HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20050727ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
July 27, 2005
5:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
130 S. GALENA
ASPEN, COLORADO
SITE VISIT: 710 N. Third and 430 W. Main
II.
IlL
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII·
IX.
Roll call
Approval of minutes - April 27, May 25th and July 13, 2005
Public Comments
Commissioner member comments
Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent)
Project Monitoring'
Staff comments: Certificate of No Negative Effect issued
(Next resolution will be #27)
NEW BUSINESS ~kl~6,.
A. 710 N, Third Street - Major Development (Conceptual),{
.....
Demoht~on and Variances - Pubhc Hearing (30 min.) c
B. 470 N. Spring Street - Major Development (FinaD Public
Heanng (30 min.) 6.~x,~o~--%-- c~4~,~.~'~- - Lq ~(~c~-0 -~'~-'~
C. 430 W. Main Street - Histori.c~_Landmark Lot Split, Public
Hearing (20 min.) q~o(%~L~q-~ ~ 2~ ~
OLD BUSINESS
A. 435 W. Main Street - Historic Landmark Designation,
Major Development (Conceptual) Relocation, Demolition,
and Variances, continue PH to August 10, 2005%a~ \%\x
B. 920/930 Matchless Drive - Major Development
(Conceptual), Demolition, Relocation, and Variances. Public
Hearing (30 min.)~)},~, ~'5 ~q;~'~-~ c~4;(~ ~.~,,~_ ~.,f..~
X. WORKSESSION - NONE
XI. ADJOURN - 7p.m.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
July 27, 2005
5:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
130 S. GALENA
ASPEN, COLORADO
-
1.....
SITE VISIT: 710 N. Third and 430 W. Main
IX.
I. Roll call
II. Approval of minutes - April 27, May 25th and July 13, 2005
III. Public Comments
IV. Commissioner member comments
V. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) .
VI. Project Monitoring
VII. Staff comments: Certificate of No Negative Effect issued
(Next resolution will be #27)
VIII. NEW BUSINESS )ll'S(\, f,\\\~,t IT J~
A. 710 N. Third Street - Major Development (Conceptual)'l yk, 01~tX 1;1<.....1
Demolition and Variances - Public Hearing (30 min.) C C1'\t'tt +J OJ J. (I
B. 470 N. Spring Street - Major Dev~loRment (Final) Publil;
Hearing (30 min.) '\ \ ",~~ ~- r"M,dC>.' A-. lj \ (_ L.-J -/) ~).. )
v C. 430 W. Main Street - Histc;Jr~Lan4mar!< L~ Spljt, Public
Hearing (20 min.) ,,\1-,\"\ vA- ~ -~.;j, '..~ ell '/A.J& ~J~
OLD BUSINESS '
A. 435 W. Main Street - Historic Landmark Designation,# ../-r/515'
Major Development (Conceptual) Relocation, Demol~tion, . ... \
and Variances, continue PH to August 10, 2005 S(,l ywl\ _ ~\\ vl\cv.L:.
B. 920/930 Matchless Drive - Major Development.
(Conceptual), Demolition, Relocation, and Varia~ce~ Public
Hearing (30 min.) IJ)'/.AN1 hS 71'~\h (T~ (H+ 11 <:t{/./lC\. ,---)l.M.) )... Cr
\ . ~
WORKSESSION - NONE ji,:J?:f
S
I(
..
1~,\1
X.
XI. ADJOURN - 7p.m.
PROJECT MONITORING
Jeffrey Halferty
Mike Hoffman
Valerie Alexander
Derek Skalko
Sarah Broughton
Jason Lasser
-
,~..,^#.
213 W. Bleeker (Schelling)
101 E. Hallam (Gorman)- inactive
735 W. Bleeker (Marcus)
110 W. Main (Hotel Aspen)- inactive
525 E. Cooper (awning)- inactive
939 E. Cooper
640 N. Third
950 Matchless Drive (Becker)
216 E. Hallam (Belford), with Valerie
513 W. Smuggler (Harman)
640 N. Third- inactive
1000 N. Third (Aspen Meadows Restaurant)
308 Park Ave. (Mooney)
216 E. Hallam (Belford), with Mike
232 W. Main (Christmas Inn)
114 Neale Ave., with Derek- inactive
1295 Riverside (Welgos)
735 W. Bleeker (Marcus)
334 W. Hallam (Connor)
205 S. Mill
Aspen Meadows
-..
,
135 W. Hopkins- inactive
302 E. Hopkins- inactive
501 W. Main Street (Christiania)- inactive
331 W. Bleeker
114 Neale Ave., with Valerie- inactive
2 Williams Way (Hioks)
811/819 E. Hopkins (Fellman), with Sarah, inactive
135 E. Cooper (Ferrer)
514 N. Third (Rinsby)- inactive
311 S. First- inactive
200 W. Hopkins
403 W. Hallam (Gibbs/Janss)- inactive
811/819 E. Hopkins (Fellman), with Derek- inactive
113 E. Hopkins
110 E. Bleeker
110 E. Bleeker
631 W. Bleeker
,.--.~......
!II[ A.
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
~
Joyce Allgaier, Deputy Community Development Director
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer JB--
Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Intern
TO:
THRU:
RE:
710 North Third Street, Major Development Review (Conceptual), Demolition,
and Variances- Public Hearing
DATE:
July 27,2005
SUMMARY: The subject property is a large two-story Victorian era house located on Unit A of
the Martin Condominiums which abuts Gillespie Avenue to the north and North Third Street to
the west. Originally an 11,500 square foot parcel with a two-story Victorian era house and a
carriage house, the property was divided into Unit A: 7,350 square feet, and Unit B: 4,150
square feet; separating the ownership of the two historic resources. Together the two structures
exceed the total allowable FAR of 4,230 square feet by more than 1,000 square feet. The total
FAR for the large Victorian house on Unit A is 4,041 square feet, which includes 135 square feet
of deck that exceeds the allowable amount. The application is solely for the Victorian house,
which fronts North Third Street, on Unit A.
The applicant proposes to demolish the existing non-historic, post-World War II addition and
create a new addition to the Victorian home, and to construct a new garage, by re-configuring the
existing 4,041 square feet of FAR. The historic portion of the home will remain intact. The
application requires the following setback variances: a front yard setback variance and a north
side yard setback variance to legalize the house in its existing location and a front yard setback
variance of up to 15 feet for the new garage. A waiver of one on-site parking space is needed as
are variances from the "Residential Design Standards" related to garages and lightwells. A side
yard setback variance for the garage was overlooked in the conceptual notice and will be
discussed at Final Review.
Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a proposal. A
list of the design guidelines relevant to Conceptual Review is attached as "Exhibit A."
Staff has concerns regarding the height and scale of the new addition obscuring important
details on the historic Victorian home and the proximity of the addition to the front of the
house. The length and width of the connector piece between old and new construction does
not meet minimum design guideline requirements and the west elevation lightwell does not
meet residential design guideline requirements. Staff is concerned with creating a two car
parking area in front of the house and recommends that no more than a one car garage and
single car width driveway be allowed. The front yard setback of the garage does not meet
residential design guidelines or the minimum dimensional requirements. A continuation for
restudy is recommended.
1
APPLICANT: Suzanne Leydecker, represented by Rally Dupps of Consortium Architects and _
Mitch Haas of Haas Land Planning, LLC.
PARCELID: 2735-121-27-002.
ADDRESS: 710 North Third Street, Unit A, Lot I & 2, Block 102 of Hallam's Addition, City
and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
ZONING: R-6. Medium Density Residential.
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:
One StOry Addition:
The one story addition is recognizable as a product of its own time and the applicant has
consciously broken the addition into different modules as recommended by the design guidelines.
In this regard, staff appreciates the attention paid to the design guidelines; however the scale,
height, and proportions of the addition may need to be revised. The first set of guidelines to
discuss are:
2
r
.....,
10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time.
D An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining
visually compatible with these earlier features.
D 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.
D 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.
D A 1-story connector is preferred.
D .The connector should be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary
building.
D 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.
D Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate.
D Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not alter
the exterior mass of a building.
D 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.
The addition is a one story mass located off of the south elevation of the historic home with a
small connector piece that is setback 11 feet from the front porch of the historic home, and has a
width of6 feet along the west elevation. According to design guidelines 10.7 and 10.8 the
connector should be a minimum of 10 feet long. Guideline 10.8 has always been interpreted to
require a minimum of 10 feet setback from the front wall (primary fa9ade, as stated in the
guideline), not the porch. Staff recommends that the 10 foot setback measurement of the entire
addition be required to originate at the primary building fa9ade, rather than at the front of the
exterior porch. The connector element only creates a slight reveal (l foot) from the gable roofed
portion of the addition, so it does not read as a distinct link as intended.
The 8 foot plate height and low ridge height of the connector piece is acceptable as it does not
obscure the architectural details of the historic home. The applicant intends to recreate the
horizontal band of fish scale shingles to the south elevation that are evident in the historic
photograph before the existing addition was added and are intact along the north elevation. Staff
is highly enthusiastic about the restoration of the Victorian to its original appearance.
""
The living room volume has an 8:12 gable that faces south. The ridge height of this section of
the "one story" addition is equivalent to the height of the top of the second story windows on the
primary historic facade, and obscures the historic window on the south elevation. An increase in
the setback between the new addition and the historic home may help alleviate the obstruction of
the window on the south elevation. According drawing showing the west elevation of the living
room, the length of the proposed ridge is 27.5 feet as compared to the 25 foot horizontal ridge of
the historic home. Staff fmds that the length and height of the living room roof form creates the
appearance of a large mass which competes with the historic resource.
3
Staff recommends that the new addition be more consistent with the scale, proportion, and roof '""""
pitches of the old house, similar to what has been achieved with the detached garage in the ,j
southwest corner of the property. This is particularly true since the new construction is so close
to the front of the house.
