Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20090722_. ---- ASPENHISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 22, 2009 5:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 130 5. GALENA ASPEN, COLORADO SITE VISITS: NOON -Please visit the sites on your own. I. Roll call I. Approval of minutes - Apri122, 2009, May 27, 2009, May 13, 2009, June 24, 2009 minutes II. Public Comments HI. Commission member comments 1V. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) V. Project Monitoring: VI. Staff comments: Certificate of No Negative Effect issued (Next resolution will be #16) VII. OLD BUSINESS A. Lift 1 Ticket Office 701 S. Aspen St. (cont'd from Juue 24, 2009) VIII. NEW BUSINESS A. 434 E. Cooper St. (aka Bidwell/Mountain Plaza Bldg.) Major Development Conceptual, Commercial Design Standard Review, View plane Exemption Review (lhr.) I c~ 5 ~ ~1"d1 I i ~, - ~ 01 / ~ GQ ~ ~ bl ~ ~ ~"i (l'» ~ IX. Adjourn 7:OO.p.m. l~ yti~ U v~~ n,l~ t,~r~~ Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PIS Staff presentation Applicant presentation Board questions and clarifications Public comments (close public comment portion of hearing) Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed Applicant rebuttal (comments) Motion ' No meeting of the HPC shall be called to order without a quorum consisting of at least four (4) members being present. No meeting at which less than a quorum shall be present shall conduct any business other than to continue the agenda items to a date certain. All actions shall require the concurring vote of a simple majority, but in no event less than three (3) concurring votes of the members of the commission then present and voting. P1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 701 S. Aspen Street, Demolition of Ticket Office- Public Hearing continued from June 24, 2009 DATE: July 22, 2009 SUMMARY: Willoughby Pazk is owned by the City and was leased to the Aspen Historical Society after a 1991 voter approval for the creation of a ski museum. Willoughby Pazk is landmazk designated, and objects in the pazk, namely the Lift 1 towers and the Boat Tow, aze listed on the National Register of Historic Places. HPC was first asked to review a museum plan for the site in 2006, when adjacent properties were purchased for new lodging development. Roazing Fork Mountain Lodge- Aspen, LLC brought forwazd a proposal to relocate the Skier's Chalet Lodge from uphill on Gilbert Street onto Willoughby Park to serve as the key facility for the Historical Society. Underground pazking and other infrastructure to support the museum were proposed. The 2006 application also included a request to demolish the ticket office, the history of which had perhaps not been fully recognized at that point. HPC denied the demolition via Resolution #21, Series of 2006. The applicant was asked to retain the corner of the building that appeazed to be the original 1947 structure. In May 2008, Staff informed HPC that the roof of the ticket office had collapsed. The boazd asked that the City perform some stabilization on the building, which occurred. That summer the Lift 1 COWOP began, and in the fall HPC granted Conceptual approval, which included removing all additions made to the ticket office over the years, so that the 1950's era footprint and character could be re-established. It was felt that more historic fabric representing the second phase of the building was intact and should be preserved. The project that came out of the Lift 1 COWOP process met with some debate at City Council. The various partners will not proceed together as hoped, and the timeline for the museum project is uncertain. Roazing Fork Mountain Lodge- Aspen LLC has affirmed their commitment to the 2006 proposal. There has been some concern and debate about the responsibility for the repair of the ticket office. It has been determined by the City that the Historical Society is obligated to upkeep of the facilities on the site. Obviously budget concerns make them wary of undertaking the planned restoration work. Staff is concerned that almost a yeaz and a half of sitting in a collapsing condition has not helped the historic resource or been the best example of stewazdship. Obviously plans for this site have been a moving tazget. This is a factor that HPC needs to consider. Staff recommends the Commissioners visit the site before the hearing. P2 During the eazlier discussions of this building, the numerous changes made to it over the yeazs were discussed in terms of the value of preservation efforts. HPC felt that the goal could still be achieved. The roof collapse, unsurprising given the age and modest construction, has added another factor to be weighed. Funding is a cleaz problem. We do not find enough evidence in the application that the building is beyond repair, therefore we recommend against total demolition. Additional cooperative work will be needed to resolve this situation. APPLICANT: Aspen Historical Society, leaseholder of Willoughby Pazk ADDRESS/Parcel ID: Willoughby Pazk (PID# 2735-131-16-851) is located at the comer of Dean and South Aspen Streets and is described as Lots 1-14, Block 7 and Lots 1-3, Block 8, Eames Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: Willoughby Pazk is zoned "Pazk." DEMOLITION 26.415.080. Demolition of designated historic properties. HPC shall review the application, the staff report and heaz evidence presented by the property owners, parties of interest and members of the general public to determine if the standazds for demolition approval have been met. Demolition shall be approved if it is demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria: a. The property has been determined by the City to be an imminent hazazd to public safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner, STAFF RESPONSE: No evidence has been submitted that the building is an "imminent hazard." It has been secured and has remained in the current condition for some time. b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure, STAFF RESPONSE: The application includes a structural report provided to the City that does not conclude the building is structurally unsound. Larry Doble, a structural engineer employed in the City Engineering Department, has concurred with that general assessment. The referenced report states that exterior walls that were inspected "did not appeaz to be structurally compromised." Direction is given for next steps in removing debris and planning for repairs. An important goal seems to be lifting away the destroyed elements in order to fully reveal what lies beneath. c. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen, or STAFF RESPONSE: The structure's significance is directly tied to the site and relocation would be meaningless. a. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, azchitectural, azchaeological, engineering or cultural significance and 2 STAFF RESPONSE: This azea is significant as Aspen's original ski base and the core of any skier's experience in the early days of the resort. A center of activity, this was the origination point of the ski lifts, the location of most of the lodging available in Aspen, and the site of national and international ski races that made Aspen world famous starting with the U.S. World Alpine Championship in 1941. The Boat Tow, modeled after those used at Kitzbuhl, Austria, was constructed on Aspen Mountain in 1937. It was replaced in 1947, with Lift 1, at the time the longest chairlift in the world. The Boat Tow was a pair of wooden toboggans that were hauled up Aspen Mountain with steel cables, connected to a Model A Ford engine. The only remaining pieces of this lift aze the two toboggans, one which sits in Willoughby Pazk (and has been recently evaluated for preservation needs by a wood scientist) and one which is in the possession of the Aspen Historical Society. Lift 1 operated until it was replaced in 1972 by Lifr 1 A, located further uphill. Most of the towers and equipment associated with Lift 1 were removed. In 1974 Willoughby Pazk and the remnants of the Boat Tow and Lift 1 became the fifth properly to be designated a landmazk in Aspen, demonstrating the community's recognition of their significant historic value. National Register of Historic Places in 1990. HPC's endorsement of the Lift 1 Master Plan included restoring the ticket office to the 1950s size illustrated below. However, staff has been advised that HPC's 2006 approval for demolishing all but the original comer (above right) is the only approval that has status because the Master Plan is now defunct. The Historical Society asserts that the 1947 corner has little integrity, even prior to the roof collapse. Staff believes that the City, HPC, and the Historical Society, three entities with primary responsibility for the preservation of our heritage, should work together to determine the most that can be accomplished for the community. 