The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.199503084 .- 0 AGENDA / ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION March 8, 1995 REGULAR MEETING SECOND FLOOR CITY HALL 5:00 I. Commission and Staff Comments (409 E. Hopkins-material changes) II. Public Comments III. NEW BUSINESS 5:15 A. L 624 E. Hopkins- Conceptual F,U. p'kÂ·,4/ki.gÂ£;;{L,f,7 &/7 6:10 B. 204 S. Mill, Collins Block- Mi-nop4.j;~pt 50<0. 6:30 C. 11)The Office Zone (Main Street Historic District)- 3 Worksession 7:00 D. G)Aspen Physics- Referral commenteltiâ‚¬~4,Â¥0*~AÂ· 7:20 E. Form working groups for revisions to design guidelines and maintenance guide 7:25 F. Update project monitor assignments 7:30 G. Maroon Creek Bridge- Table to April 12, 1995 IV. OLD BUSINESS 1431 k- A. None. 7:30 V. PROJECT MONITORING 7:40 VI.ADJOURN HPC PROJECT MONITORING HPC Member Name Project/Committee Joe Krabacher 801 E. Hyman AHS Ski Museum Aspen Historic Trust-Vice Chairman 612 W. Main 309 E. Hopkins (Lily Reid) 617 W. Main 312 S. Galena - MD (Planet Hollywood) Highway Entrance Design Committee Donnelley Erdman The Meadows (Chair-Sub Comm) 442 W. Bleeker (Pioneer Park) Collins Block/Alley Wheeler-Stallard House 624 E. Hopkins 304 E. Hopkins 234 W. Francis 204 S. Mill - Collins Block 220 W. Main - European Flower 930 King Street Leslie Holst Holden/Marolt Museum (alt.) In-Town School Sites Committee Aspen Historic Trust-Chairman 824 E. Cooper 210 S. Mill 303 E. .Main Alt 312 S. Galena - MD (Planet Hollywood) City Shop - 1080 Power Plant Road 506 E. Main - elevator 930 King Street Jake Vickery The Meadows (alternate) In-Town School Sites Committee 205 S. Mill Larry Yaw 716 W. Francis 442 W. Bleeker (Pioneer-alt.) 204 S. Galena (Sportstalker) City Hall 627 W. Main (residential-Jim Kempner) 232 E. Hallam ACES City Shop 1080 Power Plant Road St. Mary's Church windows Roger Moyer CCLC Liaison 334 W. Hallam Aspen Historical Society 409 E. Hopkins 303 E. Main 311 W. North Farfalla lights outside 210 Lake Avenue (alternate) Marolt Museum Karen Day Cottage Infill Program 134 E. Bleeker 435 W. Main Swiss Chalet 311 W. North 304 E. Hopkins 121 S. Galena Martha Madsen 620 W. Hallam (alternate) 100 Park Ave. (alternate) 214 W. Bleeker (alternate) 132 W. Main 520 E. Cooper Unit 406 715 W. Smuggler Linda Smisek 134 E. Bleeker 210 Lake Avenue 305 Mill St. Su Casa Tom Williams 130 S. Galena - City Hall 300 W. Main - fence McDonalds 323 W. Main St. Aspen Medical Center Pending Issues - Meadows site visit for inventory 702 W. Main - Stape - Conceptual Development approved Sept 8, 1993 220 W. Main - European FLower Market Final April 20, 1994 35-A. MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission From: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer Re: 624 E. Hopkins Avenue, Conceptual Development- Public hearing Date: March 8, 1995 SUMMARY: The applicant requests Conceptual development approval to construct a new residence on a vacant lot. HPC approved demolition of a Victorian residence on this property five years ago, with the condition that the Commission would review the redevelopment plan. This site is outside of the Commercial Core Historic District, therefore only Development Review Standards B,C and D under apply. The property is zoned C-1 (Commercial). Residential uses are permitted by right. APPLICANT: Marcia and Phillip Rothblum, represented by Lipkin Warner Architects. LOCATION: 624 E. Hopkins Avenue, Lot Q and the west half of Lot R, Block 98, City and Townsite of Aspen. SITE, AREA AND BULK INFORMATION: Please see the attached information, provided by the applicant. Development Review Standards 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: Design review of this site is challenging for a number of reasons. First, it is outside of the Commercial Core Historic District, so the area is not thoroughly addressed in the "Historic District and Historic Landmark Development Guidelines" or the "Neighborhood Character Guidelines. " Secondly, this particular block has a great diversity of architectural styles, forms, and building types and does not address the streetscape in a particularly unified manner. Staff has attached a 1"=50' scale map of the area, with the proposed project shown to give the Commission more information about the context. The applicant proposes a modern design which respects the basic forms of the adjacent commercial buildings (block- like, flat-roofed), but which has a residential character. Staff finds that the overall scale of the structure and detailing is appropriate to this area. The building steps back from the street in some areas and there is some variety in heights and material treatments. (The design as proposed show the building to be well below the maximum height limit of 40') Staff's primary concerns with the design have to do with the treatment of the front setback. Except for the KSNO building which is immediately to the west of the review site, the buildings in this area generally have a 10' front setback. This project proposes a 25' front setback, with a front yard which is landscaped and elevated slightly above the street. Although this is a residence, the zone district is commercial and commercial buildings typically form a strong edge along the sidewalk. It is possible that at some time in the future this building could convert to commercial use. The elevated yard also seems somewhat incompatible with the character of the area, however some sort of pedestrian feature such as the low wall (as a place to sit) or a garden would be a benefit to the neighborhood. HPC generally discourages locating lightwells in the front yard and on other facades which are adjacent to a street. The basement level bedrooms do need an egress window and these cannot be located along the sides of the building. Staff recommends the lightwells be reduced to the minimum size required. The rooftop skylights should be as low in profile as possible. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Response: There are three Victorian structures across the street from this site. The proposed building will not detract from them, and in that it may strengthen the pedestrian character of this block, the proposed building may enhance their significance. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: No historic structure is directly impacted by this proposal. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: 1) Conceptual approval as proposed, finding that the Development Review Standards have been met. 2) Conceptual approval with conditions, to be met at Final. 3) Table action and continue the public hearing to a date certain, allowing the applicant time to revise the proposal to meet the Development Review Standards. 4) Deny Conceptual Development approval, finding that the Development Review Standards have not been met. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC table the Conceptual Development application for 624 E. Hopkins, directing the applicant to restudy the depth and treatment of the front setback and to reduce the size of the lightwells on the north to the minimum size required for egress. Elevations of the east, west and south facades will be required for Conceptual approval. Additional Comments: MZmCHMENT 1 - IAND OSE APPIICAECN FEEM Â¢ . 21.,- -Al 1 I - 1 i. rl A - O 1 -tr e 0, 06 -r \/ Project location i 9 / . -r tÂ»r 1421Â¤l >4, < , C/3 , -/-1 1-L /02 /0 - 21 . 13~â€žack:L- 1% . 4,l-Trr z. i ~ 0 5,7-9 .09__429+4 (inlicate st:reet address; lot & block nmber, legal descrirti on Were appmpriate) A 3) Present Zoning 0- -U 4) Iot Size leoÂ© Ct] 5') Applicarit's Name, A,liress & RY)ne # ~AB-Cl k Â£ 13-0 (/1 0 2..ar;+SLU M A A n < t...L, 9 - 432,4 1 69 -7 .2 0-T y -t- 1 * n 0 \ 1 1\ 21:t0 1 ./ 2- =-0-~ t.*( Al <i C.yE-/ ,/4 9 e n .*lii.O 1 \. 9 01 0- 1 C 4 F r~ k ~~ % 1 - 7) Type of Application (please check all that apply): CXELiticral Use C=noeptial SPA _3~ C:rreptual Idstoric Dev. SE-i,1 Review Firal SPA Final wi =tccic Dev. 8040 Greefiline ~ Conceptual FUD - Mimr Historic Dev. Stream Margin Final POD Historic Demolition Mountain View Plane - Subdivisian Historic Desigration Ccxvir-,inilmii zation - Texty'Map Al-rvorrirr.