The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.HP.205 S Mill St.HPC1-93Mill St. Plaza Conceptual Dev. - 205 S. Mill St. HPC1-93 - 2737-073-38-004 1 to & R P - 1% C Mite 1 6<2~-2-2 . COTTLE GRAYBEAL January 12, 1994 YAW ARCHITECTS LTD Ms. Amy Amidon Historic Planning Committee Aspen Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Mill Street Plaza Addition Final Development Plan Dear Ms. Amidon, Enclosed please find submission documentation for HPC Final Review of the Mill Street Plaza addition. As discussed at our meeting on 11 January the architectural design is consistent with our conceptual review submission except we have reduced the addition scope by approximately 115 sq. ft. to permit partial use of the existing Hopkins Street steps for pedestrian access to the interior court retail shops of the project as suggested by HPC at Conceptual Review. As discussed at the Conceptual HPC presentation the design of the addition responds to and accomplishes the following objectives. a. The portion of the existing Hopkins Street facade to be added to has retail display windows at or above eye level. The addition brings the windows down to pedestrian level thus enhancing the "connectedness" of the retail activity to the street scape. b. The sidewalk space contiguous to the existing building is currently 23 feet in width, creating somewhat of a "no mans land" in the sense of pedestrian scaled space. The addition (10 feet deep) would create a sidewalk space (13 feet building to curb) consistent with the sidewalk scale characteristic of other downtown Aspen areas. c. Using materials derived from the restaurant addition above, the new facade JOHN COTTLE, AIA has been made to differ somewhat form adjacent facades, creating a street DOUG GRAYBEAL, AIA LARRY YAW, AIA scape diversity and a sense of more than a single building along the MARK HENTHORN, AIA Hopkins Street block facade(s). 510EASTHYMAN,SUITE 21 d. Chamfered corners of the addition create a mergence with the existing ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 PHONE 303) 925-2867 building. The facade length (45') returns to the existing building to permit (FAX) 925-3736 easy pedestrian awareness and recognition of the Historic Katie Reed victorian at the west end of the block. P.OBOX 11122 624 MOUNTAIN VIUAGE BLVD. TELLURIDE, COLORADO 81435 PHONE (303) 728-3037 (FAX) 728-3236 #111111111111111111111111111 Ms. Amy Amidon January 12,1994 Page Two e. In response to an HPC comment at conceptual review the facade I proportions and fenestration have been altered to create a more vertical emphasis. f. In response to an HPC comment at conceptual review an entry point to the building courtyard was maintained at the west end of the addition using a portion of the existing steps. MATERIALS a. Field Brick - To match the variegated "tawny brick" color of the existing building. b. Accent Materials - 8"x8" red/brown slate to match the existing 12"xl 2" field slate in the restaurant addition above. c. Cornice Detail - To match existing detail. d. Awninqs - To match color of the existing awnings. e. Signaqe - To match existing detail on awning skin and as permitted by city sign code on window surfaces. I am enclosing two sets of drawings including both the conceptual and final development documents for your review. Please schedule our final development plan meeting with HPC at the earliest available agenda time. As always, please call me if you have any questions or require clarification. Very truly your , Â¢ A. .. 5 -01kc Larry Yaw< ~ LY/Ihs:msphierb ~ CC: M&W Properties Sunny Vann MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation OfficerlÂ© Re: 205 S. Mill (Mill St. Plaza) : Conceptual Development for facade addition, Public Hearing Date: February 10, 1993 SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting Conceptual Development approval for an 875 sq. ft. (+/-) facade addition to the Mill Street Plaza building. The parcel is not a designated landmark, but is located within the Commercial Core Historic District, requiring HPC approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. The applicant held a pre-application conference with the HPC on January 27 (comments from that meeting are found on Page 3.) APPLICANT: M&W Properties, represented by Cottle, Graybeal and Yaw, Architects, Ltd. LOCATION: 205 s. Mill St., Lots D - J, Block 81, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado SITE, AREA AND BULK INFORMATION: Please refer to the attachment from the applicant. ADDITIONAL COMMISSION REVIEWS: Expansion of net leasable requires GMQS approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission, unless the applicant demonstrates that net leasable square footage is being exchanged for current storage square footage (non net-leasable.) The applicant is also seeking approval to mitigate their unmet open space requirement with payment-in-lieu, a P&Z matter under special review. Development Review Standards REVIEW STANDARDS: Section 7-601 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations defines the four standards for Development Review. All four of these standards must be met in order for the HPC to grant approval for the proposal. The applicable Guidelines are found in Section V, Commercial Buildings - New Construction, beginning on page 35 Of the Historic District and Historic Landmark Development Guidelines. Please review these Guidelines carefully when reviewing this project (see attached.) 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 1 in an H, Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot of exceed the allowed floor areas, HPC shall find that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. Response: This parcel does not contain a designated landmark, however, it is surrounded by six adjacent landmarks, the closest and most significant of which is the corner Katie Reid parcel. Character compatibility in this proposal is the key component the HPC must consider. This ground level addition, projecting the facade edge 10' closer to the streetedge, must achieve a design solution that is compatible with both the Mill Street Plaza, the adjacent landmarks, and the entire Commercial Core District. It is important to understand how the entire Mill Street Plaza works from a design perspective in the district in order to effectively review the proposed addition. A primary consideration is the slope of the site, which presents problems in maintaining properly aligned and correctly proportioned storefront openings. The east elevation works well from a pedestrian point of view: the storefront windows are aligned well in proportion to the facade. The ramp entrance into the interior courtyard seems to draw in the pedestrian nicely, and serves as the building's "alley". The diagonal corner bass relief arch announces the Eddie Bauer entrance, which is nicely scaled and is an excellent example of corner vitality. From there, the north elevation becomes problematic, and is not corrected with the new addition. The north elevation clearly does not meet the Design Guidelines, and staff finds that the addition stops short of meeting this standard and the design guidelines. It is the role of the HPC to not allow inappropriate design that does not meet the Guidelines to occur in the historic district. The decisions you make are long lasting, and deserve careful consideration. In highly visual commercial settings such as this, more time and care are often required to go into design development and review in order to achieve the best solution for the district and the community. Conversely, the proposed addition essentially finishes this building, by picking up and carrying through the established design elements. Asking the applicant to completely alter the massing, scale and materials that have already been committed may do a disservice to the building, and may result in a poorly executed design. The idea of blending material elements from the Katie Reed project into this addition to 2 extend the corner context down the block and tie the block together better has merit, and should be studied by the applicant. This issue was discussed at the pre-application conference. The windows require revision. We recommend that a pedestrian-level perspective drawing or massing model be submitted to illustrate how the addition works in relation to the corner. Staff finds this standard has not been met. 2e Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: We find that the issue of neighborhood character consistency is perhaps the greatest area of concern we have regarding this proposal. There are many design areas of the existing structure that are counter to the Historic District Design Guidelines, and we find that this addition does little to correct those design inadequacies. Staff is particularly concerned that the proportions of the storefront openings, a basic design principal in a historic district, do not meet this standard. The north elevation of the Mill Street Plaza is the most problematic in contributing to the historic characteristics of the Commercial Core. Pedestrian interaction is virtually non-existent along a great expanse of this north end. We agree that the addition well help to invite pedestrians into the space, and create life at ground level, but the window openings do not enhance and strengthen the district' s historic context. We find that an addition of this visual prominence must do more to contribute to the historic context than what is proposed. What also occurs in this proposal is the elimination of the north/south mid-block crossing. These mid-block crossings are found in many blocks in the Core, and is an element the Planning Office and AACP Character Committee wish to retain. By cutting off this cross-flow, pedestrians are forced to use only one north entrance into the courtyard, an area staff finds particularly uninviting, with no special sense of entrance. We disagree with the applicant that pedestrians "do not use the existing (north west) stair". Although this stairway is large, high and basic gray concrete (nothing special), we feel that a complete elimination of a stair section into this portion of the building should be restudied. Helping to maintain retail vitality for businesses within the plaza is also a goal of the City; the Planning Office believes that without a significant enhancement of the existing north 3 C , east stairway in tandem with the removal of the north west stairway and the addition, an opportunity to vastly improve this building's contribution to the district will be lost. Additionally, the following comments were made by the HPC during the pre-application: Provide life on the street; provide doorway entrances at both ends of the addition Restudy the length of this facade in comparison with the established rhythm and patterns of the Katie Reid project, yet maintain this building's own identity Blend this addition with what is going on at the corner and the district in materials and details Redesign the windows for correct proportion Incorporate basic storefront elements, i.e. kickplates below the windows How will awnings work? An interior airlock is necessary The Planning Office finds that this standard has not been met, however, in order to keep the public hearing process alive, we recommend tabling (and continuation) as opposed to denial. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. Response: Many adjacent structures are designated landmarks within this block. In order to fully determine whether this proposal "enhances or does not detract from" its cultural value, we recommend that the HPC require a streetscape drawing, perhaps computer generated or in perspective, and/or a massing model, to assess the impacts this addition will have to the Katie Reid cottage. We are concerned that its overall size, height, materials, storefront proportions and angled entrances have the potential to define it as the block's centerpiece, which may compete with the cultural value of the adjacent resources. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. 4 Response: This parcel is not designated. Staff's architectural comments are found in our response to Standards #1 and #2 above. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: 1) Conceptual approval as proposed, finding the Development Review standards have been met. The Final application presentation shall include material samples. 2) Conceptual approval with conditions, to be met at Final. 3) Table action and continue the public hearing to a date certain, to allow the applicant time to revise the proposal in order to meet the Development Review standards, as stated in this memo. 4) Deny Conceptual Development approval, finding that the Development Review Standards have not been met. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC table action and continue the public hearing to a date certain, which would allow the applicant time to revise and submit the proposal in order to meet the Development Review standards, as stated in this memo. Additional comments: memo.hpc.205sm.cd 5 V. COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS - NEW CONSTRUCTION New construction is expected on Main Street and in the Commercial Core. The possibility still exists to drastically alter the original character of these important districts. New buildings do not need to damage the historic integrity if they are designed to respect the relationships among buildings that have already been established. The Commercial Core Historic Overlay District contains primarily commercial type buildings, as identified in "Architectural Summary" on pages 3-10 of this document. The Main Street Historic Overlay District contains primarily residential building types; however, there is a broader mix of historic and contempor- ary commercial structures, including lodges. Users of the Guidelines should refer to the "Residential Buildings - New Construction" chapter when considering new construction on predominantly residential blocks on Main Street. In all new commercial construction, compatibility to adjacent building types should be considered. Broad-scale characteristics such as the range of the building heights and their alignment at the sidewalk should be studied. At the same time, the designer should recognize fine-grained aspects such as facade composition and decoration. The characteristics that have already been established can be respected while at the same time developing new and creative building designs that avoid the imitation of earlier historic styles. The intent of the design guidelines for infill construc- tion is to identify the elements most critical to the character of the historic commercial area and to insure that these elements are incorporated into new designs. Creative expressions of modern design solutions are sought, rather than recreations of 19th century architecture. By incorporating these critical elements into modern architectural expressions, new buildings will fit harmoniously with the old. A. Setback 1. Plazas or courts that break the continuity of the facade alignment should be avoided. If the best design solution requires a plaza or court, the alignment created by building facades should be continued through the use of architectural elements such as walls, planters, arcades, etc. Plazas or courts that are below street grade are generally discouraged because they tend to hinder easy pedestrian access. If these plazas or courts are desired they should be organized internally. 2. Maintain the general alignment of facades at the sidewalk edge. Most buildings were built right up to the sidewalk. This alignment defines the public space 35 and the building edge. This basic alignment of buildings at the sidewalk should be maintained. In some cases a courtyard may be considered if it has an active function or gives desired relief for the purpose of allowing a historic landmark to stand out more prominently. Projections over the sidewalk may be acceptable so long as a significant portion of the facade aligns with the sidewalk's edge. 3. Parking lots at street level should be discouraged. If parking lots already exist they should be carefully treated with architectural elements and landscaping so to maintain the continuity of the street edge. B. Alignment and Rhythm of Facade Details Architectural elements of existing buildings are in general alignment. Cornice lines define the two and three-story height prevalent in the commercial core; regularly-spaced window openings define the upper floors; and traditional storefronts create a strong band at the street level. 1. Utilize architectural elements to continue the align- ment in existing buildings. Use cornice lines, window and door openings and storefronts in infill construe- tion that continue the alignment of elements found in existing buildings. 2. Maintain the existing scale of the storefront when adding extra stories. The original proportions should always be preserved. If additional stories are to be added they should be placed far enough to the rear of the building so that they do not alter the front facade. 3. Maintain the distinction between upper and lower floors. Typically the historic structures have a retail function on the first floor with offices or residential uses above. This separation of function is shown in the facade: the first floor is predominantly display windows made up of large sheets of glass, while the upper levels are usually solid walls with small windows. These relationships should be used innova- tively in new design. C. Massing Massing of historic commercial buildings generally employed box- like rectangular solids with low relief ornamentation. The buildings vary in size, but are generally narrow in width and two or three stories in height. 37 1. For infill construction massing should have the same general size and character as the existing building. When larger buildings are required, the architectural design should visually break the mass into components compatible with the existing buildings. No wall should extend for more than three town lots (90') without an alteration of at least 8 feet in the setback line while generally maintaining the sidewalk edge. Roofs should not exceed in length three town lots without an alteration in the form and/or height. 2. The planes of the building walls should be flat in character. Avoid overhanging balconies when possible. 3. Maintain the pattern of uniform facade widths. Most buildings in the Historic Core were built out to the side property lines and were generally of the same width. When this pattern is repeated along the street strong visual continuity is created. The dominant facade patterns of the street should be reinforced by new construction. In cases where new buildings are to be wider than the present facade pattern, subdividing the facade into portions reflecting the pattern is encouraged. 4. Select designs that do not imitate historic styles found in the district. The integrity of the genuine historic structures could be compromised by the introduction of new buildings which closely imitate historic styles of Aspen or of other regions. As a result, observers may not be able to tell what is new or old, and may be confused about which are indigenous historic styles. Location is critical in determining which architectural styles are appropriate. For example, exact duplications in the immediate area of an outstanding historic landmark would diminish the unique quality of that landmark. New buildings that are designed to imitate historic styles are generally discouraged. Reconstructions are only encouraged for significant local landmarks; but, in general, new designs are encouraged. D. Storefronts Traditional storefronts were almost completely transparent, creating an interesting environment for pedestrians. This pattern contributes to the character of the commercial core, and to the economic vitality of the downtown in general. 