The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19980812AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION August 12, 1998 REGULAR MEETING, 5:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS NOTE: Please site visit 117 N. 6th Street at your convenience before the meeting. 5:00 I. Roll call and approval of June 10th, June 24th, July Nth and July 22,1998 minutes II. PUBLIC COMMENTS III. COMMISSIONER AND STAFF COMMENTS IV. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) V. BUSINESS A. 214 E. Bleeker - Extension of Conceptual Approval Ctuy--02/ j 11 l-4 93 5:15 B. 920 W. Hallam St. - Conceptual, Off-site Relocation, Ordinance #30 - Public Hearing Continued from 7/10 5:45 C. 735 W. Bleeker St. - Conceptual, Partial Demolition, On-site Relocation, Ordinance #30 - Public Hearing Continued from 7/22 9 1-4*it/61-/1/'C 6:15 D. Music Tent - Public Hearing, Referral Comments 7:00 E. 117 N. 6th St. - Partial Demolition, On-site relocation, Ordinance #30 - Public Hearing 7:30 VI. ADJOURN Dinner and drinks will be provided PROJECT MONITORING ser Moyer 303 E. Main, Kuhn ISIS 435 W. Main, L'Auberge 514 N. First 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 107 S. Mill Elli's bldg. Zona storefront window 706 W. Main 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 701 W. Main 101- 105 E. Hallam di Friedland 420 W. Francis Street 712 W. Francis Street 514 N. First CONCEPTUAL APPROVALS WHICH HAVE NOT GONE TO FINAL: 834 W. Hallam (Poppie's), expires April 26, 1999 123 W. Francis, Lot B (Vickery), expires May 13,1999 214 E. Bleeker Street (Greenwood), expires August 12,1998 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Directob* Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Planning Director q /VL- FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer f RE: 214 E. Bleeker Street- Extension of conceptual approval DATE: February 11, 1998 SUMMARY: On February 12, 1997, HPC granted conceptual approval for the construction of a new outbuilding to the rear of the existing historic house. 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. 0 The applicant received a six month extension of conceptual approval on February 11, 1998 (set to expire on August 12, 1998). At this time the applicant, represented by Gretchen Greenwood, requests HPC approval for a one year extension of conceptual approval, to allow more time for study of the final design. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends conceptual development approval for 214 E. Bleeker Street be extended until August 12, 1999. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to extend conceptual approval for 214 E. Bleeker Street to August 12, 1999." 0 11-05-1995 0=02AM FROM P. 1 ~~ j~ ~ GRE70â€ž ~REMWOOD, ASSoaAES, ma - â€¢ 1 ..' ARCHITECTURE â€¢INTERIOR DESIGN Â· PLANNING -V - July 27,1998 Ms. julie Aim Woods Aspen Pitkin County Community Development Depaftment Aspen, Colorado SI611 Dear Julie Ann: This letter is confirm that the Brumder's would like to have a continuation of'their 0 approval for their Conceptual Approval for tile Brumder Residence. located at 214 East Bleeker Street. I anticipate completing the Final Developmeut Application befbre the end of the year. Please call me with any question you may have. Sincerely, *4* 56 Gretchen G~il~ood, Architect 94 5 + 39 0 820 WALNUT STREET - ASPEN,COLORADO 81611 â€¢ TEL; 870/925Â·4502â€¢ FAX; 070/525-7490 rmimi-21- APPLICANT: Aspen Historic Cottages, LLC 0 NAIL I L----/ LOCATION: 920 West Hallam ACTION: Significant Development (Conceptual), including variances, Historic Landmark Lot Split, Partial Demolition, On-Site Relocation, Off-Site Relocation, and Residential Design Standards variance. SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) Significant development in an "H," Historic Overlay District must meet aUfour of the development review standards in order for HPC to grant approval: Standard 1: 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 an "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area 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). Standard 2: the proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Standard 3: 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. Standard 4: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. OFF-SITE RELOCATION Off-site relocation shall not be granted unless all of the following standards have been met: The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on its original site to provide for any reasonable use of the property, and The relocation activity is demonstrated to be the best preservation method for the character and integrity of the structure, and the historic integrity of the existing neighborhood and adjacent structures will not be diminished due to the relocation, and The structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding the physical - impacts of the relocation and re-siting. A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation, and A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond or other financial security with the engineering department, as approved by the HPC, to insure the safe relocation, preservation, and repair (if required) of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation, and The receiving site is compatible in nature to the structure or structures proposed to be moved, the character of the neighborhood is consistent with the architectural integrity of the structute, and the relocation of the historic structure would not diminish the integrity or the character of the neighborhood of the receiving site. An acceptable letter from the property owner of the receiving site shall be submitted. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS For the purpose of calculating floor area ratio and allowable floor area for a building or portion thereof whose principal use is residential, a determination shall be made as to its interior plate heights. All areas with an exterior expression of a plate height of greater than ten feet shall be counted as two square feet for each one square foot of floor area. Exterior expression shall be defined as facade penetrations between 9 and 12 feet above the level of the finished floor, and circular, semi-circular or non-orthogonal fenestration between 9 and 15 feet above the level of the finished floor. <~ Med *PHA 09811*1-5 per , 4.- I - t. //7 - n , l . 1 8 7-= i x~ 6%*~ING 6(PING $-I ' ..1- 1 -tb FEEM,v,~ I p / 1 - -i _ 1 -1 8 - L. - -- NEW wast> TF# 1,6 , ,/1 1 1 8 EW 1,16MTWEU. P NORTH ELEVATION ' ~ Feeâ‚¬95 EGBEâ‚¬6 J 1 01 - e . 1 1 0 0 0 . . . t EXHIBIT/-7- hl/- MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director 0--7- Julie Ann Woods, Interim Historic Preservation Officet FROM: Mitch Haas, Planner~~~ RE: 920 West Hallam Street: Off-Site Relocation, and Significant Development (Conceptual) including variances, and Residential Design Standards variance. --- Public Hearing. Parcel I.D. No. 2735-123-03-003. DATE: August 12,1998 (continued from July 8,1998) SUMMARY: The site in question currently contains three (3) separate structures. The principal structure is a two-bedroom single-family house containing approximately 990 square feet of floor area; it was built in 1888 and is a one-story, cross-gabled structure with a prominent bay window and decorative ornamentation on the front facade and porch. Next, the structure that is currently used as a garage was originally used as a "section house" for housing workers of the Colorado Midland Railroad and was moved to this site in the early 1940's; it contains approximately 454 square feet of floor area. Lastly, the property contains a 231 square foot shed that was once used as a concession stand at the base of Aspen Mountain and was moved to this site in the late 1940's. In total, the applicant has split the fathering 11,048 square foot lot into one parcel of 3,432 square feet (Lot A) and another of 7,616 square feet (Lot B) by having the property designated as an Historic Landmark and completing an Historic Landmark Lot Split. The single-family home proposed on Lot A is allowed by right, as a permitted use in the zone district, subject to HPC review and approval. Lot B would contain the existing historic house as well as a new house. BACKGROUND: On July 8, 1998 the HPC reviewed the following: â€¢ the proposed Partial Demolition to remove the lean-to structure attached to the garage (approved by a 7-0 vote); â€¢ the requested On-Site Relocation to move the existing, historic house approximately five (5) feet to the east, eleven (11) feet to the south/forward, and eighteen (18) inches up in elevation, in order to excavate a basement beneath the house, center it between the two newly proposed houses, and create enough space to move the existing garage behind the house (approved with conditions by a vote of 7-0); â€¢ the requested Off-Site Relocation to move the small shed structure to another, yet to be identified, site in town (continued to August 12th); â€¢ the requested Historic Landmark Lot Split approval (recommendation) to create a new, separate lot on the west side of the property for the development of a new house while the easterly lot would contain the existing historic house and another new house (recommended for approval with conditions, and subsequently approved with conditions by City Council); 1 .. . ,. â€¢ the requested Significant Development (Conceptual) review --- including variances and a 500 square foot FAR bonus -- for the two new houses and the minor changes to be made to the historic house (continued to August 12th with direction to restudy proposed architectural details, particularly fenestration); and, â€¢ the requested variances from the "Volume" provision of the Residential Design Standards for several windows proposed on all but the rear elevations of the new houses (continued to August 12th pending restudy ofthe proposed fenestration). The applicant's revised architectural plans are attached as Exhibit "A." The following attempts to summarize the proposed revisions: â€¢ The previously proposed ridge height of the frontmost gable of the new house on Lot A was approximately twenty-four (24') feet from finished grade, and the revised plans reduce that height to approximately twenty-one (21') feet. The highest ridge height on the original proposal (Lot A) was roughly 29.5', however, and the new proposal increases that figure by about one foot to 30.5'. â€¢ The windows of the frontmost wall of the proposed structure on Lot A have been scaled- back and revised to better complement those of the historic structure, and some new square windows have been introduced on recessed (further from the street) gable of the south elevation. â€¢ The east elevation (facing the historic house) of Lot A's structure remains unchanged except for the aforementioned changes in ridge heights. The west elevation (facing the Castle Creek Bridge) has been revised to eliminate the previously proposed uninterrupted expanses of glazing. The north elevation has not been revised. â€¢ The new glazing proposed on the rear (north) elevation of the historic house has been revised to eliminate the virtual wall of glass and replace it with three (3) adjacent, double-hung windows that better complement those of historic significance. â€¢ The tall expanses of windows that were previously proposed on the south (street facing) and east (facing Sagewood) elevations of the new structure on Lot B have been broken up in the revised proposal, and the "wall of glass" effect originally proposed on the west (facing the historic structure) elevation has been broken up and scaled back. APPLICANT: Aspen Historic Cottages, LLC, represented by Ron Robertson and Glenn Rappaport. LOCATION: 920 West Hallam Street; legally described as the east 1/2 of Lot M, all of Lots N, O and P, and a portion of Lot Q, Block 4, City and Townsite of Aspen. The property is on the north side of West Hallam Street, between the Castle Creek Bridge (to the west) and 8th Street (to the east). ZONING: Medium-Density Residential, (R-6). CURRENT LAND USE: Single-family residential. LOT SIZE: The fathering parcel contains a total area of 11,048 square feet (.25 acres). As a result of the Historic Landmark Lot Split subdivision exemption, Lot A contains 3,432 square feet, and Lot B contains 7,616 square feet. 2 . I. I 0 ALLOWABLE FAR: The fathering parcel of 11,048 square feet in the R-6 zone district would have an allowable duplex FAR of 4,202 square feet, exclusive of reductions or bonuses (such as the 500 square foot FAR bonus applied for though the Historic Preservation Commission). Given the Historic Landmark Lot Split provisions, the maximum amount of FAR floor area that can constructed on the whole site cannot exceed the allowable FAR for a duplex on the fathering 11,048 square foot parcel. Thus, the FAR that could, by right, be built in a single structure would, if the proposal is approved, be split up between three (3) separate structures. The FAR of the proposed home on Lot A is 1,850 square feet, while Lot B would contain the existing 1,000 square foot historic house and a new 1,850 square foot residence. In total, the proposal does not provide the applicant with any additional FAR (other than the potential for a 500 square foot FAR. bonus from the HPC) than what is allowed by right under the zoning. PROPOSED LAND USE: Three (3) detached single-family residences with attached garages. Detached residential dwellings are permitted as conditional uses on landmarked lots of 6,000 square feet or greater in the R-6 zone, and the Planning and Zoning Commission has approved this for the subject lot with conditions. REVIEW PROCEDURE: The application to the Historic Preservation Commission requires a public hearing for the Significant Development (Conceptual), and variances to the side yard setbacks, combined side yard setbacks, site coverage, FAR (bonus), and residential design standards. Included in this hearing is the request for Off-Site Relocation; the Off- 0 Site Relocation request is reviewed according to Section 26.72.020(D); the Significant Development (Conceptual) and dimensional requirement variances are reviewed according to Section 26.72.010(D)(1); and, the Residential Design Standards variance is reviewed according to Section 26.22.010. The requested FAR Bonus is to be approved, if approved at all, with the Conceptual review ofthe Significant Development application. STAFF COMMENTS: Section 26.28.040. Medium-Density Residential (R-6) Two (2) detached residential dwellings on landmarked lots are permitted as conditional uses on lots of 6,000 square feet or greater in the R-6 zone district. The lot (Lot B) would have an area of 7,616 square feet. The minimum lot area per dwelling unit for historic landmark lots is 3,000 square feet per unit, and the proposal exceeds this requirement. The minimum lot width for lots created via the Historic Landmark Lot Split process is thirty (30) feet, and Lot B's width would be approximately seventy-six (76) feet. The required side yard setbacks call for a minimum of five (5) feet, but both sides combined must total at least 23 feet. The minimum front and rear yard setbacks are ten (10) feet each, but must combine for a total of at least thirty (30) feet. The site coverage is not allowed to exceed thirty-five (35) percent (2,666 square feet), and the maximum roof height cannot exceed twenty-five (25) feet, as measured to a variety of points depending on the particular roof slope. There must be a total 0 of four (4) off-street parking spaces provided (two (2) for each dwelling unit). The proposed plans indicate that the development would meet all of the dimensional requirements of the 3 4 â€¢ zone district, with the exception of the side yard setbacks (each side and combined), and the maximum site coverage; the applicant is seeking variances from these dimensional requirements as well as a 500 square foot FAR bonus from the HPC as part of their Significant Development Review (below). Section 26.72.020(D), Standards for Review of Off-Site Relocation Off-Site Relocation approval is requested to move the small shed structure to another, yet to be identified, site in town. Currently, the shed resides within the alley right-of-way. No approval for off-site relocation requests shall be granted unless the HPC finds that all of the following standards are met: 1. The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on its original site to provide for any reasonable beneficial use of the property; and Staff Response: The applicant explains that many options to try to reuse the shed on site have been explored, but none have proven workable. The shed is too small to be used as a garage stall, but too large to be accommodated on the site solely for storage purposes. Consideration has also been given to leaving the shed at the end of the alley as a sort of neighborhood gardening/storage shed; however, maneuvering of vehicles and City snow plowing equipment in the area would be problematic under such a scenario. Consequently, the applicant has determined, and staff concurs, that the best preservation method for the shed is to relocate it to another appropriate site in town. The shed is not original to the subject property as it was once located at the base of the ski mountain where it served as a concession stand. The applicant proposes to locate an appropriate site for relocating the shed, such as the new ski museum, one of the City parks, or a location associated with the Ski Company or skiing, in general. 2. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be the best preservation method for the character and integrity of the structure, and the historic integrity of the existing neighborhood and adjacent structures will not be diminished due to the relocation; and Staff Response: As mentioned in response to the standard immediately above, the applicant has determined, and staff concurs, that the best preservation method for the shed is to relocate it to another site in town. The applicant is committed to finding a use for the building, as opposed to demolishing it. The shed is not original to the site or to the neighborhood, and the two significant structures on the site would be preserved as freestanding buildings with minor modifications, thereby strongly aiding the efforts to preserve the historic character of the property and its neighborhood. 3. The structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and resiting. A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation; and 4 ., , Staff Response: The information required by this standard will be submitted by the applicant either prior to final review or with building permit applications. 4. A relocationplan shallbe submitted, including posting a bond or other financialsecurity with the engineering department, as approved by the HPC, to insure the safe relocation, preservation and repair (ifrequired) of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation: and Staff Response: The applicant will submit the relocation plan and financial security with their building permit application. The receiving site shall be required to be prepared in advance ofthe physical relocation. 5. The receiving site is compatible in nature to the structure or structures proposed to be moved, the character of the neighborhood is consistent with the architectural integrity of the structure, and the relocation of the historic structure would not diminish the integrity or character of the neighborhood of the receiving site. An acceptable letter,from the property owner of the receiving site shall be submitted. Staff Response: As mentioned above, the applicant intends to find a site which is relevant to the building's history (i.e., ski related). If this is not possible, the applicant would like to find a site where the general public can view and enjoy the building. However, as a specific site has not yet been found, staff does not feel that this criterion can satisfactorily be addressed or its compliance ensured. Therefore, staff must recommend that the off-site relocation application be continued until such time as the applicant can return with a specific proposal (receiving site). Section 26.72.010(D), Significant Development Review Standards The applicant is requesting Conceptual Significant Development approval for the proposed development of an historic landmark lot, including the variances discussed above. No approval for any development in the "H," Historic Overlay District, or involving Historic Landmarks shall be granted unless the HPC finds that all of the following standards are met. Before HPC approval of a significant development involving an Historic Landmark may be granted, a conceptual development plan and a final development plan shall be reviewed by the HPC pursuant to the procedures established in Common Procedures, Chapter 26.52, and the following review criteria: a. 