HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20120111 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 11, 2011— 5:00 P.M.
CITY COUNICL MEETING ROOM
130 S. GALENA
ASPEN, COLORADO
SITE VISIT- NONE
I. Roll call
II. Approval of minutes — Dec. 7th and Dec. 14 minutes.
III. 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 #20 )
IX. Submit public notice for agenda items
I. OLD BUSINESS
A. 217 E. Sleeker — Conceptual Major Development, On -Site
Relocation, Demolition and Variances — open and continue
the Public Hearing to February 8, 2012
II. NEW BUSINESS
A. 119 Neale Avenue — Landmark Designation, Historic
Landmark Lot Split and Variances (30 min.)
III. WORK SESSIONS
A. 208 E. Main Street (30 min.)
B. Elections (15 min.)
C. Board retreat kick -off — Planning for future retreat time (30
min)
IV. Adjourn 7:00 p.m.
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
*Make sure the motion includes what criteria are met or not met.
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.
PROJECT MONITORING- Projects in bold are currently under construction.
Ann Mullins Boomerang
604 W. Main
Lift One
316 E. Hopkins
Brian McNellis 332 W. Main
Fox Crossing
Jamie Brewster McLeod 630 E. Hyman
518 W. Main
Jay Maytin 920 W. Hallam
518 W. Main
28 Smuggler Grove
Red Butte Cemetery
Lift One
Nora Berko 28 Smuggler Grove
Willis Pember 508 E. Cooper
M: \city \planning\hpc project monitoring\PROJECT MONITORING.doc
1/6/2012
It P2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 117/119 Neale Avenue- Historic Landmark Designation, Historic Landmark Lot
Split and Variances, Public Hearing
DATE: January 11, 2012
SUMMARY: 117/119 Neale Avenue is a 15,000 square foot lot that contains a non - historic
single family home and an 1880s era log cabin that was moved into the City of Aspen from its
original location along Owl Creek Road. The cabin is a voluntarily deed restricted Accessory
Dwelling Unit.
The owner proposes voluntary landmark designation and a Historic Landmark Lot Split. The
deed restriction would be removed from the cabin, which would become a free market home.
The applicant's stated goal is ensure the long -term preservation of the cabin as is, and to direct
any future development potential towards the lot that contains the non- historic home.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:. Staff recommends that HPC support landmark designation and
the lot split, and grant variances with conditions.
APPLICANTS: Jeffrey Shoaf, property owner.
PARCEL ID: 2737 - 073 -53 -002.
ADDRESS: 117/119 Neale Avenue, Lot 2, Amended Shoaf's Waterfall Subdivision, together
with the property described on the deed recorded in Book 799 at Page 660, City and Townsite of
Aspen, Colorado City and Townsite of Aspen.
ZONING: R -15, Moderate Density Residential.
HISTORIC DESIGNATION
26.415.030.B. Aspen Victorian Criteria. To be eligible for designation on the Aspen Inventory
of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures as an example of Aspen Victorian, an individual
building, site, structure or object or a collection of buildings, sites, structures or objects must
have a demonstrated quality of significance. The quality of significance of properties shall be
evaluated according to the criteria described, below. When designating a historic district, the
majority of the contributing resources in the district shall meet the criteria described below:
1
P3
a. The property or district is deemed significant for its antiquity, in that it contains
structures which can be documented as built during the 19 century, and
b. The property or district possesses an appropriate degree of integrity of location,
setting, design, materials, workmanship and association, given its age. The City
Council shall adopt and make available to the public score sheets and other devices
which shall be used by the Council and Historic Preservation Commission to apply
this criterion.
Staff Finding: The log cabin at 117 Neale Avenue was built in the 1880s. The applicant has
submitted information about the relocation of this building from Snowmass to Stillwater Road in
the 1960s, then Neale Avenue in the 1990s.
The cabin has not been designated in the City of Aspen up to this point primarily because it was
moved into the City after most of the inventories of Victorian era historic resources were
completed. HPC did present an award to the applicant for the renovation of the cabin.
The historic portion of the building is essentially the log walls that define the original cabin. At
the time that the Benedict family rescued the cabin from "demolition by neglect," the roof was
already gone. Benedict, and then Jeffrey Shoaf, built a new roof, added a porch, altered some
windows, and constructed a small addition on the north side of the building.
The cabin is significant for its antiquity. There are very few examples of mining era log cabins
remaining in the area.
There is no appropriate integrity scoring form to use for this property because the forms that have
been created for 19 century residential buildings generally refer to structures that have wood
siding and Queen Anne related detailing. The scoring form for Rustic buildings refers to
structures built in the 20` century. The cabin in question does not have integrity in terms of
location or setting given that it was built in Snowmass, in a more rural environment. It does have
integrity in the fact that the scale of the building is preserved, the original log walls are preserved
and the original craftsmanship is evident.
The cabin also has historical association with Fritz Benedict. Benedict's role as a pioneer
architect in postwar Aspen, and as an influential mentor to many designers who arrived here from
the 50s and on, is well documented in the research paper "Aspen's Twentieth- Century
Architecture: Modernism 1945 - 1975."
Staff finds that criteria A and B are met and supports landmark designation.
HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT
In order to complete a Historic Landmark Lot Split, the Municipal Code states that the
application shall meet the following requirements of Aspen Land Use Code: Section
26.480.030(A)(2) and (4), Section 26.470.070(C), and Section 26.415.120(A). Recent
amendments to the code have rendered the latter two code citations inaccurate. Section
2
P4
26.470.070(C) previously provided for Growth Management exemption of a new home on a
Historic Landmark Lot Split parcel. The exemption is now found at Section 26.470.060.
