The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19980408AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION April 8, 1998 REGULAR MEETING, 5:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS SITE VISITS: Meet at first site. NOON - 240 Lake Ave. 514 North Cortina Lodge, Main Street Â«text to Conner's gas station) *Call Amy if you would like a ride. 5:00 I. Roll call and approval of February ll, 1998 and March 11, 1998 minutes. II. PUBLIC COMMENTS III. COMMISSIONER AND STAFF COMMENTS A. Clarification on Landmark Designation of 920 W . Hallam Street 04 IV. OLD BUSINESS 5:10 A. 240 Lake, Conceptual, Public Hearing, Continued from March 25 5 1 9 4/. -7?i,Ird, '---dMETo from March 25th meeting attached) ZE - -Er- ICE Â£9 elÂ¥#&- C 5:40 -8. 514 N. Street, Final Development 6:10 C. 834 W. Hallam Street - extension of conceptual approval(?l( 6:15 D. 303 E. Main St. - building permit issues 6:55 V. WORKSESSION A.=-=Ge.*inavitadM*~ VI. INFORMATION A. Isis Theater 30 VII. ADJOURN ublic outreach - agendas will be in the Monday's Aspen Times Daily box ad PROJECT MONITORING Roger Moyer 303 E. Main, Kuhn ISIS 435 W. Main, L'Auberge Susan Dodington 712 W. Francis 918 E. Cooper, Davis 132 W. Main, McCloskey Meadows Trustee and Tennis townhomes 234 W. Francis Melanie Roschko 918 E. Cooper, Davis ISIS Suzannah Reid 303 E. Main, Kuhn 702 W. Main, Pearson 218 N. Monarch, Zucker 414 N. First 1008 E. Hopkins, Bellis Mary Hirsch Meadows, Trustee and Tennis townhomes 420 W. Francis Street 435 W. Main, L'Auberge Gilbert Sanchez 1008 E. Hopkins, Bellis 414 N. First 303 E. Main Jeffrey Halferty 132 W. Main, McCloskey 234 W. Francis, Mullin 414 N. First Heidi Friedland 420 W. Francis Street 712 W. Francis Street JNCEPTUAL APPROVALS WHICH HAVE NOT GONE TO FINAL: 834 W. Hallam (Poppie's), expires April 26,1999 123 W. Francis, Lot B (Vickery), expires May 24,1998 514 N. Third Street (Ringsby), expires June 11, 1998 214 E. Bleeker Street (Greenwood), expires August 12,1998 EXHIBIT"~ ~ f~ 2-9&9 MEMORANDUM 0 TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Planning Director Cj~,Ap.) FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer ~ RE: 240 Lake Avenue- Conceptual Review, Partial Demolition, Landmark designation, Ordinance #30- Public Hearing DATE: ~ March 25, 1998 SIJMMARY: Over the course of the last year, the applicant and HPC have held three worksessions and a site visit to discuss an appropriate renovation of this structure. The house was built in 1957 and was designed by Herbert Bayer. Landmark designation is also requested. Attached is an application to make an addition to the existing house, including living 0 space and a garage. Variances from sideyard setback requirements, site coverage, FAR, and "Residential Design Standards" is requested. Staff recommends conceptual approval, with some discussion of the new clerestory windows. APPLICANT: Ronald Greenberg, represented by Charles Cunniffe Architects. LOCATION: 240 Lake Avenue, R-6 zone district. HISTORIC LANDMARK Section 26.76.020, Standards for designation. Any structure that meets two or more of the following standards may be designated "H," Historic Overlay District, and/or Historic Landmark. It is not the intention of HPC to landmark insignificant structures or sites. HPC will focus on those which are unique or have some special value to the community: A. Historical Importance: The structure or site is a principal or secondary structure or site commonly identified or associated with a person or event of historical significance to the cultural, social, or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado, or the United States. 0 Response: This standard is not met. 1 B. Architectural Importance. The structure or site reflects an architectural style that is unique, distinct or of traditional Aspen character, or the structure or site embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique architectural type (based on 0 building form or use), or specimen. Response: This structure is a good example of the modem architectural influence in Aspen, most notably associated with Herbert Bayer. The house design is influenced by Bauhaus architecture, particularly through its simple shape and materials, low profile and horizontal emphasis, floor to ceiling windows, and other details. The building retains its original form, with the only significant modification being the application of stucco over the original concrete block. C. Designer. The structure is a significant work of an architect or designer whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. Response: Taken directly from the application, "The house on this site is one of few existing residences designed by Herbert Bayer. Bayer's role and influence in the early development of modern Aspen was significant. His moderntist approach to design, graphics and architecture was born out of the Bauhaus movement in Germany, before the Second World War. Bayer was both a student and a teacher at the school founded on Bauhaus ideals. Bayer's influence on modern Aspen is evident is his work at the Aspen Institute and the Sundeck atop Aspen Mountain." D. Neighborhood Character. The structure or site is a significant component of an 0 historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character. Response: The structure is an interesting contrast within the predominately Victorian homes of the Hallam Lake neighborhood and reflects a period of evolution within the community. E. Communio, Character. The structure or site is critical to the preservation of the character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size, location and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or architectural importance. Response: The structure is representative ofthe influence of modernism in Aspen. SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 26.72.010(D) ofthe Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. 2 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "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 by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site coverage by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units pursuant to Section 26.40.090(B)(2). Response: The existing house is a one-story steel and concrete block building, which has subsequently been covered with stucco. It was designed by Herbert Bayer and is considered a good example of his work, which was influenced by the Bauhaus school of architecture. The original form of the house is intact, with the exception of a small addition on the east side of the building. Through the worksessions, HPC and the property owner explored different options to add onto the house without obscuring the original structure. Discussion centered on a scenario that added clerestory windows towards the rear of the building, placed a small addition on the west side and a larger addition on the east side of the house, and added a one story garage. While there was some discussion of making the garage two stories to accommodate the owner's program, it was decided that second floor space would be more appropriate further back on the site, incorporated into the east side addition. Staff finds that the applicant has made a thorough analysis of the characteristics of the existing building and created an addition which is appropriate to the style of architecture, while still allowing the historic building to retain its prominence on the site. The footprint of the original building does not change except for the additions on the east and west sides. Staff finds that setback variances on the sideyards are appropriate to retaining the character of the historic house. A garage is to be placed forward, and to the side of the existing house. A linking element is used to join the house and garage. Although the garage placement is in conflict with Ordinance #30, HPC has determined that the southeast corner of the site is the least disruptive to views of the historic structure, and that the doors should be oriented towards Lake Avenue, rather than perpendicular to Lake Avenue, which would require removing existing trees to create a driveway courtyard in front of the house. HPC has also discussed that a garage is in many ways preferable to having cars parked in the yard, as is done currently. Staff's only conccrn with the project is the proposed clerestory windows. The clerestory is placed at the rear of the building, and adds approximately 3 feet of ceiling height in the 3 living room area. The existing ceiling is 8'1". The additional 3 feet may not be noticeable from the street, but is still a modification to a substantial part of the existing building. Staff also recommends approval of a site coverage variance. The allowed site coverage for the lot is relatively low, given that a large portion of the site is a steep drop-off to Hallam Lake. AA FAR bonus is also warranted given the size of the lot and the excellence of the design. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The surrounding neighborhood has numerous historic structures, and the idea of creating a Hallam Lake Historic District was at one time considered. The great majority of these structures have been remodeled as is proposed for this site. This modem building, and the one across the street are anomalies in the West End, which is primarily a neighborhood of Victorian homes. They are an important testament to the interest in modernism and the influence of architects such as Herbert Bayer on Aspen's renaissance inthe 1940's. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Response: Staff finds that the proposal is successful in preserving the property's historic significance and place in Aspen's history. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereoÂ£ Response: The new additions are clearly additive to the original structure. Staff does have some concerns with the clerestory windows over the living area, as discussed above. PARTIAL DEMOLITION 1. Standard: The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure, or the structure does not contribute to the historic significance of the parcel; and Response: Demolition is required on the east and west sides of the building to accommodate the new additions. The roof is to be removed and raised above the living room area. 2. Standardi The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: 4 0 a. Impacts on the historic significance of the structure or structures located on the parcel by limiting demolition of original or significant features and additions. Response: The demolition on the east and west sides of the building has minimal impact. The removal of a section of the roof is more problematic. b. Impacts on the architectural character or integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel by designing new additions so that they are compatible in mass and scale with the historic structure; and Response: The issue of compatibility has been addressed above. COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE #30 Response: Windows shown on all sides of the new construction extend into the "no window zone." The applicant may either accept a double FAR calculation for the interior space associated with these windows, eliminate the windows where they violate the standard or ask for a variance. Staff recommends that a variance be granted because the glass curtain walls are compatible with the architectural style of the building. In terms of the garage, the proposal is in conflict withÂ· the requirement*that all portions of 0 a garage, carport or storage area parallel to the street shall be recessed behind the front facade a minimum of ten (10) feet. As discussed above, the proposed location is appropriate to the preservation goals ofthe house and the property. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any ofthe following alternatives: â€¢ Approve the Development application as submitted. â€¢ Approve the Development application with conditions to be met prior to final review â€¢ Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (Specific recommendations should be offered.) â€¢ Deny Development approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC grant conceptual approval, and partial demolition approval, with the following conditions: 0 5 1. Discuss the appropriateness of altering the historic structure by adding clerestory windows/ raising the ceiling height. t- Grant the following variances: 2 feet on the west yard, 10 feet on the east yard, 27 ieet on the required combined sideyard setback, an FAR bonus of 250 square feet, a site coverage variance of up to 5% to accommodate the design as proposed, and variances from the "Residential Design Standards" related to volume and garages. Of.3 Recommend landmark designation to the Planning and Zoning Commission and titf Council. 6 4/ 1 1 .......%Â« ... fE. I /1 1 - C 4 / . ~Â·- I I . . .. 0 ./ .. .. I. I . I. .... . . . .. 4:. I . I. - -# ... .. .2 ... .. 4. , . . 9*.-9 I. 37 J. 1 I= ..%4.4. -. / . ... . I C,\l .W t . . 4. . . . . - I. I ... . .. . ''t\. . I. .-- I .., . - ..... '.. . I. .. .4 . + I. . Â·- 4 . â‚¬tri / .. - . \ ., . . . 1. I. . . . .9 i.* /. - . . . I . Â£ L... .1 1 K lot t. 1. 1 ., - ... . 1 .... 4 . . .- ' , .... n. . \. ../i'Â·~... . I .7:.:. . .. . -. -2- I 67Â· . .......... I,-' ....: .4.'...:Ir ... . . - ..:... * t.. ...... I. K. \ ... . I 6 \Â· / ... : ... ilimp-' :'.:.. Â·1 ,0 ' ' ... 4./*'tr ..: if I . . . . r...... A VeÂ· . 4 \.....r:. 3. 3 -14â€¢.Â·>Â·' 4.. -4 â‚¬ .... \ 0, '.ti.Q . <1.. ' ,fÂ·' . 4, g-~ Si_~ ......: .,... 5.... r Â· Vi \ P 19(, r ff - 0-Â«---i, - -~ . I . . 4. CA 1/ 4 **1 - / I . f .... .... 1/1 â€¢ . - ..,Â«/440>~ I . ....... . / '4< 1.11 . 0 1 < / ... . et . 7 U 1 '47-Â· /. : Â·i..,ix. I. .4 Y f. A i t Â· 1 Mt .t .r t...\. -. V..4 . . 1 ~' t. 4- Â£ 0 ' F 1 . . 1.F '- 11, . / 4 - i 1. - - 9 - ~ Of,/ *21Â·~. ?~t Â·-1: Â· : 5, 4#; . . .5 ... . -6 4 I i.v . . 4\ 1 4 , . I , I - .... I . J- .- . .. . .1 1 ti - I. -- - .1 , 1 ... I I . ... 0, N'?4% - . I .n . . C-- -4*Â£ . . I.- Â· lilli 0/ .. . - L . - - - 2.-- - - p< 40-i.: . *... ~i * qfiÂ·:...?f p<.1 ,â€¢. . ... :./ . 2-, . e. I .4 I . . 4 QÂ»/7- 2 97 \ 12 4 ... .. - I . I . .1. . f -: ir .A VIC;k. :. ,.t fl- f - \.f/rE . i - . 11 11 r March 2, 1998 Amy Guthrie ARCHITECTURE Historic Preservation Officer City of Aspen PLANNING 130 S. Galena INTERIORS Aspen, CO 81611 920-5096 Re: Landmark Designation for 240 Lake Avenue Dear Amy: On behalf of the applicant, Ronald Greenberg, we are requesting Landmark Designation for the above referenced property. The single-family residence located on this property was designed by Herbert Bayer and constructed in 1957. We believe this building is worthy of Landmark Designation based on the following criteria: 1. The Bayer house is a steel and concrete block single-story residence in the modernist style typical of the Architect' s work. It is influenced by the design philosophy of the Bauhaus movement that occurred in Germany during the late 1920's and early 1930's. As such, thil/~ structure is unique to Aspen' s history. 2. The house on this site is one of few existing residences designed by Herbert Bayer. Bayer's role and influence in the early development of modern Aspen was significant. His modernist approach to design, graphics and architecture was born out of the Bauhaus movement in Germany before the Second World War. Bayer was both a student and a teacher at the school founded on Bauhaus ideals. Bayer's influence on modern Aspen is evident in his work at the Aspen Institute and the Sundeck atop Aspen Mountain. Thank you for considering our request. If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, 0 i )/v\8\ d. Grfbert R. Sanchez f ) Proj ect Manager U CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS Â· 520 EAST HYMAN Â· SUITE 301 Â· ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 Â· 970/925-5590 FAX 970/925-5076 . ATTACHMENT 1 Â· LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1. Project name Greenberg Residence 2. Project location 240 Lake Avenue.. Aspen, CO 81611 Lot 15 Block 103 (indicate street address, lot and block number or metes and bounds description) 3. Present zoning R6 4. Lot size 14,220 SF 5. Applicanfs name, address and phone number Ronald Greenberg 44 Maryland Plaza. St. Louis. MO 63108 (314) 361-7600 6. Representative's name, address, and phone numberCharl es Cunniffe Architects 520 E. Hyman, suite 301, Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 925-5590 7. Type of application (check ail that apply): . Conditional Use Conceptual SPA X Conceptual HPC Special Review Final SPA Final HPC 8040 Greenline Conceptual PUD Minor HPC Stream Margin Final PUD Relocation HPC Subdivision - Text/Map Amend. -1- HistoMc Landmark GMQS allotment GMQS exemption Demo/Partial Demo View Plane Condominiumization Design Review - Lot Split/Lot Line Appeal Committee Adjustment 8. Description of existing uses (number and type of existing structures, approximate sq. ft., number of bedrooms, any previous approvals granted to the property) 2,745 SF single story steel and concrete block construction single family residence 9. Description of development application Rehabil itation of existing structure including extprinr rpqtnration andÂ·interior modifications. new construction of a two story addition, two car garage, and connecting breezeway 10. Have you completed and attached the following? Attachment 1- Land use application form 0 - Attachment 2-General submission requirements Attachment 3-Specific submission requirements Proof of public notice (must be provided at public hearing) 11111111 ATTACHMENT Z CIMENSIONAL REUIREMENTS. FORM Acclicartt Ronald Greenberg Address: 240 Lake Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611 Zane distict R6 UX SiZE 14.220 SF E<istng FAR: 2,475 SF Alicwaite EAR: 4.020 SF + SF HPC bonus = 4,520 SF P=gased FAR: 4,260 SF - Existing net leasable (c=mmercial): NA - Prccc:sed net leasable (ccrnmercial): NA Existing 36 cf site c.verage: 17% - Prccosed 36 cf site ccverage: 26% Existing % af open space: NA P=ccsed % cf ccer; scace: NA - - =ising maximurn Geigm: METIC:cal tidc: 91 411 ACCESC:/ clcc: P=.czed max. height: Princical bidc: 22' 0" - Accesscri bidc: P'C.C.sed 36 Cf Cerr[Ctiticm cxisting ilumber at cecrccms: 4 Cr---C=C '11.:rnter <='; 6-ar-'--*-e- 4. Eising cr,-site parking spaces: 2 Cr!-Site carking spaces required: 4 Sertacks Existing: . -Minimurn recuired: PpaccseÂ£FB, garage/ 60' house Frcrrc 60' 101 i-rcru r Scrin Rear: 31' Rear: 10' Rear: 31' . I. Camcirred Cambined Ccmtined Frcn#rear.91' . Frcrrt/rear:30' Frant/rear 49' S ide: 16' Side: 15' - Side: l3' 4 - Side: 0' Sider 15' S ide: 5, Cambined Cambined Camt:irEfE, Sides: 16' 1 Sides: 45' Sides: Exiscing ncricinfcrmities cr ertccachments: Mi nimum sideyard setback, combined sidevard setback - Variaticns requested: Minimum sideyard setback, combined sideyard setback, FAR bonus, Ordinance 30Â· garage setback, volume standard, site coverage (HFC has the atiiity to vary the following requirements: settacks distance hetweer! buildings, FAR borrus cf up tc 500 sci.ft. site coverage variance up to 336, height variations underthe ccttage inffil crcgrarrt, parking 'usive= A]r residential uses in the R-6, R-15, RMF, CC, and O zcne districs) The Personal Touch Donna Thompson 0112 Redstone Boulevard Redstone, Colorado 81623 (970) 963-1433 March 26, 1998 To Asoens Historical Preservation Committee and the City Council members, After attending the HPC meeting on March 25th, regarding the remodel and varlances needed for the house at 240 Lake, I would like to make the following observations: Flrst, the existing Herbert Beyer house will be demolished. Charles Cuniff concerred this point. A new house, based on Herbert Beyers designs w111 be constructed. However, it will be a Charles Cuniff rendition of a Herbert Beyer design. Bullt in 1998 to flt the needs of our new society. There is more than adaquate bulling space on this property to redesign and rebuild any house of any style, without infringing on the set back boundries. The design, as it is now, pushes the house into the S-E corner of the lot, resulting in aporoximately 560 sq. feet eclipsing the set back borders. This results in an unfairly distributed building. Impacting the vroverty on the south border. I question why we have set back limitations on property when they can be so easilly tossed aside without regard for adjacent property owners? With the unquestionable ability of the Charles Cuniff design teamsIahm'ce,taln this house can accompolish what will make everyone happy, without placing the burden of the remodel of the redesign unfairly on the neighbors at 230 Lake. +---znk you, Donna Thompson (caretaker for 230 Lake) ..2 . EXHIBIT 140 G'/d_ 1 9 f-9.81 CZE 1 X fh fr /A 4-0* : . 4 J\\\ 11 :EF 4 1 11 L 10.0 . 399 GAL AÂ« ~ - ;~ : t.1,1 1 Â·f 9 k t.;:6 - 1., 11-/1 c Â· 4. â€¢4 14. f W... . . r *.5.:4 %1 j'.-: til 27 1 94' n. EN. 6. 34 e. 113 9 . 4 â€ž, kigill, + 'te hir, Â¥ 4 4. I' . -4.- :3: INY 0-:i - MI i 9'rfl -, .1 - M**A d~&' -â€¢i ./ â€¢C :.Â·'~ '1'Â·4 Â· , -6 6 6. 6-3 1,4= liT .3 J R. .lkÂ« . . i43%!Â·%.i ,Â¥41 ' Qk D .1 7 4.peA ./. 'le k .?Â·32.E 4 OPTION A lillillill"lli,3119'/ill"M 1--Tr---[r--- r[ L LUN+A - Â·I# I * , 4. 4 /4 1 LD bli' /1 9 ,AÂ® 4 Jit . 9Â·'w. , ., 4 Â· :.~as & I ki .*4 k '- ~. :641,- f Â¥ S 1...... -F ~ ;f - . - -L .-4, .' 1 1 4 1. 4 11 1. 1 VII' 'I Iii ill/, 01'AÂ· - 115.flk 4-7. 1.- ~14* - Fi3440 = Â¢42% 1 44*44-1-f? 1[1-1-,C 11 111 b r.1. NNE.D. - . ,..14.61-: 0. -9 1 - /4#9Â£.94 1.M+V.t .2 . 001 11_11 1 .97: 4 I t. 1/ i'#-9,"' 1 OPTION B -L -1119*~liENE'INÂ©*43':,3*147 NEZrj $4Â· i tit ' â€¢geÂ· 4. , In 9 ' 4..7 ~'j |~4 I." .â€ž, .-1 +1 1 EXTERIOR AEVAT/~NS 1 1 1 4 . .af)47 ' !1444134 :~ 9Â· ttlit i -.*2.- f--4 .--- - --1 I. - I 21*71'.7 B .' it ; 1 1 1,1 log Nti?*- 0-r{ 42'~~ Ed.~'r3Â· ~ a . DATE 44-98 11 1 .1,/... 41.91 2,553 : .,1.....~.':~ ht"Â»-,1 '<'~1 l:Z 'i %1%41;,RI 54* . g ...1, â‚¬ ."r' + 4;2 -9 1 F:4': 2-:'J 4 30.,172 ..&/*' '. I' SHEET NO. 5 50 18*94,~ P* 7 Â·- 3.9 L.: 41* ,â‚¬..12.14'ill: .14 7.... OPT. OPTION C rl 4 COMaGI aNUS ON:nE AROI,TECTS 29564026 :XW 9EZE-92Â£026 8-GLL . 9Â£419 00 '3GINAT-111 . 3AV )#0103 3 022 OCIVHO1OO'NEIdSV Sl)31!HONÂ¥ 333!NNAD S312!VHD 33NBaISEIM [*13EIN33219 9Â£09-SZ*'026 59-â‚¬mt)Â£6 8111. 11919 03'NMSÂ¥ . 10â‚¬ 31]rIS . 3AY NVINAH 15Â¥3 OE EOL NE)018 'SL 101 1 N hal r--- - --- - - I.- WN -- tn:5:21:Â·Mi34:411: NiEÂ·'1 ---- j = oft~ \T I \/ 1 1 1 1 1, \ \ / r kal i i --- - 14 i Qh2 i .i 1- - , WIL_ 1 1 Mt / I 4 - I -- . I \. . 0-- , 0.0.-I- -, / / 0 - .\./ - - ....:.7., m.+6 Iii .:+i.m.Â·L.'-7- i --- 1 ./iÂ·,Â·i.Â·i,i.,ai,ivi.Arrnit'. u. nwlÂ·.I --1/ t.'1 4' ; 'll.Al/*/' '; â€¢A.' 'li ----0-- 1 1 \11 j .- I - l --- li / / EE GREENBERG RESIDENCE CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS 5 /8 Wil k Us & i q iu LOT 15, BLOCK 103 520 FAST HYMAN AVE. * SUITE 301 0 ASPEN, CO 81611 â€¢ TELE: 970925-5590 * FAX: 970925-5076 ASPEN, COLORADO no E. COLORADO AVE. * TEUURIDE, CO 81435 â€¢ TELE: 970728-3738 â€¢ FAX: 970'728-9567 Ill NV-Id 3119 - IMEND: C 0 Ejusnve STUm# VENEER ~ EXISTING AU:MINUN WINDONS . ~ TO BE OETERÂ¥/NED 1!. /2-10. 1,2 4 . T 9 01 PROPOSED ALUMINUM FR#NE A v WINDOWS I â‚¬ ~ PROPT1SED STEEL FRAVE A A ..1 wmams r $ =7 1 ' ' .Aft- - ~ METAL FANED DECK AND 1 : 1 f *- --=- ---- --I t *PLATE HE EL-/7'-2 Â· ~ ~ AE, a/STOW METAL FWE i! . ttzÂ¢JION /. 1 \ , 1 TZ I ... 1 1 1 11 1.1 1 It 11 11 1 1 11 11 i _-PROPQ#FP_.fUGE _HT. â€¢A -0 , EL,9-r --! M.- - - 0 '.- Â§ 11 - EXISTING plATE HT. V EL+T : ~- -FLÂ«-- I ri 1 MAN FLOOR < 6 ; ELâ€¢0-9 1 11 1 Z imi li 8 il 3 6-2 I 774 1 ' U + - - -- d35-- ------ ~ ~ 0 4 il /0-) NORâ„¢ ELEVATION am - L./ W - r.o" LU U 1- 4 -AL- v . il 1 - A : U . 4 -- A PROPOSED_P14EE _HL_- 7- 71 EL-/r-r i \ 41 -1 4 *1 EJUSnAG PLATE Mr. 4#=:~,~f,~ 4. I . 6.,Ed ' Â· y EL'8%' U 1 , A 80 MAfiÂ¥ FLOOR Â· ~- ~8!Ememe~ %_l_ ____3Â£3-L- 11:_- _ " ORNAANG EXTER]OR ELEVATIONS -4-- : i. 6......... / , * TER~E ./ : ve ~ /5'-r , 12. r.91 < 4 ELâ€¢X'-r 6 DATE 3-16% SH= NO. ~) WEST ELEVATION A3.2 ' .' SMEE! O 0...0-50-*ac= , \ i F- Ql'' ti \ \ 1*f / - \ 1 \ -2 // 1 \,P, / \8 < \ 1 \ \ \ -- \ s. r\\\\ \ 1~\ \ 11 \ \ \ i \ \ \ i \ \ \ \ \ i / , / \ // C)\ \ / 943 \ 416 le . /11 / 1 / 1 / 9% 0, 1 'C 0 2 Â¥ J \0 CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS ~ i #P 1 2 520 EAST HYMAN AVE. ' SUTE 301 ' ASPEN, CO 81611 ' TELE: 970923-5590 â€¢ FAX: 97Â®25-5076 a. 220 E. CO1ORADO AVE. * TEUURIDE, CO 81435 â€¢ TELE: 97092&3738 â€¢ FAX. 97Â®28-9567 NV,d 3.LIS DNI-LS[XEI 91* *l w (Wt> DNLMVE \ 1 1 1 C 1 G - 73Â»"e --4 + erÂ«*:*04 --- -1 SOUTH ELEVATION 0 8 16 32 48 WEST ELEVATION 0 8 16 32 48 1 1 1 1 2Â¥45\-le) 0 1 1 11 11 NORTH ELEVATION 0 8 16 32 48 1 19:,i= 0 EAST ELEVATION 0 8 16 32 48 ' 1 0 > 9Â»4.