The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.200005241 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION May 24,2000 REGULAR MEETING, 5:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS SITE VISITS - NOON 5:00 I. Roll call II. Public Comments III. Commission member comments and project monitoring IV. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) V. OLD BUSINESS tt 5:05 A.14 110 W. Main Street, Hotel Aspen - Conceptual Review, Public Hearing (continued from April 12,2000) 6-/ :35 B. 221 E. Main Street, Explore Booksellers - Final and variances, Public Hearing (continued from May 10, 2000) VI. NEW BUSINESS 6:00 A. 945 E. Cooper Ave., Unit D - Variance, Public Hearing 6:20 B. 609 W. Bleeker - Conceptual, Public Hearing 7:00 C. 501 W. Main Street, Christiania Lodge - Conceptual, Public Hearing (to be continued to June >f, 2000) -7- o di'_Sa , 9~<Oq -VO d- , 7:30 VII. ADJOURN Please complete the survye in this packet and return at the meeting. Reminder: Nor'e Winter will make a presentation on the guidelines at City Council, May 22,d at about 7:30. If you are available, please attend. :OJECT MONITORING Susan Dodington 330 Lake Ave. 240 Lake Avenue- Greenberg 930 King - No Problem Joe's 121 5th & North - Ernie Frywald 330 Gillespie Ave. Suzannah Reid 117 N. 6th St. - Coulter 414 N. First- POLE 240 Lake Ave. 312 S. Galena * and Main 330 Lake Avenue 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 74 and Main Lisa Markalunas 939 E. Cooper- Langley (work stopped) 240 Lake Avenue- Greenberg 214 E. Bleeker- Brumder 330 Gillespie Ave. Christie Kienast 735 W. Bleeker- Bone 426 N. Second 330 Lake Ave. 330 Gillespie Ave. Mary Hirsch 930 King 114 Neale Avenue (not active) 920 W. Hallam 400 W. Smuggler Street - Dodge residence 419 E. Hyman Paragon Bldg. 0 Gilbert Sanchez 312 S. Galena 333 W. Bleeker Street 501 W. Main Christiania Lodge 330 Lake Ave. 121 5th & North - Ernie Frywald Rally Dupps 419 E. Hyman - Paragon 501 W. Main Street - Christiania Lodge 520 W. Main Ullr Melanie Roschko 0 0 CONCEPTUAL APPROVALS WHICH HAVE NOT GONE TO FINAL: 4 W. Hallam (Poppie's), expires April 26,2000 3 W. Francis, Lot B (Vickery), expires May 12, 2000 735 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 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTIONS Resolutions 2000 1. 330 Lake Ave. January 12,2000 2. 333 W. Bleeker St. January 12,2000 3. 221 E. Main Street January 12, 2000 4. 312 S. Galena January 26,2000 5. 501 W. Main St. Christiana Lodge Feb. 9,2000 6. 130 S. Galena Street, City Hall Feb. 9,2000 7. 520 W. Main Street Ullr - Minor Feb. 9,2000 8. 110 W. Main Street Hotel Aspen Conceptual Feb. 9,2000 9. 417 E. Hyman Ave. Paragon Feb. 9, 2000 10. 330 Lake Avenue Feb. 23,2000 11. 213 W. Bleeker - Landmark Designation Conceptual March 22,2000 12. 7th & Main Affordable Housing March 8,2000 13. 333 W. Bleeker Street March 8,2000 14. Aspen Grove Cemetery - fence April 12, 2000 15. 834 W. Hallam St. - extension of conceptual April 12,2000 16. 920 W. Hallam Lot A-April 12,2000 17. 920 W. Hallam Lot B - April 12,2000 18.213 W. Bleeker Final - April 26,2999 19. 240 Lake Avenue Parking Variance - April 26,2000 20.505 N. Eighth Street - Fence Variance - April 26,2000 21. 943 Unit C E. Cooper variance parking - April 26,2000 22. 819 E. Hopkins Ave. partial Demolition-May 10, 2000 23.330 Gillespie Ave. -Minor Development -May 10,2000 4 EXHIBIT )- ' Sup u gr NOtt) . ACTION: Significant Development (Conceptual) SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) Significant development in an "H," Historic Overlay District must meet a#jour ofthe development review standards in order for HPC to grant approval: Standard 1: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site coverage by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units pursuant to Section 26.40.090(B)(2). Standard 2: the proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Standard 3: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Standard 4: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. ILZLE.1 E--Exmarr-~ MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning Directord*O FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 110 W. Main Street- Conceptual review- PUBLIC HEARING (continued from April 12, 2000) DATE: May 24,2000 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, March gth, and April 12m. Minutes from the last hearing 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 0, Lots P,Q, R, S, Block 58, City and Townsite ofAspen. ZONING: "O, Office Zone District, Lodge Preservation Overlay, Historic District Overlay on part ofthe 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," 1 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, 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, to be built on the Bleeker Street half of the 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 previous meetings, staff and HPC have directed the applicant to minimize height, to look at ways that the addition could be broken into smaller pieces, and to modify the roofline so that it is not one long, uninterrupted ridge. On April 12th, the staff recommendation was to deny the project finding that the review standards were not met, but the HPC chose to continue the application once more for redesign. The applicant has amended the project so that the height is reduced, roof forms are varied, and wallplanes are offset to break up the addition. Staff finds the changes have significantly improved the proposal. The existing building is not consistent with the character of the neighborhood and does not contribute to the historic character of Main Street, which is why making an addition and potentially exacerbating the problem has been such a difficult issue. There are few three story buildings along Main Street, and where they exist they have a significantly smaller footprint than this structure. While adding a third story to this structure does not enhance the historic district, the revised design does not appear to detract or to be more incompatible with the character of the area. The applicant should consider adding windows on the west elevation of the addition as this piece may be visible from Main Street. Staff encourages the HPC to make a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission to look very carefully at height and bulk issues on the West Bleeker Street portion of this project. Height may be an even more significant problem there, within the 2 residential neighborhood. Additionally, there are three historic homes in a row along that street frontage. The plans for the Hotel Aspen note two 70-80 foot tall spruce trees to be removed along West Bleeker Street, leaving the new construction particularly exposed to view. b. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: Main Street is a mix of residential, lodge, and commercial uses. Some lodge expansion can be expected along Main Street and is desirable for the community. 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: There are no historic structures directly adjacent to this part of the property. Staff has previously stated concerns about detracting from the Main Street Historic District as a whole, but finds that those have been addressed in the revised proposal. 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 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 grant conceptual approval for 110 W. Main Street, Hotel Aspen, finding that the review standards have not been met, with the following conditions: 1. The applicant should consider adding windows on the west elevation of the addition as this piece may be visible from Main Street. 3 2. The HPC should make a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission to look very carefully at height and bulk issues on the West Bleeker Street portion of this project. Height may be an even more significant problem there, within the residential neighborhood. Additionally, there are three historic homes in a row along that street frontage. The plans for the Hotel Aspen note two 70-80 foot tall spruce trees to be removed along West Bleeker Street, leaving the new construction particularly exposed to view. 3. A lighting plan for the new addition and cut sheets for the exterior lighting fixtures must be provided for final review. 4. 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. Exhibits: Resolution No. , Series of 2000 A. Staff memo dated May 24,2000. B. Minutes ofApril 12,2000. C. Application. 4 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT FOR 110 W. MAIN STREET, HOTEL ASPEN, 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 OF ASPEN, COLORADO Parcel ID No. 2735-124-61-201 RESOLUTION NO. -, SERIES OF 2000 WHEREAS, the applicant, the Hotel Aspen Condominium Owners Association, represented by Reno Smith Architects, has requested conceptual design approval for the property at 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 of Aspen. The project involves adding a third story to the existing building; and WHEREAS, all development in an "H," Historic Overlay District or development involving a historic landmark must meet all four Development Review Standards of Section 26.415.010.C.5 of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval, namely: 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to five* hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site coverage by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units pursuant to Section 26.40.090(13)(2). 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character ofthe neighborhood ofthe parcel proposed for development. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated May 24,2000, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found favorably for the application, and recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on May 24, 2000, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application to meet the standards, and approved the application with conditions by a vote of _ to _. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the review standards are met and HPC grants conceptual design approval for 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 of Aspen as presented at the May 24,2000 meeting, as follows: 1. The applicant should consider adding windows on the west elevation of the addition as this piece may be visible from Main Street. 2. The HPC should make a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission to look very carefully at height and bulk issues on the West Bleeker Street portion of this project. Height may be an even more significant problem there, within the residential neighborhood. Additionally, there are three historic homes in a row along that street frontage. The plans for the Hotel Aspen note two 70-80 foot tall spruce trees to be removed along West Bleeker Street, leaving the new construction particularly exposed to view. 3. A lighting plan for the new addition and cut sheets for the exterior lighting fixtures must be provided for final review. 4. 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. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 24th day of May, 2000. Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney 0 Approved as to Content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Suzannah Reid, Chair ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 0 0 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. APRIL 12.2000 In general all members felt that the project was good and the sizes of the house are compatible. Rally said this project is how you do a project "the text book way". MOTION: Mary moved to approve the final significant development plan for 920 W. Hallam Street Lot A with the standard conditions outlined in the draft resolutionsÂ·for historic preservation projects. A landscape plan needs submitted and approved by the entire board. Motion second by Gilbert. Yes vote: Rally, Gilbert, Suzannah, Mary, Susan, Lisa. 920 W. HALLAM ST. - LOT B Nick Lelack presented that lot B is not as prominent as Lot A. At the last meeting the only concern was the window on the south elevation. The size of that window has been reduced. Clarifications: Ron said relative to the natural grade the ridge heights of both buildings are very close. The chair opened and closed the public hearing. The massing ofthe building was well received by the majority ofthe HPC members. Lisa had some concern of the material choice chosen on the garage. The garage materials should be very simple. MOTION: Mary moved to approval the final significant development for 920 W. Hallam Street Lot B with the standard conditions outlined in the draft resolutions for historic preservation projects and with the condition that the landscape plan be submitted to the full board; motion second by Gilbert. Motion carried 5-1. Yes vote: Rally, Gilbert, Suzannah, Mary, Susan No vote: Lisa 110 W. MAIN STREET -HOTEL ASPEN - CONCEPTUAL - PH Sworn in were: 4 ...( ni I .11 l ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. APRIL 12. 2000 0 Alfred Beadelston Augie Reno Herb Klein Tim Semrau Amy relayed that the building is not historic but half of it is in the historic district. Through the last two meetings staff has expressed concerns about the third floor and the response has been directed to a flat roof to minimize the height. Ideas given to the applicant from the board were to break the addition into pieces. Staff cannot find that the proposal contributes or is appropriate or in scale with the historic district. Augie stated at the last meeting the majority of the HPC asked us to look at lowering the third floor roof. Some of the belvederes (a structure designed to command a view) were a concern. The sizes of the doors and transoms were also a concern. The two larger gables were reduced from 135.3 inches and now are 133.6 inches. That is a one foot nine inch difference which has been achieved by 0 lowering the plate heights and changing the roof pitch from a six twelve to a five twelve. The plate height for the main body of the building is 7'9". The doors were eight feet and now are seven feet. The transoms were two feet six inches and now they are 18 inches. Augie said the height was 32.7 feet offthe ground level to the ridge. The code allows us to go to 30 feet. The third floor has been brought down considerably. The belvederes break up the horizontality of the building. Herb Klein relayed that the recommended revisions were accomplished. He also relayed that staff has not supported the project. Tim Semrau said from his calculations it is 5 feet over the height limit at the mid point. Suzannah relayed as long as the representation is clear regarding the height that is what the board will base its decision on. 0 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. APRIL 12. 2000 0 Augie said the main ridge is higher than the ends. The building is three floors. Gilbert felt that breaking the ridge line would work but the only place you get a sense of that is if you are standing directly in the center and the existing building blocks that. A thought would be to " carve " away the other locations rather than the center location. Augie addressed the question and that particular area is an area that is a corridor and could be carved but the rest of the spaces are rooms. It could be done but it is not desirable from a hotel standard on an upper floor. If they went to a flat roof they could only go to a one and 1/6 to twelve pitch, which puts the parapet up to 30 inches. The chair opened the public hearing. Tim Semrau relayed that his measurement on the elevation was 31' or 32 feet. 0 Augie said the ridge of the main body is at 32.7 M. The two architectural gables are at 33.6 feet. The plate height is at 26 feet. Tim said he understands that they do not want to use the pool area but the height for the neighborhood is not appropriate. Views are greatly impacted. The scale and mass ofthe building is inappropriate. Rally said he is sympathetic to Aspen loosing the non $500 a night type of lodging. The project as submitted is larger than the surrounding residential character. Even some of the office buildings have maintained the residential scale, (the old Asia bldg.). This building will dwarf its neighbors. The third story component is monolithic even though the applicant has tried to break it up. Rally also has a concern about the alley view when people look up and only see stairs and corridors. There are a lot of buildings in Aspen that do not 0 contribute to the experience of Main Street and this conceptual design does not add to that experience. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. APRIL 12,2000 Gilbert said the problem is bulk and mass and he was hopeful that some of the changes from the previous meeting would help solve the issues but they have not. Taking away the piece in the middle will not help the bulk. The flat roof is probably the only way to resolve the issues ofbulk and mass. The impact of that building to the pedestrian on Main Street is not real terrific at this time. A large part of the building is blocked by the existing building on the street. As you step away from the building the bulk and mass becomes more prevalent. There is nothing else on Main Street that goes uninterrupted and has that kind of ridgeline. Gilbert agreed with staff s opinion that the project is not an enhancement to Main Street. The pedestrian view as you walk along Garmisch is an uninterrupted bulk with a massive wall and that does have an impact to the neighbors that do live on the other side. Mary interjected that the HPC is the only Board that looks at this project in terms of the Historic District and Historic preservation. The HPC board cares about historic preservation and that is why the members serve on the board. This project does nothing to enhance or contribute to the historic district or the experience that the tourist or those that live in this area expect. This is not an urban environment. P&Z may let you go over the height limit but they are not "charged" with caring about the historic district or historic preservation. The low number of parking space is not a major concern because a lot of the tourist comes in on planes and buses. There are too many minuses in this project to support it. Susan dittoed the other HPC members. She also reminded the board that the project does not meet the standards. One or two units would be more acceptable rather than seven units. The site has additional space that can be used for the expansion. She cannot support the proposal. Lisa felt that the height sits far enough back as is not a great concern and the belvederes add interest to the facade. When additional units are built on the Bleeker Street corner the historic impacts will be greater than what is proposed here on Main Street. The West End should have historic review in the future. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, APRIL 12. 2000 0 Suzannah felt that the applicant has reduced the height and she is in the minority and could accept the proposal in its location. She feels Main Street is a good place for these kinds of things to happen and the board will probably be dealing with more of them in the future of Aspen if we are ~ going to keep inexpensive hotel room etc. in Aspen. The east and west elevations are a concern and she prefers the simplest roof shapes without the belvederes. Suzannah also relayed that she has a concern with the flat roof but would go along with the majority of the board. Augie requested tabling one more time to talk to the ownership to see if they can live with a flat roof or not. Ifthe flat roof is accomplished it will still be over the 25 foot minimum height requirement but would also lower the total height substantially. Gilbert said the issue of mass and bulk is only evident in the roofline because you do not see the lower part of the building from the street. The 0 ridge is the issue. It is important to do something to avoid a continuous relentless ridge. You do not necessarily have to do a flat roof everywhere but if you could find strategic places where you do open it up so people can see the breaks in the mass along the roof, that would make a successful building. Gilbert felt that the overall height ofthe building is acceptable. Rally said he would like to see a scheme come back that isn't so monolithic. He also understands that we need the beds and he is not sure taking the courtyard away is the solution. The roof needs broken up but he is not advocating a flat roof either. Mary and Susan dittoed Gilbert. Everything needs scaled down. Amy stated her position regarding tabling. Many times at a certain point the board gets beaten down out of frustration and approve something that conceptually was not right in the first place. She feels the proposal does not meet the standards. 0 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. APRIL 12,2000 MOTION: Gilbert moved to continue 110 W. Main Street until May 24~h with the condition that the applicant restudy the bulk and mass issue of the roof as discussed at this meeting; second by Rally. Motion carried 6-0. Yes vote: Rally, Gilbert, Suzannah, Mary, Susan, Lisa Gilbert understands Amy's position but he also feels there could be a resolution on the design one more go around. ASPEN GROVE CEMETERY FENCE William Perry Ruth Brown Perry Jim Markaluns Amy relayed that the application is for a fence permit. It is for a new gateway into the Aspen Grove Cemetery which is on the Historic Inventory. Staff s concern is when an original feature is missing we take one of two approaches: If there is documentation how it originally looked we reconstruct from those documents. If there is no documentation we aim for a very simplified element which would not be confused as an historic piece. In reviewing the gate it is certainly attractive but staff is concerned about the size and ornate character of the gate. The gate has already been built but is not installed. Jim Markalunas relayed that he is the sexton for the cemetery, which was founded around 1890. The Association has had problems with the existing gate primarily with the positioning of the driveways next to entrance. To prevent vandalism and encroachments into the cemetery the barbed fencing was repaired. The association gave the City of Aspen an easement for a water tank and the condition was that the city would install a fence appropriate for the association and neighborhood. A ranch style fencing was built. At that time a gate was also constructed. The gate has had damage due to snow plowing for the parking lot area. The gate was relocated and an arched gate constructed a year ago but not installed yet. The association did not know that they needed a permit for the replacement of the gate. The arched gate was not intended to replicate or duplicate the 9 May 8,2000 AUGUST RENO AIA Ms. Amy Guthrie, HPC Planner SCOTT Aspen/Pitkin County Community Development Dept. SMITH 130 South Galena Street AIA Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Hotel Aspen Addition lmÂ¥ /1 110 West Main Street Aspen, Colorado Ist' I ~ffeirri, Dear Amy: RENO Â· SMITH Â·ARCHIT ECU'S, L.L.C. The current proposed upper third (3rd) floor has a number ofrevisions 111 that I would like to bring to your attention. 210 E. HYMAN The revisions include: N" 202 1. The mass ofthe addition is broken down by undulating the ASPEN South wall of the hotel rooms, whereas, before all of the COLORADO 81611 South walls were in the same plane. 2. The mass ofthe addition is also broken down with the 970.925.5968 addition ofcovered balconies at the two (2) center-gabled hotel rooms. FACSIMILE 3. The roof of the proposed addition is now a combination of 970.925.5993 gable, barrel vaulted, and flat roof forms. The two (2) center gable roofs have been lowered by three (3) feet, with a roof E-MAIL office@renosmith.com pitch of6/12. The ridge is now at 30'- 5". The barrel vaulted roofs have been lowered by one (1) foot. The upper tangent line height is now at 30'- 5". The new flat roofs are 29'-9 5/8" to the top ofthe parapet wall. All of the doors are 0371 SOUTHSIDE DRIVE 7'-0" in height. 4. The proposed East elevation roof line for the stair has been BASALT COLORADO lowered by 1'-0" respectively for both roof forms. The roofs 81621 are 29'-0" and 19'-0" to the top. 5. The mass ofthe addition at the North elevation is broken 970.927.6834 down through the introduction of solid walls alternating asymmetrically with open areas. FACSIMILE 6. Here again, the roof has been lowered to match the new 970.927.6840 South elevation. 6Â»llil, A O 0 Ms. Amy Guthrie May 8,2000 Page 2 7. The roof of the exterior walkway undulates with the use of the barrel vaults, shed roofs, and gable roofs. We believe the current proposal addresses both your concerns, along with the comments of the HPC members. We feel that the project fits well into the neighborhood regarding height, mass, and form. If you should have any questions please contact me. Respectfully, ~~ 4 / Auglist 4 Reno, AIA~ CC: R Morris 0 T. Brown H. Klein AGR/wh 0 EXHIBIT p-31 1 E ~42_,4. 54~ 1 ACTION: Significant Development (Final) SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (FINAL) Significant development in an "H," Historic Overlay District must meet anfour ofthe development review standards in order for HPC to grant approval: Standard 1: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site coverage by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units pursuant to Section 26.40.09003)(2). Standard 2: the proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Standard 3: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Standard 4: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. EXHIBIT I County of Pitkin } lI) 1 AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT } ss. 1 2 10. delf I TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATION State of Colorado } [ ] SECTION 26.304.060 (E) I. ~--ATAG(N 65)0 H/0910,4~ , being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements pursuant to Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Regulations in the following manner: 1. By mailing of notice, a copy o f which is attached hereto, by first-class, postage prepaid U.S. Mail to all owners ofproperty with three hundred (300) feet of the subject '2-0 0 o property, as indicated on the attached list, on the l Zday of /74~, 4992 (which is _~.3 days prior to the public hearing date of Z..4 1 2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously 7-goo from the / 2 day of 0/ 4 y ,99_- (Must be posted for at least ten (10) full days before the hearing date). A photograph o f the posted sign is attached hereto. 2-1 0â€ž14- I bignature Signed before me this /'E-"-- day , 89Zby 171 a 9 Ilse D Earal; n Ue Knol> -2-,1 4 M ~21*.... 1 WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: 7 ~1)~07, 1 J 9041 Â· (ast Nota*52~flliz- Notary I*lic's Signature J A k EXHIBI1 MEMORANDUM -1121_ 1 61.3 2/- [- TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce 0hlson, Deputy Planning Directo~*D FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 221 E. Main Street- Final Review- PUBLIC HEARING (continued from May 10, 2000) DATE: May 24,2000 SUMMARY: This property is a locally designated landmark and is in the Main Street Historic District. The applicant requests HPC approval to add a conservatory where an outdoor seating area currently exists and to build a new enclosed stairway and dumbwaiter. The project received conceptual approval on January 12, 2000. The plans are attached and HPC should note that the proposal to add an elevator at the back of the building has been dropped, the plan for the stair has been modified, and a clearstory lantern has been added along the ridge of the conservatory. Staff finds that these changes are not significant enough to require a new conceptual hearing. Initially, staff believed that the additional net leasable space created by this proposal would increase the required on-site parking and require a variance. Seven parking spaces exist along the alley and no more can be accommodated. In fact, the additional parking required by zoning regulations is a fraction of one space and will have to be mitigated for via a cash-in-lieu payment, pursuant to Section 26.515.010.E. APPLICANT: Katherine Thalberg, represented by Katalin Domoszlay, architect. LOCATION: 221 E. Main Street, Lots D and E, Block 74, City and Townsite of Aspen. SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (FINAL) 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 (Section 26.415.010.C.5) are met: 1 Ar c L c 1-- Â» 9-ill 0 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, 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 proposal affects non-historic construction at the back of the building. It will not be visible from Main Street, will expand the seating area for the restaurant, and will provide somewhat improved access to the second floor from the alley. Staff s only concern is with the very ornate character of the observatory and round window proposed for the stair. Typically HPC does not support this amount of decoration of new construction because it becomes competitive with the historic resource and creates a more high style character than the building ever had. In this case, the 0 previous remodels have already gone in that direction, so it would be ineffective to begin simplifying the detailing of this proposal. b. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: Most of the original homes along Main Street have been adapted to commercial use. The remodel provides additional space for year round use and will not affect the character of the 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. Response: The proposed development does not detract from the historic significance of the building, which is an example of an 1890's Victorian residence. 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: There have been substantial alterations to the original building with a new 0 addition and second story towards the back, and alterations to the detailing of the house. 2 The new proposal does not affect the architectural character of this structure, is not directly attached to any original portions of the building, and will not be visible from the street. 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 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 grant final approval for 221 E. Main Street, as presented on May 24,2000, with the following conditions: l. HPC staff and monitor must approve the type and location of any exterior lighting fixtures added as part ofthis project. 2. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor. 3. 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. 4. Unless the HPC determines that it is unnecessary for this particular project, the General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit. 5. 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. Exhibits: Resolution No. , Series of 2000 A. Staff memo dated May 24,2000 B. Conceptual approval C. Final application 3 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR FINAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR 221 E. MAIN STREET, LOTS D AND E, BLOCK 74, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO PARCEL ID NO. 2737-073-28-002 RESOLUTION NO. -, SERIES OF 2000 WHEREAS, the applicant, Katherine Thalberg, represented by Katalin Domoszlay, has requested final design approval for the property at 221 E. Main Street, Lots D and E, Block 74, City and Townsite of Aspen. The project involves adding a conservatory and staircase to the rear of the building; and WHEREAS, all development inÂ· an "H," Historic Overlay District or development involving a historic landmark must meet all four Development Review Standards of Section 26.415.010.C.5 of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval, namely: 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site coverage by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units pursuant to Section 26.40.090(B)(2). 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated May 24,2000, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found favorably for the application, and recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on May 24, 2000, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application to meet the standards, and approved the application with conditions by a vote of_ to _. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the review standards are met and HPC grants final approval for 221 E. Main Street, Lots D and E, Block 74, City and Townsite of Aspen, as presented at the May 24,2000 meeting, as follows: l. HPC staff and monitor must approve the type and location of any exterior lighting fixtures added as part ofthis project. 2. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor. 3. 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. 4. Unless the HPC determines that it is unnecessary for this particular project, the General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit. 5. 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. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 24th day of May, 2000. Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney Approved as to Content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Suzannah Reid, Chair ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 7.111.--- '~ ..011 1~ 11- -12 - -- 9 L] iLl 1 1] 1 -mt==2- Il 1 41 4 1 2 3*H Dll vÂ·. -N NiÂ·- 1 4-6/ 1 -- .1 4 - f ~ ,-3 _-1-23 J / 4 u". 1 ___2(~, ./i --4 - 4- 1, , I. 41 1. ~1 \4 \ 6 1 ---- . I. -7-- f. 1 4. lf- 14 2 j . - N~ \Ne It - /7 \ t. I .~ <'. * j \ 4-11 2\ \ g f ' - 11 - li . ] ,7--a~~_ -* L.- li z J'~ 4- 11 - 4- 1 1 1 1 31. * - -/1/1 . '::Fn:9= 1 -1.Ill l ?i -. 1 4 r Trr i 'T-- 'X -â€žD 11 "i,1~~* 41- - 11 1# 14 /9. 4 1 ul /49/fl -T-] illin 4 9% N .i th.==*-aA ' el 11 - --- 11 11 l Il # 1# L 0 V 9 1 1,4 1/ \j 012,12 0Â« 9-233199 7/.G 1744/-0â‚¬ Â·r'!i.*A~t-~1,54 Â¥*- .~ Â·- ." 3.2.4.1,444â€¢Â·,#61.1. 9 ~---r<--- - 1 - - 4 11 r,t.4?*MZ414*9.iraâ€¢â€¢~4'i~~64Â«9 1, 1 . 00<14â€¢rl HA 7 7- - g Â£ Yl falÂ·.1 F u . 1, f 4 *418Â·W orIEHINct 1, 1 IL' U==lri ' /* g ~--44&1 -1 ;1 k[Ek!* M I DO.tz / -be " t, rE-- ---- - -- tk 1 9 .1.-It.1.4 . / 1 1 1 & 14 41 e< 5% ~A- - x I WAY I - -1 1 '229.?TE!94--==Â· _J,lel),1-OT----Â·.-= = 4 j . --:1 - y 1 i .2 *,ff~'44744Â¢ e Â· 4 11 11 11 1 I - 6 1-=+mg:,31 UL.~9*eÂ»Â»44 -L-----Il. Lxq,rÂ·Â·Â·Â·Â·â€ž.*F ~,1 2-Â·---IL- - 11- -11_ - _lt _ =f '1 1 j /-11 %-77--'f--jl---"--- 11 11 1 11 4i 7--r --IT- 1 --1, 11 EK'I269 1-OR )*2*1 p 11 11 6501[1!6121~kv'11'PÂ»Yil q . lili 4 1 11 '1 4 U r'fll-4-__11__ 1 f 11 '1 11 H 1% d It 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 U 11 11 . 1 (3% FM711 1~ 11 11 1 1 11 1 11 11 41-Ti- ---ir- -ir--IT- --Ir-ll--Ur -ll-- - ll- -L 11 11 1 11 - 11 11 11 P 4 11 11 11 11 13 4 Â·' U a /1 11 11 1 1 11 1 4 E.wrl, 01241 -1501104%:66%9 Â»iqp 616-Flao 1216 0. 2-0 ) '999 Czzul --0 C ta . C-- - 8 - 0 7 - , /// \X g..il 1 /5/ 'dr//Â«\ 1) 1 14 11 :1 in i 1 1 1 a /3,3,.// 1 1 1~44Â§\ 6'1 /0/ / 47 1 \\ \41 lili ./7. 1,1~ 1 4 1 L J 45'// \I . .. 1...1/ . ~=====1- '05: 0/ Â©\ !11- 11 1 9 'r-/ ell f. 34 72-39 1,-)>/% rn W-I--7- 11 1 It f :i #Ji. 11 1 1 4 ;-4 . i it- . .]14 3-71 1 11.1 ...1 ...1 .1. /.11% . 1 '.......Â·~Â· 1 \// 1 :4- 1 hill . , 19, 14 6 1 i, I:,: , I n n }: & U V i l l l! 9 1 4 11 W W 'd (7 1, f i . 1-211-1 1 1.1 1 It ?\ 1 1 412Dlib ual -1,1 --- liFF=rign 11 . E 1.IiI ~! ~~r t~ ~ i:~ . 1 1 -It 1 :1 1 1 -1 !! ; Il -12 , 2-1-_j 1 1 j-Li i~ IiI 1 P Ze, 1,1 ! 1031 + i 1 1 . Â·Â·- 4 r: .1 " .1 , 11. 