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 covered by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances qfter 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 5 I , under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units, pursuant to Section 26.40.090(B)(2). Staff Response: The proposed development is compatible in general design and site planning (layout and orientation) with the designated historic structure and the neighborhood. The historic development pattern of Aspen placed small-to-moderate size homes on 3,000 square foot lots. The proposed development would include two homes of 1,850 square feet (bigger than historic houses, but smaller than the vast majority of residences built in Aspen within the last twenty or so years) and another of approximately 1,000 square feet. The three homes would be fairly evenly spaced on 11,048 square feet of land, which results in an average of approximately 3,683 square feet of land per residence. The three structures would share a common built-to line (front setback), be oriented to the public street, and have their garages and parking in the rear, along the alley. The general design, massing and volume, and scale of the proposed development, as revised, is deserving of staff support. Staff supports the revised, proposed changes to the design of the existing historic house as the house would be one of the only miner's cottages in Aspen to be left almost completely in tact. That is, the applicant is proposing only minor changes to the historic house, including a new door and window on the rear of the building (in a portion that was added to the original house in the 1960s), an addition of a roof/breezeway over the area between the house and the relocated garage, and the required lightwells on the east, west, and north sides to serve the new bedrooms in the basement. Staff finds that the proposed changes to the historic house are appropriate and compatible with the historic resource in terms .of mass, scale and general design. The proposed windows on the rear/north elevation are, in staff' s estimation, appropriate in scale and vertical orientation and generally compatible with the miner's cottage. With regard to the proposed design of the easternmost structure, staff believes it to be generally compatible in massing, volume, scale, and site planning with the historic structure and surrounding neighborhood. Staff also feels the revised proposal's fenestration has been adequately and appropriately scaled back, especially on the south and west elevations. The revised elevations demonstrate a consistent architectural language both within the structure and between the two new structures while maintaining compatibility with the historic resource. The new development will be easy differentiated from the old without distracting from or competing with the adjacent historic resource. The proposed windows on the frontmost wall of the easternmost structure have been redesigned in a manner that is vertically oriented and generally respectful of the lot's historic significance but will be clearly new and help to make apparent that the whole structure is not historic. The square window higher up would require a varia!lee from the "volume" provision of the residential design standards, which is elaborated upon in the next section of this memo. The other newly proposed square windows (without multions) on the south elevation would be set approximately sixteen (16) feet back from the frontmost wall, and would also require variances from the volume standard. The other windows of the south elevation (square with mullions) would be set some thirty-two (32) feet back from the frontmost wall of the south elevation, and represent a vast improvement from the originally proposed design. With regard to the easternmost structure's east elevation (facing the 6 . t I. 1 Sagewood Condominiums), the only revisions proposed involve the two aligned sets of windows below the dormer on this elevation's south end, and the higher of these two windows would require a variance from the volume standard. Previously, these two windows were combined as one tall, large window but have been redesigned as two separate, appropriately scaled windows. The restudy of the west elevation of this structure has resulted in a much better and more compatible design, with appropriately scaled fenestration. The small square window in the west elevation's dormer would require a variance from the volume standard. The north elevation has not been revised and remains acceptable as proposed. In general, staff believes the revised plans for the easternmost structure to be much improved and worthy of approval as proposed. With regard to the proposed design of the westernmost structure, the massing has been restudied. As was mentioned with regard to the easternmost structure, the revised elevations demonstrate a consistent architectural language both within the structure and between the two new structures while maintaining compatibility with the historic resource. The new development will be easy differentiated from the old without distracting from or competing with the adjacent historic resource. With regard to the revised massing in particular, the height of both gable ends on the south, street-facing elevation have been revised as follows: the previously proposed ridge height of the frontmost gable of the new house on Lot A was approximately twenty-four (24') feet from finished grade, and the revised plans reduce that height to approximately twenty-one (21') feet. The highest ridge height on the original proposal (Lot A) was roughly 29.5', however, and the new proposal increases that figure by about one foot to 30.5'. The new drawings more accurately reflect the site topography than did the originals, and these new drawings lead staff to conclude that the restudy of massing issues has been done successfully. The overall height of the westernmost structure would be lower than that of this easternmost structure, and the height at the ridge of the frontmost gable end of this easternmost structure would be even with that of the adjacent, historic structure. In terms of the proposed fenestration on the westernmost structure, staff believes the applicant has done a commendable job restudying the windows of the frontmost wall, as they are now appropriately spaced, sized, and oriented. All of the square-shaped windows further back and mirroring the gable forms are new to the proposal. These square windows would be set back almost twenty (20) feet from the frontmost wall and gable form and result in obvious contrast from the historic structure, but without causing distraction. Staff finds these six small (2' x 2') windows to work well with the proposed design. They are not vertically oriented but are not out of scale either. Again, these windows help to produce a consistent architectural language both within the structure and between the two new structures. The fenestration proposed on the east elevation (facing the historic house) of this structure has not been revised, and is still acceptable to staff. The west elevation (facing the Castle Creek Bridge) has been vastly improved by the elimination of the arched window forms and by breaking the long expanse of windows in the internal stairway into a set of two separate and appropriately scaled windows. Note that the west elevation is drawn incorrectly, as the south and east elevations indicate that the ridge line extending southward from the gable end on the west elevation should align with the height ofthe gable's ridge. The north elevation remains acceptable as proposed. 7 As mentioned earlier in this memorandum, the applicant is requesting the following: â€¢ a variance from the minimum side yard setbacks of five (5) feet to allow for two (2) foot side yard setbacks on both sides of Lot B for the lightwells (the walls of the structures would meet the five foot setback requirement); â€¢ a variance from the combined side yard setback requirement of twenty-three (23) feet to allow for a combined side yard setback of seven (7) feet on Lot B; â€¢ a variance from the maximum site coverage requirement of thirty-five (35) percent (2,666 square feet) to allow for a site coverage of thirty-seven (37) percent; and, â€¢ a five hundred (500) square foot FAR bonus for Lot B. According to this review criterion, the HPC can grant these variances and this bonus 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 the dimensional requirements. The City Zoning Officer has reviewed the proposal and found that these variances would indeed be required; however, the individual side yard setback variances may not be necessary if they are to accommodate nothing other than the minimum size lightwells required for compliance with the Uniform Building Code's provisions for egress. Nonetheless, it is the Zoning Officer's recommendation that the applicant seek this variance anyway, and it is the Community Development Department recommendation that the requested side yard setback variances be granted. Staff also finds that compliance with the minimum combined side yard setback provision would be less compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood than would development with this variance. The combined side yard setback standard results in non-uniform spacing between structures and tends to distort or breakdown the rhythm of structure-to-open area-to-structure that is typical of historic neighborhoods. For similar reasons, staff also supports the requested variance of 2% from the maximum allowable site coverage. Staff supports the request for a 500 square foot FAR bonus since the extra square footage makes the preservation of the historic structure viable. b. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposedfor development. Staff Response: The property is located in a neighborhood which is composed primarily of multi-family structures, with single-family and duplex homes to the north. Staff finds that the proposed development is consistent with the established character of the surrounding neighborhood. c. The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. Staff Response: Staff is of the opinion that the proposed development would enhance the character of the surrounding neighborhood, especially with respect to the adjacent structures and the relationship between these properties. With regard to the relationship between the 8 I. , proposed new structures and the historic house, please refer to the staff response to criterion "a." above. Staff feels that the revised/current proposal would not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. d. The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Staff Response: Please refer to the staffresponse to criteria "a." and "c. " above. Section 26.58.040, Residential Design Standards Community Development Department staff reviewed the application for compliance with the "Residential Design Standards." In staff's review, it was determined that the currently proposed designs for the two new houses contain violations of the "Volume" standard, particularly on the south elevation of the new house on Lot A and the south, east, and west elevations ofthe new house on Lot B. The "volume" standard reads as follows: For the purpose of calculating floor area ratio and allowable floor area for a building or portion thereof whose principal use is residential, a determination shall be made as to its interior plate heights. All areas with an exterior expression of a plate height of greater than ten (10) feet, shall be counted as two (2) square feet for each one (1) square foot offloor area. Exterior expression shall be defined as facade penetrations between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above the level of the finished floor, and circular, semi- circular or non-orthogonal fenestration between nine (9) and fifteen (15) feet above the level of the jinishedfloor. Simply put, this standard requires that there be no windows (facade penetrations/ fenestration) in any areas that lie between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above the height of the first or second story floors (plate height). Given the lack of compliance with the "volume" standard, the applicant is left with the choice of pursuing one of the following three (3) options. First, the applicant could accept the two-to-one (2:1) floor area penalty for each violating window while ensuring that the entire building, including FAR penalties, would fall within set FAR limitations. Second, they could redesign the proposed structure such that the new form would comply with the "volume" standard, as well as the rest of the residential design standards. Lastly, the applicant could appeal staff's findings to the Design Review Appeal Board, or in this case, the HPC. Rather than accept the floor area penalties or redesign the proposed residence, the applicant has chosen to seek a variance from the "volume" standard. Consequently, if variances are not granted, the applicant would have to create new designs that would comply with the volume standard. Pursuant to Section 26.22.010 of the code, an appeal for exemption from the Residential Design Standards may be granted if the exception would: (1) yield greater compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan; (2) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or, (3) be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. 9 According to the pending revisions to the Residential Design Standards, the purpose/intent of the "Volume" standard "is to ensure that each residential building has street-facing architectural details and elements which provide human scale to the facade, enhance the walking experience, and reinforce local building traditions." Although pending code amendments do not hold any force in the review of current applications, staff felt this information might be helpful in understanding the issues/concerns that the volume standard attempts to address. Since the proposed design does not yield greater compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan, if the requested variance is to be justified, it would need to be on the grounds that either the proposed design is necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints, or the proposed design more effectively provides street-facing architectural details and elements which provide human scale to the facade, enhance the walking experience, and reinforce local building traditions than would a design that meets the exact letter ofthe "Volume" standard. With respect to the new house proposed on Lot B, the south, east, and west elevations contain violations of the window standard. The front door is seven (7') feet tall. The specific windows in violation on the south elevation include the square window on the frontmost wall, the top foot (1') of each of the two windows highest up on the taller gable, and the top foot (1') of the window in the dormer. None of these windows appear to span through an area where a next story would typically exist, nor are any of these windows detrimental to the human scale of the structure. The two windows on the higher gable and the window in the delmer are set back sixteen (16) feet and thirty-two (32') feet, respectively, from the frontmost wall of the street facing elevation. Regarding these three windows, making the applicant redesign to comply with the volume standard would result in lowering the windows by one foot, which would, in staff' s estimation, be detrimental to the scale, proportioning, and overall design of the structure. Thus, staff recommends granting the requested variances for the three windows discussed above (on the south elevation of the structure on Lot A) because the proposed design more effectively addresses the problems of scale to which the volume standard is a response than would a design in compliance with said standard. Staff does not, however, find that the square window proposed on the frontmost wall meets any ofthe three criteria for granting variances and should, therefore, be eliminated. The new structure on Lot B also needs a variance for the window proposed in the dormer of the east elevation. Since this window is not a street-facing architectural detail, would have little to no effect on the human scale of the development, and does not appear to span through an area where a second floor would typically exist, staff feels that granting a variance for this window would not compromise the intent of the provision. With regard to the west elevation, a variance would be needed only for the small, square window proposed in the dormer. For the same reasons discussed in relation to the east elevation, staff supports granting this variance. The new structure on Lot A would need volume variances for the south, street-facing elevation only. The windows in violation include the top foot (1') of the center window on the frontmost wall, and the two windows highest up on the taller gable. Regarding the window on the frontmost wall, the top foot of it is not necessary for reasons of fairness related to site specific constraints, nor does it more effectively provide human scale or architectural interest to the streetscape than would a design in compliance. Staff recommends that the top foot of this window be removed resulting in a window that spans to 10 . . 4. . but not more than nine feet above the floor height. The two small (2' x 2') windows set 0 further back (approximately 19') do not appear to span through an area where a next story would typically exist, nor are these windows detrimental to the human scale of the structure. Regarding these two windows, making the applicant redesign to comply with the volume standard would, in staff' s estimation, be detrimental to the scale, proportioning, and overall design ofthe structure. Thus, staff recommends granting the requested variances for the two windows because the proposed design more effectively addresses the problems of scale to which the volume standard is a response than would a design in compliance with said standard. That is, making the top eight-to-nine feet of this gable end consist of a solid wall without the proposed windows would result in greater perceived mass and detract from the rhythm created by the glazing mirroring the gable form. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the 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 and/or Certificate of Occupancy. â€¢ Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (Specific recommendations should be offered). â€¢ Deny all or part of the Development application finding that any one or more of the Development Review Standards are not being met. RECOMMENDATIONS: Community Development Department staff recommends the 0 following: 1. Continuance of the Off-Site Relocation, pending determination of a suitable receiving site. 2. Approval of the Conceptual Significant Development application as proposed, including the following: A. A variance from the minimum side yard setbacks of five (5) feet to allow for two (2) foot side yard setbacks on both sides of Lot B for the lightwells (the walls of the structures would meet the five foot setback requirement); B. A variance from the combined side yard setback requirement of twenty-three (23) feet to allow for a combined side yard setback of seven (7) feet on Lot B; C. A variance from the maximum site coverage requirement ofthirty-five (35) percent (2,666 square feet) to allow for a site coverage ofthirty-seven (37) percent; D. A 500 square foot FAR bonus applicable to Lot B; E. The ability to make revisions in order to comply with the volume provision of the Residential Design Standards where variances have not been granted (see condition 3, below); 11 F. Approval of this Conceptual Development Plan shall not constitute final approval of significant development or permission to proceed with development. This approval shall constitute only authorization to proceed with a development application for a final development plan. Application for a final development plan meeting the requirements of Section 26.72.010(F)(4) shall be filed within one (1) year ofthe date ofthis conceptual development plan approval. Unless an extension is granted by the HPC, failure to file such final application shall render null and void the approval ofthis conceptual development plan. G. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public hearings with the Historic Preservation Commission shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by an entity have the authority to do so. 19. 3. Approval of the following variances from the "Volume" provision (26.58.040(F)(12)) of the Residential Design Standards: A. For the new structure on Lot B: the two small (2' x 2') square windows on the south elevation's taller gable and the one in the dormer shall be allowed as proposed, as will the window in the dormer of the east elevation, and the small square window in the dormer of the west elevation; the single square window on the frontmost wall of the south elevation shall be eliminated or redesigned to comply with the volume 0 standard; and B. For the new structure on Lot A: the two small (2' x 2') square windows highest up on the south elevation's taller gable shall be allowed as proposed; the windows on the frontmost wall of the south elevation shall not extend beyond nine feet above the floor height. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the staff recommendations contained in this staff memorandum, dated August 12,1998." EXHIBITS: "A" - Revised application package 0 12 lix,1:err -A.. - - 0, I a T. A--0 T A B j 0. el . . . L ' , .4 I , -a.& ----- - . 1 +15 f; 4,111 AN 1 1 -- 0 44-*}Atj*+*> . P I . - 2#[1 117&11 iM /134 - _ ~ .~0 HAWAV ~ 1--~42- Â· . 1 ----,Zy *=99 1 1 Jdtfila r 19 hr 4 -Mik/2/9Â£ /Nit*%%,rap,A , . . -71-:15 ~ 1,&*JJ, . b.&Â« f~M 1 -'l .. 3 ' 4/. -T-7--T Writlit:Cal . t J o .4 Lit l.'. - 1 '34:1==F6 44~ 0 i .c . 1-i- -1'~,#- :~. *Â·_ ~ 6 . + 4 ; 0 1 -t-%3* Â£ 1. t.. / W , -- -~ ~47*~,i 1213,?fr] -%44 4. 4 2]j ..i - E=up -- 9/"/4 1 Â¥-----14*12&16 -// ; 8.Â£.De; 4 42,-}gr-in##F--= d AL- Zar .. â€ž 1; mi j i .L--- im/#2~ /1 dij- -=_:6.~!21.-)....i~Â¤6:62*'*EM~41 r---Â· ,i â€ž Â·; ~-=na inrfl--lf--2Emlti -1/ =.- . .. '1. - ~2;%22 4--,661 1 .,/ --__ ___- * u--n-f -u ntrtof-Â·LC .861Â»46.r=-f -- -- - --- 12219-36 - 9, -"- . YOUT B 41- eV A TrON - 116* ppâ€¢M w. Flwl,AM. 9,2-0 W. 8*U-AAA . 1/562*94 R. C. ROBERTSON â€¢ ARCHITECTS - 0 0 JUL 2 9 1998 417 MAIN STREET, STUDIO 'A' . CARBONDALE. CO. 81623 t. i 970 Â· 983 Â· Â®67 970 Â·4983 Â· 8938 FAX Â· =i.~ .AJA .. ' )\)L 2 5 1998. . 'lop El , Â·Â· a,-Â·..: ...,= ~. .I....~*&'Â·,nu:z~;ack:,2*~U~& af :1 '.4--Â·Â·, Â·?i*~f/.~-*AiÂ· Â·1: Â·Â·::yj-Â·424IÂ¥,~t-"-4 i. -,-:c?b. ':: 6 -'. . . ... . : t L - th- 17-Trt r lillm I I T' 1 - ill 1 - 1- '* 1 "mi.mi 1 Â£ 1 : . '4 1 1 1, 32 t- 3 1 1 1 * 1 ; ! 1. a < : 2 : 0 1, i - .tk:(?f I : 11 - .1 -1 .: 1 ~ 111 1~1 1 [1 110 1 li : , -*r r - 75-1 \ h r I t' 11.. ' .illitiliii! 1, - . .Â· -r 0 7 -391 j ; ti, ii :.! : 1 I I . !,i.:Et i 2 4.24 w . 1- - , !1 \ fl.-t ' 1 1 I i i.i . - .1- f.. 1- -2 1 : i 1 -\:\ . P ..1 1. + I -' '11 i . r 4 ~ Â· 1 1 ilil i .1--11 iÂ· -.i- -/ 15 4Â·~:1 - Â· i \ Â· ;3 6.L. ~,'7~ . 7& 4 + Â·2_ U-3 - ~ Â·Â·-;5 :9 - - ill 1--1 1=-4 :; 1 - . i! 1 :\ - -Â·- -Unl-r.~ZEZZ.Xltga=Liun----4=-.-+--#.=12Z1-Z.-trti~tlji*%2024=6# r.22.2414.-2- - -- . 1 4---4-- rw--ZtZ-6*vLZe--1247=0- :. .* *#*.-5 *, 1 ... 4#6977&:Mati- - -- . ~,----- ....... ---...6.,-.,-,..m,1..-.=2--,-4+ --â€¢ '~ Â· ' . 4 Lk: - JUL 21 199% R. C. ROBERTSON â€¢ARCHITECTS - .. .y-Il-j--t.-Il f : I. : -- - 417 MAIN STREET, STUDIO 'A' M O A T A. CARBONDALE, CO. 81623 a /04 m :~~;~ FAX F /647 FLK- 404_-1-67-. 1!M~ F 1 -i IMA. O tO NGÂ» House 00 /01-~ 910 v..HA L LAM I i 9. IEN , f C 1 e N 034> *1 - .--1-L-- V.--I --1 ------ .+ - &! , /*LLL=.t~Â·3 1- i . 6.1 11 !--f-r-Â·-r--/.. '. ' ' (1 - 11 . t--Ir--= . !F1, - 1 li -1 1 1, 11 + i i '11 , 0 i...///6 0 .... -. 2/221//I,#dllill/~/Ill.---- r 1-~#r_-lT*iL~22~4~F=-ef-rt ' f , 22 1 1 1~---- -, #ligilf =fl-119 *IE El-184 EN-te:2 1-=me : --it Im + JL- i. 11.. 11 4. .... . Ir-*6 -t---1=11 -7 - Nit 'IRk 1 552,1 -il- 1 1 R.tt . 1 ; 9 - ... ''21*1211'*440-El.j t# -JÂ·Ill--1 11 11' i 1 1--+ 1 4-- 1 1 1 1 J /-1 - -- -- --! Â¥ J O 0 - T B. 4-- -- --- -- 1 /'L--Id 10 5 JUL 2 8 1998 7 - New Neu & cm LOT 5 ~ZC) AHAL.LAM A PP 9,; Co - 0,2Â¥45 ear 8 1 1 . m' 1 1,- . 94 '6(' Mt, 111 X rk I i i \\ I '11' . 4 /V 1,2 -4 fÂ» - -- - + '=PL- .. , 11 P f fre. Â·Â·1!1...C..411 1 1 .1 . -- I./ 4 . 1 1.Eaal- . .. 1 Â· Â· 0 - 1101 - - 1- t . 1Â· 1>51,--=Fl==5%%11 it ,! -fl~ -Â¥ 3 . ; 11... A ... i L 11 1 4 -2-jilk=rl #F , ...05/1~,=11/ 1 22 - 1 .. , 12/14-1 . - 1-~ i - ./A ... , . ~. 1 1. 1 9/9.Fi,MN 1 11 *_ i. &,1 U h lia.dr--'I "% 1- 11.:III j Â¢ . . - I . r . .. ... !]Il 11.7 ..11 61- 1 L r-------- b - 1- l -'4.8!-4 ~~wk.~414*,f - fil 14 1 1 . N O F- T +1-7 w â‚¬*T O to R. C. ROBERTSON â€¢ ARCHITECTS - r 417 MAIN STREET, STUDIO 'A' New Hevre ) tar g CARBONDALE, CO. 81623 920 9*-At &4*1 970Â·963Â·0567 970 Â· 963 Â· 8938 FAX m A.1.A - Ar pek I C~ ~ -79598 2,27-0~40'. tEF~ el . . n-- - 9 1 1 8 1 . 1 li/,\ . ' l.-- V i 1 4ep-err -4 6*nveu. 3 f ' C=3. 1 -Â»- 111 -L-J- +IL/~L__I_ I ~ ~ -2, Pr / Ul/ -30 ~ 1 1Â» 11-2-flip DAâ‚¬ifs INGh ./ BEG=W .1 0 0 0. 0 0 8 . -- ., \ - PA, Tr/,0 .: 111 5 00 - WH 1 c i , 3 9 f=f f la 0 0 . , + 2 Â» r 11 1 ; ---2.'tÂ· i T ERER. 0 uP A,</6764 af U ['11 5*?Q. Amiâ‚¬1~6 / -1 --/EAMILY Il .4/ V / '41.2 ~ 1 . 1 11 I i 1 x -1 -- Jw 11 9 J ~j--=- -71 0 jO\.1 7189% - N. R>-64 tr e /v\. e.-*-1,~ G-AC>00, O N-0 0/CL_ A 0 P + 7 A--1 F.0 Li - R. C. ROSERTION â€¢ ARCHITECTS - O 10 , 417 MAIN STREET, STUDIO 'A' CARBONDALE, CO. 81823 .,v Heure ON 207- 6' 070Â· 983Â·0607 _920 *HA LK-4,41 - 970 Â· 903 Â· 8030 FAX /8494 MAP. < /893* ENE AppeN Col 6.5-98 m ALA ALLONÂ«). f [2121 , 84# Moore 0/v LOT A. 9'22 4+AL LA A - * r P G*i'-CDD. 1,).98*v. . . 1 - C , r -. 9 74 #ZICCES*.4 UNA 1 /4.-7-.- 0313Â» . ---. /1 4 "" . ___,did 1 1 WE I 6..\Â§ L /--- .. - 1 ./ l!t 1-~ 1 !484*25Â« .L--=.I , li 1 1 3241. A . 1,Â®Z:iÂ¥=1*al f . 153/En . 3 1.1 14.1,111 .'trtl~ 1/K ' .rE: - 1-7.-1 - - 1 -t--M :!11, 4==g= 1 .W -: j. 1 4 ''litit. lil'.11 11/3 1 1 - t-. , ~ . ~ ! I f /' -,- . 74:E -fli -744 -' < -(7 - ---- 1 11&. 1 i . 11 -- 2.L I 1 1 '11 -1-4 - - TI ~ 111 1 , .,1-r 2//-__ - to 4-11 AC & -:1.'* -i 1 + 11 -W Â£ 4. A 2 . .9 --f 1, f al - -'A ' ' li / 1 1-1 .r . 5 ' r -C--9*.4 4 .-. t I. 1 ' #8.- .4631~CAINI# NE~~A-av 1 rmwak.--0 1 * 1 1 1 1 1 .1 1 --- -1 I - - R. C. ROBERTSON â€¢ARCHITECTS - -1-- - -4 1-- I.-'ll-.. 417 MAIN STREET, STUDIO 'A' . 6 A r r â€¢ JULI 1 698 - CARBONDALE, 00. 81823 â€¢JO 6.701. '' 970Â· 983Â·0587 --~---- - - - - 970Â·983Â·8938 FAX I AJA 120 -_21 Â·Â· 1 -1.-_--. Â·.-1.36#ihizi.u=t-~t;044.2. Â·~1* :-ErÂ© 2.-~ r ~19 4 . C V -r r--- - ---- --- I hfbÂ£ r 1-4 1 ' 1 }r- Â·Â·> /14444-4-1-FÂ». 1 . 4 n '11 \ / " 1 1 1 -125122214 I __ L 32.1~Nt~~r--lt-lr-1[--IC-~r--~r- hAI 1} * ill i i 20=12-21-9 -1 L I .... .... ~1*444*444* --il*.i--*--'hi- -~ *-4 i E, 1 111 11 4 i All:, .i -- - -*1#6441+LIB-- 111{ 1#1|~,=:4--â€¢~ 1-_.I ~4._jitii** fEW& Ii#%\11 /4.__~1"--4.-.,1 lot,22~~60Â·Â·-4 L..~DUÂ»â€¢~.l i ' 1 , 1 JUL 2 9 1993 1 11 NesT NO/2-TA JUL 2 8 1998 O tO : . ROBERTSON â€¢ ARCHITECTS - MAIN STREET, STUDIO 'A' wew How se ON LOT K ONDALE, CO. 81623 6,0Â·963Â·0567 970 Â· 983 Â· 8936 FAX 920 W.HALLAM m At.A A fÂ¥ER, c ce -- #04*. 2. 32,00*. r -1 4 9 < \ 4 . UGHTWELL 1 I . 3 a nt *lecol -ET, 1 Lr<1 I RU,3 r *2 0/*/BRT ~,M~%~J -4 ...._ 2-1_j -lai i 1 L...4 -11? 171 'ti . 1 W 03-1 \ 1-1 11 . r lt' 4 U. Ow 1 1 . 1 \ 1 /'" â‚¬ j . t. 11 1 j i 1 460 t ./ 1 # - ~ D r- - == u<Â§*rÂ»6~Â£ 4 ~ ~~~M,itttDA i ..ar / 9 n-nERII j 1, 11 \\ 83-/ n ~ U v/2,2 ~(Li U /4-1 1 11* 11 1 I Â· \ lu .-1 iii.-11 Â®[-1 .1...1 ill i JUL 2 71998 N. 8 6 2 e /14 e-M T G P-C>UN ID *EL.POP~ â€¢ilth UP#TA, 9 2 0 10 . C. ROBERTSON â€¢ ARCHITECTS <c, 0 ,**1/,LAEÂ¥/,r 00> 20-7-,4 17 MAIN STREET, STUDIO 'A' CARBONDALE, CO. 81623 .