Section 26.415.120(A) refers to appeals of HPC decisions. The correct code citation is
26.415.110(A), which is procedures for review of Historic Landmark Lot Splits. The relevant
code sections are addressed below.
26.480.030(A)(2), SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIONS, LOT SPLIT
The split of a lot for the purpose of the development of one detached single - family dwelling on a
lot formed by a lot split granted subsequent to November 14, 1977, where all of the following
conditions are met:
a) The land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the Pitkin County Board
of County Commissioners or the City Council, or the land is described as a metes
and bounds parcel which has not been subdivided after the adoption of subdivision
regulations by the City of Aspen on March 24, 1969. This restriction shall not
apply to properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and
Structures; and
Staff Finding: The property is located in a subdivision approved by the City, however there is
an exemption from this standard for historic properties.
b) No more than two (2) lots are created by the lot split, both lots conform to the
requirements of the underlying zone district. Any lot for which development is
proposed will mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.470.070(B);
and
Staff Finding: The applicant proposes to create two lots. Lot 1, which will contain the existing
non - historic house will be 12,762 square feet in size. Lot 2, with the cabin, is proposed to be
3,040 square feet in size. Both conform to the minimum lot size of 3,000 square feet for Historic
Landmark Lot Splits. The buildings will not be required to mitigate for affordable housing
because they are existing units. The deed restriction that has dedicated the cabin as an ADU
since 1998 will be removed.
c) The lot under consideration, or any part thereof, was not previously the subject of a
subdivision exemption under the provisions of this chapter or a "lot split"
exemption pursuant to Section 26.470.040(C)(1)(a): and
Staff Finding: The land has not received a subdivision exemption or lot split exemption.
d) A subdivision plat which meets the terms of this chapter, and conforms to the
requirements of this title, is submitted and recorded in the office of the Pitkin
County clerk and recorder after approval, indicating that no further subdivision
may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of
applicable approvals pursuant to this chapter and growth management allocation
pursuant to Chapter 26.470.
3
P5
Staff Finding: The subdivision plat shall be a condition of approval. It must be reviewed by the
Community Development Department for approval and recordation within 180 days of final land
use action.
e) Recordation. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in
the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder. Failure on the part of the
applicant to record the plat within one hundred eighty (180) days following
approval by the City Council shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of
the plat by the City Council will be required for a showing of good cause.
Staff Finding: The subdivision exemption agreement shall be a condition of approval.
f) In the case where an existing single-family dwelling occupies a site which is
eligible for a lot split, the dwelling need not be demolished prior to application for a
lot split.
Staff Finding: No demolition is proposed.
Maximum potential buildout for the two (2) parcels created by a lot split shall not
exceed three (3) units, which may be composed of a duplex and a single-family
home.
Staff Finding: A total of two units are planned for this property.
26.480.030(A)(4), SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIONS, HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT
a.) The original parcel shall be a minimum of six thousand (6,000) square feet in size
and be located in the R -6, R -15, R -15A, RMF or 0 Zone District.
Staff Finding: The subject parcel is 15,017 square feet and is located in the R -15 Zone District.
b.) The total FAR for both residences shall be established by the size of the parcel and
the Zone District where the property is located. The total FAR for each lot shall be
noted on the subdivision exemption plat.
Staff Finding: FAR is based on the lot size of the "fathering," i.e. existing parcel. In this case,
deductions are required due to the topography of the site. The FAR that remains available after
slope calculations is approximately 4,833 square feet.
The applicant represents that all FAR will be allocated to the non - historic house on Lot 1, except
what is needed to cover the cabin in its existing condition. Staff finds that this meets the
underlying goal of the Historic Landmark Lot Split, which is to removed development pressure
from historic buildings.. An exact tabulation of how FAR will be assigned to Lot 1 and Lot 2 is
needed at least by Council review because the numbers will be recorded on the subdivision plat.
4
P6
c.) The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying
Zone District. The variances provided in Paragraphs 26.415.120.B.1.a, b and c are
only permitted on the parcels that will contains an historic structure. The FAR
bonus will be applied to the maximum FAR allowed on the original parcel.
Staff Finding: The development is expected to meet the dimensional requirements of the zone
district except for variances to FAR, as described above, setbacks and parking, addressed below.
26.415.110(A), Benefits. This section describes the review process for Historic Landmark Lot
Splits. The process is being properly followed. Both HPC and Council will hold noticed public
hearings, with Council making their final determination based on a recommendation from HPC.
FAR BONUS
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
building's form, materials or openings;
e. The construction materials are of the highest quality;
f. 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.
Staff Response: The cabin/ADU is approximately 700 square feet in total size, though the floor
area calculation would likely be less since half the unit is mostly below grade. As an ADU, the
cabin was exempted from FAR up to 350 square feet. When the cabin becomes a free market
unit on the new lot, the ADU FAR exemption will be forfeited. The applicant requests a 500
square foot FAR bonus so that no more of the cabin counts in FAR than is currently the case, and
a small amount of bonus FAR can be allocated to the non - historic house as a preservation
incentive. Staff supports the variance request. The cabin is to be preserved as is. HPC will have
design review purview over the adjacent home.
SETBACK VARIANCES
The criteria for granting setback variances, per Section 26.415.110.B of the Municipal Code are
as follows:
In granting a variance, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance:
a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district;
and /or
5
P7
b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural
character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic
district.
Staff Response: When the cabin was moved to the site, the Planning and Zoning Commission
granted a front yard setback variance to allow the building to be 15 feet from the street instead of
the required 25 feet. A new 10' setback variance would be necessary because the parcel that the
cabins sits on is being reconfigured.
