The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19910508AGENDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE May 8, 1991 R~GULAR NRRTING SECOND FLOOR kK~t'~NG ROOM 5:00 I. Roll call and approval of Ma~ch 13, March 21, 1991 and April · 8, 1991 mlnutes~,b/.~L~ ~a~.~ .... ~ II. Committee Member & Staff Comments III. Public Comment IV. OLD BUSINESS. 5:10 A. Final Development: 610 N. 3 RD~F 5:30 B. Final Development: 214 W. Bleeker~{~ 6:00 7:1'5 7:45 VI. C. Final Development: The Meadows: Residential only (Ac~demic.and Music-portions scheduled for May 22)' V. NEW BUSINESS A. Request for deletion from Inventory: 601 W. Hallam (Public Hearing)~-~ B. (Note: The Public Hearing scheduled for 316 E. Hopkins will not be held. The appl.ication has been temporarily withdrawn.) · COMMUNICATIONS: A. National Preservation Week activities B. Project Monitoring 8:00 VII. ADJOURN 7-4) %,6 82 610 1,1283 Uty -0 1 E3 0 1... - l.yo:$ , 3 _ - Â» '74 J I . -:/+ .3. w, 2+ I 4221 1 1 '111111111111111[1? 4 i: 13*262 Â£4%9Â« --- -4-ir.. t.92>.,- , ., -P '5111 1 , 1 ~ ' Ll' ..3-9 7 D ip.* --1-2 1 49.- -- 45.5, 2 6 ~Pll 1 /2/' 1 1 -11 - 1 -11.2 == 1 Of 11-1 11 r 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 CO 1 n el - 1 A DRAWN F REVISION. h .. -- d .204* r - -_ _ ---- PROPOSED UIIEJUIE~~UnIUIUIUUIIUUJUIL (NEE~TS~LUETV~TaD UNIT) r i --I I O ~~~~~~~~7--01 5 10 20 6â€¢ A V IV ONINNVld aNV1 CINV 3Hn1031IHOEIV I -ONI S31Â¥IOOSSÂ¥ ONV IN1OHNId DIAVO OaV31AI N3dSV SNISAOH 331Snt31 03SOdOUd OvE AL AY L OG Z III 2.31 --11 ZI=11 - :Ii~m:TA t-- ........ 33 1 213 4%91**miEOH...ft#*44.... -- ...:3.....................~.~....................4.iIi:iflil*.2*2*NRRÂ¥Â§ 910 - - 1 1 111- -Ilin j']t-- :"X 0 :. ': r ...: r.:: ~r' ' 5 ' ': 0....ir...... 2 ' ' 2 ::5 : / .. ... ... .. .::::5..:::2:5 6: .. I. I :.i:1:..:::3:. ..:.:::i'.i:: -- 1 1 - 1 I t ~/ i , ' ~ ~ii....iit:*Â®i:....i:ijaidi:.:.iji.:'...iiji ii:i:iEE :i:i:iii:.i:i.iii:iiiia:.ii:i:iiiiiiaijiÂ®iii.~3 .:.ijii.ii. 1[- - 1- -lili :::.::..:5.8..~:.0..~I.Q.~..~::..x.:: 8:L.......................................:::4::2%: . ~~ ~ - i'***30*..........~ .............~..~..,.$.....%..E,~~~~ .9.....~E....E~ - T:.:-:T:::::::::.:3:-:-:-:-:-:-:r& . -- LOWER LEVEL NORTH 3=:I=. i.~ziE&~.4~.~. ~6.~~.Eft:.E~.EE.E: iE~i....~:~{Â§ ...~:.i:1~:.~:....:~~Et...E,E.~~g-.....E.E ...,...~:.*:.,=.~.,., I I . --. ... I LJ-%-- 0 >I> 000 1 2 5 10 20 . 2*GlfÂ·ED::- 44Â»6Â·334%9 Â¥ 'I ~ ONINNVOd (LINV-1 (]NV 3Hn1031IHOHV I ONI 931*IDOSS\/ a NVV lAi -1 OHN~3 DIAV (3~ SMOCIV3~l 3H1 803 S3INOHNMO1 03SOdOEId OVERLAILOG L SHEET 1 OVERLAY ..Lr 46â‚¬r b 6 3 bt 3 ..41 3 1 6, \-3 \ \ 8% 0 4, A . \ 3 tb . --- i j Â«.2 1 4. - u 42 10 - -13/,1hk_ 6% 000 Of 3 29*974] 00003 003 L E 0099- L =20(3 . - EQUE 23 - (--1 no e 0-3 u-990 0-3241151-Fnl I la - -1 - -3 -13 R 91 1 0 2 n M- Cal- - D - 64Â«400&,IJ 1 fBEW 2- DEDF ~ 0[19[HE~*34 dou 02 D o 000 0 0 Cn 99/Â«34-1 4 0 U[1 . 010 6 0 3 PROPOSED TOWNHOMES FOR THE MEADOWS . $ .. , DAVID FINHOLM AND ASSOCIATES INC I ARCHITECTURE AND LAND PLANNING A.I.A. 000000 NOI1VA313 HltION 000000 OvERLAÂ¥LbG , SHEE' 1 OVERLAY 1 1 - 1 Ill--J- - 1 - 4-- 0 - - - A n 71 . - I J I. ............... ............... fij.i, 8.39 :i:i:i:'.~,.,.,.i:i:i:i: iiÂ¥Â§iiii:I:i ? : >SHS{{i iFiiii{{i.ji.{{.Di:ii{{fii::.6Â· t i Â§Â§ FiI ~ f < f ::<ijji:ifi: ::22:. CC.:-.:.:.:. ::i:i:i: .... * ::: *:: 8 : 3 i: i: Efi:fijjfiiffi *ii i.:iit: i:i:i:i :i:i:i:. 555:FBE .:Di: S:am:S: 8328 88?1:E:fiE i : i:i:i kii ?55:.i:DE:B?BE:i:DE:i:ES:m::2Â·. 7: Â·Â· Â· Â· Â· Â· Â· Â· Â· Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·.... ........ :.Â·:. .:cÂ·:Â· '''~Â·-' .... 0:223: iti ....~.~~ki:i::38*: E...29.3 :i:i:i:~ii:i:i:Eii:ii:i:i:fi:Uifi:i:i:E:E:....rii:....~.<6~~.2i........'~....~ .6:=:=:=::Â·:Â·:Â·:=:=:=:83:E:EE:E.~~.E:==i:E:i:E: E:E:E:=:::.::. :Â·- '.:6-:". ~ .'~. 6 :i:i:k..i:ii:k.....2.i:*i:ii~~:i:.Ii:i:ii:i:i:Ii:....i.2..i.B~~~i'..iÂ·iÂ·:Â·iÂ·i:i:Â»i....:ir...~~..........i:i:Di:i:i:ijin ....:i: i:i:i:i- Â·.Â· i:i:i:i:. Â»Â».:: .:::. c<:1:>26: 1 ... z.=f:Ez. E.:.:zi:Y --:-:-=:i ..=.:z.:= ::.i:.:zz : 4.f:E...Q.E.......~.:.E~~::i:iffir:....bs.*.*.i.::*.2~6~24ffiRCUffifi:::48~ffib#:&SER.:fi:r.~~4.~~.33~.:3:2ifir.'.1 :~~33 4fiffi ::33~43:fifi: 1 ...........: .... . f.................~ 3 f:i:3:3=2:3:3:2:i:f:F:E:3:3:3:2333332EEFFEFFEEifiYEFiff?323333FF3EYEFFFEFYififiFFE3EiS~.f.8~:BjEf.~~.~~ I Â·Â· O *44@424..1........1.:........:33... ~:6:.I............ 3:E. ... .....::2.....~....~.................~::....~~:. ........ .::.f. ..li . ~Effififfiffifijijifififjfjir:Ejf:difififif:Iff.jifififfifijifijif~~ffi~i~ifi~ififi~j..fi~i~ifijj:i.:i:. i:---% :L :..:6. 5:.i..~..:.:.:..::.:.:.:::E :::: -.. .... 2#Ujlfi~ff; 6*:B *i:UEZINF ::::3#222*29%:5::5 .......................... :33*ERE EE:~E~.~~~E:E:E E:i:E:E:E -:-:=:=: =: :=:=:==:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=X-:=:=ESE:E:3:3:2:i:E:E:E:E:DE:.:E:E:DE:i:Et:2385.....E: ifjj,ig ESE=*F:..E:~ikimEE:i .i:i:*: 3 .i.EE:3 2232353Â§2222: ~:.$.~..E.~.8f ~%...~.::..:.::::::::::...::~. ....... - 1 -- 4 1 - 1 Cl 0 1 14 : 1 L _P ---- 1___ - - Â· -4-1 I 11 PROPOSED TOWNHOMES FOR THE MEADOWS .... 11 DAVID FINHOLM AND ASSOCIATES INC I ARCHITECTURE AND LAND PLANNING AIA 13A31 &13ddn 02 01 / li ..:. E 3:i:. Â·:~i~:~~.::::iii :i'.i.'*M#*itwirtuci.:C. ....... ...... - ......................%..........t........t .%. t. ...%....%.............. ... i:ji~42 ENE**EU :ii::ii *s.*:*:Di:*3*:M:: >: '>: ii..in'. .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: 1- r 0 ....... :.:.:C:C:.:.:.:.:.:. .... 1:19446 2%44%%%4%12 2333EFEMERi4EREE~44%221313%13~3213~*RRBRE %44%4% ""Â·" :i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:.:2:2. fifiEE:i?j,]::i:iijiii~.i62.~2..22.j.Â§~:~.....~jii~iiIiii i:~:i:i:~:i: 1-:-5 5%**41 *ijili~iliMB&Mfm*48%22%223&5<i ::E:E:Z::2>: 3%33......2~~~.~~% Eii}iEiE. EiaiEEEIEE233EEE.1.....ilii.RIER:RiEi{Eli....~IEEERRIE 33332EEE.... 1 _ j / 9*2'*90g-ilitatiti~itiupm ki.ii: :i:.:i :i :i:i:'6 '6: x':r::55:r:r:W**~~~~~""'~ ~# - '6:Â·:Â·.v,v E:E:E:1-5::c :E ::.::E:E.:..E:6:3~~E:~:6:::t.::: :....:.:::.:.LE:.::.....: ... .Â° .Â° .-. ... DINING**E :RiE12.....Elijl~NGE*EBRIERiEEERiEiERiEEE....~~iEiEiEiEIEiEiiliiEiiliiEEEiEIiliiiiiliiEIEiEIE}%3iEIERRi :Rktkt.....::~::k:....:k:.....:ic:::::.:::~~:7...i:*ii:::::.*..:.i:...iSET..iÂ·. di.jil.i'.4.:Ic. i::Ed/4*Al'r'.2:Â·:Â·:Â·:Â·Â· . ... .:11.: . -Â·Â·Â·Â·.Â·Â·Â·1.Â·:Â·:Â·5: ..5:44 k.:U.: &68.2:.0.4-f.7rwk-3.:KER#1.:32:9* :i:i:.-*~*4: i:i:...::i:: - *4<'>EXÂ«.-5555 55>>: ... 4%%- 2%41429*Riii*itilijii %44%1 1433= 1%%3iil 21%11% 21%4% EiEHiHEÂ«1312 EiEigi M..ti titititilti:.itittititit::liti~ifit~ ER E--jÂ· --j:Y iri:~i~i~ i~ilititi %.iitit. %3 - I. . .......... . I EE~Ei~ii lii*IE*Ii.~~EE.~ERIEtii~EiEIEI....~..:E.....iREUEE BEEE:22 iEE**:3*32: :E:E:~:i=: :=:=:=:=: :=:=:=:=: bri .#ATE+XE.Z..:: 2:.:Ill:.:.::: .: I: ::...4:25 ............. ,r - - MAIN LEVEL NORTH . I W- 1 > gl O 0 12 5 10 20 V I V ONINNV-Id (]NV-1 CINIV 3Hn1331IHOHV , ONIS31VIDOSSV ONVIN -1 O HNI3 aIAÂ¥(3 ~ SMOOV3W 3H1 80=1 S3INOHNMOi 03SOdOWd S 'FET n f 06 â‚¬91 NEW TREES 4 2 EXISTING TREES 2 4 1% hra, 3' WIDE WALKING PATH 1 2,> . n '8*Fe - 29.-U --I.... e 4 v e eah d}I ZE ~E 2 22 - - - -- - -1 - - 7 v -L ';li~ -'1993. -- if' EARTH BERM COVERED PARKING r )> Â°'1 - ~ ..4,/ 0 - e EXISTING ROAD 4 6... -; Art . 1 -ic -4 s~ b t-r ~ 724. 222 9 m.95. ....'. Ff-9-m--1 ./ING A '441 p. X 1 i 0...4 -i -:4-- , 4 - 1-e.-4/ 4=60 --1=- 7.(1 .k-, 1 4*pjzk --fre 49 2< * - 44, a N Â» . . 14 ef . r 1 f. hill - 4/. .rva -3. 4- . râ‚¬237~p~ . 4:~,' r ~ . 07 .S, I JAB 47.-6 Â»ir, --- ---4 -'.%t ts;64 2_2~*2 ~ ~' EXISTING GRADE ., RE VIS,Ii'NS D:il 4-1-91 DRAWN B . < I SECTION _J C W I 0 W - el/)0 01 5 10 20 50 SMODV3IN 3H1 bio=I S3~IOHNMO1 03SOdOEId VIV ONINNV-Id aNV1 aNV 3Hn1331IHOEIV I ONI 83-LVIOOSSV aNÂ¥ I,lOHNI=I CIIAVa LZ 21918 078 d V V - i k 3 I r.Â»// / /1 /--/ / -_2911'Naw) 4 4-9 #Zliat~ 2- - 1 Â· .1 + 7 9- - 11 1 1 J 1-7- J H - 11 /1 1 41 11 l 1 1 1 11 &% RRA&-bEL6991 2.-IRELUS-~ UVINQ#MN:146*EWW 1 1 1 1-1 -~ 1,1 1 1 , /r--7 - me=-- U .. 1 . . .1- 940 1 1 i -- ' r j < '-2 ----40 p , .41'rttl- 41[ 11 /f-rtlt.. ii - 1 L_j 1. / -9~01'~M.'â€ž& 411- a- -G \ MASÂ¥*#t SUIYE -h 14- F 1&'Â«0Â»* 1Â¥*r ~ 11~ --~ l .- 1 - 2-\ . 11 ... / / .23 DATE FLAT ROOF '7 1 -3=zE= I A 1 * 4:- ---- 1315 DRAWN BY REVISIONS 1*-Ar - PLAN 1 1 11 1 1 IDECK NORTH UPPER LEVEL I PROPOSED 4~V0LU*AL U, W â‚¬*15~~ n.1..:....4 : g 01 5 10 20 VIÂ¥ 9NINNV1d CINV1 CINV 38n1031!HOUV I ONI 631VIOOSSV ONV IN1OHNI=l aIAVO SMOGVEIW N3dSV 9NISnOH 331SAB1 0350dOEId OVEALAv'00 rr aiza L J lf-=--Â· .1. Pknan-- Ak i 1 -'- Ily - 119 .. 1 7 4--1 11~ 1 2 ---1 Plf--1 41 2 1 1 L_ _ 1 /1 f . r-1 1 1 1 c/ SUN TRELLIS Â·~ 9 -0 Â«f_--711' / AROVF 14 1 - - 5.:9' /J ~7 1: 21 9 49 24 i J 1 1 - ' ~ a_-f - / TERRACE I i, L#~Gle*1*14 : /lk// 1 L lit.* ***Le* : - 1 --30--U Lf -- --- 1 ~- X 4 - 231 - 1 - ..................... ;M I .. 1 K \AULÂ«.3/ 1 -i f Lor-----1 1 . i- ),--- ..................- _____J r* 21 42 --LI . i - /7 4 1, r .XÂ«. t F Â·â€žL"tuu.1,i.11Â·. 16 .,Â· 1 .....--Â·1111,1111111111|1~~,44+ r...U. T'.-,nfÂ¥--m---.-2 22-=:.~88Â»~12~[ t . , h %\ \8491/2/3--6-L:r /99+12 4111 1 - ~-1 - fr-=f <Jir- 004 1 .19 92Â«Â»22/ ~ Etttit Eall7911>9~-f--~---d - 15==-==Â»==r--<--=--==1 lu CD 1 - - -- ' . ~ hr--4Â«-232=0. g -MEd,=0-: i --=- - .1 - 1 <444 \ ~11 I /3 -E~ f \-4 J --t=== 03-6#H#=Ei+=&=IIL _ f ~ 01 - E ' ""11Â·Â·Â· Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·1Â·11 111111111114" 9-3*-44111=11_3 1- 1 E --- JE-==7 - -- CO --230 J = ' e 8 t. 0 ), -1 r P -viu'le,AD.,--n - - ' *WF' 4 r EFF't ~ *f'tÂ¢*fit 1-100â€¢#t 3*S'-4% X *44# E -- h- - ,. U Il=77 - -7 :-1/ ; d li 41 DJE DRAWN BY ......, / RE VISIONS 1, 1 - i ~ DECK ABOVE-nj PLAN NORTH â‚¬ A--- - -/1/94//pj-A- -- -- ,Â¥ i PROPOSED 4 4 . MAIN LEVEL aul . W.X......4 - & \\\\\ \F :i6 :.B-- 01 5 10 20 I. VIV ONINNV1d CINÂ¥1 CINV 3Hn1331IHOEIV I ONI 631Â¥IOOSSÂ¥ aNÂ¥ IN1OHNI=I OIAVO f SMOOV31AI N3dSV 3SOdeld OVERLAY LOG SHEET OVEALAY 2 . . . -:......,0.,1 4 . .:4.5 ./ . â€¢ 4 1 1 -...,4,"Milill ./ ... t. . r.-i 11 /0/ 6/ 1 4 I ..1 - . 4 .0 ./ -*504/"~Ill-2. ...../64*~111IB EAST ELEVATION FROM DRIVEWAY 4 El/*ge . 4..A, 4 00' . 3.- ... 4 1% 1-Ly *r 6 -5. * I .Vi:. I p 1 .. 1 1 . .Â» ,Â» 12' - 41. 10'h .. ./ I . 4 . I , ... I - 4 - . - _ 15 3Â¥.. / .4 I .- , ... 1,Â¢ 6. 7 &- " ,- ' d . 1 - I * 1 + -4 + : .4 1.161,4.1Â¥ 42-14Â¢ . 444:WN '/-1iÂ£ . *M r -It i .1 f .. 4 . . Â· I N (4 I . . /4 . 4-4, 11 . 4 *19 1 , I / * I. i 0,2.)4 ' 0 4 m .10 4 . *- . 1:4 -~ Â£ & 2 1 1 y < ir i. E.M./.9/'// i 41- 41-1-' /i~ ..0 ii? ASPEN MEADOWS O 2.2; s PROPOSED TRUSTEE HOUSING DAVID FINHOLM AND ASSOCIATES INC. I ARCHITECTURE AND LAND PLANNING A.LA. .:74 OVERLAYLOG SHEE OVERLAY - 3 44540 61 ,â‚¬1 A 'S CA. ' 4-~ 3 4/ T k 0 4 $ 0 +1 Â£ :Â«4 1 V 'Al ----3*.22.~JIL- E-2'7 2--==..3 4 z 8 -23 IC.Â»~21 C . L. 9 u , ;P. Rf. 1 n ....., 9, \ 1. 4,2 (Ii*fffy d ,-, 9'.- . I l e_, P 043 U.\Ew J.y . 1 :00 - -1-0 011-,I O 00 m 0 0 0 41 483 1-~44-/3 ts> 43 PWÂ¢ wl %. 4 6) b 6. 10 0 Â£, ' 119/ .O I ASPEN MEADOWS 0 < PROPOSED TRUSTEE HOUSING DAVID FINHOLM AND ASSOCIATES INC. I ARCHITECTURE AND LAND PLANNING A.I.A. NOI1VA313 OVE ALAÂ¥ .OG SHEE OVERLAY 21'Â· 0, t./86 0<1 iM, 4-.5 2 6' 2 r, 1 1 y 32 ~ 900 %10 40 7=27-2 -- ----9 --Â«040 3> 9)~*t 09/3 4 - V 4 43 fsÂ·AI --- I .4 f EU' C.dÂ«; 10 -- <-' <~ 07042 % 42387/.. Â¥â‚¬2 3 6 42 *ksÂ«.1 -- % -- =:c==.P-- E--- C_ / 3939 4 --2- -- 11 1.~~ 1 1 1 : Il. U 2 - 1- i,1 i ==,f===- , 1 \\ 11. , =======li =.I=ZE==1 4 11 - - A - 1- - ' - j 14 / ; 2 -1 46#'5 +1 9 #W -6/ '4/4 /917 &4 D 4 Alt ' -7 yt~~ 4 4 Â£ bt . ~ A,3Â»,~ 3 -3 4 il 1 2 - M; 0 2 j 'Â·24 0 N -7==22*22-11411% 411Â»423 [i.,1702% -1-227-Pr-r.-~-l#r Â· iztetto K rv, J 9 .63 A 1 0% r,%43 01#519,0.* VI, 1.. 7.- ,.. 1 CO 0 44' 243 1 57 60-1 tapw. c,1.-123 m 0 0 ..O m.Â» 0*m ASPEN MEADOWS 0 Z CD CO < PROPOSED TRUSTEE HOUSING DAVID FINHOLM AND ASSOCIATES INC. m ARCHITECTURE AND LAND PLANNING A.LA. 0E NOI1VA31 3 790 - --- -32-2---2 -2>-Ips_ 1 .1.2..1. A- -33-3 1-\Â« \ 4\Â» Â· 20 1 1\1 \ 09~Â« , , . 1 *Trs#/.trz I. , 0 - - j. -/. 1 1.. N 0 I. 44 T <b I . &95/ ' ..' 1 '10. 1 . . 96. =. ,@ ~ f: .f:-19/1 46:ty; . .'..%94...4 . 1 0 w .r *u. ' -== 3:.*,ig..2 *.i. . 0. PROPOSED TRUSTEE HOUSING . /940Â»94% : 3 AT THE ASPEN MEADOWS -: // Â· 6545>94 '4 Â· 1,- . .. ... .. ASPEN COLORADO ,- ;j. 433 Â£ .... ./ , ~ . 74 ~ - 7810 ~ 2 Â·Â· 11 1 2 - 7820 DAVID FINHOLM & ASSOCIATES 7830 1 / f 22= ARCHITECTURE & LAND PLANNING -1 .... \ 1 -- . \ ! -~ ' '' 710 P O BOX 2839 7820 Â« . .0. 6 1 \ ASPEN. COLORADO 81612 9, j< *.*Lb # 303-925-5713 (FAX)303-920-4471 .1. 7840 -- ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~' *~_~~~==Â£* 17V *j a... ---~173.--%\~ 783 - - -- -- /1- - 04> 8204\ 1 7850 ~ 1% . 1 ... /-499Â« - . ...Ej .. \ lf-1 .-- 7830 , 4 Â·Â·Â· ~ f / / - ne>N~__j IF-f ; LÂ»'-- f - 7840 Â»Â« If \ I h. - - LU. ' A 1 6., . -9- --\ 0441Â« , 4 ~--4--2~ 9 \ I Â»Â»43 RESTAURANT BUILDING ~/ < â€ž7~7%.0/ 143#. i \ \ ./1 1 .\ FA I.E.p-, , - 1 .044 f / 1 laiL'/4 2 1 - 1 \A~ vt r 4 (2/ ,+39/18/~6 ' . . '-1",r~< 300' * -* 3 4; / y-11~*. ' r A 1 3 04 . A" -/ \ -4- \J 1-31 c :,1 ,142 flf---- 1 1,1- Â»" 4-21 r Aff 1 \ / J -9*4-24Â»>1 --- -- --- ----/-/-4-=Â»r-% \ I 42..1 Â« ~~~~rolv~4,~\ 1 / 1 A- 3 5 1 )3 7~ 17 X------1 1 1 -f . , * -iAn 11 ,\ 1 1 / 27- / M. 850 f\.t , , 1 1 1 -42I1- -r~f 44-,3 -- / HEALIH CENTER --- -4 Ad . ' /9.0 f . o / f ///---9 /f ~f --Â«~~ ~f~~~/~~ ~~~ ~fÂ» ~~ I <4- 1- 1,/ 01-1 4\ 0 0 â€¢1 \ \ 1-14 \ / 1 11 \ 1 - 2/ / 1 \ UrÂ»Â·-,-\ f/-// 1 1/ C / 1( . '' 441 1\ :1 .1% ~ / \CS./ i > - U.* - \ 1 -- fRULLÂ«J) f 1ic%3338<30 SITE PLAN---j 0///3/,23- i- \11 7 9-/ FY /71 1 ''n i Â· 4 3) * < ~~~3Â»39Â»~~~ 7 1 0 17 z/'~Â·~ 7840 ~< NORTH~ 1 / f i 0 510 20 50 75 / Ill 1,7 / 1 C I . 31539%#tak~k- / OVERLAÂ¥:00 S â€žE ET OVERLAY 4 02 -, 1 J -Eb 7,0 L' 4 g. 1 - - . f + -LU k .1 Ut - I -1 All 44 ' 3/ -1?Dr'Â·r. , r- 1 -re- 4-7 461.7, 4.Alt/'' b& â‚¬,- 79 Ng -pÂ· 4- -': u eva 4 2, P . 0% 1 1 1 111 4 - 1 1. ; U 1 = I . 1. r -=4=4./"Wa/'I'./-Â¢V & P 6 6 .41 Rr 27 # Â· role T'- 9 U Â· r .9-t 42-ID 9--- â€ž= 4- 71; - ./ 4 I th - I -- - -..4 52 -2- <:1=Ed /ViÂ« fr.t ;ff t~ te ~ 2 99 4 2 -- 1 ==r 4%31- I 3. I. 04'Al, 0 D-/Â·z *P R , . I. I.Ff-;jil , Â£ ~ 2 -1 124 : i ++ Il L-6 8 1 9 |'Oft 3% Lot .3 39 /.U 11 h 6- P. 4 49 -- 0>4 - 4 b 6 9 0 -; --lim-0 1 00 cn mO r U) T-- .*-3.~ m 0 1 IIi!11 ,[lt lili ! Iii |1~ ... -1 -1111 -17 1- -1 Â«92.Â· I. i .1-2 ./ j U U C,3 - '. 1 4,1, . 0.- ' f /4 I e 7. + 1 . 3 d.4....,- t 3 3. ..0 31 ASPEN MEADOWS 0 0 < PROPOSED TRUSTEE HOUSING DAVID FINHOLM AND ASSOCIATES INC. 1 ARCHITECTURE AND LAND PLANNING A.I.A . 3*wriri AL 02 OL NOI1Â¥A3 , li 491 rd>001 45 42 P<,2 JO C f3 4 49 * 4 '.S 94-2 31.~1 t. 4 4 Mt %2~4 i .r 1 1 -Ae e 4-Â· Ng tor , '1 â€¢37.4 1 114- 1 = ~ 14411 k =" . 1 1 1.1 1 11 - Â· 6 ---HMMR-:'~ 1 - Â· - Â·!1, . -: .~ -~ 2 -2 2 i~- rn_*04<11-_ =1 - 1-- -1,1-p - 11 --- .= F I ~ Â« Â·Â· 1 -n 1.11 2- 1 - =1Â· 11 f__JT~Ir__ ET.5/EE #g.# ~ Ill5#y=fâ‚¬7 11 =942*131 ~::E = 32EEr 11 -:- 2-=Nilteft----=E -72 -=E-- Â£19.--ri-h-=2Â· 2 11 2 9-=ge =25== T L.OEE-- - ==E.Â·--E-:~--3h DATE DRAWN B , REVISIONS PROPOSED 4 I BUILDING SECTION I Z f ... => 3 0 01 20 . V IV ONINNV1d aNV1 aNV 3801331)HOHV I ONI 631VIOOSSV ONV AlOHNIN aIAVE) SMOaV31AI N3dSV 9NISAOH 331SA81 03$0dOld 0 0 rahÂ°72 - Ab#.9 4 20 . :: I.V *603 - 9 4 - 3= .: 91 01.-1 19 19 â‚¬Of ..p,Al. ti> 442 593-' - ~t 7 -.1.- - 9 'Cfv#+ - Â¤r- f Â«12 > 4 169, -rf t~ , 25<2 -p b / r7 2 04 -6 e -==-Lf =.* 1 -9=L-1 11 - CO R U. 11 I 0 lot 1 1 < LU Z 00 -r 11 1 - 1 DA.F DRAWN 8, REVISIONS - PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION (NEW NORTH END UNITS UJ 0 01 5 10 20 V IV ONINNV-ld aNVJ ONV 3Hn1031IHOEIV m ONI 931VIOOSSV C]NV IN1OHNI=I DIAVE] 9NISnOH 331SA131 0350dOEId OVE ALAÂ¥100 SHEET 40 59 10 r /> 1Â» A 61-2 CO 0 Â«? yA 3 1 1 billy. 4. Â¢11111 1-1.-- 1, - < r-> ' =-'lu 11~I1 i r 1 -, 1 6 6 1 CD m*11 1 CO -/ L r. 1 2 Z D 0 0 1 4 J 472 # 4 r <j- 1 , - h-+--~ AE -- DRAWN BY 04 - ---- -------- REVISIONS 0 PROPOSED - - WEST ELEVATION 222~EXISTING UNITS) 1 :6 j' ~I---Wil= ,~ 22222222232232272233201 5 10 20 V IV ONINNV-ld ONV1 CINV 3Hn1031IHOHV I ON I 931Â¥IOOSSV 0 V IN 10HNI:I OIAVa SMOCIV301 N3dSV 03SOdOWd OVE/2/Â¥LOG -T - f~ ASPHALI SHINGLE r=-22E- 2 ~ ROOF 4â€¢TW =Enip--2 NEW ROOF ~322 ~_~23*F.E.*-==Â»-1-=f==-243FlauÂ»Utj=Â»-rlt U STRUCTURE R-40 MIN -- u===---=Irrizrz~EE EXISTING ROOF STRUCTURE -_ \ __--- ~ METAL FLASHING x 07 4 4, I - 2x8 FASCIA PAINTED -- DETAIL SIMILAR 441\\\ X ZIZEZZZEEEmEEHEEEEEEEEEEaEEEEEEEmEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE5EE*EEEEEEmEP TO EXISTING ~ , -1- 1 -Ins - 11., Dul: IL:.44;14 'h 1 111 11 11: lili x - - NEW FASCIA - 2x 12 PAINTED , ~ MATCHES SIZE OF EXISTING lx4 T&G PAINTED METAL FLASHING 114 TaG PAINTED --- ~ < FIXED GLASS I BALCONY DETAILS TO MATCH EXISTING 1 1 11 - 2x 12 PAINTED -- ) 11. 4 h ' 1 1! 1 1 1 _-2 - DECKING & FLOOR JOISTS/BALCONY 1 1 1 1 11 CLA*TY 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 lx4 T&G PAINTED --- FIXED GLASS ' ENTRY DOOR , FIXED GLASS ---I.-.$- ~u-fOOD & GLASSI r i- , 11 -- WINDOW TRIM SIZES - TO MATCH EXISTING + '1 1 1 1 1 14~ 1 - - CEDAR SHINGLES 8"T.W. - 111 NEW ENTRY BEYOND ---"T--'-7----Tr--r---lr--7-- lillil -' I'l. -'-n' 1-JÂ« 0 7=-Lf/77 773, A E DRAWN BY 91 ' REVISIONS PARTIAL ELEVATION SHOWING NEW ENTRY and MATERIAL DETAIL RELATIONSHIPS 1 ALL DRAWINGS AT 3/4"=1'-0' - - Ric \N WALL SECTION thru ENTRY ROOF PLAN @ END WALL WALL SECTION thru END WALL 'V'I'V SNINNV1d CINV1 ONV 3Wnl031IH0EIV I '0NI 931VI0OSSV ONV IN-IOHNI=I OIAVa SMOOV31N N3dSV SNISAOH 331SAH.L 0360 B . OVERLAYLOG SHEET OVERLAY r # r. c 0 * ' T 4 'a*%"8 5*582*,Â«'***4Â»7 4/ . . 4,Â» I S + ff -. 1. .' . f + - 4 : 4 3 1 61 , ...,I... . I. 47 4 2 2 SOUTH ELEVATION 1 -I ..r a . + 4 : .. =2 + â€¢Rt â€¢ . V 4 L.t - 01. i. l I .*. .... 1 19. + 1. . SOUTH ELEVATION ./. m.. 022 ASPEN MEADOWS 3:. 0 <* PROPOSED TRUSTEE HOUSING DAVID FINHOLM AND ASSOCIATES INC. 1 ARCHITECTURE AND LAND PLANNING A.LA. OVERLAY LOG SHEET . OVERLAY ' .. i. I / f ... I. 4,4 5 44: 79 ..... 0/" %, It./,r ........al:mir. 11 4 Â£'It 111' W 1. 1 WEST ELEVATION ~1'FÂ· 19, -- 'r - F -- 40* Â» 1~ .-I 6 '' - : 4/ . AY // + 4 , 4% f. /1 , - ... 4 2 I . 6 1. WEST ELEVATION .CO mil :*T ASPEN MEADOWS 6/1 Z /1. 0 =* PROPOSED TRUSTEE HOUSING DAVID FINHOLM AND ASSOCIATES INC. 1 ARCHITECTURE AND LAND PLANNING A.I.A. 4&4 Â·Â· 4... 3&24 '. , ..t' >,9 7.4 ' ~ \ 0% i./ JOHN \ i fol DAVID ).1 i 1 ANHOLÂ·,1 j E %''OSED AR{Lff/ 44 ' . f .~.64: Ali. - *2 0 I:./. . . . '- 4-"Abof - , 4/,j:%~ -jilb i~~*SI 7, 't %- .A . Ily..1,12,0 24* a i f# 3,(Aobil . m V Jr 0///,F@i~, 0 R,jlay(i -1 i h--- - . \ t,l B , 4 \9 ... .... 3 ~14,1 9 I I. U aâ‚¬**7.94 2.-2 M.., : Im;{915*1133~!.21 'A . R : I ... . . . A . : .. .. ... . .. .. .. ..... 1 .5/ 0 0 0 -1, , T -do Sgr.0 1 P *69 L ,(42?40 1 ty 4 6 4-> 24-4 4 'Al 4? Â» gro b lili 11 1 b' 1~111 0 11 , 2 9190 4/9 AP'+ 1/ 0 lili lillill~Ilillil'll'll'lli'll'~Ii li 1 11 1 11 1 2Â¢imi "' li 126_ 4142 + 1 '11111 101 ' 4 ...144" gur- pt 62 . f~ Mir / 0 4 ~' 1~~~i Il ~9 I,4 DATE DRAWN BY REVISIONS EXISTING : NORTH ELEVATION (I 0 01 5 10 20 . V IV ONINNÂ¥ld CINV1 ONV 3Hn1331IHOHV I ONI 631VIOOSSÂ¥ CINV IN10HNI=I C]IAVO SMOC]Â¥3~1 N3dSV 9NISAOH 331SnB1 0390dOEId OvERLAÂ¥:OG SFiEE OVER.AÂ¥ .OC, S.E E OVERLAY b + 9 - u ju ta 44 - A.r.] -7 - ~ -#Edi- b 9 -Ae - 1** i ; 5-394 =eL %t -2=:Eigg=- L=-- -- 65 R - AN- Â»~. v zii lilli iff . 1 ..111 + # 1 - 14 4-*Jther - 1 BHT,411- - 02 1-L -UT FRE--2-6 --- ~39 . 4, )21,4/k 13 h ' ki â€¢-1 \4-1 L .l=~?Tâ„¢ 1 Â© , 0 .. , El 11 1 - 60 t -t'==1- - 4 _ _. 2-&3r - - F -- -lf-*406Â»3 - I. tr-V, b l fl =19_ p 'c ttlo'~AFT) 1,9 = - 1.- 40 \ b & 1 * 8-1 9 '977777 r*!**Â®Or#<*117 *-, -1-m"r"'ImlfiL- 4 1 ..,,r 1/Hippw'gahA-i- 2 1 1 h .W:Q/"P,ES,<12,2/&519/ , *72 4 5 H 31 9 -= c - 1 1.3 ,..r. Â¥ i./ ttli - b *tr.. .8 *''LtiYA 174 -9 29 = . J f/Â«4 1 0 hi . - 13 /Â· to,fi,25 b o. 99 e 31"'222~ ./.?-:Â·-:iÂ·iÂ·iÂ·iÂ·iÂ·i':Â·i:Mi:Â·:'::::r:,1,1.t ta.ic;;i~~Ii:Â©CiziI:Z:I.-=:=VkE -:-:9#31 92-, m m -614#=;FF::' / 24UGiU:Ui.*i:i...g EE?-:Â·; FIT-:iÂ·Â·:-.-F Â·Uy 1 (455 49//FER,/B/Rimmfilpi 1.,2/14+04*4'Allf ~g! z - IrITFTN= G) 0 ~. '~11!Ulill.1'111.11~~:7 '- I I Ill: mli jffiti- SE T 55 , - td--%~~ij N 1- 1 54-2- 0 tb .2 00 P ASPEN MEADOWS Z . PROPOSED TRUSTEE HOUSING DAVID FINHOLM AND ASSOCIATES INC. I ARCHITECTURE AND LAND PLANNING A.I.A. t 1 C469 NOI-1~3 bNOIS'A3H 0,1 I Al S,iE ! OVERLAÂ¥ e.1. -- , ... 5 %&-41-44 2--4.--- 3.02 1\ 9 ~â‚¬Â· A.2 3 ... 3 =-,- ---- 11 3 9 f] - 121. i 2 /1.----- 7. 11_-_ 'TITT - A. 5*42 . - 11~42 1171-27---- 9, 11~1=j h bs EMT---~ --* . s.2-#~ ' - - C 1 - - ..6 64 ..1 kx Ii- Â¥1%*1 3 *L_.__ _ 91'-3 + -t] H it---o 99_06 - ~ "~~~"6-4' 2Â·42 4-3 ~c -__j i.r- '.t~ Fr h UÂ«/. ' r. P kÂ» ' , JER VV - <7. - i- it;i f=It~1=~ZI ~IN. - -t== -6'OF K #0 U~ILE-<--lip 0 m _ -22'~~7 ~ 3 6, ~jimE 3. R - 1 00 - - - Cm --1 ---- - 4- z m - Eli O **LE=--2 1- 6 OO P ASPEN MEADOWS Z 0, I PROPOSED TRUSTEE HOUSING DAVID FINHOLM AND ASSOCIATES INC. I ARCHITECTURE AND LAND PLANNING A.LA. 0E NOIiV~~~16 M SNO SIA3/ OVEALAÂ¥,OG SHEET OvERLAY -2 b% 4 0 9 -3222:3*8,/--/LEE!~~ -13=1== --#E.-IMMA2.J *f -2 4 .4)\ 4 - C.(2 n - P.41 tel? â€¢:...5 F 4 09 ~ 11 -y ,Â© 69 --rÂ» 4 -2 - Â· 3 *Â·1 & f.u Ec:bÂ¢1 *ttimm~ 1?M Â·1Â·Â·Â·Â· Â·Â· illiptltitimti.- - 1 = 91 +411&11/ ED,F~ -- 31/Atell L- T' ~Er-11 0 1 -gly=lA 41â€¢> -===7 2 9 61Â«44 44* a . I 31 14442 0 1 OE 1 CU) 01~5 3 .0/ iiI ASPEN MEADOWS 2W 0 < PROPOSED TRUSTEE HOUSING DAVID FINHOLM AND ASSOCIATES INC. I ARCHITECTURE AND LAND PLANNING A.LA. U NOI1VA3 /- f n / . N 0000 0 z< . 5 f *78Â§9.5- z - - / I %- 7835 / 3-/: /. - ,~1&1 MINIMUM -.Â«Â·Â· - .... '' "r // ~~~~ - 5 Â«1 i .1 ~ ~ - /5 , -- I - C - - -- L. _ -3 000 7840- - -- - -- ~ . - 1 1\ 1 1 . Ul> EXISTINp POOÂ¢ 1 '1 (4 / 7845 -- Ia - r* C/N - -4_ J) N ===1- - Lj(-91 \1Â«134 - 7850 --- 1.11~ - - 4 - 0/32//6 - 0-1 [)14- 4 3~~ LU R 785 -/ -- 1 --- --7-- - NEW-TREES Râ€ž i *firt> -* -- 4 0 -07*. 1 1 \ v /0/ / 1 kitil . 7~ -- - --lei. I - 94, 1 -1 r '- OPOSED AIL '~ E---in -6..01./5*Q r-L 1 7860 1 1 e e - V PAN 4Es ' 1 41Â»~Â»=au /01*- It-ENTER-1 ------' 1~~ t'// P -timil7 I ./ E-1-/ : i ..Li<im'EL 1 / I - I & 1/<16 / 1 11~ --W- 1 [Â»1 Â»--=~h-- . 7=t-4-.Ld DUMPSTER , \ P~ .0 3 f LK-*TAY= ..-* f.<f/45 /4 st-9 ..4 A 4 Â» Abki 1 -- <7/ i.14 ) g =- ELEVATION 7856 , ~ *3Â«.9 NEW EES 1 4 kipM'n' , 4.24 - U U '1 14 , 15 ~ ADDITIONAL PARKING - 4 ~ 414 V K>76 1 \ (6 SPACES) _ - -- 7856 --- -~P ~ , - -4 13 i ~ ---EARTH : 5-Vi- - f > 11 L COVERED \\ 921-/3 Â£- Â« #421 -11_ 34-1 -fN~ING - -lf ~Ut<Ii-1 < 12 ' \ 1 3 10 1 11 1 ,-- 1 4/4/0 #6> I 10 \\ l 1 ll b y (/LA-- - fi'Â· 9-774 f 211 EARTp COVEÂ¤ED PAR~<ING 1 '~'~ - --7867- r ~ -31-4 1 5 ~ 6 ~ \ - -- , 22' EXISTING FEN ' ''14 1 il 1 I 7866 \ ~ 1 . VA - 44'' ' Â»./ i/ ,. 1 \ 011\ 1 \\ 199\\ V V .39 41 k \-7865 ~ Â·~ ~~ _1 - -L-====-a-~ -- L.-.-~ ' I L %~%% 1 agE@1 1 It / 7 4Â» \ /-- 23\ . e 2 - 414.\\, - -- .4,4*irl '.- 0- .25: 45 1 \ 1/ I /Â«123 DATE DRAWN B' - 11 1 /- , 1 --1863 , .t ! ~;' 7 -5- \\ REI SIONS PROPOSED 3' GRAVEL WALKING PATH ~ -3 (LOCATED IN THE FIELD AS CLOSE TO EXISTING TREES AS POSSIBLE) 1418 f- 7 j \\ p~ EXISTING DITCH -4 \1\ \\ 0 '' 0.1.0.'Fi Â·, 77 1 '(1 : - 7 1 SITE PLAN NORTH ~~ 0 - ar _ XISTING TREE - â‚¬9 -- 315 . ..1-1 - 2~ \ EXISTING ROAD BIKE TRAIL IN ROAD-SIGNED ~. ~ 11------ 12 5 \flo 20 35 50~ -- 0--11 ---------- --- -- S CP --< h. 1 / 1 SMOCIVEI~ 3H1 biod $3EOHN#01 0390dOWd V-IV ONINNÂ¥ld CINV1 CINV 3EJA1031IHOEIV I ONI 631Â¥IOOSSV aNÂ¥ AlOHNI=I OIAVa EXISTING TREES 1 0 40Â« f9 r<fÂ»i. P /f, '4 Â» dtp :1 2.5 47*. / ,#- iY- Â»67 27 914 '.' 7 <4.1 W )4. Pit 1 3~' 313 40.7% ff Â»4.12 4 61 '[2 4 4 16':1 4 ,-3 4 A- 7 0 . .riffm Pro puyÂ»,34 Â· 1 A .t" e . 4 12 12* m ty, 2, hi=, ..'d '~'11 jir 4~.4:4%93-4 41 14~&4295/7/1tme : " , 0 ~t -9 4~1n~~4# rivi;/~~ ..2 -,1.74 #5 ... W:. 31-24'2 *IN:1' A i Â· ....IA ..1-1- ~1 1 1-1-1- 1 E W _f<'ff iii", illl'qi:-L__JI / 4,Â· ~CL'k Â· ,.r'; 7~" ' Â·~' "' " m 11* 11.1.- '11 Â»11!111 ' ..Ill,11.7 '11 1.1..1111.11. 1 11 tÂ¢ Â·L -1 I 1 EAST ELEVATION FROM MEADOWS ROAD 01 5 10 20 35 50 SMOGV32 3H1 80=1 S3INOHNMO1 03SOdObld V I Â¥ ONINNIÂ¥-id CINV-1 C]NV 3HA1331!HOHV I ONI 631Â¥IDOSSV (3 NV IN 1OHNI=I DIAVC] ~SIS-4#2- 1-~b* - /35-%- -- --0 lilli 1 -h L-3 - - 4. ---- Â«- 1 1 5 A lili 11Â»r'- - .riliD lili Â· 111 Â·m I Ilil i 1 11 ~ - 5- F - _11 1 ' 1 1 \ 1-9Â£ 4-166161 --* '1 , 1 4.3.60 E-)00 000<: F 41 00(3[211120L-_109 of] 43Â«303 44-' 4| ' ...2 7 '71- >I EEJ[rcliJOU-012281 -LIFI , I 003 ' 2 E- 0 Ullac]0-]Dertoll 0 ~ 0000001 . I 100Â§096 1== , 1 ~ 21 92jfn]011~1iv~ I) U L.1 123 n n f, 01322Â«~9300 0 0006000Â«0000~Â» 000 4 -*- 7 . Â«62=3.00 Lia / CD /2 rk , -Ill Â®jEJL_199 ,--5Z. 6 ~faf J) 00 Oric 301 5-10Alljo (37 /0 - iD 0000/ RipÂ® n n .., nn n 1>.ile ) LJL-/ f *223 4 /--h 44 11 Uf D- 0 e,A ~ 4 f(Yak OBOOF~6963(3 9 N 9926 2 9-4.229 -OCUJUS@[7 1 1 1 , I A \ 0 SOUTH ELEVATION 0 Ch=-Â£ . SMOCIVaW BH1 HO:I S3INOHNMO1 OBSOdOWd V I V ONINNV1d CINV1 C]NV 3Hn103.LIHOUV I ONI 931 0 SV ONÂ¥ I/4 1OHNId a IAVC OVERLAY LOG SHEE T OVERLAILOG SHIET 1. - OVERLAY /1 .' 2 ~ 1,112 I + N &~diA# r-1-<4-2 >Â¢* 69' 9'/ if,~39 r V /Â£/WAR/42 yoft 4 1, 3 7 Z ir=-gflrity=9110~9 a SSM-4Â¥~ 1111111 42-Â¥ ~ 1 111 111%%,Ary L AEÂ» f *xmlml - 3:~ 39 1 = ===-1 â‚¬4* ir ~ EL Â£ ' '1 491 = ==-1 1-/4 t A 1 A< r- t;b ... lilli 1111..1 2 9 ===i4/1/M , lilli 111147.b@' Â·10 9*lu- 3 =Am Unt.4:49 1/fiL y..r 9294f - I *09%24> ee- H I > 14, h ml;'A ill - *L L --%;F-.iL/*IF/6 9 4.2.1 - /~magrâ€¢â€¢-â€¢â€¢Â· 1&209, | p -4,1/87, F4~~ ===Im# V -h# IP .' I W<' 4=42- â€¢Â·:r-:--9,L *=/1.11. lilli - # -----I-â‚¬42 1- 1 : 11 1 4Â·'%0** i u -d LI.' _44Â· 1 1 , .r 4.41 1 F 4 Â£ 1 b 1,1,1. ,â€ž.4- : lili lili lili 6 17, h ---F: lili Illillit> Â¥ Â£27 f Pi 1 ---t=*0,0,/> f., AJ . .1 11 . B ~CE=2r_=Ill#H#/:6 ip:' 45/Vi T 't~ I 1 8hd> TII ' 11 & *:.1.0 4, r "r 1 IHI = ==100. 1 ======.11.= 21 L + 1/11 1 -1..4 F.L-* -1 1 ~IMC -1. 1 1 = =mm . L-,1- g 4*..J - 2 4, , 25 029 v I. 4,j> 77 3'3:< juj fi~.1 . - 44 -t Ul â€¢**F~ '2'77'p--1 14 4 , 1 --477 1 + 4,5 -3, ... 4 1 =m- 1 , lf(Fi.prÂ·ifp . - - I. * 1- = lilli 111 '. 44 2-0-. 41; 0~Â·-- 1 1 . 1 7:1 740 - -- :.&2 B f / 1 5420 r.â‚¬24% 3*2 Al P - â€¢ 71 7 ,/7,â‚¬/j 41 IC?40' Af' B V' 744'. 1 4 42=027 4,/ 1,9 -0 3 1 0 kIEZIE=t==Ii&'41"#4(2<1 P< 1 290 94Â°- 3Â«r .*Â© ~~L---4---~6 ** 4 I=- T 1 off=-1- 0 111- r,1 1491-7,1 V 16 1 el f 1 244 4 .. . - 32'J' 4.'Sit k- ; A 6 314 '* I < f) I ;'# ' 4 ff I~ lili Hllt,p> 14 4,2 &jt, 11 9 lili Fl f trist :-..222 Z --*mm. 22__-+M I 01-,0. 7 - 'll IllIlliN 1 I -..4 111.11111111 A kÂ« i Linill[1[F ) â€¢.,3 -- . ul blÂ¢-7 201 1! iF i.42?714:-~ n , P *Â» 3 =.#0 11 1 =mm==t ....1.xcg 1 1\) 0 thrept n -7 ~- 21 - 1 1 - Efi 761 4, '1 | M ==ma t 3%= . =.1.- 4- p 11=-1 1 3 Ht h, 11=-1 ,%1111111 20 =""&* 23 Â£ afÂ¥ fli itlijfÂ» by F*35Â£ fcm/Â£ A. 1 , A- *. 1*imb* i la ==-5e'.<242#2- f + *t' 183, R 9%'.26- z *-*19- '--4 . kffLY ' .3 c,n 4>- k h ..h ' A. L' 1*4.f 0 3.4 0104 C 1 ..\K. 6 1 .. 0 6 62 j / PROPOSED TOWNHOMES FOR THE MEADOWS DAVID FINHOLM AND ASSOCIATES INC I ARCHITECTURE AND LAND PLANNING AIA Â»r--7 -4- f Ok 99 LO NOI1VA313 1S3 . 0 3 Iao 62 CAP 44 (18 9601 e G.2 + 9 -0 'r I.t~ ,,fl]%23 X Â¢ aÂ·~. Â»t,~ u'~~ cs 0 BO#'S Â©i,-9-3 3{41 4~ 44 /6(&~~ 26 . 24~t Â©â‚¬0 12. 99 b oftrulÂ·x n * < f 4 14 11% 9Â»2 20 4 J'* --,~--ji-~1Â· -r- -7,14 7 7 ' #4761 R:. -4- <CE 43 8 M, '-- , ...i g ' -03-1 047 i 14 M e> .; e . k Lt:%29- 2 '4-26.â‚¬ GÂ· ..4 4 ri 1- $ r 7 9 7)'7 690- 6- St U 4 , en.2~ 9=11 ie-0 . MA < " ~S* h X 6 91 99 4 6, . 49 77 - 41 %34 124 4 . -..j 61, 0 h # ,- . - cf# V h -. - - -- - - 421 k . 444 _ 24 - 6 - -- 155%"54/ 04 44 . 6%332 -1 =- f . 4 : . 1 %'*#*,eÂ® il:~ilhm,Ii,INII@~1Â®t Â«1 FT ~13 . 1 - - --1 - ***4*09*44 - - . 911/0:' Ah'* 1â€ž ~,11 ~i'I '*1~ ~~~111% ~ M 1111111111;.1:. -- 4.:" 4'41,1 /| |'4' libl -4 - ~ilii@Ill!!lilli'!~~11"'li~~~~~~~~~i~~ 8&9#0Fm*0lili'~ il . - - . T - /6..M#*4'Â®di~~:011~!1!14 --- , 11 1 4Â»*081% Alli~,':Ylid N.i ! 4,01 r -3 - ****ed** 1 1 5 :~233====2:EN= -2 -EEES 1 Â· 1 # - ~ F - - 11 1 1 1 . 1- 1-211.- â‚¬ - 1 - . 1 1 1 111 .L l:**@i'F~b## ,â€ž'*0%.7.'44~l~I.-_ 3 7 1222-*f-=22 ' r-3 1 1 1 1. 1 . 11. 1 1 - ;18*;'AÂ®I!'1!1~ill! 2~~~~I~~,492*%* : .1 - 1 - iE// 1/1 - T -- Â· i ,(i,ili,9!'::::_Lil-~ 1:1 11 11 1 lilli 1 ;:41|i~41,11Hq,1,~H~ill~~:!1 1 11 11 --1; 1-i: 1 - 11 1 0-1 -4 *.4 J-" '1 11, 1 11-1 1 1 1 11.0 , I~ Il' .r F~ 11 ir 111 1 1 Â· 11 dÂ· --pr A d - .. 1 1 11 bal ' T 1 1 111 - 111 9 4 1 1 1 11 lit+-lili 41-4 +11- - 1 ! 1 "L I " 1 - .I-" 111 -5 Ll- 1 1 41 4= ----===ULLUEEELL - DATf DRAWN 8, Al VISIONS WEST ELEVATION 01 5 10 20 I V ONINNV1d aNÂ¥-1 0 NV 3HA1331IHOEIV I ONI S31VIOOSSV CIN V IN1O HNIzl DIAVC] Af -,0 SMOGV32 3H1 bIO=I S3INOHNMO1 03SOdObld OVE Al AY l ()6 SIt F OVERLAY OVERLAY LOG b . 1 SHEET OvEALAY 1 4 -- y*-2-79 111/. 1 ir 1-1- 1 - DE Â· -423 tb &1-,2 ...., rkt. , L P t.-5 1 . 1 111 -Lwa M -41111111111.1.1111.1.-71! I 'llf 13 .1 1 - P:ill'lili 1.:!0 1 : I. ' |L -=64 -i! 111Â·11 Iii li i - *111*19- = 4 *91-1 --11-110â€ž9 - lili 'lilli i 2 -/;t#&bÂ·; ' E-- - 17 1 KU=U-- 11"illiilwili!4- Â·-I'-4 ......................G - _2223 Â· 11 111 910 6 -""777- ~4 I1/1 4111 - --ttl'it 1 11Â·01 1'1 - 1!t ..J..Â·.AL~1.L...U......L 1 1 z ----4Â¢,Â¢11 _Ll-1 --kilt'i,/ 11 1 !I ~---- lilli - 4 1 1 1 - 11 1 1 -- 1.1 Â·: .'1 1 1!!14 lilli 1.1.1-Hh.:= ........................ i A j ) 6 5 .. 4,0 D fft31 lili- rin-TE - 1Â«nal Â· cn j~Â»791Â· 2 21 2 Al' 1 Bl I ~ 6* - 1- - I.!Ill~'ll//11&: .1111111111.1;11111.13 - i 11 117 1 *illili 11Â®11~1~1*HF i Â· %..1+ Â· r -7 4 ri E .2 t i. .3 3 'F ./O 9.. :S. 4 07 Adil.A PROPOSED TOWNHOMES FOR THE MEADOWS DAVID FINHOLM AND ASSOCIATES INC I ARCHITECTURE AND LAND PLANNING A.I.A Â· A It 02 OL LO NOI1VA313 1SV3 OVERLAY LOG SHEET . OVERLAY + . I / . : 31 9.' f ... 14/J. 251 1 t i I 1/1 Â· 7/ â€¢ I Zil jug i gf 41 42*1i f N mr. r.19.. Hiliff j 1 I - - 1 r-, 1 I "."UMPJ-*wÂ»&>"Rf-4-Â«*,Â« EAST ELEVATION FROM MEADOW ROAD 0 9 ... '1 .. .. 2 L i .~ -- . 4 .. 1.. , , ... t.- . 4 '1 80?2 r 1 lihy-- I vo, At' , 0 I / 4 11 2. ./. '' . 1. T t a / 0 /1 1 4 f V 4 44 V U . i ' 90- f Â· 0 '41â€¢ + - 77 2 41 79 I, /1 - EAST ELEVATION PROPOSED TOWNHOMES FOR THE MEADOWS DAVID FINHOLM AND ASSOCIATES INC I ARCHITECTURE AND LAND PLANNING A I.A. ) AP r HA 1 1 OVE RLAYL OG SHt ET OvEALAY .. 41 .. "~ 41 :ilill'll'll'll/ ...i~ 4- 34 946 .Mip . 71 VIT-Ilyllil'IL//1 + 4 .1 I :.7- 4 ~'~~~SOUTH ELEVATION . 1q.t/: 101 I. 1, I V..4 . -04** I . . /. - 4 ..4 . Â·I#. W - 4 I /4 + : I . 1 : 44 :1 1. Â· 4'' 11 11 V f mi 4, ./.4.4 . 111 / 1.~i f / - 459 7 2- #E-=---ae. . -* . / .. f~.- - 11 -I *. + â€¢14. 4 '' 1 ,, NORTH ELEVATION 2 0 0 1 1 2- ..m!.. PROPOSED TOWNHOMES FOR THE MEADOWS DAVID FINHOLM AND ASSOCIATES INC. I ARCHITECTURE AND LAND PLANNING A LA ' P HA 1 1- lilli OVER[AflOG S"E ET , OVE'LAY +. r , 0/1 d. ..r. - 6-tril . *9*\ - + 4 9 40> 410 . -*- I ./ : . 1 /1 i /9 1:2 4'. + /9 1 4..1 4 + ..,6Â©Zh 4 . - --. .1 .... I ...2 - 4 4.. . 4 :. Vi./.'69"//. 9 .... i: I. . I i I A SITE VIEW . / 1- 11 . . P i .-ar ZIMâ€¢ . I. .11/jill' 4- 0.= 2.-/ . - . ..diiir....../...- ,M.W:. 41'*.,< - 1 . 1 i. I 4 . f .~ .1 Â¥7 1 1 - b WEST ELEVATION PROPOSED TOWNHOMES FOR THE MEADOWS -~- DAVID FINHOLM AND ASSOCIATES INC I ARCHITECTURE AND LAND PLANNING A I A FO P I AA Â· 1 '''I ''1 . 9 1% 1 4 . West Bleeker Steet . 41 3.0 .7.04 Â· 0 %73 Remove Existing Parking Gate 10 9-Lf-4/ 4 0 Proposed 6' 0" Wood Fence 2 0 D * (To Match Existing) Â· 114,1 1 0 tyc f OF f Existing Vegetation 1/54 0 i- Existing Flower Beds ~ U Vilf f 1 Ii- Mt 89 ~Â¢KJA/ m-Ay -7- 0 - ' 240 ~ 1 / Continue Existing Flower Bed Proposed Wood Fence \ (To Match Existing) - . ~ Setback Line . 3 -- 71-jl- / - ./ w Mil 1 1 *1 9- 15 Rl g my] 3 / 4 1 :Â· ~~- Open Lawn 11 Proposed Wood Fence lit ,.4 1 1.Â· 1 1 1 (To Match Existing) 1/1 g Â¥ KiM J . 0 0 ' 6. '1 r I 3.49 =L~:; 41443 z--& i .. 1 0 a Proposed Flowering , < 4 l Groundcover o 1 in- 1 ,k Residence ~ /01- 1 ~/r /8 1 N Flowering Groundcover Â· Existing Vegetation 01/ / 0 ....1 . f I 1 7--1- -t- a -4 ----~ \ Wood Fence Elevation 1 11 11 ~ Window Well . Â»- , I Scale 1/2"= 1' 0" Proposed 1 |' ''1 ! 1 Â·I â‚¬ Aspen Trees 1 1 0 4 5 Wood f Deck tiC 93 / /9 '1! 1!!If -1 11 4-1- Adjacent Stepping Stone Path 1/ OC' 1 1 ~ IiI I Residence lilill' 11 1 40. 1 02 ~ Existing Residence 4 49 f 63... RA, 2 *---h...41. 1 GREG MozIAN Lf 117 S. Spring Street LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE Aspen, CO 81611 (303) 925-8963 | Proposed Addition ' 9...Â¥ MacCarthy Dn- CE > -7 3===/-7 Residence 4 101 :' Open Lawn Â· ~Â·ITNE= 1 1 ..1 tti.fi , Landscape Plan . Â· Â·. b==* 139 4 11 Dn ~~-~ J Date: April 22,1991 0 ./ 00 + Scale: 1/8"= 1' 0" Drawn By: R.C. ... a LJOF 0- 1 Proposed Aspen Trees Revised: 0. '. >6 3 , 1 -0 1 r. A ' 4 1 Guest Parking .CG. 6 0., 0 ..... I -1 Â° v Â°JI_ Gravel Drive e / . ~ r-..77 00 1-.1 7-t. 94=4<$-E- I.Â· ./ . ..Â·Al - * Maintain Existing Shed Facade 1 . Sheet: L- Of: One . / \1 . 1 - . \ Ill i./ k + 44 1 k \ 1/l If y . 1 1 - . %4 \1 4 /7.-Â·- 1 '4493'* 41Â«- - 1"1- 4 , -#21>1, - / 44"441.1, Â·v 6(12' ,1 .2~4/6 4 1,009 . + 44 i- -- *5â€¢.U ., 4.4.. --1 ! 411% .4 / - , 1 4\1 M u. .Vip 2--34/ 1, #% 1. .e -5.f'.â‚¬3 747 41 ~14 / 2 0/ , . 9<Lic.