The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19910321MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer A f f>r A)4.1_ Re: Conceptual Development: The Aspen Meadows, academic (campus) and Music portions (continued Public Hearing) F e 1128Â·( 3612-- fl~)) LL.Â£ - Â£_/-F--'1 1 Date: March 21, 1991 - Special Meeting 9:00 - 11:00 a.m., Sheriff's conference room, County Courthouse NOTE: PLEASE REMEMBER TO BRING YOUR MEADOWS PACKET FROM THE FEBRUARY 27 WORKSESSION. APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Conceptual development approval for the academic (campus) and music portions of the Aspen Meadows; advisory review of the Chalets. REQUIRED REVIEW AREAS: The complete list of Meadows projects requiring HPC review and approval is as follows: (1 The areas under HPC conceptual review are as follows: 1) Remodeling of the existing Kresge building, and new Kresge II building 2) Expanded building envelope of the health club 3) Remodeling and expansion of the restaurant 4) Parking structure and pro shop 5) Expansion of the tent's backstage and remodeling of seating area to add 400 seats 6) New rehearsal facility 7) Landscape alterations (berms and mounds added, mounds taken away, ditch rerouting, tree removal and new plantings) HPC advisory review is required for the Chalet lodge units. Conceptual approval has previously been granted for the residential portion (Trustee Townhomes and the Tennis Townhomes). Note: Please refer to the attached memo from Planning Staff to the City Attorney regarding the general review process and HPC's specific review authority. LOCATION: Central and easterly portion of the parcel commonly referred to as "The Aspen Meadows" APPLICANT: The Aspen Institute, Savanah Limited Partnership, the Music Associates of Aspen, and the Aspen Center for Physics, represented by Perry Harvey, Joe Wells and Robert Harth ZONING: SPA, underlying zoning pending EXISTING CONDITIONS: Please refer to page two of the application for a complete description. The ages of the building are: Seminar building - 1953 Chalet lodges - 1954-55 Health Center - 1956 Restaurant Building - 1958 Tennis courts and swimming pool- 1959 PREVIOUS HPC ACTION: Conceptual approval and advisory review with conditions was accomplished for the residential portion of the Meadows on February 13, 1991. A worksession on the academic/music portion of the Meadows proposal was held on February 27, with general comments focusing on the character compatibility of the lodge units and the proposed rehearsal facility. Concern was voiced on the changes proposed to the cultural landscape both surrounding and adjacent to existing tent (berms, size of rehearsal facility mound, formalization of common spaces, etc.) The applicant also mentioned the inconsistency of the application narrative to the proposed plans with regard to the restaurant facility. On March 13, 1981, the HPC reviewed this portion of the Meadows proposal at a public hearing. Formal action was tabled and the hearing continued to a special meeting scheduled for March 21 at 9:00 a.m. Public comment with regard to the rehearsal hall dominated that portion of the agenda, therefore, a relative small amount of HPC comment was focused on the application as a whole. At that meeting, numerous members of the public spoke in favor of relocating the rehearsal hall to the westerly side of the tent, siting character impact concerns relative to the proposed easterly location. It appears that most HPC members agreed that the proposed rehearsal hall design in the location proposed had the potential to negatively impact the tent, and that perhaps a relocation to the west would lessen the impact. The proposed easterly location had been previously approved by both the Planning Commission and Council in the Conceptual SPA review. The earlier Master Plan identified two potential locations, one on the east, and one on the west. No specific direction was given to the applicant at that meeting to reconsider location. 2 PROJECT SUMMARY and REVIEW PROCESS: The Development Review Standards are found in Section 7-601(D). Applicable portions of the Guidelines are generally found throughout that document. For ease in general review and discussion, staff has included the elements under advisory review within the response comments for the entire proposal. Development Review Standards 1. Standard: 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 a 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. Response: The Meadows parcel has not received landmark designation, however, HPC review and approval is required as called for in the Aspen Meadows Master Plan, adopted last year. Academic/Institute portion: Staff finds that the significant elements of the lodge units (Chalets and Kresge buildings) have been respected and preserved in the renovation and expansion of the existing units, as well as in the design of the new units. As with the residential portion, staff's principal concerns focus on materials, detailing and landscaping, as well as the need for a subtle difference between the original units and the new. It is unclear of the level of partial demolition proposed to the Chalet buildings, which requires clarification and response as defined in Section 7-602(C). It appears from the siting of the expansions and new buildings, that the architect has taken the sub-committee's general comments into consideration. The massing breakup and facade articulation of Chalet Building #3 (new) and Kresge Building #6 (new) are improvements over the master plan proposal, which indicated substantial impacts to both the Health Club from Building #3 and the open space/fox mound from Building #6. The HPC should carefully consider the conceptual materials proposed for these buildings, with primary attention paid to the end walls (rubble?), roofing, and balconies/patios. We are concerned about the proposed reduction to the existing "fox mound", and the compatibility of the proposed mound to the 3 southeast of this. It would appear that by a simple walkway reorientation of Building #6, the mound would not be impacted as greatly. The need for land form buffers to serve as screens between the buildings and the open space should be discussed from a character-defining basis. A new model (or alteration to the existing) should clarify this mound issue - which should be indicated to precise scale (height and diameter). Backstage addition: The HPC should consider whether the north elevation should be restudied to provide greater articulation and delineation from the existing backstage, and whether the angled skylight design is an appropriate and compatible roof design for this addition. Staff defers to the HPC for these design considerations. Rehearsal Hall: Staff finds that the proposed rehearsal hall design does not meet this Development Review standard. We find that due to its prominent location to the southeast of the tent, its height and mound diameter, that the character of the tent and its surrounding cultural landscape is compromised. Further, the proposed location is not where the Master Plan identified the easterly site to be. The mound encroaches into an area specified in the Master Plan as "open space". This location combined with the landscape design blocks historic views both ( from within the cultural resource (tent and surrounding grounds) looking out to Independence Pass and Aspen Mountain, as well as from without looking in to the tent area/festival arena. This is particularly evident from the approach from the southeast. It is conceivable that due to the size and location of the mound, and perhaps the hall itself, that the sense of procession and general casual character of a "tent in a meadow" may forever be altered. It appears that the general concept of a land form to disguise a building combined with a geometric roof pattern to add continuity in Bayer design is thought by the HPC to be original and generally compatible with basic design theory of the Meadows. It should be noted that all other structures within the Meadows parcel are "objects on the landscape"; none of which are incorporated within a land form. They are geometrically simple and generally relate to one another in material and form. The new rehearsal hall blends the land form and architectural pattern into one structure, and creates an elaborate roof sculpture that takes its que from the radiating folds of the tent. We ask the HPC to first consider the following questions, when reviewing the application under Development Review Standard #1: 1) Is the mound/structure concept appropriate as proposed, or would simply a stand-alone building be less of a volume impact? 4 2) Does the roof form compete with and overwhelm the character of the tent, and is its design theory able to be perceived at ground level? Is it important that it be perceived, or is it such a subtle relationship that it adds to the geometric aspects of the tent? 3) How does the material treatment of the hall (vegetation, walls, access and entryways) relate to and enhance the general character of the tent area? The Planning Office believes that the potential impacts of the rehearsal hall-eastern location could be lessened if the following recommended conditions are met: 1) Re-site the rehearsal hall facility to the northeast, closer to the parking lot (where originally indicated in the Master Plan) 2) Significantly lower the height of both the mound and the structure, which would appear to lessen bulk and general visual impacts 3) Significantly reduce the diameter of the mound, which is perhaps necessary with the more northerly location site constraints 4) Restudy surface treatments of both the land form and the structure. Consider how natural grass and gently sloping terraces might be incorporated. 5) Restudy berming and hard surface paving areas between rehearsal hall and the tent, to allow for a more informal and open area between the two structures. Should the HPC find that even with these design revisions the proposed rehearsal hall impact to the tent precludes the design meeting Development Review Standard #1, then specific recommendations for restudy with findings will be necessary. These findings will then be forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission and Council for further consideration. The HPC may wish to recommend the creation of a viewplane corridor from the tent, similar to the viewplanes established in the Commercial Core. Streetscape and Landscape Material: The need to preserve existing trees and land forms, and provide mitigation for any losses is an important element of this parcel. A detailed landscape plan will be required at Final, with mitigation measures stated. 5 Fences: Fencing has not been discussed, if any is proposed, and shall be a condition for Final review. Parking: It appears that the parking structure approach is good, however, the application is not clear on whether more of the "race track" open space will be taken with this structure. This issue needs clarification. Circulation patterns are being changed within the lodging portion of the parcel, with cars eliminated. The width of the roadwav should be reduced to the absolute minimum to Still provide emergency access. A restudy is recommended here, and shall be included in either a revised or Final proposal. It appears that the parking lots to the tent and Paepcke Auditorium are not being altered in size, although a hard surface treatment is proposed. A detailed design of the bus drop-off area and parking lot finish features shall be a requirement of Final. Rooflines: Three roof issues have been identified for HPC consideration: Flat roofs proposed for the lodge units (reflecting existing conditions), basic flat roof with angled skylight projections (backstage addition) and the new rehearsal hall roof, which is the predominate architectural feature of the music portion. Materials have not been called out specifically for these areas. Doors: Staff has concerns regarding the proposed glass paneled overhead-type doors for the facade of the rehearsal hall. These appear to be a significant departure from the existing Meadows fenestration and entranceway design character. We defer to the HPC to obtain more detailed information as they deem necessary to make a design compatibility determination. Lodge unit doors and entranceways should be considered by the HPC at this meeting, with recommendations made for Final. Windows: Fenestration patterns appear to be compatible throughout; what materials are to be used? Staff is concerned with the proposed openings on the rehearsal hall facade, and recommend this be restudied and carefully considered by the HPC and the applicant. Materials: It is important to recall the original construction technique and use of materials was based on economy. The architectural style may be described as International vernacular in many ways, and restraint must be used in incorporating expensive materials within the buildings and in landscaping. The new and replacement materials at the Meadows are as important a design feature as the overall geometry and site planning. 