The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19910313 AGENDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE March 2431991 REGULAR MEETING SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM 5:00 I. Roll call --==/ II. Committee Member & Staff Comments ~ III. Public Comment IV. OLD BUSINESS 5:10 A. Conceptual Development - continued Public Hearing: 620 W. Hallam 014-j,r .2,064' pa: CLA-Ce--h 1 I~/CEÂ·-- Â·Â·42.-fg - 62-4-U) 01 IC V. NEW BUSINESS 5:30 A. Conceptual Development - Public.Hearing: P'ioneer Park, Lot 1 N- r"lÂ·*i>'/â€¢ '' "2 P,ioneer Park, Lot 2, advisory review M, b il<sest Â·.t) 1 , 4 /-Â» 1 6.01--- -+L~Dbi- / 4. 3--t 6:45 B. Conceptual Development - Public Hearing: 1 1 - Aspen Meadows, academic and music sectorsti,fiuu_AÂ·(C-do-c 1 00-~ - 1Â£6 AU- - 6-i h u R ,Â·Â»uk. 8 419% 8:00 C. Conceptual Development - Public Hearing: Ruby Park Transit Station 8:30 VI. COMMUNICATIONS: A. Staff report on draft Historic Preservation Element B. Project Monitoring 8:45 VII. ADJOURN -1 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: Landmark Designation, Conceptual Development, on-site relocation, partial demolition and parking variations: 620 W. Hallam (Continued Public Hearing) Date: March 13, 1991 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Landmark designation, Conceptual development, on-site relocation, partial demolition approval and a variation for two (revised) parking spaces and rear yard setback for 620 W. Hallam. The proposal includes the addition of a rear 2-story addition to the on-story cottage. 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. PREVIOUS HPC ACTION: On February 13, 1991, the HPC reviewed the application and tabled action to allow the applicant additional time to restudy specific elements of the proposal. Specifically, the transition/massing between the old and new structures, and the fenestration was found to be incompatible. Landmark designation recommendation was made unanimously at that meeting. On February 27, the HPC again review the revised proposal at a continued public hearing, as well as additional revisions presented by the architect at the meeting. The HPC again tabled action due to the number of changes occurring and the short amount of time both staff and the board had to review the plans. Comments were made, however, in support of the improvements that were made to the original plans. HPC review of both the partial demolition standards and the on- site relocation standards revealed that the HPC felt these standards were generally met, and that requirements such as posting a bond, etc. could be made conditions for Final. General direction was given to the applicant to restudy the newly proposed "tower" element, overscaled chimneys, breaking up both west and east elevations, curved windows, and to provide correctly revised massing model at next public hearing. SITE, AREA AND BULK CHARACTERISTICS: Lot Size: 5,250 sq. ft. Allowable FAR: 3,030 sq. ft. Proposed Total FAR: 3,029 sq. ft. Max. allowable height 25' Max. site coverage 45% = 2,362.5 sq. ft. Proposed site coverage 2,346 sq. ft. (Note: These numbers have not changed in light of the architectural revisions) EXISTING CONDITIONS: The subject cottage is one story, built c. 1890. The detached garage at the rear of the parcel was built in 1962, and contains no historic integrity. The cottage contains a number of additions, which (except for their small scale) do not necessarily contribute to the architectural integrity of the structure. PROJECT SUMMARY and REVIEW PROCESS: Please refer to your February 13 memo for staff's specific comments under each of the Development Review Standards. STAFF'S COMMENTS: The applicant has submitted revised elevations after restudying those areas of concern to the HPC. Staff finds that significant improvements have been made. A clear and distinct transition has been made between new and old portions (not including the tower element - see staff comments on the tower below). With the exception of the south elevation (facade), we find that the revised fenestration plan meets the guidelines for compatibility. Due to the break in forms providing the transition, staff finds that the portion of the addition at maximum allowable height is not a significant concern, which may help address the concerns of the adjacent neighbors. No real reduction in the overscaled chimneys has occurred, however, which both the HPC and staff strongly recommend. These elements do not need to be this large or high. We remind both the HPC and the applicant to continue to keep in mind the scale of the historic resource, and the goal of preserving the general small scale character of the parcel. The revised material for these chimneys is cedar shingle, which we question is an appropriate material here. Brick may be preferred. Staff's primary concern regards the new tower element, which serves as both a transition between old and new and as a stair tower. This feature was first presented to the HPC during the last meeting, without the benefit of staff's input and research into the Guidelines. General HPC comments focused on the basic applicability of this "fun" feature, materials, size, etc., and restudy was recommended. Staff cannot substantiate the applicability of incorporating such an element based on our research of the Guidelines. They only really speak to this in two places that we could find, and some 2 interpretation is necessary: GUIDELINE: (Page 49) "Locate additions to original houses so that they do not alter the front 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." Response: The applicant has generally done this, except that by including a discordant, new feature, that never would have existed within this cottage, has this Guideline been met? We think the overall goal of allowing an addition but requiring it to be subordinate to the historic resource has been undermined with this tower. It could be that without the steeply pitched roof, this element may become less of a projection, and more harmonious with the cottage. Could the stair itself be moved to the north and included more within the new addition? GUIDELINE: (Page 67) ~Avoid designs that imitate historical styles. The integrity of the genuine historic structure will possibly be compromised by the introduction of newer buildings that imitate historic styles and appear older than they really are... Response: This Guideline is taken from the new construction section, however, we feel it applies when dealing with new additions and elements thereon. It could be argued that the tower "imitates historic styles", but then again it might be seen as a contemporary feature that has taken its que from a historic form. Perhaps the steeply pitched roof combined with less delicate materials (brick and steel roof) are so inappropriate that this element "becomes" the featured focal point at the sacrifice of the cottage. How much "fun" does an element need to be when located so close to the cottage? If it were added completely to the rear (remember the round tower addition at 715 W. Smuggler?) perhaps our concerns would not be as great. Because we find this to be such an inappropriate new element to this small scale cottage, added to everything that's proposed for this parcel, we are recommending it be completely eliminated, and the internal stair issue be solved in another way. We are not convinced that the best design solution has been accomplished yet. Additionally, the HPC generally felt that a reduction in two parking spaces (as opposed to three as requested by the applicant) was appropriate, however, no formal action can be taken on this variation until such time as Landmark Designation is completed through Council ordinance and the HPC reviews the Final Development. 3 The Partial Demolition Standards are found in Section 7-602(C) of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. Even though the HPC addressec these issues in "straw poll" form at the last public hearing, you will need to take formal action when you finally grant conceptual approval. 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 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: A significant amount of the existing structure is proposed for demolition. While we understand that the portions to be removed are not original to the cottage, they do provide a visual story of the evolution of this building. Again, the HPC should carefully consider if: 1) the removal of these additions is required for the renovation of the historic resource, and 2) the impacts to the historic and architectural integrity of the structure have been mitiqated. The Relocation Standards are located in Section 7-602(D) of the Land Use Regulations. Again, even though the HPC addressed these issues in "straw poll" form at the last public hearing, you will need to take formal action when you finally grant conceptual approval. All of these standards must be met before the HPC can grant approval for the relocation. It appears from HPC comments from the last meeting, the only standard that has been met is #4, which involves posting a bond with the Engineering Department. This may be made a condition of Conceptual approval, to be met at Final, which staff is recommending. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following alternatives: 1) Approve the Conceptual Development application as revised, finding that the development review, partial demolition and relocation standards have all been met, 71 1 including a finding that the variations for parking 1 1 /1 C,Â«./1 (reduction of two spaces) and rear yard setback are \ more compatible in character. All Final Development application requirements and relocation bond posting as 4 7" stated in the Land Use regulations shall be adhered to. 2) Approve the Conceptual Development application as stated above in #1, with conditions to be met in Final Development application, such as: a) Tower element shall be eliminated from the plans, finding it to be incompatible in character, and not meeting Development Review Standard #1. b) A bond shall be posted with the Engineering Department as required in Sec. 7-602(D)(4) for relocation. c) Detailed preservation plan for cottage materials and architectural features, including all porch details. Partial demolition shall not include the removal of any cottage materials on facade or other areas currently exposed that are proposed to remain exposed. Existing materials shall be salvaged for reuse on the historic cottage, in particular the newly exposed east and west elevations. d) Detailed site and landscape plan, indicating existing vegetation and front (south elevation) plaza treatment. Fencing shall be detailed, and shall be open in nature. e) SignificAntly flreducÂ¢d the dverall size n (height, AridtÂ¥) ~ of /the Lchim~Keys.# Cedar .---) shirlgiesj ve / f and/ t(k be /inappropriate; matkrral Kettudju/for \E-inil ~view is required. 3) Table action to a date certain, to allow the applicant time to restudy specific areas such as the tower. 4) Deny Conceptual Development approval, finding that the Standards have not been met. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant Conceptual Development approval with all the conditions as stated in Alternative #2 above. Additional comments: memo.hpc.620wh.cd.2 5 [*I HPC PROJECT REVIEW CHECKLIST Does the Project meet the Standards for Development? Does the Project meet the Development Guidelines? Does the Project support the Community's Preservation Goals? SITEPLANNING ROOF Siting of the Building: Shape (gable, lean-to, etc.) Setback Pitch Facade width Overhang Spacing between buildings Dormers Skylight Chimneys Delineation of street space: Creation of continuous street WINDOWS edge Separation of public, semi-public, Type (double-hung, easement, etc.) and private areas Shape and proportion Fences Rhythm and balance Blinds/shutters Garage placement DOORWAYS Landscapeplantings Placement and orientation Type (paneled, etc.) Site improvements: EXTERIOR ARCHITECTURAL Walkways ELEMENTS Driveways Retaining walls Door platforms and steps Porches BULK, PROPORTIONand Exterior stairs and decks SCALE (building size) Roofwalks and platforms MATERIALS Height Facade proportions Wall surfaces Scale Foundation Roof MASSING (building shape) TRIM and MISCELLANEOUS Mass of main portion: DETAILS Form Roofshape Tri m Orientation Gutters and leaders Louvres, vents, etc. Additions: House lights Placement Public utilities Form Bulk SPECIFIC DESIGN SUGGESTIONS: : 131Â£01Id 46 MAR - 1 CHARLES CUNNIFFE AND ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTURE & PLANNING L[EY-F[ZE @)[F VEAEGOFOFFA..1 BOX 3534, ASPEN, CO 81612 303-925-5590 Date 3/ 1/91 Jab # 9027 TU: RexaMMÂ¢/ E-0114 Att: flaM Kina ORde Fe: 1-/ All,M A,1 ~Â¢-6} cle:,ng 6 C; 40 4/ AE,F~0~1 4,1-0 \N. 82 113,11 51 11-pc r- a.,Viet.J GENTLE.W,EN: 1 - WE ARE SENDING VO'.J ,~<0112.ched O Under sepcate cover via, ~1 7*Me~ C~7~1 1, the following items: 0 0!10 p dia winds [3 Prints D Plans D Samples D Specifications O Cop> of teller [3 Chance order C Copies Date NO. Description â‚¬601.-4 CDÂ«phal DeeÂ·elefo.04- Sub M,1 (5583 M t * 4 + 1. 4 ./,7 / -1 4, k"-6 Â£-* THESE ARE TRANSMITTED :s checked below: O For approval O Approved as submitted 0 Resubmit copies for approval * For your use O Approved as noted O Submit___-_copies for distribution ~01,As requested O Returned for corrections O Return--corrected prints O ror review and Comment O m FOR BIDS DUF 19 O PRINIS ROURNED AFTER LOAN TO US Remarks: ~6 34-- '4 ?Ca* ple,/ As reypled, we hart 115 -4461 -Lt VI,1 2,691*q, 96Â»(t,3,1.J te,destra,4,Â« al' 44Â£ poorÂ°sal ree; dixce- as well 2 5 It, 14-p Pi- d f.a.r a; pee,; 670 4 +14. 0311- 4 or-cle,- 4-0 ~e airÂ·C as NÂ«(11 1 Â«pet as pets'/6/f aÂ·JacÂ«t 1-0 -1.0.- eya-4-4 res: elÂ·eu< 4 At_ wes--, as L.e- duc.u-,ge#. k),t bthkee upe_ karl +Edi#)(Ar;L adcl,re942 4 4Â·Le- cow c er*9 el<Pressed 6-~ fu- Co'M-'' Hee- a,cl Ad- neth liter- w 6 spoke at -14- tu-Â·a,6Â·hi f-al- *T~A el-N . p/faj_e- 200'*6<l zf-CNN P)/eâ€ž a_u-es +te;d f i CHARLES CUNNIFFE &ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS 520 EAST HYMAN, SUITE 301, ASPEN, CO. 816]2 303/925-5590 CHARLES L. CUNNIFFE, A. I.A MAR Â·- 6 March 6, 1991 Roxanne Eflin Planning Office City of Aspen Aspen, Colorado Re: Zimman Residence 620 West Hallam Aspen, Colorado Dear Roxanne, This is to confirm our telephone conversation yesterday afternoon. The revised design for the proposed residence was submitted to your office last Friday, March 1 as required for inclusion on the March 13 meeting schedule. The HPC agreed to extend the agenda provided we met the deadline. We believe the revisions have addressed all of the concerns expressed by the majority of the committee members. As we discussed yesterday, we are requesting two setback variations with this revised scheme. First, the garage has been moved to only 1 ft. from the rear property line instead of the 5 ft. required setback. Thus, a 4 ft. variation is requested to be approved by HPC. Second, the second floor bathrooms have been moved 5 ft. closer to the rear property line to allow for the transition link required by HPC betweens the existing cabin and the new portion of the proposed residence. This puts the north wall of baths above the garage at 15 ft, rather than the 20 ft. required by Land Use Code, since we have a 10 ft. front yard required setback. Thus, we are requesting a 5 ft. variation to be approved by HPC. Finally, we believe the stair tower is a compatible link between the cabin and the new house and is in keeping with the many victorian turrets throughout the west end. It is a slightly more contemporary interpretation of this traditional element and works well with the overall concept. Sincerelyp 0-4Â»10 Jadver C. Derri~gton, AIA Pr~ject Archi~ct CC: David Zimman c:\wp5\clients\9027\HPC.app f FE VISICA A //83 L 10,61 - 4 34- 4 - - - 1- Gar parkin~ 2 Â· Car G"â‚¬52' - 1. 61 , . 71[NET-711 69 0.424 1 1 1 \ .1 47=FIRil] v i f--- ~ 3 ~ W.1.0 4 CAT 1 /11 0001 1 8,< r-- PÂ» 88Â£/ --4-11- 1 w 114 Pgul.1 L. - -1\.. 111 f- W t 72,-r 13;0 0 W 1 01 2-TE: 9 9 1111 0 9 1 1 3- 1 U bedroom 11 : I r"-4 1 W 1 r >1 0: < 01 Z Â« 1 Z , â€ž21241 - 4â€¢rou~h t__iron finG J v' f Â£ 2 9 aO h,ul-yÂ« A 8 f - S 1.â‚¬' /77\ -3~ Hallarn StrÂ¢-9-+ F Â» Ma/M Ploor- /eita Flan ~-~~~?~~~iM~o 7, L' SDEUIHZ)HV/SELLVIDOSSV Â¥ 3.1=11NNCD $31HVH) 0655-526/ECE 3NOHd3131 219[8 OC]V3010) 'N3dSV 'DESE )<08 Od OC]VUO-100 ' NadSV \7 L.\. j-f r-I---- -1 -7\E - 1-_No 0- ~ - D = =tvo 7 f Ok f., O ~-4122 wh EL ri B Q, 11 R > 4-1 r 2 h 1 ZIMMAN RESIDENCE CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS 620 WEST HALLAM STREET ASPEN. COLORADO BOX 3534. ASPEN. COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 Itil D------1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Laulv 1 I tei O Illl ./. 11 .I--,t- ~ ~ M Â£ 67.J 544 ~34-6r~-~ fl> 4 _RE 13 *49/d t--ill i L.73 4 ECD P Iii 'L J litzid Garnqa~forA.ANÂ»elia 3- FArr#bu 1 Wt 4 + ow 1 1 ZE W 0 1 1 0 E5 1 W J. 1 1 0,2 1 1 Z 1 1 Z, 1 .6 W 1 1 L_____1 20 0 0,0,=scmen-/ /28/9 10 510 30 0655-526/E0â‚¬ 3NOHd3131 219t8 OGVHO-101 NMV '*â‚¬SE X08 -O-d OOVUC)-100 'NEidSV Sl:)311HZ)HV/SaLVDOSSV Â¥ 3*IINNn) SErIHVH) 9 - -Il.IL 'r- 2.41*W-- =:=619, in-=Z.==A===1-rz==27-1- :-Unf-=.-'1->117;:1:%42 329 N !, f -1 , 1, - =23Â·2[8**1<94--Â· -3 #06 '0ydt*1 1~3.fif~~ 1 - . . / ! ~ NÂ« +2=31-- 1.-1-~ , W===17 Â· 27-Â· 1010' 322---14*Â·vE~- -1 i I 'll ill il 14 Â¥*t- i i T_ 1 1 --cm=Â·cr:r --.-â€¢: 1- 1=t-ter: 1- 20 3917_Ir-__ 34-2-_ _1~ JJAL-J.--G::]Fir:.- 1 -1-lij#T Or/g 'fous e # c:5 cu 4 1 2 E le va 4 4,1 2....4 ' .--1 i 0 10 to 30 1 ZIMMAN RESIDENCE CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS Al 620 WEST HALLAM STREET |1 1 ASPEN. COLORADO . BOX 3534. ASPEN COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 Â»3*OFF' cad*r- 4htâ€¢'d,le- chi'â€¢t.tey 1* 4444 e. PI 1441Â· L 21: C===-2-5 //''XN"=ErEE=a=+W Gth.44â‚¬ 46â€¢.1 Metht Boo-0 r5---4/,4 _12= ro'~ 'tv -~3/,z~Â¢3*EFErli~r-â‚¬ZI O0-6 1- 1 . Â·',441,4 =1&:EW,44'* y . -.*_ ,_uzz-.- u. t---ir : 2-1- Nit'IL_- E;Â§, 01/9--3-34 942=JR 2-21 =U ip-- .--,-cy-oK'tÂ¢ 5 BE~12*k -- ~--~----------Â·------- 44444444I.,.AL- 4-*.- - - 1 1 11:11,1 1 1. -M=== 9 3%*f59 r . . - I -.-_ ------ --- n-i_. 1-2.M 7~7' il= 23212_, dz.1.4444444gAL=22 >~C~-9------- Â·---Â· - - Ill ilr.-i - eeue,/ 4,1,4,7 LIT-n- 11 1,I I.*2222 f.-- _-ri-- IL_+_--1 7-_j_i~L;2 -- f - --F--- 7-1 ij#&2494Â¢kfipE J~61;~-IJ~ir~rif- -40 matcA c e ) tiffs,A,$&15---Er-3--- -T LED--2-i_ _,44*rp&(LL-- i-- -------'---- -- reps e o.,4 . A./3,5.Efit&= i .*Â«.-- - --~e-\44+NIALL... ___ - h t 1 11 1 Mratt. i wAe.' fÂ°'5' 412 - /\2 0 rl,li na.l H o uta. 'Ale 93 f Teve 9/ 0,9 1 .- L L ZIMMAN RESIDENCE CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS cR 620 WEST HALLAM STREET ~ ASPEN. COLORADO PO. BOX 3534. ASPEN. COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 - .-IT 9 A. 4=- =266-1-7.A ---aaeL~ /4 5\ / 1 1-26=4--43~ 11 I r,TrrÂ·rÂ·r,-1 ~ i ,.Â· , A- u_ _ m -1-ze: 441_ ~ tro#**#iKEET~ I _ 4 4-~~p-~i Â¥; Â»1-tr- ;1 IL-U-! --, 11 11 11 '11 11.-===P==7-----Â· - .. ~~~~r, ifl "&./ I--I/+. ._~_-3Â» 2._. ---KIZI;~1~22/.unur----> - --- I-- f -Â· Â·--,--i ---- ---11=LE=L=SILE==00-;2==LE-zz=-,=6rizzl:===.=I-LE... - - ~371/_:-A - --.--ir It'=r -=F.- ' .3--)-7'FIFV =-~-2 ---ta~PEE ----- i L_j ; 1 6 1.=====1....'i .4--1-12=-1-4Â·Il.-' :.1.- .LI ~266 -* f]F=4 1 13#61#2. [1 1j 1 - --- --- [FE- - z_=22*: i .~ ----Unli_*tz- 'i't'j~i'i'1~. '~' VVT'Nu~ w ; -- - -- =Iirp Tq~*si- 9 8 [1_Â£ '_2_2__1. F-- -------U_2222--_EF-Z_NIZZED____L__ 'i.Â· /7 1 1 Ir 1- ,1 Ori~jnal floucA .. 4- a ,+ P I e vat 1 0 11 r- 14 M- 1 ZIMMAN RESIDENCE CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS 620 WEST HALE-AM STREET ASPEN. COLORADO 3534, ASPEN. COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 /2X i d' , I| $21 2- - 3.~7~ --71 it - 0 07 + '!i il.LE '\ - -- br__-;0-_- -3_43-2--~112 J,8,iz~jUIL#RÂ»4 -- -4=:112.if- 7 1=91 1- .. - - 1 T n EliLYLLE- M>-i .-7 ]LiLIEL -U ,r--1 I ------------ -- --- -Ir-1 -ELJ. -,4-1 4,4-1-4 + 4 I.Â·Â· 20271 E- 1 ! i I I i - in{ 1-1 -- - -1 1 - 1 '-r Nor -4 h Ele vat i o n 1 ZIMMAN RESIDENCE CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS 620 WEST HALLAM STREET ASPEN. COLORADO P.O. BOX 3534. ASPEN. COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 N 00 0 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: Conceptual Development (including detached accessory dwelling unit), partial demolition, rear yard and sidevard setback variation, FAR variation, height and ~ site coverage variation for Cottage, and demolition of ~ (non-historic) detached garage: 442 W. Bleeker St.- i Lot 1 - Pioneer Park (Public Hearing) Date: March 13, 1991 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Conceptual development (including detached accessory dwelling unit), partial demolition, rear yard and side yard setback variations, FAR variation, site coverage variation for Cottage (detached ADU) and demolition of (non-historic) detached garage. It should be noted that the property (Lot 1) currently exceeds its maximum FAR and site coverage, and encroaches into the rear and side (west) yard setbacks. The fence encroaches onto the public right-of-way. Increases in these non-conformities are proposed. It should also be noted that the application did not request the needed height variation for the Cottage Infill unit, nor did it address the demolition standards as required in Section 7-602(B). Partial demolition standards were briefly addressed. The proposed new residence for Lot 2 will also be reviewed at this meeting under separate memo. LOCATION: 442 W. Bleeker St., Lot 1, Weaver Subdivision, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 12 at Page 58, and Amended Plat for Weaver Subdivision recorded in Plat Book 20 at Page 1, Aspen, Colorado. APPLICANT: Mary Weaver and John F. Weaver, represented by Lester M. Kaplan ZONING: R-6. "H", Historic Overlay (designated landmark). This parcel is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. SITE, AREA AND BULK CHARACTERISTICS: Please refer to pages 21 and 23 in the applicant's proposal. A ELIGIBILITY FOR STATE REHAB TAX CREDITS: The applicant should consider applying for the 20% state rehab tax credit allowed fo, the renovation of National Register and CLG Landmarked histori structures. Provided substantial demolition does not occur to the interior, this property would be considered eligible for the credit, with application review taking place through the HPC and staff. An application may be obtained at the Planning Office. BACKGROUND and EXISTING CONDITIONS: "Pioneer Park", a local landmark listed on the National Register of Historic Places, was once the home of Honorable Henry Webber, mayor of Aspen who was also responsible for the construction of the Elks Building (Webber Block) , and another "Webber Block", housing the Isis Theatre today. In 1946, Walter and Elizabeth Paepcke purchased the property and owned it until 1964. The carriage house was converted to a dwelling unit, where Albert Schweitzer stayed during his only visit to the United States for the 1949 Goethe Convocation. It was renamed "Schweitzer Cottage". "Shorty" Pabst owned the property after the Paepcke's until 1969, when it was purchased by the current owners. The 1963 and 1965 additions added 632 sq. ft. to the rear of the main house. 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 Land Use regulations Section 7-601(D); Demolition and Partial Demolition standards are found in Sections 7-602(B) and (C) respectively. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation apply as this property is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. These are attached in full for reference. Deficiencies in the application are as follows: Lack of response to Demolition standards, Sec. 7-602(B) (relating to detached garage) The requests for both FAR and site coverage variations exceed HPC's allowable limit by code Lack of request for height variation of Cottage Infill unit Staff has required these issues be cleared up prior to the HPC granting Conceptual Development approval. Secretary of the Interior's Standards These are attached for reference. We would like to commend the applicant on a presenting a thorough narrative addressing the Secretary of the Interior Standards (pages 16-20). Staff's restudy and revision recommendation are based upon the Secretary's Standards, the local Development Standards and the Guidelines. 2 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. Variations: A great number of variations are being requested by the applicant, some of which exceed HPC's authority. Staff has reviewed these issues in detail with the architect, and requested that the applicant come prepared to the meeting with revised numbers or state their intent to proceed to the Board of Adjustment following HPC conceptual approval (according to Section 7-605). Some of the confusion may be attributed to the existing non- conformities (FAR and site coverage are both exceeded), the amounts being subtracted and added back on, and what is allowed under Ordinance #60, Series of 1990, the "Cottage Infill" ordinance. Either an FAR bonus of up to 350 sq. ft. can be used for the Cottage (no HPC approval required) OR a variation of up to 500 sq. ft. may be granted by the HPC, provided the character compatibility finding is made (Section 7-601(D)(1)(a). The applicant has not addressed this issue. Further, site coverage may only be varied for the Cottage ADU of a maximum of 5%, provided an existing non-conformity is not increased. It appears to the Planning Office that application revisions are necessary in order to bring the proposal into conformance with code provisions. Applicable Guidelines Setback: We find that the proposal addresses the Guidelines under "setback" appropriately, including the proposed detached Cottage unit north of the alley. Variations are request for both rear and side yard setbacks. Spacing: "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 3 building's front." We find that this proposal meets this Guideline. Streetscape and Landscape Material: The natural attributes of this estate parcel are significant character defining features, and should be carefully preserved and enhanced where necessary. We are requiring a detailed landscape plan for Final, including all surface treatments, conservation and impact mitigation methods to be employed, treatment of the gazebo and the area around it. The HPC should consider whether the size and location of the east patio is appropriate. How does this detract from or enhance the natural open space of the parcel? Fences: The applicable Guidelines are found on page 49. The application does not discuss the fate of the historic fence as it surrounds Lot 2. It served as an elegant delineation of the estate boundaries. Now that Lot 2 has been separated, and new development is proposed, we ask the HPC to consider whether it should remain in place or the portion on Lot 2 relocated for use within the interior garden space of Lot 1. The question here is of historic association. The new development on Lot 2 alters and diminishes (if not destroys) the original concept of the Pioneer Park "estate". Should the fence be required to remain as is to remind us of the original parcel boundaries, should the portion around Lot 2 be relocated and reused on Lot 1, or is the HPC particularly concerned one way or the other. Staff believes this is an important issue worth discussion. An encroachment license for the fence is required to be approved by Council, via the Engineering Department, as stated in the 1985 Lot Line Adjustment approval. Staff is not aware if this license has been sought or approved. Alleys and Parking: We find that the treatment of the alleyscape on Lot 1 is appropriate. The proposed Cottage Infill unit is compatible with the neighborhood; it is a small scale one story with pitched roof and slightly projecting front gable entrance feature. Overall, we feel the design approach taken for this unit is very good, and we applaud the applicant's desire to include a deed restricted caretaker unit on this parcel. Depending on the percentage of demolition involved with the Lot 1 renovation, this ADU may either be mandatory or voluntary - the architect should confirm these demolition percentage numbers. The most important aspect of the Cottage Infill program is in the subordinate nature of the design. These units are to appear as pleasant though vernacular, secondary features. We recommend the following revisions: 1) Height reduced. The Planning office has processed two story Cottage units at nearly the height proposed for this one story. 