The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.309 E Hopkins Ave.HP-1990-189 L i ) 5- 4 -8 9 0% 9\-obb\-41 '>>4*J ff 9:14 3 602 <142Wsal 4 -Â·'30'Al.Uo-~ E- 911 31 011 Â£00-8â‚¬-Ezo-Lâ‚¬zz _ 51 obbl *dll 52402 --& _ c:Irlâ„¢dow 7 60[ THE LILYREID HOUSE FINAL HPC DEVELOPMENT PLAN & GMQS EXEMPTION REVIEW February 5, 1991 THE LILY REID HOUSE APPLICATION FOR HPC FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW OF SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT AND APPROVAL TO TEMPORARILY RELOCATE AN HISTORIC LANDMARK, SPECIAL REVIEW AND GMQS EXEMPTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF AN HISTORIC LANDMARK, AND REQUEST FOR GMQ S EXEMPTION FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND VESTING OF APPROVALS Submitted to: The City of Aspen and The Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 303-920-5000 FAX: 303-920-5197 Applicant: Mr. Larry Brooks, General Partner Aspen Arcade, Ltd. 1148 Fourth Street Santa Monica CA 90403 Phone: 213-394-4938 FAX: 213-393-7988 a CONSULTANTS ARCHITECTS: Hagman Yaw Architects, Ltd. 210 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 303-925-2867 FAX: 303-925-3736 ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS: Charles Cunniffe & Associates 520 East Hyman Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 303-925-5590 FAX: 303-925-5076 ATTORNEYS: Gideon I. Kaufman 315 East Hyman, Suite 305 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 303-925-8166 FAX: 303-925-1090 Chuck Brandt Holland & Hart 600 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 303-925-3476 FAX: 303-925-9367 - LAND PLANNER: Joseph Wells, AICP 602 Midland Park Place Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 303-925-8080 FAX: 303-925-8275 TABLE OF CONTENTS E-Ehas. I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION FOR 14 SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE COMMERCIAL CORE HISTORIC DISTRICT INVOLVING AN HISTORIC LANDMARK (Â§7-601(F)(4)) III. REQUEST FOR HPC APPROVAL TO TEMPORARILY RELOCATE 31 AN HISTORIC STRUCTURE OFF-SITE (Â§7-602) Il IV. REQUEST FOR SPECIAL REVIEW (Article 7, Division 4) 37 V. REQUEST FOR GMQS EXEMPTION FOR ENLARGEMENT 42 OF AN HISTORIC LANDMARK (Â§8-104(B)(1)(c)) VI. REQUEST FOR GMQS EXEMPTION FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING 46 (Â§8-104(C)(1)(c)) EXHIBITS A. General Application Information (Â§6-202) 1. Application Form 2. Applicant's Letter of Authorization 3. Disclosure of Ownership 4. Certificate of Limited Partnership B. Minutes of Prior Land-Use Actions Regarding the Lily Reid Site 1. Minutes of January 10, 1990 HPC Meeting Granting Conceptual Development Plan Approval, Approval of On-Site Relocation of the Lily Reid House, Approval of Demolition and Partial Demolition within the Commerical Core Historic District and Recommending Landmark Designation of Lots A, B and C, Block 81. 2. Minutes of April 3, 1990 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Recommending Approval of Landmark Designation of the Lily Reid Site (Lots A, B and C, Block 81). 3. Minutes of May 14, 1990 (First Reading) and July 9, 1990 (Public Hearing) of City Council Approving Ordinance 36 (Series of 1990). 4. Ordinance 36 - Series of 1990 - An Ordinance Designat- ing 200 South Mc)narch Street/309 East Hopkins Avenue (Lots A, B and C, Block 81) As H, Historic Landmark , Pursuant to Division 7, Section 7-701 of the Land Use Code. c. Letter from Ryberg Cosntruction Company Regarding Relocation of Lily Reid Cottage. D. Letter from Owners of Lot A through C, Block 19 Granting Permission to Temporarily Relocate the Lily Reid Cottage onto the Property. I. INTRODUCTION This application for H.P.C. Final Development Plan review of Significant Development and Temporary Relocation of an Historic Landmark, for Special Review and GMQS Exemption for Enlargement of an Historic Landmark by the Planning & Zoning Commission, and for GMQS Exemption of Affordable Housing and Vesting of all approvals by City Council is filed on behalf of Aspen Arcade, Ltd. , owner of the Lily Reid Cottage and the adjacent commercial building located on Lots A, B and C, Block 81, Aspen Townsite. On January 10, 1990, H.P.C granted Conceptual Development Plan approval for the proposed restoration of the Lily Reid Cottage. At that time, H.P.C. also granted conditional approval for demolition and partial demolition and for relocation of the historic structure from Lot C to Lot A; finally, HPC also ' recommended approval of Landmark designation of the entire site. Following that approval, P&Z also recommended approval of Land- mark designation of the entire site on April 3, 1990; City Council approved Landmark designation of Lots A, B and C on July 9, 1990 (see Ordinance 36, Series of 1990, Exhibit 34)- On January 9, 1991, HPC granted a 90 day extension in the one-year filing deadline for Final HPC Development Plan review following approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. 1 The Lily Reid cottage is the last remaining brick cross-gabled cottage in the Commercial Core Historic District, and one of only a few remaining in Aspen. Information in the Planning Office indicates that Lily Reid was the first owner of the property. Franz Berko, noted Aspen photographer of the post-war/early ski era also owned this property for a number of years and maintained his studio at this location. The concept for the redevelopment of the parcel remains consis- tent with prior approvals, including an "L" shaped multi-use building wrapping behind the detached Lily Reid Cottage, which is relocated to a prominent corner position and surrounded by landscaped public space, as illustrated on the following architectural drawings. Important design considerations which were previously noted by the Planning Staff have been maintained in the design, including no below-grade open space, orienting the primary facade toward on Hopkins, not Monarch, and the use of new materials which are non-competing to the Lily Reid Cottage. The proposal includes approximately 2,300 sq.ft. of open areas at the plaza level. The site is within the Commercial Core zone district. -An FAR o f 1.5:1 is allowed (13,500 sq.ft.), or up to 2.0:1 (18,000 sq.Et.) by Special Review when on-site affordable housing is provided. Consistent with the prior approvals, the FAR proposed on the two 2 111111111 - ,111111~ 1 HAGMAN YAW ARCHITECTS LTI) )104%'THCALEAA M'\ c Â£ MIRÂ»8Ihi I lot 929 2,7 1 r MECHANI{:Al. ROOM E MECHANICAL It<x>M I - 'P 75.6 2 EXHAUgr ,'LUE E itt_-1 - ' 1 6 1-11/11'P.P 1 ~ El.E,7,TOR Eell[PMENT I *1 [ 147'E __ _ _-4 4â€ž,s, iR<-2--21 SUBBASEMENT PLAN *441.1.0. Ff *W 10lf'Olid GIGIN XIII GIHI OGYHOUOO 'NEISV I I r' Ll 1 1.L - 3) 3 CRYSTAL PALACE - HAGMAN YAW - ARCHITECTS 1105 1UTHGALENA COOPER AVENUE .Pt' CO[(*ADollbil [4-J WAGNER PAR]'~ NORâ„¢ - ]0}9'.2087 rfE 31-13Â· cÂ» re ALLEY HYMAN AVENUE PROPERTY UNE . G 331 -[E_Lf-# 1 RASS InRK ~-~ I PARKINGI : | . TRASH (n...... 3 91./'I k I. HOPK[NS AVENUE ,-m--" 1 08 D EfÂ« 11 80 2 MAKE- UPI/- 1/ i 1 QI'l .ECX CHASK 1 l 1 RAH,AU. FI.I -- . Ii,OCATP, m L ~ i I'~ ~-- .....11'.111 Upi] 860 LE] 3 f 1-Tri 1 IT Ttq r C 11 <* 9 11 /1.1- -- iRE.JIll I.Irr - IA RETAII, MAIN ENEE'14 r KEY PLAN vinvi : ; 2 9: NO !* ALR - 17 R 114114 k 'Â·& BASS PARK 1 / MECH CHASE iti .le*, 6 01.OCATION TO \ (C,0-0@eo CÂ«~C~> r N C - â€¢b.rm/l RETAIL ~~~ 1 I trif,k 11/1 -7 I /3 -..9 -e--" *,SM,3 7Â«EÂ«W) MILL STREET PLAZA , li , RETAn, I F f ' [MEFRR m 'Hor i f I ' . 1.4 X 11 It 1 r- ISA -E -4 i rrAILKI>pllâ€¢li it (01/ 3 [+11 1 21 2 - -'.r REWSI' Â»S 1~ENCH 44 3 : 1 1-1 -1 --- Ml-tl ' ~ ~ ''f mdEÂ»T L--~---2 L t,- -=17-tIp i al k--I./.10 ABOVE --K 1 \ PROPERn YNK i '11' ' d U ' \ HOPKINS AVENUE SNE & LEVEL ONE PLAN ~ 1/!ril'-(y' .LOGITONd (Im[H XIII XHI 06Â¥H0700 NT[dSV WN' Al...W fITCHLS HONVNOW 1 1:111 1llllllll HAGMAN YAW ARCHITECTS lTD li'.TH.LE" i .........1 44 05 mil : AFFORDABLE HOUSING 2 11-It--1,11 -, L 1 r-7, i na#68 I ' .i tz B..Bl --4 RETAU,/OFFICE, I1 L .2 ME" CHASE | EXHA[J'r FLITI - t ' 41 1 c-v f~ 1 *U]CATION TO 1- - -- M ...1,1,1 ~ $ r e./.A * 4 \W Ag' Nl'He-4 bj<>, unn 1 r .... I .... /4 ~ ' \927 .%11/1 f + 1 7 1 11& r/ -imÂ¢11%11[El MILL STREET PLAZA ~g xyÂ·3~1>-5, Â·,â€¢4*,f.-* 'M'WA-2 54 /2 - RETAIL/OFFICE. UY -9 - > 04 1 - 7 HOUSE BEI.OW Ea ri:Â· BRINS: i Â· '- - -11 I - --PROPRRT UNT LEVEL TWO PLAN 1 4 1/H'0=1'-4," T'-./'W'Â¥4â€¢~I/Â£'Imi -/rrilill LOGITONd aIDIH K[IE[ DIHi OGYNOUOD NadSÂ¥ ?1>.rl UM@id(}Bd ' lili â€žr lilli HAGMAN YAW ARCHITECTS LTD 2IWil'THCALENA ,\41 1 [(11('RADO 8161] 1,1~ 92'61867 1 -_ 6 t- - --- 2-33 ----; OFFICE EXHAU~ FLUE Il MU.H CHASE (U,CAnON m â‚¬2120 RIVER'/ MILL STREET PLAZA ' .2, d l. 1 IM /JiCZCM=DWFUki#&. 91*116 . 1 1*:I .49L--Â»eFO~ +4+11'>~ 1 1% /*CH, CHASR- Â·Â· - - REM.M= f = V.Rt,â„¢11 --lu 1 1 OFFICE 14 - - 1 1 1 HOUSE BELOW | Ij -4, Issl-E:_..._ I Eigigi *3: 23_ - -,1- PROPERTY LINK - . LEVEL THREE PLAN 1/8'=1'-0" 1031'0Hd C[IGIN Xm[ fIHI OUVHO7O0 NHdSV 1-1111111111 ~ HAGMAN YAW ~ P ARCHITECTS ' t LiD 110\01][H GALENA ~ ASPEN COLORADO~I611 10)925Â·1867 m..pg F00. Â·-- ri--==I (2) /4,-704 A - **mie A Â»,4 7\ /X \ 1 P \ L 17 .0 rb#4 14, - M It RI.F.vAlÂ·OR TOWF.I~ r . . , 4 7 //4, 1-- 1 .ff P // -1 i E Â¢ UDâ‚¬n* 1 11 Mn,L STREET PLAZA /1- IS#ilkÂ· , N'I! 11 1['r 111111111Â»-t".... IRA'ISH Â» S 111111 - 4- -- O PROPERTY LINE ROOF PLAN 6 I - 1-7 -1 1- TT T 0([VH0700'NadSV Di]'1 A.LN~dO}1<1 -1111111.Il HAGMAN YAW - ARCHITECTS LIt) 111 lili, 11 2:0 VOUTH C.ALENA AhPFN COLORADO 816[1 ]01915 2867 . 1 lili .1.h -t=- t-ET# 1 e.~cs-/- Y ~_ _ _jÂ·t~ fi~ - -- 4-9-_ffir-i,ff ~=-1 41-41-- -0 , I + 1 --r- -â‚¬7[0,46 00â‚¬>Crior orN.Â»C; M,y ..UBCIOW (Nor ON~-4 - Â·gme,ee eÂ«> OW,r o~le,-4 EAST ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION Wre~L-NCÂ» - -- .......... ........I- H -- A 1 A A-Ul. ' ____ /004*,Ne.. - .4000 ./1// 04Â« i f--1 5- ! - i % 85 ' ~'22,447Â« Xk *u -oP -- 1 1 1 2 - ha n ~09,4 4.61~~1113 11~ 1 I >A 1 M< %*41+1 4, ME Ce.......4 411 Ill---2-r -12...--- -- Bd - - 427 1 It 1 1 L - I - F~' ~ L. 16.1- I - - 3[10 [ 1 1 t,roNE,Del ~ - 30 L -cd l==4-.h,3 *l_ ]_14_ - g. ~ -s-.i 1 + - *'Cite,Â·IG~Â®V~CAÂ©TO.4,0,Â·44) ** a-aÂ»6 6,Â¥ me/"â€¢Â© <r/*4466 â‚¬,180 0,0/ c84,9*h-5 NORTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION 44â‚¬* ..d CA.I.. U ISSUE: -r-1 1---- -Tl 1 r. 11 RE'.ISI, Â»S: L -t 11 'l lilli... l 1 111 -...'.4-4 11 0*X 0.1.1.-A 1 e.1 ......4 - --- --T- - - L 1__.~ cw#*#.r ef - 1 . --4 t7 EXISI'ING PLAN LILY REED HOUSE -- EXISTBiG -t,[.,WNÂ¥AWA~CHIrl[Tum , -1 1- 1 -1- rru- 1 .00-9 O 'NGIcISV S"/ I 91, __J lili- HAGMAN YAW -- - - ARCHITECTS -- -+ -- -~ - t.,D 1]05OUTHGALENA C .94...... _ ASPEN COLOUD0816]1 ]01 925Â·20b7 t=- --- ..4.-8.0. 3 - -- f NEN AINCZÂ»A 1 - .*I~I'.Fâ‚¬* =z--= - -, re MVE_-42 1-,1111 Tmlri# FIZE-- - \ --UNS.a<er eÂ»y.#NOD-4 ,:422 4!l!!llijllilll l.':*P, | Dirt - E ~~*** _i-49 L ]2-4-' ~1-~< -EEEmirIa~r*-:i--- ~fltÂ« 41 - & 7- -7 1- 7 E=:E:= k I ~er;*L- ._- iIMiti~ 1_4~1 4~=1- _-2- 1 -2-2. =t---- i -i . - 44'-50#;e-,re - .k 1 4*&S*Â·F . --7-Â·--_ -7-7-~ --Â·- ---Â·--7 1-43 ' , U.,DUÂ¢rl - - /*cR 1 L . ~<,câ€ž'16- %cyr EAST ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION --Â·-Â· --- 0â‚¬Â»04/*Sqi,40-51'INe, ------____- -- C~1504 67/*I'ly - -EN '40 -0- -,6 4 * -trimi,r - W *:'ah "oP - -- --_ NUL.Ul 4.... ./$... boe,6 I. -te, 2, - ----~IJ,1:11:lilli'111111''t:>tx ~ / 3-Â«~ 299 U.LOUGAI-~ < < , Ne,4 IDÂ· WiN[*4 i ---- f-Ok IN,A. ) 7.642+'-BArÂ¥?~----I UÂ· -~-- Naâ€¢104**,CON " - ArrU===a 1 --- T.INE'W~* - _X-t .-1--- 11 -111,Ill;,I12-----~~~eW,Â·,000*de 1 --k- TFIT[Il- 1 01,0 ===-- ... aa~1 'll 1 bâ€¢4*.'L.Â· *â€¢ee 1221231/jt- H ~i-Mil --Â» i.21,01111'~, di--1_-Â«ler- ':i - Ad 7-----Â»u---I - 21.- drr-86Â£P- --- TrINV2O4 1 + 1 1 -=-1 f n, aka et-,4 1,+0 %Â·C NORTH ELEVATION ~/45 WEST ELEVATION .././.I COÂ·16. 9/ I. + C r---7 ISSLTE: 46*.kÂ»4 X - N.I../.6 Â·49 _HEVISIONS: aNG-leâ‚¬ D..... 0, - Flt,â€¢ce r,eâ‚¬f?le >Â¢r H:NOON 1 t*NT 1.1 L L. -___ ,4.... -- 4|' 21=2 1 2 1 ----- =1 -- *..4â‚¬86 ~*7760 - r.o- OPSÂ¥4\.*3 1 -*4.Â«- D I [ 1 .ket..41529,8- 04* NON 00 1 WN kNXW ~ COÂ®'/h6 r Ne,4 .â€ž00,4 / ~~\ PROPOSED PLAN LIly REID HOUSE 18~ 2 - PROPOSED CHANGES li .-1-T-ET- lilli lu ~ J ITTU 1 r-1 Illill Il 103/0Hd (II:i[H XIII 3[Hi 11111111 U 1 HAGMAN YAW ~ ARCHITECTS LTD 4- !05OUTHGALENA - -- .PIN { 0,/RADOB/6 1 F I[--' 1 F :- 11 11 I. -t---fl~,1' r-1~ -rht-- ----- - '3915 1867 110 1, 1 Ii- 11! qi[ 1 11. 1, 11'f flvill,111; 1 11 1 ]I : 111 -Â·7 -2 : r 1' : %..,4.6 ' |11! .1,1,1 '11 LI J - -- -- - 1 11 1 -843 -0. : 4 1(~ i~~ ~I' " *+L ~ ., r I t f#. 1 - 4 , _ cÂ·0-,- a. eâ€¢WO~46 'w.. i]==rri .riti-'~~13*4 2--94#in; Â·. fiEFI ~~ ~-rii,i,w~~t~--4 6~-~~-~~- --+v A- - 607*-0 /- I 1- 1 ---1~ 111 i 1 -1-7 = 1 1 11 1 1-1 u--4.---- _i ' -- 0'*8~&'915/6 0/ 1 n - *0-2,U/- -r- ; tl-4 =- Ill i__3 dif ~ 11 f ..5*..'*1'-0 - - - *>Â»+ )5â‚¬ â€¢50'40- MONARCH STREET ELEVATION 49{.'45. L hae Â°'U' Â¢ 7~1 *-%99â€¢t 1.4476~ 2>72) 'CQ~â‚¬U-t' 140< ; \ te,â€¢L '1~4> ) Id,e kia .C'N,6 4 * _1-2.Pt I .5. 4./. --1 1 L.,21 "I'lili Il[ 6 /leâ‚¬>16- +VG/Ae 4# .%/16 -= ~ll 'llrw '1,,)#,6-* Imz,rl,6.w=,a z /7 -1 --7 F==EFv=~, 3-__ _ t 1:SITE: 4010Â«6 Fo f rum -'IL------7--r Â« -t 13 - REVISIONS: ~IL f -32-1 --1__ --1[ --Â» =4 --- '' i. L-1 Â¥:=3Et= 112('I~-i*2nlt=,~icg' r~=T~ 1- -- - -- ...L,1.k#*-0 \ 1 r *B-* _ I_ I 4-U-y _3Â»~~ tr ---~I ~ -~1-- 11== - 4 !/ f 7-~ | - f-..~LL' 1 I I i... i ~00,-0. 0<,077%*<ema,Bâ€ž.â€¢â€¢2Â·A,~UPy#,2 < 4 hN / - 4 ---- --- 2=:knolel - -- - .W--- c,--'ll.-ell - SEmtv '-r HOPKINS AVENUE ELEVATION - -- - ---~ 9&"-11.of - *-.-m~â€¢*11,~71[Fn -t--rÂ·T 7'- 1 T-'T--r--t- lOGITONd GINH XII 01Â¥N0700'Nld - lilli[ 1.11_, LI. 3 7 - A.,1 6'*"46'- - 67/8.* 0",/90.727 es _ - HAGMAN YAW Ve'/ep - -- ARCHITECTS 210 *2i~LENA AW'[N (OLORAD08161! 3 /1'411 1867 / / - /3 1 , f 41 'f 1 1 1 I f Â«Â»f-4 Pi 1-E__I[_fj -Pil[-f-] - [_THZ--~--13 -i ~ m=== â€¢-- .-31 I I 121_ _ . kil.-1 1 - U L . Ll +144- -buft-- 11-Â·U--Â· *- 3--2 kild Nk-]LW [-"4Â»111{ 4-1]23 _-ffilil_-~ C N FÂ¥- i ~ ~ - 11]1- 3 31 -a F -I T 1 g / f- -â€¢~teu Qu>*A - ALLEY ELEVATION - tNL,â€¢Â· 0, mâ€¢ec./. au, 4 /*& -- - -PIAT//Al F,4/ -- 0 -181/ 1 1 1 w 9 4 411 1 fl , 44 ~detp NA '1â€¢-6b- 1 E..1 â€ž9, 4 --0, 1- 'll , 111 -Ti- - LEI E [1] O - +Â·._1_%44 vT+ -- drl,UeÂ«G<:0*-ID.</Ae'~0â€¢Â· ]SSITE: n41- d --teweut ;./'-f T RELIS~Â»s: ELI 1- 11 4 4 : 11 -- - ifi [If lilit 6~56'11 r/-0 --9- ~~IUgmEW-PIZEO205EM~I - Li~/EL=~/Sfe' 1 11 - 1 11 ------- ---- - -1 I Bal R [__~~ild - - -- ---- 1 2 Â£Â£Â¥/6- $ 4 el-0. -- 6e/EL,i~ 'co'-0' UGHTWELL ELEVATION CORNER ELEVATION I....9& I,OSITOHd GISH 00110700 *NadSV sites is 1.47:1 (13,200 sq.ft.), or up to 2.0:1 (18,000 sq.ft.) affordable housing to be located on the second level of the new building. The two existing buildings on the site presently include 6,200 square feet of FAR, so that the net FAR expansion is 7,000 sq.ft. The project will include retail, office and affordable housing uses as well as storage for these uses and other accessory space. The new structure includes a ground level of 3,433 sq.ft. of retail space, the second level includes 2,451 sq.ft. of retail and office space and 1,506 sq.ft. of affordable housing and the third level includes 3,156 sq.ft. of office space. The basement level will include approximately 7,550 sq.ft. of retail space to be used for a restaurant and secondary display space for some of the retail uses on the ground floor. This is being proposed in order to provide these long-term local tenants with additional space which can be rented at a lower rate than that of the ground level space, therefore in turn keeping their overall rents low. There is an additional subbasement level which will be used for storage for the tenants in the building and for mechanical space, to minimize the amount of roof-top mechanical equipment. 13 II. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION FOR SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE COMMERCIAL CORE HISTORIC DISTRICT INVOLVING AN HISTORIC LANDMARK (Â§7-601(F)(4)) The Applicant requests Final Development Plan approval by the HPC of the proposed restoration of the historic Lily Reid Cottage, which is to be relocated to the northwestern corner of Lots A, B and C, Block 81 as well as approval of a new structure to be constructed along the eastern and southern portions of the site. The ownership is a 9,000 square foot lot which has received Landmark designation; it is located within the Commercial Core Historic District, as illustrated on Sheet 3 of the architectural drawings (following page 2). Submission requirements for Final Development Plan review are as follows: A. The general application information required under Â§6-202: 1. The City's Application Form, which includes the names and addresses of the Applicant and his representative and the street address and legal description of the property, is attached as Exhibit Al. 2. Applicant's Letter of Authorization is attached as Exhibit A2. 14 3. Disclosure of ownership is attached as Exhibit A3. 4. The Key Map on the Site Plan (Sheet 3) locates the subject parcel (see architectural drawings). 5. Under the provisions of Â§6-205(E)(4)(a), no notice is required for Special Review, GMQS Exemption or Final HPC Develop- ment Plan applications. 6. Compliance with Final Development Plan review standards are addressed in this Section, beginning on page 28. B. An accurate representation of all major building materials, such as samples and photographs, to be used for the proposed development: Samples of major building materials will be presented at the Final HPC presentation as will a scale model which is more detailed than the one used for the conceptual presentation. The new model provides a clearer indication of the scale of materials and colors to be used for the project. The Lily Reid Cottage will be restored as closely as possible to historical accuracy. The restoration will be an interpretation based on other existing houses in the neighbor- hood. The shed structure which was added to the rear of the building and is not historic, will be removed, the rear facade 15 cleaned up and windows added. The enclosed front porch will be returned to its original state as an open porch. The exterior brick will either be cleaned to its original finish (if possible, without damage) or repainted. This decision will be made with HPC's assistance. All wood trim, fascias and gable ends will be restored and repainted. The roof will be redone in wood shingles. The ground level facades of the new building which face the street will be constructed from red brick with simulated sand- stone banding and detail. Canvas awnings will protect windows at street facades. Rails, exposed spandrel beams at awning loca- tions and window trim will be painted in colors to complement the ' relationship to the Lily Reid House. In order to create an appropriate back drop, or foil, for the Lily Reid Cottage the second and third levels of the new building are stepped back from the court and, with the exception of glass, will be delineated with matching dark colored mater- ials. Upper level building elements include glazing members, rails and planters, wall surface, soffit and fascia surfaces. C. Scale drawings of the proposed development in relation to any existing structure: Reductions of the architectural plans of the proposal are included following page 2. Full-size drawings are being submitted separately. 16 D. The effect of the details of the proposed development on the original design of the historic structure and character of the neighborhood. The Lily Reid project offers a unique opportunity to truly enhance the visual character of downtown Aspen. The site is an entrance and point of transition in the approach to downtown, in terms of zoning, open space and architectural character. To the north and west of the site are Bass and Paepcke parks and wood frame residences with lawns which are characteristic of Aspen's Victorian residential neighborhoods. To the east and south are typical downtown core buildings - vertical brick facades, 30 feet or more in height, flat-roofed and fronting directly on the sidewalk. The concept for the project creates a true "gateway" to the downtown, and improves the transition from residential to commercial in the following ways: 1. The Lily Reid Cottage is presently hemmed in by bigger, dominating buildings. It will be relocated to the corner, freeing it and creating a focal point in the approach to downtown from the west and north. The house will be fully restored to echo and complement the houses along Hopkins. It will be set in a landscaped garden to enhance its historic, residential character. 17 2. The new building provides a backdrop to the Lily Reid Cottage, wrapping around and behind the historic structure in an "L" shape. The two end facades of the new structure relate very directly to their immediate downtown neighbors - Mill Street Plaza, Crystal Palace and Wheeler Opera House and echo the period character of the core area in general. Facades are red brick with sandstone banding, echoing the typical brick/sandstone facades in the downtown. Street-front facades are two stories in height, lower than the adjacent neighbors, while the stepped back third floor relates to the upper level of these same projects in height. In the center of the site, directly behind the cottage, is a paved courtyard and public space to provide access and to enhance the more urban character of the new building. Portions of the plaza will be snowmelted as required. At each of the corners are exterior stairs, providing access to upper level roof terraces, and making a transition to a more subdued facade which could best be described as a "backdrop" to the cottage. This facade steps back at each upper level, thus reducing the mass and improving the view plane to Aspen Mountain. By relocating the important historic residence within the site, restoring it, and giving it a meaningful. visually prominent, environment, this project will give the Lily Reid Cottage a true and historically appropriate presence in the 18 downtown, and provide a much improved "edge" to the downtown core. It is an opportunity to let the historic building live expresively, rather than subordinate without expression between two larger commercial structures on each side of its current location. E. Conformance of the Final Development Plan with the represen- tations made during the conceptual review and with any conditions of approval. The conditions of the prior approvals granted by HPC are discussed below: 1. Conceptual Development Plan: Conceptual Development Plan was approved by HPC subject to the following conditions: a. Detailed elevations, site, roof and landscape plans. Full-size drawings are being provided separately. Reductions of these 1/8" and 1/4" scale drawings are included in this application following page 2. b. Massing model. A more detailed massing model of the project has been completed and will be presented to the HPC at the hearing regarding the Final Development Plan. 19 C. Complete, accurate restoration plan and detailed drawings for the historic cottage, including (but not limited to) partial demolition activities, front porch and window restoration, relocation methodology and protection during adjacent demolition, cleaning methods, foundation and excavation - plan, measured drawings and photographs. Full-size drawings of the Lily Reid Cottage restoration plans are being provided separately. Reductions of these drawings are provided on Sheets 7 and 8, following page 2. As discussed in Section III, a decision has been made to temporarily store the cottage off-site during construction to avoid possible damage during construction. d. Performance Bond or Letter of Guarantee, approved by the City Attorney for relocation of the historic cottage. Ryberg House Movers has stated that providing a separate performance bond is totally unnecessary in light of the excellent insurance coverage which that company maintains. If the City does not agree, the Applicant will provide an instrument satisfactory to the City Attorney. e. Project phasing report. It is presently anticipated that upon final approval, the Lily Reid Cottage would first be relocated to the proposed temporary storage site on Main Street by Ryberg House Movers. The newer commercial building remaining on the site would then be demolished, site excavation would be undertaken and 20 construction of the new commercial building would proceed in a single phase. Once the plaza level is completed and construction staging permits a safe relocation, the Lily Reid Cottage will be returned to the site by Ryberg and placed in its new location in the northwest corner of the site. f. Restudy of horizontal features of new construction. The elevations of the new structure have been restudied to not only emphasize the vertical elements of the building but also to detail the building in a manner which is compatible in scale with that typical of victorian commercial structures in the area. g. Accurate representation of building materials. Building materials are discussed above in Section IIB, page 15. h. Information to support Demolition Standard B. The Planning Office has stated previously that the newer commerical building on the site proposed for demolition is not an important architectural contribution to the Commercial Core Historic District, and that the request for demolition is generally appropriate, considering the scope of the parcel's redevelopment plan. 21 Subsequent to HPC's consideration of the conceptual application for the project, HPC has had several Code discussions regarding problems in present Code language, includ- ing the apparent confusion in the demolition standards which requires that a finding be made that a building is not structurally sound in order to approve demolition regardless o Â£ the historic significance of the structure in question. HPC has recommended that this provision be amended to allow demolition i f a finding is made that the structure in question is "non- contributing. " The structure on the site which is proposed to be demolished is not identified in the Historic Inventory as a contributing structure, and therefore would be eligible for demolition once this provision is amended. i. The structure proposed for demolition is not structur- ally sound despite evidence of the owner' s efforts to properly maintain the structure. If the HPC takes into account the project approved for the site, the structure to be demolished is not structurally sound, because in order to implement that plan, it is not possible to utilize the structural system of the existing building. In other words, the present building is not "structurally sound" for the use envisioned for the property . 22 ii. The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on-site to provide for any reasonable beneficial use of the property. The reuse of the existing non-contributing structure would prevent implementation of the plan approved to enhance the prominence of the contributing structure on the site. iii. The structure cannot be practicably moved to another site in Aspen. There are no available sites to relocate the existing structure, nor is the building suitable for such an effort. iv. The applicant demonstrates that the proposal mitigates to the greatest extent practical, the following: (a) Any impacts that occur to the character of the neighborhood where demolition is proposed to occur. The impacts of the project on the character of the neighborhood are positive. (b) Any impact on the historic importance of the structure or structures located on the parcel and adjacent parcles. The impacts of the project on the historic importance of strucures on- and off-site are positive. (C) Any impact to the architectural integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel and adjacent parcels. The impacts of the project on the architectural integrity of structures on-and off-site are positive. 23 i. Restudy setbacks of relocated cottage. There was some discussion among HPC members and staff about precisely where the Lily Reid Cottage should be located. For instance, the minutes reflect that Roxanne Eflin suggested that the house should be moved back into the courtyard further; Glen Rappaport felt it should be moved forward toward the sidewalk. The Commission did not make a final determination on this issue, requesting instead that the architects consider the specific placement of the historic structure for Final Submission. After further consideration of the design issues, a decision has been made by the architects to place the cottage as shown on the architectural drawings. The issues which have been considered, in order of priority, are the relationship to the victorian house across Hopkins Avenue, the relationship to the project courtyard (which we believe will become an important public space in its own right), and the relationship to the Mill Street Plaza Building to the east. In addition, the historic guidelines suggest that buildings in the commercial core should be built out to the sidewalk, but residential structures usually, if not always, were built with a small front yard. The victorian residence across the street is rectangular in shape and is set back approximately 7 feet from 24 Hopkins Street and 8 feet from Monarch Street. The Lily Reid Cottage is an L-shaped structure with a porch built into the notch in the L and a shed roofed element in the rear. The proposed setback along Hopkins is between 5 and 10 feet and along Monarch it ranges from 4 to 10 feet. This places the cottage in front of the nearest facade of the Mill Street Plaza, which is set back 10 feet, but still preserves a small landscaped area between the building and the sidewalk. Shifting the cottage further to the east and south would have a negative impact on the plaza area. j. Specific information on variations requested. The only variations required are with regard to parking and open space, as addressed below: (i) Parking: Under the provisions of Â§8-104(B)(1)(c), Enlargement of an Historic Landmark, parking shall be provided according to the standards of Article 5, Divisions 2 and 3, if HPC determines that it can be provided on the site's surface, and be consistent with the review standards of Article 7, Division 6. The parking requirement in the CC Zone is 2 spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. of net leasable. Based on the final program for the project, a total of 22 spaces would be required, but only if HPC determines that it can be provided on the site's surface. 