HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.1011 E Hopkins Ave.A16-95
~.
~
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED: 02/15/95 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO.
DATE COMPLETE: 2737-182-04-002 A16-95
STAFF MEMBER: AA
PROJECT NAME: DUDE/FELLMAN SPECIAL OVERLAY REVIEW
Project Address: 1011 & 1015 E.Hopkins Ave Aspen. Colorado
Legal Address: Eastern half of Lot C. All of Lot D. and all of
Lot E. Block 33. East Hopkins Ave {Fellman Lot Split}
APPLICANT: Harold Dude 407 683-4795 fax: 407 683-2363
Applicant Address: 6585 Dillman Road. W.palm Beach.Fla 33416
REPRESENTATIVE: Gibson & Reno Architect
Representative Address/Phone: 202 E Hvman.Ste 202 925-5968
Aspen. CO 81611
--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
FEES: PLANNING
ENGINEER
HOUSING
ENV. HEALTH
TOTAL
$ 489
$
$
$
$ 489
# APPS RECEIVED 2
# PLATS RECEIVED 2
[NO agreement to pay form sub.2-15]
------------------------------~-~------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
REFERRALS:
City Attorney
City Engineer
Housing Dir.
Aspen Water
City Electric
Envir.Hlth.
Zoning
Parks Dept.
Bldg Inspector
Fire Marshal
Holy Cross
Mtn. Bell
ACSD
Energy Center
School District
Rocky Mtn NatGas
CDOT
. Clean Air Board
Open Space Board
Other
Other
DATE REFERRED:
INITIALS:
DUE:
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
FINAL ROUTING:
DATE ROUTED:
INITIAL:
_ City Atty
_ Housing
_ City Engineer
_ Open Space
_Zoning _Env. Health
Other:
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:
/
~
~.
o
V
~ Attention:
~ East Do
~ Street
o
v
o
V
o
V
o
V
o
V
'0
V
o
V
o
V
o
V
o
V
o
V
o
V
o
V
o
V
o
V
o
V
o
V
o
V
o
V
o 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv~
Pe
At the request of the Aspen City Council,
a public meeting
is being held:
November 2, 1995 .
... ..Noon,. ..
. in ttreFire. Departmentl'1eeting Room
. ," , "
The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the sidewalk under
construction at the comer of Cleveland & East Hopkins and the
pending sidewalk at 1015 East Hopkins, with the Pedestrian and
Bikeway committee.
The issue is whether the sidewalk and street should be
constructed in alignment with the existing street and sidewalk,
or whether these alignments should be altered to retain existing
land features.
Your input is needed! Please contact Mary Lacker in the City
Community Development Department at 920-5090 with
comments or questions.
"
~
r-.
~,
To: John Bennett, City Mayor
Amy Margerum, City Manager
Stan Clauson, Community Development Director
10120/95 3:00 pm
The undersigned members of the Planning and Zoning Commission
of the City of Aspen request that work terminate immediately on the sidewalk
located on E. Hopkins in front of the house located at E. Hopklns and Cleveland
until further discussion can occur between the Community Development
Department and the Planning and Zoning Commission.
We feel that the removal of the naturel berm and widing of the street
have exposed so much building mass and spoiled the pedestrian experience.
A strict adherence to City Code regarding the street width and sidewalk
would be contrary to our hard-won Ordinance 30 and Aspen Area Community
Plan.
Signed
Sara Garton- Chair, Planning & Zoning
Steven Buettow- Chair, Design Review Appeals Committee
Tim Mooney
Jasmine Tygre
Bob Blaich
//~
- ~?
I
,
!
i"""
r'\
'-.........
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Overlay Zone District Sub-Committee
FROM:
Leslie Lamont, Planning
RE:
1011 and 1015 E. Hopkins Ave.
DATE:
August 31, 1995
----------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This project was reviewed by the Overlay Committee in February, 1995,
based upon the interim overlay review and the neighborhood character guidelines, Please
see attached memo. The proposal was for a duplex structure in the RJMF zone district,
The structure was designed at the maximum FAR for a duplex on a 7,500 square foot
parcel (3,690). Review was mandatory, as was compliance with the Committee's
recommendations,
The committee approved the proposal. However, several recommendations were made to
the applicant primarily regarding the location of two window wells on the front facade and
the front porches. Please see attached minutes from the meeting,
The developers have recently submitted plans for a building permit, Staff has found that
the submitted plans do not comply with the February approval in the following areas:
. window wells are still indicated in front of the principal facades of both units;
. although a porch/handrail element is indicated on the front facade, the original porch
has been reduced in size and the french doors accessing the porch has been eliminated;
and
. the approved plans located the accessory dwelling unit below grade, but the submitted
plans locate the ADDs above grade, therefore adding approximately 230 more square
feet to each dwelling unit than was represented in the February submittal.
Due to 1he revisions of the original approval via the Neighborhood Character Guidelines,
staff recommended that the applicant either comply with the recommendations made by
the Committee in February or seek an amendment from the Overlay Committee. The
applicant has requested to amend the approval based upon the Guidelines. As this
proposal is located in the East Aspen Neighborhood, the guidelines for that neighborhood
have been used for this review. Alternatively, the applicant's proposal may be reviewed
via the Residential Design Standards and the new changes to the code that were adopted
by Ordinance 30, Series of 1995.
APPLICANT: Scott Samborski and Scot Broughton
LOCATION: 1011 & 1015 East Hopkins Ave.
1"""'\
1"""'\
STAFF COMMENTS:
The Overlay Committee has been dissolved due to the adoption of Ordinance 30,
However, because Ordinance 30 established a Design Appeal Board, staff, together
with the City Attorney, believe it is appropriate to use the Design Appeal Board for those
projects that were reviewed under the Interim Overlay Ordinance but have not yet been
closed, Therefore staff recommends a review of the amendments to the East Hopkins
proposal based upon the Neighborhood Character Guidelines that were used during the
Interim Overlay period,
STAFF EVALUATION;
Pursuant to the Character Guidelines for the East Aspen Neighborhood:
Mass and Scale
17. New buildings should be sensitive tin scale to existing, smaller buildings in the
neighborhood,
RESPONSE: The original proposal was submitted with a maximum floor area allowable
on site, The new location of the ADDs, above grade, will add an additional 460 square
feet to the duplex. Although staff believed that the proposal as submitted in February was
compatible with the mass and scale of many structures in the neighborhood, staff is now
concerned with the additional floor area that will be added by the proposed ADDs,
Although the new home to the west of the proposed duplex presents a significantly
imposing mass, partially due to the height of the natural grade, staff believes that .the mass
of the duplex should step down toward the river, toward the new AH housing
development and the low scale single-family home adjacent to the river. The addition of
460 square feet for ADDs within the bulk and mass of this structure does not comply with
the Guidelines for new homes which recommends sensitivity to existing smaller buildings
in the neighborhood.
In addition, a review of the floor plans for the ADD leads staff to believe that the
proposed use of the unit will not be housing for employees or working residents of Pitkin
County as is the purpose of the ADD. Please see attached ADD floor plans, In the
alternative, if the applicant desires the use of an ADD, the unit should either be located
below grade or the FAR bonus should not be allowed for this parcel.
Site Plan
21, Locate the primary floor at or near sidewalk grade,
a. Avoid sunken terraces that separate the main entrance from the street level.
RESPONSE: The recently submitted plans indicate a light well located on the front of
each unit. The original plans also indicated light wells which would be cut away and
2
1"".
I""
screened with vegetation from the street, Staff objected to the inclusion of these light
wells and recommended that they be relocated to the side of the building, The new plans
still include the light wells on the front facade, In a letter submitted by the architect Scot
Broughton, the light well is proposed to be stepped out to provide some relief to the deep
well and cribbing will be exposed 6" above grade. A planting buffer will be provided to
"minimize" the visual impact from the street. Unfortunately, the submitted plans do not
provide a clear visual indication of the treatment of the lightwells, therefore staff must rely
upon the submitted letter,
The light wells should be relocated to the side of the units, Lightwells may be located in
the side yard setback as long as the wells meet, but do not exceed, the Uniform Building
Code requirements for light, air and egress, Sections 310.4 and 1203,
Reduction of the front yard area between the facade of the duplex and street grade will
reduce the amount of planting area. Significant vegetation on the hill leading up to the
duplex will help reduce the impact of the large bulk and mass of the home which is
emphasized by the higher ground,
Architectural Features
25, The use of porches is strongly encouraged.
RESPONSE: Although the recently submitted plans maintain the recessed front door
and provide a balcony handrail, the architectural detail that was provided along the front
facade in the approved plans appears to have diminished. It appears from the submitted
plans that, except for a 9,5 foot wide bay window projection from the second floor, the
front facade is a flat plane facing onto East Hopkins,
RECOMMENDATION: Stafffinds that the amended plans as submitted do not comply
with the Character Guidelines. Relocation of the window wells from the front facade,
additional architectural detailing including a significant porch element on the front facades,
and elimination of the FAR bonus for the ADU or a similar reduction in the overall
allowable floor area of the parcel, would bring this proposal in further compliance with the
Neighborhood Character Guidelines,
Alternative: The applicant may pursue an Ordinance 30 review and Residential Design
Standard review instead of preserving the approval gained during the Interim Overlay
Ordinance process.
Attachments:
A. Applicant's Submittal & Plans
B. February 28,1995 memo with submitted streetscape
C. Minutes February 28,1995 meeting
D. East Aspen Neighborhood Guidelines
3
'-''', . '"''';'', ..'.' -....-."...-."...,..-
..._'~_,...<,,_;"'~...;......;.OI.'';';''''..
^
--
.
"'~'"
..'.
AGENDA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DESrGN REVrn APPEAL BOARD
August 28, 1995
special Meeting
2nd Floor Me.eting Room, City Hall
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
4: 00 I.
9'/7
P2 >C'i'f:'~I.
~ . III.
Roll Call JJ-,J~U~~
Comments (Committee members, ~and public)
New Business
4:05
A.
Lacet Subdivision, Lot 3, Barnes
4:30
B.
1011/1015 E. Hopkins
5:00
v.
Adjourn
Ii
\j
!~
'''-0
~4
l /,,~
i.i i/ J
"
i
/('""
\
~:$o
~1~~
J)~ ltf/Ji (y, (J
-/Tu ~I , 'iW \' 1, .,. '-&\
!\~~, X;. ~ :;~c J
X /\ "",-,- '1,.. '€"'- w "( /j
~r iJ /"' '.,c;, '" ',./:.<'
p ~ !;~) vi.JX r; "''-, /}; "
~7<7w.../' . 't~., ~<cf~r-,.c c..
,; \l ~ ('f: .Q,. . '.
",,<t. . ..~~ .....'F?"-4
.,.,""'" ' r. '...(
~'" ' . .''''''
1/'\4 Q. " ,~
....~ , ''<fA')
\j./).. '1'1' A if....
\...( '-"~~'("' \fI
, '*,
,
<::i~L:1
,
G~,\
~. '-.....r
',-< (!
c-::7
-,.,,,
/\
I: ./
l' ,
f""" ".,
: '---;;'"
I.;"" 111
..""..~. /~/.
"'~'".,~'~
-f-\.)
Gr"
Cp '\
'-.!
/h V'\
~ .'-.)
",CY).-Vl~
(0,) rJ,. , '0'
VV f:3P .
....,Q
-..". "
.... fJ-W
...... c1."jL t
"\...~
'- G;::::f'
~
i"""'.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Design Review Appeals Board
FROM:
Dave Michaelson, Planner
DA'IE:
August 28, 1995
RE:
Lacet Subdivision Lot 3 - Appeal from Design Standards
-----------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting a variation from the design standards regarding
driveway placement below grade. The design standard for driveways states that "no portion of a
driveway to a garage shall be below the natural grade within the required front yard setback."
The application is attached as Attachment A, a site and drainage plan for the subdivision as
Attachment B, a site plan for Lot 3 as Attachment C, and photographs of adjacent driveway cuts
as Attachment D,
The Committee may grant an exception to the design standards for any of the following criteria:
a) yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan;
b) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to;
c) clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints.
APPLICANT: Lacet 3 rnc" Represented by Joel Barnes
LOCATION: Lot 3, Lacet Subdivision
ZONING: AH
STAFF COMMENTS:
I. Background - During staff review for compliance with Ordinance 30 Design Guidelines,
staff indicated that the driveway cut was not in compliance with the above-cited standard regarding
below-grade alignment of driveways within the front setback. Therefore, the applicant has
submitted an application for review and appeal of the Design Standards.
II. Site Description - The property is approXimately 8,970 square feet (.206 acres), Total
relief on the site is approXimately 12 feet, trending south-southwest across the lot (see grading and
drainage plan).
III. Proposal - The proposed driveway requires approXimately two feet of cut within the
required front yard setback to access the site. The rough grading has been completed (see photos).
1
,-
--,
The garage entrance is perpendicular to tile street front, consistent with applicable elements of tile
Design Guidelines, This makes access at-grade difficult due to tile directional orientation of the
natural contours on the site,
IV. Recommendation - Due to small lot size and tile requirement regarding orientation of tile
garage, accessing tile site at-grade within the required front setback does not appear possible. All
lots within tile subdivision have similar topographic constraints, and have required variances for
driveway cuts, Lots I, 5, and 7 have all required extensive modification from natural grade to
access building sites (see photos). .staff would suggest that criteria 3 ("clearly necessary for
reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints") is applicable to this application.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "r move to grant a variation of the Residential Design Standards
for a below-grade driveway within tile required front setback, finding that the cut is clearly
necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints,"
2
~\~BERLI^:,~
r-'\
EXHIBIT A
r-'\
_ ,/ 1"'"
~~ ' /' -'\.
, I \ ~
I
S1'OM BUILDING cO
~.
'4fIs 0)'
-2-5'99
c ~,
O€V~'VNn; ;
:so ~ 'Pt';lOrv'~. /
Je),', ".,', <9'
,'''' a\1~9"
~,tT,.,.~
August 25, 1995
Aspen I Pitkin Community Dev, Dept.
Overlay Subcommittee Attn: Amy Amadon
130 S, Galena
Aspen, Co, 81611
Dear Amy:
Please accept this letter as our request to appear before the overlay subcommittee to
address the issues of window wells and front porch for our proposed project at 1011 and
1015 E, Hopkins ave, Please refer to the attached minutes from the original meeting dated
2/28/95,
We would like to propose placing the window wells in the front elevation facing hopkins
ave, We feel this is a very important detail since the placement of the window wells on the
side yards are less desirable since they would infringe on the required sideyard setbacks, If
down sized to fit within the setbacks, they would not meet current building codes for
egress and natural light, And from a general design standpoint, they would make the
bedrooms less desireble due to the lack of natural light.
