The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19970122f â‚¬2604 I AGENDA Un /O C j t:-C,</ r, ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION January 22, 1997 REGULAR MEETING SISTER CITY MEETING ROOM 5:00 I. Roll Call and approval of Dec. 11, 1996 minutes. II. Commissioner and Staff Comments III. Public Comments IV. NEW BUSINESS 5:10 A. 17 QUEEN STREET, HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT, PUBLIC HEARING (CONTINUED FROM JAN. 8,1997 2 14_ 5:40 B. 214 E. BLEEKER, CONCEPTUAL, PUBLIC HEARING (CONTINUED FROM DEC. 11,1996) TO BE CONTINUED TO fEB. 12,1997 ~ i n /11 6 /4 J O to r . L c 1-3 5- 5:45 C. ~]~TEE TOWNHOM~S - FINAL-*ppitiÂ« 6:15 D. ~ 406 E. HOPKINS - EXTENSION OF CONCEPTUAL 6:45 E. 4 EXTENSION OF CONCEPTUALS: 520 Waln~ 834 W. Hallam, 123 W. Francis O./~ \'l'* PÂ» 7:00 F. DISCUSSION OF HPC UPCOMING PROJECTS AND GOALS 7:45 V. ADJOURN ~ROJECT MONITORING -Meed Monitors Meadows 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 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 Melanie Roschko - 918 E. Cooper ISIS 123 W. Francis 706 W. Main Suzannah Reid 320 Lake Ave. 303 E. Main 702 W. Main 315 E. Hyman Benjamin's Mark Onorofski 426 E. Hyman 123 W. Francis 517 E. Hopkins 0 CONCEPTUAL APPROVALS WHICH HAVE NOT GONE TO FINAL: 406 E. Hopkins (Isis), expires August 23, 1996 820 E. Cooper (Anson), amended conceptual expires March 13, 1997 ' E. Cooper (Langley), expires November 9, 1997 - Unit E 0 Walnut (Greenwood), expires.Maretr2271999Â· A<6, :ct: 32, / 99 g 834 W. Hallam (Poppie's), expires April 2671997- 4 6 / /9 9 2.- 12% W. Francis (Vickery), expires May 24, 1992 & 4- / 9,1 ir + , 5 - (LiA.1 02)) #?94* 202Â«) 1 3- /9 2 7 Awards 1997 550 Gillespie - Beck House ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DEC.11.1996 COMMISSIONER COMMENTS 1 214 E. BLEEKER - PH- CD 1 17 QUEEN STREET - LANDMARK DESIGNATION 1 17 NEALE AVE. - SHOAF, REFERRAL COMMENTS 7 303 E. MAIN - MINOR DEVELOPMENT 3 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DEC.11.1996 Chairman Jake Vickery called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. with Roger Moyer, Susan Dodington, Sven Alstrom, Suzannah Reid, Mark Onorofski and Donnelley Erdman present. MOTION: Roger moved to approve the minutes ofNov. 13th; second by Donnelley. All in favor, motion carried. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Susan stated that No Problem Joe's house is open to the elements and the siding is off. Staff should contact the owner. Sven stated that he is concerned about owners being the general contractor and there is no licensed contractor on the job. He also stated that he needs a legal interpretation. 214 E. BLEEKER - PH- CD 0 Chairman Jake Vickery opened the public hearing. MOTION: Roger moved to continue the public hearing and conceptual development to January 22, 1997; second by Susan. All in favor, motion carried - 17 QUEEN STREET - LANDMARK DESIGNATION Donnelley stated that this project is very exemplary project and both the historic resource and addition were handled sensitively. Jake stepped down. MOTION: Donnelley moved that Landmark Designation be approved for the historic cottage and addition at 17 Queen Street finding that Standards B,D and E have been met. The legal description is attached as exhibit A. A 0 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DEC.11.1996 parcel of land being part of Tract 40, East Aspen Addition, second by Suzannah. All in favor, motion carried. 17 NEALE AVE. - SHOAF, REFERRAL COMMENTS Jeff Shoaf, owner stated that this project is going to P&Z for an accessory dwelling unit. They would like to hear any design issues that HPC has. A portion of the six foot fence along Neale would be removed so that the cabin is visible from Neale St. Jake asked if the applicant is requesting designation? Jeff stated no as the cabin has been moved several times. The cabin was out in Snowmass at the Elk Camp lift and in 1973 it was moved to the Stillwater road toward Independence Pass (gravel pit) and it was there until now. He also stated that he met with the neighbors. Roger stated that the east side would be visible which is the side with the porch and front door. Fritz Benedict put the porch on in 1973. Jeff stated that he is also asking for variancds. The side yard is ten feet-and he pulled it back 15 feet. The front is to be 30 feet and he is pulling it back ~ ten feet to the front of the porch and the porch 7 so actually it is 17 feet. The variance request is for the front. Roger stated that the applicant needs a recommendation for the variance on the front. Susan asked how close it will be to the street? Jeff stated the front porch will be approximately 10 feet from the property line. There is plenty of parking onsite. Jake stated that his only concern is the front yard variance. Jeff stated that his house could be five feet closer to the street. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DEC.11.1996 Roger stated that an historic cabin is being saved and restored and the corner is being opened up and making it more pedestrian friendly. There is a bank in front so you couldn't put it out 30 feet. Jeff stated that actually it is 20 feet not 30 feet. Sven stated that he would recommend to P&Z in favor but he would recommend that the applicant take the adjacent property building location to P&Z. He could not make a recommendation without the adjacent building location. Mark asked what alternations are being proposed to the existing cabin? Jeff stated a by 6 stairwell and full basement. Fritz had done an addition earlier. MOTION: Sven moved to recommend to P&Z that HPC finds 117 Neale Ave. should receive afront yard setback variance due to it contribution to the neighborhood and infill ADU project. The P&Z should receive an adjacent building location from the applicant so that they can consider the "build to lines" that are required in ordinance #30. The project is an amenity to the neighborhood and a good infill; second by Mark. All in- favor, motion carried. 303 E. MAIN - MINOR DEVELOPMENT Jake stepped down. Ted Guy, architect presented with the owner, Mr. Kuhn. Roger stated that he is the monitor it was determined that the minor development should be reviewed by the entire board. The applicants want to do two things. HPC stated that the house should not be removed at all and they are asking to raise the house and secure it in order to excavate. It is basically a safety issue after consultation with the architect and engineers. The existing sandstone foundation has been patched and painted by the owner and the monitors are asking if it is lifted up that they attempt 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DEC.11.1996 to move the existing foundation up with it. If it can be done, great but if it can't it would be saved and reused etc. Roger stated that the second issue is the approved stairway which goes to the basement. It would have a big impact on the historic house. Staff and monitor thought it would be better if the entry on the east side would be put toward the center so it does not butt up against the house and it showed the separation of that structure and the original Victorian. Donnelley stated that his only concern is that the house be bonded or a letter of credit be filed regarding the lifting of the house. MOTION: Donnelley moved that the minor development approval for the following changes be approved for 303 E. Main Street with the following conditions: One, that the entrance of the north east corner be relocated as shown on the proposed north elevation and plan revisions dated 12-9-96 and also that the existing structure can be moved by a house mover to allow for excavation provided that the applicant bond the work and that the building be relocated to its original condition and that the City approves the bond. The stone of the existing foundation should be retained if possible or if not possible be saved and used to restore the new foundation to the appearance which is acceptable: second by Sven. All in favor, motion carried. MOTION: Roger moved to adjourn; second by Susan. All infavor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 6: 45 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 4 f RIg 1 ) 1/t- 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director V FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 17 Queen Street, Historic Landmark Lot Split DATE: January 22, 1997 SIJMMARY: The applicant requests HPC approval for a historic landmark lot split. The property is 21,161 sq.ft., and is to be split into one parcel of 6,000 sq. ft. which will contain the historic house and one parcel of 15, 161 sq. ft. on which a new house will be built in the future. Per Ordinance #41, Series of 1996, which extended the historic landmark lot split provision to the R15A zone district (including 17 Queen Street) the FAR which would have been allowed for a duplex on the original parcel will be divided between the historic building and new house. Plans have not been developed at this time for the new residence. In the future it will be brought to HPC as a significant development review. APPLICANT:Henry and Lana Trettin, represented by Jake Vickery. LOCATION: 17 Queen Street. ZONING: R15-A REVIEW STANDARDS: The Historic Landmark Lot Split shall meet the requirements of Section 26.88.030(A)(2) and (5), Section 26.100.050(A)(2)(e), and Section 26.72.010(G). Section 26.88.030(A)(2). Subdivision Exemptions. Lot Split. The split of a lot for the purpose of the development of one detached single-family dwelling on a lot formed by a lot split granted subsequent to November 14, 1977, where all of the following conditions are met. a. The land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners or the city council, or the land is described as a metes and bounds parcel which has not been subdivided after the adoption of subdivision regulations by the City of Aspen on March 24, 1969; and Response: The lot has not been subdivided previously. b. No more than two (2) lots are created by the lot split, both lots conform to 0 the requirements of the underlying zone district. Any lot for which development is proposed will mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.100.040(A)(1)(c). Response: Two lots are created, both of which conform to the requirements of the R- 15A zone district. An Accessory Dwelling Unit or cash-in-lieu payment will be required for the new residence. c. The lot under consideration, or any part thereof, was not previously the subject of a subdivision exemption under the provisions of this chapter or a "lot split" exemption pursuant to Section 26.100.040(C)(1)(a); and Response: No previous lot split exemption was granted. d. A subdivision plat which meets the terms of this chapter, and conforms to the requirements of this title, is submitted and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder after approval, indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to this chapter and growth management allocation pursuant to Chapter 26.100. Response: The filing of said subdivision plat shall be a condition ofthis approval. e. Recordation. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be 0 recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the plat within one hundred eighty (180) days following approval by the City Council shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. Response: The filing of said subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be .a condition of this approval. f. In the case where an existing single-family dwelling occupies a site which is eligible for a lot split, the dwelling need not be demolished prior to application for a lot split. Response: No dwelling units will be demolished. g. Maximum potential buildout for the two (2) parcels created by a lot split shall not exceed three (3) units, which may be composed of a duplex and a single-family home. Response: The applicant represents that a total of two units will be created. 0 Section 26.88.030(A)(5). Historic Landmark Lot Split. The following standards must be met: a. The original parcel shall be a minimum of 9,000 square feet in size and be located in the R-6 zone district or a minimum of 13,000 square feet and be located in the R-15A zone district. Response: The parcel is larger than 13,000 square feet and is located in the R-15A zone district. b. 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. Response: The duplex FAR which would have been allowed for the fathering parcel, which in this case is 5,289 square feet plus a possible FAR bonus from HPC, will be divided between the new parcels. The applicant represents that 1,200 sq.ft. will be allocated to the 6,000 square foot lot containing the historic landmark. An FAR bonus of 500 square feet is requested to allow the applicant to potentially build a garage in the future. A 250 square foot bonus is already available for garages, therefore staff feels further explanation is needed. The new lot will contain a single family residence which may be up to 4,089 square feet. c. The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. HPC variances and bonuses are only permitted on the'parcel that contains a historic structure. Response: The historic house has already received a setback variance and parking space variance. An FAR bonus has been requested. Section 26.100.050(A)(2)(e), GMQS Exemption by the Community Development Director, Historic Landmark Lot Split. The construction of a new single-family dwelling on a lot created through a Historic Landmark Lot Split pursuant to section 26.88.030(A)(5) shall be exempted from residential Growth Management allocations and shall not be deducted from the pool of annual development allotments or from the metro area development ceilings. Response: An exemption by the Community Development Director will be processed following approval of this application. Section 26.72.010(G), Historic Landmark Lot Split. The development of all lots created pursuant to section 26.88.030(A)(5) shall be reviewed by HPC at a public hearing. Response: This meeting is a noticed public hearing. 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 approve the application with the exception of the FAR bonus, for which further clarification of its intended use is needed. Recommended motion: "I move the approve a Historic Landmark Lot Split for 17 Queen Street with the following conditions: 1. Landmark designation of the entire property, which is pending at City Council must be -completed. t'Â»1..aL- 74/63 1 â‚¬ h ).Lk-L...1 9.2, 2. The property shall be subdivided into one parcel of 6,000 square feet with an 4,44 assigned FAR of 1,2Â£ square feet, and a second parcel of 15,164- square feet, with a / / maximum FAR of 4,1.69 square feet. 4 7 U&70 3-â‚¬Â·e N? era 3. A subdivision plat as described in Section 26.88.030(A)(2)(d), must be filed. 3.5- S 4. A subdivision exemption agreement and plat as described in Section - 4 7 0, 26.88.030(A)(2)(e) shall be filed." 4. 4, ' 21 -9 6 , 0 3 1 602 42 6034 0 LR CHITE C T| December 30, 1996 .Mil JAKE Amy Amidon, HPO VICKERY Aspen Community Development Department City of Aspen 130 South Galena POST OFFICE BOX 12360 100 SOUTH SPRING ST. #3 Aspen, Colorado 81611 ASPEN.COLORA[)081612 TELEPHONE / FACSIMILE (970) 925-3660 RE: 17 QUEEN STREET APPLICATION FOR SITE SPECIFIC HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT Dear Amy, Please find attached our site specific Land Use Application for a historic landmark lot split of 17 Queen Street. Consolidated with this application are requests for HPC Landmark Designation, a 500 square foot FAR bonus, GMQS Exemption by the Planning Director and Lot Split Exemption for this property. To follow at a later date and upon receipt of the approvals requested above, will be requests for HPC Conceptual Review and Conditional Use Review for an Accessory Dwelling Unit for a proposed new residence on the property. Information provided for Review: 1. Application Summary 2. Combined Land Use Application Form 3. Compliance with Review Standards for Landmark Designation 4, Supplement to Historic Preservation Development Application Form 5. Compliance with Review Standards for HPC Conceptual Review of Historic Lot Split. 7. Specific Submittal for GMQS Exemption by Director for a new freemarket unit. 8. Specific Submittal for Lot Split Exemption 9. Vicinity Map 10. Survey 11. Disclosure of Ownership 13. Owner's Authorization to Represent 14. 1 set of 11"x17" reduced copies of all drawings including existing and proposed site plans. Sincerely, , , 2Yll J43 Vickery, Architect 1 17 QUEEN STREET OVERVIEW OF SITE SPECIFIC LOT SPLIT APPLICATION Jake Vickery Architects 12-30-96 The innovative and award winning historical renovation of 17 Queen Street helped pioneer the concepts which eventually led to the creation of the Historic Landmark Lot Split program. Existing Conditions The Applicant's property is located on Neale Street between King and Queen Streets. It is legally descMbed as per the attached legal description (Exhibit 2). It is zoned R15A, Moderate Density Residential. It contains 21,161 square feet of lot area, 6,161 square feet more than the minimum lot area requirement for this zone. It is a West facing site that slopes to-the South. (see attached Exhibit 3, Survey). - Initial renovation work was done on the historical cottage known as 17 Queen Street in 1991-1992. It was a single story miner's cottage of approximately 1,000 square feet. The existing cottage was relocated on-site to the north corner in an area referred to as an "Historic Overlay Area."' (see Exhibit 3, Survey). This area was created through a voluntary deed restriction. A second residential unit on the remainder of the site was contemplated and indicated at that time. Up until recently, the Code permitted only one free market residence or a duplex (with one unit deed restricted to affordable housing) on the property. Proposed Development The request at this time is to legitimize what was conceptually approved and laid out in 1991 allowing a second free market home of restricted FAR to be constructed on the property and the property split into two ownerships. The site area and currently allowable duplex FARsf will be distributed between the two lots. Please see the Proposed Lot Split Plan attached as Exhibit 4. This proposed Historic Landmark Lot Split creates two lots as follows: Lot 1 consisting of approximately 6,000 square feet and containing the existing historical residence. The apportioned Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for Lot 1 shall be approximately 1,200 FARsf plus any FAR bonuses granted by the Historical Preservation Commission (HPC). Lot 2 consisting of the remainder of the Property (approximately 15,161 square feet) upon which the right to build a new single family residence. The apportioned FAR for Lot 2 shall be approximately 3,500 FARsf. The design of the house will be brought forward by separate application at a later date. 2 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1. Project Name: 17 QUEEN STREET 2. Project Location: 17 QUEEN STREET, ASPEN (SEE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION) 3. Present Zoning: R15A 4. Lot Size: 21,161 SF 5. Applicant' s Name, Address & Phone HENRY AND LANA TRETTIN 17 QUEEN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611 C/O REPRESENTATIVE 6. Representative's Name, Address & Phone # JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS 100 SOUTH SPRING STREET #3 - ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611 - 970 925-3660 7. Type of Application (Please check all that apply): Conditional Use Conceptual SPA _Concept Historical Dev. Special Review Final SPA Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline Conceptual PUD Minor HistoMc Dev. Stream Margin Final PUD Historic Demolition Mountain View Plane Subdivision X__Historic Designation Condominiumization Text/Map Amendment GMQS Allotment X Historic Lot Split X___GMQS Exemption 8. Description of Existing Uses (number and type of existing structures; approximate sq. ft: number of bedrooms; any previous approvals granted to the property). SITE IS CURRENTLY DEVELOPED WITH HISTORICAL MINER'S COTTAGE OF APPROXIMATELY 1.120 FARsf. RELOCATED ON-SITE AND RENOVATED IN 1992 9. Description of Development Application TEXT AMENDMENT: HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT: 10. Have you attached the following? YES Response to Attachment 2, Minimum Submission Contents YES Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Contents YES Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application 17 QUEEN STREET APPLICATION FOR LANDMARK DESIGNATION -ATTACHMENTS Jake Vickery Architects December 30, 1996 (attachment #, Item #) (2-2) Street Address 17 Queen Street Aspen, Colorado 81612 (2-3) Legal Description See attached legal Description (2-4) See attached Vicinity Map (2-5) Compliance with Review Standards The portion of the property associated with the historic cottage and referred to as the "Historic Overlay Area" is already a landmark. This application alters the property description to include the entire parcel by current legal description consistent with current City of Aspen policy. (3-1) See attached Boundary Survey (3-2A) See attached letter authorizing Jake Vickery to act as Ownefs Representative. (3-2B) See attached letter requesting, if available, Designation Grant and waiver of Application and Park Dedication Fees. 4 SUPPLEMENT TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS IMPORTANT Three sets of clear. fullv labeled drawings must be submitted in a format no larger than 11"Xl 7", OR one dozen sets of blueprints may be submitted in lieu of the 11"Xl 7" format. APPLICANT: HENRY AND LANA TRETTIN ADDRESS: 17 QUEEN STREET. ASPEN. CO ZONE DISTRICT: R15A LOT SIZE (SQUARE FEET) . 21.161 SF EXISTING FAR: 1.120 SF HOUSE ALLOWABLE FAR: 4.4.869 S.F. (SINGLE FAM): 5.289 S.F. (DUPLEX) PROPOSED FAR: 5.789 S.F. EXISTING NET LEASABLE (Commercial): N/A PROPOSED NET LEASABLE (Commercial): N/A EXISTING % OF SITE COVERAGE: 5% - PROPOSED % OF SITE COVERAGE: (UNDETERMINED) EXISTING % OF OPEN SPACE: N/A PROPOSED % OF OPEN SPACE: N/A EXISTING MAXIMUM HEIGHT: 25 FEET MIDPOINT PROPOSED MAXIMUM HEIGHT: 25 FEET MIDPOINT PROPOSED % OF DEMOLITION: N/A EXISTING NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: 3 PROPOSED NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: EXISTING ON-SITE PARKING SPACES: 1 .ON-SITE PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: 1 SETBACKS: EXISTING: ALLOWABLE: PROPOSED: Front: 16.4' Front: 25' Front 25' Rear: 10' Rear: 10' Rear: 10' Side: 10' Side: 10' Side: 10' Combined Frt/Rr: N/A Combined Frt/RE N/A Combined Frt/Rr: N/A EXISTING NONCONFORMITIES/ FRONT YARD SETBACK ENCROACHMENTS: VARIATIONS REQUESTED (eligible for Landmarks only: character compatibility finding must be made by HECk FAR: 500 sq ft bonus Minimum Distance Between Buildings: SETBACKS: Front:TO 16.4' Parking Spaces: Reac Open Space (Commercial): N/A Side: Height (Cottage Infill Only): N/A Combined Frt/Rc N/A Site Coverage (Cottage Infill Only): N/A 17 QUEEN STREET APPLICATION FOR CONCEPTUAL REVIEW OF SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT Jake Vickery Architects December 30, 1996 (attachment #, Item it) (2-1) see attached Ownefs Authorization Letter (2-2) see attached Legal Description (2-3) see attached Disclosure of Ownership (2-4) see attached Vicinity Map (2-5) Compliance with relevant Review Standards: Please see Application Summary for additional information. Section 7-601 Development involving an Historic Landmark (D) (1) Review Standards for all development in H, Historic Overlay District and all development involving historic landmarks. (a) The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcel if the subject site is in an H, Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. (b) The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development; and (c) The proposed development enhances and does not detract from the cultural value of designated structures located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels; and (cl) The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Section 7-607 Historic Landmark Lot Split. (A) Historic Landmark Lot Split The development of all lots created pursuant to Section 7-1003 (A) (5) shall be reviewed by HPC at a public hearing. 6 17 QUEEN STREET APPLICATION FOR HISTORIC LOT SPLIT / SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION Jake Vickery Architects December 30, 1996 Section 7-1003 (A) (5) (Subdivision Exemption) (A) General Exemptions (5) Historic Landmark Lot Split The split of a lot that is a designated historic landmark for the development of one new single family dwelling. The Historic Landmark Lot Split shall meet the requirement of Section 7-1003 (A) (2), Section 8-105 (A) (2) (e), Section 7-607 and the following standards: Reply: The subject property is a historical landmark and is being split for the development of a new single family dwelling. (a) The original parcel shall be a minimum of 13,000 square feet and is located in the R15A zone district. Reply: The subject site is 21,161 square feet of lot area and is in the R15A zone. (b) 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 Reply: The combined total allowable FAR for both residences will not exceed that for a duplex. For this property, the duplex FAR is 5,289 FARsf. (c) The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the _ underlying zone district. HPC bonuses are only permitted on the parcel that contains the historic structure. Reply: The landmark lot will require a parking variance and a front yard variance. Applicant reserves the right to return to the HPC requesting a FAR bonus for the landmark lot at a later date. Structures on the newly created lot will conform to the underlying zone. 7 17 QUEEN STREET APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION Jake Vickery Architects December 30, 1996 Section 7-1003 (A) (2) (Subdivision Exemption) The following development.shall be exempted from the terms of this division. (A) General exemptions. (2) Lot split. The split of a lot for the purpose of the development of one detached single-family dwelling on a lot formed by a lot split granted subsequent to November 14,1977, where all of the following conditions are met Reply: The application creates only one new single family residence. (a) The land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners or the city council, or the land is described as a metes and bounds parcel which has not been subdivided after the adoption of the regulations by the City of Aspen on March 24, 1969: and Reply: The fathering parcel was not part of a prior subdivision. (b) No more than two (2) lots are created by the lot split, both lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone district and the applicant commits that any lot for which development is proposed will contain an accessory dwelling unit. (con't) Reply: Only two lots are developed by this application. (c) The lot under consideration was not previously the subject of an exemption under the provisions of this article or a "lot split" exemption pursuant to Section 8-104(C)(1)(a); and Reply: The fathedng parcel was not part of a prior lot split" exemption. (d) A subdivision plat is submitted and recorded after approval, indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units built without receipt of the applicable approvals pursuant to this article and growth management allocation pursuant to Article 8. Reply: A subdivision exemption plat will by submitted and recorded after approval. 8 1 74 2\.,;â„¢4J~~17 23tti9~REg>,~~1~ j ~EXÂ·.Ili,IT i \344 -Cree\2- 4 L/7 j IN ly / \1 L--9 9 14 - Hunter 1 41 17 QUEEN STREET ood *44 VICINITY / LOCATION MAP , ~ o Hallam 4 Lake G sh)- - i/ 0 16 ~ >:4 -Vine st v 0 G 9& 11 4% 0/ N 8505 B 4 4 . 1...th' 4. e ~'44 T 1 Roas * 8 e 1 794 ~ - 4 66* Ay /7Fran Aspen el 4 8 0, 44 91 2* 4 0.11 d , 2 Â· ... * V m -m Re 4 4, t i-I-7 te b SITE I-7 t 2" m 00/ ip *1:68 087 *4: * Mall < dartgRd 6-7 . DI i-I-3 a Â·Â·i 0 St 4, :ET ; St ; 75 + A/>,- G.H.3 7 _62-3 ' 95 4p . â‚¬iC 'Somm st ; iii q .... G.6-7 -' r"; .: 1..-r- r~ -- . 1 8 145 Â· .:e. , S 45% PSM River Dr ...........E.3 G.6 Riverside Av H-I-6 Riverside Dr ; T*72.1.: E-3 Rearing ~rk Dr' * 4 442 6 1,44.0 , 16 4/I M-6 Roaring Fork Ri. .2.34-5-3. Ross n 12-5 Sabin Dr outh Av . (16 763 E-F-4 Sage n Â· F-2 Spang s, ,-5-6- . m. 3-2 Salvadon Cir i P-2 Sprtih,qt Â·Ck r.6 r *46 3-5 Saw Mill O 1 (1-3 Summit Rk .1.5 43 Saarr. St + G-H-7 Dat O \ r.6 H-2 Shadowood nr 1 T-J-7-8 Toby T -n \\ ..3 0 0-5 Shady 1,1 1 ---- F.G-5 Truscott P! F-F-1-2 2 Rl Short n 1 G.6 Twin Ridge Dr h.-.-....H- H-6 Silver King Dr 12.2 Ute Av, Pl 1-5-6 0. Skimming T n L 14-7 Vine Rt r'-6 D-E-2-3 Smuggler 9 7 N.<1-3-5 Walnut St G-6 Rmne,le, Grnve Rd_ ..H--47 Witer, AV 1-6 4- ~lddze.t 1 17 :Que'h *1..: 1 : *:T :Â·17 QUEEN STREET~f.. A.pon, ,Câ€¢londo 8161; - . .. .. 0 . ... 1 .. 2 / 4.