The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19950628AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION June 28, 1995 REGULAR MEETING SISTER CITIES ROOM - SECOND FLOOR CITY HALL 00 I. Roll CaN and approval of April 26th, May :14th minutes. tjÂ«t 7 4 .' II. Commission & Staff Comments Request for format change of agenda. STAFF PRESENTATION APPLICANT PRESENTATION QUESTIONS & CLARIFICATIONS PUBLIC COMMENTS & QUESTIONS COMMISSIONER COMMENTS III. Public Comments IV. NEW BUSINESS 15 A. Evaluation of the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures, "Round III"- PUBLIC HEARING 50 B. 525 W. Hallam, gonqeptual- PUBLIC HEARING'~6'/, 94/34 '-44(j/hq. k /)Â©Slci/16<~76 r.) 40 C. 217 S. Galena, Minord/c- V. OLD BUSINESS 50 D. 939 E. Cooper- di .,u';*on IM O 15 VI. Project Monitoring 20 VII. Adjourn j HPC PROJECT MONITORING HPC Member Name Proiect Donnelley Erdman The Meadows Collins Block/Alley 624 E. Hopkins (CD:3-8-95) 220 W. Main- European Flower 930 King Street- Cunningham 330 Gillespie Jake Vickery The Meadows 130 S. Galena- City Hall 520 Walnut- Greenwood 205 W. Main- Chisolm 610 W. Hallam- Iglehart Leslie Holst Holden/Marolt Aspen Historic Trust 303 E. Main- Kuhn 930 King- Cunningham 939 E. Cooper- Langley Entrance to Aspen Roger Moyer 409 E. Hopkins Holden/Marolt 303 E. Main- Kuhn 420 E. Main 107 Juan Martha Madsen 132 W. Main- Asia 435 W. Main-L'Auberge 706 W. Main (CD:4-27-94) 702 W. Main- Stapleton Linda Smisek 229 W. Hallam- Pinnington 316 E. Hopkins- Howling Wolf 939 E. Cooper- Langley 801 E. Hyman- Elmore Sven Alstrom 624 E. Hopkins 4-12-95 Barn and historic house approved final Susan Doddington 1 Melanie Roshko Jeff McMenimen MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: Evaluation of properties proposed for inclusion on the "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures"â€ž Round III DATE: June 28, 1995 SUMMARY: Once every five years, HPC is required to re-evaluate all non-landmarked resources identified on the "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures," in order to make the following determinations ( see Section 7-709 of the Municipal Code, attached) : 1. Amend the classification of any resource (significant, contributing or supporting) 2. Add any resources to the Inventory, which were previously omitted because of recent annexation, error or through contribution to community character which was not previously recognized. 3. Drop any resources from the Inventory which have lost their historic significance. NOTE: Both the Code and the rules and regulations of the Certified Local Government program, administered by the National Park Service and the Colorado Historical Society require a re-evaluation of the Inventory at least once every five years. PROCESS: The re-evaluation process is as follows: 1. In 1990-91, a consultant team, staff and HPC completed the fieldwork, which involved filling out new Inventory forms and taking new black and white photos of each resource. 305 sites were surveyed. 2. A master list was compiled to record the status of each property during previous evaluations ( 1980, 1986 and 1991). Property owner names, parcel identification numbers and mailing addresses were researched and included on the Inventory forms, which were then entered onto the Database. j 3. Those properties which had not been designated Landmarks were identified and targeted for evaluation by HPC and Council. Property owners were mailed a public notice and a notice was printed in the weekly Aspen 1 Times. (This occurred in early 1992.) A cover letter was included with the public notice, explaining why the review was necessary and the implications, both positive and "negative" of being listed on the Inventory. Staff held one on one meetings with property owners who protested or wished to have more information. 4. At the time of the 1992 hearings, not all property owners were correctly identified and there were some errors in the public notices. Staff elected to break the process down into "Round I and Round II" in order to make the task a little easier. Round I was completed in May 1992. Roxanne Eflin (HPO) resigned before Round II could be undertaken. Round II was completed in January 1995. A small group of properties were still problematic, therefore a third and final round has been added. 5. For the properties included in "Round III," Staff has followed the same noticing procedures described under point #3. Time for public inquiry was set up for June 21st from 1-3p.m. The purpose of this meeting time was to discuss specific concerns of individual property owners, review the available preservation incentives and to discuss options if the owner wished to pursue removal of their property from the Inventory. 