6 Great care should be taken by both the applicant and the HPC to determine specific materials, texture, finish and color. New and replacement materials must key off of original materials. End walls must be carefully considered - should these be rubble? In addition, all landscape and hard surface materials (walkways, drives, plazas, etc.) should be visually soft and carefully chosen for compatibility with this parcel. We are recommending a complete, detailed landscape study be submitted for Final review, which will be reviewed with another land use planner skilled in landscaping treatments. Finish and color of major materials is important. A palette of materials, textures and colors shall be prepared by the participating architects, and submitted for HPC approval at Final. As discussed at the first public hearing for residential review, this palette would also apply as a covenant to the Single Family home sites as well. An exact materials representation shall be made at Final, as required under Section 7-601(F)(4). 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: Defining "neighborhood" as the large Meadows parcel itself, the proposal appears to reflect the established character. However, the immediate residential neighborhood to the west of the tent and the rehearsal facility is considerably different in character. The proposed rehearsal hall may define and separate the tent area from the residential neighborhood. Staff defers to the HPC on this issue. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of the designated historic structure located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. Response: Perhaps the single most provocative quality of the Meadows parcel is its cultural landscape. The Planning Office finds that the proposal as a whole is sensitive to the cultural aspects of the Meadows, and recognizes this for the significant community asset it is. However, we find that the rehearsal hall design as proposed negatively impacts the cultural value of the tent, which is perhaps the most important single resource of the Meadows parcel. Staff's restudy recommendations as stated in our response to Standard #1 may help to mitigate the cultural value impacts. Staff strongly recommends against any further encroachment into the oval meadow, or impacts due to potential site drainage and runoff issues. 7 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The proposed remodel and enlargement of the lodge units appears to not detract from their architectural integrity. A detailed final application is required in order for staff to make this final determination. Staff understands the restaurant remodel involves the enclosure of the outside deck area. We recommend that the Final application address the design details of this expansion fully. Equally, the Health Club's building envelope is larger than approved in the Master Plan, however, it appears to staff that the general historic preservation issues of "locating an addition to the rear of a structure so as not to impair the facade" has been met with this proposal. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following alternatives: 1) Approve the Conceptual Development application for the academic and music portion of the Aspen Meadows as proposed. Final development application requirements must be met for approval. 2) Approve the Conceptual Development application with the conditions to be met at Final Development: a) Re-site the rehearsal hall facility to the northeast, closer to the parking lot (where originally indicated in the Master Plan) b) Significantly lower the height of both the mound and the structure, which would appear to lessen bulk and general visual impacts c) Significantly reduce the diameter of the mound, which is perhaps necessary with the more northerly location site constraints d) Restudy surface treatments of both the land form and the structure. Consider how natural grass and gently sloping terraces might be incorporated. e) Restudy berming and hard surface paving areas between rehearsal hall and the tent, to allow for a more informal and open area between the two structures. f) Address the partial demolition standards pursuant to Section 7-602(c) 8 g) Representation of all materials to be made at Final h) Revised model indicating Building #6 and the relocated and lowered "fox mound" i) Final landscape plan indicating all significant existing and proposed vegetation, surface treatments and lighting j) Detailed drawing of tent/music area parking lot treatment and bus drop-off area k) Final elevations of restaprant expansion, , 1 L) 1 16 --Â£. 12Â£44"1 ouzx[*4. he AL-JL,t.4..4.1-,_a~- A14 2 tta,4.-7 Cot,22<#3 3) Table action te a date certain, to allow the applicant time to restudy specific areas. 4) Deny Conceptual Development approval, finding that the Standards have not been met. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant conceptual development approval for the academic and music portions of the Aspen Meadows with all of the conditions stated in Alternative #2 above. Should the HPC find that the restudy conditions recommended by staff for the proposed rehearsal/performance hall result in a development that does not meet Development Review Standard #1, the Planning Office recommends that HPC comments relative to the preservation standards be forwarded to the Planning Commission and Council for their consideration. Additional recommendations: memo.hpc.meadows.ac.mus.cd 9 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: Conceptual Development: The Aspen Meadows, residential portion only, Public Hearing Date: February 13, 1991 NOTE: PLEASE REMEMBER TO BRING YOUR MEADOWS PACKET FROM THE FEBRUARY 6 WORKSESSION. APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Conceptual development approval for the residential portion of the Aspen Meadows, including the remodeling, renovation and three new units to the (Bayer) "Trustee Townhomes", seven new units referred to as the "Tennis Townhomes" and advisory review of the four single-family home sites. LOCATION: Westerly portion of the parcel commonly referred to as "The Aspen Meadows" APPLICANT: The Aspen Institute and Savanah Limited Partnership, represented by Perry Harvey and Joe Wells ZONING: SPA, underlying zoning pending PREVIOUS HPC ACTION: Though no formal action has been taken previously by the HPC, a worksession was held on February 6, 1991 to informally review the proposal. Positive comments on the - Trustee Townhomes regarding massing, scale, height, spacing and site planning were received from the HPC. Concerns focused primarily on specific materials, details, and landscaping. The earth covered parking spaces were considered appropriate. Most Board members considered the massing, scale and modular design of the "Tennis Townhomes" compatible with the thematic International style of the Meadows. Comments generally focused on the stepping of the units, design of the end walls and treatment of parking. EXISTING CONDITIONS: Currently, eight (8) Trustee Townhome units exist, with incorporated carports attached to each. The remainder of the proposal consists of new construction. PROJECT SUMMARY and REVIEW PROCESS: The Development Review Standards are found in Section 7-601(D). The applicable portion of the Guidelines are found in Section VI. Residential Buildings, Renovation and Restoration and Section VII. Residential Buildings, New Construction. The Guidelines generally address detached buildings of the Victorian era, however, the intent and general application is the same. Development Review Standards 1. Standard: 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 a 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. (*historic resource) Response: The Meadows parcel has not received landmark designation, however, HPC review and approval is required as called for in the Aspen Meadows Master Plan, adopted last year. Staff finds that this Standard has been met in the proposal. We find that the significant elements of the Bayer townhomes has been respected and preserved in the renovation and expansion of the existing units, as well as in the design of the three new units on the ends. Staff's concerns focus on materials, detailing and landscaping, as well as the need for a subtle difference between the original units and the new. We feel that simple topography considerations are not enough, and that more study is required by the applicant to make this subtle difference successful. The proposed Tennis Townhomes incorporate elements Of the "Chalet" structures and the Bayer townhomes, and carry on the - International/modern theme, a signature of the Meadows. HPC worksession comments were supportive of the massing, however, staff is concerned about the visual impacts to the ridge, the overall height as perceived from all elevations, the treatment of the end walls, and the detached covered parking structures. These units may be described as appearing "modular", or grid- like, particularly the west elevation. It can be argued that either this design solution is compatible with the surrounding multi-unit structures or that its collective parts (particularly as viewed from the west) create a massive structure that no longer relates in scale. The Tennis Townhomes are presented in the application narrative as one and half story units at streetside. Only two of the seven units proposed are one and half story; the remaining five are two story and do not step down due to relative flat topography. We are recommending a restudy to lower the height of these townhomes. 2 Streetscape and Landscape Material: The need to preserve all existing trees is an important element of this parcel. A detailed landscape plan Will be required at Final, with mitigation measures stated. Fences: Fencing has not been discussed, and shall be included for Final review. Parking: Detached covered parking has been proposed for both the Trustee and Tennis Townhomes. The earth-covered parking areas proposed for the Trustee Townhomes appears compatible with the surroundings. Staff is concerned that the proposed carports for the Trustee Townhomes are a slightly discordant, visual intrusion along the road to the Townhomes; we are recommending a restudy of these for reducing their height, analyzing an earth-covered option and significant vegetation cover/screening. Rooflines: The proposal generally meets the standards for roof pitch. The architect has studied the geometry of the existing roof forms and has keyed the new design to this, which we find appropriate. Doors: We are unable to determine the style of doors proposed on the new construction, and recommend discussion of this feature in the Final application. Windows: The fenestration pattern on both the Trustee additions and the new Tennis Townhomes are critical design features for each. We recommend that the HPC require restudy of fenestration patterns where they feel necessary, primarily on the Trustee Townhomes. The contemporary window pattern proposed for the Tennis Townhomes appears sensitive to the thematic geometric patterns established throughout the Meadows, a signature of International and Bauhaus style. Materials: It is important to recall the original construction technique and use of materials was based on economy. The architectural style can be described as International vernacular in many ways, and restraint must be used in incorporating expensive materials on the buildings and in landscaping. The new and replacement materials at the Meadows are as important a design feature as the overall geometry and site planning. Great care just be taken by both the applicant and the HPC to determine specific materials, texture, finish and color. Significant discussion regarding materials at the February 6 worksession leads staff to the following recommendations: 1) New and replacement materials must key off of original materials. Materials were simple, and not of high cost. Vertical surface shingles should be smooth and 3 square, fascia thicknesses carefully designed, and roof material not wood shingle. Asphalt roofing alternatives should be studied and presented to the HPC at Final. 2) Finish and color of materials is important. A palette of materials, textures and colors shall be prepared by the participating architects, and submitted for HPC approval at Final. This palette would also apply to the Single Family home sites as well. 3) An exact materials representation shall be made at Final, including major materials, windows, balcony railings, decorative features, etc. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The Planning Office feels that the proposal meets this Standard, defining "neighborhood" as the large Meadows parcel itself. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of (designated historic structure*) located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. (*historic resource) Response: The Meadows parcel represents perhaps better than any other the diversity in Aspen's culture. We find that the proposal does not deuract from the cultural value of this important parcel, representing Aspen's post-war renaissance heritage. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a (designated historic structure*) or part thereof. (*historic resource) Response: The architectural integrity of the Trustee Townhomes is critical to maintain. We find that the conceptual submittal of the addition design does not detract from the existing conditions. However, due to the importance of materials in this project, and the need for careful study of compatibility issues, we feel that a higher level of detailed drawings and material specifications is required of the applicant to determine if this standard has been fully met. We are concerned about the treatment of the carport conversion to an entrance, and are requesting this element be submitted in detail form at Final. 4 The Tennis Townhomes and the single family home sites do not apply under this standard. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following alternatives: 1) Approve the Conceptual Development application as proposed. 2) Approve the Conceptual Development application with conditions to be met at Final Development, such as: (a) Restudy 07ke height and stepping__of the Tennis Tgwnhemed-<+40 reduce streetside height tomaximum of onend a half stories, as /stated in the application-harrative (b) Restudy of Tennis Townhome carports to reduce visual impact (C) Detailed preservation plan for Trustee townhomes materials and architectural features. Subtle, compatible design differences shall be incorporated into the three new Trustee Townhomes units, to discern between original and new. 1 (d) Detailed site and landscape plan, indicating existing vegetation and including a study of enhanced vegetation buffer between historic cottage and new construction. All proposed fencing shall be detailed (e) Trustee Townhome carport remodeling (representative) detail drawing (f) Restudy of design, articulation, materials and texture of all end walls (g) Massing models (h) Material representation: An exact materials representation shall be made at Final, including major materials, windows, balcony railings, decorative features, etc. (i) A palette of materials, textures and colors shall be prepared by the participating / architects, and submitted for HPC approval at Final. This palette would also apply to the Single Family home sites as well. (j) Recommendation from applicant for compatible 5 massing, scale, height, setbacks, materials for the four single family home sites design covenants for HPC consideration (advisory only). 3) Table action to a date certain, to allow the applicant time to restudy specific areas. 4) Deny Conceptual Development approval, finding that the Standards have not been met. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant Conceptual Development approval for the Aspen Meadows, residential portion, with Conditions A-J (stated above) to be met at Final. The Planning Office further recommends that the applicants process an application for Landmark Designation for the Meadows Parcel. Additional recommendations: REVIEW COMMENTS: memo.hpc.meadows.res.cd 6 D. Submission Contents (Â§7-601(F)(3)(a)): The submission requirements for Conceptual HPC review are as follows: 1. General Application Requirements (Â§6-202): (a) Application Form is attached as Exhibit Al. (b) Applicants' Letters of Authorization are attached as Exhibit A2. (c) The street address and the legal description of the parcel is shown on the application form. (d) Disclosure of ownership is attached as Exhibit A3. (e) The Vicinity Map, included as Exhibit A5, locates the subject parcel. (f) Compliance with Substantive Review Standards: Specific Conceptual Development Plan review standards are addressed in Section II(C), beginning on page 53. 2. Sketch Plan of the Proposal: The architectural drawings following page 11 illustrate the proposed improvements. 3. Conceptual Selection of Major Building Materials. The following materials are proposed conceptually for the projects: (a) Trustee Townhomes: - lx6 vertical wood end walls - Cedar shingle infill walls - Composition shingle roof - Sun control devices - Flagstone decks and paving - Brick or stamped concrete drive material to create a feeling which is softer than asphalt. Stone retaining walls. (b) Tennis Townhomes: - Masonry dividing walls - Masonry retaining walls 50 - Glass block with masonry - lx6 wood siding - Composition shingle roof - Flagstone walks and decks - Sun shading devices - Earth berming and possible sod roof on carports - Brick or stamped concrete material on parking lot. (c) Single-family Homesites: At the present time, it is not anticipated that a range of materials will be established for the single-family homes. (d) Meadows Lodge, Health Center, Restaurant and Pro Shop: - Primary construction material of the buildings (both new and remodeled)- wood structural members and walls. - Exterior siding - M cedar siding. - Exterior trim -- painted wood trim. - Exterior glazing -- Clear double-glazed doors and windows in steel or aluminum sash with accent color. Single glazing at unheated spaces. - Upper level balconies -- wood construction with steel supports. - Balcony railings -- painted steel. - Ground level terraces -- flagstone or similar paving material. (e) Rehearsal Hall and Tent Backstage Expansion: - The structure will be primarily subgrade, so the most predominant exterior material will be grass. More than 75% of the visible surfaces will be grass. Virtually 20' of the building will be subgrade, 20' above grade but earth sheltered and 5' to 10' exposed. - The roof and walls exposed above the mound of earth surrounding the building will be relatively smooth and covered rvith a white waterproof membrane or coating. - The walls adjacent to the plaza will be a system of glass and steel or aluminum. - The wall adjacent to the service court will be concrete painted white or Herbert Bayer grey. it will have solid core, hollow metal doors and a rolling metal door painted to match the wall. 51 2/. 4 - The plaza front of the Rehearsal Performance Hall will be connected to the plaza in front of the Tent and will be made of concrete or mineral pavers. The surface in front of the Tent and the Rehearsal Hall will have a pattern that relates to the building they serve and the adjacent plaza. - The service yard and driveway will be paved with bituminous paving. 4. Statement of Effect of Proposed Development Upon the Historic Structure and Character of the Neighborhood: Because of the size of the Meadows parcel and the considerable separation between most of the development proposed and the surrounding area, the effect on the character of the residential neighborhood is negligible. Individual projects are discussed below. (a) Trustee Town-homes: The design intent of the Trustee Townhomes project is to improve the functionality of the existing units and repair the deterioration which has occurred over the years. The new expansion respects the relationship established in the original design. While the new units maintain the scale, materials and style of the original units, topographic conditions and detailing assure that a distinction is discernable between the original and new units. (b) Tennis Town-homes: Some of the major design elements used at the Trustee houses are employed for the new units to be built near the tennis courts, including the flat and pitched roof elements, the stepped facades and sun control trellises. The palette of materials is also similar. These units are at the perimeter of the existing complex and therefore have somewhat less of a relationship to the other structures in the campus than other new buildings proposed at the Meadows. (c) Single-family Homesites: The single-family lots are located at the new Seventh Street entry and therefore function more as an extension of the west end residential neighborhood than as a part of the Meadows. In prior discussions about the design character that would be appropriate for these homes, the conclusion has been that they should relate more to the west end residential neighborhood; they should not be designed using the vocabulary of the international style since they are so removed from the rest of the campus. 52 (d) Meadows Lodge, Health Center, Restaurant and Pro Shop: The late 1950's style of Herbert Bayer's architecture will be respected in the design and construction of all the buildings in this project. It is the intent of the architect to use the principles of the existing designs as guides in the development of the new buildings. The buildings will be sited to respect the Bayer gardens and to preserve the major natural features of the site. The building details will follow in the tradition of the "International Style". The use of materials and colors will be carefully coordinated with the surrounding buildings while remaining faithful to the spirit of the original Aspen Institute cornplex. (e) Rehearsal Performance Hall and Tent Backstage Expansion: The design of the new facility echoes some important design elements of the present campus -- the folded planes of the Music Tent, and the sculptured land forms in Anderson Park. The "inverted saucer" of the land form is intended to be similar in scale and opposite of the form created by the floor of the tent, which is "scooped out" from the natural ground plane. E. Conceptual Development Plan Review Standards (Â§7-601(D)(1)): The proposal complies with HPC's review standards, as follows: 1. Compa tibili ty: "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." (a) The Residential Projects: The design intent of the projects is to provide consistency and compatibility with the existing structures on the property which are listed on the historic inventory, but which are not Landmark structures or within an Historic District. Any variations which are required from the underlying zone districts to be applied to the sites will be accomplished through an SPA variation as suggested by the Planning office. (b) The Aspen Institute Parcel: The new buildings and remodeled existing lodge buildings will be designed to be totally compatible with the surrounding buildings and landscape fea tures. For example, the lodge buildings will continue to be two stories tall, flat roofed, 53 /4 unobtrusive, and designed in a manner which utilizes the best ideas upon which the design of the original buildings were based. (c) The Music Associates Parcel: The design for the new rehearsal performance facility is intended to be compatible with its historic counterpart and neighbor, the music tent. Because the two facilities are functionally interdependent, the rehearsal performance hall is intended to be compatible in terms of its patterns of use as well as in physical appearance. Physically, the white planes of its roof radiate from the center of the tent, becoming an extension of the white folds of the tent fabric. The facility is located close enough to the tent so that the association with it is clear, but far enough apart to read as distinct and separate. Its public areas are shared, and some of its grassy sides will be used for outdoor tent seating. Functionally, the rehearsal performance hall will share an outdoor plaza with the tent; the plaza will be used during intermissions, before and after concerts, as well as for informal outdoor listening. Access for musicians and instruments will be on the north side, as it is for the tent, via the. Institute parking lot to allow for the efficient transfer of instruments. 2. Neighborhood Character: "The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development." (a) The Residential Projects: The Meadows has always been a separate area within the neighborhood, touching its borders in various places. The creation of new buildings with a character different than that of the single family residential area will not negatively affect the neighborhood. The buildings within the campus are not only a reflection of an important period of time in Aspen's history that is distinct from the growth of much of the community, but they also accommodate uses which are unique to the neighborhood. The campus buildings should be unified in material, scale, and massing but should not be made to look like the adjacent neighborhood. (b) The Aspen Institute Parcel: The immediate neighborhood buildings surrounding the Meadows Lodge consist of the Health Center, the Restaurant, the existing and new Trustees Houses, and the proposed Tennis Townhomes. The character of these historic and new buildings and the scale of the neighborhood will be preserved with the introduction of the lodge units. The primary feature which unifies these buildings are the original gardens designed by Herbert Bayer. The lodge units will relate to these gardens by looking onto them and through careful siting, 54 will respect their limits. As many existing trees as possible will be preserved in their present location. (c) The Music Associates Parcel: By being distinct from the tent in location and form the new facility should preserve the cultural value and integrity of the Music Tent. The new building relates to the tent with geometry and color, but important differences such as the permanent surface of the hall as opposed to the fabric of the tent should provide adequate distinction to preserve the integrity of the tent. 3. Cultural Value: "The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development of adjacent parcels." (a) The Residential Projects: The proposed residential projects are intended to complement the existing International Style structures designed by Herbert Bayer. The significance of these buildings rests perhaps as much on the fact that they refiect that period of Aspen's rebirth as a cultural center as on their architectural significance. (b) The Aspen Institute Parcel: The lodge buildings will serve the participants of the Institute. Because they will provide comfortable, safe, and convenient accommodations for the participants, their contribution to the cultural value of the community of Aspen is note-worthy. (c) The Music Associates Parcel: The rehearsal performance facility will become an integral part of the cultural life of the campus. It will not detract from the cultural value of the adjacent tent and other campus buildings. 