-1 Vt-6 - 44 . . m . . 1--977-1 1.1 -.' /7 1/ 1 f 12 1 , l 1 -' - -1 Li u =m - ~ -- r.- -- / 1~~Â«1 7 3/TE _ 1 3= 11 1 10- 1 \ , ~ E--- 10 t- r==- 1 1 17 L_/ I nf 7- -1-____1_1-H i ]0 1 /-0.=.11 42. , ; I 1[ I ~l, I lid'> wcÂ· C _ Pi 00 - - 1. 1. . - 1. .-- 1. I. I. . L 1. .2-1 bxkfj LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 0 8 16 32 48 1 1 , / le \ \ '1334, / \-Â£ \ / \J' / / \9 f \El \ \ .t \ L --- .rl> \ ---- - ie -/ \ Al \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ > \ 1 / // / / 0 /51 //13 i I /.A /.Ay , " '*"" 1 ir' /./' / \A ' 00 X' 0 - / / 0 0 m 0 0 R m Z CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS 8 8 1 11 9 + 120 520 EAST W#AAN AVE' SUnt 301 â€¢ ASPEN, CO m611 â€¢ TW: 97025-5590 â€¢ PAX: 970925-5076 220 E. COLORADO AVE * TELLURIDE, CO 81435 ' TELE: 970728-3738 â€¢ FAX: 970728-9367 01*499.f , Â·Â·rÂ·4 Â·r , Â·. 7. > . ./ >.4 . .... .~;2Â· Â·* Â·12~ fi-%rkÂ·;~~2:- C.-N *,- Ly" ' -. 9. r V ..1.F . t. .t./2Â·~: 7. '. *: -7. , 4-Â·.7 5;21.-4 . - Im, ; 9 *0 21 : .2Â£1 t . Â· . ... 4.- 471 14 4.taMX. r *6.74Â·:7 - Â·Â·Â·. 0.Â· ~ Â·Â· 1 .g,El; 8~-1 , . 1.- */6 ...,4#.42 A.. 'At'.. ./ . 4. 2 /./ . .,4 ; .. . I. ..JV Â· - -2 , ' 1...6-4. . , ..'. .S- . . a . . .4.- ,65 . . .... 2 2 .9- 1 I Id. 2 - . f 6 . , . 4+831.1. r , ,1 6 12.-:; 1 1 - . i - - .- 4 4 ,- .4 : 4:,9. 40 .. 1 1 .. . . 1 - f .e .=: .. ...H H 1 7 11.-It=Q i Â·. 2-- E 2* 91861,193340.14 -/ . 0 Il-' ~. $ b. 1-2.-4 ..1.- 5.1.-24:Â·:51.4:ZÂ·I~<'; 2.-4:N.Vte-~-=,2.,1,4-... Â· I ...... ,~*_~-I~,r~~~2;E -~ -~'f.1--V--->12Â·'-1-91 - . . , 126?Mv-- .1-.L - 23-2394*r-I---* Aftftittlftr#14Â¢gâ‚¬,t~i-:-i:iatiÂ·x. Â».zevie<ca.. -:e-E,-~- 9 .. -, - ~ :=9:"-fittll-*4~41-v: fe-9.4=Vt 25.-2% ~-1 + _ Â· i -- - - I . 4 - -. 45*--- Â· - a - 0 .- . - eilt>~FÂ·.2404?436,*ii<~2.;~ -41 .el . - ~429,ti .* i'.4...-3*2,4Â¥-, v .2 wil,- i. . 096 1 . #3Â·,b:Wilf>J. i/Adg-Meg'~ I . r./rsâ‚¬*r.,6:. - 32 -3 .i ..4.,0-4/41*A 1- .... 50%.- .43 - . a.*5:2*t<:41?7 : " i '4.. ''52-:Â· .--*e Â· I 2./F- 1 44:4211,118<. 1*21 .... - . 4 V ;'9'EVE'",M .y- le- 17.- 4 : 45 .... -â‚¬:.-r 1/ 31/4 t.. Â·* 11 ..b:- * A . 91... 2 fi,-. . - -'. I - - ~ . r.1 - :9113.1 ' "-*.2 e . I , Â©rÂ· SI~ -_ .41 c . lit 1 .. :... Â·. 11 : : t t 1 2.. 1 . , :..0 . n -- -... I-7 4 $ I 11 441 r- 4 . - - - - -.m , t 5. 23 02 2.Â·>. -/, . i , '~ ' - . 4 .. 1 . ..6:EJE 301 29 ... Â· I .Nu>. . 9-=#Â·i . F *Â»99 t ' -2 1 . 7 4.. 30.:MT:..: - r . .. . 4 1 1-*4 Â· EQEE * ..iÂ· ...- .*....Af ...â€¢2( .*$--S4jl12 ...Â·-*..'.. . ..1 . C . t. . *.-' g: - - ~1.--- J *.. 0 -- 2-*. . -- I./b - I .-*1 .- .-1 .i-.- I - - . 0 . -- - . - 1Â· - -.-4 - -:' .. -3.-. - .. <.,-- ;2.- , * 0 â€¢ 0.Â·,Â·., --I ...= -- . ~--i - - ... . I uttium mitim:iti?:, %1 1 - e .. 4 - ' /4' . 6 . 1 ' 4: . S. I. . - -1/2.4*'ayi/# 2 , 4 913424,07.2 r-r:Â¥ 42,-' . -- . 3 # 9~ 0.-ififf:~-25- gg~*,~"tf-,~,'~i./.3053,24 -'44; ..4/i./1,260..4,9&.< .' t ....>2';:3*13:29'ri:F.*.re .. . ..1 ' 4 t :, -'tÂ·NO- ilÂ·~-3 :~t: It~- -' 1 I. , ... L. 4 4 Fre 7 -Â·-04. *j. I , , r F.- 7 , . - .U -'-1 ' *. - ./9.- I=.3. '' ;.- ..1,3, - I r r . + 4 7 fÂ·. 'Â·* 4 4 . - 131. 1.29 -1349.-- I . 44 14.,.0.. '--I VAil.'42 .. - Â·-..3,<b.â‚¬,Ah-ift-i :... '7..,- ,.. 90 - t- ... i . I --a i r .. .9.43.41 -' st 8 1.- ' 14 . $ 1 4 414* 30%1146/061*60Â«add: . - - .- ..ent ,- ...- re ... .;: 1 4 , -.---1674*Yfa#A~=GSP#hy -- I .- *-. 1.-1 j-21.10 =J -1 415-- iki - '/ c - '1 ' Â·7 4 :- - 0 2~ Â· ..~3~17* - . - -~~=-.uU/9,}pe~+â‚¬~,94#XÂ¥1.~4&22,43623 . - - $. 0 *- . - . . . . . +LA , 2 - Â»6 ' 796 - ./ . ..# 1 - /. - i -- ,* 3 5.-54-2 3â€¢gy -42 -_ - - - .-fr - 0 -0 - 0 a -.. . - I ,% 1/ tr...,~1,2 5-2 4, ' .Bot DFP-5* r 04 7â€¢ 4-44 1/'Il D.E. , . . 93-S:, 444' 13144*9 -1 -- 21hmil/AV+%/Albz.. L.29 Trff/*42:T'THA'/1:65Â£ rey'lifi#"'MA~ .IL f 15,7/1//6 .:L .2,74..... =UÂ» =9-4 zt.- F . 2, 4 2. f '1: V = /}fs:,-.0 917-3.0.3~;~ 21:1'b. 4 2 . 4 1 + 9/- 57*: 2.1 52:-' - C.~.L & I % 1- 'r- trIT .r 4 r .4. . P-fiti~..- .. .Â£1Â¥,; *.4-1-3*2*kiP * p '2- 423<&'554' 10 4:Wde ) / 1 - - ::WE. ia :Rt.4-7. .4,<42 1.--2- 8 3:t.~.-~*~~..: 345:=, -9 r Sm*.22 : :31.'. ... - . . 64 . - 3$4 r -~4-2.. , C . I 94=..2 W 274 4496.1 *-4 2,2-2 , . . i. gil..: ~ .2* A - - i - . g<:96 -- . ':-41;2- e-$3+--1,,*-' '' 3 i '. 0 ... . - r '76-;72 11.1--..' ... kc . -- ./...*. , .9 f , 4 k=1 ' :.7 - 232 .. 1 : + 4 -_# 4 f 1 I- - - '- i - . . 1-9 - Q /.. f ::. '. 1 1 '1 1 . 1 '291*eyjâ‚¬-r.<-:zi. I $-TEEf K.'<:-:,- - --7 ' ,-. -*.Â·.. .1~046,?2~ . 4-GN-- P.T.- 'FL-1-~ :r.i -: Â·-2.- ' - -Â»-343#ittÂ«42$94â‚¬~~21*4 5%7449 Ifi~AF.J, 3 ;43; -7-- Â· I g. 2= 15.41;41:3~4:-t .I :.... v -49Â· , ,\ ' 4-~3-2.74 12332-3~Â·33 6-ki: Â·f' h.. Ir. ' ./- ' . . I I .1/VI- -W-': 4 ... . ..h'.-F)L-4U Z -I i â€¢ ' C t -> 4Â·:rÂ»C-,f.*51~*t>**%.~,Â· yf~.'.cÂ»:M+V.....; . r.z.et., :.4.3 v.Â· 4 f-93.22~. *f4~~~A4 ~iif 2,2 - )irrli~i~~laittEZi~frf'bialim:fijlt~EfEduripr.93#4~2:2.Jifgkfii#''iffil<r:P';3i:3%56-rt#V/Vgh- *. -- - I I # . ..UPE?F~~:cy***~3-xÂ»Â·--1... :~rt:-4 -J-i.~le..4 -- .*3--,Â·: 11.-fi'.-45 - *â‚¬Â«tâ‚¬**ff*Â«Â»*3944: 9.-ita-'-495Mt-,:s>U>i~ 6,-rt-tA;y' ~2217,13/,1...f-*Â·..I ". - :1 - -- 4.- Â·460 . -- 3fe'*Â·:p:- 9.1,/TE-Aepr<Fi-rit'grir:Vi#Trif,ZE: ..~roLLE;ifi;3536*2./5.: - +2:aG,42#6 -4-0 .21.'Fke.:20 KPE.:ik-.w,2.0Â·Â·.â€¢ ~'11 -W . ----:.1.2 -7'Â·9 4--*4.- - -t - I ./. .... , I - e . #.7 I . .. 0..... 0 - .... .: 1 *1' I 1 4 1 . .N .- . .7. ' *ki...21. 4.2.. '. I 1 , . ' , . b ..9 ' .0 " .- 'M - hi 7,#T)W"RA "ho'Gi: . 'i *,Â·.~04; ./ . 1 ' h. 'll . . r 'Sed... , - Â· 1 -*R '3 ..c .'r'lÂ· Â· Â· . ' . '. 4 % '.I;.*. ',BM., ~.0 4,AÂ·'.'' 'â€¢bd# '~'iti'Â· i ' Â· 4. 1 . l â‚¬ 1Â·' '..''J.. '. '' 0 1 - ; â€¢,4, I , I f . . . 61 4,<4<3#2 ti#4- ' 21~M~Â·. Â· 1,k> Â·Â·'. ~ Â· â€¢ . 44*.4.:Â·Â·t;.,2.1, 41.4. r ,.9,..... 4.44 m. 1,6.,/ v i 0. , 1 1 4,2 ' .. : 1 ': . A , , *Mwib 4:Â·Â· U.f ':- ".. ' 1.'...e.4':..1..... 1 â€žtÂ¢,~,6;... , . I P It.Â£,- . r..1 . , .t_Al.Â·. r .'44$,. 4." Efia*WeLY,7,52073*T.t. %: 5 .S '.,71: ''blry:,Â·.115'itu2 0 :, ., Â· 4(;,4, / Â·- 1 igpist j .' . I .,i ~11" 4 1 4 ill 1/2-@.A V. . 0 4,1 ~ 1--111Â£. lili 1. C. aw , 4 9.91 16Â£4 1 . 0 4 v #-MN&44 47: 4 ....... 4..adulai#.4-- & Â£# I . . :. 1 ....4,~ , '. .1, im"18.-rl #' t Â·i-~ii,i~.';,i, ~~4;.a.,i~,~:;v~q~~~,~:j~,i,:+. ft. 11;;.1.Kle.W.44&44*f &0-miâ‚¬#. 4 , ' 1 ., Er '9 1 1 --* t~Â·* b.. f *lit I 1 1 VI~ 11 h {11 L ! 0 . ;"0. },CAL 5.,<.jiP#A:i:i ." .1 4 1/R/9 -1.7 0. 0 lili 1 1 ~2- (1?8#0L,-11 til 4 4 .4 1. 4 . '1 1'114 'f i g....1.7~ t:=kle,",4070 i,, 1~ll 1 P . 4 V 4,6,Â¥44 ;41,4:Mi - ., Â¢zv 45#4 AM , ?Â· 'Â·-U'401, 02/ 1,Â· 1.~ i 4\ *0*z % 4, 1 1.**24'9r: . il 'tralk,i , f r, '' r . 1 . 1,4.- Â·. .1,4....''M#-49 ./. 'A '2 4, 1 L f 1 .*92'316.y, 7 0.4. 2 - ... til , p#< '1-40-< r 1:'.,rp . 1 ki,hi,Â·4'de, 1. C 1. 1 42% F*.2 ''r*t'fÂ·Lf , 6 6 L . tt 0' .r21*:,7-Â· . 9 ' ..., 1,4..11 ,?P- l,241~31~,./.'.' A,"5 3 b 'C -2 1 L 71* I ' J l'ilt'DÂ·Wilt,Â·:'/ .Ell,1, ../.'' - 'MI t.e '4- ' I . ..4 22 . 1 \ 1%/ 2:I 11| ~ '| 1 11; ! lill b 1 10.\. r 1, L,\Al 11.11 41 .\ O 1 t 1, i , '1 , 72 i . B. I .4 . f . I ~f;t--, , . +1 - 11; D â€¢ 1.. E ' 4 52 : 2 p., 1+41,4 11,41 ~ 11 - N , --1 ' i Ork. ' ''. r 4 '4'i' 44!1,1,*ip' 44 1 I . . I. - 014Â»40091Â® , '2 41?;,frA),04 *A 42'.9,4, B.,6, -./~Pf!9*/r' 19 , Â£9 4 0 /1 0 4. Â·-*V#,1 " iâ€¢ , F#.844 ~ , Â· L. , 1 , 1:j.L .,4.9.%9.,55Â·.,s.2.--8Â«' * .ek.&91'~..2.. P 41 011, Ir ' .' 7,02 534!.4/8*zâ€¢ 1.- 4 - , ..1,1 , .,7 f :4, .4 %412Â¥ a. 1, . 1 f ' It . 1 I t .1/939'f.0.49$444 4,9~6.13 i 24 ~.41 #1"24'Ubt:Af<Ulâ‚¬~;.y ,. '0% r: A .1 4 . 9'< . . 21,9*?315't,46 ,-14..W.: '1... AU. t-* 3% i 1 .a * . Â· . 1 il, .Pb'44. & . A , , .rf .1 -*93,7: 1 ~jiMÂ¥2; : "17,4 , 4 , a 4/414.13(1Â·63//1.1 0 a . '1 9Â·16:iN .- .,2 <04 5,1 ' . ~ -, 1 I. .. ..... 9 ? 1 4 1 . . jrbtalit 'iÂ¥1*, 1 ' , 1 , A.3. LkÂ· 75'4â€¢ '0#â€¢pit 4.../6....:1*....31 , 41 .% . , :,4.4.13:*1441.-W - . 4,1 .:.. . 1, 4 M #Â·544.04311' 7 P.1, A Y.., h. . "Â»"â€ž'-4 /1.,-096" ---'.U=- 027. - .7 -> 9. .->- .. '.-. - 41 . . 1 , :0-74*14: 7 .3 4392.-102'**'.-1 Â·Â·Â· 't,te I '1 + , . -â€ž .}.'.*4'143.:.jfl,tw. ~e .. .k 63.t!; lj)Â·f~ 61Â¢:iÂ·Â· 9,0:.Â·Â· j.r,A Aer,#:f ~ . I 't . fr ' ./ i i)'i~ :1 />,p . Â·C Â·~ i , . , ... ...17 1 . Â¥2 A *%&*Fwi:Â· Al._:' ., r *. {514,44!03 .4. ~ tfi 44* ':Â·h v.0.*:, tr'Â·Pr: 1 .. -r %~8,?.,~ i.~*AF* .2: . i .. A. 0 4, 4 :4' Â· ',:4,7;.,/f",41 :P' 41 &: :ta" 7 % L , . ~ je?:375:. -apt.Alwj-0, 171 r :.W,C-3. f:Â»/ -- , '199'r.,- . ''ft ea 7/~i *-5.ti;-h,6 9 6-' Grf* d. h Â· 49* 1 ,. b k '' --:*10.. '.9 f 44.--- \ 4 & 4 b. 44.w r. .*':47& 9.: 0 - /-4.54 1 - ..t.< LEÂ»u._43% 2,1 1 4 mi 1 9:412.- T- - -7Â·' 2 1Â»25**411445Â·#C 41- 1 ~11. .111 1 .:. ~ . . _ 3 .9 . .. A--- I , 1. 4.~:t ~ 1: --*,J~* Â· Â·Â·Â·,~,1 1....# nÂ·- MI. : 2 lim /4//INk/ 4 KI.'.f -4 - 1 , L.kitififfij} i . -7-8â‚¬ ./. 1-.. 1 11.!11~11 -M-IMMI= 1 01.:, .36:3, â‚¬*3:g :-133 1. r 21 *971 1.-0 -- 111,1,1111,11% ~ - - - ~ ail, WIÂ»- -Â·.g~- fet . 1 -= F. 72.40 1 1 F -au'Â· rr iiiiii/iiiiiii///Ii"I/'I/:I':I'llp, p.~Wit~-*ittlti r 1 - ~,2 1 ---5-=. 4049-.-7 - i . I."P3Ir.. I l. I= 3. 7, 1 ~ ' , ZÂ·.9 :12, R 7 - -~251~.1- - .-: *.- -1Â£3 1 lillllWkÂ· lit;. 243'- 944441 9,1.2. . 4 I - I & I .~ . - ,â€ž4 *- .-.. . 1*@2 41*456 .... .NSâ‚¬~ ' mmi la /0.1 [H.jil.lilililli'i Â»* .evIS.M. Ile' 4 "St Â·13#02. 41~.2/2'.... /9.4~ 7 11-Fix 7 2---- 11~*11 - P. +-> ..s .p:9:4*Â· - Ip 1-3309*4-*f â€ž41~0 A4444 4 N~tÂ¥â€¢â€¢â€¢AAâ€¢â€¢2,12 Â·ek*Â«742 **aria- Mon"*,EN,)*,Ai Iâ€¢,6,%;011,/,M 29/.El#.'I~ I J~.. Lk-&,42--r---,~ 1 'n -_ 1 - , & d ':i'/fi:f'.:P#0*4 18... . 4 â€¢r..9.73*ffi'* . 1 *....:+zi-;21=3 -- li# ~.-16.51.' f'* -124 '- ... 1.VA>' ": 9 .,-- 1 2. 4 1:,~11 iftkif~Â¢ :~7Â· uff~1 96] 2%Â«rÂ· 3-e:;;' -14 .....- 4 . 1... Â· :d./.VA I ... 44.>.4- .1...1 , , - - 44 f''C'~'::4Â·1'~012â‚¬4:Â·, oke-t..,t.4 - 7 * ' k.kil:.firIE./ 747 ..9.-Â·-, :rti: 1 6 .... . .- .2., - - ~ - - ' ...t- 1,4.1 , ......1 .4 L.. ... r a . I - I - - 1- 2 '11 - 3-Oliff.2 .. I 2 - --I . . - E- 9-.: 6 2-421% Â»Â·, Â»--3. . 4 , 2 1 3 .4 I-// -4*2.,LA - ... , 4 Â· 6 . i ; 47 'Â· r, ' -'2 -,r Â·f-4 ?~~; = -: 0 . . - . 6 U - . ~, -4,6, f '')~3 ~.8.2, i ',: .- 4, s.Â·Â·C . I 74 ' Sh . ..... .. 44 1 ./ ... - 4107. f . I -432-4 -- . , 4.- - F..94 ":. I . . . .. 0 1 . ... I. .. ... ... ;tÂ·e :V...3.r jÂ¥2*,...:t...tty.. .' 23i~,1 -7 Â·- I .:6. A- . . .... ... .*1: t# P C 4497 ..,i i~ ..1~.4: .. ~ ~~r.2:..96&i2. -D.... 9.5 - **'3~: /41 'h f..... . 6,4 . . 311,0.%1 r -'. . I- 4Â£ + 1 4,&6.. M 2,4ph-- . I 7- 1 r- 1 - I t. . I . 1 '2 1....% *; 4 4 - ' C . 2-2 -- -.Â· FC~I-34 Â·. ' , , fi 2 9-7 -3 - Â· 1 1 - ~ ninkÂ· 1 ."4Â«_, 1 Â·. 4 i . =-i * 1 - --Â»4 . I L â€¢ 3.-40;-19.-.:~64 ~ 4 J.:flk.375Â·.-to~ fÂ·-i'I . - 4- - -* 5L-I#V.11%-i).1(1 *- 4 ' e.1 .2.~i,r:;': r'Mi --t.z:Â·PA-'9'Â»-â€¢1'- ... ..,2.6&~I ly=- , ... Â· + *-. _i~.Â·<=7'2 ,/4 r :'t.zz'-Â£ '-5 < / Ai.-ir- - ff : -' .3.4 ill ./ . r. . Â·2, 37 1- 1 .r *1 .../---- 5 Â£.. . - i .G . - 1 -Â· Â·- 4 ~- I . . 3. :.if t. , D:,-344..96'f*0. i=~42--A*EMFFei*4'f#*m 4 -~ ~37~-1 -__ 1_jÂ· .t -- . ...2 - /=:I.*~2Â»*ht,ytrimi=d=&-4$4219 =r.i- --- . -9.. 4 I 4--..... ./.t 'Â·.' 7.- .3-7,Â·4..,6 :94'rÂ» :-91 . -t.2 ':'.6~t-*- 04* Lkgy=- -I .fi 4--,1-4 ~ir . .- . 4 - I.$- 1/. ,4~*2, c *- 9-." I -99C~e - - '- : 7 - :21't. 44/'-â€¢. .. f.ic '7 . _:1 --- 6 - -- c:i:565' Â· --ijr:wr" w . - a , -7=&,Aâ€¢..- ' ~ I -1 , . i 6. - ~1- -Â«4 71-4 - -, s 0 - ... 0 .0 ... 4 -, t , .~410&.C-3......nt. T!~:.~~a~<- ~?'~~'~ ~ '~<,: t:G*f/%:3%1Wwi-'~'AÂ·44 I -! 4 -SÂ· : 1.t -,1'13Â»t.'.: Â·r; I *-iÂ·:Â·: Â·- 4,Â· -.Au-~1, 5_f.,'.Â·ft?.1Â§494?534-~'.:-t,Xt#,t-- - i 21 i .15.02*Â·0.4-- t. *4Â»49'4:fRA**Â§*1::2'ft-- h 59 I /*Â· i:*61,9~152249&5..../. . ... 4 . .4 I .. .'5,901*.7 - .~ Â·161.:-Ver..7654,4,-11:4%*T-..i ' 1 -47 r -Â«FZÂ¢434~ r '18. 1 . 4 3,634/,9.V . <i ..10~*Mj~, '" , ,w. : ,,~bi#:t . - ./ . '' .Al./.Â·Â· ...,~. I&, ./. . r r 479 * i lit 2 4 f ... 47 . 9% . .24.fr,Â· 3,4,1 .,2,42.=7'â€¢be 4.- r 41, . 1 7. ':7 7 I .. Â· â€¢ 7-Yor,Â· - 3-- & 4:'4 9 5297 - ' :t.)<f,f,2 f -,- . , ... I : 9 -- " . f 4//44*40Â®CL'.< - -2. . - - c 1 / '4..~ t ' '-'41 1-, 2 I. p , k -- 1. 1 . .A 11!. . kA: . ..1Â»S,3. 2 >iff ,, 7*4.V:,r, . . 9/,: "YÂ· , Â·i -4Zi i 1. w,Â·*.,3'T'31 1Â»*. Â· t.25 - 8.- .-+~p b .1<I: /,7 5 2~2 ; 4- A E F- - u . - 4:-1 6 <-TRA...a 1 /Â£-I ..G- - ibi~ 14* OSI:-1 4Â£4 -,jeÂ®* Iti.: -- . .. if &:2171*9 A.13%7 ,-*,14 -238/7 D-/ *-':U 1 - '941 -, a .4 .1 ,-1 -2 I - 1 0.. ' Â·Â·â€¢Â·1 9"* ,'1 , f. 31 %1 9.:,c Â· ed- 1~ N- Â¢ . J.. C ... 7-1 r' 7 i C Re ... 4 9 rh. ...u- . 9 .- '* 41 1.4 4 El 11 G &46& . '6 AU~ 44- 9 a . 1-9 -- 11-0 f 41 f . , *- , I " J 3 '1 . 6'WS=.IR - - . ./ . b.-- -/I' /1 - â€¢C Â· â€¢/./4- L - . e. -, . 2 -=*f .,. 42 .. Â· -- )*t . - 1 ~ ' '' . -r V -gr .. ..4 5 - -t V. . .-:4 - ~..+~1224 .:*:. 1 4 7 - I ., -.y. .4,17 72Â»4 3.,6 - i. <017256 .. 1 ..c_ r .12 Ver- * 7.1 ' 3-t'. 13*94-4.5 -4, *A1551 -,8* 2,9 2 . 1-.x=Â»2 I: r : - --- .' 64 Q _ - - C. 4.Â· - 2,15Â£2- ~~ ~ ~ -~ ~ ~ - ~ _~-4~. ~ ; ~.; ;;~I ?j~i~~ ..-9.22 . ... .0 ... 4 4â€¢' 4. ir,.=-0 - {2] WALric 0 9 {6} 1 43/2 SEE f/,24 . . I. T - E-0 2.-f (., e .0 I rE-3' * 2 T - CA I . ' 1- I. 1 , ter e - W.17 .. â‚¬0 Â¢ ]V j -3 - P-- 7 1 1 1- 10 .BATH 02 \1\ \\ [--[~I< --==-2= !== == =Il= 2 =!!== == =-1 f 1 '1 + ': 1/h 1 41-41 -Â»45 11 , i Â· 2/ 1 1 : 9,1 + *#*-r ' 1 1 1 ,-- a 2 L _ JL _JL_.1 i. -- If E.1131[F~ *L Jr,-=-_ ~m *in -ir=-*- 1 1 ' 11 1 1 1 6- e '' r- ~, 2- 1 11! 11![ '1, ..0 L 1 8 10 1 , 1 plâ€ž- j_ W-*--l - \ ' r> 1 \ 1 8 R 11 N 44--1 t-1-9-fl-, I 1 , ~lk=-1 1 61, 8 I i im 1 L itt-31*- 4-.4. -t- -t--f -- --7 I Â· Â· :Â· 6 ti ~ Fail : 1: 6 a 2 1 - 3 1 - 120 It 2 1.04 IL. sll,DY 1 Ul.NORY El" Â¥ 'IM..1 - 41 1/ i i /3 1 1 . 1, y 1 0 Z '11 1 11 - ' r~6,-~ ~ -il,- r ll -----4--1-1 9 +- -4-- 0 -1 - 1,1 661 :11 7 IL, -1 - 111 1 / ~ ~4 ~l ~-4 4-k- -A J 81 . --- 9 1 1 1 2 Ii, 1 TE Al mSE. 9-r STA[R FOWER TOTAL AlsE, 9-7 ~~~ 1 1 it .1 RSERS: 16 0 682 . . , i F m t TREADSt 15 0 V TREADS: 15 e tr i J | 1, '.=F. r- V E. --1~ --4--- t.--t-- ------1-----3 1 1 1 -- 1 t. Â» 1 431- I . 'b %1 11 + Ilid/1. i m. il: $ 1 1 -9-:=1644,1 ///1 Â·=231 â€¢ ---) . 1 - c=,f. 7,/%1- 1 1-=64=4 -- .F 4 -4 1 1 7-~ 1 1- 4 4 4-=11=- i nr 9-nr==rft 7 3 6 h - . - 1 1--4 1--/ 1 A==-1 r--=------ 1 11 1 l' 1- 11 , 1.1.1 1 1 1 Irm ~ KITCHEN 1,-1-IL J & 1 4 1 f ,-F 'â€ž. 1.1 1 1 - 10 , - 4-3-Â¢'Ag- c PANTRY 7 1 .4 . 451 A. ]F-1 Â®21 -3-41-20--130*- 11 : 1- CO m 49 ~ , ~ V , 1 ,<14. 1 - --- -----+ i {DJ 23 : r--1 [.U.~ EBEdEA:zj 5 - --T-- -- ti --1 rour-r LI 1 -4 ! L-3 -i ; 1- / . 4 1 . Â· , ' ' " ' -Il 1 1 - 4 - - --- - 1 .1 EQ -,6 -, 1 4- UVING AM. 0 1 4 L ! 14 4 1 4.- 18 94 \ : U. a Ib 14 7 ;, L_.wi *F:- DINING 7 - - MASTER BEDRO=y : 0 - 1, i li-71 : 4 1 wr . . L ' 1 9- . ~ 1- f i,PI f 1- U -- Ze . r 1 '14 9 12 r% 1 U.J .1, a-1 . -0 .D-1---41 .. 22 : . Af-**<-----4. ==tri/-4- 1 /-0, 1 i i ! i I i ri 1 1 1 1 Iii 1 .. . 1 r i , 1 11 5 11, - 1 1 - il'll} i ! Ili t r I 0.3.No 1 1 1 1 1 : 1 PROM/SED /11* I I 1 1 i i ! FLOOR PLAN' 439) 6 Ny i iii A A* 9746 e h 1* 1.4 1 MAIN FLOOR PLAN (D- =m '-** RD 24 + . .:,1 ./ - ~, 2-V/* * 3â€¢ r .: - 'AÂ° Â·T,am - SHMT NO. . 1 79,2 0 0 0 00 e SHEIt 2.-* " @0/W#eaâ€¢0â€¢*6118[- 33N301933 0 38N3330 /~7 CWERED -* 0 /21 - 0 . 0 1 09 T C A tre 847 2.-r - 44 + - CA 0 1 c 17-9 8-4 33-9 2-7 . 9-0 t A 1 1 1 -1 (Al 1 . 1 1 1 1 4 I ZE DECK 0 U 1 0 0 1 I 1-7 ///4$#/ 47 % A H b 11 Z 1 1 MASTER BEDROC A I - Â¥ 11 i . 1 171 - 661 . 1 4 1 ~ 12 3 --2 - 1 4 8~ 1 1 1 Z TOTAL R/SE: 9-f * ' RISEAE 16 0 6.82' ops, To ~Â·) TREADS, #5 0/7 . couR,YARD ~ ~, Tof.*r 3 1 t BELOI# 14 1% \ 1. /KE i -1% 1 1 U 1 1 - . -n 0 0 ,=. - - r 4 1 BATH STUDY _\~t& - 1[ZI] 1 0 U 1 - - D -------------------- -------------1------9- --- r O 1 :1 ' -- ellÂ£*STOR, - _ OPEN TO MAIN - __ I I 4 i = / 4~ ' ---I Z FLOOR BELON -- SQ 11 - 1 - I 441 4 - .3 1 te 1 -- 1 1 4 - Z - 1 952 1 - -- 1 6- e ..3 0 6 . 9 i T 0 DRAWING UPPER FLOOR PUN 60 V JOB NO. 9746 4- --" 71.0 $ t..' UPPER FLOOR PLAN (A = .6-18 1Â¥* 84 2.4 4-4 2-Â¥ L' W - 140" 1 * I r .- /Er ~~J SHEET Na . 0 0 6 Â® AM SMEB OF 3AV OUVUU!001 ou 33NBC]!S33 32138N33210 0- 1 1 . e e Â®0 584 15'4 39 eâ‚¬ 7.9 - f - - - 15412; 43 43 - 1 R U. *--- 73'L 2 V 1 1 ,Â·9 1 1 4 4 -----------1- . ----- - 1 1: il- 'a 11 - m 321 11 -------- -- ---- - ----A 1---- --f 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , 1 . 44 1 - - 1 1 1-- 1 11 -1 ---- 1 1 9 4 1: 1 4 4 1 1 -- 1 -1 1------ --------- --- Evu -42/ 1 f il 1 1 1 1 0 /57 ~ 4/-3. 4 - -- - 1 - 1 424 - - 2.1-0 6-e 7,9 -- ff-- - " 56'-0 0 6 000 GREENBERG RESIDENCE CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCH ITECTS LOT 15, BLOCK 103 520 EAST HYMAN AVE â€¢ SUITE 301 â€¢ A9'EK CO 8!Grl â€¢ mE 970925Â·5590 â€¢FAX: 970m5-5076 ASPEN, COLORADO 120 E COLâ‚¬*400 AVE â€¢ InLURIDE, 00 81435 â€¢ 10Â£: 97028-3738 â€¢ FAZ 97*728.9567 -I.-I.-.. .. ,â‚¬~ 1 , . r.. CA '40 618 .401 vy f - --_ 1 e 1 - 2/e '-- ---MS' 9 -~ --.. 2-/1 m - . -1 -- --: - --- / - - 4.y - 42- .49 7-- - . 1 --3 9 --1,2 ----/ 11 ...1 , + I ---AEL- - mu 1 - rf-P ~-Â«r- {34, 00 /2 0 2, 1/ i T m. VE # H N %1 f Â¥- ti 4'r 6. 1 4 .. i ./ e i i rear-r / i? 2\ 01 i : . . 4 X 5%557- 'a3ill 4 X 1 .....4.'di:*AA 0 . .....I. f 0 1 STUDIO APARTMENT .1 41 GARAGE ~ ~ / l 1 4 4 4 41 i i TOT AL RISE: 1-r TOTAL mSE: 9-4 1 - RTSERS: 16 01682 RSSERS: 16 0 612 TREADS, 15 ~ Ir TREADSâ€¢ /5 01~ ~ ' i I I . 1 1 - /11 7 3 0 4 - t. 1 ... t i . 4 . 4 6 6 -- 3 r ... --3 t 1 -3 }/ 4, 1, /It. l, 4 2 1% . . . 592 . - 3â€ž!,2: . I W i 4 1744. \ 6-0 00 i e 0 46 J 3 w 912 E - Z /7\ GARAGE - STUDIO PLAN - Ch GARAGE FLOOR PLAN r) GARAGE ROOF PLAN \=/ 740 - 7-0. .JL. %021 W . fir (13 DRAWING GARAPE STUOO PWA GARAGE PUW.& GNIMI ROOF PINI JOR NO. 9746 OATE 3-16-98 91EEr NO. A2.4 EWEI 05 3:WINNAD &313Â¥HD 33NB tOE U[16 . W NYWAH 15,9 06 '3anâ€¢nril .3,Â¥ 0(~0100 -3 Ou C CA 1 0 1 - 4,6.i ir-8. $ m,. 1 4~.\ 11 N I L I | ~'7 -,-2- -t.---?.~tz,Â·.......-,liftÂ¢404-,9,Â·444'zow U ~r i 1 3 16 1 9 6 11 Â®Ii 'Im E . i Le ~ 8~ i. Wil 2 1 , ~S~ , 1 i V Z {8 ! 289 . C. u D 5 e 4 Tar. xr-r ~ i I luxet STAR;TOWER TOTAL RKSE, 9-f bi ! =mity 11 Il k , 4 9 : , , Toy.10('-r / ./ 1/1 1 -- M.3 1 1 1 1 ---- TOTAL RISE, W \ - mstrms m o fizeÂ· - TREADS: 15 0 ir ~ ' _J 11 1 UNIOF Â· 1 U.1 i STRUCTURE Â· j 1 EJUST##G t Â¢ ~ g l zi. d 1 2 '25, - 99 1 U 0 2 1- It! 11 e - 9Â¥U - 24 9 12 % \: W - )00< PLAN Q rn STAR TOWER - CLEARSTORY rh Cy W. - f.â€¢ DRIWNG BASEMENr. FUN. STA#1 - CLE*!ST0 MAIN BASEMENT PLAN PIA" ~ 108 NO. 9746 OATE 345-98 9*Er NO. A2.5 1 ; 9,0 0/ OC~UK)3102 t..66.7 1 L%b ... i I . 4 ' ~ - ./ Â®etmh=â€¢dialm ..vs . ?. 5%#'10 DE DemmED CA r 7.2 . / &,4-F 4 a ~ N~R sua FaWE #100115 x - PLAr E HT. ~1 - 1) 0 13 6 El-20-2 M Â® Zig 'BWED/*8.*ap . . .1/Z - 44*. 84 4 .. 1 ~ ~ AEW 0nIV *Â£7=AL F~ ~ 1 " J u#nom Irr - ./.- -<D uppitlt FLOOR * EL-/r< -| ji - i =3 ij / 11 1 1 1 1 - 11 , il Ele, A PROPOSED PLATE HT. V - Er/ST"g T.,Â£ HT. I. &21 1 1 I I Il I 11- - 1 . 1 1 0''P 11 1 i Â¥ 11 0 1 66 & 81 MNN FLOOR 9- ELÂ»# -- - , 4 , -1 233 4--4--~ 1% 0 -- --.- -- - MAN Floo 1 LIU . p 1 / ' . --I 81 i 1 1 1 1 s Z W-e . m ts- 27 - - - - ------- -1 -------r ' 1 0 0 a z U C-) SOUTH ELEVATION m - 661 m.Â®2. - - U . Z pl,Tf HY. a -0 ~Lt_11 | 1) i li ELAYÂ¥ 7 5/Z h W ff 0 2!8 1 1 ia g 0 0, 5 5 m -1 r Z 1. 1 . ./ - PRQPOSED-flfTE HT. rA.#* -4 LU E . , *~ Evir_ING PLATE HT. - - - _l#PER 5Â®8 /j P ELÂ·jr-r EL-97 V 1 4 *1â€¢. MAIN FLOOR t L WA/N FLOOÂ«*. --- -- - 0*Wkt,40 I 9~ Et*27 , EL-O-7 ErrEMOR ELEVEE,1% 1 1 11 1 -- ... t"hr EL'r-;F-TO' ?-8 ' 25-91Â£_ _- - .4 -_ 11-1 1 ----T#PRK .k ~ 6 6 6 -- IOB No. 974Â§ SHEEr NO, /~h EAST ELEVATION A3.1 . SHEET . OP 00~0100 3 02 1-8 - 8) MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Planning Director Clu j ir- ' 11 ./ FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer ~ RE: 514 N. 3rd Street-Final DATE: April 8, 1998 SUMMARY: The property is a designated historic landmark with a Victorian home and carriage house on site. Each building is a dwelling unit. The applicant proposes to make an addition to the main house in the open space between the two structures. Conceptual approval of the application, as shown in the attached 11"x17" drawings, was granted on June 11, 1997, without conditions. The final design is represented in the blueprint drawings. Staff recommends final approval be granted with conditions. 0 APPLICANT: Don and Karen Ringsby, owners, represented by Gray Ringsby. LOCATION: 514 N. 3rd Street, Lots 1 and 2, Block 40 of the unrecorded Hallam's Addition to the City of Aspen. SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (FINAL) PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District, or involving historic landmarks, must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 26.72.010(D) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. Response: The applicant proposes to create additional living space for the historic house, as well as a new entry. The addition is one story and will infill the open area between the house and outbuilding. 1 From historic maps of the property, it is apparent that the house maintains its original form, except for additions on the east side of the house and the enclosing of the porches. Similarly, the carriage house has had a lean-to addition made to the north and modifications of windows. The proposed addition, for the most part, attaches to the existing buildings in areas of more recent construction, therefore limiting demolition of the original structures. Also, the area of connection to the historic house is minimized by the creation of a "hyphen" element. Staff finds the addition to be a reasonable expansion of living space. The Parks Department has indicated that removal of two trees within the footprint of the addition is acceptable. The historic house is nicely preserved and is typically Victorian in the complex intersection of many roofplanes and use of ornamental detail. Because the porches have been enclosed, the house no longer has Â·the feeling of openness along the street facades that it had originally. The outbuilding has also been retained and was modified in a contemporary manner for use as a guest house. Staff finds that the carriage house remodel is successful and not competitive with the historic resource, at least in part because the two buildings are detached. It was recommended at conceptual approval that if the two buildings are to be linked, that the linking element must be very simple in character. The applicant has successfully achieved that goal. Staff has not been in favor of relocating the main entrance to the house into the addition, since this removes the focus from the historic resource, however, from the front, or North Street side of the house, the original entry is intact at least in appearance. In terms of the architecture, staff has two remaining concerns with the proposal: (1) that the entry doors selected might be more compatible with the existing building, without being Victorian in style than the fulllight entry doors which are shown and (2) that the windows in the proposed addition are somewhat out of proportion with the more vertical windows which are typical of the rest of the house. It is recommended that the applicant restudy these issues for approval by staff and monitor. In regard to the site plan, the gravel pull-in parking space, although entered from the alley and not from the street, is somewhat in conflict with a general desire to screen parking from the street, however it is a pre-existing condition which may be maintained. The applicant should refer to the Engineering Department for approval of the pavers within the City right- of-way. Because this is City owned property, where private improvements are not generally encouraged, the walkway may need to be just a straight line of pavers, rather than the "T" shape that is proposed. At conceptual, HPC approved a site coverage variance for the project and waiver of the Residential Design Standard regarding windows. 