The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19960828AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 0 August 28, 1996 REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5:00 I. Roll call and approval of July 10th, July 24th, 1996 minutes. II. Commissioner and Staff Comments III. Public Comments IV. NEW BUSINESS 2-li 5:15 A. Aspen Meadows, Trustee townhomes - Conceptual (PH) 1-46Iw,1-to~~F~ a Â° 1 B. 7710 N. 3RD - Minor Developmentor V. OL~ BUSINESS 6:30 A. ~Entrance to Aspen comments 7:00 B. 935 E. Hyman - Conceptual & Final - PH 7:30 C. 214 E. Bleeker - Conceptual - PH -(tai led from July 24th) 8:00 D. 706 W. Main - Final 8:30 VI. ADJOURN ty 24 %362 PLEASE BRING A BROWN BAG DINNER DUE TO LENGTH OF THIS MEETING 0 OJECT MONITORING Donnelley Erdman Meadows 624 E. Hopkins 220 W. Main - European flower 420 E. Main Galena Plaza Jake Vickery Meadows 520 Walnut Street - Greenwood 435 W. Main - L'Auberge Roger Moyer 303 E. Main 420 E. Main ISIS 939 E. Cooper Lindeau 426 E. Hyman (Curious George) Sven Alstrom 624 E. Hopkins 712 W. Francis - Orbe residence 918 E. Cooper 820 E. Cooper 939 E. Cooper Lindeau Susan Dodington 616 W. Main 316 E. Hopkins - Howling Wolf 525 W. Hallam Wyckoff Melanie Roschko 918 E. Cooper ISIS 123 W. Francis 706 W. Main Suzannah Reid 320 Lake Ave. 303 E.i Main 702 W. Main Mark Onorofski 426 E. Hyman 123 W. Francis 517 E. Hopkins CONCEPTUAL APPROVALS WHICH HAVE NOT GONE TO FINAL: W. +Topkins-(Isis*expires*ugust-21-1-996 oLO E. Cooper (Anson), expires September 27, 1996 939 E. Cooper (Langley), expires November 9,1996 520 Walnut (Greenwood), expires March 22,1997 834 W. Hallam (Poppie's), expires April 26, 1997 123===Wr,Francit(Mickery*expires May 24,4997 . j MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director C_/--00- FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: Trustee Townhouses (new)- Conceptual Development DATE: August 28,1996 SUMMARY: HPC has recently reviewed proposed modifications to the existing Trustee Townhouses, designed by Herbert Bayer. At this time the Aspen Institute proposes a redesign of the three new units which are approved to be added to the existing. One of the new units sits on the south end of the group, and two are on the north. APPLICANT: The Aspen Institute and Doug MacPherson, represented by Gretchen Greenwood. LOCATION: Aspen Meadows, Lot 5, 1101-1211 Meadows Trustee Townhouses ZONING: RMF Conceptual Development PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 26.72.010(D) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. Response: HPC initially approved the development in 1991. At that time the applicant received approval to make substantial changes to the existing 1 units, including adding a basement. The new units were designed to be almost identical to the original ones. The applicant now wishes to create a different character for the new homes, and staff finds that beneficial in terms of preserving the character of the historic towrihouses. The existing Trustee Townhomes are approximately 1,700 sq.ft. each. Under the approved proposal, both the existing and new units were to be 2,500 sq.ft. each. This plan has apparently been abandoned for the original units, however the new units will still be 2,500 sq.ft. The change causes the new units to overshadow the existing units somewhat. In the 1991 reviews, several aspects of the existing units were important points of discussion in terms of compatibility of the new construction: roofiines, windows, the character of the entry and carport area, height, the design of the endwalls, materials and landscaping. It was noted that the original design, done in the International style, was interpreted at the Meadows in a very economical manner, and that new construction should not use more elegant materials or details. The applicant has based the new design on a reinterpretation of the existing buildings. Staff finds many aspects of the new design very successful, but suggests a few areas that warrant discussion. An important change since the previous approval is that the covered parking area, which was supposed to be built into the berm across from the units will no longer be built. The existing units will utilize their carports, but the proposed new units have an attached garage. Staff finds the closed in garage and large double garage doors not particularly consistent with the character of the original buildings. While the occupants would certainly prefer to have an enclosed garage, the new buildings do not have the same solid and void character as the existing ones. If this can not be accommodated through a carport, perhaps some other punctures can be made in the facade or porch areas. Secondly, the height of the new units does cause them to overshadow the existing ones somewhat. The addition of a one story element or flat roof section may alleviate that condition. Thirdly, the new units should have similar landscaping around the entrance. i 2 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: This remodel creates a more clear distinction between the historic resource and new construction, benefiting the historic character of the campus in general. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Response: The proposal does not involve any additional demolition or other changes which would detract from the historic significance of the original buildings. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The proposed development enhances understanding of the original character of the Townhomes. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: 1) Approve the Development application as submitted. 2) Approve the Development application with conditions to be met prior to issuance of a building permit. 3) Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (specific recommendations should be offered) 4) Deny Development approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. j 3 Recommendation: Staff recommends HPC table the proposal, requesting a restudy to create some area of void in the streetfront elevation, to design some one story element or flat roofed section which is compatible with the original buildings. (Landscape information must be submitted for final review.) Recommended motion: "1 move to table the Conceptual development review of the Trustee Townhouses to September 11, 1996." 4 Conceptual Development of a Historic Resource Application for the Aspen Meadows Trustee Townhouses Unit 1, 10 and 11 1101-1211 off of Meadows Road Gretchen Greenwood and Associates, Inc. 520 Walnut Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 970-925-4502 4 ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1. Project name /~967,7 34<adotoj-f,Wle.-lownhousu 2. Project location /7.Â¥Pe;4 .,UhydotvJ 67 6 1 lot- !#11 Altarlou>,s -Tiu,kt of+of M atdows Ae.,l (indicate street address, lot and block number or metes and bounds description) 3. Present zoning /6#/' 4. Lot size 3. 2 67#65 5. Applicant's name, address and phone number DOUg ./1/ic Ph vion 514 E. 411~maA AV. AÂ¥â‚¬n: Co. 8/QU 9a5Â· 7000 6. Representative's name, address, and phone number ~27~7~7 41%!wood 62.0 Wain<Al et- AÂ¥Â«, CD. 8/4/1 925Â· 450Â·k 7. Type of application (check all that apply): Conditional Use Conceptual SPA / Conceptual HPC Special Review Final SPA Final HPC 8040 Greenline Conceptual PUD Minor HPC Stream Margin Final PUD Relocation HPC Subdivision TexVMap Amend. Historic Landmark GMQS allotment GMQS exemption Demo/Partial Demo View Plane Condominiumization Design Review Lot Split/Lot Line Appeal Committee Adjustment 8. Description of existing uses (number and type of existing structures, approximate sq. ft., number of-bgdrooms,-any previous approvals granted to the 95*H) S EDUSnNG /811$*c. 1 ownhoctics wl 3 8eol~ooms SPA Dtvdop,nurf PlaA 9. Description of development application Av,/o,94Â£7' of.3 /7.0 -Auste.-Town hotuo Unrt 1. 10 T U- wl -il,et bdro,*wt of a/Sot) 44. ff: 64,#. C :SEE 4-1~CHED) 10. Have you completed and attached the followingl 4 Attachment 1 - Land use application form 4 Attachment 2- Dimensional requirements form v' Response to Attachment 3 / Response to Attachments 4 and 5 11111111 .. ATTACHMENT 2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Applicant: Doua k Phu 1 6* , A,pi# Al<Â«douu -T,witd;whhouka Address: 514 8Â· 144*la#:AÂ¥.: 00. 8/(W Zone district: RAP Lot size: 3. 2 GUKS Existing FAR: /5,74& 9. MÂ· 1 - Allowable FAR: 11; 900 30. A-. % 2,500 34/ f . 4Â«uu:(naulbtunhes.4 Proposed FAR: 1,500 '44Â·ff (FICW iDLUnholl>el Unit 4 10 f 11 ) Existing net leasable (commercial): * NIA Proposed net leasable (commercial): N1A Existing % of site coverage: Proposed % of site coverage: ~~ Existing % of open space: 059â€¢ pu JFA Proposed % of open space: *50/0 pu JFA Existing maximum height: Principal blda: 25 - 83 Accesorv blda: Proposed max. height: Principal bida: 25- 85 Accessorv bida: Proposed % of demolition: O Existing number of bedrooms: 2> Fir 7huNC-lownhe use.~ Proposed number of bedrooms: 3 p~r Unit li 10 Â¥ 1 1 Existing on-site parking spaces: 8 -/4 BuLX/5*9, ~77utke 7awnhousts 0 On-site parking spaces required: / 0Â¥, Bednem Setbacks Existing: Minimum required: Proposed: Front: 30 Front /0 8. Front: 30 8- Rear: 50 - /00 Rear. 5 /0 4. = Rear. 50 -/00 ~ Combined Combined Combined FronUrean Fronurear: Front/rear: S ide: 4080 Side: 5 Side: c2/ Side: 40#Â· Side: 6 Side: 0/ Combined Combined Combined Sides: Sides: Sides: Existing nonconformities or encroachments: /1/9 Variations requested: NM . (HPC has the ability to vary the following requirementd: setbacks. distance between buildings, FAR bonus of up to 500 sq.tl., site coverage variance up to 5%, height variations under the cottage infill program, parking waivers for residential uses in the R-6, R-15, RMF, CC, and O 0 zone districts) J t. . I ... , . - c:0 ~ '491:ir<:Â·i,Â· < , ;,4 : 44â€¢' i 1â€¢ t.., I .. 41% p ./" #pt ... - v.,4,, te ,., .,T' 74 fLL/:de/494 i ,:.::2,/ 44$"4#.divE./6, 4,1/0 '.grmto* Â·tÂ·Â· '.':2Â£24"a,Amt, 4134('977 01/2/1/92 16: 1 1 Rec $400.00 DI 667 FO 756 Silvia Davis, F jit.jr, Cl,1.9 Cler 1 . Doc. i.00 requirements for form and content above set forth. Any such substitution shall be subject to the prior approval of the City Attorney in his determination. 3. Imili The Final Plat depicts a trail easement across the Physics Property from Gillespie Street to the race track trail on Lot 1. Physics and the City agree that this Uall easement is not to be paved. Physics is granting this easement but has no financial obligation of any kind for the trail or any related work. LOT 4 - CONSERVATION LAND: Lot 4 is to be sold by Savanah to the City of Aspen for the purpose of open space. Lot 4 shall be zoned Wildlife Preservation (WP). It is the intention of this zone district that this Property remain open with a trail system and appropriate bridge connections to the Rio Grande Trail. Neither the Consortium nor any of its individual members thereof shall have any responsibility whatsoever for the construction, installation or maintenance of any trail or other recreational facilities to be incorporated into Lot 4. Exact trail locations must be approved by the Planning Director giving priority to those alignments which minimize damage or disruption to existing vegetation and landscape and which subordinate.grade considerations and, thus, minimize switchbacks, to preservation of existing topography. 1. Sit~ (a) Utilities. The Final Plat shows utility line easements as existing and proposed for electrical, gas, storm and sanitary sewer, and water. I.OT 5 - THE TRUSTEE HOUSES AT THE ASPEN MEADOWS: Lot 5 is Savanah's Property and is zoned RMF according to and as shown on tile Plat. Existing development on Lot 5 conists of the eight trustee houses, each of approximately 1,750 square feet, consisting of three bedrooms and two baths. Development has been approved for an expansion and renovation of the existing trustee houses to create eight thrge-bedroom units of 2,500 square feet of FAR each. In addition three new trustee houses shall be developed on W 5, one on the South end of tile existing units and two on thc North end of the existing units. Each new unit wit! be 2,500 square feet of FAR with three bedrooms. Total build-out on Lot 5 shall consist of eleven units with thirty- three bcdrooms and 27,500 square fect of FAR, excluding carports Cup to 500 square feet per dwelling unit). FARs and the definitions thereof for the existing and new trustee houses shall remain as set forth and defined in tile Aspen I.and Use Regulations in effect as of June 10, 1991, notwithstanding and shall survive for not less than the three ycar 22 Ill' .. r. b'" 12$ :4, 4Â£40', 2 Â·Â· 4 igit#,02*'21.- -71*g:i:-eac,21'4":0 93409.37 01/24/92 161 13 Rec $400Â·00 BK 667 PG 757 < Silvia Davis. Pitlin Cnt,Â· Clef k. Doc 1.00 period next succeed,rig *mc 10, :991, any subsequently adopted reduction in or change to the definition or calculation of FARs. The three new residences have received an allotment under the GM QS and have received variations for setbacks, height and open space, as noted on tile Plat and as described below. 1. Dimensional Requirements and Variations Therefrom The following dimensional requirements are for the RMF Zone District: .. variations in these requirements that have been granled for the development activity contemplated for Lot 5 are noted: a) Minimum lot size (sq. ft.): 6,000 b) Minimum lot area per dwelling unit f ./ i) 3 bedroom unit: 3,630 sq. ft. c) Minimum lot width: 60 feet 4 d) Minimum front yard: i) Principal building: 10 feet :P 1 il) Accessory buikling: 15 feet ;1~, (Note. A variation from minimum RMF Zone District front yard setbacks for accessory buildings has been granted by the City to zero feet for Lot 5.) :..1 e) Minimum side yard: 5 feet :.4 D Minimum rear yard: D Principal building: : 10 feet ii) Accessory building: 15 feet 1 g) Maximum height 25 feet (Note. A dimensional height variation for the two norlhernmost trustee ..1 houses has been granted by the City for up to eight feet.) 2 h) Percent of open space required for building site: 35% 4 23 0 1 4. fr:~:4.*i~~44-,~ ~.~2 :%22Â·4.,=... ~ Ck/k:~v #341)937 01/24/92 16: 13 Per. *400.no 81,- 667 26 758 Gilvic, p.:,vis. F'St.lit, Ent, ClerÂ·I:. Doc *.00 (Note. Minimum RMF Zone District open space requirements have been waived by the City for Lot 5 in consideration of the open space otherwise provided in the SPA development plan.) i) External FAR (maximum): 1:1 D Internal FAR: no requirement k) Off-street parking requirement: 1 space per bedroom Condominiumization and Six Month Minimum Lease Requirement Pursuant lo findings made during the approval process and in accordance with Section 24-7-1007 of thc Municipal Codc, the City has granted and awarded condominiumization approval for all eleven units contemplated for Lot 5. Condominiumization of the eight existing units is subject to payment of an affordable housing impact fee according to Section 24-7-1007AC])(c). The fee totals $64,240 and shall be paid at time of recordation of the condominium plat and declaration for the units on Lot 5. The six month minimum lease requirement for condominium units as contained at Section 24-7-1007 (A)(1)(b)(1) of the Municipal Code has been and hereby is waived as to at] the condominium units on Lot 5 as approved by this SPA plan. Etu..Imumigments (a) Utilities. All telephone, electric and cable lines on the Property servicing the improvements shall be undergrounded. All water and sanitary sewer lines shall be designed and constructed in accordance with standards of the City and of the ACSD and written easements will be provided if and as required confirming the as-built location of each easement. (b) Lr-'---3- '-,rovements. Savanah shall abide by and substantially conform to the tree removal and landscape plans recorded as part of the Plat in Book LA 9 at Page 5-, e, seq. of the Records. The landscape plans depict and describe the nature, extent and location of all plant materials in appropriate relation to scale, species and size of existing plant material, flower and shrub bed definition, a plant material schedule with common and botanical names, sizes and quantities, proposed treatment of all ground surfaces (e.g., paving, turf, gravel, terracing, etc.), decorative water features, retaining walls, rencing, benches, and all other agrccd- upon landscape features. Such landscaping shall becompteted in alogical sequence commensurate with the staging of improvements as contemplated in the Lot 5 Construction Schedule, but in no event later than one year 24 il 1 1â€¢Klf I I.-- 1 1 il I 0 Attachment 3 1. Attached please find a letter authorizing Gretchen Greenwood to act on behalf of the owner's for the attached submission. 2. Aspen Meadows Trustee Townhouses Lot 5 1101-1211 Meadows Trustee off Meadows Road, Aspen, Colorado 81611 3. The disclosure ofOwnership ofLots 1,10 and 11 by the Aspen Institute is on file with the City of Aspen. 4. Attached please find the Vicinity Map locating the subject parcel. 0 . . I. 4 I , O 4 3 W f 5 0' . 1 1 .M 1 , 4 0 1-4 I r . trer. I - . 0 : I. t. 71/1 ir <*V t-, t;11 0{,3- 10 - . .3 -41 K ..1.7. 122434* 4 T~ t.' 1/tiji:~/L.L.. .. 1*r 1Â¢__396 4 - %- 4 '~' a â€¢"â€¢; â€¢ ~ i~~*~~i~mi Â· /1 Alillf 1 ' 1 I m I I "-'Fl .,1 ' i " I ..0 7 ...6.â€¢.-f.i'.Pm '~~~~~%~~~ 1. ? li:3090 .7..47. , . . ,- C# =.. t#-I ..Ril.- -4. 0'. ' - M ~ Â©Co.,A 1 "71 - 07' .1 V r A.Gle * 2, t ' / 4 -,1 "E:3 4"::b' " or> 231 <335/F//"4*22/ 4/ . .Al 10 AÂ«J N .- .1- .i . 7/ P .5 <h li . y .4 .. '449 41,* 21 . ..a 1 . 1/~ . 0 Attachment 4 Specific Submission Requirements: Conceptual Review 1. Attached is a Site Plan showing the property boundaries ofLot 5, the eight existing Trustee townhouses, and the three proposed Trustee townhouses. 2. The Major building materials that will be used on the 3 proposed townhouses are as follows: Siding: Wood Shingles Siding at Garage Door and Stair tower: lx4 Vertical T&G Square Edge Wood Siding Roof Materials: Wood Shingles Railings: Metal ( The design will be presented at Final Review) Entry Courtyard Exterior Flooring: Colorado BuffFlagstone and Exposed Aggregate 0 Decking: 2x6 Cedar Windows: Clad 3. Attached is a written description describing the proposal and a description of how the proposed development complies with the development review standards. 4. Attached for review are the following drawings: Unit 1 and Existing Unit 2 Lower Level Floor Plans Main Level Floor Plans Upper Level Floor Plans Roof Plans South Elevation of Proposed Unit 1 East Elevations West Elevations b . j 0 page 2 (con't) Existing Unit 9, Proposed Unit 10 and Unit 11 Lower Level Floor Plans Main Level Floor Plans Upper Level Floor Plans Roof Plans East Elevations North Elevation of Proposed Unit 11 West Elevations 5. An architectural model of the eight existing and three proposed Trustee Townhouses will be presented to the HPC. In addition, photographs of the existing townhouses will be presented at the meeting. 