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." (a) The Residential Projects: The design intent is to accomplish a consistent building character through massing, materials and scale with the original structures without imitating or replicating the existing buildings. The existing buildings should remain recognizable as the important buildings on the site from the period in which they were built. 55 3, (b) The Aspen Institute Parcel: The significant buildings in the neighborhood such as the Restaurant and the Health Center will change very little on the exterior. The lodges, on the other hand, will be completely modernized; the exterior design will be faithful in detail and composition to the original historic style and period during which the Aspen Institute was begun, but the interiors will be designed to function for the present programs of the organization. (c) The Music Associates Parcel: As part of the Institutional meadows complex, the rehearsal performance facility is intended to relate to the other structures of the campus, with materials, geometry, color and landscaping. Also as the structure closest to the residences along Third Street it presents a f6rm almost entirely obscured by terrain and landscaping to those houses. The height of this new structure will compare favorably to the height limit of these houses. 56 Great care just be taken by both the applicant and the HPC to determine specific materials, texture, finish and color. New and replacement materials must key off of original materials. End walls must be carefully considered - should these be rubble? In addition, all landscape and hard surface materials (walkways, drives, plazas, etc.) should be visually soft and carefully chosen for compatibility with this parcel. We are recommending a complete, detailed landscape study be submitted for Final review, which will be reviewed with another land use planner skilled in landscaping treatments. Finish and color of major materials is important. A palette of materials, textures and colors shall be prepared by the participating architects, and submitted for HPC approval at Final. As discussed at the first public hearing for residential review, this palette would also apply as a covenant to the Single Family home sites as well. An exact materials representation shall be made at Final, as required under Section 7-601(F)(4). 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: Defining "neighborhood" as the large Meadows parcel itself, the proposal appears to reflect the established character. However, the immediate residential neighborhood to the west of the tent and the rehearsal facility is considerably different in character. The proposed rehearsal hall may define and separate the tent area from the residential neighborhood. Staff defers to the HPC on this issue. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of (designated historic structure*) located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. (*historic resource) Response: Perhaps the single most provocative quality of the Meadows parcel is its cultural landscape. Issues and concerns associated with the preservation of the Meadows cultural character will be presented at the meeting. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a (designated historic structure*) or part thereof. (*historic resource) Response: The proposed remodel and enlargement of the lodge units appears to not detract from their architectural integrity, 6 The restaurant remodel and expansion has not been fully addressed 5 by the applicant, therefore, we are recommending this portion be tabled until such time as the application is revised. Expansion requires GMQS approval and perhaps a revised master plan, as the original master plan proposal reported that no changes were occurring to the restaurant. Equally, the Health Club's building envelope is larger than approved in the Master Plan. The applicant should be prepared to discuss this issue at the meeting. The building footprint as proposed appears to meet the development review standards. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following alternatives: 1) Approve the Conceptual Development application as proposed. 2) Approve the Conceptual Development application with conditions to be met at Final Development. 3) Table action to a date certain, to allow the applicant time to restudy specific areas. 4) Deny Conceptual Development approval, finding that the Standards have not been met. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant conceptual development approval for Kresge buildings and the parking structure. We recommend that all other aspects of the proposal be tabled to a date certain to allow the applicant additional time for restudy as the HPC recommends. Additional recommendations: memo.hpc.meadows.ac.mus.cd 6 .*r 0#11 1 â€¢ *9065 -~ -1 ~k -75%6~~23 x . J>. -- 0â‚¬-W A.j Â¥ :>A.-- / 7 - 4% 1 ~ rt. ---Lull-&41*di,iv~>~~~~il- 84Â·. ..&14< 1 1-.-Â·:4 : . 341. 1-3- r I. .... *L ' - 0 117 , t. 1 / 4 1- ' ' 1 1 11 - . 1 W C......4 . .. â€¢4--44,7-84Â¢At.-2737 ',riÂ·- 'r:Sch. ' - -64â‚¬V â‚¬3' 3_J. --=221.~21-Â·-EifSE 'UL21Â»22~6.93 i.1-/\ tâ‚¬ CD-E=- 2-f-ImE==~ \* 11/U KHN AM R k ,< IN1 14 1Â« )>A INC 2 i '0 11,1 1 -11-1-4--1-lip-TÂ«44 1- 1 1 ;1 0)3 ' ~ - u..21,~.Â£ 1 ..1 111 I / 11.I . Uk.A.4-1 1_14*] c'-241 'e . / 11_ . 1.- --4 ~ 4 i ,i il i 6 1 7 6-1 F+F c i- 1 ju,F 0 ...111 I' ' lili A (4. 4 1 L .. 11 1 -Â·-441_ , -1--1--T-T~ 1 ' 11 1 11 16 - 11 - 11- -3 1 7 .1 '1 111 I .11(IN A i (' 4 1 (rk t )'J I ) f -\ ir , i 3 A r il , fi f.,8 1 12 S FTFZIi-Izzz-f- N, nr--k-Â·-415 fE I S -I)(n,5 ' Ul--f- 11 d I c~~it,~~x. n.2-Ubki 1.11:JI;Eld AMI PARKIN{; .332,04>u . w. ~'-DÂ·'' ~,1~;â€¢V'~'~ <UX<17;*Arh; /:-mrÂ» r> i -<rffil â‚¬,A H A{,4 . SI'll{,N, ~ I 1 lA 1 .... .1,1 '11./110/ , .....;... 1.., 18 Hlnill NI N3dSV OaVÂ¥0103 +3dSV It.\( kIN AK<1(.( r\,1 & 1Â« )S>i INC. 4 1 1 / \4 / 04 1 1 1 11 1 \14-10(1 1 1 - 1\\/ f 1 1 / 3 !11) / 1 1 1 / 14 i I Al,H. k f / 1 1 : r.22 3/ 1 11 / 1 I. } I IX-$ M...g / f- - - 1 1 1..... - \ / 12, , \ .-. 1%>C- . 11 h 1 I iii f i h*Â· < 1 l . i i 4/ ; 1,1,/f 4- .4 . .. i . .5 â€¢ Pli'q i,/14.-fi...k i ... -4.r *te.* 4.6. 4 k '.4..K~ 6.11 '~ 1 ...4.'4'r'-9-16 Z Ir L.}f' 3 41,094 1.f~'4 4~~9. , 4, i ..1 1.- 1 4 -JiÂ· 7 Â·6.Â· ' C... .. , 1 1 -1 ''' Â·Â· Le . .1 j l . r 1- 1 i .0 v.\ 1 -I- 1 / At z : 2 - r. 0 . 2/ I 1 1/ p r Lid , >1 1 .2 . 1 L 1 i li) 0 . A;-1 Jt-19 .W.. 49 1077 412,Â·Â·. ' <11 . .. i ,<(< i j j 4: - -r-Â© u- 9+11-5 -fi> / F v '' I \ 1 / 3 L.(..iYE-}le<3.1,;ws-' / / t 1 1 i / \ 1 1 1 1 1111 ./.11'.3 . 1 rAM kir*, A .AM / it ' liN NIS C (,1 lia ,-n Mil.1 1 ./i. N #11= 11 17 Al[1 {)t:VH01()) 97 It:M Al N ARK li .4 IN i & W )Â» INC. LU D 2-91 1 I 11-1-1--1 9 l"1)3 1-0-fl--E- 1-J--]TF[ 2 Cli . ... , 1. 11, --- 0 0 . . . 1 1 .. - -. 1â€¢Al<klfâ€¢64..â€¢.RX,L 1 1 9 1 1 1-1 11-1 11_1_-Ll 1_1- N 6 ----- It: L-J .t .'. 1 I. Ii.L cli-!P - --- ---- 0 r Mi All *5 FAI'll/, (.AH. iii Iâ€¢ IN,1 <1,0,{13 IA-*/11/~1 .AN N 11 .-Â£/aÂ¥ ./1 16 ... I 00Â¥M0100 N 3 d S Â¥ I NadSV h U hi N \14 1< 1â‚¬.4 )N I i lic )4>b. 1 At -* -- 3-1,/li Ilt:. ' jÂ·t) S ./ L. I J.L. f j . I. 1 j -% 7 . - \,4 - --I --- I. Cul Â¢/1 1 I ry i.t f 2 a L-,-, r. -1~4 - -- j Â¢4 2.. f i . i 0 - I. C - 1 99004,%''OL,-Fr\,/14Â» 1 4-1 4 P:74 Lâ€¢ . d J. 1 9 j 3 'll-2 J 2 4. \ 16 1 I â‚¬ ,< 4. 4 - 11. 13 . l; 5 ' '44 1 , ExhillÂ«.1 kALI ht: ILOUM 8 . jo I \ 1 '., 3 =r b 1 1--,1 . D...' 2. t..4 I Â·j T j , 14Â£..1 '1, = . 1 . 1 1 &8 . N 1/ iÂ©.12Â¢ Nt I \1~111 lit / / 1 6 1 ~ ikr f OPÂ·KLUr-a.. 4 i. - - .- lit '1 111 t 1,11, + + 0 6Â«N. - ' (:. 1 4 , .' B . ''113 I ./ rl / f 1 1. 1 73 0 -4 . 1 1, D- I x47# ' ~LÂ·,b:. ' f Â·.:1:#77 1 -, '..' i r r, '1 1.FLII'Wb 2 & i; Â·'l , 3 t 1,_UL j,Â·i /,Au'li~in, 49.11...1.1*' L.,2 Z Â£*1511$ HEALTH CLUI u..4 04 1\ 6, 4 11 '* A. 3 Ak.1-1, J . .,r -- U Zilri-el - 11.-Â£14/ZXP'~ U. . '9. yl //1 1 2 * rk /4.961,2,4-34 ' r--,.â€žâ€ž~, - '.Mr.. , 1 1 k.,f f.1 61 J, \ .C ~Â· ~Â· 1-4 1:.,ahÂ£*AU -aR- ak--V m -I<--a I i:uw"~ A A 44 U cap;:72 4,-Â·2 ' 1f' '. I '4) 'L . _ -Jj,%.CAt ~ A W..... A , u... ,. f IL 2]trel.A.),-i,1.*44>Ula)4'lih*P A :~4 24 \ * Z A.â€¢ 4Â£*- m=- .... ..0 - 4 - - -11 41 T..4:11 4,1 C. I 1. / , Fi ~ 611 1 1 14 li M N . rÂ»41 \ I -- 11 ..6 1 4 - W . j' f 41 4-1 1 4 M '3 t.j 1 1 13 11- ilt: 1 4 ~ t 11 147441, , 1 4. '. 1.31 A~42~~70/fle,144-9 44 7 ) 0 ' UP,f 4{, 2 4 . 2 ..1 N,a NIM \14411~* IN ' - . *9 -41 i 111 Al 11/ 1 1 ~ 1,1 MIT,4 j J # - 3 /1 //4\\ .1 r Â»1),. Â·c"0'3423 . , rt / / . i .1 1.. 1.,4-1 Â¢19 b rx , ..W.:144[a Â· / -/1-2,1.1 , u- â€ž1, 1+1.41 / \ , 11 \11 1 1 fiAl' U 1.,r'.4 h. . 1, 7 1 ' t.--Li~ ...34 h ---- 1 1 - .0, U j A \ / . MI 1 6/,#4 - - -- 111 A littn ~ , ,/ 1- ts-EJV-4 /1 AN d.luM NI) 1 1 VII 41, ' f , 3/~ \ P it 1 1 1 Â£ fi W 1/ 15 31 A 1 (3 (I V H {9 1 n ) v i d S V BACKIÂ·N ARRIC,(IN 1 & 1Â« ** 1Nt 0/ j 3 .-1..1.111 1.1..- ru ) f 67. -2 4 4 /1 r. K h 1 - 1 04.- 5 44} h" 0/4 Â¥01{-rÂ©749.,f--true#Td,2-- 1tt121 (-~ Car'nr==*- -- ~ r-A f'-=42('F 21.---grk C :4 1 4 /1 \\1 107 1 11 L :rf'46- , I / / .---Iii Ill I +J#-I- I.li.- 1 ji.-~ ......tek-Â· LA=y c 1 1. #226-C;illib,<IrF - . -4 - .'- - eF'~ -- - -1 / 11 flijtif~~f4 .2 4 " 2- 6- "ll.5 $ L--i Ukwf 10.liÂ·lf,i/.44#t - * 41~1(~1.0 '~ei , ------ E iÂ·. 3/ ..GU.,CULL==fru r ... .1.'.... D..11./ 1./.1/ LAID. A.. b t, tj I li t: 1 1 VAIION Z 2 6516; fill r 1 0.\ A , <*xi- *fal Z , 1 C '0 5 2 '21- % 10 - 2 Â£ 'b l (1 /13 'Â· C J 1 11 11. < f ,\ 4 2 1 4 â€¢t l J 1 1 -- A.1 h=-le.M/8.1 h. ~~>1 111111111~11111~1/i 1~11 1,1,~111 11.~) 1.1111111 1& EMESWri i 4* .!tx.,-afill; 'T:lt'ZE~c.2,aA' ]~~1~~~..,A gkjA :6-- --z-' 9994.., 2 ' ' ..11,1 4 * r. b 1:At,1 1/LV/t 1 . N itkyrIL "AN 1 A CXINFEMEN[-1 KIL-11 Â¥ 81.-1.- '.4.L. 14 1101ILS HdSV O G V 3 0 1 0 0 'fidSÂ¥ . Â£ I /1 - -.1 t--1-9'1 .V W ..,1. All 11 171 1.W 1,1Â·1 Â·INI A l V 1 â€¢J V)If r. IS I I 49 WIV 1 1/ uI.9,2 1/ - n T' Mal --1-- u , r ~f.- 1 ' '1101 / 1 1.Jal mill r--9.7,1-J[37 1 Iltil, r ,45 1_, Eli I '16.---- C.. ff-- ----- - -' Py-IiI-[1 ~ -- ..1 . 2 rl,r- T'~--~-- -r-- - 1Nt '49 )>I W INC/Â·)INHV N-iN n 11 HifliIiSN NadSV OGÂ¥k[0100 VidsÂ¥ BA{ kIN ARRIC,(*\11 & 1Â« Ni IN( 2 Cr -1 --4, r- Â· -0 --- - - -f- p-. . : 1.-/,i--7,u,-/,1-/, 1.- ~ D' , 11. lili It IL}1 11 11, 22 f J 1 U ; 1 411 i r 11 irll ir 11 .Ill,1, h c .1111 9 <-1.111 14 1 b zi[ Pli-iltulil 11 11 '.:'.: t ! 9-20;OL. ll-UffliÂ»111429 .r /2Â«t-jr -2 11-111'-111[1'.lili 1-3 5.11 1 f- PrY ' r ._i [irl_ -- 7--- La-, --~ rn- â€¢I".1 Ul ./. All'Ill' lu,1 .. r.4.4 1 [- ,".- 1 / Â·Â·â€ž..Â·, 1 /1 â€ž4*3 - . %----1-) 0 40' Skit, - AN& PL- .1.U) '~9.47.14 1 r.wl / w *11 1 24 m .2 1 J r ...: 4 U 1 " L. , â€ž'. // - ;r&Â£&Â·It,RG,te- 6/fl,1 4'2*511'1 Hky(Ul ~,~4* JHw~96 333J--- LJLFIEL---<=2/---TI)Â© t) /1, .\<#LÂ«fÂ·.1/FlyÂ·K.-%123'Pollu ) 14'll -11 al Ju LIUL - -- Â£- .--* 7 1 ----0 *, , , 3 Z -,AblitÂ£,a !Â£1!try, 0-1,11 r 21~~I~(~3T-j--lf:-O-: 2 #f~- L.L.krÂ« T u = tft,L94'9 :"'~ Ul . ~431%*, i, -tr g-491- \ 1 â€¢ I hy- 944(' nÂ«-ij -<<Aqi:226rsij;-/Â¢ 1,1- I.il....2/1 3~30959 t 4 2 i / . // i X\\ 1 \ ~41/11,-/ C / 81 /-- 1 1 <.1 Â£ 1 40 -53 11 /1,. '.. 1, 4.3/19/ M 1 A 1,4 -Â·. 1 \ a (1/Hill:NCE 14 1 5 1 At J H A N I i / IAaLITY 1 .1 1/1 -/41{.4\94\) I ,&00.... / 7 / 0 1 1 0.1/~,0.8,04\125/ ,-1. 1 ..0-1-1 / - , J d'i- "0 12 7 1 ILIS dSV OGY>1010 'fidSÂ¥ "AC K 1 N ARRIA.(INI & 1Â«)11 INC. ful -- tr) 12,11 k "rwrlrr- - -7-i 1 .,1" _timr,rllr~rili*thiRM â€¢â€¢ *â€¢H_ ON}!il !!LL}!Nti L ht,U liti 1:11%,1 IUM r- -1 71-1 1- 1-1 1 $ B/81: f l // r, lill'111 .1*11 11 /41471 1[ MUM' 1 -A+,411 11 - M __u u rm_ /1) ..pUII.PING.1-NU!181 i al VAIION PA v i iii [il ~_~_~LI EE EU ~1- â‚¬- A LU [13 U _ __ E 11 1- - ~* .A -1 1 4 08) __111'll=DIND 1- 1-An' 1-11:VATION (Dul ..1!Vil:Ul!99 1 W!-6! 11.L:VAIR)N MEAil-b liu [U]"40 7 11 *VATION' 11 HiniIiSNI NadSV O 0 Â¥ 21 0 1 DJ 'NadS V 11 W k F N ARRIC,(r, 1 & 14 )Â» IN(. ~ ' 36 it*'Irr in.1.q~ m ud -4.g, 111 ill !4Ng 1 - 500~111Â·1.1:VAI 1( IN t B ~ BIlli Dll* 0 5 ! All 1 1 1 Val'!gti_-- - E-1 1 f 6.35.\ ,t 11 2 . rl 1.-- C . 1 *10'1 1 'r1 4 4 -7 3 i ..m W b. l .rfu- .ill/9/li lti [[bARIC-- -__ -1- ~ s , 1$1111 DIN(; 5 - NORI 11 1Â·1 1:VAI ION 1 11011 1 >ING 5 - WI.51 1-1 1.VAI ION 4 3 -- ' 1 Z 2 1. Wa wwJ U.1 /i 1 1 1 lili @;NRER.~Ri Um u:m r WAL- A elj irtfl < /17 111 Il l DING 6 - SOU 111 ta.EVA'I ION 1,19-1 01 - @ 1 1_1- 1 -uf 4 ill,111)IN(,6 Nin{1111Â·It VAIR)N ti j - hi 11- 1. M ~ JI' DINCI 6 - I Ab l i t 1 VAI ION-~ ~ - 121 - 1 11 EL 0-1 rlÂ·, 114 1111% .. 