-I - 970Â·963Â·0667 / 688 * FAA< j89 3113 FAL A rf 68 I Ce) 6.53 98 970 Â· 963 Â· 8936 FAX 2 A.I.A. Le * 4-1 MEMORANDUM EXHIBIT. 1 UzZ J TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission .7 THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development DimetoF - , ~ Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Planning Directot~ ~1, '- FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer j RE: 735 W. Bleeker- Landmark Designation, Conceptual Review, Partial Demolition, On-site Relocation, Ordinance #30 Review-Public Hearing DATE: August 12,1998 (continued from July 22, 1998) SUMMARY: HPC has held a worksession on this property, made two site visits, and held a conceptual review hearing on July 22. At these meetings, the applicant was directed to revise the proposed project in order to retain more of the existing structure, physically detach the existing unit and new unit from each other, and maintain the current orientation of the existing house. A revised proposal has been submitted to address these points. The applicant requests landmark designation, conceptual review approval, partial demolition, and on-site relocation approval. Planning and Zoning Commission approval is also needed for the two ADU's (one in the basement of each house). As part of the redesign of the proposal, the applicant has eliminated the need for a site coverage variance. However, a west sideyard setback variance for the new house which was not needed initially is required by the new design. A new notice must be created, and the public hearing with regard to the variance will be held at HPC on September 9th. The Planning and Zoning Commission hearing will be held on September 15th. APPLICANT: Drew Dolan, represented by Charles Cunniffe Architects. LOCATION: 735 W. Bleeker St., Lots A & B, Block 18, 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: 1 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. Response: This standard is not met. 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 building form or use), or specimen. Response: This structure is a good example of housing built in Aspen in the late 1800's. It has a typical floor plan, gabled roof, a front porch which has been enclosed, and detailing which was common to these buildings. C. Designer. The structure is a significant work of an architect or designer whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. Response: This standard is not met. D. Neighborhood Character. The structure or site is a significant component of an historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character. Response: At one time, there were many miner's cabins in this neighborhood. There are several others located along West Bleeker Street, and several similar small houses along Main Street, behind the building. Staff believes that the preservation of these small houses is important to maintaining the character of the area. 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 of the modest scale, style, and character of homes constructed in the late 19th century, Aspen's primary period of historic significance. It is located on a prominent corner at 7th and W. Bleeker (southeast corner) and is surrounded by several mature evergreen trees and a white picket fence. The structure exemplifies an earlier era of Aspen architecture, and is representative of miner's cottage vernacular. Staff finds that the structure is eligible for landmark status as it meets criteria B, D, and E. 2 SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District and all development involving historic landmarks 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. 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 applicant's initial proposal for this property was to demolish a large part of the existing building, move the house so that it would face South Seventh Street, and create a duplex and two ADU's on the site. The HPC gave direction to revise the proposal and the applicant has responded to those comments. The application has been revised so that more of the existing house is retained, the house maintains its placement on Bleeker Street and is moved just slightly forward and eastward, a small addition is made to the old house, and a new, completely detached unit is proposed behind it. Staff finds the proposal has improved significantly. The proposal for the historic house now includes retaining all of it except for an addition on the east side of the building. As stated at the last meeting and at the most recent site visit, staff believes that this addition was built before 1904 and appears on the Sanborne map (attached), although somewhat modified from its earlier appearance. As a policy, HPC has generally required that all additions to a historic building which are at least fifty years old are to be retained. Ifthis were required ofthe 735 W. Bleeker project, than the addition that would likely be requested would have to placed behind the historic building, probably eliminating the option to keep the two units detached from each other. For that reason, staff is willing to support removal of the current addition if what is constructed in its place is appropriate. The applicant shows a kitchen extension and single stall garage with a master bedroom suite above as the proposed addition. The resulting FAR for the house is 1,360 square feet (plus a 250 square foot garage), so that the addition is approximately 362 square feet larger than the current building. Staff finds the size of the addition, and in general the massing, design, 3 0 and fenestration of the addition to be acceptable, although the width of the gable end on the north side ofthe bedroom is somewhat large in comparison to the front ofthe old house. The applicant is proposing to reopen the front porch on the old house, which will be a significant improvement. Staff recommends that as part of this effort, the two small windows on the front wall be replaced with a more historically appropriate double hung window (example photos attached). No railing should be added to the porch unless there is some evidence that one existed historically. In terms of the new unit, staff finds that its design is also acceptable. Some variations in wall materials may tie the building in with the historic house better. The site plan is greatly improved, particularly by detaching the two buildings. The applicant is now providing all of the required parking (6 spaces for the 4 units) on site. From the information provided on the survey, it appears that the large trees at the front of the property will be protected, but several trees which are interior to the site will be removed to make way for the new construction. The applicant should contact the Parks Department as soon as possible to begin discussing what their requirements will be. A sideyard setback variance is needed on the west side of the new house. Although the applicant is providing a five foot setback from the property line, which is the typical minimum requirement, a corner lot requires a setback of 6' 8" from the property line. A public hearing with regard to the variance will be held on September 9. Staff supports 0 granting a setback waiver of 1'8" as needed. Although staff finds the direction of the project to be very positive, HPC and the applicant should discuss one possible variation to the plan. The applicant is proposing a modest addition to the historic house, which includes some additional living space and an attached garage. While this is not unreasonable, the attached garage takes up at grade space and forces the master bedroom to be a second story addition (which is probably desirable to the applicant). Staff recommends that there be some discussion of removing the single stall garage from the old house and attaching it to the new house and putting the master bedroom suite for the old house on the first floor level, so that there is no pop up addition to the old house. While this may require a compromise by the applicant, it is more desirable from a preservation point of view. The other alternative would be to put the master suite in the basement and eliminate the ADU, which would probably not meet anyone's goals. In discussing this idea with the applicant, he suggested that the garage floor might be able to be pushed slightly below grade so that the height of the addition was lowered. The architects should explore whether this can be done and what impacts that would have on the below grade living space. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood ofthe parcel proposed for development. 0 Response: The character of the neighborhood is a mix of both mining cottages and large newer second homes with lots of glass. The applicant has revised this proposal so that the 4 scale ofthe historic house is preserved and the project will be an appropriate and successful infill in the neighborhood. 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: By maintaining the old house in its original orientation and very close to its original location, and by taking most of the mass that could be added to it and placing that in a detached home, the applicant is protecting the building as a representation of mining era housing. 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: Staff has suggested some ways that the applicant could restudy the character of the proposed addition in order to achieve an even greater preservation of the architectural character ofthe house. 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 ofthe parcel. Response: The applicant has reduced the area that is proposed to be demolished to an addition which appears to have been at least partly constructed before 1904. As described above, given the overall approach to the project, staff is in support of this partial demolition ifthe replacement construction is compatible with the house. 2. Standard: The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: 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 area to be demolished is not original. It may have significance in that it is an old addition and all changes to the house which are more than fifty years old are thought to have some importance as evidence ofhow the house has changed over time. 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. Response: This issue is discussed in detail under the conceptual review standards. 5 ON-SITE RELOCATION 1. Standard: The relocation activity is demonstrated to be the best preservation method for the character and integrity of the structure, and the historic integrity of the existing neighborhood and adjacent structures will not be diminished due to the relocation. Response: Staff believes that on-site relocation is probably the best approach if the intent is to excavate a basement. 2. Standard: The structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and re-siting. A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation. Response: Said report will be a condition of approval. 3. Standard: A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond or other financial security with the engineering department, as approved by the HPC, to insure the safe relocation, preservation and repair (if required) of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation. 0 Response: The relocation plan and bond will be a condition of approval. ORDINANCE 30 Lightwells: All areaways, lightwells, and/or stairwells on the street facing side(s) of a building must be entirely recessed behind the vertical plane established by the portion of the building facade which is closest to the street. Response: The lightwell on the front of the historic house stands just slightly in front of the wall of the house. Staff recommends that a variance be granted, since the majority of the lightwell is recessed. STAFF SUMMARY AND FINDINGS: Staff appreciates the progress that has been made on the proposal and is in support of the project with a few recommended areas for restudy: â€¢ Look at ways to lower or eliminate the second floor pop up on the old house. â€¢ Replace the windows at the porch on the front of the old house with a historically appropriate window. Eliminate the porch railing. 0 â€¢ Look at varying materials on the new house. â€¢ Meet with the Parks Department regarding tree removal. 6 Staff is in support of the setback variance, partial demolition, and on-site relocation, and Ordinance 30 variances if the above issues are addressed. The application should be continued to August 26,1998 to give the applicant an opportunity to respond. Attachments 1. Application 2. Sanborne Map 3. Photos of historic porches g:/planning/aspen/hpc/cases/signific/73 5wb/73 5conc.doc 7 ATTACHMENT 2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project: Do,-AA| RE.n}oPEL Applicant: PK= U) pe LAW Location: 735- \JE'r 15-6 0,1<3212. ST. Zone District: 2.- G, Lot Size: 66* 0 1 A loo, Lot Area: 6 002 S.7. (for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing: - Proposed: Number ofresidential units: Existing: 1 Proposed: 2 Number ofbedrooms: Existing: 1 Proposed: 6 Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): 2 11â€¢ DIMENSIONS: Floor Area: Existing:*64.5 Allowable: 3290 Proposed: 2900 Principal bldg.height: Existing: 14'-3" Allowable: 625'-0" Proposed: 22- 60 Access. bldg. height: Existing: - Allowable: - Proposed: - On-Site parking: Existing: 2 Required: G Proposed: (0 % Site coverage: Existing: 2 0'to Required: 90 7. Proposed: 31 7. % Open Space: Existing: - Required: Proposed: - Front Setback: Existing: /5'-04 Required: ~~1-00 Proposed: 12'-00 Rear Setback. Existing: 39'-D" Required: .,~'5 0# Proposed: 10'-0" CombinedÂ¥/k Existing: 30'- 00 Required: 30'-O. Proposed: 30'-00 u.- *91 Side Setback. Existing: 191-00 Required: ..640-- Proposed: 5 Low Ck, -0 % Side Setback. Existing: ~1 '- 00 Required: .%#- O Proposed: 124 4 Combined Sides: Existing: 30'-04 Required: 15'-00 Proposed:110- -6> Existing non-conformities or encroachments: Variations requested: /1. Uâ€¢ \ A. 4. u. r. u. r 77 >-I- -0 x Dx -- Lio [$1 7 / ITZ D. -, 1 0 1 . 734 725 7/2 700 EEKER Â®' 5u-~' i<CI 478*. 122 - SON Stk ) 721 719 101 1, o Â· 4 &2 f, Frl 11 Fi //1 - u.24 â€¢ 41 t.- 8 x 2 x LID' Ir--rl D I D D 2.&~ X *\ 5 Z in [-4 11 1 1 bio). -- 1/ILLL 1 1 -31 < :41 0 r 11. f . 8. D. E. F. G. 41. 17 71 NI 18 0 1/ *-d. ./ o / xI/ xI rp. 4 111 ~ -D><E J><â‚¬ 3>41 S. K. L. M. N. 0. R Q. R. S. IiI & r ~ 1 :>71 31 n 1 1 /0 1 64 '3&-L Z -1 - --Al 1. 4 -â€¢,1 8 5, D'. 7, 1.1 2,. I . 0 . , .- 1 1. Ic. 7.1 6 4 3 0 800 720 7/8 7/2 703 *n - {UU (RIO) MAIN @f R 295- 75 7ff ' 103 . 101 - UZZI 1- / U,-4 -7-11:ZI -77-7 7-ILL / ., LEI- | D 1/ .1 % - 0~ D x D -1\ D . 09. : 1~ DT? 1 7'0 1 13 U-T 4 1 U 1_ Int - - Fr/ 1. 9/ - 1 /*6 01 U -il Dr- l. &: f 1 *\ B C.; 8. E. 6. W. p-71 7-ri B.C:il .... 7-71 153?'~ 17--MI, 1,1. 11 e . 'P 9, Â« . r 26*3' 1, 244-- f:,4 2~01,4~6,~,4.re" 'C -/ I. 1 175~Â·*' '~-1*~~m<4*XjaFt,*i %2-~Â·20*~ Â·.f,f *Viâ‚¬4Â©444%0 1-Yiff- ~~*fif~.,.64)t '*~ ..0 V 34.:wi: W.)** 2; , A,Â·39 3Cd*.5* friv~r~~4)6*&*i.5* 2.: + ~Â»Â°Â«~3fwtf ?11<14*fiâ‚¬*61: -U:=U**9444'9:<44.Â· 002 -1Tfâ‚¬*21 4 4 . *~ Â·0.-401*FAÂ·d*,4**,Â·,w ~,,S, 11#j '. . elf ~,6 4. 4.61. .xnrage#NIME"ir.F '*., '4# '113#Mi"*-FAW,431'Filial 'Â»r.â‚¬Â»46 Â§444212"let 1 - 4.34*421 42*4 -1 4.+ : 01.ti-%,&4Â«. 4 27,1 ~ Â¢01,2fat , 0 11 {111,110 1.03?04Â£;. f C'.14/ar m..%7.06#448/45&4&.&.r *0~ilil<ligi:lililds -1... r.-.'' *;1*,%~~&~~~1121 ~:~4*---4 1 41~111/1 761,41* 4, Id UN--v Â·2'r-~ 1, 2 =,-rm,/BM-/.1.6./.s-er.,Al."~/~~~:*:93&15*~Iai .2. .....1 ./ 310.- Law . ~ fEÂ«*4!1444 94111 16/r-- - &. . . Â£,SI'&44. la,t.* I t '*SA*tr' t' 4 f '1 , M ~ '4 .9 1,4 ~AÂ¥- - i~ 9 0094.0 .., 0, ' 4 il, 7. I . -/ 1 , 4 'Â¥ U A. '94. ... 3.1 - ---.4â€¢, . .C . 112 4 - ev 2 r 1 d .0.~ - r -4 0: )>k.,v '#C J + ..1 ,â‚¬1 90 4021-. 9 1 . a 41 J 1 . - -, 4 2 - .9 fil-N'~ ~~- '18- 1 74./.' : 4/~PW~~'. PV ' k.. r *4, El atof h -â„¢M. h . I. 1. '4 $ I 7, VENtiÂ· 1~,./ .,% WZ. . . #ER,2,1.Ab . 5%,rher . ... .J , I .8/Inal".Illill/*I 1.0 1 416 1 ' '/1 9, _.I 4., 9 , - . li 9,2/ 03:h ,- I.<I' d i.ift: ~I. 214~4~~ 7' '/f Z 11&*d . .~ *g V'> -919, -M' 14 4.-i'k I I L., 1 '414 N , 'r,I . 1 L - 2. 1 . I * A , : 9' /'1Â«im/ 'L . Ti~Â£ fa;144 kerY#244 4 ~ I â€ž.. 125; t.*5*1:41*~0fv?tey- . I 4#. ' 4.* 9 '10- -**3Vlly*i *Al, ~t.*rte* , 67; 'f": .*L, 1. -4 I ' 1 ft .50'' 4 .lf 13~19Â¥â„¢T 495 4 5 4 *Lt'-1 4 *593*.44*A ; d t: 1 93 ~&.~pfF Â»5:~*trb-1,~*9411 rr-5.41 -1 **43'7Â«].P ' #i rdâ„¢t#* i*:92*T:41*2*; ' MA,1 ' ..~i CAT"~: I.,M 4447~ {i:3- f / p 4,6,4.4'~I' ,;bkit,%30-'e~,1.9?>1-',+~, , ,=â€ž,e~~,,*.145~1+~,:tivalÂ·,16â‚¬* , r *es -..4 4 . 1|Â· 4 t. .,Jy J , r U APPLICANT: Drew Dolan, represented by Charles Cunniffe Architects LOCATION: 735 W. Blecker Street ACTION: Landmark Designation, Conceptual Review, Partial Demolition, On-Site Relocation, Ordinance 30 Review To be eligible for landmark designation, a structure or site must meet two (2) or more of the five (5) standards contained in Section 26.76.020 of the Municipal Code. It is not the intention of HPC to landmark insignificant structures or sites. HPG will focus on those which are unique or have some special value to the community. 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. 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 building form or use), or specimen. Designer: The structure is a significant work of an architect or designer whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. Neighborhood Character: The structure or site is a significant component of an historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character. Community 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 architecmral importance. SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) Significant development in an "H," Historic Overlay District must meet allfour of the development review standards in order for HPC to grant approval: Standard 1: 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 an "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area 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(13)(2). Standard 2: the proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Standard 3: 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. Standard 4: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. ORDINANCE 30 Lightwells: All areaways, lightwells, and/or stairwells on the street facing side(s) of a building must be entirely recessed behind the veitical plane established by the portion of the building facade which is closest to the street PARTIAL DEMOLITION Standards of review for partial demolition. No approval for partial demolition shall be granted unless the HPC finds that aU of the following standards are met: (Note: "Partial demolition" shall mean the razing of a portion of any structure on an inventoried parcel or the total razing of any structure on an inventoried parcel which does not contribute to the historic significance of the parcel). Standard 1: 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. Standard 2: The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent p6ssible: 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. 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. ON-SITE RELOCATION Standards for review of on-site relocation: No approval for an on-site relocation shall be granted unless the HPC finds that the following standards have been met: The relocation activity is demonstrated to be the best preservation method for the character and integrity of the structure, and the historic integrity of the existing neighborhood and adjacent structures will not be diminished due to the relocation, and The structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and re-siting. A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation, and A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting of a bond or other financial security with the engineering department, as approved by the HPC, to insure the safe relocation, preservation and repair (if required) of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation. IFI . . 1 - rn :5:. tl.~f:22:1-:2:j/:'.Â·Â£Â·94. 0- LLI-1 A. X -M.7,7f7ff'/ /, #8*fkti:328*: 4*=* 132*3%Â»*93 493 \ 1 24Â§14 i 4%41%~fi 4Â»6-Â«%Â» 4 Â«\\44\ 9 r r' 441Â»24Â» 9% 441 44// ./'. â€¢Â· f Em 1--Tr 1 m Z O) 0 --- g h M 1/ .., F..t:).:.1....:N .- ~:Z.:=t,71.1..:1 .....1 . Â·Â·PX:+ UlÂ»Â»P\Â·NI .Â·e:/ // 241 0. 446? 1 7// I j E: 11 /11 DOLAN RESIDENCE CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS E. m 735 WEST BLEEKER ST. , ~ ASPEN, COLORADO 220 E. COLORADO AVE * TELLURIDE, CD 81435 â€¢ 1ELE: 970,728-3738 â€¢ FAX: 97072&-9567 L'EX NOI1VA313 1SVEI DN!19[XEI N0I1VA313 HinOS 9NllSIXEI E ISTING NORTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION MuluNHII QUI[lull r 03N3dO-3H 38 01 HOHOd NIVFGH 01 NOI.LDOWLSNOD BN!.LS 3 03HSNOM30 38 01 NO!13(*;USNOO ENLIS 3 , . LEGEND : 808 WEST BLEEKER STREET bpÂ»*Â»yxÂ·*<4:4 EXISTING CONSTRUCTION TO BE DEMOUSHED ~ EXISTING CONSTRUCTION TO REMAIN 0 FÂ»Â»71 PORCH TO BE RE-OPENED 0 . 00 0 9 1 1 PB[PERN JNE -C''V-4 34 r ?* flu f 14/' -49 /11\ te , Iii H\\ FRONr SETR#C'Ck 4.0 0, 7 Â»f/,97 7/2/f,/Â» i j f--~-3;1_-0 ~ 1 /1 EXISTINS LOCATION OF H/STOR,2 STRUCTURE i s UNT 1 1 ~~DH~j~UCT ;RE . il S F /1.5 \1/ \L / - : 0 30-1 4* t_ U @ C. r m YARD ~ - )<+ 11\ 1 - 0 0 1 2 7 1 \1 - 1. m m 29[. . L,17 -]1 -L - I 3,22- 1--- H L - ** 0 |k --==* 1 OCIE IM 4* 1 ~ *E AMBIERM--M Z UNIT 2 13 0 LU Ul C .C L--1 *-1r-. == 1/\'UJNS rd 07 /r Z - - 11 11- - Li REAR SErB< SITE COVERAGE: 1 GRAVEL - A 01Â£4111 UNIT h 1248 SF 0 UNfr & 424 SF F ARKING PARKING TOTAG 2372/ 6000 -39% M PROPERTY UNE FLOOR AREA RATIO: UNfr h 1360 SF DRAWING UNfr & 1540 SF ALLEY BLOCK 18 BENI@ FLOOR PUNS TWA!, 2900 SF PROPOSED -E PUN JOB NO. 9836 DATE 7-3-98 PROPOSED SITE PLAN EXISTING FLOOR PLAN SHEET NO. X2.2 51.331!HOZIV 33:IINNAD S31MVHD 0 0 0 1 1 6 U Â¤ 3 . r L i- 2 E 5 up - - 3 nk- 1 4 j = rÂ·MI (Dll 1 1\-1 1 1 - 1 . 1 C I r- -- M i :- 4--901 Â¥ -/f j ZIZ r M - 5 1 - L_- _1 0 C 9 - i3 In . 51 - 26,4 - 5 1 -1 4 -1.-i~ r a 1-7 E-1 11 -----1 * 1-71-1 1 1 O 1 , I 2 AFFEE S ..p m I 71'r,iii -1 . 1 ED 1 12 QU DOLAN RESIDENCE CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS Â¢ 3 j 1 735 WEST BLEEKER ST. 520 EAST HYMAN AVE â€¢ SUrrE 301 ' ASPEN, CO 81611 â€¢ TEE 97[)925-5590 0 FAX: 970925-5076 ASPEN, COLORADO 220 E. COLORADO AVE. 0 TEUURIDE, CO 81435 â€¢ TELE: 970*28-3738 â€¢ FAX: 97(m8 9567 ~ ~~ DINING L liNA nagang NVId 13/\31 NIN*1 0380dOUd DN!/AÂ·Na , I I /. B E---1 LU H W.Le - 2 * 3 MASTER BEDROOM .g> DECK C R . f 6 92 % 1 Z ' 1 ME 9 1 1 A, 0 -=. I 00 .til=.- El - 2 88 BAâ„¢ m t< Z b - --- ..1 U .I Â· Â· i M ./ 44 81 Â¥ 7-1 -1 i i / UNK 1 1 W.'F Z 1 U am I MASTER BEDROOM 1 L-----1| - C DN 4 1 L .a M=J V L 14 1 171 (.1- z U LU 0 DECK C LU Â· g BEDROOM f z 3 - BATH 01/ 0 UNIT 2 DRAVVING Uâ€¢PER La,a JOB NO. 9836 DATE 7-3-98 SHEET NO. PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL PLAN A2.2 I 91 1 9 1 OCIVMO-103 'NEIdSV '15 Na>133-18 1S3AA SEZ 0 0 1 UGHT WELL v# 3 -11 Ill - IKED ~ -- 0- 1-1-LL -ia mE - VY . - = 11 9 Â·Â»- 2 3 1 >9 < i -O-Ib~ ~ 1 . t ' 7 1/ 12 Ch N L 111 41 1 L_ 1 . 10 01 111 1 ..,f UGHT WELL UGHT WEU 1 m sta m I DOLAN RESIDENCE CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS 1 735 WEST BLEEKER ST. 520 EAST HYMAN AVE ' SUrrE 301 â€¢ ASPEN, CO 81611 â€¢ TELE 970925-5590 â€¢ FAX: 970925-5076 180 ASPEN, COLORADO 220 E. COLORADO AVE ' TEUURIDE, CO 81435 â€¢ TELE: 970728-3738 â€¢ FAX: 9*28-9567 L lINA REC ROOM BEDROOM .1--diNVH0319 3 -UNA NV-Id 13A31 EI3M01 0390dO 0100WC88 - E.EV . h. 1 /aI '94 /2--2--,L . 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 33 ,21 1 li m 1 7, --0.C/- A Y.----- 0-3- 26=23419)%<4 . 7hl, IZ-* 2.- -'__t I 1 -:2*r , IP===iiI r I 9 1 64 8--- %:, 2.5.7 1 f , 1 i ; r i .1.1 1 / 1 UNIT 1 - UNIT 1 - Zia PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION g am 01 4 8 01 4 8 14.1 U Z 44 11 Ir ,/ /1 11 4<~7 _1=12=-VA~l=-*/2- E -1 =i===~I- ~7 /MG'\ ~4X 1 j 0 K / *47.-h 1 -- 1 lilli 1 1 E 5 ' Â»~** 7-A\R â€¢isÂ¥ =4.2=41.1. .1.-"12:= 2 ~~r- 147Â« 6. diaÂ«uu _ - 10'gEL--8 - 2-f 21- j"~tl _ DRAWING 132 -Wl----- -- 2- Ul =21 3 - 2 '\31=1-2 - 2. ,-r, -- 1 -UT n =1, I a.,mts .ZE= 4. 4 --- i 4 -- 1 -434 I Tfff i' ' - - JOB NO. 9836 --- --- DATE 7-1-98 ' 1 SHEET NO. UNIT 1 - UNIT 1 - PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION ' PROPOSED SOUTH Fl F\/ATION AR.1 HOMV 3:IdINNFID 63121Â¥HD z,90Â£6:nal . SE+18 00 '30!trmal. Â·3AV 76026 ~3111.. U9tll 03 'NUSV. 10Â£ 31]rE . 