The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19940608AGENDA 4 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE JUNE 8, 1994 REGULAR MEETING SISTER CITY MEETING ROOM SECOND FLOOR CITY HALL 5:00 I. Committee and Staff Comments Approval of April 27, 1994 minutes flal A- Us O/6 II. Public Comments III. OLD BUSINESS 5:15 A. Williams Ranch Affordable Housing - Compliance with the Neighborhood Character Guidelines. The project architect will attend the meeting. '500 - be n , 0 K Â· 50 A-7 5:45 B. 132 W. Main Street, Request for setback variance - Pulilic heairng _ 00*-74 P 0-Â¥--~ - O /4- IV. NEW BUSINESS 5:55 A. Hotel Jerome - Minor Development (ft Â£~e--3414- -5- /- 1,/ 3 0 99 6--iR 6:15 B. 200 W. Hopkins - Partial Demolition-4 3 I n duu . F og i y - L 4 S 6:35 C. 523 W. Francis - Partial Demolition 302.-c_ -6â‚¬5 , (0 k 7:00 A. Project Monitoring B. Neighborhood Character Guidelines - ongoing C. Red Brick update - ongoing D. Temporary Overlay Zone 7:15 V. ADJOURN 3 08 E ila i n Â·6 -1-. 1 1 L O l. A.~ -6-rtc_ 0/6 0 4 -1' i- . HPC PROJECT MONITORING HPC Member Name Proiect/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 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 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 Rubey Transit Center 334 W. Hallam (alternate) 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 Linda Smisek 134 E. Bleeker 210 Lake Avenue 305 Mill St. Tom Williams 130 S. Galena - City Hall 300 W. Main - fence McDonalds Scott Samborski 702 W. Main - Stape - Conceptual Development approved Sept 8, 1993 220 W. Main - European FLower Market Final April 20, 1994 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: Williams Ranch Affordable Housing- compliance with the Neighborhood Character Guidelines DATE: May 18, 1994 SUMMARY: The Williams Ranch Affordable Housing proposal is currently under review by P&Z and City Council. As a condition of approval, those Boards have requested that the project comply with the Neighborhood Character Guidelines. Although the Guidelines are still in their draft form (without illustrations), they have established basic design principals for Aspen neighborhoods. Attached are the Character Guidelines for the Smuggler Mountain neighborhood, sections from the application before P&Z and Council, conceptual designs for the single family and duplex units proposed for this project and site plans. Most of the major issues regarding number and mix of housing units, road construction/traffic and impact of this development on Centennial have already been discussed at length in other public meetings. HPC's focus should only be on design issues and on the impact that this development may have on the Smuggler Mine National Register Site, which is immediately east of the affordable housing. The applicants have some models of the proposed houses and will bring them to the meeting. COMPLIANCE WITH SMUGGLER MOUNTAIN NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN POLICIES: 1. Mass and Scale: The proposed single family buildings do appear to be similar in scale and massing to Aspen's traditional residential structures (a duplex will be about 1600 sq. ft.) The Guidelines recommend that buildings should be broken up into modules of 1600-1800 sq. ft., as is typical of the neighborhood. Only the fourplexes do not meet this standard. They should be broken up into smaller units by changes in rooflines, wall planes, etc. No wall plane should be uninterrupted for more than 20 feet. 2. Building Form: The buildings are based on rectangular forms and draw directly from Victorian design. 3. Site Plan: The site plan continues the irregular street pattern typical of the Smuggler area. A lot of attention and effort has been directed at providing a buffer between Centennial and Williams Ranch, and similar actions should be directed at the transition between Williams Ranch and the Smuggler Mine. Because the Smuggler is the only historic mine which is visible from town and which retains its original setting and many features (development has not quite reached the mine site up until now) it is very important that it's character be protected as well. There should be some open space or native vegetation buffer between the two sites and new construction should step down in height as it approaches the mine. 4. Materials: The buildings all appear to be wood frame with metal roofs. The Guidelines support use of a variety of materials in this neighborhood. 5. Architectural Features: All details appear to be in scale with traditional Aspen architecture. Porches are provided on most buildings, and entryways are prominent. Balconies would also be an appropriate feature. The architect should consider more playful variations on traditional details to distinguish these buildings from true Victorians. HPC's policy in general is not to promote replication of historic structures. 6. Parking: Most units show an attached garage which faces the street. The garages are the same width as the building frontage in most cases. Some units have a garage set closer to the street than the main body of the house. The architect should consider placing the garages further back on the lot and making them less prominent in general, possibly orienting them to the side or rear of the site. 7. Historic Buildings: There are no historic buildings in this neighborhood, however the Smuggler Mine is nearby. This area has a number of historic sites scattered throughout it, but the dominant architectural character is a variety of 20th century styles, including chalet, pan abode, log and mobile homes. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC request the applicants comply with the points described above and that HPC forward their comments to P&Z and City Council. 7/19/93 â€¢ Aspen Neighborhood Guidelines Page 7 L PROJECT GOALS 1.1 Giv~the direction that the Community Plan so strongly mandates, the following goals are established for the neighborhood character design guidelines. A. To preserve individual historic resources of Aspen 1. Historic resources include buildings, structures, sites and objects. 2. Individual historic structures are found throughout the cuie 1/, 4 Stzo A 4/ .amaras-well,as m districts; these are from a range of periods. ,)A/U CA-UL Ar 6,1,2/l 0\4 00.- u,caM s 40-wouo v. <s c-4- 4 zo v- 6,1 . B. To preserve established neighbdrhood character where i~xists. 1. Street plans and plats are distinctive characteristics of individual neighborhoods and should be respected. ao .-1 o J 2. In some neighborhoods, historic resources occur in sets. 455 v VS *2,Â»/1 a. Some of these could be considered to be historic districts. fjrb J r R.1 2 4,+VtÂ» b. Others could be considered to be conservation districts. -t-2~ 3. Other neighborhoods retain a sense of neighborhood identity associated with traditional development patterns. C To enhance the livability of individual neighborhoods -fee-t:heif- residents Â· 1. To enhance the pedestrian experience, to promote alternative modes of transportation 2. To preserve a pedestrian scale that will encourage long-term residential use 3. To promote a sense of neighborhood identity 4. This especially applies to newer neighborhoods and those that are more diverse architecturally. D. To encourage creativity in new designs. These should not imitate historic styles, but must be compatible with them. Creativity does not mean to be so radically different that the sense of neighborhood is destroyed. 1. Creativity is a tradition in Aspen. 2. The goal is to seek a balance between having all buildings be similar an having new building be completely.different from its context The basic element should be similar, but details should be creative, interesting and delightful variations on tradition. E. To promote the use of alternative II'lOdes of transportation. 1. By providing safe, interesting streetscapes attractive to pedestrians and bicyclists. 2. By providing pleasant settings for transit stops. Winter & Company 7/19/93 Â· Aspen Neighborhood Guidelines Page 8 IL GENERAL DESIGN POLICIES FOR ALL NEIGHBORHOODS These design guidelines apply to all the neighborhoods identified o Il the design map. 1. Mass & Scale Guidelines a. All buildings should help establish a sense of pedestrian- friendly scale. In Aspen, a "pedestrian friendly," scale is not monumental; it is relatively small in. scale and relates to the size of building components seen historically. b. Buildings should appear to be similar in scale to those in the established neighborhood, or to the scale that is desired for the neighborhood. c Standard architectural features should also be in scale. 2. Building Form Guidelines a. All buildings should use roof and building forms that establish a sense of visual continuity for the community. by repeating typical forms b. Simple rectangular forms are encouraged. Compound forms that are are result of combining these simple rectangular forms are also appropriate. b. Roof: Gable forms are preferred for roofs in all residential areas. Flat roofs are appropriate in the commercial core. c. Appurtenances: Variety is encouraged, but an overall simple character should be retained. 3. Site Planning Guidelines a. Orient buildings to the street. The primary fagade should help establish a pedestrian scale and provide visual interest. b. In some areas, a uniform setback establish a building line; in other neighborhoods, they lie within a narrow range of setbacks. This site plan relationship is an important characteristic. Respect set-back and alignment patterns where they exist. d. Avoid sunken yards; yards should be near sidewalk level. e. Reflect the platted grid where it exists. 4. Building Materials Guidelines a. Natural, indigenous materials are preferred, to establish a sense of continuity throughout the community. b. Typical materials are native stone, and painted, wooden clapboard. Sloped roofs are shingle or metal panels. Substantial overhangs are typical. 10, ~ 611.- , =p- Â·SA*â€¢=-0. Winter & Company 7/19/93 â€¢ Aspen Neighborhood Guidelines Page 9 5. Architectural Features Guidelines a. Windows, doors and other features should be scaled to be "pedestrian friendly." b. Creativity in the treatment of architectural finishes and details is especially encouraged. c. This an area in which it is appropriate to distinguish new building from old. d. The primary entrance should be clearly defined, and oriented to the street. 6. Parking Design Guidelines a. The visual impact of parking should be minimized. b. Locate parking to the side or rear, in residential projects. c Minimize the percentage of the building frontage that is allocated to garage openings. d. Minimize the amount of hard paving surfaces that are used in parking lots. 7. Impact on Historic Buildings in neighborhoods a. Preserve historic structures throughout the community. ~~; (See the rehabilitatiert-guidelines-Â·fer-+~tcmic-L uildings:) New buildings should avoid negative.impacts on adjacent historic properties. This applies to individually deiignated properties throughout town. ~ =412,42/147 r .L/l CZA/' 1*- .LIA , 6 AC 41 , 9+V- L<-4- 1 c. The edges of historic districts are especiMk SZsitive. New development should step down in scale, or provide greater separation between historic buildings and new construction. 6. 4 2 W 44-24.' 2-0 L-1 6 .CO l.Â·15 4!,rÂ·-, st-7 0 &, CD.vuaa,-S ASW . 6 -Ds A--0- ~c-y / Mls 4 . o L...=Â».<1 w~-v- L -~32Â·u 62,(4> F 0- =-&) + 45~ u & 4 J i - 4 9 Winter & Company 7/19/93 - Aspen Neighborhood Guidelines Page 17 V. GUIDELINES FOR THE EAST END NEIGHBORHOOD (NORTH OF MAIN STREET) + M 0 4 41,eâ‚¬- 1-01 OL) A-i T-24< P-i The East End lies north of Main Street between Mill Street and Original Street. It is bounded on the north by the Rearing Fork River. A. Historic character of the East End ~140Â¥~, =1162+LE~ (Need description of historic character.) ((6401,- i F+1 B. Current character of the East End 1. A variety of building scales is found 2. Multi-family structures are mixed in with single family houses. 3. Some properties overlook the park 4. There is little visual continuity for this area. C Development trends 1. Large multi-family projects are the trend. D. Goals for the neighborhood 1. To preserve a scale of single family residential buildings 2. To allow accommodations building to be more compatible with their neighborhood character 3. To establish a sense of visual integration in the neighborhood E. Neighborhood design policies 1. Mass & Scale a. Buildings should be similar in. scale to traditional residential structures of the community. b. Divide larger projects into building masses that are similar to those of buildings seen traditionally. c. Step buildings down in scale as they approach adjacent smaller structures. d. Use windows and doors that are similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally to help establish a sense of scale. e. The solid-to-void ratio should be similar that seen traditionally in residential areas of Aspen. Winter & Company 7/19/93 Â· Aspen Neighborhood Guidelines Page 18 2. Building form a. Each building should have a simple rectilinear form as its primary shape. b. Divide larger building areas into separate building masses, linked by "connector." This will help reduce the perceived mass of the development. A gable or hip roof should be the primary roof form. Appurtenances: Variety is encouraged. Contemporary interpretations of traditional features, such as porches, are also encouraged. 