39 1 1 1. In infill construction maintain a sense of transparency at the street level. This does not mean that a traditional storefront would need to be recreated, but it may be useful to examine historic storefront elements for design solutions. similar in size and shape. Examples of building 2. Use components of the facade that are historically components that were employed include windows, doors, moldings, and siding materials. Each of these compon- ents had a standard range of sizes. A chief factor that established a building's scale and the pedestri- an's relationship to the building was the repetition of similarly-sized components. In new construction, use components that maintain the historic scale of materi- als. Maintain the pattern of recessed entrances. To create 3. shelter from inclement weather and provide clearance for door swings most storefront entrances are recessed. The repetition of these recessed entrances along the street has established a pattern. To reinforce this characteristic the use of recessed entrances should be considered. E. Windows and Openings Window openings in existing buildings in the commercial core are strongly vertical in proportion. Square or horizontal window openings are generally inappropriate. 1. Maintain the spacing pattern of the upper story windows. Window openings above the first floor in infill construction should maintain the vertical proportion, if not the exact size of openings in historic buildings. Reinforce the pattern of uniform - shape that is repeated along the upper floors in new construction. Avoid shapes that are not typical of the street and, with respect to windows and walls, maintain the typical ratio of solid to void. Although there are a few exceptions on upper floors, bay windows are not a typical feature and should be avoided or used in limited numbers. 1 2. Where it is feasible align windows, moldings, and other horizontal elements. The edges of buildings were typically finished with edge boards and trim. Major subdivisions of the facade were also emphasized through the use of molding. The band typically found separa- ting storefront display windows from the upper portions of a building is an example of such a molding. Virtually all of the buildings were capped with the use 1 41 1 , < of a cornice, a design concept that should be expressed in new construction. windows is considered inappropriate. 3. Bright-finished metal for either window frames or storm F. Materials Existing buildings in the commercial core are predominantly brick and stone, which is typical of almost every 19th century mining community that experienced a fire during its history. 1. use building materials the are similar in texture and finish to those found historically. The majority of historic commercial buildings are brick or stone. Both brick and stone have distinct textures, and establish patterns along the street. These materials are important in establishing the scale of the buildings. This pattern and texture should continue to be rein- forced by new buildings. The use of variegated brick or stone is encouraged for infill construction in the commercial core. Large brick sizes are discouraged. appropriate in some locations. Wooden commercial 2. The use of wood siding, shingles and panels may be buildings may be appropriate when the softer appearance of wood would serve as visual relief from the predomi- nance of stone and brick, but would still reinforce other streetfront patterns. G. Signs Because it is such a prominent part of the business image, selecting a concept for a sign is one of the most important design decisions for a building. It is also important to consider what type of signs would be appropriate for the build- ing. These include the following: Signs that are flush on the building Signs on the window Signs that project from the wall Any questions on signage should be directed to the Zoning Official for a determination of compliance with the sign code. HPC has an advisory role only in sign display. 1. Position signs to fit within features of the facade. So they do not dominate the building that they are trying to identify, signs should be carefully located. Due to the pedestrian orientation of the district signs should be incorporated into the first floor design of the building, and in the case of historic structures should not obscure details. Avoid covering the molding or windows, and use the sign to emphasize 43 . architectural elements. These elements may include the storefront opening, the entrance, and other outstanding feature of the buildings. Individually applied letters placed on the exterior siding rather than being contained within a building detail are discouraged. In cases where second story signing must be used window signs are considered most appropriate. 2. Align signs on an individual building with similar spacing, size and lettering. This will help to unify the building composition. If possible the coordination of signs for several businesses in one building is encouraged. 3. Keep the number of signs to a minimum. Wherever possible consolidate sign information. Where more than one business is located in a building consider using directories. Signs should not overpower other facade elements in size and they should relate to other signs in the block. Select letters, styles, and signs which do not over- 4. power the building facade. The personal scale of businesses is an attractive characteristic of the historic district. 5. Coordinate colors with the building front. Select colors that repeat or compliment those of the facade. When it is possible also try to coordinate colors with adjacent buildings. Brilliant luminescent or "day-910" colors are strongly discouraged. 6. Design lighting as an integral part of the sign. If lighting is applied to a sign it should be placed in such a way that the light globe is not visible to the passers-by. Mounting hardware and electrical ducting for lighting must be integrated in the sign design. For exterior lighting use incandescent lights. An intense glaring light, produced by bare flood lights with out reflectors, is not acceptable for illuminating signs. 7. Use sign materials that are compatible with those of the building front. Due to Aspen's seasonal extremes signs must be of high quality durable materials. Where glass is used it may be gilded, painted, sandblasted or etched. The overall visibility through windows should not be obscured by applied graphics. Solid wood may be carved and finished to serve as sign panels. Brass letters and numbers may also be used in signage. Internally lit signs, imitation "stained glass" and fluorescent colors should be avoided. 45 I IL 1 IIi 11, 111 ------------ --~ Il 1 iiÂ· Fi ~_ #_ _]1 ~ - +- #-- - 1 1 11 Â·/ 1 Â·r 1 . 1, 11-:I L 1 6 & , -1 u 1: 11 11 1 I IL 10 /1 . 1 , 1 1, 1 1 1 ~ i i I 1-1 I i 1- I I i_-1- i ' 1.1,;1 1;14-41.-4-4--_-141-1....4..1.4.1---1- - - - - F -- , -4.-C- i I n .- -I -. . ! 1- 1 1 11 r L -1#:2 - --13,~ :--~- 4 : ]111 - it - Â·Â· i .C.'/7 f ... 1 ~ ~' -- 1 - \ , 1 1 Â».1 1:T -L . t , - ........ : .-- . 2 --9 -- -1 ~ -- ----~ .1 - -- -- - --- 'J NEW CONSTRUCTION IE c.j MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 205 S. Mill Street, Final Development Review for an addition on the north facade DATE: January 26, 1994 SUMMARY: HPC granted Conceptual Development approval for this project on February 10, 1993 with two conditions; that the wall opening on the west be a door and that the addition use details to reflect the verticallity of the building. (see attached minutes) The committee also supported keeping the westernmost stairway in place. The applicant has responded to those conditions and requests Final Development approval. The size of the proposed addition has been reduced from about 875 sq. ft. to 760 sq. ft. APPLICANT: M&W Properties, represented by Larry Yaw, architect. LOCATION: 205 S. Mill Street, Lots D-J, Block 81, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO. ADDITIONAL REVIEWS: The applicant intends to apply for a GMQS exemption for the addition of this space and will request special review for cash in lieu of open space. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STANDARDS: All four Development Review Standards found in Section 7-601 of the Aspen Land Use Code must be met in order for HPC to grant approval for the proposal. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an "H, " Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark... Response: The proposed addition will greatly improve the buildings' relationship to the street and pedestrians by bringing the store front windows in line with those on the new Katie Reid structure. Staff agrees with the applicant's characterization of this portion of the Mill Street plaza building as a "no man' s land" and a "grand staircase." By grounding this side of the building and therefore reducing its perceived scale, more focus will be put on neighboring historic resources, such as the Katie Reid building and the three Victorians on the opposite side of the street. The applicant has responded to HPC's direction to keep the north-south pathway open. Staff finds that this is a benefit to the project, but in this current configuration the stairway seems chopped off or slightly awkward. Perhaps the stairs could be straight, like the ones on the other side of the addition, or chamfered into the building like the eastern entrance. The stairs will be an important visual transition from the new low windows back up to the higher ones on the existing building. By drawing on the building materials of Chanin's restaurant, the proposal creates what looks like a new structure along the block and breaks up the long mass. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The proposal is in character with commercial development throughout the core. The windows are larger than most, but respond to the scale of this building. The applicant should consider making the awnings slightly longer to match the size of the windows. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. Response: The proposal does not detract from the cultural value of the surrounding historic resources. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The proposal does not directly affect any historic resource. ALTERNATIVES: HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: 1) Approve the Final Development proposal as submitted, finding that the Development Review Standards have been met. 2) Approve the Final Development proposal with conditions, to be met prior to issuance of building permit. 3) Table action to allow the applicant time to revise the proposal in order to meet the Development Review Standards. (specific suggestions should be offered) 4) Deny Final Development approval, finding that the Development Review Standards have not been met. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC approve the Final Development proposal with some resolution of the westernmost staircase and the awnings. Additional Comments: Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of February 10, 1993 Bill: That helps us understand why you took that approach. Jake: If we find that the mansard roof is a better plan we can give a FAR variation to accommodate that calculation. Straw Poll on proposed roof shape and height as presented; five members in favor. Two opposed. Wayne: Some glazing is important. MOTION: Joe made the motion to grant conceptual approval for 232 E. Hallam and that the applicant be directed to restudy the windows and possibly look at the height of the addition; second by Roger. Les: A revision would be the only way I would vote for this. To me this addition is not soft and needs more work. It is too abrupt and too much visually. Joe: There is one group that likes it to relate to the old and one group that likes simplicity and to have it relate to the new and this is something in between that doesn't seem to fit. You need to sell this to us. Motion withdrawn. Jake: The job is to relate to the historical resource not relate to the old addition. I am clear on that. Pull out details on the historical structure that you like and simplify and bring them into the new addition that you are doing. MOTION: Roger made the motion that HPC grant conceptual development approval for 496 sq. feet to the Vigoda addition of 232 E. Hallam with the condition that the applicant restudy the fenestration (windows) on the north elevation; second by Jake. Jake: I would like to add restudy of the roof form (mansard roof). Roger: I feel that is included in the motion. Chairman Bill Poss called the question: Carried 5 to 2 - Opposed were Les and Don. Linda didn't vote. Wayne: I may do a model of just the addition for the next meeting. 205 S. MILL - MILL ST. PLAZA - CONCEPTUAL - PUBLIC HEARING Roxanne: The applicant is requesting an addition of around 875 sq. feet. A facade addition to the Mill St. plaza. This parcel is not designated but is located within the Commercial Core Historic 5 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of February 10, 1993 District. A pre-ap was held with the HPC at your last meeting. This is similar as the last presentation of addition something on to an addition that does not meet the standards. The first standard is character and compatibility to the adjacent parcel. The Mill St. Plaza is surrounded by six landmarks particularly the Katie Reid. The proposed addition is a ground level addition that project out 10 feet closer to the street edge. We find that is appropriate to have pedestrian traffic close to the sidewalk. The east elevation of the Mill St. Plaza meets the standards, the north elevation is very problematic and those were the issues that were dealt with. In regard to proportion, store front, pedestrian interaction, how the cross walk connection works, stairway, detailing, materials all those issues. We recommend a massing model be presented so you can see clearly how this will work. Because of these issues we find that Standard number 1 has not been met. Standard number 2 is character compatibility within the neighborhood which is the entire commercial core district and we also have a concern here particularly the pedestrian/ cross flow traffic and the elimination of the stairs which has entirely changed the way the entire building is working from the north. Also how the storefront windows work. The guidelines are listed beside the memo as a check list as to what works and what doesn't and why. Other concerns are listed in the memo. Standard number 3 deals with the cultural value and that standard can go either way. Enhances or detracts from the cultural value of particularly the Katie Reid project. Standard number 4 deals with architectural integrity of the designated landmark. Our recommendation is to table and continue to a date certain to.allow the applicant time to restudy per direction of the HPC. Larry Yaw, architect: This is an addition of around 875 sq. ft. The north side of the building is problematic in its present state as it has no street level entry. The display levels windows are eye level or above them and the existing stair is not an invitation to enter (too grand). The open space is not inviting. With that addition we intend to mitigate all those negatives and get a better relationship with the Katie Reid building. At the heart of the character of the building what can we intensify upon and make it a stronger personality. We did that and one of the major steps was to take the slate that is the exterior material for the building above and we brought it down into a significantly into this building so the entire facade would have the slate. There are awnings proposed. We took the dark red/brown material down into the building. Joe: What treatment are you doing on the window? Larry: We are enlarging and making bigger windows but the material will be the same as the existing brick. 6 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of February 10, 1993 Roger: Are both entrances on the Hopkins Street side airlocked? Larry: Yes. Roger: How far out are the three windows going to be bayed? Larry: Four inches, like a relief sculpture to break up the hard edge. Roger: There was talk about a kickplate under the windows? Larry: I do not consider it to be an important detail under a window within a brick wall. Larry: Kickplates are to protect something. Roger: Do you feel the proportions of the windows to the scale of the building is right on? Larry: Close enough to right on because in our research generally the windows on the lower floors were dominantly glass, historic reference. i Roger: Is there room for benches? Larry: Around the project there is but not on sidewalk. Don: Is the area on the north west going to be reversible to an entrance in case of multiple tenancy? Larry: Yes, depending on who will be in there. Right now we may not have a door there and just put in a window. Roger: Would you mind having a door even though the north west is not an entrance, similar to the GAP? Larry: I have no problem with that but will discuss with owners. Roger: You don't show any lighting on the outside? Larry: There is low illumination up/down lights. CLARIFICATIONS Karen: The elimination of the north south mid-block crossing, would you explain that. Larry: The stairs are eliminated and I do not feel people use that 7 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of February 10, 1993 area at all. Leslie Lamont, Planner: It is a great way to connect midblock to the Wheeler etc. In the definition of open space it talks about mid-block pedestrian loops. Bill: This is a zoning issue and was it a previous application GMQS application or what? Leslie: I have not gotten an application from the applicant and when I do will review all the files. Larry: We cannot afford to solve all the problems of this building with this little addition. Bill: If this is an historic element then we would review it but if it is a P&Z issue then they should review it. Sunny Vann: Our position would be that it is still a mid-block connection and we are prepared to argue that at P&Z and at the time we will be requesting to be exempt from the open space which is being eliminated by this addition. You should act on the application based on the architecture. This whole project is premised on the elimination of that entrance and maintaining the other stairwell which is 50 feet away and is an L turn. We would ask that you review it based on the submittal. If the Board feels closing the open space in front of the building is problematic that is an appropriate comment. Roxanne: Character compatibility within the district means a lot of things. If the Board feels this is an important thing that deals with the character of the community and how this building contributes to character then you do need to address it. This is a design consideration. COMMENTS Jake: I support this move. I feel the problems that Larry outlined are true. That open space is a no mans land and is useless as it is on the north side. I am in favor and like the differentiation of using slate and establishing its own statement but relating to the overall structure around it. Roger: I believe this project meets all the guidelines. I also like the use of the materials and solves the solution for the owner and the building. It softens and works well. I would request that the west entrance which is not an entrance but could be is in fact an entrance and always would be and the reason for that is that I would like to see the ability to pass through that area. \ 8 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of February 10, 1993 Don: I have to take this as an addition to an existin4 building. I feel Larry has handled it very well and agree with Roger that the two entrances should serve as entrances. They definitely should be doors. Bringing it out to the sidewalk is a benefit. Karen: What you have done is an improvement. From a compatibility standard I feel the arched awning is much stronger as it links the second part of the building