11 ' , ii E X F'L-015.E- S#K:E~:62Â£22 L 1Â£ ... ED(HIB~23 EZI APPLICANT: 9 u r E 0.72 ar 14- 10-1,4 ADDRESS: REQUESTED ACTION: Variance Pursuant to the Aspen Municipal Code, in order to authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements of Title 26, the Board of Adjustment shall make a finding that each of the following three circumstances exist: The grant of the variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies ofthe Aspen Area Community Plan and this title. The grant of the variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use ofthe parcel, building, or structure. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this title would deprive the applicant ofrights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district, and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty. In determining whether an applicanfs rights would be deprived, the board shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply: There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building, or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures, or buildings in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant, or Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by the Aspen Area Community Plan and the terms of this title to other parcels, buildings, or structures in the same zone district. 11 4) EXHIBIT Dp- r= MEMORANDUM i 3,19-Â»2 TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce 0hlson, Deputy Planning DirectordAO FROM: ~ Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 945 E. Cooper Avenue, Unit D- variance request, PUBLIC HEARING DATE: May 24,2000 SUMMARY: East Cooper Court Condominium Subdivision was approved in 1995. The approval involved designating the entire 10,500 square foot parcel a historic landmark, then subdividing it into Parcel One (the front half of the site) and Parcel 2 (the rear half of the site.) Parcel One contains the original historic residence and another home that has not yet been built. Parcel Two contains the original barn and two new residences. One of the two new residences, which is the subject of this hearing, has been under a stop work order because it was being built approximately four feet forward of the approved location. After work was stopped on the subject house, several other errors with the construction of the project as a whole came to light. Through a combination of inaccuracies on the original plat and later surveying mistakes, the porch on the historic house extends minimally into the General Common Element for the property. Units C and E are slightly outside of their approved building envelope, although they are located on private property. The City Attorney's office has determined that these errors are minor in nature and will not take any enforcement action against the Homeowner's Association. Unit D was being constructed off of private property and into the general common element for the development. The City Attorney's office and the attorney for the owners of the subject property have determined that the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act creates an easement for the house because the error was not the fault of the homeowner. The building will not be required to be demolished or moved from its current location. Following HPC's review of a variance request, the stop work order is expected to be removed. The specific request in front of III?C is in regard to a parking space on the east side of Unit D. The applicants request a 6" variance to the minimum width for a space. This is a variance that HPC has recently been empoweredÂ· to address under the Board of Adjustment's standards, which are based more on issues of hardship than the historic compatibility test HPC considers for variances. APPLICANTS: Robert and Darnell Langley and Angelo DeCaro, represented by Krabacher Law Office. 1 Ekllk l\- tdi 26.314.040 Standards applicable to variances. A. In order to authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements of Title 26, the appropriate decision making body shall make a finding that the following three (3) circumstances exist: 1. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the Aspen Area Community Plan and this Title; Staff Response: A variance to the width of a parking space on this site is not inconsistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. The AACP supports the concept of creating high-density housing in town, which includes affordable units, as this project does. This type of development allows people to live close to their work and reduces the need for an automobile. 2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or strucmre; and Staff Response: The original plat for East Cooper Court showed an 8'6"x18' parking space on the east side of Unit D, which is the minimum by City Land Use Code. Because of errors before and during construction, there is only an 8'x18' space available on Unit D's lot. One space is provided for this property in a single stall garage, but there is no other location for a second car to park, therefore, the 6" waiver is the least possible variance. 0 3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district, and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the board shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply: a. There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant; or b. Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by the Aspen Area Community Plan and the terms of this Title to other parcels, buildings, or structures, in the same zone district. Staff Response: The layout ofthis project was extremely tight. Even a slight error in the location of Unit D would impact the use of the designated parking space. An 8' wide parking stall is substandard and may require certain adjustments on the part of the property owner to be a useful off-site parking arrangement. If the average car is roughly 6'0" wide, the owner may have to unload passengers before pulling into the space and/or park tight against one 0 side of the space. 2 The only alternative to granting the variance would be to require the applicant to move Unit D 6" to the west or require a lightwell on the adjacent site to be moved. Staff finds these alternatives to be unreasonable. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the review standards for a waiver of the parking space width on Unit D are met and recommends that HPC grant a variance to allow an 8'x18' space. Exhibits: Resolution # , Series of 2000 A. Staff memo dated May 24,2000 B. Original plat of East Cooper Court C. Current survey of East Cooper Court D. Application 3 6 6/. 4 2 00 4,1 ?:42?M FRABACHER & ASSOCIATES No 9159 F 7/R 1 tinrÂ· uc- cuvu i un lu, 1 1 All FAX NO, 1 04/04 EXHIBILIIF- . 1130* County 0YPitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT } SS. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS State of Colorado } SECTION 26,304.060(ED I S. bkeuELL L.h.KbÂ©lub-,1 .being or representing an , Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements pursuant to Section 26.304.060(E) oftho Aspen Municipal Code in the' following manner: 1. By mailing of notice, a copy of which is artached hereto, by first-class postage piepaid U.S. : Mall ro all owners of property within'three hundred (300) feet of:the subjcct property, as indicated on the attached list, on the 5-'Ckday of H-AN - .. 20012. (which is \ 9 days prior to the public hearing date of M 4-> Â·25:~+4 *);>00 By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from ~ the nearest public way) and that the said sign was pnqteri and visible continuously from tile <b day -Â· 0,1 - Of Y.\ 0-< , 20012,-, To theÂ·ZA day of H *f . , 2001_.(Must be posted for at least ten (10) full days before the hearing date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto. Irc C < ' Gb f Signed before me thid3-El-ay of 9 14-3 -~i 10 R/1 Wi~ . \ 1 2000. by 1 . PUBLIC NOTICE 19.4,- -. XTIME - -- WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL i ~62 PLACE k Â£ 1 -=- g=- --*- PURPOLE._29bi M ~ Commission expires:- O ///6 39 54 .- ' , 1 .,4 ~71,â‚¬ Â«9%4~f - Notary Public . 1 ~ t. ,~/ OWNERNAME ADDRESSi ADDRESS2 - - -_._ gmc___ _ MAE ZIPCODE 831 701 ONTARIO LTD CIO LAUQUE . 131 BLOOR STW TORONTO ONTARK) CANAO4 MSS 1Rt AIBEL BONNIE LEE ABEL .JONATHAN E AS JT TENANTS 6463 SW 107 ST MIAMI FL 33160 ALLAN ROBERTM & MARY C ALLAN FAMILY TRUST 1731 COLEGATE CIR LA JOLLA CA /2/37 ALYEMEN] MOHAMMED & AUCE C/O REBECCA HUNNICUT 819 LINWOOD RD NOORESVILLE NC 28t15 ANHALTMELVYN A ANHALT MILDRED L 49 BRIAR HOU0W#2303 HOUSTON TX 77027 APPEL JAMES R REVOCABLE TRUST 40 SPRINGFIELD CT GLENDALE MC 63122 ART REALTr C/O MARK TYE PO BOX 8992 ASPEN CO 81612 ART REAUY CO 1024 E COOPER ASPEN CO 81611 ASPEN DAY FAMILY PARTNERSHIP ULP CIO COHN KARYL CONCEPT RESTAURANTS 1227 SPRUCE STREETÂ·#101 BOULDER CO 80302 ATKINSON SUZANNE E PO BOX 12181 ASPEN 20 81612 BARASH JAMES ROBERT BARASH BETTEANNE 50 WCHEYENNE MTN BLVD COLORADO SPRINGS CO 60906 BAYLEY CAROL A 950 E DURANT.AVE 02 ASPEN CO 01611 BEUOm STEPHEN M C/O MERRILL LYNCH NORTH TOWER 250 VESEY ST 81'H FUR NEWYORK NY 10281 BOOMERANG LTD INC 500 WHOPKINS AVE ASPEN CO 81611 BRUMDER H CHRISTOPHER J FASTAR TRUST ATTN T MISCEVIC-14TH FL PO BOX 2054 MILWAUKEE WI 53201 BURKLEY RICHARD E & ROBERTA 106 ROBINSON DR ASPEN g 81811-2381 CAMPBELL JOHN E 900 E HOPKINS AVE APT 8 ASPJA 99 81811-2077 CARETTO LUCIA 960 E DURANT 03 ASPEN CO 81611 CHADVALE REALTY INC PO BOX 11978 ASPEN CO 81612 .COATES NEUGH C JR 720 E HYMAN AVEE ASPEN CO 81611 COHEN STEPHAN L TRUSTEE OF THE COHEN STEPHEN L DEFINED BENEFIT PLAN 801 41STST 2NDFLR MIAMiSEACH FL 33140 COLEMAN WIUIAM T 111 TRUSTEE COLEMAN CLAUDIA L TRUSTEE 278 ALTA VISTA AvE LOS ALTOS CA 94022 COOPER-TAC}IE CHRISTEN PO BOX 827 KETCHUM 1D 833400627 CORRECTIONAL HEALTH SERVICES INC SATRAPA CAROL PO BOX 1501 AKRON OH 44300 COUDERT DALE CO COATES REID & WALDRON 720 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN CO 81611 CRAFT HAROLD D 815 WALKWOOD CIR HOUSTON TX 77079 CRAWFORD DON D PO BOX 113 ASPEN CO 81612 CURTIS ALICE 809 C/O KURTA CURTIS 23287 BLUE WATER CIR STEA 521 BOCA RATON FL 33433 DE ROSE LORETTA SNUG HARBOR HOTEL RFD 156WLAKE DR MONTAUK NY 11954 DECAROANGELO POBOX 888S ASPEN CO 81612 EHRMAN JOSEPH S 286 LEONARD WOOD SOUTH UNIT103 HIGHLAND PARK It 60035 ELLIS VILLI JEAN 1012 ECOOFER AVE #2 ASPEN CO 81611 ENGELHART MATTHEWS JEANNE 5096 303 GUNDERMAN RD SPENCER NY 14883 â€¢ESPERANZA LTD C/O JOHN C YOST 2001 KIRBY OR STE 006 HOUSTON TX 77019 FELDMAN CRAIG L 5096 INT 101 SE 15â„¢ AVE #D FORT LAUDERDALE FL 33301 FISHER-COLORADO QUALIFIED RES TRUST 61 GREEN VALLEY RD PITTSFORD NY 14534 FLAS PROPERTIES UC 00 ROBERT S BARNETT ESQ 3000 MARCUS AVE STE 1ES LAKE SUCCESS NY 11042 FL ESHER GAIL A 8 DAVID J 160 RIVERSIDE DR APT IB NEWYORK NY 10024-2111 FOREMAN VILLIAM W FOREMAN CATHERINE C 721 1 W CYPRESS HEAD DR PARICAND FL 33067 FREEDMAN DONNA & GARY AS JT TEMANTS 401 M SHIRE BLVD - STE 880 SANTA MONICA CA 90401-1430 GORDON MARVIN GORDON SYLVIA 258=HERSHEYVALE FRANKLIN MI 46025 GRANTHAM CHARLES EDWARD 6001-101 CHAPEL HILL RD RALEIGH NC 27807-5153 GRASSL JOHN & JOSEFA 10 WMOUNTPARKRD ETOBtCOKE ONTARIO CANADA MBP1 R5 GREEN PATSY M & BENJAMIN 50 HAZEL AVE HIGHLAND PARK It. 60035 GREENE BENJAM]N 50 HAZEL AVE HIGHLAND PARK It 60035 GREGORY GWEN L 410 LEXINGTON DR LAKE FOREST IL 60045 HAISRELD TRACY E 435 WMAIN ST ASPEN CO 81011 HAMWI PAUL R PO BOX 5280 SNOWMASS VILLAGE CO 818/5 HANDEUN MARY 16299 PEARSON LN FORT BRAGG CA 9541 HANSEN RICHARD Wa JOANNE B 2 S 502 HEATON DR BATAVIA IL 60510 HATEM JEROME E PARGITER-HATEM JANE-JT TENANTS ___ _ 29 BRI g99PfR MERIT AFEN CO 81#11-2017 HECKER ROSE ROSENFIELD ROSENFIELD ANITA JT TENANTS 3952 BEARD AVE S Â¥1NNEA!'Â« MN 50410 HEOSTROM CAROLYN C 9002 DURANTST-#107 ASPEN CO 81811Â·2613 HERSHORN PETER 555 E DURANT AVE ASPEN CO 8/611 HEâ„¢AN GERALDINE L PO BOX 4124 ASPEN 20 81612 HORNE FREDERIC B 219 LIBERâ„¢ SQUARE DANVERS MA 01923 HORWITZ JUNE TRUSTEE 1290 PEMBROKE LN TE?%9 - KS 66004 HOSIER GERALD D REVOCABLE TRUST 8904 CANYON SPRINGS DR LASVEGAS NG ___2Â§9117 MU.PHIEY JOHNG PO BOX 3725 - - -- - - __ _ _ ___8Â§PEN -- CO 81612 INDIANHEAD FARMS INC PO BOX 623 MASON CITY LA 50402 JACOBSON ROBERT 5096 12 LAKESIDE DR CLARKS SUMMIT PA 18411 JONES HILDEGARD HATTIE E 100 WORTH AVE #320 PALM BEACH FL 33480 KANPE J STEPHEN KANIPE PATRICIA B 102 E HYMANAVE 13 ASPEN -- __-- CO 81011 KARASIKCHARLES 2020 WALNUT ST #8C PHILADELPHIA PA 19103 KENNEDY CHARLES T 4330 COCHRAN CHAPEL CIR DALLAS TX 75209 KENTCO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 2200W138111 ST BLUE ISLAND It 60406 KEY MEDIA NEW YORK INC 720 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN CO 81611 KOELLE ALiCE PO BOX2871 ASPEN CO 81612 KOFFRON ROBERT & PAULETTE 28009 HICKORY DR FARMNGTON HILLS MI 48331 KOLSBY RICHARD & PATRICIA L 4576 PEACHTREE DUNWOODY RD ATLANTA GA 30342 KOZLOW ROBERTA KOZLOWCAROL 6764 KNOLLWOOD CIR W WEST BLOOMFIELD MI 48322 LACHER iALBERT J & RITA R 425 E 4TH ST HINSDALE 1 - 60521 LAMPTON JUI!1 M PO BOX 12111 ASPEN CO 81612 LAWGLENN EUGENE PO BOX 387 _ - ANgâ€¢t __-. 99 81012 LAYNE SUSAN EMILY FAMILY TRUST POBOX 10442 _ _- _ _ ASPEN CO 81812 LEE BRENDAN J JR 3916 RMERA DR APT 403 PACIFIC BEACH CA 92109Â·5859 LERNER JAY R LERNER BOBETTE S AS JOINT TENANTS 117 S 89TH ST OMAHA NE 68114 LEW EDWARD C JR QUAL PER RES TRUST 625 LONE PINE HILL BLOOMFIELD HILLS MI 48304 LTZENBERGER DREW 125 HOWLAND RD ASHEVILLE NC 28804 LUMSUSAN PO BOX 1571 ASPEN CO 81612 MANDEL EUGENE AND HELEN LIVING TRUST 1/2 MANDEL 6 YR & 8 YR ASPEN RESID TRUST 1/2 248 N GLENROY AVE LOS ANGELES CA 90049 MCCORMICK JOHN T & MURIEL E PO BOX 2974 ASPEN CO 81612*2974 JMCDONOUGH JOELLE 1007 E HYMAN AVE SUITE 7 ASPEN CO 81811 MCGAFFEY FAMILY & CO NO C C/O JERE D MCGAFFEY 777 E WISCONSIN AVE STE 3600 MILWAUKEE V. 53202 MELTZER DAVID B 6140 N PASEO ZALDVAR TUCSON Al 85750 MERANZEARLENE 6234 PIDCOCK CREEK RD NEW HOPE PA 18938 ACNTZ MORTON A & ANITA F 4521 DORSETAVE CHEVY CHASE MD 20815 'MORK HAL 1/3 INT 77 ASPEN WAY ROLLING HILLS CA 90274-3429 MORRISON JOHNCa RITA D 5096 INT 307 HAND DR BRANDON MS 39042 MORSE V,!LLLAM J MORSE EUDICE 14851 COUNTY LINE RD - 9-AGRN FALLS 01 44Â©m MULLENS JOAN F PO BOX 2840 COLORADO SPRINGS CO 80901 MURPHY KATHLEEN A 62 WALNUTAVE ATHERTON CA 92027 MURPHY RICHARD P & MARY K 6720 DAVENPORT ST OMAHA NE 68132 MURRAY JOYCE K PO BOX 352 ASPEN CO 01812 MYERS JOSEPH V JR 265 BRIGHTON RD NE ATIANTA GA 30309 NEDLIN MARNY B 80 CENTRAL PARKWSTE 210 NEWYORK NY 10023 NESBITT ROBERT W NESBITT LISA N PO BOX 1081 COU.MAN __2- A 35068 1081 CyCONNELL CATHERINE M VENRICK FRED C . JT TENANTS 1746 N LARRABEE CHICAGO It 60614 OCONNELL PHILIP J & NANDINI 4260 CENTRAL AVE ST PETERSBURG FL 33711 PEACHER WALL AM & RONELLE 922 E COOPER AVE ASPEN CO 01611-2018 PEARLSTEIN DAVID BLUEFIELD 1470 SNOVWASS CREEK RD SNOVIAASS CO 81654 PENNIMAN JOHN G & MARCIA SHEIR 1073 HILLSBORO MILE /4 N HILL SBORO BEACH FL 33062 POUCAROAMY C STRAUSS & DOMINIC FRANK 1004 E DURANT #1 ASPEN CO 81811 POLICARO AMY S POBOX 11704 ASPEN CO 81012 PONDROM CYRENA N & LEE G 210 PRINCETON AVE MADISON Â¥A 53705 POWER PROPERDES INC 3200 S KINGS HIGHWAY ST LOUIS MO 63139 PROCTOR JUDITH WHITTAKER 110BDOVERRDAPTE GREENSBORO NC 27408 7321 QUINTENZ KENNETH E 8 SUSAN L 91 N STANBERY AVE COLUMBUS OH 43209 QUIRK KATHERINE E 1020 E DURANT AVE APT 301 ASPEN CO 81611Â·4131 REUTERSHAN PATRICIA O PO BOX,09 __ ASPEN _. _ 99 __ _ 51Â§12 - - ~-DIEGO 4 92197 REYNOLDS RICHARD J 4519 DEL MAR AVE RIC}MAN SANFORD & NANCY UND 1/2 1288 SHERIDAN RD AtG,UiwPARK !Â£ 60035 RISCOR INC A TEXAS CORP 200CRESCENT CT GTE 1320 DALLAS TX 7520t ROSE FAYTH MORISSETTE- & FLOYD D 949 EASTCOOPER ASPEN CO 81011 ROSENBERG PHUIP t 8 IRIS B 1.'2 INT 68 RONAN RD HIGHWOOD [L 60040Â·2065 ROSS NELL 100 S SPRING ST ASPEN CO 81611 RUBENSTEIN RONALD MARC AND HELEN RUBENSTEIN 0/0 360 HAMPTON RD PIEDMONT CA 94611 SANDERS CURnS B PO BOX 8651 ASPEN CO 81812 , SAVANAH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP UTE CITY PLACE 13530 BALI WAY MARINA DEL REY CA 90292 SCHOONHOVEN CALVIN R & ARLENE M 330 CORDOVA ST PASADENA CA 91101 SCHRAGER PHILUP 4343 S WTH ST OMAHA NE 68127 SCHWARTZ JEANETTE A 1/4 INT 1900 DELANCEÂ¥ PL PHIL.ApgkPH!8 PA 19103 SHIGETA MASA!.11 CK) AZIUMA SHOKA! CO LTD *0-16 NISHI-AZABU 2 CHOUE MINATOÂ·KU TOKYO 106-0031 ikE-- SILVERSTREAM UP 307 SMILLST ASPEN CO 01611 .SILVERSTREAU TOWNHOMES CONDOMINIUM ASSOC C/O ROBERT TOBIAS 307 SMILL ST ASPEN CO 81611 SISLER CAROL TRUST 397 SAVAGE FARM DR IMICA NY 14850 SMART BILLY JR a HANNALORE C,0 BJ SMARTAWATERGATE DEVENISH RD ASCOT BERKS SL59PE ENGLAND SMILIOS PENNY VAITE 1007 E Hâ„¢AN AVE 12 ASPEN CO 81611 SMITH STEFAN M 00 COBBS BROS 1992 KIRSÂ¥AILLS COVE MEMPHIS â„¢ 38119 STACKER LYNNE M 694 MAPLE PARK DR STPAUL MN 55118 STANLEY GAINES B & VICKIE C 5422ALPHA RD STE 500 pALLA# TX 752â‚¬ SYLVESTER JAMES W 128 FREEDOM PLAINS RD P96<E!