The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.HP.210 Lake Ave.HPC10-93M hIL 21 0 Lut< Aue ~ Schermer/210 Lake Final Devel. 2735-062-09-049 HPC10-93- Cox IfF-31 A *3*Ve Al , ASPEN . PITKIN PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT September 21, 1993 Norwest Bank of Aspen Michael Taets, President P.O. Box 0 119 S. Mill Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Mr. Taets, This letter is to inform you that the City of Aspen agrees to release Lloyd and Betty Schermer from the attached escr'ow agreement, finding that the conditions of the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee's approval have been met. Please call Amy Amidon at 920-5096 if.you have any additional questions. Thank you. Sincerely, . Bill E~ting Assistant City Manager CC: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer 130 Socni G.\!.ENA STREET Â· ASPEN, Col.ORA[)0 81611 Â· PHONE 303.920.5090 Â· F.n 303.920.5197 06/22/93 19:38 3039234811 L.SCHERMER PAGE 01 Post-It- Dran fijiÂ¥ aY.,11Â§&1.1 aiVt&#Atifir.6F AsFE,r-- P. 1/4 Phon.# #159 .69 -6@1. pa.* 7-7-1-\1 5 47 id ;. 1 'X yax, 1 1,3 - $ 1.Â·24 9 29.- S /,91- ESCROW AGREEMENT :22 l: V) 1 . THIS ESCR AGREEMENT im made and entered into as of the 18t-4 day of June, 1991 by and between Lloyd G. Scherm*L_and-Batty~A. Schermer ("Schdrmars"), THE CITY OF ASPEN, a colorado home-rule municipal corp**tion, ecity") and the BANK OF ASPEN a banking association as ~ CHEscrow Agent"), with reference to the following facts: WHEREAS, ~tha City has requested Schemers to provide a performance bo*d :for the relocation of an Historic House at 210 Lake Avenue; ailld, WHEREAS, ~the City hae agreed to enter into the Escrow Agreement in 1401Â® of receiving a performance bond. NOW, THER~FO#E, in order to implement the security provisi onS of said Agreemeht land in full satisfaction of schermers obligations relating to pe*fÂ¢,rmance, Schermars herewith deposit with Escrow Agent and EscrdÂ¢w. *gent hâ€¢rewith acknowledges receipt of the sum of One Hundred Thpuhand Dollars ($100,000.00) (the "Escrow Fund") . With respect toi tie Escrow Fund, the patties hereto instruct Escrow Agent as follows:I 1. The Esgrow Agent shall, deposit the Escrow Fund in a separate inter#st,bearing account, which account, Escrow Agent has confirmed, shall ~be insured to the extent of FDIC limits. 2. Sche*mets shall, upon ita written request, be entitled to be paid monthl# 411 interest that accrues on the Escrow Fund. 3. Escrqlw ,Agent shall cause the Escrow Fund or portions thereof, to be ireleased to the city only upon the occurrence of an "Event of Defa4lt|' as defined below, evidenced solely by a written demand and requeâ€¢t for release by the City to Escrow Agent. written demand must be l dÂ¢tumented with an affidavit from the city, act ing through its Pljan;ilng Director, stating the Event of Default and that: (a) Schermers have been issued a building permit for the existing building and new addition at 210 Lake Avenue Aspen, Colorado. (b) Thil City, acting through its Planning Director, 15 notifying i the Escrow Agent that Schermers have failed to successfull# perform the moving of and/or the required exterior +r leoundation work on the existing historic building in accordan*a with the plans and conditions approved by the Aspen Hiatatic Preservation Committee dated dhe...L l /4 199, S.- 1993. (A '0~ of which are attached hereto). (c) The C~t* has given the Schermers thirty (30) days written notice of 'th'r failure of Schermers to comply with the Historic 06/22/93 19:38 3039234811 L.SCHERMER , PAGE 02 JUN 21 '93 04:07PM JITY OF ASPEN P. 2/4 Preservat14n Committee approvals and conditions, and th. Schermerâ€¢ Have failed to perform necessary corrective work. 4. The city shall have the unconditional right to the Escrow Funds, upon (10) dayg written notice to Schermers, to draw Escrow Funds in an amount necessary to correct the unfulfilled approvals and/or to correct Any damage done to the historic building cauged through its moving, or the exterlor or foundation work to the building. 5. An Evlnt of Default shall include the following: (a) Failure of Schermers to correct the unfulfilled approvals and/or to correct any damage done to the historic building caused through its moving, or the exterior or foundation work to the build~ng. (b) Failure ok Schermers to successfully perform the moving of and/or th4 Irequired exterior or foundation work on the existing kilâ€¢toric building in accordance with the plans and conditions Approved by the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee dated Art:> vA \ _1Â» 6 1991. (A copy of which are attadhed her~to) . 6. At tkpe itime of acceptance of the work by the City, the Escrow Agent shall release the Escrow Funds to Scharmers only upon a written deman# tor release to Escrow Agent from Schermers and the City. The City shall execute written demands for payment in accordance with this paragraph only upon Schermers's faithful performance as set forth in paragraphs above. 7. Any fees of Escrow Agent shall be paid by Schermers and City shall hav, no responsibility therefore. 8. Escr~ Agent may resign and be discharged of the obligations cr*ated by thle Agreement by delivering to Schermers and the City Written notice of its resignation as Escrow Agent subject only t# 44ing able to appoint a successor Agent as provided herein. Upon râ€¢c*lving such notice of its resignation, Sehermers shall endeavot &0 appoint a successor Escrow Agent. Any resignation 02 Escrow Agent shall become effective only upon acceptance of ~pplointment by the successor Escrow Agent, and if a substitute Escro* Agent is not appointed hereunder then Escrow Agent may not resign and shall not be discharged of its obligations. 9. This Agreement shall by governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado, and any dispute or action betweed the parties arising from the interpretation or implementation 0% this Agreement shall only be brought in any federal, state ot local courts in the State o f Colorado, and the parties agree an& do hareby submit themselves to jurisdiction of Anid courte. 06/22/93 19:38 3039234811 L.SCHERMER PAGE 03 JUN 21 '93 04:07PM .Ii, OF ASPEN P. 3/4 10. Escrow. Agent shall be bound only by the foregoing written instructions, and euch further written instructions as the parties hereto, under the conditions herein imposed, from time to time delivered to Escrow, Agent. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, Escrow Agent shall not be required to determine the performance or nonparformance of Schermerâ€¢ or the payment or nonpayment by Scklermars under any term or condition in any Contract Documint bâ€¢tween the parties to this Agraament, 11. All notlÂ¢ee, request, demands and other communications hereunder shall *e in writing and shall be deemed to have bean duly given when perscna4ly delivered, or if mailed, on the date three business days *fter mailing by United States Postal Service certified er reigiltered mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, Ito thje parties at the following addresses (until such addresses are ~changed by notice pursuant to these notice provisions): "Sch~r:mers" Lloy# G. Schermer 1 BettÂ¥ 1. Schermar P.O.]Bck 5837 Snom~ss Village, Colorado 81615 "cit~" City'l Manager Cityloi Aspen cityl: Hall 130 #.igalena St. Aspe~, 'CO 81611 "EsckoW Agent" Michael T. Taets Prestd The Ba ~ ~of Aspen p.0.1 0 l119 8 Mill Street AspeA, Co 81611 12. It the I Edcrow Fund les not withdrawn within twelve months following t:Re acclep~ance of the Work by the City and is not subject to litigdtion, thi*: Agreement shall terminate and the Escrow Fund shall by forwardÂ¢d to Schermers. IN WITNESS WHEREPFi Scharmers, the city, and Escrow Agent have caused the exectution of this Agreement by their authorized representativag 48 bf the date first set forth above. 06/22/93 19: 38 3039234811 L. SCHERMER 4 PAGE 04 . JUN 21 '93 00: DePM CIT~ Of- ASPEN P. 4/4 "Escrow Agent" By: - Nameit - -. Tit la:- - licity* By:_..