to the first part. I also feel the massing is long and plain in comparison with the massing of the adjacent building. I feel the building would be more compatible if the plane were broken up more in whatever way. I also agree that the windows should be brought down. I also liked the second stairway and it is too bad it has to go. Joe: I also feel that it meets the standards with respect to the adjacent properties in my opinion; by bringing out the building you encourage people to walk down the street. I also feel there should be the two entries. Les: I feel you are going in the right direction but personally would like to see a restudy of the massing windows. I feel the length should be broken up. Linda: I agree with most of the comments made and feel it is compatible with the mother building. I am pleased with bringing it out to enhance the flow. Bill: I agree with the committee members and feel this is a remodel of an existing building. I had a few problems with the corner entrances because historically we only allow corner entrances on corners and this is mid-block but the committee is in support. I would rather have seen corner windows and a central entrance. By bringing the building out it strengthens the street alignment. The clipping of the corners allow the architect to soften it as we go back to the Lily Reid on the west end and open his entrance to the mini mall where the stairs occur. The materials are a good choice. MOTION: Roger made the motion that HPC grant conceptual development for the 875 sq. feet plus or minus facade to the Mill Street Plaza building 205 S. Mill with the following two conditions: 1) The west entry is in fact an entry with a door. 2) Either through use of materials or brick a restudy is done to show the verticality of the building; second by Donnelley. All in , favor, motion carries. Karen didn't vote. 9 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer L re: Pre-application for Mill Street Plaza Date: January 27, 1993 SUMMARY: Larry Yaw has requested a pre-application worksession with the HPC to begin a dialogue regarding the design of the new addition to the Mill Street Plaza Building. As the drawings indicate, the addition is a street edge along Hopkins. Your comments at this meeting are not binding; the purpose of a pre-application worksession is to introduce the basics of the development plan so that the HPC may begin to consider the pros and cons regarding its compatibility within the historic district. The full conceptual development review and public hearing is scheduled for the February loth meeting. metno.hpc.pre. app Th.*hi-~~ou.e 1792 40'EPX U, - A )' -5Eff[Efri - 2-g me 7 1 1- , 2 - , \ 0 #V - * CITY OF ASPEN 130 S. GALENA ASPEN 00 81611 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 205 S. MILL ST. - MILL STREET PLAZA ADDITION, CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, February 10, 1993, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee in the Second Floor Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, to consider an application by Mill Street Plaza Associates, represented by Cottle, Graybeal and Yaw, Architects, requesting conceptual development approval for an 875 sq. ft. addition to the Mill Street Plaza Building, located at 205 S. Mill St., Aspen, and described as Lots D, E, F, G, H, I, and J, Block 81, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office at 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, 81611. (303) 920-5090. s/William J. Poss, Chairman Aspen Historic Preservation Committee Published in the Aspen Times on January 15, 1993. City of Aspen account pub.notice.205sm.cd RAFF-.7-.- 7-JIE--5.4.-1 . 1 ~,1, 11 itty !, COTTLE GRAYBEAL January 12, 1994 YAW ARCHITECTS LTD i Ms. Amy Amidon Historic Planning Committee Aspen Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Mill Street Plaza Addition Final Development Plan Dear Ms. Amidon, Enclosed please find submission documentation for HPC Final Review of the Mill Street Plaza addition. As discussed at our meeting on 11 January the architectural design is consistent with our conceptual review submission except we have reduced the addition scope by approximately 115 sq. ft. to permit partial use of the existing Hopkins Street steps for pedestrian access to the interior court retail shops of the project as suggested by HPC at Conceptual Review. As discussed at the Conceptual HPC presentation the design of the addition responds to and accomplishes the following objectives. a. The portion of the existing Hopkins Street facade to be added to has retail display windows at or above eye level. The addition brings the windows down to pedestrian level thus enhancing the "connectedness" of the retail activity to the street scape. b. The sidewalk space contiguous to the existing building is currently 23 feet in width, creating somewhat of a "no mans land" in the sense of pedestrian scaled space. The addition (10 feet deep) would create a sidewalk space (13 feet building to curb) consistent with the sidewalk scale characteristic of other downtown Aspen areas. C. Using materials derived from the restaurant addition above, the new facade JOHN COTTLE. AIA ~ has been made to differ somewhat form adjacent facades, creating a street DOUG GRAYBEAL, AIA LARRY YAW AIA | scape diversity and a sense of more than a single building along the 1 MARK !{ENTHORN, AM Hopkins Street block facade(s). 510 FAIT HYMAN, SUTE 21 d. Chamfered corners of the addition create a mergence with the existing ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 | PHONE(303)925-2867 1 building. The facade length (45') returns to the existing building to permit (FAX)925-3736 easy pedestrian awareness and recognition of the Historic Katie Reed victorian at the west end of the block. POBOX 11122 624 MOUNTAIN VIUAGE BLVD : TELLURiDE. COLORADO 81435 ' PHONE (303) 728-3037 (FAX) 728-3236 | Ms. Amy Amidon January 12,1994 Page Two e. In response to an HPC comment at conceptual review the facade proportions and fenestration have been altered to create a more vertical emphasis. f. In response to an HPC comment at conceptual review an entry point to the building courtyard was maintained at the west end of the addition using a portion of the existing steps. MATERIALS a. Field Brick - To match the variegated "tawny brick" color of the existing building. b. Accent Materials - 8"x8" red/brown slate to match the existing 12'x-12" field slate in the restaurant addition above. c. Cornice Detail - To match existing detail. d. Awnings - To match color of the existing awnings. e. Siqnaqe - To match existing detail on awning skin and as permitted by city sign code on window surfaces. I am enclosing two sets of drawings including both the conceptual and final development documents for your review. Please schedule our final development plan meeting with HPC at the earliest available agenda time. As always, please call me if you have any questions or . require clarification. Very truly yourÂ§, 1 Larry Yaw< ~ ~ LY/lhs:mspMerp CC: M&W Properties i Sunny Vann 7>4 / r:- , 1 4 'Zmi In I I ..0 4 4 I - 7, E Â£4'Â·1 Â·4.0 1,{7 Â·Â· frPINEM'HTslf.r*-ovAQ,171 1 7 -,FC i? ~-Â· u - 1 - I:. , 1 2..4 *1 . 7 , 321 /4,1 : '4 j e n. . b., , ir. f ~, L N , 2.1 4:....~ 1 Â¥.9 R . , 6-1 ' 6 ..]1 ... La - 1 ke, r. -. . . '<rl. :. 1 . Â· 862... . k.. . .....L~t.....0 etÂ·,1, Â· 1 Â·' Â· 1,114!411Â¥*SE'11"vr,r"nr,-r._- .....'*W..C... Mis Â· ii. - -4 . ...jtj#27 . Et, 0. ...11 11 1 1- ./ , 1-7 I .' , X 1-2 1 , LI,4 Â· Â·Â·Â· .f Â·Â· r r =0 4 * ':D 1 . .1- 1 f w. %4Â· 41.T ,'t+' . â€¢ k/44 :-15,1* \ r 7. , , = 1 . . 1, . .~ I . 1.1 / - .... 61 t. N .L. . . 1 1. , 1 - e . t Z,t, 1. .. '.t. ....::.1,2.'1< , r , 1 -- 1. ' . -.--......A i .... 1, / . . 44.24 '112,0 >37 ' I j \\\. .+ Â£ 4 . ' .... I. :t- 47.4 : 4 \ I , \ Â· 9 i -- ~~~~~'â€¢:- '141:r31~;3> 9Â«- Â·Â· ..Â·U :../.,4 ... ./* ./: - .' _ IÂ· 4 1/ , (.4 . .Â¥4. . 4- 1 -\07 \ 11 4 . . N ...AÂ·. ..., ~- ~Â· ,| 1 / 1. - = 1 I'~I~Â¥65. 41 - . 1 1.4 11 1 4 \ .' . : : 110 , i '' ' ' ' ' 19/2,7:A--1/'U -~X 0 - 22,~ 4 \ ~er>~,1.WAL.Juit \11 \ \\ \ \ :L*n. 2. 1 Irllt . If 'Al .Pi , \ Â¢f I - 1 \\ h ., pi t,h ful, 11 7 1:. U 1..,,1.,,',-l.,1 - ./ ~--Â·-Â®\14 . r vv-=vi , r vkt#~257 \ I \\ .2 ., . 3-. f?...1%8'tdÂ·.111; . 1 t I 1 6. 1 1 / rh N--/'' f ' Â·~.4646 1. 4- 2 \ 0 Â¢ 1 2 # . / ' f '2. 74 ir. K it - -/ A.A'*'N:t / -1 0> 5 0 I 5 J iÂ· . Â· '- i . h 0-4. r' . . iâ€¢, .., , v.~ Â· A re#C: PAi N ; 2 ~ ~~ ~~ to 2 i . 2 . 1'/ . /li''I-~47 - 1'. .' a: ,~Â·' ' '-Â·4 -'ihe,f.';:7'4 . *p J .. 11.- , Lr r I .' . - 5 3 - . P 4 *3.9961-2.Â·..4,23,/2.1'... e 14 - -- 3 01 I 1 -- 63 t EXISTING LEASABLE SPA ~ ~- 11 11 1 1 -- OPEN TO BELOW i \ < - - DN I *. . ~ISTING LEASAE 1 L L.-1 d . ~ j p r 74 1 0 up..2 -- - - -- - -- / EXISTING LEASABLE SPACE 1 Â¤ EXISTING LEASABLE SPACE r ~ ------- - i 11 v ' L=- 1 1 --i-- L cr 111:!1! >. --- uP - :1 1 111: DN = 4- ~ --- U 441 - - -01 0 0 0--0 --- - - -0--da : 0 1 r 1.- UP 4 / - > O - - 5 f > O 0 iot o .0,0 0, 0 7 L 7 rl -1. . - ------14 09 10-2---n -3 --O c ' 1 UN -11-- 1 " '~ vt-----~it 9 ng 1-i i 1 6.621~lk 1 1 1 11 ' ~ ~ ---2- Ill ; li -r 11 4 -- 12 J , M _ 1 *f ~~~.iJ --.~p L_ . 1 ' ' ' '1 f . - 4-'--ij--Ii--~+W- I â€¢r~ - 1-â€¢7 tn:.m=-, I. 1 r--------- 1 1 - F EXISTING HOPKINS. STREET ELEVATION -~ - f-FE-3-51 1 : ; 11 1 --/ 4, .1 0 - 1 trt- - - n ~-----ILL.6- 1-1_1LkE '1~'IN,m117*1113 -62-7... ---- I elli[~11113 g f ,MmiuMIWEET'PIJAZA-41*XTRFING EIIX:liEW'EVI[DING NEW CONSTRUCMON ~-I.-q--Il----i--.--~.li-.I----Il..=#*--*. . =HOPKINS:STRERTE*EVATION= 1 j . 1 , C./.- Â·"Ep Â·c-P!//MP-7797h'.43Â¥"vT:- tl:. J Av,MAY -Â·44Â·.1-Â·Â· Â·70#64:92731%3~/49 'Fir/Pjz~-~31~~'~~N'~~~~F~3~T--"-~~~-----7~6:tÂ·{Â·7'77,'-Â·,--:~ Â·p~:~. . f-7 -' lA Â· 1 - /1/ tra 1 1 '1 , 1 -\ - L._rl Il --"--- III- V 111_/U ' itt 1 1 -1 -1 - 1 I + I ve - 1 11 I # 0 - 11 T- 1 1 *t. 1 / I 11 , 41 i.. 41 - 1 1 1 1.4 4 -14.4 1 " 1.- 1 111.-11 - 1-1 - - 1 1. 0 It ill 1 1 1 11.4 - 1- EXÂ»It '46 - 41 ~ P t *4 11 11+!. b. * i IMIl 1 1 1 -1 + I 't Iii . .