3. Site plan a. Provide a clearly defined front yard. b. Buffer edges of the site from adjacent properties with. fences or hedges. Fences should be low in height, to allow views into front yards. c Locate the primary floor at or near sidewalk grade; avoid sunken terraces that separate the main entrance from the street level. 4. Materials a. Primary building materials should be "natural, or native: materials. b. Doors and entrances - Materials are not reviewed. c Windows - Materials are not reviewed. 5. Architectural features a. Porches: Provide porches, oriented to the street and scaled to be similar to those seen historically. Â· b. Doors and entrances: Clearly identify primary entrance. The entry should be in scale with those seen traditionally in residential areas of Aspen. Use doors similar in. scale to those seen traditionally in residential areas of Aspen. c Consider a central, shared entry for multi-family units that would appear to be a single, dominant entry. c Windows: Use windows similar in scale to those seen traditionally in residential areas of Aspen. d. Eave depths: Should be similar to those seen traditionally in residential areas of Aspen; these provide scale, and a shadow line that helps give interest. Winter & Company flo 7/19/93 Â· Aspen Neighborhood Guidelines Page 19 6. Parking a. Garages: (1) Detached garages are preferred. These will help reduce the perceived scale of the overall development. (2) Where garages are visible from the street, use the smallest doors possible to reduce their visual impact. Treat the door to appear similar to the background siding materials. (3) When garages are to be attached, minimize the percentage of building front allocated to garages. The width of the garage should be less than 50% of the overall building frontage. b. Driveways (1) Where feasible, access parking from alleys. (1) If accessed from the street, locate the driveway to the side of building, rather in front of it. (2) Differentiate drive paving materials from that of the street. Decorative patterns are encouraged and porous materials are preferred. (3) Slope driveways downward toward the building to reduce their visual impact. 7. Historic buildings a. Preserve any historic structures that may be found in this neighborhood. (See rehabilitation guidelines) b. New buildings should step down in scale when adjacent to historic structures. Winter & Company North East Neighborhood Jake Vickery draft 8-11-93 AREA BOUNDARIES Starting from a steel stake on a rock known as USLM Ute #4 easterly to a bridge where the Rearing Fork River crosses Highway 82, thence North along the base of Smuggler Mountain, thence West along the edge of the Hunter Creek Open Space, thence South along Red Mountain R oad, thence South-Easterly along the Roaring Fork River to the bridge of beginning. A. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER This area is actually composed of approximately 4 to 6 subareas. A very distinctive feature of the this area that drives its architecture is its irregularity: varied flat hollows and benches joined by rolling and sloping terrain. This terrain has generated a winding freeform (non-gridded) layout of streets and lanes, many dead-ending, and few alleys. The resulting lot and block configurations have unique shapes and unique edge conditions such as the Roaring Fork River and the base of Smuggler Mountain. Dominant building orientation is south and west towards the afternoon sun and Down Valley views. The Architecture in this area in part has responded to this irregularity and as such is extremely varied consisting of everything from mobile home vernacular to mining shed style to Pan Abode to conventional Victorian to log cabin to chalet style to 1950 apartment complex to grocery store plan-book resort to earth sheltered solar modern. In general the level of the architecture is smallish and vernacular except for a small but growing number of larger high end-units. The mining shed shape and resort prow gable are characteristic. Expressed post and beam, high chisel shaped glass, functional (often used for storage) balconies are prominent. The materials are equally varied with a predominance of stained large profile wood siding, board and batten, logs, T-111, stone, concrete block. B. CURRENT CHARACTER See above. This area has a higher density of smaller dwellings. Many are not well maintained. This is not yet an upscaled neighborhood. A typical residential massing in this neighborhood is estimated to be about 1600-1800 sf. C. DEVELOPMENT TRENDS New large, multifamily projects will hopefully by very restricted and scrutinized in this area. There are a few remaining large parcels that could be developed and these guidelines, if in place, could promote compatible and exemplary design. This area has a lot of potential. Many of the structures either are or will be obsolete in the next 10 years and will be remodeled or replaced. Be having some policies regarding this area, new development could be steered in a more cohesive and orchestrated direction which would strengthen and reinforce to interesting qualities of this neighborhood. E. 1. a. Structures should be in modules of approximately 1600-1800 sf max. No uninterrupted wall surface parallel to a street shall be more than 20' in width f Duplexes should be eliminated and the right lot area substituted. Larger structures and ' to build 1 independent module per 3000sf of multifamily structures must be articulated and be by special review only. 2. a. Playful warping and modifying of the simple rectilinear forms to respond to unique lot and edge conditions should be allowed and encouraged. Building forms can be punctuated with towers. c. Relaxed gable roofs, flat roofs, shed roofs, and prow roofs should be allowed. Hip roofs should be discouraged. 3. a. Open space should be allowed where it is functional. Solar rights should be protected. Page - 2 c. There are virtually no sidewalks in this area. 4. a. A broader pallet of materials should be allowed including corrugated metal siding, Cortin steel, etc. 5. c. Major dominant entry statements are somewhat out of character. More appropriate is a intimate low key entry accessible behind a gate or thru a garden. Multifamily structures should have multiple ground level entries. c2 Large glass areas and chisel top windows are characteristic. 6. a. Parking is on the street edge of the property Garages, if they exist are typically integrated under the units. The streets in this area serve the alley functions because there are no alleys. Attention must be paid to parking and trash and pedestrian safety. Street rights of way are narrow and sub-standard. b. Sloping driveways toward the building creates drainage problems in this area. Page - 3 4 14,1 - I , 7 44= 11 11111'~1 6 *::0**Fwii,i:iii,i,cÂ·iDD,0' .4 % r .41&1Â®Itt- 0,11 --1 1- 1 in [*1 t#lkÂ·. El . NE Dilloot'E *: 330'' 1 i,li 47, . 11{ 11 wl'111 1 ) 1 dill-1 11 lili 'bl il + 0[11 41 .1 1,1 ~@MI"~111111111 11_ _ 1 -8!8111 Woot[~ 99 -1 EEFEMEFEEI~-,i .FJÂ®[il~Ilh~'i~~~~.- -â€ž- - 1... f Â»**IJ'&44110%*I r I. 9==Itti~ 111 4=41 41 a - m a [ -11RI~q-- I 4 =-- --11== Ill[ 4 - limit 7111, 8 4 1001 ~ 1,~ NEÂ®.f-Elood==]~ 1*1 =**%~ 1.1'..1- 1.,1...}1111.11 . Ilill#,11,1 1.- t .35 ' t. 244 . 6, All>: 1. ?Fri. . #r. f IÂ¥11_1_1<All 13*Nâ‚¬1-1 4- 41 - I. . PRELIMINARY PLANS iSA aspen C 010. fit 4 ,/0 No trE LIA L- 7120 FWIA 1.-2 Ft, gr COVEK C>g- 54 I l.646 M,5 AA KE &4 rgo -1 war ,â‚¬282 .1*Kie' 44*41,9 .4 . *08â‚¬.4.- ' n. *9~ '1% 1 -v , -- 1 â€žIii Il 1 1. L.-1 F=*Feu 1 25&=1 -14<-1-dJEWM EE! - Ek 1 1 -- 1 -- 1 1 ~7Wii i)L j 1 M N 4 1 --- 1 1 4 1=-1-tEl 1 1 Lii,i.M i' Â·I'l: Â·Aa 1--AN 1 1 -1 --W - 1 1 i- . 4- --1 !:FU-k=:,4.- ----.4 // --- 7 V 1 E- k i e 92 IVE.W.bpr 42:7,-kIEr-EL.LA L LAYOUST . I H It, g EEC:' 2 269 h - + 25 -- -i 1-- I I ..1 . :flm:-m .1_ Â·Â·im r ./1 1 . -9 . -P ... .1- : @,I! ~1 / 11 ' C - 7 1 UL'llum- I Zilin:. .9.*IL,-1,W - f- -16 i...,5,;44Â·:-â€¢. di -Im... 1,â€¢ â€¢ 1=:Â»t -6 IOZEZI--EN T.46--1---I---I ~ -, -p AE.fli =dju ....L- 5 -Â· ia.Gl, 2 -2 irÂ·%/ e -- r. -1/ C==E.. 11 11 . M mt; z . TÂ· - 64 Alm ----- 1 U --7 -ft t.-1 LITEFT/=TZ- ILD . 1 01,1,1,1 liT- 61Ud LE 4 /4t or E L EVATIO U 1*Â«re A 06[7 222:2 M O Fl-10 0 i / t" - ~ - CD~ KEEP g.o Og aâ‚¬P /96 4%94#14,1 . UY .- 0 U -- - p j T.-,~ - - 0 -- 1-1 I 395EJ I =0 bki- '*5 1 4 7 (\ 7% P m 1 1, 11 m T-f - Â·UnIN 1 It, U r- 1 1,11&1 - : 1 1 I'll imf. -- 1 iME !1 1 I 6 1 111 L i Â®1~ c i. 3. *1,1 re[/1~ 11 1 1 111 11 - C'~TI 112 5 'Al 11 11~4 ,+ y E m 1 i 1 III , 1 7 57Er i 11 -9 EE F--2 11 1 lili 4 0 1333 . 1 0 -%4 F It// r' O 11-V/%-9-131 1 , Iig,/1 A. -- 0- 1 -- L. - -1 1- 1 1 -1 11 1 r. 1 If-[7 1 11 t. 11,1. 1 1 r--+ , Ul.Li~ /5 i /5/EN- Â£11=EE 1 1 Eall 1 1 1 -- 1 $ it-- ope_t p Es:.ki 62*ace P Cped.K Â« . t Â©1 k-Er LE FAMI LY 6,01...1F.14 UK*Flok]ZE) 11 1 60 ICEED g O 02 9 RES:7 " -3 2 9 k -1-6 as ,-1*21- - 7- 52g 21 001 64 al-10999 L b L 11 62713 .1621 W , 0.11 - 119/1 DIOI J-YA.21 9 Xaldod & 9 8 50*1 I I ll!,1 IL ., l il li 1! 11 lili- f 1 11 , -- 7 1---9 - - -- - ---- 1 1 , 7 - 00 - MI 1181lf -3% m 2_* 912 I Immilm i= =4 = - *11 --i -1 . 1-.Ure N -0 1 '11 11 4 -- F L !! T-1111 11 Â» 11 N N , + }1 11 N H U U A- 22*---- 1- -32-21 X) aN -- ~Elll ~iiÂ·,mA ~-i -Ri 4 M 1 @M -- - ----- tz]MI - Well + 12,1 Ul - a -1â€ž " - 11 11 11 -* 11 0 H ##1 i. --1 Â·--Dt r 1 1 j f\t -5121- rlf?I y . Â» - -- - --701 Â» ' i 1 11,9. ri\\ p..it 1 ill,V. 1, f 1 1 ..1 4 ..9, . 1 . CV 11 Q. I L - 11<2/0/1 -2014Â· .113-ZI.1.6 (\ C 1-10 LI-Â¥4 3 -1 g X 2 -1 213 63 WO - 1 A--1 IL. Elannl BQI) - =-- =2 - IM:Â¥?1 U [1 - -- - [10 1.34 - F 111"I 3-3 ~ Â«i 713( =1 - :Il 16 8,1 - 1 lili 1 -1 - - 10 -1 311&-il -7-- 2-E--7-- + - ----- -- 1 1 --0- bu 11----- 77 1 ./ 01, 1 rl 1 1 TI . li i --- 1 '24 -7 1 I ... '4ifiN*%!k ./1.:NeÂ·IN-lze,ilt-AA 1'44%33:15.i:;:sit:'1 L Â·Â· . .*.B:/",I" *I~XL-/444.6.M.,:4*I-%92'li.#**t.t:Jilif,m,1.,,- i;/2,/2EX/~1 261*3~iwiliEN,83*Hisi?,24%16*301813:~11Â§3,41&~E-i!206â€¢:%71 1.* emiSM?;t~43*dil@8.3~04;%~Â§&3*}JEMp '0'*,0*" fitÂ·:4248 *441**11/*Emeni 4$4~5%1 .1.~ 1/Et**ej///f-- --' -. 1%9Â·iff=*2=~ I Â·- : Â·--Â·Â·Â·......:-'..eÂ·t.-i/4.--I , yg~. â€¢:r3~ *FE33!~~ :iER;(34?2.~;93 tal# â€¢:~Â·CAÂ·BQrr-4Â·*5-m/1 /964 .. . Ae,tlig>gft..4051*=1.----9- 1,4.-;- .4."64.-0: .... .2141*4â‚¬rt . .~ -Â·eÂ¥â€¢us,r:*91==6w-< 17&110:~SUR.BM~#191'~-~~DSÂ·--0, 39*.- 1- . ... ' 1127 ... . 1- 1... 404;a=4 .f Â· .- 5 :Â«i kf'.; al '161' 8iK . 0,4 4 *4*90% E-0 ; 2, : - 3,5 isti ZEET[ 4 .9 1491; .4 - !51:1! 21* ra %=54 :1 2. i. 1 - .,5011 E- N 00 Edi k Â· I KE r m - .:.Hd7~8.14 i>. L Â·Â·' f Â» 4 FEE- &- -1 " ~ 111 1 1 1:1.411,11 lei ellri 3,1;';'i"~1'~'.11#"'ti.1.Ul'11â‚¬ Est 9 22 11' i ....1 Â·I... ' ~-Ers i i *. ta 4//19 &961. I Ii' EFF! 11 i 211[LE} 2[_LFLBX DOAF'4U1Â©LTIOA.-15 4 1 1 <* 90 <rEp Of maecp .\ 7 1 :01.A . t:tet If : I tiil , -, et:4 11:1111111'61:9Â®Â®ilf'll'lil '1 ) 1 FiÂ·al;EL It i, 1.1 Ac i 043%~1 Â»4--8 M @64 12*142 1 Â£ T 1 Z 1 Z1 65[7 K,~Me 2 1 3 2 or 4 71-EX aPhÂ·4F:15 LÂ»JE 10 K-1 b - T " e 5=2' ZES:7 1-H 5 0-2522 Â·4 -, 9.'?4,7:Â· 1 1 6 11 1 . .4 - 1-- /6 111. , 1 i C ~22__AL 4 4*4 , ; li H H 11 11 -1 N=-U.*1' ill L,FS % 1 f In 12 9, E -E- m a f 11- @3 - - =-I; 1~ il -IrlgI '~~f .............. EUVi TE"Fal dI 1 . -1 Ny* R/- N '~rjUT-illi~:~~~~11~%* 1~ M 7 F WL--32 7 - 3% - rr - 1-m-1 -04 2 LL.Bl_EL ff m lil = 02 = -EE 2 -*_HE-*Ilt L $ 1 1 ! 1, - -- LL.-1 I r / i i 4 FLEX ELEVATIohd 1/8" = 1' - O" 1 PEFPR=P M UNIT 6 455 5'F AT i Z D E [2102 M l-LUIT 8 83 1 SMUGGLER MINE - WILLIAMS RANCH LAND USE APPLICATION TO PITKIN COUNTY 1. PROJECT OVERVIEW: NAME: Smuggler Consolidated Mines Corporation - Stefan R. Albouy Smuggler-Durant Mining Corporation ADDRESS: Gary A. Wright, Esq. Wright & Adger Jerome Professional Building 201 North Mill Street, Suite 106 Aspen, Colorado 81611 TELEPHONE: 925-2049 FACS IM[ LE: 925-5663 DEVELOPMENT TEAM: The Stevens Group, Wright & Adger and Banner Engineering NAME OF MI,-RD Permit Application Approval including PROJECT: Williams Ranch Access from Smuggler Mountain Road, Mine Master Plan Approval and Subdivision PROJECT Smuggler Mountain Road - Smuggler Mine & Williams Ranch LOCATION: Pitkin County, Colorado, TOTAL AREA: 42 acres, more or less. ZONING: Smuggler Mine area (29 acres) - AF-1 1 Williams Ranch (13 acres) - AH 1 1 The Williams Ranch portion of the subject property has been approved for annexation by the City of Aspen pursuant to Resolution 4, series 1991. The City of Aspen Planning & Zoning has given conceptual approval to zoning this property AH based on the preliminary site plan presented to it during the Fall of 1991. The entire 42 acres were included in the EPA's OU #2 Study Area in January 1992. Based on current information, the Williams Ranch portion of the property will be approved by the EPA as not requiring any remediation in November 1993. 