~. #My -949. ~ Nam*: 2 R: 11 4 -Fâ‚¬Â·1 '1.4 5 Titia:_ A.y,4. C.'47 fultfeet,- "swiliermars" Â£1698 G. Schermer / Â£Te 4%-a Battf A. SEhermer MEMORANDUM To: Historic Preservation Committee From: Kim Johnson, Planning Date: April 14, 1993 RE: 210 Lake Avenue - Final Review Summary: This item received Conceptual approval on March 10, 1993. The project received a 3' variance to the 19' side yard setback along the eastern property line to allow for a stairwell. The HPC asked that the Final plan show a roof overhang above the stairwell to shed snow/rain away from the stairs and to provide relief from the expanse of that elevation. Although the application states that a FAR variation is needed for this roof element, the architect has indicated that additional FAR is not required after all. Please refer to the application letter from Doug Graybeal which describes the responses to Conceptual review concerns. Staff believes that the Final plan successfully meets the Final plan criteria and Conceptual critique. 1 - I i h.\ : ~z#Ilill.7 October 7, 1993 COTTLE GRAYBEAL OrT 1 3 '193 :,1~:~ YAW ARCHITECTS LTD * Ms. Amy Amidon City of Aspen Planning Office 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Amy: Thank you for taking the time to discuss the deletion of windows on the Schermer Residence at 210 Lake Avenue. Enclosed is a copy of the west elevation showing the house before and after the change. Per our discussion this change has been approved. Sincerely, 976/1 uoug Graybeal DG:Ihs JOHN COTTLE, ALA DI)1 G GRAYBEAL, ALA LARRY YAW, AIA MARK HENTHORN, AIA 510 EAST HYMAN, SUITE 21 ASPEN,COLORADO 8!61 I PHONE (303) 925-2867 (FAX) 925-3736 P 0 BOX 11122 624 MOUNTAIN VI[.1A(,E Rty[). TELLURIDE, COLORADO 8I435 PHONE (303) 728-3037 (FAX) 728-3236 .=11111'EL I -4 . Unu UU B B~ EU Imi Eluu Clu 1-L Owk 9 , Ij 2 1 JUL 7 21993 14 - :,1 5 i i/1,11 COTTLE FUL ~~~FBEAL July 21, 1993 ARCHITECTS ! LID Mr. Roger Moyer Aspen Painting 522 East Bleeker I Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Minor Window Revisions to 210 Lake Ave. Dear Roger: Now that we have done our final coordination with the owner and the interior designer on this project we have made two minor revisions to the exterior elevations. r Enclosed are the final elevations showing what was approved and is being revised drawn in red. On the east 1 1 elevation we changed a set of double doors to double windows. The head ht. and width of the opening are the same. On the west elevation we revised a set of four windows to three. This allows some wall space adjacent i to the windows and reduces the amount of light into the space. The four windows were a tough f it in the space. We believe both changes are minor and do not effect the overall design as approved. If the revisions are not agreeable with you please give me a call. I am copying Amy in on this letter for her information. Sincerely, 6131&614 Doug Graybeal Principal Enclosure Copy: Amy Amidon JOHN COTTLE. AIA , DOCG GRAYBEAL. AIA LARRY YAw AIA i MARK HENTHORN. AIA ! ! 510 EAST HYMAN. SUITE 21 | , ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 ! PHOAE 303,925-2867 ~ FAX 303.925-3736 1 0 th- 3/4' EXPOSED SIDING 5 1/2' EXPOSED SIDING 423/ i . V. r -. ..- 1 0 \ SOOF ORMAMENT t-A- -VER .IM FLD. W/AROW - . W - --- - -z- -4 214 OFFER GAP 11 - - 2.0 N 12 COPPER CalÂ° I 2 D I AMOMD IORMAMENTAL rTE 5.25 1 .-* WD. SW I PIGLE SIDING--' s ./ - ./ - OOTAGOPI~L OBOAMEnTAL + WD . SW 1 14â‚¬LE- SIDING - - - *ErÂ·-7 le'l a GUTTER & DOWPISPOUT 1 1=Â£ It- 1/3 ..... - f \. .-52.. \ \ / 8 4 P f 24: 1 / C k. 1 15 ..12 ' - -tâ‚¬ ' 1 12 . 1. .........,â€ž[ ..Ak 7. Fee 1 1 e 9 '63 1 /1 \ AW \ / 7 - /\\ D , 1 1 - Ae 4 - | *#. I.- .4- .-/;liÂ·rialbi.-2.-AT 2- :.~ g _ L_.-31 /3 161 A71 .61 --5~ -=== 7 . -71 4 - . .. .' -,9-2 .3 - I-1.52=240.1@.r. . I ..I-- . : ...%' ----I :.77'21*4.dis UURN . - .1 p 1 1 Ill.-le. -. ..=--9- . .-' 4-4--l ..... , . r., ....-*.9.-~4 --4*,EffÂ¥.. - 3/14.,3-iii-=ir--=-.--0 r -=- -1 3 -.- TT Z_---- 1 ~---- . t.e*.~~*3*~~~:rI~~t~â‚¬ :,=6*:1~9- 2â‚¬ =, :p, ,- ~ * 88 1 OK BA SE O M 1 2 1 1 1 MEW ADDITION ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 11 1 11 1 - FAIll PIG TO 11 11 1 11 MJ MATOW EXIST. 1 1 1 1 " - 11 =2-042=22.glitr.AD<2'FJ-XE= -3/= - SITE FENCE r --r --- -1,mt~'*-*~-a=~=pry- j. 71----- 7 ' 1 ' 11662.N.t~Ll M.,6.~ -u. .4.IiÂ»Â·3702 - -- _ I -1 '-- ./. . I. 1 1 4-3/4.EXP.\ 5-1/2' EXF. OM SIDIMG ~ OM SIDIMG 1 /1% 1 __ 1- A. 69'6' 1'~TTOTFOUND AT 1 O M \ --- -Ii- 11 I N ip ..Â¥F"'T 1,1. 1 h I 7 - .v 2=h~& 12 0 / AMÂ»794 OF SKI I riad_ EfL - . 5 1-11 M GLE 5 1. OOTAG;OMAL 7 464 1 AGâ€¢.4 11312 1 1 1 111 /lilli \ 111 , 1 ; Â· ! 0 1 / INa 863 1% 9>111[~ }11 D I 111 \ 111 Mb A62 ' R <Q>Ill-10 1 / <0 \ / \ / 1.1/ 1, / i '1 9 10 8 1-' 2 A61 ,&61 8 - 863 A&4 . I I.-- I I -- --- M21 L. M.3 \ \ \.- - - O O U ED E 1 1 A73 â€¢6.1 - lill--- I-- - 0----i- i.-- .-.-. -*--9 .---I ll..=- 11 _L . . --, . -7- .-----Â·--Â· ./ 0 . 1!2 3 1 112 L I ME OF \ a 1 1 ASA A63 461 A63 MEW GRADE 1 * 11 1 1 11 11 -LINE OF 1 11 \ EXISTING GRADE\ -- 1 1 ---1 - -- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -------- ----- ------- -WEST ELEVATION C 1 '- SCALE: 1/4n.11-0, Flr-- 22-jrl--- 6- -6 L--- -- Maggert & Associate - (303) 963-0135 - Created: Wednesday, June 16 1:54 PM - Page 1 of 1 Maggert & Associates, Inc. Structural Engineers 1101 Village Road, Suite UL3D â€¢ Carbondale, CO â€¢ 81623-1571 (303) 963-9643 â€¢ Fax/E-Mail (303) 963-0135 215 S. Monarch, Suite 0201 â€¢Aspen, COâ€¢81611-2914 (303) 925-5913 â€¢ Fax (303) 925-7627 May 24, 1993 Doug Graybeal Cottle Graybeal Yaw Architects 510 East Hyman, Suite 21 Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Schermer Residence relocation Aspen, Colorado Dear Doug: We have reviewed the preliminary proposed system for moving this existing residence on the same lot. The development of a shoring and bracing system, along with- the proposed floor beam support system, is adequate for the relocation of the building and can substantially be accomplished with a minimum of distress to the structure. As discussed with Leon Sutherland, we also concur with the house mover that removal of the interior drywall and adding temporary plywood sheathing at the major interior wall corners will minimize the distress during relocation. The drywall removal will omit a substantial amount of weight and the plywood sheathing will add stiffness to the structure. With continued detailed coordination between the house mover, contractor, engineer and architect the house can be lifted and relocated onto a new foundation that meets the structural requirements of the City of Aspen. Very truly yours, - ~2.-6%~ Barry Maggert P.E. President *5*wi:.~* 0.1 mt. ~ 26377 5)~ %aÂ·ic-â‚¬03- HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE j Minutes of May 12, 1993 Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Joe Krabacher, Les Holst, Linda Smisek, Don Erdman, Roger Moyer, Martha Madsen and Karen Day present. Jake Vickery was excused. MOTION: Martha made the motion to approve the minutes of April 14, 1993; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carries. 210 LAKE AVENUE - TEMPORARY RELOCATION Kim: When reviewing 210 Lake Avenue it was discovered that the wants to relocate the house while the foundation is being done. It was in the application. HPC must make a finding that the relocation is approved as part of the complete application. MOTION: Roger made the motion that HPC approve the temporary relocation for the structure at 210 Lake Avenue with conditions as attached in the memo dated May 12, 1993 from Kim Johnson ; second by Martha. All in favor, motion carries. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS 120 W. FRANCIS - Barnett Amy: 120 W. Francis, Barnett house came to my attention that the HPC approved the relocation of the house temporarily while they dug the basement for the new foundation. When they relocated, dry rot caused a small shed to snap off. It sat on the lot for a day before they demolished it. We do not know if the contractor or architect approved the demolition but at any rate they did not tell us and the building was wide open this past week when we had snow - A red tag was issued. I met with the architect Gretchen Green and she has promised that they would reconstruct. It was an addition from 1970. The City will hold the bond until the project is finished. PIONEER PARK - FENCE Amy: Les advised me that construction was going on at Pioneer Park and the HPC approved a six foot high privacy fence around the swimming pool on the west side. They later wrote a letter to Roxanne in December describing a fence on the east side. It runs from the corner of the house to the property line of the park and it is a six foot high wooden fence with brick piers. There are holes in the ground and they are ready to pour the concrete. I spoke to Jed and asked the contractor to stop. At some point the fence was drawn and it was not approved. Les: We had talked about the composition of the fence being neutral. 4 Amy: The description is a privacy fence with brick piers at 16 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Kim Johnson, Planner Re: Approval for Temporary Relocation of the Structure at 210 Lake Ave. Date: May 12, 1993 On April 14 1993, the HPC approved the Final Development Plan for 210 Lake Ave. Included within the application was the statement that the structure would be temporarily relocated on the,s ite while a basement foundation was added. temporary relocation of the victorian at 120 W. Francis. Staff missed this reference â€ž,to the relocation and the HPC did not act on the criteria for relocation of an inventoried structure. Prior to issuance of a foundation permit, staff seeks HPC approval for relocation it with, the following conditions: Prior to the issuance of the foundation permit: 1) The applicant shall provide to staff detailed information from a structural engineer regarding the actual methods used for the relocation. 2) The applicant shall provide a letter of credit, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, in the amount of $100,000.00 to ' cover the costs of repairs needed as a result of the relocation of the victorian structure. 3) The applicant shall provide as-built drawings and photos of the original structure for the HPC file. 4) r~he Applicant shall submit to the HPO a statement of how the temporary relocation site will be prepared for the structure. HPC Vote: 7 for O against /r f ' ; -- Bill Po*, Ch<~rman Date~ COTTLE GRAYBEAL April 30, 1993 YAW ARCHITECTS LTD Mr. Roger Moyer MAY- 4 1993 Aspen Painting 522 E. Bleeker Aspen, CO 81612 Re: Garage Door Revision to 210 Lake Ave Dear Roger: Thank you for your time to discuss this revision to the Schermer Residence. The Schermer's are concerned about the maneuvering room while exiting the garag e and wish to revise the garage doors from two separate doors to one single large door. They are use to a single garage door. We will not be increasing the width on the opening(s) from the farthest jambs. The look of the single door will still be that of two sets of doors but within one opening. Enclosed are two drawings showing the approved two doors scheme and the revised single opening. Per our discussion you did not have a problem with this change. Kim Johnson requested I document this change. If you have a problem with approving this change as the designed project monitor please let us both know. Thank you. Sincerely, 064$1 Doug Graybeal Principal DG:encl. cc: Kim Johnson w/enclosure JOHN COTTLE, AIA DOUG GRAYBEAL. A[A LARRY YAW AM MARK HENTHORN. AIA 510 EAST HY\IAN. SCITE 21 ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 PHONE 303,925-2867 EAX 303 425-3738 kil MEMORANDUM To: Historic Preservation Committee From: Kim Johnson, Planning Date: April 14, 1993 RE: 210 Lake Avenue - Final Review Summary: This item received Conceptual approval on March 10, 1993. The project received a 3' variance to the 19' side yard setback along the eastern property line to allow for a stairwell. The HPC asked that the Final plan show a roof overhang above the stairwell to shed snow/rain away from the stairs and to provide relief from the expanse of that elevation. Although the application states that a FAR variation is needed for this roof element, the architect has indicated that additional FAR is not required after all. Please refer to the application letter from Doug Graybeal which describes the responses to Conceptual review concerns. Staff believes that the Final plan successfully meets the Final plan criteria and Conceptual critique. L* Â·h *& , m Â°t 199Â°; PAN Â»4.2, lue w.td,70~JU't foy' 7% 42 3 - 94 L-(Aok 4 31Â« Age M 60 (45 COTTLE GRAYBEAL March 19, 1993 YAW ARCHITECTS ITD City of Aspen Planning Office Aspen Historic Preservation Committee Aspen City Hall 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Planning Officials, and Committee Members: On behalf of the Schermer's, I summit this application for Final Development Plan Approval. Attached are the required documents. Please contact me with any questions. I will be providing siding and trim samples for your review during my presentation. In accordance with the requirements for final development plan we submit the following information: 1) General application information required in Section 6-202. Please see the information submitted with the conceptual development package. The project is located at 210 Lake Avenue. 2) Reserved. 3) An accurate representation of all building materials, such as samples and photographs, to be used for the proposed development. We will be providing materials samples for your review during our presentation to you. Materials to be used are noted on the enclosed elevations. 4) Scale drawings of the proposed development in relation to an existing structure. See the enclosed elevations. 5) A statement of the effect of the details of the proposed development on the original design of the historic structure and character of the neighborhood. The detailing of the addition to this historic JOHN COTTLE 41:4 structure are designed to compliment the historic DOUG GRAYBEAL AIA structure and separate the addition from the original LARRY YAW AIA structure. The materials used on the original house MARK HENTHORN. AIA were those available at the time of it construction. The wood siding and trim were small by today's 510 EAST HYMAN. SUITE 21 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 PHONE 303/925-2867 FAX 303/925-3730 ./.4-11 Ii,1,11111111~11111111111111 standards. The addition will be sided with the larger sized siding and trim available today to separate the old for the new. What better way to separate old from new then a historic material separation. The addition will be further separated into two masses by two differ size siding and by the spacing of siding. As noted on the attached elevations the siding size and spacing will progress from the existing structure at the front of the property through the addition at the rear of the property. This progression separates the building into three separate components. The window and siding trim also changes size from 3 1/4" on the existing structure to 4 1/4" on the rear addition. This difference adds an additional separate of the old from the new without having the new trim overpower the appearance of the addition as happens in some track houses. The window patterns will vary from the existing structure to the new addition. The existing structure will be fitted with double hung windows to match the original windows. The addition will use a variety of double hung windows and easement windows in patterns to breakdown the mass of the addition. This addition to a historic structure fits into the character of the neighborhood as discussed during conceptual approval. 