HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20110126 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
JANUARY 26, 2011
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
130 S. GALENA
ASPEN, COLORADO
SITE VISITS: NONE
I. Roll call
II. Approval of minutes —
IH. Public Comments
IV. Commission member comments
V. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent)
VI. Project Monitoring:
VII. Staff comments — (15 min.)
VIII. Certificate of No Negative Effect issued
(Next resolution will be #2)
I. OLD BUSINESS
A. 610 E. Hyman Ave. — Landmark designation, Major
Development and Commercial Design Review, Ordinance
#487 negotiation, Public Hearing (cont'd from Dec. Bch 2010)
(1 hr, 30 min.)
II. NEW BUSINESS
A. NONE
III. WORK SESSIONS:
A. Referral comment on Historic Landmark Lot Split Code
Amendments (30 min.)
IV. ELECTION
A. Annual election of HPC Chair and Vice -chair (5 min.)
7:15 Adjourn
Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH)
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
a .
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 610 E. Hyman Avenue- Historic Landmark Designation, Ordinance #48
Negotiation, Major Development (Conceptual), Commercial Design (Conceptual)
and Variances
DATE: January 26, 2011 (continued from December 8, 2010)
T i -z/a a.. r sor t
SUMMARY: 610 E. Hyman Avenue was , , r � x+?"'
constructed for well known gallery owner ���
Patricia Moore in 1963. It was designed by
r a .i s
Ellie Brickham, who in 1951 was the first - t
female architect to arrive in Aspen.
ki The building was listed on Ordinance #48,
Series of 2007, as a potential historic resource. ' ='
4 Iwo oP•xt. r -
The building owner has expansion plans and is .c° P 0 7
willing to volunteer for landmark designation if
a mutually agreeable approval for the design r
and preservation benefits can be assembled. A w
ninety day negotiation period is underway. a ■
moo
HPC is asked to make recommendations to City
Council on the Q designation request and Patricia Moore Tnc occupies rl e first flop] of this
g building designed by Miss ❑rirkham. Mtss Moore
proposed benefits. HPC is asked to approve
Conceptual Design review, an FAR bonus and From "Aspen's Women Architects Aid Building Boom
On -Site Parking waiver. in Town;' by Joan Lane for The Grand Junction
Sentinel, 1965
A review and site visit took place on December
8 HPC minutes are attached. At that meeting the board was firm in their opinion that
restoration of the building would be necessary to support both designation and landmark
incentives. In particular, the board wished to see the arched openings re- established at the
ground floor, and the temporary canopy on the upper courtyard replaced with something more
translucent. There were also suggestions made to restudy the materials on the proposed rear
addition. The applicant has presented two alternatives for consideration.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff appreciates the applicant's willingness to consider preservation
of this modern commercial building and recommends HPC support designation. More information is
needed about the materials to be used to replicate the arches on the front facade, and to create the roof
over the upper courtyard before we can recommend approval. In general, the application appears to be
moving in a positive direction.
P2
APPLICANT: 610 E. Hyman LLC, Charles Cunniffe, represented by Haas Land Planning.
PARCEL ID: 2737 - 182 -12 -004.
ADDRESS: 610 E. Hyman Avenue, Lot M, Block 99, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
ZONING: C -1, Commercial.
HISTORIC DESIGNATION
26.415.030.B. Criteria. To be eligible for designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic
Landmark Sites and Structures, an individual building, site, structure or object or a collection of
buildings, sites, structures or objects must have a demonstrated quality of significance. The
significance of 20` century properties like 610 E. Hyman Avenue is evaluated according to the
following criteria:
A property or district is deemed significant as a representation of Aspen's 20th Century
history, was constructed in whole or in part more than thirty (30) years prior to the year in
which the application for designation is being made, possesses sufficient integrity of location,
setting, design, materials, workmanship and association and is related to one (1) or more of
the following:
a. An event, pattern or trend that has made a significant contribution to local, state, regional
or national history,
b. People whose specific contribution to local, state, regional or national history is deemed
important and the specific contribution is identified and documented, or period or method
c. A physical design that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, p
of construction or represents the technical or aesthetic achievements of a recognized designer,
craftsman or design philosophy that is deemed important.
Staff Finding: 610 E. Hyman Avenue was built in 1963 for owner Patricia Moore. The Patricia
Moore Gallery was a respected business in town for many years, and displayed the work of many
important artists on the main floor of the building. An upper floor residential studio unit was
part of the original design. Ms. Moore sold the property in 1988. It is now the office of Charles
Cunniffe architects.
610 E. Hyman was constructed for a woman who played an important role in the local arts
community, and it was designed by Aspen's first woman architect. This is one of the few Ellie
Brickham buildings that remains in Aspen.
Ellie Brickham (1923 -2008) moved to Aspen in 1951 after attending the University of
Colorado's School of Architecture from 1941 -1944. Construction was a family business, and her
motivation to become a designer began as a child. According to the research paper, "Aspen's
Twentieth - Century Architecture: Modernism 1945- 1975:"
2
P3
"Early in her career, Brickham worked in Fritz Benedict's office and collaborated on
projects with both Benedict and Bayer, participating in work going on at the Aspen
Institute. Like Benedict, she had a strong interest in passive solar techniques. During her
time in that office and, later, in her own practice out of her home, she designed a number
of residences and commercial buildings in town, including houses for several Music
Festival artists in Aspen Grove, the elegantly simple brick Strandberg Residence (1973,
433 Bleeker Street - demolished) and the Patricia Moore Building (1962, 610 E. Hyman
Avenue). In Pitkin County, she designed numerous homes in Pitkin Green and Starwood,
on Red Mountain, including her own house (1955), with south and west walls made
completely of glass. Her works, which total at least sixty in the Aspen area, are generally
characterized by spare, simple forms and minimal detailing. Brickham's projects focus
on an "impeccable sense of proportion and feeling of lightness," according to a 1977
Aspen Times article."
The building that Ellie Brickham designed
for Patricia Moore appears to have been
influenced by "New Formalism," an
architectural approach of the early 1960s
which emphasized symmetrical, smooth -
skinned, flat roofed buildings with screens I `
and grilles. The facade of 610 E. Hyman has t
six attenuated brick piers that extend from € u
the base to the eaves and stucco arched
spandrels for a more "decorated" look that }
reflected the 1960s evolution of modernist '111 i I l
3 c x
design, as in Phillip Johnson's 1962 Lincoln
Center in New York, at right.
Staff finds that Criterion C of the designation
criteria is met for 610 E. Hyman. HPC
presented an Honor Award to Ellie Brickham in 2001, in recognition of her influence on the built
environment in Aspen. The neighborhood where this structure was built includes 4 other
Ordinance #48 "potential historic resources" within a block of the subject site, including the
building immediately west, which is also associated with Brickham. Only 19 of the 53 properties
on Ordinance #48 are commercial structures. It is important to carefully consider preservation
opportunities for this small collection of highly visible downtown structures.
The second component of designation is scoring the physical integrity of the building. Staff's
score sheet is attached as Exhibit A. There have been alterations to the front facade of this
building that result in a score that just meets the required threshold of 75 out of 100 points.
Originally, the arched windows on the front did not have any mullions. As part of the design
review process with HPC, and the Council negotiation, staff will recommend that some measures
be required to restore the original design intent to the extent practical.
3
P4
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.
STAFF RESPONSE: Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and
proportions of a proposal. A list of the relevant design guidelines is attached as "Exhibit A."
The existing building contains office space on the garden level and main floor, and a residential
unit and courtyard on the upper floor. The commercial space amounts to approximately 2,700
square feet of FAR. The residential unit is currently 1,485 square feet of FAR, for a total of
4,170 square feet.
The proposal is to create an addition at the back of the site, sitting on top of a garage /carport
constructed in 2003. Immediately above the carport will be two new office spaces. On top of
that will be a master bedroom expansion that will change the existing studio unit into a 1
bedroom.
L
•
Existing Front Facade Existing Rear Facade
P5
Because the proposed new construction is located at the rear of the property, visibility of the
addition from the street will be very limited, in staff's assessment. Only a small portion of the
proposed third floor encroaches onto the 1962 structure at all. Staff finds that the HPC
guidelines for Conceptual approval are met.
HPC expressed concerns about proposed building materials at Conceptual, which are addressed
in the new drawings. This is technically a final review issue, but may be important to the
consideration of designation, bonuses, etc.
FAR BONUS
The proposed addition would result in the total FAR for the property being 500 square feet over
the limit. HPC is asked to award a bonus, which is one of the standard and valuable incentives
currently in place for landmarks.
