door of each dwelling unit is accessed off of the public rights-of-way (ROW) . The rear half of the duplex steps down to West End Street and alley from the middle roof which is 28 ' to the ridge. The front porch of the rear unit is 13 ' in height. The front unit on Cooper Avenue is 25 ' to the ridge and the front porch is also approximately 13 ' in height. 2. New buildings should appear similar in scale to those in the established neighborhood, or to the scale that is desired for the neighborhood. response: The structures along East Cooper vary in character and density. Although the new structure is proposed to be only 20 ' below the allowable FAR (3580 vs. 3600) the massing of the duplex is divided into many elements that gives the structure the appearance of two detached units. To the east of this parcel is a small victorian cottage that is on the Historic Inventory. The parcel has recently undergone a lot split with the caveat that any redevelopment of either new parcel will require relocation of the historic structure to either parcel. The proposed development at 904 East Cooper is 9 ' off of the east property boundary. Although the east elevation of the duplex is one long wall, the applicant has attempted to break up the scale of the building with corner balconies on Cooper Avenue and the alley and two recessed portions in the middle of the structure. The second floor recess is 11611 and the first floor recess is 316" . 3. The street elevation of a building should be designed to appear in scale with those seen traditionally. response: Most renovations of historic homes on East Cooper have preserved the small cottage at the front of the parcel. The design of this structure steps the mass of the duplex away from both streets similar in fashion to the renovated homes. 4. Building entrances should be similar in scale to those seen traditionally. response: The front doors are pedestrian in scale. They are single wide doors with a porch overhang that is only 13 feet in height. Building Form - 5. All buildings should use roof and building forms that establish a sense of visual continuity for the community, by repeating typical form. 2 response: The two pitched roofs are consistent with the other roof styles in the neighborhood. The porches on the corner of the two seperate units and the barrel roof connecting the two distinct building forms add variety to the building form. Site Design - i 6. Orient the primary entrance of a building toward the street. response: Both front doors are oriented to the two streets that the structure is adjacent to. 7. Place the building entry at an elevation that is similar to those seen traditionally in the neighborhood. response: According to the submitted plans, the front door on Cooper Avenue is two steps up from the sidewalk and the front door on West End is one step up from the sidewalk. S. Where feasible, locate structures such that they maintain solar access to adjacent properties. response: N/A East Aspen Guidelines Mass and Scale 17. New buildings should be sensitive in scale to existing, smaller buildings in the neighborhood. `. response: As mentioned in this memo, the design attempts to reduce the scale using a variety of design elements. The front facade of both dwelling units range from 23 ' to 30 ' in width. The Guidelines recommend no greater than 30 feet in width for single family homes. The duplex structure is divided into two distinct masses with the barrel roof connecting the two elements. The barrel roof if 22 ' in height while the height to the ridge of the front and rear units are 25 ' and 28 ' respectively. A small victorian cottage is located to the east of the proposed development. The new structure is 9 ' off