The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19930224AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE February 24, 1993 Regular Meeting Second Floor Meeting Room, City Hall 5:00 I. Roll Call II. Committee Comments III. Staff Comments and Presentation to the HPC GIS map review IV. Public Comments - Rue dc,SC.-2% . V. OLD BUSINESS K t'q Â¥ E i |A - 174 , cA....0_<- 23 11 t.j- 51 1/I ,) A-&. 5:15 A. Scheduling Round #2 Inventory re-evaluation hearing VI. NEW BUSINESS 5:20 A. Conceptual Development and request for parking reduction - (Public Hearing) - 210 Lake Ave. A wn f B 4 M, 1 L 6:15 VII. COMMUNICATIONS A. Project Monitoring B. Sub-Committee reports 6:30 VIII. ADJOURN MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee CC: Diane Moore, City Planning Director Kim Johnson, Planning Office From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer /UL_ Re: 210 Lake Avenue: Conceptual Development for rear addition and request for parking reduction of one space, demolition of outbuilding, temporary relocation on-site; Public Hearing Date: February 24, 1993 (Note: A second public hearing is scheduled before the HPC on March 10 to review a sideyard setback variation request for & rear (below-grade) egress stairway. This variation request was missed by staff as it was not included on Attachment #1 in the application. A second public hearing notice was prepared to cover this variation request.) SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting Conceptual Development approval for a rear 1,842 sq. ft. addition to the landmark at 210 Lake Ave., a parking reduction of one space (from five to four), the demolition of a detached (non-original) outbuilding at the rear, and a temporary on-site relocation for construction purposes. APPLICANT: Betty and Lloyd Schermer represented by Cottle, Graybeal and Yaw, Architects LOCATION: 210 Lake Ave., Lot 19, Block 103, Hallam's Addition, Aspen, Colorado SITE, AREA AND BULK INFORMATION: Please refer to the attachment from the applicant. ADDITIONAL COMMISSION REVIEWS: None are necessary, as the lot meets the minimum size requirements for a duplex unit. Ordinance #1 impact mitigation applies, and the applicant is reminded to meet with the Housing Authority regarding this. Provided the ESA height and setback requirements are met, no further P&Z review is necessary. Development Review Standards REVIEW STANDARDS: Section 7-601 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations defines the four standards for Development Review. All four of these standards must be met in order for the HPC to grant approval 1 for the proposal. The applicable Guidelines are found in Section VI, beginning on page 47 of the Historic District and Historic Landmark Development Guidelines. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an H, Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot of 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. Response: The proposed duplex addition is being added to the rear of the landmark structure. our primary concern and responsibility is in either the contribution or deprivation the development impact has to the landmark, neighborhdod and community, within the context of historic preservation. The addition is large (1,842 sq.ft.). In a pre-application meeting held previously between the applicant and the HPC, suggestions were given to the applicant to reduce the impact of the massing and height of the addition in relation to the cottage. Connecting the addition to the main structure via a hyphen would significantly lessen the impact. Although the landmark is not particularly noted for its pristine architectural quality, it is a strong representative example of vernacular cottage architecture, a critical component in reviewing the appropriateness of this addition. It is also immediately adjacent to one of Aspen's more significant National Register resources, the Newberry-Shaw House. In addition, Lake Avenue is the summer pedestrian route, which greatly highlights historic resources. The HPC should exercise great care in reviewing this addition's compatibility to the principle structure, the adjacent landmark and within this immediate Lake Avenue neighborhood. Staff disagrees with the entire addition approach shown in this application. We find that it completely disregards the cottage, its historic integrity (vernacular form) and small scale. We feel strongly that this proposal is completely wrong for this parcel; we are barely able to discern the original resource from the addition which is a complete