1.AM\BOCC_03*.APP 4 t.... Illit ,0 t.-1*4401 - SMUGGLER MINE -WILLIAMS RANCH LAND USE APPLICATION TO PITKIN COUNTY UNIQUE CONCERNS: The approximately twenty-eight acres known as the Smuggier Mine was listed in the National Register of Historic Places by act of Congress in 1987. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Authorize the subdivision of the Property to permit the Williams Ranch Property to be annexed into the City of Aspen and zoned "AH" to facilitate a mixed use employee-free market project. The Smuggler Mine Property will remain in the County, The Applicant requests the approval by the County of the EPA Approved, State MI_RD Umited Impact Permit. As required by the EPA Approved State MLRD Umited Impact Permit, the Applicant requests that the County grant a perpetual non-exclusive access Easement from Smuggler Mountain Road to the south-west comer of the Williams Ranch Property. The applicant also requests the approval, as a part of the MLRD Permit, of the proposed Smuggler Mine Master Plan. Current information indicates that the EPA Approved MI-RD Permit is necessary to facilitate the future "de-listing of the Superfund site. 1 1.AM\BOCC_03A.APP 5 SMUGGLER MINE - WILLIAMS RANCH LAND USE APPLICATION TO PITKIN COUNTY 11. INTRODUCTION Stefan was born and raised in Aspen and for the past twenty-three years has lived next door to the Williams Ranch. The residents of Spruce Street are predominantly his longtime i neighbors. He watched Sam Brown build the Centennial Condominiums Project and provide i housing for many newer residents. He has seen dozens of friends and family members leave the Roaring Fork Valley because they could not find aMordable housing, His wish is to build this employee housing project for qualified longtime community members. Once the APCHA has certified a purchaser for the purchase of a Category 2, Category 4 or RO Unit, Stefan will give special priority to those who have resided in Pitkin County for more than ten years. Stefan, in his application to the APCHA has requested that they determine qualified purchasers for approximately twenty-five percent of the employee units. He will reserve the right to sell the remaining seventy-five percent to long-time residents after they have received qualification from the APCHA. The Land Use Process for the Smuggler Mine - Williams Ranch is long, involved and complicated. The EPA has designated the entire property as a Superfund Site which has created impacts that must be resolved as a part of the overall process. The first step on the City-County level is an APCHA recommendation for the mix of types of employee housing to be provided. Next is review by the County Planning & Zoning Commission for Subdivision, General Submission, Scenic Overlay and Â§1041 Review, including access across the County Mollie Gibson Park from Smuggler Mountain Road to the Williams Ranch, and the approval of a Mined Land Reclamation Division Umited Impact Permit which will resolve all EPA remediation of the property and facilitate the future "de-listing' of the Aspen Superfund Site. lAM\BOCC_03*.APP 6 ....... ./-/I' SMUGGLER MINE - WILLIAMS RANCH LAND USE APPLICATION TO PITKIN COUNTY Stefan R. Albouy, through his company, Smuggler Consolidated Mines Corporation, has a Contract to Purchase Real Estate to acquire the forty-two acres known as the Smuggler Mine and the Williams Ranch. He has obtained the Seller, Smuggier-Durant Mining Corporation's consent to submit Land Use Applications to the City of Aspen and Pitkin as well as to obtain EPA approval for a State MURD Limited Impact Permit. He has applied to the City of Aspen to annex approximately thirteen acres located adjacent to the city, behind the Centennial Condominiums. He has proposed that these thirteen acres be zoned "AH" and be the future location for sixteen free market lots, ten employee single family homes, twelve employee half-duplex units and sixteen Category 2 employee townhouses. | This application and the included information is provided as a prerequisite to negotiations between the EPA and all PRP's for the Aspen Superfund Site concerning the remediation of the 1 area identified by the EPA as Operable Unit #2. The EPA has indicated that if the Applicant obtains the EPA Approved MI-RD Umited Impact Permit which includes an adequate bond, the EPA will agree to a Consent Decree which absolves Smuggler-Durant Mining Corporation, Pitkin 1 County, Albouy and other PRP's from liability for any expenses for administration or clean-up for Operable Unit #2. The EPA has indicated that the EPA Approved MLRD Permit is a prerequisite for the future "de-listing' of the Aspen Superfund Site. Further, if determined necessary, it may be possible for a portion of the Smuggler Mine or Mollie Gibson site to be a repository for limited materials from OU #1. A copy ofthe MLRD Umited Impact Permit application has been included with this submittal. This Application addresses Â§1041 Review criteria including Article 5-400 through 5-405, as well as Article 6.3 General Submission and Articles 2 and 5 Policy and General Regulations. 4 lAM\30CC_03A.APP 7 @ SMUGGLER MINE -WILLIAMS RANCH LAND USE APPLICATION TO PITKIN COUNTY Ill. EXISTING CONDITIONS and SITE LOCATION A. Site Location: The Williams Ranch Property is located at the base of Smuggler Mountain, adjoining the City Umits of Aspen and directly is behind the Centennial Condominiums. It is bordered on the North by the private section of Spruce Street and its easterly boundary is approximately the 8070 foot elevation contour. The Smuggier Mine is located above the Mollie Gibson Park. The entire property is located in the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West. 2 8. Access: Access to the Smuggler Mine is via Smuggler Mountain Road. Current access to the Williams Ranch Property is via Brown Lane through the Centennial Condominiums and, subject to the reconciliation of several inconsistent deeds, easements and boundary surveys, via Spruce Street. It is the applicant's intent to minimize the use of Spruce Street. 1 1 C. Vegetation & Slope: The Smuggler Mine is listed in the National Register of Historic Places and consequently little activity may take place which would reduce the existing vegetation or historic mine dumps. Some immediate re-vegetation is contemplated by the EPA Approved MLRD Permit. Future re-vegetation is assured by the MLRD Permit and a cash bond in excess of 3100,000.00 is required. The Williams Ranch Property is currently a gently sloping 1 2 See: Figure the Location Map which has been submitted accompanying this text. lAM\BOCC_03A.APP 8 1 1 SMUGGLER MINE - WILLIAMS RANCH LAND USE APPLICATION TO PITKIN COUNTY grassy field, with one relatively flat area where the four-plexs are proposed and another where the deed restricted duplexes and single family homes will be located. A landscape and planting plan will be required by the City of Aspen. D. Utilities: Publicly provided utilities for the Smuggler Mine are in place today. Holy Cross Electric Association provides electricity and U.S. West provides telephone service lines. Cable television or natural gas is not contemplated by these plans but may be obtained in the future. Water will be obtained from the existing source at the Smuggler Mine and a County Environmental Health approved septic system with leach field will be utilized for the Mine Superintendent's Residence. Utilities are now available adjacent to the Williams Ranch Property, 1 E. Easements and Restrictions: There are no easements which apply to the Smuggler Mine Property. The Smuggler Mine Property has historically permitted public use of ~ approximately six hundred (600') feet of its property, at approximately 8400 feet elevation, where Smuggler Mountain Road traverses it. Continued permissive public use is contemplated by the applicant. Certain restrictions apply to the Smuggler Mine Property based on its inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Likewise, there are numerous ramifications and some uncertainties as a result of the entire property being designated by the EPA as Operable Unit #2 Study Area. The inclusion in Operable Unit #2 is resolved by the EPA Approved Mined Land Reclamation Division Umited Impatt Permit, although alternate access to the Williams Ranch Property is necessary. 1.AM\BOCC 03*.APP 9 1 SMUGGLER MINE -WILLIAMS RANCH LAND USE APPLICATION TO PITKIN COUNTY IV. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT A. Property Ownership: The approximately twenty-eight (28) acres that comprise t the Smuggler Mine Property which include the nine and nine-tenths (9.9) acres which will be covered by the MLRD Umited Impact Permit, will be owned by Smuggler Consolidated Mines Corporation. The Williams Ranch Property will be sold to qualified employees and individual free- 4 market purchasers. B. Program and Target Users 1. Parking: 1. Smucqler Mine Property: With over fifty existing parking spaces, more than adequate parking exists on the Smuggler Mine Property today. The Smuggler Mine Master Plan does not require any additional spaces. Users will be A-al the owners and mine employees as well as the tourists who take advantage of the Al Smuggler Mine Tours. 2. Williams Ranch Propertv: On-site parking spaces will be provided for the Category 2, Employee Townhouses. One covered parking space per unit is 1 being explored but budgetary constraints may make covering not feasible. The Categon/ 4 and Resident Occupied duplexes and single family homes will either have carports or garages depending on cost issues and will provide at least two spaces per unit. It is expected that the Protective Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions adopted will require garages at all free market homes. 4â€¢ LAM\SOCC_039.APP 10 1 SMUGGLER MINE -WILLIAMS RANCH LAND USE APPLICATION TO PITKIN COUNTY 2. Transit: 1. Smuqqler Mine Prooerty The nearest public transit stop is more than three hundred feet (300') from the Smuggler Mine Property. The current needs and the requirements created by the EPA Approved MLRD Permit do not make an additional transit stop appropriate on or immediately adjacent to the Smuggler Mine Property. 2. Williams Ranch Property A RFTA transit stop is planned, subject to approval from the Centennial Condominiums, via Brown Lane. Access to this RFTA transit stop from all residences on the Williams Ranch Property will be by roadway or trail. Based on the philosophy that people tend to take the course of least resistance, every effort will be made to make the RETA transit stop very easily accessible to all Williams Ranch and Centennial Condominiums residents and visitors. 3. Architecture: 1. Smuqqier Mine Property: The architecture employed by the Smuggler Mine Master Plan has been carefully planned, consistent with the national historic designation, to follow the uses and styles of the early 1900's. The applicant proposes to deed restrict the Mine Superintendent's Residence to 6000 square 1 feet FAR, a 9000 square foot reduction permitted by the AF-1 zone. 2. Williams Ranch Property: The plan to be submitted to the City of Aspen requires the applicant to build all employee housing. A Victorian style has been j LAM\BOCC_03*.APP 11 'P. SMUGGLER MINE - WILLIAMS RANCH LAND USE APPLICATION TO PITKIN COUNTY selected to maximize aesthetics, be compatible with the historic designation on the adjacent Smuggler Mine, and to minimize negative visual impacts. In addition the Victorian style is one where form follows function and where a quality living space can be provided at a minimal cost. Strict architectural controls will be imposed on the free market lost in the form of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions including detailed architectural guidelines and a review committee. FAR will be governed by the zoning requirements for the AH zone. C. Phasing: 1. Smucqler Mine Prooertv: The EPA Approved MLRD Permit activities will be required to be completed within three years from final approval from the EPA, MLRD and Pitkin County. It is estimated that the approximately S250,000.00 in work will take place during the summer and fall of 1995. 