3AV 'lS Ma>13318 153AA SEL -- I . P I .6 0 0 @1 1 90 I --=Upil-- ---Â·=--4,-li~- w..~- -puviA j 4 --1100-77=- 7 " . e , N I If-924 4.-A; & BE 'r -- SEIGIL_19Â». 8 5 iE . E EF UNIT 2 - UNIT 2 - PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION 8 01 4 0 6 ME; LU U Z ti C 2 mE RE ce m C tH NZ -- - 2 St 3 A W - N -- __ R_ Fl EM / 0 0.1 Q \ f 19- 7 4 * I -- - lil--- 42 _ 'In -2 7-CZZ.-L- iii**imi--~~ , r---------1 .is ?. . . I L..FO ........1 - In'=1.1 3./.1 r.'/1 1 X.- Ill -r- ..Â·-8,IL,n,â‚¬291 ~*#*---7 0 - 671-Imvilt--~ . . --------- -- IltÂ£=24'ilm!1781 1 DATE _ 7-3-98 1**8ZiEZZ- 1 SHEET NO. UNIT 2 - UNIT 2 - , PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION A3.2 r- - ==- --I..-Il t . . .t- 1 -9.7 Â·.. =47. ..1 NEST-BLEEKER STREET "te; 10 LEGEND AND NOTES '7,4, SLANrED Te,r ne-TES RECORD Imin. I 9 3 - BEAR INGS BASED ON TIE CITY 110,UENTS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF BLOCK 18. N.75'09'11 '-- NOI,THREST BLOCK CORMER DETERMINED BY BEARING BEAR,Ne le,rERSECTION FROM THE SOUTHNEST BLOCK CORNER AND THE NORTHEAST BLOCK CORDER BOTH CITY MOMIENTS -98 -*- â€¢ FOUND SURVEY MOM.ENT AS DESCRIBED 9184 FIELD TO RECORD - 9018 FIELD TO RECORD N Te 00'22'E 0.50198.0 - ~S 41â€¢ 18'05'E 0.17; 97.7 O WOOD FENCE N 7909'11 .W 270.09 ' ~ - 1, I CITY MONUMENT / 60.02' SNOW ON GROUâ‚¬) AT TIME OF SLRVEY 3/90 Al\- 1 A SURVEY CONTROL POINT PEAK0 M., 2 i \ // -99- 31% -fKEE t>IA,~UffHA 160*M:> . NO RECORD INFOmIATION FURNISHED TO SURVIVOR NOR RESEARCH PREFORMED - 4\11 116.91 o UTILITY BOXES r - - ra*:6 CV~FIR TY P 6. 12.- 9% ~ MANHOLE _ 1 5.0 k :Il- 0 C /1 1. 1 - m 7 12.1 3 C./p 9 CONTOURS ADDED 4/9I ~k__ENTRY ~ TSM JOO / ?\ 1 1/2 31:t HOUSE !2 1 ~ 18 8 ../- Lsi 3.5 0 0 C.- 1 1 I .. . 1- 1 ~WATER METER Lj - 7 14.0 -1 /3 4.\-99 2 0 | PORCH ~ A rl O LIGHT 0 00 AREA <arve 6.000 S. F. 0/- ~ SEP 04 1991 j O VE - 4 O 3 i BUILDING 1 C d PIPES - PARKING /00.7 100. C 11 3~ 75Â°09'1 J *E 60.02 0-- 0 0 EDGE OF PA-VEMENT r -101-- . ID RIM t01.0 BUILDING PERMIT SURVEY ALLEY BL 0 CK 1 8 OF LOTS A AND B. BLOCK 18. CITY AND TOWNS ITE OF ASPEN COLORADO. * 1012 CERTIFICATION 1. 00*IN M HONORTH 11EREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY WAS PLOTTED FROM FIELD NOTES OF A SURVEY MADE laUER My SUPERVISION. DATED THIS_IC) DAY OF APÂ£.IL _101Â· %1#Na..21 _ ~ 1 p.pa.o By SIGNED: *09 ASPEN SURVEY ENGINEER'S INC. Illf 25947 ;10 ~0 410~A1 HOWORTH P. L. S. 26Â§47 .-SÂ«.4 210 S. laeÂ·-...Â·*99 9,4 p.~. 079 Â· : TO COLORADO LAW YOU WIST MIOINCE - LEak ACTION BASED 1-1 ANY DEFECT IN THIS SlmEY IEE YEARS AFTER Â¥oll Flitsr O,SÂ©OVER SUCH =F=T- 1,1 De FVF.r ... A.- .... 1.- 0-en ...... ASPEN. COLORARD 81$12,- 33.04/- *E 100.00' 7TH STREET n S 14'50'49'W 100.00 MEMORANDUM 1 y -t (-9 9 ~ TO: Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director~9 FROM: Christopher Bendon, Planner Obwl RE: Music School and Festival Tent Redevelopment -- Public Hearing DATE: August 12,1998 SUMMARY: The applicant, the Aspen Music Festival and School, is proposing to re-develop the Bayer/Benedict music tent with a permanent tent structure. The structure would be within the parameters established in the 1991 SPA Agreement for additional capacity and would maintain a tent-like atmosphere while improving acoustics and logistical functions. The tent is not listed on the historic inventory. However, the 1990 Aspen Meadow Master Plan stipulated all development on the campus should be reviewed by the HPC. The Community Development Director has suggested the HPC make a formal 0 recommendation to City Council concerning the design and materials necessary to maintain a tent-like atmosphere. Staff has suggested the HPC use the criteria for a Specially Planned Area (SPA) as a guide in forming a recommendation to the City Council. At the outset, the HPC should determine ifthese standards sufficiently address the relevant concerns, or if other HPC criteria should be used. Staff recommends the Historic Preservation Commission conduct this meeting as an introduction to the project, allowing the applicant to present the development and allowing the public to express their concerns. Finally, the public hearing should be continued. APPLICANT: The Aspen Music Festival and School. LOCATION: Lot #2 Aspen Meadows. CURRENT LAND USE: Seasonal performance venue. 0 PROPOSED LAND USE: Same, with a permanent structure. PREVIOUS ACTION: 1 APPLICANT: ASPEN MUSIC FESTIVAL AND SCHOOL ~1~~4~<~~4 LOCATION: LOT #2 ASPEN MEADOWS ACTION: MUSIC SCHOOL AND FESTIVAL TENT REDEVELOPMENT RELEVANT REVIEW CRITERIA FOR AN AMENDMENT TO AN SPA 1. Whether the proposed development is compatible with or,nhances the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of land use, density, height, bulk, architecture, landscaping, and open space. 2. Whether sufficient public facilities and roads exist to service the proposed development. 3. Whether the parcel proposed for development is generally suitable for development, considering the slope, ground instability, and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls, avalanche dangers and flood hazards. 4. Whether the proposed development creatively employs land planning techniques to preserve significant view planes, avoid adverse Â· environmental impacts and provide open space, trails, and similar Â· amenities for the users of the project and the public at large. 5. Whether the proposed development is in compliance with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. 6. Whether the proposed development will require the expenditure of excessive public funds to provide public facilities for the parcel, or the surrounding neighborhood. 7. Whether the proposed development on slopes in excess of twenty (20) percent meet the slope reduction and density requirements of Section 26.84.030(B)(2)(b). 8. Whether there are sufficient GMQS allotments for the proposed development. 08-11-1998 10: 14AM FROM a*IBERS / CRANT ASPEN TO 9205439 P. 02 EX HIE~ MERLE CHAMBERS and HUGH GRANT 0 805 and 895 ROARING FORK ROAD ilil-lifill~li~~fs'Ir..Ii ASPEN, CO 81611 Planning and Zoning Committee Dear Committee Members, I want you to know that my husband and I support the new tent at the Music Festival. It is critical to improve the musical experience for the students and the audience. For parts of the orches#a to have to come in at different times so that the outcome is an ensemble is difficult and not conducive to the learning experience they students are here for. As well, the sound for the audience will be significantly improved. The Music Festival is one of the great attractions and pleasures of Aspen. Lefs make the facilities as fine as the performers. l am a member of the board of the Aspen Music Festival. However, if 1 had disagreements about the importance of the new tent I would make them known. Our houses are right across from the tent, so we see it in the summer and the 0 structure in the winter. We are Borne of the people most likely to be visually impacted by the new tent. I think the design is one which will fit in very well to the ambience of the area. I look fotward to seeing how it looks in every season. Thank you, *a (Li~ 0 TOTAL P.02 FROM :cw duell PHONE NO. : 970 963 4587 Aug. 10 2093 05:33PM P2 0 'ro: The Historic Preservation Committee 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 From: Carol Duell RE: New Music Tent August 10,1998 As a former trustee of the Music Associates of Aspen and a 'local' who has been attending concerts for 14 years, I feel most strongly that there is no question that the tent should be replaced with a New Music Tent structure. Almost all of the complaints that the musicians arla audience have made, I have witnessed firsthand. The acoustics are not only boihersome to audience members who expect to be able to hear the performance correctly. but it is most frustrating to the musicians who depend on being able to hear each other. They should not have to make compensations during playing for the structure in which they are performing. (For one concert, maybe, but not fornine weeks.) T have heard concerts during which the violins drowned out the wind section; this would have beer corrected by a proper stage and acoustical surroundings. Sometimes the piano cannot be heard as it should be because of 0 distortions of sounds from the orchestra. These exero.Nes are only a fewof the multitude of sound problems. Logistics am-aÂ·nightmare. I have no idea of all of those problems, but I can imagine. Moving the piano onto and off ofthe uneven stair step slage caused damage to the piano which interfered with the performance; I witnessed this IWiCe. Storage has always been a nightmare and the new structure would help this probiem enormously. The back stage facilities are no where near adcquax for the musicians, and these accommodations are an insult to visiting artists, some of whom make great sacrifices to be in Aspen. And to ask the audiences to use the tent bathrooms is an embarrassment; thank goodness there is some relief with new fae,iii:ics in Harris Hall. The rain/wind problems everyone has observed. Ii. 75 noi: very appealing to have paid $30 plus for a ticket, expect a time of musical enjoymon:. only to bc soakcd or havc the performance interrupted because of the weather. For those who are sentimental about the tcnt, that is certainly understandable. However, thcre are limitations. If it were the hospital and someone wanted it to stay the same because a child was born there or a loved one was hc:iled or died there, these would not be logical reasons for keeping the hospital the same As times change and progress is 0 made, the next step must be taken. FROM :cw duell PHONE NO. : 970 963 4587 Aug. 10 2093 05:33PM P3 1.- --- 1 twI) One has only to look at the changes that havc occurred over the years and realize that the tent cannot stay the same: -there are more students than when the ten? was designed in 1964 -there are more guest performers and conduciers -there are more people attending the performances who are morc sophisticated and have greater expectations -the performances are at times more complicated and need a building in which they can be performed -air traffic has increased, the noise always disturbing -technical progress is immeasurable in acoustics, recording and some instruments, all of which must be addressed. Under Robert Harth's ardent and devoted leadership, the Festival is extremely fortunate to be able undertake this project, a milestone the Aspen Music Festival has earned and deserves. Not many arts organizations are in such an excellent position. Aspen is indeed lucky. The tent is not a permanent structure. therefore if it goes, as it does every fall, it will not destroy the integrity ofthe neighborhood by being rupie.ced with a very similarly designed structure. If Herbert Baker were alive and well today, he would probably say 'Good Grief, the time most certainly has come to make the tent a permanent building!', and he would champion Harry Teague's excellent design. So let us unite, valley wide as well as world wide. irt LOW support of the New Music Tent. tht#04 91<119% 0 t; U U; 22 3 'l; 6.2 L Th~ 42{*en 1 44 4 -2 C 6. s 1 0 1998 110 g[6 18 un suwed ol N A A 3 0 qjkd ... 1 (1 Ft (11 tynjUD 12. 10Zy# . -6 Mim ' 50 fpfuo PRA lice pnoBU owl (crilro wAI~; t~vÂ·-it 1.0 0 41 d (i/h C (41 ( RE d 1 ( 9,(1 Lth (41 4 21 Via' f intwo (c 30 u-Ot * 524d [* ottl -til {ddÂ¢ 4 MOI bf InCE 12'k -14 OW.(adj Fld lpi -,St . 41(2-44 90245 0413 pit)(,imoa GAL 5-446 -b -4 ~ Â¢ 110111,4 Wail.JIL 04 atl ffid 43104(20 Migi (g 51\VA F\CATE#lfij. 44 -Flu~Ill- M (AN, EVA 0&904 liÂ·i,ji vjlk Â®d 4 ocoudi 4 4 4 -4 *3 A- 0,Â£16,(94 *ati, fxid CUL~l'(-, TE ad 000 Croukk i l..JAA_ ollcut#Ar atiol 46(49 litut aldd,R j O.Ads -it auV[ cuiti 640 Ed O kol i-po 0 A. tuu -lid w# Ai[ C.Odad}JEP /rn (u uwli4 lat (2 5 Ut Wain ZALÂ£(81 62_ 1(u outa 3 11(01 ilid 01 zmt (1 (49. . 1{CUU CaÂ£.M-1 kof-Q G pic#ch Â£00 w will - 0<*1 - li.f -t4_ td b C(%it. U[6 Jk// 4 44_ 001(/Wn . 424- 0_ 61 ~A 05[EliI Cdrt trt/orA CONVISER P.O. BOX ii ASPEN, CO__.. ...vulold j303-925-1780 FAX j93-925-3611 970 â‚¬10 JÂ·ualitlh Barnard Mickael Fain August 10, 1998 To the members ofthe Aspen Historic Preservation Council We are writing in support of the redesign of the tent for the Aspen Music Festival and School. All ofus who live in Aspen know how much the festival contributes to our community, and the whole country. It is one of the best known music festivals in America and it makes Aspen' s summer a happy one for shopkeepers, a joyful one for music lovers, and an impressive one in the education and growth ofyoung musicians. But the music festival will decline without a first class venue. The tent is absolutely necessary to a full and brilliant season, and every time it leaks rain Con performers as well as audience) or there is discussion of its truly inferior acoustics (for performers as well as audience), it is clear that the festival cannot retain its preeminenoe in this tent for much longer. There is no good reason to hold onto the old tent. It is not the historical Saarinen tent that was replaced by the Bayer tent. It is not the Bayer tent; that was altered dramatically by Fritz Benedict and is now called the Bayer- Benedict tent It is not a thing of beauty; in facts it is far less beautiful than the proposed replacement. It is not warm on cold nights or cool on hot Sunday afternoons; it is not perfect in any way. The proposed replacement designed by Harry Teague, adds only 200 seats, not a significant number; it has the samefootprint, and it will be home to the same monber ofconcerts each season as arepedbrmed now. As the model in the lobby of Harris Hall shows, the new tent is a tent, continuing the tradition of summer music in a tent; it is also a sleek design that will not obtrude on any views, its acoustics will be far superior to the current tents audience sightlines will be far better, dressing rooms and restrooms will be ample and pleasant forthe first time, the audience and performers will be better protected from rain and wind, and there will be lawns for free seating forever, open to everyone. What is historical, is the summer music festival. We urge you to help preserve and strengthen it by approving the new tent. -f---0 --#*Â£ YLijl- 0152 Buchanan Drive 970 925-5740 ernail: Aspen, CO 81611 970 920-9214 fax jel,25@801.corn i -=re,w_.1 kITâ€¢-0-1 , rT)4Wki>IWCY 1,T7<AZE.0/ A CD:QT DACT./ZZ/IA 88-12-98 13:55 M.A.A. ID=97@92538@2 PÂ·02 . improvemente to the Bayer Benedict Musit Tent. My wife and I have been attending concerts in the tent for more than 25 years. The events in the tent offer a magnificent and unparalleled opportunity for the education of the students and the enj oyment of the cosmopolitan audience= attracted here by the music festival. They add to the quality of life in Aspen a feature not available in any other community of comparable size of which I am aware. There are serious problems with the existing tent. In a heavy rainstorm it is nearly impossible for a concert to continue because of leaks in the tent structure. Acoustics for the musicians and the audience are poor in some areas of the tent. The movement and placement of heavy musical instruments ia difficult and time consuming because of the current stage structure. And important amenities for the musicians and the audience are lacking - particularly rest room facilities. The plans for improvements to the tent address these serious problems while preserving the basic aesthetic appearance of the existing tent. These plans reflect the efforts of many dedicated individuale who have given freely of their time and talents to improve and preserve the tent. Thank you for your favorable consideration of this important matter. Sinâ‚¬*rely, Henry T //Lowe 0218 Shtâ‚¬ld 0 Road Snowmass. Co. 81654 GB-12-98 G9;81 RECEIVED FROM:383 923 4925 P.el The Commission has not previously considered this application. REVIEW PROCEDURE: Specially Planned Area. Specially Planned Areas may be approved by the City Council at a public hearing after a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission has been made at a public hearing. The HPC, as a referral agency, may also make a recommendation to City Council. STAFF COMMENTS: The music tent is located in a Specially Planned Area (SPA). This designation encourages more creativity and innovation in designing a particular site than does traditional zoning. In this process, the underlying zone district is used as a general base from which all aspects may be varied. The entire Meadows Campus, including Lot #2 - the tent site, is an SPA. SPA's may be amended through a process involving the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. As part of this process, specific referral agencies make individual recommendations which are incorporated in a staff recommendation. Occasionally, a referral agency may review the land use case with the agency board to formalize a recommendation. This practice is common with the Housing Authority seeking formal recommendations from the Housing Board. In 1990, a Master Plan was developed in cooperation with the City, the M.A.A., the I.D.C.A., Savannah Limited Partnership, and the Aspen Institute for the Meadows Campus. This document was developed to provide a general direction for land use decisions without prescripting design or preventing creativity. On the table at that time were several improvements to the area including additional townhomes, single- family homesites, Harris Hall, and a handful of site improvements. Due to the complexity of issues concerning redevelopment in proximity to inventoried properties, the Master Plan included language concerning development reviews by the HPC. The subsequent process of approving a Specially Planned Area (SPA) for the campus involved a Conceptual and Final design review of certain elements of the campus (academic and residential buildings) by the HPC as a recommendation to City Council. The Master Plan required HPC review for the 1990 SPA submission with the following language: Mitigation Plan Feature # 8-HPC Review. Since most of the Meadows buildings have been included in an inventory of significant historic structure within the City, an Historic Preservation Commission review will be required, and approval must be granted. The expansion of the lodge should be accomplished with preservation of the existing Health Club building and minimal disturbance of significant examples of Herbert Bayer/Fritz Benedict architecture. The review ofthe chalet buildings and the single-family homes shall be advisory only. The Inventory of non-landmarked historic sites, as adopted in 1996, lists "The Meadows." The Tent is an example of Bayer/Benedict architecture. However, the 2 Tent was not listed as one of the protected historic resources in this inventory. While not technically a protected historical resource, the music tent has made a significant contribution to the social, cultural, and visual form of Aspen. It provides an image in time and place. It is an icon of the town and is a resource of collective memory. For these reasons, staff is suggesting the HPC review the Tent proposal under one of two review scenarios: 1) As a formal referral to the City Council for the SPA Amendment, using the SPA criteria; or, 2) As a recommendation to City Council using the HPC standards for significant development or demolition. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the HPC allow the applicant to present the new tent design, take and consider public comments, request any additional analysis from the applicant or from staff, and finally continue the public hearing. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to continue this public hearing to , request the applicant to provide the following items: and request staff to provide the following analysis: 55 ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Review Criteria and Staff Comments Exhibit B -- Development Application 3 Exhibit A STAFF COMMENTS: Specially Planned Area Section 26.80.040, Standards Applicable to Specially Planned Areas Following are the relevant review criteria for an amendment to an approved SPA. Criteria number 1 and 4 include such parameters as architecture, site planning, and physical compatibility with surrounding uses and structures. Staffis suggesting the HPC concentrate on these two criteriafor their recommendation to City CounciL 1. Whether the proposed development is compatible with or enhances the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of land use, density, height, bulk, architecture, landscaping and open space. StaffFinding: The land use and density of the proposal remain unchanged compared with the currently approved tent. The number of performances are not proposed to increase nor is the length of the season. These statements will be incorporated into the SPA agreement. The height and bulk of the structure are similar to the existing tent with the exception of no longer being a seasonal structure, remaining "up" for the entire year with only seasonal use. A comparison of the existing and proposed improvements has been included in the drawing set. The architecture of the proposed tent remains tent-like with four primary tent masts in the superstructure. These four piers will support the central element which will provide better acoustical qualities. Landscaping will be altered with the removal and relocation of some trees during demolition. The landscape improvements are generally concentrated to the area north of the tent, where the majority ofthe demolition work will take place. Open space for the parcel will remain largely unchanged. 2. Whether sufficient public facilities and roads exist to service the proposed development. Staff Finding: The expansion of the tent's capacity was approved by City Council in 1991. The current proposal is within that approved capacity. The development does, however, increase the fixture count in the bathrooms which is being evaluated by the Sanitation District for upgrades to the utilities. 3. Whether the parcel proposed for development is generally suitable for development, considering the slope, ground instability and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls, avalanche dangers and flood hazards. Staff Finding: 1 This parcel is relatively flat and not in a known environmentally hazardous area. 4. Whether the proposed development creatively employs land planning techniques to preserve significant view planes, avoid adverse environmental impacts and provide open space, trails and similar amenities for the users of the project and the public at large. Staff Finding: The proposed tent is approximately within the existing footprint of the current tent and complying with the existing height. Open space and trails remain unaffected with this amendment. Amenities for the general public will improve with additional bathroom capacity, better acoustical quality within the tent, and improved visual and acoustical quality for lawn audiences. Staff believes the proposal is substantially similar to the approved SPA with respect to land planning and preservation of environmentally sensitive areas. The tent will remain "up" year-round which could affect views from some locations. There are, however, no protected view planes that would be affected by the structure. 5. Whether the proposed development is in compliance with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. StaffFinding: The AACP does not specifically address the Meadows. However, the Aspen Meadows Master Plan, which was adopted in 1990 as an element of the previous comprehensive plan, addresses the area specifically. The subsequent SPA approval was in compliance with this master plan. This proposed development is within the capacity levels ofthat SPA approval. 6. Whether the proposed development will require the expenditure of excessive public funds to provide public facilities for the parcel, or the surrounding neighborhood. Staff Finding: The proposed development is not expected to require the expenditure of public funds. 7. Whether proposed development on slopes in excess of twenty (20) percent meet the slope reduction and density requirements of Section 26.84.030(B)(2)(b). StaffFinding: There are no significant slopes on the subject parcel. 8. Whether there are sufficient GMQS allotments for the proposed development. Staff Finding: The proposed development does not require growth management allotments. 