The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.HP.533 E Main St.58-93i. 1/ r- 4 7 7 -5, 1 1 E 7 -2, E At, A 45) i 5 0 -4 D Â£1---1 .. es# 1,1 , .1 39 NEut P i 1 - 33. -62Â£94 fl. rl 0 / COPYAIGHT ASSOCIATES PC , / ... UE 0~ 4 1 te i 5N 0-1 ma: 1 j - m2 \ . 1 1 4% 10 t 0 r- Â¥ 9 - 72 -1 E Ill ., m 0 1 42 --â€ž 0800 E ~ 1 I da risom X < FIll Ill I 01-Jm mo]<- 08<0 1, 0-MIDM 1 I K r m 4 'i 1 t' --t-- 11 0====0 1.1 1 11 IF' Â·: t Ii':, <2===Tix /5 93-- %<-rb. /92:al-AX 0---*---Â«A , -Â»X 42 11 1 1 1, 1 7\. , , M. rl' '.. t- LIF===*===91-1 4.4 9 1: .F... i) DFTLD ill '~~~~ --El, 9--Il[~ik -11 - t-}~P---71~ J r- 1.1 Â·Â·Â· 4. '' Â·Â·f:i 'r - lit P ... 1--11116.- 00 - - -Â«i ! 111 ' Ill! 4;=1 12 21-4 ---------- -al[ CUZZZIEZZIEn 1 I 2--------11 -3. Er======3 x8 I 644 â‚¬Â» 1 B LU . 1, - - 1 My irÂ»UN \.9.- 4/ 31-Â»t 1/.*-~Ii /57 1 ~ 2 11 46 50 + . -- ry, 4' '~ * 1\ 4 7'=c=-- 9=:.-- ALJ P--1-1 41, ul 1 Ir --- trfl - -6-1 -4 r---11 W (04 4 4 B Ill I -tf m o 4 Ill 1 - - r 9--a' ' i 1 >Z lilli 11 , 1- 1 11 Itrizz-41 %9 4% %~ r [---1111[ 11 94 - - U.1 lilli . 1 :E h tz 8 4 jil 'i 111 nni i. -,1/ )4=0*=241 t mh-*V....,j*~Mti~ 1 4. . 1 -0, 1. 6. I - , *l-'ll-= .. 2 ====4.1 iz~ - 0 4 it < CD [LIE ..1--3 DRAWN CHECKED ~ ISSUED E-1 1 + E XI S T I L 6 W E â‚¬ T E L E- v A-E l o Â»1 / - r-1 # -1.----.eL--06--Pt_. 1-e-_ F = 94k= 2-OR , ,: R .*'.9 Â· y' , TELEDYNE POST N47463 I'..&. 43*: ....bk 0 Z - y tO -P ov 1 i L 1 - 1 \'/7 - TO N - -1 0 1 4 I A -- in H E: m - , M- 1 4% 1 % 11 \ 5% 3 m 4 4 -\Â« 0 0 Int U t X- 1 1- -- U. ,9 I . \ --- tz=- 1 1 1 1 0 1-1 1 1 L T 1 24 -Fl f--- ---- t= - El I U 161 mil ..I ... .1 411 -- '1'X.1 . 4 -43 1 U - -- /7 M . - 11 11 k # 0 U-/ I. 11 d ... 11 0 - \27 f \ f 1- - 7 j 1 - m _ 1- 4 11-214 O - , firr:Mr'nu 4 6-3Â·Â· = ---------:PLE, 1.-HI--_-1 Hi -r r % .- 1 - 9 1 1 --1 ]=32[ ~ -1 1 =' 6 L-1 1 m= - 1 1 1 1 - -I = ' 1.11424- 1-----1- /1// r.- \ -~9-1 : -n ' />4 --14/J-------4/ 4 - T - - - - ==1 :01 1 i, dll 1~ lilli ~ ---------- -L _, L=22Â«11Â»- ' 1 11 /Â«\. 11 ----- ---- --tifilf =\1 1 ------------- 11 11,1111-21.Jw III i ..lili 111111 E-- 1111111 1 ... ------- 1.--- .... --1 - - - --- 440 - --- r- b-= 1 B -1 4- 1,0.46.61 : -- - -l 1 1 P 1, ==. *Ft 4 242 )83 - %137..:, , f - 4 1 - 1 9 mK re mz 21... -D b. 1- - 2 -r g Um 0 -7 0 1-< 5 or SOW 0 =1 =r Â£ 1 1 200 ST. MARY'S CHURCH THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC m In cmb ARCHITECTS AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS & mni ADDITION AND REMODEL 0 -0:Z IN 4 - 1- 0 - - ~114 ~ 917*- 3 17-2 - f/* d:/ -0 ~Â» f1- - ## Â£ Â·-D lul 01 2 L - /1 J ) - . Z ____ -4- ; . *39 74 J.*A.4 ' -1 1 11 111 1 --- 1-1- r--- -34-1-I-47-Jti-_- r --~ . V 11 1- H --- -IHHI f =Lus ALÂ» 41* 1 1 - -/ 7.1 1 ----- 8.--- Â£ 1- 1 72Â·'.fr-j V MOU. 6 r> 1 m< U' 0 / -4 K PO. BOX 1640 ~AI 351 STATE HIV\/AY 82 MAIN AND HUNTER STREETS BASALL COLORADO 81621 .- ASPEN, COLORADO ' [3031 927-3167 Â· I =?4 7 THEODORE TELEDYNE POST . .1 - 1 I. H f{ 1> 18 - a r t- - It $ P E 0 4 P 4 -it : D f 41 f lit' . I -41 n ==A . .1 r-1 r \\ $ 4 -\ 11 Â·1 -ki ____-41<1 4 1. - 4 - 1 1 -1 r! U , 2 . I '7â‚¬14 47 -- l - 445 . . 44* J i;aw,Â· j - 7.7. ,~ I , 1 .4 1 - i Al). lit pf 2.-- i p - 1 , f ' r - L L lit 11 i : r Â» 7/ 9 1 U I / Ij r I 11 ift' 1 j ---- ~L----1 . . --1---V-- 1 - I .A :41 - 2 I $ - 11. :00 THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC mIn 1 ST. MARY'S CHURCH ARCHITECTS AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS ADDITION AND REMODEL ,%43 - ~I f 0@Z 351 STATE HIWAYS Ar.<44 ANg 5*I P.O. BOX 1640 ELLIU MAIN AND HUNTER STREETS BASALT, COLORADO 81621 ASPEN, COLORADO f - 1 9 U Mâ€ž 1 V Â¢2 t A~ 1 4Â« 00 F I 116 it (4-)1-9 ) ry.1 I z / 0-*AL th 21- 1-AD-taix 1 1%--~ if \43%- , iii , 11 / li i li 4 '4.- i U i L i ! ./ .- i j.- ---=".5.--.-- /5 // -.- -.# ~/1-~~-- - r6. A 1. f 1 -r - - 1 - 11 $ 41 1 1 *:. -r.- e i b / i:I i . i 111 .4 f I , ; 1 2100' 1 ' 1 .5 -- . il ..ckâ‚¬ty- - Â· . i - : 4 1 .. 'i -- I - F. lii l ! i ~11 ~ -' Â· -- -- Â· 1 1 . iii f 1 1 ; 7 4 Â£1.- 1 I Â·//.. : IIi i. - 1 --./ :1 1 1 L 1 /1/ L-~=4 ' ' iii %/ 1 1 , it i i - - / 1 1 21 41 L.--lu li l ..-7 a - --0 $ i . 1 - -- C A L(,9 docrf 12 & Pt ll I 01 :t .-~V. 0 ./.=*..I '/ I- * .. - .â‚¬2~J.Â·aien ~ I...- -I,9-&9. Il-- '4!:.-=,44~,- -1 - -â€¢ SUâ€¢.p...........-4.-A ./7--* b -I 1 ' - , . i 1 --I---- i I + - 1 j i , - ,- 1 i f - -04 li i -- , 1 W . - i I f & fiff 1 -77-1--7 -=r-~ i 0. 1 . .. . IN~ 1 j 1 ' 1 :i \ f 1 1 1 11 lit, E li i 1 i 1 1 ' 1-,2 t*$ - Â· _ .-_ 't:..:..i I ....1 . - EL \ --- i 3 -3-- .-- . A 4 1 - ., T : 1 .xii .-i 111/6 - 1 1 . 1 1 XY 7 4 p I I- :* 1.. - . * ~1 5 : 11 ~ , -i. < 11 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 11 1 . 1 1 1 1 i * 1 1 i Uall li .-M- t , 1, , 4 It 1 , 1 4 1 1 1 - .4- 1 - 1 6=1 1: . f;'.1 11 , lili it : . Lit -U_ 1 1 1: ? li H: Â·Â· L ' 4.~-4 2 Â· iii i i - i 1 1 1 1 C B 1_OFE- quof 1,2~Iltll . t -/ 0 7 . 0 0 I 1./ 9 / . -l. / 1 1 1 . 1 1 - \ 4 .*--,rf-' 1// 1 I i 1 1 b 1 ' ... 4.kLe. r-hj +I-* - 11 1 Fil ap#Y---i--/72...; -1-3- t 1 - 4. 11 j 1 i 1 1 : . -- . 11 1 1 < 11 . :il 1 1 : ii ii 1 1 6, w ill 1 11 1{' I ---- -.1--- - I 1 1 1 1 -- 1: 1 Z{ I it j 1 1 : , 4 1 L===1 -, - I _ - - 1: 1 )t i i + i Ij lif i 1 1 --: Ul - 64- - 1 . . - --.--- it .li U 1 / 1 - - -Â«7 f 1 L [ 31 11 1 1 1 1 - ---- a - -- -- I= 1 11 1 .1 r -* 1 --r~Â¥Â©1211. -1 1 / 1 1 /1 ill ! 1 : 1 1 34 It it .r li 'i z r 61 i i li 11 I 1 11 11 11 It i: i :1 1/i :4 1 11 11 11 i 1 1 2 1 1 i 11 . 1 [1 , 1 1 i * . ii I _--iâ€ž.,6 AL,Cs/,L..1 - - ---t-*-1 ; i i / 1 K 1 L Â¢ r ft OffriELYÂ¢1 0 1 1 le, lili- VÂ· â€¢ I 1 F \0 i .----57- 1- -==2=,M=#9 \ ' 1*-1 . rn t , tiÂ·' 1:j i 1 <11 1 11 121 1 i I - C ni , i i 1 1: 1 0 i , 1.-4 lij U t- it 19 f 'V, i ===== = 1 i: 1 it! 1 1- ilj 6 1- ,-- _- __ i: i ' 1/ 1 + I i 1.-i \L-1 2% 01 1 CO ir - / ar i j r. 11 -. i 1 1 ? i i, 1 11 1 1 1 1 i- 1 I 't 4 1 ' Â· 1 Â· =21 1 i i i 1 1 Â£=========,- 1 1 \1 - 1 il 1-, i 1 i , I -n * 1 1 | 1 -U i -3 **4%--l- 81 *09% SL\Or _ le'll:11 1-7 --- ----11-IZ-Ii ff \ ill i 4 -\ \1\\AN } 111 \ ! ; 'L \ rup f ~# i i y ,I 1 ./ -9 b ~41 t C -I . .1 - I ) --42:x iÂ·. j 1--53- l/- 1 . i 4 -- 1 1 1 1 i 1 11 I r-4.'.--.-- .*..-.-...*'I'-. - r' + i *--- I r 4 I 1 / 1 ; i li 11 ; 1 11 1 , 1 t - i \ 1 f ' fj l \/ 1 1 / , . '' 1 . 'r ' il ' 1 , .. 4,Â· i I 4 1 9 .2 : 14 i 1.4 1: 1 , \ \ b 1 1 1 1 4 111 l \ 11' I\ 1 \\03.3,4 \1 . A ( \\ \ ti t r. 1 \ --- 4' 1 1, 31 4-1-=. ~ 1 \ U I 1.- 1\ . I.- i - - 4 - -A i 1) 1 1 1 rE-ZI t 0 1 ..pI 4 1 f 1 1 'll .'..9.'-- A 1- -'- I.--- u /7 / 2 .J L. 4 / U ,.1 d \ J Â· i St 0 . 7 + ... - . ./.... 2 tl,kl N 61 REET - 72- ._6- 1 ./I 1 -1 + 4 1 1 'ro j # 1 t 1 .= 1 1 r] A C~-Â» P c a tr- 24-Â·ft 1 , 1-_2' 4-0/j \42 f E- 3 ~r/// i 1 Â¥v- 1 1 1 I 08, , 1 111 1 5 3 - TWO STORY 9 --- DRICK CH URCH li U 11 , 9-1-- 13321 i . 1 - 7 .Y 17 'AL ,Â·f . 7â‚¬fÂ¥ .Â· -, P 1 .4/*,2. ,#6,/MAA+DI.p 4 2 4 1.-0 .11 - ik' 1 1 1 9 L. -1 I IN. 6 1 PRoPoseD - - 1 RAMP. Â· it (ON, -/ 1 1 DINPE-126â‚¬OUKIP ~ ,Vâ€¢ â€¢ . 41084441 ' , 4 % U -19&44--1 \ 1 4 - 1#/4.Ffy'.",-/*I/'1&:. MI'.44;%-IA .prj.Ter- - - -=7,0 - COPYRIGHT 1 ' '1~* < â€¢ THEODORE K GUY t ASSOCIATES PC ' 1 HY . L ' ~ ~/41- L.1,0 - - â€¢ . I . 1 '. 1 1 1 05 7 *4)1; 1 bl a& 4 , ELEVATCK # + I--I . . .\ W . 0, t. F Ul 0 z 44 1 ;.St.J i 11 42> 1 , ~ b Fii / a -1 1 K .i-.1 0 \1 d 1'4*1'.i I .42<.1%4, A= 3 -- 2 15 #-/".1/318/m.#af61~1 4 Â· 0-1 o4 ./. Â·(Â· 65 ..1 2 ., .1 < Â·' ..~'I Â·'Â· D ON 44.-%â‚¬ - . ./ I. 4. 1 3 .. 1% \ 1 -1 . .... +l 1 . 0, <Ah l. m I- ' E.*167-11.42:, & ,. LANDING â€ž ///54 . veeTI BU LE LÂ»JOING . : 4 ACCE46 70 :/,; . Â·. - i. . 2 . 2 *A#EMENT _ C : :1 1 k. 26 dE,TORAAE F - -~ - 11 // .. t â€ž . el 1 <1- 1 4 Â· 0- 11 11 4 + Â»-3 0-111 1 --- -,- - "11 ---i k Â·:1 1 111< 00 1 11 1[-74 .....1 4., i ==11 1,~ --1 1 1 -- ''-L cu 40 ~ 1 11 E- 11 3 J f-7| L.2 -4 - - l 0 1 1 1 L_ > [[ h 4 0 2 0 0 ?im VILr ID w o [9 PRI -- r F 014 --- E>ger| Nc 111 0 - X 4 1-- cu 1 6-FORAGE Ill I OF- m I~ mm~n r (11 M i.Â· 4 4. OLD < O ------ , 4 Q.MME -U---- M !,,. 454-1 k ---. O ) 1 1 \ \ 'i ,-3 . 4 L j 1 < 0 44 -A 1 up . r...W 1 - Aa 0 1 ' ...i 1. " DN ~. . :1 } --- 6 (tr#*444*abl.IT-1 -k ~_- sRI-[ RY . ' ~ ) 0-w-reÂ¥ 11 1 2- V 59'r \D\AUS > FO 0. C,H . 1 - -1 , ' 11Â¢*R , 01-1 1 4 - 21 1 111 red -- up 0 0 - 1 1 72 ZO 0 1 - 1. 3 0= .r I J 0 1 .411 . CD U.1 f :.4/1 12 - , â€¢ W LAI 45> , ,- VEZ , Ul 22 - ------- It 4 0 . 'Cl Z -- --7 J i 00 1. Z 1-- - -9 - .2 0 --< U)< ' 2.' . DRAWN 401 i'@U CHECKED I 1 11 1.---3 4-1-3 OF- 44 UL-~ t 4 2 ISSUED f L z (7 M AIR L EVE.1- FLOOFf ip AN -BES< L A2 K up go p o e ED) 6 5 4 L. E : 1/AH= 2-0'I 4. ; 4 1 1 - , 1, 291, 8 TELEDYNE POST ki47463 010 'NadSV TELEDYNE POST N47463 h 41 H . f 4.-f C3 A. + I -t L 21 - 2 - f f m | 6 7 J F - P- c 1 , t E- t - 4 .~'1 Jr-Ntl>,1 4 4- I 0 1 - 7 2- M l,~ 1 .64 4 1 4 F - 1 1 1 1 < 1 -1 ~ * 9 -42 F / / : &YE' - 1 4 j I i E r III T 0 1 ------ 1 E - 1- d.ltyÂ·ti: '.3"/51 0 1- 1 1 - 11 -1 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 1 / . 0,1 91 ill' 1 91- -- -- 11 111!/ 0- 491 - 11<Â»:- 1 111/; \< 1 1 1- - h= - -1 - - ----1 1-1-1 1 1 4 \ 11 0= 02''J 2 - 7 , - ' F + moo ST. MARY'S CHURCH THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC .In ARCHITECTS AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS iii 9 * ADDITION AND REMODEL 0@Z u,mo 0 -8gy 291 I 'll , p,O,BOX 1640 mme - ~8 -- - -m.- 351 STATE HIWAY 82 MAIN AND HUNTER STREETS - : 'Â·. I ' ~. 17; 4 1,1 : ,3 '. 1Â·Â· h --- fi --/3-- - --"-------- .- BASALT, COLORADO 81621 ASPEN, COLORADO (303] 927-3167 1 1. 21Â· aU;% , t~&5:L - r. Â·i"Nmmn-/MIWF- r.-4 Â·D.,-*'Ky-~V,te5Â·%:~~:~-Â· '-.te~Â¢r'* . 1 - h ..~: i h-Â·,1;0' f ' '1Â·01-3~424.:rt, ....6.&gil, P. , 1 /' 3. .....C ....... i K 4 . 4.-90 ... ...>imft..:.44.. 1 1. 2.2, 2 . . .43â„¢.7-ft-A~"'i Â·'.. . ,--1..prÂ» 71 "A. *â€¢ , .4.. . 1 . 0~1,--1.. :- \ I COPYRIGHT EZZITI ASSOCIATES PC 0m E J 0 9 2 a 1i1 Or 0% . i 0, 1 ' 7, *9 ~ ~r f J: Ill M*---*-.--T , Ir m , Cll - IllÂ« mo 1, 1 90 1 4 h -4411 01- 0 2 0(0 ID Ill O % VI_Jr Â«13 - \ 1 02 X <Ircu r H O N j lil I ok J m 4 --ZE-1 0 -1 IN rme 72 00<0 1- 4 0-come -/ \ 4 1 11 6 - I - P =* II*-1-1 1' Th 1 .21 ! _ ii--12.1 4-1 - 7 r , -<-1331\ %*-i-- ~'*FEEEGu-. _ 1--11 2/-- 11. 143) ,Â« fÂ» 1 32' ~ 1 . 41-~~- 44 4h--mp) //// \\ -r li - in # U.ELI 21+L 04 -Ini~11~ 32 I. 41 1:61 r 111 d===ttrj i T ~Lt ' . "IA . ''. d . 41- 41,4 ..Ill p 1-12.-1 t 1 1 -1. 1 1 .-1,49 - I 1 27/ -#634 12 1 -2- . /,-K*-62Â»kx . / 7 *:\ 1 L , 1-11.-/1 * 4 -~- .h -1 C~L===Ji Ul r - .... .- . .....1 ,; ~c5333222*:- 1, .-4--zy-1 . 0 4 1 XX.... 1 + i '. ~ '74/ 4 1 il''C 1 \\ Â«.1 2 <t--12-i~ 4 171TZ t 14-96 1 - .4 1:I , 1 Â·Â· Ur rn - 21 [LE- 4} 1[ 1 P I ill- 17 I I 1 1 -711.1. 1 - .1 L.-L-1.-1' , 1------ - ~ 81 IÂ»*21 - 1 43/1 LOO F 0 -72 1- 1 4 11 1 -1 LE- i - 1 ---- 1 9 00 ELLILL__2,__1 11 1 , - - 1 , I ' ILLIEr I ~ ~ DRAWN i -- |CHECKED | ~ 1 1 34 r 1 1 L----7-- 1 El d.- L - A5 C, 2.- X1 S 9.LVIO S133ELLS 831NnH ONV NIVIN a 0,1[aav 0~0100 NadSV TELEDYNE POST N47463 TELEDYNE POST "9'5&9163 * *FV . . , ., 21, . *ve: ~ G m v 1 9 A- 11 Il lÂ· 1 1 1 IN> p . 11 Â·Â· 4 i , 1 _..LCE=229 - _22-- -x, X- V - 1. -- - - 1 T - I .-- 1 A--1 tÂ· i \â‚¬ \9 - 1 , --~n , 9 . 0 C=11 _1 11 - L_ 11 1. 1/ t - --- - - 1... 1 Â· t./ -4 _L-- -1 WI i & --1- I 4 Irr -- 1 , b , ... 34% lI 94 r -- ~ 3-7 8 U f 13 r P . 4 n 1 11 11111\ 11 , 11 1 Plili 11 111 L /[lili 1 1 1 1 - 1 .1 1 A > 'R 1 1 1 1 1 i. I i 1 /1 .; ~ ' 1 1 1 1\1 1 1 . I J 1 11 1 11 C-h r 1 11 1 1#.1 * t. /1 $1 1[. ' 17 -'1 Hb 1 IN; 1 1 .1 1 iÂ·j f 1,1 1 1 '1 1 1 11 lilli /. l i I t- 2 - 0 4 0 C -4 1 e ... 4 43 .... 500 ' m m I. ST. MARY'S CHURCH THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC cmb ARCHITECTS AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS mof ADDITION AND REMODEL 80* . - i-lut. pt oxz m *32 0 *.9,Â¥...91474+-1:M#*At'*UJV RRY 1 1.Â·....~ Â·. ~c,t.-,422 21 E 1 3 4 . PO. BOX 1640 @TO .8 7/*67â‚¬.70 Â·Â¥' Â·C ~ ' . 351 STATE HIWAY 82 MAIN AND HUNTER STREETS :83 d C BASALT, COLORADO 81621 Â· 4 Z::4'. - ASPEN, COLORADO _ - I. i . (303} 927-3167 l el- g ,â€¢0169' . BEDYBE 109 %<7*W ~ - 4., . A - ~m , X - 4 - , L . , j 4 1- j L d L -i - P 4 - -41- ) :W 15.b 9...3.0 1. Â· I .k 7!04' P r / m . .f -Ii[1 4 *99 < e ..'248/Al# m 2-lu -/ 4 j -14- I f/ rk % '3.360 - '7, 11 t. . r U . \ - . I. -1< 1 , r. 1 1 0 1 1!11 / - \ 21 11 1 11 TI- ---1 1 1 - - --1 1 C 1 t :==F ==- F . 6 - ' ' - -hi >40 . 2&.Â· ,0 I 4 k. :4 Nmr< > 2 -42.1,#* r '3.* Â· 14Â·. Ia.*i L 9 -41 - 't i t >12- i I % ST. MARY'S CHURCH ...:*.9 THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC cm, ARCHITECTS AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS _Â£- 4- <-14 :1. ADDITION AND REMODEL tirf,1.1146%92>,c ' 6 5 0 - C 00 43. 2-35*. 0 -I-.9-1 2.7 Â«Â· . - _. U .I.Â· Â»' 9.,/'d. p~ 8Â§9 ,eÂ·:,~'1,-947'~ *:,4 elf â‚¬1:312'Â»' , - 1-Â·Â· 9~'1Â£amsliE 475.3/P/. P.O.BOX 1640 - . 351 STATE HIWAY 82 n 0 -1 MAIN AND HUNTER STREETS 8 % ASPEN, COLORADO BASALT, COLORADO 81621 [3031 927-3167 224/fl â€ž 1 lut ./FnTÂ· V. TELEDYNE POST N47463 - . ra - 4 i ? 00 3 4 9 -1 1 5 >< - 4.. - 9 1 - ~) 44~ - --- . 4 0 1-4 =F . 1--11 1 -1 1 3 - . 1 , m - ..1 m - M 11:0 3 2 = D 1531 ~ 1[LEI al 3- F. . 0 -0 1\11 1 1}-3 + ))) # o E L I-[L il Ul . 3 -'11.-=3 , '0 f 1 - 4- 1 = 11 2221 F 0 0-1 101 11331 3 5-< fâ‚¬ /--- -----'- --- --- ---- <---f ------------- - - 14 1 . 0 -zzl~,3 0 -1 4 Â¥-K -4 - - 1 /t\A - =-1--:~7 - 1 1 - - r ITI 9..,tri.9 . th . t. -1 rt .4,1 , 1 E - 14 , Al . ~lt 4~0 - iz 44 41 i 2 no THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC ST. MARY'S CHURCH ARCHITECTS AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS c 8 i ADDITION AND REMODEL ~ mn 8mz -- ' BQ8 2MB Al m 9 ..â€ž....1 â€ž1 P.O. BOX 1640 = B x I MAIN AND HUNTER STREETS ~ <z ' ~-1 ' p ' 6%' ' 351 STATE HIVVAY 82 BASALT, COLORADO 81621 ASPEN, COLORADO [303] 927-3167 2.g=b,5. ..4-.61 R.,EFEIUiNCE. 70071'fr.gÂ»-Im -~~~(7 - IKE.FEKEPICE Fal NT TWO -- COU 9 HOUSE COUIU 1-OUSE VIEW PLAN E 1 1 /Al MA]IN STREET ~ li /1 1 - - 1 . , e - ' C.' CONC WALL ) O 1 4. 3 15 0 4 . I 4. i . 7. 9 4.2 lit CONCIKE-TE WALK , . -22\ , , i.lha IÂ·*NCE 1 I.- CONCRETE- STAIR'S CONCRETE WALK 0 ENTKY . U =OUND REEAK W ,/FLAS.CAP ~ BASIS 84 - . -, . FOUNIP: CITY MONUMENT \ S 75 0 01 41' F 270 %, Â·,Â·. 7- -7.6-3 H. ---1 /NG 1 L.6 20191 ./ , 20- Il" FNNE 1-7 1 / / I . . 10 / . 1- 1 0 - 1- Â· -/Â·Â·Â·L i i -i- ~ / O |4 .. NI --- FROPOSSON.4 ADDITION -- :r *< 1 1.,9Â«/// i 4 i 1 - tli . , 4 .////// i//j - $ . :/1/'/ 111/}l// / - / li,6 / /*Il------------ - 114 al , T r 11, , i 1 i 21/~~ fi'lf)ll/l/ /j/illl-oil'it//1 11,1 1 t// /6/ ~ i~4 + ~ ~ 1 ir ,2111~~ lili 1, - =3917 / I 1///foÂ«Â«9~ Itt lk....%-~4...:14 1 -.1/'1/li . f~/~~/9~ TWO STORY-'13#<ici HOUSE ,/// / / \ 1 12 111 12 1 9/ 1 3 1 x \ CONCRE 11 - 1 lili k \ 4--2:z-Â»-4 eol ~~~~T~~~~ u=k V / i 3.0 1-rÂ£*1\ 10 -~ lili lilli ASPHALT 6 /'BRICK CHUR lili li \ 1 FQARKING <~ 1 \ 4.