0 3. Written Description of the Proposed Development The original eight Trustee townhouses were designed by Herbert Bayer in 1965. These Bayer townhouses have been approved through a SPA for a redevelopment and redesign, that includes living space, one bedroom, bath, mechanical room, detached garage and exterior decks. These additions to the buildings are at the lower and upper floors that add a total floor area of2,800 Sq.ft.. To date, the expansion and redevelopment plans for the Bayer townhouses, Units 2 through 9 have not been completed. The approved SPA also allows for the construction ofthree new townhouses, Units 1, 10 and 11. Unit 1 is located to the south end of the existing townhouses and Units 10 and 11 are located to the north end ofthe development. It was approved through the SPA agreement that the construction of these three new townhouses was to match the redesigned Bayer townhouses. The end result of the redevelopment would have created 11 new townhouses that were consistent in design, size, and materials. Under this plan, there would have been no recognizable difference between the new townhouse and the old Bayer townhouses. This application proposes to develop the three new townhouses, Unit 1, 10 and 11, with a compatible, yet different floor plans and elevations. The townhouses are approximately 3,500 Sq.ft. of living area with a two car garage. Thefinal FAR for Unit 1 0 is 2,711 Sq.ft., for Unit 10, the FAR is 2,748 Sq.ft. and the FAR for Unit 11 is 3,209 Sq.ft. The architecture of the new townhouses departs from the redesigned townhouses (Units 2-9) in order to preserve the integrity ofthe existing architecture ofthe Herbert Bayer townhouses. The new buildings have been designed to have a simple appearance, combining details, proportions and materials similar to the Bayer townhouses. The new townhouses are larger in size that the existing units. This is due to the programmatic needs of the developer and the Institute to have an inventory of more spacious accommodations for their rental use for the dignitaries who visit the Aspen Institute. 0 Attachment 6 Development Review Standards 1. The proposed development of the townhouse units 1,10 and 11 are compatible in general design and proportion with the Herbert Bayer townhouses. The townhouses are a simple design, utilizing contemporary architectural forms and massing for the building and roof planes, that fit with the architecture ofthe Bayer townhouses. The selections of similar ideas including building materials and exterior architectural details further complement the old townhouses and eliminate any competition between the old and the new. 2. The contemporary architectural form ofthe proposed townhouses is consistent with the modern architecture ofthe Aspen Institute's inventory ofbuildings. The proposed buildings have been designed to fit into the family of Institute buildings, yet finished in natural materials that relate to the mountain environment. 3. The proposed buildings do not detract from the historical significance of the Bayer townhouses. The buildings have been designed to be a separate architectural design, that does not mimic the Bayer townhouses or detract from their importance. There will only be three new townhouses, while there will be eight remaining Bayer townhouses. So the majority ofthe townhouses on the property are historic. 4. The proposed development does not detract from the architecture and integrity ofthe Bayer townhouse. The architecture ofthe new buildings has been designed to be simple in form and mass, in order to be a thoughtful neighbor to the adjacent townhouses. 1. -- Ill- --il- ---.i-*. Il--0 - U .i- I - - - -0 - --*i --I.I.*Il--Â·r'm-7-- il -- - - - 1 1. 11 f 11 L- .__r a - - l f?41*fl H G UM [T l Â·_rlÂ«Fe*P LIN IT to 45-11 2*Il_*kE/floti ~ 14 1 /L,5711 19 di 1, i li~ ill L 'i - . --=2.- --- --+ * -Â·~90 -a=Â®Â«ceNS>%Â« ..\ , // f /0.---.- Z-ZILL----- VZ-A.IT /1 1 :.5:122 Â©_________oc=c-3. . I VE, I\. \ \ I \ lA 9->t U ,= 2 1 :i ji(/1 + 1/1,2_1 .' . -: I \AA,J 7/ 0 0 44 tÂ·.. ./ 5 2, . 4 ..41 p 4'2' 4+3Â· 4. d .Â·.'99:~Â·.Â¢,I V ./ j..f,YALT- + 1 .,- aM - 0111 . O ' 1 2- AN. 111 1 . C.Â·gigi> I PROPOSED TRUSTEE HOUSING : t. -1 4.1.-1.. / - . 1 ..7'lai :Ir 1 I Iii .. AT THE ASPEN MEADOWS . .. / i / Â· -1 r T li . .7- - . ASPEN COLORADO . Â»Â«347 / , 1 . .. .. 7810 .~ , ~ 12 . 9 4.41 , 7.0 / ' . 7830, 1 l DAVID FINHOLM & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTURE & LAND PLANNING -<'. ''' 9 Â· ' 7.10 . 22~100 81612 ' - + r 78200*~ AF â€¢ : - li â€¢ -NI-Â· : ' fil../. + . 303-925-5713 (FAX)303-920-4471 //l/ / j % 1 ..... 9/M. 1 - . 4 -7840 - 7 -\ , j * 00.k ... . - --4---2,-1-4 - . 1 411 . 1 4 ~ - 6 - 1 1 \ % 1 . . . 1 ..7 - b. p.-6-~2 7850 . I k 1 - L \94>46 \ L-----% .. ..0 1...324: 7830 . \*\ \4.\ 1. Â«3-i* I , -mr- i , . - 7840 - "+ ---3 W IL 1 -N . 2./. I . I './... I 1 . Ue.-41/ â€¢ 3. 4/ . RESTAURANT BUILDING 1 . --27 Â£21 f ~ . 1 ... ' I -Â»-Â« - 1 ' ' ~ f , , \~04. t.*Pâ„¢ 1 1. ' t. I - / e U -- \ Iff 1/X i / \\ A 1/2. ' -- 7 1, . I 6...t>Ek -- 0 . / / 2 -264 1.- -.-% A a d I =92*36 - N Ll; 0 INZbÂ©Sit --1 -Â»-- I * 33,: Â·1 - : 9 n ' 'N-6 ..V- */_ ---. ; I - - -4... 1-\ 4 1 \\ +% \ / 7850 #A '- â€¢ F,b-y '.. -:0 3 2. 3 '. -~ //-X 7, 79- i /-4 .- ;~~HEALTH CENTER LÂ» 18 -h\ -4 - j . Ly r~90--h r... LU / I\1 j .4 1 I I j r L\' i- ' 1 y t .4 -7 1 ' .1 3 2 t i ~ Itt/ ..XÂ·\ j c Ir 2~y ~ f - N\\ 4. f Al / 4 .. \ .*~.---7830 SITE PLAN --\i<,91 . , 1-1~~ i ,).O zo-â‚¬ -/ -Â«rÂ»-2Â«-- , 77) G / .. t. ./ )1.1 '' / ./ / ./.0// . 7 .. 2%7//./5:i6#~Fr ME~L&,..â€ž1--1 NORâ„¢*~ 0 510 20 50 75 ~~ -- 914-Â«1,9/ /6.:irEEE/Efemisisliz#gafts'. .. . I OvEAL- G SME E OvERLA, 6 0,, 4.i~ 4 44* 44 p ..1.t b O' r > 9 _ 5. 420448Â¢<2,94Â£- A of , 1. 1 .b f, 19Â» Â·*g, it 1 C.. 6 1 32--IT-az~in X- 7.--3 1.- U ' ~ 1'7~..:F,Nbo) t.... ': 4,2 ZIL,Alâ‚¬.$1311 ,., f-Â· ,4-'' h IlfÂ·i\7,040.... .. -- --- I - . ------1- -~ r ftgE.'Egrift- 1 2Â§ 01.-Ii! O 0 m 0 0 t., 494*- tâ‚¬4 tb Pt .3 8 d ASPEN MEADOWS %: PROPOSED TRUSTEE HOUSING â‚¬AVID FINHOLM AND ASSOCIATES INC. m ARCHITECTURE AND LAND PLANNING A I.A. A I - . & 1,2 II '.. 4 *dill"'IMI'l#N .2- r49.01 33.-fe .2 1 4-39 f 44 -- d - .9.73 T A -7-43 9.601 Â·>~29 r. â€¢-v,14 ne - w 6 4*43 2 0. 4 /- 0-4- 4 04 -Â·.y 1, , ASIi,t*6 Â·ta rfit INNAEL UIS A- W i y 1 1* tzaviwfla /43391 **63, o ... 111 -> ,Oy,-7 & C -0,72Â· 24114.'pati - , Ill A ' MP3 I ni W 1 1 - eÂ£iaffll<ill[RTFIiaililifili~~i-iI-al-~=~1-1-==Ilii-i----i~i-ii-iiq--l-liii-i-i--l-In-Ilfil-illul Illi~linlij~:i.-i:9-3-: 11 r W y. 1 1 1 11 1111111 11 111111111 11111111 1, 1 it Â£ lili 1Â·1 Ii' ;,1!'12~ 11'~!l# .; ' i: Ell 111!1 1 1 ; 1 *11 . , !!|till!'!16,!1 11: /il 1 * '064. I 1 1 . It. 1 4.1 ./ .1 / P (4) $â€¢609 B, IJ 1,11 1 1 I ..f. . F *.': -4-E Â· 0 * D Z 30]ry m .19 r. 3,Â§ 1 10*64_ ' , -- |6 _ -g -1.| lillil :--3 1.1 41 . 11 - 1 'SI --1 -1 Ar - UI - OLLI i t-/57.7- l i i i i I' , 16 ul, 9 i h':,Â· 0 ' 1 - 111 91Â· , Â» rA- .* 112 - r 1 -4.44'+ _*9%1 -1 2 -L 14 >4411' ' 1-4 -1---*;r -r, + 42 00 T--TT 11 111!11 11 1 1 'IZEE lilli 1.IiI , + E '7,1- 4**41~ 1 I ,4 I , ->P -1.2 1 _rÂ·9'1.1 + t t l! 11 il. =-L-1.1.1- 11Â· 7 - 4 :y.5/(tik<#,eÂ·â‚¬~~*.Â·.0--' r.Â¥ r + Tri ir* 2 Iy-r - 1 - f~JiÂ« 1-4 1-Â© 1 L O 1 4 2.1 - .1. - -4--1- 211*t- 1 1 .- . Ul .3*... - ..0 -2- . + .1 11-- -Â·L --64 + it . I 1 .4 L -:,1 r -B. ,=04 --IL 0122' 36- 00,1.-*,-ix - - 9.rett T iNâ‚¬*P+I j 1 1 1-- 1- . --- 91- 1 1 -b - - - b.+ 14,2- 11- .,3% ..3.â€ž> ,% .#M I .lit(1111[[4.1 . 1 1111111! 1 -4-1 ' 41,9 1 11' 1 12.:*24:, J,- .4. 14 -, 1 â€¢*k r- g4., I 1 = , . J......1..... . I , lcD m < . 2, -.. 1 1 , 4,4. - 14 - I -11 - . - 1 Of.,4.-1 -9..2/. -*/. - 4- - . BeÂ·*4 V :. 91. . .., 1/ 2.6.75 t V -6 1,Â·2 Oftf~12*: .. . 26 4 -U , 1- -1 r-12 . , <0- O 1 + F 4-- - Â· 9 .4, a._ 2.-0:Â· ;...-~t~'43Â·2.*-e,Â·}.9,3: .-a,-iâ€ž.~~.--r-, - r;---i,0, .~~ - ./.- 1 Â¥ 1 - lilli - . - eÂ· . I "tÂ· Â£ ;i , -0.,tg..**S# . 1.9.; DATE 1 $ DRAWN Bv ..,0 - 1. . 3 21.- 1 42:*Im//SalliT,4*6#20444. 19 - 'Â· 0021% - . .e.7 22- .11 - , - A I + t . I 1 442 4 -A-- -a@&.72Â«/24"".Â¢1-â€¢41â€¢r- 41 7,4 1. --- Â·. 4-:...:... 2...._â€ž#E-#4..~~ Â·f .-"Â·. i Â·4..Â·Â·k. 0 â€¢..,Â·L Â·f -aÂ«/ REVISIONS C J..U :. *Â·-:':*3%604..r .i...?*PyÂ·,072:'Â· -9355 9 1 49â€ž%.Â»4 I 523 1. 1 r,t. 361[.# L.-1 - 1' 1 -- i- 21-r Ti PROPOSED . -1-2:#--"i ,~1-Â» - 1 - 1.314*- FixtriI :4 4 -f 21 - 1-dfitÂ»k'rtl--,4*~2, f-t~'~'-rl 1-~~932~trti--It SOUTH ELEVATION 1| . 1 - f It* 1 1- i.w , -i' - - 1 1 - -1 i --1121. ~ t.4 1 a-~ 4*t''iyi'liN i--7-k -Â· T- ~ 'b<< i ~~ '~Ii -" 1 ~. 5_~ +' ~.,J -~..4* 2 r~ 4-T'~ P 4. 4% 7 ;lk, 1 - 11 4- 1 4 '* 01 5 10 20 Pt/Â» 3 14*-1 kily727- --:3. M i= 2 'Mi l- 3. ~ .. . I - 1 1. - I . , E-' 2 -1 T OVE<Al.bo , / '.* ..5 'V'I'V ONINNV-Id ONV1 aNV 38n1031IHOEIV m ON I 631VIOOSSV ONV AlOHNI:I OIA V301 N3 I., , .-, 4 1 =â€¢mm...: .7 ''.0,0 ,~ * 9 1 % > 'k -It 0 + I I V.. a , 1 . 11 ** e . .' I I Â¥R MII'l---'-- t..1 4 I ./'.' 1 r. Cm i~/ I I . 1.4.. r 9 .4 3 k .. I i. 0 7â€¢ 4 ~ 22/7/9.....al Il NK"JIZE, jil-" V >4 44. 1 . , 14 4 ' . A- 5 ~~/v Â» 40/ 1 2 i.,1 1 I ...ill . : 7/'ll.V 1 ./ 1.- 04 4 0% 3 4 -4 Â·2~Â©a'. r, . \14, Z, ./N W.6., t 1 11, % 0 '* 4 I * I 4/I: k ..5.4 I: 3 I ; .: I 4 1 I ' ... 6 -Â·'416 g. 0, 2 1 A A .. >ti . :0 , g 9 2% . ./ 1 - 1 1 3 9 1 14 * ,lt. , : L &Â· 0 > 1.- ' f ' 8, P I ' ; 1. , ... Â· * "-1 .64 %. ' 1 0 44>, > . 42 $94 1 1*â€ž7/09 + L , r.if 'f * ' 59/b' lill 9/94 /9.., A : , 3 444"-4 1 ' 82 I . V f / 1, 31'464 tr ' D. .Â§~ ,21' i...., :124 ' ell. <716* 4. A 4 0 0' 4459 101 , '04,1 , ~ .i 41 ' A' 1 ' le ,Â·t. I. S * fc 3 ..1 .. ,1.6- ':4.,f '1, >4<Hi:.:1Â»,>C.M=.==.~tv . * I , V-9 ' $(2 1 - * p L. u~.vj '*1'r,â€¢Ee fil 4 . . ./ I <1:31~Zrd'f:. I I .//LO:.,Â»,360* 1/6/24- 11' , , ~ 4 . 79 4, I 4 4,4%4$'+4713/0, ti , ' '*... 1 ' + ~ , 4 ./ ' >I. /. 4 1/ '' I 'tjÂ¢ ... 1,1. I 1411 7. ~ 1 -2 'D' : 1 y' 4 ' . t. q 'fl..-arff/,i:/1 '-e,:,4.P , 'I I I - : 9 "14 .: ..1 <34 4 =-t V 1/ /1/liET J~ 1 ,;/16 ~ , . 1 . ' -2;4 , 4. ),L = . 4 I b 10. e i I .1 1,9, . 8. fÂ¢ ' 4..iL# ./ t. , 1,% V./0 :~<02, .1 ' j. i *AL'. - 4 6 4 . 21,1~ V 73 ; .'2 1 71/trilill/OFA. :Al t l.//41(44.2 , 82.*Al.9 ' Â»414 . a ,t. - 0 L tv I f " 4'5 ; ti ' ,:Aw, 4 if <5,91.Fs. , 34 . %' D. 34~Mi /11, r /1l-?*34 . V . ; 7 N. <1,/. 0 I ... 1; i.. 26/ Â» , r , Â·' 7 T .'ye ' d ~ 1 .*0 2/ Ch 4. 6. 1: % ~ =* Â·19 ' A %(40% . rl A . ... -- ..... D. 0 1 1 0 ...... ' 1 , ' 1 't~Â·'LAD? â€ž14%,~t,*:*Makl ~l.IJ .4*'44*6*7 3/ W 'ki~~&.Avoh"*MUVE- 4, 2.4*.2. I -*4 . - ly. ov f â€¢t A. : 66 S,â€¢t E OVERLAY - 2 u fieâ‚¬* . Â©44 45 Alt , 1 1. 2, . . lilli 11 1 frEÂ© 1 - to r. 9-3â‚¬13 0 1, Â·9Â£93?t --- - - 1 -1-1 --L - le: -7.-, -4 42&9Â¥fC tw:219#3@412.2,/46,2:3.Bi J I - I. Er -I - . --r Â· 14,_Effil.Imp7&- 4-1--R : -- Â·D o ,:li~ -- WAr ' r#;-%71FFET~frj -6--3 : --fi _ ~ - -k--_.-_ U - 1/ r 2 5 1- 4 - 6 ---2/lip- -- -3 ..--- 1 10 1 - - . .. 44"41, Fj 0,1 A : C, CÂ« 1,-7 7 (,- . P.1, rlid -- 1 - - - - r, 44 tb ~ I:.cj- 44/Â©2 .t.b'> 2 t*i)' IJXD yin/691- 1/9 ~,i~;3/CIt I -4.~3 < ~ 34*;fic 14--- Â·- ~mmm'inltrintillmt.Â·-- 'IF I le.}.Immm/, .. ''.1 ... , - I -- - -- =-- - - 1-m m r 1 200 49 - -+- -11 34&%- 1 Mm t # -- - -- I -- 14'll--1---$------ ----% 4,0 ./.1 -- - - -- ' 451,3 b $ 1 9 141 400 r 11 i/1 2:2 ~im ASPEN MEADOWS y. "' ~ PROPOSED TRUSTEE HOUSING DAVID FINI-IOLM AND ASSOCIATES INC. I ARCHITECTURE AND LAND PLANNING A I.A. 707 42, Aill ~ **41A#&~U.+"4 ,~diL~.:[ ~'fF'fiÂ·it~'Aft#:>p>Â·i~.,pr.,.:â€žf.4â‚¬~.4,6.:, ... -1 ..Clittif.~Â·41'd.Â¢.f Â·. ' Â· '~r ,? 1*5â‚¬'*&* r.*1*;.- .:..:..ti.Â¢4~~..Â·. ~,~ ..':..#,&*~44:24**4.iÂ·.24i4*kki{{94;672:< :~~'.r. 02 OL 9 =mmOS NOI1VA3 -- 7- - 1 - ill il':i lilli L - 9 21070292--._=051â‚¬8-M-2-UtLE[g PÂ«E_M-*tzIXâ‚¬rl- b - 1 11 =4 1 6, Le , J j ///7 4/ 1 -fff '' I L -- 41- 1.- 4,11 1 1,1 - -fl,Irl,L .,Il,1 + 1,Iti,li,I!|I|,~~~F-- il."111}1"4|LI,-,- "11'\11'r[&1:1& 1 tibi~~~~f~, / 11. 1 3. 1 ~ 11 1, 1 JIll 11 ' bl .1 11 hqubdl. 111 1 1 ,.....L~ >6-h 11 Â¥. 11, 1: il l'\ 1% 2 - I lili j i 141 ~r' 11' 7, 1 -4 QU:'ilii Â·'13 . 1.6 4/ 1 'Illt i ~ 11 - + ' rcr-Â«---7-1 .â€ž ........ .r---------, 111{11 1 1 ; 'El I ''t ; Lit 1 11 :] ~,4. l! I,!i i ; , 1 21 i si, 1 TEU~=Il, Â·: ''f ! 1141 : 1 .11 . . -- -.1 1 1:lillilillilill.."00"".1 - 1---ihÂ»[ +-ii- u 1-- '- -Â· , i. IRETT--'- T?~tkI~T-1-1 11 U H pr- 1 Â· 5) 0-!Pr.H Â¢4,0,Â«Â«i 0 14 . j .'. if.Jil " 7 - .1 - -,9,--Ji!. .. - ..1 ...1 -}.,- il:li:wi~.1/ --'Il--I--'I-'-'/I;' . - 11- : 42 3 iwilililillilillillililili -Eli -- 1,1 1 ....1 --1 21 /7 i I. -/, 74/11.>/ 1 ..~ /7 -,I-1,-r./f~---Â»788Â»HE'Â»1 1 ipwillillillillilill'.. 1 r.,s., ll' 1 1.j 1/ T#/ ) I . d,/lij AG~ -Â·.1 - 1 ,~. F - /0 -1 7 # liNE 1111111111111111111111 In-i,mi",1,1311-r,11â€¢â€¢IMI=â€¢1-â€¢~Ira.- 112-"1""nunwl'UllMAIM'limiwn' . A. Â£ ' #2:0Â£2.1.':IMÂ· =-12 --1'.c---*.. =====-----<-<-- iWIU ~AM.-2- 733,1:== -...~... lili, .1...1:1 - ~ 11 11.-ul .:Â£":..~11=.W...1,~.1~=i.~.;.gUE:AL'.'/9.2.~.'.: :6'W.:fru,W"".li'"ili:::fenti:.:':8Â£53.1-,Il:.1 -:.Wil"Miny:Uvini:'ijo::0..:'.*..'I.' ,..........W...â€žWU".Ila.....'., M:mEÂ£1 Evilifwi / Al:=M: L.1 1,161 ,I.. 1.- :t~Z~:mz~~~L .t~W~1 11' 11.1.1 : -- 1- - 9 ./11 - ..1./lit J.In~1' -RE ~ ~ ~f/~i ~11. ;*E~lbt ~ji /111 41, :411 - 1 ... - , 1,61 11, 1 .1 : Fli /:11' . lailizIJ'ji:41:if 1112 i iWET - 713~ IMUT~,",m,j=,9~:' .11 3!i;lf I,N ; / 31'â€¢ n 1 / ,/ 1 -0.110:.miami,/1,=al-*IT- -â€¢,--7--2~..........-------~--~- - 11[... . - ./411 ./1,/ >1 If -I-'.mi , /.11: >.1 f f , 4 '.,in::r:X:'i,~:.Uli:ti.:titi M.UL-(=.r"-12~JE~EE,rin~%,~:iU"%3 . 11, I. IN 1 / - 2 ----I-=il-lilli--/"n-i --I.I. innimmin,mum,Himen â€¢um-lur-~-111-ma-Ii,mimmul y..me-"=N""Pi.11111,11.-,-4. .....=-m.....lu-1.... ---*allilial-,i-rhil'aw ,=i=-" i~~llm---~millil-119:E~IIl- Itallill,-11,11-lintl-ullillium --=1==: -./.-1 . . 1 1 M Yetr.N loet' 90,07 Fol'! Pâ€¢FFâ€¢â€¢M Ill 1 WHE, il 0 I i 774*1Â· 0*Plcap M +L 10 i 1 0 L Putw~11 MÂ»cH+HicÂ» i I . 1. j Fforge FP UNI-r I Â· p><leTING UN IT'2 /t~ LoW.0Â·1< le*'84, Fl-.of FL/+1 - \ 5 4 -- - - \ I..=0 --- \ j 1 th '40 . 1 , b AD J FfoF'0949 UN IT 11 4 10. 0-*iÂ«F[Ne UNIT 1 W EÂ»-F E-& e~vt-r IOH - 111= 1 01- 011 ~11 + I ~1 il -11 - - L 3 -L - ---- ----l Up * l A! 1/U 7 Â¤~7017 4-0~ 910 1 rt/2 1, lv'He 1,!vINQ 100% 4-PR 01-11HW T 1 . lir' I, I . p 9,- .1rl .. -- UF 1 UF PH -- ----- '21.- p V lut.1-10 LIF' PH Ur-> 01 : 158[ Phi 0 - * tEEl. LIVIHO' T *gth-1 1 Prt %=1- 1 #wrIK.0 ~INVI , '711 1>4 7*le PN - A~ *H-rlef ~ -. 9 702.3 PM .~,-ECoNG 7 -_L (/ 7021 i-Ic I OF' 04 2. Go 440 / / 7026, PH 9,1 2 b 1%11139- ~ -./.---Il-Il- - 09<1â‚¬7FIN B UNIT Â£;1- F;;'MopoeFP UNIT 10 4 11 (1Â£ Mt' IN / +Hl-Ry 1*vÂ°*1, Fl,ooF Fl,r HI i= 10101 1 1 7 / 120-101 mill 9/1 1 1 4 (21 _UNI-1 84662del~ Â· 611-1-Iti dH 1,144 >69 - Nce,idgj -WAJ-444 0 , I- - 1 --- . 1 719*51 -- 71216 - o HW4 j__1 1.1 06'08â€¢4 - 0 14â€¢11 4 u,ZI, O +i.Wd ~ Wo#4,04 0 ~**/W Nd Ha li M074 41- LI*|d' - 171 21 - M'174 9- ip,1, . -;19461 -- - - -- I - I.--I -Ill.-- I - - .- I r - Â£2 1 L f h ----- 0 A ( T L- l - -7 - 1 / 0 / j 1 1 . - f 1% Â· j .1 , h< 101-1 Ho, UN IT,1. F'FOFâ‚¬9*EÂ·17 UNIT !0 4 11 Po o F FLe hi 14 14,0 < 3 1 1 81*t;'MdeMI , on Pet;,F;AS' 14 1--~ C AL T P.V)2211 -/0- E>017 Ma'M <11 1 0 - 7-7007 il,W .127 -- ur P M*1511'Hle'l' Â¥76 1Z. 1 Lfl E UF . [(51 PFFF~'po M 1,/UNPI<Â¥ M w.ckit Nice t, OO 1 - 3 / 0Â·><1Â«Fl He UH[T 1 Â· FleFPe *P UNIT 10 4 1-1 6 0 W * 0 60.v'~L, FL/00$ rL/5,- H 111.10 Ld,1 , ly 01tfJ Â£1 51 al -1-1 Hn 61.35~10315 00101 5,1 Holl-//va 1/3 1-1-LM Q N . 0...L 12 - ., 1,41 11'41. lilli 112--*-.L- , 1,~i,lild'111,11111111111'l~#1~1111,117~ , 1 -- If!lilli.1,,11.h,11, = ~ Â· 1,11.1 ~ 1 4,4.,4.'1.1'111I<i.Y' ilili"I,j-11' Jilt'11:11.~i !11:111illi,11 illin~ - - 3 1,#UE# 11!11 J' 11~ 1, i'~i |~ 1 11 11' 1 11 18 'Ir, 1 111 - 411 lIli *011 51111 li li 1 11 1,1 . Il 1.1 1 ' Ip j , 1111 -1|11 al~l|| i ' ||ll~'1-'4'lll'111" 1;'lilli 1.lili | i,|,0 - -|111,4 1 11 1|~1 ,1 1111,11111 11]1~~ 2-11 11' 111111 lili i'l Al 'i 'u i Ii' a i ,,1 - & 4 - i hit --11 .. ...41 i,1 119'll '411'| h It 1 1,14111 *41419'11 ~i |/1'.'11 10 1'~rl, IL>/ 011 1 lilli'01/ -1.1111 1 g il 11 1/113.-/ L - 1 1 1 1/lv'140 i blvIHe j~+7- 2 T 7. Â¢4- 1- 01 FIN ING , + --UF C,H Uf 01 0 I--- r--1 c 1. 0+1-nzy 1 E C><1 7-7.qu. 6 Ut*tÂ¥H Â¥ 73** L PH A-r. ce.c A----- 01 b . frope 0,9 UNIT I Â· 50<ler[H O UN IT 2 Ek _PH-rlÂ©f Â· Mrl H L-EX/E 1-- F LooM FLe- H 10,10Â£00 1(0 0 E -- il--I- .Il-I t OF=n 4, 94 44 AH 1. 1~A7 111 $ 1 04. 1 ,1 MrÂ«re-F reÂ·G?tza,M t*Â«[-Me 1.- et-rll O P ep 1/191.1 6 Br~ U '1 . 8 1 1 210100&9 1114 rE 1 0 09<le-r,He UNITâ‚¬ UFFÂ¥Â·M 1Â»/lM, Fl,-0,712:. FL#- H 07 fâ€¢ //6711 . .-I - L D . ' I li"'I",","Ili-. , 1 , FBO 90099 UNIT 1 0 *fle-T~ING UNITâ‚¬ FOOF F.LÂ» H 114 10 LO 1 iF .. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission I I THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Directot .>F FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: Entrance to Aspen, Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement DATE: August 28, 1996 HPC first discussed the entrance to Aspen alternatives proposed in the "Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)" on June 19, 1995, and forwarded a motion to CDOT finding that any disruption.of the National Register or locally designated sites, or the West End neighborhood is not warranted, that no new unrestricted four lane or two lane highway should be brought into the City, and that HPC encourages CDOT to look at other solutions such as utilizing the existing highway and adding a separate transit alignment. The HPC further noted the specific impacts caused by "Alternatives A-G" on Aspen's historic resources. The entrance to Aspen was discussed again on September 13, 1995. At that meeting Stan Clauson, Community Development Director, presented information regarding "Alternative H," which was developed as a result of the Transportation Symposium sponsored by the City subsequent to the release of the Draft EIS. HPC had specific questions about this alternative which could not be answered at the time, however in a straw poll the Commission indicated that "H" is a viable possibility with some conditions, namely further study of the light rail corridor. The City then hired a consultant, OTAK, Inc. of Portland, Oregon, to examine "Alternative H" in depth. Stan Clauson returned to HPC with further information on December 13, 1995 and HPC adopted a resolution indicating their general support for "Alternative H." This resolution was submitted as part of the formal comments on the Draft EIS. HPC subsequently made a motion on January 24, 1996 clarifying their interest in further study of mass transit options. After December 1995, CDOT considered comments and continued to refine their analysis of the proposed alternatives, including "Alternative H," working with OTAK and Centennial Engineering as their consulting team. HPC discussed the 4f draft analysis proposed for the DSEIS on June 5 and commented on it (minutes attached.) These comments were submitted to CDOT. The DSEIS, indicating CDOT's preferred alternative taking into account and attempting to mitigate impacts the natural and built environment, was released in mid-July. The alternative selected is the "modified direct" alignment, which crosses the Holden-Marolt site where the roadway dips below grade. HPC's comments in June indicated some serious concerns with this alternative, as compared to "alternative H," which had the roadway placed at the top of the embankment, skirting the Marolt site. The public comment period on the DSEIS ends on September 24. CDOT must respond to all comments in their preparation of a Final EIS, which is the next step in the NEPA (National Environmental Protection Act) process. A review copy of the full DSEIS is available at the Planning Office. Copies of the executive summary and 4f analysis are attached. Stan Clauson will be present at this meeting to answer any questions. j Summarv The extension of the project corridor to the northwest of Buttermilk Ski Area includes new right-of- way for light rail alignment and a light rail maintenance facility. The extension of the project corridor to the east of 7th Street and Main Street includes a light rail alignment and new traffic lane .j. configurations (within the existing curb lines) on Main Street, Monarch Street, and Durant Avenue to Rubey Park. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Implementation of the Preferred Alternative is contingent on actions by the City of Aspen, Pitkin 7 County, Snowmass Village, CDOT, PHWA and the private sector. Both the CDOT and FHWA are legally restricted to implementing only transportation improvements. Neither agency has a legal 1 basis for controlling land use decisions or implementing demand management policies such as increasing parking fees or changing the transit routing and scheduling. CDOT can only use state gas tax funds for highway related projects. All agencies must work together to successfully 1 implement the Preferred Alternative. The Preferred Alternative for the State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen DEE is the Phased Modified Direct Alternative. This alternative, evaluated in the DSEIS, is presented for the purpose of public discussion within the community. The Preferred Alternative includes a LRT system that, if sufficient local support and/or funding is not available, will be developed initially as phased exclusive bus lanes. The cross section of the Preferred Alternative allows the exclusive bus lanes to continue in operation during the construction of this LRT. The Preferred Alternative also includes a cut and cover tunnel on the Marolt-Thomas property and the Incremental Transportation Management CIM) Program. The Preferred Alternative solves the transportation problems of the corridor, reasonably reflects the agreements among the communities, and provides flexibility for unresolved issues which will be addressed in the future. REVIEW OF THE ENTRANCE TO ASPEN DEIS The original project corridor for the DEE was between Buttermilk Ski Area (milepost 38.57) and 1 the intersection of 7th Street and Main Street (milepost 40.49). The DEIS identified ten project objectives through the environmental scoping process that are also part of the DSEIS. These objectives are: â€¢ Community Based Planning â€¢ Transportation Capacity Safety 4 Environmentally Sound Alternative Community Acceptability '. Financial Limitations . â€¢ Clean Air Act Requirements j â€¢ Emergency Access 1 â€¢ Livable Communities Project Phasing Entrance to Aspen DSEIS S-3 VII. Mitigation Summary '4 HISTORIC RESOURCESÂ¥ 3/ ./7. ..I-=I'll-%:: 9.43iA Mitigation measures to the historic resources located along the DSEIS corridor include the following. These measures prevail over the mitigation measures outlined in the DEIS. Maroon Creek Bridget The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) will be provided opportunity to comment on the architectural compatibility of the design and placement of the new bridge. Design plans, drawings, anda photo record will be provided to the SHPO if the existing bridge is modified in anyway to accommodate transit use. Holden Smelting and Milling Complex: The edge of the pavement for Alternatives C, D, E, F, H, and the Modified Direct will be shifted to miss the Holden Smelting and Milling Complex. Ifthis shift is not possible, prior to construction of State Highway 82 improvements. a Memorandum of Agreement between the SHPO, the CDOT, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation will be implemented to mitigate the adverse effects of Alternatives C, D, E, F, H, and the Modified Direct. Possible mitigation measures include conducting a historic archaeological survey and excavation, slight reductions in width requirements for the new State Highway 82 right-of-way, extending the cut and cover to the bridge, and the SHPO review and approval ofberm design and landscaping plans that partially screen buildings on the property from the highway. Colorado .Widland Railroad: Designing the Preferred.Alternative with the least possible right-of- way width for the improved State Highway 82. 920 West Hailam: The SHPO and HPC will review and approve the proposed retaining wall and raiiing or other improvements which may be required under the alternatives in the vicinity of this resource. 834 West Hallam. 734 West Hallam. and the Berger Cabin: TheCDOT commits to aphotographic record of these locally designated resources if adverse effects cannot be avoided. Efforts to minimize harm to these resources will include designing the Preferred Alternative with the least possible right-of-way width. Smith/Elisha House: The SHPO and HPC will review and approve the landscaping and LRT overhead wire design in the vicinity of the Smith/Elisha House. Thomas Hvnes House: The SHPO and HPC will review and approve the landscaping and LRT overhead wire design in the vicinity of the Thomas Hynes House. i Entrance to Aspen DSEIS VII - 3 84 VII. Mitigation Summary Berger Cabin: The Berger Cabin will be avoided ifpossible. Ifit is not possible to avoid the Berger Cabin, it will be moved back on the existing property. The SHPO and HPC will review and approve the landscaping and LRT overhead wire design in the vicinity of the Berger Cabin. M."ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES **r ~,~ ~ The Archaeological Resources mitigation described in the DES has not changed due to the extension of the project corridor or the alternatives evaluated in this DSEIS. No supplemental mitigation information is provided in this section. N: PALEONTOLOGiEX~RESOURCES *I Ill~h~Mill The Paleontological Resources mitigation described in the DES has not changed due to the extension of the project corridor or the alternatives evaluated in this DSEIS. No supplemental mitigation infbrmation is provided in this section. ON St&+0144(fj RESOURCkS T~ -~~~ - * A discussion of the mitigation measures for the impacts to Section 4(f) resources located along the project corridor are in Appendix A: Section 4(f) Evaluation. These measures will be adopted by the FHWA prior to completion ofthe State High way 82 Entrance to Aspen EEIS. The Section 4(f) Evaluation in the appendix of this document replaces the Section 4(f) Evaluation in the appendix of the DEIS. -* iP. . FARMLANDS te# -*I.I-W.*5~-I The Farmlands mitigation described in the DEIS has not changed due to the extension ofthe project corridor or the alternatives evaluated in this DSEIS. No supplemental mitigation information is provided in this section. A noise barrier was analyzed along the south side of the proposed DSEIS State Highway ~2 alignment from the east side ofMaroon Creek Bridge to Truscott Place. The noise level at Receiver A is reduced to meet the FHWA criteria. 1 VII - 4 Entrance to Aspen DSEIS ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 5.1996 ENTRANCE TO ASPEN Stan Clausen, Community Development Director stated that this project has had a lot of discussion in terms of what changes might take place, generally whether the terminus might be at the base of Brush Creek Road or whether the line may be entirely on the South side ofthe Highway or would it be better to go up Galena or Hunter as opposed to Monarch Street. Clausen said that the reply from CDOT is really an environmental clearance based on the consensus over some project parameters that where developed with the Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC) for Snowmass, Aspen and Pitkin County, these things will remain fixed throughout the analysis and the finally EIS can make any ofthose changes that seem to be appropriate that stem from this analysis. Clausen stated that there have been some minor changes as things have progressed and the engineering has progressed, the "in" station is still the airport terminal, they have provided for a possible, future CMC station, a North 40 development station, they would service the LRT at the maintenance facility, not far from the existing RFTA maintenance facility, the intercept lot would be the point of auto transfer, the Buttermilk station would be the point of bus transfer and there would be two lanes in from Buttermilk, he said this is all subject to change in the final EIS. Clausen said the rail would go along the South side of the Highway as far as the Buttermilk station and Buttermilk would incorporate a relocated Owl Creek road into a single intersection with Buttermilk parking lot, the new Maroon Creek Bridge would carry two lanes of automobile traffic and a single track of light rail will be located to the South o f the existing Maroon Creek Bridge, this would have no impact on the ball fields or Zoline Open Space but would impact private residential development, there would be a station, under consideration for the golf course and the Tennis Club subdivision, there would be a station at the A/loore property Maroon Creek road with a small transfer facility. Clausen stated that one lane of traffic in bound will proceed from the Maroon Creek road intersection on a round about intersection with Cemetery Lane and then along the alignment that will come as close to the Castle Creek embanki.nent as possible, along with the lightrail, these would come in at a new b'ridge approximately on 0direct alignment with Main Street, the Berger Cabin will have to be reldcated on site but will allow the Cabin to remain functionally in place, Main Street would be a double track in the center, Main Street would be two lanes of traffic until the intersection of 3rd at 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 5.1996 which point there would be one lane of traffic and one lane of parking, outbound will have the same configuration for Main Street, the Christian Science library will not be impacted as a building although there may be some easing of the curb radius, two lanes will continue outbound over the Castle Creek bridge and the two lanes would carry until a double left turn at which point there will be a single outbound lane. Melanie asked why the Christian Science building will be impacted if it will go from three lanes to two, can't it swing out away from it to lessen the width and ease that curve without getting near the building. Clausen responded that he thinks they are operating entirely within the right-of-way that exists, but right now it is a very square corner and they would change it to a 20' radius or something which would not necessarily impact the front yard of the building but swing the sidewalk in a different way. Jake asked where the four lane, coming up valley will stop and turn into one lane. Clausen responded in this configuration the four lane will become two lanes at Buttermilk. Jake stated so it is one lane in from Buttermilk. Clausen said it is essentially one lane in each direction, inbound is one lane but on the outbound lane is carried as two lanes through the S curves as far as Maroon Creek road to compensate for the slow design speed of the curves, the engineering thought is by having two lanes it will minimize any possibilities of congestion and back ups because the capacity will be increased. Jake asked what will happen to the existing Maroon Creek bridge. Clausen responded that it is slated to be turned into a pedestrian bridge, an engineering analysis has determined that it would not sustain continued use by heavy traffic. Donnelley asked what if the light rail alternative is abandoned, can the present scheme for routing traffic still be done. Clausen responded that is a complex question in the sense that this is designed as a piece, the single travel lane for automobile traffic is compensated for by the capacity ofthe light rail.,Â· j Vickery asked about the points in the road where the tracks will cross the road. Clausen responded that the tracks cross through the center of the 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 5.1996 round about, a gate will go down when the train comes through, it should be understood that the actual crossing at the round about will require 10-15 seconds, tile disruption will be very brief. Vickery asked what the frequency of the trains will be. Clausen responded tile trains would run every 10 minutes in each direction so there will actually be a train every five minutes, crossing at that point. Jake asked if the train runs at the same speed as the automobiles, do they have priority. Clausen said the train would be capable o f running at high speed 50-55 miles an hour, the train will have facilities for signal preemption, before it comes to a stop light it sends a message to the light to turn it green, it will always have green lights. Roger asked what Clausen's opinion of the impact on historical resources for this design and where will the bikeway link be in relationship to all of this. Clausen stated they have not designed bikeways, he said he knows there has been great concern about Main Street and the effect o f having a lightrail in the center of Main Street, particularly trolley wires, he thinks this can be well integrated with Main Street and with good urban design work. Susan stated that the streets that were mentioned that it might turn on, of all, Monarch seems an awfully busy intersection, Hunter is a possibility or further up Main Street. Clausen said there is a task force that is looking into other options, in the original proposal CDOT determined that for their analysis they needed to have a functional terminus at either end and Monarch seemed to them as viable a street as any, the quarter mile zone that is drawn around a station stop, when it included the station stop at Monarch and Main and Rubey Park really covered the downtown area, the concept is to have it running along the curb on Monarch and on Durant. Clausen stated that in assessing this, one assessment is the compatibility of the system concept with historic Main Street, generally and another is the compatibility ofthe program with various specific historical resources such as the Berger Cabin and the Christian Science library, another key area is the Holden/Marolt. Clausen said the other alternative they are analyzing is the modified direct alignment, which has essentially all the samq elAments except the one way couplet, everything is carried in a modified direct alignment into Main Street, the consequence is the Cemetery Lane 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 5. 1996 intersection is eliminated and bring Cemetery Lane as the exclusive roadway right in on Castle Creek bridge. Martha asked if the project is phased. Clausen said the cost is being analyzed very thoroughly as part of the supplementary draft and an activity will be taking place at the end ofthe month to deal with the financing. Martha said she has heard, strictly rumors everything from it would cost $15 per passenger to come from down valley therefore that would limit the ridership. Clausen stated that i f a four lane highway is built that has the least direct cost, but has greater indirect cost by way of offsite improvements, offsite impacts have to be considered, the costs are pretty close one way or another. Melanie asked ifthere is any way to swing the lightrail further South since Berger Cabin will be moved anyway. Clausen stated that although it has never been recorded, CDOT made sort of a handshake agreement with the people at the Villa's to stay approximately 60' away from their buildings. Melanie stated she heard 30'. Melanie said she understands this entrance in can not be underground because the grades are so different. Clausen stated that there has beenquite a bit of debate about undergrounding, there are considerably more people who experience the Marolt open space as a view unfolding as you drive into town than there are people actually on it recreating and if you put everyone underground you have to ask yourself is that an entry into Aspen that would really be appreciated by the number of people that actually use it. Amy said next to the Holden Milling and Smelting Complex is about the location of the foundations of the old mill itself and she said she didn't think we want to impact that area with bridge abutments any more than we have to, in addition she did not know the boundaries of the Berger properties but they would like to do an on site relocation ofthat and the more you move the bridge down the less possible that is. Amy said there were some specific sites that need to be addressed. Amy said in all the alternatives, the Maroon Creek bilidge will be left intact. Roger asked if the new bridge would be same height, higher or lower. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 5.1996 Amy responded that they do not know yet, she said that we all have mixed feelings about the way the pedestrian bridge looks, but the experience is incredible, getting a look at the old bridge and we will put interpretive signs that talk about how the railroad used to come in and looking at the valley is beautiful. Vickery said Roger's point is well taken, ifthe new bridge was somewhat lower in relationship it might make the old bridge more visible. Amy said we may want to request a pedestrian walkway somehow, she is suggesting it is too early to get into that sort of plot now. Suzannah said she heard the new bridge would help people see the existing bridge structure. Amy stated that all were in agreement with the comments on the Maroon Creek Bridge, Colorado Midland Right-of-way, Castle Creek Power Plant and 920 W. Hallam. That we find the impact not unacceptable and mitigation's available. Amy said that historically this is where the train came into town, the Colorado-Midland train came right across Holden Marolt and into town at the base of Shadow Mountain. Vickery asked if the modified direct alignment is part of Alternative H. Amy responded that it is an option within Alternative H. Vickery said if we were to superimpose, particularly the modified direct alignment the location o f the archeological survey, do you think this runs through that area. Amy responded that she thinks there are archeological remains all around the site, but the ones in particular are in the embankment that are seen from the existing bike bridge. Amy said those won't be touched. Amy stated that she feels we need them to confirm that and avoid that, the new Castle Creek bridge is probably going to impact it, we need to make them aware that the abutments have to be carefully placed. 1MOTION: Donnelley moved that the HPC forward j comments to CDOT in the form of a resolution as drafted by Staff with the recommended findings altered as per 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 5. 1996 Staff's notes taken at this meeting and the below alterations 0 to the memo; For Holden Marolt the comments were that both of the alternatives greatly impact the site and its use as a museum. The cut and cover does not seem to accomplish much. There is some favoritism of alternative H Castle Creek alignment because it would result in slower traffic movement and about half the traffic volume and it is further away from the historic resource. There is the possibility of berms but we want to make sure to preserve the visual connection between users of the train and the road and the site. We are concerned about the location of the archeological remains on the hillside and how the bridge impacts them. Amy asked if the Board wanted to mention the Colorado Midland Right-of-way, did we want to express concern about the road base being elevated or close to the existing grade. Amy stated that on the Colo. Midland Right-of-way we want the new road surface to be close to the existing grade. On the Berger cabin there is a question as to whether the cabin can (even) be moved and if not we do not want to see that building demolished. Possibly explore the idea of lowering the road way in that area. For the Smith Elisha House, Thomas Hynes House (Kuhn) and Main Street in general we have a concern with the placement of the poles, stations, gates etc. j We may prefer to see the train on one side or the other as opposed to down the center of the road. We 0 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 5. 