6) A statement of how the final development plan conforms to the representations made during the conceptual review and responds to any conditions placed thereon. The proposed addition conforms to the representations made during the conceptual review. The proposed addition conforms to the conditions placed thereon during the conceptual review. A conditions of the approval was that we study the fenestration of the addition on both the west and the east side to breakdown the surfaces. We have added detail to the enclosed elevations to show the shingles in the high gable ends on both sides, plus we have added some variety to the windows by varying the window patterns, size and types. We have also added a horizonal trim board to separate the upper level fenestration from the lower level. During our conceptual approval you recommended we study adding a porch roof element over the exterior stairs. We have studied this option with our clients and have included it in our design. You indicated you would be willing to grant a variance for this addition. We request you grant an FAR (floor area ratio) variance of approximately 75 square feet for this porch roof and grant a setback variance for this encroachment into the required setback. You have already granted a setback variance for the below grade stairs this roof would cover. We wish to be sure the variance covers the roof over the stairs. We appreciate your time in reviewing this application. We will give you a presentation of our materials at the scheduled meeting. sincerely, 1 9 1/ =Â·'01-74Â»*rial. Doug GRaybeal ~AIA Principal Enclosed CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen Historic Preservation Committee DATE RECEIVED: 03/19/93 CASE NUMBER: HPC10-93 DATE COMPLETE: PARCEL ID#: 2735-062-09-049 PROJECT NAME: Schermer Final Development Plan Project Address: 210 Lake Ave. APPLICANT: Betty & Lloyd Schermer Applicant Address: REPRESENTATIVE: Doug Gravbeal, Cottle, Gravbeal, Yaw Architects Representative Address/Phone: 510 E. Hyman, Suite 21 Aspen, CO 81611 925-2867 TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: 2 STEP: 3 STEP: HPO Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption: HPC Meeting Dates: 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: MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee Diane Moore, City Planning Director 1/ON, 3 csm_Jetinson, Planning Office From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer /Â«__ Re: 210 Lake Avenue: Conceptual Development for rear addition and request for parking reduction of one space, demolition of outbuilding, temporary relocation on-site i Public Hearing Date: February 24, 1993 (Note: A second public hearing is scheduled before the HPC on March 10 to review a sideyard setback variation request for h rear (below-grade) egress stairway. This variation request was mis sed by staff as it was not included on Attachment #1 in the application. A second public hearing notice was prepared to cover this variation request.) SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting Conceptual Development approval for a rear 1,842 sq. ft. addition to the landmark at 210 Lake Ave., a parking reduction of one space ( from five to four ) , the demolition of a detached (non-original) outbuilding at the rear, and a temporary on-site relocation for construction purpos es . APPLICANT: Betty and Lloyd Schermer represented by Cott le , Graybeal and Yaw, Architects LOCATION: 210 Lake Ave., Lot 19, Block 103, Hallam's Addition , Aspen, Colorado SITE, AREA AND BULK INFORMATION: Please refer to the attachment from the applicant. ADDITIONAL COMMISSION REVIEWS: None are necessary, as the lot meets the minimum size requirements for a duplex unit. Ordinance #1 impact mitigation applies, and the applicant is reminded to meet with the Housing Authority regarding this. Provided the ESA height and setback requirements are met, no further P&Z review is necessary. 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 approva 1 1 for the proposal. The applicable Guidelines are found in Section VI, beginning on page 47 of the Historic District and Historic Landmark Development Guidelines. 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. 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: The proposed duplex addition is being added to the rear of the landmark structure. Our primary concern and responsibility is in either the contribution or deprivation the development impact has to the landmark, neighborhdod and community, within the context of historic preservation. The addition is large (1,842 sq.ft.). In a pre-application meeting held previously between the applicant and the HPC, suggestions were given to the applicant to reduce the impact of the massing and height of the addition in relation to the cottage. Connecting the addition to the main structure via a hyphen would significantly lessen the impact. Although the landmark is not particularly noted for its pristine architectural quality, it is a strong representative example of vernacular cottage architecture, a critical component in reviewing the appropriateness of this addition. It is also immediately adjacent to one of Aspen's more significant National Register resources, the Newberry-Shaw House. In addition, Lake Avenue is the summer pedestrian route, which greatly highlights historic resources. The HPC should exercise great care in reviewing this addition's compatibility to the principle structure, the adjacent landmark and within'this immediate Lake Avenue neighborhood. Staff disagrees with the entire addition approach shown in this application. We find that it completely disregards the cottage, its historic integrity (vernacular form) and small scale. We feel strongly that this proposal is completely wrong for this parcel; we are barely able to discern the original resource from the addition which is a complete violation of preservation principles. We find that the proposed development is not compatible with the designated parcel or the adjacent structure, and that this Standard has clearly not been met. We also find that a simple tabling is not appropriate due to the major number of design changes that 2 44:--/ f must occur. We are, therefore, recommending denial, and ask that the HPC support the Planning Office in this. This proposal illustrates a significant misunderstanding of "compatibility in addition design" and will require substantial revisions. We conceptually support the parking reduction request from five spaces to four, however, cannot support the setback variations due to the incompatible design. We find, however, that the applicant has not made the argument to support this Standard, i.e. that the proposed development is more compatible to the historic landmark... In order for the HPC to grant approval for any variations, a more thorough discussion of this standard must be made by the applicant for the HPC to consider. We find no information regarding the temporary relocation of the structure, which requires bonding or a letter of credit prior to the issuance of a building permit. . 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: We do not disagree with the applicant's argument in favor of a duplex on this site, however, their design approach must be entire reconsidered before Planning Office support can be given. The HPC should again study on-site the project at 620 W. Hallam and 700 W. Francis and remind themselves of those design review errors (as discussed in numerous previous HPC meetings) while considering this proposal for 210 Lake Ave. Mistakes previously made should serve only to teach, not to set precedent. We find this standard has not been met, and are recommending 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: The cultural value of this landmark is found in its vernacular contribution to the history of Aspen. It is representative through both form and style of the mining era's family home environment and lifestyle of the average citizen of this community. To expand that small scale form completely out of proportion is to deny and detract from the historic cultural value of this landmark to our community. We find that this standardÂ· has also not been met, and are recommending denial. 