Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19960828 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUG. 28, 1996 Meeting was called to order by 1 st Vice-chairman Roger Moyer with Susan Dodington, Suzannah Reid, Mark Onorofski and Donnelley Erdman present. Jake Vickery was seated at 5:10 p.m. Melanie Roschko and Sven Alstrom were excused. MOTION: Susan moved to approve the minutes of duly lOth as amended and the minutes of duly 24th; second by Suzannah. .411 in favor, motion carried. STAFF COMMENTS Amy stated that 820 E. Cooper was red tagged. Amy also stated that the Hotel Jerome is requesting air conditions for a few days in their rooms to accommodate a group of clients requests. Roger stated that Aspen is an tourist town and possibly health issues are a concern. He also stated that it could be an air exchange system and more research needs done. Amy stated unless there is some justification she recommends against air conditioners and the use of fans would be more appropriate. ASPEN MEADOWS TRUSTEE TOWN HOMES - CD - PH Gretchen Greenwood, architect presented the affidavit of posting to Assistant Attorney David Hoefer. David Hoefer stated that the affidavit of notice meets the requirements of the City of Aspen and the HPC has jurisdiction to proceed. Amy stated that an approval was given in 1991 to modify the units and add three new units. At that time all the units were going to be brought to 2500 sq. fl. Since that time the plan has changed and the existing units are going to be modified as is without much additional square footage. The new units were expected to be built basically to match. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUG. 28~ 1996 She also stated that the applicant would like to now change the new units. They are proposing the same square footage but the building has a different character. Originally there were to be detached car ports and the three new units have garages which is very different. There is not the solid and void character in the new units. There ought to be some type of one story element on the street facade. The HPC also needs landscape information. Staff recommends tabling. Gretchen Greenwood is the architect and Doug MacPherson is the developer. There is one site at the south and two sites at the north end of the existing town homes. The Aspen Meadows restaurant is at the South end. In 1991 the units were designed for 2700 sqfl. including a ten foot addition on the back and a below grade space. The car port was to be eliminated and garages were approved to be built. Although garages do not exist they have to ability to build them at anytime because they are approved plans. She stated that the proposed plans for units 1, 10, & 11 are similar in size in terms of FAR, they are 2700 sqfl. but closer to 3400 sqfl. in terms of what is below grade in terms of mechanical laundry room which are below grade quite extensively. The intent was to not replicate the designs of the existing units. There is a one story element at the street which is a garage and the door recesses back six feet with wing walls on either side and cut outs to de- emphasize the garage and pick up other elements of different units. The existing Bayer units are 1 1/2 story down a steep site. The intent is to re- create that with the two story element 30 feet back from the face of the building. The height of the existing building is 21 feet above the existing grade at the street and the proposed buildings, are 26 feet. The buildings sit in the approved foot print of 1991. The buildings are separated from the existing town homes about five feet. There will be shingles and clad windows on the building. Suzannah asked about the FAR and does it reduce the availability of square footage for the other units. Doug MacPherson stated that the Institute owns two other units and David McLaughlin owns one and he has assigned that square footage to these three units. None of the other home owners would loose square footage. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUG. 28~ 1996 Amy stated that they were approved for all the units to have the same square footage. Gretchen stated that the SPA amendment allowed the units to vary in the FAR due to the way each unit sits with the grade. Our attempt is to create a different development because there are so many Bayer houses and they stand on their own. Chairman dake Fickery opened the public hearing. Bob Maynard resides in unit #2 owned by the Aspen Skiing Co. which was involved with the redo of the Aspen Meadows from the beginning. He stated that the square footage is larger than the existing units and in the existing units not one person has tried to do the expansion that was approved in 1991. You can't do it economically. He stated for the last thing to do in the institute is to bring in a foreign design different than what was there before. Harris Sherman stated that he owns unit 91 and he walked the area. As a general matter he agrees with Bob about the character of the Meadows. The existing eight units are low density and they all step down from the south to the north end. There is a feeling of openness that goes with the units. He stated that the car ports create space between the units and for those units that have windows on the north side you can see Castle Creek and the hillside coming down. Herbert Bayer made an impressive design. He stated now on the north side there will be a two story wall