=922 ---7+ ..14 : - *'140211 971 f â‚¬-- 01Â«, 27 +42 1 3/ 44 - ~Â«- ' .* Â· * ' ' '' v;.A ,/T.Â·, ,- -4 I , 36. ./6/:PE=---111 11 '1 0 4 1 13# 1 4/0, A Â»46 -0â‚¬-4 11; Li / 1 \-~Â¢26.Â» 1 ' - 0,-4.10 .. 1,1/4 1 4 1 r - 13- 39Eall -4* .' f r fltÂ« 14 , - , 1~ \ 4 ir J,1. Z [ f . e44*>3k \ V\ ,%~=e==*-1'*#**74 , ... 1 ..411â‚¬, 4/9" C 914/40 \,if(~ fkly 2%%/ 4/1 / ~f .:i i , i / / .4-1 ..,8" 4 - 7 , '4 - lik< -/-*/131 --22-J:QEKI:-Ul ~rl /1 6,/ , b Â· e ~ ~; -- -~A 1, w A. #t' 1 't . 1-J- 1 t.31' - U , - 1 7/ NiA \ 9(,2 *:*;* 4 44 /k*Â¢32-397% -l / - -~i -2 -4#- '' i ~ --- #/r' t~~ 6.v,, j ILAW 95/ Â· ..j .~ iii . > 4 g Â¥ I . 11 '.'ll,1 â€¢ . h,4 4'FY*Â¥2%~rh b / f *,4 N {\ elm Irill 1'Â· 1 , '- . I Â·*A#eL.f: -- r Â· - 440' i,Af' 1-114..C.1 ---- im=c.-' Â£ 1 -6' Irr-111 f,$* . -1 1 - 1: 11.,5 ... - -- , (94.1Â£i~L 11 41' , --441*U -~ -t, a , hijÂ¥-ri:,Â·,..>2+ 424-1/Â£ --- . -7-3-*1 ---2- f - ... . 4.--- - F*tu -21*ed ===== r k qi.Â¥4 '\Y\ , *A 4 1 . 1/ 1 44/ ILE,Filth --If-/ ..11.4 i , , 1 1' - 1*411 '1 1 1 ... - ' 4 - 1 11.- I .1~ 1 / 1?1 Irll -1,1~- ,=_- 4 - r . 1 11 1.1.1,3-4 4 I '1: \ % -t ,%9-*6 f 7 72:322-.- Â«---- --Â·Â· ./-9--IlÂ·Â·- ./.-r 1 - 42 43'.4--- 1 9.; '11 1' 11.03:t,Â· ~râ‚¬>11 - T .' Il q a i A al; ta ,: -- -Irt t= - - , - 1.M~"JNE==221 --2 Â·1 -=12 3 M 31: 1= : Â·Â· u'. 1 .----p --- I- .-- U 1 + i . . *.., + , / I ~ ,1, a ...,1 , Ll,111,~[M,iM --2 - Â· 111 11 A.JN,Mki i 4 vt'. .1 - -A'-1.- r !:34= 1 1===dfr / , 1 :, I :,i,â€žWlith Â·1 _. ir' [I':4.;7~4?14=9~F54 j /0'C-- i + , i =4.11 4 r-lf I ~flf-Im/TEEES . il - - --- e I H -1 k 'M #- I-*-I.,0K -... _ --i-T- - c' _ .4.lilill-- -- rl.*~ f,-- A +â€¢i.Â£=-- - - --I.- 1.."....lili- -1 - t~ I 494-~ STREETSCAPE 86,\A . . , 4 (VI' (- 200 BLOCK WEST BLEEKER STREET MAC CARTHY RESIDENCE 214 WEST BLEEKER ASPEN. COLORADO 1 TIÂ·42+ .:-iÂ·- .1 - :fl Â·1 ARCHITECTURAL ABBREVIATIONS FAR INFORMATION INDEX OF DRAWINGS ~ Acc ABOVE FINISHED FLOOR EW EACH WAY LT LIGHT SECT SECTION ACOUS ACOUSTICAL ELEC ELECTRICAL MFG MANUFACTURER SEW SEWER --- - 4 <, Al.1 f Â· ' Site Plan :2'' ,4,1,# '<4 4,91Â· ',. ..: -t-=-,7-77.,7.0':47731<TW ADD ADDENDA, ADDENDUM EC ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR MATL MATERIAL SHT SHEET ADJ ADJACENT EL ELEVATION MO MASONRY OPENING SVF SHEET VINYL FLOORING , Legal Description: East 10' of Lot N, Lot O and the M AGGR AGGREGATE ENGR ENGINEER MTL METAL SHLV SHELVCES)(ING) L West 20' of Lot P, Block 50 A2.1 Roof Plan ..14: City of Aspen, Pitkin Cty., CO A2.2 : Lower Level Floor Plan *r, ALT ALTERNATE EQ EQUAL MAX MAXIMUM SIM SIMILAR ALUM ALUMINUM EXG EXISTING MECH MECHANICAL SL SLIDING 1 1 , A2.3 Entry Level Floor Plan EJ EXPANSION JOINT MC MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR Sl C SOUNT-TRANSMISSION CLASS ~ Zone: R-6 ' K. APPD APPROVED A2.4 Upper Level Floor Plan 4.' ...4,1 APPROX APPROXIMATE EXP EXPOSED MED MEDIC(INE)(AL) SPEC SPECIFICATION ; Lot Size: 6,000 s.f. ARCH ARCHITECT (LIRAL ) EXT EXTERIOR MIN MINIMUM SQ SQUARE L A3.1 South & East Elevations â‚¬. I 'R,1.1 ASAP AS SOON AS POSS I Bl E FO FACE OF MISC MISCELLANEOUS SF SQUARE FEET . Allowable F.A.R. 3,240 s.f A3.2 North & West Elevations 54 BBR BASEBOARD RADIATION FIN FINISH NOM NOMINAL SS STAINLESS STEEL A.D.U. Bonus 250 s.f. A3.3 Building Sections ;ii BM BEAM FP FIREPROOF NIC NOT IN CONTRACT STD STANDARD - Total Allowable 3,490 s.f. A3.4 Building Sections/Wall Sections .,2 ' BRG BEARING FPL FIREPLACE NA NOT APPLICABLE STL STEEL Proposed Area 3,421 s.f. BFF BELOW F INISHED 1-LOOR FIXT FIXTURE NTS NOT TO SCAL-E STRUCT STRUCTURAL Lower Level: 209 s.f. BET BETWEEN FL FLOOR OC ON CENTERS SUB SUBSTITUIE ' Entry Level: 2,018 s.f. i j#kl BLK BLOCK FD Ft OOR DRAIN OPG OPENING SUPPL SUPPLEMENT 4 Upper Level: 1,694 s.f. BSMT BASEMENT FT FOOT, 1- EET OPP OPPOSITE S4S SURFACED 4 SIDES 3,421 s.f. i Garage (~Exempl~ 500 s.f. BTU BRITISH THERMAL UNITS FTG FOOTING ORN ORNAMENTAL SUSP SUSPEND(ED) BD BOARD FDN FOUNDATION OPH OPPOSITE HAND TEL TELEPHONE BS BOTH SIDES FURN FURNISH OD OUTSIDE DIAMETER TV TELEVISION e Max. Allowable Site Coverage: 2,400 s.f. BO BOTTOM OF GAL GALLON PTN PARTITION TEMP TEMPERED i Proposed Site Coverage: 2,065 s.f. BLDG BUILDING GA GAUGE d PENNY (NAI LS, ETC. ) THK THICK i CAB CABINET GALV GALVINIZED PERF PERFORATE(D) TLT TOILET : CL CENTERLINE GC GENERAL CONTRACTOR PLAST PLASTER TPH TOILET PAPER HOLDER i CLG CEILING GL GLASS, GLAZED PLAS PLASTIC T&G TONGUE AND GROOVE ~ CER CERAMIC GR GRADE PL PLATE T&B TOP AND BOTTOM CLR CL.EAR , GYP GYPSUM PLEX PLEXIGLASS TO TOP OF : CLO CLOSET GWB GYPSUM WAt_LBOARD PLMB PLUMBING T TREAD CLD CLOTHES DRYER HDW HARDWARE PLY PLYWOOD TYP TYPICAL , CLW CLOTHES WASHER HD HEAD PROJ PROJECT UG UNDERGROUND COL COLUMN HVAC HEATING, VENTII ATING, PROP PROPERTY UNGL UNGLAZED CONC CONCRETE AND AIR CONDITIONING QT QUARRY TILE UNFIN UNFINISHED C] CONSTRUCTION JOINT HORIZ HORIZONTAL QTY QUANTITY U.O.N. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED CONT CONTINUOUS HP HORSE POWER R RADIUS UBC UNIFORM BUILDING CODE COORD COORDINATE HWH HOT WA1 ER HEATER RD ROOF DRAIN VIF VERIFY IN FIELD ' CTR C OU N 1 E R HT HEIGHT RM ROOM VERT VERTICAL C/S COUNTER SINK INCL INCLUDE(D)(ING) RS ROUGH SAWN VAT VINYL ASBESTOS TILE CF CUBIC FEET INFO INFORMATION RCB RESILIEN1 COVE BASE V VOLT DP DAMPROOFING INSP INSPECTOR, INSPECTION RW RETAINING WALL WH WALL HYDRANT DEPT DEPARTMENT ID INSIDE DIAMETER REF REFER WC WATER CLOSET DTL DETAIL INSUL INSULATION REÂ· F R REFRIGERATOR WP WATERPROOF 0,DIA DIAMETER INT INTERIOR RE I NF REINFORCE (D) WT WEIGHT i DIM DIMENSION JT JOINT REBAR REINFORCING BAR(S) WWF WELDED WIRE FABRIC ~ DW DISHWASHER JCT JUNC1 ION RESIL RESILIENT WDW WINDOW DN DOWN KWH KILOWATT HOt}R REQD REQUIRED w/ WITH : DR DRAIN LAB LABORATORY R RISER W/0 WITHOUT i DWG DRAWING LAM LAMINATE(D) HO ROUGH OPENING WD WOOD , EA EACH LAV LAVATORY SAN SANITARY WKG WORKING ARCHITECTURAL SYMBOLS GLAZING CALCULATIONS Allowable Glazing: SYMBOL LEGEND PLAN & SECTION FINISHES Heated Floor Area: 3,891 s.f. MATERIAL INDICATIONS Factor: .125 d GYR BOARD Total Allowable: 486.4 s.f. ~- 01 8.7 SPOT ELEVATION EARTH 1 ~ Actual Glazing: TEST BORING ~ .ll All Jillilliuil, .!r i\Il~ CARPET North Elevation: 63.9 s.f. COMPACTED FILL West Elevation: 159.0 s.f. 120'-e" ~~~~Mmmle:~ East Elevation: 256.5 s.f. $ r, O, F L>(Wl [7. TOP OF ELEVATION CERAMIC TILE Total Glazing: 479.4 s.f. . POROUS FILL ~ South Elevation (Exempt) 101.9 s.f. NEW CONTOUR STONE UNDISTURBED SOIL -E~Slk EXISTING CONTOUR /-7 41 111 1 4 ACOUSTICAL TILE CENTER LINE ~ CONCRETE ELEVATION ------------ - HIDDEN LINE WD: A. A.4 CAST MATERIAL INDICATIONS - SETBACK LINE ~ GROUT MORTAR 3 .......1-'..: 9 PLASTER/STUCCO 2 BREAK LINE i MASONRY '4 ~ BRICK T 1 ---1 -- - PROPERTY LINE f .\+Alyh CONCRETE BLOCK f i-- -All MAC CARTHY RESIDENCE TILE DETAIL NO. SHEET NO. BRICK \Ve===EW-- 4 SHINGLES 1.- 19 BUILDING SECTION 4/ f / A STONE 214 VVEST BLEEKER ASPEN, COLORADO 42/4 - - -- SHEET NO, fill / 1/1 4 GLASS WALL SECTION r-- -/1 GLASS - SHEET NO. WOOD METAL fÂ»39 FINISH 14 1 --TO--1EN' 4 ROOM NAME 9 # 1 .A STEEL 4 1Â«Â« 4 ROUGH : ROOM NO. <32: WINDOW TYPE INSULATION 4 1--1 4 BLOCKING CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOC IATES/ARCHITECTS DOOR TYPE FA X A X.ur Â£ 1 BATT . t./<1<11<CY GLU-LAM INTERIOR ELEVATION RIGID i PLYWOOD P.O. BOX 3534, ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS I AL SHEET NO. REVISIONS Â»Â«7 - - NOTES NEW WALLS ---- EXISTING WALLS , *Fl"/g REVISION - 0 14-Â° 90' 44" W \00Â·00 A,- -,4 ,4 4~#AL F#KKING,1 â‚¬,pÂ»<â‚¬ -Tb 86 - Ar- L.le~ 87-AjeLL 1 L-+4012 PerÂ·kLe BE Move P -\3 1 ----- -I- -1-9 - -- --- ---3 -- -------- ----- - --7-- ----------- ~ E - - 1 - 4.-444TweLL_ -- -fa- - 7 LARMTWELL - ~ _ _ t, 1 .1 p.m V U ~UdlÂ£!*w 2 4>44 3~1 IU 111 / RAN#*e / ~ 1 1 -/ 11 50<16071 Ne 4, arDBÂ¥ NeH--- 1~ ~ Houee 6Â»Bm2!Ja-'ION ~ 1-Â» 3 B, 11 i -L-----0 - 111 t- --4 | ~ Fopt<At 1 ~ L44H174ELL -4 1 UJ- 11 1 1 - ILI I L__- - - I- ------ -4 E Â· FPFÂ»-461 1 1.1 OFALE 1.1 m je-----11 1 r. 1 1 - Â£4- \E a . 17-- 1*fLEe EXIST-1 Ne~ -''J ';>h/'liXT-#4477Nel'FREE J-YFO ~ â‚¬12*kae steD ~F \\ A t- - '4'berF N 11Â·04%949"e loo, 00' 0 NOTA: Ber:erâ‚¬ -2, LANC>scAp'I~a - 0 PLA,46 ez ADPITIoNAL Â·61Te 1 #140Â»wrio,4 c.m W 3 \ SITE PLAN ~i~ ~ 1/8"=1'-0- riof-Trt 0 . Z 111 111 0. 0 Ul I X . IiI 111 J m 0 - 0 11 . DRAWIN sITE F JOB NO 9032 DATE SHEET NO ' It 1 SHEET OF DRAPHIX #322009 Sl)31!H)HV/SBIVDOSSV Â¥ 33:!INNrD S3-IHVH) 06SS-SZ6/EOE 3NOHd3131 21918 OCIV21O1O3 N3dSV DESE XO8 0 d iSEAA *LE 0 REVISION I f 22 N /1.1 A34 - ~ . \ 40 -1 --- - - 7 1 - .if 1 14 1 1Â« 72 ~ Â¢3.11= [1[k> ' 1 1 2 119/ 1 -------- 4-- 14:11- 14:14- - I I j 4 1 e IAL - r. e ~413 11 ' 1 110 (iii gh ~ _-/K 0 eft I Â·Â· - 0 1 4,1/ 1 A A A -1 011 /--I 1 -0 ~ I | #Eli 11!1~ | Â¢11!1- 17!z \413/4' _ 1 -1 1 1 1 31 -1 . 1 1 1 1 1 , 11 31L1> 1 - I Nokoo*VEK 1 1\ ./ 0 k 1 al - I'x 4 4 Ii; 12- >, 1 1 4230/ if -Â· [PEL.1< -1 4 1 0 0 \1 1 0 /4 \ 4 L --- -- -- -- 4 -- -J' 1 Â»2/ B 1 Ill 1 9 0 1 0 / Ce, 3 j ' L________-4 z 0 Â· 111 W 0 4 Ul i L >lf D ) ur 2 j -n 9 114 kt/ AC19 *2 2 4 F Y 0 0 ROOF PLAN SCALE: 1 /4'= 1'-O- DRAWING Ka,f PL,4 JOB NO. 9082 11 DATE SHEET NO <Â· A A2.1 SHEET OF DRAPHIX #322009 Sl)3.LIH )MV/SaLVDOSSV Â¥ 3=I:IINNrD S31HVH) 0666-626/EOE 3NOHd3131 ZI9!8 00~0103 'NBdSV 'DESE XO8 0 d 78 -LSEAA *LE REVISION ' ~4 1Â¢J i .th ,-7 A3.4 f p 4 / A 47 L 00 $ 1 1 , 4 (9 2 JU- d' â‚¬790" 2 7 4 1 -- 1 . 11 ---Il - 1 1 -A -- d 11 i 1 Â«9// DEÂ£>Ra>Â«1 = BATH -0 11 f , 42) f. 1 - 0 -11 1- i F 1 1/ 0 K - ..1 F../ ' 41,3/ 1 / 1 , 7 -4 49 4 - 1 FixIST'#61 EAA,-1 LSDAce It-L *4337 ~ 1.-AUNDAY ~ - h , - -y I - l E BE[>fioo M =r 1 1 % L . k MeolÂ»H164_ .1----- 4 - 1-' - 49/ f ~ 4 W 1 ~" L_Â·..ri ._ i ~ 1 r . w Ill Ili}1 - Q '-1 r ~413/ 0 Ill DC 31L 0" Ul 4 f W 4 01 Aer) 1 1 ..1 Â»1/ Â»1/ m T- Ny E>< 1571 blul HOL>SE ~ He 1,-1 .Â£*~DDIT' oN 10 RE M[Al kl I 0 1< LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN SCALE : 1 /4- = 1'- O- DRAWING LOUER F-l-R Fl-+.Al JOB NO 403 2- 1 DATE SHEET NO A2.2 / SHEET OF DRAPHIX #322009 Sl)3.LIHDHV/SaLVDOSSV Â¥ 33:liNNrl) S31HVH) 06SS-SZ6/EOE 3NOHd3131 219!8 OCI~10103 'N3dSV 'DESE XO8 *O d CIVMO-103 'NEIdSV .LSEMA *KE SHEET A2,2- + =77=~1'r 1 SHEET A2,3 BASE 82,3 2,24 11 OVERLAY 013 02,3 11 4 7 . t 0 111 T. 1 P- 3 1 11 0, j q 2 - r m C AA m # a . Â« 67 4 9 +11.- 03 4-00/ r = 11 CIII--- --------- ----------- - pl~~ --i-- .......I --1-- 11 4----- r 4/ : - R 'Â° Â°Â°0 F 11 LI 0 5 11 L 11 1 7 It r - -900---------- -- 9, 4-- 1 , r4 -- li- 1 0= i & D E< - 1 Et - r.r 11 -27 - -- d ,Â£Â¢[k ~ - --~ 7 1 iII 11 t V L 9= 2- .Cr- .1 -1 - - 11_~ffl=~J!-- Itr_It u 1 , 1 1 2 9. 1 rf -- E_ -3 â‚¬ - Â£ A _ Ike~P. , -r 0 1 11 1 1 g 1 1 1 1 ~ 1 1 1 0 --- -Irl --r--1[ -- _ till- .. .. N t. 221 oil 31 99 ,0 / 31 9,1 *2,1 â‚¬, ., I /1& t.,/' 1 . mi ---E U) 11 19 b 7 0 CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS r m II , 18 MAC CARTHY RESIDENCE .A m 0 â‚¬ 2 0 0 2 -n 2 f 2 0 14 .., El} TI ..t -.0 . id *|I 214 WEST BLEEKER ASPEN. COLORADO P.O. BOX 3534, ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 E? #__ -2--- a ,piÂ« 431A RAG, 6 600318# XIHdVaa , . SHEET A2.4 BASE Â£>2,4- 62+ OVERLAY 014 024 dir i >P > 0 I a. 0[ 1 RE .1. ,- m ~ l jm r m k Ir 1 06 1*Ob 1 1 8 - < 7% 1 1 1=1 1 1- === 1 1 - . 41 #~ - I - - - *i---0 - - - , 0 -93 - + L / \ I-4 41 ; 1 0 4, 1-A -& 6- iTC - 1 r 1 11 11 - r 0 14 2-1 1 1 Z t. 1 . - I - 2%1 * C -1 2 4, f - t. =14 1 . li 4 1 . 46 r-- 2 1 r? - 7 E G '1 7-41 8 - -r - . -3 6 1 0 - 71 X It t. 1- 11 - ifÂ» -1~ \\4 T - Â· m u' K) ph~ 4 . , 1 -1 --- a '44 1/L . - 1--1/7 214 1 ~/1\ - - Â¥ V 1%/ h/lt= - A -2 \ 1 \ \9 ~ 1-- 2 =v - -1 - 4 m - C 20 4'L 3 1 - - .1 >1 m m.- /b X u /q > Z </ 1 // 1 \ (11 OIl L_ 1 45 ' 1 1 h 4 -- 22> d' 4- U . 4 2 ' I . 1 55- 60 26; d' 149. X 1 . F 7 - 0 - 4- 4 9 - L 1Â«1 e 0 . 1 93 0 0 1 . MAC CARTHY RESIDENCE CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS -10. D %Â§ Ll_11 2 Z i0 z 214 WEST BLEEKER ASPEN, COLORADO PO. BOX 3534, ASPEN, COLORADO 81*12 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 | | | . 600028# XIHdÂ¥80 6%06 ON ~ AEVISION 0656-626/EOE 3NOHd3131 21918 00~10103 'N3dSV 'DESE X08 0 d OC]Vk,O-103 'NEIc,SV BED,EIErIEI iSEMA PL E nn . 1 0 3 IZ E 1 0 1211 111 5 '<M lillil LU Sl)31IH0MV/S31VDOSSV Â¥ 3=IdINNn j S31HVH) 35NjaTSNEr-WHIWÂ¥5--OV,g Ibill Ill Igta: 6 1 J I JI- 2 Â¥ 60 11 1 0 11 0 - -- 4 12 61-3 1\ 1 j -1,6 1 f f I -Â¢ 3 r 2p; 11 <&3 7, n T 96 -0 <9 f 0 -9 NA 1- el y (b 1- 1 92 P 1 I 42 I A--d \ 11 1 47.. ./. - -1 1-4 0 1 11 lili 11 11 11 1 '111 lili 11!1 '1 111 1~4 11 ~ 1 3 1 E z IkIAr %p~ dim + 11'1 '1 111 L 1 -- - - | 11~11'~ lilli 1 + - 1 [1- - - - - - - -- 4-- -1 1 lilli A Idl' 1 1 11-11- [ !ir' 1.1 11' lili 11 1 411 41 1 1 1 : 1.1:1 1 1. 2 .1 1 1 1 1 N -1 i r 1 Â» EEft:Zi-lili 11 1 11 -91-0- 1 1 1 ---2-4-+ 0 4911111 ~ 1-f~ O 1 11 flli 1111 11:, 1 111'1111 IT- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 W '11 1 11 1111 1 111 -1 T li '1111111~j lilli 6 - - - Ill 1111111 r- 11 W 6-~1 t111 11 \ \Â·1111 ~11 1 Hi 4--1111 111. 1 Iii'Iii' '11 1! i ' 11 lilli 11- I 111.1 i~~~11~~111~1) ,-/-r: 1111 111 ~ -h-- 11 11191 1 f " 1 1 1 - - J >r :11 il lillill.It: 1 lili 11 11 + lilil 11 11 1 IiI 1111 | ]1 1 ~1 :li lili;11 11.i' el- : 1 3 1 Al 111111 ~ lili 11: 1 11 1L_IL-' i ' r--- 1 11 1 I 1 1 14..lili â‚¬ lili ;1 1 11111 111 1 1 - - 1, 1) 11 11 - 1; . 1- i 1 --/.44 -L-1 . 2 ~_C _11~.11_] I 1 1 . 4 Iii? 111~1111'11 IIi '1' 0 11 11! 1,111 J lilli 3 1 11 lili 11: ' 9-111 11 111 ~111 J.~ 0 Ilibl1 S I li 'i|4 01 ,~,1!1 ., i'~1 1~~1111111~ 0 j~.1111 11 ! 1 It ~ ------ Il_--- 7. 1 1 9111.1 1 05 513 @ 6- --- 411 1 ---- - 3, 1 ~-93 j -411 ---7- ?|6 uâ‚¬i -15 9 1 - '----------1 4,j 3 1 -~it Â¥6 Ok[ 0 2. -33 4 1 -3-6 08 - 4--/ - 1 1 I 0 11 *1 9 1 / --Â·581' 11.-4 - 216 gla \- In ~U,3 2 Ul f 1-- 1-- 4 -In-*4 1 1 1 1-hi /4 - -1 n_ v---1 11 9 111 1 - A I t./.I-]1 ill - a 0 111\ =7Â«.1 1 ill\-9 ~l ~1 -LI- 3 (10 1 1 1-1Â» 1-1 - 1] 1 , ' - -it LE LE Ir flili L I ------ 1111'lill,% fl .1 j 1 11 141 1, --,2.. 1 ai 1 1 11 i 1 1 - 111 11111- --- 1 1 1.11 1 j;~~~-~---~~wwmd~~~~~ LIlli Ir I 11'lilli T 1. 31 14*(i#NEPÂ· 1 i 7 bi Ef' 11'jill) lilli.1101 1 1 1 Â¢'f~ Lit 1 11 4 0 Â£ r 81101 111 'Ii' 1* 111 Ill L 1 - 0 %14, :PIN' --&-I -- - I 1 V .. Ll 1 1 0) i ll 1 fl 1 11 0 !1 tt 1\\ \3 il ---11 1 011- fl=? 1 >1 3 >-1-R - El 7/1 1 W ..13 M.1 Â¥-111 ~1~A e\Â£ 9602 -- << 11 11 . A 60021 4Â»1 iw rl -LHAâ‚¬>iaH ,GJ =kup <,43W '~Mli 54 NOI-IMA313 - 1 REVISION -- -- 12 - ---f--- - 26 HeeMT LIMIT 2 - HaM eec),WK 6+ 1 H ell/5 L Uu i -J' LI-11. JU - PIETAL #apF 111 - - - - - l EC)61 E OVe) - m-.-U$-i -Ii - 0 FEI~ 1 U L 1 ~'l~ 27- -- - Hek-1 [Peco*TIVE SH 11-IBILES Tb -1 H/Â«TEA eXIE:711Â·461 Il '1 1 - 1-JL ' i- 1 *~Jill{0 ~-~ '~ 1 1~11 1 - 45Â©6--p*ER _,~ EL- (06-011 i- NEW 9101 NG,1 -ro FlÂ«104 EXIST IN 61 -- -- -__-4 1 1 5 - *ARÂ»<SIt , -~ -24394-0" - - pa:21 ect,FR~ ----- j 1-_-_T'F~~i[ Â·- - - 1 11 Lowet Level- 61 el-= 69'di ~ --1- trul NORTH ELEVATION 1' tr-11- SCALE - 1 /4- = 1'- 0- ~-,1,7- -1 -1-zliZIZI 1 1-- 7-1- .- 1 .III J-IJ.J 'Ze' Hele'R~ LibliT- - IZEZZ _ - -- 44144 5 - -- ..IS t~-5/42f -- -- - --- - - - ..Ur fro - 9 \ N Y 1 4 J -- 0 ---I~ - --1 ~=======2=22:-2.--11-25---Â· V -Â«rn--2. -- - --2-" J I I r I-2-_ 1 --- U fT 111 f-1'lxlq~ Â· i -1 ~ I---~1 k Dr \ 5 1 i Iii 11 1.67 -GUILLIELL-1 1 - --- ----- [33 111 1 -- - -~ I - ___ ~~~_ ___ 1__1 - 111 W --- - J LE 2 - - A S+Zi - --~~~ _111/ttel..:i_- , 09 m ---1 .1 13 f J BL= IloL 6,4 d ~ !1 -- 4 1 42Â» ROATEFK, - --- 1, F * fLIA .EF -- r~.i-~11-1~ 4 11 11.- 5> 10620" dIN . 1 LEI 1 EZIZEZZIE~ 1 1--4441Â«Â«Â»4= -~~- {~~ - - --6--I---1---I--- j) 1 - 312 loos (pit 6Â»BAete .-. Ely-**--37------- - -.- + 1 DRAWING --- 1H. 1.4 BLEVATI ONS te==14=3=IiI- - - ---1 11 111 -- 7170 - - 1 -i_ Â«>- 7-- 1 DATE IJOBNO.9051 Exis-Ti 441 1 11 FOUROATION SHEET NO LougA LEvEL -- 4 ----71- EL- 899 011 A3.2 - - -- 12// -- - -- - - -- ---mimmIL ilmi - - IIIT plew Â»pp IT'06-1 - 4 13 AE MA114 3 EXIâ‚¬q-1 +61 Â·HOUSE VVEST ELEVATION i r SCALE : 1/4- = 1'- 0- DRAPHIX #322009 1 :lil" 11 11 1. 141'll :lill 1 1 Sl)31IHOEIV/SaLVDOSSV Â¥ 33=IINNA) 531&1VH) a 06SS-SZ6/EOE 3NOHd3131 Z!9l8 OC]~10-103 'N3dSV 'DEE X08 *OW OC]VE,0703 'NE]dSV -LSE]AA 1* LE /1 FC 3 01 0 EO , -b 1 ~C 3 --6 4 Z - rit I. 0 9- 1 0 8 0 u 01 3 a E- 19; < E 0 m # 38 11 Y 0 1 8 d 3- 0 \ m \ -0 ir \ 11 . L ..R c H (1\ L U /1 1 . 9 4 2 I r m - J - i o H I 9 - 73 ~ Z Â«Â« n 0 9 - 191_-_-1 li 1, / 1 - 2 -- 124 Â»1 -' \44 - 0 2 1 1 m 2- L /1 1 , O 1 1 -4/ -1 8 5 8 5 01 7 U P Il L 1, i zi 43 '- E ' m 07 H 17 4i 01 0 0 --0-- ro W E- I <4 42 6-t F c D --0- 0 16 -4 0 5 1 L 9 1 1 - k g 1 L I 7 E E-0 1 D 0 - lib 1 - f A L i -1 1 0 \=rÂ«=f ~| ~Mi~~~ MAC CARTHY RESIDENCE , CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS - m mz 4% 1 -1 0 4 2 1. Z P 0 40 2 . 0 - . 4 ..... e 14 0 214 WEST BLEEKER ASPEN. COLORADO : P.O. BOX 3534, ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 I ..40 ttrrourit NOI-LOEIS DNICning ly-JU HALL 9012*61 E *AIRAG:le CARE-1Â»4MEI 600ZZE# XIHdVU 90 -LaaHS REVISION ,. I . ' 74 4 -1 1 3 p I 11 1 1 111 . 4 Al Â© Ir-11 -3[ 7 1 0 - R r - 0 111 0 1 r 7 mC T 1 'r - --- 1 1 1 _ . - 8 -4 4- 4 10 I ff j -101 Z 9- 1 4 1 k 0 180 r m 0 0 mg@- U 0 0 m d 0 - 0 1/ 6 Z Z 1// 11 C 2 0. 1. 1 42*. 1 va- 2 en 2 2 3 23 L 0 /5 9/ li /'B im / 2* OD 73 0- R ok 0< 4 2 023 D m 0 0 -0- I , C- 0.10 L 29 MAC CARTHY RESIDENCE CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS Z I A 14 y : m .m m ~mz E~ -1 i 032 Z 013 0 0 1 41 111 e 214 WEST BLEEKER ASPEN, COLORADO P.O. BOX 3534, ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 2.6.-L...2..Â· U....au : .1 Â»U-. 1 ~ CEN'BEn,Â»~L ~ REVISION vtv 1 1 1 . I , 1 .te . 1 + > D< 9-1 ''4 1 21 -4 1 arb eÂ«b. 1 \0Â» P r - I g j 1 ~ NEW ~~ ~ ASA 90*44%9Ft vowe. el,2. 22> A* 1 IA / 1 g 1 32 1 Â£11 +2 - If 9 1 rÂ·/2 99:122 9 1. 1 1 Al,& 9 9 -1 1/ k 1 -- --- 1 1 7=3 1 1 *6 # 1 4 1 - .,6 1 tiff L~ 1 1 B. 1 1 6 / 4 - T i.* j 1 \\ : /2: 11 12-1-112> 42-ig: I' ' 2 1 R------------- \ Er .. 9 / -3 â„¢ /4 3 le A ,4 1 Prl -1 9 / 1-1 -2 0 1 --173 Â¢Eli 12_16 1 - ,<Â£24 m 7 mr, \4 1 1 1 Z ' 0 19 11 r 1--- i -- -1 11 1 1 \ - 1 1 3>- 1 * 0 MAC CARTHY RESIDENCE CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS 111 D Z 0 214 WEST BLEEKER ASPEN. COLORADO P.O. BOX 3534, ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 60082Â£11 XIHdVbia ON 133~-IS 3140 F=ZI 1Â»,lcl clcuy REVISION u 2 ~ SHEET 152 2 BASE 62,2 . 82 L OVERLAY 02 2 02 2 . I , (t> . *-1- * . 50 4r r m < 4 (54< A > +9 9,19 r. , - , * 1 m m r - L 71 1 9 L 0 m 5 -0 LI 0 m UI 392 1 go. 1 1 Â· i 1 gno ..~-. -Â«---â€ž.---- .-- r.-.-. ~ 1 1 1 4% t i r 39 Â£ i 9-1 F .1 i . -- 1 / X .. : .{ 2 - 1 14.--- - -- 1 1- Â· 9- 1 - lAi ~ - il - - -- t---- - 1Â» 1 2 $ L__1 3 V 3 , Ers !4- P 15- s LY_z 11 2 i ; E 4 1 - 1 k ~ 1 â€ž Ht 2,/2 11'/Â£-3 - 5.2" 3%1$. , c<,LO DL7" ~~~ 11Â« 1 11 181 , 9 ' 1 -371' #-3/2' I == A / \ {3 2 0. - 4 , u b. 9 4 ~Ct_j 1 17*- it) 1 -=iALÂ«r I F% --U:Â£/ ~ 3sel- 0 1 1 1: .- 1 4 .1 1 :f. ej & 10 JO kf F . LE 8 4 -0 - Ill ~Jk 14 Pt R 03 1- . A -1 8 - ==== It'/6 , l /, 572" 59-(, . e. 9 .. 6- 1/1 1,1 1 - 1 . 111 . 1@/ . 1 \B- 12 1 =Â© '10 4 3 .9 # m r. . 11 --4 , Â¢ 1 Â£ 11 r.- 1 1 i , 'i 1 4 1- , 9 00 1 -44.-- 1 1 -7 1 - i, 1 1 1 ---7- i , 7 7- 7 . 1- 7 I 11!l :1 1 1 11 1.- 1 1 - - - : .1 J49%6 41 222 0110" r RiD. 1 + et- 9" . 22:01' . 3166' ,. ' 3 1 / . I t . 4 911 321 3' I : 1 7 0.10 L ~ 9 MAC CARTHY RESIDENCE I CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS m m ~mz 0 L . X 'i- E 7 N 9- -4 0 L , CX 1- 5 1 i= N - 1 + 0 - - k 1 30, r- . 1 4 Imk m 4 8 3f 0 - [T-1 1 6 50 i \4 V ID Ul L 214 WEST BLEEKER ASPEN. COLORADO P.O. BOX 3534, ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 11 - i , L.:1~22.LaLÂ· 61 1%Â¢1 HlloK I-491.J '0 b : . â‚¬7902 42 37! 0--9 60022Â£# XIHdÂ¥80 AEVISION ' ty. '. REVISION 5 0 7 10319 44 - 41'-cf - 12'-d U-0;Â£, 1-\49' a. 22â‚¬ S : 16 5 5 / \U- d . 4 e 1 1 * 3 2 90 EX- 25%/0 ~ E.64 51'- i,_-~i_Â« > 4 01 , -- --- - --- - - - ------ 1 - 01 1 I i 102 1 -A -1 2-w/.L *34.1 1 Ro. 7 RO.- 1 if <91, 39 -IILd 1 1 . -1Â«--- 1/Â£1 I---ICI---3 , '2560 ~g - IF 23 9 go Leâ‚¬I I um' 1 0 ~ 1 '14 21-ReoÂ»+ / -- 31Â»=: ee-1 -~ 1207 IM 1 i 11 1 , 1.. il 11 @ 11 9 71 1 4 44 -lf 11- To 11 1 1 ---72--1 Li-fi-Li~ N - , ' =0 11 1 - Le&-1 --X 9- ' - 41,3/ 2- A . j 4 - 4+RA.61 6 79 -8 6/ A PA Liviwei IR,::Â©Fl 11 --Elht[*:'1 KarM-1 - 1 -\ -- ko' 1 11 1202 I e *hI 1 1 1 lili 1.2 1 a =1-=73-0. -9221 421*2 - -~ ~+1-4-1, i,qydi - ' [4-1 ~03/11 1 1 8 =0 213/ 4 1 19 2#2.Â»11 0 #2331 - 1 1 1"-r /10 -6 ilÂ» T (923 9 d A 1 1 4- _Ed---1.1 ---1 2 11_ le I 0 0 0 0 7 (2 1 li 11, [1 11 fÂ» 1 f. I ~ C 3%" ' | *3 SUN F40'-1 i Â® 1 *>1 = 12061 / .-i MOD <cot-1 - J.214%IL ELP_42:4#L I =8 - 79- -r R o <37- It ar -... - 413/ . Laj j 17 Ill .EN-TKY 00 1 3,- c C @ 4&-1--- 0.0 18 1 rt.. _ UI ; 0 2 7-ta ,---- - -r--14--r- 1 0 O0 ft-1 1 0 1@ le @ P-- Z LU L_-J 'Â· = rl-3 O =10 ATU-1Â©4 0 4= C:KI .. ALLA ...1 r. - L u [2111 0 - 11-[1-4 1 - ---- 0 1-1 - LM--El-4 , LU 1 +19 174_*M:\*1 UN 51 594.'_--3'.O/â‚¬.' qo. L g R.D.. 1 R O. 1--1- , B 2 5\1 d' ,â‚¬r-L Â£=>" Z 111 1- 111 k , A O \ af 21 m m N;:-1/ /Â»39 9- 3 F EXISTIUÂ« Houle < 72, Re ersid t K ~ Alew AP P 'TIC'h..1 \ 0 - Z -- ENTRY LEVEL FLOOR PLAN -- 4 SCALE : 1/4" = 1'- 0" DRAWING FLAId NogTH E -â„¢f F 'A PLA. d JOB NO. 9037- , DATE SHEET NO , . 63 2 - --' .rj 1 4 1 1 , A2.3 SHEET OF 1 DRAPHIX #322009 1 ' -4-- 11 1 2-4 Sl)31!H)EIV/SaLVIOOSSV Â¥ 33=IINNrD S31HVH) 06SS-SZ6/EOE 3NOHd3131 Zl9l8 OCI\RIO-IOD 'N3dSV 'DESE XO8 Od Oaveo,03 'NadS,1 saa ..z SHEET ,42,3 OVSELAY 011 #,1 .. i . 1~ REVISION ><(f O ) 161 / 109 Fte 3/ 4-6 d a .1, 16- 69' 4 00 : F as?. ; 2154"'00 69)4"; 5* 9 44" , 9- '2 , d- 10'll L.* 1.V- - -44&1 -9 1 3- R o . -4 0, f @ e % n- 4 i- 8-3 Aa.3/ e c .1 1 , E-0-I1 - ./ 35 6 n 217" <21/z" , ' df,l R O. 0/ j p 1 2 1 110 [3 -to GIl -4-- 88& 2 . fr FLE 1 - 1 1 -2 0 0 1 ' 1 1. SINK .1 13071 1 + 100 1 A Ect..4.1 L e ---- 41-on 4:.Cl' ,,--Dvt' gd?. 1 ZLIO~ 2'-1004 P:54 v I v k 31. r F j N 3" 95TO*Â·ete . m f-~ ~-3'/z" (111 [222_-| 14 (750) 17 L -- 4 4~18= ---7~ @ it= 93/ - 1 764[A .O 2 . 1 1 --- 72 - - _JL-- | 0.8 1 ._-7/ -yÂ«-1. U CARE-1*1<BA 1 ~ ag 1 /1 4 -44 13 LiÂ«LK- 14 i I /1 1 _ -lijtz.'_ 4< (23) 42- --4,2~:LJ'idefrr at 9 -6 \413/ ~ CLOSET < 1,1Viki Ort 3 [-211 1 1 .1 .L 17 1~4 .w ) I 1 1512 1 1 1 d A 7-5' ' 3L Â£:~~ ~ ,f * A 1* . 6&. rt 530 0% 0,4-1 ~ , 1 -2. O 1 LÂ« ! ~ 9-<pece * 43!11\ /\ i Â»94(feopÂ»-1 1 lfÂ© 5971 144 - 1 1 4 9 @ .0:C bl,91 <P f\ 42 H" 0,75&" ! 1010' 1 ,-64 l.Â»11 ' 1 Â·'232/2." '4 -L ~ -77,9. Firwo. 4 L L- r 1. 4 -/ 1 101 leif 1 . ! L-Ave "'i,_ 1 3031 417 Â© 1-0 @ 0 I O13 Â£>L 5'1'i T 1-802 - - , 1. r1 1 1 : .tell .1 - CJ j go, . CE<+C. Â¥- : WED /1 2 1 111 A D A 79 _1 0/- 1 4/4-' .1 01 \â‚¬ lith -,-,CC 7 \AS 3/ ' 40 \000$- <I~ r Al 9-9> - - b '0 1 M,671# - Er;= ' 44#2- /Â«55/ - i + fp> 830<TH r.. -41 ily 1 IIi- 1.2 1 1 1 1 7- - f â‚¬194. .2 . : 2,41 1. -1214-*Â©14' c:â‚¬-_.SLI'.4 6;'-1 gs-141. 9 1 8 0 7. 2- \04 4 V 4 , -Rbi - - -1 '. A 0, , R,0. Ro. f Ill 1 4310,1 f , Ill 111 >140\ /61 J t,33 ~443il>/ Â· ~1~j/ 0 0 ExIST,461 Hogâ‚¬ i if , 1 KIEL-I ADDITION[ 1-b F'-â‚¬:MA I J UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN SCALE:1/4-= 1'-0- DRAWING i UPPER Fl.g. FX-,Ad PLAU Ncâ‚¬TH h 31 JOB NO. 9032, DATE SHEET NO \ A2.4 . ; J '' WW= r ~ WU>W - I<> 1 0 0 0 C* SHEET OF :/ DRAPHIX #322009 .:4 J 1 lil l i - 3 2" ~ .31 + o" Sl)311HlkIV/S31VDOSSV Â¥ 3:IdINNn) S31HVH) 3(]ISE!8 06SS-SZ6/EOE 3NOHd3131 2 19!8 OCI~1O1O3 'N3dSV 'DESE X08 -0 d CIVE,0700 'NadSV -LSEIAA *LE N. .E): 1,3.1% f.p:a . 9322' - . Â©35, , W. BLEEKER STREET 1 I 4* 1 1 064 00,-9 1 1 0 4 100 051' I l" e (po. oct /1 - 1.2 3 .f,1 - 42Â»r . 3 1. > - --7-- --1- -%}1~-7--~-3- ; 1 7-' \ 3% 1 1 20 1 1 19 _u _ 4 r R J U 0 li 29%03 11 e .%7 -+ 1 1 \ 111 i- 5 - 1- 1' - -1 \ 510 - 1 -\ lose /1 - i E --F 11 0 1 v 9 41\117' 4. 1-'f- 4.- Bal 1-/. 8-* C-/60&63 1 12 e -1 V r 4 -41 91 14 -1-2 - -f- ]-1 *L -2 01 1 1 = 1 1.1, 1 1 9- - _1 -6 4 3 i -1-7- 1 r r ~- - -- -- ~=1- =-1- -=I =-=_INEL -22 21-21 m' r 2 -E-9 z I 63 -- -- - Nie' 01' ir W 00 Gol 9 0 1 ALLEY 94 L 53 U\-0 MAC CARTHY RESIDENCE CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS 214 WEST BLEEKER ASPEN. COLORADO P.O. BOX 3534, ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 m m kt 1 9 1 7 . EI J 0 19 F 8 9 . 0 L 14 t. -- pÂ·1011Â¥1.4~*+11 21-19 '00 '00} 8,617,000+1 N 600ZES# XIHdVBG AEVISION 4 HIE Ft# WI# 1~ FL# 1114 'IR Fl tp P 1-15 1 t'< 1 101 1 E +9 It--- 0 Ill 6.-* iii 1 0 ) - 4 1 l' 3-Â¥f 1 Tr-- 1 Lit 11 -1 - 1 t ~11'. ' ~ 41&1 ~ ~ F ~-Ejj~-~ ~41#jit!1#11! 11 <tam 111 1 4 m 1 :11* 10%1111'iN r 075 1 1 1 IN Â®11: 1 11 11 1 hiltindd Ill 11 1111'41 1 1 Il ill lith rT- - --- . = 4111'1111/Ii'I';:U - t=44-7 i i1111111't~~1:11 ~ -1- 1 221111111 1111, Ilgli,1.1 1 @ 0 , , 1.:1 1 #-4-- 1./ r , 1,11 6- p T--1 2 I - lili 18 !lillI' 1 ~1 //0 .1 Ill: 1.1 - 16- 11 1 'pi1#I#1111# 41#1 4 11 1-= 111!! *11:11.1 Ill lai !1 - 12*1 1 -[-11 1 ]1 1 4 4- ME* 1 4~11-04-14 -~4 --- 11 | 1 J; 1 1 1 - - s FE-TE-[l-1 T- ti!. ' - t 11 21_LÂ»gl lit 1 m 1 il C 11 0 <r:-4 1==L_ .1 3 '--C) _11 0 4 4- 1 L --- r--7 U 14 Â»R 11 FIE Er' 1 W TE r-+11 01 6 10 10 * 19# 3 ..re 4 Â© [-11 ~1 -7 L --0 IL 9 4 1 -14 9 4 9 - QI< A P 4 iL N Ul_di f_1 1'~-1 r 12 1 9'F- Eg ~ i:' i [i 1 - L 4 2. 11 m It 1,1 1 . 111 1 1 I iIi 11 1,11 JI li < 20 1 1 1 1 ~-1-] P -0-3 L-\ --== 1-: i 4 ..41 "114p j in m 111 1 ral .j' ~1'.1 1]1111 9 I .=======- 2~111,1111111 ~~~11'ill"ll,bl IM !11. lilli'.1 111 111 1 . 14 1 111 1, 11 L.-411 11. --- Tdm 1114-4 !11,11;11111,1 il|'p 1 11 1: 1 4 mjI 11 #11 1.11 14:~11 111,~\1#! ' t illillifill'li| 1 tillf jil'4ibiili 11 ! 1 11 lillillip 1 1 Ill'11111 ':lilli i 7 Â© "Cl,~ +4 211.11 . 1 41.-1 11 7 1~1 0 4.111 -11111111 'll 11 - i 0 - 1 1 11111111!111 r i.1 r 11 rA 11 '4 1 '134717 ,1 ~ lili',11111~1111~ .. 'F lili - ~1 1 11 1 Ill'12 1 , ill C : 1. , r 'bÂ®11111;11},1/1~4~;1.11 il~ 1144%Ph-jill'll .11I'1l]1lllI1 1 111 E- Â© 1-171 - Â¢ t lilli' 1 11 739' M' i i - ill 1 14 ibilliM i 11 1 F - - W- 1 - - --- 1 11 1111 I - 1 ---- 1111 1 1 1 1 1 11 J Illilli lilli ------- ',,.~i 'IJ,1 1~-%# <1 ti ''1.,Ii!,1 plii ill ! j z ' 1 ~[2-22 ~I /i~ 1'~1 ~--10~11- 1 _ ___-1 '1 1111 1:lilliÂ®11 1 1 1 1 L-- 11 11 1 11 111: 1111 Â·!Ii 1 1 6==L 41 ]J 1 1 1 ~ Ill m 11 lill ! 11 ~<<~ !1 1 1 111 -9 - :jit tr=========rmn' Ir 1 1.11 1[-'U ilili lilli iii 11 1 1 1: 14 ~11 1 1 271:.Ii . ND .1. lili ~ i LL==tl] I'' 1 ~111---*d LI'lillijll~ 111 1 1 10 ! 1. 11 1 lilli i 1 lilill k 1 - 1 11 11 1:1 Iii "11 1 li lili 1 1,1 ililjill 1111111111 it lili 1 11 1 1 :1Â·11 pi h i ili 11 +11 1 11 111 ,Â£1 1 1 lili 1 lili ~ 6 1 -4 Ii'~11 lilill /lili ~li~ 11 1 : 111 M j i "-f " 3 j_LE(Lt_d_t_IN-ttLE Ufff 11~ i_1 in li 1 i 1 1 lilli i lilli -1 1 1 1 111 1 1 L 1 \ 1,1 -1 1 11 1 1 11: 411'Ii..; 1 11 1-L; 1111 If-lif' 1 1 1 ~-- ~fl~ i Z y lili 4-- 1 1 71 0 - L f I i---4 1 .4 1 , i i HI r Ill' 1 - 1 1 rl ' '4|/ -1 1 3 1 1 0 A , 11 1 2- ---- . D 1 3-7 *2 4 -1 â‚¬\ 8 0 i - - + 4 1 -1 _2_ 3 ~ ' 74 1 Url i- r 0 U g 9,> r ' 2 1 -4 40 0- 6=Ic, 4 4 91 f 1 i FIE Al F~ 3[0 --21 12 1 + 3e 1 1,1.-1 0.82 "1 4 , 0 E- 41& 0 i g . 17, 1 r r I - 3- 31_ w w ~-..~.-Trr~'.~-1 I 0 1 1 1Â£191 MACCATHY_REIIDEN~ CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS m m 0 9 9 2 0 411> 2 0 D U. /J 9- 214 WEST BLEEKER ASPEN. COLORADO P.O. BOX 3534, ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 LJ NOI-LVAE!1 LeDAR 1-tele'prr ~~fl 1.1-+SlaH 153 600ZZE# XIHdVWa REVISION 1 FREVISION ? 12 -- - -- 3- 2-5 Hee'kiT LIM'IT Itt-- 1 '6"i -41-2 - Heol-4 ce:C>AR SHIH~Â·ILES -- 11 Jr 11 ' ; -1 _ 1 w-*949.9~ 1119 ~ -f? ff? J-~J- - .-%- .3 - J. JULI 1 -- - - -- .J---- lyJUU),PUY[juVuu-=94--1 22-23*2 FleTAL- tâ‚¬g:?F BORE 0'vp) r J , U 11 - 1 -- 1 1 - - -- Held 584012â‚¬Ive SH 11-161LES Tb 04-- -~ 63 ~-- HA-TEA exisTIN61 1 K 4 ' l' Ir 1 1 4 - f 7-2 -10 ----+2--+-------- 17. CAR)**FK 1 - 9 ---- - ----- - EL. C 06-04 0-UZZI _ ~ 1461.1 6101 tÂ·461 -ro MA12,14 ExISTING,1 0 - 0 [0-1 - *ABAR~ 6 - - [Â»51 POOK - ---I.-i- i---I-*-- ------ .-I --1 A --- - - -79 - 44 1 1 It I Lowed_livel 4.1 - eL=- ap'-c,1 1 - -- I ---1- NORTH ELEVATION \1--- T- " SCALE : 1 /4" = 1'- 0- ./ u__~~ \1- 41 - ..IZE 12 1-1 1-4 1 -Izr--- -44,34-!, - â‚¬6' Helaq# LIMIT-- --_- 3 off-O 31- _ ---- ---- -- - . -. - trii'i!-1 1 - -- - -- -. --- .- --- ---- - f.402% 7~4797) --Â· Â· - Hek.1 DDBFIEA ----- 1 3,4 fÂ© 3 1934) -2.1- -2~ Â«-- -~" ~ - 1----- 1 T 1 1 3 1 1 -r~.2/2-- - --212322IE . 1 -ZI~ ~ 2 T~ --- 1, ]71 1-8 r 1--~9 It : ~~~Iz~zz~zz~Â· - - 7---3 ~al_-- , T....J--Â«0 12 + Til~ ---*LfÂ·- --T2-'~~t~|1 ~~22#*ti 1- -- /21 81- 1 T~ -7 ----.r - ._ _ - -- 1=74i- 1 1 W 1 L-----1 4 lie 1 271+ ~JI -- 1~ I -- 111 4==1 Ill ----------- - 9.11 J .11 -1~t]-l'. Y Ut- / f f '' .1 11 4 -11T1.I I. 2 eL= llo -6,1 1 11 fy ' f.fr rTI '13 1 -uff/53Â©f=~ _-1_ m 110 ~1320 f 1 T c ' 14 . Ir' 1 . /1 1 - -- ---- 1 --- - -4446-1 1 ..... - - I~1 /3/Jit -- 0 - r----1 &------ *)j11~O11 J ' I , F J J ------- fÂ¢J' O 111 1 T 5*' 1060" --- -- --- - ----- --- - -----9%3)1 < p N <49 --- 1 - ------- ---------I------------- ---------- --I---7-2------ -- -- -- ----------- i' 1 11 1 Rew DO(fi :E _~ ~ __ ~~~~~ ~ __-_-SNTA< Lev-EL L BL= 1 00- C,H cart-HABIE .-I ~ DRAWING ~ BL= 99 -OIl -- ---- ~EFEr@GUITONS~ Ill-Ii*--- .0./.-I- f--=r==.-4 - - --7-- - 1 .33.~fl------ 1[EÂ»111 'Elt -- - -0 2 2 27 2 22 -11-3-1 ,ULL ~ JOB NO. 9032 14.--13 HDEXP' U 1 DATE ExISTI hiet 1 FOU#OATION SHEET NO 1 11 T g L1- 89 L O. 2-------4 - --- - 2 2 1 -2 2 -9 2 2 2-9--12 1 I U 31 - - A3.2 1 3 69<1â‚¬,TIKI* House T V---------7-- 4 13 AE MIA1 4 EET OF SCALE : 1 /4- = 1'- 0- DRAPHIX #322009 1 Ll Sl)31IH )MV/S31VDOSSV Â¥ 3:!:IINNrD S3-IHVIÂ·O Cl'SEIU 06SS-SZ6/EOE 3NOHd3131 Zl9 I8 00~10103 'N3dSV 'DESE X08 0-d OCIVEIO-103 'NEIdSV 1t I. 1 West Bleeker Steet< 1 4 $.-P-- - - I 1 =-â‚¬C=-:bL Gate 49/7 -0 8 fv Remove Existing Parking 234 o Proposed 6' 0" Wood Fence F 0 / (To Match Existing) 1 Property Line . ~.r.-7 ...~ 9-41 ...1 , Cal~12. M - 0 1% f F//7 1 Existing Vegetation Â£~ Existing Flower Beds 14> r , C>-- ,;~,~f:5} fi D 4 + 432)88*~ 1 --~ 4 a r -,4 - -_--7 Continue Existing Flower Bed L lili Proposed Wood Fence ' 1 (To Match Existing) -1 Setback Line . - 42Â»37 ---71 - 9 -1 - % A 1 -L-)4 112642 - 1 1 1 1 44 I - f ir 91 ,1 :1 / f I' ,- r' Â£ :1 . 1 , - . (To Match Existing) / / ~ Open Lawn :1r Proposed Wood Fence 0 11 #6 1 0 0 1 - Proposed Flowering 63. Qk /0 0 - Groundcover il o 7 Residence 1 t/ Flowering Groundcover Existing Vegetation . 9/ ,& 1 ~ 33~~- --, 01 1 0 ' '4-4 -- 1 Wood Fence Elevation r / ~ 1 1 Iii 1 1 -- 1 1 & t-- Window Well Scale 1 /2"= 1' 0" Proposed = 1 1 5 1 Aspen Trees, 1 12' i 1 1 5 Wood i Deck 1- -t Stepping Stone Path ~~ ~~ ~ ~ Adjacent '/ 01 11 1 11 4 0 - Residence 0 1 NE 111 1 GREG MOZIAN 1/ A t ~ Existing Residence T-P tr LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 11.'0) 117 S. Spring Street .f3 - Aspen, CO 81611 (303) 925-8963 L-1 9 67.. 0, Proposed Addition ' 1 an. [E ~ i;EL - --4 i MacCarthy Residence 1 ... 1 Iii 0 1 ; Open Lawn Â· )31 ~22 1 Landscape % IJ j Plan 5. 4%1. V --I"W Date: April 22, 1991 61 23 *f on.f~J Scale: 1/8"= 1' 0' 20 00.../ ad I diÂ· Â· 1 Drawn By: R.C. 1 Il o ..'+I, 9441 1--f NO . ~ , A. '.. 794/ 0-1 O Â® 7-Â¥73\ Guest Arking Proposed Aspen Trees * Revised: 'leÂ·6 0. .+.....1, C 1 20--3 )1 ~ a . Â° 11_ Gravel Drive -Al O 1 -0..... . ...$,0 .. 4..-----'.--1-M /98 , Maintain Existing Shed Facade 1 }.1.. Sheet: f *t Of: One 43> O 0 0 1 ~~~ ~~ ~ Open Spai 3 Aspen ... -' FJ . f , 7 7 75.6 1/1 7/ C Â«--j -, , f ) fly / / 11 *adows ' 7 7564~ 71. Development Plan fonsfrfation Land f ~44 f , 1 9 4 C+ 4 1/ 1./ h /1/ ,( Â«L,01 1, 1, j 1, 1 4\ c \ 92(1 \~ 1 IJ 1 2 New -~*ho,(se Units - DESIGNWORKSHOP, Inc. Landscape Architects: ~spen 782 710 East Durant Avenue sics Aspen, Colorado 81611 iership (303) 925-8354 f 7828 5 -- ying: 1/ i / // br77601. ~~ $, 7830 suiting Water Engineers, Inc. /4 7 i to Rio Grandi Tra , m < / . j ~j~ ath Street, Suite 300 / Denver, Colorado 80202-1 143 /.- / 111 topographic maps for development areas 1 1 aps have net been field checked. f /0 ~ '' // 832 19-\ -Aft* C/ 1~/ 6D / 1 1. 1 i i . 4 I - 7834 Covered farking ' 14 22 Aarking Spaces Â«t \ ' h Grades _ 3rades \ 1 \ 00 \ 19 \ -- 1% Remodeled Trustee \, btt~ ) ~~ Townhouses hi \\ \ 1 ~17 11 Parking Spaces Â» M \ . \ S 1 7768.7 1 ~ IMM*RY 1\, L \ Atry Floor Elevahn 1UL 21 Spaces -4 \ ses 33 Spaces 14 Spaces \ \1 97 Spaces -4 New Townhouse Â· N 165 Spaces 1 Unit X 1 i 7776.5 . ~~1.~ .~~~Centerline of Proposet Tn 10% Grade Max. c : a) i proposed Expansion < f f 0 11 4-0 f jÂ« 41 1< 4 k. Â·\ I Prposed'Deck - T 2 4 4-j-~ i 4, 19 + f /3 1 7779.3 200 North A 7782.8 ~ 4 Sheet Title: e , Date: March 1, 1991 Â¢ r - 1 9 f 10 94 i (St 3 LAYOUT & .O\ GRADING PLAN- 49 , ,Â· 1 1 4 AREA 1 1 1 77A4.5 8 L- 4-01*Â» 3 con\1 -~ - - fl. 1 - 4 lan L-5 Sheet No. - Â© 1991 Design Workshop, Inc ri e. - ..Al .. 1 Â· . 4 .0 . ~11 . 0 0 . ... 0 . V --I ./.[Ilm.... 40000 . . 0 . .. i< , - ... 0 - . .. ..1 . ... . 0 0 - 8.-0 .... le 0 4 . - 01 1 : 1 : . I . 4 . .e . , S , 0. .e--1-- - I. al'le. /lqllillillillimilll~ili~~~~~illibhvlllmllllll.'- . 1 1/, 9...Ill//F P. - 000 9,"...imillill/imiliEY:e.iti.ill.illililif00000 -. .A . 4 , I . 0.0060 0 0000 00 ** 14 ... a , * 1 *. I t 00 - .. .. .. ... .. . ..- 6. , 0 . 