3 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The applicant makes the argument that the cottage has been significantly altered in the past, therefore, additional architectural changes will not impact its integrity further. Due to the significant nature of the proposal, staff disagrees, and reminds the HPC, the applicant, and the community, that what was wrong is the past should not set the course for the future. Actually, we find that the previous changes that have occurred to this structure did not disrespect its small scale, cottage form - they merely altered its original vernacular integrity in ways that are commonly "Aspen-like", i.e. larger porch and additional detailing. The HPC has strived for many years to keep the appearance of additions smaller than the original resource in order to meet basic preservation principles. Numerous good examples of this are found throughout the West End and elsewhere. 126 W. Francis, 201 E. Hyman, 1004 E. Durant, 17 Queen St. and 100 E. Bleeker afford the HPC good design solutions from which to learn. In order for the original resource to read through and not become secondary to the addition, issues such as height, massing (bulk), scale, proportion, fenestration, materials and detailing must be carefully considered - always with the preservation of the landmark foremost in mind. Conversely, it appears that the material choice is compatible to the resource, and that the general fenestration proportions meet the Guidelines. To conclude, we find that this proposal diminishes and detract from the architectural integrity of this resource, and therefore, the Planning Office finds that this Standard has also not been met. In summary, the Planning Office cannot support this proposal as presented, and asks that the applicant work with the HPC, the Design Guidelines and Development Review Standards to redesign an addition that will be compatible. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: 4 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 deny the Conceptual Development proposal for 210 Lake Avenue, finding that all four Development Review Standards have not been met. Additional comments: hpc210LA 5 4 I % January 14, 1993 COTTLE GRAYBEAL City of Aspen Planning Office YAW Aspen Historic Preservation Committee ARCHITECTS LTD Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Aspen City Hall 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Planning Officials, Commissioners and Committee Members: On behalf of the Schermer's I summit this application for Significant Historic Development and Hallam Lake Review. Attached are the required documents for these reviews. Please contact me with any questions about this documentation. My clients the Schermers have recently purchased the property on Lot 19, Block 103; Hallam's Addition Aspen, Colorado also known as 210 Lake Avenue Aspen, - Colorado. They intent to renovate the existing single family residence, add a basement, built an addition on to the existing structure and use it as a duplex. The two units will be used by family members and not condominiumized or sold off as separate units. The existing structure is the last in a series of single family residences in the neighborhood to be developed into duplex units. The lot is within the WIW Subdivision approved in 1978. The lot was purchased by Nancy Oliphant after the subdivision. It was renovated and added on to in 1979-1980. Part of the front porch was enclosed, windows replaced and the house resided. In 1981 a new enclosed rear porch or greenhouse/hot tub room was added. These are two of many additions made to the property through time. In 1990 the house was investigated by the Aspen Planning Office for its historical significance. At that time it was determined the "Integrity has been comprised due to substantial modification" and "the significance of this residential structure is not of those who owned it or lived in it, nor of its architecture, although this structure is representative of Aspen's mining era. It is of historical importance by illustrating the family home environment and lifestyle of the average citizen of Aspen which was dominated by the silver mining industry". At the time it was also noted the house has had as many as four additions. In 1980 another study provided similar findings "represents a type, period, or method of construction and contributes to the significance of a historic district." At that time this was a minor category finding. See attached information. I understand from Nancy Oliphant she tried to have the house designated as a historic structure after her purchase and was deigned. JOHN COTTLE, AIA According to the attached documents she was told by Sam Caudill that it "wasn't DOUG GRAYBEAL, AIA worth it". In 1980 after a renovation she successfully achieved designation as a LARRY YAW, AIA MARK HENTHORN, AIA historic structure. See attached resolution by the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee. This designation was achieved after part of the front porch was enclosed 510 EAST HYMAN. SUITE 21 ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 PHON E 303/925-2867 FAX 303/925-3736 and the rear porch enclosed area was added. In 1990 Nancy Oliphant was granted an approval by the Historic Preservation Committee for an extended back porch and a second story addition. The improvements were never made. See attached letter and information from Nick Mc Grath. During Nancy's renovation a new foundation was added to support the structure. Unfortunately the crawl space under the house was dug out further to accommodate a mechanical system and adequate ground support for the foundation did not remain. To remedy this situation we intend to temporarily relocate the structure on the property, build a new foundation and basement then replace the structure on the new supports. During the 1979-1980 renovation the house was totally resided and trimmed, several of the windows were replaced, in one case with a bay window and a metal roof was added. We intent to remove the metal roof replace it with new wood shingle; and restructure the roof to support current snow load requirements. We also intent to remove the bay window and part of the structure. Appropriately scaled double hung, double glazed thermal windows will replace dilapidated and inappropriate windows. There are several manufactures who are replicating older windows with current technologies and energy saving features. We wish to take advantage of these improvements. We also are relocating two windows to work better with the space inside the existing structure. Several windows appear to have been relocated during the previous renovations and our relocation will enhance the overall appearance. The existing siding which is not original will be replaced with new siding of the same scale and proportions. To accommodate some of the difficulties of the site and the desire to provide off street parking for the property that current possess none, the latest rear porch addition and one or two of the earlier additions to the structure will be removed. This will allow the duplex layout to be configured so we may share and improve an existing driveway with the neighbor to the west, 212 Lake Avenue. The removal of these later additions also allows the duplex to be configured so a visual break from the old to the new is provided. This will also allow two very large evergreens in the rear of the property to be retained. We have meet with the owner of 212 Lake Avenue, Jonathon Lewis and he has approved of the share driveway and layout shown in the attached drawings. With the sharing of a driveway to create off street parking on a property that currently has none we request a variance from the required five parking spaces to four spaces. This is appropriate for the property location. We understand surrounding properties have received approvals for less off street parking. On