2. Williams Ranch Prooertv: Phasing will be negotiated with the APCHA and the City of Aspen to facilitate the use of local contractors and to provide the cash needed to finance the Employee Housing improvements required from the sale of free market lots. The roads and utilities will be completed first, perhaps during the summer and fall of 1994. Next, after purchasers have received APCHA approval and a loan commitment, the single family and duplex residences will be completed on an as sold basis. It is likely the funding for the four-plexs will not be available until last. LAM\30CS_OBA.APP 12 J AL 14. _~11* i SMUGGLER MINE - WILLIAMS RANCH LAND USE APPLICATION TO PITKIN COUNTY D. Access: The current access to the Smuggler Mine is via Smuggler Mountain Road. Access to the Williams Ranch Property is also achieved through the Smuggler r Mine Property. The EPA Approved MLRD Permit will eliminate the applicant's 7.- ability to access the Williams Ranch Property through the Smuggler Mine Property and alternate access is being sought from Pitkin County across Mollie Gibson Park. The current access to the Williams Ranch Property is via Brown Lane through the Centennial Condominiums and, subject to the reconciliation of several inconsistent deeds, easements and boundary surveys, via Spruce Street. It is the t 1 applicant's intent to minimize the use of Spruce Street. The majority of the users of the access to the Williams Ranch Property will be its homeowners. 8. Please address the resolution of the issue of separating bicycle and 4 pedestrian use from increased vehicular use on lower Smuggler Road for access to William Ranch. See the following page 13-1 which is a letter from The Stevens Group, dated November 19, which addresses this issue. 4 1 ''i j lAM\BOCC_05*.APP 13 ta SMUGGLER MINE - WILLIAMS RANCH LAND USE APPLICATION TO PITKIN COUNTY Â¥1 V. CONFORMANCE WITH COMMUNITY GOALS: t R The plans for both the Smuggler Mine and the William's Ranch are designed to be consistent with the adopted goals and objectives included within the Draft EPA EC/CA, the Aspen Area Community Plan, the adopted Affordable Housing Production Program. The following is an explanation of how the development proposed for William's Ranch and the historic Smuggler Mine are consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan and the Affordable Housing Production Program. A. Aspen Area Community Plan: The Aspen Area Community Plan is divided into various elements, each of which has its own vision or goal. The vision statements relevant to the Williams Ranch project are listed below in bold type, and the planning method used to comply with the goal is described. 1. Housing: Create a housing environment which is dispersed, appropriately i scaled to the neighborhood and affordable. ! The Williams Ranch Property establishes a mix of free market, employee category housing, including sixteen Category 2 townhouses, and Resident Occupied duplexes and homes which work well with the surrounding neighborhood. This site was identified in the Aspen Area Community Plan as an appropriate site for this type of growth. Map 48 identifies this general area for both Low Density Single Family Duplex and Moderate Density Single Family to Low Density Multi-Family. This property is also discussed in the j 1AM\BOCC_05*.APP 16 1 SMUGGLER MINE - WILLIAMS RANCH LAND USE APPLICATION TO PITKIN COUNTY 4 current Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, referred to in that report as the Smuggler/Durant property. The Conceptual Site Plan was designed with current development patterns in mind, allowing fora smooth transition from the dense multi-family of the Centennial Condominiums, to the less dense four-plexs, to the duplexes and small single family homes, to the free market lots which average 16,000 square feet in size, to natural open space above. 1 2. Character: The community should collectively address and resolve its issues and problems by considering the interests of all its citizens. Affo mable Housing continues to be an important local issue. By annexation and zoning the Williams Ranch to the Affordable Housing Zone created by the City, Stefan proposes a project which successfully integrates free market and resident occupied areas (text continued on page 17) 16-1 l AM\80CC_05X.APP ..A 9 Al:illia At,--A SMUGGLER MINE -WILLIAMS RANCH LAND USE APPLICATION TO PITKIN COUNTY 4 with a range of deed restricted townhouses, duplexes and single family homes. This type of development, having residents of varied income levels living in the same neighborhood, is characteristic of Aspen. Stefan has already held several neighborhood meetings and has spoken to dozens of long-time locals who need a place to live to be able to continue to call Aspen 'home'. He will hold additional meetings to encourage the Spruce Street and Smuggier area residents, including the adjacent Centennial Condominiums employee housing project to give input during the planning process and to follow the progress of the project. 3. Transportation: Create a creative non-auto oriented public, mass transportation system which integrates pedestrian and bike trail system with community facilities and services. The Williams Ranch Property is in close proximity to the Centennial Condominiums and near the established Hunter Creek transit route, The Development Team is working 1 with the Trail Association to design a trail easement that will link the development to the existing network of pedestrian and bicycle trails. His proposal contemplates the completion of a rural park at the Mollie Gibson property which would also include the extension of the Salvation Ditch trail corridor. The Development Team has communicated with RFTA regarding specifications and requirements for public transportation access to the four-plex area. Subject to successful negotiations with the Centennial Condominiums Owners, the applicant wishes to construct an attractive bus stop and bus turn-around to be shared with the Centennial Condominiums. A i LAM\BOCC_03*.APP 17 1 1 4 2 SMUGGLER MINE - WILLIAMS RANCH LAND USE APPLICATION TO PITKIN COUNTY 4. Balanced and Managed Growth: Encourage land uses, businesses, and events which serve both the local community and tourist base. The Growth Management Plan was established to insure that components of 11 community growth are properly balanced. Even with this "system balance" in place, the community has become imbalanced and fragmented as many local employees are 1 excluded from Aspen's neighborhoods. The City of Aspen's Affordable Housing Zone CAH") allows for a proportional mix of free market and deed restMcted units. This will permit some local individuals and families to "buy-back-into" or to remain in the Aspen Community. The Williams Ranch Property has been specifically designed to function as a traditional owner-occupied neighborhood. B. Affordable Housing Production Plan: The Affordable Housing Production Plan is intended to be used as a tool by elected City and County officials to guide housing 3 decisions through 1995. The production plan targets the Williams Ranch Site (referred to as the Hyman Properties in the plan) as a Priority I site for future housing. The Affordable Housing Production Plan has identified an 800 unit target over the next five years, if growth continues in the area. In this production plan the private sector is responsible for developing 115 units. The Williams Ranch proposal will produce 38 deed restricted units, (16 Category 2 townhouses: 6 Category 4 half duplexes, 6 Resident Occupied duplexes, and 10 Resident Occupied single family homes) or approximately one-third of this goal. 1 LAM\BOCC_0]A.APP 18 i 1 30 0 011 A 1 01 Ly Â£ 1 4 3/ 1 4 %74 3/6 -4 9 216 Â·Jit 1 S-79- 30_ bÂ·- 1 1 1 11, 4- /1 \ 92-1- , 1 1 1/\ \\ 1 , 3, f . 4 1\ /,/ / 13 9 L 1\ ;--1*.- 0--------- -1 .\ 1, U- >44 1, / ..1- 1 f M / 1\ i , , 1 1 2 \ 4\ l.4./ 1 -.1'Alli(09 /1 ( // 1 * # , , 1 111 V 1 1 f 44/ - 4 ' iNtl /0 / 11 / 8, '.. , 1/ 0 ff Â»{C\<14 --t~-\ 1 4. , i l.90&35 L, / , ~ 1 \\\ 1 44,4 Q 3, 1 ~,// c- 1/7-43-13-31 \ / 17/4/4 / \ \ \,t,{,1 <:"ti /, , ''- \ 1 1 4 0 - r -L -7 p U l~1 0Â·,_1 7 . 77 r Q r-Ll j 1 j :, r 04 ; E <' ~ 42 C ' 6 1 4 1 ~'4 ff~-~1 *2-7~ , \i.: , /i,iii: i 1\ 1.â‚¬,7/.. -/ 0-2/&09 -----\ ENÂ¢16 hil <01, &Mu "-nÂ·--,-~ / ' 'UdÂ·'.'%:Aft:'IIi//fyi/Xkt . .V .4 1, fli~)*v~ *,,'f#I t f f~<f AL ~h ' $ _L 0 P 71 liI\\1(1/1-1 . 01'I i 2 11%\ \ ~, 7 x 424 . / 1 4 ~ #5~%4''t/Pe /<p hi LL< 5 / 1 1 111''ji..... i!..Pil .'.i.(.1 1. C, 1 1.. ./\ \ A-I 1 C / 1 .6 1,1 1/lf\\ 49>'' Â·Tr, 1 -A~641,4 f ~ / 1 0.; 444Ai \,14, b *ft-t.#itl Or i F /4 1./...91:):1~<Â¢. / '1/11('1,11\\Â·-l *1.Â·. * ..*t< Â·' Â·3 1/. , 4,4.**//rjo~ tn,Pu i/, 25</1 0/1,\ 1 & /9/ lill/'11/ *t 4'/,4/, / .!t' lilli<~kv \ \ f . I ' \\\NQ : 3 , '. \ , ~~ 1 C , r 1\\4 11 1 .....1 . , 1 \\ 1. 1,\\ 4 01(.1 \ \ 4X j 4 A \11 1 41: i 1\ 4 1 4 ! f i \ it 0-4,- ,\ N . 1 1 1,1 + 'V'' ; 4 1.4 : ' 111'161 l j> 4) \ \ . j k 1 j 1\ 1, Fi i 1/ 11 : ," ' '01 '<'(~ 21 P' j 1\<11 l ( 1 4 24:P ) f (.437-Dll 99 y 4 n Â©j C bo 1- 6,7 1<320/ 1 . 4- -1/10)/ A -- X. -24 -Â»20Â« - hi - it- -1 -1-1 e - -. , i .9000000.0 I .-- tu/ - . 1 ..I. ZELLU -/ - - I - MIJ Pr-L I . il. ; j 1,4 41/ , i \ -31Â»=-- 2 \ - _. Â·27 1- f 3% te~ WEr - rS>x , ...4.94-~2 0 -=407.-jub.* zeet Â· a#i . 449 ~ /&1... rE-//- 1 1 55*Â¥1 .\V kr . Â¢6/,6 --t 11<21 9 1 \\\44~\ ... -Â»/ I. . - 041/.- , . 3%7*-1 - ./ -4--7 or- A A . v.iv* 4 , %-I -/ - \ A-Irk/ Â»64 9 Â»9 0-, \ . /,-9 j Xlâ€ž)\ INN j --- 1 =-9 -7 - L/... Â· >.1 1-Â®'. N=-/Z =70 0.-1 1 1/0/ cal- - 14144 - n \\ 23%-7 31 - \e// . ,/\ / /204-4i- - 4 r ...=23=*U , : AL,"5'9111 : N U Wil L.L==bas:2. ---- ' , -: demiliNN - ?%,r711'41/Ze. -----1 =3 . -'A -- - -U-1-1.-7- / __ 1. >f~ / ./*.. 7 7 -, -i i - , 17 , , , 1 \L-- - 1 - --+ . : i - / 4 - 1 d I el .~proÂ°~10469 ince v- rev +1 l/1 1 450 uHAP- Â¥ 2-4.-00 99\VÂ» 2tlat et-ll vis 90 , CL.8 M 61 i 40-t o el s c,-F~ zs.~f~ V' O 91 3 G/\ 0 ) 9 + / MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer Re: 330 E. Main Street, Hotel Jerome- Minor Date: June 8, 1994 SUMMARY: The applicant must install a safety fence around the hotel pool for insurance reasons. The fence must be 60" tall by code. The new fence will replicate the existing wood fence. New gates will also be put in. NOTE: Please do a site visit to inspect the existing railing. Photographs will be provided at the meeting. APPLICANT: The Hotel Jerome, represented by Paul Anderson. LOCATION: 330 E. Main Street, Lots P,Q,R and S, Block 79,City and 7 \ 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: The proposed fence will be exactly the same as the existing wood fence, but will be sixty inches tall. The pool is at the rear of the Hotel Jerome courtyard, is set below natural grade and is totally obscured from view by trees. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The courtyard has a wrought iron fence at the sidewalk which is compatible with the character of the neighborhood. This fence is not visible from the street, is simple in design and will not create a stockade type of wall. 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: Staff finds that the cultural value of the Hotel Jerome will not be affected. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: Staff finds that the architectural integrity of the Jerome is not affected. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: 1) Approve the Amendment to the Final Development application as submitted. 2) Approve the Amendment to the Final 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 the Amendment finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC approve the application as submitted. ATma]MENT 1 I . IAND USE APPII[CATICN EURM 1) Project Name 1+6512+ !) Project location 36â‚¬) e. K,AA I AJ (indicate street address, lot & block omber, legal description,here applgriate) 3) Present Zoning 4) Ict Size 5) Applicant's Name, Aairess & Briie # FkT- F.YAN-) - Ne-rel-- J(EFEe-uE -33,0 g. vu. Â»3 J +988~3 2 60 . 6146/1 920- /600 6) Rel,esentative's Nmae, Address & mione # 12+16 Â»09â‚¬92520 (215+3 ST- . câ‚¬) IQÂ©4- *A Bul#-AÂ·2rr -*,S_ 2902,3 ,_Qo _L-S/Gll_ 1-20- 1596 7) Typd of Application (please check all that apply): ainitioral Use Conceptual SPA conoâ‚¬Yeal Historic Dev. Special Review Final SPA Final Historic Dev. J 8040 Greenline Conceptnal ED Minor Historic Dev. Historic Demolition Stream Margin Â·- Final ED mintain View Plane subdivisicn Historic Designaticn Tert/Map An=xlment QUS Allotment- Int Split/Iot line (203 Eae,Iption Adjustment 1.eSCript ir,n of Ddsting Uses Â· (rlimher and -type of existing structures; aP!?rrix~inate sq. ft. 1 Nlrrh,r of bedrocms; any previcus approval= grant-mi to the pmperty). 