beside his unit and he is greatly effected by it literally being five or ten feet from his house. He stated that he is looking into a wall of the new unit and detracts from his unit and the overall ambiance of the Meadows. It is partly a problem of size and how the units are located. There is adjacent land that the institute owns and the units could be moved 40 feet to the north and vegetation planted. He stated that he did not know what could be done with the south side of the project. He stated that these are serious design issues and impacts. The Aspen Institute owns the land and is selling it to Mr. MacPherson and Mr. Sherman does not want to complicate the plans of the institute. They have the right to sell the land and get as much money as they can within the context of what is being preserved. All of the existing eight units are between 1600 and 1700 square feet. On the west side there is permission to add space under the first floor living room and technically you could not do unless you excavated underground in order to create a basement area. No one at present intends to 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUG. 28~ 1996 do that. The proposed units start at 2700 sq. fi. up to 3200 sq. fi. which is almost a doubling of the square footage. That will change the character as it is twice the size. If the units could be separated visually from the other units this maybe acceptable. Moving it 40 feet may not be acceptable depending on how the buildings are positioned. Bob Maynard stated that there is a waiting list for the existing units and to say that larger units are needed to meet the market demand is inappropriate. Doug MacPherson stated that there maybe some demand for the existing units but we are taking at a lower price given the price that he is going to pay the institute for the vacant sites. Financially a bigger unit is needed given the difficulty of the site and because of the price the institute wants for the land. The prices for the existing units is $500,000. The biggest unit is 3600 sqfl. with some of it below grade. The institute had expressed interest in having this kind of unit. David McLaughlin gave us the transfer of square footage to this unit because the institute felt the need for larger units. Gideon Kaufman, attorney for the Institute stated that they support the proposed projects. He spoke on behalf of five of the eleven units. In 1991 when HPC had the debate whether the units should mirror the existing there was a split on the HPC at that time. He presented a letter from the institute in support of the project. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Donnelley stated that he is the monitor and acted on the project in 1991. HPC's responsibility then and now is to the existing styling of the architecture created by Herbert Bayer and Fritz Benedict. He stated HPC cannot comment on the FAR because the applicant does have the right to build to what they are allowed. They are also building within the foot print that was approved in 1991. He stated that there are three major problems: 1) Hipped roofs are explicitly anathetical to that design. 2) The roof pitch is too steep. What was approved in 1991 the S. elevation acknowledge the very shallow pitch of the other units and that is consistent with the Bauhaus aesthetics, no hipped roofs appeared in this design. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUG. 28~ 1996 3) The vertical fenestration or bands of fenestration always emphasized horizontality. Susan stated that the HPC needs to stay with the Herbert Bayer plan. She also stated her concern is that on the north there is one house and the south has two which looks awkward. It is unbalanced and she also indicated that the new houses should be spaced appropriately, i.e. 40 feet separation on the south. Mark stated that his concern is the proximity of the two units to the existing units. He also stated that roof pitches need addressed and he agrees with Donnelley. Suzannah agreed with Donnelley also. A cue should be taken from the older buildings in the way the massing was done and the way they split from side to side with the sloped roof and flat roof. That is important to the rhythm of the project. They do not respect one another the way the original design does as the eaves drop down. #10 should be sifted to the outside and well as #11. The new buildings need to be significantly separated and the amount should be determined. Roger stated that he was here in 1991 and concurs with Donnelley. He also agrees with the separation of units at both ends. Gretchen stated that they want the units divorced from the original units and it would be better project if they could be stepped down. Right now we are allowed a five foot setback and they are 21 feet from the side so there is room to move. 40 feet might put them over the property line on the road. Doug MacPherson stated that he met with Sherman and his concern was separation and he would move them as far to the north as possibly. He stated that he could get some separation on Bob Maynard's unit on the south but the restaurant is close and it is a steep site. He will get a topo done this week. Roger asked about the garages. Doug stated that the present homeowners did not want to peruse it. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUG. 28~ 1996 Gretchen stated that if you site visited the area the turning radius would be very difficult to do. Bob Maynard stated that the units are large but that is his personal concern. It is deviation from what is there historically that concerns him. MOTION: Donnelley moved that the application for units' 1, 10 & 11 of the Aspen Meadows town homes be tabled suggesting restudy of specific areas: 1.) Reduction or elimination of hipped roofi'. 2) Reduction of the pitch of the main roo~'. 3) Restudy of fenestration to be more consistent with the prevailing aesthetics. 4) Investigation of possible further separation of the proposed new work from the existing town homes; second by Roger. DISCUSSION Suzannah stated that she would like massing included in the motion. She stated that you have a tall volume and a longer low volume going along and in the proposed elevations there is one single large volume and the hipped roof doesn't effect that. Amended motion: 5) Restudy of massing in general to reflect a better articulation of heights' as expressed in the existing town houses. second by Roger. All in favor of motion and amended motion. Suzannah also stated that she has concerns with the garages. Roger stated that he does not find the garages objectionable and they differentiate between Bayer and new. He also likes the idea of the winged walls and recessed doors. In this particular case it is not on the street. Donnelley stated that there is a precedence as the entrance to the units is on the side where you park your car. Gretchen stated that the entry is 26 feet back from the face of the garage. They tried to get a relationship between the depth of the entry without cars similar to the existing town homes. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUG. 28, 1996 Donnelley stated that the 1991 approvals did not approve garages within the units. He also stated that he would rather see car ports than garages. He would rather see a more appropriate reflection of the shallow pitched roofs. Jake stated that the issue of the car port should be considered with the general issue of massing. MOTION: Suzannah moved to table the application until Sept. 25, 1996, second by Roger. All in favor, motion carried. ENTRANCE TO ASPEN Stan Clauson, Community Development Director presented the ElS in its most recent form. The impact statement was handed out to the Board. Stan also presented a draft resolution to the Board on part of the Elected Officials that would be a unified response. The response accepts the modified direct alignment which goes through the Marolt Open Space. In CDOT's suggestion of the supplementary draft a highway would be constructed as the first phase which would contain two general traffic lanes and two dedicated bus lanes. This draft is asking CDOT for two lanes of highway and a transit envelope. The concern of a four lane has impacts on Marolt Open space which is too great. The proposed cut and cover of 400 feet would mitigate for the open space of the new road. There would be a continuous flow of open space from upper Marolt Thomas to the golf course. Cemetery lane would be brought in on the Castle Creek Bridge and intersect with Main Street. Amy stated that at the last meeting HPC did not support the cut and cover and she supplied comments to council. Numerous issues need to be taken into account. Stan stated that council relied heavily on the citizen task force with the recommendation of the modified direct line. Jake asked what plans were in place to mitigate the barn and structures on the Marolt property, such as lowering the grade etc. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUG. 28~ 1996 Amy stated that the modified direct line comes more into the center of the site. Stan stated that the design is not finalized and many things are opened yet; the appearance of the roadway i.e. have curbed edges rather than open shoulders and that jersey barriers are in the design of the roadway. The exact position of the cut and cover has not been determined. A suggestion has been made that the road be depressed for noise control as it passed between the Villas and Berger cabin. Stan stated that the alignment has been staked. Suzannah stated that when you come up from the cut and cover there will be a barrier of some sort. Stan stated that there will have to be design elements for the bridge approach and those need worked out. HPC should specify the importance of mitigation and the kinds of mitigation. Susan asked if the covered area could be longer so it is completely absent near the Marolt property. Stan stated that was discussed but 400 feet was chosen because that is the length that can be accomplished without artificial ventilation. Also 400 feet didn't make a person feel like they were in a dark hole. Suzannah stated that in the resolution the width of the bridge has been reduced. Jake stated that possibly the cut and cover should be moved. Amy stated at the next meeting HPC should schedule a site visit. Stan said the transit way could go to the center or outside of the road. The intent is to minimize the overall platform. If the transit goes on the south side you would lower the medium. Susan stated that the road bows too close to the barn. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUG. 28, 1996 710 N. 3RD - MINOR DEVELOPMENT Amy stated that the proposal is to extend the roof eaves on a non-historic area of the house which is a small addition. She also desire to construct a couple of exterior storage cabinets that will be protected by the roof eaves. There are no impacts to the neighborhood. Currently there is a permit in for a fence. Nancy Greenway, owner stated that she has no storage since the Martin's divided their home. She indicated the desire for a privacy fence basically to hide from the street some of the things she has to keep outside. For the shed the roof line would cover the shed and nothing would be visible from the street. The fence would be similar to the one at the Berger house across the street. MOTION: Roger moved to approve the request to extend the eastern roof line and add storage closets' as drawn on 710 N. Third Street; second by Donnelley. All in favor, motion carried. 935 E. HYMAN - CD & FD - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING Amy stated at the last meeting there was interest in allowing some FAR for the basement. In your packet are exterior elevations for the project in its final stage and floor plans for the project in its final stage and two basement floor plans. One basement floor plans shows the FAR of 136 sqfl. if you approve it and the other does not. A landscape plan has been supplied and a condition of approval is that landscaping such as large shrubs not be placed in front of the rock. The FAR bonus benefits the below grade space only and has no great impact. There is a small window issue that violates ordinance #30. Ron Kanan, contractor stated that in A building the light well takes up 91 sq. fl. In the B building lower level the window well is at the far comer. Both windows are within the setbacks. He also stated that he made changes that were recommended by Sven. On A building the window was made smaller to line up with the slider below. The beam line was lowered and shingles incorporated in the roof. On building B the front window was changed to fall in line with ordinance #30. Also the stone has been extended around the building on both sides rather than six inches. 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUG. 28~ 1996 COMYmNTS Roger inquired about the stair tower window that is not in compliance with ordinance #30. Ron stated that when he measured it, he was in compliance. Amy stated that she did not have a scale to verify. MOTION: Roger moved to grant conceptual approval, including a 136.14 sq. fi. bonus for lightwells and final approval for 935 E. Hyman Ave. , with the condition that no vegetation other than ground cover be planted between the rock and the street in the future and that the triangular window on building A stair tower if necessary be revised to meet Ordinance ~30; second by Susan. DISCUSSION Suzannah asked if the lightwells should be clarified. Amy stated that dating the plans and submitting them in the record is in compliance. Amended Motion: Roger amended his motion to include the dated plans that were submitted this evening indicating the light wells' and approval of material boards' that were presented at this meeting; second by Susan. All in favor of motion and amended motion; motion carried. 214 E. BLEEKER - CD- PH- LOT SPLIT Amy stated that this was reviewed in July for an addition to the historic house. The applicant is proposing to relocate the out building to the new lot and to construct a new out building behind the historic landmark. The applicant does want to use the space for bedrooms and doesn't feel the existing out building can be convened appropriately. Staff recommends on site relocation of the shed as it may be more useful as a garage or storage 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUG. 28~ 1996 area. Staff has concerns about the new out building as it is over the height limit and only Board of Adjustment can grant that variance. There is concern about the detailing of the out building. Gretchen Greenewood, architect for the project stated that the owners want to relocate the existing out building to the next lot to become a garage. They also want to keep it parallel five feet in from the property line and parallel to the alley in the same configuration. The existing Victorian is a two bedroom house and they still want to add two bedrooms and desire to do the lot split and 500 sq. ft. bonus. They desire to maintain the building as far away from the Victorian house as possible. There are plans for a future car port to be located on the site so 250 sq. ft. have been left out of the site coverage to allow that to happen. That is one of the reasons why the out building would not work, it would be too much building in its existing location. If we don't get the variance we would have to have a different design. In order to keep this building separate we would need a zero lot line variance. The building would be lowered in the ground and the building has six foot plate heights. The project is best suited to have the building right on the alley. If they don't get the variance for the height they could attach it with an open arbor and that would be an acceptable solution. They also need the rear yard five foot variance for the proposed design. If that does not occur a total different design would be needed. They would prefer the building to be totally different. Susan asked if a basement would be done. Gretchen stated that it is a two story building in the ground a minimum of two feet to keep the profile of the building lower than the existing historic house which is 23 feet. The out building is at 21 feet. Susan stated if a basement was done it would lower the height significantly. Gretchen stated that below grade space is not pleasant living square footage. She also stated that she is only allowed 12 feet on the out building. Amy stated that if the building is attached they could go to 25 feet which is the height of the original house. 