~It (2,1~N; Allatmerrt Iat Split/Int Line GMOS Fxp,ution Adjust=merrt 8) approximate sq. ft.; rtmber of bedroans; any preevicus approvals grarrted tb tie Descziption of Existing Uses (Inmber ani type of existing stmntures; pruperty)- . - i \Â·l AÂ·GLO-f \\,/0 f 9) Description of Development Application Er\Â« AnÂ©ceâ‚¬-00 40 /4 ve@-34/A u 10) Have you attached the follaing? Â«' Respcnse to Attadmerit 2, Minint= Subnissign 00[Itents v-~ Response to Attadmart 3, Specific Submission Corrtents - Resporse to Attadlment 4, Review Stardards for Your Application 1111111 SUPPLEMENT TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS IMPORTANT Three sets of deact*-labeled drawings must be submitted in a format no larger than 11 x17-, OR one dozen sets of blueprints may be submitted in lieu of the 11-x17- format. 4. 411/ ~~7 -, n, 'Â· L -' APPLICANT: 7, *LL,1. 1 4-0 3-'*'19 2 J MI ADDRESS: C / 4, ur 4>'.krr- 4438Â« 41 6 . ZONE DISTRICT: (-/ 4, 4300 , LOT SIZE (SQUARE FEET): . 4 6 EXISTING FAR: 1\6 .; a 1 97 7 9 ./ C. ALLOWABLE FAR: /7 1.~,~.. PROPOSED FAR: ./ 1-/ 9 .. 97.91 . EXISTING NET LEASABLE (commerdal): 9 /1 PROPOSED NET LEASABLE (commercial): C,LL EXISTING % OF SITE COVERAGE: 0.9. PROPOSED % OF SITE COVERAGE: EXISTING % OF OPEN SPACE (Commercial): Â· n 01 I. , 1 PROPOSED % OF OPEN SPACE (Commer.): . r. 1 f EXISTING MAXIMUM HEIGHT: Prindcal 81dc.: N f k / Accessory Bldg: u /71 PROPOSED MAXIMUM HEIGHT: Princical Bldc.: 1- r 5-- Â· 0..1 Â·< / Accessory Bldc: 9 1- PROPOSED % OF DEMOUTION: 4 P ' i . EXISTING NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: ...1 .- PROPOSED NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: 5 %11% EXISTING ON-SITE PARKING SPACES: ON-SITE PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: SETBACKS: EXISTING: ALLOWABLE: PROPOSED: /7 el (th Front: k: 41 Front: d Front: - -7 ... / Reac C./ L Rear: 4 Rear: Side: C. /1 Side: d Side: Combined Front/Rear: C / k. Combined Frt/Rr: 0 Combined Front/Rear: (Da ./0,(t \ EXISTING NONCONFORMITIEW ENCROACHMENTS: U /k- VARIATIONS REQUESTED (elicible for Landmarks Onlv: character comoalibilitv findinc must be made bv HPC): FAR: 1 Minimum Distance Between Buildngs: SETBACKS: Front: \ Parking Spaces: Rear. \ Open Space (Commercial): 1 Side: i Height (Cottage Infill Only): Combined FrtiRr: Site Coverage (Cottage Infill Only): \ . F B NIghthawl- \ 4 Â·S 1 -9 *AL --- 'P<, %449.1% %16 6 Magnifico Acl 4 cached Rd S 06,0 4 ~- -Creek 1-(64> l 411>44%< t,Cl / A--1 I-I . i sawst/23321.FFZkE:ir/, 4/ f AN -1 - Aspen r , --:4573039.11<... 46 41 + Hunter G - : Ins#tute; 4 . 0 . 2,149,&~ 4i ,-I r, 14 - t:/1. 72Â·-2 ury/<*~~ANdl- F 1% i / 3 ' 5 Music -- . V -t-f-~7Â·Â·,L.4 9.- < 14% - Tent.i:i:-8 \~/1.Wood D ck Â£0 4 1 0 I 1m *7- r itidign 1 / Not every street or road is ~ GU/esple St \ named on maps or listed in < P Ct - 1-ake * Ch -7 street guides. Construction of U streets and roads may be in f 1\ 41,nest *4 progress in certain areas. ~ A . 6 460R *LE--4Â©nAbls â‚¬ . 441 3 49 2-#f'.7.40 m e ./ 8 e 8. 84 8* 241 s * 'â€¢ eir- Â¥51 -'4 ' ; 4 Maple Ln......G-6 4 " A A 413 / Marion Pl...H-2-3. . . / 4 6.93 el? r Maroon Ck Rd..G-H-1-2 -0 4 -C- Smuggler Maroon Ct, Dr .............F-1 -1 = . an v o St j <~R ~0' St 4,47 Rd Matchless Dr....... ..G-H-6 0 ./ Mayflower Ct..................H-I-7 , e e McSkimming Rd..........H-I-7 b.' G,b.,9 4- 5Â¥49-- 1 co : 4 ,-- A Q Meadow Dr.............G-H-2 Meadows Rd.. ..F-G-3~40,7 ~ I**2 1~.per v? - 9 , Â«- b -4 . p 2 Â¢ Midland Av........ NrntcKELJff L~~-5~ 2 2 7'-~ 25Â·"y,Â·- ~m ,--j-~- ; St ~ek, 14\[Â© Mountain View Dr....,..............E-2-3 i~6 2- 4 SummR Mtn Laurel Ct. Dr .............22...1-3-8- i - + 6 '4,6. *Mr<568 7 - Mtn Oaks Pl..............................H-2 - - ,\ Rd - &19 6 . -"T,4. 0 < .Icy ~) ,~9 41#Din Grove Neale Av................... .............H-6 1 1 J As - Nighthawk Dr..............................E-5 â€ž *,sp! 317. f LIC..Ir-,R 'gi~ f:'* YO?i - 12â€¢~~~~--Â·~4 North St....................................F-3-4 1 r' _ 1 -% 1 Wesndew/2 Oak Ln........................................G-6 River Dr .......4..................E-3 7 '75 -~ -,M*16~ - EM .F D* i Riverside Av..1.....................H-6 Ute P' Cg-2 -ee --65.- EcauÂ·\PE Original St................................H-I-6 Overlook Dr ............................ E-3 Riverside Dr..1.....................1-6-7 - 2-4 2 - 0 + 42 911 -12.,mth;>Â·4*Or&a 0~1 Roaring Fork Dr.................â€ž........I-7 - -4- r '-1 4 -6,4;7Â£4Â» ,~J' ;3~~--.4....33 < G& Av, Cir.................................H-6 - 10 9, F.1 Roaring Fork Rd......................F-4-5-- - 1.9-1 % 4 \r Vicinity Map 1. Meadow.7iI.-32.0 MEELEL// 1 , 624 East Hopkins Written Description of Proposal: 3-Story masonry single-family residence with a roof terrace on the third story. Written Description of Compliance With Development Standards: This property has been through and received vested rights approval from the HPC for a previous development proposal. A June 24, 1994 HPC memorandum states the standards that were applicable at that time. These same standards will be applicable for this proposal; they are 'B' and 'C' listed in attachment 4 of the application packet. B' --Effect on the character of the neighborhood: The present neighborhood is a transition from the commercial core to a residential neighborhood. The proposed structure will have a particular regard to the existing over- scaled commercial buildings it will sit between as well as respecting the Victorian cottages across the street and the antique residential character they embody. This one building cannot reverse the insensitive and adverse effect its immediate neighbors have imposed on the area. It can however, promote the residential character that was once prevalent in the neighborhood while acknowledging the more urban setting that now : surrounds it. In this manner we are confident that this building can only be an asset to the overall fabric of the surrounding neighborhood. 'C' --Effect on the cultural value of the parcel or adjacent parcels: The cultural value of the parcel and its neighbors will be increased as the character of the neighborhood is strengthened. The Following In-Progress Sketches Are Attached: --Site Plan --Floor Plans --Street Elevation stand.doc to. - 1 61-1 1 $ 1 ------6 0 li - C 30 0 A 11 4 . PARKING AREA ,, 1 m -i -3 It A / 1 r 1\ / 1, t C U.-, J , l -----I f 1.-4 / 4 1 , ING AREA z X ! A j 0 P -' 1 * 4.1 1 . / 1 1 #51 - I / * i ' ------J , L--4.- - <-A- ~--VF 1 Y// 31 L-- 1' 1 $ ... - Ii. 1 1 /1 , 1 1- 1 1 1 1 f-i] 1 1 --1 1 1 It 1 11 lu 1 -1 * ' . C 0 1 1 R ST ~ \. r= 90 1 4 If it C It '' 17---1 5 1 --1 E--l < t --J 1 / I 1 , L --0 P: S 1 r... 1 1 / I 1 Int 1 1 Ch ir-- 1 1 4-J //: 1 1 8.41 1 ~0-1 1 1 m 1 11 [ , _1.0 0 :h '\1 9 r--1 PARKING ' 3 AREA 1 I l /k--1 1 0 Â£ b ./r-0 l. 1 -----------41 E- 71 '11 r I II ] >. : '. 1, 4; Al Ir & 1 , 4 V x Tri ' J 4 : ill Vt.) 1'.41 F iw ---- 1 1 +4509*1:. 1 . ---- 1 X 1 1 75 1 Â©1 /1 -- 1-1 0 5 :I) Sji ; 1 / b ! o /1 1 / ll , , / /\ 1 1 - 1-L..-Â»,~ < 1: .4 1 10 ; 1 0 NG ST 0 1 i. 2 j 73 a- 1 . k, 1 ---------=b------- r-----~4 -- 1 1 -//-1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1/ X , tÂ· 11 ~1 \111 11 1 1 11 /\ 1 1 1 lic ,- 1 1 . ----Â»-----1 X 1 Z 1 71 3 2 : O 7J=:t=-i. 4 8 1 r---7- , I -----0. 1 Ix / > 6-0.6------------ X k A - \ 1 1 L 1 1 4- t / 1 0 3 1 1 -l X 7 4 f 1 1 1. 1 1 1 N' / \1 :V' d / 3 >11 1 - 11 1 1 . 1 -L , . 1 -6.5 m Â· c 9 ' :.44 1 1 > r---T- . 1 i J. , ~~48% - 2 & /11 .Â· ' ,./i ~,1 : ..1 &*f.4.t.12:V&:5*/.1 "ep 0. PARKING AREA 31 \4 -- -I-/ r~ 4 . 11 1 1 =kl_ 1.-J. -tt~ Â»1 EITI 000 ---gl --- ---1 ///0////1 Mirrch 3, 1995 HPC Conceptual Review Rothblum Residence 624 East Hopkins Aspen, Colorado f ALLEY 128- 10 1@ 1 ,/---1 1 PARKING C r 1 fel // 17Â»211 1 1 (01 IE1 * 1- lu U) 1 1 KSNO DRIVEWAY ON 632 BLDG. -1 - -- ~ E. HOPKINS LIbH T - ~ $ fc VVELL- --- 4- J Â»J-A lijjit //.PROPOdED, *EdIOE.Nce/: --- ~9~6 2 4/0.UNQPKINSÂ«<~< 1 9 4Â«99Â«9 f 1/ I n N- Iii -1 4- 1-1- 1 --- L 1 -~Â¢h.1 ILI~HTWR!-L LIGH!TWEL_ 9 111'T --~ ~-2,.~~ 1 I kn~hs:a 0 (7-> 1- <71 0 1 t-i[I ---- - 1-ow_j , Â·k_,7 :MNÂ· MASONRY MASONRY WALL WALL ~KWAY-j~ ~- ~fINTING --7~ E. HOPKINS AVE. NORTH opwioloo 'uadsv sul"doH 1%831 rt9 Ouap!Â§3N m niqqioN A.o!.aH lin,da)uoo OdH 9661 'f 431/ W d}qSJ@Ul.led u R 15 00 Â·'@UJE, U!1d!1 SETBACK 1 19'215Â· -I Il -- 1 . 1- , i---=_4, 1 Lo ... - ="=11 1 1 - 1 --. '_22_ 2 I - 1 Al#.-r I L.11.- -- 1 - -- - 11 . , -1 4116 3 i| 1- - I ---1 Emi~~~~. - 1- -- - P -22 0-- I - p..F'A 4 I Â¢Fkf"FP *501!,Pld A- $/'BPIOLL N-Dkt. OfTZ 4 K South Elevation March 3, 1995 HPC Conceptual Review Rothblum Residence 624 East Hopkins Aspen, Colorado Lipkin Warner Design Partnership sÂ© O Supte , 09>05/P , 1 -/64-'-Iil 4/-Nrt@-pick- mÂ¥** P.0 --4 - grZ 4' T East Elevation March 3, 1995 HPC Conceptual Review Rothblum Residence 624 East Hopkins Aspen, Colorado Lipkin Warner Design Partnership R */120<lsÂ·1-1 06e 1--3 ~ SOW--PIN-61- -1Px Mipic,4.