-1 34 i.ull/l, 18 0 . \ 1 1 8 / 11* 21 -1 0 N CONCRETE WALK . L __19_2 i_____ 8 \ 2 84 : r i \ i ' MIL-fER: , 1 i l /1/ fj ( /~l:~jf~t 4 1-i .) 1 1 -~\ \ 1 U) l -- I - 1 \ Ill ' ... 01:., 1 1 h 2.As . Iti / 1.10 - 11 2 C 1 ///f,// M 0. i p. i k 1* f -- 1 69/9f/~-/tÂ»// /1 1- 1 3 k Â»K 1/) 1 -k 3 \1 \12//// '2 li '1?1/j'ift-1/jjilfitift/ilij,\ 11 1l/l . Z 2 4 b 2 -'- - 0 '4* 7 .f:fÂ·<f i'*.Â· F 0 8" PINE , S / / / / / / ; N -16.01 . 11. W 270.84 -,11Â£ , ' / / / /1, ' 1, g.-Il '// // '# ,â€¢ , 2,Â¢r, u. 46 -5 , R.N .... CET U 4-------------~\ LIP-EPHON E PEP. CABLE- T.V. FE.O - -- .Ii-- -- 1-1-- --+1-- - -- --- - -- 0 '< ALLE-YÂ° BLOCK 93 . Z 0 00 3 s 1 T E P L A W zo 3 oz i U)< Z g 1 1 1 1 i 0 5 0 20 20 40 60 FT SCALE: r- 10 aASes OF SEAK<46 : FOUNP MONUMENTS AS SHOWN. W 0 :f U) 4 SUSVEN-OK'S CERTIFICATE , 1 HEREEr CLERT!Fl' THAT -[MIS 14Â» ACCURATELf DE--FICTS A Sul<v ef MA ti E UAPER MT SUPEXVISION ON AUGUST 24,1989 OF LOTS A - I , BLOCK 95 , CITY oF ASPEN , COLORADOÂ· ALFLAJEE SUR:VEN-S , IALC. ef, SEFTEMEEK 6, Mel L s.* r A1 NOnCE Â· Acrardim to ColorafjO law yoÂ·. mÂ·os : Lummenc- 3!1 V â€¢tr:1.11 J'Llin Dised u: 01 any de,ect in mis :urvey within 3 yearsafte. you first 01,Â£,cover Alpine Surveys, Inc. Surveyed s 24Â· 89 6 c Revisions toÂ·zeÂ·61 +00 vIE-WPLAMES) Title EMPROVEMEMT SUR:VE>r Job No 89 - MA9 Drafted 1 Â· 9. 81 E R. Client ST. MARKS C+H)Â«U :uch de:ect. M no even, may an, ad'on based :11)00 any defect In nissurvey becornmenold moÂ·elhan ten years from the date ot 'Me cer!,tication shown LOTS A - 1, BLOCK 16 Post Office Box 1730 hefeori Aspen, Colorado 81612 Ct-Tr oF ASPEN, COLDKARD 303 925 2688 SALENA STRE T 1300IAI3bl R STREETS iAEIVIN E#. 2 4 .*1/*:.6, i,, '19/)<JE#TU .â€¢I'.'.' Â·.1, YÂ·. 4 i :, ' ~iÂ· 4 RIGHT BE K GUY COMCRETE \VALK XTES PC 1 1 . 01 !12Â£ \\ 4/ 6 1/, 3 02- 12" PINE -01 /1- 0 1 0 10"PINE . f. I E--------1 1 / I .... \ 1/////// 3 4., 1 1 lili il 1 r F... 4 : f 1 1 1 . 1/ I 1340 STOOY MICK 1-1 .. 01 . m > 9 0 i 9 I 0 LU X <K 01-J CONCRETE WALK mul QUo 4 Q.rom W % i,.'.41 ' 4 P. ' 010 - o <r e'mNE /1\\ â‚¬3't. 4 Hallam P ri St Lake Q 44 '*f St 4 0 S ~U 4 05 404 81 C. 05 05 0 Hâ€¢/am f CS. 8 ~ S k# 1. t $ S < NE: 8/ k. r CO b ' 82 * 4 3 9. CO '90 4, , . 4. 0 2 2 b I r Juan St Mall O//A D -7 St 4 81 PH 1 2 -18 -9 Â¤ CD ' 1 f A~GCt ASPEN Ly 0+A 64 41/ L29 Le 004630100 AbliNEl/MU-LVA=I I=I U:lbUdUAd CONCEETE VALIC GALENA ST IE E ET TELEDYNE POST N47463 I FriÂ· r**98. 3 0.,40*r .... .0 0 .. 0 .. ... .. 0 ' I. It 1 11 W . 11 1 1 V It ... . 1 .. 1 1 0 1 .. .. . . A 1- .. - . . . . -~r , 1 . 1* C 1 I I. I 2. LAN PING 4.Â· I. Y . 1 I . h. 1 A PROF'DeED---7 Â· Â· . e----~- 5TONE WALL \ 1. , UNDE!262OUKIP / . ~ 4 1 '.% y '' 4109*61 1 -_____ . . n 1. 0 : 1 . . . m 1 COPYRIGHT . THEODORE K GUY Z ASSOCIATES PC 7 9 um aE F . W WZ Ill 6 t Z Z liu 0 0 4 0 ID a 1 >, r ID 7, all 9 *9 (D m E 0 MO P am: 4 5. 0, 030(0 gI-Jr (0 in O (9 OA . 334; @gim Ul Ot X 4 Fal Â· r 0 (g 2 19 m a I 1., Q + 1'.9, S Â¥ --- 1# 4 I , \D - 1 -4 4 + FFoposec> li 6.!FO Ulâ‚¬ -- . 1 f ~ ;i:-4 4/ JTIZY .Â» 1 ..1- . $4 1 ., I , i - -it.*f J \ 1\7 1 . 4 i .i, 1 21 ir,74 NurIH, I.-- i i 039* WE -~ 1 b I < L j,1 DRAWN CHECKED ISSUED 21 2 92 3Â«.0.-7 A2 ': 5. v. 8-434 u t..$ ' ,pi, 1%--8'1 -R & -~ 9 , - "131 -Ive, ruon=.Le HOEIRHO S,ABVE 'lS 1300~labl a NOIllaaV TELEDYNE POST N47463 S133&119 BaiNAH ONV NIW, 00~0100 'NadSV 14 94 0- A =, - 0 0 - A .. I. . a '4 . ..... - . 0 4966' 4.40 '1 12,0.â‚¬1.'. .. ..0, , , . 13, 144/it.. ~~ Ntt .i .,<fd*Â¥0.... C Â· ) 4:96 .4,74#/' 2." 6 ... " 1 44 .*9% . 1 r .' r'k.*i' ".Â·, '4 X.'.4.1.d' ,/7/uillit,i/,/6 . ~~ 7â€ž7â€ž77773 9044<64**qaAM#&A"*'r#92 ~. 1 1 * COPYAIGHT 4 / 1 \ 17 THEDOOAE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC 11 F I .- [ ti 12 J U. Â£ C-* ELEVATOR I 93 k 0~ 4 .1. - '' 4 D .~ + Â¥2 R S 1 /84 r-4 .2 ..... 1. V. 9.5, LAK--' -1 04 PFAI vae-TIBULM ' A k 4% Mor 1 9 ~*loU ' - e 4 W 2 0-9 01- 0 Oul Ot Ill I -1 IN gk m -- - Thm--- r . l. 1 \ Il 1 11 1 1 1 11 14 11 1 '..:i ~,1. it,. 34 011 11 ' 181*112Â· , I. || ~~ ~f'.'.-t. . 4...S 11., 11 11 1 1 -\ 11 -*. 1. ... - 1 1 J 111 6 lu Â£ 99 02 ! BLU DOC '9- - 1 DRAWN CHECKED ISSUED ~r ~ -3 k=Il Z.- IZ-tz.. ..4.. 01. L F L 0 2 12 F LAAE-1 - #. ti A2 6 0 A L ES ],54"=1'-O" - 1Atii;JUbi#UtikE:~.Liah -,Ut 28 AVA~RA~-3158 S,Ablvvy LLS V NOIJLIGGV -* . 7/ -.-... f lE,lar' . - . ..135 . r 1 1 i 1 $ 1--CE:, T E LE V AT I D K-1 \/V r.g . AD 1 UN 6 0 A L E 5 74 "= 1~-0" ----- 1 .tz . Â· Â· Â·i ~C Â·- ;4 - ";0440:23 ..1 ...9.12...j.t.f,#'t.j,Ed*.r.,;,U\. 1 . 1 .~'~.7,1,/2~ .i'.7..Ii# .6% :'?*t,1. U . 44 . 1 - 3 /4 11 - 11 11 1 1 ,I .. 1 . . . 1 11 . ... |lb=:11|â€¢---116=11 , I 4/tilill'Ji- â€¢lillâ€¢Ir "ill ' _ _-_-___ -- - - - 4;'70.1, 1.l I.E N â€¢i --------- U.- ------ Â©g (mh..4.Th - t'& i: titt *~ 7, 6',9114Â· . --1 -- 1 -- - - -Ililifu~--07 1- Fil . . 11 1 . 1 111 ---g- Imil- . - . I .......limmY"."Fly'Z/%"el........ a- U . . - . ---. --- . d - '. . 9,51. . 019 - 44 . .. ......Ill - E 1.'.4. 3941 , .... /- . ... . - 1 Â© Â· F. 2 ' . .a . UG MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer L Re: Conceptual Development: 533 E Main, St. Mary's Church elevator tower and vestibule addition (Public Hearing) Date: November 13, 1991 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Conceptual Development approval for addition of an elevator tower and vestibule, and front entrance remodel of St. Mary's Church. St. Mary's Centennial is 1992, and they are interested in having this addition completed in time for this looth anniversary. LOCATION: 533 E. Main St., Lots A-I, Block 93, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. APPLICANT: St. Mary's Catholic Church, represented by Theodore K. Guy and Associates ZONING: CC - Commercial Core, "H" Historic District, Designated Landmark, within Viewplane SITE, AREA AND BULK CHARACTERISTICS: Lot Size: 27,500 sq. ft. Allowable FAR: 1.5:1 = 41,250 sq. ft. Existing FAR: 12,500 1 sq. ft. Proposed FAR of addition: 760 sq. ft., including deck and ramp EXISTING CONDITIONS: St. Mary's Church, a local landmark and potentially eligible for listing on the State and National Register of Historic Places, has received only one major alteration since it was originally constructed. The front entry/vestibule was added in 1966. The church parcel as a whole is considered to be one of Aspen's finest examples of Victorian-era architecture. Its symmetrical massing, scale and verticality, central tower element, roof form, fenestration pattern and use of brick and sandstone relief distinguish the character of this landmark. It is located within the only block in the Commercial Core Historic District that has remained virtually unchanged for 100 years, and is across Main Street from the National Register Courthouse. Since 1966, only restoration work has been done, specifically to the interior, which received a local Preservation Honor Award in 1989. The church is in need of an elevator for the mobility .. impaired and large enough for coffins, and has stated that a satisfactory interior solution cannot be found. PROJECT SUMMARY and REVIEW PROCESS: The applicable Guidelines are found in Section IV. Commercial Buildings - Renovation and Restoration, beginning on page 47. The Development Review Standards are found in Section 7-601(D). Development Review Standards 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an H, Historic Overlay district or is adjacent to a 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, HPC shall find that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. Response: The addition is proposed for the western elevation, at the north corner, which is prominent and highly visual from Main Street. The tower and vestibule with ramps and walkways project approximately 29' from the edge of the west wall, and are approximately 31' wide. The height to the top of the parapet measures 31.5'. Staff finds the size and height of the addition and associated walkways to be large, the location prominent, and the detailing somewhat elaborate to be considered compatible in character to the landmark. For these reasons, staff finds the tower proposal does not meet this standard. Staff finds the front porch remodel to be compatible and an improvement over what currently exists, thereby meeting this standard. (A massing model will be necessary to present to the HPC.) Materials: Brick and sandstone are to be the primary materials used in the addition, which we find general appropriate. Exact material samples, including windows, are required to be presented by the applicant at Final review, in order to make a final determination on type, size, texture and color of the brick and sandstone. HPC COMMENTS: 2 .. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: Elevator towers have been added to significant landmarks (The Wheeler and the Elks Building) in the district. However, these elevators have been located on non-primary elevations , are of the minimum size for handicapped accessibility, and are architecturally unadorned. The Elks elevator tower is located well back from the street edge, and the Wheeler's elevator is overall significantly smaller and narrower. We find that this proposal is not consistent in character with the other two. We further feel that this project, if approved as proposed, may diminish the historic integrity and character of the historic district. Staff understands the church's special needs are different from both the Elks Building and the Wheeler, however, a thorough explanation of why these needs are not able to be met through the interior has not been submitted by the applicant. We have recommended that the applicant conduct an on-site visit to demonstrate the need for the elevator/vestibule addition. HPC COMMENTS: 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structure located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. Response: It is staff's opinion that the proposal as presented does not enhance the cultural value of the landmark, due to the visual impacts and general change in architectural character of the structure. HPC COMMENTS: 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: When studying the proposed west elevation, the architect's intent is clearly understood. The top Of the buttresses and arch top windows are aligned with the brick relief employed in the proposed addition. The width of the addition is proportionally close to the width of a bay, and the verticality is 3 .. strong. However, staff finds that the addition as a whole has a sense of architectural importance that is competitive to the landmark, as opposed to subtle and recessive to allow the landmark to clearly read through. The parapet corbeling and balustrade, in particular, are detailed such that staff feels further study is required and revisions are necessary in order to meet this standard. Front entry porch: The 1966 front entry/porch (which encroaches into the public right of way) detracts from the architectural quality of the structure. (Note: This earlier addition was considered by the State National Register coordinator to be incompatible to such a degree that the structure was not included in the 1986 National Register nomination project. Staff feels that the porch's remodel may make the property eligible for the State Register, and perhaps the National Register.) A remodel of the porch is welcomed, and staff finds that the proposal does not diminish or detract from the structure's architectural integrity. HPC COMMENTS: The Partial Demolition Standards are found in Section 7-602(C) of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. The general provisions of Sec. 7- 602 allow the HPC to require a Performance Guarantee when deemed appropriate due to the significance of the project. No approval for partial demolition shall be granted unless the HPC finds that all of the following standards are met: 1. The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure; and 2. The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: a. Impacts on the historic importance of the structure or structures located on the parcel. b. Impacts on the architectural integrity of the structure located on the parcel. Response: The applicant did not specifically address the partial demolition standards in the Conceptual Development application, and staff recommends this be done in the Final application. It appears that a relative small amount of original material will be impacted or destroyed due to the addition. 4 .. HPC COMMENTS: ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following alternatives: 2) Approve the Conceptual Development application as proposed, finding that the Development Review and Partial Demolition Standards have been met. 2) Approve the Conceptual Development application with conditions to be met at Final, including the Partial Demolition Standards and materials. 3) Table action to a date certain and continue the public hearing, to allow the applicant time to restudy the proposal in order to meet the Development Review Standards. A revised application must be submitted to the Planning Office no later than two weeks prior to the continued public hearing date. 4) Deny Conceptual Development approval, finding that the Development Review Standards have not been met. This action constitutes re-noticing and another public hearing. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC table action to a date certain and continue the public hearing, to allow the applicant time to restudy the proposal in order to meet the Development Review Standards. A revised application must be submitted to the Planning Office no later than two weeks prior to the continued public hearing date. Additional comments: memo.hpc.533em.cd 5 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: Public Hearing continued: Conceptual Development - 533 E Main, St. Mary's Church elevator tower and vestibule addition (Public Hearing) Date: February 26, 1992 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Conceptual Development approval for addition of an elevator tower and vestibuld, and front entrance remodel of St. Mary's Church. St. Mary's Centennial is 1992, and they are interested in having this addition completed in time for this looth anniversary. This is the 2nd continuation of the Conceptual Development public hearing. PREVIOUS HPC ACTION: At the meeting on November 13, the initial public hearing, the HPC tabled action and continued the public hearing to December 11, to give the applicant additional time to restudy a few significant aspects of the elevator/entrance addition. Height, massing, scale, fenestration, roof forms and materials are all considered to be areas where consensus had not been reached, and more design work was necessary in order the proposal to meet the Development Review standards. The HPC seemed to not object to the proposed general location of addition. The interior site visit held on November 13 was necessary in order for the HPC to clearly understand why the addition is proposed where it is, as opposed to pushing it further to the south of the building, closer to the alley. The nave and sacristy would be affected if the addition were added to the southwest corner, the building has close to a zero rear yard setback, and the east elevation (Hunter Street) is considered the secondary elevation, thereby precluding it from receiving the addition. The project was continued again to January 22, 1992, however, the applicant requested additional time to prepare revised drawings, following.. comments from St. Mary's congregation. The Public Hearing was continued to this meeting, February 26, 1992. PROJECT SUMMARY and REVIEW PROCESS: The applicable Guidelines are found in Section IV. Commercial Buildings - Renovation and Restoration, beginning on page 47. The Development Review Standards are found in Section 7-601(D). Please refer to previous memos for complete review. All four Development Review Standards are required to be met in order for the HPC to grant approval. .. Please refer to the applicant's letter as a summarization of the revisions. The areas to carefully review are the elevator tower and the front porch. Development Review Standards 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an H, Historic Overlay district or is adjacent to a 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, HPC shall find that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. Response: Staff feels that the general conceptual direction of the revisions meets the HPC's concerns as stated in previous meetings. The roof form of both the elevator tower and the front porch are relatively simple and appear to meet this Standard. Detailing and window form and proportion are issues that should be addressed at this time, but must be addressed at Final. HPC COMMENTS: 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: Elevator towers have been successfully added to significant landmarks (The Wheeler and the Elks Building) in the historic district. From discussion in previous meetings, it appears to staff that the HPC feels this standard has been met with this proposal. HPC COMMENTS: 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structure located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. 2 .. Response: Staff's response remains consistent with previous memos: it is our opinion that the proposal as presented does not enhance the cultural value of the landmark, due to the visual impacts and general change in architectural character of the structure created by the elevator. We find that the front entrance porch is an improvement over the existing (non-historic) porch. These changes may be determined, however, to enhance the "social value" of the landmark, due to the potential of increased usability by the public. HPC COMMENTS: 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: Elevator Addition: It appears that by incorporating a compatible roof form on the addition, reducing its overall size and significantly reducing competitive detail, the addition may not diminish the architectural integrity of the church. We ask that the HPC consider the compatibility of the proposed windows and long, vertical detail proposed in the elevator addition. These are issues that may be reviewed in more detail at Final. Front entry porch: We find the revised entry porch to be compatible, however, the HPC should consider the compatibility of the roof form and increase in the non-conformity (encroachment into the public right-of-way). HPC support would be necessary, we feel, for an encroachment license to be approved by City Council. Please refer to Chuck Roth's (Engineering Department) letter, attached, regarding the expansion of the Sidewalk and curb. HPC COMMENTS: The Partial Demolition Standards are found in Section 7-602(C) of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. The general provisions of Sec. 7- 602 allow the HPC to require a Performance Guarantee when deemed appropriate due to the significance of the project. No approval for partial demolition shall be granted unless the HPC finds that all of the following standards are met: 1. The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure; and 3 0 0 2. The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: a. Impacts on the historic importance of the structure or structures located on the parcel. b. Impacts on the architectural integrity of the structure located on the parcel. Response: The applicant did not specifically address the partial demolition standards in the Conceptual Development application, and staff recommends this be done in the Final application. It appears that a relative small amount of original material will be impacted or destroyed due to the addition. HPC COMMENTS: ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following alternatives: 1) Approve the Conceptual Development application as revised, with or without additional conditions, and require that the Partial Demolition Standards be met at Final. 3) Table action to a date certain and continue the public hearing, to allow the applicant time to restudy, prepare drawings and revise the model accordingly. A revised application must be submitted to the Planning Office no later than two weeks prior -to the continued public hearing date. 4) Deny Conceptual Development approval, finding that the Development Review Standards have not been .met. This action constitutes re-noticing and anothet public hearing. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant conceptual development approval with specific conditions to be met at Final, including meeting the partial development standards (Section 7-602-c). Standard Â·#C (Cultural value) should be specifically addressed at this meeting to determine if the proposal meets it. Additional comments: memo.hpc.533em.cd.cont.2 4 .. MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: Final Development: 533 E. Main, St. Mary's Church elevator tower and vestibule addition Date: May 13, 1992 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Final Development approval for addition of an elevator tower and vestibule, and front entrance remodel of St. Mary's Church. PREVIOUS HPC ACTION: The HPC granted Conceptual Development approval to the St. Mary's project, with conditions, on February 26, 1992. At the HPC meeting of November 13, 1991, the initial public hearing, the HPC tabled action and continued the public hearing to December 11, to give the applicant additional time to restudy a few significant aspects of the elevator/entrance addition. Height, massing, scale, fenestration, roof forms and materials are all considered to be areas where consensus had not been reached, and more design work was necessary in order the proposal to meet the Development Review standards. The HPC seemed to not object to the proposed general location of addition. The interior site visit held on November 13 was necessary in order for the HPC to clearly understand why the addition is proposed where it is, as opposed to pushing it further to the south of the building, closer to the alley. The nave and sacristy would be affected if the addition were added to the southwest corner, the building has close to a zero rear yard setback, and the east elevation (Hunter Street) is considered the secondary elevation, thereby precluding it from receiving the addition. The project was continued again to January 22, 1992, however, the applicant requested additional time to prepare revised drawings, following comments from St. Mary's congregation. The Public Hearing was continued to February 26, 1992, and received Conceptual approval, with conditions, at that time. PROJECT SUMMARY and REVIEW PROCESS: The applicable Guidelines are found in Section IV. Commercial Buildings - Renovation and Restoration, beginning on page 47. The Development Review Standards are found in Section 7-601(D). Please refer to previous memos for complete review. All four Development Review Standards are required to be met in order for the HPC to grant approval. .. Please refer to the applicant's letter as a summarization of the revisions. The areas to carefully review are the elevator tower and the front porch. Development Review Standards 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an H, Historic Overlay district or is adjacent to a 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, HPC shall find that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. Response: Staff feels that the general conceptual direction of the revisions meets the HPC's concerns as stated in previous meetings. The roof form of both the elevator tower and the front porch are relatively simple and appear to meet this Standard. Detailing and window form and proportion are issues that have been studied by the applicant; staff finds their window design and brick detailing in the addition compatible with the historic landmark. HPC COMMENTS: 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: Elevator towers have been successfully added to significant landmarks (The Wheeler and the Elks Building) in the historic district. From discussion in previous meetings, it appears to staff that the HPC feels this standard has been met with this proposal. The front porch is more in keeping with entrance designs of the Victorian era as well. The proposed sidewalk extension is appropriate in that it enhances the overall church setting, while providing additional outdoor gathering space at the facade. This also meets the goals of the Pedestrian/Bikeway Plan of the City, by providing a "necked down" intersection for safety purposes. HPC COMMENTS: 2 .. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structure located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. Response: We find that the proposal as submitted does not detract from the cultural value of the landmark. HPC COMMENTS: 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: Elevator Addition: We find that the architectural revisions that have evolved on this project now meet this standard. Front entry porch: We find the revised entry porch to be compatible, however, the HPC should consider the compatibility of the roof form and increase in the non-conformity (encroachment into the public right-of-way). HPC support would be necessary, we feel, for an encroachment license to be approved by City Council. HPC COMMENTS: The Partial Demolition Standards are found in Section 7-602(C) of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. The general provisions of Sec. 7- 602 allow the HPC to require a Performance Guarantee when deemed appropriate due to the significance of the project. No approval for partial demolition shall be granted unless the HPC finds that all of the following standards are met: 1. The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure; and 2. The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: a. Impacts on the historic importance of the structure or structures located on the parcel. b. Impacts on the architectural integrity of the structure located on the parcel. Response: The applicant has addressed these issues, and we find 3 .. the Partial Demolition standards have been met. HPC COMMENTS: ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following alternatives: 1) Approve the Conceptual Development application as revised, with or without additional conditions, and require that the Partial Demolition Standards be met at Final. 3) Table action to a date certain and continue the public hearing, to allow the applicant time to restudy, prepare drawings and revise the model accordingly. A revised application must be submitted to the Planning Office no later than two weeks prior to the continued public hearing date. 4) Deny Conceptual Development approval, finding that the Development Review Standards have not been met. This action constitutes re-noticing and another public hearing. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant Final Development approval for the St. Mary's Church proposal at 533 E. Main. Additional comments: memo.hpc.533em.fd 4 THEODORE K GUY~SOCIATES PC ~ ARCHITECTS AND STAI~ ENGINEERS April 22, 1992 Aspen Historic Preservation Committee Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 S. Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Committee Members: RE: St. Mary's Church Proposed Development Description The proposed development for St. Mary's Church in Aspen consists of removal of the existing 1960 vestibule entry and construction of a new entry porch, addition of an elevator tower and vestibule, and a modification to the sidewalk adjacent to the church entrance at the corner of Main and Hunter streets. The remodel includes the demolition of the existing entry vestibule on Main Street and reconstruction of an entry porch in order to reduce the negative impact which the appearance of the previous entry vestibule had on the architectural integrity of the original structure. The following information is provided in response to the Partial Demolition Standards: 1. The need for partial demolition is required in order to eliminate the existing entry porch which detracts from the architectural quality of the original structure. 2. The existing adverse impacts on the historic importance of the structure will be greatly reduced by this remodel which conforms to the shapes and materials present in the original structure. 3. The new entry porch was designed to mitigate the adverse impact on the architectural integrity of the church. The new entry roof matches the slope and materials of the original building. The original church contains very simple brick details. The predominant details include the rounded shapes of the circular rose window over the entrance and the typical arch-top windows. These rounded shapes we felt should be repeated throughout the detailing on the remodel. Round metal snowguards, roof gutters and railing elements are proposed to carry this theme through. The elevator tower openings were restudied in light of the comments at the Conceptual Development Hearing. The vertical louver elements have been deleted and a single small louver required to vent the elevator shaft was placed on the west elevation in a circular form. The size of this louver is greatly reduced. The louver will consist of a painted aluminum louver set in a aluminum frame painted white to match the bell tower louvers. It repeats the shape of the rose window located over the entry on the north elevation. The elevator tower should not compete with the main entry bell-tower and is designed as a simple element with no penetrations. The detailing on the elevator tower is very simple with vertical brick column corners which project 1 " beyond the face of the brick wall and are corbeled out at the top to match the original church. The transitional trim from brick to roof soffit will have a round wood trim piece to replicate similar trim of the main roof soffits. 