Zoning requires a 10' setback between the existing house and the new lot line, which is being
provided. Zoning requires a 10' setback between the cabin and the new lot line, which is not
physically possible. The applicant can provide a 5' north sideyard setback on the cabin lot, and
requests HPC approval of a 5' setback reduction. Staff supports the variance as an incentive for
landmark designation of the cabin with no further additions.
ON - SITE PARKING
Currently the cabin/ADU is provided with a parking space in the driveway of the main house.
Once the lot is subdivided, 2 parking spaces are required for the lot that contains the cabin. The
applicant is requesting that these 2 spaces be waived. 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: It is not physically possible to place any more than one parking space on Lot 2
given required parking dimensions, restrictions on the width of driveway curb cuts, existing
vegetation and topography. Any driveway or parking area tucked in along the north or south side
of the cabin would likely have a negative visual impact on the historic resource.
That said, there is no on- street parking available. Staff recommends that HPC waive one space
and that the applicant provide further analysis of the options for one on -site space on Lot 2,
ideally gravel or grasscrete, before the HPC approves waiver of the full parking requirement.
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 support landmark designation and the
Historic Landmark Lot Split. Staff recommends that HPC grant a 500 square foot FAR bonus, a
10' front yard setback variance, a 5' north sideyard setback variance, and waiver of up to two on-
6
P8
site parking spaces for the lot containing the historic cabin. The lot split plat must represent that
no more FAR than is necessary to cover the existing cabin is allocated to Lot 2
Exhibits:
Resolution #1, Series of 2012
A. Application
•
7
P9
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF HISTORIC LANDMARK
DESIGNATION AND HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT, AND GRANTING
VARIANCES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 117/119 NEALE AVENUE, LOT 2,
AMENDED SHOAF'S WATERFALL SUBDIVISION, TOGETHER WITH THE
PROPERTY DESCRIBED ON THE DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 799 AT PAGE 660,
CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO
RESOLUTION #1, SERIES OF 2012
PARCEL ID: 2737 - 073 -53 -002
WHEREAS, the property owner, Jeffrey Shoaf, has requested voluntary historic landmark
designation, historic landmark lot split and variances for the property located at 117/119 Neale
Avenue, Lot 2, Amended Shoat's Waterfall Subdivision, together with the property described on
the deed recorded in Book 799 at Page 660, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado City and
Townsite of Aspen; 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, in order to complete a Historic Landmark Lot Split, the applicant shall meet the
frequirements of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.480.030; and
WHEREAS, the HPC may grant up to five hundred (500) additional square feet of allowable
floor area for projects involving designated historic properties according to Section 26.415.110.F,
Floor Area Bonus. 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
building's form, materials or openings;
e. The construction materials are of the highest quality;
f. 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; and
WHEREAS, the HPC may approve setback variances according to Section 26.415.110.C.1.a,
Variances. In granting a variance, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance:
•
117/119 Neale Avenue
HPC Resolution #1, Series of 2012
Page 1 of 3
P10
a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district;
and/or
b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural
character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic
district; and
WHEREAS, the HPC may grant parking waivers according to the review standards of Section
26.415.110.0 of the Municipal Code are met. In granting a variance, the HPC must make a
finding 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; and
WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report to HPC dated January 11, 2012, performed an
analysis of the application and recommended that HPC support Historic Landmark Designation
and Historic Landmark Lot Split and grant variance approval with conditions; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on January 11, 2012, the Historic Preservation
Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review
standards and granted approval by a vote of x to x.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby recommends Council approval of Historic Landmark Designation and Historic
Landmark Lot Split and grants approval for variances with the following conditions:
1) HPC grants a 500 square foot FAR bonus.
2) HPC grants a 10' front yard setback variance, a 5' north sideyard setback variance, and
waiver of up to two on -site parking spaces for the lot containing the historic cabin.
3) The lot split plat must represent that no more FAR than is necessary to cover the existing
cabin is allocated to Lot 2.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 11` day of January,
2012.
Ann Mullins, Vice Chair
Approved as to Form:
Jim True, Special Counsel
117/119 Neale Avenue
HPC Resolution #1, Series of 2012
Page 2 of 3
P11
ATTEST:
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
117/119 Neale Avenue
HPC Resolution #1, Series of 2012
Page 3 of 3
o6a ' 14%,
ATTACHMENT 2 -LAND USE APPLICATION
2a:10 Pa
PROJECT:
Name: 0 rkek /Art 1 ,.. Q A �//�//) �� �� �/�G Location: (t4- j 1f4 A) r CO , F( ( ,'
(Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description ere appropriate) ¢1
Parcel ID # (REQUIRED)
APPLICANT: r
Name:
51fir S g7
Address: • 5 d AAte/ i A ir I f Z
Phone #: ��1L� el__ (( ills .. ' g 0 c J
REPRESENTATIVE:
�, ,
Name: — EMA K
Address: Y
Phone #:
TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply):
❑ GMQS Exemption ❑ Conceptual PUD ❑ Temporary Use
❑ GMQS Allotment ❑ Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) ❑ Text/Map Amendment
❑ Special Review ❑ Subdivision ❑ Conceptual SPA
❑ ESA – 8040 Greenline, Stream ❑ Subdivision Exemption (includes ❑ Final SPA (& SPA
Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Amendment)
Mountain View Plane
❑ Commercial Design Review ❑ Lot Split ❑ Small Lodge Conversion/
Expansio •
❑ Residential Design Variance ❑ Lot Line Adjustment A Other: 'j(q «/
❑ Conditional Use Va. ONl
EXISTING CONDITII)NS: (description of e isting buildings, uses, revious approvals, etc.) p `t v ��
e l . 1 ' n , & 4 (description
ca n,i 4b f,(
PROPOSAL: (descripti o n of proposed buildi • s, uses, modificatio Js, etc.)
