Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Land Use Case.HP.516 E Hyman St.HP1988-20
HPC Review - 516 E. Hyman - Significant /d 45€ : 14 f- 19 '59 +-ELL r In o orn pd~er 41/7 L- a BEX RP' 1-1 71 .. MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office RE: Final Development Review, 516 E. Hyman Ave. Phase 1 and Phase 2 Date: June 14, 1988 LOCATION: 516 E. Hyman Ave., Lot O of Block 94, also known as Lot 1 of Pitkin Center Subdivision, Townsite and City of Aspen. APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant is requesting final development approval for both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of 516 E. Hyman Ave., (formerly the Cheapshots Building, currently the Mouse House). The plan includes the demolition of the existing structure with redevelopment plans to build a new commercial building with 2,250 square feet on the first floor (Phase 1) and 2,250 square feet on the second floor (Phase 2) subject to GMP allocation. PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION: On February 9, HPC reviewed and gave Demolition and Conceptual Development approval to both Phase 1 and Phase 2 subject to the following conditions: 1. Detailed representation of materials shall be presented at HPC's final development review. 2. The 2nd floor central windows shall be studied as to how the window spacing may better relate to historic upper story window patterns, how these windows may give a stronger sense of verticality, and how this building may be better differentiated from the Pitkin Center building. The results of this study shall be presented at final development review. 3. Prior to final development review, approval from P&Z for reduction in required open space shall be obtained or a revised design with 25% open space shall be submitted. (SEE REVISED STAFF COMMENTS UNDER "PROBLEM DISCUSSION") 4. Further study the materials, the brick, stone, slate and wood in the structure. 5. Also further study how the steps and railing up to the Mason and Morse building works. The motion goes on to read: .. "We would also eliminate #3 of the recommendations". (SEE REVISED STAFF COMMENTS UNDER "PROBLEM DISCUSSION".) The applicant has addressed these issues in the final development plan, discussed below. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Insertion of a new structure into a significant situation presents special problems which are being creatively addressed, in our opinion. Staff feels the overall design reinforces a sense of place within the Commercial Core Historic District. Since HPC first reviewed this project for conceptual development approval, the revised Land Use Code has been passed by City Council, taking effect May 25, 1988. The 25% open space requirement which staff had included in their recommendation and passed as a motion by HPC did not materialize specific to this development situation. As the plan calls for replacing an existing one story building with a new one story building (Phase 1), this requirement does not apply. The plan is to gain final approval for Phase 1, the first floor, AND to gain approval for Phase 2, the entire project which must waiting for GMP competition review in September for allocation. The open space issue would effect the building's front setback, which is proposed now for 15', creating 15% open space. The setback will allow the space needed to the landscaped "plaza". The existing structure has an approximately 2' front setback. Any other requirements will be handled cash-in-lieu. For reference, the adjacent Mason and Morse building has a 20' setback and the Pitkin Center has an 8' setback. The new structure as proposed splits the difference and complements the streetscape. The revised final development review plans have been altered in the following ways: 1. A triangular parapet has been added to the second story to cap off the building, set it apart from its neighbors and allow it to read as a separate building, not as a "little sister" of the Pitkin Center. The height at the peak of the parapet is 35' 7", approximately 3.5' lower than the neighboring Pitkin Center. This parapet design is again repeated as a pediment above the center window on the second floor. The original conceptual design called for a flat cornice. This triangular treatment was often used in the 1880's and 90's in commercial building design, and is seen in a variety of CC district buildings today, such as the Wheeler Block. Staff finds the parapet slightly too dominant with the scale of the building and in relation to the adjacent facades. One alternative may be to reduce its overall size and height somewhat, allowing the pitch to remain the same as the pediment above the window as it currently reads. .. 2. Only one awning is proposed for the center window of the main level retail space. The other awnings originally proposed for all windows have been eliminated. 3. The main level doorway entrances have changed, making the entire facade extremely symmetrical. A set of double doors appear directly in the center, with a pair of single doors, one leading up, one leading down on either end of the building on the main level. Each door measures 8', with glass transoms above. Above the central pair of entry doors is a dual panel of transoms, which will be hidden behind the awning. The previously approved conceptual development plans called for a central transparent storefront with doors on either end of the building. Wood bulkhead panels remain under the storefront display windows, however, the panel trim has changed from square to rectangular. 4. The building's central focus covering approximately 7 0% of the facade extends upward into the second floor and proj ects 8'1. The material treatment of this element is significant, in our opinion, and will give this building its own identity along this block. The plan proposes to utilize two bricks of different color to make this central statement more dominant, and break any monotony the structure may have. 5. The final development plan reflects a solid brick treatment above the storefront on the first floor. The previously approved conceptual development plans proposed slate tile with fixed exterior lighting in the center and on either end. This change simplifies the style and texture of the first floor, creating a 30' long, 6' wide mostly unbroken band of brick. As a stand alone first floor, which this may be due to competition, this appears somewhat too bold and may benefit from the extra texture and detailing slate tile would afford, in our opinion. Materials: Summary: Per HPC's requirement, the applicant has further studied the materials to be utilized. Review of the February 9 minutes reflect concern from the Committee regarding the new development blending too closely in materials usage and color to the adjacent Pitkin Center. The Final Review plan calls for two colors of tumbled brick on the main facade, rusticated Utah sandstone lintels and horizontal banding, and Pella clad windows. These windows are very similar to the ones used in the Pitkin Center, though are proposed to be a different color. The Planning Office finds the materials acceptable and compatible yet not a duplication of the neighboring buildings. A variety of textures is proposed, a design treatment replicating Victorian commercial buildings. Staff is disappointed to see the elimination of the slate tiles as originally proposed, however, we understand the economic considerations which may be a factor in adding this decorative element. HPC may wish to include this back in when taking action. .. The non-visible walls will be constructed of concrete block, built from the inside as they abut the two adjacent buildings. Fenestration: On February 9, the Committee expressed concern particularly of the upper floor fenestration, stating the horizontal "bank of windows" takes away from the verticality of the structure. The plan reflects subtle changes here in utilizing fewer divisions in the second story upper windows, creating a more vertical appearance, in our opinion. The two upper floor side windows have been reduced slightly in width and height, and remain double hung. The alternative of incorporating true wood windows into the design may be preferred, however, as this is not a restoration of a historic structure the exact duplication of historic materials may not be fitting. The divisions proposed are compatible with the Pitkin Center building and visually tie into its fenestration. Plaza: This proposed street level area is to be paved in non- tinted concrete, which may appear too stark in our opinion. This is a large expanse and staff suggests a softer option by utilizing tinted concrete or simple decorative divisions. The area includes landscaping with a defined planting area at the westerly end of the plaza and two trees with grates planted to align with the two end entry doors. Stairs and Railing: The applicant will present information at this meeting regarding HPC's concerns of the adjacent Mason and Morse steps and railing as discussed at Conceptual review. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of the demolition and final development at 516 E. Hyman Avenue for Phase 1, and also recommends approval of final development for Phase 2, which is subject to GMP allocation, with the following conditions: 1. Approval for Phase 2 is subject to the applicant restudying the size of the second story parapet with modifications to the approved development plan being submitted for staff review and approval. 2. That the applicant further study the plaza area paving issue with modifications to the approved development plan being submitted for staff review and approval. HPC.MEMO.516EH WILLIAM J. POSS & ASSOC~S 605 E. Main St. ILIEFFIE*Q)IF F[BAE©[mOFFAIL ASPEN, CO 81611 DATE JOB NO. June 6, 1988 8718 (303) 925-4755 ATTENTION Roxanne Eflin RE: TO 516 East Hyman Avenue Aspen/Pit-kin County Planning Department Aspen, Colorado 130 South Gal Rna Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 WE ARE SENDING YOU Qg Attached m Under separate cover via Hand Delivery the following items: El Shop drawings 52 Prints C] Plans C] Samples El Specifications [3 Copy of letter m Change order n COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION 1 set 6-3-88 Al.1, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4 1 set 6-6-88 South Elevations, Phase I and II. Plaza Plan (84"xll" reduced) THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: C] For approval [J Approved as submitted El Resubmit copies for approval ® For your use El Approved as noted El Submit___copies for distribution [3 As requested [3 Returned for corrections m Return corrected prints m For review and comment [3 m FOR BIDS DUE 19 El PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS (1.0 COPY TO File SIGNED: , -07=ZE PRODUCT 240.3 1~*sl Inc, Groton, Man 01471 If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us < 1.. .. 'AY:- ' . I .1 '.. , - ..... -'... .... i. ------ 0 +7-j -·H' .. 00*_54#* PAGE690 ; , i - 1 WARRANTY DE,ID i Z~~~ar~ 4.1 October p, 87 c 4 4 0 . 28 '41,111 ' M 81 c. ,,1 Lake . 41.lili-9 ind %,4.,•4,1201 0 89 86- JOSHUA SASLOVE 2 IN - A 41 4 •I.- Ir,•i .ki..·,· c/o Caldwell Banker/The Ampen Brok•rm, Ltd. I it 720 E. Durant. A•pen, CO 81611 15 1 1. r. Pitkin , f C C I *ITNINNI.TH. lh., 11. r.n,•m•, 1.4 .ad in,·•n.,dri..,n ,•1 lh, .win .,1 .. 2 Ton Dollar, ($10.00) and other good and valuable conoideration--------4••*•1-, * m •1,1 •nit..Ih.wn, i .4 • hk h ,• h/rrh, a An-Irit,c.1 h. 8 v.'4·,1 h,1.-,1..,1.1/.,1.,•nww.1 .n.Ihi th,-p~.rm•*.0 ... ht, -nd - ,H ~w ~,1 pn,n, ~,rlhe, ~Nh »~rn•,m,MI• ki ~a", .--·41,0 -1 *,4 / Ihe (.1.0.'.4 Pitkin , !11// 14 C•111'/hi, j Lot 1, PITKIN CENTER SUBDIVISION (a Lot Split) a, Ihown on the Plat ther,of recorded February 22, 1983, ..:9. in Plat Book 14 at Pagi 36. $4 COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO - Im- 4-*,w••-a 316 E. Hyman, A•p•n. CO 81611 . TWIGFTH,R • i,h JI -d *Fla 11. h..d,1.-,1, -d .Mwinrn.,e• ihrfrA, 1.6.VI, M M In,*i. *rp.i,01-0. 0,11 th, F...1,M• 1,~1 1 ~ 1,•,·r.- Iem-*1 -1 •rm,0.k» IMI• 1.-• A r••111• Ihrn•,1. •1.1 •1111• 0- il,ht. wle. m•r-1..·1*wn -1 •Irm.nd •h,-rw< 04 th, - p/*/- //Ih,1 * 10„ 0/ c.,0/Ni, .4 IM /,1 6, Ihr A•¢ h.,10/%1 1•1~nil.·• • ilh IN bil•1*/nl• aJ 49,//1/11/11,/• TO HA, D. 4411 11) 11( M.I) IN -1 r•r•,Ii. •h.r t-,.••.·J .Md .k·.fihot • lili lt.·4'.W..h. /*• 1111· P.*'.1. hi, hr- -1 //0- h-- 4.jur /1-1,9-1 61 hi.lf. hi, h.1,4 ...1 r·•.-1 .P.V.1.1.4... ... ...11.111. '10.1.-'.In Ind i 4/",-1•Mhlke ,„*.4- ht, hrit• .ad.•,0.• ih.t .,thri,n.,1 th, .·n...lin, 8.1.liwn plth..rp~•em•. he 10 ..11 .,4,4 16. r.mow. A., i.-,2.1 h4 t....1 •wir polt. i. .h-•ful.- .nd il•kh·.•,hIc r•1.4, i,1 inhe,it.,n.r. iii 1.14. 111 ke •imple. 06,1 i 1 46 W Fd n,hl full I•-i -,I-h,~Ili ,•, ri.n, Mpin .·Il .n.I.,•Il•i Ih.· -i In, Miwi ••d h•m / b•r-I. 00•I Ih,t Ill~ •eme·- In, .. C.IM IN,mal hmni/, 04,4-,/A. Iw,am• •,6 •. 1-• 1~,c•. /k·•n~·nl•. 4,humNA,• an•1 „·•1,1,1-• •1 •halb,1 amdiv 1~~- 4,wwl. ..... and iubjeci to *ineral real e,Late taxii for 1987 and Iubioquint yeari, 1 and those matter• It forth on Exhibit "A" attached her,to and incorporated 1 her,in by thi• referenco. Th, ri,r•,•- •hall .nd •IHILANN ~41 Al) 11 *1 #1 11 111 It 441),hr IN•¢ h.,1,44-I pn·n,i.·• in *.,· 4,1*I *a.Ir•arIN, 1••w••,un .4 1#w hi• hi. h.·11•,h,1 -•i,n•. 4,in•1 .It ,11.1 r%¢1,14·1••111 ,4 1~'r••n• 1-lulli .1.im,•01~·•h.4.·'I •M, 14111'r'.4 .·•.·, •47,1 Ihi• ik·.·.1,•11 11.· J.*· 21 1.•/'Sh•. j ¢ 4 STATE 0061*ENTARY 1 6 440 l 1 -XTI 9 687 J - -1 .1. U %11 111 1...114"1 J .4 142- d. 1,1 Octob,r 14 87 , ~ i .2.:' 'll'. (11 6-dr c ¢ 2#tl« L / 142:lilli 1- 7; . 0. 1 . 1. .. .It|.' .-I *14'*,hi . A i J 1 111 . ...1,1 111 1 .. 11 . I. 0 »3438 1 1 J J 1 - - - 1 1'.. 1 -1 .-' lili .1 1 . 1 1 -1 r L. 1 r 1 4 6 1 j 1 1 1 1 1 - E DOJ I- 1 . -i 'Vi -7%/ Ill MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: 516 E. Hyman Demolition, Reconstruction, and Addition DATE: February 9, 1988 LOCATION: 516 E. Hyman Avenue, Lot O of Block 94, also known as Lot 1 of Pitkin Center Subdivision, Townsite and City of Aspen. APPLICANT'S REQUEST: SJA Associates request approval to demolish the existing structure at 516 E. Hyman Avenue (formerly the Cheapshots building, currently the Mickey Mouse House). Redevel- opment plans are to build a new commercial building with 2,250 square feet on the first floor in Phase 1 and 2,250 square feet on the second floor in Phase 2 subject to GMP allocation. The design concept is to make this building appear as a continuation of the Pitkin Center building immediately to the east through the use of the same sandstone and brick and similar detailing and fenestration patterns. SITE, AREA AND BULK CHARACTERISTICS: Lot Area: 3,000 square feet Existing Floor Area: Proposed New Building Floor Area: 4,500 square feet (1.5:1 (Floor Area Ratio) FAR) Phase 1 First Floor: 2,250 square feet Phase 2 Second Floor: 2,250 square feet Proposed New Building Maximum Height: 31 feet (top of parapet) Proposed Front Yard Setback: 15 feet Proposed Open Space (%): 450 square feet (15%) PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Demolition of the existing building is subject to demolition review in Section 24-9.5 of the Municipal Code. New construction is reviewed as significant development according to 24-9.4(e)(4) involving two steps, conceptual review and final review. In addition to HPC's reviews, this project's creation of 15% open space and cash-in-lieu for the remaining 10% required (total of 25% required in the CC zone district) will be subject to special review by the Planning and Zoning Commission once the new code is adopted. Following are staff's comments in response to standards for demolition and significant development: 1 . f .. r 1. Demolition Review: Criterion 1: The structure proposed for demolition is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure. Response: The building consists of a frame structure sheathed with corrugated metal siding and roofing and a cinder block addition to the rear. The project architect has stated that there is no foundation and wood framing rests directly on the ground. He stated that the wood framing is rotting. When excavating for the Pitkin Center Building next door, the east wall of the structure almost fell into the hole and had to be reenforced to survive a few more years. The front part of the building is visibly deteriorating, as seen from Hyman Avenue. One may say that this is the only example of "blight" in the Commercial Core Historic Dis- trict. Criterion 2: The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused to provide for any beneficial use of the property. Response: While the building is currently occupied for commercial use, it appears that its useful life is limited. The building is not a good candidate for rehabilitation because it was not well built nor does it have distinguish- ing historic architectural features, in staff's opinion. Criterion 3: The structure cannot be practically moved to another site in Aspen. Response: It does not appear practical to move this struc- ture to another site because it has questionable structural stability and it does not, in our assessment, possess historic significance so to warrant the trouble and expense of moving. Criterion 4: A demolition and redevelopment plan is submit- ted, when required by HPC, which mitigates to the greatest extent practical any impact that occurs to the character of the neighborhood of the parcel where demolition is proposed to occur. Response: The redevelopment plan is commented on in response to conceptual development review below. We find that the impact of demolition and redevelopment on the neighborhood is generally positive. Criterion 5: The demolition plan mitigates to the greatest extent practical any impact the proposed demolition has on 2 .. 