1996 strongly encourage investigation of alternative powers that would not require the polls, wires etc. Second by Suzannah. Discussion: Vickery asked what is important about having the grade similar to the existing grade on the Midland Right-of-way, what are we getting. Amy responded that the idea is to minimize the destruction or changes to the Right-of-way. Susan stated that at the Wheeler it was stated that the traffic influx is not going to be as great as people think, she said Europeans are geared to trains and Americans are geared to cars and she feels it will never change. Amy stated that our valley has one of the highest riderships, in the bus system in the country and we certainly have international clientele. Suzannah stated that part of this entire concept is to encourage people to stay here as well as allowing people to come here and to drive less. All in favor, motion carried. iMOTION: Jake moved to adjourn; second by Donnelley. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. t Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk ~ j 9 111. Alternatives i g mt, l CÂ» 1 / <7 1 Ir- -2 tr 1 4 21\Eat lit 23 24 - LS i i nlij 421-- a ' 4-=F\im 1 0X 'Iii . , 1 9/ 1\\ itizi Hallam Street -./ / i iÂ« UM 0 Of/n n ,<4>[6 2 3-~ 1 ~ l Aspen \ / , . %& Golf Course if Â·. i C )n,\ 1 A %4 15 \ . It. 7 04 0 1 007 / -- ,-r- 1 1 Bleeker Street 'fj I -0.20 .1% 1 -ol L ~4* f 03 3 1 1 4 12 - 61 <13 4141 n /1 dEi Ei 2 i .- \ 1 4 1 Cr ek Bri--u t ~~ 'INJ~ CS 4 \ \ - Modified Direct Marolt-Thomas ; Property " i C~-6 i N 6------1- li t Ct# and Cove i v 1\ \ \ \ 1 i 1 01-AE i \* 4 <~ ~~~~ ~<w Â¤ 2L -- ~ J 0 -r Legend: - Improvement Alternatives LRT -- Single Track ~A LRT -- Double Track 3cale Â·1:3,000 Figpre III-5 LRT Station Modified Direct Between 0 50 100 meters Maroon Creek Road LRT Crossing Gale 0 100 200 300 feet and 6th Street , Cut and Cover Ill-15 1 1. M . 0 Co % Â© S i I P 0\ ph >D 8\ 11 .---- 1 M \0 . -/ e O 4 Â« cs Aspen \ \ Golf Course 4 1 1 Â¢,t 0 l + -- - I Â·Â·--Â·:/--/peikir/:fisir . .0.5 44 0 .2-Â· 4171.2 -,â‚¬6= Ic==- r-- i - -a--12- - ' -'>~ 46- --$--~~e- I f 61 \1 \ . i Marolt-Thomas i; Modified Direct Property it Iii Ii I M i Legend: Improvement Alternatives LRT -- Single Track S LRT -- Double Track i- LRT Station 0 LRT Crossing Gate Cut and Cover ~ Entrance to Aspen DSEIS 11- 15 j MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 710 N. Third Street- Minor DATE: August 28, 1996 SUMMARY: The applicant requests HPC approval to extend the eave of an existing roofline and to construct a storage closet on the exterior of the house. The building is a designated landmark. APPLICANT: Nancy Greenway, owner. LOCATION: 710 N. Third Street. PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District, or development involving a historic landmark must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 26.72.010(D) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale, and site plan with the 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 .... Response: The proposal is to extend the roofline of an existing addition (done in about 1980) 26"to provide a shelter over proposed exterior storage closets. A privacy fence, whictris under review for staff approval, will block view of the storage areas. The roof extension will not significantly impact the historic resource. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The proposal will not affect the character of the neighborhood. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on 0 the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Response: There is no impact on the historic significance of the designated structure. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: There is no impact on the architectural character or integrity of the resource since there is only minimal demolition, and the demolition affects non-historic areas of the building. The alterations will not be easily visible to the public. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: â€¢ Approve the Minor Development application as submitted. ~ â€¢ Approve the Minor Development application with conditions to be met prior to issuance of a building permit. â€¢ Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (Specific recommendations should be offered.) â€¢ Deny Minor Development approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC approve the minor application. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "1 move to approve the request to extend the 665+ - w- -western roofline and add storage closets." ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: 0 LLNEST V flak) 1 10 1.1 TH- l k 5 2 * 1 Â£4Tk.16- LOALL ~kooff..1 k,1 2 kdpose-b Srokte/ReFU kiE 1941\\19Â« - 57**51 &19 ~ Sealn V.*lh ~f--1 -Roa p \\ - ---.--X- t 1 + - 1-524- -- .-49:*Mt:t* , me*j Ace? t. > - 76 -Matzo 9'- ----9 !2LEC STDkAGG IÂ· 1 . . . a.bc+L -7' PAÂ·NE US ' --i.--r-kIEr 1+Ju)0013 334, ' EDÂ»Le f.412~1 1.ler ~ir=~r- 1 . '-A--.----- i, 2- F.~-441.E j g.73/ ACE _ i le.. L :a~'a- U.Lier- 1, bc- â‚¬04-*4,8-0 1 U â‚¬ 91-2 -6 !9/ â‚¬27-,1,611 93 Catit,L r - 3> lain Azi spe,{U.41 ir,%*~,I,":Ucn:.1 110Â¢ /4 fit s-hink â‚¬. tâ‚¬icÂ«]C Fan ele ir hocl 1 i ' 0(.24 1 â‚¬Â·usb- rj unnao 661 1 1 So GLT* V1 |24) : 1 AUG 22 1996 /4-9.-/ 4 1 t - - - - --- - ~, 1-- 1--1 It---1+ 1 : 14' " .-- 30; 1 FLAT- 12Cce WILL laoT Ettnu) Prfet-f kIE \- 0â‚¬Ft-- 112*TXâ‚¬$<:54.Qk (D' PEÂ©(lIE t AUEn 616 1Ak:ED L.1 LAL h e ~-i--4 \ i L r- , A vi L r 23-Tvl#L- i ---- - - -- GREELL.POSYS 1 1 E-3 -6.. 2.4-/4 4*7 iÂ·EA,- 14- Ymisix HOAP - St.CLO % 6 6-0 6 *0(:E.Lib 6-94 . 0064 3 7kue TUD 64 -TZ> #VIA:ra-1 F EKLEE 1'1 1 - -rf [D 11 -722: ~lAme 2CTER 51 041 -ID 20-1.19Â¢91- oF= f It REku.OJAL 6-P Fy\a A Â· - 1. At*l 11 Ckl CP Al>ikaL . 22 'ikAFTE)2-I-k (L-'5, â‚¬Â£'TEN Gl kle + 012 1=j*-T I k! TD (rE[':TI 116- *AFT12115 (P Eti STI AG- e.eNS T.Alic-noN ~MFkMLT5 8. WEPLAce FAC.la- Â£ Al:,6 -TD ElaST-ING. So-p peT 4. keÂ©F 'Tb UMA-+64 -Ell 9-7 ki 6 r'i-jh' AUG 22 1996 CCÂ»4Â·-'44 r Y Be,eLO-heNT 1, EXIST-1 kle Rocru id E - 1 Â»Â»1-,f rt 92 e. 6~.r,l ..0 '21," i\~~"L' u lif ._ 0~*~ce. Â·~ ' â‚¬-- â‚¬1Â·de:txica-# ' . 60Â£ 1.0/ -PR~EQ--th 7R c c P 1-1 1.1.5 - lu 't e Â·Â£.Unlt CA Cr -/,1 J.L .I- j-A 1.p' 4. 6(_ 5-:, thuÂ·g _ -fÂ· 41 .-/Th it I AUG 22 1996 J CC.4 : 6 . teÂ·19..i,ert ~ j GE,Ebuum 3 21 262&122 -110 14 . lit, 12 7-. ige it,Co Ch< 1-1SO d I LLE 5,1NE S.J /?1 L 1 4,1..1( i'.0.44,79 4 , 9 I ,Â¥~4'.4%346/49#31 0,rir -4 4 108 'AM G . 1 ... m."GU *y , .,s.~~r ' ..4 devo~2 . . 1/2/iN& Â»Â·Â·k~ r. 465.1 3t ,. . - -1-24.2. '11.--164 Â£ ' 1 {211~<'*)~$ ;9'' Â·Â·r 1. 6Â¥~ I N -,b .1 '.. .: ={A-Wi./i:- 0./ : .'./LYÂ·.j.-1....'.1 -Â·;.i - .1.R,~,i- t ..~ 4%432::,Â» .32*- 1..4 Z,i 01!,is .'. .: , 1. ;71.:,lit : -'. ..+1..Ef,/, . { . . -9- ; 3.â‚¬/Â®F ' . 1. -1 1.1*1 : r-7 kn ./. - "/192Â·1 1 -1' :,Â·. r ~~-~~ ~~ .i-f.- 2 :~d///63~~1 21.,cl*lii~11 ~i '1:f <~.~ I:ni .,-i- ~ .. 15 --tÂ· .132~ ~ ~ ~ r.t=.:< 11-1.21~ i,k . 4 FORD . , 40 Â·Â·- u-it*%3>deta ic Â»acy. - 4- 37 4 rit MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Directo FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 935 E. Hyman Avenue- Conceptual review, PUBLIC HEARING (continued from August 14) and Final review DATE: August 28, 1996 SUMMARY: On August 14, HPC reviewed, at a public hearing, a formal request for an FAR bonus of 250 sq.ft., to be split between the two units. The Commission indicated an interest in granting an FAR bonus for the benefit of lightwells only, but tabled because drawings did not clearly depict exactly how the bonus would be allocated. At this time the applicant presents a full set of plans showing the project with a 136.14 sq.ft. FAR bonus, and a basement floor plan showing the character of the lightwells without an FAR bonus. Conceptual and final approval for one of the two schemes is requested. The proposal is to develop two units on a 6,000 sq.ft. parcel. The units are completely detached from one another and are restricted to the FAR allowed for a duplex on this lot. The property is a designated historic landmark due to the presence of Ute No. 4 (the rock). APPLICANT: Kentco, represented by Ron Kanan and Kim Raymond. LOCATION: 935 E. Hyman Avenue, Lot 1 of the Kentco Lot Split, East Aspen Addition to the Townsite of Aspen. ZONING: RMF, historic landmark. Conceptual Development PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 26.72.010(D) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. 1 ;ritfr) 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, 0 massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. 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 by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site coverage by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units, pursuant to Section 26.40.090(B)(2). Response: The property is bordered on the west by a large condominium block. The site on the east is currently under redevelopment. Three other inventoried properties exist in the neighborhood; two miner's cottages across the street and the pan abode cabins on the comer. The two structures proposed for this site are 1,600 sq.ft. above grade each. The applicant has been granted sideyard and distance between building setback variances. The ADU's are above grade, resulting in an FAR bonus 0 of approximately 150 sq.ft. per unit. The applicant requests an additional FAR bonus of 136.14 sq.ft. to be allocated to larger sized lightwells. Staff recommends this variance be granted, since it has no above grade impacts and improves the quality of the living space. Other changes which were recommended on July 24, were to eliminate all windows which violate Ordinance #30, except on the alley, to lower the roof form on the stair towers on each unit, and to eliminate stucco in the gable ends. The stair tower on building "A" still has a window that violates Ordinance #30. A landscape plan is provided. HPC's primary concern is to avoid overplanting in front of the rock. This has been accomplished. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. 0 2 Response: The neighborhood has some single family, some duplex and some multi-family development. The two detached units crowd the site, but do create smaller structures which are compatible with the neighboring miner's cottages. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Response: The survey rock is preserved for public view. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: This standard is not applicable. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: 1) Approve the Development application as submitted. 2) Approve the Development application with conditions to be met prior to issuance of a building permit. 3) Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (specific recommendations should be offered) 4) Deny Development approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. Recommendation: Staff recommends HPC grant conceptual and final approval with the condition that no vegetation other than ground cover be planted between the rock and the street in the future, and that the triangular window on the building "A" stairtower be revised to meet Ordinance #30 or removed. Recommended motion: 9 move to grant conceptual approval, including a 136.14 sq.ft. FAR bonus for the lightwells, and final approval for 935 E. Hyman Avenue, with the condition that no vegetation other than ground cover be planted between the rock and the street in the future and that the 3 triangular window on the-Â·156Raing--5*k-.Gtairtower be revised to meet Ordinance #30 or removed. 0 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission .. / /I\ ..J THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director -/-- FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 214 E. Bleeker Street- Historic Landmark Lot Split, Conceptual review, On- Site relocation, Ordinance #30- PUBLIC HEARING (continued from July 24, 1996) DATE: August 28,1996 SUMMARY: HPC reviewed this application on July 24 and granted Conceptual approval for the proposed addition to the historic house, as well as the lot split. Ordinance #30 is also met. The partial demolition aspect of the project was tabled with the request that the applicant restudy the proposal to demolish and replace an existing outbuilding. At this time the applicant requests approval for the relocation of the existing outbuilding onto the newly created vacant lot, and Conceptual approval for the new outbuilding, which will sit on the historic lot. APPLICANT: W.G.Brumder Florida Land Trust, represented by Gretchen Greenwood. LOCATION: 214 E. Bleeker, Lots N,O,P, and Q, Block 72, City and Townsite of Aspen. ZONING: R-6, historic landmark. Conceptual Development PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H," Historic Overlay Distriqt must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 26.72.010(D)'of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. J 1 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. 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 by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site coverage by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units, pursuant to Section 26.40.090(B)(2). Response: The property is adjacent to the Community Church, and is part of one of the more intact historic areas of the West End. The applicant wishes to take advantage of the newly created historic landmark lot split option. This allows the property to be divided into two smaller lots, each of which will contain a building of approximately 2,400 sq.ft. This development will be in scale with the surrounding neighborhood and is significantly more compatible with the historic structure than would be an addition which would triple the original building's size. The total FAR allowed for Lot A, which will contain the historic landmark, will be 1,913 sq,ft. The existing house is 1,589 sq.ft., and the applicant proposes to make a small addition of 152 sq.ft. on the north side of the house. The remaining 172 sq.ft., plus a requested FAR bonus of 500 sq.ft. will be placed in a freestanding outbuilding on the alley. The shed which is currently in that location is proposed to be relocated to the other half of the site, where new development will occur. HPC has found that conceptually the new addition is in an appropriate location and of an appropriate design, and the lot split has been approved. The existing outbuilding is a bedroom for the house. It appears to be original to the site and is in fair condition, however its quality as living space is marginal at this point. See further discussion in the on-site relocation review below. The new outbuilding will have two bedrooms. No kitchen is allowed in the new building unless it is approved as an accessory dwelling unit. 2 Response: Again the alteration to the original house is minimal. On-Site Relocation Section 26.72.020(E). Standards for review of on-site relocation. No approval for on-site relocation shall be granted unless the HPC finds that all of the following standards are met: 1. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be the best preservation method for the character and integrity of the structure, and the historic integrity of the existing neighborhood and adjacent structures will not be diminished due to the relocation. Response: The applicant proposes to relocate the existing outbuilding to the newly created lot. A revised site plan will be presented at the meeting. It is anticipated that the outbuilding may be used as a garage in the future, but no plans for its renovation are prepared at this time. The outbuilding appears to be original to its current location, according to the Sanborne map. The shed appears to be in fair condition, but in need of substantial improvements to be livable. The house has only two bedrooms and the applicant is willing to locate the other two bedrooms necessary for them in an outbuilding, rather than make a substantial addition to the house. To that end, staff supports relocation of the historic shed to the adjacent parcel. 2. The structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and re-siting. A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation. Response: A report must be submitted prior to application for building permit. 3. A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond or other financial security with the engineering department, as approved by the HPC, to insure the safe relocation, preservation and repair (if required) of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation. Response: A relocation plan and bond must be submitted prior to application for building permit. Staff recommends a bond in the amount of $2,000 for the shed. 4 The new outbuilding as proposed is over the allowable height limit for an accessory structure. The applicant has several options; to only build a one story outbuilding, to connect the outbuilding to the house so that the principal building height limit applies, to request a height variance from the Board of Adjustments, or to have the unit approved as an ADU (a code amendment allowing an 18' height limit for cottage infill is pending.) Staff has consulted with the applicant and they wish to have a reading from HPC. They are willing to build a breezeway connection, but would prefer not to. They are willing to approach the Board of Adjustments, but there is no certainty that a variance would be granted. Staff does have some concerns with the impact of such a tall structure directly on the alley, especially given the applicant's request to build the new outbuilding in essentially the same location of the existing outbuilding, right on the rear lot line. Staffs recommendation is that the outbuilding be brought into compliance with the 5' rear yard setback requirement and that the second floor plate height (currently 8'), be pulled down to the extent possible. In addition, the detailing of the new outbuilding may be modified to be more in keeping, but not imitative, of the historic house. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: As stated above, this neighborhood has significantly retained its historic character. Dividing the development on the lot into two buildings is a significant in maintaining compatibility with the neighborhood. The applicant also intends to retain an alley structure and create a new one, which increases activity in the alley. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Response: The alteration to the historic house is minimal. The shed is discussed below. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. j 3 ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: 1) Approve the Development application as submitted. 2) Approve the Development application with conditions to be met prior to issuance of a building permit. 3) Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (specific recommendations should be offered) 4) Deny Development approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. Recommendation: Staff recommends HPC grant approval for the relocation of the historic outbuilding and recommends tabling the conceptual approval of the new outbuilding, requiring that it meet the rear yard setback requirement, that the detailing be restudied to be more compatible with the historic resource, that the second floor plate height be lowered to the extent possible, and that the applicant proceed to the Board of Adjustments for a height variance. Recommended motion: 9 move to approve the on-site relocation of the outbuilding, and to table the conceptual review application as it relates to the proposed new outbuilding for 214 E. Bleeker Avenue to September 11, 1996, requiring that it meet the rear yard setback requirement, that the detailing be restudied to be more compatible with the historic resource, that the second floor plate height be lowered to the extent possible, and that the applicant proceed to the Board of Adjustments for a height variance." 