4 2) The front (west el) projecting bay window be eliminated, perhaps replaced with a pair of windows to match those proposed for the remaining elevations. 3) We recommend the front entrance door be restudied for relocation to the west elevation (facade), as opposed to a side entry 4) The (east el) paired windows appear to be slightly out of scale with the remaining windows. We recommend the scale of these windows match the remaining. Rooflines: No changes in rooflines are proposed. The only change being made is in the parapet design of the carriage house addition. The concerns are as follows: No proof has been found to firmly document the original design of this parapet. Only a historic graphic exists, with which the artist took great license to embellish the structures, which indicates a barrel vault parapet design. An early photo (perhaps late 1940's or early 50's) indicates this rounded feature, which was subsequently removed (date unknown). Today, the parapet is flat. The applicant wishes to create an architectural feature that comes somewhere in between, which we find inappropriate. The Secretary's Standard #6 states: ~...Repair or replacement of missing architectural features should be based on accurate duplications of features, substantiated by historic, physical, or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the available of different architectural elements from other buildings or structures." Staff sought Lane Ittelson's advice, who agreed that to create a whole new element runs contrary to good preservation practice. We are not sure what was there originally, but if any change is made from the current flat design, it should be she exact dimension of the barrel vault as evidenced in the Paepcke photo. Our opinion is to leave it alone, and not make any changes in its style. Fancy cresting is proposed for the roof ridge of the main house. If the historic accuracy cannot be documented, which it appears it cannot, then cresting should not be added. Very few homes in Aspen (and other western mining towns) featured cresting, and to include it in a renovation on the basis that "it could have been there", does not meet the standards, and embellishes in an inappropriate manner. Pioneer Park deserves authenticity, while allowing modest and compatible changes to occur. 5 The bricked in ventilation pipes are somewhat troubling features. Four "chimney" projections appear on the south elevation alone. We believe these need to be reduced in height, and restudied in general. Is this the right material? Eliminating the visual impact of metal vent pipes is appropriate. The removal of the bubble skylights from the carriage house addition is an excellent gesture. Doors: We recommend all original doors remain; replacement doors should be detailed in the Final application, and should be compatible. We find that the south elevation door to the carriage house is inappropriate and of colonial vintage as evidenced by numerous small divided lights. This requires restudy. We find both the wide central doors proposed for the south elevation of the carriage house addition, and the garage doors are appropriate. "Coach house" style exterior lighting fixtures are proposed next to the doors. We recommend these not appear as colonial-era features, and be scaled appropriately to the spaces in which they will occupy. Representative photos of all lighting fixtures will be required at Final. Windows: This landmark contains a remarkable number of original windows and panes. We are requiring these all remain; epoxy repairs shall be considered first. All repairs must be accomplished according to NPS technical briefs, which may be found in the Planning Office. An exact identification of deteriorated sills to be replaced shall be included in the Final application. Interior storm windows should be researched. The scale and verticality of the new proposed windows are excellent. In order to distinguish historic from new, we recommend that the proposed brick arched lintels be eliminated from the rear addition, east elevation, and from the first floor rear addition, west elevation. We find that the introduction of 15 windows to the basement level is exuberant and incompatible on this National Register historic structure. The need for egress and light in the lower level is apparent, due to the large excavation and rehabilitation of this space, however, the overall treatment is just too much. We recommend both the number and size of these windows be restudied, as well as the placement and size and depth of the lightwells. Staff feels strongly the applicant needs to rethink this approach to making the basement level habitable, and reach a more sensitive solution. Dormers: We could go either way on our recommendation of new 6 dormer window #20. It faces the alley, serves as a functional element, and is not located on an original portion of the structure. Equally, the new dormer on the carriage house (04) is not a large concern, though it does alter an original portion of the carriage house. In order to enhance the habitability of this space, however, this additional dormer appears necessary, and does not detract from the character, in staff's opinion. These should be carefully designed to not replicate. The dormers that are causing the most concern to staff are #11- the two new ones proposed on the facade of the carriage house (south elevation). We are pleased that the applicant is proposing to remove the wide, horizontal dormer window which is currently there (a highly discordant feature worthy of removal), however, originally only one small dormer was located here- directly in the center. The addition of two new dormers, styled to replicate, does not meet the standards. Either 1) this facade be restored, with one central dormer window, or 2) these be designed to be slightly simplified in nature, so a clear understanding of the original dormers and the historic is made. Although the floor plan indicates the easterly one provides light into the stairway, our vote is to restore this facade to its original one central dormer, and adjust the interior space accordingly. Porches: This property is basically void of porches, per se. Stoops on both the south and east elevations are proposed to be demolished and rebuilt, with changes in material (concrete to flagstone, and wood to concrete), which we find generally appropriate. A representative example of porch materials and details of execution shall be required for Final. A metal railing is proposed for the east stoop and stair; we are not convinced this is an appropriate approach, and recommend a restudy. Would a simple wood railing be more in-keeping? Materials: Perhaps the most important material selection is for the new rear addition to the main house. Brick is proposed, which we find to be appropriate, however, will require careful review for execution at Final (texture, size, mortar width and strike). Horizontal clapboard was mentioned at the HPC site visit, however, staff feels the use of brick in tandem with the small scale design of the addition does not produce a discordant or heavy appearance, and appears to meet the standards and guidelines. This material should be carefully considered. We are unclear on the need for a break in materials (brick to stone?) on the carriage house and addition, which forms a large base or horizontal band approximately 1/3 the height of the first floor of these structures. Clarification is needed at this meeting. 7 We find the internal fence/wall materials (brick and metal) to be heavy and out of place and scale for a garden setting. We strongly recommend this element be lightened and recommend the applicant consider the use of a more appropriate wood-style fence with ample and appropriate vegetation for visual and sound screening. Paint is proposed as a material for all currently painted brick surfaces. The applicant states they will reuse the existing brick on the south elevation of the carriage house addition: the existing painted surface should remain as the exposed surface area in the reconstruction Of this wall. This house was unpainted red brick for decades prior to receiving its first coat of paint. It should remain painted, and no attempt to remove the paint should be made in the future. Even with "gentle" chemical strippers, all one has to do is look closely at the Hotel Jerome to witness the damage paint removers cause to soft, historic brick. Repainting is appropriate. Color: HPC Advisory only. Paint colors proposed will match what currently exists: pink and gray. We think that these colors have become a signature of the property, whether necessarily accurate historically (for that era) or not. Second Empire styles tend to accept "boutique" color schemes well. The Planning Office has a number of historic reference books on color, that the applicant may wish to research. 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 feels that the proposal is generally consistent with the character of the neighborhood. The Cottage Infill unit appears to work well where proposed. 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: The cultural value of Pioneer Park is perhaps one of Aspen's greatest assets. This exemplary estate, combined with its siting and relationship to the land, mature landscaping, architectural styling, integrity and historic associations with Aspen's earliest development and post-war renaissance, is one of our community's most beloved treasurers. This is a unique parcel, indicative of early entrepreneurial wealth, and remains as one of only two parcels of its kind in Aspen. We find that the proposed development does not detract from (some feel destroys) the cultural value of this landmark, 8 provided staff's recommended conditions are incorporated. The development of Lot 2, however, does significantly detract from the cultural value of "Pioneer Park", particularly in the manner proposed. The Planning Office has addressed these impacts in our review memo for the Lot 2 development. 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: When taken as a whole, staff finds that the general architectural integrity of this proposal does not detract from the landmark. However, it is important to consider the collective changes (small and large) proposed, and their potential impact to the whole of the property. The riskiest aspect of this major renovation is in the basement excavation, and the potential damage that activity could have on the structural and architectural integrity of the landmark. This Will need careful review at Final, and during actual construction. A bond and detailed engineering report will be required for Final. *'fi Demolition Standards Due to the complete demolition of the non-historic detached garage located on the portion of Lot 1 north of the alley, the demolition review standards must be met. Both the HPC and the applicant should be aware that the Planning Office is currently processing a code amendment to allow for a non-historic, non-contributing structure within a historic district to be exempt from the standards, however, approval for such demolition is still required by the HPC. Perhaps we should consider a slight alteration to the proposed amendment to allow the same exemption for a secondary structure on a designated parcel. Current code language applies now, and the applicant has not addressed the issue. We are recommending this be discussed and the HPC give the applicant direction on how to proceed. Without either a code amendment or a complete demolition application, approval cannot be granted. Partial Demolition Standards The Partial Demolition Standards are found in Section 7-602(C) of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. 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, 9 restoration or rehabilitation of the structure; and 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: We find that these standards have generally been met, with the exception of the basement. We are concerned about structural issues associated with such an aggressive excavation. The HPC should carefully consider the following issues: 1) If the removal of the rear addition is required for the renovation of the historic resource, and 2) If the impacts to the historic and architectural integrity of the structure have been mitiqated. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following alternatives: 1) Approve the Conceptual Development application as /< proposed, finding that the Development Review, Demolition and Partial Demolition standards, and the applicable Secretary of the Interior Standards have / been met. All final development application / requirements shall be met per code. { 2) Approve the Conceptual Development application as stated above ln Alternative 01 with conditions as stated in this memo. (Staff will enumerate these at the meeting). In addition, the following items should be included as conditions: A a) Compliance with Demolition Standards found in Section 7-602(B), or a) Compliance with Partial Demolition Standards /f found in Sec. 7-602(C). c) Detailed preservation plan for materials and architectural features 77- 1- d) Detailed site and landscape plan, indicating existing vegetation and mitigation proposed e) Historic perimeter wrought iron fencing shall 10 be repaired in place, and shall not be removed from the existing location. e) Massing model of Lots 1 and 2 (including the outparcel north of the alley). All trees and mature vegetation shall be indicated. f) Exact material representation 3) Table action to a date certain, to allow the applicant time to restudy specific areas of concern, and revise the application regarding site coverage, FAR and height variation requests, and to address the standards for demolition. A revised application is due to the Planning Office no later than two weeks prior to the tabled public hearing date. 4) Deny Conceptual Development approval, finding that the Standards have not been met. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC table Conceptual Development for 442 W. Bleeker St., (Lot 1, Weaver Subdivision), to a date certain, to allow the applicant time to revise the application and address the concerns raised in this memo and by the HPC at this public hearing. Additional comments: memo.hpc.442wb.cd 11 i APPENDIX n The Secretary of the Interiorls Standards for Rehabilitation 1. Every reasonable effort shall be made to provide a compatible use for a property which requires minimal alteration of the building, structure, or site and its environment, or to use the property for its originally intended purpose. 2. The distinguishing original qualities or character of a building, structure, site or its environment shall not be destroyed. The removal or alteration of any historic material or distinctive architectural features should te avoided when possible. 3. All buildings, structures, and sites shall be recognized as products of their own time. Alterations that have no historical basis and which seek to create an earlier appearance shall be discouraged. 4. Changes which may have taken place in the course of time are evidence of the history and development of a building, structure, or site and its environment. These changes may have acquired significance in their own right, and this significance shall be recognized and respected. 5. Distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship which characterize a building, structure, or site shall be treated with sensitivity. 6. Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced, wherever possible. In the event replacement is necessary, the new material should match the material being replaced in composition, design, color, texture, and other visual qualities. Repair or replacement of missing architectural features should be based on accurate duplications of features, substantiated by historic, physical, or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different architectural elements from other buildings or struc tures. 7. The surface cleaning of structures shall be undertaken with the gentlest means possible. Sandblasting and other cleaning methods that will damage the historic building materials shall not be undertaken. 8. Every reasonable effort shall be made to protect and preserve archeological resources affected by, or adjacent to, any project 9. Contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged when such alterations and additions do not destroy significant historical, architectural, or cultural material, and such design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material, and charac ter of the property, neighborhood, or environment. 10. Whenever possible, new additions or alterations to struc tures shall be done in such a manner that if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the struc ture would be unimpaired. Pioneer Park - Lot 1 Additional conditions to be considered: 1. Revised application: address FAR, site coverage, height variation, demolition standards hy) IM AlÂ« - 2. Detailed landscape plan, including all surface treatments, conservation and impact mitigation methoqs to be employed, treatment of gazebo and area around it. 3. Encroachment license for fence be applied for prior to issuance of Building Permit - 'LL. 1 6 LiÂ«-t- \ k 0.1 4Â«. \10Â«-- -4. 1 Cottage: Reduce height, eliminate projecting bay window, ._'+_~ / re-orient front entrance door to facade, east el windows match - - ~-Wi Q A -Â·- 5. Parapet of carriage house addition remains the same as existing Ck - 7 6. Cresting~beneliminated, unless historically documented 7. Restudy/reduce bricked in ventilation pipes -of 8. All original doors remain; replacement doors detailed in / Final,4** Restudy/revise south elevation carriage house door ) r 10. Â·Representative photos of all lighting fixtures at Final 11. Original windows be retained; storms used only on interior. Epoxy repairs first; NPS Technical brief be researched for appropriate manner of window preservation; deteriorated sills identified in Final plans 12. Eliminate brick arched lintels from rear addition/440/<-~ 13. Restudy/reduce/eliminate basement level windows and lightwells (lightwell placement as well) ./6-o,tut;oOL /-/30. r-/ 14. .South elevation carriage house dormer - restore to original central position (one) 15. Representative sample of porch materials at Final 9,0 4- 16. Metal. railing, east stoop be restudied.94 17. Clarification on break in materials on carriage house and addition 18. Eliminate brick/metal interior garden wall R' b-to & 1 //3 Pioneer Park, Lot 1 Additional conditions to be considered 19. Bond and detailed engineering report for excavation/structural work on main house l,3 20. Demolition standards to be met 04- 21. Partial demolition standards to be met -Â« 0... --1-- 7-' 2 *' 4 2-2. Detailed preservation plan for historic materials and architectural features 23. Wrought iron fence repaired in place <21 14\\ 24. Massing model for both Lots 1 and 2 4~~--_ 25. Exact material representation Additional comments from meeting: 2 m KAPLAN COMPANY MAR i 2 Roxanne Eflin, Historic Planner March 12, 1991 Planning Department Aspen City Hall Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: HPC Application, Pioneer Park (Lot 1) Additional Info./February 5, 1991 Application Raxanne: In response to your memorandum to the HPC for my conceptual review application for Lot 1 of Pioneer Park, I am providing you with the following information for the March 13, 1991 HPC meeting: 1. A recalculation of proposed FAR in which the project, without the deed-restricted Cottage Unit , is 70 sq. ft. below the existing 4,095 sq. ft. coverage. 2. A recalculation of proposed site coverage in which, without the deed-restricted Cottage Unit, this coverge is 249 sq. ft. below the existing 4,095 sq. ft. coverage. 3. Page 25 of the Februry 5, 1991 Application. This page was inadvertantly left out of the Application. Pages 25-26, as indicated by the Table of Contents, address the Application for Partial Demolition requirements. 4. Statement herein by the Applicant that Ordinance No. 1 does not apply to this project. 5. Statement herein by the Applicant that an actual photo of the Main House showing decorative roof cresting has been located. The applicant will have slides and a model for the meeting. Please arrange for a slide projector and screen and a table for the model. Very Truly Yours 17.- 4/ , Lester M. Kaplan Applicant 1060 Sailors l<,4- â€¢ Fort (_fullm.i, Coloral) 80525 â€¢ 303/226-68 19 Aspen, Colorado 920-4048 0 - HPC APPLICATION Pioneer Park 442 W. Bleeker Street Aspen, Colorado Amendment to Page 21 & 23 L. SQUARE FOOTAGE ANALYSIS - Existing F.A. R. Square Feet Main House - 1st Floor 1,936 Main House - 2nd Floor 1,290 Basement Main House 26 Carriage House - 1st Floor . 503 Carriage House - 2nd Floor 503 Addition to Carriage House 632 Roof Areas 96 Total Existing F.A. R. 4,986 F.A. R. with Proposed Additions The removal of the living space in the Addition to the Carriage House by its partial conversion to a three car garage: (720) Sub total 4,266 Additionsto F.A. R. Â· Study/Mud Room 272 Â· Dining Room 28 â€¢ Kitchen Entry 17 Â· Rear Entry 12 â€¢ New Basement (above grade as per City Code) 321 650 TOTAL NEW F.A.R. 4,916 4,986 Sq. Ft. Less 4,916 Sq. Feet = 70 Sq. Ft. Under Existing F.A. R. HPC APPLICATION Pioneer Park - Amendment to Page 21 & 23 Page 2 M. SITE COVERAGE ANALYSIS Proposed Residence Square Feet Main House 1,936 Dining Corner 28 Study/Mud Room Addition 272 Deck above Basement 119 Kitchen Entry (from garage) 17 Pool Dressing Area 88 Garage 790 Carriage House 503 Gazebo 93 Total 3,846 Allowable Lot Size 17,603 sq. ft. 25.00% Less (12,000) 5,603 + 1,200 4.67% Total Percentage Allowable Site Coverage: 20.33% Total Allowable Square Footage Site Coverage: 20.33% x 17,603 sq. ft. = 3,579 sq. ft. Existing Site Coverage 4,095 sq. ft. Proposed Site Coverage 3,846 sq. ft. New Site Coverage (Less Than Existing) 249 sq. ft. REQUEST FOR F.A. R. AND SITE COVERAGE RELIEF F.A. R. Cottage Unit Proposed Unit Size 556 sq. ft Left Over From Total F.A. R. (70) sq. ft. Less Allowance For Cottage Unit (350) sq. ft Total Requested 136 sq. ft Site Coverage Cottage Unit Proposed Site Coverage 556 sq. ft. Left over from total site coverage (249) sq. ft. Total Requested 307 sq. ft. Without The Cottage Unit We Have Not Exceeded The Existing F.A. R. or Site Coverage. HPC PROJECT REVIEW CHECKLIST Does the Project meet the Standards for Development? Does the Project meet the Development Guidelines? Does the Project support the Community's Preservation Goals? SITEPLANNING ROOF Siting of the Building: Shape (gable, lean-to, etc.) Setback Pitch Facade width ' Overhang Spacing between buildings Dormers Skylight Chimneys Delineation of street space: Creation of continuous street WINDOWS edge Separation of public, semi-public, Type (double-hung, easement. etc.) and private areas Shape and proportion Fences Rhy'thm and balance Blinds/shutters Garage placement DOORWAYS Landscape plantings Placement and orientation Type (paneled, etc.) Site improvements EXTERIOR ARCHITECTURAL Walkways ELEMENTS Driveways Retaining walls Door platforms and steps Porches BULK, PROPORTION and Exterior stairs and decks SCALE (building size) Roofwalks and platforms MATERIALS Height Facade proportions Wall surfaces Scale Foundation Roof MASSING (building shape) TRIM and MISCELLANEOUS Mass of main portion: DETAILS Forrn Roof shape Trim Onentation Gutters and leaders Louvres, vents, etc. Additions: House lights 1 Placemenl Public utilities Form M I Bulk SPECIFIC DESIGN SUGGESTIONS: l3 ; 133Â£0kld *PS Form 10 Â®C 16L 082) E.L.:â‚¬5 .0-3/-67 1 Z *4 -00 lE United States Department of the Interior ~ National Park Service For NPS use only National Register of Historic Places received ~il See instructions in How to Comp/ete Nationat Register Forms inventory-Nomination Form date entered Type all entries-complete applicable sections Fl 1 . Name ~__ ~ 11istoric_~lienrWabber~.ouse_l.__Ii.Plle-erparkH.storic Resources of .Asnen - rÂ·RiO 7 and or common Webber-Paepcke House / Pioneer Park -1 2. Location ~ street & number 442 West Bleeker Street n/-_ not for publication city, town Aspen - vicinity of rj a state CO code 0 E county Pitkin code 097 _ ~ 3. Classification Category Ownership Status Pyesent Use L_ n.,La_ district Ill/apublic >~ Occupied n/a agriculture n/a museum 1 X building(s) _Z private - nia unoccupied nul_ commercial nia_ park i n-La- structure nla both .n /a work in progress nia_ educational X private residen râ€žU- site Public Acquisition Accessible n.,La- entertainment rU.6_ religious n--Aa- object CLain process nLE yes: restricted 1--- government C.2_ scientific 1 X multiple resource -- no .