violation of preservation principles. We find that the proposed development is not compatible with the designated parcel or the adjacent structure, and that this Standard has clearly not been met. We also find that a simple tabling is not appropriate due to the major number of design changes that 2 must occur. We are, therefore, recommending denial, and ask that the HPC support the Planning Office in this. This proposal illustrates a significant misunderstanding of "compatibility in addition design" and will require substantial revisions. We conceptually support the parking reduction request from five spaces to four, however, cannot support the setback variations due to the incompatible design. We find, however, that the applicant has not made the argument to support this Standard, i.e. that the proposed development is more compatible to the historic landmark... In order for the HPC to grant approval for any variations, a more thorough discussion of this standard must be made by the applicant for the HPC to consider. We find no information regarding the temporary relocation of the structure, which requires bonding or a letter of credit prior to the issuance of a building permit. . 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: We do not disagree with the applicant's argument in favor of a duplex on this site, however, their design approach must be entire reconsidered before Planning Office support can be given. The HPC should again study on-site the project at 620 W. Hallam and 700 W. Francis and remind themselves of those design review errors (as discussed in numerous previous HPC meetings) while considering this proposal for 210 Lake Ave. Mistakes previously made should serve only to teach, not to set precedent. We find this standard has not been met, and are recommending denial. 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 adjacent parcels. Response: The cultural value of this landmark is found in its vernacular contribution to the history of Aspen. It is representative through both form and style of the mining era's family home environment and lifestyle of the average citizen of this community. To expand that small scale form completely out of proportion is to deny and detract from the historic cultural value of this landmark to our community. We find that this standard has also not been met, and are recommending denial. 3 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The applicant makes the argument that the cottage has been significantly altered in the past, therefore, additional architectural changes will not impact its integrity further. Due to the significant nature of the proposal, staff disagrees, and reminds the HPC, the applicant, and the community, that what was wrong is the past should not set the course for the future. Actually, we find that the previous changes that have occurred to this structure did not disrespect its small scale, cottage form - they merely altered its original vernacular integrity in ways that are commonly "Aspen-like", i.e. larger porch and additional detailing. . The HPC has strived for many years to keep the appearance of additions smaller than the original resource in order to meet basic preservation principles. Numerous good examples of this are found throughout the West End and elsewhere. 126 W. Francis, 201 E. Hyman, 1004 E. Durant, 17 Queen St. and 100 E. Bleeker afford the HPC good design solutions from which to learn. In order for the original resource to read through and not become secondary to the addition, issues such as height, massing (bulk), scale, proportion, fenestration, materials and detailing must be carefully considered - always with the preservation of the landmark foremost in mind. Conversely, it appears that the material choice is compatible to the resource, and that the general fenestration proportions meet the Guidelines. To conclude, we find that this proposal diminishes and detract from the architectural integrity of this resource, and therefore, the Planning Office finds that this Standard has also not been met. In summary, the Planning Office cannot support this proposal as presented, and asks that the applicant work with the HPC, the Design Guidelines and Development Review Standards to redesign an addition that will be compatible. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: 4 1) Conceptual approval as proposed, finding the Development Review standards have been met. The Final application presentation shall include material samples. 2) Conceptual approval with conditions, to be met at Final. 