3 The lifts were listed on the P4 Along with the criteria discussed above, for approval to demolish, all of the following must be met: a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the pazcel or historic district in which it is located and STAFF RESPONSE: Staff finds that this criterion is not met, based on the history provided eazlier in the memo. b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district or its historic, azchitectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties and STAFF RESPONSE: Staff finds that this criterion is not met, based on the history provided eazlier in the memo. The property maintains a great deal of historic chazacter because the setting is very intact. No significant physical alterations have occurred in Willoughby Pazk, either of the Chalet buildings, or Lift 1 Pazk. The Historical Society is expressing a desire to interpret the site to its 1947 appearance.. This should be given weight in HPC's evaluation. Staff finds it difficult to rationalize demolition of structures that azguably contribute to Aspen's story in order to represent eazlier eras, however the Historical Society, if any organization, has the most legitimate reason to pursue a specific interpretive plan and it is important to discuss this point. c. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the azea. STAFF RESPONSE: Given the intention to preserve and interpret this property as the origins of Aspen's ski history, staff does not find that demolishing the ticket office meets this review criterion. The HPC rosy: • approve the application, • approve the application with conditions, • disapprove the application, or • continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. Additional information As is the case with all major decisions of HPC, the boazd's determination will be forwazded to City Council, who may "call up" the issue for review within 30 days. If the demolition request is denied because it does not meet the standazds, the applicant may request demolition approval based upon a finding of "economic hardship," based on additional language in the Code. 4 P5 Before a demolition permit will be issued, a certificate of appropriateness for the redevelopment or reuse plan, must be approved. When a demolition permit must be issued because the building, structure or object is an imminent hazard or because of the issuance of a certificate of economic hazdship, the permit may be received prior to the approval of an acceptable reuse plan. RECOMMENDATION: Staff would recommend that HPC deny the request for total Demolition finding that the review standazds have not been met. We understand the complications of rehabilitating the structure but find that it is necessary and appropriate. It appears however, that the most important next step is to act on the removal of debris in order to better assess condition and physical integrity of any part of the building. Staff recommends that be undertaken and that a determination on demolition be continued to a date that allows for the work to be completed. Our recommendation is continuation to the first HPC meeting in November, 2009. Exhibits: A. Application 5 P6 WESTERN Engineering & Research Corporation July 22, 2008 Mike Wagner CIItSA 3665 Cherry Creek North Drive Denver, CO 80209-3700 Via Email: MikeW _.cirsa.ore REPORT OF FINDINGS RE: City of Aspen - 700 Aspen, 31' x 29' Building, Aspen CO Claim No: 5008973 WERC PN: 9538 Dear Mr. Wagner. 2175 South Jasmine Street, Suite 119 Denver, Colorado aD222-5700 p. 303.757.4000 • f. 303.757.4222 www.werc.com • info®werc.com At your request Western Engineering and Research Corporation (WERC) has conducted a site observation at the address referenced above. The propose for our investigation was to evaluate reported partial roof collapse of the Aspen Ski/Snowboard School. This writer visited the site and observed visible conditions on July 9, 2008. BACKGROUND According to the City of Aspen Detail Report for the Aspen Ski/Snowboard School, the structure was built in 1964. The structure was cone-story building with a full height finished basement. The main floor walls were conslructed with conventional wood framing. The roof structure was constructed of dimension lumbei roof joists and finished with abuilt-up roof that was ballasted with gravel. The foundation was constructed of concrete slabon-grade and concrete foundation walls. Tha following was provided by Stephen Ellspermatt of the City of Aspen Pazks Departrnent. The roof had collapsed during the heavy snows of the winter of 2007-2008. The structure was in the responsible charge of the Aspen Historical Society. According to the Aspen City Parks Department and the Aspen Historical Society, over 450 inches of snow fell during the 2007-2008 winter sewn. The structure collapsed during the month of March; the specific data is unknown. 'jECEIVED JUL E 5 2008 ;~~~~~ Consulting Engineering • Failure Analysis • Accident Reconstruction P30 MEMORANDUM T0: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission through Amy Guthrie FROM: Georgia Hanson, Aspen Historical Society RE: 701 S. Aspen Street, Demolition of Building -Update DATE: July 10, 2009 Here is the Lift One Building Time Line as we can best reconstruct: • 1947 -Original chair lift is opened and a "ticket" shack is constructed right next to it. Slope of roof is north to south -higher edge facing Red Mountain. • 1950's (exact date unknown) -New building replaces ticket booth (one story) reportedly to add a warming but space for guests. • Date Unknown -Two story addition tacked on the back (north) to allow for storage and more square footage on "first floor". It is believed that this addition was completed by the City Recreation Department possibly after Ski Company donated park to City? Ownership and/or liability issues aside, the historic value and remnants of the current building have little compelling significance for the site in the opinion of the Aspen Historical Society. The building may hold nostalgic memories for many of us, but the significance of the edifice is questionable. It is unremarkable and other buildings expected to land on the site will serve to commemorate the era. It is our hope that HPC will support our request and join us in what we feel is a win-win solution. The current approval in place is a site plan discussed and signed off on by the Historic Preservation Commission in 2006. While this approval differs substantially from the COWOP proposal which was reviewed by the current Commission, it is nonetheless equally valid as an expression of an era -it's just different. The fact that both Commissions (2006 and 2008) belabored the choice between two buildings indicates the validity of both decisions, doesn't it? At the time of the original Roaring Fork Mountain Lodge approval, there was concern expressed by the Commission for what was becoming a "petting zoo" approach due to the number of age appropriate buildings being relocated to this site. At the time we did not have an interpretive vision in place and therefore had little to add to the conversation that took place between the developer and the Commission. We were a stakeholder but we had yet to work out a plan. Since that time the Aspen Historical Society has developed a preliminary interpretive plan and an expanded vision for the site. This plan includes a desire to highlight and