2 Correspondence 1 Tbe future of Aspen's music tent is in tbe news Tbe first musictent was designed in even to mitigate its worst flaws, is and space. One sees a building, but 1949 by eminent architect Eero Saarinen. risky, but even riskier is to not even one feels architecture; it sliould be a In 1964, inspired by Saarinen's stfucture, try. At some point, its shortcomings personal and spiritual experience. Herbert Bayer created a new tent, wbicb will make the tent unsuitable for the We are all aware of the specialness we use today. The next incarnation of tbe very purpose it serves, driving away of the music tent in the social and tent, in tbe works now and slated for com- the high-quality musicians we go historic fabric of Aspen. Its shared pletion in 2000, will address sboytcomings there to hear. We risk losing the vital- experience is renewed every time in tbe current venue sucb as acoustics, ity of a community creatively address- people gather to hear performances. lighting, and seating. Below, Ham ing the future; we risk becoming But new design need not erase the Teague, designer of tbe next tent, and expe- stagnant, distinctively trying to pre- social and historic values of the rienced Aspen design consultant Bob Blaicb serve the un-preservable. music tent. As Harry Teague has share their views on tbe impending Our challenge as architects is to said, the new design is "an evolu- re-creation of tbis Aspen icon. modify the current structure to Cor- tion, not a revolution. rect its problems while maintaining Eero Saarinen was known for his rev- Address the Future its cherished qualities. I feel extreme- olutionary concepts, such as his TWA ate afternoon sun strearns in ly fortunate to be a part of this terminal in New York and the St. ~~ through undulating folds of sophisticated community where such Louis arch. Yet in the original 1949 the tent side walls, bathing things were and will be attempted. tent, he relied on a very traditional a blissfully attentive audi- Even the treasure and traditions of concept-a temporary circus tent. ence in honey-colored light. Shad- the vast reperloire of classical music Herbert Bayer was one of the Bauhaus are kept alive not by being frozen or revolutionaries, yet he, too, designed ows of aspen leaves flicker silently on the canvas. The music, as always, preserved, but by being reinterpreted an evolutionary solution with his 1964 semi-permanent structure. issublime. by each subsequent generation. To The structure providing this idyllic keep the "Aspen Idea" alive, it must Harry Teague's concept is another be about now, not then. evolutionary step. While both the setting that we can selectively recall HARRY TEAGUE previous tents performed well with- as perfect is, of course, not without its Aspen architect in their constraints of cost and mate- imperfections. The golden sunlight and designer of tbe new music tent rials, Teague's plan utilizes new also makes it difficult for musi- methods and materials that will cians to see the conductor or 5. " rrÂ·rl' ,=., kiÂ·Â»: V.I improve the tent's overall per- their music. The canvas roof that 1/ formance. I think Saarinen, t. I diffuses the glare of high-altitude , . Â· Â·Â·n=* Bayer, and Fritz Benedict (who sunlight into a soft glow also - ead Cer.1â‚¬. worked on the tent with absorbs so much of the music re=. Or,4 Bayer), as well as the many that musicians must play unnat- -~*9Â£7-1- , Â· 7- - - -â€¢â€¢.1 *~AV Â¢99 famous musicians, artists, and urally loud. The broad configura- Aa'Yt; L .1,3----gr , 14 lecturers who have performed tion of the orchestra blum the . â€ž r. i , 1,-1.1-4. .--- RuilD*16. C if 2b -'iti- YA over the past half-century distinction between musicians 11-14 3 would approve of this design. and audience, enhancing the - /--.-I--/ In my view, it goes well beyond ~ sense of unity created in the tent, pure function and will honor i Evolutionary Form: The Music Tent, circa 2000 but some of the musicians are so the past while celebrating the far from the conductor that they must future. It is a most fitting way for play ahead of the beat. When the Evolution, Not the Music Festival and Aspen to gentle breeze that rustles aspen leaves enter the next millennium. Revolution BOB BLAICH becomes a stronger wind, the pic- turesque canvas fiaps enough to eaningful architecture Design consultant drown out the quiet passage of a has the possibility to and West End resident soloist. Dressing rooms are crowded, 1 us from the hum_ Lztten may be edited for *ace and dario. Thg should be rest rooms are inadequate, and some- drum, to lift the spirit, addressed to I.etters to tbe Editor. Aspen Magazine. Box G-3, times the roof leaks. to communicate with feeling. It goes Aspen, CO 81612. Fax: (970} 920-4044. E-mail: To modifr such a venerated venue, beyond function. It's expressed in form aspenmag@rof.net. Please indude a daytime pbâ€žne numben ASPEN MAGAZINE ~~SUMMER 1998 NOUnUSnl-113 0 Aspen Music Festival Tent Development Application Issued for HPC 5 August 1998 0 I I. 1-~Ii 6Â£1~41 Lw = 4= 1-- 1-.1,> 11&13.- X.4 r-, f T C 1 fl fl *15 1 11 - ., 1 TI p ~~ ~ 11 1 .- - 4 Â·=ti'- R ii, fi -N~f, --211 14 1 4 Â· _'- I -_31/Ammit=n -. 0,-r ll 44. E-1-1.11- 16- - i 4FY'~-31.1 - 1 -T-- 1 '~ t-1- 1- 1 11 * Â· il' 4 1 Am el,â‚¬ty rfy,he - 1 1 L ,- faho(ebeâ‚¬* tomn . . ./Xere are specia<ofaces whict; haue come to symEofize the areal f and ife peop[e's roots 0 ' there. Elliese p[aces may 6e natural f>eauties or Aistorica{ 1 [andmarks teti 69 ages 1 1 \ pasi. 33ui in some form 4 ifie, are essential." 1 1__2 A Pattern Language Christopher Alexander, et. al. AÂ£ Ill;/1/9-,Araul. zeÂ·, Â·51- r 1 71 raditional societies have always recognized the importance of special sites 1 ~ 1 which have held spiritual, psychological or emotional significance for the J Â»people there. Modern society often ignores the importance of these places, b~ ~lt least one member of Snowmass Village felt the need to identify and preserve some sites L Â·re. Our good friend Stark King began the Sacred Spaces Committe, these thoughts: 9uolution of a concert haN By Su Lum n the cover story of the 11 1 -11 1 11,42'L. 1, 11 lith Aug. 1-2 ~ issue of the Aspen Times ~ Weekly, Aspen Music Associ- -' - i - 2_ . 4 ates director I,104 * Robert Harth '0 +46/E/~ f'E and architect Hany Teague *â‚¬.SlummIng. suggested that the community is suffering from collective amnesia mgarding the metamorphosis of a rehearsal facility for the music school to a world-class concert hall. "Teague noted this week that the plans always called for 400-500 seats, which he said obviously would not be there if it were simply a mhearsal .~all. "Hanh had for years steadfastly denied that he U.Jil his organization soft-pedaled their plans to -hold performances in Harris Hall. *' 'We were upfront about Harris Hall,' [Teague] said flatly, adding about those who remember things a little differently, 'Their memories are wrong.' " In other words, the MAA's application was, all along, for a major concert hall next to the tent, but in our addlepation we got it mixed up. Let us review the bidding. Aspen Meadows Master Plan, January, 1990: "There is a serious need for a rehearsal space adja- cent to the Tent ... an 11,000-square-foot building with a seating capacity of 500 seats would provide for the additional rehearsal space required." Planning and Zoning meeting, Nov. 20,1990: Board member Jasminelygre wondered why there was a need for an enormous structure when the MAA was cutting back on student enrollment. "I would like to know why we need to have a rehearsal hall that will seat 500 people." Robert Hanh: "I might point out that even i f we reduce by 50 percent we would still be having 500 to 600 students, and certainly in terms of profes- sional development needing enough seats to accommodate our students and a faculty like this makes sense from our perspective. We are going to have student performances in that facility. We need to have enough seats to house the students and fac- ulty members that represent our enrollment." Aspen City Council meeting, Dec. 10, 1990: "(George) Vicenzi asked i f the rehearsal facility is going to be used for rehearsals or for perfor- mances. Robert Harth, MAA, answered it will pri- marily be used for rehearsals but using this for small performances has always been discussed." Memo from the MAA to the City and P&Z, Jan. 29,1991: "During the regular Aspen Music Festi- val summer season this facility will be in daily use, *,grimarily for orchestral rehearsals and chamber isic rehearsals. In addition, some student orches- concerts, student and faculty chamber music concerts, master classes and recording will take place in this facility." Aspen Times article, April 18,1991. (Headline: Rehearsal hall a critical need for Aspen music school): " 'We have students practicing in a gym,' said Harth, explaining that Aspen must meet the demands of students and faculty i f it hopes to retain its position as a premier school and perfor- mance center. "A rehearsal hall adjacent to the tent would allow the MAA to consolidate equipment and rehearsal schedules ... but more than mere conve- nience, the hall, says Hanh, is vital to the future of the Music School." Summer of 1991, approvals were granted for the rehearsal hall. It was always referred to as the rehearsal hall, an amenity for students and faculty, a place to rehearse and perform for each other and give small concerts. Fast-forward to the Aug. 21,1993 Aspen Times article on the opening of the Joan and Irving Harris Concert Hall. "This may be one of the great halls in the worId, here in Aspen," Harth was quoted. "The Aspen Music Festival finally has an enclosed, year-mund, state-of-the-art perfonnance center." Last week I asked a music student if he and his classmates rehearsed in Harris Hall. He laughed. U..23 WISH!" Wkili Lum is a longtime local who objects to the re-writing Of history by any entity, for any purpose. Her column appears every Wednesday in The Aspen Times. Aspen Music Festival Tent Development Application-HPC issue 5 August 1998 Project Directory Applicant Aspen Music Festival & School (O) 970/925-3254 2 Music School Road (F) 970/925-3802 Aspen, CO 81612 Architect Harry Teague Architects (O) 970/925-2556 412 North Mill Street (F) 970/925-7981 Aspen, CO 81611 Attorney Kaufman & Peterson, P.C. (0) 970/925-8166 315 East Hyman Avenue (F) 970/925-1090 Aspen, CO 81611 General Contractor Shaw Construction (O) 970/242-9236 760 Horizon Drive 09 970/241-5618 Grand Junction, CO 8150 Structural Engineer Kl&A Of Colorado (O) 303-384-9910 805 14 Street (F) 303-384-9915 Golden, CO 80401 Mechanical/Electrical ME Engineers (0) 303/421-6655 Engineer 4251 Kipling Street (F) 303/421 0331 Wheatridge, CO 80033 Landscape Architect Mt. Daly Enterprises (O) 303 927-3138 P.O. Box 1537 (F) 303 927 3487 23400 Two Rivers Road Basalt, Co 81621 Civil Engineer Schmeuser Gordon Meyer (O) 970/925-6727 Consulting Engineers & Surveyors (F) 970.925-4157 118 West Sixth Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Acoustical Consultant Kirkegaard and Associates (O) 630/810-5980 4910 Main Street (F) 630/810-9350 Downers Grove, IL 60515 Code Consultant Code Consultants, Inc. (0) 314/991-2633 760 Office Parkway (F) 314/991-4614 St. Louis, MO 63141 Theater Consultant Auerbach & Associates (O) 212/645-3956 27 West 208 Street, Suite 1204 (F) 212/645-4094 New York, NY 10011 HARRY TEAGUE ARCHITECTS Aspen Music Festival Tent Development Application-HPC issue 5 August 1998 Application Contents Pages Views of Proposed Project City ofAspen Pre-Application Conference Summary Land Use Application Form Application Fee Agreement* Project Description 1-1 Dimensional Requirements Form 2-1 Attachment 3 - Minimum Submission Contents Representative Authorization 3-1 Bargain and Sale Deed 3-2 Bargain and Sale Deed 3-3 Vicinity Map 3-4 Attachment 4 - Final SPA Application Contents SPA Narrative 4-lthrough 4-2 Attachment 5 - SPA Review Standards SPA Review Standards Narrative 5-lthrough 5-3 List of Adjoining Landowners Within 300' of SPA Boundary* 6-lthrough 6-5 Appendix 1 - Architectural Drawings A 0.0 Vicinity Map and Index ofDrawings A 1.2 Existing Site Plan / Demolition Plan A 1.3 Site Improvement Plan A 1.4 Building Footprint Comparison A 2.1 Seating Area Plan A 2.2 Backstage Building: Lower Level Plan A 2.3 Backstage Building: Upper Level Plan A 2.4 Backstage Building / Acoustic Disk: Roof Plan A 3.1 Building Sections A 4.1 Exterior Elevations A 4.2 Exterior Elevations Appendix 2 - Prior Approvals* The Aspen Meadows Specially Planned Area Development & Subdivision Agreement* Ordinance No. 14 (Series 1991)* Ordinance No. 13 (Series 1991)* (* indicates documents not included in HPC issue) HARRY TEAGUE ARCHITECTS ' Â· tk 11 ~ ./ 4 ..r. ,,/r=M' 4; 2..~~562'' 42 3 -' 0,9.~fÂ· it:iÂ·ir . 215 Zk,-7.14 4. .4 Â¢1,?4~4-:) .::Â·.147. .,Af< 1, , I n 1. 'd ' $ -6 / .Ft 'P f. ~ ' 1 1 '24 1% .171 16 V Â· r. 'Ar ..21?; 4.2 5,6 924'.,4 tÂ·.gÂ·t-104.4 j:, 0 1?Ni'i%*9 .5,3'/%,19 i.:.A:~f"Jb~,~,~..,:62% 4 ~92 210 1.-1; -1~ 3.t~4Â«.+~(; ~ ~g,VL~~~~~ ~~ ~L~:9.ra&~L,/ tt~J >-Â·p.ib'? idEVJâ€¢Qâ€¢~'~4 ee 05419:71. Â£444â‚¬9:2:~2,:4:22?. iÂ£*4?:2,? --6<*.Â·-~11,e a...... t. 2 : I 24#-30..Ft:; 92 .t#Ii#,12~ . fi Â»*44*0.4 }12*2*~*~~ilÂ·q Â£12-tri,~~9249*Â·0; 1 790 I Â¥.0, 4 y ZÂ·I - ~%t 2~7342-213.~~11*6~.I,~~.prf~~34&~Ux,&.4:~~~~.~9'IV~~,~~-:Zf~t.ffyÂ·fi#Affil -4_; S- 'Â·?f.'f:LE:.1 it:gl : .-2 /4 ~Â»411~40*4*~m 4*- *:. rÂ·-B . I â‚¬; 45 4 '4 & F. .,43â€ž *3,41-L '6~~4 ~- 4 r, f -=r.Re '"'4'â€¢j*41. ,/'*044.,1 4,4 [ 1-- 11 - 11 11 .Af .1 'N:11#fÂ¢.7Â¢4 ... 39 , 49 1. 2 :if<.Â·fr<4 9. ---11': tls:0:644 I . . I r , T 1 1 - 11]11 Th., - u u~ 4' .... 4,--- - r. 0 4 ' 1 4 -24.4, | 1 ~124,11.- *41.0 ;~Â».7/4~..~~..5 -Â·Ch-~ 2' 3~~~~4~dei'z 46&-3 4 ~,~ jP+23 ,~~:flt.1.4,;k~Â·~*4Â®~~*44,~*~~â€ž0,4~~~t~t'tijj;fgfffif..1,5'~:~L".'~.~,~*~~jQ~~"~.16~~~,3~~1~ , View from north 1 - '4 ,,s'.-t'k'AÂ·ir ~,0.*.10?E'~Lj --A'P,tk':.TE Â·46..3.- As -'J-: :'irr '-1231"-'' 'IL;'tvv,3 74:mÂ¥r'gl,4 0,7 1 I . I 4, - -w - ,.>7Â¥,fc*24Â£â€¢-, Â· Â·.9Â¥â€¢~,4,5 4%.23,.1...1.-Â£â‚¬.. 1~ b. r,1. .1,19. f , Â·Â·Â· 4 ' .* ~~2 4 , ., 3.Â·, 44,.,7 Â¥ 222 .;~~*'~Rd 1.4/*Ar;75'OAG*&&f'::4-49*:, j,< "*-"4'-' r. p.2 '*'TX.Ci-'7:<fr t,,r:>,fÂ¢2"t Z .'10.*X, -Iq:f.Â·#,&4 :Lp.:9/1 1 . 4 I , I , 1 ..r. ~-3. / 1. . -4 0 el., 110. 3Â»Â»,96ti i yes;~.f* ~:i~fi pli-9-4>75'14 ..fi.jit#.1-: 2:3 ID-ti'-tift . 4Â·Â·: + 4 ' I'PA '. A '1 . ., ... b .. 4 .. eÂ«-â€¢47/ fti- 2,9.*41,;:;i tift:-5,4,ri~i .04;17,1,144.-'.4. 4-12--9- n,,:.-i, :-Â·ts':-t , - JÂ»* f e>~3~~~to.-3222%04 - - 4 1 ~ f'~>f i@2>4. 26,31, AY; -16; **1 1.,7 - 1 1,41.,1 4,":& 1, .4 $ ...- .# 6, P: . .1 4 , 5-1 , 1 - - %27 1.'i 4 re. 1 ''/1Q 1,2 1. 11 / 1 - . rSJBC,E, 49,1~ 'P? , , ,- j., 9 64,1 4 '< ty R â€ž -4 . b'59..0..7.:t. .9.1...., 1': - t...Â· *LO:Â·j 4 - ' ' & h t ./ -~ . 'it *0~,-.,4<~fÂ¢ 1 ~ 4-?iÂ·=%Â·i + 9 1. I r Jit.1.N~~.4 - .1 1.,1 ,-1-1,1- 41- 226 N.,i :4-3-lt'%-*c b'~ 3,2272,-4,4%19, %76 -r, --Â·eÂ· r-.f,/Mit)Â©-,y --'.ffÂ·d.- 6~41.9/.414-91''t-â‚¬- 2-i,434~441'l':11>un 4/leFJL #'I~. & 3. ,V?.1.414SA6 4-1- .1- >~61211441*.9.-4,41,36 -1 t-r~Â·eA,Â·i~.~-. 4,&~7,/'â‚¬9 -j'3,5iA.-Ari..~, 3*29&652-,ty;-: til*1-7 91Â·~ -3{24'245-{731,Â· IN#vt; w-_ :*~ ,~ r -r--1> 6Â· ,~'PIr- 1 IT- 8 Â£-4~ r- 1 -r f. 4/,9 -, 4 -1, r. g . I View from south-east . 7~'<'402 -,~ ic t., ''Â·-lfd r~~I~240'F-frffyf f . tÂ· c--:2.-2***4% 1 111 4 1 . 6,Â£ 1#.. ~I .- .... . .....:i hy*Id' yÂ¥,8Â¢hi I f.jÂ·-Â·9-~1.iÂ·x~ -:Â·Â·*,4.. t:Â·44 .1.-,Â·.~. 2- 7 Â· t v.0 , ff)4%3~9â‚¬I.'bil,4'44*54:,CE'Â·*.tt;Â·tl~ ~Â·â€ž~12Â¥re.Â· .. L 31/; i. 9411' 4444.:. :*- ah&,#~3%*~1~4 i ?::Ea 21*94,~ANBWÂ¥*2'*-* 9â‚¬2Â£Â·17% ::Li~946,r#*4**0 2 ~. 22 fr' |el /14' 1191*27/9- Â» * b - ./ f 69&9240 .42~&*A/&9~44~/hamr$*t-â€ž.Â·i.Â·A~1 2- ' 1 4% 11 - . e *4542433/iff .2 2,?f,t'.~.,:'-f- 'fil'?-Â£-p.JÂ£.s.-~-~4*#,i~'.<r?. i~1 %-= e vy -~. - - R k -45Â·' Â·Â·...:,IÂ·1:C6râ€¢,3:Â·.,4*f,r#ar#/Y.Z---."1.41/Â·-I . t ;'0~ ..P;;95:' 1,4,- %fdl'ly'.90-~-<=.*.~11/ 'Fi-::-'~2;2. W 'I'. - . a. 9.1 f 4 ' 6 /. 1 p'/ ' 64 ~ 4 Ah, N...L.. 424 . j ... f 46 Â¥* 1 4 2 41* Vt,924 4. 4-v 24/344Vt : r./ j f 1 37 -4 - :41% 1 6 0 + U. bl - 4~1 ' 3 '.#.- Interior view t CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY NER: Chris Bendon, 920.5072 DATE: 7.16.98 PROJECT: Music Tent -- Meadows SPA Amendment REPRESENTATIVE: John Backman, Michael Hassig - Ilarry Teague Architecture OWNER: Music Associates ofAspen TYPE OF APPLICATION: "two step" with formal referral from I IPC DESCRIPTION: Substantial SPA Amendment for a new music tent and associated improvements. HPC will make a formal referral on the architectural elements of the proposal. Land Use Code Section(s) 26.52 Procedure 26.80 Specially Planned Area (final) Review by: HPC (referral), P&Z, City Council Public Hearing: Yes, All three. Applicant must post property and mail notice at least 10 days prior to hearing, or at least 15 days prior to the public hearing if any federal agency, state, county, municipal government, school, service district or other governmental or quasi-governmental agency owns property within three hundred (300) feet ofthe property subject to the development application . Applicant will need to provide proof of posting and mailing with a affidavit at the public hearings. al Agencies: Engineering, Parks, Fire Marshall, Water, ACSD, I IPC ng Fees: Planning Deposit Major ($2,160) Referral Agency Fees: Engineering, Minor ($ 110); Total Deposit: $2,270 (additional hours are billed at a rate of $180/hour) To apply, submit the following information: 1. Proofofownership 2. Signed fee agreement 3. Applicant's name, address and telephone number iii a letter signed by the applicant which states the name, address and telephone number ofthe representative atithorized to act on behalf of the applicant. 4. Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names ofall owners ofthe property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application. 5. Total deposit for review of the application 6. 30_ Copies of the complete application packet and maps. (submit one copy to planner initially) HPC = 12; PZ = 10; GMC = PZ-1-5; CC = 7; Referral Agencies = 1/ea.; Planning Staff= 1 7. An 8 1/2" by 11" vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen. 8. Site improvement survey including topography and vegetation showing the current status, including all easements and vacated rights of way, of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the state of Colorado. (This requirement, or any part thereof, may be waived by the Community Development Department if the project is determined not to warrant a survey document.) Additional materials as required by the specific review. Please refer to the application packet for specific submittal requirements or to the code sections noted above. 10. A written description of the proposal and ati explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. Please include existing conditions as well as proposed. List of adjacent property owners within 300' for public hearing. 16. Copies of prior approvals. SPA Approval. Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. j LAND USE APPLICATION PROJECT: Name: Aspen Music Festival Tant Location: Lot 2, Aspen Meadows (Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) APPLICANT: Name: Aspen Music Festival & School Address: 2 Music School Road, Aspen, CO 81611 Phone #: 970-925-3254 REPRESENTATIVE: Name: Harry Teague Architects, AT'IN: Michael Hassiq Address: 41? Nnrth Mill Rtrpet-, Aspan, On R1611 Phone #: 970-925-2556 TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please clieck all that apply): Conditional Use D Conceptual PUD U Conceptual Historic Devt. Special Review E] Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) [3 Final Historic Development Design Review Appeal O Conceptual SPA [3 Minor Historic Devt. GMQS Allotment Â® Final SPA (& SPA Amendment) I Historic Demolition GMQS Exemption E] Subdivision 0 Ilistoric Designation U ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream Â£ Subdivision Exemption (includes I Small Lodge Conversion/ Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condom initimization) Expansion Mountain View Plane O Lot Split 0 Temporary Use 0 Other: El Lot Line Adjustment [3 Text/Map Amendment EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description ofexisting buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) Existin*r.performance tent, gift shop and performance rehersal hall per Aspen Meadows S.P.A. Development & SubdiVision Agreement. PROPOSAL: (description ofproposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) ReplAcement and reconfiguration of performance tent as per attached drawings Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: 5 2,270 [3 Pre-Application Conference Summary tachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement sponse to Attachment #2, Dimensional Requirements Form esponse to Attachment #3, Minimum Submission Contents O Response to Attachment #4, Specific Submission Contents El Response to Attachment #5, Review Standards for Your Application 10 0 El Aspen Music Festival Tent Development Application Project Description 20 July 1998 Page 1-1 Project Description Scheduled for completion in May of2000, the new Music Tent will provide expanded seating, enhanced acoustics and state of the art backstage amenities. The new tent will combine elements of the previous Eero Saarinen and Herbert Bayer/Fritz Benedict tents with the most advanced tent technology available today. The relaxed informality and communal ambiance of the current tent will be preserved while significantly enhancing the acoustic experience for the tent audience, lawn audience and musicians alike. The reconfigured tent will utilize an octagonal geometry for the seating area, similar in plan to the present tent. It will be no higher at its center than the existing structure and, like the current tent, it will pitch down to one story in height at its perimeter. Fixed bench-style seating for the audience will be expanded to 2,050 seats, in conformance with the Aspen Meadows SPA Development & Subdivision Agreement. A new tiered performance stage will enhance ensembje Playing and accommodate large student orchestras and choral works. As in the present tent, four steel columns will support a central structural element. This new circular shell, with its hard reflective surfaces, is essential for improving the acoustic performance ofthe tent. A system of radial cables attached to the circular shell will support the high-performance fabric tent covering; a white, Teflon-coated fiberglass similar in appearance to the existing canvas. The tent perimeter will generally conform to the present footprint. A vertical louver perimeter closure system will improve the visual connection between lawn seating and the interior ofthe tent. It will also provide the brightness control needed by the musicians while still allowing for passive ventilation. The new backstage structure will house public restrooms, dressing rooms, instrument tuning and storage rooms, recording facilities and mechanical service areas. First floor backstage facilities will be expanded from 4,153 square feet to 4,680 square feet. (An increase of527 square feet and much less than the 1,500 square foot backstage expansion permitted under the SPA.) Basement level backstage facilities will be constructed to match the floor elevation of the new stage. An elevator from first floor level to stage level will facilitate stage and seating area access for those with disabilities. A new tunnel will link the backstage facility with neighboring Harris Concert Hall in order to allow use of the existing Harris Hall freight elevator. HARRY TEAGUE ARCHITECTS ATTACHMENT 2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM 0 Project: A*FeN MI/&16 FÂ»llu,ti, -DNAT Applicant: AÂ·SFEAJ Muslo F:es-r/VAL + .5C+10Â£9(- Location: AspaN /HEAPoout' 1-01 9. Zone District: ACAPEM W 60 A*FEN /IAGAPOW# 4, Â·rÂ·A Lot Size: Lot Area: 2,4,0 , b!