In selected circumstances, the HPC may grant up to five hundred (500) additional square feet of
allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic properties. To be considered for
the bonus, it must be demonstrated that:
a. The design of the project meets all applicable design guidelines;
b. The historic building is the key element of the property and the addition is
incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building;
c. The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance;
d. The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic
buildings form, materials or openings;
e. The construction materials are of the highest quality;
11 An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building;
g. The project retains a historic outbuilding; and /or
h. Notable historic site and landscape features are retained.
2. Granting of additional allowable floor area is not a matter of right but is contingent upon
the sole discretion of the HPC and the Commission's assessments of the merits of the
proposed project and its ability to demonstrate exemplary historic preservation practices.
Projects that demonstrate multiple elements described above will have a greater
likelihood of being awarded additional floor area.
STAFF RESPONSE: Staff finds the proposed addition is successful, and that FAR bonus
criteria a and b are met. However, we recommend that some degree of restoration work is
important to earning the 500 square foot bonus. Through a previous remodel, the front entry has
been moved, the first floor level has been brought out to meet the front facade, arch topped
windows at the base of the building have been changed, a garden level has been exposed to view
from the street and the stucco color has been changed. A seasonal canopy has been added to
enclose the rooftop courtyard. These alterations have affected the integrity score for the building
and need to be taken into account when determining the appropriate package of preservation
incentives to approve for the project.
Charles Cunniffe has owned this property for several years and is very familiar with the changes
that have been made and the functional considerations of the building. Staff recommends that
5
P6
HPC require some restoration measures to be identified in order to receive an FAR bonus. The
market value of the additional space gained by an FAR bonus is significant.
The revised application indicates that the arches on the ground floor will be replicated with metal
panels. Staff suggests that spandrel glass or some other material might be more appropriate and
authentic. We are interested in the proposed translucent canopy on the upper courtyard, but need
more information to evaluate. It may or may not create the openness that the area originally had.
PARKING WAIVER
The expansion of the free market residential unit does not trigger additional parking
requirements, but the new office space does generate the need for a fraction of one space. A full
space could theoretically be provided on -site to meet the requirement (although it is apparently
not physically possible), or the owner could pay cash -in -lieu. Parking waivers are one of the
standard benefits that HPC can review and approve. HPC must find that the review standards of
Section 26.415.110.0 of the Municipal Code are met. They require that:
1. The parking reduction and waiver of payment -in -lieu fees may be approved upon a
finding by the HPC that it will enhance or mitigate an adverse impact on the
historic significance or architectural character of a designated historic property, an
adjoining designated property or a historic district.
Staff Response: The parking requirement generated by the new construction requires a fraction
of one space to be provided. Normally a property owner would handle this as a cash -in -lieu
payment, which in this case would be $28,050. The applicant is requesting a waiver as a
preservation incentive.
Staff supports parking waiver for this project.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING MITIGATION
The new office space triggers affordable housing mitigation, however the applicant will take
advantage of another preservation benefit which is already in place. The Community
Development Director can grant an exemption to affordable housing requirements for up to 4
employees as part of the expansion of a mixed use, landmarked building.
If a mitigation were required for this development, it would be approximately $508,780.
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW
The City has an adopted set of guidelines, "Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design
Objectives" which are in addition to the HPC design guidelines. Development on this site is
affected by the chapter that addresses what is known as the "Commercial Character Area." All of
the Conceptual level guidelines address setback and height issues that are not applicable to a
remodel, rather than all new construction. Staff finds that no additional review is needed. Any
design guidelines that are applicable to Final will be presented to HPC at that time.
The application does request to exceed the 36' height limit for third story elements. When
measured from the alley grade, which is lower than the elevation at the front of the building, the
6
P7
addition is 37' tall. The elevator overrun is 40', which is the highest allowable point with a
variance.
An application for commercial design review may be approved, approved with conditions or
denied based on conformance with the following criteria:
A. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial
design standards, or any deviation from the standards provides a more 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.
B. 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. Changes to the facade of the building may be
required to comply with this Section.
C. The application shall comply with the guidelines within the Commercial, Lodging and
Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines as determined by the appropriate
Commission. The guidelines set forth design review criteria, standards and guidelines that
are to be used in making determinations of appropriateness. The City shall determine when a
proposal is in compliance with the criteria, standards and guidelines. Although these criteria,
standards and guidelines are relatively comprehensive, there may be circumstances where
alternative ways of meeting the intent of the policy objectives might be identified. In such a
case, the City must determine that the intent of the guideline is still met, albeit through
alternative means.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the Conceptual Commercial Design
guidelines are not applicable. We find the requested height variance to be appropriate given the
setback from the street. The two story character of the building along Hyman Avenue is
preserved. Staff does recommend study of a minor setback of the third floor from the alley, so
that a two story height is reinforced on that facade as well.
The applicant is asked to provide a streetscape elevation or photographs at the HPC meeting to
assist the board's analysis.
UTILITY, DELIVERY AND TRASH SERVICE PROVISION
Along with architectural design concerns, the Commercial Design Standards address location of
utility, delivery and trash service. Staff understands that when the garage /carport was built in
2003, trash was relocated off of this property to a shared location with the adjacent building.
This is somewhat concerning in terms of a long term solution, and the proposed addition will
generate additional service needs.
7
P8
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The applicant is asked to provide information about any
accommodations that can be made on their own site to ensure that building needs will be met in
the future.
ADDITIONAL INCENTIVES REQUESTED UNDER ORDINANCE #48
The applicant requests the following additional incentives, which will be decided by Council.
HPC should comment if desired.
FAR VARIANCE FOR THE FREE MARKET UNIT
No mitigation is required for the enlarged, pre- existing apartment unit, however the unit will
exceed the allowable FAR for free market residential use. Based on the size of the lot, free
market residential FAR is limited to 1,500 square feet. A portion of the FAR assigned to the
residential use is actually common area, open courtyards, stairs, garage, etc.
The applicant requests Council grant an increase in the allowable free market residential FAR
from 0.5:1 to .503:1, or 1,510 square feet. This is not a bonus in addition to the HPC 500 square
foot benefit discussed above, but rather has to do with how the maximum FAR allowed on the
site can be distributed between the residential and commercial uses.
MAXIMUM RESIDENTIAL UNIT SIZE VARIANCE
In addition to an FAR cap on free market residential space, there is also a maximum unit size,
measured as net livable area, in the zone district. This limitation, which excludes the common
spaces described above, is 2,000 square feet. The only way to increase that amount is by landing
a historic preservation TDR. The applicant requests that Council allow the net livable area/unit
size to be 2,259 square feet, without the need to purchase and land a TDR. TDRs have an
approximately cost of $200- 250,000.
The previous two incentives are similar to those awarded for the voluntary preservation of the
nearby Crandall Building.
ACCESSIBILITY
The proposed addition preliminarily appears to trigger the need to provide accessibility to the
building. This accommodation was not made in the original design, which was laid out so that
the main floor was several feet above the street, accessed by a staircase.
The attached floor plans show an option for an elevator at the core of the building, accessed from
the alley. The applicant has requested Council waive the accessibility requirement, which staff
does not believe is in Council's purview as the regulations are derived from Federal laws. We
have discussed the proposal with the Building Department. They will meet with the applicant
and discuss alternatives, which can be reported to Council at Second Reading.
VESTED RIGHTS
Once a land use approval is granted, it never expires, however it can become subject to new laws
after a certain period of time. "Vested Rights" is the time period when the approval is protected
from most changes that may be adopted (approvals are never protected from amendments to the
Building Code, and some other life /safety issues.) The City is required to provide a 3 year
8
P9
vesting period. The applicant has requested 12 years vesting, which a policy matter for Council.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC continue to work with the applicant so
that the board can support landmark designation and the benefits requested from City Council
(variances to allow the proposed free market unit size and extended vested rights). Staff
recommends that HPC ultimately support an FAR bonus, height increase and parking waiver,
however more information about restoration measures is needed.