6. Tonight's meeting is a public hearing. HPC is not required to make their final decision on disputed properties at this meeting if they feel that additional information is needed. This is an opportunity to receive public input and the meeting must then be continued to a date certain (staff suggests July 12th) when Staff will present for adoption the Resolution covering the committee's recommendations. 7. The Resolution which results from these meetings will be forwarded to City Council, who will make the final adoption of the re-evaluated Inventory by Ordinance. 8. Following final adoption, any necessary changes will be made to the GIS map of the "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures" which is on display in the Community Development Department. BACKGROUND: In 1980, the Planning Department received a grant to hire two consultants (John Stanford and Vera Kirkpatrick) to survey Aspen' s historic resources and to establish the f irst comprehensive "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures." Over 275 sites were included and given a rating of "exceptional, excellent or notable. " No changes in legislation were proposed at that time. Two important actions occurred following the creation of the 2 Inventory: the adoption of the first design guidelines and a concerted effort by City Council and the Planning Department to Landmark designate significant properties. In 1986, as a result of numerous demolitions and a movement to overlay the entire townsite as a "H" Historic Overlay District, a 1-5 (five being the most significant) numerical rating system was established. Non-landmark properties rated 1-3 required no HPC review and approval for demolition. Properties rated 4-5 did have HPC review. The numerical rating system proved to be too subjective and resulted in a number of losses as structures rated 1-3 were quickly demolished. It is also important to note that the establishment of the numerical system was simply a classification of properties already on the Inventory, it was not an in-depth re- evaluation of the town's historic resources. In 1989, the numerical system was retired, to be replaced again with three easily understood categories: significant, contributing and supporting. Also at that time Council expanded HPC's demolition review authority over the entire Inventory, including partial demolition and relocation. More incentives were also created for historic landmarks to offset the strengthened regulations. The existing classifications are defined as: Significant: Applies to all resources listed on, or eligible for listing on the National or State register of Historic Places. HPC must include the "Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Preservation" in these reviews in addition to the local development review standards. Resources considered "significant" represent the top 15% of the Inventory. Contributing: These resources have maintained their historical or architectural integrity. Approximately 75% of the Inventory is included in this category. Supporting: These resources have maintained some elements of their historic and architectural integrity and in general are "retrievable" with substantial ef fort. Generally, this applies to structures which have had unsympathetic additions or removal of original features. 10% of the Inventory falls into this category. PUBLIC INQUIRY: Staff received two inquiries related to "Round III." A representative of the Aspen Institute will attend the HPC meeting and requests a site visit in order to determine which areas of the Meadows are to be designated historic. The City of Aspen j has also inquired as to implications of designating the Colorado Midland Right-of-Way. 3 TALLY: At this time, the historic resources which are under some 0 degree of protection break down as follows: Designated Landmarks: 126 Non-landmarks listed on the Inventory: 147 Total: 273 historic resources EVALUATION: The following sites were recommended to be added to the Inventory by previous Preservation Planning staff due to research conducted by Staff and HPC on the 20th century architectural history of Aspen. The Meadows Colorado Midland Right-of-Way Staff supports addition of these resources. Further discussion must be given to which areas of the Meadows are to be included on the inventory and what the implications are of listing the right-of- way. The following site included in "Round III" of the Inventory evaluation was recommended to be retained on the Inventory. Red Butte Cemetery 0 Staff supports keeping this resource on the Inventory. The following sites included in "Round III" of the Inventory evaluation were recommended to be deleted from the Inventory by the consultant team due to demolition of the resource: 437 W. Smuggler 325 N. Third Staff supports removal of these structures, because they have been demolished. RECOMMENDATION: Staff's recommendation is to adopt those properties indicated as additions and the property to be retained on the Inventory and delete those properties which have been demolished. Recommended classifications