-7 LF (for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing: 0 Proposed: Number of residential units: Existing: d) Proposed: Number of bedrooms: Existing: O Proposed: Proposed % of demolition 0 Iistoric properties only): DIMENSIONS: Floor Area: Existing: 11,0 66 Allowable: Proposed: 00,92Â·G (0 0Â£) Principal bldg. height: Existing: 41 -2 Allowable: Proposed: 41' - 2* 0 Access. bldg. height: Existing: Allowable: Proposed: On-Site parking: Existing: 4./, .1,14 Required: Proposed: 140 C.1+Al,)6% % Site coverage: Existing: Required: Proposed: % Open Space: Existing: Required: Proposed: Front Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed: Rear Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed: Combined F/R: Existing: Required: Proposed: Side Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed: Side Setback: Existing: Reqtiired: Proposed: Combined Sides: Existing: Reqitired: Proposed: Existing non-conformities or encrnachments: Variations requested: (\) DUR.ILEN'r &AL**'tAAE *Ull.ply& 1Â·V\* 110 BASUNLENT Â· Ce) FRopo,Sag f Loog ANA ettbuN poes NOT IN'Clupe 3 062 *F 12*CK*TAGE 8,1â‚¬e/VIE*/T LEVEL. 000 ATTACHMENT 3 MINIMUM SUBMISSION CONTENTS 1. Applicant's nalne, address and telephone number, contained within a letter signed by the applicant stating the name, address, and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. 2. The street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur. 3. A disclosure of ownership of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application. 4. An 8 1/2" x 11" vicinity map locating the subject parcel within the City of Aspen. 5. A site improvement survey including topography and vegetation showing the current status of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the State of Colorado. (This requirement, or any part thereof, may be waived by the Community Development Department if the project is determined not to warrant a survey document.) e ASPEN MUSIC FESTIVAL ANI) SCHOOL July 21,1998 To Whom it may Concern: We hereby authorize I larry Teague Architects (Michael I Iassig and John Backman) and Gideon Katifinan, attorney-at-law, to act as our representatives in matters relating to our development application for amending the Aspen Meadows SPA agreement for Music Associates ofAspen's music tent. Si#liely, 0 A : 1 ---AÂ« i, 1 4461 1\ -3/F 1\ /V *~Marth Â· Edward Sweenef vu-01 ~~~/~ President and CEO General Manager / 2 Mathic ~Ch,Mil Ittht,1, Ab~rn, (121,74â€žI,I 81611 â€¢ l'Itun: 970.025,3151 1Â·',ix: 970,920-1641 Mt t.414: ASS,â€ž:LIU t:.br ilÂ· At.1Â·1.11, 11 14:. ,. -Tf /5 #340945 01/24/92 16:31 Rec $45.00 BK 667 PG 836 td Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk. Doc $.00 111 Z 1 BARGAIN AND SALE DEED 3524 9 -ZEW. < M CL o it.JF TIIE ASPEN INSTITUTE,Aa District:of Colorado corporation (formerly ZENC M LA known as The Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies), Grantor, whose address is 1000 0 E g e North 3rd Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611, for the consideration of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration in hand paid, hereby bargains and sells to THE MUSIC ASSOCIATES OF ASPEN, INC. whose address is 2 Music School Road, Aspen, Colorado 81611, any right, title or interest that it may have in the following real property in the County of Pitkin and State of Colorado, to wit (the "Property"): Lot 2, Tile Aspen Meadows Subdivision, o according to the Aspen Meadows Final S.P.A. Development Plan and Final Subdivision Plat recorded in Book j f at Page 5 of the Pitkin County, Colorado Signed this b day of ~AAWUA , 1992 real pr~erty recoÂ¢s. Subject to attached Conveyancp AgrQ.~ment. INC THE ASPEN INSTITUTE, Aa Colorado corporation (formerly known as The Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies) 4 *n By: 0 4 1 2 STATE OF (~I 17 AÂ¢~0 ~ COUNTY OF ~ f b ) SS. The foregaug inftniment was ackno>vledged bef47 me t~is ~ 1- day of E.4 j A nVA 41 , 199],byuu.1 T Al i, h w A /1 1 as ) fl5161la < o ~f THE ASPEN INSTITUTE,fid*Colorado cdrporation (formerly known as The Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies). r/51. F..R,0.. :di.Â·-~41 ;@F.GI WITNESS my hand and official peal. My commission expires: 7./,2/ 9 -f . 2 Ii: .(S#)1$1 f,4 901 Notary Public -nvia i P.C aa Building savanah\Jceds\,nusicass.b& s 4 pAins Aspen. .do 816 I t #342548 03/16/92 12:54 Rec $5.00 BK 671 PG 726 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 33% #340946 01/24/92 16:32 Rec *5.00 BK 667 PG 845 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 BARGAIN AND SALE DEED 0 SAVANAII LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a District of Columbia limited partnership, Grantor, whose address is 600 East Cooper Street, Suite #200, Aspen, Colorado 81611, for the consideration of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration in hand paid, hereby bargains and sells to THE MUSIC <S- ASSOCIATES OF ASPEN, INC. whose address is 2 Music School Road, Aspen, Colorado 81611, any right, title or interest that it may have in the following real property Z r=/ in the County of Pitkin and State of Colorado, to wit (the "Property"): WRA Lot 2, The Aspen Meadows Subdivision, O l.. Atx according toi the Aspen Meadows Final S.P. A. Development Plan and Final Subdivision Plat recorded in Book 4 2 at Page 5 of the Pitkin County, Colorado real proDerty records. C 4\- Signed this W day o~t/wA,3 , 1991 1% E-1 â€¢ SAVANATI LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a fo LÂ« District of Columbia limited partnership By:/ ASPEN ENTERPRISES INTPRNATIONAT I]~IC< ~ %â€¢ , (Aki-.f j /W. fol. N &! M A STATE OF GO/09145/0 ) ) SS. COUNTY OF Pt LK t Al h The *regtiilk instrtime~L.~as acknowledged before m this ~~- day of ~\(231 0.40tr ,1992, by-46<1#,or-ki,k-3, 410_~)s--~ as lb-Â·~t~br-.Fij.*aw_-- of SAVANATI LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a District of Columbia limited~rtnership. WITNESS my hand ancl official seal. f i , ~ 4-~iI**Â·Â·Â·Â·Â· i My commission expires:/ft FÂ«h r /1 , M ~.___.--I~ '/ '*20*~ fig Z,4-00\<C 1 I otary Public 1'....../9'Hipc 1 I ~Â·Bulld,ng sav,anah\dcUAmusicass.b& s 11Â·342549 03/16/92 12:55 Rec *5.00 BK 671 PG 727 Silvia Davis, Pitl::in Cn-ty Clerk, Doc $.00 CITY OF Â»-Â»* 10% Ank-UM=Mxyyqi-Ye LA ed'=a~ /77"Ifif~ni=~~f F,1*FiRAB 0 J *0 V f y E 1%9 4- f f 47'L aeriRM'* A 4& Ir %.GE. U 4 18 0 ...# tb 1â„¢1 0 7 Elt ALI RE: -gla Ri/Â£339*efy fi Adft' H 771 83 4-4 -541** Â«4 80~ cÂ¥ Mb~ Cl O 03 -au- 3-%- .9 740{15,~ 97 21 28#KE-F-7 4Â¢ O 9 -U g .1 / O*L 4Â®37'"iLE. Â° 0 9 00 21~MOmm %Fry 1 Â«JiEI L._RE @8$* 1 Ch B HI--. V-11.ft-10 R71[708 Â· 0>4981 EMR I Imm A AA~ b>*MENIFF Al 042/Apany@gum@ gj *rF 2/ 0 0 0 - O 3 0 D OC U 9 0 23 0100 uedsv Aspen Music Festival Tent 3*240. ATTACHMENT 4 Specific Submission Contents Final PUD Development Plan The contents of an application for a Final Specially Planned Area shall include the following. 1. The general application information required in Common Procedures. (Attachment #3) 2. A precise plan of the proposed development including but not limited to proposed land uses, densities, landscaping, internal traffic circulation, and accessways. The precise plan shall be in sufficient detail to enable evaluation ofthe architectural, landscaping, and design features of the proposed development..It shall show the location and floor area ofall existing and proposed buildings and other iinprovements including heights, dwelling unit types and nonresidential facilities. 3. A statement specifying the underlying zone district on the parcel and, if variations are proposed, a statement of how the variations comply with the standards of Section 26.80.040(B). 4. A statement outlining a development schedule specitjing the date construction is proposed to be initiated and completed. 5. A statement specifying the public facilities that will be needed to accommodate the proposed development, and what specific assurances will be made to ensure that public facilities will be available to accommodate the proposed development. 6. A statement ofthe reasonable conformance of the final development plan with the approval granted to the conceptual development plan and with the original intent of the city council in designating the parcel specially planned area (SPA). 7. A plat which depicts the applicable information required by Section 26.88.040(D)(1)(a)(3) and (D)(2)(a). 8. Written responses to the review criteria. (attachment #5) Aspen Music Festival Tent Development Application Attachment #4 20 July 1998 Page 4-1 The contents of an application for a Final Specially Planned Area shall include the following: 1. The general application information required in Common Procedures (Attachment #3). Submitted, see Attachment #3. 2. A precise plan of the proposed development including but not limited to proposed land uses, densities, landscaping, internal trallic circulation, and accessways. The precise plan shall be in sldricient detail to enable evaluation of the architectural, landscaping, and designfeatures of the proposed development. It shall show the location and.floor area of all existing and proposed buildings and other improvements including heights, dwelling unit types and nonresidential facilities. Drawings AO.0 through A4.2 (attached) show the site plan, building plans, sections and elevations of the project. 3. A statement specifying the underlying zone district on the parcel and, gvariations are proposed, a statement of how the variations comply with the standards of Section 26.80.040(B). The subject parcel is zoned Academic (A) and Open Space (OS). As per 26.28.230: "All development in the Academic zone district is to proceed according to a conceptual development plan and final development plan approved pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 26.80 Specially Planned Areas." We are of the opinion that this proposed amendment remains in conformance with the standards proposed in the "Aspen Meadows S.P.A. Development & Subdivision Agreement". 4. A statement outlining a development schedule specifying the date construction is proposed to be initiated and completed. Proposed Construction Start Date: 20 August 1999. Proposed Construction Completion Date: 15 May 2000. 5. A statement speci*ing the public facilities that will be needed to accommodate the proposed development, and what specific assurances will be made to ensure that public facilities will be available to accommodate the proposed development. Ordinance 14 (Series 1991) states in Finding #5 (in reference to the Aspen Meadows SPA Plan): "The Plan will not require the expendimre of excessive public funds in order to provide public facilities for the development of its surrounding neighborhood." Given that the site and building are adequately served at this time, and given the nature of the proposed amendment (backstage expansion, tent structure replacement, fabric replacement and re-landscaping) we are of the opinion that public facilities will be available to accommodate the proposed amendment to the development. 6. A statement ofthereasonable conformance oftheJinal development plan with the approval granted to the conceptual development plan and with the original intent of the city council in designating the parcel specially planned area (SPA). Given no change in the use ofthe facility, and given the nature of the proposed amendment (backstage expansion, tent structure replacement, fabric replacement and re-landscaping) we are ofthe opinion that this amendment remains iIi reasonable conformance with the original intent ofthe city council in designating the parcel a specially planned area. HARRY TEAGUE ARCHITECTS Aspen Music Festival Tent Development Application Attachment #4 20 July 1998 Page 4-2 7. A plat which depicts the applicable information required by Section 26.88.040(D)(1)(a)(3) and (D)(2)(a). This plat is currently being prepared. Interim information is submitted with this application. 8. Written responses to the review criteria. Submitted, see Attachment #5. HARRY TEAGUE ARCHITECTS ATTACHMENT 5 Review Standards Development Application for Specially Planning Areas (SPA) In the review of a development application for a conceptual development plan and a final development plan, the commission and city council shall consider the following. Please respond to these review criteria. 1. Whether the proposed development is compatible with or enhances the mix of development in the immediate.vicinity ofthe parcel in terms ofland use, density, height, bulk, architecture, landscaping and open space. 2. Whether sufficient public facilities and roads exist to service the proposed development. 3. Whether the parcel proposed for development is generally suitable for development, considering the slope, ground instability and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls, avalanche dangers and flood hazards. 4. Whether the proposed development creatively employs land planning techniques to preserve significant view planes, avoid adverse environmental impacts and provide open space, trails and similar amenities for the users of the project and the public at large. 5. Whether the proposed development is iii compliance with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. 6. Whether the proposed development will require the expenditure of excessive public funds to provide public facilities for the parcel, or the surrounding neighborhood. 7. Whether proposed development on slopes in excess of twenty (20) percent meet the slope reduction and density requirements of Section 7-903(B)(2)(b). 8. Whether there are sufficient GMQS allotments for the proposed development. at5.spa Aspen Music Festival Tent Development Application Attachment #5 20 July 1998 Page 5-1 The 1992 Aspen Meadows Specially Planned Area Development & Subdivision Agreement addressed the Music Associates ofAspen facilities component and stated: "Lot 2 is the MAA Property and is zoned Academic (A) and Open Space (OS) all according to and as shown on the Plat. Current development on Lot 2 consists ofthe performance tent, the back stage area, a gift shop, a refreshment stand, a box office and a parking lot. Approved new development allows for a music tent backstage expansion of 1,500 gross interior square feet, a new rehearsaVperformance hall of 11,000 square feet of floor area and a expansion of 100 gross interior square feet to the existing gift shop. Additionally, approval has been granted for a re- configuring ofthe tent to increase the seating to a total of2,050 seats." Review Standards for Specially Planned Areas 1. Whether theproposed developmentis compatible withorenhances the mix of developmentin the immediate vicinity of the parcel in.terms of land use, density, height, bulk, architecture, landscaping and open space. Ordinance 14 (Series 1991) states in Finding #2 (in reference to the Aspen Meadows SPA Plan): "The Plan is compatible and enhances the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of the Aspen Meadows and the proposed land uses as approved hereinbelow are deemed to be appropriate and allowable in their underlying zone districts as authorized by an SPA overlay." We are of the opinion that this finding remains true today and that the proposed uses of the parcel continue to be appropriate. The development proposed in this application (the reconfiguration ofthe performance tent) continues the present use of the parcel. Additional uses are not proposed, nor is any increase in the number of performances or the length of the performance season. No increase in density is proposed. The reconfigured performance tent will be no higher at its center than the existing tent. The reconfigured tent will be one story in height at its perimeter, similar to the existing tent. Architecturally, the reconfigured tent will utilize an octagonal geometry for the seating area similar to the present tent. The tent perimeter will generally conform to the present footprint. A vertical louver perimeter closure system will improve the visual connection between lawn seating and the interior of the tent. As in the present tent, four steel columns will support a central structural element to which a system ofradial cables is attached. The cables will support the high-performance fabric covering; a white, woven material very similar in appearance to the existing canvas. The central structural element will be expanded to improve acoustical performance. This improved acoustical performance will benefit the audience seated on the lawn as well as those seated within the tent. The lowest seating area and stage floor levels will be lowered iii relation to the present in order to further improve the acoustical performance of the tent and to facilitate stage and seating area access for those with disabilities. To the greatest extent possible, the disruption of existing landscaping will be limited to that portion ofthe site due north ofthe existing tent. A landscape plan showing tree relocation and an inch-for- inch caliper replacement program has been prepared and submitted with this application. Apart from the one story backstage expansions shown in this application, no open space impacts are proposed. HARRY TEAGUE ARCHITECTS Aspen Music Festival Tent Development Application Attachment #4 20 July 1998 Page 5-2 8. Whether su#icient public facilities androads exist toservice the proposed development. Ordinance 14 (Series 1991) states in Finding #3 (in reference to the Aspen Meadows SPA Plan): "The plan incorporates and provides sufficient public facilities and roads for the requested development, and provides significant open space, trails and public amenities for the residents and users ofthe development." We are ofthe opinion that this finding remains true today and that the proposed uses of the parcel continue to provide su fficient public facilities and roads as well as significant open space, trails and public amenities for the residents and users of the development. The proposed tent reconfiguration, which utilizes a high performance tent fabric, expands the backstage facilities, and re-landscapes the site north o f the tent, has no impact on the roads serving the site or on traffic generated by this facility. While utility connections will need to be re-sized for the new backstage facilities, public utility service capacity is currently available to serve the site. 2. Whether the parcel proposed for developmentis generally suitable for development, consideringthe slope, ground instability anci the possibility of mudflow, rockfalls, avalanche dangers and.flood hazards. The proposed use ofthe site remains unchanged from its current use. The parcel is generally level, experiences no ground instability and is suitable for development. The parcel is not subject to mudflow, rock fall, avalanche or flood hazards. 9. Whether the proposed development creatively employs land planning techniques to preserve significant view planes, avoid adverse environmental impacts and provide open space, trails and similar amenities for the users of the project and the public at large. Ordinance 14 (Series 1991) states in Finding #4 (in reference to the Aspen Meadows SPA Plan): "The Aspen Meadows is generally suitable for requested development in terms of topography and the Plan creatively employs land planning techniques to preserve view planes and avoid adverse environmental impacts." We are of the opinion that this finding remains true today. 10. Whether the proposed development is in compliance with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Ordinance 14 (Series 1991) states in Finding #6 (in reference to the Aspen Meadows SPA Plan): "The Plan is consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and the Aspen Meadows Master Plan." We are ofthe opinion that this finding remains true today. 6. Whether theproposed development will require the expenditure of excessive publichinds to provide public amenities for the parcel or the surrounding neighborhood. Ordinance 14 (Series 1991) states in Finding #5 (in reference to the Aspen Meadows SPA Plan): "The Plan will not require the expenditure of excessive public funds in order to provide public facilities for the development o f its surrounding neighborhood." We are o f the opinion that this finding remains true today. 7. Whether proposed development on slopes in excess of twenty (20) percent meet the slope reduction and density requirements of Section 7-903(B)(2)(b). No development on slopes in excess oftwenty (20) percent is proposed. HARRY TEAGUE ARCHITECTS Aspen Music Festival Tent Development Application Attachment #4 20 July 1998 Page 5-3 8. Whether there are su#icient GMQS allotments for the proposed development Ordinance 14 (Series 1991) states in Section 9: "Pursuant to Section 24-8-104(C)(1)(b) as amended per Ordinance 13 (Series of 1991), of the Municipal Code, and the findings as set forth in Section 8 above, the City Council awards and grants Growth Management Quota System development exemptions from competition and affordable housing impact mitigation for the following Plan development on the basis that such development is essential public facilities: ....... 5. Music tent backstage expansion o f 1,500 square feet, (MAA). 6. The new rehearsal/performance hall of 11,000 square feet, (MAA). 7. Music Tent gift shop expansion of 100 square feet, (MAA)." We are ofthe opinion that the Performance Tent remains an essential public facility and therefore continues to be eligible for GMQS development exemptions. HARRY TEAGUE ARCHITECTS 0 O 9 2 % 07hÂ»1Â«Â»heel'ful.2 p Aspen Music Festival Tent a\Â« Ang - S %2\ 4 44 C 0 0 4392... $< 2,-22 4'bolle DI#*tÂ°itow/4'[Fetilu:lj:~4++iii[-N::KeÂ£] 0 \ Â¤ .0 '1 [@U-4[@--@.1 03~ *63] r*51 [333EAD 1 2._, 21 tr~'rod J *'01 NED A ] *170 973 22%2I i&40 :CED 10 36~ 69 f~L~\A I Â°9&%1730 R+Yew"'"0%'PÂ®l[%8%1=buot Â¢90112' 011 b - 49 6 0 & * M A* 911 ..0 7 ' 4 $ 0 1 C u l t *% 41 K h dt - 8 - 6 0 *gl 122 0 -d .tz]1 BAIMth 6cf* 526*1839!qd'* 'igg '~40,211 4 4 1 Ntl~(25* 140+Jii !1dxl'(ta CM-: KE~ 4,1-MCIRI cz~o . C>c: O 0. ll!*C:~m kÂ¢308 ~EN ENT -309 881 ECE Chi. t[1~91 |ZEGi 2112 ZEEiE%&12* co . r(C ' L.lÂ®1 @PEE~~Â®Â©&2~113#FG M I .Â· A 127 da 126 1 12205 12 Â¤[Fal [2Â¤3 - s fo )Â° Â¤ .' '* t-F~ 8=*Imo~EP~%3g~~EE ight E~ [229% o CO hq G 0 0 19Â®ME=al= 13% INDEX OF DRAWINGS -'iMBLJG#oug/OJBE 100 170 [UP e Ao.0 VICINITY MAP AND INDEX OF DRAWINGS c Al.2 EXISTING PLAN/DEMOLITION PLAN Al.3 SITE IMPROVEMENT PLAN 1=minmar-303-an=[* //~6 0 . Al.4 BUILDING FOOTPRINT COMPARISON 9 ?E ] r-'2 - 63,*,9 *LE O - A2.1 SEATING AREA PLAN 23 4'dth h al#4 A2.2 BACKSTAGE BUILDING: LOWER LEVEL PLAN A2 3 BACKSTAGE BUILDINGÂ· UPPER LEVEL PLAN A2.4 BACKSTAGE BUILDING/ ACOUSTIC DISK: ROOF PLAN A3.1 BUILDING SECTIONS Aspen Colorador-\-1 648- 12%2160 1.I~ . * Â· A4.1 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 0' 100200300400' 1%29 9..-101 Od> Co A4.2 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS OM 50M loOM 150M ASPEN MUSIC FESTIVAL TENT VICINITY MAP / INDEX OF DRAWINGS HARRY TEAGUE ARCHITECTS AP'PEDVAS 072098 801 41. 7861 24' HOrl/0 7261.__ ASPHALT % -0-/< \ ~WATER VALVE ' Â·,00 NAmR VALVE -MA~TER VALVE WAICIL / concurrs ' SA Jr AKY MANHOLE f â€¢Jarâ€¢= 00 T. #ANTArf MAN,loUL 2-\42 Jiti . :2 - .71 5 4 --1 cr_ In_- 4Â·Â·- 70,M =mâ€ž8 - ,â€¢,=4-*ir-- ,#EratekÂ·.~ - - 11â€ž Wr111-_ I ___1 PER SHEET Al.3. 1 ZE:~ loti /.~<Â» ' ~ . \ SITE IMPROVEMENT PLAN ~ 5 1 $ 7- ~ AREA TO BE DEMOLISHED ASPHALT (21. ASPHALT i.. AND/OR REGRADED ATTEMPT TO CONFINE ALL 1< D-~su 7563 DISTURBANCES TO THIS AREA 6 -- L ~<~1 L -1 1 \ /-V i b , WALL 92 ~EP*7864// KEMOVE AND RELOCATE ALL LIGHTING FDGUKES At &-* 9 EXISTING TENT & BACKSTAGE i ASPHALT PATH 12' fl TO BE REMOVED j ..*Ft 1 7868 44 1 1 1 1 1 ~+ -1 1 1 41 I .29. I ~S 1 11 - 1 11 -97,4 ,7 'M. 1 CONCRETE . eeg#*Â« 1- ' "M'Â¥1 *FFORT -/ ' -11 -_ 7.- alr RAIL Ji 4 1 Ate- 342 - FLOOR El-EY. 786405 . \ / 0 0 '.*24 -,1 c-rcr lu/ -Ip- r FLOOR ELEV. 7863.35 Â«1 -7 4 1 11 8 : 1 & / Clu' .emt,-5- r 1 7804 7806' â€¢ FLOOR ELEÂ¥. 7862.64 â€¢ 1 9Â¥0Â· PFOXY .1 2 4- . Is:Fl 4.,0/ ~4â€¢ Â·. â€ž44/- . WOOD STAGE *Re'* D . . - .--4~ â‚¬ . 2720~4.â€¢ BOUOM *~GE ELEV SEATING SEATING .4 FINSH FLOOR ELEV. . *, *. 1 1 /120 . * 1 a.2/.720729 ASPHAL~ co,t' CONC. xmkyÂ·7807.4~ 4 1 -* 2\4 t ~ .- LIGH'F MLAEPH~LT FA : . E.!:Â¢A Â».Â£6X .. NSF UPPOR.6 1 0 . . 2*A. SEATING ~ 5EAâ„¢G 92951 rÂ· COACRETE : m . HARRIS HALL ae . 1 4/.4.57 / .. < 92.,4 SEATING ~ . 22 A 4 ,4 -6hzi*93/ - AV 94) /1 ; 1 I I /: - 4 li Mi:*2 : \ - 1 1 - i . .' f=#44 â€¢ it ' .. GUYWRE '...r- =r~_: L.,A ''f-/ti/./ : ~Â£~ 0 ...... \ 49419-: 1 - I --1-1- -- : 1 ....: 4 4, I ril10:TR 3 -3- . I . ..... - 11Â« r .6 r . 7 ..,1.. \ . \\\78 . 0 *PHALT PATH .' 7800 . 78036 7865 ..-*................... - 0 7866 % WATER 7867 /CONÂ·TAM 1 0512 v -amÂ·t-_b . 4 WATER BUILDING f 7371 fere .. .. 2 .. 