0 .. Illillillilill, Vil~ill"~~~~ilillililillilillillillimilli9ilililha , . 4 , 1 ... . ... 3 4 0 % .... ... - - , 945*it< --6,~i,~1.75,;'Â· 0 0 0 - 4 . 0 0 0 a. . . - A~ 99 4. 24; \-6 ; . 0 0 00 -*\ .- 0 0- 0 ...... 1 :%*57 '. . 0 - - a. .. .. 0 - 8% I. 0 .0 1 . 1 9&0060"#901 ..... g'. . . 0. 11. 3 Aspen 1 eadows A. Development Plan 0/ f Landscape Architects: 0/'-h\1 Aspen DESIGNWORKSHOP, Inc. Aspen, Colorado 81611 710 East Durant Avenue [nership (303) 925-8354 - :ying: f 1 isulting Water Engineers, Inc. 'fl < enth Street, Suite 300 / Denver, Colorado 80202.1143 f topographic maps for development aireas naps have not been field checked. *7797.3 ~\ \U \ 1 0 \ Grades 7e Grades 43341\- 91\4\11\1.1.\ 1 \\ \ 1\ ~ \1 \11\ t.<t>/ 6 ,/ \}) i \ A VA) )\ S /1 11 ~ ~ * (t C 11'4~i4hibil)'i~ Il 3 flu O 96 ) 150 200 North 13 19 M 7883,9 Date: March 1, 1991 )\\\\\EN Sheet Title: r .-0 -- I - /7.\\ n ly / C Aul LAYOUT & 34/< / U Â«3 :.0\ GRADING PLAN- %3\ hj %4 \ AREA 2 9\\Off :i..\-.-~ 1 11111*-mwwÂ£<v\9% Fri-~-f- -~U lÂ»041*u 4/1 \ H).- Â° 1 1 , - - 5- 19-\--full-4-1- 4 3 <7880.8 1 1 Vz 1 1 >\ L ----â„¢ 1.L r.:3 L.6 i/ -17 / /, 1 Sheet Reference Plan Sheet No. Â© 1991 Design Workshop, Incj . \ I. I. 1. . , k A , . 0 \ . ... . .. 0 .. . 1. . . 0 1 + Â° ... .0 D. . . . lil<... ... 11 ... .1 0 . . 0 I .:. I. . a li . 0 .. ...1 ..1 ... 3 0 - Ne .. vi I .. . m m W 1 ..... . . Vil~~~~~~~illb 1 a -0,12. . . . . 0 -Vily IL '6 \ 1 : A 0 - 0. . .: . e: : ..V~ : .: 1/ .. 4 - 0 0 0 1 ..: .. al} - p - 000 .. 1 - . 0 S , 2.64 I. , .. \A n. 1 E.. 9 4% 4 1 .. 4. t 1111'11 t ... R./A- ----- i 3. 10 -- / ''. ./C -Lk.-2 0.// -1/ ---41- --2--r_-~---- . 4 X K Nxtilit\ ~ 1 ~.---7- 4 -1 1 -h 7~1.1 - \1 1 494 +EN#~~75313+<, -- 7850 f,70- I 7863.6 x - 4 \4\ Â»U ' \ 7855.4 -7854.5 x ---- ty , - K , The Aspen 1- r --ir- \ - *7854.6 . 10 Trl r- 0 4 11 /97 1 10 Meadows 4 c + -/.1. 1,- 1. / 4 1 %% d I h ; A - - - -7850 j ~ 1 -- \ , , ; 1 7847,1 ,/S - \\ %1 . . b I . li kx- \\ L x 3827.5 ISAO - . 7 -1.- i p---9~ - Final S.P.A. Development Plan (-43 01 - --- I- 420 f L=14 r .4. . * 7 793.9 * , 7 79~j - .N -_- 7030 - ' 4 . *7791 7 . - 1 0-L-J W --- L__1 78/0 Client: Landscape Architects: 7820 -\\ \\ N 7790 -- -1 7799.4-. M , / * Music Associates of Aspen DESIGNWORKSHOP, Inc. Aspen Institute 710 East Durant Avenue ... - x 779Â¤\â‚¬798.<- - , Aspen Center for Physics Aspen, Colorado 81611 Savanah Limited Partnership (303) 925-8354 0 Y U ./ *7811.8 1 7795.8 - NX.. Ph<2.- N . k=\ \\Z---17799,7 /7/ , -- -.-1- ."--- --I--- ---N -23~9 - .1 -1 I 1 1 /X ->--L~- .ii \. 3 -3 \ I - # Utilities and Surveying: - 7770 - 0 - 3-'-- . i -\/ -1 3 1 . 1 . n - 780--f--- <- ---\~7789.5 x ,------/--\--=mEIEn>u - 7780 - -- -- 51 i - ~~ Leonard Rice Consulting Water Engineers, Inc. /4- - - (303) 455-9589/ 2401 Fifteenth Street, Suite 300 / Denver, Colorado 80202-1143 - *7806.4 , - .1. / * f' Topographic maps have not been field checked. *7803.1 4 k .4-/ 2 7-1, 27% 1 - ~-< /4 1 \\ ~<be field locatqd Grindley Bridge toj .7805 9 Preparation of topographic maps for development areas Lt-,L.- 7000 -- \ \\.3Â« .. \~.4\1 .....00011.00....0-10..I000.0 \41 \ A 1010 . 1Â©0 1 , LEGEND I ./ 0 1.- M -7840 \ x 7801.2 ~ 1%50 Existing Grades 2. 2-*7% -=*, -7850 1190 1 7803.5 -- -- Proposed Grades 91 1 1 1 Â· *7802.5 1. 1 1 I \ CL ><un-3 -+ 3/, /704 5Et ProposeÂ¢1 Water - - 43 â€¢7804.6--- -- - - - - C rn,6 Retentioh Area 1 #-\ \11 1 3.41 / 1) i i PARKING OTT MARY 4.Â«Â« Jul -X-\ \\ 23,3/ e '. Academic Facilities 91 Spaces h 1 ~. ...1 f f j + 1 447844.82 \\ (Existing) -dr---- \ 1Anderson Park-- x LOT 1 ~ 4 ~~ ~~ ' coi~~-Â·9 -- - ~ ~ 2~~~ <~~ .:~843.7 '' '. - 4 9 - 11 \ 411' - *f 1 -h K 7855.2 \ LOT 4 1 k i 7859.3 \ -r------ 'tx~i \ 7790 ~ 7859.4 A A \ (1 1 \ 11\ C 1 W. L. - 4 7846.5 \ x7861.2 ~ .~ * 7856.3 Acha*,1*ex . -\1\ Â»F-Centecline OLProposad Pedes 1 " ' 'Trail Eal@ment 17 8%~ 0 Grad , \40/1 \ 0 NX I $ . / 00 - -4 , R 10 7866 5 0 17857.9 / l R \ A -644\ \ 1- 25 f h 7856.4 ) 7 L 3 //- I 7858.8 . 740 0%< - 30 -- f -11 K / â‚¬ f' 9-4 0 4 1\1 1 - \\/ 1 r /i <r/, - 7840 7867.0 1 h *2\ \ 0 78574 - x 7858,4 7850 - Lf /9/9 i 271\ ~~; * 785 &~5~~~ --~-~i-xExisting_pedestrian Trait- 4- N-1 \7864 â€ž/ - - f 11 0/ WL. 1 \ \ .6 -- 2 / r--W-% 1 - \ \* 1 f 7857.3 1 -\ ~JÂ·-Â·A.._ A--_-,ib . 7860 - - "'Â· 4858,4 -_26 1% 10 - 'Ch (\ \ ~~h Ill 711 122-1 ./2. 0 \42-1.-0 yxi-X\\ 1 - Â»9Â»17-04 Cil 016,9 E (- 12Â£ 6 Scale: 1"=50'-0" \ ic.,3 Obi 1 ~ 1/ \ 1 \ 1 ,/-\53 1 1 111 V \ , / 11 1 1 IN 0 25 50 100 150 200 North 11)/2 /1 \ / i - / * 7863.0 ~ L 46~~h / f~paepcke: 11 V / ; l Auditorium_~ _ 3 Date: March 1, 1991 , 7867.2 785 58.9 L 2 ~ Fli Sheet Title: 441 <)1 4191 - 91 spaces ,' / f & C<&*s-- / /09 1 \ 3 f i \9 0 1-// - 1 t \1\ / \ 1 LAYOUT & L / 41, < i Â£*i Li 1 111 1 ~ t~ $ 4.-91;=, ' <k : - -0 2,33 %~Al- .0 Â® fi I LOT~ ' 7865.61 b Z-1 r"108 i Ve + 1 3 GRADING PLAN- , 5 - -It)(id \ / ~ Â¥ :!N#. D L/7 , m -. 1%10 . ..1 1 ~-~1-,6*j i 'r -Pisk AREA 3 CD 1 7865.4 , L . s , 1. rea> /2\/ * ~ ~ ~~<~~ ~ --668 0/1 -T / tb h 71 ,, Cri 6 1 ./ 4/ liz~931Â«-- 7.- / 1 prbboidd Building ~Addition / I. \\ h- L. , 7~-il , N -. - 74 71 ~ ~< ,< .a'Pl - 7099 A 1 wi- j l,In- ji \ i (7868.8< /-]t ~__*JU / --6&: 4 Sheet Reference Plan Sheet NoÂ® V Â© 1991 Design Workshop, Inc, \ U 7 'vv'.--- .- d k-- \\ Â£ -*fl ,- 1 L 1 / 0 L x 7866.5 4 - 1 Music -- 4' 1 4. / 43 4 . N /-\ C \\ \ ' 1 1 1- I 17870.8 \ t Tent - -0 L ' It \% \ i. 1 f /1 11* \ 1 / L.14.1- \4 1 .1 1 7860~ 17871.5 4 ---rl--i~. C C coe $-Â· ~ I: I. ~ i ~ 4 4 t, ~'/ 'ew *7869.7 ....i 4 The Aspen \1 \->0Â«4 i/ /- v- L / Ocr , ~ W f Bermeaeating Area : f <E Meadows ~ 7869.3* C /0*FLIi#0#1 iril'.-,I) 7 ' -4.Â·Y --0 1 \ K. 'r,3 f \ .1,4 0-/ f.-61 1 New Performance/ Area 6 j Xr- Final S.P.A. Development Plan 7870- ~A < - Concrete .. Y 1 Rehearsal F26#Ity < \\ / rf -- S*lge Meadow - Â· *Grass bovered mound ~ < / LOT 1 4. LI 7 = -zi ,L11- i \ , , 4 ; Client: Landscape Architects: / \'.41 A , 4 /1 - O~en Space~< ~ / \A f f.1 4 .. . / 4./- :/) ? 1 // (1 \ iff C + i .) 7/-99> 1/ 1.1 irt,ArrETAL----K . ./ 1 1 1/ LOT 2 1 â‚¬ Music Associates of Aspen DESIGNWORKSHOP, Inc. / +<42 '- Pedestrian/ Bike Trail along ro*Â¢ . 1 \ \ - 1- Aspen Institute 710 East Durant Avenue 2 1 1. /// 11 -2 .1 /1 , Aspen Center for Physics Aspen, Colorado 81611 1 \ 1/, . 4. / r . Savanah Limited Partnership (303) 925-8354 \\ 1 1 1 4:. 1 *7875.0 6 1\ c Utilities and Surveying: ~~ fl-/- ,.. \ . 4 f k .\/ 1/ 42-2-2-7- \ -- ~~~ -- ~1~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~* Leonard Rice Consulting Water Engineers, Inc. ~Â»1~ L kv 1 -------vkim IDCA'Tent Location ~., - L - i ,-4 \\14 -Li\\-7,) ir i,F - . / ~ -2 -3-4 (303) 4559589 / 2401 Fineenth Street, Suite 300 / Denver. Colorado 80202-1143 v \1 Topographic maps have not been fieW checked. 1% 4 19-' \ \/ C L -1- 12 4 j ~ Preparation of topographic maps for development areal --4 ' /Â·\ 1/ -- rr-YTI \\ ill -i -- -\ \ r Ni / / \ --L Â· -- \ - X \ \ \100'4*rn 6. - stices 1 . 1.- 4/. -Â»4fs\\ \ . LOT 3 ~ . li .- 0. 42 0 â€¢Lr 114 Parking spaces '' :LEGEND / \ \ \ N -7870 -_/Ul Ill 1 1 4 jig - I / 1 ,\ . . -'.\ '\20-t-=\F .. , \ \ \\ 11 Existing Grades Â· \\\\\--01\ 1 l ; yiâ‚¬ 1@782 4 .. - 111 j i ~ 1' 4 --56- - Proposed Grades H 7\ -201 , 1 1 1 / \ i _114~ / c. I .i./. 14 - _run \\\ 1 , 1.1/ f j ) \-1\\ \ \ 11 .10% le . I .ill\\ \-ljr-En \\\\ / Â· \ \ 0 \ 1 51 ~oetcher Â£ ~~~"'Â£iÂ·Â·Â·Â·r~ 1- c>w \1 7;?F\\1 2 Â· \ - PARKING SUMMARY 881.4 Barrier mittioelineatedparking Bos SAo . -14-n . Ni AA Parking 274 Spaces ' .1 5 +~ u~ r-~-- C 1 L fi~ f M.H.. - 0, 3 0 4 ' 1 1_1 , 0\ , 1-- / I 0 % *. , Bus *78 78.2 - 1 - - h ---- , I. 4 7879.5 1 , - - --I - 71\ 1- ..*- l. 2 \ / 41- ~--/-- - -- -- 4 > -- , f . Physics CeN~ 78787* ~ric-~_. '' A rÂ« 7 -a \ IX<\1 a j i Singlehroilt[ots \ 1 - - Tr j \6 4 5 r r. ./27 -A / \Â»C-,2,6 +Pes, 7 /1 1 , 1 4 GILLESPIE STREEI + > 4 - E, 4 1-\ 0 / ri ./ L--11 - .il-1-2 1< C \ 7883.4 ' 2 \ 1 - / / -I . 1\ - .C \ .- 7--- / 12-Y 1 - 43 *1 (42 1 f ./ - 1 6 - -5 (if R-15 Lot Size is used) / 00003 @ 7883.66 -\ \ K \ AdditionA} 3000 SF -1 8Â·347 41-jb ~ 6 j -0- 1,1 1--1 / he- */.2/ ./<.I \ /1 -1--~~~X- %- 111 'U-~ 1 M.H. / ----2- . 1<19./ . 1 1 LOT/7 ----Ii-I-- ger 1- - Ap--~~,Â·-5-~ LJ . 0 -~ i 1 9 9 4 0 - K --1 - - %404\ 9 L.T-~3 0 421 \ r 7883.0 Ch A M.H._ - 7 / Additional Building Envelope s ti 4 0 Lum=t=32-~- - 4 -0 ((3\\\ - 0 ' LO F 1 1- (if R-15 Lot Size is used --- //7: N " 1 -'. / 1 , <--Tpla 1.-1<7-- -'.-71 3 ~ \ M.H. \ -3/6 -3 0/1 1.44 1 ~ 1 + Scale: 1"=50'-0" -A v,-, 0 -0- 0 6 4 1 1 'e - / / / ---- f t-- ~3 \3---ff-->,- iÂ«f i ~A CO till EP ~ ~ /- 64 0 25 50 100 150 200 North \\ /131 , 1, . - Sh . Or *7885.6 /--' -/ ( 7 . 4% / , 1 (-6-0 9 Of~> _21F -3 4/3 7-y *7884.2 1 966 1 - . Date: March i, 1991 - pu 7 L , 1 4 -. I. --/ -, - -4 ). 1 fill.0.0.'J TI 'Du le- 1-i --------l - 1 - -1,- 7885 81 , /0-1 ~ ~ Sheet Title: w \ 11 \/ 2. 4 d J- &- 56 - - - 14 7886.5 l - ' I. - - -- ' ~ NORTH 1 7885 5 STREET /Non . j V vii x 7884 7 , (,%226-1, Proposed accets p r side 5 X7888.5 /-h <ph \ \ /-Â»7. 000-0 --- New Intersdotibn ff S dntli~ ----#-1--- I &8*North $Â¢eht - 01--1 44*-O '2 6. Vi-F~ 1 6 LAYOUT & 43 1 \?eA- ~ '*4rG~ 3 GRADING PLAN- 1 ....46 J :1 ft ~ OC - Â«Â»fl-(9/lf- 0 0 D. k~,t ~~: 19- 71 \ 1\ \ ;t . < m, 6 AREA 4 1 r-1 ...1 L,8 XG 2 ...... 4 1 1 . -- --Il --ill.- -ill- --*--I.- -I--- -I-1--- -A ----- -il---J,Â£ .-~-9 . 4,0.7-2 --------- ~ r~ \ 0- h Â¢/El 0 * 1- -1 .~122-, Â» 1-1- 63 Sheet Reference Plan Sheet No. Â© 1991 Design Workshop, Inq@ _ 0 0 0 3 11 7 i 7758.4 e Aspen \ h~ Aff 1 eadows dj--- j j Gons 1 :A. Development Plan 41/ l 441\-j~fi)/ Landscape Architects: Aspen DESIGNWORKSHOP, Inc. 710 East Durant Avenue i b Lysics Aspen, Colorado 81611 rtnership (303) 925-8354 43 4 eying: )nsulting Water Engineers, Inc. fteenth Street, Suite 300 / Denver, Colorado 80202-1 t43 1 1; ~ to Rio Grand4 ~ of topographic maps for development areas maps have net been field checked. 7 AÂ»u A A ift \f VI . 1.lili & F 1 \ Co\(erâ‚¬ ND 22 Aar \ 1 g Vegetation Rem( A ~~ Town Deciduous Trees / 11 Par *7768.7 \ Evergred~Trees \ -- \i \Â«4 Shrubs Manicured Landscape :d Planting V Cottonwood Trees -2 1 - Aspen Trees -308 K 7776.5 1 Evergreen Trees (Spruce, Pine, etc.) -23 Shrubs -300 Bluegrass Turf/ Manicured Landscape Seeded Native Grass and Sage 0 x 7779.3 200 North 1 Date: March 1, 1991 ew Sheet Title: x 7782.8 3 1 - PLANTING ~ 3 PLAN \ Â«In ...\,.1 ~S~K AREA 1 x 7784.5 Nan Sheet No. Â© 1991 Design Workshop, Inc. 1 I .. a - 40. I 4 0.- .... . 1 00 , .. 4 ... . 0 .0 . .. r:lia --1 2.8 I . -..- . 0 A.. 0 / 41* ilill ; 5:iltilLillilli 8 0- 4, iM-34- 4 a . 0 0 ... ,1, 40 . 0 10; - .0 . . 1 0 0 0 - 1 0. . . 4,4. Il I f i l I ./ . I I , C' - --- . , 4*Av~- -: le - , ..: . 01 0 1. :It Aillillill : ...4 1 W o :FL,LV'-Fl/MI .. 0 05 40.4./ 0 ,â‚¬@ ...: ~0 0. . 0 00 .00*I'llill'llilillilillillililiMi./.~will'll'll/& 4/1/ a.O 110' ........1 ElliaÂ· 00 0 - ---10 # all 1=a - . 90 ...Wi,#6 - , -. .. /12&~ Filib FF&14~#LA - t.rett 4 - 4/A.* .00&*41".00*00 '.,~ Â« ..P \ - -#1-0 'â‚¬0 */* 4. Aâ€¢ma , :. . ..0 -li:19-I./</rl 0 . 0 --2 .9 r-7,0 : 'fr covi .. 6â€¢ . 0 . ... a. ...â€že tei *,.e . -- Wiatic)'llip 42*A . ... a. .. 0 ., 'Al. AÂ¥ jii,i=~ ,- : 0, 6 1 -o , . +AJ{i:*2 9419..449~/bri .14,4 - li A 40000000000/ 1 1 . , A-6 1 2.- L - 16 - 0 0 0 i. 19<17009.* -i-.-IV-'-0. :, 4- pilÂ®&! ~~41~ 1'.* 410:0. 4.ge 04& -=~4 % 44: b 4.-0 0., . 0 0-0 - . . I . 0 - 00â„¢ . 0 0 4 -- W ./0 -0101.4 241*23Â¥- *:594/I â€¢ 9 1 I . 0 0. %10 . ..... 4 .... -atÂ¢*,~ 1 . 4 . Go 0*1'/ 4, .. 1 426, 1,4 1 1. '1 I 1 4)-1 \Â¢t 4\\ 1 Q 1 \1 ~~ . ELY ....11/. 0 .\\\\0 1 \ f . , Â» --~ .... <1 4 *\\\ \S i \ B *7787.3 , f 1 \\\\ it \ ' / The Aspen f - \ 7. 0- ' , 2 4 1 1< 1 j j ... \\\\\ i 3... 99\ 4 1 . ' '' 1.-4--G ' ~ Relocated Tennis Court . I . . . \: Â« Meadows C. \ fi 1.. -~ Nj ?~ p f Â·7793Â·1 / ~ 9 -:Ii-t; Â· Final S.P.A. Development Plan â€¢ 1 5 .. 4 4\ f 1 \ /, 01 ..1 '.... ... ' .. 2 -- .. \ 11 . .... . ... . ... ....../ I , 1 - 41- \0 46 f f k C Â£ Mit Client: Landscape Architects: / 1 1\ 0 .\ mt / 1 1 1. 1.23 69.2/ M 1 "1 1 1 ... Music Associates of Aspen DESIGNWORKSHOP, Inc. 710 East Durant Avenue Aspen Center for Physics Aspen, Colorado 81611 .. . r ki < Savanah Limited Partnership (303) 925-8354 ~ ~ 7803.8 \. I - I. W. L. 7798.2 T 'f i 1 11 . 1 1, .. - \ L - , Utilities and Surveying: W\jil i d 4 1.1 . 1 - 2% 21- \1\ 0 ''... - Leonard Rice Consulting Water Engineers, Inc. .. 11,2//fl 1'7 (303) 455-9589/ 2401 Fitteenth Street, Suite 300 / Denver, Colorado 80202-1143 1\ f 1, ,10 /,9. F - 1 ,. 1 - 1 Preparation of topographic maps for development areas / 1\ / ,/ .' J Â¢ i //1(1/ 1.2 . 1\\1 1. . / Topographic maps have net been field checked. ./ 17797.3 ..1 2 r. 1 Ilt:. . 0.\ 1 \.\ 1 0 r --1 1 - t.'.. I . /1- 4 ij I ..-' \ \ h. 4 I . . , i 1/f Race Trac~ I I ./ \ \\ . .. /71 \ \ < 11 .* 4 I h r, flemovAAsp al ~ ,:Â·, , : c Â·~ ~ Open Space .. 1 \14 1\ - Existing Vegetation \1\. -- -*' 1 1 ' d rev eta e v f8Â°t-i~9~l h i 12 j ~~~ 7, / 11 4 \\ i 4-1 ./ . h n .- -1 CD Deciduous Trees . \ *pl'* L Â· 4 11''Ill 401\\\\44 \Â« 1 A i .. ....... \.. .. . . /1 \ . 11" C : '~ 5, '%tr ~hk-- ~ ~ - . .4 2- 1 $ f / - : ipk . ....\ 7 CED Shrubs -- 4 ! 1/ i hi i .. Manicured Landscape 1 .... f // \ \ â‚¬)1* Evergreen Trees 1101 ~ . - 1 1 1/1 .. 7\ 63\; \ . 1 . . \ \ i - ' Rj Pedestrian Trai i \ 6\\ Proposed Planting * 9â€ž , 01[1 , ... / 6 444 1Â»ov\ ' t - 41 - 1 l7810.7 1 -3/ - koÂ»Â« 111 . 1 1 - ~\1\ 1 1< li L~P / 1<< ft tÂ» 41/ * i f /- I. \ b 13 j 19.Â· {61.-of ** asement \\ \\ ... I. j Â· 9-7 \ . L. Tra\\ E-- Cottonwood Trees -29 . i Â«Â«1) j ,-- . n Ca-~-: F 1 a Aspan Trees 4,7805.2 i \r 1 <f 4 \ ti * 11 --- / 474) f ?f/ftÂ¢~ff<fÂ«(1-11~ 4 3/- - X .0 .. .. 4 \. m V . 7872.3 * Evergreen Trees (Spruce, Pine, etc.) \Ch 78\0.61 1 I- 1~ Shrubs -44*-Â«- -1ff-,- 11 '11 i Bluegrass Turf/ Manicured Landscape ./ Â· , 5 2-. 1.- i r?Â·K':1 Seeded Native Grass and Sage - x 7810.1 1 ~,< * 7875.87 x 7879.8 . --2-2 1-1 \ 3 1 7814.6 ~ I i L ho \ . . . . . .... I / I h / . ' '.. \ ) 1 1 1/ 7 ( j < <~lf ~ New intersection of - - - - 1 ------~----~ Scale: 1"=50'-0" 7th and 8th Streets 3 . 1 ilip ./ 1 (4 ce- /;' 0 25 50 100 150 200 North 1 \9 1141- 1 r) / 1 q r -#. 0 117878.3 /9 h)\ K f j /- 0 f / Â« 4/ ~ *7883,~2~#j~-2 ~\\111\41Â«\ \ 0 Date: March 1, 1991 New apcess from Ill 111 'll' 1~ 0 { C f . //-- -\ '--7fh Street-- .. r ,--m < Sheet Title : r *7883.9 XEÂ·34 4\ 44% - 11-- /-=-=4884.17 e 1 178795 -Ip -1~ - 77 -Mr- . I -\ 0 1 LOR ..12.- C.W V-1,11- PLANTING *7882.3 1 0 ./d ~/ ~~Zh i A 7 1 { - / / ty. ) f/Â»4 ~ < 1:Zcf U--7 ? . 7815.5 \ Â£ -- 1 . f=A 3,27 . 4,0% / 1 ---- -7-1 1 7820 9 7 1 7819.7 - ) 4 7 1 + , *i.~~-:~ 8 % ~L' \ 1 < - 1 64-1 1 7 - 29 10 Â· C l) f , ..... AREA 2 i. )1 / l 1 7885.6 7886.8 K 1 -0 r -1 Â·Â·~ edÂ·-3-- 1 \MB Ulm <c / P= 4 4 . Â¥ dic / % 1 1 11/ \ 7883,91 1 I---- 1 0 0 V - 11 1- L-10 / - 5 94-4 -mud <7880.8 ~ ~~~ I ' C- -Ii--- --I // 40/07 \ 8 + I ; r\'. , Sheet Reference Plan Sheet No. Â© 1991 Design Workshop, Inci 7830 0 0 0 0 1 $- / NOÂ·k , ' 1 , 1 /7 1 /7 -. 1 \ 6 1 -09 -i--2-1---I' -'.*.~~~~~Cx-7-1- c- ---- 7863.6 x , if ' 1,4 - wt"$#-----< 1- j 1 --,OK-\.1, - %<3< -86642-~ - NU- ~~~~ 7230~~fl f \ x~ The Aspen 64 uu'b.S - . 7855.4 1 --7954.5x K , 4\\ I * 7854.6 1 11 -b - , 1010\X . -----I- ----- -- - ---< 1 - -- -Â» 41 4 U U . 4 ' ' 3- _ _ _____ _ \ 4 - PJ 4 %- -- --% 3-Ex \ __ . * t. V 11 Meadows ~ 1,3 1 14 1 1 , \ - 1 -- 78&0 -~ - 4- . /1- .1 h \ \ 1 %, ...1 11 I ; x 7847,1 ~/71 - -~~--~12_2___ . -3----- >4\\\ U Â» -+ j -6- 1 7827.5 . r- I -reao . /- 4 . r 1- , I . . I 5 - - 4 ..4 1 1 Final S.P.A. Development Plan Â¥ 7 _~-1 . #. 1 , \ .1 r A R / 3\ \\ A 7793.9 z , 7 79-~ --- - t830 - - \\ - W + ~ \\ \\\ 2. 1 . <'\ W x 7791 7 -- - s . W - + 4 - - 44_ - - ~ - pa00 Client: Landscape Architects: *- -Â«044 )- -4~ 77'rup\\ 4 -- - 7820 --f T ' c,-\ &- - , - I- 1 41. C....4 Music Associates of Aspen DESIGNWORKSHOP, Inc. - .- -r ' -7790-4217 799:1~zl.-- 5 Â· 1 Aspen Institute 710 East Durant Avenue - 3 + - \\ \NON \7<11 - ---- -\.. ~~~~~222--37780- ~ fx ~ Aspen Center for Physics Aspen, Colorado 81611 .; Savanah Limited Partnership (303) 925-8354 3 - 3-4.- . , ' = *7911Â· 8 0~ - %- -0 1 - -t- Ul 22-/U - Â».. 1-1- 17794-\ NX.2 /-// />/ ~ ~~~~~~~~-~7799.7 . h t.. ' . 2 \. -1 '- - L:P -- v 4-Â»a-- - -0-Â»N \ , f Utilities and Surveying: - \\ \--- 40 - //-97Â»-0 - I M f 7770-----* - ..-*- Ne h ~-ca~- ------_- ___--- k - r~/ - h.-N . h 7810- L ./ N- - -: \ 7789.51 ~ ~ 7,An -,-~ ~ N \,0- \\ 9\ Â· 1 - -- - Â· /'th Leonard_Rice Consulting Water Engineers, Inc. 00 / Denver, Colorado 80202-1143 hic maps for development areas not been field checked. Ifc ation i Trees Trees .Landscape ng d Trees :s - 11 Trees (Spruce, Pine, etc.) Turf/ Manicured Landscape ive Grass and Sage e 0 200 North Date: March 1, 1991 Sheet Title: PLANTING PLAN AREA 3 L-11 Sheet No. Â© 1991 Design Workshop, Inc -- .\ 0 .. 1 1 . .. : 0.- 0 1.1 1 . 7 0 .:0 . .. .-IT - -pliA .. 0 -0-1 . :... .Ill. D ... .. .: 4.%/ r .. .. 0 0.194â€¢ . I :4, 31 0 0 0. .. A '. 4.940, 0 A ... ... - .... : 4, - / 4.- .1 4 4, -Fr . . . .. - - 0.4 .1 I.V. :.. . /4 4, Ad...A * ./047 * . 11 , 0 0 00 ' . I'llill 4 - -- ... ~ - 0 1-1 -19 11 4/I=Im -41 / - .. ... .- 09.~ e '2 ..I - 1:A: .... -0.92.~S- . .. , \ . ...3-11 4 0 r - -- le... '1 ----*-aJ L 4bm 4 - 05*00 - . I --1 N 5., iw .. .... . D -- ? N 41,9 \94, ..3 9 e Aspen [eadows :A. Development Plan Landscape Architects: f Aspen DESIGNWORKSHOP, Inc. 710 East Durant Avenue lySiCS Aspen, Colorado 81611 irtnership (303) 925-8354 veying: ;onsulting Water Engineers, Inc. -ifteenth Street, Suite 300 / Denver, Cobfado 80202-1143 - of topographic maps for development areas maps have not been field checked. END ig Vegetation Deciduous Trees Evergreen Trees Shrubs Manicured Landscape ed Planting Cottonwood Trees - 11 Aspen Trees - 238 Evergreen Trees (Spruce, Pine, etc.) 5 Shrubs Bluegrass Turf/ Manicured Landscape Seeded Native Grass and Sage 0] 00 150 200 North Date: March 1, 1991 Sheet Title: F PLANTING 3 PLAN 11/er-f AREA 4 -) 7, c <4 f . .... 1- (-3<17890- LIt- ;F~A (f--jjÂ«-~ 914 f ~ ~-4 -r-*- \-J-' . 4 L-12 - A ~j ---- -------.cri'-0- - I 141-= Sheet Reference Plan Sheet No. I- - ~ --1/- - - Â© 1991 Design Workshop, Inc~ 1 1 --,4----e- ; L /9.- \ -4 - *- .fl /. / -7- , - ... ...-6.64 \ ... , '6,-A ..Irt 1 ... 0 0 0.10. a 12.- ... 0.1.0 - v . 0. 4,1 1 F 14 .0 e . â€¢4 6 I. 0. 6 *'it 0 .. A . -0 :. . 0 .1 0 08 0 A - â‚¬ . . do . ... 0 0. 0 0 0 e: .4 0 . ... 0 00 . ..- 92.10-ja er. ..9 . .... ... 1, A . . . 0 0* A 0. I Â¥ ....D , ... 01 ...1. ,wai . 0 -0 lial --â€¢@462,/fle&*2/4 4. * ViA: 0 0.0 -./.4/lillillillill.~~~/0/.-foilillitlimm/ : 0 a lA - ... VAY,9/1 . .. . 0. N. Â¥ . 1, 4. r.- Fâ€¢/1 .â€¢ ....ew.Mkm' . Aje ~L 0.... .4 1, 0. .00*~~AA 6-0 0,0 - pi '20, 10. 1 6 0. .9000*e 0 1 0 0 e 0, ....8 - a..IN.1 0 I...- .=a,2..1 e~ 10 '. 44â€¢'i--0-0,0WK:.1* - .. ......A .. : 1 - toff :%' 0 -..Ill".82..59." 0 42'" k :: .. AA"/,LAM.i/"900:0/0//0/.V .*B .... . . .. . 0400 1 14 1 . ... ... .. .. 0. 0 . .I. ; - .... 0 0. 7 0 1 I'llill 8 0 00 1 1 "I'llill: 1 0 --- jall -,48"1' ... .. 4 .. =:.. ... .. .. .. ... I. . 8. . - .- . =).0..gAl .. 1 #0\ : 9,4-==b a -4.. ... ~ . 1 1 . 9 d I . 926 O 0 The Aspen Meadows * fz \ i i 7,90) \\ I \ R.\ \i -711,1 C <-r, -ft> p ~) f i Final S.P.A. Development Plan I io 11)70//0/ -/,1/1 5 4 3 4 4..hh LIGHTING AND SIGNAGE PLAN '702'. 1 . 1Â»11% 4--1 1 C ~ 1 / ' \\ Client: Landscape Architects: LAil _ 34-- : 4 Music Associates of Aspen DESIGNWORKSHOP, Inc. I XE-1 yx.\- e 3 - . 6%1 - -=--=2-- Aspen Institute 710 East Durant Avenue C 1/ 1/1 / Â« Â».1\ \% : VIle ,. ~ '1 1 f k 1/* Aspen Center for Physics Aspen, Colorado 81611 .\ r .Ckl .-- -<333Â»...222=14=22: \Na \ Savanah Limited Partnership (303) 925-8354 \ Â«-EÂ»%89Â» 1 \..4 l. r.->, 0, 1 1\% 61 'Â·. 1 0%/ 7 \ 1 N .... ..... \\ 2\\ \\~2~. 0 100' 300' April 1991 11.00/ ~ 4Â¢* i ....\Ili~-4 1 \ ..... . \\ \ Â»1 1.1 551, \ \ \ \ 1 c1 < Note: This drawing is illustrative and not to be used as '754Â·0. % construction documentation r \/. f -3 3 1 . .Â· bage l errace NOTES Jii ) U -- I:. e 1 / '21 Ut r--====---===-=*--=-Â·--7-/ : , yopen SpaceÂ«n Â· Building addresses and numbers to be on walls of buildings with -Â·~ A 42 - downlighting from concealed light sources. / /% \ \L t' 1 LOT 4 Â· There will be no street or site lighting other than low level lighting for . . pedestrian trails and downlighting on building walls. All light sources 4 .~ will be concealed. 4 ~~honservation Land : N--.-~ i \\ Â· There will be no lighting for the tennis courts. - ---- -7 -.- k I.- I . 100 - -- -- %- 1 - - - LEGEND , ~~ f Â«lor_f // .5/// \99 9 094 (t //< A Stop Signs I / / i , c: Â· /, Proposed pool .- Wl . //// //i' , , /.; j/f,f~7proposgd.Builqim; Additionti <1 . ~ 2 New Townhouse T Initq/ 6 O Informational Signs 3 .\/, ' f. . 1 /1 / rh //1 / \ ,f 1// / f 274.4 N . U *87. 2 f/ Striping on road/pedestrian trail crossings / \ 4 1 4 'l \ j / \\ li r 1-4~4\ \% . , \Illi ./:1 Pedestrian trails lit by low level freestanding light \6 - // lit l 1 \ C ~ 1.I \;/i ,Â» 91\ Covered Parking : i . li:Â£11 8,3 22 Parking Spaces i: 3\V, 11 1 fixtures with concealed light sources . 11 \\\ â‚¬Â©nterline of Proposed Trail Easement ~ . C<r K */1 L U# 6 1\ '/4 '"52. '266 5. 1 \ \ i - hex #'llir r.. Â«Â«-- 1 \Â© w 1 2 xek \ , 414 ,\ \CK \\ \ , 0.1 O\ 1 \1\ - 1 VU 1--0 ---- \ i :\\V \ - -\ 1\4 1 C Remodeled 0 \A \ 1, 44,\ /14 \ - 9 ;Ari::26!, 74..44.- i ' 1- #.' & 5.-a~ix . , i C 1- *Â©*4-7. 111Â»\\ .. - \,2 \ 7<.3.94 . 1 - '85414 N \\:\\\\> Trustee Townhouses . 41Â»943\ . -- 11 Parking Spaces ja- --Â«-------------_-,_-221~337-) 4 - 1 \\- / U 1.-4-- 1 .:\ 1./1/ -> L -- 1. . I , r\ \. Â» .4 I 1 4, \ . 1 1 .......... - -- - \ \ I... / -- \ \ f. ---- -- 1 I /9 --- . \\ , N \ ~ ~ New Townhouse Unit <~~ 1 - . - - -- -.. - .' \ , / -*thÂ«,- ~ - -1 i 1 -7 , r-r: 1 \ - I 4 1 5 , 1 \ 1 \ 4,0 \% - -ca==r \\\\ \ .- N 'dbo \ 1 h \4 - -h- N 11% 1 -*--- 1 f---- 1 .= \\ I i .\ 1 1 1 4\ 4 ~ a: ~ ~ - %1 -- f.. 1 \\ \\ 96<0 /- I--I- .- -24. - ------ \1,2 t_2 -~*-TA3-- / / 6 7 . h .4 4% . 4% \ I --- .\ %% \\9 \~--- \\\ .. -\ -*4'-< 7..1-\ \\ 0..b.J"Effili#~EW;Â£EIE;;irr#....t - 1/ \20 3 .' . - Â« . ka=h- -7\- >----EVI - ' i-- 1- ..\ \ ~ 4 \343 h 1% 1,/,\ % 1 -- -1.- -% 42 / n iiI f 9 21 ,(21 .* -/ .; E---, .Â»Â«i-iu~...2- - *4 \ :--22~~122 1-79-14 - - 47,962< 4. 04 1 4 1 - Restaurant '9Â«91 44 .---=nut--2.TZTEkth' O , Meadows Building Addition Vi.9, 45-pi*Â»W*ra,tpntipn_At*24- ---- , .Â¢1.. 1, 1 + 7728 Â» . .. --- 1 --14 64 ~ ~ : Proposed Deck ' ' ' 1 7 - fÂ«46Â·/ 4.2 Â»,7 4 . 4 - 4,\ 14 -- L /lilli , : Centerline of Proposed Trail Easement \% \ Â£ 1 4 1 /"/\412023359/ F .4-2 N. i i \ 10% Grade Max. -' -, \%00--N \\ 1~\\\ 1 -2 \\ 1 --ry<' 1 1 1 I V lp(93 '02 Â«-___~ ~ ~-1 1 1: *4inderson r/299// \\ N \1 :11 li il/+ - / if Public Bicycle Trail L-11 i ... I I I :3 :Lof\~Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·-2~~- 2 <~ LOT 1 ; ) 011 el, ) 1 1 I \ \% .11 1 L /7 , 1 : \1 - &- tr K-- 1 ---1 T- 11 1 - -- -- - _ Private AcceÂ®(Only ---- - ./r .4 . i ' 1 '\ CE - I 992-67 .// \ / 11 1 - 1 6 WÂ«==:11 . #03., - / ~ 7 New Townhouses 16 , -3 1 .2-- - - Pedestri ils i hy ow level frees I -1-\ /,1 . __ - 4[i tra ]'1" I X i i /10 L_.1 b=44 ~ LE- _ -- 12 111 .e 1 Stop Sign c x -- c orage___1 l / /, - . ' ---- f- kndinq'' ht i Â· , \ Al- fixtur. W ~ j concealed light so / / -El=J X -- esl ith i urcws 7 -- /1 \ 1 1\\ Â«\----- + -7Â£- x 0 ..\ , Covered Parking 14 Space \ - ,-11 2 -- , - 1 11 ; \\\ 1.\- - / I Â£\ /4 / /- \1~\\ .6 __--1~f~~~ 7790/ -Â·...,_~Â£/ Additional-Parktng 7 Spaces 1 ~ 1~71-~~ 1 ~ . -il- /, 0 443*ti~~ ''/ :.. , 2. i 44\-- 00.C 1. : . ~st Â· / -N .. 1 ----N \ ----------- \ I N--/ 1 i / .\ / 0 i... \\ / l /'- I \ \ . .280*. 0-.. 4 11 .)*Â£*-1 - ~ i :41%*/Tri,-7--3.1.-I---* *,AD 1 t\\ \ \\1 4...\ ...16- \ 1 , \ I - 35 moo - -b---2404\19X -- *I - Ii. ,\ 1 --/ - 1 . - ./.- 14 .... "ll --. A:. \ c\>. C /-1\. 1 rk Â£ C " /-- ---J . M ;\\\ ' 1~0_-1- Caution akers \12\\ \2\0\0-1----1 \42. \ 3.0 \ 32 \ 9 ...1~2.-h.....~ -* 9 \ \\/\ \\ 2 10\ l, ..2\ \\\\ Fork *1 Caution Cross Traffic ~ - ~ i <8 Lines"on sides -offoad Â»~ '2"' , \\\ \ \\ 5 3 /1 1.9 k \ \: \ r--- \01 \\ \ 1 1111 12 1 i Â»N R\\ \; 3:Â», 1 -f-,f4~~ring k*<*- ~ River . 7. --/ 7 / Tennis Courts relocated L/j ' , 77.7 , %119// . 1 RIVER I *11'l? /1 1 t 1 - /14/ / i 1 67 5 \ 1 .1\. 1 . 1 \ r-- 97 Spacds . -h e / r/---7790------ ---- 0 4- \\ \\ 1 J 2.1 , ,~ -f l /< l 1 . 1-i-1 - 11 i I I \1100 \\ \ I. 11 1 \\\ . Â»70: 14>* M' Paepeke Audiftiriqi#j - 11~ 11 9-9- Cl 0 J 'j C'r-r-1' 1 1 \1| \ \. ,~79RJ \ 1011.1 j~ Â· f ~ ~~*f] ij ii-~4-0~ c# li % Â« 4+:. < ~ 444*64-~r \~ OAL- ~ - - ~ // / \ j\ -\Â».*K /.-------- , V \-\ N/ - - /--Ill Relocated 'hukis Court ~ 04 t~u -ill---///- r- h /40/ \ // \ < .- - 1; 1 ---- r--- 7 -%' f // --- ./ iti ' \ ./ \ 3\ Peddltrian TIpit + f-1 , \ 7 9 \11 -\-0 y. 1 l/// a . ------e--_Ck~ 1% , Existing Paved Area ---- f /111 1 </7 \ .*--;. ..\\ u 2695 h -4 ~Â«tr 8 ' 1 ' ~91,#paces ~ / hil ic / Ng bike~.~61~dr ygh{,%62232 . 21863 --- 3 1 . f . N : 241 -0 / 0 \/ 1/ / 1% l / \ - ~4' f /' NLE j dtriping okdriveway ckssings Un ! r \ CJ 01%\ 7.4 b Bermed Seating Area -- 1 1 -1-0 4411 1~ N.11 ~ 001 , 91 - 471< ff-Â»t, Mulic Tent 1, 4. ./ 1.?l. ./ -04 1- \ , f \ f /534,/ /./ ** 1 \ : 45.6. f A / 71 t..11/ / h <11 . / 1 \ \\ f \\\ / 9 1 1 - 2 . : 1 1 f.1 1 K \ \ .----5-- j :4~: j VJ -7 - ~ 1 1 j~,0 j ~w i 1 H. - < 111 0 " r/j' * 7605.2 /,7944 - Â« / 2---- ~ - dif --- '1 1 - '-3 1 \ / \\/ m f .4\\ \ d 1 4 ____ Race <Track 17 f \ V fol /1 < 1 ' N /.--7870hl-f 1 407/ I.Â·1. i \ L/ ./ /41 \ \ 5##/1 /) ' & 1.1 j l \ . -- 1=1-l iii 1 If ./ 111 // 2 74.- /// /1\ \\\\ 11 '\ - / N. 1/ \ Open Space----n Â« / 4/ 0 +i ' Z- i- / V \ \\ / ~ m Â·Â· Ali / -1. ~ ~ - , New Performance Rehearsal Facility \ / 7 11'I -/4 1 \ \4 4 / 1*---2, / . 1111!1 I . \ 7810.6 1 IJ h :/-----\ \1// 1 1 - -21 .-- / / \ Grass covered mound -- - --h i it - V - - * 76/ / f UP--9-1 -/0.--fyi ' \ } }t / j \ 0'g .Kr-. 1 1 ' <1 1 ./\1 -n / 1 12 J li) . 4/ Phvsics Center , i / t(itti ~ @ -- --- / / /// Ir - k Caution Cras Tram h 411 n The-Aspe-riMeadowsh , 19/: / New DCA Tent Location I 1. . \ ' 1?.0 r-- C C </- > Stop Sign / ~~ -11/ V................ .... . \ l 1 92 14\ // Im ,-/'' / ;~ - ~ 1 Rilre Rack ' . j Ill )0 '-. \Wl --h. // 1 1 ,--,U ,- 1% 1 Uto'---=r-,e~-ttyN- â€¢ /\4.-Pedestrian / Bike Trail along Road 'Â· . Building Envelopes , / / 1\ \ . //ff j ___~~~~~~ L. ~~8~Q~ ~ . 7878.3 1 2. 1 160 Parking Spaces ~~ 114 Spaces /Barriers with numbered parking Ao 1 c--, 13& ....1 ---4-3 .78., Â«ffkt ff .44' . -*... 1 ' \\/ / / I .\ 09 7,17/.~ 3 29 - 1 1~4Â·y,./734~~/~~- -4'~ 4-n:=-2:0424*0 i *52 7/4 i Â»--7~{ ~~1 spaces 1 LOT 31 ..\ 3 457 / .2 E..:.Â·Â·- / 7*/ \ 1 2 8.08 h?:W / 1% /4Â·~-2 Â«.. 1---- <- us 5-6- .....................id.. -===1-..0 /|LLE Â·1,4 ~ STREET 1 . h C,L. of Trail Easement 1-Â·4 . e...a66 " 1/ v \~ ~ ~~top Sign 41,- 0 .% .Fi -- 747 1 Y / 2/7 ) rp.*64 233.<1 6 - -,6... / . .F: 2 i -1 90 2, To Aspen '427 4 2, OV X 7Â¥- -9~ \~ ; i 1Â» -:1 . 1 4 1 2_Â·4Â· 0-0 2*2- 1 he Aspen 1~jeadoWsÂ«-7 . O-9 ' 1 k L_rj .1 New Access from 7th S&reet ; - 4 / --k .-d *94Â· " -1.-p Â·M I 1 4 / 4 1 / Tz- -34 ~ ~;woR 4 â€¢ r I t S <N - 9-21 1- -1-~ fo . 7866 5 - / d )Â»-Â»\\41. \0 % 1 1 -%- 1 K-j 01,1 Â· .* r ' MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: Final Development and variations: 214 W. Bleeker St. Date: May 8, 1991 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Final Development approval for the renovation and expansion of the historic structure, including partial demolition approval and variations for parking and rear yard setback. The proposal includes the a rear two-story addition with attached 2-car garage. Additionally, a $2,000 designation grant is being requested from Council. A deed-restricted accessory dwelling unit is included within the new addition, as required by the provisions in Ordinance #1, Series of 1990. Ordinance 1 allows a maximum 250 sq. ft. bonus for above grade deed-restricted accessory dwelling units ; the applicants are proposing to use 81.5 ft of this bonus FAR. Conditional use approval from the P&Z is required for the ADU, prior to an application for building permit. PROJECT MONITOR: To be selected at this meeting PREVIOUS ACTION BY THE HPC: Conceptual Development approval was granted with conditions on this project on February 27, 1991. The conditions were as follows (staff's responses follow): 1. All dormers be gabled, with the exception of the shed dormers on the historic element. Response: This has been accomplished, however, we find that the 17:12 pitch on the dormers is too steep to be considered compatible with this structure. They appear Gothic in style, and tend to not blend with the remainder of the gable pitches. We recommend the applicant revise these to no more than a 12:12 pitch, and submit this revision for project monitor and staff approval prior to the building permit application. 2. The shed dormers on the historic element be moved as far from the south facade as possible. Response: These have been pushed to the north approximately 4' 6". The HPC should consider if this revision accomplishes the goal of preserving the original cottage roof form as perceived from the public view. . . 3. A roof ridge break be incorporated between the historic element and the addition. Response: This has been accomplished by lowering the new roof ridge and extending the connecting mass between old and new. 4. The "Eastlake" window (facade bay window), if original, be retained. Response: The bay window (actually Queen Anne, not "Eastlake") is original. We recommend that the HPC require the original glass to remain undisturbed in this window, and any preservation work to be accomplished with this window in place. This projecting window is perhaps the most significant original character defining element of this cottage, and should be carefully protected during construction. 5. That one (uncovered) parking space be (retained) to the rear of the parcel. Response: This has been accomplished. The Zoning .Officer will need to determine if the configuratidn meets code. The parking space in the front yard has been eliminated, a condition the HPC should make for Final approval and the parking variation. (Please see the attached letter from the immediate neighbor which was submitted to staff.) 6. A parking variation of one vehicle be allowed, giving a total of three (spaces) on site. Response: The HPC will need to repeat their determination that the maximum number of parking spaces is being provided on site. No parking is required for the one bedroom ADU. 7. Compliance with Partial Demolition Standards found in Sec. 7-602(C). Response: The Partial Demolition Standards are summarized as follows: The partial demolition is required for the renovation, and impacts on the historic importance and architectural integrity of the structure has been mitigated. The applicant's response to these Standards appears on page two of their Final Development application narrative. Staff feels these standards have generally been met. 8. Restudy of massing and transition between the historic and new portions and fenestration, including the dormer windows. 2 Response: The plans have been revised to reflect this restudy. Please refer to the staff's responses to Conditions #1, 2 and 3 (above). 9. Detailed preservation plan for cottage materials and architectural features, including all porch details. Response: The applicant states that "...With the exception of roofing and windows, all existing materials of the historic resource, including the porch, are in good condition and will only require minor repairs and painting". Staff does not agree with the applicant's request to replace all original windows. Particularly on the facade, these windows are important historic features, and should remain, with preservation work done in place. There are many storm window manufacturers now that specialize in window products for inside use, specifically to protect the integrity of the original window, frame and glass. The HPC may consider the option of exact replacement windows on the east and west elevations, if it is been clearly demonstrated that the original windows are beyond repair. Photo documentation may be required by the applicant. Information has not been presented on the preservation of any original doors, which we recommend be made a condition of the Final approval. We recommend the HPC require careful attention to facade restoration in this project. 10. Detailed site and landscape plan. Fencing shall be detailed, and shall be open in nature. Response: The landscape plan for the front yard (and elimination of the parking area) greatly enhances this entire property, in our opinion, and we applaud the applicant's efforts here. We are not in favor of the 6' wood fence installed so close to the facade at the south west portion of the parcel. The existing fence on this side of the parcel is located well to the south of this proposed location. A side lawn is proposed here, which would enhance the historic lawn setting of this structure. We understand that the applicant wishes this portion of the lawn to be screened for privacy, however, we feel that this may be accomplished with a lower fence profile, and vegetation. We recommend that the fence be pushed back to at least align with the east side fence location. Berming should not be included in the landscape plan. . 