New Garage:
The applicant proposes to provide the two required onsite parking spaces. Currently no parking
exists for Unit A; parking exists for Unit B along Gillespie Street in the public right of way. The
applicant is proposing a detached one car garage and one uncovered parking space adjacent to the
garage with entry along Third Street. No alley exists. Staff is concerned with the two car width
of the driveway and the location of the space next to the garage. The location of the garage in the
southwest corner of the property provides adequate distance from the historic resource, but staff
feels that amount of visible parking, a detached garage and adjacent uncovered parking space, on
the primary street will have a negative effect on the historic resource and surrounding
neighborhood. The garage requires front yard and side yard setback variances. Staff
recommends that HPC allow the single stall garage and single width driveway only. An
additional setback from Third Street may be appropriate. Other instances of historic single stall
garages which face a street typically occur on the side rather on the primary fa9ade of the
landmark house.
DEMOLITION
The applicant proposes to demolish an existing addition on the historic Victorian era home.
Demolition shall be approved if it is demonstrated that the application meets anyone of the
following criteria:
A"""
",J)
a. The property has been determined by the city to be an imminent hazard to public
safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner,
b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to
properly maintain the structure,
c. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in
Aspen, or
d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic,
architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance, and
Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met:
a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic
district in which it is located, and
b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the
integrity of the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent
designated properties and
c. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs
of the area.
........
4
Circa 1950s photograph of south elevation
Staff Response: Based on this photograph, presumed to be circa 1950s, staff finds that the
addition on the south side of the historic two-story Victorian home is not original or
architecturally significant, and its demolition will not impact the integrity of the historic resource.
As per section 26.575.020(E) of the Municipal Land Use Code, the applicant is requesting a
"partial demolition" which is defined as demolishing less than 40% (applicant proposes 37.7%)
of the existing structure and therefore is permitted to re-configure the existing 4,041 square feet
of FAR. The applicant proposes a total of 4,033 square feet of FAR. Staff finds that the
demolition of the non-historic addition is in compliance with Section 10.2 of the design
guidelines.
10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed.
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS
The project requires variances to the Residential Design Standards related to the lightwell on
North Third Street and the detached garage. All residential development must comply with the
following review standards or receive a variance based on a finding that:
A. The proposed design yields greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen area Community
Plan (AACP); or,
B. The proposed design more effectively addresses the issue or problem a given standard or
provision responds to; or,
C. The proposed design is clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site
specific constraints.
5
Lightwell:
The applicant proposes to have a basement level beneath the new addition with two lightwells:
one located on the primary west elevation and the other located on the south elevation. The
lightwell on the west elevation requires a variance from the Residential Design Standards
26.410.040(D)(4)which requires that the lightwell "shall be entirely recessed behind the front
most wall of the building.". The proposed lightwell will be 6 inches above grade and will have a
metal grate for egress. Staff recommends that HPC deny the applicant's request for a Residential
Design Standard variance for the lightwell, and suggests that the applicant relocate the lightwell
to be in compliance with the standards; maybe to where the deck off of the mud room is currently
located.
Detached Garage:
The front fa~ade of the detached garage is located 2 feet from the property line and is in violation
of section 26.410.040 (C)(2) of the Residential Design Standards that states that " the front
fa~ade of the garage...shall be set back at least 10 feet further from the street than the front most
wall of the house." Staff recommends that the applicant's request for a full variance from the
design standard be denied by HPC on the basis that there is ample space for the garage to be in
compliance with the Residential Design Standard.
SETBACK VARIANCES
Staff recommends that HPC grant a variance for the historic Victorian home in order to legalize
its historic front porch. This entails allowing a 3.5 foot setback for the existing historic front
porch, where a 10 foot setback is required. The applicant requests a 13 foot front yard setback
variance to allow a 2 foot setback for the garage, where a 15 foot front yard setback is required.
The request for an 8 foot side yard setback variance to allow a 7 foot setback for the garage,
where a 15 foot side setback is required will be discussed at Final Review. The criteria for
granting setback variances, per Section 26.415.110.C of the Municipal Code are as follows:
HPC must make a rmding that the setback variance:
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.
Staff Finding: The historic porch appears to be in its original location, therefore a variance
legalizing its condition is appropriate. Staff feels that location ofthe detached garage 2 feet back
from the west property line jeopardizes the integrity of the historic home which sits almost 11
feet from the west property, and recommends modification of the front yard setback variance.
6
-.,
........
-,
ON-SITE PARKING
The applicant is requesting one on-site parking waiver. In order to grant a parking waiver, HPC
must find that the review standards of Section 26.415.l10.C 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: Staff recommends an on-site parking waiver due to the constraints of the
property. The applicant expressed a strong interest in having a back yard, so this waiver will
relieve the historic property' of a portion of the on-site parking requirement and allow the
applicant to retain their backyard space.
Illegal parking currently exists in the grass portion of the public right of way along Gillespie
Street. Because the subject property is condominiumized, the application encompasses both Unit
A and Unit B of the Martin Condominiums. The privatized parking spaces along Gillespie Street
occupy the publicly owned right of way. As a condition of approval, the City will require the
property owners to remove the pull-in parking spaces and the curb cut and to restore the grass.
The owners may apply for a street parking pass, permitting them to parallel park on the street.
DECISION MAKING OPTIONS:
The HPC may:
. approve the application,
. approve the application with conditions,
. disapprove the application, or
. continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary
to make a decision to approve or deny.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC continue Major Development (Conceptual),
Demolition, and Variances for Unit A, 710 North Third Street for restudy.
1. Restudy the height and scale of the new addition so that it does not obscure important
details on the historic Victorian home.
2. Shift the location of the addition back from the front of the historic house.
3. Restudy the length and width of the connector piece and bring it into compliance with
the design guidelines.
4. Remove the two car parking area in the front of the house reducing it to a one car
garage and single car width driveway.
5. Increase the setback of the garage so that it does not compete with the primary fa<;:ade
of the historic house.
7
6. Remove the parking on Gillespie Street from the site plan.
A. Relevant Design Guidelines
B. Application
..""
8
11t( 154
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
THRU:
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
Joyce Allgaier, Deputy Planning Director
FROM:
Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Intern
RE:
470 North Spring Street- Major Development Review (Final), Public Hearing
DATE:
July 27, 2005
SUMMARY: The subject property is located in the Oklahoma Flats neighborhood and contains
a locally designated Victorian era home which was moved to the site in the 1960's.
The application proposes an addition to the rear (north side) of the historic home. The project
has been granted setback variances, a 500 square foot FAR bonus, and a variance from the
"Residential Design Standards" relating to setting the garage back from the face of the house.
The FAR bonus was awarded with the condition that specific restoration measures were to occur
on the historic resource.
Staff finds that the project meets the relevant design guidelines and restoration requirements
conceptual approval, and recommends HPC grant Final approval with conditions.
APPLICANT: Dennis and Andrea Young, owners, represented by Lipkin Warner Design
Partnership.
PARCEL ID: 2737-073-08-002.
ADDRESS: 470 N. Spring Street, Lot 2, Block 4, Oklahoma Flats Addition to the City and
Townsite of Aspen, along with a metes and bounds parcel on the southerly side of said lot.
ZONING: R-30.
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (FINAL)
The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Final level, is as follows. Staff Teviews
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
1
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: Recently, the HPC has been contemplating new tools to analyze the
appropriateness of proposals to alter historic structures. The following questions are likely to be
the center of future discussions, and may be helpful for HPC to at least reference for this project
(note that the questions do not serve as formal decision making criteria at this time):
1. Why is the property significant?
2. What are the key features of the property?
3. What is the character of the context? How sensitive is the context to changes?
4. How would the proposed work affect the property's integrity assessment score?
5. What is the potential for cumulative alterations that may affect the integrity of the
property?
The property is important as an example of housing built during the mining era. It was moved to
the current location, and a number of alterations to the building occurred after that time. Some
information about the footprint and design of the house as it was originally constructed is
available.
Key features of the property are that the original roof and building walls on the front portion of
the house are intact. There is some original trim, windows, doors, and porch elements.
This house stands in a neighborhood where the 19th century context has been eliminated. Only
one other designated cabin is within the vicinity. Most of the adjacent homes are new
construction and are significantly larger than this one.
The proposal before HPC will create an addition linked to the back of the original house. Very
little of the existing building fabric will be removed. Restoration work is envisioned for the
Victorian. There is no potential for expansion beyond this application.
Desil!n Guideline review
Final review deals with details such as the landscape plan, lighting, fenestration, and selection
of new materials. A list of the relevant design guidelines is attached as "Exhibit A." Only those
which staff finds warrant discussion are included in the memo.
2
~","..^
Landscape Plan:
The existing parking in front of the house has been removed as required in order to receive the
FAR bonus. A landscape plan was not included in the proposal and can be approved by staff and
HPC monitor as a condition of approval.
"-
Lighting:
Light fixtures have not been indicated. When available, a review of these fixtures can be handled
through staff and monitor as a condition of approval. Approval must be achieved prior to
purchase and installation.
Fenestration:
Historic Structure:
The applicant proposes to remove the bay window on the primary fa<;:ade and replace it with a
large double hung window as illustrated in the 1968 photograph, restoring the fa<;:ade to its
original window configuration. Staff recommends that HPC discuss the appearance of the
window molding in the 1968 photograph with the client to confirm that it is in compliance with
sections 3.1. The molding around the large double hung window and around the upper window
in the gable as represented on the proposal does not replicate the subtle lintel and sill as seen in
the historic photograph.
~..."
3.1 Preserve the functional and decorative features of a historic window.
o Features important to the character of a window include its frame, sash,
muntinsj mullions, sills, heads, jambs, moldings, operation and groupings of windows.
Staff recommends removal of the window located partially beneath the porch and the window
beneath the restored large double hung window on the primary elevation. They are not historic
and are inappropriate on the primary fa<;:ade of the historic structure.
The skylight on the south elevation will be removed, as required to receive the FAR bonus, and
will be patched to match the existing roof material.
The inappropriate multipaned storm window on the west elevation will be removed, uncovering
the historic double hung window, as per Section 2.10:
2.10 Consider removing later covering materials that have not achieved historic
significance.