-EXHIBITS .:~' :- :'.:",s ' ionins Claâ€¢â€¢121**tion: 113-A nomr: 0188*IMIGN . : -e - .. . .. Â£â€¢ . r~,~ 61 .a bdi#- M.ins a ,-6& 41* *Â·14â€¢41â€¢il*a:li24441$**40~.S#,Ii*0, Â·s' 'r.2 1* ,. < 25Â¥...1.14 02(08*4:%â€¢04 *0,.'M",%*1Â·*â€¢:m..6â€¢1~. ~~c~~9Ffi~!9~~Â·â€¢â‚¬i;R~*fflthf. i fs. 31'.21* :1:t .f '* ~ ~ . â‚¬,th,l i : . .: .: I . ,. ilin.4,/ 13. :fu,9491': 98*76 *â€ž;; : I ., ....... . i..4.f t.&6- 4 - ./ : I I . I *an#, * : 39 17' .0* N *64.37 Zoat - . . I. . . ...4. .' ....... . ,. . ..1 60.. '1% 7-â€¢â€¢,~ Sâ€¢ oflob ll, 107:64 *60;; - + 4 4:....'ex .;:.,4Xti f .1: . r. 14% SI. 8+- 62â€¢09 2.lit * .. .4,4 ~ 44 Le:~ il~k â€¢iki~fi,Â· -41~ 0... $ 6 U 119 * 00 19. p 04.41 200& 810â€¢* 4 .-0,1:6 1*W *â‚¬KA,i *00â€¢t **41* 42-5.1 r.r le Â· h. . 9 044 10*414.U- 21.161 :.4.4. 2â€¢â€¢: mon . 10....;f UN.: i .. .AL Â· . Â·' Â· .~- r.Â»Â¥.414 ... ''t b ..... ... .. I. . 't '-' / ': : ':/ -~ ~ **/ A.... . .. . , A . - Â·Â·Â·h, I .. . h:Ill . ., t. Â¥ . - - -1-7 QUEEN STREET EXHIBIT 3 O 's ILM COR /1 TR *0 '45 NOT FIELD LOCATED 4 - .dÂ» Off:, 4 \ 1 Al I ' 4/ SCALE 1 It- - 20 FEET 010203040 . 47 /; : ) ,%12on= STO. .00 FRAE . : WALLS , â€¢ HOUSE . 4,2 . : .â€¢ CONC. il ..... i WALK . f, b .6 5/9 h 9 - i' r LEGEND & NOTES 1 REE# *ENT I /0,1. stmveÂ¥ Molue" H DESCR'OED CON.1-UALâ„¢ LAND TITU INSUR. CO. PÂ«.1- 10. m.plutp 7.2. 1.0. CDR. 417-024023 DAT- 0/12/Il VAS USID IN 71â‚¬ P~-ARATION OP THIS CaTIACATE I 0 .. PAKEL 1 :OUTHEAST CORMil (â€¢Sall ,24 47Â·07-8 *EARINIS -- 011 CITIGUT COR. CILM /} TO .EA . 21.1.1 1.... .e co,UIERS FOUN VARY ,-1 -CORD . .2 To .3 Fr. 1,0 MITED ADOÂ«- LOCAISM - PARCEL 2 4 ./B POLE --0- OVER,mo Lilâ‚¬* iÂ·== CERTIFICATION " 68: 1. DAVID V. 1.1110E. IEREIY CENTIFY TIWT â„¢1, 1-OVOENT LOCATION CERTIFICATE ' THAT IT 1* 110Â¥ A UND â€¢URVEY .t... : *tur ,.' 07 PLAT = Ii/Illovelm SURIP PUT. All, TIIAT IT 1, NOT TO UÂ·RELig MON Po* 11l .... EITAILIall)/ 00 ~Â»CS. IWILDINâ€¢. 08 IneÂ· t-fly,g~Y' Lil.. 1 .im.1 c.*fl. %> 4....7 THhT TIC 1-*Ove-T: 011 TIE IERION DISCRI- LOT a â„¢10 -L_ DAY M -- " ..' Ilve 11*l COCEPT UVILITY Calliel-l. ARE ENTIEILY Â¥11NIN T~ IGUIDAAIEI Of TW LOT. I O-T . "-1. naT "I,:= A,= I WON TW DOCal// Mal//. 16 -m i IMIA -ria n Ne 2,<= M=,CE 41 :1- I - =*M * C CRD./. 01 ..miliâ€¢ Al" Pâ€¢ar OF .ID LOT. 0-7 . 1-/CATIO. , DAM â„¢11 -,DAÂ¥ 00 1. 14% r ..... . . DAVID .. ..1. Ill. . REIAA m CAP HERRON PARK IMPROVEMENT LOCATION CERTIFICATE PARCEL I . OF THE BOUNDARY AGREEMENT PLAT RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 13 AT PAGE 35. COUNTY OF PITKIN. COLORADO PREPARED ./ ASPEN SURVEY ENGINEERS. INC. 210 '. GALENâ€¢:TREET t:%: it f 0 0 /-) .... I / h . 4/ 1 â€¢.'791. - 40â€¢6 â€¢n., ..1 9 06 ..:.. 1 . .4 0 El 1- -- k*:I- 1 â€¢26" -2,2 ......./rnin.=d â€¢,â€¢.... '' I 9.-r -2, C-"r new , & .2 'Ct..â€¢râ€¢Â·,c \ reelip' 1 714.' 1 \ \\--"SCZE--3 -f[ 0. .. 0. 06 o. Â·, 1 __--T- c 7% 46 4, -\ -- 1 7 /Â»Â«Of-S 1/ \.. 26 - A- 1 0Â· 1 -, 1.-' 3*4 -rt-f j j j L. .1:Â· Tl -t 1// 1 6-tf 1 . ' -' 4 %~Â· so . ////-11 1 JI ./il =C:Geas,Â» / 0 , = - - .0 /01, OF IHE, 1 /1 6 C 1 .. ,~,.1- \ 1 1 1 / 9.-9,0 r.wl#c M FROPERT \M . \,- I -11 N.9 70 F .1 0 4/ 0~ / , P \. 6.6 m / |ig 1 ' cu"' - """'*'< i 111/1 / 1----h=- \/11 1 4// =00#-4 i , - Â·6 3 k . i / . \ 1 .M 21- 1 /2-1-1 L 1 2 44. /6 - j i /,p.3Â£- 4 B... 1 / . .4, --\ / /6 A> LEGEND .-- , , â€¢-00......Ic ... 1 \ j .7, i). A FOUe WREBM a CAP MARKED I 944 ..&13 1 i /../ I . -4 e. FOUNO al.AL 1-8.U* Al.LS.4/,/ 0:SC e I./-64.1-6 Â· / ' 11:\ 1 , i il ill> m FOUND-IREBAA.NO CAP 0 .o.Nos,8.REa,Ra CA,Dum,ED'Â£6'. I / \I\: -3I6 1 \ R 0*â‚¬NSIM OF NECÂ£*0 â€¢ / ./ 1 . . M X,Â£161/M YEASJÂ¥12 nis -/it ' ~ 1 rk,LIFW UllESSâ€¢ U QUAIR Ir,ZEY ' --%442 ' i G- . .. . tw - "i///Idl'"0'///""1"*'//I.,blic.4 ' .- - / 1 =1-:21=1 . I /*Il---.-#.... 1 1 . . 11 7 1-11!RBS.._-1,= . I :4. T X' / lime"Al,591~.*.".Ign 4, c .1. .4.'/ IM\\,h.=~ 1 7 ' - Â£ 1 t. - +F.jugfu i=-:i,Rk'*AO,-~c'ir-444..1 6 0, - 1 &/FO)# BE**22274*~fasia*~Â£/Eb*647 19 ---* S -~ ./*.......................... / . . -16 . lili'./ 08. ..u-* .... . cro ..... ....1-41*.1 4 .5 .... ./10.C ONU.I. â€¢001'/* . Â· 1â€¢fa RIO 17 QUEEN STREET , A PARCEL OF LAND, ' n '=Â· - Â· , 1-Jr-#liNI N ~ L._ L â€¢ 5,214, â€¢00 wl.IMY IATA AND UeAL OESCRIFTION /4 *El BEING PART OF TRACT 40, EAST ASPEN ADDITION 64422'.\ . 1 .BAN,Ul.â€žIC,I,5.1>A â€¢.CONSUIYGOGIâ€¢41â€¢$-4/RCH,TICISâ€¢ r --.i,1.NiMH,1,01,1:Â·â€¢'~â€¢aÂ¥.â€¢:Pnâ€¢:,U.,.â€¢0.1.1~â€¢k~â‚¬â€¢11,X,nâ€¢, 2,2,1--. . - ASPEN.,Â·PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO T .4 --_---J...-..#< - L. .. . ..1- EIE LIE[IHX3 NEALE ST .: \ K 1-11Â·3'7Â©~~10 Â«BCLÂ«.29*~ / 1 / 121 ~ 11EPrr /1 1 8.54Â·2.9 LL---1 \ 1 % 164 1// A 1 )0069 \ ~ "17 QUEEN ST." tx * , i f ~ ~*~ *Th ~ 11 \ 314- Of* 6\-1Â¢/ , 24 , \ 0 1 01-1 9 - -- --7 r 1 \LOT I 1 8,032 S.F. ; Iii \ . 1- -0 i 151-b:9 6,5â€¢flw# , 1-IMIT OF \ 1 Mi,15;Pic 1/1/ 2 1-,He- f j OM*%=rj 7 1 1014_ 10 E LOT 2 049/14 4 15,129 S.F. lo ~ .\02 f\V lot 1 t 49 1 8 1\ r .AV J ...' 0 ~.1 -4 9 1 1 4 Â¢07 AÂ»A CF :A.Â«e =Cep:[NfL r Â·l \ 6 - 11Â·whI *OÂ» QUEEN I ' ST I T72,6- Â»BA 7 ke = Â· / 101 f 1 - 17Q 61-11% AeÂ» ~MP- 24% ,~ â‚¬6161 - 940 = 40, -r. /\ 1, TRETTIN PROPERTY PROPOSED HISTORIC LOT SPLIT -- ASPEN, COLORADO CONCEFrUAL SITEPLAN 7-19-96 JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS 100 SOUTH SPRING STREET #3 ASPEN. CO 81611 970 925-3660 D JITE[IM -3 .sili Jr) 1 1. 00- JAKE VICKERY 17 th) 8844 - Ler 9'Fu Â·r 100 SOUTH SPRING ST. #3 *DoÂ» regoortâ‚¬14. TELEPHONE / FACS!MILE POST OFFICE BOX 12360 ASPEN,COLORADO81612 (970) 925-3660 1 / 23/ 99 -TONX PACCB L 11, 16 1 APEA SLOPES >3076 9(Po NEr MeA: -Et),131 *30 PLEY RA12 - 4 12 51,/(01 84(206 = 5/â‚¬69 PU 11 68-K FAÂ·(L FOIL -20, .2,7 1 PA'12 22- 6,132, N st- }*12 12.55DUCN~-147\ 70Â¢. SLO fE . - 67 mic* 12*20.Os A+6 d*J FAIL On LOT 11.2" E,4 6-1 41 -ra 4,4-q a. EXHIBIT -9 RLT-Err Sheetl 17QUEEN STREET - HISTORIC LOT SPLIT 17 QUEEN STREET LOT 1 FAR CALCULATION 19-Jul-96 JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS FLOOR FAR (sf) GSF DECKS (sf) GROUND FLOOR 975.0 891.0 LOWER FLOOR 144.6 see below 891.0 TOTAL 1,119.6 1,782.0 ALLOWABLE FAR . NET AVAILABLE FAR . ~ ALLOWABLE DECKS @.15 allowable FAR GARAGE Lower Floor FAR Calculation Sq. Ft. Total perimeter wall surface 1128 0 Total wall surface above natural grade 183.0 Wall surface below natural grade 945.0 Ratio above/total 0.162 Area of basement 891.0 Total Basement FAR (ratio x area of basement) 144.6 17Qfar2.xls 7/19/96 0 Page 1 WITNESS LIST* AGENDA ITEM: 2/ 7 cy 66- jia~-,Â£~Â·r NAME OF WITNESS: 1. A AA , 4:100,1 Staff Person 1Â· 00 2. ~) 0 4 n /1 4 4 (-,1 5 2 /1 1\ &113 - Lk,Li//A.. l,/ j.,.0~f (,4.uc~ 3. f V ne '(' Atic 0 1 I f i _- j ) 4 I riet L)0 -~ '3 U J 4. a 7 ) 911*.../1 (A,El 3 -If 5. (9--VU _ 0 u,o Â£ ) 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. * Includes staff persons, but excludes staff attorney and board members. EXHIBITS* AGENDA ITEM: Alvy-&.*.<-0Â¢Wwl 11-2 , / 9 9 -7 i -Â·4 (fÂ£Â£4~ 211.ri"j>- EXHIBIT NO. DESCRIPTION IN DEMO 1 r Tfou t 1 2<--0 Â«71- \/ 4 - 4- li.,4 j len j 3. El Ja c at c#.. i /UitÂ»n~L--Â·~ * 66 In" means the exhibit is introduced into the record. "Demo" means the exhibit is used only for demonstration or illustrative purposes. C 36 9 069. --- NEALE ST - ~ KING ST 0110 1 EXISTING PROPERTY CORNER 1 4~0 Â£41&2L61<-/~gk~ SEESURVEY 6,~41,9 + 1-0. 0 ng*/P -\ ~ "17 QUEENST" 1-+ , 1 - \4 Â·1 I - Lor *Fy-r \ 1 1,4*,9 4-0-L I kl la $ 1 tel \ ~F LOT 1 1 .*7 -- ' 6,032 S.F. APPROX.2 * ALLOCATED FAR:~ 789 SF + 500 SP'118NUS ~7 AIMIT OF ~ 490 MD \ 4 _Lar 2 ./0\ 'i \>/ ~ \ \/ A .4 ALLOCATED FAR 4,500 SF - 57 SF [SLOPE H#RFC.)= 41'~ SF , 15,129 S.FIAPPROXÂ·,A~Â« hal 12 I K \ 1 9 / 0 h. h (7 EXISTING PROPERTY CORNER b v SEE SURVEY AFFA OF ~C~fâ‚¬ 102*144 f :4 --QUEEN 4 ' *1~Â»4 270Â» ST- ~ 6, Â° 17Q --El, 1-61 - 940 = 40,22 2 + Â£61-17% A,54 Fpp p,812 = I. 0 8 20- 1 - -- g 17 QUEEN STREET 40 1. PROPOSED HISTORIC LOT-SPLIT- ASPEN, COLORADO CONCEFrUAL SITE PLANC 7-19-96 REVISEQ 1 /22/97 kt 00 SOUTH SPRING STREET #3 JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS 946!Â» 1 =14, ASPEN, CO 81611 970 925-3660 Cm, Cio cs Â£32 c=1 CO CE:3 ra Ct) Cm ' r.7 CTJ 14 l ~i-1 it O MEMORANDUM ) /- I )90 TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission ,p THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development DirectoP/ FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: Trustee Townhouses- Final DATE: January 22, 1997 SUMMARY: The Aspen Meadows SPA, including remodeling and expansion of the existing Trustee Townhouses, and construction of three new units, was approved by City Council in 1990. Since that time the Institute concluded that the proposed construction, which was to step down the hillside above Castle Creek, is not feasible for their organization. A new scenario has been selected, the design for which has been conceptually approved by the Historic Preservation Commission and approved as an SPA amendment by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Under the new scenario, the existing historic townhouses will be remodeled slightly but no significant addition to them is proposed at this time. The three new units are to be built to the FAR which was approved in the SPA Agreement and they will be detached from the historic units to avoid overscaling them. Architectural detailing of the new units has been modified to more clearly identify them as new construction. 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 DistMct 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 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: The applicant has revised the proposed new structures to meet the conditions of conceptual approval, namely restudy of fenestration, accurate representation of materials, clearer termination of the chimney mass, and explanation of details through 1/4" elevations and other drawings to be presented at the meeting. Drawings of the proposal as approved conceptually, minutes from that meeting, and the final proposal are attached. In terms of windows, the applicant has made some alterations which appear to respond the Commission's comments in terms of framing issues. A list of materials which are similar to those on the historic buildings, but which are used in different ways so as to distinguish the buildings from each other is provided. Staff finds the selections appropriate. The chimneys are not located on the endwall, but are centered on the roof, therefore staff finds no concern with how they are terminated into the building mass. Finally, the drawings are at 1/4" scale and details of some elements such as the railing will be provided at final. Staff supports the proposed changes and the physical separation of the new and old buildings which the applicant pursued at HPC's direction. The buildings have some characteristics which at this time are being generally discouraged in new residential development, such as a prominent garage and recessed entry area, however this is typical of the Trustee Townhouse development and therefore compatible with them. (The project has vested rights and is not subject to Ordinance #30.) Additionally, the drawings should be carefully studied to see that there are overhanging roof and deck forms which further connect these new homes visually to the existing units. Note that the location of the new units has been amended slightly from the site plan provided at conceptual due to the discovery of water easements on the property. The applicant has been asked to provide a full site plan and a streetscape elevation at the meeting. 0 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 parceIs. 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. 3 Recommendation: Staff recommends HPC approve the final development application as submitted. Recommended motion: "1 move to grant final approval for the new Trustee Townhomes, as presented on January 22,19977 0 0 4 --- 1 I - Â· Â·' I , 4.. ' *ming Clusificition: 115-1 .. PilomTY DESC*IMIGH 0=.1 of 1*n/f #01%1* PAn 04 tract 40, 84 A.Kin Additicm. 14<Ld paindl :14 . 42 - 14.13, 4â€¢*c:ibed 4 1.110.: :r Â· %........... ,!10.44& â€¢118 944â€¢.b.4. a T-bar Lith h.14*.7,4,~-iiâ€¢critt.,44â€ž 4..,9. ;t-/Â· :ge.:I p Prignit. 14 of:â€¢â€¢Ad.Â·DIâ€¢4 40, 8.072$.. u.*Â·:aaâ€¢,4,â€¢1:44*40,vmwi#*, 04;,144.4 1,tisi~Ilt:21~ ... Â£ . .4 mton,1, 1. 13. 14'Â· 699 14. 98476. f..;;i Â· .. , . .2 <,< 8000â€¢. * .39, 17' 2-0*Â·14..144.37 f .st , ~e#k NO *0! ANIL,30**.cl07.64 1609; e mâ€¢â€¢00.11 4,1..<*18**f. to: 04*,1 fadD; 11,604 1 4 *t , iet *10 54 -661.bs. 2.â€¢u ....1 ..... -.t: th.neâ€¢ y 510' Tle'.~12#.(*.I: 77.87**A.U,to the â€¢041:h *Â» 04. Kin#~05..1:;Â·1~ ..194"07*1~~ ~ 044â€¢ S. 45 111: 00 1. , -34.41 -f *â€¢t â€¢10*â€¢* fÂ» 00â€¢th lia.9.odiÂ¤6:i.Seeet\196 209, .0~ . Point 11 114,1=ilmi. . .. laid p.,1. 4~z.t-id~ka. 21:01611*q,an f â€¢â€¢9 mon or 144*.: ,. - :j.' 04*Slt f 'J ... . :F.-#417294(4,1Â£41:k -- . :391*3~99* /:r . i F: .'.':e. ' .1. . . .. . . .4 j . i EXHIBITS* AGENDA ITEM: (24,47- i Â»13 d Â»Â° -1,1,Aoitilj EXHIBIT NO. DESCRIPTION IN DEMO U/, 14- 61_ Aax Â»Â»u=Lk- (42 V a .1 51,-it 3 17'ud ,0.-1, 4 13(Ic-jÂ»l,(10,-< _ 0011-ug ,/74= 4 j U, * 66 In" means the exhibit is introduced into the record. "Demo" means the exhibit is used only for demonstration or illustrative purposes. WITNESS LIST* AGENDA ITEM: L L.ar 1*~e' l.,Fi*Â£u 1 6/6~4 0-.u_aue lf- 24PM7 NAME OF WITNESS: n 1. AL~,Â»_t L:-3Lf-- Staff Person , . 45-On 0-(~u--(. -0- 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. * Includes staff persons, but excludes staff attorney and board members. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCT. 23. 1996 Cunniffe & Assoc. stated that there is inadequate display space for the windows. They desire to enlarge the openings and change the design of the existing door and provide a glazed door to enhance the retail space. Sven stated that he likes the cleaness of the glass area. Donnelley stated that typically with this particular type of building the glazing was not taken to ground level. Susan agreed with Donnelley and it looks chalet like. Roger stated some windows in chalets in Europe went to the ground. Stefan Kaelin, owner stated that the windows need to be proportioned with the beams. Suzannah also reiterated that she felt the glass going to the ground was inappropriate. Functionally with the snow etc. it would be difficult to maintain. Roger stated the building has the basic mass and scale of an European building and either window elevation is acceptable. Sven asked what the material would be on the windows. Stefan stated wood. MOTION: Suzannah made the motion to approve diagram #2 that was presented at the meeting for the window modification; second by Susan. Motion carried 3-2. ASPEN MEADOWS TRUSTEE TOWN HOMES - CONCEPTUAL Roger stated that this is concpptual continued from Aug. 28th. Amy Amidon, Planner stated that this project has changed in numerous forms. In 1991 the existing units were proposed to be expanded and three 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCT. 23. 1996 new units almost identical would be built next to them. Recently the property owners decided that the expansion of the existing units was not feasible and that the three new units would still be built to match the existing remodeled units, therefore not maximizing ultimate size of the FAR they could build to. What has come back to us is that the three new units will be at their maximum FAR, therefore you have three units that are larger than the historic resource. On Aug. 28th conceptual was tabled with five conditions outlined in the memo. The conditions mostly tried to bring the new units into a more similar vocabulary like the existing and also HPC talked about separating the new from the old because of the difference in scale. The applicant has come back with revised architectural plans for the new units and a revised site plan. In applying to our standards they have really responded to the conditions of approval and Staff feels that the new design is much more compatible, much more sympathetic solution. The existing units will remain as their own grouping and not be added onto and altered. Staff has some concern that the public has indicated that they did not have an opportunity to read the plans and they would like HPC to table. The ( applicant is concerned with their due diligence period. Assistant Attorney David Hoefer stated that Staff should read the letters into the record. Amy stated that Bob Maynard wrote a letter to request postponement of If[PC'c consideration of the plans for the three new units for the Aspen Institute, a hearing scheduled for Oct. 23rd. The developer Doug MacPherson assured us that we would receive new plans in advance of the hearing, and to date we have not received them and obviously cannot review them relative to the site. We respect Mr. MacPherson and would hope that he would treat us with respect as well. Consequently we request that the hearing be rescheduled to a later date so that we can have the opportunity to receive and review the new plans. Amy staled'that the second letter is from Harris Sherman. This letter concerns our telephone conversation of Oct. 21 st in which I have requested the postponement ofHPC's Oct. 23rd consideration ofthe new plans for the < three units at the Aspen Institute. I am the property owner adjacent to the 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCT. 23. 1996 proposed new units under consideration and I earlier expressed my concern regarding the size and location of such units because o f their corresponding impact on the architectural and historic qualities of the existing town houses. The developer Doug MacPherson promised me approximately six weeks ago that he would provide architectural and site plans well in advance of this meeting. By numerous phone calls, the latest of which occurred ten days ago, I have still received nothing and it is impossible to review this proposal without some advance notice. Therefore, I strongly request the following: Postponement of this matter at-Wednesday's meeting. That the plans be given to me at least two or three weeks in advance of the next meeting. That I have the opportunity to meet with your Staff. Roger asked ifthe public had comments relative to this proposal, for or against. David Bellack, attorney for Aspen Skiing Company stated that he is representing Mr. Sherman and Mr. Maynard as they are both out of town. David Bellack stated that he recognizes that there may not be any perhaps strict legal rights for them to receive the plans at a particular time before this meeting he feels it is the sense of the neighborhood in a large part.of this community as a whole that should be sought to be protected by this commission and without a fair opportunity to look at the plans by the neighbors especially as plans continue to change and evolve as they go through the process in a reasonably amount o f time to look at those and consider how they impact the feel of the historic area. He feels that this is an important voice in the decision that should be heard. A reasonably short term postponement should be allowed to have the property staked so that the neighbors can visually see the proposed area and that the plans be distributed to review the impacts of the individual property of the overall sense o f that unique area. Cindy Vinesky, Vice-president for Administration at the Aspen Institute j stated that David McLaugahlin is in Germany and she is representing the Institute. She stated that the Institute supports the applicants proposal and have worked closely with Doug and the neighbors trying to accommodate 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCT. 23. 1996 most o f the conditions that were requested. The developer is well within the original proposal that was approved by the HPC and that it will be 0 detrimental to the institute if we hold this up much longer. The Institute intended to sell the lots at the same time they sold the trustee town homes but unfortunately the arrangement didn't work. The Institute is in need of funds and we are very concerned with our neighbors because they are also on the campus. Doug and David McLaughlin have worked closely with Bob Maynard and Harris Sherman and have resolved most of the issues that were out standing. Assistant City Attorney David Hoefer asked the applicant Doug MacPherson when the plans were available and if there has been an effort to provide them to the interested party. Doug MacPherson stated with the new plans they addressed the concerns of Harris Sherman who he and Dick Lamb own the end unit. Bob Maynard he assumed is speaking as a concerned citizen because he doesn't believe he is in the ownership or does not have a letter from the owner saying he can represent the unit that he represents. Dave Bellack, attorney stated that Bob Maynard is the tenant o f the unit 0 which is owned by his client, which is the property owner Bell Mountain Partners. Doug MacPherson stated that Maynard is a sometime resident but isn't u full time resident. He also stated at the first meeting Harris spoke and his concerns were, basically as approved the two end units are right up next to him and he wanted some separation. One of the diagrams today shows a separation and he told Harris this before todays meeting. He also faxed to him at his office in Denver plans in which his secretary stated that he would be in his office until 2:30 p.m. today. He may not have seen the new diagram. He told him over the phone that he moved the units as far as they can. He also stated that they will probably need a variance on the five foot setback offthat northerly line. He stated that they also separated unit #1 from the unit that Bob Maynard resides in. One ofHarris's concern were the trees in which were not to be saved on the original plan. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCT. 23. 1996 Roger asked the applicant what the minimum amount of time the applicant could be delayed and still do what they need to do and satisfy their need and supply information to the people who David Bellock are representing. Doug MacPherson stated that Mr. Maynard and Mr. Harris are managing this project for me, they do not want to see this project go forward. They do not want to see anything built here. He also stated that i f the Board tables his application tonight it should be because his design is bad or that he didn't address the concerns that were mentioned in the first meeting. He stated that he hopes he isn't tabled because an attorney from Denver calls and stated that he doesn't like what the applicant is doing and therefore he needs two weeks to look at the project. Gretchen Greenwood, architect stated to address the neighbors concerns they have moved the building over to a point that it increases the amount of meetings for an approval process. Legally they have the right to build right up to Mr. Sherman's unit. They will have to go to the Board of Adjustment for a variance and do a two step process with Council and the P&Z. They have a long road of self-imposed approval processes. This meeting has always been Oct. 23rd, it has not been changed. There is nothing else they can do for Mr. Sherman. It is an approved lot to build on and she feels they ae out of line in requesting tabling. Doug stated that the three sites are on lot 5 and he has to stay on lot 5. David Hoefer, Assistant Attorney asked when the plans were provided to Amy Amidon and did the applicant make any effort to provide them to the neighbors. Gretchen and Doug replied Tuesday the 15th as Amy was leaving town and they did not contact the neighbors. David Hoefer stated from the last meeting it was indicated that the applicant would show the new designs to the neighbors. Gretchen stated that has never been something that you have to do in an approval process. 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCT. 23. 1996 David Hoefer asked the applicant if a delay of a week would impact the applicant in the long term. Roger asked the HPC i f they desired to table or go on with the meeting? Gretchen stated that she specifically came for this meeting and will not be available for the another meeting next week. David Bellack, attorney stated that it was his understanding that 54 days ago at the original meeting the concerns of some of the neighbors were voiced about design and some commitment was made to change the design and a representation was made that before that design would be considered for approval it would be shared with the neighbors and that was inpart echoed by Mr. Hoefer's comments. It is a fundamental principle of landuse law that representation made by a developer in a development process become part of the developers commitment as he goes through the process and develops the project. Roger stated that HPC does not have a regular meeting scheduled for next week and a special meeting would have to be scheduled. ~ Sven stated that he would be in favor of a special meeting. He also stated that he-did not pick up on negative opposition of the project. His concern is when somebody gives the commitee notice that they haven't received adequate information and since we are a citizens group appointed by Council he feels the board needs to be careful about that and when he sees letters in writing requesting tabling he feels the Board should oblige. Susan stated that she agrees with Sven. Donnelley stated that there is nothing in the minutes that says there is an obligation for the applicant to provide detailed plans and drawings to the neighbors. To set a precedent like this that neighbors can table a proj ect and take more of HPC's time which he really objects to he viamently objects to this action. No one has any reason to complain about this project. The applicant has made every effort to move the proposed development as far away from the existing as possible. He feels it is a stalling effort. He would never approve a delay like this. ~ 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCT. 23, I996 0 Mark stated that this is a tough call. He subscribes to both comments so far but in this case as Donnelly indicated we have no obligation to provide notice to the property owners previously. In looking at the new design he is interested in reviewing the project. Suzannah stated that she agrees with Donnelley that the HPC Board should proceed and if the neighbors felt it important to be here they would have been here. Roger asked Amy Amidon why she recommended tabling. Amy stated that she felt it critically important that the surrounding property owners do have their opportunity to review the plans but more information has come to light since she had written the memo. She believes it is the property owners who should contact the Planning Office who hold the records not contacting the applicant. She did not hear from anyone until Monday. 0 David Hoefer stated that ifHPC decides to proceed we would note for the records that any implication of giving the plans to the neighbors prior was not a jurisdictional condition. Secondly it is a public hearing and they received notice ofthe public hearing and consequently you have jurisdiction to proceed. Roger asked the applicant to address the five concerns from the last meeting. Gretchen Greenwood stated that the goal was to move the buildings as far away from the existing Aspen Trustee Town Houses as much as possible in order to serve as its own identity because they are larger buildings and they are not a 1/1/2 story building but they are like a split level two story. The entire site has been surveyed. One of Sherman's concerns was whether the buildings could be moved onto the otherside of an evergreen tree and to preserve as much of the trees on site as possible. They are moving the building approximately 33 feet at this 0 point to the opposite side of the tree. The footprint has always been the 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCT. 23. 1996 same as what was approved. Unit one has existing connifers on the side and the car port will be ten feet away. Some of the concerns of HPC were to eliminate the hipped roofs and they did that and went to a 3 and 12 pitch that meets condition #2 which is the exact same pitch as the existing town houses and in effect lowered the overall height of the building to 25 feet from the asphalt. On the overall fenestration a horizontal element was added to the south side o f the elevation which creates an illusion that you are looking through the building. The garage is recessed behind the front facade six feet with a heavy shingle surrounding it. They also picked up over hang elements, sloping eaves and sloping soffets and beam detailing to add visual relationship between the detailing of the existing and bringing it into the new units which meeting condition #3. Gretchen stated that they took the time to survey the site with regard to condition #4, the separation ofthe new work from the existing town houses so that the new development stands alone. The massing was restudied of the different pitches and there is a level change among the roofs. There is a lot of depth within the building. Regarding the materials they are using a 0 combination of a one by four like square edge vertical siding with shingles in very much the sam@ location as in the other buildings. This makes for a visual relationship. The FAR and floor plans have stayed the same. Amy stated the applicant needs a letter of support to the Board of Adjustment to allow them to push the buildings into the side yard setback. Gretchen stated that the movement of these buildings outside the footprint is a hardship for the applicant because they have more approval processes to go through which was not originally intended for the project. She indicated that they need a strong approval for the design by HPC. Suzannah inquired about what was on the other side of the property line. Doug stated a road used by the Sanitation Dept. to service the area and that is the only use of that road. They are in favor of Doug paying to gate it off and giving them the key. 