Â§!E MY 12003 TAHTA LLC PO BOX 4066 ASPEN CO 81612 TEDDLIE FAMILY TRUST 1/2 INT TEDDUE ERIC A & JANET G 5736 STONEGATE RD DALLAS TX 75209 TENGNANCYHTRUSTEE 400 E 8THST HNSDALE IL 60521 TOWER CHARLES D PO BOX 3014 CO 81612 ASPEN TYE MARK P O BOX 8992 ASPEN CO 81812 TYE MARK TYE A RAYMOND PO BOX 8992 ASPEN CO 81612 UNIVEST CORP 500 FIFTH AVE STE 935 NEWYORK NY 10110 WALKER GEORGE M 2461 SHANNON NORTHBROOK IL 60062 WALLACE MARJORIE 928 E COOPER AVE ~ ASPEN CO 816112018 VdALLEN PAMELA O PO BOX 134 ANGEL FIRE NM 87710 WEAVER WENDY W~Lt.MANN PO BOX 2477 ASPEN CO 81812 WEEKS JAMES C & TONEY THOMAS 06 VERNON RD ATLANTA GA 30*Z WEINROT EDWIN Y WEINROT IRENE PO BOX 48128 LOSANGELES CA 90048-0128 WIHITE JALEH 300 S SPRINGS ST ASPEN CO 8/611 WILSON LAWRENCE S 119 MINERAL. SPRUNGS MTN VALDESE NC 28690 VISE PEGGY S RESIDENCE TRUST 1401 TOWER RD WINNEDKA 1 60093 WOLOFSKY ESTHERUVING TRUST 50% INT PO BOX 1042 POMPANO BEACH FL 33061 YOUNG MOLLY H 392 WINDWARD DR ELYRIA OH 44035 ZUCKERMAN GERALDINE REVOCABLE TRUST 2552 E ALAMEDA #88 .DENVER CO 80209 EXHIBIT- [-1 1 20 2 + 3 0-â€ž) May 23,2000 Attn: Amy Guthrie Suzannah Reid Dear Ms. Reid and Ms. Guthry, I am in receipt of the public notice regarding the Aspen Historic Preservation Commissions hearing for 945 East Cooper parking space size variance. I am the President and owner of Power Properties, which owns residential site B at the property in question. It is my understanding that if this variance is granted that Robert and Darnell Langley and Angelo DeCaro will be able to remove the red tag, which is currently on their building site. I am strongly against their being able to continue building their property at its present location. This property encroaches severely on the common element of this very small community of homes and from what I can gather, when their house is completed it may even encroach upon my property as well. While I understand that in many cases buildings may be built off tolerance by a few inches, this particular project is well beyond what might be considered an acceptable migration. Whether this was done intentionally or not the Langley's have been aware of it for some time and have in fact previously agreed to change the location of their house to conform with the original building line assigned. I cannot in good faith stand neutral on this issue and strongly oppose the granting of this variance. I hope that the Commission will take into account the severity of this annexation of land and help prevent any action that will allow the Langley's and the DeCaro's to build their house in its present location. Sincerely yours, Sandy Schonwald EXHIBII-7- i Robert A. and S. Darnell Langley 420 E. Main Street Aspen, CO 81611 December 9, 1999 John Worcester Attorney City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: East Cooper Court Condominiums Dear John, Thank you for attending the Special Meeting of the East Cooper Court Homeowners Association. Darnell and I did not think that the proposal from Floyd Rose that we pay him $200,000.00 in order to leave our home in its current location was reasonable. Such a proposal inferred that we were the only homeowners with a problem. We can only deduce that all of the other homeowners are comfortable with the existing plat, and the attendant rights, responsibilities and privileges of ownership. In response to the city's "red tag" of our building, we have decided to comply with the city's requirements. We will relocate our house pursuant to the plat and the Subdivision Agreement. We are unable to commence work to move the building until the Spring. We will contact our Construction Lender and inform it of the situation. It is unfortunate that the Homeowners Association is unable to resolve all of the issues of non- compliance amongst ourselves. We trust that the City of Aspen will contact the other homeowners to formally advise them of specific issues of non-compliance pursuant to the Subdivision Agreement. We will work with the IIomeowners Association to cure all incidents of non-compliance once we are aware of the specific required remedies. Thank you once again for your efforts. Sincerely, 7' d. 2' CC Faith and Floyd Rose Sandy Schonwald David Frey Jerome Iiatern Neil Ross NEIL1RubblAGENLY 6039253116 F. 8 1 r'=:lm CL Faith and Floyd Rose 6427 Lake Washington Blvd., NE Kirkland, WA 98033 June 16, 2000 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: RE: East Cooper Court Condominium, Variance Request for Residential Site/Unit D Please be advised thal we are the owners of Unit A, East Cooper Court Condominium, 949 East Cooper. Aspen, CO 81611. That Faith Rose is the President of the Homeowners Association. We hereby appoint Jerome Hatem and/or Neil Ross as our proxy to oppose any variance request for Unit D which would allow an Improvement to be built or Continue to exist which is outside of the building envelope of the original plat of the subdivision. Further, we recommend that the Langleys and/or any other owner of Unit D. abide by the intentions of the Langleys as relayed to Mr. John Worcester, Aspen City Attorney in their letter of December 9,1999 to wit: "We will relocate our house pursuant to the plat and the Subdivision Agreement". We relied and continue to rely on this statement made by the Langleys Sincerely yours, 33~\95Ct- C 4-LL ) 29'lt Faith Rose . Floyd Rose 0 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE TO THE WIDTH OF A PARKING SPACE AT 945 E. COOPER AVENUE, UNIT D, EAST COOPER COURT CONDOMINIUMS, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO Parcel Identification No. 2737-182-52-004 RESOLUTION NO. -, SERIES OF 2000 WHEREAS, the applicants, Robert and Darnell Langley, and Angelo DeCaro, represented by Krabacher Law Offices, have requested a variance on the size of a required parking space at 945 E. Cooper Avenue, Unit D, East Cooper Court Condominiums, City and Townsite of Aspen; and WHEREAS, in order to authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements of Title 26, the HPC shall make a finding that the following three (3) circumstances exist: 1. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the Aspen Area Community Plan and this Title; and 2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure; and 3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district, and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the board shall consider whether either ofthe following conditions apply: a. There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant; or b. Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by the Aspen Area Community Plan and the terms of this Title to other parcels, buildings, or structures, in the same zone district; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated May 24,2000, performed an analysis 0 of the application based on the standards, found favorably for the application, and recommended approval without conditions; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on May 24, 2000, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application to meet the standards, and approved the application without conditions by a vote of _ to _. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the review standards are met and HPC approves an 8'x18' parking space for 945 E. Cooper Avenue, Unit D, as presented at the May 24,2000 meeting. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 24th day of May, 2000. Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney Approved as to Content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Suzannah Reid, Chair ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 1/. - N 75Â° 09'll"W ~ 105.32' A 1 94#225:Â® 0 0 ...... O (4..04:Â¢:::t::18. Â¢:flilwo#lilil~i~~i ki .44 k. .. ~ 9 75 0 09'11"E f,â€¢,llâ€¢illl_ O 0.1 38 00' . N?8000'If'* | Â¢1:01&0~5 - ... 1 -.- Â·-1 00 4 ':6 + 5 00'Â·- 3( 32' ....J .....1 --5 00'-- 2% 2:i:p *097--- 18.1 1 ... Fle E. :444 F.~.Â° 't: ..Â·:.1 8 4 GÂ». Z :::z ..6 00 - 4.00'. 8, i EE :B:s:i 4 00' I 'L' t.' T '2~0~ : 1 1 g 2 Lit-=.5.0. 18 g ifi f j f MED#DINTIAL SITE B GCE LCE RE,IDENTIAL *ITE A , 460411 1 1 1,1 0 : 6 9. I ..4 4 . S ... Â¥MIt.,1, f~ |1 . 1 .. 1/1 ...I :.04/al I n %1 : a , 1 4 1 1 . 0 0 12 . 0 - i.filli FRF 4 2 LCE V' P"- fir:Z 4 f > 1 0, â€¢ l; i. .,0.0,111.. , i l---N,3009 111 1 30.00 -1-115"09~ -- -_ 415'00'11.0 33 00' LCE . 1. .. I. L C E & h GCE 41.00' l.0,00' D o GCE NI 4 050'49"E-~ 9756 0Â§'llit R. 00, ub- 1 575'09 11'1 9 PARrLI LINE -I'll-- .'...='- -.I.-- - ---- LCE 2 4 00 LCE 4 0 or i -- -- 5 90 .hl LCE 2-FICJ 1 1 1 15.0.' I i E 32 00' 0 N 73"00'11.. 11 00 F P ...0...'* 20 00 4 00'10 ; - 1 a N ,.0 1 00 11 32 . : 0 500 - f ; 11 00 0 * 2 - 6 Z Oct LCE-0 0 0 0 LCE Â¢ 2 Lct % w lE - oct * il ='9,6001'â€ž.E, 1 00, o . LCt 1 i ':3 1 -2 1 1 RESIDINt*Al *Itt C :i :IC .g RESIDENTIAL SITE D , RESIDENTIAL SITE E 1 1, . 1 I 1 1 :I . imi jLCE~â€¢ :li ' I I .1 j 1 li 11 ;1 3 . ~3 001 h O 1, U, W R r r.-,:-,-,-,-,-0 w . L,:Â·:7,69:r j , % r 1.00 L' 6 â€¢J'.â€¢ â€¢'â€¢ â€¢ . : 1.:;:.:2:1' ki2 : 4 R 2 -4---~a 1 00 1 ~. # 0 <* -- -af iii . 6.i@ i RÂ»B:Â·ws:: 9 1 : 4 4 001 ...9 ...0 . I 1 .U I ' I stsÂ°00'10 p............0 g ,/ - -: rk~ fi:i:iIi L.3.00 -Jilii},3 2 4 1 i N 79Â°09'll"â€¢ 1 21 00 I.J, IM:9 N 75009'11"* 3, 00 AS' 14-*%11'CL----__RliVE- 1\ L 1 Or) .....e W...... -8 LCE 0 , 2 50'/ i OCE 0 *4 --' 1 Â·0 â€¢75Â°00'i|"w LCE 275o 1'~0â€¢07 A ~:~E:B ~ 9 756 09'1,"E 3â€¢ 02 24 00 ~ i:E:E:? i:Efi + 3 50.-//, 8 OCE GCE ./. -,li 1 0 9 75' 09'ICE 005 32' '4 .' .''t 1/I :..4 '64!4 ALLEY NOTES 1. THE RESIDENTIAL SITE BOUNDARY LINE SHOWN HEREON ENCOMPASS THE BUILDING AND ARE NOT THE SHAPE OF THE BUILDING 2 ALL REAL PROPERTY NOT WITHIN A RESIDENTIAL BITE OR LIMITED COMMON ELEMENT SHALL BE CONSIDERED A GENERAL COMMON ELEMENT. 3 PARKING SPACES SHOWN HEREON SHALL BE 8.5 FEET WIDE AND 18 FEET LONG MINIMUM SIZE , . FÂ· 4 4 13*01 Â£ b i k !3> pos. 00 A 4, Jo Â»C I. .06..16 14 0 30 49 1811.44/ .. t.Â· t; COOPER AVENUE 73 70' R.0.Â¥V. RECORD 74 14 FIELD /41"49Â£ tlÂ¥,3*4 t 4 7#*4 7-.72, CURB â‚¬*7 0 Â® - CONC WALK ~Â·Â· n 13116 5 75Â°09 11-E 105.32 - Z 0 G.C. E 197 I J 1 1 PARKING PARKING k i / DE'K i 4 4 1 --10-' -1 1 (2 1 1 0 U. 5/le H 6 0.8 5\Te h SIDENTI~I, RE 14011 58 1 RESIDENTIAL N : C Atirr NA . --- - * * W I CliP , , liz=r- -BUILDING ENVELOPE L- - i-- pp--- ------ -------- -- ----113 / 0- L. BOUNDARY ITYP)) - 1 W. 11 GGE N /5*09 11 W ; 3 0.22 Wr WW N 75Â°09 11-W 75.32 1 , ~PORCH WW PORCH 1 1* 1 1* 1 1 31 1 --- I-*- s\ZE Â·U ~~____ 1 1 01 RESIDENTIAL ~ 98:5\~10 22 L \1 1 UJ i i 01 %#le C ~ OCE. ~-- ~01) s s 11199 ......----- r UJI 0 W I -1- L_1- UJ 1\08 a 1 1 RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUC 1 Â¥,oust 1 0 UNDER t.=1 1 0/ I , = - 17 0 OW, 1 529~ \/46 DECK fl LU Â¤51 , >O PARKING (Jtn ~ASH STORAGE _ G.C E U r I CONCRETE 6 - 6 C.E G C.E 9 N 75Â°09 11-W 105.32 . ALLEY BLOCK 118 AND 37 E.A.T. <-- 18 74 RECORD, 18.48 FIELD U'Al 4 -4 4 LJ Â·-,0-:*' ... 1'- 4 31'VAA 2 Â¥ 4 '.,43,4 464 - Â· HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT VARIANCE APPLICATION The owners of Unit D, East Cooper Court Condominiums, Angelo DeCaro, Robert Langley and Darnell Langley (the "Applicants") request a variance of six inches (6") on the width of the eight and one half foot by 18 foot (8'6" X 18') dimensional requirements for the parking space for Unit D. The grounds for the variance are set forth below. I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The Applicants were issued a building permit from the City in 1999 and began construction on their house on August 18, 1999. In October, 1999, a re-survey revealed a surveying error and the City issued a stop work order. The foundation for the property is completed, and due to the error by the surveyor, the foundation was built in the incorrect location. The resurvey also disclosed that the parking space for Unit D is slightly substandard in width, partially due to the survey error, and partially due to a light well which encroaches into Unit D's parking space from neighboring Unit E. A. The Foundation Encroachment The foundation minimally encroaches into the general common elements. The City Attorney's office has determined that Unit D's location outside its building envelope is "minor in nature and will not take any enforcement action against the Homeowner's Association." Memorandum from Amy Guthrie to Aspen Historic Preservation Commission regarding 934 East Cooper Avenue - variance requests dated April 26, 2000 (" Guthrie Memo"), page 1. Under Colorado's Common Interest Ownership Act , the encroachment by Unit D into the general common elements of the Homeowner's Association creates an easement. CRS Section 38-33.3- 214. Therefore, the foundation has an easement and may remain. To mitigate the situation, the Applicant has agreed that the first floor (starting from the existing foundation) will be built within the boundary line between residential Site D and the general common elements. A north elevation has been submitted to the City to show the design changes and facade treatment for the foundation. All other elevations will remain the same. B. The Parking Space Encroachment The owner of Unit E built a light well and railings that encroach four inches into the parking space for Unit D. Additionally, due the surveyor's error, the foundation for the residence on Unit D also encroaches two inches into the planned parking space. The space available for the width of Unit D's parking space is therefore eight (8) feet instead of the required eight and one half (8 34) feet, as required by the Aspen Municipal Code. The 18' length of the parking space is available and meets Code requirements. II. GROUNDS FOR A VARIANCE A variance should be granted to Applicants because Applicants meet all of the Section 26.314.040 Standards applicable to variances, as set forth below. A. In order to authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements of Title 26, the appropriate decision making body shall make a finding that the following three (3) circumstances exist: 1. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the Aspen Area Community Plan and this Title; Response: The grant of this minor dimensional variance is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the Aspen Area Community Plan ("AACP"). "The AACP supports the concept of creating high-density housing in town, which includes affordable units, as [the East Cooper Court Condominium] project does. " Guthrie Memo, supra, page 3. 2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure; and Response: The original plat for East Cooper Court Condominiums provided for a 8'6" parking space on the west side of Unit D. Due to the surveyor error in locating the foundation and Unit E's placement of a light well four inches into the parking space, both of which occurred subsequent to the plat approval, only eight feet are available for the parking space. There is no other possible location for an on-site parking space for Unit D. The Aspen Municipal Code requires parking spaces to be minimally 8'6" X 18'. A one half (34) foot variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parking space for Unit D. 3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district, and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty. In determining whether an applicant' s rights would be deprived, the board shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply: a. There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant; or b. Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by the Aspen Area Community Plan and the terms of this Title to other parcels, buildings, or structures, in the same zone district. Response: A parking space variance was recently requested by the owners of Unit C and was granted by the Historic Preservation Commission. The East Cooper Court Development was approved by the HPC in order to provide employee housing in a high density setting. It was understood in the approval process that any minor error would throw off the space requirements. Minor errors occurred, through no fault of the Applicants. Unit D's parking space variance is very similar to the variance requested by Unit C (although Unit C requested a 1% foot variance and Unit D only requests a 34 foot variance). As staff noted in the variance approval for Unit C: "The layout of the project was extremely tight. Even a slight error in the location of Unit C would impact the use of the designated parking space. ... The only alternative to granting the variance would be to require the applicant to move Unit C 1'6" to the west. Staff finds this to be unreasonable requirement." Guthrie Memo, page 4. No special privilege will be afforded Applicants by this minor dimensional variance, and the variance promotes other goals for high density housing which should offset the requirement of uniformity in parking space dimensions. B. In order to authorize a variance from the permitted uses of Title 26, the appropriate decision making body shall make a finding that all of the following circumstances exist: 1. Notice by mailing and posting of the proposed variance has been provided to surrounding property owners in accordance with Section 26.304.060(E). Response: Notice has been provided to surrounding property owners in accordance with section 26.304.060(E). The Affidavit of Posting will be provided at the public hearing. 2. A variance is the only reasonable method by which to afford the applicant relief and to deny a variance would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty. Response: A variance would be the least costly manner in which to resolve the minor parking space dimensional deficiency. The only other way to remedy the problem would require neighboring Unit E to remove its light well and additionally to require Unit D to demolish the foundation for Unit D and relocate it two inches to the east at excessive cost. 3. The temporary off-site storage or construction staging can be undertaken in such a manner so as to minimize disruption, if any, of normal neighborhood activities surrounding the subject parcel. Response: This portion is inapplicable. No further construction would be required for the parking space variance requested. 4. If ownership of the off-site parcel subject to the proposed variance is not vested in the applicant, then verified written authorization of the parcel' s owner must be provided. Response: Applicants represent all owners of Site D. 5. Adequate provision is made to restore the subject parcel to its original condition upon expiration of the variance, including the posting of such financial security as deemed appropriate and necessary by the appropriate decision making body to insure such restoration. Response: A permanent variance is requested. 