2 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: Staff finds the proposal in general to be a minimal change to accommodate the owner's needs. The project is still well below the maximum square footage allowed for the site (given that HPC waived the FAR. penalty for the existing windows in the "no window zone" on the carriage house at conceptual) and is of a pedestrian scale which is much more sensitive to the historic character of the West End than has been the surrounding development. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Response: No demolition of the original structures is proposed, therefore staff finds that this standard is met. Partial demolition approval was granted at the conceptual level to remove small areas ofnon-historic walls as necessary to join the addition to the existing structures. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The proposal allows the historic house and carriage house to remain as distinct elements, therefore the integrity of the buildings is retained. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any ofthe following alternatives: â€¢ Approve the Development application as submitted. â€¢ Approve the Development application with conditions to be met prior to issuance of a building permit. â€¢ Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (Specific recommendations should be offered.) â€¢ Deny Development approval finding that the application does not, meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC grant final approval with the following conditions: 1. The entry doors selected should be more compatible with the existing building, without being Victorian in style than the full light entry doors which are shown. An alternative is to be approved by staff and monitor. 3 0 2. Restudy the windows in the addition as described above for approval by staff and monitor. 3. Engineering Department approval is needed for the pavers within the City right-of- way. 4. HPC has granted a site coverage variance as needed for the addition. 5. HPC has waived the volume standard/FAR penalty for the windows in the carriage house. 6. HPC has granted partial demolition approval. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the significant development application for 514 N.3rd Street with the conditions outlined in the staff memo of April 8, 1998." 0 0 4 ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1. Project name R1N658Y MOUsE ADDITIo N 2. Project location 5/4 N 320 51*2EEÂ¥ As FEN t-ofs I and 52- 1540 (Â¥- 40 op rt+â‚¬ up,2.â‚¬(0%0â‚¬0 HÂ·AU,AM'5 kDotlioN To TAÂ·E â‚¬'HY,KA,PEN (indicate street address, lot and block number or metes and bounds description) O - A 3. Present zoning 1.6- 4. Lot size 62 log *auAAE FEET 5. Applicanfs name, address and phone number PON -4 Kkeâ‚¬N KING*Y Dv Asfin- 914 N. Sgo 91'Â¢Ger ASPLN COLogAÂ·00 920-14 2-9 0,( 3037499- 144# -tp Dowtr-NG87 EÂ· CEDAR Al/& PENVER, CO 902.09 6. Representative's name, address, and phone number 681 6 I@ 1NG$6 9 1514 Al. 88.0 Sre-EET ASPEN COLOBADO 7. Type of application (check all that apply): Conditional Use Conceptual SPA ~ Conceptual HPC Special Review Final SPA Final HPC 8040 Greenline Conceptual PUD Minor HPC Stream Margin Final PUD Relocation HPC Subdivision TexUMap Amend. Historic Landmark GMQS allotment GMQS exemption Demo/Partial Demo View Plane Condominiumization Design Review Lot SpliULot Line - Appeal Committee Adjustment 8. Description of existing uses (number and type of existing structures, approximate sq. ft., number of badrooms, any previous approvals granted to the property) MAI w 14-nuGâ‚¬ - AFFED< 1/46% 6. M 2 8600"H 1, Sh-nA - 1.-lviwi - Kirc,/Eu Guâ‚¬%-r 14-0 lgE - APY #-D, 5$61 9. P. 1 GED#-0 M M 6Â·1 VING / Wl 111-4 EN 9. Description ofdevelopment application l,/A,/1,=:. -rptâ‚¬ -riA,a l-+ou 56â‚¬ 6,\-rU Got '62uAFF. . 669-r OVE 51-DRY tlbiw& Ae-E~ - AwÂ© /VEV HAANÂ· ENTBANGâ‚¬ -ra MAIN 140096 10. Have you completed and attached the following? K Attachment 1 - Land use application form p<' Attachment 2- Dimensional requirements form 37 Response to Attachment 3 pf Response to Attachments 4 and 5 11111111 ATTACHMENT 2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Applicant: DOW A *Aggw 2-14658 Y Address: 5 ILI 'Al. 3 120 q-rle.E #5-r. 'ASPe-N, 28 916!1 Zone district: 12.-G Lot size: 6, i !(of 6&!~AAE FEâ‚¬-E ~62*04.1 AA. Existing FAR: 9-,311 â‚¬,9 Aae FEET 3.2094, F.Allowable FAR: 5, 1G1 9 0 0,4.,2 E ABE-f Proposed FAR: .21920 -raÂ·rAL 50*Pâ‚¬ FEE T 56043 Lf*#Exiisting net leasable (commercial): U /A Proposed net leasable (commercial): N /A Existing % of site coverage: 54.5'4 >f? rec,11% prE,pgskxii@_ggyerage: q rl. '24 A Existing % of open space: N /,A Proposed % of open space: NFA Existing maximum height: Princioal bldg: ta 1- 9 '\ Accesorv b laa: '38 L Gil Proposed max. height Princioal blda:'2,2--&11 Â·Â·AessEGep,+der 1-2-6 " Proposed % of demolition: 0 90 Existing number of bedrooms: 9 02.-' PRINCAÂ¥LE BU)6; 1 AccE,5,Â· FLOCA.~ Proposed number of bedrooms: 4 Existing on-site parking spaces: 0 On-site parking spaces required: ~ Setbacks M KiN f auâ‚¬Sf i Existing: Mouge I H-ou<F i Minimum required: Prooosed: O f A-OP/-7104 OVLÂ¥ Front: 15 < 25 1 Front: I O ' Front 25 Rear: .4 I | 0' Rear: to' Rear: 6 1 Combined To71Â£1 , 1 Combined f Combined 1 Front/rear: 19 2-5 _ Front/rear: 30 Fronurear: 31 Side: ID, AOL Side: 4 1 Side: 441 Side: 431 - -(Di Side: 51 Side: 20 1 Combined 1 1 Combined Combined ~ Sides: 63' 1 21_._I Sides: I 6 ' Sides: 47 4 Existing nonconformities or encroachments: guesf N-ous â‚¬ WA s BUILT i.1 -rlte, \910% ANID WAÂ·% guler op EActÂ« AND tiDE 10'#te.TY ua,95 4%Â£093~ve41,9,4 requested: |VONE NEEPED FZ)Â£ ADD,-11011 9% (HPC has the ability to vary the following requirements: setbacks, distance between buildings, FAR bonus of up to 500 sq.it., site coverage variance up to 5%, height variations under the 0 cottage infill program, parking waivers for residential uses in the R-6, R-15, RMF, CC, and O zone districts) H.P.C. FINAL REVIEW The intent of the proposed addition to 514 N. Third Street is to fit in gracefully with the existing historic structure. The new addition does not try to compete or mimic the ornate detailing ofthe existing structure. It does try to fit in terms of the larger elements. The massing, dormers, roof lines and scale are compatible without overpowering or diminishing the historic structure. The new addition is pushed towards the back of the site, behind large trees to allow the historic house to take the spotlight as it should. Roofing material, siding, and windows are intended to match or be as similar as possible. The existing structure has been added onto many times. The new addition is attached to only parts of the existing house that have been modified or added onto already. This is the most important aspect of preserving the original historic house. The intent was to keep the new addition modest and without a peaked gable facing the road like that ofthe historic house. The new addition is meant to appear as a link between the houses, not the focal point. Linking houses is a very traditional concept and can be seen in many examples here and the linked farm houses of England and the East Coast. e 0 H.P.C. FINAL REVIEW The proposed final plan is in elevation nearly the same as that which was approved as a conceptual review. The plan is slightly larger. It is now 568.6 square feet versus 400 square feet before. This increase was necessary to create a more comfortable living space and to justify the cost ofthe addition. It remains a modest addition with no added overall height. There were no special conditions placed on the addition by the H.P.C. Ordinance #30 was waived because of the windows in the gable ends. Those gable ends are not visible from the street. 0 0 PHOTO SHOWS EXISTING BLACK THREE TAB ASPHALT SHINGLES TO BE MATCHED f .%:73 A. *JU. re 11 ....1 11 - 14 i . 4 i, 11 49. 1 ./.: 894 1 1/ - 'Â·N 1 :. 4 , E :4 - 1 1 ) j 1134, r -. .-1.1, ..(1 'y,5 91 -A I. / Â£q.k - 14:Y . 13*- ;Â· I if*'.Qk, t<-;,"1-9~/22;0000000 7~ j J JJjjj Â·Â· t ,%1' 11 ... 271 4-Â£' 37: ... - PHOTO SHOWS EXISTING WOOD SIDING TO BE MATCHED WITH BEVELED CEDAR SIDING WITH 4 1/2" OF WOOD EXPOSED .. 9 0 a "Â· ',~ ~ 4 4,1 ., -f443*:i,gy' /0 1. - - :&1.Fir#-'*.1. "* 4-Â· 1Â·1*Â·~Â·Â·'1%2~1.I 4< 3.-,531%.fl:..614.44Â£9)1% Pj Â·ag~*2Â»90 ir-' '~~ ' ~. - - 1. ' -. ....â€¢-r..~ ,-7...........I-1 F 0, 6$;3 i ...'1Â· A.~72:..' 9.'imILÂ· Lf:r-i f '45**el,&Â·A~ erixi, ,!f . 1 ....'11 L..' ....Â·-(Â·Â·/ P (Â·; â€¢Â·ti Â·Â·Â·iâ€¢:4'4%.Â·f *Utfl~, - 2*Â·:7*76~'1-~:14*6**Fle. - -0 -4 -Â· . .:25/Nal/MI"FAM 44:A:,2.-t I./Ti/3/M#*Aki *. - 1 . t.- -19'r rf PHOTO SHOWS EXISTING FACIA OF 9" WIDTH WITH 1X4 SHADOW BOARD TO BE MATCHED 2 42 . , /'. ' a . .f - . 4 L. f , f ' 721; P 1. i t , p,--~ 4 C'~ %* .,9-. . :It : PHOTO SHOWS DETAIL OF EXISTING DORMER WITH CORNER BOARDS AND 3" TRIM AROUND WINDOWS TO BE MATCHED * I '46' 'illf. ~~â‚¬p ~.* 2 .44. . r\ 00*. 442 p...1 *40. 5 1.4,i... 3 Â·: j 4**;r..4 /2 f *- t '.I " ' '. I . Â» -0 liti ~ t fi.0 ...~ - 1 0~h:2....1 --4 V *: - 4 '61<124 ~..t.j \ , 1 \- 1 t 'Â·6 Â·,, 1,1 Â·Â· 't 1. 1 \l \\ 1 1 PHOTO SHOWS EXISTING WOOD DOUBLE HUNG WINDOW WITH WOOD TRIM TO BE SIMILAR WITH NEW WOOD EXTERIOR DOUBLE HUNG BY PELLA "DESIGNER SERIES" litE id - - --- \\\\ Â« 23Â« %\ r ~ , \ . 111 EXISTING "FISH SCALE" SHINGLE SIDING NOT TO BE USED ON THE NEW ADDITION TO KEEP THE HISTORIC PART UNIQUE 51~74&- ,&9*2<Srimil'll .37,3\ : Â£ I H-44#ZAZgr up#LN.*.3 ...... 1,9 A r. t..,1 -Â· i ; btlk* ff'#3 9-L . I ly 1 Â·23 1 40 1 P fi.* 2 4 -6:1 1., \ :it..t ,Â·7't 4 4 3*11 .1 J f ij J J . 4 /JJ, 47 1/ r j J --1 â‚¬ 2 ----0 .1.:2.L:>42 EXISTING MOULDING DETAIL UNDER PORCH TO BE SIMPLIFIED AS TO NOT COMPETE WITH THE HISTOR-IC DETAIL .1 Â£ /1/. t // ' $ f 'b h tz; '$-$4 3. . 1,/ ... 1 Y 'V b *--:-I '4. 1 4, , u,-422Â·r-i {. , I. OT'' 1 44 % 1 14 '11 .1, r C 1% -'9 2 ,2*& I - <Iâ€¢Â·f- 1 73\379\ i 4 :e p : 27:. t'â€¢%Â· , 1141 7/- '4,2141 6, ' ' - , C f..4 - i' 1,-I -9. , 1 1 '' r 9,42 1 '14 - W ~41 4 4 2 7: I * 1 1 1 4 -A 1 4 1//SAFBEE36;T<~rt-\i.,h DETAIL OF EXISTING PORCH COLUMN NEW COLUMNS TO BE SQUARE WITH A CHAMFERED EDGE AND PAINTED WHITE TO FIT IN BUT NOT COMPETE WITH THE HISTORIC DETAIL -2 - < i , I V t /4 / , 1 A . 1. I . . I A 1 V.A.r . 4 11 2.1 1, s 1 <., r .r.4 1.,1 :ltÂ¥ 2 . - . 4.. -~C Â·/ A *fit -â‚¬-0 . i- 9 i . .22,6&4Â§41: . 1 6.2/2.# -Wri . f.1 I 7-4 4.<90 ..2 .E 9 0 1,10 I. - i k.+ 99* . 2- /': S 39 *i NEW"VICTORIAN" DIRECTLY TO THE SOUTH OF 514 N. THIRD STREET 1, 1 1 . I 41 : N I , , 4 '6% . , j , *14 Y * r.1,2 - /4.9.4 7 -24 - .1 Â· * t--7...- Milill/,1,6/*& jk-77 Z NEW"VICTORIAN" DIRECTLY TO THE NORTH OF 514 N. THIRD STREET 1 - . 1., . '' Pr~ , d - 4 34' #9 , I . 02 .. a. bA .. . Â£ -t<:*r 4 7: - U. le.- - . , . - . 4 4,4/ -- -~ 611(,ir'.141. â€¢ 1 -~ 11 4 ~ 1,Â·iU~],~ /4,9 44 I NE;,2 2- 76 ...4 ==...8636:15/< rEM A.'.L. F - LOOKING AT THE AREA TO BE INFILLED WITH THE NEW ADDITION NEIGHBOR HOUSE TO THE EAST BEYOND THEY HAVE NO WINDOWS FACING WEST THAT WOULD BE AFFECTED BY THE NEW ADDITION 7- . 11, i .0 Uld'* i.: '114*.4. Trw.,Ir . 2461*Â· 1 tt~ 4 L r , 4 1 6 4 25 r 4 4: f -1.1. ':14.4 L - --/ 1 p I . -- 4 - - 1 _ --,6-- he- /1 -I-- I. - . Â· Off - 7123â€¢t'tw- . EMISt ourpoog FIREAACE'~11 i FRoreari MNES -f/ -tu 1 \ '<F-,3--b , '".. 1 4 fÂ»041 â€¢.1*ZIPI - \l i VULAI- 1,1rw-- EXER 14&14- 1 LI VIN 4 ecoM E.Ki'St - 12, 1 -re se 1 - 4â€¢12.06. E New AppiftÂ®H 0-1,5 E REMOveC' -2_,1 400 .6. M r 1 E)<16/ -7 7 ENTAY - ~ E.nEY MAIN --L-ar Nell-*@ZA-FIR HOK - m - ek 0- 0Â® 01 -kjÂ¢~ 0 Di q \>L j. . Grb .=e .Â· 7 3 O r\ ~- 612*vâ‚¬1- PAR,9,36, ht 9 401 C GÂ«.64 4/ fli .-- ~~cs>-- z 20/ 0401~4 2 1.- 1 W. - Of /003)- .brf ~ fult:P .1*RE Elit OBIS~'~ 4=// 0 LANDSÂ¢;AA AJ ~FL6~ FLAN_ = H#-rAIED AEBA 91â€¢lows blew â‚¬AP F . /f//f//4 ill'lilli' -1-'ll'll'i\. 1 /j fl n 71 1 1/lll L - 1-- 1 #pÂ« FLAN 4./:641-E I: 10 0 C /1-1 /ryÂ¢Â» /,4-0- PASWED LINE SHoWS co'*1â‚¬Â£.T'DA Â¥o ti,h, Al . - 0 Mouse . '1 2 . - r .- ZLZZ . _ . liC. 4 E Â¢ i /* - 1 Exts*TINA ' 2 - WALL El//2 6: . 1/. 2 To mc REMOVED 2 OPEN To EX/sTINQ ICITÂ©14261 1 , - '*4-11-44%0 AvolÂ·rioN 5/ MAIN Houe* BeY.N V â‚¬Â¢.4 Lâ‚¬ 121O 0 0 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 11. 1997 0 Meeting was called to order by Suzannah Reid at 5:05 with Gilbert Sanchez, Mary Hirsch and Susan Dodington present. Excused were Roger Moyer, Melanie Roschko and Jeffrey Halferty. Mark Onorofski was seated at 5:15. MOTION: Gilbert moved to approve the minutes ofApril 9, 1997 as amended on page one and the mihutes of April 23, 1997; second by Mary. All in favor, motion carried. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Susan Dodington stated that the roof is coming offofNo-Problem-Joe's house. Suzannah stated on the 6th and Main project there is an electrical shed and she feels it was not reviewed by HPC but the appearance is that it will match the existing siding. MOTION: Susan made the motion to nominate Suzannah as chair; second by Mary. All in favor, motion carried. 0 Mary was appointed to DRAC. Gilbert is a regular member. Amy Amidon, planner reported that the DEPP committee is close to forwarding a recommendation to City Council and they will probably support no extension the mall. Issues addressed are widening the sidewalks; change some ofthe parking patterns and improve tree plantings. A summary will be provided to HPC. 514 N. STREET - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT Amy stated at the last meeting there were concerns about the encroachment ofthe addition onto the historic house and carriage house in terms of the roof form. Gray Ringsby represented the applicant. He stated that the overall size has 0 been reduced and the entry changed since the last meeting. Simpler lines 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 11. 1997 0 have been incorporated. To preserve the historic building better he linked the addition with small roofs. This allows light to enter on all four sides. The new siding will match the existing siding. The chair, Suzannah Reid opened the public hearing; no comments, public hearing closed. Board members made comments on the porch wrapping around; the addition stepping back; the existing door on the main house to remain; the height of the addition in terms of overpowering the historic structures; dormers and triangular windows. Amy stated that in Ord. #30 there can't be any windows between 9 and 15 feet. If it starts at 14 feet the.applicant either has to eliminate the bottom foot or HPC grants a waiver on Ord. #30. She stated that the windows have no impact as there is no glazing below them. MOTION: Gilbert moved to approve the Conceptual Development of 514 N. St. including a waiver of 5% additional site coverage based on the site 0 plan presented at this meeting and also to approve a waiver of Ord. #30 regarding the height of the ceil of the windows (triangular windows in the gable ends) and a waiver of Ord. #30 on the existing house; second by ~ Mark. Motion carried 4-1. Vote: Susan voted no. Suzannah, Gilbert, Mary and Mark voted yes. 132 W. MAIN - BASEMENT - ROOF -DISCUSSION Ron Robertson, architect and owner Tom McCluskey presented. Ron stated that the west roof sheathing is deteriorating under the shingles. The proposal is to replace the existing two by four structure on the west with a two by twelve with the proper insulation. They also propose to take offthe existing fascia and put it back in the exact place (exhibits I, II (5)). Suzannah asked if the work would be done behind the facade on Main Street as the gable end is on Main St. She asked that the rake end remain and work from-there back. 2 '1$1 Mkl 0/2% - Â« 444 - 1 ~i.~. 01/. * 2"" 4-- EXI5TING - NEW ADDITION - EX15TING ~-| -*Ell'_E kf_VALLQ-N_ 5CALE 1/ 8" - 1' - 0" 6 0174uw30vA 9 G 0 @000* #,6 Cal m Afâ‚¬40 , BEX15TING NEW APPRON - E)(15-rING -~ - EA.5f ELEVATION 5CALE 1/8" - 1'-0" 0 1-*-IL f 7: 294 ; I . '30'Z.$ 11 Â«rpl- jV012 TU ' 409:,t. â€ž '791Â» : 15421 â‚¬Â·: Â·: 1.4Â· 75 FEET EDGE OFPAPEAIENT - .14 WIDE -\ e N / +1 i ..4% / 4 ~ 26 1 1 I k: \ FOUND 44:-7.4 OLD SPIKE R> .44 6. \ \ 7:,es 4;'â€¢ I *â€¢r . 1.,k. -40 .,NA PLAST I C~ 0 5Â· 1 2376' 5 - 9%+4 \ lity.44 ~ 0 e N 1.-(%--/ 1.\ ~24' ?4.;#it, I : 4'1-90Â· 1 :41Â¢4 'jlifÂ©/ i )79 'C 1 0 9. CAP .LS 12376 YELLOW Â¢lkiT ODK tzâ‚¬~Â·Â·Â· 1 1 .4 , I ForÂ¥ LOT I 3.4. 7. 6.23, 3. -f 444 4 1 1 / 8*.3 . 414.zA* - 4. / FL L' I 1 1 1 1 - v< BORE+i ,.F#*M#, 4.kjAC -..,1/4~ 3 [4 ~ l:_ ii-LZJ ' ~-01 rp 7-- - . 4 3... '2474 SILL - 100.0. l . 1 1 1 1 . . 74%22 1 1' 1 r PAVERS ---7 ~ 1 ~ 1 ,.;a Â· - 174â‚¬ /0~ 3. 1. f . 7*#442, // 1 1 LOT 2 .. I. 2..'?95>j / 1 \ .- EAVE 1,8.- l - LOT 3 . +:I.*4 â€¢ 9 Â·,r : 1 1/2 STORY WOOD FRAME HOUSE //1 1 0 // 1 ADDRESS 514' ..:. ~ 3?11 \ /.8, T Â· '' 1 -441 O N ,Â· 8 - CO 1 1 V.j'..4 %941,2 * 1 \\ , 1 /1111 1 21 4% 4~t, '1 ' ..M: . '" iewt: Â¥,4, 2,Â· --1-IC 111 1 . . -4444.â€¢; . 3 N. e.h . . 0/ 02Â·,21,/:-1 2 9/ W , .. Â·95Â· 7 44 5 00 Â¥O I, 1-6 - ;* Â· 1 LMJ'.m Â· ',Â·3'kiliFI'Mi... R %/ GRAVEL A -----1 0: .gy 1 :19*500? PARKING -2; , r :. 1-;4'1. 7*A l. -4 4 -091 0 5.8 1 \ U -~130 v L-.1 10.' y 7* A t~ 1 ..1, 'At: -31 Â£/ 0 11 V PAVERS r--9 Flkt_/r 1/Mr < j 5 1115 IÂ°LA*33 F.' 7. 8,43& . '../4. tf .4.2, :>.- â€¢' Ita $ C l Â· /6./5. I.R.4 1 . 6 - 1 1 A W I ! 1:14, ~Â·asÂ· 5 - 7.,141.29 lc- I (ENTRY /00.4' u 1 Ch .... -. 24 004Â»/ / S tiw 18 - 14 * l ; 4Â·UE jig.6- .5.6. i)l ip CARRIAGE HOUSE Â· '921.4 ADDRESS -510' 1 -- --- 0 1 - --- N 75' - .4 i. f..â€¢. 1 Â·* 6%. S 74.09.11.E 6 09 ItÂ·w 30.00. EDGE OF :5,1....1.4:t i GRA 4,-- -/-- ELECTRIC W 01 6 S. 6. TRANSFORMER -- Ne..0 . . 1 . . 1... . 1,/ UO. I .., ~ A**C.:1 4 â„¢1 -2 - EAVE 111.5. O 0,7 - THIRD STREET BACK OF CURB S 00'08'00-W 103.38 i -9: Air WÂ¢ Jr*,-2*>.j n. .. 0 6 Â¢ 1 I . - r \IRT- STREETÂ· b + C + + (/4 N 75DEG.09'11'W . NL../ / \ 74.40' 0+) 3 2 4 r-9---4 1 !--- 1 1 14 Â«11 ) a ~F/=i// L -1=.17 -1 1: 1 % 1 1 6 -r-i-,2/L=-J < 01 P 1 ...CL ---9 | ~ VALLEY L-_------- 4-- 6~ T i-1 - - U @41 RIPOE 01 z VALLEY 1 2 E----- E--- 1 40 - 4 i.o . rl VALLEY / 94 li 4 Â° lp-_3< 11 JILp WitÂ» ER - 7 f-1 R 2 + i 4 fil 6 3--3 . 1 ~ -- I 1 U 1 1 \ 1 1 1 f \ 5 I2224 I E 233 1 r /4-=C- 1 4 --3.--1 33\ 1 , d , I 79+05' 4 e 9 1 1 91 . // 0 14\ i F 99\0 1 1/ix vRE:4 \ liN -*1 -- , I :l : 0 ~ ~ ~~~--1 % - 11Â· 51 ~1 A Hv â‚¬=22=== El â€¢ 2*Z e==Z E# , >< 7 1 1~h 0 / Â«51Â£0 .1 g + I+ I E JR - \ 1 Â« .4 0 ' J \ 'h , 4104Â«i g ar- 0 1 4 i \% 5 0 0 c 0 Â¥4 1- 4. 1) A L- 1.-1- li ~+) 3 41 11 60@ 11 0 39 73 Li - ian 1 f ~-~lhv=zv \ 1 ~ r~ L Oi 0 1 .1 BUCE ---> 8 - c- 048\ \2 i 1 09 -TI 11 0 i Z 1 1 ONE i S 75DEG.09'11'E 18.14' . O 0 0 CÂ»---~ ~ l. - ---_ __ __ __ ----------7.- -*- 3/6 -- _.1 ~ 1' N 75DEG.09'11'E 30.00' \- E- 6 9 3, Z GRAVEL ALLEY L NORTH - E w 1211%1 6 5 W Y FE 611713 N C E 89 ~ Un ru O 914 NORTH THIFF 5fFEE f - . AOFENICOLORAPO 03 1 , Â«90-/0- ly'KDO-I-3?N~~~ UNIH 1 HldON EXX5'ING VOOP PECK ~ I\IMV1 LINE OF EXISTING ROOF TO [38 EXTENFED-~~~ 110- 11 4 119 /13-IV96 111*ld FIN1*9601Â«1 /3116 TOrAL BULPING POO[PRINT INELICING NEW APPITION- 1298.99 501]Ale FEET W ROOF AREA 15 HATCHED i <Â¢) ir-en 33'-2" (VI.F.) .0 51-091 - 20'-7" 0 20 -3 V,I,F, 0 -- MIHEATED 591*2 1 1:7 j'J E)(15TING OU[P0012 FIREFLACE 11 , 1 V CL05ET CL.O5ET U 1 PATHROOM - /7 961 MECH. ROO XI I /12] U. REMOPELEP KITCHEN k Â«~z~ 01Â» 82 PORCH 9 - - U / 1 ---1t<ua-- -1---L--1-1---I----1---L-1---I--LlÂ«/ f j d @All*OOM #1 MAG'[Ele @EPROOM BEPROOM * 5EWOOM lili 1 9 ,Â«ti ffijilitilÂ«jic, 1 \\1 1 i / / 1/' 1 1 1 k 1 --1 /1 ll1 0 14 1 EXIMING WALL TO DE REMOVEv--- 41///i/ 4 --------------Â· C\,09ET 1 / \4 3- Â»1*ip 4%\ T / \ /1 1 wum/#52&84/ t -FL 11 4 1 1 /7\ 1 al \\\ CL-O5ET Â£ PAN'02Â¥ - :/ / / / Y / / 1 tt#7lt/ 1 V--/5457 L) aL O _ 1 --3 7 lil 5Kt ROOM P -- -E~O ~ I NEWC "L ' 1 .//9// Z\-0 BATHROOM - -- --1 A - - 1 r r----7 1 .1/2 111 17 <C L AUNPRY < ' 9 ' ,/9~3' / KEW MNK[ E 4/4 .=i J I ill / l/'.0.9... Â« 1 I 0 \ , :*/A , x NEW 90201 ' 9 / / Pk / /7- 4 711 - b n 2 51TTING ROOM \ BATPROOM ~ 1 L PINING / x x i,. i Al'~ ~~ F 1 , ' E 15: ~ 1 - 0 _ ~Ew popcH 1 J <JF'i ~21-~ ---). 2X KEPWOOP PLANK FECKINICi j - , ~ 6<01-UMNIS 9' 501.1,E ?9/ CHAMFEREP EQUE (PAINTED WHITE) - 2- 1 - 1 1 51WY - 201 -011 ..1611 01-P W\IN ENTRY ' 21'-0" 71 -7 1/ 211 I IATCHEP Al?EA REPIE5ENT5 NEW APPITION 968.9 50[IME FEET lili 1 1 lili 1 1 1 , I ' It LINE OF ROOF ( ROVE) NOTE: ALL 9MENNION5 TO DE VERFIEF IN FIELF. FLOOR PLAN 5CALE I/4'1=41-011 . 3/ 30/ 98 5HEET NO, 2. 1 2 0? 4 '~ -~tt'l~ ~-t~' e 3~369 '14- 1 r # 4 - : / # / 1 :4. h fl] pl 1 11 1 1 // n 11 '14,1 If 1 1 it Il I 1 1 WORTHI ELEVATION 5CALE 1/4"-1' -0" l KT SHINCLE5 10 MA<CH E)<511\16 ON DO,NeP ON FACIA TO MATCH E)(1511NG 1 /11/21 lili 11 // lili // lili / 11 1 11//1 1 4 1 #11/1 / r---1 / 1 /11# 1 /0 1 41//11 U.1 1 11/ 0 :5 1 /11. 0 1 Ill PAINTED COI?KER 00,12F5 TO MATCH E)(15~rING 1/11 1 " Z un 1 11 4- < 1 221 + E - 1-1 11=331 //44 4 4 4 0 L] 44 4 / 'poll /0 11 i/9 1 0 /1 0/ 4 111 11 11 El El 4j& 4.55 W WOOF EXT, POLPLE HUNG WINPOW5 VELED CEP,12 51PING PAINTEP TO MATCH EXISTING =-X15111%15~ EW APPIrl X151]NO-----------0 ~ 3/30/98 ~ WEVT ELEVATION ~ 56/ie 1/4" =1'-0 " 5HEET NO, â‚¬ Fl 65 1 , kAN 3 0? 4 i Uk .) Li 1 3 3 11 6 51 3 1 H 1 HI 1 31 JOINJOISGUI AGGUINIbl 0dV30109 r - liNG " 2 4 #r <:Â· K e ' r 'R EL-119'-11" 1 '11 1 1 , 1 - 11 EL-i16'-9 \ \ N N ~ PLATE @FORMER EL-114'-91/211 11 \ 1 1 :: \ Tia PLATE< PEYONF) 44\ \ 9 0433 214 - K -- - - EL-112'-1" 1 --- POITOM OF [3EAM \ 4 \ 4 \ \ f 1 1 -- -% 1- , i /1 1 , L 1 111'K 9,1 1 , 0 '' 'v + 74*: 32,~etllf/,1 6 1 al r l,A l C / 1125 /14 - 1 lit OF NEW ROOF LINK PEYONF E lit OF KITCHEN CIELING DEYONP MWENRY i \ 1 \ 000 NEW LIVING ROOM EL- 100'-O" EX'511NG GRAPE CRAWL 5418 EL-95'-0" VOUTH ELEVATION 5ECTION THROLIUPI NEW AFFITION @ FORMER - c A )- 5CALE 1/ 4"-1'-OIl 5(JALEI/4"==1'-0" /,liN 111 0 1 f 4 4 4 I. DED --- -~- % % t. - n 911 1 U 4- < li \Sh ' # 4 1--3371 liliF~~1 Ill 2 u IJIL L E O j ,11 P 111./. illid' 3 [_1 U 1 5/53798 #-----0XI5111%1C~ W APPITI )45TINC~Â·-----~ EASE ELEVATION 5HEET NO 5(ALE 1/4"61'-0" 19 W 4 0? 4 JOIN EllÂ¢33 U]69 i iI J d 1 6 dul l H 1 HI 1 31 Odvbl 010 9 r 1Â«-1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director 46~494 FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer , I RE: 834 W. Hallam Street- Extension of conceptual approval DATE: January 22, 1997 SUMMARY: This project received conceptual development approval on April 26, 1995. Section 26.72.010 (F)(3)(c) provides that an application for final development review shall be filed within one year of the date of approval of a conceptual development plan. Unless HPC grants an extension, failure to file the final development application shall make the approval null and void. One year extensions have been granted twice, with the most recent set to expire on April 26, 1998. At this time the applicant, Michael Hull, requests HPC approval for a one-year extension of conceptual approval, to allow more time for study of the final design. The conceptual review packet is attached for your review. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends conceptual development approval for 834 W. Hallam Street be extended until April 26, 1999. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "1 move to extend conceptual approval for 834 W. Hallam Street to April 26, 1999." LE'.. *.... . >4Â§41. . . . 1 . I . . ... 1 4/ 4 â€¢ -... .. :.1. ... f . - . I . . 1 . . . Ill- I . .. 1 1 /<NE 1 - -A * â€¢ . I . I I i . !---- 3- -r Fren- . .... .1. li 1 . . 0 . . i-4~ i P-'Li - . - - 1 1--. . L--- ew====.7.1- I . 1. I I . 6 . EX. SOUTH ELEVATION . 15. _l . . t - - - Â·1 . I â‚¬ . S 1 . -P. e - r . . 4 2 1 1. I . ..6 ' .... 4.'* . .f- I .i. .. . I .4 ./ 1 6 ' . I- . 1 . ' 7 41- .4; I- ,- - . . . L Ii: . .NN -,r -'--= 61 - . . I . , r .. . Ii- #-1*51.f b. * ... ': A I ./ 1 I- Ii~.1/9./.~ 4, JAKE VICKERY - 4Â·Ji â‚¬15Â·45$:-4 3 Â· f <'Â· . / -7.714'.,AS.254': ... -4.1 - POST OFACE BOX 12360 4. . 1 a. * 100 SOUTH SPRING ST. 03 . -EX WEST ELEVAT IGN - -- r a. - s ~~ . Â·Â·ASPIEN*li~IXAgo,612 *â€¢ .. hi . t -. - - 94 - - . . 2.- /1-1 . -CE'+ Â·+ Â· I â€¢ .. . . 99*4... I ./9, -./ 'r 4 0 1 . - ... t*:r I .. Cy: '.- % Â· ... EX..NORTH. EL.EVAT*ION. . - ----/,I. .- >F:â‚¬1; + I. - 4 tr... + . . -" 0111 7 â€ž ../ - . 73: - ....t - if.. - *2 .9 N 15 - 1 A I *l .. . . . . I , a 1 W 11 [3' . . - I . . ' . I . I . I'. 1 1- L . .U . .11 . . ..lij - - ~ Â·~ ~-: -- . V .~ . . , ... e . . .... ~ *fs JAKE VICKERY I . I .. mt 4 , . +Ol/k. C-- - .1 ~~ ~-2 Â· 100 SOUTH SPRING Sr. 03 .- . I .:I . I ~ EX. EAST: HELEVAT IÂ·ON Â· = rosT OFFICE,ox 12360 - . - 1 ..1 2,2 - 4 3- ASPEN. COLORADO 81612 Â· ~ * 42*'-r JELEMIONE / FACS:WILE 4 , ... ' 1. &61 -~-* z - **~* *#5*73g\09 z - 16. -i - =En . Â· . . Â· .. . . HNEE#--7-:- Â·- . 