3 11. Massing model Response: A revised model will be presented at the meeting. 12. Material representation Response: Cedar roof.shingles and 6" horizontal wood siding (to match existing) are proposed. The porch roof is proposed to be standing seam metal. Staff recommends the ribs be as low as possible, and the color be neutral. 13. Simple streetscape elevation to determine massing/bulk compatibility with the immediate neighborhood Response: The applicant has submitted this streetscape for HPC review. Staff appreciates the detail of this illustration, which clearly indicates the compatible relationship of mass and scale of the proposed addition to the block. A photoboard will also be presented at the meeting. 14. Details of outbuilding relocation. and preservation methods to be used Response: This aspect of the proposal has changed significantly. Originally, the applicant presented conceptual plans to relocate the outbuilding on site, to the northeast corner of the parcel, which we supported. However, after further study of the loss of backyard space caused by the expanded main building footprint, the applicant how wishes to remove the south wall of the outbuilding, and the roof, leaving three sides up (including windows and the door), with fencing material brought directly to the ends of the outbuilding. This idea of leaving a facade of an outbuilding but changing it from a building to a character feature of a fence, is a new one! Its an interesting concept to consider, but has little to do with historic preservation. Keeping it in tact at a storage shed is a practical consideration that strengthens this parcel's overall historic integrity, which we strongly support. Removing it totally would diminish all historic integrity in this alley, which we also don't want to see happen. The applicant desires to have this part of the yard left open, yet retain the alley edge character. The site plan indicates that this small notch of yard will be planted with aspen trees. One option to completely transforming the building into a " f eature", would be to leave the roof in tact, or some similar alternative. Since the windows and door are proposed to remain, the roof would serve to preserve the 4 . original form of the structure. Could the proposed aspen trees be simply moved slightly to the north, just out of the footprint of the structure? If the south outbuilding wall were to be removed, should the material be stored for future repair/use? Staff defers to the HPC for this decision. VARIATIONS: The applicant is requesting a rear year setback variation of 7', in order to locate the two-car garage well to the rear of the parcel. The HPC should consider whether a finding can be made to support the required language of "more compatible in character". The HPC is being asked to grant this variation prior to the actual landmark designation Ordinance adoption by Council. In order to be responsive to the needs of this applicant, the Planning Office is willing to support HPC's Final Development approval, sublect to Ordinance adoption which must take place prior to the application of a building permit (as required by code). This is due to the variations that are being requested; variations normally are not granted to properties that are not yet official landmarks. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following alternatives: 1) Approve the Final Development application and variations. as proposed, subj ect to the adoption of the landmark designation ordinance. 2) Approve the Final Development application and variations, with specific conditions to be approved by staff and the project monitor prior to the issuance of a building permit, and subject to the adoption of the landmark designation ordinance. 3) Table action to allow the applicant additional time to restudy specific issues. 4) Deny Conceptual Development approval, finding that the Standards have not been met. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant Final Development approval for the property at 214 W. Bleeker St., finding that the development review and partial demolition standards have been met, with the following conditions to be met and approved by staff and the project monitor prior to the issuance of a building permit: 1. The final adoption of the Landmark Designation ordinance shall occur prior to the issuance of a building permit. No building permit may be issued for construction requiring an HPC variation without the property receiving official Landmark Designation by 5 , City Council. 2. The partial demolition of the outbuilding be restudied, with the goal of preserving thth structure in tact, or at the minimum retaining the roof and all walls except the south which shall be disassembled andÂ· materials stored for future repair/use. - 3.2_ Redesign the gable=*cotpitch_on--the dormers to + be less ---steep-,--no more than 12: 12. < <~. Original*facade-_W**Window=shall- be-preserved-=in=place, -includingLesigina*mglass. All other original windows shall remain and be repaired (preserved), unless determined that their condition is deteriorated past 4 the point of repair. Window replacement survey shall (4 be conducted on site with applicant and project monitor. -5. I Porch roof material shall be low rib standing seam 0\ metal. Fencing visible from street shall be open in nature. Fence line at southwest corner of property (at facade) shall be relocated north to allow ample sideyard to be visible f rom street. a 9 2 <<r--. 4, L'Â«- Mij f> _, Q~Â«.*..r~ \114....93* , In addition, the ~ Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant the following variations: ?. 7' rear yard setback variation, finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. -33' Parking reduction' of one space, finding that the maximum number of parking spaces have been planned on site. The parking space in the front yard shall be eliminated and revegetated as proposed. A project monitor shall be appointed for this project at this meeting. Additional comments: memo.hpc.214wb.fd 6 , CHARLES CUNNIFFE &ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS 520 EAST HYMAN, SUITE 301, ASPEN, CO. 81612 303/925-5590 CHARLES L. CUNNIFFE, A.I.A. il 22, 1991 Roxanne Eflin c/o Planning & Zoning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: 214 West Bleeker Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Roxanne, This letter is to inform you of our response to the conditions attached to the conceptual approval for significant development of 214 West Bleeker at the February 27, 1991 meeting of the Historic Preservation Committee. The following addresses conditions attached by Don Erdman's motion: 1. & 2. Restudy of dormers; All dormers on the addition were revised to a gable form with 17 in 12 pitch. The south facing shed dormer on the historic resource was eliminated. The north facing shed dormer on the historic resource remain approximately the same size as previously submitted. The shed dormers facing east and west on the historic resource were moved back approximately 4'-6", allowing the existing chimney mass to read as it presently does from the street. 3. Break in roof ridge; The connecting roof ridge was lowered to match the ridge of the east- west gable allowing the historic resource roof forms to read as they presently do from the street. The connecting mass was also increased in length from 31-0" to 4'-0" helping to isolate the historic resource from the proposed addition. 4. Retain south bay window; Through our historic research, it was determined that the existing bay was an original element, and shall therefore remain in its existing configuration. 5. & 6. Parking spaces at rear of site; As indicated on the landscape and site plans submitted, the existing parking space off Bleeker Street will be relocated to the rear of the site. A total of three parking spaces are provided, a variance of one space. The following addresses conditions a) through h) of Roxanne's memo which were attached to Don Erdman's motion: a) Compliance with partial demolition standards Sec. 7-602 (c): -. Partial demolition standards Sec. 7-602 (c) 1.) The original miner cabin built in 1888 is to remain in its present location and be renovated to modern standards. The portion of the structure to be demolished is the result of a series of addi- tions housing the structure's kitchen and bathroom and a covered porch that was added as late as 1987. The majority of the mechanical equip- ment is located in this portion of the structure and is severely out of date and unsafe. This would be extremely expensive to replace in this location. Also the re-working of any interior partitions in this area of the residence will severely affect the addition's structural integrity. The new development has similar massing and materials as the historic resource. It is our opinion that it is in the best inter- est of preserving the historic resource to remove these series of addi- tions. 2.) The historic resource shall be enhances by the renovation it will receive as a result of this project. The massing and materials of the addition are consistent with the original structure. Further, the massing of the addition is also separated from the existing structure by a 4'-0" connection and set to the west of the site having the least possible visual impact on the historic resource. The proposed addition and remodel will have a very limited impact on the historic importance or architectual integrity of the structure, but would enhance it. b) Restudy massing: See responses to items 1, 2, &3 of Don Erdman's conditions. c) Detailed preservation plan for cottage: With the exception of roofing and windows, all existing materials of the historic resource, including the porch, are in good condition and will only require minor repairs and painting. The existing asphalt shingles will be replaced with cedar shingles, retaining the existing sheet metal roof edge. Most of the existing windows are badly decayed and inoperable. It is planned to replace the existing windows with new wood windows of the exact size with insulated glass. This will eliminate the need for any storm windows. We feel this is a necessary step in bringing the residence up to modern and efficient standards. d & h) Detailed site plan: A detailed landscape plan is submitted as part of this package. The front yard fencing is detailed as l x 6 at 12" 0.C. allowing 6-1/2" open space between battens. It was also determined that the owner pre- ferred the open space of her yard to the storage of the existing shed, but it is planned to re-use the walls of the shed as the fencing in the northeast corner of the site, retaining the existing windows and doors. This will afford the look and feel of the shed from the alley and allow the owner to make better use of her yard. e) Massing model: A revised massing model will be presented to the Historic Preservation Committee at the meeting scheduled for final approval. ,. - 9 f) Material Representation: The materials shall be as follows: --Roofing - cedar shingles with sheet metal roof edging to match existing. The enclosed porch element will have a standing seam metal roof. --Siding - shall be 6" cedar bevelled siding with fancy cut cedar shingles to match existing materials. The new shed dormers shall use cedar shingles siding. Soffits shall be lx4 V-groove T&G siding. --Railings - shall be 2x2 cedar balusters at 6" 0.C. with 4x4 post at 4'-0" 0.C. and a2x6 wood cap. g) Simple streetscape: A simple streetscape is submitted with this package. The streetscape, along with a photo board of surrounding neighborhood, will be presen- ted at the scheduled meeting of the Historic Preservation Committee for final approval. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require any further information. Thank you for your assistance in this project. Sincerely, Â«2 -45----< in MacLeod ject Manager KM/ph Encls. RED MOUNMN CORPORTION Â°0 BOX Â·2012 - ASPEN Â· COLORADO Â· 81612 Â· TELEPHONE- 92,5-436- April 17, 1991 Ms. Roxanne Eflin Aspen Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: 214 W. Bleeker Aspen, Colorado Dear Roxanne, It is our opinion as general contractors with extensive experience in the renovation of existing structures that it is infeasible to work with the series of additions located behind the existing historic structure at 214 West Bleeker Street. After some field investigation, we concluded that there were at least three additions to the original structure that is to remain. As a result of the haphazard way these elements were added, any interior remodel would severely afffect their structural integrity. The mechanical, plumbing, and electircal systems are also located within these additions, and it would be extremely costly to bring them up to modern and safe standards. It is also our opinion that the proposed development will in no way adversely affect the structural integrity of the original structure. If anything, this restoration will help preserve this historic element of the West End. S incprely, - Dan Levinson Red Mountain Corp. KML/ph c:\wp5\clients\9032\levinson.let L . PUBLIC NOTICE . RE: 214 W. BLEEKER: CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT, PARTIAL DEMOLITION, RENOVATION AND NEW ADDITION i NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, February 27, 1991, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee in the Second Floor Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, to consider an application by Lynda MacCarthy, represented by Cunniffe & Associates, Architects, requesting approval for partial demolition, renovation and a new addition for the property located at 214 W. Bleeker, Aspen, Colorado, described as follows: The East 10' of Lot N, Lot O, and the West 20' of Lot P, Block 50, City and Townsite of Aspen. The ---- application includes landmark designation, and a request for one parking space variation and a rear yard setback variation of 71. For further in formation, contact the Aspen/Pitkin. Planning ~ Office at 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, 81611. (303) 920-5090. s/William J. Poss. Chairman Aspen Historic Preservation Committee Published in the Aspen Times on February 7, 1991 City of Aspen account. pub.notice.214wb n ..A n Â£,1 31.4pf#,aimi, Lit Â¥v WV ll a'vjbo- AUn . Fox Cln n Ge j I n F % f ug- A , 1 , k +ke. home_ clone.vs adjace. 0-6 -t 411â‚¬ ides-â‚¬ (93-3- 9.)Â·83â‚¬e ke<) 04 1-ynota_ f)la.c-00-eltii) we will hcuit ho objectbos 40 her 0--0 r,fiho_ -hzy, /Â·f she boi// remove *le, 1 1 11 -pa,r \A.ng si de i,1 -{lnt 0-f het- 1/bme. 0(Je ave Chnce.kned I 8-60,+ 442__ i e (JA-1-t 0-0 44,{s ty- kin ct 0~~4~.a- 0.-4- 4(le ~ presen-t lime Qual- 4'lle. pssib'-1-1% 0-6 hou,In 8- 56*le u.-1~ 916Â¢4~ Vehic,~e. Â·-po~ ked- 4-heee in Â®e -Cluyâ‚¬_ j U.) ill \16've pl 2 0_44 iso- D-le- 44 46~oif--67*1 of . Lppf i â‚¬Â©LyN br), Nka,ul- 16\4 9*r #35*ssigl.Uxion.li. A \\ .cr-. A 260 117. Scaview Cia:fe 11-9 4â€ž 1..' i -F/ g Duct.Key, TL 33050 ~\ la (GLE U W 1% a A-2276 *'41 0 .,7..: . /--2,////A 1 - I ' - '.J/&/ + -Â» ~ AIR 2 2 /19/#* %*14 SHADOWMOUNTAINREALTY April 19,1991 Roxanne Eflin, Planner City of Aspen Planning Office City Hall Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Roxanne, Thank you very much for your help at the last planning meeting where you read the statement form Ray and Betty Larson, adjacent land owners, regarding removing the parking in front of 214 West Bleeker. I sincerely appreciate your helpful Manner. 1 have been reading the minutes of past meetings and do not think the issue is clear. In order to help clear it up, l have enclosed a photograph of the parking area in question. At present, the parklng space ls not really a problem because Ms. McCarthy has a very nlce car parked there and keeps the space neat and tidy. However, there is nothing to prevent a future owner from parking a garbage truck in the space. Therefore, in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood, and to assure the historic integrity of the parcel and structure, the Larsons suggest that the parking space be dug up, the rocks and railroad ties be removed and that sod be put down to match the remainder of the lawn, in 8 manner such that all trace of a parking space is removed as a condition for Historic Designation. Please contact me with the date of the next City Councll meeting where the Historic Designation for the parcel will be discussed and i will attend. Thank you very much for your time and effort in this matter. Sincerely, Â©60'C// VO,VÂ»~ -- William H. Venner s. l 1-2 ._ Shadow Mountain Really , 'TÂ·,1,> 40 [ 232 WEST HYMAN AVENUE â€¢ Af WN#bLASWAI'lah#*23*MÂ»Â·009Â§Â·cah .=t':64%. r.rp., r# 9 4.La-d56*1 RASk, f-3 r44 . MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee 0 9 From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: Final Development: The Aspen Meadows, Residential portion only Date: May 8, 1991 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Conceptual development approval for the residential portion of the Aspen Meadows, including the remodeling, renovation and three new units to the (Bayer) "Trustee Townhomes", seven new units referred to as the "Tennis Townhomes" and advisory review of the four single-family home sites. Note: A complete application has not yet been received by the Planning Office for HPC Final Development approval of the Academic portion. Sketches indicate some significant changes to the lodge units. The music portion of the Meadows will be reviewed for Final approval on May 22. '4. LOCATION: Westerly portion of the parcel commonly referred to as "The Aspen Meadows" APPLICANT: The Aspen Institute and Savanah Limited Partnership, represented by Perry Harvey and Joe Wells ZONING: SPA, underlying zoning pending PREVIOUS HPC ACTION: Conceptual Development approval was granted on February 13, 1991, with the following conditions: 1) Further study of Tennis Townhome carports to reduce visual impact and provide massing model to indicate parking and landscaping 2) Detailed preservation plan for Trustee townhomes materials and architectural features. Subtle, compatible design differences shall be incorporated into the three new Trustee Townhomes units, to discern between original and new. 3) Detailed site and landscape plan, indicating new and existing vegetation and tree removal or relocation. ' -- h 4) Trustee Townhome carport remodeling (representative) 1 p detail drawing. Roof extensions shall be indicated. 5) Further study of design, articulation, materials and texture of all end walls. 6) Massing model revised to show covered parking (Tennis townhomes). 7) An exact materials representation shall be made at Final, including major materials, windows, balcony railings, decorative features, etc. 8) A palette of materials, textures and colors shall be prepared by the participating architects, and submitted for HPC approval at Final. 9) Recommendation from applicant for compatible massing, scale, height, setbacks, materials for the four single family home sites design covenants for HPC consideration, in narrative or outline form (advisory only), in their relation to the West End. RESPONSE: Staff's response to each condition follows, in order: 1. No changes have been made to the Tennis Townhomes, indicating a reduction in their visual impact. The narrative does not indicate that further study has been made to accomplish this. The HPC should carefully consider this significant design issue to determine if the proposal as presented meets this conditio: Tabling is an option to again allow the applicant time to restudy the visual impact issue, particularly along the slope to the west. The west elevations are confusing as to scale of doors and windows; these elevations do not match, and we ask that this issue be clarified at this meeting. Some discussion regarding balcony snow removal and drainage occurred at Conceptual review. The east elevations do not indicate an opening in the balcony wall to allow for snow removal, and we ask that this issue also be clarified at this meeting. I The massing model will be presented at the meeting. 1 - \ 2. A detailed preservation plan for the Trustee Townhomes was not included in the Final application narrative. We are asking for specific and detailed information as to methodology of preservation, materials to be repaired, replaced, etc. Photos may suffice to help clarify these issues. This will be a condition of Final. Subtle design differences are being incorporated . 2 CIA- . the three new units, to separate old from new, which we find satisfactory. 3. The Trustee townhome carport design details have been included in the packet for HPC consideration. 0 (4/t_./-'v 1,- 4. Further study has resulted in slight changes to the Tennis townhomes end walls. The materials are indicated in the drawings. Staff recommends a break in material as indicated on the north elevation (to be illustrated at the meeting). The sub-committee Chair and staff have some concerns regarding the exact finished treatment of the end walls and party walls. The north and south elevations indicate a large stone treatment, which we believe is how the architect is illustrating a rubble wall. We also cannot determine what material and treatment the party walls will have. These are highly visible, as they extend well down the slope and project to divide the units. We ask that the HPC review this material and design aspect carefully at the meeting. 5. t'rhe massing model to indicate parking at Tennis / Â·townhomes will be presented at the meeting_. These carports are now indicated to be earth covePed, and include some vegetation in the form of shrubs. Staff - is unclear whether sod (high maintenance material) will be incorporated as well. This should be clarified at this meeting. /V-341 4~' ' 7-1~ <f'.1 ~Â»04=./1-en---4 C 6. The materials are discussed in the application narrative. Representative samples will be presented at the meeting. 7. The palette of materials, textures and colors has not been included in this narrative, except as a direct response to the Condition #6 above. This will be a condition of Final. 8. An outline for design covenants for the four single family sites has been included. Staff's concern focuses on massing, scale and articulation issues, as - well as materials, and how these four residences relate to the West End. The HPC should review the outline carefully, and offer amendments; your review over the single family home sites is advisory only. 9. A detailed site and landscape plan has been included. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following alternatives: 3 . 0 1. Grant Final Development approval for the residentiai portion of the Meadows as proposed. 2. Grant Final Development approval for the residential portion of the Meadows, with the following conditions to be approved by staff and the Meadows sub-committee, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit: a. Detailed preservation plan for the Trustee Townhomes shall be submitted b. Submit palette of materials, textures and colors applicable throughout the Meadows C. Amendments to the design covenants of the four single family home sites, to more clearly define massing, scale and articulation issues, as well as materials d. Clarification of material treatment of Tennis townhome end walls and party walls. e. Clarification of the Tennis townhome west elevations regarding correct scale of doors and windows. f. Clarification of the Tennis townhomes regarding balcony snow removal design 3. Table Final action on the residential portion of the Meadows, finding that the Tennis townhomes require additional study to reduce their visual impact along the slope. 4. Deny Final Development approval, finding that the Development Review Standards have not been met. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends the HPC grant Final Development approval for the residential portion of the Meadows with the following conditions to be approved by staff and the Meadows sub-committee, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit: a. Detailed preservation plan for the Trustee Townhomes shall be submitted C f le b .- b. Submit palette of materials, textures and colors applicable throughout the Meadows ilt--T- 4 4 1 , 1 7 - 1~ - v .1 C. Amendments to the design covenants of the four single family home sites, to more clearly define massing, scale and articulation issues, as well as materials 4 d. Clarification of material treatment of Tennis townhome < 1 Â£ 11 -7.. r-, end walls and party walls. i 0 6 + 64 e. Clarification of the .Tennis townhome west elevations regarding correct scale of doors and windows. ,)1 L) 1 :,&1 - f. Clarification of the Tennis townhomes regarding balcony snow removal design. 0, 75,..0( elarâ€ž Additional comments: memo.hpc.meadows.res.fd 5 THE ASPEN MEADOWS HPC FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW THE ASPEN MEADOWS Request for HPC Final Development Plan Review of Significant Development April 26, 1991 Submitted to: The City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 303-920-5000 FAX: 303-920-5197 OWNERS: LEASEHOLDERS: The Aspen Institute Music Associates of Aspen 100 North Third P. 0. Box AA Aspen, Colorado 81611 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Phone: 303-925-6396 Phone: 303-925-3254 FAX: 303-925-4188 FAX: 303-925-3802 and and Savanah Limited Partnership Aspen Center for Physics c/o Hadid Aspen Holdings, Inc. P. 0. Box 1208 600 East Cooper Avenue, #202 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 303-925-2585 Phone: 303-925-4272 FAX: 303-920-1167 FAX: 303-925-4387 INTERESTED USER: International Design Conference in Aspen 100 North Third Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 303-925-2257 FAX: 303-920-1167 PREPARED BY: Joseph Wells, AICP Joseph Wells, Land Planning 602 Midland Park Place Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 303-925-8080 FAX: 303-925-8275 CONSULTANT TEAM Architect for the MAA Facilities Harry Teague Harry Teague Architects 412 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 303-925-2556 FAX: 303-925-7981 Architect for the Lod2e Howard Backen Backen, Arrigoni & Ross 1660 Bush San Francisco, California 94109 Phone: 415-441-8457 FAX: 415-441-8360 Architect for the Residential Projects Nicole and David Finholm David Finholm & Associates P. 0. Box 2839 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Phone: 303-925-5713 FAX: 303-920-4471 Site Planners/Landscape Architects Donald Ensign Suzanne Jackson Design Workshop, Inc. 710 East Durant Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 303-925-8354 FAX: 303-920-1387 Utilities & Surveying A. J. Zabbia Leonard Rice Consulting Engineers, Inc. 2401 Fifteenth Street, Suite 300 Denver, Colorado 80202 Phone: 303-455-9589 FAX: 303-455-0115 i Transportation Planners Bob Felsburg Felsburg Holt & Ullevig 5299 DTC Boulevard, Suite 400 Englewood, Colorado 80111 Phone: 303-721-1440 FAX: 303-945-2363 Soils & Geolofv Steven Pawlak Chen and Associates, Geotechnical Engineers 5080 Road 154 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Phone: 303-945-7458 FAX: 303-945-2363 Legal Representing Savanah Limited Partnership: Robert Hughes, Esq. Oates Hughes & Knezevich Attorneys at Law 533 East Hopkins Avenue - Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 303-920-1700 FAX: 303-920-1121 Representing the Aspen Institute: Gideon Kaufman, Esq. Law Office of Gideon Kaufman, P.C. 315 East Hyman Avenue, Suite 305 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 303-925-8166 FAX: 303-925-1090 Title Information Vince Higgins Pitkin County Title, Inc. 601 East Hopkins Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 303-925-1766 FAX: 303-925-6527 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION 1 A. Existing Improvements on the Property 1 B. Final Development Program 2 II. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION FOR SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (Â§7-601(ID(4) 5 A. The Residential Projects 5 B. The Aspen Institute Projects 8 C. The Music Associates Projects 10 D. The Aspen Center for Physics Parcel 11 E. Submission Contents Â· 11 F. Final Development Plan Review Standards 23 III. EXHIBITS A. General Application Information (Â§6-202) 1. Land Use Application Form 2. Applicants' Letters of Authorization 3. Street Address and IAgal Description 4. Disclosure of Ownership for Institute and Savanah Parcels 5. Vicinity Map 6. Property Owners Within 300 Feet B. Single-Family Residential Covenants iii I. INTRODUCTION This submission for HPC FinAl Development Plan Review of Significant Development at the Aspen Meadows is filed on behalf of the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies (Institute), the Music Associates of Aspen (MAA), the Aspen Center for Physics (Physics) and Savanah Limited Partnership (Savanah). The HPC granted Conceptual approval of the residential projects on February 13, 1991; on March 21, HPC approved the Institute's facilities and on April 8, the Rehearsal/Performance Facility was granted approval. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended Final SPA approval on April 16, 1991; City Council's public hearing regarding the Final SPA Development Plan is scheduled for May 13, 1991. A. Existing Improvements on the Property The existing facilities within the two ownerships include the following: 1. The Academic Parcel (Aspen Institute Ownership): a. Paepcke Auditorium, Boettcher Building, seminar meeting rooms, classrooms, offices and related spaces in three structures owned by the Aspen Institute and used by the Institute, and occasionally by the IDCA, MAA and Physics Center. These buildings contain approximately 27,000 square feet. b. A 1650 seat temporary performance tent of approximately 16,500 square feet with permanent backstage and rehearsal space of an additional 4,700 square feet, on a parcel leased to the MAA on a long-term basis and utilized during the summer by the MAA and IDCA. 1 The IDCA also erects a small tent of approximately 1,000 square feet for outdoor discussions during the Design Conference. c. Three buildings belonging to the Aspen Center for Physics consisting of 13,446 square feet. The Physics Center received a separate SPA approval from the City in 1977 for these facilities, which are located on 2.3 acres leased from the Institute. 2. The West Meadows Parcel (Savanah Ownership): a. The three chalets, the Kresge Building and the Trustee houses, used as short-term accommodations, and totalling approximately 49,950 square feet of floor area, 20,900 square feet of restaurant and administrative space in the restaurant/administration building and Kresge Building, as well as 5,700 square feet of health facilities and six tennis courts with a pro-shop. These facilities are located on land owned by Savanah and are available for use by the Institute under the terms of agreemehts established at the time of the sale of the property in 1980. B. Final Development Program In conjunction with the planned sale of the Conservation land to the City of Aspen and the final approval of the residential townhomes and single-family lots, the present owners of the two parcels have announced their intention to turn over ownership of the remaining property to the non-profit organizations currently using the property. The final development program for each of the parcels is described in the following table. 