Exhibits:
Resolution # , Series of 2011
A. Relevant HPC Design Guidelines
B. Integrity Scoring Sheet
C. Application
D. Minutes of Dec. 8, 2010
9
P10
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
SUPPORTING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF HISTORIC LANDMARK
DESIGNATION AND BENEFITS NEGOTIATED UNDER ORDINANCE #48, SERIES
OF 2007, AND GRANTING MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL),
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW (CONCEPTUAL), A HEIGHT INCREASE, AN FAR
BONUS AND PARKING WAIVER APPROVAL FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT
610 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, LOT M, BLOCK 99, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN,
COLORADO
RESOLUTION #_, SERIES OF 2011
PARCEL ID: 2737 - 182 -12 -004
WHEREAS, the applicant, 610 E. Hyman LLC, Charles Cunniffe, represented by Haas Land
Planning, has requested Historic Landmark Designation and Ordinance #48 negotiation, HPC
Major Development (Conceptual) and Commercial Design Review (Conceptual) and Variances
for the property located at 610 E. Hyman Avenue, Lot M, Block 99, City and Townsite of Aspen,
Colorado; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.050 of the Aspen Municipal Code establishes the process for
Designation and states that an application for listing on the Aspen Inventory of Historic
Landmark Sites and Structures shall be approved if City Council, after a recommendation from
HPC, determines sufficient evidence exists that the property meets the criteria; and
WHEREAS, the property is included on Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2007, as a
potential historic resource. This Ordinance is codified at Section 26.415.025 of the Municipal
Code and provides for a ninety day period during which Council may negotiate with the property
owner for a mutually acceptable agreement that preserves the resource; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure
shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, 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 procedures
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
610 E. Hyman Avenue
HPC Resolution #_, Series of 2011
Page 1 of 3
P11
WHEREAS, in selected circumstances, the HPC may grant up to five hundred (500) additional
square feet of allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic properties if the
criteria of Section 26.415.110.E are met; and
WHEREAS, parking reduction and waiver of payment -in -lieu fees may be approved by HPC if
the criteria of Section 26.415.110.0 are met; and
WHEREAS, for Conceptual Commercial Design 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 Commercial, Lodging, and Historic District Objectives and Guidelines per
Section 26.412.040 of the Municipal Code. 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, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report to HPC dated December 8, 2010, performed an
analysis of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards had been met,
and recommended approval with conditions; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meetings on December 8, 2010 and January 26, 2011, the Historic
Preservation Commission considered the application, the staff memo and public comments, and
found the proposal consistent with the review standards and recommended approval with
conditions by a vote of _ to _.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby recommends Council approval of Historic Landmark Designation and
Ordinance #48 negotiation, and grants HPC Major Development (Conceptual), Commercial
Design Review (Conceptual) and Variances for the property located at 610 E. Hyman Avenue,
Lot M, Block 99, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the following conditions:
1. HPC requires that the applicant identify restoration actions that can be taken to restore the
front facade and roof of the building to the extent practical in order to earn the 500 square
foot bonus
2. HPC approves the third floor of the addition to be 37' tall. The elevator overrun is 40' in
height.
3. HPC approves waiver of on -site parking requirements for the new addition.
4. For Final review, HPC requires the applicant to study a minor setback of the third floor
from the alley, so that a two story height is reinforced on that facade.
5. For Final review, the applicant is asked to provide information about any
accommodations that can be made on their own site to ensure that trash service needs will
be met in the future.
610 E. Hyman Avenue
HPC Resolution # , Series of 2011
Page 2 of 3
P12
6. HPC supports the applicant's incentive request to City Council to allow the extra free -
market residential floor area and the increase of the free market unit size without the
landing of a Transferable Development Right.
7. HPC supports the applicant's incentive request to City Council for extended vested rights.
8. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one
(I) year of January 26, 2011, 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 a one -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 26th day of January,
2011.
Sarah Broughton, Chair
Approved as to Form:
Jim True, Special Counsel
ATTEST:
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
610 E. Hyman Avenue
HPC Resolution # , Series of 2011
Page 3 of 3
P13
"Exhibit A: Relevant HPC Design Guidelines for 610 E. Hyman , Conceptual Review"
3.1 Preserve the functional and decorative features of a historic window.
❑ Features important to the character of a window include its frame, sash, muntins /mullions,
sills, heads, jambs, moldings, operation and groupings of windows.
❑ Repair frames and sashes rather than replacing them, whenever conditions permit.
❑ Preserve the original glass, when feasible.
3.2 Preserve the position, number and arrangement of historic windows in a building
wall.
❑ Enclosing a historic window opening in a key character - defining facade is inappropriate, as is
adding a new window opening. This is especially important on primary facades where the
historic ratio of solid -to -void is a character - defining feature.
❑ Greater flexibility in installing new windows may be considered on rear walls.
a Do not reduce an original opening to accommodate a smaller window or door or increase it to
receive a larger window on primary facades.
7.3 Minimize the visual impacts of skylights and other rooftop devices.
❑ Flat skylights that are flush with the roof plane may be considered only in an obscure location
on a historic structure. Locating a skylight or a solar panel on a front roof plane is not
allowed.
❑ A skylight or solar panel should not interrupt the plane of a historic roof. It should be
positioned below the ridgeline.
7.6 When planning a rooftop addition, preserve the overall appearance of the original
roof.
❑ An addition should not interrupt the original ridgeline.
10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the
primary building is maintained.
❑ A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the
primary building is inappropriate.
❑ An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is
inappropriate.
❑ An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style
should be avoided.
❑ An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate.
10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time.
❑ An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining
visually compatible with these earlier features.
❑ A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material or
a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may be
considered to help define a change from old to new construction.
10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building.
❑ An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is preferred.
10.7 If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than a historic building, set it back
substantially from significant facades and use a "connector" to link it to the historic
building.
❑ A I -story connector is preferred.
10
P14
❑ The connector should be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary
building.
❑ The connector also should be proportional to the primary building.
10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the
visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character
to remain prominent.
❑ Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate.
❑ Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not
alter the exterior mass of a building.
❑ Set back an addition from primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and
character to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 feet on primary structures is
recommended.
10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building.
❑ Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate.
❑ Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with sloped roofs.
10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure
historically important architectural features.
❑ For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eavelines should be
avoided.
10.12 When constructing a rooftop addition, keep the mass and scale subordinate to that
of a historic building.
❑ An addition should not overhang the lower floors of a historic building in the front or on the
side.
❑ Dormers should be subordinate to the overall roof mass and should be in scale with historic
ones on similar historic structures.
❑ Dormers should be located below the primary structure's ridgeline, usually by at least one
foot.
10.13 Set a rooftop addition back from the front of the building.
❑ This will help preserve the original profile of the historically significant building as seen
from the street.'
10.14 The roof form and slope of a new addition should be in character with the historic
building.
❑ If the roof of the historic building is symmetrically proportioned, the roof of the addition
should be similar.
❑ Eave lines on the addition should be similar to those of the historic building or structure.
11
✓��'tt kV S P15
INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT- MODERNIST
610 E. Hyman Avenue
Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance.
• LOCATION Location is the place where the historic property was constructed
or the place where the historic event occurred.
5 - The structure is in its original location.
3 - The structure has been moved within the original site but still maintains
the original alignment and proximity to the street.
0 - The structure has been moved to a location that is dissimilar to its original
site.
STAFF SCORE: 5
TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 5)= 5
• DESIGN Design is the combination of elements that create the ,form, plan,
space, structure. and style of a property.
BUILDING FORM
10 -The original plan form, based on authenticating documentation, is still
intact.
6 - The plan form has been altered, but the addition would meet the design
guidelines.
0 - Alterations andlor additions to the building are such that the original form
of the structure is obscured.
STAFF SCORE: 10. The original plan form is intact. There is a modest
addition at the rear.
ROOF FORM
10 -The original roof form is unaltered.
6 - Additions have been made that alter roof form that would meet the
current design guidelines.
0 - Alterations to the roof have been made that obscure its original form.
STAFF SCORE: 6. The roof of the original building is unaltered,
however a removable awning is covering the second floor open courtyard
on a seasonal basis. This changes the appearance of the building from the
street somewhat significantly.
P16
SCALE
5 - The original scale and proportions of the building are intact.
3 - The building has been expanded but the scale of the original portion is
intact and the addition would meet the design guidelines.
0 - The scale of the building has been negatively affected by additions or
alterations.
STAFF SCORE: 5. The addition is not visible from the street.
SOLID/VOID PATTERN
10 - The original pattern of glazing and exterior materials is intact.
6 - The original pattern of glazing and exterior materials has been altered
but in a manner that would meet the design guidelines.
0- The original pattern of glazing and exterior materials is altered.
STAFF SCORE: 0. Originally the exterior wall was a screen, with the
enclosed spaces recessed some distance behind them. There were no
windows in the front facade, or a single pane of glass with no mullions.
Glazing was changed at the ground floor level more than 10 years ago
and garden level street facing windows were created.
CHARACTER - DEFINING FEATURES
10 — The horizontal or geometric form, minimalist detailing and features that
relate the building to its environment are intact.
6 - There are minor alterations to the horizontal or geometric form
minimalist detailing and features that relate the building to its
environment.
0 - There have been major alterations to the horizontal or geometric form.
minimalist detailing and features that relate the building to its
environment.
STAFF SCORE: 6. The front entry used to be centered in the facade, but
has been changed so that there are doors on each end of the facade. A
lightwell has been added to the front of the structure and open air spaces
have been enclosed.
TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 45)= 27
• SETTING Setting is the physical environment of a historic property.