3 . 19 2.2.. Â· ... '21+ . \ - . C . I Pt . #23 (303) 925-3660 ..... 9' '2'3404/mise,9~49Â¥4 -: Â· - . - . .. I . . . . . I . . .. . 4 . . .. B .. . ..... . . - .1 . . 111.- 1 .. r . . .. ... , 1. . . - .. .. I . I: . . 1 r i . .. . i- . Â· J. . 4 . 0 . . ... . SOUTH EL EVAT ION, ~ 0 1 3 .. 7 . 19 . - 2 - Â· -/li,/1 1.1 I. 1 .. It \' 1 \... - - - 1 . ... 1Â· Iii ./ -1 , . q I .ilial' , il_ I i lili . 111 I. . I --I.Il. I .. . -. . 3 L=21Â»g . 1 4. Â· , 4===1 . & . I . I .. 0 . 1. ..... e _ WEST EL EVAT.1 ON - ~ JAKE VIC 12.. tog sourHS,KING r. E-',~61/6//1/2~ POST OFFICZ 80* :23.0 tl ki -f UUMON. , ,- ASPEN. COLORADO 01*12 _JEEDE====:EM-f.Qi&PGDO(jO.: * 1,031 '21-34.0 . . - 0- . - I 1 , . --1 . 03 - 1- .. ... 0 . ... . ... . f 00 1 . U . + -4 . .It .. \ *---I-- . - 1 -0- '1~ . - N-OR THEL EVAT--ION 4 .. L~_21 . =====a .. I i ...i . , 4 \. :11 : 1 . I - \ - . a . . I . EAST ELEVAT ION 0- - ril JAKE VICKERY I. 1 1 IR &1ist Â»rport-W - 100 SOUTH SPRING St C r-*/ POST oFFICE BOX 123.0 C-,4 ASPEN.COLORADO SUC {,03, 923-,6.0 TEU'WONE / 'ACSIMILE .. . 0, ....0 , L. . , 021 . I -t 11... 2.t I ' I . I . , .... 8 4 1, , L.8 4 . . : .Â· 1212' 44(1 . $ I . . 1 - 4 . . .. .22*, v.4 ,.,.,. - , . ..1 . --6 , 1 A..1 . . 41.11 . 2 I + . . . ,./. t. . 1 .. 4 Â· -4/-Ik ..... t....... I . . , . d 4 . 4 . ' .9122==51 422 . .1 . BL./.gf . I 0 : t. . .v 1 1 â€¢ i ...9 1 ..... Ill. Â¢ 0 . i f . . 1 11 - i I ...bll 5 - . . =10 , I 1 .- v - , .. I .0 4 , JI 0-1 1 . . , ' ../ . I ...... 1/694* I. 1. .. . 4 t 1 %, :V. g.1~~,- 01 0: ,1..,A .,,4. 4.,9.i 1. WI _ I. ' . ' . | I| ' ~~ ~ ' . . &|I" ./. - . 0. . a..11 - . - 01 ....1,7 . 't@Â£102 ' 1,2~ 'Al ; . . 06&4. 0 Â·Â·-?40 . .' . I . . . 1 , . 4 . Â·Â»-iÂ·th' I . 0 0 Â·lul . /tr'.1 , 1 . , I + 10.flf:.1 I I. .6.Â· .4 .: .14 2%-. , -p ". 4,4,1 ./., I â€¢ 11Â·9.... Ill ' Â· . '2, 24...~,~,2,~ffS,Â¢N '. I ' i ' ~''~ . ,-+ 1.?~'Â·:t.4:0 ' *~ ,' fiÂ«41 ~<;4<~r.Â·t .. I .. : i:io.#AÂ·'~ 1Â·. 944/42 ,... .:. .... ..:.3.5....14.:,I,bil)2.4.''.il . . Â· â€¢ .IM Â· I Â·, I â€¢2 ..Â· e . . I . . 1 . t . . . 0 ....L ... '4 . 1.41 1:.- 11.,..0 '41.1.47..:lyÂ·; ;3~94(h.?43,Â·F+#14;7'Â£ , - , i I . Â·-Â· Â· ,Â·:~." ,Â·Â·Â·Â· Â· :Â·, '5~~i eÂ·,.: 0.â€¢c;Â·i,e'KA r.*4 , 1 4 .4.11*..,414:Â·ily.14:rig . . .. . I 1 ...'4*- 74341#4 1 . * ~ '? ~'<#44;Er,~,:*3 . '' r . ./ ..1 . I ... . . . f -: .7 : . *i f f,i. 9 ril.C 4 ImPA 'Â·.Â·;31Â· dr. "944*7 1 # ~ Â· 1 Â· Â· . ,4,0 .~Â· I ':.afÂ·,biÂ·,4i'., 141,1:,,....Â·t t.:.cÂ·* ......n.%113.1.40.i:.16 3 $42+1'.42::f.rf'L.'20*:Â·.1 m I &3 ,/ - Â· I ' I - . 1 . . : I I ........4 .. ,. j< ' tÂ·..Â· >-~Â·"' '~ ~' -' - Â·'t -4,~ . 9'N'Â·Â·!3Â·~*2' <+ "'4. '1 . , . .. . . . ..0 " : .. , 1, 0. . Â· 1 ' ' .* ' 0 Â· - , .. | ~. -z~| |||| |~~36 ..|A|*:5545'13.2%~fi?t'~1334:titti'~.3-ilt-flt:f K:Ii?Â·ffi:i:Â·f>;.jeÂ·~Ff I I I . Â· . ,Â·s:Â·:6,.3{i..t.lis:.,Â·tjit.'.:1.. 272.6.21:9'-i-*24Â© , '<fÂ·.*.Â§4.Â·.. 5'..f-,-*r r.Â·t~-~~~~ ~.,' >4fil@NE':I.Rft./4)'it'r~.41 1 .' ' ' 1?-i:~li~-~! /1--'i-flf''Ati'.74RK*~Nfi.46kfifitiiÂ·~44*flittlitj,(Â·~jkjbtfli~~ . ,; ' .., 4 "~". 'Eigi::,:;:..:~.'...kt r.ted. fAV.,Al:f. 1.1. Oft.lf?.â‚¬ . d . '*Â·'!Â·.Â·.6,#:..~. ~' I' /~~/1 *~.-/'..'.:/.h-~'4~4 3 # r, Ny T,Â·r....Â»,2Â·7:1.i:,7,Â¢5-~.r:~~Â·~;qÂ» 1...9. '2.Â·d 77 â‚¬-iâ‚¬''liFT'.Â·,7.,~g ' ,~'4;,- .~i:(~44..~i It&%:02~'AR.J,Qi'J#Â·431.1~~414(3~oflit,Â·>46:t~%6Â·%*1~~2itÂ·lim~ift . 7. 7/"EAP<d.67:69).1/Age>;.4494Â¥03%%Â·42*41,4(7*FJ'=IRY+)1'7-at# 0 * MENDIA HXVI - - - ~01-1-1219 33,141Kia , tieaa 2 41. LL e MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 303 E. Main Street, correction ofpermit violations DATE: April 8,1998 On January 16th, a letter was sent to Niklaus Kuhn, owner of 303 E. Main Street, outlining those areas of the project which are in violation of HPC approvals and building permits. Mr. Kuhn was given a deadline of April 1 to correct these issues. Since the letter was sent, HPC has met on the site with Roget Kuhn, and staff has had several meetings with both Niklaus and Roget Kuhn, including a meeting to schedule time on tonight's agenda for a presentation of proposals to resolve the items. Staff advised the applicant that in all cases, the resolution HPC expected to see was one that brought the building into compliance with the approved design, which was reviewed in detail over a long period of time. Where the project can not be brought into compliance with the approved design, an alternative was to be suggested. Following are the areas of concern as stated in the January 16th letter, a summary of the applicant's response at this time, and a staff evaluation. West side: 1. On the historic house, a side entry door and steps leading to it have been removed. A door and steps must be reinstalled, to match what was removed. Response: The door and stairs were shown on the as built drawings submitted with the application and were indicated to remain on the approved plans. After review with the applicant, it appears that the door has in fact always been somewhat hidden from view by a large lilac bush that stood against that side of the house. The applicant states that replacing the door is impractical because it is not usable given the interior layout, and stairs cannot be added on the outside because they would encroach into the right-of-way. . Staff finds that adding the door without steps below it would be awkward and not of benefit to the appearance ofthe building. This item may therefore be approved as built. Relot 6 2-24' 0 2. HPC gave approval to glass in the west porch on the historic house. Below the new windows, the original beadboard has been replaced (without approval) and new beadboard has been installed badly, so that the lower part of original columns are covered over. There are numerous gaps between the top of the beadboard and other trim. The beadboard must be removed and reinstalled so that the wall is as shown on the approved building permit, including the historic columns remaining in place. The beadboard shall be installed to fit around the windows and against the trimwork as it was originally. Response: The applicant will remove the beadboard as necessary to expose the base of the columns along the west porch. Additionally, a trim detail will be installed below each window which is similar to the previous appearance of this wall. The beadboard will be repaired so that there are not gaps where it meets other surfaces. This item will require oversight by the monitor since the applicant suggests that it may be difficult to retain the existing columns given their condition. 9 j n 6 U~Â».fu P j 4.-- South side: 3. On the rear of the tower, there are only two windows on the second floor, < Olqwhere there were to be three. HPC will forgo correction of this issue in consideration of item #5 being addressed exactly as described below. Response: No correction on this item is expected. 4. The south wall of the screened (Ilow glassed in) porch on the historic house has been removed. Removal of this wall was never approved, nor called out in any 0/~-change order. The wall must be rebuilt to match its previous appearance. The exterior door to be installed must match what was shown on the approved building permits. Response: This item is problematic because it concerns the entry area into the two tenants' spaces. Because the outside wall was removed, an entry vestibule into Bacchus and Matsuhisa is now exposed to view and the doors of the two restaurants are visible. Neither door is particularly compatible with the architecture of the building, or were approved by HPC. 0 The applicant would like to negotiate with the tenants to have them replace the doors with something that would be acceptable to HPC and would leave the vestibule open to the outside. The tenants seem to prefer having an exterior door which encloses the vestibule as was originally approved. The Building Department has suggested that an exterior door at the vestibule may make access for the disabled difficult. HPC direction is needed on this issue. North side: op-Â· M.R- 9 6,05 3 en 6 al/f 5. On the north entry into the new addition, columns that were to have been wood were built in brick and the railings are more crudely built than was approved. An exposed beam at the top of the wall is currently left unfinished. To resolve the problem, the brick columns are to be removed down to a height of approximately 2 feet, as shown on the approved change order. Wood columns as shown on the original building permit submittal are to be placed on these brick pedestals. The same detail is to be created at the end of the brick firewall, by extending the wall slightly to create a pedestal and by placing a half, or engaged 0 column at the end of the wall. The brick wall that has been constructed between the center columns is to be reduced to the height of the brick pedestals or as low as is allowed by UBC. No railing is to be placed on top of this wall. The railing up to the door is to be rebuilt and detailed as it is in the approved change order. A drawing of the corrections to this entry area is to be approved by HPC in advance of construction. Response: The applicant has provided a drawing which shows the upper portion of the brick column removed and replaced with a tapered wood column, which is similar to the one on the approved drawing. Staff finds that the proposal is moving in the right direction, however, the appearance of the railing and trim for the beam which sits on top of the brick column is not addressed. 6.<A fixed window, rather than a double hung window has been installed in the bay on the north side of the historic house. This window must be replaced with a double hung window that matches all proportions of the original window. Response: The existing window will be replaced with a double hung window to match the previous appearance. 0 Tower: 0 7. All windows and doors on the tower were to have brick arches over them. These have been eliminated. HPC will forgo correction of this issue in consideration of item #5 being addressed exactly as described. Response: No correction is expected on this item. 8. The canopy over the entry to the tower on the west side is not as approved, in size, detaili91: orju~erials. It is to have meta), not wood brackets. 4-=Â£/54.:Â«7 4> //19*.CAL, The canopy is to be removed ana reconstructed exactly as shown on the approved plans. Response: The applicant proposes to replace the existing wood brackets with metal brackets, as shown in the approved drawings. The metal brackets should be exactly as designed, or the proposed alternative must be presented for HPC approval. The canopy as originally designed appears to have been open, that is not boxed in beneath the gable. As it currently exists, the canopy has been boxed in and a light has been placed 0 in it. The applicant would like to keep the light, but will change the fascia detailing on the canopy so that it matches what was approved. The canopy has a two foot overhang, rather than a three foot overhang. Staff finds that this does not need to be corrected. Shed: *9. The mechanical equipment/boxes which have been installed across the back of the historic shed must be either painted to match the wall or must be enclosed with a wood "cabinet," the design of which must be approved in advance by HPC. Response: The Building Department has given approval for a cabinet to be built around the equipment. Staff recommends that such cabinet be built. Staff does not recommend painting, because it is a less preferred option since the equipment, if left exposed, will still be very intrusive on the back of the building. 10. The door into the shed has been widened and replaced. 0 0 HI'C will forgo correction of this issue in consideration of item #5 being addressed exactly as described. Response: No correction is expected on this issue. olf--0 Rae f: 11. HPC approved the rooftop mechanical equipment with the condition that the equipment be painted in a dark color (in warmer weather) and that a design for a parapet wall be submitted to HPC for approval. No drawing has been received. Response: A drawing has been prepared for a proposed parapet wall. Staff finds the proposal acceptable. The wall will be covered with wood siding and trim. The applicant has not indicated whether it will be painted to match wall surfaces or roof colors. The mechanical equipment itself must also be painted. * L-j- 0-,p 4 u :,4- f \0/1 1, lili 00~3 //UU, PO.+ fjo-g 6 1 3 7-Ag 0 General: c*UJU 4 12. Light fixtures on the building have never been approved, but are being installed. All exterior light fixtures must receive III'C approval. Response: The tenants have been asked to bring their proposed lighting fixtures forward for approval. No information has been received to date. lB. All signs to be installed on the outside of the building require sign permits. EFL I: r i e job r- S /0 n _ 16*L Câ‚¬Hv4 4 Y- #416- 3,c,Â£,A , Response: The tenants have been advised to apply for sign permits ior all signs whichf have not been approved to date. 14. All new wood must be painted. Response: The applicant proposes to paint or stain the wood in warm weather. Staff recommends paint, rather than stain, to be in character with the historic building. 44-ffo 41-/4.) th,c aiL.-9 3 flu. .046 -lhsuÂ»:-3 9+A #79 Â». Â»121. 54;46 Fy- SUMMARY: Of the 14 items outlined in this memo, Staff recommends that the 0 following: 1,3,7, and 10, be approved as built. Of the remaining items, Staff recommends that the following items be approved as submitted on April 8, 1998: 2, 6,8,11. These items are to be dealt with exactly as represented in the applicant's letter of April 2, 1998 and as described in this memo by Staff. Item 9, the equipment on the shed, is to dealt with as addressed in this memo, with a cabinet enclosure rather than painting the area. Items 4 and 5, the entry into the tenant spaces and the front of the new addition, are the most complex and require HPC direction at this meeting. Item 12, sign permits, are to be submitted for staff review, through the Zoning Officer. Item 13, light fixtures are to be presented for HPC review. Item 14, paint or stain, is to be addressed by HPC. Staff appreciates the applicant's effort to address these issues. With HPC feedback, a new deadline for completion of the work should be established. Permanent "Certificates 0 of Occupancy" will still be withheld until all areas are resolved. 9~9 - gpo a4 At 4-f 12 4 41 0 -3 d k t- 0 b x.1 9Â« D f V Y V VU- vuv-y-V. - 41Â»-- A-Â»t~ xÂ»Â«EPÂ»-ylÂ»-_ 5-6d~---= 0 1/4 kÂ»-4 4- flu. ~ ' el * OfÂ« (>0 4 -O L aise,â€žu_ -efo/n WL4 Jk (4/70Â«Â«72 t/I) MARK H. BRADY ATTORNEY AT LAW THE SMITH-ELISHA HOUSE 320 WEST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE FAX 970Â·925Â·1700 970Â·925Â·5200 970Â·925Â·5200 April 2, 1998 Amy Guthrie Historical Preservation Committee 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Permit Violations at 303 East Main Street Dear Ms. Guthrie: As you know, my office represent Niklaus Kuhn in regard to the above. This letter is written in response to your letter of January 16, 1998, as well as the meeting held in your office this past week. Please present the following response to the Historical Preservation Committee: 1. Paragraph No. 1 of your letter refers to an entry door that needs to be reinstalled. This reinstallation proposes a significant difficultly as it will require stairs that are impractical due to the sidewalk right of way. Furthermore, the door had been non-functional and hidden behind shrubbery prior to the remodel. As we left it at our meeting of the other day, you will rethink this issue and discuss it in more detail with the Committee. 2. My client is willing to address paragraph no. 2 of your letter by exposing the lower part of the columns on the west porch or reconstructing them as is necessary. My client will further install a column detail below window mullings as shown on the original plans. Lastly, my client will attempt remedial work on the beadboard to remove the gaps referred to. Please see Exhibit "A" enclosed. 3. Paragraph no. 3 of your letter does not have to be addressed, as we will be complying with paragraph no. 5 of your letter. 4. Paragraph no. 4 of your letter proposes significant coordination problems and issues with the existing tenants. As indicated to you at the meeting, doors were installed by the tenants without the approval of HPC and the landlord. While my client recognizes that this is ultimately a problem that he will have to rectify, he is dealing directly with the tenants at this Amy Guthrie ~ Historical Preservation Committee April 2, 1998 Page 2 time in order to compel them to reinstall Victorian-character doors acceptable to the HPC. In light of the legal issues involved between landlord and tenant, we would appreciate the opportunity to continue to negotiate this with the tenant and to keep the HPC apprised of the status of the same accordingly. If a resolution cannot be reached in the near future, it is the landlord's position that the landlord will take the necessary action to comply with HPC requirements. Please see Exhibit "B" enclosed. 5. Paragraph no. 5 is being addressed in accordance with the proposed plans attached hereto as Exhibit llcil . My client is more than happy to continue a discussion with the HPC as to how they wish this detail to be completed. However, we believe the detail proposed in Exhibit "C" addresses the concerns raised in paragraph no. 5 of the HPC letter, as well as the discussions had this past week. 6. My client will comply with HPC's request in paragraph no. 6. 7. Paragraph no. 7 does not need to be addressed as ~ paragraph no. 5 is being satisfied in lieu of paragraph no. 7. 8. My client proposes replacing the wood support from the canopy with metal supports as shown in the plans. The front of the canopy will be redesigned to conform to the details of the plans, recognizing that the canopy will remain enclosed so as to accommodate the existing light over the door. The size of the canopy will remain as shown. Please see Exhibit 11 Dll enclosed. 9. My client will paint the mechanical equipment/boxes on the back of the shed so as to blend with the existing wall of the shed. Please see Exhibit "E" enclosed. 10. It is my understanding that the shed door issue has been dropped by the HPC in consideration for my client addressing paragraph no. 5 of your letter, as well as the fact that the door installed meets handicap requirements. 11. As you know, a parapet is being designed by the architect for Matsuhisa. It is my understanding that the HPC has been presented with the design of a parapet, or shall be receiving same in the near future. Matsuhisa is responsible for installing the parapet and we understand that they will be doing so upon HPC's approval of their parapet design. If, for any reason, the parapet 0 design has not been received, please advise so that we can take steps to facilitate the same. Amy Guthrie Historical Preservation Committee April 2, 1998 Page 3 12. It is our understanding that the tenants have made applications for approval of their exterior lighting fixtures. If this is not the case, please advise so that we can take steps to facilitate the same. 13. It is our understanding that the signs installed in the building have now been approved by the HPC with the exception of the corner Bacchus sign. If a permit has not been received for the corner Bacchus sign, we will take steps necessary to remove the sign or to ensure that the tenant has obtained approval for the sign without further delay. 14. The unpainted wood will be painted or stained, weather permitting, in the near future. We will keep you advised of the painting. I believe the above addresses the concerns that have been raised in your letter. To the extent you require additional detailing of modifications to be made, please advise. In either case, we ask that this matter be presented to the HPC at their meeting of April 8, 1998. Please advise as to the time that our matter will be heard on that date so that we can attend and respond appropriately to the comments of the HPC. Your and the Committee's review, patience, and cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated. Y ry trul w yOUrS, idy Atto---i -2 Law MHB:bsl Enclosures ~ kuhn\hpc.ltr i"F,4.-.ff*VEÂ¥>EdfE.4314.1,140,;.~.PitÂ¥.i--,4 A . ;.(/4 F.:9100*ix Â·.3 ./ 1 Ni*htÂ·*1 1 ' Â· 2 Â¥44;'T--- -':2-04'447,441 Fil, -Ir' ,/ .<4* *OP .11%*~~iFF.gr,4,1'f"i LM* 1Â¥4*4 ? N.>Al)(48*~WI.*i E.=:. 5/ ' 3- . .......Â·-ikif. 1.4?4 r:latâ€¢â€¢1*]... - D.Â· im. : . 115Aqi......mill 1 ir' 7 1: Eâ‚¬?*144*:itiPArt<*f )I~ :4 ~'~9~-st~?4' '14.Â£20 13**A,4' Â·Â¥90/~ly Aiiliiij/fil"11 ;.MÂ·:1'Â·'5*?fj:11*WA ' . I 31.01 141Â¢i =-1--4-/- 4 --1:7'Zil~Jimillfilly...7, 4 . . 1 044% . l. 3,- 1444 0 , Cr S P 2 4. 2% 1. Â·, . Â· ... ".9 'Uk/- Â· -_1 t -1 Pr--'7=/ 1 =a 1 - U.F.Mel 4tz.Fit:~3 _-X-"-~B...1 \ \ 14 . &:#t li % Ut Lf- - ri L I,L ; Â·i.....tfl,-k~AR;?tÂ·iT:,,.j?:'9.v,-Â·fet Â·, U '.>Â·~i. 1,Â· '. f. 4 * ' Â·I.N..4...4.4. P::-/.9 /2 /.A ./*M . #â€¢iÂ·/ EXHIBIT â€¢4 llS IAN /t .4 4 '14 1 31% ..%. /1 , -2 2 I Â«m + 4. R f 4. Â·1. H fc 3 \Â· 1 f S .1.Obir , , Â·- 4, CE Â· B 1 N JTE V â‚¬74 kN)f E'S of/14#ON A PAOPOSE 0 0002 }40<E 29 H,fiC, A.JouILD Nor BE FUNC-rcon/AL A :90 WO M LO ON LV CA U S E PA.08 ce Als . 7~8>v~ IW TS ug i LL AE f LACE- 00 0 2% \A/ 1-r-tj u i c--r-O/3 (AÂ«/ 00023 A P f R-ove o Al) L A u\j O co'Â£- t) ANO tl I 0 E 1-,L, =1---m- -34# 1 EXHIbi i p *=}11 f.= 9/ 1,~ 1 Il -Â«r j//61 J , 4 , . . 1 4 I . i It. 1. J'.404 , 1. 1 1 . #1. 1 1, m- 'te 45 i .-1 y t. 4 L 1 ' r 1 ! j - 1 1 1 11 1 1 n. ... 1 - 1- 1 .- ! 1 95 0 4 t â€¢, /Cla_- L__1_ '41]1 C ill -21 fill - HAR ') RK, L -Ll_ I 1 ._L__ 1 10,.14 \ I li kc w t .E c- agilxs - - -- < EXHIBIT Â·ALLI ' 'IfÂ·, ./ - :4#4$*- 4 .t J. ./ =LV ../*-' C.,1// 0 4 . Â£102...9* Â£ .. 9. C.ilpt*, .. ... f. #.0 {2 ..ID: =â‚¬, F.1-#*.~~ 14 1.4, f ? 1 LÂ· 9 411 , 11 1.4 ..1 'W * f-~: 1---9 ' '.T ltâ‚¬-FLACE \A/000 5 UPPO/CTS U' 11 ; t ' I .2- I ve ITH F.ACTAL SUPPOKTS . 3., .~ ~ ~-~NI- ~ 1 + - *bmi 54- - _.,~#lf*,45 Â·. r~~Â·Â·tÂ·:~64 'Â·41:3*-AtÂ·Â·Â· : I .I-I. ' '7-*I,1,'It.* 0 .-*1119 4 - djil .4 ,~ 2 -~:WAA.C:ifili;~1-0-4 EW.*. r./// ,#~p--3.7 Lug-:>41- .. - .1 2.:rel f...*.* pE ~*%32<le- 1- 1â€¢/ir-, /9.HE: INEÂ»#fil ,~ - ---- t:-=2:2 - -- t,.Zzlmil - ...I-. ..I M Â»50.14. L.Â¥71 129 ---4- ...... tup.,6 - - 0 - ''---*11Ir~ 't ' - 3 m-*Nu. 3 .rigip'-r7--6.- -2~, -- 20Â¢llir- 1 _.-*11,(- 52'ga-â‚¬334- 91= 3195. 71 Â«.,1'rr- 1~~4,4-1 .... I .Â· , 19,2 0:,-f Â»Â·d . A . ' rp .1 ~-~~1 . , - i ./- ' I . .. ./ U . . .1 \,\11, -- &=07 ..1111~ ............dil&52*1 r VE r 1///,7///Ill"i.Il - 7---E---I==gi-il- 1 1 1/6-7#bati#/2/Efb . .f B KG FT.Li /1 x / 14"t Bl (: ./1 /41-/ r,INF. / bo v 2/10 Â»,i-,Ye , L 1- u --A- -Un - 1 11 lili- - 20 0 1 1 63 4 44 rh #eu 41 0 A r .(*107 5,1, I 9/1,41& U Ok,6.1. &*MA,06Â·19 r~ H.-7.49 . 0 0 <-1-.-far L 04 'i. --/- MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: Isis Theater approval, information item DATE: April 8,1998 SUMMARY: Because some current members of the HPC were not members during most or all of the Isis Theater review, staff was asked to provide a summary of the approval. Attached is the HPC resolution of approval, the final approval memo, all minutes, and the drawings. In essence, the existing building will be expanded towards - the east, onto the empty lot. The front of the building will be restored, by removing the board and batten that was applied and repairing/rebuilding the original storefront facade. A portion of the east and west walls will be reconstructed using the existing brick. The rear of the building will be rebuilt. The building will be a five screen theater. A free market apartment and two deed 0 restricted apartments will be built on the roof. Roger and Melanie are the project monitors. Construction is expected to start this summer. 