- . 2-- - -- - IE-3 L fr- E3 i==2:z . - 9 0'1' 7 4' 5 West Elevation March 3, 1995 HPC Conceptual Review Rothblum Residence 624 East Hopkins Aspen, Colorado Li.pkin Warner Design Partnership 1 r F79 -Â»--- -- 1.- 1: k~3- _14-11 i . . ' I : ----I---'.< Mlill---q. Ill-i- - 2- --- MI *AGAL. W 11-el 462 . ~CJ> 2,0 ILD{ ida- kshio SLM'6, or-6 4 E North Elevation March 3. 1995 HPC Conceptual Review Rothblum Residence 624 East Hopkins Aspen, Colorado Lipkin Warner Design Partnership . 790**Ma\r>ZE - 1423 W'h \ i Am< Em , Â· ...... .'.'./ 2 1. ..,â€¢. 4, I V n 0 Q 837 - /~ - Hopkins Street Perspective March 3, 1995 HPC Conceptual Review Rothblum Residence 624 East Hopkins Aspen, Colorado Lipkin Warner Design Partnership 4 1 454-7 #9 1 VA~ 0 LAWOFFICESOF KAUFMAN & PETERSON, P.C. BROOKE A. PETERSON TELEPHONE GIDEON I. KAUFMAN * (303) 925-8166 ERIN L. FERNANDEZ " 315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE FACSIMILE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (303) 925-1090 ROBYN J. MYLER - March 6, 1995 0 ALSO ADMITTED tN MARYLAND - ALSO ADIWITTED IN FLORIDA - ALSO ADMITTED IN HEW YORK AND CONNECTICUT HAND-DELIVERED Ms. Kim Johnson Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Small Lodges Dear Kim: As you are aware, the Small Lodge Association has met for the last few months to discuss the serious problems facing LP and other small lodges in the City of Aspen. We have met with the City Council and the Planning Office to review our concerns, and to solicit ideas and support for changes to the LP zone. We would like to offer the following suggestions that we believe will enable Aspen's small lodges to survive. These suggestions offer the flexibility that current regulations lack. We would like to see the City of Aspen make low interest rate loans for small non-condominiumized lodge upgrades available. In exchange for low interest rate loans, which wouldÂ· be utilized to make improvements to small lodges, a restriction would be placed on the lodge. If the lodge borrowed $250,000.00 or less, a five year restriction would be placed on the lodge, and a loan of $250,000.00 or more would result in a ten year restriction, obligating the lodge to be operated as a short-term accommodation during the restricted period. The community subsidy would result in an upgraded lodge with assurances that a small lodge would bontinue to operate, preserving a lodging option that we all want to see continued. We would also like to see kitchens permitted by right in small lodges. This would help the small lodge clientele, who are finding Aspen very expensive and are taking their business to other ski resorts. In addition to adding kitchens, we would like small lodge operators to have the option to short-term, as . Ms. Kim Johnson March 6, 1995 Page 2 well as long-term, their units. This flexibility would enable lodges to take some of the risk out of operating a small lodge by having a fixed income of long-term rentals to balance the uncertainty of the short-term market. This would also be a benefit to the community, since a small lodge room or combined rooms that would be long-termed would offer rental housing that is sorely needed in the community. The ability to go from short-term to long-term, or long-term to short-term, should be exempt from change in use requirements. We would also propose that the small lodges be allowed mixed uses. Under the mixed use, you would be able to / '4 incorporate more than one use in your lodge. For example, the lodges on Main Street would be able to convert up to 50% of their lodges to an office, restaurant, or commercial use, enabling the lodge to diversify, and assuring that at least one- half of the lodge would remain as short-term accommodations. This would also require Section 9-105, Lodge Preservation, to be modified to allow enlargement of square footage, as well as mixed uses. We would like to have the LP designation be an overlay, which would enable the owner to utilize the underlying or adjacent zoning that exists in the surrounding neighborhoods. If you were in an J.MF zone, you could utilize the multi-family zoning. If you were in the office zone, you could utilize office zoning. If you were in a commercial zone, you could utilize commercial zoning. You would, however, be limited to utilizing the underlying zoning for up to fifty percent (50%) of your lodge. This would enable lodge owners to be compatible i with the underlying zone uses, and at the same time, preserve a large portion of the lodge character and accommodations. We : would like to see the Change in Use section of the Land Use Code modified so that our proposed lodge changes would qualify as having "a minimal impact upon the City", and a special section j dealing with mitigation be adopted for small lodges. We would also propose that two small lodges a year could apply to convert 100% of the lodge to a use that would be allowed in the underlying or adjacent zone district. They would have to comply with the change in use exemption from the GMP, or the full lodge GMP, depending on which applied. A lottery could be set up if more than two lodges applied each year. We believe that, by making the lodge overlay and mixed use zoning conditional uses, the City would have an opportunity to review all proposed changes, and could, therefore, monitor what was taking place in the small lodge community. Some of the existing lodges do not need, or do not wish at this time, to . . .-~ ...p-,â€¢VOP?' ~1 .. r # Ms. Kim Johnson March 6, 1995 Page 3 utilize any of these options. Other lodges desperately need the flexibility being proposed. We believe that the options offered by these changes will result in a stronger and healthier small lodge community. The conditional use requirement will give the City a mechanism to assure that the small lodges will not disappear. We would look forward to another work session with you or the City Council at the end of March. Thank you for your help and consideration. Very truly yours, LAW OFFICES OF KAUFMAN & PETERSON, P.C., a PrÂ°Atr<~Ral Corporation Gidebn Kaufman GK/bw - --- - -A-AL_ 00 <fi~ -- --- 1 1 - 1 .. - 1-0- 7-Â»P 1 , , - g.:=u 'Â· 0 . 1 . D 1411 /02 i â€¢ 1 1 1 1/ 0 1 1**95 , . ,=222,~\ 0 , . 1 1 1 di I F ji --==434>(ft, 1,1 , 11~ C 04 t/ M 5 1543 =~. U..34- _A~.. 12~ i 441 1 Lnk 1.- -- - -0.-72'v Â· t z . s-ri--1-_-1, 1 0 1-I M. - ' Â·Â· u.: Â·L . L (\ : ' c : Â· :4 9 1 - - L-, 1 . . - 0.494 5 v pgr- Infi 1 D-t 5 Y...0 PFAVEÂ· 23-- ... / ' 1 - P.' Â£ ,, r 1 /-1 , 11 { il-f. I .-la4-4 'el' 6. ip j 1 . 1 , U / - - - . 9 - -,-f/flf / 1 - - %4<lfir' 6* 1 %9% (Â«T ' ut- \41 - 124* f/ , 1*A:044' 4,//-4 1- --fjfff f .st\UP'Bt < J, j ,/{ lit - All, O FEE>\09#C@, p>//4 *440,23- e.Â· 1-kplci NE> ,/5// / If 1 11 ' I ,;:111!/11 /.1.:illi'll, 4 5.- . 11 /1 -4 1 1 if // i Iii,/ i / 6 42 i 70 1 1 f _l A j ~20 :'Â»12-/-// 5 1 ////ffÂ«Â«/ . /1 . /1 t[(lilli j 1 / / 1 1/ / 1 . - Â£u:Iff(-8269*Â£ -. .~ 3 -- 1 - . 4 ...1 -Â· 1 b=Â«_act 3... ri 1 - . ./ 19...Ll. t.11 - .F . A I . ./ 01/ 0 2 -_ff Â·Â·~Â·_ ri -%T- ---L; 1 0--Â·-2-1 tAive....4 . ~Ci&07&62*65 31 li E.-Â£&4 Â· W , . I. . . - Â· r/ 441*4 2 Wy \ *./dA/ -I--'/ * . I .J .. S 01. W,4 14.E t. r Â· . 01 Â· 4.Jj 1 - . â‚¬3;.r . . e, .., 2.1.3 -,A 4 . .. , - .... UN 1 r 0-62///affiff:Id- A]-- - 1....A .15.Al Ve:Â£4 1 f 4 . 7/1 - '- - 5NkZU,Lf / 7=770 42/1 . tr, 1 . 1 7 . I1 2-4]l. 2 r Â·. 07* :91 1. I A~-4 i. - 2 Â·Â· 412 1 1 . 4131 4 Â·TÂ·. 1 03.9 ... / - Y 1/ W \-C- Â° 7.4-~ 4 6 0 4 0 tl ~. - - --~ . 1 A . . LU - _11 - N. 0 J.. 8/ . - /-=~.-22Â£ZhÂ£1 - yr, -=,tieft--9.../*....15 7.- L -T .. - $Â¥t. I ./ T'- -.. 401 ~ " ~ -2 Â· ~ 19: , I H'*610Â¥ . I $ I . . 1 - I . IgeÂ«--c-% 9111~ HAT~ Â· g-- M& W ftÂ»+1-r i bler -2 . - 1-- ---.i-I------Il.-I.-Ill--il.- L-- -- -4-==969-Tl-----49-â‚¬*(4 5 3 -* Rothblum Residence Sit C Plan I,il,ki n 0Varn e r D esign 624 13, Ilopkins St. 1/8 11 - 11 0 1, ZI () () W Main St.#100 Aspen, Colorado liPC Work Session Aspen, Colorado 81611 816Â·1 1 February 23.1995 9 2() 114 2 9 9 2 0.3 816 -fax t ~ '"fl â€¢ \\\\ \\\Tr ,I --- 1 --7 bult'ltlj--1 1 . ---- 1 b r 1 *' p - 1 3322 LJ C , t- 8 . ------ - i 0 A .Alc vf ' 9,1 54-va '0 1 P: *Killzf : 1 e k | r 0 1 1/ Fher*r Â»tel, c - \\4 r---- --- brJ U g kt w oil 1 r In o Wk QO .