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCT. 23. 1996 0 Donnelley asked for a clarification of the fenestration on the new drawings. Mark asked i f the fenestration would be the same on all three buildings and inquired about the trees that are to be saved on unit 10. Gretchen stated the fenestration would be the same on all three buildings. They have moved the building to the north of the tree that Sherman wanted saved. Mark asked about the excavation depth on the south of unit #10 as he is concerned about the tree. Gretchen stated that she thought it would be about 8 feet, just outside the drip line. Mark stated that he recently lost a couple oftrees because they were so close. 0 Doug stated that they may loose some of the trees and he will be planting 200 to 400 trees on this site. Some will be planted between Mr. Sherman' s unit and some down below. They will pick the best places for them to survive. - COMMENTS Donnelley stated he was concerned with the darkness of the entry that is back 18 feet. When you read it from the vehicular and pedestrian entry sltle which is the east elevation it is dark. Gretchen stated that it will not be completely covered. Part of the car ports have openings in them similar to a trellis. Over the entry will be solid then an open trellis the rest of the way. It will be light and open. Sven asked about the change on the vertical siding. j Gretchen stated the existing units have a combination of vertical siding and 0 shingles and in order to break up the mass of the building it was put on to be 13 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCT. 23. 1996 sensitive to the Bayer units. Visually it is important to have the same kinds of materials. Suzannah stated that her main concern is not having the adjacent buildings on the drawing elevations to see the spacing between the units 10 and 11. Gretchen stated that Harris's roof height is 7,853 and unit ten height is 7,847 so it is approximately 6 feet below and it is also 33 feet away. The unit next to that is four feet lower. Roger stated that he would vote to approve conceptual and support a letter to the Board of Adjustment. He also stated that the applicant addressed the neighbors concerns and they are not impacting any other sites. Before final he would like to have a site visit. At final a superb landscape plan should be presented. A drawing ofthe adjacent building to scale should also be presented at final to address Suzannah's concerns. Story polls should be placed on the site. Gretchen stated that they will stake the building for their own use. She will let Amy know. Sven stated when the motion is made he would like a restudy of the chimney elements as to how they relate to the other buildings as he did not see the relationship in the drawings. Gretchen stated that she met the conditions. Motion: Donnelley moved that HPC grant conceptual development to the proposed addition to Lot 5 vacant units 1,10 and 11 with the following conditions: Prior to finalfenestration be restudied and that the materials be accurately described. That the chimneys and termination of the chimneys be adequately described as there is no termination on the present drawings. Details must be enlarged for finals. Thefenestration has problems withframing and site lines. A letter be sent ho the Board of Adjustment in support of the side yard variance; .lecond by Mark Motion carried 5-1. Sven voted no. 14 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCT. 23. 1996 Motion: Donnelley moved to adjourn; second by Roger. All in favor, 0 motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 0 0 15 1-20-1995 2:49AM FROM P. 1 G 0 GRETCHEN GREENWOOD & ASSOCIAES, INC. ARCHITECTURE â€¢INTERIOR DESIGN â€¢ PLANNING January 15, 1997 Ms. Amy Amidon Historic Preservation Commission OfFcer Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Amy: Attached please find twelve copies ofthe Final Development Application for Final Development approval for the Aspen Trustee Townhouses. We will present the application on January 22nd to the HPC. If'you have any questions and/or need any additional information and copies, please call me at 925-4502. Sincerely ~ &ietchen Greenwood,KkgwAct AIA 0 620 WALNUT STREET â€¢ ASPEN,COLORADO &1511 â€¢ TEL: 970/925-4502 â€¢ FAX: 970/925-7490 1-20-199S 2:50AM FROM . . h - ARCH/TECTURE â€¢ INTERIOR DES/GN Â· PLANNING GRETCHEN GREENWOOD & ASSOCIATES, INC. Attachment 3 1. A letter authorizing Gretchen Greenwood to act on behalf of the owner's for the attached submission is part ofthe original Conceptual Development application. 2. Aspen Meadows Trustee Townhouses Lot 5 1101-1211 Meadows Trustee off Meadows Road, Aspen, Colorado 81611 3, The disclosure of Ownership ofLots 1,10 and 11 by the Aspen Institute is on file with the City of Aspen. 4. The Vicinity Map locating the subject parcel is part ofthe original Conceptual Development application. 520 WALNUT STREET â€¢ ASPEN,COLORADO &1611 â€¢ TEL; 970/925-4502 â€¢ FAX: 970/925â€¢7490 r.j./.6. . .....1â€¢J 1-20-1995 2:04AM FROM P. 2 . 0 Attachment 5 Specific Submission Requirements: Final Review All applications for final review must include the following information: 1. An affurate representation of all major building materials, such as samples and photographs, to be used for the proposed development. An accurate representation of all major building materials, in the form of samples will be presented to the HPC at the meeting on January 22nd. The materials are as follows: Wood Sidifig: 1. lx4 T&G Square Edge Siding Smooth 2. No 1. Clear Wood Shingles 4" to Weather ~ Trim Boards: 1 x Clear Cedar RoofMaterials: Asphalt Shingles - Copper for the Metal Roofand Plashing Exterior Beams: Resawn Spruce cut to dimensions shown in drawings Siding at Garage Door and Stair tower: lx4 Vertical T&G Square Edge Wood Siding Railings: Metal and Wood (The design will be presented at Final Review) Entry Courtyard Exterior Flooring: Colorado Buffflagstone Concrete Retaining Walls: Exposed Aggregate and Copper Flashing Exterior Decking: Colorado Buff'Flagstone Windows: White Clad 2. Findized drawings of the proposal at 1/4" = 1'-0" Finalized Drawings of the proposal are included in the application. Enlarged details ofthe building will be presented at the meeting on January 22nd. 1-20-1995 2:05AM FROM P. 1 It . 0 3. A statement of the effect of the details of the proposed development on the original design ofthe historic structureand character ofthe neighborhood. The proposed townhouses Unit 1, 10 and 11 have maintained a design compatibility with the original Herbert Bayer townhouses, Units 2 through 9. As in the original design, the proposed townhouses have a 3/12 pitch roof, sloping overhangs, that return to the wall with a stoping sofit. This detail is an original Herbert Bayer detail thai has been incorporated into the proposed townhouses. The building materials and locations on the existing buildings has been repeated in the new design. Even though the new townhouses have been designed to imitate the eodsting units in form, simplicity and texture, the proposed Units have been physically removed from the original townhouses, in order to further delineate the original Bayer units from the new townhouses. Unit 1 is separated from Unit 2 by a varying distance, and Units 10 and 11 are removed from Unit 9 by about 35 feet. The physical separation from the original Bayer townhouses eliminate the impact ofthis proposed development on the original historic structure. 4. A statement of how the final development plan conforms to the representations made during the conceptual review and responds to any conditions placed thereon. 0 The final development plan conforms to the representations made during the conceptual review with the following exceptions: 1. The deck located at the lower level bedroom has been eliminated. The lower level- deck did not comply with the allowable area for decks and project cost projections. 2. The window fenestration's were restudied on the north and west elevations. 3. The roof over the Master Bedroom and location ofthe Master Bedroom west wall was moved 3'-9 3/4" feet to the east which resulted in the lowering ofthe Master Bedroom roof. The height ofthe building is 22'-6" above the road at the garage concrete slab. This change reduced the overall height ofthe building by 18". This change was necessary due to the height limitations ofthe site, the location of the buildings withm the easements on the site, and the road grades for Units 10 and 11. 4. The area in front ofthe garage was reduced to 3 feet from 5 feet. Again, this change was necessary due to the allowable height ofthe building, and the easements on the site. 5. The locations ofUnits 1, 10 and 11 were adjusted to accommodate some undeclared water easements that were discovered after the conceptual approval. The location of Unit 1 moved 7'-6" to the west (clown the slope) and 5'-0" to the north. Units 10 and ] 1 were moved 7 feet to the west (down the slope). 6. The roof of the Living room on the west ide was reduced by 2 feet from the original approval 7. The roof over the Master Bath was extended 4'-2 3/4" to the west creating one roof 0 line with the new roofline ofthe Master Bedroom at the west wail. This roofline change simplified the rooffor the building form. ff \\ C j i 9 - 0 K - -S E-- 7 1 f f 52/0 ' , Skill .' 'I D. 4 cofFER 44' i v('*-- 012- FLASH 4 -2*4 Mee 61-,FPENERS < 11?#iall Â·~1/ 11 t. k-36 u 61 - 9*V 1 1 1 'F-j! - A 4-1. S 8 0 - rt \/ - = 34 te - :Li 2 If ~ : 4- - 19 - 1 j -1 - .4 1 1 .1 0,0, TWELLPE> + 101- 111 pALOR TREL.. s STRUCT[1.- 2)1< 5-Rcal-'L BM'/ fE--1 5 PEA _3 j ------11QI-6 . 07/97 0 1 B/6 #* 2!,k alt. 66HT .~ 1 i 94%. i : - p'2? FiFE ef.Â¢. forÂ· (25) e---1-52*2%!4653400Â£4 lotÂ£,0 {, i O- 4/ 1 If -Â¥54*4*1/465'61:0,6. TlE HAILIHS 1. ~ .-2'imoafve =. Obi PEDEdÂ».LS> ~r arf@Q . . (00-N 1 . i . t l In==Mi -i-71 1 -3?F i /\ Y .,Tt- ,, - DOk[T, st:offeR 1.... - - M ..Afl ai Ir / , . , 1, 30 - - i.l- - 1 (-1'-39)3 r. 1 . . 1 1 / U ?-6 t (.11-6'*V) 1 111 t /\ /9 - ~ t 91/2'~ TOI ~72 (601â‚¬0)1 2 & ~ct 5.- 9 2.0 0 4 *. Il li x 14" RS 45135 4 K I. 1 '11< \97 4 t X\ Â¥ a _-_jaâ‚¬ST--7* 1.F 77--- SOUTH- - --- -- WEST)-- / 2\ r LÂ¥ ING ROCIE 12ECK- ~ _ f . i -r- 1 1114 11.- A 11 90 1 1 ' 51 1 : -1 1 1 5 :t 1 â‚¬>OFFER-, â‚¬ u STORM FVB 7 C#Af OH fkcaer,Ads ) : f 9"WIDE STREET J 4 .. I /* C WrrEA 911~4-_ - - LPX# 10 82 J NÂ©O) f><rii 1 ....1 c A _t .-- . 1 U .11 ' 3j; S . e '. 4 23 . 6 4 7 4 .. 't,'' 1-, AÂ· ''i;~ i' ... V -/. L + ill-li4 11 -- - + 11-392 + 01-9#J T IC-Allul 1 f~ - i I - ~ /i \ 1 - 1 f 9920% 478"TJI 22 i CONT, cj*kA (StorGÂ©) <h ./Ili 4 Z FLASH W il . 01 = -WIESr-__--- 1 #11 1 111 , :L\ 4+9-91/2 ~ WES - v. DE[)1*) 4--PECK- *03 1- j m tls tr- 1/1-1/9-1.------ 0~2 29 X Â£ = 7-, . C 415-\09/4 r T. RGH dRE, -. C + F- 100/#11 -- I . lAMIN,0*D ex TKIM 1 1 + 3. , '- It + 1 1. L i U PEOK__ _- -_ 1 pi uj -- -- ---- _eEPI*M 2 9-1- DECAL - --1 Â§f '1 __L-i- 1 * TE--1 -1 1 ><C I ' 1~1851 r Â·t,prdfir &2; - --. C + 4014 ~\1 + % lk,rul i 46 1(1/tBTJI + : C Nomp) 1 9 + tv 1 1/0 - - 1 . JA (7L9 940'FF) . r f lottifiti 22>*262: f 10 Lo 17 ~< FAF ff.,DEDREM_- DEK,L---- -- . 1, $ :1 I ,i i 53 1 - 2%4â‚¬424"-- i - + + + T,ftgre Â»t~-*4~JL 7- Nk .1 *r. UST) -\ 2 + id- u ckli 1><5- 49/91 ------L -5:'4* \//33>3037 C+12-0,2 1 - M<*-~ J..--- - . -AS- 2*4(~~-=EZIZZL~ ,--1 --- I/4/97 -I- . 1 1 L /3411 c< 2 CONT. 951*ENED 4 . -. .9 VENT T;1*14 ORG ,1 4.6 -low E-3.Ellâ‚¬NG-1 --_ i 121 - 11/01 3 (-592" .1 . 11 i 11 f .=A.-iÂ·:41:ls=:k. i.5.au: i, ';Â·t O -7 ---7 3-_11-El__-4---1--t --U ------n 1 +: 0 e.o:.pgplk; 7 + /O L i.3411 IIIl!II1II,1Â¢ +10,- l n /7 \2/ 4 0)1Â·l- L-VIHERPM_150FliT.Â£71-1 -. ' I lili '12) -, 0 td FF}r r j, . rkgu ZE . /0 2304,7,Â£-b- . ~K (20 - 9 057- 1 -- --.4 4 - - E MATE --*------- , 1-Gl.Lt,vi, . +, -6 - r 1 1 Â¢ 1 N +got-198, >2 1 6 L.Ealuw- - N---- -- $-- 1/9/97 1 +99 t.039 1% ~ V9/17 . ---1--/~ -/-76858&851- --- ... +192 1 - , 1 ' J. 7, gilk H = /33OMF +4' 616 1 1 1, j i -I.Lks l, *24=r- 0 0 0 + GAENMLILLL + 31 2,4 11 . (Â·Â·1Â·3lcoll .- C +31-011 ------1 - - 1 6 1 te /811-7 1 0214 [TZ*IEKLL---1- 40.40 4 2 i t f toffl 911?9 ==XI".IÂ·.12.-0.02- --c: 13>.-z.**----r---Lift- =" .. \/4 Â· + C[Ze-ET -- ----- #Sh 4 . + 1 1 10 1 l:. 292 -- froWDEK. KM-, --. - - f 0 4 6 - U l fc ,6 i - 01 011 . . -ff (-040 14'0 J . 4 t.(- 31- 192 11 2) LAUNpler 1 1 .. 4Zkg Â·.5 e 9 k lit'iii, 1. . ,-9-- -,5-0 hihhilic, i 1 6,1,4'll-rizies'..- 1,1, 23+ | | itfÂ¢*t'Trf -/- f . 1 1 M tr- -1 =i~ â€ž 12 *..0/ 1 0 644 1. 1. .-- 394-- -/ .te 1~ -00. I. 1 I. . 1 ' I. :/- I ..I ;3&~ ' I.. ,..h .-, 4 9 i 1--214 --1 - _ C.Â¥,..:.-10.:7. i ... 17 i.Â¥-'1 .7-3'FlfrA.7. 0 I ~71 .&&MA#..~r-+g-- 4#,4,-4,;,+ - t~ r I k 4,4/'Ir 5,7 -,7 \\-1 + Â»"i-4, h,/~P.â‚¬7 \.C 6 - . 111 = 10 LO 0 - Px <,1 6.1-1 _. --r.Fr . 11_-Ars, 6-_.Â·10- 0 04$ 16 LI â‚¬2 0 4 URlÂ« 1 4 10 0 0 faft ~2 i i , 11 - 1 . - 2915 krÂ» / -- 1 i i FAX' - -'--.".1.-% . 1 1 ....k .. 11 " I 1 - 11 , 11 1, - 11 . 0 iI /. 41 $40 .LL 14 ' fi. I + --1, . 444*4,4UAIâ€¢L 4 *44- 62 - -74*B~7+ --- -- *- titti I H -0-_ PrE 44 1%(tyÂ»_VÂ»T.f o N *11 11 1 I 411'Ang --* tz-4 -7-9...rÂ·4__â€ž--tit,. *212-9-022-~-r Frttert,Â»-_-T â‚¬ 44 4 -\3 ouee, e - 1.*r - O LI_ N 1 -1- 7 -4----1-9 0 1 1 0 1 . e ' - 1 rl, 1 i l / 11'j 111111 1-1111114 li ll i I N 111111 !1' It *ill I ... 1 H g 1.11 1 1 1 d-1 3 1 -11- i Lig---1=-=-uWj-=......eBZZ-12/0~EA-/ ...JI .. 0 0 5 41- 8/ 2 6,Vt- 7- 1 0 24 ' 0-= 1 0 Lati , LI H 1-r I 0 F-111 " 11. . -ill-ill-=-IWI--il--I---1---ill--Ill-Ill--Ill-li--I---I--I----- Il/;hil//muc _ _ m;.~# ~1.11.11 - i...1....'61 - ==.-I:--:=5:,-.-ill...7,9,5,4.- : 1 n . h-"~ 5 , -d-'ll-....-I~.=..~.'.....'*."'~~.'-~=f m~~.fi~*I-'imm#~EFâ‚¬~. ~Ill 21.11,11.11. 1. -U.-2-2/1,4~914 2-*2 : t,11=- - / - 1 1 .:99'*Arr-4 M.,-,. 2,.1,0,w: 1,6% - ~BÂ·'7/.L'.Af-/A' 4. .1':'~t;" / ,2.''Â·1;2'f"f-te:~il r ,Â£ 0~ / Â£g 94> , f r/2=111, 11111111111111111111111111111111, r /1 . .1 k '6Â·' I. '. $ /Â·Â· /. I -0Â·- 'AiÂ· Â·Â· .: .Â· . i ,.Â·7Â· 4 1 3.. 4 *-t â€¢...'/&1/9 --UG ' Â·Â· 47'.. r. ruirs , r i:sn + ==iulll,Illulll1111111~111112 :r,y-:u 2,09Â·yÂ·Â·. /*: 30Â· Â·Â·. < 1 ; 699Â·. i ..f j '; 4 -.'Re Â·Â· ,Â·,4 ' . ; Â·, /9 ' .Â· - ..?IN.Â·IX i:,WL#-~.1122722 + 111'lill Â£2 111111 0 1 ilillil lili 1 id i i Iii !' iii 11 10 1 1 11, 4 r Â· 1 1 0 1 ' 1 : - 0 0 . . . _20 9# 4 ru.â€¢L 1 1 --- ---- -- %*P di g =5~ %,Ce, - . -1.'ll--*-I.il.- 1 - -Â·Â·Â· p 4 0:â‚¬ Â·it.. Â· . M.. f : I. - r r .. 1 - A lt.11,-lit ill 1. 1 - .4 I .. Â¢ 1 7 21â€¢ m J.. -' sit#& .. .. 1 = i * 2 --1)2&2:==-&22=&2Â£21=12-1- e S . LÂ· Â£ * - . - U:~C 10 4- il-- -- . 0 . ~1.- 8, MEMORANDUM 0 TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission . 2 THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director U FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: Isis Theater- Extension of conceptual approval DATE: January 22, 1997 SUMMARY: This project received conceptual development approval on August 23, 1995. Section 26.72.010 (F)(3)(c) provides that an application for final development review shall be filed within one year of the date of approval of a conceptual development plan. Unless HPC grants an extension, failure to file the final development application shall make the approval null and void. Staff has made an effort in all cases to inform an applicant when conceptual approval is nearing expiration, however both staff and the applicant overlooked 0 the expiration for the Isis. After conceptual, the project came back to HPC on the following dates: September 27, 1995, November 8, 1995, January 10,1996, February 10, 1996, and July 10, 1996. At these meetings the applicant presented restudies of the position of the dwelling units on the roof, material selections, and a request for reconstruction of the east and west walls. Staff finds that the applicant has made a good faith effort to pursue the application and therefor a one year extension of conceptual should be granted. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends conceptual development approval for the Isis theater be extended to August 23, 1997. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "l move to extend conceptual approval for the Isis theater to August.23, 1997." 0 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 1995 0 Susan: I would think he would want a traditional awning. MOTION: Sven moved that HPC approve the awning for the Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory; one foot skirt awning with materials and paint to match; second by Roger. DISCUSSION Melanie: That means he will have lettering on the street side and the courtyard side. I feel this is too much lettering. Sven: I also agree with Melanie that it is an impact. Amy: We usually say one style per building. AMENDED MOTION: Sven amended the motion to approve the submission with the requirement that the signage only be on one projected face of the skirt awning and that the color and lettering style needs to be the same as the other awnings; second by Roger. Passes 4 to 3. Martha, Susan and Linda voted no. Sven, Melanie, Don and Roger voted yes. 406 E. HOPKINS - ISIS - LANDMARK, CONCEPTUAL, PH Amy: I have listed on the board the conditions that I propose for ~ approval. We have eliminated two units on the roof and there are story polls up. I feel we still need discussion about architecture on the roof top elements. Charles Cunniffe, architect: The main concerns seem to be the second story addition, the ground floor and facade were OK and everyone as comfortable with that. The second story architecture in terms of massing we were directed to look at something more contemporary in contract with. the existing building. Something that would complement the existing building. The S elevation has a less profile than it had before. The two critical places of public view are in front of the Gap and in front of Eddie Bauers. The renderings show the impact. We feel it is subtle yet it is obvious it is not part of the original building and it is a little cleaner. The curved roofs were generated by the view plane issue from the Hotel Jerome. We were able to hold that back by the closet and lowering the plate height. We also raised the front plate height of the units and lowered the back plate heights so the units would get the view toward the mountain. Regarding materials we are probably using a manufactured stone that would be a sandstone product in panels as a way to carry on the stone and the panels would be slightly darker in coloration. Different but subtle. We are retaining the Isis sign and we are saving the metal material in the rear. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 1995 Sunny Vann: We met with the planner and the housing office and it was clear from Dave Tollin, housing head that this could be handled from a staff level because the number of employees generated falls within the purview of the staff. We were able to ascertain that two three bedroom units on top of this project would more than meet the requirement imposed under us on the growth management. We feel the P&Z will recommend the same. This is all still subject to review and approval by the P&Z and from a formal referral from the Housing office. With respect to the theatres we are continuing to evaluate the layout of the theatres with a theatre consultant and it is possible that the seating will change. We heard what you said about wanting a large theatre. This one is less because we do not carry the seats right up to the foot of the stage and we do not have three or four rows of seats that are questionable from a movie point of view but are functional from an auditorium point of view. We will continue to look at those issues. At the last meeting I heard the roof was just too busy. Too muck walkways and too much roof going on. This allows us to pull the two affordable housings units back to the rear of the building. We- have cleaned up the court yards and the space between them. We have pulled back part of the free market unit so that it is all uniform 18 to 20 feet from the front of the facade which will make the east side of the free market unit disappear to the same extent that the west side does. Amy: At the last meeting we supported landmark designation, and HPC approved the parking waivers and the open space reduction. CLARIFICATIONS: Roger: What is the recommended material for the third story south, east and west sides. Charles: Manufactured stone in panels and we can make them any size we want. Donnelley: The storage is down below and that makes for the two theatres up above. Previously the free market had a fire place and is there a fire place now? John Wheeler: If there would be a fireplace it would be a gas appliance but currently we are not showing one at all. Jake: One of my big issues is demolition. John Wheeler: We talked with Bill Drueding on how the city views demolition and if it is over 50?6 they consider it total demolition, only as a code issue. If you demolish half or more of the structure then you have to go through full mitigation. He has 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 1995 acknowledged that it isn't total demolition but it is more than 50% ~ and that is where it was left at. Amy: It doesn't have further ramifications for them and that was what was my concern. Jake: When I looked at the numbers I saw that what you were adding was more than what the existing building was. How is demolition measured? Amy: FAR is the unit of measure but the only time it matters is a residential demolition. With ord. #1 they are worried about 50% demolition. Jake: How much of the existing FAR are you demolishing? John Wheeler: The exterior wall is what is being retained. Jake: As I look at it I see the retainage of the west wall, north wall and a portion of the east wall. The building itself is being demolished. Charles Cunniffe: It is done all over the country. In order to get theatres downstairs we have to get access to the whole body with machinery to get down and dig it out. In order to do that we have to get rid of the building that is there. We also have to underpin the building. 0 Sunny Vann: Maybe I can clarify the regulatory side of it. When the Gap was reconstructed a full basement and roof was constructed and it was a substantial demolition on the building. The current code as far as the growth management is concerned is if we retain a portion of the building and it is not complete demolition and we raised the site we only have to mitigate the additional stuff for net leasable square footage that is added to the building. From a commercial point of view the only issues in terms of impact are the net leasable square footage, FAR has nothing to do with what we are going to be required to provide in the way of mitigation for our growth management application. In terms of the regulatory side of this we are in compliance. In terms of whether you think there is more demolition that is a separate issue that is not governed by specific regulations in the code. That is a call on your part Jake. Chairman Donnelley Erdman opened the public hearing. Harley Baldwin: I own the building across the street and if any of you remember in restoring the Collins Block there were very strict rules and that was that if there were any additions to the top it could not be seen anywhere through town, not from across the - 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 1995 ~ street not from La Cocina not from the Hotel Jerome and that â€¢was the rule and I feel we should abide by that rule here. I had to set my addition back 15 feet and push it down ten feet from where I wanted it to be. This building is extremely apparent from the Collins Block, Eddie Bauer and from in front of the Brand Building and half of historic Aspen. It looks like the. new building is eating the historic building. * I feel it is much too high and in fact I found I could create a wonderful space on top keeping it out of site. I feel the idea of restoring the theatre is a terrific one. I do not feel there is any reason *to have a setback on the side. I feel setbacks on Aspen are terrible and they are not historic and not helpful. If he needs FAR let him put it there. I have noticed that the number of bathrooms here is ridiculous. It is way too high. The code requires way too many bathrooms. It looks like the new building has teeth on it and it is consuming the historic building, munching its way halfway through the building. You cannot see what we put on the roof from anywhere in town and that should be the standard, Thank you. Donnelley: We are in conceptual and we can take Harley's consideration. The Collins Block did have certain advantages with the parapet. Charles Cunniffe: I do not think we can make the addition go away but we have reduced it and that is due to the fact that each side 0 has lower buildings to it and it will always be visible just by the nature of what goes around it. I would like to see this building taken on its own merit. Sven: I feel this is a much improved design particultrly in materials and summation of massing. The building sections on A.4.1 would seem to indicate that perhaps another structure look, the structure that holds up the housing unit floor, it looks like there is plenty of ceiling height in the lobby that could be handled differently. I am wondering if he could compress the roof structure of the theatres and possibly reconsider the ceiling heights of the theatres to further depress the housing units. This is in response to Harley's comments which were valid. Charles: The space there is indicated for mechanical duct work. We are trying to preserve a view. Harley: The standard that it cannot be seen should stay. Les: You building was historically designated and that is the difference here. Harley: It should be designated. 