-r,E- military rd-@â€ž- other n/a being considered 1~,2 yes: unrestricted n-ja industrial n.la- transportation l 4. Owner of Property name Jeff Weaver and Mary Parker Weaver 1 1 street & number 442 West Bleeker Street 1 city, town Aspen rda vicinity of state CO 81611 5. Location of Legal Description ~ courthouse, registry of deeds, etc, Pitkin County Court House street & number 506 East Main Street J city. town Aspen state CO J 6. Representation in Existing Surveys Colorado Inventory of n/a title Historic Sites has this properly been determined eligible? -- yes _*_ n. d date Ongoing ,_ federal _x_ state ,~*c county .1,-% local depository for survey records Colorado Historical Society - OAKE - ritv Inwn 7 7-:7 7 0 r 4/ ....F ..r 7. Description 165 Condition Check one Check one _Illaexcelient p /6 deteriorated n-U_ unaltered -2Â§_ original site --~ good n,U- ruins X altered n-/Â·a- moved date ~WIn/afair n-74- unexposed Describe the present and original (if known) physical appearance J The Webber-Paepcke House, also known as Pioneer Parks sits mid- block on a large landscaped site which encompasses the whole half- block between Nor -ch Third and North Fourth streets on the north side 3 - of West Bleeker Street. The site has a double row of mature cotton- wood trees - one row between the street and sidewalk and one row beyond the sidewalk behind the low wrought iron fence which surrounds J the property. The house, designed in the Secon Empire Revival style, is rectangular in plan with a symmetrical street elevation, a Mansard roof and dormers with pediments. The first story is faced with brick, probably manufactured locally, and the second storv Mansard has wood 3 V shingle facing. There are two large, one story polygonal bays at each side of the center entrance. The hipped bay roofs continue over the entrance to form 2 porch roof. The entry has double doors with panels in the lower portion and etched glass above. Over the doors is a transom with "Pioneer Park" painted across the glass pane. (photo 4e) The top of the doorker nas a segmental arch. The windows throughout the house J are one-over-one, double hung, wood sash with segmental arches and brick label molds. The eaves of the bays and between the first and second stories have sawn wooden brackets. On the east side, there is a long shallow bay wi-ch a flat roof with a center doorway flankea Dv three windows on each side. At the north rear. there is a two storv kitchen eli which has a wood frame and clapboard addition to the west side, probably added ty the Paepckes in the late 1940s. The first story of the house, carriage house and garage are painted "Patpcke Pink", a shade of pink which was used on a number of buildings in the 1940 E. The yard te the east of the house has grass and is heavilv and -11 - randomly landscaped with trees and shrubs throughout. If there was an early landscape plan, it is no longer in evidence. Near the northeast corner is a small enclosed, octogonal, wooden summer house, probably built by the Paepckes. To the west of' the house, the carriage house J is located facing North Fourth Street at the alley. The design of the carriage house matches the main house. Extending from the eas-5 ] carriage house wall are several one story brick additions along the alley, including a garage added in the 1960s br owner Harold Pabst, Pabs: also added :he swimming pcol directly south of the carriage house and the wood privacy fence along trie south side of -che pool. The J carriage house, knov,n as Schweitzer Cottage, was remodeled in the 19608 after the initial remodeling in the 1940s icI Albert Schweitzer's Visit. There is now a large second story picture windov,' on the south. (photo #4b) The interior of the house is notable for its fine black walnut woodwork found in the doors, the door and window frames, the baseboards, J and the stairway. The black walnut woodwork is even found on the second floor, where usually a less expensive wood was more commonly used. (photo #40,- 43, 4e) The ceilings are high with the door height reaching ~ _ almost to the ceiling. The living room, east 00 The entrv hall, has a LI LI OM3 'C. 102 4 - 00,le66 NPS Form 10 900-8 O-82) Elp.:es 10-31-67 United States Department of the Interior ..95,9967-v--- 1 National Park Service ~ National Register of Historic Places 0--414244#4<VI... 3 Inventory-Nomination Form ~ n~~'04*,~4,- 1 Continuation sheet Description Item number 7 Page 2 ceiling with a wide molding and a plaster medallion with a non-original chandelier. (photo #4d) The intricately carved marble fireplace face J is non-original. (photo #4f) Te the west of the entry hall is a second parlor or library with a fireplace surround of painted wood with carved wood panels in an abstract design and brackets supporting the mantle piece. (photo #4g) The Webber House is designated a local landmark. The Swimming pool, the garage and the summer house are non- contributing. The carriage house is contributing. J J J 8. Significance 162 Period Areas of Significance-Check and justify below j I.kfa prehistoric 11<a archeology-prehistoric DZ-Etommunity planning 026 landscape architectureE~ religion r/a ~ Dia 1400-1499 nla archeology-historic Attonservation [16 law v, science n:/a 1500-1599 ~a agriculture DLA. economics Dla literature 63 sculpture _~ n/a 1600-1699 __ architecture nla education nia military Ilta social/ 11(21- 1700-1799 RA art Illa engineering 065 music humanitarian _21_ 1800-1899 .X_ commerce DZ-@. exploration settlement nla philosophy r/a theater n/a 1900- Illa_ communications nLA industry ][1ZA politics,government Il/'atransportation 11/2 invention 22 other (specify) Specific dates 1885 Builder/Architect not kna,m Statement of Significance (in one paragraph) The 1885 Henry habber House, which Kebber named F.sneer Park, is one of the rest architecturally and historically significant houses ir. 1-sper.. It is one of â‚¬-ie 3 few houses constructed of brick, but more importantly, in is the only Secind Empire Revival style house in Aspan which retains its original exterior inteuritv - and many of the interior details. The house is also significant for its associ- ation with the original owner, Henry Webber, pioneer shoe and boot verchant r.3-.0 came to Aspen in 1880 and became very wealthy through his mining invest.ents. Webber was elected mayor of Aspen in 1888 and built one of the more plon-inest business blocks, the Webber Block (the Elks Building). BACKGROUND The original o.mer of this nouse, Henrv Webber, was a Drominent, bur contrc- - versial figu-re in Aspen. Webber carle to Aspen in 1880 when it was little more ' than a tent mining camp. His wize '~vas one of the thirteen heart>.; r,73:Ten EÂ·,-no spent the winter of 1880-1881 in the care. As soon as Webber arrived, he bouoh~ a lot- on Leane Street at Galena and set up business as \*abber and Comparn, in a lou building stocked with boots, shay and clothing.1 On blay 29, 1881, Mrs. Kebber died of st.rychnine poisoning, reps,rrec as accidenÂ»1, but rumored to b. suicide over her hasband's affair with his ece, Julia Nevitt, whom Webher mal les Ion- months later.' As WÂ»bar's bc>Dt and sho- bsiness thrived, he inrested his profiu in mining. He sold the business in 18 89. Mea=while, Webber had also becone ci:j treE-=-er in 1883 and was elected mayor of .Aspen in 1888. In 1891, Webber built a large and handsone business block, the Webber Building (the EL'.s Building) at 210 South Galena. It was rivaled in size and cost only by the Wneeler Opera House ana the Jereze Hjtel. A year later, in 1892, the building was sold to the Aspen National Bank and became knom as the Earl Building. Webber died in Aspen in 1911.3 r.1- 1-4---.- Di/n-.-n 'I'he second o.,mers of conselence of the Webber Houy.3 were 6 â‚¬1 1 L.tr _ - .- - - -. . . , president of Container Colrporation of Aferica in Cnicax, and his wife, ElizEDEUT. The Paepokes bought U-ie I,Jebher Houe for their suner hons after they cre te Aspen in 1945 and saw the great recreational possibilities for the town. Under Paepcke's guidance, Aspen was transformed from a run-dÂ·aÂ·m Victorian mining toÂ·.m into a fashionable winter and sumner resort. The 19th century mine sites on Asean Mountain became a 20th century ski area with a chair lift. The Paepckes also initiated the Surrmer Music Festival, the Aspen Institute for Hur.anistiC SEUCies and the International Design Conference.4 .J 168 NPS Form 10 9)08 OMF No. 2024-0028 0-82) Expires 10-31-87 United States Department of the Interior J National Park Service National Register of Historic Places 4 Inventory-Nomination Form 41/ * *r. 444-7.-4:T- *~ 1,-*.-t<I- 1-231.1 9mt i - -- ' Continuation sheet Significance Item number 8 Page 2 In 1949, the Paepckes planned the Goethe Bicentennial Convocation and Music Festival in Aspen to honor the 200th anniversary of the birth of the Ger'man poet, Gohann \Â·blfgang von Goethe. They were assisted by Robert 1Â·12 3, riard Hutchins, Chancellor of the University of Chicago and the chairman of the U. S. Goethe Bicentennial Foundation. Albert Schweitzer accepted the invitation to deliver the festival' s keynote address which comman-orated Goethe' s birth. On this trip, - which was Schweitzer's only visit to the U. S., he stayed with the Paepckes in J the carriage house at the Webber House. It became known as the Schweitzer Cottage.5 In the early 19605, the Webbe- House was bought bv Harold "Shorty" Pabst. In 1969, the current owners, Mary Weaver and her son Jeff, bought the house. J J J J . J J r 3 169 0.3 50. 1024-00:6 NPS Forrn IC 900 8 Exp.zes 10-31-83 C> 82) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service Xes-"am*?44Â£=D National Register of Historic Places Inventory-Nomination Form :liatilitil/'Wifillf/..FÂ¥4#01*ZF Continuation sheet Significance Item number 8 page 3 Footnotes 1. Aspen Times, April 23, 1881, p. 3. 2. Heather Hopton and Lilc Shuldener, Aspen's Early Days: A Walking 3 Tour (Boulder: Aspen Historical Society, 19<5), P. 39Â· 3. Aspen Daily Times, May 12, 1883, p. 1; April 11, 1886, p. 4; April 4, 1588, p. 2; January 1, 1891, p. 2; March 2, 1911, n.p. Le n. n 7 4 +: n i rA PIC) 9,7.7 .:, 1889, 1892, 1893Â· Colorado Business Direczerv, 1881-1889. Hopton and Shuldener, p. 35. 4. Janet Wiscombe, "The Paepcke Stamp", The Denver Post, Empire Section, August 10, 1986, p. 11-12. - 5. Allen H. Merriam, "A bert Schwertzer in Aspen", Colorado Heritage Iss-~- -1 Lagazine (Denver: Colorado Historical Society, 1986, DE. 3-6. The tent used for the Goethe festival in 1949 was designed by no-Ded architeci, Eero Saarinen for a gathering of some 2,006 people. This tent was used until 1964, when it was renlaced with one designed by Herbert Bayer, well known artist and industrial designer, who was a close friend and an associate in Paepcke's Aspen venture. J -1 L3 i. L--J LI-J L.J LA L U - ~ 9, Major Biblipgraphical References 1JU -1 See footnotes ~ 10. Geographical Data ~ Acreage of nominated properly under one Quadrangle name .Aspen Quadrangle scale 1:24 000 -. UT M References - AL]-13-1 ~3|412,~3I0IO| |413|319|61015| B L_1-1 1 1 1 L ... I I l l i l i 1 1 1 Zone Easting Nonhing Zone Easting Northing Cl i__1 11'11'1'' ''t''i DI lillill! 11 1111 1 1 1 Ell]Illill1111!Illl Fli'1111! 1111111!11 2-1 G 1-2-111 11 1 111 1 1 1 1 1 11 H L-1-]||I L Ill 11 11.1 11 Verbal boundary description and justification Block 36, lots K thru S Aspen Townsite 7 List all states and counties for properties overlapping state or county boundaries state /a code county code J state code county code 11. Form Prepared By name/title Barbara Norgren, ensultant 1 organization n/a date Auc-ast 15, 198â‚¬ street & number 7453 East Jefferson Drive telephone (303) 740-7860 -1 city or town Denver state Colorado 80237 ~ 12. State Historic Preservation Officer Certification The evaluated significance of this property within the state is: national - _ state - local 1 As the designated State Historic Preservation Officer for the National Historic Preservation Act 01 1966 (Public Law 89- 665), I hereby nominate this properly for inclusion in the National Register and certify that it has been evaluated - according to the criteria and procedures set forth by the National Park Service. State Historic Preservation Officer signature title date For Â»PS use only I hereby certity that this property is included in the National Register date Keeper of the Nabonal Registe Attest : date Ch-~ d Rpo,stration L_J L_J L_-2 L....1 A. LAND USE APPLICATION FORM , 1) Project Nam Additions And alteratione ro Pinnper Park Residpno#,- 2) Proj ect Incation 442 K. Pleeker Street/T pr n nâ‚¬ Di pneer 7,27-96. 9,1.-,rivÂ·: c- - C inii cate street ackiress, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) 3 ) Present Zrning R- 6 4 ) Lot Size 17.AnQ 36. Ft. 5) Applicant' s 7 5-lme, Actiress & Ftxne # The Kaplan Compan-. Lester N. Earlan. 201 Midland Avenue. Aspen. CO 81611, (303) 020-4018 6) Representative's Name, Address & Phone # Lester M. Kaplan (303) 920-4048 (Asnen) (303) 226-6819 (Ft. Colling) 7) Type of Applicaticn (please dieck all that apply) : Coniitioral Use Ccnceutlial SPA Conceptual Historic Dev. V Special Review Final SPA . Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline Conoeotual FUD Minor Historic Dev. Stream Margin Final POD Historic Deniolitian M:xmtain View Plane Subdivisicn Historic Designaticn Corrlani nitmli 7.ation Text/Map Amendment (X?S Allotment Ict Split/I.ct Line O!DS Fb2mptiart Adj ust=mit 8) Descriptian of Existing Uses (number and type of ecisting structures; approximate sq. ft.; number of bedrocrs; any previous approvals granted to the property). Currentl - canon-z-:p-<zed with single-familv Main Fouse(approvimatel:. "52 sq. ft.), sincle-familv CarriaÂ© diouse (anproximatelv 1006 sq. ft.), Addition to Carriage House (approximatelv 632 sq. ft.). and three (3) car detached garage. 9) Description of Development Applicatian "Frerrion or remnripline of rnmhin,arinnq of or millrinlpq nf anv qin,rip 4.grnre nf 2 qrrilrfurp whiph hs,q nni heen Aprprminprl tn hp minnr." (Parperanh Lh Attachment 32) 10) Have you attached the following? Vp q Posponse to Attactment 2, Minin= SI ihni qgion Ocrrtents VP 9 Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Cortents veS Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application Page 2 1 APPLICATION TO CITY OF ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE FOR CONCEPTUAL REVIEW OF SIGNIFICANT HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING PIONEER PARK RESIDENCE 442 WEST BLEEKER STREET ASPEN, COLORADO TABLE OF-CONTENTS*: PAGE A. LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 2 B. APPLICANT INFORMATION , 3 C. ADDRESS AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION D. DISCLOSURE OF OWNERSHIP. 5 E. LETTER AUTHORIZING APPLICATION F. VICINITY MAP. G. PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH EXISTING STRUCTURES.......................... 8 H. REHABILITATION OBJECTIVFR ... 8 I. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL...........................................................9-11 J. SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS 12-14 K. THE PROPOSAL IN LIGHT OF THE STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION SET FORTH BY THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR 15-21 L. SQUARE FOOTAGE ANALYSIS, COTTAGE UNIT, AND F.A.R. RELIEF REQUEST 21-22 M. SITE COVERAGE ANALYSIS...................................................Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â· 23 N. REQUESTED VARIANCFS ... 24 O. APPLICATION FOR PARTIAL DEMOLITION........................................................ 25-26 P. EXHIBITS: A, B, C, D 27-30 * ACCOMPANYING THIS APPICATION ARE 1) -AS IS- FLOORPLANS AND ELEVATIONS 2) REVISED FLOOR PLANS AWND 3) PROPOSED ELEVATIONS. Submitted February 5, 1991 By: THE KAPLAN COMPANY Page 1 HPC APPLICATION FOR CONCEPTUAL REVIEW OF SIGNIFICANT HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT Applicant: Lester M. Kaplan G. PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH EXISTING STRUCTURES A. Obsolete Floor Plan -- Floor plan contains extensive, dysfunctional design elements resulting from an indeterminable number of remodeling attempts over the last 50 years. Existing conditions include poor room arrangement, absence of essential spaces (i.e. dining room, family room), inadequate room sizes, antiquated bathrooms, and etc. B. Deficient Site Design -- Includes portion of living area for Main House (office and guest room) in detached structure, and remote garage located across the alley from Main House. C. Deterioration -- Sign of structural weakening in foundation to Main House and Carriage House. Decaying electrical. heating and plumbing systems. Vandalism and deferred maintenance to wrought iron fence. All major exterior elements in need of repair, including windows and casements, roof, brick, shingles, trim and wood fencing. D. Inappropriate Exterior Alterations -- Additions to rear of Main House inadequately sized and undermine historic character. Window, doorway and roof line changes to front facade of Carriage House and Addition have created false sense of original design. H. REHABILITATION OBJECTIVES A. To preserve and, in certain respects, to enhance the historic value of the property, both to subsequent owners and the Aspen community. B. To restore the historic use of the property as a prominent and vital residential anchor in the West End. The historic character of the property shall be retained and preserved by returning its historic potential as a cultural, political and social gathering place incidental to its residential use. C. To upgrade the aesthetic appearance and historic value of the property as an historic landmark and focal point in the West Erd. D. To accomplish such necessary repairs to the Main House, Carriage House and Addition and to introduce such required living spaces and modern amenities so as to help insure another 100 years of active, residential use for this property. Page 8 HPC APPLICATION FOR CONCEPTUAL REVIEW OF SIGNIFICANT HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT Applicant: Lester M. Kaplan 1. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL Fundamental Desian Elements 1. Eliminating the wood frame three car garage on the north side of the alley and remodeling the Addition to the Carriage House (once used as a blacksmith's shop) into a three car garage. 2. Removing the existing, wood frame, bedroom/basement stairwell addition (done in 1963) and the wood frame kitchen addition (done in 1965) and re- configuring a new, one-story addition in brick. 3. Excavating a full basement within the new footprint of the Main House and adding basement windows at limited locations along base of Main House for light, ventilation and safety. - 4. Constructing a 556 Sq. Ft. deed-restricted caretaker's unit, pursuant to city's Cottage Infill Ordinance, on that portion of the property north of the alley(existing garage location). 5. Otherwise restoring period detailing (i.e. roof cresting and cornice molding), rehabilitating deteriorating exterior conditions (i.e. window sills, roof, foundation, brick), and upgrading certain exterior features (i.e. east and west patios, east side entry, grape-stake fence). General Design Elements 1. Demolish wood frame garage north of alley. Construct Caretaker's unit. 2. Construct three garage door openings along north wall of Addition to Carriage House. Two decorative wall-mounted lights between garage doors. 3. Re-stucco north wall of Addition to Carriage House. 4. Add dormer window to north side of Carriage House to match existing window, thereby creating pair. 5. Add roof cresting atop existing mansard roof to Main House. 6. Demolish wood frame bedroom/basement stairwell addition on west and north sides. 7. Demolish wood frame kitchen addition on east side. 8. Construct new, one-story rear Addition to Main House within setback. Page 9 HPC APPLICATION FOR CONCEPTUAL REVIEW OF SIGNIFICANT HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT Applicant: Lester M. Kaplan 9. Remove south-facing brick wall of Addition to Carriage House. Rebuild south-facing brick wall consistent with design shown in photo appearing in The Aspen Storv (p. 72), by John and Frankie O'Rear (Exhibit A). Brick pediment over double-doors to be rebuilt with lower profile. Reconstructed wall to use original brick and to be located 5 feet south of existing wall location. Add two decorative wall lights to south wall of Addition to Carriage House. 10. Five foot extension to Addition to Carriage House and new addition to Main House to be to be connected. 11. Remove existing south facing, wide dormer window on Carriage House (installed in 1978). Replace with pair of dormer windows matching those on north and west sides of Carriage House. 12. Replace entry door to Carriage House with door similar to photo in The Aspen StorY. 13. Add wall-mounted decorative lights on each side of new entry door to Carriage House. 14. Add brick chimney atop Addition to Carriage House to conceal mechanical room vent pipes. 15. Add five (5) groupings, three (3) windows each, of basement level windows. 16. Demolish existing wooden stairway on east side of Main House. Replace with concrete stairway with metal railing in same width and to include small landing from house. 17. Replace existing side door on east side with new patio door. 18. Repair existing brick and stucco areas as needed. 19. Repair rotted window sills and, as required, replace with new wood in same design. 20. Add dormer window in same style to north-facing side of mansard roof. 21. Replace dormer window on northwest side of mansard roof with a doorway to deck area over new addition to rear of Main House. Window pediment to remain. 22. Add stucco window wells on east, west and south sides of Main House. 23. Repair iron fence around property. Page 10 HPC APPLICATION FOR CONCEPTUAL REVIEW OF SIGNIFICANT HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT Applicant: Lester M. Kaplan 24. Remove grape-stake fence and replace with brick fence, including brick piers and decorative metal top border. 25. Add spa adjoining pool. 26. Remove existing brick area around pool and replace with flagstone in larger configuration with planting areas. 27. Replace brick patio on east side with flagstone. 28. Remove painted concrete front entry stairs and replace with flagstone 29. Relocate gazebo from Lot 2. 30. Remove aluminum cornice and replace with wood cornice. 31. Repair mansard roof using same shingle style. 32. Re-paint Main House with new addition, Cottage House and Addition to Cottage House in pink color with gray trim. Page 11 '1- HPC APPLICATION FOR CONCEPTUAL REVIEW OF SIGN:-ICANT HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT Applicant: Lester M. Kaplan J. SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS South (Front) Elevation - 1. Decorative roof cresting. 2. Replace aluminum cornice with wood cornice. 3. Remove grape-stake fence; replace with 5 ft. 6 in. brick fence with 1 ft. 6 in. cresting. Brick piers at 20 in. above brick wall height. 4. Repair existing iron fence. 5. Remove concrete front entry stairs and replace with sandstone. 6. Extend 5 feet to south the south wall of the Addition to Carriage House. 7. Return south wall of the Addition to Carriage House to "original" appearance as shown in The Aspen Storv p. 72 (Exhibit A). However, pediment over double doors to have lower profile. 8. Add two decorative wall lights to front of Addition to Carriage House. 9. Replace entry door to Carriage House with door style similar to that shown in The Aspen Storv. 10. Remove wide dormer window; replace with two dormer windows identical to those on west and north sides of Carriage House. 11. Add decorative wall lamp, same as those on Addition to Carriage House, to each side of new entry door to Carriage House. 12. Enclose mechanical vent pipes atop Addition to Carriage House with brick chase in same design as Main House chimney. 13. Remove existing wood stairs to east side entry; replace with concrete stairway with metal railing. South and north side of stairway to be in stucco, identical to base of Main House. 14. Repair rotted window sills; replace with new wood sills in same style where necessary. 15. Repair brick and stucco as needed. 16. Add two step concrete stairs to east end door into Addition to Carriage House. Page 12 HPC APPLICATION FOR CONCEPTUAL REVIEW OF SIGNIFICANT HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT Applicant: Lester M. Kaplan 17. Remove grape-stake wooden fence; replace with brick fence 4 ft. 6 in high, with 1 ft. 6 in. cresting and pier 20 inches above wall height. West Elevation 1. Decorative roof cresting. 2. Add 23 x 4 ft. window well centered under existing pair of windows. Window well lined in stucco to match Main House. 3. Add six (6) basement level windows which extend 1 feet above grade, each 2 ft. wide. 4. Remove existing wood frame, bedroom addition. 5. Replace wood frame addition within same footprint with brick addition using same fenestration as existing building as to window style, lintels, fascia and brackets, stucco and brick. 6. Add deck area atop new addition. Simple wood bannister facing west. 7. Remove grape-stake wooden fence, replace with brick fence 4 ft. 6 in high, with 1 ft. 6 in. cresting and pier 20 inches above wall height. East Elevation 1. Decorative roof cresting. 2. Remove wood frame kitchen addition. 3. Add brick addition using same fenestration as existing building as to window style, lintels, fascia and brackets. stucco and brick. Brick addition includes new east entry with concrete stairway to patio door. Decorative wall lamp next to door. Metal railing. 4. Add 10 x 3 ft. window well in front of basement level windows for new addition. 5. Add three (3) basement level windows, each 2 feet wide and extending 2 feet above grade. 6. New addition exposes existing and currently concealed fascia of Main House. Page 13 HPC APPLICATION FOR CONCEPTUAL REVIEW OF SIGNIFICANT HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT Applicant: Lester M. Kaplan 7. Remove existing wood stairway to east patio and replace with concrete stairs with metal railing. New stairway is same width as existing stairway and includes 4 ft. landing from living room. 8. Repair brick, stucco, roof shingles as necessary. North (Rear) Elevation 1. Decorative roof cresting. 2. Add three (3) garage doors to Addition to Carriage House. 3. Add two (2) decorative wall lamps to Addition to Carriage House. 4. Add 2.5 ft. wide section to east end of Addition to Carriage House and connect to new addition to Main House. - 5. Add 19 x 3 ft. window well in stucco; Nine (9) ft. metal railing atop deeper section of window. 6. Add three (3) basement windows visible from grade. Each window is 1.5 feet above grade and 2 feet wide. 7. Brick addition to Main House with two (2) windows and same fenestration as existing window details. 8. Brick addition includes concrete stairway to new rear patio and patio door with wall lamp to dining room. Metal railing for stairway. 9. Add dormer window to rear side of mansard roof, same design as existing mansard windows. 10. Remove section of original brick wall at rear of Main House to accommodate new addition (east brick wall section previously removed to accept existing kitchen addition). 11. Remove north-facing window in northwest roof section to Main House. Using same frame and pediment, replace with patio door to deck. 12. Above new addition, add simple wood railing for second level deck. 13. Add dormer window to mansard roof of Carriage House. 14. Repair brick, stucco and roof shingles as necessary. Page 14 HPC APPLICATION FOR CONCEPTUAL REVIEW OF SIGNIFICANT HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT Applicant: Lester M. Kaplan K. THE PROPOSAL IN LIGHT OF THE STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION SET FORTH BY THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR The Standards for Rehabilitation is a section of the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Historic Preservation Projects. As revised in 1990, the ten (10) Standards for Rehabilitation encompass and provide further elaboration to the review standards of the City of Aspen in Attachment 4 of its application package for -significant historic development.' Consequently, the applicant will discuss in this section the consistency of the proposal with the Secretary of Interior's ten (10) Standards, which discussion shall be deemed sufficient in addressing the City's more-general review standards. Rehabilitation is defined in The Standards for Rehabilitation as -the process of returning a property to a state of utility, through repair or alteration, which makes possible an efficient contemporary use while-preserving those portions and features of the property which are significant to its historic, architectural and cultural values.- This definition is most appropriate for the project objectives and implementation elements of the Lot 1 Pioneer Park Subdivision proposal to HPC. Indeed, a reiteration of these objectives clearly demonstrates their consistency with the Secretary of the Interior's definition of rehabilitation: 1. To preserve and, in certain respects, to enhance the historic value of the property, both to subsequent owners and the Aspen community. 