1 r the historic importance of the structures located on the parcel and adjacent parcels. Response: The building does not appear on the 1904 Sanborn's Map in its present location. Possibly this barn-like building was built during the Mining Era and was moved to this location at a later time. The 1980 Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures did not identify this building as an historic structure and denoted it as "visually non- contributing" to the historic district. There is no evidence that this structure possesses historic significance; and we concur with the 1980 Inventory that it does not contribute to the character of historic district. Therefore, we find that the demolition plan does not impact the historic importance of an historic structure or adjacent structures. Criterion 6: The demolition plan mitigates to the greatest extent practical any impact on the architectural integrity of the historic structure or part thereof. Response: As stated above, the structure does not possess architectural integrity, in staff's opinion. 2. Conceptual Development Review: Criterion 1: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel, with development on adjacent parcel in the Historic Overlay District and with adjacent historic landmarks. Response: The "Historic District and Historic Landmark Development Guidelines" discuss concepts of setback, align- ment and rhythm of facade details, massing, storefronts, windows and openings, and materials for compatible new construction of commercial buildings. With regard to setbacks, the- applicant-proposes-to have a 15' dccp "land- scaped plaza." This setback is midway between the Pitkin Center's 8' setback (on the western portion of the buil- ding) and the Mason and Morse's 20' setback on adjacent sides. The Guidelines express concern that building facade alignment along a block be respected. In the case of this block, there is a variety of setbacks with no consistent facade alignment. Most prominent on the block is the Elk's Building, which facades are aligned directly on Hyman and Galena. The project would be "splitting the difference" in facade alignments of its neighbors. This placement seems mainly appropriate to flow fairly well with the Pitkin Center Building and not create too pronounced of an inset along with the Mason and Morse Building. If this lot had been included in the Pitkin Center design, a continuous frontage and the combined open spade could have been made more useful. To move the building forward to the front 3 .. property line would appear to work less well. The fact that all the buildings on the block are somewhat set back helps to maintain the prominence of the Elk's Building. Regarding alignment and rhythm of facade details, this design utilizes the pattern of the adjacent Pitkin Center building. The storefront scale is very similar to historic commercial buildings and seems to work well with the adjacent structure. The two foot high bulkhead (or kick- plate) is the same height used on Pitkin Center storefronts. The vertical doors on the first floor seem especially appropriate. The vertical windows on the second floor are mainly consistent with the historic pattern of upper story windows. The muntined central group of windows are not a historic pattern, more modern in feel and chosen to tie into the Pitkin Center fenestration design. Another treatment might be more successful in creating this building's own identity and further adding to the sense of verticality. Massing of the one story design for Phase 1 is an 18' tall and 30' wide rectangular box. This is typical of one story commercial buildings in the historic district, and is appropriate in our opinion. Phase 2 would add a second story to arrive at a height of 31 feet. This massing closely resembles the Mason and Morse Building. If not for the vertical fenestration treatment, it would seem that the building should have greater height or less width so to not appear too squat. Building materials of the front facade consist of brick, sandstone, wood and slate. These materials are appropriate in the historic district and would continue the fairly rich treatment of the Pitkin Center facade. The slate tiles are a different material than on the Pitkin Center and help distinguish this structure. The sides and rear of the building consist ot concrete hlnekq, ag have been typically used in new buildings. Detailed identification Of the materials at final development review will be needed so to better understand their texture and scale. Criterion 2: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The question arises whether this structure is actually too similar to its neighbor and may give excessive emphasis to a new architectural theme in a City with diversity of modern architectural styles. Given that it is a small building, we are not particularly bothered by this. Criterion 3: The proposed development enhances or does not detract form the cultural value of designated historic 4 .. structures located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. Response: There are no designated historic landmarks on the parcel or adjacent parcels. Criterion 4: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: This criterion does not apply. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of demolition of the existing structure at 516 E. Hyman Avenue and conceptual development for both Phase 1 one story and Phase 2 two story proposals subject to the following conditions: 1. Detailed representation of materials shall be presented at HPC's final development review. ~ 2. The second floor central windows shall be studied as to how the window spacing may better relate to historic upper story window patterns, how these windows may give a stronger sense of verticality, and how this building may be better differentiated from the Pitkin Center building. The results of this study shall be presented at final development review. 3. Massing shall be studied prior to final development review to determine if a more vertical dimension of the two story building can be achieved. 4. Prior to final development review, approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission for reduction in required open space shall be obtained, or a revised design with f~3 open space shall be submitted. f- . Fv,-rui j tag 4 +42 4414 fli C - kjA (\C , 510 v~iR¥71) O 1) t, dittic 44 0-· sb.516e.h C . Wk, p,u, r w, 0)10 9 bft -U-Ul. ~. ftfp; up to **61'h & M .1 54 61,1) ,-\Ilt to}+1 5014 i,4 C. A - Covt,41,t bvir ephr ;rn~n,~1461, 31< udJM -»1.4 42:45 4& £ 01 Df P.-1- ht 11)fj kh M/1 06' V WJ j K k/''hin~s Ark944/. telortll' 'jk,n l.112 . 9 f 4 ,t/FACC F,0/ 1-,D ,)*'ll,k - ciA,Lii $ )44 /13?),12 -tbn·~,*t 37'_p, il(,·h 31 1- fl,15111~>- v hi}1M1,63 5 . r ' ATI l~ 0 0 1 ¥1. A MN 4.l 1 lt, Pal".1/.. dr-/1411 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TEL: (303) 925-4755 January 8, 1988 Mr. Steve Burstein Planning Office City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: 516 East Hyman Avenue, Pitkin Center Subdivision, Lot 1 Dear Steve, I am writing this letter to briefly explain to you our program and concept f or the above-referenced project. The existing structure will be completely demolished and removed. The new building in its place will consist of two floors above grade each containing 2250 gross square feet. The upper level will re,quire a GMP allocation before it can be built. In addition, there will be a full basement containing mechanical and storage space. It is our feeling, that building should appear not so much as an addition, but more_as a continuation of the Pitkin Center building immediately to the east. At the same time, it should be sensitive to more contemporary Mason and Morse building on the west. We feel we have accomplished both of these goals by first, using the same sandstone and brick colors, similar detailing and fenestration patterns as Pitkin Center. Secondly, we attempted to have a similar height and massing as Mason and Morse. Finally, we hope to take advantage of the proposed cash-in- lieu for open space. This would allow us to move the building slightly ahead of Mason and Morse, but behind Pitkin Center, creating a more desirable flow of open space down the block. r :1 .,11 W .6- . 1 7, 1 Mr. Steve Burstein January 8, 1988 Page two I hope this brief explanation helps you to understand the Proj ect better. If you have any further questions, please give me a call. Sincerely, C-- Kim Weil Project Manager KW:dem - -1. - ---1 - --9--- .1 -12&2632- -1-1-31 1 ---1 =Eau 1 - 14:1'Teu .6™ 1 :3 22 1 -2 -42 =_r__-1 -0 J - 1 , & -3 .----1 I - 34' -1 91 Ein---1 'LE] ; = 2 ---2 .1 -- -- - 441€>057-DHE 2.4-474 -- - 1 41#lzlIONILit j ULLLI.-L)-ILLE=Il - --rr-- -1--- L» ii 1 1 1 1 L.-1 1 L._ ~ ' ~ 1 '' I t It < 1 - 7 1, E-ZIE] ¥000 BUL+HeMP CriP-) 1 1 1 4250 . . IfPEN PROPERTIES .aRD a Feb. 5, 1988 N (2. 