_ / . In L ! A. 1 _ .. .i11t 1 Lt)'
Have yQu attached the following? FEES DUE: $ 1 1 } l 0 • p
❑ Pre - Application Conference Summary
❑ Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement
❑ Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form
❑ Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements- Including Written Responses to Review Standards
❑ 3 -D Model for large project
All plans that are larger than 8.5" X 11" must be folded. A disk with an electric copy of all written text
(Microsoft Word Format) must be submitted as part of the application. Large scale projects should include an
electronic 3 -D model. Your pre - application conference summary will indicate if you must submit a 3 -D model.
XFINITY Connect Page 2 of 3
P13
From: jeffshoaf @comcast.net
To: "jeffshoaf' <jeffshoaf @wmcast.net>
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 8:05:56 PM
Subject: Benedict Cabin History
October 31, 2011
attention: Amy Guthrie
"THE BENEDICT CABIN HISTORY ", updated and with additional paragraph
117 Neale Avenue, Aspen
According to Jens Christianson, who was very familiar with the cabin and lived on Owl Creek Road for most of his 90 plus years
only a couple of miles from the original cabin site (which is where the Snowmass Tmbers Club is now, at the bottom the Elk Camp Lifts),
the "Benedict Cabin" was originally built in the 1800's by a Scandinavian woodsman and trapper, who was locally well known as
an excellent cabin builder and overall craftsman. Back in the 1990's, I told Jens about my plans to acquire and move the cabin from the
Benedict's Stillwater Road land to my property across Neale Avenue from No Problem Joe's historic home site. When we talked about
the 1886 newspaper article that was still attached to one of the logs inside, lens was not surprised, and just nodded his head and smiled
his approval!
In the early 1970's, Fritz and Fabi Benedict decided that the cabin was architecturally and historically too valuable to just let go
to waste or be turned into firewood like so many other beautiful and historic cabins of the valley, and it was clearly in the path of future
development where it was. By then, there was no roof on the cabin as evidenced by a 1973 photograph, and the exterior, hand hewed
log walls were falling in on each other and the place was heading downhill fast! The Benedicts decided something had to be done to save
the cabin as an example of 1880's era local architecture and construction. They carne up with the idea of disassembling and moving the
cabin to their vacant Stillwater Road property on the river near the old gravel pits in East Aspen, to be rebuilt and preserved there. Their
original idea as I was told was to rebuild the cabin for the use of their daughter, Jessica. Unfortunately, when the cabin project
was nearly complete, the Benedict's Cabin got "red tagged" by the building department for reasons I do not know and was never
completely finished. In spite of the fact that the exterior logs were fully chinked and finished, the front porch beautifully designed and
built, the windows and doors were all installed and completed, and the wood shingled roof and fish scale accents were finished, ....and
the entire cabin was basically "weather tight" and ready to go, it was still red tagged. Even though there was a dishwasher and sink in
the kitchen section and a modern bathroom downstairs, I do not believe the cabin was ever fully operational. The cabin did remain very
functional and served various purposes over the years, including finally being the Resnick's construction headquarters during the building
of their new home , in addition to being a quaint, local delight to all who came down Stillwater Road and admired it!
Fritz and Fabi sold the underlying property, including the cabin to the Stewart Resnicks, who proceeded to build their lovely 2nd
home past the cabin site. Unfortunately for them, they used all their allowable floor area on the new house, and even though they
wanted to keep the cabin, if at all possible, they were not allowed to do so and had to have the cabin removed from their property for
zoning purposes. This set of circumstances led to me acquiring the cabin from the Resnicks by way of a sealed bid auction. My purpose
in acquiring the cabin was always to be as faithful as possible in reconstructing the cabin on my Neale Avenue property true to the
Benedict's dassic, original design and their preservation intentions. Through research, I was even able to learn who had helped rebuilt
the cabin for Fritz in the early 1970's, and I was able to hire the same old time local builder, namely Bill Knight, that the Benedicts had
used back then to help rebuild the cabin on my property! Bill was naturally excited about the opportunity to work on the new
reconstruction of the historic cabin for a second time....only 25 years later than the 1st time, and with historic designation hopefully
being granted, we hope for the last time! In addition to the original logs, we salvaged as much as we could from the Stillwater cabin site,
induding the original cypress barn wood, vertical siding that the Benedicts had used and is still in place on the north end of the cabin,
just like Ritz had done it! The original "fish scale" Victorian accent shingles were likewise reused as Ritz had and we even matched
the cabin's new chinking to exactly Fritz.s chosen color and had hardwood floors installed like his on the porch and inside..
In 1998 and 1999, we did our very best to reconstruct the cabin in it's present location on Neale Avenue true to what Ritz and
Fabi had envisioned and built on Stillwater. A significant part of the end result now in place is that the cabin's most visibly important,
east fadng, Neale Avenue exposure with the porch is almost identical to what the Benedicts originally designed and built on Stillwater,
also fadng the street! Elsewhere, the cabin's reconstruction underwent only minor changes that were made primarily to accommodate
the new orientation and siting at the present Neale Avenue location. In addition to the above historic features maintained, we also only
used authentic, City of Aspen acquired 100 year old mall bricks for the access sidewalk, entryway and the front porch step. An
authentic Victorian design, wooden picket fence, with entry gate has been installed, and authentic, antique light fixtures, and 100 plus
year old beams further enhanced the overall curb appeal from Neale Avenue, which was very important to us. Additionally, the smaller
scale of the cabin contributes significantly to the present overall positive, historic Neale Avenue neighborhood experience, especially in
these times of big and bigger house being built all the time! I hope to see, that through the powers and wisdom of "Historic
Designation ", the cabin will always remain where it is now and true to the Benedict vision .