present a snapshot of the first lift experience in 1947. The lift is clearly our main focal point for orientation and we want to feature the experience with the lift corridor as our introduction to the park and to the story of modern Aspen. We are pleased to be able to embrace a site plan that supports our intent more authentically than the more recent site plans you were asked to consider and therefore implore you to join our enthusiasm for the preservation of a 1947 experience that allows us to interpret in specific language about a specific year. Careful inspection of the attached photos will demonstrate the clear differences between the 1947 building and what followed. Note that the roof slant on the original ticket booth is the opposite of the roof slant on the later building that popped up in the early to mid-fifties. This documented difference would suggest that there is nothing left of the original building to consider preserving. Further exploration of the photos substantiates the fact that authentic restoration is impossible -the siding was changed from board and batten and the windows are also different. While we haven't been able to elicit personal testimony so far, it would appear that the ticket booth was torn down and replaced by a different building. Still, we are able to re-create (replicate) the ticket booth from photos. The opportunity to replicate the building in its original design and to create a "snapshot" of that glorious day is exciting and we think the~concept deserves your enthusiastic support. In support of the demolition permit request, we have attached an engineering report prepared at the request of our insurance agent and an asbestos report prepared for the City. These reports support the precarious status of the existing building and the need for demolition. Also attached are photographs of the damaged building as it now looks to support the futility of trying to preserve any pieces - especially in light of the serious doubt that any are original. P31 P47 _-.- - , Willoughby Park and the Ski Club Building - A Summary: What is currently known as Willoughby Park is the iconic representation of the birth of skiing as a recreation activity in the valley. Lift One base and towers are on the National Historic Register and there is no question that the area is a precious opportunity for us to stay connected to our roots in skiing. The Aspen Historical Society relishes the opportunity to explore our story on this site. That said, there is serious deliberation to be had about what constitutes preserving the site and how it shall be planned. The immediate issue with one collapsed building will demonstrate the complexity of the situation. The building in question began in 1947 as a tiny shack with a window for lift ticket sales. At some point in the early 1950's it was extended at that same level to serve as a warming but we are told. Eventually the building became the domain of Ted Armstrong -City Parks and Recreation. Another addition came along (we presume under direction of Ted when it served as a Rec Center?). After Ted, the Rugby Club occupied the building and then The Aspen Winter Club (ASC) ran the fledgling Aspen Supports Kids (ASK) program out of the site - we ran a number of World Cups out of that Headquarters (1992, '93, & '94). Eventually, The Winter Club merged with the Aspen Ski Club to become AVSC in 1995. A brief summary of recent events: • Voters gave approval for the City of Aspen (COA) to grant a lease to the Aspen Historical Society (AHS) in 1991 by a mandate of 82%. • A lease was executed that gave joint occupancy to the Aspen Ski Club (sic AVSC) and AHS because the Ski Club occupied the existing building at that time. • The lease was amended to remove AVSC when they moved to new digs in 2000. • The building was turned over to AHS virtually by default (there was never an intent that this building would be the museum although there is certainly an opportunity to make it part of a historic story). • AHS enlarged the lower access doors and stored future ski museum artifacts in the basement. • At a date uncertain (approximately 2004) the Soccer Club approached AHS to request usingthe office space on upper floor. AHS went to the City and received permission to sub-let. There was no rent charged, the Soccer Club picked up the utility charges. P48 __ In 2007 (date not certain) the Soccer Club notified AHS that there I' was a serious roof leak. AHS put a temporary rubber skin cover over the existing roof with the understanding that this would solve the problem short-term. Long-term expectation was that the building would either go away or be reduced to original ticket booth size. Meanwhile, in 2006 the site became part of a larger plan to redevelop the east side of Aspen Street and AHS agreed to support a plan proposed by what was then known as Roaring Fork Mountain Lodge LLC (RFML). As a result of the first round with HPC, it was approved that the only piece of the buildingto be preserved would be the original ticket booth. At about the same time, the intrusion of the elements made using. the building pretty sketchy. The Soccer Club moved out and a pipe burst flooding the basement area. Consequently, AHS removed all artifact, being forced to discard some and take urgent efforts to save others -ultimately moving them to storage down valley and leaving the building empty. roved for RFML was Anticipated action on the original plan app postponed by the formation of the Lift One Master Plan COWOP leaving the building status in limbo. (AHS was expecting to rely on RFML to pick up the cost and responsibility for the building after approvals were final.) Lift One Master Plan resulted in a new journey through HPC and a new determination that the upper piece of the building should be restored instead of just the ticket office. Meanwhile, as all of these steps were taking place, a phenomenally severe winter caused the roof of the buildingto collapse. The current condition of the building makes if virtually impossible to restore without unreasonable cost. The official reports from AHS insurance company are still pending and will be prdvided to you shortly. Still the verbal information from the investigators reinforces the futility of tryingto restore a building that was not likely intended for long-term use in the first place. The beams are 2X6's which causes engineers to just shake their heads. There is asbestos and there is mold. It isn't a compelling project under any circumstances. S0, where do we go from here? We are proposing that the building be demolished after careful documentation with the expectation that it will 2 P49 be replicated should that be the final solution agreed upon with HPC. However, it isn't really appropriate for AHS to be held responsible for the replication given the circumstances and the intent. I told you it's complicated. I think we need to come up with a solution that suitsthe best interests of all the parties without gettingtoo hung up on the letter of the law (during the discussion). I hope all parties will share this opinion upon review. The original lease for AHS was to "build a museum" on the site. John Worcester has stated that his position on the lease is that we don't have a lease for the entire park, just for the museum we will build. Still, somehow, AHS ended up with the responsibility for the existing Ski Club building, almost by default it would appear. I have not been able to trace the timeline on how all this happened, but I challenge the duplicity in a documeht that doesn't give us a lease on the park but makes us responsible for items in the park. Last but not least, the Exhibit A attachment to the lease that would delineate the site occupancy as intended is missing. Both the City and AHS have combed records to find one copy of the original lease with that attachment -without success. It is impossible to second guess that document. Movingforward, AHS has consistently carried insurance coverage for the entire Willoughby Park site. I inherited the package so I can't speak to why or how, although I'm sure it was to comply to lease requirements. When the roof