3 a 6 [6 - Ell 8 - - 111 V..... /93 Blm DINO 6 WEST El.EVAIION U 10 .11I1SNI OGÂ¥3010) NldSÂ¥ Int Kt.N ARRIc;(INI & Id 'Sh, ING =--- , flk: - h t ..f __ (1)11Ult.l,Nt~(, iLAil t:Li.Yallt,Hi -- __ <t)111111.121Nil-bi}WIUELLYIDIN_.___- Eâ€¢ r-fll,//10 ". 'VE trm I ~ 4 fÂ¢ t]Â·~ %4~ 8 j n TE 1111 m Ill , ~~tilill.DING 3- Wl:51 lit.EVAI'ION ~mjll I )IN(i 3 SC)&3'TH k:1.LVATION : flo//lf) (-41 L L-/1-93 4 I /4,6//49411""a/'A'IÂ¢ /._ - -2-,3 f -- - 7.--- Al All ijl -~-1 1:.1 01 .1 0 0, Ao e. -5 3-1~ â€¢ 116-Irrl w A fl_ 2 _Til~ /7 -1 ('~Ul.Jit.DINO 4-ACH.Jill 1:1Â·LYAII{*I - .. (~11UILUINLi 4 LASI LLLYALION - r-- MIAIMAVI -- 10 - r- -4 I 9 + 1.11 27 4 1 /MPM [r~ 1 IRJILLMN[* 3&4 '4 + Ly 1. lt- 1 .1.1 1. -MI 1 Lt'M..M -/U/1 I--rW/1//-1 I HM QI ~Ull-UiNG 4- NOILI it 1.LLYAilt,N _ _ ______ ~1}UALDING 4 WL:iT 111.W,OUN_ __ _ 9 1IiSNI NadSV OCV'10100 VidSÂ¥ Il,\A hiÂ· N Al< R 1(,4 )NI 8 1Â« )* IN( 2,2 1/4 3 2 4 J~ ('4_j~Jall,(/,1~/, .h~ fl,l 1 (0 91 j 4- 2 \.11 3 Ll .11 1 ~1551*4 '4,Â£&"PS kft< 41 Air * *j- I Jta ~ i j~ f 1 *-1 01. 1/,rfe:tr ... . g iliti_ i u L.LI (f) Ill )11 111!*i -1. NOR ! 11 tL! val M# ' u) Ill !!! IM!*i ! wilhl' 1 I l.Â¥A I It-)11 - Â» 1 11 7 ~ ) Wit| DING I- 54)0111 1:11Â·VATH)N - (1)) 1314! PIND!- EAST !.1 LVATION----_ - / jo Ll / L 42* Z 1, f / ~~ ; 10-1- 6,f*ji l *wlf ff 1 jr'L i 111 1 1 , r . cr I tÂ»P 41' 1 fe:,4:.rd ,/1 it Wik.Â·4 /13 -_lki!:12!Mi-2 -Mt)111 11 iLl.YA !11)1 0-') --UL.!1LD'Nia---Ma:bl 1 1 LYAilija - _ Mi Al. Mb f to / 1, I *pr-Tr'â€¢e---7r"R qltill ....=1,1 6 6 111 ./1/IN' Ett 1 1 ---- 'Elizi. pt 0' 1}LULL)!Nt, 2 2.aL[ll I LLY?Ult)11 - - . -- ---- - .-- -- (* Ulal DING 41 11&51-1LLÂ¥Alluti - __ - 8 ALIISNI HdSV OUV M0101 VidSÂ¥ 11.Â·M KIN ARK U .4 )Nl & 1Â«)%>i INL I LU - 093Â»~2'3-*EfiguiI=252Â«f---5-y--7-~2-~9*~*f&&EAX A --12-20- 40Â»>150Â« --.<X--344~-NZE-Zrzzz-X-)- -- SEILL,9-52_ i-0-193---- /----/--~Ii__-__Â«rA 3- -\- 2214Â«1-K<1442 4 11 1 Off / r A--f I - 114Â¢ f 0 \ mili 641/2641 E i 1 1 - = -lat 1 \ I i\~1-WAR\''B )13--_-lu:liÂ·Â«r ~ ~14i~9 - |~ 1,0 144, Lu .1.0 7<<13'~llt=t,HU \ La 1 -' b 1 \ L . o ' -21. 1 41-9-71< f 1 \ -7 4 0 liti:;c *il ti .1 kv--ill i yi,_11 I ,1 Jr -rit--16 -)&71,1 1 ,13 01-111 1 1 111,.,141 --4\ < Z ul' 1.' j - rli \ --1... 14 lilli INN[, 6 1,21/W# fry~ 4 -,4 .i- ~~:~~ 4 j lf.1 \ \\ - -7 / {-14~-obb f f ,~ ,- Billil)ING7 li --- U - flf*Al\illa - 1 4 + f li / Whlb-Â»14~_~*~ 411 11 t - P r . VO- 1 ) ANUt:**WN PAIN . \ 4 - f'WiL M I A t M 0* b \ Bull DINO 7 3 ~ â‚¬ k. 3 x- < f ..1 -12127 - -W))/ /. j/j . ....1 ........ ......... 7 Lij . --1-if- -1 -: ALILSNI NadSV OGÂ¥%1010 6==r-U=J=9/ 14 9 . /1 .. .1\ , \\ r> 1 \\/ 1 r- --â€¢ 1 Af I : . 'NV 4 .001. ~ 4 t-~â€¢ *r~~ Alwn .. u â€ž~~, ~ , (/- 4 - i /- . 3 A / t' 93,1~171 -vâ€¢ h 1 1 ~ 4\ \/ 1 fav.1.1. 1 Â« \ 0 :11) \\Fr \ \ r )494_ _f-* - ./rf D / 3 //i 11 C. 5 11 6 It '99* r ; 11 / I. ff\,1 ij (/f \.IF \ fo~52 ' 1 \ C ....N- ir--11~ 1 1 f~-1 1 '11.F l F-{; r H-15-1 ~<~ 04 ' <~~~~v~~~u \4 1 \\4~1.' 445 9 9Nla-111Â¢1 ' < r O >1,4k.*.. , f ~op< + f ijv-F _lt*t~~'P+41 hp*12 i , f R i k ?C' N -r--1 FIXI 1.17.:ll~fl~1 u (1.1 Mu ru 1 /'*7:X,%074 41; 4 74,~:L \ i# ir'TTL<*Py-f120'ifix$..71<fri~'RY,c , rt> \ \ ' [ 21 E- 21 7 ' t.~~ I I /#,tlLIK\ I t ~u r Ul 16 0 XIC 2.4 6 5 ul ILL, .1-l LI â‚¬1 i / \ \/7 \ a â‚¬ Â£ 2 7 Ib \ 4/ 3- 6 404 ;i.2-~~ 44 /Â«f.-by< FÂ» 89 .\4 /k it-Â®V y x 1 6 . - /4 -- - -- --- 3 / 1\\ .//\ 74//..frt / -oz-0 1---I-Far--Fiff-Â» 2-Â·Â·- -----2 26-2/0-4~~~TZ~Ji~"7~2 '4 - , . I. -240. 1 V / '- / ------- -- - ~4\11/ , 9/1,1 11 1/ --- --_-_---__-_r_carl-ap 2~fi~ x~X th Th \-1 <393%>N \ Â»t>T ,/4 \\\ ./ IÂ«44\ - -INI 'Cal m 19 4.4.423Â·>X INCK}IMHV \\ \ \ 1 + ..\ 2.\6 I N 1 9 811 ..Â«. 1 . N 02. 3[lf-liIISNI NldSV OGÂ¥110100 'N 3 d S #U 11.M ktÂ· N ARRIc .4 )NI & It{ )Sh INC. 9 - - 1 44 .--* -- . 41 1.No 3 \Xj %\ \\. /)21 \\\\ 1 \4./,-k U; \31 \11 6Â»Â» 4% 1694 / ..\ 4 (ft-_ - -- --- X,1 14< r- k *-- lirtbi/1 1,4 9 ' i.LI --) -/ ---f --- ft Of,ft \\ A A \ 01 ' / 6.71\.~' j'0~// +4 \ 44 h -Jr 1,\ l \9 01 'h iN--Â·/3.,t 41 43; / /0 % h 4 F .11\\\71<f / /1. b./\ /:ifirii:rr.42,9/ibsitrili r . 1 Â£ 4. \\ Li %1: d .-,r~,8.1'8 / .4' / '41= , 9 4.49 <*il, 4 43__ tiv /4/ 4%4 34.ND'1.0 35< 24. 4 4144 1 A M \.0 \ < 11 i p FJA 4 L< ,~.-4 . 4 .14. I 71 # f .h \ d $ ./14 .- ~'/DIFi d i- /~ V ~4Â« , i Shibe,45*04 .1 7 1// / r \%91 2,4 \.4.ft# 9/91,64'v,4- 47 <032\./ ifi.43\414,~~~t<Â·~~>\ Z X. <\4 v,/th */ 004 Z / hAI /Â»Al#baitz/1 X\ 1 Â· obrk:4 0 I ..1 4 1 \2\ . ~ .11)~WiA/3 7 \\\.P\\~<4\\ 0~~ u~ % , 4> A ---- -- 1 1- Mult DIN6 4 * \ - --1.-2 ZÂ·+62 7/ a <15 gs*Â»2-3,Â©flt / /><\ 10-27-- ---- . 0\ , f.>' 4. \\ >. \ . 365 /41 - 1 \= 4 -0 â€¢ 1-4 ' 4 ,~d I l 1 F f Â«Â£ 4),9 '.Â·Gpi//Firf > 'k/06/1-/7 \ .,, 1~r,1-:ki-.Y L 00. 1Â£ 1 .r ) <1410144>1 <-9' -~2'--544\ ~9Â·~' ,<a/,0/ MI .1.41 7/ IUILDING 4 4 />' /Â« 272-23 -4 1/ , * 1 \ 44 1.â€ž.,ini 'w' "44-' a/' c ,â€ž '9 .... .1 AN. =1= 4,~ta:432?gm, Ul h â€¢ I 1,â€¢,6, 0-MjND .eVIA ./- GARU NS 1 61) c f// (tb HUIL 141*, 1 .......... ..1 incip -1 \\to 1 1 i ALI 00Â¥HO1OO NadSÂ¥ . ILM.KH N L_ -'-I....... A K R 1(,4 iN 1 ULAL 1 11 CE:NTLK --- & 140% INC. J f - i - li 4.<444' iu j j 0,13\ '1*IN, 1 1\44 -/1'1>-\Â·A. V."LL V %4,3 i 9~ r vik, *f ' fity~ F . 90/ \\CA \ -4**\,0 \\;\\2 0 , . \ \ .,4- R 'AR- , 41 0 1 2.J , 5-J )4/ 0-3 //~ 0 P \\\\\9\ 4 r A \ \ ~Â·Â·~-fi, -2.- u \ \,q\ c~:4+ /. CJ ./ 4\4\> 1 1 E 44% /1 1 X K -MI. 243--840\ 44\ z 7.j C - ---2</- 1:;0-4\ 3 * 7.-A \ 04 . 1 1<6*2 rd*, :Li rooL ~Af~Unzzl - - 0 , 1 ---) C.C \31â‚¬0_j~* 24(J,~~jit~i .*---3 c>â‚¬" Trl NÂ©* \2Â© \\ \ //FLO I'~ <flt,Kimrm\,lI, 4.J.-1. i \ ~1 joic- ,)63~* -/4 i / / 7~141\Qu_:Â£_ #1 .-L ------y--Â·â€ž---L---Cr ~ , E~~-GFiÂ°44% 93 -/. ---4 - / i.\ \4,2.ru_U~ .--1:-01_.12- / --4 )\\ /- -37-51 0Â«c_1-02-4444 WEAD<Â»a mjlul:NO 3 - i r 4 \ / 1 VA \KH7/ i-\- -- 7/*Al....----__ 'LOâ‚¬)8 FLANI 1 !4 ; 14:/ .J/'*42/.22(Ir/.irrrIEF-ti./EEEfr...IrricsÂ£92**Ersgo~ri -4 -2 . ic r..).12.21.. ~ic---4,1~.r-%*ff#j..1/);ipx Â» N lin,-aa, 1-1 4\ 1 Â»44\ 33-n + 7 -114. inLILSNI dSV GVM0100 'NidSV Â£ 1 r.1 . \ I. C .1.1- -11 ..4.1. .-1'....1.Ill .... \ 1 Nvii wor,I r DNNTÂ·1!rÂ·m C 2.3 99 1 -t rÂ»Â·IN ~ 11 ng \\ 1 , 1 [- J <> C.-. '1.-2211 1 1 I N / , 0 1- --W --- , 14>, 11 Â·'31 U " 150 1 Â·jo L.-3 1 91 - 6 19 RE ~4 " f' ill' " _19 3' Fili' 1-1111 1'Â·Di 2 '-14-110014LP ttinjÂ« 4 c ill r--71-1 rvo -3-~ Ir--,r~ 1 "-~t ru--nl -r---771 rv--all il o h --- - 16 :65277 * 1 .... -, 1 1-*3../ ~-kay 1-ID I.i -r nin 7 1-/. 4 Ofy 11â€žrf y I biD 1-1 Fy ft .~ 141 4 tnt\\ i--3-_ivt-:4 3#144-- i-Â§4*;:*3 14-9 -6 . -. iv-- -12, ' 45# tfÂ»41(1 1/1 1,1 1 11/.. It J d' O0 f ' al J. -%4-r-=fâ‚¬-- 9 ,- -2.-1 - \\ 1// 1 1.1 -V 31 12â‚¬) 21-11 09191 - -- ) -,04,4 F.J 4 1--3.-i / 7 / -I it 1/ f --4 .'/ f r li 1 - 1 --------/ \/ //0 6 1 *\ *-- 1, 9 0 - --- 0 1 \1 1 1 1 -0./ - 2 .\ <===n-=--7 r /, * 1 0 -- - 0 .. \ C ---- i \ C \ \ --- N )Nt Â»al}1 1 -\ \\ INC )' )IM}IV N i M )Â¥11 Oavi0100 'Nid S V HiniILSN Hd V 11,\( Ki N 1 \ ARK 14,4 )N1 -i- & Id)Sh, 1N( 1.------ 4 - --,- ,) j j - / .. \ \ 1 - \ /-,+Ll / li 1 1 / C / 1 r,Â°g ul f i '111 Â£ 0// &/ S \4 'U f..# \\ 96 rfÂ»r N I r c 1 .A - IUILDING 2 120 L h 110 *INIT 'I / 0 \ .-2 Â£4 - M . -% ////2 / 1 k-1 1 / 1/ / // , . x uv'% +341 1 __-_134-113El - i f \ 4, X..1~JLV/LtÂ·u ~ - --- -\\ 00 1 40----~ 1->-3/' \\ e k\\: 7 , #./.--- /*- -= ., Â»rvi- 1 21-JI--,6.0. Â·ff-:bi ~I# 0Â£43 7 .(r \4 . y- / / - "" z Â° an \ \ Vt-Jk.1>--- /1 ~ / ./ .. Â· 1 . /1 L--9 1 ~V'Vf . . A \-Ar\-- 52 : , , 1 /tulÂ«- N / / 1 N z /. -1 Flm'/ I Pjv< w /7 ~FOUMÂ¢*All?f. 1 f Â«3/ 0 0/ 47Â·> ~, i> re \'tj-*''814\ i .u \ Al i '- IUILIJING V~ 04 <30Â·47\ c..01 3, 0 4 LAJ .3,-1 A , / C / - \7 'Lit . 11 -.44 -4â€ž, - / 1 1 1 1 4 j *L ri j ; 11 \ 5 :i- )) C L .AL.MAn i '0703 // 1 1 // 1 1 1 -,1. 1/ â€¢ EL h â€¢ . i-L, ..Mil' 4./.1 ./. nooâ€¢ n.â€¢1 1 \ i. Fjoâ€ž 0 2 2 7.1, ... vi j dj I ./.#.IÂ¥ 1., 2 HIALIi Â¥ M O 1 0 '434SV [t.At M N A K K 1(,4 )N 1 & 1<0*!Ne LIU 7 ri ....,â€ž4 ."I .- 4 .- 85/ 0 6 , ~4 zL' 0 . 57>\Al 1 420 #Al 7 :ovyrop M F . 44 *-- 4 1 11\.\T k If-2.*r -- IFIp" Â·.1 *4, i , Â«,P':04 //2/79 9.4 \Â·'Â· 44 d, Fli/4 rn- p -914;. 31 Â·.Â» 1 1,>i w.'4 >729>Â· . -Â· E- y * 931\Â·17 j,~54 ~'.:.1 1%fl- - -k- - -b - - 2--r#:Fc<-\13 K-j Â·Â·3412(4#Lfirdiff))000-1*-ll -12 - ASPIÂ·N 11451 i i U'TE FOR 1 IUMA N 15 1 IC SI l) 1 )11.6 MiÂ·.ADOWS LOUGES KLS'IAURANI ULALIH CLOU 12\'' 1, .\\ LK/ :Â·.'! % fli> 1 -n ' 0 , 1 A 4Â»Â©9Â·111 Er I i 1 ' f h li/.40.j,1,4 FL M.F. 11.1 VII. A Â· Â· Â¥ -1/.- 1 Ul 11 '1 1 .11. DI..... Ill .... 1.... i.t (UNIL.I. , 31/4/... 21Â·r WAAA Li, d -- 1 1 ./.1/1/4/ I lit./. Fl ./ ~17:4 ~7% 17#8?, Â»/1:'10'- --'UAre--2,1-1-2 1 Z 1 IUILDINE, 2 "tiON F, AN 4 .UILD,NO,..t,OR IA,4 -31/1 1/439 . ic ' '95<4 1-1~MiA-?tilft#-Al -7tf7~~--*~-- 1 X - ./.DIN. 4 ...11 Fill ~./1 bÂ·-64-4.21 L''Iiut,lu ' â€¢ ./.DING , i .,... rill' + 1 1 L. 1 ./1//INâ‚¬i ' .Lk.,I /1// 1/ i '-- ~ 4. L 4Â«it : 1 - 't I ..1....1.J ..111'10' "...IUMS Â¥ ......O 5.4 LA ILRION ........1/ 9 f -,6 i./." 3VVEErs./4,/f, k I ./1:DINO I.* 1 All./. . 1.'/1./b ~â€žv.~j~ 0 P A . 11 ./../. 1 '.,i,r'.," v~,~il. IA,'i~~t, , ~1- 11 ..~1.~'...1.,4,â€ž.....,1 'Al,111Â¥ 4.k'W L,VE, rl IN ./ - - %-i-- - 61.\2 'G i , .M ' 11 ./.1./.4/1/(,ill,1,1/4/1/il,11~ i..4/1//Il FIAN ' 14 ...1.LIAN[ I (11...t"L I.C. I. 1. '11'10' 1,1.VI,lil. 1 I) 111 ~I ..IttibNI) ~,vi, r, AN + -r 1â€¢ I........6/ .IlKIN6 ,/lil rill 17 ....... (â€¢Alt//t liNNIS<(,Lill,1191 1 FLAN f A<1 i -1 1-, 1<Â·, - 11 . h./ING .....1 .A t.... il 1 .Al ./.1 AN' 'll 1 ./.1 itjk i\1 ~ ' ~ FU} -- /1 'brk' Illk VIL* D 14 1 1 0 MEALAMI) 41 ~11 E YLAN ID/'-Il' 1"' + b 4 7. 4% . ' i 1 1 Hin NHdSV OGYMOTOO 'NadSV - 2 Â· 62 '= 47 ," 4 - t.1.-V. ter , r 7-4 '511â€¢ \\ Ar 497 p----I .,' i" 51/ I f'1414 U AAXPA 1,/W~ '.4\ ---- I <filf&\- SE 4 3, t 1 4 + P 4 rf Lty,-,32\.,AN .f'*ha" + ./.# I ... . N-- ' li 4 Â»IES u* 1)~ \140~41>Ug.1,4-+~ 662,5 : i VAJ< 7'.%04 -11%42-Â»fkh-6 Â»r Â·ru 1 Â·. zyw k. F ,â€ž/ 4 1, , 1 . f M. , bz. J . - .1.6=3~ 1 79 ' I ..Â» 4/ Â· -- 0 ~ . ft i â‚¬ ; /; - 1,Ell 1/ A ~t~ T kf# 'b =.../1 1 r ..1 y. 1129 4 - ....ti -X- -*h . 4 +J , 4 ky t" .. -Y.....6. .---... -,. -ZEU_--x=- tt'- An'. I - 2, I * Â£4214 4.#00%1212143~4;Â»{4'704-*â‚¬ i >146*U f -rn?:!' n. , - .-< .3 3 '~"".' -Tâ€¢"r.- h .7-% . I - - , ....r Architectural Drawings For the Aspen Institute Facilities B. The Aspen Institute Parcel 1. The Meadows Lodge and Accessory Facilities It is the Applicant's intention to take into account the historical design character exhibited by the existing lodge buildings. The two-level single-loaded concept developed for the existing buildings by Herbert Bayer and Fritz Benedict will be retained. The Chalet suites (Buildings 1, 2, 3 and 4) include a sitting area separate from the sleeping area as well as a dining/study space. These units will include a small refrigerator and bar sinks but no cooktop. Chalets A and B, which are to be remodeled, include a two-bedroom/one-bath unit type on each level, a total of four such lodge units. The Kresge units in Building 5, which are to be remodeled, have a slightly different configuration which includes a small kitchen. The new Kresge Building to the east (Building 6) is proposed with a floor plan almost identical to the original Kresge Building. All of the lodge units are designed to accommodate attendees at the two-week executive seminars; these attendees live and study in their rooms. The existing health center will be renovated; a modest expansion of approximately 1,800 square feet is anticipated at some time in the future. A new outdoor pool is to be built to the north of the health center. The health facility will be reserved primarily for the use of guests and residents of the Aspen Meadows. The existing tennis courts will be shifted to the east to accommodate the Meadows Road realignment. Four of the courts will be rebuilt above a single level of parking which is proposed to be partially buried. C. The Music Associates Parcel 1. The Rehearsal Performance Facility and The Tent Backstage Expansion The exterior design of the rehearsal hall is little more than a roof made up of folded planes reflecting the radiating pattern of the roof of the main tent. The height of the rehearsal building will extend approximately 30 feet above natural grade, but approximately half of this height will be hidden by the berm. Elevations are included on following pages to illustrate the conceptual massing of the facility in comparison to the existing MAA performance tent. 11 1\ shingles indicated in this location, probably to tie into the adjacent Victorian neighborhood. Since the primary views were south and west, Mr.Bayer also created a sun control system of wood trellises. The exterior terraces are random flagstone and the retaining walls are made of native stone. The proposed remodeling of the existing units consists of an interior renovation of the bedrooms, baths, and kitchen and an addition on the west side of the living room of approximately ten feet. Below the existing terrace, a new bedroom/bath suite will be created. Three new units will be added to the complex - one at the south end and two at the north end. The plan of these units will be the same as the renovated units described above. The geometry of the level changes and angles of the units will also be the same. The new unit to the south will be set back into the hillside more so than the existing units, and the two units to the north will be several feet taller to maintain these relationships, because of the natural topography. The proposed exterior materials of the remodeled complex will be similar to the original. The vertical siding will be 1 x 6. The shingle end wall will be either standard or a mix of standard and fancy butt shingles. A new heavily insulated roof with asphalt shingles will be applied over the existing roof. Sun control devices similar to those existing will be incorporated into the final design. 