--4 lib ,221 (Ar,4-A k.cr 1 1 1 1 f 4 00 b e d ro. 14 2 6 e ~ reen, 1 -- --*Il 94-ot. U ik + w 611 U lk}-w, 11 GAA:*l LE>ve* 1 . - - - *-- -- M-1 Rotliblum Residenec F lour P IiI 11 s Lipkin Warner Design 624 E, Ilopkins St. 1/8"=1'-0" 400 W. Main St. #100 Aspen, Colorado 111' C Work Session Aspen, Colorado 81611 81611 February 23.1995 9 2 0.114 22 920.38'6-fax -Et 1 1, 1 11 It r - .-. --- - -.*.I--.-I-.-I.- -#lili.I.-..-I.Il- - t ..... I f . - - ---- ---~ 1 - 1 4/ Inl - i 014 IiI . 0 , ............Lif...... 1. 1. , : .'. , /. . . "0 0 . .............. ,. . L---LeY.-*-*.-.2.-2--.- FooF &@MWi ' --- ---- -- 7 vF - b rl fil I - 1 t / 1 Man 4-v below \4. 169(5)Â©ocpyl tÂ»/tÂ» 1 1 + -1 0. 1 001 -4 4 ' 0 0 I -11 0 Vf -4- 0,1 1 1 E[lE] J- . I rEl_EI.El r] El 22\ 1 qUUU- 1 . - I 900 411 Uv\Met \COOM 1, P\/ EA. ' -*-- Rothblum Residence IC I (} c) 1, 1,1 :1 11 N I,ipkin Warner Design 62+ E Hopkins St 1/8.-1 1-0. 400 W. Main St. #100 Aspen, Colorado ]IPC Work Session Aspen, Colorado 81611 81611 February 2 3,1 99 5 42() 11422 920.3816-fax O E ,- *:Â· I fl + - - j U----- / --- ---. -- -14 Ffff 1 95-4 3 409 , 3% i I '(ft-~r ft 1 f ' I f,T/~ 11- IN-Fl IL-4,/7 /-.(; - 1 1 11% r jl K.-,; I 1 1 7 A-- 1 1-,p-m Â·11 t Â« ER , 1, p .-1 - -- + - -"r,% I c-- Ilir Fâ€¢ Fâ€¢- â€¢â€¢1 . i 1, :,1:1("14 1 3 - . An\ . 4'" ~ 1 -' 1 4 - - - --1- li 3~-~~2 __1 , , 1 1 14&4 .... 1.... f i ("7 7 . =9. , ..... , 0 3779 Mil.5 ....... *==11 L.. . '* LA-=Â»A 02- ... I ... FED.-------74 11 . .... . . ... ..0. 0.1 A--Â·- 1 .. r . ...L- â€¢ . - ' - .. ' f#541 1-T~~ <<<<~~-lit' It. x '// Â· 1 ....... '$/.- ia=_-_ '0,0,7#131... , I , 1." ..11 '* WE/In/' * -- ./ 1 U55222@58 -O 11 I .. . 8 11 11 1(#Bil,mt I 4 .-/ Rotliblum Residence Streel Elevation I irkin Warner Design 624 E. Ilopkins St 1/8 "-=I'-0" 400 W. Main St. #IOO Aspen, Colorado 111'C Wcirk Sessic,ii Aspen. Colorado 81611 816Â·1 1 Febtuaiv 11.Il)95 9 2 0 114 2'2 9 2 0.3 816 -fax IED D. f â€¢ MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission From: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer Re: 204 S. Mill Street, Collins Block- Minor Development Date: March 8, 1995 SUMMARY: The applicant requests HPC approval to add a privacy wall and three window boxes on the east side of the Collins Block. This work has already been completed without the required approvals. HPC approved construction of a new window on the east facade in April 1994. This wall has been completely reconstructed. The Collins Block is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, is located in the Commercial Core Historic District and is an Aspen Landmark. APPLICANT: Harley Baldwin, represented by Peter Kuntz. LOCATION: 204 S. Mill Street, Lots A and B, Block 88, City and Townsite of Aspen. PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H, " Historic Overlay District must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 7-601 of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H, " Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark... Response: Staff finds that the development is not in character with the Collins Block, but will also not be easily visible from the street with the completion of 409 E. Hopkins. The privacy wall, built around a "deck, " is somewhat unnecessary, as there are no windows proposed in the west wall of 409 E. Hopkins. It is also unfinished carpentry on the public side. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The proposal has no significant impact on the character of the Commercial Core Historic District. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Response: If the windowboxes which will be visible from the street are removed, there will not be a significant impact on the cultural value of this structure. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The wall has been reconstructed, so there will not be an impact on the architectural integrity of the structure. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: 1) Approve the Minor Development application as submitted. 2) Approve the Minor Development application with conditions to be met prior to issuance of a building permit. 3) Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (specific recommendations should be offered) 4) Deny Minor Development approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the minor development application for 204 S. Mill Street, with the conditions that the windowbox closest to the street be removed and the privacy wall be finished on the outside. Additional Comments: NrmaIMIENr 1 IAND USE APPLICATION FCâ„¢ 1) ,Proj ect Narre COLLINS BLOCK . 2) Project Location 204 S. Mill Street ' AsDen, CO 81611 (indicate street address, lot & block nunber, legal description where arpropriate) CC 7,200 sf 3) Present Zoning 4) Lot Size Harley Baldwin 5) Applicant's Nam, Address & 1-tone 1 205 S. GalenaÂ· Street, Aspen, CO 81611 (303) 920-1800 G) Ilepmsentative's Name, Address & rhone # Pet-pr 1(untz. designer, D-reservationist Aspen, LU 81611 (JUJ) 920-18UU 7) Type o f Application (please check all that apply) : Conditional Use Conceptual SPA Conceptual IListoric Dev. - Special Review Final SPA . Final Ilistoric Dev. X 0040 Greenline - conceptlial PUD Minor IListoric Dev. Stream Margin .Final rUD ILLstoric Denolition Mountain View Plane Subdivisicn IUstoric Designation Condcminiumization TexUMap Amerxlment - QU; Allotment . Lot Split/Lot Line -.(NOS Exemptien Adjust=nent 13) Descripticn of. Existing Uses (number and type of existing structures; approximate sq. ft.; runber of bedmans; any previous approvals granted - to the property). Ist floor commercial - existing sf - 5671 2nd floor residential - existing sf - 4595 Existing total square footage - 10,994 9) Descripticn of Develgment Auplicaticn Construction of a privacy wall and three windowboxes on the east facade - - 10) I {ave ycu attached En following? X Ilesponse to Attad,rrent 2, Minimum Submission Contents X Izesponse to Attadment ], Specific Sulinission Contents X Response to Attadlment 4, Ileview Standards for Your Avolication . *17.3.-/ 7.-//- 4 . A '\HWY 82 %e 0 * 3 *-0 4 ' - V , e - 1 R -1 1 C 71.-1 - - -1 \1 Il\'!l r-\ 0, 1 L.PJ 2 %33-~ 11 I. /-1 L -- iii It - -3-~ 1 1 iII i L~ i L- â€žI~-1 , - PARKING AREA -1 1 1 1 1 . el O . - t. I ;6 1 I L - 1. 1 _--1-1-L 1 1 1 1 1 It - 1 21.122 . 79,0 Li ~-.49 . 1 1=31 1 L '- ~;3< V < r-~7 -- - . - -7 i L./ It - Â£ 1- .Â· n: 1 1 1:: 2-1 - 1 .*.. -v-- :; / 4<*11 x ~------------------1 . 1.5.4.'. -2 7 ==* x 1 2~ 33: Â» 4 4/.1 2 - 30 O i -- 0 E HOPKINS AVE 0 /1- 9: D D.-,------1 ----------1----- r----------â‚¬-4. 1 , L------ ru L-- t ARKING lS OR ------I Â«-AL--l_**<22* - 1.D EE) 44Â·7Â«.> F 1 1*\\ , 9 , -EÂ»*E~i , 1Â¢)<lÂ·,f k a/>7 1 1 V<71 - , ' 1.31 662,1/334 124 ' LL "~ \\Â£/ 11 1-1. CULE--17 ' //Lite // > 7/ / , cz.Lir~-A . . re.A 5 1 0 4.6 ..j j P 30 J 'refl-'-2- TerTAT,gES---2-7-ti / =cr=__,5-Â» 44 942> m.wri <al Ill~1 i 1 2%*46 *t , '1 Â£75 1 A. ~ 1/16 64 4 4 0.2 I -1 1 1 :.f 1_1 Ij / i I. P + _->~1 1 1 - ~ ~ ;if f< /1- f / 1 3 11,(-1 /2 2 3 I ill/ 1' - ir - 5 EXPE,T' 6/ 40Â«-9~~~fÂ«fj~Â«49 5/ 1.1'te.74 ' 'fi ;10 i Willii,'( *liti 1 11< rilicli /9/4./ / I 5 81\UDI 186tÂ·. j: :14 FES\DENCE> 2// /25 '51*9942. *21 0-, 0,14 NS ''-711 1;Il/ITTEillilli,l h'!il<'4 fiÂ·'I 1 /4/7944:pilit.:2 2565*.,024~fj':::5....4. - - 32 foÂ»Â«~Â»f 49Wpv*:,1.541 . 5 hl-rger as.-<4 eli 4 1 . ,- 3.=PE@zi - . 1 7-LE-il-i- 1 1 Â»44TH"* K 4 - . -keÂ».4 - 1 4 h 1 4 fir.vzf,377 -4 1 w,4.94..'k-2- L ~Â·rb LANI>.Scke B *1-- - liz:i\ - 1,041 pÂ»ew â€¢ l i . 11 t .F 1 1. . Â·Â· ~ I 6 1 i Mr A _511 073..Â· 2 r 4 - 10'\-r,/0 9.- > rree. -r- 4 ff â€¢ kÂ· A.jÂ· 9 - 1-,2â‚¬aL&6=64. .1- LOW 27*&4 - 19. IR<-L-% ~18*4 I tEFr. . W.14-1'-,2 . t3plFÂ¥ . 1 2---ME W P#T1 hUr 12 -3~ PAS-r --irte e M-1 hlk--- 0 --1 2:2 Rothblum Residence Site Plan 1,ipkin Warner Design 624 E-llopkins St Â»262>Â·44*W; 400 W. Main St. 4 100 Aspen, Colorado HPC Work Sescion Aspen. Colorad<, 81611 816,11 Februarv 2.1.1095 920 11429 920.3816-fax t~ 14. \ I \1\ \ \\Â¢ 41 624 East Hopkins Conceptual Selection Of Major Exterior Building Materials: Brick Stone Coping Aluminum Windows Slate on Sloped Roofs matis.doc 24/1 8 < CZ+ Kai 1 220 21 mizill' 2 1 818 I.. 1 %.1/nB/1.gG 1 11 1 25 1 Â§ 1%*1 \ ~ 49 (1=M 24 I. ,1 ' f r. % 1 4 'Bi=NE 1 \- Â£ ')/ & 'I. . .'# 1'<63 Â·: 4 -4..ftre'l Â¢5'f*Â§pv.vz 41 . 4/ee , 1 1>+Ad + 9 11 . 11Â¢4 , ' ly . 