Based on review of the minutes of the meeting of 2/28/95, we feel that the concerns of the
committee can be addressed based on the attached drawings, These drawings show that
we would design the front berm detail to hide the wells from view of the street, This is
easily done since the natural grade of this lot is already quite high above hopkins ave, and
clearly the line of sight from the street would make it impossible to see the wells, In
regards to a front porch or rail detail, we feel that architectural detailing can be used to
create the desired look without infringing on the light well below, (see attached drawings)
We would appreciate the opportunity to meet at the earliest convenience of the committee
in order to more clearly make our presentation to the board,
Yours truly:
'l/}///YJ~
Scott Samborski
Timberline Custom Buildinll Corp. . Post Office Box 184 . Aspen. Colorado 81612 . Telephone & Fax 970/920-4068
._-----~~~~;~;.,,~;...:
,......,
____._~".;:~;'~B"~
August 20, 1995
To: City of Aspen
Planning and Zoning Dept.
From: Lacet No.3, Inc.
P.O. Box 8909
Aspen, Colorado 81612
(970) 927-1460
To Whom It May Concern:
Joel D.Barnes is the representative authorized to act on
behalf of the applicant, ~acet No.3, Inc., and can be
contacted at the same address and telephone number shown
above.
Explanation of Requested Variance:
The requested variance seeks approval to install the
driveway approximately two feet below natural grade.
The variance would be appropriate for the reasons that
follow.
(1,) Any other location for the driveway would create a
longer driveway and would disturb more of the natural grade.
(2) The garage is perpendicular to the street; we have
turned the driveway into the garage in a manner that very
little will be seen.
(3) Since the lot is very small (0.206 acres I there
is simply no other way to provide a driveway than to seek a
variance, and, in this case, the variance is very small, only
two feet.
~r r
"
,,'"
t
.
.
;).,0
~.
..-..
Exhibit B
U-.d\ 3 I
'" / /
, /
'~ /
, .
~
'\. ---=:;:::-.::._;.0 : '_~-L....I
!., - - ---..----T"'l":--..-:-.' i i !
.....-=~- -, . II ~ / . / :
....-+---. i 1 , I ,', I /
_../ - I I : I ,-\_;",'_.t_~,__~
':' J '~-;-- --i Iii;;' j' II
..,...- I" ...... " I: ~,I,' ! I,'
I I" \..... _ ; t',! i ' . ':'01 2/
.---t., I \LOTj....!.-r.!i I: "
, I I. { , '
}" \ ,""" J-' i
....-- i......l.,... :....-
\ I..... .....
-- .l..___'""---__..l
" '
,
, '
r-C----
I)
v
l
, ,
I
:
i\ ;;
II
I), -
f
----::,(.,
-;( ,,' L.. .__"
I" _'
V"-
/'
~lP_R'AP SWALE 1E,AIL
~, So
I
"
\
, ::''''~'
"-:=..........,....,
I~
r
, -
)//"/
I
,
',,::.'\..
'}\)OT 7
I"
~'
. "~C'
~"> "
/
/
/ /
/
.,.....?
C:;~ ._.:.-___'.:"
<'
,'v
.....'7' ,- _ ~_ _'
~ -~~-" /~
O~ 1lo
'<~<ft?':~ <N$;;-<:::.~~-,.r..[R ~
'<:_~/' -. r----
~- ..... ", ~~'1 ~,/' ....~' r I
r .::t=:~~//'~, -'--;-;-l ,.
\' './ ';5;?/
- - '-,....,;;;....;/ ,>".-.' ,'-, I
-- -;..~; . _"''''AIC
". /,/ ~." ---i":-"',
".,eo_;
'~)I..- ;,~",
, ,
/
'~""o~~p ....~.
~~~A-;"~ ;,~ ~ ",',:
~Q"'''~~.po
G_
.:ra.'_I~'::;"":":.,"'::....
=;"'':'~''>''''.::.:.''
5;:.:",';':;.._......
..~~...."-;...::::.-'.:_-
~":li:.~~~__.__,
"IU;,........___
. =--:":'~'.:''':':'<I':::'~'.e
~ "'- ..~-=-=~::: :;'~.
~~':...~...::. ~=-...:-oo
-..'- .(
---"::'i$
I
'"~,,"
"....0(,
II"
/
F'ARKING ~RFA 5~C
/
."
--
--
--
~
-.
...
.
...
-
-
"-
8Alli5El
_ :.a--.:.:.:.. Ql _. I>Q::;
'"'--~."""".'-Ql_.1>Q
... . . ""0 .:.~. .-, co
.1~.t. ,~_~~. --~-:-~ ::'~,,_ GR'~NG 'NO OR'''''' ?LAN
::- - -==--;;-.:;;:;;;;;;" II<
,....
-.
,....
Exhibit C
A-t-u
o~ :,t
/ 1-
: i""" / 1
I . /
. .1
!,i'
I
~--
8
----_.
"
.
.
!
~
,
.~.~- -.
'q"----
-'-
u_
~-~-~'"
--'-"
:',,"-'"
.~ .'-c'
~
, ',~
"
'~
:,0""
I
I
-
t
"
,
!
j
I
F
r-
.....
Exhibit 0
dirt piled up by developer
lot 3
t"'I
drive
1"'\
Exhibit D
8 foot cut for drive
this lot is directly across trom lot 3
.-------
"-,,
,-.
08108/1995 07:27 3039253484
BROUGHTON ELECTRIC
PAGE 01
SCOT BROUGHTON ARCHITECT
P,O, Box 1311 Basalt, Colorado 81621
(303) 927 . 4805
August 7, 1995
Amy Amidon
Aspen / Pitkin County Planning Department
130 S, Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
AE: 1011 & 1015 E, Hopkins. Window Well.
Dear Amy,
The above referenced project and the accompanying plans indicate window wells at
the two lower Master Bedrooms facing e, Hopkins Ave.. These wells are necessary to
meet the exit requirements for each Individual unit.
The wells have been located In respect to minimumize the impact in to the setbacks at
the rear of the site. The option that is available is to locate them at the side yards, This
approach would impact both side yards, whereas, the shift in the plans impacts only
the rear yard at one unit. Height limits have dictate that the lower floor be completely
under ground, Thus a well of +/. 7'.0" is required in order to maintain a maximum
window sill height of 3'.6" above finish floor,
In order to give some relief to the pit the window well has been stepped out. Per the
longitudinal section and the existing slope of the site the "cribbing" will be exposed
above grade 6", and a planting buffer will be installed between the sidewalk and the
window well. This will minimize the visual impact from e, Hopkins.
Please contact if I can be of any further assistance,
Sincerely,
L
Scot Brou hton
o.,~,,~...;";t,.~:~'~:~..
,,-...
,-.
DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL BOARD
JULY 27. 1995
requesting the preservation of a hedge of lilacs that surround the
Snowbunny site, (Petition attached in record,)
Derrington stated they intended, and always did intend, to preserve
the lilac hedge. He stated, we have shown in this scheme of loop
drive, and we have no problem with one of the recommendations in
Amy's memorandum of eliminating that to just one, He stated, the
house was in keeping with the neighborhood character, the need
for a two-car garage, and that they had done their best to preserve
as many of the existing trees as they could,
Blaich asked, Amy, when you suggested rotating it, did you know
.that was going to be in conflict with the setbacks?
Amidon stated, that's why I said, we're suggesting to rotate this
design, that it was going to have to be modified somehow. She
showed on the maps what she suggested.
Derrington stated, then, I'm confused, because that is completely
at odds; that's going the other direction, that's facing farther
away from the street still.
Amidon stated, well, it says the primary mass of the building has
to be tangent to the arch, so, you would be in compliance that way.
A suggestion was made by Vickery but Derrington made an argument
against it, stating that there was no realistic way to configure
it without completely destroying any u.sable back yard. (The clerk
apologizes, but the tape was not clearly audible during these
comments, so editing was done.)
Buettow stated, I just made a sketch of their design and turned it,
just as Jake suggested, and I lined it at this part of the site,
right over here, which pretty much complies with the regulation,
and it is pretty much the mass of the building actually within the
setbacks. There was discussion between the Board and the applicant
regarding Buettow's sketch.
Moyer asked, Amy, we're only looking at, then, the orientation of
the building and the situation of the garages, correct?
Amidon answered, right.
Moyer asked, and you feel that the building is compatiable with the
neighborhood mass and scale, and the neighborhood character
guidelines fit in?
Amidon anwered, no,
guidelines at all.
we're not using the neighborhood character
Ordinance 30 has a certain set of standards
1
.~
DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL BOARD
JULY 27, 1995
that relate to not having more than 70% of the whole building
varied, and reflection, and all those things. We're not discussing
neighborhood character or architectural style, or anything like
that,
Moyer stated, we don't even have the specifics, or at least I
didn't. I'm still dealing with HPC and the neighborhood character
guidelines, and looking at this building in regards to those and
the existing neighborhood it's abortion, but if we're not~dealing
with those, then, it's fine,
Stan Clauson of Community Development stated, Roger, if I may, let
me amplify that. What we have done, and possibly the memorandums
that are sent out need to be adjusted in the manner that we present
them by showing you the way in which all the other standards,
checklist standards, are met,
Moyer stated, you see, we haven't been briefed, This is our first
meeting.
Clauson stated, this is a kind of working out for all of us,
Moyer stated, the only thing I'm doing is how it relates to HPC,
and how we look at things, which is different,
Clauson stated, the purpose of this is to provide relief from the
specific design standards which cannot be met by a particular
proposal, In this case, Amy and staff review the applicant's
drawings and find that they have met the design standards that are
specified by Ordinance 30, with the exception of, the particular
standards that have been pointed out, the curvilinear street, the
principle mass of the building, That's really the issue that is
before us. Philosophically, what Council and the work that was
done that established Ordinance 30 was attempting to do, was to
rule out some of the ambiguity from the neighborhood character
guidelines and replace them with a set objective design standards
which would be clearly able to be met, or not able to be met, and
reviewed by staff for the requirements, In the case where they
would not be able to be met, this committee, the Design Review
Appeal Board, has the responsibility to look at that particular
standard in light of the three possible reasons why it might waive
the standards in each case, So, essentially, what the charge is
to the committee, is to see if it is appropriate to waive that
particular standard, if not, then, the committee will not waive the
standard and the applicant would be required to re-design the
project in such a way as to meet the standards.
Moyer asked, Amy, has the neighborhood community around this
structure objected at all, was there a public notice?
1.
-
-
DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL BOARD
JULY 27. 1995
Amidon responded, no, there's no public notice at all, There
wasn't for the neighborhood character guideline review, either,
Buettow stated, the reason I did that sketch there was because the
way I saw this issue was; Amy said their review revealed that the
project complied with all the regulations except for the way the
building is set on the site, In their letter there, they said
that the site constrained their design, so, I just "tweE!ked" it
around to see if it actually would fit, So, the way that I see
it is that we can see from my sketch, that pretty much, the
building fits on the site with the changing of the orientation,
with the exception of a few encumbrances, which would require a
side-yard setback. So, if the committee is comfortable with
requiring that versus the line up the way it is, is kind of how it
needs to be resolved.
Blaich stated, you said this building was designed before?
Derrington replied, we were designing it prior to going through the
hearings, and we probably had everything all put together, then
they treated us tangent to the Board and the arch, and all that
"stuff", and at the last minute, it was a last minute addition,
which kind of caught us off-guard, We were going to try to work
with these guidelines and we thought we had it all put together
until that last minute addition, We thought it was a good site
plan regardless, because it reflects the angle of the adjoining
house to the street and it protects the rooms with a nice yard with
a big lilac hedge in it, and mature Spruce trees, and so forth,
Alstrom stated, well, before I reach a conclusion, I would vote for
tabling today, because I would look procedurally to see what
staff's response to each of the design standards are. Because I
think once it reaches the Appeal Committee we should be looking to
see if it is in compliance with all of the design standards, in
spite of the staff ruling that says that they are, So, I'd like
to see some more proof that its met the other design standards,
before it reaches the Appeal Committee, I do agree that, similar
to other appeal committees, unless we have a good reason,
otherwise, it is kind of like a hardship case. That's kind of how
I feel about this particular case in front of us,
Amidon stated, this is just a brief reminder, this
Board of Adjustments where you have a hardship,
different,
is not like the
it is somewhat
Alstrom stated, it is still an appeal, so, I'm not convinced that
this requirement couldn't be met, looking at the documents we have,
and Steve's proposal.
.2.
~
"~
DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL BOARD
JULY 27. 1995
Moyer stated, if the neighborhood itself and all the people around
it, don't object, I would probably not be too concerned, But what
I am saying, if I was in the neighborhood and looking at this, I
would find it pretty objectionable and I would wonder, that all the
things that we have been doing all these years, how this managed
to get through because it doesn't seem to have much to do with all
the work that we did on the neighborhood character guidelines, and
all the design seminars we went through etc" etc. ," I am
questioning why I am even sitting here as I look at this, and
secondly, I just don't understand where we are going if this is
what we are going to get. I thought we were going to get a lot
better, and even though you have the argument in this neighborhood
that there are a couple of things like this already designed, but
just grossly overscaled, everything else around them, the
neighborhood has changed, If the neighborhood wants to go that
direction, I have no objection to that,but if the neighborhood
doesn't, then I would table it and I would would really want to
know how it got this far, and how we can save neighborhoods in the
future,
Vickery asked, is there anybody here from the public to speak to
this issue?
Howie Mallory stated, I live across the street and I'm a little
confused about the process because I have seen the agenda. it shows
that the public is able to speak, but there has been no public
notice that there is the opportunity to speak, and clearly, no
one's here from the area because they didn't know anything about
it. I'm only here because I happened to run into Roger, so, it's
really by coincidence.
Mallory stated, in commenting on the design, one way or the other,
that is a serious admission on your part. I'm not personally clear'
on the total approval process that goes on down the line from here.
What does bother me, a little bit. perhaps by some confusion, but
nonetheless, by virtue of any citizen who lives in the area, I'll
express my opinion, The expectation of the neighborhoods is that
there is a neighborhood characteristic guideline, and you say
that's not being adhered to, we're not applying this in this case;
I'm dismayed and confused why that is not being done, because that
was the whole intent behind the creation of Ordinance 30. That was
the momentum behind the Ordinance 30, So, the public has to be
informed, and you have to explain to the public why the
neighborhood characteristic guidelines are not going to be complied
with,
2.