. Once the non-historic siding is removed, repair the original, underlying material.
",,"
The kitchen window bay on the west elevation is to be removed and replaced with two square
windows that are flush with the wall. The northwest corner stair and door are to be removed and
replaced with a square window. The applicant proposes to replace the non-historic living room
windows on the east elevation with new windows that replicate the adjacent historic windows. In
the conditions for receipt of the FAR bonus, Staff recommends that the size and shape of the new
windows be determined by framing evidence that will be exposed when residing, and approved
by staff and HPC monitor. The applicant's report states that some of the interior finishes were
,,",
3
removed and reveal mostly modern framing on the east wall, and the north and west walls reveal
both modern and older framing. Staff recommends that HPC comment on the proposed
windows, if in fact there is no evidence in the framing that is revealed when re-siding the
exterior.
'"'"""
.,
3.6 Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening.
o Reducing an original opening to accommodate a smaller window or increasing it to
receive a larger window is inappropriate.
o Consider reopening and restoring an original window opening where altered
6.5 Do not guess at "historic" designs for replacement parts.
o Where "scars" on the exterior suggest that architectural features existed, but there is no
other physical or photographic evidence, then new features may be designed that are
similar in character to related buildings.
o Using overly ornate materials on a building for which there is no documentation is
inappropriate.
o It is acceptable to use salvaged materials from other buildings only if they are similar'in
style and detailing to other features on the building where they are to be installed.
The applicant proposes to replace the existing dormer with a smaller scaled, lower dormer on the
east elevation. The four small square windows successfully differentiate the dormer from the
historic resource.
Staff finds that the new windows proposed for the east elevation of the existing non-historic :)
addition to the historic home are wider than the historic windows creating an appropriate ...
relationship and gradual transition between the old and the new.
New Addition:
Staff finds that the size, shape, and proportion of the windows on the addition appropriately draw
upon the historic resource, yet are recognizable of product of their own time.
Materials:
Historic Structure:
The materials selected for the new windows on the historic structure were not included in the
packet. Staff recommends wood windows for the historic structure.
3.5 In a replacement window, use materials that appear similar to the original.
o Using the same material as the original is preferred, especially on character-defining
facades. However, a substitute material may be considered if the appearance of the
window components will match those of the original in dimension, profile and finish.
Staff finds that the standing seam zinc roof is appropriate for the new dormer on the east
elevation of the historic home. It differentiates the dormer as a new addition on the historic
structure and successfully creates a relationship between the old home and the new addition to
the north.
-.
4
# The material proposed for the reconstructed porch was not included m the plans; Staff
""'-~ recommends wood as an appropriate material.
.......'~
-
As per Section 2.7 of the Guidelines, the applicant proposes to remove the existing siding on the
historic structure and add horizontal wood clapboards, improving the historic Victorian
appearance of the home. The exposure of the wood clapboard is not represented on the final
plans. Staff recommends that the HPC determine an appropriate exposure for the new siding,
probably in the range of 4"- 6".
2.7 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing
materials on primary surfaces.
o If the original material is wood clapboard, for example, then the replacement material
must be wood as well. It should match the original in size, the amount of exposed lap
and finish.
o Replace only the amount required. If a few boards are damaged beyond repair, then only
those should be replaced, not the entire wall.
Staff recommends that the fish scale shingles in the gable end of the south elevation are restored
as illustrated in the historic photograph. The fish scales are a significant architectural feature that
should be incorporated into the restoration.
Staff finds that the doors on the historic structure and the new addition are uncharacteristic of the
Victorian era. Staff recommends that existing historic doors are restored. If no historic material
exists, then doors that are reflective of the Victorian era should be used. The new doors can be
approved by staff and HPC monitor, and listed as a condition of approval.
New Addition:
Window materials were not included in the proposed plans for the new construction; Staff
recommends wood or clad as an acceptable material.
The main portion of the addition is 4" horizontal wood siding. Staff recommends that the
exposure of the wooden siding on the addition be different than that of the historic house,
providing a subtle variation between the old and new.
Staff finds that the standing seam zinc panel material selected for the connector piece provides a
distinct link between the new and the old, and an interesting juxtaposition with the horizontal
wood clapboard. Staff recommends that HPC discuss the aesthetics of the horizontal band of
zinc along the bottom of the roof of the existing addition on the east elevation.
The roof form of the connector piece has been altered from what was approved at conceptual.
HPC approved an angled roof form that reads as a gable from the street. The south elevation of
the addition on page A5.! of the final plans shows a half-barrel roof on the connector. Staff
/"" recommends that the applicant return to the roof form that was approved at Conceptual Review.
",",.
5
DECISION MAKING OPTIONS:
The HPC may:
. approve the application,
. approve the application with conditions,
. d~approvetheapplication,or
. continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary
to make a decision to approve or deny.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC grant Major Development Review
(Final) with the following conditions:
1. Staff and monitor must be notified if there is evidence in the framing that relates to the
location, size, and proportion of the windows on the historic structure.
2. The material of the windows on the historic building and any new front porch railings
must be wood.
3. The proposed windows on the primary fa<;:ade beneath the porch and the large double
hung window will be removed from the drawings.
4. The molding around the large double hung window and the window above it on the
primary historic fa<;:ade will reflect that of the 1968 photograph.
5. Exterior doors must be approved by HPC staff and monitor before purchase or
installation.
6. Fish scale shingles in the south gable of the historic house will be restored as per the
historic 1968 photograph.
7. The exposure of the clapboard siding on the historic structure will be between 4" and 6".
8. The roof form of the connector piece must reflect that which was approved at Conceptual
Review.
9. The applicant must submit a detailed landscape for approval by staff and monitor.
10. HPC staff and. monitor must approve any changes with regard to the type and location of
exterior lighting fixtures by reviewing a plan prior to wiring, purchasing, or installing the
fixtures.
11. Information on all venting locations and meter locations not described in the approved
drawings shall be provided for review and approval by staff and monitor when the
information is available.
12. Submit a demolition plan, as part of the building permit plan set, indicating exactly what
areas of the existing house are to be removed as part of the renovation.
13. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations or materials as approved without
first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor, or the full board.
14. The conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the
building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction.
15. The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC
resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to
HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of
6
-
, ..4
~
---
)
'" approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer
'-.' prior to applying for the building permit.
16. The General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty
license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit.
17. The applicant shall be required to finalize all necessary lot line adjustments before any
building permit will be issued for this development.
18. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan
vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order.
However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this
approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise
exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be
recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development
order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the
development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits).
Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in
the creation of a vested property right.
No later,than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary
to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be
published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the
City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific
development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice
shall be substantially in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development
plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years,
pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado
Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 470 North Spring Street
Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews
and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or
the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this
approval.
The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial
review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin
to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required
under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the
Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter.
"
Exhibits:
Resolution # , Series of 2005
A. Relevant HPC Design Guidelines
B. HPC Resolution 24, Series 2003
C. Section of connector piece as approved at conceptual review
D. Application
7
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (FINAL) FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 470 N. SPRING STREET, LOT 2, BLOCK 4, OKLAHOMA
FLATS ADDITION TO THE CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, ALONG WITH A
METES AND BOUNDS PARCEL, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO
RESOLUTION NO. _' SERIES OF 2005
PARCEL ID: 2737-073-08-002
WHEREAS, the applicants, Dennis and Andrea Young, represented by Lipkin Warner Design
Partnership, have requested Major Development Review (Conceptual) and Variances for the
property located at 470 N. Spring Street, Lot 2, Block 4, Oklahoma Flats Addition to the City and
Townsite of Aspen, along with a metes and bounds parcel, Aspen, Colorado. The property is
listed on the "Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures;" 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 involvlng 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 Final Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff
analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance
with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2
and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve,
disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information
necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and
WHEREAS, Sara Adams, in her staff report dated July 27, 2005 performed an analysis of the
application based on the standards, and recommended that the project be approved with
conditions; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on July 27, 2005, the Historic Preservation Commission
considered the application, found the application was consistent with the "City of Aspen Historic
Preservation Design Guidelines" and other applicable sections of the Municipal Code and
approved the application with conditions by a vote of _ to _'
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby grants approval for Major Development (Final) with the following conditions:
1. Staff and monitor must be notified if there is evidence in the framing that relates to the
location, size, and proportion of the windows on the historic structure.
2. The material of the windows on the historic building and any new front porch railings
must be wood.
"""'"
"'>;~,/
1
.....
-
r
.
'.,w~
.,
.,
3. 11,,' nml1,,<,,~_win~(;"ii1h{:""1lfima1:Y-~neath the porch and the large double
hung window will be I,,"~ed from the drawings.
4. The molding around the large double hung window and the window above it on the
primary historic fa9ade will reflect that of the 1968 photograph.
5. Exterior doors must be approved by HPC staff and monitor before purchase or
installation.
6. Fish scale shingles in the south gable of the historic house will be restored as per the
historic 1968 photograph.
7. The exposure of the clapboard siding on ~e historic structure will be between 4" and 6".
n .~ [:yrnf fQ I _~.t!he CO! I.;, ,}HWv ..._~l ;eflect that which was approved at Conceptual
R"".:_>.R.
9. The applicant must submit a detailed landscape for approval by staff and monitor.
1 O. HPC staff and monitor must approve any changes with regard to the type and location of
exterior lighting fixtures by reviewing a plan prior to wiring, purchasing, or installing the
fixtures.
11. Information on all venting locations and meter locations not described in the approved
drawings shall be provided for review and approval by staff and monitor when the
information is available.
12. Submit a demolition plan, as part of the building permit plan set, indicating exactly what
areas of the existing house are to be removed as part of the renovation.
13. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations or materials as approved without
first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor, or the full board.
14. The conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the
building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction.
15. The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC
resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to
HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of
approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer
prior to applying for the building permit.
16. The General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty
license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit.
