The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.20000412ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION April 12, 2000 REGULAR MEETING, 5:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS SITE VISITS - NONE 5:00 I. Roll call and approval Feb. 23rd and March 22,2000 II. Public Comments III. Commission member comments and project monitoring IV. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) V. OLD BUSINESS 74 * S / 9104-. 5:05 A. 834 W. Hallam St. - extension of conceptual / 9 (a o o :15 B. I L 920 W. Hallam St. - Lot A - Final - PH (continued from March Sth) 6 0 4Â¢- 5:35 C. 2-7 920 W. Hallam St. - Lot B - Final - PH (continued from March 88)&-/- ot 5:55 D.** 110 W. Main St. - Hotel Aspen - Conceptual - PH (continued from March Stl') (A'(41 2-(7Â£4~ 6:35 VI. NEW BUSINESS j4 A. ~ Aspen Grove Cemetery - fence 7:00 VII. WORKSESSION A. ~ 7:30 V[I. ADJOURN l PROJECT MONITORING /~usan Dodington 240 Lake Avenue- Greenberg 930 King - No Problem Joe's 121 5th & North - Ernie Frywald Suzannah Reid 117 N. 6th St. - Coulter 414 N. First- POLE 240 Lake Ave. 312 S. Galena 78 and Main Jeffrey Halferty 414 N. First- POLE 920 W. Hallam- Guthrie 101-105 E. Hallam 212 W. Hopkins Ave. 312 S. Galena Heidi Friedland 232 E. Hallam St.- Pace 117 N. 6th St. - Coulter 7m and Main 0 Lisa Markalunas 939 E. Cooper- Langley (work stopped) 240 Lake Avenue- Greenberg 214 E. Bleeker- Brumder Christie Kienast 735 W. Bleeker- Bone 426 N. Second Mary Hirsch 930 King 114 Neale Avenue (not active) 920 W. Hallam 400 W. Smuggler Street - Dodge residence Gilbert Sanchez 312 S. Galena 32133!eeker Street Melanie Roschko ially Dupps - CONCEPTUAL APPROVALS WHICH HAVE NOT GONE TO FINAL: 834 W. Hallam (Poppie's), expires April 26,2000 23 W. Francis, Lot B (Vickery), expires May 12,2000 35 W. Bleeker old house expires Oct. 14,2000 302 E. Hopkins- September 22,2000 HPC Legal Procedures (Submit affidavit of notice for PH - conceptual) Swear In Staff presentation Applicant presentation Board Questions and Clarifications PH opened and closed Board Comments Applicant Comments Motion Resolutions 2000 01. 330 Lake Ave. January 12, 2000 . 333 W. Bleeker St. January 12, 2000 . 221 E. Main Street January 12, 2000 04. 312 S. Galena January 26,2000 05. 501 W. Main St. Christiana Lodge Feb. 9,2000 06. 130 S. Galena Street, City Hall Feb. 9,2000 07. 520 W. Main Street Ullr - Minor Feb. 9,2000 08. 110 W. Main Street Hotel Aspen Conceptual Feb. 9,2000 09. 417 E. Hyman Ave. Paragon Feb. 9, 2000 10. 330 Lake Avenue - front porch Feb. 23,2000 11. 213 W. Bleeker Street - Conceptual Feb. 23,2000 12. 7th & Main St. Affordable Housing - Final March 8,2000 13. 333 W. Bleeker Street Final March 8,2000 14. 213 W. Bleeker Landmark Conceptual March 22,2000 f pRo ) 4 . 0 74;9 S il , TÂ°r *ll 4-- .sll* l Cd:hal/1 As*wlâ€¢ 164 -4, 41;2â‚¬u il.1,23 evt 44. covu. dâ‚¬ 1-lIll . 0 + 1-\* M ,Â»voss 400 wt 41410. I l c.*14 *sÂ»t AM ). 2,6â‚¬ 064 4-1.6Â£, r*"Lut\#S~ w Lit l' wt .3,1.5.vdZ[ bloz>ul- 41,4 1 236Â·4-6Ll 4 t3~~r) rve fÂ°' 441 A 9* Nill lisaas W.,4.l-1 04- +143 9,4=lt 4- 04 UJU #144â€¢Acl /43 wtat.11 , Â»U ... 4 '"7 ~rm(uÂ» Wall Sign Specifications Size- 22"H x 125.5"W (top of logo to bottom of text) 16"H uppercase / 12"H lower case: Total sign area 9.59 s.f. Color - forest green text (PMS 3435) Material - metal cans Illumination - white neon / indirect lighting Method of Installation - post mounted to wall surface # Notes - est. cost - $ 10.000.00 - $ 12.000.00 / reverse pan-channel-1 P K 125.5" A 1* WestStar Bank ~ 12" 9 2* 1 .1 dir'-11~..111Â·4011 <1 i .3 .'*40" 5411: 1981 11-:;:ki " 7 .Ril mr. EM' 1 1 311 -- 1;11 1!,Illt'I~* ~'FLI... 2411'FLL. 19 1.-'L.qlllI,1.21]En ~I~ ~,ii ~ ~~~' it --Â·Â· Â·Â· Â·Â· Â·-Â· i Â· Â·â€¢~14W#//qp. 4\Lulit Â¥.*.-,. tubi 4 i " "~t~~ k~~1 1 1 1 1 r.. $ '. Jl '-I.-1 * r . M; , J /. , 1. 11'M - All concepts and designs are the property of Impact Graphics & Signs and cannot be used without written consent - Phone: 926.9449 8-109 PO Box 2574 GMPAT,94(s .Ni2*1 ) Fax: 926.9399 0210 Edwards Village Blvd. Edwards, CO 81632 ... .. 1. .... f,92â€¢2Â·,- 4* 1 ;5 :'- 4.- -- 47. A.31#1. ~ I . .t 1 -~ lur.- 9.-IÂ»,ii*~ . 263- -11 r.&*/1//FIL ..9-k. ' ' y 22 ~eefp c i - 44% a. . '4 A 't, Hal ;9â‚¬ I % .. 2:, 9.1 -L *PÂ·:A l 1. - - I .6 ,9--- 0 Â¥ - - - . 42.1 .....'m.:.....1.1.---1 ' 3k it ..... /=38 Â·.Â·GA~ tl J 1- I - .= -11. -1 - - 11 ,...,- 441,1 r 53; 4.: :I .-IT-2 -I " "....ill' '-I ./. I - ./:. - i. 4 -5 ..9.,., ... b /1 - *iÂ»~*:4~: r' 7-1*Tk ~ -f-1 -1&< ~ I~.**k*~0 f I~--=62 tr S 444- 2.15.0 /43&32<.1â‚¬21, ..aÂ¥,- Â·2Â·=-ikÂ£02*~ . .-I......'........./.-- i.-.I'."'.I- 7 . 6-8.. * *'Â·':0-Â·Â·h -f= - - -2- .k.. - "-6.49 . ..- - I J n /'/' -.I: IMI. I' 7/â€¢JI .f- 2 *91â€¢- ~ 1. . . . Â·72. 2: 1 - i. n . 1 - - 1LT I -t . .1, 1- 1 :. , I .p .-. .- 1-41 1 11. .7. - W 1 -1.-1 - 1 - eaq>. 4 0 ... 49% 1... - ..7 r W D..~ C .. 1 1 MEETING DATE: LI- 1 3- I A,-+D NAME OF PROJECT: 5 3 4 w. d LdbA- 52- CLERK: STAFF: WITNESSES: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) EXHIBITS: 1 Staff Report ( ) (Check If Applicable) 2 Affidavit of Notice C ) (Check If Applicable) 3 Board Criteria Sheet C ) (Check If Applicable) 4 5 MOTION: 36Â¥#6-7 46 -71A x VOTE: YES NO SUZANNAH REID YES U'/NO MARY HIRSCH YES L-140 SUSAN DODINGTON YES -NO GILBERT SANCHEZ YES L--NO LISA MARKALUNAS YES 1- NO JEFFREY HALFERTY YES NO . HEIDI FRIEDLAND YES NO CHRISTIE KIENAST YES NO --Ill-Il -- MELANIE ROSCHKO YES - NO - RALLY DUPPS YES -110 HPCVOTE MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning Director<RE) FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 834 W. Hallam Street- Extension of conceptual approval DATE: April 12, 2000 SUMMARY: This project received conceptual development approval on April 26, 1995. Section 26.415.010.C.2.b.1 of the Land Use Code provides that an application for final development review shall be filed within one year of the date of approval of a conceptual development plan. Unless HPC grants an extension, failure to file the final development application shall make the approval null and void. One year extensions have been granted four times, with the most recent set to expire on April 26,2000. The applicant, Michael Hull, requests HPC approval for another one-year extension of conceptual approval, to allow more time for study of the final design. He will attend the meeting to provide further background on the reason for the delay in applying. The conceptual design is attached for your review. With the upcoming adoption of the new guidelines, staff is somewhat concerned with allowing older reviews to maintain a vested rights status. This project is well designed and received unanimous HPC approval in 1995, however there may be some aspects of the project that would be viewed differently under the new standards. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the HPC discuss the reasons for delay with the applicant and determine whether a short term extension would allow enough time to finish the drawings. Otherwise, the approval should not be extended again. Exhibits: A. Conceptual approval C.. I - .. F - . C 0 4 .. 1 . / 1 .2,0- ... V - . I I ALL. . - - - ty fd , 116' . . I - 1 1 1- - ~ : 244-41 ji . , .. 1 -9-1 - I - EX. SOUTH ELEVAT ION .- . 7 5 41<7724- t.Â· * MI*Prt!6 - . 7 . . i I AL . - - *4~2Â¢(\DU .* I ./ .- - I -04.-7 . 1-2 ..4* - -+4.-'S.:>422 -- . 'tz 36.- - 9.- - 21.32- I . 77% 7-E...4/ -- - -- f e.7 1.4 9 I Â· . A . 14(-75.-ig.# . 6 $ . --- - I--.-I.- . 1 1 122~t.Es<: ' ..1 1 .. I Â· - -I .0---- . . .. .- I - _._ 0___ - .+ C â‚¬=I -Il 2 JAKE VICKERY ...... *....lili...I...I.Il.Illi -- - k - -EX WEST-El EVATIGN____ ts.,1#1â€žr L _1 -~L.-'=rff /| limellilill t -SOUTHS,=Na sIR .. POSr On,CI BOX 12,60 .L-4 .. .*Cli< . - r a. 1 -â€¢ 0447*#d.~,~:. ~ - Â· I lilli. I . . ... . E . . 29.- . 40 -- - ..f . /1:--/ - - 12...1\ . :52 . I. 4.D - . I . 1 .. 0 4 -0 r - . . i . .. L. r . EX,-NORT-H EL.EVATION.. - ...- . 83 ,. 61 9 - 15 .... . j F.-- . . -7 2 - --- . 41. . . .64: I i.. 7/ A - . . I.-Ill / I - *. . - 8 ' - 1 1711 1 - -:r . . . . .. . . - : ...Ill . . . - - 1 - - .. --- - JAKE VICKERY . 1 i.: 100 SOUTH SPRING ST. 0 - - -- ~EX. EASTE.ELEVAT I.ON O ~*~ 0,F= 10* m,0 . L . I ' i. ASFEN. COLORADO *1612 I ..,8.1 , 21*2 *Bt ' 1*Unlowl i .Acs:MILE -3 - rp=,pi#w-~2984*nok[ Eof (30') '15-3460 01 . . . 2.Â¥r..... - . Â·Â· . 1 . 1. .-Il . .. 44-0 . . U L I . . E-/'... .. - El> 1 1 .. . . . '.. . -. /.. . . 1 . , . i i. Ir .. 0 - . - .. . I . . I I . I..-Ii- 0.--.I-* 1---I.I- 0 : I. -- SOUTH ELEVATION, .. ... - 1 . . -. 1 - . . 1.- 0 , 1 - 1 1 In iii!,1.11 1 i .. . Â· 1 i 1 1.t 1. 11 11 omp N fi Â· , i lilil -./. .. .. ' -0 - '. . ; 1---1 ~:~i .. -4: i r - t--9 .' ; 119 : . .... . - , . 14 - . . r.... . I - WEST EL EVAT:I ON -- JAKE VICK" ' * 17 1-41 --- . . posT O"Ic*.ox coâ€¢O - 1.. 10â€¢soun,SnIM:2Â». -J â€¢ re- AsrE,tc~,tia Â· lice.ji452- 4%: . . . 01 . , . '. . Â¥,unfo- /,â€¢a,â€¢.,u .. E.Ill= (,01} s:3.3â€¢â€¢â€¢ .*1 0 I . .. . . . 0 9, , 1 . -f . 1 11: 11 Ill 1 1 ..1~ . I. I. 1 1 ! - 0-------- il__li 0.-Ii-I.--Ill.i-.- . i N OR TH ELEVAT--ION -i . - - - 1~ ... 111. 1 + I . J 1 I . 1 \ 1.1.. 11.1 1 i \ -Â· i .. . I . IN 1 . i . EAST ELEVAT I ON -0- -////-~0 r9ill JAKE VICKERY I -- 140 Â· rver*_@12*CEL*HEE[ktl- Â· INSOUâ„¢SPRZNCS!:4 Posr OF,KI DOX /2340 - A-274. COUOR.400 nac TEU-00,1. 0 .<14.80,1 4 I . - =20-4*...5@2t,Jff*EAMiuE. -3---L, 411111 1 1:1 0, .9..u/:.?19 9. Â©d:,:, ~ I */0/ 4 0 . " , 1 9 , 4 0. P. i 4 ..4. 11 1.-1., I 1 , 1 .. . . 0 .,9:44'14 , 46 Â· ! 1 L . , Re'"1 1 5 )12 16<.. 2 64-Â·*4 6 I r.. h.' ., r U . 1 1 *. I. 4â€¢40.1.Â· Z. Â·Â·4Â·. .4 . 2<14/4, 99; j,7. t., , Â·Â· , % 4, 11â€¢ 4 I;.Â· 4 .. 4 e. ,â€¢1 . , . -. 1 Â· . Â· 46 4. I . . ./ . ..... . 1 . .r , - . .. I . 1 1,0 . .. I he. 11\ 2 '1 0, 4., . , 7 .I ?, , , . ' A Â· Â· Ill.'.4, '14 1. .Â·It t"1 , Â·. .. e - .1 . - 1 . . - . . . 1 1 5\ r , -0 . f Â· 5- 6.--4.uÂ·Â£2Â» /FZZLE.2-- , T I . . fji .1 : #r -. . 1 1 , *b -4 1 . I'l . 1 k. r , .... 42- . 7 -1, , 1 I -- . .. 1 , .. 0 . 1 4 , I P , . 1 , 1 1 . t B.4 = 1 . 1.Â¥60 - 0,91"QEFat Â·Â·1 , - I . 1': mil"*1* g 1 . I â€¢ . i . 9. gle 4 - 1 0 ' 4 1% 1Â· I. . 1%,17 , ; ddn X3 21/ / MEETING DATE: Lk j ~- - D-#-,+U NAME OF PROJECT: O 51 6 to p *4664_ h./- A CLERK: STAFF: WITNESSES: (1) ~D 4 ~ 9 46 6- (2) (3) (4) (5) EXHIBITS: 1 Staff Report ( ) (Check If Applicable) 2 Affidavit of Notice ( ) (Check If Applicable) 3 Board Criteria Sheet ( ) (Check If Applicable) 4 5 MOTION: VOTE: YES v NO '- SUZANNAH REID YES l/' NO MARY HIRSCH YES 2/0' NO SUSAN DODINGTON YES L NO GILBERT SANCHEZ YESZ/ NO LISA MARKALUNAS YES l-- NO JEFFREY HALFERTY YES NO HEIDI FRIEDLAND YES NO CHRISTIE KIENAST YES NO MELANIE ROSCHKO YES NO RALLY DUPPS YE-NO HPCVOTE b) MEMORANDUM TO: Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Directok)*0 FROM: Nick Lelack, Planner~~' RE: 920 West Hallam, Lot A, Significant Development Plan (Final) - Public Hearing DATE: April 12,2000 h.., '''r / kty, w .9*< e - - _r -1 1?#44 1~ - -0, ~ - ---L~~ = -- #-1 9, I."/9,#41 01-lavil//8,4/:Atit#/41/- % 1 11,1.1,1 10 141.41.,1 - Lot A - vacant Lot B - Historic Landmark Lot B - vacant APPLICANT: SUMMARY: Aspen Historic Cottages, LLC This application requests approval for Final Significant Development for Lot A, 920 West Hallam REPRESENTATIVE: Street. This review is a continuation from March 8. Ron Robertson The Applicant has made several significant revisions based on the Commission' s comments. LOCATION: 920 West Hallam REVIEW PROCEDURE Lot A The Historic Preservation Commission shall by resolution approve, approve with conditions. or deny a CURRENT LAND USE: Significant Development Plan (Final). Single Family Residential ZONING: PROPOSED LAND USE: R-6, Medium Density Residential Residential FAR: LOT SIZE: Allowable: 1,854 sq. ft 3,432 sq. ft. 1 STAFF COMMENTS: Aspen Historic Cottages, LLC, ("Applicant"), represented by Ron Robertson, is 0 requesting approval for Significant Development Plan (Final) on Lot A at 920 West Hallam Street. The Commission considered the final plan on March 8 and continued the hearing because of concerns over several design elements. In general, Commissioners expressed concerns over: 1. the addition of four (4) feet to the south (front) elevation ofthe building; 2. the expanded roof over the closet as viewed primarily from the west and east elevations; 3. the complexity of the iron fence on the south elevation; and 4. the windows on the south and east elevations. In addition, Commissioners explained the need to maintain the historic house's prominence in the design of the structures on Lots A and B, to keep the designs of the new buildings simple, and to return to the historic flavor of the project as presented during the conceptual approval. In response, Mr. Robertson has submitted revised final drawings addressing each of the concerns raised above. Specifically, the additional four (4) feet on the south elevation have been eliminated, the closet roof has been substantially scaled back into a shed roof design, the iron fence has been removed, and compatible windows have been proposed 0 for the south and east elevations. Mr. Robertson has also proposed a narrow shiplap design juxtaposed with a board and batten design to distinguish among the architectural elements of the structure. The scallop shingles on the gables have been replaced with square shingles matching the roof. Community Development Staffbelieves the revised final drawings to be a significant improvement over the drawings considered on March 8. Staff is of the opinion that Mr. Robertson's proposal would be a contribution to the entrance to Aspen, respectful of the historic house next door, and compatible with the neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval of the Final Significant Development Plan for Lot A, 920 West Hallam Street, with conditions outlined in the draft Resolution. RECOMMENDED MoTION: "I move to approve the Final Significant Development Plan for Lot A, 920 West Hallam Street, and staffrecommended conditions of approval." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings 0 Exhibit B -- Development Application 2 EXHIBIT A 920 WEST HALLAM STREET, LOT A, FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS 26.415 Significant Development Review Standards No approval for any development in the "H," Historic Overlay District, or involving historic landmarks shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds that all of the following standards are met: a. The proposed development is compatible in general design, scale, site plan, massing and volume 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, exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet, or exceed the allowed site coverage by up to five (5) percent, Historic Preservation Commission may grant necessary variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this Section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program, Section 26.520.040(B)(2), for detached accessory dwelling units, and A floor area bonus will only be awarded to projects which in the opinion of the III'C make an "outstanding preservation effort." Examples to be considered would include the retention of historic outbuildings or the creation of breezeway or connector elements between the historic resource and new construction. Lots which are larger than 9,000 square feet and properties which receive approval for a "historic landmark lot split" may also be considered for the bonus. No development application which includes a request for an FAR bonus may be submitted until the applicant has met with the Historic Preservation Commission in a work session to discuss whether or not the proposal might qualify for the floor area bonus, and Staff Finding Staffbelieves the revised final development plan to be compatible in general design, scale, site plan, massing and volume with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject. The revised plan is a substantial improvement over the drawings considered on March 8. Staff is of the opinion that Mr. Robertson's revised design addresses HPC's concerns regarding the design, scale and massing ofthe project. This criterion is satisfied. 3 b. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development, and Staff Finding Staff believes the proposed final development plan to be generally compatible in design, scale, site plan, massing and volume with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. The property is located in a neighborhood which is composed primarily of multi-family structures, with single-family and duplex homes to the north. Staff finds the proposed development to be consistent with the established character of the surrounding neighborhood. c. The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels; and Staff Finding Staff believes that the proposed development would enhance the character of the surrounding neighborhood, especially with respect to the adjacent structures and the relationship between these properties. The revisions dramatically improve the proposed development, particularly in relation to the historic significance of the designated historic cottage located on the parcel. This criterion is satisfied. d. The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Staff Finding Please refer fo the staff responses to "a., b., and c." above. 4 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (FINAL), FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 920 WEST HALLAM STREET, LOT A, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO. RESOLUTION No. , SERIES OF 2000 WHEREAS, the applicant, Aspen Historic Cottages, LLC., represented by architect Ron Robertson, has requested approval of a Significant Development (Final) for the property located at 920 West Hallam Street, Lot A. The property is a designated historic landmark (Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1998); and WHEREAS, the City Council approved Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1998, which designated 920 West Hallam (legally described as the east 1/6 of Lot M, all of Lots N, O and P and a portion of Lot Q, Block 4, City and Townsite of Aspen) as a Historic Landmark, approved a Subdivision Exemption for a Historic Landmark Lot Split, and approved a landmark designation grant of $2,000; and, WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Coinmission (HI'C) approved Resolution 19, Series of 1998, which approved the partial demolition and off-site relocation of historic structures on the property; WHEREAS, HPC approved Resolution No. 15, Series of 1998, which approved the partial demolition and on-site relocation of the existing historic house and detached garage, Significant (Conceptual) Development Plan, a Variance from the minimum side yard setbacks of five (5) feet to allow for two (2) foot side yard setbacks on both sides of Lot B for the lightwells, a variance from the combined side yard setback requirement of twenty-three (23) feet to allow for a combined side yard setback of seven (7) feet, a variance from the maximum site coverage requirement ofthirty-five (35) percent (2,666 square feet) to allow for a site coverage of thirty-seven (37) percent, and Variances from the Residential Design Standards from the "volume" provisions: (1) For the new structure on Lot A - the two small (2' x 2') square windows highest up on the south elevation's taller gable; the windows on the frontmost wall of the south elevation shall not extend beyond nine feet above the floor height; (2) For the new structure on Lot B - the two small (2' x 2') square windows on the south elevation's taller gable and the one in the dormer shall be allowed as proposed, as well as the window in the dormer of the east elevation, and the small square window in the dormer of the west elevation; the single square window on the frontmost wall of the south elevation shall be eliminated or redesigned to comply with the volume standard; and, WHEREAS, HPC approved Resolution No. 14, Series of 1998, a 500 square foot Floor Area Bonus for Lot B and Final Significant Development (Conceptual); and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution 98-17, which approved a Conditional Use to place two (2) detached single-family residences on a single historic landmark Lot of 6,000 square feet in the R-6 Zone District; and, 5 WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission approved Resolution 99-35, which extended the conceptual approval until February, 2000; and, 0 WHEREAS, the Community Development Director administrative approved a Growth Management Quota System Exemption for a Historic Landmark Lot Split; and, WHEREAS, all development in an "H," Historic Overlay District or development involving a historic landmark must meet: the Development Review Standards of Section 26.415.010(C)(5) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant Significant Development (Final) approval; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department recommended approval of the aforementioned request with conditions; and WHEREAS, HPC has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, a legally noticed public hearing was held at a regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission on April 12,2000, at which the Commission: approved with conditions the requests for Significant Development (Final), by a vote of_ to _ 0.3; and, 0 WHEREAS, HPC finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion ofpublic health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: Section 1: That the HPC hereby approves the Final Significant Development request for 920 West Hallam Street, Lot A, with the following conditions: 1. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor. 2. The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer prior to applying for the building permit. 3. All representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Historic Preservation commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. 0 6 Section 2: All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 3: This Resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue ofthe ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereoÂ£ APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meetings on the 12th day of April, 2000. APPROVED AS TO FORM: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney APPROVED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION: Suzannah Reid, Chairperson ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 7. V. 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Directorc)*9 FROM: Nick Lelack, Planner~Â¥r RE: 920 West Hallam, Lot B, Significant Development Plan (Final) - Public Hearing DATE: April 12, 2000 -1 - 40 ,/4/ 1 - - , . .71,&1z -1 Ir.- . 441 .7 Lot A - vacant Lot B - Historic Landmark Lot B - vacant APPLICANT: SUMMARY: Aspen Historic Cottages, LLC This application requests approval for Final Significant Development for Lots A and B, 920 West REPRESENTATIVE: Hallam Street. This memorandum addresses the Ron Robertson application for Lot B. Lot B contains both the existing historic landmark (1,000 sq. ft. of FAR) and proposed LOCATION: new single-family residence ( 1,850 sq. ft of FAR). 920 West Hallam Lot B REVIEW PROCEDURE The Historic Preservation Commission shall by CURRENT LAND USE: resolution approve, approve with conditions, or deny a Single Family Residential Significant Development Plan (Final). PROPOSED LAND USE: ZONING: Residential R-6, Medium Density Residential LOT SIZE: FAR: 7,616 sq. ft. Proposed: 2,854 sq. ft. Allowable: 2,854 sq. ft 1 STAFF COMMENTS: Aspen Historic Cottages, LLC, ("Applicant' 3, represented by Ron Robertson, is requesting approval for Significant Development Plan (Final) on Lot B at 920 West Hallam Street. The Commission briefly discussed the final plan on March 8 and continued the hearing because of concerns over the development on Lot A and a couple of design features on the subject lot. The only concern raised was the revised window on the south elevation (second floor, west side). In addition, during the Lot A review, Commissioners explained the need to maintain the historic house's prominence in the design of the structures on Lots A and B, to keep the designs of the new buildings simple, and to return to the historic flavor of the project as presented during the conceptual approval. In response, Mr. Robertson submitted revised final drawings addressing the concerns raised above. Specifically, the window on the south elevation has been redesigned to be more compatible with the historic cottage. Mr. Robertson has also proposed a narrower shiplap design juxtaposed with a board and batten design to distinguish among the architectural elements ofthe structure. The scallop shingles on the gables have been replaced with square shingles matching the roof. Community Development Staff believes the revised final drawings to be a nice improvement over the drawings considered on March 8. Staff is of the opinion that Mr. Robertson's proposal would be a positive contribution to the entrance to Aspen, respectful of the historic house next door, and compatible with the neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval of the Final Significant Development Plan for Lot B, 920 West Hallam Street, with the conditions outlined in the draft Resolution. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the Final Significant Development Plan for Lot B, 920 West Hallam Street, and staff recommended conditions of approval." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit B -- Development Application 2 EXHIBIT A EXPLORE CONDITIONAL USE & SPECIAL REVIEW REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS 26.415 Significant Development Review Standards No approval for any development in the "H," Historic Overlay District, or involving historic landmarks shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds that all of the following standards are met: a. The proposed development is compatible in general design, scale, site plan, massing and volume 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, exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet, or exceed the allowed site coverage by up to five (5) percent, Historic Preservation Commission may grant necessary variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this Section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program, Section 26.520.040(B)(2), for detached accessory dwelling units, and A floor area bonus will only be awarded to projects which in the opinion of the HPC make an "outstanding preservation effort." Examples to be considered would include the retention of historic outbuildings or the creation of breezeway or connector elements between the historic resource and new construction. Lots which are larger than 9,000 square feet and properties which receive approval for a "historic landmark lot split" may also be considered for the bonus. No development application which includes a request for an FAR bonus may be submitted until the applicant has met with the Historic Preservation Commission in a work session to discuss whether or not the proposal might qualify for the floor area bonus, and Staff Finding Staff believes the proposed final development plan to be generally compatible in design, scale, site plan, massing and volume with the neighborhood and historic landmark structures on the parcel. Staffbelieves this is an outstanding project. Staffis of the opinion that the window and shiplap revisions are appropriate changes that improve the project. HPC approved a 500 square foot FAR bonus for Lot B, also located on 920 West Hallam, during the conceptual approval process because this is an "exemplary" and "outstanding" 3 project. The Commission also approved an increase by two (2) percent of site coverage - from 35% to 37%, as well as setback and Residential Design Standards variances. This criterion has been addressed. b. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development, and Staff Finding Staff believes the proposed final development plan to be generally compatible in design, scale, site plan, massing and volume with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. The property is located in a neighborhood which is composed primarily of multi-family structures, with single-family and duplex homes to the north. Staff finds the proposed development to be consistent with the established character of the surrounding neighborhood. c. The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels; and Staff Finding Staff believes that the proposed development would enhance the character of the surrounding neighborhood, especially with respect to the adjacent structures and the relationship between these properties. Staff also is of the opinion that the minor revisions to the final plan improve the structure's relationship with the historic cottage on the same lot. Staff believes this criterion has been addressed. d. The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereoÂ£ Staff Finding Please refer to the staffresponses to "a., b., and c." above. 4 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (FINAL), FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 920 WEST HALLAM STREET, LOT B, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO. RESOLUTION No. , SERIES OF 2000 WHEREAS, the applicant, Aspen Historic Cottages, LLC., represented by architect Ron Robertson, has requested approval of a Significant Development (Final) for the property located at 920 West Hallam Street, Lot B. The property is a designated historic landmark (Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1998); and WHEREAS, the City Council approved Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1998, which designated 920 West Hallam (legally described as the east !4 of Lot M, all of Lots N, O and P and a portion of Lot Q, Block 4, City and Townsite of Aspen) as a Historic Landmark, approved a Subdivision Exemption for a Historic Landmark Lot Split, and approved a landmark designation grant of $2,000; and, WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission (HI'C) approved Resolution 19, Series of 1998, which approved the partial demolition and off-Aite relocation of historic structures on the property; WHEREAS, HPC approved Resolution No. 15, Series of 1998, which approved the partial demolition and on-site relocation of the existing historic house and detached garage, Significant (Conceptual) Development Plan, a Variance from the minimum side yard setbacks of five (5) feet to allow for two (2) foot side yard setbacks on both sides of Lot B for the lightwells, a variance from the combined side yard setback requirement of twenty-three (23) feet to allow for a combined side yard setback of seven (7) feet, a variance from the maximum site coverage requirement ofthirty-five (35) percent (2,666 square feet) to allow for a site coverage of thirty-seven (37) percent, and Variances from the Residential Design Standards from the "volume" provisions: (1) For the new structure on Lot A - the two small (2' x 2') square windows highest up on the south elevation's taller gable; the windows on the frontmost wall of the south elevation shall not extend beyond nine feet above the floor height; (2) For the new structure on Lot B - the two small (2' x 2') square windows on the south elevation's taller gable and the one in the dormer shall be allowed as proposed, as well as the window in the dormer ofthe east elevation, and the small square window in the dormer of the west elevation; the single square window on the frontmost wall of the south elevation shall be eliminated or redesigned to comply with the volume standard; and, WHEREAS, HPC approved Resolution No. 14, Series of 1998, a 500 square foot Floor Area Bonus for Lot B and Final Significant Development (Conceptual); and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution 98-17, which approved a Conditional Use to place two (2) detached single-family residences on a single historic landmark Lot of 6,000 square feet in the R-6 Zone District; and, 5 WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission approved Resolution 99-35, which extended the conceptual approval until February, 2000; and, 0 WHEREAS, the Community Development Director administrative approved a Growth Management Quota System Exemption for a Historic Landmark Lot Split; and, WHEREAS, all development in an "H," Historic Overlay District or development involving a historic landmark must meet: the Development Review Standards of Section 26.415.010(C)(5) ofthe Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant Significant Development (Final) approval; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department recommended approval of the aforementioned request with conditions; and WHEREAS, HPC has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, a legally noticed public hearing was held at a regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission on April 12,2000, at which the Commission: approved with conditions the requests for Significant Development (Final), by a vote of_ to _ CO; and, 0 WHEREAS, HPC finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion ofpublie health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: Section 1: That the HPC hereby approves the Final Significant Development request for 920 West Hallam Street, Lot B, with the following conditions: 1. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor. 2. The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer prior to applying for the building permit. 3. All representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Historic Preservation commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. 0 6 Section 2: All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 3: This Resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue ofthe ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meetings on the 12th day of April, 2000. APPROVED AS TO FORM: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney APPROVED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION: Suzannah Reid, Chairperson ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 7 8 ALLEY, GLOCK 4 0.4 - 21 07' WIDE R.O.W *RFBAâ‚¬-e.â‚¬36 (.SEM 0 / 1.4 \ 2 75.29'll' c 4 - I nAÂ· 5 00 10 00' 37.48 37 48' 1-0 M C -9 ASH . - 'C 1 -4 40Â· 0 0-:11.---1 STORAG CO 10 00 -1Rl\CA' br-Q F\.5.u, TRANSFORVER _ f. I- _ I T AU=J 10 1 SETIBACK LINE 10 00+ --/ EASEMENT - - foRF - j - '(11 Af 9 ISTORIC COTTAGES ] \,c) 1 â€¢2 L.~ 1 1 4- - - 1 11 k F-- E]#---1- --------- f CD 0 \ 1= b 4 - 11 C D 1 1 li V 11-1 1:- I 64.h SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS 1 . 9- 7 + i \3\4\1 ~f- i 'J ve 1 1 1 777 'erev 1 36~6 ~res ~ 1 1 --1- 1 WI 1 U.1 111 1 5 4 - lu 0 CD Jl ./ -7 Z 1 20 0' SETBACK LINE ~ - Ill \ 1 3-K Aâ‚¬10 1 43 Qâ‚¬.8 Re FOUND REBAt?A PO.8.~ 9-1 --FOUND CAP 45 #16129 ~ 9/,--1.--,- c.~f Outfit--1 P .4 MAR 38.08 lit 6 u -~N 75.09'11" w [62 - ti~ WES- HALLAM STREE" 74.38' WIDE R.O.W câ‚¬Op,~ L 90Fe'/E V EÂ»- - t:31-1 COUNTer c 1 9 '-~<093* 4 2--oiWLE-E 2.2.9. 233$ A ENOINIEEâ‚¬ NCE. D LTED 3/21/99 FLE: U I Z /Ie = : = <3 -U ...1/ V .../ 91331!HOHV Â· NOSIW38OH '0 'H 2919 V, Olan19 '133819 Niv -~ILL.1~w 00 E ... 8 (4) (f) (0 (-4 C 'J ) a 1 lu c < 0 (C) i N.0 1 3 V[-- L 3 Â· R ' i Â·. 1 W C rit~ 4 40 1-11 rl/ (F 3 Up 1 0 6=Eaa 4Â»/ 0} 1 0 4Z 2- 1 11 en ni -1 I m , 0 11 4 2 03 m O 0 0 1 9 .- r -5 t W W -i 7-7- â€ž----------- j - b Al = 1 -- t) 1 . f--7-61-- -//-----h ~ 0 Af-=CO R ) 41-) 1 !23 L 6 2 - 4-44 5/1,1.-_ u ./1 IY \1 1 1 \ J , E m 2 L. (3 m {0 Vii 9 9 70 Aol ' 01 m c CF /-/ 0, Ch cp 0 0(6) C irl j g < -n ) (~) (]-) 0 Z -~-- ... ftli=11------ - - rn rn ErÂ® C =Al ' ap) ------0-----7 F L=J L=j B -0- 1-1 U \E . 1 m )< 50 6===41 1,=41 4~ r . . e A / D r r -1 1 1 V V 1 1 - 11 --Â· Na -I 1 IGh ori ~ r $ I- , 1 [Ei. 11 D 93 i-%-455 1/ 1 [0 E -! [ ' - UJ=F=- 17 -1 --- 49 Aj - 1 9 1 -1 F , m o '0 2 .i 1 64 /- 1- ai~-1 \t 1---141.--rr ga n -d --_Il______I , IF===U==11 111 1 15 6 0 4 0120 00>11 <07 1-nom AI â‚¬) (03 (â‚¬) C 71) (i) 1 1 1 1 (77 1 '1 - ~ + 01 n SG --------------1 1 49 0 k 0 2 31 U 1 1--1 C 3 -h f i / i L__~~~~~r-=-i DN --3 \ r W . 1 El I ' f & R . , S 0 4 F 9 42) 1, w. .-7 C Â«- 63 8 - ,~~ 1-(D 1 l.j 1 ~ rn 11 1 1 1" "" C -ti '---% / 4 -trj , 1 " A 1 -3. 8 Z C -,1.) .Cof A w R. C. ROBERTSON Â· ARCHITECTS 920 Test 7671&m 417 MAIN STREET, STUDIO 81623 CO. CARBONDALE, 0 A.I.A. 970 963 0567 970 963 8936 FAX ;*n, Co/bradb - 4F-~--WELL DOOZ-&-9 ... *Â§& 9 704 E-L 7. '.1. E, 1[=f=â€žgi u 6-0 - i p M b . Dig (F) mi: i- IKE~ PIf;< f - 11 ' 811 = 1 1 033 .--- r , >.4 N 1 E & r-1 i , i...M -- - ----- -1 1 3 F (T) 1 -- 1 R m 0, L !1; r-1 1 m i \\ -A 1 11 ~ 111 03 1 - Ill.,111 f la LME-1 ---- *1 lili -0 U 4 81 5 & !! .-1 983 /t (31.) 0 1!11 I k k ,op eci lum HE lili ' I 1/,1 1--7- i $ It .-1 11 -.a il., '11 Hril r 860 0Â°' IMI, 1 11 ~ > 'Ld- -1 ul - 0_ 8 5 (63 1/\ k- Ez lENT = \. 1 IWI~ (f) 1 3.- 3 1 (4) L _ -- 1 i) 131 \4Â©4 1 -711 rl Â»D c M H i I ill = *A 711 4.0, 1.Ig- 1 W, C 1- 11 =1 AJ=41 1-p-----------11--4 11 id 1 0 4 0 so 61 4 I -0. # k,/. .Cot A Â· ARCHITECTS 1 0 ROBERTSON MAIN STREET, STUDIO 'A 11 920 9084 7/AAm All 8. C 00 CARBONDALE 81623 970 963 - 0567 .Mfpen, Co/brado 970 963 8936 FAX 0 0 ---- F.-|Â¥OjlblaA exi 0 0 ... 4 2 CE) 00 1 R~ i til 7 1 ~ 111 1 (63 i~ ~~ r)TEESEEEWI r.=ZE== 1\/1 Â» Ill - L- -- ~~ 1 tin 1 Ffil x 11 - I .1 N ~- 111 1 11.-1 r--71: . I 11 124 (6) G C J 0 G j . C= - C . r- 1 . .I 11 /1.----- - li-I--. I| 1-3 i - ...h mic L L_ (Ch) 0- 1. N . 1 1 1-= '1. r- -I F E ..w- Cul ) ill /3+ L 1 44, 7 (V) r U d 0 - ll CD . G?( Ed - 99 4 -1 0 -e- -9 '14. fot A Â· ARCHITECTS . CARBONDALE. 81623 ROBERTSON 417 MAIN STREET, STUDIO 'A' co 920 f}Uest Wa(fmn 970 963 0567 970 Â· 963 8936 FAX U A.I.A. 0 e Aspen, Coforado - (0 FV ... C D ITI -1-1 LD Z /1 1 0% A O 0) 2. < 4 111 09 1 !1 1 6 251 U 14 ---- 13> 0 - -4 03 --1.- - IT] ...< U U-i t S 7 11 -L di O 49 (3 11 10- 1 1 111 /0 N 14-5049" L 00 00 -<C 0 t,1 - ' 90 Â· O 00 0 CO. on d ID ,-r~ -8 / . N 14'30'01" E ~__ 100.00' 09 1 4/( 1 r 0 6 0 0 11 Â«43 A 7 n m 0 (jl A {y' L Ud i, 1 00 1 6 -- - 4 111 1 L B d 41 - 47 1 S 1409'13" W ~ 1 100.01 lili if) 0 m Aj Â£ 0 0 0 0 O 2 43 0 0 11 4 % C g In CP Il 11 9 (, T i 1 1 . GZ 2 8 K R. C. ROBERTSON Â· ARCHITECTS 9209Uart *Aim 417 MAIN STREET, STUDIO 81623 GO. CARBONDALE, 970 963 0567 970 983 - 8936 FAX Aspen, Co (orado S30Â¥1100 01801SIH N3dSV 1 M â€žli.60.92 N \SPEN~\STORIC 0002-&-9 1-'r.9, .. Â© 0 0 1 11 to , r C Z C 0 7 9 0 1 ) m E) 11>- -1 omARd â€ž4 -m - [f A~74 z 11 m -77 11 0 /3 k It l 1 4\1-- @--3 Wk/-- -e f (D jn ---0-11- 1,V JEC C -9 r.-1 j * rp 1 6 0 6 01 i ni o L 59 /Â«\ 1 '1 UP 0 z ' 9 1Â£ 11- i rl 7 i.==1= V --11 101. C d m 'Lia U 6\ riI L:J ~ L=J 69 CHO 1/ i ) BoIl O P 7~61 \ 1 =21 Al * -27 , 1 __91- 23 -- - . J .-1 Ii2241 :f< 9 9 1 K-/ il. 1 _ 2 . * U DN 61= 3 U r------1 r--- 00 - - 13 4 in 9 - rn W" A C- Na -0- 1- r Â£==1 /1.1, 2 1 3 i B 8 Lj LJ I d rn -- - 1 U 01------\ 1 - ..III Â® M 1 F ~ 1 L--1 1 11[oIl oIl IM==11 IF=:6=11 L-2 ON 1 -It=Zil i k) r i 1 14=====41 11===11 4 11~1 1-1 bell m y o Â© (9) 0070 < 0 1 0 ITI 6 01 bgo 1\ 92% i f F TE L Fl 001 <0 m me -0 -0- W h --Â· rt,1 it , 49 u 1> t 23 1 1 - O 70 V 0 H 1 / lE] I. X p U DN Wh/ 1" 1 1 0 9 U 0 0 11 . 1 1 0Â» m 1 1 (31 1 ! 10 It ZIE 1 1 0 1 2 1 1 It li J 1 1 UM~MUP-*U==U====U 41 ) @) T) '01. .Cot S R. C. ROBERTSON - ARCHITECTS 417 MAIN STREET, STUDIO 'A' 81623 CO. 920 10est Wa(fam CARBONDALE, 970 963Â·0567 970 963 8936 FAX Aspen, Coforado - illk!79 ,1/,1 0002-&-9 ... r-1.------------- 1 4 L_ El = 1 H- 1 Â· ./h 1 e le' 9 ) L r- 1 . 1 1 L In--0% = 1 1L Im a --- I E 111 - M r 1 J ILL Ly 1 *1- 2--.11 - 26 I-_3_ Imiht#' 0 . f 4 r -1 - -- ------ ----- L ~ i (6) L- ~b t~I & -1 LHE _ 11=Al ~F~PtÂ·Â·Â·~ I -1 FR 03 G En -1 1 1 (ho LI---7-------1 -0 0 A b 6 1 ME . 4 8# - Om 981 m / b 2 r -10 m 612,8 0 1.- 1 En - 614 1 1- 0 @ 01-____________ - 1- 1 Ill - 0 El j 2 1111 - 1{211 /1) '---1 f.-h L--- ; j -~ ~ (r.) -i El El jÂ· ~ CE> . I 1 i // 6 0, 0 ... 089 nu ge eG * * -e .... U *Cof 15 1 0 R C ROBERTSON Â·ARCHITECTS 920 7Uart 7/a//Sm 417 MAIN STREET, STUDIO 'A' 81623 CO CARBONDALE. Aspen, Co(Drado +0 970 963 0567 0 970 963 8936 FAX 0 0 - -CEDAR 6641 1Â¥01.LaiNA ex ~ 1*6 SHIPLAP 4 BATTEN 0 ... . oi -ll-].-13 2 Â»- /1----------_d f) 44 - - 1 6 \0 9 1 lili E-El-/ <Â· D F, tEl I r 7- (63 lit dy Ul /1l 11 Â·i' c [i $11 1 1.-111 igi 1, = 1 1 3 ' c J IX) r C Our ti~ lul r I r r rt :1 - J 3 P i . E J 09Â»1 E111 C lili lili . lili 11; 4 -â€ž lili III lili 'JI c r-- lili III 1.1 \ 1. 1 . CJ L . 1 = r . El rrill C t....... c r LI=Lili r-. -- LJ------------ -- (,-2 ) 111 0 (j, 01 911 -4 r.- (~3 1 1 ZEZZE] 8 L L----- 0, 3 21.-/ # i \. 1 15 0 E--------------------- 01 L" Â·Â· GO 44\\\ i lOu [l Er n ;~ ~~*-Ii \ ~Â« ~ con k 1 dip'.11 - LJ 03 gâ‚¬ 2, 29' 60 0 , ...0 C!'1 .e- -6 -e. '.C. cm Lot 13 . ROBERTSON - ARCHITECTS 1 0 920 '}Vert 7(.Am * A 1 A 4~7 MAIN STREET, STUDIO 'A' 81623 CO CARBONDALE. 970 963 0567 Â§ Firen,Co/braws 970 963 8936 FAX P El MEETING DATE: 2/5- / â‚¬2 LLA,0--Â£7 NAME OF PROJECT: 9 10 Â£Â©; . .KIet,66u_ 24-=ff-Â· 49 CLERK: STAFF: WITNESSES: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) EXHIBITS: 1 Staff Report ( ) (Check If Applicable) 2 Affidavit of Notice ( ) (Check If Applicable) 3 Board Criteria Sheet C ) (Check If Applicable) 4 5 MOTION: 9--1 VOTE: YES NO SUZANNAH REID YES -2 NO - MARY HRSCH YES L/NO . SUSAN DODINGTON YES L/NO GILBERT SANCHEZ YES WNO_ LISA MARKALUNAS YES NO )- JEFFREY HALFERTY YES NO - HEIDI FRIEDLAND YES NO CHRISTIE KIENAST YES NO MELANIE ROSCHKO YES NO RALLY DUPPS YES l_,NO HPCVOTE 1.1 V,4. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning Director FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 110 W. Main Street- Conceptual review- PUBLIC HEARING (continued from March 8,2000) DATE: April 12,2000 SUMMARY: The applicants request HPC approval to add a third floor, including five new lodge units and one suite, on the Main Street portion of the Hotel Aspen. The lot is approximately 27,000 square feet, half of which is located in the Historic District. The other half of the property is the alley and lots fronting on West Bleeker Street, and is not included in the district. Formal HPC review will not be required on that part of the parcel, but through the Planning and Zoning Commission, the applicant will request approval for additional hotel units and affordable housing. HPC has discussed this project on February 9th and March gth. Minutes are attached. APPLICANT: Hotel Aspen Condominium Owners Association, represented by Reno Smith Architects. LOCATION: 110 W. Main Street, a portion of Lot F, Lots G, H, I, and a portion of Lot O, Lots P,Q, R, S, Block 58, City and Townsite ofAspen. ZONING: "O, Office Zone District, Lodge Preservation Overlay, Historic District Overlay on part of the property. SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) No approval for any development in the "H," Historic Overlay District, or involving historic landmarks shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds that all ofthe following standards (Section 26.415.010.C.5) are met: a. The proposed development is compatible in general design, scale, site plan, massing and volume 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 1 Â·*c{/Illal/yar landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side 0 yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot, exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet, or exceed the allowed site coverage by up to five (5) percent, the Historic Preservation Commission may grant necessary variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this Section exceed those variations allowed under Section 26.520.040(B)(2), for detached accessory dwelling units. Response: The property in total is almost 27,000 square feet, which is exceptionally large for Main Street. The allowable floor area is 20,231 square feet, or up to 27,000 square feet by Special Review. The applicant will be pursuing a Special Review bonus, part of which must be devoted to affordable housing, which will be built on the Bleeker Street half ofthe property. The proposal before HPC is to add a third story on one section of the existing hotel. Note that because the building is "L" shaped, the area with the third story is set back approximately 70 feet from the front lot line. However, since this is a corner lot, the third story will be fully exposed along the Garmisch Street side. At the February 9th meeting, the HPC discussed concerns about excessive height on the new addition. The entire third story is over the height limit for the zone district and will 0 require a height variance from the Planning and Zoning Commission. P&Z may be inclined to grant variances to encourage expansion of the lodge base, however, staff has recommended that to be sympathetic to the character of the neighborhood, the height of the third story must be absolutely minimized. The design has been revised to lower the roof heights, but other suggestions that the addition be broken into smaller pieces, that those elements which accentuate the length of the roof be removed, or the fact that half the Board has been very concerned with the impacts of a third story have not been addressed. After reviewing this most recent submittal, which does not substantially change the design or improve the building's relationship to the Main Street Historic District, and considering HPC's responsibilities in regard to the historic district, staff cannot find that this standard is met. The building as it exists today is significantly out of scale with the district. Other lodge properties with similar lot sizes have taken a different approach, such as L'Auberge, with numerous small cabins, or a more related example at Christiana, where the lodge is broken up into a group of smaller structures. A height variance is not the only option for the applicant to add onto this hotel. No discussion of reconfiguring the courtyard and pool area to allow for additional rooms has been brought forward. There are a number of new rooms and some affordable housing units proposed for the back half of the site, which is not under HPC review. From the 0 Site Development Plan in the packet, by staffs calculations, there will be a total of 72 2 hotel rooms and 5 affordable housing units on the entire parcel, with only 16 on-site parking spaces, meaning that numerous impacts of the project will affect the surrounding neighborhood. Two 70-80 foot tall spruce trees are noted to be removed along West Bleeker Street. b. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The project as designed is not consistent with the character of the neighborhood. There are few three story buildings along Main Street, and where they exist they have a significantly smaller footprint than this structure. The applicant has worked to bring the height of the proposed addition down, but staff still cannot find that this 18,500 square foot building mass is appropriate to the surrounding historic district or in any way contributes to the district. The streetscape elevation shows a tremendous contrast between this structure and the two neighboring buildings, one of which is historic and the other which was designed to be compatible with it. (Note that the streetscape elevation has not been revised to reflect the most current design for the south faGade, found on sheet A-3.1.) The HPC should be aware that there are six other properties on Main Street under Lodge Preservation zoning, any of which may ask to take advantage of opportunities to expand under the new ordinance. The properties are Christiana, Cooper Horse, Aspen Bed and Breakfast, Innsbruck, Molly Gibson, and Cortina. c. The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. Response: There are no historic structures on the property. The project will not specifically affect the historic significance of any resource. d. The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: As stated above, staff finds that the project is not in keeping with the architectural character of the Main Street Historic District. The primary period of significance for the Main Street District is the mining era, the time in which most of the historic resources were built. There are some 1940's and 1950's lodges on Main Street which are considered historic in their own right, and other buildings, like this one, which are contemporary in character. Staff and members of the HPC have recommended that this design be amended to reflect the modest character of the existing building and to not further exacerbate the conflict between the size of this structure and adjacent properties, but staff finds that this has not been accomplished. 3 0 ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any ofthe following alternatives: â€¢ Approve the application as submitted. â€¢ Approve the application with conditions th be met prior to final review. â€¢ Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (Specific recommendations should be offered.) â€¢ Deny approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION AND RECOMMENDED MOTION: Staff recommends that HPC deny the proposal for 110 W. Main Street, Hotel Aspen, finding that the review standards have not been met. Exhibits: A. Staffmemo dated April 12, 2000. B. Minutes ofFebruary 9,2000. C. Minutes ofMarch 8,2000. D. Application. 