5- The physical surroundings are similar to that found when the structure was
originally constructed.
P17
3 -There are minor modifications to the physical surroundings but the changes
conform to the design guidelines.
0- The physical surroundings detract from the historic character of the
building.
STAFF SCORE: 5. There are numerous buildings of the same era along
this blockface.
TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 5 )= 5
• MATERIALS Materials are the physical elements that were combined or
deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or
configuration to form a historic property.
EXTERIOR SURFACES
15 -The original combination of exterior wall materials and glazing are intact.
10 -There have been minor alterations to the original exterior wall materials
and glazing made in a mariner that conform to the design guidelines.
5- There have been major changes to the original combination of exterior
wall materials and glazing.
0- All exterior wall materials and glazing has been replaced.
STAFF SCORE: 15. The original material palette, brick and stucco, is
intact.
DOORS AND WINDOWS
10- All or most of the original door and window units are intact.
5 - Some of the original door and window units have been replaced but the
new units would meet the design guidelines.
0 - Most of the original door and window units have been replaced with units
that would not meet design guidelines.
STAFF SCORE: 5.
TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 25)= 20
• WORKMANSHIP Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a
particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory.
COMPOSITION
15 -The structural composition that distinguishes the stylistic category of
P18
Modernism is intact. Detailing is reduced to composition of elements
instead of decorative effects. No decorative elements are used. Design is
focused on rationality, reduction, and composition. It is meant to separate
itself from style and sentimentality. Materials are generally manufactured
and standardized. The "hand" is removed from the visual outcome of
construction. Surfaces are smooth with minimal or no detail at window
jambs, grade. and at the roof edge.
10 -There have been some alterations to the structural composition that
would meet the design guidelines
U - There have been some alterations to the structural composition that
would not meet the design guidelines
STAFF SCORE: 15. The architect's original simple approach to
detailing is preserved.
FINISHES & COLOR SCI IEME
5 - The neutral or monochromatic color scheme and finishes that define the
stylistic category of Modernism is intact.
3 - There have been minor alterations to the neutral or monochromatic color
scheme and finishes that define the stylistic category of Modernism.
0- There have been significant alterations to the neutral or monochromatic
color scheme and finishes that define the stylistic category of Modernism.
STAFF SCORE: 3. It appears from photographs that the stucco on the
exterior was originally white, creating a greater contrast with the brick
than exists now.
TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 20)= 18
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF POINTS= 100
MINIMUM THRESHOLD FOR DESIGNATION= 75 POINTS
TOTAL STAFF SCORE: 75 POINTS
- ---
, _--
---
P 1 9
- - . seer
-14,4 i
1 0 ir 0 Of ,
% It .
t
,
......
L.
1
r .
. .
nit
1. kt . moistwa."--
40•00
, - ..., ....,..
4 *
• A
e •
. .... . ...___,
. ..
- - - -
• • - - 'te .
:...",....., a
.„.
. ,,..
...
_ ..._
_ _. 4 •
. . e
E•44tH PP
Silitta it,
1% e
Abeir.
.rft'*4 would not find a better place to live and if
I •
1 L.C4741. :'4:14t, ngle in Aspen she would like to be my clie
-gin my practice, with Pat as one of my first
ythanged but fortunately that wonderful lad'
• IF -.4.---?9,---49t7E-5-rAnci 1
--, •€:- : ..?5
,...., ._:
— Alb ie Kern
/
--"fit4. t: ,.,. I, stcr ■
}-
1001 i I III _, bb._.
, r" _
t pp , _ sariti \iimitativa 1 7-:
1 / iii
, --
i iii Ella
\ --- — i
1 I
- II ' \ \ \
t
..‘ k '_
k I
, , Si '- $11ill \ ;it"
i 1, 3 111 III ', 1 0 ...0
ift irs ,
i \‘ pi i-kii.:.: -\\ --‘- _ • it
me.
\1 ‘'l C 1 Iasi kat I it •
\ I • •
17I \ i
I ‘ .
I .
k f.,,,pre ,
.. 1111,1001 . 1 _ ...,. •
Is
...
it
,,,icri,,\‘11.4, - rialiiii.w ar i - "‘ I i 'f1-54:71'1r....11111111111111111111111111111111tb lel:*
4 t I t 1111,1111113 .,,...
- I k1,1,411 10.
1
RECEIVED Inc
r} 1
fl , E
OCT 2010 ATTACHMENT 2 - Historic Preservation Land Use Applicatlo f * x ta
CITY OF ASPEN
COUMUNflY DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT: � _
Location: / tion: lll 10 E l - � ' yy VY)Lt11 � . � �✓)
Lot- M R(oct t9 C � P- Twnslk o ' 1n
(Indicate stre address, r lo block umber r metes and bounds description • property)
t'%
Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) 13 / — / O a- / tc Vv y
APPLICANT: 1 / /1 �
Name: 01 D E C7 y'v n ti-t- e% Charles* LClyi!- r"7Yz?
Address: !! O 6 t-11,4
Y / V }1 � ar TI u Aspen [^ Q � i
Phone #: q&5 5S Fax#: E-mail: `) ) charlPS (?CUnn1 [ •Qim
REPRESENTATIVE:
Name: Picts ( onc) P(Qrini t
Address: 1
Phone #: q'a5 -- 1 f 1 9 Fax#: 9 5-7395" E -mail: MkaAs (Scp(1.S • net"
TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply):
Cgt Historic Designation ❑ Relocation (temporary, on
E Certificate of No Negative Effect ❑ or off -site)
E Certificate of Appropriateness E Demolition (total
[11 -Minor Historic Development demolition)
❑ -Major Historic Development U Historic Landmark Lot Split
- Conceptual Historic Development
❑ -Final Historic Development
- Substantial Amendment
EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.)
n7 22 s mixed- 6vt /dot / .2 Wt
a Oacene /c aferf On 4- I sick bull/44 9t3.
PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.)
uzvadrnait, pislgka.Ai ol1 and a, rembcg/ cm315hrie of 4 {„ro -
3 CdcIi h afire - MT - h iS ori c rn 0karp6 (E-
Aspen Historic Preservation
Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: May 29, 2007
P22
ATTACHMENT 3 - Dimensional Requirements Form
(Item #10 on the submittal requirements key. Not necessary for all projects.) ,� '
Project: Y/I� {]i flUt� Cai ma 5, yi4c>nt Mc,� ��toevranl C `n 3' di
Applicant: rt! 6 r !1s C.L.0 C o , e a'
Project Fite Location: / �p )b 1}?(Jt1 ! Uf >�S/) t Cr)
Zone
District: C — I
Lot Size: 3 ODD
Lot Area: 3, 000
(Fot the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within
the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot
Area in the Municipal Code.)
Commercial net leasable: Existing:; 7/C Proposed: 3, 6S 0
Number of residential units: Existing: / Proposed: /
Number of bedrooms: Existing.541 n Proposed: /
Proposed % of demolition: ' �l ; J t
DIMENSIONS: (write n/a where no requirement exists in the zone g district)
Floor Area: ExistingAl: 7/ S Allowable: 2
1 Proposed: SC
Height 1 s 1 e � � q � n ��pp 37 1 4 n ¢h n e /eia - /dr)
Principal Bldg.: Existing 027 r / Allowable!/ 'w%M4 Ptbpos¢d: 7d r t tic /% e. / eu�! lD
Accessory Bldg.: Existing: N Allowable: 1J /R Proposed:
On -Site parking: Existing: 3 Required: 27 Proposed:
% Site coverage: Existing: ? Required: /1/,411, Proposed: No chartie
7
Open Space: Existing: . r Required: WA Proposed :NJ C44anq.2
Front Setback: Existing: /Q(/ . Required: /01 Proposed: No r'1 4)15 c
Rear Setback: Existing: Required: /VA Proposed: NO CA4rl .
Combined Front/Rear:
Indicate N. S. E. W Existing: --- Required: /I j Proposed: ''
Side Setback: Existing: t Required: /1 /» Proposed P
Side Setback: Existing: I Required: AV/1 Proposed: U7
Combined Sides: Existing: (7 Required: /1''/ ///, Proposed: 6
Distance between Existing: Q Required: ^r/14 Proposed:
buildings:
Existint non - conformities or encroachments and note if encroachment licenses have been issued:
V ariations requested (identify the exact variances needed): � ,�����
t 4 -= • - L R✓ t /' -..i tff I caren .�..�lrt 26,
Aspen Historic Preservation
Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: May 29, 2007
t tot 1- t
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8, 2010
Sarah said in the drawings the breezeway is lower.
Chris said the breezeway is about 15 inches lower so we don't have a lot of
play. We would like to get as high as we can.