25 In order to preserve as much open space as possible around the Victorian and still maintain a reasonable amount of ground floor commercial space, surface parking has been limited to only three spaces. Limiting the off-street parking is necessary for the viability of the project, and for compliance with HPC's review standards. The Applicant therefore requests HPC's approval of the off-street parking proposal and a waiver of payment in lieu fees for the balance of 19 spaces. (ii) Open Space: The open space requirement for the project is 25% of the total site square footage, or 2,250 sq.ft. Approximately 2,300 sq.ft. of the site is devoted to the plaza, but because the open space definition now requires that open space areas be a minimum of ten feet in depth and extend at least 50% of the length of the lot frontage, none of the open space along Monarch can be counted in open space calculations. Therefore only 1,650 sq. ft. of the open space within the project complies with all aspects of this definition. Under the provisions of Special Review (Â§7-404(A)(3)), when the H.P.C. approves the on-site relocation of an Historic Landmark into required open space, such that the amount of open space on-site is reduced below that required by this Code, the requirements of this section shall be waived. During conceptual review, the H.P.C. deferred until Final Development Plan review a decision regarding the 26 extent of the open space waiver required for the project, pending a final decision regarding the siting of the Lily Reid Cottage. In Section IV (page 37), the Applicant is requesting Special Review approval of the siting of the cottage as shown and a waiver of 600 sq.ft. of required open space. Open space is being provided equal to the square footage required. However, the placement of the house is more important than the technical compliance with the open space measuring criteria. 2. Demolition and Partial Demolition. Approval of demolition and partial demolition involving an historic landmark was granted by HPC subject to the following conditions: a. That the Applicant address Standard B of Â§7-602. See Section II(E)(1)(h), page 22. b. That subsequent drawings and the architectural model reflect the actual conditions of the existing structure, including but not limited to the cross gable. The architectural drawings submitted with this application and the model to be presented at the H.P.C. hearing accurately reflect the existing historic structure, including the cross-gable which will be preserved. As Sheets 7 and 8 indicate, certain non-original elements (including the bay window, porch enclosure and storage shed which was added to the rear of the 27 building) will be removed and restored in a manner more typical of the original structure. 3. Relocation. Relocation of the Lily Reid Cottage within the site was approved by HPC subject to the following condition: a. Further study of setbacks and precise siting of the historic building. Refer to Section II(E)(1), Condition "i", page 24. F. Development Plan Review Standards For All Development Involving Historic Landmarks: The proposal complies with HPC's review standards, as follows: 1. Compatibility: "The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel, and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an H, Historic Overlay district, or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot, or exceed the allowed floor area, HPC shall find that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements." The design of the proposed commercial building is intended to provide an architecturally understated backdrop to the small 28 victorian cottage in order to give visual prominence to its scale, form and detail at its new corner location. The exterior materials and detail of the commercial building are similar to neighboring buildings in order to provide continuity and compatibility with the immediate built environment. Massing , setbacks and building facades are also configured to assure a compatible relationship to neighboring structures, as well as to provide a transition in scale to nearby residential areas. 2. Neighborhood Character: "The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development." The proposal provides for a suitable transition from the scale of the buildings in the commercial core to that of the residential areas to the west, and creates a visual relationship with the victorian house at the corner location across the street. The project also provides a necessary transition between contemporary structures on the block and Victorian structures in the neighborhood. 3. Cultural Value: "The proposal enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development of adjacent parcels." 29 The proposal enhances scale transition in the neighborhood from commercial to residential, both in terms of architectural massing and proposed uses. The design character of Aspen's commercial core is reflected in the materials and period character of the project's architecture. 4. Architectural Integrity of Historic Structures: "The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof." By relocating the historic Lily Reid Cottage within the site, and providing an open space buffer around the structure, the new location for the building will much more closely approximate its historic setting, and will permit a view of its form and detail on all four sides. In its present location, the Lily Reid Cottage is ungraciously located between larger commercial buildings and only one facade can be readily seen. The new location and historic renovation will restore architectural integrity to the Lily Reid Cottage and all four sides of the building will be visible. 30 I II. REQUEST FOR HPC APPROVAL TO TEMPORARILY RELOCATE AN HISTORIC LANDMARK WITHIN THE SITE (Â§7-602) Following approval of Landmark designation, the Applicant has worked closely with the architects and contractor regarding construction phasing of the project. As a result of that planning, a decision has been made to temporarily relocate the Lily Reid Cottage to an off-site location at Seventh and Main Street. Temporary relocation is necessary to protect the structure from possible damage during the construction effort. The concept established for the project is clearly dependent on the successful relocation of the Lily Reid house and it is important to take every precaution to protect the building during this effort. A. Standards for Review of Relocation (Â§7-602(D)). Approval for relocation may be granted if the HPC finds that all of the following standards are met: 1. "The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on its original site to provide for any reasonable beneficial use of the property." The Applicant proposes to temporarily relocate the historic structure off-site during the construction phase. Once 31 construction staging permits, the structure will be returned to the site and placed in its approved location. 2. "The relocation activity is demonstrated to be the best preservation method for the character and integrity of the structure, and the historic integrity of the existing neighbor- hood and ajacent structures will not be diminished due to the relocation. The Applicant has continued to consult with Ryberg Construction Company, structure Moving Contractors, who have moved numerous small residential structures such as this. The company anticipates that the structure can be relocated without historically significant alteration to its integrity. 3. "The structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and re-siting." The ability of the structure to withstand relocation has previously been addressed in letters from Ryberg Construction Company and Integrated Engineering Consultants; these were included in the Conceptual Development Plan application. 4. "A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond with the Engineering Department, to insure the safe relocation, preservation and repair (if required) of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation." It has been concluded that demolition of the existing commercial building to the west of the Lily Reid Cottage and subsequent subgrade construction poses a possible hazard to the 32 Lily Reid Cottage. The Applicant has received written permission from the owners of a parcel at Seventh and Main (see Exhibit D) to temporarily store the cottage on their property. Ryberg House Movers will move the cottage to the Main Street site where it will be stored on steel beams and then moved into its permanent location as soon as construction of the new struc- ture on the eastern and southern portion of the lot permits. 5. "The receiving site is compatible in nature to the structure or structures proposed to be moved, the character of the neighborhood is consistent with the architectural integrity of the structure, and the relocation of the historic structure would not diminish the integrity or character of the neighborhood of the receiving site. An accceptance letter from the property owner of the receiving site shall be submitted." The temporary receiving site on Lots A through C, Block 19, is within the Main Street Historic District. It is presently anticipated that the cottage will be stored on the site for no more than six months. An acceptance letter from the property owners of the temporary receiving site is included in Exhibit D. B. Application Requirements for Relocation. A Development Application for Relocation shall include the following: 33 1. General Application Requirements: The general application requirements of Â§6-202 have been addressed previously in Section II, beginning on page 14. 2. Name of Structure: The name of the structure proposed for relocation is the Lily Reid Cottage. 3. "A written description of the structure proposed for relocation, and its year of construction." The existing Lily Reid Cottage is a brick masonary structure with wood trim and a metal roof, originally constructed around 1889. This former residential structure is representative of Aspen's Mining Era, and illustrates the home environment and lifestyle of some of the residents of Aspen at the time. An unusual feature of the house is that it is constructed of brick. In those days, brick was considered a more elaborate building material because of its greater cost and longer life. Therefore, some status or stability is represented by this Victorian Miner's Cottage. 4. "A report from a licensed engineer or architect regard- ing the soundness of the structure, and its suitability for rehabilitation." Lawrence Doble, of Integrated Engineering Consultants, has previously evaluated the historic structure and has concluded 34 that, using proper moving techniques, the structure can be safely - relocated (see conceptual application). 5. An economic feasibility report that provides: a. "Estimated market value of the property on which the structure lies, in its current condition, and after relocation." Mollica & Associates, Inc. previously completed a "Limited Appraisal Assignment" for Lot C in April, 1990 (see conceptual application). In Mollica & Associates' opinion, the existing building tends to damage the value of the property and the proposal to permanently relocate the existing house to the northwest corner of Lot A would substantially enhance the Victorian character of the structure. b. "Estimates from an architect, developer, real estate agent or appraiser, experienced in rehabilitation, addressing the economic feasibility of rehabilitation or reuse of the structure proposed for relocation." Mollica & Associates concluded that by relocating the structure to the corner of the site, the Victorian appeal of the Lily Reid Cottage will be enhanced, and a buffer will be provided between it and the new structure to be built behind it. c. "All appraisals made of the property on which the structure is located made within the previous two years." The Limited Appraisal Assignment included with the conceptual application is the only appraisal of the subject property in the past two years. 35 d. "Any other information considered necessary to make a determination whether the property does yield or may yield a reasonable return on investment." "As is", the existing structure was not expected to generate net operating income to support its appraised value, because the site is considerably underdeveloped relative to its present zoning. An addition to the rear of the building would be very expensive, and would not provide prime retail space. Mollica & Associates concluded that by relocating the Lily Reid Cottage, the building will be preserved near its original location, but will be exposed more fully to view, creating prime retail space, and acting as a drawing card to the remainder of the building rebuilt around the Victorian structure. 6. "A development plan and a statement of the effect of the proposed development on the other structures on the property, and the character of the neighborhood around the property shall be submitted in cases when the HPC requires a development plan to evaluate the appropriateness of demolition, or when the applicant believes the submission of a development plan will assist in the evluation of the proposed demolition." Demolition is not contemplated for any buildings or building elements with any historic significance. 36 IV. REQUEST FOR SPECIAL REVIEW (Article 7, Division 4) Approval of development subject to Special Review is permit- ted upon a determination by the Planning and Zoning Commission that the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the request. As discussed below, the Applicant is requesting Special Review approval of a reduction in the Utility/Trash Service Areas as well as a reduction in required open space. A. Special Review For Reduction In Utility/Trash Service Area Under the provisions of Â§5-211(a)(6), a utility/trash service area of 200 sq.ft. is required in the CC zone district for up to 6,000 sq.ft. of net leasable floor area; an additional area of 10 sq.ft. for each 1,200 sq.ft. of additional net leasable is required, unless reduced by P&Z by Special Review. The amount of trash service area required for the project is 306 sq.ft. The Applicant proposes to reduce the amount of trash service area needed for the project by providing a trash compactor sized to meet the needs of the project. 37 In order to qualify for Special Review approval for a reduction in the service area, an applicant must demonstrate compliance with the following criteria: 1. "Given the nature of the potential uses of the building and its total square footage, the utility/trash service area proposed to be provided will be adequate." The applicant proposes to provide a 110 sq.ft. trash service area with a trash compactor on the parcel to serve the project. BFI personnel have recommended the use of a compactor similar to the one used at the Ute City Banque Building; where the trash is compacted and then pushed into a standard dumpster to simplify collection. 2. "Access to the utility/trash service area is adequate." Access to the service area is directly off of the alley. 3. "Measures are provided for enclosing trash bins and making them easily movable by trash personnel." In discussing the design of the trash area with BFI personnel, if a system similar to the one described above is used, ease of trash collection will not be a problem. The trash storage and parking area is well organized, protected from the elements and elevated slightly to minimize ice buildup. 38 4. "When appropriate, provisions for trash compaction are provided by the proposed development and measures are taken to encourage trash compaction by other developments on the block." The applicant has agreed to install a trash compactor to minimize the space to be allocated to trash storage. The alley serving the block is one of the cleanest and best organized in the commercial core. 5. "The area for public utility placement and maintenance is adequate and safe for the placement of utilities." Meters are to be located at the southeast corner of the building for easy access. An area of approximately 70 sq.ft. is provided along the east wall of the project. The majority of mechanical and electrical equipment will be located in the basement. 6. "Adequate provisions are incorporated to ensure the con- struction of the access area." Construction of the utility/trash service area will be a condition of approval. The applicant will be unable to secure a building permit for the project unless the trash area is included in the construction documents. B. Special Review of A Reduction Required Open Space. The open space requirement in the CC zone is 25% of the lot area, or 2,250 sq.ft. for the project site. Approximately 2,300 sq.ft. of open area is provided in the plaza area; however, only 1,650 sq.ft. of this area meets the definition of open space which 39 requires that open space be a minimum of 10 feet in depth for a distance of at least 50 percent of the lot frontage. Under the provisions of Special Review (Article 7, Division 4), when the HPC approves the on-site relocation of an Historic Landmark into required open space such that the amount of open space is reduced below that required, the open space payment-in- lieu is waived. In Section II, the Applicant is requesting HPC approval to relocate the Lily Reid Cottage into required open space. C. Special Review Application Requirements Include: 1. The general application information required under Section 6-202. General application requirements have been addressed in Section II, beginning on page 14. 2. A sketch plan showing the configuration of the development on the lot and those features of the site which are relevant to the Special Review application. Refer to Sheet 3 of the attached architectural drawings, follow- ing page 2, for the layout of the trash service area and open space areas. 3. An analysis of the characteristics of similarly situated properties in the same Zone District and of neighboring parcels with respect to whether these properties comply with the dimensional, off-street parking or trash/utility service area requirement which is subject to Special Review. 40 In general, virtually all applicants for expansion of commercial projects have sought some variation in the requirements of the trash storage in the CC zone. The alley which serves this site is among the best organized for trash service in the Commerical Core. This application seeks to comply with the trash storage requirements by providing a trash compactor sized to meet the needs of the project. There is adequate usable open space within the site to meet the requirement; however, some of these open areas fail to meet the definition. The definition does not account for corner lots, where it would be very difficult to comply along both lot lines. 41 V. REQUEST FOR GMQS EXEMPTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF AN HISTORIC LANDMARK: (Â§8-104(B)(1)(c)) The Applicant requests approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission of GMQS Exemption for the enlargement of an Historic Landmark intended to be used as a commercial or office development which increases the building's existing floor area ratio and its net leasable square footage. A. Mitigation of Impacts: In order to be eligible for exemption under the provisions of Â§8-104(B)(1)(c), the Applicant is required to demonstrate that as a result of the development, mitigation of the project's 2 community impacts will be addressed, as follows: 1. "For an enlargement at the maximum floor area permitted under the external floor area ratio of the applicable zone district (excluding any bonus floor area permitted by special review), the applicant shall provide affordable housing at 100% of the level which would meet the threshold required in Â§8-106 for the applicable use. For each 1% reduction in floor area below the maximum permitted under the external floor area ratio for the applicable zone district (excluding any bonus floor area permitted by special review), the affordable housing requirement shall be reduced by 1%. "The applicant shall place a restriction of the property, to the satisfaction of the City Attorney, requiring that if, in the future, additional floor area is requested, the owner shall pro- vide affordable housing impact mitigation at the then current standards. Any affordable housing provided by the applicant shall be restricted to the housing designee's moderate-income price and occupancy guidelines." 42 The project includes 13,200 sq.ft. of FAR floor area; at 1.5:1, the maximum floor area permitted (excluding any bonus floor area) is 13,500 sq.ft. The affordable housing requirement for the enlargement is therefore 97.8% of the applicable threshold requirement of Â§8-106. The existing structures include 6,200 sq.ft. of floor area which is devoted entirely to retail uses. Therefore, the project represents an enlargement of 7,000 FAR sq.ft. on the upper three levels. This enlarged FAR includes 3,463 sq.ft. of new net leasable commercial space, 1,506 sq.ft. of affordable housing and 2,012 sq.ft. of accessory space and other non-leasable areas which count in FAR. The applicant proposes to use a generation factor of 3.7 employees/1,000 sq.ft. of net leasable for the expansion; the employee generation for the new space is therefore 12.81 employees. At a threshold requirement 97.8% x 60% x 12.81, 7.52 employees must be housed. The Applicant proposes to house eight employees on-site in a dormitory facility on the second floor of the new buiding as illustrated on the architectural drawings following page 2. 43 Because a dorm is proposed, the Applicant commits to the low-income rental structure for dorm units, even though the regulations permit Landmark projects to utilize the moderate- income guidelines. The Applicant requests the right to house employees of the project at low-income rental rates even though their incomes may exceed low-income guidelines. 2. "Parking shall be provided according to the standards of Article 5, Division 2 and Division 3, if HPC determines that it can be provided on the site's surface and be consistent with the review standards of Article 7, Division 6. Any parking which cannot be located on-site and which would therefore be required to be provided via a cash-in-lieu payment shall be waived." Under the Code provisions for GMQS Exemption for Expansion of Historic Landmarks, 2 off-street parking spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. of net leasable must be provided only if HPC finds that surface parking can be provided which is consistent with HPC's review standards for development involving an Historic Landmark (Article 7, Division 6). The payment-in-lieu fee for the balance of required spaces is waived upon such a finding by HPC. Because the project is built on the concept of retaining a large open area around the Lily Reid Cottage, only 3 surface spaces can be provided (see architectural drawings following page 2). The Applicant requests HPC approval of the parking plan as proposed. 44 3. "The development's water supply, sewage treatment, solid waste disposal, drainage control, transportation and fire protection impacts shall be mitigated to the satisfaction of the Commission." Necessary utilities are available immediately adjacent to the site. Storm drainage improvements will be engineered in accordance with the City's regulations. Bus service and fire protection is in close proximity to the site. 4. "The compatibility of the project's site design with surrounding projects and its appropriateness for the site shall be demonstrated, including but not limited to consideration of the quality and character of proposed landscaping and open space, the amount of site coverage by buildings, any amenities provided for users and residents of the site, and the efficiency and effectiveness of the service delivery area." The project's compatibility with surrounding projects and other design characteristics is discussed in Section II, beginning on page 14. Service to the site will be from the alley to the south of the site. 45 VI. REQUEST FOR GMQS EXEMPTION FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING (Â§8-104(C)(1)(C)) All housing deed restricted in accordance with the housing guide- lines is eligible for exemption by the City Council. The Applicant requests approval by City Council of a GMQS Exemption to construct a dormitory facility of 1,500 sq.ft. housing 8 employees to be restricted to the low-income guidelines. The dormitory facility will be retained as a rental facility; the Applicant requests a right of first refusal to place eligible employees of the project in the dorm units. Additional storage for the dorm tenants will be provided in the basement. The review of any request for exemption of housing pursuant to this section shall include a determination of the City's need for such housing, considering the proposed development's compliance with an adopted housing plan, the number of dwelling units proposed and their location, the type of dwelling units proposed, specifically regarding the number of bedrooms in each unit, the size of the dwelling unit, the rental/sale mix of the proposed development, and the proposed price categories to which the dwelling units are to be deed restricted. 46 EXHIBITS EXHIBIT A General Application Information (Â§6-202) 1. Application Form 2. Applicant's Letter of Authorization 3. Disclosure of Ownership 4. Certificate of Limited Partnership STEWART TITLE OF ASPEN, INC. OWNERSHIP AND ENCUMBRANCE REPORT PREPARED FOR: Holland & Hart ORDER NO.:00017161 HEREBY CERTIFIES from a search of the books in this office that the owner of Lots A and B, Block 81, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN Situated in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, appears to be vested in the name of ASPEN ARCADE LIMITED and that the above described property appears to be subject to the following: A Deed of Trust dated December 1, 1982, executed by Aspen Arcade Limited, a Colorado Limited Partnership, to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County, to secure an indebtedness of 4520,000.00, in favor of Modern Method Corpoialion, recorded December 1, 1982 in Book 436 at Page 587 as Reception No. 246003. Note: Said Deed of Trust has been subordinated to the Deed of Trust recorded July 5, 1985 in Book 489 at Page 278 as Reception No. 269435, by Subordination Agreement recorded July 5, 1985 in Book 489 at Page 284 as Reception No. 269436. NOTE: Said Deed of Trust has been subordinated to the Deed of Trust recorded April 12, 1989 in Book 589 at Page 880 as Reception No. 310523, by Subordination Agreement recorded April 12, 1989 in Book 589 at Page 885 as Reception No. 310524. A Deed of Trust dated July 3, 1985, executed by Aspen Arcade Limited, by Lawrence H. Brooks, General Partner, to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County, to secure an indebtedness of $350,000.00, in favor of First National Bank in Aspen, recorded July 5, 1985 in Book 489 at Page 278 as Reception No. 269435. A Deed of Trust dated March 1, 1989, executed by Aspen Arcade Limited, a Colorado Limited Partnership, to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County, to secure an indebtedness of $100,000.00, in favor of Janet Horowitz, recorded April 12, 1989 in Book 589 at Page 880 as Reception No. 310523. EXCEPT all easements, rights-of-ways, restrictions and reservations of record. EXCEPT any and all unpaid taxes and assessments. This report does not reflect any of the following matters: STET#'ART TITLE GUARANTY CO MPKNY =-... .. go' EXHIBIT 1 LAND USE APPLICATION PORM 1) Project Name ASPEN ARCADE BUILDING/LILY REID HOUSE 2) Project Location 200 South Monarch Street, Aspen, Colorado; Lots A, B and C, Block 81, City and Townsite of Aspen 3) Present Zoning CC 4) Lot Size 90x100 - 9,000 sq. ft. 5) Applicant's Name, Address & Phone Â¢ Mr. Larry Brooks, General Partner, Aspen Arcade, Ltd., 1148 Fourth St., Santa Monica, CA 90403 (213)394-4938 6) Representative's Name, Address & Phone # Joseph Wells, AICP 602 Midland Park Place, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303)925-8080 7) Type of Application (please check all that apply): Conditional Use Conceptual SPA Conceptual Historic Dev. Special Review Final SPA X Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline Conceptual PUD Minor Historic Dev. Stream Margin Final PUD Historic Demolition Mountain View Plane Subdivision Historic Designation - Exemption Hallam Lake ESA Text/Map Amendment GMQS Allotment Condominiumization X GMQS Exemption Lot Split/Lot Line Adjustment 8) Description of Existing Uses (number and type of existing structures; appro- ximate sq. ft. ; number of bedrooms; any previous approvals granted to the property) . Brick masonry, one-story Victorian miner's cottage of approximately 900 sq. ft., built around 1889, and an approximately 5,325 sq. ft. one-story masonry, flat-roofed building with glass storefront. Both structures are presently occupied by retail tenants. 9) Description of Development Application Restoration of miner's cottage on northwesterly portion of site, and construction of new three-story building for retail, office, and afford- able housing uses to the south and east of the site. Total of 13,200 FAR sq. ft. proposed. 10) Have you attached the following: X Response to Attachment 2, Minimum Submission Contents X Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Contents --C- Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application ASPEN ARCADE LIMITED EXHIBIT 2 January 10, 1991 RE: Land Use Submissions to the City of Aspen for Lots A, B and C, Block 81, Aspen Townsite To Whom It May Concern: I am the general partner of Aspen Arcade, Ltd., owner Lots A, B and C, Block 81, Aspen, Colorado, also known as 200 South Monarch Street. I hereby authorize Joseph Wells, 602 Midland Park Place, Aspen, Colorado (925-8080), to submit the attached application for final Development plan review by HPC and GMOS Exemption review by P&Z. Yours truly, - 1. -Lawrence H. Brook General Partner Aspen Arcade, Ltd. 1148 Fourth Street Santa Monica, California 90403 (213) 394-4938 qall~|611$61(46,(,a.,(.9...1..'D.,Il'Ual(â€¢1614 ]41#14141474141#14141 1'11?aâ€¢!('â€¢m%1[rllâ€¢11â€¢911(....M,bls~~ . r.' ' '' '17,1 Impyers 11tle EXHIBIT "3" Insurance @poration NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS RICHMOND. VIRGINIA Policy Numoer ' 85-01-097845 SUBJECT TO THE EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE. THE EXCEPTIONS CONTAINED IN SCHEDULE B AND THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS HEREOF. LAWYERS TITLE INSURANCE CORPORATION, a Virginia corporation. herein called the Company, insures, as of Date of Policy shown in Schedule A. against loss or damage, not exceeding the amount of insurance stated in Schedule A, and costs, attorneys' fees and expensesÂ· which the Company may become - obligated to pay hereunder, sustained or incurred by the insured by reason of: 1. Title to the estate or interest described in Schedule A being vested otherwise than as stated therein; 2. Any defect in or lien or encumbrance on such title; 3. Lack of a right of access to and from the land: or 4. Unmarketability of such title. . IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Company has caused this policy to be signed and sealed, to be valid when Schedule A is countersigned by an authorized officer or agent of the Company, all in accordance with its By-Laws. I~oENIitle Insu*~e @poration Sy: m 44 e . 