5 Brumder Residence 214 East Bleeker Aspen, Colorado Partial Demolition Conceptual Development Historic Lot Split presented by Gretchen Greenwood and Associates, Inc. 520 Walnut Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 970 925 4502 t , 1 1 , j ATTACHMENT 1 0 LAND USE APPUCATION FORM 1. project name ORÂ«mder Re.:/dence 2. Project location Â©2/4 E. 6/te/(Br JY Â· Block -10, Lo-N N, O, P, Q +,spen 7btonsitt (indicate street address, lot and block number or metes and bounds description) 3. Present zoning /~2- GO 4. Lasta /69,8 9.fFÂ· 5. Applicanfs name, address and phone number 11/0 6- Btullder /%;r/da Z 4/74 -Trust cio -Torn Filguadd , 400 a. W/.scons/n -Strtâ‚¬f SuatÂ£ 8100, rr}Ilwaukic., W#*cons,n 6. Representative's name, address, and phone number **40,9 9/touuavt 1 01Â»>ouakes, Mc. 52-0 Wcan ut -SY. A,pen, Co . BU.U 7. Type of application (check all that apply): Conditional Use Conceptual SPA 1/0' Conceptual HPC Special Review Final SPA Final HPC 8040 Greenline Conceptual PUD Minor HPC Stream Margin Final PUD Relocation HPC Subdivision Text/Map Amend. Historic Landmark 0 - GMQS allotment GMQS exemption v'' Demo/Partial Demo View Plane Condominiumization Design Review .- Lot Split/Lot Line Appeal Committee Adjustment ML ttisturic La-t Sk-t 8. Description of existing uses (number and type of existing structures, approximate sq. ft., number of bedrooms, any previous approvals granted to the property*Victon an RES,dence. = 4553 4. * 3 Bed,ao,yu â€¢ halessory (31 4~9/ Ouj-build,49 -431(0 59, ftÂ· v/ mech ceom 1 one be coom â€¢ Proputtj /6,4#SmR ICFL LANDmAÂ« 9. Description of development application -5-ec a.*hz.Aal 0 PÂ»m}al. Demo##1*m: Acu-$>or, 8/01,4 onk, (*1_Cancep~u,J De,vaopmeny 5 thi,on c 407 *Spirt 10. Have you completed and attached the following? b v'' Attachment 1 - Land use application form j 1/ Attachment 2- Dimensional requirements form 4 Response to Attachment 3 0 ,/ Response to Attachments 4 and 5 ATTACHMENT 2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Applicant: W. 6,8/tunder Address: 61 14 East 81< tktr st-Â· Zone district: R. M Lot size: /69Â¢>3 Existing FAR: '/,857 31.flÂ· Allowable FAR: 4$ 4757 34,791 Proposed FAR: LoT A d a, 41:39.4 Ldr 8â€¢ a, 8+4 49Â· f,Â¥- Existing net leasable (commercial): N~A Proposed net leasable (commercial): NIA Existing % of site coverage: @50/0 or 62,990 59. 611 Proposed % of site coverage: 607>4 : 40 Â°/our 4,385<cy. tt- LaT St 4016 ar Existing % of open spaz. NIA ,A/HZ; Proposed % of open space: NiA Existing maximum height: Principal bldg: 23 Lo. Accesory bldg: /5 ZON Proposed max. height: Principal bldg: 42 L 00 Accessory bldg: 25-3*-* Proposed % of demolition: /790 AcceÂ»ory 8/dq . only Existing number of bedrooms: * Sed,foorns ' Proposed number of bedrooms: 4 Bed/coma Existing on-site parking spaces: O On-site parking spaces required: O Setbacks 0 Existing' Minimum required: (*r Proposed;LOT & Lo I 6 Front /5-0. Front: / 0 9k Front: Al> Samt to Rear: 35 L O" Rear: /O 1119(0'~+ Rear- 0027-0" / 0 Combined Combined 99,1 66) Combined Fronvrear: 50 Lot Front/rear: 30 Front/rear: jl 426'30 Side: 7 L 30- Side: /S Side: / 5 Side: 70 Lo" Side: /5 Side: 5 5 Combined Combined Combined Sides: 77 LOu Sides: 50 Sides: /0 lo Existing nonconformities or encroachments: /AcceÂ·$30/9 2~/dy ('4*/377*'40 encrooth-es A Old 01 Variations requepted: 500 59Â· ft. EA,2 4 S' riar 4 ou-,1 Vcl,ftÂ«,f\(Â£ twÂ· prÂ°FÂ°'e-el Lot#*>uacttr~ Â· (H PC has the ability to vary the following requirements: setbacks, distance between buildings, FAR bonus of up to 500 sq.ft., site coverage variance up to 5%, height variations under the cottage infill program, parking waivers for residential uses in the R-6, R-15, RMF, CC, and O zone districts) 0 PARTIAL DEMOLITION ATTACHMENT 3 GENERAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS 1. Applicant's Name and Address: W.G. Brumder Florida Land Trust c/o Thomas B. Fitzgerald 400 E. Wisconsin Street Ste. 200 Milwaukee, Wisconsin Representative: Gretchen Greenwood (See attached letter) 2. Street and Legal Description: 214 East Bleeker Aspen, Colorado 81611 Block 72, Lots N,O,P and Q 0 3. Attached to the application is a copy of the disclosure of ownership of the parcel as Exhibit A. 4. Attached to the application is Exhibit B, the vicinity map locating the subject parcel within the City of Aspen. 0 Uf/14 OV A 1 + 1.J 1 U â€¢ t .....& I I r. . I ..... 0 400 EAST WISCONSIN AVENUE SUITE 200 MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN 53202 July 15, 1996 Historic Preservation Commission City of Aspen Aspen. Colorado Gretchen Greenwood of Gretchen Greenwood and Assoc., Inc. is authorized to act on behalf of the W.G. Brumdet Florida Land Trust, owner of the property at 214 East Bleeker Street in reference to the application she is making to you on behalf of the Trust. The address of the Trust ia as follows: W.G. Brumder Florida Land Trust c/o Thomas B. Fitzgerald 400 East Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 200 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202 (414) 291-7820 please direct any questions and/or inquiries regarding the attached application lo Ms. Greenwood at the following address: Gretchen Greenwood 520 Walnut Street Aspen, Colorado 51611 (970) 925-4502 SinceI'ely, _UL_ g.-//0/1.#.12;*32;L Thomas B. Fitzgerald TBF:lk l , 0 SL)8Di v 1510 fo 1 TZ) M~ - FLATS ROAD .SEE PAAE- 10 KED FLOUL,111(N . / 9,0.- 247 25, h 0, 0 tv 0 #LLOUGH 2 \ 44 Mot - CENT 94 'PAE,12 4 9 29/9, AUDI'mt'VM k CO QU 137 - khek NG, A *Ar" ' Ca /NS1774 g 176Ka..Â¥-Â·*'1 #Al 11,2*-- .O 4 1 B "16 4 Q NeÂ©0~ 44 1 0% 4 42Â£ 4 RK 2 0 A Â«C<-y 9 1 ~RE] ~ 1-A -7- 01Â» J 45 44 4 --90 ti *SED ' % 44 I k F A.A Al Cl A - 81Â·R.aET- i + r NIC.1 6 9 1 20Â°cz~:eo o o no q ~ p L.==91931,1.r-, -k-M- 2: k kl8 LLAM -FPREEr 4 B 1'~Ch J 11 05&O0Nb ' G O 12-1 7 36-3 wl i ARDAM* ~ L-166 Ijdmfo EAZI ~*88~ i r mA,w T + Cooll' 9 114. HOPKJAJS AVE HOP.K ;US 6 2 0 * e ...1 0000 Â£ e *kÂ»42x | HY M AAJ AVÂ©OUS -AU 4 l~ +A# ec]=C]*CEl:03 W 4 4, :SPITAL ~ 44' '4 ~cy]C.WE~ j 44,1 -Â»AI - 4Â· 4=0[ 2 lEi Cle * Â».rep, Wrbax )21 14 T 8 DEA,J 8-Â·rAGEr- 1,,)) l 1. WRT~t, 4, LA 0 -21% d RN ~=EL-Z N c lik Nke \ 49 ?k lit e '1:N,/ 2\.12 EL.lig (90$- 6. o C.980 â€¢ NOT DRAWN Tn =* Â©/~ ALE 9 4 e e ASPEN 1- 3 < 1,8 9- 1 - -699Â¥-9 ATTACHMENT 4 SPECIFIC SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS PARTIAL DEMOLITION 1. A written description of the structure proposed for partial demolition is as follows: The structure proposed for demolition is a one story, 316 square foot building located to the north of a Victorian residence. The building presently encroaches into the alley. The building has been retrofitted for various modern needs throughout its life, including a bedroom/storage area, a mechanical equipment room and a storage area. The building has a variety of siding materials, doors, windows that are a result of the on going adaptation of the building. 2. A report from a licensed architect regarding the soundness of the structure and its suitability for rehabilitation is as follows: The building is completely unsuitable for rehabilitation. The building shows advanced decay of the siding material at the base ofthe building, a concrete slab was added as a floor structure, completely rendering the structure unable to be moved. The building requires a new foundation, new framing, new floor material, windows, roof framing, a new roof, materials, siding, electrical and mechanical systems, in order to utilize the structure and bring the building into adequate life safety codes. The building would be completely rebuilt by the time the building was rehabilitated, virtually rendering the building new again. ATTACHMENT 5 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STANDARDS PARTIAL DEMOLITION Standards for review of partial demolition 1. The structure proposed for demolition is not the significant historic building on the site. This building shares the property with a Victorian building that is a Queen Anne style Victorian built in the late 1800's. The main Victorian building shows some modern remodeling to the original structure that includes an addition that was added to the north west ofthe property, a porch enclosure that was added to the north west ofthe propeny and some window changes to the east side ofthe building. These changes were sensitively added to the Victorian as to not detract from the beauty ofthe Victorian as seen offof Bleeker Street. 2. a. This application is part ofa larger application to add two bedrooms and two bathrooms to the property, behind and separate from the main house. If this structure had to be maintained on the property, it would entail adding the new bedrooms on to the original Victorian house. This would not be beneficial to maintaining the historic qualities ofthe original house. The demolition ofthis out building mitigates to the greatest extent possible the need to add an addition on to the original Victorian residence. b. The impacts on the structure located on the property are greatly reduced due to this demolition. The area of the demolition will house the new out building that will be compatible in mass and scale with the existing Victorian building. j SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT OF A HISTORIC RESOURCE ATTACHMENT 3 1. Applicant's Name and Address: W.G. Brumder Florida Land Trust c/o Thomas B. Fitzgerald 400 E. Wisconsin Street Ste.200 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202 Representative: Gretchen Greenwood 2 Street and Legal Description: 214 East Bleeker Aspen, Colorado 81611 Block 72, Lots N,0,P and Q 3 Attached to the application is a copy of disclosure of ownership of the parcel as Exhibit A. 4. Attached to the application is Exhibit B, the vicinity map locating the subject parcel within the City of Aspen. . SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT OF A HISTORIC RESOURCE ATTACHMENT 4 SPECIFIC SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS: CONCEPTUAL REVIEW 1. A site plan and a survey showing the property boundaries and site characteristics is Exhibit A. 2. The conceptual selection ofmajor building materials are as follows: A. Siding: lx4 Horizontal Wood Bevel siding and 1 x 3,1 x 4,1 x 6, Vertical Random width Rough sawn siding. B. Windows: Wood Double Hung and Casements. C. Doors: Wood Single Raised Panel. D. Roof Corrugated Metal to rust. 3. A written description of the proposal and how the proposed development complies with the review standards are divided into two parts and they are attached as Part A: Historic Lot Split and Part B: Conceptual Development. 4. Scale drawings of all the elevations of the existing Victorian residence and the proposed buildings and additions are included in this application. 5. Photographs of the streetscape will be presented to the Historic Preservation Commission at the hearing. . j , PART A: HISTORIC LOT SPLIT ~ A. Written Description: The Aspen Municipal Code provides the following: 5. Historic Landmark Lot Split. The split of a lot that is a designated historic landmark for the development ofone new single-family dwelling. The split shall meet the following standards: 1. The original parcel shall be between 9,000 and 12,000 square feet in size and is located in the R-6 zone district. 2. The total FAR for both residences shall not exceed the floor area allowed for a duplex on the original parcel. The total FAR for each lot shall be noted on the Subdivision Exemption Plat. 3. The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. HPC Variances and bonuses are only permitted on the parcel which contains the historic structure. Based on Ordinance 49, the Historic lot split for Block 72, Lots N, O, P and Q is proposed as follows: Zone District: It-6 Lot Size of Original Parcel: Lots N,O,P and Q: 11,963 Sq.ft. (See Attached Site Plan) Allowable FAR: 4,257 Sq.ft. Proposed Lot Size Historic Lot A: 5,963 Sq.ft. Lot A Designated FAR: 2,413 Sq.ft. ( Proposed FAR on Historic Property is 1, 913 Sq.ft., (with the 500 square foot bonus, the total is 2,413 Sq.ft.) Proposed Lot Size New Lot B: 6,000 Sq.ft. Lot B Designated FAR: 2,344 Sq.ft. i. l ' 1 l 0 0 Based on the above information, the proposed Historic Lot Split meets the following review standards: a. The original parcel is 11,963 square feet as required. b. The total proposed FAR for both residences does not exceed the floor area allowed for a duplex on the original parcel. The designated FAR for Lot A is 2,413 square feet and Lot B is 2,344 square feet or 4,757 square feet ( this number includes the 500 square feet bonus for the historic property), which is what is allowed for a duplex development in the R-6 zone, with the 500 square foot bonus on the historic property. c. The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. The newly created 6,000 square foot Lot B has no building development on the property. Future development will allow the building to meet all the dimensional requirements as established by the R-6 Zone district. The newly created 5,963 square foot Historic Lot A has a Historic Landmark building on it and therefore meets the requirements ofthe R-6 Zone district. 0 As part of this application and Ordinance 49, variances and FAR bonuses are being requested for the Historic Lot A. The following Conceptual Development application details this development request for Lot A. No development is being proposed for Lot B as part of this Conceptual Development application. L j 0 CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR HISTORIC LOT A A. Written Description Based on the above proposed approval of the Historic Lot Split by the HPC, the following application is a development proposal for Historic Lot A only. 1. Request for a 500 Sq.ft. bonus for the Historic property. 2. A five (5') foot Rear Yard Setback Variance for an Accessory building. The newly created Historic Lot currently has a Victorian Queen Anne style residence on the property, ofapproximately 1,589 Sq.ft. In addition, the property has a dilapidated out building that is 16 ft. by 21 ft. or 324 Sq.ft.. These two buildings total 1, 857 Sq.ft. ofFAR on the property. As part ofthis application, it is requested to demolish the out building and to rebuild in the approximate same footprint a new detached two story building with a footprint of 14 ft. by 26 ft. or 336 Sq.ft.(at ground level) with a total square footage of 728 Sq.ft. The existing building currently sits outside ofthe rear or north property line creating an encroachment into the alley. It is the design intention of the new building to sit on the north property line next to the alley, but without the encroachment. It is also the intention that the detached building will be a new design sensitive in form, mass and scale to the Victorian residence on the site, but detached and significantly removed for the main house. An uncovered wood deck would be the only connection to the main house. In addition to the proposed out building, a small addition of 152 square feet is planned to the rear of the Victorian residence. The design of this addition will have a separate roofline and be obvious design that was added at a more modern time of the history ofthis residence. This development proposal requires a 500 square foot bonus to the existing FAR creating a total FAR of 2,413 Sq.ft. The justification request for the 500 square foot bonus that is allowed under Ordinance 49, would provide that the Historic Victorian residence with the proposed changes would equal the same size as the proposed residence that can now be developed on the newly created Lot B (next door). Historic Lot A would have a total FAR of 2,413 square feet and new Lot B would have a total FAR of 2,344 square feet. . ' Therefore, the development request for the 500 square foot bonus and the rear vard setback variance would be consistent with the development review standards as outlined below: ATTACHMENT 6 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STANDARDS 1. The proposed development of 2,413 square feet includes a historic Victorian residence of 1,685 Sq.ft. with a two story outbuilding of 728 square feet. The proposed design of the out building is sensitive to the Victorian main building with a consistent hip roof design and the height of the building remains the same height as the main building. The setback request allows the bulk of the proposed new square footage to be added as a separate building from the main house, thus creating and preserving the historic Victorian residence. The proposed addition along the rear of the Victorian residence is only 152 square feet and has a lower roof line and obvious modern materials that differentiate it from the historic residence, The proposed development is compatible with the historic structure. 2. The proposed development with the 500 square foot FAR bonus and setback request is consistent with the character ofthe neighborhood. The newly created lot to the east will have an FAR of 2,344 square feet, the same square footage that is being proposed for the Victorian residence and lot. Thus the two lots will be compatible in scale, and mass, and these two residences will be in scale with the Victorian residence that is to the east of the newly created Lot B, which appears to be about 2,400 square feet also. 3. Most of the proposed design has been intentionally removed from the Victorian residence as a separate outbuilding in order that the Victorian residence is not altered by the owner' s need for more square footage. The only square footage being added to the building is 152 square feet, which is at the rear of the building with a low roof line, that obviously states that this addition was added at a separate time. Therefore, the proposed developnient does not detract from the historic significance of the structure on the property. 4. Ordinance 49 was developed to promote and encourage the development of small houses next to Historic structures and to encourage the restoration ofthe Victorian houses to remain small without the potential development of a large monster addition. This ordinance that is being used in this application, gives a 500 square foot bonus to allow this Victorian residence to remain its most historic state and not have to be remodeled to accommodate needed rooms for the owner's. The additional 500 square foot bonus allows the design to be separate from tlie Victorian residence and leaves the historic building virtually in tact. Without the bgnus, the residence would have to be very altered both inside and out in order to accop imodate the necessary rooms. Therefore, the proposal enhances the Victorian building as well as the neighborhood by preserving the small scale buildings of Victorian architecture. This application in its entirety, including the partial demolition request, Historic Lot Split setback request, and FAR bonus, meet all the review standards for historic preservation of the individual structure as well as the architectural integrity ofthe neighborhood. t Â·1 , v ./ 4 3( Â£18Â·4%6... il-<914 .1~ 1 :r-*3.3 2 7 y r,, 1 4 ./- 1 ; 19 LL,L,1.-X~~~1;tbill?ij H, c 2< ' -2 ' 5' .|I fT ; i i , r i ( t..140 1.1 1 \ . . . 6 I Â«j \ t *------1 I ... .... -+ ! 1 1 -:'- . - 1 1 lit 1 1 - ii .-1-1.~ - 1 \1. 1 11=\1 1 1 1-1 . 4 1 9 4 -- - 1 , Proposed i j East Elevation 1/4" = 1 , 855 -V 242 4 Ii#*11 Â» 29 1-r i o i v 1 04 : 5- 1 ... 3 - 1 - . -- - - 1. 21 1 :1 -- 11.1: i.! 1 1â‚¬125 ---- 4--.11==r t ,-t- / * 1' . < -Ii------0--I--I--- ... 30 0 11 li' 11 4 - - --- It >4\.r.i Tl---9 ----Â·Â·--- Â· I -*- ..-*.I ... I- il l i 111 1 - ! i i 11 Proposed .. Wle stE'levation . 1/4 -1 -v 5 AM I 4 3. i 13' L '4 1 , - 4 '.:11 1 1 ,11111 111111:; iii.1 1 11 '1 1 ! !!1 ! -1- -- TIllill! 1 lll . I , I i i El illl' illil! I lili . lili -I'll.-0---.----- ./ .....1. 1 t 1 - - 1 2 Proposed f 3-9--rth_E_llvaitio-n 114" - 1 -v - 1 ' A" -~il*---- 1_~0,- , JA I .r 431 N . ~I---.lilly.imjimmitill 9 19 $ G Gretchen ~ 1-1-f= ' 114Â°46-ODOm . 