for the sites are shown on the attached pages. Additional Comments: j ' 0 4 PUBLIC NOTICE Public Hearings for the Re-Evaluation of the City of Aspen "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures" - Round III NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to all property owners that public hearings have been scheduled before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) to complete the review of the existing "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures". The properties listed below are subject to re-evaluation. Based upon Section 24-7-709 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the HPC will be evaluating all properties in the City of Aspen not included in Round I and Round II which were originally constructed prior to 1910 and which continue to have historic value, and such other structures identified by the HPC as being outstanding examples of more modern architecture. The HPC may add, delete or modify the listing of properties on the Inventory. All properties listed on the Inventory are subject to HPC review for demolition, partial demolition and/or relocation pursuant to Section 24-7-602A of the Municipal Code. City and Townsite of Aspen Lots A&B, Block 34; 437 W. Smuggler. Owner: Thomas Hoffmaster Lots H&I, Block 35; 325 N. Third. Owner: Klaus Eppler, Trustee Metes and Bounds Parcels A tract of land in Section 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M. ; the Aspen Meadows property is bounded by Meadows Road, Gillespie Street, Roaring Fork Road and the Roaring Fork River, in Aspen, CO; Aspen Meadows Trustee Housing, Chalet Housing & Riding Ring. owners: The Aspen Institute, Inc., the Music Associates of Aspen, the Aspen Center for Physics, and Savanah Limited Partnership. A tract of land situated in the NWi of Section 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M.; Red Butte Cemetery. owner: c/o Jane Stapleton. Midland Railroad Right-of-Way: A tract of land which crosses the following properties: Lots 1 and 2, Little Cloud PUD; Tracts A, B and C of Parcel A, Government Lot 20 Subdivision; Martha Washington Lode (USMS No. 5793) and Mary B Lode (USMS No. 19640); part of Lots D-I, Block 32, and Lots K-N and part of Lots 0, P and Q, Block 39, City and Townsite of Aspen; Lots A-G, Si of Lot F, and S 40' of Lots H & I, Block 47, City and Townsite of Aspen. Owners: John Tucker, Lyle Reeder & Stanford Johnson, Pitkin County, Lost Diamond Inc., City of Aspen. A public hearing shall be held on Wednesday, June 28, 1995 at 5:00 PM in the 2nd Floor Meeting Room at City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen. For further .information, please contact Amy Amidon in the Aspen/Pitkin Plaqning Office at 920-5096. s/Donnelly Erdman. Chairman Aspen Historic Preservation Committee Published in The Aspen Times on June 10, 1995 City of Aspen Account 0 Non-Designated Properties for re-evaluation June, 1995 Key: Significant: ~I~ Contributing: '21 Supporting: 0 Drop from Inventory: Â£55~ Address/Name Area Status per vear 80 86 94 CO Midland R.O.W. Shadow Mountain 437 W. Smuggler West End 325 N. Third West End Meadows West End Red Butte Cemetery West End 00.6 0 - - 0 01 11-1141 1 June 13, 1995 Dear Property Owner, Once every five years, the City of Aspen is required to re-evaluate the "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures" in order to identify and map all cultural resources in the community which have historic significance. The Inventory has been in place since 1980 and all properties on this list have some degree of review by the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee (HPC). There are approximately 250 listings on the Inventory. Structures which were built before 1910 and continue to have historic value are included in the Inventory, as well as some outstanding examples of more modern architecture (for example, some of the Bauhaus era buildings in the West End.) Examples of sites included on this list are Aspen Grove Cemetery and the Aspen Brewery Ruins. The most recent evaluation of the Inventory began in 1991. Out of this study came recommendations to delete some properties from the list, to add some others and to retain the status of the majority of the historic resources already included on the Inventory. Adoption of the Inventory is a somewhat time consuming process which was not fully completed before a staff change in the Historic Preservation Officer position in 1993. At this time, we are resuming the process in what is being referred to as "Round III" of the Inventory adoption. Which historic properties are being re-evaluated? We will only be re-evaluating those historic resources which have not already received Landmark Designation. This comprises about half of the entire Inventory. Your property is one of these. What mav result from the re-evaluation? It is expected that 90% of the historic properties being re-evaluated at this time will not change in status since they have been included on the Inventory since 1980. However, about 10% of the Inventory may change in one of the following ways: 1) Properties may be eliminated entirely from the Inventory due to complete loss of historic integrity. 