-.
...-,
DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL BOARD
JULY 27, 1995
Derrington stated, there was a public hearing on Ordinance 30,
there were several meetings and I attended all of them, and a lot
of people spoke. This is not intended to be like a neighborhood,
subdivision design review board that's impowered to decide whether
shingles or shakes, or metal roof, or whatever it is that they
want; that isn't what this committee is about, They are to review
the standards that are set forth in Ordinance 30.
Derrington added, if the staff reviews this and says that~you are
in compliance with all of these; and we worked on the drawings
where we have minimum required setbacks of the garages, we had the
percentage of the frontage of the house to the garage, and the
percentage of the one-story element to the mass of the building,
and the changes of breaking up the principle mass of the building,
etc,. etc.; but these are all met, and if we had met this other
guideline, we wouldn't be here, you wouldn't even see it, and we
would be done. That's the way the ordinance is written, and now
if that's a flaw in the ordinance, that isn't our fault,
Clauson stated, let me respond to some of the things that Howie has
stated because I think it is important to get a perspective on this
and recognize that this is the first meeting on a complicated and
new procedure. The design guidelines are no longer a factor on
reference any portion of the ordinance, So, that needs to be
understood, It might be helpful to the committee, when you are
evaluating it, whether or not the standard should be waived, but
as far as this committee being a general design review committee,
that possibility was weighed among other various alternatives when
the ordinance was developed and it was rejected. Council, based
on testimony that they received, did not opt for a general design
review committee which would function based on the neighborhood
character guidelines. What they chose instead was a set of design
standards which were devised to help address some of the most
significant issues that were identified in respect to buildings.
(The clerk apologizes, but some specific words were not audible due
to traffic noises during Mr. Clauson's comments, so, therefore, I
hope Mr, Clauson's comments are understood,) The committee is
really in a position to find relief, I think two suggestions were
made; .one, that we provide the entire record of how the standards
are met, and that will certainly happen in the future meetings
forthcoming. The other suggestion, which was Howie's, that some
kind of notice be provided, that clearly state, a newspaper notice,
that the Design Review Appeal Board was considering on the cases,
is probably a point well taken, and one that we will see if we can
comply with, Those two suggestions, and no doubt, other
suggestions that arise as we muddle through, will be listened to.
2
~
~
DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL BOARD
JULY 27, 1995
Amidon stated, I think Stan's covered it, but I just wanted to
clarify that the document, the neighborhood character guidelines,
is no longer on the table, but the new standards do ask you to
respect the existing neighborhood; being one-story when your
neighbor is one-story, or aligning setbacks, things like that,
So, it's still there,
Alstrom stated, I think that this should be part of the record that
we prefer, .in being an appeal, that's sort of the las~ public
opportunity with regard to what Roger is saying. I think the
committee should, perhaps, make a resolution to City Council to
require public meetings,
Chaikovska stated, I agree about the public notice, this is an
appeals process, but I'm a little unclear about going over other
standards, whether they have been or not, As I understand it, the
ordinance provides that staff goes through those, and the purpose
of Ordinance 30 is to make it more objective than we had before,
For us, I don't think that it is our position, unless the ordinance
has changed, for us to review the standards that they have already
reviewed and approved, because that would mean that we would have
a say in whether or not other things should be changed or not.
This strikes me, today, at least, that we have one issue, and one
issue only, unless the ordinance has changed, and that is, does
this come under the review of these three points, and could we, or
could we not, provide these people a variance. All the other
issues are irrelevant; there is no public notice requirement right
now, so they are not required to go back and do a public notice and
if we want to do that let's go back and change the ordinance, but
it's not fair to an applicant to come here now and have different
rules set up than what we had set up by the ordinance as we speak,
Buettow stated, I' m just thinking along the line of what Marta
said, and that our choices are either to accept the project as it
sits on the site and has been presented by the applicants, or
require it to be turned and come into compliance with Ordinance 30,
and as we see on the schemes; it can be with a few "tweeks" , you
know, it probably would require the applicant to go for a variance,
and slightly change his design around. Those seem to me to be the
choices, and so, other things, do we have enough information to
make that choice, and do we want to make that choice?
Vickery stated, I have one question, and I want to bring this back
into focus and then see if we can move on and make a resolution.
In the new Ordinance 30, what are the rules regarding garage doors
and driveways, and front yards , isn't there a requirement in there?
i
~
-,
-"
DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL BOARD
JULY 27. 1995
Amidon replied, the garage has to be 10 ft, behind the front facade
of the building or the garage doors have to be perpendicular to the
street,
Alstrom stated, what I am really saying, as a reviewer on the
Board, is that if I am voting on this today, I would vote against
the exception, and I'd really prefer the applicant to table and
show us the footprint modified to fit the orientation requirement;
if I had documentation of how well it passed on th; other
standards, I would be more prepared, but at this time I'm strongly
against it.
Derrington stated, all of these things were discussed in a public
hearing, and one thing that was discussed, was when it looked like
you were going to be tossed around from committee to committee, and
you are going around like a ping-pong ball on a pin ball machine
affect, Stan specifically said that was not their objective and the
Board was not to be as hard-lined as others; P&Z and the HPC, and
so ~orth. Staff reviews these things, it is not a matter of how
well you comply with this, it is did you, or didn't you. That's
it, and there's no scoring mechanism.
Derrington stated, we have met the spirit of this,
Clauson stated, may I respond to this, because I think it's
necessary. First of all, with respect to the manner in which staff
scores the checklist, staff does not score the checklist, that is,
there is no plus or minus or anything applied to the manner in
which the project that comes before staff needs to give the design
standard; it simply does or doesn't, To the extent that there is
a record, the record will show, for example, in respect to the
garage being set back 10 ft, from the principle facade elevation,
yes, this garage is set back from the principle facade elevation,
period. So, you won't get anything more than that from the record,
Clauson continued stating, the second thing is, that with respect
to the ping-pong affect, We have hired any board or commission
that would see a project in the course of a review of an
application to waive the design standards in the same manner this
Board would if they felt that the goals met. If the project were,
because of the variance request of adj ustment, the Board of
Adjustment might grant variances, also waive a specific design
standard because they thought in the context of the project that
that was the thing to do. So, it would not be necessary to go
first to one, and the~' the other.
I
Clauson added, it seems to me that in this case, there are three
factors; there's the design of the structure, there's the nature
of the site, and there are the rules that apply to them, You have
.2.
.~
~
DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL BOARD
JULY 27. 1995
the ability to waive the rules for certain reasons, the site is
pretty much given, the site of the structure can always be changed.
So, it's really up to the committee to decide whether changing the
rule or requesting a design to be re-structured or modified.
Howie Mallory asked, is there any more public comment?
Vickery stated, yeh, go ahead, Howie.
.
Mallory stated, I appreciate your discussion, but I think, in
context of this being an appeal process, which to me is implicit
requiring public input, that your ordinance is flawed by having a
requirement to have a public notice, because there is no way the
neighborhood can see how you grade it with respect to the tests,
whatever characteristics, neighborhood character guideline
characteristics are, I think you are eliminating a critical
element of the whole intent behind the neighborhood character
guidelines by not allowing the public to see the process that you
have already gone through. So, again, that's why I would request
that you table it, so at least the public feels like it has had a
chance to accept that you, Amy, and your department, have
represented the neighborhood. There's no way that the neighborhood
feels that you have represented them; there's no way they know that
you have, let's put it that way,
Vickery stated, anyone from the public that wanted to speak speak
to this issue, has spoken, is that true? (There was no response.)
Q,K" let me bring it back to the committee,
Derrington stated, I have a few points I would like to make,
Vickery stated, Jan(ver), I think we have had enough, Q,K, I want
to bring it back to the committee; I think we understand your
arguments and issues, here,
Derrington stated, Q,K,
Vickery stated, number one, there are five things that are on my
mind, right now, They have been brought up in this discussion; I
think they are all important things to look at.
Vickery continued saying, first of all, I think the Board needs to
look and see if it is clear enough on its purpose at this time to
be able to move forward on, really, any issues at all, I mean, are
we clear enough on what the standards are, and I think we need to
look at that and say, yes we are, or no, we aren't,
10
--
--
DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL BOARD
JULY 27, 1995
Secondly, the issue of public input, I think public input is
important, however, we can sit in judgement, I think, of what is
before us. because we are mainly focused on the site specific
constraints that are operating here, that are restricting the
applicant from conforming to the standards that are established,
Vickery stated, in regards to the ping-pong affect, another reason
that you would have to be required to go to the Board of Adjustment
is because you don't change your design; well, like he is, if it
necessitated a design change of some sort to accommodate the
standard or the rule that's applicable, There might be some
consideration for the applicant in the fact that this is a new set
of rules, that there were some projects that were kind of in the
design pipelines, so to speak, and maybe they haven't had adequate
time, and there is an issue of fairness to them because of the
implementation of the new rules.
Vickery continued, the fifth thing I want to do is bring it right
back to the specific standard that is involved here, which is the
orientation of the structure towards the street, With that, I
would like to kind of poll the Board, Does the Board feel that
they are clear on their purpose at this time, and can move forward
and vote on this issue?
Blaich stated, I do,
Chaikovska stated, yes.
Buettow stated, yes,
Alstrom, yes, with some reservation on the public notice. I would
like to see us make a resolution on the public notice issue.
Vickery stated, O.K., I'll take that as a, yes, The public input,
right now; Howie, it is a very good suggestion, but until the tone
has changed we can make a recommendation, and so forth, If the
Board feels that they will be getting new information from the
public that they don't already have; do you feel that way, or do
you feel you have enough information in terms of the site plans in
the applicant'S presentation?
Moyer stated, I think there are two issues with public notice.
The first is, I think that staff, as they go through the process,
should have public notice, so that the public can come in and talk
to Amy or Leslie, and say, we have these concerns about this
project, and that input can be put into a judgement as far as)
dealing with the specifics. Then, the applicant goes to appeal,
the public is already on notice and will be sent a notice that the
applicant is coming to appeal, and then, the public can make
11
".....,
-
DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL BOARD
JULY 27. 1995
comments to the Board. I think that's imperative; to me, the
process is grossly flawed, so, I will make a resolution tonight,
from this Committee, to Council, that public notice is a
requirement. So, those are my comments,
Alstrom stated, I agree with that,
Vickery asked Buettow, do you agree with that?
yes, definitely,
Buettow answered,
."
Vickery asked, what about the action before us tonight?
Blaich stated, I would like to speak to that, I think the
ordinance says, it is, as it is, and if you haven't read it, I
think that's a mistake on someone's part, not to be familar with
it before coming to the meeting, I think in all fairness to this
project, I think we should vote on it, it can go several ways, and
if it is voted down they're going to have to come back with change
in design, and if the public notice is then, going to be put forth,
we'll have that input. I really don't think we should table it,
based upon the rules that we are supposed to live under, right now.
That's my comments on it,
Alstrom stated,
rules are fairly
an exception for
this time.
I think the building is fairly affirmative, the
temporary, so, I'm obviously opposed to approving
this orientation requirement for this project, at
Blaich stated, I state for clarification, I said we have to vote
on it,
Buettow stated, the compliance with the particular item in the
codes, is that this project is definitely not in compliance, the
way I see it, because I explored the site, and I turned the design .
myself, I do see a way it can come into compliance with just minor
variations in the design.
Vickery stated, do you feel like you need to table it to get public
input, or do you feel you have enough input to make a decision?
Buettow stated, well, I prefer some public input from the neighbors
but that's not within the ordiance, right now, so, yes,
Derrington asked Clauson, do I understand you to say, that you have
empowered committee to waive the setback requirements, if they feel
that is a justification. Clauson answered, no, Derrington asked,
then how do you avoid the ping-pong affect? Clauson stated, if you
go to the Board of Adjustment, because you feel you have hardship
that justifies a variance and are granted a variance, but at the
12
-'
~
DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL BOARD
JULY 27. 1995
same time there is a design standard that is also an issue, the
Board of Adjustment may provide relief on that design standard.
Vickery stated, I'm going to take that as a "yes", from the Board
as a whole, O.K" to go forward. Third thing is, the fact that
this is a new set of rules, a new kind of board, and does there
want to be latitude towards the applicant on the basis of the fact
that he had some design efforts going on prior to the enactment of
the law, or whatever. Anybody have any feelings about that?
Buettow stated, the tangent to the circle in the arch has always
been in there, and I happen to know that this applicant has come
forward in meetings and he spoke.
Vickery stated, so, that was in the proposed ordinance from the
very beginning?
Alstrom stated, they are asking for an exception, so, they have
decided to go to the wire on this issue, and basically, I'm saying
no, on that issue, The building'S permanent, this process is being
worked out; I realize they are a new applicant, but due to the lack
of public input, I just have to say, the permanance of the building
weighed against no public input, I've got to stick up for the
neighborhood fairness, even though this applicant is in the middle
of the process,
Vickery stated, so, O,K, can I interpret that generally as a "yes"
to go forward, if the feeling is that the applicant has had
adequate time to respond to these new rules? The rules have been
out there long enough to be public knowledge, everybody'S Q,K. with
that? There were no comments from the commission.
Vickery stated, we have three standards, a, b, and c. I'll just
read them: The committee may waive design standards when one of
the following criteria are met; a, yield greater compliance with
the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan; b. more affectively
address the issue or problem at given standard or provision
response to; or c. clearly necessary for reasons of fairness
related to unusual site specific constraint. So, I think it's our
job to make a finding relative to those three standards addressing
the issue bf the alignment to the street.
13
".....".
,-"
DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL BOARD
JULY 27, 1995
MOTION
Blaich stated, I move to grant a variation of the residential
design standards for building orientation finding that the shape
of the parcel presents specific restraints with the following
conditions: the low axis of the home shall be rotated in a counter
clockwise direction, and only one curb cut shall be provided for
access to the garages. Moyer seconded. Voting commenced, '\Tote was
4 in favor,one opposed (Alstrom), motion carried.
Discussion of Motion
Blaich stated, I would like to say something about why I'm
supporting staff on this, that is, if we do get feedback from the
neighborhood it is going to be on issues that are different than
this; whether this house is perpendicular to the street or not, I
suspect this is not going to be one of the biggest issues, it is
whether the house is appropriate scale, size, design, all the other
things, which we're not dealing with, I've been to the site, I've
looked at the neighborhood; I don't live in the neighborhood, but
I think it is an appropriate house for that neighborhood, in terms
of the design. It isn't an issue for me because that that's not
what we are dealing with.