0 0 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, FEBRUARY 9.2000 110 W. MAIN STREET - HOTEL ASPEN - PH - CONCEPTUAL Amy relayed that the property crosses the alley but HPC is only looking at the building on Main Street. The project has to go to P&Z also. The property is zoned lodge preservation and the city has set up a program to encourage lodges to expand and make the process relatively easy for them so that we can continue to retain some ofthe older lodges. As part of that process it will be considered a PUD which means that they can ask for variations from certain dimensional requirements. They will be requesting a height variance because the height limit is 25 feet and this was measured at 33 feet. Alfred Beadelston and Augie Reno were sworn in. Augie said it is actually 36 feet and 40feet to the ridge. Amy said they are trying to make the third floor more sympathetic to the historic district than what the first two floors are and staff felt that it complicated the structure. Staff is recommending a simpler approach. Staff is concerned about the height and view. It is a very large structure and would be reaching 20,000Â·square feet and certainly will be the biggest building on Main Street. Staff recommends tabling. Augie relayed when Ord. #39 was passed it was an ordinance that was supposed to help enable the lodge preservation district to basically continue to exist from an economical standpoint. Also the city wanted more hotel rooms. This is a moderate priced hotel. The building was built in the 50's and was called the Old Nugget Lodge and then remodeled and added onto in 1984 and 1986. The form chosen aligns with Main Street. They looked at a flat structure but basically it would look like a box that was 120 feet long in the east west direction and another ten feet high. There are problems with flat roofs in this climate and they wanted to avoid those. The existing hotel sits in an L configuration. They are proposing a third floor set back 65 feet from Main Street. There will be seven units and approximately 3,300 square feet. They are basically the standard hotel room with the exception of one that will be used as a suite. 1 bullo\,9 13 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. FEBRUARY 9.2000 Augie presented photographs of adjacent buildings. The Molly Gibson Lodge has a flat roof and the Isis Theatre has very large curvilinear roofs. The proposal is for a one story structure with an eight foot plate height and a gabled roof that goes back away from the Main Street elevation. Dormers were added to break up the roofline. The gable ends tie in with the major cross gable roof. On Garmisch there is a flat roof structure that is fairly tall and lowers down to a two-story element. They are proposing a third floor all the way across from East to West. In reality the building is a lodge. If a flat roof structure was added you would not get that feeling of a lodge. Stepping down the form mitigates the east mass. The materials will match the existing wood siding and the roofs would be a different material. In the proposal they want to replicate the shapes along Main Street. Questions: Gilbert asked what the configurations of the property were on the other side of the alley. There was not a block plan showing how the neighbors relate to the project. Augie said the alley makes a turn as it comes from First Street. There is a one story directly behind and alM story. Augie explained the details of the existing building. There is a corridor at the second level that goes to a lounge and the intent was to capture the central point of the circulation. That gable could be a little smaller but as you go smaller you loose the lodge feel. The center ridge is 40 feet. The chair opened the public hearing. Sworn in were Herb Klein and Tim Semrau Herb said the design is compatible with the neighborhood and adds a nice element to the corner with the gables instead of a box element. Tim Semrau said he lives across the street on the Garmisch side and he represents the homeowners. He addressed height and scale. The existing height limit is 25 feet and that is why they made this building two stories. Basically the third floor starts at the existing height limit and goes up. Tim calculated 44 feet from natural grade to the top ridge. When the addition goes up it will cut offthe view. The committee should consider why this 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. FEBRUARY 9.2000 building should start at the height limit and go up from there instead of respecting our current height standards. Another thing to consider this building has an effect from Main Street and all around the neighborhood. Most of the buildings are a story or a story and a half. The mass is greatly out of character. Form the yellow brick this building will be massive. The style is interesting but the height and scale is so beyond our current codes and everything else in the neighborhood. Scott Garcia was sworn in. He also represented the homeowners for the Victorians at Bleeker. He currently resides in an employee housing unit at the Victorians. He also has a westerly view into the Hotel Aspen. The current proposal will greatly effect his views and for the individuals who live below him. The proposed structure is way our of character for that neighborhood. Bob Morris was sworn in. He represents the Aspen Group which currently manages the property. They got involved with the process with Ord. #39 which said if you come in with a reasonable design we willlook at anything even if it varies in height and setback. You can see the third story from the end of the park and you are significantly away and Garmisch. There is really no other way to add to the property. Tim said most of the lodges have non-conforming uses right now so the reason it went to a minor PUD was to get setback variances and the intent was not to throw out height limit and everything else. The intent was to allow a little flexibility with the existing conditions. The ordinance was not designed to give free reign to the lodges alive, the intent was to keep them in character with the town. Amy received three letters about obstruction of views that were entered into the records. The chair closed the public hearing. Commissioner comments: Christie felt that the building is very attractive and can sympathize with the neighbors but in most cases someone's view will obstructed. The breaking up of the east side is appropriate. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, FEBRUARY 9,2000 Lisa said in general the architecture of the new addition is favorable. She is struggling with the height and different ridge lines. The gables over the box structure would work. Gilbert said his concerns center around the mass and form of the third story addition. From eye level it doesn't impact the pedestrian from eye level from the sidewalks of Main Street. The impact from the park is stronger. There is also a strong impact from Garmisch Street. Gilbert requesting information regarding the impacts from Bleeker street and the park and the yellow brick school house. The height is a concern, particularly the center gable at 40 feet high which actually makes it look higher due to the heaviness of the gable. There are other ways to break up the roofline which should be explored. He could support the project ifthe massing and height were addressed in an appropriate fashion. The other concern is the view from Garmisch Street along the north elevation of the building. The wall is a four story tall wall and it needs broken up. At the next meeting the model should reflect the other part of the hotel and adjacent buildings. Jeffrey agreed with Gilbert as far as the relationship to Bleeker Street and Garmisch. The massing and scale could be broken up. You can achieve views with a higher plate height and flat roofs. The pitches relates in scale but the mass is still ver high. Jeffrey is also concerns about the north elevation in the alley. For the most part there are three arguments; you take the mass and put it up on Main Street, put it in the middle, or put it all the way to the rear. The effect of the development on Bleeker should be addressed with a site plan before a sound decision can be made. Suzannah relayed that she had no problems with the curved roof shapes and the long gable as they are appropriate with the existing hotel. The massing of the those shapes needs kept down. The central gable is a concern and if that piece could go away, that area could become a slot and not be a large centralized form. The piece should read as a piece of background for the street front ofthe hotel. Having the gable ends calls more attention to the building than needs be. Gilbert also said the scale of the vaulted forms is OK. The head on Garmish plan is successful in the way that it steps down. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. FEBRUARY 9. 2000 0 Augie said the board seems to think that the central gable is an issue. How the building addition relates to Bleeker Street is an issue. The style should be more symplistic. Lower the height. Break up the north elevation. MOTION: Gilbert moved to continue the review for 110 West Main Street to March 8~~ to allow for restudy of the design; second by Christie. All in favor, motion carried. Yes vote: Jejfrey, Gilbert, Suzannah, Lisa, Christie 0 0 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. MARCH 8.2000 12) The General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit. 13) All representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Historic Preservation commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. 14) Six inch siding will be used for the new addition to be approved by sta# and monitor. 15)HPC would urge the applicant and architect to look at retaining the historical part of the kitchen wall if possible. 16) That the entire landscape plan including items 5-12 that were mentioned be submitted to HPC for approval. Heidi second. Motion carried 7-0 Yes vote: Susan, Lisa, Heidi, Mary, Gilbert, Jeffrey, Suzannah 110 W. MAIN STREET - CONCEPTUAL Heidi recused herself. Sworn in were Alfred Beadelston, Augie Reno, Herb Klein, Bob Morris, and Tim Semrau. Amy relayed that the concern is the height of the addition. Only half of the property is in the Historic Main Street District from the alley forward. All of the third floor is over the height limit in that zone district. The P&Z will be weighing whether they want to offer a height variance incentive to expanding lodges. If the variance is allowed the addition should be minimized. They still have eight foot tall doors with transom windows over them and staff feels that height is not necessary. Staff recommends continuing to bring down the height. Chris Bendon relayed that the lodge preservation program has been in existence for several years and it allows lodge owners to convert to other uses; residential, commercial and also to expand small lodges. In 1990 we lost 405 rooms mostly from lodges. The LP program provides incentives for small lodges to stay in the lodging business. They are provided an easier process through growth management. All of the zoning parameters 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. MARCH 8.2000 really are negotiable so they can establish their height, setbacks and parking 0 in a manner that the city believes is appropriate and in a manner which would work for their redevelopment. Chris also clarified that he was not encouraging a fourth floor. Applicant: Augie relayed at the last meeting direction was given to look at the overall height of the proposed third floor addition, central architectural mass in the middle of the building and to show the property and surrounding buildings graphically or in a model form. The main ridgeline has been lowered by almost three feet and the main architectural element gable was at 41 feet and is now at 35 feet. The two small gable dormers existed but have been embellished a little. The existing upper floor has a balcony and the walls of the rooms are set back roughly four feet. The flat part ofthe addition was put on in 1984. Lodges have to be competitive in the community and having a flat roof is 0 not as desirable as having a little volume. Questions Susan asked if all the rooms have vaulted ceilings and could a shed roof be incorporated. Augie indicated that they all have vaulted ceilings. In order to do a shed one side would be higher, one side would be a minimum of eight feet and the other would have to go up a good six feet. Augie relayed the lower they go in height the more the building looks like a box and that is not desirable. Gilbert asked about the plate heights and they are 8.6 in order to get headers. Alfred said they could use 7 foot doors but they do not want to in order to compete in the lodge community. They do not want a "box" building. The existing floor has eight-foot ceilings. 0 Suzannah opened the public hearing. 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. MARCH 8.2000 Tim Semrau, president of the homeowners association across the street. There are seven units in the association. The height limit is 25 feet and the applicant feels it is necessary to build the third floor entirely above the 25 feet height limit in order to get views to the south. That is justifiable and would improve the livability of those elements; however, presently there is nothing there and they could expand in a different location encompassing the views of Red Mountain. This structure dwarfs everything in the neighborhood and it also cuts offthe associations views. Tim requested that the board contemplate what the outcome will be if the addition is built over the regulated height limit. Suzannah closed the public hearing. Applicant: Augie relayed that in this zone district there is a 30 foot height limit. They are asking to exceed by five feet to the ridge. The entire floor is not all above the height limit. Suzannah asked what the mid point would be? Augie said that figure would be at 30 feet to the dormers. Herb Klein relayed that the third floor is around 70 feet back from the property line. There are very few structures that have their higher element that far back. Comments Mary relayed that the board's responsibility is to preserve the historic look and feel and space of the Main Street Historic District. They do not need to show us what they are doing on Bleeker Street because it is out of the district. The addition continues to be too high and 11 foot door and transoms is not compatible to the district. One of the reasons tourists come here is because of the historic district. Mary stated she could not support the addition. 13 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. MARCH 8.2000 Susan dittoed Mary and supported staff s recommendation. Lisa supports the improvements to the smalllodges and allowing them to compete, as that is what makes Aspen affordable. She feels the design features of the third floor are more appropriate over a flat roof. She also has concerns about the height and impacts to the neighborhood. Jeffrey supports density downtown and is in support of the small lodge expansion program. The density is screened from the setback. The applicant is responding regarding the reduction of the height by loosing the central gable. It needs refined a little. Jeffrey supports the additional density. Gilbert said the revisions are a vast improvement over what was presented before. The height does not seem out of scale with the other buildings. There is still a problem with the massing and somehow that needs addressed. A thought would be to break up the massing into two smaller buildings. The plate height could come down in the main roof and you can get the views and glazing with the dormers. Gilbert also said staff s suggestion of a flat roof and architecture that relates a little more strongly to what is there now makes sense but he also understands what the applicant is trying to do. The roof could be simpler. Suzannah relayed that simplicity is the key. Dropping the plate height of the low pitched roof that runs along the alley would reduce the feel of the mass of the building and the eight foot doors could still work within the dormer shapes with a modified transom. The curved dormers on top are not contributing but accentuating the length of the long vertical wall as opposed to letting the roof go away. The roof shapes on the alley side should be very simple, maybe just the two end curves and the two gables and not continue the smaller dormers. In general Suzannah can support the third story but the board needs to be very careful in determining how much higher over the height limit the board will approve. 