0 Les: We are getting designated with a design control. Â· 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION . AUGUST 23, 1995 Amy: Harley's property is on the national register and we do have complete design review over this because it is in the commercial core. In terms of the historic landmark they are getting GMQS exemptions out of it. There should not be a big difference here in the review. Donnelley: We need to take into consideration that the ultimate 4 building is going to change the perception of the block. Charles: There were numerous comments but not a consensus so what we did was take those comments that would work and tried to work with all the comments in some way such as moving it in a little. Susan: There is a lot of tenant storage and could not some of that space be used to reduce the height. Charles: We need air exchange and the air exchange has to occur up high. Susan: You couldn't use the basement? Charles: The owners wanted storage as well. We are trying to keep the housing impact off the building as much as we can. Roger: Could the duet work be exposed for theatres A and B? Charles: There would be sound problems and vibration transfers. The exposed duct work would have to have insulation worked around it to such an extent that it might not be attractive. We can look at that. Jake: You have created an area in the middle of the roof that is a depressed area and by doing that you pushed the housing to the outside. It seems to me that you would want to concentrate your square footage in the corner and leave areas for setbacks fora more visible size of the structure. I am still concerned about demolition and it seems that you are retaining only 200 sqft. of the historic structure. We aren't saving much of the building. John Wheeler: We are keeping 70% of the exterior fabric of the building and yes the interior of the fabric is being renegotiated. We cannot dispute the interior fabric. I feel you have to look at the exterior of the fabric and what is being. preserved to the outside. Charles: We feel the exterior fabric and the theatre use are the most important. Jake: If maintaining the theatre use destroys the building then 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 1995 I am perfectly willing to get rid of the theatre. I would rather have the building then the theatre use. What good is it to put in a use that destroys an historical building from an historical preservation point. I feel all possible options for renovation of the structure in its basic form should be explored before we leave that area. Would it be possible to invert the floor plans and in that way you would utilize more of the existing structure than in your present proposal. Charles: This building has an immense egress and to put more people down stairs would requike more impact on the building. We feel the main theatre is more historic where it is. There is no way to renovate this structure without demolishing the floor structures. The use that is there now was not the original use. We made the entrance to the building back to where it was historically. It is a ground floor entrance like all the other buildings in town. ~ Sunny Vann: We need to see if more of the fabric of this building needs to be preserved. Amy: I understand what you are saying Jake but every commercial building in town is gutted just like this one is being gutted. We do not deal with interiors. I am not sure this is a significant interior. Sven: I feel this is close to compatibility requirements. This doesn't have the character of Harley's block but I also feel this should go through a stringent view committee. Having the housing a low impact is better. Harley Baldwin: This is one of the top ten buildings in down town and the theatre use is fabulous. I feel the theatres will add life to the downtown. Their parapets are just as tall as mine are. Peter Kuntz, I have worked for the New York City Landmarks Preservation Committee for several years in setting up guidelines for Greenwich Village and one of the things that maintains historic character at a point when it wouldn'tÂ·last any longer is that when you do a structure on the roof like this the shape, fenestration those . elements announce that it was not part of the original structure. Maintaining the original material, brick or whatever the volume was of the actual building stone, maintained and did not swallow the building. The other thing that we found of vital importance was not breaking up the city scape itself. In this case it wouldn' t matter if the addition were a glass and steel structure again in proportions that were compatible to the building next door itself but it is bringing it out to the street or only having a minor setback that maintained both the historic character of the building because it is part of the urban environment. You do not 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 1995 want to create dark gloomy spaces on the street. I do not know if pulling the addition building forward would allow more space on the roof. Charles: We wanted to take a little bit of the corner and have just enough gesture to make the addition read as a separate entity. We did not want the entrance precieved as an entrance to a commercial business as it is the entrance to the housing. There is a little planting/plaza there to set it back from the facade and it becomes a stage set for the theatre. Peter Kuntz: That was what we found was wrong. By making it a stage set you destroy the point of the stage set to begin with because you have lost the urban experience. It wasn't the corner of the building it was the overall feel. The city itself is an historic preservation feeling and is maintained by the character and quality of the street itself. Chairman Donnelley Erdman closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Les: I wish we had different zoning requirements when we did the Collins Block Bldg. I feel wh have learned a lot since we have done your building. We are not loosing any of the original building and we are getting the facade back to as close to the original as we can get. I feel there is community support for some compromise here and retaining the theatre is great. I would like to see a further restudy of the ducting if possible. The Fire Dept. will be gone and probably another huge building willâ€¢be put in. Conceptual works for me. If you bring the parapets up then you loose the historical facade Qn the original building. Susan: Is it possible to put the stairway vestibule between the two units on either side? Charles: We wouldn't have the square footage. Susan: Possibly if they were narrower stairs. Charles: I believe this is the best solution. Roger: The demolition plan has been submitted and if it is an acceptable plan to staff then it is acceptable to me. The concept of demolition that you are proposing on the building since we do not deal with interiors and use of interiors is certainly acceptable. The contemporary history of the building is a theatre and if we were strict preservationists and we dealt with the interior that would be tossed out in the community. We would say that you have to restore the building to what it was originally and 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 1995 if you can squeeze a theatre in fine. That is not what I want to see happen. I probably can not vote for conceptual as I feel we need a continued study of the roof top placement but I feel we are close. If we view this from the street the south west corner is the most dominant. The portion on the other corner due to the addition is not as conflicting to me; however, I feel the mass on the roo f can be moved around. I would like more study of materials and I am not sure stone is an appropriate material on the third floor. I myself would prefer brick, a new brick and a different color and sheen. Even a rusted metal could have been used because that was what was on the back of the building. Continuing on with materials the new addition to the right which is inset has some sandstone lines on it which are trying to pick up those of the original building, I prefer that those be removed and that the new addition be simplified more and that if in fact those lines are necessary that they be done in brick not another element to pull out the historic structure. Retain the Isis sign is a great idea. Metal on the rear needs to be studied and keeping the back simple is appropriate. Submit specks for masonry repair is very important particularly on the corner where the piece is going back. Waive Ord. #30 and we have dealt with the issues of housing. In relations to Harley's comments the building to the west could be built out and raised higher and that might happen and the fire station could be sold and maxed out and that might happen. If that were to happen I would demand that an entrance be in the little patio which would then create a sense of messy vitality and would be terrific. Donnelley: As Roger said the new addition rather the tower portion has not been restudied since the last time and there were recommendations made and they were not taken into consideration. I have a great deal of trouble with the roof configuration. The south east corner of the free market unit virtually will never be hidden and will always encroach visually. I would recommend even if we give conceptual approval that the free market unit be turned 90 degrees and somehow pulled back a significant amount in the neighborhood of eight to ten feet in both east and west corners. The AH component is as far enough back so that it will never be effected by the site lines but the free market unit will effect the site lines tremendously for a long period of time and I do not find it acceptable in that southeast corner. That is the main issue for me. I am recommending a restudy in plan of the southeast corner. I also find the tower watered down historism and it has crept into the city very heavily and I would like to discourage that. Charles: We did look at leaving the bands off but it left something to be desired. Sunny: If we go forward with conceptual that is to our benefit even if it is with conditions. 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 1995 Donnelley: I would suggest that a motion be made with a number of stringent condition and then the applicant can proceed and also deal with these conditions. John Wheeler: The story polls- are placed at three points and you cannot see them from across the street. Chairman Donnelley Erdman entertained a motion. MOTION: Les moved that HPC approve conceptual for 406 E. Hopkins with the following conditions: 1) A study session to address roof top materials, setback on the free market unit and the attempt the additionally lower the roof top units through interior ducting. Motion dies for lack of second. MOTION: Roger moved that HPC grant conceptual 406 E. Hopkins with the following conditions: 1) A complete restudy of the roof elements as to mass, scale and height and materials. 2) A complete restudy of the tower and new addition as to materials, detailing and being more simplified. 3) A complete package of demolition plans and how the demolition will be carried out. 4) A complete plan of materials to the north alley; second by Melanie. Discussion: Roger: Rooftop means mass scale and height. Jake: I am against the motion because this is a significant building and there is no reason to rush through this. The conditions that are proposed as part of the conceptual are huge and they are the kinds of conditions that need to be dealt with at conceptual prior to moving forward to final. Les: I feel we are very close to being there. Amy: We need the waiver of Ordinance #30. Donnelley: I find asking a restudy of the roof is vague. We need to be explicit. My suggestion was that the free market unit be relocated and reconfigure so that it offers a significant setback on three sides, south, east and west. I personally do not have a problem with the employee units other than perhaps in detail, 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 1995 possibly a stronger break in plane between new and old. AMENDED MOTION: Roger amended the motion to scratch complete restudy and add restudy the free market units particularly dealing with the south, east and west elevation and the placement and orientation of the freemarket units. Also to add the waiver of Ordinance #30; second by Melanie. Sven: What about story polls. AMENDED MOTION: Roger amended that the story polls be retained or replaced until the board has an opportunity to see them; second by Melanie. Sunny: What about materials. Donnelley: I was talking about using brick and I was talking about using brick specifically on the tower which comes to the ground. Sunny: We are looking for mo]?e clarity of whether the materials should be emulation of the original materials or a contemporary material for the solution. Donnelley: That needs to be clarified how the applicant responds to the request to physically move the walls of the free market units back. If they are moved back there is a definite break in plane and it would be less visible then it may be appropriate to continue with a brick expression. Sven: The side theatre and tower at a conceptual level I am approving it in volume and stuff but I am still wavering how appropriate that style is. It is not just a question of materials for me. Depending on how the roof is solved I feel that should integrate into how the stair and housing unit is solved and those two should be visually linked and I would include Â· that in conceptual review. Donnelley: The suggestion is that a revision to the massing and location of roof elements may indicate the need to tie the fabric of the roof more closely with the fabric of the tower. Sven: We can't evaluate that until we see the roof solution. Donnelley: Now we have three different things, the old brick of the historic resource, the new of the tower that comes to the ground and a third dealing with the roof. It maybe appropriate to reduce that to two expressions. Roger: I think that is clear to the applicant and does not have to be included in the motion. You might use a brick that is 13 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 1995 different than the historic brick but close. Donnelley: I agree with Sven that in addition to just a material study of the tower that it may be wise to incorporate the material of the tower or all new additions into one kind of fabric for all of the additions to the building. Sven: I want this as part of the checkoff list. Les and Sven didn't vote. VOTE ON MOTION: All in favor 0Â£ motion and amended motion. Passes 6 to 1. Jake opposed. 525 W. HALLAM - WYCKOFF - FINAL Amy: I am recommending final approval with the recommendations that they get a letter from the structural engineer stating that the shed can be moved. This appears to be feasible. We need to know how and where the shed will be temporarily stored. The applicant needs to post a bond and I am recommending $3,000. or whatever the cost is to move the shed. They want to make this work and get moving. They also do not have their landmark approval yet and the condition would be that if they do not get landmark that the city would use that money to put the shed back. Work with staff and monitor on restoration of historic materials, remove the 0 cresting on the porch of the new addition and finally assign an HPC member to be a monitor. Glenn Rappaport, architect: We lowered the garage into the ground a foot to deal with the height problem. We took Jake's comment about dropping the roof at the point of the new addition on the north L so it would be a better differentiation. The little metal detail on the roof we don't have a problem with that. The reason we put that there is that we believe there will be a snow problem with the way the snow comes off the main roof. We thought that it would end up breaking the snow and go over the side instead of over the front. The intent would be to make something a little more abstract and we would like to work that out with the monitor as we do think there might be a problem. We have the letter from Mr. Cole the engineer regarding the shed. Regarding the shed there is an overlap of about 1 1/2 feet from the old position and the new position. We would like to dig under there and form the foundation and slide the building over onto the new foundation. That assures us that if we don't get landmark designation we haven't moved the building. Julie would like to discuss the bond amount. CLARIFICATIONS: 14 0 ----%-14-----1 T d'.....Ja : .47%4.310:44&1 ' lili'.. *4- M .., .4Â·â€¢./. 1//4 +1,(.... .,4'..2.'.11'.. *S . . ' 42:' : ' 1 1.92Â£ I A , .... 7... '. 1 . , 4 ...1 " ..1 : p ~b'~~I''Si,9:'06':",:"'' 1 4 - 9, 44. . 4'. .1 =21 -' : :1:!:,4441:-'!;02:21Â·;.i;1;4 ./- t , I'... 4. I. ': r 0 4: , .t. 4 '.'. , 6.- . (3 ~ry-~l {i Ky'-%9. 0- a. 1 1--1 ... '.. H al; Â· 8 - 63 . 4 N â‚¬ ., 2 ~ 1â‚¬K ... 20..3 , â€¢ . f Â«O>5:-1-24 , L. 1 <<<<<C. . - Â«DIEÂ·. , MII. . 1,2 ]+ . . .---. J , , , ,.-- % .4. ~ .. 4 . , .Â· 1 VAÂ·. ' 1, 0 4. 1--4. j . , 0 .95':4*12.--C , .. . . Â·Â· I -Â·Â· : S.: :0:@24 .4 ... , 4 . ... 11 . 4Â·t ......1Â·1.-ntlit- 1 ) Â· Â·Â· . . 2--e- â€¢ -V.-1 ' Â· 0-Ill., 1 L *.. . - . -4 = 73% 4:Z 5,:EZ:- . 4 /1 I .' i .- -.I ... I . ;- 1.1< .lit ., . ./.1/'ll . . ... . 1 . . ,. Â· â€¢ I. -l i .. . " 1. qililllillil~ r 1,Â·mill &':-13..31: ': ' ' 7.: :'Â·/{ '' r .., F,.*Â· 7 4 .4 I.. .L . %4. . ''**~ .Â·2 Â·n r. .. '.7 4'. 1;i *10,00 - * .i= 1.Â·Al .:1?yEZ~..u .t /..W-iK~..644Â·, .. - - CA 0 NACAX=10 -;'I. 1Â·IiI''Ii"'1.11!11'1111 '11! till it-1 9'L'/~1;11{j %.1;jrilil.1111 ~;4 ; 11!f i. 111 h' 111 lili .11- !11 Â· :111 -11 *fP..-Â·-1_1__,Â·:Â·=r Â·Â·Â·Â·--r-â€¢ toÂ·.1.1.F..~d:~:1 EEFFEET..~.7~. 1 *BAD.lrh!2*-+*RZER1~~ ..Â·f:iZE:t~ l ./I'-W~~b'.122*5~ Z U .1 i-12/.2'r~.: ~12Â·0 -/| J..1 2:Ll_2:. 1~':C-;,:-~-TrT'~MMW~ FIRE St KnoN ' -444;=A;FALCIX;I~;I~~I~~i~2*416+%Â·Â·rL,-4-A - 71{lill'llillI , ' 777777~'Â¥ 1 ~ """I'" /Lt;'1.57..,1 :rj.Lt- . . B I i .-Ill ./ ---- 11 ---1 iEEE r ----------J i ili - Â® NORTH ELEVATION & M 0 2 6 16 0 Z 1. U $ 8 i - 008 MAIN STREEr VI~~ElL--_------.-------------- < - f '5 Z - Z. il GE*@13521*213:..3-/:...1.$.. 9-:.:167L~ pr:& Z 4 - .1 . , .meate-4 0 4 , ii j 11. 4: . . I . -I,1pr~ -.0 . fi{Â§1349.39:*flj#,34>9.9 4.Vi4:,42/</4:,43563/>1 .1///M//"////-"....." 3393,4442.9.4101*430%.if 16493 + Â»32Â§4<24 2Â·Â«2Â·44Â·2Â·22Â·>14Â·<30Â·>96.~Â·:+.iÂ·.:~a:x.Â«q *23*42*6iffi<%43*344%,i-*43~ *5*:95â‚¬4Â·32:2 .j..\\'\/ 1... / ..% / IÂ·I,Â·\ I-"~, tâ€¢ â€¢ â€¢ -, $* O ,-vÂ«Â»0Â«Â»x ~Â· - - Â·30- 9 - lili CAÂ«246941.\.1 \\Â« 000Â«..'0>66Â»\ * : ' C\ lifilfil 41-Â·flitÂ·t:;~-<44<1<\< r,yo,<053<< 20<\Â·hy><4Â«-Â· 33%2431:3:{ .::<Â·0Â·<0.:i# * . . I 1 . . . , 4.-gE,Sot *t. 9Â£Â£4914,1, gul. SEP@ . . . Lts ..4 . . ..'. , '..4. - ' l., . ~ * 901:5.8 r I . . ..:3#/. 0 , .':U-K . 1. I ... . i .0 0 6/1: : 4.f b .. 1 . ...Â¥ 6 1., 1 .. : 4 i . !:'.~ r .: T , .. . , r "4 . t J '1 '> A.â€¢ .9 .' 4 ' . f. 1 4 '*1 . . v' ..2.,4. 3"'- VNJk~'.1. t' ".Â·i' 1 IgÂ·,I '.' ' f.>.,PÂ·~ Â· '.,1 . I , 'Iti'81.11 ic<> ..., '/ .... t.,1 '... :--- . I ...t'a# .:I : 1, -Al- I .1 1Â·it Â· 'Â·1' , . i '. 1 . ,; i, , V , ''4-J 11 1 . . 1 4, 1 0 Â¢ I . ..1.. . 1'1 . ' ' ' ' u. le' . , 4 ........'' .1, '* , , , . ... 1 . . 4 4 ,- I . f ,, ' ,.' ' t A 9 ./ ' 4~ , Â·. 3 . . 1.. 4 , Â·Â· tai .., , . . . i; 4- 4.0- .'fvx~7< '*' .tâ€¢.4 r'. . ., V. . de,4, .. l. .1 '.1 K .i k. 4 1.6.. 9. 14--I,[1 ; 1 .1.42 I . ./ A. , - , 2 2 7 r. f v 5 , 'U, i ~, ~ ..- Â·1 Â· ': .4.Uu. . . 1 . i ,. . I . . , ..r . '41,1 0 .....,. 1'' Â¢. t>* >i,U-:, 1 J.,1. . 1 1 1, .. --i 1 ~ : 91,1 - - 1 1 + r, , ' '* Â· ' ./ i.0' ~, 1 44 1 * * ) 0 ..LI W tâ‚¬ ./. . 9' , 2 ' p . '' 6 . 1. .Â¥t ..14% >tx> . ' ..4 . f . I '' .1 I C. t- ' ; ' .t , . ..1 ky ' 1 4*j.6 : H ': . ' . .1. 1.4* q . + .12.' Ika, . . td,-44' b . .1 . . Â· : ~ e.y ;.~;11 rtfi' . *5 '' 22%..lk,\.j~X .A I I . '11 6 11 1 . 1 . 6 .:'.449 . 0,1 . 4 . - ' ' 4 '.1. :w 12 ..,t ~i ' 4, . 0<A V < v , 84. 6 ..f e ' ' ' -' .' , . ..25 7,1 >f X. X X>i 1 , C,~~ . ~~f, b ,, ilf, x ><fr Y . P . 4 31 t:' f Â· VÂ«,4. 6<'~2 N -' :., . .,1 .. . r , 4 7 . i ' I . . 4. ' . 0 ' - ' - J. 1 11 1}12Â«44. 9, ,:1, Â· . I . ' -,16- â€¢ , . 4 'I . .4/fc '/1 1 r. Â·, 1 , .~ t '. I T-' . 1,9./.'X X~ n A- r, , k V y M-r; , 40:,<xxyx"VÂ» 3%x :4-3:ki Â·. h R., 3 11 ~~~ . . 6 49<>f?<tax vix x AÂ» 1. . .** b , a'.t , â€¢ â€¢ . . . i ' 1 - . 1.1 , t1 , .5 0, Vllfl'-1 1 , 99 1.ill=VigrAFFqeff .-7.1 . : A. Â·' .. ....,1 2- 1 ~6, .., 12/ / 11/ lili'.1. ,~ , , a , , , | ' i' :f_Ll--C '" 0Â·'~.M'.. A . 67 0 1-1 P , L 4 . ,. .,p A ': 1 ' I ' , . 1 .1 , . 11 I . 1 . 0 . . , 1. f -, 4,1 4 4 ' 1 . , 0 . .f, 4 ' t. " 2.0 2.ell,NA,, , ., ' 4 ' I , I, Â»mu .-5 Â« 9 .7 f . I . 64 .. A--1_.11-JOI.1- ' . 6 1, â€¢1Â· f i -_ - -1 11-1,1 -L U.U'. I ' ' ' , ''. '-''I *.' I./.9//9/Ill......7.....7'.....1.--.7./. Â· . f " ./ . 4 1 , . I ..Al . I 1 .4.- .'*1 ' 1 .' ' .' '. 1 -'.. trl.... . ./ I ... . . Plav , tAx b ... Â· Â· 7 . .. ., - .' , , & , . P 41 Â¥ , + . 91 ..t 41 -; 1 .. , 41 1 .:, 11'.th }1 2 . ' -/ i . Â·Â·Â·r /, . 4,, I , , . r .... ... . '' .d , . 1. 4 ... 1 . --Lf , . . . 6640 1 . .- . ..1/5. 4 , 1 .[ 0 , 1 a. 4 4 '' -- 14,1, ':41.- t. t : 44 ~~* t, i , J. 9 t.4 - , I ' -- 4 -.'.., . 0 0 . f I ' f , , , . 4 0 . I 4 1 I . 'Â·9 . 4.1 1 K. d . ,/ , ' ,,,i '692 ' :.,4 ./ ttil : -1.--= . i '.,4 .f . ' . h.,4 7 Â· . 1 ....,\. I ' I 1,4.- 1 , . ,#. i . Â· z ' . . 1 '. ./ 1:, .. , I S , ' , .. . 1 4 ' 1 1*, , it Z J t ~; 5 1<7-01 ?1 1 $ 4 '1 4. I . r /114 .L " 9. 1 . .. 1 1 . , w , ... I . .t, 1 fy p r . , 1 .,; i ..:>% "'v + , ' " ' s :,lti t. .1.. ,.V 1.0, $ . 4 , .'. , . .4 '. . 1. r. 76' ,t t ...... , , W I ' , 4'.r T S , 'd, f.. 4 ,' I, 74 ., . " r I 1 . 1.. .1.24 1 . ., ... I . 6 - t .4 . Jr '' '~4 ~ ~~ ~~ ~i '. . I ' ' " I . ./ 1 3%Â¢1 .0 ..1, 1.. .'...: 1 4 , .,9,1.' 'il'',/ , . 4 - e g. 't. 4 11 4 1 I. 4 4 . f 12!.21: 2, Â· C.X, , 1 " '* 11 . 1 . 1 ' . ,Â· J , , : I ')41 e. T .0 14 ' 1 115*-''*ilip:; : P .g Â· Â· ' ' 1, . 11 . , r' . v , . 7 ' 4 , It. â€¢ , L~â€¢â€¢ lA Â·,â€¢ Â·~4*091 1,1:.4,1,1Â« . f ....4 0 1 . . . 1. . . ... f ./.-r .r. I. I. 'i I ..1 h '.4 .. R t' . I , I .. . 1.. 1 ,4,084 1.1, 1 - - .4 6 , t,it . + ; ' - 4 -e. â€¢,â€¢ ' 1 2-1, .. %.., , 9 .4 4 5â€¢ ..' P.1. ..1. '. 1, ./ 4 . , , 1, ,, . .' - 9 1.1 ./ ' ' p .&/L .iIi â€¢ i I... ,â€¢, Â· 1 .1 'A . r . Â·, ' . , ,1:012 â€¢ . A . . . ' $ ./ 4 ' '' .A ".'.1 ' 'll . 't. '1' , /*. I .14:28.a.*Â«Â·fr,â€¢ f../4 .'th'_ Â·./li' ' . R. C,1, 0 . 1. Â· - i,..4 , :'bf'dt Ii, - . t 1 , . .4 6 ..: ' d' , r i Â».1 . ., .4 . 1. 1 Â¢ 141 'r .. - ... t, . . ti. 0 14:j+*.}:f.kÂ·.-.A..'Â·' I 4 i . ..5,4 / ettÂ·ev i ' Â· t"'~ .....1./2.ItIÂ·'..,t-*1 .,9,/1/14:#./ irr--'37-7Ii;'-;WEm 1/.WI/"l/muliWIN 1 1 CA- 04,4, *NOM-H,0.1 , 2}f,,4,Â·.Â·~'Â· / ' ''4-~,5,f' , ' Â¥ . , . ./ 11 .. I ~ 1 1 , . ( 11 , 5. ' "b li .'t 'ffs:A,~~~ 14.'m.4.~ 4 . , . 000 , 4 , 4 0 Â® Nil, 1 0 -r c 1 L. 1 8 2.Y: Â·: 4% 1 4 04*N *$#ty. Zaf 4,-1*,t O 'Ft g UNL :21_~ lr. -9 61 M 2% -1 17'111 + t 4 G Il r 11.1,1114!"+16 ..1 2%+1,1% * - 3 - 1 + 2 - 0 2 1 60119#57 1*,4,Jl'+ 4 -45 . I 4/ lit ..: 1 ~2*41 - *Â§ A-,111 .1492 :1:22.-1-- /1.. :NÂ· - 1J - Esl.%....6 jf 4.4 1 1 /2/ 1 a - 34â‚¬~ 141 . t. L 1 1.4 IlL=t L 0 .,4 'll %+ 11411: '4 :/Â· + -44ritâ€¢'NN'C b , 1: 11~0-1-- Ar-7*. *"i[ 1 I J J ~t I .1 Ut, ts#Beli-F *40 9+9 3$1:21Â«*,-h ... lit* 1* W 44Â¢444- Vi. 5921' 6-t:z~:2:1 13 kJ+04& i 7, ' 44 ''? 1 .1 1 +11 L.+11; 2,2, 0 1 '*1 D-, 44 Â¢1>,1 Â¥Pi, <r, iÂ·yo 1144 1414 1.1 1 9*341'411'f' 0*017.1. 1 It: 1. 47.410:44 11,11 N,4.9, Â¥2.49~ ..4 1 - f Â·Â· 1 MeÂ¥ 0<14Â· - ~' Irt'*.. 11 '1 1 4 1,1, 4 4.-v. 1 .1 - - 2.>11:Â¥..: .~S.' #,Â·ofi 14%4*. %10% WAWÂ·&'111-1-1 1 ', fi imr..lia~ â€¢Â·â‚¬3â€¢/â€¢Il.r ./.S .W .1Â·.t/â€¢" 1., '.1,9hG' i vi" U 0, + 4 901 I ==.-.-u , PUCATION EXHIBIT I ISIS RENOVATION CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS i. i!1 9 -m - Â· Â·Â· :Â·41*hiherâ€¢ma FIRE STATION Â· ' , ?1 jlfÂ·Wi: , , : i. â€¢4 4 3.1.ilf:y , . I 0 4 r.-1 ..,,,.211 41 41!F. , , . t,1 4 .Â· . Â· i,â€¢ :I :/&.4 , 1 1, .. .1.4 .7.7 111 I j.. I i .... 1 1 r-le % 1 O Ili~illk:*Mithilli/:I:Â£*A##1''... _1828#*a*.*,~,..~..~ 1 91-L , 110 1 8 1.26 , 0, B R ull i...1 1 -1 ill i Frkli hykel__1_ J t. r. 6077- i b=.4 1,1 -* 9: :,4 Z 9 7 711- 1.1 â€¢ 1 U. 1 11 f 21 , t 4.'f IN ., ir. .(,9.4,19~ 114' i 1 43; m 0 C) %14 D <:-C 13â‚¬: i U. -1 ...... 1 ..}11 1 - 4 -6 ,"... ,. O 1 .14 -1,4% - -10 z 1,#r~ 3 1/ :.,&â‚¬ t --1.. 6 14 râ€¢' 9. 1 .1.164 14 1 f,tillill. 16 4 M lit W n *' b,4 04 ~ 4 tz 11 h .79 ey'' - Â§3 \ t *. 11,?> 11- 0 . 19.2, >Â«1 Ir 470 I- 11 1.... 1/ . 5.9- - 1 /1.Â·Â»: 1 lit Â· 1 ...4-- - ==J I~~- 0 1 $ ni + 4 le 11 1 .1 ..1 :. U n Â¢,4 t lt. ... I *1. 1 11 i Â·Â· 1 2.4 --11 . i' ./ *11:.* iv b- 4& 14* , 4 .1 - 1% U [Ir.91 h- - t. 1 1 i i'.0 - 2' i i 1 24 a I [i 1 . 24:J 1 i .11+ - L i 1 1 A. a. /1.7 1 - 1% i A 1 - r 1-. \ 1 1 3 :Â¢ 61 1 1 i . Fit 1 1 1,4 + 299"M~Z \ 1 4 6. 10 1, .â€¢ N AD I i< , 1 m , 40 R i' 11 1 1 -4 F 0 91 i W 1 1 It â‚¬ 1 1 1 I k :ill I ===========~ 1 1 ,; 4+ 12 - El. 9 1 1~*31;M h . 1 â€¢1 ' WION EXHIBIT I 11 1 11 ISIS RENOVATION CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS N Â®0 il ' I LOTS LM, & N, ALLEY m OCK 87 120 647 HY,MN Al,iâ€¢ Stmt irM Â· Ag,FN rn m.n â€¢ mi ,â€¢.er,r rr- , â€¢.v .-â€¢-. .--Â· - U. 010 r- Vt'L â€¢ 4*,k -/- /3:'''' m'*t' 14 Fl. 1 1.IN,445.54):eMEN'll (4~~ 44 Ma til 1.9~ 1~.,~Ii'i~-4,L*~ji,"f~?;Â§1' liREMNM.?flill r I ......W - ,- A'.9341 0 Im u:t.?117<~1 01)" 120=....1.-=.1. 111 "111!0 .InEill ,â€¢ImM ..NEr-..11.1- . 4. ~ est: I.1 6 ~ 1. diot.-f:u;j*1:533*1 $01 ./. i .-â€¢1 1!.1. am 1.Wik' 1 â€¢: .4 ' *m w- -1 â€¢ : :7:7:01%?:htâ‚¬jgl 1 il ==24.:,1,4,/4%39 4 Â·Â·/ . 9 61'9 f -=11"14!lifittlf lilli 11 u ul r -I 'MN.Q..I..,25&~531+~t~,1111~~ti, *966* b>ZO'f.227.0414*4'I Pilâ€¢i..i#-mâ€¢,I,4iw liÂ¥? 21 364:I - j.â€¢/tt:%272. uil'ze.tur~Ul - Fi.. 7.://*-'iN. .0.xii 6;/4 22 L.. ~Â¥,N 1 -Xfâ€¢' 'I * ~~7 -* 4#tM7Mfi1=4~~~ V -42 iPE,/1 1Â«21Â¥140.~0*.:tit:-/t..4 , % ,Â«d.i.~2'~, a it.:4lll, 1.. ~23,:4*1'01 I .3 F $ H/6. ./. A Â·34- â€¢=/ I.â€¢t.3 Â·NÂ¢'. "Â·-- 1 T~:.2061,4,Â£,4113'll.liect,1:9 Ah ., \.0, Â·ial.Ately>14:915142('*73/*Ale':t, 1.* 1, . _ tr/X-*.Ka'11<1-4 4:11'tit) A rFUÂ»*L<$7%*4~%499" 3 1 ,~?9' â€ž h . l. 17- p *,24*94 '1%Â¥Â·iF MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Direct, FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 520 Walnut Street- Extension of conceptual approval DATE: January 22, 1997 SUMMARY: This project received conceptual development approval on March 22, 1995. Section 26.72.010 (F)(3)(c) provides that an application for final development review shall be filed within one year of the date of approval of a conceptual development plan. Unless HPC grants an extension, failure to file the final development application shall make the approval null and void. A one year extension was granted on March 13, 1996. At this time the applicant, Gretchen Greenwood and Michael Ortiz, request HPC approval for a one-year extension of conceptual approval, to allow more time for study of the final design, The conceptual review packet is attached for your review. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends conceptual development approval for 520 Walnut Street be extended until March 22,1998. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "l move to extend conceptual approval for 520 Walnut Street to March 22,1998." = jv; , MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission From: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer Re: 520 Walnut Street, Conceptual Development, including partial demolition and on-site relocation, special review to exceed 85% of the allowable F.A.R.- Public Hearing Date: March 22, 1995 SUMMARY: On February 8, 1995, HPC granted approval to demolish an existing structure on the site, to relocate the existing miner' s cabin, to change existing windows and doors on the historic miner' s cabin, and to repair existing materials. A proposal for the new residence was presented at that time, but tabled. HPC indicated that they were not in support of granting setback variances requested for that structure, due to neighborhood concerns. The applicant has submitted a new design which is in conformance with all aspects of the R-6 zone district. Conceptual approval and special review to exceed 85% of the allowable F.A.R. is requested. APPLICANT: Gretchen Greenwood and Michael Ortiz, owners. LOCATION: 520 Walnut Street, Lot 8 and the north half of Lot 9, Block 3, William's Addition to the City of Aspen. PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in aiI "H," Historic Overlay District must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 7-601 of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark... Response: New Residence: The proposed new residence is to replace an existing house which has not been identified as having historic significance. TheÂ·house will be 2,854 sq.ft. and the miner's cabin is 281 sq.ft. Because the Commission was not willing to grant setback variances for the project, the applicant has made the building more narrow and increased the height. As in the earlier design (attached), the new residence has been 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The restoration of the miner' s cabin will have a positive effect on the character of the Walnut Street neighborhood, which has just one other miner's cottage to represent the previous nature of housing in this area. Attached is a 50'=1" scale map of Walnut Street. (The applicant is to provide a map which shows a larger area of the neighborhood for the Ord. 35 review.) Most houses in the area are fairly low in height, although they have a fairly large footprint. The amendments to the west and south facades, discussed above, are meant to ensure the project's compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Response: The proposed development, which includes a rehabilitation of the historic cabin, will increase the cultural value of this resource and its importance as a representation of a simple, typical miner's cottage. In addition, the development does not result in any demolition or attachment to the historic cabin. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The proposed development will enhance the architectural integrity of the historic structure by preserving the structure and original materials. SPECIAL REVIEW TO EXCEED 85% OF THE ALLOWABLE F.A.R. SUMMARY: This project is located in the Smuggler Mountain neighborhood, therefore both the general guidelines (Chapter 1 of the "Neighborhood Character Guidelines") and the specific guidelines for Smuggler Neighborhood (Chapter 4) will be applied.. i The special review process is mandatory, as is compliance with,the Committee's findings, because the lot is less than 9,000 sq.ft. The proposed project is 3,135 sq. ft. above grade. This is the maximum allowable F.A.R. for the site. historic cabin. 3) Provide a site plan which shows all lightwells, stairways, etc. 4) The fence shall be no more than 3'6" in front of the new house and it shall be open pickets. 5) Staff recommends that HPC clarify the approvals granted on February 8, 1995 by specifically stating the variances which are to be allowed (see attached site plan). On the north sideyard, the setback provided will be 5'. The required setback is 10', therefore the variance is 5'. On the front setback, the applicant agreed at the February 8 meeting to place the house 8' from the front lot line in an effort to stay away from the existing cottonwoods. (These trees may in fact have to be removed in the future for safety reasons.) The required front yard setback for an accessory structure is 15' , therefore the variance is 7'. 