1 1 C /'d..Fl............Lillill (/ Zr/1 ai 0 25 50 75 100 n 13/ . \Z-8* 1 9 2 . I - . A .) ' 787 - , ASPEN MUSIC FESTIVAL TENT ... '7869 [Al.21 ~0~ EXISTING SITE PLAN / DEMO. PLAN 10=40'-0" .libl h IM - HARRY TEAGUE ARCHITECTS EMNALS 072038 439 331VM -1//7 24" HDPE..Â·Â·-' 78(31., RELOCATED ...... .......601%,N./Fe..... ~~ 7862 NEW TREES C)NCRE E EJOSTING ' SWITCH BCDÂ¢ 2 . ~ I IIi : <7311-BaX * ELEy. 7861 ' ..Â·*' #NITARY MANHOLE I .4 7862 r Â·Â· IME HYDPAAIT . UP Â· 1 wr LINE ~ EL .Â· . ~~**3. - -- - -/ .-aa-aa-- - + -Il :w TIA 0/0 oF 7 864 ...*PHALI .rt:ls ELEV. 7862 < f L 866 Â· ASHALT PHALT PAâ„¢ / ' ..:' 4 Â· I . ; 11 : ........ ill '-0865 -ilrilt-'Ii-7.12Â·Â· MIP 40â€¢dEDKa! 8 'mv ' 7863 EXETING / 1 Â· . - ./.'11Â£ '.7271> . 'r .... . -/ . *-Â·Â· I STREAM.Â· ~ - NEW N<AST TRENCH ORAIN < 1Â· *41 METALGKATES , 1 7}.229 I *1/1 84 7....... 4 .\ -â€¢quip#Â·Â·Â·Â· ... - - 9001/ .. 'S~,19 :.. i L/ , EXISTING PATH 4-2,/ ' Â· REBU[LD SITE WALL BOOBUS TO BE REMOYEy , , Â· TUNNEL BELOW 1 REm94Â·Â·783Â¥â€¢ 4 t, 8Â¢15â„¢G SiTE WAU / NEW Af~HALT PATH U U. - ,.1 . 78â‚¬5Â·Â·.. Â· lilli J .. . 1 t : ...... ~A49....' ~ .... -: I 387 ......: :.. 0 0 1 ASP~W-T PATH I , i 786* i i r~ Llh /1.1, OMP 2 .: I - Ad,7555&462 ~f'frL- 6 . . . . ... 1 ' .'... I 1.:... :i i . . 1 . . , *ELEV. 2657.3 / ....00 . I . 1 / SFEN MUSIC FPETMAL & SCHOCÂ·L ~ EE,spAni . /0 ]]]]]]] ~ [[[[[[[ U FINISH FLOOK ELEK- .......' \..... Â£ 4 I . . 156451 .:..*- . PERFORMANCE TENT 1 ASPHALT ! . TO EE KEMOVED Â· i ........ . Y - . - '44Â£; . TING â€¢.. ; ; EDGE OF Â· HAKKIS HALL 00 /1 IN jjfpÂ« ~ 'PLAZA .Â· ' STEEL BENCHEB ;CONCRETE , ; : .' 0 rl.1 ' trill.lili . -- EXIST1NG PATH / 4Â·Â·Â·. ~ EDGE OF CONCREm 10 82 KEMWED .. , , , i Â»-1 .~.7 / 0 Al f rn ALM 1 194-ll l .... EDGE OF E*6; 2 RELOCATED ; r-' 4/ AS'MAU:FA ...:.:f.. . ASPEN TREES . ~ = ~ 002 ELEY. 1007 78675 , , 2 1 ..# Â· . 7868 7867 7870- At Â·Â· -.:. Lx /Â· 1 Â·Â· '#' . ~ . i /'Â· 'Â· Â· 7806 \ J . 7869 .................... . 1 % " .. ''Â·. 78(36 e 1 -Â· r Â·Â· 1.- 'Â·. AGEMN.Im}i ~ ~ .Â·Â·65GfINQ CONCRETE 7867 Â· ' . ; ..2 WALL i t \ '~-'Â·. ~'7873'~ EX}& ''Â»1.... ..Â· EXISTING : CON I r.. : 78771 , , ...... /7fUN â‚¬ 2% Z â€¢. n . 4 7 1 . .... 1- ...... ... I ' .5 N 2 . 0.â€¢ 7808 . -h49 0 25 50 75 100 n Elf . .........7870 ASPEN MUSIC FESTIVAL TENT EDGE OF EXSTING ASPHALT PATH BENCHES (NJ.C) [Al.31 ' EDGE OF EXteTING ASPHALT PATH ASFHALT PATIS SITE IMPROVEMENT PLAN i HARRY TEAGUE ARCHITECTS ~ ....IN IXS 0720BID .... ..... 96>b . 0 ' EXISTNG BACKED,GE MUILDING FROPOSED BACKSTAGE BUILDING F.:: -9..W:* e. 1 -C i \ , eO5 1~ 1:W-/ - "\ 4 ...... I i.. ill ./ . ++........................ & // 1 1 1 lilidi 1 11 :11 - 1 1: i Ii: 1 1 , i ... 1/!lilli ... .......' . . i lilli:Ill 4 . F. 1111 : 1 . ..... + i 4 . / i. il I 1 1, . . 0 L . flu --Â·23 L 1 4.- 1\ - -. L -.4 ..... 11'l L r- . L r--T 1 N + 1 \ P ./1 , PROPOSE G ELEDGE â€¢ . f , PROPO DC CRETE EDGE â‚¬. PRO ED E OF SEATING ... STING VEL EDGE ..... STING DGE OF CONCRETE ~ EXISTIN EDGE OF SEATING ... I. f UÂ«\ t.... Â«.3 ---lit-IL-J L.-437 S N 0 25 50 75 100 ft ~-~ Li// ASPEN MUSIC FESTIVAL TENT -- 0120032 HARM TEAGU ARCHITECT BUILDING FOOTPRINT COMPARISON 1 '=40'-00 1 1 1 '1 lilli 1 1 1 - -- + 1 -4 - - , 1 1 1 1 1 0 1, ..... , 1 1 1 1 1 : 0 ... O .... $ //-1 Â· I 1. - - 6rso' , - 4Â·+ ...4". ... ..............1.*-- ... +++..........11111 C , \Sil E . N 7 ~4 ...... -.. . I - â€ž .. , , STAGE --- - I ! I 1 .. - . 4 .4... .. , -, rp - ... M METAL HAND UL 4 MATCH UNÂ£ â€¢â€¢.6. 819Â·e I .... ENCLOSUICE FOR OAKEPOE CARD i .4, 1 , 1 r,-mmur=ml --r:O 1 ' ==5==El r p .â€¢ SLONS PANES , 4 , &% E $ 1, â€¢:Â· 1,Â· Â·IÂ·KÂ·Xâ€¢KÂ·K< '- . , I . i f . . . ... \ ENTRY WICKET ABOVE : i - 4 CANOPY;EDGE .. it . D EDGE OF FAYEMENT 0 . 6 ACOUSTÂ£ 0150 ' .rf-:. / SOLO PUL . . b ~MIALT F*â„¢ . I ..:. .#. - Â·GUDE f Â»+3% , , 1 . :: 4: ..... AFKOM $ , 7 . i CONCKETEWAU.8 e X 8' C UT ' t=*g==% = 39; mn, Ra,ovABLE= ':i eae' F :' Â·' Â·~Â·[tr~t.Â·~*S/ l INDICATES METAL HANDRAILS TYF. 1\ : / : / 4 .. y ..P................. , 0/ .="ImF'"V.~ 61=.~ , SEE SHEET AG.5 FOK DETALS ~ ,â€¢ ... . AND DIMENSIONS 19 % i WIKEB <4 KISER-MOUNTED BENCH SEATING ~ $ I / SEE SHEET- Ae.2 Fat DETALS i â€¢Â· SXÂ»E OF fllÂ«ic . $ 4, STEEL ENTRY WICKET TIPE â€¢Câ€¢ a /969*'.-~*711 ' 18. j 2 ~ 4 4 & ...:A........ .=ER KOCK . '' .-. ' 1.* ....i.=>.0,0>i,37.:/,9 + 00 . ....t , I I ....:Il .â€¢ Â· 0 iÂ·-4 , y . , -Â·fur Â·Â· . â€¢2537_ 2 T '* 6u~~0~,t,c i. .u y Bâ€ž s ... , Â·- 1. 2 0 y. .Â·28:22# . : \L - I >4 A X71 le .. : &47301 i . 4 /, ... y > A 12290' ~~ 1-~-EvmEiff.~... FADEZ N*NE OUTUNE OF TENT I /22. .. t# <1 2 .....111 1 ' .L 939-0/I . Â· . . . 1 1 INDICATES EDGE OF SLAB 9 . AND VERTICAL CLOSURE 13+05,14â€¢ .3 3. :~*:. SEE Ae-3 POK DETAILS 1 98Â·0212, '' Â·Â· / 4 2 1 .1 ~ .6 07Â·02,0â€¢ : ' / 0* P, CONDIEr STEEL ENTRY WICKET TYPE 7 SEE SHEET AGS 90& DETAU-5 i 99-Ove .. Â· i SOUND CONTIROAI .' . .1 8/ {130' } -*-Â¥~LLI:~<:Â·Â·:EÂ·~ -~~~'~ ~'- ~~. .. 1 e r~t + , Sigi~mmEZMW SEE SHEETAG.5 FOR DETAILS ~ ANP DIMENSIONS 1 2 NEW CONCRETE PLAZA |A2.1 1 - - l ~ 1 ~ ~if--9 Â® ASPEN MUSIC FESTIVAL TENT SEATING AREA PLAN HARRY TEAGUE ARCHITECTS Iml/h/~ill â€¢0-* /Â® 3 33) 187-10Â· 15-11 3Er-(r ' I, . , 314 ~ 4'-11' - OF.. CEN./.12 . UDGe oF BONE A-- 1 ACOUSTIC DEC C . 3 VIRV . TECH'/CAL /0.ER. t............,........................f 1 ~erâ€¢~ :x,i*,-u~g, A ~ 0.-10 1 ~ 1 Il I MAND TUNNe i 1 --lr-- - -Â®=r llc 1 42.2225 : 1 LME,a HA,0. O 'G\.7- ~~ /44.Lm ..1 -111- - -1. - - - -1- .1- - 7 . Wi RECOR00 : -P 1 ., A. iâ€¢,TAKE 71 1 lili\-/- 1 . 1 1 ..ces '':ilil U V*'S < T.C.;LDDR . 9. 1/61 411 .. 1 33Â·Â·2Â· 2% 1 37.Â· I M Dit//9. 03 -7 0/2/9.02 -7 /XE/5. / -7 , ill 1.2 FU' f ~A'.{P 03.4 ~ '.C: 6141- */<-Â« 9Â»0Â¢EL TO HARACD HAU 1 1 IE] -1- ~ -M- ~ -17 xeR*/-3 i i 4, Ir,7, ii -A\v/_ / A .Â£, , 1 1 0 li 3Umt'2<u~Â®t- 31 hi-27 1--- /4--1-34 J --- il- ' 11 - 1 \--1 - V To. Full 1111IL - HOUSE & OICIENT~- Uk/\ RACKE I 29 -All'/0Â£18 lkA C ....1. 2./ .NG HAN.O e, IL =Â¢00 ... , r........... .41. r./ , -r ~rnmr-trY ' 11-3*5\, --I*I-0 1 -1 - .... 1 ' I -212217- \ -W [E W.C 1/ru Â·Â·11â€¢ir. i: LA.B.... 4... - 1 ir I ... 1 1 % gnrt w Au N:Th -,Â·.0 / 7'Â·2- p,0,AL.Â·.~ 5.Â·41 / 2215*13 -\ 1 MECHANCAL Â¢0061 5210* i CHA.im - El.EVATOR 30+87 1 51Â»10 IrdkAGE , 4/ L //AU \21 1 9 trpA / ' : 1 0 -4=.... 'FLâ€¢ , , 1 1 ---P 9 1 ....2 1 r.1.- 1 . 1 3 1--- =.ON: PANELI f .IC,â‚¬*te -A : 0 ~ ( 67Â°30' ) Itt *....i.*72,3,2 Aug STNGE :0.6--â€¢25 1. ic<,1 tk, SE / - AJF-6 0 '~ - m..%./:sÂ·.â€¢ 6'2~4. --' In* 88 = Â·>& 12- -1- 1 -<tjk> 91 ./ 1 7/ F= Omâ„¢ICE UrF-1 1 : Â© .Â© 301.D *00. / -. 1---x 1/3- 1 50â‚¬9 ... 4 ..v,i...... y/- . . OLD I 1 1 /1...k 1 Ug ... 1- . .V.. 1 v U u. . Â·9 2 ,6 BEE AU FOK STAGE MAN + W. 4 ~MATCH LINE 407 0./- 1 Â¥ 0 0. IL!.4 Mil nial . 1/DAE- jr 0 5 10 20 30 40 50 13/UF ASPEN MUSIC FESTIVAL TENT BACK STAGE BUILDING: LOWER [*2.21 LEVEL PLAN 1*=20'-0* ~ ~ HARRY TEAGUE A R C H I T EC T S ~~ Ar-O.15 .20~8 k_lÂ·AW34**1**dÂ¢Em.*r :.1 0 0Â® Â®1Â® 167-10' 7 1 211 1 . br, 15-110 38'Â·0' ~ ~~,/l -1 .Al /3 015/1//U,a! 0, leoÂ£.O/8.Â¢*- A.J.'IC 'sc CoutÂ·~S ATIB'tgattnilie 81 ' . - C.EKESÂ¥./ . 1 1 1 -2 0 O 41 .jae . ./.pll 4 1 <3*PI~*EN/ 0 ,~~~ I 4-0. 1 f.: 7 + 4,7 1/1 I 00.CUP I M t / E e \ 71 #/ 11*j irl fe/ 1 . ; 0- & 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 Am.=2-7/ 1 1 . T ! ' 9,Â·STE,u : â€¢LUM........F~CNY MEN ...te. AL.uL C) 1 . :h-11Wwwl 10.10.4144 LA .IN . 1 24 34 0190 2 1-1=Irl i+I 111-'lim :Ell-71.-1-lir Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·*Â· 71 6 1 1 1 1 1 1: .- i-; 1 *, 9'M ' 11-1...1.-1-11_1_11 i 1=- â„¢ - A SEWING Co*KIX)/ , râ„¢NEL dELOW 10//â€¢94 PGU.'NI ASMâ€¢'Lf WT -- 1 -_1_3 C I -1 , 9 1 â€¢ )t' --- ---- CLE'55-CC 0 ?14 6~0666 le. ~l 1|||~~~f~'-~ -4 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |0 | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1 | |i 3-6-6 8-8- *BT-Â¢- --- ---- -J~ BECW '80.+ h - ([ 01 - I Ill:Ill:Illl "â€¢'2%~' Ill*Ill:Illl I ze -! r 11 -ELE..19 4 WOMEN Â· EAST 0 1 Â¢ LES . 93 SEAT5 9_ cd u 0 7 i i i Iffi .JLIILJ i~Â»E 1 -2988 1 ..ASE / 2 -Â® 97'V. 111 . ~ C.= RESt... ==1 Lâ€¢.4.. =3 r 8 -*tÂ»l. -' 79 f.t h KEST. ver. ' /-- ."."0*.AL - I . 1 ' 'r ./ :. Fl A ./TS. *Eâ€¢-9 â‚¬ I <06# 551.0 t LF ./. 2 AP 6 10 0 (67Â°30') //(E) - .ASS 1 I X â€¢29 ... 5:-::::,:::::M - Â· Â·Â· Â·.Â·Â· Â·.4 Â·.Â·Â· tÂ·Â·-/5.-Xi/-7-: ./FOJE STAGE -- [El ' Nkt. ... -e'... C. ...:...::...1 - .71.-C.. EP. 0' gâ€¢%â‚¬ â€¢50Â·I -- - SEE *22 FOR STAGE PLAN --4 IiÂ· f -4 i -1 -4 ..:;."i., C....:...:'.tA _ 23 2'111 -1 4.5:..Itt,14(3:...1 r - -i - 1..; 1 1 4 r , - . I :1 1 irlrh ./. 1./t': 1 -<*-**'F.-- k-*-1 1 2 m 0 5 10 20 30 40 50 ~ 9%/4 5 7 '42'<E>14 \Y ASPEN MUSIC FESTIVAL TENT tA2.3 1 BACK STAGE BUILCHNG :UPPER 1 LEVEL PLAN 1'=20'-0" ~ ~ TEAGUE ARCHITECTS - A.-0/ALS I lillia i HARRY .CÂ·.93 .0Â· It Â®:Â® f (?In 1 . 167-10' 15-11' 3840â€¢ 381-0. 1 4.-11. 1 -----eDGE ....4 CEN,Et!/ 00 200]11 0, 8~1 - , ACCUSnÂ£ DISC /Whoa A/ 1 1 1 1 f A,# 0 1 .11.. 1 ; f 1#/ 0 Kn 1 .~ ' 1.'Â¥ 5KnIGHT - A e ~ 11-J ./ -1 1 , 1 1 1 - 11 1 ..1. . . - I =6 iIi * 6Â£3lbURl- Â·Â· 4 wÂ·,<4=* LA 4 I '-- Ni .... .1 i 1 gur- /1 1 - 42 - 76 .4 2 1 4- 9/f :-:~.0 Af-~~~Â·~l~Â·.Â·N : fi~~~ DÂ¢76----* :-: --- i. - '1./,J,3.+... / .. OUERFLOW SCUP/Elt / . I / 1 OVERFLOW SCUPPEE (67Â°30'} / - #f //le \ CANOr' ABO'E t 4WF--7 /. 1 1 . ...# /31:.222. L.Â· Ec>.7 -ENT 'â€¢fmc ~533>* */ i~fGH LINE J .-Â· , -9 ~~~2~4"'..."'..'Â·., 'l '11/7-ft- 4 1 1 --5'EC ..... / .. .Intucrug. I * STEEL KNO ./ 0... SU~POET 1--L--- (4Â· r 01â€¢~ETER ..STEEL) -"-Wt -"T. - 7/ 2~ 4*8 DECKENG - SKYLIGâ€¢fr PANELS %0TE: ALL PANELS â€¢KE / 00,EltED ./ -ENTIeR,C Tly- , E==--Fr==R=-9 e 0 0 5 10 20 30 40 50 5 i BACK STAGE BUILDING / ACOUSTIC DISK [A2.41 ROOF PLAN 1'=20â‚¬ 1 1 HARRY TEAGUE ARCHITECTS 1â€¢...... \ /20.96 0 0 --I~yl_1::1! ld-U- 1-Â·1 Â· I - riTDTM:T-,-1-T-l . 444444441 Hit~qiÂ» O - -,-.' m 4-44 11 - - - 41-P:?I \ ~ # I 4*tedkÂ¢*t \ 11\ f jil -7 I-11=1-* -I-UilÂ¥1- 1 0) iI:*IiI .Ef gIÂ¥.57' f=Â¥: r*Â¥*Â¥*Tti \\\ /0 \ \W (24 -TFURÂ¥ L) C 4.*IM 42% 5% 1-1-.1-, 3* H 7----48 \ 'W: T {1*771 ii.i m I \ $. 14*41=.1111111â€ž1111 1111111111â€ž11 111 h 2 ilÂ· r-~ CT I Â· AN * 1--1 : M #FfF--FFFI?gl / 8 0 - \ I ---1 ,m lit\\\\\\ , 20 h#<<4/5 \ 1-71:MT--T=T=7-41111,1 / . \\ \\ F.1\ \ 1-1 1- - -4 9/121 I .. \ \\ ~~IE----/A. ITTÂ· I 1 1 fIft-----Er--1 1 44 11 1 \\ 624&../ Â¢%1*i:il~uL --~ty k @ lit~ 1 441==a ... 2 1 7-9 = 2.-i...i.â€žLÂ·_447 Â¥â‚¬Â«I<' /\~ 4 44. 1 + 81 f. Â«3- - =Ul j -- Â¥90:i L . r. - i 1 imi RELL- â€ž - 3 ....... .....&21*,â€ž1rn :813. =~P " 1 r--1- .a.d]~ -I _ \/ 1 ... / 39 t- L:-T~ MAZH_ - I ;02 . '1 r . ii . -t \ i . . tI19-1' - -L a = I-. Prt iEr_ %41- 1 \ 1 ' *it~ 4 .' 4. 1 + 11.~1. ' t .Â· -iÂ·Â· gif .a r , ' I : I 229 *19 -L 0 + 2 9 ~i~/-1 I , ./. i -1-1-1 -I- .T -r-== - -- . /.\: 4-%-r--1 -L = T'~T~TI Â· 1-2=-LE== 1. Â· tfk~ , 2 -1-1-1-1-i~ 1-1 24"filit,/1,#..' 1 --91.=ri iL 1 , / . I / .al- %-I. ../. Â£~-91 1 1 11 1-1-1- - . ... 1 ttilicÂ«Â» C ./ // -T----72 1: . Lpt[:= 44 7Â· ' 6Â¥ENTÂ»Â¥=73.idl* .'.... i iii 12:717-9=-10 lili \NI 1 t 1-:TI----7-NI... :..1 ...Â· 1 ,... 1 1 r i ri--i- -1 2 '' '/ / / / r#k-~*di:Â§-Ap_ 1 i ti Â¢ |-1/11 --111*.~z:-3 .. . / lilli i--71:~i,=-1~M- 11 ,1 LÂ¥1PT.~13Â·j=43?, 1 It =T= r -= T - r=T= 1 - T - TÂ·=~â€¢n-- 11 ; 1 1111 -1--' /1 11 i 1-1-T r TÂ·=r= 1 -1-Tr. 1 , : -1 i- -i =TET= 1-=r=l- - - ------=-t44:641 6 \ hi~1_~~:~1~Mfti~YZE?. 2 '. . Â·Â· i. k ''' -1-â€¢-'-]=51-1-1-11-1 i : -0 - - ,, '- . 10 -- ------- 1 -lip-&-- 1 -1 -1 - - - -1-1 -1 -11 - / I In=TITT=TÂ·=T=T-=7274 1 . , 177-- -,-, -i= =i-I-TT-TWT / 41Â¥+41 iii fil.~=i:1 ,, 1-1-1- - - N=1-L=11= / --Ftki4*13*fc , . , 41.1-48fl-7----=M I / -r-r- h-1 It- , Fd" 5-il:Flib-=r / I . I. *994*66â€ž=r ./ .ITIEE---E,zE- ' 81% *diti-----2-- - [fIÂ¢IE~-1-7--17~~-1- L-1-1- - - -1-1-1-It- 1 2 : .1 L~:11-lnu-imi:zini- - FÂ¥IF=IEEEISIE]EI i 1% iliTILIi.Â¥*Â¥69-1Â¥6 1 I-1 F- - i 11 1 -I-I- 1 -T=T- 1 -T- - -T-T----TE[br .. ~I.I~-_ - _ _ . I . i & LT:[=IE{T*tlÂ«* 1-7-1=- Â· i LAUL=0.-id=--- .G. * - * -0 ' F# 14 1 64 1 1 2 2 W 4 > i EAST - WEST 9702/A - 'CousTC r~SC (eÂ¥ 5*DA09 Â·Â·ENYLA,104 63*CLÂ·UO~.29-6 NOUVA3-13 ~~ * ... .. L'EV SNOLLORS DNIallne I .0-,02=. L 1N311Â¥All.SE=1 1 09 - S10311HOWV Bn Â® Â® 1 T I FABRIC TENT MEMBRANE FRAMEWINDOWSYSTEM TYPICAL~-% --) POLYGLAS PANELW/ALUMINUM ' 6042 PAINIED C.M,U. BLOCK WALL -------L___ ' Â« SYSTEM + /4.- ~\10% \ 0, 1 :01 + li I .. je===-Mituok/Miz- A 110-<r 91' ENâ„¢Y EUrallON 1 1 117 r* 4- Hil .:, tTER. 1 A 04 100-01 I RIM ElEVAMON CONCREm TENr ANCHOR - CONCRETE TENT ANCHOR SEE SHEETS AG,3/ AG,4 ~ ,|, : SEE SHEETS AG.3/ Ae,4 FOR DELAILS : f ; . FOIDETAILS /7\ NORTH ELEVATION ....... A 8-6. SCALE: 1-, 20'-0- - ALUM. FIUME SK'AIGHT SYSTEM Â¥ T.0. CONCRETE AT BOWL. Â®Â®@*Â®Â® STEEL ENTRY WICKETS REE SHEET5 Ae.5/ N W C FOK DEETAJLS FAORtC TENT MEMBRANE FRAME MNDON SYSTEM TYPIC,AL FOLYGLAS PANEL W/ ALLIAUNIUM Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â· 7 DISC EQUATOK PA[NrEP CM.U. BLOCK WALL ALUMINUM GTOREFRONT /1.- A : ! /1 14 - .:0 i ' ~E~ ELEVATZON 1 1 - 1 , _3 1 11/' I , I lk/11'/1 11 1 /4 9% N 0 10"Â·,71 â€¢ 2164 ELEVATION i ., 1-1. Â· â€¢ , . : il CONCRETE IENT ANCH. , SEE SHEETS Ae.3/ Ae.4 5 E i FOg DETAILS - A 29-6.1 7 La CONCKETE AT BOWL- /.1 EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 1- = 20'-0' 1 0 5 10 20 30 40 50 ASPEN MUSIC FESTIVAL TENT BUILDING ELEVATIONS tA4.1 1 5 1'=20'-0' ~ ~ HARRY TEAGUE ARCHITECTS - Im.... I lucil Â®Â® Â®(D 1 1 1 v DISC EQUATOK \ A 134' -1 -' ~ ~ ~ ELEVAT!ON Ur// -f hoci c( A-nar r-'-1 11' RIM ELEVATION ,-Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·....A.10(Z:Â¢L~ ! ..co -Cl 1 1 1 ..ef p. I - =7&:~ i ~ SOUTH ELEVATION - 4&~~NCRETEAT80x SCALE: 1/8-=1'-0- Â®Â®Â©*Â®Â® - 017#-Al : : DISC EQUATOR 1 1 1 1 1 1 S K 1 .... ...-................r.................. ~ ~ ELEVA~ON 1 . /: 1 \\*CJ . 4 ES.'VATION â€¢ *r ~ra -tÂ·f %4 'I ' Â£a=I ..:t $ 89.6Â· 7 T.O. CONCRETE AT BOK ~ WEST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8- = 1'-0- 0 5 10 20 30 40 50 ASPEN MUSIC FESTIVAL TENT BUILDING ELEVAnONS IA4.21 HARRY TEAGUE ARCHITECTS h-~ I.â€¢NO/l. 0720.. 0 MEMORANDUM EXHIB!32 TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission , ~ 9- 1 49V 01/ ~ TIIRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director ':> Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Director Â©*-'>Â· FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 117 N. 6th Street- Partial demolition of a structure included in the "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen," On-Site Relocation, Ordinance 30 Review DATE: August 12, 1998 SUMMARY: This structure was originally built in 1885, and the property is listed on the historic inventory. The owner does not wish to landmark, therefore HPC review of the project is limited to a partial demolition review, on-site relocation (for the shed) and Ordinance 30. The applicant proposes to add a small addition at the back of the historic structure and make a linking element between the existing house and a new wing. The entire structure will be a single family residence and the entry to the house is through the linking element. The shed is to be moved closer towards N. 6th Street. Variances from Ordinance 30 are requested. The application also mentions a request for a site coverage variance and the proposed new location of the shed requires a setback variance. HPC can only grant such a variance for landmarks. The applicant will have to apply to the Board of Adjustment and HPC must make a recommendation to that board. APPLICANT: Lynnie Coulter, represented by Dave Panico. LOCATION: 117 N. 6th Street, Lots G, H, and I, Block 18, City and Townsite ofAspen. SECTION 26.72.020Â«1 STANDARDS FOR REVIEW OF PARTIAL DEMOLITION: No approval for partial demolition shall be granted unless the HPC finds all of the following standards are met. 1. Standard: The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure. Response: The applicant requests HPC approval to demolish 5% ofthe existing structure. Staff is uncertain how this calculation was made, but finds that approximately 31% of the historic perimeter walls are to be demolished in order to make the rear addition and the connecting element to the new wing. 1 I 1 Staff acknowledges that some amount of demolition of existing walls is necessary in order to make an addition to the house, and that some additional space is a reasonable request, however, given the numerous other development options available for this site which would keep the cabin a freestanding building, staff cannot make a clear finding that the partial demolition proposed is required for the renovation, restoration, or rehabilitation ofthe structure. 1. Standard: The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: a. Impacts on the historic signijicance of the structure or structures located on the parcel by limiting demolition of original or significant features and additions. Response: From historic maps of the site, the house does appear to have had two additions made to it, however all ofthe additions are shown on maps by 1893, making them historically significant. The proposal does focus most of the demolition at the rear of the building, where a new addition is most appropriate, however the linking element penetrates through the historic south wall, not far from the front ofthe house and will block the view ofmost ofthe south facade from the street. 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. Response: HPC has held one worksession on this project. At that meeting, staff and members of the HPC expressed a preference for two detached houses on this site, rather than a new house linked to the old house. Staff agrees that the architect has achieved some of that goal in the creation of two distinct masses, the old house and the new house, however the linking element nullifies this distinction and ties the masses together, even taking the entry function away from the old cottage and putting it into the new construction. While the application describes the new wing as secondary or "bowing" to the old house, it is clearly the dominant element and does not particularly look to the old house for its design cues. The use of stone also affects the massing and scale of the new house in relation to the old house, giving it literally a "heavier" appearance. Staff also finds the angle of the new wing to be incompatible with the historic development pattern; houses set square to the street. The architect has worked to pull the overall height of the new wing down, has broken the massing into smaller elements, has proposed just a single stall garage, and other positive elements. Staff finds the design has many merits, but in this context negatively impacts the architectural character of the historic resource. The concept requires restudy. If the applicant is unwilling to preserve the house as a freestanding building, staff recommends that the architect look to more traditional massing which is more representative of how the building might have been added on to historically. 2 4 . ORDINANCE 30 The applicant requests a waiver from the Ordinance 30 standards regarding building orientation, entry orientation, and build-to lines. A waiver from the volume standard is also needed for the large window at the fireplace on the south side ofthe new house. Staff does not support a waiver from the building orientation standard as discussed above. Staff does agree that the orientation of the house towards N. 6th Street is appropriate and that the new construction should not sit more forward on the site than the existing house does. Staff is not prepared to comment on the window at this time, because of larger concerns with the project. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the staff recommendation (below), as well as any of the following alternatives: 1) Grant final approval to the partial demolition application as submitted; 2) Grant final approval to the partial demolition application with conditions to be met prior to building permit issuance; 3) Table action to a date certain in order to allow the applicant further time for restudy (specific recommendations should be offered); or, 4) Deny the partial demolition application as submitted, finding that the application does not meet the applicable Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC table the application, finding that the review standards are currently not met, and direct the applicant to restudy the linking element and scale, massing, and orientation of the new construction. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit "A" - Applicant's Submittal Package Exhibit "B"- Sanborne Map, 1904 Bird's Eye View ofAspen, 1893 3 EXHIBITI-4 1 %2 l/-9* APPLICANT: Lynnie Coulter, represented by Dave Panico In LOCATION: 117 N. e Street ACTION: Partial demolition, On.site relocation, Ordinance 30 review PARTIAL DEMOLITION Standards of review for paitial demolition. No approval for partial demolition shall be granted unless the HPC finds that all of the following standards are met: (Note: "Partial demolition" shall mean the ming of a portion of any structure on an inventoried parcel or the total razing of any structure on an inventoried parcel which does not contribute to the historic significance of the parcel). Standard 1: 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. Standard 2: The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: 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. 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. ON-SITE RELOCATION Standards for review of on-site relocation: No approval for an on-site relocation shall be granted unless the HPC finds that the following standards have been met: The relocation activity is demonstrated to be the best preservation method for the character and integrity of the structure, and the historic integrity of the existing neighborhood and adjacent structures will not be diminished due to the relocation, and The structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and re-siting. A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonskating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation, and A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting of a bond or other financial security with the engineering department, as approved by the HPC, to insure the safe relocation, preservation and repair (if required) of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in ad~ance of the physical relocation. 5 *7* &194 - ./42. v . .5, 9? . . I.' I r $-*......Ill & .... Â· 4f- - .fi~.2- # ,'. / 1j -3 . .., ,2.-2, .,4 1 't-444* 11 1 Ill - â€¢ 9 -1. -' ' 4--- 91 1, . 1 - .-r -*Ill - 74 0. ~ County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT 11 2-1-0 I } SS. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATION~ State of Colorado } SECTION 2632.060 (E) .00-F- L bb<440 FANULO , being or representing an Applicant to the City 07 Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements pursuant to Section 26.52.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Regulations in the following manner: 1. By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class, postage prepaid U.S. Mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, as indicated on the attached list, on the day of , 199_ (which is days prior to the public hearing date of 2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously from the 'b#&014day of AVA , 19â‚¬) (Must be posted for at least ten (10) full days before the hearing date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto. 7-Â«2\) (Attach photograph here) SigI0.ture Signed before me this 1 24 day 01.34 2 Lrk :199Â£4by AAVID PA-dico 5 4.7. -1\ YA WrrNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL U 1 'p,- *1 My commission expires: 4 1 1 2399 .--*Letio *&44 No}* Public 4#,AtiÂ£ dj UIZÂ« Not*'Public' s Signature - . I ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1. Project name COULTER- Col-rDGE. 2. Project location til M. (irl-1 *T , LOTS 6 , +4 â‚¬~ 1 . guock- 1 Â© C 1 9 4 -ro N Ail l TE of= ' b<*PER (indicate street address, lot and block number or metes and bounds description) 3. Present zoning R'(9 4. Lot size 4000 di 5. Applicanfs name, address and phone number MO. LYNN IE COUL.:122 Ill N, (/rU 6-[REEE. bkfEN 12-6 - 97 90 6. Representative's name, address, and phone number PAAA P FAN to \833 -juMi Pe2 HILLK.P. 44'FEK[ 4213 -86514 7. Type of application (check all that apply): Conditional Use Conceptual SPA Conceptual HPC Special Review Final SPA Final HPC -.