In conclusion, and as a part of my Land Use Application, and as per Amy's request, I want to state what I am doing regarding: 1)
the FAR of the Benedict Cabin and spell out my intentions to restrict any future additions, remodeling or expanding of the current Cabin,
and 2) what I would be asking the HPC to provide for me as additional benefits for me taking on historic designation for the Cabin.
Firstly, my intention is to limit the Benedict Cabin in the future to its current size and footprint on the newly created lot #2, Benedict
Cabin Subdivision Exemption plat, which is true to the Benedict's original vision. Secondly, I would ask HPC to grant ine a 500 square
foot FAR bonus, to be applied to the larger lot #1 where my current house is located. Additionally, any unused FAR from the Cabin
lot #2, not used by the current cabin "as is ", shall also be transferred and credited to the larger lot #1 for any future use or
1 u0..11117d Pt, ,,,a;1 rnmract net /zimbra/h /nrintmessaee ?id= 286430 &xim =1 10/31/2011
XFINITY Connect Page 3 of 3
P14
redevelopment on lot #1. It also appears that I will need setback and parking variances on lot #2 as well as per Amy. Finally, if at all
possible, I would ask for an exemption from having to either build an ADU or pay cash in lieu with the future redevelopment of my
current house on lot #1, in light of the fact that the Cabin was originally approved and built as an ADU with few restrictions, and basically
continues to functions the same.
Thank you for reviewing these matters and I sincerely look forward to working with you all.
Jeffrey S. Shoaf
Jeffrey Shoaf
Aspen Realty Exchange
119 Neale Ave
jeffshoaf@comcast.net
970 925 -4501 Office
970 948 -3129 Cell
httn /RZnn74 PV mail rnmrncf J_nnr4nn n •
P15
Amy Guthrie
From: jeffshoaf @comcast.net
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 4:02 PM
To: Amy Guthrie
Subject: Fwd: Benedict Cabin History; Jessica Benedict's responcel
Amy, I have just received this email from Jessica Bennedict. Please note the correction and
please forward this to the commission. See you here shortly at the cabin. Feel free to park in the
driveway just North of the cabin, away from the ski hill. Thanks again for your help and I did go to
the website for tonight's agenda.
See you soon. Jeff
Jeffrey Shoaf
Aspen Realty Exchange
119 Neale Ave
j ells h o of A co m ca st. n et
970 925 -4501 Office
970 948 -3129 Cell
From: "JGordon" <jgordon @theranch.net>
To: jeffshoaf @comcast.net
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 3:35:55 PM
Subject: Re: Benedict Cabin History
Jeffrey,
Your "history" looks good with one small change. Fritz was still alive when the property was sold to
the Resnicks.
I have looked through my photos here at the house and have been unable to find the "cabin" photo. It
is possible that it is in a file in the storage barn which is too difficult to get to today with the recent
snow. I will put it on my "to do" list and look for it when the weather clears.
I have included a short letter of encouragement on your quest to designate the cabin as historical. I
consider it a very worthwhile project and wish you luck this afternoon at the meeting.
Sincerely.
Jessica Benedict - Gordon
Dear Amy and the HPC,
I am writing you in support of Jeffrey Shoafs proposal to designate the "Benedict Cabin" as an
historical building to be placed on the City of Aspen's historic registry. I believe Jeffery has spent time
and money to insure that the cabin retained it's authentic character. There are very few structures
1
• 1,01,:„..-..,._, ,ra, '.' � � \ �.. t ' � ,> > q Y ti � N "1 ,,`, • e%. 0 2 .01. 4 ��1 , _ • �"! t % • ' 1
N. •'''% . � • \ '' " e \ 4 %,,,,,.. ea • • 4 •, , � e . • • .1 t ; \ 1 ti ". P1 6 •
z t, , 1 \ \ .' * y \'i' ,• „ % ' \ ' %,e. 1 e 1 � 1 � . � t � a ° y ' �y ,. i i .'e : � WI
■ ,� ' k - ' Ir°01 . 1� .• ---'
wes ,r .. ,,.. .. 27. .. 1 „ i k t.,, .,.. ..',_!_______.---__:___,.. _ _.±
•
J
}
-- a 1 , \ 11 1
6-11:5 a
•'"fi J �� \ 3
.41/:1) 4 .,,,, ' Mr./ell' : : : : I t . -
t i ) . _ \ , -.,...
kkikt "; - , 7:...tti ti
= ,
k lijit I) . ' • —1.
■
- ,\
t i 4 . -I r , a 5 , � d yF i - I ' ` 1 x _-- _ t r te_ --
t,
4. 414101.3* p e � ,� }
_ - Y f
,r
, t 4 :.
y , i
..„ i.,„, . „,
.......,..,,, -4 /..' .
I t «- / � a V.
,5, r i r
, it
"
1 ' �.` �i t ( ;� � �� � �� � •� I I ` I '; # V§ r � 'c 1 , i i rc � 1. 1 k ,
, • '1, \ �A i tel aacr -. - , .� I ; @ 1 j pl ' ''� i , ,I r I y ,' . i . , ' y �; K i ' 43 1 � � I 7 I t i ll , ' L � ,
■ 1 I I . ,
- I ' �' , , ,
I , F III If; � h i j , ' 1�'I
I . + ;I
1
to
P17 _ •
. _ . ty;i•',7•
•
• ,
...1
I
AL. _ 0 , .. .
:''''-'-:' '. ' i - . 1 i \ 1\111 1 iiii \\\3 ' ' . . :.. v ., i
, , , _ _,
, ,. ,,,,.. ' -..A. .. • ,....
tf ,'--;.- - -_,Ae • ... , ''■I ; l \P•IJ'\;11.,' 1 ..., . 1,L.'.■\ ..