14 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. MARCH 8.2000 Augie said possibly the plate height could be dropped a foot and that maybe will drop the roof a foot and the question is does that accomplish the concerns that the board has. Suzannah stated that a foot would probably work but the transom will have to be compressed. The relationship of the tops of the dormers to the ridge are comfortable and that space should not get smaller. Going down a foot would make a significant difference. MOTION: Mary moved to continue the public hearing and conceptual development on 110 W. Main Street until April 12, 2000; second by Susan. All in favor, motion carried. Yes vote; Susan, Lisa, Mary, Gilbert, Jejfrey, Suzannah MOTION: Jeffrey moved to adjourn; second by Gilbert. All infavor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 15 MEETING DATE: NAME OÂ¥ PROJECT: / 3 / , be /Â»9 A---- 5 k Â¢0 /[4'Q CLERK: STAFF: WITNESSES: (1) CM ~~-2~f m (((Â£1 /' L 13) 4,1) ula (4) 77 4, 5 1 m rah L (5) EXHIBITS: 1 Staff Report ( ) (Check If Applicable) 2 Affidavit of Notice ( ) (Check If Applicable) 3 Board Criteria Sheet ( ) (Check If Applicable) 4 5 MOTION: VOTE: YES NO SUZANNAH REID YES NO MARY HIRSCH YES NO ~ I I SUSAN DODINGTON YES NO GILBERT SANCHEZ YES NO ~ I I LISA MARKALUNAS YES NO JEFFREY HALFERTY YES NO HEIDI FRIEDLAND YES NO CHRISTIE KIENAST YES NO MELANIE ROSCHKO YES NO RALLY DUPPS YES NO HPCVOTE SILVERSTEIN PHILIP PRICE DOUGLAS L AND VALERIE BROWN MICHAEL H SILVERSTEIN ROSALYN 8611 MEI_WOOD RD 250 MARTIN ST STE 100 25 KNOLLS CRESCENT ESDA MD 20817 BIRMINGHAM MI 48009-3383 BRONX NY 10463 BROWN ANTHONY LUBIN RICHARD G 120 EAST MAIN PARTNERS LLC C/O FOX GRACE 1217 S FLAGLER DR 2ND FL FLAGLER 120 E MAIN ST 250 MARTIN ST STE #100 PLAZA ASPEN CO 81611 BIRMINGHAM MI 48011 WEST PALM BEACH FL 33401 PIETRZAK FAMILY LTD PARTNERSHIP FOSTER FRANCES TRUSTEE 1/2 INT BROWN MICHAEL HAYDEN 1/2 INT COLORADO LTD PARTNERSHIP 2400 PRESIDENTIAL WAY #1503 PO BOX 252582 1796 E SOPRIS CREEK RD W PALM BEACH FL 33401 W BLOOMFIELD MI 48325 BASALT CO 81621 ASPEN CLINIC BUILDING NORTH & SOUTH ASPEN LLC BROWN MICHAEL HAYDEN A COLORADO GENERAL PARTNERSHIP 200 S ASPEN ST PO BOX 25282 100 E MAIN ST WEST BLOOMFIELD MI 48325 ASPEN CO 81611 ASPEN CO 81611 HOTEL ASPEN LTD COLLIER J STUART JR CHISHOLM EDITH 1/2 INT ASPEN HOTEL PARTNERS LTD ONE COMMERCE SQUARE STE 2800 205 W MAIN ST 250 MARTIN ST STE #100 MEMPHIS TN 38103 ASPEN CO 81611 BIRMINGHAM MI 48009 DIMITRIUS RALLI ON DAVID CITY OF ASPEN HUEBNER-DIMITRIUS JO-ELLAN 135 W MAIN ST 130 S GALENA ST 200 S SIERRA MADRE BLVD ASPEN CO 81611 ASPEN CO 81611 PASADENA CA 91109 BUDINGER WILLIAM & PEYTON OLIVER WILLIAM THOMAS & ANN GARY ASPEN'S MOLLY GIBSON LODGE LLC 2306 DELAWARE AVE 542 WARNER AVE 101 W MAIN ST WILMINGTON DE 19806 LOS ANGELES CA 90024 ASPEN CO 81611 FRIEDLANDER & SINGER LTD HITE HENRY H & ANGELA R SINGER & FRIEDLANDER PO BOX 155 12-4 RIDGEWAY ST WOODY CREEK CO 81656 DOUGLAS ISLE OF MAN DAVIS WILLIAM LLOYD GROSSE ADELINE M REVOCABLE BROCKWAY LEXIE TRUSTEE OF DAVIS LIVING TRUST LIVING TRUST 7714 FISHER ISLAND DR 4924 BALBOA Bin/D #489 GROSEE EDWIN J & ADELINE M FISHER ISLAND FL 33109-0966 O CA 91316 TRUSTESS 100 E BLEEKER ST ASPEN CO 81611 GSW FAMILY INVESTMENT LTD SAUNDERS MARGARET W SCHELLING RONALD L & LORI L PARTNERSHIP 231 ENCINO AVE 24523 BRI11-ANY 1300 CHAPLINE ST SAN ANTONIO TX 74609 PLAINFIELD IL 60544 WHEELING WV 26003 WILLE O LOUIS & FRANCES LYNETTE GSW FAMILY INVESTMENT LTD WEESE KATE B IRREV TRUST NO 2 32% INT PARTNERSHIP 314 WWILLOW RD 200 W MAIN ST RD #1 BOX 110 CHICAGO iL 60614 ASPEN CO 81611 WHEELING WV 26003 BROWN ROBERT STICKLER & SANDRA ASPEN HOTEL PARTNERS LTD WATSON DIANE B LEA PARTNERSHIP 121 W BLEEKER ST 1115 20TH ST A MICHIGAN LTD PARTNERSHIP ASPEN CO 81611 WEST DES MOINES IA 50265 250 MARTIN ST STE #100 BIRMINGHAM MI 48009 KING LOUISE LLC FRINK ALBERT A TRUST JOHNSON HELENE L A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY CO 350 BUENA VISTA 225 PLANTATION CIR S PO BOX 1467 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92661 POINT VEDRA BEACH FL 32082 BASALT CO 81621 LAND HEIDI SEMRAU TIM 124 N GARMISCH ST 128 N GARMISCH ASPEN CO 81611 ASPEN CO 81611 DURANT AND ORIGINAL ASSOCIATES PIETRZAK FAMILY LTD PARTNERSHIP PARDUBA JIRI INC COLORADO LTD PARTNERSHIP PO BOX 9903 PO BOX 7846 1796 E SOPRIS CREEK RD ASPEN CO 81612 ASPEN CO 81612 BASALT CO 81621 HOTEL ASPEN LTD MARCUS MARTIN L & FANNON JOHN H SLOVITER DAVID C/O ASPEN GROUP C/O LEFF MARILYN 1358 ROBIN HOOD RD 415 E MAIN #210 7660 BEVERLY BLVD APT #365 MEADOWBROOK PA 19046 ASPEN CO 81611 LOS ANGELES CA 90037 ZATS JULIE BOYNTON FRANK E & ELIZABETH J GARCIA SCOTT D 118 N GARMISCH 528 SAND BEND DR 120 N GARMISCH ASPEN CO 81611 KERRVILLE TX 78028 ASPEN CO 81611 04 MICHAEL HAYDEN 2/3 PIETRZAK BOB & SUE LLC KAPLAN WILLIAM M AND KATE MARTIN ST STE 100 1796 E SOPRIS CREEK RD PO BOX 406 BIRMINGHAM MI 48009-3383 BASALT CO 81621 MILFORD DE 19963 . D MEMORANDUM 0 TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning Director FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: Aspen Grove Cemetery- gate DATE: April 12,2000 SUMMARY: The Aspen Grove Cemetery Association, a voluntary group that cares for this historic cemetery, proposes to build a new entry gate onto the grounds. Currently a non-original gate sits right at the property line, leaving no room for cars to park other than on MeSkimming Road, which has apparently caused problems. The new gate will be set back 30 feet from the property line. This will allow a couple of cars to park off of the street and will also get the gate out of the front setback, eliminating zoning issues with its height. The proposed design for a metal archway and gate on marble columns is attached. The 0 cemetery is listed on the "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures," and typically fence permits are a staff approval. In this case staff has concerns with the project and is bringing it to the board for review under the minor development standards, as provided in the Land Use Code. APPLICANT: Aspen Grove Cemetery Association, represented by Jim and Ramona Markalunas. LOCATION: The Aspen Grove Cemetery, offof MeSkimming Road. MINOR DEVELOPMENT Unless determined to be exempt by the Community Development Director, any development involving the inventory of historic sites and structures or development in an "H," Historic Overlay District, shall be reviewed in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 26.415. a. The proposed development is compatible in general design, scale, site plan, massing and volume 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 1 Al to (4-/4 yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot, exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet, or exceed the allowed site coverage by up to five (5) percent, the Historic Preservation Commission may grant necessary variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this Section exceed those variations allowed under Section 26.520.040(B)(2), for detached accessory dwelling units. Response: The application is for an omate new entry gate and columns. While the design is attractive, there is no known historic precedence for a gate of this size or type at Aspen Grove Cemetery, which is staffs concern. The Markalunas' remember seeing a photo at some time which showed a wooden arch over the road going into the cemetery. (Staff has not been able to locate that photo.) The attached description of the history of our local cemeteries discusses the fact that Aspen Grove's character is a wooded and natural setting, with meandering paths. This is in contrast to the more formal Red Butte Cemetery, which has a grid plan with broad walks lined by trees and an entry that was originally marked with an arched iron gate. Generally, when an original feature on a historic site is missing, as is the case with the entry into Aspen Grove, two options are explored. If historic information and/or photographs exist documenting the feature, the HPC would support reconstruction. When information is not available, a simplified version of the element, which is not out of context or does not create an image of the place that has no historic basis is appropriate. If the photo of the wooden arch was available, staff would recommend its reconstruction. Without that information, staff recommends a very simple entrance, very much like what exists today. b. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The cemetery is a unique site set within a residential neighborhood. There are no other similar historic resources in the area. c. The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. Response: The project will not affect the significance of Aspen Grove as the City's second cemetery. It was established in 1889 and contains the gravesites of many important residents. 2 d. The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: Staffs concern is that the gate is not relevant to the history or historic character of Aspen Grove Cemetery. It is a more substantial structure than is thought to have ever existed as the gateway into the site, and may be misleading to some who will mistake it as an original feature. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Preservation state that "Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, shall not be undertaken." ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any ofthe following alternatives: â€¢ Approve the application as submitted. â€¢ Approve the application with conditions to be met prior to issuance of a building permit. â€¢ Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (Specific recommendations should be offered.) â€¢ Deny approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION AND RECOMMENDED MOTION: Staff finds that the review standards are not met. The Association should pursue a different option which is a reconstruction of the original entry, if possible, or a very simplified version of it. Exhibits: A. Staff memo dated April 12, 2000 B. Application. C. Excerpt from "A Report on the Conditions ofthe Cemeteries ofthe City of Aspen and Recommendations for Improvements" by Vinita Sidhu, Intern, 1996. D. Photograph ofthe original entry gate into Red Butte Cemetery. 3 . 1 ..r A . , 4 d Ill - 4- i . t 1 1 6 GleÂ«<cr'u- co*44 r 1.Â¥ f.,2 - * I. f~Â·i- 0,1 . ' I- I . + 09 â‚¬: 3 1 0. - #*:.4-, p . 74 r T ~-: 2539 4 - El#(20 t>'IiÂ· .2 . -Â· â€¢ â€¢ 3 11. The Cemeteries of Aspen, a Historical Perspective In the history of cemeteries, those of the Western United States are merely toddlers, but in the history of the West, cemeteries are of ten the oldest artifacts remaining. Even the materials of the markers tell a story. Wooden markers were often used before the railroad allowed for the easy transport of stone and they were the only way poorer families could mark their graves even in later years. Likewise, local stone would predominate in the early years, anything different would require wealth and development. A glance through old burial records and death certificates is a reminder of how difficult pioneer life was. Suicide, excessive drinking, fires and avalanches were not uncommon causes of death. Women often died in childbirth and few children lived to adulthood. Records show that the first grave dates back to June 1880, when a Colonel Kirby of Texas died of"mountain fevef' shortly after crossing over the Red Mountain Trail into Aspen. He was buried in the location of the present day Ute Cemetery, though his body was exhumed a year later to be transported back to his home in Hemstead. Texas. Judge Deane spoke at the funeral. There was no church service as Aspen was no more than a camp at the time. The burial was recorded in an Aspen Times article ofApril 1881, which notes how the coffin was "fashioned from trees felled that very day" and how the site was simply marked by a pile ofboulders.1 In 1881, the Board of Trustees of the City of Aspen decided it needed a cemetery and appointed the board ofhealth to select an appropriate site.2 The cemetery at the time (present day Ute) was part of the property of Mr. C. A. Hallam. It was agreed that another location should be found for the city cemetery for two reasons. Firstly, because Mr. Hallam had full property rights over the current cemetery. Secondly, the members ofthe board were concerned that a location too near to the center of town might be forced to relocate in later years as the city grew.3 Apparently, a new location for the city cemetery was never found and the site already being used was kept as the Evergreen Cemetery. What is known today as the Ute Cemetery, located along Ute Avenue, was originally called the Evergreen Cemetery. The Willets Map of 1896 labels it as the "Old Cemetery" as do death records from the late nineteenth century. There are some Aspen Times articles which use the name Evergreen. It is hard to determine exactly when or why the name was changed. The first usage of the name Ute that I have noted is in burial records of 1916. 1 .The First Grave." The Aspen Times April 23, 1881. 2 "Board of Trustees." The Aspen Times June 4, 1881. 3 "Our City Cemetery." The Aspen Times October 8, 1881. 4 E-G 001 4 6 Memorial Day Celebrations focused around the Evergreen Cemetery in the early days. The ceremonies in 1885 for "Decoration Day" included a march through town commencing at the cemetery where prayers were recited, songs were sung and graves were decorated. This was then followed by a recessional to the Rink opera house for closing ceremonies.4 The following year, in an Aspen Times article, it is noted that the Grand Army Boys have placed the cemetery in a "rather attractive shape." A plea is made to Aspenites ofthe future that they "should see to it that hereafter the place is kept halfway respectable."5 At the time the war over the Union was fresh in everyone's minds. Many a civil war veteran joumeyed to Aspen and was buried in this cemetery. In 1890, markers were received for the graves of fifteen Union soldiers to be installed in time for the Memorial Day celebration of that year. There were more veterans than these fifteen whose graves remained unmarked. There were plans to relocate these graves in one lot around a cenotaph:6 If this was ever done, the cenotaph no longer remains as a marker of this lot. In 1889, the "New Cemetery" was founded. The original Aspen Grove Cemetery Association was formed with W. E. Turley presiding as general manager, George C. Vickery in charge of the landscape work and surveying, and "Old Mr. Paxton" serving as caretaker. The site was already covered with Aspens , from which the association chose to preserve just enough to "form a beautiful grove." The cemetery was planned."artistically" with "broad walks and avenues" and a "miniature lake."7 This lake was fed by a mountain stream and a system of water works. It now lies dry and is distinguished by a short wall of stones around its perimeter. The earliest grave at the Aspen Grove is that of Catherine Keene who died in 1879. As the cemetery did not exist at this time, she was most likely relocated to this site at a later date. The Aspen Grove did not remain the new cemetery in town for long. The turn of the century marked the founding of the Red Butte Cemetery. One story says that the Masons, unhappy with the Aspen Grove's records system, chose to begin their own cemetery. Delbert Copley, previous president of the Red Butte Cemetery Association, says that is was just a matter oftaste. The Aspen Grove was a cemetery for people who wanted to be buried among the trees in a natural setting. The Red Butte with its grid oftrees was designed to have a clear order, which may have been what the lodges preferred. Whether there were any hard feelings or not, in 1900 a number of Aspen lodges, the Masons, Woodmen ofthe World, Elks, Swedish Lodge, and the Columbine Circle joined together to purchase land from a 4 "Decoration Day, May 30, 1885." The Aspen Times May 22,1885. s "Decoration Dots." 7710 Aspen Times May 30, 1886. 