09 (w-2<Â» President Attest: 1 40Â· 3.OJA Â£ / Secretary. EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE he following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy: 1. Ca) Governmental police power. (b) Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation relating to environmental protection, (c) Any law. ordinance or governmental regulation (including but not limited to building and zoning ordinances) restricting or regulating or prohibiting the occuoancy, use or entoyment of the land. or regulating the character, dimensions or location of any improvement now or hereafter erected on the land, or prohibiting a separation in ownership or a change in the dimensions or area of the land or any parcel ot which the land is or was a part. ~ i Cd) The effect of any violation of the matters excluded under (a), (b), or (ct above. unless notice of a defect. lien or encumbrance resulting - from a violation has been recorded at Date of Policy in those records in which under state statutes deeds. mortgages, lis pendens, liens or other title encumbrances must be recorded in order to impart constructive notice to purchasers of the land for value and without knowledge; - provided, however, that without limitation, such records shall not be construed to include records in any of the offices of federal, state or local environmental protection. zoning, building. health or public safety authorities. 2. Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise of Such rights appears in the public records at Date of Policy. 3. Defects, liens, encumbrances. adverse claims. or other matters Ca) created. suffered. assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant: (b) not known to the Company and not shown by the public records but known to the insured claimant either at Date of Poficy or at the date such ~ ' claimant acquired an estate or interest insured by this policy and not disclosed in writing by the insured claimant to the Company prior to the date such insured claimant became an insured hereunder; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant: (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy; or Ce) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the insured claimant had paid value for the estate or interest insured by this policy. CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS Definition of Terms The fo(lowing terms when used in this policy mean: (c) The Company shall have the right at its own cost to institute and without undue delay prosecute any action or proceeding or to do any ra) 'insured": the insured named in Schedule A. and. sukfiect to any other act which in its opinion may be necessary or desirable to ltS or defenses the Company may have had against the named establish the title to the estate or interest as insured, and the Company ured. those who succeed to the interest of such insured by operation may take any appropriate action under the terms of this pojicy, law as distinguished from purchase including. but not limited to. whether or not it shall be liable thereunder. and shall not thereby urs, distributees. devisees. survivors. personai representatives. next concede liability or waive any provision of this policy. kjn, or corporate or fiduciary successors. 6 Cd) Whenever the Company, shall have brought anv action or b) 0'insured claimanC: an insured claiming loss or damage Â·-~. - Â· - _ interposed a defense as required or permitted by the provision of this reunder. - .1 policy, the Company may pursue any such litigation to final c) ''knowledge'0: actual knowledge, not constructive knowledge or determination by a court of competent jurisdiction and expressly )tice which may.be imputed to an insured by reason d any public . reserves the right. in its sole discretion, to appeal from any adverse cords. , - 2 -Â·Â·-judgment or order. d) "land": the land described. specifically or by reference in (e) In all cases where this policy permits or requires the Company to hedule A, and improvements affixed thereto which by law Constitute - prosecute or provide for the defense of any action or proceeding, the 11 proper'ty: provided, however, the term "land" does not include any Â· insured hereunder shall secure to the Company the nght to so operly beyond the lines of the area specifically described or referred ' prosecute or provide defense tri such action or proceeding, andÂ·atl , in Schedule A, nor any right. title, interest. estate or easement in appeals therein, and permit the Company to use, at its option. the utting streets, roads. avenues. alleys. lanes, ways or waterways, but 1 name of such insured for such purpose. Whenever requested by the thing herein shall modify or limit the extent to which a right of- 5=41 Company, such insured shall give the Company all reasonable aid in .cess to and from the land is insured by this policy. - 1 ; 1 -4 r any such action or proceeding, in effecting settlement. securing Ce) ''mortgage'0Â· mortgage. deed or trust. trust deed, or other - , S I ;evidence. obtaining witnesses. or prosecuting or defending such action curity instrument. i ,or proceeding, and the Company shall reimburse such insured for any f) "public records": those records which by law impart Constructive , t:.?expense so incurred. tice of matters relating to said land. - -I . '1- 4. Notice cf Loss-Umitation of Action Continuation of Insurance after Conveyance of Title In addition to the notices required under paragraph 3(b) of these The Coverage of this policy shall continue in force as of Oate of Policy Conditions and Stipulations, a statement in writing of any loss or favor of an insured so long as such Insured retains an estate or damage for which it is claimed the Company is liable under this Dolicy ,terest in the land, or holds an indebtedness secured by a purchase shall be furnished to the Company within 90 days after such loss or oney mortgage given by a purchaser from such insured. or so long as damage shall have been determined and no right of action shall accrue ich insured shall have liability by reason of covenants of warranty to an insured claimant until 30 days after such statement shall have ade by such insured in any transfer or conveyance of such estate or been furnished. Failure to furnish such statement of loss or damage terest provided, however, this policy shall not continue in force in shall terminate any liability of the Company under this policy as to such ivor of any purchaser from such insured of either said estate or loss or damage. iterest or the indebtedness secured by a purchase money mortgage ven to such insured. 5. Options to Pay or Otherwise Settle Claims . Defense and Prosecution of Actions-Notice of Claim to be The Company shall have the option to pay or otherwise settle for or in wen by an Insured Claimant the name of an insured claimant any claim insured against or to terminate all liability and obligations of the Company hereunder by (a) The Company, at its own cost and without undue delay, shall paying or rendering payment of the amount of insurance under this ovide for the defense of an insured in all litigation consisting of policy together with any costs. attorneys' fees and expenses incurred .tions or proceedings commenced against such insured or a defense up to the time of such payment or tender of payment. by the insured iterposed against an insured in an action to enforce a contract for a claimant and authorized by the Company. ile of the estate or interest in said land. to the extent that Such igation is founded upon an alleged defect. lien, encumbrance, or ner mailer insured against by this policy. (b) The insured shall notify the Company promptly in writing (i) in 6. Determination and Payment of Loss ise any action or proceeding is begun or defense is interposed as set (a) The liability of the Company under this policy shall in no case irth in (a) above. (ii) in case knowledge shall come to an insured exceed the least of: ereunder of any claim of title or interest which Is adverse to the title (i) the actual loss of the insured claimant. or 1 the estate or interest. as insured. and which might cause loss or (ii) the amount of insurance stated in Schedule A. amage for which the Company may be liable by virtue of this policy. or (b) The Company will pay. in addition to any loss insured against by 0 if title to the estate or interest as insured. is rejected as this policy. all costs imposed upon an insured in litigation carried on by nmarketable. If such prompt notice shall not be given to the Company, the Company for such insured. and all costs. attorneys' fees and men as to such insured ail Nability of the Comoany shall cease and expenses in litigation carried on by such insured with the written irminate in regard to the matter or matters for which Such prompt authorization of tne Company. otice is reau,red: provided. however. that failure to notify shall in no (cj When liability has been definitely fixed in accordance w,th the ise orelodice the rights of any such insured under this Policy unless conditions of this policy, the loss or damage shall be pavat#e within 30 nâ€¢ Cr,mnanv shall be oreludiced by such failure and then only to the days thereafter. 14 - .. ' 't r 1! CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS-CONTINUED Limitation of Liability 11. Subrogation Upon Payment or Settlement No claim shall arise or be maintainable under this policy (a) if the Whenever the Company shall have settled a claim under thispolicy, all ompany. after hav,ng received notice of an alleged defect. lien or right of subrogationshall vestinthe Companyunaffected by anyactof the icumbrance insured against hereunder, by litigation or otherwise, insured claimant. The Company shall be subrogated to and be entitled to ,moves such defect. lien or encumbrance or establishes the title. as all rights and remedies which such insured claimant would have had 1Sured, within a reasonable time after receipt of such notice: (b) in the against any person or property in resoect to such claim had this poficy not #ent of litigation until there has been a final determination by acourt of been issued. and if requested by the Company, such insured claimant imoetent jurisdiction. and disposition of all appeals therefrom, adverse shall transfer to the Company all rights and remedies against any person , ' thetitle, asinsured, asprovidedinparagraphj hereof: oric) for liability or property necessary in order to perfect such right of subrogation and Nuntartly assumed by an insured in settling any claim or suu without shall permit the Company to use the name of such Insured claimant In any rior written consent of the Company. transaction or litigation involving such rights or remedies. I f the payment does not cover the loss of such Insured claimant, the Company shall be Reduction of Liability subrogated to such rights and remedies in the proportion which said All payments under this policy. except payments made for costs. payment bears to the amount of said loss. If loss should result from any torneys' fees and expenses. shall reduce the amount of the insurance act of such insured claimant. such act shall not void this policy. but the ro tanto. No payment shall be made without producing this policy for Company, in that event. shall be required to pay only that part of any idorsement of such payment unless the policy be lost or destroyed. in losses insured against hereunder which shall exceed the amount. if any. hich case proof of such loss or destruction shall be furnished to the lost to the Company be reason of the Impairment of the rignt of Misfaction of the Company subrogation. Liability Noncumulative It is expressly understood that the amount of insurance under this ....2.-- .4... Micy shall be reduced by any amount the Company may pay under any Nicy insuring eltheria) a mortgage shown or referred to In Schedule B 12. Liability Limited to this Policy ereof which Isalienontheestateorinterestcovered bythispolicy, cr(b) - This Instrument together with all endorsements and other instruments. mortgage hereafter executed by an insured which isa chargeorlienon if any. attached hereto by the Company is the entire policy and contract e estate or interest described or referred to in Schedule A, and the between the insured and the Company. nount so paid shall be deemed a payment under this policy..The Anv da,m of loss or damage, whether or not based on negligence, and impa ny shall have the option to apply to the payment of any such . which arises outof thestatus of the title tothe estate or interest covered ortgages any amountthatotherw,se wouldbepayablehereundertothe hereby or any action asserting such claim. shall be restricted to the sured owner of the estate or interest covered bv this policy and the provisions and conditions and stipulations of this policy. nount so paid shall be deemed a payment under this policy to said No amendment of or endorsement to this policy can be made except by sured owner. 5 , - writing endorsed hereon or attached hereto sIgned by either the President. a Vice President. the Secretary. an Assistant SecretarY. or 0. Apportionment . . validating officer or authorized signatory of the Company. -- If the land described in Schedule A consists of two or more parceis nich are not used as a single site. and a loss is established affecting one more of said parcels but not all. the loss shall becomputedand settled -- 1 a pro rata basis as if the amount of insurance under this policy was vided prorata as tothevalue on Date of PolicY of each separateparcelto e whole, exclusive of any improvements made subsequent to Date of ~- 13. Notices. Where Sent plicy, unless a liability or value has otherwise been agreed upon as to All notices required to be given the Comoanv and any statement in ich such parcel by the Company and the insured at the time of the writing required to be furnished the Company shall include the number of suance of this policy and shown byanexpress statement here,n or by an this policy and shall be addressed to its Corporate Headquarters. 6630 iaorsement attached hereto. West Broad Street. Richmond. Virginia. ma,ling address: P.O. Box 27567. Richmond. Virginia 23261. Igwyers Title Insurance Corporation National Headquarters - Richmond, Virginia â‚¬iI~*'D.IMITIâ€¢,(43114*,(*MIC/MIL#Mt-Mot-â€¢11-qlt-.11-11*10-1.-u,4..,4#i,-..il--1,-MI,-M",401--1 -11,= Ie)yerslitie Insurance @poration NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS RICHMOND, VIRGINIA SCHEDULE A-OWNER'S POLICY CASE NUMBER DATE OF POLICY AMOUNT OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER PCT-3150 05/01/89 @ 10:54 A.M. $ 85-01-097845 l #1. NAME OF INSURED: ASPEN ARCADE LIMITED, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP . 2. THE ESTATE OR INTEREST IN THE LAND HEREIN AND WHICH IS COVERED BY THIS POLICY IS: IN FEE SIMPLE -3. THE ESTATE OR INTmEST REFERRED TO HEREIN IS AT DATE OF POLICY VESTED IN: ASPEN ARCADE LIMITED. A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP *4. THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS POLICY IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: LOT C, BLOCK 81, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN. COUNTY OF PITKIN. STATE OF COLORADO -- U*4 4%,lj u FITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. 601 E. HOPKINS AVE. Counter kignki Audr ized Agent ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (303) 925-1766 THE POLICY NUMBER SHOWN ON THIS SCHEDULE MUST AGREE WITH THE PREPRINTED NUMBER ON THE COVER SHEET. 3 100 Litho in U.S.A. id-'ilizr.dii - M ,~. #,i -â€¢ 1,- â€¢1.,-â€ž i. .. 41)yers line Insumnce @poration NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS RICHMOND. VIRGINIA SCHEDULE 3-OWNERS CASE NUMBER DATE OF POLICY POLICY NUMBER PCT-3150 05/01/89 @ 10:54 A.M. 85-01-097845 i THIS POLICY DOES NOT INSURE AGAINST LOSS OR DAMAGE BY REASON OF THE BULLOWING: 1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shawn by the public records. 2. Easements. or claims of easements, not shown by the public records. 3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, and any facts which a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records. 4. Any lien. or right to a lien. for services, labor. or material heretofore or hereto- after furnished. imposed by law and not shown by the public records. 5. Unpatented mining claims. reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authoriz- ing the issuance thereof: water rights. claims or title to water. ~ 6. Taxes for the year 1989 not yet due or payable. . 7. Reservations and exceptions as contained in the Deed from the City of Aspen recorded in Book 59 at Page 4 providing as follows: That. no title shall be hereby acquired to any mine of gold. silver, cinnabar or copper or to any valid mining claim or possession held under existing laws. _8. Terms. conditions and provisions of Notice of Historic Designation. recorded in Book 295 at Page 515. 9. Deed of Trust from : ASPEN ARCADE LIM[TED, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP to the Public Trustee of Pitkin Ccunty for the use of : CENTRAL BANK OF ASPEN, N.A., IT'S SUCCESSORS AND/OR ASSIGNS It to secure : dated : APRIL 25. 1989 recorded : MAY 01. 1989 IN BOOK 591 AT PAGE 369 reception no. : 311042 ECCEPTIONS NUMBERED NONE ARE HEREBY OMITTED. ELIZZLIZZEZZIZZIZZIZZ,â€žt-â€¢11.â€¢,1*â€¢â€¢,1'mâ€¢,i.â€¢,I.â€¢11-m,f-â€žc..,i.â€¢Ir..,I ..,i.â€¢Ir..1(â€¢-,I.â€¢11-â€¢,i-â€¢1[1â€¢â€¢11-,11.mt:Iniltmiir,1 'CO Litho in U.S.A. LnE 1.TIC I.TIC Ute UIC LrIC I.TIC rT.7,1 -- 1%1)yers pile Insurance @poration NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS RICHMOND, VIRGINIA ENDORSEMENT FORM 110.1 ATTACHED TO AND MADE A PART OF LAWYERS TITLE DEURANCE CORPORATION NO. 85-01-097845 The aforementicned policy is hereby amended by deleting paragraphs 1, 2, 3. 4 of Schedule B, Exceptions. This endorsement is made a part of the policy or commitment and is subject to all the terms and prcvisions thereof and of any prior endorsements thereto. Except to the extent expressly stated, it neither modifies any of the terms and provisions of the policy or commitment and prior endorsements. if any, nor does extend the effective date of the policy or commitment and prior endorsements or increase the face amount thereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Comparry has caused this Endorsement to be signed and sealed and to be valid when ccuntersigned by an authorized officer or agent of the Company, all in accordance with its By-Laws. 601 E. HOPKINS AVE., ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 ISSUED AT PITKIN CO 7~23 9-,u COUNTEFEIGNED : AUTHORI:20 GEÂ¥CEPÂ¢ OR AGENT DATED:05/01/89 @ 10:54 A.M. Ar. 1 ..6. 1- 'IC A ek - hâ€¢ i &- 1 11 6.6. 4 4 I V V I A i- J t 4 %.., L.- U ,~t 1 1 Ejul I , U 1 Ljditab '1/ I . ,/â€¢ 4 ., - 4 -i Commitment for Title Insurance E-? SW USLIFE Title Insuiance Company 01 Dallas, herein called the Company. for valuable consideration. hereby commits to issue its policy or policies 5 K of title insurance. as identihed in Schedule A. in favor of the proposed Insured named In Schedule A. as owner or mortgagee of the estate or interest covered hereby In the lat,d descr,bed or referred to In Schedule A. upon payment ol the premiums and charges therefor; all subject to 1; the provisions of Schedules A and B and to the Conditions and Stipulations hereof. This Commitment shall bo ellective only when the identity of the Proposed Insuied and tho amount of the policy or policies cornrnitted for have been insened in Schedule A heteol by the Company, either at the time of the issuance ol this Commitment or by subsequent endorsement. Thts Commitment is preliminary tothe issuance of such policy or policies ol tille,f,surance and allliability and obligations hereunder shall cease and terminate six (6) nionths alter the ellective date hereol or when Ihe policy or policies committed for shall issue, whichever first occurs. provided that the la,luie to issue such policy of policies is not the fault of the Company. This Commitment shall not be valid or binding until countersigned by an authotized officer or agent. ASPEN TITLE COMPANY, LTD . ~' 1 Schedule A 1 [llective d,ite November 1, 1982 Case No A82-365 . Inquiries directed to._ 925-4446_ 2 Policy 01 1)01 cies to lie u.s nÂ·cl at 8:00 A.M. A AllA O.vner s Policy P ..01.9.41 insured Amount $ . - Premium 5 __ - Tax Certificate LARRY BROOKS 8 ALIA Loan Policy P,opobed Ii,wred Aniount S --_ - Premium $ MODERN METHOD CORPORATION, a Colorado Corporation C Amount $ . __ .___. Premium $..._-_--_ 12 3 The ebtate or Intelest m 11â€žÂ· land clegcribed w rele,ied to In this com,1 1 11 I,ent and covefed herein ts lee simple and title thereto is at the ellective date he,rul viÂ·.1,Â·d in MODERN METHOD CORPORATION, a Colorado Corporation 4 The lund ril,Â·fied 10 Iii Illl. i Uflifi,lilii'tit is (les{Â·itboil,is lollows Lots A and B Block 81 41 CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN Pitkin County, Colorado 41-- L 11 Silic(jule B-Section 1 Reclliâ€žeinents The tollow'fig al" ilie IiÂ·(Ii,ili,nâ€žÂ·niN tti tit' coinplhed vvith 111'111 (,0 Paytnent to 01 lot Itti' .1, i 1,<1111 01 the tv,I'Holf ur moittl,Itiols ol the full , onsiderotion for the estate or interest to be insured. , 11('In (t,) Plopel Ilistlr,1,1,Â·81(h) litÂ·,1111111 ihe estilte ut Intele,t to be insuled Inu,11)e executed and duly Illed for record, to-wit. PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED TO AND MADE A PART HEREOF . 1,1. 1 >7 EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED TO AND MADIE A PART HEREOF #A82-365 REQUIREMENTS (continued) 1. Deed from Modern Method Corporation,a Colorado Corporation, vesting fee f simple title in Larry Brooks. 2. Deed of Trust from Larry Brooks to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County, i Colorado for the use of Modern Method Corporation to secure 3. Furnish this Company with a copy of the Resolution by the Borad of Directors of Modern Method Corporation, a Colorado Corporation, naming the officers authorized to execute the necessary instruments. 4. Furnish this Company witil evidence that Modern Method Corporation is in good standing in the State of its incorporation. 5. Evidence of compliance with the provisions of the Real Estate Transfer Tax, Ordinance No. 20 (Series of 1979). . - -1,4 4 ' . 1 E ) 1 jiÂ·'ll e. ~ 1 1 -) b-Y'i L. - 1 LA.- ~ L- I . :_ YEr-:.1.'sÂ·:.06%Â· 1.1.\ 0,4.-Â·:Y n \ 1 je \1,:6 (1 A' 1~1 i OJ ,C n I K- Ail--3'4,1 xo. 20988 1. Certificate that Taxes are Paid to Date STATE OF COLORAD01 ~Ss. r Pitkin County , I le ...... ....., tite undersiened..... 1 -- h j do hereby certify that there are no Ta.res due and unpaid upon the lands described below, ~ and no Tax Sales of said land unredeemed, except as below stated: AMOUNT NECESSARY . TAX LIENS WHEN SOLD AMOUNT SOLD FOR TO REDEEM Section or Town.hip Ran,e or D.y Mooth New Dollm Ctâ€¢. Dollwo Ctâ€¢. PART OF SECTIONS OR LOT Int or Blik Addition Â· _-luE__.ti_-4 -'. ,-Eju,A. 4 j-,3 :-vw1, 1 ' 1 '7./. t. -_ - ~lli~jJ~filij- T-Ari.~s~ -f ,5- -t, 1Â©Jl Â· 670 -1 512:a: . .4<.._ ~~1~~_rULAn i ---r 191 31, 7,LA,-1 . 13331.i _. V.,-4 - -- 1 '. ./,f, IF'itit,ess :ily hand, tjtis... .. 10 AL- 1 \ -Â· t I 1.-4,) County 'Acast,Acr. Â·r-, rzmne~gma,~~mmrmuumy=nimithmn~;r=~*iu:3Â¤.*~~ 4167 1 i,:it... . t.9 '22 F <9522 - 0.,:.i:,p;~391~*ALÂ·al#* 1 ~ Â· :.,ir:ee. '61 :Ezet.ix:(63'.1.141:.16-i:u{:11!:gri ....1, ...1..... L,W 4 .,iÂ· ! Lots A & B, Block 81 2 Aspen , 1 1 .,1, Modern Method Corporatio Larry Brooks b Endorsement 1 9 1 1]lit Attached to and forming a part ol Commitment No A82-365 Issued by ASPEN TITLE COMPANY, LTD. USLIFE Title Insurance Company 01 Dallas , 1 + r 1 91 1 1 -1 1. 7. 01" , Schedule A, Item 2.A. ALTA Owner' s Policy Amount is hereby amended ~' to read: $500,000.00 Premium Schedule A, Item 2.B. ALTA Loan Policy Amount is hereby amdended to read: $520,000.00 Premium This endorsement is made a part of the policy or commitment and is subject to all the terms and provisions ,*05il-4 thereof anti 01 any prior endorsements thereto Except to the extent expressly stated. it neither modifies ~3 (SE ,liI,~E" any of the terms and provisions of the policy or commitment and prior endorsements. if any, nor does it ~ T extend the effective date ot the policy or coinmitment and prior endorsements or increase the face amount thereof. D.,ArtÂ· November 24, 1982 USLIFE Title Insurance Company of Dallas *Ulld-I President & Chief Executive Officer Attest Execut,ve V,coÂ·President, Secretary and Treasurer Issued at Aspen, Colorado - *.t Authorizeo Countersignature Forrily DALLAS TITLE AND GUARANTY COMPANY FORM 5 10 40M SETS 378H RECEIVED F I~[_. ED 1.1' 33 3 12 El: 11 - l.0.' R~!IE'ti OF STATE CERTIFICATE OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 30 -NO?'82 SiATE OF CCLCR,100 OF ASPEN ARCADE LIMZIED - Â·Â· 1 L. The undersigned, desiring to form a limited partnership pursuant to the Colorado Uniform Limited Partnership Law of 1981, being severally duly sworn, swear and state as follows: 1. NAME The name of the limited partnership is ASPEN AIEADE LIMITED, (hereafter called the "Partnership"). 2. CHARACTER OF THE BUSINESS OF THE PARTNERSHIP; AUTHORITY OF THE GENERAL PARTNER 2.1. Business and Purpose of the Partnership: The business and purpose of the partnership shall be to acquire, hold, manage, and invest in real and personal property and engage in retail sales in the State of Colorado. 2.2. Authority of the General Partner: Any person dealing with the Partnership or its properties shall be entitled to rely fully on any bill of sale, contract, note or other written instrument signed by the General Partner in the name and/or on behalf of the Partnership. 3. PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS; OFFICE FOR LOCATION OF RECORDS; NAME OF AGENT FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS 3.1. Principal Place of Business: The principal place of business of the Part- nership in the State of Colorado shall be 301 East Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611. The Partnership may have such other offices and places of business in or out of the State of Colorado as the General Partner may determine. 3.2. Location of Records: The office in the State of Colorado at which Sections 7-62-]04(1)(a) and 7-62-105 of the Colo- Certificate of Limited Partnership - Page 1 [40.0.9] rado Uniform Limited Partnership Law of 1981 re- quire Partnership records to be kept is located at 525 East Cooper, Aspen, Colorado 81611. 3.3. Agent for Service of Process: The name and address of the agent required by Sections 7-62-104(1)(b) of the Colorado Uniform Limited Partnership Law of 1981 for service of process on the Partnership is Charles Besanty, 525 East Cooper, Aspen, Colorado 81612. 4. NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS OF EACH PARTNER 4.1. General Partner: The name and mailing address of the General Partner is: Larry Brooks, 301 East Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611. 4.2. Limited Partners: The name and mailing address of the Limited Partners of the Partnership are: Rita Zeitlin 410 Formosa Avenue - Los Angeles California 90036 Larry Brooks 301 East Hopkins Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 5. CONTRIBUTION OF THE PARTNERS 5.1. Contributions by Limited Partner: The aggregate net agreed value of the property to be contributed by the Limited Partners to the capital of the Partnership, are Rita Zeitlin, and Larry Brooks, 5.2 Contributions of the General Partner: The General Partner will contribute services worth ,li .1 Certificate of Limited Partnership - Page 2 --4 [40.0.91 5.3. Contributed Services: The General Partner has agreed to render services to the Partnership as part of his contribution to the capital of the Partnership to acquire his partnership interest. For any services rendered to the Partnership in excess of this amount he shall receive full and adequate compensation in cash for the services rendered. 5.4. No Additional Contributions from Limited Partners: No Limited Partner shall be required to make any additional contributions to the Partnership. 6. RIGHT OF A LIMITED PARTNER TO SUBSTITUTE AN ASSIGNEE IN HIS PLACE No assignee of a Limited Partner shall become, or have the right to become, a substituted limited partner in the place of his assignor, except upon the consent of the General Partner, which consent shall be evidenced by his execution of an amendment to this Certificate to admit any assignee as a ' substitute Limited Partner. 7. RIGHT OF PARTNERS TO ADMIT ADDITIONAL LIMITED PARTNERS The General Partner, with the consent of a majority in interest of the then Limited Partners in the capital of the Partnership, has the right to admit additional Limited Partners. The consent provided for in the preceding sentence shall be evidenced by execution by the Limited Partners or . their attorney-in-fact of an amendment to this Certificate to admit additional Limited Partners. 1 8. EVENTS THAT WILL PERMIT A PARTNER TO TERMINATE HIS MEMBERSHIP IN THE PARTNERSHIP AND THE METHOD OF DETERMINING THE DISTRIBUTIONS TO A TERMINATING PARTNER If a Partner desires to terminate his interest in the Partnership, he shall notify the General Partner of his desire. The General Partner is em- powered. tut not required, to acc=mplion the termi- nation of the partnership interest of a Limited Partner who desires to terminate his interest; and, Certificate of Limited Partnership - Page 3 -. [40.0.91 =ZE= ir thâ‚¬-Ganeral Partner agrees to the termination of Such partnership interest, the General Partner shall accomplish such termination by distributing to the terminating Partner such cash and/or Partnership property as the General Partner may detemrine to be requried to liquidate the termi- nating Partner's Partnership interest and capital account. 9. RIGHT OF A PARTNER TO DEMAND AND RECEIVE PROPERTY OTHER THAN CASH IN RETURN FOR HIS CONTRIBUTION No Partner shall have at,y right to demand and receive property other than cash in return for his contribution to the capital of the Partnership. 10. SHARING OF PROFITS; RIGHT OF A PARTNER TO RECEIVE, OR OF A GENERAL PARTNER TO MAKE DISTRIBUTIONS, WHICH INCLUDE A RETURN OF ALL OR ANY PORTION OF THE PARTNER'S CONTRIBUTIONS 10.1. Partners' share of the profits: The net profits of the Partnership, in- cluding gain from the sale of Partnership assets, shall be allocated to the Limited Partners in proportion to their contributions to the capital of the Partnership and to the General Partner. 10.2. Return of Contributions: There is no set date for the return to any Limited Partner of his capital contributions to the Partnership. After reduction for losses in- curred and distributions theretofore made, the capital contributions of each Limited and General Partner shall be returned to him upon the termi- nation and winding up of the Partnership. 