. ,, , il. . \ 1 ‘• r . . . ' ._ -" ', 1 • ' \ ( • n ...t %.t• ' ' - •
4: /A • • .
■
• • • + " ' 1 __ _ -k` ,.T ;fit" 0' i
y x x1� y SQ T •
y . , y
. { f f ! 7
•
A tat + _
1 • --
- •
•
•
/'�
if . �-
i - 1.1 F. .
11111114 / `° ! �
III
,-, 1 , ■ I ,,,,....:..— ,.*..:..:::. i • .
• 1'+ ..`,
Qom
i Ai 4 imp................
..
••....•.._ i
......... 1 b ,' ' .
i - lot i
Got:. , , . ,, • 'iril .414\ , ,
1 N • 4.
rt
rr' •'
"r ' " ,
' ,. , s
: —e , ii _. . .„ ..... if . i lli . / ..
•
y.
EXHIBIT
r l J a_
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE COD
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
, Aspen, CO
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE:
, 200
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
County of Pitkin )
I,
5e,f (name, please print)
being or representi Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally
certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060
(E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner:
a 4 Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official
paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15)
days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto.
X Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the
Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof
materials, which was not less than twenty -two (22) inches wide and twenty -six
(26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in
height. Said notice was posted at least fifien (15) days prior tq the public hearing
and was continuously visible from the 11 day of .eC - , 20f 1 , to
and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted
notice (sign) is attached hereto.
Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community
Development Department, which contains the information described in Section
26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to
the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage
prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the
property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of
property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitldn County as they
appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A
copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto.
(continued on next page)
ryf4 Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt
requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to
the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of
development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those
on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions that
create more than one lot, Planned Unit Developments, Specially Planned Areas,
and COWAPs are subject to this notice requirement.
w A - Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in
any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision
of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such
revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use
regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other
sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and
addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be
waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public
inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for i fteen (15 days
prior to the public hearing on such amendments.
1, I
f i 4 C 11 lb
Signat le y I
The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was a knowl • d ed be ore e this I
of _ r / . :�� , 2042 -, by . � I / .
r /g WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
i •
i j � My commission expires: I/702413
.1;C:A L. 7\1,t(c
Notary Public
sT
ti . ` _ S
W • 6 4 •
• COPY L 1 ,�
• PHO -�=� ; z o .
—�s c>
• LIST i 4 (n �, �3 Q o
BY 0 6,
• APPL . = ti * z
AS R: , i' 1 : i r-$ j o
! IMMI ilell % II CP
(n � � . (N) 'CZ a H . 9
, 2 t S LL
/1 i la , (3 _ ' ? /3 , - t :t :
t --- • to %. - 3 -63� q 4 'ao
W W
c.) 9-- , ,--
la (% ‘4 -: 4 •.--i IN-/ t t
a • -.r
� '1 I i
affi",e dict„
1
ALLEN L P
BEATON GLENN K BECKWITH DAVID E QPRT
403 LACET LN 936 KING ST 1800 N PROSPECT AVE APT 16E
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 MILWAUKEE, WI 532023073
BECKWITH NATALIE B QPRT BLEEKER STREET REV TRUST BREBNER RICHARD
CIO FOLEY & LARDNER 32 TULIP ST CRAVEN ELLYN KATHLEEN
777 E WISCONSIN AVE SUMMIT, NJ 07901 124 MAPLE LN
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202 ASPEN, CO 81611
BRIEN ALICE CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL CITY OF ASPEN
110 NEALE AVE 130 MAPLE LN ATTN FINANCE DEPT
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 130 S GALENA ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
EARL MONTY & CAMILLA FUENTE DAVID & SHEILA GARDNER TODD & KATHARINE
114 MAPLE LN 701 TERN POINT CIR 118 MAPLE LN
ASPEN, CO 816112175 BOCA RATON, FL 33431 ASPEN, CO 81611
GIRVIN LINDA A GREENWOOD WILLIAM S GUPTA BENJAMIN K REV LIV TRST 2010
414 N MILL ST PO BOX 4778 9017 GREENSBORO LN
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 LAS VEGAS, NV 89134
ISAAC THOMAS D REV TRST KALLENBERG JEFFREY D J & SANDRA L KAPPELI ERNST
975 KING ST 401 MARKET ST #500 PO BOX 1962
ASPEN, CO 81611 SHREVEPORT, LA 71101 ASPEN, CO 81612
LIPSEY WILLIAM S LOEWENSTERN CAROL TRUST MAPLE CHARLES A & BRYCE M
955 KING ST 910 GIBSON AVE 927 GIBSON AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611
MARZIALE ANTONIO MEADOWS JEAN R & STANLEY H MICKEY JAMES & MARLENE
5134 TANGLE LN 538 HILLSIDE DR 931 GIBSON AVE
HOUSTON, TX 77056 HIGHLAND PARK, IL 60035 ASPEN, CO 81611
MORRIS JAMES /BYARD ANNE TRUST MORSE JAMES A TRUST PERKINS WENDY
860 GIBSON AVE 800 E ELLIS RD PO BOX 9825
ASPEN, CO 81611 NORTON SHORES, MI 49441 -5622 ASPEN, CO 81612
SIMPSON PATRICIA A & CHARLES W SKOKOS THEODORE C & SHANNON B SMALLS RAY
116 MAPLE LN 5121 PARK LN PO BOX 3197
ASPEN, CO 81611 DALLAS, TX 752202143 ASPEN, CO 81612
ET F
SNOW ORCHID LLC TEUSCHER JONATHAN W & ANNETTE L HO ENTH R E 1ST FLOOR
1125 SAN MATEO DR 126 MAPLE LN 1508
MENLO PARK, CA 94025 ASPEN, CO 81611 SANTA MONICA, CA 90404
WEISMAN FAMILY LP
1024 DARLENE DESEDLE TRUST 120 MAPLE LN 2708 IRVING AVE SOUTH
1024 19TH ST #7 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55406
SANTA MONICA, CA 90403 ASPEN, CO 81611
ZWAHLEN LISSA L
619 ARIZONA AVE
SANTA MONICA, CA 90402
P18
'
0
•
D.
