Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.19950222. AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION February 22, 1995 REGULAR MEETING SECOND FLOOR CITY HALL 5:00 I. Commission and Staff Comments II. Public Comments III. NEW BUSINESS 5:10 A. 624 E. Hopkins- Worksession IV. OLD BUSINESS 5:40 A. 702 W. Main, Stapleton- Final 202 W. Francis, Congdon- Partial demolition 6:00 B. 6:25 C. 939 E. Cooper, Langley- Worksession 7:00 D. Code amendments- Worksession 7:25 E. Upcoming projects: Revisions to design guidelines and creation of a maintenance guide F. Maroon Creek Bridge, Conceptual- Table to March 8, 1995 G. 520 Walnut Street, Conceptual- Table to March 8, 1995 7:40 V. PROJECT MONITORING 7:45 VI:ADJOURN NOTE: POTLUCK DINNER ON FEB. 25, LES' HOUSE. TIME TO BE DETERMINED. . 'I HPC PROJECT MONITORING HPC Member Name Project/Committee Joe Krabacher 801 E. Hyman AHS Ski Museum Aspen Historic Trust-Vice Chairman 612 W. Main 309 E. Hopkins (Lily Reid) 617 W. Main 312 S. Galena - MD (Planet Hollywood) Highway Entrance Design Committee Donnelley Erdman The Meadows (Chair-Sub Comm) 442 W. Bleeker (Pioneer Park) Collins Block/Alley Wheeler-Stallard House 624 E. Hopkins 304 E. Hopkins 234 W. Francis 204 S. Mill - Collins Block 220 W. Main - European Flower 930 King Street Leslie Holst Holden/Marolt Museum (alt.) , In-Town School Sites Committee - Aspen Historic Trust-Chairman 824 E. Cooper 210 S. Mill -- 303 E. .Main Alt 312 S. Galena - MD (Planet Hollywood) City Shop - 1080 Power Plant Road 506 E. Main - elevator 930 King Street Jake Vickery The Meadows (alternate) In-Town School Sites Committee 205 S. Mill Larry Yaw 716 W. Francis 442 W. Bleeker (Pioneer-alt.) 204 S. Galena (Sportstalker) / City Hall 627 W. Main (residential-Jim Kempner) 232 E. Hallam ACES City Shop 1080 Power Plant Road St. Mary's Church windows Roger Moyer CCLC Liaison 334 W. Hallam Aspen Historical Society 409 E. Hopkins 303 E. Main 311 W. North Farfalla lights outside 210 Lake Avenue (alternate) Marolt Museum Karen Day Cottage Infill Program 134 E. Bleeker 435 W. Main Swiss Chalet 311 W. North 304 E. Hopkins 121 S. Galena Martha Madsen 620 W. Hallam (alternate) 100 Park Ave. (alternate) 214 W. Bleeker (alternate) 132 W. Main 520 E. Cooper Unit 406 715 W. Smuggler Linda Smisek 134 E. Bleeker 210 Lake Avenue 305 Mill St. Su Casa Tom Williams 130 S. Galena - City Hall 300 W. Main - fence McDonalds 323 W. Main St. Aspen Medical Center Pending Issues - Meadows site visit for inventory 702 W. Main - Stape - Conceptual Development approved Sept 8, 1993 220 W. Main - European FLower Market Final April 20, 1994 17 6, T . MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission From: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer Re: 702 W. Main Street, Final Development Date: February 22, 1995 SUMMARY: The proposal involves demolition of an existing non- contributing building in the Main Street Historic District, and construction of a new office building with affordable housing on site. HPC granted Conceptual approval for this application on September 8, 1993. An one-year extension of Conceptual approval was approved on August 24, 1994, to expire on September 8, 1995. Minutes from those meetings are attached. APPLICANT: William C. Stapleton Agency, represented by Joe Wells David Panico of Sutherland Fallin, Inc. and Gideon Kaufman. LOCATION: 702 W. Main Street, east 10 feet of Lot R and Lot S, Block 18, City and Townsite of Aspen. _ SITE, AREA AND BULK INFORMATION: Please see the attached supplement provided by the applicant. ADDITIONAL COMMISSION REVIEWS: The project has received a GMQS allotment and an increase in F.A.R. through Special Review at P&Z. Board of Adjustments approved a variance from the minimum required lot area (6,000 sq. ft.) to permit construction of an office building and deed-restricted housing on this 4,000 sq. ft. lot. Development Review Standards 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an "H, " Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark... Response: The parcel is adjacent to a Historic Landmark, surrounded by several landmarks and inventoried parcels and located in the Main Street Historic District. Since the approval for this project was originally granted, Staff and HPC have become increasingly sensitive to neighborhood compatibility issues. Critical urban design issues on residential sites are now being addressed through the "Neighborhood Character Guidelines" which the Commission developed. Staff finds that there are many positive elements of this design and also some negative effects as a result of trying to fit a rather large structure on a small, non- conforming parcel. Although this is a commercial building, the structure is residential in character. The fenestration is scaled in a manner that is compatible with neighboring structures and the design includes a few fairly deep porches along the street elevations. In addition, the second floor has been incorporated into the roof, which reduces the perceived height and mass of the building somewhat. In Staff's opinion, the amount of F.A.R. allowed on the site forced the design to be a long structure with few breaks. Not enough consideration was given to the historic structure to the west, in terms o f stepping down in height, thereby encouraging that property owner to redevelop as well. Staff is uncertain what modifications can realistically be made at this point, and the applicant has the right to rely to some degree on the granting of Conceptual approval. Given the fact that the adjacent property will be redeveloped and will also create a long wall on the common property line, Staff recommends that HPC focus on the south and east elevations. Since the time of approval, the City has adopted the 1994 UBC which allows only minimal lightwells in the setbacks. The applicant - will very likely have to reduce the areaways that are shown. In general, Staff finds that large areaways should not be placed along the public areas of the building. The applicant should determine what areaways will be permitted by the Building Dept. and submit that information to HPC. If there is any way to place the areaways so that they are not in the setback and light to the units can still be maximized, this should be considered. In addition, the applicant should provide information about the construction of the lightwells and any railing that may be required around them. Because the adjacent property will not be residential in the future, Staff recommends that at least some of the small windows on the west facade be changed to double hungs to maximize light into the office space. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: This neighborhood has undergone a transition from a primarily residential area into a mixed commercial, lodge and residential neighborhood. Nonetheless, the area retains the scale, materials and features characteristic of Aspen's historic houses, including steeply pitched roofs, front porches and small front yards. The proposal does address and incorporate these typical features into the design. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Response: This new building may overwhelm the adjacent Landmark to some degree. The applicant should provide a map of the neighborhood and a streetscape elevation. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The proposal does not directly affect any designated historic structure. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any Of the following alternatives: 1) Final approval as proposed, finding that the Development - Review Standards have been met. 2) Final approval with conditions. 3) Table action to allow the applicant time to revise the proposal to meet the Development Review Standards. 4) Deny Final Development approval, finding that the Development Review Standards have not been met. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC table final approval, directing the applicant to supply information about the allowed dimensions of the areaways, reconsider their placement, revise the windows on the west elevation, provide a 50'=1" map of the surrouding development, and provide a streetscape elevation through photographs or drawings. Previous HPC conditions of approval were that the applicant remove the blind dormers on the west facade (this has been done) and request that the Board of Adjustment vary the sideyard setback to give more space between the new development and the Krabacher house. This has not been pursued by the applicant. Additional Comments: L Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of August 25, 1993 702 W. MAIN - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC HEARING Amy: The applicants are proposing to demolish a building which exists on the lot and has not been determined historically significant and is not on the inventory. They would like to construct a new office building with would include affordable housing. They are applying for GMQS allotment and some figures are withheld. Karen: I felt it unfortunate that Joe Krabacher's property is impacted severely and he was not properly noticed. Since he is not here we all need to pay close attention to this development. Amy: I spoke to the City Attorney and we do not need to delay the hearing as the notice was put in the paper and was put on the building. Since Joe has made his comments before the hearing he did know about it. We also have one more meeting before the GMQS deadline if it is needed. Joe Well, representing Don and David Stapleton owners of the property. Applicant is seeking to build a new office building and relocate the insurance business to the site. Dick Fallin is the architect. Erin Fernandez presented the affidavit of notice by posting. Erin: Referencing Joe Krabacher's letter there is only one tax record that comes out once a year. Carol Foot gave me an affidavit stating that it is only done once a year. I also have a letter from Vince Higgens who did the mailing list and a letter from Joe Wells stating when he posted the property. The City Attorney stated that we have complied·with the noticing procedures. Dick Fallin, architect: We have a two story building, wood frame that is set on stone that is 30 inches above grade. We tried to be sensitive to scale on the entrance and kept the gable back 8 feet from the porch to give a step relief of the facade. We have also recessed the windows on the upper roof balcony. A cross gable was placed about a third back on the side street elevation. We will have a stone base and wood columns, shingled gabled and bevelled lap siding on the first floor of the building. We haven't decided trim colors. We are within heights and setbacks and not asking for any variances on the structure. Amy: What is the foundation? Dick: Concrete foundation with a stone veneer with a ceil cap to separate the siding from the stone. It will be a sandstone. 6 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of August 25, 1993 Bill: Amy's concern is that it will look like a true foundation. Jake: At final you will need a street scape model in order for the Board to address height and massing to adjacent,structures. Dick: We are building to the setbacks on this building and there is quite a distance between the buildings 16 feet. Our front setback is ten feet and the porch is on that setback. We have a step facade that we feel is very compatible in scale and massing of the street. Karen: Will you address the west side as it is a solid wall without breaks. Dick: The east side is the side street side and has a cross gable and it us has a lot of relief. On the opposite side facing Krabacher's building there is a broken pattern to the building itself. There is a cross gable and height in a three dimension. We have lowered the plate six feet so it isn't exactly a true two story on that side. We have tried to balance and maintain the square footage on the floors that the owner is requiring. Karen: What is the height of your building? Dick: 24'6" to the midpoint and 29'6" to the roof. Don: What are the two side yard setbacks? Joe: 6.7 on 6th Street that is required. Five is required on the other side. Roger: Possibly do a break on the side that faces Joe. Joe: We need to meet the needs of the Stapleton's with onsite housing etc. Chairman Bill Poss opened the public hearing. Joe Edwards, attorney: I am here to represent Joe Krabacher and we feel there is a dispute about what the code requires in the way of noticing. Reading from the code it says names and addresses of property owners shall be those in the current tax record of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than 60 days prior to the date of the public hearing. The notice that Erin showed the tax records as they stood in January 1 of this year and the letter from the treasurer pointed out that she gets her jinformation from the assessor's office and then transcribes it to the tax role. We went to the assessors office since her information was back in January and I have a certification from the Assessors Office which shows 7 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of August 25, 1993 for the 60 day period prior to this hearing as well as the Board of Adjustment hearing that the tax records in the assessors office show that Joe's address for this property is in fact at his office which is 201 N. Mill Ste 201. and of course no notice was sent. , f We submit that compliance with this 60 day requirement requires the applicant to check with the assessor since the treasurer has 8th month old information and to get the current information on the addresses. We submit that thee notice was defective and that there was not compliance. The case law is very clear in Colorado that while you all have a lot of discretion on the merits of the case you do not have any discretion on procedural notice requirements. They could have checked with the assessor for the latest information. Joe Krabacher actually found out about this Friday and was leaving town that evening for Russia. He did not have enough time in that one day period to effectively speak of this. Meaningful notice was not obtained. I feel we have good grounds to have it over turned and we will be litigating about this. With respects to the merits of the application we do not feel it meets the standards for approval for development in an historic overlay district nor does it meet standards for demolition not the standards for exception from a right of demolition in the historic district as put forth in the code. In dealing with those standards / on a case by case basis I would point out that you must make all four findings beginning with 7-601D-1 the standards for review; no approval may be granted unless all standards are met (4). The first standards requires that you make a finding that it is compatible in character with designated historic structures that are adjacent to it. If it is proposed that it exceeds the allowed flow area you must find that the increase in floor area is more compatible in character with the historic landmark next door than would be development in accordance with the normal standard, the normal FAR. You must make a finding that increasing the size of this building makes it more compatible with the historic house than if they just built it along with normal floor area which is allowed in that zone. I submit that is an absurd finding because it totally eclipses Joe's house. We also submit that the second find, consistent with the character of the neighborhood does not apply. It is not compatible with the landmark next door. The third finding is that the proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of the designated historic structures on the adjacent parcel. No reasonable person can make the finding that this huge structure which goes to the maximum height allowed and presents a wall along the side with structures up to the lot line can be said does not detract from the value of the designated historic structure next door. To make a finding is l inconsistent with reasonable logic. The last finding is that the proposed development enhances but does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of the designated historic structure. 8 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of August 25, 1993 The expanse of glass is totally incompatible with the structure next door. Looking at the proposed facade we have stone and grecian columns and mixed hip roofs, cross beam mass which appears in the front of the building. We submit that it is impossible acting reasonable to make a finding that this does not diminish and detract from the architectural integrity of the designated structure. The code states that no demolition within an historic overlay shall be permitted unless the demolition is approved by HPC and meets the following standards: That the building is not sound and that the structure cannot be used. Also impacts to the neighborhood and to the historic importance of the adjacent structure and impacts on the architectural integrity of the adjacent structures. Clearly this proposal could not meet those standards. The exception would be that it does not impact the character of the historic district and it is necessary to do this. I ask you to take a look at the definition of necessary which means there is no other way to do it, it is imperative and no subject to any choice. Clearly the demolition of this residence is not necessary. It may be desirable to maximumize their profits and floor area and make the biggest possible building they can make on a substandard lot of 4,000 rather than 6,000 for this zone district. They could remodel or add on. I submit that you cannot make the necessary findings sufficient to grant them an exemption from their requirement that they get a demolition permit. Does the proposed character effect the historic building. The characteristic of the historic landmark is simple, one story small building. The historic building will be sitting back behind that west facing huge wall thirty feet high and no one will see that the historic landmark ever existed. We request that the application be denied because the findings cannot be made. Amy: As far as the noticing I had conferred with the attorney and the fact that you are here tonight, at this point you knew about the case and have given up your right to protest. Joe Edwards: I understand he told you that but disagree. You are entitled to notice and our first statement says we object to the notice and if you appear you don't waive your objection. 60 days prior to this hearing the only place you could have checked would be the assessors office. Amy: Regarding the section of the code on demolition this is not identified as an historic structure and that was the intent of having the exemption clause. /Roger: On floor area we cannot restrict what they are entitled to. Gideon Kaufman, attorney: The City attorney states that we did comply with the letter of the law. The applicant is moving his 9 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of August 25, 1993 business which has had longevity in this town. The are not asking for variations and we believe the Board can make the appropriate findings. We need to go forward and compete in the growth management program. . 