3) Table action and continue the public hearing to a date certain, to allow the applicant time to revise the proposal in order to meet the Development Review standards, as stated in this memo. 4) Deny Conceptual Development approval, finding that the Development Review Standards have not been met. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC deny the Conceptual Development proposal for 210 Lake Avenue, finding that all four Development Review Standards have not been met. Additional comments: hpc210LA 5 January 14, 1993 FOTTLE GRAYBEAL City of Aspen Planning Office YAW Aspen Historic Preservation Committee ARCHITECTS LTD Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Aspen City Hall 130 South Gatena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Planning Officials, Commissioners and Committee Members: On behalf of the Schermer's I summit this application for Significant Historic Development and Hallam Lake Review. Attached are the required documents for these reviews. Please contact me with any questions about this documentation. My clients the Schermers have recently purchased the property on Lot 19, Block 103; Hallam's Addition Aspen, Colorado also known as 210 Lake Avenue Aspen, - Colorado. They intent to renovate the existing single family residence, add a basement, built an addition on to the existing structure and use it as a duplex. The two units will be used by family members and not condominiumized or sold off as separate units. The existing structure is the last in a series of single family residences in the neighborhood to be developed into duplex units. The lot is within the WPW Subdivision approved in 1978. The lot was purchased by Nancy Oliphant after the subdivision. It was renovated and added on to in 1979-1980. Part of the front porch was enclosed, windows replaced and the house resided. In 1981 a new enclosed rear porch or greenhouse/hot tub room was added. These are two of many additions made to the property through time. In 1990 the house was investigated by the Aspen Planning Office for its historical significance. At that time it was determined the "Integrity has been comprised due to substantial modification" and "the significance of this residential structure is not of those who owned it or lived in it, nor of its architecture, although this structure is representative of Aspen's mining era. It is of historical importance by illustrating the family home environment and lifestyle of the average citizen of Aspen which was dominated by the silver mining industry". At the time it was also noted the house has had as many as four additions. In 1980 another study provided similar findings "represents a type, period, or method of construction and contributes to the significance of a historic district." At that time this was a minor category finding. See attached information. I understand from Nancy Oliphant she tried to have the house designated as a historic structure after her purchase and was deigned. JOHN COTTLE. AM According to the attached documents she was told by Sam Caudill that it "wasn't G GRAYBEAL ALA worth it". In 1980 after a renovation she successfully achieved designation as a Y YAW AIA .K HENTHORN. AIA historic structure. See attached resolution by the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee. This designation was achieved after part of the front porch was enclosed 510 EAST HYMAN. SUITE 21 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 PHONE 303/925-2867 FAX 303/925-3736 'imillin"i 1 and the rear porch enclosed area was added. In 1990 Nancy Oliphant was granted an approval by the Historic Preservation Committee for an extended back porch and a second story addition. The improvements were never made. See attached letter and information from Nick Mc Grath. ' During Nancy's renovation a new foundation was added to support the structure. Unfortunately the crawl space under the house was dug out further to accommodate a mechanical system and adequate ground support for the foundation did not remain. To remedy this situation we intend to temporarily relocate the structure on the property, build a new foundation and basement then replace the structure on the new supports. During the 1979-1980 renovation the house was totally resided and trimmed, several of the windows were replaced, in one case with a bay window and a metal roof was added. We intent to remove the metal roof replace it with new wood shinglei and restructure the roof to support current snow load requirements. We also intent to remove the bay window and part of the