Jamie said per the two drawings the ridge is exactly the same and we need to
make sure the breezeway is lower and that condition should be in the
resolution.
Ann said regarding the light well, it would go to the project monitor first and
if they are uncomfortable it would then go to the board.
Jay said he recommends that the public come and address the commission at
the time that it is offered.
MOTION: Ann moved to approve resolution #15 as proposed.
Sarah amended condition #1: The reconfigured breezeway is approved to
be below the ridge and eave of the garage. Motion second by Sarah. All in
favor, motion carried 6 -0.
610 E. Hyman Ave. — Landmark Designation, Major Development and
Commercial Design Review, Ordinance #48 negotiation, Public Hearing
Public notice - Exhibit I
Photo of bldg. — Exhibit II
Drawing of the building — Exhibit III
Amy said 610 E. Hyman was built for Patricia Moore and her well known
Aspen Gallery in 1963 and it was designed by Ellie Brickham, Aspen's first
woman architect. She attended the University of Colorado and worked with
Herbert Bayer before opening her own firm.
Charles Cunniffe is the owner of the building. He is here to discuss
voluntary designation and an addition to the back of the house that adds a
penthouse element. Staff finds that the landmark criteria are met, particularly
criteria C. This 1960 building relates to new formalism. As part of the
designation we need to look at the integrity scoring process. Staff scored 75
and the assessment was due to the alternations in the front of the building.
4
P24 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8, 2010
There is a removable canopy at the top of the building that has created a
cover that was previously opened to the sky. It has a barrel vault shape to it
and it changes the light in the space and affects the way the space looks. It
is reversible but scoring points were removed due to the change. The
ground level previously had arched openings similar to the top level and
they have been changed to a more of a squared off transom. The entry doors
were originally centered in the building and now moved to the outer edges.
The garden level did not exist historically. In the integrity score we brought
points down because the stucco appears to be originally white. Staff feels
this building is worth saving because we don't have very many examples of
Ellie Brickham's work.
Amy said in terms of the HPC guidelines the addition is sympathetic and not
visible from the street. Some of the incentives are standard and some are
new ideas that can be brought up for voluntary designation of a modern
building.
1. 500 square foot FAR bonus is being requested. Staff feels some of the
previous alterations should be considered to be taken back to the
original Ellie Brickham design. Staff is not suggesting changing the
floor plan of the building.
2. A parking waiver is being requested. A site visit occurred today and
there doesn't seem like there is any additional space for parking. As a
landmark incentive we are suggesting that the requirement be waived.
They should not have to provide anything on -site and they should also
have the waiver of the cash -in -lieu fee which has the value of about
$28,000. Landmark buildings are exempt from affordable housing
mitigation. The two new offices would generate around $250,000.
They do not have on -site trash storage right now and they share with the
building next door. This might be concerning if there is an addition being
made and we don't want to end up with a dumpster in the alley in the future
which is not an acceptable solution. On a free market residential unit in the
downtown there is a cap of 2,000 square feet and they would like to exceed
that. Typically the only way to do that is purchase a TDR, transfer
development right and they do not want to do that. TDR's are worth around
$250,000. and they would like to have the development right without having
to pay that. There is a request to not provide an elevator in the building.
This would cause a significant challenge in accessibility. In talking to the
Building Dept. this would probably not be waived. The applicant is
requesting rights for 12 years. This gives the applicant the time to decide
5
P25
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8, 2010
when to build. At the final review we should discuss restoration efforts.
They are also asking for a one foot in height increase for the addition which
is allowable for any building historic or not. The standard is no more than
36 feet tall and they are asking for 40 feet on the elevator. On the addition
we are requesting that it be set in a foot or so, so the facade isn't just up
three stories.
Mitch Haas, Haas planning.
Mitch said we are land marking the building in exchange for incentives. It is
not our intent to landmark and undo changes that were done for very good
reasons in the first place. All the changes proposed are on non - historic
portions of the property and they are fully set back from the property some
40 feet from the street facade. Asking for the height is allowed through the
Commercial Design review. There is an existing free market studio in the
building and the allowable FAR is 13 square feet more than what is already
there. The building has a lot of common space due to the split levels so a
good chunk gets pro -rated into the free market floor area. The only way to
expand the apartment is through the Ordinance #48 negotiations and we feel
we have done that where it is in the back on the non - historic part of the
building. Charles has off -site offices which are being rented. The proposal
is to ad a bedroom. We feel it is not much to ask in exchange for forever
having this property designated and HPC will have purview over the
property.
Charles Cunniffe, owner
On the trash service needs I have an agreement with the neighbor that has a
dumpster that we use and their recycling needs come to our building. In the
covered back we can always add a trash can. Council approved the addition
with the recycled cans as being adequate for our building. Almost
everything we do is recyclable materials, glass, newspaper and magazines.
Regarding the minor setback from the alley we can explore that but it does
cut into the bedroom space. Regarding the restoration the awning serves as
a valuable purpose. It serves as a snow removal area. There is no place to
throw the snow that collects there and having the awning allows the snow to
roll back to the roof and then melts and goes down the roof drains. I can
control snow management by virtue of the awning. The facade location has
not changed and the window line has always been there. Splitting the entries
allows the downstairs to be open when the upstairs isn't. Adding the light
well allowed light to the lower level and ventilation. This is an
improvement that doesn't detract from the history or look of the building.
6
P26 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8, 2010
The monochromatic look makes the building hold together. The columns by
themselves look like sticks. The white stucco with brick columns doesn't
hold well together.
Questions:
Jamie asked about the height. Charles said there is a slight slope from
sidewalk to alley. On the street side the height would comply but on the
back there is a one foot height difference request.
Nora asked Charles to explain the evolution of the changes of the building
by date.
Charles said he bought the building in 1989. The first change was a tenant
request which was moving the door from the center to the two sides. It was
important to not alter the columns and we stayed with non - structural
changes. The light well was done in 1991. When I moved in the space in
the late 90's is when the windows were changed. The awning windows now
double the view and light coming in. The existing stucco was painted at that
time. In 2002 the garage and lower level were added.
Chairperson, Sarah Broughton opened the public hearing. There were no
public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed.
Land marking:
Jay said the changes to the door specifically affect the landmark. The
addition of the awning is not in the spirit of the original design. If we vote
for land marking I would prefer to have input on color to preserve the
original intent.
Charles added that this building is a good example of a single occupant and
business residence and there aren't many of those left. It is a mixed us
building that was designed as a residence and a gallery.
Ann said she feels the building is modified way beyond land marking it. You
have lost the essence of the design. There is real lightness with the arches on
either story and the transparency of the top. The original was a very graceful
looking building. If you had the open roof top garden that would be
fabulous. Changing the arches and moving the entrance I couldn't support
designation of this building the way it is right now.
7
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION P 27
MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8, 2010
Nora said if this building is landmarked how far back could the changed be
removed.
Charles said except for the door being moved it is not that much different.
The door has been pushed to the side but it is still within the arched
definitions. I don't feel that is a negative at all. The atrium inside was
totally dysfunctional and a waste of space.
Nora said land marking is because it is a building that has historic value.
Charles said he thought the changes were in the spirit of the Ellie Brickham
building. I tried to do nothing evasive structurally. The taking of the lower
arches does not denigrate the building.
Jason said Ellie Brickham was trying to duplicate aqueducts and show the
verticality of a downtown building with brick columns with the lightness and
transparence of an aqueduct. She had a one -story building on the ground
with a transparent light structure above. She was taking a one -story building
and making it look like a two -story structure. The lightness of the upper
piece makes the building special. When you cap it and get the light out that
transparency is lost. I need to see an effort to make this a great project. A
light weight solar panel collecting PV roof that is semi - transparent like the
one in Wagner Park so you get light and see through the entire thing is a
suggestion. You need to get back to the original reading of the building.
Jamie said she is in agreement with the rest of the board members in getting
the facade back to the original state. For designation it is getting the arches
back and the light and dark coming back instead of monolithically.
Sarah said in order to recommend historic designation under criteria C you
need to do significant restorations of the building in order to get it back to
the period of significance. I would be curious to see how the bringing the
door back would work.
Charles said the door is in the middle of the conference room and can't be
changed.
Sarah also commented that the arches are significant. The proposed back is
incongruent to the original design.
8
P 28 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION •
MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8, 2010
Jay said it also needs to be mentioned if we designate we would be
preserving mass and scale of the building. With the new land use code
height can go to 46 feet. The idea of restoration is good but by preserving
what is left is preserving mass and scale in town.
Mitch said a good portion of this commission is taking the approach of all or
nothing. Unless you restore it back we aren't working with you.
Jay said we have the opportunity to preserve and work with these people.
This is not an exceptional piece of property that would warrant all the
requests and incentives. I don't want to see this die immediately and would
like to see what can be done. Maybe there is a medium that we all can work
with.