13Â·01-21- - 790/- keâ‚¬IA BY 9) Description of Develofnrnt Application Ablp *AF@m' Â«TeS f F:kete -7-0 *ew-nt fbot- Aae. 7612- 1,1<1144210*J 45- 126-ep U I 0â‚¬ lUâ‚¬â€¢>TS 10) Have you attached the following? Besponse to Attadimerit 2, Minim= Submission Contents Response to Attachment 3, Specific SUbmiSSion Cortents Response to Attadm,NIt 4, Review Staixlanis far Your Application 14Â£ 4 / . ...,. b 1.,ictal-7#r,el S lilli 1 i *U r la . I - '-77 4 C 34 - 0 1 . H ~\ 31Â§~ 6\*MI 2 K A m - -2\â‚¬. Z ~ 32~% 3 Zr 42 - 9 11 9- O" I I . \ I. I I I ul Andersen UOTE L JUP>OM= Detail: Pwe*,ri-#+1 Sheet nstruction Company *200,- diATes 4 FEFELE Scale: 74- " = 1'-o" No: Design Services 6*Â»rflot-4 Date: 9 -14-94Â» 1004 East Durant #3 Drawn By: rAr g Aspen, CO 81611 Revisions: ~- Al-161- Jet==,0,-le 1r 6 3 1 1 J.=:uzz I 1,[-- m -=%15 -1 - r j= 1 - 29 V 0 1 j -fl--4 4- 9-4 X 1--. J -2 11. 12 I .JA:n,IZZ I |t \%% - 1 31 - r-111 lili 11 1- -3 f iw * 1 . J 1/** rn 7 r ~DW i-k MT - t f if 4 1 J. * 1 9/Mt& 0 M CO \4\ - 1 -4 /1 Paul Andersen 1-1671-EL J\ap, 0,-i E Detail: r'upT r LAR Sheet Construction Company Fhs'L 2961-66 9 Fe"oe Scale: i"= 10,0' No: Design Services Atly'TIOA Date: 9 - 1-2 - 14- 1004 East Durant #3 Drawn By: Â»-r Aspen, CO 81611 ~ Revisions: 1 1 U.!PraL JEP-Â·GA-#e 2>OIL-Di 9 3)1 -1 ''Â·=LEÂ¢G,4 Â£54td / - MA,u eT. 2-W 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 200 W. Hopkins Avenue, Partial Demolition DATE: June 8, 1994 SUMMARY: The applicant requests HPC approval for partial demolition of the historic residence at 200 W. Hopkins Avenue. This structure was built in 1888, and is a combination of Second Empire and Victorian styles with a large addition to the rear of the building. The proposed project involves demolition of a small portion of the west wall of the historic house in order to install a gas fireplace. APPLICANT: Saul and Sally Barnett, represented by Heather Wright. LOCATION: 200 W. Hopkins Avenue, Lots R and S, Block 52, City and Townsite of Aspen. PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW: No partial demolition of any structure included in the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen, established pursuant to section 7-709, or any structure within an "H" Historic Overlay District shall be permitted unless the partial demolition is approved by the HPC because it meets the applicable standards of Section 7-602(C). The applicant proposes to create approximately a 4'x6' opening in the west wall of the historic structure. This fits within the Land Use Code's definition of partial demolition. HPC's role is to determine whether or not the portions of the building proposed for demolition can be sacrificed without compromising the character of the resource. It is not within the Board's power to review the design of the building addition, other than to offer comments. Standards for Review of Partial Demolition 1. Standard: The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure. Response: The applicant wishes to install the fireplace without losing any of the existing interior living space. Even if the fireplace box was set entirely within the house, an opening would have to be created for the flue. 2. Standard: The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: A. Impacts on the historic importance of the structure or structures located on the parcel. Response: The west wall of the historic house has no existing openings. It is very difficult to see from the street because of trees. It would be preferable to avoid any further alterations to the historic house, however, the proposal is acceptable because it is so small and not visible to the public. There are decorative brackets under the roof soffit which should not be damaged by this project. Staff suggests that the applicant consider using a slightly smaller flue if that is possible, which would be more in character with the historic structure. B. Impacts on the architectural integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel. Response: The proposal does not affect the architectural integrity of the structure. ALTERNATIVES: HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: 1) Approve the Partial Demolition application as submitted. 2) Approve the Partial Demolition 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 to be offered). 4) Deny Partial Demolition approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC approve the application with the condition that none of the decorative brackets are damaged by this project. Additional Comments: 7- W MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 200 W. Hopkins Avenue, Partial Demolition DATE: June 8, 1994 SUMMARY: The applicant requests HPC approval for partial demolition of the historic residence at 200 W. Hopkins Avenue. This structure was built in 1888, and is a combination of Second Empire and Victorian styles with a large addition to the rear of the building. The proposed project involves demolition of a small portion of the west wall of the historic house in order to install a gas fireplace. APPLICANT: Saul and Sally Barnett, represented by Heather Wright. LOCATION: 200 W. Hopkins Avenue, Lots R and S, Block 52, City and Townsite of Aspen. PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW: No partial demolition of any structure included in the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen, established pursuant to section 7-709, or any structure within an 11 HIt Historic Overlay District shall be permitted unless the partial demolition is approved by the HPC because it meets the applicable standards of Section 7-602(C). The applicant proposes to create approximately a 4'x6' opening in the west wall of the historic structure. This fits within the Land Use Code's definition of partial demolition. HPC's role is to determine whether or not the portions of the building proposed for demolition can be sacrificed without compromising the character of the resource. It is not within the Board's power to review the design of the building addition, other than to offer comments. Standards for Review of Partial Demolition 1. Standard: The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure. Response: The applicant wishes to install the fireplace without losing any of the existing interior living space. Even if the fireplace box was set entirely within the house, an opening would have to be created for the flue. 0-82}4>i>Â·~,1.9*44-198*MR:.I>ba ;69Â¢41'*R.<2*Re.84>94,4'bÂ¢K>Â· 49?tR: 2. Standard: The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: A. Impacts on the historic importance of the structure or structures located on the parcel. Response: The west wall of the historic house has no existing openings. It is very difficult to see from the street because of trees. It would be preferable to avoid any further alterations to the historic house, however, the proposal is acceptable because it is so small and not visible to the public. There are decorative brackets under the roof soffit which should not be damaged by this project. Staff suggests that the applicant consider using a slightly smaller flue if that is possible, which would be more in character with the historic structure. B. Impacts on the architectural integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel. Response: The proposal does not affect the architectural integrity of the structure. ALTERNATIVES: HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: 1) Approve the Partial Demolition application as submitted. 2) Approve the Partial Demolition 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 to be offered). 4) Deny Partial Demolition approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC approve the application with the condition that none of the decorative brackets are damaged by this project. Additional Comments: Â·lrcÂ· 9.- P i#H><48829*5444.:R..:>44.1 #044,0,1,0,#â€ž0,", ,0, -ie-~F..E,5 0 1/e eÂ» %\O 1 \Â« 40 N 442/-3-- k.1.GLL-C) (OC:Ki"Ers/&*521F l~ Qi = ZIL: : ~ 646 44+AL MULLâ‚¬,, 64.462- C)44 B-2880 ~ i E }- cy 64Â£440-â‚¬Â» + 1* 1 A-1 T fpÂ«1 6\ 441 -5 '' , APWLLARUCEÂ· 7167*-1.BLIFC A- 44.44----/&*tf r X X X -//~~ ---- ", eec) A R 096\ e 0,0,0,0,0,00,0,0,4 42 1 / r NOT FOR \0 Ll Â· \ CONSTRUCTION ~ ~ \ \ Dx=TL 10 -- " " P -(3.1- """ 1 fl V\/ /1 I U?RESS_,2yjal Nlf-A f *14 - 1'0'' Â¥64/ \A < -4-' ~{7 X kfh--23-J , 1%-Â»>(\ 14411-~2 3- ' Ldllur .z5*2242d ~ 3.T BLOCK. 1 2--1. = 5 6 ts.1E-9 15 - ,-L} 9 2 A I 1 1 111 1 %49 1 Â£ _ / 1 â€ž\ 1 1 -0 1 lili 1 1 . 31 '45-rrh al / ill 61/2 4 i < MAY 3 1994 ~ MAY 0 1 19944*R-OF BUVLDING T ~ INSPECTOR ~,/ \17 + - t.27.41.47 2- 7-1-32 / ..er- 59 x *41* PNO, ~DA] klet Â«FUL-le.H k!/>432Â·14 Ep<J 4-f~lw- \Câ‚¬lyÂ£Â£13*3/ 1,[LIE OF- MALJTLE 664/, Pita'FLAOG E-AL._1 -Eli~ 0 - 111 -1 11. 2 li advm>10/7<rivaet,4 mi,1=torr ' 1,1 04 9906-036 / 90[ 1 19 18 / ope,olos)/ ualsÂ¥ / Â·3Â·gÂ·VÂ·V 12 1 3 *l *11 -7Â£ t 1 1 I . 1 - -6---- 11 le-- i, 41 1 1 1 . 1 0, 1--1 1 1 4-2-- -1-,1- 9 1 .' 2 <f / ~ 2 1 - I U i /j 11 - - I n - 42 1 \ 12 Zm * .C -< '2 & FE 0 09 m] 1 9 CO N 42-gf o 25 r-~1~~1' 1 1 L f_J__---L, O -4 .J 1,0 23 9 29 HEATHER 22 642-U 27[T REâ‚¬71 IN E LI DE: 44>10(40#"..:Mflt 4, OLDEN 7 +141Â».7, 9> WRIGHT -= 1-1Â«141&:1 VLTH Â·Fl 2-EPJ-+6,8, 0 14 0 1 ff 1 A. A. u Uj CO re 00 ' ' -O 0 ARCHITECTURE * 2670 kl, 4-loPZJ Lie/~bePEWÂ»o L.00*Ca:7 -00 1 1119~) 303 / 920-9066 7.~ 4~",",1,11"%,0 12F A.A.B.C. / Aspen / Colorado / 81611 CONSTRUCTI ~ ' rEP~ %44,004,4"f,0,4 , 9 OF COLO "%~, yett;{*OLDE~(i;~-~1> - fRi , 2 11: ; i B-2880 1 - . W > . 0.%. ikal -- 4 <424*-*4549 Â° z</ NOT FOR . ~ 6-D ARCr CONSTRUCTION *. 0All# a/-0 e 1.-2-,tV / i i' 4 L -if -----~ /5,/ \0UY NIFES , 11 4 7 1 62 161Â£%-T- ~ 1 4\\ 21- TF ) 44*41 -4 4 3 11\ .LI ..P..8 LM- 11 . 31 1 2 41 4> 41- .. iN- 3 j \-- L 1 .1 0 43 1 . le + 4 2 i .4 ? 1 Pl \ 1 #h 1-6-'- ' 1 MAY 0 1 1994 AleufF I ' .-r 1 -14 4 9 <. MAY 31994 | \ BUPLD:,~G ~ 431--apu#_ 51-8-bATE)hi I - - \G;NSPECTOR / WZ@ 4 2 2 EME J N . ZJ 2% â‚¬ 46% '1 WHill)31111)HV .'. * -*.-*i- XÂ«\ \\ :=U .'El .. /7/ l l , f f. , 4 El K '. 5. !11'1 .1 1 1-1 ti' 1...1 1~ !.1 1 0 /11 1 -6 1.-4; 11{ 1 1 5*+:> 1,1 ..= . ' f i, 11 1 1 Clt , 1 1 1 1 1.!11 I i / , l.1 3 4 v./7 f- A 41':te. 3 //// li / , i 1. '1 1. ------7=-- // 11.1 .. 0/ C.) 1 .L , 1 ZZ 0 0 4 . -4 -1 f#!- :0 2 07 -I C 71 01 0 0 m Â· it 5 =! 30 + 2 0% 0 A 41 X HEATHER OLDEN 2 0, %â‚¬'Â·,(11 -00 WRIGHT 2 1-0 1\/1 h.1Â£01 12Â£50 KA FI U,FLA OS, 7 to 6 A. I. CO - 3 ,/ . 0 g 6: o Z ~ 1221Al, *loF:'IZA k.l*,*FEN<&01,02,400 ~0 0 ARCHITECTURE + ~~~~~~~~~~-~:t}31{* 44 303 /920-9066 1 12F A.A.B.C. / Aspen / Colorado / 81611 'Fo' 1Eh MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 523 W. Francis Street, Partial Demolition DATE: June 8, 1994 SUMMARY: The applicant requests HPC approval for partial demolition of the historic residence at 523 W. Francis Street. This structure was built in 1885, and is a Victorian miner's cottage with major additions to the east and south. A permit was issued previously for demolition and new construction to the rear of the house (see roof demolition plan) at the time when the HPC was not reviewing demolition below 50%. The applicant now requests HPC approval to extend the roof ridge on the permitted addition to the south, to demolish the roof and windows on the east part of the building, to place a new projecting window on the gable end of the house, and to put decorative shingles and new windows in the gable. The architect has accurately represented that only a portion of the original historic house still remains (see roof demolition plan.) All original windows have been replaced and the front porch has been changed or enclosed. APPLICANT: Lucy Dikeou, represented by Jake Vickery. LOCATION: 523 W. Francis Street, Lots D and E, Block 28, City and Townsite of Aspen. PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW: No partial demolition of any structure included in the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen, established pursuant to section 7-709, or any structure within an 11 H" Historic Overlay District shall be permitted unless the partial demolition is approved by the HPC because it meets the applicable standards of Section 7-602(C). The applicant proposes to demolish 962 sq. ft. of the roof or 6% of the existing F.A.R. This fits within the Land Use Code's definition of partial demolition. HPC's role is to determine whether or not the portions of the building proposed for demolition can be sacrificed without compromising the character of the resource. It is not within the Board's power to review the design of the building addition, other than to offer comments. Standards for Review of Partial Demolition 1. Standard: The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure. Response: The applicant has pursued several different routes in order to construct the additional living space desired. The house is all one story and only a small amount of site coverage is still available. The Board of Adjustments heard the applicant's request for a site coverage variance for construction of a garage in March 1994 and approved a 200 sq. ft. site coverage variance with the condition that no second story be put on top of that area. Because this does not solve the applicant's living space requirements, this application has been made for demolition of the roof and construction of a second story or half story. 