0 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Stan Clauson Cotnmunity Development nirer.ttir / vy THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Planning Dirc FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer ~ RE: 406 E. Hopkins Avenue, The Isis- Final review DATE: March 12, 1997 SUMMARY: The Isis, formally known as the Webber Block, was built in 1892. It was originally used for commercial shops until approximately 1920, when it was converted to a theater by the Women's Civic Improvement League, for silent movies and minstrel shows. The existing alterations to the front facade are believed to have been made in the 1960's. The application is to convert the existing one theater house into apprdximately four theaters. Conceptual and partial demolition approval from HPC, landmark designation, Ordinance #30 review, parking waivers, open space waivers, and GMQS exemptions from City Council have been granted. HPC conceptual approval was given on August 23, 1995 with the following conditions: 1. Restudy the free market unit particularly dealing with the south, east and west elevations and the placement and orientation of the unit. 2. A complete restudy ofthe tower and new additions as to materials, detailing, and being more simplified. 3. A complete package of demolition plans and how the demolition will be carried out. 4. A complete plan of materials onthe north alley. Numerous site visits and worksessions (minutes attached) have been held since that time to address areas of restudy. On January 22, 1996, HPC granted an extension to the conceptual approval, allowing the applicant to proceed to final review. APPLICANT: Isis LLC, represented by Vann Associates and Charles Cunniffe Architects. 1 4 , LOCATION: 406 E. Hopkins Avenue, Lots L,M, and N Block 87, City and Townsite of Aspen. Conceptual Development PROJECT SIJMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 7-601 of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "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 by up to 5%, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units, pursuant to section 5-510(B)(2). Response: The project involves constructing an addition on the vacant lot to the east of the existing structure, adding two affordable and one free market housing units on top of the existing structure, reconstruction of the historic storefront on the . existing structure, excavation of a basement and construction of new theater space, and rehabilitation/demolition ofportions ofthe existing structure. In general, HPC has been in favor of the proposed design concept and the program for this project and has indicated support for the continued use of the Isis as a movie theater. The areas of greatest concern have been the visibility of the housing units, extent of demolition/reconstruction required, and material selection for the new construction. The applicant's initial proposal added five housing units on the roof. By working with the Aspen/Pitkin Housing office, the units were reduced to three, and the applicant and HPC spent significant time restudying the apartments to lower their profile on the roof and pull them in from the existing Isis walls to the extent possible. In terms of demolition, the applicant will remove the board and batten entrance and restore the original storefront to the extent possible, will retain the portions of the 2 west wall which are currently visible, and will reconstruct the Â·portions of the east 0 wall which will be visible in the new project (using salvaged materials). The interior of the Isis and the roof will be demolished to allow excavation of a basement and to accommodate the new theaters. Some discussion has been had about the "preservation message" which will be sent to the public during this significant and highly visible construction project. The suggestion was made to drape the building with fabric as is done in many projects in larger cities, however, staff recommends that the applicant create a small story board which may be displayed near the project. Finally, several meetings have focused on the selection of materials for the new construction, but no specific materials have received approval. Staff notes that there are two changes made from the conceptual design; the free market unit has been shifted forward approximately three feet and the elevator tower has been given a vaulted, instead of a flat roof. The applicant should discuss the reason for the relocation of the free market unit. Staff recommends the elevator tower not have a vaulted roof since it is not a typical roof form in the Commercial Core. Staff recommends that HPC grant final approval for the project with conditions. The project has required many compromises to meet all the goals directed at the site, including historic preservation, creating affordable housing, and retaining a community facility. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: This particular blockface is one of the weaker ones in the Commercial Core from a pedestrian* standpoint. The addition fills in a "gap" in the streetscape and creates a gathering area for people waiting for movies. One of HPC's primary concerns has been the visual impact of the housing units from the pedestrian's view. This and the fact that the units will be viewed from above from the ski mountin should be considered when building materials are selected. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. 0 3 Response: The new addition is set back from the front of the theater and the 0 rooftop addition should be unobtrusive enough to allow the historic structure to remain the predominant element and therefore preserve its historic significance. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The project does involve significant demolition and/or reconstruction of the existing structure. This may be balanced by the restoration of the original storefront. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any ofthe following alternatives: 1) Approve the Development application as submitted. 2) Approve the Development application with conditions to be met prior to issuance of a building permit. 3) Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (Specific recommendations should be offered.) 4) Deny Development approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. Recommendation: .Staff finds that the conditions of conceptual approval, with the exception of material selections, have been addressed and recommends HPC grant final approval for 406 E. Hopkins, the Isis Theater, with conditions. Recommended motion: "I move to grant final approval for 406 E. Hopkins Avenue, the Isis Theater, as presented to the Aspen HPC on March 12, 1997, with the- following.conditions: 1. The applicant shall provide samples of all materials for approval by the HPC and label all materials on the permit set. 2. The applicant shall retain the existing masonry wall oh the south facade and those portions of the west facade which are currently visible. The applicant shall reconstruct the exposed portions of the east wall to match the west wall, using salvaged bricks and matching the coursing and mortar characteristics. A sample panel shall be created for the approval of staff and monitor. 4 . 3. Physical evidence uncovered during demolition which provides more accurate information about the original appearance of the south facade shall be incorporated into the restoration of that facade, with the approval of staff and monitor. 4. The applicant shall retain the existing "Isis" sign and reinstall in its current position. 5. The applicant shall submit specifications for repair of historic materials, including cleaning and repointing of masonry, for approval by staff and monitor. 6. The applicant shall remove the awning from the west side of the existing structure. 7. The applicant shall repair and reuse all historic fabric on the south fadade of the building, including the windows, cornice, and building plague. 8. Any changes which affect the exterior appearance of the building shall immediately be brought to the attention of staff for approval by staff and monitor. 9. The applicant shall create a story board describing the project to the public and place it near the project. 10. Eliminate the vaulted roof on the elevator tower. 5 A7-TACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1. Project name The Isis Theater Renovation & Expansion 2. Project location 406 E. Hopkins. Aspen, Colorado - Lots K,L & M Block 87, City & Townsite of Aspan, Pitkin County, CO (indicate street address, lot and block number or metes and bounds description) 3. Present zoning Commercial Core (CC) 4. Lot size 9,000 SF 5. Applicant's name, address and phone number Isis Limited Liability Co. c/o Houston & 0'hearv Tnc. 620 E. Hvman. Asoen. CO 81611 975-8664 6. Representative's name, address, and phone number Charles Cunniffe Architects 520 E. Hyman, Suite 301, Aspen, CO 81611 925-5590 7. Type of application (check all that apply): Conditional Use Conceptual SPA Conceptual HPC Special Review Final SPA . . -**- Final HPC 8040 Greenline Conceptual PUD Minor HPC Stream Margin Final PUD Relocation HPC S.ubdivision Text/Map Amend. Historic Landmark GMQS allotment GMQS exemption Demo/Partial Demo View Plane Condominiumization Design Review Lot SpliULot Line Appeal Committee - Adjustment 8. Description of existing uses (number and type of existing structures, approximate sq. ft., number of bedrooms, any previous approvals granted to the property) Two story brick/sandstone masonry and timber frame construction containing: Mnvi. ThAA+or: .1,297 SF not leasable Plumbina Shoo: 1.469 SF net leaqahle Dwelling Unit: ,7,53 SF net leasable (2 bedroom) 9. Description of development application Restoration of the original qtrpet faca rip; : Adrlitiong and intprinr rpnnvation to accommddatc ncw screening rooms, lobby and conccs:Mon space, toilets, el,4 evator, affordao-ie housing units (2-3 bedroom) and tree market housinb (1-3 bedrm 10. Have you completed and attached the following? XX Attachment 1- Land use application form XX Attachment 2- Dimensional requirements form ~ xx Response to Attachment 3 XX Response to Attachments 4 and 5 11111111 ATTACHMENT 2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Applicant: Isis LLC Address: 406 E. Hopkins, Aspen, CO 81611 Zone district: Commercial Core (CC) Lot size: 9,000 SF Existing FAR: 8,041.76 SF Allowable FAR: 18.000 SF Proposed FAR: 17,830 SF Existing net leasable (commercial): 5,669 SF Proposed net leasable (commercial): 11,693.5 SF Existing % of site coverage: Approximately 691 Prcposed % of site coverage: Approximately 95% Exisring % of open space: Apprnximatply 91â‚¬ Prccosed % of open space: Approximately 5% Existing maximum height: Princioai blcia: 28'-3" Accescry blda: Proposed max. height: Princioal bldc: 40'-0" Accessorv blda: P-coosed % of demolition: 70%_ nf pxtprinr wall q Existing number of bedrooms: Two (2) Prcccsed number of bedrcoms: Three. (3) plus six (6) Affordable Hsg Exiscing on-sjte parking spaces: Four (4) Cn-site parking spaces required: HPC Waiver Setbacks Existing: . Minimum required: Proposed: Franc None Front: None Frcnt: None Rear: None Rear: None .. Rear: None Comoined Combined Combined FronUrear: None FronUrear: None - Front/rear: None Side: None S ide: None Side: None Side: Nonp Side: None S ide: None Cambined Combined Combined Sices: None--Â· Sides: None Sides: None Existing nonconformities or encroachments: None/Eight (8) inches over the westerly horripr nntn Int A Variations requested: None (HPC has the ability to var/ the following requirements: setbacks, distance between buildings, FAR bonus of up to 500 sq.n., site coverage variance up to 5%, height variations under the cottage infill program, parking waivers for residential uses in the R-6, R.15, RMF, CC, and O zone distncts) . LOCATION MAP - O t. . ON i h Â·. -f/\34~Z-,_# g~.1'E . -- .1. 1( 441 1 1 ..... - I 23 v 4-4 9443Â°.:~ ~4~3%%--2 7-- -0 -il/1,/ â‚¬4 ~CA. -0 C >r/ef~-~ 0 *,04't5to;?;h \ .4/ .. . .--4-, --- ;N CY .'4 5' -14 $01'.0. I /2 b A.O.n ..CD 42% 11 1=4' f tri. titus. ar ., Vt b 844 . am!14 1!J 1,4 '4 21 - Â·~42-4.*TEÂ·J ~ j '6-0~~Â£Â° Â·244 i -- 31.3 k. N * 4 -ViSM.'b.14 9 1 1 4 , 4,â€¢e:7 94 1Â¢ vt.. 0, p'. 4 4.-4 / 6 u A 1.4 4 014< An 1 Abpen., Matn St 1 %94 - i -' 4., 4 " r Q.1 . $ 91 . 44 . i ' - u/ C '+~ 1 4 - \ 4 d -cÂ», a 4*4 4/Edt 7 4. -~ 41U01 ~ 1 2/,7 / - n l 1 1 1''Af ri,V v d a'%41917 FIRA.1 136>1- 1-Alpq-loP' 40G a. ttorptirle 1~ 4<~4~ ~ ,~~:*~ r~L-=Â·e/F < - ~~'r .,131:0 *Aâ€¢~ I. '31,9. - Â«23 20-1 , 64,6..Â©%>.3 8/12 7-10-95 Sts RENOVATION CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS 10,1 1,61, 4 H. AttlY lt,OCK 4, ~~~ i.. 1,4, i...4 .i, â€¢ â€¢iri vi â€¢ i'rpi M "IM ' flitÂ· y,14,1-41,1 ' faÂ· 101,11 $04 The Isis Theater Renovation and Expansion STATEMENT FOR HPC FINAL RETAI=l'i'~ The proposed plan to renovate and expand the Isis Theater is intended to extend the functional life of this important cultural and entertainment facility. Generations of Aspen's citizens and visitors have patronized this institution since it opened its doors in 1915. Originally built in 1892, the Henry Webber Building was a commercial building before becoming the town's only theater during the silent movie era. The renovation and expansion plans are focused on several objectives for this landmark structure; the most significant being the restoration of the original street facade. This work will include: â€¢ Removal of the wood siding and canopy which conceal the original street level facade. â€¢ New, historically appropriate storefronts, glazing and doors. â€¢ Refurbish or replace as required the second floor windows. â€¢ Cleaning and repair of existing brick facing and sandstone details. â€¢ Repair and refurbish the existing Isis signage. The restoration effort will return the street facade to its original appearance and enhance the overall historic character of this neighborhood. The Henry Webber Building remains the last Commercial Core structure to undergo renovation. Expansion of the original facility will occur in three ways: new basement space to accommodate screening rooms, toilets and lobby space; infill of the vacant lot to the east to provide screening room, lobby space, elevator and stairway; and housing, including affordable housing units, on.the roof of the existing building. These new additions are intended to defer to the restored facade of the original building in the following ways: â€¢ The infill addition is set back from the original street facade approximately 18'. â€¢ Materials and detailing of the addition are intended to be distinctive but appropriate and compatible with the existing building. â€¢ The affordable housing units are located along the alley to minimize their impact on the historic character of the original building from the street view. â€¢ The free market unit is setback on all sides to minimize its impact on the historic character of the original building from the street view. The development plan submitted for final HPC approval conforms to all representations made during conceptual review. Conditions placed on the conceptual approval were primarily focused on the selection of the exterior finish material palette. These were satisfactorily addressed with HPC through work sessions which occured subsequent to the conceptual approval. The final material and color selections are to be determined in the field with the designated HPC monitors. CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS FEBRUARY 19,1997 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 1995 Susan: I would think he wouldÂ· want a traditional awning. MOTION: Sven moved that HPC approve the awning for the Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory; one foot skirt awning with materials and paint to match; second by Roger. DISCUSSION Melanie: That means he will have lettering on the street side and the courtyard side. I feel this is too much lettering. Sven: I also agree with Melanie that it is an impact. Amy: We usually say one style per building. AMENDED MOTION: Sven amended the motion to approve the submission with the requirement that the signage only be on one projected face of the skirt awning and that the color and lettering style needs to be the dame as the other awnings; second by Roger. Passes 4 to 3. Martha, Susan and Linda voted no. Sven, Melanie, Don and Roger voted yes. 406 E. HOPKINS - ISIS - LANDMARK, CONCEPTUAL, PH Amy: I have listed on the board the conditions that I propose for ~ approval. We have eliminated two units on the roof and there ard story polls up. I feel we still need discussion about architecture on the roof top eldments. Charles Cunni f fe, architect: The main concerns seem to be the second story addition, the ground floor and facade were OK and everyone as comfortable with that. The second story architecture 'in terms of massing we were directed to look at something more contemporary in contract with. the existing building. Something that would complement the existing building. The S elevation has a less profile than it had before. The two critical places of public view are in front of the Gap and in front of Eddie Bauers. The renderings show the impact. We feel it is subtle yet it is obvious it is not part of the original building and it is a little cleaner. The curved roofs were generated by the view plane issue from the Hotel Jerome. We were able to hold that back by the closet and lowering the plate height. We also raised the front plate height of the units and lowered the back plate heights so the units would get the view toward the mountain. Regarding materials we are probably using a manufactured stone that would be a sandstone product in panels-as a way to carry on the stone and the panels would be slightly darker in coloration. Different but subtle. We are retaining the Isis sign and we are saving the metal _ material in the rear. , 4 0 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 199% Sunny Vann: We met with the planner and the housing office and it was clear from Dave Tollin, housing head that this- could be-handled from a staff level bedause the number of employees generated falls within- the purview of the staff. We were able to ascertain that two three bedroom units on top of this project would more than meet the requirement imposed under us on the growth management. We feel the P&Z will recommend the same. This is all still subject to review and approval by the P&Z and from a formal referral from the Housing office. With respect to the theatres we are continuing to evaluate the layout of the theatres with a theatre consultant and it is possible that the seating will change. We heard what you said about wanting a large theatre. This one is less because we do not carry the seats right up to the foot of the stage and we do not have three or four rows of seats that are questionable from a movie point of view but are functional from an auditorium .point of view. We will continue to look at those issues. At the last meeting I heard the roof was just too busy. Too muck walkways and too much roo f going .on. This allows us to pull the two af fordable housings units back to the rear of the building. We have cleaned up the court yards and the space between them. We have pulled back part of the free market unit so that it is all uniform 18 to 20 feet from the front of the facade which will make the east side of the free market unit disappear to the same extent that the west 0 side does. Amy: At the last meeting we supported landmark designation, and HPC approved the parking waivers and the open space reduction. CLARIFICATIONS: Roger: What is the recommended material for the third story south, east and west sides. Charles: Manufactured stone in panels and we can make them any size we want. Donnelley: The storage is down below and that makes for the two theatres up above. Previously the free market had a fire place and is there a fire place now? John Wheeler: Â·If there would be a fireplace it would be a gas appliance but currently we are not showing one at all. Jake: One of my big issues is demolition. John Wheeler: We talked with Bill Drueding on how the city views demolition and if it.is over 50) they consider it total demolition, 0 only as a code issue. If you demolish half or more of the structure theh you have to go through full mitigation. He has 5 . ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 1995 ~ acknowledged that it isn't total demolition but it is more than 50% and that is where it was left at. Amy: It doesn't have further ramifications for them and that was what was my concern. Jake: When I looked at the numbers I saw that what you were adding was more than what the existing building was. How is demolition measured? Amy: FAR is the unit of measure but the only time it matters is a residential demolition. With ord. #1 they are worried about 50% demolition. Jake: How much of the existing FAR are you demolishing? John Wheeler: The exterior wall is what is being retained. Jake: As I look at it I see the retainage of the west wall, north wall and a portion of the east wall. The building itself is being demolished. Charles. Cunniffe: It is done all over the country. In order to get theatres. downstairs we have to get access to the whole body ~ with machinery to get down and dig it out. In order to do that we have to ge= rid of the building that is there. We also have to underpin the building. Sunny Vann: Maybe I can clarify the regulatory side of it. When the Gap was reconstructed a full basement and roof was constructed and it was a substantial demolition on the building. The current code as far as the growth management is cencerned is if we retain a portion of the building and it is not complete demolition and we raised the site we only have to mitigate the additional stuff for net leasable square footage that is added to the building. From a commercial point of view the only issues in terms of impacc are - the net leasable square footage, FAR has nothing to do with what ' we are going to be required to provide in the way of mitigation for our growth management application. In terms of the regulatory side of this we are in compliance. In terms of whether you think there is more demolition that is a separate issue that is not governed by specific regulations in the code. That is a call on your part Jake. Chairman Donnelley Erdman opened the public hearing. Harley Baldwin: I own the building across the street and if any of you remember in restoring the Collins Block thereÂ· were very strict rules and that was that if there were any additions to the top it could not be seen anywhere through town, not from across the ~ 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 1995 street not from La Cocina not from the Hotel Jerome and that was the rule and I feel we should abide by that rule here. I had to set my addition back 15 feet and push it down ten feet from where I wanted it to be. This building is extremely apparent from the Collins Block, Eddie Bauer and from in front of the Brand Building and half of historic Aspen. It looks like the. new building is eating the historic building. Â· I feel it is much too high and in fact I found I could create a wonderful space on top keeping it out of site. I feel the idea of restoring the theatre is a terrific one. I do not feel there is any reason to have a setback on the side. I feel setbacks on Aspen are terrible and they are not historic and not helpful. If he needs FAR let him put it there. I have noticed that the number of bathrooms here is ridiculous. It is way too high. The code requires way too many bathrooms. It looks like the new building has teeth on it and it is consuming the historic building, munching its way halfway through the building. You cannot see what we put on the roof from anywhere in town and that should be the standard, Thank you. Donnelley: We are in conceptual and we can take Harley's consideration. The Collins Block did have certain advantages with the parapet. Charles Cunniffe: I do not think we can make the addition go away but we have reduced it and that is due to the fact that each side has lower buildings to it and it will always be visible just by the nature of what goes around it. I would like to see this building taken on its own merit. Sven: I feel this is a much improved design particultrly in materials and summation of massing. The building sections on A.4.1 would seem to indicate that perhaps another structure look, the structure that holds up the housing unit floor, it looks like there is plenty of ceiling height in the lobby that could be handled differently. I am wondering if he could compress the roof structure of the theatres and possibly reconsider the ceiling heights of the theatres to further debress the housing units. This is in response to Harley's comments which were valid. Charles: The space there is indicated for mechanical duct work. We are trying to preserve a view. . Harley: The standard that it cannot be seen should stay. Les: You building was historically designated and that is the difference here. Harley: It should be designated. Les: We are getting designated with a design control. Â· 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 1995 Amy: Harley's property is on the national register and we do have complete design review over this because it is in the commercial core. In terms of the historic landmark they are getting GMQS exemptions out of it. There should not be a big difference here in the review. Donnelley: We need to take into consideration that the ultimate building is going to change the perception of the block. Charles: There were numerous comments but not a consensus so what we did was take those comments that would work and tried to work with all the comments in some way such as moving it in a little. Susan: There is a lot of tenant storage and could not some of that space be used to reduce the height. Charles: We need air exchange and the air exchange has to occur up high. Susan: You couldn't use the basement? Charles: The owners wanted storage as well. We are trying to keep the housing impact off the building as much as we can. Roger: Could the duct work be exposed for theatres A and B? 0 Charles: There would be sound problems and vibration transfers. The exposed duct work would have to have insulation worked around it to such an extent that it might not be attractive. We can look at that. Jake: You have created an area in the middle of the roof that is a depressed area and by doing that you pushed the hoUsing to the outside. It seems to me that you would want to concentrate your square footage in the corner and leave areas for setbacks for .a more visible size of the structure. I am still concerned about demolition and it seems that you are retaining only 200 sqft. of the historic structure. We aren't saving much of the building. John Wheeler: We are keeping 70% of the exterior fabric of the building and yes the interior of the fabric is being renegotiated. We cannot dispute the interior fabric. I feel you have to look at the exterior of the fabric and what is being, preserved to the outside. Charles: We feel the exterior fabric and the theatre use are the most important. Jake: If maintaining the theatre use destroys the building then _ 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 23. 