Charles said with the appraisal etc. he is giving up a lot if this is designated
and he is willing to do it. A bedroom is needed for his family. The doors
are just window infill's between columns. The architecture is the form of
the building which within are infill's.
Amy said this is the first time the HPC is dealing with a Post War
designation application in which the building is somewhat altered. This
building has gone through changes. Charles came here tonight to designate
the building as is and the HPC is on the opposite of the spectrum where you
want to see the building as it was. The applicant needs to determine if he
has any flexibility and the HPC needs to think about flexibility.
Charles said he is the second owner of this building since 1962. The
building is relatively unaltered. The alterations I made are non - invasive and
non - structural. I understand the merit of what this board does and as an
applicant it is painful to weight what you are giving up and I am asking for
flexibility. The awning is a removable device.
Jamie said she is fine where the doors are because I agree that it is more of
an infill. The lower arches and upper awning should be gone in order to
make that an airy two building approach and to restore it back in order to do
the designation.
Charles said Jason mentioned the roof and translucent solar panels. You
would get the best of both worlds, the light coming through plus the solar
energy.
9
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION P29
MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8, 2010
Jamie said she would be willing to look at that. With the stairway going up
to the next level what would the head clearance be and would it be fully
covered or not.
Charles said it could probably be done with a hatch.
Jason said there would be a flat panel over the entire thing like what they are
doing for the art museum.
Ann pointed out that the building in its current condition doesn't qualify for
designation and it doesn't meet any of the three criteria. Ordinance #48 is a
whole different program. With the task force they would not have
considered this building because it has been so modified. Ann said the
building is fine but it is not an example of Ellie Brickham's work.
Jay said possibly we should recommend to council to take this property off
the Ordinance #48 list.
Sarah said in the current state it doesn't fit the criteria for designation. That
doesn't mean that there isn't a middle ground. I would be willing to see a
solution keeping the doors where they are. We need to see something come
back so that we feel we are meeting the criteria.
Mitch said it is about the opportunity of keeping this building and work with
doing some preservation.
Sarah said she is willing to look at a middle ground. The middle course of
arched is critically important to the historic significance of the building.
Charles suggested the doors stay where they are and the translucent
awning /solar panels add light and put the arches back above the awning
window so that it is in a panel. You would still get the arch but the transom
window would stay and the arch appears.
Nora said if we are designating an Ellie Brickham building it needs to look
like an Ellie Brickham building. You need the light coming into the
building.
10
P30 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION •
MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8, 2010
Charles said emotionally he doesn't agree that it has been transformed
because he tried very hard to do things in keeping with the architecture and
not alter the building to where it is unrecognizable. I made it more livable in
the spirit of her work. I was trying to improve her building to make it more
functional.
Jason said he is willing to look at options in order to make this an
exceptional project. Jason said he is flexible on the door but likes the exhibit
that was presented. The transparent view up through the roof is good and the
color is important, the vertical columns are one color and the white infill for
the arches.
Back of the building comments:
Jason said he would like a response to the rhythm of the columns.
Sarah said she would like to see original drawings of the back of the
building before the alterations occurred.
Jay said the translucent roof would lessen the mass of the building from the
front view.
Jamie suggested a little more relief on the back due to the vertical wall.
MOTION: Jay moved to continue 610 E. Hyman to 1/26/2011; second by
Ann. All in favor, motion carried.
MOTION: Jay moved to adjourn; second by Sarah. All in favor, motion
carried.
Meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m.
Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
11
ri.r A P31
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: Historic Landmark Lot Split Code Amendment
DATE: January 26, 2011
HPC is asked to provide referral comments to P &Z and City Council regarding proposed code
amendments related to Historic Landmark Lot Splits.
There are two changes proposed:
1. To remove language that requires the purpose of the lot split to be for the creation of a
new single family house.
BACKGROUND: The historic preservation program has included special benefits for owners of
landmark properties since 1987. Among the original provisions was the ability to develop a free
market residential unit adjacent to the landmark structure, exempt from the Growth Management
Quota System (GMQS.) In 1995, the concept of allowing more than one home on a landmark
parcel morphed into the Historic Landmark Lot Split, whereby two units on a designated,
residentially zoned site could be on individual, fee simple Tots, rather than limited to a
condominium form of ownership. This was allowed in the R -6 and R -15A zone districts. In
2001, the Historic Landmark Lot Split was extended to Main Street, which is the bulk of the "0,
Office" zone district, and in 2002, R -15 and RMF were added. There have been 21 Historic
Landmark Lot Splits approved over the last 16 years.
According to the review criteria, a Historic Landmark Lot Split is to be for the purpose of
developing one new single - family dwelling. This has proven to be an awkward goal relative to
the Office, now renamed "MU, Mixed Use" zone district because in 2005 a number of
disincentives for the creation of new single family homes in the neighborhood were adopted,
such as a reduction in allowable floor area. As a result, if a home is the only use that can be
developed in this zone on a lot created by a Historic Landmark Lot Split, it has become much
less desirable from an owner's perspective than exercising the rights allowed for mixed use
buildings. Two lot splits approved on Main Street in 2005 never had a plat recorded because the
owners determined the restrictions were undesirable for them.
The proposed code amendment would allow any permitted use on a Mixed Use lot created
through a Historic Landmark Lot Split. Though Community Development is sponsoring the
code amendment, there is an advocate. In 2007, Michael Tullio requested this same code
amendment in order to allow the possibility of subdividing the condominium association
currently in place between Salon Tullio and Aspen Home Consignment. Each owner might wish
to be on a 3,000 square foot fee simple lot. The code amendment was reviewed in 2007,
1
P32
received the support of P &Z and proceeded to second reading at City Council. Council decided
not to take action because they were in the process of adopting Ordinance #48, and were
envisioning the creation of the Historic Preservation Task Force, who was to look at all aspects
of the program, including incentives. The Task Force did express general comments and
concerns about the possibility of overdeveloping historic properties through the award of
incentives including the Historic Landmark Lot Split, but did not make any specific
recommendations for changes.
In staff's estimation, there are approximately 6 lots in the Mixed Use Zone District that are
possible candidates for a Historic Landmark Lot Split. One of the goals of the lot split is to offer
an incentive to direct development pressure towards new buildings that are detached from the
adjacent historic resource. This may be more likely if the language requiring the development to
be a single family home is removed.
2. To extend the lot split to the C - 1 zone district.
The Commercial, C -1 zone district is comprised of three and a half city blocks between Hunter
and Spring Streets. There are four historic properties in this area, three of which are candidates
for a Historic Landmark Lot Split, which is not currently allowed. Again, the City is the
applicant for the code amendment to include the C -1 zone district in the program, but advocates
are Greg and Jane Hills, who own the three properties that might be good candidates for the lot
split. (The properties are currently occupied by Susie's, Six 2 Five Salon, and the former Adam
Walton house, historically known as the Berg House.) The Historic Landmark Lot Split may
provide more opportunities to separate ownership, diversify uses on these parcels, create
detached buildings on the lots, etc.
Staff requests HPC provide comments for P &Z and City Council consideration of the code
amendments.
•
2
D A
CHARLES CUNNIFFE
ARCHITECTS
ASPEN TELLURIDE STEAPABOAT SPRINGS
January 18, 2011
Amy Guthrie
Historic Planner
Community Development
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: 610 E. Hyman Avenue
Landmark Designation & Ordinance 48 Negotiation
Dear Amy,
We are submitting herewith our proposed modifications to the exterior facade
treatment that were discussed in the December 8, 2010 hearing before the
Historic Preservation Commission. The historic facade facing Hyman Avenue has
been modified by reinstating the arched elements above the existing awning
windows. These will be metal applications cut into the stucco spandrels to
simulate the original arched windows and create shadow lines. We are also
exploring the possibility of substituting translucent photovoltaic panels for the
existing canvas awning over the second level deck facing Hyman Avenue.
The previous submittal for the facade of the proposed non - historic addition on
the alley has been modified by going to more subtle colors to reduce the visual
impact. A second option which we also prefer is being presented which
continues the rain - screen material up to encompass the third floor in place of
the previous stucco panels.
We look forward to discussing these options with the HPC at the continued
hearing on January 26, 2011. Please let us know if more information is needed for
your review of this material.
Thank you,
Charles L. Cunniffe 1 Principal 1 AIA
enclosures
610 East Hyman Avenue • Aspen, Colorado 81611 • tel: 970.925.5590 • fax: 970.925.5076 • www.cunniffe.com
L Charles L. Cunniffe, AIA (Principal) Janver 0. Derrl n gton, AIA (Principal) Jim Gaffey (Senior Project Architect) Geoffrey Lester, R.A. (Senior Project Architect)
LU (n
U.