of the property boundary. Several indentations help break up the wall plane, however, staff recommends that the applicant restudy the east elevation to recess the indentations further providing more of a definition on the wall facing the historic cottage. There are two very large windows on the west elevation of both units and one very large window on the south elevation of the rear unit. These windows are not consistent with the guidelines that state "to help establish a sense of scale, use windows and doors 3 that are similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally." The windows range from 11 ' to 13 ' tall and are approximately 5 ' wide. Staff recommends a reduction in the size of the windows bringing the building more in scale with traditional scale of the neighborhood. Building Form Please see discussion with regard to building form above in the General Guidelines section. The Guidelines are the same. Site Plan 19. Provide a front yard in all development. response: The proposal includes a large front yard that encompasses the entire corner at the intersection of Cooper and West End. Although the property owner could construct a fence, the fence cannot block public view of the required 35% open space for a parcel in the RMF zone district. In addition, the edge of pavement for both public right-of-ways is between 25 ' and 15 ' away from the property line providing the illusion of a greater front yard. Although most property owners maintain some of the ROW in a landscaped condition, and these owners may do so, permanent fixtures are not permitted as the streets may be widened at some date in the future. 20. Buffer edges of the site from adjacent properties with fences or hedges. response: The landscape plan does not indicate any fences. The landscaping does include some hedges dotted around the property. A parking space is located on the northeast corner of the property. This space should be of a "grass-crete" finish to buffer the paved surfaces from the adjacent property. 21. Locate the primary floor at or near sidewalk grade. response: The plans indicate one "sunken patio" area that is in the middle of the property and in the center of the two distinct structural elements. Entrances to the two garages, off the alley, are at grade. The entrance to the accessory dwelling unit on the east side of the property is below grade. Although this review is not supposed to consider building materials, the rock work on the lower portion of the building creates a perception of added height to the first floor pulling the building above the sidewalk grade which is not consistent with this guideline. 4 'i RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the duplex development at 904 East Cooper Avenue with the following conditions of approval: 1. All material and design representations in the submitted packet and made at the meeting by the applicant or applicant's representative shall be adhered to by the applicant or the approval is void. 2. The recessed spaces along the east elevation shall be restudied to create greater depth and further break up the scale on the east elevation. (; 3 . Parking space number 5 shall be a "grass-crete" finish to reduce the amount of paved surfaces at the rear of the parcel. 4 . The applicant shall restudy the size of the two large windows on the west elevation of both units and the large window on the south elevation of the rear units to reduce their large scaled appearance. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the Special Overlay Review for 904 East Cooper Avenue with the conditions outlined in staff's memo dated December 13 , 1994 . " ATTACHMENTS: A. Application B. Submitted Plans 5 a i STATEMENT OF EXTERIOR ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN FOR THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 904 E. COOPER STREET Submitted to: Ordinance 35 Architectural Committee December 1, 1994 In surveying the east and commercial neighborhood, we find a wide diversity of architectural styles ranging from small miner's cottages and Victorian cottages to the large, recently developed projects such as The Enclave Condominiums located adjacent to this property. This project represents a monumental turning point in architectural direction for that area. Up until this point, the size and scale of the Victorian cottages were built, in most cases, with the driving forces being owner economics and personal usage needs exclusively. As we followed through, looking at the townhome developments and condominium developments in the neighborhood, we still found this was the primary motivating force for the development of the projects. Our project, on the other hand, is not driven entirely by interior space usage by the owner. We have attempted to meet the interior needs and desires of the owner as well as providing a sensitive, pedestrian-friendly design for the exterior of the building. The design bridges the past with the future by incorporating local/regional architectural references. We are proud of our a creative effort. The Building Design The building has been created to help establish a sense of human scale which is inviting to pedestrians. The building is broken up into two main components with smaller components flowing between the two. As this is a very prominent comer lot on the entrance to Aspen, we felt that the appearance from the southwest corner would be the most important point from which to focus our attention. From this angle, the building appears to be broken into two main modules with a courtyard which serves to break up the structure and lets open space flow into the core of the property. We have put the main massing away from this comer and gradually stepped the building down with multiple gables from north (alley) to south, arriving at the Cooper Street elevation. Elevations flowing from the alley step down from a 28-foot ridge to a 23-foot high cylinderical roof connecting part of the house to the part of the building closest to Cooper Street which highest ridge is only 25 feet (17 feet mid-point). Similarly, the roof lines inflect downward to the West End side of the street and the Cooper side of the street as well as to the east towards the historical structure. i The F.A.R in the rear building is 2400, and the FAR in the front unit is approximately 1,200 square feet. The owner has sacrificed one garage space to produce a more pedestrian- friendly alley. By sacrificing one garage space, we are able to provide a break to the western side of the building along with adding to the open space. Open space is 58% where zoning requires only 35% Other Site and Elevation Features 1. Egress wells are located in the core of the property preventing the need for deep access wells along the historic side; 2. Large yard maintained at corner of Cooper and West End; 3. Small scale windows; similar in size and shape; 4. Strategically placed landscaping of 8 to 10 spruce and 10 - 12 aspen trees; and 5. Garage detailing to minimize visual impact; We have done what we feel is the maximum amount of design compromise to accommodate the neighborhood characteristic guidelines while still maintaining the minimum acceptable interior living experience. We hope the Review Committee feels the same. SCHEDULE A ORDER NUMBER: 00021244 1. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 29, 1994 AT 8 : 00 A.M. 2 . POLICY OR POLICIES TO BE ISSUED: AMOUNT OF INSURANCE A. ALTA OWNER'S POLICY $ PRnpOSED INSURED: _ B. ALTA LOAN POLICY $ PROPOSED INSURED: C. ALTA LOAN POLICY $ PROPOSED INSURED: D. $ 3 . THE ESTATE OR INTEREST IN THE LAND DESCRIBED OR REFERRED TO IN THIS COMMITMENT AND COVERED HEREIN IS FEE SIMPLE AND TITLE THERETO IS AT THE EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF VESTED IN: HELDA ENTERPRISES, L.P. , A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 4. THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS COMMITMENT IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL A: Lots K and L, Block 117, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN PARCEL B: Lot L, Block 35, EAST ASPEN ADDITION TO THE CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN County of Pitkin, State of Colorado OWNERS: $ 1, 143 . 50 TAX CERT. $ 10. 00 STEWART TITLE OF ASPEN, INC. 620 E. Hopkins AUT O E SI NA RE r ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 1 303 925-3577 FAX 303-925-1384 Aspen Club Properties ID : 1-303-920-9399 DEC 13 '94 Lies :1,'tF ^pE[ Club Fro pr 15: 10 h0 .005 P .02 This agreement le betwo en V0110 Gonfieentint. purchaser of that prc"rty know as Parcel A, Lots' K and L, B1ook 117, City and ToWntsite Of Aspeen, and Parcel 8, Lot L, Siocik SS, 19not Aspen Addition to the city of Aspen, and H*14a Rnteerpirisox, a California limited partnership, Bellar of the maene. 1) Nall* Gontlantini III hex*by ha►e fall authority to nee ati sto with and or acoapt any conditions or propoaeels than the City Of Aspen overlay review i'la*xd may propose relating to his plan* laninq presented to the Aoetrd on December 13, 1994 at 4:00 and the ftba*quent develapmeent of the sa o, 2) if Nallo Gonftantini 211 accopts conditions end or proposal* that the City of Aspen Overlay review board proposeea w1th respect to his plans anal subsequent developuent of the property then the Purchase rontraot addendum contingency #22.87: Ordinance lea. 35" is hsreAy waived by the Purchaser. .V�V_ ,ACCS�ted! ROM ou pxisif a Calif sd Partnership Mal 10 06n i t n x 'd OE98-226 80 dflatl`l aC[131i WMUi "a Wd?.a:c'Q ns p e ri C; I ub PropF.r- -t i es ID : 1-303-920- 9399 DIC 13 '94 13 :04 11o .002 P .02 This agreement is between Nello Gonfiantini, purchaser of that property know as Parcel A, Lots * K and L, Block 117, City and Townsite of Aspen, and Parcel B, Lot L, Block 35, East Aspen Addition to the city of Aspen, and Helda Enterprises, a California limited partnership, Seller of the same. 1) Nello Gonfiantini TIT hereby has full authority to negotiate with and or accept any conditions or proposals that the City of Aspbn Overlay review Board may propose relating to his plans being presented to the Board on December 13, 1994 at 4:00 and the subsequent development of the same. 2) If Nello Gonfiantini III accepts conditions and or proposals that the City of Aspen Overlay review board proposes with respect to his plans and subsequent development of the property then the Purchase contract addendum contingency #22.87: Ordinance NO. 35" is hereby waived by the Purchaser. Accepted: Helda. Rntei7prliea-, a California limited Partnership Nello Gonfiantini III ALLEY N 75009 ' ll "W 6o . 04 • . c I0 SE EAST COOPER AVENUE 73. 70 � Avlt T 014 �C�p„v AI, � Z� A•-'�' \ �` we IL_ . o L.ow tz.D .gyp ?ATlo `�• it ll�>Ik 12 JEM C12 '9 �- V L tttZE'1> p TE z 6&S5 en ------ AL , l - too s4A t451?r_-Ali ! « _ h5p�� � 3 r-x rsrir4 cx rus ty 5 FT. �tYtE OF :i,&v F1&ENr \4EST ENO .I , ► ,r n,, mle �z 117LT k tL-�o t�l p S C) U T H E L v A T t N _� 5 FT. w E S T A T I O N FT N o i V 3 H 1 O N 1 41 S 01 N011 `d /� 3 �1 � 3 LII- I I I I I � I � � ► j9 ! - L IIU ''il� l �S2 1 ------ - _�—_.