3090\2HPCApp.2 0 May. 4Â· LUUU 12:46MNI AR"DMiMcn K nuu#kin #v 0 Robert Ind Darnell Langley 430 Eaot Main Stre.t Suite 205 A/pen, CO 01611 Ang'10 DIC're 420 :aot M.in Street Suite 206 Aipâ€¢n, CO 81611 Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office city Hall 130 South Galena, Third Floor Aspen, Colorado 81611 Rei Autherliation for *â€¢pr**â€¢ntation Ladies and Gentlemen: .. This letter will constitutd the authorization for B. Joseph Krabacher and Diana L. Godwin of Krabacher Law Offices, P.C., 201 North Mill, Suite 201, Aspen, Colorado, 81611, (970) 925-6300, to represent the owners of East Cooper Couu-t, Unit D. Angele PeCaro, Robert Langley and Darnell Langley with respect to the application for a parking space varlance to Eamt Cooper Court Subdiviâ€¢ion Unit P. Very Truly Yourl. u/9 0. \ ~64/ 0 . -9 . 6,7/0-'Ljf,tl/ Daled: pr '~ 0*< -240 Uk,1,1 47 *N,0,At,AK, Robert Eangle9 Dat/d; S~ 9-~(5(3 JUMJ#:11 Darne'll Lang J.ey Dated: 441%0 14 5 L Angel<~DeCaro â€¢gth"tiotioâ€žV.F. 3 0 THE CITY OF ASPEN Be*mIOnmt,STMENT BAA C APPLICATION PACKET DATE May 8 2000 CASE# Angelo Decaro APPLICANT Rnhert T.Angley; Darnell Langley PHONE 920-7827 MAILING ADDRESS 420 E. Main Street, Suite 206, Aspen, CO 81611 OWNER Angelo Decaro; Robert & Darnell Langley PHONE 920-7827 MAILING ADDRESS 420 E. Main Street, Suite 206, Aspen, CO 81611 LOCATION OF PROPERTY 934 E. Cooper Avenue, Uiinit D (Street, Block Number and Lot Number) WILL YOU BE REPRESENTED BY COUNCIL? Yes x No - Below, describe clearly the proposed variance, including all dimensions and justification for the variance (additional paper may be used if necessary). The building permit application and any other information you feel is pertinent should accompany this application, and will be made part of this case. See attached variance request. A j #\1 - Applicant's Signature />/tf f REASONS FOR DENIAL OF BUILDING PERMIT, BASED ON THE ASPEN CITY CODE, CHAPTER 26. AN OPINION CONCERNING THIS VARIANCE WILL BE PRESENTED TO THE BOARD BY THE ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF DATE PERMIT DENIED OFFICIAL DATE OF APPLICATION HEARING DATE 1 - Elit & 6 ll-' 0[3> . ... .. ;'4{ 'ARIK "./... Â· UhkA. ilk........ w.11Yi J Zrm/ 7 WIi r.,frtU $ ref-4 /3/ % '4 J .- 'i -2 - . PUÂ»44 10, 9,-: -jim 1 4: I Viyull} 1 1 'â‚¬4669 4, , NAA,((AR . 1 1 - , i .44 1. '.. / . 1 ~-'l ~,I i -Â· 2.Lk) ~Â·-Â« - *-Â¢ a 1 - -- . 4 Â·m: I.233 C . 1,/pl 11 .1 11 1 - - '41 c Â· ' r. C .Ap .9?1 J .../....... ......I-........ r f i ; i 11.0 3 /--1 '1 I '.-1 / C 1 1 ; i,1 4 , 41,1 :,1/1 9 . rut-; % - - Ii.. 1 f\ i /1.lilli, /1/ /1 t U &4-,-- , 1/0 1 n I 1 1/7 j i I. 1/ / 1 1), 4 11,1 1 : / i 1, 31?1 1 i 1 1 /4 ' 1 I 'll fi (* 11 1 ~ Il lh~~ 1 - r r I 'l ./.1 j 1 11 vi jÂ·/l;/1 4,/iÂ·hf / 1 '' 1 1,1/1,1 i 1 3,9 5 :1 li i''f 1 m--=--- 1//1 1# 1--flo. 1-4 LI -X, . - .4'W 346 . 2,/Illi#./....... ....0.rppl*ltb 3.6Â£/2...4 912 . A... . A .f r 4, "tÂ· . /~~~' f.~ . I .. . B --1 . - - r W. . . p. - . 1 4 18-~ jr IJF't ,, 2%%~:.; r., ./ ., A-' 3Â¥41.1 52' I.'-/2* 1 4.1,43 Â· j *AstÂ¥4#11*:Â¥3 -. - a. 1 .44#F l- . 11 4 24&269./.*,tr .r.- . , 7 .7 *.< 4 ly/-0142*i~4%41 . : 9,4- ..' .4,1 - . - 4 Â·. tr /.Â· 6 Ur i 11 jl i j 0 1/1Â«41 County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT---v"W } SS. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS State of Colorado } SECTION 26304.060(E) , being or representing an Applicant to the City ofAspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements pursuant to Section 26.304.060(E) of the Aspen Municipal Code in the following manner: 1. By mailing ofnotice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class postage prepaid U.S. Mp:, +- -11 '~rs ofproperty within three hundred (300) feet ofthe subject property, as indicated on i j. attache list, on the Fl~ay of /14;0 , 200,5 (which is /4 days prior tothepublic hearing date of /AY 20 4 ). 2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously from the /0Zmay d 14 7 , 2000, to the.70~ay of /t,147 , 2000. (Must be posted for at least 0 - - ten (10) full days before the hearing date). A photograph ofthe posted sign is attached hereto. 0 6-11Â» uâ‚¬*\*ne g ~ (Attach photograph here) Signed before me thisafily of 'f,44Â·/17Â· T:'s-: 2000.by = ....2- # / *U i r. i~ Â£ 1% 1 (State E-ycual , f WÂ«efl# / g i VUBLDif. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL' C 00..7:, , 4/,f#,flu#b. My Commission expires: 1/ 23/04 ~~1Â·'L--k 61~ 644. _ 0 Notaiy public ROBIN FERGUSON NOTARY M:DUC, STATE OF COLORADO ~ ~*MT"t"'c"*41#/cir/,wi Ki " 0,1 p4 .ibio , 91 6Y PUBLIC NOTICE vlllv RE: 609 WEST BLEEKER CONCEPTUAL HPC NOTICE IS IIEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, May 24,2000 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.02 before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission, City Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 ~ Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Small and Large Fries, LLC *luesting Conceptual HPC design approval for a new home. The property is located at 609 W. ~leeker St. and is legally described as Lot B, Small and Large Fries Subdivision, City and Townsi~e of Aspen .For further information, contact Amy Guthrie at the Aspen/Pitkin Community DeVelopment Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920- 5096. s/Suzannah Reid, Chair Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Published in the Aspen Tiines on May 6,2000 City of Aspen Account 0 0 1 - /0 .// .LIVIAN DORA'B TRUST HILLMAN TATNALL LEA FELD,ANKIE S 1 W BLEEK&R 05 W BLEEKER ST 1300 PACIFIC AVE STE 4100 1-â€¢06 81611 . ASPEN CO 81611 /[DALLAS TX 75201 ASLARKPARLEEN S~LLAND LARGEFRIES LLC FE;ff[IS ELIZABETH DAWSON 1265 MÂ»44;AUdgW Pt BOX 1515 .B~<1Â§544[g) CA 92662 ASPEN'Co 81611 ASPEN CO 81612 20+MigAIQM"-TRUST 50% BAILEY MIRANDA 1994 TRUST 50% LE)/IN WILLIAM A REV LIVING TRUST j JANUS,2~1â‚¬At ge'JANUS CAPITAL ,/fPENN Ptl STE 725 ajec6PAR /- /520 E COOPER NEW YORK NY 10119-0799 DWN CO 8161'1 ASPEN CO 81611 CROCKETT ANN R TRUSTEE OF THE ULJ.R LODGE INC C 0NALD BETTE S TRUST PRICE LIVING TRUST /(COLORADO CORPORATION ~EACKMER RD 2r6898 MORA DR / 520 W MAIN ST el.EWOOD CO 80110 LOS ALTOS HILLS CA 94024 ASPEN CO 81611 EN E!LEEN L & JACK D & ELOISE EN IN JO;NT TENANCY ~A~KIN CONSULTING LLC BERB,CLC 36 VINE ST tprk MAIN ST W MAINIST 'EN CO~81611 ASPEN CO 81611 -*SPEN CO 81611 V !2*A LINDA 50% INTEREST VERLE~B-MARGARET B & PHILIP K JR ,MALL TERESA 50% INTEREST 126RREY PINES LN 605 W MAIN ST NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660-5139 12 MF / Â¥ Wl W,VA ASPEN CO 81611 109&[N.ON 1EUST CQ*IA TRUSTEE HUNIiNGTON TRUST CO~.MASTEE 52 WEST MAIN LLC C/O N*77ONAL.QU-3.8*9-1< ATTN CE /'408 AABC #202 ' ASPEN CO 81611 WIGHTON - 155 E-PROAD ST 5TH FL~--4 UNftrt5%50H 43251 COEOMBUS OH 43251 HUNTINGTON TRUST CO N A TRUSTEE AOYAMA TEISem CIO NATIONAL CITY BANK ATTN CE APÂ¥,~AdKR}KO y~fGHTON 6J'051;iE 1234(!CK DR R94NCTIONMO 84605-r203 155 E BROAD ST 5TH FL SEATTLE WA 'Â§8105 COLUMBUS OH 43251 AOYAMA TETSUJI LLIVAN MIKE & LISA CUNNINGHAM INVESTMENT CO INC AOYNMA AKIKO *07 4476 2451 F 1/4 RD 6105 NE KESWICK DR EN CO 81612 ~TRAND JUNCTION CO 81505-1203 46EATTLE WA 98105-2049 0 ... :UIDENIER DAVID & ELIZABETH S OLSHAN BURTON D 1/2 OLSHAN KATHLEEN W 1 /2 09 SOUTHERN HILLS DR 5408 OL[*EEDS RD t 5408 OLD LEEDS RD S~ S ~ 50321 BIR~!NdHAI+AL 35210 BIRMINGHAM AL 35210 -Y OF ASPEN J 'MANCLARK DARLEEN OLSP{ANÂ·BURTOplt 1/2 ) S GALENA ST < 313 BAY FRONT 5408 OLD LESDS-R[1 PEN CO 81611 BALBOA ISLAND CA 92662 BIRMI~HAM AL 35210 YES MARY E LEBLANC SHERIE MATILDA OLEHAN BUR;FON D 1/2 1 E BLEEKER ST J /105 PTARMIGAN OLSHAN**fHLEEN W 1/2 'EN CO 81611 / BASALT CO 81621 5408 014*EEUS RD BIRMTRIGHAM AL 35210 WOOD HELENA \ACICH WILLIAM .ASPEN MTN RESCUE J WO AMBIANCE LTD BOX 1498 / 630 W MAIN ST L/f548 SLOCUM ST DEN CO 81612-1498 ASPEN CO 81611 DALLAS TX 75207-3615 LAP! JOHN TRUST ~ ~y,OSCARELLO ROBERT & ELIZABETH YOUNG DONALD L BOX 2941 515 E LAS OLAS #800 <617 W MAIN ST DEN CO 81612 FT LAUDERDALE FL 33301 ASPEN CO 81611 3~ELBL@11*AD E DUNSDON S MiCHAELE / BORKENHAGEN DAVID A BUDOLPH RICHARD E BrpdRON 617 W MAIN ST /PO BOX 3080 *EFREE AZ 85377 CAREFREE AZ 85377 ASPEN CO 81611-1619 ROM ROBERT & PHYLISS 1/2 INT /IGLEHART JIM Idt-Eli~RT JIM- TOM DOUGLAS 1/2 INT / 617 W MAIN ST 610 W 8*bl:AM ST W MAIN ST ASPEN CO'81611 ASPEN CO 81611 'EN CO 81611 ELLE ALICE 00/" ASPEN HISTORICAL SOCIETY 5LE!N DEBBIE ~00/A COLORADO CORPORATION BOX 2871 â€ž60 W BLEEKER ST 546 MCSKIMMING RD DEN CO 81612 ASPEN CO 81611 ASPEN CO 81611 END GEORGE ~4/ HENRY KRISTEN 51~ERSON LTD ,0,/SWEENEY C/O BOX 2238 ./125 W HALLAM ST 533 W HALL-AM DEN CO 81612 ASPEN CO 81611-1246 ASPEN CO 81611 NATIONWIDE THEATRES 32~VALTER F FAMILY T]JUST CIYÂ¥Â·OFAS#EN pbRPORATION 35 VALLEY VISTA â€ž,/ 139â‚¬-6*IDENA ST V A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION DINO CA 91436 ASPEN CO 81611 120 N ROBERTSON BLVD LOS ANGELES CA 90048 r-izimiv71 11 5-10Â» 1 Co dc), U.) ACTION: Significant Development (Conceptual) SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) Significant development in an "H," Historic Overlay District must meet allfour ofthe development review standards in order for HPC to grant approval: Standard 1: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site coverage by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units pursuant to Section 26.40.090(B)(2). Standard 2: the proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Standard 3: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Standard 4: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning Directorc)*D FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 609 W. Bleeker Street- Conceptual Development, Residential Design Standards, PUBLIC HEARING DATE: May 24,2000 SUMMARY: The applicant requests HPC approval to construct a new house on a parcel created through a historic landmark lot split. The adjacent historic structure, 121 N. Fifth Street, is currently under construction. APPLICANT: Small and Large Fries LLC, represented by Mary Holley. LOCATION: Lot B, Small and Large Fries Subdivision, Block 24, City and Townsite of Aspen. 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 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, 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/*2), for detached accessory dwelling units. 1 -Fruiloit A 0 Response: There are currently no structures on the subject property, but a large tree towards the back of the lot covers almost half of the area with its canopy. The applicants have worked with the Parks Department to design a detached Accessory Dwelling Unit that will sit partly within the tree canopy. The ADU will be built on columns so that there is limited excavation to impact the tree. The position of the tree requires that the house itself be pushed as far forward on the site as possible, and restricts the building to a relatively small footprint. This results in the new house being slightly (about 3 feet) forward of the historic house and makes it impossible to push some of the mass of the building towards the alley. Because of these circumstances, staff finds that having a two story element next to the historic house is acceptable, whereas that might not be the case if the subject property did not have the constraints created by the tree. The front of the new house has been designed to have a strong relationship in terms of proportions with the old, mitigating the impacts of its height. A model showing the old and new houses is expected to be presented at the HPC meeting. The new house is fairly simple and traditional in character on the street fa~ade and uses more modern forms and more glazing towards the back. It is 2,336 square feet, which is very similar in size to the remodeled historic building. 0 The ADU will make an outstanding contribution to the alleyscape, and will relate strongly to several other historic outbuildings in the immediate vicinity. There are a few elements of the new home which require variances from the "Residential Design Standards," discussed below. b. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: There are several historic properties in the area and the HPC supported the concept of a lot split on this site as the best preservation method for the original house and for the neighborhood. The new house is very similar in size to surrounding historic structures and will contribute to the block. 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 historic significance of any adjacent parcels. d. The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from 0 the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. 2 Response: The new house touches on the basic design characteristics of the old building and attempts to balance the desire to establish a relationship in the detailing of the two buildings with the policy that old and new construction are to be distinguishable from each other. Staff finds that the result is successful. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS All residential development in the City of Aspen requiring a building permit from the City of Aspen, except for residential development within the R-15B zone district, shall comply with the residential design standards as specified in the Administrative Checklist unless otherwise granted a variance by the Design Review Appeal Board as established in Chapter 26.222 or unless granted a variance through some other required review process by the Historic Preservation Commission, the Board of Adjustment or the Planning and Zoning Commission. An exception to the design standard may be granted by HPC if the project as proposed is found to meet one of the following criteria: a) yields greater compliance with the goals ofthe Aspen Area Community Plan: b) more effectively addresses the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; 4 be clearly necessary for reason offairness related to unusual site specific constraints. BUILDING ELEMENTS. The intent of the following building elements stan- dards is to ensure that each residential building has street-facing architectural details and elements which provide human scale to the facade, enhance the walking experience, and reinforce local building traditions. 1. Street oriented entrance and principal window. All single-family homes, town, houses, and duplexes shall have a street-oriented entrance and a street facing principal window. In the case of townhouses and accessory units facing courtyards or gardens, entries and principal windows should face those features. On comer lots, entries and principal win- - !!lI!tll dows should face whichever street has a ''ii;lil greater block length. Multiple unit residen- ijiliill tial buildings shall have at least one street- 'li l i l iii oriented entrance for every four (4) units, C7er Lot ~ 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 and front units must have a street-facing - f!liii!!i principal window. This standard shall be iliiilli satisfied if all of the following conditions are met: >F - Block Length ,1' 3 a. The entry door shall face the street and be no more than ten feet (10'0") back from the frontmost wall of the building. Entry doors shall not be taller than eight feet. b. A covered entry . :5+5 12% 6111Â» / porch of fifty (50) or more square feet, with a minimum depth of six feet (6'), shall be part of the front facade. Entry porches and canopies shall not be more than one story in height. Response: The entry door to the house is perpendicular to the street because of the interior staircase configuration. Staff recommends that the architect explore options for placing the entry on the front fa~ade, which is an important characteristic of the adjacent historic house. In regard to the front porch, it is approximately 35 square feet. It could be enlarged slightly if the HPC felt that that would be required to meet the intention of the design standard. Staff finds that the front porch is acceptable as designed. It may be more appropriate in this case for it to be slightly smaller since the historic house has no porch at all. 2. Inflection. The following standard must be met for parcels which are 6,000 square feet or over: a. If a one (1) story building exists directly adja- cent to the subject site, then /18~ the new construction must imeR Mi step down to one story in 00 height along their common 1 9 lon Â£===1 E n C 000 1 1 -101 1 lot line. If there are one story buildings on both sides of the subject site, the appli- cant may choose the side towards which to inflect. IL.. Then. -lk K mA# C a 125 012' ~1-92Â« A one story building shall be defined as follows: A one story building shall mean a structure, or portion of a structure, where there is only one floor of fully usable living space, at least 12 feet wide across the street frontage. This standard shall be met by pro- viding a one story element which is also at least twelve (12) feet wide across the street frontage and one story tall as far back along the common lot line as the adjacent build- ing is one story. Response: The design does not step down in height along the one story portion of the old house. As discussed above, this is due to the limitations on the building site because of the large tree. Staff finds the relationship between the front gable on the new house and the old house to be successful, and sees no benefit in flipping the plan or a similar action to meet the standard. 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 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 as follows: 1. The conceptual development review standards have been met. 2. The architect should explore options for placing the front door parallel to the street as the "Residential Design Standards" require. 3. HPC should waive the "Residential Design Standards" in regard to the size of the front porch and inflection. 4. 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. Exhibits: Resolution No. , Series of 2000 A. Staffmemo May 24,2000. B. Application. 