199!i 0 I am perfectly willing to get rid of the theatre. I would rather have the building then the theatre use. What good is it to put in a use that destroys an historical building from an historical preservation point. I feel all possible options for renovation of the structure in its basic form should be explored before we leave that area. Would it be possible to invert the floor plans and in that way you would utilize more of the existing structure than in your present proposal. Charles: This building has an immense egress and to put more people down stairs would require more impact on the building. We feel the main theatre is more historic where it is. There is no way to renovate this structure without demolishing the floor structures. The use that is there now was not the original use. We made the entrance to the building back to where it was historically. It is a ground floorÂ· entrance like all the other buildings in town. ~ Sunny Vann: We need to See if more of the fabric of this building needs to be preserved. Amy: I understand what you are saying Jake but every commercial building in town is gutted just like this one is being gutted. We do not deal with interiors. I am not sure this is a significant interior. 0 Sven: I feel this is close to compatibility requirements. This doesn't have the character of Harley's block but I also feel this should go through a stringent view committee. Having the housing a low impact is better. - Harley Baldwin: This is one of the top ten buildirigs in down town and the theatre use is fabulous. I feel the theatres will add life to the downtown. Their parapets are just as tall as mine are. Peter Kuntz, I have worked for the New York City Landmarks Preservation Committee for several years in setting up guidelines for Greenwich Village and one of the things that maintains historic character at,a point when it wouldn'tÂ·last any longer is that when ycu do a structure on the roof like this the shape, fenestration those .elements announce that it was not part of the original structure. Maintaining the original material, brick or whatever the volume was of the actual building stone, maintained and did not swallow the building. The -other thing that we found of vital importance was notÂ·breaking up the city scape itself. In this case it wouldn' t matter if the addition were a glass and steel structure again in proportions that were compatible to the building next door itself but it is bringing it out to the street or only having a minor setback that maintained both the historic character of the building because it is part of the urban environment. You do not 0 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 1995 want to create dark gloomy spaces on the street. I do not know if ~ pulling the addition building forward would allow. more space on the roof. Charles: We wanted to take a little bit of the corner and have just enough gesture to make the addition read as a separate entity. We did not want the entrance precieved as an entrance to a commercial business as it is the entrance to the housing. There is a little planting/plaza there to set it- back from the facade and it becomes a stage set for the theatre. Peter Kuntz: That was what we found was wrong. By making it a stage set you destroy the point of the stage set Â·to begin with because you have lost the urban experience. It wasn't the corner of the building it was the overall feel. The city itself is an historic preservation feeling and is maintained by the character and quality of the street itself. Chairman Donnelley Erdman closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Les: I wish we had different zoning requirements when we did the Collins Block Bldg. I feel wh have learned a lot since we have done your building. . We are not loosing any of the origin,al ~ building and we are getting the facade back to as close to tne original as we can get. I feel there is community support for some compromise here and retaining the theatre is great. I would like to see a further restudy of the ducting if possible. The Fire _ Dept. will be gone and probably another huge building will- be put in. Conceptual works for me. If you bring the parapets up then you loose the historical facade on the original building. Susan: Is it possible to put the stairway vestibule between the two units on either side? Charles: We wouldn't have the square footage. Susan: Possibly if they were narrower stairs. Charles: I believe this is the best solution. Roger: The demolition plan has been submitted and if it is an acceptable plan to staff then it is acceptable to me. The concept of demolition that you are proposing on the building since we do not deal with interiors and use Of interiors is certainly acceptable. The contemporary history of the building is a theatre and if we were strict preservationists and we dealt with the interior that would be tossed ouc in the community. We would say than you have to restore the building to what it was, originally and //IA 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 1995 if you can squeeze a theatre in fine. That is not what I want to see happen. I probably can not vote for conceptual as I feel we need a continued study of the roof top placement but I feel we are close. If we view this from the street the south west corner is the most dominant. The portion on the other corner due to the addition is not as conflicting to me; however, I feel the mass on the roof can be moved around. I would like more study of materials and I am not sure stone is an appropriate material on the third floor. I myself would prefer brick, a new brick and a different color and sheen. Even a rusted metal cculd have been used because that was what was on the back of the building. Continuing on with materials the new addition to the right which is inset has some sandstone lines on it which are trying to pick up those of - the original building, I prefer that those be removed and that the new addition be skimplified more and that if in fact those lines are necessary that they be done in brick not another element to pull out the historic structure. Retain the Isis sign is a great idea. Metal on the rear needs to be studied and keeping the back simple is appropriate. Submit specks for masonry repair is very important particularly on the corner where the piece is going back. Waive Ord. #30 and we have dealt with the issues of housing. In relations to Harley's comments the building to the west could be built out and raised higher and that might happen and the fire station could be sold and maxed out and that might happen. -If that were to happen I would demand that an entrance be in the little patio which would then create a sense of messy vitality and would be terrific. Donnelley: As Roger said the new addition rather the tower portion has not been restudied since the last time and there were recommendations made and they were not taken into consideration. I have a great deal of trouble with the roof configuration. The south east corner of the free market unit virtually will never be hidden and will always encroach visually. I would recommend even if we give conceptual approval chac the free market unit be turned 90 degrees and scmehow pullid back a significant amount in the neighborhood o f eight * to ten feet in both east and wesc corners. The AH component is as far enough back so that it will never be effected by the site lines but the free market unit will effect the site lines tremendously for a long period of time and I do not find it acceptable in that southeast corner. That is the main issue for me. I am recommending a restudy in plan of the southeast corner. I also find the tower watered down historism and it has crept into the city very heavily and I would like to discourage that. Charles: We did look at leaving the bands off but it left something to be desired. Sunny: If we go forward with conceptual that is to our benefit even if it is with conditions. 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 1995 ~ Donnelley: I would suggest that a motion be made with a number of stringent condition and then the applicant can proceed and also deal with these conditions. John Wheeler: The story polls' are placed at three points and you cannot see them from across the street. Chairman Donnelley Erdman entertained a motion. MOTION: Les moved that HPC approve conceptual for 406 E. Hopkins with the following conditions: 1) A study session to address roof top materials, setback on the free market unit and the attempt the additionally lower the roof top units through interior ducting. Motion dies for lack of second. MOTION: Roger moved that HPC grant conceptual 406 E. Hopkins with the following conditions: 1) A complete restudy of the roof elements as to mass, scale and height and materials. 2) A complete restudy of the tower and new addition as to ~ materials, detailing and being more simplified. ./I 3) A complete package of demolition plans and how the demolition will be carried out. 4) A complete plan of materials to the north alley; second by Mialanie. Discussion: Roger: Rooftop means mass scale and height. Jake: I am against the motion because this is a significant building and there is no reason to rush through t*his. The conditions that are proposed as part of the conceptual are huge and they are the kinds of conditions that need to be dealt with at conceptual prior to moving forward to final. Les: I feel we are very close to being there. Amy: We need the waiver of Ordinance #30. Donnelley: I find asking a restudy of the roof is vague. We need to be explicit. My suggestion was that the free market unit be relocated and reconfigure so that it offers a significant setback on three sides, south, east and west. I personally do not have a problem with the employee units other than perhaps in detail, ~ 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 1995 possibly a stronger break in plane between new and old. AMENDED MOTION: Roger amended the motion to scratch complete restudy and add restudy the free market units particularly dealing with the south, east and west elevation and the placemerit and orientation of the freemarket units. Also to add the waiver of Ordinance #30; second by Melanie. Sven: What about story polls. AMENDED MOTION: Roger amended that the story polls be retained or replaced until the board has an opportunity to see them; second by Melanie. Sunny: What about materials. Donnelley: I was talking about using brick and I was talking about using brick specifically on the tower which comes to the ground. Sunny: We are looking for mo]?e clarity o f whether the materials should be emulation of the original materials or a contemporary material for the solution. Donnelley: That needs to be clarified how the applicant responds to the request to physically move the walls of the free market units back. If they are moved back there is a definite break in plane and it would be less visible then it may be appropriate to continue with a brick expression. Sven: The side theatre and tower at a conceptual level I am approving it in volume and stuff but I am still wavering how appropriate that sti'le is. It is not just a question of materials for me. Depending on how the roof is solved I feel that should integrate into how the stair and housing unit is solved and those two should be visually linked and I would include-. that in conceptual review. Donnelley: The suggestion is that a revision to the massing and location of roof elements may indicate the need to tie the fabric of the roof more closely with the fabric of the tower. Sven: We can''t evaluate that until we see the roof solution. Donnelley: Now we have three different things, the old brick of the historic resource, the new o f the tower that comes' to the ground and a third dealing with the roof. It maybe appropriate to reduce that to two expressions. Roger: I think that is clear to the applicant and does not have to be included in the motion. You might use a brick that is 13 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 1995 different than the historic brick but close. Donnelley: I agree with Sven that in addition to just a material study of the tower that it may be wise to incorporate the material of the tower or all new additions into one kind of fabric for all of the additions to the building. Sven: I want this as part of the checkoff list. Les and Sven didn't vote. VOTE ON MOTION: All in favor 0Â£ motion and amended motion. Passes 6 to 1. Jake opposed. 525 W. HALLAM - WYCKOFF - FINAL Amy: I am recommending final approval with the recommendations that they get a letter from the structural engineer stating that the shed can be moved. This appears to be feasible. We need to know how and where the shed will be temporarily stored. The applicant needs to post a bond and I am recommending $3,000. or whatever the cost is to move the shed. They want to make this work and get moving. They also do not have their landmark approval yec and the condition would be that if they do not get landmark that the city would use that money to *put the shed back. Work with staff and monitor on restoration of historic materials, remove the cresting on the porch of the new addition and finally assign an HPC member to be a monitor. Glenn Rappaport, architect: We lowered the.garage into the ground a foot to deal with the height problem. We took Jake's comment about dropping the roof at the point of the new addition on the north L so it would be a better differentiation. The little metal detail on the roof we don't have a problem with that. The reason we put that there is that we believe there will be a snow problem with the way the snow comes off the main roof. We thought that it would end up breaking the snow and go over the side instead of over the'front. The intent would be to make something a little more abstract and we would like to work that out with the monitor as we do think there might be a problem. We have the letter from Mr. Cole the engineer regarding the shed. Regarding the shed there is an overlap of about 1 1/2 feet from the old position and the new position. We would like to dig under there and form the foundation and slide the building over onto the new foundation. That assures us that if we don't get landmark designation we haven't moved the building. Julie would like to discuss the bond amount. CLARIFICATIONS: '14 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 27, 1995 have to make it an ADU and as a conditional use P&Z will probably require one parking space for that which means we will be required to have three parking spaces and we can only get two in the garage so we would also request a parking space for the ADU. Amy: If they choose to resolve their vo1ume issue with. an FAR bonus then you should probably say now if HPC is .willing to grant the 500 sqft. bonus. AMENDED MOTION: Roger amended his motion to add a parking space variance for the possible placement of an ADU unit in the'basement; second by Les. Les: I don't consider these little mining shacks boring or ugly and I personally love them. They are the essence of what the east end of Aspen used to be. They are re-landscaping next door and what has happened with this extensive landscaping we have lost a building. By requiring a landscape plan I am afraid the building will disappear. Roger: If you require it then you can control it. You can see what the plantings are. VOTE: All in favor of motion and amended motion, motion carries. ISIS - WORKSESSION Donnelley: We did a site visit and observed all the story polls. Sunny Vann: We would like to- make sure we are on the same track before going to P&Z and that is why we are back so soon. John Wheeler: We have extended the existing wall back. We have stayed Â·away from the back units. The four points left from conceptual one was the restudy of the free market unit and we feel we have done that and hope we have met your concerns. Another was the aspects of the tower and we changed the soldier bands and another aspect was the demolition plan. The fourth mater was the material on the alley side and the material on.the upper level, brick or stone and the existing metal that is on the back. Regarding demolition the existing wall will stay in place and the walkway in front of the street along the sidewalk will be at six to eight feet high. As the facade *is renovated and restored we will put panels in there such as was done with the city hall building. John Wheeler: We also supplied a streetscape elevation from the Caribou alley side which demonstrates how low it is and it will be dif f icult to see the eave lineÂ· from across the street. 12 . ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION . SEPTEMBER 27, 1995 Roger: Where will all the mechanical equipment be placed on the roof. John Wheeler: We have discussed this briefly and it will be to the back and vented to the back alley. Roger: It will be through the roof and out the wall on the alley side. Is there additional space for future use such as a restaurant which needs venting? John Wheeler: We have not anticipated that degree of change. Linda: What is the vent that is there now going to be used for? John Wheeler: It is for the projection rooms .which are currently located up front. Donnelley: I feel we are dealing with details rather than the overall conceptual and I am afraid I am going*to drop a bomb. The applicant has attempted in every way possible to accommodate our desires and if I were a lay.person coming upon this building for the first time my first impression would be that *all that has been saved of the block are the perimeter walls. By dropping the roof top construction and the roof top construction built form is a new event that has been proposed for an historic building in Aspen which we should all be cognizant of. By dropping that the first impression is that you have a shell, The Weber Block and inside that eggshell you have new construction which is poking up above and behind the parapet walls. When you drop and drop you only see part of a facade, part of the volume poking up and by inference we assume that volume could drop all the way down to ground level and that is what I see when I look at this 'building. Theire is an inferred continuation of these volumes that go right down through and we just have a thin paper wall. That is a horrible precedence. Jake: That is what is happening. Les: If you had to solve that what would you do? Donnelley: You would do something that we don't want and bring all of the development to the outside and have a break in materials. Once you pull it all back in which is what we Asked for you have a definite change in expressicn. We do not want it part of the historic resource. You have the cubic volume rising out of the center of the shell. Jake: You will only read than from up above. Donnelley: You see it frcm several places. 13 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 27, 1995 Sven: I approved conceptual because of the importance of the Isis and the revitalization. This does not look like a renovation project to me. I approved conceptual largely because of the housing program and the theatre expansion. I feel the applicant is responding to HPC' s fires and trying to put out single issues but a couple of meeting ago Donnelley pointed out that we were grasping for a coherent overall solution now just a problematic, solution. We still do not have a successful character to the entire project. We have theÂ· Isis, the tower, and the housing and not a common thread that ties them all together into a successful solution. It is very important that we resolve the architectural solution before we go to final. Donnelley: The new construction coUld be more integrated to the wall. New fabric can be integrated. John Wheeler: That is fair input and we struggled with that. Donnelley: We are talking about the expression of new and old. Possibly the top of the tower could tie into.the housing etc. by materials. Sven: If you did a clay model of the masses of all of the additions you would see the three different animals and possibly you should only have two. I want to see one visual image of the Isis with these additions. Sunny Vann: At the last meeting we were to make the roof top addition different and to explore contemporary and use color. We need consensus to the character of the addition. We can refine elements and play with materials. We may never get all of your unanimous approval on this. Donnelley: John has already recognized the certain schizophrenia that exists ks to the way the new is differentiated from the old. John was opening up the issue so that it could be dealt with. John Wheeler: Exactly. Sven: I do not see the tower and the overall housing on the roof top in a combined theme. Donnelley: Lets go back to the basics you have face brick on the south wrapping around the corner then it is a softer nonfaced brick that is on the east side and some on the west and now another brick needs introduced that works on the new. Roger: Why couldn't the new be cortin or something else. Donnelley: That is the architects decision and we are talking 14 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 27, 1995 about brick A, B and material or brick C. Also the articulation. ..