0 0 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 22, 1995 ~Meeting was called to order by chairman Don Erdman with Les Holst, Jake Vickery, Roger Moyer Linda Smisek and Martha Madsen present. MOTION: Linda made the motion to approve the minutes of March 8th; second by Jake. All in favor, motion carries. COMMISSIONER AND STAFF COMMENTS Amy: Dan Sullivan will be attending our discussions on the character guidelines. I have a schedule set Up for each neighborhood for next week. Les will represent the HPC on the Entrance to Aspen. May 14th through the 20th is Preservation Week. The P&Z adopted the changes to the landuse code and I will get all members a copy. Roger: In some states and cities a CO is not issued until all encumbrances are paid, could you meet with the attorney's office to see *if that is something that could happen with historic properties. I feel basically people are taking advantage of the situation. Jon Busch talked about the trolley schedule and will present to HPC a- a determined date. 0 520 WALNUT STREET, CONTINUED CONCEPTUAL, SPECIAL REVIEW, PH Amy: This is a continued public hearing and there was a lengthy discussion of the project Feb. 8th at which time HPC voted to grant the variances for the historic miners cottage which would be eight feet off the front property line and five feet off the north property line. The reason for this was to allow the applicant to construct a new residence and in no way attach the- two structures. Because the miners cabin is an accessory structure it has a 15 foot front yard structure which would force the building together. One of the things we need to do is clarify the motion stating specifically what the variances are. On Feb. 8th the Commission felt it was not appropriate to grant any variances to the new residence due to neighbors concerns and gave the applicant that direction and she has come back* now with a new design which has some similarities to the old one but is more narrow and taller. In my evaluation I felt there should be some restudy of the south elevation and there is not much of a break in the wall except at one point on the second level. This is a good illustration of why our variances are important. While this is certainly not a bad project at all the previous design was more compatible with the historic structure because it was not forced to be as tall and there was more opportunity to break up the mass..I agree with the applicant in that sense. On the WLIam finding there is not as /j good a relationship between that facade and the historic structure 1~~ as previously and that the concrete pad which has been added to connect the two should be eliminated. The applicant is also ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 22, 1995 proposing a 6 foot privacy fence on the north and south property lines due in great part that she has very little yard space and wants privacy. I feel it has been a general policy of HPC that toward the front of the property especially around an historic structure that the fence should be approximately 3.6 inches tall as the maximum and open in character so I have suggested this in the approval. Gretchen Greenwood, owner: As an architect and someone who has tried to understand what the HPC and City is trying to do with design guidelines for different communities and working with a lot of historic structures I feel particular sensitive to historic structures as I am going through this laborious process of land marking my project which is something that I do not have to do to make this project work. I came here the last time requesting a 5 foot setback variance and the hardship for that was based on the fact that the property is between two larger parcels one to the north and one to the south which I illustrated and will undoubtedly be a duplex property. To the north has a deteriorating victorian house on the property. I am going through the process to preserve the historic building and move it far away from the new construction on the property and try step the house back so that I have a five foot setback variance which is more common in my neighborhood than the ten foot setback. The neighbor to the north is five feet from my property and the one south is three feet from me. My whole intention was to set the property back to have some space and to follow some of the guidelines that are so well illustrated in the design guideline book. It states open space should be of the size that can be used or at least has significant visual impact as a landscape area, so I am unable to meet that design guideline because the neighbors were not in favor of the five foot setback even though I think for historic preservation or neighborhood design guidelines that it is a mistake to not have - granted that variance. It is disappointing on the part of the HPC that they cannot recognize what is more important for the neighborhood than perhaps what the neighborhood feelings are. I realize that it doesnft follow the rules but it would have been best for the property to grant the variance.. We now have a ten foot setback on both sides of the property. Many people in my neighborhood use their setbacks for trash and junk, storage and additional cars and that is a logical spot, which is more than likely to happen when my husband puts the ski boat in that area and that is what happens when you have these kinds of setback issues. I wanted to bring that out in analyzing a property you spend time and it is unfortunate that it could not be understood to the neighbors as it was a variance. I tried to design a house on this property without having any landmark property because the price is almost getting too high to pay because there is a zero benefit. The house I am proposing is the same width of 25 feet and it is only longer at the glass entry because in the guidelines I wanted 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 22, 1995 ~ to have a clearly defined front yard and entryway. I like the contrast between old and new with the glassy structure. I have no control of what is going to be built in front of me and I am more concerned about the property to the south. There would be no design review to that property to the south. In trying to design this house I tried to visualize the effect of what could happen to us if the other properties around were built on. We bought the property for the miners cabin and it is something that I have always wanted to do. In looking at the neighbors concerns and objections that we wanted to try and meet we have moved the house into its setback. I raised the peaks of the house in anticipation of what would happen to the south of me. I want to be up above any potential development in front of me. They raised their objections and I am raising my roof. The views could potentially be blocked and so thus with this design we are trying to put the entry from the old design at the north of the property to the new design of the glassy area on the entry of the south west corner of the property. The reason for that is to keep as much glass to the west and to the south. Our plans are pushing us to live on the property to the north and to create a buffer with a deck. This building conforms to all the site coverage, FAR etc. It is better for the miners cottage that we shift it away from the new property. If there is continual objection the project will not be as good. I desire conceptual and design approval so that I can move forward. ~ The miners cottage will be used as my office and I am anxious to get the building moved. CLARIFICATION Jake: What is the status of the landmark. Amy: Designation will be Monday night and it is the last step and it is listed on the inventory at this point. - Jake: Variances are conditional upon landmarks. Roger: If the bldg. is landmarked and the person on the south wants to build do we review it? Amy: We don't but with ord. #35 all residential development will be reviewed probably as a check list. Roger: Why should she landmark. Jake: Theoretically it protects the property. Gretchen: In order to receive a variance to move the building over to the setback I feel landmarking is the best solution for the property. I can build a house on the property without seeing anybody here but I would be five feet from the building. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 22, 1995 Everything I have ever heard from any of these meetings is that it is nice to have the separation of buildings and it is to the 0 advantage of the building and property and open space that HPC is trying to do. I agree with that. Roger: I feel if you are landmarked you should have some protection. Amy: If we do this check list we will take into account historic structures. Gretchen: All houses next to historic homes should be reviewed. COMMITTEE COMMENTS Amy: Where is the access for the ADU. Gretchen: I am still undecided about the ADU and I want to keep it conceptual. Donnelley: Could you review with me why you split the sideyard to ten and ten instead of 5 on the north and a larger on the south. Gretchen: I was under the assumption that the setbacks were five feet and I designed it five to the north. The zoning is ten and ten in that neighborhood and also one of the neighbors went ballistic. Linda: You re-designed your house and at the last meeting we found that your first design was quite compatible and what was the reason for your change? Gretchen: One of the last comments that stuck with me was that I should be able to work with the ten foot setbacks as an architect. I also received a letter from my south neighbor indicating he was concerned that he might be in jeopardy and with all that in mind you gave me the message that I should go back and redesign within the ten foot setback. If I came within the setbacks I would be right on top of my south neighbor so I decided that I needed to change my potential view direction. The Board sent me that message loud and clear. Linda: Are you happy with this design? Grecchen: I would prefer to have a setback variance and have 15 feet in the front but I like the design. My husband likes the other design. Martha: I thought at the last meeting everything was clear on the cottage. 4 -- ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 22. 1995 Amy: It is all under the same application but the cottage is clear. Donnelley: You mentioned the neighbors concern about south glass in your previous design but it appears that the new south L has the same amount as well as a gable that is four feet higher. Gretchen: I want to maintain a south gable and I want sun and also I potentially considered what the neighbors might build in the future. Chairman Donnelley Erdman opened the public hearing. Jon Busch: Angie Griffith is the north facing neighbor and she is concerned about loosing her south facing sun if the applicant go back into the setback five feet. The approval for the 10 foot setbacks on the subdivision was due to the lots running east and west. I also reviewed the old plans and feel they fit in with the neighborhood more and I also realize her concern for her views. My other concern was the ADU and because the garage is five feet from the alley there really isn't much of a place for an extra car. Race Street is really an alley. Chairman Donnelley Erdman closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Jake: I feel there is some validity for the five foot set back to the north on -the first plans submitted. The idea of creating usable open space is far superior than creating long spots of unusable open space. Neither of the adjoining properties are conforming. On the first designs my problem was the north wall and it is still one long continuous wall. I do not mind giving variances in the setbacks if there is a reason to do it. In a situation with an historical structure that has a modest scale the scale of the elements of the new building that occupy the same property need to also be broken down into a sympathetic scale. What I was hoping would come forward in your revisions was a restudy of that north wall and some study of the massing on that side and possibly bring back some of the forms to the 10 foot setback line. Give relief to the long continuous plane. There is a lot of playfulness in the decks and a lot of unique things going on in materials and the decks and windows. It is a very nice design and I am sorry that you didn't work and follow through on that. Les : My feeling at the end of the meeting is that you wozild work the north wall a little and come back and we split the difference on the five feet. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 22. 1995 Gretchen: It didn't work as there is too much circulation. Les: I would prefer the old plan if there was some way to make it work. Gretchen: I could look at it further but I need approvals. Les: We are getting designation and saving this cabin and that is important for the neighborhood. Martha: Are you staying with the new design due to the protection that you need. Gretchen: I got such opposition almost to the level of abuse with the five foot setback variance that I was not going to come back in and fight for that as it is not worth it to me. Gretchen: It is very confusing because we do like the first design and I do not want to shade my neighbor and I want to be sensitive to that. Donnelley: It appears that in the present plan the north wall is a straight plane and one of the criteria of the guidelines is that these long planes be broken. It does not conform to the guidelines. Gretchen: It is probably workable at final. Donnelley: The first-plan is recommended. Gretchen: I could take the first plan and move it into the setback but I tried to work staggering the building but it just didn't work. Roger: I concur with Jake that I would rather see usable space than unusable. I would prefer the first design also. I am not hung up on the long wall to the north as the landscaping will break it up. I would object if it were in the west end. It is not a pedestrian area. Gretchen: There would be certain changes made to the old design. Donnelley: Lets see if we can do a motion that would allow a successful resolution here. MOTION: Jake made the motion that HPC give conceptual approval to Scheme I of 520 Walnut Street finding that it) meets Standards 1,2,3,4 and with the following conditions: That the structure conform to the 10 foot setbacks. On Feb. 8th variances were given 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 22, 1995 ~ for the miners cottage of 5 feet on the north side yard and 8 feet on the west sideyard, second by Roger. DISCUSSION OF MOTION Roger: You are suggesting that the setbacks not be 10 and 10. Jake: Yes. The applicant is already sandwiched between two nonconforming structures. Amy: This has been tabled and Council was informed that there would be no variances. Les: I feel the neighborhood would be best served with a variance on the north side. Donnelley: If we can approve scheme A with all parts of the new structure falling outside of the ten foot side yard setbacks you could manipulate the roof form in such a way that perhaps you are turning the gable on the east side to the east and we could consider that a minor change and would not have to go through a public hearing. Les: I feel we need a monitor on the miners cottage. AMENDED MOTION: Jake amended the motion to add that the applicant 0 can proceed with the miners cottage, second by Roger. Donnelley: Do you want to state anything about the north wall or breaking it up. Jake: I would like tc see the long interrupted surfaces broken down so that the architectural elements on that wall are consistent-- with the guidelines. Martha: I also agree that the north wall is OK as is. Jake: There is no support for an amended motion. VOTE: All in favor of motion and amended motion. Motion carries. 232 E. MAIN STREET MINOR DEVELOPMENT Amy: The applicant is requesting a satellite dish to operate their business. This is the smallest dish that they can do. It is located at the rear of the structure and the dish is a little over 3 1/2 feet and it is below the ridge line and will not be visible at all from Main Street. I recommended approval with the condition that if there is any reflective metal it should be painted out. 7 0 - -1- f,677Â¥4\Wit-7, Lo (Pr\ON 07 Ha\6*,~ N OFF H * F'r,$:FaÂ·lery L.1,9- I 29%,i --- 0 . . 7.1 0 - F O 1 1. ... r .. 1 BPL,>cft,P ... . 1 .. t .C- _ ) liv IMDRI,i.H ' ... .. HE+1 010 0,8Â·tz M / 1 H K#Â·9 1 FB+1 6.> 2*GS 4.*rAr,=ic I -1 OFFI C@ \8/ i #YferÂ¥*Gr p.fAW, Â·Â·:. 1. 61fpoâ‚¬0 .... t 7Â· . I. 1 1 . . L -2-1-- -:--4 incOQ72*Â·a'~0Â¤ i 1 .........,0/..... 3 M 9 1 -UK- 1 C *t -7--l 9 . / 12.1-911 40!r[H FIG'FEÂ·Fry 1,1>1 4 :Fl='Hr '7>'$:2 i 'L V-rma'IMPT# L 06,-notÂ·\ of #00*i. f 4.4-,C.K 2-7 L 0,0 120+42,58. #ct. . f7 -2 L ' prÂ»wr ' 9'*2 4#rpac ~ 0*r~e,â€¢Â·6014 /7 M..2,$' 1 /h Aff-, Fl,/'14 4 ZON IN# PIÂ»i<Â»MI Â» Pei fr<H I brF 'P /<9-1-1Â« , '1 1.? . --1 1 . 1 - 1 ; : 1 1 4. 1 Â£ i ' i ' 1 ' 1 .i I - -*:1 ; 1 ': * i i I - f. f 1 f .1 ; . :i:(3 4,1~ -- -- 4'"Â·1:Â·; 11 ' '' 1 ! :!il li: --- - 0 lili!,1 --2.:BEE===EE~ Â£ 11 - t 1 1: 1, i 1 1 1 I ' li, . 2 1 2 1 1 i; i ' * 1 1, 1 1; 1 , , ~1 i ! ~~~ ~~~~~~*~~~ i : *~1 'lill 111 1 1 il : -- ... - - 1 lili 1 . i, 1 - w tz' â‚¬__FIC-EL- 84, 8/MEIN- 0 _Ne - 21 1/9 11 o 11- 0 11 El<Â·HIE>rr' J .. . 0 I.-- ' - ..I ---I. 1.-- .-*..*. 0- Ii-- - *I<.lill. I -I-Ill- -.- -- - ---2 ./.I- . -I.Ill - . -. lill-'-I- -.--i- '....I - - ..1- ;1 1 0 = w_69-E_%* Ex/02Â« 1 019. 0/+F 1-~.0. *v--r i o H 4, 72= 1Ld:711 0*HIPEF 'S' 0 11,11,!Ilili ;11!11 0 l//flifflf'..~ #t=321\ 1. 1 . il,11: ililil IiI iJAFF----illim..imall-4:- I -I---1- + P.- -- . -2 -4--41 #i=L ~ =P- 1.t==1 & ' ,Â« el--i 22 2==: t ~ r j (7 C\ 1 1 1 1, - 1 1 - . : 1' 1' 91 1 1 1.1! 11:.Ill 1 1 1 11 -+11 It.!11 i; 74....M- .- 1 1 }1~ ~W i J [;] ill V O ~ 1 : 1 - Â£ IL #ph;Ii il 11 lilillil. ilih , 2 ---Ii- - ,~.1,"81/4&3..i==b...ME./3....A.4.5#6 - -- . 1 4 -r- 1 --'-0-- 1 "li 11 1 .1 lili !%'21'*T -- 1- 1 i.~ .1.3 :~-1.1.Ke/=--il-, 4. ,â€ž~ 7 .ill' t' 1 1 ...1 11 1 gwiff Qk,LT/Arj- \ 0 KJ 11 D J' ~D = l L 6,- 11 0)<HleÂ·IT' H ' - 1 f :/rgli- - Ill j-..-...'....lilli-'ll.-F~. -9 39'.g,~.r.--2,== ...1, . -.=-44 -- -'-~!92Egg/Ji,ZE-* 74-0.,5,-2~... -*Ablj~L.-I - 73?PEEm-:. 1 2.St=. .- 7 ti~/~/225- -. I -I-..--*...I- I - - -17/.'t:1 111 T m Lit. :i' I i If:Â·LL lilli i Â·I . f lit ill 'i - 1 1..: . .1 1 i 1 ./ , - ., 1 1 11 . 9 1 1 1Â·14 i \ 'I' 4' ./P~1 , 1/1 1 , 1 1, " .i, E- 1 - El I 'll' A . 1: 1 :trf i il . 1 .1.11 It 1*=L .. -Ill---r 1, I V , 1 1 j;il- 11 14 1 - - ~ -~ ~444<1*<IR~. 1~ ;Li:L Â· :1 ida 1 . - ---1- 1 4 . . , lilli It t.t i.\ i , ./-1 0/0 3===.--- i Wi t~ 4 1 1 1 1 "1 1 11 11 1 11'11 li 1. 'll 1 -- ./ 1 ' i 411 jillit :1 5 i 'li 1 I&-----'.--- Â·ll i - L 1 1 1 iL / .It 1 1 0 / '1 1 I IIi 1 . 1 :11 1 22- - .. -21-- -*1 -- - ; 'It :i; iÂ·: : h. 1~1~Â· 11 1 1 11 . .. -A , ' 1 1 ti tt . 1 ' . t %1 1, 1 - d I ipill linu - 1,1 : iII 1 1, -~ ~li.-I Me- n - --77- S--- - 1 0-- 111. ..1 lilli 1 1. 1 1 - .-0 1 12 1, r 4 t i:! 14 1 iIi i li f '1 r . t.i:' 1 11' : i till 1 . .:.1 .,111. ,1 , 111 11,1 1 . i,1, 1.1,11Â·ildÂ·il 11 Er= i ' 1 i 1 1 &1 4\111 11 - 1 11 1~ 1.1 - L-- . .- 'GKH 15110~ 43 K Qâ‚¬L vu /2234 - WhI,M Lri 4 - 0 . p g - ~4 18'~ 81 11 - .=I , 4 K rn::114 MEH 5 11 2 /.1 Lit ~11 l./ 1 b Â»INGÂ· FM ..... 571 H i NG, Fal *4 N -f U 9 L .-' - ...lill- Ill-..I -il--~= .li~~ -d. . -- U rFFF LE>41~ Fl- Â£70* FLÂ»N \%35/ K. [1 9 11 n 0 1- 0 . EXH I Frf 'F' 1 - '1031' Dll -- 0 . - 4 411'7 7 e 1 1 4 0 J 1 ' - r 1 \ - I./.--- . -I<.-I-li.... --I/- -I---InuLL 12 i ,- .....0 -li -1,/=- D .ER[1 %*19193 12'1. -irf~'WL d 0 Ll h A It< 1 L B -VIC*,le'/6+4'6 1/> V' 1 -C -v-1 - 8 -t MIN.Fle 3Â©~ uz r-=r, 0 CÂ»#71 N 0 - V. 4 Z L 4 vilf - Pltert,F *GPP,Â»,1 0 PPC'*roM*MI Z DeVF="'1 P - 92%66 - i . Dt) O CO-u u 'U -E *=44 . 4. 1 0 j fEi[ 4~_~ *01 14,5 L Q u F'-Â»FM~Ty 2- IN B- 0 A) Mr I H F-[- 2OM Fl~Â» hi \80Â¥M-2 ) 91 -1 LO, EXHI DIT '- 9' IZ-6 j MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission LU THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director J FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 834 W Hallam Street- Extension of conceptual approval DATE: January 22, 1997 SUMMARY: This project received conceptual development approval on April 26, 1995. Section 26.72.010 (F)(3)(c) provides that an application for final development review shall be filed within one year of the date of approval of a conceptual development plan. Unless HPC grants an extension, failure to file the final development application shall make the approval null and void. A one year extension was granted on April 10,1996. Atthistimethe applicant, Michael Hull, requests HPC approval for a one-year extension of conceptual approval, to allow more time for study of the final design. The conceptual review packet is attached for your review. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends conceptual development approval for 834 W Hallam Street be extended until April 26, 1998. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "1 move to extend conceptual approval for 834 W. Hallam Street to April 26,1998." MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission From: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer Re: 834 W.. Hallam, Conceptual Development- Public hearing Date: April 26, 1995 SUMMARY: The applicant requests Conceptual development approval to construct a second story addition on top of an existing wing at Poppie's restaurant. The addition is to be used for an employee dwelling unit. An increase in F.A.R. for this purpose has been approved by City Council. This house, the Nellie Mcelimont house, was built in approximately 1889 and is basically unaltered, except for additions to the east and the rear of the building. Most of the original detailing is intact. This site is a designated Aspen landmark. APPLICANT: Michael Hull, represented by Jake Vickery. LOCATION: 834 W. Hallam, Lots K and L, Block 10, City and Townsite of Aspen. SITE, AREA AND BULK INFORMATION: Please see the attached information, provided by the applicant. Development Review Standards 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 adj acent parcels when the subj ect site is in an "H, " Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to 500 sq. ft., or the allowed site coverage by up to 5%, 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 5-510 (B)(2). Response: According to the 1904 Sanborne map of this parcel (attached), it appears that the one story addition immediately behind the 1 1/2 story house is either original or early enough to be considered significant. (The map also shows that two outbuildings have been demolished and the existing porch appears not to have been original.) The presence of historic windows on the west, and also the form of the mansard roof also suggest that this is an old addition. The proposal involves demolishing the roof of the historic addition, but leaving the rest of it intact. The employee unit creates a second floor at the rear of the building. Staff finds that the -proposed addition is compatible in mass, scale and general design with the original structure. The ridge heiglit-of.the new addition is slightly taller than that of the historic resource, but this should not be evident from the street. The architect has retained a sloped roof form over the one story addition for drainage and to serve as a "railing" for part of the deck. This element also reflects the historic roofline. Staff's only recommendation on the project is that the Commission and architect evaluate whether any Â·more distance can be placed between the south facing gable end and the historic house. The proposal sets them only three feet apart. A number of setback variances are requested, mostly due to existing conditions. A parking variance of two spaces is also requested. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: Only one other historic structure, 920 W. Hallam still exists in this neighborhood. Both buildings are well preserved and are very important visual markers as one enters Aspen. 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. J Response: Staff finds that the prq,posed addition' will 1. not diminish the historic significance of this site. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The architect has established a fairly simple material palette for the addition. This is appropriate as the historic structure has a number of prominent decorative elements, such as projecting bay windows and unusual dormers. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: 1) Conceptual approval as proposed, finding that the Development Review Standards have baen met. 2) Conceptual approval with conditions, to be met at Final. 3) Table action and continue the public hearing to a date certain, allowing the applicant time to revise the proposal to meet the Development Review Standards. 4) Deny Conceptual Development approval, finding that the Development Review Standards have not been met. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Conceptual approval be granted with the condition that study be given to the distance between the historic house and south gable of the addition. Additional Comments: -, Go.H. y (22) . -4 - W.FRAN=GES- ===- ======== -73 - 5 kil 75' .... A he A.., D .4 .75 4 41 L.-1 1 . E A. 8. C. 0. E. F. G. H. 1. A. i 10 I , A /1 1 *1 LILI ILLIE 1/ / <Â· r #CS 0101. 2 t K. l. . M. N. 0. P. Q. R. 5. K. *71 i t 1 [7-7~ .D 1\L I L-Ill IZ k B * 6 84 1 xe ----hcli Lf_ _t U.-n , . D I ./D b 1/ 'fl e x ri 834 \ 824 22 816 . 274 35:157 3 5-34 UU. Mal\~ . .# W. HALLAM IM l'701- 817 805 801 K 1 X 1 4. D I L.-7 -D-T.~ D / 01 . 17-11 1/ 0 8. _ 0, E. F. 6. H. 1. V \.:A:l// 41. 17-*i- : :*4421'lirs...: .2- s 1 1 1.1 I .-1---. IK1X L.1 9%30 P l K. L M, 0. 2 Q. R. 5. K. li f - -2 ~ D .~ 1 0,1 ~ _ HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL BUILDING/STRUCTURE FORM State Site Number: Local Site Number: 834.WH Photo Information: ASP-E-18 Township 10 South Range 85 West Section 12 USGS Quad Name Aspen Year 1960 X 7.5' . 15' Building or Structure Name: Nellie Mcelimont House Full Street Address: 834 West Hallam Legal Description: Hallam's Addition to the City of Aspen City Aspen County Pitkin Historic District or Neighborhood Name: West End Owner: Private/State/Federal Owner's Mailing Address: ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION Building Type: Residential Architectural Style: Victorian Cottage Dimensions: L: X. W: b Square Feet: Number of Stories: 1-1/2 + 1-storv rear addition Building Plan (Footprint, Shape): Simple Rectangle with Rear Extension Landscaping or Special Setting Features: Front (north) 3 mature cottonwoods; side (west) 5 mature cottonwoods; wrought iron fence; drainage ditch Associated Buildings, Features or Objects - Describe Material and Function (map number / name): None For the following categories include materials, techniques and styles in the description as appropriate: Roof: Simple qabled with east shed; asphalt shingles Walls: Clapboard with wood scalloped shingles at gable ends Foundation / Basement: Unknown Chimney(s): Center. simple red brick Windows: One-over-one double-hung with 1 type shallow-proiecting bay with shed roof with one-over-one double hung window. supported bv scroll brackets at front and 3 shallow-proiecting bav with shed roof with one-over-one double hung window, supported bv scroll brackets at west side, hipped attic dormers west and east sides Doors: Front: 2 paneled light/2 panel wood Side: 2/3 light Porches: Front: simple gable. open over entry, turned posts and , balusters and simple cut out frieze and brackets General Architectural Description: It basically remains in its original appearance. A two-story structure with a qabled porch entry. Other than the linten-head dormers, no unique or elaborate details embellish this structure. Additions have been made to the east side of the entry. Simple front facing qable cottage with east side 1 story porch enclosure and rear 1-story qable extension, flat roof rear extension. Page 2 of 2 State Site Number Local Site Number 834.WH f FUNCTION ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY Current Use: Restaurant Architect: Unknown Original use: Restaurant Builder: ~ Unknown Intermediate Use: Restaurant Construction Date: 1889 Actual X Estimate _ Assessor Based On: MODIFICATIONS AND/OR ADDITIONS Minor Moderate X Major Moved Date Describe Modifications and Date: Additions and Date: Side (east) porch extension. shed enclosure. rear hipped roof extension, rear flat roof extension; dates unknown NATIONAL/STATE REGISTER ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA Is listed on National Register; State Register Is eligible for National Register; State Register Meets National Register Criteria: A B C D E Map KeV Local Rating and Landmark Designation iII Significant: Listed on or is eligible for National Register Contributing: Resource has maintained historic or 21 - architectural integrity. 