1 Amy: For the records I received a letter from Rynco in opposition of the proposal stating that it virtually has inadequate parking and the height taken to the maximum is inadequate and that a model be presented. Also that it be tabled in order for him to attend. Bill: I also received a letter from the Kempner's and they stated they reviewed the drawings and feel it will be an attractive addition to the neighborhood. Other letters have been entered into the records and read by Staff. Don: In terms of styling choosing the shingle style is an appropriate way to incorporate the neighborhood character. I have reservations about the east and west elevations. The first half of the east L as it projects back from Main Street is appropriate but I agree with Staff that the rear or northerly portion is heavily fenestrated and quite inappropriate. As far as the west L I find that it does not meet standards either. The Board observes the proper ratio of fenestrated areas to the facades. The west L is generally closed and has a large cross gable which is terribly inappropriate and needs scaled down. On the northerly portion of the west L once again I find it to be a difficult situation and needs breaks in the planes that definitely impact the historical building. I would not recommend a pure cross gable but a smaller one. Martha: Will you address the encroachments. Don: The new structure will not encroach. Karen: The design of the front is appropriate but I will have to go back to the guidelines standard #3 that the proposed development cannot detract the cultural value of the adjacent parcel. No matter what you do to the glass or gables or any of the other detailing this building overwhelms the adjacent landmark and the only way I would vote for this is if the building was half its proposed size. If we are here to preserve the history of our town and the entrance to town part of our preservation is to preserve the Krabacher house. Roger: With all respect to Joe and Susie I would like to deal with the architectural considerations as per the standards. Whatever happens with litigation happens. I would concur with Donnelley. The plane of the side of the building needs broken up and the other plane is the roof plane which also needs broken up. The west side 10 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of August 25, 1993 needs broken up. In regards to standard one I feel that elements of the building are quite good but others fail. In regards to standard three a large building would detract from the historic structure as it presently stands but that building will change someday and it will be built to the rear. In regards to parking we have no say as this is not a landmark. Linda: I want to ask about the demolition of the existing building. Joe: We discovered that the standards in place several years ago prohibited the demolition of any structure what-so-ever associated with landmarks in districts if it structurally sound. That included a concrete block building in the cc zone. We went through a lengthy discussion to establish criteria that in the event a structure was considered to be non-contributing you could grant an exemption to allow the structure to be demolished. Under the regulations that were adopted which Roxanne brought to you a demolition of a structure is allowed. Linda: What is the date of the existing structure on the parcel? Joe: The principal residence is actually an old barn that was moved to the site and converted to a residence back in the 40's. The two other buildings on the site one was built as a garage in the 50's and the second building was added in the 70's. Staff has always taken the position that they are non-contributing structures and no eligible for designation. Jed Caswall, city attorney: Regarding the mailing issue the fact that Joe Krabacher is represented by an attorney waives any defects of notice and case law in Colorado is very clear on that. Also the property was posted and reasonable steps were taken to comply. That is why we have more than one type of notice. Linda: My concern is the building of value to us due to the ski history. Amy: The building was evaluated this past year and I feel we should adhere. It has been extremely altered and is not on the inventory. Joe Edwards: The exemption application still requires you to make five findings. Two of them which I mentioned was demolition and does this have to be done for redevelopment. I submit it doesn't have to be done, it is not necessary. The other finding is that demolition of the building doesn't impact the character of the historic district. That is your judgment of what character is. We submit that it does effect the character of the historic 11 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of August 25, 1993 building, therefore the findings have not been met. Amy: Those standards were meant to address things that are contributing or significant to the historic district. This is not a contributing building. Joe Edwards: It doesn't say that. Amy: That is why the exemption clause was added. Joe Edwards: The language says demolition is necessary for the redevelopment of the parcel not the particular building they want to build. Jake: In the past we have granted conceptual with numerous conditions and that makes it difficult to get anything accomplished. I would strongly remind the board about that issue. Bill: I tend to agree with Jake and try to table to a worksession. Jake: I would like to see the applicant address the issue of impacts on the historical resource in some way maybe by breaking it down into modules. Bill: I agree with the other members on the Board regarding the wall plane on both the east and west facade. I think if studies were done the massing could be broken up. We also need to see a streetscape plan of some sort so we can relate to the landmark structure that is to the west. Dave Stapleton: our business is 38 years old right now and we employ 18 people and one of the reasons for the size of the building is because of the employment factor. We are required by growth management to provide 5 beds for employee housing and 8 parking spaces. I talk all your comments on massing and the windows seriously. The building is leased to employees right now and at least once a month we bring in an electrician and a plumber in to work on the house. We want to bring offices to the west end and there are numerous owners in the west end who are seriously thinking of putting office spaces in the west end. The way Aspen has grown downtown there is nothing available for office space. MOTION: Roger made the motion to table conceptual development of 702 W. Main to a date certain September 8, and to continue the public hearing until that date; second by Jake. All in favor, motion carries. . Bill: A worksession is scheduled for September 2 at 5:00 p.m. 12 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of September 8, 1993 pitch of the roof that is parallel with the house, that gable if you change the pitch too much it may call your attention to it which we don't want. Bettter to leave it the same pitch. Bill: I have a comment to the differences in height. You can balance the prominance of one part of a structure to another by using materials or fenestration of the windows. PUBLIC COMMENT Wayne Stryker: The old Glidden house above the post office, the owners desire to have something less expensive than the design approved. The last approach had a carriage house on the back of the house echoing the existing historic structure. Would you consider reducing this to a more flat roof blending in with the existing contemporary addition rather than echoing the mansard. Is that something too drastic? Don: It is more than an insignificant change and you may have to go through the process again. Roger: Would it be a one story continuation of the garage? ~ Wayne: Yes, but we would desire to have the roof a couple feet higher than the garage only to get south light into that space. Amy: Probably one of the things the committee liked about this addition is that it reflected the original house and they would be sorry to see that go. b , Karen: My feeling would be if it could be kept higher than the garage and somehow related to the large window on the original house it would tie it together. Amy: Our design guidelines state that flat roofs are not appropriate and you should review those guidelines. Roger: Possibly you could work it out with the monitor and submit drawings. 702 W. MAIN - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT - CONT'D PH Chairman Bill Poss opened the public hearing. Joe Krabacher stepped down. Amy: This is a proposal for a new office building in the Main Street historic district and also involves the demolition of a building that has been determined non-contributing to the district. The applicant has submitted a third rendition of the proposal here 2 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of September 8, 1993 tonight. Dick Fallin, architect: We tried to increase the south sun on the Krabacher side. We changed the drawings on the windows to double hung with one vertical mullion. We took the column off the back. On the rear on the north elevation shows what the dormers are doing. Along the west elevation we have modified the window arrangement. We were trying to protect the privacy. Materials will stay the same and we have eliminated the metal roofing. CLARIFICATIONS: Karen: What is the position of the mullions? Dick Fallin: Two fifths from the top on the east and south. On the west elevation we tried to have the mullion horizontal. Don: Are the cross gables blind? Dick: Yes. On the porch you will see a little relief on the small gables. Linda: Is the dormer on the east elevation missing? Dick: It is there but missing on the model. Bill: Are the dormers on the rear for headroom or decorative and do you want those as the architect. Karen: We talked about increasing the setback to the west, does this model reflect that setback? Dick: It does not but I do think there is 15 feet between the buildings. Amy: Where is the front door? Joe Krabacher, adjacent neighbor: I would reiterate the comment that I made at the worksesison. I think the concern is the height ahd massing and the committee should understand that they are setting a precedent for this block because on the corner you have the Christian Science building, apartment building and I am realistically considering what I am doing with my property. Karen: How do you feel about the setback between your building? Joe: It is what is allowed and is the minimum setback. If I was 7 going to live there as a residence I would want more of a setback, 3 but frankly at this point I am probably not going to live there. 3 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of September 8, 1993 Chairman Bill Poss closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Karen: I feel there is room on the corner to move the larger building over and would hope that it would not effect your growth management application. Don: Dealing with the blind dormers I could see removing them since they do not let light in. I also agree that we should persue that the setbacks be reversed which would give Joe Krabacher's lot 18 more inches of incrased yard space between the two structures. Martha: I like the window changes to a certain extent but wasn't opposed to the first design except for the number of windows. I am uncomfortable with the mass. I would be in favor of moving the setback if that would give relief to the landmark. I feel the landmark is in critical danger of this project. I am not comfortable as a result of that. Les: My feeling is that the massing on the front is inappropriate : for the neighborhood and sets a dagnerous precedent and I wish there could have been a way that it was structured further back or staggered. It is inappropriate having this kind of massing on the sidewalk. It is not compatible with the historic block. Jake: I will not vote on this project as it has been pointed out to me that I cannot sit on two boards and so until I figure that out I will not vote. At the worksession the issue that Joe raised was brought up which was what we are doing here is setting up a precedent for these basically two blocks. There are several well preserved little buildings in those two blocks and we are determining here the fate of those two blocks. On the one hand someone decided this should be office zone which puts pressure on these lots. I don't know if they decided Main Street would be noisy or what. That is adapative reuse. I do not know if their intention was to sacrifice these blocks for growth so that other areas in town could be left more preserved. I do not know what their thinking was when they decided to do this. In a situation when they maximumize the parcel they really do have to go to a higher level of design because they are in an historical overlay zone. It is a more derhanding zone than o ffice zone. You either take a stand and defend the little houses or you don't. If you take a stand on the little,house then this proposed design does not work, it is an over load. My only concern which was raised before is relative to the rear portion and it should be secondary and simple. I still would like to see something more playful. Something else should be done to the windows. 4 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of September 8, 1993 Roger: I would be in favor of changing the setback and if the dormers on the back are not going to be used for light to enhance the, interior space then they should be taken off. Also when you come in again we would like to see a strong landscaping plan. The windows on the south and east need restudied. Bill: I feel the project has responded to comments from the worksession. The committee likes to hear from the architects and if you do not like the dormers we would like to hear that. I feel those dormers add business to them. I also feel the guidelines should be changed if we want to change Main Street and I do not feel we can expect an applicant to bear the grunt of our committee's indecision on the guidelines. Amy: It is not identified as a contribution structure in the district and you need to determine according to the code certain findings that have to be made including that demolition is necessary to the redevelopment and it meets the condition that it is not identified on the inventory. MOTION: Don made the motion that the HPC grant conceptual development to the proposed office building at 702 W. Main St. with ) the following conditions: 1) That the blind dormers on the northern portion of the building be either restudied or removed to simplify the architectural scheme. . - 2) As an additional recommendation we recommend to the Board o f Adjustment that demolition of the non contribution structure on the side be allowed to fasciliate redevelopment of the site. Also that the Board of Adjustment grant a reversing of the side yard setbacks that the easterly side yard be reduced five feet and the west side yard increased 6.66 feet. The variance be granted for the use in the office zone is appropriate. Variance for the reversal of the side yard setback is appropriate. Second by Roger. Don amended the motion to restudy of the entrance facing south rather than east; second amended by Roger. Don amended the motion to add findings: ~ Findings: 5 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of September 8, 1993 1. That the structure is not identified in the inventory of historic sites and structures. 2. Structure is no contributing to the historic district. f 3. Structure does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district and its demolition does not impact the character of the historic district and demolition is necessary for the redevelopment of the parcel which I already mentioned before. 4 Proposed redevelopment is included in this application by HPC. Motion second by Roger. All in favor, motion carries 6-0. 312 S. GALENA - MINOR DEVELOPMENT - PLANET HOLLYWOOD Joe seated. Amy: The applicants is requesting approval for exterior elements windows, doors, signs lighting and awning. There is not a significant impact on the exterior of the building. Rod Dyer, architect: The changes are to the front entry and the front display windows. Addition of awnings and blocking out of existing windows on the north wall which is the alley and one window on the east wall. The addition of lighting also. The existing storefront was built in 1978 and 1979. In 1978 I presented a photo when it was the Eagles Club. The storefront display windows are not historic elements. Changing the door will work better for the client. We want to change the entryway doors and the transom above the doors with aluminum glass storefront. This would be strictly infill and no change to the actual structure. Also we want to change the single pane store front window to two fixed glass insulating tempered units. We won't need them for ventilation because we are adding a considerable amount of lighting and airconditioning. We wish to install three awnings. The stripes on the awning would be 12 inches wide. There are approximately the same number of windows already bricked over on the building. We would like the bricked windows flush and will match the existing color. We also want to move one entry door at the east end of the north facade which is presently an service entry door. We plan to repaint the building the same colors. We wish to replace some of the roof top mechanical equipment because what is there is not adequate. The structure of the elevator will not come above the existing roof line. The applicant wishes to do logo signs painted on wood, one on the alley facade close to the streetscale and one above the transome at the entry way. We wish h~ to light them from the front not behind. 6 1/. 6. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 202 W. Francis Street, Partial Demolition, Special Review to exceed 85% of the allowable F.A.R. DATE: February 22, 1995 SUMMARY: HPC granted approval for partial demolition of the historic house at 202 W. Francis, the Edwin Frost house, on December 14, 1994. At that time the Commission requested the applicant return with finalized drawings of the design and to complete the Ord. 35 review process. This parcel has been included on the "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures" since 1986. It is classified as a "supporting" resource. APPLICANT: Tom and Noel Congdon, represented by Gretchen Greenwood. LOCATION: 202 W. Francis, Lots R and S, Block 48, City and Townsite of Aspen. ADDITIONAL REVIEWS: The Board of Adjustments approved the applicant's request for a site coverage variance, for rear and sideyard setback variances and for waiver of one parking space on December 15th. Partial Demolition PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW: No partial demolition of any structure included in the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen, established pursuant to section 7-709, or any structure within an "H" Historic Overlay District shall be permitted unless the partial demolition is approved by the HPC because it meets the applicable standards of Section 7-602(C). The applicant proposes to demolish 60% of the existing structure. This exceeds the Land Use Code's definition of partial demolition. It is the finding of Staff and the Planning Director that this project may be reviewed as a partial demolition, because the additions to the original house are not historic and the intention of the demolition standards were specifically meant to protect historic structures and address negative impacts to them. It is not appropriate to consider this a total demolition, as the proposal is to remove additions and expose the original building. HPC's role is to determine whether or not the portions of the building proposed for demolition can be sacrificed without compromising the character of the resource and to insure that all negative impacts on a historic resource which result from partial demolition are minimized. It is not within the Board's power to review design elements of the new construction which do not relate directly to the demolition. Standards for Review of Partial Demolition 1. Standard: The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure. Response: The Inventory form describes the house as having had major alterations, including changes in materials and a number of additions which have been constructed to the east and rear of the original house. The characteristic mass and scale of the original house is still visible along West Francis Street. The applicant proposes to demolish the 1970's additions and to retain and add on to the historic house and stable. The new construction is set in the same area of the existing additions and will not result in further demolition of the historic house. 