Moyer stated, part of the process is also how the structure relates
to the streetscape, and I'm wondering if the landscape might not
be looked at before I continue. In our other committee we could
make a recommendation or a condition that could be worked out
between the applicant and staff, or can that be done here, as well?
Here's what I was thinking of, as we focus on the structure, we
don't the garage or driveway, particularly driveways, to be
dominant. Another part is dealing with landscaping, I notice that
these two garages have a division between them and I was wondering ,
if some landscaping could be used between the divisions to soften
the affect on the garage.
Vickery stated, so, basically, we have a motion and seconded.
motion really responds to criteria #c., clearly necessary
reasons of fairness or unusual site specific constraints.
This
for
Amidon stated, before you vote on that, maybe you should be more
specific about what rotated further means exactly, since Leslie,
Stan, or I are the ones who will look at this thing and sign a
building permit.
Alstrom stated, we can say, more in compliance with the requirement
for orientation to 3rd Street,
14
r---
DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL BOARD
JULY 27, 1995
Amidon asked, five or six inches?
Blaich stated, my feeling was that that was a staff decision to
work it out with the architect and the developer.
Moyer stated, if it can't be worked out, then, they have to come
back.
Blaich stated, part of the reasons I support that rotatins(, is the
less obvious those garages are, the better, The more you can
rotate that house on the property, the less you are going to see
the confrontation of the garages and the parking on the street on
the street side.
Vickery stated, I want to be sure which way you are rotating the
duplex,
Derrington held up his drawings and stated, this is the original,
we feel that that brings the garages from the street more
effectively,
Blaich stated, well, I said in my motion that there was confusion
from s.taff whether it should be southeast, southwest, and you have
to clarify that.
Amidon stated, we were suggesting that instead of turning the
garages so that they were more visible to the street, that the
building be turned so that they were less visible to the street.
Moyer stated, it is interesting, because, even this little
orientation gets down to overall design, So, ultimately, you come
down to overall design, and basically, as far as the neighborhood
goes, it doesn't work, Now, if the neighborhood doesn't object,
then, they can do what they want to do, But the overall design, .
from what I see, and all the things we've worked on for years, this
building doesn't work.
Alstrom stated, I agree with that.
Moyer stated, that's why you are having a problem deciding which
way to put it, I'm not here to design a building.
Alstrom stated, if the committee would look at rear yard that goes
with the two orientations, I think I would like to speak in support
of what Roger said, that we do on an appeal, need to look at all
the criteria, because if you look at the rear yard, we are supposed
to be looking at the street orientation, but if you look at the
rear yard created by both schemes, I think that the scheme that we
are saying we like better creates a better rear yard, in addition
15
"""'" ,-
DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL BOARD JULY 27, 1995
to, better street orientation. That's why I think we need to be
able to look at all issues.
Blaich stated, well, if I can respond to that; you are asking for
changes in the ordinance.
Alstrom stated, what I am saying is, what kind of rear yard is
being created by the changed orientation. I would say this looks
like a better rear yard, to me, ."
Amidon stated, but there's nothing in the checklist that discusses
the quality of someone's open space.
Vickery stated, let me bring it back for a second; I think, first
of all, we need some clarity on the motion. Let's talk about the
long axis of the structure and let's talk about you want the axis
rotated more toward the southeast, which is the lower right hand
side of the sheet, or the long axis rotated more to the southwest,
which is the lower left hand side of the sheet. I think that needs
to be clear,
Vickery stated, as it is worded right now, let's say, long axis,
southwest or southeast, This is moved southeast of what was
previously, the long axis is southeastly rotated of what was
previously submitted,
Amidon stated, we have a clock-wise or counter clock-wise
suggestion from the audience,
Chaikovska stated, does it really matter which way the door is?
They need to see which one works better, do you care which way it
orients?
Amidon stated, well, it's not my decision, but it affects how much
of the garage is seen,
Vickery stated, Well, I think the major entrance to the units are
to the sides of the garage, true? Derrington stated, yes. Vickery
stated, so, I'm assuming that if you turned it clockwise, more
towards the southwest, you've got to be talking about this other
design now. This one here. (Referring to drawings.) If you would
turn that, you would be bringing the easterly wing of this thing
down in such a way to somewhat bury the front door of the westerly
unit, I should think, the way I would read the standard, you want
to ge,t the front doors facing frontal to the street, and that would
indicate to me the counter clockwise rotation that is suggested in
I
the other plan be drafted,
16
~
~
DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL BOARD
JULY 27, 1995
Blaich stated, I think the other point, if you studied the
photographs; as a matter of fact, I was just over there again
today, and some of those photographs were taken earlier, I think,
because the foliage isn't as thick as it is now, really it is hard
to see anything on this property, and you are pushing the house
back from the existing house. It is hard to see the existing house
with the foliage,
Clauson stated, so, the real issue, it seems, is screening the
garages and maintaining the entries on the street, which it is
important that the landscape plan address that, which it seems to
do.
Vickery stated, we need to move forward at this point, we have a
motion, seconded, on the floor. Does anyone re-state the motion?
This is what I think the motion is, and correct me if I am wrong,
please, I move to grant a variation of the residential design
standards for building orientation finding that the shape of the
parcel presents a specific constraint with the following condition:
the low axis of the home shall be rotated in a counter clockwise
direction and only one curb cut shall be provided for access to the
garages, Vickery asked, is that accurate, and ready for a vote?
MOTION ON RESOLUTION
Moyer stated, before Howie leaves, before the next applicant comes,
I would like to do two things. First of all, I would like to make
a resolution from this committee that staff takes to Council, that
public input be taken during the process of the appeal, and that
public input be taken at the Design Review Appeal Board meeting,
as part of the process and that be part of Ordinance 30. I so
move, that resolution to the City Council, from staff, from this
Committee, asking for public input, The motion was seconded,
Discussion on Motion
Chaikovska stated, this would be that everybody who is building a
house must come for public notice? There were answers at random
stating only those coming for design review.
Chaikovska stated, O.K. then, you have to be specific, because you
said, up for review. Moyer stated, up for appeal. Chaikovska
stated, all those that are up for appeal must be publicly listed,
is what you asking it to be amended to,
Moyer stated, part of that motion is two parts. One, if people
are going to c6me for appeal, before staff comes in here, staff has
talked to the public. Maybe, it doesn't need to be that.
17
!"""'\
~
DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL BOARD
JULY 27. 1995
Chaikovska stated. no, just for appeal, I would think, Otherwise,
you are reviewing every single thing that they are reviewing, by
the public,
Clauson asked, Roger, would it be sufficient if we were simply to
provide a notice in the newspaper and state that the Design Review
Appeal Board is meeting at such-and-such a date,
Moyer stated, no, I think it has to go to the neighbornood, at
least, posted on the property,
Amidon stated, maybe, that's the better way to do it, not the
newspaper, but posted on the property,
Vickery stated, some sort of standard form of a notice in the
paper, say a week before the meeting, and have the property posted
a week before the meeting, or something like that, One of the
things about the public noticing, at least in the old committee,
the idea was that if this committee would be very efficient and not
get behind this public noticing thing, which drags projects out at
30 or more days, and be able to really better serve people by not
getting underneath all that "stuff", I think this committee needs
to look at whether or not they have an expertise to make the kinds
of judgements that are required to meet these three standards or
criteria, and what benefit would public noticing be, that you
couldn't otherwise anticipate. We're not granting variances.
AMENDED MOTION ON RESOLUTION
Moyer stated, I move that this Committee send a resolution to City
Council and that the Resolution state that all applicants coming
before the Design Review Appeal Board have sufficient public notice
so that the public of that neighborhood can respond. My suggestion
is that the notice be done on a board, as all notices are, on site,
and in the newspaper at a sufficient time before the meeting to let
the public know that that is happening, or however staff wants to
notify. The motion was seconded. Voting commenced, vote was
unanimous in favor, motion carried.
Moyer stated, I would like to address Howie on another issue.
Howie, I think, two issues. One, we are cast in a very unusual
position, however, I think it is the neighborhood's responsibility,
from associations, strengthen themselves so that these gastly
projects do not affect the entire neighborhood. If the
neighborhood is not interested in doing that, then, you are going
to get more duplexes and tri-plexes, and so on, that affect the
area, I think the neighborhoods have to organize, form your own
association, your own guidelines,
18
.-..
DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL BOARD
JULY 27. 1995
Alstrom stated, in fact, and Stan could correct me, but you could,
in fact, appeal the issue to City Council,
Moyer stated, yes, in fact, the neighborhood could carry this on,
if you wanted to, They are going to use the argument that you've
already got one down the street, so, they are going to build
another one. But the neighborhood could say, we've got one, we
don't want anymore, and what are you "guys" going to do about it;
you spend all this time and money on these Design Review Co~mittees
and we're still getting the same crap that we had before, that
caused all this to happen in the first place, To me, I find this
totally offensive to be sitting here, and to look at something that
is totally inappropriate, totallv inappropriate, it blows my mind,
There was discussion
regarding the Ordinance
City Council,
at random among the Committee members
30, neighborhood character guidelines, and
Vickery stated, I think this whole deal of having a driveway come
through the front yard and having these big garage doors in front
is totally against the things we have been working for, This is
a diagram just to demonstrate, that, it is incredibly easy, in this
particular plan, because all you do is put the garage doors on the
opposite side of the building, and move it a little bit. You bring
the driveway in, small driveway in the back here, access the back
with the same identical garage as from the opposite side. By doing
that, capture a real nice front yard, a usable front yard, and
somehow get the articulation of where the entries are coming from
the street. I think the real problem with this building was this
whole business (showing on drawings), as opposed to coming back in
a secondary place back in here,
Alstrom stated, I really think what Jake just showed you is that,
there are reasons, that on appeal, we should look at other issues,
Clauson
nothing
saying,
doesn't
go back
stated, Jake, let me go on record in saying that, there's
stopping you from simply turning something down, and
you"' re trying to force this footprint onto a site that
accommodate it, and you are asking us to waive a standard;
and do a different footprint,
Vickery stated, I bet you he is thinking
wonder if I can take what out of this Appeal
Adjustment, saying, heh, these "guys" made
variance on this side.
(applicant), well, I
Board to the Board of
me do this, I need a
Chaikovska stated, they may turn him down,
Blaich stated, that's the "ping-pong affect",
19
-.
-.
DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL BOARD
JULY 27. 1995
Alstrom stated, I'm only wanting to look at the record, I want to
make that clear, I don't want this to be a total Design Review
Board either, but s.econd only perhaps to Roger, I feel very
strongly that this is a very core example of what I expected to see
brought to the Committee, and so, I want to see real proof in the
record, I don't want to open up the whole issue, it all goes to
what I call, relative merit, If this had been a better looking
design, maybe I would have voted "yes" on the ori!'!ntation
exception, but because of what it looks like, I can only be so
strict on that particular standard,
Chaikovska stated, on all those discussions on Ordinance 30, they
wanted to get away from subjective design review, which is what we
had before.
Alstrom stated, it is not subjective,
processing information.
There's two ways of
Chaikovska stated, I disagree with you, I think you are saying that
if I liked the project better, I might have been easier on them,
but that's not the point, The point is, one issue, and one issue
only comes before us, and that's what's built into the ordinance,
Blaich stated, we have had this other review committee, that
several of us were on, and we did make a number of design
suggestions based on the guidelines we had to work with at that
time, In some cases they were inacted and other cases, they were
ignored. In some cases we had jurisdiction, and in other cases we
had recommendation, In a recommendation, they didn't really have
to do anything, right, they could just go back and business as
usual, but some people did come back and listen to this, I think,
there is nothing wrong with Jake, for example, saying to another
architect, oh, this is another way to solve the problem, So, I
don't object to that, but I think for now we have a Design Review
Board in that sense, because there are four practicing and one non-
practicing architects at this table right now, who would all
probably design their house completely differently, and push more
appropriately for the lot. That's not what we are dealing with;
I think if we want to change that, then, that's something else,
Otherwise, if we're not willing to accept it, I think any of us
should not sit on this Board if we're not willing to accept the
"30". I don't think "30" is a perEect thing, by any means, I think
it was a compromise and we went through an awful lot.
Alstrom stated, I seem to be in the minority in this last vote, but
I think you have to be willing to listen to someone exprest!;
concerns, because, yes, I'm going to vote on whether it meets that
standard or not,
20
,~
~
DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL BOARD
JULY 27, 1995
Vickery stated, these are gpod discussions, but we need to go about
our business, tonight. I'm sure we'll have more discussions.
765 CEMETERY LANE
'"
Amidon presented for staff and stated, there are two design
standards not met here, the first is building orientation under the
standard that requires that there must be a street oriented
entrance and street-facing principle window, They don't have a
street-facing principle window, Also, all portions of the garage,
the carport and storage area parallel to the street shall be
recessed behind the front facade by 10 ft. What is being proposed
here, this is an existing duplex on Cemetery Lane, is a two-story
addition to the west, the addition would include a garage bay and
a two-story addition above that, Again, staff has reviewed the
proposal and finds that the asked addition of the third garage
stall and the front facade of the building does not meet the design
criteria and should not be granted an exception, Additional
parking or storage could be placed at the side or the rear of the
structure. There's a mansard roof on the second story which does
make it difficult to have large windows, so, maybe, there should
be some latitude there.
The applicant, Joe Zanine, made a presentation showing pictures of
accesses off Cemetery Lane, and asked consideration in the windows
and a two-car garage. He stated it was a hardship in that there
was a certain amount of money he was able to spend on the project.
(The clerk apologizes, again, but the applicant's words were not
fully picked up by the microphone, so, therefore, I had to edit the
comments. I hope this meets with the approval of the Board.)
Chaikovska asked, how many square feet are you adding to this?
Zanine answered, 732,
Chaikovska stated, how much is the existing structure?
Zanine answered, 1,540,
Blaich asked, on the existing drive is there still going to just
be dirt for a way of travel?
Zanine answered, right now, we have gravel,
Blaich stated, does that remain, gravel?
21
,-...
,-...
DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL BOARD
JULY 27. 1995
Zanine answered. some day, if we can afford it, probably asphalt,
Blaich stated, but, right now, it will be gravel. Blaich continued
saying, another question is; I was over there and you've got a two-
car garage, but there were at least three cars par~ed in front, a
small truck and two cars, is that normal?
Zanine stated he was trying to get rid of some of the cars,
Blaich stated, the two garages, either they are not being used as
garages, or they are full and you've got three more cars par~ed
outside.
Zanine stated it was not a normal situation.