structure. Appropriately scaled double hung, double glazed thermal windows will replace dilapidated and inappropriate windows. There are several manufactures who are replicating older windows with current technologies and energy saving features. We wish to take advantage of these improvements. We also are relocating two windows to work better with the space inside the existing structure. Several windows appear to have been relocated during the previous renovations and our relocation will enhance the overall appearance. The existing siding which is not original will be replaced with new siding of the same scale and proportions. To accommodate some of the difficulties of the site and the desire to provide off street parking for the property that current possess none, the latest rear porch addition and one or two of the earlier additions to the structure will be removed. This will allow the duplex layout to be configured so we may share and improve an existing driveway with the neighbor to the west, 212 Lake Avenue. The removal of these later additions also allows the duplex to be configured so a visual break from the old to the new is provided. This will also allow two very large evergreens in the rear of the property to be retained. We have meet with the owner of 212 Lake Avenue, Jonathon Lewis and he has approved of the share driveway and layout shown in the attached drawings. With the sharing of a driveway to create off street parking on a property that currently has none we request a variance from the required five parking spaces to four spaces. This is appropriate for the property location. We understand surrounding properties have received approvals for less off street parking. On the front side of the structure we will be removing the enclosed porch addition and returning this area to its original appearance. As stated in the research document produced by the planning office the house is of historic importance by illustrating the family/home environment and lifestyle of Aspen not because of its architecture. We are holding back the addition to the structure so the original shape of the cross gabled roof is still evident. Behind the crossing of the main roof a dormer element has been added on the east leaving the existing eave line exposed. Where the original eave line ends the addition has been stepped back to differentiate between old and new. On the west the new addition has been stepped forward with a change in roof form to again differentiate between old and new. The main roof element behind the original cross gabled roof form is another higher cross gabled roof to reflect on the unique character of the original but not to mimic it. In this case different roof forms from the different elements of the house intersect the main roof breaking up the massing adding interest. A small shed structure exist on and over the rear property line. It was renovated into a garage, small office and bedroom space by the previous owner. In a conversation with the previous owner she indicated a nothing substandard structure was severely modified into useable space. In a conversation with Tom Caradbme of the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies he recalled the shed renovation being two smaller sheds converted into one larger structure. The shed violates the require building setbacks and the Hallam Lake Bluff Review standards, plus many Aspen building code requirements. We intend to remove the structure. In researching the original subdivision of the property, the original survey shows no shed structure(s) in this location. The documents do show and discuss a larger structure on this and an adjacent lot. This structure was required to be removed during subdivision and was done so. In researching the historic records in the Aspen planning office with Roxanne Eflin and the records of the Aspen Historic Society no evidence of this shed(s) existence was uncovered. The renovation and addition proposed to this property will allow the preservation of the home environment of the residence and its historic importance to the community. It is the last of several structures in the neighborhood to be renovated and added onto. The size and scale of this new structure will be smaller than the adjacent structures. The ratio of building foot print and building size to lot area is smaller than two similar structures directly west. Being an infill project between two larger residences and the last in a row of renovated single family residences into duplex structures, this project is appropriate and consistent