----__--_ Mpg LI) 0 N4 MO's 94l C+1 r�380 Ln ZIl�WV r_ { W4 -Q -Z%aarnae o _o IIi1111ii1111 7$-3A-- � -:,,,��.L<,4* N �` 71��Q •�•�•M _ � 7 t M N Z ab as LI �d8 1 t l s ; r 01 Lvd OD 131 l ( S5jii7 Ai n ,I a i all��l •I•. 000 /1A5 �. s�9 51 m 'L wor�a3� V m ZZ X I 1;5Sd-17- k \ (T GI LM $XL -� hndl •,I.) TD r H NEIL -1 twd� •}{�3W 1 p —� -� eAR our �11xb1 �Z►1N� — — — -- _ aS L7 ► 1 �f ct t r� `L►�.�5��� I - 1JNi ni -� -r1N�N� 4 i N4 ,.J 4 rw 52 r 21 44-- 11VMO�� I JJJ� TRUEMAN SUED. t lr'(` � ��\ i Jet • a It w+ ,1 4`m� E „�'`M st �• ( y ,-�.1r1 t` �-r,�1^ !r moo..w. / �l•��.� s.,..."...��� 'yl• 1 ,-�� • + A � �,<'._+• -Y' • !• • �`d + ,'"�, Wr 1, w iT , `.i� 11'*'. J • 1� L1 ,� ,, 1,i'*' rl � D •, •l Al Lti� / � r�� i �♦�E �,W'�\ ,n �l` �'`'§�✓ < t�*\�'r ��!-ti '.-,3 , ,1`- r R,t1 A\`-~' ,\ It,'t'�'t�(`' r ' . . _ .1' .fi r,���' • k��_•� - 'S'S��. ��~A"1 ,11` �(t ��.CEV.EO' CT� �J �=\l1\�1,I.y= cw•'`w� '\Wn 4l+•• 11 � t`l��ti. ���,pl�•• • L � � ' yA � r �` i >1�I� ',''w'. y,l�` £ n r.1 W'�`l?' '_1.'� �`-�+- `,�1 jl. (Uf,: 11 �JJ��''f� ,y`1� .�' �1t�� •11 `�� �..► .,�1' ''�r' P�._ y.•• , ��{i, 1,4`� �,,..•tT'r}'�,wj `, 1 <C.11�_ ''2 ✓ r�,� "'1� J✓•11�11.11W o 1 Z �� '�' 1 r�\l.�•u•' `:it � F�+,�� .� • •` ���i'rt�, _aR•" , "�. Y- �y}1T,,sr.-��'� ,•n ..,�1 ... 1 ,� rLL�,( `'11. ,1�'fw:='a (,1 `r��11 , � ,r �l''� ✓'W 1 Il •��� 'UF�,� �; y /• .• ' ! /� �•s �.' 1t'1T^Z• y Z vw" �.Ir. -✓ 1'1 ,.., 2(' 1 'f�11 ?,�+�-`► ��yp," J4 1✓•y �6��, � 1 11, ,rn�;`�-� f1 l.irfi���`1)1�" A 1'.1 n�l �� , , i. I1f•/-t►+ ', + • ,♦�,l''1'e? F: Z1 ', t ~ ��� � � �"I✓ 1�• E N,�o, U�� 1.v sf�1.a-1 w•+t�`i'��/r A��?J� • Z,�'�� 2,ti `n 111�✓y e n 1 u o•CLr" (`rt1, 1 11� tt 9 O �`l 1 • .� 1�, /� 1'.Q•�J� (� W LU•+' J �� r , Tr O lV+H11Y1 7e'� v✓L+ �(� �`+ (� !Y Nit a �' J �G�1-\�111� 1(� �`°u+ j` 1 (�S ` �1 p•t A s �J► r '�, ;� w 1 t1 111 tE • l ,(` • Y w •► 1�1Y�f Zj 1'�y.•l �Tl ,' �' 1 \'\1 L >\� �• • I ►• ¢..�.,�yq.� /``'L\` 1 1l1` , Yd. ( 1 /• t b 3` "v+. - '.•J1�'-1 \J ,: ( '..D•fA yta.L +W 11 1, 11 '1� /~rr �TQ / • `� __ YI11r M • ( v •+s. C. Tvt - ��� MEMORANDUM TO: Overlay Zone District Sub-Committee THRU: Stan Clauson, City Planning Director FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer and Mary Lackner, Planner RE: 904 E. Cooper Avenue DATE: October 5, 1994 ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: This project is located in the East Aspen neighborhood, therefore both the general guidelines (Chapter 1 of the "Neighborhood Character Guidelines") and the specific guidelines for East Aspen (Chapter 2) will be applied. The project is a new duplex (the existing structure is to be torn down) and has a proposed FAR of 3 , 585 sq. ft. on a 6, 004 sq. ft. lot. The special review process is mandatory as is compliance with the Committee's findings. APPLICANT: Helda Enterprises, represented by Stuart Lusk. LOCATION: 904 E. Cooper Ave. , Lots K and L, Block 117 and Lot L, Block 35, City and Townsite of Aspen. STAFF COMMENTS: Please refer to the application for the complete representation of the proposal. Planning staff finds that this project is not in compliance with the several aspects of the general and specific neighborhood guidelines. Rather than discuss each guideline (including those which are met) , only the elements of the proposal which warrant further discussion are highlighted below. The applicable general and specific guidelines have been grouped together by subject. NOTE: The attached drawings are somewhat faint and may be difficult to read in some areas. Staff requested improved prints and this seems to be the best that the applicant is able to supply. Other drawings may be available at the meeting. This project was forwarded to Bill Drueding, Zoning Officer for comments. He indicated doubt that the project meets