23280 STATE HIGHWAY 82 P. O. BOX 1640 BASALT, COLORADO 81621 [303] 927-3167 .. St. Mary's Church Aspen Historic Preservation Committee Page 2 The windows on the north and south elevations of the elevator vestibule were restudied to make sure the windows did not look squeezed between the tower and the church. The vestibule width was adjusted to allow more wall space on each side of these relocated windows and the width of the Tower was reduced. This improved the proportions without increasing the east west dimension of the addition. The arch-top glass on top of these windows are not relocated. The tower roof which had been lowered to reduce the height impact of the tower left no room for an arch-top at the nave level and the two windows opening profiles should match. The brick detailing at the window is a simple brick return at the head with no corbeling, and a sandstone sill to match the existing adjacent sills. The flat porch roof to the south of the elevator vestibule will be snowmelted to interior drains. The brick column and fascia are simply detailed. They will receive a soldier course of brick with a 1" projection at the top of each. The column and fascia have been separated by a half-inch reveal and the brick fascia will be capped with a metal flashing cap painted to match the brick. The proposal also includes modification to the portion of the sidewalk on Main Street from the church entrance to the corner of Main and Hunter streets. This modification includes extending the curb and sidewalk area 6'-0" to the north. This extension will result in the loss of four parking spaces and will improve pedestrian safety at the street corner. The shape of the curb angles have been modified to respond to the requirements from the City Engineering Department. Our proposed modifications address the concerns of the Historic Preservation Committee and the City Engineers. We feel that this final development proposal will minimize any negative impact on the original structure and will allow the church to better serve the future needs of its community. Sincerely, Deanna Olsen THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC DO/lw 91105 L11 cc: St. Mary's Church Bob Gish/Chuck North .. MEMORANDUM To: Bill Efting, Assistant City Manager John Worcester, Assistant City Attorney Jack Reid, Street Superintendent Water Department Parks Department Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Bill Drueding, Zoning Office Building Department Police Department Kathy Strickland, CCLC From: Chuck Roth, City Engineer 4. Date: June 12, 1992 Re: Encroachment License for Saint Mary's This is potentially the most important encroachment application that the City has received in recent memory because of the requested sidewalk extension into Main Street. Please provide due consideration to the application and let me know if you need additional information or clarifications. The individuals specifically named above plus myself constitute the review committee. ,0,Anyone-elseâ€ž:is.*Cli - 4~r review committee meeting which is scheduled for CWednesday. June 34 at 10:00 AM iW Bob Gish's office, or at some other location to be determined. We will probably make a site visit. I have attached a copy of the criteria for judging encroachment applications. Also attached are copies of the application and site plan. This application is for encroachment licensing for the following: (1) The existing church wall encroaches into the alley about one foot (1'). (2) The existing entry porch is an unlicensed encroachment. The applicant wishes to obtain licensing for the entry porch and licensing for rebuilding the porch almost entirely (over) Emm,â€¢â€¢mâ€¢FER! 0 . within the footprint of the existing entry. (3) The applicant wishes to extend the sidewalk (and curb and gutter) further into the street in front of the entry. This would result in the loss of four parking spaces. We understand that the proposed design has the approval of the HPC. We would like recommendations from the CCLC and NAC also. Please return your comments to me, or CEO me, before our meeting of June 24. If you have any questions, please call me at x5088. Thank you. CC: Bob Gish, Public Works Director KM92.174 THEODORE K GUY,~SOCIATES PC ~ ARCHITECTS ANC} STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS May 22,1992 Charles E. Roth, 111, PE City of Aspen Engineering Department 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: St. Mary's Church Dear Mr. Roth: St. Mary's Catholic Church in Aspen, as represented by Theodore K Guy Associates PC, Basalt, is submitting an application for an encroachment to rebuild the Entry porch within the public right-of- way and extend the Main St. curb line 6' to the north. St. Mary's is located at 533 East Main, on the southwest corner of Main and Hunter Streets. St. Mary's is proposing the remodel of the Entry porch to the Church. An existing Entry vestibule, which extends 6'-10 3/4" into the Main Street right-of-way, will be replaced with the new Entry porch. This new Entry porch will extend 7'-4 1 /2" into the Main Street right-of-way and 8'-1 " to each side of the centerline of the original Entry door. The roof over'hang will extend 2'-0" beyond the footprint of the porch on three sides. The purpose of this remodel is to open up the Entry of the Church to the street so that it will more closely resemble the original structure and to maintain protection from the weather and from snow which may slide from the Church roof above. The design of this proposed remodel has responded to the concerns of both the Historic Preservation Committee and the City Engineers. We feel that this proposal minimizes the negative impacts on the original structure and provides a design solution which meets safety requirements. In this application we would like to note that there is an existing encroachment where the rear of the existing Church extends into the alley on Block 93 by 9". Sincerely, 1 -ir 6=-4- 4-Cuu-uu Deanna Olsen THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC DO/lk 91105 Ll 3 23280 STATE HIGHWAY 82 PO.BOX 1640 BASALT COLORADO 81621 (303) 927-3167 .. 2. REVIEW CRITERIA - Following submission of an application to the City Engineering Department, it shall be referred to the various City departments and utilities that may be affected. Following review and comment by the referral agencies, the City Engineer shall consider the request in light of the following: A. Circulation - Does the proposed encroachment or vacation cause a potential problem with regard to accessing property in the area. Could the request hinder area circulation or prevent service vehicles or utility companies from accessing facilities or other structures. B. Streets Maintenance - Does the proposed encroachment or vacation create a possible problem for street maintenance or snow removal operations. C. Utilities - Could the proposed encroachment or vacation interfere with existing or future utility needs for the area. D. Enforcement - Could the proposed encroachment or vacation create or compound an existing for traffic control,City police, or fire department personnel. E. Expansion - Does the proposed encroachment or vacation provide the opportunity for expanding the fioor area of structures. Would such expansion require Growth Management approval. Vacated streets may not be included in determining floor area ratios on a given ownership, they may however, be built on. F. Income space - Is the encroaching space intended for commercial or other income-producing space. If so, it may require a rental agreement with the City. G. Adopted plans - Considering whether the proposed encroachment or vacation is consistent with any adopted plan (i.e. trails, malls, improvement district, etc.) H. Benefit - Considering whether the encroachment or vacation is beneficial to the City of Aspen. As a general policy, it is not in the City's interest to grant encroachments or vacations, thereby giving public property to private use. New structures should be able to accomplish their various needs within the confines of their property boundaries and required setbacks. Granting of encroachments should generally occur under one of the following conditions: To acknowledge all existing conditions and outline the owner's .. liability and responsibility and responsibility for maintenance and removal of the encroaching structure. ii) To license an encroachment an encroachment that is a public amenity. Examples may include awnings on commercial structures, planters in the right-of-way, irrigation systems to maintain landscaping, etc. I. Vacation of public right-of-way should generally occur under the following conditions: iii) It can be demonstrated that the City has not used the right- of-way historically for roadway, utility, or other purposes. iv) All affected utilities and governmental agencies do not anticipate a reasonable future need for the right-of-way. KM91152 Zi 1 11Â· ' 1 . 1 2 1 1 34 1 90 + , 3 -0 ...' 1 i 0 0 0 Z (D / I 0 4 . 1, / /1 11 / * 1 0 .. , , f.. . 1 A I #1 Â·~ f { 1- 16%*%731/ 11 14â‚¬kh 00 \- 1 02217.4 1~~ 1-L i . A st - - 29 -7 / , 1 - 1 -_ 1 1& 0 18*drq< ' :11,8, 1 1 5 r---/ \ -Â·0 4 Ae -gry ,&2 04 . ... i 13 i 71 0 - I 1 T tri ~19:- lu*ly .... - - .1 , E>,131-h I ME,/ 2#9477 -0- 1 t-,243* - --1221> 1 Â» i, f71 i . --- 1.e-- I .1 - My 1 I I fl U \-9- 40ll- - 1 < 4 "., 1Y1'MA.I.. 1:XC-h.P'i ' ''Â·Â· i ,~.' ~ QC)z = ag AÂ·Â·, 40; 7-rft' . , --1 . , 1 1 . I \ 1 1 9 'B I. 4 I I , I r. (a,<115Tkl . rl.â€¢44) , i. f ..i\. I. A . ' .''j 1.,:.,24|4: 714'4(h'~) . 0 \ 4 I I 0'4 E-fL 64 4.- - i \ 4 0 I 1 1 \\ \ 1\.. I. I.\ L\ 0. ... . . 1-Fl .' j--,Ary'-+ \ ..1 Â·Â· Â· 19*044 1 . Â· n.. ' I, 1~ 25 - wil' 4..ch I \ 4 ./ . 10\ I -- 4- *il-* .*1---- dY ' . . . . . VO. ; I 0 i r \... ' In . , 27'' 04 1% h. ~ V \ . Il zi : . -6-1--1, \\71-4--Jaqj) 041 1 Ll{ Ly ~--' 1-/J- , in 4 i- /11* . or 0 ---0---- -1 #2 1 K 1 - l., / i. 4 1/ i , 4 F -r 1 1 1 ' 0, 12 1.k , C L Z I . 1 I Â·, #-4 61 Â· ' g . 1 1 '* r. 1 1<54(41 3, 44 - 100.0' t C Kilerb'' 'lwew/, 1 ./.1 1 4%- , , 1 - l-6wh . ..1'.Ill .s ,4 th , 7 ~' * .50~~~,fi I, LD, 094 \25Â· / . 8 I , '71 1 04 9% / e - i I \9 1,/ ; Ta 4-1 rr 1 !~h lr-9 -Ir, 71 -4 -f 44 111 4 t.3 -i. :1 L i....., 1.1 ..t I N ..4-21 itilly# % J.9 419{1 1 360 14uwrER. 6-3 #10 N , PRI-4 1 5 r WEET 4- ex IsT 1 01 NeÂ»/ C'J /2 2,2 culge, 4 42*CE e ex tel- h F,Zop,55 15& CURE, U N E- .. , MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and City Council Thru: Bill Efting, Assistant City Manager -EK. From: Chuck Roth, City Engineer â‚¬yâ‚¬_ I)ate: July 20, 1992 Re: Saint Mary's Sidewalk and Curb Extension (See attached map) Saint Mary's Church has been working with the HPC and the Planning Office to provide several improvements for the church. The main item is an elevator which will be constructed on their property and which will facilitate ingress and egress into the church for pall bearers, handicapped individuals and others. At the same time, they have requested an encroachment license which has been granted to reconstruct the entryway which is located in the public right-of-way on Main Street. The entryway will be rebuilt on the same footprint but will be open air instead of enclosed as is the existing entryway. In conjunction with these improvements, the church has asked permission to extend the curb and gutter and the sidewalk area immediately in front of the church into Main Street as was done across the street in front of the Courthouse. City staff have reviewed and discussed the sidewalk and curb extension extensively. I checked with the CDOT, and they do not have any objections to the extension. There will be safety improvements for pedestrians. Pedestrians will have shorter distances to cross Main and Hunter Streets, they will have better sight distances for observing on-coming traffic, and vehicles will have to slow down more to make the turn at Hunter Street. This aspect of the proposal complies with the Pedestrian Bikeway Plan which recommended elephant ears at the intersections on Main Street. A principal at the traffic and transportation consulting firm of Leigh, Scott & Cleary has provided a letter which supports the design proposal. The original request was to extend the sidewalk and curb along the entire frontage of the church. This would have resulted in the loss of four parking spaces. Staff feels that we are hearing diverging viewpoints on preserving parking versus enhancing pedestrian spaces. We have agreed with the church to permit a slightly reduced length of increased space in front of the church with a loss of three parking spaces. The HPC supports the enhanced sidewalk in front of the building. It would compliment one of the town's 100 year old structures which is also a non-commercial, public building. Other staff comments include opposition to losing parking spaces, concern about possible double parking in the travel lane in front of the church, and interest in maintaining uniform design of elephant ears. The church is not interested in building a standard elephant ear design. If Council has any concerns about approving the sidewalk and curb extension, please let us know immediately. Otherwise we will issue approvals. Thank you. M92.197 -7 k U 4 COURTHOUSE ~ ~ I lli 4 / 0 1 , If '741 7907.4 x */ 111 Z /- 11 1/1 - 1 \9 i t > It --0---~ ...... 41------ _. _--- 0 1 1 --19=- - --- ---- , \ (11 2 x 7906.9 7906.5x // MAIN STREET x 7908.7 ~f'- Proposed sidewalk and curb ext#*G on ~ ~ D.1. peia D.1.-'* O-04 ---D-ji~-20,2- -- -1 1 1 1 ----- . /11 4-9 11-1---- OIl- -4-----.----r 11-Â§Â§4 1 L-- Gl \ I 1 :9 Z 1 \11 ' i O J N L _01 i SAINT En RECTORY * ~ 1 MARY'S 1 CHURCH - - A C ---- 017/1 f & it --f --11\ / \ 1 1 7908.6 (1 1#11\ 1 \ 1 7910 / 11 / 90 F--*A---0-%-I 11 / 1 1 1 -- '1 l L " V 1 - . 130 / 1 -W-- 1 . 