2. To restore the historic use of the property as a prominent and vital residential anchor in the West End. The historic character of the property shall be retained and preserved by returning its historic potential as a cultural, political and social gathering place incidental to its residential use. 3. To upgrade the aesthetic appearance and historic value of the property as an historic landmark and focal point in the West End. 4. To accomplish such necessary repairs to the Main House, Carriage House and Addition and to introduce such required living spaces and modern amenities so as to help insure another 100 years of active, residential use for this property. The proposal, therefore, should not be confused with or evaluated in terms of a restoration of the existing structures, that is, a returning of the property to its original physical or architectural state, whatever that might have been. Rather, the more important aspects of renewal and revival are those relating to the prominence of this property within the West End of Aspen, its visual and long-term physical vitality and its potential as a cultural, political and social gathering place incidental to its residential use. Accordingly, this proposal is sensitive to function as well as form, to the return of a sense of place in addition to the integrity of historic design. Page 15 14 HPC APPLICATION FOR CONCEPTUAL REVIEW OF SIGNIFICANT HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT Applicant: Lester M. Kaplan The ten (10) Standards for Rehabilitation are prefaced with the qualifier that they are "to be applied to specific rehabilitation projects in a reasonable manner, taking into consideration economic and technical feasibility: Through a discussion of these Standards, in light of the design elements of the proposal, it should become evident that this project has been attentive to and is clearly consistent with their meaning and intent. The first and second Standards deal with a continuation of the historic purpose and character of the property. The property was developed in 1885 by Henry Webber as a conspicuous and familiar single-family focal point in Aspen!s West End. Over the years, the stable, an out-building from the Main House, was converted into the existing Carriage House ana an approximately 40-foot addition was built onto the east side of the Carriage House, nearly connecting with the Main House. This Addition has been put to many uses and has been through various remodelings. The history of the property includes a period of time near the turn of the century when the Addition was used commercially by a blacksmith, which may explain the now removed semi-circular pediment on the south-facing (street-facing) wall of the Addition as being the vestige of a former advertising sign. A photo of this pediment appears in The Aspen Storv, p. 72 and is reproduced in Exhibit A. The principal use of the property through its colorful history has been single-family. While the prominent character of the property has faded through insensitive add-ons to the Main House, deterioration and vandalism, the rehabilitation proposal strives to return and preserve the dignity of character and place that this property once enjoyed. Towards this end, there will be no removal of historic materials or alteration of the historically-characteristic features, the most dominant of these features being the wood-shingled mansard roof. The proposed rear addition, in order to be technically feasible, must remove the remaining portion of the original, north- facing, rear wall. The east-facing section of this wall, which completes the original northeast corner of the house, was removed for the kitchen addition in 1965. That addition, which removed a brick wall and replaced it with the current wood frame addition, insensitively covered up the original fascia under the roof. The proposed new addition shall not only return the use of brick with original window fenestration to this northeast corner of the house, but will also re-expose the fascia, thereby contributing both to the integrity of the original appearance as well as to the experience of the addition as a separate design element. Of course, the dominant design element defining the original residence is the mansard roof. This roof line will not be altered, in that the only proposed addition to the Main House is on the north side (or the rear of the house) and is limited to one story. Consequently, the mansard roof will continue to visually differentiate between the original shape and footprint of the Main House and the rear addition. The limiting of the rear addition to one story and its proposed configuration are in furtherance of consistency with the Standards; however, such Page 16 HPC APPLICATION FOR CONCEPTUAL REVIEW OF SIGNIFICANT HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT Applicant: Lester M. Kaplan an approach restricts the amount of essential, additional living area, thereby necessitating the excavation of the basement for such space. Standards number three and four address the importance of recognizing the property as a physical record of its time, place and use, to introducing changes that create a false sense of historical development, and preserving changes that have acquired historic significance. The applicant believes that the combined west-side bedroom addition and basement stairway addition in 1963 and the kitchen addition in 1965 are unfortunate, have no historic significance other than physically documenting mistakes, and if not removed, would render as impossible any proper rehabilitation of the property. Similar instances of inappropriate changes and those of no historic significance are the off-centered and out-of-scale south-facing dormer window of the Carriage House, the three (3) plexiglass skylights and vent pipes atop the Addition to the Carriage House, the make-shift overhangs between the Main House and the Addition, the grape-stake fence around the pool, the improvised wooden stairs from the living room to the east patio, the aluminum roof cornice, and the wooden garage on the north side of the alley. These have all been documented through photos and drawings for the historic zealot and now should be removed to make way for a few more comprehensive and deliberate rehabilitation, one that can add another 100 years of function and vitality to the property and allow for adherence to the intent of the Secretary's Standards. The fifth Standard calls for the preservation of distinctive features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize the property. No such features are to be removed from any of the structures. To the contrary, the applicant proposes to repeat the original brick fenestration for the new addition to the Main House, while still differentiating this addition as distinct from the Main House. This is accomplished by insetting the addition's connecting points to the Main House, lowering its height to allow for uninterrupted fascia detail on the Main House, and not altering the original lines of the mansard roof. The applicant believes that the proposed metal roof cresting, while probably not the original pattern, is shown in a pattern typical of the period, and its existence was part of the original craftsmanship. Intended repairs to the house, such as to the iron fence, wooden window sills, and damaged brickwork are all proposed in the spirit of preserving examples of craftsmanship. The importance of exercising sensitivity during the repair of deteriorated historic features and the replacement of missing features is addressed in Standard number five. Due to extensive deferred maintenance on this property, repair work will be extreme, including the iron fence in front of the property, window sills, brickwork, stucco, roof shingles, gutters, fascia boards and brackets, the roof comice, and other areas. Naturally, repairs will occur where possible, and any replaced features shall match the old. While the proposed roof cresting cannot be documented from photos, an 1890's drawing of the property obtained from the Aspen Historical Society, Page 17 HPC APPLICATION FOR CONCEPTUAL REVIEW OF SIGNIFICANT HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT Applicant: Lester M. Kaplan indicates decorative roof cresting (Exhibit B). Additionally, in a December 26, 1990 letter to the applicant from Elizabeth H. Paepke (Exhibit C), who with her husband owned and lived on the property from 1945 to 1964, Mrs. Paepke offers her valued opinion in writing: 1 always believed that there must have been some sort of iron work around the top (of the roof).- A pictorial review of resource books on Victorian homes of this period with mansard roofs indicates that metal roof cresting was a typical detail (Exhibit D). The decorative iron fence around the property further suggests the presence of other metal detailing, such as on the roof. Perhaps the strongest evidence for the original existence of roof cresting is from the proc>osal itself - the inclusion of this design element appears quite natural and seems to complete a sense of proportion and balance which was previeusly absent from the exterior. Certainly no chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that could cause damage to historic materials shall be used, as Standard number seven cautions. The original brickwork is proposed to be repainted: any cleaning of the brick would be sensitive to the susceptibility to damage to both the sandbrick and grout. There are no known archaeological resources affected by the project, a concern of Standard eight. During excavation for a full basement, the removed dirt will be checked for any noteworthy artifacts. Standard number nine deals with exterior additions and alterations, the importance that these shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property and that these are differentiated from and in scale with the old. This is a particularly important Standard with regard to this project. The 1963 and 1965 additions to the Main House added 632 square feet; the proposed project intends to remove these additions and to replace that square footage plus an additional 329 square feet, all within a single, new addition to the rear of the Main House. This addition is most prominent from the east elevation, which is private property and, to a lesser degree, from the west elevation where it appears no longer than the existing addition and is partially concealed by a six foot fence on the west side of the pool area. This new addition cannot be feasibly constructed without the removal of a section of brick wall at the rear of the house. The historic, if not the structural integrity of this wall, was undermined with the 1965 kitchen addition. which involved the removal of the original east-facing brick wall section of this northeast comer. In no way could this remaining section of brick wall, located at an unnoticeable rear area of the house and detached from the original corner, be deemed to -characterize the property,- and its removal is not in conflict with Standard number nine. Certainly, the roof overhangs between the addition to the Carriage House and the Main House, the plexiglass skylights atop this addition. the grape-stake fence, the make-shift stairway from the living room to the east patio, the expanded dormer window in the Carriage House and the existing garage -- all of which are proposed for removal -- are likewise not of historic materials that characterize the property. Page 18 HPC APPLICATION FOR CONCEPTUAL REVIEW OF SIGNIFICANT HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT Applicant: Lester M. Kaplan The project proposes the addition of several new dormer windows in the mansard roof: one centered to the north-facing rear of the house, one to form a pair with the replaced dormer on the south-facing side of the Carriage House, and another to be paired with the existing dormer on the north-facing (alley- facing) side of the Carriage House. Regarding the Carriage House, the net impact will be with the removal of an obviously inappropriate window and the introduction of paired dormers on the south and north elevations, where now only the west elevation is paired. These new dormers, including the north-facing one for the Main House, are proposed in similar size and architectural features as the dormer window repeated in the Main House and Carriage House. Any other approach would be architecturally incongruous and disruptive to the design integlity of the project. The applicant believes that these windows are vital to the function of new and remodeled interior spaces and are appropriate in terms of building massing and symmetry. The entire new addition is proposed in both a similar sand brick to the original, as well as similar brick fenestration, fascia and stucco base-border design. In light of the size of the addition, particularly along the east elevation, where it is 28 feet of the entire 65-foot side view, the use of any other material or in any other manner would result in a disjunctive and disintegrated sense of design unity. It should be noted that Standard nine states only that the new work shall be -differentiated" from the old, and this is successfully accomplished through the mansard roof-line which is onto itself the orchestrating element of what is old and what has been added. The use of brick for the addition and similar design detail as the original serves to create a balance between the old and the new, while the existing roof-line and its fascia detail assure an unmistakable distinction between the original lines and footprints of the Main House and what has been added. The date of the original completion of the Addition to the Carriage House is unknown. What is known is that this Addition has been remodeled numerous times, has been put to a variety of uses, including a blacksmith's shop, and in more recent times, has been used to compensate for the design and space deficiencies of the Main House. The cumulative visual impact of years of adaptive and readaptive use has been the destruction of early design detail and the introduction of discordant and otherwise historically inappropriate elements such as plexiglass bubble skylights, roof overhang corrections to the Main House, and vent pipes atop the roof. The project proposes to return the south (street- fadng) facade to the best pictorial evidence available: the photo on page 72 of The Aspen Storv (Exhibit A). Exceptions to this alteration will be lowering the profile of the arch impediment and adding a brick chimney over the mechanical room. The rehabilitation of this facade will occur in conjunction with extending the facade five feet to the south in order to adequately size it for its proposed conversion to a three car garage for the Main House. A 2.5 foot wide extension to the east end of the addition to the Carriage House allows the new garage to be connected to the addition of the Main House. In order to assure that the Carriage Page 19 h HPC APPLICATION FOR CONCEPTUAL REVIEW OF SIGNIFICANT HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT Applicant: Lester M. Kaplan House is differentiated from its new garage, an inset will occur in the brick where they connect. An unavoidable consequence of excavating the basement for necessary living area is the introduction of window openings along limited sections of the three foot tall stucco base, which borders the Main House. This would not be the first time in the history of the house that windows from the basement appear. An approximately 2 x 3.5 ft. awning window in the existing basement area still remains, but has been covered from view by the bedroom addition in 1963. There are five (5) proposed window grouping locations, with each grouping measuring 8 ft. across with 2 ft. wide windows, and in no case does more than 2 ft. of the tops of these windows appear above grade. These window grouping locations are situated in areas essential to the utilization of the basement level, from the standpoint of light, ventilation and safety. A grouping of windows is proposed for each of the two basement level bedrooms, one each for the media and games rooms, and one at the mid-level landing of the back stairs descending to the basement. From the exterior, window groupings are noteworthily inconspicuous. The paired groupings of six (6) windows on the west elevation is totally concealed from public view by the west yard fence. Two other groupings are located on the north-facing alley side, with only one of these above grade. The fifth and last grouping of basement windows is at the rear of the Main House, facing west to Lot 2, and virtually unnoticeable from Bleeker Street. The east-facing group of ~ windows is 65 ft. from the south property line off Bleeker Street, located in a 4.5 ft. inset from the wall of the original Main House, and further concealed from public view by the stairway from the living room to the east patio and by patio landscaping. Basement level window wells are at grade, extend 3 to 4 ft. from the house. and are designed with a generous planting area in front to further conceal the line of basement windows. The interior walls of these wells are proposed in painted stucco to match the stucco base detailing which borders the Main House. The tenth and final Standard addresses the importance of not impairing the essential form and integrity of the historic property "if- a new addition is removed in the future. This Standard has a hypothetical basis, that is -if- (emphasis added) removal in the future occurs, then a new addition should be able to be removed respecting the integrity of the historic property. In that the addition is one story, does not alter the roof-line of the original structure, and at all connecting points has an inset with the original structure, it is differentiated and can be removed from the historic property. Page 20 HPC APPLICATION FOR CONCEPTUAL REVIEW OF SIGNIFICANT HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT Applicant: Lester M. Kaplan However, considering how integrally the living space created through this new addition works with the existing interior space, how deliberately this addition is balanced with the original architecture, how this addition along with the other rehabilitation elements are intended to give another 100 years of function and . vitality to the property, and the complexity and expense of such an undertaking as removing this new addition (particularly in light of City regulations), it is inconceivable that the new addition, as proposed, would ever be removed. L. SQUARE FOOTAGE ANALYSIS,COTTAGE UNIT AND F.A. R. RELIEF REQUEST Existing F.A. R. Sauare Feet Main House - 1st Floor 1,936 Main House - 2nd Floor 1,290 Basement Main House - 26 Carriage House - 1st Floor 503 Carriage House - 2nd Floor 503 Addition to Carriage House 632 Roof Areas 96 Total Existing F.A. R. 4,986 F.A.R. with Proposed Additions The removal of living space in the addition to the Carriage House by its partial conversion to a three car garage: (632) Additionsto F.A. R. â€¢ Pool Dressing Area 88 â€¢ Study/Mud Room 272 Â· Dining Room 28 â€¢ Kitchen Entry 17 â€¢ Rear Entry 12 Â· New Basement (above grade as per City Code) 321 Additional F.A. R. 106 Caretaker's Unit 556 Cottage Unit The applicant believes that the 2700 sq. ft. (27 x 100 ft.) separated portion of Lot 1, located north of the alley and fronting on 4th Street, is an ideal Page 21 HPC APPLICATION FOR CONCEPTUAL REVIEW OF SIGNIFICANT HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT Applicant: Lester M. Kaplan location for a deed-restricted, single unit cottage, as envisioned and facilitated through the city's -Cottage Infill Ordinance.- While this ordinance provides a 350 sq. ft. incentive, the applicant believes that this portion of Lot 1 and its context to the overall site plan and character of the Lot 1 proposal, uniquely suit this portion of Lot 1 for a larger caretakers unit, which is proposed at 556 square feet. A typical pattern of Victorian residential site plan design is having a large house in the front of the site and a smaller structure to the rear. This was the original site plan design for Pioneer Park, with the Main House facing Bleeker and the stables (now the Carriage House) behind and along the - alley. On a somewhat different scale, the introduction of a cottage residence, in conjunction with the design elements of the rehabilitation proposal, re-introduces this classic site design of a large house in front and a smaller building behind it and along the alley. F.A. R. Relief Request The applicant will not reduce the F.A.R. of the proposed project by 206 square feet, thereby shifting essential F.A. R. in the Main House, in order to build a 556 sq. ft. cottage unit. Such square footage is considered essential to the design objectives for the Main House. Nor will the applicant continue to include a cottage unit in the proposal unless r can be properly sized and in scale with the project. The 556 sq. ft. cottage unit represents a public benefit, is compatible in character with the historic landmark, is consistent with the character of the neighborhood, and results in an enhancement to the Lot 1 proposal. In addition to this 206 sq. ft. F.A.R. increase to accommodate the proposed cottage unit, the applicant also seeks a 106 sq. ft. increase associated with the new addition and alterations to the Main House. It should be noted that included in the new F.A.R. is 321 square feet for the basement which, by nature of existing conditions to the Main House, will necessarily be partially above-grade. The applicant believes that this is a mitigating factor in calculating new F.A.R., if not a hardship in connection with the conversion of the basement into living area, which conversion is an essential element to the renovation of this property. Alternatively, if the HPC does not find that the 206 square feet for the cottage unit and 106 square feet for the Main House is suitable within the scope of its discretion to increase F.A. R. for historically-designated properties within the course of HPC review, then the applicant would request that the H PC consider granting relief from requiring the inclusion of the 321 square feet in the basement, based upon the unavoidable ramifications, for F.A. R. calculation purposes, of adding necessary square footage to the Main House in light of existing basement conditions. Page 22 HPC APPLICATION FOR CONCEPTUAL REVIEW OF SIGNIFICANT HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT Applicant: Lester M. Kaplan M. SITE COVERAGE ANALYSIS Proposed Residence Square Feet Main House 1,936 Dining Corner 28 Study/h/luci Room Addition 272 Deck above Basement 119 Kitchen Entry (from garage) 17 Pool Dressing Area 88 - Garage 790 Carriage House 503 Gazebo 93 Total 3,846 Caretaker's Apartment 556 4,402 Allowable Lot Size 17,603 sq. ft. 25.00% Less (12,000) 5,603 + 1,200 4.67% Total Percentage Allowable Site Coverage: 20.33% Total Allowable Square Footage Sit Coverage: 20.33% x 17,603 sq. ft. = 3,579 sq. ft. Page 23 HPC APPLICATION FOR CONCEPTUAL REVIEW OF SIGNIFICANT HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT Applicant: Lester M. Kaplan N. REQUESTED VARIANCES Variances Resulting From Existina Conditions 1. Reduction of rear yard setback for existing Addition to Carriage House, which is currently used for living and mechanical areas, from 5 feet to zero feet. This area is proposed for conversion into a three (3) car garage and a mechanical room. 2. Reduction of rear yard setback for existing Carriage House, which will continue under the proposed plan as residential, from 10 feet to zero feet. 3. If required, a recommendation from HPC to the Building Department, not to require fire rated windows for the existing dormer window and proposed new dormer window in the north-facing portion of the Carriage House mansard roof. 4. Reduction of side yard setback for Carriage House from 15 feet to existing 3 feet 3 inches (This is measured to side of structure, not exterior chimney.). 5. Any other variances identified by the City of Aspen in connection with review of this application and which constitute non-conformities between the Aspen zoning code and building conditions as they exist on Lot 1. Variances Resulting From Proposed Alterations. 1. Acknowledgement from City of Aspen that the Gazebo to be relocated from Lot 2 to Lot 1 of the Weaver Subdivision is acceptable in its proposed, new location as an "accessory" building on Lot 1. 2. Reduction of rear yard setback for 2.5 ft. wide building extension to Addition to Carriage House for 5 feet to zero feet. This extension widens the new garage to facilitate its connection with the proposed new addition to the rear of the Main House. 3. Reduction of 6 ft. height for a fence to accommodate metal ornamentation up to 7 feet and brick piers to 7 feet 8 inches. 4. Increase site coverage by 7.4 percent, from 3,579 sq. ft. allowable to 3,846 sq. ft. proposed. If the cottage unit is approved by HPC, then site coverage increases to 4,402 sq. ft., with 350 sq. ft. of this amount as an -incentive within the Cottage Infill Ordinance. Page 24 HPC APPLICATION FOR CONCEPTUAL REVIEW OF SIGNIFICANT HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT Applicant: Lester M. Kaplan line changes to front facade of Carriage House and Addition have created false sense of original design. Further reference is herein made to the applicant's Rehabilitation Objectives (Section H), the realization of which requires the addition to and rearranging of living space in the Main House. Evidence of the inadequacy of living space is the use of the Addition to the Carriage House for bedroom and office space associated with the Main House. In light of the project Objectives, the necessary new living spaces to the Main House, fadlitated by the new addition, include a dining room, office, powder room, mud room, and secondary stairway to upper and lower levels. The new addition also promotes the reconfiguration of existing living spaces. Neither the 1963 nor the 1965 addition has relevance to the historic integrity of the Main House. The removal of each is a benefit to the historic character of the Main House, both by their elimination and also by the opportunity to construct a more suitable addition consistent with project Objectives. The demolition and reconstruction of the south wall of the addition to the Carriage House allows for the space to be converted to a three car garage connected to the Main House. Removing the existing garage (not historically-designated), clears this portion of Lot 1 for a deed-restricted cottage unit. The remaining portion of the original brick wall must be removed for the new addition. The architectural integrity of this wall has been undermined through the 1965 destruction of the east-facing brick wall which completed the northeast corner of the Main House. Replacing the 1963 and 1965 add-ons, the new addition will be in brick with similar windows Escia, fenestration and base design as the original Main House, but differentiated by constructing it below the Main House fascia, by the existing mansard roof, and by insetting its connection to the Main House. Page 26 HPC APPLICATION FOR CONCEPTUAL REVIEW OF SIGNIFICANT HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT Applicant: Lester M. Kaplan O. APPLICATION FOR PARTIAL DEMOLITION In meeting with Roxanne Eflin, Aspen's historic planner, to review the conceptual plans and submission requirements for the Lot 1 Pioneer Park project, the applicant was handed and was told that Attachment 4b of -Review Standards: Application for partial Demolition" would need to be addressed as part of the applicant's H PC application for conceptual review of significant historical development. The five (5) areas of demolition in this rehabilitation project are the following: 1. Removal of the wood frame bedroom/stairway addition (completed in 1963) at the northwest corner and rear of the Main House. 2. Removal of the wood frame dining room addition (completed in 1965) at the northeast corner of the Main House. 