2. Standard: The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: A. Impacts on the historic importance of the structure or structures located on the parcel. Response: The applicant intends to replace the non- original windows in the south gable with double hungs of a more authentic scale. All the windows on the west elevation are proposed to be removed, due to the building code's requirements for a structure near the property line. A double hung window is to be added on the east and the applicant proposes to wrap the existing front porch around the house. On the stable, the proposal is to change the existing non-historic windows on all sides and replace the skylights on the south. Staff still recommends the applicant further discuss the removal of the windows on the west with Building. Some exceptions can be made for historic structures. Staff does not agree that there is much evidence to support wrapping the front porch around the structure. The architect has taken a contemporary approach to the addition, partly to help distinguish the new from the old. The height of this addition is 20', which is very compatible with the historic structure. Staff's main concern with any negative impact created as a result of the partial demolition was the size of the large array of windows originally proposed on the east elevation. The sudden change in solid-to-void relationship was somewhat incompatible with historic structure. The applicant has submitted revised drawings which meet this concern. The paired four over four windows on the south elevation of the barn might be more appropriate as double hungs with no mullions. B. Impacts on the architectural integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel. Response: Any additional demolition to the historic structure is very limited in this proposal, therefore this standard is met. Special Review to exceed 85% of the allowable F.A.R. SUMMARY: This project is located in the West End neighborhood, therefore both the general guidelines (Chapter 1 of the "Neighborhood Character Guidelines") and the specific guidelines for the West End apply. The applicant requests approval for construction of the maximum F.A.R. for the site (3,240sq.ft). Currently the house exceeds the allowable F.A.R. The lot size is 6,000 sq.ft., therefore the special review process is mandatory as is compliance with the Commission's findings. STAFF COMMENTS: Please refer to the application for the complete representation of the proposal. Planning staff finds that this project is in compliance with the general and specific neighborhood guidelines. All concerns have been addressed through the partial demolition review. The mass of the project is divided into three modules; the historic house, the historic barn and an infill mass between them. The new construction is only a maximum of 21' tall and has a varied roof form. The voluntary employee unit is 100% above grade. ALTERNATIVES: HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: 1) Approve the application for Partial Demolition and Special Review as submitted. 2) Approve the application for Partial Demolition and Special Review with conditions to be met prior to issuance of a building permit. 3) Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy (specific recommendations to be offered). 4) Deny Partial Demolition and Special Review approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC approve the application with the following condition: 1) Do not construct a wrap-around porch on the historic house. Staff is unconvinced that this is historically accurate. Additional Comments: I=1... 14 1*-4 - ..A.... IAND USE APPLIC:ATION FORM 1)~Proje££,Barrp CON 4 0014 8.26 #DaNCE 2) Project location %0 Z W. /25*,9,~C/r Lolh P.1 4 El-OCK <te C.(Ty ¥ --TOWN>Gra OF A*-ALER (iniicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where apprcpriate) 3) Present Zoiling ~ - 49 4) Iot Size GAGON 590 4 E) 41211031£,s laza -Maress & er£re # 70'» 0 NOEL CON *DON /300 EAST 7TH AVE . DENVEA, CO 80118 841· 81+0 6) Peprese[tative'S'Szme, Mairess k-etrire # ~BefratiEN *ResNWOOA 520 WALNUr .ST. trtmeN 9&5 · 4501 7) Type of Application (please check all that apply): Corxlitional Use Ccocentual SPA Conceptual Historic Dev. Special Review Final SPA Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline - Canceptual FUD - Minor Historic Dev. Stream Margin Final PUD J' Historic Demolition Mountain View Plane Subdivisian Historic Designation 0Ixicminiumizatian - Tect/Map Amendment (2139 Allotment Iat Split/Iat line (21@S menption Adjustment 8) - Descriptian of Existing Uses. (number- and type of existing structures; approximate sq. ft.; nmber of bedmans; any previous approvals granted to the pmperty). 9 (c Z*604£4 9) Description of Developnent Applicaticn $ a ?*cloktot 10) Have you attached the following? l/.4 Respanse to Attachment 2, Minimum Sulnission Contents 17~ Respanse to Attad=arit 3, Specific Suhnission Ckntents 4/'- Response to Attatimpet 4, Review Standards for Your Application Nuv-ll-94 FRI 12:08 ST, MARY PARISH LAND CO. FAX NO, 3038610934 P. 01 November 10, 1994 Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Department City of Aspen To whom it may concern: This letter authorizes Gretchen Greenwood to represent Tom and Noel Congdon in the approval process for our residence located at 202 West Francis. Thank you for your help. S i~~rely, EL £(1 Tom and Noel Congdolk *- 1 - CONGDON RESIDENCE ZONING ANALYSIS EXISTING,PROPOSED AND ALLOWABLE ZONING REQUIREMENTS (Per Aspen Land Use Regulations) ADDRESS: 202 W. FRANCIS LOT SIZE: 6000 SQ.FT. ZONE DISTRICT: R-6 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWABLE BEDROOMS 4 3 N/A ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT 0 1 1 PARKING 1 2 3 FLOOR AREA SO·FT. 3,478 3,240 3,240 PERCENT OF SITE COVERAGE 56% 49% 40% SITE COVERAGE SO•FT. 3,350 2,950 2,400 SIDE YARD SETBACK MINIMUM FT. VARIES SEE VARIANCE 6.66 TOTAL FT. VARIES REQUEST 15 FRONT & REAR YARD SETBACK MINIMUM FT. 10 SEE VARIANCE 10 TOTAL FT. VARIES REQUEST 30 HEIGHT / FT. ABOVE GRADE VARIES TO 20 FT. VARIES TO 20 FT. 25 FT. . SUPPLEMENT TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS IMPORTANT Three sets of clear. fully labeled drawings must be submitted in a format no larger than 11-)<17-,OR one dozen sets of blueprints may be submitted in lieu of the 11»x17" format. ' APPLICANT: -rom , NOEL CoN& 00 N ADDRESS: aD@. W. FRA Not S ZONE DISTRICT: A-4 LOT SIZE (SQUARE FEET): 9,00 0 91. 7~k EXISTING FAR:, 38+78 97·*· ALLOWABLE FAR: 1- 2 927 ¥· 24* e PROPOSED FAR:' ' EXISTING NET LEASABLE (commercial): PROPOSED NET LEASABLE (commercial): EXISTING % OFS[TE COVERAGE: 54% 3 5,0 PROPOSED % OF SITE COVERAGE: 4-4. W Vj EXISTING % OF OPEN SPACE (Commercial): PROPOSED % OF OPEN SPACE (Commer.): EXISTING MAXIMUM HEIGHT: Princioal Bldg.: 2 0 #I / Accessor¥ Bldo: PROPOSED MAXIMUM HEIGHT: Pacioal Bldo..' '2" D ~1· / Accessory Bldg: PROPOSED % OF DEMOUTION: (000/0 EXISTING NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: ~ PROPOSED NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: -3 EXISTING ON-SITE PARKING SPACES: ON-SITE PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: 3 SETBACKS: EXISTING: ALLOWABLE: PROPOSED: Front: /0 Front: Front: Rear: Reac Reac Side: Side: Side: Combined Front/Rear: \*Ae5 Combined Fri/Rr: Combined Front/Rear: EXISTING NONCONFORMITIES/ PACt- u F St-O & frr mimt- s nfi ENCROACHMENTS: OVER. ar WN£ VARIATIONS REQUESTED Celiaible for Landmarks Only: character comoatibility lindina must be made bv HPC): FAR: Minimum Distance Between Buildngs: SETBACKS: Front: Parlang Spaces: Rear: Open Space (Commercial): Side: Height (Cottage Infill Only): Combined FrIJRr: Site Coverage (Cottage Infill Only): l HISTORIC PARTIAL DEMOLITION APPLICATION ATTACHMENT 2 1. Attached please find a letter from the applicants, Tom and Noel Congdon, stating that Gretchen Greenwood is authorized to act on their behalf. 2. The street and legal address of the proposed development is as follows: 202 W. Francis St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 Lots R and S, Block 48, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado 3. A Certificate of Title will be submitted under separate cover. 4. Attached please find the Vicinity map locating the subject . parcel. 5. The proposed development includes a new addition and the restoration of an existing miner's cabin and stable on the property. Currently, the historic miner's cabin is not recognizable due to additions that were added to the residence in the 1970's. At that time of construction, there was no review process that encouraged the restoration and delineation of an historic building to a newer addition. In this proposal, the miner's cabin, that sits at the south west of the lot, and the stable, that sits at the very northeast part of the property, will be restored and exposed to its historidf roots. The proposed addition will replace the construction that was built between the two historic buildings. This new addition will be a distinct architectural difference from the architecture of the Victorian miner's cabin and stable. Our goal in this proposed design, is to expose the original miner's cabin, both inside and outside of the building. The miner's cabin will remain in its original location. The 52 foot length of the old building makes it impossible to be moved for the addition of a new foundation. Therefore, the old wood foundation will be removed, while the building is underpinned and a new foundation will be added, by hand digging the excavation, underpinning the existing building and pouring a new foundation. The roof of the original cabin will be restored, and there are no new structures being added to this roof. The only attachment will be at the eave line of the east side roof eave, where a new roof from the adjacent structure will meet the eave line and a new drainage system will be added, to allow these two roof planes to drain water. This detail will not be seen from the street. Two double hung windows will be added to the south elevation of the miner's cabin, replacing a newer out of scale window. The windows that exist on the west elevation will be removed, and there will be no windows added to this west side. Due to the close proximity of the property line to the west wall, windows along that side are not allowed per Uniform Building Codes. Skylights will be added to the west roof toward the rear - of the roof structure. The structure to the east of the miner's cabin that resembles the old miner's cabin, with the same size footprint and roof line will be removed, to further expose the true old building. There is evidence that the existing porch used to wrap around the side of the building to the east of the cabin. The porch will be restored around the side along with an old double hung window that existed on the east side of the building. The old stable at the rear of the property will remain in its original location. A slab on grade foundation system was added to the structure at some point in its history. The east elevation will remain as it exists now, with the old barn doors restored and new windows added for the new use of the building. New windows on the east and north side of the building will be - - added. Existing bubble skylights along the south roof will be removed and flat skylights that follow the slope of the building will be added. The new addition will attach to the stable at one corner of the building, not affecting the original form of the stable building. Drawings illustrating the proposed development and the proposed partial demolition and relocation are as follows: 1. Existing Survey of Site: Including Areas to be demolished 2. Existing South and East Elevation 3. Existing North and West Elevation 4. Existing Main Level Floor Plan 5. Proposed Site Plan: Illustrating the requested Setback variances 6. Proposed South Elevation 7. Proposed East Elevation 8. Proposed North Elevation 9. Proposed West Elevation 10. Proposed Main Level Floor Plan 11. Proposed Upper Level Floor Plan 12. Proposed 1/4" Scale Studio Accessory Dwelling Unit 13. An 1/ 8" architectural model will be presented at the HPC meeting. - Specific Submission Contents for the Partial Demolition is attached as Attachment 3. -~- The compliance with Partial Demolition Review Standards of this proposal is attached to this Development application as Attachment 4b. In addition, to the HPC application, the Board of Adjustment Variance request application is enclosed for the review and endorsement of the HPC for this development plan. The drawings that will be submitted to the Board of Adjustments are the same as drawings that are enclosed in the HPC application. $ ATTACHMENT 3 Specific Submission Contents: Application for Partial Demolition 1. The name of the structure proposed for partial demolition the Congdon residence. 2. The structure that is proposed for partial demolition was built in the 1960's and 70's. The old miner's cabin that will be restored was built in the 1890's and the stable that will be restored was also built in the 1890's. 3. A report from the licensed engineer regarding the construction plan will be submitted under separate cover. 4. An economic feasibility report that provides: A. The estimated market value of the property is $800,000.00. B. There is no economic feasibility to reuse the part of the structure that was built in the 1960's. It is feasible to reuse the old Miner's Cabin and The old Stable. C. There have not been any appraisals made on the property in many years. D. There is no information available that determines whether the property does yield a reasonable return on investment. 5. A development plan is being submitted as part of this application. $ ATTACHMENT 4b Review Standards: Application for Partial Demolition 1. This development plan minimizes the amount of demolition to the old buildings. The demolition of the newer part of the building that is currently between the old buildings, does not distinguish the old buildings. Through the demolition and redevelopment of the old buildings, the miner's cabin and stable will be historically visual, while the addition between these two old buildings will be of more modern design, thus further delineating the old from the new. 2. The development plan mitigates the following: a. The major part of the demolition to this parcel will be the structure that was built in the 1970's, between the two old buildings. b. The architectural integrity of the structures are maintained due to this development. ... PROPOSED VARIANCES FOR 202 W. FRANCIS ST Description of Development Proposal The development at 202 W. Francis includes a new addition and the restoration of a Victorian miner's cabin and stable that was built on the property in the late 1800's. Currently , the historic miner's cabin and stable buildings are not recognizable due to additions that were added to the old buildings in the early 1970's. At that time of construction, there was no review process that encouraged the restoration and delineation of an historic building to a newer addition. In this development, we propose to expose the old miner's cabin and stable to its historic roots, both inside and outside the buildings. This will be accomplished by removing the non historic additions from the original historic buildings and by rebuilding a new addition between these two old structures, that does not compete or swallow up the old buildings. The proposed new addition will be a distinctly different architectural style from the Victorian style of the miner's cabin and stable. The result will be a strong distinction between what is old and what 7 is new. The miner's cabin, which sits at the western side of the property will remain in its historical location. It will also retain its historic height. The stable which sits at the north east corner of the property currently sits outside the property line. The stable will also remain in that existing historical location and retain its historical height. A concrete slab on the existing grade is the current foundation system for the stable. Therefore, it is impossible to relocate the building. The building will be remodelled in its existing location. It is the intention of our overall design to accomplish two goals. The first is not to allow the addition that is added on to the rear, to swallow up the miner's cabin. We have purposely designed' the addition to the north of the miner' s cabin, to - - prevent any construction from being built on top of the old roof. The second goal is not to create a tall house, that would be considered a "monster house". We have purposely kept the new roof height to the same roof height as the stable, in order to maintain a small scale presence from the street. cont. Page 2 The result of this development plan will be a 3 bedroom house, one car garage, carport and 1 studio accessory dwelling unit (A.D.U.). The following drawings are attached for your review: 1. Existing Survey of Site: Including Areas to be demolished. ' 2. Existing South and East Elevation 3. Existing North and West Elevation 4. Existing Main Level Floor Plan 5. Proposed Site Plan: Illustrating the requested Setback variances. 6. Proposed South Elevation 7. Proposed East Elevation 8. Proposed North Elevation 9. Proposed West Elevation 10. Proposed Main Level Floor Plan 11. Proposed Upper Level Floor Plan :-1-/.sgbo-~- 12. Proposed 1/4" Scale Studio Accessory Dwelling Unit 13. An 1/8" architectural model will be presented at the HPC meeting. In order to develop this property without losing the historical identity and importance of the miner's cabin and stable, the following variances are requested. VARIANCES REOUESTED 1. VARIANCE OF 9% ON ALLOWABLE SITE COVERAGE TO 49% TOTAL Percent of Allowable Site Coverage: 40% or 2,400 sq.ft. Per<zent of Existing Site Coverage: 56% or 3,350 sq.ft. Percent of Proposed Site Coverage: 49% or 2,950 sq.ft. cont. Page 3 The hardship justification for granting this variance is due to the existing historic buildings on the property. This proposal specifically preserves the buildings in their entirety, including the roofs and overhangs of the old miner's cabin and stable. There is no construction proposed for the top of these existing buildings. The roof of the old miner's cabin is only 15 feet above grade, which could allow for a significant addition on top of this structure. The proliferation of huge additions on top of these modest miner's cabins in the West End, are not only out of scale, but the history and architectural significance of the miner's buildings are removed forever. By allowing a 10% variance on the allowable site coverage, the miner's cabin can be preserved as well as the stable, and the architectural heritage of this West End property can be maintained. In addition, this property as existing, has a total site coverage of 3,350 square feet. This development proposal will reduce that number by 400 square feet. Because this property sits on a corner, the site coverage impact is minimal. There is another 19 feet of lawn from the property line to both the paved : - areas of First Street and Francis Street. The preservation methods supported by the Historic 6 Preservation Commission and this application, supports minimal demolition to old buildings, when new additions are built on to these structures. By allowing the site coverage variance, there is no need to have to add on top of these old buildings and they will be able to be preserved. This proposal improves the existing site coverage condition and the historic integrity of the miner's cabin and stable, as well as the architectural heritage of the West End. cont. Page 4 2. VARIATION ON THE TOTAL FRONT AND REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT Allowable Total Front and Rear Yard Setback: 30 feet with a minimum requirement of 10 feet. Existing Total Front and Rear Yard Setback: The existing total front and rear yard setbacks are non conforming. The dimensions vary from a total of 24 feet to 11'-6". Proposed Total Front and Rear Yard Setback: The proposed variance request is the following: A variation of 8 ' -6" on the total front and rear yard requirement for a distance of 10 feet; a variation of 4'-0" on the total front and rear yard requirement for a distance of 18'- 6" for the rear property line. These dimensions are illustrated on the drawing labelled Site Plan, Exhibit B. The hardship justification for granting this variance is due ~ to the fact that the old miner' s cabin has always been historically located in its present position on the property. . This location will be preserved as part of the historic * restoration of this proposal. The miner' s cabin has always been located from 11' -6" to 16' -0" from the south property line. The 52'-0" length of the cabin makes it impossible to move the building on top of a new foundation, therefore the building will remain where it is, and a new foundation will be built underneath it. As has been· outlined in this proposal, the new addition will be built to the north of the miner's cabin and will not encroach on the old miner's cabin. The new addition meets the rear yard minimum requirement of 10 feet. The stable will not be relocated within the property line, as the building sits on a concrete structural slab foundation. This prdposal calls for the demolition of a building that is presently attached to the stable. This non historic building will be removed, thus reducing the non conformity and encroachment of part of the building. No setback variances are requested for this part of the building, as the building will be remodelled in its existing location. cont. Page 5 3. VARIATION ON THE TOTAL SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT Allowable Side Yard requirement: Minimum side yard requirement is 5'-0" and 6.66"(for a corner lot at the side yard). Total requirement of both side yards is 15 feet. Existing Side Yard requirement: Side yard along west property line is 9" to 4'-0". Side yard at the stable is 0'-0". Proposed Side Yard Variation: The variation is as follows: A Total Side Yard setback variation of 10'-0" on the total Side Yard setback requirement, for a distance of 7' -0" at the east property line at the stable building. These dimensions are on the drawings labelled Site Plan, Exhibit B. The hardship justification for granting this variance is due to the historical location of the stable on the property. The stable has maintained its position on the northeast corner of the - property since it was built. No side yard setback is being requested for the west setback ~ at the miner's cabin, because the building is not being moved or changed from its original location. In addition, no side yard setback is being requested for the portion of the stable that sits on the east property line for a distance of 10 feet, because the building is remaining in an existing location. 