with the character of the neighborhood and the community. It preserves the character for the original structure and clearly separates old for new. The architectural integrity of the structure has been enhanced and the addition does not diminish or detract from the original structure. Because of the constraints of the site and the desire to preserve the integrity of the original structure we are requesting the approval of a variance to allow a stairway from the lower level basement to encroach into the east setback by a maximum of three feet. This request is appropriate since the stairway serves as a code required egress from the lower level and is a below grade encroachment. Per the City of Aspen Planning Office request this encroachment has been discussed with the City if Aspen Building Department and they feel the request is appropriate. We appreciate your time and efforts in reviewing this application. Our request are reasonable and comply with the intent of the code and the preservation of historic structures as they have been classified for the benefit of the community. Sincerely, 8113Â»1 Doug Graybeal AIA Principal Attachments m-'1.nulailir i IAND USE APPIIar[ON FCRM 1) Project Name Schermer Residence 2) Project I~cation 210 Lake Avenue, Aspen, Colorado Lot 19, Block 103, Hallam's Addition to the City & Townsite of Aspen (indicate street address, lot & block Inaber,.legal descciption where appropriate) 3) Present Zoning R-6 4) Lot Size 10,760 sq. ftt 5) Applicant's Name, Address & Phone # Schermer 3990 Cuervo -Avehue, Santa Barbara, CA 93108 805-569-3151 6) Representative's Name, Address & Phone # Doug Graybeal 303-925-2867 Cottle Graybeal Yaw Architects Ltd., 510 East Hyman Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611 7) Type of Application (please check all that apply): V - Historic Dev. Cor*litional Use - COOL V-_-1 ZILL -- -(ilpf~ltliew) Final Hi storic Dev. Special Revier Final SPA . 8040 Greenline Conoeptual POD Minor Historic Dev. Stream Margin Final RID - Historic Demolition Mountain View Plane - Subdivision - Historic Designation Condaninitmization 1~ext/Map Amerximent GM@S Allotment Iot Spli~Iot line ~i_ Hallam Lake Review - GMOS Eloamption Adjustment 8) t.escriptien of Existing Uses (rnmber and type of existingÂ· structures; approximate sq. ft.; Irmber of bedmans- any previous approvals granted to the property). One existing single family residence, approximately 1,500 sq.ft., no garage. or driveway. Historic Designation July 14, 1980 (previously deigned) . November 14, 1990 final approval granted for improvements not built. (See attached information) 9) Description of Develoginent Application Owner wishes to renovate the existing building, add a basement. add on to residence, and use as a duplex residence. 10) Have you attached the following? Respcxse to Attadinient 2, Mininum Subnission Contents Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Contents Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application lili - SUPPLEMENT TO HISTORIC-PRESERVATION 2 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS IMPORTANT Three. sets of clear, fully labeled drawings must be submitted in a format no larger than 11"x17-. OR one dozen sets of blueprints may be submitted in lieu of the 11 x17" format. .. APPLICANT: - Schermer ADDRESS: 210 Lakk Avenue ZONE DISTRICT: R?63 - LOT SIZE (SQUARE FEET): 10.760 SF _ EXISTING FAR: 2,208 SF ALLOWABLE FAR: 4,186 SF . f ..f,+7 ~ PROPOSED-FAR: - Approximately 4,150 SF L U.Â· .... t.,4. r 1 51 , Cj EXISTING NET LEASABLE (commercial): NA . PROPOSED NET LEASABLE (commercial): NA- . EXISTING % OF SITE COVERAGE: 16% PROPOSED % OF SITE COVERAGE: 24% EXISTING % OF OPEN SPACE (Commercial): NA PROPOSED % OF OPEN SPACE (Commer.): NA EXISTING MAXIMUM HEIGHT: Principal Bldc.: 25 Mid Point /Accessory Bldo; 2 lft & 112ft PROPOSED MAXIMUM HEIGHT: Prindpal Bldg,:25 Mid Point /Accessory Bldo: None PROPOSED % OF DEMOLITION: 25 % including r-ear.slidd,Â·:21%nwithout rear shed EXISTING NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: 9 PROPOSED NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: 5 EXISTING ON-SITE PARKING SPACES: None ON-SITE PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: 5 (4 proposed) SETBACKS: EXISTING: ALLOWABLE: PROPOSED: Front: 25 Front: 15 Front: 15 Rear: 44* Rear: 1 5 Rear: ?3 Side: -11.,1124 Side: 1 5 Side: 183& 19 Combined Front/Rear: 69 Combined FrURd & 37 Combined Front/Rear: 3 7 EXISTING NONCONFORMITIES/ Fence over-proprerty lines and auxilary ENCROACHMENTS: hivil/ling ig nver property linp Anrl pnern;Irhes into rear yard setback VARIATIONS REQUESTED (elioible for Landmarks Only: character comgatibilitY finding must be made bv HPC): FAR: Minimum Distance Between Buildings: SETBACKS: Front: Parking Spaces: Provirl-rnk_.1.