1 X 1 -1 1 7910.8 1 1 m OIl 11 - 7909.2 ~ | 1 ~-'-r--1 1--l:= Tur-[1 1 11 x 79l I. 4- o offt 1 1 0- A_ 1 11 2 \' 1 1 ~~ CITY O -* 7 -11 C-1 #/ 79\01 4] - \D HALL W )' MIJ ./ r LU 11 11 1 1 -1 i CE O ./ M - -1 1 1 121-39--294-CL__.0-- ----- - (C h.) 4 3 h\ CAP-12 --' *STREET Ty HUNTER < STREET THEOODRE K GUY~SOCIATES PC ~ ARCHITECTS AND STALJ~'FURAL ENGINEERS March 6, 1991 MAR -- 8 Roxanne Eflin Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Roxanne: This will confirm our discussion during the meeting of Thursday, February 28. We wish to have a special meeting with the HPC to discuss the exterior addition to St. Mary's Catholic Church for the purposes of installing an elevator. We understand that the final submission for the package should be submitted during the third week of March and we will be on the April 10th HPC meeting. Thanks for your assistance. We look forward to discussing this project with you. Sincerely yours, r-' Theod~re K Guy, President THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC TKG/Imd 91105 Ll cc: John Keleher Fr. Bradtke 23280 STATE HIGHWAY 82 PO.BOX 1 640 BASALT. COLOAA[JO 81 621 (303] 927-3167 THEODORE K GUY~OCIATES PC ~ ARCHITECTS AND STAL~RAL ENGINEERS MEETING NOTES ~ DO 9 7 '114 To : Roxanne Elfin -ly-ay From : Ted Guy, Theodore K Guy Associates PC Date : April 20, 1992 Re : St. Mary's Church Those Present: Ted Guy, Deanna Olsen and Roxanne Efiin lIEM 1 : Reviewed Construction drawings and design modifications to date; no windows in tower, simple round louver on the west, relocation of the existing windows to the north elevation, use of round elements taken from the existing trim where the brick wall meets the roof soffit of the existing church. ITEM 2: Submission date is next Wednesday for the May 13th hearing. LIEM_1 The CCLC is a referral agency, not an approving agency. Ted should contact John Bush to review scope of project for his input. ]TEM_41 Roxanne took no exception to Ted's plan to call Amy Margerum to discuss the curb relocation along Main and around the corner to Hunter. TKG/lk 91105 MN6 CC: File The above represents our record of the discussion and decisions of the meeting to the best of our memory and notes. Please review our record carefully and notify us if we have misrepresented any area. 23280 STATE HIGHWAY 82 P. O. BOX 1640 BASALT COLORADO 81621 (303] 927-3167 THEODORE K GUY ASSO~ ES PC [LIETTF[d~Â®[F F[EARVÂ©[mOFITA~ ARCHITECTS & STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS P.O. Box 1640 23280 State Highway 82 Basalt, Colorado 81621 DATE -Â· JOB NO. 24 i Z[ 92- 11 logi ATTENTION (303) 927-3167 FAX (303) 927-4813 FÂ©XAN kid EOF { N TO FOXAfjOE Eopt N RE sT MArf 5 â‚¬410 Fo H Patâ‚¬61/ f 11-Kild PUNk)(Â¢4Â§ OFF(CE Â»rEN j cO WE ARE SENDING YOU ~,Attached C] Under separate cover via the following items: > E Shop drawings )~Prints C] Plans El Samples El Specifications n E] Copy of letter [3 Change order ~~ COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION 1 Z- 2 *Zj q.7, 1 5 \TE FLAR . tz- Li 1Z-il z- A I 46(TEÂ·fi,AN. C 1 21 /2 <1 E Al t-|Al W L ELE L Pl-Â· F, PLA,J , 12_ 4 1 7.-(qz_ 66 WAve LGUEL FLK. FLAN, iz- 7-I (492 At Â¥00%=114 6.LY:CUAng,J. 1 E. 2,1 '412 AG UE:sT a.~Elarned, C 4 i.dq z - cou ge_ L-Er'ra=_ THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ~~For approval C] Approved as submitted E] Resubmit copies for approval U For your use C] Approved as noted m Submit-copies for distribution > El As requested El Returned for corrections m Return corrected prints m For review and comment [3 El FOR BIDS DUE 19 0 PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US ~~ REMARKS 6 COPY TO SIGNED: ~ ~ PRODUCT 240-3 Inc., Groton. Mass. 03471 If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. , Arm[I]MENT 1 USE APPIICA:nION NEM 1) Pmject Name St. Mary~~ Catholic Church 2) Project Location 533 East Main, Aspen, Colorado ~ ~ Lots A - I, Block 93, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado ~ (indicate street address, lot & block Il=ber, legal description,diere appropriate) 3) Preseat Zoning CC. "H". Designated Landmark, 4) Lot Size 27,500 SF within viewplane 5) Applicant's Name, Address & Ihone # St. Mary's Catholic Church Diocese of Aspen 6) Representative's Name, Mdress & phone # Theodore K Guy Associates PC P.O. Box 1640, Basalt, Colorado ( 303) 927-3167 7) Fpe of Application (please check all that apply): oonlitional Use _ _ :ual SPA - 0000*ual I{isto,:ic De~ Special Review Final SPA ~L Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline Conceptual POD Minor Historic Dev. Stream Margin Firel POD HiStoric Demolition mountain yiew Plane Subdivisirn Historic Designation axihniniumization Text/Man AmArâ€¢hark QCS Allot[Iâ€¢ent Int Split/Int Line GUS Eloatptirn Adjustment 8) :N:EC~: 4:f fZ~12:L~tn*,i:;::Z a~~dI.~~L~Â°49:zzj~&a~M~;Z~ The site consists of a two story brick church and the rectory, a twoÂ· story brick house, both of which total approximately 12,500 SF. 9) Description of Development Application Final development approval for addition of an elevator tower and vestibule, along with front entrance remodel of St. Mary's Church. 10) Have you attached the following? Response to Attachment 2, Minimnn Submission Contents * Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Oortents ~ yes Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application * Enclosed with the Conceptual Development Application .11-1 lili .. ./ MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: Final Development: 533 E. Main, St. Mary's Church elevator tower and vestibule addition Date: May 13, 1992 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Final Development approval for addition of an elevator tower and vestibule, and front entrance remodel of St. Mary's Church. PREVIOUS HPC ACTION: The HPC granted Conceptual Development approval to the St. Mary's project, with conditions, on February 26, 1992. At the HPC meeting of November 13, 1991, the initial public hearing, the HPC tabled action and continued the public hearing to December 11, to give the applicant additional time to restudy a few significant aspects of the elevator/entrance addition. Height, massing, scale, fenestration, roof forms and materials are all considered to be areas where consensus had not been reached, and more design work was necessary in order the proposal to meet the Development Review standards. The HPC seemed to not object to the proposed general location of addition. The interior site visit held on November 13 was necessary in order for the HPC to clearly understand why the addition is proposed where it is, as opposed to pushing it further to the south of the building, closer to the alley. The nave and sacristy would be affected if the addition were added to the southwest corner, the building has close to a zero rear yard setback, and the east elevation (Hunter Street) is considered the secondary elevation, thereby precluding it from receiving the addition. The project was continued again to January 22, 1992, however, the applicant requested additional time to prepare revised drawings, following comments from St. Mary's congregation. The Public Hearing was continued to February 26, 1992, and received Conceptual approval, with conditions, at that time. PROJECT SUMMARY and REVIEW PROCESS: The applicable Guidelines are found in Section IV. Commercial Buildings - Renovation and Restoration, beginning on page 47. The Development Review Standards are found in Section 7-601(D). Please refer to previous memos for complete review. All four Development Review Standards are required to be met in order for the HPC to grant approval. .. Please refer to the applicant's letter as a summarization of the revisions. The areas to carefully review are the elevator tower and the front porch. Development Review Standards 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an H, Historic Overlay district or is adjacent to a 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, HPC shall find that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. Response: Staff feels that the general conceptual direction of the revisions meets the HPC's concerns as stated in previous meetings. The roof form of both the elevator tower and the front porch are relatively simple and appear to meet this Standard. Detailing and window form and proportion are issues that have been studied by the applicant; staff finds their window design and brick detailing in the addition compatible with the historic landmark. HPC COMMENTS: 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: Elevator towers have been successfully added to significant landmarks (The Wheeler and the Elks Building) in the historic district. From discussion in previous meetings, it appears to staff that the HPC feels this standard has been met with this proposal. The front porch is more in keeping with entrance designs of the Victorian era as well. The proposed sidewalk extension is appropriate in that it enhances the overall church setting, while providing additional outdoor gathering space at the facade. This also meets the goals of the Pedestrian/Bikeway Plan of the City, by providing a "necked down" intersection for safety purposes. HPC COMMENTS: 2 .. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structure located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. Response: We find that the proposal as submitted does not detract from the cultural value of the landmark. HPC COMMENTS: 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: Elevator Addition: We find that the architectural revisions that have evolved on this project now meet this standard. Front entry porch: We find the revised entry porch to be compatible, however, the HPC should consider the compatibility of the roof form and increase in the non-conformity (encroachment into the public right-of-way) . HPC support would be necessary, we feel, for an encroachment license to be approved by City Council. HPC COMMENTS: The Partial Demolition Standards are found in Section 7-602(C) of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. The general provisions of Sec. 7- 602 allow the HPC to require a Performance Guarantee when deemed appropriate due to the significance of the project. No approval for partial demolition shall be granted unless the HPC finds that all of the following standards are met: 1. The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure; and 2. The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: a. Impacts on the historic importance of the structure or structures located on the parcel. b. Impacts on the architectural integrity of the structure located on the parcel. Response: The applicant has addressed these issues, and we find 3 .. ' A the Partial Demolition standards have been met. HPC COMMENTS: ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following alternatives: 1) Approve the Conceptual Development application as revised, with or without additional conditions, and require that the Partial Demolition Standards be met at Final. 3) Table action to a date certain and continue the public hearing, to allow the applicant time to restudy, prepare drawings and revise the model accordingly. A revised application must be submitted to the Planning Office no later than two weeks prior to the continued public hearing date. 4) Deny Conceptual Development approval, finding that the Development Review Standards have not been met. This action constitutes re-noticing and another public hearing. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant Final Development approval for the St. Mary's Church proposal at 533 E. Main. Additional comments: fÂ·.412 i -1-4 I- i i51fr. 0 f Arilcs*/M Z memo.hpc.533em.fd 1 D q inot * 4 /toll F U 0 . unlit 4 - /64- At. kALL te# c'41 ficbili~ 4 , .. ORDINANCE NO. ~~ (Series of 1992) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AMENDING SECTION 19-5 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING ENCROACH- MENT LICENSES AND THE OCCUPANCY OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. WHEREAS, Section 19-5 of the Municipal Code for the City of Aspen presently provides a procedure by which persons wishing to occupy or utilize public right-of-way may petition the City Council to do so; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the granting or denial of an encroachment license to occupy or utilize public right-of-way is fundamentally an administrative matter that should not require the involvement or attention of the City Council in the decision-making process; and 1 WHEREAS, the City Engineer is charged under the Municipal Code with overseeing public streets and rights-of-way. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1 Section 19-5, "Occupancy of right-of-way prohibited without Council approval; application, fee", of Chapter 19 of the Munici- par Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, be and is hereby amended to read as follows: 1 Sec. 19-5. Occupancy of public right-of-way prohibited without encroachment license; application fee; appeals. (a) No person shall occupy, construct, place or maintain or appurtenance, fence, tree, vegetation or other within any public right-of-way any building, structure obstruction without first having obtained an encroach- I 0 . ment license from the City Engineer. Any person seek- ing an encroachment license must submit an application therefor on forms provided by the City Engineer accom- panied by an administrative review fee of three hundred dollars ($300.00). The City Engineer may specify the terms and conditions under which any encroachment license is to be issued so as to protect the best interests of the City. All encroachment licenses granted under this section shall be revocable by the City with or without cause at any time. (b) Any person aggrieved of a decision by the City Engineer under this section may seek an appeal of same to the - Board of Adjustment. All appeals must be submitted in writing to the City Engineer within ten (10) days of the decision being appealed from. The City Engineer shall promptly forward all appeals to the Board of Adjustment who shall schedule and conduct a hearing thereon within thirty (30) days. The Board of Adjust- ment shall utilize the following standards in determin- ing whether to affirm, reverse or modify the decision of the City Engineer: encroachment necessary to make possible the rea- 1. Whether the requested encroachment is the minimum sonable use of the parcel, building or structure in question. 2. Whether denial of the encroachment would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship or practical diffi- culty. 3. Whether there are special circumstances or condi- tions which are unique to the parcel, building, or structure in question which are not applicable to other parcels, buildings or structures. All decisions of the Board of Adjustment under this section shall be reduced to writing. (C) Nothing contained in this section shall be construed to apply to improvements or activities undertaken within a public right-of-way by the City, its employees or agents, or the placement of temporary safety barricades or structures around pxcavations or construction within a public right-oymwayi or the placement of other devic- es or structures that may be required to be placed in a public right-of-way by reason of state or federal law \ or regulation or Section 19-6 of the Municipal Code. Â«-/4 2 . 