4 cont. Page 6 4. VARIATION ON THE OFF STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS Allowable Off Street Parking requirement: 1 per bedroom Existing Off Street Parking: Total number of existing bedrooms are 4. Total existing parking spaces is 1. Proposed Off Street Parking: Total number of proposed bedrooms is 3. Total proposed parking spaces is 2. A variation of 1 space is requested. The hardship justification for granting this variation on the parking requirement is again due to the preservation of the historic quality of the property. The property originally had an east lawn. Through the removal of the non historic additions on the old structures, the historic lawn will be restored. It is encouraged by the Aspen zplanning Department that garages and carports be accessed off the alley. This proposal concentrates the parking to alley at the rear of the property, where the garage and carport are being developed. In order to meet the parking requirement, parking would have to be developed on the east historic lawn, and this would destroy the historical integrity of a corner lawn for the historic residence as well as for the West End neighborhood. - The off street parking provided in this proposal is increased from the present number of one parking space to a total of two spaces. In addition, the need for more parking at this property 2 is less because it is a corner lot. SUMMARY OF VARIANCE REOUESTS FOR 202 W. FRANCIS 1. A VARIATION ON THE SITE COVERAGE REQUIREMENT OF 40% BY 7% TO A TOTAL SITE COVERAGE OF 50% OR 3,000 SQUARE FEET. 2. A VARIATION ON THE TOTAL FRONT AND REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT AT THE REAR PROPERTY LINE FOR THE FOLLOWING DIMENSIONS: A. 8'-6" FOR A DISTANCE OF 10 FEET AT THE REAR PROPERTY LINE, AND 4'-0" FOR A DISTANCE OF 19 FEET AT THE $ REAR PROPERTY LINE. 3. A VARIATION ON THE TOTAL REQUIREMENT FOR SIDE YARD SETBACK AT THE EAST PROPERTY LINE AT THE STABLE, FOR THE FOLLOWING DIMENSION: A. 10'-0" FOR A DISTANCE OF 7 ' -0" ALONG THE EAST PROPERTY LINE AT THE STABLE. 4. A VARIATION OF ONE (1) PARKING SPACE ON THE OFF STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS. From : 303/925-7490 GRETCHEN GREENWOOD & ASSOCIATES, INC Jan. 03.1988 08:50 PM P01 ..9.4 47 7*/» - GRETCHEN GREENWOOD & ASSOCIATES, INC. ARCHITECTURE ·INTERIOR DESIGN·PLANNING Design Guidelines Review for the Congdon Residence 202 West Francis Aspen, Colorado A. Introduction The residence at 202 West Francis is surrounded by large Victorian houses, including the Paepcke residence to the north east, Mr. Vicenzi's large red brick Victorian to the south, and two modest size Victorian residences to the nonh and southeast. The development at 202 West Francis includes a new addition and the restoration of a Victorian's miner's cabin and stable that was built on the property in the late 1800's. Currently, the historic miner's cabin and stable buildings are not recognizable due to additions that were added to the old buildings in the early 1960's. At that time of construction, there was no review process that encouraged the restoration and delineation ofan historic building to a newer addition. In this development, we propose to expose the old miner's cabin and stable to its historic roots, both inside and outside the buildings. This will be accomplished by removing the non historic additions from the original historic buildings and by rebuilding a new addition between these two old structures, that does not compete or swallow up the old buildings. The proposed new addition will be distinctly different architectural style from the Victorian style ofthe minhr's cabin and stable. The result will be a strong distinction between what is old and what is new. lt is the intention of our overall design to accomplish two goals. The first is not to allow the addition that is added on between the cabin and the stable, to swallow up the miner's cabin. We have purposely designed the addition to the north ofthe miner's cabin, to prevent any constniction from being built on top of the old roof: In addition, the roof line of the building is broken down into a mass that is compatible with the 12'-6" mass of the existing miner's cabin. The second goal is not to create a tall house, that would be considered a "monster house". We have purposely kept the new roof height low, to 1 foot above the old stable building for at total height to the peaks of 21'-0". We have created a small scale presence from the street. . 520 WALNUT STREET • ASPEN,COLORADO 81611 • TEL; 303/926-4502 • FAX: 303/925·7490 From : 303/925-7490 GRETCHEN GREENWOOD & ASSOCIATES, INC Jan. 03.1988 08:50 PM P02 4 . Conformity of the Design Guidelines for the West End for 202 West Francis 27. Mass and Scale. The new structure that is being added to the old miner's cabin and stable has been designed to reflect the mass and scale of the old buildings. This is accomplished by, the breakdown of the roofelements into 12 foot 6 inch building masses. the breakdown of the mass ofthe building into smaller forms, and the linking ofthe building by a series of skylights, that further allow the building mass to complement the miner's cabin. The peak ofthe barrel vaulted roofand the two gable roof lines are 21 feet. The old miner's stable peak is 20 feet. This new addition has been designed to enhance the old buildings and not overwhelm them, by maintaining a small scale presence. 28. Solid to Void Ratio.The solid to void ratio that is so evident on the historic miner's cabin and stable has been repeated on the modern addition. The windows on the new addition have been broken into small elements that allow the building material to be in balance with the facade. The only area for a large expanse of buildings, is the sun room addition at the east side ofthe building. The purpose of this room is for the collection of sun to the interior space. 29. Building Form. The new building form has been designed to create separate building masses that complaint the old miner's cabin and stable. Traditional gables and non traditional vaulted roof lines have been utilized in the same small form to remember the form of the miner's cabin and stable. The new forms are contemporary versions ofthe old building forms on the site. 30. Site Plan. A front yard has been provided on the south and east side ofthe yard. Traditionally, corner lots in Aspen have had a large east lawn for the benefit of the neighborhood. This is being maintained in this development. 31. An iron fence along the south side ofthe property line will remain. An existing wood fence for some privacy along the east yard will be rebuilt. It will be designed to allow privacy for the residents as well ag maximize the yard for the neighborhood. 32. Thc miner's building and stable will remain in its historic location, and consistent with the neighborhood setbacks. From : 303/925-7490 GRETCHEN GREENWOOD & ASSOCIATES, INC Jan. 03.1988 08:50 PM P03 33. Building Materials. The building materials will be painted wood siding, rusted steel, stucco and metal and wood windows. The materials that will be on the building and their locations will be presented at the Design Review meeting. An architectural model will be presented at the meeting as well. 34. Architectural features. The entry is clearly identified for the street by a restored wrap around porch on the south of the old miner's building. 35. The entry ofthe proposed building remains in the historic part of the miner's building, where it has been the entry for the past 100 years. Summary: This development complies with the design guidelines of the West End. This project was designed to be compatible with the small scale ofthe miner's cabin and stable. The overall project is being reduced by about 230 square feet from the existing buildings that are on the site now. The use of the small scale building forms and masses complements the historio property without overwhelming it and attaching less importance to it. The low roof line ofihe building, again, complements the historic building and thus enhances the neighborhood. RECORDS OF PROCEEDINGS HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE DECEMBER 14,1994 Meeting was called to order by chairman Joe Krabacher with Donnelley Erdman, Les Holst, Jake Vickery, Linda Smisek, Martha Madsen, Roger Moyer and Tom Williams bresent. INVENTORY ROUND II Bob Hughes and Gideon Kaufman presented letters and discussed the Bavarian Lodge at 801 W. Bleeker, the Trustee Housing and Race Track. The consensus was that a legal description will be provided and the information will be brought back to the Board. The Bavarian Lodge was dropped from the inventory but the Trustee Housing and Rack Track will be added. The Colorado Midland Right-of-way was discussed and Chairman Joe Krabacher stated that a new legal should be done stating the easement should start from the middle and then so many feet on either side of that. Tony Zurcher: The tracks are going and you can barely see where the railroad was. It should be looked at in the spring. Roger: The right-of-way is part of the nordic trail system. The Board recommended to not include 1101 E. Cooper Ave., 1001 E. Hyman and 407 W. Hallam to the inventory. MOTION: Donnelley made the motion that a resolution be brought back to the board for approval; second by Roger. Passes 6 to one, Les opposed. Motion carries. Tom Williams did not vote as seven members were seated. 202 W. FRANCIS STREET, PARTIAL DEMOLITION Jake: I would like to state that I have a problem discussing this project as it is 60% demolition and our code states that you cannot go over 50%. Gretchen Greenwood: We are not touching the historic portion of the house. It is the 1960 section that needs to be demolished. Amy: The Planning Director interpreted the code and stated that we should review the partial demolition. Roger: Their alternative would be to pay the additional fees. Amy: They would not be able to meet those standards because as Joe said you cannot prove that the building is not structurally sound, they can't meet the standards. What would happen is that they HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE DECEMBER 14, 1994 would have to wait until we amend the code which holds them up for a project that we do not necessarily want to hold up. Jake: There have been a lot of people that have been in the same boat as heke that had to reduce the size of their demolition. I would be willing to review it if there was some way to engineer a review that would be conditional pending legal interpretation. Joe: The applicant has to take the risk if the approval has some problems with it. Gretchen: We will take that risk. Amy: We should tack on something to the motion that states that we want it verified by the city attorney as being OK. I want to do this appropriately as it was noticed and I had phone calls. Gretchen: We truly want to preserve the old part of the structure and I brought a model to demonstrate the concept behind that; we do not want to build on top of the old buildings and do a monster home. We want to have a very strong designation between what is old and what is new. In order to do that we are asking for a site coverage variance and a few other variances and setbacks and parking. We decided to go to the Board of Adjustment for all of those variances. We hope to get your endorsement for this project as we go to the Board of Adjustment for our variances. Les: This makes sense to me. Roger: I concur. Gretchen Greenwood: The stable and 52 foot long miners cabin will be restored. The stable is 20 feet above grade to the ridge and i that is the highest point that we will be going. The cabin also has a 14 foot extension. In the 60's additions were added which makes the building over its FAR. It has an existing percentage of site coverage right now of 56% and it has FAR square footage of 3,478 sqft. which is over around 200 feet. We want a completely separate architectural concept from the-miners cottage. We do not want to put anything on top of the cabins. I have always discussed with Amy having some kind of flexibility with site coverage which would make for better projects in the west end. With the variation of 9% we are able to keep the house very low and able to not have to build on top of the miners cabin. I also want to point out that our site coverage is half of what is allowable. So it is a hardship on us and we do want to preserve the historic both from the inside and out. We want to expose the inside of the buildings also and it will be obvious what is exactly old and what is new. There is evidence that something wrapped around the house and we want to add the porch as it is a corner site. There is a window that will be i 2 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE DECEMBER 14, 1994 restored. Tom Congdon, owner: The only alternative would be to stay as we are and add one bedroom and kepp fixing the thing. It is 110 years old. Donnelley: How do you plan on getting rid of the snow problems that you have created. Gretchen: This building is designed to preserve the historic buildings rather than designing a sloped roof. We will build a lot of heated french drains and will deal technically with it in another way. Jake: Does this fall under ordinance 35? Amy: Yes. Gretchen: I have no problem with going through that review process. Tom Congdon: The neighbor Morey Tobin is a good friend and we cannot destroy his yard so we will dig under the old structures and build them up. The joists are unpealed logs laid on stone foundations. Jake: In terms of things that you are doing to the stables and the house itself can you summarize that. Gretchen: We haven't spent a lot of time on the window design but will be glad to come back. Joe: With partial demolition we have a one step process and Jake is trying determine the scope of the project which effects the partial demolition. Tom Congdon: We need your support for the Board of adjustment. Joe: If this committee feels this is appropriate we will review it on a conceptual basis with the understanding that the applicant will come in and show us the detailing of the windows etc. on the historic portions. Les: You are saving two wonderful old buildings, reduce the site coverage 7%, an employee upstairs and a porch on the old building and get rid of a car. Chairman Joe Krabacher opened the public hearing; no comments. Public hearing closed. 3 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE DECEMBER 14, 1994 MOTION: Roger made the motion that HPC grant partial demolition approval to 202 W. Francis lots R, S, Block 48, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colo. with the following conditions: (1) That the applicant understand that this is a design' review and that HPC request that the Board of Adjustment look closely at this project. We find that the variances requested are encouraged, that the Board of Adjustment grant these variances for the following reasons: 0 (1) In opinion this is an excellent project of preservation of an historic structure and the blending of the structure with a new design. (2) That FAR is in fact being reduced. (3) An employee housing unit on an upper level is being provided which is certainly unusual in this community. (4) We find no problem with the fact that one parking space is being asked to be withdrawn and that we feel this is a strong project in the goals that we are trying to achieve as the HPC and the blending of old and new; second by Les. DISCUSSION Jake: I want to go through the variances one at a time. As I understand it you are reducing your site coverage. Gretchen: We are going from 50% to 49%. Jake: It is currently a non-conformity and you are reducing the non-conformity. The HPC supports the reduction. Jake: I will add a few thoughts for the Board of Adjustment. It should be stated in the motion that HPC approves demolition of the non-historic elements. The applicant will return for more detail review. The applicant will return for ordinance 35 review. We also need conformation of the legality of the partial demolition and interpreted by the city attorney. AMENDED MOTION: Roger amended his motion to state that we approve partial demolition of the non-historic element and as far as the other items they are inclusive except for the legality. The legality of the demolition to be finalized and reviewed by the city attorney; second by Les. All in favor, motion carries. Jake: The applicant is reducing nonconformities and improving the situation. 435 W. MAIN - L'AUBERGE - SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT PH Amy: This site was previously called the Swiss Chalet and is in the Main Street Historic District. At some point this site might 4 -ELI, t», MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: Code Amendments DATE: February 22, 1995 Attached are the section of the code that deals directly with HPC as well as part of the definitions section. Please review these again for errors or confusing language. Since our last discussion, Staff has identified a few more potential code changes which need discussion. How should changes to site plan/landscaping be reviewed, if at all, expecially in the Commercial Core? * How should street furniture or signage issues that affect the whole Core or Main Street, such as park benches, parking meters, parking signs, street signs, etc., be handled? * How should we define "cultural value" and "architectural integrity" which are part of our standards for review? * Under the demolition and partial demolition, HPC must make a finding that the proposed demo. is "necessary" or "required" for the redevelopment. Should these standards be rewritten? * Should we adopt the "Secretary of the Interior's Standards" as part of the required review for parcels which are rated "significant"? (excellent or eligible for or listed on National Register) * Under the definitions section, see "breezeway, " "historic site," "historic structure" DIVISION 6. DEVELOPMENT IN A H, HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT OR INVOLVING A IIISTORIC LANDMARK THE INVENTORY OF HISTORIC SITES AND [ STRUCTURES - Sec. 7-601. General applicability and requirements. A. Overview of development review in a H, Historic Overlay District or involving a historic landmark. Any development within a H, Historic Overlay District or development involving a historic landmark must be reviewed in accordance with the provisions of this Section 7-601 and Common Procedures, Article 6, Division 2, unless exempted by the ptenn-ing community development director under Section 7-601(C). If not exempted, development is categorized as minor or significant development which must obtain approval of the HPC. Minor development review and approval is a one-step process and requires no public hearing. Significant development must go through a conceptual and final development plan review and approval process, with a public hearing occurring at the time of conceptual development plan review. B. General prohibition. No development shall be permitted within the H, Historic Overlay District or involving a historic landmark unless: 1. The development is not subject to the provisions of this section; or 2. The development is exempted pursuant to Section 7- 601(C); or 3. The development is approved by the HPC as either minor or significant development pursuant to the procedures outlined in Common Procedures, Article 6, Division 2, because it meets the standards of Section 7-601(D). C. Exemption. 1. Development which is not subject to the provisions of this section shall include any interior remodeling of a structure, repainting of the exterior of an already painted structure and choice of color of any exterior architectural feature. Such development shall not require the review by the pjann-i·ng community development director or HPC, and shall proceed directly to building permit review, when a building permit is required for the development. 