the open space requirements (window wells cannot be counted) and also stated that nothing, including the skylight and spas may extend above the 25 ' height limit. STAFF EVALUATION: Mass and Scale feral Guidelines 0 Buildings should help establish a sense of human scale that is inviting to pedestrians, 2. New buildings should appear to be similar in scale to those in the established neighborhood, or to the scale that is desired for the neighborhood, 3. The street elevation of a building should be designed to appear in scale with those seen traditionally. Specific Guidelines 17. New buildings should be sensitive in scale to existing, uildings in the neighborhood. Response: This structure is fairly block-like, with few breaks in wall planes or the roof. The mass is not broken down into modules or smaller units in any way (the guidelines recommend a maximum of 15-30 ' as a width for a facade) . There is no stepping down in height to acknowledge neighboring smaller structures (namely a Victorian cottage immediately to the east) . Locating the garage in a secondary structure would be appropriate and a good way to reduce the overall size of the residence. Building For General Guidelines- S. All buildings should use roof and building forms that establish a sense of visual continuity for the community, by repeating typical form. Response: The guidelines state that gable forms and steep slopes are preferred. This traditional roof form in this neighborhood does seem to be gable, from the steeply pitched Victorians to the shallow pitches on the chalet style buildings. The proposed mansard style roof is somewhat in keeping with the Chateau Blanc building directly to the north of it, but does little to bring the scale of the building down with respect to the adjacent historic building. Site Design Specific Guidelines- 19. Provide a front yard in all development. Response: As mentioned above, the project may not be providing enough open space. In addition, Staff finds that the windowwells may be overly large and could be reduced to increase yard space. Architectural Features General Guidelines- 10. Architectural features that enhance the pedestrian experience are encouraged. Specific Guidelines- 23. Use windows and doors that are similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally to help establish a sense of scale, 25. The use of porches is strongly encouraged. Response: The two story windows shown on the southeast corner of the building create an entirely new scale for the building and place a "monumentally" sized feature along East Cooper Ave. In addition, their location next to the small Victorian is again unsympathetic to the scale of that building. Porches are encouraged in this neighborhood. The location of the site along a busy highway may limit the usefulness of this feature. Garages General Guidelines- 12 . Minimize the visual impact of garages. Response: If the alley is to be considered a streetscape (alleys are important pedestrian corridors in Aspen) , the garage doors on the north side may need to be softened somewhat, possibly by making each double door look like two single doors. There are some detached garages in this neighborhood, an option which should be considered by the applicant. Impact on Historic Buildings General Guidelines-16. New buildings should avoid negative impacts on adjacent historic properties. Response: As described above, this proposal does not in any way acknowledge the scale or character of the neighboring historic structure. Preservation of individual structures becomes less meaningful if they are then totally overshadowed and obscured by new development. RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that this proposal