10 . 5 1 C ' 1 1 '* , i.2,SYINMT 1.42 . iw ..i W i j 1 L. 2 98.* f -* 1 1(' 9, IfÂ·.L'' 'ciu,1~(*Â¢Â·fF*m~jk I 1, , 'i.4-4-V:g 10, miti,POM~0;~Z~8Â¤~f~& : r fil '1 l r 1 r--=*tri--6.4- 1 - At:- , 4 : j q" I Â·' r ' 3 /---4/ 1 '21,..~!Ir'11- -j!4Â¢.7r... LE-::Â· r.tiÂ·- -, L- 11 6- 0 4-34 1 :.3 41 ; r ' 11 11' Â£ f * '; "I" '4' 1-111 1 . r'.r . **21.,2. 4. 1 14 41 I . . t& 1 1/ : - *, W ;331 1 fir!! .111. 1 411 I 1 . lib 1 .1,1 4 . 4 4 P -1 , V Â£ r J3 1-: wi &~[--4 j-[- 1 -{ 11.146'6; FHE. p- :+1 U) 11 6 l 9-1 .- Old m . til-?1 -114 L r . 1 " /20 17 0 1 1, d j 1 1 1 4- 1 2 1 ' 4 17 c t r f t! Â¢ 1!4 12 :' 1 1 1 1 -2 1 0% r 14,1 1, 1 p'4jit [Tr-" "i' 'tiÂ·-h/Â·Â·Â· j.- 1] 1- L . 4 1 2 - 1-1< -Â· -~ut /wi;.4/,3.4.,e;~i;, ~F~,9/ 4~ Y 1,- L./ 1 ~&.-- Â·i,Â·|=Â·pf~ :4*laja# fi ii '' ' Â·- p . ''Fr< m uMÂ·ub:!1 1 11114 4 1 -9 -I - .,4 , 14444(Â· j. j !11 1 - Â£ . 1-- 1 ' /1 , I i *ltie=-,:- Â· -utdi .i ! .1* * 57 1 - -11 1 Â· --2.-:-3.- I - 1 , 1 9 1|L 4 9 I 0 111'j, ... It:1 1 1 11 1 < | Ll ..iL. _ ki i, -, A %'i ' il i , ~ *i 1 --t - 7 r,07--7- - 1 1 T J V â„¢t 7 i i â€¢ ....1. - . 1 > 1 1 1,6 4 1 4 q -4 0 1 1 1 15 I Â«red" 4 4 I 111. Ii, 11 ..1 -- 1. -- 1 .11 1. ' ' ; ~ '4-=il:jillj Jin lj -=- -541 r-.-rfldl--f.4~1:--C~35.35 1 Mih Â· .--- =1--- 71 '-r I. ! r . )Frip; 1, L[fll,ki b :\Yilll ,~Â«*hi'fli~ --f - 1 ~ ; 14 ~ I 4 r i B - ..4 - 1 \A I re , ! f 1- 11 112.3 2*4Ill...... i -------Â·----- r ' 1 , 1 1 i i , 1 1 ..1 1 11 1 1 1 1 U lr_4 }t-1 gi 64,41[nr 4 11%1--)-- * .-.. - 1 I 17 0 0/ -~-.4 6% . MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer DATE: March 8, 1995 RE: Aspen Physics Institute, Amendment to SPA Attached is an application by the Aspen Physics Institute to amend the Meadows SPA (Specially Planned Area) agreement. HPC reviewed the Meadows SPA in an advisory manner in 1991. At this time , the Physics Institute wishes to demolish an existing academic building (built in 1965 as a temporary facility), and construct a new one story building slightly to the south. The new proposal will not impact the race track or other landscape elements which are thought to be significant to the campus. HPC's primary areas of concern on this review will be whether or not the new structure is compatible with the rest of the Physics buildings and the Meadows as a whole and how the new structure impacts the surrounding neighborhood. ARRY 3 TEAGUE ARCHITECTS a 412 N. MILL ASPEN, CO 81611 303-925-2556 FAX-925-7981 A Aspen Center for Physics Building Replacement Project 1995 SPECIAL PLANNED AREA AMENDMENT HARRY TEAGUE ARCHITECT DEC 1 3 November 17, 1994 City of Aspen Planning Department Kim Johnson, Planner Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Aspen Center for Physics Building Replacement Project 1995 Dear Mrs. Johnson: The Aspen Center for Physics is applying for an Amendment to the Aspen Meadows S.P.A. (Specially Planned Area 1990). This project will consist of replacing a temporary structure which was originally donated to the Center, known as Hilbert Hall, with a new permanent facility. The need for replacing Hilbert Hall is twofold: the existing structure is failing and the future of the Aspen Center for Physics depends on its ability serve the changing and diverse needs of its users. Hilbert Hall was designed as a temporary facility in 1965 to house the Design Team for Fermi Lab. It was donated to the Center, but it was never a comfortable fit. Originally it had no bathroom, no heat and no insulation. The offices are of an awkward size; there is minimal area for the administration; the bathroom does not contain the required number of fixtures; and the entire building is inaccessible to the handicapped. In fact, none of the interior dimensions allow for a wheelchair. The Center has used Hilbert Hall to its full capacity and its life span has passed. The other issue is the general health of the Institution. The Center now borrows office space from the Aspen Institute. Bethe Library has no space for overflow or storage of important documents. The Administration staff does not have a designated space to work. For the Aspen Center of Physics to continue to attract top people in the M.%- field, it must address these shortcomings and meet the needs of the disabled, female and computer dependent population. This project and its scope have been discussed in two preliminary ~ meetings with the Aspen Planning Department. The items discussed are as follows: 1. The project will be submitted as an Amendment / to the approved 1990 SPA. 7112N-MILL ASPEN, CO 81611 303-925-2556 FAX-925-7981 L 2. It is assumed that this will be a two step process: 1 a. Conceptual Review Standards 1721 and 1722 of the Aspen Land Use Code. b. Final Review Standards 1723 of the Aspen Land Use Code. 3. The underlying zoning district is Academic. The purpose of the i Academic (A) Zone is to establish lands for education and cultural i activities with attendant research, housing and administrative facilities. 4. Amy Amidon is to review the application for The Historic Preservation i Committee prior to the P and Z review. 5. Any SPA or Master Plan Amendment or future development applications } submitted by any non-profit user of the Meadows property (Lots 1, 2, 3) shall be applied for jointly by all non-profit property owners. This shall proceed prior requirements requiring SPA submittal approval by all property owners. 6. Public pedestrian access, excluding access to buildings, will continue to be allowed throughout the entire Academic (A), Open Space (OS), and Wildlife Preservation (WP) zoning areas of the Aspen Meadows development, subject to reasonable regulations as established by the owners thereof in order to protect their property and the health and safety of other users, as well as the academic privacy and serenity of the campus. 7. Parking: Special Review, no set restrictions. 8. Setbacks: Special Review, no set restrictions. 9. Application to be filed as 21 copies (2 sets full size drawings, 18 sets reduced to 8 1/2" x 11", plus one Master Set). The Project Design Team: Architect: Harry Teague Architects (O) 303/925-2556 412 North Mill Street (F) 303/925-7981 Aspen, CO 81611 Landscape Architect: t Mt. Daley Enterprises (O) 303/925-1624 Ms. Julia Marshall (8 303/920-3816 P.O. Box 5010 Aspen, CO 81612 Structural Engineer: TSDC of Colorado, Inc. (0 415/688-4710 Mr. Gregory Luth (F) 415/328-4712 160 Jefferson Menlo Park, CA 94024 Mechanical Engineer: M/E Engineers (O) 303/421-6655 Mr. Ted Prythero, P.E. (F) 303/421-0331 4251 Kippling Street t Wheatridge, CO 80033 Contractor: Shaw Construction (O) 303/825-4740 Mr. George Shaw (F) 303/825-6403 111 Kalamath Street Denver, CO 80223 We greatly appreciate your review and processing of this application. We look forward to our involvement with the Aspen Center for Physics and the City of Aspen in another careful addition to the Aspen Meadows. Respectfully submitte* Â»/(/1 74*flA A _ Narry Teagu~ AIA, ~larry Teague Architects /1 < I *U.u'u,0u~1,/ / 'd' Thomas Api*~quist, Prepi~dent ciA.C.P. Robert Hahâ‚¬ tEO n.2.j David McLaughlir,~resident of the Aspen Institute 1 Summary of how the Aspen Center For Physics Building Replacement Proposal Supports the Aspen Meadows Master Plan Goals and Policies(1990). 1 Goal 1. Maintain the open space environment and campus setting of the Property. This is an important goal for the Aspen Center for Physics as much of their activities occur outdoors, particularly in the area between the buildings. The building replacement is intended to enhance the outdoor space as well as the relationship between the campus buildings and the open space environment. Generally, the proposed plan is in conformance with all policies pertaining to this goal. In particular, the Aspen Center for Physics limits the use of automobiles on the campus by issuing bicycles to everyone of its participants. Policy 1: Separation between campus buildings. Policy 2: Do not permit development to encroach upon the lands designated "Conservation" . The siting of the Building Replacement 1995 does not encroach upon the "Conservation Area". 