2. Development which the pi·ann·ing community development director shall exempt shall include repair of existing architectural features, replacement of architectural features when found necessary for the preservation of the structure, and similar remodeling activities which create no change to the exterior appearance of the structure and have no impact on its character. The community development director shall also exempt signs which are not reviewed under section 7-601(F)(2)(A) and any development required for compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act when it affects a non-historic structure in the H, Historic Overlay District and has no significant impact on the character of the structure. For any of the exemptions listed above, the community development director may place conditions on the exemption which are relevant to mitigation of impacts to the affected historic structure or adjacent historic structures. 3. Before any proposed development can be considered for an exemption under the provisions of this section, an application for exemption shall be submitted to the plenning community development director and development in the form provided by the planning community development director. D. Review standards for all development in H Historic Overlay District and all development involving historic landmarks. 1. Development in Historic Overlay District and all Development involving historic landmarks. No approval for any development in the H, Historic Overlay District or involving historic landmarks shall be granted unless the HPC finds that all of the following standards are met. a. The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an H, Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area bv UP to 500 sq.ft. or the allowed site coverage by up to 5%, HPC shall find may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units, pursuant to section 5 500(A) 5-510(B)(2). b. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development; and C. The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels; and d. The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. 2. Additional development guidelines. The city council, upon recommendation of the HPC, shall establish additional guidelines for use by HPC in the review of all development in a H, Historic Overlay District, and involving historic landmarks, in accordance with the procedures in Article 4 Division 1. E. Minor development. 1. Procedure for review. Before HPC approval of minor development and of all development involving historic landmarks, a development application shall be submitted to the p*en/94·ng community development director and reviewed and approved by the HPC pursuant to the procedures established in Common Procedures, Article 6, Division 2. 2. Definition. Minor development shall be defined as follows: a. Erection Of an awning, canopy, s·ign, fencel mechanical equipment or other similar attachments to, or accessory features of a structure, provided however, that in the process of erecting said attachments, none of the original materials of the structure are destroyed or removed.Incidental destruction or removal necessary to erect any attachment shall not make the action significant development; b. Remodeling of a structure where alterations are made to no more than one element of the structure, including but not limited to a roof, window, door, skylight, ornamental trim, siding, kickplate, dormer, porch, staircase, and balcony; C. Expansion or erection of a structure wherein the increase in floor area of the structure is two hundred fifty (250) square feet or less; or d. Erection or remodeling of combinations of, or multiples of no more than three (3) of the following features: awnings, canopies, signs, fences and other similar attachments; or windows, doors, skylights and dormers. Erection of more than three (3) of the above listed features may be defined as minor if there is a finding that the cumulative impact of such development is minor in its effect on the character of the existing structures. 3. Application. A development application for minor development shall include the following: a. The general application information required in Section 6-202. b. Reserved. C. An accurate representation of all major building materials, such as samples and photographs, to be used for the proposed development. d. A scale drawing of the proposed development in relation to any existing structure. e. A statement of the effect of the proposed development on the original design of the historic structure (if applicable) and character of the neighborhood. F. Significant development. 1. Procedure for review. Before HPC approval of significant development within a H, Historic Overlay District and of all development involving historic landmarks, a conceptual development plan and final development plan shall be reviewed and approved by the HPC pursuant to the procedures established in Common Procedures, Article 6, Division 2. 2. Definition. Significant development shall be defined as follows: a. Erection of an awning, canopy, sign, fence or other similar attachments to, or accessory features of, a structure that, in the process of erecting, cause original materials of the structure to be permanently destroyed or removed; b. Erection or remodeling of combinations of, or multiples of any single feature of a structure which has not been determined to be minor; C. Expansion or erection of a structure wherein the increase in floor area of the structure is more than two hundred fifty (250) square feet; d. Construction of a new structure within a H, Historic Overlay District; and e. The development of the site of an historic landmark which has received approval for demolition, partial demolition or relocation when a development plan has been required by the HPC pursuant to Section 7- 602(B). 3. Conceptual development plan. a. Development application ef for conceptual development plan. A development application for a conceptual development plan shall include the following: (1) The general application information required in Section 6-202. (2) A sketch plan of the proposed development showing property boundaries and predominant existing site characteristics. A site plan or survey showing property boundaries and predominant existing site characteristics. (3) Conceptual selection of major building materials to be used in the proposed development. (4) A statement of the effect of the proposed development on the original design of the historic structure (if applicable) and/or character of neighborhood. (5) Scale drawings of all elevations Of anv proposed structures, including a roof plan. (6) A visual description of the neighborhood context through diagrams, maps, photographs, models, or streetscape elevations. b. Effect of approval of conceptual development plan. Approval of a conceptual development plan shall not constitute final approval of significant development or permission to proceed with development. Such approval shall constitute only authorization to proceed with a development application for a final development plan. C. Limitation on approval of conceptual development plan. Application for a final development plan shall be filed within one (1) year of the date of approval of a conceptual development plan. Unless an extension is granted by the HPC, failure to file such an application shall render null and void the approval of a conceptual development plan previously granted by the HPC. 4. Final development plan. a. Submission of application for final development plan. A development application for a final development plan shall include: (1) The general application information required in Section 6-202. (2) Reserved. (3) An accurate representation of all major building materials, such as samples and photographs, to be used for the proposed development. (4) Scale drawings of the proposed development in relation to any existing structure. Finalized scale drawings of the proposal. (5) A statement of the effect of the details of the proposed development on the original design of the historic structure (if applicable) and character of the neighborhood. (6) A statement of how the final development plan conforms to the representations made during the conceptual review and responds to any conditions placed thereon. (Ord. No. 6-1989, § 9; Ord. No. 60-1990 , § 3) Sec. 7-602. Demolition, partial demolition or relocation.£ permanent relocation or temporary relocation. A. General. No demolition, partial demolition or relocation permanent or temporary relocation of any structure included in the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen, established pursuant to section 7-709, or any structure within an "H" Historic Overlay District shall be permitted unless the demolition, partial demolition or relocation, permanent or temporary relocation is approved by the HPC because it meets the applicable standards of section 7-602(B), (C) or (D), unless exempted pursuant to section 7-602(E). For the purposes of this section, "demolition" shall mean the total razing of anv structure on an inventoried parcel which contributes to the historic significance of the parcel. Partial demolition shall mean the razing of a portion of anv structure on an inventoried parcel or the total razinq of any structure on an inventoried parcel which does not contribute to the historic significance of the parcel. B. Standards for review of demolition. No approval for demolition shall be granted unless the HPC finds that all of the following standards are met. 1. The structure proposed for demolition is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner' s efforts to properly maintain the structure; and 2. The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on site , to provide for any reasonable beneficial use of the property; and 3. The structure cannot be practicably moved to another site in Aspen; and 4. The applicant demonstrates that the proposal mitigates to the greatest extent practical, the following: a. Any impacts that occur to the character of the neighborhood where demolition is proposed to occur. b. Any impact on the historic importance of the structure or structures located on the parcel and adjacent parcels. C. Any impact to the architectural integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel and adjacent parcels. C. Standards for review of partial demolition. No approval for partial demolition shall be granted unless the HPC finds that all of the following standards are met: 1. The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure; and 2. The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: a. Impacts on the historic importance of the structure or structures located on the parcel. b. Impacts on the architectural integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel by limiting demolition of original or significant features and additions and by designing any new additions in a way that is compatible in mass and scale with the historic structure. D. Standards for review of permanent relocation. No approval for permanent relocation shall be granted unless the HPC finds that all of the following standards are met: 1. The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on its original site to provide for any reasonable beneficial use of the property; and 2. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be the best preservation method for the character and integrity of the structure, and the historic integrity of the existing neighborhood and adjacent structures Will not be diminished due to the relocation; and 3. The structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and re-siting. A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation; and 4. A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond or other financial security with the engineering department, as approved by the HPC, to insure the safe relocation, preservation and repair (if required) of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation; and 5. The receiving site is compatible in nature to the structure or structures proposed to be moved, the character of the neighborhood is consistent with the architectural integrity of the structure, and the relocation of the historic structure would not diminish the integrity or character of the neighborhood of the receiving site. An acceptance letter from the property owner of the receiving site shall be submitted. 16- Standards for review Of temporary relocation. No approval for temporary relocation shall be approved unless the HPC finds that the standards of section 7-602(D)(3) and (4) have been met. E+F. Exemption. The demolition, partial demolition or relocation permanent or temporary relocation of a structure located within an "H" Historic Overlay District may be exempt from meeting the applicable standards in section 7.602(B), (C), or (D) if the HPC finds that the following conditions have been met: 1. The structure is not identified on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures. 2. The structure is considered to be noncontributing to the historic district. 3. The structure does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district, and that its demolition, partial demolition, or relocation does not impact the character of the historic district. 4. The demolition, partial demolition or relocation is necessary for the redevelopment of the parcel. 5. The redevelopment or new development is reviewed by HPCT pursuant to section 7-601. F. Procedure for review. A development application shall be submitted to the historic preservation officer before HPC approval of demolition, partial demolition or relocation, permanent or temporary relocation (or exemption within an "H" Historic Overlay District,) which shall be reviewed and approved by the HPC pursuant to the procedures established in Common Procedures, Article 6, Division 2. The HPC shall be authorized to suspend action on demolition, partial demolition or relocation application when it finds that it needs additional information to determine whether the application meets the standards of section 7.602(B) or that the proposal is a matter of such great public concern to the city that alternatives to the demolition, partial demolition or relocation must be studied jointly by the city and the owner. Alternatives which the HPC may consider having studied shall include, but not be limited to finding economically beneficial uses of the structure, removal of the structure to a suitable location, providing public subsidy to the owner to preserve the structure, identifying a public entity capable of public acquisition of the structure, or revision to the demolition, partial demolition or relocation and development plan. The HPC shall be required to specify the additional information it requires or the alternatives it finds should be studied when it suspends action on the development, partial demolition or relocation application. Action shall only be suspended for the amount of time it shall take for the necessary information to be prepared and reviewed by the p:bennizng community development director, but in no case shall suspension be for a period to exceed six (6) months. G. Application for demolition, partial demolition, permanent relocation. temporary relocation or exemption. or relocation. A development application for demolition shall include the following: 1. The general application information required in section 6-202. 2. A written description of the structure proposed for demolition, partial demolition, permanent or temporary relocation or exemption. or relocation, and its year of construction. 3. A report from a licensed engineer or architect regarding the soundness of the structure and its suitability for rehabilitation. 4. For demolition or permanent relocation; An economic feasibility report that provides: a. Estimated market value of the property on which the structure lies, in its current condition, and after demolition or relocation. b. Estimates from an architect, developer, real estate agent or appraiser experienced in rehabilitation addressing the economic feasibility of < rehabilitation or reuse of the structure proposed , for demolition or relocation. C. All appraisals made of the property on which the structure is located made within the previous two (2) years. d. Any other information considered necessary to make a determination whether the property does yield or may yield a reasonable return on investment. 5. A development plan and a statement of the effect of the proposed development on the other structures on the property and the character of the neighborhood around the property shall be submitted so that HPC is able to make a finding whether the applicable standards are met. In the case of a demolition or permanent relocation, the redevelopment plan will be reviewed as a Significant Development application, pursuant to section 7-601. ·in casco when the nrC requires a development plan to evaluate the appropriateness of demolition or when the applicant believes the submission of a development plan will assist in the evaluation of the proposed demolition. II. Application for Demolition or Exemption from Demolition, Partial Dcmolition or Relocation. A development application for partial demolition shall include all items specified in section 7 602(C)(1), (3) and (4). I. Penalties. A violation of any portion of this section 7- 602 shall prohibit the owner, successor or assigns from obtaining a building permit for the affected property for a period of five (5) years from the date of such violation. The city shall initiate proceedings to place a deed restriction on the property to this effect to insure the enforcement of this penalty. (Ord. No. 17-1989, § 1; Ord. No. 9-1991, § 1) Sec. 7-603. Insubstantial amendment of development order. A. An insubstantial amendment to an approved development order may be authorized by the pi-ann-ing community development director. An insubstantial amendment shall be limited to technical or engineering considerations, first discovered during actual development which could not reasonably be anticipated during the approval process. An insubstantial amendment shall be defined as a change in shape or location of a single window, awning, door, staircase or other feature on the structure or use of a material made by a different manufacturer that has the same quality and approximately the same appearance as originally approved. , B. All other amendments shall be approved by the HPC pursuant to Section 7-601 to 7-602, whichever is applicable. Sec. 7-604. Appeal and call up. A. Any action by the HPC in approving, approving with conditions, or disapproving a development order for development or demolition or suspending action on a demolition application or in rating a structure on the inventory of historic structures may be appealed to the city council by the applicant or a landowner within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property within sixty (60) days of the decision. The reasons for the appeal shall be stated in writing. The city council may also call up for review any decision of the HPC approving, disapproving, or suspending action on a demolition or permanent relocation of a historic landmark or any structure on the inventory rated as a "4" or "5" by the HPC by serving written notice on the HPC within fourteen (14) days of the HPC's decision arid notifying the applicant of the call up. B. Within thirty (30) days after the date of a decision by the HPC which is appealed or called up by the city council, the council shall hold a public hearing after publishing notice pursuant to Section 6-205E.3.a. C. The city council shall consider the application on the record established before the HPC. The city council shall affirm the decision of the HPC unless the city council shall determine that there was an abuse of discretion, or a denial of due process by the HPC. Upon determining that there was an abuse of discretion or denial of due process, the city council shall be authorized to take such action as it shall deem necessary to remedy said situation, including but not limited to reversing the decision, altering the conditions of approval, changing the length of time during which action on a demolition application has been suspended or the terms of the suspension, or remanding the application to HPC for rehearing. (Ord. No. 7-1989, § 2) Sec. 7-605. Variances. The board of adjustment shall not take any action on a development application for a variance pursuant to Article 10, in the H, Historic Overlay District or development affecting a historic landmark, without receiving a written recommendation from the HPC. Sec. 7-606. Minimum maintenance requirements. A. Purpose. The intent of this section is to reduce the incidence of "demolition by neglect. " B. Requirements. All buildings and structures identified in the inventory of historic sites and structures as described in Section 7-709, and all structures located within a historic district, shall be maintained to meet the requirements of the Uniform Conservation Building Code (UCBC) and the Uniform Building Code (UBC). Said structures shall receive reasonable care, maintenance and upkeep appr~opriate for the preservation, protection, enhancement, rehabilitation, reconstruction, perpetuation or use in compliance with the terms of this article. Every person in charge The owner of such building or structure shall keep in good repair: 1. All of the exterior portions of such improvements. 