4 13 Aspen Historic Preservation Committee ~unt . Aspen City Hall 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Members: I would like to encourage you to approve the application for demolition of the building located on Lot 0, Block 94, City and Townsite of Aspen, formerly known as the "Cheap Shots Building". The building is actually a conglomeration of 3 buildings which have been tacked together over the years, and while the assemblage is in an Historical District, the structures themselves would seem to have no historical value. In addition to being an eyesore and detraction to the rest of that block, the building does not meet any current fire codes and is a hazard to the area and to the persons working in it. As an owner of an adjoining building, I encourage you to approve the application for demolition. Since you do have the authority to influence the design of the building that will replace this one, I am sure the new building will be a big improvement and a credit to the area. Sincerely, Ck V/\ .ucE- UJim Martin Pitkin Center Building (520 E. Hyman) (303)925-8310 • 215 S. Monarch • P. O. Box 10502 • Aspen, Colorado 81611 .. MEMORANDUM To: Cindy Houben, Planning Office From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: 516 East Hyman Ave. - GMQS scoring Historic Preservation Committee referral comments Date: November 15, 1988 On February 9, 1988, HPC reviewed the project at 516 E. Hyman, granting Demolition and Conceptual Development approval to both Phase 1 and Phase 2, with conditions. On June 14, 1988, the applicant returned to HPC for Final Development approval. The Committee granted approval for demolition and final development for Phase 1, and recommended approval of final development for Phase 2, subject to GMP allocation. Staff and the HPC found the general development application consistent with the Historic District and Historic Landmark Development Guidelines. The infill design, setback, fenestration, materials and details were felt to be very compatible with the adjacent structures, and well suited to the site. HPC's only concerns during Final Development review focused on the "plaza" entry in its coordination with the next door Mason and Morse plaza reconstruction. This situation has apparently been addressed satisfactorily. Staff is very pleased with the project. By incorporating historic scale and massing with modern materials, the project presents a good design solution to a challenging, narrow site. memo.cindy.516eh .. CITY OF ASPEN COMMERCIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT SCORE SHEET PROJECT: 516 East Hyman Avenue DATE: 11/22/88 1. QUALITY OF DESIGN (maximum 18 points) Each Development Application shall be rated based on the quality of the exterior of its buildings and site design and assigned points according to the following standards and considerations. 0 -- A totally deficient design. 1 -- A major design flaw 2 -- An acceptable (but standard) design 3 -- An excellent design The following features shall be rated accordingly. a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - (maximum 3 points) Considering the compatibility of the proposed development (in terms of scale, siting, massing, height, and building materials) with existing neighboring developments. RATING: 3 COMMENTS: The proposed infill design was said bv the Historic Preservation Committee to be well suited to the site with regard to set backs. fenestration, materials and 4 detail. All these elements are compatible with the adiacent i neighborhood. The scale is appropriate and is less massive with regard to height, than what is allowed in the zone district. The Planning Office feels this is an excellent design. b. SITE DESIGN - (maximum 3 points) Considering the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and -9. open space areas, the amount of site coverage by s buildings, the extent of underground utilities, and the i arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation, including access for service, increased safety and privacy, and provision of snow storage areas. RATING: ( 2 / r·2 .6 /1 COMMENTS: The proposed landscaping is generally in keeping with the streetscape guidelines. The open space is less than required by code (25%) but more than existed with the previous building (3%). The building meets the zone district standard of 1.5:1 FAR, all utilities Will be underground, the service area in the alley provides ample room for trash and service deliveries. The front walks are proposed to be snowmelted. The Planning Office fees this is an acceptable design. C. ENERGY CONSERVATION - (maximum 3 points) Considering the use of passive and/or active construction of the proposed development, including but not limited to insulation, glazing, passive solar orientation, efficient heating and cooling systems and solar energy devices; the extent to which the proposed development avoids wasting energy by excluding excessive lighting and inefficient woodburning devices; and the proposed development's location, relative to whether solar gain can be expected to reasonably result in energy conservation. RATING: 2 COMMENTS: The Roaring Fork Energy Center referral comments note that the proposed installation is adequate but additional insulation is recommended for the roof. This recommendation is based on todavs enerqv standards as reflected bv the State of Colorado Weatherization Program and the Public Service Company. The small amount of glass on the structure helps with overall enerqv efficiency. The 2 .. . application does not address water conservation measures. The Planning Office feels that this is an acceptable but standard design. d. AMENITIES - (maximum 3 points) Considering the provision of usable open space, pedestrian and bicycle ways, benches, bicycle racks, bus shelters, and other common areas for users of the proposed development. RATING: 2 COMMENTS: The extension of the plaza area from adiacent structures provides wide sidewalk areas for the pedestrian; a bench is provided on the public R.O.W. and a bike rack is provided at the rear of the building. The bike rack appears to encourage the worker and resident of the employee unit to bike but does not offer the general public a place to park their bike outside of the commercial storefront. The Planning Office feels that this is an acceptable design. e. VISUAL IMPACT - (maximum 3 points) Considering the scale and location of the buildings in the proposed development to prevent infringement on designated scenic viewplanes. RATING: 2 COMMENTS: The building is not within anv viewplane and is lower in elevation than surrounding buildings. The structure is also below the height that is allowed in the zone district (35'8" vs. 40'1. The Planning Office feels that this is an acceptable design. f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - (maximum 3 points) Considering the extent to which required trash and utility access areas are screened from public view ; are 3 .. sized to meet the needs of the proposed development and to provide for public utility placement; can be easily accessed, allow trash bins to be moved by service personnel, and provide enclosed trash bins, trash compaction or other unique measures. RATING: 3 COMMENT: The service area in the allev is more than adequate with regard to trash service. The applicants saw a need in the surrounding neighborhood and have provided space for an additional dumpster to be used bv another alley resident. The trash area will also be protected bv an automatic sprinkler system. This is an excellent design since the service area (alley) is out of the public view. 2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10 points) Each Development Application shall be rated on the basis of its impact upon public facilities and services by the assigning of points according to the following standards and considerations. 0 -- Proposed development requires the provision of new public facilities and services at increased public expense. 1 -- Proposed development may be handled by existing public facilities and services, or any public facility or service improvements made by the applicant benefits the proposed development only, and not the area in general 2 -- Proposed development improves the availability of public facilities and services in the area. In those cases where points are given for the simultaneous evaluation of two (2) services (i.e., water supply and fire protection) the determination of points shall be made be averaging the scores for each feature. a. WATER SUPPLY/FIRE PROTECTION: (maximum 2 points) Considering the ability of the water supply system to serve the proposed development and the applicant's commitment to install any water system extensions or treatment plant or other facility upgrading required to 4 .. serve the proposed development. Fire protection facilities and services shall also be reviewed, considering the ability of the appropriate fire protection district to provide services according to established response times without the necessity of upgrading available facilities; the adequacy of available water pressure and capacity for providing fire fighting flows; and the commitment of the applicant to provide any fire protection facilities which may be necessary to serve the proposed development. RATING: 2 COMMENT: The proposal can be serviced by the existing water system. The old line will be abandoned and a new 4" service line will be installed at the applicant's expense. The proposal is in close proximity (3 minute response time) to the Fire Department. The applicants have committed to installing a sprinkler system throughout the building. This Will benefit the surrounding buildings in case of a fire. This improves the fire safety in the area. b. SANITARY SEWER - (maximum 2 points) Considering the ability of the sanitary sewer system to serve the proposed development and the applicant's commitment to install any sanitary system extensions or treatment plant or other facility upgrading required to serve the proposed development. RATING: 1 COMMENT: The proposal requires upgrading the system of which the applicants have committed to pavinq their fair share. This will only benefit the proposal since they are only contributing to a percentage of the entire upgrade. 