1~ Policy 3: Keep the "racetrack at the West Meadows in its current state and limit encroachment of development onto the periphery of the racetrack. The "Racetrack" is not disturbed by this building. The removal of Hilbert Hall will visually open the campus to the West over looking the Racetrack and allowing 1 sunsets to come into campus. Pedestrian access to the track will remain unchanged, with access across southern property currently across an open featureless field on a new trail sheltered by cottonwoods along the irrigation ditch. Policy 4: Architectural Character. The spirit of the existing buildings to be maintained and respected. The Replacement Building's height is one story to fit with the established massing of the other buildings on campus. The materials are raw steel for the roof, sand blasted concrete inset with native stones for the exterior end walls, stucco for the undulating walls of the offices, vertical wood siding on panels of connecting walls, 3 and metal with a dull grey black patina on the exterior of the administration and lecture hall wing. Policy 5: Development to encourage the success and stability of the Not-for-Profit Institutions. The Aspen Center for Physics is now able to undertake the type of planning and improvements that the other non-profits did during the original 1990 SPA Master Plan. The Building Replacement Project is seen as a upgrading of facilities that - will take the Center in to the next century. Policy 6: Public Access through the site to be maintained. Currently the trail easement is aesthetically and physically undefined. The Proposed Trail Easement is moved to the far south edge of the property. This path along the row of cottonwoods and irrigation ditch is a more suitable and friendly place to walk and helps maintain the "circle of serenity" on the campus. Policy 7: Limit the use of the Automobile. ACP has a history of providing and maintaining bicycles to all 90 of its participant throughout the summer session. ACP is a model program for its limiting of the need for cars. 200 bicycles are currently owned by the Aspen Center for Physics and the current lot holding 14 cars is seldom full. ACP is proposing increasing that to 21 cars. Policy 8: Natural and Established Landscaping to remain undisturbed.. By removing Hilbert Hall, not only are the mature Aspen trees saved but several irrigation streams which run under Hilbert Hall will become visible and easier to maintain. ACP plans on building a small pond for irrigation water storage and as a campus amenity. The removal of Hilbert will allow the entire campus to enjoy the Racetrack through the mature Aspen trees. The area that the Building Replacement Project is sited is currently a vacant lot with few significant landscape 6..4: features. The buildings placement also minimizes the impact on the established f campus vegetation during construction. Goal 2: Provide a permanent home on the Aspen Meadows campus for the institutional uses. 1 The Aspen Center for Physics is the only campus partner not to have enhanced ; their campus based on the SPA agreement. The Center has a great need for replacement of offices which are currently in serious disrepair, organized storage space and a colloquium room for 100 people. In addition, this proposal will reorganize the functioning of the campus to improve presently awkward conditions and provide a workable, comfortable home for the Aspen Center for Physics. Policy 1: Subdividing of leasing individual parcels which will permit each non-profit institution to control their own land. This project signifies ACP's opportunity for improvement which the Aspen Institute and the Music Associates of Aspen have so successfully completed. Policy 2: Alternatives to permit capital to be generated. The ACP wishes to maintain their right in the future/additional building as per the approved SPA Meadows Master Plan 1990, to allow for the possibility of accommodating another activity. The Building replacement building project 1995 has, as a program element, a Colloquium room where 90-100 people can gather during the summer sessions. The Center is interested to offer this facility as a public room for other non-profit organizations and private organizations that might benefit from this room if the use seems appropriate. Je#4Â£51""-'-1 ":'ftwek -=9/lillililillillillilmilillililillingly ' I Policy 3: WA Goal 3: Mitigate, to the maximum extent feasible, the effect of the development on neighboring properties. 1 The siting of the building, its low one story profile, low eave line, and sloping roofs present minimal surfaces to the south, while the end of the building faces east is modest in every dimension. In addition the building will be screened by existing and new vegetation wherever possible to enhance privacy. ACP will maintain the same amount of participants per session as is currently enrolled. It is felt by the Centers Board of Directors that the historic size of 90 participants is directly responsible for their success as an Institution. The use and maintenance of the bicycles as a major form of transportation for the participants will not change. 1 Policy 1: N/A Policy 2: Require improved transit service to be provided for all significant functions on the campus and create improved opportunities for non-auto access. ACP historically uses 200 bicycles as its transportation to all of its participants. The new building will simplify the pick-up and delivery of services and guests by making the entry clear and designed to function for this purpose. Policy 3: Visual and noise barriers to be provided around parking facilities. ACP will be planting trees to visually and audible mask the existing parking lot and its expansion. (Refer to the Landscape Plan). Policy 4: 14/A Policy 5: Locate academic buildings in areas which create least impacts on other users. The new building helps to physically estabiish the "circle of serenity" by separating the campus from the residential areas. However the building does not turn its back on the south but creates several indoor/outdoor areas for small groups to gather and talk. There will be no outdoor access to the building by paths from the south side of the Building Replacement Project 1995. 1 Policy 6: N/A Goal 4: Mitigate, to the maximum extent feasible, the project's impacts on the overall community. As stated in Goal # 3, the Replacement Building is designed to be of minimal impact with its one story heights, natural materials, and siting to make its smallest profile to the end of Gillespie Street. The Aspen Center for Physics sees no reason in the foreseeable future to increase people. the size of the Center in terms of users per session which currently operates at 90 and easement. The building is located to also minimize the relocation of the new (1993) sewer line The Parking Area to the south of Stranahan Hall is being increased in a way to minimize its impact and allow for more parking. Policy 2: The Meadows Consortium shall work with the City to coordinate the creation of pedestrian corridors to be created to facilitate access to the campus and reduce automobile traffic. ACP has proposed placing the trail easement on its property along North Street and all the established cottonwood trees. This is a natural location for a 1 unobtrusive pedestrian trail to access the Racetrack for the neighbors and the public. Policy 3: The applicant shall work with the City to identify a location of locations on the property where the recommendations of the 1973 Urban Runoff Management Plan can be incorporated into the site plan. This plan may be modified by current storm drainage research. ACP and its Design Team will work with the City to meet this Policy. Goals of the Aspen Center for Physics in the SPA 1990 Master Plan. Aspen Center for Physics: â€¢ Maintain circle of serenity buffer zone surrounding physic facilities. â€¢ Hold out possibility for development of NASA or other scientific research facility. â€¢ Preserve campus with minimal change. â€¢ Obtain ownership of land necessary to accommodate needs. M r DALY E N 'lli 14 1' R Iblh a Marshall - Lm<lic-,1/,c Archilect Po<l ()f/I' c/?,nÂ· To/(, 5 AV'f'jl, t..0~(}hlÂ£~0 S 11) 12 ;C) { (1 2 5 Â·fi,24 30-2Â·02{)Â· 3% 16 LA.