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUG. 28~ 1996 Gretchen stated that they could do a trellis but they would still need a ten foot setback on the alley. The existing property is 1,913 sq. ft. and with the 500 sq. ft. bonus it would be 2,413 sq. ft. and designate lot B as 2, 344 sq. ft. which brings you to 4,257 sq. ft. At this time it is not in the owners budget to have a new house designed on lot B. Roger stated that the applicant has a good argument for the height of the building and the fact that it could be on the alley. He stated that he would approve the lot split, the moving of the shed and table conceptual. He would support a variance. Amy stated that if they connect the house HPC can give the variance. Gretchen stated that the owners could do a trellis and they would need the five foot setback variance. Jake explained the lot split. The westerly lot would be lot A, and the easterly lot would be called lot B at 6,000 sq. ft. The westerly lot is 5,963 sq. ft. With the 500 sq. ft. bonus the westerly lot would have an FAR of 2,413. The easterly lot would have 2,341 sq. ft. There is no design for the easterly lot at this time other than the relocation of the historical structure. By having the historical structure on lot B that lot is also able to get bonuses if needed such as a setback variance. The relocation of the shed would be set back five feet in from the alley and has its existing orientation to the alley. That lot would also have HPC review. Donnelley stated that HPC likes out buildings to look different from the historic resource but in scale it has to be compatible with the historic resource. The six by six post brackets supporting the roof overhangs are heavy and do not reflect the fineness of scale that is present in all historic structures. MOTION: Roger moved to grant the lot split as presented in the application. The newly created 6, 000 sq. fi. lot would be t3 and the newly created historic lot A would be 5,963 sq. fi., second by Susan. All in favor, motion carried. MOTION: Roger moved that the on site relocation of the out building from Lot A to Lot B be approved with the following conditions: 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUG. 28~ 1996 0 Submit an engineering report to demonstrate the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation. 2) Submit a relocation plan. $) Post a bond in the amount of S2, 000. second by Mark. All in favor, motion carried. MOTION: Roger moved to table conceptual review for 214 E. Bleeker to a date certain, October 23, 1996 giving time for the applicant to address massing, scale, carport and attachment to the house..41so that items addressed in the discussion be studied, height, setback of 2 feet and connector; second by Donnelley. All in favor, motion carried Discussion Amy stated that the out building may have too little connection to the historic resource such as bracket detailing and some of the fenestration may or may not be compatible. Roger stated that he feels the out building is a fun little building and there are far more important issues to address: Where it sits in relationship to the alley. How do we deal with the height and how is it connected to the historic house. Jake stated that the existing out building actually encroaches on the alley and this is actually resolving an encroachment problem. He also stated that he would be in favor of some variance possibly a two foot on the rear. He also stated that an over hang is necessary due to snow etc. Jake also stated detaching the out building is preferable. He also stated that two feet would be a compromise. Suzannah stated her concern is the height on the alley. Susan stated that she appreciates the applicant not putting the addition on the historic house. Gretchen stated that she does want to pull the new out building down. 13 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUG. 28, 1996 Roger concurred with Jake that a two or three foot variance would be appropriate on the alley and bring the height down and possibly incorporate a trellis. 706 W. MAIN - FINAL DEVELOPMENT Suzannah stepped down from voting due to conflict. Amy stated that conceptual was granted July 24th with the condition that the applicant study differentiation between old and new. That they consider moving the second floor living space forward toward Main Street and that they consider a comer board to delineate the historic cottage. A floor plan as been presented to the board. The office zone district requires a 15 foot setback from the alley and that would require re-noticing the variance. Staff is recommending granting final with the condition of the variance on Sept. llth. Amy also stated that she is not in agreement with moving the massing forward for visual impacts to the historic structure and also because of the impacts on Main Street. It appears that the historic cabin has not ended in the proposed area for the comer board so that is an issue that should not be pursue. Joe Krabacher, owner stated that the setback issue was discussed by Council in the 80's. At that time there were projects built in the RMF and office zone districts that were using the underlying higher FAR. In the office zone district it is .75 to 1 and there were projects at 700 E. Hyman which prompted city council to amend the code to overlay the R-6 zoning on all of the other zone districts. He also stated that council didn't realize that when you do residential with an R-6 FAR you should have the same setback requirements as the R-6 zone district has. He personally felt that it was an oversight that resulted in a 15 foot setback plus having an overlay of the R-6 which reduces the FAR from .75 to 1 to .58 to 1 on this particular project. The applicant assumed since they were under the R6 zoning they would have the R6 setback. 