collapsed (winter 2007-8) we took steps, with help from the Parks Department, to ensure the building was roped off and we deemed it uninhabitable. There was no attempt to do anything else because of the anticipated major rehab that would be coming to the entire area soon. We have been participating in the "look" of the most expensive storage site downtown waitingfor somethingto be decided. As Scott Miller reviewed City assets and discovered our shack in such bad condition, he contacted us to discuss the situation. He asked us to file an insurance claim for the damage and we have done that. The outcome of the claim is still pending. I am most anxious not to spend unnecessary funds on the repair of this building given its uncertain future. Scott Miller and Steve Bossart both support the request for 3 P50 demolition as the most reasonable, practical and functional decision. It simply isn't in a state to restore. The bigger questions, presuming that you will support the concept of replication, are 1) who dyes it and 2) what portion is done. It is impossible to tell what will happen with this site in the next few years. It may be that the COWOP Lift One Master Plan will be revived and reduced mass and approved. It may be that the RFML developers will decide to move forward with a separate plan. If that happens, they likely will need to revisit their site plan due to changes in lot line proposals so the concept of moving the Skier Chalet Steak House down, etc. may well come off the plate. It may be that the proposal goes away and AHS is left to its own devises for a museum plan. The AHS board of directors is unanimously committed to proceeding with a new museum. In truth, AHS would be better off designing a new building and not dealing with the retrofit required by inheriting a chalet lodge. Still we are consummately community players and will make the chalet work -likely with a modern addition - if that is the best solution for the common good. But all of these considerations are moving targets that prevent any kind of definitive decision on the future of the park and, in my opinion, the Ski Club building. So, what we are really asking is for permission to demolish a building that is a health and safety threat without any guarantee for replacement unless the City wants to accept that obligation. There is also the question of the cost of demolition, unless it is determined to wait for a decision on development first. It simply isn't in our mission or on our list of priorities to pick up pieces that weren't intended for us and I hope you all agree with this. We would have to abandon our current strategic plan and revisit our goals just to fund this 'housekeeping item' if we are required to assume this responsibility. To reiterate, I'm speaking to "intent" of the existing lease not taking a legal position. I suspect attorneys could wrangle and we would end up liable if we have to go that route. I'm looking for a better answer. I have attached photos of the building in all its many different iterations over the years. I am personally challenged to pick my favorite - so many memories go along with each stage. Nor can I applythe guidelines and thereby know which iteration is more representative of your stated goals. For that reason, I tend to turn to the original ticket booth as the favored 4 design to replicate - in spite of a sentimental attachment to the longer building. (Please note the flipped roof arigle between the two.) I believe there is an opportunity, still, to save portions of that original corner to be re-used and absolutely commit to investigating the viable and compelling elements to preserve prior to demolition.. We look forward to this dialogue. Georgia Hanson Executive Director 5 P52 Site Map Lift One Neighborhood Master Plan. 3.1.C O 04.10.09 0 6R.T X38' S5p NfiRTN a P59 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer FROM: Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner RE: 434 East Cooper Avenue, Major Development Review (Conceptual), Viewplane and Commercial Design Review- Public Hearing DATE: July 22, 2009 APPLICANT/OWNER: Bert Bidwell Investment Corporation, 434 East Cooper Street, Aspen, CO. REPRESENTATIVE: Mitch Haas, Haas Land Planning; LLC, Klein, Cote & Edwards P.C.; Rowland + Broughton Architecture. LOCATION: Lots Q, R and S, Block 89, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO, commonly known as 434 East Cooper Street. CURRENT ZONING & USE CC, Commercial Core Historic Zone District containing a two story (above grade) office/retail building. PROPOSED LAND USE: The applicant proposes to redevelop the 9,000 square foot parcel with a new mixed use building. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Historic Preservation Commission grant Major Development Conceptual approval, Viewplane Exemption and Commercial Design Standard Review approval. SUMMARY: The HPC is asked to review the redesign at 434 East Cooper Street for Major Development Conceptual, Viewplane Exemption and Commercial Design Standard Review approvals. PROJECT SUMMARY: The Applicant, Bert Bidwell Investment Corporation, has reviewed approval to demolish the existing office/retail building located at the corner of Cooper Avenue and Galena Street that is located on a 9,000 square foot lot and redevelop the site with a new mixed-use building containing commercial, affordable housing, and free market residential uses. The existing property is located in the Commercial Core (CC) zone district. It is also located in Page 1 Photo of subject property. P60 the Commercial Core Historic District although not deemed contributing to the district and the existing building has been approved for demolition by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). As a proposed building in the Commercial Core Historic District, the Historic Preservation Commission has purview over the design. On July 21, 2009, the Planning and Zoning Commission (P & Z) was asked to make referral comments regarding the Commercial Design Standard Review to the HPC. Staff will relay the comments to HPC on July 22, 2009. PREVIOUS APPROVALS: Iri 2007, HPC granted Major Development Conceptual and Viewplane Exemption approvals, demolition approval and Commercial Design Standard Review approval for the proposed redevelopment of the subject parcel. After the HPC reviews, the P & Z reviewed the project and granted Growth Management approval for new commercial development, new residential development and affordable housing. P & Z recommended subdivision approval to City Council. During the City Council review concerns were raised regazding height, scale, mass and a lack of public amenity space. City Council denied the subdivision request. In an effort to respond to Council's and the public's concerns, the application made significant changes to the design and requested that Council reconsider the application. City Council approved reconsideration of the application and remanded review of the new design back to HPC for Major Development Conceptual, Viewplane Exemption and Commercial Design Standard Review. The previous Growth Management approvals and P & Z's subdivision recommendation aze still valid. The application is still reviewed pursuant to the Mazch 2006 Land Use Code. MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan unless agreed to by the applicant. Page 2 P61 The property is part of the Commercial Core Historic District and sits on a prominent corner location downtown. It is in close proximity to important landmarks: Aspen Block Building is duectly across the alleyway to the north; the Independence Squaze building is located diagonally across the street; and the Red Onion is located to the west. Directly across Cooper Street is the old Guido's building, which exhibits a chalet style form. 434 East Cooper borders the Cooper Pedestrian mall and the Galena Street thoroughfaze and the east facade faces the populaz open space in front of Paradise Bakery. DESIGN GUIDELINE REVIEW Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a proposal. A list of the design guidelines relevant to Conceptual Review is attached as "Exhibit A." Only those guidelines