17. The applicant shall be required to finalize all necessary lot line adjustments before any
building permit will be issued for this development.
IS. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan
vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order.
However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this
approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise
exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be
recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development
order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the
development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits).
Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in
the creation of a vested property right.
No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary
to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be
1
published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the .....-4
City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific .,,!
development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice
shall be substantially in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development
plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years,
pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado
Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 470 North Spring Street
Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews
and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or
the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this
approval.
The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial
review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin
to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required
under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the
Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 27th day of July, 2005.
Approved as to Form:
t'1~
..
David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney
Approved as to content:
HISTORIC PRESERV A nON COMMISSION
Jeffrey Halferty, Chair
ATTEST:
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
-
..
/ft"
Exhibit A: Relevant Design Guidelines for 470 North Spring Street, Final Review
'......
1.9 Maintain the established progression of public-to-private spaces when considering a
rehabilitation project.
D This includes a sequence of experiences, beginning with the "public" sidewalk, proceeding
along a "semi-public" walkway, to a "semi-private" porch or entry feature and ending in the
"private" spaces beyond.
D Provide a walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry. Meandering
walkways are discouraged, except where it is needed to avoid a tree.
D Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style.
Concrete, wood or sandstone may be appropriate for certain building styles.
1.10 Preserve historic elements of the yard to provide an appropriate context for historic
structures.
D The front yard should be maintained in a traditional manner, with planting material and
sod, and not covered with paving, for example.
1.11 Preserve and maintain mature landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees and
shrubs.
D Protect established vegetation during construction to avoid damage. Replacement of
damaged, aged or diseased b'ees must be approved by the Parks Department.
D If a tree must be removed as part of the addition or alteration, replace it with species of a
large enough scale to have a visual impact in the early years of the project.
1.12 Preserve and maintain historically significant planting designs.
D Retaining historic planting beds, landscape features and walkways is encouraged.
1.13 Revisions or additions to the landscape should be consistent with the historic context
of the site.
D Select plant and tree material according to its mature size, to allow for the long-term impact
of mature growth.
D Reserve the use of exotic plants to small areas for accent.
D Do not cover grassy areas with gravel, rock or paving materials.
1.14 Additions to the landscape that could interfere with historic structures are
inappropriate.
D Do not plant climbing ivy or b'ees too close to a building. New trees should be no closer
than the mature canopy size.
D Do not locate plants or trees in locations that will obscure significant architectural features
or block views to the building.
D It is not appropriate to plant a hedge row that will block views into the yard.
1.15 Minimize the visual impacts of site lighting.
D Site lighting should be shielded to avoid glare onto adjacent properties. Focus lighting on
walks and entries, rather than up into trees and onto facade planes.
2.1 Preserve original building materials.
D Do not remove siding that is in good condition or that can be repaired in place.
D Only remove siding which is deteriorated and must be replaced.
D Masonry features that define the overall historic character, such as walls, cornices,
pediments, steps and foundations, should be preserved.
D A void rebuilding a major portion of an exterior wall that could be repaired. Reconstruction
may result in a building which no longer retains its historic integrity.
2.5 Repair deteriorated primary building materials by patching, piecing-in, consolidating
'-'. or, otherwise reinforcing the material.
D A void the removal of damaged materials that can be repaired.
8
o Isolated areas of damage may be stabilized or fixed, using consolidants. Epoxies and resins ""'"
may be considered for wood repair and special masomy repair components also may be
used.
2.7 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing materials
on primary surfaces.
o If the original material is wood clapboard, for example, then the replacement material must
be wood as well. It should match the original in size, the amount of exposed lap and finish.
o Replace only the amount required. If a few boards are damaged beyond repair, then only
those should be replaced, not the entire wall.
2.8 Do not use synthetic materials as replacements for primary building materials.
o In some instances, substitute materials may be used for replacing architectural details, but
doing so is not encouraged. If it is necessary to use a new material, such as a fiberglass
column, the style and detail should precisely match that of the historic model.
o Primary building materials such as wood siding and brick should not be replaced with
synthetic materials.
o Synthetic materials include; aluminum, vinyl siding and panelized brick.
DElFS (synthetic stucco) is not an appropriate replacement for real stucco.
2.10 Consider removing later covering materials that have not achieved historic
significance.
o Once the non-historic siding is removed, repair the original, underlying material.
3.1 Preserve the functional and decorative features of a historic window.
o Features important to the character of a window include its frame, sash, muntinsJmullions,
sills, heads, jambs, moldings, operation and groupings of windows.
o Repair frames and sashes rather than replacing them, whenever conditions permit. _
o Preserve the original glass, when feasible. ",..,
3.2 Preserve the position, number and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall.
o 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.
o Greater flexibility in installing new windows may be considered on rear walls.
o Do not reduce an original opening to accommodate a smaller window or door or increase it
to receive a larger window on primary facades.
3.3 Preserve the historic ratio of window openings to solid wall on a facade.
o Significantly increasing the amount of glass on a character-defining facade will negatively
affect the integrity of a sh'ucture.
3.4 Match a replacement window to the original in its design.
o If the original is double,hung, then the replacement window should also be double-hung,
or at a minimum, appear to be so. Match the replacement also in the number and position of
glass panes.
o Matching the original design is particularly important on key character,defining facades.
3.5 In a replacement window, use materials that appear similar to the original.
o Using the same material as the original is preferred, especially on character-defining
facades. However, a substitute material may be considered if the appearance of the window
components will match those of the original in dimension, profile and finish.
3.6 Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening.
o Reducing an original opening to accommodate a smaller window or increasing it to receive
a larger window is inappropriate. -,
o Consider reopening and restoring an original window opening where altered. .,-
9
,-"
......-
........
3.7 Match, as closely as possible, the profile of the sash and its components to that of the
original window.
(J A historic window often has a complex profile. Within the window's casing, the sash steps
back to the plane of the glazing (glass) in several increments. These increments, which
individually only measure in eighths or quarters of inches, are important details. They
distinguish the actual window from the surrounding plane of the wall.
5.5 If porch replacement is necessary, reconstruct it to match the original in form and
detail.
(J Use materials that appear similar to the original.
(J While matching original materials is preferred, when detailed correctly and painted
appropriately, alternative materials may be considered.
(J Where no evidence of tl1e appearance of the historic porch exists, a new porch may be
considered that is similar in character to those found on comparable buildings. Keep the
style and form simple. Also, avoid applying decorative elements that are not known to have
been used on the house or others like it.
(J When constructing a new porch, its depth should be in scale with the building.
(J The scale of porch colunms also should be similar to that of the trimwork.
(J The height of the railing and the spacing of balusters should appear similar to those used
historically as well.
6.4 Repair or replacement of missing or deteriorated features should be based on original
designs.
(J The design should be substantiated by physical or pictorial evidence to avoid creating a
misrepresentation of the building's heritage.
(J When reconstruction of an element is impossible because there is no historical evidence,
develop a compatible new design that is a simplified interpretation of the original, and
maintains similar scale, proportion and material.
6.5 Do not guess at "historic" designs for replacement parts.
(J Where "scars" on the exterior suggest that architectural features existed, but there is no
other physical or photographic evidence, then new features may be designed that are
similar in character to related buildings.
(J Using overly ornate materials on a building for which there is no documentation is
inappropriate.
(J It is acceptable to use salvaged materials from other buildings only if they are similar in
style and detailing to other features on the building where they are to be installed.
6.6 Replacement of missing elements may be included in repair activities.
(J Replace only those portions that are beyond repair.
(J Replacement elements should be based on documented evidence.
(J Use the same kind of material as the original when feasible.
(J A substitute material may be acceptable if the form and design of the substitute itself
conveys the visual appearance of the original material. For example, a fiberglass cornice
may be considered at the top of a building.
7.7 A new dormer should remain subordinate to the historic roof in scale and character.
(J A new dormer should fit within the existing wall, plane. It should be lower than the
ridgeline and set in from the eave. It should also be in proportion with the building.
(J The mass and scale of a dormer addition must be subordinate to the scale of the historic
building.
10
7.8 Preserve original roof materials.
Q Avoid removing historic roofing material that is in good condition. When replacement is
necessary, use a material that is similar to the original in both style as well as physical
qualities and use a color that is similar to that seen historically.
Q Specialty materials such as tile, slate or concrete should be replaced with a matching
material.
7.9 New or replacement roof materials should convey a scale, color and texture similar to
those used traditionally.
Q Replacement materials should be similar to those used historically on comparably styled
buildings.
Q If a substitute is used, such as composition shingle, the roof material should be earth tone
and have a matte, non-reflective finish.
Q Flashing should be in scale with the roof material.
Q If copper flashing is to be used, it should be treated to establish a matte, non-reflective
finish.
8.4 A garage door should be compatible with the character of the historic structure.
Q A wood,clad hinged door is preferred on a historic structure.
Q If an overhead door is used, the materials should match that of the secondary structure.
Q If the existing doors are hinged, they can be adapted with an automatic opener.
10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to.interpret the historic character of the
primary building is maintained.
Q A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the
primary building is inappropriate.
Q An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is
inappropriate.
Q An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic
style should be avoided.
Q 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.
Q An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also
remaining visually compatible with these earlier features.
Q 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.
10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building.
Q Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate.
Q Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions, on residential structures with sloped
roofs.
10.11 On 'a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the historic
materials of the primary building.
Q The new materials should be either similar or subordinate to the original materials.
14.3 Keep color schemes simple.
Q Using one base color for the building is preferred.
Q Using only one or two accent colors is also encouraged, except where precedent exists for
using more than two colors with some architectural styles.
14.4 Coordinating the entire building in one color scheme is usually more successful than
working with a variety of palettes.
Q Using the color scheme to establish a sense of overall composition for the building is
sh'ongly encouraged.
11
.......
-"0.',",,>'
'""')
,,"
-
......
"
14.5 Develop a color scheme for the entire building front that coordinates all the facade
elements.