10-3. No Priority Among Partners: No Partner shall have priority over any other Partner as to (a) the return of capital con- tributions: (b) compensation by way of income; (c) sharing of net profits and losses, (d) distri- butions of net profits or income, or (e) payment of interest on capital accounts. 10.4. Partners' Capital Accounts: Certificate of Limited Partnership - Page 4 [4..I.9] - - ----Thi-Paftrie?shib--shall-*31~611sh and maintain a capital account for each Partner. If any person shall be both a General Partner and a Limited Partner, a separate capital account shall be maintained for him in each capacity. Each Partner's capital account shall be (a) credited with (i) his contributions to the capital of the Partnership as reported in this certificate and any amendment thereof and (ii) his share of the Partnership's net profits and (b) charged with (1) I his share of the Partnership's losses and (ii) all distributions made to him. 11. TERM OF T!{E PARTNERSHIP; EVENTS THAT CAUSE THE PARTNERSHIP TO BE DISSOLVED 11.1. Term of the Partnership: The term of the Partnership shall com- mence on the day on which this Certificate is first duly filed with the Secretary of State of the State of Colorado and shall continue until it is wound up after dissolution. 11.2. Events That Cause Dissolution: The Partnership shall be dissolved upon the first to occur of (a) the death, legal inca- pacity, bankruptcy, retirement, merger, liquid- ation, dissolution, or withdrawal of a General Partner; (b) the distribution to the Partners of all or substantially all of the properties of the Partnership; (c) December 31, 2012; or (d) the oc- currence of any other event that, under the law of the State of Colorado, causes the dissolution of a limited partnership. 12. SUCCESSOR GENERAL PARTNER; RIGHT TO CONTINUE THE ' PARTNERSHIP; WINDING UP THE PARTNERSHIP 12.1. Successor General Partner: If the General Partner shall die, retire, withdraw, or become bankrupt, legally incapaci- tated, or insane, a majority in interest of the then Limited Partners in the capital of the Partnership shall have the right, but not the obligation, to determine (a) who shall become suc- cessor General Partner, and (b) what interest, Certificate of Limited Partnership - Page 5 [40.0.9] which shall not be less than one percent, the suc- cessor General Partner shall have in the Partner- ship. 12.2. Right to Continue the Partnership: The successor General Partner may elect to continue the Partnership by notifying the then Limited Partners and by filing an amendment to this Certificate to reflect his becoming successor General Partner and his election to continue the Partnership. 12.3. Winding up the Partnership: The winding up of the affairs of the Partnership upon the dissolution of the Partnership shall be conducted by the General Partner or the successor General Partner, or, if neither is will- ing or able to serve, by another person selected by the holders of a majority in interest of the then Limited Partners in the capital of the Partnership. 13Â· POWER OF ATTORNEY The Limited Partners named in this Certificate, namely, Rita Zeitlin and Larry Brooks, each by his or her execution of this Certificate does irrevocably constitute and appoint, the General Partner of the Partnership, and each of them individually, with full power of substitution, as his true and lawful attorney, in his name, place, and stead to execute, acknowledge, swear to, and file (a) any and all amendments to this Certificate as may be required by law or by the provisions of the Limited Partnership Agreement, including amendments to admit or substitute additional limited partners approved by the Limited partners as provided for in paragraph 7 of this Certificate; (b) all certificates . and other instruments necessary or appropriate to qualify or continue the Partnership as a limited partnership in the states in which the Partnership may be doing business; (c) all the instruments that effect a change or modification of the Partnership in accordance with the Limited Partnership Agreement; (d) amendments to the Limited Partnership Agree- ment that are inconsequential in nature and do not affect the rights of the limited partners in any material respect or are required or contemplated by the Limited Partnership Agreement B or are, in the opinion of counsel to the Partnership, neces- sary to maintain the status of the Partnership as a limited partnership; and (e) all instruments, including a Certificate of Cancellation of this Certificate, necessary to effect the Certificate of Limited Partnership - Page 6 [40.0.9] f 11 dissolution, winding up, and termination of the Partnership. The Power of Attorney granted in this Certificate is coupled with an interest, shall be irrevocalle, and shall survive the bankruptcy, incompetency, dissolution or merger of the undersigned Limited Partner. DATED /4,41/ As General Partner: Larry lirodks As Limited Partners: 7.Fax, -3.2JL J Rita Zeitlih U / la._Â©~~_~-i-r~ Larry>,Erooksâ‚¬ . I.X- -I Certificate of Limited Partnership - Page 7 ran n 01 4 STATE O F (l:_(~y~,2- COUNTY OF 6 1, Ajudi h. ss. v --t- r-- The foregoing instrument, namely the Certificate of Limited Partnprship of Aspen, Limited was acknowledged before me this :17Â»-liay of khwwdel. , 1982, by Larry Brooks in his separate capacities as General and Limited Partner, who came before me and after being first duly sworn affirmed under the penalties of perjury that the facts stated in the Certificate of Limited Partnership of Aspen Arcade Limited are true and correct. WITNESSETH: my hand and official seal. My Commission Expires: 7-15-91 1 I - ~2 c 0-Ar, 11 < In 11- 0 2 L 1 / Notary Public , Address: . ./1 97 0 -10 8* l. i L 46 I 2, u.--A,Z). AX-226 j 9 0-31,- EÂ«79FiEREErn h /f. r. . CAROLYN J SMITH 1 L - Â·â€¢ C.07'Â·i<' .l"(1 i' , , LOS At:GE'It --TITY STATE OF 64:4.9101â‚¬,O Â· ' 21.> My crmm. ex:i:es SEP 25, 1934 3 COUNTY OF,94421,4,-17,3 ss. , -0. I-- The foregoing instrument. namely the Certificate of Limited Partnership of Aspen Arcade Limited , was acknowledged before me this :,29'Le day ofihoÂ·,1.-47-0 1982. by' Rita Zeitlin in her capacity as Limited Partner, who came before me and after being first duly sworn affirmed under the penalties of perjury that the facts stated in the Certificate Certificate of Limited Partnership - Page 8 [40.0.9] of Limited Partnership of Aspen Arcade Limited are true and correct. WITNESSETH: my hand and official seal. My Commission Expires: 7 -3 5 -6 4 1 :EAL AL cc,-7/,vl ~ .~f~Â£ ~ i L.'. 3 .'-Â·. - ...'.'Â· 1 -1 r, AITH -1 r. ....1.'TV Â·LIN-ARNIA ~tary/Public 1 r ' at ... 11 . 1.:.: SEP 23, 1334 6 Addfess: - --*----4 92 4 A 42LÂ£ir .4. dz--4 44-2_ 0 1 ---0-C,â€¢e,--0-< --1--- t Â·- -. Â·> 411.1 V . .m. expi,-~s SE> '~. 1 984 : t Certificate of Limited Partnership - Page 9 [to.0.9] 1 J Â£:>alirLI- Uir; CC 1 e S W il 14.11, 1.COm Ualt vi ClujUU-LUCLU.LULi U.L U.'Cd mul Â·CS U recent bankruptcies, antedate the report by more than fourteen (14) years. 2) Suits and judgements which, from date of entry, antedate the report by more than seven (7) years or until the governing statue of limitations has expired, whichever is the longer period. 3) Unpaid tax liens which, from date of payment, antedate the report by more than seven (7) years. Although we believe the facts stated are true, this Certificate is not to be constructed as an abstract of title, nor an opinion of title, nor a guaranty of title, and it is understood and agreed that Stewart Title of Aspen, Inc., neither assumes, nor will be charged with any financial obligation or liability whatever on any statement contained herein. Dated at Aspen, Colorado, this 5th day of December, 1989 A.D. Bi : / --* 7'~ _,0--~1,4,1 Authorized Signaf~re STE;t'ART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY OCC '500'I 10 893 1 EXHIBIT B Minutes of Prior Land-Use Actions Regarding the Lily Reid Site 1. Minutes of January 10, 1990 HPC Meeting Granting Conceptual Development Plan Approval, Approval of On-Site Relocation of the Lily Reid House, Approval of Demolition and Partial Demolition within the Comiliercial Core Historic District and Recommending Landmark Designation of Lots A, B and C, Block 81. 2. Minutes of April 3, 1990 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Recommending Approval of Landmark Designation of the Lily Reid Site (Lots A, B and C, Block 81). 3. Minutes of May 14, 1990 (First Reading) and July 9, 1990 (Public Hearing) of City Council Approving Ordinance 36 (Series of 1990). 4. Ordinance 36, Series of 1990 - An Ordinance Designating 200 South Monarch Street/309 East Hopkins Avenue (Lots A, B and C, Block 81) As H, Historic Landmark Pursuant to Division 7, Section 7-701 of the Land Use Code. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of January 10, 1990 Larry: We are getting rid of the existing addition and adding a new addition. Don: C solution seems to be the best as B tends to draw a lot of attention. Les: Because of the verticality it balances everything off. Glenn: I feel there will be a problem with the snow. (1 Charles: Possibly there is another way to make the gable come down and not come into the intersection of the roof. I would like to see a version of C with a reduced gable. MOTION: Don made the motion to grant final development approval extension for 334 W. Hallam. That scheme C be approved with the provision that the height of the gable and on the second floor be lowered below the top roof height and therefore reducing the size of the gable and giving more room for a roof eave to dissipate snow before it runs into the original building. The approval for the windows as shown in C also. Joe second. All approved. 309 E. HOPKINS & 200 S. MONARCH, LANDMARK DESIGNATION, DEMOLITION, RELOCATION AND CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL Charles stepped down. Bill reseated. Roxanne: The applicant is requesting variations from the HPC on parking and open space. - The applicant is requesting landmark designation for the entire 9,000 sq. ft. parcel and also the demolition of the cleaners building on the corner and relocation of the Lily Reid Cottage to the corner from its location on lot C and conceptual development. LANDMARK DESIGNATION: Staff finds that the entire parcel does not meet the standards and therefore the code does not allow for a designation of the entire parcel. It does allow for designation of the cottage. Standards should be discussed and how they apply or not apply to the parcel. Landmark designation states that any structure that meets one or more of the (6) standards maybe designated. A, the first standard is historic importance and the cottage meets that standard due to the association of Franz Berko, Aspen photographer. The rest of the parcel does not. B, Architectural Important; this is the last brick cross gable cottage in the commercial core district and meets the standard. The existing building on the corner is new 2 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of January 10, 1990 but is proposed to be demolished so we would be looking at new development and we do not designate structures that are not yet built. C & D, Architectural Importance; this does not a pply - E, Neighborhood Character; this does apply to the importance o f the neighborhood. F, Community Character; The Lily Reid cottage does meet this criteria. We support landmark designation for the cottage and also for the 3,000 sq. ft. that it is immediately associated with finding that it meets standards A,B, E and F. We find that the remainder of the parcel does not meet the criteria. We are recommending that HPC recommend landmark designation for 1/3 of the parcel. Landmark designation woul d allow them to not have to compete under GMQS and would allow them a number of benefits that they are seeking. Gideon Kaufman, attorney: I will speak on designation only - The standards state that any structure or site that meets one or more of the following standards. We feel it meets Standard community character. The code defines a site as one or more parcels with one or more parcels. The relocation of the Lily Reid gives a one time opportunity for the community to highlight a small building in the core area. There is nothing like it ln the core area. Because of the community character we shou ld be allowed designation of the whole site. The designation o f the entire site is critical to the project. Designation would not change the employee housing requirements at all. If designated enables us to do the proj ect now and not compete in the growth management and it gives US a break on certain parking I requirements. Larry has to tear down a good existing building i n order that the Lily Reid site can be made prominent. When an owner comes in and tries to help solve a problem that the community has (which is a building that is surrounded by tw 0 large buildings) and is willing to tear down his own building t 0 put this in a prominent location what is the community willing to do back in return. JaY Ordan, owner of the dry cleaners is in support Of designation. If we stretch a little it allows for the preservation of an unique cottage, allows for the preservation Of the site and the unique character of the neighborhood. It offers - a clear opportunity to businesses that exist there to continue to exist in Aspen at a reasonable price. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Joe: I like this project because the historic house is going to be saved, accented and have a new location. The language in -Che code E&F could also apply. -- 1 j 3 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of January 10, 1990 Don: We have a developer that has acquired 9,000 sq. ft_ and what if a developer had acquired 20,000 sq. ft. in that EE,ame block, is it within our menu to designate that whole 20,000â€¢ as historically signi ficant and give it historic designation b e (32=luse we want to save this one house. Nobody in this room is a r â‚¬ Lling against the quality of the project or the value of hou se My problem is precedent setting whether we as a committee can Cit) or should do that. Glenn: This is a good proj ect and the issue is as Don s a 3- Cl i s it in our menu to designate the whole parcel. My concern is -tha t ' ' the Berko House get a high volume of people and not sommetan ing that no one ever goes into. We also need to tighten UID our language and I am in favor of the project. Les: My primary concern is saving the building and I do 1 ike the project. The benefits to the developer are also very 1. a rg e. Bill: I have also reviewed this extensively and I think L t- is a great opportunity to get something for the City by relocat:32 1 rÂ£9 it and getting it to the corner o f the parcel. The City woula g et a better streetscape and it would tie together better v i-t Il the other buildings across the street more prominently than i f 1-le had 5 let it in the middle. It would complete the block. I :feel the code says we can designate the whole site. I f we want to get - this proj ect renovated why would be set a site size. I aim in favor of designating the whole site. Roxanne: The issue is whether or not it meets the star-lcaa-rds - If it is a clarification of language I would recommend -t=a-bling until the City Staff attorney has made a determination. Re can grant designation o f the cottage and grant them benef its t171â‚¬lt ar e immediately associated with the parcel and the structure - Lets say a 3,000 sq. ft. parcel would have 4 parking spaces on di_ ts l We have the ability to grant a variation for that if it isk 2 eund they cannot be met on site. Parking spaces/cash in lieul i I-* the downtown core are two spaces per one thousand sq. f-t . net leasable is required. Parking spaces/cash in lieu is $15 0 0 00 per space. We could grant a variation o f four parking spacs es and that would be equal to $60,000. That equals more than tr-1 e cost of relocating the cottage and certainly goes a long pray in helping its restoration. That is one example. Standard IE says that the structure or site is a significant componenic Of an historically signi f icant neighborhood and the preservats i.-on o f the structure or site is important for the maintenance cif that neighborhood character. We are not talking ab ou..1-t new construction, we are talking about preservation. That -0- S very does not deal with new const.r-U cti on . clear and standard E Standard F structure or site (historic structure or s 32- t:Zel LS 4 . Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of January 10, 1990 critical to the preservation of the character. New construction is not preservation of character. Historic older buildings are. How does the new construction relate to other structures Of historical significance, I don't see that it does. The cottage clearly does. Joe: On F, I do not read structure I read that the site is critical to the preservation of the community because of its relationship in terms of it size and location to other structures. We need that site to preserve that structure. Bill: No matter where we put the building on the site it has to do with the 9,000 sq. ft. It is important to the whole community to move that building to the corner. Roxanne: You are talking about the development of the site. Site in this paragraph means a site such as an archeological site, open space site. That is the intent of this particulai standard. Gideon Kaufman: We are not asking for the new structures to be designated we are asking you to find the site where the Lily Reid house is going to be moved and that site to be designated N historical. Once that is done then there is another process to go through for the building of the building. Amy Margerum, Planning Director: Our concern is how do we know that the new 7,000 sq. ft. is critical to the preservation of the Berko building. I am worried about setting a precedent. Larry Brooks,owner; explained the history of the purchasing and development of the parcel. - - Bill: Every project is treated on an individual basis and on this site we want a preserved building. This is a positive project. Joe Wells: I see no way if we have 1/3 of this site designated that we could be granted GMQS exemption for the balance of the site. I don't believe the code will do that. Larry: If we only get 1/3 designated why should we tear down a 6200 sq. ft. building and why not just go into GMQ for a second and third floor addition. It is about the whole parcel. Glenn: If we say that we are encouraging it but we don't want to set a precedent then we are hedging on ourselves and that is an important perception for the general lay person. 5 - , Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of January 10, 1990 Roxanne: Take 1/3 of the parcel and transfer the benefit that they would receive from designating that parcel onto the remainder of the parcel. They need a variation of 15 park-ing spaces ($225,000) which normally would have been their impact fees, cash-in-lieu. Take 1/3 of those and give them as a variation. That would actually be more than immediately associated with a 3,000 sq. ft. parcel. The only way we could dc, that is if there is some kind of PUD overlay over that parcel and The Planning Office could do that. Joe: My analysis of this critical question is the entire use or the creative use of the entire site is critical to being able to preserve the character of this neighborhood. MOTION: Joe made the motion to approve landmark designat ion o f the entire site at 200 S. Monarch and 309 E. Hopkins Lots A through C Block 81, City and Townsite of Aspen. Glenn second. YES VOTE: Joe, Don, Bill Glenn. NO VOTE: Les. 4-1 Motion carries. DEMOLITION AND PARTIAL DEMOLITION: Roxanne: The code states that all the standards shall be met by the HPC and that a demolition cannot occur until all the 1 - standards have been met. Section 7-602 (B) "The structure proposed for demolition is not structurally sound despite evidence Of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure." We are talking about the corner building and there was no discussion in the application about structural stability. They need to provide information that addresses standard B. In the future when we do a code revision the Board will need to be - discussing non historic buildings within districts. We also need to discuss the partial demolition issue, the rear addition to the cottage not being original and the character of the cottag e is i not being diminished. Bill: It appears in the drawings that you are taking o f f the cross gable that goes to the east on the existing house. Mark Henthorn, architect: The cross gable will remain, error in i roof plan drawing. MOTION: Don made the motion that Lots A through C, Block 81 request for demolition and partial demolition be granted subj ect to conditions as noted in Sta f f' s recommendations which are: 1. That the applicant address Standard B of Section 7-602. 2. That the drawings and model reflect actual conditions of the existing structure including but not limited to the cross gabl e and j 6 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of January 10, 1990 subject to any additional conditions. Les second. All approved. RELOCATION: Roxanne: The siting with the setbacks on both sides is critical and we need to take into consideration what is historically correct and across the street in both directions. BIll: This motion would allow it to move from its present site to the corner site and then we deal with the specifics in conceptual development of where that exact building will be. Gideon: None of us really know what the appropriate setbacks will be until we do a study. MOTION: Joe made the motion that we approve on site relocation of the Lily Reid house on Lots A through C Block 81 subj ect to approval of the precise siting of the relocation and further study of setbacks. Don second. All approved. Glenn: They are showing it in the same setback position that it is in now on Hopkins. Mark: It is five feet forward then it presently is. Glenn: On the existing map it is lining up with the front of the Mill Street plaza. Mark: Yes and we are showing it five feet in front of that presently and we had specific reasons for doing that. Roxanne: I feel it needs pulled back. Glenn: I recommend that it be pushed forward. 1' CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT: Roxanne: The general concept does meet the standards and we suggest that HPC should carefully review the strong distinctive elements ( 6) that set the character of the new construction as attached in memo dated January 10, 1990 page 6. Photographs should be studied for porch detailing and other issues. We will need a complete report on the restoration. We are requesting detailed drawings. Mark Henthorn, architect: We will preserve the Lily Reid house I as closely as possible to the original state. The basic concept is that the two facades relate to the street front character Of 7 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of January 10, 1990 downtown Aspen. That they fit the urban context of Aspen. That this is a transition from the urban context to a neighborhood context. The Reid house is the pivot point in that transition. Similar materials would be used masonry, sandstone banding, awnings, details and massing that are similar to other buildings. The courtyard materials will be softer and simpler. The height of the building matches the height of the Mill Street Plaza. The stairs simplify the circulation patterns of the building, they make the second and third level terraces part of the urban space. Joe: We need to see more details. I like the concept of how the new building relates to the commercial buildings on the other side. Glenn: My major concern is the treatment of the courtyard. Les: It is important that an area be provided for people to sit in the courtyard. Bill: The horizontality needs studied. MOTION: Joe made the motion to grant conceptual development approval for Lots A through C. Block 81 subject to conditions: a) Detailed elevations, site, roof and landscape plans. b) Massing model. c) Complete, accurate restoration plan and detailed drawings for the historic cottage, including (but not limited to) partial demolition activities, front porch and window restoration, relocation methodology and protection during adjacent demolition, cleaning methods, foundation and excavation plan, measured drawings and photographs. d) Performance Bond or Letter of Guarantee, approved by the City - Attorney for relocation of the historic cottage. e) Project phasing report. f) Restudy of horizontal features of new construction. g) Accurate representation of building materials. h) Information to support Demolition Standard A. i) Restudy setbacks of relocated cottage. j) Specific information on variations request. Don second. All approved, Motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Kathy Strickland, Deputy City Clerk 8 PZM4.3.90 MINUTES - FEBRUARY 20 AND MARCH 20, 1990 Roger made a motion to adopt these minutes. Mari seconded the motion with all in favor. HISTORIC DESIGNATION 200 SOUTH MONARCH LILY REID/BERKO PUBLIC HEARING Jasmine opened the public hearing. Roxanne made presentation as attached in record. - Mari Peyton: The benefits would be transferable to the rest of the site or-- Roxanne: No. We don ' t have that provision in the code yet and that was something that we were trying to develop. In thinking that if we designated 1/3 of the parcel then we could transfer 1/3 of the benefits to the rest of the entire proposal. That is something that we were thinking of doing. The code right now I ~ does not allow that. But that is certainly an option that could be considered. Richard: That kind of an arrangement would seem reasonable for this kind of a design problem. Whereas now it seems to be applicable to the cottage and the open space rather than 1/ 3 of the development. Roger: I am very much favor of the relocation of this historic structure under these circumstances because it brings it out into a beautiful prominent place where right now the potential it is just stuck between 2 great big buildings. I like this solution for this entire site. My reservation is putting an historic designation on the entire site and I guess the question is specifically what does that historic designation give them on the entire site that we can' t accomplish some other way. Roxanne: Timing--that they can submit a proposal at any time. They are exempt from growth management. And that they may be able to receive the variations and incentives that are allowed under designation--like parking. Roger: We can' t address parking under any other mechanism other 2 PZM4.3.90 than PUD? Roxanne: A PUD. Yes. Jasmine: But PUD wouldn' t give them the growth management exemption. Roxanne: That's correct. Roger: This new structure--is there any more net leasable fl oor area than there was in the old structures? Roxanne: Yes, there is. Roger: Is there a way of transferring what would be development rights in the historically designated area to the other structure? Without historic overlay or the historic designation. Roxanne: The code right now is not set up to allow for any kind of a transfer and I am certainly interested in seeing that take place. Roger: That seems to me the kind of mechanism we need for something like this. Michael: I am not real comfortable substituting our judgement for something that is HPC's purview of something that they have already decided on. I would assume that since this is really their area and they have felt comfortable with that I am not i comfortable not following that recommendation. I would assume by virtue of having to maintain this structure on the property that the owner- of the -entire parcel is losing a-lot of available FAR that would be available should that structure not be there. Is that correct? - Roxanne: Very possibly. They are providing more open space than the code requires. Michael: We are imposing on the owner of the property a community concern to maintain and preserve something that we feel is a historic structure. I know that this has been a long drawn out proce:s and if we are going to exact something it certainly makes me feel better to exact something we give them s omething back. I just don't see what is wrong with going along with giving the whole structure historic overlay to accomplish this. If the community had not rallied against that prior HPC approval then we might be seeing a totally different project sitting there. But they have responded somehow whether it is by virtue 3 PZM4.3.90 i of voluntary or involuntary to that community pressure to have come with the design that they have come up with now. And I think there is probably a great benefit to the community by virtue of this building sitting on the corner. Mari: Is there an analysis that you can give us comparing what kind of FAR would be allowed without the house being there compared to what they would be getting with the entire site designated? Gideon Kaufman, representative for applicant: The City code states that any structure or site that meets one of more of the designation standards may be designated historic. We feel, and the HPC strongly agreed with us, that not only the Lily Reid house but lots A, B and C, all 9,000sqft should be designated under the criteria that is contained in the code. Specifically the applicant and the HPC agreed that we met 2 standards--community as well as neighborhood character justifying the finding for historic designation for all 3 lots. The standard has nothing to do with new construction or non- historic existing buildings but deals with the whole site as a location for the Lily Reid house. 