01/04/2012
Amy Guthrie
Historic Preservation Commission
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
On Behalf Of:
Michael and Shelly Tullio
Salon Tullio Remodel /Addition
208 E. Main St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Michael and Shelly Tullio are seeking to add residential square footage onto their historic house located
at 208 E. Main Street, which is currently in use as a salon and a small condominium unit. A lot split
between this unit and 202 E. Main Street (Aspen Horne Consignment) would allow each lot owner the
right to construct a single family unit with 1,500 square feet FAR. The proposed development includes
maximizing residential square footage while making small improvements to the salon's mechanical
space and break room.
Items to be discussed during the second work session on January 11, 2012:
a. Does the HPC approve of the proposed lot split? We should have a copy by January 11, but it is not
available to include with this memo today. The applicants intend to follow the historic lot line, and we
would like to proceed with application for the lot split.
b. The Tullio's have decided that it is in their interest to preserve the original portion of the shed located
on the alley. A report with findings on the shed's historic value is attached to the email I am sending you.
The applicant would like approval for a side and rear setback variance, based on the shed's location and
the narrow lot. Additionally, it seems necessary to lift the shed to an appropriate height above grade. The
floor level of the shed is currently at least eight inches below grade, which will eventually lead to the
shed's further deterioration. The applicant seeks permission to raise the floor structure 6" above grade,
which is in keeping with current building codes.
c. Please confirm that the parking requirement will be waived, since no parking exists for the single
family dwelling that currently occupies the site.
d. Connection to the shed: steps have been taken in the design process to connect to the shed in such a
way as to preserve its identity, while still allowing modest living space for the applicants. The "connector"
may not follow the exact rule of the design guidelines, but we believe that it is reasonable, given the
tightness of the site. The connection to the south side of the shed is in alignment with the existing
condominium unit. The connection's location is such that it will not take away from the shed's presence,
because the shed is set farther to the east than the existing condo, making it difficult to see the
attachment. The connection to the west side of the shed is very minimal, allowing more than 75% of the
west elevation to remain visible.
p.o. box 2324 basalt, co 81621 c 970 948 9667 f 970 927 3727 e sara@upton- desion.com w upton- design.com
P19
e. Roof massing: the design guidelines prefer incorporation of a sloped or gabled roof into any proposed
addition. It is our belief that when viewed from Main Street, the use of a flat roof actually keeps the focus
on the historic part of the structure. From the alley side, the shed retains its character and charm, and
the addition is allowed its own personality.
We look forward to hearing your feedback on January 11 th .
p.o. box 2324 basalt, co 81621 c 970 948 9667 f 970 927 3727 e saraC upton-desion.com w upton - design.com
P20
1
n
d
ii X � �����I IIIIIII�llllllll j _. �
$ o E III
o I mo;:: 1iII
- •
m m IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII =
i llllllllllllllllllllllllll /- =E-- :[_
x. r
9 ae z _
. "k1 B �II
z [63-11 _
m — A l l m 91111111111
,
III I I III
I -- .
3
g R
P
s
2 6 0
u•ton oh
•esign m
p�A •
P21
111111 I I :::: c
s ].:-. :::_,_:
, ::,i - :::: :: : :_ ii:: :,
I�lll
II►ii:
I
-� �X� r. Iii,
y
§ n, Q � . i N
z corn O
� I ' 8 I IIIIIII II I m _ _ -_ - -
z
n
M m -_ -_ -` -_
O o - =-
m
w SS 3'
413 1
XDA0 sr o 1 i
u•ton W
•esign tW?
. P22
II
. � 0 A
■ CO
| `
L
H
/ -=
|' /
in ' ! I -
.-
■■ «
Al al / / Et -17 > ( wow idi
i ' §.
EMI ` � i / m .
_ ,.
) \
DS ` . §
5
)\ ( R ( ) | )
: \ m \/ ) g in \\ k
)
H
o
o . « _. �
.ht
2 il
udon R
. esig n \\|
P23
[H] El
rt. iillil I . n it__
._ IIII ME I a
o lil
n d al IIl
g • rri
-- • I II m
11 111 a ■! @�
WS
Pa Int
MMM
CI
NM= _I
III
=II ` ij
•%I � " I •
D 0,EA
NIS
c o
O O _. O
'P 9 1 ]0
C m w
c 0
O O
m w m
e 0
r m
LpirL .....,
PilmiLlir .
•
uston °Eo
.esign
EFg
P24
R E I D • ARCHITECTS, i n c
January 4, 2012
Michael Tullio
208 E. Main Street
Aspen, CO
Dear Michael, u 1111111-.--11*
Thanks for Inviting me out to `, i ' 11 rit f o t i.
look at the outbuilding ) II P 1
located on the alley at 208 E.
3 t i
Main. I have looked at the 11 -
building on site, reviewed i
some city records and spoke
to some people familiar with
the history of this
outbuilding.