I:l Choose a base color that will link the entire building face together. For a commercial
building, it can tie signs, ornamentation, awnings and entrances together. On residences, it
can function similarly. It can also help your building relate better to others in the district.
I:l The complexity of the accent colors should be appropriate to the architectural style of the
building.
I:l Doors may be painted a bright accent color, or they may be left a natural wood finish.
Historically, many of the doors would have simply had a stain applied.
I:l Window sashes are also an excellent opportunity for accent color.
I:l Brilliant luminescent or "day'glo" colors are not appropriate.
14.6 Exterior lights should be simple in character and similar in color and intensity to that
used traditionally.
I:l The design of a fixture should be simple in form and detail. Exterior lighting must be
approved by the HPC.
I:l All exterior light sources should have a low level of luminescence.
14.7 Minimize the visual impacts of site and architectural lighting.
I:l Unshielded, high intensity light sources and those which direct light upward will not be
permitted.
I:l Shield lighting associated with service areas, parking lots and parking structures.
I:l Timers or activity switches may be required to prevent unnecessary sources of light by
controlling the length of time that exterior lights are in use late at night.
I:l Do not wash an entire building facade in light.
I:l Avoid placing exposed light fixtures in highly visible locations, such as on the upper walls
of buildings.
D Avoid duplicating fixtures. For example, do not use two fixtures that light the same area.
14.8 Minimize the visual impact of light spill from a building.
D Prevent glare onto adjacent properties by using shielded and focused light sources that
direct light onto the ground. The use of downlights, with the bulb fully enclosed within the
shade, or step lights which direct light only on to walkways, is strongly encouraged.
D Lighting shall be carefully located so as not to shine into residential living space, on or off
the property or into public rights-of-way.
14.12 Provide a weather-protective finish to wood surfaces.
I:l The rustic bare-wood look is not a part of the heritage of the historic districts or individual
landmark properties.
D Painted surfaces are most appropriate. Stains may be accepted in combination with
materials that give a well-finished appearance. Use water seal to preserve the porch deck.
D Rustic finishes will not be approved.
14.14 Minimize the visual impacts of service areas as seen from the street.
D When it is feasible, screen service areas from view, especially those associated with
commercial and multifamily developments.
D This includes locations for h'ash containers and loading docks.
D Service areas should be accessed off of the alley, if one exists.
14.15 Minimize the visual impacts of mechanical equipment as seen from the public way.
D Mechanical equipment may only be installed on an alley facade, and only if it does not
create a negative visual impact.
D Mechanical equipment or vents on a roof must be grouped together to minimize their visual
impact. Where rooftop units are visible, provide screening with materials that are
compatible with those of the building itself.
12
o Screen ground-mounted units with fences, stone walls or hedges. _
o A window air conditioning unit may only be installed on an alley facade, and only if it does
not create a negative visual impact.
o Use low-profile mechanical units on rooftops so they will not be visible from the street or
alley. Also minimize the visual impacts of utility connections and service boxes. Use smaller
satellite dishes and mount them low to the ground and away from front yards, significant
building facades or highly visible roof planes.
o Paint telecommunications and mechanical equipment in muted colors that will minimize
their appearance by blending with their backgrounds.
14.17 Design a new driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact.
o Plan parking areas and driveways in a manner that utilizes existing curb cuts. New curb
cuts are not permitted.
o If an alley exists, a new driveway must be located off of it.
""",
,<".,'lti
-
'"".,
13
1Jll.. c.
....~'
MEMORANDUM
',,-
TO:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
THRU:
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer ....M
Joyce Allgaier, Deputy Community Development Director ~
FROM:
Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Intern
RE:
430 West Main Street, Historic Landmark Lot Split - Public Hearing
DATE:
July 27, 2005
SUMMARY: The subject property is located on the corner of Main Street and North 4th Street
within the Main Street Historic District. The property is 9,000 square feet in size, and contains
one two-story historic structure, which is represented on the 1904 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map.
The historic house was a residence from 1890 thru 1991, and now operates as an office building.
It received HPC approval for renovation in May of 1990. The applicant proposes to split the
9,000 square foot lot into one ~,OOO square foot lot, formerly Lot K, which is the comer lot and
one'f,OOO square foot lots containing the historic Beck house (formerly lots L and M).
The project has been referred to the Parks Department for review of the large tree that is located
on the corner lot along 4th Street. Their comment will be presented at the meeting.
Staff recommends that the Historic Landmark Lot Split be supported. The property is located
within the Main Street historic district and contains one contributing historic structure. The
applicant intends to sell the property containing the historic resource and keep the corner lot.
This application is solely for a lot split; there is no development proposed or variances
requested.
APPLICANT: Glenn A. Beck, represented by Christie Ann Kienast.
PARCEL ID: 2735-124-42-004.
ADDRESS: 430 West Main Street, Lots K, L, and M, Block 37, City and Townsite of Aspen,
Colorado.
ZONING: MU, Mixed Use Zone.
1
HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT
""""
"'.;
In order to complete a Historic Landmark Lot Split, the applicant 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 26.415.010(D.)
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 subject property consists of Lots K, L, and M of Block 37 in the original Aspen Townsite.
The property is not located within a previously approved subdivision, and the merged lots
predate the City's adoption of subdivision regulation. Most of the Historic Landmark Lot Splits "'"
that have been approved occur in neighborhoods where residential development is the only .....,I
option. Although their property is in the Mixed Use District, a condition of approval will be
required to make it clear that the development occurring on the vacant parcel at 430 West Main
Street must be a single family residence per the introductory statement to these criteria, unless a
future code amendment lifts this restriction and approval is thereafter requested by the applicant
and granted by the HPC. The lot that contains the historic structure can be developed as either
residential or mixed use.
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.IOO.040(A)(1)(c).
Staff Finding:
The applicant proposes to create two lots with this lot split. Both lots conform to the
dimensional requirements of the underlying MU zone district as applied to properties located
within a historic district. The minimum lot size for lots created through the Historic Landmark
Lot Split is 3,000 square feet; the applicant proposes to create one 3,000 square foot lot and one
6,000 square foot lot.
With regard to the requirements for affordable housing mitigation, Council has adopted benefits
for historic properties, pursuant to Section 26.420.020 (B)(6)(e) of the Land Use Code. The new :)
lot in a historic landmark lot split is exempt from the requirement to comply with any of these
housing options.
2
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 26.100.040(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.
Staff Finding:
The subdivision plat shall be a condition of approval. It must be reviewed by the Community
Development Department and the Engineering Department for approval and recordation within
ISO 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 requiredfor a showing of good cause.
Staff Finding:
The subdivision exemption agreement shall be a condition of approval.
f) 1n 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:
As per the application, the existing historic structure will not be demolished as part of this lot
split.
g) Maximum potential buildoutfor 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:
The applicant does not propose any development at this time. As per the application, Lot 1 (K),
the corner lot, will remain vacant at this time, and Lot 2 (L & M) will contain the historic
structure.
3
26.480.030(A)(4). SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIONS. HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT
The split of a lot that is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures
for the development of one new single-family dwelling may receive a subdivision exemption if it
meets the following standards:
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 MU (formerly 0) zone district.
The subject parcel is 9,000 square feet ofland and is located in the Mixed Use (formerly 0) 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.
In the Mixed Use (0) zone district, the following shall apply to the calculation of maximum
floor area for lots created through the historic landmark lot split. Note that the total FAR
shall not be stated on the Subdivision Exemption Plat because the floor area will be
affected by the use established on the property:
If all buildings on what was the fathering parcel remain wholly residential in use, the
maximum floor area will be as stated in the R-6 zone district.
If any portion of a building on a lot created by the historic landmark lot split is in
commercial/office use, then the allowed floor area for that lot shall be the floor area
allowed for all uses other than residential in the zone district. If the adjacent parcel
created by the lot split remains wholly in residential use, then the floor area on that parcel
shall be limited to the maximum allowed on a lot of its size for residential use according to
the R-6 standards.
If there is commercial/office use on both newly created lots, the maximum floor area for all
uses other than residential in the zone district will be applied.
Staff Finding:
The allowable floor area for Lot 1, residential development in the MU zone district, are the same
as allowed in R-6, except that a 20% reduction was adopted as a disincentive to future single
family home development in this neighborhood, allowing a maximum floor area of 1,920 square
feet.
Because the maximum cumulative floor area for properties along Main Street in the Mixed Use
Zone District is 1: 1, a total of 6,000 square feet of floor area is permitted on Lot 2, as long as it is
in commercial use. The historic structure is currently 1,920 square feet of floor area.
c. The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the
underlying zone district. The variances provided in Section 26.415.120(B)(1)(a),(b), and (c)
are only permitted on the parcels that will contain a historic structure. The FAR bonus
will be added to the maximum FAR allowed on the original parcel.
4
--
"'''''
--....
.,<.'...."~'
-
"-...--,,"
i~'>
'- Staff Finding: The applicant does not propose development at this time.
DECISION MAKING OPTIONS:
The HPC may:
. approve the application,
. approve the application with conditions,
. disapprove the application, or
. continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary
to make a decision to approve or deny.
.~
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Historic Landmark Lot Split at 430
West Main Street, Lots K, L, and M, Block 37 City and Townsite of Aspen with the following
conditions:
1. A subdivision plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall be reviewed and approved
by the Community Development Department and recorded in the office of the Pitkin
County Clerk and Recorder within one hundred eighty (ISO) days of final approval by
City Council. Failure to record the plat and subdivision exemption agreement within the
specified time limit shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by City
Council will be required for a showing of good cause. As a minimum, the subdivision
plat shall:
a. Meet the requirements of Section 26.480 ofthe Aspen Municipal Code;
b. Contain a plat note stating that no further subdivision may be granted for these
lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals
pursuant to the provisions of the Land Use Code in effect at the time of
application;
c. Contain a plat note stating that all new development on the lots will conform to
the dimensional requirements ofthe Mixed Use zone district; and
d. Be labeled to indicate that this proposal will create Lot I of 3,000 square feet in
size, and a Lot 2 of 6,000 square feet in size. The allowable floor area will be
determined by the Zoning Officer once the use of the property is decided.
e. Contain a plat note stating that the lot does not contain the historic structure must
be developed as a single family residence.
f. Contain a plat note stating that the FAR on the two lots created by this lot split
shall be based on the use of the buildings. The maximum FAR for each lot may
be affected by applicable lot area reductions (i.e., slopes, access easements, etc.).