520 Walnut Street Greenwood & Associates. Inc. I a.*Â°44'~t/,-- - 1$ 970-9254502 Aspen, Colorado 81611 30-=It Fax 970-925-7490 r V 1 3 1 3 2 9 /*PMUÂ© 1 Q - - 1 - - -1 - -01â€ž 40 0 f -- --1 1. j__1= 23 . c - C 3\\6=F r--Ary///Flm 43 Q I . IN ' 1 14Â·lt" Frit X --]11 L_--1 11Â»t 3- 1- - SCALE: 0=2-1 JOB: L------ 1 DATE ISSUED: DRAWN BY: 1 CHECKED BY: REVISIONS: - 1 j 0.- .--- Proposed Main Level Floor Plat k 1/4" - 1'-0" I *cal. ...= - -Ii-=--I' ----- . *103 . - i. ' . 1 . 9 . ALLEY IX 4 Das L ALLEÂ¥ ENCROAOâ€¢ENT BLOCk 72 SCALE / 1 INCH - 10 FEET 4'. 2 OUTBUâ‚¬,NG 0 5 10 ,5 20 CONTOUR INTERVAL SS I FOOT DE.4,4 \0 . pÂ»-P 4%.: 4 . , 495 4 /- f / r , v ji 76.:0 1 9 . . 4 / & i 3.4 1 ' L 1/2 STORY , 1 WOOD F.Ahâ‚¬ 1 . 1 SI,â€¢01/NG 'CD.' \ POOL 1 4 9 .1 I . 4 / - 1 -- 98%i ---1. ' \ 1 1 4,54 =EGEND & NOTES . 1 . IER, ..t Te;. '0,01 1 1-r L INB 22:Eturâ€¢,%0: O 'ORâ€¢â‚¬) SURÂ¥EY â€¢CÂ»**4' REIAR WITâ€¢ CAP AS NOTED -- 4 400/ 1 1 I SET $/iâ€¢E S,vtÂ¥ co.TIOL , M,0 I ; 1 -0 .1,1 , 0,=12 rr: Ca: LZEUE â€¢EAD .8 15 SOLE 3&*CE Of *ECOID IWOR-TION NO TITLE UMâ€žATION . -44' 1 - ~ 4 SEâ€¢â€¢Câ€¢ 4â€¢FOR~D ,Â¥ rf SUÂ»,1Â¥0, - ~~~--718-7. , 1 1 ELEâ€¢AtiON DAT- â€¢S *DITÂ»ANÂ¥ "ASED ON TD IOO O 1 1 ~0 . --~' ff- -â‚¬â€¢- â€¢000 FE/) Â¥PC -- 5 1 / 0,8â€¢ .. '" 0 . j - In- 'RON FEKI / - M OI SIOâ€¢ FENCE ~ / / AREA - 11.903 30 FY MORATED 0 12,000 50 FT RECORD ~ Â©r /. / 49 DECIDUOUS = i Pr~00Â¢ . I / 811*11.La . FRUIT TREE . co,D, O 4 I 1 YPC 9184 ON TOP OF FENCE POST 8.6 9Â£clelia/,b CU.9 e 1 39 8, 214 &2 066 CITY ./ONUâ€¢NET SE BLOCK CON P ol.-3- EAST Aw*n,; c,(9413/ulÂ£18 BLEEKER STREET TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY CERTIF:CATION i DAVID â€¢. M.BRIDE. A REGISTERED LAND SURVIVOR IN THE STATE OF COLORADO HEREBY CERTIFY T.,Ar THIS PLAT WAS PREPARED FROM . LOTS N, 0, P & 0, BLOCK 72, M FIELD SURVEY PREFORPâ‚¬D UNDER MÂ¥ SUPERVISION IN -. 01!GINAL BLUEPRINT CITY & TOWNSITE OF ASPEN 1 99_ AND 1 5 TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF TH,$ CERTIFICATION 15 Â¥010 UNLESS WET STAMPED ON AN SIGNED THIS _ DAY oF - *09_ PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO . b.~D â€¢. MIBRIDE RLS â€¢6,29 . . .,PARED .v ASPEN SURVEY ENGINEERS. INC. 210 5. GALINA ITREET i ,Â·CCOâ€¢D.. .. Ccu... .... I. CC.. - .Ea,L .... P.Or s= 2300 2 . -- . - - / 1;; lili . - 4- ,Ii , . . Â· -1 i iii . ' .1 ill lilli 1 : 11 1-~'i i iii :1 1 ~11 i I 11 1 1,! T 1 $ 1 1 1 1 1. t .- IN- b L=L- A , . 1 - 1 1 I, - 1 Â· . 24 4 1 KN,. . , - - 3. - -1 1/1 1 I 0..Â·Â·32:$.1.fle . 1 4 11-lit 'liII 4 -- - ni-Ir -1.1~*I'-Mizil- - -- Â·Â· Ao u -1- H 0, 1- -9- Â« .t- i o 14 !61 & 47'llok - Â·.01* Â·=Er ... .r. 4Â· - 1 1 5 Â· . 1 . I - --. f . X . 27 -- \ - -- 1 /2..7 . 1 li : fl il Ii, 1 1 1 1-11 1 .. . , i :: i 1 ..1 l i -- -- - il : i ' 1 i; , ,, Â· i -I 1 , 1 1 1 1 1 :. 1!1 :11 1 1 ; 111 i L L ' !!! i : & 1 .i: , 1 ! ' iii . Â· i ' i_ . . .~i ;i i 1. 1, i i!1 1 -I , 1 illi , lili . 1 1 I t _1 Â· '- 1 4 . 1 ... 1 1 H o tz -f 1,1 8, 2 8/ V /k- -1- 1 2 14 Â· tf~/6.- Â«T & L. E, V>+- -T- 1 2 r-1 - 7 4.11 - i Lor 1 1./,1 - 2 6 7 r 19% 4 4 11: $ - 1.1 - . - 1 - u . Gretchen Â» ~ Greenwood & Associates, Inc. 520 Walnut Street ' Aspen. Colorado 81611 970Â·923-4502 Fax 970-925-7490 .. 9 North-*1*vitlin 1/4" = 1'-0" . - - -- . SCALE: 1 1---1 1 JOB: DATE ISSUED: 112 11 4 'hloOil illie'll DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: Â· 11Â®1111111 L 1111 @mil 1131Ell - . 1- j - . . South El",11-9.1 1/4" - 1,-0" . TING 1 '.1/ ' . - "er.la 4 $ in)'OWN '.Â· '1#0 2,1 - GIetchen A - w , r--- - --- _ 422 - r.1-- - Â· GIeenwood - - 1 = - & Associates, Inc. 2,11-\ AF- 520 Walnut Street -- Â· Fo:,E - 207. '44~L -1 Aspen, Colorado 81611 . . I I. ./. ..1 11 pl .. 970925-4502 L 1 - 1- 1// /4Â¥+A \1. - -trt:I=j-Â· 1 Fax 970-925-7490 -CÂ©*: 207 kiatieCOÂ®~*2 | _97 ,-fÂ·0+4Â·Â·4Â·9Mr~k /27 . . - 4 . -- l- 3 f i 7% . â„¢ 111111.ULLLia 1/4" - 1'-0" . - - - - . I --- - SCALE: - --- JOB: - . DATE ISSUED: 1 -7 1.. - dHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: â€¢ REVISIONS: 1 J f 00 00 - 1 t EXISTING . West Elevatio-n 1/4" = 1'-0" mmill, I -' -/ 1 "-7.qkj - f' 1.-41 . I 0 -0 40.â‚¬/: 1 1,0 0 ~â‚¬t o 0 i U'16 i - Gretchen Greenwood & Associates. Inc. 201 North Mill Street Suite 207 9th *f:&=-081611 t01--\=1 '' - 1. 1 h R .11 * 1 4 bm r0014, Ll- 1 --- - - F,*4- 1 1 Lai 1 -1 1 Â· 7 1 - ~ 1 /1 r--cOE--6 2 ..........9 N pe,[7Mo#H - ~â€¢ "0 k .5 1 .. - N .. 1 /7 34 11 1 2:NING' 291 1,14 1 H e XM ".Â· 1 1 FrrcH.1 . 24=- W pwrooM It -4 ' - ~ ~- SCALE: 1 9 -1.- 1 \34Et>5 / .. JOB: DATE ISSUED: 1 | Â· . DRAWN BY: . 1 3'- 7" , 11-,2,0 .. CHECKED HZ - REVISIONS: - 1.% . 5-1-- . - , j . . FIZOF-*s=~SÂ¥V l,lr-*# ; 20 to| EXISTING 1 A Main Level Floor Plan 1/4" = 1'-0" -1 1 1 -. 91 A 4 G I , 1 1 't .i r. i . nini 9 1 2 ,~ny,gO;) flvatkt 11 1 D-) MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission 4 THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director v FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 706 W Main- Final DATE: July 24, 1996 SUMMARY: The project received Conceptual approval on July 24, with the conditions that the applicant study material differentiation between old and new construction, restudy the placement of the new second floor living space, to relieve the impact on the alley, and consider adding a "corner board"to deliniate the end of the original cottage. The applicant has provided a new floor plan showing the second floor moved forward for discussion purposes, but contends that this solution is not appropriate for his own use of the site as it places living and sleeping space closer to the impacts of Main Street. As a result, the design as approved Conceptually is presented essentially unchanged for Final approval. Since the Conceptual review, staff has discovered an error in the proposed rear yard setback for the project. While most residential zone districts in the City, including the R-6 zone district across the alley from this parcel, allow a garage area to be located 5' from the rear lot line and principal buildings 10' from the rear lot line, the Office zone district requires a 15' rear yard setback for all building elements. A public hearing will be held on September 11 to deal with this issue. To date, HPC has approved a sideyard setback variance for the lightwell associated with the ADU, and a 5' rear yard variance thought to address that setback requirement. Waiver of Ordinance #30 standards related to "volume" and "principal window" have been waived. APPLICANT: Joseph and Susan Krabacher, represented by Robert Trown and Associates. LOCATION: , 706 W Main, Lot Q and the west 20 feet of Lot R, Block 18, City and Townsite af Aspen. 1 ZONING: "O," Office, Historic Overlay District. PREVIOUS APPROVALS: The applicant has previously received HPC significant development approval as well as GMQS exemptions to develop the property as office space. That project has vested rights and will not be forfeited by the current application. Conceptual Development PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 26.72.010(D) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parceIs when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. Response: The project is an addition to the existing structure. Currently on site is a historic miner's cottage, with a large one story addition to the rear. This project adds a garage and laundry area as well as a second story master bedroom. An ADU will be created in the basement. No alterations to the historic house itself are proposed. Staff finds the placement and general design of the new addition appropriate. The second story addition is set far back from the historic house (approximately 22' back) and plate heights have been kept low. As mentioned in the summary, a rear yard setback variance is needed for the design as approved conceptually. Staff regrets the oversight and any misrepresentation made to HPC, however strongly recommends the granting of the variance, rather than requiring the addition to encroach on the historic house in the manner proposed by the approved commercial development of the site. HPC granted Conceptual approval on July 24, with the condition that the applicant restudy moving the second story mass forward, and possibly pull l down second floor plate heights. The applicant has provided a restudy of the location of the second floor mass, however does not wish to pursue this j option. Staff is in agreement, however the discovery that the rear yard 2 setback actually required is 15' should be addressed in the discussion. The plate height issue has not been specifically addressed. Material samples will be presented at the meeting. The applicant has chosen to retain the materials on the existing area of the house, both on the original house and it's 1950's additions, and will use clapboards with a greater exposure than seen historically and roofing of a different color on the addition. Windows on the addition are also different than those on the existing house. Staff recommends that no "corner board" be added on the west elevation of the structure. The original cabin did not end at that point. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: There are few buildings still in residential use along Main Street. The addition required by the applicant to maintain this house as a residence has far less impact to the character of the resource or the neighborhood than does commercial development of the site. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Response: Staff finds that the proposed addition does not detract from the historic significance of the miner's cottage. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The historic portion of the house is not directly impacted by this proposal. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: 1) Approve the Development application as submitted. 3 0 2) Approve the Development application with conditions to be met prior to issuance of a building permit. 3) Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (specific recommendations should be offered) 4) Deny Development approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. Recommendation: Staff recommends HPC grant final approval with the condition that the rear yard setback variance is reviewed and approved at a public hearing. Recommended motion: 7 move to grant final approval for 706 W .Main Street, as presented on August 28, 1996, with the following conditions: 1. A rear yard setback variance is required for the proposed development." 0 - 0 4 APPLICATION FOR FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT AND PARTIAL DEMOLITION 706 WEST MAIN STREET Block 18, Lot Q and the west 20 feet of Lot R City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado Applicants: B. Joseph Krabacher Susan S. Krabacher 201 N. Mill Street Suite 201 Aspen, Colorado 81611 AUS 19 1996 tle.MII - 6 4:6iwitr//Ele'le",3;1/ 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I . Description of Application. . . .. . . . . II. Minimum Submission Contents ...... III. Final Development - Review Standards ...... ....... 3 1 . l 2 0 I. Description of Application. This is a land use application for final development plan approval for 706 West Main Street, also known as Lot Q and the West 20 feet of Lot R, Block 18, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado (the "Property"). This land use application follows up the conceptual development approval granted by the HPC on July 24, 1996. II. Minimum Submission Contents. The minimum submission contents set forth in Applicant's APPLICATION FOR SIGNIFICANT HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT, PARTIAL DEMOLITION AND CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT (the "Conceptual Application"), are incorporated herein by this 0 reference. There have been no changes in the minimum submission contents since the date of submission of the Conceptual Application. III. Final Development Plan - Review Standards. This portion of the Application demonstrates compliance with the review standards for a final development plan under the City of Aspen Land Use Code Section 26.72.010.F.4: AN ACCURATE REPRESENTATION OF ALL MAJOR BUILDING MATERIALS, SUCH AS SAMPLES AND PHOTOGRAPHS, TO BE USED FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT At the final development hearing, the Applicant will present sample building materials. 3 1. Siding. With respect to the existing historic structure, there are no changes proposed and it will continue until further renovation to be clad in aluminum siding with an asphalt shingle roof. Economics permitting, the Applicant may remove the aluminum siding in the future and replace it with wood clapboard siding. Therefore, in designing the new addition, the Applicant will use clapboard siding with a different overlap and different profile than typical historic clapboard siding. As staff pointed out at the conceptual development hearing, the difference from the existing aluminum siding and any new wood clapboard siding will be readily apparent. However, the Applicant wants to design now for potential future renovation of the siding on the historic structure so that the siding on the new addition does not duplicate potential future siding on the historic structure. Applicant understands Applicant would be required to submit to HPC review of all future renovation of the siding. 2. Roof Materials. As to roof materials, the existing historic structure as well as the more recent existing additions utilize the same asphalt shingle. The new addition will also utilize asphalt shingle roofing material in charcoal or gray. This will differentiate the roof of the new addition from the roof of the existing structure. The Applicant has struggled with the issue of the transition area where the 1950' s adllitions may appear as portions of the original historic structure. On the one hand, it may make sense to use a different color, overlap or profile for the shingles on the 4 historic, slightly different color, overlap or profile on the transition area, and yet a third on the new addition. However, the Applicant believes for purposes of simplicity that the transition area of the roof between the original historic structure and the new addition will be the same type of roof material as the historic structure. This area of the roof is not a major visual element from the primary facade (particularly if the Stapleton project next door to the east is built as proposed by the person who presently has it under contract). 3. Foundation Materials. TheÂ· foundation of the new addition will utilize a rubble foundation base varying in approximate height from 30" to 48" above adjacent grade. Samples will be provided at the final development hearing. One purpose of the different foundation is to distinguish the new addition from the existing historic structure. Again, the Applicant is presented with a dilemma in choosing the foundation material for the 1950's transition area. The Applicant believes for purposes of simplicity that the existing structure and the transition area should remain the same. 4. Windows. The windows and fenestration are represented in the accompanying drawings. There are five original historic windows. These include the two windows on the west elevation, the two windows on the south (Main Street) elevation, and one window on the east elevation. These windows will be preserved in their existing condition, as no development is proposed to occur in these portions of the existing building. e 5 The new windows in the transition area of the existing 1950's structure will remain the same as well. They consist of wooden easement windows. In the new addition, the windows use differing sizes, proportions and degrees of complexity to relate and differentiate old from new. Small 2'0" x 2'0" windows found nowhere on the historic and transitional structures are used as accents on the new portion. The breakfast room and master bedroom (east and north elevations) use undersquare proportions similar to the historic and transitional structures, yet add a transom element not found on either. The high sloping-head windows found on the east, west and south elevations accent the gables as do the vertical battens on the historic portion, yet do so with a different surface look and texture. 0 FINALIZED DRAWINGS OF THE PROPOSAL AT ONE QUARTER INCH EQUALS ONE FOOT SCALE The drawings and the appropriate scale are submitted with this Application. A STATEMENT OF THE EFFECT OF THE DETAILS OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ON THE ORIGINAL DESIGN OF THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE (IF APPLICABLE) AND CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD As noted above, the design details are intended to differentiate the old from the new, while keeping the differentiations simple. There is no radical departure from the . traditional Victorian-era miner's cabin design, although the detailing on the new addition is intended to be more modern or 0 6 contemporary to slightly differentiate the historic from the new addition. The Applicant contends that this project enhances rather than detracts from the neighborhood character. Immediately to the west is the Hickory House Restaurant, which recently demolished a rear shed and installed an ugly walk-in cooler, and has also installed an outdoor smoker, all apparently without HPC approval. These additions detract from the historic value of the alley, and it is frankly quite surprising that the HPC allowed these design changes to take place in the historic and quite simple Hickory House structure. Photographs of the alley behind the Hickory House will be presented at the final development hearing in part to address the design concerns expressed at the conceptual development hearing. On the east, we have the 4,000 square foot office building that was approved on a 4,000 square foot site, including a total area of 5,350 square feet, (including 1,615 square feet of affordable housing). In contrast, the proposed project is 2,883.40 square feet above grade and approximately 3,506 square feet total area including the below grade voluntary ADU on a lot that is 1,000 square feet larger than the Stapleton project. The Applicant's project proposes an FAR of 0.58:1 whereas the Stapleton project is proposing an FAR of 1:1. The Stapleton property is under contract to Dr. John Rappaport who is proposing to change the use of the building to a veterinary clinic, including the kenneling of animals. 