the front side of the structure we will be removing the enclosed porch addition and returning this area to its original appearance. As stated in the research document produced by the planning office the house is of historic importance by illustrating the family/home environment and lifestyle of Aspen not because of its architecture. We are holding back the addition to the structure so the original shape of the cross gabled roof is still evident. Behind the crossing of the main roof a dormer element has been added on the east leaving the existing eave line exposed. Where the original eave line ends the addition has been stepped back to differentiate between old and new. On the west the new addition has been stepped forward with a change in roof form to again differentiate between old and new. The main roof element behind the original cross gabled roof form is another higher cross gabled roof to reflect on the unique character of the original but not to mimic it. In this case different roof forms from the different elements of the house intersect the main roof breaking up the massing adding interest. A small shed structure exist on and over the rear property line. It was renovated into a garage, small office and bedroom space by the previous owner. In a conversation with the previous owner she indicated a nothing substandard structure was severely modified into useable space. In a conversation with Tom Caradbme of the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies he recalled the shed renovation being two smaller sheds converted into one larger structure. The shed violates the require building setbacks and the Hallam Lake Bluff Review standards, plus many Aspen building code requirements. We intend to remove the structure. In researching the original subdivision of the property, the original survey shows no shed structure(s) in this location. The documents do show and discuss a larger structure on this and an adjacent lot. This structure was required to be removed during subdivision and was done so. In researching the historic records in the Aspen planning office with Roxanne Eflin and the records of the Aspen Historic Society no evidence of this shed(s) existence was uncovered. The renovation and addition proposed to this property will allow the preservation of the home environment of the residence and its historic importance to the community. It is the last of several structures in the neighborhood to be renovated and added onto. The size and scale of this new structure will be smaller than the adjacent structures. The ratio of building foot print and building size to lot area is smaller than two similar structures directly west. Being an infill project between two larger residences and the last in a row of renovated single family residences into duplex structures, this project is appropriate and consistent with the character of the neighborhood and the community. It preserves the character for the original structure and clearly separates old for new. The architectural integrity of the structure has been enhanced and the addition does not diminish or detract from the original structure. Because of the constraints of the site and the desire to preserve the integrity of the original structure we are requesting the approval of a variance to allow a stairway from the lower level basement to encroach into the east setback by a maximum of three feet. This request is appropriate since the stairway serves as a code required egress from the lower level and is a below grade encroachment. Per the City of I 'L ' Aspen Planning Office request this encroachment has been discussed with the City if Aspen Building Department and they feel the request is appropriate. We appreciate your time and efforts in reviewing this application. Our request are reasonable and comply with the intent of the code and the preservation of historic structures as they have been classified for the benefit of the community. Sincerely, dl~9/ Doug Graybeal AIA Principal Attachments ATIAilial:NE 1 'r'\ND USE APPIICAI[ON FUEN 1) Project Name . Sch-...jer Residence . 2) Project Ifxation 210 Lake Avenue, Aspen, Colorado Lot 19, Block 103, Hallam's Addition to the City & Townsite of Aspen (indicate street address; lot & block number,-legal description E,here appmpriate) 3) Present Zoning R-6 4) Lot Size 10,760 sq.ftl 5) Applicant's Name, Nliress & Phone # Schermer 3990 Cuervo Avehue, Santa Barbara, CA 93108 805-569-3151 6) Representative's Name, Address & Phone # Doug Graybeal 303-925-2867 Cottle Graybeal Yaw Architects Ltd., 510 East Hyman Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611 7) Type of Application (please dleck all that apply): Oor*litional Use - C--_-_L IIi V - nal Ifistoric Dev. - -(APâ‚¬ -Review) Special Beder Final SPA Final Historic Der. . 8040 Greenline . Cbneeptual POD Minor Historic Dev. Stream Margin Final POD Hi.storic Demolition Historic Designation M:xmtain View Plane _ Subdivision Cot*Ininiumization Texti/Map AmendEYEnt (NOS Allotment Iat Split/Int line X Hallam Lake Review GMOS Exeuption Â· Adjustment Description of Existing Uses (rlmber arwi type of â‚¬odstingÂ· strucbmes ; approximate sq. ft.; rumber of bedmoms; any previous approvals granted to the property). One existing single family residence, approximately 1,500 sq.ft., no garage or driveway. Historic Designation July 14, 1980 (previously deigned) . November 14, 1990 final approval granted for improvements not built. (See attached information) 9) Description of Develoinent Application Owner wishes to renovate the existing building, add a basement, add on to residence, and use as a duplex residence. 10) Have you attached the following? Response to Attathment 2, Minimml Submission Contents Response to Attachment 3, Specific Subinissian Contents Response to Attachment 4, Iariew Standards for Your Application 22.lllllll V. SUPPLER IT TO HISTORIC PRESE ATION A . < DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS IMPORTANT . Three sets of tleted drawings must be submitted in a format no larger than 11"x177, OR one dozen sets of blueprints may be submitted in lieu of the 11'b<17" format. -- APPLICANT: - Schermer ADDRESS: 210 Laka Avenue ZONE DISTRICT: RR 66 LOT SIZE (SQUARE FEET): 10.760 SF EXISTING FAR: 2,208 SF ALLOWABLE EAR: 4,186 SF . . PROPOSED FAR: - Approximately 4,15(AF - (A- ..7 /0-1.- F -41- p 4 ' . C.1 EXISTING NET LEASABLE (commerdal): NA . 4% J PROPOSED NET LEASABLE (commercial): NA.' . 7 EXISTING % OF SITE COVERAGE: 16% PROPOSED % OF SITE COVERAGE: 24% EXISTING % OFOPEN SPACE (Commercial): NA PROPOSED % OF OPEN SPACE (Commer.): NA EXISTING MAXIMUM HEIGHT: Prhcigal Bldg.: 25 Mid Point /Accessory BlÂ®: 2lft & 1 12 f t PROPOSED MAXIMUM HEIGHT: PrinciDal Bldg.,25 Mid Point / Accessory Bldg: None . . PROPOSED % OF DEMOL[TION: 25 % including r-eat.stidd,-21%=without rear shed _ EXISTING NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: 9 PROPOSED NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: 5 EXISTING ON-SITE PARKING SPACES: None ON-SITE PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: 5 (4 proposed) SETBACKS: EXISTING: ALLOWABLE: PROPOSED: Front: 25 Front: 15 Front: - Rear: 44 Rear: 1 5 Rear: Side: _11.Li.24 Side: 1 5 Side: Combined Front/Rear: 69 Combined FrURd & 37 Combined Front/Rear: EXISTING NONCONFORMITIES/ Fencd over proprerty lines and auxilary ENCROACHMENT& hnilding iR nver prnpprry linp Anri pnernArhes- into rear yard setback VARIATIONS REQUESTED (elicible for Landmarks Only: character comoatibility finding must be made by HPC): FAR: Minimum Distance Between Buildings: SETBACKS: Front: Parking Spaces: Prbviding_.1.-ldss'than -2 61- Rear: Open Space (Commerdal): required Side: * Height (Cottage Infill Only): Combined FrtlRr: Site Coverage (Cottage Infill Only): - *below grade egress stair encroachment 1 13 L 4 ..,1 , 1/ 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~2---- A 11 1 ~ Il I l l 1 1 1-11- 1 1 1 ------- 13 11 1 -- \ - -- - - -9-1 1 1 al 1 | ~ill 1 1 1- E 111 1 1 F-- '' -11 1 . 