The applicant shall verify with the City Zoning Officer the total allowable FAR on
each lot taking into account any and all applicable lot area reductions. The
property shall be subdivided into two parcels, corner Lot 1 which is 3,000 square
feet in size, and interior Lot 2 which is 6,000 square feet in size.
g. A tree removal permit shall not be issued for the large tree at the corner of the lot
unless Parks determines that the tree is unhealthy or a hazard.
-"';.""
5
2. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development .-.,
plan vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development _
order. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this
approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise
exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be
recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development
order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the
development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits).
Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in
the creation of a vested property right.
No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary
to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be
published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the
City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific
development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice
shall be substantially in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development
plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years,
pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado
Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 430 West Main Street
"""'"
Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews
and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or
the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this
approval.
""iIiIP'
The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial
review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin
to run until the date of publication of the notice offmal development approval as required
under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights ofreferendum shall be limited as set forth in the
Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter.
Exhibits:
Resolution # _, Series of 2005
A. Application
-
'ow ". ~
6
Yf'0i ~.~
(I q~,
)\0 ,~\j
,
c.
Cl-
.L
~ 1.:'
~
-<
r
r
3
~
i /i/I
'--/....1""
i i'l...
/ ~~
/ /~/7C"~~~"-~'-__~__'_~'"
~ < '~~ ,
' < -'-"J"_~ ~ ....----....--......'...-~
1 //I"""~j
'2'2/ I j" r-":
~!..z- I rJ/ ~ l.
0L.-] ,J .JI ie" \
--~/ (j
I (
\~-/r--Y
c'~~
I~VO\. ,71
...-----'\ '--'-',
'- ~'I
..J-~
~ "'.:>
.r~_~ Q cJ:
)'co'
vi- \ ~,
\;.}\./ \
,,\J \
,~~ '\
...j ",,-
I '.
"<! '^',
;;' ~.
<'- ,\
-----'--------~-->" \
'"L
"
(1\
"'"
z.
.,
S
L
"
^'
,,",
..;
m
'"
6
m
"
\ ~
co
\I>
~
,..
"-
!( -----..
V'
~
n
m
'"
/
oj' "
-
'"
m
"
>
r
r
St.Q~WAl-'" --'_.- -_~.
'~--r--"~ _
''-, '/ /.
'--.1/ /
--J/jOIT\ / I
j. / '
>l', / I
"6-'i\ / I
--\ /
- - ~;C~
XCV "-
/f\ ~. ".
, . ,-" "-
, I IT\,-
l '- !~- '-~~
~~I
~~-,-rP-1h,
~o <:l Q " 0
~
~
y------
,p. I
-I
~Il
j'-
S,lOroWAL.\<"
.'P '"
1 '-
."
C
~
o
I
z
o
~
x
/~
~~c
\/
/
,
-it ~
Land Use Application
~
i
(
/' 1
THE CiTY OF ASPEN
PROJECT: i-l1 -lone.. Lo-r os ,.t 0..+ y.3c 0. .M~ S-kee...T
Name: e..c-k. \-louse.
Location: 4 . 0 W. .Ai' c,,-,;" ~ c. e. T
Lots k L- Cu., d M I' block.. 3 . Qs
(Indicate street address, lot & block number or metes and bounds description of pro pert )
ParcellD # (REQUIRED) ~) 1 3'j . !).- '1- y l-OC 'f
,
,
.....
e
ApPLICANT:
Name: Glen 0-, Ie..\
Address: (,40 5+~ee...+ U,'c.+o,-(..H'I\e CA q';;L3'1'5
Phone#: '7(..0- '+5-3'1-/1 Fax#: GoI'1-""Lct5-'+''H E-mail:
REPRESENTATIVE:
Name:
Address:
Phone #: en (j ~ q 2 S -
c..... h'll she..
",n
\CL e. n
Fax#:
E-mail:
TYPE OF ApPLICATION: (please check all that apply):
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Historic Designation
Certificate of No Negative Effect
Certificate of Appropriateness
-Minor Historic Development
-Major Historic Development
-Conceptual Historic Development
-Final Historic Development
-Substantial Amendment
o Relocation (temporary, on or off-site)
o Demolition (total demolition)
1.21 Historic Landmark Lot Split
rovals, etc.)
a.,e.."id
o
f"c'C ci Ll Ld. \+ V C.
r- ~'rt V
, Y1
ro osed buildin s, uses, modifications, etc.)
/1/10.- ~ OI"1IC) u1a.Yl+ 0..10+ "'>f\;+j "5r\;f-/-t;^,j 04' ('()me.r\('l-r M ~
\ +5 k a.u..a.. L" 0 de.0eJo YY1 e..nt-
RETAIN FOR PERMANeNT RECORD ..
coject:
Applicant:
Project
Location:
Zone
District:
Lot Size:
Lot Area:
,ji: III
Dimensional Requirements Form
(Item #10 on the submittal requirements key. Not necessary for all projects.)
1I:>e.c- K \-4-,,\.C. <, e..
G-\eY1'" a. 13,...c- K
'-\30 W. /V\a.,;"'" ~e""-+I as?<=-", CdO",CLdo 811.:.il
~,DOO S~~:lt.>re. ~e."-+) 90f-t, wide.)( ICJO-C.r.de.cp
_ I D (') 0 " ,-"-GlAJL. -9",,,..-1-
(For 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:
Number of residential units:
Number of bedrooms:
Existing:
Existing:
Existing:
Proposed:
Proposed:
Proposed:
Proposed % of demolition: 0
Floor Area:
DIMENSIONS: (write nla where no requirement exists in the zone district)
Proposed: 0
Height
~"incipal Bldg.:
Accessory Bldg.:
On-Site parking:
% Site coverage:
% Open Space:
Front Setback: S .
Rear Setback: tJ .
Combined Front/Rear:
Existing: I {/1-6 Allowable:
r;d:le
Existing.:J&H,-ttJ Allowable:
Existing: Allowable:
V'iH.
~
Proposed:
Proposed:
Proposed:
Proposed:
Proposed:
Proposed:
Proposed:
Existing. ~
Existing:
'iI
~
Required:
Required:
,r, ,6 Ye~+--
Existing: Required:
Existing: .J 3.'1 4. Required:
Existing: ;;(3, I (:,1'. Required:
16 ft.
(6H.
-
--
Indicate N. S. E. W LJ. Existing:
Cl) Existing:
G'
'11,3ft.Required:
I /, :MJ. Required:
Required:
Required:
Side Setback:
Side Setback:
Combined Sides:
Distance between
buildings:
5H,
5H.
Proposed:
Proposed:
Proposed:
Proposed:
Existing:
Existing:
Existing:
Required:
Proposed:
Existing non-conformities or encroachments and note if encroachment licenses have been issued:
~
"ariations requested (identify the exact variances needed):
(;" c-
-" (,L Y> "-- I Z- , 2-00,,,
~ '1
%1
0) ... ("". I \'-:;I_,;C ~..,d "<",o..-r-Io: LOT "'Sf'l,+-
("e..', K,e..1;'-'-,es/ ..,;", 0... Hi -,c
C\."..., e... ..,e. ()J..v=,s +- b ~J y"()a..d e ~ G-k n'() Q,~ ~C- k., ~>-V1. €A'"
() +- ~€- YSe.e...1,:::., !-kv...,e.. IOCaL+e...d OLQ '-\-300, .Ma.,,,, S-h-e..,..+ 'y"">
a..." ?e.n Cl..u-d \00..\2:) re..=rded G.S Lot" )<:.., Lau.-d. M,~ "E\O<:-K 31,
c..:.~e)+ G..">fen, \'s-\"'or (L rhs1-onc.. Ld-nd'Ma.k:. Lo+- S\-,\it-. '\h~
'~<=-\c.. ~.."e, LUk..:.c.h sih e", 2.. \"'1-s ,eVill be S~\;toq:' ~\..L.
~ ~,d. lOT,cV'n;,,-'n is O'0+L..='I"""'-eJL, .A.A..,-,1?,ec..'.c.. ~
'?-eG ~e. -s';""OIe..-I="\"f)e., lOT ",,--,-,,-d <-1-€....-e.- )Sec-\c \~s"'-a......d
~e. :LI"-\-",, \-t- -Si+-s. 0,", LV,II 'o"-3old. '\\-.e.'E' ~ 'b..c."'o
de.<..-e...Q..c,6>me.......+ e=.D. ~~ Y'nJ,?e,~_ \10+ """,,,--4-k --ge..c...\L ~se....
o..v-a <..\,R,. e. 2 Ie+> IT ">1+5 "'"' ct....Ld '<10 doJe.l.06'Y"Y\€.'iOT 00 -4lt€..
5 '1 ,"'[ \ e. U9 ,'0 e.-r \0-+ , jvtx, b eac.\L ISo.."'> ~'l +0"\ CL ">; 'fT' ~ €..
\ 0+ ~i'?~+ I "",0 J..u" co......... ">e..QQ 9-k ~~ CUL.a 2.. \<::>1-:> Q.u..d. 1cE'~
~e.. I \0+ -C" 'n1'(Y)<;'e..\.q,
:')
;\IlY' )SeeK.. O'e.u.J'(\\\L.- ~'nC9-u.Se ~ Wishes -k:>l::-e:(S'
\ \ ~-\-. t\' \It ~ "0 .AA.c> 1..-v \'''S~ -t'-o c d €-A..~yY) ~-4 Q.. 5 ~
~ ~ ,,0 d~m"-'-'--t, \ Me.. lScfL~ ,S
?i r<l \:' 'I ~ CL \-h s -\-o....ic ~ vveo..,-k LeT"'Sf \ ; T.