5 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT AND VARIANCES FROM THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS FOR 609 W. BLEEKER STREET, LOT B, SMALL AND LARGE FRIES SUBDIVISION, BLOCK 24, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. -, SERIES OF 2000 WHEREAS, the applicant, Small and Large Fries LLC, represented by Mary Holley, has requested conceptual design approval and variances from the "Residential Design Standards" for the property at 609 W. Bleeker Street, Lot B, Small and Large Fries Subdivision, Block 24, City and Townsite of Aspen. The project involves building a new house on a property created by a historic landmark lot split; and WHEREAS, all development in an "H," Historic Overlay District or development involving a historic landmark must meet all four Development Review Standards of Section 26.415.010.C.5 of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval, namely: 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site coverage by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units pursuant to Section 26.40.090(B)(2). 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof; and 0 WHEREAS, All residential development in the City of Aspen requiring a building permit from the City of Aspen, except for residential development within the R-15B zone district, shall comply with the residential design standards, Section 26.410 of the Aspen Land Use Code. An exception to the design standards may be granted by HPC if the project as proposed is found to meet one of the following criteria: a) yields greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan: b) more effectively addresses the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; 4 be clearly necessary for reason offairness related to unusual site specific constraints; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated May 24,2000, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found favorably for the application, and recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on May 24, 2000, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application to meet the standards, and approved the application with conditions by a vote of _ to _. 0 THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the review standards are met and HPC recommends conceptual design approval and variances from the "Residential Design Standards" for 609 W. Bleeker Street, Lot B, Small and Large Fries Subdivision, Block 24, City and Townsite of Aspen, as presented at the May 24,2000 meeting, as follows: 1. The conceptual development review standards have been met. 2. The architect should explore options for placing the front door parallel to the street as the "Residential Design Standards" require. 3. HPC should waive the "Residential Design Standards" in regard to the size of the front porch and inflection. 4. 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. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 24th day of May, 2000. Approved as to Form: 0 David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney Approved as to Content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Suzannah Reid, Chair ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk A/64* Marg A. Agian Architects, r.c. MEMORANDUM To: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer From: Mary Holley CC: Ernie Fyrwald Date: April 27,2000 Re: 609 West Bleeker; Small and Large Fries Lot B Development We are requesting conceptual review of a Main Residence and an Accessory Dwelling Unit to be located at 609 West Bleeker. The lot where the development is to be located was created as part of a Historic Lot Split and there are no structures on the lot, historic or otherwise. An A.D.U. is required to be built on this lot as part of the approvals for the Lot Split, and we have decided to provide a detached unit and deed restrict it to mandatory occupancy. In order to accomplish this, we have requested and been granted a 4'-0" rear yard and 4'-0" west side yard setback variance from the Board of Adjustment The design of the AD.U. is meant to recall images of detached carriage houses. I have chosen a gable form that runs parallel to the alley with simple materials similar to those used nearby. The curved roof on the western side of the building helps to bring the height of the structure down near the neighbor's yard, preserving the sun angle into their flower garden. The curve also helps to distinguish the building from more historic carriage houses. Because of its proximity to the alley and the west property line, the A.D.U. is restricted by the Uniform Building Code from having openings on either wall. These walls are also required to be of noncombustible material, which is why I have chosen rolled asphalt and corrugated metal siding. The Main House is intended to present a traditional street faca(le while departing from the traditional on the southern part of the lot The low roof of the building on the eastern lot has presented an opportunity for both views and light from the second level. Therefore, the house is set up with the Living Room on the second level with a deck directly adjacent to it From the street, the house will have Victorian proportions and shapes, but with more modern materials. Further from the street, the house has more contemporary forms. The concept is to allow it to take advantage of the views with a dramatic curved glass wall without disrespecting the context of the neighborhood. 50 Kiver Oaks Lane dasalt, Colorado 8 1 62.1 rhone: (970) 917-8589 rax:(970) 917-8589 Il-mail: aardvark@sopris.net I Web fage: http//mt.sopris.net/aardvaric GiALL,t E ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1. Project name '*VÂ« 4 wret FING# lOT ID PEVEWFFIENT 2. Project location Gel WÂ· Fll,EElâ‚¬6 Pâ€¢f,FEM, CO Â· (indicate street address, lot and block number or metes and bounds description) 3. Present zoning F *D 4. Lot size 11400. *pÂ· 5. Applicanfs name, address and phone number â€¢4**64 641815 ffÂ·164 1/.1/.6/. (<FRM Pirwpom) 14.00 MTH. View PF.Â· M,PEN, Â£Â£7. ble: 1 14.9 Â·*pz.1- 6. Representative's name, address, and phone number M|Pet rp we~ 40 Flvell dp,Me Â£14. 8,9'{urt zo. Â®iwzi 147'*lerÂ» 7. Type of application (check all that apply): Conditional Use Conceptual SPA K Conceptual HPC Special Review Final SPA Final HPC 8040 Greenline Conceptual PUD Minor HPC Stream Margin Final PUD Relocation HPC Subdivision TexUMap Amend. Historic Landmark GMQS allotment GMQS exemption Demo/Partial Demo View P[ane Condominiumization Design Review Lot SpliVLot Line Appeal Committee Adjustment 8. Description of existing uses (number and type of existing structures, approximate sq. ft., number of bedrooms, any previous approvals granted to the property) 4 FT 12456+ AND 4 FT WEAT '11061APO VPf IP<N Ce foF. AN K.9 K. No 84Â¢*18 e erpvlcru FebÂ· 9. Description of development application.EF#-156(r 19,; M,414 1*'1*406146& P44P PerNAtte AÂ· D. 1/1 ' 10. Have you completed and attached the following? X Attachment 1 - Land use application form K Attachment 2- Dimensional requirements form X Response to Attachment 3 X Response to Attachment 4 11111111 ATTACHMENT 2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Applicant: 'Â»,54 9%25 101459 1,4,Â·6Â· Address: 90 N. #664*8 Zone district: It.'. Lot size: 140 Existing FAR: Allowable FAR: %*41 4, Proposed FAR: 2*07, *P Existing net leasable (commercial): Proposed net leasable (commercial): Existing % of site coverage: O Proposed % of site coverage: 1197Â· Existing % of open space: \007' Proposed % of open space: Existing maximum height: Principal bldg: - Accesorv bldg: - Proposed max. height: Principal bldg: 00:0* Accessory bldg: 14'-0" Proposed % of demolition: 0 Existing number of bedrooms: 0 Proposed number of bedrooms: + Existing on-site parking spaces: 0 On-site parking spaces required: 9 Setbacks MAN 11044G ' 12_: MAN 1 /'*14 Existing: Minimum required: Proposed: , 1, lipt Front: _,_,__ Front: 10:011 NÂ·AÂ· Front 10'-O i.lf Rear: Rear. 104.67. It 011 Reac ),1-0,1 Combined Combined Combined Front/rear: Front/rear:'W'20 H.K. Front/rear: m. 0 , I Side: Side: e'-el' WÂ®/T: 19 Side: 0'-d' we,r i -0 Side: Side: 690 ~: 44 Side: 0'-04 EP'ft *OU Combined Combined Combined Sides: Sides: 101014 Sides: le LO, Existing nonconformities or encroachments: 80,0 Variations requested: 14#146 (HPC has the ability to vary the following requirements: setbacks, distance between buildings, FAR bonus of up to 500 sq.11, site coverage variance up to 5%, height variations under the cottage infill program, parking waivers for residential uses in the R-6, R-15, RMF, CC, and O zone districts) %* . 1 .......m -t 18 ~ :qi,-iri,ilâ€ž,i-9 1-1 :â€ž -Â·'- - Â© 1999 US WEST Â© 1999 U S WEST . 1 ,,Ast,ef } St rei)-t kit,-05 f - 1 U + -Park .W U el>. o , 1 6> \ .1\ . 4% - 20 1444\ j 4, 4/6 4 - -1 1796, '\ r i----- 1 1.4.,4Â· C ~44 4,%,~ rl> * p ~Sks Rd 1 ' f# f ''' Â«4494/449*4, ~~4%1----- -Â»4=294.644-0-P- 0 3- 7 >444 - / -sÂ» N ------7 4-L.*,4$~:~4 -/I-*d i Â£ . 0.\ 2. 4.. B. I e 2% Rd 1 A ~/ 0/ , .-. 469. 3..eâ‚¬'44.: 1 ,Sno*unrly Ct -*- 1. 4 6/3 or.:2% \ 0 C .44 =AÂ«0... C \56 /, 4 T*-*A<%.& saw 0 1 1(2 0 - ~Hun~/G~ ' 4 To Airport. Basalt 4.-041 t'~ Aspen j ~ 00 93"i '\ 1 Institute - - Hunt Truse- . 18 \4 1- 2.l '/ / '4 , 1\ 19 'r ;3 D); 06 , 0 : C-1 1, 5\40 % \ C JN Music -9 / : Neo 1 Tent \ /<50'Yood Duck Ln '~31 82 Gl/(egie SA HÂ·.,\1Â·.im ' a j 7 04 S L i ~0 -I ,c2, . 1-Â·\Ce . 97> f // . / ....1.-- i -/- Golf Course 'Â¥\ 4:Â©. 33Â·b , 1 ; ts -1 14\ 1 ...1 -Vine st 0 fir 1~ Lttly t, 0--~-'~91*82-, 74 , 4, vine St ~\ 2 'ck oi# 1 ja - . %:-e. . f & f 0 -3/ # 1744 .7 3% f I. 2*=(i r \ \ 2-54#<44 m Hillam St i 9 >SO' . ~ Maroon Creek Rd 1 High , Alain ~ 5-4 \ Fra>,cisu: - .- 2.94 ..,04<0 1%-4 ...3. dy / 62 ':21421 ,â‚¬ 2 ~ Pincia:. 44&*i 4&# < 64 %*outK-Av. i.4-Â¥2 1 8/e -' ' . -- f#tÂ·.':4 ici ~iI ~# sas-_ :t-z 1 ; ~--21Â¢*d"g.~~ ~ -Ir#efrre..u Â·#-30uaw~g i ~ School 0 9 20' - - 4 Â®4 Â·8,6;st V L__, . i ,Â·9*4% - 7 : <Ii> 2 f k â€¢ /Â® \a ze f -2.-es\.1 4.- \f . 74 ~4161 /0 / S g /e le i ..4 / L.~* 6,----fla*#71-4-91-,44$62--'. e ./ 4% -I - - 40 4 s, , ~ 1-,09Â·st .. + 4 ~ t~ ~HosÂ£1% 11.3, f ''.g-- 6 '*-'.â€¢P 10 --40~Ze~St , Mid/a,; 1 8 1 -2 0.- . 11 . 4 '1 =.---41*Â»4*t??2027â€ž4.fl~ 9 3h Â·?Â¢:92 ~ To Maroon Lake prirr~rostfE~c~ck.* - icr ~4:el w. m,eÂ¤ -fÂ·~lf,--~.~ 1*--- -~~~ -# y~-~f'Ft.if tz~fii~13Â·-~i~~ tentL. Mascc , 4 V 0- 1 /'29 <Ii> pÂ°*f<%*jt_ .1,13*63~Eff < 41' . St e t. c V b :t eÂ»,4,6; J) i Aspen West Summit'St % T V 81 3 0 Er u t.%2 94211. 1/,bet Waters )6:ps pt , '4 :3 9.66 5 499/06*'sri 11 60 94 , 474, G 'Cb,74 Ute Pl '44 0 Cryktai La. . . D To Ashcroft J a __n__ 41 A A A ~iopyright Â©1999 US WEST , Map Copyright Â© 1999 U S WEST r ~14Â· .. F~~_L-- 1 2 \ \-14.----r-, i r-- -- 1-1 -- --- --12- -- P.- -1 >t--1 1, 1 --1-& 1 --4----r-F~-~r-~ -Ill i $ tat- 1,1,â‚¬7 \ :- 1 ~U-- p ffuÂ« / kki . :--. -Ati V / 1=c=A /r=~--i //Al E-0=ELJ~F.â€¢'*r < -22-- 4=-Tu I k-26,12 a=4==CE}tgaUWJUr + e Â«9172Yfl I I 14 491**hhh' il Id W r-EN Â· ~Â·0"~ 11 il 11.11 111111 111111 1111111 li li il 111111 1~ 1111 Il l 1 1 lili 111111111|11 lilli Mil Il lili y' lili 111 lilli lili IN ~ ANAM 2,4076*,drft'&&0 - 1~ Suff AMV ~-44_-r-1 0 11111'Illl!~Illl Ill~ Illl,IlllI~IlllInlllIIHIII 16- ---- li ilill! lill]1 1, 1,1]jujj ]13, 8 :jj. u,Jui JinÂ» im 1 >7>- 3/ u-_ 1111111."1111111111,111 1111164"11111111'111Ill,11111Illill I i 11!!illliB H. lilliÂ·illillillill Jill11Â®11"1111'Â· 1| - - . 41 11 1 11011 IliI 1111 11 It 11 1 Il 11111 I - lilli lilli 11 11 11 111111 11. lili lili 11.!11; ~11111\111111 11 11 111] 11 ./ IN / 40\ /4, ls/3 [ -1 < A 1 1 | ~~61_| 1 11 1 \ *'.11.4 \ \ , 9 4 42' / 1 - 1 &18 - N \ v < Im rÂ»fi / Z / 6 933 1 01 444 / > 92 7 U 9 T- -3 -1-- 2 //fi~ - 1- 41-*t /t 1 - /// NORTH FIFTH STREET O 0 0 0 0 -_- O 1 \ 1 r--1 f 416= 1 u,r- C, â€ž JU41?644]4 1*1*IM'" a IJ'h I - 1 42 . 11 - 0 - . 48 1 2 SMALL AND LAReE FRIES > 5 r 3 3 --L-----1 -' - 13 -U - 4 w LOT B DEVELOPMENT I @bi 7 - 6(Pcl hIEST BLEEKER 3 00 E- P ASPEN, SOLORADO 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 :13HHS REST BLEEKER STREET NÂ¥3=1 d003 ISSUE: 1NBW6O13Ama 9 101 Galh61 250Â¥1 1 11*ING UE#AY *Â¥ Ale]N 0 Ar /FÂ·. I f'# PS,~62 ' ib $7 2 7 U 0 0 Mary A. Avjian Architects, P.C. 50 River Oaks Lane Basalt, Co. 81621 (9708927-7656 ISSUE: 0 0 -1 ~COONCEPTUAL- 5-24-00 ENTRY PORCH . U 7-1 BEDROOM 2 - | MEDIA 1..-UPIGE) 1 - ...lip - 1 rr===' 1 -111 - Ull - Â·- BAR ENT'RÂ¥ HALL LINEN ~ 1 T ~0 ---[9 / ~ 7:==,1 8 / 'Uni~ ~.~2~| - LAUNDRÂ¥ - CE -LINE oFF - 61LM-- -1 Tcj 14-1 E -0- r.move MECHANICAL Z /k__ STAIR LId LU HUD ROOM BATH 2 - | - - - -11 1 LINEN ~ _ 1 <1 1 2412 I M L_12<I * 1/441 -1- 0- 1 /\ IR [-2- Pue.Arlâ„¢ 0 UF C / L..0.6. ... A -10< O MASTER BATH Ill / i (0~ 'Ill BEDROOM 3 r-. 323 3/1 0 \-2=*' 1 = 4 111 1 11 12 J r 26 ABOVE 1 \ - -ii '4 8 eA 68 -cp IF F,1.9/ c:I BEDROOM 4 4 1-K 6 MASTER BEDROOM j - 1 -21 CE BATH 3 1 | Â©LosET r / 3 0 3 6 0 --9- 0) 1 4 i L 4/3 - 1 -4 0 0 PROJECT: SMALL 4 LAReE FRIES LOT 5 DEVELOPMENT pÂ¥*S-A:2.1 DESCRIFBON ~8~ LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN ~~\ MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN SHEET: MAINLOMER PLANS SCALet 1/4 â€¢ 1'-0- 0 0 ~~,~ SCALE: 1/4"=1'-oâ€¢ < A2.1 j SCALE, 1/4"=11-0 112.1 0 93 Ih=1 Elâ‚¬NVE 0 A 2,Â·'11 -11. 91 .iLIJ 4 1,1 K , â€¢- 1 1 1-1 - - 0 0 Mary A. Avjian Architects, P.C. GLASS BAÂ¥ AINDOR Basalt, Co. 81621 4 - -* A,Â© 50 River Oaks Lane (970*927Â·7656 -3 1 1 1 0 0 Li-41-21--fi_--_----- ----- -------- 1 ~ HPO CONCEFAIAL 5-24-00 F R ISSUE: ' ROOF BELOM KITCHEN ~ 1- 112=31 L-UTL pr__unc-----uÂ«-u- no 01 - \ J 00 1 Oo 61\4 --_ --- 7- 1 IT 11 1 \-- - - - ----- 1 1\\\ OPEN To - -][-T-F~TAL-._-2--3-3-~- - ~ BELOA \ - n--11 '11111\432---2-2-2- MNING ROOM 111111 Ill - -3.-------- 1 lilli ~l' 111111 1022-2-2-2-2. IL~- 6 - 1 0 -- - 1 \ 3 - 11111'\\ - - - - 1 1 T l.211 - SREEN HOUSE I -2- =L - --- -10 - -1 - - - 1 09 PUMSYNAITER - 10 1 0 --Â· J[_1 - 1 L- - 1 | LIVING ROOM 1 {3 9- -r-O - i 1 1 4 E 9 1 / 1 1 d int[} 8- I il I 1 1 | NEST DECK â‚¬ E- K 6 / 1 1 26 ne % 1 C b SOUTH PECK .- WALL BELOYN ~ _L=_4112 ~~~-9 1 -4 ~_j 1 I ---__Â«44 1 L-- lili/ 1 10 0 0 PROJECT: SMALL 4 LAReE FRIES LOT B DEVELOPMENT *.2.1 DESCRIPTION: UPPER/ROOF PLANS SC~LE, 1/4 â€¢ 1'-0 0 0 SHEET: /2% Roof PLAN (AJ UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 1/- <Al.2~ SCALE. 1/4Â·'=1'-0Â·Â· ~~,0/ SCALE: 1/4Â·â€¢I'-0' 119 9 0 0 631&=1 39>v-1 - LNE''Al=101 3>13339 0 0 k ill.,/-4 4 p---3 0 0 Mary A. Avjian 1 \ Architects, P.C. 50 River Oaks Lane Basatt, Co. 81621 ~ ~ - METAL ROOFING (970)927-7656 ISSUE: HF'CD CONCEPTUAL 5-24-00 CENTER OF ARE -----7 3 ' 1 1 1 - ASPHALT ! SHINSLES 3 1 ~i~ ~<~-91<Â¥L.kSHÂ·r 1 I 13- L----1---------3 - 0â€ž*480 Mer/4. 1 1 Z f.-Flf N - Mew. IVer | ~8~ ADU ROOF PLAN 61 Â£ A2.3 j SCALE, 1/4Â·=1'-0Â· D- 0- A--2--, 1 1 -1 -_3 1 -Cl= - 4// 0 ; 1 Z 111 11 UL + el -4- 1 NECH./STORM 40 -1 - r Hq pit 933) \42 -1 --1 /2\ P.PV - HOMTH Â® Pâ€¢04- Pâ€¢leer IDATI, <E E- 1 06 41% a -de ~ CLOSET (7NHI 41Â©ruent -11 \ faor\He . Ul r 11 14 11 - Foop + pir#'---77Â»-5 - .., 1 r- 4 ' ;- I STUDIO . ~ ~ 9 -77 7~37 . 63; FIALL Meve,KeD,ABTFU--5- 3~ > ITI 11 Eli'- 1 0 0 elpIN' _~ ~~~ ~ ~~ PROJECT: ~-Lilli ' = SMALLS LARGE FRIES 7.-1 ~ -- _ 3 1 LOT B DEVELOPMENT "41 M 111 11 F -3-4 - DESCRIPTION: 44 1 3 l_ IÂ«-~ LI I' 4 ~ L ADU PLANSBLEVATION5 i- ; SKÂ¥.16HT ABOVE 00' .... Ir.. 0 SHEET: v ~ ADU FLOOR PLAN Â£ A2.3 3 SCALEÂ· 1/4.=1'-0. 1/ 1 Â© P.pv- eam, 0 0 =IOON Gal/KarIO 933 Ihd 3>13319 193M 05*310-100 '143=16* -0 0 *<*iN.~84 ----in r 7 -- --1-- - - 1 -r- D . 1 -- -----aff/NtÂ·WUâ€¢%6 p.,INÂ»4 -----=~: ]~-1 1- +L ; Â£*R,u- F--.'. Â·'. ' _ '1 _.-~ ~~ 0 0 -- 1; .~ 0-1 Li Mary A. Avjian ~ji, - -< Â»'f Â¥A\re.A Architects, P.C. 1 C vern,Â»l, Nag, 41 plrl* --= Basalt, Co. 81621 -)/~05' 0.044 50 River Oaks Lane ~ 11 L 1 -- Â«tu-- *,4910'174,â€ž01 4Â»le 1 ---- '4'*le# 1,1546 (970)-927-7656 i _ |;14,1 +40 t?FLI; > ISSUE: 1- OIl 0 0 1 - --- - - - MeÂ»10- Ma,FIN.--....~ lilli -411 4~l ' i A 64 . lai 1 1/Pref- 6 Â¥t.7.*Â· 006(Ar-Â»U 67-14-00 11 Af- 1 11*1-0 1 ' 1 2 -r,. fu'r III*'Â·d i 1 1 ,1 - MM 1 1 1 1 -- 1-1 2,MelÂ»u FeHOE, 1--1 - ... - I--2-- _ . jAEEL lt.=I-L- -------. - r---46 1 57 r----9 -- r--1-nu=-11.-11__-_-21 -i , - r!8 +44 4 - - A . 4~-44 Â»4~ 6 L I -, - -- -- t 7-â€¢Â· fer T toi'*" ~-- \~1 1.42. Myr Ti,91'4 -t: 17-Im 1-; w .. 4 6Â·Â·Â· < ' T:i. a;,10. TIOI'-0 Ji Â» 4.15" 1 (01 d g H- ~ ==7 -]2 L_-1 12 Z 1 L W 1 +00â€¢Ne'- 4 WHeS eb 10'-O. T.cort. 14-Â£ I /Â·-h *PVT-M 80/4,N 0 8 - ~5*la U D- 00 1 dER 016:op 0"1 44 -1 >Mt 1-- Â«41 "~An LL-110 0< efeot,Â·.0 keup ' 3 Re'14. 1 1 -~9- Cid 9 +2Â¥F E- O -Mvi-Â»& MFir+, -- - /Z f-I 111611 f 79-,m... 743=~ -1 in E R 1- --efâ€¢el:We Nu, ---~ Me'-tai,te, <f E- < C 4 t *Ar w},41Â»w - , r J 1 ---1------ a - - -----TZJ"SK'\ florÂ· 0, 1â‚¬Z,C) *C,Ne -.-t-09+ 71 -7-_ 1 1 03 & -7-37 - A k/---1 -Aw â‚¬M[Helle, --VatÂ»U Htup 91.N# ~ -IZ-2 7~ 1 G) _la < *=4 M- -. 2--- .N . i iN 1 ,Â· .1 .t- . < - verzle.4.H.2 a PI He , .~ ' 1- *( L U 1 0 - U - k , p' L *-,--44- â€žr--T: 470Â·M-fÂ¢'12'-0~' i |' TÂ·â€¢Â· PW 7 !1011-0' --------- cpeep,11 ve PROJECT: %1 Woop 11911- 0 m ' 1-.41 -4=l. aeÂ» V*42/)-**1*-ir CalÂ·UMIN SMALL 2 LARGE FRIES LOT B DEVELOPMENT 1 -1-1 ---- OofrefaÂ· M.-41 N~ 1 --/2 -/-- -- 414.lit_+- 7 .... //.- /1 AN i \ 7 d 1 1~ J 911 A ~ , DESCRIPTION: To.Fur: 9 12,~'.e' 1 ' h ~T .. 3 T.~, frf: 1 101.-91 1- .- 1 - -Ch. .1 r 2.Ulf 1 -- EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 4 0 0 SHEET: 113.1 . 0\ INEAiT WrION O 00,41+ 81.e*â€¢<rION UfF L,004eb '* Al" 06 0 0 To. 24*Â· 7 16-2 T 0- 50+0. 