Figure 1 • view to east along alley
The small wood frame building is comprised of a shallow pitched front gable roof
volume and an attached shed roof volume on the west side. In the late 1980s, when the
building was converted from a storage shed to a habitable space, there was a clear
exterior wall along the west wall separating the main gable volume from the shed roof
volume, indicating that the shed was a later addition. Much of the information I was able
to collect is related to the remodel in the late 1980s and subsequent alterations. A review
of the available Sanborn maps did not show a shed in this location (the 1898 Sanborn •
map did show a small square outbuilding in the northwest corner of the lot.) A cursory
review of the available plat maps and other city documents did not provide any additional
information on a construction date.
This structure is currently assumed to have been built in the 1930s, though there may
have been some indication that it is earlier than that based on the interior finishes found
during the 80s remodel. The construction methods, materials and details of the gable roof
form are consistent with those found in outbuildings from the 1880s into the mid 20
century, which makes a specific date of construction difficult to determine.
The 1980s remodel added the casement windows on the north side, a small fixed window
on the south side and skylights on the east roof plane. The project also opened a portion
of the shed roof form to create a porch area open to the alley and the side yard, added a
French door in the west wall of the gable form and opened the back part of the shed
volume to the inside of the gable form. Insulation was added to the walls from the inside,
leaving the siding in place and a concrete slab was poured in the interior. The roofing
was installed and insulated at this time.
412 North Mill Street • PO Box 1303 • Aspen, CO 81612
970 920 9225 • vkrt'reidarchitects.com
P25
R E I D • ARCHITECTS, i n c
A later remodel enclosed the shed area and opened it to the interior of the gable form.
The current outbuilding has a variety of exterior finishes, patched areas and construction
details.
The number of alterations have had an impact on the integrity of the outbuilding, though
this is not uncommon for a utility building of this age. In terms of the seven aspects of
integrity, the location, setting, feeling and association are still appreciable. The building
is located on the alley, and is in a setting with several other similar alley buildings. Its
feeling and association are clearly still in the historic realm. In terms of its design,
workmanship, and materials there has been more impact, particularly when we look at the
shed addition. The building retains its low pitched gable, minimal overhangs and rustic
character. The addition of the windows and skylights have an impact on its original
character, but these elements are not so out of character as to destroy the integrity of the
design. The workmanship is consistent with a rustic outbuilding. The materials and
construction methods found on the gable form are consistent with historic outbuildings,
the shed addition however has clearly been altered and reconstructed a number of times
over the years, leaving its actual historic significance in question.
The shed addition appears to be a mixture of rough sawn and dimensional lumber and a
mixture of siding materials, including contemporary ones. The roof framing appears to
be dimensional lumber and the wall framing mis- matched 2x materials. On the north side
the vertical plank sheathing can be seen on the gable form, with clapboards on the
outside, whereas the shed addition has only a few vertical 2x framing members with
vertical board siding showing a clear distinction between the two pieces and period of
construction.
The following pages show several photos of the current conditions of the outbuilding.
My examination of the building and the available records lead me to believe that the
outbuilding may have historic value, but the shed addition to the outbuilding has been
altered and reconstructed to the extent that it no longer retains sufficient integrity. At
most it only has the appearance of being historic and not the actual material substance; at
the least its current condition raises doubt about its value as a significant historic
component of the outbuilding.
Please feel free to call me with any questions.
Suzanf'
Reid Y rc ts, inc.
412 North Mill Street • PO Box 1303 • Aspen, CO 81612
970 920 9225 • vkr@reidarchitects.com
P26
208 East Main Outbuilding Photos
1/4/12
lir
c . - it .
4
ur 4-1.7., .
„el .. , it , ---ik - ii • ..
Mr ill
,.,,jii t', 0
s -
f , .......
- r iholi h.- , .. .....,
,. ,..
., lab. ;_ . .ice.:_. -
:itsroio
4, , Nrii ... v .,
,_,.
. .. , ,, . ..
VII x !pdt pvu !tjef !odd f !pvicvjr®joh -!t i px joh! 111 x !pdopsi f bt Udpsof s!pdii f !pvicvjrejoh -!
b!" yf e!epps!gbof nidriagcpb jejoh- !bo!jo" die! t i px joh!Ui f !2: 91t !x joepx !boelt I zrjtni it !x jd !
epp riboe!ti f !t i f e!sppdbeejijpo/ vnf srjdbriepb pn f !cbuf o!t jejoh/
:::
, v 4 • '' I
- ..
I
. 1 v
"� - - . _.... • .. j
f t V Y
,
4
Lsbot jLjpo!gpn !drlagcpb stjdbrh Tpvu x f t udpsof s!pdu f !t i f e!beejrjpo!t i px joh!
grhol t !po!t i f e!beejtjpo -!ii f It Ls/du/thrill zt i.f n ! ti f !moot jtjpo!jo!t jejoh!n bif Ibrh -!u f !gbn joh!
ukot jtjpo!dbo!cf It f f oljo!ti f !hbq!cf tx f f o!ri f ! dbolcf !t f f o!joki .f !hbq/
ix p!ggsi t/
P27
319!Fbt LINbjo!Pvtcvjrajoh!Qi pipt
2C5 C23
.,
ity
II _ �yr •.-� _ A a -_ -� .. .. 1, t .
t.
it
it il , iiiiii .
■
Ef ibjrilodd df t t f e!x brrybe!bdf otltp! Ef tbjrtbut i f e!beejtjpo!t pvu x f t Ll
xjoepx !po!opsti !tjef !t i px joh!of x ! dpsof s!t i pxjoh!dpot isidijpo!ef tbjrti
i f bef s!
f
■
■
0......4641‘..sj .
1.
•
ti
2: 91t !x joepx !x jti !of x 11 f bef s .b" rifie!pgf ojoh!po!sf bslpdhbcrfi!Tsn !jo!
drbecpb jejoh!. !u jt It jejoh ljt !t f f o!pomlpo!
Li f !opsti !tjef !pdti f !hbcrfi!g si