5 .. C. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION/ROADS - (maximum 2 points) Considering the ability of the proposed development to be served by existing public transit routes. The review shall also consider the capacity of major streets to serve the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns, creating safety hazards or maintenance problems, overloading the existing street system or causing a need to extend the existing road network and consider the applicant's commitment to install the necessary road system improvements to serve the increased usage attributable to the proposed development. RATING: 1 COMMENT: The proposal can be served bv the existing roadways and is within 2 blocks of the Ruby Park Transportation Center. The proposal uses existing roads and services and does not provide benefits to the area. d. STORM DRAINAGE - (maximum 2 points) Considering the degree to which the applicant proposes to maintain historic drainage patterns on the development site. If the development requires use of the City's drainage system, the review shall consider the commitment by the applicant to install the necessary drainage control facilities and to maintain the system over the long- term. RATING: 1 COMMENT: The Engineering Department is concerned that the application proposes 100 % of storm runoff to be handled by an on-site drywell. This mav create problems with the qroundwater conditions in the area. This issue must be resolved to the Engineering Departments satisfaction. The Planning Office feels that the resulting design will only serve to benefit the site. e. PARKING - (maximum 2 points) Considering the provisions of parking spaces to meet the commercial and/or 6 .. residential needs of the proposed development as required by Art. 5, Div. 2, and considering the design of the parking spaces with respect to their visual impact, amount of paved surface, and convenience and safety. RATING: 1 COMMENTS: The applicants have committed to pavinq a cash in lieu payment for the required commercial spaces but have requested a waiver of the residential parking space for the employee unit. Given the infill tVPe of design. the applicants have generally dealt with the parking situation in an acceptable manner which only benefits the proiect. 3. PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING (maximum 15 points) Each Development Application shall be assigned points for the provision of housing which complies with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City, and with the provisions of Sec. 8-109. Points shall be awarded as follows: Zero (0%) to Sixty ( 60%) percent of the additional employees generated by the proposed development: One (1) point for each six ( 6%) percent housed; Sixty-one (61%) to one hundred (100%) percent of the additional employees generated by the proposed development: One ( 1) point for each eight ( 8%) percent housed. The following standard shall be used in calculating the number of full-time equivalent employees generated by the proposed development: Commercial Core 3.50 to 5.25 employees/1,000 sq.ft. (CC) and (net leasable), based on review of the Commercial (C-1): City Council's housing designee: Neighborhood 2.30 employees/1,000 sq. ft. Commercial (NC) (net leasable); and Service Commer. Industrial (S/C/I): Office (0): 3.00 employees/1,000 sq. ft. 7 .. (net leasable); Commercial Lodge 3.50 employees/1,000 sq. ft. (CL) and other: (net leasable). If it is determined that the proposed development generates no new employees, it shall be awarded the full fifteen (15) points available within this section. In order to determine the percentage of employees generated by the proposed development who are provided with housing, the Commission shall use the following criteria: Studio: 1.25 residents; One-bedroom: 1.75 residents; Two-bedroom: 2.25 residents; Three-bedroom or larger: 3.00 residents; Dormitory: 1.00 resident per 150 per square feet of unit space. RATING: 12 COMMENT: The applicants have committed to supplying one on site unit (400 square foot studio) and supplying cash in lieu for the remaining 2.09 employees at a moderate income level. This provides (76%) of the employee housing of the proiect. The staff strongly supports the on-site employee unit. 4. BONUS POINTS - (maximum 4 points) Bonus points may be assigned when it is determined that a proposed development has not only met the substantive standards of Sees. 8- 106(F)(1) through (3), but has also exceeded the provisions of these sections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition. An award of additional bonus points shall not exceed ten (10%) percent of the total points awarded under Sec. 8-106(F)(1) through (3). Any Commission member awarding bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the public hearing record. BONUS POINTS: COMMENTS: As a rule the Planning Office never gives bonus points. 8 .. 5. TOTAL POINTS - SCORING CATEGORIES POINTS: 1. QUALITY OF DESIGN 14 2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES & 6 SERVICES 3. PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING 12 (LOW, MODERATE & MIDDLE) 4. BONUS POINTS TOTAL POINTS: 32 Name of P&Z Commission Member: Planning Office 516.score 9 - ' i .. R......lei . .6.6 ....- %1, -- 690 41 ' - WARIt,~T¥ 18*11 THIN I)EEI), fl,k ti , .1.„ ..i Oct ober i.,87 1 r N hri•r,n EDWARD WACI IS 22. . Illioot. 0 11 It.. 2 .4 b , 1.1/1, 11 - Lai.e 01.11. 14 ./40.1-' , 14,11•4-1 1"hi ! - " 2.'n *, 10§11<A SAS!.OVE. 1 - - %8 *2 , 1 21 I h,k i. el .1,lic" 1, c/o Coldwell Banker/The A•pen Broker•, Ltd. t 0 720 E. Durant, AMpen, CO 81611 <644 ------ 40 'r Pitkin ..1.k.,1 1.1...11, ..1.-r-€-4 K A ' '41/VA~* 1H. 1 h., IN· 0,4,niv.•, 1,9 4.1 in .,•,•i•k·i.I,m ol :h, ium .il 4 Ten Dollarm ($10.00) and other good and valuable con,ideration----------4......, i Ihr Fr. i·,p,.n.1 -1 11. i. M I .•1 •4 hi. h n h,·i.·/i, a k 1, m h·.1,01 h* 0 .1,1,4·il h/,•ined. .,I.j .,n.1, ,•nint·J Athi 'h,N prrwnt• 6/1 1-/.in. *It ,•wi,n ./m] 1 ,•nt,im unb, 1/,c /1 2/,1.·.·i- his hui• .i.1.~•i,•• 1,•.·,8 .11 it. i.·.~ 1·•19.-m, 1.•,i·lhr, ..Hh w,rfi•im•11•. * d -b..,1,,.e, 1,in, .,~1 ~·in, in th~ (i,unti •,1 Pitkin , 41- 14 Coh..'. . t J..1....1 0. 1"114." Lot 1, PITKIN CENTER SUBDIVISION (a Lot Split) as mhown on the Plat thereof recorded February 22, 1983, in Plat Book 14 at Pag. 36. COUNTY OF PITKIN, STArE OF COLORADO 11 * d.• h.on A .4..1 ind nimhr; I 516 E. Hyman, A•pen, CO 81611 , TI)(.~ 1 M N • i.h ~11 4 .in,·111.1, 11,r h.·mlital™ nh Ji,d .,rpunrn.,u·• th,·r·li · ~4+6,1,0in, i~ in .Anti•e .pr.·N#*. and Ih.· rrwruor d rea.,••n.. re,n.on,tri .n.1 r,·Ii,li,kle,# 1,·ni• i~.il. . ,Ii.1 pl,•lit• ihcle•,1 ..ild Alt Iht· t'•w· Ii,hu 1,11.· invrril il.,im .n.1 ik·,B.n.1 •h,,1,4-R uf 111. - /,d./.m- 'i'/4' in '4' '4 •·4'"14· "1 '11 .-1 1.' 11.· .h.•.- 1•.,1,!.i,14·,11,1,·ili,w , . illi Ith· 1.·ie.1,1.,1,"·nl• 0,1, 1 47'uncnid'Ir• WHAIB. 4%11 11) 144)1 1) ih.· •.,•1 i.,·ii,i.·. ..hm· b..i,+.,int·,1 -1 4 4 1,14,1 • 4¢1, 11.· 41*ikr-~ o uni.• 111.· Ul,nur- him h..Ind i hinv.·If . hi• h,·iii .1,•11,·•80.111'·1•4·4·nlai•.·• d.11 . ..r,iant. mnt. h#,im Ind hi. h.,I,· ..,•1 i••I,·,1· th..1 .1 Ih,· Ii,i.. •,1 11,c .'Ii•.·.11,11! Al.te'li,i·,i •41)1.-.· 1,~.·ni. he i/ ..11 M-,ird „1 Ihi· rl,·in,•t·. ,h... .i,nicic·,1 h./ , ••1 41.· 14·11.-, 1 ..h•i,Ii,1. ....1 i,i.1.1.·d.,ht,· .·•1.1.· ,·1 inht·,rit.,",r , m 1.* r ", 1// •impl/. and i W...1 1,1:hi lutl i.., i ..,1 .,u,h.,1, 1., ri.,i,t 1,/b...1, 4 11..1.1 i,•nit·, ih, •./.· iii i,i.,i~·, ..11,4,i, a• /1,4,·•.,4, /*1 11,~111,/ •///// 11.•e ' fi..,1 .11 1,/n.·i /3 /h,·, vid• h.,%,„· ·16. 1.·i. IJ•i·• ••4··•,1.·,il. .·i. .11,144.·• 044·•itht,•4,%4,1 •h.1.·wi hind,1 n.,ure ••Tei, '••rr• and .ubjecl to general real e•Late taxe• for 1987 and •ubsequent yoarm, and those matter• •et forth on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by thlm reference. I k ri.,·...0- .h.11.,1..11 *41(11 U~ 1 1,•41/ 11 40 9 11 I M 11 ~ 1) 11.· il•ni· h.,4'.,i.·d ph.·i,in•. . In th.· 44•·' •nd lwai·,Iht. p•.'w.•,0,:,il th, Ill. 4,· 1• i,u,JA.i,·11. *uin•,.Il •11.1.·Ii·i' 1•·i•.,1,#4 14·,•,4,il.,~Ii,11, .1.imin'tb·•h,•1,·•,i .1,1, p/,1 'hrn·,4 1 1% I W.