11.:F# In the Planning Office memo they say the word "site:' means land I .0 immediately associated with historic structure. But I would argue that that is not what the. code says or reads. The code specifically says "One or more parcels with one or more structures" . The Lily Reid house sat on a 5-lot parcel when it had its historic residential character including Lots A, B and C. I When Hod Nicholson owned the property for over 3 decades all 3 lots were under one ownership. Now that Larry Brooks owns the property, again all 3 lots are under one ownership. The property was specifically purchased to reunite the 3 parcels and to create this opportunity to preserve the Lily Reid house. Parry read 3 quotes from architects on HPC in favor of this project. Larry Yaw, architect for the applicant: Our design issue was set up on this parcel to create a site plan that placed the Lily Reid cottage while at the same time creating a new and compatible 4 commercial building around the site. He then went a detailed presentation as to how the present pl an came into being. The solution was to relocate the Lily Reid cottage into this 4 PZM4.3.90 , corner and to internalize the building at this part of the site. That puts it out into clearly a pedestrian space and surrounds it i with grass and now the building can be seen completely renovated and in 4 dimensions and can be walked all around. This is a pedestrian plaza. In terms of the zone transition there are 2 things that this project helps. As we begin to identify this victorian with the one across the street we have created a gateway and part of the scale transition between the more residential scale here and the more residential scale or core scale here. Because we have had to use the whole site to create this solution we are asking that you consider giving landmark designation to the whole setting. To give this the soft setting background it should have we have stepped the building back which lets more sun in and also gives a much quieter background to the building. The HPC was enthusiastically behind us and we hope you are too. Gideon: The purpose of designation and exemption from GMP is to encourage creative preservation and restoration. This is the only opportunity in downtown for the preeminence and preservation f 4 of an existing building. We need the GMP exemption on the whole site to make it work. -2 Jasmine: I think that judging from the remarks from other members of the Commission everybody is enthusiastic about the approach that you have taken and the results in terms of the physical appearance of the plan and the preservation of the house and giving it a more conspicuous location on the site.- I don' t think there is any problem anybody has with the design solution you have adopted. Our basic concerns which the Planning Office has enumerated have to do with what happens to other sites who may not come up with quite as sensitive or appropriate a plan what our goals should be Ls to find the appropriate solution to allow you to go ahead with the plan that everybody likes without causing problems for ourselves further down the road. Walt Nixon: I am here with my wife, Donna Norquist. We are proprietors of Uriah Heeps and we think that as an existing building that just can't be torn down. We are completely in favor of this and while it would inconvenience us for a couple of years we feel like it would be in the best interest of the community. 5 PZM4.3.90 Bill Poss, Chairman of HPC: I am here to show our support for this project and its designation. I am also here on behal f Of myself as a public citizen to say that I am in support of this because it shows that we are interested in making and showing precedent for a good design solution. I think it is a good design solution. It was within the HPC's power to grant that and to show that the whole site was important to this designation and to get this design solution. I think it is an excellent design solution and I think we Should be behind it to show that we are willing to take those steps. Larry Brooks, owner of the project: I have mixed emotions that I feel I need to get across. Before I bought what was at the time the Berko next door I tried to come up with a solution by go ing to as many public officials as I could. I asked for feedback on what they thought was appropriate use and an appropriate way to deal with the buildings. Far and away everyone' s solution was to make it a jewel. But it would foolish for me to have gone ahead - and purchased the property not knowing what type of response I was going to get out of the system. Now I am coming out of HPC who virtually gave us in an hour and a half of praise from every member there including Les Holst who said he was in favor of the project even though he was the Only 1 -â‚¬-3 1.L' 1 dissenting vote. Now I am confused that we are here after a hundred Plus applicants before me have been approved by HPC and rati f ied by your Council and wondering why we would be the precedent that you set in reverse and not ratify us when everyone is in agreement that it is a wonderful project for the house and the City. It is - virtually-with due respect staff opinion, which is one person's opinion, that the house should maintain 1/3rd of its designation and then there was a comment over here that when it was moved to the corner then does that mean all the open space would be designated area? I don't understand how HPC could say it would be the whol e thing and we can expand and contract it to whatever is conveni ent for US. I am confused as to how 4 people can be in favor of it and 1 can be against and why you would side with that 1. Chuck Vicenti: I own A-1 Maintenance and do commercial cl eaning for many of the buildings downtown. Very basically it is j Ust a really pretty project. So I am speaking for people who are downtown a lot and I think that the corner if anyone drove by and looked at it and looked at the proposal there-- why would any Of us not want that? It just seems like the right thing to do. 6 PZM4.3.90 â€¢ Walt Nixon: I was also concerned that if it is not approrped as has been proposed then perhaps it would drive the rent up se much that we wouldn' t be able to stay in there even if the Ptoject were completed. Jasmine: One of the points that Gideon made about the entire site having been historically part of the Lily Reid house-- Roxanne: When the structure was first built in 1885 apparently it had had 5 lots with it. The 1893 map indicates that it was built then. There was a hotel in fact on the site where the cleaners building is. It couldn't have been for more than 3 years that it had its 5 original lots that went along with it. Jasmine: It would just seem to me that there is in that case a historic justification for the entire parcel which would I think make--it certainly makes me feel more comfortable because I share a lot of concerns that the Planning Office has. At the same time I like this project and yet it seems to me that the fact thaÂ·t iÂ·t was once historically one site even if it was not necessarily for a very long period of time that that seems to me to make that argument a much more convincing argument. Roxanne: Any original historic land that was associated with it -i is totally gone now and is not even a part of the parcel. Bruce: (to the applicant) Do you know what the use wil 1 be of - the Reid structure? Brooks: We have been talking with Uriah Heaps, the Steak Pit, and the dry cleaner to occupy the bottom floor. We haven' t come up with a configuration of who is going to use the LilY Reid house itself. - - We have been talking with Peter Guy as using each individual room as a dining room for the Steak Pit. These are the tenants we have been talking to. I might add that none of the tenants have been in Aspen less than 17 years with the Steak Pit over 30 and the dry cleaner over 30. Bruce: What disadvantages if any flow from designating the entire parcel as a historic parcel. What, if anything, is the applicant giving up down the road by having the entire parcel designated. Roxanne: Nothing. Designation is only a bene fit to them. They will have to go through all the same review because they are located in a historic district. Bruce: My question relates to if years from now you wanted to do 1 1 PZM4.3.90 '1 something else with the big part of the building--does that kick you into a certain kind of approval process that you might not otherwise be in if you went through growth management and j ust build whatever. Gideon: There is a difference between designated building and review by the HPC in a downtown area. You are scrutinized much t, more carefully when you have agreed to designate a building and just being in the downtown and having review in that context. Roxanne: Any historic building downtown is reviewed with more scrutiny than a non-historic building downtown. Roger: I am in favor of approving this project just as I see it ) right here. But the one problem I see with historic designation cn the entire site is that historic designation on the entire site exempts it from GMP in the future. So it is a land use issue. Now how do we get this thing approved with the codes as we have them or as we can modify them maybe. Because with the historic designation on the non-historic part of the development we are opening ourselves up to future changes in that structure which would have growth ramifications which we get no say-so over. SO how do we accomplish that? Maybe in their deed restriction is to identify this is the building and any further changes would be 3 subject to the growth management aspects. 1_ Brooks: The building looks bigger than it really is. The new building will be 12,600sqft. The existing building is 6,2OOsqft- When you take out the common area and you take out the empl oyee housing then that addition on that entire site over what is there right now is just a little over 3,800sqft. In answer to your question I have been advised by the architect 11 it is not possible to build any more on that lot. We can' t extend it out any further development. We can't go up because we would be above the adjoining buildings. Jasmine: What Roger is suggesting is that perhaps a condition o f approval being that any further expansion of the commercial space on this parcel would then be subject to GMP. We would approve what was submitted here and that any further requests for any kind of additions or expansion would then be subj ect to GMP - , Change in use would not really be. - Michael: If it is designated historic it is subject to more Â©i restrictive scrutiny in the future than if it isn't. Roger: Not in terms of land use. --) 8 1 1 PZM4.3.90 Mari: I still never did hear the numbers that we were talking about. Joe Wells: The project is roughly at 1.5 which means that we have the same obligation for affordable housing as if we were going through competition. Mari: I am not talking about ratios. I am talking about absolute square footage. Joe: 13,500 is the square footage that is allowed without going through special review for bonus square footage--up to 2 to 1 or 18,000sqft. Mari: Now, if there were no little house, what would be allowed on that entire site. Roxanne: Still the same. They would still be up to 1.5 to 1 They could go up to 18 i f they were providing housing on s ite. Yaw: Under any scenario we are using the Lily Reid house within the FAR calculations and not outside of it. Mari: So they are not really getting FAR bonus out of this. All 12 ' 1 they are getting is the exemption from GMP and parking. Richard: Nor are they giving up floor area. MOTION Roger: I move to recommend landmark designation of the LilY Reid site. That landmark designation including the new development ' with a single condition that any further development from this point will be subject to GMP and those approvals. Bruce seconded the motion. ' 1.4 Gideon: mumbled something here. Roger: The problem is the new building is on Lots A, B and C. Or have you re-designated the site. Brooks: The whole site is Lots A, B and C. Roxanne: Recommend landmark designation for the parcel which is A, B and C. 01 Roger: Right. And that any further development beyond what is shown here will be subject to GMP. 9 PZM4.3.90 2-- ' Bruce: I second that. 1 --l Roger: I think as this goes beyond us here we should make it clear that this motion was a result--that this is a unique ~' situation. For basically what everyone has conveyed to us that there is a tremendous historic asset which is preserved and actually enhanced by this and that in effect it-- Jasmine: Do we want to do this as a resolution then? Then we could include a lot of the reasoning behind in the "whereases,1 . Roger: I modify my motion to state that the request for the Planning Office to make our motion in resolution form. -t Bruce modified his second. The purpose being to show that we really are not setting a precedent. Roger: Exactly. Richard: Regarding parking. That seems to be the one landuse impact that we are facing here. Roxanne: The code right now requires 2 spaces per 1,000sqft of net leasable. And this calculates out to 18 spaces needed On the r -m parcel. They are going to be putting 3 spaces on so they are I asking for variation of 15 spaces. That is $15,000 per. So it - is a total of $225,000. Richard: So it is a question of whether we exempt them from that fee or not. _ _ - Jasmine: And the landmark designation would automatically exempt - them? Roxanne: Automatically the HPC would have to make that variation and find that it is more compatible and have to go through the lingo-- Jasmine: So in other words our recommendation for the 1 andmark designation does not necessarily deal with the parking issue. Roxanne: Exactly. HPC will deal with that at final. AT Jasmine: That is not part of this motion. Roger: Now there is one major caution to the developer and that has to do with the use of the historic house. That is I heard that you were thinking of a restaurant. It is in the code that restaurants require direct access to the alley or off street 10 11 -4 n PZM4.3.90 servicing area. Now that can be accomplished through the new 4 building but I caution you, have satisfactory service through - that new building if you are going to plan on having a restaurant in the Lily Reid cottage. Jasmine: We have a motion on the floor and a second. Everyone voted in favor of the motion. 4 4 Gideon: Could the Vice Chairman sign the resolution? MOTION Roger: I move to allow the Vice Chairman to sign the resolution. I Michael seconded the motion with all in favor. Jasmine closed the public hearing. NEWMAN CONDITIONAL USE FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT PUBLIC HEARING Jasmine opened the public hearing. Kim Johnson, Planning Dept: Made presentation as attached in record. ,f We need to add one condition as follows: To comply with the definition and requirements of accessory dwelling units that the accessory dwelling in it be deed restricted to resident occupied unit with 6 month fees. i Commissioners had no comments. Jasmine asked for public comments. There were none and she closed the public portion of the hearing. MOTION Michael: I move that we recommend the conditional use with the 3 conditions as suggested by the Planning Office. (referenced above and attached in record) f Roger seconded the motion with all in favor. GUIDO'S SWISS INN GMOS EXEMPTION CHANGE IN USE Tom Baker, Planning Dept: Made presentation as attached in 11 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council Mav 14, 1990 PUD projects to come through with a total buildout scenario in order to identify the parking requirements, massing, impact, etc. Councilman Peters said this is not the proper way to allow PUDs to go forward. A certain amount of open space was considered as part of the original project; now there is a request for more parking. This is expanding the project beyond the parameters within which it was originally designed. Councilwoman Pendleton agreed with not going along with piecemeal amendments to PUDs. Councilman Gassman said he is not sure it makes sense to ask every condominium owner to plan exactly what they want to do in the future; life is not static. Councilman Gassman said as long as staff assesses the impact on the community when there is an incremental change, that may be all right. Mayor Stirling agreed there ought to be a market or enlarging family dynamic. Ms. Lamont said P & Z's recommendation ultimately was that the applicants come back with more overall conceptual plans on what can happen and what would be the total build out. Ms. Lamont said staff could then tell what the total FAR would be left and ask the applicants how they want to allocate it. Edwards said he does not see anything in the code requiring an applicant to come in with a final buildout. The code allows this type of piecemeal * changes. i Mayor Stirling moved to direct staff to work with the applicant to resubmit the application to identify the ultimate buildout, design issues, parking issues, and bring it back through P&Zina two step process; seconded by Councilman Tuite. Councilman Peters asked if this is expanding an non-conforming use. Edwards said they are not adding any more units and are not expanding the non-conformity. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Peters. Motion carried. Mayor Stirling moved to suspend the rules and extend the meet to 10:15; seconded by Councilman Tuite. All in favor, with the exception of Peters and Gassman. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #36, SERIES OF 1990 - Historic Designation 200 S. Monarch Gideon Kaufman questioned an ordinance designating "a portion of 200 South Monarch Street". Roxanne Eflin, planning office, said the title is incorrect and will be corrected. Ms. Eflin told Council the applicant is requesting historic designation for the entire parcel, which HPC and P&Z have recommended with condi- tions. Staff is recommending Council approve landmark designation j for only that portion of the parcel with the relocated Reid cottage finding that the entire parcel does not meet the standards for 20 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council Mav 14, 1990 designation. The applicant is requesting designation to take advantage of the incentives offered for a designated landmark, primarily dealing with timing and exemption from GMP competition. Ms. Eflin said staff does not feel it is appropriate to use the landmark designation in this way and that a negative precedent will be set. Ms. Eflin pointed out in similar cases staff has recom- mended a portion of the site for designation. The financial benefits if the entire parcel is designated are a parking variation up to 15 spaces or $225,000 and exemption from GMQS competition. Ms. Eflin told Council the HPC and P&Z felt strongly the com- munity benefits associated with designation far exceed in value the variations and exemptions being requested. The project is an excellent solution to preserving a significant historic resource. Staff agrees the community would be receiving substantial benefits; however, how would staff deny future applications when community benefits are not as substantial. Staff recommends landmark designation for the Reid cottage and the land immediately assoc- iated with it. The remainder of the parcel does not meet the criteria for designation. Kaufman said his client is tearing down a perfectly good building ' to relocate a historic structure, which no one else would be doing. HPC and P&Z felt there were a number of distinctions in this application so that it will not be setting a precedent. Kaufman -U- told Council HPC and P&Z strongly felt this application meets the criteria spelled out in the code specifically the neighborhood standard. The community character specifically states, "a struc- ture or site is critical to the preservation of the character of the Aspen community". The HPC and P&Z feel the site is critical to the preservation of the Aspen community. Staff states site means land immediately associated with the historic structure. Kaufman quoted from the code, "a site is defined as one or more parcels with one or more structures". Kaufman said the Reid house in the 1890's sat on a 5 lot parcel when it had its historic structure on it, including lots. a, b, and c. The previous owner owned all three lots and now all 3 lots have been brought under one ownership. This is unique to this parcel; no one else has that situation. The property was specifically purchased to reunite the 3 parcels and to give a unique opportunity to give the Reid house prominence. Kaufman said the applicants have been working for over two years to find a way to preserve and enhance the Reid house. Kaufman pointed out the applicant is willing to tear down a perfectly good, recently renovated existing building to make the project work. This is a project the HPC is excited about; the HPC feels this is innovative, not dangerous. Kaufman requested Council confirm the action of the HPC. The HPC was confident in their ability to distinguish between projects. j 21 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council Mav 14, 1990 Larry Yaw, architect, told Council their design mission was to create a site concept that premiated the existing Reid building and also created a compatible commercial building. Yaw showed Council a model o f the pro j ect. Yaw said this design gives the corner importance and gives the pedestrian importance. The design also works with the Victorian across the street in becoming a gateway or transition between the urban core and the residential area. Yaw said the building is less than the allowable FAR; it exceeds the open space requirement by 15 percent. The project provides 3 parking spaces, less than the requirement. The height is 10 feet less than it could be. Joe Wells said Guido's has been mentioned as being able to request the same thing. Wells pointed out Guido's just completed a lengthy review process and no designation of the entire site was requested. Another example was 17 Queen street, which was not rated at all until it was sold and given a rating of 4. There were no GMQS implications with this lot. Another example was 801 East Hyman, rated a 1; there were no GMQS implications on this parcel either. Another example is Asia, which was also being processed and requested full designation of the site. HPC gave a signal that Asia's request for full designation was not appropriate. Wells said the standards are flexible and each case has to be looked on its own merits. 01 j ~ Larry Brooks, applicant, told Council he has been working on this since 1987 and has talked to dozens of people to get their input. Brooks pointed out he has.unanimous approval from the committees he has met with as well as all the people he has met with. This is the one way to make the Lily Reid cottage live and breath again. The only negative comments have been about possible other projects. Brooks reiterated he has been working on this since 1987. Anyone willing to have that much tenacity should get approval. Councilman Tuite moved to read Ordinance #36, Series of 1990; seconded by Councilwoman Pendleton. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #36 (Series of 1990) AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATING 200 SOUTH MONARCH STREET/309 EAST HOPKINS AVENUES AS H, HISTORIC LANDMARK PURSUANT TO DIVISION 7, SECTION 7-701 OF THE LAND USE CODE was read by the city clerk Councilwoman Pendleton moved to adopt Ordinance #36, Series of 1990, on first reading; seconded by Councilman Tuite. Councilman Peters agreed with staff. The design is a good design ~ and a good solution for the Lily Reid house. Councilman Peters 22 Regular Meeting Asgen City Council Mav 14. 1990 stated he does not agree with the concept that one can use a historic building and accumulate ownership of property and expand a historic designation to other properties. Councilman Gassman asked about the below grade floor area. Ms. Eflin said below grade FAR does not count in a designated structure. Brooks said one reason the whole property is involved in that the corner building is currently a usable building; there is no reason to tear it down. This involves an entire lot and tearing down a building to move the Reid cottage over. Yaw said the result of this is to rebuild 1200 square feet in order to achieve 3800 square feet of new space. Charles Cunniffee, HPC member, told Council this seems like the Ms. Eflin most creative and generous solution the HPC has seen. told Council the applicant would be requesting a waiver of 15 parking spaces from HPC. Kaufman told Council the applicant would have to provide all employee housing; the variation from GMQS is for the parking spaces. Kaufman pointed out sometimes the GMQS quota is so small that a building cannot be done with one year's quota. Kaufman said an alternative is to leave the Reid structure where it is and to build a second story on the existing commercial building. Amy Margerum, planning director, said staff's concern is using landmark designation in a way to get something everyone likes. This is a policy decision of Council; do they want to use ... landmark designation in this creative approach in getting good urban design for projects. Ms. Margerum said there is a PUD -Â·- overlay which would allow close to the same proj ect. The issues are the net leasable in the basement and the timing. Bill Poss, HPC chairman, said the Code allows an applicant to come to HPC and ask for designation to get something. There is an ability for HPC to work with the applicant. If the standards can be met, HPC can designate the site or portion thereof they find critical- to preserving the character. Mayor Stirling- said- a critical issue is saving and restoring the Reid cottage. In previous designs, the cottage may have been lost in between canyons of new buildings. Mayor Stirling said there is a coherence in this design that would not be if it were a traditional design. Mayor Stirling said urban design and creativity to solve some downtown problems is a laudable goal. Mayor Stirling said this could be a good precedent. Mayor Stirling said he is concerned about the parking; there is too little parking provided in this design. The housing proposal is the same either way. Mayor Stirling said he is willing to support this as there are some long term benefits. Councilmembers Tuite and Pendleton agreed about the parking concerns. Councilman Gassman said he has reservations about this but this deserves to go to public hearing. Councilwoman Pendleton asked staff to look at more parking on site before the public hearing. 23 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council Mav 14, 1990 Roll call vote; Councilmembers Gassman, yes; Pendleton, yes; Peters, yes; Tuite, yes; Mayor Stirling, yes. Motion carried. Mayor Stirling moved to suspend the rules and meet to 11 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Tuite. Councilman Tuite and Mayor Stirling in favor; Councilmembers Peters, Gassman and *eemÂ¥* opposed. Motion NOT carried. Council left the meeting at 19:50 p.m. L' n f , r -2-,f-zi--Â·ttlf-7---~ 4~Â»3 4 4--c Kathryrâ‚¬S. Koch, City Clerk 24 1 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 9, 199Q CONSENT CALENDAR Councilwoman Pendleton moved to approve the minutes of June 18, 25, 1990; seconded by Councilman Tuite. All in favor, motion carried. LIQUOR LICENSING AUTHORITY BUSINESS Councilman Peters moved to approve the transfer of La Cadeau to Omi and to approve the renewals of Downtown Sports Center and Syzygy; seconded by Councilman Tuite. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #36, SERIES OF 1990 - Historic Designation 200 S. Monarch Roxanne Eflin, planning office, told Council this is historic designation of the entire parcel known as the Lily Reid parcel for the purpose of growth management quota exemption and parking variation for the new development. HPC and P & Z both have recommended designation for the entire parcel finding standard (f) has been met and that the benefit received by the community in the form of a restored historic cottage outweighs the gains to the d veloper. P & Z conditioned their recommendation to require any further development be subject to GMP competition. Staff continues to recommend designation for only the portion of & the parcel which would contain the relocated historic structure, finding that that is the parcel that any standard for designation would apply to. This request is for exemption from GMP and for parking variations. It is a very good project and does benefit the historic cottage by making it a show case and restoring it. Ms. Eflin pointed out the entire project is below the maximum FAR at 1.45:1 and will be providing all of the affordable housing on site. Ms. Eflin said she is concerned that Council's decision to designate the entire parcel will set a precedent for other cases. _ Ms. Eflin said staff would like a code amendment to define the word site. Ms. Eflin said there are other alternatives, such as allowing designation to occur so that growth management exemption and the competition does not have to continue and that the parking variation should apply to the net leasable square footage of just the historic resource. Ms. Eflin said 18 spaces are required on site; the applicant proposes 3 parking spaces on site. The historic building would require about 2 parking spaces so a possibility is to have the applicant mitigate for the remaining 13 spaces. Cash-in-lieu parking is $15,000 per space or $195,000 total. The applicant should compete for any increase in floor area above the 13,200 that is currently being requested, including any net leasable below grade.' Ms. Eflin recommended designation apply to the historic cottage and its relocated portion of land. 5 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council JulV 9, 1990 Gideon Kaufman, representing the applicant, noted everyone has agreed that the applicant has created a rare historic opportunity and an excellent project. The only negative thing mentioned about the project is that it may set a dangerous precedent. Kaufman told Council the HPC was excited about the precedent and were all confident in their ability to distinguish between projects which had merit and those which did not. Kaufman reminded Council Larry Brooks, owner of adjacent property, acquired the Lily Reid house, a historic structure in a run down condition lost in a canyon effect. Brooks did this to reunite 3 parcels which have a long history of being in common ownership. Brooks is willing to tear down a new existing building in very good condition in order to move the Lily Reid structure to the corner, restore it and give it the pre-eminence it deserves. The structure will be moved to the most important place on the lot both visually and economically. Kaufman said the applicant feels technically entitled to designa- tion for the whole parcel. Kaufman said the city enacted incentives for historic buildings to encourage projects like this. Kaufman said not every piece of property can accommodate every need of the city. Council should ask themselves if this is the type of project they want on this corner. Larry Yaw, architect, presented a model of the project with the Lily Reid building on the corner. Yaw pointed out the 2 ~ Victorian on each corner are a gateway between the residential - areas and the commercial areas. The commercial building has been stepped back to create a background for the Lily Reid building. Mayor Stirling opened the public hearing. Jim Gibbons told Council this is a good project and a good solution to a problem. Gibbons said the owner is a good landlord. Larry Brooks, applicant, told- Council he has been discussing with the current tenants the possibility of staying in their location. Walt Dixon, proprietor of Uriah Heeps and current tenant, told Council they would like to stay in their location and that Brooks is an asset to the community. Dixon said they do not favor the city exacting a large parking fee. Brooks has been good at keeping the rents down and a large parking fee will force him to increase rents. Mayor Stirling closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Pendleton said she supports historic designation of the whole parcel. The project is too good to let it go. Council- woman Pendleton said one of her goals is to have local businesses stay downtown. The current tenants have good things to say about the landlord. Councilman Peters said he likes the design of the project, which he feels is a benefit to both the applicant and the ~ community. Councilman Peters said there are alternatives to 6 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 9, 1990 historic designation of the entire parcel, which is inconsistenÂ·t with previous actions of Council and HPC. Councilman Peters said one alternative is a GMQS application. Councilman Peters said he would support a multi-year allocation for this project. Councilman Peters said he would also be willing to work on the parking solution; however, no one can guarantee this savings will be passed onto the tenants. Councilman Gassman noted the staff memorandum states the below grade space is not net leasable. Councilman Gassman said he had understood that is where the restaurant was going to be. Kaufman said the restaurant will be in the below grade space. Councilman Tuite said the project should be judged on its merits rather than who owns it. Councilman Tuite said this project has been competing for two years in the HPC and P&Z convincing them of the validity of this project. Councilman Tuite said this building is more of an asset if moved to the corner rather than leaving it in the middle of the block and building all around it. Amy Margerum, planning director, pointed out staff was under the impression there would be no net leasable space below grade. The statement that the applicant would be providing employee housing equal to that which they would have to mitigate if they went I.'