:)
~ " i..,c.e"~ .
" () ,- I _ ' >..-H-,
~~t~ 0 <IV o__I..(dL~~/
4-0 to W, .?>l01'^-ffi\ €JL ~e.ct-
G. -s.?"'-n, c.o~e>\U....do
""Ie::> -"\2.5 - '6~z.\
'('C3,e.~-k~e.. o-f D~",..ocr,
G--\ e. Y'\ 'I> Q ~ e.<:JZ::
-,
--rx
- 13.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM:
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE:
920 and 930 Matchless Drive- Major Development Review (Conceptual), On-site
Relocation, Demolition and Variances- Public Hearing
DATE:
July 27,2005 (Public Hearing continued to June 22, 2005)
SUMMARY: The project before HPC involves a large lot that contains two miner's cottages.
The cottages were moved to Matchless Drive along with two other Victorians (one of which has
been since been demolished) in about the 1960's.
The applicant plans to pursue a lot split through the Planning and Zoning Commission and City
Council to divide the site approximately in half. The miner's cottage at 920 Matchless and a new
tmit built behind it will be free market. 930 Matchless will contain one free market unit in the
Victorian house, and an ADU over a garage at the back of the lot. At this time, the applicant is
only prepared for HPC review of the 930 Matchless side of the property.
This neighborhood, which is zoned R-6, like the West End, was down,zoned when annexed into
the city some years ago through the designation of the area as a PUD (Planned Unit
Development). The PUD established that no single dwelling unit in this subdivision can be
larger than 2,486 square feet. The applicant will have to amend the PUD approval if they wish to
incorporate any HPC FAR bonus on the property. In addition, approval will be needed to
increase the number of dwelling units on the site beyond what currently exists. This does not
apply to the proposed ADU on 930 Matchless (ADU's are not considered "units of density), but
the right to construct a new house at the back of 920 Matchless Drive will require approval.
HPC reviewed this project on June 22, 2005 and continued it for restudy of the addition to the
miner's cottage.
Staff has concerns with regard to the design of the addition to 930 Matchless. Continuation
is recommended.
APPLICANT: Peter and Chris Dodaro, represented by Kim Raymond Architects.
PARCEL ID: 2737-074-22-001.
ADDRESS: 920/930 Matchless Drive, Lot 5, Alpine Acres Subdivision, City and Townsite of
Aspen, Colorado.
ZONING: R-6 PUD.
1
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 decisio;" 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: Recently, the HPC has been contemplating new tools to analyze the
appropriateness of proposals to alter historic structures. The following questions are likely to be
the center of future discussions, and may be helpful for HPC to at least reference for this project
(note that the questions do not serve as formal decision making criteria at this time):
:J
1. Why is the property significant?
2.' What are the key features of the property?
3. What is the character of the context? How sensitive is the context to changes?
4. How would the proposed work affect the property's integrity assessment score?
5. What is the potential for cumulative alterations that may affect the integrity of the
property?
The properties are significant as part of a relatively small group of remaining miner's cottages in
Aspen that have not been significantly expanded. They have been moved to an area that contains
few Victorian buildings. These cabins still retain a small scale and have had a number of
alterations that may be reversed.
Desil!:n Guideline review
Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a proposal. A list
of the design guidelines relevant to Conceptual Review is attached as "Exhibit A."
Miner's cottage addition
A one story addition that appears to be non-historic is proposed to be removed from the back of
930 Matchless. -..
.........
2
At the previous HPC meeting, feedback was given by staff and HPC that a more distinct
connector piece was needed between the new and old construction, and that the addition was
overwhelming the scale of the miner's cottage.
Staff has included the elevations from June 22nd in the packet for reference. The primary
amendments that have taken place are the revision of the dormers on the new construction and a
restudy of the long asymmetrical roofline that was troublesome in the previous discussion. These
amendments have moved the project closer to compliance with guideline 10.9:
10.9 Roofforms should be similar to those of the historic building.
D Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate.
D Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with sloped
roofs.
Staff remains concerned with other guideline conflicts that were brought up in June, in particular
the absence of a distinct connector piece between the new and old construction. A successful
connector is usually at least 10 feet in length and inset more from the comers of the historic
building, allowing it's the landmark's modest size to be clearly understood. While it may be
acceptable for the new addition to be taller than the historic house, a more sympathetic transition
is needed. The use of a deck on top of the connector has been allowed in a few instances with
mixed success in staffs opinion. 950 Matchless Drive, a recent, nearby project done by Kim
Raymond, is a larger/taller structure than this house. There is less of a difference in height
between the new and old construction, so a second floor deck at the back of the house seemed
less intrusive. The deck proposed for 930 Matchless is at least meeting the back of the house at
the fascia line, whereas the addition when viewed from the west butts up against the house with a
four foot higher wall. Staff simply finds this to be inconsistent with the HPC's application of the
following guidelines in recent years:
10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the
primary building is maintained.
D A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary
building is inappropriate.
D An addition that seeks to - imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is
inappropriate.
D An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style
should be avoided.
D 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.
D An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining
visually compatible with these earlier features.
D 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.
D An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is preferred.
D The connector also should be proportional to the primary building.
3
.-..
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.
o A I-story connector is preferred.
o The connector should be a minimum of 1 0 feet long between the addition and the primary
building.
10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure
historically important architectural features.
o For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eavelines should be
avoided.
10.14 The roof form and slope of a new addition should be in character with the historic
building.
o If the roof of the historic building is symmetrically proportioned, the roof of the addition
should be similar.
o Eave lines on the addition should be similar to those of the historic building or structure.
In reshldying this project, staff recommends the creation of a true one story connector that is
more narrow than the miner's cottage, and preferably a design for the new addition that is no
wider than the old house when viewed from the south. On the east elevation, the gable roof
spans a footprint that is creating a scale issue with the gable end of the historic house. The
addition is meant to be as subordinate in character as possible so that the miner's cottage :)
maintains integrity of scale and design. The project may be improved by placing the staircase
entirely in the taller part of the addition to maintain a one story connector. In addition, the upper
floor plate height could be reduced slightly from the proposed 8 feet.
Garae:e/ADU
We have few concerns with the design for the detached new garage/ADU at 930 Matchless. It is
separated from the miner's cottages and does not have a strong relationship to a street.
FAR BONUS
The applicant is requesting a 500 square foot floor area bonus. The following standards apply to
an FAR bonus, per Section 26.415.llO.E:
1. 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; and
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 and/or
c. The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance; and/or
d. The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic
building's form, materials or openings; and/or
4
-,
...""
,,-' e. The construction materials are of the highest quality; and/or
"- f. An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; and/or
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.
3. The decision to grant a Floor Area Bonus for Major Development projects will occur as
part of the approval of a Conceptual Development Plan, pursuant to Section 26.41S.070(D).
No development application that includes a request for a Floor Area Bonus may be
submitted until after the applicant has met with the HPC in a work session to discuss how
the proposal might meet the bonus considerations.
Staff Response: The applicant is proposing to remove a non-historic addition from the cottage
and to make a relatively small new addition, which is commendable. No information is given
, about restoration work that will take place, although some of the specifics would likely need to
be delayed lmtil a "demolition and discovery" provided more information about the original
location of window openings, etc. There is not enough information available at this time to make
a finding on the FAR bonus. It is not needed in order to construct the project. The applicant may
'"" choose to request it, apply it to the site, and free up additional "allowable floor area" for sale as
TDR's. As has been the case with other HPC projects, granting of the bonus has been held to a
high standard involving exemplary design and restoration efforts.
ON-SITE RELOCA nON
The intent of the Historic Preservation ordinance is to preserve designated historic buildings in
their original locations as much of their significance is embodied in their setting and physical
relationship to their surroundings as well as their association with events and people with ties to
}
particular site. However, it is recognized that occasionally the relocation of a building may be
appropriate as it provides an alternative to demolition or because it only has a limited impact on
the attributes that make it significant.
,
26.41S.090.C Standards for the Relocation of Designated Properties
Relocation for a building, structure or object will be approved if it is determined that it
meets anyone of the following standards: .
1. It is considered a non-contributing element of a historic district and its relocation
will not affect the character of the historic district; J!!
2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on
which it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the historic
district or property; J!!
3. The owner has obtained a Certificate of Economic Hardship; J!!
4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method
given the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move
5
will not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district in which it was .-.
originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of ........
adjacent designated properties; and
Additionallv, for approval to relocate all of the followinl!: criteria must be met:
1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of
withstanding the physical impacts of relocation; and
2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and
3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair
and preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the
necessary financial security.
Staff Response: The applicant proposes to lift 930 Matchless to construct a basement and then
to put it back in the same place. Staff finds the review standards are met. A restudy of the
placement of a lightwell directly adjacent to the historic front porch may be needed.
DEMOLITION
The applicant proposes to remove non-historic additions from the miner's cottages as part of
their Conceptual Development. Demolition shall be approved if it is demonstrated that the
application meets anyone of the following criteria:
a. The property has been determined by the city to be an imminent hazard to public :)
safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner, .
b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to
properly maintain the structure,
c. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in
Aspen, or
d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic,
architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance, and
Additionally, for approval to demOlish, all of the following criteria must be met:
a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic
district in which it is located, and
b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the
integrity of the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent
designated properties and
c. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs
of the area.
Staff Response: It is unclear where these buildings were moved from, therefore we cannot use
Sanborn maps to determine their exact original size. From a site visit, it appears that the areas
proposed to be removed are non-historic. Some limited removal of siding or interior finishes
might be appropriate to confirm those assumptions.
--
,
6
",,~
ON-SITE PARKING
",.-'
The application originally requested a parking waiver for the anticipated redevelopment of the
whole 920/930 Matchless site. The applicant has removed 920 Matchless from the table at this
time. The proposal for 930 Matchless generates a requirement for three parking spaces, which
are being provided. Therefore no waiver is necessary at this time.