0 Supporting: Original integrity lost due to alterations A however, is "retrievable" with substantial effort. Locally Designated Landmark Justify Assessment: Modifications do not impede character of this building, which along with its site.features. presents unified face to street. Associated Contexts and Historical Information: This structure is historically representative of Aspen's early mining era. This modest structure is of historical importance bv illustrating the familv/home environment and lifestyles of the average citizen in Aspen which was dominated bv the silver mining industry. Tax assessment records show that improvements were made to Lots K&L of Block 10 in 1889 by Nellie Mcelimont (also shown as Agnes) who sold the property to John Bolam on 06/10/91. John Bolam's name appears on this structure on the 1896 Willits Engineering Map. He sold the property 08/05/11 to Hatte Johnson. Auton and Ludwick Skiff owned the property from 05/10/38 until 1972 when this building was converted into THE GOLDEN BARREL restaurant. Other Recording Information Specific References to the Structure/Building: Pitkih County Courthouse~ Records; 1896 Willits Map Archaeological Potential: * (Y or N) Justify: * Recorded By: Date: March 1991 Affiliation: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee - Citv of Aspen Project Manager: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer/Planner Lullk."Clua: 1 - . M /1.-, - c- ' IAND USE APPIICAECN POUM 1) Project Name 97,145 -EM,&090 - .App '-nal . :oject Iocation 6324 IN . 41*(,uwu. 11-10 -12-04 -0 01. Lok /41 1-: 846ck/D , 44 4-7-hin*Cil . (indicate stmet address; lotÂ·& b]6ck x,imber,.legal description Idiere appropriate) 3) Present Zoning E- 6 4) Iot Size GOOD 5) Applicant's Name, Address & Ptione # M,\41Â¢MÂ» 1-1-U /L ~ 13*PO Jo Ak&5 - 83* W, 0 }46<Â»41Â». 915-3)15-~ 6) Representativer s Name, Address & Phone # . 34,2 '\I 101Â£*1 66 L 10 0 9 9 f Al LI 4 925' too 7) Type of Application (please check all that apply)-f 9 . Conditional UseÂ» Conceptual SPA ~ Â°Â°~el Histaidc Dev- Special Beder Firal SPA * - Final.Hist=ic Dev. 8040 Greenline - eorDeptlal POD Â· - Minor Historic Dev. Stream Margin Final POD I{istoric Demolition Mountsain View Plane . Subdjvision X~ Historic Designation Â· . .. . Condominiumization Ted/Map Amendmerrt 90 Allot]Derrt Lot Â®li*Int line. GMOS Eloaqpt-i An w 7 Adjustment Â· ' 8) Description of Existing Uses (nombet and type of existing- structtes; approximate sq. ft.; nlmber of bedrooms; . any preuious approvals grarrted tb the property). .- . }4 0,0 (007\ 1912/WI IN 4 50 -21 15* 0 S F â‚¬61-TPJ WATM ~ . 9 ) Description of Development Aprl ication p<00 971 96 9 Mfurvt#â‚¬ UN f-1-7 1 .. 0 1 / 10) Hal<e you attached the following? V Response to AttachmentÂ· 2, Mirdmum Submission Coaterrts 0 Resporse to AttachmerIt 3, Specific Sut*nission Contents - Resporse to Attacttmerwt 4, Review Standards for Your Application lili WAEâ€¢ SUPPLEMENT TO HISTORICÂ·PRESERVATION DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS IMPORTANT Three sets of clear. -fully-labeled drawings must be submitted in a format no larger than 11 "x17", OR one dozen sets of blueprints may be submitted in lieu of the 11-x17" format. t. APPLICANT: FI'll r.HAPI., L.?ULL 1 EAr:t . 3. : \.4/Â·1:34 __ ADDRESS: 96 4- (A). 11#U.Afk- (IrA J)!i,-7 SAN-Â¢j ZONE DISTRICT: Ti.6 - - LOT SIZE (SQUARE FEET): 20. 5)Dj <9.f - EXISTING FAR: i; 0 â‚¬5 ALLOWABLE FAR: 6 7 4,0 PROPOSED FAR: . EXISTING NET LEASABLE (commercial): 8%191'4 , BOA- 661?29All(f'/4 USE- PROPOSED NET LEASABLE (commercial): 1 1 1 04*1 1/.tÂ·Er . EXISTING % OF SITE COVERAGE: %140 kuÂ·Â»1. PROPOSED % OFS[TE COVERAGE: M 4 24141! 6 15 EXISTING %0F0PEN SPACE (Commercial): , fÂ·j A- PROPOSED % OF OPEN SPACE (Commer.): M O b)-1*1,) 46 EXISTING MAXIMUM HEIGHT: Pmcicel Gdo.: ~,0 * - 74 ' / AccessorY Bldg: 1 'K PROPOSED MAXIMUM HEIGHT: pmcioal Bldg.: 3>0 / Accessorv Bldg: - NA -- PROPOSED % OF DEMOUTION: I O 5/6 gAOM, 1+7 STD (M ~) EXISTING NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: -O- PROPOSED NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: /7 - EXISTING ON-SITE PARKING SPACES: / -6> I.*I ON-SITE PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: SETBACKS: EXISTING: ALLOWABLE: PROPOSED: Front: 46 Front: 4,0 Front: Rean Reac 10 Reac - Side: 19/ g Side: \0/6 Side: Combined Front/Rear: 99 Combined Fri/Rr: 56 Combined Front/Rear: EXISTING NONCONFORMITIES/ ~129*0, 9 Alle *7- 8,Aâ‚¬,(6 ENCRO*ACHMENTS: 3 996 4- 91, 0'j VARIATIONS REQUESTED (eliaible for Landmarks Onlv: character comoalibilitv:Wing must be made bv HPC): 762 FAR: Minimum Distance Between Buildings: A)6 SETBACKS: Front: 142 Parking Spaces: - -7,- Rear: O Open Space (Commercial): RIC, Side: 10(. Height (Collage Infill Only): M 07)2 Combined FAA: - 6./ 00 6 Site Coverage (Cottage Inlin Only): Nong 40 0 4. 8 September 13, 1993 Amy Amidon Historical Preservation Commission 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 AUTHORIZATION TO REPRESENT Dear Amy: The purpose of this letter is to designate Jake Vickery, Architect, (tele 925-3660), as my representative to act on my behalf concerning Landmark Designation and the addition of an employee unit to my property at 834 West Hallam. L:Â·Â·~ sincerely, Michael Hull, owner (E 'Mit -1- 3/"423 834 West Hallam 10 3 8 (.5 1/1 1, C. 1224' i'-Â· 2* - 'AS- ..- Aspen, Colorado 81611 . ..1 0 53Â¢7112-3 00, g.~19. u.; 2, P' * 1,1.,1-4 L . 1 1 (48) The neighborhood is multifamily of ( recent vintage (contemporary vernacular) to-the South and West. The Forest Service SPA has several non- historic one story structures immediately East. Except for the two story dorm, the rest of the block is wooded and undeveloped. Poppies acts as a neighborhood anchor and identity marker. The placement of the new square footage in a "secondary" massing is consistent with HPC directives. It emulates and is compatible with multiple structures occupying other similar historical parcels. (4C) The *proposed addition is to the rear and side of the existing resource. In addition, its placement preserves and utilizes the existing side yard and side yard, trees, and irrigation ditch. Preservation of the structure in tact is % far preferable to adding on or corrupting the historical resource by adding to and modifying its upper level. In this manner, the cultural value is maintained. (4D) The architectural integrity of the existing structure is kept in tact with the addition clearly separated and it's own architectural element. No demolition of the resource is required and only minor demolition of the roof of the non-historic addition is required. (3A-1) see attached survey and site plan (3A-2) Materials will be similar to existing but lighter and smaller proportion. (3A-3) see statements above - paragraphs 5 A thru D (3A-4) This project falls into Category C: erection of a structure greater then 250 qsf. . POPCR02.WPS J Page - 2 r 834 West Hallam - Poppies Bistro Cafe APPLICATION FOR CONCEPTUAL REVIEW OF SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT - SUPPLEMENT (attachment #, Item #) (2-1) see attached Owner's Authorization Letter (2-2) see attached Legal Description (2-3) see attached Disclosure of Ownership (2-4) see attached Vicinity Map (2-5) Compliance with relevant Review Standards: This proposal would add an Employee Unit above the rear portion of the exisitng flat roof addition.. The new unit would clean up what is already there and be derivative but subordinate in style, design, and treatment. It would allow on site housing for an employee family in such a way as to not disturb the existing historical resource. . The existing original structure would remain totally in tact. The new unit is to the rear and side of .the existing historic resource. There would be only minor demolition of some roof structure of the addition to make way for the new unit. (4A) The roof forms and general massing are similar to the historical resource in shape and proportion but smaller in scale. Detailing will be related but thinner and lighter and will be clearly distinguishable from the old. It is compitible in character to the historic resource. The requested parking variation of 2 cars would keep cars from obscuring the foreground of the historical resource. The alley currently dear ends and provides 4.spaces. J 1 -KN. -0 , GOÂ· CO' 'j - -Y- r. f /20 1 --- .. , 1 \04 u 1.Sleofu Yame. 1 0. Â· bulld 49 e o 9 A Scal e: 010 1 f .. 1. A. O . 7.0, 211 g d 1. 0 O 1. '. . 2, 0- 4 i * 2 / \ _cok YA T Lot K b~/ -0 0Â·15 f/ i., .sle yip :o / 41. 4., g9, 0 (A 1 4 , M< .1/4 C C 60 .00 - CL,K ./9 ' f -- ... V-* dka e.t I . NOTES G.- indicates found rebar and cap '., 0 - indicates set rebar and cap marked L. 5. 14111 The real property described hereon does not lie within the limits of a 100 Year ' Flood Hazard Boundary. Legal Description: Lots K and' L,. Block 10, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, colorado. , ..' ' I hereby certify that onÂ· August 16, 1993 a survey was performed by me on the parcel of land described hereon. A two-story frame house was found to be on said parcel as shown on. this plat. All easements, encroachments and rights-of-way in evidence or known to me are shown. This survey is true and correct to the best of my .knowledge and be~f. '5 1, -d. . By: Sydrt,5Â¥ Li~come P.L.S. 14111 .... '...4 % 3kp*roveÂ¥tte,4 Su.Ywell, ~.1:4 2. ' 0 834 -W. 3-â‚¬03 cent St,reeU 4 4 As ipe'A , Co 5,~cel o E. :.1 li:11 8Yt ONES IN SPACE . 1 t,4 Â· , SYDNEY. LINCICOME (L.S. MIN) 'BOX 121 CARBONDALE, COLO. 303-963-3852 I 7 AU~. 4 99 9 SCALE:6 20' D . . I 100 .. .. .. . , . 01 .V.Â¢ â€¢ .. - f Â¢ . 1 I . 91% 2 .1 Ill : uuÂ·,4...%13,84Â¥11 . 4 r 1 -. Lili L 1.1-1 7 -- . -:'- -- .4-1 f - . . I . . . . 1 . K \ . .. . \ r Â¢9Wt- dr,Â» 2 1 - -4 + 14*44. y: I. . . 0 t. I I . . I . 1 % .. 4 .v . /... I - S . EX BASEMENT :PLAN . --1*>Fri#5 ~Hilâ‚¬:TEEN /â‚¬PITIE>H , JAKE VICKERY 100 SOUTH SPRING SL 03 POST OFFICE BOX 12360 1*% H T I TELEPHONE , FACSIMILE I A K .1 t . ASPEN. COLORADO 81612 (303) 925-3660 *5914:1? . ES.. . I - I . I lA; J.+ .Â· 1444..1 .. Â· 24:Â· '/ . . ... 4 . . ' I ... f . - . .. 1 F...t. - . Â· 1 11 32.-Â· L Â·. I' . . , , z.-7- r ..1 5171Hll-14 H / / . Ati-4-,2 *NNU f-7. v.-'..: . P Uhk*:1'.'.",1 rÂ·Â·_ . H N ..: 1.. IIi . f 'f .... ' : . IÂ»*-- - .... - I .... ,..... =L 111 .. .-1-.-.6 . 1 .. 0 L ..1 Ia. .Ii -1-..b - -lf- - -3-+F 1.1 111-1 1.=9"9 0 . . Tr . . -2--. .. ... i- '.. - --44 , 11 Â· Â· Â· - 11 - - 11Â· Â· 0 11 I w. 44- + ~ * .. _.7- )CM=101@H 9 - - - .-t . tallil H# 122:,M ' ~ - .. . . li ..14 1 . :p-.i:. r:~*~0-L=--Li.~----42 . - :I - ..i Ki- -1.. , 1 1: ... 10-19 . 1 . 406* . -i 2 - 711.~ - ...... C~ kai .' I ... , EX. LOWER PLAN 15 I I : irm#ALM*q,Im,WTWH -- -- . , , 4 4 I , Si JAKE VICKERY -. 100 SOUTH SPRING ST. 03 1.3. POST OFFICE BOX 12360 4 1 I i -I -4.4--- 9 --- - - A K . 44' ASPEN.COLORADOOMIZ * Â· TIUMIONE /,ACSâ€¢MILE imi :{303) 925-3660 . I . 1 --- 0 ./ ..... 1 1 Â· 1 01: -.-...... \6 . I - - 1 - - i I t. - 1 . 1 .... .1 . /'/A t . ~ - 11 - 4 . . J \1 : . ,-. 7-- -nIA,li - *,1 . 1Il . 8 I Ill. 1 . . 4633>Â» 9Â»34 1 :- - . 814.-4180122,1- . I / - ..- 0 1 . I ..= I . / 1 . - \\ . --4 8 , ... \ , I.- N. i - Â· =:*14.81-or - ... .- -0. 1. . --tj . .. 1 f . 1 1 1 --4, -1--- L F I _43111!101144 0rlsr |*Â«7 1 9 * 6 30 -a--- 0 . --18214*r'Â«0*077.7 - ---i-- .. - -. . - . r. . .. - . 60. 4,91-. . 2& N . pililliliEEMEk JAKE VICKERY 2.2! 11 P 1:_8-N lay . I I *01, - POST OFFICE BOX 12360 ~~4 10(SOUTHSPRINGSr. 03 - 1 1 A K 1 4491 ASPEN.COLORADO81612 2/284:s W+Ptl, 11Â¥1 .. . V ... . f I. f , . - -I'll ... 1 --- - 1. t . WOR TH EL EVAT--ION -i 0 . Â· .. I . . 0 I - 1 1 . 31 . 1 1 0 ~ - ... 11 1 1 \ . . =I r. EAST ELE VAT ION rili JAKE VICKERY *Fr:'IA 6*[4>rÂ« Â»rpoillo14 1 Va 100 SOUTH SPRING ST O POST OFFICE BOX 12360 ASPEN.COLORAC)031612 -u.HONE / ncs:MILE â‚¬ 3 03} 923-3660 , t . . - . . - Â· *4 I . -- Â¥4 - .... . - - I i L ". . yi . 01 . - *O Â· . ..../ . /1:- / X'-i I lk. I * 4 4"44: I e . 9*7.0 / let+ . 4 , . . r . . . 4 . - :*LA >t r.. . *:...3. EX..NORTH ELEVAT1014- .. . . -1-1.- IF 1 ru - 24 . /+EK 0 \+. ] 1-11: - ..11 . Â·h 4 1 1 , 2.. . I - 0 . .* 4 . I. . I ..4..t . I ..,111.1, . - . JAKE VICKERY . . . ...... . . lk'.-, . - 2-- 100 SOUTH SPRING ST. 03 -- EX. EASTÂ· ELEVATION Â· 7=,=~==~ 16 ASPEN. COLORADO 81612 ~i;Â· POST OFFICE BOX 12360 *M: '- TELHONI ~ OACS;MILE %-fl. (303) 925-3660 f*~FÂ«--m191[flfEL+52g.-1108 - . 1/4 - ... 3 1, Â·f . I . ./ i . . I : . . .. I .. . .. 1 I . .. :I. 3 . .. t. / . . . 44 7~3Â«Â« - - 1 -N-- 1 V 1-1 - -tr,rifa 114 1 . 11 - 4; I Li--1 .. . ttit T ; .. . -- 1 1 , . 1 - EX. SOUTH ELEVATION . -M~--,2 - -p84*="=m-"f 15. 7%EMIgr Â· . 1-1 1 I 1 A Ip i . I I. : 11. ... . . 1 . . - . 1, 1.1 --- .. I. -- 1 4 ... 11 1 .. li I -1 -f Â· 4,+ Â· Â£1.: 1 . .. - - 91 . . -i------; -' JAKE VICKERY - . . I .EX WEST ELEVAT IGN r â€¢'9 1 ~3 ASPEN.COLORADOSIGIZ _ ~~ *3.1 Â· POST OFFICE BOX 12360 . . 1 - J.....2294./1'.9/r ./.limi./.Bl iNWAX<:Â· nuntoNE,FACS"/,LE I 157Â· (,03) 925-3660 .r..4 . . .. I. 32.1.) . .e... . 1. 1 . . ; ./ S I Â·ir . Â·â€¢ 1 . - . nw - /1 ... 1 /l.,7 - I I. 6 , . I. . -dppwwi: - ... V. I .1 I 1-r.t>r 't- 1% .... 0 .. . 6 . .r . : d 11 p . 4::F I ae . //1 + . a i - -2 U - . 1 1 EX UPPER PLAN ~* ~ ~~ .. . -4. O 1 3 16 Â·A 9*FF'14 . 013 Ftâ‚¬,12 ;Ata)~fig>11 - *A - JAKE VICKERY . 1. z -.... lath . . 100 SOUTHSPRINGSLO - 4.?f . - 1.,Itil POST OFFICE BOX 12360 1-17-| 44-2---~---~ , I~~~%11 ~ (303) 925-3660 . *t-Â·Â·Â· ASPEN. COLORADO 81612 . 4.114100 . . . ~~~~~~~~~~~~ **ER?' Â·:1' TEUPHON! 1 FACS-u - ...... .... . .. .. ;. .. .. . It f ... ... , 1. I. I . . ... 00 - - . , I .. , . . S OUTH ELEVATION, * .~ ... . .. . I , 1\ . .. 1 - .. ., 1 .lic . i! : Â· I i , 1 - 1 11.ill ' 4. .11 .lili ' , 1- - 6. 1 lilli. i 111111 - . ---- . . El 1 1 0 . . 1 9 ---1 I . 1. .... JAKE VICKERY WEST ELEVAT.ION IEW- too SOUTH SPRING 51. â€¢3 .-- FOST OFFICE BOX 12360 3 7 /5 1 - , &'/ 1.7. ASrEN. COLORADO Still TELEâ„¢ONE I #CSIDâ€¢SU {3031 023-36.0 j.r-Â·'Â·- r ' -9- 9 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development DirectoE?~ FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 123 W. Francis Street- Extension of conceptual approval DATE: January 22, 1997 SUMMARY: This project received conceptual development approval on May 24, 1995. Section 26.72.010 (F)(3)(c) provides that an application for final development review shall be filed within one year of the date of approval of a conceptual development plan. Unless HPC grants an extension, failure to file the final development application shall make the approval null and void. A one year extension was granted on May 8, 1996. At this time the applicant, Jake Vickery, requests HPC approval for an additional one-year extension of conceptual approval. The conceptual review packet is attached for your review. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends conceptual development approval for 123 W. Francis Street (Lot B) be extended until May 24, 1998. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "1 move to extend conceptual approval for 123 W Francis Street (Lot B) to May 24, 1998." /E c, MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Directof .... FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 123 W. Francis Street- Extension of conceptual approval DATE: May 8, 1996 SUMMARY: This project received conceptual development approval on May 24, 1995. Section 26.72.010 (F)(3)(c) provides that an application for final development review shall be filed within one year of the date of approval of a conceptual development plan. Unless HPC grants an extension, failure to file the final development application shall make the approval null and void. At this time the applicant, Jake Vickery, requests HPC approval for a one-year extension of conceptual approval. The intention is to file a final development application for the next HPC meeting, so the extension is a backup measure. The conceptual review packet is attached for your review. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends conceptual development approval for 123 W. Francis Street be extended until May 24,1997. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "l move to extend conceptual approval for 123 W. Francis Street to May 24, 1997." J_Y--6 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 123 W. Francis Street, Landmark designation, Conceptual Review, Relocation and Partial Demolition, and Special Review to exceed 85% of the allowable F.A.R. DATE: May 24, 1995 SUMMARY: The applicant requests landmark designation, conceptual review, relocation and partial demolition of existing structures and special review under ordinance #35 for the property at 123 W. Francis Street. The house, the Mathews House, was built in 1888. Three outbuildings are found on the property. The project will also require review for two accessory dwelling units and a gmqs exemption. This will occur at Planning and Zoning Commission. APPLICANT: Jake Vickery. LOCATION: 123 W. Francis Street, Lots C,D, and E, and the East 1/2 of Lot B, Block 56, City and Townsite of Aspen. LANDMARK DESIGNATION PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW: Landmark Designation is a three-step process, requiring recommendations from both HPC and P&Z (public hearing), and first and second reading of a Landmark Designation Ordinance by City Council. City Council holds a public hearing at second reading. LOCAL DESIGNATION STANDARDS: Section 24-7-702 of the Aspen Land Use Code defines the six standards for local Landmark Designation, requiring that the resource under consideration meet at least one of the following standards: A- Historical Importance: The structure or site is a principal or secondary structure or site commonly identified or as5ociated with a person or an event of historical significance to the cultural, social or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado of the United States. Response: This standard is not met. 1 0 B. Architectural Importance: The structure or site reflects an architectural style that is unique, distinct or of traditional Aspen character. Response: The Mathews house is a simple Victorian miner's cottage with some alterations. An addition has been made at the rear of the structure and there has been some alteration of the northwest corner of the house. Lt essentially retains the original footprint and a number of original features including windows and decorative doors. From historic maps, the house appears to have some features, such as two front porches and entries, which are not common to other local historic resources. C. Architectural Importance: The structure or site ' embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique architectural type or specimen. Response: This standard is not met. D. Architectural Importance: The structure is a significant work of an architect whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. Response: The architect or builder is unknown. E. Neighborhood Character: The structure or site is a significant component of an historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character. Response: The surrounding neighborhood contains a number of significant historic structures, Aspen Landmarks, and National Register of Historic Places properties. This house has had deferred maintenance, but can be rehabilitated to further contribute to the character of this block. F. Community Character: The structure or site is ;critical to the preservation of the character of the c Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of j size, location and architectural similarity to other structures or sites Of historical or architectural importance. i 0 Response: 'This site is representative of the modest scale, style and character of homes constructed during the mining era, the community's primary period of 2 historic significance. 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 7-601 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 subj ect 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 5%, 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 5-510(B)(2). Response: This historic house has suffered long-term deferred maintenance and some incompatible changes in materials. Beneath these changes the original house is almost completely intact, inside and out. The applicant has the opportunity to discover the original character of the structure and restore it. The property is 10,500 sq.ft. .Currently, the code allows two dwelling units to be constructed on a property of this size. The units would have to be owned by one person or could be condominiumized. The applicant is pursuing a code amen,lment at P&Z and City Council to allow a lot split in such a case for historic landmark properties. The lot split will allow a more appropriate distribution of the allowed /F.A.R. for the site, resulting. in a smaller additidn to the historic resource. The applicant musthave HPC approval to relocate the historic house in order to make the project work, but this action will not result in any greater development rights than are currently allowed. The proposed code 3 amendment specif ies that in these cases, the Â· maximum allowable F.A.R. for the parcel will be the duplex F.A.R. (4,170 sq.ft.) Usually F.A.R. would be calculated for each individual lot that is created (here a 4,500 sq.ft. lot and a 6,000 sq.ft. lot) instead of looking at the parcel as a whole. This would result in a net F.A.R. of 6,060 sq.ft. as opposed to the duplex F.A.R. of 4,170 sq.ft. used in this project. Staff has no concerns with the compatibility of the addition to the historic structure or with the new structure. From examinations of historic maps and site visits, it appears that a significant alteration has been made to the northwest corner of the house. Originally there was a second front porch here. The back wall of the porch appears to still be in place, along with the original front door: Changes have been made in the roofline and the porch has been enclosed. Staff feels strongly that the applicant should determine the original configuration of this area and restore it. The house appears to be a somewhat unusual design, no other examples of which exist in Aspen. The applicant does show a lightwell in this location and reconstruction of the porch may cause some problems with the basement floor plan. An early addition exists at the rear of the building and a rear porch has been removed. The applicant means to restore the porch, but will demolish at least the roof of the rear addition in order to add a second story. Staff can support the addition of new space in this location, but recommends that the applicant allow the original one story form to continue to read. This is accomplished to some extent in the proposed design. In terms of the restoration of original materials , the applicant proposes to side the structure with clapboards. It is unclear at this time if the original clapboards still exist under the asphalt siding and what condition they may be in. Original windows should be restored where possible and the original front doors and porch details should be retained. The existing house has a fairly large footprint. With the addition of new living space and a garage, the j applicant requires a 5% site coverage variance. This is available as a landmark preservation incentive. The applicant proposes to retain the historic barn, but will demolish or give away the garage that sits at the front of the site. The historic barn will be converted into one bay of a two car garage. The outbuilding will still 4 read as a separate form as there are breaks between it and the rest of the building. The applicant also requests a side yard setback variance of 2.5' on the interior lot line. This is necessary due to the width of the existing house. The overall parking requirement for the site is 9 spaces. The applicant requests a waiver of 5 spaces. Since the application was submitted, Â·the code has been changed to require only 2 spaces per unit, therefore the waive would be in line with new regulations. A 500 sq.ft. F.A.R. bonus is requested in order to make the historic structure a more livable unit. The original house is 1,363 sq. ft., and the total addition would be 587 sq.ft. The existing structure is not easily viewable from the street due to large trees on the property. It will be more visible after its relocation. The applicant also proposes to relocate the smallest of the front three trees to allow the new structure to be viewed from the street as well. Alternative floor plans for Lot B (the new unit) have been provided by the applicant, showing an octagonal element at the front of the structure. This is intended to offer a connection between the building and the street. Elevations will be provided at the meeting. The applicant requests a 5% site coverage variance for this structure as part of the Cottage Infill Program. This program encourages "over the garage" A.D.U. 's. Without this variance, the applicant intends to place the A.D.U. below grade. If it is possible to relocate the westernmost tree, the* new house will be moved forward slightly to align with the neighboring structures. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The parcel is surrounded by inventoried properties, historic landmarks and National Register structures. The applicant has made a very stfong effort to respect existing development by stepping the new house away from the adjacent historic landmarkj ,This project will contribute to the historic character. of this area. . 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. 5 Response: The structure should be considered very Significant as an example of a fairly unaltered historic resource and of unusual details and form. The proposal Should protect these characteristics and improve the physical condition of the structure. The existing outbuildings at the rear of the property appear to be original, but have new board and batten siding. They are both to be retained but relocated. The garage at the front of the site is not original to the property. The applicant proposes to demolish it. 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: Minimal demolition is proposed and the project will involve significant restoration effort. ON-SITE RELOCATION 1. Standard: 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 relocation and resulting development is preferable to adding approximately four time the existing. square footage onto the historic house. 2. Standard: 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: The applicant must submit a structural report for Final review, or prior to applying for a building permit. 3. Standard: 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 reckiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation. Response: The applicant must submit a relocation plan 6 and bond prior to Final review or prior to applying for a building permit. PARTIAL DEMOLITION 1. Standard: The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure. Response: Minimal demolition is proposed. As discussed above, the rear addition to the historic structure should be preserved in form as much as possible. The existing garage should be salvaged in whatever way possible for use on another site. 2. Standard: The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: A. Impacts on the historic significance of the structure or structures located on the parcel by limiting demolition of original or significant features and additions. Response: Only a limited amount of demolition will occur, at the rear of the structure. B. Impacts on the architectural character of integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel by designing new additions so that they are compatible in mass and scale with the historic structure. Response: The architectural character and integrity of the historic resource will be preserved through the new development, which is of a similar mass and scale and which is placed to the rear of the structure. SPECIAL REVIEW TO EXCEED 85% OF THE ALLOWED F.A.R. This project is located in the West End, therefore both the General Guidelines (Chapter 1) and the specific guidelines for the West End apply. ' Staff finds that the proposed project is in compliance with the Neighborhood Character Guidelines. 1 ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: 7 1) Approve the Minor Development application as submitted. 2) Approve the Minor 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 Minor Development approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. Recommendation: Staff recommends HPC approve Landmark Designation of Lot G, Block 19, City and Townsite of Aspen, finding that standards B, E and F are met. Staff recommends that Hpc table conceptual review with the request that the applicant provide new elevations for the structure on Lot B and that the applicant document the previous appearance of the northwest corner of the historic structure and provide for its restoration. Staff further recommends that HPC subsequently find that the project meets all applicable standards and requests for variances should be granted. 1 8 123 WEST FRANCIS JAKE VICKERY 12 100 SOUTH SPRING ST â€¢.1 POST OFFICE BOX t2160 J JAKE ASPEN. COLORADO 8161 2 >V I C K E R'Y TELEPHOKE , FACSIMILE t.103) 925-3660 2RCHITECT| . 1 1 13\1 -1.-- - 11 li 1 1 1 11 ., i. t 1 1 i li -1 i t.---r--1 1 ' -3.- 1 'I LA- N.11:. -[T-.--i 11-L_ - -IAL -/-0 --- '-I.- - -- 1--> \ 1// 1 1 .0 1 1\ // .1 'Jl /40 . 1 l, \ 1 1// i f 1 + I I 1 i 1.:7 4.- '! 1 . 11 1 1 -- _Â·_ _ 1 !.. / - - - R.- ---- 5-3.2 _37_-_ j 111 / 1 2- . .. --- i --. .:0 . / 0 \. 