6 "Monuments for Union Soldiers." Aspen Daily Times April 23, 1890. 7 "The Aspen Grove Cemetery Association." Aspen Daily Times April 19, 1889. 5 . Mr. Henry Wurtz for the purpose of establishing a cemetery. Later the Eagles also joined the group. 0 Today the Red Butte Cemetery Association, a non-profit organization, is not officially associated with any lodges. However, the Elks and the Eagles still hold plots in the cemetery for their members. One of the functions of fraternal organizations in the early days was to provide a sort of life insurance. When a member died, their family would be provided for and their burial would be arranged. The Eagles, founded in 1901, had a full-time doctor to provide medical care to its members. The Red Butte Cemetery's organization is quite different from both the Aspen Grove and Ute Cemeteries. The entrance was originally marked by an arched iron gateway. The arrangement ofthe cemetery is organized by a grid of broad walks, running east/west and north/south. Within each section the grave markers are lined up either facing the east if they are in the eastern half of a section and the west ifthey are in the western half of a section. To the east near the river there is an area where pauper's graves were located many of which are unmarked. Most of the lodges have distinct areas in which their members can be found, signified by markers that bear the insignia of the lodge and often have a significant shape. For example, the Woodmen of the World often have markers with a log or trunk like form. As at the other cemeteries, people of all religions are found buried throughout. There is, however, a Jewish section at the Red Butte formed in recent years towards the northeastern end of the cemetery. The number of burials at the Aspen Grove and Ute Cemeteries in the twentieth century are 0 significantly less than those at Red Butte. Both of the former cemeteries went through long periods of neglect and are missing most of their markers due to the vandalism that occurred over the years. According to a couple sources, the cemeteries were especially hard hit in the sixties when markers would disappear from their graves and reappear in antique stores. It was at this time that the civil war veteran stones at the Ute Cemetery were broken, many were left in two, three and even four pieces. Further deterioration is the result of parties thrown by local high school kids. It is hard to imagine the mind set of the people responsible for this type of damage, but it is clear that a neglected site such as the Ute is an easier target than one that is obviously being cared for such as the Red Butte. The Aspen Grove Cemetery has had a revival since the Aspen Grove Cemetery Association was reincorporated in the early seventies. The sale of an easement to the city for the construction of a water tank in the late seventies is now a constant source of income for the cemetery association along with the sale of new plots. A number of the more recent burials include Aspenites who were responsible for Aspen's revival. This list includes Walter and Elizabeth Paepcke, Herbert Bayer, Mina Loy, Fritz Benedict, and Frield Pfieffer. The Paepckes are buried in the "Circle", which originally served as a carriage turn around. Elizabeth Paepcke closed offthe circle with an iron gate, thinking the whole site 0 6 . I was their family plot. The Cemetery Association has sold plots within the circle since that time so the Paepckes now only have a portion of the circle. Walter's grave is marked by an obelisk designed by Herbert Bayer. The Ute Cemetery has suffered the most from the passage of time and is the only ofthe three which remains inactive. There has been an occasional burial from time to time. The last burial that I am aware of was that of Thomas A. Simpson in March of 1971. Maintenance in recent years has been the duty ofthe Parks Department, which has repaired the fence and cut down some trees. In July 1986 a voluntary clean-up was arranged by the Historical Society to "clear out the dead foliage and... upright overturned tomb stones." However much still needs to be done to insure that this cemetery does not fall into further disrepair. It is likely that the Ute Cemetery has lost sbme property over the years. Its original plot map is missing and therefore it is hard to determine how it was laid out in its early years. The development of houses known as the 1010 Ute Subdivision in 1987 is the most recent of grievances. When the houses went up, the fence along the northern edge was removed, allowing the new home owners to treat the cemetery as their backyard. The recent establishment of a local chapter ofthe National Association for Cemetery Preservation by Riggs Klika, whose chief concern is the preservation of the Ute Cemetery, brings new hope. Further, the Historic Preservation Commission, through the establishment ofthis project, has taken an important first step towards the preservation ofAspen's cemeteries. 7 . 1 %733*: 1/'Inym 19 141:. m.. ne.4 e '-* 41 44 ' . $ 1 Ec-Gibilth 1 W~s_-~==u C===472 7 ,-1 -4- ds/, -\4Â«h 45.5 .1* ~ 3 014 # 13/ 900 - Ar -Of 4.& / /0 { 0 -~ 4 9.> ~. \ :.Â» e.\ 1.. 1-10 -i /7 1 to P i; 'h f Pe\\ -1 1 1 1 . r , Z.L.-Ul- - .- - 0 - L 1:'---ell--722:L 1 i 1 1 1 It 1 , 1 1 f f AiAL; 1 lit 0 0 -44 "d # 0 <;> 1 %46*~64464 1-.Bl _9~Â·p-~-ort<iktr~*3355:xkxj~ 9 1 0 --0 0 : 0 i 0 Â· i i 143 1â‚¬ r 2 -4, VU 0 4, '1 - - tvotoT 4 1 e VU . I f-:,f,2:67-9. <26Â»12. l/6/0 =11 1 4.-' ..... 1 1/1/--. ,2,17~1= ~p~~Â»p.- f, I "ll' . ../. ' ..,. .r- %,4,4 ' I :21: ' 1 1 .' 1 . .i P ' W , + . .'ll . A . 1. * I ...., re#* 3 ' .r :,9/. N:- I ' , / < 4=. I , 1 .11 : 1 A '...1,1 -1 7.. r.. .. C E jc:, ., :.<.,-: r" , 0 - .,- .... 4 F~ - ' - I. lf' I . . ~ Ill, " ' PS. '2 ' 'Y-* <::2.11 . . , . 1 T - 26 4 4Â· ' 4 , 1 - Â¥-1 . , 1- 1-1 - h .1 - 1 . . I -- -1 > - r' - I " . . - i U'%1, 1- .-, .41:- Â·~ ...... 2 f L 'Â·2'rCEDAR SHING,LES '1.-2. 1- ~ ''- :zi>.CEPARS INd:LES I I , r t.' ' ~-- . 4 b tn ] r i ./W METAL ~[DGE CAP 4. FINALE :: :, r. / Wi PAINT C WOOD VENT 7. . 1 , 1 1 1 1 ' S.. ...r - - Ifj -I - -.' - 3~i~~ ~' 1 42-4-c 1 . 1 11 2. r. Â¥ 4 r , / U I '1 1 . , . -7 17~~~1 - =16 1 %.4 4 ;:./rf~~.91- , ., 0- ini~01 Â·4, " ,':, ' ~~ ',.. , ,.) 1 17 ru- 7 4 b. 5 al. . . 20-973 3% 9, Â·.-Vt -, 5 Â· I , E, 7 4 -11 2 .49&ac, III:, : 0 1-3 '. . .... -1-1-9- 1 G re. 2% ... 5. 4 6, , , . 2' ../ ..1 = I. / '11 HI - ' . I r '11 12= . b . Ill ' 1 R . , , 1- .2 Â· C. Sâ€¢: 1 'I<.... MT . .,._ .TO.PL+J 1 11 li , 7 , 4 4 110'-0 v t . I ' 1 Â· ., 0 4 -. T-1 ' 3 g , rri a.p. . W g . I . 7 t ./. 1 1 .9 - . O 1!41 , 1 , 11.1 , W ' t . It} , ' ; I I. :,1 ' . 1 , , 1,1 , Â· ' '' lili . . 1 . . 1 e.. 1 3 I C , 1 /1 , 1,1- 1 1 , I .1 0 , 1 .4 1~ 4 N It' 1 - 1- , 4, 0 104401' , 00=3 1 1 .1.'-, TO.- ' t L : 44 .1:.1 5~.1 -1 F I . I .6 r. 2 :' ./ . 1 - '' I. , %1, I. Tb CONC. 1 - 6--- -.:---------50'-"5/gr . . . i..,- r ' w . - 0 1 4 LA-J r4 :: . ; , I I ./. e - - ./i 4% >% Â« U .4 ill i I 1 04* 6 â‚¬2V < 4. ~ ~ : 'gy ' . - - 0 ....f . '41 - -6 '1 1 '' :5 I . .1. '., ..U - J. . . - h... 1, I . &4:4 4â€¢ r + .1. -- Â· 04 . 4- - Irm iFÂ¥-r ( 4 .Ill 31 - 7 3-1 9 ILLL-- - f LJ 11 - -- ~-_ _=THâ€¢_~LLL 4- ...3- -:--_ LAL,Â£-.LU-,+4- 1 . LL-1 Â¥,-r .Ark.1, -41.,1+1A1,J~ 1.'' 2 . 1511 2Â· -9Â·4-1*f-Â£Â¢194 1. 1. . -, {t 11, 1 . 7 7, 1- . 101-11- -Li -rl--U-r-*%09- 1- ' I 64 - -1 ... - 1 I k . 4 11 1.1 r I . 'f . p i~1~! j s H E r, ill lili 1 -9 11 11,1'-,' I . 4 lip lili t: li i -1 :l il/ 41! l, : I:I j i 11 11 1 4 '' 1'1 ' 1 '! 1 11 11 Â· - , i . _11,Â· 11. '1 ' 41 Â·t i' 11-Ii:mn i , 1:-r ! ' 11 # .1- :1 17 11 ~11 1 111 1 'f 1 L.-L--1 , i fIrmU: Itt .' , 'i- i: ,}1 L..04=....1---=,=â€ž,4.----Â·Â·-0,---v--------Â·---â€¢â€¢Â·,-----~Â·-e,-! . 1,1 r': Si i' 1/ , , , , 1 , - 11, - -1 4 . 1 1,1 15 i| 21 4, 1,t ': 1 11 11 v M_ _-J 1! 41 i{ 1.~ }'r~ , ----.---.*-----I . .. '1 111 I b... E-[ 1 1 Â¥ ''% lb.--1 1 - . . 1 '-----Kil.; .1 1.11' Ii. I -I 1. 1, 1 11 11 !1 il :Il , 11 1 1 1 1 r..-.1.-, 1 - LBall 0 0,0 1-7 :#-/1 1! '~ ': '3 , t. :11 - , 1 1 1 11 1.1 11 , f '1 11 , 1 :1 7 11 11 11 .1 1, 1 3-27-2000 I |1 || r 1 6, | .b 1, ''5, 1 Â· -11~1 ) 11 '' 1 1,11 11 1/ 1, '1 , , ,,1 1 ,1 1 11 t' 11 lili 2 i; 4 IiI, 11 .1 .. 1 , -' .'. L~ 11 11 11 . 1, i - 1. 1 . 1 4, '11 . 7 - , 1 ' - I . It 11 t,; , , + 11 1 1 1 1 4 .h 11 .1, 11 1 ' ' I. - 41 & 1 11 . !11 I â€¢r glhh e .,0246-~'. 1 I O 426Â·' 00.N i . ' 44 1 10."221 C:&12,63 11--1 6.-2,&28-9-I-â€žA-l t....,........1 . 1 ;;i];;2171.~ Eli,11 - f li , 1.*-/4 1, , i Al l f ; 3 ', â€¢ 1,6,#A#MEM Mft>Miexh' ' Â· Â· ~' Â· ~ 1 h %: 0 0 , 9 e I ,, , 1 1 t.*Â¢ 9.0/0/0 0/1 ....1 * Ir-' _ 1 ' ~ i 1 1 - ----- --- .-- i-------- 4- 'I- --- ---- --i ......----- &.. h , i It 1 1 1 1 1 ... 41 111 1 , 11 ., 1 [L , , 1 . , . h ~ 11 1 Â· ' Â· ' ' ' . i | . 6--/Â·Â·' 11 f ''i , 1 - I . , , r,1 1'. Â· IL= -,; , + 4 1 1 , I. '11 r A I ./ . , ry 1/ I . I N - 0 R ~ - , 9 , 4 il , I I - 1 1 . 11 1. 1, , 4, 1/44 â€¢ 1'.0" 1 . U#.. 11.0,1 , ~1 'i . -.r -1'' 1 . 1-I h. , 1. 7.10 ' I '. 3 0 1 11 ---- *- 11 - -- - - â€¢---1 -h-â€¢â€¢â€¢Â·-*r----â€¢ - ' - - 4 . ......---6-----,- 9- 90 -5 1/8" I . I - -,1 - . ; . . L-41 1.- .. L.41 ,: ' ' 4 '1 1 . - 1 - 1 - L~ -1 , ......1 k .... . 2- - ... /4 4 Â· 4-41 .9 1 '':1 i 1 -' 2,j :A i? i.l- ir ' . *... . ' .. ./ - i.il ..... I .. I. . '. - ' . : ' '- ' 1 ./.... . . 2. =11_inuzk~ ' - , '. y it 1 -. 7 1 ; r..9-v- , Â¥.F - 4 6,7>~ 4/ * , 3 - ' ~~~ I.14 l.4 ~--*: 79- -2 ' ~4Â·' *Â·7f' -7 %91%390 I i A- - .... . -rP"17171:/0/z//1/6~iAal,MAWAin#b. . A i VI= - 07--I.*b- ... P I. . A /i & 1% I%Ia'--'*//I./i 1. 1.1 6 -------- 1.1 =1â€¢1â€¢Im -~~~~~~-ilill'll ./...=..-I./.1 '.1 .=t. 1 1~ - I2 -312.-1-1-al .1/litillizl=119 ~ . a al / In=I~--m-l. c. -11-#-- . Ag.,5#Assia.1.''i,9...i::r Â· Â· I miiiiiziirwl ..1 1 .mil .1 1.11 11.11#11~ -Aill/--MIRL- - .. . 1.1.11*11 liff imillillillillillillillilillillilin 1~11 Jim- ----I---=dilil=z=-Ill==ill - -. ... A . .. . . D ee Ge e Gee . 4 . ~4 tr===I imili-fllilimil loilillillillilliI---11111 IIIFir~.-i-i-lili.lliwilliliawr~Ili~~~~~~Nillill'~il~refirdiltigri~i~~ili~tigirgil'Jililil.titi.iliblizil1'llillilillillillillillizill illiliflillill 1-mil r 1 .yl-I , 1- 1 1 1. /7, .-I- =.1.1 11- ~.. 1 1 -1 ~ -1 1 1 1 - 1 1 1-1 . 1. ..1 1-1- 7 = re#MM1 â‚¬r-4- ./5/51.-- 1- 0--m..â€žr-- / Â¥,/i - â€¢ 1 . 6, 1 , . Â£ 1.1/9.1,<p 5,5.....4-r. . 1 '* ttl,1- 113.-h - 2.1 - r 2 , ..'./. â€ž,1 . ... ' 21.JAfyÂ»,. --4.5 27. :, -- ' .7-l -11 f '. 1.i...b:.;,- Jf~ ~'Â·'- --I 'b<,~- - '.. ,~Â·Â·4 C L'~11 .,--7 .., 4~.0 ,-f..;1': 11 T-- tr, =t~ 1 --,u ki 4?3 /01. 'I.- I ' I . N . -Â£. '..... I: ... - . -4 41 . ' - 1 1,4.1.1 ' A t 4. . ' 1 4 -I .. 9, f,,t r CE )7 3.-1 '- ~Â·, Mi e :I t. 5 .0 1 1 , - ; 1 *5> I . , - t - . I -I < I , . . . 2 . S..:.% -, 1 le) ...- Â·C a)Â·Â·, - '..t -(A) i 41., . 1, .' 0 1 1 . I .1- . . I . I ' r , I ' d . .1 y. 6 , . . i .17 -â‚¬) ... . .. 1 1 - , :1 3, 1 - . S ,1 - . - . 1 I . I , â‚¬44' . m .J. T T Â·-r I I. 1. 1 1 + 1 . ... - '.- ...4 14 , . - I. r. O .2 -1.' - .- .' 1 I' 7 + I - .; , , . ./. 2 " 1 . 1 - . 1-- D , . . ,-' 00 4. CEDAR SHINGLES 10 4 . . 1 - 1 v. ./ . I Â·2 I ' - - 1 W/ METAL RIDGE CAP 4 Fl~ALE . i. rrit Z Y. r 11' 1-LI .Lf. mr Wfg I~ - . - 4 - -J. . 1 - . 1, 4, '' ..4 . 0 ' - r.-'4Â»r :I - , CZEC>Ate SINGLES - -- 'Â· ET,i r r. 1....., 0 m-,- d I ill. -IJ J.. 1 - T n 111.2 ..1 . 1, , j ' 4-1 . . 1, 4 , 4.1 -0 tu , 40" f I . .. .1 ... 1 - f '-7 - , ;-4 -1~*t~%,%Litri_ Er-r - Ijfofr~ ct~~~ :lfd~VE ]~4-rÂ·.i.?4*j~-u. ~t~j-t? i~-~~_~ 1.?3 1-~~04~ ~2 - I 1.- . -f 060 II'f- irt 1 1Â£-f-Ilfi-41 Â· . rul r. S 3.: '...4 i.. .- I ... 61 '' .U AL-4, 0 Sal . 1 .1...0 A St-1 10 i 4 .- . - 2 N . . . . 21%009.0. , .-1. ...Ar /1,11, h :1 9\ 11(--- 7 2- 4, Â· -- /ff 1, 1,1 il I: Pit !1 li 11': L '4 , 1 " 1 4 - . Go 0 - -2- ~'.r.--r -2 .4- /\ /\ . . 11 4 .- t ;f , .:f - : 9- 321$ S?.e. 1 1 -- , i ' I , 11 tt.j fI .7 - /0 I I li''l 3 '444+ i.- J 7.-ril-h. .*- 4 1 7 4 i z rt?9-lt ....':1 TAL)41~T2,24*9,4~~4~2~*QQ~JJ-f~t '*::C==:=--.17.-----6..4 */4 .11 E,1 11-2.11=LUZL ,~ 4 8 .11 Â©I, t , VERTICLE BOARD 4 BATTEN L.., 4 J Â»--= ... ---1 , '' Â£ . #_*L L' 4_ i _ ,-- ~ P -1,11 ~1.11 4.8 H 11 -2 N '11 h b, 741 . 11-T- -r~ Â·r - r...-.---*<--- ---- Tr I . 1 . , 1 ;,7 LiAr. 71Tltl-3 17 Â»- ....,---,r- .+t r,-3 - UJOOD SIDING (12" BOARDS UJ/ 40 3 '--1111 64"Â» I Â¥ L.1_ -u- t F r'-,-ilif~42~7329~~c -ti r fl~,1.-li~FI~ . ~~~~R--1?1 161'...m.....=*1- 2 ri r j~Illk-!-11L1-lili.4 11 N Chi 3 1/2" BATTENS) 9 Al - =U 7 ti 1 . 1 1 0. 111; ' 1 r~-rim/TAÂ·_....,~ lul i , , 792Â»-24- TIAL,*5~NT#at~l, iY f 4---- . 11[ Fl 11 1, il lili 1 2 1, It ir/*,Si:,SitilldLI==l ' 'rr---nir--Tn Â· Â· . Â· -5 *-..../-.- =-t==7.19 It i' ;flir-1-,-litill 1,1 iiilltr=-11[1.11 ; '1 T44I ,4 fÂ» 0 ~111'-44 4 9 * 11 Â¥'â€¢~L ' ' " '' + 6H11-I.-I.-*..-..Il- - il-644*i-?- L-4 - * Â¢-9-1 i#- 4 . '-1--1-'=---'nâ€ž'-r-W- - ~f , 1/ 1 1111111 ' 11 11:, % %3 1 . -3 Ilr--ul 6.4,".... 4- 2...-- . ' t : 4 ' 4 1. '41,~11â€ž 9. Trp~o-tr fi- -: L . 8 11 1; , 1 1,- 1 11 11 1 1111111/ ' lilill :i 61 1 N--BAT - 11 1 '' fill . . ,~ , 4 11 [ 1 ,-------- ' 8 1. 4 ~ 1 1 , . i - I.....# 1 1 lili 'IN J /1 1 1, 1 . 1 I +. h 111 1 f. I ' P u 4 I 11-11-11| I ill' 11'i '~i ,; '1 - 1 1 .: 1 11 ~ ~ Art T. ' WORIZONTAL --, CLAD 1 1 + .1 I i. f < . i : Li t. , h '' . f AL-4 l !. - 1 1 li, 1 1 11,1 ' 11, li i' ' 5 !1 ,1 1 1 , --1111 / \ 111 1 '1~~~- 1.14 % , Â·Â·Ii.IP-7~~~~~Tlf--L~Ll- ~ - " ' t. 1 , 7Â·IT 1-r'~iJ- ~ ~~ -44-,PA+lA L / ' - . 5 , 1,3 - WOOD SIDING .WINE>OWS .~, ... r - 4 ...~ r " , ~ I 1.' .61 -; i ci I, 4 IL% 1221- 7-.-lili.= 1 \ ,--. '' 21 i] 1 - ...r*-%- It ..... /...........I- / \ , , . I. Ill lit.ill (0 1 1 2 .......-h..=.2- =........=.=-4 , 7-01, ,1;.+ --0.------ -==ZEZZIL 11 11 1 1 9 2 1: 11 i " 2 i: 2. 1 4 :1 ! , 'xe SHIPLAP . * . +tr4297 Â· , L 'J+91,10-4*1.-4, 1 - '11 il H 1-1 n Y; 1! 11 1: 11 11.41 b li 11 i h 11 - 1 ' 1 - 3 V--r ..nal 1,1'Tar'n~-4949 ir~tey-ttdfjÂ·211 -aâ€ž..1--.......4.-,-rn-â€ž=----I--Câ€ž --I 11 1. 1 11 91 11 1:. 11 1 1, i: j 4 :....ms-:r 13- rrt-117~.73 , i , F ' 1. i ''lilit} ---r-- ,~ 1 '' ': ''P '' B{ t! . it #3 -**,-. -,-- 109'-0 5/8, , . ifjL-rv -1- â€ž _41-- ~-t~~14#51(~T~/P-(132 3?~ r r:,04;Tri.,Tiri,7 - 14*-- - I ... 4,0...4,-=-y......C.U "4 2 11 11 '[3 i 1 , It 1,1 . Â£ .43 4 D .0 .1 . 1, 11 1 1 11 1 1 ........,â€ž1-/- . ====1 Ir--111 13 111-181-11 H 11[71'~ , 3-432,4 - A - % -2 93.-Ff L 1471~* - 11 1 11 Iii 1 -1 - - 0 1-1 111 1 . Ill 4 . 4 0 1 . I G , 1~Ilk-1 , 1 ; 51 'i 4 21 1 Illi: 11 i' 4 3... . , . eli , 1 1, 1 1 1 1~--1~~1-31 J / ,44Â·lIÂ¥-111 Ofy-'~dIÂ©~ -1-r,rui,4-~ , - 91 ~- 4~150% ~ ~ ~ ., I., Â· ,/ "1 1 111 1 4-442 B ~ t 14.-1.4 IL' Ij~ 1- --. --m--==-- 111/ ilt r.-- 1 -- il -1.-1 1 lili 11; 11 1 'I' t! fi :i :1 IM=EF=M Ili . I' 0-Y[-1 . . 1 , 1'11 HHINH #b==41 - ---1 / \ 111 r---1 9, 1, 16 11 / 1, I . 1 -----111!_.211 81 111 :' \ lili 11[ '31 k,---4 1: 11 11 11 lilli 1 1,/.S E,Â· . r .*I.-Il.'-1 "1 14 ..9 11 111 ..1 11 . 1 1 Il if Iii 1ii f f li li il , ' '1111 ' 1 J j , lili" 1 '11 i u L '..1 N - - 1 3~ mo I -- . * 1 1 11 1, 11 1 .. t, . ' 9 g -- 5.2.-a-=I-. Ill /,Â· ,, t, ' 115 1 1, ' 1 =.....4 . 11put,Â¢ 3 9 1 Â¢ '' 1 1,1 54'',5./ 1 1 1 1 4:i ''t H k 1 1 , 1 .1 1 11 1 11 . , -I .1, : 11 :i i! --2 1 1 1 11 It \ , -, M 1-1-1. 11. 11 1! 1 : 11 1 L . 0 -* :â€ž.......#=wi~.-V,~weâ€ž,wtâ€¢,-â€žLe-:~â€¢ 1â€¢~t:----=-~ut -:4.M --= $ ; r df l- - r,â€¢-.â€¢--&-v---- *M t-;I 'i ~j Il L '1 1,1 11,1 11 -- ..., .- - -- --4 , ' 1, , 4 iii l' it li ,! 1 Ill'111'41),1 11' ,p,1 4 11'i 'te 12" tr . 1, 11 : 1: 1 , /' i 11 1 '4 f 1 'X Ill , 4 1 1, 11 1 11 . ,1 .1 1 1 , 1 1 ' r I '~ l' i --~=...I --~_--,t-=-t--921~. ' A 4 Â·Â· 21 it: 1 1 i, 1 5 6.- n.-=-------- -r~rw--- ~ -,*- -=-=-ru=--,-,a .1 - TO. Â¥ + . ;.. 1 , .9./' -.--.. - - .- 1.; 11 r'i 1 , 1001-0, 1 1 el -1-alâ€¢J + 0 '0> 0.*,F.,v':> 0 1 . 2 14* i ~ A:*03 ?*:3* *$4% .49* 46?4*4 42 Â»31Â°23% 30%*32 %%%*i; 9>8*3. }'6, 1.21 ,Â»12 1_-1 tLI- 1_; 1 i :-i t-t Li l-!Â·1 T 414-1- f,1 1 1. CD -- ----- 1 ... 4 i T Â¥ - - . Ir-- , I. I o e 0 lili , . 6 0.02,124: .> a .....4 07 .00/ ./ 00/ ) 3>440' ' OÂ°Â·MA I'XÂ°g'te,-1~.-22 4:*+3: *21222=91 -*c-1-Â«9Â»zs~ -~ ~0-~ t t-~21 1 i. 11 IT}i Â·1 ; i - 2 i : 1J 11[ i : 1 11 - . - -- 1 -- It. J. , 1 .. n 1 - 4 i I . %- 1 1 1 T 4 +111 1 Â£ 1 , 1 1 , i .1 q i i ...... . - . -. 1.. , 1 1 - 1 1 . 1 11' â€¢ - i' 1 11 1 rÂ¥ â€¢ 1 --I_*-Â£-,_.~ _ 4-I-------- _ ..u---I-**I.--- -- ...... _4...___4 -- L_._....__ ....4 -4--_...'