Â· IC 5 - 4,21-4, 1 +1- 1 . lili: : 1 44 -1~ * - Ft+- - c T-77 2,1- 50 X 2,\- 23, s yl. 6 0 4 1 64 2-7'- 4' 4- 23 - e - 2.36. (Pe> * U F (p' - 9â€¢ i 7-1'- U' = 1 66. 0 541 1 , 1 4,1 , : - 4-59. 51 Jb I - - 4 - ry 9 . 1 -i i - 1- - - i. . . 14 - I 4 1 1 11 - J ~,IZI~ - El ~ P f. i + 03 i ...I "'''L.'Ii'744Â·i, 4 1_ , 111 5 + 'r. - 4 :f' 1 1 -~ L.* :/71 ' -1 4 - / ~ E lt# . ' 4 1 ' I - - 3 ' billi 1 E fl'Â·,1 I ...1:~---V\~- 11 - -1- 1 11 1 , 3,-'11*,t' 4- 1 1- Â· -11 0 - , 4 1 1 - 1 14 t' ~ ~ + L>r'f"'- 1 w 4++ / - 1- -1-Â£ 1 1 1- I. 1 -E ~MÂ¥~yi' 4 11 1 111 lilli 1 11 lili 1 1+ - -- 1 1 1 1 1 -t I 1 14 I - 0 %1 - . . \ P/ 1 4 1 - -1 1 - 2-4 1, 11 -1 1 1 ~ ~ -u,....Â·'~---r Â· 51/ t ~ ~,i ~ 1 1 K.ti l 11 1 =1 / 4 + I I It .7 = 4.1 1 , 1 ' I ' 4, i.1-1 - 1 tt , t' r r /44- i - 1 :1 7- *,1,Â«- - *t 4 /1 -- 4, I + 1 - -7 -41 1 4-1 'lt, 9'M<46 t.-144 - 1 +11 1 1 111- 1 1 . 1 ~Â®Lt., i i ..,. ,, -11 1.11'.61 -rr -U . 1 4. 4 1 /1 ' ' il UP 1 -./ 4 -- lf<-606 ~- ur - Ll- 4 7, 'r 4 -- / / 19 p_(43 *- L 1 1 11 1 1 ! 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1. 1 1 111 1 - I! 1 I , i . S -1! t / 1 1 r â€¢ â€¢ 1, 1 1 , 11 1 4 .1/ 1 ~-LE-1-i L . U El . I -n mn- 1 3 1 : i i i . 1,1 . .1 ... f li i 1 M il 11!1! li tillliiitil iilliiljl[ flill!11:1421!.1,1~ '11 fliÂ·i~'A '1.1 LL _.1.'LT "Lr-Â·T 1-Â·4Â·':.1~ '1 : 1 1 i . 11 11 1 , ~it*=:-- 4-1.-T--r-i_-5-!---L#Tr-'-f- f-ft- i--f-.4---t- 7[ 1 L~ . vi .. 1 :;? 1 ... , i. ': 1 1 1 1 !; , 1 Â· i I z ISCU~t==~t==E==r--r-r- - . 4, 1 1 1 ~ii~ :i,Â· i i-jjitrimi-1-rT-â€žr~ -4'. 12[ un =U - _ ~1_ O O ja-on I- 1 1 -, . 1 . 1 . ' -., i- lit . 1 , . -- 1 -1-+ - 1. 1 ?11 . i -1--1.. 1 . ... 5 .. -.Ili j -. <.. - -- --4 a 1 -, 1 - ..1Â« 8--in in-muni lin[!1 11 !1 I it T mn. 1 ,~:,1 | 11!1141) 1 1...4 rt' t-*t ..... 11'11,!titilliltillitlilr -- lilli' 111!1!1' *lit'1111111111! trit!!111!11!?i:tÂ·!1!!111,11 I! Â·r:=f~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~"~~~~~" ~ ~~~~iFr-=_~~~L '111 Ill ITION 9, ., Â· Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of January 26, 1994 we have not done that due to concerns of the neighbors. 205 S. MILL STREET - FINAL DEVELOPMENT Larry Yaw, architect: The changes from conceptual were opening the area up and creating a cross block circulation so that you can enter the internal courtyard from two different areas. The other change is creating more verticality and we have carried the idea of the chanford corner across. The slate above was brought down to tie the two together. Amy: This is a good project and it is important along that street as there is not enough vitality there. I thought maybe the way the stairs were chopped off that maybe they should be cut back on an angle. Larry Yaw: With response to the awnings we think they will be the same and tie into the others. Maybe we need to use a different color. We can use the existing stairs and with the opening it is much better. Jake: What about the revisions of the windows. 4%44 Larry: The glass in the windows will line up with the glass in the 9,- 3 NE 5 1 rest of the building and there will be no exterior lighting. Amy: We approved an awning for Chanin's and it was the same color of green so I would suggest using the same color. MOTION: Joe made the motion to approve the final development application for 205 S. Mill Street finding that it meets the applicable development review standards; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carries. 520 E. DURANT - AJAX MOUNTAIN BUILDING - AWNINGS Amy: We have had a problem with illegal signage on this building and I am trying to get them into compliance. Pizza Hut, Ross Andrews and Ajax Ski Shop. We need to decide if it is appropriate to have all of the awnings blue and gold when the HPC approved the Polo shop. Pizza Hut does not fit that. Ross Andrews has writing on the face of the awning and Ajax Ski awning needs to come into compliance with the sign code. I feel because the HPC said the awnings should be consistent years ago, we should keep to that. The problem is that all of these people put awnings up. Roger: Why did they put the awnings up illegally? Amy: Ross Andrews did his because it was getting near the 11 $ 4 ffe*%Â»8 COTTLE L-- GRAYBEAL YAW ARCHITECTS January 4, 1993 LTD Ms. Roxanne Eflin Historic Planning Commission 130 S. Galena Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Mill Street Plaza Building/Retail Renovation Conceptual Historic Development Application Dear Roxanne: Thank you for taking time in the busy holiday season for our pre-application - - conference and for sending the application package. On behalf of M&W properties, I am submitting responses to the following attachments for HPC review on 27 January 1993. a. Attachment 1, Land use application form. b. Attachment 2, Min. submission contents for all Development Applications. c. Attachment 3, Specific submission contents: Conceptual Development Plan. d. Attachment 4, Review Standards: Development in H, Historic Overlay District. e. Supplement to Historic Preservation Development Applications. Following Conceptual Historic Development approval by HPC, it is our intention to file application with the Planning Office for exemption from GMP and for special review for cash in lieu of open space. Sunny Vann will be handling these applications should you have specific questions. A. Attachment 1 Attached and submitted herein. JOHN COTTLE AlA DOUG GRAYBEAL A]A LARRY YAW AM MARK HENTHORN, AIA 510 EAST HYMAN, SUITE 21 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 PHONE 303/925-2867 FAX 303/925-3736 . Ms. Roxanne Eflin Page 4 e. Construction of a new structure within an H, Historic overlay district. D. Attachment 4 See Attachment 2, paragraph 5, written description of project. E. Supplement to Historic Preservation Development Applications. Attached and submitted herein. The Public Hearing Notice requirements for this application are being handled by Vann Associates. Conceptual Historic Development application requires Public Hearing Notice by: Publication, Posting, and Mailing at dates prior to hearing specified in Attachment 5 of the Significant Historic Development Application package. Also please find a check in the amount of Two Hundred Fifty-Nine dollars ($259.00) as required in payment for this application fee. Please call if the application is incomplete or you wish clarification for any of the information in our submission. Very truly yours, Larr9 Yaw ~ \ Authorized~,ject Representative 1 4 LY: kj .\IL Encls. Ms. Roxanne Eflin Page 2 B. Attachment 2 1. Letter of authorization, attached and submitted herein. 2. Street address and legal description of parcel: 205 S. Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Lots D, E, F, G, H, J, Block 81 City of Aspen 3. Disclosure of Ownership, attached and submitted herein. 4. Vicinity Map locating Parcel, attached and submitted herein. 5. Written description of Proposal: The project scope consists of a building addition of approximately 875 sq.ft. for retail occupancy and is located on the north facing portion of the existing Mill Street Plaza building facade which is set back 10 ft. from the Hopkins Avenue property line. As shown on the attached drawings, the addition will extend the facade 10 ft. to the property line and will occupy approximately 64 ft. of new facade length. Additional space will be created by infill of the existing west stair arcade, also on the existing Hopkins i Avenue facade. The new facade will essentially duplicate the existing facade in detail and material with the cornice band and column detail using 8"x8" slate coursing, the same used on the recent restaurant addition above. The proposed addition extends from and returns to the existing facade by means of 45 degree walls to create a softened transition. Similar to the chamfered corner at Mill and Hopkins, the 45 degree surfaces will demark a new entrance directly accessible from the side walk and a new display window. The windows of the new facade are more "pedestrian friendly" having been lowered from over 5 feet above sidewalk level to less than 3 feet. The new facade has been purposefully terminated over 20 feet away from (east) the new Katie Reed building facade to create a compatible building to building relationship and to enhance side ' walk view of the relocated Katie Reed victorian (85 ft. distant) at the corner of Hopkins and Monarch. Because the same facade treatment/materials/detail are being used, but with lowered pedestrian level windows, the addition is completely compatible with the parent building, as well as the Ms. Roxanne Eflin Page 3 character of neighboring development. The character of the "street" scape has been enhanced by bringing a portion of the building forward to define a sidewalk scale similar to other areas of Aspen, where building frontage defines the sidewalks. The current configuration of open space which is essentially linear, functions more like a wide sidewalk. While it qualifies as "open space" even under the current regulations, it is on the shadow (north) side of the building and does not serve well as a public gathering space. The new addition will also cause removal of the west stairway which currently extends from the building to the property line on Hopkins. The top of this stairway is 5 feet above the sidewalk which is rarely used, and acts more as a barrier than an enhancement. The new facade also helps guide pedestrian view to the Katie Reed victorian. C. Attachment 3a j 1. Sketch plan of existing and proposed development is attached to and submitted herein. 2. Conceptual selection of building materials to be used in the I proposed development as follows: r Primary face Brick - to match existing Cornice Band - to match existing dark red-brown slate. Partial Column Flute - to match existing dark red-brown slate. Concrete Steps - To match existing Awnings over display windows - to match existing Window jambs - painted to match existing. 