3. Removal of the remaining portion of the original brick wall at the rear of the Main House. 4. Removal and reconstruction with original brick of the south facing wall of the addition to the Carriage House. 5. Removal of the existing wood frame garage north of the alley. There are other proposed alterations to the exterior involving the removal of existing features or the adding of dormer windows to the mansard roof, but the applicant does not consider these as demolition items. These include removal of the piexiglass skylights atop the addition to the Carriage House, eliminating make-shift roof overhangs between the Main House and the Addition, replacing the stairway to the east side patio, and changing the roof cornice from aluminum to wood. Standard number one states that demolition needs to be shown as being "required- for rehabilitation of the structure. The applicant's statement of Problems Associated with Existing Structures (Section G), includes the following two problems: 1. Obsolete Floor Plan -- Floor plan contains extensive, dysfunctional design elements resulting from an indeterminable number of remodeling attempts over the last 50 years. Existing conditions include poor room arrangement, absence of essential spaces (i.e. dining room, family room), inadequate room sizes, antiquated bathrooms, and etc. 2. Inappropriate Exterior Alterations -- Additions to rear of Main House inadeq' :ately sized and undermine historic character. Window, doorway and roof Page 25 _ --- --- - - ----21-Vt~t.~L~Ut-L ------------ *. Exhibit C .. 6. K.. 4. g.. 4. Â· 4.. . 414 North First Street 44Â· Aspen, CO 81611 v F.. December 26, 1990 4. 14 + P.. ,?-I Mr. Lester M. Kaplan 4. 4â€¢- 201 Midland Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 .9-- - 4. Dear Mr. Kaplan: ... .., r:+. 1:.- I am in receipt of >nur letter of December 1. I am sorry that it has taken me s, lons to answer your very important letter. %+.- 4 - .. You are necessarily concerned about the original Pioneer Park and what it looked like when we bought it in 1946 and the additions made after we moved in. 4.. 4.- 4.- I. 4.- We bought and moved in to the original house on which no ..4 -2 additions had been made. There was never an extension made on 6.- the East side of the house. That was the way it was built e.. originally and with the windows just the way the) are now. 4 9.- 1;*. As you entered the front door to the right was the parlor. Behind that was the dining area with a single door to the kitchen. We put in a fireplace where formerly there perhaps t. had been two Franklin stoves. We built a door to the East with 9.- 44 - a staircase to the garden after we took down the separating wall. .a There was a hot air furnace in the cellar under the kitchen. 4.. Access to this area was through a trap door in the kitchen 4- floor with a ladder with which one descended to the basement. We changed this adding an addition off the kitchen to contain 4- r>+ - a downstairs staircase to this area. r:+. 4â€¢ + On the second floor was the onl> bathroom in the house. The 4. toilet in this hathronm faced the front door, a most unfortunate 4 - L:+. position. 4.- On the second floor in the original house there were two 4+ .- bedronms in the right. We tnok down the wall making this ':... 4+ â€¢ area into a single ronm for our two elder daughters. To the 4. e... . left of the staircase there were two bedrooms which we retained 1> â€ž pretty much as they had been in that area space. 4. .. I B * / Page 29 - 4.. Â·Â·OVE-*90*99*99*5399*99â‚¬29Â¥Â¥Â¥Â¥:2Â¥Â¥VV.Â¥Â¥v.Â· t.wÂ¥Â¥99:~Â¥Vâ‚¬29*999*4:wÂ¥%>Â¥Vt:VEÂ¥Â¥Â¥Â¥Â¥Â¥Â¥%7Â¥Â¥ t.,Â¥Â¥Â¥Â¥Â¥Â¥Â·Â·99*999539*9539 9 -2- To return to the first floor. To the left of the entrance was a single room which we made into a private sittir. room with a couch on which one person could sleep if necessary. Off of that there was a single door into a bedroom next to which we installed a bathroom with tub and shower. This fitted into the rear of closed off front hall. The current structure was never connected to the carriage house during our day or that of previous owners. We restored the carriage house, which was the original stable, by making the low part of it a storage area and the West end into livable quarters. As you entered from the walkway from our house, there was a living room with fireplace on the first floor. On the second floor we built a bedroom which formerly had been the hay loft. Therefore, when Dr. Schweitzer came to visit us from Africa it was said that we bad put a saint in the manger. In answer to your paragraph number three: there was no roof ornamentation on tte main house when we bought it or did we create one. Â¥ou would have to find out from photographs or drawings now in the historical museum if any ornamentation existed when the hnuse was built. I always believed there must have been some sort of iron work around the top. All the above was the original structure just as it was at the time Mr. Webber built it. Even the staircase with its interesting wood work is the original one. The fan shaped window over the front door had Pioneer Park written in Victorian letters. If >ou should want any more detailed information, please net in touch with me. I will be in Aspen at 925-1239 until January 20. Very truly >nurs,C7 Ej Â·*5kl t# H. 1 Â·L~xk<: Eli,abeth H. Paepcke Page 30 HPC APPLICATION FOR CONCEPTUAL REVIEW OF SIGNIFICANT HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT Applicant: Lester M. Kaplan Exhibit D Numerous reference books were consulted to help confirm the authenticity of decorative roof cresting atop mansard roofs in light of the particular roof design and Victorian period as the Main House in Pioneer Park. The following are some of these references along with the page number and the names of the pictured residence bearing similarity to the Main House: 1. The Dauahters of Painted Ladies, by Elizabeth Pomada and Michael Larsen, 1987 a. p.32,78 Hudson Street, Providence, Rhode Island, c. 1877 b. p. 50, 155 Greenville Street, Newman, Georgia. c. 1885 c. p. 84, 700 N. 16th Street, Lincoln, Nebraska, c. 1878 d. p. 99,404 Benton, Helena, Montana,c. 1879 - (Second Empire Mansard, 1879, very similar to Pioneer Park Main House,) 2. A Gift to the Street. by Carol Olwell and Judith Lynch Waldhorn, 1986 a. p. viii, 506 East South Temple Salt Lake City, Utah, 3. Earlv Illustrations and Views of American Architecture . by Edmond V. Gillon. Jr. 1971 a. p. 78, Court Street, Chicopee Falls, Massachusetts. c. 1876 b. p. 90, Main Street, Leroy. New York, c. 1876 c. p. 95, Cayuga Street, Seneca Falls, c. 1876 d. p. 98, Warwick, New York, c. 1875 Pag e 31 - -- . ---* 122MOVE - Ext errINÂ«---1 1 i _--- 61 AgAelly - L-- -- 0 . ALLEN/ 1904.44 . 7 .--I & A -Al r i. A a. r r .0 '- t I Â¥ r I n - I..1 - ~ 1-NEW, ADDITICN C 0 0 Q '7899..41 0 . . ilil lj_l illill lill>k - < 4%*01 . A ' Wlia- C IwmiiumLA 0 e / C Ret-cEAMED r -BAZE-20 - 0 1 "lillillt#W_lNJUNL- ~ 00 ' 025*55A : NEkl ~5~~ #ce_= [02:rE_27 7/4-- - FIONEER - -2-084:21< 3_5--7_ O - "I'll#Vl~l-ll[UNITIl-mutllill : !1 r 0 0 *<1 SÂ»la_ mca- / ' O 1 0 . O 1 -U=1-ff o obi o o 1 - I . k .r j . I 4 Â· 6 0 1 Â·. I' 0.0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 , I â€ž .r ... ..M. ./ + I. -1 . /. ... 7 -. I m r . 6 6 - f L 1. .1 . . I 1 -1 -- 49(1490' 1-190204 1. BLEEKER _ --1-3 -f-- --5*TREE-r - -- - Y \151/1 5 1 -TE_ ]Â»l_.,AA j - %191-7 ca \ * = 2-0,- 04' (f .- 'A= - , 1 -- - t-Â· / . .. .... .1 /~d 1 .---. I Ti= T EE ~ U- 1 ' 1 - I. , _EAST_1,EAR)_ELEVATION__ _NORTH_ELEVATION 2138, 6 :'-47' e934%' =1'- 011 CARETAKER UNIT 1 1 4 - f 2 -- 20'-O' . O 6 _?SOUTH-JELEVAT]ON L__ -- .82 BR -9 9*4_19=922=22=22=22 0 -- 11X11 - 6 6 /0 E 7/ BIO . -- - D- UL--2- -7/6X7/6. _ . --1_1X16_ ~ %... lili â€ž1Â« r=11MEMI 1711111 U -1- - - 1 <0 de~ -1699*=L~~_~_____3 WEST_(FRONT)-ELEVAINg_pa__- . 1 0 : 556 SO. FT Z -- .. 1li f + .9-,67 .. -- -1 1 1 t - c UCD <-111&[ -B * 1 DRESS rÂ¥~00~) BR - 1 - ! roll o 11 1 =61 1 L- U ---7 -- -4 Cz .T. EfRES$ -D 1 BR 1 - n lfÂ« _ -1 U 0 ((31 1 - - 12[g z I @@6-10 I GAME - - -0,[[/ ic] : . 1 L I 9 STEAM T ___ LK#Ar) - MECId- - il- - MEDIA BAR STOR flo 1 41 -1 ,/f W.ElÂ§IT I 8 10 E ' 1 (0) 'in . 1 - 1 : R Â» 1 1 3-: lillil[ 1 -c r- 1-1 - --- -6,1 F---,1 L 1 1 /5 1 - DECK TTI BR Ic Â» D 1 20/ B -L/ r-zrl -r 6- 0-Â©fo (3 1-] - 1 UL= &1 ./.= r 1-2 T DRESS -- 1 1 E,21/7\m -iltl--3 1 1 1 MBR 1 1 L-1 r-9Â·'==Ji _i.- -Â·4 1=:--t 3 L.6~~Tel.1. __ \ \\ P / /4 UPPER LEVEL PLAN f .,9-LI=ef 637 1 0 0 0 b F ~ b f 1 2 0 ~ - *21 , /i f 9,- 29â€¢ .. I I -1-- 1. f , , 9 , 1 0 11. 2 D f -- O 1 - LIVING ' - , . GARAGE ~ 0 --C===; - 1 289, | 4=1 \ r el r-- f D / \1/ A MUD 1 .. 38 1 2Â·7 --\-1 / k __ 30 911 / STUDY DE 2:< 4 -DRESS / /31 11 / 1 01-1 D Â£ -0.--* ------ - -- 1 u--i 11 -f i i 1--4 4 4 2-4 9 10% H 19- D U. -3 24'1' ~ 0-Â»~A 02 -1 ' | I 119' .L--1 .-/ ((W- FU--1-1 4-31 1.- L 377 i - 1 .- . 11 Â» * 1 1 j 11-7-Â£2,---------------n --2-1 - 1 . 11 -r feyr i 1 =qp I 03 KIT Â© . 41 1 1. f i.---- DINING ' i,9 1 1 f Ill - 1 to 7 1 =1I -L_ 1 I # -- L---- 7 12}U O 2 7/ 3'3' h~ BAR B -44 U ' U FAMILY i POOL 0- IZ 1 4. ,21 /9Â« LIVING D - 1 , g 1Â« -. r-r-- d , 1 O [J PARLOUR ENT rli 217-1 11*- 31. h Gil: 11%~ 3:ifW ' [.. 6 1 a ~ 4. a.x tu / rl m I .-4 \ /: le 4-1 LIA 1-4 -------,k-42-~ -1-, D \ 4'lop ENTRY LEVEL PLAN 1 -/-11 i ---- .- --- - - NV-ild 3119 ~ - 12=11-1-9.- ----1-1 -- YE->1-3 31-19 i . t 00. 00 00 0 0 --' .1 1 . -r-- . '. . - 1. .., h. 936'â‚¬DbL -- 1 - 0-0 0 0.0 .0 0 0 4-/ I 1- \.. O 1 ' 0 , L- . 4 I r-se,61-1 (ia - -ANIN<29Â¥w MaN n _ - 0 - 0 O 00 == 1 0 . .. 0 @I 2 -02=1 9 N119 1921 - I .Im .0 9 -1 Â® - 1 0 --L - -b\~2=2-7 - - k=!212 INdIal Â»3 El CP - 03-3 -zÂ»O -kdP_f- Calv50 -128 7 4 0 4.Â»24Â«214 .i:jifilili:!Illilil'i - , i - /// tlf/f '''/ '11//f- \ - (0 0!1 1 9 2 .f- 39Â»Uve - aeÂ«1-102 J m 3 râ‚¬Mlloagy MERI-) [-FI-- U Â«,9b' tâ€¢Obt- 242 -1-IV _ -11R1 f-1 71__-_. - Et:E>-923Â«E) c?dur>1,~L22&93---MENE-_ ' - ENILGIX'ZI -EACHEEP'~h 0\ t.-....? . ! 74 -ilift'7-4/jillilljiljf ' 9 1 N try N P>D:NU 1 ff,9.1,// 5-, -44?,E 2/0/00 0/1 #%.14#501*(AA(f#Â£7*STAS#T'Trtft,tfl.B?Yi~Ze,Wit:-4*.1,â€že%...,W - -- - - 1 1Â» - 0-r=.41 +U, -T ) .9 1 4 k iN 3 / , 1 mi) 6.*'Â·1 - | ~! ,! l. 1 &4-1 .4 , ti V Â·ij 1% 3 640" 1 . lir .-1. Â»<erit*zi ha*77<ENT r ' -- t/.i.tc> _PEcer r _ H ft~1381 - u / i ~, 2- 3 1 k ir 1(1 Â» Â«.-- - - ,>egg- #3 -4- 1, 1 1/LL \ . 1 * - //t- ~ .4-- 1 r 11 Â¢ f -- --. i & I . I _-_-1 6-- F~--AuJJA 4--D**49/ - - ~%Â»96241:9*4~ - r i P ,,L-- -1 1 -- 4 9-4 Â· 4=~21 4 _-ri---44= Â·62#nifwer# -IB _ It'-.-3*- . * ---0 -- 13>: kil Itt~ -- 274 1? .~ EL . I. r-. 4 S impl r-7. Al k 111 1% 1 21 t>ti< :1 1! 3 -/:te.d I >461â‚¬21 B ELLUU"-' ~ --11=1~~EP+'1CE-2-t' P*/ Ji_-*WAUL-;Eco,vf ' Â· - 9.fÂ» ./. 7 i 93 & 1.. t 1 b v i NUL, 2(04 \ 1 1; i kle-1114-5 FESEPL ...r 1 i , Â£0 h *1 i m - f:-2*ra~q 4 //0 ~' LL 7 /4 4 4G90 .9*-=ZE~ to_WEEE--_.fACC =r__ UKET--2.xELE-vEL fLatil- 0 --4 - - - --- Â·- ------ - -- ~- - ------ ------EEd>=-/ ..102:,C-' ----~-- - -* / 11 - / .1 / /0,4, -9 4 4-â€¢*.41'/W'Â·'14>116.Â·A 4,121~ 1&1 01 -7/ --2 i 10 1 1 16 -4 =~-=-**nNO A.mr}/try;*I - - ==- 1 .....21:a 4 4111 5 /111.1 A - --- *fil. '' 1 - __curr- ITy:EOE---232.-~ "' --"-I----8/72Â£:-1 1/3 pH - ~ ~91- X j 024 402/ r/-7 1 V EL'E--1&9 0 11 I .1,/. 0 0 4 ---- 1 r:-7-~--6 4,11; ~f!\ i' tlj:! At' i ti- r -r- -,--t,M=BEEEÂ¥4- Fllii-t\:iliI;'76~a,:2=Â£2#~--, Il_~.t_i.,~:.:, 1} i I* - 9 7Â£-1 1 .-- -- 7 1 i C.-31 \ C f tr-- -4 L_._ug ... 14*inz_DECKCP"f - - .WCA:Cot-1 7 -- 12 - 1 FL c / E--1 ---+- / t:21014Â¥*2=-PAP,L==.\ .\,JFAK222\ -Â¥:Mai-REM--------1/ki\14 '-04-------z=-.- _ -- 2-- .- / - . fear) I --2--2 *1 0 1.44 - 0 Â· JIP. t:,==~ i 6, 3. t i . .2.c:. ReoSt-1 'si rj z FTI- /- 1 1- f -74/ : Mc*== - 4=rnÂ· Iffrridpi 1 2 ept] 4-127721 1 WGâ€¢ â€¢6 Â»,Â·.I N i -+ - -=Zi:If-F=71 . r-n i 1 1 g t-u' 6 2 _L_ 08 10 , U Â· 1 -1 , 01 1 1 01 li 1 Â£41 " /2 i ' 0 1 41 ---4 ---â‚¬1{ ZE--- .- - - - i I-,22 _i-*MIL-Â¥- i ....u _ n- _i 1 -' r ~FF,%539.I - -- 13*aeclee,---~ ~ i __ 1 1 : i . . 9*' f , 1 --- -0--- ---f.1301xlEEZ-_ fE\AL--7 -RÂ»f,EME_K~l---r. *b"e[ 9-oc'----PED I Ill 5)5)6) 2--_i =-r--ui. ... 4 i 51 .1 49 k 6Â»--_02_ f \ l-/3--p --czult- -_- -- .~53**gyÂ·-Jui--_r_=-1+c-- - -23~LggQ;J rr/L- -Â»i~to_- --- 19 /4 1 6-yi 4-ft \ 102 1 ~01 ft-3-- A -- _ _ 3]11 I # It n tint H MÂ·I 3 lf_.-- --1- A - -17 - - 21- 41 -liti ECZED, \-4 1- 11 li -0 ---Ir ~ - 0 -0 -112 5 =172- -- 6-I , r------ - I t-- - 1., 1 i' 1, -1 - 4 7 6 11 1 1- 1 1 : - , 5 i. *-I .I--I-- *---il- li :t fF=- 1 F. 1 1 ' 1 â‚¬7 k.-1 1 Ir -- -- 1 [ - --- 91 FulÂ» tv 71 0--, L . --1 L------a 1 3 Q ..2 3-1 - 11 L.1 1 - $ t- - --1- -- --__:r-Â· 1.12 I.L.. 2. 1-----1 . -Â· Iii . 11 : 1 NOFUM (SEA fÂ© ELEVATION (~'kbatED>~) SCALE: 4.2.1.0. - i 11- f*fffi(~ CZE= I 1 1 2 1 - zoeÂ¢<--) T~:/:/1-J- -2 -/ - - -- '~2943--3- 1===p~/ 106- /j --- - 7 ~~-0~1; ' 1| 4 \* 1 i-/1 - 1 i - . 1 L.1 1 1 -- 41 1162 - . p.-- , i== ==- : 1- -- 1 in 1 - \\\ 1 ,1 4 - - 1 - 3 ---- 1 -1 12\ h 8[.t E d 775 & C _. d_ 11 - d_ h k.--n E - M t \36=Â»Â·h - -I -- - - =t==- Tli"F'-7:'r' 1 1: 3===It.~ P /.-.*.4 241 -- =16 4 -D 11 9 3 9 i _ fi -1 - - i i N - Mtâ‚¬- - 11 11 1 --- - 1 â‚¬ -7- I 1-- -- - F 11 - - 2 - rl lilli-I - I p 4 1-1 1-- - I - -_il,L__l -=I--21 1~=-1 ---1 --- , -- -- E It< -c -~-n -- . 313 -- ==-7 - -- f=t rEf 1Â«3 F=-31 ~ti -1 '. ~1 -- - t.~ , - - p-= -- 1 It m 1 11 4 -. A E.97 i _ Z.v'AT co'd~~ah*VEC~ - . 4 - I U /123<---/1- 16Â·~Â·EL 4 C ' t; 1-t - - ====. F;U 2 -1 i *=71 .- H H H -r 6 1- 22*-ar ' -7~F"-4---3 --- t!9'1 - ity' - - - T---Un 22 1 5 9 Z B d - L 1. A 11 - d E 7-It- - -- - / ' ~ __27 liGUi GU 'i~ -_ _D-- 112 - 11-1 Frii* I -F~%F-1=-rfk~- 2 =71'.1:r=FÂ«]-19 - 11. 111111 n i -ZI- I . | CEÂ· 11 Ni 1111=. til :.4, 4) -- : 1 :1 .---~ 1 1 --- ill==241 ~Â®=III ;~~ i,11 1 - --1 1- ; IIi : 26Â«t- 1 -*=~.F-linin - * 12-nlt=knpul . 111 4 ' 4 1 'li 11 Â·Â·Â· 11 Â· .. 4 31 1 A -I ' * .~ I -~ -. al- ) IL~ 2===t , 51; !1 1 1:1 1Â»1 !94 W tiFj~ ! r 4 fil li Â§': 1 Â· ~1 - 21 ---M-- 2--1.1- 11 1 - *=-26 - *1-1 1 *__~ f - __ lili IlÂ·Â·- - - 2112+ -- - 62*-- -- - r-- ~ 7 -,--N , -1-% A- -11 E-- 11 9 n -1 11 111 -1 - 1-= i r ACT 4-10<*Evt'DED,1 - C_.,'-\ v' , 4/)A. m : 14 ' = 1,-c=, 0 i Iii 3=1 Zi /1 - ! 1 1 b ~fL_Â· ~ 1 - \\ 12\ i 1 7 1 V ; - C 11#- ld_ L.-11 â‚¬==25 - 2_z- -- z- 'CUL- - _2_- ~--1-Lr---= i_.. 1 4 1}.~i~.2*~~-7 - - - - ..Azz. f_tr~ 1 -I 2/ 7==1:1 -7 P ~9*=.-91_+ - g-_ _ + iÂ«- am__r--=14- 7.3- 9- - 1-- - - lit -10 - i 0 Â« 11 - k - p '2~ 1-4 , 1 0--=-1-1 ==31 -1 -1 = 8 k f it 19 - --3 - Er-7 1 it-1 i il 1 11- 4 6 1 ' C i --FRE 2--f-2.--Flrijft*61 .-- - 7 -T-Fi~ ll_ll--C * ~1~~ A~ 7 1- -- - 1.=UZ- 7- 9 1 -1 - 2- IÂ«~1 i- P 1 ~ i - L .1 12== 4 -- - 1 4 -1... 2=-I -- 21 , 212 i - -- . -"~~~" --2 1--â€¢ -m - - -.6=~=2-92-3 --1 -Pliu --fj--C- - .J 1 1 --- ~i # 1 - - 1 Â£ 1.1 i - '' IiÂ· i !Â· -- + Â·Â·, .- D II 4 4, , - 1 -- 1 1 1 50-]TrN (-RONT) E-EVAT,OK! (12!ZVOf-O) 4* *t t 1 11111 $* f *t 1.1, L I_,_11_Il.I_jI i f ----Ei-am-*--z-3---K.z).--2-- Warj_Â« - linif ~1 13 4=f Le=34 1 11 4 ' \14 - i 13~~~~:~~==7 41770Â»L=-1=1.--121-- 11 6<f== -------- - -- 2 2___ 1 LE c'-0/.--/-~--/'/ 797 4... 1=~ t=~H'-drir==-0 Itl -1- 1 [ L 1 ~~1 111 211 111 31 -A It-1 1-- I L ~ '1 WEST ELEVATION - 3=A-5 1 + =Id t222 < I 14 1 1 -Lk - V - L==22 '.Â«SÂ» A--3-1 34<UJ 1[1'F~ ~ ~\ -- 4-7~-~ - 11.1 \ 1 5-- , 9 - it--- -1 ===ZE=Z=ZIZE- 1 U ~i ZE-- CO225kb -A rj y - LL+-1 U.-1*2.r... - 1 01 -\ 9 -- - --- =---2- --- Lk- -- 4- - 15 -- r 1-6-Ne :1319- 1 mell _r--41 -T . - - 1--- --0- IIi' 111 1 133~31 1 1 Fy. 1 3-f )31- ---- - - ----- - Ptl 11/ P = 111 0 F.=10 11~1- 1 ~- 4 - 11: i 111 ill ~1 i 12-1.-. : 11] f I h I ~ ilirril i 1 SOUTH (FRONT) ELEVATION - Ath ~,rec~ 11 JIll~ â‚¬ 4 1 - 4 . 1+ /4 + ~ -- f 71=A 7 ir--1 . F.4 LU 1 ~~2~ : '2 11 4 2 1 1---- 1 - - -- 1 1. 3 U 0 11 - -=7 4 - -0 3 _ ~ 1 /1 4 th r-'f 'rli~ F~~-11 - - ==1=- FM- =--i' 45 10 - 4--- 1101' F=* - - 1Â·=-- -1 LEI 4.11 1 -i It III 1 1 t' "rÂ·i' la-z _. 11 1 1 111 1 344 : *\4 1 ' 1 F- Tfa6Â¥1 TE:*-1 Il 1. 1 7-71- ----7 -- EAST ELEVATION - 'ksÂ»Â·.E s 4, = 1'-c=' 01 - .. ' A-JUL-_ _ ,~EZZ:.- --- --T - -- il~ 191 - - 6 -49 4 j - .f:, 2 /- 33 :f -I 1 0 -- ~ i---------3-~pr731= . \4\ - ' hv 017Â»04- -- -- - 1 E-4 - i 11 -1---- UOILLL# IDELIL_L ~ ~ 1- -- 2 ' , 1 [33 it h!UEÂ®ujuu- ' 1 L L- /41.24 6 ; el :-i , ; 1: li : 1 1 L---------1 I 3 11 ; | f 1 La-- 1 11 , 1 1 1 11 9 11~ L--4 | L_- J L--1 L__1 /~~./P- L-_______a NORTH (REAR) ELEVATION - f : T-r-r Â·1 441 .. -l---Ii -Il- 1 3 1 , 2 30 1 ~1 E---11 -- \\ 1 1 1 =- 4 9 11 2 1 J \\ 1 - 1 \ C # SCE-- - D N 0 -& -1 7-7-0. 1 - - - =. I 1 u - - -- ~ 1 1~04- .19 _- - --y_-pr - n1 r n 7 I ---Al i--1116===!fl- . _ 4- 11 d -- _4 09 i r_1 - -- 1 11 1 1111 1 -- * 1. i F=ZE NEEill ./ -117~11 Ii-/ . WEST ELEVATION - - ---- 3CALE - 4' = IND 0 4 - I -10 \ 4,\1 1 . 1 ' \\ 1 1, ' --- 4 -- -- In--]1 1 ' b i A ) 1 -31 L - 1,101/-= - -:7 -41 lu 3- =7 * -6-r _n- -- - b-- -- ze T -- I. i' ~ ... I. '.. V .., X-1.- --11-- --- 12 , /36-/1 F 44 1 32 7 rGIL_ ..~_ 1 - _ -2-- _li tMAW~Z-- -f, - 91-9- /72>\ 7 3 2011.- f.-31 1 Â· c -11 i Li 1 E- 4 1 J , lilli 1,11- s -i _=. - _ --- Â»Â«- f ~-Â»i-por[1[1~'Fii '~r-.11 -72 IL- - IN 1 ---1 - ~ 11 , -r=Â» 'In!11=-2 10Â»21 'OfÂ«= p - ---1 'Fr11 F[-l Ill-1. 1 JI 1 1 iI SOUTH (FRONT) ELEVATION =27=z------------- A~Oft< 442'*3 ,0 NO 13361 -E 2-6.2 >/1 --11 . ,. --1.- 4 8 -- ---- - r ~ - , Â·r---11 T - E- = 1 M -- 1 1 F =17~ C - 1 i 1 ~1 - 11 Â·-- 111 - . 1 il i 11 11! ! GL~ 1=.11 ~ 1 -=1 --21 -+U '~ 1 - .=-4 4 - H -=Ei 1 1-===. ift:31_.15 - -- 1 ___ _ LE+63I~ ,;zin___ r===m -__~ 2 2 -5 Tli=Ar=-1~ 2' - 31 --~ - AR k - _1---= - -- E = i tw===- - 1 11 --- ~gp=94\ lu .0 : 9 3 8-U 3 -- 0 9 12 U M 4 " - 41'i - Li - 9 - - r- 1 1 d..1 1 L.1 -- ' 11 1 -- 7-1 UZ Il li 11 - 1. i-/1 2 -j OL_\\ - FIL-3. --- - 2. r 4 2 __ - S~ki~ A L- 01 - . - ff--181 1 I--fl--2.3-4Â»- - 1 = - 6 3 091" 6 221 1 - 4 --- a -- - - 111,~d â‚¬TFU - h - --- 42-\ Tgr 4-44 e -- 04>VF- 64 i -1\0-- - - --- - - - - 110 . 0 It It-_ El It It N 11 11 11 ----- --- --11-1-1 11Â« 12 44 3 r . - El N ji --r - 0 - I - -- I--# AL----&= ~EFZÂ·W __ + 7.=1 =-1 - 49 11-\ I t- 32-7 i - --- -- - Â»AR==9:2 ~Lokfi -y = "1 / -6-44 E=Â£3- 1 1 4 - - 0 L 1.1109 ~ --- N OFE N (,CEAK) ELEVATION -e-,Cl JÂ¥"MI SÂ¢.AL: 4.'Le. .Ul 1 7' lf=b- iii 9 I â‚¬ f 13 - 1. r - A 1- 4 -N - - 11*!r - z- - - =am= -- A - 4 L - -- 11-F I [ 11 2 M 40.-71 - 1.-------- -3.- .W j - --------- 29 485 1 -th- - b - 1[- 1 A -M- . -7 liliÂ·: 1 - ..1 4 'et -. ME-/fl' . - - - 1 r -1 - 1- P j = ~3 r. 21 2 f il ~__~__1-! _A i--trt .. . 2_ ~. L~--:~~6~ ~ cm- A i I Ilf -11.-- 3 4- 16 - 1 1 5- 1 3 I i =93 Fr --7 2 -if- T-- 11-99-0 1- =-1 K. 5 - 0222---,7/ Aw/p Gr~~34 = -- J L - u'F---7 = - ---Un_ Il'i-- 1 1- -/ -1. 1 1 T-1 1-1 | p~ [.1 25=4 ~= --1 - 1 . 1501 1 -1 4 9 d... 3 -El T = L==[,NE. 1~W : i I' ~ i FM '~r--i 7 -- i W re / 1 , 7- 1 I -!i 1 1 1 7-71 -1:EZ ~ 1 I 1 ki, ~|I 1 1 L:=, 4.-4 C 1 III - 1 91 1 11 111 - 1 - t . 1 1 -i */. --& t==tr__ij; iÂ«u_-11~ - -: - SOLITPJ (FROVT) 5-ZVAT,0,%1 . Q.,G,rh 13 42.3.103 1 , 1 11-61!Ii k:iluip'lif-F- N A- 1 . 9 4- - 1.-- -2 x*'--27 - - -19 4 1-M-~/ t=11\ 1 , \ - 1-1 - f = . 11 - ' Li r - - i r--1 - I~~22- ~___ 11\ _ 1 <WAk-2 - - - - 6 H b 1 69: d d . - 11 h t[ M rÂ·t-3- - i _ I u _- - 1 8 1- __L - I -_-r- _ -=- _i L- - ' " ' -9 Il-1 - _Z JUL---- *.--~-- -1 2 gl.- ..--Fl rt-- 4-- (1-- 11 -11. r , *1]1 Fit ~- ~ E-lMP -1 . fL- EN Illil - IP; 7 -:-= . LL...... Eliu U - E- ;,31 1-1, lili - - 1 L -. 1 0 :~11 2./ _Il- 7~r~ .- - - - - 61. 7 1.: -it 41 1 ,- 24 F Pir=of-6 --~f=7'Flf---3 ~-ip-*-- = 8 ifilr-litilin -- =pÂ· - 4 -=. 1 1 . 1 1 + ! 1 + Â»-1 2~ 7 Ii:Â«. IF?-1 82-1 hES 4 El---=-ft 1;4:~ --A -- \ 'i ==75 11 1 -- ' .Ii 2 2.==1 i , : =4 Â«t - 1 /Â« -4 1 1 - - - - - 71-7- -339 1 3 -14 rt 1 || 1 (15) 1, 3 - _ EAST E _1147 17% Sc~ .Es 4. . 1'-c. - eKi 3" S A ! 4 1 11,1 4 1 -9/ 4-9 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: Advisory Review: New Development - 442 W. Bleeker, Lot 2, Pioneer Park Date: March 13, 1991 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: HPC advisory review for the new development proposed for Lot 2, Amended Weaver Subdivision (Pioneer Park) LOCATION: Lot 2, Amended Weaver Subdivision. New address unknown. APPLICANT: Mary Weaver and John F. Weaver, represented by Lester M. Kaplan ZONING: R-6. SITE, AREA AND BULK CHARACTERISTICS: None have been provided by the applicant. BACKGROUND: The subdividing of the original "Pioneer Park" estate began over 10 years ago, when the two furthest west lots were separated out. In 1982, the property (defined as 442 W. Bleeker with no legal description) was locally designated. In 1985, the next two furthest west lots were combined with the first separated parcel through the "Lot Line Adjustment" process at Council level. Hence, Lots 1 and 2, Weaver Subdivision were created. In that action, HPC' s review authority over -" Lot 2" wa s reduced to advisory only by a vote of Council, and at the applicant's request. A recent review of that decision between the city attorney and Council upheld "advisory" review. In 1986, < "The Henry Webber House" (Pioneer Park), defined as Block 36, Lots K through S, was nominated to and listed on the Nationaf-- . Register of Historic Places. A definition of "advisory" has never been formalized, however, in study session discussions between staff and the city attorney and the applicant's representative (Les Kaplan), the applicant's attorney, clear reference was made as to what "advisory" would donsist of. Staff has discussed the goals of the HPC, the Development Review standards and the Guidelines with the Les Kaplan in the past. The importance of compatible yet "subordinate design" was discussed on several occasions. BRIEF HISTORY: This local landmark parcel, listed on the National Register of Historic Places, was once the home Of Honorable Henry Webber, mayor of Aspen who was also responsible for the construction of the Elks Building (Webber Block), and another "Webber Block", housing the Isis Theatre today. In 1946, Walter and Elizabeth Paepcke purchased the property and owned it until 1964. The carriage house was converted to a dwelling unit, where Albert Schweitzer stayed during his only visit to the United States for the 1949 Goethe Convocation. It was renamed "Schweitzer Cottage". Harold "Shorty" Pabst owned the property following the Paepckes, until 1969, when the current owners purchased it. PROJECT SUMMARY and REVIEW PROCESS: Staff defers to the HPC for review on this project. We offer general comments: Staff finds the proposal to be completely contrary to the goals the applicant told staff he was trying to achieve with the new development. We find the design to be anything but compatible (and certainly not subordinate to) the Second Empire style of Pioneer Park. Its exuberant mock Queen Anne styling competes significantly with the adjacent National Register structure. The tremendous number of formal decorative elements (i.e. towers, projections, etc.) demand attention, and detract from the adjacent historic resource. We refer the applicant to the Guidelines for direction on appropriate infill design within a historic context. To its credit, the general massing and materials appear te be compatible to the neighborhood. Siting is a concern, however, especially with the addition of a large sub-grade terrace on the west, closest to the historic structure. Herein lies the challenge: to determine the appropriateness of a large Victorian Revival residence adjacent to a distinctly styled historic landmark. Clearly the level of replica detailing- _ creates the deception of a historic structure, which perhaps could be considered (by some) appropriate. No doubt a subtlv designed Victorian Revival would be the style of choice on Lot 2, however, we ask why the integrity and importance of the National Register neighbor was disregarded with this new, elaborate design. The Planning Office asks the HPC to carefully consider the perpetual impact this new development will have to the integrity of its westerly neighbor, the estate parcel and the West End in general. Does this level of mock Queen Anne styling deceive history, and consequently diminish the integrity of our original historic resources and neighborhood context? We recommend the applicant reconsider this design, and work closely with the HPC to reach a solution that enhances the character of the Pioneer Park estate, rather than detracts from it out of apparent "market need". We firmly believe there is a 2 balance point, and that with careful thought and cooperation, it can be achieved, to the benefit of both Lots, and the entire Aspen community. Staff is available at anytime to assist in reaching this goal. 3 HPC PROJECT REVIEW CHECKLIST Does the Project meet the Standards for Development? Does the Project meet the Development Guidelines? Does the Project support the Community's Preservation Goals? SITEPLANNING ROOF Siting of the Building: Shape (gable, lean-to, etc.) Setback Pitch Facade width Overhang Spacing between buildings Dormers Skylight Chimneys Delineation of street space: Creation of continuous street WINDOWS edge Separationof public, semi-public, Type (double-hung, easement, etc.) and private areas Shape and proportion Fences Rhythm and balance Blinds/shutters Garage placement DOORWAYS Landscape plantings Placement and orientation Type (paneled, etc.) Site improvements: EXTERIOR ARCHITECTURAL Walkways ELEMENTS Driveways Retaining walls Door platforms and steps Porches BULK, PROPORTIONand Exterior stairs and decks SCALE(building size) Roofwalks and platforms MATERIALS Height Facade proporlions Wall surfaces Scale Foundation Roof MASSING (buildingshape) TRIM and MISCELLANEOUS Mass of main portion: DETAILS Form Roof shape Trim Orientation Gutters and leaders Louvres, vents, etc. Additions: House lights Placement Public utilities Form Bulk SPECIFIC DESIGN SUGGESTIONS: : 103f0PId di,VG INFORMATION TO CITY OF ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE THE INFORMATION HEREIN IS SUBMITTED TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE IN ORDER TO SATISFY ITS RIGHT FOR ADVISORY CAPACITY" REVIEW OF PROPOSED NEW CONSTRUCTION ON LOT 2 OF THE AMENDED WEAVER SUBDIVISION. Submitted February 20, 1991 By: THE KAPLAN COMPANY 4 WRITTEN DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL The proposed single-family structure is approximately 3840 square feet above grade with an attached two car garage, a full basement below grade and to be located on the 12,000 square foot Lot 2 of the Amended Weaver Subdivision. The architectural styling and detail is decidedly Queen Ann Victorian. Integral to this information package are architectural drawings by Sutherland, Fallin, Inc., showing the four (4) elevations of the residence and including a front view rendering. The structure is basically L-shaped around the grove of mature spruce trees located on the property and at the corner of Bleeker and Third Streets. Such a footprint is a bookend to the massing of existing structures on Lot 1, thereby, creating an architectural balance to the streetscape. One wing of the L-shape addresses Bleeker Street and the other Third Street. The inner portion of the L-configuration opens to the spruce trees on the corner. This special area of tall spruce remains as a focal point both within the boundaries of the lot and from the intersection of Bleeker and Third. A site plan for the proposed residence accompanies this information to the HPC for its advisory review. This site plan shows specific building placement relative both to the property boundaries of Lot 2 and to the structures on Lot 1, as proposed in the applicant's February 5, 1991 application to the HPC. The exterior generally consists of wood siding and shingles. Extensive exterior detailing is proposed, including spindle