2. Townhouses Near the Tennis Courts The design intent for the new units is to accomplish the program with a relatively quiet architectural solution that utilizes some of the concepts and materials utilized at the Trustee houses. These new three-story units have been depressed into the hillside to reduce their visual impact from the entry road. Along the east facade only about a floor and a half extends above natural grade. The units are stepped approximately 7 feet in the east/west direction and the top floor is setback from the facade of the middle floor to reduce the perceived mass of the building. 3. Single-Family Lots Near Seventh Street Entry The new entry road into the Meadows curves gently as it enters the property and the four new lots to the north of the road are cupped around the end of the racetrack area. The lot configurations have been varied so that the appearance of a wall of buildings at the end of the race track can be avoided. Side yard setbacks will also be varied to assure that the openings between the structures will be irregular. Purchasers of the lots will be required to maintain a 15 foot setback of natural vegetation toward the Meadows. 10 n. REQUEST FOR HPC CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW FOR SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (Â§7-601(ID(4)) The Applicant requests advisory Conceptual Development Plan approval for the reconstruction and expansion of the existing Chalets and Kresge units and the addition of 50 new lodge units on the Aspen Institute Parcel. In addition, HPC review is requested for a Rehearsal Performance Facility to the southeast of the Music Tent and a backstage expansion of the Tent. A total of 73,360 sq.ft. is proposed in the Meadows Lodge and 11,000 sq.ft. is proposed in the Rehearsal Performance Facility. The backstage expansion will be limited to 1,500 sq.ft., all as described in the Conceptual SPA Plan. A. The Residential Projects Several design changes have been made in both townhouse projects since Conceptual SPA review to minimize the impact of the automobile and to create a more gracious entrv for the units. The carports which were previouslv attached to the units of both projects have been relocated to the east of the units and landscaped entryways have been added in their former location. The new carports will be built into the hillside facing away from the entrv road to reduce the visual impacts. The carports will accommodate two cars per unit for both projects. One surface parking space will be retained outside the entry for guest parking, but owners will be encouraged to use these spaces only occasionally. At the new townhouse site, the removal of the attached carport allows the overall length of the building to be reduced from 70 to 60 feet. The parking area has been reduced in size and lowered by approximately three feet to minimize the visibility of the parking area from the entry road. 1. Trustee Townhomes The Trustee housing, originally designed by Herbert Bayer, is situated on a west-facing bench of land at the Aspen Institute overlooking Castle Creek. The complex is designed such that each of the eight units is located two feet lower than the adjacent unit to the south and each unit is rotated approximately 7.5 degrees to naturally accommodate the buildings on the site and to create privacy for each unit. Each unit is made up of two parts -- the carport entry, which is a one story element with a flat roof, and the enclosed living space, which is a two story unit, depressed into the hillside a half level. This element has a gently sloping pitched roof. The architecture is very simply delineated. The walls separating the units are covered with lx4 vertical wood painted white. The end walls, which fit in between the side walls, are 8" cedar shingles, natural color and left to weather. It should be noted here that the original Bayer drawings show "fancv butt" 9 these units read as one-./two-story detached residences from the Campus side of the site and two-/three-story units on the creek side. Three new units are proposed to be constructed adjacent to the existing units -- two at the north end and one at the south end. The square footage of each of the 11 units will be limited to 2,500 square feet of FAR floor area. Because the residences are located at the perimeter of the Campus, they rvill impact only minimally on the continued use of the Campus by the Institutions. The height of the Trustee townhomes is generally less than the 25 foot height limit of the IUMF zone district, measured according to the definition for height in Article 3 of the Code. In order to maintain the vertical and horizontal relationships established for the existing Trustee houses, however, the two northern-most units exceed the 25 foot height limit by several feet and will require an SPA variation for the additional height. b. Tennis Townhomes Seven new three-bedroom townhouse units are proposed for the site that presently serves as the parking lot for the tennis courts. These townhomes will also be limited to 2,500 square feet of FAR floor area. These units are located at the top of the bank overlooking Castle Creek so that the perceived height of the three-level units from the Campus appears to be only one and a half stories. The design of these units includes elements borrowed from the design of the Trustee houses. The units are stepped horizontally along the bank to break the plane of the two longer facades. Flat roofs are used in combination with pitched roof elements at the upper level of each unit which give the appearance that the building is made up of a series of detached units. c. Seventh Street Single-Family Parcel: Four single-family lots of 12,000 square feet each will be developed to the north of Seventh Street as it enters the property adjacent to the Physics Center parcel, as shown previously on the Conceptual Land Use Plan. Building square footage will be limited to 4,540 square feet of FAR per residence, exclusive of exempt garage space but including a 500 square foot accessory dwelling unit to be developed above-grade on each lot. These lots are to be located on the north side of the new road alignment. 8 The outdoor seating area will also be improved with a series of berms. Conceptual studies indicate that if the berms are built at the same angle as the floor inside the tent that sight lines for the orchestra stage can be achieved without any modification of the present tent design. It would therefore be possible to achieve visual access to performances from the lawn area by simply removing the side panels of the tent. A decision as to whether this is desirable, however, wili be made by MAA at a later date. A backstage expansion of approximately 1,500 square feet is proposed to the east of the existing backstage area. This expansion is necessary to bring restroom facilities for the public and for musicians up to current code requirements and to provide adequate dressing rooms for performers. The MAA proposes to build a new 11,000 square foot (FAR) rehearsal facility on the eastern side of the MAA parcel as designated on the Conceptual SPA Land Use Plan. The structure will not only be fully enclosed, but a significant portion of the building will be buried below natural grade. The excavated material will be used around the perimeter of the building to further reduce the amount of exposed wall surfaces. Architectural plans and elevations for the MAA facilities will be submitted under separate cover. 3. The Aspen Center for Physics Parcel: The Aspen Institute will convey to the Physics Center the 2.3 acre parcel which is presently part of the Physics Center's long-term lease as well as approximately one acre immediately to the north of the leased land. No new buildings or expansions are currently planned for the Physics Center site, although there have been discussions with other non-profit organizations regarding the possibility of locating a research facility on the site. The adopted Master Plan permits an amendment of the plan to incorporate an additional building on the Physics Center site provided that it is compatible in scale, materials and massing with other buildings on the parcel. 4. The Residential Parcels: Three parcels are proposed at the perimeter of the Campus for the residential units approved under the City Master Plan: a. The Trustee Houses: The eight existing three-bedroom Trustee townhomes located along the bluff to the west of the health center will be renovated and condominiumized for sale. These units are identical in floor plan and are laid out in a repeating fan shape along the crest of the hillside. Each unit has the same horizontal relationship to the next. The townhouse at the south end is the highest unit; each unit to the north is stepped down two feet in response to existing topography. Because of the alternating flat roof and pitched roof elements of the design, Maintenance standards, reciprocal easements, restrictive covenants, architectura] review rights and rights of first refusal will be developed within the Meadows Consortium to ensure that each Institution has the quiet enjoyment of its Own property during the time that its activities are held on the Aspen Meadows Campus and to ensure that MAA's rehearsal facility, as well as the Aspen Institute's lodge expansion, are constructed in a manner that is consistent with the existing campus ambience. 1. The Aspen Institute Parcel: Savanah will give to the Aspen Institute all of the land within the West Meadows parcel not included within the residential and conservation parcels, including all of the existing buildings within that portion of the property, to secure the future of the Institutions and to maintain a cultural campus at the Aspen Meadows. This gift of approximately 30 acres will include the restaurant/administration facility, the three Chalet lodging buildings, the Kresge Lodge, the tennis courts, the sculpture garden, and the remaining "race track" open space area along Meadows Road. Under the City's Master Plan, the existing lodge may be expanded to 110 rooms. The Aspen Institute proposes to reconstruct and expand the 44 lodge rooms in the Chalet buildings and reconfigure the 16 rooms in the Kresge Building. The 50 new lodge rooms approved under the Master Plan will be located as follows: 1. A new building with 20 rooms will be added to the southeast of the health center. 2. Six additional rooms will be added to Chalet C. 3. A new' building with 24 rooms will be constructed to the east of the Kresge Building. 2. The Music Associates of Aspen Parcel: The Aspen Institute intends to convey to the MAA a parcel as identified on the Land Use Plan as the Music Associates of Aspen Parcel. The site is presently shown as 9.5 acres in order to accommodate the alternate rehearsal hall sites. Now that the City has expressed a preference for the eastern site, the acreage of the MAA parcel will be changed. The Music Associates of Aspen plans to increase the seating within the performance tent by approximately 400 seats. This niay be accomplished by changing the layout of seating sections, using current building code requirements or by installing fixed seating. 6 CONCEPTU.AL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Page Two Existing For.Lues New Facilities Final Procram B edrms So. Ft. Bedrms So. Ft Bednns Sa. Ft. III. PHYSICS CENTER PARCEL (4.3 Acres) A, Meetir.Performance Facilities Hilbert Hall - 5.560 - - - 5360 Stranahan Hall - 4.220 - - - 4220 Bethe Hall - 3.666 - - - 3.666 Total for Parcel m: - 13.446 - - - 13,446 rv. CONSERVATION' PARCEL (25.0 Acres) A. Open Space - - - - - - V. TRUSTEE Houses PARCEL (2.6 Acres) A. Existing Residential Units (8 DU's @ 2.500 STD 24 14,000 - 6.500 24 20.000 B. Proposed Residencal Units (3 DU's @ 500 SID - - 9 7.500 9 7.500 Total for Parcel V 24 14,000 9 13300 33 27.500 VI. TENNIS TOWNHOMES PARCEL (1.2 Acres) A. Proposed Residential Units (7 DUY @ 2.500 SE) - - 21 17.500 21 17 VII. 7TH STREET SINGLE FAMILY PARCEL (1.1 Acres) A. Residential Lots (4 sites) 1. Single Farrtly Units a DU's @ 4,040 SR - - 16 16.160 16 16.160 2. Accessory Dwelling Units (4 AU's @ 500 SID - - 4 2.000 4 2.000 Total for Parcel VII: - - 20 18.160 20 18.160 TOTAL FOR PROJECT: 86.1 Acres 84 138.856 100 106.720 184 245376 All square footages are gross interior sq. ft.. except for the townhomes. single-family residences and rehearsal hal for which FAR squart footage limitations have been established under the City's adopted Master Plan. 5 2 1.0 t J 7 NCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Existin g Facilities New Facilities Final Preram Lodge Lodge Lodge Sc. Ft. Units So. Ft. U nits So. Ft. I. ASPEN INSTITUTE PARCEL (42.4 Acres) A. Camous Accommodations 1. Building 1 (Chalet A) 12 5.620 - 3310 12 8.930 2. Building 2 (Chalet B) 16 9,100 - 2.270 16 11370 3. Building 3 (New Chalet) - - 20 13.200 20 13,200 4. Building 4 (Chalet C) 16 9.100 6 5,420 22 14320 5. Building 5 (Kresge Building) 16 12.130 - - 16 12.130 6. Building 6 (New Kresge) - - 24 18.210 24 18.210 Subtotal: 60 35.950 50 42,410 110 78360 B. Meetinâ‚¬Performance Facilities 1. Paepcke Auditorium 13.000 - - - 13 2. Serrinar Brilding - 7.000 - -- - 3. Boettcher Building - 7,000 - - - 4. Kresge Building - 6.060 - - - 6.060 Subtotal: - 33,060 --- 33,060 C. Accessorv Facilities 1. Restaurant/Reception - 14.700 --- 14.700 - 5,700 - 1.800 - 7300 ~ ~ *ty - 500 - 250 - 750 Subtotal: 20.900 - 2,050 - 22.950 Total fe: Parcel I 60 89,910 50 44,460 110 134370 I I. MU PARCEL (9.5 Acres) A. Meetine/Performance Facilities 1. Tent 21.200 2,000 - 23200 2. Rehearsal Hall - - - 11.000 - 11.000 Subtotal: - 21.200 - 13.000 - 34.200 B. Accesson' Faciiities 1. Lemonade Stand - 200 - - - 200 2, Gift Shop - 100 - 100 - 200 Subtotal - 300 - 100 - 400 Total for Parcel E: - 21.500 - 13,100 34,600 4 The Aspen Meadows Landicape Architects Noru A.