1 1 1 L . 1 all V I z~ 1 H 1 1 1 11- i i z 1 1 1 1 1 -- illi it_ I 04 1 M 1 lit W 1 1 r -- 0 -411 ~ i| 47 0 l . 1 1 1 1 r . b lr) -- 03 1 1 1 u t. I I 0 0 t- 0 - m a 1 1 X 2 0 10 a mt 9-Ul , lUI- 1 1 nL 0- 11 1 *-1 - 11 1 1 q 1-X 1 1 M Ill \\ 1 1 1 7- I 1 1 1 u. 11.---- --1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -11 . on ---/-* --. Ch 1 1 1 1 1 - r--- -IX A 111 1-3 - 1 1 , illn , |li i ill -1 | 1>Ew 1 1 1 n ---- ----- - 21---iI-2 T 1 -2 -22 1 1 22 - 1 1 A . 111 1[K ZI Â« - Er-- - rn 15 M - - \94 -221 1 1 =====L 1 1 1 1 11 11 11 1 1 :_ -F -1 1 1 11 11 1 74.-2--7- - 11 11 - --- 1 1 11 1 1 - 11 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 - -- 1 1 It 1 1 I - 1 -irLi-414 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 3 11 3 3 11 1 3 1 1 3 1 3 j 11 1 1 1\L r 1 1 1 / ' L- -1_1_LLLLLI_111_1_1_1_1...1 , A 2 - 21 1 1 1 1 1 -1 U I Lj 1 l -1 1- *04 -1 1 1 1 1 1 17 1 1 - 4 ~\\,ULL.~11111111111~ -~ 11 1 11.= 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 XE --- LI 2 r 1 --3 --1 Â·Â· _1 1 1 in ZI- M W -- 1 1 - -- 11 1 1 4- ill 11 1 -- COOK 5002#~ (89142 bl 1 ~ LINE OF 20 10 0 MAX. 1 1 WEI GWT LIMIT . --.. 1 ./ 1 ....- - ........I .....- i - -Ill- I.I....... .................. .-- ................ - ......- I - - -1--- ------ - 1 . 4 lF 25 101 MAX. MI OPT. â‚¬ 1 AIT LIMIT ~ ~Â· ORMAMEPITAL WO --1 L. U 6.--1 =LUU S M 1 MGLE SIDING ri======al i J U I L 11 111 - El 1 12 1 1 , 1 1 1 4- 3/4 ' EXPOSED WOOD L-- 1. lE Ill I ~1-' 1'~ 2 -am s / 0 / NG 1 y IiI. 1 1 11 lilli I 1 !,1,1 4 1 -*i---- I *lill -*il-* I Ung U 1- 1 1 FIER, 1 1 #m Hu 11 1 lilli lilli 1 1,--./1 1 111 1, 1 11 4 1 1 1 W--4 1 1 1 "-1. 1 - 1 11 ' r i I .-, F- -7 1 -7- -- -- -.. i- 4- lili 1 11 11 11 11 1 1 1 1 1 11 11 1 1 1 1 1 STONE BASE OM r - 3 F----------T--- i-------- -7 -L EX \ ST 1 116 WOUSE / --- 1 1 1 Al-- -------1---2---------1 -U 1 1 1 Appeouto [482> 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 - 1---------- -=----------2 ---- - .--9 -- ------- - I- - - --- SUII,iasnoHIM - Jnul#lat/ --*51* -+ 00= Mcah 1-- 4 tzi 1 - 4 3 316 4 0 / .1 / - - . -Il- ILIV . .... , LJ,- .w.-C ' ..:$) --' 1 ... .. U.2 0# .e ,. 1 7 . 0 1 - I '4132 \44 0] ENA X _ ~1 - 1,1,4.- . 1 O 1 ... . 0,9'*9,4 I)ate 21/*13 Stibiect SCNEEMER. RES /DEPCE 2/0 UKE AuE EX,51-/14 REs/OELCE Amp mt ~UEâ€¢inut Hpc- â€¢~L:*ouselril ms Aspen's Oldest Camera Store & Photographic Lab 303 South Galena o Aspen, Colorado 81611 â€¢ 303/925-7973 119B Airport BusippsÂ£ Center; Aspen, Colorado 81611 â€¢ 303/925-8589 SPECIFY NUMBER OF PRINTS OR ENLARGEMENTS DESIRED OPPOSITE NEGATIVENUMBER. IMPORTANT: PLEASE DO NOT CUT NEGATIVES FOR REGULAR PRINTS FOR ENLARGEMENTS 00 00A 12 12A 25 25A NEG. NO. QUAN. SIZE 0 OA 13 13A 26 26A 1 l A 14 14A 27 27A 2 2A 15 15A 28 28A 3 3A 16 16A 29 29A 4 4A 17 17A 30 30A 5 5A 18 18A 31 31 A 6 6A 19 19A 32 32A 7 7A 20 20A 33 33A SPECIALINSTRUCTIONS 8 8A 21 21 A 34 34A 9 9A 22 22A 35 35A 10 10A 23 23A 36 36A 11 11 A 24 24A 37 37A Recyclable MAIL-WELL ITEM 852 CD 218 L Imin m -0 --0.",0 81 I . -.=./-0 j--dililia:11\044 . <WIA .-I....Li ~~M IL ' 6143<lf 1 / 1 9-1:2 lfS; 4, i . 7.M~V , ~~~ 7. Ililill - 2 -6 * I %79~: 4 -11 . 4.90.12 - 1. . 1&70/li : ~ 102Â·Â¥Lâ€¢L "r 4,11= ...:IlRlli '1 1 Â·:ie t.ope ' 2422 ~:: 4 0 Â·Â»Fr 1,326 /9//laimi.*~ ~/ },/ '9 4 ~~~~*21& 4 93* . IJ' :3/1 . 1 411= 11>1> A 1 "..1 37 IlL" 4. .clict .r. 9 V.-h; 6 ... ' 1 \ i--- - Â· **fÂ· 12& ' 4. t. mi ..0 I al U- 15 1. : 74-9 4 'j i j Â· 7Â» 9 1 i 11 -7 t , "E. 6 '4 /0/////E'::*9'""/1 ' , 21,//"M/' 1C .O 4 /0.=~ 4 "ll, .~_L_. i,a:":Ir#*r' 4*GeFI 1 1 IL I' â€¢. 4. L.LJ.6 .0-f.1 - 6. .2431~ $ 1-L-CLIM/ 1,1.11160*.-1 a --\PR,AInt i > { Ity . I ...1 j 4. f' .c Â·?r ... -4 .4 . " 1 41.-. Im, I i 4 t. I . $ I'% 7 I. 4 U ..t: Frk: I 9.41 . V'.21. 1 2-1. .Â· 164 t1 -- ---~ . 7 U. .6 : 9- -I '.-I r./.- ---0---i-~ ~.-----Ii-- Pair-4 . - - Â¢ & M :61 - ./ 1 - ,-â€¢t fnÂ· â€¢en?~ , - 'r: U. I. 'Ar " .a '1, . I. . I . 1 1 :. 3 'I I â€¢. Â· 1 ' 1 â€¢ 1 % - \__ais_____ . b It : , I .6 90'll - - f. . lili - 52 r~.- ~ 91*24 I - : m#" 9 F .7. 11.4 - - . $7. 6,4 -1 4. r t - J-Â¥ / 1 I . I' 4 . .1/. a ' ----ff--1 I f 1 f r tl A / 4â€¢ :Â· iltk 1 I. . ,1:4Â·7 ~ Â£~,f lk: ./ LfÂ· .,/ AF 1v : A... 2 ' '4 t --Iiff t 1,Â£* - 0<=1 M' --tr~89, C-/' . G 4 '*Ati .- lim"/SW 41<1~11.1 Vil : rr,/4.â€¢â€ž11- , 1. It i k.-i .- ...i, 765 \4 4 2 t . ..0,1 -...9.Â»- I ..3. Â¢Â» g '. '.t'gic* ' 45;'ib - *42-1. 2 1 /1#'?UPT V .m;47 .Â·- 1 Â£7 -- iÂ· tiC'. 1 ZEr'i~ . 1 N '' 2 I rr ' '' g 1 4/1 NÂ·.Vi i 0./.. 414 - - 4 // .., 4 ' ./ ' -11, . . 1 1511 4 4 9. mij .mm m fairip*tam e '7Â· 9 - ~434. -t f . el.14/4,~11, L- . 111:'111"lillillilli_mu f... 4 .& 1,4 1 14* . 1 24: /tr . 0 , 1 .. 1 PU P. E 3 2 A . 81:fil 4/ /&.... I , e 'e .1/'a '01 G.4.=.1 - - . 3 . 1. 2- h# ., -- 0 . v/- * 7. /'t . :ti. + 1 k , A 4, ... 4 't I. ~~ ~ itti ./ 1 Â· :k . Ap - 4 U--22 ~t %95Â» 4 " 44 4 .. . - 1.-1... r I~.:10, 4 . '3- Slip..h' . ..= 7* . 11 - lh.*-1.r; r- rl M r- 1-1 H 1-1 78 17 ... r â€¢ 6-1 , b.*e.mair =.eiyr .91 27.1 6.-m= 11 1. 24 9-9..9.. '1'.1.,At - 4 4, i r ... r. 1 11 , ' 06 1, . 1 4 - I y , ti: 9-/0 LA 14 4< 1 O 1KcA 1 153 - - 0~7.3.r." e.~ 7?T iÂ· -7*f;299W 'r,;14.et': 1: 1- 174,7 -44 J 1 3. lilli r-i~"Li T-TU T-1-TrrT-r-r~1-7-T -r ",i[~gii~mmmÂ¥11 7/""""""limill///1.)1.1/iN,dill'. : 11 ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 1.IMPIÂ· ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 1..~ ......... ......... ......... ......... .I. . 1 AO 6 . 4 . --Al/V.- , '.Al, - . 01.........A ......... 0 ./em.:/2. Mallimimm:gl' .=immill:IZE,liumil allill.111111 11.11 -11 ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ........ ........1 ~11.11 1, ......... 1".1 .11111......1 ........../ r ... lilliJ .11.111111.11.1 - .-mil-11 mmi=1 .........1 :.I lilli.1 .1111111111 .1.1.1.1111111..l .1.1.1.11111.11.I .........1 .........1 .........1 Emt'*1.e 'Mt:*/ â€¢IMME'MU'llammE .........1 .........1 . 4 0 . ...~ 1 0 1~1 I '1 . 1 ./ ' I'' 1.~ ...% .1 ./ I '~ . .. I ./ - 03 (23 (f-4 12d,6 3/16' - T.O.OWIMMET 125'10-1/11 - T .O .81 DGE 124'3' T.O.RIDGE -/---.. L_ 123'6-1/20 T.O.RIDGE 119'11-1/40 r - EAVE WORK POINT 110'6-1/2' - EAVE WORK PO I MT ..3 9 110,0, r.- -- 1 T.O.PLT 1__ 109'11-1/4, T.O.DEOK 100,01 -- T.O.PLT --- 95td- 1/20 T-I-FOUND-rrl OM 1 90,00 T.O.PLT 1...11 ..11 126'1-1/2' r - -T.7.MIDGE _-ug _ 125'11-1/4 1 T.0-RIDGE r 1_._ 123'6-1/4, T.O.RIDGE - EAVE WORK POIMT 11816-1/1: --7 - FIVE--WORK-73/ NT L._-11 0,2-1/2 B T.O.RIDGE -\WOOD SW I NGLE 9-009 11110-1/4, - EAVE WORK PIOMT 1._ 110'01 T.O.PLT 10719-5/81 EXVE-WORK-fBI MT -4' EXPOSED WOOD LAP SIDING L -TUIRPIED WOOD GOLUMM 100,0. 4= m - T.F.3-J-PEY 1--- 11 L . 9-9 'a- 1/2 0 1 -7 T.O.PECK L 2 99'2-1/2 N ~ T. 0-GRADE I 94'0-1/2 0 .3 - - TI-FOUNDAT-i orl 90,0, 7775-CAB L rzmf i:. ../- 8 ===r --- lilli . Illilli h b., ~-= NE i .:A . to. A - 0 -I: D ... ~|~IL-4 1...+8,8--~ ....................................11.........1.......1........1.....let..... ... 1: 11. - 10.-D .1.In~I'l/L-//Ilill//1 ..111/.1- 10 1 - 44 -66 =21-'. - --1-1- - a ---111. . , , W lillillililililillillillillillillibill:'ll'll:/:I:'ll'll:MAggill//:Igmi~~~~~~~~~~.~........... 1...=1---=Ill--1.. ,-=7Imri1_0 ~ ...1........il -1..... ... - I ...............irriliririrriTTIT'~~~I-i~~~~~~li~~~~~lillillill-illillillililillililillilill'llililillililill,Ill , , I . 1 - l.1.1 -1- I liâ€ž-1 I.- - -I- . - ... ..---------I... ----1---~----------------1....... - A e 6 1 4 - , 0 0 0 0 I .4. ... - 0.4 I .............. !111!!Ilm!11 6Â£011 ===== gaam 4 I .. lJiN - - . 1 ..1--1-- ,=-1...........A . 1- 0 0 - ' 0- I --I=-1-----P 11 lillililillillillimillillillimilillillimillililiiilii :i:i:i:; 4/Ill 1-1.11~~ ....1 .~- - 1.. Illillilillililillilillill"'11'111.11â€ž11'1111'lim il illlllillimillililll. 11..............,1-1 6--Ijr =- .~1 11 ---- - -I....---1--"""I- -1---I 1.12..2 =1=-,RF===2===.,==El -1 r~.111111111.=11111111111111111~m.ma,m-.j--1. 1-8 351 .-,-â€¢.,11â€¢11-li -' 1 -------Il:ii|lil|Illillilll-imiilili,ilimiâ€¢ ~.0.0~01.:ii:zi:i: ilii[Ill 0 0 .., -A, . 