trim and balusters for the front porch, corbels, dental trim, gable decorations, and roof finials. The brick chimney has a distinctively Victorian design. It should be noted that the submitted drawings, although more than conceptual, do not contain final detailing regarding windows, the shape and placement of exterior design elements, and exterior materials. The proposed development does not involve an existing structure and is not on property which is historically-designed or in an historic overlay district. The existing character of the residential neighborhood is quite eclectic, consisting of an original Second Empire Victorian Structure on the adjoining lot to the west, a Victorian reproduction directly across Bleeker Street, and a 1960's wood-frame residence across the road on Third Street. It may be asserted by residents of the neighborhood, that any development of Lot 2 detracts from the character of the neighborhood which is accustomed to the property as vacant. Nonetheless, the proposed development is consistent with the covenants established at the time Lot 2 was created and the Victorian e . character of the design is compatible with the neighborhood and the entire West End area. PUBLIC HEARING REQUIREMENTS The Kaplan Company has been informed by Roxanne Eflin that no publication notice, posting of a sign on the property, or mailing of notice to adjoining property owners (Attachment 5 Requirements) are necessary, in that HPC review is advisory only. The Kaplan Company also understands that no additional submissions to the HPC are necessary after the HPC review of this February 20, 1991 submitted information, which is to be considered by the HPC at its March 13 meeting. HPC conceptual review of The Kaplan Company application for -Additions and Alterations to the Existing Pioneer Park Residence" is also scheduled for this March 13 meeting. Chester Firestein March 1, 1991 FEDERAL EXPRESS William J. Poss, Chairman Aspen Historic Preservation Committee City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Proposed Development at 442 West Bleeker (Pioneer Park) Dear Mr. Poss: My legal counsel, Jane Ellen Hamilton of Garfield & Hecht, P.C., has just provided me by fax with the footprint and elevations submitted to the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office in connection with the above proposed development. I believe the proposed development should be of great concern to the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee, the City of Aspen and the residents and visitors to the City. It is certainly of great concern to me. I believe that the structure on Lot 2, as proposed, will present an inappropriate "mass" on both its north and south elevations. Built as a spec house, it will not only fill the last remaining open/green space in that area of the West Side...but it will also dwarf other nearby homes. My home at 407 W. Hallam would be affected, as will others. Additionally, the proposed structure on Lot 2 is (obviously) adjacent to the original Pioneer Park residence. In my view, as now proposed, the new structure will dominate and obscure this National Historic Register Building and, thus, detract from this irreplaceable building which is such an important part of Aspen's history. Finally, I should like to call your attention to the location of the trees which, though numbered and protected under the 1986 Covenants, Restrictions and Conditions, would, most obviously, have to be removed in order to accommodate the footprint of the proposed Lot 2 structure and access to its garage. My wife and I met with Mr. Les Kaplan, the developer of the proposed project, after having been informed that he would be "sensitive to the needs of the neighborhood." Mr. Kaplan appears to be a very nice man. But the degree of his sensitivity is 9777 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 714, BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212 (213) 273-7246 FAX: (213) 273-5148 William J. Poss, Chairman March 1, 1991 Page 2 something which I would hope the Committee would explore. For Aspen to lose its open space and substitute a massive structure in its place would be a great loss, indeed. Perhaps the Committee can impress upon Mr. Kaplan the need to adjust his plans so as to mitigate the issues which I have described herein and which might otherwise result in an irreparable loss for all of us. With thanks for your consideration. Sincerely, 62 QiÂ»041; \ Chester rirestein CLF/1 = b /642Â»- 44Â« A - 9 ~91.-2--- / r/\2<3~ - 5 f ., '6-*-----1--ZF.-- . %B .... tu- .21. tfulh~- . Â»--fA\~d,~43 4 - --- - - *oP- 14=>---p=.1.~--1--..i*i -,~F>F*1:1= IFinjen-- --/el \~1 4 -Â»=*- - < U -- -- -37 108 El If- P J 11 . 1 . an~ \-2-927~-Q 77 .9- 41Â«2- ..--- --.Ii./ 1 -- 1 -132 \ -r---= rl - - -*11 -i:ipi -Firli~ k,Ilk, --i-- 1----1~ _-=u n - ___ 11- t} li -- 1 -- 1 1.4 1 1 . $. ' 3-s.z'-1-- ~1 ..2221 - A 1 1 - -1--~zEZZ---2- ----71-77 41, 1 t ,&-224-1-- - -~~Z~ZEL--- - I -1 - 1. - --- - ~ tÂ»Â«=2.- - L 4. .E:~ElfIET=1 9,=mE! -- - f 1 i L11-1 1/...... 7 11~ 1 4/4 4 11. 11, /1M9~.011. ~1 1 -- E- f -~ Â·u :1 R LEK <i Ir 1 1 =- 2/Hy 4/"/0 111- I --.11 1 F // 1= 33 biz= maw m j - -3 ---- --111-n-6Â£m~zj ~ C 01 1 - __ ~f~ .. - J. --- ...-T-En-- . -Ice KI-1 11 r- 1 ~r--1 -f-r- - -Ti . .y ... 1 AA-'H' 11 -WIF.99,;iZ;*~337~~~12 - . __'u:-42'+4 -_ 1 -WÂ»'-_ p ,+-4-L45 - 1 4.-4*,/1-- D-Ki,6â‚¬4-7 1 ---1,7 J- . *4 kii 'l & My: N 1 /<97. g --- k JU/.;Por'... 1 - ,./Â£~ L.Â·I, Â· - - 1 . 'r- 4 7 4 AMED! FED PJEAVERi 6-; Uff~ 17'IVISIO]-1 PE-EpRL]AlÂ« 1 9 10231 _14.23 - 1- - 1- 0 --- - - -1371- =1-Â« -~_ ~1-7-IPE- ----2 - - ---- . -- - - --- ,-*Vt- - -- -- - -- --11.#d --122.- ---1/A,JAX- - Â· -21 - { 1 1 - - - 0-- til441 -1-=*ri -07'~11~- ~~~~~~~~~_--z - .-1--. 71 10 - I r.ir _1 LL-ii.L L - - -2 .- - -N - ,-..-,-4.-- -- - --=.-11 A.-1 j 76 -21222/:-1-1.-_---......â€ž-~ --rv-r-A Â·~p~"' Â·- -~~X=z*>+ 1/- .-i- *...I . 1,7Â« 1 1 .1 -.1 . i - ril-In - 1II 11 1 - I St : IFI. .kÂ» 4 imi=.2.1] : - . lij.- ~ I:Em mi , 'o: - 1 1-' Iig~LIZÂ« M*di-RF-Â·11 1-2 4- ;Oil- '. 1 4 I- 00 [--1T.H S -e->VÂ«OF] oft f~:eela--1*129'' 187 1 CO I . 1 J - -- - - **1* - - -= 1 1 - ~ Â· ' 0 1420-7 El_avt<1-1 C.td - t~ELEEL,42>r" |97 15Â© I Rsi 4 % lillililimillinillillillillilpreMilibihijii: ......41 .:1.2.*14:3 - . .- t~~41~~~~ d.0 #bria..ItÂ·..r. 24-*...:...4/ ; 4, ~~4.4ttall:' Ile,#, I ..p-#. ami;fif~ifari~FI~ 4 -1 ~Ii 11 in:i- 1 11,1 9 4.. .,2.1 - ~~;411,1,11:6:'Â®1:12' t:'1[' "*'~ 2.-1-1165:65:3559; I IiL.,1.-8 r,44*Wi / 1>1~~ ' ji=-i"mir,7,|flb|1~'ziim~|~1$0| 1 iii| Hilitiliâ€¢Il I. 4.- gil 1 1,0 1 '12..Ill 1 71: lA:%'I"~I'~~ . .1-*1= k/:4 .11.17 1 .1 -,1/. ..142 jill: !1 3:2~ ...1 .,Sl .il=t,=.. ': ..1 401.1 2 1.=1=104'Illildf~limILLEkilili#411&91:*~. _6==â€¢B~El/Rgi illutil"/~r -_.ili.L--112mmiL_-1. ~,~1111~kiENIMM~imEMI,~1~ ~~1, -8/.~ a. ... 1 1 I - A.4 "Al'.e=~ ealm'~4ig~I,imi..Â£~ 1 L AM&,JJ'lllillibi ll.i:i-Â·t.Â·im /, 4-1*% .-1.9*IA--d.â‚¬ 2- .re. 5 - 2. 0.-~- =11===="66-11=7207$ ims'*S 1L U.19=Immlizilirmill*filmlli~ilitian 12:4:1*140-:.1- le'.1,Â·r:ei'.1,-10 -......in :'*772.-.Â·1.0.-ill"'Ill'll"U =â€¢' Mt..31:~~limi-Ill-- 142 5 il~11 3/I'llid /82/1//I'y:%1Â·fit I ;fl Â¢ 11-1 Ii'.1 1 4. 1 Ellillitillilillillillilillillilliwillfi.:I:::,I"""Ililililimi 0 . . 1 .r.,; -;7~K~~*Ve:' .2' NEW CA.ReTAKER UNIT) ~ENV~= E.KJ 5-T INa C o 'el I ..... Â· ~44~>t.S '7.; Â£ 3 Lf*10Â·G.SD . .2t 1 1~191(3f,16fx .//. C /1 .U ALL--ey -1904..11 + .4 O .1.':,4.r.::.4 C Â·Â·i'-, n P .. U 1 - 1 p -1 .---4 â€ž-I ?2.lit 4, )4. belt.*4' ~ ' b U FINEW ADOITIGN C Ul 0 L - ...& O i L an-TÂ»es GAJÂ©44<116 1/ 4,1-1 111G- -2-4 + ,Â·- 8, Â·, i~ . 0 ' E./.h:. Â· .-454 14--1 1 ?,14+1 2 . 4, /04>54 .1 ,1 , 0 , 1/./. 1 2- ReactATeD lo 6AZLEE>O =4111:111, 3 0. m A 1 (P -1 n . . . X -0.. 00 ., P 1 Â»- Ul - Ii - FIgNEr L 0 ~1 HIRD 4 eLEEKER P i FREE>IDErÂ·ICE , 'PZ/Â·/50/../.. WÂ»f] 1' / W Â·~ C.S 71 \ 1 -4*2*h..St!!fr= r. I-- 9 ' N--711111mt . Â· - Of 0 - -ptot*,2524 \ \ 3 - 0042 4 O -i.. I - i- ' / .2 ~ -~ - Â·7#54*E ..1 ./ . . 0 EXIS-T-INa t-tkl ,; 2,13. M 11 4, 91 0 /, I .:. 145., 57+1 1 0 0 0 0. 0 i --,-t--17 y--1 F 0 14.4 : 4 1 1 ly U NEW' MAS.ONF<h. WAL-L O O 0 - I . I d J 000 000 0 0 7,CE..10' . --C4-llc>.204' 1\ 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0! O 11- -. -- --1 - 2/0 ZCE BLEE-KER EGREE--T D -1 - D LU SITE PLAN N Z el'=Zo'-o" O.2 Z O a 0 1 of 1 sheets GUOISIA@J 11:Zi 83)13318 Â¥ CHIHi le 30N3WS3H v 25/ZIÂ·52* COE 1,9,0 02Â·uadse @ ue.e ain 0826 drawn lir MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: Conceptual Development: The Aspen Meadows, academic (campus) and Music portions (Public Hearing) Date: March 13, 1991 NOTE: PLEASE REMEMBER TO BRING YOUR MEADOWS PACKET FROM THE FEBRUARY 27 WORKSESSION. Staff rote: A more thorough discussion of the music portion/zehearsal hall and possible conditions for Conceptual approval will be presented by staff at the meeting. Due to a family emergency, staff was not able to prepare as comprehensive a written memo as required for this HPC packet. Extra time for presentation has been worked into the agenda. APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Conceptual development approval for the academic (campus) and music portions of the Aspen Meadows, including the restaurant, health club, and underground garage. REQUIRED REVIEW AREAS: Please note that the applicant's request statement on page 9 of the application is incomplete. The complete list of projects required HPC review and approval is as follows: The areas under HPC conceptual review are as follows: 1) Remodeling of the existing Kresge building, and new Kresge II building 2) Expanded building envelope of the health club 3) Remodeling and expansion of the restaurant 4) Parking structure and pro shop 5) Expansion of the tent's backstage and remodeling of seating area to add 400 seats 6) New rehearsal facility 7) Landscape alterations (berms and mounds added, mounds taken away, ditch rerouting, tree removal and new7 plantings) HPC advisory review is required for the Chalet lodge units. LOCATION: Central and easterly portion of the parcel commonly referred to as "The Aspen Meadows" APPLICANT: The Aspen Institute, Savanah Limited Partnership, the Music Associates of Aspen, and the Aspen Center for Physics, represented by Perry Harvey, Joe Wells and Robert Harth ZONING: SPA, underlying zoning pending EXISTING CONDITIONS: Please refer to page two of the application for a complete description. The ages of the building are: Seminar building - 1953 Chalet lodges - 1954-55 Health Center - 1956 Restaurant Building - 1958 Tennis courts and swimming pool- 1959 PREVIOUS HPC ACTION: Conceptual approval and advisory review with conditions was accomplished for the residential portion of the Meadows on February 13, 1991. A worksession on the academic/music portion of the Meadows proposal was held on February 27, with general comments focusing on the character compatibility of the lodge units and the proposed rehearsal facility. Concern was voiced on the changes proposed to the cultural landscape both surrounding and adjacent to existing tent (berms, size of rehearsal facility mound, formalization of common spaces, etc.) The applicant also mentioned the inconsistency of the application narrative to the proposed plans with regard to the restaurant facility. PROJECT SUMMARY and REVIEW PROCESS: The Development Review Standards are found in Section 7-601(D). Applicable portions of the Guidelines are generally found throughout that document. For ease in general review and discussion, staff has included the elements under advisory review within the response comments for the entire proposal. 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 re 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 2 ' landmark, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. (*historic resource) Response: The Meadows parcel has not received landmark designation, however, HPC review and approval is required as called for in the Aspen Meadows Master Plan, adopted last year. We find that the significant elements of the lodge units (Chalets and Kresge buildings) have been respected and preserved in the renovation and expansion of the existing units, as well as in the design of the new units. As with the residential portion, staff's principal concerns focus on materials, detailing and landscaping, as well as the need for a subtle difference between the original units and the new. It is unclear of the level of partial demolition proposed to the Chalet buildings, which requires clarification and response as defined in Section 7-602(C). It appears from the siting of the expansions and new buildings, that the architect has taken the sub-committee's general comments into consideration. The massing breakup and facade articulation of Chalet Building #3 (new) and Kresge Building #6 (new) are improvements over the master plan proposal, which indicated substantial impacts to both the Health Club from Building #3 and the open space/fox mound from Building #6. The HPC should carefully consider the conceptual materials proposed for these buildings, with primary attention paid to the end walls (rubble?), roofing, and balconies/patios. Music Portion: At the meeting, staff will present some issues for general discussion regarding the rehearsal hall siting and design, as well as changes in "tent topography" and surface treatments. Streetscape and Landscape Material: The need to preserve existing trees and land forms, and provide mitigation for any losses is an important element of this parcel. A detailed landscape plan will be required at Final, with mitigation measures stated. We are concerned about the proposed reduction to the existing -fox mound", and the compatibility of the proposed mound to the southeast of this. It would appear that by a simple walkway reorientation of Building #6, the mound would not be impacted as greatly. The need for land form buffers to serve as screens between the buildings and the open space should be discussed from a character-defining basis. A new model (or alteration to the existing) should clarify this mound issue - which should be indicated to precise scale (height and diameter). Fences: Fencing has not been discussed, if any is proposed, and shall be a condition for Final review. 3 Parking: It appears that the parking structure approach is good, however, the application is not clear on whether more of the "race track" open space will be taken with this structure. This issue needs clarification. Circulation patterns are being changed within the lodging portion of the parcel, with cars eliminated. The width of the roadway should be reduced to the absolute minimum to Still provide emergency access. A restudy is recommended here, and shall be included in either a revised or Final proposal. It appears that the parking lots to the tent and Paepcke Auditorium are not being altered in size, although paving is proposed. A detailed design of the bus drop-off area and parking lot finish features shall be a requirement of Final. Where is BIKE PARKING proposed? We recommend the applicant look seriously at providing a multitude of bike "parking" places, which will meet many goals of the community and reduce the level of visual impact caused by auto use. Rooflines: Three roof issues have been identified for HPC consideration: Flat roofs proposed for the lodge units (reflecting existing conditions), basic flat roof with angled skylight projections (backstage addition) and the new rehearsal hall roof, which is the predominate architectural feature of the music portion. Materials have not been called out specificall' for these areas. Doors: We are have concerns regarding the proposed glass paneled overhead-type doors for the facade of the rehearsal hall. We defer to the HPC to obtain more detailed information from the architect on doors and entranceways. Lodge unit doors and entranceways should be considered by the HPC at this meeting, with recommendations made for Final. Windows: Fenestration patterns appear to be compatible throughout; what materials are to be used? Staff is concerned with the proposed openings on the rehearsal hall facade, and recommend this be restudied and carefully considered by the HPC and the applicant. Materials: It is important to recall the original construction technique and use of materials was based on economy. The architectural style may be described as International vernacular in many ways, and restraint must be used in incorporating expensive materials within the buildings and in landscaping. The new and replacement materials at the Meadows are as important a design feature as the overall geometry and site planning. 4 Great care just be taken by both the applicant and the HPC to determine specific materials, texture, finish and color. New and replacement materials must key off of original materials. End walls must be carefully considered - should these be rubble? In addition, all landscape and hard surface materials (walkways, drives, plazas, etc.) should be visually soft and carefully chosen for compatibility with this parcel. We are recommending a complete, detailed landscape study be submitted for Final review, which will be reviewed with another land use planner skilled in landscaping treatments. Finish and color of major materials is important. A palette of materials, textures and colors shall be prepared by the participating architects, and submitted for HPC approval at Final. As discussed at the first public hearing for residential review, this palette would also apply as a covenant to the Single Family home sites as well. An exact materials representation shall be made at Final, as required under Section 7-601(F)(4). 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: Defining "neighborhood" as the large Meadows parcel itself, the proposal appears to reflect the established character. However, the immediate residential neighborhood to the west of the tent and the rehearsal facility is considerably different in character. The proposed rehearsal hall may define and separate the tent area from the residential neighborhood. Staff defers to the HPC on this issue. 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. (*historic resource) Response: Perhaps the single most provocative quality of the Meadows parcel is its cultural landscape. Issues and concerns associated with the preservation Of the Meadows cultural character will be presented at the meeting. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a (designated historic structure*) or part thereof. (*historic resource) Response: The proposed remodel and enlargement of the lodge units appears to not detract from their architectural integrity, The restaurant remodel and expansion has not been fully addressed 5 by the applicant, therefore, we are recommending this portion be tabled until such time as the application is revised. Expansion requires GMQS approval and perhaps a revised master plan, as the original master plan proposal reported that no changes were occurring to the restaurant. Equally, the Health Club's building envelope is larger than approved in the Master Plan. The applicant should be prepared to discuss this issue at the meeting. The building footprint as proposed appears to meet the development review standards. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following alternatives: 1) Approve the Conceptual Development application as proposed. 2) Approve the Conceptual Development application with conditions to be met at Final Development. 3) Table action to a date certain, to allow the applicant time to restudy specific areas. 4) Deny Conceptual Development approval, finding that the Standards have not been met. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant conceptual development approval for Kresge buildings and the parking structure. We recommend that all other aspects of the proposal be tabled to a date certain to allow the applicant additional time for restudy as the HPC recommends. Additional recommendations: memo.hpc.meadows.ac.mus.cd 6 THE ASPEN MEADOWS Request for HPC Conceptual Development Plan Review of Significant Development of the Aspen Institute and Music Associates Projects February 18, 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: 303-925-3234 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 49 CONSULTANT TEAM 0 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 Lodge 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 & Surveving 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 & Geology 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 2 B. Conceptual Development Program 2 II. CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION FOR SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (Â§7-601(F) 9 A. The Residential Projects 9 B. The Aspen Institute Projects 11 C. The Music Associates Projects 11 D. Submission Contents 50 E. Conceptual Development Plan Review Standards 53 III. EXHIBITS A. General Application Information (Â§6-202) 1. Land Use Application Form 2. Applicants' Letters of Authorization 3. Street Address and Legal Description 4. Disclosure of Ownership for Institute and Savanah Parcels 5. Vicinity Map 6. Property Owners Within 300 Feet iii I. INTRODUCTION This submission for HPC Conceptual Development Plan Review of Significant Development of the Aspen Institute and Music Associates projects 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 residential projects were filed for HPC review prior to the other projects in order to facilitate their review at a worksession scheduled for February 6 and the subsequent public hearing and received Conceptual approval on February 13, 1991. On November 22, 1988, these parties joined with the International Design Conference in Aspen to form the Aspen Meadows Consortium and to enter into a Statement of Intent (see Appendix B of the February, 1989 Conceptual SPA Plan) regarding a proposal for preservation and development of the Aspen Meadows property, presently owned in part by the Aspen Institute and by Savanah. The proposal outlined in the Statement of Intent was the product of the efforts of the Institute, MAA, Physics, IDCA, the Aspen Valley Improvement Association, the Aspen Community and Institute Committee, the Aspen Foundation, and other interested parties. In February, 1989, the Consortium submitted a Conceptual SPA Plan for the City's review. During the review process for the submission, however, the City expressed its desire to undertake a master planning effort of its own prior to considering a specific development plan for the property. That effort took place during late 1989 and 1990 and resulted in the adoption on October 16, 1990 by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Aspen Meadows Master Plan, an amendment to the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. The City's adopted document states that in order for the plan to be successful, it must accomplish the following things: 1) Provide a secure, long term, suitable lodging base for the Aspen Institute through transfer of land and all buildings associated with the lodge operation to the Aspen Institute. 2) Provide a land ownership opportunity and secure the future for the Music Associates of Aspen and the Aspen Center for Physics. 3) Preserve the important visual open space character of the campus. 4) Provide compensation to the principal landowners sufficient to return all land to non-profit or conservation use. 1 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. 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 Townhouses, used as short-term accommodations, and totalling approximately 49,400 square feet of Aoor area, 20,700 square feet of restaurant and administrative space in the Restaurant/Reception 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 agreements established at the time of the sale of the property in 1980. B. Conceptual 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 boundaries of the three parcels to be owned by the Institute, MAA and Physics are described conceptually on the proposed Conceptual SPA Land-Use Plan (see following page). It is likely that these boundaries will be adjusted as the final agreements are resolved between the parties. 2 The Aspen Meadows Olent Landscape Architects Nor" , 4... 11=41:Wle |41â€ž â€ž01"htâ€¢~ Ir ...Al.-t' 01 A 'r- - , 7 Â£ h' [>wir Al- Cent= for P.. u. ' ' " u-- /3/ Ha,lie A.per. Holdincs Â¢ Al,per. hk/'00--1 Colmorr,&â€¢n, 1 I Il. LI 0....!5 1/K ,-'1- THE ASPEN MEADOWS CONCE,ruAL SPA . i -1 ILLUSTRATIKE MASTER P.44 1 4 .\\ = e 1 0 . - -1 41 /:\\ I , ' 1.1. "fric. 0.., D..C. \\ \ * I .... I' --0. Clut - 1....4, '14 - . .1 Rlt, , -, h.4 : 2 9 -,A .e>=- -1 -- C...'I-V."kon 0, t#A.fa~ L - C A.-00.11. e __ - ./ - Tru/" Town - &1 - . 7 gE, - ~ Â·Â·1Â· " 7 ' het --1 --./ 11 i +Gl ~ Niw Townhou~~ t F, f #Pil -......... + UQI *'15 li k b p.. .1-" .11.9, P. ~h R , /-- 4â€¢17 -~1 6-40 11,1.1 0,4 64 27 - . 1.4 920 /\ $ I. 7.- T .... ./ - I. -I - I ..U---I -- f- > -'Â· ' ' .6.Il-T+IllÂ¥ . . 1. e . i ./-'. 1 $ ........ Ac..p..â€ž1.3 . 40 + --t Cz-_, 7-~ -09 .... .443 M I . * k I - -hi Aultion ... i....: g t . -- Ne= R,-*rial F KNO - * fill . + -2, / - - C t. 91 4 0 H U :7 : , ....1 . A -/ 0 ... - Lit ., " ' Â· 2......"I AL (R- 4 *Ingli F./11, LIt' 40 ,â€¢-1 ~â€¢k L / , L ... .... - 1 ./1 --I'l-*-' I = h '0 -- top i - 02 . 6..1 I 'V Â· -/ 1 i ) CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Existing Facilities New Facilities Final Pm Lodge Lodge Lodge Units So. Ft Units So. Ft. Units So. Ft. I. ASPEN INSTITUTE PARCEL (42.4 Acres) A. Carrmus Accommodations 1. Building 1 (Chalet A) 12 5.620 - 3310 12 8,930 2. Building 2 (Chalet B) 16 9.100 - 2.270 16 11370 3. Building 3 (New Chalet) - - 20 13200 20 13,200 4. Building 4 (Chalet C) 16 MOO 6 5.420 22 14320 5. Building 5 (Kres ge Building) 16 12.130 - - 16 12,130 6. Buildine 6 (New Kresge) - - 24 18.210 24 18.210 Subtotal: 60 35.950 50 42,410 110 78360 B. Meeting/Performance Facilities 1. Pacpcke Auditorium 13.000 - - - 11 2. Seninar BEding - 7.000 - - - 3. Boettcher Building - 7,000 - - - 4. Kresge Building - 6.060 - - - 6.060 Subtotal: - 33.060 - - - 33,060 C. Accesson' Facilities 1. Restaurant/Reception - 14.700 - - - 14,700 2. Health Facility 5,700 - 1,800 7 3. Tennis Shop - 500 - 250 - Subtotal: - 20.900 - 2.050 - 22. Total fo: Parcel I 60 89.910 50 44,460 110 134JT0 Il. MAA PARCEL (9.5 Acres) A. Meetine/Per:enÂ·nance Facilities 1. Tent - 21.200 2000 23200 2. Rehearsal Hal - - - 11.000 - 11.000 S ubtotal: 21,200 13.000 - 34.200 B. Accesson' Facilities 1. Lemonade Stand - -uu - - - 200 2, Gift Shop - 100 - 100 - 200 Subtotal - 300 - 100 - 400 Total for Parcel II: 21.500 - 13.100 - 34,600 4 *FF CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Tw'o Existin g I Gcultles New Facilities Final Proeram B edrms Sa. Ft. Bedrrns So. Ft. Bedrms So. FL III. PHYSICS CENTER PARCEL (4.3 Acres) A. Meet:-27.formance Facilities Hilbert Hall - 5.560 - - - 5.560 S tranahan Hall - 4,220 - - - 4220 Bethe Hall 3.666 - - - 3.666 Total for Parcel m: - 13,446 --- 13,446 Iv. CONSERVATION' PARCEL (25.0 Acres) A. Open Space - - - - - - TRUSTEE Houses PARCEL (2.6 Acres) Existing Residential Units (8 DU's @ 2.500 SF) 24 14,000 - 6300 24 20,000 Proposed Residential Units (3 DU's @ 500 SS - - 9 7.500 9 7,500 Total for Parcel V 24 14.000 9 13300 33 27.500 VI. TENNIS TOWN'HOMES PARCEL (1.2 Acres) Proposed Residential Units (7 DU's @ 2.500 SE - - 21 17300 21 17.500 TTH STREET SINGLE FAM[LY PARCEL (1.1 Acres) A. Residencal Lots (4 sites) 1. Single Farrtly Units (4 DU's @ 4,040 SF) - - 16 16,160 16 16,160 2. Accessory DweLling Units (4 AU's @ 500 SID - - 4 2.000 4 2.000 Total for Parcel VII: - - 20 18.160 20 18,160 TOTAL FOR PROJECT: 86.1 Acres 84 138.856 100 106,720 184 245376 All square footages are gross interior sq. ftâ€ž except for the townhomes. single-family residences and rehearsal hall. for which FAR square footage limitatons have been established under the City's adopted Master Plan. 5 to > < Maintenance standards, reciprocal easements, restrictive covenants, architectural review rights and rights of first refusal will be developed within the Meadows Consortium to ensure that each Institution has the quiet enjoyment of its own property during the time that its activities are held on the Aspen Meadorvs Campus and to ensure that MAA's rehearsal facility, as well as the Aspen Institute's lodge expansion, are constructed in a manner that is consistent with the existing campus ambience. 