\' November 4,1994 Kim Johnson, planner City of Aspen Planning Department Dear Kim, The following letter describes the proposed landscaping for the Aspen Center for Physics. There are two items that immediately come to mind when reviewing the proposed location for the new building and the landscape spaces it creates. The first is that the Center has gained a beautiful area which opens up to the race track and the views to the west. The second, which leads to many of the considerations in the design of the landscape on the south side of the new building, is that lawn can be carried beneath the cottonwood trees so the tradition of physicists working outside beneath the trees can carried on. This aspect of creating places for conversation and diagramming of ideas is the essence of the landscape plan. But the landscape plan has many elements and each of these will be described while touching back to these two initial ideas. The main elements of the landscape plan are the enlargement of the parking area, the entrance to the building from Gillespie Street, the interior courtyard which connects all of the buildings and the landscaping on the south side of the new building. The parking lot is not the most exciting place to start but that it where changes commence and those should be mentioned. As you know the new building will be filling an area where people currently park. To accommodate some of this loss of area, the existing parking lot will be increased in its size to the eastern property line. This allows for an additional row of parking. A fence and a row of cottonwood trees will separate the center row of parking from the driving lane. Spruce trees will be located between the parking lot and Gillespie to help lessen the impact of the additional cars on the neighborhood. The parking lot will still be gravel. A sidewalk will be added to connect the parking lot to the new entrance sidewalk. The new building will act as a wonderful termination to Gillespie Street. The landscaping here will guide one to the entrance of the building on a curved sidewalk that begins mid-point on the corner. A rock wall, sitting height high is located on the east side of the walkway. The rock walls are an element that repeats itself throughout the project. In a simple fashion the walls pick up angles and lines in the building design which lead back to Bethe Hall. The landscape becomes integrated with and is a part of the design of the building. One will also notice that the entrance to the administration is constructed around an existing cottonwood tree. 1 Page 2 The interior courtyard area, or that space created by the removal of the current 1 building, will open up onto the racetrack but feel enclosed because of the new offices and auditorium. The proposed landscaping in this area mimics what already exists. Lawn will be carried beneath the existing cottonwood trees so there are more areas to place benches and tables. A pond is proposed at the crest of the ridge to act as a holding tank for water for the irrigation system. Apparently the ditches can fluctuate in their flow and their dependability and the pond would help relief the hassles that arise when the ditches are not running properly. You will also note on the plan two rock walls that extend from the edge of the building and create gathering areas off the porches to two of the entrances. The rock walls will be a nice height to sit on and again will promote the informal gathering together that occurs with the comings and goings of people using the building. 1 1 1 The landscaping on the south side responds directly to the two meeting rooms midway in the length of the building. While the lawn areas of the interior courtyard are accessible from any of the Centers facilities, the two lawn areas on the south side can only be reached from the meeting rooms of the new building. Each meeting room has its own separated maintained lawn area. In the western lawn area, a rock wall forms . the edge of the lawn with ash trees shading over the wall into the space. The lawn extends beneath an aspen grove and an apple tree until it reaches a newly located ditch that will provide water to cottonwoods and redtwig dogwoods planted on its banks. The eastern lawn area will be bounded somewhat by low berm so that this space is protected from the activity at the street corner. The ditch will run first through a low circular berm and then across the lawn to a pond beneath cottonwood trees before rounding the corner of the building. The low circular berm is separated from the larger lawn area by a sitting wall and will be lawn as well. Shade will provided by the cottonwood trees, a row of crabapple trees and the maple in the center of the circular berm. Outside of these lawn areas the vegetation will be the native grasses and sage currently on the site and the grove of cottonwoods that separate the Centers property from the street. There are two other items that should be mentioned. Over the years many people in the neighborhood have used this area as access to the racetrack for walking themselves or their dogs. The Center is required to provide a trail easement, for a foot path only, somewhere on the property. The logical place was to put it as close to the southern property line as possible thus keeping the integrity of the rest of the property. So the trail will start at the edge of the street and weave its way amongst the cottonwood trees before making its way around the western edge of the building and on down to the racetrack. An additional path will begin at the roadside parking lot and tie into the path beneath the cottonwoods. This diagonal "shoot out" will provide continuity for those who have used the open field for access to the race track for some time. 11 J *'. Page 3 Accessibility to the auditorium in the off seasons was also a concern. The current thinking is that it is better to have an outside path instead of bringing people through the administration part of the building. The outside route being considered is using the existing path from the parking lot that leads to Betha and then connects with the gravel path coming from the auditorium entrance. It is a fairly direct route and the first part of that path is already maintained in the winter. This plan is in its developmental stages. All comments are welcome. Hopefully working between the plan and the description the landscape ideas is clear. If you have questions, I would be most welcome to answer them. Thank you, 1 JÂ»Â»fuÂ» Julia Marshall Landscape Architect 1 1 1 1 Nv=, -.-00 ,,It- .rit- %6.. - 01:f,F.f~ '-3 - .#,--*-w-- - 1 7-47=1 - 2 03397~ u -- .. ./1 4 0 ....m- .,4./../. 9* .... ....$..9~'fl,~=-#,-k.,li.â€ž. ,~ - 7*a- .....I *, :.Cl 64 - **4Â·04- 30 4 I.- - E ROOF SPECIFICAnON: - U ROOF TO BE A DULL , I RUSTY BROWN COLOR , Te:Aâ€¢1 12 - C 71 . - ll - 1 - - -.- . I / I. 693 / //7/ I / i i i i . Â· 11 P !1 Â· : i . 1 ~.ill =L L - Lj' = 1 :' 1 i Il - 1 11 . ~ li !11,1 *1 11 i--* 1 2== ==: 1 - Lj = t_=: t_ L_ WALL :pe/ICAno. ~~ WALL SPECIFICATION ~ LONG VERTICAL WINDOW FENESTMAT,ON GLASS STOREFRONT MATERIAL %~LL TO BE A DULL -GE COLOR - SOUTH ELEVATION C,1 --i 1 (1 9 1/r = 1Â·-OÂ· 2- -t,-4 ------- â‚¬ G# 7 . 1 -- 1 8-Ags I+2*clÂ· 1 n, 4 .: 1 16 - 1 ROOf SPECHCAnON ROOF SPECIFICADON ROOF SPECIFICATION : 1 1 FLAT ROOF, *U-ACE NOT ~- ROOF TO DE A DULL ~-- ROOF TO BE A DULL - - - - ~ VISIBU W,TH INTERNAL \ RUSTY BROWN COLOR \ LIGHT GREY COLOR AOOF DMAÂ»I \ 1 1 4-1/ A :i 11 \ -1 1 ' 1 - // \ \ /4/L -- 1 + 1. -6-0 - ------ 1- 1 11 1 -U- DECHCAnON: KL SPECICAnoN L._ W*LL SPECIFICATION. ELEVATIONS WALL TO DE A DULL GAEY COLOR 1-25-'5 LONG VERTICAL WÂ»Â«DOW FENESTRATION WALL TO BE A BEIGE COLOR ---- - A WALL TO BE A DULL BEIGE COLOR -* NORTH ELEVATION 1/0' = 1'-0' f=\\ 1 -. , 1 .. . - 1 4,2 .-, 1 - \\ 4 & I'~li*13~ , t -47 Â· / - -43-,-8-2- EXISTING a) Topographic> 9 42 :.1.- t -- . *. 1 blu 14372~3 \ . *~ Ir- a / Development plan a. D.. MIJ. '21.*-- L~/1 1/ f / 1--1 1 - - b. LOO 1 \Nvx; 1 -M .7.11?9 1 -6 â„¢*i Prqject No- MB-FAC44 / 1 f -aft:. 5 I - lieff 1 tvK ,-- / -1L-' \ 7:2-3/.' i / -1 i - ~ SUcth Str44- 7, :-- 1 T 0,Â«4Â« 1' - 'i '8 4: , 1 1 i / \\\Â»\0\ \ 446 \ -%*r.. 41 \. \ 1 f 1 11 \\ 9/ ' \ 1\ 46 9-M#- A .Â· 9,(9 \ 1. ..7 \ , 1 -=52â€¢=2.- b. . 1 \ \1 \ 1 1 - 3 243 8 0 ,Â·in : 2 '~ - l 443 F \ .2 0\ 1 ....A-De -9 .....4 3-t y 2 1\ 01! // / 1 \0//1 ./ J.4-4 \ E / 71 1 1 6- ... Il + Â» 9 - / ) 1 '1 - /3 , / 79*al r- 6 ''Â· k:4.16. ... lid //\ / / \ 1 ' 1 1-2:- -- --3 103 0 / 1 /6 1..,- I.- , , .1 -- 4*Z 3 1 , - * 1 -ic: f . -<N ..~ --fet* ~ 1 0 0 1 4 i ?l 1 1 /1 J.~- ' 1-0 6 \ It i 59:" 1 1 1 4 f / 1 4 Â»/ 1 u &%, %:14 .4 1 1 1 li 1 4 / . r \ Â»7% 11 lif "-41 }51 .Â·:/yiC -12*-2-' i \ \1\\ ., It 44-41/4. .. \ 1 - XE \ 1 1 i--I---~ 7 \ 1 -1., ~ fl 4 49 \ 5/ 1 /1 , 1 4--Al &2 1 WV ,47PMi 1 1 / f i .11 & 9* i \ 1 / 424-0/63/ Il .fil \ 1 \ I V . b.Â· 2 0~N;C' --E ~ 3 ' 1< 4 - l - 3 ) 1% *>, Â·, ~11 /. 