Alstrom stated,' I think it is a small scale architecture and
doesn't depart from the existing architecture and I have to, again,
look at the overall proj ect weighed against the exceptions he's
asking for. I don't thin~ what he is as~ing for, those particular
requirements on a window and and an. additional garage would make
much difference; this looks like a relatively harmless addition as
proposed,
Chaikovska stated, the principle window doesn't bother me at all,
I did want to ask a question of Amy in terms of the garage, was
that to provide for a principle window? Change the garage
location?
Amidon stated, no, no, The recommendation from Leslie and I was
that the principle window issue was not met, but it probably wasn't
a critical issue, We are much more concerned with the addition of
the garage right up the street.
Clauson stated, I think the other non-conforming issue was the
entry.
Amidon stated, no, they have a street-facing entry,
stated, so, it is only the garage,
Clauson
Blaich stated, well, I drove up and down there, back and forth,
looking at that, and it's not a street, it's a highway, to start
with. I object to one more garage door, I think it gets to look
like a gas station with all the garage doors in there, but on the
other side, if you don't allow the garage you've got a problem with
the extension on the upper level because you are using this space
below, unless you deny the garage and use that space for some other
purpose, or possibly leave the entry where it is and move the
garage over and position the entry and then split up the garages
22
,~
~
DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL BOARD
JULY 27, 1995
so you don't have the three garage doors, I don't have any
feelings about the design issue because I think a lot of those
houses in that neighborhood; this is not an issue, it is not going
to destroy the fabric of the neighborhood, I would like to see it
solved without having three garage doors on the front, but on the
other side, I don't think that, in that location, on that site,
this is a major issue.
Moyer asked, Joe, you could put the new garage addition on, which
is to the south, right? Could you enter from the north and south
and not have the doors on the street? Would that work?
Zanine said that would not work,
Moyer stated, so, you are stuck, Your argument is on that highway,
basically, all the houses, and you've got a garage in the street,
there's no other place to put them, If you re-designed the project
you could do a lot of neat things, Suppose you do it as it is
drawn; the driveway now is really wide, it is all driveway, and you
don't have a landscaping plan. Suppose you landscape it so that,
basically, you narrow the driveway and create more yard and still,
have turnaround, is that something that could happen?
Zanine stated, I think the driveway can be narrowed down somewhat.
Moyer stated, suppose we make it inexpensive. If the driveway were
narrowed down, and you put a lilac hedge on that street, the
property line, which is basically simple and which isn't asking too
much money-wise or any great expense. It would soften the whole
deal, Is that something that would work?
Zanine thought it would work,
Blaich asked, are you suggesting that in this area, that you have
one garage going into the garages, and then, you soften this whole
area with landscaping so you can drive into all three locations and
still have some on-site parking.
Moyer stated, staff is denying the garage door; I'm trying to be
pro-active here because again, we're not talking about any kind of
design issue, we're dealing with the existing architecture, what
ever it is. We're trying to be pro-active here. My question was
earlier, when we had the 85% rule, and you wanted to exceed that,
somebody came in here and they wanted to do something, but they had
to get it together. Can we use that kind of justification in this
situation with this Board, or is this not something we are allowed
to do? If someone wanted to exceed their 85% FAR, heh, great, what
are you going to give us for it? Are you going to give us a porch,
are you going to give us this or that? So, what I am asking here,
il
,"""'"
,~
DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL BOARD
JULY 27, 1995
is, give them all this, Let him give us some lilac bushes,
something that doesn't cost a fortune, screen the thing from the
highway, it is going to benefit them, they are going to get more
useable yard space and probably ~ nicer, little place.
There was discussion at random regarding the landscaping, turning
radius, and driveway.
Blaich stated, it is a nice compromise and it is not: a big
investment, whatever kind of planting, evergreen, etc,
Chaikovska stated, this way you get'your garage,
Alstrom stated, ,I want to point out, the solutions that Jake and
Roger were sketching, sort of the arterial street, the standards
were written more for a grided neighborhood street, so, in affect,
the Committee is saying, we recognize the arterial street instead
of the neighborhood street required standards. So, I think the
community eventually is going to have a lot of work to do making
resolutions on how we can manipulate on appeal.
Clauson replied, I would say that it is a desired affect of
Community Development and Engineering that we reduce the number of
curb-cuts,
Moyer stated, and if we can do it without causing a lot of monetary
expense to the applicant, we are doing a better job up here.
Vickery stated, I also think that criteria in a, and b. give us
some flexibility, because a. says, yield greater compliance with
goals of Aspen Area Community Plan, that's pretty broad, and b, it
says, and more effectively address the issue or problem a given
standard provision response, why is it in there and what's it
trying to accomplish. C, says, clearly necessary for reasons of
fairness related to unusual site specific constraints, That's the
one that really makes, I think, the required finding based on site
specific constraints so restrictively,
MOTION
Blaich stated, I' move to grant a variation of the residential
design standards for building orientation finding that the existing
designed house does not easily allow for a principle window, I
would like to change, then, I move to approve the garage on the
basis that an appropriate landscaping plan will be developed, and
yqu have had enough ideas today, and staff can interact with you
on developing that, that would allow the garage, two entries,
three-car garage and a beautification of the front of the property;
with a single entry into the parking area. Moyer seconded,
24
~
,-
DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL BOARD
JULY 27, 1995
Discussion of Motion
Buettow stated, we need to clarify this resolution, because it
doesn't state that it's going to be changed from a double-entry
driveway to a single-entry driveway, that's one issue. The
landscaping plan to be developed is another issue, and approval of'
the garage is the third issue, and a four issue is the livingroom
window, .
Chaikovska stated, you have a double-entry driveway, wider than the
double one, you might want to have somewhere in between the single
and the double, to make it a little wider,
Buettow stated, I know it shows that there's a double entry, double
curb cut, Let's just say, it will be changed to a single curb-
cut,
There was discussion at random on the issue of curb cuts.
AMENDED MOTION
Blaich stated, I move to approve a variation of residential design
standards for garages, allowing an additional garage with the
stipulation that there is a single curb-cut and an appropriate
landscaping plan to screen the property, Moyer seconded. Voting
commenced, vote was unanimous in favor, motion carried,
The applicant asked for clarification on some follow-up and was
advised by the Committee to work with staff regarding some of the
suggestions and any follow-up.
Meeting was adjourned,
Respectfully submitted,
~~--m, ~O
sha on M, Carrillo, Deputy City Clerk
25
TO
9-9255993
P.02
FEB-08-1995 12:21
FROM ASPEN/PITKIN BLDG DEPT
.1""'\
1""'\
I
I
,
i
I.
!
APPLICANT:
ADDRESS:
ZONE DISTRICT:
LOT SIZE (SQUARE FEET):
EXISTING FAR:
ALLOWABLE FAR:
PROPOSED FAR:
EXISTING NET I.EAS.AllLf (CCIllImelClal):
PROPOSED NET LEASABLE (commercial):
EXISTING %OF SITE COVEflAGE: N I A
PROPOSED % OF SITE COVERAGE: N I A
!
. ,I
VARtATJONS FlffilJESTED teli~htefnr l~ndmark~Ontv: character mmoalihiliN' finding must he made bv HPC\~
. I
I
,
I
,
- ,....
'. ....
EXISTING %OFOPEN SPACE (Commercial):
PROPOSED % OF OPEN SPACE (Commer.):
EXISTlNGMAX1MUM HEIGHT:
PROPOSED MAXIMUM HEIGHT:
PROPOSED % OF OEMOlfl'K)N:
EXISTING NUMBER OF BEDROOMS:
PROPOSED NUMBER OF BEDROOMS:
eXISTING ON.SITE PARKING SPAces:
ON~ITE PARKING SPACES REQUIREO:
SFTBACKS:
EXISTING:
Front:
Rear:
Side:
Combined FrontlRear:
N/A
EXISTING NONCONFORMlTIESI
ENCROACHMENTS:
FAR:
SETBACKS:
N' 11,.
Front
Rear:
Side:
Comllined Frt.IRr:
. - ~- .. ...
.. '~'.-
n_ "..
-.--.... '-
Mr. Harold Dude
6585 Dillman Rd"
i
Bel~h. F'T.
i
3
1 6
Wes::t Palm
NIA
N/A
~Blda .
Prirriml RIM.=
I Nmrsav B~"
I~RIm.
"
N/A
N/A
4 (:>i=l~h llnj t. tnr~l A
NIl\.
5 each unit; 10 total
ALLOWABLE:
Front 1 n -f+-
Rear: 10 ft
Side: 5ift min .ttl
Combined FrtJRr: N / a
PROPOSED:
Front: 111 +'-10,
Rear: I 1Q Tt-
12.5Side:' .. 61ft- '" in
Combined FronllRear. i H i ~
! I.
MInimum 0i5tance BellNeen &.ikings:
Parldng Spaces:
Open Space (Coll1merciaI):
Height (Collage lnfiIl Only):
Sile Coverage (Collage InfiIl OrlIy):
i
i.
TOTAL P.02
,~
~
EXHIBIT B
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
overlay Zone District Sub-Committee
Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer
TO:
RE:
1011 and 1015 E. Hopkins Ave.
DATE:
February 28, 1995
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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 will be applied. The applicant requests approval
for construct,ion of a new duplex on a vacant lot. The proposed FAR
for this 7,500 sq.ft. RMF lot is 3,840 sq.ft., which is the maximum
allowable. The special review process is mandatory as is
compliance with the Committee's findings.
NOTE: Elevations of the east and west facades were not provided
in the application. These should be presented at the meeting.
APPLICANT: Harold Dude and Thomas Fellman, represented by Gibson
and Reno Architects.
LOCATION: The eastern half of Lot C, all of Lot 0, And all of Lot
E, Block 33, City of Aspen.
STAFF COMMENTS: Please refer to the application for the complete
representation of the proposal. Planning staff finds that this
project is SUbstantially in compliance with the general and
specific neighborhood guidelines.
Rather than discuss each guideline (including those which are met) ,
only the elements of the proposal which warrant further discussion
have been highlighted below. The applicable general and specific
guidelines have been grouped together by subject.
STAFF EVALUATION:
Mass and Scale
Guidelines: 2. New buildings should appear to be similar in scale
to those in the established neighborhood, or to the scale that is
desired for the neighborhood. 17. New buildings should be
sensitive in scale to existing, smaller buildings in the
neighborhood.
Response: In general, Staff finds that the project is compatible
:-,
.~
with the neighborhood in many respects, including pedestrian scaled
details and building form. The neighborhood contains a few single
family and duplex structures, but in general is mUlti-family. East
Hopkins Avenue is an important pedestrian corridor as many people
walk along this street to access the pedestrian bridge.
The existing grade on this side of the East Hopkins Avenue is
significantly higher than it is on the opposite side of the street,
creating a natural barrier between the house and the pedestrian.
The adjacent affordable housing project which is currently under
construction dealt with this situation unsuccessfully in staff's
opinion, by excavating the ground and locating garages along the
street. Not only are the garages "unfriendly" to the pedestrian,
but the building appears to be even taller and more massive. staff
finds the current applicant's approach more appropriate.
The height and general form of the duplex closest to the river has
been repeated in the affordable housing project and to some degree
in the duplex currently under review. staff suggests that the
architect emphasize this relationship by creating a step down in
heiqht of some element on the street facade.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Committee approve the
request to exceed 85% of the allowed FAR at 1011 and 1015 E.
Hopkins Avenue, and that the architect consider designing some
element of the new structure that steps down in height
approximately five feet on the north facade.
Additional Comments:
(
(
\,
\.
"
--
~, EXHIBIT C
OVERLAY SUBCOMMITTEE
FEBRUARY 28, 1995
,
Meeting was called to order by chairman Jake Vickery with Sara
Garton, Bruce Kerr, Robert Blaich and Don Erdman present.
COMMITTEE COMMENTS
Amy: The 904 E. Cooper project is getting ready to submit for a
building permit and condition of approval was that they were to
just show staff final design, The proposed changes on the E- L are
the elimination of stone altogether. My concern is that ohey also
changed the indentation going to the ADU and have made it a flat
plane. I thought that might be something that you are not in favor
of because it is the only break in the wall. There is a little
over hang over it,
Robert: They changed the material.
Jake: Were the other elevations consistent to what was approved?
Robert: At the last meeting they were.. not sure of the stone and
have they make ,a choice on the stone yet.
Amy: They have not indicated materials. On the connector they
used to have the barrel roof and at the meeting they indicated they
wanted to go to a gabled roof and the commission said that was OK
but it should still have a different roofing materials and they
want it all shingle. I said we wanted to hold to the different
materials so that the structures looked broken up.
Sara: I think the owner liked the idea of wood shingles.
Amy: It is a cost cutting issue now,
Jake: We could add this to the agenda.
MOTION: Robert made the motion to add 904 E. Cooper to the agenda; .
second by Donnelley. All in favor, motion carries.
lOll lllilD 1015 E. HOPKINS AVENUE
Amy: This is a proposed new duplex in the east aspen neighborhood,
Because the grade on this side of the street is so much higher than
the other side it has created a strange relationship between the
buildings and pedestrians. I found the proposed building handled
that situation better than the affordable housing one. My concerns
or suggestions were that the form of the building has been carried
across and I felt that maybe a lower one story or some element
might be a good rhythm to keep. There is a five feet step between
the buildings and possibly some other indentation could be made but
the building is sort of U shaped,
Scott Smith, Gibson Reno Architects:
Things we took into
.--
--
..
(
OVERLAY SUBCOMMITTEE
FEBRUARY 28, ~99S
(
consideration were hopefully the same goals that you all have in
terms of being compatible with the neighborhood characters within
this one block, I am also trying to integrate the new bui~ding in
with the existing building in the neighborhood and as best we could
relate to the sidewalk or the walking experience that would occur
down below. There is quite a level change at the existing bench.
The house under construction now is providing 2 1/2 stories height
of the building to the street side but cutting out part of the
bench when this is almost three stories at street level, ' What we
were trying to do to the duplex is set it back on the lot several
feet further than the required setback to try and give us as much
buffer as possible. Staggering the plans slightly to break up the
building massing and provide close to a 40 foot steep landscaped
area as somewhat of a buffer between the sidewalk and the building.
Other ways to create scale measures was to integrate it into the
neighborhood sort of create a visual bridge between some of the
shapes of the housing proj ect that is going up and the single
family residence such as picking up on the gabled roofs and trying
to break up the massing of the building, We are using traditional
materials with the stone and wood lap siding and timber accents.