1. The Aspen Institute Parcel: Savanah will give to the Aspen Institute all of the land within the West Meadows parcel not included within the residential and conservation parcels, including all of the existing buildings within that portion of the property, to secure the future of the Institutions and to maintain a cultural campus at the Aspen Meadows. This gift of approximately 30 acres will include the restaurant/administration facility, the three Chalet lodging buildings, the Kresge Lodge, the tennis courts, the sculpture garden, and the remaining "race track" open space area along Meadows Road. Under the City's Master Plan, the existing lodge may be expanded to 110 rooms. The Aspen Institute proposes to reconstruct and expand the 44 lodge rooms in the Chalet buildings and reconfigure the 16 rooms in the Kresge Building. The 50 new lodge rooms approved under the Master Plan will be located as follows: 1. A new building with 20 rooms will be added to the southeast of the health center. 2. Six additional rooms will be added to Chalet C. 3. A new' building with 24 rooms will be constructed to the east of the Kresge Building. 2. The Music Assodates of Aspen Parcel: The Aspen Institute intends to convey to the MAA a parcel as identified on the Land Use Plan as the Music Associates of Aspen Parcel. The site is presently shown as 9.5 acres in order to accommodate the alternate rehearsal hall sites. Now that the City has expressed a preference for the eastern site, the acreage of the MAA parcel will be changed. The Music Associates of Aspen plans to increase the seating within the performance tent by approximately 400 seats. This may be accomplished by changing the layout of seating sections, using current building code requirements or by installing fixed seating. 6 The outdoor seating area will also be improved with a series of berms. Conceptual studies indicate that if the berms are built at the same angle as the floor inside the tent that 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 approximately 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 proposes to build a new 11,000 square foot (FAR) rehearsal facility on the eastern side of the MAA parcel as designated on the Conceptual SPA Land Use Plan. The structure will not only be fully enclosed, but a significant portion of the building will be buried below natural grade. The excavated material will be used around the perimeter of the building to further reduce the amount of exposed wall surfaces. Architectural plans and elevations for the MAA facilities will be submitted under separate cover. 3. The Aspen Center for Physics Parcel: The Aspen Institute will convey to the Physics Center the 2.3 acre parcel which is presently part of the Physics Center's long-term lease as well as approximately one acre immediately to the north of the leased land. 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. The adopted Master Plan permits an amendment of the plan to incorporate an additional building on the Physics Center site provided that it is compatible in scale, materials and massing with other buildings on the parcel. 4. The Residential Parcels: Three parcels are proposed at the perimeter of the Campus for the residential units approved under the City Master Plan: a. The Trustee Houses: The eight existing three-bedroom Trustee townhomes located along the bluff to the west of the health center will be renovated and condominiumized for sale. These units are identical in floor plan and are laid out in a repeating fan shape along the crest of the hillside. Each unit has the same horizontal relationship to the next. The townhouse at the south end is the highest unit; each unit to the north is stepped clown two feet in response to existing topography. Because of the alternating flat roof and pitched roof elements of the design, 1 C these units read as one-/two-story detached residences from the Campus side of the site and two-/three-story units on the creek side. Three new units are proposed to be constructed adjacent to the existing units -- two at the north end and one at the south end. The square footage of each of the 11 units will be limited to 2,500 square feet of FAR floor area. Because the residences are located at the perimeter of the Campus, they will impact only minimally on the continued use of the Campus by the Institutions. The height of the Trustee townhomes 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 several feet and will require an SPA variation for the additional height. b. Tennis Townhomes 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 from the Campus appears to be only one and a half stories. The design of these units includes elements borrowed from the design of the Trustee houses. The units are stepped horizontally along the bank to break the plane of the two longer facades. Flat roofs are used in combination with pitched roof elements at the upper level of each unit which give the appearance that the building is made up of a series of detached units. c. Seventh Street Single-Family Parcel: 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, as shown previously on the Conceptual Land Use Plan. 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. These lots are to be located on the north side of the new road alignment. 8 n. REQUEST FOR HPC CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW FOR SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (Â§7-601(F)(4)) The Applicant requests advisory Conceptual Development Plan approval for the reconstruction and expansion of the existing Chalets and Kresge units and the addition of 50 new lodge units on the Aspen Institute Parcel. In addition, HPC review is requested for a Rehearsal Performance Facility to the southeast of the Music Tent and a backstage expansion of the Tent. A total of 73,360 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 Conceptual SPA Plan. A. The Residential Projects Several design changes have been made in both townhouse projects since Conceptual SPA review to minimize the impact of the automobile and to create a more gracious entry for the units. The carports which were previouslv attached to the units of both projects have been relocated to the east of the units and landscaped entryways have been added in their former location. The new carports will be built into the hillside facing away from the entry road 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. At the new townhouse site, the removal of the attached carport allows the overall length of the building to be reduced from 70 to 60 feet. The parking area has been reduced in size and lowered by approximately three feet to minimize the visibility of the parking area from the entry road. 1. Trustee Town-homes The Trustee housing, originally designed by Herbert Bayer, is situated on a west-facing bench of land at the Aspen Institute 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 carport entry, 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. The architecture is very simply delineated. The walls separating the units are covered with lx4 vertical wood painted white. The end walls, which fit in between the side walls, are 8" cedar shingles, natural color and left to weather. It should be noted here that the original Bayer drawings shore "fancy butt" 9 t 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 desaibed above. The geometry of the level changes and angles of the units will also be the same. The new unit to the south will be set back into the hillside more so than the existing units, and the two units to the north will be several feet taller to maintain these relationships, because of the natural topography. The proposed exterior materials of the remodeled complex will be similar to the original. The vertical siding will be 1 x 6. The shingle end wall will be either standard or a mix of standard and fancy butt shingles. A new heavily insulated roof with asphalt shingles will be applied over the existing roof. Sun control devices similar to those existing will be incorporated into the final design. 2. Townhouses Near the Tennis Courts The design intent for the neTv units is to accomplish the program with a relatively quiet architectural solution that utilizes some of the concepts and materials utilized at the Trustee houses. These new three-story units have been depressed into the hillside to reduce their visual impact from the entry road. Along the east facade only about a floor and a half extends above natural grade. The units are stepped approximately 7 feet in the east/west 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 The new entry road into the Meadows curves gently as it enters the property and the four new lots to the north of the road are cupped around the end of the racetrack area. The lot configurations have been varied so that the appearance of a rvall of buildings at the end of the race track can be avoided. Side yard setbacks will also be varied to assure that the openings between the structures will be irregular. Purchasers of the lots will be required to maintain a 15 foot setback of natural vegetation toward the Meadows. 10 B. The Aspen Institute Parcel 1. The Meadows Lodge and Accessory Facilities It is 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 and 4) 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-bedroornione-bath unit type on each level, a total of four such lodge units. The Kresge units in Building 5, which are to be remodeled, have a slightly different configuration which includes a small kitchen. The new Kresge Building to the east (Building 6) lS 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; these attendees live and study in their rooms. The existing health center will be renovated; a modest expansion of approximately 1,800 square feet is anticipated at some time in the future. 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 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 which is proposed to be partially buried. C. The Music Associates Parcel 1. The Rehearsal Performance Facility and The Tent Backstage ExTinsion The exterior design of the rehearsal 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 will extend approximately 30 feet above natural grade, but approximately half of this height will be hidden by the berm. Elevations are included on following pages to illustrate the conceptual massing of the facility in comparison to the existing MAA performance tent. 11 1\ .M Architectural Drawings For the Aspen Institute Facilities - 21 -2- 2 X .4.,62: 411 T '1 /}P' ANhj l'jar aÂ£*12 4,464&F 2 -- I 4*E Ad FW#U 4 t #66Â¥; Â», -*42Â».~ - (~VIC#2 2 17 k- 17+-7 A , 1 14' ' : , I (1/ 0 . ' 2 . U. 0' 0Â· ~~~ .24 .. ~ <*r1~7 42*,pf< VI 'h. .04 ,Â·"' 49' ' %2- C/':r.'*' . 4% ....Â«'. 2 . 2.- -/t. Or u 1 ' L.4 3 yÂ· ~1 40,1 Â»M v; C' ' r .Y,~~~ .LA (42, hr A J.f,~bp ~-t>fÂ© ~'~- ~~"l,JL,(1&~~ -/-, / /Zi44'7. --.-7-i,-~~'~.~ ~ r,~~â€¢--k~ N-2-*.*iâ€¢+ 'Â·~t~~1Li-*2~_-=U.-'.-,2:=.232.IMA*-e ':71~(7,I--~3~8, y ... 3, 439>0* r,~mpÂ¥R j j fflf< ar ~ >Af-ii~ '~ - ;;~~~~ %,2 .1 L , ,/ 4 -- 1 :440. - - '' Â· UA â€¢ 2 . l I ' , Â· .1 / /1 ' -I- 4.-aÂ·--i. J. 5â‚¬ -: * + ~I,/1.:i L 4y a~1 .. . 44 - A .*r*-2 -= 1 . , V.~ ~'95,2 *9 , - - .LÂ« I '21 - -- 542== il-1.-,~48.8, 4 4. 1 Â»1 1-L-44- '594 - . - - - - - ---.~ 4/ 0 IP 1.~V r'1984-Mah -: -~ -- 4 f ig- . . - -'ar.E~lwv , - - -* Â· . . - '~ 'IA--- -2-2--,--2- 1 --/.5: ; C .411 I ~. 191 Â· 1 1 E- C CD N N-aln Li.i# tardilvÂ·IM il %11 :&-ril, I . l. 1. I ' 1.' I I. - '401111< I.V t./11Â¥. Ill N~//11.1 10.VI/9 9/11.V.1 .1 49 1/ 11â€¢11,1.,1,71/1/411 1â€¢,V/Â¥/ 9/111.9/ 41 Nv 14 ./1, 9/1.... .....9 'ill./VI m,4 1 1'11Â¢,Nrln.9 .r,i ,"1'vi" 41 *0W-m.Â¥1 All111â€¢4 1 }41/ 11/0, i I 1/v'i'vi{.I .i \ . A-I . 1, 3 - 4-~ NV/4 11//1 /1/01 , ..'vâ€¢ I .... 1,/r,i I iNVI'llill ,1 i- UTA / / / I./ 1 1/ 7 1 / / 1/M'/ 1 1 1 11 1/ 4 1 /4 1/ 1 IN/ / / 1 NV /,1/ 1 / 1/ 7 1 1\ '4,"1",1, N"I. 11 4, , ,"41"1 1,f,0 ,| 1 ,â€¢401,Va 1 1-1 Wn,1 11 - . , 44,0 IM I 1 > 1 -1 y 1 MM/Ml /1 1,101141 ..C D.In,In. 4 0.-, 1 0\ P /1 ""MIVA. 11 .01.lt*1 i Â·, 4Nin :Ir,I , --/f}Jwl"""MA 1% 1 .V i. .04,11 1 rÂ»,Illirl L , ..0 11 EflmTTT-0~44' 1,-of:'~.t ~465'S,Â·.Pa% 1 mvia â€¢00,1 â€¢ 1 9â€¢Imiln, i lIF Iia Â»,mi, i Mil illl i r hÂ·. .- n I n 11 - -'>50%~d.r~13Â·i ..0-, 4 1 1 2 ;.>q N.,4 '00,4 , I.le ... 3/2,#mihhâ€ž %61 ) \ 2>< - Li4 111~1 ~ h -.1 . i, -0.==ri, 7/7, 44125' M'/ ,4. 21;10, .v 1.1 /01) 1 1 , INI'll// 1 +Vial --:1,4(441% .vi, In. 1, i r..... t 4 ''29 9 1 ''_~_' *9~11'9,<3 -- ,,.A ~<A,+*J,it,/0,4%4 'IN'IN/' 40 11/Vt .Vâ€¢ All /.VIâ€žVin :11â€ž i I .1 1 A 1 ' 1 1 '14 , M 1 1 4% U-I 1 1441..NK t. .Aa q . - 0 'howt\- 1 Â·St -41 -J* '7,r,464,iÂ»..-- 0_~11 'fY '4*3------ --- fla 1.1 11 11Â¥71*1 ,I NVMnÂ¥!Stht 531'*Krl iN,OCV-1,9 7-- Jr:71 9 IK!(1 1% .111.SINVW (111 >10-1 3.1.n It 1.KNI NÂ·IrISV . Â«9/ *4.. itt'..1 #/ 44- 4 kibri*1 --'3-4 fil 1 5- N * %-U.J. r tte,i< - ~ h Â¢ 4 Â¢50Â·Â«11 3 . r 11 9 0/3 44 'F-- inÂ·/ 4,3 mit J- i r 1 11 1<~9:. 14 --- 11 1, 76Â»f r.. ,-1,/ P 1, 43<11 1 16' I ~ \-1 1/,~'J )N1 Â»C m 9 il ' '1.JGV INCY)!HHV N>IN. Ml . ------- ---- HiniILS NHdSV 00Â¥M0100 'N 3 d S IIAC KFN ARI<IC .c )NI 1--. i & 1Â« )* 1Nt. 11 1 41'i -1 3 L 44,0. /6-v // /1 4 , -1 ./ i :1 \\\12 0 9/11 \\ 1 \\ \ / f l A- 1 1 / C F -\4 4.J-h 1 1 , /14 1 5// i 1<1 4 \ Lid > ) .2 .4-\ 11 liE U~r~.jr/ -< . 1 Â·42 L j 1/41 4 417 1 1 11UILDIFI. 2 .......i., Â»,t= 1 1\\ 1, \\ s.30.4 P~) 121 V' -4 ~421 j ,/ .'.Â©C \A k -- / ~ 7,?i\-2.-701134Â© J . ---1 =1=.0--LJE) - / Ul 14\ .C~Joit-,- / Z -1rk \ C ,- 42Â·55<1.k \'U H.ij-44 t~-43 MV ? ////i/~ ,"1 A 'll \ / =j - 2 -001/'1 ''j /4 ' 3 \ rwib re\Â»4<V-JILL:~-/ 1 3 trA ' i /1 4--2 1 I 1 11 2/ ev-*4 A /1 ) \\4 i *g' ,# ;0~~~ Pl\/Â« . 0 '("63: 142>4J ha \1.,; TZ , Z j(301\, 21 2.9 \ Il 1 1/ 1 \-1 11~ J IL / fill < 1/ / 1 9 47->\3%,4 #, 1:5/1/ 1 0\ / n , 1 4214-6 Â· 1/ .,9 .4 1 r-// 0 1 l / / 1 -- U.,Ull'...1 .All noo. .LA.. M 1 A L.* M \ 1, 1 1 1 \ e ' / C 2 5-4--1- i fl i HdSV OaÂ¥30100 'N3dSV \ 4.1 ARRIC.ANNI \ j \ BAC KI N & IUM. 1 !*1 -- . -- - - -- - - -1----1Â« ---. \ 44 2+MA~Av-'~~i~~Â«\1 4 - -VI__ \\ \1 1 \ 1 /\ O 1 1'. luE_ 0-1\1 1 1 4 Ihi '17 \ 0 E -- \~\,#/\ A .ff . N . . S - -3.26-o"r'ec:JU~ n \ CkÂ«JÂ»-1 ) i )- t I )1 2 -Cb< 4~Â«_u------*-I-j , ic - / , 1 1 2 /1 1 4. / hy / 9 10 - 0 .>4 2 14 \ I. /1 2. - -7- J=vi --' i -7: , 1......~--,7- ., [--~ L.2 Z // 02\\ t#JILLING 2 74-1 6/ 1 1 414.-1-4(;4--- AA, 2 1;. 1 1, E- -t--21 1 & -~~-_ ~ 1 Z 4 2 mliti]Obba 119-'~ 1 -" Lit-jf~~Â°[413 .64 f*=Â·i ffEI -8 ' L.Â£z_=h ~ 4 -2-I ~ rn <>(. 'i .'751 n n Fl lt '31 " O t ./ Oil / , 'ickl 1.10 111 j 11*y . A . - 1 Vl 1\\ / 3/ / - 1 2-,J [1) 4 w- \\ 0 10,1.0 1.1 \ i 14/ 83 77! DUILINNi. i --' #49448 9-9-1 j 1 /6 r Â« 1 1 MI Ail)Â¥65 -1/11*Nul --- 13 y iir \ 6 ...0.... 1 \ i PU.1 3 Â¢ 5=f~1= =====. J HiniILS 0GVM0100 'N ids Â¥ 11.U KI.N > - 1// 1 li j IN/ & RlkÂ»IN#1 ARRI(,C)NI r -rt-D==-1 i l / lill -- lit=Al 1 it t'l:N I bit --0.... J 1 i l J 1 - 1.-1.- lilli 1111 f (/ 11 /17 '\3624 - \ ~ l/ /1Â©-/ \3\3\ \ j j ira 20*ly \94 f O * / >2254,-Â¢ 0.~3~, lib'll 4 les N \ ' 21/611 â€¢ i ./ 4 \ \\\riitil 1, 9 1 t-(. )3 ---#4 ,Â· 1 43-. li\~A, < 1 9:04 \14///(2 M . 0 .0 1 \\44 /0 / .rt /, rs \ \\\\\ A 0 -1 . 1 tb ~\u~ju~ 43 j .% .Pit. \ 21 / -- --- 0/2/9 61\\\\4 - Z / 0. 1 43/8\9 434 / . =;--ri -3- -. \~\ 3 . / '11 POUL b \\\\\\\ \J ~<~ - b -1 . i \12 1 \*21 -42-1- -- j /0 4 \\\\\1 /4 3 \\\\ \- / / 4i i. -IC---_- n -re e \ il-( 4 29't 4 " t\\\\ L % , 4 ) 4Itfir--toâ‚¬k\ - tj \ \ L t__6 0 h M EA DUIS ~74>Â»f_f-fti>t>ix 0 WilaNO j 1 1 554917 42---i>77>i 1-Ph -,~â€ž --,% ,â€ž_... - A vi V\,~ \ 1 4 /1 - FLOOR n AN, , )01' TiX~- 1\ \*\114#2252*- , 1 , v I A \Â«1\34\ \4\ N CON * /UNÂ« 14 4 /Th ... 74-6_ HiniILSNI NadSV 11.\t hi' N 13 43 Â£ --I ---- AllitiC Â·C )NI 1 &Â·1Â« A IN< \ /1 1 Ii- 2% \ 92.- hâ‚¬Â« \ \ 0 -01 1--144\\ / - hth\\\\ 4 -7-- /< j --- 914 Ul 1 -1 ~(0 4% \ . 0-632/1---C, uÂ» ti X D 5 , 11 11 h J , 1 104 k 04.\1). 7/ 1 \\ 1 .tki'*21#,1 / 1 4 t. .\\ iN \ 4. 'il <4.*,1,Â«; /4/*251 '39>~444 J& RAP*.1/ ,/ v 42< xÂ» .Jx>oÂ« \h r\ . l~ 7 \ h. \Â·41 /<1. . / . /:/. \4\. 110 z ff. \/ 4,1 Â« \ 0\044> E. 7 \\ 1 \ \11 \ Â»4\\ - 39Â£ tj A ' 1#4 46. . f -- 1 11\\ -~4...2416Yi~49 (i '29 :fi , Â·-/ 5" / 221 ' 1 -\433'~-4444. 1 7/7 4,2!~, 1 , - .1 u , ' \Â»2\ -th/ >43 -\24..2 ~2 4/ / W\0 7 A 4 -'' h \ 1 411 1 4\41 --- LU i i -z Â· 31 0 , rlf,9.1 (1. 1 /4 . 6% -b, 4 ); 6~ 379-~u - I % -i- -- \1 1 \5 - t Â£ A-f billl DINK. 4 t \ , A 0 1 ' \\ \24 /$ 0 ----\ --*.-I+. 1----.Ii / N _ - 5 A 3 1< - ---%- -- - C i : 4008.34 ___~~~LF,k% ~~*~ fro.~114~4- \ \ \\\14>f -- 1>~4.-,o>t ~f<f.1/~ .23 kftmJJT// 5. 4: \ 1 L < ,-*I yi~ ~ .Aul 1.~ St <J> \> .4-\ .. .. u.eâ€¢rÂ·t 1*blil,< ir :2~~''~~~ t.t~U~40 ~ L. t.*. 9 - - j Mi Al~Avb t\< 1 / 1 ..M . AN: 1': / 4 0 0 4 1 l /3// ....'ID 'Ill' .1 ./. 1 13 91 r\ -6//42==, t\, 4-1.:Bit, 7 :1 *#1 11UIL.DING 5 ....al l.Â¥ 4"1 C 4%1> 3 -, \ 21=t-=t- --, 5 OaÂ¥30100 'NidSÂ¥ \ 4\ N\ \. HAL hiN ARRN.(Al 1\\. \:\24 . 0\ \Â« & 10)*IN<. 1 b#-I~611 -â€ž- 7 \ 1 \\1 J '13Â»1\ Â« 4\4% 4 <3\\ \44Â«ox-- ill d \ 21 L Â» 0-2 -13. - -- --- I MNG 4 - --III- --2222-2-22 -31.--- ---- .-2<I>--_ 1,jr....3,/<1, '##*.-#.z-:#--,.-2 -32*--rl--_-_ 6*Fir :Â£.91Â«-- ba/~h tzi \4\1 7 - p 0 0 lhi P uy o 72, r-4 0 u~ 4.1~2- t-1 -51-91-rit, - 1.</Ipo-3 UP-r E ---41\ 11 - ~ .31 4-1 [[ ' -t--116 .11 f\W.-e 11 7 3 le fic\< 2 1 1, I it~*11-~1432.--1 1--1 Ef-i \/ .\ '%24 : 4. ~f>L.49 -2%*.~ 600\. / 1 4. \ , 15StjAP.Â·0 %44~,15..8.Mgo#P th 1 ...fli It I flht-n, [1_.ilifitt ~ 141Â£1â€¢Om IL ~\.I N N# \ 1.\ r 2 1 %W~ NI'..,.'-%B.re,Â·8 4 4v> 8--rm~1,FÂ·f ' Il'Pl,170,=-f 1-19 f~~.11 j'ilf-~--F r \ \1, - ' j hi-rÂ«- - -1 \ Â£ 9 Â»S\:4 ox IF T/ Z E ~A f Â»hv- ' ~~~~~1:1 -nur:tr[_f \--FE 12Â¤ 11[-9 + \4\\\1-// // /7- 1 rE..3.1 [-111 .... *LA\ly'/ - E lili "2,41 .lu.<- \ \ C / 4 3 141, 9~~ "'TJ~tÂ», R L[ 317-0 1--Â·11- 36 1 '-'21-4 Â· 'j ''1111 1-11[ BUU DINO 3 *FF-la ~.0,.ET - ,739. *' JEÂ¥* ~(Ti- - .je=r -1**c - JETTil a. L I i.i a d M Pl mil 1 l bil 11/1 01 p' r - ~ 1 l J 1 r -k.Â·ru~J.1 .\ \1 ::. - ~li '.11 i 1.. < r-'1 ur r / 4 / 1 . 5/ - 90 - 11Â«0#* \\ 40/ 24- \ , / 5 1 l. - \ /11 Mt All P.VI 1 c . 1 tr-)&#1.4.7454 - . . 1*j/Unlt>'-27 -- . i L...4 n A. L.L. ...'..'....1.- FLOO' FLAMh *iia al L'a/â€¢-1100 â€¢Ii,-1*=D All--01.AL,D~Carr . .-I 1-qi . I (-,7/ Y.V-h N 4. 1 . . ... -0 .. ./ 0 . - h. 7/ 6 fli Ii Â¥M0100 '4 3 d 11.Al 'hi N AKIll(.C)Nl hi B 'Vi INC . - -- -- 4,4 -TILI-Â»9441Â«441 22 -2262-23 6Â» --2-- -2 --2- - -AX ---- 0Â©Â«0134ike 222 4-- 10Â«49Â«totÂ»-__ D -2-q. ccentÂ»Â»62-*b- - 4 2-\5: C f 1\ 0-1-1 0. 1- .1.n>Flly f Â©1 -ii; 1*-1 EK- 1.11 <fy 130 -: - 1-1 9 0% 4 f 1 14 403 8<4-4 -- ri iltil n-qfref t' 1 1 ~ \ \ --46-4~f~-&41 t L ---.L, Ilt, 1Lt_Ji 16 '~il?~Il/t-filll Â£-7-4\ql \ 1\ \ ---m -- 4 -*.%-2----k.DKEEIa h \, 11, 1 71*.t.*..Â·- 2.3 1 1 l.-~Â·ti~~~ ,1 4' ~fr Fe 9 H ~-1 dy*f1 Ftil \ -;i~~1~ U Whfry -drn./. 12Â»211 0/8 *J4ptir 14~1 Eli--11~ i----- 1*Jit DINt, 6 ~ Â« 10' 1%Â·?-- -- .t 1194-~1 FFIC/1 i MR -in <j't , rry'* 19 ear -1 U 1 2 / 1 / v. en. ca i ,Â·.- ill ~0 =*9111/249%#pr A * a 1 - 84 311 IMNG 7 , PL/&.< <~-~~~~~ ~ff < 7L -,- wl--------T 1 P) i l., Off-1 -- UNUtte.0141 rA,lk C .. . . 261 . MI '1*AVS f Â»Ull.DING 7 ~â€ž~,; 1,11* D~ t-. mu~~ m.,M A~IlL.eÂ»11~4~ ~*A~~F~~Aâ€¢â€¢D*t*Fr~Ii ~CCIhi ~ h (fij - - 11\4> 11 ........ 1... 1 \-\ (b - 7 i - 1-4-~ --1 Â· 1.Il.SNI NldSV OG MO1O NadSÂ¥ 8 -- ---- --1*WINATTFT..EVIr=z'>Nililfiiii Â® --- - - 1-- ---- ---- i*invil-11 lill*K Z 'ihirllifirr ~'17 131 - fie.nd 3'1 46â€¢I '1 -- 1548 - -- ~ M U_ C] 11 9 W KA- 90 f 66:71 -12 B -2. 11. 13, 11.1 1 1 J Â¥ 1 f'Â»11(1 11' .1 , 4 1 .4- 66*4=. 66....U-2 9Â£1 â‚¬41/1/ 1,9 J (.2-4/ j --- NEHIVA-111 1.b-TI -7 riNIâ‚¬1117Wf- (i~ ------=---- Rintiâ‚¬Tll HI-HORI r t,Nkl Iltif~~~~~~ 9 91/09' f 7 1 fr gy-5 . 41 ' F l ' 1 f ott r i_? 111 7 41 1 L U I U t 5 z *4#f 1 / 1 \ r 1 7 Nol.IVA'Ill .1-S V:1 -1 '111*i ijilfi <ET~ Not.1.vA'.11 I iii miciU -1 1Â»11â‚¬1 lififi ( O 2 Z r 0 fl 1 1 .wj -Â«~IMI g<j,W 6.2"LI 1-- F 3 962'-' 61'6"JI-vi r > -1 IZZL 0 0 F fâ‚¬j'' f 1 712 <3/ C % g-~ 126,661 _~1 4 --Hil _ LILL R 0- , 1 3 9 9 4 k--3 ( / 3/1 2 - Nal IVA-1 1 1 T<19* i fiNRi ;Infi (0 NiA fn Â¥iÂ·iiI iMDN -1 fiRilii iii }Ti (~ 1 ~--- - ~- TE F TT #44Â£1 W,0.,U,*JIF 1 1 , , Ar, 0 1.1 J1,0 19 1 4 -T ~ (D 1 26. -Â·4%4 2 N Â¥ til t.,J j.; fl t' :'' url ,# p, 11 'lric>J 'T b. 1, 1,6 11 .1. M 1 1 2 i I....2 /.1,1 . 1, '; 1 / 1, f ' :1'' ~ 7 'A rl'' / 1 IN I Â«t )>1 1 IN'f)''IMMV Nly )\ 11 E[lf-1 BAC KIN Akkit.()NI & 1Â« 'bs, IN( L --L-'ll 6 1 i 1 /1 H] - --- - 1 i id 1 l-1 2~I m 4 32 Ill 11 2 kt 4 11 H <1~11U11.DINK, 1 LAS'121.1.LYALILIN - _- {~plE.11_1&[Mli-2-higuill-11.1.VATION E- f h rt \ i L~-1./*It i i n ,/fl DM' j / 1,1 1 - 1 0 4 1 Eli ~~ Ill)11.1)ING 3- WlÂ·,St 11.F.VATION ___ 113 ill Jit.i}iNG 1 SOUTH 1Â·11.VATION ~ U 2.Vif Z f~- Â«-i A~k, 4,3,;/,1'b. , . 2.1 61 011/8 1 j .1 '. ft..C - -- . 41 (~Ulill.DINI, 4- St)Vill l:I LÂ¥811014 _- .-- - ~11UiLUINLil LASI LLLYA[leN ~I\. - f. i C-h f Mt All'%/5 1 ".Aile-11- INJ -H DI'lull, 1-1 ~111.ULULNG 4- NOR'l 11 1.1 1.VAI 1014 ___. ~Ull.DiNG 1 *Lil' Li.LÂ¥&Ileti .- - _ 9 ISNI HdSV OaÂ¥40100 'N 3 d S Â¥ 13.W k Ir N ' ARK]1,()MIl & 14 )35. I Nt 5Â«4 : 4 t' f~r~Â¤1 1- 'PN'rl L] 1&1 rir i. 0/1- &9 . Â£2,INJII!)ING 5Â·9)(31111 ItÂ·VAII[iN .--- --- -- (21)Blill~~Nob 44Â§1' 1-1-1Â·Yal'!11& - f/\.dj .2 1 -3 1 r,11 *flrl I r, 0 4 1 A Ith'6* 11 Bljll DINC, 5 - NORI1 1 1Â·1 1 VAI ION C E>Bil' 18(!b 5 Y/!-27 U.LYAI !911 - , 1 I t ki 1 1 1. t.~ ~ ~,,~~ L,L.1 1.LAnt *p#* B'~rETMI'l ~ . < < , I~lt â€žâ€ž - 7 11. 8,4-~21 U!11 8 â€¢â€¢â€¢ A- ~I 'TRa" 1 JY,-1- rll.Cr~frrn.t,â‚¬ LI~f 2 -i r, -i El L CU IM Ul Dll*, 6 - MAJill i:l EVATION E-14 - < El 11.11 ~~ <y ) !2111 DINg 6 - Cq,tl 11 1 11Â·VAL ION 11Â· U- .1 'IM *I 1 1 1 FLI M 110 LMNI, .1 jaa -~- Iii :&2Â£&_.- - -2 -1- Efl LiÂ·j ' 1 1 ./1/IN' (i)18:111!)!Nfib Ah! 11-!YA!!()14 /3-) BLJit[)11*, 6 - Wl ST' El.EVAI ION U 10 iII.L71ILSN OGVH0101 NidSÂ¥ tI 1/011./. 11 Â£ ON,rn,rl" t'. I]VI M NOLIVA-1 19 j.iÂ·IM i (*jitt iihift- (0~- -Nn[IVATiti .Avi-Z filid jitiff- - GO '<_-4/1 -v 1 9 m -61 -Â· m m 1-J 1-1 9 - rl 9 9 m m L J -- NCM.IVA i ji 111.WiRT Â£ fÂ»lid linft- \7~ = -f[ iT 'Il. - /// =I, Ill, i ' Ntt *!"11 1 U 11 ---14.... 11./0. , -_1 L_J ARii.19'Af 1.14 17.1 flig -1 DARi li lili ~A.~ Wriffiltilailt, i uNNISIIal:l~Bra - 4 -7-= }NI Â»,( Â»1 -R 11*r)!MHV N Â·IN. )Â¥11 HIALILSNI NadSV OGÂ¥*0100 N3dSV -4-44 1 21 3, i' ' 1 1 / 2-0.,\ Uk~ ) i Â£, - f &249 b):4-* 1 /Â· 11 7 1 /1 -- NVU Kin-1/ , 1 1 ..1 ..... All-11--1 \ i iÂ»4;1 MlÂ·14, ) Â¥ \-2 . 7:12 1Â£:v : i J ' 1 Acr--- -frÂ»-4( .34/ INV HITVI< IH ' ll /1 v 1. 9, 3 7 Â·,a \ 3 . 2(2* ~\.UncÂ»'f.-9 1 / / // \ 4- .k / ffli << rMI-/ I t i,wl rÂ»,11,1. 1 ' 0Â·4 ic#/fl L_T-~~- -4-41tj _- gi-?_--)j~~~~~ 41 8124 ..1.1 Â·-11'7 ' C' L-144>*44~/~9 rjl-,k -â€¢ Pvll t'~.' LjIL- 4]k /gQÂ£J7~f -'*I'\ 1 <7 - -- - ...1--3 c W 1111 ti ll ll- Â·d,Vt. 29. r.,1 Â·11.1 A- f w ---- 'UL Â·Â»M Â·.1 1 1 -11- 1/1 Ip 1 I --1 / l. '-,- - 1 1 'f-t: /,1 jut-4 9 \ 7 1 IUV. ' 1/'.p j jy hAf r 1 7 , 1,1411:11' 1 -/7-6,6---2.-7-.~ 11 (71 r,n *f'#,~~.942,44-- 11.i Â»41~ m ...f., ''~ / '/,v....t 'll.il. I It 9'y" ..7. I- .' -~ 1 -r-"Ij ..4 -J ImT- f-- i 4 - 1 -1131 FO; F Ak i O - rl. qi 61 n.,w, i 36: , 2* FFÂ¥:Ofic - v -, 0 1 , -...... 1 , ,~ tltÂ· U 1 h .1 'A*- ----- N \ C 7-- ----r,_--~ 0 ...., 1 i Y.~4 2 m I ! 1 , 3 41 11 lill-111[11 1111 'w ..,1, . 1:lil,01 643\ 1 '4~ 0 ..1.' . 14=7"N ,-121 4 - fl . oxt/3-21 :rj#222 /-â‚¬03- - .7 - 9 -72- 1] 1 l. -7-- ---- Â¢ LI' 1 ,---r-- J }N I Â«OM 7 INC):)111HV N IN )Vil HitliIISM It.-U AHN ARK lt,ON I & la )\S, i N< 11 ....... 11 1.11.1.-'.1.. E-- 4, 1 11..'.,1- 1 3/2 n 1 r-1 "1' liu 1,1- 11-11 -- --Ill (/l H . unâ€¢â€¢4 ./4 .1, "Er= 5 ALL Z la) . I I -4 ..1. 1 ... 6.11 Alk ,# M i SIAA)MAN I a <UNFI.M ENCI FIL ILI TÂ¥ IMEAIL.1 Fluu* n /,4 b.-1 r NO .-* 13 HifliIi NidSV OGÂ¥10100 f 3 d S Â¥ 11,Â·f Id N A R K Ii,( )N I & la)*INC. 0/3 0 43 00< f I< /1 1 ( A r Â£ F .â€¢w â€¢i-uâ€¢.,u,â€¢i. -v., - 1/#4 ( Ill 01 * r % r '\ 2 f. 7--T--- r. h r-1 1-LI , 1 Â· 1 T- 1- -1. ~r. /..1 fi 11 -,i -4-Â· _.- _ _K:Jtt7042(L Â·LI_.*ull:Â» ~ *1111)31'Wkilitiulty.6:41:,JEJEC'jill#j#1 5 /- (3 1,- -ti]TRi-IL O,7 1 .r- .~~ '4-/--'i.nftlk,fit ZOE'B - h 7,----G.-1=Â£24'Wl,Arf.2,~ Lkl b,IÂ· ' / 'c r. 11 1 . 1/ . 0 1 4. f 11- {--102 ... L.1.1,08 14"41.U â€ž11. . 211 J XI ,/ '' L -L 11,1 1(M;l,Wj"f J'Mbar.FuLV 1.4 --- ' M 5- ill f i[-J_ f,Zk 13*42 - fybijilltt*-,7,20% 241] It Â·' it 11 i. PE - r. fry YAV--1. <&11.11. 11-~111 - . b.'1" 111.VIi 1.N 04 --L L r ' 1/,3 -h E 4-' I 5 2 1 2 47 04 - 1 2%> di . 7 7 1 LLI , Co / - 41 4 Â· 1 r, I T ./ --rh f 6 < 1 1 11 . .. MI Alk)*3 LAS[ Ill.VAI IHN MEST/,HANI Aa,4,1-MENCk FNLIUI Â¥ 14 HiniILSN 00Â¥30100 'N3dSV 11 \4 Al N \KI<11,1)NI 1 111 ra 1 Al - ..1 0 - ' 5.ZI? P 1 491 'Â· FL 1.1/4, - 7 1 . - - N - .lt..9 -- 1 0 . I JIT - -% U 1 -# Th. f '.0,4:2l,--~1-- 1 h. 4 -9 b ... . : : i .. 1-|' J Y . i i i , , Â«.ir 1<KAV'>~ -A/Â» -" ~ I' . '.I ).-j , ..P. U , â€¢ , \ ' ' D h br 4. 1 11 ' 1 L fr \ 1- | EXIbTllÂ«i klit luÂ·1118 lu*.*1 - 11 ' 5~11 Â·--6~ ~, ....n L , #/4.,7 - - I'l '11'e.. 1. r U L.tr.414 44 -9.hy;- NIM /)fllitlit) r r /11 4993 h b -rt 111 ~t 111 ' 1 "1, lp.Â·0 -f L,lÂ¥, f (/) .1, I 13 J \ 1 W ./Â»VÂ«Â«/N,V/~~th . 011 1 17 . . .1, h . - f '1 - . * 1.â€žt D 4% /, 1144-1 :Ji~52â‚¬MtÂ®Â»i ' i.-4 - 4 1Â£32 - 4.-v.L Z U :4674..1] , 1 1 , 0 ' i-Â· 0.1 11 E* 11 I trâ€¢lo HEALTH CLUI - \ - * 1.~4, .1 4 1 . r /1 L./ Â·4 43 4,1 r.*4 1 L. r., .â€ž,10.1 - ly 1 5.3~.3 . 11 1 14 -- Lf f n. 1:p 'Â· IA.,A.,5.41-tb ' - 1 4 I 1 L ,~ k i k P..... 1 .\'1 *- UU. --r-- .1/-'*i - 'lilli L LU 1 , It, ,-l '.r 1 1 i Â¥J"iL.$ .t MI l l H /1 IN I r / / 14 L LCUL' a. d N M .7 1 ,~ --- 1 tiL] 11 1 :f. / 4]. 41. 2- 4 ju-r'.,1.24 01,1.1, ''.,r ' V' U-Â·-Â£2.;401 -Â¥ 1 ' rjji.4119R;~P**41[, 1 . k, f i) I i. i /. I#/ iâ€¢ w<, -~ â€¢44 -pi 4*J,1 3.16 <flf;,7 1 1 fi,.4 K 151"111 111 Al 1 11 4 1 l,Ii :=. f'G 41)7 : 36 <trt iltâ€¢ i Â· / M w 'lilill â€¢ INI'l Â· 7 'i Â· t'G Al -- --~SKIQ '4 13% i>Z~~E(i~~ A 1? < kul i.:44 .., te /1 - 14 9,1.),1 1, 1 . b .4 1 .1 . 6 4503 ' .42,21-1-K'r,f, ..itti' >-' ''ri. U 'r. %11 7 1., I 11 / , 7 .. /' 21.2 , lili : t* 34 .. 1, , ). . . o 4/ 1...., ---3 6-Â«-61 '.*61 --r MI 'IMA,% --- I 1 1 -3 Â· N Â·- --~-- -- 11'All,1(IVIS . 1 ---I '1\ 1,\ '... I. It VII Il I N -Â·4- ..,v* ,....., '.. / 9 L- i OCI VME)10 V/diV BA( KIA ARIÂ·th.(}NI & 14 'hh 1Ne -1 E. .TTE-n | Ir U-"1-T U FIN - Fi l l U TE13-17 t I . 1 . 1 DUR'.i, Itâ€¢ V loull I~*I . FARKIN,li~..AR.,1 1- -/11 1_1_1_11__1-0_1_1__2_] I _0_1_ 1-1-=L--l-[lf ----- 1 91 --i --- 0 r MI Al 14 -I PARkl. i OAK 4 + 1 1 NN 15 li* J K I b i.lt.11Â¥/1 .... N + 1-1 . ...........4 16 C.=t=f-Li=Â£;61 1 ... U E[lfl NadSV OUNMO-ZOJ *idSÂ¥ 11\4 hi N ARK H k 'NI & 1Â« 1.Â» INC. 1 i J 4 / LEI 1 ~ 1 111 1 E- 1 / C All ./1 .... / 1 1.1 1 / '11/ /- I j , ~7---.-I--.-i--il- 1 - / * C.. I 3 - ~--- ; ,4ll~, f & 4 af j \A\ ~, ~~f~ P.Â·4 â€¢â€¢~49 , 4, t,2 -4 ~~~~.7Y-.-~.-i~7LtVI 3 1~ <41 ?rr - 4, . T -7- 7. . Im, 7 r 1 k , ./ . 1 1. - / 1 1 \ \ 1 / Al \ t . I 1 ..1 - 0 ~(tâ‚¬ 21 u I f + 1 ) DRD ) ~/lj f-I- f,Â·- ~3 -1.7 ,- . I j Ll,5 I.