2. All interior portions thereof which, if not SO maintained, may cause or tend to cause the exterior portions of such improvements to deteriorate, decay or become damaged or otherwise to fall into a state of disrepair. The historic preservation commission, on its own initiative, may file a petition with the chief building official requesting that said official proceed under the provision of this section to require correction of defects or repairs to any structure covered by this article so that such structure shall be preserve and protected in consonance with the purpose of this article. C. Demonstration of hardship. Any owner of a structure identified in the inventory of historic sites and structures which HPC and the chief building official finds requires such maintenance and repairs as described in this section may make application requesting from the city council a one-time, no interest loan, in an amount not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00), which the owner shall agree to pay back to the city within ten (10) years or when the property is sold or the title is transferred, whichever is the soonest. An extension of the payment period may be granted by the city council, following written request by the owner. To be eligible for the loan, the owner shall submit a written request to the pjanning community development director, which shall include a description of the proposed repairs necessary to maintain the historic structure and approximate costs for such repairs. The loan request shall also demonstrate economic hardship which previously prohibited these repairs and that the loan amount is the minimum needed to maintain the structure. The loan request shall be considered by the city council. Any loan granted by the council shall be administered through the pl-anning community development director, who shall obtain copies of bills from the owner substantiating all expenditures made to maintain the structure with monies obtained from the loan. D. Penalties waived. The general penalties for violations of the Aspen Municipal Code contained in Chapter 1, Section 1-8, shall not apply to violations of these minimum maintenance requirements. (Ord. No. 7-1989 , § 2) I DIVISION 7. HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT AND HISTORIC LANDMARKS Sec. 7-701. Reserved. Editor's note--Ord. No. 60-1989, § 2, repealed § 701, relative to the purpose of the division, which derived from Ord. No. 5- 1988. Sec. 7-702. Standards for designation. Any structure or site that meets one or more of the following standards may be designated as H, Historic Overlay District and/or historic landmark: A. Historical importance. The structure or site is a principal or secondary structure or site commonly identified or associated with a person or an event of historical significance to the cultural, social or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado, or the United States. B. Architectural importance. The structure or site reflects -<an architectural style that is unique, distinct or of traditional Aspen character. C. Architectural importance. The structure or site embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique architectural type or specimen. D. Architectural importance. The structure is a significant work of an architect whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. E. Neighborhood character. The structure or site is a significant component of an historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character. F. Community character. The structure or site is critical to the preservation of the character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size, location and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or architectural importance. Sec. 7-703. Procedure for designation, amendment, rescinding. A development application for a proposed designation, amendment to a designation, or rescinding of a designation, H, Historic Overlay District and/or historic landmark, shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval by the planning community development director, at public hearings by the HPC, and the planning and zoning commission, and then approved, approved with conditions, or disapproved at a public hearing by the city council in accordance with the procedures established in Common Procedures, Article 6, Division 2. Sec. 7-704. Application. The application for historic designation shall include the following: A. The general application information required in Section 6-202; and B. A boundary description of the site. C. If the applicant intends to request a grant from city council, a letter making the request shall be submitted, provided the structure meets the eligibility criteria for a landmark designation grant and provided the program has been funded in the annual City of Aspen budget. Any residential structure which is designated as a historic landmark after January 1, 1995 is eligible to receive the grant on a one time basis, until the yearly budget allotment is spent. (Ord. No. 6-1989, § 9) Sec. 7-705. Recordation of designation. Upon the effective date of an act by the city council designating a H, Historic Overlay District or Historic Landmark, the secretary of the HPC shall notify the city clerk of the designation, who shall record among the real estate records of the clerk and recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado, a certified copy of the ordinance creating the H, Historic Overlay District or historic landmark. The ordinance shall contain a legal description of the structure or site designated. Sec. 7-706. Placement on city's official zone district map. Upon the effective date of an act by the city council designating H, Historic Overlay District or historic landmark, the secretary of the HPC shall notify the planning community development director and the pl-anni-ng community development director shall place the H, Historic Overlay District designation on the city's official zone district map, which is kept in the planning and development agency. community development department. Sec. 7-707. Rescinding designation. An application for rescinding designation shall follow the same submission requirements and review procedures as for designation described in this division except that with respect to Section 7-704(C), an explanation shall be included describing why ~ ~ the designated site or structure is not consistent with the standards in Section 7-702. Sec. 7-708. Establishment of district. There are two (2) existing H, Historic Overlay Districts in the city. These districts are the Commercial Core District and the Main Street District. In all cases when districts are discussed in this chapter, these two (2) districts are the only districts to which reference is being made. Sec. 7-709. Establishment of inventory of historic sites and structures. A. There is hereby established an inventory of historic sites and structures (known as the "inventory") in the City of Aspen. The inventory shall be maintained in the offices of the planning and development agency community development department at all times for inspection by the general public during regular business hours. The inventory of historic sites and structures shall include all structures in the City of Aspen originally constructed prior to 1910 which are at least fifty years old and which continue to have historic value, and such other structures identified by the HPC as being outstanding examples of more modern architecture. All properties included on the inventory will be adopted by legal description, and HPC will have the appropriate purview over the entire property. In the case that anv inventoried parcel requests approval for a lot split, HPC shall review the request in terms of impacts on the significance of the historic resource and shall propose any appropriate conditions of approval or recommendation for denial to the planning and zoning commission and citv council. B. It shall be the responsibility of the HPC, based on the recommendations of the planning community development director, to evaluate the inventory of historic structures at least once every five (5) years, and to hold a public hearing to solicit comments on its evaluations. The purpose of the evaluation shall be to determine those structures which are to be removed from the inventory, any structures which should be added to the inventory, and to rate all structures which remain on the inventory. C. The HPC evaluation process shall proceed as follows: The structures on the inventory shall be categorized as to whether or not they are historic landmarks. No further need be taken with respect to historic landmarks. All structures which are not historic landmarks shall be evaluated by the HPC as to their current architectural integrity, historic significance and community and neighborhood influence and categorized accordingly, as follows: Significant: All those resources previously rated Exceptional, Excellent, or those resources individually eligible for listing on ~ the National Register of Historic Places. Contributing: All those historic or architecturally significant resources that do not meet the criteria for Significant, provided, however, these resources have maintained their historic integrity,'or represent unique architectural design. Supporting: All those historic resources that have lost their original integrity, however, are "retrievable" as historic structures (or sites). These structures have received substantial alterations over the years, however, with substantial effort could be considered Contributing once again. Non-Contributing: All those structures that are either: a. New or not-historic construction within a historic district, and b. Historic structures with complete loss of integrity, either within or outside a historic district. (Ord. No. 61-1989, § 1) Sec. 7-710. Development approval for historic landmark. Whenever development approval is conditioned upon a structure receiving historic landmark designation, such condition shall be deemed satisfied only if the particular structure has received individual designation pursuant to Article 7, Division 6; inclusion of the structure within an historic overlay district shall not be sufficient to satisfy the requirement of historic designation. No final development approval conditioned upon receipt of historic landmark designation shall be granted until the designation ordinance is adopted by city council. (Ord. No. 6-1989, § 9) j. 1 , Bandit unit means a structure developed or used in violation of the land use and building regulations in effect at the time of~ its construction. p. Base flood means a flood having a one (1) percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year, also known as the one hundred (100) year flood. Basement means that portion of a structure fifty (50) percent or more of which is below natural grade. Bath facilities means that portion of a structure which includes a bath tub, shower or other personal bathing or washing area. Bed and breakfast means a single-family dwelling, or part thereof, other than a hotel or lodge, providing temporary lodging to guests generally for periods of less than one month, at least one meal daily for guests staying in the dwelling, generally limited to twelve (12) or fewer guest rooms, and a manager residing on the premises, but not providing a restaurant or bar, or accessory uses, such as recreational facilities, typically associated with a hotel or lodge. Bedroom means that portion of a dwelling unit intended to be used for sleeping purposes, which may contain closets, may have access to a bathroom and which meets Uniform Building Code requirements for light and ventilation. Boardinghouse means a building or portion thereof, other than a hotel, lodge or multiple. family dwelling, providing temporary or long-term lodging for six (6) or more guests, serving meals to those guests on a continuing basis for compensation, and having a manager residing on the premises, but not providing a restaurant or bar, or accessory uses, such as recreational facilities, typically associated with a hotel or lodge. Board of adjustment means the City of Aspen Board of Adjustment as established in Article 4, Division 3. Breezeway means a covered walkway which connects portions of the same structure. A breezeway shall not be allowed, used, or designed to separate dwelling units or to create two (2) or more independent dwelling units from a single dwelling unit. For designated historic landmarks, a breezeway of no more than 10' in length may be allowed as a connector between new and old construction. The prinicipal building height may be allowed on the entire structure. Building means any structure including a roof supported by walls, designed or built for the support, enclosure, shelter, or protection of persons, animals, chattels or property of any kind which is erected for permanent location on the ground. A building includes yurts, removable sheds, and similar uses, but does not 4 chimneys, flues, vents or similar structures shall not extend over ten (10) feet above the specified maximum height limit. Water towers and mechanical equipment shall not extend over five (5) feet above the specified maximum height limit. Church spires, bell towers and like architectural projections, as well as flag poles, may , extend over the specified maximum height limit. B. Exception to maximum height limits in residential districts. Where schools, churches, and public administration buildings are permitted in a residential zone district, they may exceed the established height limitation by fifty (50) percent provided all other requirements for the zone district are complied with, and provided, further, that the total floor area of the structure does not exceed the total area of the lot on which the building is located. When this 1:1 ratio is exceeded, the maximum height limitation for the zone district shall not be exceeded. High water line means the place on the bank of the stream up to which the presence and action of water are so usual and long conditioned as to impress on the bed of the stream a character distinct from that of the banks with respect to vegetation and the nature of the soil. The high water line is the boundary line between the bed and the bank of the stream. H, Historic Overlay District means a site or area designated by the city council as an H, Historic District under the provisions of Article 7, Division 7. Historic landmark means a structure designated by the city council as a historic landmark under the provisions of Article 7, Division 7, either within or outside of an H, Historic Overlay District. Historic site means a parcel which may or may not have any structures on it. which is historically significant primarily due to its characteristics as a park, cemetery, archaeological site. Historic structure means a building or group of buildings and the associated parcel which is included on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures. Home occupation means a business, occupation or trade conducted entirely within a residential building or accessory structure for gain or support by a resident of the dwelling, and no other, which: A. Is clearly incidental and secondary to the residential use of the building; B. Does not change the essential residential character of the use; demolition or relocation. b. Estimates from an architect, developer, real estate agent or appraiser experienced in rehabilitation addressing the economic feasibility Of rehabilitation or reuse of the structure proposed for demolition or relocation. C. All appraisals made of the property on which the structure is located made within the previous two (2) years. d. Any other information considered necessary to make a determination whether the property does yield or may yield a reasonable return on investment. 5. A development plan and a statement of the effect of the proposed development on the other structures on the property and the character of the neighborhood around the property shall be submitted so that HPC is able to make a finding whether the applicable standards are met. In the case of a demolition or permanent relocation, the redevelopment plan will be reviewed as a Significant Development application. pursuant to section 7-601. in cascs when the nrC requires a development plan to evaluate thc appropriateness of demolition or when the applicant bclicvcs the oubmiosion of a development plan will assist in the evaluation of the proposed dcmolition. II. Application for Dcmolition or Exemption from Demolition, Partial Dcmolition or Relocation. A development application for partial dcmolition shall include all items specified in section 7 602(C)(1), (3) and (4). I. Penalties. A violation of any portion of this section 7- 602 shall prohibit the owner, successor or assigns from obtaining a building permit for the affected property for a period of five (5) years from the date of such violation. The city shall initiate proceedings to place a deed restriction on the property to this effect to insure the enforcement of this penalty. (Ord. No. 17-1989, § 1; Ord. No. 9-1991, § 1) Sec. 7-603. Insubstantial amendment of development order. A. An insubstantial amendment to an approved development order may be authorized by the plenning community development director. An insubstantial amendment shall be limited to technical or engineering considerations, first discovered during actual development which could not reasonably be anticipated during the approval process. An insubstantial amendment shall be defined as a change in shape or location of a single window, awning, door, staircase or other feature on the structure or use of a material made by a different manufacturer that has the same quality and approximately the same appearance as originally approved. B. All other amendments shall be approved by the HPC pursuant to Section 7-601 to 7-602, whichever is applicable. Sec. 7-604. Appeal and call up. A. Any action by the HPC in approving, approving with conditions, or disapproving a development order for development or demolition or suspending action on a demolition application or in rating a structure on the inventory of historic structures may be appealed to the city council by the applicant or a landowner within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property within sixty (60) days of the decision. The reasons for the appeal shall be stated in writing. The city council may also call up for review any decision of the HPC approving, disapproving, or suspending action on a demolition or permanent relocation of a historic landmark or any structure on the inventory rated as a "4" or "5" by the HPC by serving written notice on the HPC within fourteen (14) days of the HPC's decision arid notifying the applicant of the call up. B. Within thirty (30) days after the date of a decision by the HPC which is appealed or called up by the city council, the council shall hold a public hearing after publishing notice pursuant to Section 6-205E.3.a. C. The city council shall consider the application on the record established before the HPC. The city council shall affirm the decision of the HPC unless the city council shall determine that there was an abuse of discretion, or a denial of due process by the HPC. Upon determining that there was an abuse of discretion or denial of due process, the city council shall be authorized to take such action as it shall deem necessary to remedy said situation, including but not limited to reversing the decision, altering the conditions of approval, changing the length of time during which action on a demolition application has been suspended or the terms of the suspension, or remanding the application to HPC for rehearing. (Ord. No. 7-1989 , § 2) Sec. 7-605. Variances. The board of adjustment shall not take any action on a development application for a variance pursuant to Article 10, in the H, Historic Overlay District or development affecting a historic landmark, without receiving a written recommendation from the HPC. Sec. 7-606. Minimum maintenance requirements. A. Purpose. The intent of this section is to reduce the incidence of "demolition by neglect." B. Requirements. All buildings and structures identified in the inventory of historic sites and structures as described in Section 7-709, and all structures located within a historic district, shall be maintained to meet the requirements of the Uniform Conservation Building Code (UCBC) and the Uniform Building Code (UBC). Said structures shall receive reasonable care, maintenance and upkeep appropriate for the preservation, protection, enhancement, rehabilitation, reconstruction, perpetuation or use in compliance with the terms of this article. Evcry person in charge The owner of such building or structure shall keep in good repair: 1. All of the exterior portions of such improvements. 