--*--'.,- ... L_-------- .--- ....._-----*.4---- -0.- ---.--i--'--*--.---- 6..- 1 1 11 11 D . , 1 . 1 .-1 1 j I 9 y . 1 1 1 11 - - 11 11 - 1 . 10 1 r 1 1 - 1 1 - 0 P 1 - - - , - 11 - --- UJOOD - % 1~ 51 0 U T N ' ' - 4 ' ~E A SI~T '' 1 I -' F Ixa VERTICAL .. . 1 -- 1 .- 70 q,2192_~6. ' PO 1 1 11 - 1 - 1 0,1 1/4" â€¢ 1'-0" I 1 ' 1/4"â€¢ 1 - 92'-2 1/Bu 7 11 1 1; 24-1 L-dj i| ----- - 90'-51/8"7 ' . -LOÂ·-*392.A.- ------4 - --------r--1--7-----------------------1-------7 4 ' 41 . 1-_J ' LA *1 1 1 1 . - 1 % r --9.-~--L 1.1 :.1.- ,& 4-4.... ...4. f ,/ 9 5 . 1 .1.1 - .: 1 : E o . - LeL M e= -9 8 8 (iIi) , . C 4 ) . -1 1 -- . e . 1 - . e - f -Â«f . - 4% 2 1 . - '1 , rlIT,(41391- f.-r r. , â€¢ 1 thi 7-j,J.Th... . '' L.4 ' 1 1 L 2444Â·4 a./.LL ' } I 1 - -1Â· 4-1 -11~4~~72 , tA-f~t,fr'*5 /4~47-~~ UJU%1 J , LU.7~r--r- Â·L,-2.-41â€ž.1-.47 T ,/1 ., '' 7'-Â£Â·Â·Â·te-V 44Â£r~-r .#txj--~,4-,-34*3721-444 91Â»4-i--66- 2 I.rl!,u.h 1-'1'69 i , *, ~ , Â· L 44-1 4.-,12.L-,44Jilr .3.-- Â¥-=- ~'" ' -1~37 Y 31LT444 *i, 4/1 9.- Urr- - le, -u i . 21 4.0 1.r? 43-''rt_e' I 4,-4 t., L.r 1 ' I _L 1-,lv.+.*-.7,-1.~-'-1~,L.a-ThLâ€ž _1-1 - 24.-' - 2 - 717 1 *Tr-r'-firt-Yi 4 Q 1-1, -2 -'-L ,Â·re 0 1, 4 - - Â· r f-~ a-TIpÂ®71,7~T~,T-,-- TrjÂ¢:~240*L.li *~ ' '~~~7~2444Y-r~ tar 41-jur=44.141' - f 041'L. 7 -4 ~77 -/ 2--r Â¥4-0-3Lt - . - , r 1.11 t , 1+6 , 4 1 1. L.Nk 1 , '1-td,,1 f ,4 i . S it.j_7 1 prY-.Ttrt-Lert -7- ..rTT-TrCJ~1- L.' 1-rT ' -/ , 1 4 - '7-, ' ' ' ,/ 21% t.. IT , 7f-41 , , 7 , 77:.tifiltza-f--r ' T,T- r -1- r C -- r 1. 11 -3 J 1 , 1, ~ . 0 - '1% .. 1 4 . . % -r.*.1 , ~ , .. ~61 J,1 f'-rl kil J. ' - , ~4: -n -r -4 -,1* 4 1 -05 , 1 b 1 ' 4~44~rl IE- -4~I ~ .. , .1 J K ' I Â· I - 1 , 1 .1 111 #lt I 'L 1.-.-1.U-.U#-'. .4 L , , 11 , 1 Â» 17 - 1 '1711 . .1 4- 90 . SÂ·'.f K 1, .. . - 9- r 4,1, 1. LOIIUI--DI~~~ TY-NAtiff~ ; * ~ -51-tul r . . 1 '. 4 T77171\ 4-1-4 & / ,L-4-==e=in-2 - r 1 11 1 U ' .1 1 1 11 '11 tra 111 //\\ Ill 1 1 . ,, yn9. 14'trY. 11 . f , 11!4-LL-1--i-----469~ !]74 . 1111 / \ In-.9/* j ' 1 .4 7 . - '1.. 1 1 + ..... I I . 1-7 ' 'i ~ 11 ' 1-~ i 31 4 + -fi 1 -;. ,-*. 717<J~~ _d , r , 7 -/17 .r , f '1 IT I J 11 r-- 4 i l' il ! I IL_1._1 L.L...i" n i i i '1 I\ f 11 ~ 6 1. 42 ./fi :1 i. Ii- :lili 1 111 1 1111~ & 11 il :i \:, -frt , 1~,Ctrt[UttldP-4/~fr~. j~ ~ -1-J-EL-/Â£4~*:L. I J*+12Â£1Â£~L **49~t ' 4 [1-1- 7 7 . 1 . 1 - 1 1 1 lili . 1 4, il - .1-E -' r F 15-i_- 5---~ I ~ k 9* r' f viA'; 4 44791/-F.i~3 42*~43543Â»t Fe ..5 , . .. 'm U......#./.-I. . I ./ i '1 .11 1 . 1 â€¢ , 12, . â€¢ ., 1 1 . , , Â· 1 - i . I I | ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~|lt~~~-~_:9-Ifli*Jdlift-f&~a-,~.~~1.1., ~-;~_--.- .1 -Â·*r - ---- -Â·,9-13-,tar -439-1-lt)-r-1.~F-*1_1%1~~~.,ji-k ~ - L -- 1 11 1 /1.'1:1 1 . . . 1, li ' 'i 9 0- 2 h 1,1 1 1 T -7 rM'l r ' 1 11 li Ii.' ~i i ,{ i i ir-T-Ili i' ' 1 1,-/ 1 4 1 . - 11 1, , :' i'Â·,1 . -. .j f i 1.11 j !1 -i; ~1 , i /,1 -- - - Â¥ -- 1-t,UN" , rf-"rrT- Tâ€¢-r--7-r Â· ; 1 1 5 171 - 4 : ,Â· L }t li i. ,! :. '! / 3 0 0, l' 1 1; It i,Il" ; il - 1111~~'r~,111 1, ' M T. 1!1 '' - -' )11 lilli .3 lillil ... 4 . ,r li It 11 1 1 . I . I r 1111 111111 , d i.Â¥~iL,-11~1~Tilifl-~T~'frn -rrr-TrY*J 1 11 11 1 111:1 l~.2,Jill, 1 61 --/--- .41 14 - 0-/4 , 2 1 0!11/ ]111 IlL__11 lili 11 â€ž , -1----d J?â‚¬ 191 - Â¢.1 r 1-2;ruillril:(23It?3 + 4 If 1 . I . 11 0 i Ull- .4 Li ~ 1 ~~ t2 1 ~ ~ <~ ~~ ~Â·~ ~'~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ 11~~ -%---~ --'' ~ *471- fre-444(-4, r 11.11 :1 11 T - 11 'i -/' 1' t. ' 1 - 11 1 11 9 H 11 1,1 1 11,11 11 1. r. '1 11 L' 1 !1 11 ill 11 1 1 / 11 11 /: 12 2, il 'i 111 il . ' *11 1, It t'1 11 ,1 1 1 lili . 11 1 1,1 11 2 1; ,1 1 1,ij;'~ H' r' Iq , 14 44 . P,iii'il, 4 11 1 1 1/ 1 1 11 11. 21 $ ' il ti V '' 1 .1 f I lilli 0 1.1 - -, 1 11 1 , 1.,1 il I 73 i "'lli 11 ~~ f -, , 1 , ..., 11. 1 .1 , '4 11 . 1 0 ~1 . , 1 .,flf 1 , 1,11 f, 11 1; 1.11 11 it 11.11 1, 1 1 Ill lili -,Le.~.~-u.~-..~-- ..r-1 irrte-,T :, u ' Li-2-1 442--t:1. t.LI , ; i 1 + It ,1 :1 f I. 11 1 1 11 i,I n---4.-.---- Â· Â·h,i , ' G 1 - 111' .lilli ' 1 ,... T.0 1 - ' - 2Â· Ii; 61 %2 1~ ;' i 11 1 ~ 1! .11 1 i .if 1,2 1.Â£1 111 - ..1.7.b- *J-97Â£4 '_ m 1 . I -- 1 11 1 - , "- T 1 1 .. , 1 -4 t.Â».-U--1 Lr r , 1 - - iâ€žL..li~ -ri,-14s..~~.~,4 : r- , , 1 t-Pr...â€ž......7 1, . , r â€¢ I.' L I _,-~. L-i/ i.t' - ' 1111':' 11 lili 11 ,1 1 44.11 Â·i . 1 Of '14 , i, - * O*rIi+r' LI,f/Xy#lkill; 9 ,/*9â‚¬ftÂ» dl UNI 1.11 ~ i' P ~~ 1; Â£, .2,-----j~--4----0-6-â€¢-.;-41-Mdiwi/*/0/1/- -'----'4 I.li i! Ii, 11 i 1 1 -4Â»--- lilli . 41 - . i , + j . 1- 1 .. ~ . 1 , 11 1 1 , 1 : ..1 - ' - & - Â· i......I-I................/............/... , 1 7, it , '% 1, f 1 - -'- 1 1 1 .., 1 Â· ,11,'Â·r-~-7 ~-ly-r~47Urit-,1-MT-t~I? 1117-1-44 71-th,+ 1 / 1 - ' i 4 i ' 1 1 ' . 1 11 - -]Ia~.JI'(f~I~irÂ«Pif~JÂ» ~~t,-~it I~~,-~~~~Â»14~~ ~i~~1 ~~ Ill. ,~~~~~.=~ .//*W-'-.-- A.*---*--/---# --I'--I--- , .4--'--4-â€ž9--,2-,r-- 0-p-= 1 tk 111 l! 1 ,[ 4 :1 lili /1\ 11114 3 11 It] , I lili I ....10 1 11 11 It , li i i, i 1 7-2.1 CE[preÂ¥+r , - ' u.~-q-P pl i lilli 111 1 b 11141 9 1~ 18 -===1 tlru cr-- ' . . 1 Â¥44+944-4+T,4-3*34Â»2 ..,0 1, 1 -I--I...I -Â¥--Il-/IT-~ --6--6 .-' - , d 11 lilli , '' 1 11 6'-Lâ€ž'll IiI . p . l, . 11 ' 11 1, 0 4 Hil.-Ili I.,1"Ili ': 4 11 I j f - -Â· ..' I ' - '6 . 4 r 4. .t 21 'ti : 11 11 1| 1 Ul=mz-, IZZ~ t......6..................................1 . h . 1! 't ~,-Â·-1 i ' ' r M-~-'--~---'---1 ~1 Ii,! li I , -*- ...... 1 11 IiI , , id ~ 1- Â· - - I . 1,. -7 11 1 11 11 11 11 11 $ 4 --41 - 1 . .............*'ll= 1Â¢. 11 1 . 4 t 1, 11 111 11 2 4 '1 1 , 1/ , JIll I I $ 1/ i/ 1/ .- .a-.-- 11 11 il It ,i-,t i-1 f: !1 1, i . t PLY 3-27-2000 , 1 1 ~ 1 il 11 1 ~ 11.11 " 111 ,[ 1. 1 .1 1, . h 4 ; 11 . 1 1 1 f , 1 11 *--n..I.-*#*I#.--4-,-4- , -:---1----,41 -1 1, 11 1, 11 11 11 1; It . 11 -0. . 1. , 100 ...61 - - ' '1 - 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 . 1 11 1, lilli/!11 1 1 1: 1 ' I . Irw ELKs#Al ftp*9% FA.~...~- mMagN#...}]Fl~ i~Il ~211 1, LI IVoÂ°,o'nes>oo,4.1 - , | f | ' 11. : 1 1 1 1 EFFiTUMV I , 9 2,1 ' 6/40'*AÂ©All ' Â· 11 1 '. , i i14 1 '' ~ -~ ~ '. 'li 1 1 1 1: * I ' r -i--4- 4 reÂ·Â·'..:':2,Â·i>?<24 - . 1 16 1, It ... 1 11 1 , Iii:11:11,1 . -Ii'- I-- ~L.-4~G-~------ ' . - - , ~ t r ~ 1 1 6.- . I. 11. fINt 1 -Â· I - i t EX:3:13 kilÂ· .iÂ¢SM E244853 .4444*50':6 wikIE69 =iÂ»i=zi .. t Â· i v'r,1Irs,z, r -1--+ 62.2/2/262-SLZ-k-al b.,a.,4.1/..bal ~ ~ ~ :~ ~ - -- ;4 1 . , 1 Ill.1 1 ' , 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 - , : . 1 - Cy Al 1: t 1 1 111 1 , : 1 1 1 1 1 1 I , 41 !- .'-' , i j / . 1 / 'i 1 + . 1 1 1 1 1 5 I ; 1. -- ... 1 ' L -1 i i IL t- 1 6 72 1 14 1 1 1 L.-t 'â€¢ -' "'"17 'Â·- '' . ~Â·r,,- a , '1'' p .. -1 , . 2 I ' -+ - . - --L- .1.- - L=~-7 -- ./ :4Â· 4 u :~ 41 ' ' ' - 1 1 . t.1 ' 'V- , ' , |i '' , L , 1 1 ' R . Â· d -1 I ... , ,1 - 7- I . .~ .1 .- . .. 1 1,; 1,11 '..17 4. 4- t' .1 11 4 . , I . 1 1 - I , r '. U . . 11.1 11 L J /1 ' It â€¢ . A -_-1--t 1 11. . . 4 ...4% Â·Â· ' N s R IT 1 H . b . 4 1. ./ - . I 4 - ..1-; 416 1 - 1 1 . , 6 1 11., : r ' D , 4-' r â€¢ - -W___R_ -55-7311=____L-i..~ .. 1.' i I 1 -1 11. 4 1/4" â€¢ 1'-0" .11: 31 - ' r-Â· 1, , -4 . 1. r . ' .Â· 1 . - 1/4"â€¢l'-0 .' '..; 1 1, .. 1 I. . , . t- , 4 11 .4 ---1 .. ' , 0 - .... - 1 . 1. .1 .1 #'. I t. ... I - - . , 1.- . ... 4 .., I ... I Â¥ Iii , , - , % .1 :1, 21.22, ,Â· . r . 6 7. , 1 ' 11. l.. . Â· 'Ir ...... , 11Â· ' 4/7 ' . ~ I 12. 1 :.1 1 1 Tj,.. r - - 1-, -1 1 .- ., + b ri r-------------------------- I -1 , /0 : --l:- . ' ' U .' 61â€¢ -- 11 . I . K<,2 XWc , '. I I 4. '' -' . 0/60/ ISSUED FOR: Â»3 / Â·4! H.P.C. Revisions , ... .1&.:...i.5 '.4 HOTEL ASPEN ADDITION /2-13: a AlÂ· Â· a '~,0~EA CLIENT APPROVAL -tr'*3 .... 2 ...4.I.1.y.351 1 REVISION: A A A 1 - 0 West Main Street A PROJECT NO: 9921 DRAWN BY: ANB CHECKED BY: Aspen, Colorado ISSUE DATE: 03-29-00 FILE NAME: .e 9, % 4 t~ 7.Â·.4:Â· 4.4 44 *Â¢4 1 --*. 1--~Or'{34-Ii-TT ~--3 T I ---TVT-T--[~--- pillilill'- jjf- ~ 1-; I~~~t'j 1 ~' ' 1 F 1111 1 It ':1;1 1 111 1 - 11119,44 1 47-'-C- 1 + i lili 1 ~ 111 -/ 1 1 1 1 1 1 -3 -rs-UL 11 :Hyl- I:49 4. A~Â·' Â· 45Â·Â· !1) 1,; 11% t>Â· ': .....hit#'- 1, 11 - 1 111 4 91 1 -'~â€¢.j n 1 Ill. 1 1 1 11, 1 1'- i , 1 1 11,- 11 1 1 -3-Lt , in--t luti I : 1- lip_ 11 1 P 1 7 lIli, - il "~ 0 1 4 ' I-*-'-I| ~~~~~~~...J.....J.1' 1 ' 1 ' c '' ' 1 1~-mU .--7--7~ 11 L --2,===Eeem,DE..7--*==-1-- 1111111 i=ix)% i I 1:/,L 11 ==USE~ 40:144 I. t 11 : 1 =111 4,1 - i } , 1 1/ i ill.jitag .Nlet- /7 111!11 - -.....0- I 1 1 11 1 907 1, t- 1 . 11 1 1/ 4- 77 r-ri 24 - 11 '~ ~ remmâ€ž,2.--==--6 - 1 11~111 111111 1!11 - (2 41.12= p. Â·f=tit' .1 Â»gly 1- 0 4. 1 1 Â· 'Â·Â·,Â·f':-4 : i 1 i i ! ' r I t 1 , i Â¢ 1 ! 11 i ' ' 1 :l'? 1 ': i t . i i I 1 ' 1 14-1 11 11 111 : lillii 1.-1111'i'111111111; i!'- ..1.1 11!11-11 1 111~ 5 g 4 7Â· Â· 42/ 111 1 121! il' -T :Â· 1-1'1-t- tÂ»- 1 1 . 11 11 1 1,1 1,5 . : 112 1.-12 Iii 11 6, 1,1,11 lilli 111!111 lili !: 1 -:1.1.UE-~--- 1 4 1 1 5 'L:Irl' 1 + .*.I-''. ~1~ ~~-781 i.--- --1--L__.___ r- i ,,. 11---1 1. Li-.1,111.-7 11- C-r I 1 1. .11 1.1 1 il I i 11 1 - 1 1.1.- 1 9 E-' U 1 *It 0, '11 . 1 Câ€¢n I .:461 !1 Il ' 5 + - -Tr-'Ur-- 11!li 111. 1 :1 - 1111 *1 1 -CEI U I j | | ' | 4 ||- i " -r L ...+ 1 1 !,T| 1: ; 1 111111.1 4..... :9 11 h . VE !1 1 .44 1 11 1 ~11 It ip 1 4 21 1' C ; ' 1 1 11 , I'll'll 2 'D 3,1 4. : +1 11 11;1 1 - 4 49 1 14 A ; H , . ;ill ! m'1111 2 111 1 .1 111 , , Ir . /0 J < i__-O 'Ill Il j. "f~ '~M .1 I . 2 _1.. 11_i-2___ --1._ - ._i- RENO Â· SMITH ARCHITECTS L.L.C. 210 EAST HYMAN N 202 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (970) 925-5968 - FAX (970) 925-5993 371 SOUTHSIDE AVE. N 101 BASALT, COLORADO 81621 H.P.C Conceptual Submittal Revisions (970) 927-6834 k d FAX (970) 927-6840 WEB SHE www.renosmith.com EMAII. ADDRESS office@renosmith.com 03-29-00 SHEET TITLE: PROJECT TITLE SCALE: . e SHEET NO: AO.0 n.91,7.1 NOIJIICICIV NIGIdSV 1110 13111/LS .-=--mE_ 1,.1, -.L. -.1&01/1.-*231Â· 2=. . - A,%: . ILK ./Uu'liNLO . t. 1 Vt.510$LLE 2. BUILDING FOOTPRINT IS TO BE LOCATED BY A CERTIFIED SURVEYOR V V ED FLOOR DRAIN . VINYL. RENO Â· SMITH FLUOR FLUORESCENT V.C.T VINYL COMPOSITION TILE Fr FOOT 3. ANY DISCREPANCIES FOUND ON TIIESE PLANS AND WHERE THEY EXIST ON FrO FOOTING WTW WALL TO WALL FND FOUNDATION WC WATER CLOSET THESE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS MUST BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION ARCHITECTS F.A.I FRESH AIR INTAKE WP WATERPROOFING OF THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK 000 F.S FULL SIZE W.R WATER REPELLENT FURR FURRED (ING, W S WEATHER STRIPPINâ‚¬, L.L.C. wT wERNT W.W.F WEL.DED WIRE FABRIC 4. I.()GATE ALL UTIUTIES WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF EACH INDIVIDUAL GA GAGE GAUGE W WEST,WIDE.WIDTH UTILITY COMPANY OR PROPERTY MASTER PLAN GALV GALVANUFD ./ M'UTH GL GLASS,GLAZING WDW WtNDOW 210 EAST HYMAN GL.BLK GLASS BLOCK W'D .'00D 5. VERIFY SIZE AND LOCATION OF UTILITY LINES WITH APPROPRIATE UTILITY N 202 OR GRADE GRADING W r WORKING POINT COMPANY OR CONTRACTOR TO PERFORM UTILITY WORK ASPEN, COLORADO GYP GYPSUM G.WB GYPSUM WALL BOARD 81611 HDW HARDWARE BUILDING SUMMARY 6. ALL UTILITIES ARE TO BE BURIED (970) 925-5968 HDWD HARDWOOD HDR HEADER 7. ~ INDICATES POINTS TO LOCATE PRIOR TO FINAL STAKING FOR FAX HTG HEATING OWNER APPROVAL AND VERIFICATION OF ACTUAL GRADES (970) 925-5993 H.V AC HEATING/VENTILATION/A[R COND H.D HEAVY DUTY HT HEIGHT H HIGH 8. DO NOT DISTURB SITE BEYOND 5'-0" PERIMETER FROM BUILDING FOOTPRINT H.P HIGH POINT 371 SOUTHSIDE AVE. H.C HOLLOW CORE N 101 H.M HOLLOW METAL 9. SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE AS PER SOILS ENGINEER HORIZ HORIZONTAL BASALT, COLORADO H.B HOSE BIBB 1 st LEVEL- EXISTING 7,041.00 sq. ft.. EXISTING RECOMMENDATIONS RE: S01LS REPORT BY BUCKHORN GEOTECH FOR H.W HOT WATER LOT 332 TEI.I.URIDE MOUNTAIN VILI.AGE, DATED FEBRUARY 16, 1999 81621 H.W.H HOT WATER HEATER HR HOUR (970) 927-6834 HYD HYDRANT 2nd LEVEL- EXISTING 8,021.00 sq. ft.. EXISTING FAX [N INCH (970) 927-6840 INCL INCLUDE ED),(ING) I.D INSIDE DIAMETER 3rd LEVEL- ADDITION 3,373.00 sq. ft.. NEW 00 INSUL ]NSULATE (D),CON4 INT INTERIOR INV INVERT WEB SITE www.renosmith.com JT JOINT office@renosmith. com EMAIL ADDRESS JST JOIST KlT KITCHEN K.O KNOCK OU-1 SHEET TITLE: PROJECT LBL IABEL LAD LADDER L.B LAB BOLT ~ T IE LAM LAMINATE LAV LAVATORY SCALE: SHEET NO: TOTAL 18,435.00 sq. ft. AO.O 5/.-I.~:Ir..~*19..2--*7 7 - .*40 2.4 733 7*;Wi Â£ F#'1. - 11 1 1, 1 I Â· Â· . 1. .. A. 0 ... 1 A A .. . 1 0. 4 0 1 . . .. . 1 . 1, 0 , 4 . 1 . D . 1 D , . . 1 0 $ 1. 1 ... . 1 1. . A 0 . 1 . .... . e I e ... . 0 ./ A 1. ..1 I. I ....:, ...... I ' I 1 . ., 0 ... 1:, A 1 . ... : D , ... I ... . I : . I r .D . A I' A 8 0 0 ; . .1 0 1 ., .1 . I . D . ... 0 11 .. :.: . D . .. ..1. I 1 . 1 1 111 01 1 I . . . 1 . 0 1, I 0. . 1 . I. 0 '. ;' . .... . e. 0 I 1 . 1 -0 . D . ... I : . 1 .. . 7.1 ........ , 1 ..... . D ... D . 1 ., I. . 1, . Â¢.... ... . ID. D . .. 0 . . . . . 1 . . . I 0 . . .1 . I .. . . . 0 .... . . 0. .. .... .1 .. .... . . 1 , 0 . dill ..1 1 . D 0 . I .... .. . dill D ... . . . .1 . 1 11 D .. D . 0 D .t . D. I 0 . e . . . I . 1 . D 1 D - 01 . . . D 1 D . I. .0 . e - .. . .. I .0 - . D - ... .... D . . 0 1 mA ~ ... :1. I . I ... ... ... D. . 0: 10 . .... .. ID . . . I. 2.* :~: 4~-0 ... . . D J.-'mt.. '"1111"1.0100.r BLEEKER STREET - ..200 C FOUND: CITY MONUMENT S 75Â°09' 11"E 134Â·98 CONDOMININIUM MAP OF 22Â·94 1 lf- 1 G I '12Â·04 HI 1 0 i i ' THE HOTEL ASPEN -A CONDOMINIUM SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE CERTECATDON OF DEDOCATION G CE AND OWNERSHIP 1, DANIEL F. MCKENZIE HEREBY CERTIFY THAT IN JANUARY, 885, A SURVEY WAS PERFORMED UNDER MY DIRECTION AND SUPERVISION OF THE EAST ONE-HALF (1/2) OF LOTS E AND O, AND ALL OF LOTS F, G,H,I,P, Q, R, KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS THAT THE HOTEL ASPEN, LTD., A COLORADO AND 5, THE EASTERLY 112Â·04 FEET OF THE ALLEY ALL IN BLOCK 58, CITY AND CORPOIUTION,BEING THE OWNER OF CERTAIN LANDS IN PITKW COUNTY, TOÂ¥,NSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY', COLORADO; THAT THE TWO STORY AND COLORADO, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: EAST ONE-HALF ('/2) OF LOTS E AND O, ONE STORY BUILDINGS WERE FOUND 10 BE LOCATED AS SHOWN ON THIS PLAT. AND ALL OF LOTS F,G,H,I,P,Q,R AND S, THE EASTERLY 111-04 FEET OF ~7 6 THE LOCATION AND DIMENSIONS OF THE BOUNDARY LINES, UTILIT16, COLORADO; DOES, HEREBY CERTÂ®r THAT THtS MAP OF THE HOTEL ASPEN - THE ALLEY, ALL IN BLOCK 58, CITÂ¥ AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, 0 65 BUILDINGS, IMPROVEMENTS IN EVIDENCE OR KNOWN To ME ARE A CONDOMi NIUM HAS BEEN PREPARED PURSUANT TO THE PURPOSES '8 ACCURATELL SHOWN ON THIS MAP , AND THE MAP ACCURATELY AND STATED IN THE CONDOMINIUM DECLARATION FOR SA)D HOTEL ASPEN SUBSTANTIALLY DEPICTS THE LOCAT ION AND THE HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL DATED THE__ ____ _DAY OF_____ _ ____, 885, AND RECORDED IN BOOK 7Â·55 4 1 10Â·5 3 DIMENSIONS OF THE INDIVIDUAL AIR SPACE UNITS OF THE HOTEL ASPEN- A ___ _ ___AT PAGE__ - ---OF THE RECORDS OF THE CLERK AND RECORDEROF in~~â€¢r |~ 2 NQ FL.Daid,O.7 _ _ CONDOMINIUM, THEREIN AND THEREON, THE UNVT DESGNATIONS THERE- PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO ; DOES HEREBY SUBM)T -THE PROPER-1 r DE :551< lt,tr HE REIN TO -THE ' - OF UNDER THE INSTRUCTIONS PROVIDED ME BY THE OWNER, THE MEASURE- PROVISIONS OF SAJP CONDOMINIUM DECLAAAT ION,AND DOES HEREer SPECIFICALLY DEDICATE TO MENTS OF SAID UNITS, AND THE ELEVATIONS OF FLOORS AND CEILANGS. PUE,LIC USE ANY AND ALL INTEREST, RIGIT AND TITLE IT MAY HAVE TO 1 HE FOLLOWN:IG PARCEL: 4 b o ----------- N 75Â°05'It"W 22Â·94 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 2234 BEONNING AT THE SOUTHWESTERD< CORNER OF THE EASTERCY HALF OF LOT E, BLOCK 58, THENCE N 11+P 50'49" E 100Â·00 FEET TO THE NORTHERÂ©r BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 58, THENCE ALONG SAID BOUNDARY LINE w / 575Â°03'11"E 22Â·54 FEET, THENCE 614'50'45"W 100Â·00 FEET, THENCE 3 0 ALPINE SURVEYS BY ' DANIEL E MCKENZIE SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. ,)385 L.S 20151 THE HOTEL ASPEN, LTD. ATTEST: Z 1ll 81': Er': crrY ENGINEER'S APPROVAL ROBERT P MORRIS, PRESDENT. SECRETARY . , I : THIS MAP OF THE HOTEL ASPEN- A CONDOMINIUM WAS APPROVED Br THE CITY ENGINEER OF THE CITY OF ASPEN THIS______DPI'OF__-____,885. ~ ; STATE OF COLORA[)01 5 S V % / / / / TWO STORY BUILDING 1 ft /1/ ~ i' / / Â»antssee~) G====rm //// // [lJul SUBSCR.IBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS _ _ _ - __ _ -DAY OF_ __ ____1585, - 010 COUNTY OF PITKIN J 11 15/ 1, I'll'till 7 JF 0 CITY ENGINEER 51' ROBERT P MORRIS, PREMDENT OF THE HOTEL ASPEN, LTD.,AND _, SECRETARY OF THE HOTEL ASPEN, LID. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICML SEAL MY COMMISSION EXPIRES________. oIl / j l l f0 --- aLakÂ£ /. f / ,/ 44/0/0 A to PLANNONG AND ZONING APPROVAL :lilill//i,yÂ» THIS MAP OF THE HOTEL ASPEN - A CONDOMINJUM WAS APPROVED BY THE_ NOTARY PUBLIC ~ */MULTI-LEVEL / ~ / /BUILD]NG / Â£ 2ND FL. CITÂ¥ OFASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMI55ION -THIS________-DAN' ADDRESS _._ ____- - ----- 1 4 OF_______-_-,1585. li 1 ,1 AUNDERCONST) / 1 1 ; I .... 1!1 ./,A \ /////1 1-1 & 53 1\.-Â· F LCON 1 // / lilli ASPEN CITY COUNCM APPROVAL UPDATE CERTEWES 1 Mi.4.LK>PLA'f 3 1 -11-1 22Â·941 . -- AND ACCEPTANCE I HEKE'301 CER.-7-TE'l -ID TITI--5 9 5.A COFFORÂ«r-(O\1 Â»10 VE'7 N 75Â°09'11"W heELNT ASPEN TITLE CO~FORATION ANO FIDE-LIT'f IDANK, A ALLET KE[-CLATION s AT ITâ‚¬p Fri _21-Alt VIEET-ING THIS MAr OF THE HOTEL ASPEN- A CONDOMINIUM WAS APPROVED Er THE MICHIeAN *TATE BANKING CORFOCATON TRAT ON Â·DEFTEMRE,K ?40 ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ON THE______DAY- OF__________,158_ .,AND !12,8, A VIOUAL INSFEC,TION WA') MÂ»PE ONPEK MY SUP'15Â©15(CH ON al,IDEDEâ‚¬1 22 , I 9Â©4 AÂ©rEN al Ty COUNCI L ACCEPTED THIS__--_--_DAY OF--_----_,1585. OF THE HEREON DE-#CRIf>EO KEAL PKoFERT-q AND NO G.C E - CHANGE-9 WERE FOUND EXCEPT At> SHOWN AND NOTE,p GEE T[Â«DED TI-11Â© ALLEY FOK " f:AFEEL PEPICATED TO 0, C) ALLEY BLOCK 58 R.Â»LICUDE " (DELE MINUTED 112(201â‚¬:PED liN 19 -4 HEIKE-ON . ACCORDING -10 Â»SPEN 1-ITLE COKPOKATION NO 6 r*8 -M- --124 17777 ALLEY' 6.5.h/IAI 24* AS NO CITÂ¥ CLERK MAYOR -- - -- DEEN PUT OF- BECCED Â·51 NCE RE KELOK-O'ING. COF -THE. N Da)14 482 AT f:AGE 3250) O 0 APP IT IONAL EASEMENTS Af-FECTIN. Tkilt FROF"EF<Ti HAVEL WIC) 3 10 GCE - c ONCOMINIUM K/tar'. 011 | i i i i; UT-1Ll-rr EADENI ENT-Â· 1(9 j t---------------2 6 ------1 5------ -1 ~S7516@Trir- - F-_ ----1----- - y -- _ CLERK AND RECORDER'S ACCEPTANCE .ALPINE- 54,>KVE.19, INC, rb'{ i 22Â·94 I 20 5 /58Â·3' 1 / ~/' ' .. /~,~/ , -74.5 ~ 7 7 j I ,1 21. , Ir- 5t - THIS MAP OF THE HOTEL ASPEN - A CONDOMINIUM WAS ACCEPTED FOR FILING IN DEr-rEAABEAL 16, (1Â£38 THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK AND RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF PITK]N, STATE DESIGNATED -- TRASH AREA // // /1 /// /////// 4///i/:- I / //// ,-- / - AND RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK _ _ __AT PAGE_ ___- _.RECEPTION NÂ°- _ _.. __... lili 1 1 .' I t lill 1, CLERK AND RECORDER i l/illl I l PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, NOCEAADEÂ« ID, 1 1 17 1 1/16[DE A VIÂ©UAL / 1 NDFECTION OF T-1--15_ rlâ‚¬OFEMT-7- lk-low'hi li ll' 1 11 1, 9-Â©OWN AND NONLED HES.EON. /TWO STORY BUILDING / 1-IEREON ALIP FOUNI[2 biO CHANGED EXCEgr AS 'TWO STORY BUILDING : = ~ ~. , /111, 11/111 I'lle/' U 654Â»,1 4\. 1 1 1 f /'' ~ , 58-45 11 11 IDe 6.18.,54*25#.Ii ft Eâ‚¬2*# we -1 .;Â®4=2# :.,0, Â«- 1 li -_. _ ---- . lili f /-1 2-1-7 111111% 11.- (C< JI 1 1 G.C E 0 5 to 20 30 40 50 L.Â«91Â©11 u 44...0.9 .E,JÂ·tÂ»Â« / lill '9Â·0- lit 40Â·2 SCALE ; 1"= to' DATE-5 1 C . k..4-*929 9 Mi 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i / -A 1 11 I l l l 1 1 1 1 1 ' lili i BASIS OF BEARING : FOUND MONUMENTS AS SHOWN. ~ 3 "~ ~, ~ . '/ / 6 "1 7: ~~ ~ ~t ///,'.' 1* /~i ,/ /'1</ NOTES : ~ ~C~EE ~'NTE~LCOC~MMOM~NEkt-ZE~THT. / 1 1Â«JT-E- s CEIUNG HEIGHT. | HOT TUB 1 I Ill, 1 ZONING : L- 3 PIT-Klt-4 C.a_.Â»Irr TITLE, INE, CADE NO. [ET 13)435 0 --% 1 , l 1 1 1 % 1 # - 1/1 1 In 1 '//j CHAIRMAN 1 1 1 4- ---- OF COLORADO AT-__- _O'CLOCK,____.M. THIS __- _-- . DAY OF_ .___-_. 885, , -- 1 JAMIED F. fierit PlaffEDY- CE.ETIFY- }-IAT- ON 1 I l l Il' ALF>INE. 912,49010*)442. 1 C 13 (5-10\9/ O ~ G.C E. ~ < ///1 .// //.''f // / /.1//2//// ,/ ///~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ WAÂ© Ut)ED i N T[-IE flâ‚¬EIF>Â«.AI]Or-4 OF Tk-119 OURVEr 0 6 1 1 /3 -2- /1 2 Â«fffÂ«Â« GCE 0/ / ////// //TWO STORY BUILDING' 12 / ) POOL \ HALLAM STREET W Id GCE I .....9 1- H 43 80 ~ 57 65 W _--_72-- U) G W 1 'lili/Ilj/ 11.11 INDEX / 1 >1 / / BLEEKER STREET - SHEET I. - SITE PLAN AND DEDICATION LANGUAGE 44 MI ~~ 6,1, 73 SHEET 2.- SCHEMATIC FLOOR PLANS AND CROSS SECTIONS. 4*15/ / A MAIN STREET ./9.225/17 G.CE. L_-- 41 G.CE 11 I 0 24 35 Z 45 5 62 2 59 E PARK w E PAE PC K E ~ 1 74 0.0 eu- 4 4 81 0 1 1 1 1- HOPKINS AVENUE 11 1 1 1 Q 134Â·98 1 R ~LowERBox S FL.OWER BOX - Â·Â·Â·1 F. Â«Â·- 0 Tn SET ; CHISELED'X" IN CONCRETE. VICINITY MAP FOUND ; REBAR AND CAP i N 75Â° 09' 11' W 1"= 300' L 3 S 184- SHEET I OF I U A M M STREET 6 *f. Â· LVCU 'tl] U JOR NÂ°' 88Â·60Â·3 N 14Â°50'49"E [m 9 DEDICATED TO PUBLIC USE" 100Â·00 N 14Â°50'49"E 120Â·39 13381S 133H1S 04/<re#~R<-4%~c. 7'fifi,~ 76'..448/91"4'll' . r.e /Yti 9.-li i *I %91 r . *i-, E./.7 . Â©Wi'... . -4 . 1 Â·Â·1%: / \ , 4 4-e# f 19 ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ - - - -- -- - - - - -Â·-- -Â·---- - Â·~ ,~â€ž~ / \ .I 1:64 19 0 4 / 1 Â©18:14 r r r , .1492%%'. ' C-- -. D h h. b t. B r 7 1 1, 1 10 -1-1 ,Â·~Fv '~~I~ .tt r 1\,P ,- X. '461 96 u -; Â¢94 , 31*5 . 1 -14 t ill ; 1 . 1 - 1 , 1 . f, <STZ~-4 t rf 4- 1111.,1 11 j.,1 + 1 'f ich12 - ; i j_~_i_i. ~ ~ n i 1 i l 11 - It 1 ;111 lilli-1 1, 1' 11! 1/4.74 -_- Â» 1 LE=3 ~12/444%41 1~ 1 ~-1 Jr 1111 1 1 1 -6 1 2 i I r F r P -_---Â·--==u_ -- t i i vt T , 1. *. . I, , ~ 1.T".r""- 1 1 \ 1 f Â£( Ir (D 'e. , r r - 1 EÂ«_1_,i 1 1. B t...r 10.t rr r B 7 2 r v Ir- - r=1 -- -< r- 141--34 Frr_ -_ -___-___ " i -\. - 1 1 1 ;247 1'=- Dz P 11 1 1 1- - 44 I i -1 ill . r .4 1-14 -1 ; Â· LEEI =2= EN T- m ,- ' trpet tr r ,"ZIL'--r' r'E 1- 5 tr/ r r r , t~ I~~ -.--- -- 0 - - \:h <41.1 '-7 -- a ; ' rt 'C '- :rt- B r h FF ht. B r rB t, , t. t r B rÂ·B- .tr .rv.& A r ,-'t; A * rt ,5 a A A ULL , 1 ' , v i ~ IV 11- 1 i\. - , F -1 n lnE ng FF.n -- - -- - -- - i 3~-u~*iQ~eL~.i.,~~ : -~'â€¢i .~.-' '' ~/ /0 0-41.------r iF33222----* ---3-E I -,1 -- 1 1 1, 1\+1 31-1 2 -- .1 1: li ,-~1:!';i,ill 'i i. /111!1! 1 1 A n B r~ t fr ~~~ t '~~ 5 A // i&-in-T~ I r r-- ':.1~, iii -i.~I. I ~ ~ Â«:l 3 - 4 2 B OfgAATA 0.-ftÂ¥=2=17. - r -Â·- -: -1 :_t . .1- .~_ ** .- I ~~- r. ~~~ ~_~ ~_~ . U-1 - il \ u-t A' VB ~t B F B, r 6 1 1 lili It . . , 'T 44- lili 11 11 1 - 1, r . 1 1 Â·' '1 d I il .i A B A D h li - 2- ;ft=-* 9 - - - --. _ (- 1 1 *r , ,>4 B .+1=--7 E--72. , F D D / .21'.Â« 1- 9.264 7-7.1 J - r-333 = -1 -- 393- F-' - --0-11:--1-.- il , le 1. p : ! 1 . X - i ....2 :! 14,1.1-1-77, r..1!,1;. 1111-R! 41.1.1-2....I-ili; 7,"13Â¤:HINkl:Ii 'Â·A .~ilililplijillilllITIIIHI111111111Ir-1111illilli 1 [1'IM Ai - 19 1 0 - - 4- . ~ 7 1 4 1* 1 11 ili,1111,61 L 3-4-1 El E-k E-7" ,#D ' - - R. 8 %*F '35 ' *AB %4 .--- -' r--4 -ir---- ' !12 91 1 1 ==31 M , R r N A __ ~ AL_, â€¢-11.- 1 111/1~1-11'F-..1121 1 0,/,62Â¢42 ,Â· 5 5.1 ,Â·Â·'' .. r. 1 11 1 9-'7'-" 5 ' i.; ' .." T . - 74 --1 91..7--L_ . ~ ; 1 '9 ' D Y,;; !11 [1 7 "; ' rrrÂ·-r-: T rt '-3 - 1 - - u,in 11' ' F Â·, 79- ' | i 1211 J K!.1.111111 1 il E li" i ITFF~" f-'IL:'.'~" ' p'I I. 1 1 4/ - 1 lili- P : 1 9 !1 1 1' 1111 11 It . ,[ | . ZZL-! --'l l'~~ili!"LÂ®hy 1 111~~1~1111~1~ VP r Id<,\12,%, 2/:= . c 7-9 2 - 1 , i f *,4,2,/,4,Â»A-,-'. ili It 1,1 1 1 . -~ - -__ c j,4 n '~ ~~ 1 b :10, .lilli . ~ i il L 1[-11 1[ -11 ! !1 ,!11 .... 11 11 1 h N ' 1 11 11 ' 4 -'- 1- '-'-/ 9 A l} - --- rk- :i Lh 3. ., ...703*5#, I â€žâ€ži,) I ... 1.....1 .1 , 1 11 1 -P~,, 7-77 Â·, Tn rr-7-6 7 ,.1 ~' ~mrrfrrmm 1 ~ ~la *LAM ~ 1601.0- . 1 132 WEST MAIN STREET 120 WEST MAN STREET HOTEL ASPEN - WEST MAN STREET 41 0%2" Â· : l J Â·7 'â€¢ - ..1 'r t,3 -il , i NEIGHBORHOOD BLOCK ELEVATION /-1 Ta 24=. bf -4'~ *Aa. 1.'CSÂ£2 i ti*AN . A r - 9- ISSUED FOR: H.P.C. CONCEPTUAL BLEE<ER STREET POTeâ€¢IT;AU.Y, ADDIT1ONAL- OMP-Sâ„¢meT PARKING FOR THE HOTEL ASPEN CLIENT APPROVAL REMOVE EXISTING â„¢EMS REMOVE EXISTING TREES MITHIN LOCATION OF ANC) R/PLACE FV NER SPECIES NEYY PRIVEYVAÂ¥ .i -0 REVISION: :1 :- i. - 4 ff- N /1 / 5:<t '3.1 ~'4Â· ~-.A &0 . iiÂ£ 7 I. 4 9-kj Mor* LJ 555' 74Â· @Fi .--49 lei I A LOCATION OM EXISTING â„¢ASH AREA TO REMAIN - A REVISEO BUILDING E ~ VELOPE (51 CE 1484)- 112.04' 1 ---L---- A EXISTING f 8/8 PARKING 21 PROJECT NO: 9810 - ------f- BASEMEN Â®TORAGE DRAWN BY: ANB EXISTING i -~--==1- ..~ let Mt-00~: 6 PARKING SPAUES EXISTING PARKING 20 PARKING 10 ~ E:~- ~ 2%2 : 12 12 out,m 1 -=2~- i - EXISTIN 7 '-80' TALL CHECKED BY: PINE TO BE REM~/ED L ~gik EXISTING z -- --..-~~-----43%L72Â£M<~--~-- 3EE~-.--- - --- -- - EXISTIN* ISSUE DATE: 12-14-99 1&ZARJâ‚¬3121,22. PARKING Â¢1 2~ ~- ------- / ---- BASEMENTÂ· L.AUNDâ€¢Y 14 ' 2==.._ PARKING 14 / * MLOO'<: 1 A.H.U. / end FLOOR 1 A.N.W. 2 BRIDGE ABOVE FILE NAME: Srd /LOOR: 1 A.M.U Â· EXISTING . | EXISTING A PARKING 18 9 - EXISTING EXISTING <III " PARKING 1 - PARKING 17 1. ~ ~~ ~~~~ EXISTING EXISTING --â‚¬- feE=='.. ' -- ------- PARKING 16 c NEÂ»1 ALLEY --3--- =E-6-4 SINCE 144 -1 -- -E- E,EFEEFE~z~~~=L I EXISTING - .2~ '. ] EXTG 8-STORÂ¥ BUILDING: | EXISTING PARKING B PARKING 15 1 lot /6001+ 8 <MS 1 2nd /LOOK: 1 MS . 1 A.H.U [ '11'll'111 IMIT O 1 0,6 FLOO~: 4 RMS 1 EXISTING . KID E OVE-n EXISTING â€¢ARKING 4 - PARKING 14 W62121 -1 --- Ul EXISTING 16t FLOOR: 1 A.M.U. ~ PARK** 3 Brd ploo<: 1 RM - 4-7 end /LOOR: 1 14. ~ EXISTING 1 - PARKING 13 EXISTING PARKINÂ® 2 PARKING 12 EXISTING ARKING 1 EXISTING BRIDGE ABOVE V A . r I n FARKING 11 see Book 482 page 850. Alley remalre as Utillty Ea,ement. 14.6 EXIBTING STAIR LIMIT M NA 1 1 6, APPITI C~<ISTING .ATIO PATIO PATIO PARKING 10 1111 -----3 ---- ---- --62- --- ~ EXISTING H PARKING 9 EXISTING PARKING S EXISTING PARKINÂ® 7 | 1*t PLOOR; 15 -S 1 2/5 FLOOR: 23 /MS ~ EXISTING -I PARKING 8 -1 ----- Â· EXISTING - PARKING 5 ,\\ \\\\ / EXISTING ~ PARKING 4 Ki. hER EXISTING PARKING 3 bi \LI. A. RENO Â· SMITH EXISTINe PARKING 2 ARCHITECTS Â£ EXISTING PARKING 1 L.L.C. 210 EAST HYMAN j N 202 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 BUILDING EN LOPE- 184.98' - (970) 925-5968 FAX (970) 925-5993 PROPOSED LOADING/UNLOADING ZONE MOR CUSTOMERS 371 SOUTHSIDE AVE. N 101 BASLAT, COLORADO 81621 (970) 927-6834 VAX MAIN STREET (970) 927-6840 WEB SITE LESENP www.gibsonreno.com EMAIL ADDRESS - EXISTING BUILPING office@gil)sonreno.com ~iiiHiEEiiFil PROPOSED Ne,4 APOITION 4 BUILDING SHEET TITLE: NO71: ALL. EXISTING VEGETATION IS TO AEMAIN UNLESS NO71; Â©THERVVISe SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SCALE: 1/16" = 1' - 0" 1-LI . 'hh 417 SITE=DEVELOPMENT=PLAN SHEET NO: 1/16" = 1' - 0" Al.1 021 BUILDING ENVELOPE- 100'-O" OLD BUILDING ENVELOPE- 100' IS BU ING FE ( INGE Â¢184)- 112.0 ' i ,S Ol 1323LLS HGIWhIVS NOILICCIV NG[dSV 11.LOH 13111.LS NIVW .LS<[ki OCV21O1O0'NildSV ISSUED FOR: H.P.C. Revisions 1-4-1 CLIENT APPROVAL REVISION: Ir--1 A - - - Ii---.I - - I--1%--i-ill - - -ill--.I- - - -.--%-- DRAWN BY:--ANB PROJECT NO: 9921 NEÂ»1 BRICGE L N,1 STAIR '~ CHECKED BY: ISSUE DATE: 03-08-00 FILE NAME: 8R . C. 0 9 --- NER STAIR / EDI IÂ°Â° ----- HALI-INAY ROOM 301 SUITE 30-TA / SOSA ROOM 309 ROOM 309 ROOM 910 ROOM 311 ROOM 312 5Â¢15 8 54 ft 915.5 54 ft 341.5 54 ft 341.5 64 ft 863<,it 969.01 94 ft 694.6 34 ft PECK PECK PECK DECK PECK PECK ' 1 ' CE*Â£97 7 - W-il-- 4 WI --2=2~3~ ---1 -ROOM PECK --#----3 - RENO Â· SMITH ARCHITECTS L.L.C. ~ Â· ASPEN, COLORADO 210 EAST HYMAN N 202 81611 (970) 925-5968 FAX (970) 925-5993 i 371 SOUTHSIDE AVE. N 101 BASLAT, COLORADO 81621 (970) 927-6834 VAX (970) 927-6840 WEB SITE www.gibsonreno.com EMAIL ADDRESS office@gibsonreno.com SHEET TITLE: NEW 3rd LEVEL FLOOR PLAN- EXISTING MAIN BUILDING NEWÂ·JrdLEYELELOORPLAN *) SCALE: 1/8" = 1' - 0" 71 SHEET NO: A2.3 NOILICCIV NadSV 1211"OK ISSUED FOR: H.P.C. Revisions CLIENT APPROVAL REVISION: A A Oil 744 PROJECT NO: 9921 ~ lillil DRAWN BY: ANB STANDING MAM METAL ROOM- 1 \\\1\ Ill,1 1 ISSUE DATE: 03-08-00 , . . FILE NAME: lilli 91/i#11 'lit lit It 1 1 ililli : :411 !: 2 1 11 9 'girili:lii[Il:Illiliijolili!1ll!i;liel!ilillililij!11'ii 1, -- 111 -; ;l1li1 --= - -/ i 1 !41 iii 11 wzill lili 111 !5:lili' - li iii, 1.I i ~ IL I ]1 li l li i Hil--1 'l l 1 11-1 111Li -1 lii'lilijiii' 1 3 1 4 ,1 2 2 11 8:121 11 1 1 ,!ill'1111 , 4 5:12 1 1 , fill 5:12 ~ilij,~ l i l iv 1 1 1 IN ~ i +11 lili lili ~ a * ; 1~~~|~ ~~1 - ~~Ii,Fl~111~~' 1 -- Ill i li li ijillii zilg ilili 111 li~'l~ill~~~ 5-- --- 'ill' P L illi liM ___ 11 .1, i~ - 11 1- 111 TI l i l l i t E l i _ _-1__ 14 1 6 --4 7 -4 , 1 1 , .1 1 - -i -_-----_============ZE==.00, 22Â©KEzz=IrzEEI i -- - IL--Â·Â·Â·6:AM!2111:02550-==t \1 r RENO Â· SMITH ARCHITECTS L.L.C. 210 EAST HYMAN N 202 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (970) 925-5968 i FAX (970) 925-5993 371 SOUTHSIDE AVE. N 101 - ---il--lill---0--03 BASLAT, COLORADO 81621 (970) 927-6834 FAX (970) 927-6840 WEB SITE www.gibsonreno.com EMAIL ADDRESS office@gibsonreno.com SHEET TITLE: NEW ROOF PLAN - EXISTING MAIN BUILDING NEWROOFPLAN ~ SCALE: 1/8" = 1' - 0" 1-1 SHEET NO: A2.4 NIOI.LICâ‚¬IV NIGIdSV ZGLLOH 1312ILS NI oanI~~~s~d(~ A. ---*=02% 44 1 Jej '4,2 92'.- 4%410 2%91 afy 1 N .3.1 3 YNC,44 >4514 " ' I 'lt 9.*Â£4 04Â·: 41 *,124?q TH --- -------=- ---- - -- ------ EMAIL ADDRESS office@renosmith.com SHEET TITLE: EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS- SOUTH ELEVATION ~ SOUTH & WEST SCALE: 118" = 1' - 0" SHEET NO: A3.1 1 0. 1 A A A A A 0 '1 - I .1 , 1 1 1 11 1 lilli 11111111 , 1 Ii, E Illilli 11111111 j .1 -1 1 ' - 1 1 11 1 -- .. .... .. .. Â¥.tr 0 1 D. 0 0/ .. ... 1 . *-:. .. I 1 *trA~-. i,â€¢94Â· , , . 0444% ... It 1 .1 204- 1*'M~ ' \ 1 0 Ii'll;*moitÂ·. 0 0, 1, 1 1,11 ..~:..9. . . milli 1 Ill 11 2"22*94 ,;05*41*41'-*4 .lili ... 0 V ftud/,64 49,/I - I..>~ &47414Â·./ -;12Â¥"I.Â£. m Sh - ' I . 0... H.P.C. Revisions 1 02- .~ CLIENT APPROVAL X REVISION: A , /44 1 1 :: A 1-1 ''Ne A r.$ -----r 1 ~ PROJECT NO: 9921 1 1 't 1 11 1. 11 411 1- DRAWN BY: ANB L - - 1 1 1 1 al It li li llitilt# i' 1 CHECKED BY: ; 4 El '" n"ll~ ~: 14 1, 1 11 i 1 f I h I ISSUE DATE: 03.29-00 P I 1 L. FILE NAME: . 2 + I i '1 ': 4 li Ii,51 + 21.- 1.- 1-/ -t 11 - 1 - 1 - 11'Pll 1 ~P 1 1 T 7 1 . 1 0-1 222 p vi U i , 4 1 1 th 1 1 , 11 1 1 . 4 1 1 11 . . 1 1 1 11 Ill n lilir-1 g '11111 L_IL ____.,.j j i X 1 1 1.'It 1 11 , 21 ~11!1111111!~!Al .1 1 1 -1- -1 .,~~Utt2_*~~ ~0 i:iN'ill'lilij~ ~~~' ~10lt 4 lili 1 1 71 Il 1 ~ ~ ~~ ~ NEW BRIDGE ' EAST ELEVATION ~ W . yfi %@ 92.In @U 2& ....-1 / - vyFAT - /. /. STANDING SEAM F----------------------------------------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------7 RENO Â· SMITH ,. MTL ROOF- 1 1 x VERTICAL ---TO. KIt'*g... ARCHITECTS 1 33'-6 3/ 1 6" ii~~ SIDINe TO MATCH 54 1 i. -- EXISTINe 41- TIC 8l26E * 1161'illitileillid" 1 1 'Â·- 11!I!11 111 ~!!Ilin!' ~ -- -- i |__L~~Â©~ i ! i ! 11 i i . 1=~1-lilli .1-----1-1_, = i Â·1 11. 1-- - 0 --re, 1 :'lilli'!111111[h'111121'PR 132-7 1/2" L.L.C. , -- --- -- ~ .-=-. . T.O. P.k A ' Ll '' '. '/, 1, i, r 'Â·1 ",1 1 / ',1 126'=-6. - 210 EAST HYMAN _ -_ _ _ ____ ASPEN, COLORADO - - -Â·-i*,5,-1, N 202 81611 -- - 11 1111101]1 ~ 11 lilli ''Ill ---- - --- (970) 925-5968 3' DIAM. STL. 1 F TUBES , 3rd FLOOR * (970) 925-5993 T.O. PAD ),1, 1 ' it lilli lillit 1 1'Â· i-Ii'i~ i 1â€¢~;illi; 1 Â·; P tip liililitiiA ' |1~~~t ~i 1 'Filk %41 lit~Â·|â€¢ " t~ filt'ill' 11. 1 -1---1-,ill. 371 SOUTHSIDE AVE. 1:;lili 11 5.-3' ; 411111 0 Illil'llÂ·ILl ilitill'lliti 1 11[11111! *';i lili. 1 1 :,1 lili 1 4'lilli 1 d l! 1 1 1,1 '-Ii Sibill Ilij'~ ft 1 ..... N 101 81621 TIMBER BEAMS 11 ~1 , 11!1~ lilli I 'lililitil 'bieitilin bil' I'lli '111%11 1 lill' ' illl'I ' 1 1% 11111'11{ill'ill'lli 11! 1 11:. 1 11 . 11 (970) 927-6834 8'DIAM STL. ~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~ | ~-- ~~~ ~ 1~11 ~11 ~1 1111 lili 111 ~1111 j ifi-#jilli'llitilljili; filill #'1'1 11)'-'i' I -~ r #gijjill 'f'-i;ltr-i' irill'LI-T-[-Utlt-ijji*;1~~i'j Zi<j~:I 21; 4-I j ' ' FAX 1 111[li 'll 4,il &1 1 TUBES ' ~|||| IL i uu (970) 927-6840 i~|~~11:'11 1 '!1 11 'ir:;~11!illl'Ill i :i'i;,ii Ii,,11! 1 11'lili 11 '11 1 1111 m 1111 ;li !1111; +g lili ii'11* 111 lilli 111 11.1111111'llillit. -1 fli 1111 '" )I rit.i ~ ;.:#%#,lit-; 11~~ - i 1 11 11[Illl lilli-1 6 11*#Ill fill!~1]1111R jiliti~~-11 WEB SITE . .- - .T.O. SLAB . www.renosmith.com 1639' NEW BRIDGE - office@renosmith.com EMAIL ADDRESS SHEET TITLE: NORTH ELEVATION ~ NORTH & EAST EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS- 1 SCALE: 1/8,1 = 11.01, SHEET NO: Â¢ A3.2 ....Â·.-+ 1 NOILLICICIV NS[dSV 15[JIOH