1 \ \ -----------r-- 1- ---------- 1 114--- ---4 1 -1- \ 1 / \.1 / i /j il. 1 \L. ! 1% 0//,~.\\". 16---1 1 IK I \ 0 P' 1 1 1 2 / . 1 ,\ 4 1, \ _w-1 1 #*v 1 i 1 + - ./1 . 1 1 1/ V 1/ 1 1. 1/ . 1 - -- 1 . . e ---1- . 1 1 1 Wlbig k. 1 1 1 00 1 1 1 3 - lillil . Wi It461 ... I 0 . X . f,j -- 11--7giau---6-r Â£ . IIAL 1 . 1 jÂ»' 11 111/ U:Elit : il Il;=IA-*=:tti============1 1 11.â€¢- 11111.1 1 r] 1 1 IN 1.i 1 T: i "~:' 1111.1.t.li~ â€žâ€ž886I ~ I~.~.i~~Ill.~2Â£36,~rwâ€ž ,1â€žâ€žâ€žFipil,Tmlnnll[Iiâ€¢~il J ==tlt=====:21 : 11 IrT-T 11.11 frTrfr' 11 Â· 1 1 1 1 t------1-11+TerM, - .1 thi. F i/.1 . tli 181 H illtu ll,lill : 11111111 111 - ..111,1,11 1 - El f |- Hilr4111 r' i' , Â· 1 ./ . INEE,/RHE//0/E/MU~E/~~#MT/MIB/3/,~ilitiffifgotilitiUMiliti~ 0 . . Weerr 008â„¢21Â»-1 47 =:i|-tH iPÂ·DEÂ»1-1 014 I. . 0 : . ..... r 1 A .--1|19|I-11Ilm:mmr !_I ll I Il-Â·Â·r,I#*El FEEBI ?fl !12,lit 5*~1-Lir#~MA!1!~lica'1,11[n-111111milrnÂ® t - -. I~ I 16!deMI,7111*Â·;Ii,11 4~I Â·11,1 111111111â€ž11 -111 ' 1. . . 1. leÂ»-1- - EEÂ»r-Ica-1 . popll~ 46Â»-tÂ»| teLE.vA-rw,14 l Fler#*es 017742>6 C.. h -- 0 123 WESr FRANCIS JAKE VICKERY ARCHrrECIS 6 MAY 8,1995 Fav.*p MA# A-/405 --/- 641<5,992-y<: <1122~ -t<5&**1 . ~ / ~ ,- 2 :I'li.: .Â·2Â·:+40;: . . I -' * *...:-:. I:&<bÂ·~ 6Â£Â· - .~/ .I ./. #: 1 3â‚¬ :dii-~-I-I:29 W~ ab te' 0,9 : JE rW ... 11 'l l I & . . 1 W. .. -- - . . . 11.11.1 1~ 11 Z, . 74* 1--- - - a /4 W*1:0*0/94* h \ . 114\111 - - 1/ 1 U /. ./7 ' 1 â€¢9}/AtÂ¥06~ 11=~4/ ; f \ . Er ' Ill P f .. 'li. . 0 :. 1 -% - . 0 .r -+Mr . L= 4 1.-I . . - \ 2 e 2 - ...._ -_21 : -1- :-r -~- Ilill-lili.~~~. 1 1 .. - 1-N iÂ·~ 4--i_ 8 1 - . 11 ,i -Cl . - r.:i *_-_- 11!1 - Vitai . D lili .. . 1 . I ; 0 Â· Â· ~\liz . i -7>14 1 -:1 . 4% i ' ./.- - -I 3~. . - . Ax - % |31 : - 'll'* 'lil..: : 1% - 11\ 1 Al . F ..- . a i . .. 1 .4 1 Â· 4 . 110 . .- i I. Â·. 111 li I : 1 .11 lil .11. .. .. . ,. .. 9*49**J-Rgae- . I . I . ...... 0 . .. 6vA'. 0 . . le . - I. ./ t . .. 1 .. -. - . -.. 1 . . .- a .. - I. | ~ ~ ~ I . :r - :- I. I 1 , -- --I.* . : . . . ..I- / 1 . 1 - . , 0-0.V . .. A 61-EM A 1.667 - -1_ ( . 1 . 0 1 1 Â· i ~11 1 i f 1 / 11 11 1 -fit/32E/92;- dMO.6,20 ACN: 1 1 1 nÂ»l ..6957 1 1 . 6.[ 1 . 1. 1 -- -- ;l' - MUD C \1 1 11 =Â£- r y . M 13#Pgtvtz . lAuri 1% J .. .1 L * 0.0, /1 -417-=- - 1 1 :, 1 '1:4;20'r \ 1 .: 1 1. 1. 1, t liM..50Â¢}En i: 1 , i i . -- 1 1 1 . 4 SE ' 1 Â· - . 1 1 1 - 1 Â· 1 1 .kE_ , Iâ€¢ i i 1 0 -t .1 ' &*l -Up, 1-u -F,26,aplj 611- --- 1 , 1 1 1 1 1 ! 1 1 :i 1 df*UNC:2 *10,5220Â· R*MI i 01Â¥Ue FidoÂ£ RAN. 1 . 19 . Â¥*NO{4 . 19, Fewcle f!*8=36ED PEEL~MINAÂ¢4 *14,2 99446 65-1- 5' &21) 123 WEST FRANCIS JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS. dE MAY 8,1995 Hu,4 1 -- 1 1 4.~4 1 t! 1 1 1 -1 11 1 - 1 1 I .. 1Â¥2----t 4 )47 - - 1 1 400 * 470 T i 1 313!i Ly Llf' / . 1 ' 4 4- - - i IT.1- 1 1 1 1 .1.MANCIZT l 4-' - 1 1-.1 - 11 r j li 1364 \ FÂ»MiL>r /Met:,1,4- . /---4 I i 1 j// \ i li. 4 I .i L 0040 1 1 #A J ' i r- - -r t . itizi: 66, 1 - f 11 i .Ii - - i! ! . 1 : i 1- . . 1 ! - -- j VAe,14 PeÂ·r FulÂ¥ 7!A,4. i ' Al, fe,4'Cis ( 820PMED FPEUVH INP,141 820 'MAN6 - " LOT- B &* 123 WEEr FRANCIS - ~ JAKE VICKERY ARCHrrECTS â‚¬ 6 MAY 8. 1995 4 0. } p Â»\ I - 21 . - - PROPOSED-BU'69ING ENVELOPE EXTENSION__~~ 91 - .-i --* .-/ 4'23Â° -3/ 41-4 X - - 39. ~/~r 12' 41" W .-I --+L 014114Â«0 / 1 1 - 7-- -L ~1 L- -//- //- -I 97 0 N - -ikir -1- _Â»_15---..*---- - 1/31 .*041 \ .-- -1---1-i-- XM. - ------ 4/9 -Jl Â»1 ----- - 7---Ach=~ ~ 24 -1 -i\ ZV--&\ -I .;; 3/ - --i-- .-. .-. --i-- -Ill.-- I--1- r -32//021_ - -k-- - /0-, /12 ---- ----- L. _ ---0. -1 1 -- 1- --- \\\ 01 ir//St< --1 -- - ---1 - Gretchen - - ------ Greenwood X g aL><1 ---- -- ~ DECK ---- .-. -- N-\ - \/ /-23& T\4 -/- WK---1 - & Associates, Inc. 0\ . - -1 ----- \ 520 Walnut Street -- -/ ~30 Aspen, Colorado 81611 4 0 -- 970-925-4502 - 31 lu Fax 970-925-7490 3 10 X I Â¢ N< UNITS #1. #10 AND # 11 OF: --31 THE ~ UNIT #1~ -'.P.~- 6,4 \7840 - --â€¢4~ Â·~ 2 ASPEN 6 --- --- DECK -,ik1--- ------- TRUSTEE .- r 01 - TOWNHOMES / V 37- \) ASPEN, COLORADO . / I *16[1 TREB 3 1/4 1 - \\ 91 Â© B \l AA i / \F 1 \ Â¥ *Z--r - --rt -Ir=-9-fl Â»d,7 3% 15[\MG,TREEE - TO REMNN f / \N 6 DECK , <Jill l 1 1 / 1 T. GARAGE M SLAB i 4 2-\ 1,14.: EL. 7846'- 0" ~ C 24 1 >4,/ 2 Lj--1\ -.-t - : REMOVE BISTINS 1 1 PAMMENT 1 7/ . /1 S 27Â° '- ~- qu' 44" E 52.9, f i j j \ /4 \ 74 1 1, 9~ 11 --*- ~~~-2<|571!46 --/ l SCALE: / ~ < ~ JOB: HPC DATE ISSUED: 1/15/98 ' DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: REVISIONS: UNIT #1 SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 747\ voa. 1 1 I j. 3 1/8" = 1' - 0" ..4, .4, 194 4 NORTH. 1 j,jit //6/ f / 0(6-Bruning 82485 Form 13318 ...%2,19;, 17:RityÂ·- ---'7 Â·.- ~Â·*prai=zâ„¢re,Mr-7,=,- -2-t,Â·Â·~ ~Â· 4 FRÂ£2312 [22,5 -R FRINTS{ - __ _ 60 6 0 42/le/leÂ· ..MAA. (2/3#/94 43'-toll 0 . 861011 14Ll0ll ZI 0 6 -C, 4'-1011 24-04 15-011 t ' 0--- ----------- - -fl----------El f I = 9 1 1 -9 . 9 1. I CO 0 0 - . - 1 -Â·t Gretchen .t-It 1 11 1 11 1 L 4-=2- i Greenwood Ull ..1 & Associates, Inc. M 520 Walnut Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 A 970-925-4502 Fax 970-925-7490 L BEDROOM - BEDROOM a- 0~ 008 - & UNITS # 1, # 10 AND # 11 OF: "- 91 1 THE ASPEN IL' . 11 51-oIl 1 1 1 1, TRUSTEE Ck 1.* 1 e-- .1 TOWNHOMES 4 42244 CLOSET - - ./ ASPEN, COLORADO | 'b 4- 1 C - 1 Ill - 1 u -0 1 2 1 1 - I 00 Â© -\ 4< f'. d HALL 01 Â© 9 - + 11 1 4 -- T. SLAB 1 1 1 1 T=1034'1 (-11'-23/8")~ 6 1 \\1 1 1 - 11< 1 1 I .BATH-1 1 -= =fj 1 1 4 1 Nt)09 --! -Â·51Â·- & 4-A# - - - - -r ----" - - ----t - LAUNDRY MECHANICAL CLOSET 1 . 003 004 9 ED, 010 , 111 1 Â· I . -11 NeH 1 012:f Iir--17 1 1 1 -0113 109 1 1 -0-|-0 F==i . 1 . r 1 4,/- a..a . 1 .2: - I., b . u I ./ I 4-'......'.4, 4 'i 0 6 0 a I I 6- / 1 4 - 1 1 4 - 6 I 4 0 1 1 .1 A 1 1 UN-EXCAVATED SCALE: ' JOB: HPC DATE ISSUED: 1/15/96 DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: I. 5 , REVISIONS: 0 0 .6 . - 1 4 '6 - EO . c. .. I i : i UNIT #1 LOWER LEVEL 2 '1 , 2%01 ,el-io'7~ FLOOR PLAN r r '1 Â£4 ii 211-811 1/4" = 1' - 0" - ort 0 3 0 0 , . 4% 1-8 V 0 f PLAN NORTH 5 4 3 P - 84 Il'-al| (NES) 4 4Cs) 19 4 11(NTS) (C*HI) 11 2 -1 6 1 't=72,4 - f 1 fÂ·' + 1:'RÂ»RESâ‚¬) A.FAi * MRINGS: .19 0 . jâ‚¬h , . 4 11-V 12/10/9Â£0 LL) - ~Â»A/94 . ' / 21 1 2 - th 1 11 . zefjoil I#l; 0 ~ ' 2 4Â·N 4 4611 6 4 t.0 / 0 16209 1 24l0# t 2---E~~-----------------2 L.k 1 1 ' Â· 29 *.- 0 9 -- - - DECK, - 0 41 Gretchen -- - t'PIF- -2 11; = Greenwood 520 Walnut Street & Associates, Inc. 97 , II| Aspen, Colorado 81611 0 970-9254502 =& Fax 970-925-7490 | - ----_6!MING | ENING N 108 -107 UNITS # 1, # 10 AND # 11 OF: - | T.PLYWOOD | |~ ~ -- T. PLYWOOD | - THE 1 1 , (-1'-05/8')___ LLON 2.12. 01 - 0" ASPEN TRUSTEE 1 El I r Â« 2.~*- TOWNHOMES 0 1 ~11 ASPEN, COLORADO %:4 L lE - \2 1 -7 0 111 t- --2 3 p ./ 4 _t ~th 1 i I------1~Â«~~Tl- - - - - 1- - - - -- 944 1 1 ' till, 1 11 .i .Ti-- --7 T. PLYWOOD 1 1.1 V <4.1/ 1 1 L. 0,20% (Ify.fi !\1 1 9 = 1 1 1 1 lk\4.1 r T= 10 3/4 1 1 V.171 0 | 4 +1'-0 '5/8" 1 1 1 11\ \,1 11 11 1 -- 1 -11 Â£\ 1 1 7 - -Li 4 - 191 *LL _____ O 7 1 ON 1012 T. PLYWOOD 2=11 OVEN Â·--- - ~~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~~ 4 L 1 -11 -_ ~~ ----- ~ i 1 10'.0. 1 1 1--3 1 1 1 IT=10140 1 -7-- 11 li 11 t. 4.0 - 44 .' 1 I . C2311Â©-- 11 , - 1 0.61. 2 3- ~ ENTRY U 1 - -- , 161-3- KITCHEN z ' p - 106 1 U t 30 ~ ' POWDER 4 i Â· r W / V_.1 -- -4 -- '___43--- 4-_+ 103 lilli /9 -2-- REFIki, 1 108+Isa 1 = 1%0 1 1 - /0 i -1 1 69 Â© 1 12% 1. i -- 11 , A /i "1 0 -Kt 11 Z T. SLAB 11 0,4 +3'-21/2" 1 1 -V 11 0 -06- 11 Â§6 1 0 - 11 m> v U) r ~22--- -41 ---- 1 -TE--i 110 GARAGE gL 61 1' 1 1-------2 SCALE: 11 11 1 i || | JOB: HPC 120=-2-=27 - | , T. SLAB DRAWN BY: 9 1 Â· , | DATE ISSUED: 1/15/96 -I-- - +3'-0" 1 & 411 CHECKED BY: REVISIONS: - 1 1 11 t 4 1 -. 1 I. -r.. . UNIT'#1 2 MAIN LEVEL 3LO" , 2-lou .,24 FLOOR PLAN 4 4 *|.all Ill-oIl 1/4" = 1' - 0" , 22408 4 211 -rÂ©1 --2 , PLAN h ORTH 19'-0"ICKETS) 20LCH (NT5) (FIN) "340103 09114)ug-,61 006-Bruning 82485 Form 13318 Â¢12Â£26121295 PRINTS; 1%/10/96 >A 8 v - G . . 1 1 -ll- -_ ~ Â© Gretchen Greenwood & Associates, Inc. 520 Walnut Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 ~- R.OOP -~ Â· i 970-925-4502 Fax 970-925-7490 '~---- OPEN To -- THE LIV I N6 UNITS #1, #10 AND #11 OF: ASPEN DE H ---~ __ - TRUSTEE TOWNHOMES ASPEN, COLORADO i 1 J.1-IL 7 0 0 - - L_ - DECK 1 11111111 / lillil 1__1 lilli -1 f a lili Il ' 1 vii 1 1 1 1 1 . 11 -lk- Â·,b -- 141, - ; | 3< . EL HALL I lillI 1 2 DHIZA U P 2K-4- -4 1 lilli I 1 1 12 10341' -201 .$*i l , Ir - == al 1 91 . ~ CLOSET BEDROOM 204 202 4--1 r \04 +12'-0" ~ T. PLYWOOD 2- Z ~ BATH 8 - 1 205 - Ir 44 r U N N - = 11_ - - 11 1 1 1 '; )71' Â· 4 1 111 1 It - 6- 1 I I i 1- 1--1-____---_-__U_-1 '. v SCALE: 0 0 JOB: HPC DECK - C) - --- --117--Â·-- -- DATE ISSUED: 1/15/96 DRAWN BY: 1 CHECKED BY: REVISIONS: 0 - 9 0 1 -9 --- O FEN --,1 5 ' 1 P 4"- Â· '4 UNIT #1 UPPER LEVEL . 3 1-011 lai.011 6Loll ,, j FLOOR PLAN ~ 0 4 4'1 4'411 'lloi 1/4" = 1' - 0" | 431-*11 00 ~~_~_~~ 221-011 m O ; 49 - 0 E PLAN NORTH 0 44 4 el-o Il 0 4 0 9 E -1 1-1- 1-- - liE E T. PLYWOOD 1 11 J ' 4, Gretchen Greenwood , & Associates, Inc. 520 Walnut Street , Aspen, Colorado 81611 970-925-4502 Fax 970-925-7490 T SLAB - + 3.0" , UNITS # 1, # 10 AND # 11 OF: 1.- 2..C UNIT #1 i U L==11 L =-1 il i THE ~EAST=ELEMATION' 1-_ _L__1 - --- -- _____LELYwooD ASPEN 01 -0,1 *#4 1/4" = 1' - 0" TRUSTEE 0 9 494 9 f TOWNHOMES ASPEN, COLORADO 4â€¢k 1 '1 1 0 1 '11 , I 1 ;i -' 1 0:lin g _ 1 1 0/\ i T. PLYWOOD ~ + 12'. T,--* - 010-0 00Â«00 --- 1 T. PLYWOOD - 7 0 -0. (-1'-05/8'~ T SCALE: t. 1 JOB: HPC DATE ISSUED: 1/15/96 1.. DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: REVISIONS: 1, '' T. SLAB - '1 - ~ T. SLAB --# UNIT #1 : 1/4.0 - 1'- 0, WEST ELEVATION Â§ m 3 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 I. <Al 1 . 1 \\ 1 // C \ 1 1 \\\\ (C 14) 1 \ \ C \ 4- 1\ 1 PROPOSEDWUILDI4---Â»-6 - X J - N 24Â°~3948-E ~~E "~- 31+ N 24'59 48<2 : -\ ENVELOPE EXTENSI~N 81 . . I 42.05' 1- -H - . 1 3> \\- N lit:ht -3**tr- - trx- DECK 1- 1- --%- \I~ - -' ~-----==- 1 \\ \ 1 2 --14/ - I=fr=- 7 -- 1 i i .x ti_- - - rl ,r t\- 1 f U' 91 1 V {41 . 31 UJ ILA | ~ ~UNIT #10~ UNIT #11~ Â· *' r o Iw DECK- :\ 1 Gretd m ficil 66 -- i -1 51 2 DECK \1 1 Greer vood 40 -711\ C V t. & Associal Inc. .. 520 Walnu reet Ul Aspen, Cc ado 81611 1-fill Fia -- 970-925-45 Fax 970-92 490 C St \\ 1.44- 47 UNITS #1, #1 4D #11 OF: -T -- - .- 5% b . ~4 - THE 9 Ull= 1 6 * ./. 1, - TRUS1 E 9 KE j $ - 9,0 6 0 ASPEB 1 1 \\ - [ 0151 z N - 4 - - - -- - -il/Ma ) TOWA OMES LAD 4 F oFu 0 - , i \ 1 1 \ DECK i i | -1-- - - - - DECK \ 1 T. GARAGE ' T. GARAGE \ SLAB i - .- SLAB *i EL. 7821':0" li- \ .-- I../ EL. 7816' - 0" 1 - 1 1 / 1 103 \ Â¢ -ilill-, I ----- - --- . N\-â€ž 7810 r L * 23Â°46'12" W _ i 4432 - -1. 1 j.-I- -- -- --. ---- f ---- --- . - --W ry . r -USNOP SED BUIL G - - r * L PE EXTE Sl 1 \ / _ 12,4>k 8 A f \ 9- . \ 0-- \\ - - -1 / N 17Â° 24 " E 81 r :3 SCALE: UNIT #10 AND UNIT #11 I SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN' ~--) JOB: HPC DATE ISSUED: 1/15/96 48' 08" E 1/8" = 10 - 0" 8 090 NORTA CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: REVISIONS: 1\ IXA//1 1 -~ 1. , 1 - A & 0 I - m . ' -9 . N\ ~~ - \ L ~*Â©4 - )1 * 4 F - 41 1 1 L~Â·19 ; 1 i \\ ROTSED-BUILENE PE EXTENsteÂ¥ 1/ 1 11</// /1/2/1 1/1// le--- L\ 'j/ / j j -/1- / 1 i i. 11 11 \\ 91111 l'i lli 1) 11 (flill , 111111\ -73 Off 92 0 4 60 6 Â© 4 0,9 6 Â© , C JAN | 57411 0 , 140# 1 14'-10 " 28'- 7 " 1*l toll 2~ 0 0 0 â€ž 6/-oIl 231-lou 15[Oll ' 4~_111 'F 23 L jÂ© U 15ld1 O 0 0 t 1 1 2-1/ 9--------- ---------9 Fr--------- ------ -9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 . 1 1 11 Iii,11 Ill 1111=-11 . |_ ~ 11 @Ir----4----tlk--41 - G e A. 1 76 41 ' ' Gretchen 0 0 0 0 -11-- Il ~11 11 1 1- 01 .4=--11 K t~~11 11.' Â· Greenwood & Associates, Inc. 520 Walnut Street BATH BATH -ill -6 V 006 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Fax 970-925-7490 L_ --- BEDROOM BEDROOM - BEDROOM BEDROOM 970-925-4502 005 008 ' 005 008 UNITS #1, # 10 AND # 11 OF: 1 THE ASPEN 1 2 TRUSTEE * * 1 CLOSE Ts.0 -6 11 r 1/ 2 li - -- < 1 TOWNHOMES 007 7 ASPEN, COLORADO U 13 -- -8 -1 - . . A I - O 4- I .9 6 . HALL | HALL 9.4 fl ~ . 002 li 1 \\~ lili - 4 ) i ivi i i i 002 - 4 1 1 1 4 | 1 1 6 UP (eFL T SLAB i n...e .6 *1111 T.SLAB 1 -4 0 c 3 | 6' 4. 111 (-6'-2 3/8")( ~< 1 1 1. D low |(-11'-23/8")| - lili .1 \4 1 1 - 13 - Il i' 1 -I - 1 I -I \ 11.11 11 1 9 > <_ BATH a- Ul--9 1 - 1 1 BATH 1 , 1 - 1 009 _ - L-- C 010 LAUNDRY MECHANICAL CLOSET LAUNDRY MECHANICAL CLOSET (0 6 003 004 0 010 ./ J 003 004 o PO 5 I 6 Â·a b. , 6Â· 0 1 .. 1 -----~L -I - - - --1 Tr--rl- - ~ 1 1 2.-11 4 1 .4 4 1 1 '0 4,/ ./Â·I ..... -0 I ...... I. 4 .- ./ 6 -3 -Ptl Â·/= 2.-A Â·Â·'6 -*' .4' Â·/ %' 1 f :9 -2 -- Â· . L ' > ' 4. :. I b C.,- L . 5.- 6 I ....1 I e G I '- 14 h. 6, -/ ... I D 5 .Â· / I . A I 6 h 2 6 / ..e 6 El- hi Val . UN - EXCAVATED , UN - EXCAVATED Â© .&1 . 1 - - SCALE: I4 JOB: HPC DATE ISSUED: 1/15/96 0&. DRAWN BY: 0. .--6 6. I. Â·. CHECKED BY: B. ' Â· -) 6 ' ' Â· I ' ~ ~ REVISIONS: 6 I- 6 I I I. # l> . 42% -4 % ' U I .LI 0 1 6 -4 - b . 4 . It , 4 . - I'l ..d ,,- & r .. 4 -6 ' UNIT #10 - LOWER LEVEL - - * - - UNIT #11 ELECTRICAL PLAN (UNITS #1& #11 GAME) (zi-loil ' 2~ 2~ ZL #0 n 240 w eli 1/4"=1'-C" I' r ull 21-10 # LOWER LEVEL : 4,6" 97/Â«21 Zi '-01/ 4f-38 AL& I 4 FLOOR PLAN ~ ' : e , , El l. 0 O (UNIT #10 SAME) 43'8" 43'- 5 V ' 1/4" = 1' - 0" -1 ei 0 6 . 9 0 O Â© 5 8 PLAN I JORTH 0 4 I .9 .Â·': I I.&/. e'VAAÂ·<r r ~72Â©11 ~ ~~ ~r Â© 0 . 2317N 2240# 149 toi 0 0 0 4 440" t# 40 4, eli MI-011 15411 415" 24LOH 2 0 0 . I j 2 1 1 51011 -//1/- 0 0 - 0 - 72 . 0 DECK DECK 1 1 4 G--111 U lit GIL lit = 0 0 1 - 0 1 - Lo Grete m 1* U U INT -11=..=amm~~~.u_tlt _ Ii- - Greer vood 7 Â·24 & Associal Inc. 520 Walnu reet Aspen, Cc ado 81611 1 11 970-925-45 LIVING DINING uvING | | _ Fax 970-92 490 1087 107 08 DINING 107 |T.PLYWOOD | | T. PLYWOOD ~ THE UNITS #1, #1 U) 411 OF: 1 K P'L-'TED T. PLYWOOD +5' - 0" (-1'-05/8') ( OPNeg o' - 0" ASPEA TRUS7 E 11 11 Â§1344 TOWN DMES .-7 ' 0 ~~ |~ ASPEN, CO ADO 11 11 L-P -L_ D un 0 - 11-- --- ..---- -*.-1- -i-#- --Ii- I--il - Il-i -*~~I 1 \ 1 r- ~-- - --lrI -- CO \9 1 - --222--1-7-- - ---PU--71 222--1 Â£ \5 r 1 I ;<\11 lili ~T PLYWOOD / 1 1 1 61 P 1 -1 1 up I UF 24__i ~T. PLYWOOD lili 14 111 1 Z + 6' - 0 5/8" Il}1 , 11 -7 T= lot'*R | 1 1 1 1 11\11 1 1: 1 1 +11 -0 5/8,1 --- 1 111 11 1111 11 111 , 4 1 - -1 1 1 1 11 1 T. PLYWOOD __---- -93 i i Iph' 102. IT. pin/VOOD C ]4- --1 OVEN ----- - _~~~~ MI. INAL L ~ I ..1 2 1 -- . Ill 11 1 +51 - 0,1 1 1 1 1 1 Lj T=ID 3411 10 ....,1... 1 lilli' 1- l- - 1 1 1 Ill 4~ -~1~1--lu- 2 -1 12 - m 1 - 0, M, 9 97 -161 KITCHEN T- ENTRY ~~~~~~_~ ENTRY 101 KITCHEN r-- 1 106 1 - 7~k-- 106 ~ ~ POWDER - - - 4- T | ~ POWDER </ - 103 4 ~ ~ | 103 _ _ REFE./G. 1 -a l 1.- 1 1 1 ' 2 %1 1 3. 0 44 - n N 92= 3. 1 12-- 1. 1 - 1 - ----- 1- t.- O 1 1 9- 1 T. SLAB 1 L SLAB +8'-212" +3'-21/2" 11 11 11 -*-*.h It 4, m 11 a. 0 I O. U CNI 0â€ž 11 4- 11 mr 5 6 mr 0- 1 | ___ __________ v ./ eC) - - 1-- 1 ~ GARAGE GARAGE 0- 110 110 ~I 61 11 1 lE SCALE: 11 1 --------- 1 1 | | JOB: HPC | ~ | DATE ISSUED: 1/15/96 11 1 1 1 11 T tt-----CJ_-2 -22---_ I-112----21-2_IT.SLAB -~12-3222-77.-2_-2.- 2-12~-2 - 37-- - - DRAWN BY: +8'-0" T. SLAB OU + 3 -0" / CHECKED BY: | ~ ~~ REVISIONS: 3 1 1/ 1 1 .-I. 1 -11 1 -41 Ilit .11.1 0 0 0 - 1 7 UNIT-#10 1 IVIAtN LEVEL------- --- U ELECTRICAL PLAN -- UNIT #11 ~ (UNITS #1& #11 SAME) N MAIN LEVEL | 3'-oIl , 2L~ .1 1 T 2.1 , 3'-ON , 240, 9 FLOOR PLAN ,/1 llc = 1.- 0. i ' liP' ~ (UNIT #10 SAME) 22-011 4t5a /-1La 11 2210 9 4*Leu 4525# 1 ' 1 3 ~2~ 1/4"=1'-0" 21 0 : C 113/10 i GZ 0 4 60 9 0 4 60 0 9 li A-Â·1- /*-$-I---ill-l- ----- . - - 1 -- ---- lit- -- 18 - - --- tlr- - - i Gretc :n f--- FqoF EAOM- - GreeI zood & Associa Inc. 520 Walnu reet Aspen, Cc ido 81611 970-925-45 E.- ROOF Fax 970-91 490 - UNITS #1, # I ID #11 OF: _ 1-_ OFSÂ·410 THE L-lvikles ASPEB BEL,001 --F TRUS1 E 9- -- TOWN )MES ASPEN, CO ADO DECK DECK 1...A Â· --TY-/-- -- ti~ - C - - 4 1--i-t U t - - 11 Ilili 1 lili lili I 1 11 111 b ,// lilli' 11 1 11 lili lilli' 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 -111 - A 111 1 1 1 4 - 14. . . 11 .1411= 1 1 1 lili 111 11 11 - in - 11 1 1 1 1 1 I I lily HALL lilli 1 1 0912 HALL OF M --1 4 11 lilli I 201 7 1 1 C 4 !041' 201 74 J ~ .041 111 1 111 116 lilli. 11 " 7 1 H= =-4 .= -= 4 IL__31 -r ,r -- -, - -4 1 , f- --- 1 = 1 ~ CLOSET BEDROOM ~- ~ CLOSET BEDROOM 204- 202 ~ 204 , , 202 1 1/1 . |~ ~+1, -w 1 - T. PLYWOOD L) 20 ~~ T. PLYWOOD 7' n' 0 ~ + 1250" ! 0 1 L__ BATH ~ < BATH - < * 205 205 - ..11 - ---- #-34 1 -|'Â·- ---- ttl--- Y --~_ --7 11 ~ -It Il 1 .-- 1 m 1 IIi | | DECK |1 1 6- ---------------4--4-----------i--- --4-____________L_-_____-________- - SCALE: -:4 2?1 JOB: HPC DATE ISSUED: 1/15/06 DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: . 8 ,# REVISIONS: - - 0 0 .09 -- Of'Ek' -4 = tel UNIT #10 UPPER LEVEL' - UNIT #11 ELECTRICAL PLAN (UNITS #1& #11 SAME) UPPER LEVEL 1 51-011 141-011 (340, w 211 , 51-011 , lei-oll . 2 40 " 211 114" =1'-0" t â€¢ , , 411 ' 4'-611 illol~ 221.0/ 4'_5 Il * FLOOR PLAN 4 + C '1'_0" '' , (UNIT #10 SAME) 1 1 4,51-811 43'.611 1/4" = 10 - 0" 0 0 Â® 0 PLAN VORTH - 13 1- -/2/ 1 11 3 11 ~ .% - -R.f' IL_- _31 il___ _11 -_ - -11 ir- - - -7, 1 , -1 1 , 1 1 Od-Bruning 82485 Form 13318 , .. /1 A . L L -TELYYYCOD__ - +1T-0" T. SLAB +-E-On T. PLYWOOD ~ +5 - 0" 4 UNITS EAE 4==== 1/4" = 1' - T. PLYWOOD T. PLYVMOOD T. SLAB (-11'--2 -3/8"-1 - 1 1 11 ;1 1 -4-1- ----- 9 - tEr- - A..2., e r aVIWI .....1 -a e 1.1.-11.1 N.â€ž1.1. 1.. -Al. lilli A-Im ,/6, 1-0...1. -Im. 1- 7-v,1 86.. man.. - ...1.11.U -1....1.-- 1.1.-1. mil. 1. mallul 1~Efâ‚¬~E|~ -~ =-I---- Il 1-m--~ImImmi .i.1--.1.-11...1....1.1. 1111111111111. -m."1.1.......1..=-11 10.-:.1.11.1.1.-1.......1- mâ€¢â€¢â€¢=Immi=-Iiâ€¢â€¢â€¢~â€¢ma,Ii,Ii,Inimmi,imi-!Ii-,Iimmiti=,Ii,Ii=-,1â€¢â€¢i~-â€¢â€¢-,=I: .1-9,1.--'.9...... I --- -11 --mullimullill,lillmilllillill-1-1-lillmillm 1-1111, â€¢-"11-1,1-iwill--1-1.1-1-1-101-11-1-1.1-l I ~,1.-1,1...1...ii'm l illu -i- - ~li I---1--1-14--1.-01!Elull=11=1-1. 0-- "Imin-,im-=imui--1-= U.W.-1--1191.-.1.11.1. ililllillillillillillimillillillillillililill"'4..."" ,Lu 1.1,111.......11 1.1./. ...........=Ii..=Immlmimmilm-Ii=,iiiiii,Ii=~iâ€ž,Im ==1="11 - ... I .......l 1111=mill, . '---11 ~-~~1~ ......B111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111=~~m-1111"111111,Millillill........ ....1.111.- ...11....mill......I.'1"-1......11.-1.1.-10 1 11-1773.-illill--Illilip.:= ....1m .ill.1.11'.11-.111'llill.....1.-ll.1-111. 9-U..11 ........ .1~111---Im~11-1,=11â€¢-111-111â€¢â€¢â€¢11- -I.,1.-1.. .IP.pgil.T..lllllll 1--1- .....1 -ilill.-Illi.'.1.1.1.--im. ...... ....I.11.I-1~1---1~1--1,-11â€¢â€¢â€¢cil ...... ....1...... ........... .JI"lie/119*1*11/I -= Iiiuii~iiinimliumi,Iimlimmiim. .....1.-1.-Il--Ill--4.'..Im-11.. I.-... ......lu .1-1..]~.1.-1.--11 1.ill- ...... .....1.--1-1.. ..=..M.I.= .1......1 . I ... -"i .i...1.1....3- .....1....iwl/ --1. .Im..1.. ..........1..... .IMI.lil--RliUm - 6:Ii,0-0:. .....11.-- .1-- =E~i Ii:G.-Ii-~~~~ '0'.Ii .....9-Ell--1- .Immin. --9 -- 1 . ..1.1.111 1-1.- 11..... .:. . ---â€žIl--- I . 1 000 0 0 -e- ./ 0 0 0 A . . 0. .0 lilli m.11...1 9,11'llilililillililliliti~ilillilli "Ill'll.=.g.'ll......ill'..."m===I""ll.="I'l"........* --=1-=111---im. -â€¢11.---1-'-0..i.-m..........1......i.imt. lilli .-i--- - --11. p------1 1====1 â€¢1--â€¢1 ...... ..EM .....1- - 1 Imi,1.......11.=mu..u.1.=m......111....1.- - I.I.....1.===ms==m=================lilli-.---=-I ..m ... 1== ..141 ....11 .-56.1. 1........ 11.1-.Im m -=--/.---11" 11-11- 1 1.II.1I.. ..1...1 Im...1,-1,1-=11.111=11,1-Em-- li.i..= -1-1- 1./1 1-=--Ut'I~"' â€¢m-1111-1.......Immil-â€¢11'.Illâ€¢1â€¢11~ 1.1.1.1.1....1 Ill I .1 :~==:Mi==:= -- I.=-1-111-111,1.11,1-imil,-1- r-=m 1.-- 11.-1.1.111 =INI.li.11 1.BIIIIIA ......1. ..... ..mil . . m'Imm:m@=9:==m:=:15:820â€¢1 - Illit...1. 1 -I",1.11.11. -1-1.-m ./.1.1... =m:,m= ... 11111.=11-11 .-1.1 .: 1-1-1.1 li--- .....11.... 1===1 'llilill" 1= 11 .....m.1-1 1~1-1.1.-a ..1 =p m-11.-m. , I 1.-9.- ..1.1 ......im ..1...1- Imt== iiI .... ....... .1.-1.1- -=ni I Ull . -m--11-â€ž 1.......r . 1 Im-l,1.1 .....1.11.1 .1-,- .: -1-. --0......1.1 1111 m.im- L imi ' blillillimmillill i9916000000 ..... 6//Immt"/6......t.l..... 1--1. -1--11 '111.â€¢11111.....2.â€¢Imammtill" ....1-1-1-1.........ilm.1.1=.=-1...1 It-mI- ...1.111.1 lilli . .11-'Ill 11. 1.11 ..1 10 .~1. im.....11 ....... -- U.11..... .....11. /11,1.Im=11 m. 11.@11 IM lillilillillillilli/ 11.811.1.1.0.-1. 'Rim mi!:mli~ il 11 = 11 1 PE .11 m=== 1 1,1 1~1 kil. I 11. := mmum.~ 1- =.11411111' .."i"IN mil =..- . .. ....... ...1.1.. 11 .... - ......lill 11== .11.. =. 11~Illi ' A . -lip.1.-1.-I-.-'/1//4/'Imill///::ilili 0 61 T G 1 1Â©71 1 1 11 1 i 1 1 1 1 i 11Â« 11 - IL . 1 T. PLYWOOD . - Gretchen 1-- Greenwood ----- & Associates, Inc. 520 Walnut Street ~ T. SLAB +3'-0" -- - Aspen, Colorado 81611 970-925-4502 -I-Ill-=.1--Il--1--Il--I--..I.-Ii-.Ill-------Ii---I-I--.-I-*.-.9---i-*--I.--Il---I- -I-*.-1-4.-----I.-----#----I-Il----I--.i....--- an Fax 970-925-7490 T.PLYWOOD ~ . UNITS # 1, # 10 AND # 11 OF: N Ij .! 4 r i - --------**--*-- t1-+*+4------ - ,-p i (-1'-05/8') T * THE . ASPEN Â« . TRUSTEE UNIT #11 (Uklrr Fl .5/MIUâ‚¬R) TOWNHOMES I NORTH ELEVATION 4-4 ASPEN, COLORADO 1 1,4 -i-U , TSLAB- (-11'-2 3/8"> ~ 1 ---147 1 N ilil!,1 Ill 1% 1 1 Ir===il i f - T 0 G 11 L lilli 1 1 1 1 1 1. !11 L -4 . __ _1.FLIMMQQQ.â€¢b_ Ill il-t- ~3 1 1 IN dilliltilill'11 1 -* '1 1 12c--kiffÂ¢%99~-4-- 1 +17-0. 1 1 1 --- -9=ir-=+I- 4%21+t ' 1 - --- ~ ~ ~~ '~ ;'~"- --ij ~-#--~Llp- - -- , - w --i-~-~il~1--Ii -44 I , I lilli 0 -11( 1, 1 --.... .....- . fl---R-1 +21 ttfti - --- T. SLAB ., SCALE: r t~----IttrI--IN--E[33.*.7-PI- i i.- 4 - -1- ---- JOB: ~ T.PLYWOOD , . '' , ' I EL] + .......I--*- /, t- p--1- ..........I ..I..... 1 --r HPC 4. DATE ISSUED: 1/15/96 -- +5'-113/8" Â· ' ! 1-__--_/.7. DRAWN BY: 1 77' 32[IltIEd---r- ' CHECKED BY: REVISIONS: '' 1 \ , UNIT #10 (UNB*I *IMIDAR) i ' 11 I 1 SOUTHELEMATION - ' 1/4" = 1' - 0" - - --- 1-I'*i-F---- 1 T.SLAB -717-6' -2521. - /1/// - /. " 006-Bruning 82485 Form 13318 406 20(topil- A~ INJD " i- W 4 ' 'PRI9 (PR19 I * SEE WALL TYPE '8 1 1 YX, .d . FROJEâ‚¬[IONf ~--396' STUD WALLS / 1 -// 4. 1 ~ - - / 0 1 1 4 ; THEATER THEATER J .,,CE - -c=kI---i 1 ADD/7/ONAL LAYER%' e METAL STUDS E 02. NQL,El GYP.BO EASiDE FOR AUDS. ' ~ ~ ~~1.-~4~00 METAL {3) LMERS (UP.BD. - ~ -~ ~~ EXTEND 2 LAERS QPBD ON EACH S#DE THROUGH TO THE BACK LKER OF F1,#SH CM ~f USING THX SysTEMs ~ , --2 LMERS 16' GHP.BD.JOINTS ON THEATER SIDE 16--1 FINAL_ LNER,TYP. THEATER THEATER ACOUST/CAL TREATAMENT---*-~. | B 57Â£ STUD WALLS gTh, e FIBERGLASS BAIT INSUL KEY THE OUT-TER LUER ON -2 -7Â¥ \><1 1 D.D. ISSUED 3-22-96 STAGGERED 3 LAERS ;6Â· GfP.BD.JOINTS ACOUSTICAL SEALANT. - ~ IN THE REAR , Â· 2 CONTLNUOUS IN JOINT FINAL LAfER.TYP. BET*/ GYP. 80.PANEL- Â£2Â£,6 | STAGGERED. TAPE AND F/N/SH Â£ d 3~ 1, BETWEEN THE TWO SIDE OF THE WAN. \ OR POUR CONC.TO EXP.ST.(TYP J \ - 99-9 1 /4 NOID ANY RIGID CONNECTION OR BRACING SAVCUT THRU SLAB & DECK'G AND BUILDING STRUCTURE 0 \ i -- 10 -WALL TYPE A ~ WALL TYPE A INTERSECTION TO TYPE B 29 -e 29fâ‚¬ 1.-NF 29-0 i PROJECTION THEATER ! FIREPROOFING U= 1% ~ | ~- | , i ---Â· 2,701//DE 'Z' CUPS AS BET-W/ GYP. 80. PANEL r REOU/RED FOR STUD TRACK i[ 1 3%Â· 1,(El AL STUDS IN . AND BUILDING STRUCTURE ~ | ,~ ANCHORAGE ' SNETAL RUNNER - - 'SCE STRUCTURAL; 1 ! 7 < i I 5. F/BERGLASS 8ATT /NSUL F-OR CLAR/77 (NOT SHOWN FOR CLARTTY; 1 1 L.WER 56' Grp.80. 2 LAyERS %Â· gyp. BD. JOINTS /4 4 1 6,a ~-STAGGERED.TAPE AND FINISH ACOUSTICAL TREATMENT ~ FINAL LMER.TYP. 4 1 1 71 / rh 1 - -- --- --~' ' ' WALL IYPE B WALL IYPL A @ COLUMN 1 1 4(ADA \ , THIEATER ,--ill EXTERIOR 1 , EXTERIOR 17'â‚¬ MIN. < REFUGE ~ : AREA) / BOILER MECH, EQUIP. j _ ~ ~ - FIREPROOFING AS ReD b , \ rE-1 121=4] CONTINUOUS IN JOINT ,. CONTINUOUS IN JOINT 6 1 ELECTRICAL 1 1; 1 1.- j t I rE-1 8 ACCUST/CAL SEAL#/T. ACOUSTICAL SEALANT. I STORAGE ~ ' .1 \ --10 BETW/ GYP. 8Â£).PANEL BETW/ GYP. BD.PANEL REQUIRED FOR STUD TRACK a AND BUILDING STRUCTURE . AND WILDING STRUCTURE - - (SEE STRUCTURNJ PROADE '2' CUPS AS ANCHORAGE Jet-, â€¢* tj@ c===-1 --- 0- -- |.El] EXIT CORRIDOR 205.9 OCC. F -61.77" REQ' el r 1-El 54 ' PROV D ~ â€¢~ ~ - INSULATION NOT SHONN THEATER ~71 t.i ' WSUMTION NOT SHOWN EL.),9/60 </1 1 1 1- STEM FOUNDATION 3 1 'A FOR CLARFY KEY THE OUTTER LAYER ON -- ' Â· FOR CLARITY - -I-#I EN THE REAR '- MR SPACE wiN]MUM -1 OF ADJACENT BUILDING J BRICK VENEER EKH WDE INTO THE (3) LAYERS EXISTING BRICK - - _ _ _LL=,-dll _-)CE) . TYPE 'X'EKTER/OR GRADE O CONCRETE MASONRY UNfr SLAB ON GRADE UNDER- 1 .1 , 'f - r AIR SPACE - ----- | P/NNED SEE STRUCTURAL i NOTE: SEE STRUCTURAL FOR \ 71 :.-r e METAL STUDS 16' 02. 69 OCC. THEATER D EXTENT AND LOCATION 13.8~CREQ'D W/ TOP AND BOTTOM METAL - A -4 THEATER C 13.8" REQ'D - %Â·Grp.eD. 55 OCC. OF UNDERPINNING AND '~ 60" PROV'D 60" PROV'D f-2-1 -11" REQ'D ~~ _ __ _ __ _ [iE] 2212,< 62" PROV'D SHORING rÂ·CWALL TYPE C i WALL TYPE D @ COLUMN -0-,Ff / /0 % 1----1 CONCESSION , .._ y _ ._, EXTER.\OR I -227 . 1. I <p. I 1 1*A EXTERIOR ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ OUST/CAL SEAL.mT. -- -AÂ»Â«Â»1Â»"o Ellt -14UCA-1-ik211-39-~9~_ 10 ACOUSTICAL SEALANT. ,- Fr -tf- -,r -;c -,c ,J[.34: A=34=~6 ~ CONTINUOUS IN JO/NT - CONTINUOUS IN JOINT- 666.624- -=43- FIREPROOFING AS REOD PROVIDE 7 CUPS AS ' BE-77/ GrP. 80. PANEL 11Â· STEEL STUDS 0 16 0Â£. BETÂ¥1/ GIP. BD. PANEL REQUIRED FOR STUD T FUCK - AND BUILDING STRUCTURE AND BUILDING STRUCTURE i ~~ ANCHORAGE -42 R/GCO /NSULAT/ON p--ir - (0[[ STRUCTURAU -93Â«9991 3 1QOOC*---Ir--11nr--inf-3009 13~00(30(30{3O0OCjo 1 - _ /07% -2Â«9) -- INSULATION NOT SHONN THEATER INSUL*NON NOT SHOWN - -Â»99999999Â§1 Â«ACK-----1<15~(I-1--r iCÂ« 1 ky ty 1 1888\ r -2641 ~ /, f FOR CLARFTY " FOR CLAREY V 7 4 , t4*2 -'-t.NE.-8' EXISTING DBL BRICK WALL -RICK VENEER 12 i Y666? ----qÂ· AIR SPKE MINIMUM ~~~ '~ -r WR SPEE 15â€¢ FEET WER%Â· TYPE 'r EXTERfOR GRADE (0 -- -- - -9,000000000{3 E--ii- GYP. 80. ~ -9Â©UL)Ul=Jl:=) LJUULJLJO- H -ii--1.CJCJOC)CUOOC)00.1 ---- ----O .-- E y :coNHAErt wAsavw umrs e ETR STODS Bon. U -i 41 / TOP AND BOTTOM METAL w C <1 CHANNEL . gujuguouguuÂ© r- -10[300000{3000 -1UIC}Uioll=_Jt_JLJLA=1 ~ ' '-Â·Â·Â·Â·'WALL TYPE D ~ WALL TYPE C @ COLUMN M 5 04 .\1 U.OUOULJOUOUGE-- -900000000000 -700'290009*00 1 1, ~ - 0 -1 - r. THEAIER Q Â· #COUSTICAL SEAL#ir. 1 4 1 CONT/NUOUS /N JOINT - 1 1 1% BETIN, GYP. BO.PANEL 5.1 1 - 000(300000201-- -99(3000000000 --100000000000 -4 1 8 AND BUILDING STRUCTURE ACOUUALy TRANS'*MT -4 ~ , TEXTILE WALL C[MERING- \ BASEMENT FOUNDATION VESTIMULE . SECURE TO F/BERBOA/?L) 1 OF ADJACENT BUILDING- #ATH APPROJED ACOUSTICAL ')r - TO BE UNDERPINNED SEE 2 00{30*guouggE-- HI I ZE~'~999(22)Â£}QUGE]ZH -IngUOUCCUUULA:=1 _1 ADNES/vES (2) LMERSV GY P.B[1 --Z~ STRUCTORAL - ON VESTIBULE SIDE /7 L] UISULATON NOT SHOWN r OPEN CEU CEMENT/nOUS/' - f OR-CLARIY 1 - 1 UOUOUOU\10'UU. r- -700090000000 L---lul-JLFUuuul-Juu I FIBER BOARD-OPTION Wrr H rc f THICK ABUSE RESISTANT Â· - - il LAYER%Â·GYP.BD. ARCHffECTURAL #COUSTiCAL -1 Z %1 ON THEATER SIDE 001 1 6 PANELS WRAPPED W/TH -L #COUSrICALLY TRANSPARENT U b FABRIC 1 .. ---Il- --.I-"-Il ,<i. cibrh .. ~LEV. EQUIP. - CE 1 -~ VESTIBULE VESTIBULE ~ 69 0~ 55 OCC. '. 62) i VESTIBULE 16,-1 1, 1 21 1 1-3 / , , -WALL TYPE E A 171 U I 13.8" REQ'D 11Â·' REQ'D Â· V 1 - rh 1 03 82 Â£ ri@-1 11 60'' PROV'D 60" PROV'D 11 u rEl I X )L 69 OCC. O BL Z U. H Acousl-EAL SEALANT. 1 r u %2 . - 13.81RLO, Â· CONT/NUOUS #N JO/AT . J BETW, GYP. BD.PANEL. Â· ~~,3 - 4 -/ ~ C_.13 60" PRov'8 8448 S.F. GROSS LOBBY 946 S.F. 4 44-1 1 AND 80/LONG STRUCTURE I 1-1- 1 LOMMY 00 1 _ ' ~ MEN _ 1 LOBBY N KESTKOOM INSULATION NOT SHONN 1 5 1 -51 1 - FOR CLARITY 4 7 - 1 114 I Â« r rii;-1 MLEV. LEm 1 \21/ * 1 LAYER GYP.ID. Z _ ..1 u 59.5" reqdÂ© i 1 ON EACH SIDE , 198.4 OCC .1 | 113 1 U - -1 - ELÂ·74'47 60" prov' 1 -- -- U - ~ (,0 C 8 1 1984 OCC 2 COMPO~ACOUSTICAL m rl (Â¥ 1 /-1 STAGGERED.TAPE AND FINISH iAS SPECD (NOT SHOWN FOR CLAR/Ty, EACH SDE WTO THE (3}LAYERS V . 1 /0-BA i CLI iNSULATON NOT SHONN A â€¢ 1 \ -- rr 1 . CHANNEL . . O 1 L- .-I H - - - N . 20 -0- - 1-1 b -7 Z - 59.5" req'd . - - WALL. TYPE F L u) r ./2 / 1 00 1_ ~ T ro-:.~~Q{d / . 60 618 0 0 8 0 0 0 1 \11_,6 i . 1 TREAIMENT: F BUCK DUCT - AA1\2\ OF r UNFACED SEMPRIGID -. EXTEKIOK-OR UNER (45-2.0 PCF) ON 1 LATER |~~ ~ I i ./' < b: RBERGLASS BOARD (30-5.0 - WOMEN - PCF). SECURE ALLEMBLY WITH , L= EXIT CORK. H. : 9/ 1 4WPAUNG PINS AND RETENTION I -1 V ~ 115 l I OFFICE , 31/PS AT All ELEVAT/ONS. AUD/EXTERIOR OR EXIT CORRIDOR GENERAL SOUND INSULATION NOTES: - 3 C 1 ! 1 #NSULATION NOT 5/OVN 1, WHERE TWO OR MORE LAYERS oF GYP BD ARE APPUED TO ONE SIDE OF A WALL. ~ 116 ~ ~ ~ PAINT ALL RETENTION CLIPS . CONST.PER JOB CONDITIONS. 6 AND PINS FLAT BLACK LU I i - _ - / 1 SCREEN WAI-1- FOR CLAR[TY JOINTS SHOULD BE ST AGGERED BETWEEN LKERS. THE OUTER LAYER SHOULD BE C 1 1 ' NOTE: A TAPED AND FINISHED. ANÂ¥ HOLES OR LARGE JOINTS {GREATER THAN 7,â€¢1 IN THE 1 n rn n m i IN THE INNER UVERS SHOULD BE REPAIRED OR FIUE D WITH DRYWALL MUD BEFORE . . . DEITAL 9HX) AUDITMUMS APPLIATION OF THE SECOND LNER PROGRESS PRINT # M -.I ..~~~ W~ g~ ... .1. 