- 1.4... 1 +Ir. W....hoy In ,Â«r\ "I. *...th Of A ... -'tâ€¢" L)' ri .Â· A<I. C...' for Prn ... r. Hadic Aspen Holoinp & 4 -en Me.00.1 C-or\.1 1 J,k , - -- 1 .11, 1 OCI- !5 1.90 % THE ASPEN )Â£EADOWS CONCEPRAL SPA I-/ ILL.USTRATAE MAS~TE; PLAâ€¢ \ :4 4 1 \- I L. \ r . -f \ \\ EZE> 1'., ... . -2 1 \ , .... T.f'... 0-I ..... , I .. \ i -- - I .Â·Â·C. rÂ·- ; .f ... Â· 22 \ -'/*1' Clut Â·-- 1 1 '13 - A l )1 - 1111 L)â€¢Iti \ 11 '7 4 -'7 0 - A- )64 {Cl - '76.- ,\ 1/Vis. 4 - -- 1 1 ...00.11.0--- - Truitio Town â€¢â€¢__2 - rk_- 1 1 â„¢ 77 -g -g i ~.fâ‚¬%2925â€¢R'f/~~~6.~ - 9- \# 1 I. Townhowâ€¢~,~ii - b '182 .* r/94 <5. Ir *$ ..-1 I. .1. ...... ..1, i - 4 . 915424 Â¥ ... .Â¥m,- ' 2-,p ' 0 â€¢ A.*,8/' Iri --c=Â·51 - -1-.'6~ 'V'.'. -- Â¢7 J.%:' - 1 .1. .. 7 0.. T .... h - .... ' V 4 1 P 1 - .21Â»499-A~~ -:6 -' 4 I ..... n - 4. e 1 1 2 (ca-.11 1,3 4 ' -2 -2 6 t \\ -- 2 . I C. U ~ Â·Â· .. FO â‚¬ i, ; f - ./. Addlt'll 9 J - . -4 ... .....'..1 F.Â¢11.., 15 2 . 1 -Il .... 1-. Ut, ./- -C I / - .4 7 #302 ., - 0- 2 - Krip <.-- - - r#AL 3-2 /0 I-lt L.-Jâ€¢I, . ek> 4 *Ing,O Fam!,y Lota --~- .L--1 h, -Inx. ,%,--V - 1 .. t , <1 . .9 h,/ 9 - - f , 7 ~=2â€¢. U A. Existing Improvements on the Property The existing facilities within the two ownerships include the following: 1. The Academic Parcel (Aspen Institute Ownership): a. Paepcke Auditorium, Boettcher Building, seminar meeting rooms, classrooms, offices and related spaces in three structures owned by the Aspen Institute and used by the Institute, and occasionally by the IDCA, MAA and Physics Center. These buildings contain approximately 27,000 square feet. b. A 1650 seat temporary performance tent of approximately ~ 16,500 square feet with permanent backstage and rehearsal space of an additional 4,700 square feet, on a parcel leased to the MAA on a long-term basis and utilized during the summer by the MAA and IDCA. The IDCA also erects a small tent of approximately 1,000 square feet for outdoor discussions during the Design Conference. c. Three buildings belonging to the Aspen Center for Physics consisting of 13,446 square feet. The Physics Center received a separate SPA approval from the City in 1977 for these facilities, which are located on 2.3 acres leased from the Institute. 2. The West Meadows Parcel (Savanah Ownership): a. The three Chalets, the Kresge Building and the Trustee Townhouses, used as short-term accommodations, and totalling approximately 49,400 square feet of floor area, 20,700 square feet of restaurant and administrative space in the Restaurant/Reception Building and Kresge Building, as well as 5,700 square feet of health facilities and six tennis courts with a pro-shop. These facilities are located on land owned by Savanah and are available for use by the Institute under the terms of agreements established at the time of the sale of the property in 1980. B. Conceptual Development Program In conjunction with the planned sale of the Conservation land to the City of Aspen and the final approval of the residential townhomes and single- family lots, the present owners of the two parcels have announced their intention to turn over ownership of the remaining property to the non-profit organizations currently using the property. The boundaries of the three parcels to be owned by the Institute, MAA and Physics are described conceptually on the proposed Conceptual SPA Land-Use Plan (see following page). It is likely that these boundaries will be adjusted as the finai agreements are resolved between the parties. 2 I. INTRODUCTION This submission for HPC Conceptual Development Plan Review of Significant Development of the Aspen Institute and Music Associates projects at the Aspen Meadows is filed on behalf of the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies (Institute), the Music Associates of Aspen (MAA), the Aspen Center for Physics (Physics) and Savanah Limited Partnership (Savanah). The residential projects were filed for HPC review prior to the other projects in order to facilitate their review at a worksession scheduled for February 6 and the subsequent public hearing and received Conceptual approval on February 13, 1991. On November 22, 1988, these parties joined with the International Design Conference in Aspen to form the Aspen Meadows Consortium and to enter into a Statement of Intent (see Appendix B of the February, 1989 Conceptual SPA Plan) regarding a proposal for preservation and development of the Aspen Meadows property, presently owned in part by the Aspen Institute and by Savanah. The proposal outlined in the Statement of Intent was the product of the efforts of the Institute, MAA, Physics, IDCA, the Aspen Valley Improvement Association, the Aspen Community and Institute Committee, the Aspen Foundation, and other interested parties. In February, 1989, the Consortium submitted a Conceptual SPA Plan for the City's review. During the review process for the submission, however, the City expressed its desire to undertake a master planning effort of its own prior to considering a specific development plan for the property. That effort took place during late 1989 and 1990 and resulted in the adoption on October 16, 1990 by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Aspen Meadows Master Plan, an amendment to the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. The City's adopted document states that in order for the plan to be successful, it must accomplish the following things: 1) Provide a secure, long term, suitable lodging base for the Aspen Institute through transfer of land and all buildings associated with the lodge operation to the Aspen Institute. 2) Provide a land ownership opportunity and secure the future for the Music Associates of Aspen and the Aspen Center for Physics. 3) Preserve the important visual open space character of the campus. 4) Provide compensation to the principal landowners sufficient to return all land to non-profit or conservation use. 1 r>N-\ TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION 1 A. Existing Improvements on the Property 2 B. Conceptual Development Program 2 II. CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN -APPLICATION FOR SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (Â§7-601(F) 9 A. The Residential Projects 9 B. The Aspen Institute Projects 11 C. The Music Associates Projects 11 D. Submission Contents 50 E. Conceptual Development Plan Review Standards 53 III. EXHIBITS A. General Application Information (Â§6-202) 1. Land Use Application Form 2. Applicants' Letters of Authorization 3. Street Address and Legal Description 4. Disclosure of Ownership for Institute and Savanah Parcels 5. Vicinity Map 6. Property Owners Within 300 Feet iii Transportation Planners Bob Felsburg Felsburg Holt & Ullevig 5299 DTC Boulevard, Suite 400 Englewood, Colorado 80111 Phone: 303-721-1440 FAX: 303-945-2363 Soils & Geology Steven Pawlak Chen and Associates, Geotechnical Engineers 5080 Road 154 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Phone: 303-945-7458 FAX: 303-945-2363 Legal Representing Savanah Limited Partnership: Robert Hughes, Esq. Oates Hughes & Knezevich Attorneys at Law 533 East Hopkins Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 303-920-1700 FAX: 303-920-1121 Representing the Aspen Institute: Gideon Kaufman, Esq. Law Office of Gideon Kaufman, P.C. 315 East Hyman Avenue, Suite 305 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 303-925-8166 FAX: 303-925-1090 Title Information Vince Higgins Pitkin County Title, Inc. 601 East Hopkins Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 303-925-1766 FAX: 303-925-6527 ii CONSULTANT TEAM Architect for the MAA Facilities Harry Teague Harry Teague Architects 412 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 303-925-2556 FAX: 303-925-7981 Architect for the Lodge Howard Backen Backen, Arrigoni & Ross 1660 Bush San Francisco, California 94109 Phone: 415-441-8457 FAX: 415-441-8360 Architect for the Residential Projects Nicole and David Finholm David Finholm & Associates P. 0. Box 2839 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Phone: 303-925-5713 FAX: 303-920-4471 Site Planners/Landscape Architects Donald Ensign Suzanne Jackson Design Workshop, Inc. 710 East Durant Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 303-925-8354 FAX: 303-920-1387 Utilities & Surveying A. J. Zabbia Leonard Rice Consulting Engineers, Inc. 2401 Fifteenth Street, Suite 300 Denver, Colorado 80202 Phone: 303-455-9589 FAX: 303-455-0115 i THE ASPEN MEADOWS Request for HPC Conceptual Development Plan Review of Significant Development of the Aspen Institute and Music Associates Projects February 18, 1991 Submitted to: The City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 303-920-5000 FAX: 303-920-5197 OWNERS: LEASEHOLDERS: The Aspen Institute Music Associates of Aspen 100 North Third P. 0. Box AA Aspen, Colorado 81611 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Phone: 303-925-6396 Phone: 303-923-3234 FAX: 303-925-4188 FAX: 303-925-3802 and and Savanah Limited Partnership Aspen Center for Physics c/o Hadid Aspen Holdings, Inc. P. 0. Box 1208 600 East Cooper Avenue, #202 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 303-925-2585 Phone: 303-925-4272 FAX: 303-920-1167 FAX: 303-925-4387 INTERESTED USER: International Design Conference in Aspen 100 North Third Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 303-925-2257 FAX: 303-920-1167 PREPARED BY: Joseph Wells, AICP Joseph Wells, Land Planning 602 Midland Park Place Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 303-925-8080 FAX: 303-925-8275 k THE ASPEN MEADOWS Request for HPC Conceptual Development Plan Review of Significant Development of the Aspen Institute and Music Associates Projects February 18, 1991 Submitted to: The Citv of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 303-920-5000 FAX: 303-920-5197 OWNERS: LEASEHOLDERS: The Aspen Institute Music Associates of Aspen 100 North Third P. 0. Box AA Aspen, Colorado 81611 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Phone: 303-925-6396 Phone: . - -W &. .Ii- i 307-9'E-3-'Rl FAX: 303-925-4188 FAX: 303-925-3802 and and Savanah Limited Partnership Aspen Center for Physics c/o Hadid Aspen Holdings, Inc. P. 0. Box 1208 600 East Cooper Avenue, #202 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 303-925-2583 Phone: 303-925-4272 FAX: 303-920-1167 FAX: 303-925-4387 INTERESTED USER: International Design Conference in Aspen 100 North Third Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 303-925-2257 FAX: 303-920-1167 PREPARED BY: Joseph Wells, AICP Joseph Wells, Land Planning 602 Midland Park Place , Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 303-925-8080 FAX: 303-925-8275 1 9 CONSULTANT TEAM Architect for the MAA Facilities Harry Teague Harry Teague Architects 412 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 303-925-2556 FAX: 303-925-7981 Architect for the Lodge Howard Backen Backen, Arrigoni & Ross 1660 Bush San Francisco, California 94109 Phone: 415-441-8457 FAX: 415-441-8360 Architect for the Residential Proiects Nicole and David Finholm David Finholm & Associates P. 0. Box 2839 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Phone: 303-925-5713 FAX: 303-920-4471 Site Planners/Landscape Architects Donald Ensign Suzanne Jackson Design Workshop, Inc. 710 East Durant Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 303-925-8354 , FAX: 303-920-1387 Utilities & Surveying A. J. Zabbia Leonard Rice Consulting Engineers, Inc. 2401 Fifteenth Street, Suite 300 Denver, Colorado 80202 Phone: 303-455-9589 FAX: 303-455-0115 i \ 0.1. ./ 5-ME f C./A.Â·-, I S g 0 % e . 2- 17& 01~!' ~41 N Carl f.1 f 0 W 0 Â·il,1 Â· it1111111 0 Ul / 0 C 7 f 0* X f 61:' L - 0 0 M / 1 r 0 / 0 A 0 W t '. 1, 9/, 2 . i . e .Al . Â£ . i/Â«f IA: 11'. i f P f / ff /r - l f / '. 13 / e 0 ..0 1 ASPEN MEADOWS %~1 - . 0 -6 PROPOSED TRUSTEE HOUSING 1.. DAVID FINHOLM AND ASSOCIATES INC. I ARCHITECTURE AND LAND PLANNING A.I.A. A 1 k - 09 0* OEOLO - HlyON . - ...: . . .... 