2. All interior portions thereof which, if not SO maintained, may cause or tend to cause the exterior portions of such improvements to deteriorate, decay or become damaged or otherwise to fall into a state of disrepair. The historic preservation commission, on its own initiative, may file a petition with the chief building official requesting that said official proceed under the provision of this section to require correction of defects or repairs to any structure covered by this article so that such structure shall be preserve and protected in consonance with the purpose of this article. C. Demonstration of hardship. Any owner of a structure identified in the inventory of historic sites and structures which HPC and the chief building official finds requires such maintenance and repairs as described in this section may make application requesting from the city council a one-time, no interest loan, in an amount not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00), which the owner shall agree to pay back to the city within ten (10) years or when the property is sold or the title is transferred, whichever is the soonest. An extension of the payment period may be granted by the city council, following written request by the owner. To be eligible for the loan, the owner shall submit a written request to the plenntng community development director, which shall include a description of the proposed repairs necessary to maintain the historic structure and approximate costs for such repairs. The loan request shall also demonstrate economic hardship which previously prohibited these repairs and that the loan amount is the minimum needed to maintain the structure. The loan request shall be considered by the city council. Any loan granted by the council shall be administered through the .anning community development director, who shall obtain copies of bills from the owner substantiating all expenditures made to maintain the structure with monies obtained from the loan. D. Penalties waived. The general penalties for violations , of the Aspen Municipal Code contained in Chapter 1, Section 1-8, shall not apply to violations of these minimum maintenance requirements. (Ord. No. 7-1989, § 2) DIVISION 7. HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT AND HISTORIC LANDMARKS Sec. 7-701. Reserved. Editor's note--Ord. No. 60-1989, § 2, repealed § 701, relative to the purpose of the division, which derived from Ord. No. 5- 1988. Sec. 7-702. Standards for designation. Any structure or site that meets one or more of the following standards may be designated as H, Historic Overlay District and/or historic landmark: A. Historical importance. The structure or site is a principal or secondary structure or site commonly identified or associated with a person or an event of historical significance to the cultural, social or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado, or the United States. B. Architectural importance. The structure or site reflects -<an architectural style that is unique, distinct or of traditional Aspen character. C. Architectural importance. The structure or site embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique architectural type or specimen. D. Architectural importance. The structure is a significant work of an architect whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. E. Neighborhood character. The structure or site is a significant component of an historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character. F. Community character. The structure or site is critical to the preservation of the character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size, location and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or architectural importance. Sec. 7-703. Procedure for designation, amendment, rescinding. A development application for a proposed designation, amendment to a designation, or rescinding of a designation, H, Historic Overlay District and/or historic landmark, shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with conditions, P ' or disapproval by the p*anni·ng community development director, at public hearings by the HPC, and the planning and zoning commission, and then approved, approved with conditions, or disapproved at a public hearing by the city council in accordance with the procedures established in Common Procedures, Article 6, Division 2. Sec. 7-704. Application. The application for historic designation shall include the following: A. The general application information required in Section 6-202; and B. A boundary description of the site. C. If the applicant intends to request a grant from city council, a letter making the request shall be submitted, provided thc structure mccts the cligibility critcria for a landmark designation grant and provided the program has been f- ided in the annual City of Aspen budget. Any residencial structure which is designated as a historic landmark after January 1, 1995 is eligible to receive the grant on a one time basis, until the vearly budget allotment is spent. (Ord. No. 6-1989 , § 9) Sec. 7-705. Recordation of designation. Upon the effective date of an act by the city council designating a H, Historic Overlay District or Historic Landmark, the secretary of the HPC shall notify the city clerk of the designation, who shall record among the real estate records of the clerk and recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado, a certified copy of the ordinance creating the H, Historic Overlay District or historic landmark. The ordinance shall contain a legal description of the structure or site designated. Sec. 7-706. Placement on city's official zone district map. Upon the effective date of an act by the city council designating H, Historic Overlay District or historic landmark, the secretary of the HPC shall noti fy the pjanning community development director and the planning community development director shall place the H, Historic Overlay District designation on the city's official zone district map, which is kept in the planning and development agency. community development department. Sec. 7-707. Rescinding designation. f An application for rescinding designation shall follow the same submission requirements and review procedures as for ' '1 designation described in this division except that with respect to Section 7-704(C), an explanation shall be included describing why the designated site or structure is not consistent with the standards in Section 7-702. Sec. 7-708. Establishment of district. There are two (2) existing H, Historic Overlay Districts in the city. These districts are the Commercial Core District and the Main Street District. In all cases when districts are discussed in this chapter, these two (2) districts are the only districts to which reference is being made. Sec. 7-709. Establishment of inventory of historic sites and structures. A. There is hereby established an inventory of historic sites and structures (known as the "inventory") in the City of Aspen. The inventory shall be maintained in the offices of the planning and development agency community development department at all times for inspection by the general public during regular business hours. The inventory of historic sites and structures shall include all structures in the City of Aspen originally constructed prior to 1910 which are at least fifty years old and which continue to have historic value, and such other structures identified by the HPC as being outstanding examples of more modern architecture. All properties included on the inventory will be adopted by legal description, and HPC will have the appropriate purview over the entire property. In the case that any inventoried parcel requests approval for a lot split, HPC shall review the request in terms of impacts on the significance of the historic resource and shall propose any appropriate conditions of approval or recommendation for denial to the planning and zoning commission and city council. B. It shall be the responsibility of the HPC, based on the recommendations of the p:bann·ing community development director, to evaluate the inventory of historic structures at least once every five (5) years, and to hold a public hearing to solicit comments on its evaluations. The purpose of the evaluation shall be to determine those structures which are to be removed from the inventory, any structures which should be added to the inventory, and to rate all structures which remain on the inventory. C. The HPC evaluation process shall proceed as follows: The structures on the inventory shall be categorized as to whether or not they are historic landmarks. No further need be taken with respect to historic landmarks. All structures which are not historic landmarks shall be evaluated by the HPC as to their current architectural integrity, historic significance and community and neighborhood influence and categorized accordingly, as follows: Significant: All those resources previously rated Exceptional, Excellent, or those resources individually eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Contributing: All those historic or architecturally significant resources that do not meet the criteria for Significant, provided, however, these resources have maintained their historic integrity or represent unique architectural design. Supporting: All those historic resources that have lost their original integrity, however, are "retrievable" as historic structures (or sites). These structures have received substantial alterations over the years, however, with substantial effort could be considered Contributing once again. Non-Contributing: All those structures that are either: a. New or not-historic construction within a historic district, and b. Historic structures with complete loss of integrity, either within or outside a historic district. (Ord. No. 61-1989, § 1) Sec. 7-710. Development approval for historic landmark. Whenever development approval is conditioned upon a structure receiving historic landmark designation, such condition shall be deemed satisfied only if the particular structure has received individual designation pursuant to Article 7, Division 6; inclusion of the structure within an historic overlay district shall not be sufficient to satisfy the requirement of historic designation. No final development approval conditioned upon receipt of historic landmark designation shall be granted until the designation ordinance is adopted by city council. (Ord. No. 6-1989 , § 9) ,*_--24·-1 u i i 1-1 0 L 1 4% Bandit unit means a structure developed or used in violation of the land use and building regulations in effect at the time of its construction. Base flood means a flood having a one (1) percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year, also known as the one hundred (100) year flood. Basement means that portion of a structure fifty (50) percent or more of which is below natural grade. Bath facilities means that portion of a structure which includes a bath tub, shower or other personal bathing or washing area. Bed and breakfast means a single-family dwelling, or part thereof, other than a hotel or lodge, providing temporary lodging to guests generally for periods of less than one month, at least one meal daily for guests staying in the dwelling, generally limited to twelve (12) or fewer guest rooms, and a manager residing on the premises, but not providing a restaurant or bar, or accessory uses, such as recreational facilities, typically associated with a hotel or lodge. Bedroom means that portion of a dwelling unit intended to be used for sleeping purposes, which may contain closets, may have access to a bathroom and which meets Uniform Building Code requirements for light and ventilation. Boardinghouse means a building or portion thereof, other than a hotel, lodge or multiple. family dwelling, providing temporary or long-term lodging for six (6) or more guests, serving meals to those guests on a continuing basis for compensation, and having a manager residing on the premises, but not providing a restaurant or bar, or accessory uses, such as recreational facilities, typically associated with a hotel or lodge. Board of adjustment means the City of Aspen Board of Adjustment as established in Article 4, Division 3. Breezeway means a covered walkway which connects portions of the same structure. A breezeway shall not be allowed, used, or designed to separate dwelling units or to create two (2) or more independent dwelling units from a single dwelling unit. For designated historic landmarks, a breezeway of no more than 10' in length may be allowed as a connector between new and old construction. The prinicipal building height may be allowed on the entire structure. Building means any structure including a roof supported by walls, designed or built for the support, enclosure, shelter, or protection of persons, animals, chattels or property of any kind which is erected for permanent location on the ground. A building includes yurts, removable sheds, and similar uses, but does not I I chimneys, flues, vents or similar structures shall not extend over ten (10) feet above the specified maximum height limit. Water towers and mechanical equipment shall not extend over five (5) feet above the specified maximum height limit. Church spires, bell towers and like architectural projections, as well as flag poles, may extend over the specified maximum height limit. B. Exception to maximum height limits in residential districts. Where schools, churches, and public administration buildings are permitted in a residential zone district, they may exceed the established height limitation by fifty (50) percent provided all other requirements for the zone district are complied with, and provided, further, that the total floor area of the structure does not exceed the total area of the lot on which the building is located. When this 1:1 ratio is exceeded, the maximum height limitation for the zone district shall not be exceeded. High water line means the place on the bank of the stream up to which the presence and action of water are so usual and long conditioned as to impress on the bed of the stream a character distinct from that of the banks with respect to vegetation and the nature of the soil. The high water line is the boundary line between the bed and the bank of the stream. H, Historic Overlay District means a site or area designated by the city council as an H, Historic District under the provisions - of Article 7, Division 7. Historic landmark means a structure designated by the city council as a historic landmark under the provisions of Article 7, Division 7, either within or outside of an H, Historic OVerlay District. Historic site means a parcel which may or may not have any structures on it. which is historically significant primarily due to its characteristics as a park, cemetery, archaeological site. Historic structure means a building or group of buildings and the associated parcel which is included on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures. Home occupation means a business, occupation or trade conducted entirely within a residential building or accessory structure for gain or support by a resident of the dwelling, and no other, which: A. Is clearly incidental and secondary to the residential use of the building; B. Does not change the essential residential character of the use; FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION FOR SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT CONTENTS A Letter of response B Letter of authorization from Owner C Application form D Supplement E Proof of ownership Fl Rendedng F2 Area site plan F3 Existing conditions F4 Site and landscape plan F5 Floor plans F6&7 Elevations FB Section 'G List of adjacent property owners ASSOCLETES INCORPORATED ARCHITECTURE .\ND PLANNING FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION FOR SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT RESPONSE TO 7-601 F,4,A.55 The design of the proposed structure described in this application is complementary to the overall mass, scale and character of the surrounding neighborhood. RESPONSE TO 7-601 F,4,A,6; Conceptual approval was granted with two conditions and a recommendation. The first condition referred to dormers on the west facade that were restudied before the second conceptual H.P.C. review. I believe that this condition was resolved at that meeting. The second condition dealt with the desire of the committee to relocate the main entry so that it would front on Main street. After some study, the applicant would prefer that the entry be left in the location indicated on the previous submission for the following reasons: 1. The entry could be moved eastward so that the door would open into what would be a small office behind the elevator: but due to the size requirements of the reception area, this change would force a number of elements of the design to move, resulting in rather dramatic change to the building as a whole. 2. As an alternative, the door could be moved to the "bay" centered in the present reception area, but the architect feels that this location would not be appropriate due to the fact that the entry feature most apparent from Main Street is the staircase with its detailed dormer and columns, and the entry would bear no relationship to the stairs. Also, as you reach to top of the stairs, you would be required to turn left into a rather constricted area that is not adequate for the traffic that would use this area. JOHN R. BAKER, AIA, President • RICIIARD A. FALLIN Vice President • DA\'ID E.K, PANICO Associate 1280 UTE AVENUE • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 • 303/925-4252 • FAx 303/925-2639 715 GRAND AVENUE • GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 • 303/928-9704 • FAX 303/928-9628 %- 3. Due to the fact that the proposed structure is located on a corner, the applicant feels that the stair and dormer feature fulfill the need of the building to "address" Main Street, while the actual doorway addresses Sixth Street. Also, the building has its most visual impact on traffic heading west on Main Street and from that approach both the stairs and entry door will be apparent. The recommendation made at the conceptual approval meeting dealt with the increase from 5'-0" to 6'-8" of the west setback. I believe no other actions needs to be taken. Wm. C. Stapleton Agency, Inc. Insuror 400 West Main · Aspen, Colorado 81611 303-925-1230 · Fax 303-920-1582 · 1-800-329-1230 February 13, 1995 Ms. Amy Amidon Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 S Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Amy: Our letter is to confirm that we own the parcel locatedat 702 West Main Street under the name of Stape Limited Liability Compa- ny. We have authorized Baker-Fallin Assocociates, Inc. to pre- pare and submit the attached final development plan on our be- half. Please call David Stapleton or David Panico if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, C - 23149 t-/1 uavid E-St< n Encl APPLICATION FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Applicant's Name and Address: 015*tc> E. AN P ADN N. STAPI_FETON Proof of Ownership: azovic>EP Statement of Applicant's Interest in Property if not owner: Property Address, Legal Description and Name: -7145 648'T- lo P:y:T- OP L.Cr- P. AMP AU-- OF L-OT- 171 E'L-coc I g>,61-r/SAIDTCHKE,rTE OF Aef:EN. Type of Review (Minor or Significant) : 616 4 1¥~i CANT. Description of Proposed Development Activity, including but not limited to: architectural elements effected, additional square footage (it applicable), height, building materials and illumina- tion: &87 FEE C.04088-UAL Cetel-OPMENE FLaN Afl=LI C.