1 1 21 % BENEATH r BLACK DUET UNER V. e METAL STUBS 16'02 Â· Â· Â· - \ REQUIRE 2 UNFACED SEMPRIGID AL? T/GHT W/TH NON-HARDEN/NG KOUST/CAL OR ARE SEALANT (USG 0,9 TREâ€¢(CO NOT TO BE USED e k. lilli 1 1 t..1 FiBERGLASS BOARD CIO-50 PCF) , 2. ALL JOINTS KT THE FOOT.HEAD,OR PERIMETER OF THE WALL SHOULD BE SEALED ACOUSTIC At SEALANT OR EQUIVILANT) PER THE MANUFACTURERS RECOMMENDATIONS. '/.5-20 PCFJ */ TOP AND BUTTOM METAL THE GYP 81) SHOULD BE HELD BACK '/eÂ·TO /.â€¢ FROW THE FLOOR TO THE STRUCTURE FOR CONSTRUCTION CHANNEL UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE Â© WAI I TYPF G 3. DRYWALL PART(TIONS SHOUU) BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM [497 DATE ST ANDARD PR#<TICE FOR MST AUJNG SOUND iSOLATBIG GrP.BD.PARTITIONS. AND ASTM ' ' 098 - STANDARD PRACTICE FOR USE OF SEN_Â»ES IN ACOUSTiCAL APPUCAT}ONS.ALL 1 SOUND BARRIER PARTITIONS SHOULD EXTEND FROM FLOOR TO STRUCTURE UNLESS DRAWING CONCESSION EXT-El<[OR STATED OTHERWISE. % 1 1 4. 41 MECHANLCAL.ELECTFUCALAND STRUCTUAL PENETRATIONS OF A SOUND ISOLAT;NG LOWER LEVEL ACOUSTICAL SE#UNT '' ~ PARTITION OR BARR/ER MUST BE SEALED NRTIGHT ON BOTH WOES OF THE PART/TION. -- i ~ CONT/NUOUS IN ./O/Am - , 5 b p 116'STEEL STUDS Â© leon MECHANICAL OR ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT SHOULD NOT PENETRATE THEATRE SEPARArION FLOOR PLAN BETW/ GYP. BE).PANEL i WALLS. BATT INSULATION SHOULD BE STUFFED INSIDE THE WALL AROUND THE PENETRATING \44) AND BUILDING STRUCTURE U~T ~ --49 RIGID INSULATION ELEMENT. HOLES OR GAPS AROUND THE ELEMENT LARGER THAN /4 SHOULD FIRST BE ./2 9 17'-0 1 lo FILLED WrTH DRYWALL MUD OR GROUT BEFORE BEING SEALED WVTH ADOUSTICAL SE,4.ANT. IF PENETRATING PIPES OR DUCTS ARE EXTEANERNALLY INSULATED. THE INSULATION SHOULD INSUL ATION NOT SHOWN BE CUT BACK AT THE GYP BD TO ASSURE AN AJR TIGHT SEAL FOR CLARHY . 29-2 , MINIMUM OF 12 AND ONE STUD SPACE. THE PERIMETER OF ELECTRICAL SHOULD BE JOB NO. 9521 i3'-4 - /622 . ~ . 4 5. ELECTR/CAL BOXES ON OPPOSITE SIDES OF THE WALL SHOULD BE STAGGERED 8, A Â·i , .TP : SEALED WHH <095[10Â£ SEN.AICT. . 1-: 90-8 1 1 3 1 .1 . t. 6. WHERE REQUIRED.RESIUENT CHANNELS SHOULD BE INSTALLED PER THE MANUFACTURERS DATE 12-11-96 1. I .2 3 .11 RE, STRUCTURAL STUDS).CARE MUST BE TAKEN NOT TO RIGIDLY LOCK OR Â·SHORP THE ISOLATED GfP BD TO STL RE/NF. CONCRETE FDN. GUIDEUNES. WALL CHANNELS SHOULD BE INSTALLED HORIZONTALLY (PERPENDICULAR TO THE SHOULD RENAIN AT THEIR NOMINAL THICKNESS. RETENTION CUPS SHOULD BE INSTALLED -1. , ~ ~ ~ - ~ WALL TYPI- H 7. ALL COMPOSITE FIBERGUGS MATERIAL AND DUCT LINER RETAINED WITH IMPALING PINS ANY SURFACE. SHEET NO. . SUFFICTENT TO RETAIN MATERIAL BUT NOT NERLY COMPRESS MATERIAL 8. ALL SOUND ISOLATION PART(TIONS SHOULD BE REVIEWED FOR COMPUANCE WITH FIRE CODE rE\ AND STRUCTURAL REQUIREMENTS. 9. FBERGLASS MATERIAL CONTAINS F/BERGUE5 *00Â£.WH/CH WAy CAUSE SK/N. EYE.AND Â· i RESPIRATORY IRRFTKT ION. WHEN HANDUNG AND OR APPWING THIS INSULATION,ONE , A2.1 SHOULD WEAR LONG SLEEVES. Gl[NES, CAP. EYE PROTECTION (SUCH AS GOGGLES.SAFETY GLASSES OR FASE MASK}. AND USE A NIOSH/WSHA APPRO#ED DUST RESPIRATOR, SUCH' AS WODEL 8710 OR 9900 OR EOUNRANT - LOWER LEVEL PLAN /71 (1) K37 , EXHIBIT - 78" - 11-OIl 7 , SHEET OF U 026 16 1 iÂ¢) COPYRIGHT CHARUS CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS S1331IHOMV 33:!INNFE) S31MVHZ) 11VAON321 SISI 9205-5Z6026 :XÂ¥3 * 0669-Stfr026 :3131 * [19Le CD 'NldSÂ¥ * 10Â£ 31.InS * 3AV NVWAH 16Â¥3 015 Â£956-REL/oz6 :xv:1 * 9Â£ZE :3131 * 5849 03 '30[3(VI131 * 3AV 00Â¥210703 V '3nN3AV ~13S DNIDI>Id SS339O>li~l 1 , â€¢ NO. OF MASKING SCREEN SCREEN STAND OFF AUDIT.HGT AUDITORIUM AUDITORIUM LENGTH TO ' ' I.*I" 0 AUDITORIUM SEATS TOPSIDE HEIGHT TO SCREEN @ SCREEN LENGTH WIDTH WIDTH WIDTH RATIO '. AUDITORIUM A 266 TBO 36-9 it'-g T BD. 23'-0 5!'-g 43'â‚¬ 1:1.54 j C A AUOTOR/UU 8 224 TBO 36'-0 \7' -C TED. 23' -G 59 -G 43'-5 W.35 4/ 8 - lue Â® 0 1 AUDITORIUM C 139 TBD 24'-0 13'-0 TAD. 19-(r 54'4 28'-8 1992 CE 90â‚¬ . 1 1 ~ dj) 1 4 â€¢ . AUDTORHUM D 145 TBD 24-0 13'-0 rBD. 19-0 54'-0' 25-2 1:1 32 ICL 8. 29-e 29-Â·e i f 1 ~~56/ 29-e- AUDITORIUM E 128 TED 24 -C 13'-9 TBD. 19'-0 28'-{7 1:183 1 1 86 Tork 902 D.D. ISSUED 3-22-96 1 vi-/ 1 ! i 11 '1' GRID 1 4 49 1 1 1 It ! 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 ~hi 1 % i ----Ill- 1 , . --4 1 -1 - - . 1 - 1 1 41 1 < OPEN TO STORAGE 1 4 I j STORAGE ~| ~ C~ * 4 -m ~) 4 41 1 H H :,1 4 -1 OF ADJACENT BUILDING i l. 6 SLAB ON GRADE UNDER- , -j-h PINNED SEE STRUCTURAD, G U U 1-) STEM FOUNDAT<ON 41 1 THEATER C ~ THEATER D i \ THEATER E *1 ~ 139 SEATS ~ 145 SEATS ~ 128 SEATS NOTE: SEE STRUCTURAL FOR (3 HANDICAPPED) " / (3 HAND_ICAPEED) (3 HANDICAPPED) EXTENT AND LOCATION ,0 IZZ~Z-H / / OF UNDERPINNING ,rs 1 SHORING STEEL DECK 16 fri r- - ~ 1 w - r -)10 -}7 -Ff- -M- -nent- 71- 7~~ 9-4~3Â»-0-00*AorÂ»~~-- i r ne ir 71- 1 Fill VOID BETWEEN STUD TRACK AND DECK FUITE Wn H FIBERGLASS INSULATION - /-% 046='Kkkj /in-- r-Â·---NON-HARDENING #COUSTICAL 1 SEALANT Typ.(BOARD SCR/BEO /01 rn TO DECK FLUTES - \l/ NE/' 42/ - \LIZJ' / TOTAL WINIMUMRSHONN) nnrvnrn,--lrnOO~ . -1 {Â£42+ , 1 76' GYP. 80.3 LAYERS r~ -0 w 0 - - ------ - - CoÂ®Quououour- HI E D -Â©ut::Jut=Juut,6000 Â· 3 ---- -- -- -Â· 1 %â€¢STEEL FRAMING / OR WORE AS REQUIRED BY ~ 14'~ FIRE CODE ~ \ 40'GYP. 80.DO NOT 1 00)000000043'n -700000000400 --31_JULJLJLJLJOUUUW 1 -- ATTACH TO TOP TRACK, -- czz=Â£=0 - SUP TRACKS OR GYP. BD. -_297#96 ABOJE,EYP. --Â©00004610000 - 1 000%3000000 n n:0400)0109000 #7 IE'T Â· 01 61 G METAL STUDS 31 1 4 8 1 1 9 - 00000000000 r -3,00000[300000 -390(JockgoOOO0 1 1 5 1 6 Â® -_--- 4 --- -------.--- 1 -uoudpcoutuor- HI = =-3~949Â©EJW@(~~J H ----]1~JUL:ILJUL:JULIUL)1:J _~~ -__-_ __ ___----~ 6-_ _ Â© THEATER THEATER 000000000009 ~iuoopuggENF~-- t- BitfÂ© Igsurnmnrnmr-Irl 1 - | ~- _ 1115 0-9-AZL SHALL BE ADAPTED TO TCOMODATE 2 i - - 000#0:00000 E-, ---100000000000 -. I - sarTURAL ENG/NEERKS DEFLECT/ON WH/LE - WAINTAINING ACOUST/CAL PERFORMANCE 1 + opougugu~oor--3~ 11-0-jucpgu_ggooopo dootooouooo 1 1 -1 1 0 -.[008068400-40494) 10)0040Â»9foÂ»FO--utagooojououpp - I ! ~ FLOOR SECTION O - - - - THEATER im THEATER ~ M- 7-1 1 2 11 1 1 11 Flal===74 - 117 It 11 11 11' 41 11 11 11 Al-,4 H tijtjt~.51~'*~~~~~~~= - Â©000{11{30067/00 H L_./ L~iL____1 L._bff.#-=4-8*-r.i- L-' t-f- _._j_jutitf=â‚¬91 _ F 1 -- -4- --- - , - -Â® 1 - 0 1 I i i tl | 6' AISAL STUDS /6* 0Â£, -9-f"77331 UN LJOL) CJUCE) 0 ---- 7 -- - F- -M 'C}TC)! 1 pR BOOTHi W/ rOP AND KTTOW METAL 1-- E.1 -ify Il>-- -m~ 1 ><3) CHANNEL-STAGGER lili 1 11 11 1-?9-1 i LI. AU ' REWIND/ WONK PROJ. BOOTH 1 ~ . 2 1 -- 1K ' 2 _ _111(DJ~ B60â„¢ 0 ~REA /. L- -17 2 21. --7 --TT ,9 STAGGERED. TAPE AND FINISH Co 2 ELEV, LO~13, --1~~~ 2 Z . 69.7 OCC. - 85'-8 . LAYERS Se'Q'P. 80. JO/NTS 1 LAJ- -----â‚¬Â· f #8ERGLASS BATT /NSUL +7 OP e (21 ON i PROJ 643 SF _~_ LOWER PROJ.LFL. - 13.9" REQÂ·+--1 lai_jLIZE]Iwil uP U ANAL tAYER. TYP. go L 18/ 1 1 1."I-*--/--"'I- *- 3 LKERS %â€¢2880..ONTS STAGGERED.TAPE AND FINISH -1 F/NAL LAYER. TYP, MECH. 578 S.F. MECHANICAL (0 1 - 4.7 4 Z 071 / Rk- 4 1 /31 #3\ fa /--\ #3\ /:3\ ,7% /n #~3 /-1 ' - 06 A-4- 1 -- 1 1 IJ- 1 /73 6 %2 1 IVI I 1- .0- - -- - - -- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I t.v o o 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' , , PROGRESS PRINT NOT TO BE USED Unt:!:tr.Â·1 11111111111,1 ' 1 1 ' '1 FOR CONSTRUCTION 1~1 *7 /0 2-2 1 DATE - - ___ 29-2 Â£ 309 DRAWING - 0 90,-6. C-) FLOOR SECTION - --- - --- --- i PROJECTION PLAIN 6 6 JOB N91_9521 Ul DATE 12-11-96 /1 LOWER PROJECTION PLAN /2\ SHEET NO. 4 4 (1) Upp 3 ' 1 78" - 1'-0" NORTH V + i. A2.2 4 j. (3)~ SEE WALL TYPES SHT. AZJ 1 j ~ 0 2 6 16 SHEET OF ' c. COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFIE ARCHITECTS . I : Sl_I)31IHDNV 33=IINNAD S31MVHD NOIJLVAONEIkl SISI 9205-5Zfrt)Z6 :XY:t * 06SS-SZ4026 3131 * 1[919 03'NadSV * LO . *3AV NYWAH 19Â¥3 015 2956-9ZZ/0Z6 :XY:I * 8â‚¬ZE--9ZZ/026 :3131 * 9â‚¬ti.8 00 '30121(11-131 * '3AV 0CIVM0100 '3 OZE 3dSV'3nN3AV SNIN 16Â¥3 9017 13S DNIDIZId SSBNE)Obl~]00 '7= 4* u...4- 0 CM r. - I 08 8 000 DD. ISSUED 3-22-96 1 90-9 1 1, 1 L 1 22 -2 ~ 7'-6Â· 1 1.31 3'-8 1 il'-r 5'-00 ~U]7 24-e 4 0----- 1 ' 1 1 1 1 94.OEr 1 1-/-\ 0 1 1 1 1 V.~7 1 1 1 1 1 # 1 A 1 1 1 ' (31 ' ' il i' 11 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 22 ULL. 1 L- 36.6 REQ'D | 1 1 '~ 1 41 1 1 , 1 1 .1 14" PROVID : 1 1 . I li 206- acc. i i 1 -61,-77 REQ'11/ DN / :53 PROP[)3 - TRASH AREA ~ : 6, 1 z,(1& CORRIDOR ~ -â€¢'~ F - METER LOCATION -----,c- 11 0 - \ RAMP UP (10% SNON MELIED) , - 1 1 -----___ 1 1 &!. 8 -.-- - 0 lilli i . 1 6| X11 h 1:1 a. ~ 1 9 k 67~ occ. rr--1 55 OCC. , 55 OCC. . ~) 67 OCC THEATER WL 13.4 Â· KE U U -1 -11' KEW U PROV D -13.4" REQ' 11" REQ'D 9 5 44Â·" PROV'D =~~~- EL=99-â‚¬ 52'' PROV'D 52" 52" PROV'D - i ~ . 29 THEATER A THEATER B \ 1 , 3 95.:r . 1 x36:â‚¬. --* 20 X \/ P H - 1 ----------- --9---/ CIE) 7/ . 4>/ 0- - % 1 A-! 1 i . 9: 1---- ~~,~ ~ /24\ -9-7 r---+PU-7 E-0-1 Ne/' 4223/1 V 4 FOX PHOTO I H -7 ~ FIRE HOUSE -- - 6---- ~ Fli-- 1 Â£ 16 -7-1 r- 1 1 i E-- Iin 0-3 1 -- f7 41 QI ni 1 9 1 - -- ---- -- 4' 5 LL) 9 1 Fl- -f r- A a -1.- - -In 1 1 1. - 1 ls) -2 + - --1-' r--- & H & .--- 1 41 N i' '- 1 r--~i 1 1 1 1-1 q 1 1 2 2 b lili 1 - 01 r ---9 '0 1 1 1 20 55 occ 67 OdC - idD---1 -------â€ž--- . 11" REQ'D 13.4" REQ'D ' , 45" PROV'D , :i 48'' F'41:2'1.'U L- ..___1 ' 1 - - 1 03 1 +U-6 -otc i + I ----- ----- -- -- 0--- H u i 13.4 REQ'D 55 0:c. Â® / ~ 621!YEE!@!:ILE ~ 1-1,22=- 0 ~[1~- ____ _~-e~,up-Da,N- -e-- ~9~ =, -MFIBUU-~~~ .- 1 4L~ED.yp_ ___ ~415@1--4] --Â·-- -'- -1.-~} [Wqâ‚¬ _l*Â¥UI- ----Â·:1 ! 1- 1-, 11 - *-<-4.---__Lilli__' ' 1 8493 S,F, GROSS Uft[N LOBBY E-+4 -4-1 -ed - - PEN 4 , 1 C'DNCESSION [-1 ' Z - ij I ht-./ 1. F-fkh--144 ~ 417 - 11.7 X T f=1 1 323.1 OCC. 0[E] L : 64.6" f?FO'n p : gil /' i ir) - (D-: 1 ..1 J 72" PROV'D Mr=--- UP ]. i - 1 1 - â€¢2ELEv. =r DN E.11~ - 2 L] . 43 1\ 1 / ---- 1-'1 1 LOBBY [3~ 4.11 - 9~,2%25% m 346.2 OCC. - 6 4 1-Ji : _ -----' rfil -LU- -1 ---0.-lk i i I I \ / 4 \10 4 F 'j j 1 1 71 ~-1-2--LUL:L-= 11 -1-_[- ---a-1 / \ f WK & STO~ -~5- ELAOO,~ ~ A6.4 Lit i 4 1 T / - J 1- J 4 ----- ./ 1 n I -71 11 1 3231 OCC. : ~ . ~. ~ - ' lan -- 1 64.6" REO'D 1 ~- - TICKET BOOTH 1 30 @ D ~ ............... .._ :i ;i 1 1 1 r. .7 PROGRESS PRINT # R -. -- - - - , liiI iIJJD' C----- ----- C , 011 E -,A 13 1 - rn A= rl F 0 3 4 1- 0===0 .-I NOT TO BE USED 0 . 62 1 M - 1 ....#r-- 11* Nif *Aa 71 19> 0 22 Â« / 4-1 1 FOR CONSTRUCTION ' ' ' DATE __ _.- F- 1 4 1 | DRAWING i GROUND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN /1 RESTORED HISTORIC FACADE 4 5, -16~ <44.3 1 ' 21'-9 1 1 2-4 19-2 \ 3041 . C JOB NO. 9521 A5./ , DATE 12-11-96 900 -6. 4 (2) SHEET NO. NORTH I I /3\ %,t -7 - A2,3 7 - MAIN LEVEL PLAN /31 (1) 9/7 SEE WALL TYPES SET. A2.1 . 7 02 6 16 SHEET OF c COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFH ARCHITECTS C Volects\9621\9521823 dtyÂ¥ 04 11. 1996Â· 19.07 W / S1331!HZ)21Â¥ 33=11NNAD 93-INVHD NOIIVAONBM SISI 9Z0S-5Z60Z6 :XY:I * 0656-526026 :3131 * LLgle OD 'NidSÂ¥ * 10â‚¬ 3.LIAS * 3/\Â¥ NVINAH 15Â¥3 0ZS 79 IN 1 S1O1 Z956-92Â£/DZ6 :XVW * 9â‚¬ZE-i}Z4/0Z6 :3131 * SEMB OD '308(11131 * BAV OCIÂ¥30100 3 0EE OC]Â¥30100 N3dS 3AN3AV SNINdOH 1SV3 9 RAMP DONN 3~314131>Id SS3NDOMd Cll~ : 0.-.: Â·3'C 1 . .0 ,Â·.,4?'. 11 0. 64 (7) CA A(2)(A riA Â· GA 11 ~~ ~~ ED 3-22-96 41 ' 1 -â€¢2- i J 1 ./ . t? 13I 1 -OC k % loc % % t {JE 4 b M 0 F.- -- - --- I --- --------- --129,~ -1 4 1 ESS PRINT i BE USED )NSTRUCTION 2-4 | G PLAN , G 9521 12-11-96 - UPI (1) JilLLI 40 KEy NORTH A2.4 (EÂ» SEE WALL TYPES SHT.A2.1 i. I 0 2 6 16 SHEET OF Â¢ COPYRIGHT CHARtES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS 1/ / 22-2 Ltll 9Z0S-5Z6026 :)(Vd * 065S-â‚¬Z40Z6 :3131 * 11919 00 'Nida/ * IDE 31IAS * *3AÂ¥ NVWAH 15Â¥3 OES ZQ 30019 'N 79 '11'1 Â£9#6-liu/l)46 Â·XVI * FLZE--BLOUÂ£6 Â·3 Ill * SEN.8 01 '3(JIN(11-131 * *3AV 0CIVM0100 3 0ZZ 00Â¥30100 N3dSV'3nN3AV SNI>IdOH 16Â¥3 90f ...:. : 1. 0 0 . . 1 . D . . .D I ... 1 - 0 . e e .: . D ... 1 ....... 0.62 * 0/ tewj e e ................ 4/ . : 4 . ................ 4, ......... . ............. ........ 11 0 1. 1. .... ... :f. IN. ........ ......2 */ 0 0,0 ... 0 -0 ... D :.. ....m ....... I. im' 1 . 1 .....m"-"" e . I 0 e IiI W R... h 0 .... .. e .. , 4 0 . .0 0 1. ... ... e eÂ® 0 D .. ... . .A 4... 4.-11 114.44>Â· 7-4.--Â· 1 k Â· /1%~'. i , -' m .. 74- ..1- . . . -- ---- Ii- - -rt--4-7-- â€ž-------7 Â¥. ~'i A /3-h~ 0000 0 0 I . 90,-6. 1 //'. /37 1/ ' a---1--4 1 1 04 A5./ 1 1 4,-7 ~ 1~ 1 6'-8' J 41'-r \ -. r 1.1 1.4 . - 2.Z-Z E--r 3'-e 3'-5 2.-Er D.D. ISSUED 3-22-96 0 ----- 0 1 1 1 $84.1 , I. 4 .1 4r-17 , 1 -2 f I . C A62 J 1 1 +1 1 41 1 1 C ; 1 1 '1 1 0 0, 6> <7> I ' <33 ' <7> 1 ! -1 -- - -- - - - - - - - - -- - 4- G -- .. '.. N .. ,-' . lilli. .--- l - ' -- - -- ~-- -- -~ BEDROOM| #1 BEDROOM #1 - Â£ 1 17 GE] - BATCD [ID ~4 [ 501 1 1 BATH _ i'~TH, - 1 BATH BEDROOM #2 'râ‚¬1[ 31-t=L. 1 1/- 92[7 3 'Fl BEDROOM #2 1 =9 s-O - 07-.- e- C * 14:Â» 6.je,Li- 4 N N =1/0~ 8 , ,i A. H. UNIT A 41*= . /11 N ki A i h -t.InlY, -Y j g O 11 U 1 -/7 W - e,- -d:tti 2- PENTRI 4 KITCHEN ThÂ¥6 25 IUE,JI- 15!1Â§04 UVING ROOM _1_4' -4 1' - [*1-1-- - - 5 OCC. UVING ROOM BEDROOM #1 - -- - ~ -4 GIT] -=i 9 =' BEDROOM #1 +4 -1 4-1 ROUGH jN ~ VESTIBULE -1.5" REG'D ROUGH IN [ZI;-1 ~+DINING ROOM FOR GAS r---1 54" PROV'D FOR GAS DINING i -1*29~2. ~510 ~ -112[Lijal 1515 1 FIREPLACE Fa-PLPCE -- GOÂ»Â« . 1 r â€¢91 - 76 Fiff 1 01 â‚¬> 1 L--1 01 1-1 <42 1 ' EL\>. 6 , : L 1 01 5 OCC =US'-REQ'D- -~ 54" PROV'D PATIO 11 1 -1, CA52jv ~13~ PATIO N/- fy. 46 , 0 - ---1- ----- --- - - - --- --- ---- -- - ~ 41 34 - 0 BEDROOM #1 1:LO -- ___-_ CLA BEDROOM #2 ~521 ~ e~ BATU-T [12*EL le 21\ . 523 n P --Il- Q rr) ---- - ---- i-- LU T.O. PARAPET-* = -T O. PARAPET / 4 4 ..\. -r mm 1 ...-- 7:~EP fv 1 527 1 ROOF CLOSET ~ - 1 - . _114-1. 1 4~ -'MMI~KE~- le 1 L, 1 M -31*ttly~ft[nI-~~ 9 6 ~ MASTER BATH POWDER\-,7 ==.==41.t'f~ 1 Â¥ 91 - [il L.J(El+ 52] 1-Â»it 11CLO'i *bl g 60 / e 1 \10 - 6 1 - 4,2 - - -6/0.1 .n --7 FREE MARKET UNIT (Â«14-r / --- --- -- ----- ~ 0 -- 11 1 L. - f 5 h 4 MASTER B.R. - < LIVING ROOM DINING ROOM - 14 OCC. -" 623 G0 -4.2" REQ.O- ~ ROUGH IN ' (040" PROV'D -1 FOR GAS FIREPLACE EASIDE al- (3 - 7 .- u , MBY TH- j- *i--2~ 0 : 01 1- PATIO ' ' 4 L 3 r o 4 - . i ~ PROGRESS PRINT ril NOT TO BE USED c 44/1 ' FOR CONSTRUCTION ~ 10 ... Â¢-9 . 50'-Â·e . , y-ir , , 1'-4 12-2 W'-U' . ' 9 d..1'9* DATE l\~ 1Â· DRAWING 1 ~ A5./~ 90'60 ~ ' FLOOR PLAN SECOND LEVEL 11 ----- , e e 00Â© 0 Â· ra Â· JOB NO. 9521 4 419' . DATE 12-11-96 ('.--1 UPPER LEVEL .PLAN ra Â£ A57 - NORTH SHEET NO. 1 Â· 3 'Rfv: . M . ' 1 A2.5 0â€ž*9 SEE WALL TYPES SHT.All I. D..24..:A ./ . I' 4 r. L , t.. t.11- ' 0 2 6 16 SHEET OF 14 4.0.1 * b . (QCOPYRIGHT (}IARiES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS S1331IHONV 33=!INNAE) S31>IVHD NOilVAONBM SISI 9Â£09-5Z6/026 :XÂ¥:1 * 0655-5Z6O26 :3-EU- * 11919 03 'N3dSV * LOE EllinS * 3/W NYWAH lSÂ¥3 015 ZW 30019 'N 9 '1/4'1 Sl Â£956-9U0Z6 :XV:1 * 9EZE-QU/0Z6 3-131 * SE,19 00 '3(]IM(11131 * '3/W OC]Â¥30100 3 0ZZ 00Â¥30103 N3dSV'3AN3AV SNINdOH lSÂ¥3 901, 135 DNIDINd SS339O3~It) U 0 ' t.#241 - 4.:c- Â¢ I ' 4'fwity.Â·. :. a.li< p - I - ..1 Â¥ T *34.f ',At~.' ~'' ~ ,Â·*~~'4-7 ~'d A 0 0 Â® CA 90'-60 f Â©\ , , 101 ' 26 44'-5, / 4.r~. Â·Â·Â· 1 8 D,D. ISSUED 3-22-96 $. 4./ 1 1 ri i ; 1 -Â· ~- --1 r-- F--- -- : N - \ i i 1 1 1 1 b / , 4 4 1 k 01 v TED ROOF VAULTED ROOF ki Vt 1 1 ~ -- --= -- - ------- -- FLAT ROOF 1 -- -- -- ---- 0 ~ LINE OF WALL BELOW ---------------- / 1------1 1 2 1 1 a 1 6- AN/99(8 DECK ~ V BELOW NEJ *3/ V.5.U, 192, 1 V 96 1 [ - - ------- -- --- - - Â© y\ i.. 1 , I 1 - 1 I. 1 A \ 8 1 . -1 VAL.~TED ROOF , 1 4 1 N / &01 1- - j 1 - Â¥ 0 rl , 1 .% 0---- --- ------- f ~------ 1- \ i ~ 1/BUL-E.C 9321 L - A I ---1 02 00 1 1 * 91 . 2 1 I <4 - V-~L| 0 O e ---- =__-1-_-_- -~-_- _----l--_------------------------------------------------ ,, ., -1 1 - -- -- ---- - - i--- ~ m DECK BELOW ~ , I I. Z 1 1 1 1 ' 08 - b -- E 4 . 1 1 -J ROOF BELOW â€¢ 1 r - m 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i PROGRESS PRINT i NOT TO BE USED 1 FOR CONSTRUCTION 5>-3' r-Th. ' ~34:Gr ~ DATE 7 to-0 , 3'-Ir 0. 1'-4, 12'-2 ~ 17'-9 . .1. .. 1____ -R#57-gED. MER.t?/C FEADE f ~ ~~ | DRAWING._ â€¢ ~ 1 ~ ROOF PLAN 90â‚¬ 1 1 1 . 0 Â®@ JOB NO. _9521_ -_ _ _ \27 DATE 12-11-96 - ROOF PLAN Â· , { 1 ) ~ SHEET No. NORTH -V A2.6 ~ SHEET - OF 0 2 6 16 c COPYRGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECT5 4Â·i~ .' ' S133-LIHONV 3=1=!INNAD S3121VHD NOilVAON3kl SISI 9209-SZ6/0Â£6 :XÂ¥:I * 0655--GZ6026 3131 * L[9LR O O 'N3dSÂ¥ * 1.0Â£ 31IfIS * 3AÂ¥ NVWAH 15Â¥3 025 Z956-8ZZ0Z6 .Xy:1 * 9EZE-9Z40Z6 :3131 * 9848 00 '3013fTI131 * '3AV OCIVEIOD *3 0ZZ 00Â¥30100 NHdSÂ¥'3ANHAV SNI>IdOH 19Â¥3 90f 100'-7'A, â‚¬ ~13% DNIDINd SSBZIDOM~ID , . , 7 Â· 'Â· 9'39. t:- Â· 4... - A 21 -I 00 I " ' '1 L_-1 lf- 1 ...fil LAA;t 1 . '41 Cn 1'4 ' 9/3,4.2, N.. , EmEmmaU Iz 0% -1 rti fti , Â·, i f ~Â·Â· . 1 4 ' 4 ., m I 8 1Â« 1 el/) 9 P lz O E Â£ p O - L 0 30 4 A < 2 0 0 ' -0 1 3 [Il U I 01.41 ! , , 1 r [in 0 01 -,i A -1 r- m --11 1 1 O Z . i 111.111 '-1 1-1 '1 U L.il~ R 'Â·11 '1 U N ai M m M - . 1 Â« 1 Ul M L._1 1-~ Â· 1 r le %9) 1 E- rd ul. 12==93- - -- 8 -4 *3 ------ ------------ ------ -- 1--i------ --- - 4 1 r. 11 01!11 .. 31 e f 1. 0 1 [-11 1 1 - ; I . 1 It 1 - - 9 -----VI brel 1 9 L U 1 - 1 . CD 1 1 1! -11 ~ liLli--1 11 1 U . 11 1 1 H E, 1 1 1â€ž ,CT-\ /T-\ 1 1 11 1 /11 1/ i I rt m ic' 111Â· , p #16' ~ b *, i 'J 1- 2 4 w - L 0 ,-] 1-1 1 1- . 11 03 .... C 0 FÂ·1 ,-1 1- ,J 4 . 1. r ' . C 1 1! ,-3 4 , -1 4 4 , 1 4 =! ~ -1 1 1 ./ 4 1-1 4 ,1 1 1 J 4 2 4 2 'g .9 0 ~ ~~ 11 . 4 2 â€ž 7 e r--m 4 - 1,11 1 L~-1 L~ 1-+ 1 -.- 1 .111 L---1 Z *311 4 41 1 1 1 1 1 1- 1 --- 7 1 1.=1!! F ./ 1 7h 9 .1 1 I r''' 1 t- 11 237---1 ~ 2 1 1 -1-1 . , 6 7 1 I .... 4 1 . 1 T r lo 11 '1 L ' 4 L 1 --- 7 ' Ld; Ill 7 1 1 11 1 1 .4 ..H 4 11 4 ---- (2,1 1 rrlirl-1 rnTrl-I 1111111 1111111 1 1 1111111 1111'll r--1 1 1 1[11111 1111111 ..1 U N ) L U.1-1.U LL//11-1 , -2 LILE R 4 1 , f~ U 1 1.- 9 th 1 1 1 +I 1 1 1 r- 1 1 , 1 1 r i h e '-31 ' - m,1 3 1 J --- !-1 1 r 3 1 1 : 7 f ' r, 1, 1...] ! k' I h E' 9 4 ill 1 f rt-T T- 1-1 Min - i 1 &/t' ir--7 '144 0 1 1%!ll'1 lilli 1 11 .1 11-1 . 1 111'111 lilli ! 11 i 1/11'// lilli ' 11 Anl 1/111 1 U 1 1, 1111 1 . :1 'L_J .4 1 11/11/1 I'lli -- U M .-A: 1 4 ~ L u a Â£ U 6/1, i + 1, 1- 1111 0,1,1 -- -- -1 - 1 1 4, , 11 inill --- .-- ,-1 1 + ... . 1 1 1-1 m 2- 1 LAI 41 1 - d 1 - , -1 + 4 Â¥3- 1 --4. 1 , 1 cliv ~ - -1 + - 1 4 -fi 1- 1 4 .7 2 "1.4 11-' 4,<.-Ii 1 1. 1 : 1 1 -- 11 F 4 1 1 / 1 i-- -Lf--gox(07 H -- 1 - 1 1 - r.1 r. 12 1 '1 1 H H 4 m- 1 1 ~a 11.24 =113 /3 - f 21 4 1 4 I 1 18'< 1 .tu i 1 1 4. 1 1 Â· t i I . - U f I Ut j ---1 1. 1 e 4 1 t L-- 9 111.x-1.11.r. ....1.-h L.r . 04'.1.4 'k~4 1 .1 [tr 1 < i . 1{1 1 ! 1 4 , 1 "C .+ I L. 1 -01 H b . L 1 1 1 1 2011 1 I | 1 1 I 1 0, 1 1..1 1 I. ~ ~ ~ 1-11 1 ~ - 4 ...1 1 ' 5 I 1 Al-1 pnic: rgl-0 rn rl,12 1 Trilf rrily & 4 19 0 4 C b rig rib 11* 912 11 r-0 mi b w -1 816 *9 0 21* A I Co 612 6&412 3 9* 91#1 Fig 612 @w <13 4 '~ tie <* 0' 4 1 4/'B 4 4 4 47 9 0-n Z -0 >OOr 1 ~ - 0/8.61 rj -1 8 ISIS RENOVATION CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS F--7 '5 1 00= m -- @ ..P 1kI 1 Z U) 0 m cO ~+ 1 .1 'gm~ - e. ' ccm O 0 Z - z 406 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE, ASPEN COLORADO 220 E. COLORADO AVE. * TELLURIDE, CO 81435 * TELE: 970/728-3738 * FAX: 970/728-9567 LOTS L,M, & N, BLOCK 87 520 EAST HYMAN AVE. * SUITE 301 * ASPEN, CO 81611 * TELE: 970925-5590 * FAX: 970925-5076 O0 C.[~ROGRESS PRICING SET - iÂ¥ .. 11 .(TM.0 (]yÂ¥(]NVis ~Fl~ 7â„¢0 30Â¥-3 >1008 (13HS~Nking 3NOiSONVS CONUS/X3) SNIC 1Â¥13FY (731Â¥9nk:16100 35 SNIHOON ONIZ INVJS ONIONViS NOLLVAEI_13_-19Â¥3 *TÂ»-6~ SDalt,OMÂ¥ RIHINNA) SITMO /HDIWOD) 0 133HS FON 133HS :6,- r. I 'r y.+ I .. 71 / k.1 1 .% I /5 , Ey i . KEYNOTES LMI A.I..Â·~. . Â· . 1 V 009 Â® m 623 [ vv 0 ~7-~ MODULAR BRICK I Ill 1 . 1 , 1 \ \. f . 1 ~ STANDING SEAM ZINC ROOFING 1 1 , T D. ROOF /4, *13 1 1 1. 4 .1 --- TE.133;Â¥-~p-- j. 1.47; . 2 ~ SLATE CLADDING 1 lit - --- ~ EX/STING BRICK 1-1 - r:lm'-' 5--li- ,--'-- ---- -r-'-irlr-In- 1 11 5 D.D.ISSUED 3-22-96 1 111:1111'ilil- i.11!: 1 U 111 1 I. '! Ir-Â·-T--11 ~.1[11111!411 ~ lili ; 11'k....-1 1 I'!i't.~ I ~ ~|~i'll I;|,I,!b , 1 4 lilind' 3 ~ REUSE CORRUGATED METAL SIDING (EXISTING ~_____]6JW 1 1 11 1 11!111111,11.111 111[! il EL-j2 j'-4 FOX PHOTO ~ BURNISHED ROCK FACE C.M.U. 1 lili '111111111111;1~il,571 1 111 1 111 1 11 lili 11 BUILD/NG <641 ~ili~Ef@14111111211'111~111'L@~111~311't ~11'112111% Uw~1111Â£11%~1~ 11.1,~21 i,j~1!.1~tl ~1,i~~ ~~1~'i'J''Di~.'i ~'2 11':~d b.~rilÂ·ifili'Wyil'i'j'i> 1 ly'l'|!:.|1||IiI'!I" 11 ~ STANDARD C.M.U. I i' 4 1'.44"ill~';<, , FIRE STATION , 1.11 44:11!,1,~111 lilli 11 1 1 11)1 4:11~111~111'h!~111 :11111.111! 111::111111 1 11;1111,1,Â· ,~ i ----1.--4.-4-- - -t (4 7 LLI GROUND LVEL EL=100'-O 91 ~ 1 1 THEATER W. 1 EL=95'-6Â» ~00/ LIlli I 1 1 - 1 1 2 1------1 .----------------- D i ; LOWER L.V LrL -------------...., i EL=73'-6' V~ -------J 1 1 1- ------1 - NORTH ELEVATION ~ C 1 - -) .6.5...... 1 /> 1 0 2 6 16 <0520 Z 8 7 - 1 00 1 1 1 1 2 1 Â« 1 1 1 1 1 A-{ %\ Pl , 1 1 1 1- 3 1 , TO.ROOF ,-6 1 1 co 1 1 3 -- _ 5 jLZ u gi ~1\ tt f..t.\42\.4 -34\.... \:.\ O 0 UPPER LVL 1 04431 - - /'41 2333*~ :..1.\Tkf>.41 2 i Â·~xx:Â·. 4 2 60:,F't= z f:.1 1 -J Er. ffi 1 4. 449Â»42 :/4 09Â©Â« 44.4 till. -- tlftl . 03 r 1_ O r ,-4. -1 1--2.5 i~ ALLEY Ly L GROUND LVL/6 ---EGi66'7 EL.-98'-4* , 1 1 PROGRESS PRINT 9 ~ NOT TO BE USED 1 1 1 1 i y FOR CONSTRUCTION ~ 1, 1 1 L 1 4 1 PROJ.[FL, DATE 1 1 C-EL-907----~ DRAWING 1 ~4 , Â· \ El.EVATIONS 1 1 1 1 [J 1 1 6-fOWER LVL ~ a.=759 ~ ~ JOB NO. 9521 1 1 LOWER LVLP. ~ -- ------- - i i -- DATE 12-11-96 EL.=74'-9 9,; SHEET NO. - WEST ELEVATION A3.2 C 2 - 2.-, 4 *,; 11 0 2 6 16 [Fl 6447 -3 ~ d:,COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFH ARCHITECTS 16-Â£,lan/,ucarlriZE'Zen[Imm'rn/--Z------Z-Z~~--.------ 9209-526/046 :XY: * 06SS--5Z6/026 :3131 * LL919 03 'NIJSV * [0Â£ 31InS * '3AV NYNAH 15Â¥3 0ZE Z996-9ZZ/0Z6 XV:I * 9EZE-E?Z00Z6 :3131 * Sâ‚¬tle 00 '3(]INA1131 * 3/\V OC]VMO-100 -3 OZE OaÂ¥30103 3AN3AV SNINdOH lSÂ¥3 90f NOI1VAONBM SISI 135 DNIDIZId SS3Mt)0kl~(1-3 1- , ' D 1 Â· 11 tÂ·Â·:3.Â·~Â· i'~Â· Â·Â· '~ . i"Â·~Â·43-.1Â·Â·dititÂ·Af .... 7--'Â·-:rF..,IKE# I.1,Â£,2,3.1-19 Â· â‚¬ 1, r W.Vi., 1403 0 0 0 h (2) (2) (4 (2) A 1 j Â« AFF. HSG 42 u 1- i-/ ./.ts e 1 -- - JL, 1 - b -fir 5 M HANICAL -3.1 -3 . -li~ .*Ill- ALLEY 1 1111 - - W r CT,4.1 , 1 STORAGE ||| .-% .1 LOWER LVL '- , EL:73'-e . I ''. .11 y.Â· '41 - BUILDING SEC 1 A- 0 2 6 16 ' tjk-_ -*_-Â¥Sfir-9/2. i i b.i i ~1-3-~r >- EQ. *-41- ~ ~ 2~ 91 1 I ~-OF SCREEN I. - PROJECTION P J 5 7 OUILIJIINU OCU I IUIN + L./ Ill'll'll'llilifillillill'll'll'll'll'll i ~ SHEET OF ~ di C B k-------------------------------------------- 0 2 6 16 1 - ,Â©COPYRIGHT OIARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS /4/ f - 0% 'flÂ· b , 'Â·I, t .. CA .. - 0000~- a . . .....limi.AN/./.IMMium"W......01/AM..... D , , , 0 0 a : ....,~ .. . a ------- D .. a - .. . 80-*---ME21 -L . - *41*12./2=~all'I~lill .:: ./Wili...1. -_Im!9 * :*/01. - .. .0 D . . - .. a . :'Mi.&*"-1/="7-..1-- i .1 .1 / i; 9 gi.~_1~m,~,il /0 , . . - oeeâ€¢e e e o . . 0 0. 1. 0 -00 . - @illmED., 0 I . i ... I . .. . -13019=4,1-Ill- 1 9 *-4-*11#=iang rid ....................................................P-CHE,-36090~" 1 li 1 r -====a- Z . ... -I----- i . * - --........ 1...... -------------------- ' .. 9 ~1.1- = 12,~1 . .. . ...r- . I - 0 1 00 0 .. . . 0 2 . W 5-limiliI,FI-= .1 .4 .1 ,/ 470=.F==B///////// =1 3 -~I-~r...~ 1 1 ...i~ - . - . a - -all-- I . v- r- -inÂ·-2 -2....4.7:122(4.0:,':195-7~:- -----13-UVIT.Â·-17.7Â·72.3-I-32-33---------3-C.0. 1,62 -.F?EFI ,- ---:./.-'v " ." 7 4 0-14'1' Â· 1:1 0 1. : ROOFING 64 [.ISSUED 3-22-96 METAL 1- CE CHE. 0 PROGRESS PRINT NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION A - ' DATE DRAWING 0 OU 04 00~ i , BUILDING SECTIONS i THEATER E THEATER D THAEATER C 1.1 E ~ 104 ~ JOB NO. 9521 DATE 12-11-96 L....._t=L--__,222222222222222222221 LOWER lyl/h ... ... Â· Â· 4 â‚¬ EL.=74'-9 , SHEET NO. 1.- 4.- / / - BUILDING SECTION A4.2 i c D- i . r.1 0 2 6 16 4 Â¢ Â· ic COMUGHT GIARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS t t S1331IHDMV 333!NNAD S31>IVHD NOILLVAONEIki SISI 9205â‚¬6026 :XY:1 * 0695-SZG0Z6 :3111 * LL918 00'NadSÂ¥ * 10Â£ 31IAS * *3AÂ¥ NVFVAH 15Â¥3 0ZS Zy 33019 'N 9 'IN'l Sl OLWU-U Â·AV] * 004-0 01.4~ULO Â·]l]-1- * IC.VIO UJ luld'll'31 * 1/\V UUVaU IUJ j UCC OUÂ¥30102) N3dSV '3flN3AV SNINdOH 15Â¥3 9017 :1 A 0 -9 0.0 0 'SE- . .DD 0 ... a - I . .1 - ~~~IIIIIIIIIHIIIIIII*'IIII&L*3 .li:::1~-1- . . .. 0 . .0 ~-2~ D..D I I M -- .. ... D - A . e 1 0 0. 0 e 7: =0 0 0 - 00 ...'I;~,lf.Fl~~".,I~.&-It.p.....,",/1.9.2....ill:.1.1~.0. =*=/imidical# 11111"lilll""lili"'111"lil"'ll"1111'"lilli . ME.EE#Inff.Elli:*Elpilillifil,li .ilili:,~I~~lill'll.i..~Ill:/.~li./.'ll:.:il:/I:.lil:/.:IIi.:..:li././.~Ii'lli~."Ii::i::1././.:I./.:lilli:././.:/.:El:...~ lill mmi/1.:i~~i.::M//I::1.::1:.:1.::I:/:El:~Il::1~:/I::i~:1.::1.:i~:1:.:1.::1:.:i.::I-/m I 19:/:/i~:li:.~/1//:I.:1////i/i.~i:.il/:.~ilil:.:/i:/~i~:.1~:Ilili~.:1~:Il:/:/i~:Il~~i.i~l:.4.ili/ . .i 1 2.1/Ii//~im=,m~mi : ... . ' ......................... --ill-~0----abli - 1~Id--1-~ = 1 . a 11~1 ... 3-9~r,17"'37:-~37'E -"-7793,5.-,3~r~77?faf~:rm-rr-Â·--1-~-~-7 T-----~-,--37~-.-7-7---7-T--T---'~77~-t. Ap -- -- . 2 1 .. 4 I .-Abl 41-0 N ~~ 1 COPING ,/3 LSTUDS W/ TOP BOTTOM CHANNEL PECIFIED E 'x' EXTERIOR GRADE 3D. f HT.TO r LAR BREK AS SPECD DECK- / STRUCTURAL 1 4 UPPER lyl- ' ELÂ·/2/'-40 3EAM SEE STRUCTURAL- 1 DROOF USS FIBER INSULATION- . CH TO FLOOR CTURE 'i 'ERS 32 BYP.BD ON ENDED CLD SYSTEM 1 KEYN SEE WECHANICAL - ENDED CEILING SYSTEM ~l MODU, 'ERS96' GYP.BD. TTICAL SEALANT AROUND dETER AND ALL PENETRATIONS ~ 2 ~ STAN, --LOCK SHT.METAL UNTER FASHING ~ SLATL . ~ EX/57 1 Fl REUS L__\ SIDINi 5 ~ SAND. ~l BURN FIRESTATION ~ STAN, AY SOIL ON 1 FILTER IC OVER ED GRWEL FILL ~.. GROUND UL EL.-100'-1 L BEAM- - STRUCTURAL ~ ~ PROOF ;LASS FIBER INSULATION- DPI TO FLOOR CTURE 'ERS56' 13(P. BD ON ENDED CLG SYSTEM 'ERS%' GYP.BD. TTICAL SEALANT AROUND IETER AND ALL PENETRATIONS 3 INSULATION WPACE RPINNING SEE CTURAL ABRICATED DRAINAGE OSITE-SEE NOTE ION 1/A5.I PROGRESS PRINT L REINFORCED NOT TO BE USED RETE FOUNDATION FOR CONSTRUCTION ~ ~ STRUCTURAL DATE TAL STUBS W/ NEL TOP AND OM W/ R-19 BATT DRAWING WAU SECTIONS IPACTED GRAVEL SCAUÂ·. 92'-1'-0 UNG COURSE ------- L REINFORCED RETE SLAB SEE STRUCTURAL 10 MIL MOISTURE BARRIER -OPRENE JOB NO. 9521 NSION MATERIAL L RUBBER WATER DAU DATE 12-11-96 IN CONCRETE A LDNER LVL SHEET NO. 2'WIDE WASHED GRAWEL PED WfTH FILTER FABRIC .PERF.PIPE LATERAL - - - -- I . . , -J .,idgivee - - - -- ......ls Â©10-(702.To A5.1 INTERIOR DRY*ELL 9.4 REINF.CONC. FOOTING W/ REINF.CONC.FOOTING W/ REINF.CONC.FOOTING W/ REINF.CONC. FOG-ING W/ . - 4-f + -2 W /DE VOID o jO-0 02.TO lilliÂ«kLLI !111 -2 WIDE VOID Â© 10-0 00.TO IF WIDE VOID o tO-0' O.C.TO . pl- /4. IF WIDE VOID 0 10'-O 02.TO lilli I i 11 14144.-1) Ed iNTERjOR DRY WELL , INTERIOR DRY WELL ''1111:Illl/ INTERIOR DRY WELL_ INTER,OR DRY WELL 1 SHEET OF ~ r i .*1 - SECTION ~~~~----4JNDISTURBED SOIL - SECTION -NDISTURBED SOIL - SECTION ~~~~------l,INDISTURBED SOIL - SECTION -NDISTURBED SOIL L1- ic. COPYRUGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE AROWTECTS ~-n 11Â»t,ET] 1 1 S1331IHONV 33=!INNAD S3121VHD NOI1VAONBM SISI 9Z0S-526026 :XY:I * 0655-SZ6OZ6 :3-131 * L[919 00 'NidSÂ¥. LOE 31InS * '3AV NVWAH 15Â¥33 OES Zy >Â¤019 'N '9 'IN'l 5101 L956-9Z00Z6 :XV: * 8â‚¬ZE-9ZL0Z6 :3131 * SENA 00 '308nl131 *3/W OCIYHO-100 3 0ZZ 00Â¥30103 NBdSÂ¥'BANBAV SNI>IdOH JLSÂ¥3 90t I\1 135 DNIDIZId SS3MDOZI . 1~ e 444-4/~4~~//~/~~~~~~* ... - 0 I ...00 0 - c'*:*:*'N#""mmr - ,-%.1 Â® : ~.2. m. = m P e , . : 1,1 - lie --: -Will--ill ..In I : ... : . :D . D 1.. . ..0 ... 0 4 0 : 111 0. , 0 . 9 . .4 'I--0- 9 ':1 0 ... 1.1.0 ..., 12. im % 0, 0 0 0 . ... . a .., I . -- 41 . ..a. a...aa. 4. .., : a~~.1 . ...0 -~Ili 0 0 .. 1 111. .. ,~ U W,UA-Je. "INJE.='91-r.Â·N,Â·'ll':.Mll/A'.Il&'./9. "11.- . .-Hilli~lillillip 11'lillill 2 0 . D , 0 ... Slili - m Mil - - ,~11111 . , 2/ 53*95%528*52&@2%2@E*28;21=9~1**23~ ~ill/, , 1 .. 4 . DD . ... 111'll:r a. = ~mii= , D Inlilbill illillilimili .........bil 111 J D .0 A 1â€ž.1 .11- ."illi _ 1,1,1 1,1,1 lili, Ill, 1,1, 1,11 JL ".1 *9112 1-4. 0 . MU . . 1- , 1. lili 0 - D ...D :. 0 D r Ir.Ill. .... . â€ž,1 1"" J , pl i 1,11, .:: 11"1 Elli ,- lilli .411. , '' . 1 - ... D . ......a .1. 'Jin ~L~-~-i--*B /-/m-/-0/-a/-/f/-&-EL/L ....0 I Ii-"L - .11! .11- -L .F : D. 0 . 1 1 , D. 0 . D., . . ..00 Vâ€ž=2=â€ž7~=-: '~2-:Il-'ll.:3"i:11 - '0 0 0 0 m.Â·m.wmm.7.w.w.vummm.wmmmWUm.Â·m-:.Â· Â· Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·â€¢Â·Â·Â· , - -liJ Fi .. ---Ilm /1/ --1'.1 1 . 4 //1 Mil lillillillillillillill~imilillillilli,1IILIIIIL' - li Ill . 1, . D. 'k-- 1.1 lill/1i iillillill. 4 '. , 0, e 0 7 . 0 . 41 -:11 211 0 0 .0 0 , 40 0 1 . , i.11 H ~.1 9:~, 0 1 0 t. h~,1 Ililllll 0 D -r,J-r, =4 ..1 1 - - ~1=. ... ... u H .. .. .... , . D 0 , I . D . Ill* . . .1.'Al . .. 11.,1 1 1 - . D .0 .D O/, Â· 0-11 . O./D 20 0 leli - - D I. 10*mi.il.1 ,./ ~1.1. -4 iliwl. 0 1. 0 . 2 ..1 * 0. D I[â‚¬4 . 0. D . 0. D ; r. .. 0 . 0 0 . . 0 0 .:'ll- 0 . 0 1/ . 41 t.1 , 1.1 - IM.i 'lllllllillitil - - '1.11 . 1-1 6,1 D ~1 L.111~1. ~ . D . D - . 0 1 D , H a ..:. D T . .... D . .....4 - - -' I'""11+1 ==-=1151 . .11. 4922Â¥20&421 -1 .:2~ D.1 .0,0 0 . . 1.1,/.2 ...0 0 .........7... ..1.16-U ...~1- ,/ 2 0: D:A'