.1 iÂ· through GMP may not be true because of the below grade space, which f ~ would be exempt if the whole space were designated. Mayor Stirling -2 noted since the city increased the employee housing requirement to 60 percent, there has not been a commercial project. Mayor Stirling said this developer may be Able to make that commitment because of the other incentives. Mayor Stirling said in order to make restoration e f fective, there have to be bona f ide incentives. Mayor Stirling agreed moving this historic building a few feet will give it a more primary look. Mayor Stirling said he feels this project will trigger others to see restoration as a valuable tool for urban development. Councilman Gassman said this is a good solution to preserve the building; it is a nice design solution and is something that will be an asset to the owner and to the town. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Tuite, yes; Pendleton, yes; Peters, no; Gassman, yes; Mayor Stirling, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #40, SERIES OF 1990 - PUD Amendment Smuggler Mobile Home Park Councilman Tuite left the room due to a conflict of interest. Leslie Lamont, planning office, told Council this is the second step of a two step process. This was reviewed by P & Z, who approved the amendment proposal. Ms. Lamont reminded Council at first reading they requested staff to look at permitted uses at the ~ Smuggler Mobile Home park. Ms. Lamont told Council staff worked 7 ORDINANCE NO. EG (Series of 1990) AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATING 200 SOUTII MONARCH STREET/309 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE AS H, HISTORIC LANDMARK PURSUANT TO DIVISION 7, SECTION 7-701 OF THE LAND USE CODE. WHEREAS, Larry Brooks, General Partner for Aspen Arcade, Ltd., as owner of the real property described as 200 South Monarch Street and 309 East Hopkins Avenue, Lots A, B, and C, Block 81, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, has filed an application for historic landmark designation pursuant to Section 7-701 of the Land Use Code; and WHEREAS, the property known as the "Lily Reid Cottage", located at 309 E. Hopkins Ave. on Lot C, Block 81, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado has received the historic evaluation rating of "4"; and WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Committee recommended historic designation for the entire parcel at a duly noticed public meeting on January 10, 1990; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission recommended historic designation for the entire parcel with conditions at a duly noticed public hearing on April 3, 1990; and WHEREAS, City Council wishes to pursue the recommendation of the Historic Preservation Committee and the Planning and Zoning I Commission and complete the designation process. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: j Section 1 , 4t325417 08/17/90 10:52 Rec 015.00 BR 627 PG 666 Silvia Davis. Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 - That the property located at 200 South Monarch Street and 309 1 East Hopkins Avenue, described as Lots A, B, and C, Block 81, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, be granted H, Historic Landmark Designation. Section 2 That the Zoning District Map be amended to reflect the rezoning described in Section 1 and the Planning Director shall be authorized and directed to amend said map to reflect said rezoning. Section 3 That the Planning Director shall be directed to notify the City Clerk of such designation, who shall record among real estate records of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office a certified copy of this ordinance. - Section 4 That if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such _ portion shall be deehed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 5 That a public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the /t74 day of ~0Â£-/1.22 , 1990, at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing notice of the same shall be published once 2 #325417 08/17/90 10:52 Rec $15.00 Bk 627 PG 667 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED' as provided by j,aw b ' VA the City Council of the City of Aspen on:.the -79~46 day of //162-~ 1989. William L. Stirling, Mayor I .."I Â¢ATTESTÂ·41 . â€¢- S I 1.3 , 2: 12, Â· 4 5 , Ussil; 17~ 8 r i , 6 Lic J VEL 4&4 -. -2. ... /k t. 9,<2Â£476Â§,R..6. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this *2Â« day of CL , 1989. /-242= i /20=~ William L. Stirling, Mayor #t~'til/,th~ \ 1- C F 'f 1,,4.... - CATTEST)95,% . .0 -fpr ---=,- b Er:fr A 1Ne!*. 4 /4 : fE f~E*Â¢Ehryn,/sy?Koch, City Clerk n 0..mtÂ¢ R. . p .'.44.2>ixt,6.,/ 0 ..,% ord.200sm.309eh 41:325417 08/17/90 10:52 Rec *15.00 BK 627 PG 668 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc t.00 3 EXHIBIT C Letter from Ryberg Construction Company Regarding Relocation of Lily Reid Cottage 9.'F ARF A.VUÂ· 4.- *HUM{4 : . NO '.1/, 7 M.h tiO.'i 1 -,iÂ·O - f AKES. RYBERC CONSTRUCTION CO. "SHORING & STRUCTURF MOVING CONTRAS-0,. 9900 E FLORIDA AVE.#P DENVER, CO 80231 H. CARL PYDrnz u lili,4 .'40.,Illul' 1 32, -7= 3426 Over 35 4 January 1991 years 01 Service Fir31 i n Lk_ - _~,1 Area to Mr. Charles Cunniffe CHARLES CUNNirFE & ASSOC. Move BACk anti Charles Cunniffe and Associates ASPEN, Co Mawnry 620 E. Hynan, Suite 301 Bujgdlnes Ascen, CO 81611 Re: Belocating a pre-age era masonry constructed residential structure wit} Demolition lime and sand rrortar loints With two or more courses of brick exteric walls. Excavatior Dear Mr. Cunniffe: Hentention Systems These types of canyitracted house structures are the most difficult to re- locate; however, they can be relocated in almost excellent canditnon uging thu Sharing correct moving procedures. nuring the last forty years I have rclocted hun Underpinning Areas of these pre-age era masonry constructed struc Lures. The house yo called about will be an easier one to move due to its small size {627 square feet). Structural Confirming the Laxed quotes 4 January 1991,the moving cost will be in the Restoratior $12 - 13,000.00 range. Out of town and travel cost included in the abovt quote. All risk special trcirlsportation insurance 16 also available at $ .7 -oundatien per hundred dollars of coverage. A 81,000.00 deductible applies to eack l eolacement loss. Providing the decision is to relocate the struclure, it is possible tc move the structure ont.0 , 1,asement and/ar garden level 1* so desired. If yol Â·:ounoatici i proceed with the relocation and get to Denver in the interim period, I have a Exiwiltilon photo albun wi th printed insprig that explain all phases of a masonry reloca- UP or Down r i.on which may be helpful to you. Additionally, for Lh,-0 Aspen arcade or other projects, if sharing Or under- pinning ia required I would estimate that type of work for you. Fible EE kil r,ateS SincÂ»rrly, b Denver Area Free W , bilf %14 Structure Helocation 12%- 224. tv pamphlet ter Customers 'WE HAUL OA RESTORE YOUR MOST PRIZED POSSESSON FOR YOU" .â‚¬ EXHIBIT D Letter from Owners of Lots A through C, Block 19, Granting Permission to Temporarily Relocate the Lily Reid Cottage onto the Property February 5, 1991 Re: Temporary Relocation of Lily Reid House to Lots A through C, Block 19, Aspen Townsite TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Our letter is to notify the City that we are the record owners of Lot A, B and C, Block 19, Aspen Townsite. We have given permission to Aspen Arcade, Ltd. to temporarily relocate the Lily Reid house onto our property during construction of a new building on Lots A, B and C, Block 81. Yours truly, 12 91 ;L (&4.64 \~ 10 Li<k Charles Rolles/ Johly'Olson / 1 F 4 309 6 - Apid,u REVISION r .- 4#**.1, ..00******#*..v*'A-â€¢3.48Â¥ Â·4 .. . 1:41'Wrt ..6â€ž4 -i7 te '8101,9. '~thâ€¢,4 <A.Â·:9948 0.*4.t'Â·i~.;2'Â«4'.Â»â€¢-: Â· i 4/1 DA.0/ .h 4% , 4.94410%59ikif>Â·42.5.'w'*,25Â·:,4678 % ,1. ' 41*..f"'0 4/JACS:,1.44'+44,1!49~,Ar,KNO//0 ;1**C:!41â€¢, i:"4"'5,Â¢4424'Â»*rÂ»74Â»~, Â«MU "42"yÂ·. â€¢9,%â€¢. Â· -1 ..C - 'f, th.A ''/Lt.--43,/1- ---'* /4+--t - . '1 ~Â»'~Â«A~ %41*..11W /-'- - *1 - ' 1,<'/Ari"<03614)11,4./ - -14/415~/M I//0/4//92 --1 Lt ,?'4 i Â¥rch- . - 41 p)* fi"*~.14 -- 1-. .S - . i,AU;t ~ ..1-4l'lihire# Al ... .... Â»4 1 166 4..... ' _ ./ri./ I. f, ID .=1.- 1 -.4--- 0 0 ..re - . -1 -1.- -- 201 --- . - ~-- 1, . ---- ...0.- my.'- .....ENELL.-2 1.: M .27 h ~-ZIEZZI-2-n-z---- ."2'.4.-4.:C=zu.Cc.. . . , , .f~â€ž,~ 4. . f rÂ¢ 0 . *-- A Al,Im -7 -----23--.-7 A litt fihi h *--3.4-,0, '' -- 71 - I.Â·,4- .4., * b -4*,4.3.12 1 ', 11.., --22-1 .7&87 t . - - 1\* a.: ,. # ' 1-ILIE] 72..'.... _L ---,â‚¬-r L ---2 4 -- - . 14- fetÂ· I DE-F -_râ€ž GO 0 lÂ¢I T 1,72,74.-0..tr,k. 1 .... 1,1 1 1 1,1 1 1 . !iii 1 ' 1- ..___ --- Zf 4 - --- 1-1 - ~-- E : It 11. 13* k .It.. I... . . 1.43 . - Â·Â· ---- <g 9 . -*--*. . . . .. . I , . + m./. . ---t======-------- -.------====.===------- ' Â·~â„¢ - $-2Â£6.-43.:1:461111/19*'/75 0 0 0% i ----- 1 4 f- 1 ZX 111 0 11 & '0 4 F DRAWING F-7 751Â©59207-IVE 04 1100 -4-E_ fiu AOE-3 <Do-12 cÂ«T~~Â« a **ted, Ut---Ated- JOB NO 881 5 1 [DATE 9 /IZ 3 1Â» 1-i 34 FLA- AL- 09 01\~6-4 f SHEET NO v t Â¥414 ff- filft lut? titf /41--- GÂ« 146 /4 , APL t T1 1-33 SHEET OF i Sl)31IH1HV/531VDOSSV Â¥ 3ddINNn) S31&1VH) 06SS-SZ6/E0E 3NOHd3131 2[918 00~10103 'N3dSV 'DESE XO8 O REVISION I . ASPEN ARCADE BUILDING T. B. C.-9 I .11 1 6 / - PROPERTY LINE 1 -2 ~ _ _~~Â£.~ ~- 224;,5#ff.==469~- . Am*rFUUGEMT,=9,6= : .1-Â·~.1 -" 1 -Â»+1-, 7-1760~ !-- -f=7- T...... . Â·Â·.tiL,Â·-Â·.-41~r %2--44-Â·'44-=.ril:.6324.-14~-IZ'.'.~3 - '~-1.Z~ L * _ -" *.I=W-7#4-=25 0. ' Â· -Er'._'uiks=-*tey-,â€¢~ttz.VI -1 -6 ~ --r 11#k ' 11 . liliÂ· . i i i -1 111 . 9~ ~ ....*.3- Â·.ile JWIR# T-7* I Ofij{ - ; _ *~ + 7 0 1-C~:~i - 134Â·.ifi:: -*irr4921 1 i 1242â€¢~-21. 2.-2 1. . =. U.7=~i..~t-h'.&./.Â¥.â€¢~4Â·U- 92- i il, 1 ; F 1 1 1 1| ~ 11 -w41â‚¬ ----7 - U turti~ A . . 0 ..~ "'ill. -" 1 M m q Â· iz., ,; i ''al + isi~F~ t 11=/..: 1,0 -Ii?11 t? . : ; 3 i iÂ· ! -' pl;~~ f ./11: 1 ~ 1 . 1 .. t. r ..3 11,1 1 - Itt*. Â£ Â·k :1 17:Â¤9-1- h 1- .Â·11Â· *84â€¢Â·, 7//*r ' 111% i# 4 I,ti':1, Â· :t to: i 1 i i d U'im i /'L; tky' ' 1 Â·11 ,"44 ER , 1 , '1 5442.11..% lili mill .,1. ~ ; :.~ 11*n + t i JÂ¥[fil itt~ Ii,Jh *4.liu.- iÂ·.iÂ·,L Â·wÂ· 0 611 -.1- 0 1 1 . 9 lili l .1 1 72/'84 *-9 It tÂ¢ Â·I 0 1 1 1 1 !=1 il< .8, : .IN'. 1 . 1, : 1 - - 11.2 . ..i_.1.1) .2~'iii.: ....iL_ . ; ., - ;mÂ· :'r,:'mitilp' f ; 1 ,- .1,44 - .1 + .' '; 4 5 1- 0 Â·11- -â€¢-4 1,1 OUL..ALL 44,1 f :96 , 14. ./ 1 ikÂ· 72 2 - ' i . . 'i: ti t---':Plh - 2 -- -----41 -- ..... --- --4- - 4.:r A heiâ€žRE ' i| ' , 1 1 Ir-TT i Il.1 !,i irÂ·jeÂ» 1 - *441 - NirÂ·Â·; 0 ~ / I '.1 k -- I 9 :,31'. 1. i i . ''L }P -'./ 1' 1/:. d E 4 1. i /1 / '4{12=*~1 l=ZE-1-- + Ek - 4 0 $.--- 1. t 'r ...r -I-Â· r r.... .. . '77 .-r . di. 649 - - -- .....'+ .- --- .-1-4-1 ---4.-1 ' . ~4,1 ~rw r - 2/ 1 1 -- I . 411.8, 2,. .>\ -144 . 4 2 ~ E-I-'I ~-~f-**~ Â·r~I Â·-.Â·-, Â· -~Â·~ t~~~~~ f1,. 1 -=SIr-, / ren & fâ€¢al- .1 .1. I *'lk iltilli 4, ---... -- - 6-- 1."Mt,U 1-â€¢~ - 4+ 1~ ~ Â· EN , |EFF 1/: 1Â¥ , 4 3 14.e t : Mit*14 'i Â· I I I i ..-M . \/ \A' -1. 1 1 ---- 4 ,- 1 i e 1 --4 .. ---- ; . b T i \ "'L . ... 99:9 â‚¬Â· Â·dâ€¢ 4- -:..1:,4. E ... 2,0.13:ht;bia SKYLIGHTS . 4%*.j,}.4.:,3 ' 9 â€¢ i %,-4â€¢dâ€¢*4 I./. 1 1 .. - 1 'R \B. U. R. ~ METAL ROOF 1,5 1 m MILL STREET PLAZA J -' - -- 1 1. 1 111 -, 9 1 0 OAAWING r.-1 KCASF /5,1 rE- F>LÂ»4 ~IE NOÂ»515 ~ ROOF / SITE PLAN 'OATE SCALE :1/8" =1'-O- SHEET NO 1-5 SHEET OF j 0655-526/EOE BNOHW3131 219!8 O0VNO1O3'N)dSV 'DESE XOEl O d 00Â¥110100 Sl)311HDHV/SaLVDOSSV Â¥ 33.1 NN,D ./lowl..-00 4 .4 K. '. 0 -1 m 1- I. - i i 1 1 1 1 1 Â·k' --1- N I 0 .1 - =.4 -- 11 OW - Â» , 4 / r - 05 + /' 11 4 / 0 EZ z m 00 < Z L " M F 11 iZ 1 0 0 9,1 4 0-1 0 1- m m 0 -1 9 m 0 .0 r r 2 N Z 0 r. 4t \ 1--r .1,- 2 4 lE- h 1.- F f . P t P/FI, 1 1 4 1+ 4-+ 1 1 1 1 1 , , t 3 1 0 - -r 1 1 1, 1 1 4 .4 k 7-1 1, A 1,- i \ l i Z m m m 0, L. KING CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS COMMERCIAL BUILDING 11 - 21 1,0 . .. 0. 1-7 -, eli 19 V, 1 le e -- ZÂ» LI=-i 3& 6 ASPEN COLORADO P.O BOX 3534, ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 P .11Â£, REVISIC~-T ~ REVISION -t 00 F -- i -- I. 1 1 I 1 -- 40_Ri - - -+.3.-*--t,..... .i , L ; iw-6 .*... 4% 1, li 1 . 1 i t. -14.-4 - 1- ./ -- - - - - -4 - ijgul . ..t 1 , 1 Il - 43 Â·0 I 2 1 -1.-1~ .:. .1 --7---4... E- ..44. 4 t , . 1 _DECK- i _SIUnln.-AEL- : 1-----T .' liN, P \1 + -1 4-1 I f , 11 HI =1=-140 / 11 1 \ f - 1 - -4 - - i _DEBCE. M .11 - -- -EXII_CQemnQal t"-_ It 1 1 2_.* i.. 1 .1 -ur. 1 ' ]*1* 11 1 11. \ -- DN i i 1,1, C 1 -1 1 1 1 , 1--i SECOND FLOOR SCALE : 1/8- = 1'- 0" . V Z ~ t -F---- 4---- _- -_-2-111.- --7t 1 -EL.. I~ ,.7.#1 -t- Â· . 1 Al m 1 1 1 , 1. 14-'% lir e' Â· . 1 61 1 t, 17. '' - 1 , 1 ~ I it- ~ p-tt - ------------ i . -4 - ..~ ' , . 4 1 ~ 1---1 1 U Z E r . . 4 +Luu' 1 - *-1.-- i .-9/ f- Â« 1 1 Â£ i 4.7 4 1 / --- 3- It -r- 1 1'' TWO BEDROOM APL ~ it1 -rÂ·--' . t - 1, Crf[-'E77:i:.ir.1 .-I - -7 -4 1. -DECK :. W 4.. - 4 P 111.03 4 ;It 1 " i N==9 I - - - 05 0 - ILIL> 1 liI t.1 4 42 1 TEJ/684- - 1 , 90 2 -i +.i- 11/'FY-'-.' 1- 1 -t*â€¢ n + - 1- 1 4. 401 64 -4.--t -1 - 1 Â£+1* . 4 --: i ..4.>1 14 1 i-4 1 ' 0.' ' / 1 / k , I r,i, iÂ·1 1Â·1 0 1------2 21-7 , litÂ· 1 1-1 1-4.,1 - i --p --Â·r 1 1 Â· ''' --1 4-r DRAWING FLOOF- FLAWS THIRD FLOOR ~ JOB NO 661& DATE ' 1 - 6 2> SCALE : 1/8" = 1'- 0" ISHEET NO 1 . ./ .9. .41 1 SHEET OF Sl)31IHI)HV/SELVDOSSV Â¥ 3:WINNn) S31HVH) 06SS-SZ6/EOE 3NOHd3131 219!8 OCI~10103 'N3dSV 'DESE XOEl Od 00Â¥110100 I . fÂ· 6; P , 1.. i B. F- i- 1 r-- 1 - 1.: 0 *. r'â€¢ r' ! 45 1 f f -- - e .94. m -- N. 43 1.t i - 0 C 3k n.- 1 72 4 r ,- 1 1 Â¥1 0 1. %1.\ Â·4 1 4 . 7â‚¬ 1 \1 1 -1 1 J 0 .6 li '0 i . r j ITI t <fi-- 1 7 --7 " W 9.1 1 1 J hÂ·'. bill 2 - / 0 0/ r iz f \. 1 11 -4 lili 1 41 1 1 dll ap 1 * 1-1 1- H : 1, ---L-Â¥1 1 2 - - f - 0.21 - - I i A'll 1 El S - -- 1% - i b 1 1, 4 m' 1 ---1 01 .1 2, ....... 1 - .1 ". ... b 1 - A: 1 1 ==== t.. - '1 1 1 =1 1 0 - % 0. 1 .1 .-4 -- - 0-t- 11 F 1:10 K - 1 L -1? -4 -Efil"'51,91. Z32576 -=j///<4 '4.-21:=*~.:2 -! '4' . R#"r, 1 ' 39 -,1. Imt..1*&Mil-k \ CE113~6.~..~d~ -1 1-,0 M'.11.!t.,t- i k 1 - 1 ..0- *Â·h!Â· i, 1 1 e.,Â· Â·Â·.. -r 1/:3 1 *=te,2 - ''' I h"'' OXIL-iMMIHIEF /1~u~ - I.- 0.- 1 . , ' 1 ='.-Ill--=-Int==7.W. ./-1.Ii- < f: T . 7 4 , Y'- ;, ' ,;!1 l.1 ' 1. i f - - i.= i . , Â·1Â· *--m 36.. 7 ]-Â·4 1 Â·Â» c -4 1. 1.: Â· !f hktit 1,31....-/- rt-1Â·-r-hi=*~ 4 2 1e7â‚¬$ 2 f;12 Eaffli~lift-5. PA I-+ .'.....*/ 1 , 1:Ii :i' 'lli t 2 ttiI ./. r 1 *14 k -1.- ~- .1. h i.i ," .Ir, Â£-l" 21, i l *: 14. , 1 PA Â· . 1- 1 11 -, ------- FEE - 44 Wi~aL 4.7 1 1:4 9--, te , 4,1 F ; Fr.-4 1 4* .4 I 4 /267*- V %,6, R-L+-1*-~ F U L.' . -Ll .... J , Â· MN' 't::r'/74.44~,rl ..+ Â·, 09: i.,, ,: â€ž,,.~-~,3, '2'' 1 44:1 * ~ 4 1 51 2 :.. 1,Â· ' - Ujq" /1/i ,.A : - ; + ,--AL.. Â· , C./. 1. I.-9Â·1-/ - 1. C '. - Â·.1 z, 1 -*__ 9 -~R 4 1 r-~===g=--1,; -li.-9=.4-111 '1 1% r - 2 1 - 21;F.--- -ill-i 1 1 19 4, - 1, 8 1 4 - , 1 latal Â¥ .1 1, ;L ' 1,/ ..5- 2 " i 1 0 . 1 -6 1 r r Z 2 i..;, 4. 3 r m -1 D!Â·~ 1 J. :111 11 m m N m. m rp -1 - rm m r b! r t 11 i , 11.11 0 10 0 2.19 i-' dz L 6% Ie m 1 '1 :m Â»,0 OP D 3 20 - * g E- 1 (,1 c - c' 0 1 0 01. 4; 1 -40r m :7 9 E qm, . -) 42 C. 2 l 40 --e- +A '9 i r.:4I 1 J' i P '0. 4 - 1! E 1 " 41 - 1 1 S. 4 1 1 4 qi.. 1 ). I -4- Itt 1 11 Re /2 4 83 Et.. 1 1, M kma 4 + *4 4.. 4â‚¬1.4 ils.: 1 0.-11 JOHN L. KING CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS mi ~m -.--- m fl COMMERCIAL BUILDING 01 11& , 9% P 19 b / 3 1 E Â£ Â£ 1 F Ui ZI \1\ ASPEN COLORADO P.O. BOX 3534, ASPEN. COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 P . NO liVA 313 r . . . + + 4+ 1 0 11 it 1 *1 af. 1 Em I 42 1 01 Â» . ji M fA r ! lin $ 1 4 m 1 â€¢64 4 1 1 .- -~ rn /4 CÂ·- r , fi 11 m 02 K - A : m _ 2 1 r. - 11 00 FIR 1/A . 1 ' 11 0 1110 M o ii i 7 â€¢,it' 'A .1,Z 0 36),IE .. 1 9 V, . 1. P 9.4. I' 71 N 0 p ;or 1 Â£ 71 0 1 .. 1 . . 1 1 KI A. 1 -2===== f C kt tit# ' :fl i 9. 0 li ili .4 .4 -4,"1" 1 L. 441 4.U.-1 -14' 1 1 - .' '41/mi 4-b-42.*=~u+ 2..: :#44444,-~fi.&&ri ,12h,"1 d /' r Rk 12.11 i . f ti -7-2-F=1---'- -r- H :1 Nil!~ r. - V~. , ~i - 11. Ii-=-Ii -7-__ 0 (UNV IT,.fi ,Â· 1~ - - -1 . il2 1 lA] . e 4 1 1. 91 . 11 -----------------~-~----- 11 1 4 h - -=-1 -- -- ----- - 1 .1 i :f'' Â· ,114 1 1 M , 0010'wi Â· -1 + 1 -- I - -- .... P! --/&*9- 4 - ! Â·-- .1,11/9 2 \ '' 1 th. . tt 4 / 4-=0-~ 9 .,0 . 4 fi --- '.41'/': },~1,11!,~tÂ·~;1,9 bi :4 p': Â·~, Â·'i '4'iii ~, 'Â·~Â·~lllÂ·lf - 1. I. 7.1.. â€žt ['IRM</em,#Mi///#,Bimi 1,~/ .4Â·4~1 :[ 1% 4 e .6 , reeÂ¥ #=-//6 k 414 - ;.9..4, 1. - 1 . 1 1 - r 1 i. 11 1 Â· ' 1 11 1 -1 1 44Â·.i '4. - - 9 1.91599 1 -1.- :5 .. -2-2 -__L--4-2.1 - d .._luu./.- 7 -. 1 -/-1 wr --- ..... -1....LJ// ./. 11 d h =I~ .1 1// -ir Zi~ 1 7 <r, - Â·* ift f juE#Faly- 1., t C h 9 .1 ' , - 4 + +4 rz P.Me 11 813 r 71 rl ' 4.1 or : 0 0,- . r f I , i. - .' 1 . i . - I - + T. I -- f 4 , 4 ,Â¥ i. 1:':Ili~)lii''i.}Il,i:!11! , :4 .-24*4It -1, ,0 .. I. -- -Ii - -- M-Â·- -- Â· , --1 * *I / 1 61 1.0* L. KING CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS 0 i 5 COMMERCIAL BUILDING j 9 61 22 0 c - I- - - I I. COLORADO P.O. BOX 3534. ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 - i 4Â·,Â·4*9~ 113*0'gA.Â¥Ad.â€¢~i . .....JE,/.4 0.,46<--4%.7.Â¥4,7~,N#. , 4, k .. . 43 ..f Â· 7 1 2,22 344'4 Â·Â·S . A O -- Â·. 1 1 11 - ... \ PROP#Al"f -L]NA. \ 47 4 --4 -*,1,3 V ' -"t-- Ul 4 R O UND F L 0012. --- ...- .--- - 4:ALE ~ â‚¬ 1 0 0 17(2. FT F A P. .- - 0 -1- 51 00 46: FT TOTAL FAR- . U , DAAWING 4 4 E--1 DATE SHEET NO 1 SHEET OF 1 '7 1 i <, N 1 4 4 0 H *1 4045 I A Â· Â· - Â·-v'-F'niA "'*",v-zi'74 1#:'.:~-1/'2,:i#-*:, A71.v:.**v#,"%ih%,7'4 trr-,9,f 1 - ..,4. % -6:4 /'E.,4 *P 17 - : . 07 -4.,6/4* , t,1 ...2.."ff %.t;fiÂ·tI~.: 509 ..'. U -*51.3; . 1 - 1.61 ~Â· '- Jor#&*hirt'R* 7''EMVi '2$9 4 1 ..9 + V ...â€ž A .1 ~7 - -lerÂ» . ... .. . .. .. '4 ... - ' ~ ..4 ':Il Â»/-7, ~ + j. -I- WD I 1 . ~. 1 11,.,=Â£1921==IL?le~Fid*Rlil' *tefÂ·1:.,44*Warn<thfterÂ·4.11642?7.1 .'t'r.... -1 f 8 1 ....1 . . C./i -Al m Â· '4~1,4'~9Â·,04 *Il : 8 . - Itt --- 1Â¥ i Â·Â·Â·911â€ž . 17Â·I: . tâ€¢â€¢â‚¬:u'l LÂ· Â· , Â· ~ . . 0 1 0 . A .. . O 3 . 066 ~ 4-4.2:'.11 .. 1 i I . . L 3 4 . r ' i:Â»i. 1.1% 'Ng Â·Â·Â· 1,':' 4.'7Â·Â¥24Â·4.*Â¥-a,1,~Â¢Â£;:16* 23-1 ,-Â¥.4.+â€¢ 0,1,9.:, AS 1. ...) 4 . 9 91 7 -al Z. .r e~#TI~%~~. 9.~aft:- A....36,9,'~,6. Ii.?~t~- 0 ' I . ....4*,#jfi /144% 4,2 ...,1 '.. -4*41,9 ' ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ IE v~: 3.~35% 1 PO 1 ~ Â»7 1.59 w . : t,7 21*2%- v 1 REVISION Â¥. 4 -1 1 41*3 2,3.: Â·Â· 0 5.;.: 10Â·Â· d.9 -' 1 QÂ· ,$ - G 1107 12 [4 -1 . ..47Â·X.f GA Ab , - 1.:44'' 21.-1, ; tb , r , \\ ~ ~231988 I'bl ./ . .....29 41 L U lir 1 . ?,4,?91 ~. <*41 3912* .. 72 Â«47?22 /14. - . ... E- 4 . MEÂ¥Â·TS , r T -1 4.: 5-/ GÂ»i'. 9.F ..6 12: I 4.- 7 ,46. ~t. t..:~i~ t '71)14, ~4Â·11CÂ· ' 2/(22 ..' . 419'lly:.u 461 ' ...1:1 - ....9 . P. I,- 1-- . 1-7 - . 12 ' 3, LIc,WT wELL ~ 1 i Elly. 4,=4 + ' ABOVE -1 1 i i 4- r r 1 1- , / 4-4 ---- -- .- OFFICE_ .. PROf- .1 -- - 00 (1*ju--13 git-2-- 2 -1.1 ..' 1- liu- - 6- E.*h- U -â€ž Â«+Al---~ 1 , 1. Â£r=142 eTUDIO APT . , 1 -0- 1 m a . -4- . . 1 --1 l 0 0 ECOND 3 LOOP LI E 9,Â¢ ALI . 1 / 6 11 5 1'. oIl 1 1 00 94 FT PA 11- t--- 00 r e 7 9 4 OAAWIf*3 4- ..4 JOE; NO. 171 ~ SHEET NO 3- I SHEET CF Â£- 1 - -I SDE.LIH)HV/53.LVE,OSSV Â¥ 51:WINNr[) S31HVH) 065S-526/EOE 3NOHcl3131 2!9[8 OCMIO1O3 'N3dSV 'DESE X08 Od 8 1 6 4 Â¥ 0 9 AV 9 N I 4 4 0 H ~-1 Niallpal 1Ylo 261 r'"" I 4.41 . 1 , I. ' 2 2*41 - -: ' I . ' ~i'll '. I'l : '.' f. . . *11 . ./ t. '-1 1 1, i %>4.-- fl I .-#* L AEVISION . f 7-7 --1 - - 8 -' t.1 L.2 --3 1[0 : I )~2 4=>'80\WEI.:N r:Â·..,W 1 1~ 4 1*231988 i ./. 41 1 j f 4.2'.4 .,1 , I I -1 L . 1 .. .. . - 1.I- - 1 1 1 1 1 .....1......... .... f . -.--,-W---re.-Ill' ..2:1 - 1 1 1 0 1 ---F , 1 1 Fi - 1 0 . ~ r-lili I i 1 - - 1,2...4 & 1-1. 111 11 . 7 ' , 0 1101.4. 1h 1 1 ELEv. plk'ING! AllELL.liIN 1Â¢A = -I - il r LÂ» 3 - *I<..r , i , ti.#el . I h'*m- --I \ 1 .,1.=ZI 1 ! Â»HEN_ -44 1 -3, '~ C 4 -T) - 1 5 E c 1,4- ! It : . . _LIVIN(1_ 13,-1 0-1 71 - U 1 1 E *M_ '11 1 121 bD -61 â€¢1 Â£ hil 0- 8 1 1 1.'991 d_ 1 1- . 1 ~. . -i--.' i 1 -. - lit UP-N w -4 i' ng' 11 a- -#m I *6j-i 'W le.. '40.9-1 1-MATMMâ€¢ pm./.-lei..."/.9.IMI'll"....0//531//1/7---Ir- 1 4 - :- il 4. . 0 --1 i , ENS It ! 6 '': 1 tle.-L- a......u - C . L11 --r----------7 - D .4- - i 4 - l.) L O L 1- THIRD FLOOR 111 SdA.LE - 1/0 :1Â·0 1200 4 62. fl F 5 p. E l 'ON 11 11 9 0 0 --1 8 8 OAAWING 4-- - --4 DATE SHEET NO SHEET OF --- . 4,1 SDE.LIH)HV/S31Â¥1]OSSV Â¥ 33:11NN,D 531&1VH] 0655-526/EOE 3NOHd3131 2 19 18 00~10103 'NEIdSV 'DESE XOEI O d -Ir 'C '. . , I.- .2Â¥03 770 ... . ....r I . /6 ,1 -------- AEVISION 1/ i I ir- I ~ -1*R 231988 ~ 4 j 1- - -1 A irKS>=; A A #4%%> 4 1. a A r/2,1.~ el.ZED b.'Ch i r ANGPIZED ALUM INIUK /11'11'1111!11;11 i 1 61 U AP- D RAIL - i f -ffl k- - < ,(311-AzED -TILE 2 IE 1 1 I f, i ~ < -- -LowE ' aLAZINq h t, 0 0 - - 1 U--U k - -.-- if 1 1- T JL 1 - 1 -- , 1 1 1.-6-- â€¢ -- . 1 4 40UTH ELEVATION . ALLEf 4 093Â·H i LE VATION o H o p M E g S 9CALE ..1/6 . It 1., L It . , ,-3 '1 1 . I. 4 </CALE Â· 1 DAAWING -4- 4- JOS NO. DATE SHEET NO 4 / SAEET OF 4 O6SS-526/EOE 3NOHcl3131 219!8 OCI~O1O3 'NBdSV 'DESE XOEl *Od 3>Flfl fl_13104:)HV/S31VDOSSV Â¥ 333INNn) S31HVH) -, 1 . ./ IL . ~1.\1: . .. :-1,Ff.. :?%, 4 70- 1 / NG 1 U.1 / 4~1 / 001 'I\ f - L / 423; \\ .. W /1 I-9 *<trl Z 1 7 2 - 2 92 (44 : . ++ 4 0,1 , r- f / / - \7 4 6 1,1 \ j. .. hz . 1 1 ~- f r<1~1 h Mi , AM'-C j t)(400 - f D f j /1 1 1 4 'l I /. 1 I / / . 3 .. 1 .. l // .9 b \ i . 1 i# 12-2 - . I .- // , . , 1 . - i1.~... cv xyÂ· 11.=- Â»r \ 1 . i Ag--f. r=%:r it Â«UCM - - 95' " -- -*4Â«e 1 4==F' 0 .. , -n. 1, \" 7. -1-k ~-Â· 9-a 712:43~21 / -*- ~lk-Ew '<t, 1 ~ji \ I ... / . S d Z V. /, ll \ 1,â‚¬31 -- \2 1 R i\= "rltr- I 9 + 3-. 1 1 4 1 w--1.t_ ~ )9, a .-I \\ ,/ .48 ri' 1 4- i ~ >X- . 1 / 1 1 --::c:l . ~ )/4.. // --- 1 4Â»0 --- -1 lrE/j <134 0. *-- i. w 'Ell 1 C 1 Â«_27 9 BE- 12-KO *TUPIC) r-El-OCLAIELP CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS no 11 Z 0 Z LÂ»*KE Â»VE.. , ASFEN, LOLOTAP O P.O. BOX 3534, ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 MJEE =10 133HS ON 133HS 31VO REVISION- 1 -- I . I.V. 6/ ' 3% $ 17 i.1 4 I Jr; 2 ./. r I â€¢411 i 00â€¢4 I. 41 , 4.-7,â€¢1 ..., f 41 f a Â«075111 9-C - & 4 . ; . I. g.1 1 .. 3 .lt< I : I :416 ' / * :.4 - - I . t - I 1 / \ - - :1&1/ AA--Â«> - I c -14~T-- ?, f tica i . 11 Â¢\ ZD 1 1 -t 1 + 7 1 E 1.0 1Â·-4,9 G . \.. i , 9-- w= I -=- -0.-6 - ---- -Mn ' - -- I.- I . 1 , 1 . . I . . . I . A. ../:. 1 ..1 . .1, - 1 i - 1 -. fa 11- .. -*./.---4---------- I . .. -I - I -- 4 .11 .-. Vt/l'' 1 i '~ ~ i~--- 1.1 ~------~- / 1; 1 2 . f. 1 -1 f ' 1 1 1 1- I -1 - ,_L- El :.1-/ 7 1 1 . 1 i . /#' I , I r. I I I B4 1 1). .. ' -Â· 1Â·' 1~11.Li 1- it li~ ~ 084 1 11 AL . .. fr L - Â£.a . \ , P..,-- 9. 0[39(Enc 6 1 ' 'ii i : 1 1 e , 1 ~ 11 1 /"Fl , 1 'j I liti,;11 1 . .... I i il i. ! M 11, 4, 1 ti , 1 1 1 --:r;'kilt , ~ ~ ~ ~%49 L, 14 'll . ....1 i .'Ii<' 1 1 1 1 1 9 1 2,1,1, 1.1 1. I . 00. Â·11 1 i ' 1; 1 - . 1 1 LE 1 1 I ./. 7 - I - 0 1 \ # . 1 â€¢ .:41. Â· 1 . f- .. f.vi. i M----- - -i ------ I - --4-- /'-6 ! ,d ., .... .. 1 1 1 /: . 1 \ . . ' tv ' r j i j 11, @. ' IPX . ..11 6 1 rk I . . â€¢ 41. 1 ': 'A . .1 'A . It 1,1, Â© Â«4 0, 4-/// ~J-IÂ« i.--~* -1- 4 -p .1 I-kk .- jÂ« F)1<. G n . 1 . D . 0 -4 2*-1 1 A \h m v. Irir./.A 5-P mm 21 fl A r---1 I *ay-< / - 7 ~ cu Ill Ell g 5 11 9 14. 0 __Ili@ 1 V 1 Fi~ 5,!i31Â¤<20 Â«U1710 KEILCSâ‚¬[-E PCHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS m 5 50 El m 2 U) - 2 0 1 0 0 9 11[-9 2-01 E. 14Â¥M Â»1 Â»WEE ., Â»619- hi P.O. BOX 3534, ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 i , 41 ;4 1 4 REVISION I ik[% Â© IN OVE[pi Uj c *'2 23 m N 71 1 ..6. ,. :f'Al I . 41 t. ,f 1 I Â·. I .0 . 4\/ 7 -P'. 7..4. , 7 Â» C 1.-0-2 9 r, f,.14/ \' / . AA? : . 1 4.11 1 i.1. I <.6 ... .0 Â·Â·F - .~ /r rr pr~Â·y j / 1 9 \ 7 4Â»,01 . ' I. V . i>f Â§ 'F . ..1, N jo â‚¬ . r 'Li 4, 1 /12\ # ' 6 ' 0 1 .4.-:J '.,4, . i 4/f -Â»~. , :' r . . W 11. 4. 4':497.7 ..Â£ A'.' .'r' *.i :. ' / 1 {j -.... i 6,4 V I , 4 1 . m. r 4...1. f S In ./ . 7 J Â¢ 14. .. 1 f . . I 2/914/ '8(1%20, 11Â· ir 6.0 - 1 +4, 3....14â‚¬,4.4 1 1 1 r. ~ Il - - r-Â·r.*. r i -- 1. -\ F,% ..... J -1 - . 1. -4.-42-394 - .---24- - - A 1. . 1 .4.... . 3.3.4-,d'. 4:X .... U-/* - it - - #* - - .. . - 4 .... 4-! 21, I . le:**failimms/ell,p - -1 . 1. 1 --' , 1 ..Â·r I -- 4. 1- .1 -1.141 --+ . /72â‚¬71 . 774 , 'lon ! : 2 L' BAiri .- " Ic/Fl - 1 .-- - 19,/ i. $: i 1 -I . m P . L : nmo' wi 1 ylljll 1 LEN I i =-eÂ· 1 l! , =.1 45â‚¬ 1 14 tlgi., A A 1 . 1 3 FL -'4?.{t_- iki:i,-AL ,- 1-1 ~ 62Â«82=Se . / - 1.7 /7-trk et 1 i t \ . - ----al.* BE-K-K-O 61-UPIO HEIFLON HOUÂ·PE - 1 /22\4>/A =. fA'afAS r..01'LI 1 (*61*A (EVEO/21> 4".:'u.~bwi g 0 tp.n.16/ '7â€¢4 U V ... 9 2 111 OAAWING JOBNO DATE SHEET NO 4 SHEET OF c 1 73.LIHOHV/SELLVIOOSSV Â¥ 3331NNrD S3-IHVH) 61-31~1*00-1Â»1 01=10-le 06SS-SZ6/EOE 3NOHd3131 21918 OCI~O103 'N3dSV 'DESE )<08 *Od N-glasv 4-Â»Â« NY W.KH -9 101 4-4 416 1-9 3-0 ' I ... . r 4 . . I A Â·. flklEÂ·;L-. r.&216/~A /&.4***1*Of t Â¥4= Lj t.-1 m 77-1 4 11 1,4 -1 1 1 11111 . .1,11 171 1<11.1 r 1:Lf 1L 11111 ... I. *tiâ€¢â€¢6 1 .... ./ . ... 9 - 0 4 1 442 7 - -4-- R ;9 11- . f +41 ' W '.=5LU ..1 s 6 g 1-IR 9 YO V - 846.-;. 1 .- * L 6--4117 Pll I .0 1 1 1 INE~vâ€¢r E.-t /p': . k 11Â¢\ . 1*- . I . 94 '' a u =Â» lili-1 3 \\ U \\ U Â· 7% r - , 1. '. .2 , .... 7111 1 . p k. .'. -e. f.3 0- f â€¢ 1 ..41 - L< INT 1 2,~ It .-1 t>~ ...3 1 1 I . 22 . 'r,.2 . 7 43 97\ 4 --,-1 1- , .4 - 44- til: 1- .-. ' - -~- 1/41 : >,14- , ~16 ..Ii 1_1 221 1.-2\ - fY' - V L 11&. 11 ~ '' 0 ~ M#= 1-77â€ž-4 9-r:*.11 -- 1 1 v A.:a -,4 '- 6-Â· 1- il# It 4 + r -A. -I -6â€¢~JA .0. 1Â·t-21 ' ri_ -. 11HI ,/. 2 .1- Â£ 1111 ; ..,1 1.181 Â·â€¢a . --Fr,g.'Â·e , . 1 IP .ed.MAE,ga \ *1 1 - i I /1/ \ 11]1 I 11. 1 1 4-41 D. i == 6 0 ~% m Â» L- 3% %. \\4 .-' 1 f , 1 . ../. 11.1 #-I--------- 4:#* 32 -5-- /*Â· 1 -#+ i i-.1 . 1 -7 -- ,-4 .7,4%13.Ii.Â© 0%444*:2*L-4 . 1 - 1 >/4~. Â£,"i.'Â·5*f.~ 1 .. K j.., t. --47.Â·r.lat*W-Â·:'9*(63'%2Â».1~ -- . ..Â·?f~' i~ 34 It# 1 ' 127Â°r.3-3~23-*29 -f - - 1-- -1 J - ----4 1 . * , .1 i '*29.14 1. ,$ 0 j :,- . 1 . - 1 r 44 - 4 1 1.. .1 u W UENs-1.39%*b, I# ouse ./6,35>,1-4*1. - Â£p,z 1 6,_~_99KE---2~ 1 t.imig@ 1,â€¢Â·t:*prnal - 1531 ~ I i fn I i = 1.4 9 1 LÂ·-6Â£41JU CO 4-0-3 i ' EDil i -t obl Un I In 4 , ,, I CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCH ITECTS m m 9~.mz -1 KE 11 : '1'Â£2 gig 0 TI 'Actri.4, N/ + 4/1/ 1. cs' . I -7 gp712:/. P.O. BOX 3534, ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 . 1 . .:4* AEVISION ' ' Â·Â·D'-*-.. --â€¢Il ' .â€¢ 1-plt-: #PÂ·---Â·41.-"l'Â· -'4>.Unt i,9Â·;L,0~M*4Â·AB!0-14'0117'4490*i*- 42; .:AJOUÂ¢Â¢ Am 2 9 , t. 1. Â·..iÂ·.,..iffi#.4 ;01:.If . - . - 4,..1 ' :2,84 // , /, . AJA i ... . 11. 24Â¢.ZAP:. . * 1: ./ J L Â·AÂ·B Q. * iN -9 - -1 . '11' +:44# ' 1.1 i 28=1.. I 40 +041 4,4 I ' 48{ 4, 00/:aar. !1 1 - -7 -mmr--Â·=/ r 2 klf. 0 444 90-1 1 4= '241% - 1-770.4-010*m- I AJo,-rpl tal-EvÂ»-rio,q 4 + 4 301 15 , 1-IOF'K.INS' .,0â€¢WN. CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS Al 2 P.67Â»A, co\_01.~>2 Â© P.O BOX 3534. ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 I 1 ... + ...9 2 Â· Â· ~~ ' B.Â·.Â·'CrjÂ·--5 11 1 - . l 49'- -92Â« ,Â®. 16 1 - -11 , / 1 GL p 1 '11 k ~~Zqr:Fr. ~~1* -f Â»trt-15 - r 1 1 1:%* 4 1 r-2. '%411'1 1 ..7442 1,4 1 161 ~ 1_21.0 . 1 94 7 . Inia# N~Y Fr1 i *4 372133 1 4 i . I . I 1 4 Af--- Â·1 r 04,- -1 1 + 14 :1 pâ€¢ G' Ilt-- t@ :GR~~~ p v,i';g - i 4 1 - - R *00.Â· r- Â»I-----r/Â«7' .9 2; Bl AlÂ¢it-u ii y _- _i--- 1 hi 012-1-14 ELLE-VAT- IOIN 301 E. 1-1014114.9 AVE. CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS AH - Ae/LA , C.O\-09- Â»90 PO BOX 3534, ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925Â· 5Â·,90 4/3144 i.t. .. Â«\.4 ' . . 1 1*- .â‚¬11 h 4 : # 1 --- - -- 2 84 1 ....k . ..11 1 ~' f. 4.4 1*w.iri 1-â€¢r41 I 2>C 21 Â©'iwt 71 1 9,-,-7- . 1,, '4 1,. 1 11 %7 11 - 1 . 2-1 ---44 7 1 1 4(26?,71 42,Â·4; *- P... gyÂ·V 1 f.:WIT (mi f rÂ·.â‚¬-14Â·3' i %4&.;34 6 i uÂ«-27 - ij E-f MGE# U_ - -1 Notâ‚¬-T-W ELEÂ»Al-loN 309 ter. HOFICI KIÂ·g, ~,49%. CHARLES CUNNIFFEE & ASSOCIATES/ARCH,TECTS A3 Â»u* PEN , A:i-OAÂ»470 P.O. BOX 3534. ASPEN. COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 le" U~!6i~Ul~D2â€¢tâ€¢%-1-1'~1Ulâ€¢~IU&19-h 1-â€¢.tâ€¢~UR'll'dUH'WI â€¢â€¢iâ€¢~~1 0~0*UN-Ml~~-MNA I!alLâ€¢â€¢- 5 241â€¢4~!W,1.Â©p, Â·. . ~tit~' gl:~ w. â€¢'LI~/~Il.' . e"t'~' 1~,1" 9- , Â·'*, ~' 1, 'r 44'y-Â¥,,1Râ„¢Â·i"â€¢' 4,1,t,/I.1.1,Â¤~J"M 9 '~~'~~ '51~,B~.4Yf~1~~v"I.;-1.3 ,N~~~~r ...:t,1. 11 {41. . Â£3-==;= -2.i-#$M--44:=-:MU=.2,5" '7t2'-*'P--r=- 1=1=1::n--Â·Â·Â·.--=I - i-/- -i =-- -24 . 1 li Â«197--1- h Il-.-.+ -I---- 1 - I 1; , \L-0 -3 if -_3 1--- -f-<jil LI_ 1 . - 11153 m E . -NOKTH SLEVATI ON 309 EL. HOF KING Â»VE, CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS Â».612~hl, 6.