1 , A ~ .4 1 B , *EL.,1 12016 3/16" -r - 7-JO.GLAIRREY- 125'11-1/40 r- -T.3-.RIDGE -----3-- 125110-1/21 T.0.8\DGE 12314-1/4" ----- T.O.FIDGE 116'6-1/20 EAVE WORK POIMT L _ 110'2-1/2' T.0.8\DGE 114'10-1/20 T.0.8.\DGE 111'0-1/4' EAVE WORS POINT -----I 110,0, T.O.FLY 0 UPPER LEVEL 10716-1/an ----- EAVE WORK POIMT 700,0, T.O.PLT 7 L _ 9910-1/20 T.O.DECK L _ 2.212=122-8 T.0.GRADE 94,0-1/lu T.O.FOUNDAT\OM 90,0, - -- - - - 4~ T.O. PLT 126,6 3/160 r--- 7--a.EUTHBEY 125'11-1/4' r -7.-Fa-Â¥T=E 125'10-1/2" - -1-5 - T.O.PKIDGE - 124'3' 2 - T.O.RIDGE --- - --9- _1-21-Lt-La-* T.O.F\DGE -25'01 MIDI'T. IMD. ROOF WEIGWT LIMIT * -I----~ _ ILE.2.-_2210 EAVE WORK POIMT L.- 11 dLLE-_1-/22_ EAVE WORK POINT WOOD DEOK 110'0' 1 t-..7.- T.-3.. Pry L _ 109'11-1/40 T.O.DEOK ORMAMEMTAL WOOD SWINGLE SIDING BR I OM STAIRS.BASE & OWIMMET 700,0, 111 L _ 99'5-1/2' T.O.DEOK 17- Â· - EAVE WORK POINT 11 11 94,0-1/2, r - 1 - - - T.O.FOUNDAT-i OIl -- 9010' T.O.PLT ---- Â£ t.:iÂ·:6; I :4 4 '44 0 0 0000 -4, . , -4. 0 .4 8 8 1!U[ Bm Ng -.Ill~...I~ 0-- ..A . - , -I , I- .... Ill.lil.... I I .. . ~131 = 0 - # 1 - I V -1 ..1111 lillit~- lilli........./VA- +9 11.iÂ·W.. . } ~:Ill~m~~::Im~'ll.......Ilaillilinlmi~~~~~~... '.5 04 9. , , . - -1.1~~-Jil= -- - - =-1- 1 -:di-la.=1-,- , ... .....1.. .....1.-1=11....1 1.-1.--1-1.11- 1. m'=i -1 . - 11-1= . === :IM:i - ,/Ilill: 1....Ii ilili ::::Ill~ , EE -1- lilli~Alii,E 'i:EEEEiEiEEEE tEEEEEEEEII Ill mimi.....~Imill' --1--11.---1-1-1-1-0--1- -1--1-1.-1--1- 7 ...1.....".,I"I"Ill.1- ..1-1-1-1-i--1-1. miR -1= 4 I -I I'll!=1===1==1=1.11...=:=!=.1==== ==1==1==1==1=.. lilli-.........8- 0 -6 0 . ... 0 - 6 -Â¢ 6Â» . 95 4. 0 A. A 00.0 0 0 0 0 I . I . , /4 ./ 'el 641 Dll 47 .4 0 Ilimumm ===1= A I ... "' E" 5 I.,44*, . 0%-1, <13Â·2 . 21..Â»9 ., 24" , f. 1 .. . . 1Jff.*, ..ue ' 1-1~1 1...11. 1 â€¢ 4 =lim...1=.===1 1*.1 11 1 -11 --11 -11 11.~ ill. -I. / --0/0:0-----.i~--- "......................................... I ,-1.,1113'ilillillillillillillillillillillillilli2"""""": *9,9:.::::':1::11242:.li.4 - .............1 96625.......:1:12+N a"""""'1~ P.tifir:~1~%~1':~%~11:274. 4 . -~~1 ~ callimizimilili:...:Ill:'E.P.E:L~.Fil =.=....'=1.........:I==~1~=I===I=====I=...==u...MI.....~~Ill./1/.....I - -,r.m'1-1 17-=- - 'p-'....7-'-11'ill'~- -. - I .11 .111-111 ,=.Illimill.........IM.....1.- 1 --1-11. - I ... =.=.=======1=1 1=1====1 1 -11 1. 11,111 1.-Lr-----IMI"..I-~11*,111~~1~ / I~ El=I I'llillillillillilillill/1/1/illi~illillimilimililill/i~liiiiiiiiiii bll'IM 11/,/U iiiiiiiiiiii ililililill///1//1lill'Im U// Ili'I ll. :-1/'ll:'ll'll'll'lliLillill ..11.11 1 -14,&~I ~...mirili~i'Pal,~ lilililli ~jil_ililil ~â€ž=I~~~1~ ....~ 'W _-. _- _ -ammilimmilli.sw.Â·.Â·.Â·,=Â·21:1 -- . ---imille.=Imill.--Il.'IMI=-4...VIT...1-'/1.....=-- --- ------------------- --------------------Il-----=---------*gm=man===milliEllifillitudigH .:.. -- :I ' 0 - 0 ..0 0 -- -I, 0 - '. 3.4; .1 .*~4#t.. flfic . A A 0 9224'"~ & r*1* / ' , '1 ,- A E EAL :ECTS AN, SUITE 21 ADO 81611 3-2867 36 59 4' Â©1992 CoriE GRAYBEAL YAW ARCHITECTS, LTD. OCIVHOEIOO 'NWIdSV HAY :iDIVE[ 019 3 â‚¬1 9 111 Il Â»ill 111 1111111Ilili 11 1111 Il 11 0 1 N Il kEN 0 - .. - 'Th"liale(e . .Em~f"Will:Im . - .ILE..IR -1 ,= .....1 .....1 .....1 .....1 .....1 . .....1 .....1 .....1 .....1 .....1 .....1 1.~ ., 1....... 1-- â€¢â€¢L - A -A ,. . . . . h .. I.----. 1 - -li- 1- - 6 - . , f. . .....1 J .....1 - 1 .....1 .....1 .....1 .....1 .....1 .....1 .....1 .....1 6 .-i. I .....1 .....1 .....1 - .....1 .....1 ./1 --d .....1 1 4 .....1 .....1 .....1 .....1 .....1 . .....1 1. 44 4 TELEDYNE POST N11582 10,000.0000 10,000.0000 FOUND: 1 REBAR W/PLAS. CAP K LS 20151 4 11 *41 1 1 T 1 94\ \\\ 96 \ \ ./--Il./*-, 4 \40 t i % 0 ALA. 3 * f?f. 1. 4,<4~ F ~~ * ~~ r ya 1 1% 4 f 1 1 8 ' *440 11 1 .2 j 09077 4 2 . -LF \ 0 1.41 \ 0 . \0% 16 i ... 03 3 /9 \0 I - - /7 - m I. 4 0 16 4 0 1 44'- P o<tri le '... 43 9 1 4 'L pi44 051 44Â·+ Â¥ I . 0 * <b 4 \"O'... 4vk&4, * 9 ' o Dib. *9~.Â·-' 41 ' LOT 19 RECORD AREA = l 0,760 94 FT. 1 9 14 \ /1 430 1 '44 gO-h,, K~ \ 3%2.47, 1-0 \11 EDI *6 \ 14 1 NORTH ' 1/ t.r , 0\P.....; 'f ,*rÂ· I 1 \ 42. / 4,/4 tu,)?J B *" 1605 / 1--1 1. 1 !ll 44...f ~ 19,921.4304 0 5 10 20 SO 40 50 : ar *"f. i ... y.... 0,0 Pes , 5, \ 1 64 \ i 10 028.3858 SCALE: 1"=Id 0 2 C)?1~- 1.U .1.-,9,</ \ It IREBAR W/PLAS. CAP BASIS OF BEARING: FOUND MONUMENTS 5EBARS W; PLAS. CAPS 42 1 ILS 20/5 I NE COR. TO SOUTHERLY COR. S 25Â°57'30 W \ tuu/ 44â€žrr 6 /,c'52~~ 44 \FUÂ° 47'14" E 10Â·61 SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE \ 3 00 e COMR ItÂ·18 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS MAP ACCURATELY DEPICTS 08 \ / 1 \ k , 04 .r' 4 F B +0 1 0/ / 0 140 4/t 4/ 1 1.02 , A SET: 06 A SURVEY MADE UNDER MY SUPERVISION aN SEPT. 4,1991 / 09 41. AA. 1 REBAR W/ PLAS. CAP AND OCT. 7,1992 OF LOT 19, SHAW AND THE W. R W. JOINT I. I. > C 964 f LS 20 1 51 VENTURE SUBD. EXEMPTION AMENDED. THE ONE STORY 2 i <94. -11$0.-2-0.-46 ~4 14 44 THE LOCATION AND DIMENSIONS OF ALL BUILDINGS,IMPROVE- .,+'?I.3.4.-Â· Â· - 9, Ah - 2 // idge + ey e/tte 1 ~ 9,910.5277 HOUSE WAS FOUND TO BE LOCATED ENTIRELY WITHIN THE 05' 10,030.8603 BOUNDARY LINES OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPE RTY. ' . 0 /7,9 TO ME AND ENCROACHMENTS BY OR ON THESE PREMISES ARE V.D.12*. ...7-11 Â·Â· r-n Â»KF y- f ,/ ~ 3 /i~1 4% Al?,3.1.44 MENTS, EASEMENTS,RIGHTS-OF-WAY IN EVIDENCE OR KNOWN :11"f*..42*2 ./. 1 2"Al...30 - Q \4 r j ~~ 4* ACCURATELY SHOWN SEE PITKIN COUNTY TITLE POLICY No. 2/ , / FOUND: Â· 4 Â· REBAR W; PLAS. CAP 4 â‚¬00 01 1 e .4 -4 PCT-6836 FOR MATTERS CONCERNING THIS PROPERTY. f *)49*56 + F.*6 5 + 74 tilric *22,/ 9,887.2425 3 0 â‚¬// 0 40 1.1 6 47~'~r,â‚¬\ ,/ k l ALPINE SURVEYS,INC. BY: 1 1, </ 4- Â£ OCT.20.1992 Iq â‚¬ e <\ 1% 4 6.10) E h - e 44 7 6 3.11 44* 96 w 01 4 11 *& /\ '% no / Â«1 4 \ 0 1P 49 /9 / 44 4.42 0.90 , \ / 1%66 / 6. 9 41 -dÂ®. NOTE: TtrOGen-Mi K 1"KEZES - 0 3104., i 4 /9 ' 9/ i U 5UKVmet ED le. 30.12. â‚¬*f- ~......10' . 4 514OW PQFTI,4 - 1 34 FT 001 .4 9 Â»ty* 0,1 .1 6 1 0, 4 X./1 4 4 oots, .CO 1 24" PINE TREE N. 9918.8532 3 4 9 r E. 10017.6952 .354*R o D,1, E. 100Ot. 3519 15" PINE TREE N. 9936.8382 LE* B.:. 64 4 / 61.5.3 - 3-11Â¥v -. 0 3 <e r.3 1 4#0 Â·i:Â·{fzi..Â· '.1 . %291'.41.N.. 1 6 P %00 0,5, (01~ 3 20 * ' 3 40 00 f / 4 i ~4 +l * FOUND: -' REBAR W/ PLAS.CAP LL B.J Ji L9 20151 9,842.5297 9,923.289g NOTICE. According to Color,do law you must commence any legal action, based Surveyed 4 SEPT. 1991 Revisions 1 2 93 Title Job No 91 - 67 upon any defect,n the su/ey w.thin three years after.you first discover such defect. Alpine Surveys, Inc. Drafted 19 OCT. 1992 ,Â·11Â·45 LOT 19 Client OLIPHANT ht hij event may any.action ba,4ed upon any deteetin this survey be commenced more than ten years from the date el the ce#HrcÂ®on shown h*#reon. Post Office Box 1730 l Â· 16 Â·13 SHAW & THE W. P. W. JOINT VENTURE SUBD. Aspen, Colorado 81611 1Â· 19Â· 93 d '.} It , LitÂ¢:3: , EXEMPTION AMENDED 19Â· 4/ '144...06 303 925 2688 15'RSily : I . . ,. ' ' ,1 ,. S 1-1-1- -7Tl-T--1 -1-1-3- TJ--T--T -F-- 1 -T-T--1--1--[-T-1---1 [ -Elli__~ #21% E N &21 - ~m]==EmiE,i 19=.21 .........1 .........1 .........1 - .........1 .........1 .........1 .........1 11.1111.111111111 lillillillillilll'Ill'~fullillillillillillilillilillillillillillitililiwillitillitillillillillillillillillillimilillillillill .........1 11.11.111111.1111 ....../.111 ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 0 - 0 ....ia 1 1 0 1 0 A. e I . " . A 2- 0 0.1,0 ......... Eladpiliminlimi //22//Imil/mmilim, 1.1.11.1 - 1.l~ 1~ F/.1..1.I 1-111-11-1 ......... - ......./11.1~ ......... 1.#.11. 1~ ........7 *MNE-,OK''-L ........ ........I ........ .W-~/j/1%&k~~/~rh, -1 -1.-- - ! ........1 ......m.I ........1 ........1 1 l. 1.....1-i... ........I L-Jj L.....UJ lili. ........I 1- 1- - - -1 ---:!brn IE".IN.1 ........1 ........1 1 ~lummullillaa:~ Ii-1 .......m ........1 ........1 ........I ........I EmaRIMIX#JIM ........1 ........1 .malim=95 A 0 ,0 1. I " . ..r/jimzer"m 4. , Â·. & 1.:&Â»41 ........1