2 ~L DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM ~126,1991 Existing Facilities New Facilities Final Program Lodge . Lodge Lodge. Units Sq. Ft. Units Sq. Ft. Units Sq. Ft. I. LOT 1 - ASPEN INSTmrrE PARCEL (40.8 Acres) A. Campus Accommodations 1. Building 1 (Chalet A) 12 5,620 - 3,690 12 9,310 2. Building 2 (Chalet B) 16 9,100 4 5,135 20 14,235 3. Building 3 (New Chalet) - - 12 8,562 12 8,562 4. Building 4 (Chalet C) 16 9,100 2 3,277 18 12,377 5. Building 5 (New Chalet) - - 8 5,684 8 5,684 6. Building 6 (Kresge Building) 16 12,130 - (615) 16 11,515 - 7. Building 7 (New Kresge) - - 24 16.677 24 16,677 Subtotal: 60 35,950 50 42,410 110 78,360 B. Meeting/Performance Facilities 1. Paepcke Auditorium - 13,000 - - - 13,000 2. Seminar Building - 7,000 - - 7,000 3. Boettcher Building - 7,000 - - - 7,000 4. Kresge Building - 6,060 ---6,060 Subtotal: - 33,060 - - - 33,060 C. Accessory Facilities 1. Restaurant/Reception - 14,700 - 2,000 - 16,700 2. Health Facility - 5,700 - 1,800 - 7,500 3. Tennis Shop - 500 450 - 950 4. Restrooms - - - 200 - 200 Subtotal: - 20,900 - 4,450 - 25,350 Total for Lot l: 60 89,910 50 46,860 110 136,770 II. Lot 2 - MAA PARCEL (8.2 Acres) A. Meetine/Performance Facilities 1. Tent - 21,200 - 1,500 - 22,700 2. Rehearsal/Performance Hall - - - 11,000 - 11,000 Subtotal: - 21,200 - 12,500 - 33,700 B. Accessory Facilities 1. Lemonade Stand - 200 - - - 200 2. ~~t~p - 300 - 100 - 400 - 100 - 100 - 200 Total for Lot 2: - 21,500 - 12,600 - 34,100 3 FINAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Page Two - ... Existing Facilities New Facilities Final Proeram Bedrms Sq. Ft. Bedrms Sq. Ft. Bedrms Sa. Ft. III. LOT 3 - PHYSICS CENTER PARCEL (4.1 Acres) A. . Meetina/Performance Facilities 1. Hilbert Hall - 5,560 --- 5,560 2. Stranahan Hall - 4,220 - - - 4,220 3. Bethe Hall - 3.666 - - - 3.666 Total for Lot 3: . - 13,446 -- - 13,446 IV. LOT 4 - CONSERVATION PARCEL (25.0 Acres) A. Open Space - - - - - - V. LOT 5 - TRUSTEE HOUSES PARCEL (2.8 Acres) A. Existing Residential Units (8 DU's @ 2,500 SF) 24 14,000 - 6,000 24 20,000 B. Proposed Residential Units (3 DU's @ 2,500 SF) - - 9Â· 7,500 9 7,500 Total for Lot 5: 24 14,000 9 13,500 33 27,500 VI. LOT 6 - TENNIS TOWNHOMES PARCEL (1.2 Acres) A. Proposed Residential Units (7 DU's @ 2,500 SF) - - 21 17,500 21 17,500 VII. LOTS 7-10 - 7TH STREET SF PARCEL (1.1 Acres) A. Residential Lots (4 sites) 1. Single Family Units (4 DU's @ 4,040 SF) - - 16 16,160 16 16,160 2. Accessory Dwelling Units (4 AU's @ 500 SF) - - 4 2,000 4 2,000 Total for Lots 7-10: - - 20 18,160 20 18,160 TOTAL FOR PROJECT: 83.2 Acres NA 138,856 NA 108,620 NA 247,476 All square footages are gross interior sq. ft., except for the townhomes, single-family residences and rehearsal/performance hall, for which FAR square footage limitations have been established under the City's adopted Master Plan. The total FAR square footage for all of the structures on Lots 1, 2 and 3 may be greater than the square footages shown in this Final Development Program. 4 REQUEST FOR HPC FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW FOR SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (Â§7-601(F)(4)) The Applicant requests Final Development Plan approval of the two townhouse residential projects, the restaurant and heath center expansions, the parking structure, the rehearsal/performance facility and the backstage expansion of the music tent. Advisory approval for the single-family lots, the reconstruction and expansion of the existing chalets and Kresge units and the addition of 50 new lodge units on the Aspen Institute Parcel is also requested. A total of 78,360 sq.ft. is proposed in the Meadows Lodge and 11,000 sq.ft. is proposed in the rehearsal performance facility; the backstage expansion will be limited to 1,500 sq.ft., all as described in the Final Development Program. The Residential Projects: Three parcels are proposed at the perimeter of the Â·campus for the residential units approved under the City's Master Plan: 1. Trustee Townhomes: The eight existing Trustee houses, originally designed by Herbert Bayer, are situated on a west-facing bench of land overlooking Castle Creek. The complex is designed such that each of the eight units is located two feet lower than the adjacent unit to the south and each unit is rotated approximately 7.5 degrees to naturally accommodate the buildings on the site and to create privacy for each unit. Each unit is made up of two parts -- the entry area, which is a one story element with a flat roof, and the enclosed living space, which is a two story unit, depressed into the hillside a half level. This element has a gently sloping pitched roof. 5 The architecture is very simply delineated. The walls separating the units are covered with lx4 vertic wood painted white. The end walls, which fit in between the side walls, are 8" cedar shingles, natural color an left to weather. It should be noted here that the original Bayer drawings show "fancy butt" shingles indicated in this location, probably to tie into the adjacent Victorian neighborhood. Since the primary views were south and west, Mr.Bayer also created a sun control system of wood trellises. The exterior terraces are random flagstone and the retaining walls are made of native stone. The proposed remodeling of the existing units consists of an interior renovation of the bedrooms, baths, and kitchen and an addition on the west side of the living room of approximately ten feet. Below the existing terrace, a new bedroom/bath suite will be created. Three new units will be added to the complex - one at the south end and two at the north end. The plan of these units will be the same as the renovated units described above. The geometry of the level changes and angles of the units will also be the same. Square footage of each unit is limited to 2,500 square feet of FAR floo- area. The new unit to the south will be set back into the hillside moreso than the existing.units, and the two un to the north will be several feet taller to maintain these relationships, because of the natural topography. The height of the Trustee houses is generally less than the 25 foot height limit of the R/MF zone district, measured according to the definition for height in Article 3 of the Code. In order to maintain the vertical and horizontal relationships established for the existing Trustee houses, however, the two northern-most units exceed the 25 foot height limit by up to eight feet in one area and will require an SPA variation for the additional height. The carports are located to the east of the units and landscaped entryways have been. The carports will be built into the hillside facing away from the entry road and covered with a sod roof to reduce the visual impacts. The carports will accommodate two cars per unit for both projects. One surface parking space will be retained outside the entry for guest parking, but owners will be encouraged to use these spaces only occasionally. 6 The proposed exterior materials of the remodeled complex will be similar to the original. The vertical siding will be lx4. The shingle end walls will be standard wood shingles. A new heavily insulated roof with asphalt shingles will be applied over the existing roof. Sun control devices similar to those existing have been incorporated into the final design. 2. Townhouses Near the Tennis Courts: Seven new three-bedroom townhouse units are proposed for the site that presently serves as the parking lot for the tennis courts. These townhomes will also be limited to 2,500 square feet of FAR floor area. These units are located at the top of the bank overlooking Castle Creek so that the perceived height of the three-level units upon entering the campus appears to be only one and a hal f stories. The design intent for the new units is to accomplish the program with a relatively quiet architectural ition that utilizes some of the concepts and materials utilized at the Trustee houses. These new three-story units nave been depressed into the hillside to reduce their visual impact from the entry road. Flat roofs are used in combination with pitched roof elements at the upper level. The units are stepped approximately 7 feet in the easUwest direction and the top floor is setback from the facade of the middle floor to reduce the perceived mass of the building. 3. Single-Family Lots Near Seventh Street Entry Four single-family lots of 12,000 square feet each will be developed to the north of Seventh Street as it enters the property adjacent to the Physics Center parcel. Building square footage will be limited to 4,540 square feet of FAR per residence, exclusive of exempt garage space but including a 500 square foot accessory dwelling unit to be developed above-grade on each lot. 7 The new entry road into the Meadows curves gently as it enters the property and the four new lots to the no of the road are cupped around the end of the racetrack area. The lot configurations have been varied so that the appearance of a wall of buildings at the end of the race track can be avoided. Side yard setbacks have also been varied to assure that the openings between the structures will be irregular; the envelopes for the two end lots have been shifted to the outside lot line to increase the spacing between the residences. Purchasers of the lots will be required to maintain a 15 foot setback of natural vegetation toward the Meadows. Proposed covenants are included in Exhibit B. B. The Aspen Institute Parcel 1. The Meadows Lodge and Accessory Facilities The Aspen Institute proposes to reconstruct and expand the 44 lodge rooms in the chalet buildin and reconfigure the 16 rooms in the Kresge Building. The 50 new lodge rooms will be located as follows: a. A new building (Building 3) with 20 rooms will be added to the southeast of the health center. b. Four additional rooms will be added to Chalet B (Building 2) and two additional rooms will be added to Chalet C (Building 4). c. A new building (Building 5) with 8 rooms will be constructed between Chalet C (Building 4) and Kresge (Building 6). d. A new building (Building 7) with 24 rooms will be constructed to the east of the Kresge Building. 8 It has been the Applicant's intention to take into account the historical design character exhibited by the existing lodge buildings. The two-level single-loaded concept developed for the existing buildings by Herbert Bayer and Fritz Benedict will be retained. .The Chalet- suites (Buildings 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5) include a sitting area separate from the sleeping area as well as a. dining/study space. These units will include a small refrigerator and bar sinks but no cooktop. Chalets A and B, which are to be remodeled, include a two-bedroom/one-bath unit type on each level, a total of four such lodge units. The Kresge units in Building 6, which are to be remodeled, have a slightly different configuration which includes a small kitchen. The new Kresge Building to the east (Building 7) is proposed with a floor plan almost identical to the original Kresge Building. All of the lodge units are designed to accommodate attendees at the two-week executive seminars, who live and study in their rooms. The existing health center will be renovated; a modest expansion of approximately 1,800 square feet nticipated at some time in the future in two new elements on the north side of the existing building. This expansion is needed to bring the facilities available for women up to the square footage of that for the men. The existing south facade facing the campus will be restored to its original appearance so that the perception of the building from the campus will remain unchanged. A new outdoor pool is to be built to the north of the health center. The health facility will be reserved primarily for the use of guests and residents of the Aspen Meadows. The existing restaurant/administration building will also be renovated; an expansion of 2,000 square feet is anticipated in order to provide adequate lodge reception and office space and to relieve the overfiow seating presently required in the bar area. The existing tennis courts will be shifted to the east to accommodate the Meadows Road realignment. Four of the courts will be rebuilt above a single level of parking and a bicycle storage area for approximately 100 bikes. This lower level, which is partially buried, has been lowered as much as possible while avoiding a 9 requirement to ventilate the facility. A new tennis pro shop of 950 square feet and new restrooms of 500 squ feet are proposed to the west of the tennis courts. C. The Music Associates Parcel 1. The Rehearsal Performance Facility and The Tent Backstage Expansion The Music Associates of Aspen plans to increase the seating within the performance tent by approximately 400 seats. This will be accomplished by installing fixed seating. The outdoor seating area will also be improved with a series of berms. If the berms are built at the same angle as the floor inside the tent, sight lines for the orchestra stage can be achieved without any modification of the present tent design. It would therefore be possible to achieve visual access to performances from the lawn area by simply removing the side panels of the tent. A decision as to whether this is desirable, however, will be made by MAA at a later date. A backstage expansion of 1,500 square feet is proposed to the east of the existing backstage area. This expansion is necessary to bring restroom facilities for the public and for musicians up to current code requirements and to provide adequate dressing rooms for performers. The MAA has relocated the 11,000 square foot (FAR) rehearsal/performance facility further to the north on the eastern side of the music tent as recommended by HPC. Because the structure has been lowered five feet from the conceptual design, a greater percentage of the building will be buried below natural grade. The excavated material will be used around the perimeter of the building to create a 14 foot high grass-covered berm which has been reduced to a diameter of approximately 230 feet. To accommodate the siting of the rehearsal/performance facility, the IDCA tent site is being relocated to the west o f the entry walk serving the music tent. Architectural plans and elevations for the MAA facilities have been submitted separately. 10 The exterior design of the rehbarsal hall is little more than a roof made up of folded planes reflecting the radiating pattern of the roof of the main tent. The height of the rehearsal building has been reduced to a maximum of 25 feet above natural grade, and over half of this height will be hidden by the berm. The elevations submitted separately include an illustration of the massing of the facility in comparison to the existing MAA performance tent. The overall effect of the rehearsal/performance facility on the existing tent will be minimal since the new hall will be at least 15 feet below the top of the tent at its highest point along the east side of the building. D. The Aspen Center for Physics Parcel: No new buildings or expansions are currently planned for the.Physics Center site, although there have been discussions with other non-profit organizations regarding the possibility of locating a research facility on the site. adopted Master Plan permits an amendment of the plan to incorporate an additional building on the Physics Lenter site provided that it is compatible in scale, materials and massing with other buildings on the parcel. E. Submission Contents (Â§7-601(If')(3)(a)): The submission requirements for Final HPC review are as follows: 1. General Application Requirements (Â§6-202): a. Application Form is attached as Exhibit Al. b. Applicants' Letters of Authorization are attached as Exhibit A2. c. The street address and the legal description of the parcel is shown on the application form. d. Disclosure of ownership is attached as Exhibit A3. e. The Vicinity Map, included as Exhibit A5, locates the subject parcel. f. Compliance with Substantive Review Standards: 11 Specific Final Development Plan review standards are addressed in Section II(IE). 2. Accurate Representation of MRior Building Materials: Samples of major materials proposed for the projects will be presented at the HPC hearing. Final materials include the following: a. Trustee Townhomes: End walls: lx4 vertical tongue and groove wood, painted white , with shingle elements Infill walls: 8" cedar shingle Window units: wood, painted Sun control devices: wood, painted Decks and paving: nagstone Retaining walls: rubble stone and concrete Roof assembly: 4" grey asphalt shingles Fascia @ rake: lx4 over lx4 to bottom of shingles Fascia @ parking lot end: 12" Fascia @ living room end: 12" New fascia, both ends: 2x8 with metal flashing b. Tennis Townhomes: End walls: Rubble rock 12 Retaining walls: Masonry Other walls: lx6 wood tongue and groove Roof: Asphalt shingles to match Trustee Houses Window units: Wood frame, painted Carport trim: Painted wood Sun control devices: Â· Painted wood Berming and sod roof @ carports c. Single-family Homesites: At the present time, it is not anticipated that a range of materials will be established for the single-family homes. d. Meadows Lodge, Health Center, Restaurant and Pro Shop: - Primary construction material of the buildings (both new and remodeled)- wood structural members and walls. - Exterior siding -- lx6 cedar siding. - Exterior trim -- painted wood trim. - Exterior glazing -- Clear double-glazed doors and windows in steel or aluminum sash with accent color. Single glazing at unheated spaces. - Upper level balconies -- wood construction with steel supports. - Balcony railings -- painted steel. - Ground level terraces -- flagstone or similar paving material. 13 e. Rehearsal Hall and Tent Backstage Expansion: - The structure will be primarily subgrade, so the most predominant exterior material will be grass. More than 75 % of the visible surfaces will be grass. Well over 50% of the building will be below natural grade and no more than 5 feet of most exterior wall surfaces will be visible. - The roof extending over the mound of earth surrounding the building will be relatively smooth and covered with a white waterproof membrane. - The window walls adjacent to the plaza will be a system of glass and steel or aluminum. - The wall adjacent to the service court will exposed aggregate. It will have solid core, hollow metal doors and a rolling metal door painted to match the wall. - The plaza front of the Rehearsal Performance Hall will be connected to the plaza in front of the Tent and will be made of concrete or mineral pavers. The surface in front of t Rehearsal Hall will have a pattern that relates to the building's roof forms. - The service yard and driveway will be paved with bituminous paving. 3. Scale Drawings Plan of the Proposal: The architectural drawings submitted separately illustrate the proposed improvements. 4. Statement of Effect of the Details of the Proposed Development Upon the Original Design of the Historic Structure and Character of the Neighborhood: Because of the size of the Meadows parcel and the considerable separation between most of the development proposed and the surrounding area, the effect on the character of the residential neighborhood is negligible. Individual projects are discussed below. 14 a. Trustee Townhomes: The design intent of the Trustee Townhomes project is to improve the functionality of the existing units and repair the deterioration which has occurred over the years. The new expansion respects the relationship established in the original design. While the new units maintain the scale, materials and style of the original units, topographic conditions and detailing assure that a distinction is discernable between the original and new units. b. Tennis Townhomes: Some of the major design elements used at the Trustee houses are employed for the new units to be built near the tennis courts, including the flat and pitched roof elements, the. stepped facades and sun control trellises. The palette of materials is also similar. These units are at the perimeter of the existing complex and efore have somewhat less of a relationship to the other structures in the campus than other new buildings proposed at the Meadows. c. Single-family Homesites: The single-family lots are located at the new Seventh Street entry and therefore function more as an extension of the west end residential neighborhood than as a part of the Meadows. In prior discussions about the design character that would be appropriate for these homes, the conclusion has been that they should relate more to the west end residential neighborhood; they should not be designed using the vocabulary of the international style since they are so removed from the rest of the campus. d. Meadows Lodge, Health Center, Restaurant and Pro Shop: 15 The late 1950's style of Herbert Bayer's architecture will be respected in the design construction of all the buildings in this project. It is the intent of the architect to use the principles of the existing designs as guides in the development of the new buildings. The buildings will be sited to respect the Bayer gardens and to preserve the major natural features of the site. The building details will follow in the tradition of the "International Style". The use of materials and colors will be carefully coordinated with the surrounding buildings while remaining faithful to the spirit of the original Aspen Institute complex. e. Rehearsal/Performance Hall and Tent Backstage Expansion: The design of the new facility echoes some important design elements o f the present campus - - the folded planes of the Music Tent, and the sculptured land forms in Anderson Park. The 'finverted saucer" of the land form is intended to be similar in scale and opposite of the form created by the floor of the tent, which is "scooped out" from the natural ground plane. 5. Conformance with the Conditions of Conceptual Development Plan Approval: The HPC granted Conceptual Development Plan approval to the Aspen Meadows projects subject to the following conditions to be addressed in the Final Development Plan application: a. The Institute Facilities and Music Tent Expansion: The academic facilities, including the lodge, restaurant and health club expansion and tennis/parking facility and MAA's back stage renovation and additions to the music tent were approved with the following conditions: i. With respect to the chalet structures, that partial demolition standards be addressed pursuant to Â§7-602(C). (a) Standards for review of demolition include the following: 16 â€¢ The structure proposed for demolition is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure; Attempts in recent years to shore up the existing lodge buildings structurally and the substandard nature of the buildings' mechanical and electrical systems have been well documented. The buildings are clearly not structurally sound. â€¢ The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on site to provide for any reasonable beneficial use of the property; Reuse of the structure on-site for accommodations is impractical because of the substandard nature of the facility. No alternative sites for this approved use exist on the property. â€¢ The structure cannot be practicably moved to another site in Aspen; Relocating the structures to another site and bringing the buildings up to current code requirements is economically infeasible. â€¢ The applicant demonstrates that the proposal mitigates to the greatest extent practical, the following: - Any impacts that occur to the character of the neighborhood where demolition is proposed to occur. The impacts on the character of the neighborhood are positive, as the campus atmosphere of the area will be enhanced. 17 - Any impact on the historic importance of the structure structures located on the parcel and adjacent parcels. Care has been taken in the siting of the structures to minimize any negative impacts on the historic structures and outdoor areas within the campus. - Any impact to the architectural integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel and adjacent parcels. The architectural integrity of other historic resources on the site are unaffected. ii. That the new construction relative to Kresge and the music backstage facilities be staked relative to perimeter and height. Building 7 and the backstage expansion will be staked prior to the HPC hearing on May 8. iii. That representation of all materials be made at final. Material samples will be presented at the May 8 hearing. iv. A cross-section drawing be prepared indicating the relationship between the lower fox mound, lodge and Building #7. A cross-section through Building 7 and the excavation mound has been prepared by Backen, Arrigoni and Ross. iv. Final landscape plan indicating all significant existing and proposed vegetation, surface treatments and lighting be prepared. The Final Landscape Plans (Sheets Ll through L12) and Lighting Plan have been prepared by Design Workshop, Inc. 18 Vi. Final elevations be prepared for the restaurant expansion. Backen Arrigoni and Ross has prepared revised drawings of the restaurant expansion. Vii. That roadway width reduction be studied in the chalet/restaurant/academic area. The emergency access road serving the lodge buildings has been reduced to 13 feet; turnouts for the use of service vehicles, lodge vans and emergency vehicles will be provided within 150 feet of all structures, as recommended by the Fire Marshall. viii. Detailed drawing of tent/music area parking lot treatment and bus drop-off area. ~The MAA parking lot and bus drop-off area is illustrated on Design Workshop's drawings. b. The Rehearsal/Performance Facility. 1. Re-siting of the rehearsal facility to the northeast as far as possible with a much closer adjacency to the east west axis of the existing tent. The facility has been relocated to the north to a location on the east-west axis of the tent; the staking has been relocated to reflect the change. 2. Significant lowering of the height of the mound; the height of the structure shall be reduced at least 4 feet. The maximum height of the structure has been reduced from 30 feet to 25 feet above natural grade. As a result of this reduction in the height of the building, the height and diameter of the mound have also been reduced significantly. 19 3. Better definition of the surface treatment of both the land form and the structur considering in detail how the break between the field and the berm would accomplished and finishing up the berm. The berm is proposed to be maintained as a manicured inverted bowl shape standing out from the surrounding meadow grasses. The lower edge of the landform is defined by a 3 foot band of crushed rock. On the west, where the form is broken to avoid filling around an existing cluster of aspen trees, the edge is defined by a low rock wall. On the east, the blow is "sliced off" to reflect the angle of Third Street as it enters the property. In this area, low shrubs will planted to establish a plant cover for this surface which is distinctive from the manicured lawn surface. - The roof plane will be covered with a white membrane which will be turned down to cover the fascia. The soffits will also be painted white to enhance the appearance of the folded planes "floating" above the landscaped mound. An exposed aggregate has bee selected for the walls of the facility, to maintain a relatively dark band beneath the roo structure. 4. Restudy hard surface paving area between the rehearsal hall and the tent to maximize the amount of informal seating available during performances. Relocation of the rehearsal/performance facility to the north has minimized the impact of the facility on the existing lawn seating area. In addition, lawn seating is being expanded in other areas so that overall lawn seating has increased at least 50%. The paved surface at the entry to the hall may prove to be a suitable alternative for those who find sitting on the lawn to be uncomfortable and who therefore bring deck chairs to the concert. 5. A representation of all materials are to be made at Final application. 20 Material sampleg of all major building materials have been submitted separately. 6. Final landscape plan indicating all significant and proposed vegetation, surface treatments and lighting shall be required. The final landscape drawings (Ll through L12) are included in the drawing package submitted with this narrative. 7. Provide detailed drawing of tent and music area parking lot treatment and bus drop-off area. Drawings of the backstage area, the outdoor seating area around the tent and the MAA parking lot are included in the drawing package. c. The Residential Projects: The Residential projects were approved with the following conditions: 1. Further study be given to the Tennis Townhomes to reduce their visual impact; provide a massing model shall be provided to show the parking mid landscaping proposed. The models for the two residential projects have been revised and will be presented at hearing. 2. Detailed preservation plan for the Trustee townhomes materials and architectural features with the idea of a subtle compatible design difference be created to the new Trustee Townhomes to discern between the original and new. The architectural drawings reflect the slight changes in detailing that are intended to separate the "old" from the "new" construction, including the use of shingles on wall surfaces to contrast with the tongue and grove siding, and the extension of the new roof surface over the old. 21 3. Trustee Townhome carport remodeling the new roofs of the townhomes shall provided. Drawings illustrating the entry area and the roof detail are provided in the architectural drawings. 4. Further study of the design articulation, materials and texture of all end walls; Tennis Townhomes. The architectural drawings for the two projects illustrate the proposed detailing of the end walls. 5. Massing model revised to show the covered parking. The models for both projects have been revised to include the covered parking areas. 6. Material representation: Exact materials representation shall be made at Fin including major materials, windows, balcony, railings and decorative features. Materials have been discussed previously; samples will be presented at the hearing. 7. A palette of materials, textures and colors shall be prepared by the participating architects and submitted for III'C approval at Final. Materials samples will be presented by the architects at the HPC hearing. 8. Recommendation from applicant for compatible massing, scale, height, setbacks, materials for the four single family home sites and design covenants for HPC consideration. This could be in the form of a narrative or an outline as to how the lots would be controlled to assure compatibility to the west end. Design covenants for the single-family homesites are provided in Exhibit B. 9. Detailed site and landscape plan indicating new and existing vegetation and tree locatio and removal. 22 Sheets Ll through L12 address site design issues for the project. F. Final Development Plan Review Standards (Â§7-601(D)(1)): The proposal complies with HPC's review standards, as follows: 1. Compatibility: "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, or exceed the allowed floor area, HPC shall find that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements." (a) The Residential Projects: The design intent of the projects is to provide consistency and compatibility with the existing structures on the property which are listed on the historic inventory, but which are not Landmark structures or within an Historic District. Any variations which are required from the underlying zone districts to be applied to the sites will be accomplished through an SPA variation as suggested by the Planning office. (b) The Aspen Institute Parcel: The new buildings and remodeled existing lodge buildings will be designed to be totally compatible with the surrounding buildings and landscape features. For example, the lodge buildings will continue to be two stories tall, flat roofed, unobtrusive, and designed in a manner which utilizes the best ideas upon which the design of the original buildings were based. 23 (c) The Music Associates Parcel: The design for the new rehearsal performance facility is intended to be compatible with its historic counterpart and neighbor, the music tent. Because the two facilities are functionally interdependent, the rehearsal performance hall is intended to be compatible in terms of its patterns of use as well as in physical appearance. Physically, the white planes of its roof radiate from the center of the tent, becoming an extension of the white folds of the tent fabric. The facility is located close enough to the tent so that the association with it is clear, but far enough apart to read as distinct and separate. Its public areas are shared, and some of its grassy sides will be used for outdoor tent seating. Functionally, the rehearsal performance hall will share an outdoor plaza with the tent; th plaza will be used during intermissions, before and after concerts, as well as for informa outdoor listening. Access for musicians and instruments will be on the n6rth side, as it is for the tent, via the Institute parking lot to allow for the efficient transfer of instruments. 