1 \ , \ 1 3 ' i :t' L 2 '.,fi , ~.239 1 \ j / / 21 1 # \1 -11 / / /2 01 V 11 . .t -Â·Cm. 0-Â·-' C / 611<- 4 . tee.,n -N 1 i! 4/1 \ 5 4 ) 1 2// i 1 Â· 3 j U.*JEL= r 1 \ 2/ 1 / / 1 2 1 .*Â«b-Â£7Â«76- . f 6/4. M J // \ 1 9 1 / Ji 2 i 1 Ily\\\\ 1.- 1 / 0 t..\ c 1 8 h. 4 -/Â»9 / : dsl / / r'. \ . ,t \ . 4 .7. 2- F.4 1 , t) j 1/.1 4.4, 4.. . 1 ... t -./ 0.4.*-r~%1 4-40 r> 03 't .~ tâ‚¬,1 - / - ///1- fl'' 1 L\%422.... ,----0----1 V .00. C.:.- T-,r, I / l. 1, i ~7~Â«1 -- --f~ - , 1 / 1 \ \\\>.\ \ / , /f" \ -1 M-W, h.2 ; .. i .~ 3 1 1 \ 1 0\ / / i -2 1 , 6\ El\<q/)*% -\- --/ \*732- 4 5 /7Â©n ~ Â·Â·Â· 1 7 1/ . / . \ 1 63Â»/ ./ ,Â·54 . 2 --I- -1 ---.%- 0 / \ 9 00) 44 \~46, / C. / , \ u/ 9 * A . â€¢. A . . ,#Ch/Mizi. Cry 1 \\.:-1-7 h 4 - . . . 1\ i C --- ,â€ž 't 1 . .,F 2-S. U/1, \\t \ -- ~r ; â€¢- /;Â· . 'L- ,0,- ' *,1-.--' _Lar/% '\ 1 ... - -- I-- -2 .>43Â»3 3 . 6:4 .,1 Arl--.- ..2-30Â»U i\ : 36-*i .Â·- *ec~ ... , --9~--+Pc~_ -:- f --Mi.- : *'4.- 4.3Â·43~ 2 - - .1 ;*294_/ \ 22221â€¢eff-'\, -*-- * , -flt 1-:Â· . >2 \\..2. FÂ»=-2721-X-k-->019 ..3 p -227/.Â«40Â«/ h.u:E---7Z_.d-----r-7. Â·Â· --VÂ©- Â· f 1 \-1... -1 ,â€¢4 1 F-Â·17~'& - -4--2;/ 2 A-73 M-_ur- i - -_~- 1-------------*- -------_----''r--.4,;r-' - pit.t J~.2~:--~------------21~-----3--------T-'))42-*LZZ~~~--.'-*"~~~~~0,<-1)-~< 1~'i - 1 ----_-hz- * .ixi,Â£/..-.g f *.-rk -- I d 14 L., , -- u "-1.--~20--I- 1--r. ;7737=-4--_Â·2 121 / \ 1 .1 M - 4 -4..12- \ 17' ...., A ,.4 0 1 ---- \.- \4 0-'. *---\ --, . 1 / 43 1 \ 71. ~- ---> \ --2-Â£.-----------------~ / - ----- -- \ - i> '1 22. - -r:-- - "-=-75,22--'194><0 *- \ \ E --2--------- ---- \- 4\2Â«\\\ \\ \ 1 4 LI ........ 1 \Cl 7470 \ / Â»419*kiE \ SPA ------ 0- -- -- : 4 I- T \ Ne-: 4 1. Tr-of 4- Dj aid lirter h.vt b.i â€¢kw-â€¢Â· -r , A-\ Leonard Rice Consulting Water Engineers, Inc. 1 0â€¢ly tnes or 6 Dh or brger h.ve beeâ€¢ bbeled. ifi...1--, ./--- -. 4/ -*r 1.-- tÂ·- 1 -,A L - C~--,LAW 11,0 0 L.~.)â€¢ CL L,% â€¢,Aâ€¢ r,03 p: vilt 3. Thb h MQI â€¢ b.-dary..9.. . -- - 4 B-h-rk $ Brin op I: co- ho- E]eâ€¢INâ€¢ 794*Jl. ...1.n -:...1.cuncl~,4,- .?-I. fi.- ar.R v Or 14~ Â· 44 1 0 .u -ditete~2-%2'$ r 0 0,4,â€¢;.Et 't 4 tÂ· 1 -- ~ 4912- Â·3Â»Â·uiÂ»ia, . 1~ -- ;- - C:*2,2. 4 .3.., I M $ .0 e --' 1 Â»- r #.. '. . - -'-O Z. C m F. EL.7885' P GRADE IN ROAD - g -- - 2277Â£9219/397~ ' 7- . 192:* 1 3-:,gil/zf, 0 tÂ·Â· 4~ 1 -: 4 .t. .9.U + 0 112; -t . 7- htÂ» I .2 -6~#*4/: I - . , g ..6. i .. 29- Â·- g i SQCE..22~12!CAI!21: 1 2040 b 1 -- . ~1 -f-GRADE ~ ROOF TO BE A DULL .6 j ..124 1 -r...4 -939. E â€¢ C 9 RUSTY BROWN COLOR R S a.7.5. d % i STRANAHAN HALL . ENTRY + (EXISTING ) 1\ SEMINAR PATIO .1 -/2261Â£ggligilgail_ * LONG VERTICAL WINDOW ~ (OUTDOORS)~ , i . 2 - 2 FLAT PLAT ROOF, SURFACE FENESTRATION WALL TO NOT VIOIBLE WITH ..~ ~~ ~ FLAT L i. Â· - - \ BE A DULL BEIGE COLOR INTERNAL DRAIN 1. 5-.r -11 I .:il Ra - 21 ,mLLiEmIEI~iI12L.... ~ Â« GLASS STOREFRONT MATERIAL eer-- = r gd WALL TO BE A DULL . 4 GREY CULOR 4 LOCATIONS) liz Z., . m =12-2Ft i M6 : Ory W < E-m-IT 1 -=-2-55 5- . 4 kâ€ž:A@Ii I = VS M- 1EME--~4%11. 1-10 c 4 0% 913 mm . L.2 2 -g-*. # 5 ~7 ~- -4/" - n 99-6 -1-i BETHE HALL (EXISTING ) 27\ 9 --- . Pt - 2 1 / M:0 zalo \31- Ib * 4% Ag INTERIOR REMODELING AND ~ ~~ -~ \ - NEW WINDOWS. NO - % ~ \ADDITIONAL S.F. HILBERT KALL --1 1 1 /0-37 (TO BE REMOVED < \\ 1- ---1 \ \ p tl WALL SPECIFICATION ~ I Pr 1 i WALL TO BE A DU \ BEIGE COLOR \ ROOF TO BEA 1~ 1 LIGHT GMEY COLOR S I. - 1;LAT -- -1 ', -1?L.~7 1 - ty 1 -2 1 - 2-4 \ 4 ... 1 --- 0 \ 7 '-1â€¢ SETBACK % t. 'Â·Y 9- 1 k\ 4.-- 84Â·. Â· SETBACK 2\ r ..1+ 1 ' EL.78 ' ~Â»421 i . - 1 _Al _*rBACK â€ž . I:-c,BQf- ~ WA'*;.0$942*-Â·* ) . A-- SETBACK [ Ue 1/25/ I ili . 0-W &21 -0 NORTH 0 4, 1 UA 40 3 . C.%-*., 1 1 . 7-31- 12 OFF PROPERTY FACILIDES 8 OFFICES RENTED FROM THE ASPEN INSTITUTE THESE OFFICES WILL NO LONGER BE AVAILABLE STARTING 1995. - - ASPEN INSTITUTE LOT 1 1 743) ~=rM f fÂ» , 2 4 . Ch - 4 -/ \..., / 1 - \ -2==1====C \ /*â€¢ Ap' U I.- Il \ L i fr- k c f<il~I / \ li 1//0264 - 1 9 D \ i STREE1~8O44 \/ /1/6 ..V 1 Si Â®1 H ssÂ· FEET, ~ ~ * , 0 1 il . 0 ~~SPA~DED GRAVEL PARKING l.~ \' ~~\~~~ \ ( 20 CARS TOTAL) .P . 1 U NEW GRAVEL PARKING AREA - i Â·i,03,001 1 (6 CARS) -~ --i St EL . qi Â·-1 .2 1 i 1.-- 3>66% -1.e:CR - iÂ«=\43\ C I NEW ..... 7\ 0 }L.,Sy -/2--: \ t :.1 â€¢VVW FOOT # Â·t 34 1 Â» 9*71 I / / l In-,4 \1 1 \* f \\, 0 2.r< -.- .-zjjqriC - . .\ 71 WATE' Z 1 1 0 A Â· -1113- - - . tel.2.9 ..Â£ . '. STRANAHAN HALL -RELOCATE 2- 740.1 0 - 0 1 ~ eup< 19; 42= :. :4,4 Â»~ f . ~SPEN CENTER FOR PHYSICS r-1 1 < ~'~ SEMINAR (EXISTING) .-1. TREE. 4 Eli 01 z 7 Ul (OUTDOORS) LOT 3 \ 0 \-4*Ufl -1 . uÂ«-: + i 1 ---- 1 \/ /1 --â‚¬Z . = \ C * ra-./.Elll - -/ C. s I t. NEW IRRIGATION DITCH 1 <11 uoz /0 4 ba e 1 \ Moull , = E%%5 i I U./ / \ 1 $. 21 .1 / C/: A i p%* 1 LARGE ROCK h.,rEâ€¢ EASEâ€¢EM' â€¢ m r. 1-1 r'I:7 1 4 1 1 1 2339*94 4 t . Â«-ff f M.b El ... - - &85*-5 --;F' â€¢Ew C""-E //-1 2 5 4 ~.-1â€¢n . \~-1 20 %2 1 1 e: 2: 1 / /1- -1-.9- #Z E~5 43 0 /1 9 ~ Ill \ SEWER EASEMENT 4 U -.1 4 EDGE OF, ~. a Al 1 1. = Z g. 1 SAGE -U.' 1 0 1-j 1. .- -- - E-r k .64 - 81 121 1 zo 0. 1 ' BUILDING REPLACEMENT * LMEW COTTON-@OD - A V c ZE I PR T,9 - BETHE HALL ...44 1 n 1 / --RE (EXISTING ) * 4-nal \ 1~7 - -_ 03% 0 i. NEW WINDOWS NO â€¢ INTERIOR REMODELING AND ~ < f I \ \ . - , / .1.*i..#.~ 4 . 69 :-3(17.../ - :ir- ~0~1 ~ADDITIONAL S.F. 74, .- --3 i ........ 4 1 1. 1 d,"3*4 121 =39 A.,A \\ U- (: Â· :1 ./11 = A- . L.7 Ill 0-MLBERT MALL ' ---~- --- I. ---11/0 -1 (-Â»,SE.REMOVEA L--- - - -} d. -11- n - -1 2 1-,-- 1 8 . 89 -13 ELICâ„¢le 3- ..; // .. -- Â· 6*9Â£~ '01.w .ED'll.6 . 5 - - . 9 J Â· -- ~}29 ~ <-~1 -4 %~A/<-1 ~-U~ p-â‚¬ h~*f.3=71%2~ â€¢â€¢ - r. I 6/ I 7/ 1 - - 7-.2 - 7â€ž .1 1 1 g- 4 <WM-)*re=ATION . 51 - :/*463/4 ' 1 4 23.--I'Il),b. 1_4 h. ..<#a-*-,2 _~__- 1- --I rvel.J \ -1 1.- 1./ Â£ 99*622. , Â£ 1 1.. RMBL-.--*...1*' \~d , "*Uff I . , - ; F:*% e.y -t , COTTOâ€¢-0001 ' ~ er#t==44 I . r-I- 2-.1 I. N 141% ' _-nhol.'â€¢I # / 41 0 Â·t . . j :1 . Â·r-v r. r.'1 2 03-4-- /.. . - f - 1.7 + 1 SrTE PLAN -12 - -4-'IL- -=~,--- --/ .f L. - 7........2.U=2=EmpÂ»Z 48/rl g-;.:-t= 5-uu,-aL - - LS-=v ~ .. ~ . 1-25-96 -I EDGE OF 'ACE '.....EA 9,/... -U /55>/ A 4- - .. i 1 RESIDENTIALLOT-1 NORTH * ~/ ~1 -5~0 40 r spA j Pl == l- l -- 7--F 75' FEET R.O.W. * -3./.3 -1â€¢~ â€¢-1.INâ‚¬}, â€¢00â€¢ -â€¢ 1â€¢ : -0 ---- a / b n:tÂ·-tte~%.~+0:'14& 3 2-9iteFt.-2% M.A.A. 1. **Sg-eer* <4*. - r 161 ): 0/3 U 4/ 4 071 Â« M I. Mt'Ticâ‚¬*El. . .a -- /-21=.=-2.--3.~.2=3 ...... Z U g OFF PROPERTY FACUTES : - fl / 4=tk -- THE ASPEN INSTITUTE 2 . OFFICES RENTED FAO,1 4 NOT AVAILABLE START.0 1â€žÂ§ 0 / REMODEL . c BETHE FOR__ EXPANDED g EXPANSION ANDERSON / Z (20 CARS . 1 + PARKING AREA ~ ~~RT 10 HALL TO BE~ P SIXTH STREET REMOVED .... lill. - -Â£ ./.1 tb.. ,.Â·* ~ *ew?./ 5 2 2 2 ..... 3 0 -=25 RACE TRACK OPEN SPACE g; E 21 1 - /3 16- 4* 43 C : CE 2 6 1 1 E // 9 0*1 -i 0 2 -6 . 5-2 - /ASPEN \ INSTITUTE Solom i <,=74/ LOT 1 ~ : i SAGE TERRACE / ~ ~ ~pELNO~P4A(E i r \\ for--~ Â«9 LOT 6 ~ . 2---*-7 --N.j 1, I. .. LOT 5 '..5.2. / - '4+11&632.-. . 7 -439- :t?.7-1 1.2...0 1=2 22~21 - CASTLE- ->*1,45+25rd. . -17?*434* 1 CREE==2 ~ CONSERVATION LAND 1 1 IÂ· -(fil*aÂ¤*Â»)~ NORTH 0 100 200 :,-6.Â· -4 *7 â‚¬ . ~~ ... Â· Â·. L.k:*a.6;522Â£Â·Â£11*- Â· \\ .~// /--\.0 - - 3 .Uifkg~---..z.â€¢' -- .'6Â¥1:Uhl~ 'v 341 S -13 HIHON 7 4 CEMETARY LN. (187- V-j/re Â° 4864- CASTLE REEK DR. 204 4 1/4 4 S N .AKY LN. TH ST MEADOWS RD. H. T ( 2 TH S T. 71 *e. Â» 3, i ty TH. Te 0 -4= & ' -10 mc 512 / 2 0 1 ZU) 4- 1Z e TH.T.wra 4c~~v O 34 - ST. m 0 1- m ND. T C. S Z T. # 69 R e -6 0 aRise 0 b *+1-1-n 2* 8 8-10 . (/pro , Â·-4A PEN ST. Â« 0 O ~M N RK ST 2 - 006 3 0 1 AGNED ~f 2 b 9 444" ,â‚¬ b 222 2/.2. X ILL ST. 40' (@4Â£ A/4 s 2 + 40 + TE n RED MOUNTAIN fd~~*~~ b SP 4 0 40 S 6 - 4 // b/ GÂ» j 1 IN i WE 7 ND T, il 1 Z '0 -b-' IS \m 2 ltv LA 0 0 -- C b " mir 0 .4 m - -0- Ab 1 0 0 6, 47 4 - 0 4 4/44 0.Â» 02 04Â£04 &If Cy I Tr Z 101 C! hat''I I r;.01,Â£ p :Â· 1 r , /:iÂ· t. .-. 2. 4 .M.â€¢ 1'.14 1,1 - ' 1 40â€¢ I Wk..1: 0. i ' t 24 -:tÂ¥Â¥1 1. ' 4 l.; 1 hiCY-Pt, , b ? 931,1.lie r 1 121# H 1 . 441:6 -,.4.1 , :044*F. Â· 1 I 6 '1 ' 19 1 6.4,1 ! 1 /dii..& ,1 ' 4&81 â€¢. 74Â· , 0 , 'i' Â· ill'i '-4 1 ' ' # I . F ''kli:fi~.-/1 .. 1 nifff.-1. " Â·. Â· .* 1 ''. , 2-1*1~ti*11' ff., ~ .,~~ ..Â© ' ' 1 + 1.'/ .#'. , ~, ..ill, 24/ , â€ž ,.1 ', I. I I. .r 1. ,~. 0Â» , H\ , 41 , I . .Wh. . '..1 92'f ROAR[Nk Q+*p 1*4400 SALVATION Cl 1NVWn lS AV ad 00111 ~ HUNTER CREEK RD. N3dSV