2. Standard: The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: A. Impacts on the historic importance of the structure or structures located on the parcel. Response: Staff finds that the new additions are not historically significant, however, they are of a sympathetic scale to the original house. The proposed new construction maintains the same basic dimensions of original gable end, but is up to seven feet higher than j that ridge. Although HPC is not reviewing the design of the new addition, Staff recommends that the carriage house roof be lowered to the height of the side house and back house (approximately 24 feet) in order to meet this standard and to receive demolition approval for this portion of the existing roof. Staff also recommends that the applicant provide evidence or justification for the projecting window and shingles on the gable end. They are not inappropriate, but seem to be conjectural. B. Impacts on the architectural integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel. Response: The project does not impact the architectural integrity of the historic structure. ALTERNATIVES: HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: 1) Approve the Partial Demolition application as submitted. 2) Approve the Partial Demolition 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 to be offered). 4) Deny Partial Demolition approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approve the application with the following conditions: 1) The applicant must attempt to document the original type of window that was set in the gable end and try to determine whether fishscale shingles ever existed there. A decision on the new window and shingles may be made by HPC or by Staff and project monitor. 2) In order to meet Standard 2A, the applicant is to lower the carriage house to 24 feet at the ridge. Additional Comments: LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1. Projed Name.Â· ~DU<'EcU '~86(DerICâ‚¬ 2. Project Location: 633 li) 8902 PRAN 6(6 . ASPER - 001 4 D Â¢ E BUL- 4.8 (Indicate street address, lot and block number, legal description where appropriate.) 3. Present Zoning 8 6 4. Lot Size 5. Applicanes Name, Address & Phone # 1~) 0~ 73/.OM U. 56 Fr>00 (LkuP, CIRCLE ) DENV ER. 02 302=9 6. Representative's Name, Address & Phone # r J A- te v j o<(.6-Ul leo So. Spe.j A 4 47, 4 b 936' 3660 1 7. Type of Application (Please check all that apply): Conditional Use Conceptual SPA Conceptual Historal Dev. Special Review Final SPA - Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline Conceptual PUD Minor Historic Dev. Stream Margin Final PUD X Historic Demolition Mountain View Plane Subdivision Historic Designation Condominiumization Text/Map Amendment GMQS Allotment Lot Split/Lot Line Adjustment GMQS Exemption 8. Description of Existing Uses (number and type of existing structures; approximate sq. ft.; number of bedrooms; any previous approvals granted to the property). 404%6 FAth * KE-A 46 - <2%6 rpli~jcal ulÂ·rrAGE- 4)1174 9* \) efuk,U l,AllÂ¢i E NON - M/STOE( C , Aâ‚¬>DI77 476 4 E>813*-M 9 . l.469< 915â‚¬ YARD V A&/ eTA , 9. Description of Development Application 11â‚¬/A ous,U. Affrani 9 61,4) 05> tjaM - 141 ST-SEAL ~041 908- Se MAD P u) 8 A- Aro rrprA - 10. Have you attached the following? y - Response to Attachment 2, Minimum Submission Contents 0 Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Contents W Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application - . SUPPLEMENT TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS IMPORTANT Three sets of clear, fully labeled drawings must be submitted in a format no largerthan 11"X17", OR one dozen sets of blueprints may be submitted in lieu of the 1 1"Xl 7" format. APPLICANT: Luou -Di KgoD ADDRESS: 553' CAâ‚¬41- PA Ar)01 6 ZONE DISTRICT: ,4- 40 LOT SIZE (SQUARE FEET) 4.000 EXISTING FAR: 47 33. ALLOWABLE FAR: 3,9443 PROPOSED FAR: i. 2/do EXISTING NET LEASABLE (Commercial): 0/ A PROPOSED NET LEASABLE (Commercial): Al A EXISTING Â°/0 OF SITE COVERAGE: 37>-7 4 (9%~ PROPOSED % OF SITE COVERAGE: 34 30 A#6,0/a EXISTING % OF OPEN SPACE: 3 -7 30+ 36 >â‚¬) PROPOSED % OF OPEN SPACE: 34 1 d (or\/,C/6, EXISTING MAXIMUM HEIGHT: -),8 ' 12,1 130+ 1 ' 2 n 6371. t rr- PROPOSED MAXIMIUM HEIGH-1-:~y/2~ 1-7 ' 02, (De G 1 -57 , I TA )13>P o /,) 1 0~ PROPOSED % OF DEMOLITION: 4~4900Â¥ r GÂ°h 9*R- i 145/0 EX.\'*11$ EXISTING NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: PROPOSED NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: f EXISTING ON-SITE PARKING SPACES: O ON-SITE PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: O SETBACKS: EXISTING: ALLOWABLE: PROPOSED: Front: 91,6 Front: ~/O Front: 1 1 . CE Rear 16.6 Reac /0 Rear: Side: /O, 5 Side: ,1 5 Side: /0, Combined Frt/Rr: 7> 2 Combined FrURr: 8 C Combined Frt/Rr: 31,5- EXISTING NONCONFORMITIES/ ~ 0 5//Â«-4,4â‚¬,5 3-A 611241-, 7-dTA'Z, s /O ' 1 ENCROACHMENTS: VARIATIONS REQUESTED (eliaible for Landmarks only: charader compatibility finding must be made by HPCh FAR: Minimum Distance Between Buildings: /O 6~0 SETBACKS: Front: Parking Spaces: / Rear: open Space (Commercial): Side: / Height (Cottage Infill Only): Combined Frt/Rr: ~. Site Coverage (Cottage Infill Only): CJ, FRA'-1615 51-KEPT FOUM DÂ·Â· S 75*09' / r E 60.CO L..5. Ret.14376 .6 1 1 Lawl b/.1 0 1 41 4, ~ . 0 24Â· 0 7\â„¢E 0 1, V.0/ I , 11-- - 1 U. 1 va. 1 , 07 EM/.ROACHIVErfl ~' - Â· --- --~-- -1~~~'1- .-i \ 1 L...A '101 ~111 1/ /|4.4// 9 I f . A Â·.Â·er-O F F"(. E ' 1. //- 1 % mi ---I '- . *,1 I I.357 41 tl M l 1 1 1 47 / '01 ' VE \ 1 15}ill'.;11 111 , . / ////f / ///1/2 / / L U - , TWO 5TORY ' i ,/ 11.71-1\ f RAME HOUSE ,/.1 *' ,;Cr*tr ricy-%"46211*,AbleÂ»t'j . l.-\ / '0 1 06 0. 4,Mi- f f ~ ~/ ' . ,/ i' %1 Â©I' Â¥1 1 Â·i'f/ A fl ' _ JÂ·~ ~ i' '3 ,?7Â·qi / ,' ,'e~~ 3&2.A~-R-- -- - -J . 0...1 W -. F . . 0 1 ./l / (,1.9 l. 1 , , ~e:~ + 1 - LOT D LOT E ..,11 . ,~ CM. e . , -- - 9 0JITHR-I--1 WIRE O,,Â·TY f TELE PED r.1 75*09 tr W 60.00* * ALLEY 00001 AA .,66,OS .61 9 NceD 'EMLE M 1 4 g SO' 43.JA- 9-2[, 1 50.4 - 10717 - 1 1 1 4 1 \\'I 1.70 1 1\ f Ii/7 1 Ill PAE Â· DEMOLITION . , AND NEW ROOF AS PER PREVIOUS 1 PERMIT THIS AREA 1 FLA-r Â«4202:94 29/1 p/ 7 Â£ iCXISTING NON-HISTORIC ROOF 1 1/ . ./ ~TO BE DEMOLISHED . / 1.â€¢l f // .: I. I i /i Mi -Â·u--4-2 APPROX 962 SF <J ill il ' 1% 1 Â»Â«11>199Â¢-~- iÂ«1 13~ TO REMAIN EXISTING HISTORIC ROpy fill/1 1 1 ti . i/Â»1 /: /. / TOTAL ROOF AREA 2275 SF , 1 EXTERIOR WALLS TO BE i. DEMOLISHED OR MODIFIED JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECT 925-3660 ROOF DEMOLITION PLAN 523 WEST FRANCIS -l '' * ./1/N ' / '' - '1 ,#~H 4 ir=Â»2/FE=11 f. V / / / -?)? 11 t! .r 1 .i i: i 9/\ / I ' jil i lE ill 1 1 j / â‚¬O 9-36 11 >/y;1 1 F / 1 1 1 --- -_--12Â¢Njk2fK-2---1~i-Z.ill.....t'~~ -'-$,*1 *.-rd EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION EX/ST/A/9 h'=P,trn-+ ELev. 1/ Â«2 130 3Â»16Â»1*1480 1/4 + Flo* I rl 507 1 L ~ r===i?\ 2 / 2/,// 59 ' ./Ner--1 Y / / 4 / A. - 1\1 1/ / *t J -2 1 0/ : f Â·.19Â«/ --1 1 1 1 $ 1 4 I'! i Â·Â· Â· ' /IN r i 31 i. ---1 1 1 10 19* '996\DED--, f - 0 1 -0, 7 1 1 1 1 ' 1 EXISTING EAST ELEVATION 3><15-T//Â·~6 EAST ELE.V. 523 WEST FRANCIS lk ' . i ttht-Â» / / ' 1 . .11\ 1 jill l //7// 'r/ .///\>A '' / 1 .... I /14 . 11 L. t EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION, - axer,401 ec:=eti-,4 i=Â£2 v. . 1 Â· . 1 - .- . Ait. Â·|'21 --fo 43# pplÂ»l~14 1*tp fltl e %,Ff PI O,1 1-1 523 WEST FRANCIS li:1/ FRONT HOUSE BACK HOUSE }31 PM E 'ij// f 9/ , A ple ; \ Â·15 11 Lilli 1.1 1 1 1 1 lili lilli 74 /1 l+-fl ' 1/1 1 1.11 ,, 1- ./Â«94Â«-37 liffili ~71 AREA OF PROPOSED ROOF y// / i li i i / : / // - lÂ» I' C I ~/ l Li I I I h ? / j l j\" U-~ 154 1 1 1 1 i 1./ lill : 1 1 lili -- '/f'll/ '7--p---4---tr /1 ///i// PMfÂ»- 1/fll;/1 J ; l,1 BIRD HOUSE -&=7-=pppewÂ»:*l / i l i i 'l \44 'rl t-*-fj-t_~t-~t__t _1 i ~l i l ,1 , i i I -Â«Â«/Â«Â«9/1,3223631%Aricric:&33331..., 1 1 i 1 1 11/1 1 . r IN ?1 ill '1 I ./ / / ..,/' ./'/ /./CARRIAGE<BUN=' , I ... , , 1 JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECT PROPOSED ROOF PLAN 523 WEST FRANCIS 925-3660 -- -- 107 \120\ t!- - -- - - - -1.-I jit - 1 - 1 m 30 T - 00 1 -7 -- MO . peo UT- 6.2-6-94 PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION 523 WEST FRANCIS 1 1 - 1. IL - u -T - --I - -iN Ill - ' i - fmr- .6/ Pe- (EA 4 f *,0, U Â¢ U jC -6 PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION tÂ« /(Â» 523 WEST FRANCIS ' -Al - 1 4 -1 9--ZO 261 (39 9 1. NEÂ« fep Â«11Â»51 514 7 - 1205)F ft,2. ftâ‚¬\40!.16 -191,9 7*EA - 'FEe*1 IT\k ./ ile>A, gplofer - 0 444Â»71...12Â«F_ 4 46-1 -- I . , ' > 23_1 \ ~ -37,421.-.dkp.mÂ·G Zh.*= - --*- - .'i C--AIX,vr"R ~ ~ ft - ' -- '--1- -2-11--217-4-_L 7/__/Aw As-*42Â»~'~rÂ¢ Â¥)Â»' ' L ---2 422-1 12 41 1 ,/ 16 - 1 / - ~ 1 -- 1297*r--- ---r - ID //9 0 L_ a.,Â»0 =kgo-9 -- - - 2.2.- 41!.. 1 , **rki. il qi 0 $ Â»\\ -1 012 i CU NAL, 0017744112.- EXISTING WEST ELEVATION PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION 523 WEST FRANCIS 6 - L. 94 1//.6 i--i- 441 W~=I-- ..bff'11'1111 i 1.111 A "';11'11.11 \4% / 41-iL_LA. == 1.111\ NK--2- -*r-lt -- -- 156- 4EitifIEF_Â·=1*effA* lili. -h.1-T-Â£, , r - 1 ... IL-1_til l .111 i 1 +11-11-111 1 U O 1. 1 11 '1 1 - 11-1111- 111 4-k in:h-Mt --[114 1" ; \ 1 -.: 11.1 lilli 11 H I lil i r ~ li li --4 2- Irr - ~E 1 - ' ~91 - ~ULL[ I~ Â· __ __ : -- 18 R -~3~233122_ = aLL ULL= 32] L fl FflE -===- E EE=i - -4-_-2-3-[3[39 k --+ ; 1%~A /.2.- 5 -36.-14- PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION 523 WEST FRANCIS SPECIFIC REPLIES REGARDING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 523 WEST FRANCIS PARTIAL DEMOLITION 6-2-94 Cl. The existing residence is functionally obsolete; spaces are too small, inefficient circulation pattern, poor ventilation, bedroom windows do not meet egress standards, ceilings are too low. The proposed work is necessary to bring the house up to current livability and code standards and to avoid complete demolition thereby preserving the historical miner's cottage. The new space required to bring this residence up to current standards is concentrated diagonally on site in the south east corner, as far as possible from the historical resource, which is located in the north west corner. This strategy mitigates any impact on the cottage to the greatest extent possible. The major new ridges run with the property rather than across it like the cottage reducing their impact. The new peaks on the volumes closest to the cottage are only approximately 4.5 feet higher than the existing cottage. The highest new ridge is 7 feet above the existing ridge. This maximum mitigation that is possible given the renovation requirements. The Applicant requested variances from the Board of Adjustment which would have permitted potentially less impact but these were in essence turned down. A compromise was proposed by the B of A which ultimately proved unworkable. C2. The demolition is confined to the portion on the existing house which is non- historic. The historical integrity and architectural importance of the miner's cottage (rated on the inventory as supporting-lowest category) is not decreased or diminished because none of the new work is proposed in this application involves the cottage. May 25, 1994 The Aspen Historical Preservation Committee c/o Amy Amidon 130 So. Galena St.. Aspen/ CO 81611 Dear Committee: I read the news story concerning the proposed new, stricter regulations on houses deemed on the historical inventory. I do think that the barn door should have been shut many years ago. I am the owner of a Victorian house on the inventory. The house is for sale -- and what I hear is, "The City won't let you do anything to it, " and I point out other houses that have been renovated, and the answer is, "but it ' s such a hassle with the Preservation Committee." And this with less rigortus standards than you are proposing. The house on the corner of Sixth and Francis sold within a few weeks with an asking price of $850,000. One of the advertised selling points was "Not on the City's Historical Inventory." I was one of those persons who advocated much stricter regulations twenty years ago. (As you may remember, I spent quite a bit of time at the Committee meetings in 1991 trying to get the houses being renovated on either side of me scaled down -- to no avail, by the way. (See enclosed letter especially page two, number 3.) I hardly think it fair that you are now going to ask the few of us that are left with our old Victorians to bear upon our backs the burden of preserving Aspen's historical significance and legacy. And by imposing stricter regulations make the value of a lot come down because of the house on it. And meanwhile taxes on it go up. We inhabitants of these houses screamed years ago about lot line to lot line building -- and got nowhere. It doesn't seem right that you are penalizing the same