- 1â‚¬ss: tlian -211Â·70. Rear: Open Space (Commerdal): required Side: * Height (Cottage Infill Only): Combined FrtiRr: Site Coverage (Cottage Infill Only): *below grade egress stair encroachment - f--- n 0 -- I -Â®HIIRÂ®Â®!11[Ill![Ill 1 COTTLE ( Ex.Amw GRAYBEAL 1 to Rem 4.-Â»Le= C YAW 2 0 ARCHITECTS LTD 510 EAST HYMAN, SUITE 21 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 - Paris*94601'ine FAX 303/925-3736 PHONE 303/925-2867 to Remain V L.UJ ~ ' EXISPING SHED TO BE 47 .\\\ i Jb REMOVED Transplan _ t----L . \ Russid 0 ves Ins it E . g Spruce ~ 1 . 00 )Move ~ 5 chel I C ve ' hokecheiry " ain -. 9 1 I . SNOW DUMP AREA LORADO SPRUCE TREES 81 r..'- 43 . Move i , go Â©0 e \ 1 1-8' r tlecone t, 2 , Move ian Olives Exisung \ 1 to emain o cw 0 0 1, 9e Add n -ZE:- - 8 . -- 1 Z V 12' Cottonw WI .move , L- -44 1 F-xr; t*LJ <to Remail .-. . 'n Â« 'I r-- < 5 0 pt ..9 11 tdatemaln F n 2\A 0 52 %Â« // b 14 1 0 â‚¬ 1 21 9 1 b \ 1 -6. &0 = 44 1 ' I tiv:t lil,i Â» I 17\ k I N ./ , 16'--0" drivewap .[Â¥~wÂ·W Existing Spruce j 9 Sereen j ~ |RELOCATED Move Aspen ~Ail -UNE * 1 2 / / Â°OA i 61 1 ROPERTY IINE ISSUE: lA/3 1/92- 1 -- 2.1 / 1 1 . ---- / 1 - ~ REVISIONS: 1/15/93 , K i 1 212 LAKE AVE O*~ 210 LAKE AVEÂ· / 1 i / - r Â£ Â£ Remove Broken e Cottonwood EXISTING AENCE- - - GA LOCATION -1 SHE PLAN ~ 1 4- - e / - to 1 / 0 1-f JI. OaVHOEIOO NGIcISV :iIAÂ¥ GINVEI 0-I Z OFISDIN H~WHGIHOS 6 1 - COTTLE GRAYBEAL YAW ARCHITECTS LTD 510 EAST HYMAN, SUITE 21 , ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 PHONE 303/925-2867 FAX 303/925-3736 0- 4- - - -=173==DECIEF-===- / 1 \ \ 1 fl /7-h / n lo -Ii-Ii---~i - -- MASTE BEDROOM LIVING AREA 2 1 4 3 MEDIA/ EXERCISE 1 0 r LAUN Y 23 ---- - I N ==DECHon- ! 1 I up lilli -'.----..1.........1.-~ 1 141 1 - -- ELEV. , 4 MECHANICAL ~~ + Â·ENTRY - E . BEDROOM , OPE DINING Itt -) rn 0 PE - 21101 I JUI D lf--29- HIS STImY HER STUDY 0 1 STORAGE KITCHEN BEDROOM -IL - GARAGE 111 11 - 1 \ DN DN 1 il 11 BEDROOM ~ 9 1 1 D UP 1 1 ~ 1 lilli 1 1 L /1 1 - Al 1 00 KrrCHEN 0 (__1 \L--1 MECHANICAL - BEDROOM STOR GE UNDRY~ DINING ISSUE: a 31.92 SrO AG ENTRY REVISIONS: 1 1 /9 SETBACK LINE PROPERTY LINE MEDIA/ EXCERSICE LIVING AREA __uzzz 1 1 1 \ /377/Ing-/</ ~ LOWER LEVEL PLAN MIDDLE. LEVEL PLAN UPPER LEVEL PLAN . SA 1/ " 1' 0' TIONHGISSIH HSIINSIDIHOS OaVHOEIOO NGIcISV GIAÂ¥ DINVI OI 3 - AL ECTS N, SUITE 21 DO 81611 2867 6 -f 4-- PROP( EAST L-----4 ,-11---------- 1 InalÂ·1 Ff{H] 114.-4 1 Ililll]Illl[ -=Itiz-- f 9352.Â·-All- 1-===lt-==C=ty' i 3 t=Irri 11 Ir-lit ..ti=-A- 15 9 ~, __--1:. fer-~ 11 1 1===11 -----*3 :.... ,....w, PROPOSED ADDITION 2,_EXISTING ADDITION__ 4- ORIGINAL SIBUCTURE K-_--PROPOSED_ORIGINALSTRUCTUREC - PROPOSED ADDITION 7 1 TO BE REMOVED f ADDmON 2 PROPOSED PROPOSED .4.r WEST ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION A 1/ " 1' 0' OaVHOEIOO NfEIdSV DIAV 5INVEI OI Z aimilimmi,im, ,~i@Â®mj*iii@ . . ..... -..... ..... ..... ..... ~m i ..... - Amilmin""~.~I~/Ill ---6---....,1 ..... Ill'Â£11 IA - ..i =.11.11.11~.- i~â€¢Im~â€¢r~ ..... 1-11.11.11=11'm.il.,1 1.1 - ..... ..... ~1 rl.1 - mill ~11..11.--~u~11..11=!.1 ..... =110 --111=11.11. --1 -~-~-J 0.11 ' . 1 /1 0 ....." D '1 0 0 /1 ..0.0 1 -6 - 1-- Ilitilillilli~.li~ilill~illilillillilillimm.maimilkillip:~:mill-Illixill'.illillixilimill' : illilliwilqli~Vi~~ill.~lil'lli.l.~~4.......L~~~~~~~~~l.illillilill'--Â· ...... mill @milliial--- -ill. -mil ...... 11~ 1 1-1 '9= 1 imid<lim 1--I'-It 1.111.11= 1-11-1.1=11.1.11-1.1.11=1= ...... - - 11!!1!1,1.1,1..........:1111111111 ; ......ra!.11. .....1 Miliii,/9/Fl I m Â· f -. , $-t ... COTTLE GRAYBEAL YAW - ARCHITECTS LTD 510 EAST HYMAN, SUITE 21 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 PHONE 303/925-2867 FAX 303/925-3736 - .I I, % f'M#W ' 1 f li_li~_Ifl IL~~_~ 1, lb====110111zr-F- 1421 99- =1=9* ~ 0 -- |4*EIEWEÂ»EIJIUA -- 94 4 CD Z EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION EXISTING EAST ELEVATION g . 94 CD -~-,/H I 111*kE 1'11111,1,1111'11111'1111,1 'A I ISSUE: 1*97 ' M li 11 | 1111 11114111 4 ! 1 H I 11 1 ] 111 1 l i l l i "ilit|â€¢11]i grill|I| 2/1 \ 0 i i i i h i i i i ~1 I l l l 111111111 n#1 | REVISIONS: /1 / 4 -1 1 1 -_ lii 11 - -6 i-----reimrmmij' E==21 ii//El#fil-7.IEEEEEIEEE1' 1 1 - 1.- - EXISTING WEST ELEVATION - EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION OaVHOTIOO 'NG{dSV HAÂ¥ &*INVEI OI Z