The height of the building is several feet lower than the maximum
height allowed. The height was broken up with bay elements to help
break up the massing. The bay elements are important to the
function of the plan,
Donnelley: Why did you go to a cedar shake roof instead of a cedar
shingled roof as the guidelines tend to call for shingled,
Scott Smith: I am not sure there is any important reason for that.
I believe the house on the corner has cedar shakes and that might
have had something to do with it.
Donnelley: Traditionally the shake roof is a larger scale and we
tend to. not look favorable on a shake as we would a shingle,
Possibly it was an oversight,
Scott Smith: I do not feel it is that important of an element,
Sara Garton: Do either of you know why this is such odd terrain,
is it from the mining days that the knoll or huge rise happened
then suddenly it sinks to a flat area. This has nothing against
the application but suddenly to the people across the street there
are three homes there. The three buildings now have changed the
neighborhood but you are within the code,
Robert Blaich: The view is gone,
Leslie:
If this is the existing grade nothing can happen,
\
2
,-.,
;...........,
(
OVERLAY SUBCOMMITTEE
FEBRUARY 28, 1995
Jake: It should be measured from the new grade if it is lower than
the existing.
Leslie: We are proposing to change that.
Leslie: We use original natural grade and the county uses the
later.
Amy: Right now there are only sidewalks on the opposite, side of
the street.
Jake: You are proposing steps in the right-of-way,
Leslie: Typically the city does not accept permanent landscaping
features in the right-of-ways.
Robert Blaich: The drawings are misleading because it does show
the planting on the street side but that is prohibited in that
area,
c
Sara: I do not. know if a sidewalk will work on that side because
not only does the affordable housing driveway aprons come all the
way out Erindale's driveway comes all the way out also, It makes
more sense of the sidewalk to be on the other side,
Amy: I do not think you could get sidewalks across as this is a
major pedestrian area.
Leslie: The plan makes it look like the vegetation is intended to
hide the exposure.
Scott Smith: That would be the intent. It will be one story fully
below grade except for the window well areas,
Robert Blaich: In terms of following the plan with the landscaping
and they decide not to do it and you then have the window wells
sitting out there, What kind of control do we have with that, I
feel that is a serious issue.
Amy: I think if I would have recognized that it was going to be
scooped out my comments would have been that it ~s not an
appropriate location for window wells and in the neighborhood
character guidelines light wells should not be on the primary
facades of buildings. If there is a place on the side for windows
wells maybe that should be looked at.
Scott Smith: I think there are ways that we could deal with the
grade and landscaping to hopefully accomplish the visuals from the
street,
3
!'""';
!'""';
('
OVERLAY SUBCOMMITTEE
FEBRUARY 28, 1995
Jake: There is a new building code that the light wells can only
be three by three if they are deeper than 2 1/2 feet.
COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS
Donnelley: I mentioned already that the roof needs changes and
secondly the roof eaves fascia is very heavy and tend to be more
of a commercial or non-residential scale. I would. necommend
changing that. Also the discussion of the window wells on the
street facade, that any window wells on the street facade we tend
to discourage, Perhaps a smaller element that would supply light
would be a better substitute.
Sara: I understand the glazing on the south elevation but it might
need addressed somewhat,
Scott Smith: The south L is not something that could visually be
seen.
Sara: My only concern was the window wells and I am happy there
will be a berm.
(
\.
Robert Blaich: You said earlier in your presentation you were
trying to deal with the other dwellings that were existing or under
construction and the one on the far right I would lean more heavily
on in terms of scale and mass, Architecturally there is a lot of
stone and those are things of concern.
Jake: I feel the front grade is a unique situation to the site and
I feel some sort of a port form would help lower the facade height,
I would allow your roofing materials as it is on the east end and
not in a heavy victorian area so there could be flexibility,
Rustic detailing in Aspen in some areas is appropriate. The
condition of the entire front block needs looked at by City'-
engineering and let them tell us what there plan is in terms of
pedestrian circulation and street scape and trees, The window
wells have been addressed so I will not reiterate.
Sara: I thought the railings helped.
Jake: I feel it needs restudied.
Scott Smith: I feel putting all the windows off to one side of the
long room would be a lot less desirable.
Donnelley: If you look at this in reality and where your grade is
indicated at the street elevation the deck actually is a lid on the
window well. It physically doesn't work.
4
.-,
-,
(
OVERLAY SUBCOMMITTEE
FEBRUARY 28, 1995
Scot t Smith: The only way it would work is if the window well
extended out beyond the deck,
Donnelley: As it is draw it could not be built that way.
Bruce: This is mandatory review and compliance,
MOTION, Donnelley made the motion that the project at i011 and
1015 E. Hopkins be approved because it is insubstantial compliance;
however, the street side of lightwells shall be moved to sideyards,
I will explain as two things cannot occupy the same space, a deck
cannot occupy the space. Or you could remove the deck, one or the
other however the lightwells would then have to be in compliance
with other aspects of the code; second by Bruce,
DISCUSSION
Jake: What about sidewalk referral to city engineers,
AMENDED MOTIONi Donnelley amended the motion that the whole
streetscape situation being sidewalk, pedestrian and the actual
line of the street and how elevations would be dealt with should
/' be referred to city engineering for clarification and design;
( second by Bruce.
Scott Smith:
allow the deck
be acceptable,
If we can enlarge the one window well slightly to
to work without infringing on the setback would that
Donnelley: I still do not know how two objects can occupy the same
space at the same time, It is required egress. A cross section
would be required to even answer that question.
Jake: I would like to leave the applicant flexibility in dealing:
with the situation,
Sara: I would like to see the railings retained.
Jake: I feel the follow-up should be handled by staff.
VOTE, All in favor of motion and amended motion, motion carries.
Sara: The neighborhood drawings are terrific and it is one of the
best applications for detailing,
i
\.
5
'.
(
(
\..-
"""
"""
OVERLAY SUBCOMMITTEE
FEBRUARY 28, 1995
904 E. COOPER
Robert Blaich: The applicant stated at the last meeting if they
went to a different roof structure they might have to raise or
lower the center roof, We need to look at the old and new drawings
together,
Leslie: I will tell the applicant it is too big of a change and
we will have to schedule another meeting unless you do what was
approved,
MOTION: Sara made the motion to adjourn, second by Robert, All
in favor, motion carries,
Meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m,
Kathleen.J, Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
6
-.
~
\
j
7.',"" .
~~~~Ij~:.:~~.~~"~
~
~, ..
: ''lU~iionall)'. the width of a plane oj:1 building front
r~..:~edfromfifteen CO rhirry feet wide. .Yew buildings
should continue 10 express Ihese proporrions,
Entries shotdd be in scaLe with rhose ;ee!!. traditionally.
"Grand" el :ries. such as {his. are inappropriate.
Aspen- Neighborr.0od Charoc~er Desi;:l Guice!ines
-.
EXHIBIT 0
Design Guidelines for the
East Aspen Neighborhood
The design guidelines in this chapter apply to all
projects in the East Aspen Neighborhood, in addition
to the chapter of General Guidelines for All Neigh-
borhoods. When considering the appropriateness of
a project with respect to these guidelines, also con-
sider how the project will help to accomplish the
design goals for the neighborhood.
Mass & Scale
17. New building should be sensitive in
scale to existing, smaller buildings in the
neighborhood.
a, Buildings should appear to be similar in scale to
traditional residential structures of the East As-
pen neighborhood, This is especially important
in this neighborhood,
b, Divide larger projects into modules that are
similar to those of buildings seen traditionally,
Traditionally, facade widths for single family
houses ranged from 15 feet to 30 feet wide,
c, Step buildings down in scale as they approach
adjacent smaller structures,
d. Locate some floor area in secondary structttres,
to reduce the overall mass and scale of building
on the site,
e, To help establish a sense of scale, use windows
and doors that are similar in size and shape to
those seen traditionally,
Building form
18. Building forms should appear similar
to those used traditionally in Aspen.
a, See the General Guidelines.
Page 15
~
~ I ,! II
Ii
~,...., ,Fr'
~ 1...:..
=.: .1~
~ .;dd ,il
(.u.;. . '.-'<'- j:
~
~i
I .1
=
-
-~
Divide !ar'5er ?Tojec:s iruo rT'.oau.ies:h.at :;re ~'imi;cr :0
those ~eer!. :raa'i:ionaily.
Gable rooj/orms ~re prejerred,
r::S::::i:~:::;~::,::~.'.;;"'"
;
-'
"' ':::-""~'_"-""'"
Avoid sur):.!!."'! :erraces or drives rr.c.r ~:e?arr;,re :he yard
from 'he ~r~~:Jr -'e"e'
"... ....<;....., "-.
P3~e ~ 6
~
Site plan
19. Provide a front yard in all develop-
ment.
a. Oearly define the yard.
b, Minimize the amount of paving that is exposed
to street.
20. Buffer edges of the site from adjacent
properties with fences or hedges.
a. Fences should be low and open in character
especially in front of the building.
b. See also the general guidelines.
21. Locate the primary f100rat ornear side-
walk grade.
a. Avoid sunken terraces that separate the main
entrance from the street level.
Materials
22. Use unatural, or native" building
materials.
a. Finished clapboard, log and masonry are appro-
priate.
b. See also the General Guidelines for All Neigh-
borhoods.
c. Greater variety in trim materials and those of
windows and doors is appropriate in this neigh-
borhood,
,
Windows & Doors
,23. Use windows and doors that are
similar in size and shape to those seen
traditionally to help establish a sense of
scale. '
24. The solid-to-void ratio, as seen from
the street, should be similar to that seen
traditionally in residential areas of Aspen.
.~\
\
I
I
.I
'::'--',
_.- ~~. >.....::.,..;
~.
)
Architectural features
25. The use of porches is strongly
encouraged.
a. ProvidepoD:hes,orienled to thesll:eet.utdscaJed
to be similar to those seen historically.
26. Clearly identify the primaJ:y entrance..
a. To'll! entry should be in scale with those seen
tnditioMlly in residential areas of Aspen.
b. Use dOOlS similar in scale to those seen tndi-
tionally in residential areas of Aspen.
c. Consider a central, shaxed entry for multi-fam..
ilyunits that would appear to be a single, domi-
nant entry.
Aspen Neighborhood Characte, Design Guidelines
.~
E= Aspen
Provide II porch, which is oriented ro rite street and
scaled to be similar ro those seen historically.
Page 17
~&lZ;lP", .
, i IZ.~I- lYOZ I
J " ~ I
@}i
...
~.
fA/f.
{
_.
\
. <.~
.
11
in
i I I
I
. . "[ r,
:@J
;~ , . 1:1
1.(, ,
,. ,
. ,
,,~
,
5e,~o'f\', . '.
'." ~.~'~ : :~:' i',~Yu,.;:t, lUt... ". '... .l.' \
o..,~,.. '..
. to "'.,... ,,' .' . . '.' '~... ,', .
'. - - .. .
'),\~:'. ,:,' ., ' .. .
W'''''',_.,_."
.- '..~ '.
....,..
R /
-!~/
1-,
j ;
r
.-.,
rj
I .
, I
.; I
t ~_..-1
1-- ____
.
i
, --
-~ _1'-1T'Gl ij;, t t------- .
--"':i:~-'C"'-'4. ..'~"-"- ...
..--.--- I !
I
;
,- '.......
I.
I
i
,
I
I
,
i
! hit?" ~ t.~ I
"
I
I
,
I
,
I
""11
I
~l';>(:'._
.i:::l.A.V11ejZ. 4 z
. ~.......,:..
..~- -'-",
,..:..
. ,f.' . '. .-.
, ...~, ',,;-r
.;....
. '-\-:"::~"~(' "
s.
r"... "
"'.,,..- .\
'.]!
,
!
'j
"1 : 'Ii
. I
! I,
I"
"'1
~.. d'_:
;;"-C"~":_'-:
'~"
l~'1
I
~ ';
I
i
I
. '
I.
r-
.. .____..._h......
~
j/\.J 1
IZa?tJ
~
'11, I,
f . I: q ~
!; I:;;
n ;l. ' ~
"":1
"( 11 ~
~ \ , f1
i1\1 ~
'lit
!! 1 j ~
;l;:h
~ tl t
. (~Ii ~
HI.,
; 1 ~
r,
"
~
i
. ,
"
I.
I.
Ii
"-;",:"~..,.
~. :::"".;.\:.,;....,'.'....._'~. .J..''''',...... .......
'''>''~'.'' .
--'-
Ui
~
C)
~
.
, ij~~
~.6
CJ)' ..-
,-
Ut
: ,
l...:i
T
I
I
.t..--....
.......
!ij
;-----~'--' :-. --.".-..-
. '?-,'
, t
.:"
~'ff--
'il r-----
it'; ~~
m : ~ i
r I l\,)
"'R I _,
_. ;.!_- ..,~. _._~ ~._,.._-
" i
- - - -j'
.. . -~. ..'
, .'
~'
~:,'
, ,',:f'\
"~
~'- r, :
~'" , I,' ", '" ", I
ft. Lt~e. (f)t1 tJ81<.~V-er '
I j', I
,
i
i r.',t...; i < .,
;. t..,)' f :. 'I'
L ,~ ,.... " '
__-+--_____--l .
, ' ,"
f' "'"'' .
'I '
'1'
,
. ,.;. ,
, '
~
.
I
L
'j"
"Y'. '
--- :...-
f\\-\-;
\ ''S~+~~ t \.
_0 Y\ 'S,d. <2.... ... "
lo.)
~ C.o..'(\,M-t
, . ~(~~~
3''{..3' -
-
"
r
i
i
"
1
I'
,
I
.f
., 'I"
..
I "
::2'-0'
t
- -
,<1'
. <,to
',~~' -, _<v'
-:. 'I . -. ~,
4'-10'
. '
~ 1 eG.l
.
5'-<;
,
III
~,
-r'-~
"
I
L._____
'.,
, '.
.s
,---_...;.-. !
-'
1
j
.
,:'
...
!
"
J
~
f-
r',
I
I
;-,
,~~ -
- .-' ~:;:~-:~__:_._~~__. ___~_. 8_'_0_
.<:....
'::21'-0" ,
25'-10'
,-."
.-
APPLICATION SUBMISSION
Ordinance No. 35, 1994, City of Aspen
1. The name of the applicant is:
Purchaser: Mr. Harold Dude
6585 Dillman Road
West Palm Beach, Florida 33416
(407) 683-4795
(407) 683-2363 (Fax)
Current
Owner:
Mr, Thomas Fellman
801 North 96th Street
Chnaha,Nebraska68114
(402) 392-1800
(303) 925-6538
(402) 392-2502 (Fax)
Architect
Representative:
Gibson & Reno Architect
202 East Hyman, Suite 202
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925-5968
(303) 925-5993
2, The Street address is 1011 and 1015 East Hopkins. The
legal description is the eastern half of Lot C, all of Lot
D, and all of Lot E, Block 33, East Hopkins Avenue;
otherwise known as Lot 2 Fellman Lot Split, as
recorded October 31, 1994 in Plat Book 35 at page 67
as Reception No, 375935.