1/ .1 . ~ ... A ..,1. - Â·'*Pita#*14#&"IM# f</ : ~[1< 1 al*Â£<2171~3;.2& /43,riz Â·ifkkiâ€¢ 37;willitigilillii;11$11*illit.-' 4 .1. =i,:1*,1 .1 0 \ d 2- : -' 02;'i,Aff~0111'll)111111!11111111'ii' 14 .Sk- h t 2 r 411.-1. 1 ' 21 1 :â€¢-â€¢â€¢â€¢Liâ€¢Il'â€¢[h Â·'-Â·â€¢Â·'Â·w'-,-Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·-Â· : 12 4!~T0CA- :1[ 1.1 - 41 1 -itt ~r 2-,2*1 m '- h, '21.- , - 4-I-11Â· -IÂ·-4 Ii"Up.Â·Â· ' i,Y, 1-Â· - . 1111111,1111.9. 4 El. 11 b . fr- 19.Ll L 1.fT-7---1 .-2.,A.IAmITTTF7â€žrrrM] 0 11 iri , 7 1 E=_~ -2- , 1 : - 2,9 1 . 1 =.. ......94.1 - 1 - e 7111111111.11 ~_ - Z Co J DAT~ 1-15-9, - DRAWN BY REVISIONS EXISTING EAST ELEVATION 01 5 10 20 V IV DNINNVld ONV1 aNV 3bln1031IHOEIV I ONI S31VIOOSSV ONV KlOHNI:I DIAVO SAAOaÂ¥301 N3dSV 1 331Snal 0390dOWd OVERLAILOG SHEET OVERLAY HI lilli::::::i: . I. 3-, .4... 44.a I liA "!IN! .Â·---lur.'.14â€ž. .$07..~1.2,~it~ae.tatrial,21)*1.1 liN"' .."ii;ii@ Z:Elimililil~l~i~~*1411:1111 ~ 1, - 1/~FU:'79Â£: 1|lili = 111.11 IBiLIIN i .eeff:,9.0//I,Brm~Bilm*r =lEmmE lili'111~1~ I~Â¥'Â» .- inie),VI Id..PV<7.30%- 1 eli 9--Â«- - 0. a ......121: ~--- ---- .* .:C 4 - & 4 Â« : ..33- . -6 - 4 1 9 - /1.. 1 L I 1 I ... - 1 :~~iff~; ~ 1 / 42-Â·\*.Â· Â© 7 44 1. Â·7 1.\ V.1 ' 515171&' REVISIONS 2 EXISTING : 1 - NORTH ELEVATION e W E E 01 5 10 20 V I'V ONINNV-ld ONÂ¥1 ONV 3Hn1031IHOEIV I 31VIOOSSV ONV AlOHNI:I OIAVO SMOaÂ¥3Vy NadSV DNISAOH 331SnbLL 03SOcIObld OVERLAY T OVEALAY LOG SHEET OVERLAY th 0. Zi/' IT- 4 - r-fi fl f '41 1 1 |rh .alf = >4. 0-â€¢z m -6 O .â‚¬m -423 0 0. I . P '74 . - lv- . --4 N h. O 7 aE= ji: ASPEN MEADOWS 6 3 PROPOSED TRUSTEE HOUSING DAVID FINHOLM AND ASSOCIATES INC. I ARCHITECTURE AND LAND PLANNING A.I.A. NOI1VA31 1 OVERLAY LOG SHEET OVERLAY 90' , t . ....9 1 =\ - *2423 j~\ n - ... I . r ..ty 1. 3 1 . H 4 - 3 .t ArtÂ¢ 16 '2* 04' .tÂ»iÂ«+, --:elgbe *3 9.4 9--=0 m 1 OB f 0 ASPEN MEADOWS 6 1 PROPOSED TRUSTEE HOUSING DAVID FINHOLM AND ASSOCIATES INC. I ARCHITECTURE AND LAND PLANNING A.I.A. NOI1VA3 :. .. -'al Â£ ' 644:.i:r -,fil%: '1-1 J.% 1118/4 5 ...4 kil 1. .r 423 -*An/*Ed#/ 45/-KE, 4Â»MIN-1. 1 ' 49 44* ..i.'.Wb=. 12- y e:<~.1-1 , -t I =Â·r'qjj#I- .2 4 9 - 1 LAI 1 1 +TÂ· 1 -. 4 iÂ· i ./ 94Â·Vi-~-~mLL,-4 21 III iii. , ~, 111111111 f.98Â£11.,10111111 - - li~ 77, i. il 11 -AA/1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1'111 1 1\;.4 1 I lili FFX-/.-*-. E luTI-1 ; -,Â·mt __3. , 111*14111 M -1 1 lili . 11 , 1 Ir, 1 1 1 11111 1 1 111 1 1 1 WI 11 1 1 11 $Â»Â¥K'- r[IBT-1-1 r--I 6 *f ~\ iâ€ž - wr-/ - 1 [-~ , Ii i *4 HIll'lift Ill 11~111Illl n . t--1 11.11 11~ 1.hes: 2 .E' 1-1:1*11 111 1 .t / F Â·4; L:q,fire/AIU' ' Â¢*1 1% T. Â· 04)1 e li4 1 '- 44,17 U F ~U**211B1Â®11[11 + 8* ,..2 1 10*linli] lillilillimi#W#1:,0 C[ UJ 0 0 8:ati-12,Fol REVISIONS PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION f 01 5 10 20 VTV ONINNÂ¥ld ONÂ¥1 ONV 3EIn1031IHOEIV I ONI 31VIOOSSV aNV AlOHNI=I DIAVa DNISAOH SMOCIV3V\1 N3dSV OVERLAYLOG SHEET OVERLAY . 0 0 f -1 . 4. , ftleÂ· . 1. 1 . . R.. 5 4 2. .4* ...8*40: M.. E - DRAwli~YW' REVISIONS PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION (EXISTING UNITS) -. 01 5 10 20 V*IV 9NINNV1d ONÂ¥1 ONV 38n1031IHOHV m 'oi S31VIOOSSV ONV MlOHNId DIAVa SMOC]V301 N3dSV SNISAOH 331Sntll 0390dOEId OVERLAILOG SMEâ‚¬Â· OVERLAY 1 12 - 1 2- . r ' A â€¢6.5!h .--Ill-fl--Ill- I 1 45 - 12 1. . 1. Â·0 1 .. ik . I 4.- -, 1.. t- . . 1 . 1 Â»33 - TERRACE BELOW =Uall UVING/DIMNG *ELOW Il . 1 1 11 9. - .. ... 1 - 7 ~* . /0 0 BALCONÂ¥ , FLAT ROOF ** ~ Z 1 .0,0.,Il_ .14 - ~ ~- O _ 1; Â· co 1 ---7 1 1 ~141 UJ -1-0 v W :ZZâ€žEMBSA. 0 MASTER SUITE a '41Uthe- 6!.1 8 113'-O* X *gt-01, UJ Z MIl --- 85 # I , -1 1 11 - < 0- . ' FLAT ROOF D~~EWN IB~I 0-1 111 - - - 1 .- I - REVISIONS 1 + 1 1 PLAN DECK ' NORTH L------- 1 PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL - U W I Â£ 3 1, 01 5 10 20 i 1.- . V'I'V SNINNÂ¥ld ONV1 ONV 3!:In1031IHOEIV I /' I 931VIOOSSÂ¥ aNÂ¥ AlOHNI:I CIAVO SMOCIVBK N OVERLAY LOG 1<93 1 ., U,>. 1 - A f... I \ 44 4/51* 7 90 0 2 k &44984 . fic.. . PATIO - V 11 11 4 ,1 - 00 \ il GUEST SUITE CRAWL SPACE ~ 144-8* * 18,-0. 00 0 r -1 r il 1 O 0 [St-1 .- W.1.-uy 1 ~ MECHANICAL , . &41 - r _3 DATE 1-16-91 DRAWN 8Â¥ 1 REVISIONS PLAN NORTH PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL - ~ M-1.-1-/-4 01 5 10 20 i i VIV SNINNÂ¥ld ONV1 ONV 3yn1031IHOEIV I Â·'ONI SalVIOOSSV ONV AlOHNI:I OIAVO SMOD Â¥301 N3dSV ON:SnOH 331Sn81 03SOdOEId OVERLAÂ¥ LOG SHEET OVERLAY 6. . '4zy ./i;Rat'~ 7.0 I \ 1 /4 AL. fÂ·UA PATIO .7- .-- , I 11 r - 1 11 11. 4 l -- 00 t CRAWL SPACE 00 , 0 r *EL Â£ Ti v 1 . 8:1&,41&. 1 AEVISIONS PLAN NORTH PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL , . 8 1.- ill- 1 01 5 10 20 .-1 V'I'V ONINNÂ¥ld ONV1 ONV 38n1031IHOLIV I NONI 931Â¥IOOSSÂ¥ aNV AlOHNI=I DIAVO SMODÂ¥301 N3dSV SNISnOH 331.Snal 0390dOEId OVEAL- LOG SHEET OVERLAILbG SHEET j OVEALAÂ¥ Il , cif- - 34 1 -- - 9 DAZI4 - I. F -1 7 . 0--0 -0 8 01 77 5 4 O 4402 00 m 0 i 1 ASPEN MEADOWS' z.. 0 i PROPOSED TRUSTEE HOUSING DAVID FINHOLM AND ASSOCIATES INC. I ARCHITECTURE AND LAND PLANNING A.I.A. 11141111 >Ft ==;MMI=In 01 OL h -- ~lile.EE:EE E.=9== -1 - 1 . - Ill EE E>== =g-- 2."h;,===22222~- . ===== .. 11:1~.~ E--mt i=~ .............1.-- allillillill ...-EkEFILL2:K,== ..I--Inll'll 1 :- -- i --Illisizillillililillil5211:.~~4,/Ili'mA P.=.....,Itqe*F~~~ Al /--1.-1 //I- im/- 8Ar~---- :""0- 1-~~i-Ellll-- illillprik~lfilifilli~Eil - f.1-11. ///--Em//"%1=.R.=R!1~-41= --de , 1â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢.4. - --Ii,4 1 .-. .=~ 496:es a.//..m t.=-=.i.,IlmsijF E ---=-aÂ¥'94--1/././. 1 .0-mil.-1 1 . 0 . 1 ie dr -ililliali.T~"~./.I~-Tr-j.fli:.t.i.ilillill'lli~-/iiiir~al//C:;241&/0/#tdRic,1/li//Ilk"Eihighlfrilillimill 'e:JIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIE'=F~al: - A.z'. St,412+121* - -limmi'.'I-J'.B-mimmi-':d .......at*1~- . 94:2 0 =ewl ..R:"A 1-,I,iwii=.4-Fl~ - -''r-,4.- I. t./.6,6 ,-taTâ‚¬iIÂ·~-~~~~~~~E~ \ ,/ i:f:.Y,MiNNIIE@ ~.4744... --.I-- *.,P Illili3/1* ./.Fl ----1//FÂ»;ilill:"Il , A . -fe . '-w~#t,10%*A~4~4~eÂ» - AF :i:*a-,t , i, 4, -~~- ----- - li~49.: 1/' - r. 14 9, 11 :~ /1 ,..... , I . . aperv ....~- . ~â€¢1â€¢J 1 1.01& I.1 -9.1:(,VI & le, 2 11:1â€¢Jill- .. 4419-1- .: - /- . -1 -~I ..445,/.1. . 4,2/, 4,2 Z.~-i'=. i 4 b .4 1 0 ... 7, - # . . ~r lift .th /499â€¢~ r- 4~..ar- ,+ I ...1. I A ,,. <44/7-f/... A . 9 - . 44--.-- 114,9 0-Ak A , .7.91 -4 .i. \ j ./.. - :.*1 411>0 40Â·-/9. ~ 29Â»*'r .#f---- 1-~*-3 ~' 1 , ... "4 M.-** t.9 ' 9 e 4.:IlliA' 7/illial- 1.. - 3 -4,-L--CrÂ© Â·â‚¬:4' ~'FLE,WIAâ„¢ Illillill -x-lp :4 ~4:EACE WLVAI- .... 4% . .. j 0 . Pa:.>i Â·. ..:17<-it~ ... 3,4.9 c a 't . A .. A' 1 e-24&47/7 - .699044.JriT- 1%;'wraj329/ki: 0- . D 1,0 13%4* 1 :jak>y.m ,;w-s-<-0--~-~<3.'~91 .77 * 7,39Â« _'r,11Â·T:'... -' iillllllllllllllllll'"'I"IIIA / u... Â».AA d.........................A w #M, --..'llillill"lill/"I"/"il"/"I"li"/"I"li"/"I"li"li 0 1 1 //2. 11% 1% ~. t_ OVERLAYLOG SHEET OVERLAY rE TAN* - th 6,9, lillia W -455* I - - *Â£ 1% '42 Ub Â¢$09 9 . 9 29 . * 41 B. , limmi B 1 1 1 I <Pib $ P.= 91 . L El .9 1f - 0 23 = , . . 4 . I . 6% h -8 , &1*4% - e 4 /4,"*.-Aut#5 4 ' PROPOSED TOWNHOMES FOR THE MEADOWS DAVID F/INHOLM AND ASSOCIATES INC I ARCHITECTURE AND LAND PLANNING Al.A UNIOIS 00OAA ONV SSV-19 DNLLSIX3 HaLVQ 01 83197-Id 20 9NlaIS 0O0M 1 911Â¥M 9NIOIAIO ABNOSVW ASPHALI SHINGLE 1 1. . 09 98 02 01. 9 0 NOI1VA313 1SV3 .. ---- 5* 0 495,46 4 'Qi~ rari cpo 1 ft} 4 9-91-1 4 --79 0 'P F 24 1,47 9 ..=1 -ft< 3 1 J '6%0/ â‚¬ 2 29 G RE 4 4 - 9 a 0,2 .4. iii. n ~1- k I - f 0 4,..,1 .e 11 h Vr. - 1.- 1 17, 1 74-943. , L .7 -4 -1 .=t .A . I .1 - I. 6. 211 ..- - 1 ---1 r ' .' a. â€¢â€¢,INâ€¢â€¢,1, lilli I,Ill,11,2 ~ m,=miiâ€žm*â€ž;. ; !IlllimiiumiilllIlllIllmi# Illl;ii;ii;;ii;illlII!Ill; ;;i;ill 11111@ili@ii;ii@ilmil !!!iM@it:' , :!I'ILLE;;41:.imlii@i;i; - - 1,0 ' --- - - Â· Â¥41%............/6/.h#' ///I/'I/.'/Alk' , Â·.I 1 . 0.. I , I - 111 fal. .11,=.1 lili .*d , 4 !â€¢0 .1 ill 9~ I//1 lili. 7 4 - , 11 4/I./1.1 /1. ..ELY - .11 1.-142 .111 1.-1-1.1 5,1 1 . ...Ii UY r 4-1 '7'-1'"T .A~ â€¢ M e /9.:--40 406 Ul.l...... 1 1 -;10 4 -- 9 9 re -9:lel:A'./.IN-L.VIT- 1-3 2 3 .'14 A . 2 - - 4.â€ž djI-C -I: 4 - .-- -"E*,r .5*.1. rm*- - 2-hyfl. - -1-*I- . Â· Me , U 4 -W- 111/12Mt- Â·J' 4~Â·..4 S ..4 , L -- , 7 1=kia 11 r.9.N*32 * -. - - ,%*4 . .--re' I --- - 1 , '1 - .,35- - .-. -- Â£ WEST ELEVATION 1 - 4 3 4 / 1109 - 1,~0_-i I r . A . . 4 . 9 '4 .9 - f - +e o , A 4 1" I i --- 0 5 10 20 35 50 SMOOV3~I 3H1 bio=1 S3WOHNMO1 03SOdObld Â¥ '1 'Â¥ SNINNV]d ONV1 ONV 3Hn1331IHOHV I ONI S31VIOOSSV rO NÂ¥ 0110 HNIJ CIAVO OvERLAILOG SwIfT OVERLAY 4Â»Diff.-- < r .lililizill'll'll'llillill'll'llilillillill'ZI......1/4/ .4*11 r.9 --- ..' . * ..1 ..J..9/<t .1 7 3 .1:9*6 Â·Â·' / r'?10:44 -4 -31!0:~ Â¥:4*6.1 - .lime .42,0.\" - . 1 - J --- - -1........- -=Fwk:":LU-1- 4-â€ž7.9,+ 17Â£~'Ed,-ad,Ys#pirtr ~--~~-ESESEEE"li'"Ilim- 74'lMkE' Airli*~.2. ~'.~ ===60.7 mEEU'/9':1:::::EE...........................................................I ''1.WIM~~ -, -"---""*.........1 =========11.......1===~ , 7/Ce ep/~Ii/kr~L .rilis..i d .. ======:*1.1.*1.)-2..........H..Ill.... 9 1-"11. 1 . *5;: ........1 1-- 1 1......... - 1-12-11.1-U.-2~ .........'In-.Ii.9 1...1 40, lillill ....1"ell'llilill *f.. ........1 1 1.' *Fr/, */- W' 11/~- ......... e. 1:1,Â· - -- 3=V>1,4~.- .........1 ..........1 149:, - 11.........1 . 2 4,9Â«Gil 2-1.Il.'Il.- p...:zv >Â·; ~'< =e I ! 1 h :::::::e:1 - -- 4190.r-Â« 1.4 -I- .....591<225&Vi~ra.......al........11..........1 1.........................................1 ..........1 - sin. Iilliiiiii ~1111 .....Â£ 4-,-7-4........2:11.................1 1............................1.......... 04422:1082 ... U,El ...........a.........111...............................1................11111Â¢..,6~Nrwf., -4......tÂ».........1.-.M.......1 1................................1......... b.......'' ..'.7 *h *2,3,11 1..........gil.........m ............1................................. 1!.'.~,1/': -a#,a'...t.....S ..................... ..............................1 .........~9\ a 61-/647.i .. --- 7-. y ..........2........â€ž 11.............................................1 Â·- 2.b , -2 9'-~,0$/< lllIllloS*llIlllilliillimilIlllillmll 1.......1 ....................... ....."...~, .. 4 , n.--- Imnw'r; 1-:04 -,Uill,lilll*:Ill,Illmall I~ll,ll,lilllâ€žllilll,lll~lll*lllÂ»lill-lill~24 .â€¢, 9- *-L, . 9,-.Ilimâ€ž11NS:,ININ,mININ-lillil,Nn 111111111----Ii=Ii=I~~Ullilll ImillIll~I~YA ~2'VI~~~ Illilililli,---.5 :'14 #*:,]IImIIIIINR. 11llillimilll tilllmINmlammillilll'~li~lilill'Ill,IllII,I~"~~. 9..........:95.1.......11........... pit:~till ........ 1........I--~I../. f242:-27: 42:*7,yil:.:iVhihi:mi,"iI#ill:Ii"1:fl~::"01 ,_0,00:ay, râ€ž.60 :.'.*,f.ar~NA-li:â€¢:0'MIB:::-- ....... ......m .....vi.....2.*1-#fi-*/I 1....... ......r~ [11111,i.2:-Â·.,0. : 7:'. Ar .........B.........11 1........â€ž........1 ....... ......- .. ""%01*:t.: L 7 RV:aill...11:1& /122':.9amill:'1#':1=1&::1,8,1 , /3515':~':.....':(.6''i:~%'/tkwill'%2mmiO/,WABF" IN:ml ......- Il.......... 11"1$*Â·m.:.14â€¢L : 9,-P'.4 4.........&.............................1 I 'pki:3:Rf-fflaj~3311:~.IMM~~~imia:is:gz.~:::'i~:Li:i,f:<v .. Ne-ymi:_(14--~~IJ'UIi4IlmolI"IMHAIINI'Iilli~~~~~~~; 4.~- .. I. .................0.i...........1 .......1..I....................... ..........................1.~ .. ........................1.1......1 -~IN~'Ell'!'392"ll'â€¢11'll'â€¢1- 1.................................. .. ..................................1 11Â»------~ - .. ...................1.-1-1.....1 .. ..... 1 . 0 1 T 0 0 0 . , 1 -[ZE] . . . . I - .....XA #rmi M 494* >X< I 1 .1.1 11 3% Ip- -- - / , h f. - - ED . R VISIONS 1- RAWN BY PROPOSED . C ~~~~N~T~S WEST ELEVATION W I 01 5 1020 . VI*V ONINNÂ¥ld C]NV1 ONV Bbinl031IHOHV I ONI 931VIOOSSV ONV MlOHNI=I OIAVO SMOaÂ¥31AI N3dSV SNISnOH 331Snhll 03SOdOEId ~ OVENLAâ€¢lbo OVERLAY OVERAV,OG SHEET OVERLAY ,. - 1 i \ 943/"&*542: t \ \ \ \ 1 1 1 1 \ 1\ 1 1 b ' 9Â· i 4,/'' -' r' - 7 l -' .*...../..-r.-*S.fille:*.9ti- -.ffliti:n --11;1*EE:qiar \ cn O :., *'~ Li'Â·~:64.Â· Â·Ty Lht Co ~ - >'00[-=6, 9-< C..40, O ..:,dfi.6, Â·'mha "tatil .(> 23,1.-r . 5 1 ASPEN MEADOWS 9=1 - 01 PROPOSED TRUSTEE HOUSING DAVID FINHOLM AND ASSOCIATES INC. I ARCHITECTURE AND LAND PLANNING A.I.A. NOI1VA 13 Hl 08 OL OVEALAY'OG SHEET OVERLAY , VNÂ¢.1852 r- ~ <scrf -4 7 -I.., - A 12 I . C . - -- I , 1- 441 - --- - -- + -il 1 ,i;St' i.%: -2 _ - M \ \ . \ L.-2- , --Ill- -- . -.. .. I. 9 I t 0.1 0 H? ASPEN MEADOWS 9 .1 0 1 PROPOSED TRUSTEE HOUSING DAVID FINHOLM AND ASSOCIATES INC. l' ARCHITECTURE AND LAND PLANNING A.I.A. .* ' 0E .-1.- - . 1 1 . E----4 7 1 f Â¢5, f 111~ 4**EA .1.1. W . ,! 1 / I ;: '/1// - 1 E 1 - - -1 - 4: , - - - -1- -i -. - TERRACE - -f~ LMNatemlle i 2 21*-(r x 24.-rr : - + 4., . 1 I - --IN CZE=)00 - E *1 1*"f~ 41-LXl r) â‚¬ h-â€ž :,1 F F 1 6-1 Â»trÂ·-414 ~ 1 17~212..I-ME 41 - 0 -U l o . r DN CE)0F7 7 2 Z -- o I LU -- 70 1 -********==- - -- u - - <Z- 3 BEPFOOM # 1 - - 111 co -- - 0 - U_Â«flE- EE 4.. q. a It -1= =Cl- l - ---- 0 1 =-27 - ~ ~""" ~"~ - REVISIONS ~ DATE 1-15-41 ' -'56. DRAWN BY PLAN - ---=J ' , NORTH PROPOSED 2," - MAIN LEVEL 1,-I 01 5 10 20 VIV SNINNV1d aNÂ¥1 ONV 3Hn1031IHOEIV , 'ONI 931VIOOSSV ONV AlOHNI=I GIAVO SMOGV3 OVENLAilbO SHEET