3. The form, materials and detail of the proposed addition, which essentially match the existing building, have been designed to effect compatibility to the character of the immediate neighborhood similar to that which exists with the current building. 4. The project application falls under the following categories of significant development. b. Erection or remodeling or combinations of or multiples of any single feature of a structure which as not been determined to be minor. c. Expansion or erection of a structure wherein the increase in floor area of the structure is more than 250 sq.ft. 1 -ND USE APPII.(ZATION FORM 1) Project Maine MiL Street Plaza - Retail.Renovatio 205 S. Mill Street, City of Aspen 2) Project location _ Lots D thru J. Block 81 (inairate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) 3) Presert Zoning CC, Com mercia I Core 4) IÂ¤t: Size 6 lots - 18,000 s.f. 5) Applicant's Name, Mdress & Ihone # M&W Properties 205 S. Mill Street, Aspen, CO 81611 Phone: 303-925-8032 6) Bepresentative's Name, Adirpq= & Phone # Larry Yaw, Cottle Graybeal Yaw Architects Ud. 510 E. Hyman Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611 Phone: 303-925-2867 7) Type of Application (please check all t:hat awly): Conlitional Use Oonceptual SPA X Oonoeptnal Histaric Dev. Special Revier Final SPA Final Historic Dev. . 8040 Greenline Concentual POD Minor Historic Dev. Stream Margin Final ED - Historic Demolition Mimtain View Plane , _ Subdivision Historic Designatirn Corâ€¢hninitimization - Text/Map AnÂ¥,r~11â€¢Mit GZCS Allotment Iot Split/Int line GM33 ExeIption Adjustment 8) Description of ]83cisting Uses (number and type of â‚¬ocisting structures; approximate sq. ft.; rimber of bedrooms; any previous approvals granted to the property). Primary uses: Retail/Office Approx. 24,620 sq.ft. HPC approval granted to building prior to construction. 9) Description of Develgireit Application Conceptual Historic Development Application for approx. 875 sq.ft. retail expansion on Hopkins Street building facade. 10) Have you attached the following? X Response to Attachment 2, Minimum Submission Contents X Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Oorrterrts X Response to Attachment 4, Review Star*lards for Yalr Application .1111111 /1 j AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL (Pursuant to Section 6-205.E. of the Land Use Regulations) STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The undersigned, being first duly sworn, deposes and says as follows: I, SUNNY VANN, being or representing an Applicant before the City of Aspen, personally certify that Public Notice of the application for HPC conceptual development approval for an approximately 875 square foot addition to the Mill Street Plaza building was given by 1) posting of notice containing the informa- tion required in Section 6-205.E.2., which posting occurred on January 29, 1993, in a conspicuous place on the subject property and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously from that date, and 2) mailing Notice of said development application to all property owners within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, which mailing occurred on January 28, 1993. Applicant: MILL STREET PLAZA ASSOCIATES By ~F,'64909C.*Z~ /Sunn~#ann The foregoing Affidavit of Public Notice was acknowledged and signed before me this // day of 0*DiÂ¥WÂ¥*4 1993, by Sunny Vann on behalf of MILL STREET PLAZA ASSOCIATES. P682042>/ WITNESS my hand and o f fici,Al feal. j I. My commission expires: 40 1%9 . 4-1./4 d,Ud.h AU~ Notary Public I , PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. 601 E. HOPKINS, 3RD FLOOR Vincent J. Higens ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 Christina Davis President 303-925-1766 : 303-925-6527 FAX Vice President ADJACENT OWNER'S STATEMENT Pitkin County Title, Inc., a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent in the State of Colorado, hereby certifies the following list is a current list of adjacent property owner's within 300 feet adjacent to Lots D-I, Block 81, City of Aspen as obtained from the most current Pitkin County Assessors Tax Rolls. NAMES AND ADDRESSES BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION PLEASE REFER TO LIST ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF 0-LÂ«) i Ysiv AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE ~ ALH HOLDING COMPANY, INC. LOTS E, F, G, H & I, BLOCK AN ARIZONA CORPORATION 1/4 TwrupeCT 1 ./ . Ul /1-= U . 87. CITY OF ASPEN 37 HARISTON GREEN SNOWMASS VILLAGE co 81615 T u Unr n ING COMPANY, INC., LOTS E. F. G. H&T QT n/V ....i A A 11 u L.1 U 1 , 1-;.6- U &.I N ARIZONA CORPORATION 3/4 INTEREST 87. CITY OF ASPEN 7 HARISTON GREEN NOWMASS VILLAGE CO O 1 62 1 m CAN AM ASPEN DEVELOPMENTS LOTS G. H & I. BLOCK 80. P T TV nr Acorr A COLORADO GENERAL PARTNERSHIP U...... i .-lul ....â€¢ 135 EAST COOPER AVENUE ASPEN CO U 1 . -6 -1. Q 1 C 1 l ARL R. BERGMAN AND LOTS E & F. BLOCK 80. CITY A Turp TVT OF ASPEN M. BERGMAN P.O. BOX 1365 ASPEN .,-v-. CO 9/219 ARL R. BERGMAN AND THE El/2 OF LOT B. ALL OF ATHERINE M. BERGMAN LOTS C & D. BLOCK 80, CITY P.O. BOX 1365 OF ASPEN ASPEN co 81612 CHITWOOD PLAZA COMPANY LOT D. BLOCK 87. CITY CF C/O THE FLEISHER CO. ASPEN OnA CACT MATAT CT 1 U 0 - rt J i . ir-1 1 -' C L â€¢ ASPEN CO ..a- U- - 01 All CHITWOOD PLAZA COMPANY LOTS A. B. & C. BLOCK 87 C/O TUE' U'Tr-Curp CITY OF ASPEN co. 200 EAST MAIN CT ASPEN co 81611 CITY OF ASPEN LOTS K-P. BLOCK 93. CITY OF ASPEN , U _ 1 1 11.-14/1/ ' trT-V UAT T \ lan e 0 AT cv , ..OU J . CIA--1.'1" ASPEN CO O - U.L - 01011 CITY OF ASPEN r ATC 0-U> DT nry 87 B.'"V 00 uu.J 1 ... A.) 1.1 UU.\ â€¢ I.- 4 / Ill ASPEN (FIRE STATION: 130 S. GALENA X CorY CC O-U-6.-6 01 all COUNTY u. I . ....... U. u. u, . â€¢ Ct nu PTTY.F LOTS A.B. r n w U n U g. T or Arv o c ./ . U I. , L.} 1- U .'a ou. CITY OF mon r aÂ·.v ,i . MAIN ST. ASPEN Al 21 1 ASPEN CO O-U-i cl Cl C) Cl 60 CoP P FIRST BANK SYSTEM El/2 OF LOT L, ALL OF LOTS Â¥ V ATTN: TAX DEPT C. P. 0, R & S, CITY 1300 FIRST BANK PLACE EAST OF ASPEN MINNEAPOLIS MN 55480 HARLEY A. BALDWIN. II N 80' OF LOTS A. B & C. THE BRAND BUILDING CITY CF ASPEN 205 SOUTH GALENA STREET ASPEN CO U..U...., 01 All HARLEY A. J.-11. L/â€ž - .4 â€¢ -1 D A T TNAI TV TT UNITS 1. 2. 3, 4. 5, 6, 7, 1 1 1 9 .t l A TUU 8. 9. 1 i . i. u -6 t . $ ... W 5 SOUTH GALENA STREET BRAND DUTTATFC 0 u J. UJ ..N L 01 G 1 1 PEN CC O-U-6.- HARLEY BALDWIN S 20' OF LOT E, S 20' OF E or new 88. THE BRAND BUILDING 25' OF LOT D , 12 -duu,A nu /1(Dur 205 SOUTH GALENA STREET CITY u. .rl V I -i . i ASPEN CO Q'all HOTEL JEROME LOTS A. B. C. D, E. F. G. U 0 0 T n 7 17 r n"e T. E 20' v. UV 1 A, uu - J 0 - n O v 7 Q 0 EAST MAIN STREET 0. P. 0, R & S. 0 .4. U U A ' 4 . PEN Co P1611 râ€¢ I Tv OF ASPEN T'VIT la TUU DO,Vn OTT T T n,-VC TIT \ VT ..... - v . J u.1.I PIERRE CDIER P.C. BOX 88 ASPEN co 81612 K AND Y. INC. r a T C n UU $ 0 J ' E & F. BLOCK 88. f UvrcoT Q 20 ' nu r nme n 9 9 J U & 1-V - J - a u 71 4 WrQT MA TV STRUCT BLOCK 881 CITY OF ASPEN I. J h .- J 4 q.121 1 ACDCV CO .-U.-L LA COCINA. INC. LOTS M AND N, AT nov on U .u u u.' 9 U . CITY OF AS EN 9.0. BOX 4010 ACOUXT 81612 co LEWIS I. 0 L ...2-t i.m U U A. COUA TUTOW MY.Te 1 R, U.'; IJ - 1.~ . 101. 102. 103. 3650 SOUTH STREET 201. 20:A. 202. & 203. MILL SUITE 301 AND MAIN COMMERCIAL CONDOS a A '7 1 0 LAKEWOOD CA T T V T M 1 0 TUr LINDA H. JEMISON AND 1 0 , 4 11"- BRAND BUILDING RICHARD H. JEMISON 1524 CANYON ROAD SANTA FE NM 875C1 M g ME CL el M & W ASSOCIATES r n,1- v D T n r V o e OTTV Ar A . 12 i. UL'A U 1 . U 1 - 1 A COLORADO GENERAL PARTNERSHIP ASPEN 205 SOUTH MILL ST.. SUITE 301A ASPEN CO V-V-1 R1811 T Arrâ‚¬ DT nev 97 L. M. & N, Ju UL & U f . i . JENKINSON CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN 403 WEST HALLAM STREET ASPEN CO 01 21 1 MILL STREET PLAZA ASSOCIATES LOTS D. E, F, G, H, & I. A COLORADO GENERAL PARTNERSHIP BLOCK 81. CITY OF ASPEN 205 SOUTH MILL ST.. SUITE 301A ASPEN CO p 1A11 MOUNTAIN STATES COMMUNICATIONS, INC. ALL OF LOT M. W ln' OF LOT N. El/2 OF LCT L. BLOCK 79. P.O. BOX E CITY OF ASPEN ASPEN Co 81612 NIKLAUS G. au...~ .r,-,w LOT A. BLOCK 80 AND Wl/2 OF W Truv A Vn GERTRUD E. KUHN LOT B. BLOCK 80. CITY OF 9.0. BOX 8016 ASPEN ASPEN CO 81612 T AT PETER RIZZUTO AND TUVIA STEIN =U- U. BLOCK 80. CITY OF C.'0 316 E. HOPKINS, INC. ASPEN 715 r'i MATV Cr.!DE'UT J - A- 1- I ASPEN co 81611 RYANCO . 71. '.. . Nu i W U. J . AU . A.- TTn vrn VT 7 T LOT S. BLOCK 87, CITY OF , mTv . PAT SMITH ASPEN rt 4 1 J â€¢ 715 W. MAIN STREET Ola 1 1 A~OWN CO 0-U-- SABBATINI SPORT. INC. S 20' OF LOTS A. B. & C TUE' C 20' OF LOT D A COLORADO r,noonDATTAN W 5' OF . .hu I. enTITU UTT L CTDCUT BLOCK 88. 0Tmv nu ACDEV 0 J -6 A ~ -- 4., 1 U . . 1 U . 21 J 1 4-J . i 01211 PEN CO 0-LU-J ST. MARY'S CATHOLIC CHURCH LOTS A-J. DT nov (210 ,~ T TV r W J 1-, U L A VU I J - - - J . ASPEN MAIN AND ..U.'....,L STREETS U T -1VT C D ASPEN CO 81611 TUC LCTS P. O, R & S. O T ne v Q n BANK OF ASPEN 2-uce'. 'Jul o T TV n O AODEV. 9 - i 1 3- AL) i g.i 119 SOUTH MILL STREET ASPEN Co 81611 46 92 WILLIAM L. Jug U . .N UNITS 1-5. SEGUIN BUILDING er n T'TV P.O. BOX 4274 A QUE'Jr co 81612 WILLIAM W . .. ........ .. . . ...1 J ; V I wWUÂ· CT wiR A il'n r T,- T T' 1 g 97'T T D -7- FO BRAND u U # U .J - A U TVCDTO T WUWUrle# U I P.O. BOX 881 HELDSBURG CA 95448 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 205 S. MILL ST. - MILL STREET PLAZA ADDITION, CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, February 10, 1993, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee in the Second Floor Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, to consider an application by Mill Street Plaza Associates, represented by Cottle, Graybeal and Yaw, Architects, requesting conceptual development approval for an 875 sq. ft. addition to the Mill Street Plaza Building, located at 205 S. Mill St., Aspen, and described as Lots D, E, F, G, H, I, and J, Block 81, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office at 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, 81611. (303) 920-5090. s/William J. Poss, Chairman Aspen Historic Preservation Committee Published in the Aspen Times on January 15, 1993. City of Aspen account pub.nolice.205sm.cd CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen Historic Preservation Committee DATE RECEIVED: 1/4/93 CASE NUMBER: HPC1-93 DATE COMPLETE: PARCEL ID#: 2737-073-38-004 PROJECT NAME: Mill Street Plaza Conceptual Development Project Address: 205 S. Mill Street APPLICANT: Mill Street Plaza Associates, c/o M&W Properties Applicant Address: Suite 301A, 205 S. Mill St., Aspen, CO 81611 REPRESENTATIVE: Larry Yaw, Cottle, Graybeal & Yaw Architects Representative Address/Phone: 510 East Hyman, Suite 21 Aspen, CO 81611 81611 925-2867 TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: 2 STEP: ~3 STEP: HPO Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption: ywl FÂ°f f HPC Meeting Dates: 2'1 43 otcÂ»,Â£ 14 P&Z Meeting Date: CC Meeting Dates: 1st 2nd REFERRALS: Planning Building Zoning City Engineer Parks Dept. City Attorney DATE REFERRED: INITIALS: DUE: FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: INITIAL: City Atty City Clerks Office Other: FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: COMMENTS: M & W PROPERTIES SUITE 301A 205 SouTH MILL STREET ANTHONY J. MAZZA ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 AREA CODE 303 FRANK J. WOODS. III TELEPHONE 925-8032 FAX 925-6995 December 28, 1992 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: This letter shall authorize Larry Yaw of Cottle, Graybeal and Yaw to represent Mill Street Plaza Associates in connection with an HPC conceptual application. / Very truly yours, AJM:dr M & W PROPERTIES SuITE 301A 205 SOUTH MILL STREET ANTHONY J. MAZZA ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 AREA CODE 303 FRANK J. WOODS. III TELEPHONE 926-8032 FAX 925-6995 December 28, 1992 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Please be advised that the Mill Street Plaza Building is owned by Mill Street Plaza Associates, which is comprised of Frank J. Woods, III and Anthony J. Mazza and a minor interest by Joan Slattum. The existing mortgage on the Mill Street Plaza Building is held by Commercial Federal Mortgage. verytb<~ly yours, f /Kilho.14 J. Mazza ~ AJM:dr . \4%. -19- 11 IN ' 981 - . T Y C SAND STRUCTUAks:Â· -1EGEND 1986 UPI) COL //g//bilinOERâ€¢ --I--I- . . 0\\ . , 1 -Urn \ :ALr---4~ .. -9=521 . .Pch ....... not y., 66.1,1.Ned o 0 EE*VE'~Â·QaTE'03 2 00.1â„¢'Ch' cx'. Â£92~N~*=*86Ix:*j 0.-4- 1% Gap .. - 1. 1 2 '~t*WI---18*i,~5?Q'-46..~ . 19 -, 4 \ FIWIb a.11 PUInlws-EO *irrai .. - 4-- j< . MA 2 Â· . i-gmun,EI!101 :]InE E= mIL & a Â·Â· . I (1 kd'rrÂ·12:liI ingg[[i {mii]i#~1lif MWIm ,#, a Â· \'1 wiÂ®!1]~ilii,m.1!11*_RII[li! [Ii!111[&[12Â¥0] 1111,11=Ll 0]*9' WIEI EWIE ~ [rump 110!11] IAWIm, 111#Ilf; 0*E MFIR [2]m 1 lk- . 1 It . . , 11Â®11 112!HIC]!5114. ..114111 tli[JjÂ®J#dj.W.Qi:.; L=i:.-1 ll.Â®J# --: 1 : 1 .' 4 /61 - till 111]d~ 11111%Â·[1Â¥Ii 10Â§01111030!Ulgbw imml REN Iall 0 WI[ -nniz Im"W![umplom-mwmlyÂ®Â·~ =Ilil.[1]1[Ig g . Will!119 11]WB' [Ai:HlimIED;IDÂ®il liWImim,8tfi~~- [DIDIB,111(INOW . - -11 [milII will&1 Ull.ga.Ull]11116:Iliews IMMUI Â·1111-1Â£ J -1681mM-Â· lilll:ly WAill'i -- -C 0 111%[L NE Elm:N!111] CIW[milm!!Ii [in,;E [EÂ¥[li r-1 -114%~-11 8 !1111!luq.|1lluwj :Ull:lilli. 11:64.4/9(fu l.ll i .I 87 9.'Fa!*1'.all 1 Im: 1= I C - 01 'ilt'tfal - t 1* I @E' -- , Â· 1Bmil -. v 22â€¢ i J . 1 -- . 1 Â· C /0/1 41 ... I mirr .1 ' -- - Â· -11 YJAU .. mill [!IKI] i â€¢ . I L 1 . - - gr= L b . 7.Â· ii 0 .... Ill. 19 .-0- . }R .. M MILL STREET PLAZA ASSOC. 1563 205 S. MILL ST., STE. 301A - ASPEN, CO 81611 R KJÂ·+ (28 199,2., 82-465/1021 -~ N' PAY lu-~ tw,yUU--,Eff? -Â»~'~-' "'-4 'LNG -DOLLARS $~959.00 4 ~ TOTHEORDER 0 Â· OF 3-- r . . L - &0,9 23_ ~4+~~~ 40-n - Il' 00 15 9 3 Il'+I: 10 2 10 4 6 5 St 12 1 5 7 9 5 Il' i O DEL'XEÂ·WE ~. The Bank of Aspen 4."0= CE) -1,1111111.111,1,11,1~ - COTTLE GRAYBEAL YAW ARCHITECTS LTD 510 EAST HYMAN, SUITE 21 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 PHONE 303/925-2867 - FAX 303/925-3736 4 r#,4 C 4 *h -23 0,9 ALLEY 24 _*Â· _ 44,0- 01 01 - I '; .C â‚¬ - -IKE Â·44il EXISTING LEASABLE SPACE 1 - . / , U OPEN TO BELOW ~~ < DN Â£7 1 %z~ ==EXISTING LEASABLE SPACE -- 21/) \ 4 tes,/JER; i N L. U L 4 UPÂ«/ - 0 < | ISSUE: 11 It 1 1 EXIST*IG LEASABLE SPACE 4 1.7- -2 -1-=lf? -2 , | REVIN : = 1 - 34 0 0 0 F====b EXISTING LEASABLE SPACE m L i< _ 1 1 1=- --- F=r i n r | p --------I Hri,~----~ -O C. ----, . 1 5 f IC - - 4 up- L ' DN ID IN Elli 0 Â£31 u -- 11 [Ell 1 -- IL--. : UP rÂ·f r- VI-* .- tw .4 1 / -- A-1 -; 0/ Wt; - r. r .-/I . ree\ '4 r j .r--7 /r - 1 .J 1 /r / ,- -1-L li '122 1 3 6 o k s 01 30 10 f > f : 7 e .4 511 '7f- ht Â°fiÂ°/507 3 ' 'e I I h ,12% I </ , ..1 4 4 / / ~u 5 + 1- E 1 ~9 ANT , HOPKINS STREET 1 \ *1 L \Ej FLOOR -PLAN -EXISTING CONDWIONS N . Â©1992 COTTLE CRAYBEAL YAW ARCH]TECTS, LTD. Illllllll 1 7 [Ill Illilli ~flÂ·"hj'L . NOISNVdX~ VZVId ~L[in[HIS THIMI E 3111 lili L BASK COANICE TO - /111111111111111111111111111111 1 Â·Â·VATE H 27.161--:Na - , \ ' CORN'/OE BAIJD , 6*'. 5" SLATE 1-0 HAGMAN YAW â‚¬ , Al,ATCH Exte-1-INO - ARCHITECTS LTD ,1I 1 210 SOUTH GALENA - Il lilli 1 - --- -FACE BRICK To _ ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 , ,WATCH ED<10-1-iNa 303/925-2867 - /2 ,t 5/<,CK RECESS TO 4 --- -- MEGE.' VE A Ll'A//A/6 i r tl Â·- WINDOW CASE PAI Nl E g - TO MA-1 GH EXISTIN & â€¢L. i|-4 L j. 1 r - 11 - L-1 - <1 - - 9 r ' DISPLAY VOINOOW 3 / I 4 1 -,1 1< 4 1 - -- 1/4" ELEVATION ALLEY til Â¤ EZZ= EXISTING LEASABLE SPACE ~_--_ - ht .4. OPEN TO BELOW F < D DN 1 1.--- 4 1 1 9 = UP V il , | ISSUE: EXISTING LEASABLE SPACE = 1 REVISI,Â»S: 0 11 U 11 - 3 EXISTING LEASABLE SPACE. ~~.9, m 1 Â«1Â« -- A 1 9-- - 0 UK - 4 -373- innift-Â» 14-14Â«4 Int - 0 --- 4/1/ - 1 C Â«1_Â» f -#1 S, 01 F " Â· r'1 I -2- pl 11 h ,1 1- r UP i#J ~-Lykb J- 0% 1 - - ) -4 1 M . / 1 . J. .L - . 5 r 4 3 Â·ry 1-4 3 Jr' Â£ d 2 Â· 6 I C . I , t. â‚¬ 5 0 1 & 0 $,Of . . O : 0 1 O 0 . I--7 -- 1 , 11. 4 1, t r , % 4 1 -4 1 H . , 1 J E ' 5 - . 2 I . M Â£ I , -It , ' - - --C I V -h :. . N.-Il -- ./ .1 HOPKINS STREET FLOOR PLAN - NEW ADDITION .1 0 N f 1 , Â©1988 HAGMAN YAWARCHITEUS, LTD 111.1111 NOISNVdXGI VZVEId LLS[[i[HIS TII* AL ECTS N, SUITE 21 iDO 81611 -2867 16 1-[-9-21'~rf====T==~11 ~~T~~7~~71 ' 1 ~--1~=====---~--1~ I~ HI 1 11 1 7 11 E--=2=E=7--IL -A EXISTINGHOPKINS=ST=REEL_1*EVATION il . Â»Â®**fifftffÂ»~i--irAÂ»rfÂ«fliE-Â£<-~jTTTETT~FTHT1FTTT-T~-h731 ~r=Flkit ' ----- --2-Ill&7-~~ ~-~- - 1--iiÂ·=~ - P-----Ht==Il [-]I------ , , â€žrrrrIrr rPL.,emmil | | - 4 1 11 LL__---1 L MILL STREET PLAZA - EXISTING NEW CONSTRUCTION LILY REID BUILDING HOPKINS=STREETELEVATION_ . 1 - Â©1992 COTTLE CRAYBEAL YAW ARCHITECTI, 1 0 t..El.2.1 1- d111111111~111111111111111111 D. 1 . . D . ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..1 ..... ..... ..... ilililillilill'.milillilinll~Imillill/ ..... - ..Iii Ill ,t --Illill.......................i.......=Ii - - - ..... ..... - *JILI~I -1-1- --- - - -. - b,Ii- .......= ..... /:1-vzfjo~,I' ..... -le: -- ..... ..... *./.FEE'FE!~11illillill"/8/3/lill.ml-Ill'llillill'll ilimill'llilill'llin'lliall-'Il...1/Mill- a...... ..... .~ iN ,-1 01 0,1 - . 1 imil 1. .. - ..... .li =im 2-1-/ 1 ... .....= ..... m = r--. har.1 CAh (71\ 11\ *1 A , e==D ~i , It-3 1 1 TS TE 21 611 L . 4 1 L Â·.1. WK \\\ \Pe 12.D. & li~ U '3~f N J -7 E â‚¬1 5 a, Al;Kle)*6 114E)'l.-Â«E-Ul,h4-0-1 â‚¬36.OpE Arr j//1.' M'FENÂ¢,.Fc-~p. b. ZIN-El-Â·61;44LJC< ht<G F*VEÂ·k, PLAUF:60 LEVEL- 1-JEW pA-JE;42 M'EUENESTÂ»4-53 PAYFER *00 FOKEr )51*6'TAL.. i ' SE CLONÂ·-1 5--Â«-r> C. A.C.JUST LOLATEDNe OP~ r<c..,1-,7 %....4-v-Â·4â€¢:Â· 44 '. -rt, C,LE.AJU S-rhÂ·21 JC:-r-LJIL<Â».L.. ME'VI{.6ER.â‚¬3 . < 08' - E> 78<CE CUB.E > < 58' - 2 7/41'@ CURE& > \* -/-0,/l~..~/r--41. 1 Floor Plan Roof Slope Plan ce as ~ = F-o A1 c,-2 Cerrll GRAYBEALÂ¥,W ARCHil~Crs.~rD, - In . ... 1 '* '1:1 .A W 1 *mmwmmm- 2 - -- .m~ u---e--p------- - . .: 1,1111111111111111.16il.11.'111,51ill,"1 - lilliâ€ž111...11.11111.11111.. - - 1.......-----~-~I.. ..... ......1 ./-. .0/~1// ...1.... 0 - I- ...a ......... . -----=,WUM/9. JI, W - .11.. - .'.12- I . 11.1,1.1.2 --mil* <I-.I-I-- -m=Jil,=flift,-2 :-Vb'P,1,~- .- E -Ill-Ill 1 1 - 0 -=-*-Illi~. G n ....ill..lili.I ill I-===mt ./8,81/imball/lim -~ -- ... r .............. 0 ....... ........ ~D,4- ....... -- .......:....imial- ....... - I - ~ 1 ~ -- m ~1 AI~ ------ -....... ..Imil,Il -1 .-I ....... - - ....... GV 11-2 =-- D-- m-l .5, ....... = ....... ....... .. A A ....... a 0 . .0 , ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... . , D ....... ....... i../.... .. imimit~ 1 ..Mina~~2:~====L ,"dig :ilmim,1,66#,/64 . - - ~/.29//1--i- a ..1-==Ill...=-I= A . Illill=-----7152;~1-1.1 ill-:1-lim-11- - 0 -- - milimil--Immil~'IM:imiliall-mill' E~iâ€¢E Ilimillill- , Imill~.imllill,gill:,ill,~iiâ€žâ€žililll~milqili~limil i~.a --- -1-Bilimimm'E-'li~limi.li.-u-- ......im...........1....i...............1.61..........."lilli F ....9...... 1--,2,1 g--/im.........m. ....... Ii"/i//illill"/'"//////4./...'................1./ - ....1 ~Ii....El - limipillill,lilillillillillillillillu Ilillill lillillillilli-il-ililillillill lill ilill -ill 1 -F. ;....1.....l..........I - - 1/ -.-- I.W--Ii---1 Im-ell.Il.11- 11.-0.-.-~li.-1 1- ..1--11 -9~1/.-m i . ./lill~,dill/-2 ..1...11~15-- i Ii)--1 ~ill'.1 i I - .....11..........M......E -'.8..........ill..: .- "immilimilli--ammili,â€¢im",2 Immumilâ€¢lillillllllllllllmmuld""""li '1-ii 11= 1 1 â€¢ 5.-=4 ----=01 . 6 1 - ilillim........M.===Ill..... 8 -- 0.- =====.==........=......... illill./.1 . . --6.- -L - . 1 --9-- - .. 4,79 .. 1 * 9.2,~e - R # --- D.1 - /1 -- - 0 - ... 9 -- -- - 0/ - - - .......1 .......1 m...2..1 1 1 .......1 m Em~m..1 1 '1 0-\ ..Evimil.i â€¢Im===ma .- .-- .......1 .. 1111 .......1 A A ~ - *Ve. .......1 A . .......1 --'.1 - 4 Â¢2 -1 .......1 th. .......1 4 - 1.- .......1 . 1 ./ .......1 . .......1 All ......11 - 9 411 I - 1, .......1 I - - - - X L.1 .......1 e -- 44 - ill .......1 ... .. .......1 .......1 1 4 .......1 ill. .......1 .......1 I I. .......1 . ../ .......1 . A. .......1 -- .mmE==mm