3, A current copy of the survey is attached as prepared by
Alpine Surveys, Inc., Job. No. 94.20.3
4, A copy of the current title insurance is attached per
Stewart Title of Aspen, Inc" 620 East Hopkins,
Aspen, Colorado 81611, (303) 925-3577;
Fax (303) 925-1384.
5. A vicinity map is attached with the proposed duplex
drawings.
~
1""'\
February 15. 1995
Page 2
Application Submission
6. The neighborhood is located in the RMF zone district of
Aspen. The character of the existing neighborhood is
primarily multifamily residential with a small mix of
single family and duplex residences. The existing
buildings are all arranged rectalinear with most of the
entries oriented toward Hopkins Avenue.
The adjacent buildings on the same block as the
proposed duplex all contain gable-type roofs, which are
oriented towards Hopkins Avenue. There are also a
number of flat roofed and hip type roofs located within
the neighborhood, Materials that are commonly used on
the adjacent buildings are both horizontal and vertical
wood siding; stone; wood cedar shake and asphalt
roofing; and a small amount of stucco,
The scale of the adjacent buildings are moderate.
however each one of them has broken up the mass
through the use of smaller elements. These include roof
intersections, porches, modulation of the wall facades,
and use of different materials on the facade.
All of the adjacent buildings have been sited to create a
front yard and in this all are approximately ten (1) feet
deep from the property line to the building (or
approximately forty (40) feet from the edge of Hopkins
Avenue to the building).
The windows that are used in the adjacent buildings are
all vertical and the entrances are of a small human scale
and clearly identifiable.
~
pr.,
February 15, 1995
Application Submission
page 3
7. The proposed residential duplex compliments the
neighborhood by keeping the mass of the structure in
scale with the adjacent buildings. This is achieved by
making each of the units twenty five (25) feet in width,
which was a traditional characteristic for single family
houses, Added to this is the facade being broken up
mass-wise through the use of a small scale porch;
shifting of the units in the North/South direction by five
(5) feet; placement of vertical type landscaping
(deciduous type trees) between the units; and the use of
an Architectural bay help to break up the mass of the
street facade.
The use of different materials on the facade also help to
break-down the scale. Wood cedar shake roofs are
proposed, which was typical or at least similar to
traditional roofing materials, Horizontal wood shingle
siding for the upper portion of the building will help
keep the building to more of a human scale from the
perspective of decreasing the verticality. The "small
piece" characteristics of the siding will also break up the
facade into a much smaller feeling.
The use of stone at the base of the building (street level)
is seen on some of the adjacent buildings and is being
proposed for the duplex, This feature also breaks up the
verticality of a building; is a practical use of material
regarding our climate, primarily snow accumulation
along building walls.
The proposed building has been designed with vertical
type windows (primarily double hung) with true divided
light glazing. This aspect helps to break the scale down
even further.
A
1""\
February 15, 1995
Ms. Amy Amidon
AspenlPitkin County Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
~
RE: Application Related to Ordinance No. 35
1011 and 1015 East Hopkins A venue
Proposed Duplex
Dear Amy:
Please accept the attached infonnation for a proposed duplex,
which is designed at 100 of the allowed floor area. It is our
intention to be scheduled for the next Design Review, which I
believe is February 28, 1995.
I have enclosed the foIlowing:
1.
Application for Submission
a,
b.
c.
d,
e.
f,
g.
h,
i,
Name of the Applicant
Letter of Authorization to represent the Owner
Street address and legal description
Current survey
Disclosure of Ownership
Vicinity map
Description of the existing neighborhood
Description of the project
Design Drawings
1) SitelLandscape Plan
2) Floor Plans (3)
3) North & South Elevations
4) Block Streetscape Elevations
A check in the amount of $489,00 for the
submission fee.
Zoning fonn
j.
.~
k.
DAVID
GIBSON,
AlA
AUGUST
RENO,
AlA
SCOTT
SMITH,
AlA
,'.jl\\f-10fi/Fc',
GIBSON. RENO
,ARCHITECTS,
III
210 E, HYMAN
NO 202
ASPEN
COLORADO
81611
303.925.5968
FACSIMILE
303,925,5993
P,O, BOX 278
117 N, WILLOW
N'2
TELLURIDE
COLORADO
81435
303,728,6607
FACSIMILE
303.728.6658
.1"""'\
Thomas Fellman
801 N, 96th Street
Omaha, NE 68114
(402) 392-1800
(303) 925-6538
February 14, 1995
Ms. Amy Amidon
AspenlPitkin County Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: Application Related to Ordinance No. 35
Dear Ms. Amidon:
Please accept this letter as authorization for the firm of Gibson
and Reno Architects located at 210 E. Hyman Ave., Suite 202
in Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-5968 to submit and
process the Application related to Ordinance No. 35 for a
Proposed Residential Duplex above the eighty five per cent
(85% ) of the floor area allowed,
If you should have any questions please feel free to contact me.
';J[:~ 1eh ~
Thomas Fellman
.1"'.,
~,
~
/-'""",
"'7
~
SCHEDULE B - SECTION 1
ORDER NUMBER: 00021517
REQUIREMENTS
THE FOLLOWING ARE THE REQUIREMENTS TO BE COMPLIED WITH:
ITEM (A) PAYMENT TO OR FOR THEACCO~'1'9FTHEGRANTORS OR MORTGAGORS
OF THE FULL CONSIDERATION FOR THE ESTATE OR INTEREST TO BE INSURED.
ITEM (B) PROPER INSTRUMENT(S) CREATING THE ESTATE OR INTEREST TO BE
INSURED MUST BE EXECUTED AND DULY FILED FOR RECORD, TO WIT:
1. Partial Release of Deed of Trust dated March 4, 1994, executed
by Thomas H. Fellman, to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County to
secure an indebtedness of $900,000.00 in favor of Pitkin County
Bank & Trust Company, recorded March 4, 1994 in Book 743 at Page
524 as Reception No. 367588.
2. A. Certificate of non-foreign status, duly executed by the
seller(s), pursuant to section 1445 of the Internal Revenue Code
AND
B. satisfactory evidence of the seller(s) Colorado residency
(or incorporation) pursuant to Colorado House Bill 92-1270.
NOTE: Section 1445 of the Internal Revenue Code requires
witholding of tax from sales proceeds if the transferor (seller)
is a foreign person or entity. Colorado House Bill 92-1270 may
require witholding of tax from sales proceeds if the seller(s)
is not a Colorado resident. Detailed information and Forms are
available from Stewart Title.
3. Evidence satisfactory to Stewart Title Guaranty Company,
furnished by the Office of the Director of Finance, City of
Aspen that the following taxes have been paid, or that
conveyance is exempt from said taxes:
(1) The "Wheeler Real Estate Transfer Tax" pursuant Ordinance
No. 20 (Series of 1979) and (2) The "Housing Real Estate
Transfer Tax" pursuant to Ordinance No. 13 (Series of 1990).
4. Deed from vested owner, vesting fee simple title in
purchaser(s).
""""
.~
,po
SCHEDULE A
ORDER NUMBER: 00021517
1. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 12, 1994 AT 8:00 A.M.
2. POLICY OR POLICIES TO BE ISSUED: AMOUNT OF INSURANCE
A. ALTA OWNER'S POLICY $ 755,000.00
PROPOSED INSURED: HARALD DUDE
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 SI}fi>LE AND TITLE THERETO IS AT THE
EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF VESTED I>>:
THOMAS H. FELLMAN
4. THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS COMMITMENT IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
Lot 2, FELLMAN LOT SPLIT, according to the Plat thereof recorded
October 31, 1994 in Plat Book 35 at Page 67 as Reception No.
375935.
County of Pitkin, State of Colorado
OWNERS:
TAX CERT.
$
$
918.50
20.00
STEWART TITLE OF
ASPEN, INC.
620 E. Hopkins
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
303 925-3577
FAX 303-925-1384
--
.
<! '.
t
+ 9,
-
-0 ~
.-
~ J
0J 9,
"
.<
ia ~~
~e Q ~ ~!
~ '-lJ
In U~
~+
0
~~
~~~
~~~
"""'.0 C 'g It:!>.~ 9.M..~;-,o!;.Iit;"':;9N/~YN..IO~IY'."g ~
~ 61~$.O (5 - .
1\ II T if,' 1 J ' oo.(XJ/'O':iIO~il~ ,1.'1,1. -07.1. \ "...."
'" II 'III \1 6!"l \ \ /'
/ I I '~~--"", \ I
../ I II I I .... /( "".Sb...... \ \ \
.....,'.. I I I 'I I I I I < (_:J " \ ',\.
~.... ........' II I I' I \ ...... 1:::: \ ,"'-
........_ _....... ) I I I ,I I ,...._........ ~':j \' " ..............
------- ..,.... J I I' I I 1 " will \ 1 ...., ...---~
,/ I I I I I I..... IJ:' ---------...... ,,....... ....----....
, I II I I ('Oil:!.... !=:t- \ ...--- ...... \ / /- ---_-::---........,
I J I I \.... '.... 6'""' \', ........""'-" / " ","'" .....-..."'~... \
{ ( Iii i I \" ~ ''"' ~ '<~}O \\ ~C ///i;?i3); I /1',1
I I I I 'I I ~ IS: I I , , , 'I '+~ " / I I ,
1\ : II \ \ I \ ~",li / J 9 t '\ \, (,\1.]...>0' i III
I I I I I I I OJ:/\ I (z..$, \J' ,---- /' i.1, ~
I , '1,1, \ / \j:1-1&-.'... -'" _______ 1,1........... ,....."'t;'.Il'"'l:..
I I I I t /.. Z 0 / -- -. ----.... I -- ....' / .,.,0' <5:;-
I I I J II \ I / ~~~? ~ ~ Q ')'.1 ...._--;:::::-</ /Ii j;'
I , , , I \ /~~- ~ 11..1 lrl \~--:.:--_........ lQ
\ I / 'I \ I I.... '---', \L. "- '-::-----"'\ ~
I / / If I \ / / ! ""'" ~~---,,!
I I I ' 1;, I 1 / I I '---------~. I
I / J / // / ~I /:" " \ \..
/ I Ii /~/,/, /1/ I J \ .........-- -501
1/1,'(,//1 I I .,.._' \.
1'/11/1,1/ I l I'"
I'll ' I /1/ / I I 00'001 '........
,1\1 ' I I I I I
I \\1 II J I I I \ / 2. , .i"lN
i 1\\ III / '-... _ $}
11\\ I III II --
I I 1\ \ I
'1\\ \ I \'
, ) \ \ \ I I
,
/'
Jo-...... ....,....... '
...-...------
r-.
\lJ
~
~
~
"<(.
cf)
~
......
~
~
(;)
:t:
f.-
It)
<(
la.l
r-
l" - - -'7
-----
'f~
~~.
~~
J
;~a
~~]
...'" -
. ~-~~
$
g
.
~~
.~~
5!~
n
....--,
/ '
\
I
I
I
I
,
,
I
~
I
'-
~
~.
"
....J:
Q."
PA:O
<t~
~~
II
-.;0,
~
~
I\:: ~~
'.-' >-
11\ '"
19 ~~
:z: l:;
~ -u
-~ ~:;
..J F
bd !(
..JIL.. '"
J..:
...;
14
t<'\
'"
~
\)
\)
-..l
1(\
}...
Ia.J
-..l
-..l
'" .t!
. !
I ~JI
Ibl
8
~~
~~
o
.
D)
~p
~
.~
..L3 ?1}J19
"I
III
Iii,
III
til
1111
III,
IIII
hll
,'!II
II,
1111
Iff
aN v-'13A37?
"
\ '!
f "
Ii
I
o<<yaO'loa . MaclBY
SNDldOH
x:il'IcffiU
glOI ~ nOI
9'4.
III~I~.
11.11
ft:;).,,?
~2
:;::
-,~~'-:---'-,
-/ ".."
A~ A~
h~.~,J I""~ !i-~t.'\
!:4,; ~,! '(;\
!~;;;r: .1.:
~'=
"~c ()
\.~~
~ ~ ~~~ .~
! lIaqa lh
'-..- I i h I
!~ I ~l !
pfllGrl, III
d
ilnNilA V eND'dOH
r-----------------------
b /- ,
.......... / // . !, "..........-...~Jl
'", / /I i
- ~~~~-...1InMIr~7---------- --~~... f-r---------i
""-../ ....11 i
'. I' l' ------~--I
---
~~~ ~~~!
.........~..._--_.~~~...-...~~~_.... :
i
,
~
.1""'\
I.
r-, ----rio' ----------
.......~.......~~.........~~..
I ! ,.'
It:..
f--------f- __'
;.____w______...__ _~----
'i l: ..
l. i I'
" :
t''-.. I:
I '---._,,~.:
i '
,
,
I
,
i
ji
"-
-,
"
'--,-
'"
"
"
"
r'
-~..._~~-~~~..~~
~~~........
-"'\
\
/
// ,
~ // Ii
I ,I ,
~ I II
I '
i (
, i I ~ /
I \ /'/
! \" ,I /...~-
f, " : !
! !
I \ , I
! 1 .
J , I
I /, J \
~..1~~ /' \ .
/1' 'l -------:--.. \
h.l~---: --:l~ :~----------;;;=j -
l/ : r I \
!I I ~ I
I I;'
____________1_ __~.
i
r'
~
....~---~_..........~_...~\
..
\
)
i
,
,
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
w...~_........ l
", ! //
,,<'---
',,-
"
--.
C'II--!><
o
..J
~
~
!a
;;
i!>
~
~~ -=:::-.=.:=.....:::::....
)d11 1 V
1.1.-:;
~;"
'.
"j:
I
,
I
_u
,
1--.
--------1
I
i
,
,
I
'\. I
"'-.
i
,
,
, ---------1
: I
I
.
, ,
____---1______________________
\
.
~
...J
lL lil
UJ~
I- .
d)~
..
~r
.0
~E
'm
\'!jU
r
m
~
r
-n
r
o
o
jU
lJ
r
~
.. ~
0--
. n Ii
>
~ I 1;1
~I ;1
I I'
0 Iii
III
H . i '
~ 10'-2' ...... ......
t
~
@)-- -, -,- ,- ' ----
......0-
.....