which staff fmds the project may be in conflict with, or where discussion is needed, aze included in the memo. Staff Response: The applicant redesigned the entire building to respond to the concerns voiced by the public and City Council. The main concerns were the following: Lack of public amenity space: The applicant originally designed the building to meet the property line without any setback or public amenity space. Council and the public were concerned about the elimination of the open azea in front of the existing Bidwell Building and the impact on the pedestrian malls and circulation. The applicant was providing cash-in-lieu to satisfy the required 10% pedestrian amenity space (parcels with less than 25% pedestrian amenity currently on the site aze required to provide no less than 10% pedestrian amenity for a redevelopment.) The redesign provides 12% pedestrian amenity space in front of the building at the corner of Galena and Cooper. HP Design Guideline 13.8 below recommends that buildings in the Commercial Core be placed at the property line to maintain a consistent street edge. The proposal sets 2/3 of the Cooper Street elevation 18' back from the property line to provide pedestrian amenity space. Staff fmds that this is an appropriate response. to the concerns raised by the public and by City Council. A "hitching post" railing is proposed at the property line to define the sidewalk edge as suggested below. 13.8 Maintain the alignment of facades at the sidewalk's edge. ^ Place as much of the facade of the building at the property line as possible. ^ Locating an entire building front behind the established storefront line is inappropriate. ^ Where a portion of a building must be set back from the sidewalk, use landscape elements to define the sidewalk edge. Hei ht: The applicant originally designed the three story building to be 41' at the highest point. The public and Council were concerned about the impact of the height on surrounding buildings and the downtown experience. The building is still three stories; however the height has been dropped to 36'7" at the highest point. The maximum height limit in the Commercial Core for this project is 46' (the current Code allows a maximum height limit of 42'.) The third story is set back from the building edge a between approximately 20' to 30' on the Galena Street elevation and between 10' and 18' on the Cooper Street elevation. Staff finds that the two story elevation Page 3 P62 closest to the Red Onion is significantly lower than the Red Onion cornice. The third story is about 2' lower than the highest point of the Red Onion and it is setback 18', which staff fords to be a successful co~guration of massing that is somewhat subordinate to the historic Onion building. Mass and Scale: The original design was a three story building that filled the entire 9,000 square foot lot with different materials (rather than actual setbacks) to express building modules. In the new design, a one story element with a deck is proposed at the comer that steps up to two stories, and a third story is recessed behind the two story pazapet on both the Galena and Cooper Street elevations. Commercial storefronts aze proposed for the ground and second levels. The building is located on azguably the most active corner in town and as such it needs to successfully anchor the comer. During City Council review of the previous proposal, both Council and the public expressed concern over filling in the existing open condition at the Bidwell corner and the impact of building to property lines on the experience at the Pazadise Bakery plaza. The applicant responded by pulling the building back from the Cooper Pedestrian Mall and dropping the height of the corner to one story. HP Design Guideline 13.9 below recommends two story infill buildings in the Commercial Core to maintain consistency with other historic commbrcial building in the Historic District. 13.9 Maintain the average perceived scale of two-story buildings at the sidewalk. ^ The design of a 3-story building should in some way acknowledge the 2-story chazacter of the downtown. ^ Floor-to-floor heights should appeaz to be similaz to those seen historically. In particulaz, the windows in new construction should appeaz similaz in height to those seen traditionally. Staff is very sensitive to the public comment received. during the City Council hearings. On one hand, the one story element and horizontal wooden railing recalls a false front commercial building style and reflects the heavily altered old Guido's chalet building across the pedestrian mall. However, the integrity of the Historic District relies on a level of consistency for infill projects to maintain coherency in the downtown Commercial Core. The Cowenhoven Building, located at Hyman and Galena Streets and shown to the right, is the only historic corner building that is one story tall. There aze other one story buildings on downtown corners as evidenced in the map on the page 6. Atypical streetscape from the 19a` century is illustrated below and shows evidence that two story buildings were generally found at street corners during that time. _ Page 4 P63 Looking west down Cooper Street. Arrow points to the corner of Galena and Cooper. . ... :; i ~ t ~~~ ~~ ~, , ,t x }~~ '. ' J i4LL ~ ~~ \ I NN ~ m B• ,.~-:~ View of town from Aspen Mountain. ~iA~i Typical one and two story commercial buildings downtown. Page 5 ~ P64 P65 story corner element that steps up to two stories, and ultimately three stories, would arguably fit into the existing context. Scale: Council expressed concern over the loss of "western vernacular" in the new building and over the magnitude of the proposed mass and scale. The redesign incorporates more of a western vernacular style and proposes 30' and 60' modulations along the Cooper Street elevation and smaller 20' and 40' modulations along the Galena Street elevation to break up the perceived mass of the new building. Staff finds that the modules along Cooper Street are successful in breaking up the building and expressing traditional lot widths. 13.11 Consider dividing larger buildings into "modules" that are similar in width to buildings seen historically. o Where buildings are planned to exceed one lot width, use a change in design features to suggest the traditional building widths. Changes in facade material, window design, facade height or decorative details are examples of techniques that may be considered. These variations should be expressed throughout the depth of the structure such that the composition appears to be a collection of smaller buildings. The applicant provided a comparison of street level storefront heights of surrounding historic buildings to the proposed new building. The glazing proposed for the new building is 10' 2" to the top of the storefront which is about 2' to 4' lower in height than the adjacent historic storefronts, as measured to the top of the transom. The height of the building relies directly on interior floor to ceiling heights. Staff finds that the height of the building is appropriate for the context and responds to Council and the public's concerns; however the height of the proposed storefronts are not really in scale with nearby historic buildings. Typical storefronts span up to between 13' and 14' to the top of the transom to permit the maximum amount of sunlight into the shop. Two examples are below. The Andres Building (left) storefront is 14'2" to top and the Red Onion (right) storefront is 13' to the top. Page 7 P66 The Design Guidelines recommend that proportions and scale of facade elements appear in scale with adjacent historic buildings. Glazing is a Final Review issue, so Staff recommends that the applicant continue to develop the height of the fenestration on the Cooper and Galena Street ground level elevations to create a better relationship to the Historic District. Staff recognizes the relationship between floor to ceiling heights and the overall height of the building. Staff suggests that the applicant try to increase the storefront height without impacting the height of the building and recommends that HPC provide clear direction as to whether it is an appropriate tradeoff to slightly increase the height of the building in order to have the storefronts better relate to the surrounding historic commercial context. Guideline 13.10 relates to "true three-story buildings" which Staff interprets as a three story front facade wall. The proposal does not qualify as a "true" three story building; however the general philosophy that facade components should be in scale with historic context is relevant. 