7 91-/ MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Planning and Zoning Commission Historic Preservation Commission Commercial Core and Lodging Commission FROM: Chris Bendon, Long-Range Planner ~~ AKAA uvwv i RE: Long-Range Planning Update - Information Item Civic Center Master Plan Infill Development & TDR Program DATE: May 18,2000 SUMMARY: The Community Development Department has recently undertaken two Long-Range projects: The Civic Center Master Plan and the Infill Development/TDR Program. These two projects are described below and in the attachments. Staff's proposed process for these two projects involve the use of "Advisory Groups" that would have representation from various interests. This is a process modeled on the DEPP project process. In this manner, a representative can bring forth the specific concerns oftheir particular interest and report back to their larger constituency. In the example of Boards, a member can refer significant issues back to their larger group and bring back recommendations that have been considered by the entire Board. This will help the overall process as these Boards will review the plans prior to adoption. The purpose ofthis memorandum is to solicit volunteers from these Boards who are able to participate on an Advisory Group. Staff believes the following projects need the respective representation: City Historic Planning and Commercial Core Council Preservation Zoning and Lodging Project: Commission Commission Commission Civic Center 1 1 1 1 Infill/TDR 1 1-2 1-2 1-2 These numbers represent the areas of expertise for each Board and the expected interest in each particular project. The representatives do not need to be the same for each project. In fact, spreading the responsibility may be more appropriate. Staff is concerned with consistency in a Board's representation and less with the number of members designated from any given Board. 1 Process: The Process for both ofthese projects includes an Advisory Group that will represent a broad spectrum of interests and at least one member from citizen Boards who have specific interest or approval authority. The intent of having representation from citizen Boards is to balance the projects and to also allow those members to inform the entire Board as to the progress of each project. In addition, if a Board member siting on the advisory panel realizes an issue needs to be discussed by their larger Board, they can take the issue back for a *check-in" or request staff to make a presentation to that Board. Near the end of the planning process, a review ofthe projects by each full Board will be conducted and each Board will be asked to indicate their support. By involving at least one Board member in the process, the approval process should be much simpler. Schedule: Each ofthe Advisory Groups will meet twice per month for approximately 2 hours. These meetings are expected to be during lunch (12-2 p.m.). Civic Center Master Plan Advisory Group. Meeting #1 June 8th 12:00 to 1:30 City Council Chambers Meeting #2 June 29th 12:00 to 2:00 City Council Chambers Infill Housing and TDR Program Meeting #1 June 22~d 12:00 to 2:00 City Council Chambers Meeting #2 July 13th 12:00 to 2:00 City Council Chambers Civic Center Master Plan: The Civic Center Master Plan idea originated from several sources; the priinary being an immediate need for a technical solution to improper drainage of the Library Plaza into the infrastructure of the Parking Garage. This issue represents a large operational cost to the City. Another main focus of this plan will be to coordinate planned facility upgrades of the City and County in an efficient and informed manner. Opportunities for additional affordable housing will also be a large focus of this effort. The master plan will address funding, programming, and location issues of the Youth Center, the Fire House, ACRA offices, the SCI area on Rio Grande, possibilities for affordable housing, public restrooms, a final decision on the Trolley, and opportunities to enliven the Library Plaza. A comprehensive planning document that will determine the use and design of Civic Center spaces and allow for redevelopment of this area isto be accomplished within a larger vision of the area's future. This plan will also include an illustration of the plan indicating the future uses of spaces, buildings, and design concepts for individual projects. This plan will permit projects that conform to the master plan to proceed with little additional review required. 2 Infill development and TDR Program: 0 This project will respond to several references in the recently adopted AACP to the advantages of increased (affordable) residential density within the Townsite, especially within, or near, the Commercial Core. As part of this incentive program, additional commercial uses may be considered as well as reduced requirements for replacement of existing commercial square footage. This project will also contemplate the ability of TDR receivership to further goals of the AACP. The result ofthis project will be an adopted program and amendments to the dimensional requirements of the higher intensity zone districts in order to accommodate additional development, amendments to the GMQS policies regarding downtown ddvelopment, incentives for extinguishing TDR's, and reduced regulatory barriers for infill development, possibly a "by-right" program. Questions & Comments Upon request, staff is available to present more information on these projects to Boards. If you are interested in serving on either committee, please let your staff contact know during your Board meeting or contact Julie Ann Woods at 920.5100, juliew@ci.aspen.co.us. 0 0 3 1 -AN#.",4-t=i+4Â«: ..w/-11.Â·11Â·~' 1 ..._ A i : =4=43% 4 1 ; 06 W i . - ! e A 1 : laxie,ril.49 41'r"1 0,14 7 9 4. E 1 1- TEMA 114 34 1:tv....':- . . -ary, v Â·T f l . 11 4- et :4: - SAE 4 -7 - I + 4/ Aft Mr 67- @U"it:,. 0 -,Â·Â«b Â·3 .da= * 4 A 9/ 1. 1 ~ -3=rE:De#1 -a--: 1 0,0@79â€¢Itn -v- C,t A -,= :, 1,=-_ ,: --X:r., _- - a-- -.:Â·-Â·-, 1 S:* '- . 12 6 * . 1 4 e (-1*5 i I 1*1 1% 0 1 9/ 108 : M* 7% ~ i - - L-*-: .2., 2" r 1 i t, 1 -L--- 1 8 221*6Â«97*LE Â·43.4-1' 0&22:st, 77Â£11"Â·"*771*Ttf --1--,.9*t,:- :,Â·.-Â·~i.:. 4~Â©~~~~p: i..'C' t *1.:f ,-5*,Fitit:Y-,s. :i,;,-,irle - -- - 1 -- 1 -z -1.-0 :r -- -DZ~I-I â€žGe'/4/,plt'=:#.,r-, 94 -' 1\ / 1 1 r k:' . 1 g . .-C 1.-4 y.. 0 f * 1 1* a - 1 k .*t S. i~ -,2,1 -1 6....r -1.r. d _3- r- 2 42,1 :.1;f I - -1,44*t, 35 . , 4 1 2425 9 f --- ' 9*202%â‚¬,42*ER*%49&24-4*il.*.R#WEA:.Â·iÂ·~ Â·.t ~ Â·.Â·>.Â·.~t, Â·'Â· Â· ~Â· -Â·. ~ill.rl .3, - 142 aÂ® 0 3 1 9044 +P\* CAAE. i-3 IAt : 9 #Irt- pUrle,IN*IT*Â·It 1,? a 2 9-3 - 9 e D<'47 1 144 i 3% f 'PIHII-HGT *IM , 1 1 1 .,1 .1 53 & 4 Â£ 4?2>94T'1441 'Pmot::- 12'EMAI H 0&1 ..L- 42 1 0 FS+4 -Hâ€¢14 60061*129.7" og ' U *><14Â¥91 t>Â¢40 . 4 7 ........ . . 1 1 - 24 r 4 - 1. 44&1159:4'99.- Â·Fi,.~yy~t.~.c~0-~.r_~.:i M..~,pÂ·. 0.-,Â·ze~-~ Â·ariÂ·9'-Â·~Â·'E ..;u...in e.,7.>'Â·PfljO'Â·9'"y~~~ '2.7.?7 41. 433~6t.~--:2 ;: ..Â·Â·- 4.-' 4~Â·~Â·..Â·1 -Â·Â·--Â·;,~.i. ... 4;:.U~.-~;,- ..4 ;'1 :~ 1, 4.1,2, 4,01 4,2,1 l & VE-b=- 7 M j ' 4 -M 2 -~ **<I, 1 itt 45> & f ..Â«>r L\ GRÂ¥~ 4 Â©LEA#yFÂ°*7 4 44 . ' f.4 .==== f ti S, 1- IP T T 71 023__ 11 1r- 7-- --7- _ ---=~-- 1421-4 t- 4 2, 11 4 6.Â·.': Â·92 1 '25-29/ 46 - - - i J :,- 2 44#61 C 1 N A '. 4 ---97 -cr. *-- --or....._..:z; ,; ..2-â€¢42'-VE)#*Â·'6.4tÂ·4Â·'3*.:-*L~yc<*R9:36#4.-36Â·Awy 1 1 - I--*-1.6.21.- z-z....~ . 4-9 -- 1='. -O-= ---- ,â‚¬-=- f *-L- -1 - - 9.-2 02 -j / a 4 - Â«21 . 'Pll :. 1 ..IMI '1 1~3--2FF 1/ 41 1,2~11Ip.,~~ Ul 1/ Cal :E.><rloff Ple.!R 48.1~lrÂ¢Â·E-AH CD *16Â»::) - MAT \0, se#o 411,11- 0111 ' 1 t< 9 4 A 1 //,-\ /: r. -ha / .42.~ 4.2.-R. ..~..24.0; t:...pt. 4 ,<92%. pd I gear Vil--ir-2---4 '-.--37'-*27-- P-.12'4 Â·.â‚¬~Â·6/21 1 >x 2,6,4Â·14 t j 1 //7 .IZZZE7 .eifÂ·'34&~ \\1 / / 7,Â·~ ~.r.. E..Â·...F~SES%14; :11.'13'3Â·Â·.:34t'~t4-1 1 2 /23.L /b=Colle=331 4Â©-JT-Â· T-- ' -7 04â‚¬Â«\\\\1 1 4/1 --*-1--+I _-k . /4 + I' .--.4*- - -.2'24\\\\\ , a //1 irf e #4-1 2=0:1926*:24 4-/-/*' f I I .....,I.<R. I /7 *t. VME, P.(92.-- , 69 Mt#1 15:m,U[1 11==2% N I hi i . ./ n.: 12 - . . I I.- 0 ,. -0. # :siu 91-~4Â· 11 i[77\ 1 11 7 0 1 1 11 11 1 . ~720Â·34.i -N, Uvit 1.-' M ,/22 4* / . *Q ~ L&,4/4%44/AÂ·k#6.-7/2/9..1 / .-.i-. Â»;4 >sy:f~Â«1:'04. 27-0 1 4- 'Â·31 ~?'.Â· R,Ke-*. - ' ~4Â·Â· - . T': ':rm .2. . / .....t>th*9 -t:upi.4:539':91'rv| 4 - I: . e. 1 "- / 9 4 ,-.7-,9-: F.fr . 470:/; :93Â® :-~tthÂ¢ I.);~.:* *73 ji~Â£<i,~ i- --~ i. -.-:1221--212250 r ' -- 1.-: . Â·i, ae ~*trA~ 1, . 116.....,461: j-X-'-E'U â‚¬'.44.,1...: - .1 2, 44Â·44, i - :. 1.:43 <'.:, ' _ Â· - trn ' $. I Â·%42*rÂ¥:1 ' - 43,9â‚¬ {94 434 , 94-34. ' 34.1-h ?*Â·Â· :A6:.' ilvactz/: ' I*fÂ·3 34&14 - i-i, 9.11#4ki/*5't j.----* P.-4.- '.1.0.2. Â· 5,5.2 ..... ! ~12..râ‚¬:1: I*Â·4*3 1.:141.,025 ~ f~k . ' ~~Â·~,-1..r:.P.~ .I44"t z-Â°1-Â»- - :=- -~~3 -1 ~ .Â·t Â»4420,6, ' 59Â«Â·t@ ~. i:i.Â·..Â·-~.Â·:t : Â· . , 1 2.31,1 ..7 laq..-Â·.'4.1 1 ;re. -: Â· 1*4.2'24 149.... 1--,- ;..,~~i"F~~b,T I _,i ~,4~:v ~~4'-.3, *4*11'I~ :~.t~:.:~,~bj : i ~ *,~ 2~~ 9, 8-* 3?.3 . Â·19-1,Â·,..:Ali '6Â·x,Â·il-it# - ~- <:jitÂ·)f-Â·'(Â·:Â·39 =4Â· 34 j ,Â¥13â‚¬1121 ' -1Â· 4<4.-54 4Â·Â·Â· '..~ r .~ . 1,29'%Â¥21 4 K..9&Â» Â¢ ?1 1 P T 'i : 8, f 1 . _LL ]---*1<11/FiA#r- 1 /.441 - J ... I -*. .---.. ...I--.:. -~-- Cul.[ 11 01.n 11- -Jill[- -71 - h Y . r, 1 - \7#- - ' . 1 i --*=-- :-- 4. *. .., N .V..-. . ~37.11204, ji =====91 1-- ----.-- iÂ©Ur*Â«.. 1 119Et I-..... Im .r 1.. 3f f Z Tr ~ 0 Ok / :f i ; -111*211 A--- . I MeÂ·*1. * 54 ' .'.. .tiÂ·Â·. f P ./*4 . 1 - Â· W..9 ' t *29 2 --- -- 9 =pagE B.,} .6, .- f . Â·~ . g 4 , R Â·~ .; )SÂ·%~' 4 . R- . *-, fif.9,4 6- 2?li? 22 1---------------- ---0------,----â€ž------ i I W .1 9 _ _lh--- --------4,Â»---Â·*--_. i :443 0.36 ' , fÂ·' i Â·M f 1 91 1.--Â·Â·--Â·-Â·~ ---/.-,_.-â€ž_...,.__ C 1 1 I .9. ---%--- -I- ---.-- -I- -I---.-----:---- 4~â€¢/ *' . 2-5- I ..0 ... 1 3 4 1 15 E ----------------- 2 A 'i 43? ' 4 --I......................i--I............I-I----1.---,1.........'.0-h.----Vil.------I.------'..................-/1.---............--I....... -......, Â·Â· te.4 - Â·&411 7 : Â» 47 3 i 4. .*.119'J . â‚¬ ,\0,1.1,0 .6 00114 Â¢4,0 95 1/ V 1 1 11 4 2 1-0 tt 2.IMI fl ..fl~~~ ~ ~ I%~ â€žt.~.~7~~â€¢ T~~-~ -~, ~ -~- 0 -AALLAJ t 4/%11 ~ =.1.19 111~Â«4144 t 1 , m. -itre-%7.4 n i' 5 1 ... 13' .. .15:- liu ; Nacl... 22 \11 1 10. <M. 1 7 1 1 mi i . -1. fh~ qi fl i 1 \30< i f' ..... 1 11 Fk L I 11 93Â¢4:,5 i .41-~ : C.!1 1 : ; ... I. .~ ... 1 11.11 11 '11,0 4...1 - 1 I. ~. .. .. 1 I #U / ./ 4 ' i .. 4. r ..6 . ' 1- "- 111 4 - L. 1.-3 i Â«4/ i 1 -- -Fi-73~~Â·'2;.Cl".92 r \\ 1/k 111 Â· 'li 1 1 it 6 t .727 7263 : f~ / * 49/ /1 9%~ 1 1 lit /1 l 1 11 1 . 11 11 4 Â·Â·: ....: -- 1 1 11 4 Â· ....6-5-fe"i f I R. tif- I 3-,t-T.0-11/:'Â· 'if 'b.,11 i.17..1 613-Â·'f,<3~ 1- 1.93.f i._ 1 1 . ililil 1 - - - 3- 14-71 lulu 00 22-23 lEi - U.%/.- - .A J 93 .. Â·~E_13~â‚¬~?2~.. i 1 l. U.. r ' /:Â·, .,.. . jÂ·MCL i.Â· Il Â· -.i.': 3 e i:448Â·' : d.,Â·A. L ! 1:28* . 19# i 1 i i. I - ' iL-*416. j 1 42=i..Â«-4 Â£43'*>*> 1;,e~. 1 ;wma (Â»i?-:-' !!00Â·*~ : F. 3 1 11 - # 11.~ ! i t i 11 1 E->< 1,1,015.-E-150.K-f,BU-El=6 ,+42 6/ 6~-12. 2 5,10.2000 N IE47 ELES,/, L w 4 0 1 0 / 149 .4 4 4 94/$ 4,9 4/i.14 '2Â·'A it?i-, 4+ ,- -â‚¬-4/ .. 0. 4/2 74Â»4 , 0/0 .9,/ /49 . J.t.. . - . ' 4 . 1 A . - D *.12 ep,%+ .: e * 4 I . I : . I. . I ./. ./ 4. .. . 4.2. it - A- 4 ... 443 - . 94 , - >t: Â¢j,A '' .6 249 5,6 - /82 -t .m 1.11. . r.)4 ~Imt,3 Â»01116 -28 t... MA. 1 '45 11.Imi Â¥ 4. m. 1 .1,101. m.la - 1,1 111/11.IL - 41/6 3 . . 4 1 . . 1 - 41 - A 44 L IRIR;'linmm,Ih"ID,Imoll,1 41., '1,01.11, , 1, 1 :/07 Ai .. - 1- D .. . - .. 0. . . m E-:254 - -F 0 0 . A A /,41 ~ ~ ~ .20~1â€¢Â·4â‚¬7-- - - -1f :4 *t,-~-a 1 '4 Nn- 61 0 0 Mary A. Avjian Architects, P.C. 50 River Oaks Lane Basalt, Co. 81621 (970)-927-7656 i 1*i ' 11 4.1'4~0'A #!ti:..'10'n"'-,1-"1' 4.~i. --, '*.,--l': 0, - 40'4Â·, ;1 , 1 . 11 0 0 -I'll- ./., 1,4/ ~;'Â¥~1 . ' |.6 ./-,Ill , ~~ ISSUE: 00 0 '1 i HPC CONCEPTUAL: 5-24-00 ENTRY PORCH -- . i 1 PORFER#. 1 2 1 C 01, 9 f BEDROOM 2 Â£ 1Â§,1 .1 t _12=_ b;6=z* [3351 N MEDIA UF. m LISHTMELL 1 . g Im 1, 4- 1 â‚¬ r * 1 4 L=- 1 I f.2 / 2. BAR ~ 1 8 - ~ ENTRY HALL I I LINEN < - 8- - - â€¢19 -Â· ..2/11' i I I -1 1 //1 1 Wr . I 1 . t LINE OF -0-3 f 4 1 LA$DRY Â· ,>â‚¬t't,!rfÂ«te'c Â°~Â©:5.r.at':Â·11... . -ZI FLOOR 1 9 - 1 [253- LINE OF 3 11 0 ABOVE 3 , ..1'.. .3Â· t. 1 _ */ --~e ABO\lt MECHANICAL r 3 . 1 - STAIR 31 1 32 i riarl /fr -13- - - 4, - 1 Â£ 1 1-fÂ·*5Â¥EQ U) U) -rn Â«t - % LISHTMELL .. DN, | MUD ROOM BATH 2 i ~' ~20~7 . 8,1 -C GI LINEN 4 - ---7- , M D- . 1 2 ..lb .1 - Ir--1. 11 F - .L. ~ - , , 1 Cl 4 = tgrn' } fi.. 0. 40 PUMBWAITER 0 I 1 -- >1 n.3*t : AS_ . _1 _1 12 O = 3, ff(61 C hq---Â·e:â‚¬1 -1 ' f- 1 BATH 4 12081 .4. i 1 MASTER BATH . 1 tb' (3 + e 1 1 1-33=rl I . 1 1 J~ 0 7 \P I BEDROOM 3 - ,-C "1 Ir ./ 9 9 M 5 . 2 .miztE F ~' :,4 .. 7 , LINE OF L Â¢ -2 R N -9 & I t U L v. 7.Â·l =30*1 ..0- 1~' '11 'r~ .1, ~.Ir ./ 4 ./ '..r.. . 4 eE 9 2 LY 1 ?. / 1 1 CA 48 ?' 2 /1 .. === 7 11 "-11 LL-1 - 0. 1 4 Apiriftilcm,mram<'S,Â¥> ' Â·tt. 4 . 10'W .PE ta & 1 5 1 MASTER BEDROOM * J. BEDROOM 4 1 / 4 Â»<6 1 + riail 1 ..r I . e 1, . --221 1 CLOSET ~ ~ 6 1 0 E th :t - LIGHT,â‚¬LL 4 1 ! 4 , L V 1 i . 1 1 4 1-1.-rm' 11 0 g d 0Â© - e & p 1 2=9 . 0 0 â€¢ PROJECT: ' SMALLS LARGE FRIES LOT B DEVELOPMENT Fâ€¢flt-An.1 DESCRIFTION: MAIN/LOMER PLANS SGALE: 1/4' â€¢1'-0' 0 0 re LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN /'~~\ MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN SHEET: SCALE: 1/4,1 = 1,-O" ~~319 SCALE: 1/48=11-O" 0 0 931~=1 .&13 -496 -66Â£2*. -e==94,41 1 -'.":St 0 0 a Nin. O 0 5. Mary A. Avjian METAL Architects, P.C. COLUMN Z PREP:ABRICATIZIP 50 River Oaks Lane 3, BOW KINDOIN 2 *M Basalt, Co. 81621 (9701927-7656 L-- 0 0 211 __'-21~1_ P. R. ISSUE: r- 0 -~r_--r~z__--=c~ tilt ' 21%~Cif~=2=_-4=20*20 1 .11 -3=4-1 ..1--- - 1 I HPC CONCEPTUAL: 5-24-00 - J .--- -E=LE-~-12,12--,- 12:12 - ~ 1 64 - Roof BELOM - KITCHEN 1 h 1 5 3=4*tr====--L-t==-_w=zE-__ i n -- SREENHOUSE ~ r=_2=1 %14 ==432223&22ErÂ©=--2 1. wINPOM 1 1 6 - I M .112. *W'&2<992â‚¬*Â·, 4, LE -- - 4 1.- -----21=._-Ccza - r'-l OCD: L-;4 - - r-B-- -37- ---33- 1 12 *29= 00 râ‚¬ 2--- -t I L -1 00 1---r-_ --L- OPERABLE SKYLIGHT ~ I t J 1 1Â«*99 -'- P--DZ-L--E - 1 -1 ~1Â¢448, cn -- 13 1 0.4. -1 L a_ _01 1 - r - - Â¥ 1 01'EN TO - - Â»~7~~~~6 14--0-[==*LK--L~Elp=FLE-_- p ~ BELOW 1 :t r -7 -- SKYLISHT â‚¬ ~~ 1 41~~44%-4 ~Â·22=*2 - 1 + / AeÂ¢VE -\ --CZE-....-2 3 J_]LJ,-ili_ 1LLL -2.j--C= tr. - 1 : Ir *1 N'[1 -11 t. 4 U- ILL-1-31--11;in=k~=221 DININe RO|OM I r- 7,- ... 1 1 1 J Ilfpr.!11[-T. r.1TN- ~' Â»w_.~FÂ»-CY==Egf - w \ ILINâ€žLId -r -1 [ r- r-1 r-- MINDO 1 1 1 -IL_Â¢-4#4-(~- ----2- m-,----- 1Â¤- 7 1 ~ - p 1 9> - 1 ~07 40 ---- -- -+ . . .----1 DUMBRAITER .- - t 0141. 1 - 3 4 -#- r " 4, 1 , 7 --1 -3 0 1. 1 1 1 100 1 1 3 1 >I LIVINe ROOM 1 1 1 9- 090 -~ ~ I 1 â€¢ 1..'. ---1---- ------ /~~~2/ - K '17 1 A -- 3 - \ I ' 71 1 1 1 1 f 1 10 5:12 1 09 Â¥L / 1 142 1 H O 1 1 1 1; I c 03 lf) 0 : 4 10 - 0 1 / 1 2 <r 'A K L REST DECK -7- [5351 1 / 1- 1 '02-Â·Â· 1 - / 1 14 #4 Â·SÂ·'~ 1 05 6 v.. I----- -1-________J I + *- 1 c lf-') 1#< IRETARI 1 1&1[zmll 11 ..7 ..T G. 1 1 11 f. x+- - SOUTH DECK ~ 1 / L BELOR | 1 - 1 - 1 - - 1 C -1 1 Ii.*- *--Ill- Il--- i.-- - Ill- ~ n . 0 0 PROJECT: 4 SMALLS LARBE FRIES LOT B DEVELOPMENT PYND-AO.1 DESCRIFTION: UPPER/ROOF PLANS SCALEÂ· 04.â€¢ GO. o o SHEET: B ROOF PLAN ~'A~ UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN ~ lA2.2~ SCALE: 1/411=11-0,1 < 42.2 J SCALE: 1/4"= 1'-O" 1 :A, .-I 112.2 4-- EX 0 0 r'v'Â·;.Â·t~~.:.43 14 ,4 & 1NE''Act 33>3319 LINV 13 1 0 0 0 0 Mary A. Avjian \\ Architects, P.C. \\ 50 River Oaks Lane Basalt, Co. 81621 (970)Â·927-7656 METAL ROOFING 0 0 ISSUE: HFC CONCEPTUAL: 5-24-00 1 CENTER OF ARC 1 mi 1 H i 0- 1 1 1 - ASPHALT SHINGLES | - - - SKYLISHT 1 - -1 11_11 01 5 VI - L___-1-- -2 L k Vuel, MerM Flr~ A2.3 SCALE: 1/411=11-on C 1/'1 4 i[ 1,1~ .4 11' lil it 1 ~ ADU ROOF PLAN ill LEI i *Ic 1--1- If f 9-d! ]11 1 1 -14! :_ 6 1 1 lili : , 1,; r Â· 1 111~ 4 1 11 -14~ 11-1 .'-1 ' i ~ ~ ---I 11 1 111 I 43\ 1 1 12.1-T ~~ 1- Â·+ ' Â·It â€ž ? - - 1 . F 1 1 1 ' - 1 11*=r -=911==1 Mer,4. RIGNHO 11 1 . 1 1 Id Iii j : ---- UNES 1 1 UT--2 !1 !1 - l'11~ d i 1 1 i lA ~'.1-lit., 1 7 09 0 1 fi,hi . 1ti1 1 11:- 1 + 11 MECH./STOR, ~~\ L.1 [13 d 1 - .iiI.:1 r..1 li,1 frip 1 1 1 1 11 , (7 Mal e) , 1 rn M 3 Gh Mv - NOMTH 1 4-0 LU BATI F < IP- K \ LF DJ-] i od cD _-1 a CLOSET Â° REEn 1 .*1 ~1 611.1 ~ 111111 lilli I 1.1 1 . 910 i IR~-~ 4-~7 1~" IN ' i 11 1 1 ! 111 1! 1.- i'11 1-Ft pIe /77 0 , 1 41 F 1.30* I- 1-1' 1 1 III 0â€¢02 41 QI N.- -*7'. 1 Il !!L--dll ; lili {; 1-F .- 1 - . "--1-- T --*'I,j 1 Â·~ li L I,Il flii - Â«1-22- ~ ' ' STUDIO 4 11 i il ; ..lilli 8 11 - 11- 1--TifIR~1-1*'+~;- ! 1 [33-7 ~ Â· ~-- LINE OF MALL ABOVE +11 1 <1 111 9-11 - 111111 eFF-~80 M..&--1 In , 11-W ~ ~1 -1 - Â· h PROJECT: - - 0 0 1 - - 6,1PIN. ~I KITCHEN I SMALL 4 LARGE FRIES .1'L= 4. 5;524-fÂ· 1 . 111. . '1,1111, - lilli.11 11 - Me,4. MWâ€¢-11NI----- q - _ -4 LOT B DEVELOPMENT 1 . h 47,1,4 M i ~ 4 t i ~i 1 1 ~ DESCRIFTION: 1 +01 + I i. 4- {1~ 11. 11 i J-- 1 7- ||fi~~ |--------------- ------ i , 11,9 \ - 4 r 1. ADU PLANS/ELEVATIONS 4 14 1 -~-Â·- 1/11 f--- ---2 .L ~ SKYLISHT ABOVE BCAI:k, 1/4.. r.oâ€¢ i -07,HOâ€¢ ft ef~ *- SHEET: CAJ ADU FLOOR PLAN ~3~ SCALE: 1/4"=I'-O" - Bpv- evrn - Rv - mâ€¢er 112 " L-9 0 I' O 0 'N3=IGV 13 - O 1*F-4/1--1 z.- bal - A Whf WO 1 $#AL 4 -jill 1 11 j 1 1. [4427[1 -- L-A Iii-1~IL/A =11.1.-val IVIND 4Â£Â»66 ikeâ€¢I'-21' I 1-- 1: ~Mle:).4. fleNC,6 0-0 SHEET: 16 ' 1 = +-4 | | Li ~ T-: 1--4 11 19- T F;i 'Â·--+gl '' 1 , i. f-=~Â·. 2Â·~~=u-14 1 , 1 :- -4+.1 --1 11 1% 1 t : -3*+~Â£1 -4 C<-) Ho191+ al-eâ€¢/,~<nor.1 - He,wr ele,<noN | 113.1 1 4 - 1 '*444 1 0 -O T. O Â· GeÂ¥*. 1 ld-er ~La U 1. / . 1.1 - :Al . % m . 1 -1.1 ..... 1 1-1 -1 . . C 1- 1- 11.0. L- -j 11 1 - laill 1-1 I 0 ./ ... . . I. 0 P. i' -1 . .0. .. .. - -1.1=11......11......"IM .- , I I /----'' Imi:ill:/4 I =I.....III.I.II.*1 1 . .1.1.1 .. 1 -1 . - .1 . . b- 7 . . . I - I F . I. . / ... 0 - '. Il) . j. ), 41 * - 4 44//4 1 . . ... I 411.-- - - 1 --a ... 