SETBACK V ARlANCES
The application includes the following variance requests: a 4' front yard setback variance
because of the existing location of the front porch, and a west sideyard setback variance of up to
5' to accommodate the proximity of lightwell on the west side of 930 Matchless Drive to the
proposed new lot line.
HPC must make a finding that the setback variance:
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.
Staff Response: The front setback variance simply allows an existing condition to remain. The
sideyard variance is internal to the property and only permits a lightwell. Staff supports the
vanances.
DECISION MAKING OPTIONS:
The HPC may:
. approve the application,
. approve the application with conditions,
. disapprove the application, or
. continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary
to make a decision to approve or deny.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff has concerns with regard to the design of the addition to 930
Matchless. Continuation is recommended.
Exhibits:
A. Relevant Design Guidelines
B. Application
7
Exhibit A: Relevant Design Guidelines Conceptual Review
9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
D In general, relocation has less of an impact on individuallandrnark structures than those in
a historic district.
D It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative.
D Rehabilitation of a historic building must occur as a first phase of any improvements.
D A relocated building must be carefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural details
and materials.
D Before a building is moved, a plan must be in place to secure the structure and provide a
new foundation, utilities, and to restore the house.
D The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines for
new construction.
D In general, moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not approved.
10.1 Preserve an older addition that has achieved historic significance in its own right.
D Such an addition is usually similar in character to the original building in terms of
materials, finishes and design.
10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed.
10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the
primary building is maintained.
D A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the
primary building is inappropriate.
D An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is
inappropriate.
D An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic
style should be avoided.
D 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.
D An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also
remaining visually compatible with these earlier features.
D 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.
D 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.
D A I-story connector is preferred.
D The connector should be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary
building.
D 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.
D Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate.
D Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not
alter the exterior mass of a building.
8
--
~
-
.....,"'.""'
--,,-...
'"
.....
D 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.
D Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate.
D 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.
D F or example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eavelines should be
avoided.
10.14 The roof form and slope of a new addition should be in character with the historic
building.
D If the roof of the historic building is symmetrically proportioned, the roof of the addition
should be similar.
D Eave Jines on the addition should be similar to those of the historic building or structure.
11.1 Orient the primary entrance of a new building to the street.
D The building should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid
pattern of the site.
11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by
using a front porch.
D The front porch should be "functional," in that it is used as a means of access to the entry.
D A new porch should be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally.
D In some cases, the front door itself may be positioned perpendicular to the street;
nonetheless, the entry should still be clearly defined with a walkway and porch that
orients to the street.
11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the
parcel.
D Subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to the historic
buildings on the original site.
11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building.
D The primary plane of the front should not appear taller than the historic structure.
D The front should include a one-story element, such as a porch.
11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property.
D They should not overwhelm the original in scale.
11.6 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the bll.>ck.
D Sloping roofs such as gable and hip roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms.
D Flat roofs should be used only in areas where it is appropriate to the context.
D On a residential structure, eave depths should be similar to those seen traditionally in the
context.
D Exotic building and roof forms that would detract from the visual continuity of the street
are discouraged. These include geodesic domes and A-frames.
11.10 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged.
D This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings.
D Highly complex and ornately detailed revival styles that were not a part of Aspen's history
are especially discouraged on historic sites.
9
-
",",,,,..'
-
~"i
~
~...;
:j)",., ,
"ii" _,
.:":t~
\
l
\
EXISTIN5
C1J1e
61LLESPIE
SIDE 'fARO
seTElAC-K
F'ROPERlY LINI!..__._
EXISTIN6 ~L~.__.__.__.__.__.__._ ~~
r-'--'- FRONT 'fARD ..
i /"' seraAGl<
.Lo!ll4'
Iv.I.!'".
\.. r----r
, 'I,
!
I-
W
w
II'
I-
Il"l
Cl
II'
'"
I-
'"
l-
ll'
o
z
I
i
I
i
I
i
!
I
!
I'
!~
I
I
i
I
i
I
i
I
~i
-I
...I'
I
~!
~:
fi
i
1
. NElI'l F'eNGE i"V
! 6A1l:
I
!
DRlVE
-
~'-O
i
I
i
I
I
1
i
L.
"l"
&.5')(1&'
PAFi:KIN6
21'00"
~
-
-
-
.
-
..-..
11 rrt!~~~Jn
II
II
"'I/"
---
-
1
I
-=- I 9
I in
I
_J
~~
'SIDE'r'ARO
SETBAGK
ELEGT.EASMENT
i"V mANSF.
NElI'lFENGE
EI>6E OF' I>Fi:IVE
STFi:EET
--------
------
/
/
,
/
I
EXISTIN6 \.
PAI'lI<IN6 Fem UNIT e "\
EXISTIN6 6A1l:
ANI:> F'eNG:,
-
-
.
':'
~
=="PL.AM
m CD ~'.-
I UNIT A I
e0c)
PROFOSlO>
SITE F'1.AN
P!Wf'EFi:lY LINe
i"V eXISTlN6 FENCe
~.
'\
\
\
IO'..e!5l&'
V.l.F.
I
I
I
r PRe
Vi"V1
I
I
I
_L.__._
.
''''.
z
o
::0
-I
I
rr1
r
rr1
~
-I
o
Z
U1
o
C
-I
I
r
rr1
~
-I
o
Z
m
'\
g
z 8
0 rr1
::0 )>
-I
I U1
-I
rr1 fT1
r r
rr1 fT1
< <
)> )>
-i -i rr1 ~
)>
0 0 m U1 rr1
Z Z -I U1
-I
1m rr1 fT1
r
rr1 r
BJ ~ fT1
~
-I -I ICJJI
0 0
::;: (fl Z Z
rr1 0
U1 c Ie!]!
-i -i
fT1 I 0
r rr1
fT1 r
< fT1
)> <
-i )>
0 -i
Z 0 ~ ~
z
~
f"r- -':";::--=-..:IC"'-=-~_-_-"':-"':-_-_-""" ~ ~
II "'II II
II ~ II
0
x
to [11 ~
WX
o-
m
3:-;
)>- <t> ~
-;z
oGl
III
rr ~ ~
[11)> to [11
mz I\lX
m a-
D m
3:-;
;0 )>-
< -;z ~ ~
[11 oGl
ED III
rr I
[11)>
mz
m
D I
;0
<
[11
1!lii!i!lli':I!I~ mo
I I . .,. "I"j' m '" DODARO RESIDENCE
i j"!'II!~,.I, ):. ~"
IX ~ "" KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS
, 'I ,. I""' 0"
;J r:" c ilI""lI'
.,Ill'!ll"! is"" OH ~
....... 15 AJAX AVENUE
"1'"" ..' ,.,ii ......... ClJl ,"H ASPEN COLORADO 81611
~ ~!~~a:I:='i ~=l lJI;::j "'"
0 "''" 930 MATCHLESS DRIVE
,III.,lh mz ~~
"il'" ". I . ~ <ftlj) ASPEN, CO
. i 1'"0 I ~~~f!f4fim~~g~~~di~6~ast.net
I . I" "
. .. H
I "
.
\
~~ - - - - - - - -0--
" .
, 'I ~
" .
, 'I '
" ,
I I ~
,
: :1 ~
I I ~
I II 5
I I 2
~-_:~ .
" .
, ,
: :1
: :1
, 'I
, ,
, 'I
Ulu
"
, 'I
, ,
, d
~ ..: t"
,
,
,
,
~
-
~"
-....:..---.
o
V
ttl
)>
(fl
-i
rr1
r
ttl
~
-i
o
Z
rt.."",,::"-,--::..,.,.-~
II II
l.!:,~"",-~--,".=!J
>>
l
,
.
.
~
,
~
,I
, 'I
,
d
:1
:1
:1
:1
:1
'I
, ,
Lit -- -- - - - - --~
,
~
,
o
,
i
.
,
i
.
z
o
:0
-l
:t
ttl
r
ttl
)];
-l
o
Z
r-l_
,-<-
: :1
, ,
: :1
: :1
, ,
: :1
: :1
, ,
: :1
; :/
, ,
, '\
, ,
, ,
, 'I
, ,
, 'I
, ,
: :1
: j---------.----
- I I n
I I ~
" .
I j e
I( P1
L_r--tJ- -
:
i
.
,
i
.
1c=::J1
I
1
,
o
.
,
~
i
,
i
.
rr'II"'!1l )>. m-() ~o DODARO RESIDENCE
," KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS
I III III -li-' ~"
h;7Il ,'"
i:l'"ill'i"!i N . 0" 15 AJAX AVENUE
<" ~ ASPEN COLORADO 81611
,5!11I!1!lii!ll!i '- ~~ mH
0 om 930 MATCHLESS DRIVE
"j 'I :.11"'1:1 moo
Ii pO'II- - O~\ "'[;j ASPEN, CO l:~~t{~.~!m~i~yU;ai!~~illlt .lIet
. li" i '- ~..
'Ii' l'il' 0 ZQ ~
H
ill!" 1 ;. ~ l1> 0
1 -
...,
{fl
o
C
-l
:t
ttl
r
~
j
o
z
11----________
"
, ,
"
u
: ~
: :1
"
"I
"
"
"I
"
: :1
, ,
"I
"
: :1
"
"I
"
: :1
"
"I
"
8----------
"
"
"
LJ----------
o
.
,
,
~
.
,
l
,
.
.
I
c
.
,
,
o
''1- -- - -- -- --
, :1
, ,
: :1
, ,
, 'I
, ,
: :1
, ,
"I
, ,
: :1
, ,
"I
"
:1
,
:1
,
'I
,
u
I
.
o
~
~
.
,
i
.
:1
o
z
,
l
,
o
.
I
c
.
,
, i
" .
4----------
,
:1
,
'I
,
:1
,
~--------~
,
i
~
.
1:1
"
, 'I
, ,
: :1
, ,
"I
, ,
: :1
, ,
"I
, ,
: :1
11.--_________
: :1
"
: ~---------
,
l
.
o
.
i
.
,
i