~. Can the commission agree . thab a material should be chosen that unifies all of the new work between old and new and not several materials. John Wheeler: We would not have a problem with that and we are leaning toward masonry for function and longevity and keeping with the street facade. Melanie: No matter what you say it still looks like a shell. Susan: Regarding building structures on historic roofs I assume that hasn't been done except for Harley's place. Amy: There are a few like the Cantina that have a roof top addition but it is not this much construction and is dealt with in a different manner. Roger: In any other parts of the country are there projects similar to this that you know of that.could be used as an example: John Wheeler: We feel that we have come up with an adaptive reuse of the Isis. Les: Conceptual we have agreed that they can build something on the roof. 0 Linda: When I look at this from my own gut feeling somehow the curve on the roof of the three elements and trying to be compatible with the tower are not .compatible due to the shape of the roof. Charles Cunniffe: The idea is to have a contrast. It might be too modern. It could be dealt with by a radical change of material. Linda: No, I feel it needs to be the change of the roof line. Charles Cunniffe: One you will never see it. Susan: What if they were more curved. Charles: At one time we did think of connecting the curve between the elements and that would be be a successful solution. Sven: The tower has always been a problem as it stands alone. Donnelley: You could have surface filigree linking the front to the back to pull it all together for privacy. Les: Are you suggesting that the Â·middle units have one roof line that goes from the front to the back or just on the side. 15 0 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 27, 1995- Donnelley: You need to pull all of the new built forms together. Sven: I do not see these elements integrated yet andÂ· at a clay model scale level you could wcrk with the issue, a thing growing over the Isis and blending in and integrating. Charles Cunniffe: We are beyond the gestation period. We need to tie the treatments together programmatically. Jake: I am more concerned wizh the street view. What if you pulled the tower forward. I am concerned about the intersection of the new piece and. old piece and how they join. They need a clear dramatic articulation. Roger: On the tower what if the entire plane were glass. Charles Cunniffee: We could draw that up if the Board desires us to go with something that modern. Donnelley: In your housing you have shown thatÂ·you are pulling the glazing back from the surface of the masonry. There is another area that you want to tie tcge=her. Charles Cunniffe: We have a building that we have grown something softly over and ih a way the new building is poking out of the softness and I think it would be nice if we can tie that together. Melanie: What kind of material would be 'softer? Donnelley: Have you looked at a pdnelized expression. Charles Cunniffe: You get a grid work of panelized manmade stone mix and it is a stone panel and that could contrast witH the original brick. Donnelley: We need a consensus of what the issues are and give precise direction. Charles Cunniffe: We do need something left that we can design architecturally. I do agree that what we have talked about will work. Donnelley: The east and west elevation have the same expression but two different situations. The west is an historic elevation and you are bringing new conscruction up to it and the east elevation is new. There is no reason for them to be the same. Charles Cunniffe: We thought the manufactured stone had a nice feel to it. 16 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION . SEPTEMBER 27. 1995 Roger: I feel it is too massive. You are applying a heavy material on top of an historic building. Linda: I agree it is too massive and you need something lighter. Roger: And with a different expression. Donnelley: Roger has something there that a masonry expression gives us the feeling that this form has to carry all the way down through because it has so much weight. A lighter expression material is needed. Sunny Vann: The character of the addition can be resolved. Are you comfortable with the setback on the free market. Donnelley: I am sure allÂ·of the commission would like to see a greater setback for the free market. Sunny Vann: The free market unit is carrying this project. Jake: The old building is pounding the south axis and the top stuf f is just pounding it. There is no three dimens ional character to it on the top. Charles Cunniffe: Are weÂ· OK with what we have for the free market units and the modification of materials for the stair tower. Donnelley: We are talking about dealing with the expression of the building. MOTIONi Donnelley moved to adjourn; second by Jake. All in favor, motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland Chief Deputy Clerk 17 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8. 1995 0 Donnelley: We don't want it to look historic. Roger: What are your thoughts on the unit to the left which is the new one regarding materials. John Davis: We were trying to use similar materials brick and lap siding. Jake: Separate the second story mass from the historic resource. You need to be careful that you do not have windows looking into windows on these narrow sites. It will hurt you in terms of selling also. Mark Ward: We can look at turning the garage. Susan: Someone already said this but I feel it is overwhelming to the historic house. ISIS THEATRE - WORKSESSION Amy: We have a new rendering in the packet and they are scheduled to go to P&Z. Donnelley: The changes made will be presented. ~~ Charles Cunniffe: The main items of consideration were to pull in the free market unit in.front which is in the middle to hold the line with the entry tower and change the curve so that it implies a tie together of the overall shape. Also to press it into the top of the building. John Wheeler: On the east side we had to step in the facade. Charles Cunniffe: On materials we were going to keep the original brick and do a more contemporary brick treatment whether it be a glazed brick or something else. We are showing a jumbo brick but having a different brick treatment that would wrap all of the addition and on the upper level carry it up as a wall then everything inside reads as an internal fabric to that exterior part of the wall. You have basically three materials, original, new and a lighter material that look like it belongs on top of a roof structure. Donnelley: We had talked about a fabricated stone material in a larger scale and what happened to that idea. Charles Cunniffe: That is still open. We haven't actually picked the actual material. We wanted to get your idea. 0 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8, 1995 Linda: Have you spoken to Darryl Grob our new f ire chie f and they . are definitely considering goifig into a development on the site of the fire station with housing on top for employees. It might be a good idea to review the project with him since you are next door. They do not know what is being proposed. Amy: I just have a question. Is there a great financial advantage to you in building the affordable units on the site as opposed to buying down other units in town. Charles Cunniffe: I can't speak to that but there is no advantage either way and I thought there wasn ' t an option. We went Â·to a lot of work with the housing office to let us build less. Amy: Originally you proposed more and from the GMQS application there is the feeling that this is more than enough. The reason for bring this up is across the street the HPC said no third story and they bought housing. Charles Cunniffe: I doubt if you could build or buy offsite cheaper than on top of this building. Donnelley: One area that everyone is concerned about is the free market unit and we are all trying to push it back. The restricted employee units back there are not a real problem to me but the free market unit seems to be a problem to everyone. That is the thing that makes economic benefit. Charles Cunniffe: The owners are squeaking about how little free market they got. This will be occupied by the manager and employees from the theatre and that is the reason for putting it on the building. I came in here thinking we have done everything we had to do. There is no way they can keep this project alive without coming back with some resolution. I would have to renegotiate the contract and ask them to find housing offsite. Frankly I wouldn't want to be in anyone's shoes trying to find housing offsite. Amy: You buy down an existing unit and that is what I have been suggesting. Charles Cunniffe: It would be unfair to ask us now to reconsider this entire project. Roger: The issue is to preserve the integrity of the historic building and with that thing on the middle of the historic building is not preserving the integriâ‚¬y. This needs to be looked at and we are asking that it be looked at. Amy: It was a suggestion and it might be to your benefit. 1-3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8, 1993 Charles Cunniffe: They have tried to look at this with no rooftop development from day one. They couldn't find anything that made economic sense. If you can tell me where there is something that can be built for less than $90. sqft. and bring a manager in. Roger: I am not saying we would deny the entire thing I am asking that it be looked at. Charles Cunniffe: I am saying it was looked at getting the roof top Off. Amy: We have all struggled with what is on the *roof. Linda: We need people living downtown. Roger: We are not trying to put Charles back into the loop. Charles Cunniffe: The drawing shows how much of the addition you can see from an empty street corner. With the suggestion of stepping the unit back some and going to a darker color and softer material that addition looks subservient to the overall building. Donnelley: We are familiar with how the massing is going now and the last discussion we had was that the interior materials which ~ are all new work would reflect a likeness which would be a metal panel aesthetic though the specific material has not been chosen. Charles Cunniffe: We looked at vertical copper sheathing, non reflective. I would like to come in with samples and meet with individuals and go over to the building and look at how the new brick could look next to the old. Roger: Copper seems to be used frequently and it might be interesting to look at one of the Folensby products with a soft patina similar to the mining buildings. Charles Cunniffe: In looking at the roof form in a way with this being a darker material it is almost like an assemblage of buildings and this building looks like a building beyond. Les: I can live with this and my only concern is the materials and we will have to look at those and it will take some time. .Donnelley: We don't want it to be a heavy material. Amy: They are going to P&Z and asking for a FAR bonus for affordable housing and it is really P&Z's final decision. We possibly need something in writing that shows how you have considered it. 0 14 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8, 1995 Linda: How soon can you get materials together? Charles Cunniffe: In a week or two. Jake: I do feel this has progressed significantly from earlier but I did vote against it in the beginning. I still feel the free market is problematic. Linda: If I were an employee I would enjoy a view just as the free market unit has. Roger: What if P&Z says take the housing off what will you do then. Jake: Can they go to P&Z saying that HPC feels this massing is compatible. Roger: I have never been comfortable with it but that is the best they could do. The design is great. The concebt of not having it there is very interesting. Charles Cunniffe: I understand it that we have an OK except we were to push down and pull back the center unit where it was and come back with the new scheme and that is what we have done and it has made it a better building. In an ideal world no addition would happen on the building but given the direction we got we followed that and I feel it is a successful solution. We'like the results of this. Donnelley: The question was asked have you thoroughly explored the employee housing off site and have the free market occupy that space. Charles Cunniffe: I will be happy to explore it further and that is a valid question. Donnelley: We are not denying that the preliminary approval has been granted for the massing so your next step is materials but still if you could explore that option it would be great. Charles Cunniffe: I can see the advantages also. I can turn it over to Sunny Vann and have them give HPC a letter giving their feedback on that. Amy: All I am saying it isn't done until it is built and if any ideas come in lets address them. Charles Cunniffe: If it pencils out cheaper I am sure they would go with it. They might not have thought that they could get that 15 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8, 199 4 ~ readi~. Amy: P&Z may say they want that unit off site. Sven: You got conceptual because a lot of us like the program. Melanie: We were talking about what could be done to cbver up the building while you were working and when I was in Charleston I took some pictures that might be incorporated. Charles Cunniffe: Another plan could be wrap something up that relates to the movies. Linda: That would make it inviting and interesting so that people would have a positive feeling about the project. Charles Cunniffe: Where do we stand? Donnelley: You are going to find out why or is their any compelling reason why your program is locked into providing all of the housing onsite and then materials. Donnelley: You might preface to P&Z that although we gave preliminary approval we would be much happier if there were housing on the roof that the one forward element were removed. ...i-' John Wheeler: Conceptual was given and the conditions have been met. Donnelley: If the ' aspect of less housing i.e. only free market were on the roof we would really be delighted to see the free market replace the present location of the housing. Charles Cunniffe: You all have sanctioned this with final choice of materials; however, your druthers would be not to have the housing on top. Donnelley: We have always had reservations about that mass that is forward and directly over. Charles Cunniffe: Can I have a straw poll to refer to P&Z that there was consensus. Â· Aside from P&Z being able to remove housing the only condition that I feel we are down is that the final choice of materials will be done at a. worksession on site. Amy: That is the only issue left but you have conditions like keeping the Isis sign. Les: The only other issue left is materials. 0 16 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8, 1995 Donnelley: There are other issues but the main one is materials. Linda: I agree. Jake: I cannot agree. 801 E. HYMAN Amy: Some of us did a site visit today. This project was approved in 1989 and John Elmore owner and Stan Mathis, architect came to HPC and there was a house on this property, a little green building that was rated one ' on the HPC inventory and there was also an historic garage on the alley. At first HPC wanted to keep the entire thing and then the house' could go away and keep the shed and then the shed went away. Basically it was a completely empty parcel but as a condition of the demolition they got to review the new project. I reviewed all the minutes today and there was definitely a discussion about wanting to retain the form of the original one story house on the side and have that one stoFy element at the corner. There was also the discussion of wanting this building to differentiat& itself from the next door building which I believe John Elmore also built. They would like to eliminate the gabled roof on the one story element and switch to a porch form. My only comment that I feel is that HPC felt it important and you should keep that in mind before you change it. A:4 Stan Mathis, architect: This house and the outbuilding was rated a one and what became important to the committee at that time was the mass and bulk and keeping that as low as we could. As the house has been built I made a mistake by not arguing to lower the gable end. There is a deck. Donnelley: You are talking about altering the one gable end. Stan Mathis: There is a deck and we would continue the porch roof element. What was finally approved had no windows and it was all mass and bulk. Melanie: The fireplaces have been switched and this is massive and everything is on the street side. Stan: The drawing may or may not be what was finally approved. What was finally approved had to do with the mass and shape of the house only. Les: I do not remember all this detail. Stan: That is correct because we said we weren't going to show you the materials because you didn't have to. 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEB.14. 1996 0 Chairman Jake Vickery called the meeting to order at 5:15 p.m. with Roger Moyer, Martha Madsen, Melanie Roschko, Linda L.E. Smisek, Susan Dodington and Sven Alstrom present. Les Holst and Donnelley Erdman were excused. MOTION: Moyer moved to approve the minutes of January 24, 1996 as amended; second by Dodington. Motion carried 5 - 1. Smisek opposed. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Smisek stated that she visited 939 E. Cooper regarding the lack of siding to complete the project. Amidon stated that she talked to the contractor and they will use all the old siding as best possible. Madsen seated at 6:30 p.m. 0 ISIS - REVIEW MATERIALS Roschko stated that she would like to see a material that isn't solid in color rather than another new solid material. The Isis is one color except for the side. She also stated that she oppoded the color and would rather see a brick shape instead of a8 x8. She is not opposed to a ceramic finish on the brick. From the front of the building another solid material color would not be appropriate. Dodington stated that she would like to see more color and material options. Alstrom stated that the 8x8 tile is not compatible in color or shape. The dark iron spot in the brick material is OK and the use of copper is OK but he would like to see a sample of zinc at the next meeting. The mortar color should match whatever the masonry is. 0 Roschko also stated that the mortar color should match the masonry. 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEB.14. 1996 Smisek stated the iron spot brick is significantly compatible with the tones 0 of the old brick and that the gray tile worked well. The acid down copper is compatible and would blend in with the tones of that block and the block across the street. Moyer stated that the applicant responded mainly to Donnelley's concerns and he felt a consensus should be attained by the Board. Does the Board what the attachment to be totally modern or a continuation and blending to the building. The architects thought we wanted it more different; however, my feeling is that we need a worksession to look at more materials. He also stated that. the copper material presented is not particularly historically bene ficial to a landmark building. The patina of the copper is appropriate and I would like to see other materials along with the copper. The smooth 8 x 8 is not appropriate in this building unless the philosophy o f the HPC is to do something real modern. Various lineal brick should be presented. The darker brick is good for a solid foundation. Vickery stated that it is difficult for him to offer information on color and material because he voted against the project. He also stated that the Board 0 needed to give consensus to the applicant. â€¢ Do we want to see something radically modern. â€¢ More detail use of 8x8 as opposed to a linear brick. â€¢ Use of cooper vs options. Vickery stated at the next meeting that the applicant should come back with a drawing indicating where the materials will be used, particularly viewed from the street. Roschko stated that the new building should look like it is part of the old building but new. Dodington stated that she was opposed to totally modem but possibly the use of a different size of brick and color would differentiate between old and new. It should flow either by the size of the brick or color choice. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEB.14, 1996 Alstrom stated that he wanted the project to look new but he was opposed to the use of the 8 x 8. Straw Poll No 8 x 8 tile Color of 8 x 8-no 50 - 50 thought the use of the iron spot brick could be incorporated. patina of the copper is appropriate See more materials match materials with drawings. Alstrom stated that he liked Donnelley's theory but not the use of 8 x 8. 918 E. COOPER AVE. - LOTS M&N Amidon stated that the issues from the last meeting were to lower the plate heights on the second floor and that has been reduced to eight feet and the ridge line is now 25 1/2 feet which is lower than most of the surrounding buildings. There was discussion about articulating the duplex as two separate units and a recessed wall has been placed between the two units. There are two windows on the alley facade that violate the volume standard and that can be resolved easily. The mass and scale is complete for Lots M &N. Dodington stated that she was concerned about the stone. John Davis, contractor stated that he was looking at a random stone in gray. The stone will be either rectangular or square. Field stone will not be used and they intend to stay uniform with the depth of the stone. Roschko stated her only concern is the material. She is concerned that it willlook massive. Davis stated that the plate heights were reduced from ten to eight feet. Moyer asked if the railing that is drawn in stone could be changed to an iron railing which would soften the area. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION.IULY 10. 1996 MOTION: Roger moved to continue the public hearing and Conceptual approval for 706 W. Main until a date certain, July 24, 1996; second by Susan. All in favor, motion carried. ISIS - 406 E. HOPKINS - PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CONCEPTUAL Amy stated that the issues are the east and west walls of the building and * under the approval they were required to be retained. The west wall is mostly hidden by the Fox Photo Bldg. and will not be exposed to the public. On the east well that is currently facing an empty lot the mortar is squeezing out and they are considering whether that wall should be reconstructed to be a more. pleasing surface. John Wheeler, architect for Cunniffe and Assoc. met with a mason on what best serves the building. If the Board maintains that you allow us to not have to maintain the west wall, approximately ten feet does project past the back of the fox to the alley. We are asking to have the ability to dismantle that small portion that does project and boat wrap it and build it back to its original intent. On the east side it is clear that it is not faced brick and we are unclear as to what should happen to that brick. Thirty feet on the west wall will be kept in place and worked.on. It is in good shape. On the east exists utilitarian brick and a rough face and.it is in bad shape. Reconstruction with hand chosen bricks could make for a better product. Roger asked what the applicant wanted to do on the west wall. John Wheeler stated remove what is behind the Fox photo bldg. On the east they want to dismantle it and reconstruct it in keeping with what the rest of the brick looks like. He also stated that it is more expensive to leave the brick on the east wall. The Fox photo bldg. would have to be underpinned. Melanie asked if the east wall could be built with face brick to match. John Wheeler stated that there would be a sufficient amount left and they could select the best pieces of brick. He also stated that you can see through 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 10. 