-0 %42-(1(7 P O. BOX 3534, ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 ~ & eÂ».4 y tri... TEET 4 44*4,4,06.4, w., , 964*14/4*65 4 4 d'je,4//uu'/4./2/im Â·Â· i. i ,-4.62'.0, i.ia,w" /â€¢: mA//UÂ·e â€¢-I 7- 0â€ž"E/44~14 V.-â€¢. 24:14 "*/4:A.,ilar. % , :... / 1 T, ./."Alr''I' : Ill// ' jÂ·11. ..'1 .,. -: r.*. I. 2 ill --11 1- , L__ ..- , Â· 1 L 1 71 ; -- -= FF-1 =. 14 10-4 . ---911--Ir-7-41 -_3_- rifulwj- Nog-1-14 ELEx/*Irlo hi 4. som 5. HOF ICI hifi ,4/15. CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHrrECTS A5 AfE 4 Colog-AP O P.O. BOX 3534, ASPEN. COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/92% ut p. ~â€ž ~ â€¢~pr,~ ,(~-*7~~. 4**' 9.-fi * . #.. v I,1... . :C:UÂ»f#-Â·t =1'..IM*/':/. IK.il4 4.1. '41, 1 't 1 EHE E --= .*:-/ ==*-.====i==:-~11--ltÂ·~U~-- 4 - 7 *~ 3 --2--10=11-1-0-7-1 ~-11 *-" 4UC.../ .-. a 1 6Â¢ Ill o Pil El M - -1 IN ott-1-14 ELLIE>Â»<T- 10 W 309 E. HOP'ICING .4/E CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS 1 f : , I. JL=111 %=1 rr. - I '1 ASF SKI, CoLoN.A-t/0 P.O. BOX 3534, ASPEN. COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 ~ 9, 06SS-SZ6/EOE 3NOHd3131 2!918 00\410103 'N3dSV 'DEE XO8 O d ba*Fdoo NadSV -9 92 m H 04 1031!H)MV/SaLVIOOSSV Â¥ 33=IINNrD S31&IVH) anNBAV SNI>,dOH -1-SVE! 60â‚¬ Â° 1 0 .. A= -- - 1- nrtri E r=- CD Ful CD 9 2 El _ LD tr 2 1\ 1 4- A \ 1/ 1 \\ 1 1. \ \ i \ \ -=Ill-, \ 1 I I, ..... : /. .4'., 1 ..1,Â£,1 il .J. 1.. IiI.6 .1,%' ...'. i. 1 . .'. \ 1 \\ 1 1 1/ \ 1 1 1 1 . \ I I \ 2 h \\ 1 1 \N\ \.... \\\\. 1 \ 1 It-1 , 1 I -- -- r~ ff. I- â€¢ Â· W. i' '' F 7 : 1. . . . 't . --~-----~ i~ .. i -1-5/ 1/1 :\ 4 491 \\\\..\\\ i\-\\Â« i 1 1 1 - . I \ ... ill i./. ( I: \\\1 l \ \\ 1 I' 0-0 -- . ;4-4 6-Je,...Â·.4.44,4.. .;' *OrÂ·Â· ?Â· 7. .,4 1 -.& 6 .* . I.7 6 . P. r>;.3 4 3. 2:68-4. -1 . ---L . 11111/ \\\ .-,4 -L'._ LILI "' d --5 64.4. . \ \ 1 \\4 1 -a \ If= . 44.. 1 H 1-1 4Â£3.- I ..W , Â· Â· 4 1 Â· / 7 16Â· - th'' 4 . '' I 1 REVISION- 90 133HS 7 944,3 1 ASY -1 0442-1 dliz . k ~i-Â·-:Â·:24-4, : 6 - .~ fÂ·~i:Â·43 1 -. *442{Oist . : Â¢Pf:*Â·t.*Â·9.22;* 2.1 *05Â·te : Â·2 Â·Pr. r r - . ... ,; ~. A. .~ t> 5-21.5 - .Â·.Â·Â·7Â· Â·: ..Â·Â· Â·;Â·Â·-â„¢ Â·-24~ 2 46 V.Â·' Â·- ,-- vc.1 Â·7 2 .j., 1 ''. I ' .- 0 2 2, p 4 .7 1>.7 1 , 1 ' p).te e l ~~~ 44/ r//T k -i . ... '. . lA' ./ 7 - - ~ .I Â·~ :~:fÂ· '5Â·. 9Â·N+4Â¥Â· Â·": s.01:j~ . m .*If 1 1Â£, 2.Â·M . .~ i fvi l 143*Â·t Â· Â· .I- '' ~ 1â€¢Â· y: 3 p . .. 11- - ,. - \ - 1 1 ~ Â£ | L < -L__ ~ ~ - 11 . .11 1 -1 - i ..t.3 1.1 2 ./. & 9 ., d 4 9 ...... :41Â·?--1 H...1- 71 0Â·-f...H -i -I:i. "f ' - ' - T "f-ti-:PrÂ·1*tg.R.i- t . ' I. ~Â· 0 ~-L; ~-1' Â· 144'. ' - -1. I \ - \\ \ i I \.: . 4 4.. ~ . :: .,1.041'. r: t~Â·Â·. t.* ~-,:*Â·btbÂ·t..I.:.3..~t;1*4--*. 7/9 f .1 . - 1 ...... #P f'. 1 -3 t.? ...' 12 6 -UY,LIZE. - ... -1/2 42 -3-:,Â¥Â·Â·t: j.'.-9.3.~i ,Â· h ..1. .: i . V Â£5 4 .' ..7. ':â€¢. t . ., 9.144- 1 I te; :) A .2 - ~Â· 3 '1,1 - 4 .. 11 \ \ \\ 1 ~1\ \~\\\. \ \. 1 \\1\ i 1 X \1 . . \ I \ I \ - 11 2 1 ...\ 4 .m 11\ \ Â£ .1 \ \ - f I -~er-,1 \~\ \ 0 I \ \. I\\ 1 \ \ 1 - - :Vii Â·i. 3.; Y: irj-Â·;{ t hY : ' .I Re t I I . Â· 95 g.flis ZE 'c - I -2 : ..9 Â£ . Â·k,Â· . 2. , - -- lir% 1 1 \\ . .,< .,twry/,17'T 1 -I . 1 1 \F 11 1/1 \ .1 I X \ 11/ / 0 N \1- . --1-1 - 1, / t~ 1 7 1 / ./ ik0 ; / L I - 1 /.. 1- / I 1 . 1 ,/ b</ I . I \L - 1 9 'Ir .. 1\ 1 \\ \ 1 ,/1 1 \ I \\ 1//~ / - 6 1__i .:. N. \ 7-7-7"1 1 . ti \ '. 1 ></21 X x /<L f- \/ I \ / / / . \ \ \\ I. \ \ .. - 4 N , , . -- . , I 1 I '42. 1 ... I I .'ll - I. 4 - 1 Â· ...4 . . r 4 -: --n 1 I.j 1 . ... . I i. I ' .. : %'0Â· 'Â·~Â·tÂ·Â·S F..Â» Â·Â·. . 1 - \ 5 i. . A r. I r . Â· . 4..1 I 1-1~ 4, i 1 \ .... ..1 . 1 1-41)- *111 .. 1 . I r Â·â€¢ ' . r 7 N ,$Â¢ . :Â· 6 I Â·Â·Â·Â·Â· ' Â· imfi,.: Â·Â· 8 309 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS L_r--~' 4' 4 ././ .6 / / 17--v . I ./ , \ 1 11 1 1 - 34 1/\\ 21 1\ E./\\ 4 1,1 1 - Z 0 ASPEN, CC)LORADO P.O. BOX 3534, ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 . 1 11A1-1 197; 771411 4HZ 73AWI 41Â£ -,1617 H Al' 90 133HS ON 13 BI--IS alva JOB NO. REVISION REVISION 1 1 1 ... - - 4. : 44/ 1: . 1 0. .79- 1 / - Ll Â· . 1 1 - p - - C : 2 <94' . -' '4' 1 6 1 - 414 . 9 2 Â· + I A , 0111! A-' fAG , 21 / - I.â€¢ ./.f lu *EtÂ¥ ' Â·f:'r :~0 .Al:--- / 4 4 #,~ ' '.TÂ¢.4 1 -'1'/44 Â·Er 4,4-Â· * .'. 6.2~@zr-Â·. 11 Â·. - ;1.-fÂ¢â€¢I'AD '.' r , , I / ''2 i 7. ., / 44*10*70 415, 53 . 4 . - ' 1. r, . v.4 4143,711-4 7.'; . .6>*14..4*6 1 y 1 2> / L. - 3-t,2-, o J.49:41 . 2 .1 Â£ ~' Nt Â·,+7 #f Nf VI * ,.fÂ· rt ' - '-1, :e*f'/3. , ----- .; h'.'.. * , c .1 + AÂ·49,2 , - 1 ./1,1 . 1*''haks. 4 , Â£ I - I ./ I 'let ./1 + 1 ; .49'kr=Â»f,1 Â¢ . . & . lillie- I 34 < ,.Â· 7.9,2426 , 08 '-4 4.T~*a.-130 . : 11:Â·:,- ,Â·.0 ..7 - .AÂ«,f..t .1, . J , w .-t 44 ' 0 . ' , C.,1 1 ... 2 're'' .1.1 1, C V / - IL 5 V 1 . 1 -- -=2.~ -r..Er ...P 2- .- 2.- 1 ,/D..... '.... .=ZE! /-- I .....DOD - IL /// i - . i j ,;â€¢ râ€¢ 004 . P... - ..9'.'-â‚¬, Â¢.1-'' .thrN>. â€ž0744 '-, â‚¬ ./. , 12 ./44â‚¬ /1. '14 . I . .'.. ..% 6). d- 4 ... /1, t W m L. - . . 340' 7 5,21ir, I V.,4..1 , h '01*.4.,..,0 . 1 I â€¢,f 4WUL}gr . 2- l - .:7492 32/ 1/ i :4' , -:24 46 9 , . ' 4 : r ...Â·Â· 3â€¢' 1 1.- ' ~ -5, / 0,16 . 'r "45 - 1 ... 5 13.- 4 - . Â»*Â§44:-1 -1 ..A 1 - ~ r.. 9 i ~ . 4 / ... ..... / I.'Â£'. .i. a . I :. .10 . .1 4 ....%... F t.:Il .4=p ::L.-heÂ·.,442Â£ i . . ' N -17 . . Â·Â·45 3Â· -" 4,4.fE'' 6.. 54:21.- . . 4 4 .f'' â‚¬ . ... .I '6- I .2 9 95{ka... .,. ., :1" .. / 1 '11Â¢:-/2 41 1.ah,tr0.,. ./ - 1 / n , 4Fy< ..1 11 1.1.4.1.7 j.,69 -~ , Â·.: 2:14 :./Â·2.2 - 5-474:'ti:a:'-* < -..:164.-,2 3 1- / Â·w: ta .,1 '.4 %,4 ..F.Â·~.~~~'~~'~..:i ~ . / 5. 1.1 6 ... ' .9'-'42< ~44>.Li 6 M 0 - &...: . , , a & ., w / . 'Â· t~ 3.*21.;â€¢ . ,+3*fit 7,4 1 / / 2 I ...4<ty....r /0 , 2 1 , (094 i't#' Â·Â·,Â·rÂ·~ , 7 / - ~ Â·-mz-:44 . - . 444% : IJ 4 ). + 4./9 I d. ..../-'J *l j â€¢ â€¢ Â· 1 / .241'c.:f. f int-2'72.0:3 (-t ,- 630.0 .,- 1 O *r . . -#r-4:1 - ' 344Â·- .:42''I. Â· , . 4 . 1- . *&9 Â£/ Re: .... - 1. e N ., 2 11 '-, 1 1-4--i.... ' 3 Â· Â·I'y Â«tryÂ¥*tif' V - I p 1- .=/1 5#.444.4...4â€¢.A - #' ~ I ... /- *...... , & 0 2 4:.'I ..Ir '*4.-:. h . 7 .-9.2:ba. I k ./ f. - , v.-0 41,1 'Â·0~Â·tr I- i. / &7*19:8523:32 *A-, I--i-. f 1 I A,e*AÂ·kAo.: ci:â€¢ '10 2, k 'G:Jll, " c %Â·Â·Â·' -: 1. ,& i:, 5. , .' -4 Â·Â·i UÂ»,â€¢191 1 C 2 1 : 3 :'-.:.:tll.4,'g,%f. ' . . I I.# i:'. + .1 C 'J >,1 1.,2., = 8, 1,5 Â· ., 0 /.<1 . ......le.P.....9. -Â·els-- 43. - I. 'Er :02 i N:?M't.Â·- I. I .. 1 - . 4. . 04 ..S-,1 .4. s fi 1 , . . ... i en#4 ' . - 1 - 9 . . . / ' . -, , i # 1 ./ -. / 4/ .:.4,1,4 4,9 - 0 4â€¢. Lâ€¢ 4' C,, ~ Ap 1 < / ' 1-y- . 944 9 ' rÂ¢Â· Â· f : 593Â«Â¥2>44 i.t : .. ! â€¢ r â€¢ â€¢. 0.* ......+2 .1. . 0./..4., 1,#ef ...1 .0 0. . .1 / // / .422 .F. Z b. . ; :51 b t. 14. jr; 1, Â·701 I t .4,11 , 0 1.--I .-1.ht.,4.W~%7 ..: 0., A .,VÂ»Or. 310- ,. . . -. ~ . . 41+1 . 59 #Â¢ . l,t. ... . . 0 2*'i/â€¢44 . -d . . Â· I '1 Â£,l .:alt.~125411: I -- 4Mit : I d ... I + 4...Â·Â·.... i I / 7 *.01 925 42:* y'.It , / . a. 1.3/5.L' s , , . . .... . , ./ . 1 - 1 . 03â‚¬ 4 1 41 , P 'I -- 194ffÂ·8.2*34, / -- - ..>,plice, 0...% / ' L :.1.&-2 & 5 -1,219,21'Â¥ r . f. ..:~:229.,Itf~y . 1:?i,r .A : 64.4.fL* ...'. ... ... 1 - . ~:~:6,3 ,&.44,62 #-9- 7 , .... :Il 7 4 . 4. 7%42<hi 4' I. I../ /,#-, .'. â€¢ I ... -:'l, r. '1173,1:9#.1 , ... 0:.5 6 .....1 1'.'.3, 1 fi:.-0:Â©tr I . /1/Â£ 9.14.- - ;44?6/01*f. ' I f ...1."-5 *. : .,1...4. I 1, t.. v 4. -7. 8 1 0 'p ~,49.7 N 41 .4. . D i:34-0 'El/:i*<Â·r ~1. ' ''Â·: 2.-9 :Â· l . J h -1.'54 Â£ /14 4 + ..., , .. ' "Â· iIAÂ·& 2'TfiÂ·~,Iteâ€¢*Ad.. - Â»?144 94 #4 -, 9:*47.40-1 13,4- t. t 2 mrd'l.T : --2-. .- - 4 . 1- 1 - r 1 -'.-- tu z Ill 3143 LEVEL 2 AID Le/EL iST LJIEVIIEL 0, a 0 0 0 4 ~ DRAWING JOB NO DATE SHEET NO SHEET OF 0655-526/EOE BNOHW3731 21918 OCIVNC)703 'NBdSV 'DEE XOS OW 111311 1 5315!VH) an NEIAV SNI>,dC)H REVISION 1 1 ..- 0.0 4%*. -- -- A 1.,.43.-ft:~737.-f.- ,/74/ /1.1\ AA 8 - la â‚¬11 ..4. 61.. 1 % 0% ..:...... .:..43;t: 1 . =:==4' /1--'At illillilill"""Ililillillilll 74â‚¬t',IN :4:/, '...,-1.-~... 19. f.... 49.- 771 r--32."4. i - fy-'-:40~ **i;'-'f / - = - - .1 .v . Â». 291 49%294,404?6 1....1 4.5â‚¬ ... 3.-9(.~ 'Â·73 if);.2 Â· ..â€¢ n.'14 ' Â· - - , ,# , c. p. Â·f; 4.'Â°â‚¬ t.Â·AM. T.â€¢,3 #*,Vâ€¢.~â€¢.* Â·Â·Â·:j Â·Â·Â·s: perlit:t'-iÂ·.r - - .4'Â·-6.Â· ':' ~' ~ I I n ' 72-? 72,3 - _ - .:,1: 05/ :.~.1~â‚¬ r., ... . 1-62.- A /11 / 34 71E 4- Â· Â·Â·A, Z Ul 0 D SHEET OF Sl)31]HOMV/S31 06SS-SZ6/EOE 3NOHd3131 219[8 OCI~O1O3 'N3dSV 'tESE XO8 O d oaviC)7()o I9 . .. i . -1- -1. IC....1.- 1/IM= m :ILI. I./7 . - 4. V ....I- . 0 = A - I - 8, - - 0 1 . ... . .. 0655-526/EOE 3NOHc13131 219!8 OCI~10103 'N3dSV 'DESE X08 0 d C)av101<)3 NadSV Sl)31]H)~/S31~OSSV Â¥ 33:IINNn) S31HVH) ElnNEIAV SNIMcIC,H -LSVEI 608 0 n . lEi m 0b UJ 10 I --- I ' d 7 4 I " - 1 - -4.- - // /If./ /./1 ./ 1 / // \ \ 4.1/}/ 1.\ / / \\ \\. ... lilli A 1//// - L X. 1 7/ I \ 0 /2 J '4 i.lit; 1. I . .1 & . 1 2 , :,6 . -.2, Jl ~~2 : ,~ i: 2 ~ .Chf f - '.~tÂ·C-2 , -s. . 1.4 AKÂ· y: 71 ' *.i tÂ¥,4, U . 1 . Â· V ... . .. IN !â‚¬Â·Â·Â· . 0 Al -tÂ·*:[:.j':, ,ciÂ·:-l,t,2&.ST /43#.em.%,P--4.-~?11Â·fÂ·.C~%.34*I<~~i>fÂ·&Â·i.M#E)Al.}*t,.iÂ·ffet*33..fÂ·~3{GA -~cÂ·- ..v..r Â·-* 9 'lfÂ·,/ ;'9..t-:i 21 - . 0 . . :.1 r. . . 7 1 + 111 .l 1 - . 1 - . 1.. . . . â€¢ r 1 . .. ?1~-:-1 0 -:E..9,- 74,1 9:if'.1.9 32..eb. 1--P *&.NCO--Â· ~-7 - --...7.--Int;.-. >--Liy:).v.-- 3.-~.p I ./' I.' . . k . :.ir,-: . - . .1 .- ...e . 5 ,~Ast.Â·-Â·c#*1~,-Â·~ :~DyÂ©:ifY:- Â·. - 440 ..: -. .1 1 9 1 1 \ \ . A.. 1~~ .1 \\\ \\ - f\-\I~ 1 11 l ... 1 I \ 4 1 \ \.\ ' .. ~ 1 . 1 \ J \\ . i - I I .-..I--Il-li--I- - . 4..0 L. 4 :'-:211, ./ l . 61 111, 1 & 6%696-1.-:r.I:c~tiv Â·. ./ I Â·iÂ·Â·.Â·&,I:' ~-~/.~ 1;213.':~j);Â·~1 ./. 4 Â·'. Â·Â·Â·>. 44:,uk'Â·i 1'4Â£..'iN,i,:1 Â·-ii&:1, ~ Â· Â·4*t > r N.40 4 I 4. I + 1 2 -2 ' ~ Â· - Â·Â·Â·~Â·Â·Â·+1.-Â· Â· few -/': 1- I .01.a;... m . *2471Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·o#: Â· 1 4-43*4)414443-Â·A Â· â€¢L' . ~1) Â·k~~~1 22#-,20'~"TI~.Â·'4*-Al:Â·Aâ‚¬,14*W-CÂ·k:2.:4Â·;F,:.7,-,.' 01:-: ' ~ ~~~ ~~664Â»42Â·Â·1<Â· i:464~34fÂ·15*k-}Â·Opijh#%40i41.f2i~41: . .... .1 A 4 'p ~' Â»v-.,â€ž1~Y1i,7a,Wk fr...2,--:4.~~ 9.4 I I +Ei 'Â£29.~*f'*4<144%3-13%91% f i,flifff.43-0Â·91:41:ff rbsÂ·ft,~ ~ Â·j.~4 ~,<4&~;~t.w:*fÂ·fÂ·~ ~: .~{t>X ~'-~ ~Â· aÂ»44+:25-4 41,42-2,IÂ·Â®3.-0 . = 0, 2--i--:.05' r . ~AÂ·.7 ~f)#.5*POLY<F-'ffÂ¢ L t. Â·' : I . - I 1 FREVISION 3-LVO 1. , 11*4 4HZ 30' 4. lipfuÂ» 6/4 Ck/:~ 3 /1 . J 4, . 6.4 ~ 4- ht-I .It t H - "11,1,11,1,11,1,11,1.lili.,1-- - "11,1111111,1,11-i-/ UÂ®@Â®@11@L___i HAGMAN YAW ARCHITECTS LTD - 210 SOUTH GALENA ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 303/925-2867 k I 1 F T --- --- -- Â· -m'mrlimm -Fulr-â€žlill/,IT-1 .-L-LI.ill'lill/ I ClIANICAL ROOFA MECHANICAL ROOM (lge=NE.,2.AL> (TENÂ»+4-f) 1 1 ~444 1 EXHAUST FLUE 1 FREIGHT LIFT -4- X [Â·~ ~ -R~ up ELI 1111111111[ r ELEVATOR EQUIPMENT 4 , t<i I I 111 ...,%6:. i# 00.~* 1 \J - F | ISSUE: h 'MAL 1 *141 7Â«- = REVISIONS: F doi Ag/Uid- & 3-1 E- ff i 1 ... 101] 1 I.L . . JILILL,U m rw -- -6-IIL..1.-3 --mâ€žJ- = ._1__.~~rr u. .... . - ~~.lk-ir -17- r-Bq - ~-t VB&It.O" SUBBASEMENT PLAN . Â©1988 HAGMAN YAWARCHITECTS,ZTD. % 1 Illil_L-1-L - IOGITOUd aITIJI X[Il GIHI OCIVHO7O3 'N $<dSV U Ill'lll u 10 b k. .7 , -4 - I- ' ~1111111111111111111111111111 1 HAGMAN YAW -1 ARCHITECTS LTD 210 SOUTH GALENA ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 303/925-2867 < e .' '1,1'11 ..,. . 1Â·~~ ~ ~- MECH. CHASE 1 1 RETAIL '84/ ODN L-Fi-- -' -1-T3--~ ~g--"- FREIGHT LIFT 1--t-tup 1 1 - i/ 1 1~ 4 1 j lili UN 11-- >?k-1- 6 1 Al-4, 1 L 't 13 url 111-1 1 1 j 1 - 7 RETAIL ~ ISSUE: REVISIONS: 1. Ke 2- P - - - ~ 1- -S--7/" F* .. i - BASEMENT PLAN _ 2 11 Â©1988 HAGMAN YAW ARCHITECTS,LTD.~-- 11II11II IOSITONd GISIH X[IE[ HHI OCIVHO7O0 'NEISV I - r -W.-'- â€¢~#712 4 th J. h 7 .1 4 ~Ii ARCHITECTS - 4 / ~ CRYSTAL PALACE ~-HAGMAN YAW - LTD 1- COOPER AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 210 SOUTH GALENA 303,/925-2867 6 - 4 WAGNER PARI~ ~---~~ ~-=~ NORTH E-1-7, 1 L- let...2, -' 0 : /9 4-LI-1 /3 0 1 ALLEY r - 1 HYMAN AVENUE 7 PROPERTY LINE - - 0 -1-4 *2 EL 0 . W M I & M L._11 1 E- CO BASS PARK Z 4 PARKING .--- TRASH COMPACTOR CO '< (3 SPACES) - HOPKINS AVENUE - J- -U - N , MAKE-UP AIR ~ ~ 00 3 F-DPON 4 - I, 427 CHASE 6 _ - MECH CHASE a 0 0 EXHAUST FLUE --41-i<Aâ€¢ (LOCATION TO Â«[ft L 1 1% *13 -13 4 X *--1-FREIGHT LIFT _ - ..........i;I==.Pt =~2/I.......Fggg/&54~021//im# I~flic<isvih - Z il L 2 0 -1 - Â° Plij 27 '- ~ ~ I BE VERIFIED) k..rp - RETAIL Ill J--~- --: - / MAIN STREE'lf - 9'r. 1 '443 - t 4 2-Â»f I.A.*Al KEY PLAN c~ 1 - NO SCALE 1 =j â€ž--Â¢7.Â»1~1. ; EX Ft ~ ~1 ~ \ DN. 1 60 UD BASS PARK . -- --2 * - _ -t--11 1 ~ ------= 1 i 5- 1 FA" - 1 7 4 0 L.: MECH. CHASE--1Â£,1 / \\ /09#epl &4Â·uu-) A (LOCATION TO \f 2/102% CONG) 1 - 25 BE VERIFIED) ' V'-vÂ· v~vrY/*'ANÂ»On ~- 0 -ft/Â¥477,6 - C- 2 ,~3321-~ RETAIL BENCH AA/br JI >- re//1 rL_t_ -7 9 - 6 1Fte Nel-l- H/TR MILL STREET PLAZA = 1 RETAIL' C-REFER TO SHEET 41Z - f- RLA Ducle -1~~RIYeb 1 --L FOR DETAILED PLAN) .-I ISSUE: 4 13 1 . REV[SIONS: \ \4 -- /f-17_10_- BENCH 1- 3 -'AY--t- it//2-4 U- AWNING ABOVE -/ -r 40 ~ IXÂ»'WT/,49~'< 1 ~ ~ ~ 2 STEPS 1 8044/Ne - f -i 1 0 1 - 0 Up PROPERTY LINE 1 l \\ -1/ 7 - 1/Caj 1/ 1 1 0 3 1 + 1/ 1 1... HOPKINS AVENUE SITE & LEVEL ONE PLAN 3 Â©1988 HAGMAN YAWARCHETECTS, LTD 1,1 1 1 1 1 1 MONARCH STREET IDGITONd C[IGIN X[IE[ GEL OGVHOTOO N~dSV GÂ·t~c.104:'#I- ry .. IV., %..11 , Â· ~ Â· 78* , , .3.. ./ ~iâ€¢i W __ -11"111,11,1.1,11,1,1 .lilli./ 1 - Aimmmiiilmlm -1 m -- ~ HAGMAN YAW - ~--- ARCHITECTS 0 - LTD 210 SOUTH GALENA 0 - ~ ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 303/925-2867 AFFORDABLE HOUSING I -- I M 111.-'-1 12-- 1-3 24 --1 1 U r ~- r =U 5 1 *EMCAA Â¢ --Â» 2 f 1 ~ p - 1 ---9 ~ 4/012Jht'#Cept *lin 1 '1 <--r 0 A.% --310Â¢tm=- 11 1 ~*5 *EIH-Itill]/IN~ m \ SE - / 3= MECH CHASE T ' b EXHAUST FLUE -= -1Â£ 1 * ~-J ofcj (j _dy;,04 RETAIL/OFFICE ~ (LOCATION TO Â»/% 73786 1 Ve'Â¥eD - A--- +Ig-.4 <* .It -9 BE VERIFIED) 42*1 17 t<4-Â©HEN I CO A Q: CO t.1 - 89 -1 4 L m \\ 3 = 11 .[32 ~ T, MILL STREET PLAZA -* E-1 -7 4 f 1 E-TY-97 5,1271.. ~ 91191/It,/l 43* 1 rr'IVLU, , L_ L.-r ~ MECH. CHASE --~ / (LOCATION TO â‚¬NONIAEUED TEFF+06, BE VERIFIED! REMOVEABLE PLANTER BOXES RETAIL/OFFICE \52 0 45:N, HOUSE BELOW 1 Ly= I - 1 ISSUE: r-- .1---- - - REVISIONS: = I ------ --avt \ 1 21 1 -1, .1 - PROPERTY LINE - \ 14 LEVEL TWO PLAN 1/8"=1'-0" Â©1988 HAGMAN YAWARCHITECTS,till 1111111 ID rEI fOH IGIH .KIIE[ GIHI OCIV 0700 NGIdSV GINTI A.LH@[dOHd - d 1111111[- i 3 .14 47.- - lili â€ž1111,1,1,111,1,1~ ~,11111111111111111111111111111 1 - HAGMAN YAW - ARCHITECTS LTD 210 SOUTH GALENA ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 303/925-2867 h ~11 1 ..1 - 4 0 r OFFICE - E-1 EXHAUST FLUE ~7 MECH CHASE ~ CD (918-ro PE (LOCATION TO ~ ve"eel BE VERIFIED) I 0 tu k -14-1 ~ 77- . 04 / ~Vt=$1977v'~~Ild:2:11.miit~4061'-~AllklOouttilli,b/3 1 lk: 8 H 6 - 1 .eNONMEJE/27'm94â‚¬6 ~ 5- 1 1 MILL STREET PLAZA :. 5 1 IN H - - BE VERIFIE MECH. CHASE-Â·Â·Â·~ //3>--- REMOVEABLE (LOCATION TO /' PLANTER BOXES F~ ~ E OFFICE (Â£~~ 1 I Ii ------ HOUSE BELOW -1 2 321 3Â¥~ ISSUE: 1 - REVISIONS: _re- la , 1 -r i 1 .1 1 - - O I PROPERTY LINE / LEVEL THREE PLAN 5 1/8"=1'-0" 1 Â©1988 HAGMAN YAWARCHITECTS, LTD. 111 OGVHOE[OD NWdSV AiHWdONd I~H X[Il GIHI 2 1. 15 0, -1,1,1,11,1,11,1,11,11,~ __ timmilin""3" HAGMAN YAW ARCHITECTS LTD 210 SOUTH GALENA ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 303/925-2867 O ( Ft,~r POOF n ,/â‚¬08, exty~uer- -- vâ‚¬Affeae 4 E-,-r , REER, 6(FPV~[-_ (0 61â€ž7704 - 1 ve,i H 0%4 K.D 000#ma/4 6 - wovervtalee /*001'N 1-~ /Â»Miltril O 9<44\~ A \\61 Â»y /4 \ 1 \0Â»ANS>/ 1, 1 \ 66.*\ 4% \Â»0\ 1 Q ELEVATOR TOWERJÂ¢>~ C~ / \.\24%33?\9' 1 - C,1 1 I 11 81:>4 N ir vage'eeg. 2 1 4 1 MILL STREET PLAZA ---- ~ ISSUE: 397 / I REVISIONS: -411 1 0 -- -- -- 0 PROPERTY LINE ~ ROOF PLAN 6 78111,1Ld, 1-1 7 Â©1988 HAGMAN YAWARCHITECTS,1111 ~-- I ,11,,,,I llili[[-11 lili OCIVHOE[03 'NEISV HNIT All~WdOWd ' 1 0 1, 5UP 1 3 L "f, U YAW ECTS ALENA .DO 81611 967 r Â· 1 ALO, (,1-01% - - ZlEXISTING-PLAN. ' LILY REID HOUSE 7 1 *C,Le, 241>=P-O" EXISTING Â©1988 HAGMAN YAWARCHITECTS, [Ill of[V>Trr[On ' MY,-TRW '11.11.1 . 11111. . 1111111111111111111111111111111 . . :A. .I= 1"""""" ............ I ...... - -14"~iwilimi ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... -=.-~...1--1- ..... ..... .. A. 0.0 -& ..0 ... ... 1-~ ... -\. .0/...1 .. . .........L . D /1 ~ - . .0 ....1111* ill'Imill'llillill'll'llillillill ./Ili3illi~.........."ill:illilillill,ill,ill.ill'lli/illillilillillillilillillillillillililillillillillillillillill- - 1./ill -~- . ./.il ..Illill'llillillillill'll'llillul.1-'ll.7..1......1.....1......1....1..............1.......1.............i............il./.il./.Ill'. - A , . 0 , Â· ..... 1. 1.11 4 ..... I. i ..... /:1-=m~~m r 1111111111 ..... 1 ' r. ..... - ..... 11! 1 1 lilli. 3 11 ..... -..... ....=%mi , Wi -_ ..... m ..... ..... ..... -1 1, 1 ..... . . 0 0 41' 14 [1 4 Ill'I -- a ..... ..... ..... ..... D. ..... . . . N . Ililli 4 YAW ECTS ALENA \DO 81611 2867 N6 TO , aU 04, I 11 - 1 k--94 - 1 11 --e l /~ PROPOSED PLAN LILY REID HOUSE- ~ \/9 ~)-*Agy<,11421' PROPOSED CHANGES Â©1988 HAGMAN YAWARCJHITECTS,[.TD 1 Â· OGYHOFOO 'NEISV ---- . . "eei '11.11.1 . lilil.11 . ,~miitimijii*Â®im . . . ... . , ..........~ 0 ...=li~ . A. 000 . 4.7............90. I . ..... ~..1. ..... ------22==212- f 0 . ..... .Ill.0...1111.111111â€ž11111=.11.= ..... -011"laillillâ€¢11â€¢11â€¢1!!Vi--I lim.-mil I. .111.1-...i I- .0 .. 0. - ..... .........==m.. " -------*-/- 11.-11 ..... 1~-1.-1= . ..... . 11,=..â€že,~...,1-lili...1.....11 - -~~1.11'lliz~ -Illi- .... I . ..... ..... -0.-- ..... . ..... .. ... 0 0 .0 . ... IND , . - 'mil G . ... . - 4 , " - =6.04.1.4 m~ ~am~......~ .. . 0 - - . D. .. - m- a . . I - -- - --,0 4- - - #Ii,Ii:,Ii,ImmligNie- - .. .. - lilli lili. lilill'/1/,//Amil . 9,111111.1111. - - .li- I = - 7- 1 limmm=. .=Ill/ilillill li '' E--w . 0 =~=Immi littiillitill'111 illililimil m..mi~~/6................Iwill/:/1/"u/nili *P.Il ./. /.Imil/ilililililliL...ill............'Im:/Im:/Ill:/:ilil --I . . --- . 6...ur,.~ilmill:etr--,4AL.19:191uiNAT: tâ‚¬rfrfir . 1 -..01...,A,A.AN,Ull!?~ , .. . ... ... , 0. .0 v A 0 / 0. ... . - 4, Â· zeferÂ·cf-iÂ·r":-- f.-1 1 -- 1 1- - ..... ..... I. ..... L ' 0 Ii. . .0 - U . I - 2 + ..... ..... " 1111111111 17 - - ..... MI r ..... k.; 1. ..... .. 111 .....1 ..... .....1 â€¢ 41 4-1*~~ u - .....1 111 .....1 . .....1 . - 1. .....1 -- . .... - '1 . .....1 I. , .' . 11,1 0 0 Iii!:, 1 .T , 1 Â·i .....1 4 .....1 ... .....1 .. .....1 ,. YL.Â«-UP-- . 4 YAW ECTS ;ALENA ADO 81611 2867 CÂ« r 0 --Â· 8?48[1Ne IALL Qglkeer Fl/96501 l.[21145 / DP.loheouotep. (Pe-K- e?ef 994 6 0, *440010#6 012- FNEC,er COUM<16 /Fa:>WT 00140Â· ErÂ¢409 HOPKINS AVENUE ELEVATION . 96,"=11-oil . Â©1988 HAGMAN YAWARCH[TECTS,KID I OGYHOTOO 'NTE<dEV - i 1 21 W 1 ~jk~ti~~~~tiF~i,~''r 1. 1,1,1,1-Imil ,:imi-it#mmiiiii 1. . A. e . . 1 0, ---~ ..... ..... ..... â€¢,immâ€¢â€¢i=mii*,~ii,iiiitaitiigii0*Â®iii;miitiiii,ii,â€¢imiiat~ ..... -~ ~!I!!*11/~!81111-~12.-_i_-- - ..... ..... -1.11.1--m- =1.1.l=:Il~~~Ing.lia illillillillifilinrmililillillillillillillillillilli~"li~~~~illlilli"I"1.:ililililllilli~..a~Ilillill':"ill'":Ill::Ill':3:.Ii~:I: ..... - ~9 ..... . D 0 -, Ilillillimil-uillill,=~1-1111~mi,111111111111:,1111Hill!1111,1111111111111,111111111111Illillimilli~Illillilluiwillm.I.Il.luilliu 11:I'll'll:"Ilâ€ž 11111111.1111111..111"-mlt.111111.111.11.111.-1.1 1 1,111111.11.1.m..11111111".1.11111111'11".11'111. . 0 . .. - 2-al-"~i-~11'li~ ------- - ilill- f. 0 mil - , A. . A. i.l .. ' . \1 0 . 3- -m...1-1.......... Il.-lill-=.--,Il.=.Ill.-Elilillililli--lillill--Ill-I - -I.lil"lil-- -- ..... . . ..... 11 1....Ii==a= --Jill:*illi .=Al"lill,il.~Ii'lli~illir:Illiphill ~I:.1~~.~"I.I~" - 11111â€¢111â€¢1111- ..11111."1'*11111 ill I ./EF"/1 i==='lilli . .....1 .... 1 . ..... - li~~..i;~ - .....1 . - .....1 ---- ' :. .....1 1- Illillilillillillillimilillillill"i:~lil//////////I,li////I////////Ililm 1.~am.~i~~--Fil ................1.-I........1...........ilill...................... ....... - .....1 i."~1 1~ lii!~ =mi..4/4/. I. .....1 .....1 .....1 1. - -- Ill:/1.. ...E-1 â€¢Prili I .. - .....1 1 .....1 I .- '. / /2 1 4 3 0.9 r IN, 4.. el : .2/' 9 .:I . 1/\2% EXHAUer- -91'264(4Â«00/4 Tote - HAGMAN YAW ve/NF/EP , LTD ARCHITECTS I 210 SOUTH GALENA ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 303/925-2867 - Fi -1.---*- - - --- @Â£1 --M W 1/gAL DOOFÂ» ertel. COLL),AA Â° ALLEY ELEVATION - Re*Â» oft PMEC,ar eu- + DIN,a- FÂ»11Â·Â·trE) 940 FNAA Â¢ -712*/\ FA prreD Â¥40. mLerâ‚¬,4 - 0 - - /?*C=-42 94'-00 Li==1 I. 11 11 11 . It 11 1 6*=1 -. 00 FO ISSUE: 1 1 11 , 11 11 1 1 B - - - - REVISIONS: 6 61 - LL] LU - -- A . / - 11 11 31 -HÂ«ZEâ‚¬E=%=4 ,Â£92600 id-Qu -- --. --------- - lili lili 1 1 1 1,1 lili lilli-- Uth.EL.EL 81/-00 11 I (2/el- / 1 /Od-04 #~ _2*%1Â£100'-O' LIGHTWELL ELEVATION ' CORNER ELEVATION . 10 Â©1988 HAGMAN YAW ARCH ITECTS,Crl). OCIVHOTOO 'N TIcEISV d GIGIN K[Il GIHI LARRY BROOKS 30392593ww . ..4- Uly Reid Project PSA 5.3 TITLE REPORT 1 A chain of title Was prepared by Pitkin County Title. The ownership of the property was traced back to approximately 1887. The chain of title is as follows: The original deed for the project area, dated 1885, was a Patent Deed from the United States Government to the County and Probate Judge of Pitkin County as trustee for the U.S. Government for land within the townsite of Aspen. Title of Lots A, B and C were passed from the trustee to the first private land holder, L.C. Willman, on October 6, 1887. L, C. Willman subsequently sold Lot C separate from Lots A & B. LOTS A & B. BLOCK 81 March 10, 1892 - title from L. C. Willman and hia wife to Theo. Albars 0. e., written portions of deed are unclear - name of new title owner thought to appear as Theo. Albars). July 9, 1904 - title passed from The Fidelity Savings Amsociation to Joseph C. Wheeler, as Receiver for Fidelity Savings Association. December 15, 1904 - title conveyed from Joseph C. Wheeler to Richard H. Malone as Receiver for Fidelity Savings Association. November 21, 1906 - from Richard H. Malone as Receiver for Fidelity Savings Association to John MUgfur. October 1, 1915 - title passed from John Mugfur to Charlotte L Grover. March 15, 1950 - title from Charlotte L. Grover and Edward J. Grover to Donald T. Randall. May 1, 1961 - title passed from Donald T. Randall to Hod D. Nicholson, who in turn transferred it to Modern Method Corporation on the same day. December 1, 1982 - title passed from Modern Method Corporation to ~ current owner, Aspen Arcade, Limited. - 11 - - - ///////// Lit 1--- LARRY BRUUKÂ© Uly Reid Project MA 5~~ C, BLOCK 8~ --- August 3, 1891 - L. C. Willman passed title of Lot C to Katie M. Reed. Februaiy 24, 1892 - title passed from Katie M. Reed to John Jakt Hick. May 20, 1895 - title from John Jake Hiek to Lottie M. Mckenzie. June 26, 1906 - title passed from Lottie M. MeKenzie to Oeorge Runtz. April 4, 1933 - title passed from Pitkin County to Lanora Healy as a result of a tax sale. April 9, 1947 - title from Lanora Healy to Lillie Reed. February 28, 1950 - a Quit Claim Deed from Lillie Reed to Lillie Read or Manolia D, Keter (Mrs. Reed's daughter). September 29, 1951 - a Quit Claim Deed from Lillie Reed to Manolia D. Keter. August 27, 1962 - a Quit Claim Deed from Mayor M. J. Garrish to Manolia D. Keter for "All of Lot C due to a discrepancy in the ong|nal survey for the Townsite of Aspen, prepared by B. Clark Wheeler in 1880. September 22, 1962 - title paased from Manotia D. Keter to Modern Method Corporation. September 2, 1971 - title passed from Modern Method Corporation and Hod b. Nicholson as President, to Ferenc Berko and Mine Berko. October 4, 1981 - title from Ferenc Berko and Mirte Berko u Joint Tenants to themaelv,es as Tenants in Common. October 5, 1987 - warranty deed passing title from Ferenc Berko and Mirte Bcrko to Eileen H. King and John L. King. May 1, 1989 - title passed to from John L. King and Eileen H. King to present owner, Aspen Arcade, Umited. Lots A, B, & C of Block 81 are all currently owned by the saint owner, which historically, is only the second time since L. C, Willman sold the lots separately 101 years ago as of this writing. None of the deeds in the chain of tiUe contained information that would suggest that pat land uses or owners were potential hazardous waste generators. - 12 - F DEC i , Memorandum To: Amy Amidon Date: December 1, 1993 Historic Preservation City of Aspen From: Linda Prinz Time: 1:20 p. m. Katie Reed Plaza Subject: Lighting Plan for Katie Reed House Attached is the proposed lighting plan for the Katie Reed House. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or need additional information. I can be reached at 925-1070. Thank you for all of your assistance. 6 1*241 7(An 4Â· 44)46 RU 14 ucS-â‚¬- 30 l E- 2-Dp kk_s Rer (6) 2 59={ 6)4-4 - D- 46llâ€¢_1 e hol~.''qi (E) = For ek j,.Iwi- -lgae,n. Â«-Horkod tu vecttl . / f l :Ii : ~ ~ ~-:-:-~F:~I-0-0.0-1 .......0- , ............... ...................1 -al............1 1 ...................1 Iâ€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢0 -â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢ 4 / ...0,)1 0........... .............. ......b............ ................................ ................................. ................................ ................................................................. ............................... 1-:.~..............................................................6 ~,i ..............................0. 1 ................................ l .................................1 .................................l 07 7 e 44;.< 3 ................................. s u Ae L ................................ ' O,20 SEV O/6 04.0........ ETO) .................. ...ri-lit--.1 1 .CA., ' ..... 0 ne sk..AY: ... 13 *ENEii~i~*' IT r............. .... ........ ....... .............. 1 .... ...................... . - ......... D 1â€¢â€¢.I..*.I*...I.. 1................ 0 0=j1 7 ................ 1................ 1.............................. ................ @, 7 -7 ~ A L ... -- -4.--- A- V 0â€¢e sk,Â«5 oh 544<-s - Ohe 5 6,-0 L L. f o AÂ¥O ....41 6&9,CSAE,&261Â»*aa;~. _ 1 i 1111101 ./ - Nibjuy - - ....=aa ASPEN Elf TOL CO. & PHONE CO. - HAGMAN YAW - Unt.frr CO. - - - 2 5=62:1 Z P,AD UOUN nuurlittuil TFWiSFORwER 2- CONDUIT TO TELEPâ„¢DNE I - - =95-//7 - ~ TERMINAL 9OARO 11 \ 1 1 I ~l lc,â€¢r | DETAIL NOTES - 3 -6 Â¤ A. 1 r LE 8 1 57 411111111*r . 1, 0 ORCUT UGHTNG THROUGH CONTACTOR IN - - ELECTRiCAL CLOSET. - - 1 49> LOCATE LOW VOLTAGE UGHTING â„¢ANSFORUERS ]L_-05-Â·Â·-~-CK - v FOR LeÂ¥ pOLLâ€¢CE L.)GHT STRIPO UBLES IN 4 FARKPGÂ· AT-;C SPACE. 1 .85\ V- <flk> LOCATE LOW VOLTAGE UGHTING IN RECESS IN I ASPEN CLEAPERS 8 , T- r -CK: a 1 417x 47 v BOTTOW OF BENCHES. LOCATED JUNCTION BOX -1 - -13.15.17 . -~1/11~*1 -522 VEZ C 8 kip AND TRISECRUERS N BEhet PrER. r219 4 N'COUF<TOR AC-1 vES T. V= ~ Ner USED i PevIDE WOTHERPROOF JUNCT)ON BOXES â€¢O(.WTED TRAst OotÂ·'F. IN Pt.ANTERS FOR FUTURE PLeNTER UGHTS- PAIN El. -1,1- i ~~3*~35* L <13> PRO.DE 3/4- C TO PANEL '81Â·. W,TH PULLL / 69 V -RE jj.ps,Â·' /52>07 NER/t:>22 -25/ 8 -- 41,57 A 0 LE) Wl-1 1 1 L., - SETAL - 11[- PANEL .ir 4 -~J---4 t_1Â» LFLA 5-4 kâ‚¬EP"5 4/1Â« 13 - 02 4- 01 ~ 1 22:3,2--2-2-'.-1 r**c LÂ£12.1125â€¢ 1 -11* /?.4.9 i E \\1 /-% i N / 4 9Â·1 22-'/ L -f@Fl-< f/&0136 1 8 TEhANT ASEA 4 7 44 2=J., |Â«01 111â€žE34Â¢P, 8 i lilli' CONSTRUCTION , I 69 ISSUE: 5-15+92 1 Â· f=- 7 1 1 -73Ial .fiblrrit r.-7 \ = er-PS T . 412 ill1illij REY ISI 0,6: 1 1 ~ 1 1 Â£ I.-11 -4 -spi;131 -rfha-}a-. 111'i':11 1 1 1 ; 1 1 9--9- T -Â·*~AD ~;t (~) c w. r . 1-12-111.Ll-L - 11.-347WS}~1 ItÂ» - - C b=:a 2 -r~ U | 1ll''1 5 i,AI<ii,3 - 0,1 (, />4 - t 1 1 4 - -Ill-.I liiLtL 1~ G I - 00 0 8 00 2 8 8 1 -5,7. PLIN 1 .1---_bl _*--DSL21.112.162*2 -6-+PT+7+7 /3h ELECTRICAL MAIN FLOOR/SITE PLAN ~ ~ ~ ~ m . 2-h-- Li, 041-1-E ta~,1.4 KEY SECTION to SILE 1 !1 *!1 JJOTE-: 1143 a â€ž4-- -Aid Â¢(An - G.jo *ve- 0404 bpot| 'ij\it-5 Bdif 3423 . Â®e 1,DEOUd (113[8 1711 3II,L . OGVH0100 'NadSV -Â·-12IrI77~-Â·Â·Â·-, ..79 1.R, 9 - St. t- rut â€ž-1 0 ELECTRICAL LEGEND Â¤ 20Â£,TE â€¢OCADC LefT FIRE ALARM ZONE SCHEDULE FIXTURE SCHEDULE - 3 [Irr Sc,1 - 91/LED KIL-El DCE }CE_ Ai 1'-DeS Br >Cl AP'P'.* 04 CRâ€žICS KEY DESCRIPTION MOUNTING UFR. CAT. NO. -fa====--- - 5410 Â® PCECEL- L,â€¢0' â€¢a.co 1. AWN FLOW SÂ·*Â·[TCH 1Â»,PLS) =Â© Cial'CED CLPIX REIP'Le[ 2. A.WN TAMPER SwrTCH , A 2-25% Ol.AD COUPACT FLUORESCENT DOWNLIGHT w/ AL.LAK REFLECTOR RECESSED LIGHTOLIER 8056CL-726H'20 4 C:;wil,â‚¬0 a,â€¢aWUI RECEPY,CLE 1/ 1 RECEZED LI>rl Frjâ‚¬ 3. BASEWENT AUTOUA DC 3 2-26â€¢ Cluo COUPACT FLUORESCENT WALLWASMER W/ SPREAD LENS RECESSED L>GHTGUER 804â€¢CL-726H 120 4. BASEUEWT UANUU_ PULL STATIONS C 100/ Â£017 u ETAL HBLIOE LINSEO OCINUGHT RECESSED LGHTCUER 33&4 3-E 9 -...t....'- -Â® gE)L ASpid *Â¤7Lâ‚¬lE El 51.RF<z W:um, u:HT Fcrn.SE 5. BASEUENT FLCÂ·/ SÂ·*ITCH 0 40â€¢w T10 RECESSED INCANDESCENT STEPLIGHT RECESS-WALL OL ST-9--0-40!NC - WALL w OUNTED FluOR ESCENT Â¤ FLOCA â€¢01)470 RELIj,ICE 6. 80â€¢SEWEHT TAUPER SWITCH E 2 Fâ€¢.0 SURFACE-WALL KLP Cw.12.0 Z HAGMAN YAY - 7. 1.LAIN LEVEL AUTCIATIC F 'FAO 9' LONG FLUCRESCENT STR3PUGHT SURFACE KLP ARCRITECTS Z - -1*313*1 / n.061 ke.â€¢TED 0//A om.Er a. Uâ€¢:H LEVEL Uâ€¢MUAL PUU STATON Fl ZAO â‚¬ LONG FLUCRESCENT 57-RIPUGHT SURF*CE KU' - n 51 na=Ial,re m.0,0â‚¬ ai,La 0 -O,90 9. UNN LEVEL FLOW STATÂ©â‚¬5 - - - H NOT USED _ ~~~ _ UIEZEZZIE - - ,--0-15:.U,â‚¬1 10 66â€¢IN LEVEL TAIPER SHTCH 1 NOT USED -- 7 0*14 amIT 11. 2nd LEVEL ,UTOUATIC J 1 DOW *19 RECESSED INCANDESCENT DOWNLIGHT--BECK 8472Â£ RECESSEO LIGHTOUER 11.05-1102P1 Â¥ m.Â£Â»0â‚¬ 115 ~~ WI;Elpr PC DENCOCr Ulll 12- 2rd L.OEL. 10[ANUAL PLU 5TATkohs K 150* HPS RECESSED LOw PROFILE SURFACE UTD. GARAGE UGHT SURFACE OL *All WOUNTED CrUMOER DeÂ·â€¢NUGHT SURFACE-*ALL SEGA -1--1_L 13. 2-d LEVEL FLOw SWTTCH D-,7 629 LWH Â© .UCTO' 0~ 14. 2nd L.OEL LUIPER SWITCH Ll 100,â€¢ *19 WALL UOUNTED CYUNDER DOWNUGHT SURFACE-wALL 8EGA 6690 IJ S gaE Pl[ 5=104 - -r--:--4 Xy. 18. 3,4 Urâ€¢00- MANUAL PUU STAnONS P (2)60Â¥, *19 OPAL CLASS â€¢*41 BR.ACKET 1<Z) WIL â€¢Cl.TED J.DCO, BC* So 21/a s.Â·rm 15. 34 LEVEl AUTOWATIC M (2)60â€¢ At9 COUNG UOUNTED INCANDESCENT SURFACE- â€¢ALL LGHTOUER 6348 2.1 l' It, SURFACE LCHTOCER S002 - Â· rt -4.1 . ... D En,Pâ€¢EliT DeSCDâ€¢â‚¬C; WTCM Â® SPE,0-PIc..2.0 M sotÂ»C 5,SID. 17. 3rd LEVEL FLON SWiTCH 0 (21 F 40 194' RECESSED LENSED TROFFER RECESSED KLP NRT'Sl F//240 11 1,1 11 111 2}Â·' tapâ€¢Â£,1 FUS[I, oscolâ‚¬rt S=rol : -- :FILI/~10 184 3<4 LEVEl LudPER SWTTCH R NOT USED 111 19. JUR F'.UÂ·tal,IG UNIT DUCT DETECTORS Â® W/UNR OrT 54.N VARIES EwERCI-UTE PERCYPT-CR SERIES ..... 'I S= 81[ja/â€¢t 0,000 2004 EK El.[Cit -7[1 CoctÂ£! 20. SPAAE . ...â‚¬ +11Â¥.AÂ¥. I - 1 WAING VTTE.cer PACK SURFACE EMERCI-UTE PRO-2 . ...4. ~ an:nmot p.c. 87*0 [Â»1 El,ECTRC #U 'â‚¬119 21. SPARE S 60Â¥f Al 9 INONOESCENT WALLBRACKET SURFACE-WALL PAD<20 8-5156--P SEE ARCM OETAR- cl-Â·-râ€¢ - i cr.... 11, 22 SPARE T W/UNCT LO-MITACE UGHTSâ„¢,p +C. .... 