-•6~-~***=dh~~ad:06£.Il, 0 , i., 1,1,·.1 IhI• iki,1 541 11,. .1 il. g ~ 1,11~,· ·· ~ STATE DOCUMENTARY '1 1 4% /1! 11 J Ul., Pt% -*. --I ---- L= F I 9 887 A ,-3.0-*• I '4%54...:.. 1, 1. 5 f -, 3.Ni *1%11 1,1 1,HON "111 1 i./ 6/".,In¢ .......·. ./• .6,•Ill•il,L•/1/1.• Il•· lilli I liu! .64 14 October 0 87 4.' ,A ' BDI~RD WACHS . Ir,JAL·/16 /,4, 1,1.1, rl,1 41.1,41.,A.,1 .. . 3, , ¢ Xb»€ e, ~10 Li N Or - -- 11 .1.11. ¢ + '1 1 1 1 1 + ... -1 ... 1 .1 .'.. , 1, 14 1,1 1.. 1.11 ......,·1., .....1 1 , 1 M™:%'4#milm f , i/ 2. 1-- 5 .- '-r.... "~·1·J, - 1[J j ' 'j " 1 1 JAN 1 9 1988 , h 1 527 January 15, 1988 Mr. Steve Burstein Planning Office City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Coiorado 81611 DE„ =1: uodivision n.. -,0 East Hyman Avenue, Lot 1, Pitkin Center b Dear Steve, Acting as the owner 0+ the above-referenced lot, and as a representative of the applicant, SJA Associates c/o Steve Marcus p.0. Box 1709 ' Aspen, Coloraao 81612 Phone 925-7615 I hereby authorize the following to act as our representative during the HPC review ot the above-reference project: Bill Poss and A- m> i., .... 2 =. c= 605 East Main Street Suite 1 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone 9 'r I t..' t.J 61ncerely, I v/F Ice 1-(f V- 1 -L 38*hua Saslove JSidem .. APPL ICAT ION FOR H ISr ORIC PRES ERVATION COMMIrr EE REVIEW A. Name of Applicant: SJA ASSOCIATES B. Authorization by owner for Representative to Submit Appli- cation: See Attached Letter C. Name and Location of Property: 516 East Nyman Avenue, Lot 1, Pitkin Center Subdivision D. Description of Proposal: Demolition, reconstruction and addition to existing structure; See attached letter. E. List elevation plans, site plan, detail drawings, historic photographs, current photographs, etc. which are being submitted with this application: Phase 1 and Phase 2 Elevations; Floor Plans; Site Plans; Owner Data. F. Building Materials: Sandstone, Brick, Wood, Clad Windows. G. Colors: H. Illumination: I. Signage: By Tenants. J. Effect of the proposal on the original design and architectural elements: N/A K. Identify encroachment licenses or other City approvals needed by applicant: GMP Allocation required for second floor. -. CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I, hereby certify that on thisc/f~~~ day of UM-U #4 198 j ,a true and correct copy of the attached Notice of ' Public Hearing was deposited in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid, to the adjacent property owners ap indicated on the attached list of adjacent property owners which was supplied to the Planning Office by the applicant in regard to the case named*on the public notice. CJ CuvUL (f (~ Utl 14#08*12 Nancy Caeti / +16 %% *\ l.- .d 4 .. PUBLIC NOTICE RE: DEMOLITION, RECONSTRUCTION AND ADDITION TO 515 E. HYMAN AVENUE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, February 9, 1988, at a meeting to begin at 2:30 P.M. before the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee in the City Council Chambers, 1st Floor, City Hall, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, CO to consider an application for demolition of the existing building at 515 E. Hyman Avenue (formerly Cheap Shots Building) and reconstruction of a new commercial building with 2250 square feet on the first floor in Phase 1, and 2,250 sq. ft. on the second floor in Phase 2 subject to GMP allocation. The property is Lot 0 of Block 94, City and Townsite of Aspen. For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925- 2020, ext. 223. s/Bill Poss Chairman, Aspen Historic Preservation Committee Published in the Aspen Times on Jan. 21, 1988. City of Aspen Account. i ED]4Ezi nuf- - 1 GE # Elli EE i MONARCH--ST. ---Il- --------I-/1---6- ---I-l- N MONARCH•, ST. . I; . 4 Z IEEE] l , , 2:-1 4 . ~ .EKI-1 - €=-1 g.9 -- 20 - i 1-1 : 1 ., 1 - . .9 I L__-1 S MILL-#. ---Af- I N MILL ST. - 1-•- --11 '-' 1 1.1 1 1 - 1 1 £ 17 , Ell E-{17-*A 1 4 ' r E 0 1 1 . ' S GALRNA ST ' 5AALUJ.1/ 1 1 1 m r L UM -- 0 1 I ___1 -------"'<ill- S-HU ER -----sT ----- - ------- 2 14 0 E--11» Ezzl E-_I ETE.1 8 1=1 I , - 1--11 . P---1 P -, /1 1. , » r--=11 EZE] Ezzl - i , I.------r--s-=SPRING--A. --Ii.,1,-0---*I- ---=-~-=----=-- m m 7... 1 4=1-1 2- - -0 IE h - . 1 A . 4. .19' 1 9. f 1 41 5 © I 1. . 1 . 1 4 2 -- - 2 .----S-ORIGINAL--=ST...=In.-=---I - N FI=4Eg t=-1'~~~ r - W Ezzl Uzzl R.ZE] k--1~~ ' A / ...../.-- I./.......... HERRON PARK .. ?t u % 6·3 ·=). 1'' ' r': t"I E.·: d at. L 'C) t...l l'-1 'ri y Assessor s U 1 ·1 1 Ce on J a nuar' v .1 ·20. .L ··.7 c) o : Block 87: C ]·ty 01 Aspen (Fi. re . 3 i. 0. 2.. i i...„ i ; J Mac Cunningham 12 1 -6 Outh Galena .5 treat Aspen, Co. 81611 Block 88: L. Donnelly Aspen, Co. 81612 Harley A. Baldwin, II #1 West zkno btreer New York City, New York .1. c-1 L' /- ·-r Loma Alta Corp. 6210 N. Central Expressway Dallas, Texas 75206 IRansom 8. Woods, Jr. and Justine F Woods P 0= Bo: 12288 Aspen, Co. 81612 Levant America, S.A. c/o Colonial Navigation Co., Inc. #22409 17 Battery Place New York City, New York 10004 Block 89: Iheodore A. Koutsoubos 41 9 Last Hyman Avenue Aspen, Co. 81611 Yar,agon t.nterprises, Inc. 419 E. Hyman Avenue Aspen, Co. 81611 Joan . </. L. Kl ''- P.O. Box 722 Aspen, Colorado 81612 charles W. Racine P.O. Box E-2 Snbwmass Viflage, Co. 81615 .. Robert (Ri i ,·- 1.· '• 1 J Br"ower ./9 8 Unit C-1 423 E. Hyman Avenue . H '13 pe n , Co. 81611 James E. Cox Antnony E. Cox : Martinez, California 94553 Aprl- Riowell Investment 1.-· ' 1 i. 1··j P f.1 'CD ,···. '., ES'k Aspen, Co: 81612 Block 93: City 0+ Aspen Warren J. Conner Claude M. Conner 534 E. Hopkins Avenue Aspen, Co. 81611 Mi :. Margaret A. Conner - 0.2,4 E. Hopkins Avenue Hspen, Colorado 8161i Block 94: W.G. Bullock Grant Bullock Trust John E. .McNulty Lavone Kay Staton Lois Ann hartmann P.O. Box 609 Glenwood Springs, Co. 81602 Maurice Beriro Suite *912 3475 Mountain Street Montreal, Quebec Canada H3G2A4 Aspen Plaza Co. P.O. Box 1709 Aspen, Co. 81612 B.P.0. Elks Lodge No. . P.O. Box .2,2/ Aspen, Co. 81612 .. Ma son & Morse, inc. 514 E. Hyman Avenue A spen, Colora 0 0 8161 1 Bloih. 74: Arcades Associates, Ltd. Jerome H. Michael c/o Jacobson Rentals & Property Mgmt. 730 East Durant Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 T. & E. Restaurant Corp. Plo Aspen, Co. 81612 Jean C. Ingham P.O. Box 1103 A soe n. Co: 81612 Kikran A.3. Dingilian ' 160 West 225th Street New York City: New York 10460 Richard W. Volk E- C -4 4 I " i-· 1 1 030 Lai i + or nia c,z:reec ban Francisco, California 94104 heinz Wolf . 1-1 :1 -1 C 1- 1 alne C . 4' J 01 - i 1221 Myrtle Avenue San Diego. California 92103 Andre Ulyrch P /0 • A,-·' ··.· 'r: ".0 6-1 0 ..... Aspen, Lo. ¤16 12 W.T. Ray, Jr. and J.B. Soeed 50 Scott Avenue - Cookeville,- Tennessee 38501 R U LJ 2, l. c . 1 ' i L- I \1 e l ... y , J r . 6th rloor 1st American National Bank Nashville, rennessee 37237 Tennessee Three A Tennessee Partnership 101 Broadway Nashville, Tennessee .2,/201 .. Donald B. McCann. Trustee 300 National Cit, v Bank Building ./. 1.1 1 i :t - O 4 -·1· 1 .,. 1 Cleveland, Ohi lennessee Three Rentals A Partnership 2700 First American Center Nagn-ville, iennessee .2, / .,2 ::, 8 James V. Redd Carol L. Rodgers 1300 South Main Street bear- C--7, Ar| N ·alls a. S Harold Paul Caldwell, Jr. Martha B. Caldwell - c/o Caldwell Lampers 5147 nickory Hollow ParKway Nashville, Tennessee 37013 B&G Investments An Iowa General Partnership Sth Floor, Capiral Square Building ' 40 Locust Street Des Moines, Iowa 50398 James B. Nowery Harold J. Quinny Jr. 100 Travis Flace Shreveport, La. 71101 Aspen- Cooper EU.lie Z.ILLI 1616 Champa Street Denver, Coi 80202 Jerald M. Barnett P.O. Box 4357 Asrien, Co. 81612 R.P. (Dick) Fitzgerald kitzgeraid keal Estate Co. ' '-' p r· bed r' a. i mer Dri v.... in Lake Havasa City, Arizona 86403 Tomkins, Kern and Company P Colorado General Partnership 520 East Cooper Avenue Aspen, Co . ....I· - 4 - f11411 James-R. McDade and Elaine B. McDade p.0. Box 3099 Aspen- Co. 81612 .. - d --t P. Morris / Suite 200 517 East Hopkins Avenue Aspen, Co. 81611 P.O. Box 064 Aspen, Co. 81612 Lenny Weinglass z/0 Pep ' s r . . i, 3 -·2 C. dE:, L i.-. ooper- Ave rlite Aspen, Co. 81611 Block 98: Thomas D. McCloskey, Jr. Bonnie P. McCloskey / P.O. Box /846 Aspen, Co. 81612 Block 99: Gary G. and Lesile J. Troyer/ 601 East Hookins Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Jean Vick Trousdale iw,.0 Norch Hillcrest Drive Beverly Hills, California 90210 E. Norris and Gdodrich H. Taylor #1, 602 East Hyman Avenue Aspen, Co. 81011 Patricia Moore 4' 610 East Hyman Avenue Aspen, Co. 81611 Furngult, Ltd. J A Colorado Joint Venture 616 East Hyman Avenue ~spen, Colorado 81611 Block 100: j naB Lomparly A Colorado Partnership c/o Garfield & Hecht, P.C. 601 East Hyman Avenue Aspen, Co. 81611 . 0 Geral d P. & Patricia D. Long 1/~ 7690 N. Calle Sin Miedo Tucson, Arizona 85718 Donald M. & Jeannie M. Lemos v' James A. &·Karen D. Cutts P.O. Box 321 Aspen, W 1 '.2 1. ..L O 4 ... / ./ Hunter Plaza Associate- ~ A Colorado Partnershi cio Anthony J. Mazza, Managing Partner 530 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Pitkin Center Subdivision: Pitkin Center Joint Venture J c/o Aspen Properties ...1.0 i '71 1 7 1 12: C-· bu.oul, -13 o. Monarch Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Bruce H. Konheim ~ i.j .1. enroy r- ar ~,1 ers c/o Charles Israel P.O. Box 3677 Aspen, Co. 81612 I] tj. Ii.