13.10 True three-story buildings will be considered on a case-by-case basis. ^ In general, a proposed three-story building must demonstrate that it has no negative impact on smaller, historic structures nearby. ^ The height and proportions of all facade components must appear to be in scale with nearby historic buildings. As part of a consolidated application, HPC is asked to grant Commercial Design Review approval. Applicable review criteria are addressed below. See Exhibit B for a full copy of the Code section. COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW AND PEDESTRIAN AMENITY SPACE An application for Commercial Design Review may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: 1. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial Design Standards or any deviation from the Standards provides amore-appealing pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. Unique site constraints can justify a deviation from the Standards. Compliance with Section 26.412.070, Suggested Design Elements, is not required but may be used to justify a deviation from the Standards. 2. For proposed development converting an existing structure to commercial use, the proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial Design Standards, to the greatest extent practical. Amendments to the facade of the building may be required to comply with this section. 3. For properties listed on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures or located within a Historic District, the proposed development has received Conceptual Development Plan approval from the Historic Preservation Commission, pursuant to Chapter 26.415. This criterion shall not apply if the development activity does not require review by the Historic Preservation Commission. Staff Response: The Commercial Design Standards are in many ways similar to HPC's own guidelines. Staff response to each section is below: Page S P67 26.412.Oti0.A. Building Relationship to Primary Street. In summary, this Standazd requires buildings to be squaze to the street, have consistent setbacks and commercial uses developed at . the ground level. The general intent is to create a consistent street wall and coherent commercial downtown to enhazice the pedestrian experience. Staff fmds that the proposed building meets this Standazd. 26.412.060. B. Pedestrian Amenity. This Standazd specifies the nature and function of the required pedestrian amenity space: mainly that it is versatile and contributes to the pedestrian experience. Staff finds that the proposed project meets and exceeds this Standazd by providing more pedestrian amenity than required onsite (2% more.) 26.412.060.0 Street-level Building Elements. This Standard intends to create successful ground level storefronts by requiring 60% transpazency at the ground level and defined entrances to contribute to the pedestrian experience in the Commercial Core: Staff finds that this Standard is met. 26.412.060.D. Parking. This Standazd requires well-design pazking that does not detract from the quality of downtown. The applicant proposes a subgrade pazking garage accessed off of the alley to meet and exceed (by 2 spaces) the pazking requirements for the redevelopment. Staff finds that the Standazd is met. 26.412.060.E. Utility, Delivery, Trash Service Provision. This Standazd emphasizes well- designed trash and utility areas that do not impede alley circulation. The project proposes utility, delivery and trash service that will be screened and located off of the alley. Staff fmds that the project meets this Standazd. Overall, Staff fmds that amended massing meets the Commercial Design Standards and recommends approval. VIEW PLANE The application requires approval from the Wheeler Opera House and Jerome View Planes because the pazcel is located within a view plane as set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.435.050, Mountain View Plane Review. The Planning and Zoning Commission typically handles View Plane reviews, however the Community Development Director has the right to consolidate reviews when deemed to be the most efficient and effective process. HPC shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the requested view plane approval. If HPC does not believe that the proposal satisfies the criteria for construction within a view plane review, HPC may require the application to go through the PUD review process as is described in Land Use Code Section 26.435.050(0), Mountain view plane review standards. HPC is to apply the following criteria to this issue: Page 9 1. No mountain view plane can be infringed upon except as follows: When any mountain view plane projects at such an angle so as to reduce the maximum allowable building height otherwise provided for in this title, development shall proceed according to the provisions of Chapter 26.455 as a planned unit development, so as to provide for maximum flexibility in building design with special consideration to bulk and height, open space and pedestrian space, and similazly to permit variations in lot azea, lot width, yazd and building height requirements, view plane height limitations. The Planning and Zoning Commission may exempt any developer from the above enumerated requirements whenever it is determined that the view plane does not so effect the pazcel as to require application of PUD or that the effects of the view plane may be otherwise accommodated. When any proposed development infringes upon a designated view plane, but is located in front of another development which alreadv blocks the same view plane the Plamm~g and Zomng Commission shall consider whether or not the proposed development will further mfnnge upon the view plane and the likelihood that redevelopment of the adiacent structure wrll occur to re- open the view plane In the event the proposed development does not further mfnnge upon the view plane and re development to re open the view plane cannot be anricrpated, the Plamm~Q and Zoning Commission shall approve the development. Staff Response: Only the southwest comer of the proposed building falls within the Wheeler Opera House View Plane. The proposed maximum height is about 4'S" below the previous proposal. The one story T-shirt shop and four story Moms and Frywald building (see last page of drawings for View Plane map and photographs) already block the Wheeler Opera House View Plane as it projects towazds the subject site; therefore, the Mountain Plaza proposal does not directly impact the View Plane in the current downtown configuration. The Morris and Frywald Building is under HPC's purview, as it is located in the Commercial Core Historic District. Future redevelopment of the Moms and Frywald Building would appeaz to potentially open some of the View Plane; however the landmazk Independence Squaze building, located across the intersection of Cooper and Galena, infringes upon the Wheeler View Plane. Due to landmazk status, it is unlikely that Independence Squaze will be redeveloped in the future. Staff recommends that HPC grant View Plane approval due to extant buildings, with minimal likelihood of redevelopment that will open the view plane, blocking the view between the Wheeler Opera House and Aspen Mountain. Page 10 P69 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC focus on the following points of discussion: • Proposed public amenity and 18' setback • One story element at corner • Height and setback third floor • Tradeoff between heightening the proposed storefront to better relate to the historic context and the possibility that the height of the building may be slightly increased to comply with this request. Overall, Staff finds that the project as proposed meets the HP Design Guidelines for Conceptual Review, Commercial Design Standazd Review and Viewplane Review, and responds to concerns voiced by City Council and .the public regazding the redevelopment of this pazcel. Staff recommends that the applicant continue to study the storefront fenestration heights to better relate to the historic context for Final Review. DECISION MAHING OPTIONS: The HPC may: • approve the application, • approve the application with conditions, • disapprove the application, or • continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC grant Major Development (Conceptual), Commercial Design Standazd approval, and Wheeler Opera House View Plane Exemption for the property located at 434 East Cooper Avenue, Lots Q, R, and S, Block 89, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, with the following conditions: The applicant will continue to study the storefront fenestration heights and the impact to the overall height of the building to better relate to the historic context for discussion and approval during Final Review. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) yeaz of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the' approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant aone-time extension of the expiration date for a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. Resolution # of 2009. Exhibits: A. Design Guidelines B. Commercial Design Standazds C. Application Page 11 P70 __ __ -- RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL), VIEWPLANE REVIEW, AND COMMERICAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 434 EAST COOPER STREET, LOTS Q, R AND S, BLOCK 89, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO. RESOLUTION NO. _, SERIES OF 2009 PARCEL ID: 2737-182-16-001 WHEREAS, the applicant, Bidwell Investment Corporation, represented by Mitch Haas of Haas Land Planning, LLC; Klein, Cote & Edwazds, P.C., and Rowland + Broughton Architecture and Urban Design requested that Aspen City Council reconsider the subdivision application for the property located at 434 East Cooper Avenue, Lots Q, R and S, Block 89, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, Aspen City Council approved reconsideration of the application for subdivision for the subject property and remanded Commercial Design Standazd Review, Historic Preservation Major Development Conceptual Review and Viewplane Exemption Review back to the Historic Preservation Commission; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Director determined that the application is governed under the Aspen Land Use Code in effect in Mazch 2006; and WHEREAS, pwsuant to Section 26.304.060(B)(1) of the Municipal Code, the Community Development Director has approved a combined review to enable HPC review of the applicant's viewplane and commercial design review requests with major development (conceptual) finding that such combination will eliminate or reduce duplication and enswe economy of time, expense and clarity; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structwe shall be erected, constructed, enlazged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted. to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedwes established for their review;" and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, pwsuant to Section 26.304.060(B)(1) of the Municipal Code, the Community Development Director has approved a combined review to enable HPC review of the applicant's viewplane and commercial design review requests with major development (conceptual) finding P71 that such combination will eliminate or reduce duplication and ensure economy of time, expense and clarity; and WHEREAS, for View Plane Review the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a heazing to determine the project's conformance with Municipal Code Section 26.435.050, Mountain View Plane Review. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. The HPC hereby finds that impact on the viewplane is minimal; and WHEREAS, for approval of Commercial Design Review, HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to deternne, per Section 26.412 of the Municipal Code, that the project conforms to the following criteria: 1. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial Design Standards or any deviation from the standazds provides amore-appealing pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particulaz standard. Unique site constraints can justify a deviation from the Standards. Compliance with Section 26.412.070, Suggested Design Elements, is not required but may be used to justify a deviation from the Standards. 2. For proposed development converting an existing structure to commercial use, the proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial Design standazds, to the greatest extent practical. Amendments to the fagade of the building may be required to comply with this section. 3. For properties listed on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures or located within a Historic District, the proposed development has received Conceptual Development Plan approval from the Historic Preservation Commission, pursuant to Chapter 26.415. This criterion shall not apply if the development activity does not require review by the Historic Preservation Commission; and WHEREAS, Sara Adams, in her staff report dated July 22, 2009, performed an analysis of the application based on the standazds, found that the review standazds and the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines have been met, and recommended approval; and WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on July 22, 2009, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the applicable review standazds and "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines," found a minimal impact on the Wheeler Opera House viewplane, and approved the application by a vote of _ to NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby approves Major Development (Conceptual), View Plane Review, and Commercial Design Review for the property located at 434 East Cooper Avenue, Lot Q, R & S, Block 89, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, as proposed and illustrated in Exhibit A, with the following conditions; P72 1. The applicant will continue to study the storefront fenestration heights to better relate to the historic context and the impact of raising the storefront height on the overall height of the building for discussion and approval during Final Review. 2. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) yeaz of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant aone-time extension of the expiration date for a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 22"d day of July, 2009. Michael Hoffman, HPC Chair Approved as to Form: Jim True, Special Counsel ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk ~~o $~~~m~ ~m ~~m} ~ a ~+ n p~ ~~~~; c ~~e~m~ x `-' O _~~$~ 7 aW ~ ~ A ~ im ~~ ° °° m m ~' ~ r oa °m ~ C r ti N" z nm <~~ (7 N ? O ~ ti y O A O ,z, G a ~ y z~ rn ~0 0 o~ x~ TO O m b o ~ oD ~ oZ r =m ~ Za o ~' Ar ~ ~ A 2 Y J r- ~1 a ~~~e~ao ~~e°''~ ~ ~~m 3 ~ m0.~d ~ t aQ c 10 ~~~~ v C 5~8~ m ~ N _W~Sij 7 a~ ~a ~ m ~ am ~~ o° 0 om r ~~ r oa °m ~ C r N~ a~ ,~ m ~ N a O ti~ ~ O O 0 0 1F'' ? ~ s ~w ~°n ~ a ;+ aQ Sao ~~~Q ~~ ~~s~ m _~ 5 y _<~$j 7 o~~ b O \ b b <~ o~ y -mni m - 1b o~ TV N 0 m ~a ~ ~ ?m ~ ~ ~o ~ D ~~ m ~ ~~ ~ N ~ on - m om ~ r C m r' m wn ` r am ~ ~_ ~ o~ O cep I,i o ~ r ~~ o z O O r A O O 100-0' O O / / / 1e•-0• / Ira / la-o- / w•-0• / as o• / n O C~ T C y ym ym yo ~ ~y g ~r ~m ~g m` m m~ m° m~ 9. 3: y P `+ N + ~ A ~ O Ln 0 ~ ~ AUTO LIFT _yP O O tt 22'-0' Z ./ _. __ NN ;y S 6 m yLI ~ 2 ppQQ~mm y ZZ` '. F m FFF m i c L~ 0 0. n ~o ~ o~ m ~ m ~ m m b c b §'r ~ n / / / ~ \ y ; ~ y~ pp pA y y m ~ NO -IS ~m :gym >: O; ~~ $~ ~~ gp m m~ mx m~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n m n GALENA STFEE7 / 1B'-0' / 12'-0' / 10'-0' / 30'-0' / / I ao'-o- 0 0 ~~a o o ~~ o 30'-0- D 0 ~~o b O § 4 ~~ O ~a~~~o k~e° ~f Ygm ~ 88 -p~~. ~ + aQ 3~ac ~~iQ ~~ ~~aE m ~ a~Ng ~~~s'; 3 ~" ~ 2m O ~ ~o ~ ~ 00 < om r ~ ~~ r N s OA om ~ r C f r ~~ 2 ~ a'' <"' G~ °' r N ~ C ° ~' C ..' o m r ~~ o O ~. b O \ b ~~ O \ mnl m ___ b O 0 o~Do 0 0 0 ,~'-0. ~ 1e•-o• ~ 1r-0• ~ m'a- ~ w•-a• ~ sa-0• ~ I I I n A z m m ~~ g€ ~g o O y; mn ~ L ~'n~ ~m~ _~n 0 9 ~ m ~" n ~~ ~ p~p~y m <OZm i m ~ ~ g &o < j:'r tiAl CNA STREET O O ti D O O 1 W ~~ O D O .. O I b O a b b m~ <~ O g:~" ?