0 1 1 FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this , A, day I / 64.,i~../6 ~1+1 tl----~ , 1992. John d. Bennett, Mayor ATTEST: 143 +11 Kathryn y. Koch, City Clerk jc1113.0 4 710 THEODORE K GU~SOCIATES PC ~ ARCHITECTS ANC) STA~TURAL ENGINEERS 'l non 2 2 141 August 21, 1991 Aspen Historic Preservation Committee Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: A Statement In Response To Attachment 3a Of The Submission Requirements For Conceptual Development Review Dear Committee Members: The Parish of St. Mary's Church plan to have a 1 00 year re-dedication of the Church in 1992. They wish to complete their on-going upgrading of the Church fadlities in time for that re-dedication. We hereby submit this Application on their behalf for your review. The proposed Project will make the Church accessible to the elderly and handicapped parishioners and guests through the construction of an elevator and vestibule. This will also provide handicapped access to the existing ground floor Meeting Rooms. At the preliminary H.P.C. review the north/west side of the Church was approved for the elevator tower and vestibule location. The HPC felt the Tower should have a flat roof to minimize its impact. The brick exterior should be similar to the existing building. The height should be below the existing eave line, if possible. Our Proposal meets all three criteria from the preliminary approval. We have created an addition that works with the existing structure without either minimizing or compromising the original building. The Tower and Vestibule provides for modern needs and allows the Church to serve the Community in the future. Sincerely, Bracken Raleigh THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES, PC BR/pnp 91105 L4 23280 STATE HIGHWAY 82 P. O. BOX 1640 BASALT. COLORADO El 621 (3031 927-3167 .. HOLLAND & HART ATTORNEYS AT LAW DENVER 600 EAST MAIN STREET TELEPHONE (303) 925-3476 DENVER TECH CENTER ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELECOPIER (303) 925-9367 COLORADO SPRINGS ASPEN BILLINGS BOISE CHEYENNE WASHINGTON, D.C. THOMASJ. TODD August 15, 1991 Aspen/Pitkin Planning Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: St. Mary's Catholic Church--Disclosure of Ownership Pursuant to Section 6-202 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen Ladies and Gentlemen: I am writing in connection with the development application of St. Mary's Catholic Church for the approval of an elevator structure on the church property. Please be advised that fee simple title to Lots A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H and I, Block 93, City and Townsite of Aspen is vested in The Archdiocese of Denver, a corporation sole, organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Colorado. Very truly yours, 11& 1-1-4 Thomas J. Todd for HOLLAND & HART TJT/sm CC: Reverend Lawrence Solan Theodore K. Guy & Associates, P. C. THEODORE K GU~SSOCIATES PC ~ ARCHITECTS ANC) ST;~URAL ENGINEERS August 27, 1991 Aspen Historic Preservation Committee Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: A Statement In Response To Attachment 3a Of The Submission Requirements For Conceptual Development Review Dear Committee Members: The Parish of St. Mary's Church plan to have a 100 year re-dedication of the Church in 1992. They wish to complete their on-going upgrading of the Church facilities in time for that re-dedication. We hereby submit this Application for conceptual design review on their behalf. The proposed Project will make the Church accessible to the elderly and handicapped parishioners and guests through the construction of an elevator and vestibule. This will also provide handicapped access to the existing ground floor Meeting Rooms. At the H.P.C. preapplication review the north/west side of the Church was most favorably regarded for the elevator tower and vestibule location. The HPC felt the Tower should have a flat roof to minimize its impact. The brick exterior should be similar to the existing building. The height should be below the existing eave line, if possible. Our Proposal addresses all three criteria from the preliminary review. We have created an addition that works with the existing structure without either minimizing or compromising the original building. The Tower and Vestibule provides for modern needs and allows the Church to serve the Community in the future. 32~~ , 1.r'Â·~; Bracken Raleigh ' re 7-- THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES, PC \ / BR/pnp 91105 L4 Enclosures 23280 STATE HIGHWAY 82 P. O. BOX 1640 BASALT. COLOAADO 81621 (303] 927-3167 .. .. iF Aspen/Pitlumia*uning Office 130 ~.Street Asl~1611 ) 920-5197 August 23, 1991 Mr. Bracken Raleigh Theodore K. Guy and Associates P. O. Box 1640 Basalt, CO 81621 Re: St. Mary's Church addition Dear Bracken: I received your letter of August 21, 1991, which stated "we hereby submit this Application..." No application was submitted. Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, you state that "preliminary HPC approval" has been granted on this project. This is absolutely incorrect. No approval of any kind has been granted on this project. No formal application has been submitted or reviewed by the Planning Office or HPC. As a courtesy to the community, the HPC makes themselves available for pre-applications conferences for the express purpose of beginning a dialogue on a project. None of the comments are to taken as an "approval", preliminary or otherwise. This fact was clearly stated at that time. It is important that your letter be amended to reflect this, and that your clients understand this point clearly. It would be misleading to your clients to believe the HPC has approved any aspect of this future project. Once a complete application is received by the Planning Office, the HPC public hearing will be set for Conceptual Development review. The HPC will be required at that time to review the application formally, and make findings according to the criteria stated in Section 7-601 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. Please contact me should you have questions regarding process. Sincerely, 944,40Â© 4(04 Roxanne Eflin Historic preservation Officer CC: Bill Poss, Chairman, Aspen HPC ~* recycled paper .. August 23, 1991 Mr. Bracken Raleigh Theodore K. Guy and Associates P. O. Box 1640 Basalt, CO 81621 Re: St. Mary's Church addition Dear Bracken: I received your letter of August 21, 1991, which stated "we hereby submit this Application..." No application was submitted. Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, you state that "preliminary HPC approval" has been granted on this project. This is absolutely incorrect. No approval of any kind has been granted on this project. No formal application has been submitted or reviewed by the Planning Office or HPC. As a courtesy to the community, the HPC makes themselves available for pre-applications conferences for the express purpose of beginning a dialogue on a project. None of the comments are to taken as an "approval", preliminary or otherwise. This fact was clearly stated at that time. It is important that your letter be amended to reflect this, and that your clients understand this point clearly. It would be misleading to your clients to believe the HPC has approved any aspect of this future project. Once a complete application is received by the Planning Office, the HPC public hearing will be set for Conceptual Development review. The HPC will be required at that time to review the application formally, and make findings according to the criteria stated in Section 7-601 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. Please contact me should you have questions regarding process. Sincerely, Roxanne Eflin Historic preservation Officer CC: Bill Poss, Chairman, Aspen HPC - <N . 0 98' 1 4+1(54*01( S AND STRUCn,FiES:Â· 1 -!=EGEND -,- 1986 UPD . d.,lo,et.d. EN,-18Mmuk~EM 791 COL - - 1 .04Â« d..1-ted 0 1 , 1 EK-1.21-An d,Iter-d. ---- -3. 9 --d a .i - \. 31 - -1 - 1 =Fb=JI=---1 /Kh M yet de-ated O -- \ /\74 7 Ogak.-DIZ- 0 0 '>U 0-1 t.. . 9Â· ,2,-,,= 0-- 41.. Ge.f :*1-y Crl.ch - -m rll-â€¢-1 rÂ·rl-,~~ IrTIA *Ua: Â«4~L+ /41 BUILL.8 ullkuil 11[6[Wj I ' UB]]Un,C]ID JIUE Im]Ir l,1:11.112 , 'LE- . Â·;t F#*!Mit .IiniMAimm. [cymp :w~Til 11111111!1 19 Wl '' 0 --. rimi] 211: 511 !L JIWI liB I1101 Fa li.~3 !11,1 mul :IN râ€ž '! . -- t l . '-~ cE| -4 7TW ! 1. Billig 'flmili 15~01[[1211 UR&11 [iE* (Imilg il~= t,ra - 7 4 - -0 1 Â£ -- m [119 11]WIR'MIERÂ·mmRTIi!'!91,m mgnal,IM~Mr,gfmtI!1mwmtimymimullmi - 21[ ELiO] Wille ul.1~a.Illill!11,6.dell.la IDÂ£1!Â·1W.11.J-lbatilllÂ·lilli'ly wkulli' 11411*I UillUQI 1 r -- -C 0 -Wigll lIWml SiD. mmIm OW]mÂ· Wmmi [ir@T# limmi 9 -41=!Ell'rE~E!=. i E *=" ill@ 2 : - -â„¢49*2 IE .. a = E.111 allakil; - - 1 r i mm![Im[ED -:ZE E RE!11'El! - ttitil-.Immll-Fill:lii Z-- foillilm -- - 1 .... //7 - *6175 ..4=111/ ,~ k. ; Il.. , i - Itt. 19 Â· Â· it,Â· I-- Â· Â·. Â· 1 75/94 .. Mechanical Systems (continuea, 42 Recommended Not Recommended ~ Replacing in kind--or with compatible Installing a replacement feature that substitute material--those visible does not convey the sanne visual features of mechanical systems that are appearance. either extensively deteriorated or are missing when there are surviving prototypes such as ceiling fans, switchplates, radiators, grilles, or plumbing fixtures. The following work is highlighted to indicate that it represents the particularly complex technical or design aspects of rehabilitation projects and should only be ~ considered after the preservation concerns listed above have been addressed. Alterations/Additions for the New Use 1 n~:I. Installing a completely new mechanicaP Installing a new mechanical system so system if required for the new use< so k that character-defining structural or ' that it causes the least alteration interior features are radically changed, possible to the buildingls floor plan, the damaged, or destroyed. exterior elevations, and the least damage ~q,historic. building mater.ial.. . r..:Â«ai :~Â· 1* <Installing the vertical runs of ducts, Installing vertical runs of ducts, pipes, 1 pipes, and cables in closets, service and cables in places where they will rooms, and wall cavities. obscure character-defining features. Concealing mechanical equipment in walls or ceilings in a manner that . requires the removal of historic building material. Installing "dropped" acoustical ceilings to hide mechanical equipment when this destroys the proportions of character- defining interior spaces. , 4ef L k Installing air conditioning units if "' Cutting through features such as required by the new use in such a manner masonry walls in order to install air that the historic materials and features conditioning units. are not damaged or obscured. ,> Installing heating/air conditioning units ~ Radically changing the appearance of the 44 in the window frames in such a manner ty historic building or damaging or that the sash and frames are protected. destroying windows by installing Window Â» installations should be heating/air conditioning units in historic considered only when all other viable window frames. heating/cooling systems would result in < -1 *=tsignificant damage to historic materials. , , $,At 70 4 Â»~ *. 1. 1 4 1 , 11 ATmaiMENT 1 *AND USE APPLICATION Falâ‚¬ ~ 1) Project Name t-E. 101,4-BÂ·'v% HA-,7 ID'c-4-4 A-Â¢-LigS E-LEÂ¥41bft. :/4 \*l~ DEvils, ar 2) Project Incation LOTS .4,54('PIE'F ,$,Hp~ BL,,0,4 13 21Â·er of Agpl=w. M Al 04 -ST. (indicate street aldress, lot & block Ilmber, legal description khere appropriate) 3) Present Zoning C- C- 4) Iat Size 2 745 023 :=2PT.t 5) Applicant's Name, Address & Phone # 'ST M A-*95 c,Â·K.DA <44 CORUâ‚¬72- 6 C M A- I P A-PD M V N TE72_ ST 2-EE17. 6) Representative's Name, Mdress & Phone # TED 409 4-Aisoc. 997 03 16-7 BASâ€¢Wr 1 26 6655-ASPEN 7) Type of Application (please check all that apply): Conditional Use Conceptlial SPA ~~ephial Historic Dev. Special Review Final SPA Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline Conceptual PUD - Minor Historic Dev. Stream Margin Final POD Historic Danolition Mountain View Plane Subdivision Historic Designation C_-lainiumization Teocti/Map Amendment (NOS Allotment Iot Split/Int Line - OUS Ehemptien Adjustment 8) Description of Existing Uses (timber ard type of existing structures; approocinate sq. ft.; number of bedrocus; ara' previous approvals granted to the property). (,Mve-C-W A-*JD 2 ECToe>r: 2 61-7/LOIL)45 0 k) 17/001>A FT. LMT & 12-25-002-ZILST,k)4 BOTH 867/LD/uq 9) Description of Developnent 4plication '56O5m PT AP a p=,021 \W) 200 6Gk,PT. ovr5/DE -DE-Ck 4-pE) 1-lr-A-/131 e./f EAMIP. ELEVA-To/kdruD V EST-/8DLE: 4 65 1>64=1- BELe>L)/;EADE ADD rT!006-1- SToRA 46 10) Have yal attached the following? Response to Attadment 2, Mininlm Sukinission Contents Respcnse to Attachmnt 3, Specific Submission antents Response to Attactm~nt 4, Review Standards for Your Application Ii-i'i i-ii THEODORE K GU~SOCIATES PC ~ ARCHITECTS AND STA~~~URAL ENGINEERS October 10, 1991 Aspen Historic Preservation Committee Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: A Statement In Response To Attachment 4 Of The Submission Requirements For Conceptual Development Review Dear Committee Members: In response to Attachment 4: a. The project is compatible with adjacent structures historic and new. It does not extend into setbacks or streets. b. The project is in character with the neighborhood. c. The project does not detract from the existing building. d. As "c" above. Sincerely, ~LAP 7-11)> 0 BracREff-FCieigR- / THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES, PC BR/lk 91105 L5 23280 STATE HIGHWAY 82 PO.BOX 1640 BASALT. COLORADO 81621 [303] 927-3167 47-' .p ."/pr â„¢ Â».1 bL..,. -4*I'll/7 98- * THEODORE K GUY ASSO~rES PC LIEFFIE~ Â®[F FIRA[ME[fil OFFA[L Architects & Structural Engineers P.O. Box 1640 Basalt, CO 81621 DATE JOB NO. (303) 927-3167 ATTENTI~f411 CDC'T 6 1 f Ke xkNH e GDP )63 RE To ~ ISTZ'ihic- Flk 6562-UATic,A~ 1>T M *69-1 C.,1-0 RCH ELE.*Tole Co /4,1,1 (Tr 6-ZE ACIDPLTL Â©J WE ARE SENDING YOU El Attached m Under separate cover via the following items: El Shop drawings [3 Prints C] Plans U Samples C] Specifications [3 Copy of letter E] Change order n COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION ~ COPIES LD PA-G E E *Â£ Srl FLF Â¢ P,20 853, DED A-[3 D (TL 0 2 1 ItftieeÂ·(A A-00-toetz AT-,02 i -3~rk rEM â‚¬-,J~T e F OT-kNOAR-13' 3 | 1 E T'l-Ele OF- 7:TLE Ditc Lot,02Â£-- THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: El For approval m Approved as submitted El Resubmit copies for approval C] For your use [3 Approved as noted C] Submit-copies for distribution El As requested C] Returned for corrections m Return corrected prints C] For review and comment C] m FOR BIDS DUE 19 m PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS ft U /1 COPYTO SIGNED:~7---5/~~ .... -.- PRODUCT 240Â·3 Inc Gitm, Man 01471. If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. Y- . \- U .. October 8, 1991 To Whom It May Concern: I have asked Theodore K. Guy Associates, P.C. to represent St. Mary's Catholic Church at Historic Preservation Committee meetings re- garding the addition of an elevator to the church building. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, -D fyi Rev. Lawrence T. Solan Pastor ##i~Ill#J~ 4 104 SOUTH GALENA STAEET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 303/925-7339 UP- ...F THEODORE K GUY ASSO~ES PC ILIEFFI~ Â®IF F[EA[MÂ©[Al OFC[IGJD= Architects & Structural Engineers - P.O. Box 1640 Basalt, CO 81621 DATE . JOB NO. Nov 6 1991 (303) MM~*-~ ATfENTIO72LO WK+JUE 67=i_/ A) RE: To ~l 9 TDA te- ,~-65Â»-7-2 Â£*1 91-- +110129-5 /O,01'V\'ivrâ‚¬E *P C_ 97u/3 4255LO A~ WE ARE SENDING YOU C] Attached El Under separate cover via the following items: [3 Shop drawings m Prints [3 Plans C] Samples m Specifications [3 Copy of letter [3 Change order 1-1 COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION ~ C O Ft C>~F 41- AAÂ«a /91. 4/Lj A)(7 U ir p ri-71 7Zy - ** -8Ng THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: [3 For approval m Approved as submitted [3 Resubmit copies for approval [3 For your use El Approved as noted C] Submit-copies for distribution - C] As requested El Returned for corrections El Return corrected prints C] For review and comment C] El FOR BIDS DUE 19 El PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS COPY TO 4 SIGNED:Â¥-- PRODUCT 240-3 Inc. Groton, Mass 0141] ff enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. .. PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc. Title Insurance Company Vincent J. Higens 601 E. Hopkins, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Christina M. Davis President (303) 925-1766 Â· (303) 925-6527 FAX Vice President ADJACENT OWNER'S STATEMENT Pitkin County Title, Inc., a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent in the State of Colorado hereby certifies the following list is a current list of adjacent property owner's within three hundred feet of Lots A, B, C, 0, E, F, G, H and I, Block 93, City and Townsite of Aspen, as obtained from the most current Pitkin County Assessors Tax Rolls. NAMES AND ADRESSES BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION PLEASE REFER TO LIST ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF. M-/ 1 1 Lpj 1/ AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE ALPINE BANK. ASPEN ~ LOTS ~ AND W 1/2 A COLORADO BANKING CORPORATION LOT 0, BLK 98, ASPEN P.O. BOX 5490 SNOWMASS VILLAGE CO 81615 ASPEN 600 UNITS 7-9, SPACE A, A COLORADO JOINT VENTURE CONCEPT 600 P.O. BOX 3159 ASPEN CO 81612 ASPEN PLAZA COMPANY LOTS G-I, BLK 94, ASPEN P.O. BOX 1709 ASPEN CO 81612 BART MAESTRANZI UNIT 305, CONCEPT 600 1101 N. WESTERN PARK RIOGE IL 60068 BOHDAN D. MYSKO UNIT B, TROYER C/O DOMINION SHIPPING CORP. TROUSDALE CONDOS SUITE 120, 3 RIVERWAY HOUSTON TX 77056 BRUCE H. KONHEIM, et al LOT 4, PITKIN CENTER C/O CHARLES ISREAL P.O. BOX 3677 ASPEN CO 81612 C. M. CLARK, KATHRYN K. AND ROYAL S. REID, LOTS 11 AND 12, CLIFFORD D. AND BARBARA J. BRELSFORD, et al W 7 1/2 FEET LOT 10. P.O. BOX 566 BLOCK 19, EAST ASPEN ASPEN CO 81612 C. M. CLARK# KATHRYN K. AND ROYAL S. REID, LOTS Q & R 5 AND CLIFFORD D. AND BARBARA J. BRELSFORD, et al W 7 1/2 FEET LOT S, P.O. BOX 566 BLOCK 92, ASPEN ASPEN CO 81612 CARISCH BROTHERS E 10' LOT D, ALL OF C/O EXCELLENCE THEATRE'S LOTS E-G, BLK 98, STE. 2700, 230 WEST MONROE ASPEN CHICAGO IL 60606 CITY OF ASPEN ATTORNEY COURTHOUSE PLAZA BUILDING 534 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN CO 81611 .. CLARK FICKE UNIT 202, CONCEPT 600 P.O. BOX 2995 ASPEN CO 81612 CONCEPT 600 CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION COMMON AREA P.O. BOX 12344 ASPEN CO 81612 DAVID Sâ€ž KIDDER UNIT 306, CONCEPT 600 3928 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD DALLAS TX 75205 DAYTON HEIDELBERG DISTRIBUTING COâ€ž E 1/2 OF LOT 0, ALL LOT P, BLK 98, ASPEN 1518 DALTON STREET CINCINNATI OH 45214 DON Q. LAMB, JR. AND LINDA GILKERSON UNIT 203, CONCEPT 600 C/O DEPT. OF ASTRONOMY & PHYSICS 5640 SOUTH ELLIS AVE. CHICAGO IL 60637 DONALD R. AND MARIE L. HEYS UNIT 303, CONCEPT 600 2495 ADARE ANN ARBOR MI 48104 ELIZABETH BORSTNER CALLAHAN PARCEL IN THE EAST AND LOUIS J. ZUPANCIS ASPEN ADDITIONAL P.O. BOX 432 TOWNSITE ENTRY PLAT ASPEN CO 81612 FIRST ASPEN CORPORATION E 1/2 LOT L, ALL OF LOTS M-S, BLK 86, P.O. BOX 3318 ASPEN ASPEN CO 81612 GAILEN Bâ€ž SMITH LOT 1, GIGNOUX-LYNCH SUBDIVISION 601 EAST BLEEKER STREET ASPEN CO 81612 GARY G. AND LESLIE J. TROYER LOTS A & B, BLK 995 ASPEN 601 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN CO 81611 .. GEORGE W. MURPHY LOT 2, GIGNOUX-LYNCH SUBDIVISION P.O. BOX 4146 ASPEN CO 81612 GERALD B. AND LESLIE TROYER AND LOTS F & G, BLK 99 JEAN VICK TROUSDALE ASPEN 601 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN CO 81611 GILBERT W. AND PATSY K. HICKS UNIT 209, CONCEPT 600 TRUSTEES OF TRUST AGREEMENT 3674 WOODLAWN TERRACE PLACE HONOLULU HI 96822 HENRY H. WULSIN AND JOHN J. ATIGUE, JR. UNIT 1, SPRING STREET 442 SOUTH GAYLORD STREET DENVER CO 80203 HOLLAND AND HART UNITS 1-6, SPACE A, CONCEPT 600 600 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN CO 81611 HOPKINS STREET VENTURE E 1/2 OF LOT R, ALL 0/0 T. L. MULARZ LOT S, BLK 98, ASPEN P.O. BOX 8070 ASHLAND OR 97520 HUNTER SQUARE PROPERTIES LOTS A-D, BLK 98, IRVING BIERS ASPEN 30 GELDERT DRIVE TIBURON CA 94920 JEAN VICK TROUSADLLE, TRUSTEE UNIT A, TROYER C/O TROYER-TROUSDALE TROUSDALE CONDOS 601 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN CO 81611 JEAN-PAUL AUBE UNIT 307, CONCEPT 600 522 ALGONQUIN BOULEVARD EAST TIMMONS, ONTARIO CANADA P4N1B7 JERE MC GAFFEY UNIT 308, CONCEPT 600 777 E. WISCONSIN AVENUE MILWAUKEE WI 53202 .. JESSE J. AND ESTHER M. MADDALONE LOTS E-I, BLOCK 87, AND CENTRAL BANK GRAND JCT., AS TRUSTEE ASPEN 2265 TANGLEWOOD ROAD GRAND JUNCTION co 81503 JOHN HOBAN UNIT 409, CONCEPT 600 3267 WHISPERING OAK DALLAS TX 75234 LINDA LEVIN WAAG UNIT 406, CONCEPT 600 P.O. BOX 1624 ASPEN co 81612 LLOYD L. ROSS UNIT 210, CONCEPT 600 5637 BENT TREE DRIVE DALLAS TX 75248 MARGARET A.. WARREN J., AND LOT R, BLOCK 93, CLAUDE M CONNER ASPEN 534 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN CO 81611 MARTHA FOSTER UNIT 408, CONCEPT 600 P.O. BOX 585608 DALLAS TX 75258 MARUICE BERIRO LOTS D-F, BLK 94, ASPEN 517 EAST HOPKINS ASPEN CO 81611 MASON AND MORSE, INC. LOT N, BLK 94, ASPEN 514 EAST HYMAN AVENUE ASPEN CO 81611 MATHEW C. DYROFF UNIT 404, CONCEPT 600 C/O RE/MAX REAL ESTATE CONS. INC. 4770 BASELINE ROAD BOULDER co 80303 MAURICE BERIRO LOTS D-F, BLK 945 SUITE 6, 4250 SHERBROOKE ASPEN MONTREAL, QUEBEC CANADA H321C4 .. MEL SEID COMMERCIAL UNITS A&B SPRING STREET 1104 DALE AVENUE ASPEN CO 81611 MELVIN L. AND DOROTHY K. SOMMER UNIT 405, CONCEPT 600 TRUSTEES OF SOMMER FAMILY TRUST P.O. BOX S-3 ASPEN CO 81612 MICHAEL A. AND SALLY B. 0'NEIL UNIT 204, CONCEPT 600 1500 DIAMOND SHAMROCK TOWER DALLAS TX 75201 MRS. MARGARET A. CONNER LOT S, BLOCK 93, ASPEN 534 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN CO 81611 NEAL A. AND DONNA R. GRANT UNIT 2, SPRING STREET 15000 NALL STANLEY KS 66224 PATTI WAKEFIELD UNIT 205, CONCEPT 600 P.O. BOX 863308 PLANO TX 75086 PHILIP Z. AND MARIAN S. ALTFELD ALL LOT Q, W 1/2 OF LOT R, BLK 98, ASPEN 624 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN CO 81611 PITKIN CENTER LTD. LOTS 2 & 3, PITKIN CENTER SUBDIVISION P.O. BOX 4948 ASPEN CO 81612 PITKIN COUNTY ATTORNEY COURTHOUSE PLAZA BUILDING 530 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN CO 81611 RALPH DORAN UNIT 402, CONCEPT 600 2500 WOODWARD WAY ATLANTA GA 30305 .. RICHARD P. COPPOCK UNIT 407, CONCEPT 600 11603 PLEASANT VIEW PINCKNEY MI 48169 RICHARD S. AND KATHRYN J. ARNOLD UNIT 301, CONCEPT 600 14 RIVERRIDGE TRAIL ORMOND BEACH FL 32074 RICHARD STAHURA UNIT 201, CONCEPT 600 P.O. BOX 4097 ASPEN CO 81612 ROBERT D. AND RUTH JANE MILLER UNIT 206, CONCEPT 600 1345 RED BUTTE ROAD ASPEN CO 81611 ROBERT H. AND HOLDE H. BORCHERTS UNIT 208, CONCEPT 600 1555 WASHTENAW ANN ARBOR MI 48104 ROBERT H. MITCHELL UNIT 410, CONCEPT 600 SUITE 222 5934 ROYAL LANE DALLAS TX 75230 RYANCO PARTNERS LTD., NO. XVI LOT S, BLOCK 87, A CALIFORNIA LTD. PARTNERSHIP ASPEN STE 106, 201 NORTH MILL STREET ASPEN CO 81611 SJA ASSOCIATES, LTD. LOT 1, PITKIN CENTER SUITE 207 SUBDIVISION 520 EAST DURANT AVENUE ASPEN CO 81611 SPRING STREET ASSOCIATES COMMERCIAL UNITS C&D A COLORADO JOINT VENTURE SPRING STREET 117 SOUTH SPRING STREET ASPEN CO 81611 STEVE B. AND DEBORAH A. BROUGH UNIT 207, CONCEPT 600 599 TROUT LAKE DRIVE SANGER , /. 93657 .. THOMAS J. HILB UNIT 302, CONCEPT 600 4600 EAST 48TH AVENUE DENVER CO 80201 TOM J. JR. AND JEAN F. MARTIN UNIT 401, CONCEPT 600 ROUTE 1, BOX 269M GEORGE WEST TX 78022 W.G. BULLOCK, GRANT BULLOCK TRUST, et al LOTS A-C, BLOCK 94, C/O CAMERON GILBREATH, CONTROLLER ASPEN P.O. BOX 7726968 STEAMBOAT SPRINGS COM 80477 WARREN J. AND CLAUDE M. CONNER AND E 7 1/2' LOT P, ALL MARGIE ANN CONNER JOHNSTON LOT Q, BLOCK 93, 534 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN ASPEN CO 81611 WILLIAM A. AND JANE WHITAKER REILLY UNIT 203, CONCEPT 600 1356 SOUTH WOODRUFF AVENUE IDAHO FALLS ID 83404 WILLIAM DAVID AND BETTE LEE ARNETT UNIT 403, CONCEPT 600 5333 N. CAMINO REAL TUCSON AZ 85718 , MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer,~25 Re: Public Hearing continued: Conceptual Development - 533 E Main, St. Mary's Church elevator tower and vestibule addition (Public Hearing) Date: December 11, 1991 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Conceptual Development approval for addition of an elevator tower and vestibule, and front entrance remodel of St. Mary's Church. St. Mary's Centennial is 1992, and they are interested in having this addition completed in time for this looth anniversary. PREVIOUS HPC ACTION: At the meeting on November 13, the initial public hearing, the HPC tabled action and continued the public hearing to December 11, to give the applicant additional time to restudy a few significant aspects of the elevator/entrance addition. Height, massing, scale, fenestration, roof forms and materials are all considered to be areas where consensus had not been reached, and more design work was necessary in order the proposal to meet the Development Review standards. The HPC seemed to not object to the proposed general location of addition. The interior site visit held on November 13 was necessary in order for the HPC to clearly understand why the addition is proposed where it is, as opposed to pushing it further to the south of the building, closer to the alley. The nave and sacristy would be affected if the addition were added to the southwest corner, the building has close to a zero rear yard setback, and the east elevation (Hunter Street) is considered the secondary elevation, thereby precluding it from receiving the addition. Front porch: The front porch remodel remains a significant element requiring restudy. The HPC felt the conceptual proposal appeared somewhat discordant (perhaps scaled too small), primarily the roof forms. In discussion, the HPC asked if the sidewalk encroachment could actually be expanded, to allow a more substantial ( impressive but not competing) facade entry to be designed. Each agreed that the existing front porch entry is incompatible with the building, and its remodel has the ability to enhance the landmark. EXISTING CONDITIONS: St. Mary's Church, a local landmark and potentially eligible for listing on the State and National Register of Historic Places, has received only one major alteration since it was originally constructed. The front entry/vestibule was added in 1966. .. 1 1 The church parcel as a whole is considered to be one of Aspen's finest examples of Victorian-era architecture. Its symmetrical massing, scale and verticality, central tower element, roof form, fenestration pattern and use of brick and sandstone relief distinguish the character of this landmark. It is located within the only block in the Commercial Core Historic District that has remained virtually unchanged for 100 years, and is across Main Street from the National Register Courthouse. Since 1966, only restoration work has been done, specifically to the interior, which received a local Preservation Honor Award in 1989. The church is in need of an elevator for the mobility impaired and large enough for caskets, and has stated that a satisfactory interior solution cannot be found. PROJECT SUMMARY and REVIEW PROCESS: The applicable Guidelines are found in Section IV. Commercial Buildings - Renovation and Restoration, beginning on page 47. The Development Review Standards are found in Section 7-601(D). Development Review Standards 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an H, Historic Overlay district or is adjacent to a 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, HPC shall find that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. Response: The applicant has provided a few roof form alternatives to the HPC for review. The flat roof originally proposed was felt to force an addition of a complete different architectural style (neo-gothic perhaps). Staff finds that the hipped roof alternative comes closer to what the HPC discussed at their last meeting. The sketches do not indicate window and door forms and location, therefore, staff can make no recommendations until this information is presented by the applicant. Please also note that the entire addition has been reduced in size somewhat. No additional facade porch designs have been submitted to staff. HPC COMMENTS: 2 .. , 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: Elevator towers have been added to significant landmarks (The Wheeler and the Elks Building) in the district. However, these elevators have been located on non-primary elevations , are of the minimum size for handicapped accessibility, and are architecturally unadorned. The Elks elevator tower is located well back from the street edge, and the Wheeler's elevator is overall significantly smaller and narrower. Staff finds that the scaled down revision of the St. Mary's elevator tower comes closer to meeting this standard. We reserve any further comments until such time as the applicant submits more complete elevations and an amended model. No additional facade porch designs have been submitted to staff. HPC COMMENTS: 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structure located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. Response: It is staff's opinion that the proposal as presented does not enhance the cultural value of the landmark, due to the visual impacts and general change in architectural character of the structure. It may enhance the "social value" of the landmark, due to its increased usability by the public. HPC COMMENTS: 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: Elevator Addition: It appears that by incorporating a compatible roof form on the addition, reducing its overall size and significantly reducing competitive detail, the addition may not diminish the architectural integrity of the church. Staff agrees with the HPC's previous discussion of material use and color, (that the addition's roof form pick up elements from the historic tower and roof), and recommends that the applicant utilize 3 their model to also replicate major materials. Front entry porch: The applicant has not submitted facade porch revisions to staff, therefore we are unable to respond. At the last HPC meeting, you discussed the possibility of enlarqinq the porch and increasing its encroachment onto the public right of way, in order to make it a more prominent and usable feature of the landmark. In tandem with this was the idea of "necking down" the Main St./Hunter St. intersection to provide a safe walkway for pedestrians and enhancing that entire corner. This design idea is not necessarily out of line with the recently adopted "Aspen Pedestrian Walkway and Bikeway Systems Plan", which promotes a safer ped system and neckdowns at intersections to allow for street furniture and plantings, while shortening the crossing distance on the street and slowing traffic. A capital improvement of this kind has not been budgeted by the City for 1992. HPC COMMENTS: The Partial Demolition Standards are found in Section 7-602(C) of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. The general provisions of Sec. 7- 602 allow the HPC to require a Performance Guarantee when deemed appropriate due to the significance of the project. No approval for partial demolition shall be granted unless the HPC finds that all of the following standards are met: 1. The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure; and 2. The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: a. Impacts on the historic importance of the structure or structures located on the parcel. b. Impacts on the architectural integrity of the structure located on the parcel. Response: The applicant did not specifically address the partial demolition standards in the Conceptual Development application, and staff recommends this be done in the Final application. It appears that a relative small amount of original material will be impacted or destroyed due to the addition. HPC COMMENTS: 4 ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following alternatives: 1) Approve the Conceptual Development application as revised (specify roof form), and require that the Partial Demolition Standards be met at Final. 