1996 the east wall and it would be very costly to rebuild and tuck pointing it in 0 place would be difficult. Amy stated that this is an aesthetic issue. Suzannah asked i f they would keep the keying in o f the street facade to the side in the brick. John Wheeler stated that they would not have to get into the keying portion of the brick and they fully intend to maintain the main facade. The brick on the front facade is in the best shape of all the brick. There are stress cracks but that can be brought back in. Jake asked how they would support the front facade when all of this work is Â·. done. John Wheeler stated that steel beams are sandwiched together and incorporated somehow to the street. The walls are then underpinned. The significant portion of the project is the foundation and excavation work. 0 Sven stated that soil tests should be conducted. John Wheeler stated that three soil tests have been conducted. Susan stated that the west wall brick is o f a different color and the front facade brick is all the same color. She stated that the west wall brick looks older. John stated that some of the bricks have been water stained and some are more exposed than others. He also stated that the quality of the brick causes color changes. John aIso stated that the face brick on the front facade was intentionally to be different. It was not unusual to have a more expensive front. Susan asked about the brick pattern on the edge which is the key. John stated that they will retain that key pattern. . 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 10. 1996 Amy stated that the awning was placed on the building by the Fox photo 0 and the Commission would like to see it removed permanently. John stated that the awning would have to be removed during construction. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Susan stated that when buildings are taken down and put back they never look old, they look new when put back even with different mortar. She feels the walls are going to be the only thing left beside the comice. The walls are the oldest looking part of the building. She feels it is important to save the walls. She also feels the east wall is critical. She also stated that the community would rather see the wall stay old to remind them of how old the building really is. Charles Cunniffe, architect stated that the brick would have to be washed and repointed. Roger stated that he would allow the walls to be removed. He also stated at some point a building will be against the east wall and that wall will not show. Suzannah stated that she also had no problem with disassembling and reconstructing it. It is not feasible leaving it stand while excavating as you risk the chance of caving inproblems. She would rather have the materials ~ be saved. Sven stated what they are proposing is better for the long term life of the structure and more of an urban solution. In response to Susan's concern one issue is compatibility. Melanie asked if the east wall would look like the west? John stated that the east would Iook like the west but they could photograph it and make it look like what the east used to look like. Amy stated when the wall is removed we will loose the (ghost o f Aspen). 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 10. 1996 John stated that the wall has to be cleaned. Mark stated that he would be in favor of rebuilding the wall with the condition that a mock up is done and utilizing the same bricks. John stated that the wall can be put up to match the west or it could be different. Roger stated that the east side is being added onto and it is stepped back 18 to 20 feet. The only part of the east wall that will be visible is the 18 feet or so. Why not leave the 18 feet there. John Wheeler stated that the area is very tight and it would be hard to get around. Roger stated that the applicant should be allowed to take the brick down and clean it up. MOTION: Sven moved to approve the reconstruction of the walls using selected and designated brick from the existing building, second by Roger. DISCUSSION ~ Jake stated that the applicant represented that the east wall would be rebuilt to look like the west wall and a mockup will be provided. John Wheeler stated that they can work with a monitor to determine which wall is best suited to match when reconstructing the east and west walls. Mark stated that there will be different colors of the brick and the mortar should be addressed. John Wheeler stated that a sample panel will be provided. Amy stated that a photograph of existing building should be displayed in the building. 5 ,, ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 10. 1996 ~ Roger stated that the bricks will come down, cleaned and put back up. The mortar color can be addressed by the monitor and staff. Amended motion: Sven amended the motion to state that the coursing of the east wait when it is reconstructed should reflect the current coursing that is existing on the east wall. The mason on the project should have demonstrated historic experience. Texture and color of mortar to be determined by StalT and monitor; second by Roger. Motion carried 6-1. Susan opposed. Melanie asked about the back part of the west wall. The west wall will be reconstructed, the front part in place. The rear part they want to take down and reconstruct and will it be reconstructed as the west wall or as a new part of the building. John stated as the west wall. 517 E. HOPKINS - MINOR Amy stated that this is a minor review to construct a new facade basically. There is no increase in FAR. New veneer will be on the bldg. All the windows *ahd doors will be replaced. A section of the roof will change. There are no other historic buildings on that entire half block. Staff recommends approval with conditions that information on doors, windows, and light fixtures be submitted. Charles Cunniffe stated that they are trying to clean up the building and attract business. Roger asked if the windows and doors will be clad. Charles stated yes. Sven stated that they want to contrast the stucco and slate mass against the existing brick. Charles stated that they want to emphasize the area in front. 1 6 1 - Â· Â·Â· - DA# -Â·: SCU726 'Â·I Â·01-20 ..,4 : .41Â¥ ....ir 1 . ..1 .4.... *1 N .. 04 ....3/ " 4 12+ r . 4 4 4 2 2 S . 1 1/1 1 . . & 1 4 , . r H WEBBER 1,2- 1 1832 1 -~ | ... :.S i + '5-9 .: I 1 - 11 3 . Â·6;*-**:*,vi,.Â·Â·Â·~r.'Â·. .Â·,/,m.fr'Â·*>' 01~~0~0-1*'-7-0~~0~0010'~~~ ~~0~0~~~~7 - ~Â·,Â·~~Â·Â·Â·Â·f~Â·#.+.'.f%Â·/Â·,/t '"Â·"/Â·â€ž~.,.. 0 0 1 1 E 1 1 N.120,1:,0.111 1 lilli 111 11 1 1 1 1 --*11 r 1 1 1 1 ' 1 44 4-4 *af I : +4 'M-f- 1 "" ~ ~ 11-1~ 1 1 7- 7-'-i 1 1 lili 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 lilli 1 1 1 1 lilli BID SET 7-21-97 ISIS RENOVATION 406 EAST HOPKINS AVE. ASPEN, COLORADO RECEIVED *â€¢ CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS ASPEN / PA AN FEB 1 3 1998 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ~ 520 EAST HYMAN AVE. * SUITE 301 * ASPEN, CO 81611 * TELE: 970/925-5590 * FAX: 970/925-5076 .. ..U.214 -- ~"**9Â·3*- 4[*MI=Â§1 1 i -- . t>12.1111'i'OC~'~141 lili] UJ 1 - 1.,1.,11,19 '14-1. ......... ISSUED FOR: DAm I .0 â€¢ -1 74.7 . 2 70" '4 1 - ~ -DE-*_ i ~=i) LI.=7== 4-- -r:- I | HOPKINS AVENUE ..... M -7 f-8 -1 1 t Z U Â© LOCATION MAP /'r'\ 141 T esc, U % Z Z D ila U 0 0% LU ..4 <o AREA OF PROPOSED % . Â·- BUILDING f T FL. EXTENT OF -Â« )4, 1 11 4 U 22 0<ISTING BUILDING - lili*&0 .. 9Â« AR#Wk# .Ai2//MA 9,1...9 Â¢=.im 5:ry, 9Â¢:Te. 442*2 Â·04,4 W HOPKINS AVENUE RECEIVED 04Â»!NIC STE MAN FEB 1 3 1998 ASPEN; Pt i Ai r4 Joe NO. 9571 DATE 7-21-97 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 0 10 20 40 SHE NO. Â® SITE PLAN Al.1 r.*r SHIEr c. \projects\9521\9521all.agn Jul. 22, 1997 10: 47: 37 - 00-0-01.-'..~ 9209-5260Â£6 DXYL . 0659-St60Â£6 :mt . 11919 01 ~1329Â¢ Â£8 N D Â£956-9UOÂ£6 :XY:1 . REZE-,teDÂ£6 1111 . SE,t9 03'30:3 ocrn!010) N3*an,~3/4Y,Pfl~1 19Â¥3 904 MILL STREET NOILVAON33 SISI r #wirv# L M./.4211*1% 0 * Â® MeaJECTION , ewwycv Â®Â®e 21ZIES ! iiI i.,1 2 !1 .... 1 1 IU~- i j 3.-1,4 24 //4/// /4/1- 0 ///1///1/â€¢ -127-2 re w-r 20-e 0Â» .-sner- I 3 1 14. EE'Zi- it~Ri=--=* THEATEK 1115&2 , I ' m r File=ZE.1 /7\ 4 ,-4,WAIL TYPE A 6....r.- /1..,,1 --jeL&:72UD -OVE, 17_ _4 ,-WALL TYPE A TO TYPE B 1~c - w , C'r-7 Chr) r.7. 1 /'3 ,-7 - /71 n n i FOCJPDy. -1 2- 111111111-1 0=Ek .3 ~~~~~ PROJECnON of LOUSY ..40......... 1,"9.,ia.11 . aou~ 621,ECUP. . ~ ' Sh 2&8IZ 5,2.w. IR. ,"14 ''4111 ==EEE35. Â» Im>< /5,6==... r - Lit Â· & G /0 3-%21 1 -le j 3 1.// S./1//Â·//1/ =........0 ./. . I'll.-, 3 e -" 1,13 I I & Â® WAI L TYPE 8 -- 4= lum I UEL *,=.14Â®11 4 CD 25 * IS 0,=r - t 0 WALL. rfPE A @ COUJUN ff'.. Eff=iti'rl#61'-- 6..*:,25- 10) . --- rid~,~~- EEFFEEL 4 EL.73,-<7 unIEB c~EJZ'3':102~- ns=, O ~ 4Lm oca __v -L :Â· 25ZP&-" er N n!:BIEZ 1>1<b :KIE=E W . .i T Ull 0 .1 E 1,--- 9 . 2 bt --~t---3aiziEW IL#U Â¥".0'-1- 12-64:Sr Â·wt,51Â» 0.2 W 1 . 4 - 6 t Â· k r* -0[XOJOOJOCIOOCI ERJOOJI]OJOCIOO~ OBJEUOJOJOOZE 8 .Ile. 2. ~6-=- HZ=rl >Â»10 1%2*t--3:~-arac, 84. rn /3\ /5, WAUTYPE? C i r, 0; 4 V M ~9 4-Ave<.in= m -- 1; C]IJOCOCOCOCK]CIO gLY,M"~403(1(330)R:RE70-0 g~*7~~~~Co~Â®_.1*~meATE'I Ae . 4 : 1--rircr-rri[-u-n-Ti -103003031-0 02192&9229039 -.-'-I- 3 0WALL TYPE O @ COUJMN 7-* -Â·133Z,rZE]CEICK]CIEOC' < ~ < 'OAJOCROJO[XlJOCRO" CIC]00000000000. 7 7 4 000000 00001330300000 < OZOOL~333O3OII:. j L : moococe R CONCESSION | i><0 2@E EOMQE ' 133* ..r 'Uf..Z B . t. 4-2 -54 - 2-2 HIGH rurr 1 RAIL - , 1 ><u '05*ZiÂ« RE==- THEATEK R.~1:1 0 emmog F{ i~cor44=&131~ 44xf,IR=ff ~ FI44&T#44â‚¬i-----=i-lu Nâ€¢-p--4 ~52 *00 - -711.JLUJLILIU_!lzjeATI L . 6-1 1 (2) L " 1 02Â£ r'dig" u fp~ WALL TYPE O 1:5.Â£100O3JCOBEE 25. hooocrjoIATKI~I- 0 V 2-Alia ill Il 'lla 0WALL 1- c @ COUJUN f aer 'OJOJJJOZE)Or- R fLISIT If[BE~[5 Z. ~IDaTO/88/.~ I I=GirEGII#IL - - +4- - 0 '1B[B[BEEKEKEl[B[B[El[B[EKB Imww.prmeeÂ®eeÂ® 0 â€¢ -- -I-*Ill .:7 / â€¢:,Â· Â¥ 111111"Alll i ....Hr....0 -- NOT USED i Â· ~ (D----------[-LI.- F~ZE-11 FL/* 1f/i 4.0= KF~laN31~ ~72_[2-- 1 -10'm, * ;Â£ 91&4~t0~Eul 1 .Â© t z ~ (M;05 0 Â®WamE Â· O & 1 :.Bike=JB- L fill_=_Tr_-p 4 . j.-:m. 4,1.....1. U... 1 .: C. T Wia-=:r'. Arrolf[mm . re 0 - .... F,oIl + 5. ,=rotâ€žc...r , URRRS Â· tix 9------i # 1 Â· t~HFT?15~ ,--kld: DES,SNE.; af aol L -9 1 LZ=:ay Z ..,44. SCREEN WALL 1 I WeR : % RE> 1 - ==== t-I.....~I,-1 t>e-R--â€¢0. 1,me/*41+I//4/1/1*1Â»0/ M LAI 'i- RECE*ED g .f?#- 1 Â® I ~-- /0/ T .Flitiqan/~1+49/9 AW,Ll TYPE Gl - l ~2 ~ ~1 Â® FEB 1 33998 e FOM. 1 --- ASPEN; rt i riliN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 9--;-4 Bid *--#P.=n. s ...01'6 tiCU/? RATU~~~~ -1 I 2Zmt.Nal SCKEEN WALL 1 151 11 UNFINISHED 4 -79 97 -U 4. le-e 0- 1 ALL WALLS THIS LEVEL TO BE }-HOUA 0-2 ~ ~ 201 19-2 1*01.11 ATED FIRE RESSTNE CONSTRUCION DRAWING 4 97â‚¬ PER UBC SECTION 303222. . 26-E/VOR WA,1 pAArn'/ONS TO BE Riall, T.â‚¬ O .RWALL TYPâ‚¬ 82 r WAIL TYPES, 3%â€¢ MTLSTUD CONSTRUCTION WrrH 6 0 00 0 0 ONE LnER oF %â€¢ GYPED. EXH SIDE NOTE: UNLESS KEYED OR MUTED OTHERWISE. A râ€¢dEEER TO SHEEr *2.1 FOR ]00 NO. 9521 E~ 01 2-6-98 1 VIE CONSTRUCT/ON DETA/LS. .. 1. :* , , tak 81 KEy 048 16 /EN SHEET NO. 7 m..1. ... . rh LOWER LEVEL PLAN A2.1 ...Al h. H , 1 , W SHES OF _ â€¢ Â®Con/CÂ»fr 04/0 0///* A/0/1Â£ .' roh 4, . 'lrla , 1. 47Â· 1 1 ,-I S [7)31!HERIV 333!NNOD S312!VHD 956-â„¢OÂ£6 *1. fulÂ·Â·Â·9:00Â£6 4111. mt[9 00 rmil .'MY calioTOO 3 OCIVH0103 *17% ~DfdOH .LSV3 904 dlun-~ A ma â€¢ 4 Â£ 11*) 3,4 I e .1 g ./1 /4/11"Int R 25â€¢4 K TN] 'rl .17 r.sa 0 60 (?9999 Â®Â® e w r=- Jt=,O,1 c 0â€¢ 4 Ne TED W# Taa 1 1 1 1, i ~97-9, i rk '-,21 ~ L.- ~1 Jt~WIN 0 ..4 IC =4 TAA 41 1 ran 9-9 --r .11 22-2 : râ‚¬ . " i Sq i 31 0-4 Â¢ 1 li 1 TUL 74â€¢10 1â‚¬. M TUr,L ISSUED FOR: DATE: NO 1.4-93 07 41,1 m. 1 1 1 1 1 1 ri-1-7 79- 9 FCC/Fal/. ~ ~ . FOJL/F04 1 n...... lili. STORAGE .. 1 :t=1"*ST, th J inezzr 4 miT -n i 14 04 b '1 , Ke iii i i _-ili 1.*mm& 70 01=.WES 6----- H r 1 L Â· g I . / , Ir 16= 21 ~ Â· 3 I + - t CE - 2 ZQi) 4 r-Trl T - ! P.O,Ecrov SOÂ¥Â£#, BY e E. i n= C .700 1 0 122 .te --,- , ~ 1 .Im 1 1 . t-ST'w Fouetro, 4 5 ; 1008 Â¥-D= d . r 7 *040Â©ENy EULONG k r- For' r~K ' SLe M GRIE uâ€¢OEA- 8 ---I- ---------- D J 15 *- - . R I F 1=Ull .WWMN*t Â·11 424>D . 98/ 49 0--------I'l-- ~ -- J PAW/ED SEE STRUCIUU. f . M 77,069 SEATAÂ¥0 . 1 ,~10=,m~&92 - REFER TO SHEET 'U -O N UrE,r N,O IDC,nON 1~ h r: /-1 ROOF DECK SECTION --4&16 8 1-0 41â€ž- * 12: - ** - 8 -- --------ff THEATER ... THEATEK Imeflin~12= Â® Ft:7 "31. ~ - 4 . 'Â·~ SEE 5TmcrU0L /19 1 . -.0 -1 SCUTE 5001111 SEX RISEFS -1 Flio. 7*ga ONS- WAL----3 -1 < '~ f Or:~EA 1 1-- 7 - -7 I< + 0 IME' 8111 1 /20 â€¢ rEA ..L / i Ur-*-- lf?64 ,>9811 -= 05 1261 L -1 C)&:1 /- R:ri *nia.>n:Â·,ttrin~ h n.-n - - :~ , Â£:Ehra.AL ~0_, -1 1 " 1 6 7- 19.-DI 11 ' - -ill 1 "12=46-w-- 0-- - - + co h r - . ~a.Nls 16.:, -0~~Ff-' IWâ€¢-~~~31:=It=t 1 - e r t.k[El M 1441&*Â¥~ m c------- 1.,#1 0 STAR 2 1.3/1 Eek,~ib= 1 0 #z: K t_ pt Â»]1-- i~ 7 - Il.21~222~_, ,=4 - afl 1 X Z . ~: wE~ -1 .1. \ 4 I liu I l l 1.1 1 -i 1 0 .i Â® F.. ..4 -1-1 ' ElL] -7~Ccr ,2-2:.6 L ..92--:=1 t.=1 1 . F 0114 I -18-- 1 0 -0U. ri FLOOR SECTION 9==- --O tzâ‚¬ , 0 - FOM. /0 . 4 1 9-2 11'-f f *-8, w~E ONE HOUR #WED P,mcrioN ~PV-2\ DRAWING 994 Â® 1Â® 6 SEE DISTNI.~~NW NOT 6 - AU VAUS THE UVEL 70 BE HOUR le 0#b R,3-ED FmE RES]STNE CONSrRUCT]011 PER UBC SECTION 303221 C <81 100 No. 95!1 2 9 â‚¬)2~fa TO SHEEr *21 FOR W COMSTRUCTION DETAILS. DATE 244 /21 KISEy 97 KEy 0 4 8 16 SHEET NO. 0 =/5/1.fix/0 7 -7 rh LOWER PROJECTION PLAN A2.2 1 SHEET Of Â®er,/41 0.46 alis,NA-,1.- ......_. c:.\Dcolects \9521\9521a22.flon Fpb, 11 1998 00Â·04Â· PR 31'HOEIV 333!NNOD 5313Â¥HZ) NOLLVAON33 SISI am . PELE-GUOÂ£6 :Ilit. RE,10 00'30!Nrmal. -3Ay O(]Â¥30100 3 02 OC]Â¥80100 NEIdSÂ¥'3nN3AV SNINdOH 1SV3 NkMY . 10Â£ 11305 . 3AY NWall 15Â¥3 OZS 76:U lr03 4"nf&j,5/mEM/#P e @CD (*00(D Â®@ 6 60 MRUKKYLF/m T i .. =--.---22-Z'-74'_al_42421---EL-4-5-0~'22449' 1 1 .1, 14 ... W..* ecituÂ· Sot,0 1 SUrE PNEKS 111 0,orrED ~~2ED WER , 1 $ t.6 EXIST- Pâ€¢?116 Ar FINE , 6 ' Â· SIWION WHERE OCCURS , '' . 1 1 1-j t-,>),f';?4;~ 1 1 --I- ------- /.0/ FON. i FON. ' METER LOCAnoN 1 I . GEUS ~ 1 â„¢ASH AREA 4 11 2 iy! 0=4 1 41% i STIOX DIJAC#'4 0 1 .0477'. i g E PRasTO# 50,Â£t,/ 0 1 0 4 ---- â€¢5 x 16â€¢ 0 21,64.VERTÂ£,4 - --2~-gegg 1 rrmcal i --192= -- -9Â£- - -lill-- --Il-Il- i i Nocc ' L=190- - -35' . . .. I imA , M 04, 8 3,3 09 -â€¢5 CONT.- 172. Sat N 1 111 E j 1 3 9'1 m 8 6# &101~2 6 S &Uj,6 2 -------- ' 4- J u -/ . A 81 8 /?h/3\ c - 2-2 MIGH " ' A Tz-2, HON C SM. 841 -- -----. A /-1 SEAT WALL DETAIL ry 'dS' r. I hi - 2-7-:-ici:~ ~n W-rt----- i i - FOX PHOTO FIRE HOUSE ~ ~ F -4 -----------.--0- 417 4-0 2.44 re 4 -------- 4 1 % ----- F al a. sroos ; STZÂ©S .-- ----- -- H Â·KI,Â·e VESTBLU STAN 2 8 80 50 0=-18 ./ m.= * 0 Â® St I - t 8 16 .or..1. t- - CO 3 1 1 - /~1 J afT (%1% c -*17 J M K ---- -- 1 -- K *= I _ =t = 3~ Faw. 4 (33 1 ' 12*trUE ---- -1 F PNERS -- - - *ar g 1 5 1 1%* CA,epr 1 =.CEE, Z % ~ 1 0 T~r~ : %/~ya .2 MELTED ... 12 lilli M -I-I.-I- -*Il- - - "M"'ImlnEllliown - --1 Z & â€¢11.-n"nE./*.. -=.Ill=..U=./. FOM. e Â® ei@ 0 Â® I I X ' FON. RECEiVED -Ill-- .taE '221 -ai,4- --- -I- -- 12 1 12, St,A ' 1 PNERS UE~rl~ $ MEWED Nâ‚¬N~ ; |4 ~ | f FEB 13 1998 ; 114 ; 1 :E . 0 \ r-r rrue -4 C Wi 11 1 ASPEN / PE[*m a : IM nl.........I-.......=..M=L*... tw-2 8-2 :3'-f â‚¬-1 0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT r=*m< -- , 0 99-9 1 , ................1.-/.0.---Ult ----I-,6=%=g=*5.-'.=~.~.*#.:~ 10 2.13 1 ~ =I==0#/E Houn RATED pmrow/7~7\ d) 4) SEE g7-#L~ & ~"SE--~-,Eav= 1 JOB ~ 9521 _ 1 r,k KEY 048 16 /T\ SHEET NO. 'MELIA TO SHEET â€¢2; FOR WALL CONSTRUCT/CH DETAILS. | WE 2-6-98 | V KIP /-1 GENERAL SOUND INSULATION NOTES ri MAIN LEVEL PLAN (1- ...1 *0 - 1-0" SHEET Of @armair O-101â€¢-3**Ka Sl.331!HONV 333]NNAD SH-INVHZ) NOILVAONEIN SISI Â£956-9t40Â£6 DXW . WEZE-â‚¬40Â£6 4111 . 5[Â¥19 Â¥ 00Â¥30100 3 00 OCIVMO1O3 N3dSV'3rIN3AV SNDIdOH 15Â¥3 90k . 10Â£ 11]rIS. 3AY NVWAH JIM DIS 0 0 0 1 â‚¬3 43 0 0 0 e uy CA LE) UJ 0 ' too-IN f 6 J 7,-9 â€ž . =4463 49 , leâ‚¬ e U EOUAL SNCES O 3'-4 E,CH 1 1 N 1 1 : ma 9 @ Al, 1 6) 1 1 Fall.. #1-2-1-8--3-8-7 81 ' ~~1 4 c - 1 ?1 0 r 0, b r 2 j - Fla r' Â®1 Olro 1 ~ 4 4 11 IN *8- 1 4- 1% Q jAH,dgedM I 4,4, 01 79- p-,2,2Egilitaia-12 .2212-U \ 1 4 . 1. 1 1Â® 1 : HE) E- 4 --121.1 2 e.)---,------ i--- 1- r, j4==v- n M 444' fl ip'MILEI- --- -4=1 - b H H 4 4 1 ~~ 1--6/ ia . 0- --444061* 63 r PÂ® Pe,9 CQO V W % 4 88 212 Ill, M ,/1 1,1. 4 4 t------6-2 6,mi -i -1___- _ 1 _- CITI J FOJL Jf---2 FOJL 1 119 A 0 1 1 . 14 gil 3%438 1 8 8. ~ itty ~ j j~ '40 =%'*El M aR i , 14 1 77 4 % Â§93â€¢0 1 r 8-9 , W-36â€¢ . 13'-Ir 1,44â€¢ , 8' f ~ 79 (2-r 9-10 9-â€¢ 4 -, 00 RE Z:/2 1 li 1 0.8. r m Rb g 0 06) 0 (Exr) Â®@Â® Â®0 & c > -r-1 11 ~ f 1-rim (819 2 E 00 40 e 2 3 1 e IM M %2 ISIS RENOVATION CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS 1 - 5 8 1 LOTS L,M, & N, BLOCK 87 520 EAST HYMAN AVE ' SUITE 301 ' ASPEN,CO 816II â€¢ mi: 9R}92S-5590 ' f/02 970923-5076 406 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE, ASPEN COLORADO 220 Â£ Col-OfaDO AVE. â€¢ TEUUADE, 00 B1435 â€¢ TILE; 970928-3738 â€¢ FAX: 97092&-9567 ...elp 12-Infr-nri NV-Id NOLL03fOhld 83ddn JSWDHP~11#O~ 1NaM ./ 43 0 0 9 9(7 9(9 Xem w-lk 1 1 1 $ 1 1 i jillimil apl M il . , S i @91111 8 i 1 1 1 FAM. Fall. BEL[W ,-1 (A-11_-0-0-- k93773Il~,/Ut=Â®1 r-4 - 419 1 1- 1 4 ./ 1 120 - . 06.- -1 -4 - ,-P= - =-1..,---tizt= 1~ . 1-. ' 41 Vieslo U 1 0 i I // 0.' 14 L 2 4 1 /. . . . 1 t--1 1 i. - 1 4 .t262~ --- ' ' 1,/ 1 , .3 1 ~----------=U ' 00 =-=-= 1 ..<' i i 2 1 I -2-LL / .1. 1 , \ I 2 0 1--7 ~i 'i ' = ~~~ -------=90:~~----~DE[ji*uU 14~-- - Â®- --------- 1 4 1 86 L / .. 1 1 ., ~I ,Â® 6,I-1 1Â®1-4--43---Â·t_1-c~ */i lf*ttz- m 4 74 -if:r d .1- ' I ./ I 11.- 44 ' - 4.11 2-7=L 1, / : * Z:=. 40= 1 @-- ------ --- ill--0-- :/> .1 /' 24\[/, . 11 114 1 g -1-----0 --1 - J .. . / 2 ' 1-' ' 4 -1 -- / \ 4 J 1 1 --R -------$--CE, i- IL--3/, Li U [P~~1 - 1--H - 1 F 411. /0 1 - 14 -1 1 ./ . ---1 9 11,1 -1 1 --A-li Â·q* v :.I. . . 04....1 ,. I 6 11, *r- 1-10-01- 4/ - - 1 . 11011 -- 3\//1 k W 1,1 , /1 111 1 1 1 3.1, 1 9- - 1FDJL 1 2...1.-' 1 - FLut. 0 11" i 11 1 IlT -r- F e r 1.,1 1 .-1 $ C '0 Â® m:*25 8 ; 4 1 I imal 1 1 1 1 -O 2 * 6-4 4 i & m l. 4.3 20226 3 8 ' pl 8-0 W.31/2. 1 1342 1 +07 1 Ir-11* 1 2-4' 1 7â€¢9 1 12,-f m Â§30 81% *E > m 10 0 (ELe) (E) e e 60 4 I < _ 1 1 0 03 . t 1 1 1 -- -11 . '111'J 1 , t 603!~ VÂ« -.Â·, ~ ~Ihk -3[r- - ir Z 1 - rh 4 /1 14'Z Hillk ' 1 11 1 --59__*L_ p ~ L./ r% -14+ -. V J.. 1 4 a 1111 -7 1 1 ,_-L- 4 4 1 4 1 1 Ma 99/8 (a 9 f~ Eb' 24 43 0 t.3111 80 -. rn 1 G.1 R- 4 -- r< K 00 0 1 1 ISIS RENOVATION CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS gel & 22 1. - 1.- - ile 237 LOTS 1,M, & N, BLOCK 87 520 EASr HYMAN AVE. ~ SlIm 301 â€¢ ASPEN,CO 81611 â€¢ mE 974925-5590 ' FAX: 9709234076 f 51 UN 406 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE, ASPEN COLORADO 220 E COLORADO AVE ' TELLURIDE. 00 81435 â€¢ TELE: 97072&-3738 â€¢ FAX: 970728-9567 NV1d 13 1. - I . 1 . <le|.1 1819 (&19 = x I â‚¬0 ji)Ie e ' /ocr-/4â€¢ It 121: . 1 1 3 ~ 1 1 le' 1 ENG 1 1 1 1 - --1 -'. 1 (Wh - , 4 % r i VA - Im*3 4 -0-Il- - - *b - II :1 --= 1 E 1% IN ------ ------ ---- - 1 it - ivt" ------% 0 1 1 ----- ' , r-- Il 11 . - 6. . 01 ------0- U 0- ----- ------- - --0--- ---BE-- --- % 1 e- 4 F Dll FRAL 4 0, W 4 ------ -lf- -, - - ....,---- f IÂ° JI . , ; il~'Bm' i ' i l 4 '- C 1 al, . 1 I 1 3%/Mill i I ~ le- 1 12 : ~~~ it 114 Ill 1 CD 8 0 14-1 â€¢ 139 , , re 1 2/ 0.0 1 : K 7: I m m .~~-~~$ ISIS RENOVATION CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS [---91 '2121 9 -- 0% 11 1 11 1 --- 1 1 0, 4 FAN. FAN. J 9 KD B 28 1 LOTS LM, & N, , BLOCK 87 r 01 ..â‚¬:LIE*em 520 EAST HYMAN AVE * SUm 301 â€¢ ASPEN, CO 816tl â€¢ TELE: 970925-5590 ' FAX: 970925-,5076 L_.----_il 406 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE;ASPEN COLORADO 220 E COLORADO AVE â€¢ TEUURIDE, CO 81435 â€¢ TELE: 97Â®28-3738 ' FAX: 970728-9567 ..'.. 2 'f#2%.'664 : e : 4. i PÂ·.gft@jrj'kth JINVHSM orm Lin.ols ANC)ING BUHJ--IN I *-,0 2- 2- â‚¬ â‚¬ N e Y.e w.r 5.0' i 2.f-s, 9 11 12 14 ASA PS,4 GUTTER a.4 . NÂ¥Id =10 ~ CAL . 1 t 9 1. . 0 *e e *â‚¬) @ G *G (i) *) Â® vey ' Â® ~a ~ T : 1 1 1-1-4 ELEâ„¢ION XfONO 8 3 1 T 2 p 1-4,1 11 IPV k'%4991-1 Il Ill 11 Hl m\[1 -'1%11 11 ---- - 1 Pitrar/Anni,21*13 1 1 7 li Il m Il \ I/itl li .4 r 6 @ ~- CUSTOM 8+FOLD/NG . e @: @ 0 @ OPEN WALL GEMPERED) SR â€ž SOLDER COURSE PROAD/6 - A. D -- --~~i===irricÂ·Â»---747. 0. 7Â§ .. - 70 93 R '2UW~o e @ Â® ' - i C : UNN 13&__2k. - El--24 9A H EAIU&ED c..~a 4i~g~OR | | FRE 27'r. ~ r--1 9 1 0747 -7908-54 9 ELE#NION\50 3;S~1~91,41%r, '~*31 [3 ARCH.TO SELECT Li] Agi ' 6 m CONNECTION- 9 FINISH \ , 11 . RESTORED HISTORIC FACADE - RESTORE BACK.WOOD & STONE UNTELS AND OTHER \ 81!LOING Et.EMENTS TO THEIR ORIGINAL CONOmON. REPNR OR REPUCE WrrH NEN OR \ < 2 RECyCLED JUrE/VAL AS REOU#96Â£1 1 1.Â·A-4 M)-Mrl' rlrrl-111*IEE[112+IEIZE]*LI*-------131 1 EL-74-5' 90 ~ -&-AffÂ¥--V- L.SQUIH_ELEVATIO,N . rh-F.M. UNIT - EAST ELEVATION Lj 9 - 1'-7 ca> 999 Â®0 REFER TO 14/At/Fa9 ELEVATON'820Â¥0 ~ ~ 1 , Ca CLEAN.RESTORE OR REPUCE BRICK 9 1 AS RECUMED. + , 1 ~ EXETING BRICK WALL TO BE REBUILT - RENO/ECLEAN AND REINST,U EXISEING (SNy,GEABLE) BRICK WITH SANE BONO STYLE 4 AND GROUT COLOR PS ORIGINALWALL rn NE# MODULAR BRUCK (00#110 BOND Ul WITH FUll HEADERS EVERf Gth COURSEJ PÂ¥0410Â£ EXPN,slolt Â·DMTS NS 9Â«]HH 011 OMAVINGS #NO AS FIEOUIRED, ful-----~ -h--=4 SEE SPECIFICATIONS FOR ADOrTIONAL INFO. rn V X r-(7 X 1-4 SLATE VENEER â‚¬ Ul (MECHANIC,Lly RT,CHED) RELDCRE EXISTING SIGN ~ ~~S~M~~~ ~Fi~,~MENT TO CENTER WER UNN EN'Rf DOORS-------1%1~~ -i~:1~ El 4 1 Ex le BURNISHED F,CE CONCBLOCK ~.1 1,1GGREGATE COLOR TO BE SELECTED} Â¥ EL-Ir-*7 EL-OyÂ·# ~ ex F x E PRECISION CONCaLDCK 1-1 DORRUGATED METAL SIOING (REUSE). l.fl NTACH To coNCRETE BLOCK ~ STANONG SEAN ZINC ROOFING A liNN.1Â¥LI.89-=,--,-=T----------------,-,-------------*---------- EL,07-07 '/ ~ NEW WINDON SYSTEM - SEE SPEC ELÂ·40-[7 \ -_--- i -- ._ _THEGERLL LgEAMNG rn RESTORE EXISTING GLAZING KXX7-7906.5~ 1 1 El,96'40 /9 1!11 #euar w,voa, SYSTEM AS,Â£12 | 1 ~ELEYNES-| ~ METAL FASCIA OUTCH Z/AC ROOF/NG; 1 /1 =@ 4 6 rn SPNOING SER ZINC PNÂ¢El. ONOF'f LLI CHER STEEL TUBEFRAW*PRO//DE I RECEIVED GUrTER DONN TO TRENCH ORNN. 1 ~i:0.9SM_j T OENarES TEMPERED GLAZING (CONI,UCTOR UEIL122--1 TO VERIFY ALL LOC*nONSJ \ FEB 1 3 1998 Â¢SPIN / r, I Air,1 SHEET NO. COMMWNITY DEVELOPMENT /k_1EMA-----__------ ------- --- ----- ----- --- -- ------- ------------- --- 1--------Efy#L-0- A3.1 /--\ EAST ELEVATION {2 2/.---Il-lill U Sll)31!HOMV 31:liNNCID S3-RIVHZ) NOLLVAON321 SIS! . 00 '*1!3071U . 1,Â¥ 00,Â¥0100 3 OZZ NkISY. 10'E 111(15 â€¢ 11Â¥ NYNAH 15Â¥3 OES ocp,HO-10~ I~~~3n,NMTY,~'tf':A 15Â¥3 90t - 1 8.m 0 Arn *9009 e Â® e Â®CD 9,47 itiv , 999 9 913 0 ! , I 1 6....1 ; . ~ED-~D~ |it _ 111 111111illil Ill 11111 III I lilli ImirrH Ill|1 111111 i 1.11 111 11|Illl I-I "' -rTI---------1.1,1 . 01-- 11 Arm 6 Â®LyÂ® i y . 0#1 1.12.90 4,mi- IL = AR Migil MEANICAL likWERS . =ENZES.=9 HORIZONTAL & VERTICAL 1"1 11 9 lid mi ~ WIrH C.MU. WECH.96-__-tk -EMPLOYEE_UNIT.-:_SQUILELEYATION . 4 1 150,1-1 1~11*1 1146'IN' 4.1:11 In'@181*1 1/1@1.~%lit EL-#Â» V /6 UECH-OFL , {R 3 -* - r.<r 'N--E;ksÂ·tr FIRE Stgr~ 5 TRASH AREA ~ ."111,1--21 - 19Â·C.192854 ----- -- ----- -------- -------- -7----- 1 \_. 17*ENZA-WA-~ 1 EL-93-9 V 1 1. l 1 1 t 1 EL-714 V 1 r-74 00 c Oc ED (DE) Â® O 03Â» 1 3 1 1 1 Ill[ 11 1 1 b 1.0~ 1 1 1 1__.L-.12~ Al - - KE!NOTES~~_- r-1 EXISTING BRCK TO REMNN IN PUCE CJ CLENI.RESTORE OR REPUCE BRICK AS REWIRED r-1 EXISTING BRICK YOU TO RE REaUILI - 211 REMO/E.CLEAN N,0 REINSâ„¢1 EXISTING EL-12/47 V (SALy,GERLE} BRICK WITH SmE 80140 STY LE AND GROUr COLOR AS ORIGINAL W,LL rn NEN MOCULAR 81!CK (COMWON BOND Im 1---------1/9/'Le@ *=====~~~~:~~~r,FEEFFEFFEEEIIEEEEIEEE,=~,r,;rr,;,;,M"~ ~,1 WrrM FULL HEADERS EVERf 6th COURSEJ WIR:/.igg~~~@~2~**g~~~~~~~ZIN//INII~ PROADE EXPANSION JOINTS AS SHONN ON DIWINGS AND AS REQUIRED. -.. -EQJAL_Â£k EL-ltr-1(7 SEE SPECIFICATIONS FOR KOOT/ONAL INFO. 37 X el X H SUU-E VENEER WOrni"-eES:~:~ RECHANOLLY AJTKHED) HONED SANOSTONE BASE - REFER TO CETNLS FOR THICKNESS AND HT,CHMENT â‚¬ x E x le SURNISHED FACE CONCBLOCK (,GGREGAGE COLOR TO BE SELECTED) WMN.tyL ._ PL e x Exte PRECISION CONC.BLDCK ELÂ·~00'<7 100-0 â€¢79089 CORAUG*rED WETAL SIOU,0 fREUSED- -,6.--ng#.ViL ---1 1 gr,CH TO CONCRETE BLOCK 1Â¥ ELÂ·9NY 12&2IG 1 1 1 RECEIVED [gog= STNIOING SER ZINC ROOFING 1 1 1 MEN WINOON SYSTEM - SEE SPEC 1 RESTORE EXISTING GLAZING 1 FEB 1 3 1998 ~ IREPUCE WWOON SYSTEW $ MIJ ~ 1 %*3RiZiEZZInl 1 1 ~ METK FASC:A 1 M,JCH ZINC ROOFING) rn ST,NOING SEAM ZING PANEL CNIOP, i LE.10/ER STEEL TUBE FRAw#B PROADE 1 ~ 3,(EET NO. ER DCWN TO TREÂ¥01 ORAJM. ~ 1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT-=---- 1 1 LONER LVL /6 ----------------------------------1.------- T ~N~;*;ta~ {CO,mUCTOR , EL-lf-5 v A3.2 ~ /-\ WEST ELEVATION 1 2 Pa.I* <HFFT AF . Slf)31IHZ)MV 3:idINNFID S31NVHD NOLLVAON33 SISI 9209Â·5158Â£6 391 . 0659-500Â£6 1111 . f I910 01 NUSY . 10Â£ 11*15 . %1Â¥ NWUH 139 025 Â£956-,I,0Â£6:XYd . 9EZE-et,0Â£6 gill . SE,18 000*1!801-lit . '3AY OCAK)103 3 OU OCIYHO-10 1*~3fl,N~3Ay SN2IM~OIH7 1.SV3 904 Â®8888888