2. Neighborhood Character: "The proposed development renects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development." (a) The Residential Projects: The Meadows has always been a separate area within the neighborhood, touching its borders in various places. The creation of new buildings with a character different than that of the single family residential area will not negatively affect the neighborhood. The buildings within the campus are not only a refiection of an important period of time in Aspen's histo 24 that is distinct from the growth of much of the community, but they also accommodate uses which are unique to the neighborhood. The campus buildings should be.unified in material, scale, and massing but should not be made to look like the adjacent neighborhood. (b) The Aspen Institute Parcel: The immediate neighborhood buildings surrounding the Meadows Lodge consist of the Health Center, the Restaurant, the existing and new Trustees Houses, and the proposed Tennis Townhomes. The character of these historic and new buildings and the scale of the neighborhood will be preserved with the introduction of the lodge units. The primary feature which unifies these buildings are the original gardens designed by Herbert Bayer. The lodge units will relate to these gardens by looking onto them and through careful siting, will respect their limits. As many existing trees as possible will be preserved in their present location. (c) The Music Associates Parcel: By being distinct from the tent in location and form the new facility should preserve the cultural value and integrity of the Music Tent. The new building relates to the tent with geometry and color, but important differences such as the permanent surface of the hall as opposed to the fabric of the tent should provide adequate distinction to preserve the integrity of the tent. 3. Cultural Value: "The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development of adjacent parcels." (a) The Residential Projects: 25 The proposed residential projects are intended to complement the existing International Sty> structures designed by Herbert Bayer. The significance of these buildings rests perhaps a much on the fact that they reflect that period of Aspen's rebirth as a cultural center as on their architectural significance. (b) The Aspen Institute Parcel: The lodge buildings will serve the participants of the Institute. Because they will provide comfortable, safe, and convenient accommodations for the participants, their contribution to the cultural value of the community o f Aspen is note-worthy. (c) The Music Associates Parcel: The, rehearsal performance facility will become an integral part of the cultural life of th campus. It will not detract from the cultural value of the adjacent tent and other campu buildings. 4. Architectural Integrity of Historic Structures: "The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof." (a) The Residential Projects: The design intent is to accomplish a consistent building character through massing, materials and scale with the original structures without imitating or replicating the existing buildings. The existing buildings should remain recognizable as the important buildings on the site from the period in which they were built. 26 (b) The Aspen Institute Parcel: The significant buildings in the neighborhood such as the Restaurant and the Health Center will change very little on the exterior. The lodges, on the other hand, will be completely modernized; the exterior design will be faithful in detail and composition to the original historic style and period during which the Aspen Institute was begun, but the interiors will be designed to function for the present programs of the organization. (c) The Music Associates Parcel: As part of the Institutional meadows complex, the rehearsal performance facility is intended to relate to the other structures of the campus, with materials, geometry, color and landscaping. Also as the structure closest to the residences along Third Street it presents a form almost entirely obscured by terrain and landscaping to those houses. The height of this new structure will compare favorably to the height limit of these houses. 27 EXHIBIT- B AN OUTLINE FOR BUILDING AND ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES FOR THE ASPEN MEADOWS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PARCELS SAVANNAH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP c/o HADID ASPEN HOLDINGS, INC. ATTN: PERRY HARVEY 600 EAST COOPER SUITE 200 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 PREPARED BY DAVID FINHOLM & ASSOCIATES 1 r . I. INTRODUCTION In order to preserve and protect property values, promote harmony of design, maintain the beauty of the existing landscape, and create a sense of identity within the neighborhood, these Building and Architectural Guidelines for improvements are provided. Compliance with these requirements shall be insured through the design review process, however, the ultimate success of the neighborhood image and values will be enhanced by the cooperative effort of the homeowners. In addition, the developer wants to preserve the natural features of the Meadows land while providing an entrance to the campus through the residential parcels. In doing so, covenants will be created to insure the preservation of the sage field and race track to the north and a transitional landscaped buffer area from 7th Street on the south. Also, through the Design Review Process and covenant, the massing of the . four new homes as viewed from the campus will be articulated in such a way to minimize the wall effect and create buildings which blend into the existing neighborhood. II. DESIGN REVIEW A Design Review Board (D.R.B.) will be established to review and interpret these guidelines. III. SITE AND LANDSCAPING REOUIREMENTS o LAND USE ~ The use of your lot is restricted to a detached single family residence of 4,050 square feet (F.A.R.) plus two car garage plus accessory dwelling unit of 500 square feet. o BUILDING ENVELOPE The "building envelope" is the actual area that your home (including garage) may occupy on the site. Such structures must meet the tree protection requirements and all design requirements applicable to the principal residence. The area between the rear set back and the property line and one half the distance between the front and rear setback along the side set back must landscaped in sage and wild grasses to match the open space to north of home sites. 2 o BUILDING HEIGHT Building height per city zoning code. o VIEWS The Meadows is set amidst a beautiful environment with differing views from all parts of the site. Design of your home and landscape with existing terrain and vegetation can provide filtered and select views from each lot. Care should be taken in the selection and placement of landscape plant materials. Anticipate mature height and spread of trees and shrubs relative to your views and those of your neighbors. o ACCESS DRIVES AND PARKING Excessive areas of pavement are discouraged. Paving materials for driveways, paths, steps, patios, and other areas should have a dull, non-reflective surface and color that blends well with the natural surroundings. Driveway and other :flat paved areas may be constructed of concrete, exposed aggregate concrete, stamped concrete, brick or paving blocks. o GRADING AND RETAINING WALLS Grading and filling shall be commenced only after complete plans have been approved by the DRB. Grading resultingÂ·from development shall be designed to blend into the natural landscape. Cuts and fills must be feathered into the existing terrain within the property boundary. o DRAINAGE Drainage plans for individual lots must be approved by the DRB and must be consistent with the Final Plat for the Aspen Meadows. o DRIVEWAYS Driveways, including the portion within a road right-of-way connecting to a street, are the sole responsibility of the lot owner. The construction of driveways will include culverts and landscaping of disturbed areas. Culverts shall be designed and constructed so as to prevent damming or diversion of storm water. 3 o PARKING AND GARAGES Each residence shall have a garage with a minimum capacity of two cars. Off street parking, including the driveway and garage shall accommodate at least one car per bedroom within the residence. o FENCES AND WALLS Fences and walls may be used to protect privacy, screen service areas, and contain dogs. Fences and walls should be consistent with the architectural character of the primary buildings and should be integrated with the landscape plan. No fences will be allowed on the property line facing the race track. If consistent with the guidelines, low fences will be allowed along the 7th Street extension to help screen parking, childrens' play areas or entry courts. o EROSION CONTROL AND REVEGETATION The Erosion Control Plan. shall indicate measures to control both ground water and surface water run-off during and after construction. o LANDSCAPING Each residence must have a Landscape Plan prepared by an architect, landscape architect or an experienced laridscape designer and approved by the DRB. The lot owner shall be responsible for planting, irrigation, care, and maintenance of his land including that portion which lies within the road right-of-way. The natural area between two residences may have landscaped screening if approved by the DRB. o TREE PROTECTION No healthy tree with a trunk diameter greater than 4 inches which is located outside a Building Envelope or Road Grading Limit may be removed without the specific approval of the DRB. o SERVICE YARDS Service area shall be provided for such items as trash containers, and utility meters. These areas shall be screened from public view and neighboring properties. 4 o HOT TUBS Hot tubs may be constructed on any lot. AL such tubs shall be screened from public view and mechanical apparatus shall be enclosed in a structure or fenced and screened by landscaping. IV. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN o BUILDING AND SCALE Building form should be responsive to the natural terrain and vegetation of the site. Buildings should be well-proportioned and consistent in scale and massing with their residential use. Large uninterrupted walls and masses should be avoided. Major building element should be articulated with recesses, projections, and -angle changes to create interest in terms of massing, shadow patterns, and proportion. This is required on the north and south A elevations . 7 -9 - c\ -1 0. Â·c,~o~u ~~_.~_. eÂ·uu_,1- tto.u~JLÂ» 90'vA.\~10~J o ROOFS Roof materials to be. non-reflective. Materials recommended.for : pitched roofs include slate, wood shingles, or shakes, standing seam metal with natural finishes such as cortin steel or patina copper. In determining roof ridge alignments, care should be taken to protect entrances and exterior pathways from falling snow and ice. Roof overhangs protect walls and wall openings from rain and snow and contribute to a building's character. Roofs should overhang walls a minimum of 36". o EXTERIOR WALLS Exterior walls should provide a contrasting expression of mass against glass or wood sheathing, over framing. Changes in wall material can lend visual interest to a building; too many changes can make the wall visually discordant. The objective should be to create walls that are interesting, but not in competition with their surroundings. Walls can be surfaced with one to three different materials only. Plywood shall not be used as an exterior material. Glass openings should be responsive to the overall building expression and massing as well as views and sun orientation. 5 Exterior trim and detail such as window framing, door sills, headers, facias, and shutters should relate to the major building materials while offering color and individual expression. Copper is encouraged for flashing. o VENTS AND FLUES Vents and flues shall not be exposed.galvanized pipe, but rather attempts shall be made to group these roof projections and conceal them from public view. This can often be done by enclosing them in forms compatible with the overall structure. o SOLAR ENERGY Passive solar energy design is encouraged along with energy conservation measures. Passive solar design elements such as south-facing windows, thermal storage mass, and day-lighting window systems should be an integral part of the residence. Active system hardware, if used, will be integrated, both visually and functionally, with the overall building design. o CHIMNEYS Chimneys are very strong visual elements. Codes require that they extend higher than adjacent roof lines. Care ful choi'ce in determination of proportion, shape, and material can give chimneys as expression in support of a particular design theme. The use of prefab fireplaces and flues is economically sound. However, chimneys are not to have such an appearance. Enclosing the flue in a masonry or wood chimney with proportions consistent with the remainder of the house is advised. The use of fireproof enclosures is required and all chimney clearances are to be maintained, Spark arresters are required on all chimneys. Exposed metal flues are not acceptable. 6 DETAILED PRESERVATION PLAN FOR THE TRUSTEE TOWNHOMES AT THE ASPEN MEADOWS End walls: Those that are now shingles - These walls will be kept as is except for new ones that will replace old worn out ones. Balcony and rails: Will all be kept the same except for the removal of stairs. This is a change since preliminary approval to save the existing look and the trees. Windows: Will be kept as is except for new windows to be added. The trim and detailing will remain the same, except for the plywood panel at the bottom. This area is to be filled in with matching shingles. Roof fascia / existing: This is now metal flashing. This will be replaced with cedar trim / color to match shingles, railing, etc. New roof fascia: To extend over existing roof as shawn on drawing and new metal flashing to be installed. New sidewall trim: (Where lx4T&G verticals and new roof join), This trim will match existing on the eight existing units. New fascia for entry roof and carport roof edge: Will be the same as existing carport but will drain and not drip everywhere as existing roofs do now. Sun screen devices: These will be built to match existing sun control. Side walls: The existing lx4T&G vertical wood siding which is now painted white, will be replace with new lx4T&G vertical siding painted white except the three new units. New entry door: To be style and rail with glass insert, painted. . J,- i--WI 2 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee CC: Jed Caswall, City Attorney Amy Margerum, Planning Director From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: Inventory deletion request: 601 W. Hallam, Vicenzi cottage, Public Hearing Date: May 8, 1991 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: HPC approval to remove 601 W. Hallam from the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures. BACKGROUND: Just prior to the adoption of Ordinance 17, Series of 1989, the applicant applied for and received a demolition permit from the building departmentÂ·for 601 W. Hallam. Ordinance 17 required mandatory HPC review and approval of demolition and relocation of all structures identified on the Inventory. Staff naturally was concerned about the potential demolition, and asked George to work with the Planning Office and Aspen Historic Trust 4 to not demolish, or at the minimum, find a suitable new location for the structure and relocate. Meetings were held with the Aspen Historical Society to seek a 3-way trade of some sort, but to no avail. During all this time, the applicant has received at least two extensions of his demolition permits from the Board of Adjustment, with planning staff's support. Even the HPC granted de facto demolition approval, simply in an effort to allow more time for relocation efforts. It is also important to note that a new City Attorney (Jed Caswall) replaced Fred Gannet and Sandy Stuller (acting attorney) during this time. It is Jed's opinion that none of those demo permit extensions were valid, as the Board of Adjustment did not have the legal ability to grant those, anyway. The final demo permit expired February 5. 1991. The applicant is seeking HPC's assistance as a matter of fairness, stating that he had the ability to demolish with the first permit and chose not to. The unit has remained rented by employees of the community during this time. PREVIOUS HPC ACTION: On February 13, 1991, the HPC met in pre- - application with George Vicenzi to discuss the alternatives he posed to the board regarding the suspension of HPC's demolition review authority over the property at 601 W. Hallam. A copy of his letter for that pre-application meeting is attached for your reference. 2 V . 4 DISCUSSION: At that February 13 meeting, Chairman Bill Poss agreed to meet with staff and the applicant to examine all possible alternatives within the land use regulations. A summary of these findings follows: 1. All properties identified on theÂ·Inventory require HPC approval for demolition, partial demolition and relocation. 601 W. Hallam has been listed on the Inventory since 1980. 2. Demolition approval requires an applicant to meet all demo standards:, which are strict. Numerous incentives and alternatives to outright demolition have been developed, including the Cottage Infill program, which this cottage could easily adapt to. The applicant feels that 601 W. Hallam would not meet the demo standards. Both staff and the HPC Chair agree with the applicant. 3. Relocation requires an approved new location, of which the applicant does not have. Efforts by staff over the past nearly two years to find a new home for the cottage have not been successful, although we have been a close once. 4. Removal from the Inventory appears to be the final alternative, however Section 7-709(A) of the code states: "...The Inventory of historic structures shall include all structures in the City of Aspen originally constructed prior to 1910 which continue to have historic value..." It is very clear that whatever action the HPC takes on this application, a strong precedent will be set and future requests for removal from the Inventory are nearly insured. PUBLIC COMMENT: Staff has received three inquiry calls from neighbors. One does not own a historic structure, and states that if the HPC is able to remove the structure from the Inventory (which he would not like to see) that they at least maintain review authority over any future redevelopment. One owns a historic cottage, currently rated slightly higher than 601, and stated that if 601 W. Hallam is removed, he will immediately petition to have his removed as well. One is currently undergoing HPC review for an addition and major remodel, and was questioning the fairness of one person being exempt from the HPC, while another is not. STAFF COMMENT: The code is specific on findings that HPC must make to include or remove a site or structure within the Inventory. These provisions are clear, and provide the HPC with direction for consistency throughout the community. The .. protection of the Inventory is the primary goal of the HPC. The applicant is concerned with fairness. He was not obligated to work with us to keep this cottage from being demolished, but chose to. In an effort of fairness, we have recommend demo permit extensions. We have even granted a de facto demo approval, merely to allow more time for relocation options. Staff has personally sought out no less than six potential takers, and have met with some. We have published information in the press on this cottage. However, during the few months prior to the expiration of the last demo permit extension, no new people have come forward to request the cottage, and the applicant has not actively sought a taker to our knowledge. Staff has personally met with the applicant to discuss this issue numerous times. We have examined the code, and have discussed the spirit and intention of the Inventory and HPC's review over historic structures in Aspen. We have also discussed HPC review authority vs.. advisory review over any potential redevelopment of the parcel. It is the opinion of the Planning Office that the HPC is required to make a finding that the structure does not continue to have historic value, if it is to removed from the Inventory. . Originally, structures with potentially no historic value were rated "0" or -" 1". The subj ect cottage was given a rating of "2". Should the HPC approve the deletion of this structure from the Inventory, strong consideration should be given to require a covenant on the parcel requiring HPC's full review authority for all future redevelbpment. Its close proximity to one of Aspen's most important landmark properties, the Wheeler-Stallard House, makes design review authority, not simply advisory review, extremely important. The results of advisory review, as you have seen in past projects, is not sufficient within critical historic neighborhoods. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following actions at this meeting: 1. Approve the applicant's request for removal from the Inventory, finding that the structure no longer continues to have historic value. 2. Approve (as above), subject to the recording of a covenant requiring HPC advisory review or full review authority over any future redevelopment. 3. Table action until the public hearing for re-evaluation of the entire Inventory is held, which is expected to be sometime this summer. 4. Deny the applicant's request for removal from the Inventory, finding that the structure does continue to . 4 have historic value RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC consider all alternatives carefully, and take action accordingly. Additional comments: memo.hpc.601wh.invent 1\Wi April 12, 1991 Aspen Historical Preservation Committee Aspen, Colorado Re: Request Jo remove 601 W. Hallam from the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures. (Public Hearing) Dear Historic Preservation Committee: Since our last meeting, Bill Poss, Defacto Project Monitor, Roxanne and I have been considering various solutions which would keep the relocation option open with regard to the structure located at 601 West Hallam given the situation as outlined in my letter to you dated January 31, 1991 and attached hereto for your reference. We decided after much thought that perhaps the cleanest solution to the situation would be for me to formally request of the HPC that the structure be removed from the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures. Consequently, I am so requesting the HPC vote to remove 601 W. Hallam from the inventory for the following reasons: 1. Sec. 7-709. Establishment of Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures states that "the inventory of historic structures shall include all structures in the City of Aspen originally constructed prior to 1910 which continue to have historic value ..." I submit to you that the majority of this structure approximately 71% (772 sq. ft. of 1,084 sq. ft) was constructed after 1910, therefore, the majority of this structure is not historic and has no historic value. As you can see from the enclosed picture, it was a fifties-sixties type vernacular structure before I added the "cute" Victorianesque eastern porch. 2. The structure "has no historic value" with regard to the neighborhood or surrounding buildings because in 1960 it was moved to its present site which had always been vacant. Therefore, its context (for all intents and purposes) has been destroyed when it was removed from its original site, probably in the East End. MITIGATING FACTORS FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION: (Please refer to my above mentioned attached letter dated 1/31/91 for important background information) A. This structure would have been demolished by now if Roxanne, as a representative of the City, hadn't asked me to postpone the demolition and work with the City to relocate said structure. The structure is still standing because I. In spite of all our efforts, we were . not successful in finding a suitable relocation site; and 2. I was able, with the support of Roxanne and yourselves, to extend my demolition permit. B. Removing the structure from the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures would allow the City and myself to continue working together to relocate said structure in that, if and when I decide to demolish, I would notify the City of my intent at least 4 months before actually demolishing and agree to donate the structure to the City to relocate or store until a suitable relocation site is found. Also, I will continue to pursue a possible land exchange in cooperation with the Aspen Historical Society. C. I acknowledge and share the concerns of the Committee as to what will be built on the site if I were to sell. Consequently, I would be willing to agree to the HPC having an advisory review of any new structure to be built on the property if I were to sell said parcel. I am confident that no other land owner now or in the future will be able to come before you with the same circumstances. Thus, by granting my request, you would not be setting an unwanted precedent. In fact, you would be setting a good precedent of dealing fairly with citizens who are asked by the City to cooperate and do so in good faith to obtain mutually beneficial goals. In sum, I feel that removal of this structure from the inventory of historic structures is justified because approximately 71% of the structure was constructed after 1910 and has no historical value whatsoever. And the structure has no historical significance to the neighborhood or surrounding buildings because it was moved to its present historically vacant site in 1960. These factors together with the mitigating factors and fairness issue should justify your granting my request. Cordially, George A. Vicenzi Enc. . .iÂ· 1 . January 31,1991 Aspen Historic Preservation Committee Aspen, CO Re: 601 W. Hallam Dear Historical Preservation Committee: Soon after I received a demolition permit on my house located at 601 W. Hallam on 5/15/89, Roxanne Eflin asked me to work with her to relocate the house. In the spirit of preservation, I agreed and together with the Aspen Historical Trust and the Aspen Historical Society we have been working in a cooperative effort since that date. Unfortunately we were not successful even with the extra time gained through the numerous permit extensions granted to me with your endorsement of May 10, 1989 (see attached memo dated 5/15/89) along with that of the then city attorney, Fred Gannett, (see attached letter dated 6/9/89) and the Board of Appeals per Resolution #3 Series 1990 as recommended by Roxanne (see attached memo dated 12/4/89.) Since we were not successful in relocation and my personal situation changed to where a timely demolition was not necessary and I did not wish to give up my demolition rights, I approached the new city attorney, Sandra Stuller, to pursue the possibility of keeping my demolition rights pending relocation. She said this could be done by Ordinance (see her attached letter dated 4/25/90.) Again in the spirit of preservation, Roxanne, Amy Margerum and I agreed to pursue this course of action. They indicated that thiR would be done in June along with other code amendments. Well, the code amendment work didn't happen until October 1990 at which time we had a new city attorney, Jed Caswell, who nixed the Ordinance idea and claimed in his opinion that all my permit extensions were not valid per city code which totally contradicted Fred Gannetfs opinion! Imagine my surprise and frustration! I pointed out to Roxanne that this wasn't fair especially in light of the fact I did not demolish based on my reliance on our agreed upon course of action and suggested two alternative solutions to satisfy both my need to keep my demolition rights and those of the H.P.C. to preserve and/or relocate my house. They were as follows: i. I would donate the house to the city which in turn would lease it back to me for a nominal amount with the provision that if and when I decide to build on the lot, I would give the city 4 months notice to move the structure. 2 Have the house removed from the Historical inventory with the agreement that if and when I decide to demolish I would give the city 4 months notice to relocate. I ., Aspen Historic Preservation Committee Re: 601 W. Hallam January 31, 1991 Page 2 Either solution would work and eliminate needless time constraints, however, the second one would be less cumbersome and easier to accomplish and administer. Plus needed employee housing would be provided in the meantime because I keep the house rented to at least 4 employees who love living there. As for the historical worth of the structure is concerned, I would like to point out that it was moved to this site in 1960 and that most of the Victorian elements were added by myself in 1970. Please refer to the attached photograph showing the house before I remodeled it in 1970. Also some concern was expressed that your acting on my suggestions might set an unwanted precedent, however, I don't believe this is a problem since Ordinance 17 is in force and would prohibit a situation such as mine from occurring again. In sum, at Roxanne's request and in the spirit of preservation, I cooperated with the city in good faith by not acting on my demolition permit and in a continued spirit of cooperation, and fairness urge you to adopt solution #2 which would satisfy both the cities and my goals. I lived up to my word not to denlolish and hope that you live up to yours and continue to work with me, toward a mutually satisfactory solution. Sincerely, George A Vicenzi Enc. . IE-0 0 9 [e'%1 f' : 1 APR 1 6 1991 1 ~ I MEMORANDUM TO: Roxanne Eflin, Historical Planner FROM: Carr Kunze, Executive Director, APCHA DATE: April 11, 1991 RE: 601 West Hallam George Vicenzi, owner of the above referenced property, contacted the Housing Office yesterday to discuss a proposal for deed restricting the existing victorian to the City of Aspen. He stated there exists a demolition permit for the property which will be expiring soon. As he does not wish to presently act upon the allowed permit a request for extension was requested from the City Attorney' s office. It is his desire to forego the demolition of the existing victorian and to request approval be granted to deed restrict the existing structure to the City of Aspen and to have the property leased back to him for $1.00 per year. The requested deed restriction is for Resident Occupancy and will run with the land. When he so desires to construct an anticipated home on the property, the City will be responsible for the removal and storage of the existing victorian. RECOMMENDATION: The level of affordable employee housing benefits to be derived from the proposal in the form in which it has been presented is unfortunately too marginal for us to give it continued consideration. ADDITIONAL COMMENT: In the event the City so chooses to accept this proposal, a deed restriction will not be appropriate for consideration on this property as it will run with the land and a suitable instrument will need to be drafted. 57#59 --3,7-17'b,C,fl' .6. C:3 V 2 ' eLASS AREA SUNdÂ»fARY lEi DE X OF DRANIN@ 5 55>5 61 r=ICATIONS NE IN eASS 1 A UNIT 14,44 EA 14,44 SF 05#59,â‚¬L CONDITIONS ' FIN 151-45% (ALL LOBI Â© 2 5 UNITS 3, B 1 5/\ 3.91 sp -ARCE*ITECTUR4L De,L eL, 3 C UNITS 9/ 03 EA 1 6,1 e SM Al - 51 75 PLAN 1 D UNIT 4,08 5,Â« 4,45 se AQ - FOUNDATION 4 FRAWfl Ne Fl,ANS 1, ALL FEES ( BLDe, PERMIT, -TÂ»,L ET'Cj MATERKALS, 1, ALL NEN INTER OR FINIS +55 5Â» 11 BE PAINTED 2 DOORS 4,3 5,4 1,0 5~ LAEÂ©R, FINi SNES, CLEA NUF, ETC, Â»â‚¬7459 SPECIFICA.L.7' efF, 53 UNLESS OTBERMISE NO-ED, A3 - MIRST FLOOR # SECOND FLDOA FLANS NOTED +BREIN OR IMPLIED AS eENERALLY ACCEPTED 2, ~/,434- 3% STjNe FLOOR FIN!5+ES 1 RELOCATED IS, 6 CA 13' 5 SF 5!NeLE el A4 - BUILDllâ‚¬ ElaVATDNS 65 NEGESSARY FOR The FULL COVI PLETION OF Â»15 WORK. 3,â€ž PROVIDE LAT'CRE-rEE eROUTj FULL ME>12>FRAME 51,79 59 SHALL 62 INCLUDED IN TH+IS CONTRACT UNLESS NOTED 66 - BU:l...DINe SECTIONS N, 1,C - NOT IN CONTRACT- 09 2>V OINNER, INIATERPROOFINe, AND INSTALL 57-EAM 5~+ONER TI i-5 ON AIONDER 35,ARD P'q~ALL- Sk-kEÂ»'TH411%10, GLASÂ© AREA DEMOLISHÂ·ED Ae - ELECTRIGAL LAND'UT AND '2, ALL WORK SKALL COMPLM' MT# APPLiC,adLE LOCAL, 41 ViA-"Câ€ž~ ENS'I-INg EXTFRIOR PAINT COLORS, 1/4 59-7 D R.5 7,91 SA le, 00 5,1Â·=. EARACE CEILINe PLAN Â©TATE,14 =EDERAL CODES, PROJ EGT SHALL CON/[ i.7 SCUTA ANDOINS 15. cO PA 30,005. m pq -rt-4 1171 USC- UN~ FORN,f 5Ull-DINe CODE, 9, 5,0,01=LSS, SUBMITTALS REQUIRED FeR ALL SOU 74 WIN[X; 161 15.00 NA 2 5,00 S. F' FLOORINe WATER!,ALS. FEST DOOR 4.45 EÂ« 4,45 5.F, 6, ALL ART~CLES OF 7-5 CURRENT H SEVERAL CONDITIONS 67 0, 13*INTING SU[3>liT COLOR SAMPLES FOR APPROVAL, TEE CON-TRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION" ALA DOCUMENT *201 05.461= (198-1 EDITION) 954LL bE FAST (3~ 7,-4855 DDCUMENTS, Iv'ORE eLASS IS DEMOLiSHED Tp+AN 4, SCAEDULE OP CONISTRUCTION 4 DEVOLITION TO 38 REPLACED. Nek'Â·.1 0465 15 LOIN E BL el . ApÂ°FROVED 51' 0:AiNER, 9, FOS Tr,5 OP(hleeS REGORDS, SUBMIT comES OF= PER>/MTS, 6.Â«, FR, DEPICTION/SUMMARY LICENSESi INSÂ°ECTION REÂ°DATS, NOTCES Al\ID CORFE&- FONDENICU 1/\1174 BE@ARD TO STAND.ARDS 8>EAR 1'49 UPON BMECIAL-TiES -THE NORS, -_ r----..........----*.-----------1.---- - ...... 1- 0 1, SUBMITTALS REGUIRED FOR ALL PLUMB}Ne AND |T | ST-rEAJORK HVAC VEN-75 CIT Exist-14 ckepÂ©4 v~ F2 1, RESTORE 2, SUBMIT SAUNA 4 STEAMI UNIT MFe, INF'ORMATION , 1 Ne~; 54Kee 1 6/ 08 5 .44L CON[)17-i ONI. Col\Â·/f?~LY 01)l-06,â€¢Cl- Ill 0 0 CODES Â»ID ORDi NANCES, FOR APPROVAL , Il 44=t, Â°<Â° *4,&-~~Q, fl ~ PBMO F'ORTION of O 3 C0NC9575 i f :} , ~., 11'~~; 1 I'll'al I --7 09 82<.1 STINe -- .41[1'21. SEE STFUCTURAL INOTES A-0 IMEG HANICAL ~ INSTALL BAS5504RD HEAT e IN eÂ«,es j FRE,9,7 MI'AooN TRY 1 ..