7 A STATEMENT OF HOW THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONFORMS TO THE REPRESENTATIONS MADE DURING THE CONCEPTUAL REVIEW AND RESPONSE TO ANY CONDITIONS PLACED THEREON. First, the Applicant is proposing to add a corner board on the west elevation as requested by Roger Moyer to provide a visual break to the west wall. Second, the Applicant has restudied moving the second floor forward five feet. This is extremely problematic. One study the Applicant undertook resulted in elimination of access of the internal stairway to the master sundeck, requiring anyone to instead go through the master bedroom first and then to the sundeck. The Applicant does not prefer this alternative. In addition, this study also resulted in substantial loss of deck size. The Applicant has conducted a second study whereby encroachment into the rear yard setback has been reduced to 210". This restudy is also problematic, as it reduces the size and forces a reconfiguration of the interior areas that are not particularly attractive to the Applicant. This second alternative will be presented at final as a restudy to determine if the HPC insists on moving the second floor forward after considering the information below regarding health, safety and welfare issues involved in moving closer to Main Street. The Applicant would point out to staff and the HPC, once again, that the HPC should try to go out of its way to accommodate residential applicattons on Main Street. This is a rapidly disappearing use,j and its loss contributes to the urbanization of Aspen. While the Applicant can understand the theoretical basis 8 for wanting to "respect the alley", the Applicant would also remind the HPC that historic structures do not exist without people, and the health, safety and welfare of people are more important than shading on, or "respect" to an alley. The. Applicant has contacted the State of Colorado regarding air quality on Main Street. One of the primary problems on Main Street is fallout from the so called "PM10" particles. These particles are airborne material which generated from Main Street. It is estimated by the State of Colorado Department of Transportation that there are approximately 20,000 vehicles that enter and leave Main Street each day! As has been well published, PM10 arises from automobiles and trucks grinding dirt and sand into extremely fine particles that then loft into the air and disperse along the thoroughfare -- in this case Main Street and the Applicant's home. It is well documented that PM10 fallout occurs at higher densities closer to the thoroughfare. By forcing the Applicant to move forward five feet, the HPC is forcing the Applicant to move forward within the PM10 fallout zone, and into and area where the PM10 fallout occurs at higher density. Not only is this contrary to common sense, but it also endangers the health, safety and welfare of the Applicant and the Applicant's family. It is also well documented that road noise increases as you get closer to the source of the noise. By forcing the Applicant to move the master bedroom and decks forward, areas where the Applicant will spend a substantial amount of time, the HPC is forcing the Applicant to endure more noise pollution from Main 9 Street. As noted above, vehicle traffic is approximately 20,000 per day. Again, this does not make common sense and endangers the Applicant's health, safety and welfare. Considering these issues, the HPC should grant final approval as submitted at conceptual, with the modi f ication#/7Shown in the enclosed plans. 1 IN /7 krabacher\2applica.4 . 10 70& W. MA, 0 .. . .f. p . p., r,b. 7 J /// -f .T . 2 4 -- 1 wr 1 1 KRABACHER RESIDENCE . â‚¬@RE:35 2::1:.1 y Planning & Zoning Floor Area Calculations ./ a -711 ALLOWABLE BUILDING AREA FOR EXISTING 5.000 S.F. LOT ........... 97 41 1 leKTH ~ ~ Base allowable for lot sizes 3.000-6,000 s.f. 2,400 s.f. d Allowable Increases 28 s. f. of floor area for each 100 s. f. of lot area over 3.000 s.f. B ''11/: ,=-1- --l 1.--~ 7** 100 times 28) 560 s. f (5,000 minus 3,000 divided b> , MAN,7,5 -15131- --Dy\ Total allowable area: 2,960 s.r. 1 LIvINGI / eLEEPINI*| .,f |1<rrt:HENI 164 -_Â« PROPOSED BULDING AREA I - Existing residence: U 1,717.25 s,f 1 --1 3 New construction: 1Â·irst floorÂ· 274.20 s.t G 69â€¢-EN WINcÂ».1 Ke'/5 ~ *INK--3~~ --- = Second floor: 806.80 <.1 '10 420.25 s.f. proposed garage area 3&& Excess garage area -- 4 minus 250 s.f. allowable = 170.25 0 CO s.t: counted at .5 + AR 85.13 s.f: C/J 1 5,47..4/ e,Nk 4 Total proposed area: 2.883.40 s.f. 9 mm UP -122 MON*.1 0 X PROPOSED BASEMENT A.D.L. BUILDING AREA - .-mn 72.00 s.f. First tloor: Basement - 622.50s.f. ' - BASEMENT A.D.U. PLAN 4 Â©0; 1 , Total proposed area: 694.50 A 4 : -- < All-57 -- 4 0 3,1 : -in 654< 7440 551-Baca< - KOREaFY USES ' i.-r - 1-- - ----- -'-'- - t--t I : 4.- 1 F it . 11 ---[1 it: 11 L____ 2 k. *-- 11 lp~ Â»-~~1- 1 ill /. 7 -1*-5-L--4.m. 9 RGAS 7Â»-[2 SET-2* c*L I. i k I rtaaw 3:4- c -ru 6 1 1 1 .._315, _ ~ . .--- >4â‚¬ F:9#5.YAN?. egrrm.%25................L . .. ~ .... ~ ~~..~ 2Â»er- 9 1 T=1 'f 1-~ 11 -jc--, -- - =MAA 71 804.BE,irENT A.a U. t 1 -71 1 447 V + 4 Eu- 1 .L---11 ~ MN:3755 teD SM. ~ T~ M,atil tbÂ« IZA - ~ 2, 09â€¢-2 4484 3 - 1-6 -- - -L 7 I -LI -\ . fri --m*Â·luy> .n 1, -_ . 4.Â£1.-6 SNA---g , V BUICTÂ· IN -- 5 4 SLiP< 1 Wittâ‚¬- * - =01,= 4 Gr,CEN WINt:DW d 055< 1 I. 1Tr~-ti & -- 1 0 1 /~~21,# 1=41 + 4-7â‚¬>*UTU [ 1 a t=212: cte 'nE.CMENT A. 0. U. Bel-444 1. ----- Ijkvu-1-27 1 4% 1 1 $ 1:6=4-la-- -1 *=.IN -to Ill) _ 1- r J ... 9-04__-1 'tsr Fzl.4.4 :Pler -1- ,UN t /- 7 - die' IiI.= r- 0 + 1/ Cia,+4-eF'*%-Ir , 901. -- *@3 ... . 1 ..71- Epl ',/ Vt --- 6 4 .. 4 - 1- j . --1---1 4 11 1 , & i O Â§ m ESUN Upec# 1 1 1 Y---~ '~ ' f. il :6 Y[ :px.. t-7--r }- . * , -4 6.0" 7 . Nk Lizift,Rijarl/JMJ:,1/2/ 1- - - 1 . 6 y -9 # -9 1 - *8 1 - I UNIE 01= eFFIT I ~91-71!~ BM. 2.~ 4-r- --7 1 7,-Th'Gis INX AuÂ¥ Pr~-- a < seciTION 1 1 , - ''Â· rr~k n tA-2-11. .~1 1 (Fr-=r -2 1. .. 'p ..1,/ tq4 Â¥-2. . 13< 1 1 _ ___ _ -- ~ SECTION SEâ‚¬GN ' i Â· 1 BED 1~M. Bi Â»i ,j,~ , Et. ,t..~-it------ : Â£ 1- 1 1 .41 - - - 1 | LITP,- LOÂ·+4.2@74% - 9 4 : 4 It-- 31 14 . . '-~7 Â«.640Â¥ I r tri. 1 '1 - 3* , AL %1 1 + 11 A ,./ 7 UP 'Â¥ 2Kle R.MÂ·- Â« 1 C 1 4444.--.. .1 f kfi' Â· 1 -It F 6- 1 , . ..1 - 1 u p 1 . :*DCD#141*694095 0 INTSMÂ·12ra. 721 5,~ 96 -- , 0 MÂ¢t,EL-Â·Sc> ~ SL[IN 5551<. 2 1 1 1 041 441. 21 - ~WI!42 141.~ | 88*41<5497'- *M. ~ PATE, REVISIONS - 1,4 597 14"J N 'ST: - + - E- 1/ (P, - 1 SITE/ROOF PLAN Nof<-1-H ' 1'1 = |co'.011 . Tr , 1,9 iTT-j)*24 1Â«L 7\ - 11 /'---- 5%:91-IN< â„¢Up - -- - I Â· m V : SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-O' A 4' Â£: - $ 9--4 F Fr- 1 LIVING; 1â€¢M. l> . 1 X. rt ' T 'Lip NEW 1 1 f -.-1- ~~Sm: e ... i See Nt. 1~ 1 A 04Â¥. , 1 It i 1 .1, --Â· i 15 4 1 1 , 11 1 1 J4 1 1 1 k 1 1 f 1 1 Ft.ht:-MS!â€¢. P. I \ I , . 1 / EÂ©E@ SECOND FLOOR PLAN 1 FIRST FLOOR PLAN ~~ ... A. . . . 8692-Â£26(0 ) J 1Â£19-228(02.6) **92-826(02.6)71 3.LVI 9 NAOMI iNE[E[ON MMId NOISia Ld.:10400 1Â¥101 V NOI1Ia PH @BpuqPOOM JaMO,1 92 03 '02911!A SEWLUALOUg ........ - - k I Oll 6 10 %'~ ~Rs,LBaesT#1 7 9-___ught_JA-Â£21>_ -2 5 L 0,& ~ 1 ~~~'k)26LED SIDNE ~SE'-- 1- -1 1 1 --- --- - ----4=z..rm,Vias-GREE/7982-7,//51 1 1~ ~ Bse,Aer<r 6,0- 0, 0 R- al,~ 1 1 99* vol D (4; e:'detÂ£â‚¬hÂ·LT A-D.O, 4 El 4 H 21Â¥ Qlk .: * 317-- 1 1 1 .r- E--- 1Â¥M 51 T-7 - - - -*11 tt C- -- -~~luN tr EAST ELEA*rION .1.-+ 99 11:5 vol NOFCV~ ELEVA=nON 7 9( .1--4- 1&+ - ...... A ir ..1 ./9 ./--E---I=-I=-ill---I--I---=I'... .r in~-I~ 42- , D - 4 - --#*- A , fil.*/5 -5.0 -- ..1~1~1 ...- 1 - 1.-- E . -~ *...I .---Ill.--- ---------=----~ - Il...,-- .--Il.......1.---I.*....I-- 2;..- .-lilli........"....I-.-I.--iliE..ir=-.-"-"Ill.I.~... 'flillillilillilillillilillillillillillill:'ll/:limi lilli.............9--I./7 - --I. - *I~Il.=Imilll li~E== .. .@.1.---1 55 A./.1.- I.G. i~mi~-~.,":=,~- 'Ill ~. . 5,-- I. D. - U ; U 1, I , 0. = - 0 1. 0 1 I . 1 :I ./ . A . 1 4 4 . 0 . 9 . .. .... -. .. r . . Al ..0 m. ---= - : Fi.D,~.%0, . 0 '4~k ., ial. .- .M iwi,~lilli~~i~e#,~I#0i'illlillllillilillillilieek6illiffillill'lilillill.ill'li~:Sij '21 ...: ,-~A.*mbl ill. 0 0 EFF I , i :- il&.ell -mm. - 9 1011:. mil= -1.1~ 1.11 A.ililli I. "I~ - 11.1~.t ~~ .. .8- 1 . m I Â¢1 I:II""III"II"" 0.. \.. .... --i-----jil-li------ Min =====&'i$L-r-2=pi- I.- - 1~=i====29==2/1/11//Ed/6-=-=.=U.~====i.r 1-1 -1 eli ,=.~~ rd:Ell,Ir 1/Bm............fluillilliEililialilimilimilifill~~ili=~~iiiililir7'.il *=11,1 1 -=-=-,im'-~-~IF---1.1. -- .1. - ....i.. .i.,F,1....... -, imlill 7.: r.ia Â£#i<~Ilmia-4,Â£~I~W*,1,1~19394@U 1,71- - ==.aa -12'' .. .. 11 . 4 . - to'-O. : 2 - --it---1--_-4-LE- 3 irrawN##4 f...44..#I:#&=E*h*4'94&%211(r, f ..19%,21 . A Â· 4 k --- -- - - i.,1 '1'k'*,im#5944Â¢"10.-''ll '1 0 t.!, - f 1 . . Ch . 1 C -4 :C - m : R \ 1 t <t , ZE* 14\ 0 \*0 . 1 1,-0 Iii / 5 -,C . . Â¢ . F D 8, /It //1 -1 . Â§ li 0 1 1 1 71;r - itil / 1 -3 111 -4-73-1-9 ill , .a 11 It, 1 III} -1 T. I 4 . ./\ L ' < , Â¢2 / ~ 111.il_ll 1- ' 2 1 i,1 111 1 1 .1 kt /1 1-21 -31 1$. -1- 1 1 4 k.. . 1 7 1-E 1 9. 1-AkEN 2 4 1 1 .. :' -4 4%..1.-:Ug.#t#*44: ~~ * I - k. ~- .. 1 .1 i: -1 .,- :10-1 - 1-1. 1 \ . 1 4 \ *rn -1 1 11 81 : 1- 4 i SE fl mi ~ 1 1 4, . 2 1 - O 1 ---- M . Ir 1, 1 1 P \ 4 If. I i I 1 I -**Il LA P . 19 I , 6,---- 9 1 . 1 = .1 Â· - 4 â€¢r 4 j 91 .. >-Ok) ROBERT TROWN & ASSOCIATES, INC. A TOTAL CONCEPT DESIGN FIRM 70 ' KRABACHER RESIDENCE 00 Z O 706 WEST MAIN STREET m U t (970)923-2644 (970)923-6131 f:(970)923-2599 1@*i!!N R I'~ ' " 9,; 11180|Â®ili, .4:!i!:*R:! ASPEN, COLORADO **ME* 2 li'i/il~20/!i:- I.i!,1-/.,!1,~ .Ii!#Diaull!!BiNk*il , 25 Lower Woodbridge Road, Suite 104 B immwmm ~ Snowmass Village, CO 81615 1 . 1-.'.1 111 44 1 1.11 1 M % /1"iii@ 'M:I!:1!!EM 1 11 4 . '1111. 1 1 '. .. â‚¬5Â·. 31VNkl311Â¥- NÂ¥ld {1001=1 GNOO3S ~ SUN DECK 1 ~ -PEND' U.Â·46 ~ SITTING R,4 -21 Ill. - . I . 9 35 E tl YMMJ + Ej2*/96 tr 24 UTE # 4 TOWNHOUSES , .-i BUILDING A ACTUAL ADJUSTED Lower Level 1187.53 0 Main Level 587.32 587.32 Upper Level 1122.43 1122.43 Decks 102.00 0 (15% 3600/2 = 270) Porch exempt 0 Lightwells * (EWA) 201.0 F.A.R. bonus for lightwell 91.4 Garage (250 exempt) 386.56 over 250 counted as .5 (136.56/2) 68.28 TOTAL 3385.84 2070.43 BUILDING B ACTUAL ADJUSTED Lower Level 1120.35 0 Main Level 632.80 632.80 Upper Level 1008.42 1008.42 Decks 129.0 0 (15% 3600/2 = 270) Porch exempt 0 Lightwells * (EWA) 177.70 F.A.R. bonus for lightwell 44.75 Garage (250 exempt) 461.60 over 250 counted as .5 (211.6/2) 105.80 TOTAL 3352.17 1959.82 Total F.A.R. bonus for lightwells for both buildings 136.14 * EWA: Exposed wall area of the lightwells is calculated by measuring the perimeter wall area of the lower level, figuring the percentage of wall that is exposed below grade and multiplying that percentage by the lower level floor. This is counted as part of the F.A.R. 4 ./ 1 . I 4. 9 .. i 2- . 'eawl/... / oz / 0 nt r- C. -5/ . 2 r \ 1, - / 7 --k \ I r \ - J 14, 1 - 1 9 i 1 -46 -, - 2-0 // 1 --- n J -- i I 4 F 1 i - 1 -/ --- j r- /.\:>v 1 > '- -16- ' ' -\ Br ~ -1 4 0/ 1 1 *8 A-- ~/ V\ - f e. to -----7~ ff / 1Â»11 -5 1/ / - b 11 2 r- I i B i A - 24 \~2 fo - r.- U -- 71------- /4Â® 'uy- l 66Â¥A 11 N - -U f 0 0 e r- /6-, /'4. . h.. I X.-0 . ~4.4 I . 1 0 '0 0 AD A990 DES9 glt, 34 ZE 1 r UTE #4 TOWNHOUSES . C , BUS-7070Â£ 02071YES ./ M . C KANAN CONSTRUCTION, INC. :.94.. I r 927-3040 42 ..29Â£ KIM RAYMOND BOX 649 '. J C. 11'..... .':. BOX 1458 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 (303)544-9255 - 3 340 1 # mr? ~ F-Li 9-1 I j 02-9'- o 55'fo i Â¥ MUIE; , DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS, USE WRITTEN DIMENSIONS 17 t-oIl â‚¬ 49.-561â‚¬ 12>'-U 6't ~ ', 9 -1 ONLY. IF THERE IS A DISCREPANCY, NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT FOR CLARIFICATION. klf,r 970- b 1 1/.14," 4 i -04 ' , â€ž604 415 /4 01. t &140' 31.0 414 2 1-1 - (3) 9966 0 ' .4 n W --~ | 1 11 1 11 -\N 1 1 0 1 /1 11 0 4 '. f - - - -7 -1 42-1 S:47. Kit W Â°Â© u 9 T *Cor (81 - 1 11 1 10 6 0 11 / /// 1 -9 - - - - - 1 11 ' 1 Â£ t/1*4-el * -00 - \(HA, f 'Be Pfs Ju JE K f 3 OLD'-L. ,â€ž= ' I I (*t,JMf1-/1 Lt>Â«i Off l '~ 1 2 0 0 C YA TTFO' -3 A=== 6112 4 d MA I L a n 9 + '6 N ' 4Â· T [ i - f'fpr virE- -7 1 ~ e 4114144Â· 9 64Â£84% | 1,14,44 1 . 1 L.ivI,-ia 9 12041 1 1(i) l.]FE~Â·Li -9 \ r 1 - '1201=-1 1 7/U'LOMI j ,>eutvo/1/ (/)- a ~Prd 1 ' 41 .ffÂ»of. P 8 1.,141/, 1 (/AU+1~ 29 1 FE - 4424 1 1-0 >4 0 0 00 If@ -w T Fi f I. = 2#z IÂ© 1 4'4 lili r J D(\ 14112:fthl _ - .A jr 3 - 1 1 + fo C.C.JG 1/ 9 - 90'Le *N 1 -7 $ 1, i r.- -* A ~ U , : Raw,eff Â¢ Lescr i W 4 0 0 8,To PLYWD' il i \ LA!-1/lpfl Ity' 0 1 + f 4 lici,3-b. 211 0 . 1 1 r - 4 TJ Fr 1 r I m- \ \ 1 3, 1.- ,1 691- S -- 0 1 ..9 - KIER# N % /16-0~ 11 0 , MA,arrEA ZPA/1 4 N F = /4,1 1- -- / ifls 42- ---1- - - 10-1 -UP 4 -7 0 6:*1G. R - Y'Ah'PFAL - 10 4 c â‚¬ -91 - -y / / /. LUY -- /. i 1 - d -- AUU A ; 1-' Â· L- L \ 1 . - :1 - O 1 - ~11 11 N - 81+fRY , I o. FL-Yl..1 c> 1 ~ g r .1 1 7 , 9 IDC>'-c>" -*- b / U 6414 -~[-1/-1 Ealt 9 1 0 L.010 /77 1, 1 -T: a FLYWD 0 -r t )F -1 1 1 , 4- 0 5 - 4==4 ip */12/Dort 17 C) ~ '~ip<,f#f Ack , 'Â· df .3 1 m vÂ¢B"F-0:~41 1 . 4. t., U-\\ IE n e - 41,) e -1 1 6*990:f 4 - 4- 4 1 lf< 7-~ 2, AA f (1 4- _ fE~3~ L_ -- (1 + ; - - - , _- -_ _ _ _- ----- _--a-_-4 0 11 0 0 -4 Fr FE:,gort 01 1 DATE ]SH'ED 11==11 ,====IL ~~ ~~ RE VISIO~Â·%: 0 0 1 31 0 0 4 b 114 14- 6 94 . 1' 4'/1 54.4 :-f-"t /9 1 921 %4 24'-o" â‚¬Lt:7. 4 L g. ice-4" 91-OIl 6 1 le s'- o" A. 1 01-0 6221-1 '36 / / 4 '-4 3/4 ~ e'- 43'* 9'/- /4 A CP \.-0 f - I -1-- - -----7 - te 1 n 4 1 2 4. 1 , 14 -0 Â· Lobjelz, 1Â«1-1 4 30 tep U fy.f Floc f â‚¬ 61 L O 426-iD ' 9,40 f e>JIL'21144 Â·Â« IjFFER La,/8 1. -F16Â£:apx 'F>u MAIU 1-BeL. 7609*1 E-AN-1 LAIER. 1Â»/SL FLOOFI PLAN 94 '4 91 r,c..~r- I r.1 A 3 5956-tts(Â£00 219180 UbosE a o obve; SS)<Wt )(WLS)13 UNOW 119 1 8 OCVNO1O3 'NUSV 10 NQIE: DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS, USE WRITTEN DIMENSIONS ONLY. IF THERE IS A DISCREPANCY, NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT FOR CLARIFICATION. 251 9 L L -751. 9,1 ' '2 L 10 7Le,1 xir 11 u Â¢ 1-1 21'- 7 ns 2 Ze L 911 2 , 2 8 2 1 \K 1 11 1 7 4 4 0.62 9 3 6 1. 00 0 I. + S 0. ./ 9--------- ---i c.Â· = '' ' --11 - T un 11 1 249. 0 1 -11 29- A- L l! 11 - L u r <9 A *4 11 9, L// ' U lf' 1 -0Â»41 1 0 0 1 1 , 1 1 r 1<5 J H 001 PirdirÂ·Â·151 , 1,4VINGT CZE = J *0 Proor./12- 1 1 2 6.1 | I ~6/8~' <48 .7 0 4, id, Ep, I r 014 IJAUÂ» 4 681 61 914 1 - - - -40 -7 11#01.1 _~ + m H 41 1% \\ Sposp. f Â£51 APA49 - 0 ' i 1 141 r' 1 1YFRÂ· i i 4 ' 41(1 -4 6 6/6 4.11.61 , Pril f \ / 1, -0 Te j [Ill f\\11 j I./. / N . -\/ r# - . 1 1 % r -- 1/ 4 fl- @61.01-j 1 - '/1 . ii 3142=11 e fl +To. code. 00 i * 1 91:â‚¬11 1 1 0) 0 V A 7 + 0 -13 47~31/0 -7 liD * 1 21 1 5 L 1 21* 4 01 2 4%3 ..7- 1~ ~ ~ t 1 || T * 1T E N . Nic> 1 L 1 11 : 13 fÂ»11 LY fÂ»141 K'~) ~ 444011*Lu -, ~ ~ Â¢ ~01.- 9, 1- 0 1 '4- I - C c .04 oj] 1 N i -9- 0-Ill+11*14 1 '0 i 1 2/0 LE:~r * r &~, ed:i@' P 34 0- oÂ»ef 4 - =LIL<f~#Ard TO| i ! Clif 0 1 0 h , 1 C PLXUA FÂ«'40[FT -- pff"1 1 4-1 (<~ <.1 1 " _ : liD'-01' e 1 /. 1 - 1 Â© 2 144 -4 Un r 23 Â» L==1= 3144 1 1~ ~ - -- 00 1 ~ 1 1 l â€¢b, 1Â» c.Â«t C 1 J M 0 . 5)~ C '4 11 'S PA r .3 1 1 =X - & 1 7 IL,fc'-16,1 fE-6~ . Ip i '7 901-0 1 1 \ - - 3 1 - -4 k -/ 2-1 *8440Â£11 2- 30 1 + 12 iÂ© k ' t.4Â»te" L . 2 6 F M- ~ko FLYOb rt'- * i loL (,0 9 i j Â¢ AC> d -El O 0 9 Â©*gl - - -- LI 4 41-- lei/Â»TatE 0 1.-11*LL-3 REVISIONS: - 6- u TO. PLYU|C~>~~ - ~-- =0 - j ' _71 1 DO '-O. C - O 3 . *44 / DATEISSUED 12-10 12- 1 off 1 61* - 91-Nh .1 / 91=/ - , 0 47.0 FL-1Â»JE. 1 Â·Â·077 1~L~ -' UÂ« 1 LArieS= ~~ -LtÂ« ~1 |1 U .11 'j It .11 11 1 f - -9 IT 11 | i. r\Â·L -- W 4 --- --J - 1 7 1 0% 1 - 1 0 lee 6 1/2 f.21 i 1 Ke 10'- 9 zin 42 2-'-01 111-0 le L Cl 1/01.]13:12, r4'NA' 4 Â£ -i--- 4 P l uÂ«9-f-L/ve-L 2 8'- 9 - /1 u f . f\.ar- 6Â»46 2-'2 16 1- 911 111- o Il . ' 21-10 11.0. 15> 1-11 [/021 r' 451 02 44 2 Ze'- 9 1/01.]@f Level, fl.wr FLAN MAIrl LeÂ«Bl, FL,grp Kl-.Â»14 \ LIFFÂ« 1-0*L Fkof- 14Â»14 4,1 1/411 1/411 riof-rill A7 Sit6-*175(Â£00 Z[9IB 0232 'Ubbsac. 06<DVcy 53*60,5 *WLS)22 UNORAVM WIN 11918 06Â¥*010) NadSV Â§3SnOHNMOL ,# 3ln 4 35+ Â£ Aly PMâ€¢- 9 -11'.91 WINDOW SCI-LE)ULE BUILDING A 41Â·I' GENERAL NOTES WINDOW AMOUNT TYPE ROWxROH NOTES ZONING S, Abbi --- g 4 '. Ii,P, 5,5.... W A. The contract documents consist of the agreement, the general notes, f,0/9* Rrii#- Â· 1 A 1 FIXED 2'-0" x 8'-0" the specifications, and the drawings, which are cooperative and continuous. i -r., ,40,â€žâ€ž~,~â€ž,~-- "..1â€ž6â€ž4 8 3 CASEMENT 2'-0" x 4"-0" Work indicated or reasonably implied in any one of the documents shall be '~'?t~,i-*' C 1 CASEMENT 4'-6" x 6'-0" SEE ELEVATION 4,=Â£Â¢24./*- I ~- - OWNER Richard Kent 0 supplied as though fully covered in all. Any discrepancy between the D 1 EASEMENT 3'-0" x 6'-0" different parts should be reported to the designer immediately. < "1.- iÂ»6 Â· Â· E 1 EASEMENT 2'-0" x 5'-0" 4'-6" x 5'-0" B. All work shall comply with the atl state and local codes and 1-*-4 F 1 CASEMENT LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 1 M 'vf , Â· 0 ordinances; and shall be performed to the highest standards of - G 2 CASEMENT 3'-0" x 5'-0" Kentco Lot Split, 0 4 craftsmanship by journeymen of the appropriate trades. H 1 CASEMENT 6'-0" x 5'-6" East Aspen Township A W 1 1 CASEMENT 2'-6" x 4'-6" Aspen. Co C. The drawings are not to be scaled. Written dimensions are .1 2 FIXED 3'-0" x 7'-0" to be used. I f there is a discrepancy in dimensions, the designer should : ~ ~11: ~ be notified for clarification. I K 2 FIXED 3'-0" x 3'-0" FIELD VERIFY ZONING R/MF L 1 FIXED 6'-0" x 4'-6" FIELD VERIFY LOT SIZE 6.000 SQ. FT. D. These documents are intended to include all labor, materials, M 2 CASEMENT 6'-0" x 7'-0" SEE ELEVATION equipment, and services required to complete all work described herein. [t is N 1 CASEMENT 3'-0" x 4'-6" the responsibility of the contractor to bring to the attention of the designer an> O 1 FIXED 6'-3" x 4'-6" SETBACKS: < conditions which will not permit construction according to the intentions of these P 2 FIXED 6'-3" x 7-0" Front yard 10 feet documents; it b the responsibility of the designer to provide details and/or Side yard 5 feet directions reg~ding design intent where it is altered by existing conditions or . O 1 CASEMENT 6'-3" x 4'-0" where it is neglected in the documents. R 1 CASEMENT 2'-0" x 3'-6" Rear yard 10 feet 9 2 EME E. Any materials proposed for substitution of those specified or called OPEN SPACE: 35Â°/oof 3600= 2100 Sq. Ft. out by trade name in these documents shall be presented to the designer for approval. The contractor shall submit samples when required by the designer. MAX. HEIGHT: 28 Feet BUILDING B and all such samples shall be approved by the designer before the work is WINDOW AMOUNT TYPE ROWxROH NOTES performed. Work must conform to the approved samples; any work which ALLOWABLE F.A.R. 3600 Sq Ft. + (150x2=300 for ADUs) = 3900 or 1950 each does not conform, shall be removed and replaced with work which conforms, A 1 FIXED 1'-6" x 8'-0" at the contractor's expense. Subcontractors shall submit requests and B DELETED samples for approval through the general contractor when work is let through him. PARKING: 2 spaces/unit C 1 CASEMENT 3'-0" x 4'-0" F. Shop drawings shall be submitted to the designer for her approval where D 1 3 CAESMENT FIELD VERIFY called for anywhere in these documents. Approval shall be made by the designer WITH CUSTOM before work is begun, and work shall conform to the approved shop drawings, ABOVE subject to replacement as required for samples in Paragraph E, above. E 1 CASEMENT 5'-0" x 5'-6" G. The building inspector shall be notified by the contractor when there is F 9 CASEMENT 3'-0" x 3'-0" need of an inspection as required by the Uniform Building Code or by any G 1 CASEMENT 2'-0" X 2'-0" local code or ordinance. H 1 CASEMENT 3'-0" x 5'-0" J 3 CASEMENT 3'-0" x 6'-0" 1 H. The contractor shall be responsible for the safety and care of adjacent K 1 CUSTOM FIELD VERIFY 1 properties during construction; for compliance with the Federal and O.S.H.A. , .1& .tÂ·14 F.A.R. CALCUI.ATIONS: regulations; and for the protection of all work until it is delivered completed L 2 CASEMENT 6'-0" x 6'-0" to the owner. M 1 CASEMENT 6'-0" x 3'-0" 3 1 CUSTOM SEE ELEVATION BUILDING A O 1 CUSTOM 3'-0" x 5'-0" SEE ELEVATION P 2 FIXED WITH 6'-0" x 8'-6" ACTUAL ADJUSTED Lower Level 1187.53 0 CASEMENT Q 2 FIXED 2'-6" x 8'-0" TEMPERED Main Level 587.32 587.32 Upper Level 1122.43 1122.43 Decks 102.00 0 (15% 3600/2 = 270) Porch exempt 0 Lightwells +CEWA) 201.0 Garage (250 c mpt) 386.56 over 250 wanted as .5 (136.56/2) 68.28 EXTERIOR DOOR SCHEDULE TOTAL 3385.84 1979.03 B 40 BUILDING A 0 m MARK TYPENSTRTION WIDTH/HT/THICK FINISH LOCATION NOTES 1 RH WOODGLASS 3-0 x 8-0 x 1 3/4 ENTRY BUILDING B 2 RH WOOD/GLASS 3-0 x 8-0 x 1 3/4 ADU ENTRY < 3 RH WOOD/GLASS 3-0 x 8-0 x 1 3/4 GARAGE SIDE ENTRY ACTUAL. ADJUSTED 4 LH/RH WOOD/GLASS 6-0 x 8-0 x 1 3/4 LIVING ROOM Lower Level 1120.35 0 REVERSE 632.80 632.80 Main Level 5 LH/RH WOODGLASS 5-0 x 8-0 x 1 3/4 BEDROOM #] 1008.42 1008.42 REVERSE Upper Level 6 LH/RH WOOD/GLASS 4-0 x 8-0 x 1 3/4 MEDIA ROOM r Decks 129.0 0 REVERSE (15% 3600/2 = 270) 7 LH/RH WOOD/GLASS 6-0 x 8-0 x 1 3/4 BEDROOM #3 Porch exempt 0 REVERSE Lightwells *(EWA) 177.70 8 LH/RH WOOD/GLASS 16-0 x 8-0 GARAGE DOOR Garage (250 exempt) 461.60 9 RH WOOD/GLASS 2-6 X 8-0 X 1 3/4 ROOF TO HOT TUB 105.80 over 250 counted as .5 (211.6/2) BUILDING B TOTAL 3352.17 1915.07 MARK -TYPE CONSTRUCTION WIDTH/HT/THICK FINISH LOCATION NOTES * EWA: Exposed wall area of the lightwells is calculated by measuring DATE ISSUED 1 RH WOOD/GLASS 3-0 x 8-0 x 1 3/4 liNTRY the perimeter wall area of the lower level, figuring the percentage of wall REVISIONS: 2 LH WOOD/GLASS 3-0 x 8-0 x 1 3/4 ADU ENTRY that is exposed below grade and multiplying that percentage by the lower 3 1.11/RH WOOD/GI.ASS 5-0 x 8-0 x i 3/4 BEDROOM #2 level floor. This is cOunted as part of the F.A.R. REVERSE - 4 LH/RH WOOD/GLASS 5-0 x 8-0 x 1 3/4 FAMILY ROOM REVERSE 5 LH/RH WOOD/GLASS 5-0 x 8-0 x 1 3/4 BEDROOM #1 SHEET INDEX REVERSE 6 LH/RH WOOD/GLASS 5-0 x 8-0 x 1 3/4 LIVING ROOM REVERSE Al SHEET INDEX, GENERAL NOTES, ZONING A 2 SURVEY A 2.1 SITE PLAN A 3 FLOOR PLANS; BUILDING A A 4 NORTH & WEST ELEVATIONS, BLDG A A 5 SOUTH & EAST ELEVATIONS, BLDG A A 6 BUILDING SECTION, BLDG A A 7 FLOOR PLANS; BUILDING B A 8 NORTH & WEST ELEVATIONS, BLDG B A 9 SOUTH & EAST ELEVATIONS, BLDG B A 10 BUILDING SECTION, BLDG B A1 5936-17*5(EOE) 31918 00'N Sit'I 21918 00Â¥210103 'N3dSV S3SnOHNMO.L ONI 'NOIDIUUSNO) NVNVN 0*0Â£-LZ6 . 