~ ~~~~ ~ ~ _y~d m+ V TO V 00 O z "' C~ IT1 ~o ` ~ °m ~ A r' N < oa °m ~ r r ~ Z N n ~ Ill n m (~ ~ ~ om ~ i~ Q o m _ r X$3 o Z o~~ b o~ 4 4 ~ ~ ~~ m y ~ k' b o ~~ 0 18'-0' ~~ ~~ 0 A a __ ~ ~ ~~~ i r7~ , I s 0 ~o PyI So ~~ yTy n < LZ~'1 ,yip Z I jy !Y T~ H 0 1 ' F t ~~_ Lo- -I _- u ,~'~ 30~ GALENA STREET 0 3a'-0. 0 ~ T o~ 40 7B'-0' ~ 12-0' ~ / 10'-0' ~ 30'-0' / 30' / / tOD'-0' O O ~~D o o ~~ o 0 ~~o 4 ~o b b ~~ ~o m ym ~~o ~, ]91) 2~' ]Ylt~~' ~ 4. 8)d L`I E pig' ~. rmr~~ r"r~~~ a Co SL"e3 ?G Y8m~ ~ 7 _ -}~a ;+ a~ ~~;Qmc ~~s~ m ~ c-s~ e~#~~ O ~ ~ a 4 I o~ 6 b ~~ O \ y b O \ \ TV N TO V ~a ~ O i "' ~ ~ ~~ 0 iW m m 00 r r N~ O O ~~ Z , ~ ~ "' ~ ~ ~ °~ O ~~~ ~ o W ~ r ~~ Z a A r~ C 0 i i +e' o• O ~' O O O +oa-0' i i ~ i I ~ GALENA STREET 0 ~ 1B'-0' ~ 77-0' I / 1a-0' ~ 30 ~ 3a' ~ ~ O O ~' O O +~ • ~~ O O ~~ ~ ~ O x e ~o b b ~~ ~o _~ _ ~m 8 ~~o 1~8° ?~_ B ~ ~ SU YSme ~ d 3 88 ~ t Q ~~~~ m C ia~~ ~ssEm ~ ',"~&$~ 7 O \ \ 6 O ` $ b°, ~ b ~~ o~ ~~ o~~ ~i m 0 o~Do 0 / 1B'-0' / 1Z'-0' / 70'-0' / 0 ,oa'-0. ~'-0. GALENA S1REE7 V 0 A Oo m zm O ~ r o$ m m r m ~~rN.r on om ~ _ r ~ N~ O m i ~ 2 -n n ~ ~, r <m O °~ O b +~ O p~ r Z 0 / 1B'-0' / 77-0' / 70'-0' / 10 -0' / / 0 0~~0 0 ~~~-0.~~ o sa-0~ 3d-0' 0 0 \ O b \ O b b O mm y ~~o m O ~~~~'~i 83 Y8m~ ~ C7 &ma~a ;+ a Q ~ c ~~~ a m C ~~6~ m ~ „'8g y ~~~$`~ 7 aw ~ Ua ~ i im C~ ~~ ~° m ~A r N ~ on ~ om ~ p C ~ N~ O m ~~ Z _ ~ ,~ m n ~ °' Zl ^' ~ O om ~~~ O o m T ~~ o ~ O \ \ O ` ~ o m § § <~ o~ m ~m 4 b o ~~ 0 0~ cm1~ Z o~~$ ~~~o 0 ~3~_ m=0c~ mN~ 0 o~Do 0 1B'-0' > 17-0' / 10'-0' ~ ~w m ~~ 8 0 F~„ n CD IY 9 m~a Pmy ~~~ 0 0 100'-0' 00'-0' ' 30'-0' ~ ~g~ PARAPET WALL ~~' ~y GALENA STREET ~ 18'O / 17-0' I / 10'-0' ~ 30'-0' ~ 100'-0• 0 0 rya o o ~~ o mo ~~ ~b~ JO'-0' D 0 1 O 6 ~ O ~ $ o b <~ ~o R b ~~o I c~ I ~ I O O I o! I_ m v ~ O 1f~~- ~~ $~m ~ v °s a ;+ aQ ~~~ggy m~ ~~B* m _3 u ~ H 0 F~~~ 3t-0 i 2T~0' 23'-0' 12'-0' 15'-0' 13'-0' 10'-0' 11'-0" / / / / / ~ 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ m ¢ m ~ v x x ~ ~ __ ~ ; p 1 '- '- ~~ In r, z ~~.\ ~j Dw ~ A zm ~ ~o 00 om r ~ ~ ~ N ~, ~ oa m~ ~."`~ ~ ~ O C o~ r ZO ~~ Nn ~ om ~~ Z ~ o ~•~ o~ ~ ! ~ m !' z C7 o ~ ~~ ~ Q mZ ~~ 0 I I I, I ~ I y, I I ~ I I I I I I I I ~, I I;' I I - 4 I ,~ ~ r ,~ ,L. I f. ~: I I II i I r T~ N v O ~ ~O m ~m ~ z ~ ~ ~ W € o _C ~~ _~ oz ~~ m ~~ ~m z~I c O m ~Z D r D r 4 Y ~ 4 w 4 3-0' 10'-0' 11'-0' f 23'-0' / / 34'1Y ~' min y ~ ~ x m ~ ~ y ~ i i ~ y I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I xg~~ ~~ mg~n _~'~ ~~ ;+ nQ ~~~~ d °c mma. ~ ~ vgg y _`~$`~ 7 faAA "^~ ' i~. z "' 1 ~ ~~ o° 0 om r oa r N T ~ °m ~ I ~ I r ~ Nn O '^ '^ VJ A o~ ~ i D ~ ~ ~ o m ~ cm m ~~ % m / o Z -- s 'z i A m 0 g A m 0 0 z ~~ g g ~ _~ 0 ~N m= mg ~m pO <A Am n~ ~m ~~ b ~ ~~ F o= ~ o~ ~~ _ m ~~ ~~ I o ~0 5 o m m ; ~ ~ _ _ _ ~ p~ m ~ C O O nyn % m D ~ O g ~ A A ~~ ~ Cl O ~ Z ~ O i bg ~ ~ O ~ y Q GALENA STREET • 4~ 4 ~ 4 '~ 4 ~ 4 ~ 12'-0' 15'-0' 13'-0' tU'-0' ~ 11'-0' 2r-0• 2x-0- 31'-0' - ~] m ~ ~ o z C~ ~.~~-~~~ ~ r '~~'~` , , t D 0 ~ ~ C Q I = II ~m ~~' -g-- -- ~ ~T~~~ D r <m » p ~ - ~ _ { , ~o G i.!' ~ C 5 ~ Q ~ m o c D m ~ m ~ 6 ~ - ~ D O b 6 ~ - -- --- ~ ' ~, ~ Z ~ r. _l I II ~{ I ~ JI I I l { I { { ,Ii ~~{~ ,III ;~1. ~~" Yg ~ ~ N I i ~Rm~ c ~ "_~~a ;' d+ n o. 9p 1 l~ ~' ~ 3 ~ Oal C ~ ~ ~ md8~a~ I, ~.~ l I I w %H ~, ~• I I II ii lil fl °<~'8>> ~''i I I ffl ~IIII II I' i ' ~ I 1 ',I I II{ iI{ „I`I I ~4 F 'I~ I I~f- nw ~A ~ ~ 2m ~~ C 00 0 om r ~~ r N,' ~ o m ~ Z7 C r ~ p Nn ~ Z m ~ ~ nm + ~~~ Z N m D ~ S m ~ ~ mm < ~, ~ m r ° D 0 z mZ GUI00'S I; II. i~i ij fi ~-~~'~~i il~~i p ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ !~~~~~I~I 1~~~ zr~• 12'-0' 15'-0' ! fg 4 4fR s N~ . ~~y~y p~A ~~N ZZ 30 v ~~ y A y'y ~~ T 4~ 7 b ZJ O mm <~ Z~ ~~ ~m D r Zm ~~ mp ~ Z C O O 'b i:~~`ti,: r ~~ y~ yY Z ~ ~ I~ k ~ m ~ x ~ y ~ ~ m A~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ I J ~~ I II~ ~..i f I I I I I I I § , I y ~ aa~ I 2 I ~ I 1~y N Z m ~~ I § I I ~m 0o I ~~ I <~ g~ I ~ao 11~"m~ Y~m ~ N e' 7 I ~g ~ a I W + i 4 Q i E ~~ m C ~~8~ m S m ~` N ~<a8~ 3 1 y I lf1 Y [g b 6~ -r ~-, iii'; 1..:~-; i GAI.FNA STREET ~~ n YT-0' 17A" 4~ 4~ R[~ C 2 O m 0 4 i~ 2 S ti ~ ; a ~ a~ ~a m ~ i ~~ 0o o m o m r ~T DA O D • N °m ~ C N~ a'' r .~ m ~ „ om ~~ o // C~ o ZJ 0 m 0 Z m= Dm -+ r om Z< D ~ r O r ~Z 4 ~ 4 ~ 4~ y ~ z ^I y F m Z ~ n ~i r r C y Y ~e~ ?f ~m ~~m~ ~ a j + Q C o~s~ ~~es m ~ mxyO _ ~~; a~ ~ A ~ Zm ~ °o o° ~m r ~r °m ~ C yr Nn Z ~.. m G) oZ m v m D z m m n m ~l ~m Z ~m ~~ z yoC~ pm` ~m A,aIn AV, ~°T ~~O `m' o A^^ m`! ~O OO m n m c m a r O X Z O a a v m 0 m z a z a m Z 1` c r ~; ._ ~ ; "~ ~i 4 ~ X11 c . ~'~ a_ ~' i ~ - ~• .. ', a r I ~ w. Jf '~ ~~ N _i ~' f i, ~,1 1 I~~~,jii t ~. '~ ~ ~ { 1 ,; \r ,: ~~, ~ ~' 'v ~ ~ ~ - r ~~ '~~ a VI ~ ~. ~ ~ `ice ~+` ~.~ d ; ~`. e ,' ~ ~'~- ,~` ~~ ~~ X0,1 ~~ v, ~~ ~ ~-~~ '~~.L ~~~"'~.'~lf~~yr 'a ~ .. '~GC. ~ .l ~.y I,r i '?' Via. ~.. ..1W.~ .... t~_y V _ 4 . aI r t+ p ~ ...- . ~ ~ r t' J ~ , ~ /' l ~~,i l~, , ~ is ~~,JJ ~}~ t~ ~Y `f, 1~ tiAJ'''~ ~V ~~~~~: :~'~ ' .. , ,., i. . e r~ i /. Ifl ~~ ~ ~ . ~~ry,t a-F f~_~~'~ ^Z '/1 ~, ~ r ~ ' it F, _ , .. ca;~ '°,~r ~i A~'~, ~~i ~~ ~; ,_ , ~~ „~._... -~.ya, . ~=r ~ ~~;' ~ ~' -= ,.-; ~~ ~ _ _~__ 1 • ' 1~~~~ ry1 "F, v b ~~~ hjz ` ~4~~~ '}~~Y~~r, l~p,, ;~ 1 '{ r~ y~~ ~~ ; Ay _ y[_ ; <A ~~a~ D~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~o a ~ °m ~ ~~m ~ °' a`~n yp t ~+ ~: ~~ ~~ 0 ~~~~ ~~ '• ~~a~ ~ s c A y _.~~a.7 , >A ~ ~A m am ~~ o~ a om r ~~ ~ °m ~ C ND O .~.. nm +~ N ? ~-1 tD (n r ..,~~~ a t e' .. !! ,~ t ~ ( ^ s~~ tr ,r ;:~ d 1~~,;, "R ~ t+~ r ~ I .?~; l ~ ~ ~.~~ ,p ' ~. , ~ 1 1 ~` ' ~A r I ~ ~ ~ !+ ~ ~ ' + ~I~ t ' 1' f ~~ f , ,~ II , ~ J ry + d 1 '~i ~~ ~ + 1 ~ f t ~ ~d~ ~~ N ~ 111 ; ` ~ r~!.m U , ~ 'fj lr! ,~~ jz tf , r _ ] {,.~ ~ l L `f ~ ~ 7 p , ~g , h ` ~ ~~~~i8 r c. 1 5 1 ~ a 1 ~ X: ; ,' ~" '+ ~ '~ ;~ ~ ~ y ~ ~ m v m cn - - ~ Z ~ ~ ~ j ~ ~ ~ ~ ' + ~ ~~ C7 r - • ! i r ~ ~ m ~' ~ r. ;:; ~ a - T Z ^ i"1 i ~ L ~ , ! ~ i Y ,1 , ~ ~ y_txi Yfj_1 . , ' i ` 1t ,~ ,t ~~. r. ~i;~ ,.~ '.~~' 1 ~~ i g' s~ ~.. , *f y~ yin"} -. ~9. r g f Mr ':~'~~ }~. , r1 :~.~. ~' ` ' r ~.' <. :~ ~~ !~''~,`II r7,,f y~;~y;;.~ , , ~~ ~ D ~~ I ~~ _._ ~--1 _ .I .. _1 Ir KKK \\ ~ I ¢~ `~ a.,lt Rt c ' ~ , . ,, ~~, ~' r ' ,.. i~ , ~'~ ~, ., , ~1 RT ~ ~ , 1 + , ~`~ ~ ~~ , ~~ . - -- ~~`, ~ 4 ~ . }}~ ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~ti ~~' - ; . ~ n ': 1 1 {{~ ~ -,.~ ' l 4 y/' F ~~ Y 1 ~,~, - c ,~.. ~. , /Ji eti i'} ., ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~r.. ~ ,, ~~, r r. ~. .,.. ~~ , ~~ ,. ., + ~ s,, ~, , a ~,a, ~~-~ a N ,~ 4~ r i~t ~ ~1 i V ~~. .~ ~ r ~~' ;,~,;: ; ~ 't ~ ~ . awl , '~` ~` ~?" .~ f a C (~„ ~ .., , r ~i' i .• ~~ ,. • '~F- _~ .R.. .lam {, ~ ~ • ~. !-. nw ~ A zm ~ °o o° om r ~A r on °m ~ C y N (~ ' ym 2 ~ ~ N ? O ~~ ~m~ ~~. gpZ r ~ yA ~=0~ Nay ~ ~oZ x ~ ~/ pQ~ ~ €~I // ~~O A 2 ~ ~ d ~ m, Z , o m z m ~ ,' n m; o ~ v m 0 m D Z m 'D m n m m Z 0 m z i ~~ F€m ;°' ~m~ !~< Am r • ^ 7p~ i1 ~~BJ@@m~ ~ Ip~ m ~~~ YBm ' y 88 C ~ K ~ a m + A p ~Z a i0~ O Z 1' {. ~yyK'~`M ~ ';x '',fir,- ;t:~~ - ~~':. ^~^ ~ A. YJ ., i ~ 1 ri1YL 'M~ ._ ... __. ~......_v nw ~ A ~ im ~~ o° 0 om r ~~ r on °m ~ C r y N (~ nm <•• ~ Nz o~ ~~ ~' '' ,y _. ~ !~. CIS, ~' ~.~ , ~ M, 4 ~ y ~ . ~ ~ ••- ' ~' r ~;, - ~ F i ' ~ f ~ . .. ]' ~~ti ~~~: k..y y .ti ,.~.. +~ ti _ ~~ ~~ k :_ , ~. _~~ ;, y: ~+; `, .:~ . i , i~,. ~`'~_, ;~ P , _ jt{ HN .: ~ .'..X I € C Viz. ~ t.. i m m ~~ ~*•. ,~ r ~o = f, _m pRRp m 'w ~, ~5a~ ~~ yp VJ i. ' ~ ` -n~a `~ m+ T $Q ~ g"ao °~ . , ~ m ~ z c) :r %~;~~'~ ~ :O ~ ~` ~ I , n ~ , m ,.' ; . `' ~ ff-tiu, r '-~i a~ ~ A 1 zm D ~~ o$ om r ~A r °m ~ r N n nm ~ ~.. N ? ~~ iY .~~ 1~ ~A y ~^' j'fi y ~ }~ t,~: .l.. yS . ~l~ .:~ ~ i- ~! ``"~.. 0 ~l• ~. .: t ~ .~ ~~. ~t. :: ~~..__ ~'^ 1 ~ ~ , y ~ ~ j'i 1~'~; C. 1 N'.:~ ~\iii~: '~ .'S'~~lk' ~~ ~ 1 -. !~`• i ji. 'r , l ) ,it. wf3y 4 ~~ ~ , t fit. .'._` i ~., R t 1 .. .ih' 1. >_ ~{ ~. i ~; ~> y `~~~ , j ~ ~, k S m~ Y.