-h 1 4 i . 06\ VU 11 t! 1 6.:3 161.t.. . t - . 3 10'S \ 2 11% 1 14 1- 1 1 j 1 12 - 19 + 1 1 'P ..141 f !2 i i At ET] L.t. L 1 1 / 1 L) t i \ i 1 9 - '\ 1 , I.' j I 1' 1 I. . 1 - . 0 4Â· 10-4.0 95:11 x.....'~f i LIE---94-1-%27=1 7 -- /1 C , -1 (- <~fÂ»ofur f '3 / 1 / 1 < 1 1 1 /\\\ 1 . U j ' j , MI liMn.th 1 j IriKki NK i ./. 4.1 / 1 IN liblt MJ' 1 1Â·rn...11 .Arâ€¢ N C ~ -~ 17 ....1 & i J -11 - - : ill[1 dSV (34!VM 01 0 ) 437 IIACK+ N AH 111(.()NI & 1Â« PA INC ,/l fli r ; [--- 1 ---1.- 1 --1-- -1- -T-LU 1-1 1- 1 7- -_-1 214__ 1 1 L 1 -- 11 h n 14 48 x-- 1//1 111//11.I 44.-;9 UlÂ«4 -*f ' 0-A#d 12/2241 .9--+1 i : ,i m i" i --- -1 -6--1 ri~~lf 13.4 ...111 111.'11... .1 lilli 1 /.11 CA c r ' Z 1,1,1 I i,I)2'' 4f+-----4-'~'~~1-Cf-fi4A jiÂ·-Â·-7.---ALLI-- - ---- .- L. k I UdiÂ¥ Â· --ILLiâ‚¬lk T--T-T--T~ - H 4 J L 11 1 11 _. 1/--J .1.1 111./11.N UA 1 V .,91 f 4 / 4 - 1 '.1 L I {1(-1//,L/ D / 4 , 9 4.4 4 1) (j MI All â€¢*,S PARKINO WHAGE I. Ir'll , -*j ~ z - 4Â®t[ 1 *-1-[iI IltmI. U pb.1 26'-- - '1. u 1 (11 -... 2:6.1,;.iC , 'â€¢61j~111.!IUY, jill w ' :11'141 I-1Â©,2- 04Â·-14 .D . 4 i.:ad. ' I .'' '10/% k wx,10 :rnff,1 gÂ·vÂ», r -Â·:I---f-11 1 3* 0.-W' "1Â·VAI/'N. /1.1 .11//110/ 18 : 31A1I1SNI 3dSV i; OGVM0103 NadSÂ¥ 2-t -2 4 - ---*.:r _0*ta-- ---r " . . I. ... ' .4X I. 1 21. 4,11.~.t, 9,h . ./1.4 IPA Â· 4 0 e A ' I - 1 - 1 ~-: j 1/4 &12jiâ€¢/%*2*,/:r"/.9..~M~ERB-/4... - -= -779 â‚¬31%. _ f Â«,E ~421,#1,~(WEEZE*ikt.,~U,En,1â€ž,~,~,~~~~~~~I~j~:,6,~D~I~'ti0#'*RR*.,71.lted<1 ivt, 2,7 4 ' 0,4 4. , =,4-r u~PPÂ¥:" q~~-~*41Â» --~~~--~~---~ 0~ B , U., ' 'ht y. 4, 1 . 1 7 , 1/,5 7 f< ,$ pt * .0--*,Al,51 n- , . 3,4. . '' i .,~911~54,2-27,0..2*28 7,9/1 , 4 - ?55: ----2~Tiv 1 7 640 -' 40 316,~ -4/0 i ' 1,01 -= r. / . 4 .1,6 AL #fill E~:t: 4'' 9 .\ Architectural Drawings for the Music Associates Facilities 1- 072-4722---Â·rÂ» 40&Â«>-. 24Â»%*Bhb _.#Sti..':1 ~. *:43-33-3: 7,/n@â‚¬4%.-- **F:~4.P 4 4-9244*~ I ,-~4244 f â‚¬ Ob $ r.f-'.t , ...4. .Â·'Ill.Â·1) .,4 -74.4 7. 324 2.:.r) 423*47%'4--2-4:Â· '~1746 1" ' ' 1 4 ,/47 1 13, r . 9 1 . f - 9 1, . 'f, - Â· .- 841 r.fTLyVv ... 1 -r-er. .er~~'dE-Â·.,Â·c~ I- , 4.4 43.; 07: -'.4.I :ID,.. I .-~- i.yr,C~...4 0/ '.I ./ --i %Â· â€¢ 4 - - , 35 711 1, 4/6 7 ' - i . 0.923:1 i?~:IÂ·72..... 1 3= h r - . Â· f i 3 3 '-' ..V ~ .4 7~'.4 /-41., . ati -'- ./ - L[~~-pÂ·(~-l 1.1-1~(ji.04--:;:~Â·~-f'~4-1., ->.-.i--,te-~~~t, e.-â‚¬Â£-~ ' 4 ~Ive-",9.A'*fr,IN*.nit....1.,4 1 4. 1.6.. .0'4-1 ..1 ' 1 1.24-t J...93Â·.2-7&1Ee(,f - 4 -'-te'51,v1-5 -*. .... 11 -2'- 4..,5 169Â· r , (1, p. ,UL._'41*.d' -I X-1,.1....I- 7,0.24/hi,4...=-6 C .5/ 2 2,=rÂ£4~r.-, - . -O,}35,M.. n 14 , .1 .40 7 I.I./..1- I . Ij/- 16;,rB... I --1- ... IN rZ>4:27=.t,-4..u. Â· : - -4122- - r . ... 7- Â·-- - . 1--- 0.~ ZE'523;2Cy.1...... 32 . -7 - - - -- .Da ' . 44 .-p,2.4.-9, 1 1 - h i 1.3 13=CS k r.. m 3/ I- *.L. ) -/ / /./ -,-av#*R.Â·.r-1.'.LA 7Â·ii...///Â»r:- ..4-' â‚¬ 0 M. Kil#/4/4,<.4, 60 t=frt n:r ... ~.. ' ' , ~91*42/Fills#.trik 1/5 -. - * ..r r. : - -. -'- .) -,7Ahl,2.-/ - V/6=&.i.~.74.IF/A.rat - -1 Â· I :- :2 422.-424 'N'.- . 7//4b/-# -a,52Â·9:4'1-0 2-'Â·i. 2 -.4Ve .1# '51'.... - 1'.7,7,5/0~_~ '-rD~~Ct,L'*t'; - - , . 1,=L - '. I. E .- 2 Y' - 44- 7 /7 1- =79 4-441 . - 3'41.-0-f,K .. 4 -- .. . - - r--1 /T , r - -V.i - - :LE.' fiffets /4.-_ .-44594.#*04- - - ... 4 - -:k =A-.-f:5 *#2-'2-*#f) 1,7 t-'~46.--Â·Â· ...,CÂ¥*r-r~~~ .~.~ 7,-~e--746>90_,1 ~~<,4 .,1 . Â· ./--/ ~ * - 3 -2.-fl... 1-...= ..7 '7-1-3-f i- :e ~ -i --,i..~:33%Y:~~~Â¢iL.*- :r:'. ~ . 1~h , / 79&94. i. 1, li r f 3-CL : - - V...2 --,u- ... 5-jin: Â·Nâ‚¬21.;4?k~vll..,i~ilo, 1 1 .t-: ?1 1/ ~ 2---: 71.3.--1.414 9=- 16- )11<.2. p/t?-4)WA*633~I:- - Â· -1-7)4.. , ....Â« 16'k\*t:[ ./.,3--iÂ·r 924'r.:2;.- l)--<: Â·Â·-7'.. -1:4 &4,7%/Â£301-- 67_ 31/---, -Â· Â·-at'lÂ»/,2, ....,--'Â·-- * .Fa 3 1: t.,Â·.- X.1-(:trt.IrcUL,Â·-*.fl'~. / il -=-1-- 774Â·-â€¢ / 2--. Â· .C'I Â£ ) L -4<â€¢--,C,)30: .t:#-61-t caÂ·Â·-4----01.- f.2- ..2/.4-1 ~-Â«6;.4.- - 42*22-14, I..=j~1~ iÂ·-~--tYU:94-I~Y~~~.'I ---2*...},3 *i ;. - 1 .s- Fle- 4 4, . i .. 91 - . , t- 2' , I . 1. f.2 91 2 1*4 -*=4.2 I- I -' ff - #ht / a.v .- .~~.4.1 â€žr~h r.Â·Â·Â·- L, ...., 4,/- rke<Jek i .1. 1feg.: ~ -*e. < *437- . - W . =1*. '74#Jr Â· r =20 Â«9*40 ..., =<72 0 . '' * 1.-- r P -- 1>.~ . .. --7..4 Â·69.)- .- . 124,2.~ . -- - 01Â» -i@;-L#:9.,TRE~JP#~1419(ClÂ·-47: *7.- 1. .-rÂ¢ R< 1>to + . 6,5/0 ~--7-5- t. ,y,M .,Â· u urf.r--;7*ikpING.~.f.-3~ 9.....- . .... .. -V * M .'.--- - -- - ./ . . .'-- 0 .-1 ./ -- 7 - --/ff_~L~â€ž 092*4~- 'U 0 1.- 10 -1. / - J r 3 1> i, . ...V,-1 -'DY- L.Le 1 2 '.- 2 43 -7- 793- V' 4 ' vt-/ -I - -- '*t ,-J, - 1-/9 1 -.--I -~4 ~-1-1.-Â·r--- -- . ... 1/1. e.1 IMIL .l rriÂ· *f-*f <- Af 4 OI~jii, .- ~ -7, --.. 1 J WÂ· h.' i â€¢ i i r W .4 . . - , -r,4 I Â· â€¢.- %.i'Jf -4. ' 1\Â«23.- . V ALI, . .E l v , , 1 , w.*.- ..1,4 i 0-3 8.- ..... 'j,1 ) 16{,4-41:tin 2 -1131Â« - ' b . $ 1 1><:22-'- - I'â‚¬*Â·â€¢25 /// //l , %1 i --Â»: 4?r C:. - .,70.--- A -1 / -4 - -4 1 + I < -- 111 2 'f ''1 ..., V Â·..' 1, 4 4. . 41 1 4, 1 \ / A % L 1 C , # f 1% , _.r --zf - h 1 0-- ' *I ' 33) 1 - ./7 -/rup--2 - _~ r ,4. 1 ' , ' /,14.irsfi...D-1---6 (------$- Â·-- - 5 i -- . .113 . I. detrir. -,--0 1 -' 2 - a. 1Â· 1 4\: i t< < ]EL u f , . -%.... f - -- 1 '0.- I 4 1 - 1'-0 -- \ C *l j. . 4 4-- , .l 6.1. '.1 I Â£_. L L 4--- 1 1 1 1 L - 81,4 4 + 6 e.-41 4 -ru T- LH, 1.â‚¬-tu.--- 4 11 (0 ~- --- -Cot. +1~_ â‚¬..4-â€¢- 7-â‚¬_~- c__<_ /2 -9 - 9 3 . 0 I ... 1 ..... Â®948â€¢-,1 1 :1 -4.I ... . 11 . . ./ 0.. 11 . .. I. 4 0 *0.,D Â® e 4. a , 1 1 e 0- 04 .. ..5 0 . I. \ * ./4 13. /. AG 4RD TRDIP @1 F FIERT# -a-1 Gl<Al,lE 1 V:- 43~,4 Mfff-7- \2\ . . .4. b.su.-r 1 1 1 1 ' - , - I SDIÂ· 7, /JAMN#1)46Ulg-#Vu H -- - - Â«27 Q 0*.m?(, I /4 f ' i ~h--1 f rv -r. - 8 -Â»+Au -D nh r. 2 1 I' : .. , 4Â£/tk.*4,ti- , .... 6- . 2 / p . - . .:. B I Kin I , . .. . .A' i, - I , 4 / I k.- ' I i ' 'f'. r ' ' , I / t . , - I I f - , P L _.il_N_ E1 1Â¥7/J-~1 SILA'1'ING= 2 X STACIE ~ S E ill'1'ING STAG E li #NE LEVEZ 4.- Al'HOX. 24' 11!El,OWGRADE -. 1 1 _LL__3 Ill J ' 1 . 90 -- 6 S IT 1'11 0 IrT 1,1,21)-1. 13 '7 124 LN , (INE liELOW (11Â£11)11 ONE AT GRADE U f\4 rilLy 3- 5,#.r Ear ./ It.11. VOLUME.: 45% 111101Â¥ N&'191JitAL GRADE 110% 1]ELOW GRADE ' 90 902=J CD + 13 4) 4.3 Â£ 9 .-' Rvic.t,JT- 1 uz__~1- 1 9Â»90Â·f Upt:At,213iet/44<..A :MAP.9Â«4.44(ir.5.0k, 67422,4*71 1Â·y<-:iÂ·'7.-0,; 2 Â¥1 = <2 21,4./ .Jr, ./3, . â‚¬ /1-1 i - t fi L 0 f/*34*.9424- .tr ... * ., < 't,It- 01 kittirÂ· M 451...,i.r.- Â· 4 . . 4.: ..4 18 4. " ~ ~ .. #h Id'. * 2 2 74+PÂ·i . ,Â¢ F \,Of., May, 1 1751â„¢15351/M/73891 //, 4 , . .1, 4 . I I , , , I . 2 'A + ' 9 R ' I. , . 1 . I '. . ' , t, t ' /* ' SEâ‚¬ T ION 11 S IT IN (4 250 0 350 000 Â£1 GRA RE +...oue=*-i <*~ &0127 1 204/6/ n- 9 jzo'/rfi,~/ :~34.f,'iv /"9444*Lk 1? t... .46 91;1Â£ %" /2 ; t;*i#IN/t 4*I**~412<*~Fif~i: 4.1 451, , 14Ee..7 * : r.0' 214:<Z 4.-Â· 4 I J'Â· d.2'- - ..1 / . Â£ aigh/,--- Â·Â· - . Â·g~-~,ir.-.'--2 i i 1 , ive.UL (,114.-fet .4, 2#37.'.,2y,: :M. ..'.~. idZ.ali': ,-lx~i.LÂ·,\Jit ft;f->3*,~ p., . -7, 2,-Â¢ A 00''A*â€¢*4*0<v?,7 1 4.42 .gr.Â·.- Â·:.4, -j-: . c:ittÂ»is' KE~K .N/fLD 44:aft iv~~rk<.12 *: - .- * b 6.ij*5,~:~~~ 4 2ft'Â·*97. 4 9 ' 1. 2%.' . ./, :-.re er Â£ i.m' A..p- &9(W'MT<brk'OV AAC#MA:30 h.pit .r , . 1 -- . . ... 1 1 p a,29:A-,2're~.31 -49.4, 4 >1"81 \ it - -#. .f .1-*,t . .Drh... Ip-:ri.41,97,-I. lt.Â·~r F . 1 4 ./Â·d .1 I :. Â¥ 4 . U..... 4,3.'..f:41:t..lit*Ji~f.11;~i:~,A31:7*'.~F. ~4~~ ~~~ ..i. i ~44:-~lice:.....,i- '..7,Â£.,4 Tr*12'~ B.~*A,J,,2~.v,-~~t~<7. : . , t.r,j.,(.t t' . f r , .,VI : 1.4 J - &-if 2,~ ty# 41.: 1, Jr' . Â·40 / . , 54,1.: ,40&16:.Â·-1., r'.4 .,"e:' J :e. 4% -~~ *f, - 2-:~"6,~I.-~~.f+~;.~.~f.S~~4 ,,~ ,,:.4: ~'3&.:'6 4'Â·. f .Â« 6f--1~'.~/' .2{ i ' 1.. 44 i . SECTION i I . 'I ./Â· t r .1 3, 1 11 .6 4,4 k â€¢1 '' I 1 j. ff.37 'f' , './ *fit (44;6411}-.:; * , 7.1,1, 1 1.-- 1 . 4 'vjÂ£?fl ... ri P. It '14, "tritÂ·. '61...., 49 1- -1 3,?.,4.4* tiÂ·- ' ' 3 .. 1 . *40 Â· '61~15-1'AsÂ¢,4,9: l.:.t:*)91.1,42, 2 9,Rof ..' t. , *36, .Air.zy,:... p. Â·j:71.0$1bti~ *103:~,:,1.Â·:",, 0,*f 9Â¥Â·: Â·;1**-:#Ii.#4{.,je~.. Fi ' â‚¬ f~ th ..1 C - 1 , r . I. 4 f,u A P.F,1Â£~*'fll, ll i ]BÂ· . ./ <*Â·* 1 Â«.3 i .1 / 0 :r, itail*,41*<1 1 i etr-* illi* . r X,Lk.<,5~f'14#F .:" "= 11 â€¢ Â· d 44.64*4 4 - / 14â‚¬449 '' 1: 1 - --- 140 4 0 11.* 77 -' Â¥4? 7 40 - -1 1,#C , P| 4 6 I Itti# .1, 1, 1/ , A 1 ) 1 2, . / .fir 4 7 . 7 Ci l . .4 9 , 4 1. 0 4 '1 X , . I 9 7 / .V . I -/0 ./ V:.' ~ 3& .4 : I. *. 1. . .7... \ 4 1 I 10. 7%1 . 1..., r. a.1,1. - '.,1 1 .â€¢ew ... it . 0 / \ %031-1-1- - C \ 9 ./ I. lk*a-*JU,IL' 1JL i 42.81 6 .......P. Â£*41113"0 '. .* 1 ~ . 1 310, ' --~f . . I ./.- . 4411 p #44.11 . : Â» 1 ..~ 45, 2, A#23 1 9 - irl#"5/'' . I IT ~*, 14 t.*./ 4 Â· i â€¢ 1 *,1. d :*it '26:11. im'*Imr - ;i~ 4, .i ./. .:,4/ 'a - â€¢ ,â€¢, 4 , 974" 394.1- I 4 -4 . I '.'. -7-26 . 91=t ~ .f!8- '' ./1 1 Â¢ 9. ab, '4 . , 1,1 ,.4 liol ./ . 4.. wdra *.6 In,4.% 5 . , 'f . . . 4 Â¥Â»ii/+B Z . 1 1111 i , r Â· ..... ; 4 ':41 0 3 ,~s 9 ' I . ,) '.4 It . 14 . . . I. f. './ I .% ...., . /// 447,. I , . . 6:â€¢ k â€¢ â€ž12 :*,; 11,145Â»42 lIP. t., 1 1 0 3. 0 ' '2 -,1 .7 27\ - 44 4, . D .1. tâ€¢ i , 'a I. ... //) 1 1 .4 I 1 4," , .rÂ· V#/M: 1- 1 -1 . * ..01, '4 ; Â· 6.6. â€¢ 7 ., 4 9 . 0 1 L . ... " 4. '0 r w 'a 2,,. 4 ' 44 A *4 / Zi- - , . 4 , 4 ' 1 44, 0 . : 0 4, . r 1 ' 46 ' i 2. 1 10 4. 1 11% : 7 . 4 f .4 01'g .. M . 8 4 & i .1 1. 6 1 f, 4 D , 4 1. 1 . 0 . I . . r 4 4 ' 4 4 .. 1 4 /911.- *Ilt :JAMPHM)' Ar 4, #ap Al / 4/JINJ# 7/ cv ..+ A -FC- , 41"" 1 9 '' , '.'b 7% I//F= d't wkey-~%< 'Ii"r~' fr # 4Â£ .W) WS. f'.6 '. %% . ..t J. 6 , f ' 92*4+ Â·1Â· , ,/fÂ©~4.i. Â· fÂ« , 1 '~ ~ , rÂ«'4,0:7 4,Â· 1 I. .S k h :i; 1 4 ' . ..44 . L. .i. ~ , lwA fiti FÂ·Â·~~;49? ~~t,~ ~ 4 4 M. 4, .'AJ *. '~L Y>Li'~'l ': Iligg ..Â·j.;~~2; -~ , 9*Ma.Ams,9 ED.. :~':~1 1 4-4: 2 ~/ 41**Â· 1 , - ..* 34. '1 -frF/,4 T. :Â«. : ~. r Ntt 1 .1/.6//:6/.#-th:~'-ipf >j~,i fidÂ£;<6.~ C'. I . ..1 , 9 , .'Â«rd'/.2.2, f 112 'rf.# . 7' 'k #.WD'y ?,4 f :'': : 1 1 - 2-- A F/. , 9 90 /. I . WRAW. Vp 4 P ' 9 40 4. :.1 -t?ke,atar ' ~2 :,4Â·a::~~ , '2Â«10 - 4,5. :0*Pp 4-,2 .*., *0 jit,-p. *(44&*t X.; ha 'Id, 104*, 4 ftfi%4,Â· 4, ~ 'k P 4. ,/ Â· ~)1.- 2. ..,7 .81* 044. 1 t .*21 Â· 4~ ~ Â· .4 4 1 . Â£ 7: 46/ 41,-1. I. 4-,4Â·Â· ~ i z - 0-, 41â‚¬05& C 1 :1~ 1~ 4. c.,tÂ· i ,Â· : - 1*2 <filw' - *Al"# B.9/6/Wid//2 F * ' 1 u. 44- 0 '0-3-$1,4.9 . 414:~ .62: 83 - .: :t AL 0;43Â£01.41 I w--' ~ i .lt~: iÂ»*-. .4.t -. 3//Fs'1()1':S.,(fo.5~1 ~,~ 'A 4444/4 ' : tom'.' ' , Â».1. Aliit~ *4~t ~:/vi~# 4.*' :R t.Â·4* f. â‚¬:4 9 1 2114. 111 *1 ..a'. i 1 â€¢ , te*pr ;< I T 1- ..11. 1 % '.' ' Â·1421,â‚¬ , f , 1 .14 .. '4 .1 At!L 6 4,0,1%....? 4.%-- . t , 4 â€¢f 37. .. .1, 6* a . A. 4 .7 0 / 7. i,Â° 15..'3 f./. 1:03.3...,'..f 4 1 Â· .. , '.. 1, 1 ' 0 1 1 , *23 #*ti.- StÂ· :iÂ©.6 ~.~.~.1/.. 1 A iÂ»f-. ..fff.Â·Â·Â·t .b'..*te._ ~~~~Â»i -' f - ~:~f Â· a te=8. ..4# Ff 2/9~0 11.r- :-lit./*i<~~I.L.I Â·44*-Â· 3.#*.Ill:&:' *t.Â· ./. *, c:ikÂ»?Mt t.- fÂ·=~ ~Â·) 'W'-: -% ..i,r--3.. 1 -=Ayâ€¢A *rk, ,--- ..2 I *104/'.:. . t. J, Â· 13 -4., ru '' -Ii"*j.*:fr :4;; 4*~:. - **/4 ' - eaÂ· ./-' tmj'' * 34"is': $ e.b<q.s 6%;d~' . '9 ~ , *9~..' :46.,ti: â‚¬-/B<'' 41 ...k,Â· I " Wta~jillatÂ»Â· .~ .4 f < 2 Ne' 1 3,210 6 41/.'Â«17= .12... 1.......... I /*5 Ya /kNWA:,#pi *t. 3~Â· ... 2Â·rt 1 U 13344 %14'29%1041 . . /IMPqi--f ** f 'Fll~t~ 4 4 1~ r r f'. a - a:'t: - 5 ,* .i b : :. Â£ Â»7. r 1 44*kl A f< r .el . et.. i '. ': *.Li',0 'U >i. 1469.. u.Â·s ~ iMÂ·.' ./ 1 4 :?ArÂ·%-;1 -'Â·. .*r.:1 >'b./Mer,I 'll /4' 'AI~l ' *f ::St b ,#Ill /,t:Â·1 0 ....9 - 9,424 V 6.-Ar - 0 Â· 'fia .7 Â· Â¥, f 2 + f"1%: r lf,-31* I ./ , ' ~" 4 â‚¬ '3 'r Â· ~"r~ , Â· t. r.'/80*pi'Â· ' I ...: M '~ ..' 1 ' I,f .9, :'/ fÂ· . '~r~,~ * , .4 . b r'.1 a 6 ':Â·41' **' t v '+ 4.0 p ' I ' 4 I. , ' ..W' I . tÂ¢ .. I r .e. / 9 4 9, 1 'Ki L . 4. , 4'. '. i 1. 11: .1 6 . 1 1 9'+ I . I 1 4 f.. . . .. j "27. Ill-I---., /6 , 9 4 'a ~ t L / Fri N f 1 e -4 Â¥â€¢S . 6- 0. . 11*2 4 i '::. . I *.3 : I . 9%~ ' P %1.*r. " 11 . 00,1 . I. I 11,1. 4- , -41 - .= ~f le , litgs. . . 9 A 1. 499 4 4, , 1 : V * .. I. r. .1~A,- ' , 41 I. .92 Â©VAgf 4 >S 2 * AL I. 414*.I ..5 i' - Â£2 â‚¬ 1 2, D - . . r &/. ' 1 -4, . -â€¢31 ~:~ r" . 4/V/#Adagua-' 4, / ' * i - 4 4 '' Â·-9'mIF' i 1 '*.11 !464.111/Nt 3%*r:- -709: ' 're'.r . 39: I di + C~: -+4# 2,*1~&r'24, c '*7 4., 42 ~' ' 1%14 it 2 e: 4 ht y . a , I I '2 , m.Â£%6, t.'*22 " 2 'itki - . 4 Ar#* , 7 7 4 â€¢i I - , r . I 16 I 2--- , , .. 4 9 --.. - -/7/ ' '. . 43 . b 4 , ,.15 2 4 , , 6* 1 , .- I 4 ..140 . IV+Crl 4 .... ~ ~; ; 'f;*t . 14 *5 y, .-1~IL --9 , .46( 7, .6 , 3, ' t. A . e.' . Â·121=k . , '-7//Mil'.'.pu9 . , 1 1 '* '14.jsim3* ' . 49 , 4. 1 - .71.- t. , A-3. 994*I , I 41 - , . 4 64 . I ' ' . ISp, . 36 â€¢ 12' . 42 0 . k. . . 4 1%1 1 1... i 1 + 9 -9, ..e + . ' 4~ P~S :: ' 0,=f.+11.42~~ -a " 00 f . I. / / 4 /45 0 14'v . I 1 I fi 4%11 - -\-6 - - -- Lne--1 - 9//1 ri/.& C 4 9)Â¢ 4.{ ,-Â¢01/0 1 LDÂ¤Hrld'H ' 1.V ...1 11?.C60> 4 41/ - / 1 1 --- I- 21, 21 1 . - - N.*SE / <c~.f 1 1 1 1 1 9-44 P.!212'Har 1 f *9-43 1 0- i-; aft 13% G, --9 I lilli :di 2 22 --.-- Til----Rl C 42 - --j 6/32 4 1115 FLA N 0 10 (.O PL+RMI --- --- - ... 10 -, 1 - Af HOL]-PA-2--13 HL-(-039 R.,0' - - ; 1 1 1 1 1 iNt.Iii - Â·C-Â£1 1 1 1 ' J..4+13[3..''I.iÂ·:.ff--LA --I. --i:fft fij- ~ I .,AL~ 1 2 .Ilit 1:1 -1 t-u.-' i 0-3 -" "----. --1-- --i ~ .- ----~1 ----~ ---- U rtalical, b / 41-19 yil ' ' 1,210-109 4 6*t-VI.2I-ill.Vrl HI &96!01104 e>Hllt,I>6; - +4-2.Lv>4 -niM Hollecv ,O -, 1 - " 3'( : gild) 21 - Holly/\41-2 111-*06 - Â·'T ' --- ..1-2-714-t : 1.1 i i --r.-; -=CLZE:- LI .1-: 3 : =.- -'9'nl p I. i f f-: --- Â·-*- - 1 --tri r--1 In~-:-234 Â¢ .kk-1,/ 557/1 Ll-#b' x-1 +4 :.Ur. JI '.Â· : -7 ' f-Fi ~ iFTlid Â·f -14 :_u- f ...0 UzEUE l-Ti ' '--~t i.-4./ . '.Md! .B.7-1-'- fi -! LE 34 - i F. 9- 1 i.....3-: i z: c.r- -i.- - 1 < 7-1 GittxbvW 977315 -r,w D 1-3 . L.-ILIA~-2.' I'-1 1 j \\l 1#IlUdJFMI~~*Uilittle*ZINJUdaide:L.2724LL23 ~ - fi<*** L 0 10/Lit*y d KR-11 *0-17 7, 'spr'-1-Lt,i>a-------- . --. ------- ~~~~x-- Hoil,aav 4 1- '299-~HG, __- ~ ADDITION 1 1--1 .11.' 12! li-'=--=_=el_-_~-uzzr.~u-22-_ --f---= 2-37 -2 - Â· thÂ£-T- ELMVATION ADDI-TION , //Â£212-4- ----- --- ~ -~~1.1-4-- 11 WEAT ELE-VATIOH >611 - 11 - 011 D. Submission Contents (Â§7-601(ID(3)(a)): The submission requirements for Conceptual 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: Specific Conceptual Development Plan review standards are addressed in Section II(C), beginning on page 53. 2. Sketch Plan of the Proposal: The architectural drawings following page 11 illustrate the proposed improvements. 3. Conceptual Selection of Major Building Materials. The following materials are proposed conceptually for the projects: (a) Trustee Townhomes: - b<6 vertical wood end walls - Cedar shingle infill walls - Composition shingle roof - Sun control devices - Flagstone decks and paving - Brick or stamped concrete drive material to create a feeling which is softer than asphalt. - Stone retaining walls. (b) Tennis Townhomes: - Masonry dividing walls - Masonry retaining rvalls 50 2j - Glass block with masonry - 1*6 wood siding - Composition shingle roof - Flagstone walks and decks - Sun shading devices - Earth berming and possible sod roof on carports - Brick or stamped concrete material on parking lot. (c) Single-family Homesites: At the present time, it is not anticipated that a range of materials will be established for the single-familv 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. (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. Virtually 20' of the building will be subgrade, 20' above grade but earth sheltered and 5' to 10' exposed. - The roof and walls exposed above the mound of earth surrounding the building will be relatively smooth and covered with a white waterproof membrane or coating. - The walls adjacent to the plaza will be a system of glass and steel or aluminum. - The wall adjacent to the service court will be concrete painted white or Herbert Bayer grey. it will have solid core, hollow metal doors and a rolling metal door painted to match the wall. 51 3 - 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 the Tent and the Rehearsal Hall will have a pattern that relates to the building they serve and the adjacent plaza. - The service yard and driveway will be paved with bituminous paving. 4. Statement of Effect of Proposed Development Upon 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. (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 Town-homes: 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 fiat 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 therefore have somewhat less of a relationship to the other structures in the campus than other new buildings proposed at the Afeadoivs. (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. 52 (d) Meadows Lodge, Health Center, Restaurant and Pro Shop: The late 1950's style of Herbert Bayer's architecture will be respected in the design and 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 of the present campus -- the folded planes of the Music Tent, and the sculptured land forms in Anderson Park. The "inverted 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. E. Conceptual 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, 53 AA unobtrusive, and designed in a manner which utilizes the best ideas upon which the design of the original buildings were based. (c) The Music Associates Parcel: The design for the new rehearsal performance facilitv 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 ,:tension 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; the plaza will be used during intermissions, before and after concerts, as well as for informal outdoor listening. Access for musicians and instruments will be on the north 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 reflects 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 reflection of an important period of time in Aspen's history 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, 54 -3 - 0 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: The proposed residential projects are intended to complement the existing International Style structures designed by Herbert Bayer. The significance of these buildings rests perhaps as 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 of Aspen is note-worthy. (c) The Music Associates Parcel: The rehearsal performance facility will become an integral part of the cultural life of the campus. It will not detract from the cultural value of the adjacent tent and other campus 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. 55 3 (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 f landscaping to those houses. The height of this new structure will compare favorably to the height limit of these houses. 56 32 Note: Due to a death in the family, staff was unable to prepare the review memorandum for this Conceptual Development application. Staff will present the main issues at the meeting. HPC PROJECT REVIEW CHECKLIST Does the Project meet the Standards for Development? Does the Project meet the Development Guidelines? Does the Project support the Community's Preservation Goals? SITE PLANNING ROOF Siting of the Building: Shape (gable, lean-to, etc.) Setback Pitch A Facade width Overhang Spacing between buildings Dormers Skylight Chimneys Delineation of street space: Creation of continuous street WINDOWS edge Separation of public, semi-public, Type (double-hung, easement, etc.) and private areas Shape and proportion Fences Rhythm and balance Blinds/shutters Garage placement DOORWAYS Landscape plantings Placement and orientation Type (paneled, etc.) Site improvements: EXTERIOR ARCHITECTURAL Walkways ELEMENTS Driveways Retaining walls Door platforms and steps Porches BULK, PROPORTION and Exterior stairs and decks SCALE (building size) Roofwalks and platforms MATERIALS Height Facade proportions Wall surfaces Scale Foundation Roof MASSING (building shape) TRIM and MISCELLANEOUS Mass of main portion: DETAILS Form Roof shape Tri m Orientation Gutters and leaders Louvres, vents, etc. Additions: House lights Placement Public utilities Form Bulk Ci SPECIFIC DESIGN SUGGESTIONS: : 103(0#Id ATIMHMENr 1 LAND USE API?LICArION :PUEN 1) Proj eat Name gue,EY FAE.L TRANs\-r FAN LITY APPm ON 2) Proj eat location Le,TS 1'-,L,M,+J,O,F,(St,R+S iki EA.Â£>c K. 10 , A.Dps,4 0,Lo BACe . 449 SounA Miu- 9r (indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) 3) Pres.ent Zoning FO S 4) Iot Size 770'x loot 5) Applicant's Name, Address & Phone # ~B, DAN ~LAUL,BUSMI F,Â©lgECTOE; 120AW-IUR Â¥02*- -reAUS,1- AG,Gler'l a:)6\ SePVICG CeN-MAE DE IVEr Aâ‚¬,PG U , CO. - 428- 1905 6) Representative's Nane, Address & Ehone # 61185<>bl ~*GNOÂ· Aecttrreas 415 6 . CeomF- Ave ; ASâ„¢9 Ce>Loewe>o &1611 - 925 - 5966 7) Type of Applicatian (please check all that apply): Corditional Use Conceptual SPA _X_ Oxhoeptual Historic Dev. Special Review Final SPA % Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline - Conceptual FUD Minor Historic Dev. Stream Margin Final PUD Historic Demolition Mountain View Plane Subdivisicin Historic Designation Cor~Eniniumization Text/Map ATIEr*inierrt - (PUS Al_latinent Int SpliUI.ot Line - (241 Ebomptian Adjustment 8) Description of Ekisting Uses (number and type of existing stnrturus; approximate sq. ft. ; number of bedroams; any previous approvals granted to the property). Okle EF74 1-MEM rWAL- 2>UILDIWA AT \34:,09-F-. bsE>P 'Felz- FA-reou AJAITI ki* Al*BA AND 49'icâ‚¬> AWD Lcal*- Aersil Re FPR fteâ‚¬c>WEL 9) Description of Develognerrt Applicatian f=xy#D -TAE> kletrH 131 CE OF 1-HEr lkIEM\WAL Womf46*kt> le,t' APPRoxiMA-rÂ¥* Rion. FLOS At,ID 4 9-Ike- 1-D A kield LoPT- 5PAGG WHicu & To â‚¬*04:ARD Mo -04â‚¬; Prrnc 94,46 oveÂ© THG ectsnw# OÂ¥=piC.G, 6Fhcd - -r1*15 AEEA Will-eâ‚¬, 'Fbe PEWEONEL- USE obllÂ¥ 10) Have you attached the following? RespQnse to Attadiment 2, Minintim Sulinission Cbnterits X Response to Attachment 3, Specific Slitiniggion Contents X Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application '~ GIBSON & AENO â€¢ AACHITECTS RUBEY PARK TRANSIT FACILITY ADDITION LOTS K,L,M,ly,O,P,G,R & S BLOCK 90 ASPEN, COLORADO CONCEPTUAL HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT 41EE COOPEP AVENIUE ' ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 â€¢ 303'922-5969 . FAx 303 925-5993 ALLEY h 1 , re.:-- _#2 B 1, VErâ‚¬z- : 3Â¥ --- parking area , 1. r. 7 Il ~ h Ily aÂ«=t 14 12&24 RUBEY PARK 2 --ar_-~ -r 1141. , Â·5713.- 1 1 4- J..Yal lilli 1 till lilli 16 - 1.11 1 1-1 1_1 1 1_ --39-Uy-32-s-= ~Eff~ <~'a--6 4EJ~~~4 ~~S~~~~-~~--~- |Jllill ~r~ T ~-I ~-_1~1~11_r<11 -.+1-=-F26-- ~~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~~Tt~~ ~~~~ ~~ I_ 1 1 _.1 1 1 1 1:2.e-E,Â»0:I--- 7 . 7==1 -1- 1---1 --- - -6 ---- -- - -==r-1.9321=r-~ 2--CÂ©1=z--riliE#I~ 111 1'111'11 1lil1I ill'Illilililililillill gfal-igAER#t=Al'.i *-~-T- ~-1-~-r]-r~-r~*TÂ»;fÂ»Â»132Â»Â«4~ LE- -- I~~ bus shette, ~~|~|~I-4kleÂ»r:ilÂ» 2*Elog~ 1 1 I :1.11.11 iIlIlill --- E.57 (Df. ..i'f.5 . 7.6-' Â·-4 5.Â·,5: Â·Â·'1Â·.Â·Â·M' LAST DURANT J' STKEE T Il-/1 /01 1, r'Wi' r. .... It * . --I L -DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT- The proposed development is located at 419 South Mill Street which consists of Lots K,L,M,N,0,P,Q,R and S in Block 90. It will be an addition to Rubey Park Transit Facility. Expansion of the north side of the terminal will add approximately 9'-0" to the existing building. Within this expansion there will be a stair added to access a new loft area which will expand into the attic space over the existing offices. All of the expanded area will only be used by RFTA personnel for offices and locker space. The total additional square footage is approximately 435 S.F. L -REVIEW STANDARI)S- a. 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. This development is an addition to the existing building at Rubey Park. The Rubey Park Transit Facility is the only building on this parcel of land, and it has been determined that it is compatible with adjacent buildings and the surrounding Historic Overlay District. Because the addition has a design similar to the original building, it should itself be compatible. b. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. The proposed addition reflects the materials and design of the existing building. This consists of a brick facade and gables with a metal roof. These elements are also seen in the buildings in the neighborhood. The Independence Square Hotel has red brick. Guidos restaurant has gables with a metal roof. Plus, the building that houses the Paradise Nightclub has brick and gable roofs. The character and charm of the neighborhood is maintained. c. 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. There will be little or no impact on the cultural value of area as the building addition continues to compliment the area with its use of materials. d. The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. This building is not designated a historic structure. ALLEY BLOCK 90 Â£ 1 j / + -/7Â¢46- ,,Â®_c @-- (FE Q G GGI 1 1 44 r) ul_-11#- 4/// - -rn----------- - Â«9971 fifE I 11-1 1 - 'Il 773 7 4/ - -- : d- EG-EF ~-- 1 [34%94(-r-f--i 7 --- ---- - /-4 1 F ------- . d j u L SITE PLAN <~~ DURANT AVENUE O' 10' 20 30 DICTION 1 11 1 1 ' 1.-1-4 -4.1, fl -'-T d n 1 Me/hanlo-1 L.OFT Machanic~1 1 -r T {op.n] - 11 -ir: h Cop...1 - --- F 13 47 - 4 2 topen} li I 4 LOFT PLAN 4 â€¢ 1 -67 1 '' 1 1.- 1 gurb Â»eTW I'[26 'Pr ~.[I~;, 0, 4, 12' 18' .,crioN \// -L f 4-71 - fl i.. 2 i , 11 P #4 [L R~ LOUNOI Flar-12=1==12=-- ~IÂ»1-qIEE~EEE~__----~ W.Iting ~A~-1/ng M - FLJ ) h. *.men 1 TIck.t. \ == Vi-â€¢Ibuli -T j ELJ==*zr-'~Elf -5~ , ~---- 7 1 1 FIRST FLOOR PLAN [ 0-1 - - I I/1 4.,5 1 44 (/5 r -- -4 l -0 'Q -4 ,Â«AN . P ' Â· 1 11'kt 04 19=-1 'Rd ..1,21 L-- - - - ---f.5~~C..................P/444,4,+W- - -= L_ =32-6-.1.11 &......... - --.--- .i.i"ix; lf-_-_- 1 -4-Â°~i.i.- n 1 1.d =51 =714*4~~ EAST ELEVATION NORTH ILEVATION *E.9 E-LE.A- 7.- ./peâ€¢bll'E. â€¢-lANIP 01 2,Â»..% 0, 4, 1/1 1.' : IA .PT -tv+i-Fl L f L A-.--ibl,mi~- - L~EEEP-ttl~292221 11 -#2--Ii- Â£+Li=,r.#1--7 11 -UILDING SECTION pf~,A~pr ION 61*44.4 6-LD,hka - Â· Â·.> r' ;Â· >-Â·144~~1 44 E .1':ttal.'. 4,4'L'. 4.6 !1'4,1 -AD '1 . . .tu . 4, 6 L1 4Â¢#~ 4~@,te,1 4.:tatt410?32 4.: 0.Â·*29 :.4..142Â·9jt 1 -'tÂ·2.41' Â·Â· .. ,-rilli- .-1 1 la 1. , - , Hil , 3:,)1;<44'*~+Y*RIA:WÂ£47.*'AMM~#ME**6'E',0.4&,hEZI,1.2.1.1:8':':2Â·.5..p.,iÂ·0Â·.fLÂ·j6Â»,; ' ' ': I Â·; 4 -4~ milad/Lul - 41% 1 1 9 , fl . 4 Wrd. 1 1 1 :t.1 90:f 'f 30 ! 1 'i....!ti ">it.... i . i .. . 1, F . ...1 A , 114, ! â€¢el IS Â¢:3 10!,th â€¢ 4Â· e 6&* 11 ..1 . J 1 +41 ' t ... t Â·+ ip-:3 1 11 1,1!1 - 0 - ~ ' 145&,-4 I ' ' ' ' 24 . Â· i '1 6 -h . ----I- -- : 4 Aâ€¢ ..122; i 941 :,t,1 h. , .34 . fit; ''.1. f t., Irt,4 7 #P'' 0 '. :'33 ---7 9 i fj#*1 9% Aill; " ,?9.4 '/*.Â·lk A :.4 4 ./ 'e-4 ar . ,; LA . - :ip,Â·. 2 421?-f. , , .1 fl , Â· , 111Â·41 ...6;ia .iâ€¢:r .41 1 '*Â·. U I *:1.1 ' :*AM'Idi.,Â·41.,i,1 641 . - . ....... 1., 0.,Ill 4 % 0 .+ : 0-r ~'41 .0.,40, '02 /' 1 lit 1 . 1, ?,1141.i 1 141 2 .bj r , , 41' 0 44 '0Â·:,i. I , .lip'I'., , f 4 P Â¢;4 1 3 2 .' ..iet':41:i, : wi<L ,- . -011:itd:,",3, Â· 4,"1 d'yiN~ . 0 â€¢4 i Â· /1 ~* i rÂ¥ Â·Â· ' Â· 2 , I. . ,...44.,TIL,1,3/f'filqf' 44/4&Â£ili ' k. 0 - ........... . I 91112 *<r. i 5 *i*jiL"*I,ql~ . - Â· Â·, Â· /4 Â¢ 4 + 717 , 4 C R.-. 4 .4!4 r 0 , , T k . I -1 -1 â€¢ - F'$ 41Â¢4 . ' 1.4 2 1 1 ... 4.5-+ i. "i ' A Â·4' , , Jr. ff r - Â«r,~ y 44 Â·ki y- # ..2 a. .1 1 1 --1 : 1 . I , 1 4 2*Eum'imme/Fiti -- I .r,i. . 41/6 , .: ;l#/ 84Â£,R'~ i AiN H 1 4.- Â¢ ./.4.9.1* .,:r>*â€ž 4 4 . , ./ .1 p-11 ~ ~ ~ ~ - - -- ~--~ *- - ~~- -~<-_~~ **--_~,â„¢" ,~-,_,_~~__"â€ž0,--,--1,-4<--â€¢â€¢ â€¢-~v-"r-'-1~'~':1"-*//11/â€¢1,~10,),1,r' Â·Â·3 "~: -Â·14 Â· . - 4*k.'- r:41