people who tried to institute what you are aiming for now. The limits were not imposed when it would have made a difference to the character of the West End. Imposing limits now will not make a significant difference but will punish those few who tried to keep the integrity of their homes in spite of increasing financial pressures. I would appreciate the courtesy of a response to my concerns. Sigcerely, *14*tr Heather Tharp/ December 26, 1991 Mr. William Poss, Chairmari Historic Preservation Commission City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Bill: I was disappointed and dismayed with your decision on the abplication of Doug and Susan McPherson for the house at 700 W. Francis St. According to Section 7-601 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations, the proposed development must meet all four Development Review Standards. Number 1 reads in part, "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 areas, HPC shall find that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. " (underlines mine) The setback variance of one foot from a common lot line for the development has nothing to do .with the character of the historic value of the existing house, it has everything to do with the new addition, therefore the property should not receive the setback variance. Number 3 reads, "The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels." The addition is so large in proportion to the original house that the staff of the Historic Preservation recommends that the applicant reconsider in order for the house to be able to be placed on the Register of Historic Places. Number 4 reads, "The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof." The staff's response was such: "We find that this standard has not been met. The size of the addition detracts from the architectural integrity of the historic cottage. page two We understand the applicant's desire to expand this house to meet their living needs, however, we are unable to support the exl;ent of the changes proposed, based upon the impacts such an addition has to the historic resource. This may be a case where a reduction Â·in proposed new square footage is necessary in order for the addition to not detract from the historic cottage, and to receive approval from the HPC." (Underlines mine.) It seems to me that you have flown in the face of your Development Review standards. You have given a variance on your rules! As a property owner (next door to the west) I object strenuously to the setback variance of one foot from the common property line. I find this objectionable on several counts: 1. If I want to sell my property and a person buys it who wants the same privilege of a one foot setback from the property line, this means the back line of the "alleyscape" of three historic houses in a row (because you also granted a side setback variance to the house on the common east property line) will be broken only by two-foot squeeze- throughs from the backs of the properties to the fronts. 2. It also creates a dangerous fire hazard, if one house catches on fire, it is extremely likely that the fire would jump to the others. There would be no room for firemen to operate. These three houses comprise almost half a block. 3. My lot is 4500 feet. The addition to the proposed development would dwarf my property and throw out of proportion the setting of the three houses, especially when the house to the east is moved 10 feet closer to the street. (Incidentally, No. 1 of the Relocation Standards says, "The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on its original site to provide for any reasonable beneficial use of the property." The Staff's Response: "The purpose for the relocation is to allow more space on the parcel for the new addition. The structure can be rehabilitated where it is currently sited.") Esthetically, one of the last bastions of Aspen's past would fall out of scale --the past that I thought the Historic Preservation Commission was formed to save. Please take a look from across the street at 700, 712 and 716 W. Francis Street houses, and see what a charming and old-time Aspen picture it makes, especially in the summer with the trees in foliage. I wonder too if the architect and owner have taken into consideration that eventually the City may want to exercise its right to put in a sidewalk and the sidewalk will be ten feet from the house. page three It seems to me 'that you are not keeping the scale of house to lot in this very important half-block of historic Aspen. In supmary, your decision for Conceptual Approval has ignored the rules set by the Aspen Land Use Regulations that all four of the Development Review Standards must be met in order for the HPC to grant Conceptual Approval for the proposal. I would like to respectfully request that this case be reopened at the next meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. Sincerely, Heather Tharp SPECIFIC REPLIES REGARDING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 523 WEST FRANCIS PARTIAL DEMOLITION 6-2-94 Cl. The existing residence is functionally obsolete; spaces are too small, inefficient circulation pattern, poor ventilation, bedroom windows do not meet egress standards, ceilings are too low. The proposed work is necessary to bring the house up to current livability and code standards and to avoid complete demolition thereby preserving the historical miner' s cottage. The new space required to bring this residence up to current standards is concentrated diagonally on site in the south east corner, as far as possible from the historical resource, which is located in the north west corner. This strategy mitigates any impact on the cottage to the greatest extent possible. The major new ridges run with the property rather than across it like the cottage reducing their impact. The new peaks on the volumes closest to the cottage are only approximately 4.5 feet higher than the existing cottage. The highest new ridge is 7 feet above the existing ridge. This maximum mitigation that is possible given the renovation requirements. The Applicant requested variances from the Board of Adjustment which would have permitted potentially less impact but these were in essence turned down. A compromise was proposed by the B of A which ultimately proved unworkable. C2. The demolition is confined to the portion on the existing house which is non- historic. The historical integrity and architectural importance of the miner's cottage (rated on the inventory as supporting-lowest category) is not decreased or diminished because none of the new work is proposed in this application involves the cottage. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager THRU: Leslie Lamont, Interim Planning Director FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: Temporary Overlay Zone- Information Item DATE: June 8, 1994 ------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------ As a result of the discussion between HPC member Roger Moyer, Mayor Bennett and Councilwoman Georgeanne Waggaman at Brown Bag Lunch on May 9 (see attached news article), HPC has directed staff to take immediate action towards creating a temporary overlay which reduces allowable FAR throughout the City. It is the committee' s opinion from their own project reviews and through creating the Neighborhood Character Guidelines that the existing FAR standards allow structures which are not compatible with Aspen's older building stock (Victorian era buildings through much more recent development in the 60's and 70's) and which destroy the small town. pedestrian character of the community. Therefore, HPC has unanimously recommended a temporary overlay which reduces allowable FAR by 30%. and has requested a worksession with P&Z to review that Boards' concerns and ideas for creating an overlay. A joint HPC/P&Z meeting has been tentatively scheduled for June 22 at 4 p. m. It is anticipated that specific details of the overlay including the percentage of FAR reduction, beginning and ending dates for the overlay, procedures for cases which are "in the pipeline" before the start date and overall impacts of the overlay on property owners will be discussed. Some sort of a special review system may be proposed so that a property owner can request to exceed the temporary FAR level, possibly by complying with the Neighborhood Character Guidelines. The Character Guidelines are in the design/layout stage and the consultant has been asked to complete the project by June 15. While guidelines typically are somewhat broad in wording and concept, there has been considerable effort to analyze the existing character of each neighborhood and make specific recommendations for future development. The Guidelines include illustrations and historic and contemporary photos. Review of HPC/P&Z recommendations for a temporary overlay is scheduled on Council' s agenda for June 27. Although there are a number of details that must be worked out before such an action can go into affect, HPC does consider the situation to be a crisis and it is their intention that the overlay be put into place as soon as possible. An evaluation of the R-6 Zone District only is on the Planning Department's workplan beginning in about August. Because the overlay will involve studying all zone districts under pressure and a deadline, the Planning Department will be making recommendations to Council as to how the workplan can be altered and what other projects may be put off to a future date. Council is welcome to attend the joint P&Z/HPC meeting, and will be updated when the date and time of the meeting have been confirmed. .. . l Historic Preservation Member Asks For Moratorium On Big Homes In West End By Bryan Abas Aspen Oa,ly News Staff Writer "There are no controls now. Aspen should place a moratorium on the construe- ~bsolutely none. \Afe're in a tion of any West End residence taller than the sur- rounding homes, a city official recommended quandary. Some of the homes Monday. being put up there now are totally Historic Preservation Committee member Roger absurd." Moyer said the city doesn't have the ability to proper- ly control the size of the homes in the city's original :1 , Roger Moyer posh neighborhood, and isn't likely to soon. Historic Preservation Committee A moratorium would "put a damper" on the build- ing of large homes in the Victorian neighborhood, and give the city "the time to put together" a policy to Historic Preservation Committee members "all restrict the size, scale and height of proposed new thought it looked terrible. It's the worst thing they homes, he said. could do, but it's legal." As it is, Moyer warned, the city is actually making Historic preservation officer Amy Amidon added the problem worse by allowing landowners to con- that without new controls the city won't have much struct homes so large they dwarf the Victorians that influence over the development of the 30 percent of dominate the Western End. "There are no controls the lots along Main Street that have yet to be devel- now," Moyer said. "Absolutely none. We're in a oped to the limits allowed by zoning. It's making the quandary. Some of the homes being put up there now attempt of the city to preserve its historical character " are totally absurd." "ludicrous, she said. Moyer reinforced his urgent plea for new rules by Moyer also suggested expanding the authority of . warning that without them, the West End will be the city over architectural plans for residences beyond ruined. "Some people would just as soon bulldoze the current rules that apply to buildings on historic everything there," he said. registers or in historic districts. "We need overall Of one proposal recently submitted to the city for development of a Main Street property, Moyer said Please see MORATORIUM on page 6 City Officials Agree That Guidelines Need Revisions Â£ MORATORIUM from page 1 ing for upwards of 10 years about restricting homes sizes. He said council design review," he said, although he members have asked the citizen advi- hastened to add "I don't want to see sors on the Historic Preservation Aspen designed by committee." Committee for proposals. They haven't "But that's what you're proposing," received any. 1 city planner Leslie Lamont countered. 