14 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUG. 28~ 1996 Joe stated that moving it forward to Main Street has health and safety concerns. The PM10 fall out zone covers Main Street and PM10 are small particles and the closer you are to Main Street the more fall out there is. Joe stated that he submitted two plans one showing a five foot move forward and the other approximately three feet forward. John Muir, architect stated that sundeck #2 has been reduced in depth and the master bedroom has been reduced in depth and all have been moved forward toward Main Street. Joe also stated moving the addition forward has noise impacts. The Dept. of Transportation estimates 20,000 cars go down Main Street every day. Another concern is the standard of the effect of details of the proposed development on the original design of the historic structure and the character of the neighborhood. The Hickory House has installed an out door smoker and they demolished a rear shed and placed a walk-in cooler in the back 13 feet high. Immediately to the east side is a proposed veterinarian hospital and a proposed text amendment. It is an office building so it is .75 to 1 plus they got a special review to increase it to one to one and it is around 4,000 sq. fl. on a 4,000 sq. fl. lot. This proposal is 2,800 sq. fl. on a 5,000 sq. fl. lot. They have not asked for the 500 sq. fl. bonus and their intent is to keep away from Main Street and be granted the 5 foot variance. Joe stated that the HPC needs to take into account what is happening next door. The office building is maximum height, maximum bulk etc. Materials and sample board have been presented. Jake stated that the HPC recommended restudy of the alley impacts. The new design pushes the master bath 9.6 feet from the property line which means it has moved in about a foot. The master bedroom has moved in about three feet. Amy stated that she feels increasing the impact to the historic resource is inappropriate. Roger stated that he concurs with Staff. Jake stated that the project interfaces with the R-6 zone across the alley and has a 15 foot rear yard setback requirement. 15 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUG. 28~ 1996 Amy stated that you also have a one to one FAR on the lot next door interfacing the R-6 and she is not sure which is worse. Joe stated that Jake mentioned on the previous project that he had done a previous project with a five foot rear yard setback that works. Amy stated that if you look at how this project interfaces with the residential across the alley, this project meets what the zoning is required for residents. The office zone district has a 15 foot setback and that is the problem. If this was zoned R-6 they would be in compliance. Jake stated that he does not see a significant difference on the designs and the applicant has gone to the trouble of restudying the concern. He is not convinced that something else could be done. In the light of other things that are going on in that block he does not want to hold the applicant to some standard that is not universal in the area. Suzannah stated that the original design is fine and it would be an advantage to be further back to the alley. Donnelley also stated that he did not see too much of an advantage with the new design. The applicant has a bigger battle to fight in getting the variance. Amy stated that variance is coming before the HPC and if this is approved tonight it will be conditioned on the HPC being able to make that approval given any public that might come at the next meeting. MOTION: Roger moved to grant final approval for 706 W. Main as presented with the following condition: Rear yard setback variance is required for the proposed development; second by Donnelley. All in favor, motion carried 5-0. MOTION: Roger moved to adjourn, second by Donnelley. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned 9:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 16 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUG. 28~ 1996 ASPEN MEADOWS TRUSTEE TOWN HOMES - CD - PH .............................................................. 1 ENTRANCE TO ASPEN ....................................................................................................................... 7 710 N. 3RD - MINOR DEVELOPMENT .............................................................................................. 9 935 E. HYMAN - CD & FD - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ...................................................... 9 214 E. BLEEKER - CD- PH- LOT SPLIT .......................................................................................... 10 706 W. MAIN - FINAL DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................................... 14 17 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUG. 28~ 1996