__. . z
Li- 0. ,
to
Z
_....
Z 0 -
a)
,
.
,.. f I
/ . Ct : '',' 1 v.. uj LAI
LU
< !
rem cui
. V' \: I' '''. - ' -
i
• .-, r • --
_I
0 U ( 7,c.
. .------:- . - 1 \
ss. • ' ‘ \ . •.
\ 1 - • . • V ••
1
.....''' \ ''' - s\ ( \ ' ' 1
ii
. - ...t \ i \kerk \ \ ■..,Th
. .
( V
..... ., •:,•
- • \ ,•
\
I .1 1 11111111Ilik ..• •
\_,,\,.
\ ,
',------ ,
\\ D
.....-, 0
&IA — -.
.--.....,„_____ ------- _ .. ‘.
; ; ...=_-_,---1. _ *
- l \
: r -.......--. ' . ... “------
e•-,
(
• - 6 0011 , . / :
_,..,fr _ r , k
...." r.:.:7-/,f" , t c....13 • 4.1.1 . ipi,, '41/4.. aimmiumr.o.."'W .1 ,t,
.7 •
'. ANA 41 4111WA.S.:*.V , 1 ■,,,
i 1‘111 7 7 ..k l 111--1°-1 7 81 :6_A ...4.71 4fr
A ,.,,,,„I - ., r , i • ., , i • i , i I : g
r , „., ■ ,' 1 ,7 '... ' , ...,,
it .'"'"" - ■-•.■. (ct .,.... II .!.. i ! 11 .
. - . f ..., . , ■r• '
/
,•
i i ingsymi 'si
' ------- --
I ,-:.. - -=- - - - .-_-- 7-.7_1 ■
,/ , .I
IN* --- — i • , -
, ! ! t \ ' I 111111111111111 • H
1 '-,--- • ' . • ' ' '' ... INNIi I:, I, i ; , .. , .:. ,i,J ..ki ," ' ' . .•
,
,......,. . - •
. .•,.....:_:ttr_el •
/ , - - - , ...- Jr 0- .- ,-. • ••••••• 01 1-----:=110 ,,
... 4 _ .4
.. 1 4 e itirtifil j ig
41111i d• 1 It
- .
•-.2. • 7,-, , -1) . i • A 4 9 .• 1 HORN .
• i • P ninfIENNIMMIWZI.1 Nitvf
.................... .......!..... .....t. 1
., 4":•.; : . li, ' 4 P 7 ..--.-W
eJ, cti . ....,---4 3 .,,,) 4.,pii Mil . • • %),: . „ . 1 .
lit
. ,
1 4
i . ,..-7.3 1 NIIIIIIt i....
r.:7.....nr—••-noir
-- 1
, iiiatitel
cr
' . ■ , , *s-3 - *1 4 / 11 '
I \
• . . ie --4( nS 'A' ..\ \ .:.,
,,; 14 4 k 41 ... .0
il y
IMENIN ilmi ab - c4
.:
z
..:
4 , \\., , . •
c.. .
, 71,t .. . . . irilli
z
ft
.:. s---- - \ --"'" ` alifiatra
.- .7...
- ,IP
: -- r
._.. .: ...4, .
. - 7 - ' - • - -.. -- Nipprr, -- ,....fa,
11 4.-kr'' won,
, ■wile, , R 1
. 11111rueb....
? ..., ...... 4 , ' ..../. ARM NW1
i .11 1 AlF111110:MVi 1:
,. d 41.1111.1111111111111111 . • . 1
1 '.. ,---M - /1-4 ' .:.;.
1
d ,
.:: 1 .1 ..........i5
i k'
f /. \\r•-•)( - - -. I amon! i
. r s \ • i, . .-, • .,,,
\ • ' . . •\:■ 1 AllialltaiMatiti/M - 'Irv- , .i . , LU
*- . : W1,‘‘‘ : - ' - v i I phi " `AI t P\I I L f 4 . •
%I, • _ .,..... a .a..,.... .,
,
r
• . ..' “ . .-'
Li..j
. 11144 1111hh k.
' .>‘,..: 's. . ^- ''..- bit■. . • ' V N .
.„,:-..--- ...—.... li ....- .......--*r
7 -• AS L
.... '.-:-• -..:-7:- ,
••••• .- ........... •- • "
.. N
- • I Mr-,.../Plif ....er;
li Z a Z
•
/ .....
I , 1 41 11
L14
r U 0
• 11
1_4 \., • 1,,
Ll. t X
.,.
' . , . - .' •,..N %ss.t.,...„. I. u.. L_LL
. .
•
...„),.........._ ,) . _,._..., ...„...„4.1wle 44....... i .
• .
..1. .,.
.
LLJ
• ,• :.._:___,___....._,:_,,,i _.• , N.. .cip,........,......-_--44:,-
..i. _.
_-.41,•-•.— 111110-- ..
_ , , ..... „..7..___. ....._ -..,21 ...",_________,......„.-
•
. _
- • i - .
p....-
. . ,
... .1-„
..-
W
LL z
U. a
N
Z
Q
Z °
m
D lb 4
U F- W
U N
CO W W
a J I - 3
• IX W
;! . ..) 1.4 gpmel•■••■■•••Y Q U
V V c a
' 11' a� ;
r " .
2 . r..,..r j ..j\/ -- ... .. '"'N. : illi
/ .. ,
1 D
. frN Cii
. i ;1 r ' di
i . .
. Q
t o • " • i. I/ . ,- \ :
j Q
, __ -C: '-' 10
ll'\' " •
• -i 1'\ i gib .__.....1.,,,,-_-y, . 1. .4
ir____, ._.....___—„,, 0 Id ::::--,
,I. _ .,,.- p....1.4. i
4 ›._
d 0,
. .; .,_ •••••,1
1.,.. 7; ,11\-01 • 1 ., - mil
oraa - •
,,,
,. 7,•? • ..., 4 . \' ' ' 1
) ' —,,c
LC: N ir7 l* \) t. " " \
rr
I P • 1 tit . .7... 1I111111111.
,-4 .. --/ ' ' c .1 / ?, I '-' AC' 4 • T
6 * A \-.-.:-_ , .A 6..... 1,, lit "' "`"" +
1 1141 : N- 1 -?,
. _._ \
=';.= ; cZ \ '1'4
( - --- Vii 1 w
..t •i'e'l i i (.: 4 1 ..
.
•., w
1 1.1 u
� • ° b � 0 c
1,,z,‘:i. ' Z w
cc a
6 Ill II u 0
,....,
OZ
Il .. . Q W
U ti
C.) V)
1
•
7 , _,-
f — w tn
LL Z
• E
a
N
Z
Q
Z
m
^
,
, VJ a
W
• U
• (� w
• 1 W W o
■ F.
• W
t (1) V V x cc w
! ► 1' r �- a
.'
/ : a �
ii
1 Mil Ie
11 11 .
' IIIINI 1
' u:
•
In . ,I ,.., .,
'qttml.iipi .
1 I
, _.
I :. 1 .: ..:.,.:.
. . 1
..
4 .
lilt .) I ��
, .... ., „. !
,_
Mal �• 1 11, 1
1 _. 11.11 „,,,,..i , 1 , ., , ,..,
1 6...,,,:0- : ;..1 ,,.1
L. ,
s. '-1
H
i N
VI' C
h� j
z
•
4
6
e' 1011..
r
Z
U
•
. V)
f q .. ' W
. . i • .., I �I
V
y
O
_ , Q Ca
a • r. (..) ' � 1 l
f rr ,
k
W a
LL z
il a
N
Z N
Q
m
Sr, V + N
i (/ / W w
f ` < J o
y �`a _ b ( 1 = W
T \ ' ti 't il
i ---- - -- .: . . my _ i ‘ 9 . V U 55 :4-)j
•': .. •4 • . ,
Z.: 1 MI ' ". - ji 1 ‘V ‘..'' . .
\ I • s \ -'. Q • 1 1 •
� 1
III
. 1 1 , . \
111... ... ' 'i\' 37 ' 1 1611Tiliii .
^ _�`� 4� �1r— —f —.. ~1
_' ti �� r -ITT f -,
•
/ .... ` i I i \ `11�� 1
A • ,� �r rte' 'il'!• ?N.: _ + „ f , ��`� ,.....„,,
J, t ) + ! I i k p J
- )) . yeco..---w41111 -- ' : , , 1j 1 .., 1 ., a F I r I ii ''i) • ill� �i�f =,,
/. 11 " mot ,f ! ' I' . •
1. r --`�
Aillrii 't� I1lRlI
/ .
II 111
/ ..
. ''V. di . i 4 ilk
.. 1, , 'imelpiis
•11 .* ladle tili Ilion , - .