£37(14 DATED ALLUer- {40 L 16:lgE, Statement of the Effect of the Proposed Development on the * - Original Design of Structure (if applicable) and/or Character of the Neighborhood, and why the Proposed Development meets the Review Standards of Section 24-9.4(d) (pertaining to compati- bility in character of historic landmarks on the site, consis- tency with character of the neighborhood, and whether it enhances or detracts from the cultural value or architectural integrity of the structure): SeE: 8,ead=. Any other City Approvals needed by Applicant, such as encroach- ment licence, GMP or Special Review: H IL» NEED &2620 Cy:- 60) OST"ENE AFBED VAL E)2. INEel- 58·Bux- SIANOE. SB.App r.O-1.-1... 1 J - ... I.ul i Unn.L-J'. 1 1-ILL 11. rl-, J.- . 1.I 1 . W- ruwl U'.11661 FaxTransmittal Memo ·./. 1.-~.:r. /:.. ® 40. CIPE. i )'*-: ... - .™w*f 512)153e"*-%6~*-~-~~~~, b bM,/ 691 4,[30 Al 7..P?¥Nf\R„81·~AGO,., 1 1 LOcatton ' L.923; . ;;Dept- Ch.ge "ff 42#;' ¢14*f~- -- r"Wi;i .42.0 »10 V.* 400'24144... 77*129 42-92- °7 *4/, i. 1 M GLAP 1- Plip 1419 Original ¤Dest9 ORefum (30,1110,pick„p Dis!]06~on: ~02*4 0¥€2 1 -[I r.¢,P HERE, I:et:LZEFE,aaE:, 1 N.,TUE -€;Rekff©214„ €VRM;l,EC2 IN TNE AFTLEAFON(MiNDE-jep.VE CNE..€2228 ON.1409~ , i . .d*er k.(A¢9.-INGE 1,1 *DICAJEC> ·S fecffSED . BC..ee©M€?· tel WEN -TUERES 44{LUACrUALLY' YEE 4. FEB-15-1995 15: 16 FRI]M Re:84/PITKIN ILDG DEPT m 9-9252639 P. 01 SUPPLEMENT TO HISTORIC PRESERVATiON DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS IMPORTANT Three sets of N#J* labeled dr-ings =st be s~kmined in a lo,mat no larger Uwn 11'*17-. OR one dozen sets 01 bluep,inis may be submated in Neu of the 11-*17 #ormal NPPUCMGZ em•PE UMITED uae.i L-rTY' COMf'aNy' ADDRESS. * 4€D H. t•1614 ST. ZINE DISIRICT: O -- CE~-16 fL LOT SIZE {SQUARE FEET): EUSTRIG FAIT bermexie,#11€ 2 1 06 18 pact{ABLE FAK <booc:R»(R,®r Arre>00 SFEGES] 4 *St*,92>-=P -~ PROPOSEDFAR: - 956090.137'l~(~Al* a.= EXED?G NET LEASABLE (g/,R/dak 0 PADFOGED MET LEASAaE (a-* 942-3 1~ BOEnle 16 OF SITE COVEnAOE: 48%044 14741# ~ f PROPOGED'36 OF STE COVERAGE 2 1 06 9 --.-- EXISTIOSOFOPENSPACE{Co=-11: $1/5 2275 PROPOSE!)% OFOPENSPACE A-4: NO EEC? EXEING,AAXDU, IEIGHT: M'**008~ Ill i fAccessm* 17 1 t¥ 13't PROPOGEDMAXIAN HEIGHn PRO'dE".' H/*10 M#CknITitale,ava* PROPOSED 16(FOEMOUTION IED:*3 BCS™G NUhmER OF BEDFDOMS: '2 EECEm,·fe me=BOFENEDHCONS:_ 4 HamM* EXETING ON-gTE PARK»JG SPACES: 01*81TE PARIONG SPACES REQLrIFE 3 /1 ocr) 4,9 Fr. t SABACKS: EXISTING: ALLOWABLE: 1 PROPOSED: Eniwt ¥tont Rott :81 1 Rear: Al Rear swe: 40'41& E. 81* ~ 46,L•Wk 1 Comba»d AorWRes: Combined HURE hkqk,4. E. Combined F1:71¢,Fiears EXISTING NONCONFORMITES, ENLE£*-U,•iENIS acET- N 4.CE-JND 9(CROACINENE 22.62_9 62- · I MARWriONS REQUES-reg»®le Ic, LE,Kitiaks Or,cchoader comoaIRAY irj* nul bel=dihIHECk ..1, FAR: EEL=*Xial Mblumole'le-en~i, N/147 SETBACKS: Front _lif~ P0"O Spases: ,*:42 Em/?FAI a.. , 40- Open Space (Co,nmete* -li,ful ade: YFN Height (Mage *9 0%% Combired Rtmr: Site Co.grage (Cot»lila Ortly): , A-- TOTAL P.01 TOTAL P.01 9 - -4. . ' i V Ati # 11\111 4 1 #It \1, ~ 1 1 11 J i ~li /91 !11[Ulls I 1 i Ii 1 , 1 P H '1 12 12 R 8 11 1(Ali id r i li : 0 4 li i N li h ' 1 1. 1 11 -ii 11 f !! 4 4 H L 1{ 11 1 1 1, 11 1 . C 1 11 1 6 8 k. 1 7 i H i- ~~ ti *j !~ t, 1 !- it 'i ·· ~~ ''~ 1 1 i# il / ' 1, ! li 1 1' r!~ B b li 1 Al; i: , Fie 1, 1: Il '; i iii!'11 ! it !111 i· 1· i .. &1 i= !i 11 li :f;!ttit{~' ~ ~ 91#12!i;ir . H p N H i '' i 1 4 L ~f 1 ·1 '1 1 1 1 r NI· 1. il I l 1 1 =- 1 1 ---- ~ .-------- ---------r------%------1 . L=z===22-2221 074 14« 1 P# 9 80< 1 0« I hi g> W 0 «0- 01 l~ B vr--1-1 0 ~4 - 0 N U -TH E> 1~ 2, vr-r- 1.67 H. 11 :1 1 114,1 1 :1 1 IL : 1, 9 : A ·- ,~ 11 e~ i 11 ~1 1 1 1 #i .1 1 {1 4 4 ' 1 11 :! HI 1 !1 !' , 'if &'' 1 /t 1,3 i ¢ 1 11 n: 1,~' li 1 1/i i, i; 1~ 1~ 1 , 4 1, 11 7 11 1 '. 1 1, 4, L-X~ 1 ' 51 U-" e.1111101 I ii 1! f 1 1! i li :1 0 ; It , 1 .1 8 J 1 j §37 L * 9 r i 4 1 4 ~i i{ ; A 1 N i ./ . $ if il 4 /0----1-- - .limifil,!{·i]H f.'~Ii|~ 7.0 1·1; 1 i i 1 ,!d il · 1 j; 1, Bil 41!ill,·., / /2---- --------- ----- -----~--#- „-=.42119 1 11, 1 1.1: 1 i 7 ' ' /1- 1 1, . . 1 1 1 .. .. . .! 4 ! .1 ' 3 , ·· 44 ; 1: . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! ; : ~ 1 i 1 9 2 1 1 i f f 11 1 1 1 iii: 1 111'liti !111 1 1 11!1 ' 1 1,1 41&;11&£ 131~1 1 1 1 i 1 1 11 1 1 1 t-[1 ! i --11 Billi 'ii . , 1 - ill , 1-$- i i11 1, iii '' . , iii 1, 11, 4 111 1 1 - : 1 1 11 --1 24 11 1 1 1:1 1 £ ..f - 1,1 3 1 . il , ~=It -------------+--------/1 iii ; 1-i /(1:i .' ' 1 ·1 1 . li t 49 11 ! 11 1 lilli' Illi~l, 1.,111 1 1111 ~ !11111;1#11 111111 ill 1.! IIi iii'fil! 1111.1111 lili;liall 'll 1., !;:1 111 li 1 11 11.1 i-tililliti : 11'If-'41; i .1 1 i 1 1 11 11}111 1 il ' 1 11,4,1, 1, ¢:31% bli}j')1 i!11111!111 lilli ·41!Pilli 9 ' 'i, / .?i 1 1 ' 3 9 i i ii! It j{ |'~*211 i '*ilit;flii'; ift!;11:ili}Ti'i .ijiI'.0 E 0 4 ---1 . ! - 1 1 -2=-1 1 *IZILI~ tr-- .. i·1' , 1, . A.I-$-4 : . [557*57FPO 5/CP F *12.N r2» El.vi)Er) B . F E.'L, 0/«2=-f 1 0 la , - 1<1357 pr-H - 0 LE,\4'A-10- 1 2.24 1/ , 74 r. i -£37 :99-9% 4 • C i, -7 - 1- 641 -7 / »11 13 -9 - -\3. Hit 4 1 /4/ fl ill , 1 -1 ul l 111 1 > U. / i it (21 ill I 3-, ij a Ill i 44 - -1 4 4, » 1 4 41 0 , u U r.\1- 11 \ , L 4 . 1 1 1\ ....1- 1 i .%,6 t - 4 h 12,4 14 4 - ------------~ ----601 ! i 1 7 1 U. i• ~ b i.11 t r 1, 1 £-1 1 l) th 1 Ok J .* Irt - 1 -t r - € 10 0 h j . B F :,-i i A %3 L k F 7-.·~s - >44 i j 4 441 y l I -- - -V / \\\( l>\\\ 1 51> 1 8,'t·„rtled .1 331120 642 44 .. . Recer,11'n N QUIT CI.j.Ill DEED THIS DEED. 11.,lic· ihi, 22nd ,·1·e ,•IFebruary . 991 h.·t...crl DAVID Z. STAPLETON anc! DON N. STAPLETON 1 -11% 'G,{inY> ,•r Pitkin .ind Slate €,f O,|/rni|li. gr:Inl•,fl•). JAJ STAPE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY *h•,r tecul uddre„ 1. 533 E. Hopkins Ave., Asven, .. .0 1 C.lorodo 81 611 .,f the C,unt,·i,fritkin and flate „C C 01•wad,i. irdnice~, WITNESSETH. Thatthe grtint,M.I. RE :ind in :imal,·rnti„i„,1 th: ium i,f $5.00 and other good and < sufficient consideration DOLLARS the recrip, and .uffic·,ency of whkh i. her:h> .14 kn•,dedgcd. ha rrn,1. d. relea,ed..,Id. clmir,rd and QUIT CLAIMED. and by the,c prc.ent. di, · rcnil€. rrlea·.c. Ell. ci,n,ey ind QUIT CLAIM unt„ (hc*grantedli). hein. tuccawn and migns. forn·cr. all Ihe nght. title. Interrit. claim und Jernand u·hich the grantor«, ha ve in and In the N 11 rn,peny. frlgelher with · ' imprn.emcnli. if.iny. Aituatc. Ning and heing in (hc C,·vnly •,f Pitkin and State of Cr,k,rad•i. dernhed a. fi,Ilin i 5 The East 10 feet of Lot R, and all of Lot S, Block 18, 1 - City and Townsite of Aspen I i I. 1 j $ I. lot . 6, .1 i - al.,i knt-n by.,rret and numhcr 1.702 I·lost Main Street I TO f f·WE AND R) 11(}1.1) the vme. 1*rher wifh all ami cingular the appurtenances ind flri,ileger thereunto hcleflging or in , an, wi·e thercuiln or™naining. and all ille e.iate. right. title. inteint and claim »hal.ne.er. tifthe grantoll.l e,ther inlaw orequity. 10 the unly rn,re: ur. benefit and beh,•,1 01 the grzintee~,1. heiri and a-,ni forner. IN WITNESS WHEREOF. 1 he grant„re.; luve ermited thi. deed tin the date w forth ah,M. 3 n . -_ 1 _3(1«4 231,' 064 il Okid E- Syl' 1*4--FY&-6- 4 Don N. Staplbton ' 't ST,1 F. 01· Clit.(R At)0. C '1•Unt> iiI 1-hc 1, •rret,ing in~In:ineni u ... kn••• ledee.1 hel,wr me Ihi. 2 2 !1.1 .1.i»,f Februa rV .1991. h. David E. Stipl.,ton ancl Don N. Stanleton ; 99/1 ... ...11* h 1 W 9.. . 1 14· cf,n,r",4.,r,rn ripirrt .1,} . Witne- my hind and i,fh.731 91 ¥ he--- ember 17, 1903 I. ., i . SE. pu B Lit 0 ,·13 \ v ··.2 \\ 1, li i..t5;~ : 7- . . 1> I. - r ··· . %..../'. 3216 s.. Clayton· .,073... : i Denver, CO 80210 /:T.· 4 'lf in f Irnirr. in,cri '·rin an.1 t ~•--- A 6.4 '.1 11·i. 1*t. in 11 1 1 '1'11„}li ..d' /' •1.... 4%,•I " -i .. 1.......1 '11.1,-I, ....2'..... , i \ l - - 1 62+4 1 / 7-7 1 - i - ./\ 1 \ 3 1 4 4% -lk «--Fr// t-2- ---0- 3 -7 4. E -- I , 9/4 391 1 1 J ' 1 .-- 7 f 4922% -/(Lifv:tz~ Sty€4 / u 1 { L,tre 4../. , \ i '' r.. . .- *-i--U- 1 »\ ,- 1 1/... - i .j. r 45 peg* - - 2 0 ./. f ---' ,, , 1 - 42 1 1 1 2% --H »ttl,32 ~/13. / 4,64 »1«k ~0 .\.,t - 0 ly ¥-6*L*2'=<' 1-5 2'0·9 2 : *-2 11 . 9.41.-«\ ./-- , H- - :97.pr- - >51:z!:· i 1 «u=- - . 2 .4 k. 401 Ut .t -2. . 1 - i-/TH! HI .. 4/ b.-----)- - - . *21. 9/ --piff·f>UW. ~ug·' L; '; ~ ~ ,~8279- · 25, . \3V· -1 3 * 6/4.irry. 1..-A i' 1 /7/.LS:~ ~*/--1*-CUL- - 1 -1 .7 4 . - - .-60:257'-~61 . . ill~ 1! 111 111 /- 1 - ----- -- r . 62/·t ~&~331~.2/.1 9 i <ft J - - - ...F . I + 4 viv'*it¢-;i J t. /1, ¥ ,- f --2 *0:44. .7.940. - lill:ilu:I, -' i>-4 --,9. ' * '271 - --r-T~ C}.i---1 1 1 . 2 11 1 '221 FIEs IUM [1~m; 0 1 LE 1/ .0 17% tr l ./ E. - 1 11/1 r -1 1 9 4. I.', i 15=224=2--41 ' I ltri . i ii , ¢3 jil i I i l;4 .44 L ~ -.f ·A k/« i.j: il~ 2 4 9-4/ : : d , e 'bi '7. , ==3[ - 1 -2.-It !*, -- i I, »11 !1,1 11111 )1111'.Fl' 11110'L 42 1 .r-rr-El; I 1 4 * , - A i [2341 I·li ---chfP1 -- 1 „wri.404,~,\Ar411803,~'~'~ ~111[r-,-tw :~-*z---1.-nzE-dhill.- frltl~E<~2%----=-~ i: , !4: ~ 'Wi-=2;Li.-Debe.emy-~TER -E==1~ <-Ems=--_*A /,t *- - - yox# *0\1.-•« 1 ·ir, fi-ZL--4 - ~ %24 1 1 1 2 i ilil ! Mi"1 1,1 11!91!'!ip.--:...9 - - ~ 4 't i. 7 '42 J 4 -r-1 - -- --4354422* 1 , \ /Ua~ i -. C- \ - 1 1 3 1 --1-- -- 9 -147- ----61,--LIZIL- -1- - Af t' 4.\-7------------ f ) ~~~~~~~EZEA -%--9 -b . - . EFFFLE.-ED N=114-81}KANGE-=AGENE-¥gzUr-ED-1146------ -27 -E@*pE-2161-CLI -- 1 -2 - -- +-f -412:>EF~ \15,-833-3 k _-- ---.5----#JTHEZLAMP_*411! t>L INC. - 2-04 1 t J.*rER: BE,evick N---4, 2 d - -- LIGAS 'chll/_ --- r . MANHOLE 2 6 LaY 4 % 4 -12 O SS 05 - 4 -I- 1 5 Lt 55 - ~ 5--E ..=I--- £7 1 C E Wf _ -2-ELECTKILAL LINE 1 - 1 i - _SANI-T»€9 SENER /---ZIR:a®:3RS€lEg | d) 11] -, U. - ..1 1 111 M - 3/- 6 ' 25*15-TINdl- - I >~o....xoxz"i _STRILI Crl-IRE-- I.:Il .-i/LI, F - -=. ' SIN¤~IEE_ ~ I I EUCCNNa z i:-::55: -~-2::55---:5555 - 1 J• ·.:-2.·i·X·>X·>X·/·X<-:-7~ - i \ -X 1 - --r ..Il .................... 0 - - Ut Exisntga gRI/Ell/gli ~%*48%%43&632- - 08&08#*C-X-X N 26 5. -1 1 - - .3-~52::0-:,ji::2:*-I'lli..~:/ /5, pl b - 9 4 1 -U - re 10-Z_1 . P b- . - -F I tr i O Ifi ti , - di It ... ...J L~ 11 43 \L . 11 - 1 - - 7 134 ,- / - 8 -ELE-rrIC·44414.-lifiztu/42 ~ _ 645-1-IN E. , 6 'ABLE ~£VLLiN¢51_23 . - _al -_A--1 «N _ 3-3 5 -gr R 8 --a- 7r - 9 » 3 I $ .. 7 / - 0 ..1 . .rk. - V . __b_TAPEETON-UN 5-UR ANCEJAGENCCED-[Co[ N 0 AR EA-2-5.1-I_EJ?LAN-- - ----1 tu*130_no (Z) 5EP-1-1-21,5,;-1 ac-i _202_USLMHEFEL>+10 2-1~AL-LIN _IN C 7- - #"9 Cr en N€A 9,72-L...IIZLTLEE . \ _Axler-1 NA FENC.E. 7 \ li 0 -- 1 27rT=NHCOO , .-- 7 1 ; . . L f. 'IiI I . . - 2-2/x[ST]NU _ _ 1 7 24:1 4 --2 r . - INXI e.[-1Ne, 2 2 114 e,Tal«__ .- „ 2 =2;UTCP ING -1-- 7 - =137574¢ 2 -u - 1. - 9 -grri .. . - 4 ·4~2 --- --' ~~ 1=- ¤ __2 CA'eFEt»r -=>dell N 62 22 erce-Y L -. - 5194 ' -13(-11 L O f NA 0- 944 -- 02 0 \ 3 /' COTIDN H GOO & X hvnt + -Le,reTING pilb4 7 - T \ /2/ - 1 * f 3*' ' .7-- 1 F.~·Ef<J~~: · IS 1--X _12-T_ .2-H _2-2-7226 VII J.LB --F - .- 2111.-IT-2 < \ STAPLETON JNSUKAN CE AGENCY -DUILDING - -77-EXIE>TINd CONDITIONS 120-1/25'=]'-OV -- -2--A-- 62PT.le -l-MFI & - - -- - -- / ------------- - -- -2--- ----------- - 9*IT-HERLAND FAAJ2N \46 0 I- ---I --.*-*W+.--- I-. ---- - - L y £1"10,2/Oo-'- 1 - E XI * TIN di 2 UILPINO L-----1 42% enNGIENCE -- 1 . 1 3. - --4-_((AciETE FIC, .. 1 Pur,1 Erte iXIar-2 , 1 2 - ENCLOBLICE FUMP' uP r 4. b.,22:11*YE MC . 1 WA. , 1 -- --- 1 - 7 %TYitiAC-L I ill, 1 - 16#f/*race =__-I 0 - 11 - - 11 1 - > IEE#ii32»~CAL - - mrrONLEC» 2/8446*1-eaCIL | b 111 411 -1 ----- - /1 -1 42 -3 -4 1 - . I 1 - . 1- 11; --9 op O -BUILDIN€f ZZ-- -.~ J 1 111 ' 11 1 ' ¢ I 2/11*24.1/FLE,0.66 ILL ~ 1 1/Ji _- Z ;ill! I lilli . 1 1 , 111 1 1 1 1 --t - * IPORCM -+--- - 1 #All'11111; 111!1~11. ild 1 - _. =--1 f 0 1!1 1 1 1.11 111 j ./ --M*%492 4 // - - Uy-J- 4'' -- ~NW) 11 ;1 1, 0 - ' , 9 4 . / /-4 ./ 4//: lifi -- I .Xy-=]C // / 11 lili ! j h .1 liff, -1-2--1 601 -C~ /4 ,/:PA €*4 2.l-1 F . I t-2114-'DWELI B . 3.- . .ZE.Xlel-ING -*Z.N -AL-/ »J~hul:ExaTONE _/- - 2>V al -- - 1,4- , i CCI[[CliD•IC:*P .7 J «~704LE69/ lee -a ~~ ~7- C- - - - ~ 0~ rg~,ri71336 - ~ 2- --0 --, 1 . f ~ ~ /--- -- ';- 9.084•· - . . · 4.·• #,3. i. · I. . -51.1·rEDF.3- 1 , . , --- I -. - . ':... ..2,6 •,r·-· -.-4 4 -- I . - 225 7321--TX TT --4 29-7 -----3-_-6 1--1~ 3--R I-_-5 37E- -Iri__ /79h 4 ( Ti) 5IrAECETCZE[I[N-**BAING.CKOEEIC'YLELit-LIQUqL LE_el TE-4-LA N.Pee*XAN 90-1/6" €1'-*3-_77-_5 E-rne, 191*-2 ~-7-I1O4 - 1 CO ' - 1 1 PFCM € 67101 8 « 1 1 1 1 f U | 4 1 1 2 - J L Ir - T L t 1 0 0- = CO 0 --- 0 0\ / \~-- 1.IVINA KM - J A.P. U. 171- j oFF 1-CE: -- 322 -2 -f_FogCH --- E IOLL,W 01-MICE - - ----- -- --P212.M I--- =1 1= . - -oPE- n J 1 - . E - -IKITCHEN L - /' i 1. 1 Be-- - FL - KE--41 r T - h- -- _ UITYINO F.M _ _ _22€7DK '34-3 - - -COhiP 2- _1 f - GaD[t] _ e~ - 2 - U .j & -C U 11 /4 L 30 - - _ , L___ -uoi=rice -u L COFF=icE - / U _EL_ - 0 0 -BL- cal- - -r-. -1-11 -,Cid L . r 4-1 - 21.1 MECJ4 __- FEZZ-ISPRM -7 - --7 ---U_LgeCE-FrION _ L. 2- 1 17=;7 OFF I UE - n / 7-~7[ . -- Critic'"/ -1)1 - I I - I I .. 9.. --A f k- 0,:-1. -22 .<1.-:- 12.. A --' I J----41 0. r~ , - t- I 701.-%.7 1 --:d 1. .3 ..r wi= - -4/ 7 /46DMat-7 -2270¥-CH L- co +48 018~ 63 1 T uu =row/44 -f ZO-MIP - 1 DOWN 1- . . - . 49. .m -IMWI ~eatiak[+ --- 2201 41 Flge=rEFWCaU1054*0 ___~ - - 16CZ:>ED 11775<_14,1 $ ' /8'1*lko• 5 9 , CIA.-PI-PT/nkl I U Ck!-1,2 -A ki r P -A P-. m kt/- V " P-.1111 ni ki rt *- AP OT 14 9% - · -r- . 1 41 11 1 -- 29 - i 1-7-\ \ 1! - E--41 11 1.-J E-1 -F /9 B -3-22 0 1 11 % 2 17 -- 7.murr '- 26 4% -TZ ZE--7- i 5 7- 'tr f illi i_-rit . . 11-11 IT- -4, 1 -... I! 442% 13-4 n», 1,--t--1 ~ 4 1 11 , I li 1 1 4 ----------1-- \P\\>, a /' 1 ¥ 1 \912 1 1 Ill J /1 1, 1 / Mul=U J J// it 1 11 1 I 1 rn Z 51 1 - , 1 1 1 1 Ilt 3 37 R il· 1 Tfnt----/- T i.».--..-1, 4 I r 91 1 r JAG41lf--1-,1 111 -- I 4 4-+J tl=~ \ 4 !.9 ~11311 1 n 3 7 , J --fi 0 1 ~ 1 7- -8.--f »1 :-*LIC-~ A f ' 1- T 4 1 1 »In=T-T-- - 1-3 -1 ~.j t._.-1. 0 21 --_11- 0 - - F' 1 .4 -rf f * 1\ L-c# ¢ J 11 1, 1 .6. Ef- 11 - - - M ''11 1 1 - ./ 1 1 11- Off ~ T--22--I -2-1 il~ 111 1 ~ -2/ 1 1: . ~ 14 1 8- IE O E I~~ -11 1 11 lili 1-[ =-: 2- - ~ 1 - 1 i, I 1 1====== 1--- =-9- +I-/ 1 1 1 11 . ) ... 1 - W 1 1 En- ~ ~ --IITIEEW 1 - 1=== 1 . 1 i , -1 1== 1 I j 1 - #-- -1-- 1 i 1- - ,1 ~ . R -=- i- -ill]_11.1-1- i 11=-1 ~ L 1 12 .- = 1 1. -- - 1 1 1---9-1- + 1-lit-t-n-ia -2- 1-* 7@[1 1 1 1 -- 11 1 111 4 1 6 -1 26"BE'* 1-2162 1 .-2-11_.- -- DN lal 1-OQULAO 9-L=NV-2.1-13-6-NE.-.19.012 3 >sne._.IN[-7 -1 ?92:=1- W . -- .----I- r --I-.I---*-pli.--1-*I----I--4---I%- -I - . --.-- /4-- \ _6 - -------I--Ill---*.I.--*Il---I-Ill-Ill----*.-- - - C-r--1 -- -- -1 , il --- --- 24\ f===lilli l i le=~z~zzi_-0 b INZIIFF]1·1~F-E,~~ ~j ip--1 E-fli . ©ihuarki iF:?940- ~7i~1~7flIZILIJEZZ~.a~. - ~ ~11 11 IN' 1 191 2 i : 11 Li, --1---. -1 - /- 1,1 1, i. 2 1 11 1 4 !; «1423!23 4,21%,El~21~i[Lu 11123 1 I 41---i kIntlim-- -6-- - -- t============z===2=22=IZIEJEE==ZZLI-------_ -4 -- , lifi ! !| 11 '1 i i ---.-2 1-11 6,6- -- - ·, ···lit, 1, 4,12id:ull!.:12% lili!~1:' ':MN ' Ile·18·! - - 0 U-~L---4 f. : i ./. )4. ''~ -- - -- - 1 . 1 11 4 --9 t= ET3 ..-- ! I I' ~ :i ,1 .Ii' 1 , 1 2 4 - 1____1214287_ELEV*F]DE.t--77.7-2---T-If-_36----2 ------ --- ------ ------ ---- ---- -------- - - - ___ NORLTE-l _ELE VATTON_--_1 -- ____.1-_ _ .__-1-22--I STAFLE TON --thi ~RANCE- _ AGENCY. D-UILP[NO---_- ._ ---_ ELEVATION,3.- _-1- _i-_ 1-_-1-2 -1 73" =-- fL- C>? I _i-Iff-ffl -3-frf _-95-8 714,-1991 36- FCOF CONJErrRUC-nON CE-OA€ 51-11Nd,LES \*FECr5 Chi DI-TU™ENE 166 6 1,46:re.12 St-I IELO E,··rriqi *OF ON y yarren'RENE lk,ISUL. «NAILE;2 01212*' 4 FOLON errM. 02 -22) ON 58" Cox Fl.>f WIP ON 26 12' 1*J-TE.RS ¥ Pie. BAT-T~ / CR- 39) , -r.O. Ricee - -- .»«- 1/f 4 -7'.eck \ f _ Ul 9,60¢»ME'rgal¢<24 G, IMIL. v:N:De EAA©Ef -7 (-rfF? EXTEZZ€R rWAL#42 P 4 06.3 1 ~ ~61 1 31 i - OFF I DE -am'-1-2, , i.. ht £ -15124(No A-Cce Lt#- --714 TR.Wrz,yrpz~me Efajfzstz?22?1 /-20 g '»-9--«2 266%%. - - 9 9 - 19 I % 1 b 1 OffiCe /146·l-U _C=,19*frf<UzIFION __ - =2= -- - 16<-G--CAT'_SIOINa ONLINVEK' 1- ~1 - AIR_INFIL._2»42/JET ON 14"apx _ FLMASEC' 9-lEATI Na <Sh.1 2*L. --9,- 5TUIPS *FFUL L F.6.15*rrs o:-i·,0 . . Fll<€fr -FL.£2212 -- /3 '590¢ctr<,-7-*Xr,-FF; TZ*MaTNZ27221~NEEU'FU'Try,g03~-t·*,2,/lf~~-' , AP ir."~h·.'x~ Ny·',lr 'y,cu.N~r '·Y. h ive "r·*4~42£21~ -0- El ~4" MUND P.TTZ, FINIDH aliaCE arre eC'EL.21, ON 10 RE51 L. :. FLIE]Na CHANNELS _ - LIVI NG: REr.f -0 BEOFZ~2PM~ fl 4 . ----- 1 | LE»SEMENrr -_ STAPLETON__1NSURANCE_AGENCY BUILDINO BU ILDINO SEC-TION -- 1/411 = 11- Of' -- -- _ SEPT- 15, F:¥13 -_ ~ 1,0-,21 41IEZ~ 70'Pn2W~'iti~i/79203 IF...__.I 1 4-| a*YAWLEVA/1/. H. H V .' \P . j 1 - C - -66\-ov 04.-6 OV\, 1 ~4 (9 1 - --EXPerr>.Mi Fa#*32 -73 \ + l- -- 1!-0 -- -- \ . -ILk,AL-·j<**·r' . 1 ' 11 ! --FAMP up il 1 i: arrer'di 4.1 11 1 i T .... -- \ 1 '/ 1 1 / r. 3 /·i ZESCLOSLE i 1 1!/ / 1 f~ARKINZA SEA<:CE i i /1 1 1, \ t 7 1 f 11 1 1 1,1 ip b I 45.5.>I 4 + 1 1»CH- A 1 - i R a /4,1 k / 1 1 · -- IDAKAD·44 SFACE 1 1 / -1 , 1 1/ 1 \. / /-1 1 i f.4-1--au-7 -FAR)<iNA-964=az 1 . ~ 11 j < N it . 1 i i IX .f,!2ZILL> i ! / - / 1 2,%=rt , / I 1 1 1 1 1.1 \ 1 i i 1 1 -1 -- 34 9.- 7-- -- I- 1 i 0 - *1111 - - '.1~ 4 lit ilt i _ MAR,clrVA 92/·20 JExt'5715 ( 1 11 -2_95<SACks-LAWE~ 1 \ 1 i04 -9 4 1 . -- :LOT- LINS ~ , I , j \ / \ I ? 9 j . -' 3 1 / exte-rk; l - /~3-fRSE. 1 _2- Q.*le-1-JN 6, D I-r¢»4 . 1 1 -- -- I ....--=4==------ . --< -2 1 \ I :t ' -/ l-PE - .. ·· --- / - -- SEFT -8 6 19 9 .3 5 1 -_ x - T H -5 - T 3 - A. -- .- 5- .. E _-- i -E -- - , \ 07/C' LETOR IN©u 11.ANCE ACIEPIC-r bUILD[kka 91-7-5 - PLAN-- - --7 -1 '/811 L 1-t o,f- - - suiTMEN L.AND.-FAL.C:,4- thic , 4 . / I 3/9 -117 u/ ~-63 ./-- ' -' -4 /4 i /7 \ ---4 - /71 =\ J€€ \ IF - / A ..1 .\\ /7 416 - /''i /6.7 %,4~ 1 1 .:.IL_1_J : \\ 3, 1 #a 1 1 i i 1 41 li Ht A -Int------in[1+I,-I» 131 it »2\ - 1!-a- -4-1 - ~ I Uit \1 1 11 / ~. = i 1 1 Ii' 1,1 111 11 1 H: : I . ...9--d 2> : :11 1 BL. 1 1 ~_~_~; 21.--4 1 iii Itil A i t 4/ 421" - P ~ 1,1 i 1 ; 1.1 1~ i 1- 11 1 1. it - 1 -1 \: h. 1 , 1 - .-I L F .1 - 1 I1~Tli 1 ral -- It ,--1 1 . . ,9 1 ir i ! + 1 i } d F - 11 - ' : i : 1 I --11 1 4 /1- ' _ _ 1402724 2 LEVAT-lON - WEET S,LEV'ATI <IP>i - 1 - - - --9-0--1----6-3 -fid-PLE-1~~~ 199 3 --_ / I. f; 5-FAF-LET-ON {NOURANCE Aa E-NCY }bUILPING - ELE.\AT [014 4 - - -3-73/1-: 1 1 6- -/ -1 - - 4,(ATHERLANO FALL,4 ING__.. 1 2 9/93 L)#pxt«.6 \\ . -. -/ri 9. ' . I ' \A / \\ 1 i.tx /1 1 1 - i \\ '67. NX '' \« 1 . 4; 1!1 1: 'lit 1 g' 3-I~ii / il 1 li li M i 1.11 ill 1 li i '4 ! iN~ 21 ./ - A U 1 1 Iii 11 -1 , A - U H J i -' -4 / 12,2-*. 100/ I ki.Yl=-34 0- 1 - . P -,1 1 111. 1 1 f:· 2 :1:11 : 4 -F 'ii i Fl; 1 1* 1 li~ m 0- R M '1 . ' h m 11 Impr -. 1 I h -F-' :1 F ; 71[ -57 111 11 / i' t· 11 4 1 11.L 41 1 1 1/1 , 1 1 11 1 -- i ,U i i iii ~1 1 11 11, 1 : H 1 fl i ! h : a .. .2 i , 1 1 11 6 1 . 1 1 -1.-2' 2 ; 7 - A 1 -- 1 J. 1 .11 ~ - ---,9 ~ ---- h irr lifet-. - - 1 - i 11 1 1 1 - 1 - r 4 , 1 [ 1 1 r - 1 1 11·'1 11 1 1 1 11 10 1 1 111 1 - 1 1, il 1 ! L-- - -- - - - igill- - -. - ------ I - - - 9<30,4 =LE\6<1~7<3 ki E.Ael- ELEVATION ' -- - STAPLETON IN QURANCE J AGENCY- -53-iLEEN-G--------------ZE-EVATIONe--7 ---- \/6\C L\- Oll . - - SEPIC LAV/4931-- - - - -7..... .....20714*21.+LNE> FACUR _.INC,_ - ... 1. 1 4.- Gretchen Greenwood & Associates, Inc. 201 North Mill Street Suite 207 Aspen, Colorado 81611 303-925-4502 f b--1 1 9 f oo 4. l 1 il '114 1 1 --- - m - -- -30- -- --91- 2 L-~4--I - -- - 00 IJ --------------- -- -n -1 f- a - n - i---- - Jo JJ 1 - 1-1 - 1 0 : 1 07>' - -- 1- //i-&16 SCALE: 11 -_--122__ il«_ 1 JOB: DATE ISSUED: DRAWN BY: 1 - -- - - CHECKED BY: -- REVISIONS: DJUILLU - 1 1--- -.-41 7- - - - ET 0 0 9 -F- H 2 > gh VVT 1 0 h] ~ii · : 7!41 = 1 Loll .. 1.'ll ...m Gretchen Greenwood & Associates, Inc. 201 North Mill Street Suite 207 Aspen, Colorado 81611 303-925-4502 11 - f~ -fff 0 4 1 "1 1 f i %TUF (f 0« I «T- M 9 '4« 46 11 021, IfFet fr 000 pE - A 9 4 -- 00 U 4*:11 - I_~ 1 0 f 3-2-z _- r - 21 -- == / 1 SCALE: 4 01 3>911 JOB: DATE ISSUED: - L E- 42-J * - _ _ u - DRAWN BY: ~ | ~ ~ ~ CHECKED BY: REVISIONS: 1 211 - 1 ' M/ti 4 -T- 05 1/ 8>\·/» -1 1 0 1\1 f IF11 = 11- 0 1~ .. E .i Gretchen Greenwood & Associates, Inc. 201 North Mill Street Suite 207 Aspen, Colorado 81611 303-925-4502 0 liT 114 1 1 1 0. 00 0 W - El LE - E JOB: SCALE: DATE ISSUED: -- CHECKED BY: --- ----- -~ ~ ~ DRAWN BY: 1 REVISIONS: IN 0 69 9 0 b * V »71 2 14 VI/F 1 : & I 1-,1- O 11 .. 11., Wial. 1.1)11 Gretchen Greenwood & Associates, Inc. 201 North Mill Street Suite 207 Aspen, Colorado 81611 303-925-4502 9 'r lili -----i-- SCALE: JOB: - 4 - - DATE ISSUED: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: REVISIONS: 032 - 1»1 0 67- 5/1/9. «»710 hi ..