-'Fpr~ l./:.f'. --- ..~r~"> ~7~9r. g -:5~- ·/Tqz,~- M-r -4-'.F€ WILLIAM J. POSS & ASSO~ES - 605 E. Main St. D=IEFFE[~2[F FEA[MS[~OFFA[L ASPEN, CO 81611 DATE JO (S (303) 925-4755 RE: To FLA+114 Offe€ ¢R=61 0 E. HY IMA 4 Crrr ap Aeral ~ T &49 L l, 130 6. GIALEAA £ j i .11 WE ARE SENDING YOU <Attached m Under separate cover via the following items: El Shop drawings £~ Prints U Plans m Samples C] Specifications C] Copy of letter C] Change order 94 -Bea- de DeTA COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION I \·U~ &% 1 fp IATE, PALIC - UP DATA THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: U For approval [3 Approved as submitted [3 Resubmit copies for approval U For your use C] Approved as noted [3 Submit -copies for distribution C] As requested m Returned for corrections C] Return corrected prints ~ For review and comment C] C] FOR BIDS DUE 19 El PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS *te* 1 fLE+Ee »f 16 FLITS(.1 4»B 1 14 ·88 if T©ee·lern . ARY TNOBLE Ms 'FLEASE 69LL -tl\AN #4 COPY TO 12b.- lia k , SIGNED: ~ , 110* 1 PRODUCT 2404 %2791 Int, G*. All. 01471 1~"~0 U enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. V '-7 .i -1-//,/. .IL. ....= - I . A - . -2-RIPOR< 5.*UO\¥195- . 0 I L - 7.0.*:oF PECK & 126-0 1 - -q - - 4 . -*--- --il -t-- -i-* --- -1 r -- 1]27 01- 9 1 1- -C¥,04-ro•t, I A ---1 ! 44#1*rek h.p,1 1 I-3- L- 1 1 22211 122] L -- - *002-L_ i «- 7 --*9-©6Tor€ 1,»*0':, CNey V UI 2- T·0·101Fr5 LEE 13&36 &115'-D"l -~ ~ Il~- , 0.1.·U· - -T P - - 7 ------1 -7 r--1 AWNING<YYF·) ~ | | | 11 1 11 1 1 1 L__ | 1 1 3 » - 1 - f.0, 00+. EL. !00'-C>" 15=221 _ 4*9012 'OBILHeAD (TYF.) 1 f----4 6040, 1 1 1 VII 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 11 1 Issue: 1 I · bila* 1 24€ FFEIM 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 'Z T. O. 6046, EW '. J 1 1 , , /71 SOUTH - _ tlil-~~H_________ THE PURPOSE OF THIS DRAWING IS ONLY TO GRAPHICALLY DEMET THE GENERAL NATURE OF THE WORK. THE CONTRAC TOR 15 RESPONSm{E FOR CONF-140 DUENSUE AND SELECTING FAS,RICATION PROCESSES NO TECINIQUES OF CONSRUCTION. THE ARCHITECT SHILL BE NOTIFIED OF ANY VARIATIONS FROM TIE DIMENSIONS AND COM,mONS SHOWN BY THIS DRAWING. f , 12 = 11 1 PREn---1 - 2 ~8 ?~ 1ELEVATIONS I > UL - , Exirl © WILLIAM JOHN POSS P.1 BTAL, FA@efer- 6+1~ . . .-I.. ON GANMTOKIE BARD; 1 - C I -<ile,PG fl xTUA» 26922 abTIVEL --0 ----- r-=-~~ - - 1-qutit»Ett 1 -2 1 -r·D. i/Fref-LBvEL Gta, &115~·d' 1 ---- - 2 --El--0-_-11 -=.- $$ - -U-mi --~ -- -- 0424 DS -- - -- - ~ --- - - -- - 4 79)3>W-ACE\«6 944)6TOOW --.. 1 ip -„Jr X. 6, M.-0-- 1- 1 11 \11 6- -. . - -- 1 T # -4 , 1 2.04 04 7 PA:'12_ 33 ~«--01._- ~~ \ DECORAT We ,#*~GANOSTOWIE, bl - 11 fo· CONIC. EL. loolo ___ 1 Age NOL H·EAP Pklel» \AJ 1 / it 10 1 0 rn - - - - - -- - - -- - - - -- -4 -1 3066 Me« 06001 NIe. - NORTH SOUTH -_--AFJADERT 'DUCE'. 45 IN Fe91266%08 NO <---I---I--I---$----------ill---%-- AP..It:•4>IT pullele I N FORD 6'00101 H 10 - --- -- -1 -- 2,05 87 1 - 1 ---- ------ - .- 1-* -72-InnIUILLIL____------c'r7 U----_ --- -- 1-- 57€, DO MAT IVE *.NASTDNE -. 2 00«U· HiT¢:.6- - -AN P 11*' 0 €>rl/, ----------4.-~ FA[4017 f'LAZA IN ---i - $1 FIF* HAN OR.»1 l.0, - $-__-__ I I -- ?09=66@00,40 ---- - -- - - - ---4 - 4 1 =0\ A --- ---- - ~--li~ji~---~ 1 ~~-- -~~ -il - 1 1 U- ' f . 11 r« 4 Iseue: WEST i · 11· OSI t{Ft F>Pal w ----- ----- ---- --66-TA v PCARAPET CAF° 1-~ ==ADE %4<16* -- ----L________ _- - 7 _4_31_urre y€(EFE*blj«L-____-~ - T --I+-il---illi#L---.*-i -*i-- i-lil-- - ·--- -- APJACENT *al i,521kl6 *AHO 67-0 hi 8 - - - ------- --- ------ ------------ ----737-InJ»-82*-$--_----4-_ - THE PURPOSE OF THIS DRAWING IS ONLY TO GRIPHICALLY DEPICT THE GENERAL NATURE OF THE WORK. THE CONTRAC· TOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CONFIF-G DIMENSIONS, AND SELECTING FABRICATION PROCESSES AND TECHNIQUES OF - CONSTRUCTION THE AACHITECT SHALL BE NOTIFIED OF ANY VARIATIONS FROM THE DIMENSIONS AND CONDTTIONS --- ------ SHOWNBYTHISDRAWING ---IMWil-----&---i--~ Ne,1 612/06 -7--- w ill nfgp i FEB 21*8 'i ii[FHASE-1 1€.Ale BID G AZ-A AT all Dold b eeyoNIP . ---1 - - --- - -- - - --- -- -- -------- - ----jM I ELEVATIONS 5- ' 1 9. UNG. Bu.loo'·01' 1, T I f ' 1 1 Scale: (/4 H= 1'- d' 4 e.4'& H«T *U\IA 4 7.6.. - 1_ -- \ EAST ~.1 -_ ©_l®SWILLIAM JOHN POSS 1-_4_1- -G r A I -- ...... . I . BId\ 5,1,OIl I - ,... . . 0 . - W 1 6,4/Ti NG lut' 61*W»U, 1 2 4 0 4~/F 4- 0 9 3 21 Ir 3 Bl L f. 4 : 1 1 i-3 42 4 pew,4.9 I) 1- j -OE- 0 0 i: Op S ! 4 - 0= -Z 3 Issue: 1.11-88 p.rE. rizeuM. fl 2·/0·59, Flu>60,6 09 6.39% OW KIC*- fe:View -- 2 2- -,t, ~ -~ 5 COMM'ITTEE t' & 6./4/,SK APPRO... Utilifil CONDITIONS ANY DEVIAT ON FROM THESE PLANS MUST BE SEF'"!-En =OF? REAPPROVAL THE PURPOSE OF THE DRAWING IS ONLY TO GRAPHICALLY P -~ DEPICT THE GENERAL- NATURE OF THE WORK. THE CONTAAC TOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CONFIRMING DIMENSIONS AND SELECTING F,~RICATION PROCESSES AND TECHNIQUES OF 442 CONSTRUCTION THE ARCHITECT SHALL 8E NOTIFED OF ANY *TIONS FROM THE DIMENSIONS Al[) CONDITIONS SHOWN BY THIS DRAWING. (221-011 , p.0.6,41*T SITE PLAN ' APJACEKIT- ' , Gioe HAUT- k -\/ i-- BWA*17 LI NI B 1,-rwribN PEPIC,-TBO Al Tifit; PLAKJ, PM GER.*-[2 A. Pe€,MAN, 12-66•51'El¥0 , .4 If: Nog™ 1 O 900.Wayog-(214 1,01 l.£7TS 1, 1, 5,4., FIT-*IN 0*431 -f V'[DIO'd (A LOT S,wT ) Joe No. 14*05 / 4~" ' 42 11 93,4 Al-FINISS,ip-4*16 ,©mo, 1 FOU UPATiok' Scale: /4 :s 1 ·o 1 3 Pirlqrd »ITW, s,Jbpiv/16,1061, AE,Pt:url. 13411 ke,/166 0-f-*ri F16*rd; 1»/. 10, 149,0 1 I - - a.ou All 0.- - i k I 3nN3A¥ NVINAH 2 I *-I.-I.. ... 4.- . f. f ... , 2 .... . 1 1. . , 0 , .. ../ 1,4 ¢ I. - . .... . . 64 , + 0 . I - . A : I. .-. . I . - . .. . - I % 4, , - A . 4 4 ... - 11 . , , .4 1. V 4 - . .. . .. -- ... . I . .... . . 22 I . I ... /' . 52. 9- i . . .. . . a 3 2 .. . . 0 0 0.- . . I . . U . -, ·, - 4 . '7>Abkt·7·Gri. h~' 7: *.~ ·1•'W·,.. . '' . .. .J' .." ': . >Aff~£·~,14,juu 6.N.»y- I £+ , '2,;/Al·. t ~, , 1., 1 . 4 . · - " ·i - 'U,.22',.; ~4~~.'trski~'ti..:itwi2~249.; 1(06+*;f..621·t>J.'4 ' 'ii"·42#ili~ ..... - 81.0 11 v - . --le:FIP' 6 . , 106 4 -- d ,. le'.9 . D 6927'4·0, r-,5?2 - 31. eli -, <-r.O.M. .. . * 4. et/4 2 . . I -h CONG, ?AD , ,»K- coNPE:Neog. / OBITe Ve 42 (-_011-B PLAN ~ r '' Il 034- 7 23'f- 1-+ T.O.6.- 89'-3" , . 11 r 1 .. IN . r -1-' PH t(Mp <I i 4 1 1 f , Ph 1-1 Re *.1" 23~' _ i - _ ~ | 60*0614~ |COHDEN+OA -1 M!;HAE Te . 1 _~ -4., °' -. PET-t-K -f-Pr-~ r r ... tn , Tae Tr' =T#'-00 " -' - C.4 1 B ' . 0 I :el*,58 fo'©1 - 3-00. 1 1-00»AP t .. 1 ~~«t-URE 6».1 @12'\ i ¢ / 4« F'7184 f\0 - 1 - 1 / - , 61 7 1 + .I 'I 4 f ,-/l 1 -- '. 4 tr 22 6 | «»-___u._.-i_-»TH lili -rEAL.n- _-_-Li , , k ,- -4 74 9. - 1 . ., 4 -tkit . , 2..1 , C l.,m . 4-= ' t. 4 0-r-1 91 c --2 ER BET»11,~i~T \ - 1 - i - - d . .. U , -00 , r -' -6 -0 _32]1 .- 22 I 9'- ot' ,~ . - 1 b '? 40, * |1 | ~ --- ~.V@bTI®GE ~ 1 1001.011 9 1 | -/ IT.o. All PECK- ' '- 8 - r.- , Aef»:r · .4. - + 4 FAVIrle AT 144#AMA --2- > _ 68:44%71*1 3 2 ~ . rih ~ - - 8 : \& Ag.17 j 0 0 Ng 1 - *2 50ND.66*8 . WkY©1* - i ~ - 1 .1 -4- -I * - €,r»B f# STAIST'Duprez.1»0*:7//- TE z =4 DQUIR C,ee Di·re 4 Reclf./666£:r. 5. 11 =0 -, r 108.0 +85 - 1 - 1 7 + 1 - 1 0-Rt' 1 1 I' $ 11 . r -9 ...1 a - ~ - I ,-6 I I let ex a Jr. ' STL- 6,010 665 GTKIt. Dp169. 251· OIl 49'- 8'1 1 ed#' 43.2/ UNE 0, FLAT , /73 PLAZA LEVEL PLAN Roo F Atove , I r. ' - I --2 - 14' ·d' . . 1 I 1 - 741 - a" 1/ . , B" Fido./'1 , 61-411 14'- 90 4el/¢0 lt'· OIl J . 1/46, lei- 00 34>. 34"2, e>'-7" .ce'/2' · 19'- 511 8"FNO.. . ~a"rN[2. FROJECTION . '' lul" / ., a 1 - QI /2 2 (0/ ----- -====7 1 " 38= 7'*" Tyfl 1 1-liz<~1 - 11 4 - 0 0 r j ~44 -A lill , . jo "u' 74 4 1 11 1 1 1 7 9, , · Of 11 14 £ 6,1" ~ ' r TekIANT Issue: 0«9 197-0 110 -- NFLIA»'16»1- @7~f21r--7-- t->+L/z-cm-„ efollea ~ 1. 1.11.63 Aft, 82€Lt )41. :1 11 11 11 1 2 /1 1 ' 2 · 8 ·66 9206+6»5 .. 1 11 1 ; C . 2'to'8& Fle>6BEK L - . 929 I 9,4.43 01 hi 6,- 12¢vt *4 . .'" 7- j - 6 4 .1 00 -10 Ely ~ 0012FlpoR /33-~ ~ 10'.614 9, I.:5 - 2-- .1 --A - / THE PURPOSE OF THIS DRAWING IS ONLY TO GRAPH,eLLY DEPICT THE GENERAL. NATURE OF THE WORK THE CONTRAC TOG G RESPONSIBLE FOR CO*FRMING DNENSIONS, AND SELECTING FABRICATION PROCESSES AE TECHNIQUES OF CONSTRUCTION. THE ARCHITECT SHALL BE NOTIFIED OF ANY . - TRNANT ®ToRAGE ~ - SHOWN BY THIS DRAWING. 1 VARIATIONS FROM THE DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS 9/1 ~-- - Y 4 PLAZA LEVEL 0 - BASEMENT- -- r' f < 8 i j PLANS- X 1 1 1* P : / 1 I . 1/ //Av =L C E 'bgrH ~ V 1 CE)BASEMENT PLAN-> /-3 f ' , Scale: 1/4,-11.011 11 ' ) 8 -8"rkle.p /(361' FRO. Fle,JETION 8"Fhle. lh. --- --11'- 01/52' St/21121, ., , 4, 1 14-, 1 !. , A21 '1 1 I = :4 . .*4·'i al=AE*u#*667 ~ 94,1,2, S)"dia#*' , ./14* 82 r:N€ 4. 2-z- 14-0.--: . r , -7?<4·- 734/7 .m.r U , 1 [4'·464' 7--- ~ - s'4~0·. 144*;,t»" 8'*11 '4'~!41-2" 25wq/WLA .