is sufficiently in opposition to the "Neighborhood Character Guidelines" to warrant denial of the request to exceed 85% of the allowed FAR for the site (3060 sq. ft. ) The proposal must be restudied to meet the guidelines cited above in order to receive approval. Additional Comments: I APPLICANT: L�, 'ttrc{`� AOORESS: I'#`%� J0 r-1 s ` 66� Cr. C. ZONE OISTAICT: &k F- LOT SIZE(SCUARE FED: - - - - - - (00o EXISTING FAR: / To ALLOWABLE FAR: (C7 cc PRCPCSED FAR: 3S-8 5 EXISTING NET LEASABLE(commend): N�I PRCPCSED NEi LEASABLE(commeraaq: EXISTING%OF SITE COVERAGE: 7 PROPOSED% SITE COVERAGE: -6*70 � 15"?o OPI'=tom Cgvuj,;� �`f�/��l'�(l�lii EXISTING:OF OPEN SPACE(CornmercW): pl,) PROPOSED:OF OPEN SPACE.(Commer): /V 11" E ISTING MAXIMUM HEGHT: -Prhdcaf SkQ- It, /Accesm Ate- PROPOSED MAXIMUM HEIGHT: ,Prt=Ski°.- ?,4'0 /Acce=Ski= PROPOSED a OF 0E'IMCLITICN: _ IT)' � N---41&Q EXISTING NUMBER OF B®ROOMS: 7 PROPOSED NUMBER OF BEORCCMS: UN- Bflr I,1 JS f-DU a r s ii EXISTING ON-SITE PARKING SPACES: CN-SITE PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: �� ©QQ p SF-79ACKS: EXISTING. ALLOWABLE: PROPOSED: !D to 1 Z Front _ �_, Front- - - -/Q Front: Rear: Rear: r�: Rear. Side: _ ? Side: c Tide: Combined FronttSear: }�_ Combined FrtlRr, 7-0 Combined Front/Rear EXISTING NCNCONFCRMrnES/ ENCRCACHMENTS: VARIATTCNS aEQUES T FD(eli="^ for I ""dmarxs Qn1Y-character comoahbifity fmdiina mum be made by HPCI: FAR: Minimum Distance Between BuIdngs: SETBACKS: Front: Ping Spaces: Rear: Open Space(Commercial): Side: Height (Cottage Infill Only): Combined FrURr: Site Coverage (Cottage Infill Only): WN6►5 0P Kft'--�y x-41 Eft Gotioos P fT-Z� 1 ovsw cr ro 6cu;l+ Gi+A-TC-*t) GLA-N L TC:) QoQ--71-Pr s-m(-Y 1 OOPL6X TO � T. I A3 ty- of A-R W oTVk PC!& L'-(' �ft-T (mss , / �o 1 ON ,E C'O�eN OF COCFC-IL Frf,��) Wei , --5/7 77PE freo�cseiD 7lu o © p&MCI FF�er4 /r- IV fV?�.. F-�QSTIV(r / 6 F-01fY Pig il" WAS i.55oF-4 , T?f-e aCM pLFT-tT i�ToolT W 6s 0,� ' F-Df. PIS - v P , ;-)9-E- Ply Cr---F - - - - JAMS Pry T CA) /ft9l-6 fiWO A5-7eJ4 1 T5 TTtC PADA©5 F---6 dC-5,164) r/yts IVICE C'itftov-6z F-&' T-AY DCOC, fU FLZOt7W16 .T TAL V�'T� Tus -PFx t9-ic.� J COOS. T"� AqeKIIVEt p; -Loc&;rt;,-,ro oF-F W G N-"F�S L. .- Tl tto us t-_- iw �fz-� (� + ry 1 -t•i-Y ( � taN p l t PPS P c s CL)��°v ; �r�� ► �r OCALU t OF 6 L)p t-EW GL)i T1+ C-W15;�- hW 1 LY Feu `-'D 6011.6 /IS Pc.AhvS Wlt6g CaW)() v LE-5.6 � y • j . ;.h,+ � tiY�i• i -. r.. � A t " i r �j ♦, ^;e !+� [��3 s�'>�!} ��hl Z7f(�X•���t��`„=�1a ��'4�� .FF�j ' J. M1�,adti ;.oft ,..y Y i i r a. .� � ', r t .141 ll� �.�,,_ �. -L�.' 1�"";t� "�'� �2��•1 t: '�1 t.l;t t �,• r�FA ,:5"}P! i f°k.;L I b,•�•'1,'r•,`rI- •tQ�,�'sv t rSi S :r rsh rtt s1 , I � i „ V �j.,,�'(?'� �' � ,bZ' r "K ! t ' � +n ,,a+• ., +.,f x�w},,Sy ��fi�},��, '.L'4�• pt ���i'vF�. � w�,{-'a rt „'t'`s t�5.�+i,l ", ,71di <�: �1't!1 t• �sr3w"`�{r+h -r 1'� i♦d pit. S .. '' •. S'•` ~ �r m �•t s�-r:•r t*" td..5,r11 f1 i_t' I �., '�"i., � �..tt r,r t-:r,.r...,r•�l;wi u . �{� �-•`ykrlr m.r Y-a4rr �'A ,i%!� �.�^� , R dt" °c', r m '>� � �t* m � £ S J�'•7�'..$�' �.�, ,� .ti�y'e IV 1 A''^: A 1 y�r /: !' . a��,. .i •m§1 r•' ` c f h + 't r r ra•!!i`brr' l.!i .�`i^ 6 !r yF''rY yY-r�,� 4,�R(, #�'•7� ��r ^ fr o jr • �.}=1.4Y �,.�'�t�' t+f�,.;,,,r' v-{�•y,}�y,,i�,+�.'��'rJ�"�7.� r -dt'..'"Y•� � •r'"'''�>',?�C��.,Si°i:'�t �. �:ri�r..a�'��i•�'�r L ti.C!'!`^pd �,•..."`�t�f�� :..,. ""`:.' , �.•• - ..�.._.4'.a.rt'�.a..a1.-; .3�.....M..�;,w..r.oZro.fs.�.:h...t,4aH..:w.,.1;6 Z,ts.'ri1d.-r... .� r v �• * .:ti ti r •�+�rw.••►r.�.ww rte,.,••.�+r•.��., r • r.� •y,- V+A yy�.►+!^�'MY YM•A opw►.may Ar w w f, fQ f < op '`/Cry+' •"h+•�f�+� ••.rte•s.•i y.t+w,..�..�'mow w.•v+�•�•.r�•+s.'s ♦•w•+�'Nr �• •M' .�� Vi.�t s ,t;r. Jf,• •, Few t �•1 t fir.