3) Table action to a date certain and continue the public hearing, to allow the applicant time to restudy, prepare drawings and revise the model accordingly. A revised application must be submitted to the Planning Office no later than two weeks prior to the continued public hearing date. 4) Deny Conceptual Development approval, finding that the Development Review Standards have not been met. This action constitutes re-noticing and another public hearing. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC table action to a date certain and continue the public hearing on the Significant Development proposal for St. Mary's Church, at 533 E. Main, to allow the applicant time to restudy, prepare drawings and revise the model accordingly. A revised application must be submitted to the Planning Office no later than two weeks prior to the continued public hearing date. Additional comments: memo.hpc.533em.cd.cont 5 THEODORE K GU~SSOCIATES PC ".1 17 ARCHITECTS AND STRBCTURAL ENGINEERS ;h'' 11 November 27, 1991 ~ \ ~ ~ 27 199 41 1 \ \, I Ms. Roxanne Elfin Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Roxanne: Attached are nine sets of perspective sketches showing two roof and massing studies we have developed since the last HPC meeting. They show an option of hip or gable roofs for presentation at the December 11 th meeting. We will have the massing model modified to show each of the suggested arrangements. The sketches indicate the east-west dimension reduced by 3 feet and the setback at the link reduced by 1 foot 6 inches. We have studied using materials other than brick in the tower and feel that that approach further complicates the design and works against keeping the forms simple and quiet. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely~ yours, ~ 1//Jel-p- /11Â£.-1- ~â€¢4Â¥r J Theodore K. Guy, President THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC TKG/lk 91105 L8 23280 STATE HIGHWAY 82 P. O. BOX 1640 BASALT. COLORADO 81621 (303) 927-31 67 ... f Â£ f Â« 1 -.-10- L 1- lon 1 T: 1. 1 . ' it 1 1.1 1 I 0 U ===:d 1 r i - lili It I. 1 =Cl 4 I t ai i 31 1 . 111 1 i 1 1 11 4- -1 11 1 i 1 ,!i i 1 1 i J . f t 012 i lit ! / - 1 i 1 -.-/ 1 1 : 1 ----UZZ~Zz~ 1 _1 ; 0 7 r-rÂ« lili 1- - 1\, 79, 61 I h. $ '.. 0 . L-J 1 1 11 1 Â«::1 0-- \ 14---1 - - 1~ -- 1 1 7 1 Â· Ilr 1 1 Â» 448 - H -3 1 1 1 11 1 11 1 1 1 1 4 1 i 11 1 h.. 1. 1 1 17 1 1 1 1 WI)_1_ 1 '- 1 2-- I i Â·. - -i ---- CTAE>LED 223= - I 0,- 1. I i 0 J .\ ~w U CU 22- LUZ 4- 18.ihiM 1- 0 0 _-- .. _#;Imigm,W:/*.41 - 5E# 0.19 22Â»'6% 1 v Aer /,N#- 41 040 1#49' Iki Â·211 '. B 0 NUMISMATICS 0 2 5 4g& :M...4.~ /- RYANCO PARTNERS LTD., NO. XVI NOV ' ./0 A CALIFORNIA LTDâ€ž PARTNERSHIP STE 106, 201 NORTH MILL STREET lilitu< Ill 4 ASPEN /Millhâ€¢Ir RYAN201* 816111Â·002 1590 11/01/91 il 900 0 5 1 .44 5 L FORWARuiNe :imt EAMIKEW :RYANCO INC 0 Ul F 1- X 715 W MAIN ST < @ ASPEN CO 81611-1659 RETURN TO SENDER 00 1- 4 0- 111:Â¥ -'93-1-2"'ll'i,1,=./.)'Iâ€ž5J. 1 10Â«-- .....m. Flug- dlir 92 4Â«-- 1 C (10ix kal+4 4 bo htfÂ© AA I-* Â»7 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 533 E. MAIN ST., CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT FOR ELEVATOR TOWER ADDITION TO WEST SIDE AND FRONT PORCH REMODEL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, November 13, 1991, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee in the Second Floor Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, to consider an application by the Archdiocese of Denver, St. Mary's Catholic Church, represented by Theodore K. Guy Associates, requesting Conceptual Development approval for the elevator tower addition and front porch remodel to the church located at 533 East Main Street, Aspen, Colorado, described as follows: Lots A-I, Block 93, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office at 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, 81611. (303) 920-5090. s/William J. Poss, Chairman Aspen Historic Preservation Committee Published in the Aspen Times on October 17, 1991 City of Aspen account pub.notice.533EM THEODORE K GUY ASSOC. P.O. BOX 1640 BASALT CO 81621 . THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC ARCHITECTS AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS P.O. BOX 1640 BASALT, COLORADO 81621 0 1 D N T C m }-4 D n M m EXJ I 0-1 O 50 13 H cim: X 70 0 Z \ Z .0 Z U) 'r 7- 3 3 1 - .,2 1 j 1 g 1 1 . 2. I a 122*1 filâ€¢i,2- 2 CO 5 ' .3 a HHB. , Lig ' Ft-/n $ , ..2 1; 'h. Ki- TT9-[8 00 N]dSV ADDRESSEE 97- PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 533 E. MAIN ST., CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT FOR ELEVATOR TOWER ADDITION TO WEST SIDE AND FRONT PORCH REMODEL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, November 13, 1991, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee in the Second Floor Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, to consider an application by the Archdiocese of Denver, St. Mary's Catholic Church, represented by Theodore K. Guy Associates, requesting Conceptual Development approval for the elevator tower addition and front porch remodel to the church located at 533 East Main Street, Aspen, Colorado, described as follows: Lots A-I, Block 93, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office at 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, 81611. (303) 920-5090. s/William J. Poss, Chairman Aspen Historic Preservation Committee Published in the Aspen Times on October 17, 1991 City of Aspen account pub.notice.533EM THEODORE K GUY ASSOC. P.O. BOX 1640 BASALT CO 81621 Honoting -' . -** Â·ChoseWU.Served .~ - nr-lfl 1 (F Crl 3-) -11 . i .,â€ž. -I.V.â€žg ,-441/1-1,3 C 21 -I. cÂ·/ ...th = ... .-a , -, ...7 U~*- -, Dese. Shield * De,ert Storm NOV 41991 , LINOA LEVIN WAAG P.O. BOX 1624 ~AGE,24 -141612*060~491 **01/91 ~~ ASPEN WRAG ;- BOX CLOSED UNABLE TO FORWARD RETURN TO SENDER PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 533 E. MAIN ST., CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT FOR ELEVATOR TOWER ADDITION TO WEST SIDE AND FRONT PORCH REMODEL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, November 13, 1991, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee in the Second Floor Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, to consider an application by the Archdiocese of Denver, St. Mary's Catholic Church, represented by Theodore K. Guy Associates, requesting Conceptual Development approval for the elevator tower addition and front porch remodel to the church located at 533 East Main Street, Aspen, Colorado, described as follows: Lots A-I, Block 93, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office at 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, 81611. (303) 920-5090. s/William J. Poss, Chairman Aspen Historic Preservation Committee Published in the Aspen Times on October 17, 1991 City of Aspen account pub.notice.533EM THEODORE K GUY ASSOC P.O. BOX 1640 BASALT CO 81621 ~ ; r-.[30 fd Lt _- , , ~ ..t. . Â»- 96,@~ M.:,I/-'. -1- Ill - 0 1-0 0 t:24*ENDÂ«31 r x Old 1,a.:~ -11:93~y /U'. 040 12-Z---- Jl bÂ« *7* aU NO MAIL RECEPTACLE NUMISMATICS 483 ~ 0 PHILIP Z. AND MARIAN S. ALTFELD Ul< 624 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE 0.0 ASPEN CO 81611 8 1- 9 Wow Oul= 1- X T tre PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 533 E. MAIN ST., CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT FOR ELEVATOR TOWER ADDITION TO WEST SIDE AND FRONT PORCH REMODEL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, November 13, 1991, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee in the Second Floor Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, to consider an application by the Archdiocese of Denver, St. Mary's Catholic Church, represented by Theodore K. Guy Associates, requesting Conceptual Development approval for the elevator tower addition and front porch remodel to the church located at 533 East Main Street, Aspen, Colorado, described as follows: Lots A-I, Block 93, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. < For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office at 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, 81611. (303) 920-5090. s/William J. Poss, Chairman Aspen Historic Preservation Committee Published in the Aspen Times on October 17, 1991 City of Aspen account pub.notice.533EM THEODORE K GUY ASSOC. < P.O. BOX 1640 BASALT CO 81621 TAEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATESIC ARCHITECTS AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS P.O.BOX 1640 BASALT. COL_OFRADO 81621 b Â·Â»r SA *2 :31Â· ..Â·*3 t. , i. Â£ 5 . :;4164 IJ â€¢-Cul 62 9 8 '. X /7-7--7 31 - f.,2 1 / - 2 $ /2. , i i 1 49' i 1,/. ift; i 1 Â£ / i ' Fj j 11 .4 L. 9 .C 1 11142 -. lili/%/.f/nA, 9 1i 44â‚¬74'* 8PZSZ SV1190 3AIM0 3331 1N38 Â£899 SSON -1 0*011 rif' 1,1,v.,vw i 1661 11 AON Li; r 1 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 533 E. MAIN ST., CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT FOR ELEVATOR TOWER ADDITION TO WEST SIDE AND FRONT PORCH REMODEL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, November 13, 1991, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee in the Second Floor Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, to consider an application by the Archdiocese of Denver, St. Mary's Catholic Church, represented by Theodore K. Guy Associates, requesting Conceptual Development approval for the elevator tower addition and front porch remodel to the church located at 533 East Main Street, Aspen, Colorado, described as follows: Lots A-I, Block 93, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office at 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, 81611. (303) 920-5090. s/William J. Poss, Chairman Aspen Historic Preservation Committee Published in the Aspen Times on October 17, 1991 City of Aspen account pub.notice.533EM THEODORE K GUY ASSOC < P.O. BOX 1640 BASALT CO 81621 - ELLUdiPL. -- 0 5 f 31 J ' "~ ~ *Ihose>YhoServed, 0-WL' 111-0. 0 -41+11/J 111 E o 1-0 0 I ..'.1 / 55# ...... I TIE 0 J 9 040 "1 ) 0 Deser[ Shle Id * De.ert br<,rm 4%& CARI*11<*GHERS c/o qsrli~CE THEATRE' S 1 \01 . Ay STE. 2Â©121 21*Q WEST MONROE Ill 4 CHICAGO'* //j IL 60606 . )00 1-1 1- 9 w u m , - NOV R 1091 0 Ul F Otx Ill I @ --U PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 533 E. MAIN ST., CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT FOR ELEVATOR TOWER ADDITION TO WEST SIDE AND FRONT PORCH REMODEL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, November 13, 1991, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee in the Second Floor Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, to consider an application by the Archdiocese of Denver, St. Mary's Catholic Church, represented by Theodore K. Guy Associates, requesting Conceptual Development approval for the elevator tower addition and front porch remodel to the church located at 533 East Main Street, Aspen, Colorado, described as follows: Lots A-I, Block 93, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office at 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, 81611. (303) 920-5090. s/William J. Poss, Chairman Aspen Historic Preservation Committee Published in the Aspen Times on October 17, 1991 City of Aspen account pub.notice.533EM THEODORE K GUY ASSOC. P.O. BOX 1640 BASALT CO 81621 THEODORE K GUYASSOCIATES PC ARCHITECTS AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS P.O.BOX 1640 BASALT, COLOFRADO 81621 D-00= 0.\O ZOO r-' 63 D -1 Z CO ' 00 x r- 4 J CD 0 =JO ~%J CA 07m D --1 P \S< 7 50 NC 4 FlA_ -,' 1.. Â·Â·I,\ t >' --4 Â£ p L t.,4 1 , .il ls.:t. . t P 1 53 r cP, 01* r B ZijwAITM~ immall 7 CIR*q~,-~ fillf 10Â¢,2 31 3NA1N3 15 SNINd 'll;; 11,1 1 /tf*\ 1 ~ ft 029Z6 NO PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 533 E. MAIN ST., CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT FOR ELEVATOR TOWER ADDITION TO WEST SIDE AND FRONT PORCH REMODEL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, November 13, 1991, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee in the Second Floor Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, to consider an application by the Archdiocese of Denver, St. Mary's Catholic Church, represented by Theodore K. Guy Associates, requesting Conceptual Development approval for the elevator tower addition and front porch remodel to the church located at 533 East Main Street, Aspen, Colorado, described as follows: Lots A-I, Block 93, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office at 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, 81611. (303) 920-5090. s/William J. Poss, Chairman Aspen Historic Preservation Committee Published in the Aspen Times on October 17, 1991 City of Aspen account pub.notice.533EM THEODORE K GUY ASSOC P.O. BOX 1640 BASALT CO 81621