/
0 4 7 10,_
...., ..t , j
-ilk 7t_lro,
. , • ••
n. ,
• „, , . i „
. L. , ' .,..,.*:, !sills t N tlk 24
_ �ti +err 11. •
�\ i $ iu T t Cel
• ,..: , .
� , rk , NYl1llliTil /���4 ��i' I .,a� j ��i i , . • �
'. \ It l
• 4 , , k . 1 t 'lei` `N :il. 'fi!, . i
. ' ' • ‘. ...t• \\.•-\__, :IN ........... , 1 , 1 ,,,,, I R ,, , „ .1) ,
, ., ----,_,,,r..,... ,„, ,,.,,..., _ /
. , ,s,,, ,..•,. ,„„.... ......., ..,...,.................._,....„
, _ ,
.......„
' • --7--- inirr .....N.-- - . .... ........, •
L
• \ .0111 7 _ : • N ., il i i .:r.,�...►;s ., 1 iliL
M. w
._ „ w
. t , 1111‘1111111k, ...IISkr.• a4 4 , ,i u
•
(.,, ---.....
.. 2 .- -.=-.- z...„ ..j: _,.: -. r--'' .,. . , _____,7 I )7. t i * 1 - it I U-I Q.)
• ' **Iii .■KLAINtrif . ,.... . 4 :'" k i
.0 / [0..... . . .
CZ CL
. . \ k i
-mot �'�, ` `• ` 1` -
0 i t
1
1 1 "• 1 .�
-0 'f� ~fir-
iJ z
W
LL F.
LL
N
Z a
Z °
M
C — W
r
C) y
W
■ J~ J
a�
� V V =° N
11 L Va
. ;- 1
\ , - .
' fill -
- 1.- -= l ��
.� illii .
./ ,. '. 1. j •,. \\I o
'
1
, ' . ''' V
L 2 i 1 .
• t .-- ...., . 1
i; ,.
I4, ,
o
,-. 'a \ '.
. \ , l.„
��. -�
ii ' 1. 1 .7.i . ) ■,■ g . :1 , : . T, ,, , ./ WA II, • 4, ,
i1 ,- .
. .,. IN ....■............ %,:, . ,-,.z
F Am si, ir) ,.., . . _ [N T II
mc.'17-vili \';(.'.. ,, . ":
-....:-.1„... 1. ., 91 I
' .. ''' /1r; . ...,, .A11 0 0 ,
. - ,1 , , _ ,g --••41.....---‘• •‘
—\
_���
L,a_..._.'.
\ SI
' €:.=11 I _. _ c ...... c 3 \ , *
.-
r �Q 1 l ., Li.'
W
47r)\)". 'e . ILI
• s. ti
L 40
[I i;
w
R.L Z ct
k LI— • a u_, Lu
c( ct-
.. . , L. p• A
...•:. .:, ,
,..• • , • ,,.. u..., ,
....,. .. . .
:,... u o
:. . .6 .111 : ,
Li- c
1M 4. 14 -
• w
Q w
U I
W
LL z
. LL 2
a
— y
4
Z 0
m
M tn
,. •k V H N
.. • 1 1 N U w
W W 0
� + a
CC I W
•
�� 0 0 z oc
.... .., t * . � • . • . .
AL '': 1
► is ; _
I I
I. '
t� ; ;
�
1 �
; l / �I 11
0 t j j t/ y I * -
� 'I ` s
1 Ty ■
r ', l J ' hy'. t } i +
Milt =9 _
loll ., '
Vai N Y , }
IN NI i ��'
:
.. 4 I
11111111.111111.11101 ,
N
It, 06 x' Q QC
k
i
- i
_ 5 a ..
., .4....“, ,
..
r ..............„.1..
Y „, . ...
.. _,. —4,L ... . , ,
s'
,
r 11 4
N
T
Y � # V)
1 W�
, s 4
' O - t - ; kr ' u...,
z ci..
u..iv)
z.
,44
Lucl.
,� w
1...!.....
i ..,
:,,
, ,: „
1 , ,, O Q
i
•
t. ,, v
it
1 i
0 t
.1 i
EXHLDVr
0
A
CHARLES CUNNIFFE
ARCHITECTS
ASPEN TELLURIDE STEAMBOAT SPRINGS
January 26, 2011
Amy Guthrie
Historic Planner
Community Development
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: 610 E. Hyman Avenue
Landmark Designation & Ordinance 48 Negotiation
Dear Amy,
Pursuant to your comments regarding our proposed modifications submittal,
dated January 18, 2011, we are submitting the enclosed photographs to illustrate
our intention regarding the arched window heads and photovoltaic canopy
that we are proposing.
Photograph No. 1 shows the window head treatment that was used on the
historic City Shop Building below the Castle Creek Bridge. This is an anodized
aluminum sheet in a lower arched form than we are proposing.
Photograph No. 2 shows the photovoltaic roof canopy over the public restrooms
at Wagner Park. We are gathering technical specifications for the type of
application that will be appropriate for 610 E. Hyman to present at HPC final
review.
1
We hope this information will be useful in the continued HPC conceptual review
this evening.
Sincerely,
Charles L. Cunniffe 1 Principal 1 AIA
enclosures
4 610 East Hyman Avenue • Aspen, Colorado 81611 • tel: 970.925.5590 • fax: 970.925.5076 • www.cunniffe.com 1 1
Charles L. Cunniffe, AIA (Principal) Janver C. Derrington, AIA (Principal) Jim Guffey (Senior Project Architect) Geoffrey Lester. R.A. (Senior Project Architect)
1 ,-/' ....f 1 , W ..+ ,.t� A 'r l � � K P : r "�" e . 1 _ � T },•1 _ •
7.N....=,. ii �' y 1 • -. F „ .44t . .nd' P' }
1 .4��•' ` w p b : r' R M .��` 12. �.: 'x.. ......?"41•4? � t t -. �z ir
-S• s a 'F l , •
...,.•r,,,_.
1
Fes ..: i .....> � r . �.yf � r i
iA- r 1 .v rJi. F r.
I �.y ,W .Y E.sf 2�'UG
t , • .�: N -.
• ? ■ t 1
. L 1 inio . . .. , ,a, ...
4
k;
L
X
Y i t
. 1
. .
•
) `....*.,' _
. . ....... ... „... S .. .
- _
_ _ _ •• ... _ _ _ _
...,
, .
r
.,.. .
•
III
■
0 . S 7 := ,,,, I = i , :=1
1 111 1
. . ,
,... ......7 .7. -4...7; „...._ ,:c7 : :•,7_ , ,, .,...,,,.. . ink i lk 71111,
IP 111
. _. . .
e i' - ';' i I lia T.:...
. . •• ..• -r.' . : • ••-• 2 -_ -•- _ -- -... - -
4 - - - - - •
7:
-. • r •• - -• ; -•-•--.__-• --,•_":"-_-',.. iliW ' A; 0 S S 111
'k.,';' !.. 7- .. 7 .... - .... - 2 -- .1.:1 1 '..1";=_Jit2.1IT..iEf,•-'t - -.77F- - ,,....171
• •
. . _
• . • :.--. _ . - . -._ ,
. • - •
W ill' • • 4. • .- , as S1S \
- . .. .__-__• . •
. • . _..._ .--, '
.4,
.,.-.•,,
'. ,:- I,.. •..:'
', ''''..T - '• . - , ''''....' '::-, .= - ' " --, \Vri." - ' ,,,..,
.,'.. .7" . ' '. i ,. . .. .7ww. '''? '' - A ''',
' •' •• '"..4i . . :•- • - r •
' •••• \'-- A • C . . ' 7... '`,.
- • ' • - at • -,..- . '
4 ' ....Al*. •-.' ,' . _'• 1
.. . _
- -
. Iv , It , - •-•
ae,
7 • ,--,•
' •••• ..).'irA . • %.... •'. A • . . 7 : A .* AN ' ' 4 ..- - .. . . ,,. . .... . - . . .
• .. ,
.. . .
..... _.
_ .
I - ,,,..,... . • . •-• — • .- . _ - i lir
. . .
1
, ....
-- ,.:!.,- -...........• ..---,--
=4t
, I
. .. . ..
. . _.... \ • '
- .. .. . , ..
. . ,
.------- ---...-- ..--... -
_ .. •,.•
',..- ' , . •.,... ... . . . .. , ., ' 7 11,WW"".• ,
1. .
. ,, . . .. . r, -, . - r - . •
_ ....
•-•-1 , .
. .. ,
/4 0
.-..
0 .1
. .
, - \,. - •
. ..
..,.., -..., - .....
/ ..........„, .,-..- • • - - ',
...... I V °
)
• .t
I