- 8040 Greenline Conceptual PUD 40 Minor HPC Stream Margin Final PUD Relocation HPC Subdivision Text/Map Amend. Historic Landmark GMQS allotment GMQS exemption j Demo/Partial Demo View Plane Condominiumization Design Review Lot Split/Lot Une Appeal Committee Adjustment 8. Description of existing uses (number and type of existing structures, approximate sq. ft, number of bedrooms, any previous approvals granteel to the property) L 4{ MALE *A+4112Â¢~ 2 RED IZCIDM~ REA I DERM-1 M.1 OTEUC- TO IZE COMPELAED OF 82%541.: . 1 *TOE.&69. 9*16[7 COM?14Â£,ED OF 1 66 [U ' 9. Description of development application 911 14012. U. 9.6 26]54 AN P Nâ‚¬449502#COP PEA'!di N Â«TbkI 36,20*6, -REWE.W, 10. Have you completed and attached the following? V Attachment 1 - Land use application form v Attachment 2- Dimensional requirements form 4 Response to Attachment 3 3 Response to Attachments 4 and 5 . 11111111 ATTACHMENT 2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Applicant 1.44. LYNNIE COU LTEIZ. Address: 1 1-1 N . D-ru, Ef[, bap EN CO Â· Zone district 12Â· 0 , Lot size: 4 000 U Existing FAR: ~-90\//91 Allowable FAR: .hwonrg Proposed FAR: 41490 i Existing net leasable (commercial): N/A Proposed net leasable (commercial): H/A Existing % of site coverage: 1,156 Proposed % of site coverage: 97015 Existing % of open space: M /Ze Proposed % of open space: 14/3. ' I /4 Existing maximum height Principal bldg:* 11 i=t Accesorv bldg: e -w Proposed max. height Principal bldg:* 26' i Accesson, bldg: Proposed % of demolition: 1-EA,9 -1-6+AN 896 Existing number of bedrooms: Proposed number of bedrcoms: Existing on-site parking spaces: On-site parking spaces required: Setbacks Existing: Minimum required: Proposed: Front _ Â·:24' ,E~T-;-4 Front ' lo' Front '20 1 411 Rear: ~Mifff 741 7&3all Rear: 101 Reac l tit:77 11 Combined Houâ‚¬E- flo' Combined Combined , 10 Front/rear: 5 1480 de '-6,11 Front/rear: Â®d Fron#rear: 10 - 0 Side: 10' MO2:74 Side: 10' Side: VA121â‚¬0 Side: 400*20' 648â‚¬r Side: lot Side: V 62!27 Combined *422 11 Combined Combined Sides: .301 Sides: 10' Sides: toi Existing nonconformities or encroachments: Al-!27 4420 IN REULAMP 0 10â‚¬ eer~Bbolay Variations requested:. Wout-P U ZE iLLOW. 48.2 *TTE -60422*46 TO 132 \ NCEEU-E TM'b PfS;507,3 - . (HPC has the ability to vary the following requirements: setbacks, distance between buiidings, FAR bonus of up to 500 sql site coverage variance up to 5%. height varia#ons under the cottage infill program, parking waivers for residential uses in the R-6, R-15, RMF, CC, and O zone districts) . 51+ON ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPUCATION FORM 1. Project name Cou L-TEZ. cerTzs/.AE- 2. Project location 1 11 N. &,TU AT. 234:;PEN. LOre, 6 I H ZE L 1 01(u- le OrrY * 1-DWMAITE OF-409?EN t PIT12-114 CCUNT'Val (indicate street address, !ot and block number or metes and bounds description) 3. Present zoning KÂ· 3 4. Lotsize lasocti 5. Applicanfs name, address and phone number Â»141-YUN IE COUCNEE- Ill N. 01# 4 bAPEN. 420Â· 6-11* 6. Representative's name, address. and phone number O6NI P PANICD 18127 JUN 1 PEE- +I llb 201)Â· baGEN CD - '-42-8, 8%44 7. Type cf application (check ail that apply): Conditional Use Conceptual SPA Conceptual HPC Special Review Final SPA Final HPC 8040 Greeniine Conceptual PUD Minor HPC Stream Margin Final PUD Relocation HPC Subdivision Text/Mao Amend. Historic Landmark GMCS allotment GMQS exemption Demo/Partial Demo View Plane Condominiumization 4 Design Review Lot Split/Lot Une Appeal Committee Adjustment 8. Description of existing uses (number and type of existing structures, . approximate sq. ft, number of bedrocms, any previous approvals granted to the property) 662 +4,8 U. AFFI-1 LATIoN 9. Description ofdevelopment application N.12161420Â©+400[7 t:â‚¬410 14 'EVIEW *134 5*256- 10. Have you completed and attached the following? Attachment 1- Land use application form Response to Attachment 2 Response to Attachment 3 11111111 LYNNIE COULTER 9 +4 92*D.lit H.P 04+1. ar 130 6 . 614/â‚¬UCL *u . 100& Vacto 112 1 (ledâ‚¬, CD!~610, D-f 1 1 7 Alm*h Soth Skk.26, AÂ·se' Caleraolo (470 Â· c[Ag.. 615Â©, CUDHI.IWEL 'Dalubl 'Pa#UU), Of /583 Jumil 114 MCI 8)ad , Asâ€ž. ColeinuG (110. 418Â·63 441, 40 ru,puiSTAL,k ne (k rn~ app &.CA:h*eXJ 40 FP C. 44 Ctu.e,Jer Post Office Box L3 â€¢ Aspen, Colorado 81612 117 North Sixth Street â€¢ Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone (970) 925-8756 Fax (970) 923-8308 FNT Â· SCHEDULE A-OWNER'S POLICY CASE NUMBER DATE OF POLICY AMOUNT OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER PCT11879C2 09/02/97 @ 2:24 P.M. $ 1,100,000.00 1312-105665 1. NAME OF INSURED: LYNNIE G. COULTER 2. THE ESTATE OR INTEREST IN THE LAND HEREIN AND WHICH IS COVERED BY THIS POLICY IS: IN FEE SIMPLE 3. THE ESTATE OR INTEREST REFERRED TO HEREIN IS AT DATE OF POLICY VESTED IN: LYNNIE G. COULTER 4. THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS POLICY IS SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: LOTS G, H AND I, BLOCK 18, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. 601 E. HOPKINS AVE. ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (970) 925-1766/(970)-925-6527 FAX THE POLICY NUMBER SHOWN ON THIS SCHEDULE MUST AGREE WITH THE PREPRINTED NUMBER ON THE COVER SHEET. DESIGN BYE*AmD PANICOINC 1333 JUNIPER HII.L ROAD, ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 PHONE 970-923-5394 FAX 970-923-1260 July 28,1998 Ms. Amy Guthrie Historic Preservation Officer City Of Aspen 130 S. Galena St Re: Coulter Col:tage H.P.C. Review. Dear Amy. This letter and the accompanying application package comprise a submittal for Historic Preservation Cornmission review of the proposed renovations and additions to an edsdng structure located at 117 North Sixth Street.The Applicant also requests that the Commission review and gent variances to 3 of the Residential Design Standards as defined in Ordinance 30. Response to Historic Preservation Commission Review Issues Attachment 3, #1 The property is owned and occupied by Ms. Lynnie Coulter. I, David Panico, am acting as her representative in this process. My address and phone number can be found in the letterhead above. Attachment 3, #2 The legal address of tile property is as follows; Lots G, H and I, Block 18, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County Colorado. Attachment i #3 and #4 accompany this letter. Attachment 4, #1 The subject property is comprised of a 9000 square foot lot on which sit two structures. 'Ihe more important and most prominent structure is what is described in the City of Aspen's inventory of historic structures as a "Victorian Miners Cottage". City documents state that the easternmost element of this structure was built in 1885. The illustration referred to as "Ihe Birds- eye View of Aspen" published in 1893 shows an addilion added to the west side of the cot=ge and ashed in the approximate locdon of the existing alley shed. As it exists today, the cottage is comprised of three elements. The front element *st facing on 64 street), is a classic example of the elemental M~ter' Cottage. The form is a rectangulnr box measuring 12 by 24' with an entry porch projectng to the eastlhe roof form is a simple 1212 pitch gable roof wiâ‚¬h a shed roof at fhe porch. Extending to the west are two elements that, it is assumed, were added somelime later. The dettiling and asymmetrical roof shapes on these parts of the cottage imply that they have been added to, and altered through the years. As presented, the impacts of the proposed additions to the cottage will be minor. The south facing wall will be penetrated by a 5' wide opening at a point that avoids any disturbance of the front cottage element The rear or west facing wall and a 346' section of the northwest comer of the cottage will be removed to allow the addition of a proposed bedroom element'Ihe Designer will work with the engineer to assure that the proposed changes are done in manner that preserves the structural integrity of the cottage. The second structure is a storage shed located on the alley at the property's southwest comer. It measures 21' by 8' 6" and is no taller than 6' 6"at its highest point The structure has a shed roof that slopes to the alley. It is the Applicanfs intention to move this structure eastward 20'. Attachment 4, #2 We have included a report from Maggert and Associates concerning our plans concerning impacts to 1}l e cottage and the feasibility of moving the alley shed. As this application will describe, the proposed additions and renovations to this property will have very limited structural impacts on the existing cottage. It is the Applicanes intention to leave the exisâ‚¬ng structure alone as much as is possible. As can be seen in the accompanying schematic plans, the proposed addition to the south side of the cottage is purposely separated from the exisling structure by a minimum of 5'.This will minimize the poten~al of damage to the cottage during construction of the addi~on. 'Ihe two structures are to be connected at a 5' wide by 5' long glass enclosed hallway. While this element helps limit any structural impacts to the cottage it also responds to the Commission's suggesâ‚¬on (at a work session on Apcil 227 that the new and old elements have a very pronounced separalion.The minor addidon to the west will also have a pronounced visual and structural separation from the existing structure. Unlike most projects involving similar properties in the West Und, it is not the applicanfs intention to lift the structure and build a new foundalion and basement The Applicant truly likes , and wants to preserve the structure's sloping floors and general funkiness. Attachment 4,#3 Does not apply. Attachment 4, # 4 The development plan is as follows; the cottage will remain in it's present location and will be altered as described in the response to Attachment 4, #1. 'Ihe shed will be moved intact or in pieces 20' to dle south as indicated on the site plan. C[he projec4 as proposed, will be in keeping with the general character of the surrounding neighboihood. The overriding goal of the design of the addilion and Ws relalionship to the existing cottage was to create building that while lager than the existing cottage, would "read"as secondary to it'Ihis concept and the fact that the exisâ‚¬ng cottage and shed will remain essen~ally intact are very inuch in keeping with the context of the neighborhood and the Commission's review standards. To minimize the perceived size of the addition the entry level floor has been placed 14" below the floor level of the cottage. 'Ihis was done in an attempt to stay well below the maximum allowable height of 25' to the mid poklt of the roof. As proposed the mid point of the roof is 19' above grade and the highest ridge does not exceed 23' above grade, 7 shorter than the allowable height To create a composition that is compatible and contextural to the West End neighborhood the design has been comprised of a grouping of small elements. These elements Inimic the shapes, scale and massing of the neighboring houses. 'Ihe most obvious aspect of the design's response to concerns about scale is the division of the project into two disdnct elements. The project will be perceived as two residences of relatively small scale. Attachment 5 Does not apply. Attachment 6 In a pre-application meeting with Amy Guthrie it was detennined that the proposed project will be considered a "parbl demolilion" and will be a one step application process. Attachment 7 As instructed by Amy Guthrie the propergr will be posted with a sign st=ing time and location of the meeting of the H.P.C. ten days prior to that meeting. An affidavit with photo will be provided at the time ofthe meetvng. Response to Residential Design Standards Review Issues Attachment 1, #1 thru #5 The required neighborhood block plan, site plan, elevations, floor plans, and photographic panorama accompany this submittal. Attachment 2 The applicant requests that the H.P.C. grant variances from the following Residential Design Review Standards. Building Orientation 'Ihe project, as presented, deviates from the design standard referring to Building Orientation. Our intentions to skew #le structuir 15 degrees from parallel to the street were discussed in our appearance before lhe HP.C. in a wotic session on April 224. As we stated at the â‚¬me, the idea of skewing the addition on the south side of the cottage was part of an effort to make this element "read" as less important than, and secondary to, the exisdng cottage. 'Ihe orientation of the two slructures is meant to gbe the impression that the new structure is paying respect to, or it could be said, bowing to the existing cottage. The practical atguments for skewing the addition are many, most of which can only be explained graphically in our presentation to the Commission. Entry Orientation The design being presented deviates from the Entry Orientaion design standard in that the entry door faces 6'b Street which is the shorter side of the block.This matter was also discussed at the work session on April 224- It was our perception that there was a consensus of the Commission and Staff that; the eldsting entry door and porch of the cottage orients to 6* Sweet therefore the new entry should also orient to 66 Street Build-To Lines The desim being presented deviates from the Build-To I.ines des* standard. Ihis matter was also discussed at the work session and again it was felt that Commission and St~f agreed that this standard should not apply to this project. If this standard were applied to this project it would force all of any addition to be located at the front setback and would thereby obscure any view of the cottage when approached fium the south. I think there was agreement that the location of the cottage should determine where the other elements are located. It is the opinion of the Applicanfs representative that the three standards sited above are the only review standards that the proposed project deviates from. I wouldhope that the Commission would agree that the requested variances make sense for this project and are in keeping with the overall intent of the Neighborhood Design Review Standards. Â»11 1 - C A UÂ«22) Davida K Panico Coulter Cottage H.P.C. Application .$-*41 -\=222554- g Fork Rd / N toe// \ w Gille. 1 St / i pearl \ j -1 \ 1, A . 0 4 il 'r 2 % h 0 7 4 -b m , 2 2 4 i / y / 1/ e N 1 I. 5/ 4 i CouhrComge117 N I Sbdh St. Aspen, CO 81811 | Ci. St , 4 i C =tÂ®en 0-7- 1 : 8**,40 4 \ 0 P-\ \ kj - f 1 4 -441 .Hohn, Toad 0-7.---2* 4 -76100 -% 1.- 2.-,0 PO' -44.- -bÂ«8.- 7 0/ - / 7'Â«. \2 2, L-1 2/ Na nom'~-Â£- ~ Re?- DA -i tz/---EUC-- 1 1 J / 7 -15..195.94 2- //.acs, / Gli ---9.- 6,1 . - youse j planet .440Â£ U-=-2 s./ â„¢-1 * l 1 0 AÂ®en\*me Neg jul 9 /-1. 00 60Â£ LocAT toN MAP@ COUCTEZ 0:37-TAct E- $ Rd 1 1 1 1 U.-I------- /- 1 ly r --- ------1.-------------7 'fh<- 0-3 , . . 1 r..........---1 . 1----- 1 j X L lr---1 U --------0 1. 1 1 - .1-- P.d 1 60't I -4 r- ' . 60 - 1 4/4 ___ / <Et--fr ki, 0**WI f'*l/ Fal<TYIR I j 1 . 1 1 - ~ -#3~ w \UÂ«233Â£ )/i - M-G~\etE~ ~ 0 0 - . elli , 1- .1 -Nele,He,OR.WBjp 1 1 1. '1 /El 1 1 1 ":7--21 : -1 . 501 1 E M I 'll 313--1,& 14/ 1 '1 2 'll JI : 1 17 'Jit/47<...Â·Â· 0 1 X \ // me. 4 0 4>9 1 , X B T7r-1 % 0 L 5. ~ K. l. M. N. o, R Q. IE 0 - ix 1/ 1 4 P- 3 -- DX 1-1 9 1 [3 11 1\6 8. rl 24 726 - 7/2 q 700 ER _ _ _~- 4"W. Pipe. 19 (M)1 -----========--===-===========TA= SOM - --14 Zlf y 75 2 11 /1 I rrn-â€ž /.4 -2* 7~7 b =61 t~ F-~ D -0 9 12 2 1 1 x KI Z rh n (OLD). 1 -- 0Â£F[~L J_ -1-K- f. 41. *41 0 I, A E. E 6. 1/. B. E 7 1 11 18 4 _132] N Li' 1 3><E >< >41 1 11 'd. x/ o 11 S. K. L. M. N. o. R R. S. t 1/ 4 1 571 11 J n / 1 11 - 11 4 Lpil 0 12 - '1 iD* ~,D~ Dw ;D X - L.-, *\ 1 11 34 91 X, 14 14 14 IL !: 1,9 1.1. Ic, 7 , 6 4 J U / 1 134 720 714 712 703 (700) lie t 4-W.Pipe. ==== = = 9.-4,-2 l. .gtzL qh$ T Prm 707/4 745 7,1~9 , 191 1 6 i 1 11 [3-3* 1. 9'1 1/ LL-Â£1 17--12.Zft -7:--7 7-121: 7NICE |/ D < 1/ Il 17 4 D ~ 101 ri 1- 0 1 Dll t. rrT * Â· Fi- *rr--- --1 , 1 If- 6 1/ .0 , . 6 1 '. 1 .7,6,Â· 14*0> 5 - r. . f .~ iE. 57: /.f-* r , 4, a fsÂ«442% ~ -- . =29Â»212 3..#2---7>71:3~2 -- g ,#ial - .' 4 -/. e i i"r-+A. , 9:34/ , + /V # ~â€¢-.3, '-Ay vit# Wi . - *pr -144 .*/ , f.Â£Ned'Wh. ' 2 .L'Ir .72'- ..1-D'y--hâ‚¬A, 476 - B i .,40 I , i./4.69"~ . - 91 '<f. 4-ve h etryl.$1. . /4. P A :~A:/Â·*,t ..4~ ~~~ i~ ~4~~~;~3,7%27... , G '- . ~~'4 . .4 : ;.4,4, ~ji' - ~95 -, *r~~AIAYW :2,p. 171 .tâ€¢,- aqi. " 7.fify %-. .. LARMIJAÂ»*Â·AÂ·L, I . I e ., 1k~ 42.$ v' ill.#+ 4 -efilio- .A . 4 ..2. , aâ€ža : , r 4 rf. R ' , , ~L - D. i 9,-,1, 4 .4 - #,Liurqj,AVA.#Â·Mi"'* 5#60*riLiÂ£' - 4,1*4 & -I'i'*A''t 4 +4110*.. U ./7. b - 4* c'* â€¢2:- 3% Â·Â· - 1 I'lf'95*: 4, 3. . - 0. 49.F~ '. vi; 6/:... . -.-32 -17~ r *B< . ..4 '' . .2.1.- . 9* ' 404 4 I t- A A. 4149*,",4, i.~9, 2.1. . 0 m.t."m"Nt *7 - U..11. '132 . Â° f$2 Â·24.4.,/4.:4.Â·Ry 12,1.Ary,q*.~.67~&,.~~,"" 21*4*' . t,+ Â»*e. /< - -:22 2 7...11 . " â€¢LA' ' .6- 0, f I ./*// Â· .40-GMETV' 7 , - 9, rAA'-70.3 fo ~.,1 7.1,0 - U 5. A *' t'O:~Aoan~~12'ED!'2'4â€¢ - -' 6*26.Sita#At &9236(1*/Â·i E-5 1,4/NA,/9,~7 / ...81' . f . W I & * FVM-4 1~;44 ~,~ 4'i-~i~~~~kNORDâ‚¬ 9 -~~-~-, Â»jil,72~$24 .fii' 444% Cy' .A u I .43 2+ 1 4 U..4 'r 2*ke-77.. '' * 4%.,vi,gâ„¢*tlig#U.:224~ P . . # *Jilit~84,1 & w Â»e - 4 ..1 , , 46;049* :=a- * 2- r r v.râ€¢ y , . Z.-W..,e~ . :-:/, . 243' . 1 .~%~146*L, - -,t 9,1 ~--.. a.g' ik- ,~ '23~~~143~ c 246 Â·:.4.-' -*1 - ~ith:At . . I I .. . ..,d> d 3..LEA W * 4~3>1* ,, .49; A j . ..w w, . + 10~01 -â‚¬, 2,16**50 34=. li A* Ii. 4->6 4 ./4 4- ./ 1 'R.0 : 1- .f . 71 ~ Â· ~ -,~ppit-~ â€ž 944; r -A-jl,lid:- >k'.ttÂ· K o . .....'. I - M :4. 4 .t 42~ 39.'r:~.,/ ..... . I -lillfll#l@=471 +3*~r,01,4- ~* T '9 :i ./ -.... y i '' . ,/Lu*23*iÂ»*8~/6 7~ >7 6 + .-, ma ' 6Â«21.4 . 4 ,-us=.1446.'99&*A#0.1 . , 4- ~ 4< .- T~~,<*#6 p - 9,4.fly .-7/f 4 /2. .. I 1 .1 i 4â€¢-4 1% p. ~/4~L ~~~,~ ~ 64~42.2*,0.. , 7, er , 1/. ly .' I I .l 1 ../. m,4 14&*51/ L L - '."n Vy#JI .f'.m AÂ¢ /. ./'*~.A~k: .-FU?Â·'~: '&.~.~.~~..~t...~..: 1 /-- b imb/j. * -13Â»* + A I. Gl/&P.' :Ar 4/WA' r>â€ž -2 9, 4,0 .3**A..4$. 04 14. -1 241 Â»t . . . 4 '429 ,- f Â· e.r -14 12&Â¢ 02 $ -41r .&- /;,891&,tr,#h~I**0Â£4#Zi~A:iyh*lit, .7 t . 1@9%' + ' '~4Â·~. 14 -.~: ftpa I .- ... AAÂ·, L#**44 :454#der , * ,> e Ir , 0 , . 644 4/ , * -h' V rea :19#i /-10 , I - U. - I. 4 -11* ' p '*Fe' ....~.4.*21 . - .h .:.0* . 1, I. g .4.' , 43-JI.. 0... . 4, I. e,- :Â£<Al- - I k . I '1 U~Â£1'441'Â·'2-e '*0:F' .: 7 ~ ~29 443Â§1 .46'; Â£ 0+ ,:A: + 44- 1 1 . I . Ve Re /6 .6- /4. - A.. % - ..0. j /4 5 gAT u 7 * 1 ~< 4*t .fyÂ»1 ~ , A ' IlrurÂ·-- 34 , mu-â€¢A ':/ , r;ifii'~ ~3 ~- ,/ Id Â« 3 I 4. Â·wÂ·.v I I t 9 I. 41â‚¬ .. # .,4,; P I f. : ".3 ..4-: .:/4 4Â¥ . , 6.6/4,1,2 11, 1 4 -4//- 4, 9,42,>73-;4,~~t~~t. ~~ ~f,R''flÂ¢Jf# ~ .i, I . *145*aÂ©k, J . r -1 ' 'f ' -. 494! . 4 2 Â£07 1 1 6 63 1-99 1- 1 1 4 '. " C.MTIJ.0-1,4 2 0#K ' M 1. wi:ff,â‚¬aâ‚¬44"i"9'.â‚¬ '- ..'JA>%'t,4:41,24 ,#-1-,; 1 4 â€¢ m,Ait.. -4 - it-. 1 .- 7'Pli',2 <.7 Â«4%;5.4449.42,Â»42 # A'-. t.u:4 064 - * r*23*2444.1 44 9, - 7.4 Â£2.t , 1, '.,. 1,5 9.,kof/ 2.:, .4 /,(lt,r, ' . , '19 I . . 4 Nâ€¢W, , 143 If*,1 :67,5 . ., $241.52 I #- 0 ' ' 0/Mmill'liw~1.4 ~ - ...2 - 92} I.'1~ . '42 . 9*# â€¢4 ..1 I " U ,-- , , 02Â¥3" 7( 9 ~'' r . ,Â«142 : . â€¢1 ... , 4. . tkier.:,C r 0 - , ..it'it, 02 . rd , I. , /4: F, *9*E - 4 Its .2 21 . 4,447. *,7 2 I-/-*. , I ... 714: // :+ -9, Aft .3 F.-*,4 1 k INA 9 . I . I â‚¬4 92% I.Â¥:s.....4*--'' 'Â·1-:-, .'. â€¢h -1 i 1 9 Af -4 1 / 1 1 1 4 Iit)(terINA i . 96 - .1-- -1 i./.91 -1 i I 4/0 1 .,fÂ·Â¥orof't#Â·4 c.ofwte z 1+ 2 .47 97019 11 , To *e / ptmove,P '.,....13=3ngi--96 L --2 4.0 , k ..oxt':22 1 'TZEÂ£A Â«ro 60% 1- 0 0 5,1 7 ,/ 1 ..,>Â»4492>3 0 - -~ .4.-yttv'.ac.Â»409 - uÂ·9-2 J..t. 4,<.2.45..~.7. E-7 /0 ?poop O 5%9 . I \Â·>.. Â·.. ..04\.il Ar .2.bittoÂ«>52>uk 1 Â¢*07\TiON - ---9KhÂ·4 )0.4027*Ah.ifi~ 1, . 24>.i<t~4:1%2/0,>'.1 \\ I , . ./,. 4 4/41 I / 1 1 i ,<44 1 1 I ' // 9 4 -><1> | 1 1 . ~ 7202023 MEN --- 7 flbpotâ‚¬P 20[40 ON Of ' . efre>r #xic,rt "61 SHâ‚¬P A 0./r.M 1 - / 1 0 EX ,-Â·T't 4. S . * 0 5*21 1 1 I 'Â»FofecTÂ¥ Ber.Â§ A 6, 1- 0 - LING i. O / O - - , 6 09#14'- C b ~ic \ - O L 0 00 9' 0 0 0 0 2/7 * 64~ D Sl *-1-h s.bviuJF 8 1-E- st DESIGN BY DAVID PANI CO INC-ORPORATED 970 923 5394 PHONE FAX 970923 1260 BOX FÂ·3 ASPEN COLORADO 81612 1- A . 7.* 4 - -9/In 25,0,eâ‚¬X . "ME,Bahi=*41. 1 I W.f L..LO/ 1%. 1 ~1711Qi. 4 m - --9. ir L Â» Cr - c - 2-~:2Â· - .--Â·LU â€¢-rFI f-1 DATE OF ISSUE ' 1 . +1 1 Il'll ~11 1 P ._14 1-rli ~B==fll T=P rp-:Â·Â· E-u- 2 , :-- i.r= r - i' i K :-I i U i EÂ· 1.- .r --1 t . REVISION DATES . - HJ 1 1-- 11 - 1 - _ -- =ttz-r ; ~~ RE *- c- t#l di_0 -- 1 bll,4 72/LI f~ ' i.' Â· 1, 1 6 Â· - .412Â·In Â·Â·11 4 i--- it 01 L T tâ€¢ 1 1 - i j-- --4 . - 0, - ' i ' P 1,-4-*1*=--TriFQ .6 1 - 1- ===.ElEE ' 1 L 0. - . CO-ULTE.Ill COTT-8.-25â‚¬.--Â· -fi **_I_SL â‚¬.vATI<:Irkl â€¢---3-ULY_.2[tl112) ..72-t/27" ~ 1 1- 5> 'i - - - SHEET # UL 2- h OF 4 i . 1 1 -- DESIGN -- BY Â· , DAVID - PANICO INCORPORATED 1 1 -- ' ' PHONE 970 923 5394 + FAX - 970 923 1260 . BOX F-3 ASPEN COLORADO 81612 . a - I -; 1 1 .Â».. 9 1 . -- 1 -- -- I I. ...... 1 1 1.:11/!:, i:i'J %4141' b, --- -- -- Iii It/,1, / il - ...t. - 1:1'IL 4 -:+ 0-I I 4 $., .13'Fl k .4.4--4-.- 11 illi 1 1 lit i It t '. 4 , . t. 1, ttl,1.i: :. 5 - 6. i' 11! i 1.-*1 +.1:i .11 1 " i . 1!j! 2.11 i --- .t . ... , ...1.4 4. r. 1 +. - .. DATE OF ISSUE . i ry-ryrril i 1. :i. :.41 : . 11': 1: - Â·Â· . 1 r . .. ~! i : ;~ F ~; '~li REVISION DATES t/+HI.: Ill' -1.-- . ' p -REFI i i i~14 j I *_ 1 11 0 il i'-Ily. 1 -ill - 1. MS<.[ ~~ I li ; -- - It li il -- :' bli . .t. It. 1 1 j , 1. 1-1 Â·1 t ;".i 1 1, , 81'p - 1-- - - --- +I -,7- i - -71553 - 31 = 4Â£k}-u-i--T-6 8.--CoTT A LS E *9230TU E-LE-VAT Le-N-4 --3-ULY' 21, }11'25 - - 1 E-IUJFTI 6 - OF .S 1,65 DESIGN BY DAVID PANICO INCORPORATED U , 970 923 5394 PHONE FAX 9709231260 BOX F-3 ASPEN COLORADO 81612 - Ng I . --- 1 - I ' i .1- . ! . 11 . 1 1 1 %- -1 1 .r ':i.,i \ 1 i - DATE OF ISSUE - - N. t 1 - ' ; REVISION DATES - I .t â€ž 1 1: 1 L. J t ... r. 1 , .-- I iIi - ., IECECIZIZEZIZIC32II*ICEErLE-INEWEESILDELIIMANICEN- -*72- O--EX--2-t 11[17LZ)- ---22 0 - T SHEET # u-3 OF DES'IGN BY DAVID PANIC O INCORPORATED PHONE 970 923 5394 FAX 1 1 lili BOX Fâ€¢3 970 923 1260 ASPEN COLORADO 81612 t i. \ i - --il.=2.2*=2==Z=~~Z~*----1~ 1 1 4 : : 1 - --- - ~ DATE OF ISSUE .r - U .1.d--- ..,1.1 -. 1 1 '11 . 111211L1*IN'*El'*U# I REVISION DATES ~ 1 ' i.; i.l lili . E l- 1 i i 111 Ill 1 111%' 1.. 1 , till 1 . C=== W[ lit Ii, 22 -C--O -CRUILE_-e _ ..C.D-1--T.*Im-E.LEIJA._0._g-73Â·L-im-Lf.E->CAT10_-4--122_Uk_Y' 32 1 6 -191 0 ~ SHEET # ~ -0 -1619 ~__ ~ ---~ 1 C==1 I - . I . -* ~ -0- - DESIGN* ' ; . 16 4 - JI _A . *. - -1--Illi - 93-1 - I - BY .. . 2 . '7.f- - 1 DAVID . * - : ~ ~ ~~ -- :- -i - 29----2- -j~e IB~~I----2*~~-~~~~.-- PANIC O 1 21--- C_Â¥-1 53: INCORPORATED ' , . 7>Â·L ~ ~.~ ~~ ~ --~- .L': 4.-94 9 - - - LAUNO,eÂ¥ - $ .- - . ... 1.- -S---- - -I 1 I i PHONE . , a#nit. 970 923 5394 / -.'- - ' -+. FAX I - =ei=3210Â£Â»4- '- i ---Te-irrOLD:n.-: Â·. ,- ._ - - . -- r -411. . r - -2-1 1=6â€¢: \ - - . 970 923 1260 Â· i , b. . ./ 1 ... BOX F,3 1--m I. - I , -6. -- ' ~ - ASPEN COLORADO p h m :- 1- . . - 81612 . L 1 -jeuk . - .--3 F F.. '.. .-I 1 +I C -,-7.- - V 2 0 j , I.. tern- . 1 .I-' . O { il . t. . , k. 1 - - X . Â·Â· . i, ~' - .biwtza-~-4 3 - t.~: f--12-Â·.-- , -- .. 4.- iziti~* - - .JI . i f Â·r i dtt' :' ---- 1 1 2,1, i . -- w - 1 & 1 - ve . --- --I . / - i i - _.Ze' - I I $ * I .Ii - . -1.- .-. 11 ,- .1- -14-h --- /.- - - / 0 ' DATE OF ISSUE Â· ... 3 -I -- 0 - - I- la m 1 - I 1 , , - n -~ - 7 - r rn 5 U t . . REVISION DATES L.L. ,./ ---- - -JZL-L.1~04258--2-:27--3--- 1 . ... . 1- V .1: - 9 1~ 14- . - - . it ' . W I \" -r t ... 1 . - 3/0 t. . - - m- . i . 1--a .. - I - . I. + - ~ * - I L -SHEET # 6 Â· +Wormt*--Amt -â‚¬+.42- -5 --F b T co N . -40 'T) COULT C K, C (*TY-Â«*-9- - -L--9 W'E K L EV E L Â· J ULÂ¥ et, 119 b -#KFâ‚¬rrm/340023: i F /6 0 = 1 1 - O" - 1 --- -- - -- . - -h t OF L -1 - - 41 - - . .. . . 4.- 4Â·0 1 ... DESIGN -:- BY * .- DAVID .. PANICO . 311 1 U ID X.- 1,NCORPORATED L : . -1 - PHONE - 970 923 5394 - 11-11: 22.4 - 1.4 - . 4 3... r .... I --- 9 Â¥ FAX = 11 - 1-i ? . - -0 - 970 923 1260 , . U ... 192 - BOX FÂ·3 ASPEN COLORADO 81612 4 + - -- to . / - .- r- -. - t 3%4 - t \ 1//- - 1 DATE OF ISSUE ~044-+4 -- - REVISION DATES '. -7 . \1 + ..0 I. I . -4 . .--1-.111, . .-' . -- .+ A -#. 4 --- - -- - I SHEET # -- 6 COULTER COTTAOt Â· U PF t & LEVIL- 3 U-LY Zi -t !196 1/8' - 1'1 -011 OF .-- .