1-#I--. c:=- mo'oâ‚¬ rE-,0.< O ./&= = 23. SPARE T 1 W/UNIT SAUE AS T SEE ARCH DETAIL 9,--â€ž,r ; Ni-.- Â· 111 i -2 1 0 1.-0.0 Â¢31 ,=1,0 FALR-r DrUII.rÂ·,4 - 24. SPARE i!1 NOTE: ANT FDCTURE SUBSTm.Jn046 61UST BE SUBWITTED FOR 1 #/*549*G= E-*R ID ELECT,ICt cor-TÂ·*c:* ZA 83 fic *3.- p.c G FNE A-,1/ BITE /00Â«21'01 Â£ Am* CanTER - flmn)â‚¬2~ - I 1 7/. P.//1 . .ADO P.Xy - -/M. 9-1 51â€¢Il:' ;11 T[1.Emoâ‚¬ TE-WL )CNIO , 1, 111 - â€¢6. 510â‚¬ DETEr= *1- RD,trâ€¢â‚¬>Art.0, 1â‚¬11 CCE:-CI Â® P,CTOCRL r FEE *01. C. a LOC fUIT DE DE?Ir= ~ 1* AL- }â‚¬*a, a s:â€¢C~ 04â‚¬CX WETRS AT - TEHANT PANELS (-EWOW-0â‚¬110â€¢r OR EQuAL_Trp.) EWPLOYEE EMPLOYEE TE}*ANT TEMANT HOUSING HOUSING rma Gul P.4Â£, Ima LE.-11-L-1 _11 LE_1 4 5-EXY'-~-, - --L--14- - CS Cxt.* ARCH,TECT,OICDâ€¢EERS APPRO,AL AT LEAST SEVEN CALDLOAR DA'rS PFDOR TO aO. E--3 m}-3 SECOND UY ROD TIENÂ»fT HOUSE TO-,T PANEL W1 urn-Irr coupÂ»cr PAD â€¢OuNTED TRANSFORWER (ASS-E 500<VA) m 0-3 E]-3 E}-3 vIsc. HOUSE URWâ€¢ STEAK 22000 CONSUCTTErT--7 Ii 11!,:i EMERGE}CY BolSE HE.EPS Prr A.LC. CLEANERS 86,700 I SSLE : 6454-SCZ I ~ r=El PANâ‚¬1 PANEL PANEL EW I EM 1 Bl Ev&&2:611 E i (84 (84 ItljlIlI ccr) CCT) ,- 1 I lilli X ISC-43.876. =C 4SC-18.221AX Â£SC-21,631~ 1LT.,4.0034 1LT-8OOW 1LT- 11.00(A unurr Cn 8-3 0-03 8-3 --1-1 1 1 -~ 1 4- n IRI-nitzE[ZIE r. 9 - S - S P P P P 5 2 -LL.%1:' - 0 - 9 P I N -3 : ILT. gi- J I i i'/'; - S ILT. g ILT. A ILY- 4 4 - 4 4 w ~~i '1_L - m - - - - - - ----- 1 9 7:Â£ 6.606, 74 8.60[1~ 7%<50004 7 9 . Â¥ 0 0 â€¢2 83 -1 U.-4,.ift 1 1 1 91 i ..... Fl Fl F-= Ql QL EZ TZ 41100. 010(. gtoN 0100â€¢ 0- i 1 44/49% \100/3 . loan \100/3 KCX1'3 100/3 ~' | i BARRO i ,â€ž iii iT fi 1 ..1",9**rl=I= 100.000 ALC CCLD Wr* SOMCE - - STE. OR FOU/414110â€ž REBAR 1 I.0.0 - 2000,4 120/20Â£/.3,.4â€¢ 1,0 GNO TO-- -*r-1,0 GRO TO But>,9 4 11 11 1.--Â·- 9ARâ‚¬ 3-t BASEWENT ISCALE! i,8- 1 ! 01 1 ES I ELECTRICAL ONE - LINE DIAGRAM ~CTE: 1- ALL VP'E TO 8Â£ THâ€¢N OR TH- COPPER. 1 ALL FUSES TO eE BUSSM,- LP'â€¢-R OR EOUAL fIR-RSEWENT - -7-1-0~7~ ' 'f'lli~,â€žN/#*=. I Illl-Â¤11-N-1-Ill-Ill ; 1 1'72.~.1;F Â·?Â·' i NE] E 1001Â£0Md (11313 Ar.Ill WHJ - - - OUVMONOD 'NG[dSV 0.*4#C 1â€¢/it 33Â¥dS Â¥00 30Â¥dS MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: Final Development: 309 E. Hopkins and 200 South Monarch - Lily Reid Cottage/Aspen Arcade: Significant development, demolition, partial demolition, on-site relocation, temporary off-site storage, waiver of cash- in-lieu for parking reduction Date: January 10, 1990 PROJECT MONITOR: To be assigned at this meeting. APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Final Development approval for the significant development, demolition, partial demolition, on-site relocation and temporary off-site relocation/storage activities for the project located at 309 E. Hopkins/200 S. Monarch. HPC approval of the waiver of payment-in-lieu for the parking reduction of 19 spaces is also requested. BACKGROUND: On September 27, 1989, the HPC met with the applicants in a worksession to discuss the basic conceptual ideas of an on-site relocation of the cottage and the proposed new detached construction behind and to one side of the cottage. The Committee was generally in favor of the proposal, finding it to be a reasonable solution for the parcel's overall design. In 1988, the HPC conceptually approved the relocation of the historic cottage to a site outside the Commercial Core Historic District, to the A.C.E.S. property near Hallam Lake. A 600+ name petition was submitted to Council, requesting an appeal of that HPC decision, at which time the applicant withdrew the application, and sponsored legislation amending the code to favorably incorporate additional preservation incentives for projects such as this. The code amendments were passed in the spring of 1989 (sliding scale for affordable housing impact mitigation, open space and parking variations, etc.) Since that time, a revised application was submitted for HPC consideration. HPC PREVIOUS ACTION: Conceptual Development approval with conditions was granted on the "Lily Reid" project on January 10, 1990, and extended to April 10, 1991 by HPC approval on January 9, 1991. Please refer to the applicant's Final proposal for a complete description of these conditions, and their responses. COUNCIL ACTION: Landmark Designation for the entire parcel was granted through ordinance last year by Council. SUMMARY: The Final Development application involves four specific elements, which are summarized as follows: 1) Demolition: The proposed demolition involves the non- historic, non-contributing one-story building on the corner, containing Uriah Heeps and the Cleaners. The applicant has addressed the Demolition standards, however, it is clear to the Planning Office that these standards have not, and perhaps cannot, be met. Therefore, in order for demolition approval to be granted by the HPC, a code amendment allowing for an exemption process from the standards is required to be adopted by Council. Said code amendment is in process, and will be heard at first reading on April 8, 1991. Staff believes that the structure proposed for demolition meets the proposed criteria for exemption, and recommends that the HPC make this finding when taking Final Development approval action. 2) Partial demolition is proposed for the small addition furthest to the rear of the cottage. The earliest rear addition is proposed to remain, although information has not been presented as to how this structure could be moved with this addition intact, or if the applicant is considering dismantling and reconstructing the addition, once the cottage is re-sited, both permanently and temporarily. If this addition is removed, what is the percentage of material salvage? How will this be phased, stored, protected, etc? We are recommending both clarification on these issues, and tabling, if necessary, to allow the applicant time to address all partial demolition aspects more fully, pursuant to Sec. 7-602(C). 3) Relocation: The HPC must find that the Relocation Standards (Sec. 7-602{D}) have been met prior to approval. The proposal involves the relocation of the historic brick cottage some 60+ west to the corner, which site would be made available with the demolition of the non-historic corner building. The site plan indicates the cottage is proj ecting to the north of the Mill St. Plaza facade edge, which may be appropriate, however, we ask the HPC to carefully consider thi s issue in relationship to the following: 1) The cottage's original setbacks 2) The front and sideyard setbacks of the historic cottage directly across the street from the proposed new location 3) The facade edges (these vary) of the Mill St - Plaza building 2 The exact new location of this cottage is very important dimensionally to the new construction and the streetscape of the historic district. We are not in favor of an off-site temporary storage situation, believing the risks to be far too great for this historic resource. (Note: The community was fortunate that the temporary relocation and rehab of the wooden cottage at 1004 E. Durant went as well as it did.) This proj ect appears to be much more involved, due to the marginal condition of the brick and mortar. The application does not provide the Planning Office a high enough level of detail of the actual relocation, stabilization, and protection, either in off-site or on-site storage, to recommend Final approval at this time. The applicant also states that Ryberg Movers insurance Will cover the city's bond/performance guarantee requirements, which staff does not agree with. We are referring these legal issues to the City Attorney, and recommend that the HPC not take action until he is comfortable with the level of documentation and protection mechanism provided by the applicant. The bond or performance guarantee insures mitigation measures in case of moving and re-siting failure as well as to insure that the structure find its way back home in the unlikely case of a financially failed development. How will structural damage be repaired? Will the brick be repainted? Paint removal is not recommended. 7th and Main is proposed to be the storage site. Is this appropriate for the Main Street Historic District? A recent code amendment was enacted to allow temporary relocations to occur, however, the applicant is proposing this temporary relocation last for six months. The 1004 E. Durant cottage temporary relocation ended in six weeks. On the other hand, due to the extensive level of excavation (the entire 9,000' parcel) and the safety hazards as a result of the cottage being supported mid- air by steel beams, not allowing a temporary relocation seems to be as much of a risk. (Reference: The Collins Block.) This aspect of the project was not discussed at Conceptual, and staff strongly recommends that the HPC consider all the ramifications of this temporary relocation - including community perception. 4) Significant Development - Cottage: The plans indicate that the detached cottage serves as the focal point 3 within a retail capacity, and the new "L" designed development provide the backdrop. The application states the cottage would be restored. However, we find that in fact a "restoration" is not, by definition, occurring, as windows are being added. Staff feels that the HPC should hold the line on this cottage's restoration. A 700+ sq. ft. historic resource that is being wrapped by three levels of GMQS exempted commercial development deserves to be carefully and authentically treated as an illustration of Aspen's mining heritage. The community and our visitors deserve to experience this unique brick cottage as it was originally conceived and constructed, even relocated within its new context. New construction: The proposal of a three-story commercial (retail/office/housing) mass is located to the side and rear of the cottage. The design concept provides a traditionally proportioned storefront level and stepped second and third floor to relieve mass and bulk impacts. This new construction includes two facades - one on Hopkins, and one on Mill. The HPC should consider the Final Design details, and whether these two facades should match (should one take precedence in relation to the facade of the cottage?). Due to the significant design impact this new construction will have to the Commercial Core Historic District and the Lily Reid Cottage, the Planning Office requests that the HPC take the time to review the architectural details of the Final application very carefully. It has been over a year since the HPC has worked on this project, and staff wishes to insure that the HPC finds that all the Development Review Standards and conditions of Conceptual approval have been thoroughly met. The plaza surface treatments are especially important to consider in their relationship to the vernacular design and small scale nature of the cottage, and in how these materials effectively tie the new and historic structures together. Are they harmonious in texture and color? What about landscaping? Staff is concerned that the raised planter boxes around the cottage may not be appropriate, and may provide a formal front yard for an otherwise modest and quiet miner's cottage. Parking and Open Space: A waiver of the payment-in-lieu fees for the parking reduction of 19 spaces is required by the HPC at the time Final Development is granted. In order to grant this 4 waiver, the HPC is required to make the finding that the three spaces proposed on site are the maximum number allowed by des ign. It is also recommended that the HPC direct Staff to prepare a memorandum to the Board of Adjustment supporting the open space dimensions as proposed (per Section 7-605). Materials: The applicant will be providing samples of all major building materials at this meeting, as well as a detailed massing model. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following alternatives: 1) Grant Final Development approval for the Lily Reid project as proposed, subject to approval of materials, finding that the development review, partial demolition and relocation standards have been met. A waiver of payment-in-lieu for the parking reduction of 19 spaces is approved, finding that the three space proposed on site are the maximum number allowed by design. Staff is directed to prepare a memorandum to the Board of Adjustment supporting the open space dimensions as proposed. This Final Development approval is conditional on the adoption of the code amendment ordinance ( in process) creating an "exemption" clause to the demolition standards in Sec. 7-602(B). The HPC finds that the non-historic, non-contributing structure proposed for demolition meets the proposed exemption criteria. A permit for demolition shall not be granted until such code amendment is adopted. 2) Grant Final Development approval (as stated in Alternative #1) with specific conditions to be approved by the staff and the project monitor (to be assigned at this meeting) prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3) Table Final Development approval to allow the applicant additional time to respond to the issues brought forward by staff in the memo and by the HPC at this meeting. Specific issues staff requests be more fully addressed are: a) Partial Demolition - Sec. 7-602(C) b) Relocation and re-siting - Sec. 7-602 (D) c) Bonding/Performance Guarantee d) Restoration of cottage e) Plaza surface treatment/landscaping f) Compatibility in architectural details and materials of new construction 4) Deny Final Development approval, finding that specific 5 Development Review, Demolition, Partial Demolition and Relocation standards have not been met. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC table Final Development approval for the proposal referred to as the "Lily Reid House" at 309 E. Hopkins/200 S. Monarch, to allow the applicant additional time to respond to the issues brought forward by staff in this memo and by the HPC at this meeting. Specific issues staff requests be more fully addressed are: a) Partial Demolition - Sec. 7-602(C) b) Relocation and re-siting - Sec. 7-602(D) c) Bonding/Performance Guarantee d) Restoration of cottage e) Plaza surface treatment/landscaping f) Compatibility in architectural details and materials of new construction Additional comments: memo.hpc.309eh.fd 6 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: 309 E. Hopkins (Lily Reid Project): Conceptual Development extension Date: January 9, 1991 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Extension of Conceptual Development application for the proposal at 309 E. Hopkins St., aka the Lily Reid Project. An extension time has not been specified by the applicant. DISCUSSION: Section 7-601(F) (3) (c) Of the Aspen Land Use Regulations provides for an extension of Conceptual Development approvals by the HPC. Such approvals are valid for one year of the date of the original approval, which was January 10, 1990. This code provision does not provide specific language on the maximum or minimum amount of time such extension may be good for, however, staff generally recommends a one-time, six (6) month extension on similar requests. We feel six months provides ample time for an applicant to submit Final Development plans, or withdraw an application. However, in this case, project representative Joe Wells , has informed staff that 30-90 days should be ample time for an extension. They are preparing the Final Development application now. The Planning Office recommends HPC's approval for a 90 day extension. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider alternate time frames for such extension. Staff is not recommending additional conditions be attached to the extension. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant a one-time Conceptual Development extension to April 10, 1991, which is 90 days from the date of the one year anniversary of the original Conceptual Development approval, January 10, 1990. memo.hpc.309eh.exten JAN-8 Joseph Wells Joseph Wells, AICP Land Planning and Design January 8, 1991 Ms. Roxanne Eflin Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Aspen CO 81611 Dear Roxanne: My letter is to follow-up on Charles Cunniffe's December 26 letter to you regarding the Lily Reid project. We would like to request a 90-day extension in the one-year time limit to file for final HPC review following receipt of a conceptual approval from HPC. HPC granted conceptual approval to the Lily Reid project on January 10, 1990. However, as you probably recall, City Council did not grant approval for Landmark designation of the entire site until July 9, 1990. During the period between HPC conceptual approval and City Council's approval of landmark designation, we could not proceed with further design work because that effort was entirely dependent on the outcome of the City's discussions regarding the designa- tion request. In the six month period since designation was approved, the design team has been working diligently with a contractor to develop a final program for the project which is both a viable project and is consistent with the conceptual appro- val granted by HPC. This effort is nearly complete and we are confident we will be prepared to file for final HPC review in the near future. Let me know if you need additional information. 3 dincerely, /--34 Jokdph Wells, AICP JW/b 130 Midland Park Place, Number F2 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Telephone (303) 925-8080 Facsimile (303) 925-8275 CHARLES CUNNIFFE &ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS 520 EASTHYMAN, SUITE 301, ASPEN, CO. 81612 303/925-5590 CHARLES L. CUNNIFFE. A. I.A. DEC 2 8 1990 December 26, 1990 Ms. Roxanne Eflin c/o Planning Office City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Aspen Arcade Ltd. (AKA Lilly Reid) 301 East Hopkins Ave. Aspen, Colorado Dear Roxanne, I am writing on behalf of Mr. Larry Brooks, managing partner for the referenced project. We are applying for an extension of the conceptual approval granted by HPC on January 10, 1990. I have been retained by Mr. Brooks as a design consultant for the final drawings which are being prepared by Hagman, Yaw Architects. These drawings will be ready for final review by HPC soon, but not before the anniversary date of the conceptual approval. We will be glad to provide you with any additional documentation that may be required. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerehy, //ln l 6-1-0- Li--Â«f U Charles L. Cunniffe, AIA Principal P.S. Happy Holidays! CC: Mr. Larry Brooks Mr. Larry Yaw c:\wp5\clients\8811\ext.let IV. REQUEST FOR SPECIAL REVIEW (Article 7, Division 4) Approval of development subject to Special Review is permit- ted upon a determination by the Planning and Zoning Commission that the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the request. As discussed below, the Applicant is requesting Special Review approval of a reduction in the Utility/Trash Service Areas as well as a reduction in required open space. A. Special Review For Reduction In Utility/Trash Service Area Under the provisions of Â§5-211(a)(6), a utility/trash service area of 200 sq.ft. lS required ln the CC zone district for up to 6,000 sq.ft. of net leasable floor area; an additional area of 10 sq.ft. for each 1,200 sq.ft. of additional net leasable is required, unless reduced by P&Z by Special Review. The amount of trash service area required for the project is 306 sq.ft. The Applicant proposes to reduce the amount of trash service area needed for the project by providing a trash compactor sized to meet the needs of the project. 37 In order to qualify for Special Review approval for a reduction in the service area, an applicant must demonstrate compliance with the following criteria: 1. "Given the nature of the potential uses of the building and its total square footage, the utility/trash service area proposed to be provided will be adequate." The applicant proposes to provide a 110 sq.ft. trash service area with a trash compactor on the parcel to serve the project. BFI personnel have recommended the use of a compactor similar to the one used at the Ute City Banque Building; where the trash is compacted and then pushed into a standard dumpster to simplify collection. 2. "Access to the utility/trash service area is adequate." Access to the service area is directly off of the alley. 3. "Measures are provided for enclosing trash bins and making them easily movable by trash personnel." In discussing the design of the trash area with BFI personnel, if a system similar to the one described above is used, ease of trash collection will not be a problem. The trash storage and parking area is well organized, protected from the elements and elevated slightly to minimize ice buildup. 38 4. "When appropriate, provisions for trash compaction are provided by the proposed development and measures are taken to encourage trash compaction by other developments on the block." The applicant has agreed to install a trash compactor to minimize the space to be allocated to trash storage. The alley serving the block is one of the cleanest and best organized in the commercial core. 5. "The area for public utility placement and maintenance i s adequate and safe for the placement of utilities." Meters are to be located at the southeast corner of the building for easy access. An area of approximately 70 sq.ft. is provided along the east wall of the project. The majority of mechanical and electrical equipment will be located in the basement. 6. "Adequate provisions are incorporated to ensure the con- struction of the access area." Construction of the utility/trash service area will be a condition of approval. The applicant will be unable to secure a building permit for the project unless the trash area is included in the construction documents. B. Special Review of A Reduction Required Open Space. The open space requirement in the CC zone is 25% of the lot area. or 2,250 sq.ft. for the project site. Approximately 2,300 sq.ft. of open area is provided in the plaza area; however, only 1,650 sq.ft. of this area meets the definition of open space which . .,1 39 3 requires that open space be a minimum of 10 feet in depth for a distance of at least 50 percent of the lot frontage. Under the provisions of Special Review (Article 7, Division 4), when the HPC approves the on-site relocation of an Historic Landmark into required open space such that the amount of open space is reduced below that required, the open space payment-in- lieu is waived. In Section II, the Applicant is requesting HPC approval to relocate the Lily Reid Cottage into required open space. C. Special Review Application Requirements Include: 1. The general application information required under Section 6-202. General application requirements have been addressed in Section II, beginning on page 14. 2. A sketch plan showing the configuration of the development on the lot and those features of the site which are relevant to the Special Review application. Refer to Sheet 3 of the attached architectural drawings, follow- ing page 2, for the layout of the trash service area and open space areas. 3. An analysis of the characteristics of similarly situated properties in the same Zone District and of neighboring parcels with respect to whether these properties comply with the dimensional, off-street parking or trash/utility service area requirement which is subject to Special Review. 40 In general, virtually all applicants for expansion of commercial projects have sought some variation in the requirements of the trash storage in the CC zone. The alley which serves this site is among the best organized for trash service in the Commerical Co re. This application seeks to comply with the trash storage requirements by providing a trash compactor sized to meet the needs of the project. There is adequate usable open space within the site to meet the requirement; however, some of these open areas fail to meet the definition. The definition does not account for corner lots, where it would be very difficult to comply along both lot lines Â· 41 V. REQUEST FOR GMQS EXEMPTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF AN HISTORIC LANDMARK: (Â§8-104(B)(1)(c)) The Applicant requests approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission of GMQS Exemption for the enlargement of an Historic Landmark intended to be used as a commercial or office development which increases the building's existing floor area ratio and its net leasable square footage. A. Mitigation of Impacts: In order to be eligible for exemption under the provisions of Â§8-104(B)(1)(c), the Applicant is required to demonstrate that as a result of the development, mitigation of the project's community impacts will be addressed, as follows: 1. "For an enlargement at the maximum floor area permitted under the external floor area ratio of the applicable zone district (excluding any bonus floor area permitted by special review), the applicant shall provide affordable housing at 100% of the level which would meet the threshold required in Â§8-106 for the applicable use. For each 1% reduction in floor area below the maximum permitted under the external floor area ratio for the applicable zone district (excluding any bonus floor area permitted by special review), the affordable housing requirement shall be reduced by 1%. "The applicant shall place a restriction of the property, to the satisfaction of the City Attorney, requiring that if, in the future, additional floor area is requested, the owner shall pro- vide affordable housing impact mitigation at the then current standards. Any affordable housing provided by the applicant shall be restricted to the housing designee's moderate-income price and occupancy guidelines." 42 The project includes 13,200 sq.ft. of FAR floor area; at 1.5:1, the maximum floor area permitted (excluding any bonus floor area) is 13,500 sq.ft. The affordable housing requirement for the enlargement is therefore 97.8% of the applicable threshold requirement of Â§8-106. The existing structures include 6,200 sq.ft. of floor area which is devoted entirely to retail uses. Therefore, the project represents an enlargement of 7,000 FAR sq.ft. on the upper three levels. This enlarged FAR includes 3,463 sq.ft. of new net leasable commercial space, 1,506 sq.ft. of affordable housing and 2,012 sq.ft. of accessory space and other non-leasable areas which count in FAR. The applicant proposes to use a generation factor of 3.7 employees/1,000 sq.ft. of net leasable for the expansion; the employee generation for the new space is therefore 12.81 employees. At a threshold requirement 97.8% x 60% x 12.81, 7.52 employees must be housed. The Applicant proposes to house eight employees on-site in a dormitory facility on the second floor of the new buiding as illustrated on the architectural drawings following page 2. 43 Because a dorm is proposed, the Applicant commits to the low-income rental structure for dorm units, even though the regulations permit Landmark projects to utilize the moderate- income guidelines. The Applicant requests the right to house employees of the project at low-income rental rates even though their incomes may exceed low-income guidelines. 2. "Parking shall be provided according to the standards of Article 5, Division 2 and Division 3, if HPC determines that it can be provided on the site's surface and be consistent with the review standards of Article 7, Division 6. Any parking which cannot be located on-site and which would therefore be required to be provided via a cash-in-lieu payment shall be waived." Under the Code provisions for GMQS Exemption for Expansion of Historic Landmarks, 2 off-street parking spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. of net leasable must be provided only if HPC finds that surface parking can be provided which is consistent with HPC's review standards for development involving an Historic Landmark (Article 7, Division 6). The payment-in-lieu fee for the balance of required spaces is waived upon such a finding by HPC. Because the project is built on the concept of retaining a large open area around the Lily Reid Cottage, only 3 surface spaces can be provided (see architectural drawings following page 2). The Applicant requests HPC approval of the parking plan as proposed. 3 , I A / r p l 44 3. "The development's water supply, sewage treatment, solid waste disposal, drainage control, transportation and fire protection impacts shall be mitigated to the satisfaction of the Commission." Necessary utilities are available immediately adjacent to the site. Storm drainage improvements will be engineered in accordance with the City's regulations. Bus service and fire protection is in close proximity to the site. 4. "The compatibility of the project's site design with surrounding projects and its appropriateness for the site shall be demonstrated, including but not limited to consideration of the quality and character of proposed landscaping and open space, the amount of site coverage by buildings, any amenities provided for users and residents of the site, and the efficiency and effectiveness of the service delivery area." The project's compatibility with surrounding projects and other design characteristics is discussed in Section II, beginning on page 14. Service to the site will be from the alley to the south of the site. 45 VI. REQUEST FOR GMQS EXEMPTION FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING (Â§8-104(C)(1)(C)) All housing deed restricted in accordance with the housing guide- lines is eligible for exemption by the City Council. The Applicant requests approval by City Council of a GMQS Exemption to construct a dormitory facility of 1,500 sq.ft. housing 8 employees to be restricted to the low-income guidelines. The dormitory facility will be retained as a rental facility; the Applicant requests a right of first refusal to place eligible employees of the project in the dorm units. Additional storage for the dorm tenants will be provided in the basement. The review of any request for exemption of housing pursuant to this section shall include a determination of the City's need for such housing, considering the proposed development's compliance with an adopted housing plan, the number of dwelling units proposed and their location, the type of dwelling units proposed, specifically regarding the number of bedrooms in each unit, the size of the dwelling unit, the rental/sale mix of the proposed development, and the proposed price categories to which the dwelling units are to be deed restricted. 46 71*7; e b . I ' . Li 4 , T W f 17.49. f Â· 2. P -y .. . 1 t by /- ~:-elL-~fÂ¢~ - :.C, V. 6. , -9.17 -~i- V L r- 2 1,0, - . 7 --- 2 - Â°1 2. IL i . , C- 7 1 - S. 1 1 1,1.2 4, 6'.4. 10 "i F 1 41. ~' 4 : Wme* 44 'Â· N ' ..93>*,444 6*.9 1 - . 1 / I ;1 , ./Ill' 4 .> . ;4 D- i 9-. 1 . , il i