1 Moyer made his comments during an informal council meeting. Only City OffiCials also Mayor John Bennett and councilwoman Georgeann Waggaman were present, acknowledged they and they expressed support for Moyer's deserve part of the blame aims and concerns, without comment- for the large homes being ing on his request for a moratorium. built now. "We'd look just like Vail" Bennett T said of the prospect that large homes will continue to be built in the city. Moyer said citizen advisors can't for- & But city officials also acknowledged mulate such proposals without staff help. they deserve part of the blame for the And in addition to being distracted by large homes being 'built now. City other matters, Amidon led the staffers in Manager Amy Margerum said that saying they wanted council guidance. when the city last revised the limit on Listening to the discussion, council- home sizes, it actually created so many woman Waggaman said she foresees exemptions from the standards that the little happening. "All of the cows will limits were loosened, when the idea be out of the barn by the time we get was to tighten them. going," she said. And although council members ear- As an interim measure, Waggaman lier this year decided to make revising suggested an across-the-board 20 per- limits on residences one of their priori- cent reduction in height and size limits ties for the year, they and city depart- for residences. "Just something we can ment heads subsequently agreed not to get in right away," she said. tackle that project until after the city's Currently, house sizes are deter- growth-control ordinances have been mined by a sliding scale based on the revised to reflect the city's new com- size of the lot. Residences are limited to munity plan. 25 in height, but another five feet can Bennett noted the city has been talk- be added with a pitched roof. l ZI-w MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer Re: 132 W. Main Street, Asia- request for variance Date: June 8, 1994 SUMMARY: The applicant has received Minor development approval for construction of a new door on the west side of the Asia restaurant building and new lightwells on the front of the building. This portion of the structure is the George Moser house of 1888 and is an Aspen Landmark. In order to meet building code, the applicant's must construct a landing and railing for the new entrance, and need a variance of 4 feet in the west side yard setback. The Board did already approve the new entrance on May 18, 1994, and this hearing is being held so that the public will be notified of the variance. The proposed design includes a porch overhang to protect the door. Staff suggests that a simpler porch, perhaps a shed roof form would be less competitive with the historic detailing. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC approve the request for a 4 foot west sideyard variance and recommends that HPC request a simplified porch be designed, approved by Staff and monitor. .../ r. // 6 0 . . - . rt 0655-526/EOE 3NOHd3131 21918 OCIVZIO-103 'N,cISV 'DESE )<08 Od ~Â· NadSV = 12)hliS NIVI/\1 _LSEA/\ EC L _ 't 6 8 8 . . 6 -1 0 6 . L *LAÂ· *95= I. (DEL 6\U 0 111 0 (F Z liu k a m LILI > Sl)31IH0EIV/S31VDOSSV Â¥ 3:!dINNn) SallIVH) ' 751Clo,UE!&1 1NvanviSEIH VESÂ¥ o u o I 1 W "f . I 110-le-k f : 2 2 113 - 1, 3 #*-1.3 1 uo -11 19 1107-11-- 34 28 5 3 i. 3- k~ 1 11 2 84gwl dy 43 %14 1- 10 PAR % R I reliz i21 1 1 1 1 \ e - i I f ecJ -1 11- I l lit U + 4= f Ik 1 C -A , t 1 1 M k -1 A 19 \D .5 e. .> 1 1-Â© 2,- ~~ ~ Y 1 Ad 'f . 4 <B. d ' 9 dj / 10 + 1-Lub 4 4-/ LE 46 ---/--- 2 - i 0 , , 1, COÂ·a 3 --- 6 Co~ 1 6 (,0 22 -' 42~* v -ll 4211159 0 ~~~ '' N / 4- 110-1* 1~ ,%/ME 1 LE _ U.1 . 1 -- 1- - -- - - --- - ?419- - Ntt 1 h , 4 4 1 li 1 /4 133 21 1 81 *t -i 1"14 B ' di-0 4 n . 1 U] 1 13 1 S 1 El 5 fill 7 a\, m 1 11 . 1Â£ W 9 111 . 4 4-9 0 9 4 1 i. 1= 1 * _34 2{ - 41 -nuff 0 -1, 0, N L 6 1-1- 3,1 \ 1 . 4@0\ 21 - 0 I 1.- \' 11 1/ I ' 1 i,~~~~~~r~Fl -*~- .: ':f~ -- - , 4 =e 1 -- - $ C 0 , 7 1'1 L ~ * 4. 3--7 ,~-~ ~ i e - 04.O .1,4193 1-1 ,<46' ItÂ°-22! '-C' - 5, ,;f0 1 72- M Aa . 1 d-1 r i~ 921 1 11 0 1 '6Â» , 2.4 1 -irâ€ž U. 49= -4 0 -.â‚¬4 :61. 1 1.- 1.1/ th .-1 1 ----- .4 + A 0 + 1.A F 0 - S Elf- .- r~ 0 / 111- 1/ / 1 11%1 1 Ilit I ill 1 -_' f .1 IL "* 77 . -al / 1 1 01 1 11 .4 ' 12:F + 2 = t|- ' 9: 3 - -3 ' ~ ~ ~ 5 -1 i -2-, Â¥- d.9 NI -G.-LIm , 1 1 -- 4 3 Z iti E1 3 N.@ 2 1L-4- 1 \ 8 4 04 11 . , 11,1 k . U . 1 3*; l.-UT -- 01 1 1.21 9 + 1 \L 49 - 0 ' % 'll 0 -r :933 1 FJ ~ ' 9 1 <-4 're- K -1 1 4 -11. 1% r -4 , f o o -3 + If UL ''---11 1 1 , -1 - 4-1-4-43 %72.j| : (/1 b -\- -,-/ ..?-=Â» Of>-1=32 '9 ,.--42431Â©hÂ·-' ~ * 1**7 Ill' ~r , Â£ 7 -1. \5+ Ed!-1 y-0- , 1 4 - Mil , 1 44 : ' 21 _- C '0 ni :4-, 1,956 . I ,) '74 ---~Â·11,<1 -12 +4- 1 51 1 0 A m " . 411*i' 66.,6 4.- .49 tr ,~' ~ s â€ž*iq,)1(.~~OFQ '~.1. 6 -. M , 1Â»-////1 f- i 1 -1 Â£\ I - Ut ~ 1 It 1 d. - 1 -- L :953. . 4 1 3Â»rdÂ¥@L_.L_---Mi I L 1--~-1 1 - 1,1,1 W 1/ 1 0 4 Z: 0 -3 . . C, It, >r 'C..>~-P . 1 .>'- ' , --, - a 6.7.-1 3/Â» C Y w T N , 1 N h 23&9 \ 1 W L F v 4 7 1 4\4\\Lut {{-3 1 7 4 BFg% I 1 11 1 ZUU ME 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 + 11 1 Diow Â·=02 a F 1'-1 A 6 L. 'IM - 7 7 1 1 [-2 ~ ' P 4 - U --/T U j 1 E 4 T-1 7 >1 13 4- L Â· E 1 , 1 =1-6 1 1 2 4 1 - t 44, L . 6.1 , I . , D . t . - . .1. . ON 133HS L 3140 Elat-4 11#dalvIA ~M*1 ~'IiI' * - OÂ©0416'BW 24 21 Â«19 MI %- 119111>9ll VIGIse@:4 41 1, . 2 j , b. REVISION ............................. .0 1 . Extenkle Fles **481-'ch' -1 60#18% LANPRe F4Â£" *All,Â· I_ 8 r.,10091-8 70 FLA 52UIPMENT TO *e deATLATEM>\ 11623 J //4 4 62;KEPE.10 94150 Ae FBRO eY =Â»l- F'Re .pol>\> - 1 co %*EE / 1 WAMPIVAB,%6*TE ~ 14-7Rt- "96,2- H I hz 1 5>(lerl 46,Â·997ION OF I ' - 1 ZTe It' ~ - 7 - - 1400 10 0-01Â·44'r-1 1 1 ~ el;95'314'2 ~~ ll@ 6 1 --1%96Â·In'Â· . / 1 4- Dig IJ- 10'.OIl 41Â«\04. #- 1 1 1. LI (2 0 02. 6 012'kes ~ i i --16 , , 4 ' p 5 4 : 4-4//~ . i lit. ~ S-ITCI--IE-NI. 99Â»n 1*L to'tv.1.f'I . I-- - 1 1 W. .. 3. - 00*18 , 1 ' 1,-i 3 1 leÂ» , 7 HArÂ·47 94< C | & +~ HANDFAIL e . +IA IF , +3<6' Alee/EE -- . 1 -- -1 4 1 FfiFEEN 1 . - 11-1 M E - ; 1/ LE*qpKIM *INI' il W u 1, C 71 g J 4 4 L_-__ 9 - - 1 I * Pe- r 11 1 1 U -Pal-24 4 1 1-Ck 1 1 =6; {t*1 4 41 : 9 - - - - - - . A 1 ed/TA LitkÂ»./.39, lot ' % 1 1~ - 42" AAit.ABQUAJO ~ L rbue- /-5-A 109 OF Wertlhll KIÂ»IU, 1 2 144're coN,fRAIB Held LAI 40 1 1 L.2 j I ' 28% 4 : 11 k F ~~- , 1 M H WALL 5' TAI.2, - ~-1 1 1 14 -- - / -8,2 -22" 09~,43 *'.1'i +E. ~.I Fehe/5 Eyiere 1 - 1 . 1 0 4 1 4 - ..........................................6..... 01*If. Ae 9+19#41. 1 1 4 / 7 1 i 121-Â·IOVE e< 19761 - 1 - txpeff- | ASTALL Heu 0#006_I _1 12 64,726 2.0 zx-*58 NEW Pee:MENT 12'4'Re FL<Bf- FLÂ»4 Â»@. DFTION 2746 -- Le,E]â‚¬* - ///// LoW Ef- ayu MT Â» be 11 E= . , 3./.12 - 4 170. F i U. rue , , n . Â»44529 Â»4&Â»~ m~-,~ . _~3 -7 * EL= 1 00 -cy' 1. Jolir 604&F < 4% 6 E-E Â«r-12-UcTI 15445, InFFI,La 1 hieN LOWEBÂ· uoutT 0 1 - F . 1 _ - T 10 FF le# Df=2 - 4 5 - , BE>1092 2%571#5 , 1 ~ Z *BAAINg Â»66 - le,AR- I 82+81Â· 74 - 1 - 0.- 4 W 0 0- 0 op-Tiokt -rwo - . -1 4-1 , / 1 01 N I ke 1 ---- r.--1 /[L-7 r z . )1/ 7- 21 - 1 Ir- - j . 6- 12-52,=,LAC.C EL><.!4 W i 1 i. EÂ«=Â· 43%Mijtc- -26~01. 11~-Bl-- loFFICE 1 -' DIHI Z Wi -r-- 1 EN -- E 11 0 107'16,6 L-2 0 -L_ j Â£.~~--- -4-~- Z - f 11 1 571 KI kl~ - 4 Fove,4 4% 1 1 VeerÂ®UN@ f X r i - AL=4 - 4 /72- 0 - 7 -n 0 - lopploe LLI / | profe A. 9, 1/ 1 - ---- r -- -11 C.j --71 : 1 , 1 1 01 3 1 .56 Â· m 2 -1. 1 KEN Wao DTP p WAW r 7 . DRAWING -4- 1 1 1 -Bxle'TIN<= I'Â·Â·yALL, bÂ« MATEPAL. Hel-I -ira Leal_ ./P-EL L -* Rp,ABLE Ule,rITIALL WITH up FLy q P.4 / / +1124:PUE,HT !1*N PAILIN16Â· TO , r -HA,ul, TO eapÂ·PHcx/gtz vAIDH rE) LAX,19644?& , -- PA LI NG Ft?531@1-2 1,IgHTIWBI-1, INIT;-1 JOB NO 900=5 14000>HT IFOW MAILING 13 - DATE 7 Fte O I HA-70 H CE) DANPCOAFE PAID'vb .- ~-- SHEET NO NEW MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-O- A2.2 SHEET OF Sl)31:H)HV/SaLVIX)SSV Â¥ 33:liNNn) 5318VH) rk,nviSE,H VIS.1 0665-526/EOE 3NOHd3131 21918 OCIV210103 'N3dSV 'DESE XO8 0-d 4: 32-73 "./7 11'll/- Â·/1 - ' -' I >3**444 -4 ..1 .1 7.W' I â€¢ . J.4 1 REVISION 1--kIEW Â»e'le, : -- _i-_-__ 7 -UII---- - - 1:ReplÂ»6,6 EXIST / \4\ 45:04 4 1 --- Est,2eeÂ·5 1-1(Nook.1 23*18 . I. ' FOH + 30 1110Â·12-311110.12 11 -L============1 \\ ruZZL -CIZZE[ 0 . ..Ila- \Â«\ - \- \4. . --- 1 - -- -- ~1__I_ -- 07*- -2 1 ~ -~ ~1 0 1-f-j' 0 - â€¢ 1113- â€¢, -4 11 1 , : 1 1 - 421'14070 84110. Apour.~1~g Â« 111 El ~f E %_i t K~ , sy / 00 F or â€ž;764NI Ne WALL. 0205 * 9 4 & Ill-411Â»41 ~ 1 / 11 '1 02 , 4/) 1 1 12.5 7,5 Â· ~| | ~| ~| | ~ 61 03 8205 1 92 03 111 5-1 hZ.VI ! 123-1 1 1 1~ 1 1 rt.s i 11- ' - ~ ' ' i 1 lilli 11 1 11 1 22-11 Elf 11 2 4 1 1 252. 1 *020, FD:OF<lvE ' 8 r -rr I t21 1 1 1 1 k u ==J '1 - _ -, ----Newel,L Fzare â‚¬ 1 1" ON OENT@El h/AX, i #F=-= 1 1Â· -..11 1 1 1| PIPH It 1119[2kt 4 Il APH Il - Ill PPH 11 Ill Ppel 11 k 1 1 1 11 +--Â·- Fteel Due. 1 1 I --r---- 1'Â°'; 3 LE_-21 El__291- F UIDPI-kEUL-- 11 1110:20 11 1 1 1 0 L-------------- SCALE; 1 /4- = 1'-0- - ~--- -- - ------ -~ NE~--SOUTHELEVAIE~14 1 3 1 r- 14EW 6-+01-5~ W/ FOUNCE[p f FÂ»bler -CUT 51-11 r46125 ID MATCit - / -5'KleEINIC, 07~8LED, _ J z 111 LLI I *7 . - MÂ»EmN INEN Five~,AD rÂ« - -FEMOVE EXIÂ«l Ne 0 0- f Â»COITION . FI El,DVEMI rl +TAIM To Â©(lerthle 11Â· AL; corÂ·.101,10,16 U) 0 -Mile-sfqi<f, , ~ le ' el-o FE OF Al ek.1 ' 1.Â«:>~r -1-o MA-12R 1, 1 -Klew *OFFIT ' FMÂ», 1 EXISTI 44 . ill \ / Mâ€¢ce OF N EN aa: IA ILI I r i!! 1 - 144 TO De 4-6,4 55,41ND EX'trING fASCIAar.4 w t '- 7 rt In I - ~LINIPER, MANIor<:ur ~ \ L i==d-]~11 L____j_ 1 1 #C'.fk(+I .1.7L Z 24'h.160= -p h/!Alt,4 EX *TAG -. 1 <i 1 1 IFF-Tr + 94*j.-u.,u.- 4 /// \ 64' '----2- 9/ / ./92 111 <4 1 11 Id <..Â®lili /, 1 +44 ALU'le,4740(A'AV-FA#ti,e,aWM I lalz__2 Ill~ Dal._I 1 ' L. 44/ - 7 VEÂ¢- 44 Â»/15421Â©W 1 N F 1 56.0, m -- --- - - -7- ----.- ALÂ·le# REDâ€¢I $-22----~'---- _-1Ir ---- --~1----------RN;ZEIN<1,4.LA------------ - 7 El*= 1 09 5 411 V I Fi 4 --- --1 1---- ----Â·------ '96 â‚¬101 11 4 9 2. 4 1 - - -T'Â·IMI To MAN Exer, 1 --7 -- -1 7 IF==lip=11 0 1 1 -4 1 H e/-- - -- -- -----1 En N. 4 6,4 140, 111 T I A 1% :*ast, 81 NIEILXâ‚¬27014 -01 ;IiÂ«7 NAP,FUAIZ- :9 .1, . . ' , IL Â«Â«Â«44Â»49~ il 1 , 1 11:'1 + 1 1 1~l ~1 1 T IIi y li +1 i. lii:; 1:lilli il 1 1 !1 11 4 W. !,1 ~ al! 9.+11% lilli,IN] i ;1 1 C!1!11 i l -jPWFY.% 0*1606 Â®Â¤L -73-23__~ ' ' ' ill -|414444-0+1: NINOW -O - -/1 - -=-Â·- 1 4 WINH 1.5/26Â· FIRIa-1 Fl.,ae. 0 i. -- -i-Liff ~-0*TrIAL~.1- f6*=---rit-------- - - I.- - - '1 5 1,2 VEPÂ·! FY EXIerl h| C. ~ DrTE coND. ANG Â»Al Uer 42" Awl- ApaÂ».1.0 , FF==nrll=====1 -=2.--7-1 11=~==11 2 EELEY= 95'-lori 1 t HT OF W..1-1- ~e DITE ?-EQUI@El>. 129 OF- 00[*ININB WA,1,10, -i ] li ~ 9% 1 bl FpR IiI ,6-- --jb Fek' 111 pOR Ii: I .~ -0 1 ~DRAVVING ~ ~57,82<~ 1|| 222<28 ZI|--Â·--4|t] 26*23 A N Â»16| '142=22.111 â‚¬6<23-1,~ r.~] ~ 1-- 540# CAVVIe,1 49148 111 1 11 1 -- It 046FrI WA.1.60, -+ I H 111 7.... 1 2 L-- 11 1 1 9 4 L sEE ENG#NEEP#0 . L i i 1 4 122-24 11 AJOKIZ~|g/~!') 11 --- .-1 1 1 14 I Ilo.,1 - _I / i 11 -- 1 - -P 61.-9- 11'-07.-91'F. ~DATE~-FEBi71~ i Ter OF IfbÂ«Â·1'rge Al.11. [JOB NO. 9006 1 7 elÂ», ~ 89 0 2" t v I.F, ~ Id I hi 9 0 lei 47 , SHEET NO ALL W W FAID 9 00 "1661* * pokpe 7%* - 81'- o" r v i Â·F, ~/111,1.WOAL W,0 "FEitar:) 102*1,0 i#i,Ible"( ?014) 9 -I -- 0 NEW_EAST_ELEVATION 1 A3.1 SCALE: 1/4- = 1'-0- 3 SHEET OF- Sl)31IH )MV/S31VDOSSV 9 333!NNn) S31HVH) 06SS-SZ6/EOE 3NOHd3131 21918 OCI~1O1O3 'N3dSV 'DESE XO8 0 d 13]BELLS NIVIAI IS gel i. *i) 1-fl 1SCALE SHEET NO. SHEET-J D COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS Si)31IHI)WIV 3=I=IINNfI) 53-IMVHZ) 9Z05-5Z6/EOE :)<Vd ' 0655â‚¬6/EOE :3131 ' LL9 19 OD 'N3dSV Â· LOE 31IAS NVINAH 1593 OES L956-9ZZ/Â£0Â£ :)<Vd ' 8EZE-REL/EOE :3131 ' 5Â£48 OD 3al>In1131 00Â¥30103 15Â¥3 OZE 2 11 4 Â¢'f . '- A F e, 7%/A ", 14, I je~ '" 7.' 4 * 2 7 :': vâ‚¬ â€¢y.,e ..,r e .%. + #'. M.'.1, 7,3-' - 4 *.n # . 4/ t. - I ' ./. , 4.-1. AT /1*"e.rehu-fhrapp#. ~ f I Â¥ '3 'T'.elle : 794- , ~ Â·7'"+ ' "~ ' ~ ' 'L -4. r .:,4 : i .(I 'i Â£ I '- lr. - I.'A / ./. I .*/U/v...&Â·~W . .. - F 4. 1...> 7, , ' I , 9, r , 3.- - . 4 4 I e , ./ . 1Â·1 4 V ../ *. '. ./' .~"--A 'I Ir'# *. *' 14 :I' : . 0 'fjow , I :Ill , & 2/Â«.1<â‚¬V 0 1&.r ... I 1 34 I. ' .;24 ./ 4 . Li ... Â·, Â·!4/tâ€¢*K.&- , 346 3 0-rÂ» =Â·~~}f<.1 7 7,4 e . 3 7... -- -*.* - 21 94 4 f AA = : .4 * ly J 'Ecill//Iir.. 9Â¥ t 61' f /91, 4 ,% 1644 , :h le + af: f . 4 1.!l=ill * 8 I .,A'' Il :*;-1,1#11'lit,in!.2 1.latiâ€¢'t i51'mi '4 ~ -4. . 1/Im. .1 *. 't . -' / 4.70. , i 4, 1 + - 11///21/3/,-,-,41/--6 --- -- -- -- ---- ---- - 7-- - . -- - R :5... 44. 4 1 I. 4/ 7, .l 2. : Â£ : 3 + .. C - I .9 /0 1 0 CA I, 4 , + 4 4/4. I. 4 f~~ '- 6 i Â· - h t~ '1* 4 hâ€¢ ' ' .1 4 At. 4- 11$,0.2 iÂ¥*; 49, '.~7,4'441 44*4 . 2 9. - 'll' I ' A- 4 I -I /4 S , .1 *32 - I 1 , W 4 1 -/4. I I. 4, 2- p 2& r .* I Â»fl oF ':' . / - VF *ir.'' *f, 2/ r 'I 1 . I I 5-:-=1% h tz: ..39,23. 09â€¢.D' I 460'MI .4 42..I-: , '*%. ct- : i - 4# Â·04}41 Ul ' -'r . â€ž - -=-* --A=--4 wee-- ... ..,M,k ... i. -I' I . --I .-lÂ« 9: I 1 ~ 1 .. - ...4 1 1 --.==-I.~=-*P-- A .f!*1 *246 'iA.J 1 1 1*?' ' Itt .11.1-1 ihimill. 4 11 1 14.1~ -1 - -1â€¢â€¢'Illiui,~ .. Â£1'j~ill ~ im --- --- - - liUL'~ai""' 3,. .111-k - 1 1,1. 1 ~!ilimil~Bl.Init:1111#45*Ir - -'- - - --!.1-,- - . -- -- -- 1----8-31 .////L $ t> 14*=AM=i , e .,+4 CA; S 'r . - F . .' I W I .-7 'll' ' ... ' I .. ' ' I .. I i I . 't I _ I #. , . ' J t *A . '+ ' -01 4Â« . . 1, s ., . A.4/1 ~,~, t'1*4 *7* i ./ I -, . 2 XP â‚¬ t â€¢0 I , I.