1 11 -~r .. .I~ 1.1..~~ .. 4 4 - . I - . I I 1 illill ~~~-~-~I~~~ ~~~~~ ~~-~~~-~~t ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~in~~~imi .. ~~11.1.11 . 1 ... . .=./.......1. â€¢â€¢â€¢Ill" . ..... =ME .1. .... 1/.6 1 . . . m , . - - a - ISSUED FOR: H.P.C. Revisions CLIENT APPROVAL X REVISION: A A 1 2 D A PROJECT NO: 9921 DRAWN BY: ANB CHECKED BY: 1 k ISSUE DATE: 05-09-00 - FILE NAME: HOTEL ASPEN ADDITION Z 110 West Main Street Â© - t. j Aspen, Colorado % 74.1: 4 '2$ 00 f RENO Â· SMITH ARCHITECTSÂ· 000 L.L.C. 1 + 210 EAST HYMAN â€¢~ N 202 H.P.C Conceptual Submittal Revisions (970) 925-5968 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 FAX (970) 925-5993 000 371 SOUTHSIDE AVE. N 101 05-09-00 (970) 927-6834 BASALT, COLORADO 81621 FAX (970) 927-6840 000 WEB SITE www.renosmith.com EMAIL ADDRESS office@renosmith.com SHEET TITLE: PROJECT TITLE SCALE: SHEET NO: AO.0 . 1112LLS NIVWISHm OII 0(IVHOTOJ 'NOIdSV -- 3 - A ..-.I I . /. 0 - /. 9-----------------------------------------------------7 a . i i 56 *Al h Mo r 7 F tÂ·'i/< ~1 - ci===20 .0. 7 7 1 Aft t r ) t" r I ' -- ' ' r tr ,&/ , Fe _--72----------_--_-----__J ._____--___-______-_1 k__-_-_-- 19__-____4 H_-__-____-___------J -il--____--__-_-____-__1~- -*- /4. l/P:. - 4 - i *4Â· R r r -f~ t- B 4 P r B 1\ t~ 0 01 1-- - - - / ' * - 0 -----L %/ I - . - ---*.-------20 -[1 --. 24*R Yf r ntrD p Irr r. ---.---. --'~~~~. -".- F. .*.-.-.-..~~~ ~ ~ ~ ' lb.LU.aLzE),7. Â·.6.Â·21.2~ 0 P B gr a -- - PEBLMEBU-I[?111-Â©MTUjjl#*Si/EJHEI~14@#~C[~fu~]f~#~ HHP*2~ttl~11{HHHM~fd**1448ll1[EIFjttl~*Il MIi#Au* - ) B: B b r 4 4 74$ r b trt r P r -TZEZ--I-.----- b , ./~99.-2721 ~--U 1 P tÂ· 1\; 1\. ,t F --. r--, r==9'r ~ abt j#) , - - -- . LL_U-- My> 11 rtÂ· A .3#0* B * r, A ~ ----- -- ---- ----/7 -- -- --- - W'-' -1~~~ - ---- .- ti==2=f-7-3- It rÂ· 111 -i r[ P i 't 1 E r - rD 1 irt. .p, 8 ~ . . -M.-....13 ............. - ... ' . 7 E lt, 8.14 -1-2-2 1-1.--~1111-- -- - â„¢f E L. u , r t ilit<,G k , A teÂ·iÂ·C, FF K> r) 'r r. il . 8 B rk B , . - .--- 5 0 LE- LE U 14 1 Wl-U--44-1 11=1[ -0 - A tkB r Â¢ :11~ 1 B A r. -_u_ _ - - -- *-nil 1--f-- 7.'ILLU-~Â·~Zâ‚¬Z~.+5_.~31- ar=-22.- . _........ -- ~.3.~1-1.iug_-.-UILL-272.-ZE 0000 B h 6 4 7 B A A i - -2_C _7 0 Â»il# 4 DA, ' -0 0. 0 IP ... - , 4% 8 2 2 'A l[ V , D{v fA OÂ· # 2 - Â£7 -Â·> ~7 0 11=-4..1 B Â¢ har B. 8 t[> 1\ = a ..9 4IT 144 4 , oâ€¢ .61 1 9. ibut#- i ' trip 4 t.'t.,244 1 1 -- . R i I mr-~r-+11 .,-, i Ll_~ , lili 'Ill ?râ€ž% D> . 1. I ITT B 7 p B -B ~ 8 A 7 - ---- It 2 ~ b. ~ 1\ 1 - TIL ---1 rE g --22 1~zzl Ezzl K'|ill'11'111 E-m I,uqi'~,r . , 1< : 1 1 2,,ditill'il, I h 1-11 1 11 24,11 ! .1 - & 1,1 1 It 1 1~1~t ~111'IIi 'k" || iii ill 4 0 4 11 A g 1/ .1 0 ~41:41 . 11 0 Â£ Â¢ 11!1 1111 ! 21 11. 11 1 f 1 11 lili 11111'll , 'rÂ· ' 4~ ~1111111!1 P lili Â¥ Pet - __1 li' 02&#Ls Jo ___- - 2 ir IL---12 11-I ~--4 ' - - - & 11 4%41:1?5.(:t 1. ~hi f*fi 1 4 ..fid kflo' 9 'A !9 i 132 WEST MAIN STREET 120 WEST MAIN STREET HOTEL ASPEN - WEST MAIN STREET U \~ I e - _NEIGHBORHOOD-BLOCKELEVATION SCALE:1/8- = 1'-0" < ~ / ~ ISSUED FOR: CLIENT APPROVAL X REVISION: A A A A A PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY: ANDREA CHECKED BY: ISSUE DATE: 02-15-00 FILE NAME: 133319 HSIHWVS 0- u r $ In * A 04 - 0 0- .h â€ž- ./ r ./ - 0- 0- 0- 0- e- 22 - - W 2/22%30*2 2 2 22 e: M: E: 22 222 222 E: 222 H * 2 0 2 e 2 !0 2 m= 52 2 !O 2 50 2 M 2 9 M Â¢,2 aM W ~ E %2 2 Mi Mi Mi Mi *W *oc *aL ~i Xi aix oc XM ~1 El M ~ M E &% M* L L L L L lut Ult .Ii ~Li ~ *Ill ~ Ula- 9. 1 0- 1 ZZ t2 ,bâ‚¬-Câ‚¬r -3=10-13.6.Na eNIC!!ng N -- \ 1 1 E .: :% I' ,5-OL ' j; - IM ti; .\ It- | -- 1 0 1 --7 00 1 *11 1 1 -1 Ill I i =iÂ·. a :15 1 * C U - r &11 1 EQ \ 939 %:i \ - 491]LILL Ca %13=:2 \- 02 e: *: 2, 22 82: 21 2% 22 0 -- - r A 7 9 0 i =11.1=1 Me el me w= *2 G3 gm 65 %8 53 3 =~ mE mE =2 mE mE mE =E mE mE ==Ulp/,U=* ,,O-:5 L L -(Â»ab L ZIONIG) acIC'-TE]ANZ] eNIalllâ‚¬ aZIGI/gal RENO Â· SMITH ARCHITECTSÂ· â‚¬U1 000 r E* LLC Z lf) . ,00 L -ZictO13/\NZI 9NldllnG d-!O ,,O-,00 1 -adO13/\Na eNIallne 210 EAST HYMAN NÂ°202 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (970) 925-5968 Â¥AX (970) 925-5993 000 371 SOUTHSIDE AVE. NÂ°101 BASALT, COLORADO 81621 (970) 927-6834 Â¥AX (970) 927-6840 000 WEBSITE www.renosinith.com EMAIL ADDRESS office@renosmith.com SHEET TITLE: SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SCALE: 1/16" = 1' - 0" SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHEET NO: 1/16 " = 1' - 0" Al.1 PARKING 20 PARKING 6 FARKINe 5 PARKING 4 PARKING 3 eNI16 ./01 1 1 1 1 1 PAT\O PATH) FATIO OOK: 7 MS. 1 A.H.U. r Â©212341%1%%23~ 2u GWZIWO-1-GAO WO=I ZINOZ 2nd FLOOR: 23 RM ~rd ~LOOR: 4 RMS let FLOOR: ,â‚¬bÂ»â‚¬ L -34O13ANE! 9Nld-ling litahlle NIVW SNINWOH ISVJI 6IN OanIOEIOJ'N BRIDGE ABOV li-- EXISTING STAIR ISSUED FOR: H.P.C. Revisions '" l l i l i H i l l i ilil l li li i I I l i l l i ' - - - - - - - -, l i l l l i 1 ilillilli i ililillii S Y i filijjilillillilillilillillillilill i hi l t < CLIENT APPROVAL 1 1 - X 0- 1 1 (n LIMIT OF | | O - cy REVISION: BRIDGE ABOVE-~~CE~-T---31 7 2 11 1 lie h A - EXISTING STAIR ~ ~ A 1 1 1 1 0 A Z 1 1 5 2 1 1 A m '/0- TI~1i~ -;7 PROJECT NO: 9921 DRAWN BY: ANB - - 4-ABOVE 1 CHECKEDBY: ISSUE DATE: 03-29-00 FILE NAME: --~1 -UMIT OF F ~e<:El =-- 74 0 Â£2\ - E.( Ct E.â€¢ R E-, tÂ·u* 0 :f RENO 4 SMITH ARCHITECTSÂ· 000 L.L.C. 210 EAST HniAN N 202 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (970) 925-5968 Â¥AX (970) 925-5993 000 371 SOUTHSIDE AVE. N 101 BASLAT, COLORADO 81621 (970) 927-6834 Â¥AX (970) 927-6840 000 WEB SITE www.gibsonreno.com EMAIL ADDRESS office@gibsonreno.com SHEET TITLE: ENTRY LEVEL FLOOR PLAN- EXISTING MAIN BUILDING ENTRY LEVEL FLOOR PLAN ~ SCALE: 1/8" = 1' . 0" SHEET NO: A2.1 ISSUED FOR: H.P.C. Revisions 4-=-2- CLIENT APPROVAL X 11 REVISION: A A - ----1 --- A Fl n A A - NER BRIDGE /Ah PROJECT NO: 9921 /1 -11 - NEA STAIR -EXISTING STAIR V DRAWN BY: ANB CHECKED BY: 1.1111+1 E-- -' i, ISSUE DATE: 03-29-00 Ic.1 t-1 -1- 1-1,4)47*.1...1,7. /'. I . / 1111111\I i - - - - - - - - - - - -m--5-- - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - - - - FILENAME: 1 -3 1 1 ------- - .2 - NEA STAIR i = //tLi ~ 4 % n ' A RENO Â· SMITH ARCHITECTSÂ· 000 L.L.C. 210 EAST HYMAN N 202 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (970) 925-5968 FAX (970) 925-5993 000 371 SOUTHSIDE AVE. N 101 BASLAT, COLORADO 81621 (970) 927-6834 FAX (970) 927-6840 000 WEB SITE www.gibsonreno.com EMAIL ADDRESS office@gibsonreno.com SHEET TITLE: 2nd LEVEL FLOOR PLAN- EXISTING MAIN BUILDING 2nd LEVEL FLOOR PLAN ~ SCALE: US" = r - 0" SHEET NO: A2.2 NOI.LICIâ‚¬IV NS[cISV 15[JIOH JAIHH.LS NIVAI ISMAK OII OaVHOTOD 'N214Â§V %9/a\&1 ISSUED FOR: H.P.C. Revisions CLIENT APPROVAL REVISION: A A 1-91 - PROJECT NO: 9921 DRAWN BY: ANB NER BRIDeE A CHECKED BY: 1 1 A3.2 NER STAIR ISSUE DATE: 03-29-00 71 FILE NAME: BR 7 /0 IN ---- .-ill ~ ~ NEW STAIR REFR 1 00 ==:== I o o 0,0 0 0 ----- HALLINAY ROOM 307 SUITE 30-IA / BOBA ROOM 30Â¢1 ROOM 309 ROOM 310 ROOM 311 ROOM 312 963.4 sqft 6 94.esq ft 945.5 sqft 341.5 sqft 341.5 54 ft 945.8 04 ft ' 369.4 04 ft 1-1 11 It 1 1 PECK ; PECK 1~1 DECK DECK DECK 1 1,-11 11 1 1 1 AS. 1 1 2 AS.2 i 1 j -1 ROOF DECK 4---U.-4 *mmit! 1 RENO Â· SMITH ARCHITECTS L.L.C. 000 210 EAST HYMAN N 202 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 ' (970) 925-5968 000 FAX (970) 925-5993 371 SOUTHSIDE AVE. A N 101 As. 1 BASLAT, COLORADO 81621 (970) 927-6834 FAX (970) 927-6840 000 WEB SITE www.gibsonreno.com EMAIL ADDRESS office@gibsonreno.com SHEET TITLE: NEW 3rd LEVEL FLOOR PLAN- EXISTING MAIN BUILDING 6 - NEW 3rd LEVEL FLOOR PLAN ~ SCALE: 1/8" = 1' - 0" 1-1 SHEET NO: P--1 A2.3 NOI.LICaV NldSV 11.LOH 11121LS NIVAI ISHAA OI OCIVH01O j 'NaÂ«ISV 111BON ISSUED FOR: H.P.C. Revisions CLIENT APPROVAL REVISION: A f--1 A A PROJECT NO: 9921 DRAWN BY: ANB STANPINe SEAM METAL ROOF CHECKED BY: ISSUE DATE: 03-29-00 FILE NAME: 51 : 91 1 M n A el ~ ~~,4 + ~ .t .. '. . t 2 - .t~t, 2 - : Z 1 1 1 N0 1 %1 : WH - Al 20 Z ROOF DECK 1 ' e---h vignun. -1 RENO 4 SMITH I ARCHITECTSÂ· 000 L.L.C. 210 EAST HYMAN l N 202 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (970) 925-5968 FAX (970) 925-5993 BASLAT, COLORADO O 0 0 371 SOUTHSIDE AVE. N 101 81621 (970) 927-6834 Â¥AX (970) 927-6840 000 WEB SNE www.gibsonreno.com EMAIL ADDRESS office@gibsonreno.com SHEET TITLE: NEW ROOF PLAN - EXISTING MAIN BUILDING NEWROOF=PLAN ~ SCALE: 1/8" = 1' - 0" SHEET NO: A2.4 ISSUED FOR: H.P.C. Revisions CLIENT APPROVAL X REVISION: A A A A A 1 . . 1 1 / 1 1-1 / Nd i A ./1 1 r---1- ---Tl : L..1 A ~ PROJECT NO: 9921 1Â· 41 i 34&** 2- ~Â·p@*f"LA Z#b:&24%.4.4" ~ =~ ~ DRAWN BY: ANB '-blibld-:----1-!iJ;--1-1-1----.41-1=Jlt---11UkidiU;*i u CHECKED BY: 1==Orl 01 11 ISSUE DATE: 05-08-00 6/01 9 A /1 . ill- 1 11 -F 2- ..Imilli e . FILE NAME: .1 1 ...LI.... 1 1 1.-- lili 11 1 1 1 1 ~ : 1 11 ' lili 1 4 i :F 1.,1~19.1111. 1;. .' I ' ' 9 ' ' ' r 'b-jilli'Â·.-Â·:2-.gl:< - I 3223113 , i, -4....4.=/INALAWAL ilill:Iwl .14.. I 111121ULTU' 11101'!Ili'#141.1 I.~ Â· --=Imi m,".0 L~1 11 11 -LUU- 1 1 r .tu 422/1 11 lili 111111. lilli"111111 1 lili ) WEST ELEVATION ~~ LIMIT OF ROOF FROM ORIGINAL DESIGN- 02-09-00 LIMIT OF REVISED ROOF 1 KX...,50/*4*,2/ ..7 FOR HPG MEETINe DATED ~ 04- 12-00 LINE INDICATES lowl \gro'j'-\ HT. OF CEILING- B.O. - '111.11 '1 RAFTERS Â® V'-O" 6Â· 4 ABOVE FLOOR rn? STANDING BEAM \ * MTL ROOF - ~ ~ / - : PITL ROOF Â·ARCHITECTSÂ· / I 0 . /. RENO Â· SMITH STANDINS SEAM /. 1 x6 VERT. 1 -1 Ci.=Ini.91Â°ING - --- C [r---2 m Gill=--Z--0---- V r-------U 4-----io L.L.C. . \ / , 1 T.O. RIPSE. Â£ 2 - -~N ' /430 -~-* ---Â· 130'-3'4' 210 EAST HYMAN . X T.O. PLATE. N 202 U. --- '11111 1.1 lilli, 4/7 1 lili ~-lilli - --2 ilitulilli 12 q'- cl 5/5"9 ASPEN, COLORADO T.O. PLATE,~ 81611 11-- 10-31 -- -lk ~lITL--IMi J 128'-3"9 (970) 925-5968 -1 x VERTICAL SIPINe TO MATCH FAX m I ' rf .11 111 1|Il If 71ITT i EXISTINe (970) 925-5993 1111111 174 1 **fl,48+P -Â·Â·~ -Tr~Â·-Â· -Â·~*- ' i T.O..PAP. * ard FLOOR . 000 1 11 --- 115'-3" -- --*16Â»U 4 4-fri * 371 SOUTHSIDE AVE. N 101 48*1**A BASALT, COLORADO PixÂ·*i,tivg 81621 -3" DIANI. STL. (970) 927-6834 - n AA M M r Emilfillilimi lilli Ill-[Ilill-3 limÂ®[it il-'1' ]']T[[[~1~E[F]JI-li~ Ill T[f --[T]Il ~ Emll,I-1-mTT-ITI-l~}~~-1-flm--1*21 .GUA) 1-[ll[-TH]TI IllIn[Illl~ -mFRHETI]~Tin# 1*ill _ .h- (970) 927-6840 TUBES FAX TIMBER BEAMS ' 11 1 ...........H......................1............................... .. .. .... ..................................... 8" diam. MTL 000 ~ . , , ;.: . -.- ., : ~ ~~ ~~~~~~ | COLUMNS WEB SITE www.renosmith.com 1 1. 0% 1 1 11 I .1 1 4 1 1 Â»la I. T.O. SLAB . EMAIL ADDRESS 100-0" 9 office@renosmith.com 1111111111. 1 lilli 111.111111111111I 111.1.1I, SHEET TITLE: SOUTH ELEVATION ~ SOUTH & WEST EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS- SCALE: 1/8" = 1' - 0" SHEET NO: A3.1 NOI.LICICV NldSV 11.LOH ISIRI ISWAA OII OICST~IJOVTWO J 'NE[dSV ISSUED FOR: H.P.C. Revisions CLIENT APPROVAL X REVISION: A A A 1 1 A 1 .. 1 1 4 / ./. r' ~ LJ A 11 IL 1 1 ! 11 11 1 PROJECT NO: 9921 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111lk 41 1 .1--11 1 DRAWN BY: AN-B 4 : ~/1% 7.0-111 , , . 4 + 1..1.1474 1=7 1, Erm --6- .1 4 . - -. - ./7 & ~:1}.~.f,f ~ It CHECKED BY: d*te. 1 131 ' + 6 111 E f fl- '[ill"2 Â· 10Â»Â©i:Â«i: i Â§;990 -Ir:.1, I'll- ~ I '>4~ H,ht'.Â·Â·9'~ b" ISSUE DATE: 05-08-00 , -_L-_--_Il -fij II1 [tl F[[ T[~ ~ 3 :** 1. 1%46 1 8*%*E .Â£ ' ' ~: ;iNÂ· . 296%11 1 ......k.,1. 1, IiI#1Â»Wae -... 1 .1'. ......â‚¬** IÂ¢f*/a#&74* 1 191 IT I 1 Ill IN IN I *ST#'Th'- '- I'li I 11 1 gr:-1/1 -92 f $*Fl Ill 11111111 lili lili '113. 0 ~ 1 11 1~1111]111 11111!111111 1~111111 1111~111111 1 1111111111 1111111]111 1111111111 1111111 1 1 1[11111111 1 11111111 lilli FILE NAME 94* 6 * . 11_ ..luii Iii, lili 11 1 1- U :Illn 111 1 &@tax - ir M.: -I JI-=9-Â·,Â·70=---~~~/J N -t . . SE= ~ ~ - ; ' ~ 1"--TtE-~=- --'= 1' -"-~' ' Â·' - 2- ' . ~F.- ~-1- --67 T~---~ -i' ' - ' ' - ' E'-'-~'-- ~ ~~~~;~~~ ' ~ '~ - ' ~E~~~~ E~~~ 1 41* 41-99%&1 0.** *g - ki@ 6 ~.~~, 1 kil bi 1. 91=M -59 fed' 11 - - 1 '13* *1 -1Â£*41 0 1 -61 1*269Â§4 ' - ... 6 -=ill ==&===,=26=-c'. ~%*P%-**29%931*EEÂ¥. ... 11 lit alm[N FT-- iii r IN]lili 1 T 1 11 4 Ima- - 1 *97-- 7345 740Â·%93$53:p)99{.;mz4Â£39%t354*#Ff-Abdpr.f..tut<M MI 1.- ..... 11 1 .1 W.1 , ~..y,Â·Â·0~'...D-'tÂ·if~&'414* 2# 1.0.2:ji-Â·ft Â·Â·031~tÂ·>)-;39. - I=' MI- Il= F== 11 -1 - 111 NEW BRIDGE Â·_ ~ +9AARF: 1 â€ž<Im LI_Â·LE .Â·. Â·Â· Â·~ -zin Alfilind.jirriil .Illiillkll~I 1111 -lil lil-~I~j'Â·till - ; 1 1 1 .11-lilil,1111111.11~- 1- 111 lilli' 1 EAST ELEVATION ~ P 4 LIMIT OF REVISED ROOF FOR HPG MEETING DATED 04-12-00- /. /. / I / 4% /. I - STANDINe SEAM - ---- ---- ---- ' Â·ARCHITECTS RENO Â· SMITH MTL. ROOF- Â» 9----ip 7/4 . ' Ct----7-4 L._ DOD ------- 1 x VERTIICAL + T.O. RID(SE, * / N . N A 22- + SIDING TO MATCH 1----__ - 0 , -----L L.L.C. EXISTÂ»4G --I Je@~EP-==17mtb~ ' ~Nx ~ ' 130'-5' -, 6# -:. 11-. --~77.4.Iililiil i Jill~irÂ»unninn i i innin i I.Iinnun,iÂ·fiiiilyÂ·4Â¥~-4%.k~~~~1111~.'141'i~CCCL'Â·V~Yj.*P~52Â¢8**euuGiÂ·i~iip i innni iiiii ii iii iiii iii i Iiiiijiili Iiiiw~~~~----Â·Â·Â·Â·~ I i 'rÂ»uÂ· Â· - , \ T.0. PLATE., 11.--4 --u=*ri: - 11 - Al-Id-I---LI-141~*-I-L---14-I---LLLâ‚¬&325956 210 EAST HYMAN 129'- 9 5/8" 9 ~f<~ ~ ~~f<j---1-LkildJ-i----111--.-1-LLL N 202 ~~~~i'~lfi,tti T.O. PLATE. ASPEN, COLORADO 128'-3"W =.1 81611 A?mi'irii :,Ii'llf -I'lilliq''~ 1[i~Ill j:*Ff'Â·'ir hti:KÂ·~~Â·K.Â·:Â·: , 1.11 -1': , HIll' H "12'll -A+h*,41 k ..Ill"Ill' 6: lilli lillil ..I, u I.,Â·-'lili -311222 (970) 925-5968 Imullum mm=mrnmnTIn~IrmoH-1 i i. lilli â€¢,111 FAX ~IlnllMllimunllllullillulg c P. lilli Elm Â®*11111] ET;Imm *1'j 3" DIAM. STL. 1 -r-,FÂ¥' Â·- - ' i ~ T.O. PIND. e Brd FLO~~ * (970) 925-5993 1 111'F 000 ' TUBES 1 ----VI-/-1 ~it ~i~ ~- ~-~~:~~ ~1 :~,~-~~-ALE>~F .'I ~~t ~2Â·~c-:; %- ~ 1, 11.1- . P mmild %*E111444444444*ff - -traTiT-TilEE34* 9-62*fÂ¥ - " BASALT, coLORADO 4 1 4..PE~ 371 SOUTHSIDE AVE. N 101 1 1/lilli 1 11 1 jill 1 111 .14. 1.1.. iiiiiilitiiii-r 1111111'r"r 81621 1 : .1111111111,1111"lili''ll (970) 927-6834 .-ry/~~"14-I 'Ill TiMBER BEAMS - '~ ' 11 lilli lilli l i l l i 1 1 11 11 lili l i l l i l i l i 11 , 1 3 - ~ '--7.'/m, 4,0'LL/7/Illfilir. 7 '406448**W i.,Â·'~...'=*//4 11 9~ 1 ~1 ~1 fft:f /44341 -1.1, FAX (970) 927-6840 ~ 1 2911 ,.r'-~r: .#Â·1 , ' 1 46 LIÂ·, ir t...& 1 1 ~MI~-- TO,SLAS . www.renosmith.com TUBES ~f- 1,111,.., L.Ilfi.1,11 ...lit,1 Â·Â· Â·11 liD ,4'tÂ·-~ .0JÂ·i ~i.,2~, '1~1~1.41 ,,:jj,â€ž~., i~,~~i,i ~-:,v,-,1,~fl' .-% 00. WEB SrrE 11 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1 100-0" 41 EMAIL ADDRESS office@renosmith.com NEW BRIDGE - SHEET TITLE: NORTH ELEVATION ~ ALTERNATE'B' EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS- SCALE: 1/8" = 1' - 0" SHEET NO: A3.2 NOILLICIaV NldSV 'IllOH IOn[HIS NIVAI ISHA OI I OanIOCIOJ'NldSV May 23,2000 Attn: Amy Guthrie Suzannah Reid Dear Ms. Reid and Ms. Guthry, I am in receipt of the public notice regarding the Aspen Historic Preservation Commissions hearing for 945 East Cooper parking space size variance. I am the President and owner of Power Properties, which owns residential site B at the property in question. It is my understanding that if this variance is granted that Robert and Darnell Langley and Angelo DeCaro will be able to remove the red tag, which is currently on their building site. I am strongly against their being able to continue building their property at its present location. This property encroaches severely on the common element of this very small community of homes and from what I can gather, when their house is completed it may even encroach upon my property as well. While I understand that in many cases buildings may be built off tolerance by a few inches, this particular project is well beyond what might be considered an acceptable migration. Whether this was done intentionally or not the Langley's have been aware of it for some time and have in fact previously agreed to change the location of their house to conform with the original building line assigned. I cannot in good faith stand neutral on this issue and strongly oppose the granting of this variance. I hope that the Commission will take into account the severity of this annexation of land and help prevent any action that will allow the Langley's and the DeCaro's to build their house in its present location. Sincerely yours, Sandy Schonwald 0 May 23,2000 Attn: Amy Guthrie Suzannah Reid Dear Ms. Reid and Ms. Guthry, I am in receipt of the public notice regarding the Aspen Historic Preservation Commissions hearing for 945 East Cooper parking space size variance. I am the President and owner of Power Properties, which owns residential site B at the property in question. It is my understanding that if this variance is granted that Robert and Darnell Langley and Angelo DeCaro will be able to remove the red tag, which is currently on their building site. I am strongly against their being able to continue building their property at its present location. This property encroaches severely on the common element of this very small community of homes and from what I can gather, when their house is completed it may even encroach upon my property as well. While I understand that in many cases buildings may be built off tolerance by a few inches, this particular project is well beyond what might be considered an acceptable migration. Whether this was done intentionally or not the Langley's have been aware of it for some time and have in fact previously agreed to change the location of their house to conform with the original building line assigned. I cannot in good faith stand neutral on this issue and strongly oppose the granting of this variance. I hope that the Commission will take into account the severity of this annexation of land and help prevent any action that will allow the Langley's and the DeCaro's to build their house in its present location. Sincerely yours, Sandy Schonwald