7 '' .''i ?.1, .t: i i /Of 0 -5/ I tz,_ , 1 - F /4 / \ r---- - - . - - 926 * 1 - r 9 I n e j % 1 1 ~ 1 4 1 1 2 1 - u 1 --1 -4 'st - al // 424 -2 . / / 91*4 - 1 / I - --J -- tÂ».4.1 ii - 10 0 / / -RA ; n / / / / 1 17 11 - 1 A * /1 - --2 idA- 11 1 -9 - 7 ky Ir 9210 - 1 - , r- -- 4 r 4 %1 O 6- -/ %97 2--1 V,il - , Â·R;., 0 &0 e - *24 Â· re,r %1 ' "A Â·' - '. ' '0 *K AD A910 DESqqkt 4 Â©g 88Â¢S-707* OMMES UTE #4 TOWNHOUSES Â·Â· M .... N .I KIM RAYMOND 40*j :t ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 * BOX 1458 ASPEN, CO 81612 (303)544-9255 4 p j-J 0-1 4>.. f - - - - * -= 47 . f,-4-- '75*& - 1-2=1.L. .... U A , 4.. 4"IMA+Vill"B r.."Im. . .1 -3-8.6,-: . . '. .,1 ..t. :... 20'-21' 20' ' 2" I . ' , 1831 171-011 ' Z ONLY. IF THERE IS A DISCREPANCY, NOTIFY THE UVI 1,; 1 1 f 1 85 1- (-0 4,â‚¬'. 0-9 . 5 DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS, USE WRITTEN DIMENSIONS 0 f ARCHITECT FOR CLARIFICATION. 11 0 0 1@Gr W -1 11 0 il- _ 02114114 61Â· 1 L t- 00 00 K. Ift HE.td Â·24Â· 3 - I 24 3 8,ToÂ· 8.-ab , .....4 /24 1 1 0 0 'rdp i a]/. 4=likAL . XIA 20 l 1 L.1 1 *iDCJI x IN .4 1 0 Lf 1 0.4 1 - 1 \71/NI fÂ« Arl . 111' It===Al I ..BÂ» . 11= <F> ~ G 6.-01 4,(/1 toi- 011 i : 2.3' -2" 1#1Â«iN 1 Pi,oc tEl UFFER IÂ»/t FLA 1 '/ T r,ur 11-1 A 37 5536-t'/9(EOE) ZI9I8 00'NE[dSV Ub61 091 aNOWAVM 0*0Â£-Â£26 1 1918 OGVH D 'NadSV . 0 0 79 @ ./ .0 0.-. e 4 I I ... % S . 4 0 - . 0 t , 0 4 0 e . .. . . . 0 . e 1 4 . . I.It ,4. , . .% e e 1. D 41'1 i A . .. , , I . D . '' 0 00. * 0 .. . .1. X/ - 1, 4 4 / --Â«TUCE-Q Ul M A W - ?51 1\/1, bÂ»rf'-1 *Â· Fl- 116 -C': r 1 HA':71-E42- D,c T 1-10Â· eu*oop 1; *R'. i Ed'[UÂ¥ LEVEL- 31).r.ci-.-pup:-REC~r 0 0. R .0 04 .0 1 1\164.- I r[* bJE/37 -041- El f.13 i l-Dite E.LEWAincd'. - 6-guoE. VE-kIEEA - Of 14>00 - 1 1301 UD I 48 Ar | A. 1, UP W 612- 1-t.VE-A i=.212--cood - 40'-3 7 .1, {A 49 I, . t.,L ...fb 7 , dogrre s L.L/erlotd .. ' :. \162 ~Â£*19Â£._sa~:22*i,>ub~Ai .. - ~. . - d. e , 'F - Â·-6-Le _ . Â£+ - 5536-rt'9(Â£00 ZIi)IN 00 (INOWA 11918 06Â¥210100 'N345Â¥ .../M. .- - .R.0. ... . . . 1~11 W .. .1. ... ---. .. m. 1 1 -1 . A .. 1 . . r I . m.. I .- ..... -4 4 $ ...111 - -Illifi.lili ./..i 1 - - 0. .... 4. t ': 4 ,40 . |14 - A Ir- 1 0% 1 -P - f -L- e I 0 01~ 0. T-- --P--.- i.-*. I.* I--*- i--I ibilli['' 1 11 1-5 4 - - ilt 1 It L-- 4 111 1 4 , 1 lilli \ 1 thdi / '11 ~Â© /kILL l-t..r; ! i ~ ~ 11! I ./ 1 1.11 lit'111 . 1: 1 L ~ l~ l / l /-~ / -- i 2* 04 1 ~ ~~~ f~ ~~~ili Ii;1 1 11 I t. 13 i' 1 1 1 1-1 ~ 11.11.1 f ~1 - 1 1 1 11 1 -1 1 1 lili 1 11 1.'. lili / \ \\\ 1-1-- \% i 91 fli- i--il 1-j-~ -till . 1, r--r-~-.-_. .,r , I 111 A- 1 / 93 1 Eliti 111 1 1 :10 il 1 - ---_ , 111 li 11 1 3% U e E 2 . 4 + 0 9 711@ _/Ir- p o Â·41-* flu- 1Â·m i z_ PIg 8 0 1/ C -1 Â· I K E I / PO P -5 1 2 8 1 -Al 1 21% al \ U r 1_Irm 3 ~4# -Be .0 1 1. i cir E 9 9 Fly = M - f 0- 2,0 3 - 9 Il 2 0 am 4 4 O Sit- 5 6 - 0 -4 112 -8 - 14 0- ~ W , 1 1-1 0~ 0 -11 diz 05 . 3 + -f- 1 I li lilli 1 17------- .. - 1 Ill 'IIi 111 1 11 1 1, 1 1 11 - F'1144,11'jill 1111 i I it.41 FEEBa 1! 11 \:11 -7- It d L=J I 1 1 W.E.....Ell./.4 8 Il MIZEZZE==ZI=~d \1 i 1 1.- 1 3 17*. ' Â¢ In ./~ -.31'69 ~ 1 ~ 1 lilli - - -- 1 EL~ I. 1 CD rl-j fl Â·. 11 i - 1 j f/--1- Ii-/-1 -, 1 '11 !--= r[ e!-E 1 :- 1 1 1 ! 11--=i -1--k i-t ~ m // i- ilib r 1-~ ~1-1 !1*1-1 ' ill,i 1 1 # 11. 4 c 1 1-1 i i lit 11] lili . USEESEU lili Ill ' 1 1 1 1| 11:lilli! f 1 19Â©-- - $ 11(11.1 -1 ~I'lili ada lili lili 1 1- 1 - 1 1 1 I} 4 -1 61111-1% IC' 11.,1 '1 4 1.--I - 1 1.- E=======41i - 1-~.' 1 16===uzzzzll Ilp ..-|-1 I I \ i 1 - 1 lilla A L, [12----711* L.1 - Â· 14 - 1 j 1 9- U ..0.19/ j 'ilidlic 1 - W I II 1-11 i' 1 ' i i i f 1 / 1 i I 11 1 i j; li 1 1 1 , 1 t 1 11- - ---- ......-- - -1 1 1 06===.==*====& Ilillill 1 1 .1 - I -Ii lilli 129 11@ f & V 1 11 12 7 - - f i - - Ill lu 11 - n--m, ,/ 1 i'jil [flili~ 1 E ff *--- 1; 6<Â·< 0,3.1 'Itf ;.// r â‚¬ 1 F -- 4%3 = 1% -4- GM I . - 5 63 U Â·Â· M ht Â·Â·Â·. - 1. Z_ BUS-707* 1*07*ES KANAN CONSTRUCTION, INC. Â·, Â·i.8 927-3040 0 4 BOX 649 3439.2 ; - t KIM RAYMOND 41 - ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 igits*-, BOX 1458 11*M ASPEN, CO 81612 (303)544-9255 -- - 481â‚¬p 1 4+3, aM ~101.1-*\-21-9 JA~ ' O P C>-3 OIL -i. 2 5 51 g=< / . L Ivlfs 1/FE,; 6/6 4| J Z 0 04 R. Am Â© 710 , PdAI KI *t L.42-,/ 19 L 14 V 7, . AJ:**l SgZ6-17*5(Â£0Â£) ZI9Ii; 00 (INIOWAVN I Nall,nll,N01 NVNV,I 21918 0(Â¥21010) 'NadSÂ¥ 3 . 0 A 1 0 1 Â· 1 1. 1 1 1 0 0 .1 0 0. I. . 0 . I. .. .. . 8 0 ./ 0 N 4 4.. .. . ' .. e . 0. ... . A .. 0 0 0 0 e , L . I . - e , -\. . 0 I . , 1 L . 0 - " ' . 0 I . I 0 0 . .. I .0 . t5 , biZ 3Â·Â· 24 320% -..9.7. .Â·.Â·rÂ·Â®6144 & r Ji , i \ 1 -- -.--- I 01 4\ | MIA*TEE ' 00 1 T. 0. FL. lili- 1 rue-[6.4 _ t i-- tj 1 MA 4 1*/Et- ~EFFEEN ~ 100~-CD" -14: UP U E-F- LEe 1 2Z5 T -I 0Â· el-.Â£*~ 1160 ,BmU 1 t--A-I-L-- RE=*TEÂ·Â·CEZZZ~IR=*Lild--FL--4 -T-33~4=UPL--2- f.HI 'lo [,11 Ir,4 100-0,1 1 1 A ogrEW 4 w E'53- | I | | am=>AG 1 E-Lak/*3045 / -- - L- 1 11 1 Buit-DiÂ¢.4 8 r-1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1/06-192 Le:veÂ© 1 F----1 7 -4 - ---- - -- -- -Ir- - - -- -- .0.5<,96tolr ,, A 8 1 141012â„¢ Ell-FA/KE I old .Â¥r 4, - .0.Â·.2. -- 01: -,1 5SZ6-17*5(Â£0Â£) EI9I8 00 'AIadS *bossa 52*6 (INOWAVM <3 1 1918 OGÂ¥21(~O 'NadSV @ - N% . - . I , e ...... . . .. i_ davE" a -Ill.+I=limiall . -,0 . k 1 . 0 0 , All=Il-=A... ./ . ... . . .. 7/"............................. 1 0 . 1 0 mil 7.1-1 -- . -1 . . 4 . e . 1 Ll- LUE' 621741 - -7 3- 4 f 1 1 1 / 1- fl ctÂ·- -Â·.--- \1 1 / 1 f L-..1 X ~ 9 - - , i A -1 / 10 \ 90 - 1 =--7 2 1\- _47 21 EU_ f~ u 1-- -1 - Lit 4 ' *-- @Ld " U / 9// \ \ %~ 11 /~f// 1 j , !1 I. ' 1 L, f. I U 1 / 1. ~ IÂ· I 3 L . 6/1 .11 1 41 '/i,A - A ,1 4. 42 - : ~ 1 Â·fl ~ UN 1 1, 2 /\\ - 4 1 1 1 1 f . f ' 0/ 0 -P V /9 j iND -2162 -= fun,1 -cal/ * 41 , 1 Ui, 1% \ 6 1 3-U tz-T i - 11. 1 ' 0%41 -1, 1 11/ drele 2-L \ --i Q - 18lj I Ittd f 1 6- 04*r, E-0 1/ A 1/ 4%09 fu~~ fili~* u â€¢1 -Irt f 1 4 C 2 1/ Â£ , liI]rny 1 4<.- 1-ri Il 4 /% - Â£ / FÂ«/-1,1 -Ir-- Mi- 41- \/---1â€¢Â· 'â€¢ ' -ut- -1 1 11 ) - r OR 1 1 L-_h 1 I i E o1 Â£ m 43 -e- 0 20 , y 0 b i. 1 9 L EN 7 9 -2 E 0 + .8 - i f~ 4 -. -1% L 0 --Fl - it 1 1 y = -E 4/ 0 Q d EP f - 10-- 0 0 (* u . 4 1-10 - I r # 3 ip 1* 'Rl 3 0 \ 6 0 1 0 -- r\ J ri 1- \ 1 I--t -- 111 / 1\ ./ 0 , Of 0 1 X. # 8 j 'IY 1. '-. 1 1 \4 1 - f t - - - - - -- --1 J 1 E tc - - - --- 1 -n .\Â» 1 1 1 1 1 1 . B 1. Mil U , 1\ - X ~| 1 "Ii| ~jit : 6 j IT A I i 1 1 - / . 2-< ~ - 101 \ i / 1 1 18 -Illi ./ 7 1 || 1 ,-F 64-1 ---/ Â»- 11Â»,ILL ;3; 1 1 1 1 \111 (41; \-11--- / 1 11 - 1 1, / 1 1 1 A--- --- ./ 1 .! / 1 11 1 1// 1 - 1 --- 1/- 1 (5\ / /1 1 1 1 , 1 Â¥ 11 1 11: 11 =A i- Di *f Â¥ L -= 2- 0 d -0- UTE #4 TOWNHOUSES ADAg}O 'DES99X BUS-707% gOÂ»CES KANAN CONSTRUCTION, INC. 927-3040 BOX 649 KIM RAYMOND ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 . 14 2 BOX 1458 ~ ASPEN, CO 81612 (303)544-9255 I .....1 - 1117 -1 lob .8.7 't, ' -2- ,%3234 â€ž O-3 611 -1.=1 '0 11 & - 171-11611 ff -7 [7 *TEr-~ p:%r -TF 'VI TD. 76 119'-O,1 MpaTE.2-~Uvit--1 4 WIC>, 42+Fl kiQ,lâ‚¬.5 -----1 441rlas :SNOISIAZIPI alaSSI 11Va Gretchen Greenwood & Associates, Inc. 520 Walnut Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 970-925-4502 'ALLE,V 5,0 0 K. 71 Fax 970-925-7490 . 0 - 9- , I--1 1.1.11 - G , a#*24.4 ~ ArFU Ab < L \ 1- 1 1 grF FOF< I ' - I ' - -4-4. .97 0 1 D- V - 1 I - A j r /1.- f 1>1 44 Loc/~-TION OF U AITDLI 1 1, P I H Â£27 J ' 1, 1 1 - Vir' --0 -7 3%02\ 1-Pi -11.~ -1, G X .Mivklit'I -1 1 Z=â€ž------- v ' . 1 -- - 41 IMMI ING re:> 1 1 3.-r. 11 i: '13 '1 9, 7F&/--I,- - ..11.- = 1 L 11 D :, r 1 1,11'~ ~i' 1 It r.14 1 1 5 -1 t 1 - ..1 1 1! 5 L:+PA -\ 0 1 T 1 ; !' "fil:J tl O 0 tt. t i i :t.11 ~1-~6 1-2. 1/ ~ 'Â·' 4 '; i: ILIC-- 1 1' Â£!Fi 9& Itl Elf"lf':b-,1~ 111 /44/tagin--IN u_~1,1~Â·,!ili~'~ - -.14 m Vt_ /1â‚¬7- - - -- - 1 -1 ' A--IR N.7- - ---1 -- - AL i - 41... --- - â€¢ - 111 -- 1. 91 ? ~~c~ SCALE: p- 82---'-T--*-=1- C. V.lA F 7- -1-- t ~AF . JOB: 1 r DATE ISSUED: DRAWN BY: ' CHECKED BY: . REVISIONS: --- all -0 1, 0 4 - 0- b &7 1- M' L F 0, 14 9, M- Â«F Fa FE-' e~ 1 Frwor oÂ» Fp el-FV A-t- rl 9'b "= 1 L Â£57 1 . - - I - -- r 1 1 - 5 611-0 1.4-0 , , . '-0 NOTE; 1 1 1 1 I DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS, USE WRITTEN DIMENSIONS 17'-o" r e It 1 23 1- CD / ONLY. IF THERE IS A DISCREPANCY, NOTIFY THE .. ----- - - ' ~ ARCHITECT FOR CLARIFICATION. 6 3 1 1 3 GO Â· 5~ f- I & %* 1 1 H cyl rl'pul 0 C CC 14 it.rl@tl_ 0 1\ 1 0 0 1 11Â« f 1 *1 . 1 41 â‚¬> 47 -1 .if'* > ..P, a .1.1 # 44'. 0 4 1 . 2 SUED NS: &.OU 41- 6,1 1 f *F, 1~4Â«1 4 4 e F FLCO F. 1 40 Â·12114 01 A UFFER. La/t 1 -_ \4 71 AFF-re A 3 Â¥ 5526-17*5(Â£00 ZT9I8 00'NadSV ubos aNOWA 8 1 1918 OCVM<)100 'N n .. 94 00 0 e . 0 e . - . 0 % 0 4 ' . 0 ./ . .. . I . . - -. . 1 . I % Mi/li ' 1 .. . 0 M, 1 1 1, .. . I . . . .. .. .- 0. . gal . -Ali 9 1 3 .,23 2 21 2 E fill e =1 0 -113 . 4-1 i 1 1 , 11 I 11 291/-1 11111-11- 11 1/3 1.-4 ; f.[,1 1' 0 1 f 1 1 /-2. ..4 - i 1 lilli 1 1 -I------- -- i 111 1 . 11 \ 111 1 lili r l i iII 1 11 44 E 1 fl it_ ' 1 1 111 :11-1- ---1 1-2..&: _1. 11 It i .1 1 1.-Ir- ---3 11 'III: 1.1 = 111 11 bill f Plo , ' 111 2 . 11 /1 Le li 1, 1 1 111 1[44 .\ 1 CLULILLJ 17 !' 4 1 Ii-Ir'' , L H kit 1 1 1 1 - Ilit 1 1 1 1 1 lilli 1 111 1 11-- 11 i 1111,11 1 111.1+ 1.1.1, I -- 1 1 -- 3Â¢ 4 ' 1 -0 , 3 21 dr 21â‚¬ 1-1 l r 81K I f -#1 -2.\ f o in 2 1 =1 .31 2\ (1% -A 31* A 1 -1 3 2 C ON IL m p 13 1 ri el --t 5 91 -,41 0-1 ? 0 4 - 1 W 1 1 2 . 1- i + + i - e ' \ 4 - - - 2 , I lili b ' 1 /... 6=Ll , 5 -- 1,\11\\1 1~l i u.gri 1 â‚¬ 7 -t~ 6- 0/1 ;Ell- 1 1 t : 1 11 %1 + 1 1 k F Ii: iiiÂ» i d Â·it 41 1,1 Il 1 1 1;i'+ 1 Z- c _ A=ZI~ '1--1- 1--I I 1#1 1 [Ell 1-1, 1 1 li 1, 1 11111111.11 - 11 F' E L I 111 1- fr Il - l~ - 1 ~ 11 -62==Lz~=nÂ®1 1 1 2--11 4 li lili 0 Â¥ 7 i 2 - Lli 1 ...*.I :-I. i 1 1 5-3 tb+1 -7 ! al ' - -- -1 1 1 111 [1=F+-~ - ' 11!ilili ' l- i - cs o r id 11 1 -1 - ill lilli, 1 1 - --9 =49) 1<11111!11 1 1 Â»-011 l 41 11 1 1 111 il 1 tl /1 , 1111'ili i'11 111 ilf 11, L- f I s 7 1 71 i 44 -1-1 ap 0 14 0 Ed i ti- 3 FI CIO =1 C El * 1 92 6 T 1 ... [7-1 ~7-911 lilli mEI E**3--tzE*---1 Z 7 Er X, I. tl UIEL#*_ICWNHQUSES 88Â¢S-707* 907/Es 22. 0 -44 0 KIM RAYMOND , ASPEN,COLORADO81611 BOX 1458 ASPEN, CO 81612 (303)544-9255 4: 6--I-ill--J 1.I~--1 4 - 0-Pr TI-Or=-- po 1-2*N7-19 -1-m -r--- - ~U- 0 -- W CR, tel \|GL,210:~ -41.In- -44 -- Â»' 1,4 ~ 11 Il 1 11 3. 11 1 Â·*TILLO - -- / /1 1- Lr:,E- 7/,Ify-F-_ 9-_9 - -23+Erf- - i- _~~-- t -- - - - - - ---- / ----,4. r k e-e = g . ii. 4 <bj#FIL ----- -Lilit...r-12-10 4/ "\ 1,u - Wlb, eft k|kE/-, Â· 77-- - - ./ 0 --" 1- =f--ffillÂ»-2 -0-4--79-2 Oil l - -- 2 ---0 - It ./Ze:... I / 723.$3111.- ~--_pi- e 13E5/ /9 2 1. - ~22:3~ -Â»91Â·.4--2- .-1<61----Â·Â·- ---1- 12 5 ,#}U D 'P tr f_-Â»PEr -3Â»I /1 -i-- ~- --1 ~IL/<Ek-tÂ»%11- 0 - ----- ~ LI\/1-1 4 -/ 4.E #4/ j To, *1.- 126'-c" , - O 6/ 1 120 - - - - - 32 -222_ 67 1 |r['4 694 _f-014-3 <5 - ft' Ilglo 4 I ./ 1 - 4 + 11:FP:~1 1 r 1,1 -1 TIMEE-& 7-kin 4_ 11 $ Cd~=211 1__ 1 1 '1 11 1 1 1 !i 11 1 1 , C 2 1 11?fER.LUCM.Of b i -1. ZEZZZ U _.- 1 ~ Livl~6 /*172*04 T 0 19.d D - 110 !10â€¢ ' ~ Â·I~ Trj, Ft-Ub ..111.-0,1 1 1 1-- ! â‚¬0111,>,O - . i I 1 T 1 <D i -. - ml-h-4 4 --**Te f ---t Â· r>urr, r.Â·) FOW'IZZ' ~~ ~107-1-11~r--fj I 4 1 -- i. e . ,. *-. . 4 6 ABAGEE- 1 T-U, r~*lax-/t- O,1 r T.0.6004Â« 99'-1 1 1 1 1 I i 1 1 1 1. 1 -1 -1 1 J - r -1 2- -1-_ 4/1 1 1 -- -- ------ ------ -- -.- 1 1 1 00Â· 4.4/Ijel.fo _ -_. _ __ _~~_~~__----- --- I 1 13â‚¬,L O \- - , . / - &\\ 1 ~ - 11 1111-2 -26Â« - 1 1 1 1 1 Wo.â‚¬+H deÂ·Â«p 27----- | /PER\Nan 10 -=2 1 -1 L..0 Uâ‚¬* 1,â‚¬-v'c.~. =ase, [1 - - - -- -1 -- - --- -- - - -1 - 1 Ta cok'c. = 10'-Dll 7 44-44 1 <2> 1 (411 7-25%41 lar[~1014 / grk ' I rI A ~ **f:ZFF *56Â£VAT 10 K,~ -- N_1 I '.~ f. 0 ft 1131-D \ \-- - 1 -- of'-6/0 / * , 1/'vir4651 / 1,5-14-6-1-1 EEN 06 DATE ISSUED 1 r TOI FLY'Aty 1101-0 T REVISIONS: Mul,00 44 1 - 1-1 MisE GL -rl=I 1.1 - -4 i rl uci 1 1.0Â· fifi,ity /3Â°1-p d&'rÂ« ~h 0 Exp Lfr H + ursT ' ill-I~ -170 6.0 AIC- . 11 ELI IL-C>1 hie 1* FLEÂ©#ArlohIS 1 * Et! 1 LDI K|6 4 1 1 /re : 61Â·0140 , 10'-0 -t# 601&1 ap Leve L ~ A 5 90 UTH+ E.L. 69Â»Â¢T-IONI L 95/6-t'*5(Â£0Â£) uboss a 53*607& Â§3SnOHNmel,# 3ln NOWA 11918 0(1910100 'N3dSV , < 11 4,26. 6-,? 4.*%41 4Â·. ..-%.b./.0-Â· =F (34: AQIE DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS, USE WRITTEN DIMENSIONS ONLY. IF THERE IS A DISCREPANCY, NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT FOR CLARIFICATION. i 49113.. f 28'- 9" Z a 1-9 11 I -47 I ./a 11 11 *, el'-1 _ -- ___~_ 2. 1 9 7. 7 L Z 011-0 11 18&111 6, 2 " I , p HL -. - 7% 2 . 1 Â£ lu i 1 1 i , 4 ./. S W 9706-k 1< 5 *Zz 9 el * 04 < - 9 2 *Kie 1%-t-4/' " -. -1 0 3 ->PI. en Q N 1 -r, rma TU- ; 4 --r, M 0 0 -0 3 A 4 0 = Â£ , 20 A na * 2 I.4 0 , -4 - 121 41,4 4 LIVIPIST ~ FEEK [0>foÂ·C,r./1 2- 9/2 1 <6/8" Â«Tre ~ v ' 25â€¢r, id, ap, ~ I 0 1'4 1,]Al-1Â» 4 6281 LI Hcl~) /_, ' 1 4 e \ , dl /11'PA:OTÂ» , r..,. A 34 B i -\ 1 199% 0 v 7-.' 1 22 .---1 1 -- i g, 1 8 ' ..03Â£d 96 61 |-1 6 bALJ#Avt-7 - / / ~ Cv ' 42:Â·. I f . / , 417 j' 4. - f 1 7 1 3 q W 1.I: -:*1: 4 ' L 1#Wri.1.U/1 1 e if k T o. code , -- 27â‚¬10 12 U 1. . 1 0 0 r~ 1 7 99 L â‚¬" . 00 1 11 Â· r- tw -- 1 T 9 I:3 - -1-Z=- 0 -.1 4-./564-A 71 10 16 1!.1 9 SLI 26*4 012 4>41 :4 , 1 < /... 1 r , ~ 1 8 21 4 0 fors 't . 1- r 1 1 -3. r--li Â©T pf 16+114 foo'*1 NO 1 L . 0 - Dak#1 11~1.0 1 0 , /I N ~ 51 J-- -t , N Â»-- i i 16.-ilk+[ter! i 1 4 --1 Â«tor-Â·'a- ' \ 6,0 'Led' 1-- - \ 394 1 11 -014.*14_ 0 -w Qi 1 11 1/ ducr. 0,% Nhf - E _ r 9 1Â¥ fri#T -- F,Ffl~ 1 ~-30. Purk'R Wit * / i - 1,1 i r -1- r.-=4 i ~ -1.--4 1 11 /7 - 1101-0,1 ---- 01 ~ 57 . 76 ./ e -11 Â· - H , ..6.4 V .3Â® 4=10.0 fl *1Â·L,ech-I ~ ~-4 ./ 4 4 9 ooN , I. 2 5 21 4 i#F 1 4 11 S 23 uu 7 - - -3 4 TIO (Al C. 1 0-Q j Jr -- 42 10 1 ... 0 T- 3 ' 5- Â· 7 1 , T ~C]EL O 1,-Ifc.#1141. E-El -t - .t=. 1 -- . . "Ia./ . 1- 1 =m'' 9 2. 8--1 1,4Â»145,"1 L r / 1 - 447 0. FLY.Jb 0 4 < - . 4 i Al Â·â€¢EB 25Â¥ . . 1 7 11~'-0" ,;:fi.,...f...1 r 0 + 1 6- 3 AULJ - U) f. 7 1.5 'VIÂ»arep '12 â‚¬> U u ~~-- , e REVISIONS: -- _ h:Â·':.9- .- .i;..~/02= .1 7 griffl, 1 001-0.(/f Q) _f-f f \ 00. i & 3 O 4]F== L- W i-- DATE ISSUED ' F : 0 b< 1 Cr-\ Or -. %\A / - 1\ . - f/0 -1 34*-Â·r) 1 .-__-1- 1 6- -f e 11 - 13\ Â· Ir-----Ir~ i Â· 1 B =11 U 11 114 6 0 p .9 1 -9 -. el ...L ---IJ 11 "LL 4. e i I '06 6 14/0:4 =Â·p - .1 -41- 3 +3 1 61'- 1 - 0Â© 91'-0 - H'-c 12, L 9 1%01+116 f, PlÂ«INI 4 2 4 u Â«FE> p LewiS L 281 1 --1 , / Up'- 1 - f L,Â£Â©r r[-44 19 9 94 111- 52 0>Ul l.gil*51 2 11 . 06: 1 vÂ° der 6 8 ve L f L 00 r f 1/Â» 14 IMAN Leve L FL--af- fÂ»14 * UFFÂ« Mvel Fuvt <644 T lAil lift r-'of-fiN -_A 7"4' *4.. 9926-1,175(Â£0[) tâ„¢IN 02) *bossa aNOINA i t9;9 ohv.010:, '1 SEISnOHNMOJL 44 4 \ -\ - . 0 - -1 - ~ -1 Ir-------- -_=u._-. --------- wt>. â‚¬-,Pfldoke M - ' T O. FL. 119 1 0 11 -------- -- -- 1/141 0 6 1 ~ U , ~Zi / // Men 4 : P , . . M 0 6/ - liul ' - 11 1 11 11*0 111- . AJ W=< - 0 1[1132321|1 4 - I . 1 - 1 MAe-rE.les - - , - - *-6-';L4'963 '-O-' 1--L- _1Â«u-LERfff------- -Â·- -- ~I.-- -i-~ - -- 'L Ria-11 *~~ ~f~~' ~ ~Il'<6'_~--~~ UJJ _ _______- â‚¬0 TUCÂ·C~ 4 1 - E=Tr I' MAI~ 1,6#El-- im rti. i 4Â¢31-10 1@r'00' Ef TbÂ· Fe(wit=> 13 1~--- ---L- t?*- --_- L._-F~ 1.11 .Â· 1001-Cy' -# 1- -z)*.- LJ r.-4 .7 t]-tr tz[ 41 i it 4.-A GATArGE 1 * 3-5, 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 r in ------7 ir i , 1 1 1 Â£ i t_-r 1- _4- . I| I lil ' E I i. '' 1 - 11 11 \ 1 / 11 1 1-0 U EF- LEV El--- | ~ ~ 1 /11 1 â‚¬D 11 tp_*_J <1-1__11__ll ~~ ----1 ---- ------- ---- ------- - - 4- 1 1 - [Jt>. c*ti kiGUES - 3 - -1- -I--*il - -Ill .1-*Ilit -1-â€ž- - - --4 -- - ---- 249% ---- - 14<. .05#. kjaer 80Â»/ATIOK] i l1 l 11 j i i\\ - della~ 1 JE# 3 jh fo f.. -liÂ«-7-- e -ng - d rl- Ll , -- - - 1Â«1Â»Ofe,f -4Â»-1,67- -- - ~ 09--Afl / - ==--======----"-- --- --LL_ - _ __- -r(Fzfy,Ii,-0-n T-fÂ© ' [LTIAL./. 110 2 0 1 - r i i-i-- 1%21 7 2-. 4..r 7-111-1 - T-t A---i ' ' - 1-1 1-- DATE ISSUED -f ot.. 65TUL.60 --- - i Fl REVISIONS: 11,-1Â·EEL Te / 1-1 U , -i:__Â« T i H Eg#11: 1 41 l'_.-11 H_45 -4-[f .. , ,--Il Â»__-_11 - 1 1 4 9 -i' [14-] I--Fil - I -1.-i Â· , DTV 1 1 -t T . n I l-4 - i*- 1 1 -~.1~=~f ~~~5 FIT~I . I CR I 6.0 3 C -- 1 1 * 4 007*4 1 W E.'91- 11 1 1 1 U-20Â¥r\04% UL 1 1501 0.01 4 a r-1 | 7 I I Al 0129 E.LE**F I old A8 9536-1,1,55(Â£0Â£) 111 Mb 65% 0 4Fty (INIOWA 1 1918 0(!Â¥210100 'NidSV 9 n 1 0- 0 -H C kQ 3 2- 02 7/ -P 1 _ t 1 .1.40+2 - 11 - lilli 1 1/ ill 14 1 1 1 =0 11 v 1 1 4 1 1.11 Eunt-4 1 1. -L: 11 11 . *FLF I 1 1-fÂ»-ti~Â«ti--0-1-> U ili i 1 i,f 111 11 1 11 4 111 - 1 *- ----'-'0 ill '1 , le . . 1:lili 1 _21. CU_ lilli! ' - 11-- m : - 4 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 6 zi 1 1 L_.ir -- . - - - 11; 11 * itlii 1 5 (d 0 .. I'llit'111 1 rr=======- 4% '' '111!} fit'\ U UJU 08 lilli N . 111,1 11 St. J O - III' 'unilti 1 1 I ii i f ti! iÂ· 1 J i f + f ' i ' 11 1% rit ' 11 jit m __Ll_-1 Illl ril -~ '1 1 1 1 1 I lili:11 1111 rzz=z=zzzI] 1 / 1 11 1 [4' 1 lilli H-~ , 4.11 .... 9 -,- 111 t, I 1 It It .11 1 111111.L lili 1.1 1 . Ililli, 1 1 22 1 4. - , . C 11 1 11 It' 2-1 NU , Ir======11 1 '11 ''Ill I lili/!lili F-dj - / ' , 011-2 r--44.-114.-, , f , '1 1 11 , 4.. . 1 1 r 1 -1~ 1 1 --- -4 1 i 1, 11 -f- 0.-- 11 1 1 1 1-1 l. 21 ' / -1 r 2 fl1:lil -- i j 11 11 ! Ill - - -i}l: 11 + 21 44 - 41 3 . 1 7 -7 01 b 7\ IT B 1 4 1k 3 El 9 01 1, 03 + 91 3 9 11 -01 * '1 1 Ult t - 34 -Ra I V IN - t 0 i. \ f . 31 81 FIf. 41% 1 2 L ' 1 -1 GI _1_ ip ~ U -1 1 -9 ~-3- i | -Shl l~ m -9 % 9 ~37 4 NE - f 41 11 '1 LIJ- I -â‚¬14 / + Et 1 1 1 1 1 - ge c il- 9.1111(3 /lili 11 , - 11 [la=Zil['11 i 1\ 1 L_______________-1-/_ 1.1. 1 Ill _11 1: 1 34 2 -th - . 9\11 2 , . - A --1 111 , 1 -1 1 /1 L & 1 1 ~2212---- ~ ;r 0 --- 1--0429--4 lj~ \1 1 ~ill 1 . -1-- ------ .6- d il x 1 / f, \ \ -*I-- A--2 .73 JULI ~ -,- I i *X--- - .-/ Il - Mi' litfil ip - - 1 1 2 2 # 1 Â£ i 1 1 4.-f -T--s- -E---93-~ - 1 lilli -------- - -1 ~/ XII 11 -L 1 10.- -1- lilli/11 11 lip- 1 -2-__-- 1 1 -- MI . P . / 1 Â· Â·47 Â·I 9-1 5 : :..15'seÂ¥, 4*14 IL 1.\5 =1 2 0 d 6 . PRE 1 1 -28.1 .'*A-Â·4 1 LE E---1 V 4*Â·224â€¢Â© 1 5 11 1 02Â£5707* 907*ES . 4 I 1 f :129:*,0 j- Pi Â¢3;~*.: . ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 .1 @t/ /7 ...Tilttjct' KIM RAYMOND Jbz. :Â·. 2'Â·rt, BOX 1458 1 V. 1 ~ ASPEN, CO 81612 (303)544-9255 ~ 92Â·1671446 'arl WICK 17#1 kk=UE,5 ----\ : NOISIAUnI rl