-·- 7- 10¥' ,€ i '' ./.4-44 i =1. : -1 gi 1\ 122¥ E-Ileage=RlT ~ , 11 I t' A - I +Wroft --1 1 1/ -- m I &----4 -acH Tal - V 1 11 ~ V ~ . - 1 - R 1 It j . - . 1 1/ F6 9- N .. . .1 .Al 00 21 + 1 1- . 6 6.69 84 1 -/ 11 -2 0 K. CP. Fle M 1-4 0D N 1 1 , / 9 10. t=' I - bl - - **'/* ~- 8 : 0 j -CO - OFF; 165 FiT - - 4 - i . d JJO 1 9 2 4 ' 0 0 - I r - T ..* O 1 - -0 -, C - - -- 1 1 : i Q i - . 1191-OIl ,<3 \ \ 1 1 , 0- - 9 - _*~»B fOR- 0%41& e HATo Fle, /--tkill -- --· -Le/ek PHA#671 :6 4 W - rsoLEGr\'46 - el-*0189211 -4 -1 r \ I' tf:? 9 4.» /4/ 11 7 li ..PRI ~8*PAK]6102 JT'>. 2 9- O" + ~-6% Ph,140* JoINT.6 - 1 - \49// \ rn UPPER LEVEL PLAN 49 48" . 41-41 413/ . *4914". , ----- 14:8" . - . he 144· 9 +6" - 1¥1, 1 2 19'- low .ra\/ / 2 1 1, 499 1.0161612. 68*64 1 /:-/1,4 _ MICKI i. 1 1/,-11 4 .\ 1 1\ . 1 /1 1 0 ~CL~ech {\ / 1 , /1//// i 1 ¥\Fro¥\ ~ 1\/1 = LD Issue: t 1 1 1 =O -\D ('(4 66 fte¢ PBE (-1 *1 · 6 - :r- *41 / - I 2.8·88 ptee Fee 1 / \1 . :* 1 1 (-r,O, 812.164- 1901*1 _ 2,(D' SS FlUeRM€ 0 ---1-i - AI. 11 1 -0 / I -- - 69 '86 001 0*- Re/lew . 11.1 01 1 11 3 -1 r 20 + 1 Llf.0.01461'- 58600 C 0 1- ti RttrAT- 1 7 11 ' 62 - 1,1 1 /00*4k 3- tb CO D 2 ' - 1 1 - (45&7 1 0 -0.79 -0 A .0 - 1) 79. 1 1 ~ r, o, w p, pec< . _ + 126'-0" 4 1 4)- rt 'ru. 0*9 ON 0 1 1 eAND 91'Pht e . f fiGF"4 2204 8 1 -1 J" * TOR S RESPONSIBLE FOR /09-#NG DNENSIONS, AND THE PURPOSE OF ™IS DRAWING IS ONLY TO GRAPHICALLY DEPICT THE GENERAL- NATURE OF THE WOFK THE CONTRAC- - SELECTING FABRICATION PROCESSES AVE) TECI#,IQUES OF vARIATIoNs FROM THE DIMENSIONS AND coNDrnoC CONSTRUCTION. THE ARCHITECT SHALL BE NOTIFIED OF ANY h = SHOWN BY THIS DRAWING f -- -- = 94- 5601446~1€~AL ce -2 OR 6,•WO«rt, 6 -CS 1- g I S .. 1/ r.4 . UPPER LEVEL a ' 1, & ROOF PLAN - 6-1 Ho F. 1 50H1-*L. , r 30. L .~ ' 11 ETAL, CAP DI O MA@Ntly y 1 1 1 - ' L »TH ~ I !1 11 [It' 011 :li :N, inT : '1 1 1 -2. - 1 a<*%-PX'Ablelohl JT· ACArEp OVE'*- 40:ri£*l- rl.h4. JT. DEA.,<91,1,/-.1 k Scale: t/411- f.01' AND 10''d' O.C. TyPION- 1 13*04 1-u."--744 8" ry) ROOF PLAN 415/ i '41%.~rt- -- 84 0. -» 1*· 9781 0 A 2.2 73 /1 6 I , I dth> :·64//:witu- r ·<04-* - 4,-,12-3 C .* f fi*„mit.'- .'7'tj : \AG·V .& © 11 06 WILLIAM JOHN POSS 2~ - - .fill.... $- - -1 i 4 M MAL FARAADJUNS . A ON GAN 05»15 BARD; ¢- MET'Al, PARAFer £:AF . .. 1 -- O% U).6. t*•£>C¥<. T. 01 MAD. - 56, flle'·o" FOOF *>UFFEA -r --- -- - 266¤2-AT-146 61 64+T - - nxT't) 0 1,0, UFFBIL I.#6 26* 'ED,116 f O" - -- ---- - r-------------------------------- - - N -Ii-*~ - -- =------2-- -+-- --- 990OV€\4 9,#4495rOW lAu --- 041406 W- ------ -- - - no, MIC•K I . ------ -16 - -- FLA,eftl'k16 4 1*eLei ESL.+11'2'-0" *f - - - --- SKAD'*TORS W KITEl-6 . T INTege#<irioN - - - - W <TH Oute Beye Ne - 9 3~ it ' 47 N J -- 0 --1.- -0 - 1 ,\ 2 i- -- L_-_.1 (Ad *4, Ah| 4 1Kle -. - . =o € TYB- 31 - -1 T==---T, * - u - ALL|- LAM BEAM 9 2 -_ m »73 23- 2306 eT IL'L. PldeS. ¢#42- 0,LIT, 1 -- PAPIL _._____--_z__ _. 00 11 .STU. 60\.A. Ar mac DecoRAT lue 71*41/MIVIEW. /*A 11 " -f SANOSTONE % 94 T. O. rlhe. - EL. + le)2'-0" =0 -IL==3 1[EZINE31 1=34 L.=3.1 cznzE , ---- ------ f, O. 60,46. EL. loolot' 1 -bi =1 1 1 -/ 1 1- N® NOL- 1·1€60 p~|Ele 1 \4\ li \4 ix I 1\ e / . 17 --4 - - - - -- - - - - - - - -- - to\------ PAeeMIWT 06101 KID:3. NORTH SOUTH - - APJA:DENT FAUFF. - 3 1 IN FO'2661*UNO - KPJA•4141- pullete• - 1 N Fate> eF*t,114 P --M T.0. 1,102~12· Lev@L_£92*21.1 - 1 1 1 02/8.12p -r-14\eli - 1 - ehoe 5%404 AlcM **f PRAIN FlaOM ~ . 1 e--~~-Al~INING PILDJECT'loN rLAT, 12OOF TO 214». ~ 1 -- ----_ -- FM,WIF* el,Eorle 16•l, Ol)71£T FOL HA€ TAPt _U-\ Ar €Aw*AO'*Aco.0,0. _ . - 96 00*ri\/5 9•H~DNE JA/B+Critic»»IBCH. | B ·JI. J GORD, STAI R 4 N W -----------~---~.~----..~ - BA'€7012 FLAZA IN ' 1 - 1 14' 0 6TL. PIPE 01 1 ' .. - »126 6120 LL,110 -J -7- 1·-6415?FA I L 9 _~ 1'.0. CONG. Et'100'.0. 1 - €'~/ - 1 1 11 11 1 11 ' lil fl £ il 11 - 1 -11 t- -- - - - - - -i - - -- - - ---- - .~ - ---- I--1-- - 1 - .*--I-- -~ - -----i-li ..I---**1 -&4-.--- - ---#-#-..-.- Issue: WEST 2, 8%8 ~ I'zoal*09 11[LE]_2LEEM. 1' - , 1 - 9167*1-0 PAZAPWT CAP .El.E-MtIfeeeM€- 9 3,30 5'Al 11 F REd DW pA66 *12·16* ~ *-1 6 T.O, ulze -!fw* FEEK BL,119 -0 t. APJACENT DU'114'1#6 9»097048 -- / ---------- - DEVOUD - - . --~ft»-82 - AWNING PROJ ECTiON A--- ----/4-*- -I#-1-- r THE PURPOSE OF THIS DRAWING IS ONLY TO GRAPHICALLY - -· DEPICT THE GENERAL NATURE OF THE WORK. THE CONTRAG - SELECTING FRRICATION PROCESSES AND TECHNIQUES OF TOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR COhFI-ING DIMENSIONS AND CONSTRUCTION THE ARCI#TECT SHALL BE NOTIFIED OF ANY K.Al•beo P LAZ-A AT -------------7----------------4----------*-- -- VARIATIONS FROI THE DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS SHOWN BY THIS DRAWING. ---- -- h|&161 612APE Eull.oldb ID/90142 '" 1 9, Cat. 04100'·01 .------I-----I.---I#----P--*I-.-Ill.--I-i-*I--Iq.-1.-I-i--Ilij--.-i----------- ELEVATIONS I .4 9 *\ 1. 9 7; 2 4 80+DMIENT *BLA| 4,9. --~ ' |# Scale: V<&1'-29' 1 EAST Exir Szst/Tew l . nurbu PAR.»er (Ar - -. /044494:104* 13»4~ ..1 A - 279-.< . -/DJERAT 304,[2165 .. .519.P.r -\ .0 ~hIPQTRIE 2/ i.- W --/ *. -/- I -. · to, MAe,E. PEAN- i 1 . BE,-1*81.11/12' =2 - #trin~£14- 61 1 i©eyoND 4 - -e -IMOD. CAF X . ~ ~~ 1~00· M,ib. 9 r,0. r\Mh€ ?04 ./ I I . I. -)-+6 --%--*-'** -'----1&-I-* 56'21911/tl i - ~- - - --L-------- 2 FOOF ecuFFER. -1 1 7- 14=+ , 1.1 .-4 =1 T, O, M,•ea emBE 2 - T.0.FOF PECK 4.12'·d' 1. - - EL. t· £20~-67" --' sN\94*6 - ------- =2 OAPG O -' M - .... N * -/111 . 0 lA - , 00 0 2 7»6 11 \ . ie . u BRIAL 8 01,#B+01£ - ; 111 - 5 WINMONS---- 9-1 - - m ,86€„a> - YA fLI-- [L]Eli] _ / - - =2- - - 17, -- ~-2 -TI .* h1 4 la, 1~ \\> 4 Tto. MAe, --2 ILL._]11L~==~JP \~ . 11 -- , 1'.67 11~09.. 5-roub ' B L.+11 89. d' ==ful_ 21*/CIA.*T -SUL• _ ** . ... rrET.D.UFFEI; 1,EvEL IEF N.!151.0., r.- 4, ARB#TONIi JA,VPDC.170 --7- O,16.0. \ - #L,861+1 46 4 *SL-er 0 -1 AT i KITE#*TION 3*AtiikGJ@FF·I- - - r . WITH 5626. DBYONO F. . 13/1 -- m. 0 - ... 11 1.==9==gl ti r 11 8 10 F=3 6 Ld- LAM *AM v . N 71 - \ . 966 91-RIL.t ONGS. sTL. 02 LE, . AT k - 1 4 il\11 114\1 - \ - TRA61'/METER- AREA 10 1 . 1 4.11. C . A, , J ..il@: p L,-7 .' ' 122£ 7 ------~-~ ¥.0 00rb. EL !00'-0" .k 1 -44"boo el.IWILHEAD trie·) | 6-7-- CONG•. 1 1 1 . 1 1 k 1 . 4 1 . ;i 1 3 1 Issue: 1 1 W 1 14 . 11.-aft L tip€ ff*6!.81_ 1 2.6'06 | 21226426€4 1 ZAN,fz,--'12*M#EMP; 1 1 1 1 ... 1 1 - T.O. 6016. 860 -- 1 . 1 2242-214¢12-Ef'€L U---------- ----------------- -4 4 Cih NORTH_1-______ c» SOUTH I \ A£0* . FIE PURPOSE OF THIS DRAWING IS ONLY TO GRAPHICALLY DEP£T THE GENERAL NATURE OF THE WORK THE CONTRAC TOR IS PESPONSIBLE FOR CCt/FAING DIAEISIOI€. AND SELECTING FZRICATION PROCESSES AND TECHNIQUES OF Vile... 2-·gup CONSTRUCTON. THE ARCHITECT SILAU BE NOTFIED OF mY SHOWN eY THIS DRANING. VARIATIONS FROM THE DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS j 1, | ELEVATIONS | Scale: 1/4"- t'·00. 41 7 L . 6„13 g f 1 £/EV 11<7.It-111¥/\ :eleoS i SNOI1VA313 8 3SVHd ENIA,ln30 SIH,1 AR NMOHS SNOUIONOO ON¥ SN0GN3*910 fill ROW.I SNOUVIWVA AN¥ do 03[:ILLON 39 -11!,HS 1031,HOW¥ 3H1 NOILOmilSNOO B SinOIN,4031 ON¥ 9399300ed NOLL¥389¥* 0,13313S ONV SNCISN3,IO ONIMUI:IN00 WO=1 318*SNOdS,j 7 001 OVI,LNOO 31(1 ·)IWOM 3~11 jo 3~~01¥N 77331139 3KL 10Id3(] ATIOHdVID 01 AiNOst DAM¥80 SIHi do 39Ckfind 3Hi *2\ 19¥3 41) 11 -19 '•Orloo '001 T Mgl/* -MNIM. 10.*.6, 1 11 95919*,1 99-01.-3 1 1 9992190)61 98 9,3 M nal,1 788 94.lili 1 ' 1 1 :enes' I i 1 1 -.,»00 10-,001 -19 ·ortz:7 ·a·1.9 4:&14, .»leo 2- , r 01-21 33NOL'50H¥0 ---11»&7915742 - 1 . 1 -1 --- 1- rlollod ['672~ A •/1 Ipl M¥' - 1 - - - i,0.,91 $ -19 -'~16 1*N,1 ·dedin.·0'1~ \1 C -60|NY*| 91\141-90~141¢0 - i - 7»N14 03449443 . f k 1 - -70114 9.0901 1 - 1 -P 0 01'49 1,1191,= 1 - ealfq *Mal·501476 - 11 82*3 e/-//-~1 „0·*1 ~19 559¢1 2%721'01 G :--- dho44] -4·7111*1 . bid - 901479 4HaL¢3094© 140 01+73.1,4191,1 47 1.¢Lavt'~- . 4~- 1 - 113Ng/1 11,07HM _ . C.d Mve 4,4160*45 -< NG ol•#0 1418!N , - = -- CAno·*:3300; 1,4-29*\01\Ng - - V .- .1 - -¥ .. --.- -- i e-- 1- - I.-- . . . I I . l ./ . - .-. 1 }9 ... lit 1 .1 . ~-1 - -- METAL CAPHhi i ~290$01 46 14-R:071zee,}*UNO - - 62*0 STON 8 8»429 1 3 -- E 1 f - 1 --- t>9464- \D¢·70\40 ..5,4- --- - --1-.0.000€ DecK El,- tld·00 -- '-4 . , .1 I./29,4 - 7 . ,~ I - tA:>€ BBIL+ 1 - . 4--- ...:7 1 - 11' -*MUP«rt>Ne; BANC)< T-fir- 84- I. 1 1 1 1 i i -4 -„---- 6 ----to. Ufft, i,ea %(44 eu. 1 14'·o" 1 -< 4,~M.02 1----~- :. 4 l 1 - 3 1 1 1 . ; A,1KI' h'& VAPJ £114 1 1 %. - --9. - *5(#8% rawl» 1 . 1 UN -/ - 1 1 1 -- *ANIC)*Ty#44 84,4126 - Ar BLE>80 0,b,60 -- -7-1 So.cork·. a..\08·01 ' i 9 . 11 11 1 \ 1 .. ,4 IE 1 1 '( - 11 1 Issue: 1 - 11 , 1 .11.63 4"c> p!26 12 M 1 111 2 ·8 ·88 FKC>6@8,5 *,8,05 0,4+4611 RVABW 11 270·88 FKDe K656 1 11 1 -r.01 00,16,1 86. 11 1 . /ThWEST RE PURPOSE OF THIS DRAWING IS ONLY TO GRAPHICALLY DEPICT THE GENERAL- NATURE OF THE WOA(. THE CONTRAG A TOR S RESPONSILE FOR COKFIE-6 DIMENSIONS. AND SELECTING FABRICATION PROCESSES AM} TECHNIQUES OF CONSTBUCTION. THE AACHITECT SHALL 06 NOTIFIED OF ANY VARIATIONS FRON DIE DIMENSIONS AND CON[}mONS SHOWN BYTHR DRAWING. PHASE 2 ELEVATIONS Scale: 1/4" - 16"