...o..ol!.:l:" 0'"
. z
~
"
, ~I
a ~~ I
~ I
~ I
" ' ...
~ ~
@----
@)---- -
"
~
.
Q 00
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
~.
II
3~
I~
.
:
~
~I
I
.
~ ....
4>-
~.. ~,~.
II
\,
I \,
I \
GG
I
o
15'."
1 ".~
i
I
, I-
~-Q)>\,
,f<:!~ ,(, ,_:\
ttl ~::},," '\
l',~. .~;:'<'j
f!J ,~' \
f.",
,,':~
:::\
-.
....,....
',',p .
":f1j;,'
.'''0'
..'OC'
:2lJIofC"
· >- r ~ r r r 1011 & 1015 EAST HOPKINS
~ DUPLEX
II-"
~.
I
I
I
I
I
---t' -- ----- - ----0""",
,
I
I
I
I
I
@
I
-- --- ---@
~
- ---e
.~
- .- ---, - ----@
I
,
t
I
I
o
~
.1
I
.
I
~.
f"'"".
f"'""
OOYlI010a ' NlI<lSY
~"
SNDldOH .LSft 9101 lFta~
"'0 &l
t~. ~
-. LG
IJJ - n
,
~ 5
~~ <l:
~ ~
I
I
00
. I
'. .
\, I
'.,
I
I
!
0) ~
@---
~
1------
r:::::--_':'-:=;
.1 '"L '-~:~:,_~:::L
..,,,'"
...
.<>-,",
.ol~,"
...,.,
.......
I
Ii--'-----
Ir': .-: ~:;ll
_ __.__.____->- I
@---
'0 --:1:
_ II
_ _~_~ _____.J I
I~
3
i
@-- - ----
. ~
~
. . ~. ~
I --~;
.
~
I !I
Ii
I~
".
" -'- Ili!l./
'__ 11 !i, /
" i 1!3-
-,_ Ii
, II
~_~ I~"_' /bs
_taa__ E1! ~.....
// \, _m-w
/ '-....,
// II ""-
. I
Ii
I
.
.
i
t
,
.....'i-.. -. "".....,.... "0 ,.._.____.n - .
I~
. III
I ----
I
. ------I
-- I
,I II
. I
i I
I,
i i
,...1 I
,II
h~
II'
-I'
M
II!
. Itl
cID
, -
I
I
\
I
I
I
\\,
\"
/
,
/
,/
I~
I
.
i
Cld
a'3
11111<.
:r
"
-@
!l
~
--@
Z
<{
..J
0-
~
o
..J
LL
..J
~
W
-1"
Z ~
;:( -:
r: ;!
0t
\>
n
--@
0')1
~
AI!~l'ioil.
Oa,.110100'MldS,.
.
x:ndfia
~lOl ~ HOl
"'"
I
",
SNDIdOH
~<
: t;;;o:',.).,
",.",\
~r\,
~,
/:k"
~f
,e), <r'
,:>'" ~.
),;sI;" _4;1,
\: fl; f""~;
"~.'f W";;
~_'-er
, ,
I I
':-c'"
00
"'\ I
\'
I'
if
..'1
~ ~
,,",'"
.01-."
-,,","
~
...,.
."'.
,..,.
,..,.
--
...,L
...,.
@-______ I
I
:~
I
~
01
@
@
@
,
,'--.' '--.-"....".
, ,
" 91
.......s'<... 1:/ I //
/ V
, ~ CI~/6r I:
, /
, / '
y, /'
D' /
, /
, /
Y
0--- - -----
~
!l
,
m
. !I
!;
I~
-@
!l
~
~
!l ~
...J
~ 0..
!l It
()
~ ()
...J
U.
9 ...J
!l s ~
~ ill
...J
It "
ill IS>
0..':'
0.. .-
-@ ::3~
('C)
,
,
,
,
! ~l
"
i ~
I
,
I
- --' .. .. ..,.'" -
I
^
/
/
/
I ./
, /
/
'H~ 1
",- '..". .-. .-.".-l
',I ,'.... ...,i.;
, "-
, <., "
'-" '
1 ,
I ",
, ,
G
~
G
@--- - --- -
/001-.'
/ ,
~ '
"
i I'~",
, '
,
,
,
..
""m ._..__._...__.._....._
----------------_.~_._-
I
~
___m__'..__._"_________,__'"..~__'"____.___.~_.__ ,
.._______.__..."..".._..__.___"..__"...__.._.._.^"......_....M.-..
.0-._
."'.
~,
"s,s;:::=:?$:=.-::"':::'3.ttI==:: ::==-=:::::::.:
I
I
I
I
I
@---- ---.. ,-- .,. .
I
I
,
.--_..._._--".,._._--_._-~_._--_._-_.~.__.'~,....
------------~--_.,_._-- '
- .- -. --.---"-
._.,___..__________._.___~_~.__~..~~.~_~_..M.~__.'.~_
l
.,-...
~
R
-.".. ...-.-.-..... .".~~..".",.,..........~_..".._...__..__..."...__._...~--"-.- .~..."._---,._...-
.~~iit~~i~~~:!~::~~:~;lt:;~~i;~~~~~;~~~~~[~I~
I~
~
i
-@
I
'----1 '
U
.0-. I
,
I
I
.1
~.
,-""
c.
.o-.&.I
,-..
-~",. -
II OaYlI0100 ' NldSY .....1
I D1dfl(I .
.' tI)
SNIldOH ~sva SIOI ~ 1101 I I I ~ 1<.
,")~,
~.
C?>
I
,
I
, r-----
, I
@-- --' Ii --1----- ,-
,I ,
,f l I
~ 11
II l
~. ~
Ii I
I I '
@--- - -r;1 -- - -1-- - -- - --- -' - ,-- - ---. -- '
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
,
I
~J @ @)
I l
,
~ ..~ ....... I
""" ,f .<:lhto' J
;1 I I
i
I
:r
"
~
'@
~
,
m
@
......
....".
.... ..
....".
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-....
!l
~
@-- ---
I""'"
:1
I'
L________
I
~
~
-
------ --- --
"@
~
..J
0..
~ 2
() ..
n::!
.... ..
...,,.
I ':':'==--::::.:==_==::=:==::_-====:::=-~:==.:.::::'::::
't
@---, -
I
.._____ .~. .."L_...._~ ...
I
9
~
.,--.......--"..."-.-."..-"....,,.........-........----.......-......__...._._-,_...._..~"...._"'..
.\...."..."......".....0 ...........,...... ,..................._..........."........
!
,...--.,.-.,.. @
/"'"",
"
~
ci
~ .
~
. ."-
. ,
~
I
,.,.10"
1:'
-v<
~
:::.J
r,
~-
~X!P
~
,.,
,j,
'"
. ~;.
"",
--'-'--'-
.
_ .:,..._.JL.
/E
/
17
/1. I',
,@l '-'-01/
@
'\
\
\\@
\\
\
~
@
@
-
.' I
-
!'V
I
I
.....:;:;;'.....
f~ ..~
i i9J i[':i!
I
".0
,.
,
:'~ ~!,
t<;.
I
J[ij
"'..........................................
!HHHHH!HH
BBJ))))))))B
:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.
'-, \.
-\
I
- ..-
. ~
OQVlIO'lO=>' Na:dSY
~ I
X:!I'Idna .,
SNIXdOH ~SV:!l SIOI :If nOI ! ! ! ~ 1< <;
I
'~
>z ~
. ~ ~::, :~.' ~\
~"'" .~ tf 0",\
'<~."' ,.;' ,", ~,;
t; :> i?!
.. i'.. ,(3tj
-11:1"
,ft''''
'0
~
f-
lib!,!
\,
\2"",
'~
-'.
T
"
> ,
H,
.l-....
-\,r
j"!'I'
\ '
Ii'
", "
@h ....~ Ir--~' , ,
- it -efr ~\\,!- ,L:;:", ". ',' " I. JY ..:n TTT --*-/1
I " .,'['To" r; '''I'' -" ;'J',' i~." ,:.1., I,r",'. / I
I r ,,' . ,. ,,-c," .. I '., 1"':1 -[1 1","1;'" '. ',:
I~ . . ,; , '. '.. ,', ,.", 1"',., -'-.,,'''' , "j, ,I \ ,I. I
". "'\ '.', \'" '''~'; , ~ I:, ',. : .."/. I
I Jr I' Ii '-' r I '; r ' "." ';~, 11 ] "illL'" "', .1', L I,." " I
~ II' " , ," ,. "I;" ; ;0-', '.~: ,.' ',J I
I v"" I ,I' ,- '"7ii.., Ii;,'';."..,;,. ,
' , ' I ,_.~ . .........., ~
I " i , If' I : I I 1 I I"T _ -::. : :..1, j~ '. . ,
.... . I' 1. !," I I;.'."f" ,i
1 <t '" ,/0,' ,,1'1", ':i 'LU '_. .' if ".~" ,.,1', I
I 'Iii l/'~ '. .' :.;:', .
'-,- I -ti [ f'; -"':''-'; ,/.' '1,'" 'i;;'II,' 'h.n."",'I'" I
I r I ,,~ ..' ~ . I I "" , ~ I l '~I"l T, . I
u:~, -T~,,_. . r/ 11'1' II 1,1 tf;lr '.
I I / :'\ .(r . Lo.'i J ' I I ", I j Ii II' I I
' V ~ 1":';'1,';11'<,/;' 'I!~. "". "11"1111' ' I
, \ , "", /1"'" I tl I, f-o---'___, ,
,.",~,/ '~" ',;" ....,~:, '11'1' jli:li i ,,' t', I
'I...!t " : ullIl'llllll',1 ,II~, I
" -t ,I , CI-~J I I
.. i 1 f~'1 -""~-~t=~)iR11~;~1 I,,' '+~'11
i !&j ~ l:l;HX];i/! 1 JJ
I '"" @ ':',' . I, I
I ~\~ ,-- (i:illIn:L /, I,
~\\\') @~ 111"ii~:j
I .. '." I *_,-~
I [[? ,,:,~;~~:{; I
I J ~t~'li;:' !':l,,';:,i:::::; R',~"~I~lJf] . I
In '1'1'11:/11) 'I!i", I, ".,,1 ", '.' ...,....", 'J.I ,
~i.'~~-..." :41 :~~::III;,:,:,::,i";,i'\ii ."",,~ ',}!l',,:i';Jf'--+_d
~ IJllilI.WJJ IIi 1Il1l:j illdljljJ . II r;~'ld~1 i I Ii' ~ I
I~" 'Ii':' :Ie, ;rD. "
I. 'r--_.. ,,......
; III t .' .:L.." 1,L._.,..
I ; 'I; -;', ,i l..l I
,": "i, I
: ' 1IIIr>, r. ' .1
I"M ''''''1 '/~ I
I ;, i1u' iJr~i>,_ ~', "'1:/ ~~/ I
I . !'!".~:"'L:"';:'.'I' _~ I
~hJ ~ @--~~'~~'~41'il:---1t~1
,---i ' J.i1;';';'- ~
. ~
f
=
I
-Ii;'
-.,
@-"
". .........n.______.
I""'"
0{--'-----..--------
........
@
r H: .--..,- r--t
. "--. _1 '----J
, r=:mJJ
r.?\ ..: rrli"u, ..L' , , -" -', '
~-~I'I'iil!lill;q~u . , ;...,
. "Q:iIlliIIM.~I..m .~.'U}f. Uil.II./IIII. '. .12f'@~H
r IL;I;:!,~lPV:?+t t';~~-~l'~'-'I',
:., ~'--~'1tJAA'.. };!.u.h/;.: :.;-'11j r:.J(-IJ"ril',." .! ,''''),H,;',. r
L Fi'tl1';'rT u.J1Jl1:il.n llt ..m,...~ "'H:.:uH ";~'I I ;'.:Ji:-I.I"
, I:~" I:ll I~ijl: 1;~111l! r r r I/!I I ! II; I ~ !71' "'];'
1',1/'1." ;;,.;. ,'i" ii' Il'i I," . ,\',
1..t:J\. /1("1 ., ,I ill'", .w "
I '+' l'I."I.'.';'i':I,'j ii.!: ,11.,'< Ji. UiLli. . J ilL II "Vi'. ',.i.l
'[i!;IIIil'." ...._-'~'---,~,.~ ,1t/'
,.i:. iil.' I.' 11/1'1, lil:IJI:, "'. .'tal ~ i .1 !i. I ~J\I!J.I r ; Jd.~~. ,
.",II/:,!I .' . :.;" I Iii -,I.fl'
'rIIJ:/ij'iii/lft1i, i11r { ~ .,@ 'j ~I ~i j\
;Ii 1IIIr,:~ \I~J @~...'..'.'.' '..llil..J.1...'0i'I'. J:4~T.,'J~..
Itllli'l ~..,.__ ~})~]!I!fWt'jfr111
\\ ~rnmnmi ~'~M~, .it.~-ll
, " "Wi
i I . ." -"'/-1.1"
.:1
[l~J\
~
)::F
1
1"""'.
t ..Jj.
OOVllO'lO:>' H:iltlSV
"'! I
X:iI'Idfia ~
SNDIdOH .LSV:iI SIOI W nOI .! J I ~ 1-< .
(VIS?
~ S!1
....... U',
:lb2 -
\..'<:. cr;:;
\~J ~
\~" <ry.'
"'!:':t
'"'''---
:;,
~;:19:
'1
<P:
.<::
, ....
i. k
,.; I
%"
"
-zi
~I
gl
llll
r.
11
~
.
,..
,r
~~-
i
I
.
I
,
{ ,-,;r
,
cD
:+- f \
- J
.-S) ;
"-
..s:
>Z- 1.
(J.J
,-..
1""".
",.....
(~
~- --'.'-.'~'.
J
~
l
t
i.
i
!!
. l~
)
~l
,
!
1 -
ILIL_
( ~6
fi n"
~nB
U T~
,\
~
~
!~
")
, 0
i
J
,~~
~~
,~
l~~
,
, t.:
."
. ,:;:' .'
., '.' "
1\ ~,
~,~:
)}il'1(f
II "
c :
o }
,- p
.p.
m ~
> ~
QI ~
- .
W ~
~
.M ;;
U .
o ~
- .
m ~
Gl
a.
IIJ
U
Ul
,fJ
QI
Gl
l.
,p
UJ
.t:
.p
j
o
UJ
m
c
.-
.:i.
o
o
....
QI
::J
C
DI
>
<(
Ul
C
.-
.:i.
a.
o
J:
, ,.'
..,.,."".,......,.
:.. ..