\ . ,-1/ 1, CONNEOT -rh' Exjilf 5-99+Nt 5-~ ~-- . $ i il}It 00 7 ill NOT AP=LICAbLE l ' 4 lit L__._______~____~~_~ 142* ADDE-CONI 1 , C,evpLÂ¥ 1/NITH+ ALL 5025 41 RE,RUIRED INSPBUTIONS 4_ _ --_ _L_ _--Eit_ 1 =] 06 _3, _ 05518#,/ap' 4-2- 57Â¥1-EMI ~ ty- _- SUBCONTRACTDR, METALS ~ DE Mo ST CENE SHED -3 5 -41 525 STRUCTUBAL NOTES A-6 ~-(4-,5 INS'!ALL NEIN NA-R#-R LINE 9=RG 14,1-9-AI RD.*3 .FQsT FLOOR OF EXISTI Ne GARPORT 5ECOND FLOOFE ELECTRICAL WOOD % -LASTiCS EXISTIble F. A, FR 1 *08, 00 S. r. EX IS-7 Ne F, A, 9. IE>20, 00 69. 1, COMIPLY WITH ALL CODES Â¢ REQUIRED INSFECT]ONS 1, 55 9 STRUCTURA L 2, SUOMIT PRODUCT DATA FOR ALL FIKTURES NEK ADDITIONI (EARAGE EXEMIPT) NZIN Â»DDIT ON 39, 26 9.=, 1, Rollet, C'Â»9 PENT'RY, CONeR,v[ 70 WIN FÂ» OR hICLO DE MOLISHED 35Â«065+ED FKULPS, MANUAL OF HOUSE FRAMINe 5Â¥ NA-TioNAL FOREST 3, tv[AE H+ EXIST, DIMMER/SINITSÂ» 17PNS 1 EXISTINIS SHED -( 39.75) SHED EX sri ve - 0 0, 19) S.M=.. PRODUCTS ASSOC, 1 AND AMERICAN PLYNOOD ASSOC, SW I TC HPLATS goveRS, PROVIDE 549 5-DRY UNLESS O'THER/4 55 INDICATED TO-TA L 1,9 127. ae S , TOTAL 1543,00 S,F, GRADE VAS NED LUIv[658Â· , 3, 5ue>MIT 'SAMPLES, PIN:'5*rED ON ONE SIDE .AWD ONE Â©XISTING; =AR TO-TA L 5 17 8, 0,0 6. F. 1 F=Ock -5,2/ANSPARINT 71!NierrED ITEWS, ,/--h\ - I 1,1-, N 14,1 =1 -1 FAQ-roTAL Z>!*1,91 5, F=, 1 / 4, INTER OR kNOODF\1091% TO M/Cah 5% 57 Ne / Flat ON 5 .1. ~ INSTALL NEW N 3, h' LL boR< AND CA3!NET'5 SHALL CO MI P LY Inlar-4 f VAL 60>4 j \ INA-TER L INS h L(FRON/1 7rtIRD ST, ) T KINI PREMI UM GRADE C,ONSTRUCTION, ~ < 5>4167'Ne) \\>r -1. _ 115,00 MP, 1. R P, RIP. IL_1 r , 1/ I ..44.64- --I U_1 lot-/>Â·39 -151</,iâ‚¬i.i 92< IE 1 -7 L.. ,=Ch zi* 3> 1 Wot 11-1 ty- 1/.// / /, / 2 /////2, 3 1 0 1/41 N[X)hi EAY Â«---h,Â«~ <E' 8 1- -TH+ERVIAL ~ 19Â¢0157-URE PROTECTION \0 *AR>N@g 4///., rn --1 ~ A~PLACE POST i l, 5ITUTREINE BY P\IR eRACE.~ cO' (1 -_~- 1 1 Mr=-oR NE'Al # Ii â€¢ 1 -TNO E>TeÂ« m ~>t IVA I L C<)>< t) 3, b/'EvIOBANE ROOP Ne >rALL BE SINeLE PLY' BU-TYL FRUBSEA FRAVE NOUSE li O (-A >---> FULLY- .ACÂ»EBED (20 MIL INIT-rk 10YR 1/\l,ARSANTY, FIRES'TONE OR EQUAL IL mELD-1 1 0 9- 1 ' C C J 1 3, PROVIDE SAIMPLES OF S+INeLES, 'SIC)INe, bITUTÂ·+ENE, MEN,15%4135 E- vef FY r I p 1 28,46 . L_ 1 - 4, PROV ICE SEALANTS AT JOINTS AS NECE'55Â»FÂ« FOR MEAINERPROOF INSTALLATION, - --- - --- ---_d G 9, FLASHIN@ 1 9â‚¬FT ME-T)\L 94ALL CONF09>1 -70 AFÂ©VITLTURAL SHEET 29 4- MET:AL MANUAL 59 5MAGNA , CONFORMI iD SM.AGNA MT,ANUAL FOR WAIN, THICKNESS, C X 0 (0 DOORS .4 ININIX>INS 2 5' 1, (53MPL>r Pill-4 ANSI-~ NÂ»IMA AND AINI STANDAâ€¢ RDS FOR INOOD DOORS. (21, 68 PROVI DE 1 73, MARRANTY OXI ALL DOORS, SUBMIFT BAMPLES FOR EAO+ TY=E DR, i MATOÂ·+ 8>4'STINe Deve -TYP>59 AND FINIS,~ES. 555 1Â°LANS M ELEVATION FOR SIZES, u 0- 2, VATCA EXIST, De' H,ARDI/NARE, PROVIDE $200 ALLONANCEE PER DER, FOR HARDI/44~B, i 5 0 br C C_ SLJBMIT FINAL HARD#*RE 56+BDu LE FOR EACA DOOR. '506,VIT.SAMPLES FOQ FINISA 1 _ Â£ * ~ A FPROVAL, 3, Â»LL NEIN GLASS 64+LL BE " LO IN E " 6LASS, zw - U ZON I hi@ 51.11Â«1 h/IAFRY - r -14[ 5 1 -FE PLAN 9 ROK/[ 6 -~ f B 4, WINC)0,15 692 MARVIN INOOD F\Ill-H INSECT SCREENS ON Dc>59ABLE UNITS, NORTH- R-* -ZONIE Di STR CT SURVEr N ALPINE EN@INEERS f M A PROVIDE NINMA 4 LOPN E LABEL ON EACH UNIT, FIELD MEASURE MOR ALL 4050 No, 85-<11-2 3 Zi S,EciAL * CUSTDMI SIZÂ¢ UN ITS' --- --Nx-*#*-1-- -- --*-., DITE FLAN 5596 5. F LOT *REA 3Â»7-ED 5/62// 90 ED U 5, 95-r* LL Leâ‚¬527- 14 DEADILT ON ALL NEN EXTEE IOR DOORS, rzE 2355 5,M EXIST !36 517-5 <50Â·VEQ#eE O ~9 ~-#iji 1 CONNECT- 70 5><l STI Ne SECUR'TY' SYSTE M, \11 = 01-0 2382- 5.F NEN SITE COVE,AeS 1 - 2-388 5, P ,ALL,01/NA512 SITE U0VERA06 (42, 88 yo) â‚¬ sheet no. r\. V 3119 5.r ALLOWA6LE ?=,A,9, A- 1 -7 r SNOLUCCV NONING I ws, - 916 (Â£0Â£) /119iG ;~;~03' uads -. LGEMERAL U GTE B IDE.St/4 LIVE- --LOA-CS- - ROOF -1 S Psy STOFLARE- LOAD AT #Ale,kBE- Â¥4001; T- rZ.JS:5 30 PGF . -r ..... .... 1 ..'.- COUCRET E Cok:412.ETE- --~DE.SiAN ts 154 ACEDÂ¥2-C>Ablci WITH 11!34-~-COIDE ' Acl 318 4 = -1066 Ps 1 - --27 - - --- ALL R.â‚¬01UFORÂ·LEMENT SHALL- dak\FOF-M -ro ASTM ADIS Eve 6â€¢ 1<51 DEFeaM E.P A -205 \No o /) -DE.014N 15 lu ACCOUPAN.166 VIO! 08& S-ki~TIONAL Dâ‚¬.Staki 'SPECIFICATLONS ED R. STRESS di RADE LUMBER Â¥ irt FASTE.141,441 j LATE5T EDITION *MeD FP-Allift.14 SHALL IM. 130444-Al& Flit. (<COAST RE,610#) 1:6= 1'256 1'51 -i~951'5 E./,ls'Ps, 02.ISETTER PLYWOOD - ST')2-0<-TURAL. 4 BEAPE I BOLTED 66#UECTIONJ 'tr"M a CAU'13 MICRO LAM 13624*15 AS MANUFAL -CUR.ED 11X -TRUSS 40157 CaylA dil.UEP LAM\NATS-D TIMIBER.- - 1=004LAâ€¢4 I'lit. Fb' '20206 Ptl Fi :IGS Ps( S. 1,7/8.I'SI H)â‚¬Â£- EXCAVATION FOR- REW FOOTI#45 SHALL NOT 041:>ER MINE EXI STI+40 FOUUP,ATID,is FboR. FO>Srl,Â·!46 ON 0,4015 Tue.BED SOILS Â¢ 4, ' '1 -2 'f,% ' GIl'-0, -- #r 4 i i ~0 ki kb i 1/ . f.\4 , ..1 .1 K v E i T vii'T AO' M Bij N 315 B P QI %1 6 98 1- 1 . 2 1 -1 -ri 4. 1 01' tt 6 1Â· ,/ CUT E)(167 1 46 'toor i u LUT 1 7 Jot:T - CoN#, 13 60*11- 1-f Â·-~=FF,* ----- 1 12=_ .jy . 1 . .1 - 1 9 --aifyÂ« -,N -t 1 6 03, 0 Â· ~>fÂ« - & .,f, 7% 10 FLOOP- JOISTS U' 9 6 141 ip.:-:Ef__ -Â£0 ~ 2 'G' 0..C. C + 8- 7/4, ~ 3:q) 4 7 5 IMPâ‚¬,061 J ST I \\ 6 ' 'j-- MANA 0 -9 < /24,4 er +0. - 9 3 tAx..' \ , 1 /, :\ 3 th, \ \23/ U.; \\ Z ' \42 / ' ' - ' . j 0 4 i , 1 13\% . /1 EL + \1 1 0' N \ / 4 / \(MA 2 ; 11 9' 5 5 BALES 0 347 G-TROSSES ./. 4 VEr i j - *f -0.3 671/29,4 , 9-02' 3.1 5 2 /' I 1. c l'WLS A 0 Â© i / 2 11 1 /4-M:lk .1 1 j // / ./. 1 6 4 ./~' 0 < :Nk 4/ 9_ kNI ~ 1- / 1. 1 ' t--i - -KEYJ~Z-J~!*121(+11.-2 3 ./.0.94/ / 3 49 1 fl. 3 4 1 Â· 4 052-1 44* 1-6 M lÂ£ 20 \9070 \ I - .1/1 1 1 f 7,60 1 167Â·0Â· rl- /1 /tki LAM. SAT.,O TOGC'ME?Â· \9Â·' I / 4 /07 ' 4. .16 . 5191750# ~ 7< 0 1 IIi 0/ 1 j li 1 , fits : 1 k '' '76Â·,lit,(316'0,6 ~~~~\'" $// . 11 WAA,FLEL L k.'.1 hi / f 07'12.4*Et:5 0 10'* ~ ~ - CEIL\Ht. .IST, 10$~ ~/ 1 1 1 N ' Spt KE 10 -' < -- C~ 61,1750.4 ,157, -r. - ik4615'Â·443 - MANA - i P Al ~16.L 16 4,6, 1 3-1 3 KilAIL-5.,1 - i - LE CT 1 0 M ~~) 1 \41 4 # /Â«4\ 7-7 --7-E.+71 4. 1 ",1L DÂ· 2. 4 ' 1 4 10. C r,N-. 1 1 \ BOOP FRA>/1, \le FLAN f=BAMix@ PLAN 7 ELM Â· , -I T ., CE 2 544 7 EL+0LoÂ·j ... Â«- -.J I , 1 0 .N 09' \-4'6 4, . 1 1 L 1Â·L 1'- 4 '4' - .tÂ¥\---49 04"11// 5 E C T I (3 K /5% 111, r.o (/~Â£) 1 , 23~-on . I. ' SECT g O U CF) ' <DRILL MOLE IN EX!*5TiNG - 1,9 1 1 0, 43/ < FD# To FOR:LE 3 - 4 +K 18 4 ~ - -- - --- - 7 1.-DWL) ILITÂ© couc. ._1.- SEE ARCU DY.,4 06, FOZ 2.DOP/+44 MATER,ALS ~ E- ---- -- --Â· -- --- - - _. __ a 1- LAYEÂ¥.5 %'EXT Fl:(Wr/~ 11:0â€ž EL +JILO* 1 f 1 9-17 Z< 4 51.EEPER J\~1 - - _ <2, - 1 1 1.- --- . 1'- 54' 1 01'.4' ~ 11: 3 ' ~ \'-146 . 1'Â·'5'4' , -# h â‚¬ cONG, S.AE) ' NAIL 'ZÂ· 2,(â‚¬, c -roueâ‚¬TWE.g. -1 1 Â¥4/6 1 0 - 0* 69 KINF 9 9 Ci f At:5 i to"00'' F7 - 2- 41'*M.B, ~~14 2 1 1 OVER 411 eRAVEL /~~ . 0 1 . .1 $ 1 -' 2-7204. 44 --'Â¢j-Ar--- 44-5dUAIL' ~Iji ' EXIST, SLAb . 1 1 -r 1*0 // 7 - 3 1- 9 3 KIA \Ls (--4 1/ 1 \ \~(1~ 1 Il. -4 /, It:' A.1 1 1 1 1, N *1 - 2... - 14 2141 -/Wf. .7- / *- t-/ \ 4 ~ PLÂ·#WD \ 2' 1 1 n 3 gy -O 4- = zi 2,& Â·41 0. 'GLDED got:râ‚¬6 23. <~4101~1 N ..'--"9 Pl>fWP DECKA-_ | _ .3- 44(31660,c....10- 7 -' Â·20 | ./ -3 1 1 A 10 4 3-*4,48'Â· DWLS 7Â· 1/k[AILED Tb #'~2\ \Â»=-'--.4 - w j ' te-- 2 4 62),4 Y -2 . 9 12 7.-1 6 A + d L -1 -Tf_7_7Â¢L\?112,2\1 A- 4 1 1 0- Â¢41 1 -9 /top. CEIL. I 41+ 1,/5. - -4 40 EL, +81 0'1 44' "4% le,V414.1, 3.lk'.,M, 5 . ~.~;_re_f 11.-7~ 6,-,Â£:1.1"Glt / 01*42 \6'0.c. 5Mpsold NAN(.Ek I 2.-4 40\41 - L -1 41 'i R L i , 1 1 il 3- d +1-19 4.-15 - i--------- ----------- - -- SECTION ra) -12,6. STUps EL-+ 0.- 0' FOUNDATION DETAIL .1 19' 4 - f<f 4'. 10' 3.-0/ , , --------------------~ 432 1 1. ---'---- - 4 - -1- cd 1 0 1 Py 1 266 Gil ..4-M 6. tig~ 61 Z _ g %- 5- SECTION~ /*h TFUSS DETAIL - 6 REG'D 140= IL cr l.33/ NofTÂ» ~1 1 . %* P LY '1; D ''2/: :5 1 * 8 dill)ED To.- i â€¢ : roE NDATION PLAN u 4-r -fA 3%'FIXWD -DECK~~ i . 1 ~ udi 4 4,4 712' j ~LS j tf4 d 19, F sheet no. 7*Offs ECTI ON-7. c A -2 1â€ž.Il-01 42 91\101_LIC]CV &01\1030192 O 3 ' 9310!)09Â¥ 18 uosiapur 23309 51021!40Â¥ 9Â£97-936 (COE)/0918 OPÂ©]0100' uadsy / 9,66 x09 1.1 Â·.- 3 FL11----L_ [1 f -- I 1 /1 I . U U 1 , 11 . , 4 1 / 1 1 7 lili \\ / 44.2 _Zzl 1 7 MAer[ FE 27213 Utel B ft IUÂ·+1 - - 4--- - ---- -~ - - dE g i...2'21 i t / EL 41 i,10, SLOPE jil-ets Â©-- -241,..71 l = i 8-all l. 'P -- Re MOVE 5,)< INTÂ· Hvt. 1Â¢Al+1 09) z,< <# 1 337-~ F\1 1 4,0 INS --Â·r-1 4 n f \ $ - 4- h> Ir ,Â· , 7 // 1 ....... 0.. lij~f_ _- -- -~,- /3-~= - - / -1 Â»1-62-- - 1 - 4 F 1 ' -T .- 1 , 11, - .... -m -1 I , A 1 - INSTALL ' ~ ) 5,92 L , 1 124 -- - - -3 -4 1% / 1/ FOLD':NÂ© li.\ 1- A M; LiliS<t~b~ >' Ry , Â»J E----f 1-=-4 1 42- :3*: â€ž==2 0 K o liLi. - - 191. 5- 1. 1 f / 00/93.1146 L---2_1 E>St,6.-CED; M 1 / K, / 11,2/ . -2 Et /j~.f// 1 L! NE O= /4 d 0 / e,ARABS 16- 1 - .\. / 1 / 1{ j - 3 3 55 LOW / C 66 7 h 4 ---t 4. 1 t} d / L 1-7 11 1--1 .----- l ht-- L cfrd 0-0 7 00- im 23 053 --1--11 --.-41 El --- ---11 -3 6 i ---- 05001119 f L 62*L F L AJA L 4_ #b _- --- --.-------*.-------- IL 1 1 ~ METOS SAU,NA UNIT 2 32 - O" / M'I R , ~.. f - 5-BAVI UN, T > 5-75.AN/1 9-01 5 R 10'-Oil ; 2 ' - fo Â¥6" 2 51 . 0 1| 3~ 26,6" ~ Aicpi 3'/i' 51.-0 " UNC,grA SENG+ /f 1 7-0 Nes 4 9-10 NEF H 5/AD 'f c -+ / C JAME AS EX DTI Ne *3:.1349 11- . ----2.7.-i -- 1. f --.- i- ' i < bATARGON/1. ih~k/ p.1-1: 1 1 1 11 -...--,--/-. 1--+,. [1 -..-- ---~-- - Â¢ 11-1 , 1 5,Â«Aee CEILING - ~--1 L -t . 1 U V - 1 f - ; bl?:Act\ DENCH / - Re; Am ' - 1 f- 31 ~92% .7 11 JWL#EVECE ,"41 6%/te L .--------~ - -- - ) 111* K IT,9.1 f r J : 1#all, - , 1 -7 LD'. - STUDY PORC!+ 1 O ZLA -AV-.... 16,64- I ---i Ali"Lrptnit) 8 0 /14/4/ --- i , 1 1 UNDEFOU N 'EK \ 1 1 Peu 525 SO 1 0- 4 = 1 ~1 Al/couNTER-TOPU.-, 1-: 121 1 > -====4 --1*-2-_END. Adf- -T w I Erruu/&9 ~K+Lvil:23 6 1 Ill 0 - GAILABE 4 (PANEL,20113.- LI'.41. - . 1 w I i..-&18604 rÂ» LV 11 \. .- -- 1 , (~ C.,1-0 v,~- ..1 1 ---- , 1 A .K 7 2 Uplf. 4*rlek| <.r-~ 'Qu \ tl 0 *Ng,1 1-/ 1 1 1 1 . - ,/ 1 011 1 \ - Â»--1, 1,> 11 i.4 U h=-:rE----------. -t}---4 - F 1-14 \ 2,0 l' I 143*>, MALLâ‚¬p ~IC, - f\,0/,i<~ ~ --- -4--- 1 !~ --~ PqINDON TO SE ~ ,/ 1 X \ , , Â».t-Ir REMOVED 1-0 38 LIVING _ Â£52:Pl' la < REMOVED - PORC4 , FAMILY'/ DIN Ive a -- m - -- A 121 I W. i X \ I a 1 Â£ 1--4 P.. i .1/li \ \ 1 - , XX00 0 LL__ 7 - -11 -- .#I- L . \ d - /\\ Â»501 j \Â»2Â»NvAY , ./ f 1 4,1~6 r -1 68 ,-4 ./ ./ ..... = 9 4 1 2\4 .//2 \\ 14% DE, 0, LAND.SCAPE 9 t-1 ' 1 Â»,7 10\ g -1 i ~ 14\ I ' I V r ) '.'---- - --- -- -*- C -n+is poof B.EL 06Â»<TED ) (j *2 9 FROMI EX' ST- Ne Â· ~ ~,15 - -p- -- l 7 3 1 -7- l CARPORT ENTRANce, ) ir- n B'- 94 k (VER; Ff') ~ 23'-O" 1 , , 31-&11 4- .41392--7.-- (95#ERAL CONTRACTOR AND ALL 0 SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL LAYOUT AND FIELD VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS - P I @2- 67 FLOGAL PLA Id AND UTILITY SERVICE LOCAE-,ONS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, '41'llot' 1 i PLAN NO R-TiÂ·+ , SU56ONTRAC-1-09 64-FAll- DUBMIT 1 DRAWING OF HN SASE MARD LAYOUT FOR APPROVA L. Ziy- /4 99 8 I Ill I sheet no. 0 ADDENDUM NO. 1 REV, 29 MAR Â°11 A-3 , GIllaDV O 21 sapposs, 18 l.losiapul 1 6 zdvul 9Â£917 -936 (COE)/agle OPOJoloO' uads Â»S/Â»MP | 6 9Â¥W G 1 -7 ' '3-- . ROUND-TOIÂ° DORVEQ 1Â»-In ~ t--Ii- R 5; 00 'A e \1~ 144Â·:2(Â·tilk â‚¬64 k'Ky,Milln'\ 14 k y VA J I w \ 1 /1241541~ Li*14 7--~---7 /1Yrf //2 179'1 #4 Vy-1 - ..4 l\ n 3 77 11.1 2 5 3 4 sheet no. [ ADDENDUM NO, 1 3 1 APR, e, 11-[ I A- 4- IC . - A i.- ill | .....1 OC,469 13UU[)Id / SE)31!4 9Â£9P-916 (COE)/11918 ~Po,0103' uads,/9,66~7 1 6 6Â»168 , /,Al,--~0 .. - m.. 4 Illilaililillulwirillial'lillillillillill 111'BEEN= f .*a - - ~~~~ . .- 1 1 .. '1 ... 4 i Â· --:~1 . -0-- 0- . 0 & a A . ... 88.8 A AA UA , 4-, - A 411. Alâ€¢ma i 0.- - 4 b' 1*Wit AlillillilillilldillilimambA 7 a.....1 ,.. W ~111~~*0Â®he# 14.7 4 .h - Ae'll'll"/Ill/"IP..MIN"gill'"i;"All/704 . 1122.1.1111,~, ' .i I I I ..lill 1- =1114.1,11 it.1 , 1 . .-1.11- 1 .. ..1111 9 0 - . . e Adilililli . 1 ~ 1 4 1 1 - .. 0- 0- 1 0 . 6 -I-. 4 -' --. I . .. . , 0.0 - 0 i 2 4 -01/Â© @1 f 1 1 ZZ ILI Q- 0 0 wr 3 e \ 9 it Fl 33. 1. FcoArt e A-ADDUNDUM No. 1 y'-3 ELEM - ROUNDTOP DORMIE R ~Â© .SECTION]-IRO[JINIDTOP DORK/1 ER (7 NALL SECTION 3 i L--1 k 11 . 9 WALL SECTION ;NÂ°FIL 6, Ill I 15: -4 - 3/40 , 1'.ot' 6/411 = 11-011 74-5 REV 11 WAR 'MI $ 4- CE 1 04.1- Itoig 00 ' 9Â£917-916 (COE)/21918 :=Z;AJ.12;~~ 11- 92' -11' 1 1 D Â¢ 1 j 4 A.A A 4, 6 -0- ' I. la /2, . / 9 - . . 0 I , e. -1. 0 .. WA -. . 0 1 6 - ... - . - d 6 . 11 , 1 1 8 15 - ... - 6 0 . 4 . 0 0 - I I. I , ... 6 D . 0 0- 0 0 eD A - A . - . ... I . - . 0 - - A " 4 - 8 ... 4 , . - 8 \ I . . .. 4 -- - . A - - .. . -' 0 / .. , -- /1 0 - I ... - 0 \ 0 0. 1 4 I 4.## 4 -- 0 . . - ..G 0 - --. ..-, 0 , 4 ' 6 0 .. I . # .: ... i " -. 11 0 .... --- . -4- - I 0 4 - 4 -. . . 0 . ..8 - 0 - D 1 . ... 0 0 . .. 0 1 0 . I. . 4 -I - . I I. .. - - 1 - /0 - I , 1 4 . - -/ 0. A . . ~ ..- . 0 . 4 0- I-/ 0 . e. - - 6. . I. .. :: 6'. /41 e. 1 1 -1 123 DEEP PAINTED INOOD SHELA/11â‚¬ . -1 1 - /2 - 1Â»1\ - n 1 0 1 //r-h MATC+ C J BASE A-r, /JOVERNLATE-- _.un- >(fr ., 1 ) 16)01"IMBR -f- 11-1 ( C N LY TH ' S : :Li ~Â¢ LOCATION j 2 49-4. SP = 82(0 .F- , 2 1.- [ 1, r 111 9-45 LVI IN@ ll_3 Ii) * VA-1- ID N 1 0 9 = 1/111.1 1. 5 It \ 1-1 lu C) M SECOND FLOOR ELECTRIGN- PLANI i it A 7- 23 6 _\ e . 1 11 ip ' Bit - 71-<~ --7 1 . ------- -7 LiC 1 STER,9 6 -,--------- | tt FAN r -Ull PLATFORM S - 11 5/81' PLYF\ID 46'-0 ap- 3 OJ56 ON 1%40 lei'60 1 A 07 J// h n (03.DIVI/459 4- 1/1!' arp. 63 6 Le . , |j =zzl En=~~ 1 p b A / 0 ft 4~-4- --; 1 -0 - 0 1 11 21 OPEN Er) I . f =e\NA A 1 /1 -4.4 2*3 4- . 5<~44. 11 3/--1 aAÂ»61 07 3145 1- db 00Â© m. 4-7 i i E--075# c--1 +8'-0 " '94%24--// Cle' f POSITION 1 1 /1 - t,P C 7Â« 5 El) F.XTURE 504 EDLILE 6 54 I-* .-& 012% F'>cTURFÂ·~ A PALO 400 se 14 77 100,61 aid:,1 -1,411 DsÂ« f ADDED SÂ«UNA L 547 EM SUPFLIER .21 C Â»ALO 70 AL 34 LITE Â«77 BON Â»11, DAMPPROOF -- 68 @BF'LEGTED (35 Il-11\18 PLAINI FIRST FLOOR NOR-T-Ht D e FRE 51.A l N A LAMP U *2 e,A;RAE 5 < STO %Â«05 ACCESS) ELECTRICAL PLAN 5 160 IN EXTERICR AS SELECTED 5OFFIT RECESS ( AMA-1-5 + EXIS'-TIINe~ < FIXTU_BE AS SELECT-ED ar OPJINES. 9 RELOCATED COAC14 LAMP U 1 (0 SUBMIT-IAL OP GATALOe CUT~PRODUOT INFO F69 ALL Fl><TUBES TO ARCHITECT REQ ' D FOR APPROVA j SELEOTION 1%*21 A - /ADDENDUM NO, 1 sheet na APRIL 8, Fill Ad) 0h /00 1 Nedsv 16 29Â»94 91 O 21 ' 931DPOSÂ¥ 1? uosiapuy 19 JÂ»' L 9L97-926 (COE)/219lg ~DJOI AGENDA 4 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE May 8, 1991 REGULAR MEETING SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM 5:00 I. Roll call and approval of March 13, March 21, 1991 and April 8, 1991 minutes 10, Ap,76 00=ZEÂ£- 9> 1 0.~. C>lok. 'L-ZE---. 01 14 â€ž,7 Â·4- t. s ,~=_ v- , II. Committee Member & Staff Comments III. Public Comment IV. OLD BUSINESS 5:10 A. Final Development: 610 N. 3 RD 266 5:30 B. Final Development: 214 W. BleekeriX 6:00 C. Final Development: The Meadows: Residential only (Acddemic .and Music Â·portions scheduled for May 22) V. NEW BUSINESS 7 :15 A. Request for deletion from Inventory: 601 W. Hallam (Public Hearing) 1-1 k.,kt-Â£.4- B. (Note: The Public Hearing scheduled for 316 E. Hopkins will not be held. The application has been temporarily withdrawn.) WÂ« r 9 4. / ''Â»7- ..Lil, -. c------- O-tÂ£-...c.Â£.-u~...CL Et lk- Al n - Le-5 7:45 VI. COMMUNICATIONS: A. National Preservation Week activities B. Project Monitoring 8:00 VII. ADJOURN MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Re' Final Development and setback variations: 610 N. 3rd St. (a/k/a 329 Lake Ave.) May 8, 1991 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Final Development approval, sideyard and combined setback variations. LOCATION: 610 N. 3rd (a/k/a 329 Lake Ave.), Lot 9, Block 102, Hallam's Addition, Aspen APPLICANT: Sheldon Lubar, represented by Welton Anderson PROJECT SUMMARY: This structure is nori-conforming in both FAR and sideyard setbacks, which has been a primary issue in approving the proposed addition. Revisions have resulted in an addition that does not exceed the existing FAR, and actually reduces the structures setback non-conformities. PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION: On May 9, 1990, the HPC met with the architect in a pre-application to review the basic concepts. of the proposal. The general discussion focused on the significant changes that have already occurred to this cottage (miner's cottage converted stylistically into a small Second Empire) , and to what extent additional alterations would impact the overall character and integrity of the cottage. The HPC also discussed the request for FAR and setback variations, reminding the architect that a "finding for character compatibility" would be required for the HPC to grant such approval. On June 27, 1990, the HPC reviewed the project for Conceptual Development approval at a Public Hearing, where a number of neighbors appeared and voiced their concern regarding the height of the proposed addition and variations being requested. The HPC tabled action at that time to allow the applicant an opportunity to address the concerns of the neighbors, and return to HPC with a revised plan. Public hearings were continued to August 8, 22 and September 12, 1990, with Conceptual Development and 10 3/4" side yard setback variation approval on the 12th. The approval included a condition that the addition being scaled down to not exceed the maximum allowable floor area, and that a revised application 9 7 indicating such reduction be submitted in addition to information showing that the revised addition meets all height and standards and shall be submitted for Final Development review. The .. applicant had originally requested Final approval also be granted on September 12, 1990, but withdrew that request a the meeting. On January 9, 1991, the applicant returned to the HPC for an "Insubstantial Modification" to the plans, which was approved. This "modification" met all the conditions of Conceptual approval, and the applicant assumed Final had been granted. Upon submittal for building permit, staff and the applicant discovered that Final had in fact not been granted, therefore, this meeting is to bring the review process to a close. DISCUSSION: Staff finds that the conditions of Conceptual approval have been met, and we are recommending Final Development approval as proposed. We support the applicant's request for sideyard setback variation of 10 3/4", as well as a variation for combined sideyard setback, finding that due to the overall decrease in the setback nonconformity, the variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark. ALTERNATIVES: 1) Final Development and sideyard setback variation approval as proposed (north sideyard of 10 3/4" and combined sideyard setback). 2) Table action to allow the applicant additional time to restudy specific elements of the proposal. 3) Deny Final Development approval, finding the Standards for Development have not been met. RECOMMENDATION: *The Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant Final Development approval for the proposal at 610 N. 3rd St., including a side yard setback variation of 10 3/4" and a combined sideyard setback variation, finding that the setback non-conformities are being decreased, and that the variations are more compatible in character with the historic landmark. Additional comments: memo.hpc.610n3.fd 2 Â£ i C Welton Anderson & Associates Architects April 19, 1991 Roxanne Eflin, Historic Planner ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 S. Galena Aspen, Colorado RE: LUBAR RESIDENCE, 610 N. Third Lot 9, Block 102, Hallam's Addition Final Development Approval Dear Roxanne, This letter requests scheduling for the May 8 HPC meeting for Final Development approval for this project. We request final approval based upon the revised plans reviewed by the committee on January 9, 1991. At that meeting HPC directed Roxanne to handle this change, (revisions presented on 1/9/91), as an insub- stantial amendment because of its reduced size and reloc- ation away from the only affected neighbor. There have been no changes to the design since the plans presented at the 1/9/91 meeting. Enclosed are ten completed sets of working drawings for the project. At the January 9 meeting we understood the committee to have signed off on the project to a staff level review as an insubstantial amendment and that no further review by HPC was required. Drawings have been completed on this basis. Conceptual development revidw including setback varia- tions for the garage footprint were granted in the HPC meeting of September 12, 1990. We respectfully request that this variation be included in the final approval. Sincerely, U U C. Welton Anderson Architect Planning / Architecture / Interior Design Box 9946 / Aspen,Colorado 81612/ (303) 925 - 4576 1 1 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of January 9, 1991 Les: I would have to go to Denver to s*ee the Â· building' that has the brick facing before I would approve this. Jake: I want to know what design you like Welton? Welton: I like the opened up ground floor incorporated with a three story clapboard building. Jake: I like the stucco and a simple block building, no clipped corners. Simplicity is the key word. Charles: In all of these schemes there has been attention to the separation of the bays. The ground floor now is the most predominant and in keeping with the other historical buildings in town. The general building is taking form. I like the third scheme for its simplicity. Don: I would tend to favor stucco. Charles: There may be a way to favor stucco with a brick color. A contemporary material used in an honest way and compatible with the surrounding buildings. Les: I like #2 and can live with the stucco. I am not sure with the awning treatment yet. Roger: These designs are a good direction and I would go with #3. I also like the idea of wood siding and there were some wood buildings in Aspen. Against brick panels. - Joe: I like scheme #2 due to the window treatment and store front. You don't get a horizontal feel. Not in favor of the clipped corners. Bill: I prefer scheme #2 due to the stronger store front and the identification of the lower level and seems to reduce the massing Of the upper two levels. I like the differentiation of the different windows. Each level has a different window style. No clipped corners. I would be willing to look at the brick but possibly stucco that is compatible with the district would be acceptable. Supportive of an encroachment for the steel cast columns as it adds a contemporary look. Straw pole: 4 for design #2 and 3 for design #3. 610 N. THIRD - LUBAR RESIDENCE Welton: As you remember I said there would not be an increase in FAR. The Lubar's were in town for XMAS and they looked at the 10 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of January 9, 1991 results of that decision and the idea of a 12 by 12 sleeping room and a 10 by 12 ft. sitting room were too small to do anything with. Instead of having a raised turret they would like a bay window. I am requesting 45 degree bay window that look out past the McCoy house. Regarding the neighbors the amount of mass is substantially smaller. It is two feet below what the height limit is. Roxanne: Does the Board feel this is insubstantial? If so I can sign off on this. Welton: They are picking up less impact. It is a bay window. Don: The net impact is less. If you take a site line from Ann Altimus's house this does not stick up higher because it is on the opposite side. Les: My only concern is the neighbors. Bill: The Board directs Staff to sign off. MOTION: Charles made the motion to adjourn; second by Les. All in favor, motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Kathy Strickland, Deputy City Clerk 11 - . t~ 6. . 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee. From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Re: Conceptual Development: 610 N. 3rd St.' (a/k/a 329 Lake Ave.), Public Hearing, continued from August 22 and August 8, 1990. Request for Final Development approval also at this meeting Date: September 12, 1990 LOCATION: 610 N. 3rd (a/k/a 329 Lake Ave.), Lot 9, Block 102, Hallam's Addition, Aspen APPLICANT: Sheldon Lubar, represented by Welton Anderson PROJECT SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting HPC's approval for both Conceptual and Final development for the partial demolition and new addition to the historic landmark located at 610 N. 3rd St., which also carries the address of 329 Lake Ave. The addition is in the form of an attached 2-car garage with master .2.4 bedroom suite above, within the "tower" element proposed. An FAR variation of 1964 sq. ft. is being requested, along with a r.ideyard setback variation of 10 3/4" (due to the very narrow lot at the proposed garage location). .The height of the tower element has been revised. It is now 1' 6w lower than the previous submission. PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION: On May 9, 1990, the HPC met with the architect in a pre-application to review the basic concepts of the proposal. The general discussion focused on the significant changes that have already occurred to this cottage (miner's cottage converted stylistically into a small Second Empire), and to what extent additional alterations should effect the overall character and integrity of the cottage. The HPC also discussed the request for FAR and setback variations, reminding the architect that a "finding for character compatibility" would be required for the HPC to grant such approval. On June 27, 1990, the HPC reviewed the project for Conceptual Development approval at a Public Hearing, where a number of neighbors appeared and voiced their concern from the height of the proposed addition and variations being requested. The HPC tabled action at that time to allow the applicant an opportunity to address the concerns of the neighbors, and return to HPC with a revised plan. - garage vs. the carport. Standard 2. The proposed Â·development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The HPC should consider if the proposed addition is compatible with the character of the neighborhood. This structure is highly visible from Lake Avenue, one of Aspen's most significant residential streets within a historic context. While many of these cottages have evolved into much larger, more elaborate "Victorians" over the years, it appears as the general intent of this addition is not much different fron residences in the immediate neighborhood. Standard 3. 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: We feel that the general cultural value of this historic resource is in its relation to the street and the general character of the Triangle Park/Lake Ave. district. The revised addition does not appear to detract from the cultural value of the landmark, in our opinion. Standard 4. The proposed development 'enhances or does. not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: Staff feels that this Standard should be carefully considered, and is probably the most important in this application. Staff feels that the continuation of a non-original theme (Second Empire) does little to enhance the architectural integrity of this former gabled miner's cottage, however, due to the previous alternations, we find that the addition design does not necessarily detract from whatever architectural integrity remains with this structure. Staff is not opposed to the general design of the addition, due mostly to the fact that the cottage has been .substantially altered in the past, which reduced its original integrity substantially. ALTERNATIVES: 1) Conceptual Development approval as proposed (revised), including the sideyard setback and FAR variations as proposed, making the finding of character compatibility 2) Conceptual Development approval as proposed (revised), 3 1 - Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of September 12, 1990 . 1 - K Welton: This is a mansard roof house and if we put a gable on it, it wouldn't be compatible with the house. If we put a mansard roof on then it will not be compatible with the neighoorhood. There is no way of winning that argument. I am trying to make the addition compatible to itself rather than the neighborhood. The frustration goes allot deeper, it is over the 4 or 5 thousand sq. foot houses. Charles: Is there any way to do the addition without asking for variances. Welton: The car port as shown is 22.6 inches and the garage requested is 20.6 inches wide and is as narrow as we can get. Joe: Your proposal that you are requesting is what you would be allowed to build if it wasn't designated. Les: I find it compatible. Chairman Bill Poss closed the public hearing. MOTION: Les made the motion that HPC grant conceptual development approval for the proposal and side yard setback of 10 3/4" for 610 N. 3rd St. (329 Lake Avenue), finding that the setback non-conformity is being decreased, and that the side yard setback variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. I further recommend that the addition cbe scaled down to not exceed the maximum allowable floor area and that a revised application indicating such reduction shall be submitted in addition to information showing that the revised aidition meets all height and standards - and shall be submitted for final development review. Charles second. DISCUSSION Joe: For purposes of this given the fact that they are not sking for the variation of the floor area it is basically within what you could build by right, it is significant to me as I do not want to see our landmark designations have dis-incentives. Given the fact that you have dropped the request for additional floor area I am in favor of the motion. All favored the motion except Donnelley. 204 S. GALENA STREET - SPORTSTALKER CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT Roxinne: The last meeting was tabled due to a number of considerations primarily the requirement of the proposed restudy AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE March 25, 1992 REGULAR MEETING SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM 5:00 I. Roll call and approval of February 26th and March 11th minutes. '0Â·>.6-Â·-A 14 *1\ ,\. . - II. Public Comments III. OLD BUSINESS A. (Continued Public Hearing - Resolution #2, 1992 Recommending 1992 Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures as re-evaluated IV. NEW BUSINESS 6:00 A. Conceptual Development (public hearing) 201 E. Hyman 6:30 V. WORKSESSION: Wagner Park Ice Rink (proposed) 7:00 VI. COMMUNICATIONS A. Project Monitoring B. Committee Reports C. Staff Report 7:15 Video: Fort Collins Historic Preservation Program 7:35 VII. ADJOURN Ath AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE March 25, 1992 REGULAR MEETING SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM 5:00 I. Roll call and approval of February 26th and March 11th minutes. II. Public Comments III. OLD BUSINESS A. (Continued Public Hearing - Resolution #2, 1992 Recommending 1992 Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures as re-evaluated .4(gq v , InfeL IV. NEW BUSINESS 6:00 A. Conceptual Development (public hearing) 201 E. Hyman /(09.2 0. 6-Pr F:. M , (7 4, c.) ~ EN< : - .( I'-i - - t-~~37ft-t_.,4.4 - /17 c , i,-1. C 6:30 V. WORKSESSION: -Wagner Park Ice Rink (proposed) 7:00 VI. COMMUNICATIONS A. Project Monitoring B. Committee Reports C. Staff Report 7:15 Video: Fort Collins Historic Preservation Program 7:35 VII. ADJOURN . RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE ESTABLISHING THE 1992 RE-EVALUATED INVENTORY OF HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES Resolution 92-2 WHEREAS, it is the responsibility of the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee (HPC) to re-evaluate the Aspen Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures, hereinafter "Inventory", at least once every five (5) years, and recommend revisions for adoption by the Aspen City Council; and WHEREAS, "Inventory" management is considered td be a vital aspect of Aspen's historic preservation, which meets an underlying principle of the HPC: to foster public awareness of Aspen's preservation program, and work in harmony with the community's goals to preserve, protect, and enhance Aspen's historic resources and unique character; and, WHEREAS, the HPC and Planning Office completed field studies and survey form revisions between September, 1990 and March 1992, with the assistance of professional consultants contracted by the Planning Office; and WHEREAS, the Planning Office held open public meetings on February 26, 27, and 28, 1992, to assist the public in understanding the re-evaluation process and changes in the historic preservation program that have occurred since 1986; seven property owners met with staff; and WHEREAS, the HPC has conducted duly noticed public hearings on March 17 and 18, 1992, to solicit citizen and property owner input in order to assist the HPC in re-evaluating the "Inventory"' and WHEREAS, twelve property owners appeared before the HPC at the public hearings, four of whom presented information to the HPC and requested removal from the Inventory based on loss of historic value of their properties. Four written requests for removal from the Inventory were received by the Planning Office and entered into the record at the HPC public hearings; and WHEREAS, the HPC has individually reviewed and evaluated the recommended additions, deletions, and category chabges to the "Inventory" as recommended by the Planning Office. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that: SECTION 1. The following amendments are recommended to the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures, as a result of the re- evaluation process according to Section 24-7-709(A-C) of the Aspen Municipal Code: 1. The following properties shall be added to the "Inventory", based upon their current architectural integrity, historic significance and community and neighborhood influence: 303 S. Cleveland 305 S. Cleveland 307 S. Cleveland 1031 E. Durant 107 Juan St. 520 Walnut 557 Walnut 1500 Ute Avenue 1280 Ute Avenue Glory Hole Park , Aspen Brewery Ruins (Red Mountain Rd.) 701 W. Main 106 North Park 2. The following properties shall be deleted from the "Inventory"; each property has been evaluated as to its current architectural integrity, historic significance and community and neighborhood influence so as to determine historic value: 124 W. Hallam St. - complete loss of historic value 120 N. 5th St. - complete loss of historic value 1022 E. Hyman Ave. - complete loss of historic value 1031 E. Hyman Ave. - complete loss of historic value 601 W. Hallam - loss of historic value (previous decision of the HPC made in 1991) SECTION 2. The HPC adopts and designates the properties listed on Exhibit A, attached, and incorporated herein, as the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures for the City of Aspen, and recommends the ratification and adoption of same by Ordinance by the Aspen City Council. SECTION 3. The Planning Department shall hereby publish this Resolution of the HPC in a newspaper of local circulation following its adoption. APPROVED by the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee at their regular meeting on March 25, 1992. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE by William J. Poss, Chairman ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Assistant City Clerk reso.hpc.inventory I k MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: Conceptual Development and partial demolition: 201 E. Hyman (Public Hearing) Final Development approval is being requested at this time. Date: March 25, 1992 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Conceptual and Final development and partial demolition approval for a rear addition to 201 E. Hyman. LOCATION: 201 E. Hyman, Lots A, B and C, Block 76, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado APPLICANT: John and Miriam Hartman, represented by Graeme Means, architect ZONING: "01' Office zone, Designated Landmark SITE, AREA AND BULK CHARACTERISTICS: Lot Size: 7,969 sq. ft. Allowable FAR: 3,450 sq. ft. (+/-) Existing FAR: 1,400 sq. ft. (approx.) Proposed Total FAR: 1,900 sq. ft. (approx.) FAR prgposed for demolition 150 sq. ft. (approx.) FAR of addition 500 sq. ft. (approx.) Max. allowable height 25' EXISTING CONDITIONS: The subject structure, a vernacular miner's cottage with Italiante detailing, was built in 1893, and survives as one of the most intact examples of cottage architecture in Aspen. It has been used for 99 years as a single-family residence. PROJECT SUMMARY and REVIEW PROCESS: The applicable Guidelines are found in Section VI. Residential Buildings - Renovation and Restoration, beginning on page 47. The Development Review Standards are found in Section 7-601 (D) , and the Partial Demolition Standards are found in Section 7-602(A and C); Development Review Standards 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 a Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area, 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: We find that this standard has been met. The addition design is small, articulated and blends well with the existing character of the structure. The need for this addition is due to family needs for an additional bedroom and bath. No variations are being requested. The Guidelines address additions as follows: "Locate additions to original houses so that they do not alter the facade. Additions should not be designed so that they obscure the size or shape of the house. A possible option is setting back the addition so that it does not affect the building's front." The addition is taking place well to the rear of the structure, however, since this property occupies a corner location, the addition is visible from a corner view. There is a recessed break along the west elevation that helps defines new from old in an effective yet subtle way. Streetscape and Landscape Material: It appears that no significant vegetation will be removed. The site plan only indicates street trees. Fencing: The Guidelines recommend open picket-style fencing around the more public areas of the parcel, with closed stockade-type fencing permitted around the rear yard. The proposal meets this Guideline. Alleys and Parking: No changes are proposed to the outbuilding. Two parking spaces exist on the parcel, which are all that are required for this structure. Rooflines: The proposal generally meets the standards for roof pitch. The gables appear identical in pitch to the cottage. Doors: Staff finds the doors to be compatible with the cottage. Windows: We find this Guideline has generally been met. Both four-pane double hung and six-pane cottage windows are proposed in 2 1 the addition, which staff finds compatible. The new windows proposed indicate duplicated trim found on the historic portion of the structure. Staff has recommended this level of detail be slightly modified to allow the historic portion to read through, while the addition detailing design be slightly simplified , yet compatible. Materials: The proposal states all materials will be wood of compatible dimension and scale to those on the existing house. Exact material samples must be presented before Final approval may be granted. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The Planning Office finds that the proposal is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structure located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. Response: It is staff's opinion that a well designed addition to this landmark will not detract from its cultural value, or the value of the adjacent parcels. We find that this standard has been met. 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: We find that architecturally, the principal design elements of the addition generally meet this standard. The recessed por,tion along the west elevation provides the articulation necessary to determine old from new. Architecturally, staff finds this addition to be well designed, and compatible with the resource and the neighborhood. Partial Demolition Standards The Partial Demolition Standards are found in Section 7-602(C) of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. The general provisions of Sec. 7- 602 allow the HPC to require a Performance Guarantee when deemed appropriate due to the significance of the project. No approval for partial demolition shall be granted unless the HPC finds that all of the following standards are met: 1. The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure; and 3 2. The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: a. Impacts on the historic importance of the structure or structures located on the parcel. b. Impacts on the architectural integrity of the structure located on the parcel. Response: The portion of the structure proposed for demolition is the rear addition, added after the original residence was built. We find that the application meets the Partial Demolition standards. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following alternatives: 1) Approve the Conceptual Development application as proposed, finding that the Development Review and Partial Demolition Standards have been met. Final Development approval may be granted at this time provided that no conditions are placed upon the Conceptual approval. Materials must be approved at this time. 2) Approve the Conceptual Development application, finding that the Development Review and Partial Demolition Standards have been met, with any exceptions specified as conditions which shall be met in the Final Development application. 3) Table action to a date certain, to allow the applicant time to restudy the proposal. 4) Deny Conceptual Development approval, finding that the Standards (Development Review and/or Partial Demolition) have not been met. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC approve the Conceptual Development application as proposed, finding that the Development Review and Partial Demolition Standards have been met. Final Development approval may be granted at this time provided that no conditions are placed upon the Conceptual approval. Materials must be approved at this time. Additional comments: memo.hpc.201eh.cd 4 IAND USE APPLICATION FORM . 4 1) Project Na~ HA-87 nt A< 6.4 RES /(DEA/ CE_ 2) Project Location A-01 E . 14 ,-t M 444 Ae pfAV tor& A,8 . pke-rt *-iC_L 13,Lort_ '76 (idicate street Kddress, lot & blockiumber, legal description where apprcpriate) 3) Present Zai-ng / 4) Iat Size 7969 Fil 5) Applicant' s Name, Address & Phone # 70*u j MI Rt APK 14% Wt- 11\A A k) 20 1 1/. 14.4,LAJJ 4*kj l 6) Representative's Name, Address & Phone # 4Â»-mu L M %,A Ars 21 0 Sa Â· ~ ALINA l 925-- 9< 5-5 7) Type of Application (please check all that apply): Conditional Use - Ocrceptual SPA -yL conceptaial Historic Dev. Special Review ~ Final SPA + Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline - Cbnceptual RID Minor Historic Dev. 1 Stream mrgin Final FUD 71 Historic Demolition Mtuntain View Plane Subdivision Hi-storic Designation ~ - Ccodaninillinization _ Text/Map Alne~ment QW Allotment Int Split/Int Line - CMOS E>oaoption Adjustment 8) IÂ»gr,ripticm of Existing Uses. (minber and type of ecisting structures; approocimate sq. ft.; nuaber of bedrocms; an, pmvious approvals granted to the property). 1 Asto 12(C L)008 Flk Ave 14Â©U&12 - OF- u 14Â·40 p'~~- C /449 10,7 le rack, 6 PO A-*l 17 63 A-12Â· 06 E- 9) Description of Develgment Applicatian ~AIUVZ AL S~TAUUDL,110;J OP H{brootc- *-gbot Troul 3-0 \4011%7_ A *D Â£0005 Fil A-et;Z_ Arfjib l Tic) M O F /17 â‚¬230 P74=2- 10) HÂ¥re you attached the following? 9- Response to Attachment 2, Minimum Submission Conterrts _ 4- Respense to Al=taciiniant 3, Specific Sukinissicn Contents - Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application DNE DISCUSS/Ov UMIZ>ML M}AJ"MU,k.. .bllf314,55lo w Cokni,prg. MINIMUM SUBMISSION CONTENTS 1. Se_e_ 1 et ter_*_tag_hed 2. -2()I Ealt. Hyman Street, Aspen,__Lot_s A,B, part.ial.C,-_}31.ock_7-6 3, _ See_tit.le insu.ra.n_c.e a.tt.ached 4. aee map attached Our proUQ@al Rs to demolish approxlmate.ly .I 50 sguare teet of 5. higtoric- addition,Â§ to the mal.n El.01-1239 . These addi.ti.org -are structurally deticient as to fornaation, root strength. headroom, and insu-lationÂ·.- We .1.Btend to ad.4 a new bedroom, -bat.broom, and mul.room. ok. approximately bc)(1 pguare feet. This addithop.is represented in the attÂ·ached- drawl.ng-s~ A massing model will be representer{ at f.he hearing. We teel that the proposed addition is monest in scale and contextual in.-9at.1-lre, _thl-1.3 complyi.ng wlÂ·.th the i.ntenti.on ot t.tzi.5 revi.ew, 5'ttorts. have been made. to keen the size ot the addition smaller in scaje than ~ the -existing. and to break up its massing_ into torms Marni. |. 1. a. 9 to ttle_, original arc.bAtecture. Furthermore. the addition has .been ;rept -to t.he rear and Â§i.de of the -lot, thus keeping .the most prominent tacace totally intagt. -Detaill.inn ot- the new aadj-tion will mimic in_ a subdued maBIker -t.-hat..of .the .9-rj.gin-2-1. -__T.hus,_-.we __teel_.that_- the addition l..3 compati_b.le with the existing house .as well as.~_the existing neighborhood, which consists Ot newer__19.dge@ _ and mining__ era reaidences. , The cultur.al value ot_ this house- Will not be compromised d.kie to the modest mature_pt our propojaL, . SPECIFIC SUBMISSION CONTENTS - CONCEPTUAL DEVE),OPMENT 1. Please refer to site plan attached 2. The addition wi]J be ot wooa trame construction w.ith c.lapboard type siding painted white to match the existing. Exterlor trim will be painted redwood and wi]J mimic, ina subdued manner, the exasting detalls. New root wi.ll be wood shingle on pitched roots and rubber membrame on jow sJope roots. Some w.in(lows tmorn demolished Parts 01- r~ -the bui.1. d).ng_ w t l. i. be _re,1-211-d__in._ t-he addi.t.i.on and o t.hers wi. I. I. be manufactured. 3. The addition bas been designed to deter in scaJe to the existing house, and its massing and detal. I.ing are consi.st.ent wi.th the original. Also, the addition is 1 3 m.it ea t o the rear and side nt the existing house. Therefore. we teel that the charm ok the exi.st.1.n.g House wi. I. i be impacted to on,v a very small degree. 4. a structure wherein the 1.n.crease 1.n ti.oor area l.s Expansi.on of more that PM) square teet . REVIEW STANDARDS Please see discussion under Minimum Submission Contents #5. SPECIFIC SIJBMISSTON CONTENTS - PARTIAL DEMOLITION 1. Hartman Residence. 201. East Hyman, Aspen 2. The Hartman House was built in .1893 as a V.ictorian cottage with Italianate detailing. It is Ot wood frame construction. Gater additions of unknown date (although obvi ously ear.ly in the history of the house) were built on t.he rear of the house. 3. No formaJ report has been done as to the structura; integrity ot the house. However, this architect has become tami. I.1.ar wi. th the house and has the .knowledge to comment on .its structura.1 condition. The original parts of the house r ema i. n 1. n good condi t.lon and appear to not be 1n need ot any signiticant structura] worK. .In particular, the crawl space seems well ventilated, dry and thus tree of rot. Foundations seem to be lD good shape with no apparent settling. Root eaves seem straight and there are not apparent signs ot structura.1 -1- a i J 11 re .1 n the wood frame. T.here is some ev"idenee oF root leakage on the interlor ot the building, The portions ot the .borise that we propose to demolish (s drawings) are not as well built. They do not contal n tb.e detal. I.1.1 that is on the rest ot the structure. Foundations are of concrete block and are probably very shallow. Wal{ construction consists solely ot exposed framing and one layer of .siding. Thus, there lS no wall cavity and no insulation. Ceiling heights average approximately 7'-0" and are as little as 5'-8". Thus, the original parts of the house seem to be still functionally acceptab.le while the more recent adaition is structura.I.ly inferior and is not acceptable from a standpoint of modern ideas of comfort, use and energy efticiency. 4a. Recent apnraisals of the property are not available, however, a price ot $287,500. is given on the title insurance, which is dated 1986. I feel that the demolition as proposed would have virtually no affect on the value of the property in that it is minimal in nature and does not affect the impact of the original house. b. Due to the substandard construction, low ceilings and poor energy efficiency of the portions proposed for demolition, I teel that there is little point in rehabi]itating them. c. N/A d. N/A 5. Please see material submitted for the development aspect of th application. ... , REVIEW STANDARDS: PARTIAL DEMOLITION 1. Due to the insufficient structure, ceiling height, and energy etticiency of the additions, these spaces do not meet modern concepts of safety and comfort. Renovating them to d.0 s o would mean their total reconstruction with a different final shape and the reuse of no original materials except possibly some siding, Pa. The historic Importance of this house is that its history of owners is known from the original builder Up to tne present owners, We are not proposing to change the ori gina .1 -btl 1 J d i ng and t .he new addit.i.on wil]. have on l.y a smal. I. 1.mpact on l.t. Theretore, we teel that the historic signiticance wili not be a,l te.rea due to this proposed demoliti.on and addition. b. We tee] that we have been very sensitive to the architect ural integrity of this building. Our proposed plan will have little 1.mpact from Aspen Street and virtua.I ly no .impact from Hyman Street. which j s the most important facade. Efforts have been mar:~e to use contextual biii.Iding shapes and to respect the scaje and cletai .1 9 01- the origi.naJ rn structure. 531114 , f> y. .- I ...1, 1 - 3 1 I , -- ~' ' lip Y 4 .. 1 IÂ· . 1 'I. 1 1 3- 1 - U j 1 1. - . 1 3 of . Ar-* 01 1 1 ..1 i al U i I i 1 f f - 1 - I 191 - I 3 .. - 12 1 - 11 1 1 1 + 12 1 - D 1, 1 . D ' . 16 1 _1 71 1 . 1-V- --3 0 1 -i . 1 0 00 - I 00 F 2- , f 1 1- -3 1 rl i f - 1.2 1----,r. ., ~ -61 111 , _- 1 1 L -1 N / X I / 1- / 1 90 'TAW N / 1 I 1 8 Id ilpt . 26=4 I b lili P Ir F 3 f / . i 1/ ff 13 - - 11 - 44 i . ..'.r'f 1 .,4. " ..' d C '-N' 1-# P: 1 .gn 1 "Â· ->2 -/ 1 I . 4 Â»1 I...r. F 16 , 7. f m m o m m I F x *567 #Al 4 HART MAN RM S box 4956 aspen colo GRAEME MEANS Â· ARCHITECT 2-0 1 # HY MAN ASPE N 60 ~ 303 925-9150 02-8115 -79 &4 1919 I a ..... 1- 1 L__1 I /. h I # . \ k. 1 /0/ - - 1 \ * r-/- , A // - f / - / 1 131 FT - 91--- ~ ---7 1 4 050 A ' 4 I ~ -' - l. 1 1- 1.1 fÂ« I / - c <W 1 - %014. P - I.-- --- -- -- ---1 1 1 0 S OUTH E-LEVA-TION â€¢0 1/+It =11 -. - 9.-- I-*Il-lil ///// 0 I %. \ 1 K-- \ 1 - -L----*---L- 1 1 /. / \ E-- ----- 4 - - -,1 - C- 59 . r li \1 4~ \ I \ M /1 1 -- 00 - 1 j f Ep + . ~I . 1 1 1 1 ' -=I---I---b----*---~f -4 1 1 1 L 1.1 -1 1 <W 1\ I I Ift 12/4.SEE- 4%_i_JE\AT-1 42)1\1 - EL 21 K k 7 ' , . . /1 1 I. . ... LOILIHO ;tivws'r ..... J. -2 . .__mr. 1----lk-~, - 0 V y VUV v kIUL-' 1 =-V.=:= 1 641&812 4 ~ - V==7 g= rie:er .MI ':~::r 1 .-1 00 ... . 6~I .~ ==4 .C= 01 -ip== 1 ..A' -~ LL 1 -' / 'fil 1 b .1 6 VÂ«]1.-==--------- 40,40. .. ..er 1 1 1 1 M LI- -0.----- --- ------- ------ .............. 4 WORT-El ELEVATIO N 1/4-"=l' /- ra 1 7 X .. - , j ,/ - 08 - M 1 ~ ~ ~ 1 , 1111-1 ~lf h l, ~451 Â« , I V 1 4 7 +4 : .71 . ~ \ z - i / 1-1\1 Y - - ===26 i! - 04 - 41 ; i -- , *1 / 7 01 t n li 1 2 1- El 1- //// 1 - - 1 - -- - 0//6/to - MI 32<\ likÂ¢'.4' 24 Â»AN 4 K ___ htyxvig hl- ~41 4.*.B--**4--"--i"da -1 ---4 .0,-- f I L i H- _ - -1 (' 3 ---- --1 Ii- 1 \Â»E 57 E-LEÂ»*710 N ,I__-- -1 , ... .. 1 131[LIHONV: ;tiv~,O 531114 r- 4. Al/1 n vr-/-7 3Â·tu ~ 239tpgÂ· '%â‚¬ 6 4.-j .i: -4..: , I 4 1+34 11+ . 78"41:.. ? 4 -i'Millililiblilli:Fl Cnitul : ; 4, 44 1 Â· â‚¬42>Â¥.4 4 "1 . :Aw, #I-:Illy 1 4Â·90Â·i I 29 qâ‚¬'10, -<I w:iimi--- vtÂ· 4:Â¥f&-4,4. 1 . '. t. G ..' \.5.11 1 1,11.'E~ =4,1 1 1,=11 es aihifil 'IÂ·'I.re 1201/Im 6 â‚¬mi .. /':6. C . 10%4 4- t?!6, 5 .."ar".--i'L-n ~07'0 &14'. 4 % *11<'*44. . - 7 a 'U\ *47,~- Â£, 347* n -- 9 A AVINIA -/Al-L'.41'll '0'..~CL=,9~- M 1&'9~'A*j~'i32'-r:7#4,1 av IF fF ..2,-?00/ Ah> 1 24\1 . 7 J...{14&3\ V 1 '. r 71 r '~~~-f- L. AN : AW A.0. a /,t,4.v 7 -litilwjel I /4 10 WAY ,;Y. Aftiti Â·'2>f (Mle 1./.0. .12 j '4> 15 3 k ~-4 ~ ~*i fâ€¢â€¢f- . ... 249â€¢F 1 :4 , -' t.t:th : :Â· 1 ,Â». 4Â· e. /3.1 0.- ... ..34N I '6, di 24,1 e -Rik, 4'*Â»tÂ¢t*14'f~tÂ¢:;62)14~4%iNâ‚¬*44*rrr ' -Â·- 4, e .,1 '. r I . A I R . MEMORANDUM TO: Amy Margerum, City Manager Diane Moore, City Planning Director FROM: George Robinson, Leisure Services Director DATE: March 24, 1992 RE: Feasibility of converting winter skating rink to summer athletic field at Wagner Park I have reviewed the memo sent to Don Hansen of Design Workshop from Brian Kaiser of Koch Industries and have the following additional concerns and comments regarding the feasibility of converting the rink back to an athletic field in the summer, including additional cost considerations. SOIL Â· The concrete structure/foundation needs to accommodate the weight of a 25,000 pound front end loader to remove and install soil. Â· It is improbable that all materials (ie. soil) that are removed from rink structure can be saved and reused. We should figure on at least a 10% increase in materials per each conversion. The approximate cost of sand material needed for this area is $20,000. Peat humus (organic material), sod/seed, fertilizer, etc. are additional costs as well. DRAINAGE Â· Where will drainage outlet be (ie. storm drainage system)? A more detailed drainage proposal should be submitted. A no slope concrete base could create several unforeseeable maintenance problems because of the water build up before drainage. This option should be researched further before chosen. TURF Â· Costs and availability of sod or seed needs to be evaluated further. - This area has three to four times higher maintenance costs due to the system and materials needed. Â· Seeding the area would be less expensive, but does not establish as quickly, and would require more maintenance and materials to meet optimum turf conditions. â€¢ If the heated slab option is a consideration, does the cost estimate of $30,000 include utility costs. IRRIGATION Â· The final alternative of hose reels, is not an option. This method is too time consuming for irrigation. Â· We need to see and review a complete irrigation plan for the entire park. OTHER CONCERNS Â· A public comment forum needs to be organized and compiled. Â· A design proposal needs to be developed for initial excavation of field for construction, including leveling of field, materials used (ie. soil composition), etc. Â· Currently the mall restrooms roof is used for announcing Rugby games. If the restrooms are to be redesigned and relocated, will this amenity be considered? Â· Storage for bleachers, base boards, lighting, etc. will require an extensive amount of space. The City is already in need of storage space for present facilities and assets. Â· How will Ice Rink impact portion of field not being used? Â· Costs of utilities for cooling system, outdoor lights and building need to be estimated and considered for long range plan. Â· The design of the roof seems to allow snow to drain off into the mall creating a potential problem with ice build up (Same as Ruby Bus Depot). Â· Parking needs to be addressed. - Â· Noise levels of compressor for cooling system needs to be evaluated. An outdoor system may have to run longer and harder for spring usage and warmer weather. Â· Will lighting be adequate for this facility and how will it impact the area? Â· Snow storage needs to be addressed and associated costs to remove snow, including manpower and equipment. Â· The design and relocation of the playground should be reviewed further. Â· Would like to review mechanical drawings on concrete surface and associated components of system. Â· How do the Rugby goal posts fit in the design? Â· Consideration should be made for conversions to be bid out by independent contractor due to work load and expertise necessary for such a project. The Parks Department would not be able to perform this task with present work loads and personnel. â€¢ Landscape plans need to be developed. Â· What type of security is planned? Will the area be fenced off and if so, how and what type of fencing will be used. Â· What are the chances of refrigerant leakage in this system? Â· Spring and fall conversions present problems for the surrounding park area due to heavy equipment needed to remove/replace soil on concrete slab. Both turf and irrigation lines may be severely damaged. â€¢ The proposed design of a ten inch soil depth on the concrete slab, will most likely not accommodate the larger tents for special events (ie. Wine Classic, etc.) which often require a two foot stake. '2 -: P. 4 h RESOLUTION \402*3 7 I OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE ENDORSING THE 1992 RE-EVALUATED INVENTORY OF HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES Resolution 92-2 WHEREAS, it is the responsibility of the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee (HPC) to re-evaluate the Aspen Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures, hereinafter "Inventory", at least once every five (5) years, and recommend revisions for adoption by the Aspen City Council; and WHEREAS, "Inventory" management is considered to be a vital aspect of Aspen's historic preservation, which meets an underlying principal of the HPC: to foster public awareness of Aspen's preservation program, and work in harmony with the community's goals to preserve, protect, and enhance Aspen's historic resources and unique character; and, WHEREAS, the HPC and Planning Office completed their field studies and survey form revisions between September, 1990 and March 1992, with the assistance of professional consultants contracted by the Planning Office; and WHEREAS, the Planning Office held open public meetings on February 26, 27, and 28, 1992, to assist the public in understanding the re-evaluation process and changes in the historic preservation program that have occurred since 1986; seven property owners met with staff; and WHEREAS, the HPC has conducted duly noticed public hearings . on March 17 and 18, 1992, to solicit citizen and property owner input in order to assist the HPC in re-evaluating the "Inventory"; and WHEREAS, twelve property owners appeared before the HPC at the public hearings, four of whom presented information to the HPC and requested removal, from the Inventory based on loss of historic value of their properties. Four written requests for removal from the Inventory were received by the Planning Office and entered into the record at the HPC public hearings; and WHEREAS, the HPC has reviewed and agreed upon the recommended additions, deletions, and category changes of the "Inventory", as recommended by the Planning Office (attached as Exhibit "A") . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the following amendments are recommended to the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures, as a result of the re-evaluation process according to Section 7- 709(A-C): 1. The following properties shall be added to the "Inventory", based upon their current architectural integrity, historic significance and community and neighborhood influence: 303 S. Cleveland 305 S. Cleveland 307 S. Cleveland 1031 E. Durant 107 Juan St. 520 Walnut 557 Walnut 1500 Ute Avenue 1280 Ute Avenue Glory Hole Park Aspen Brewery Ruins 701 W. Main 106 North Park 2. The following properties shall be deleted from the "Inventory"; each property has been evaluated as to its current architectural integrity, historic significance and community and neighborhood influence so as to determine historic value: 124 W. Hallam St. - complete loss of historic value 120 N. 5th St. - complete loss of historic value 1022 E. Hyman Ave. - complete loss of historic value 1031 E. Hyman Ave. - complete loss of historic value 601 W. Hallam - loss of historic value (previous decision of the HPC made in 1991) 3. Each non-Landmarked property receiving a re-evaluation has been categorized as either Significant, Contributing or Supporting, as indicated on attached Exhibit "A". 4. The official historic resources map located in the Aspen Planning Office will be revised accordingly and titled: "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures, 1992 Revised". APPROVED by the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee at their regular meeting on March 25, 1992. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE by William J. Poss, Chairman ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Assistant City Clerk reso.hpc.inventory EXHIBIT 'LA" Non-Designated Properties for re-evaluation March, 1992 Key: Significant: O Contributing: ~ Supporting: () Address/Name Area Status per year 80 432 E. Hyman Commercial Core -0 423 E. Hyman Commercial Core .~_ 530 E. Hopkins Commercial Core C) 532 E. Hopkins Commercial Core ~ 534 E. Hopkins Commercial Core ~ 531 E. Cooper Commercial Core 6 529 E. Cooper Commercial Core a 308 E. Hopkins Commercial Core O 314 E. Hyman Commercial Core - L~ 0 406 E. Hopkins Commercial Core A 209 S. Galena Commercial Core _~_ 701 W. Main Main Street 709 W. Main Main Street 604 W. Main Main Street 616 W. Main Main Street 611 W. Main Main Street 518 W. Main Main Street 527 W. Main Main Street 205 W. Main Main Street 101 S. Monarch Main Street 227 E. Main Main Street : 0113101 0101 <11 <110101 <1101 11 01 Ol ol ol 01 41 Ol ol ol 2 <11 mi 4 4 <11 01 4 4 <11 4 4 <11 <11 <11 <11 <11 <11 <11 <1101 4 110101010101 <11010101 Address/Name Area Status per year 80 86 820 E. Cooper East Aspen Twnst. ~ ~ 0 0 824 E. Cooper East Aspen Twnst. 935 E. Cooper East Aspen Twnst. O 0 939 E. Cooper East Aspen Twnst. O 0 1012 E. Hopkins East Aspen Twnst. O 0 811 E. Hopkins East Aspen Twnst. O 0 819 E. Hopkins East Aspen Twnst. O 0 920 E. Hyman East Aspen Twnst. O 0 1022 E. Hyman East Aspen Twnst. 0 0 1020 E. Hyman East Aspen Twnst. O 0 1031 E. Hyman East Aspen Twnst. OOD 1000 E. Cooper East Aspen Twnst. LA 1006 E. Cooper East Aspen Twnst. 1020 E. Cooper East Aspen Twnst. 303 S. Cleveland East Aspen Twnst. 305 S. Cleveland East Aspen Twnst. 307 S. Cleveland East Aspen Twnst. 918 E. Cooper East Aspen Twnst. 1031 E. Durant East Aspen Twnst. 623 E. Hopkins East Aspen Twnst. 625 E. Hopkins East Aspen Twnst. U V C'- i4k u.k.--- 635 E. Hopkins East Aspen Twnst. 600 E. Bleeker East Aspen Twnst. Durant Mine East Aspen Twnst. g <11 01 01 01 01 01 41 41 al Ol 4 4 41 4 4101 41 4141 41 41 <11 ~~~11'Illoillololol 0101 lilillolilololol 01 m I Address/Name Area Status per year 80 86 92 1280 Ute Ave. Ute Avenue 004 - A 1500 Ute Ave. Ute Avenue Glory Hole Park Ute Avenue - - a 124 E. Cooper Shadow Mountain 214 E. Hopkins Shadow Mountain 107 Juan St. Shadow Mountain 325 W. Hopkins Shadow Mountain 200 W. Hopkins Shadow Mountain 205 W. Hopkins Shadow Mountain 214 W. Hyman Shadow Mountain 216 W. Hyman Shadow Mountain 311 S. 1st St. Shadow Mountain 135 W. Hopkins Shadow Mountain 101 E. Hopkins Shadow Mountain Midland Rgt of Way Shadow Mountain Red Butte Cemetery West End Rio Grande R-0-W West End 712 W. Francis West End 716 W. Hallam West End 117 N. 6th West End 735 W. Bleeker West End 609 W. Smuggler West End 610 W. Francis West End 610 W. Hallam West End 01 01 11 01 o l ol ol o l ol ol ol Ul 01 01 01010101010101 1 1 01 01 1101 0101 01 Olololol [31 01 01 01010101010101 @4444@444 44@ 4 1 41 <1101 <11 <11 <1101 <11 Address/Name Area Status per year 80 86 635 W. Bleeker West End O 0 522 W. Francis West End O 0 523 W. Francis West End O 0 533 W. Francis West End O 0 525 W. Hallam West End O 0 533 W. Hallam West End O 0 120 N. 5th West End O 0 434 W. Smuggler West End 0 0 515 N. 3rd West End O 0 403 W. Hallam West End O 0 421 W. Hallam West End O 0 323 W. Hallam West End O 0 229 W. Hallam West End O 0 233 W. Hallam West End O 0 213 W. Bleeker West End O 0 217 W. Bleeker West End O 0 233 W. Bleeker West End O 0 121 W. Bleeker . West End O 0 129 W. Bleeker West End O 0 701 N. 3rd West End/Hallam Lk. 707 N. 3rd West End/Hallam Lk. 620 N. 3rd West End/Hallam Lk. 640 N. 3rd West End/Hallam Lk. 0 4 4 4 4 <11 <11 al <11 <11 <11 ol <11 <11 olol <11 <11 <11 <11 41<11<11<11 Ol 01 01 Ol 01010101 Address/Name Area Status per year 80 86 92 240 Lake Ave. West End/Hallam Lk. ~ 0 8 202 W. Francis West End/Hallam Lk. 225 W. Smuggler West End/Hallam Lk. O 6 229 W. Smuggler West End/Hallam Lk. O 6 126 W. Francis West End/Hallam Lk. 123 W. Francis West End/Hallam Lk. 124 W. Hallam West End/Hallam Lk. 314 Gillespie West End/Hallam Lk. 220 Puppy Smith West End/Hallam Lk. ~_ ..~_ A Aspen Brewery Ruins West End/Hallam Lk. - - ~ Triangle Park West End/Hallam Lk. O 0 6 101 E. Hallam West End/Church OOA 110 E. Bleeker West End/Church 134 E. Bleeker West End/Church 216 E. Hallam West End/Church 223 E. Hallam West End/Church 232 E. Bleeker West End/Church 227 E. Bleeker West End/Church 202 N. Monarch West End/Church 470 N. Spring Smuggler Mtn. 006 01 0101 01010101 Ololololololol 01010101 1 010101-01010101 41 41 01 41 41 41 4 41 41 4141 Address/Name Area Status per year 930 Matchless Dr. Smuggler Mtn. 920 Matchless Dr. Smuggler Mtn. 390 N. Spring Smuggler Mtn. 230 N. Spring Smuggler Mtn. 100 N. Park Smuggler Mtn. 101 N. Park Smuggler Mtn. 165 N. Park Smuggler Mtn. 106 N. Park Smuggler Mtn. 520 Walnut Smuggler Mtn. 557 Walnut Smuggler Mtn. 930 King Smuggler Mtn. 925 King Smuggler Mtn. 935 King Smuggler Mtn. 980 Gibson Smuggler Mtn. 990 Gibson Smuggler Mtn. 720 Bay St. Smuggler Mtn. Sheeley Bridge Smuggler Mtn. 000 inventory.non.desig :01010101010101,1 11,lololol 010101 M o l ol 01 01 Ol ol ol ' l ' 1 11 ol ol ol O loi 01 g c| 41 4 0101014141 4101 410101 010101 .. 9 Inventory deletions due to demolitions: 110 N. Spring 718 E. Hopkins 720 E. Hopkins 624 E. Hopkins 816 E. Cooper 835 E. Cooper 515 N. 5th 501 W. Smuggler 639 N. 4th 170 N. Park 940 Matchless Drive 219 W. Hopkins 203 E. Hallam 222 E. Hallam inventory.non.desig .