�jTf1 RUNUP m`N(c V yy�'��`•,ty'r. r i rr„r..'.•�` •L t r ' t r ,S . r w A '� J' '}• � r ♦••R 7 �K1 I i, ' I` . • M M r � ' � iii � � � �i � • �� a Uri ! ��� irMw + � •� ' mw rffjww � � . If i r Nll�l>,I D i --- I --,►-- / J _ ►,:�,.v 1 Its �-_ vM � w� 1NVaCokH 1 tv? E Man ►�n�1Lx;1 Olga I � I '. 1 a I f�Oi1V9121�11 •� � ,L � Z ��u1C�d �1A� s1 7G1/�O.tJd � � DTI' iITcTlNGi2rlC!_, srvEL,ray ''� � I �O 1N��I•d-Lna� ` '1 `�1 1 cr3 hew ., --I*'cu 1-4 IV at U Xg 1 Iti%a�aV J��nz� ►vo,o•tt�1 c,->•vnC7� ' '.1N1,iv'I 0or- X31dna g I AlHO1S OM1 MAN f I Ib", IF Q '-_ �-.Wit., I ,C- ,�•96`f'O �r�i ry I �1v.f � II I :��•L_-1 r '7Nt icax3 - `"`ti ,f' 1" Ili �,; I � .l•qr� <�31'�ipNi �INI-t o311oU I rT3yV I Jere -20^ » ONn�iAV NI I I `WV32 Ca.l. ' IC 03uV ; J t ��I?J:iMC•1� 113nL 9Nilm c3 I � r I c_ffaratn I->y,, t - I �•c,6� I I � ,� V. Z B6-f 4 corn -+ _ o„-v - -aNno.l `r-IV z,a� �rym-1v ICtIn I f rl S I h Q% 1 I O ( o — - _ I 6 ±1_ I I Gr86+ ? a? a ,5'Vv41I--�I '1137 -1VJ i i i ••r+e►w - -ice - -—_- ---- -- �. 0 19n0-4 ..__ -- ............... f[ 1lL - I I I• k 1;0 i] �� IT I Ali ^�a..o ti n� rl I . .. �-. � � ;-llf ll IHf 17 1 - j• -y ,�! i !► " � � �I ' f I 11 II II r I ', Ir .I • i 1 - �y.t t i II i SOUTH ELEVATION [[Wf Mo.) 6 01 [1 r n 1 1°ii Fn .� tf I rf T, TH .L a a •r.l L. 1 1j. d �I In _-_-,.1_ >. •♦ • _ - I � .•�a II .psi ( I ti..•sY1i� i I 1 • • _ 'G.iJA►A ti►+Aa.Jtii� � ♦ --- - -� +-'- _ �i�1i� � I •.r r+�Zt.t+' • 1 _ if l 1.Ofa.TJi�-- — _— -_ � - _ �. - — � - J7' Ll.tl --tt . :.Ltf1[TY Ttf0ltf Ad I I Ct 11{• tl + - � t,.. I I I I, } 1 � ' :• I � .»af I 1 �• J } {I it tj--1 Al I � I `Il � y = J I I I I ' I I I I I I I I I I ► 1 rl vwtiT TcJ/s. WEST ELE ATM 1/LA.1 1 '710 NN A nt ArA -IfO N4 i I i I - i NORTH ELEVATION ~' lam• Jr l l - ro °a u - ......... _ cladr- - —��.. `�f_ _�.�_-�_ —_ � -- �"�—— --- —— -- I _ _— _- _. —b?•h'Luifo sue:�_ — r-; d�T.1s�21d X�Jt1V77fw tea. i GARAGE C 0=- 221 li tea. i GARAGE C 0=- 221 'left Z: . ,ofe I 1M / '_�r i GARAGE 220 J MASTER BR 210 ENTRY HALL 215 II MASTER BATH 212 DRESSIP9 STAIR 207 TOILET 213 74 AMU.. TOILET ,13 T ruft CLOSET 209 7" CLA)s 206 Lo ,12W A-W I ( - '� _ ; ENTRY HALL,. 204 MASTER BR 200 STAIR 2W ------------ Ott," ..FMT FLOOR PLAN M; "Y Z BATH VECHANICAl 131 VV5 IL 2 1'32 t".], TO oo� 4 BEDROOM 130 � CLOSET- 1 -1 "�T CLOSET r--@ATH 141 1 142 F STUDIO 140 HALL + LAUND Y O-rr,, 136 Ii 137 L 134 129 }—UTH TAI :r--' 121- 4 tb; STAR BEDROOM ...... 12 125 -itz me —Nl. D=_ 120 STUDIO BATH I. TOILET I SHOWER 128 127 114 I - BATH LAUNDRN 112 1.07 BEDROOM 110 KA HALL 108 11% ,CLOSET 102 % Yr Tol BEDROOM II t, 100 1 r---7 BATH 101 14 -W/4' 40 +:.y •, / '+ ,,fSi •+c 4'.„'�� �yt. � y .� M1{� ,��'.:+ `•fit �4���?�'''. �,` itA ' k ,�,' " ` ,`;,.•!`t w tiL t I,:77+.•. r .q.,AF ♦. �f4� w!. '± »; w.. y r fF � �� i � � '� ��` .�,, � Gtr; `" ., "�ai'^ k �� ��+ s x� •;k � 'tt � r � �„��� K,y'• _:a~a�� ,,*+e a t � °T�'� t " auk,a4` '?`aA' ^: / C i x- 'f• ,{a,,ft ! ,,n ,�x q 1 r., a; ��,, r ^i ,� ai''. '�` 77..''x x. - •�{ �. '��tn4,��rre'r �y��4#� �*d�� �.;+� � , � ��t,,a ���9+�k•�, a e �{ ,�, 'i�# ru"° �' "p;�'�� '%�° a�y'3�u� x,- .� ��� �"�.-� A.• tc��"" €w �; `����.*� �. F'z�.� j`'� � •„�'�' .• �T•.. ,�a �,.''x. x`�.x �,�.•�s.�b%�.��^Y. � a�MO�.•�J��q/1 � _- _„;1 �++1e � fi Sl��$� j 5�^'Y` NM f�(` +� y is '1'513. ".� ��.... t V •;# •Ma^ •�'. Y "�r � �'r vi'4 � ro '? 20�� �,k, c 'i y. ;�, °.�t�.." �+ 7vs t � x 'a�-. c ats".i� •{96a,2�"'�gi ,y"����r I ry A xk� r� L vi i x,�e"�+raa „)pT p r 'tMU'y l�'- y. - � ,• J v I Zzi _ ) I I�• � �anrr�`s: Ve �I ro )030 AM C vds1 LI . �� I I! -, � I , I I � I II i ( V30.400H • I Tim.` t /. _— — -i �� _ .— � .— — � ...._ �- .— ..� �_ .— .� �r ..�..��..�.�.�r._,. �)Y 1. V ��'I ,•f.