2) Properties may be added to the Inventory due to annexation, contribution to community character, or original error through omission in 1980. 3) Properties may be changed in "classification," either elevated or demoted. What does "classification" mean? It is important to understand that the numerical rating system applied to the Inventory beginning in 1986 is no longer used. Instead, the numbers have been replaced by categories which describe the existing condition and historic importance of the property. This is a three tiered system which aids staff, HPC and the Colorado Historical Society in evaluating the overall significance of our local historic resources. The category into which a property is classified does not affect the type of review which development may be subject to. The classifications are: 1) Significant: All properties which are listed or are considered eligible for listing on the National and/or State Register of Historic Places. 2) Contributing: All properties which do not meet the definition of "significant," but have maintained their historic integrity or which represent unique architectural design. 05-80% of the Inventory is in this category.) 3) Supporting: Those properties which have lost their original integrity but are considered "retrievable" as historic structures which contribute to the overall character of Aspen. Many of these properties have been altered in a manner that it is incompatible with the original structure, but could be returned to the "contributing" status with substantial effort. What are the implications of being listed on the Inventorv? For these properties, the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee reviews any proposals which involve total demolition, partial demolition or relocation of any structure on the designated parcel according to the Land Use Code. The review standards must be in met in order for the HPC to approve such a proposal. When is the public hearine regarding mv propertv? HPC will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, June 28th at 5:00 in Aspen City Hall, second floor meeting room. The Committee will consider the historic merit of the properties before them and will take any public comment. Your official public notice is enclosed. Section 24-7-709 of the Aspen Municipal Code states: "The Inventory of historic structures shall include all structures in the City of Aspen originally constructed prior to 1910 which continue to have historic value, and such other structures identified by the III'C as being outstanding examples of more modern architecture." HPC will base its decisions on this criteria. The committee's recommendations will be formalized through a Resolution, which will then be forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission and then to City Council for adoption by Ordinance. QUESTIONS? Please contact Amy Amidon at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department at 920-5096. Staff has set aside a block of time, Tuesday, June 20 from 1:00-3:00 p.m. to meet in person with owners of properties included in Round III and to take phone inquiries. Other times may be arranged by appointment only. Staff is also available to answer questions about the benefits of owning a historic site. For instance, some rehabilitation projects are eligible to receive state income tax credits equal to 20% of the overall cost of the work. In addition, the City of Aspen offers a number of preservation incentives, including a $2,000 grant for any residential property owner who landmark designates his property. Sincerely, j Amy Amidon Historic Preservation Officer 99- 8 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 525 W. Hallam Street, Landmark designation, Conceptual Review, Relocation and Partial Demolition DATE: June 28, 1995 SUMMARY: The applicant requests landmark designation, conceptual review, relocation of a historic structure and partial demolition of an existing non-historic structure. The house, the Horace Severeux House, was built in approximately 1886. Two outbuildings exist on the property. APPLICANT: Julie Wyckoff. Black Shack Studios is the architect. LOCATION: 525 W. Hallam Street, Lots C,D, and the west 1/2 of Lot E, Block 29, City and Townsite of Aspen. LANDMARK DESIGNATION PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW: Landmark Designation is a three-step process, requiring recommendations from both HPC and P&Z (public hearing), and first and second reading of a Landmark Designation Ordinance by City Council. City Council holds a public hearing at second reading. LOCAL DESIGNATION STANDARDS: Section 24-7-702 of the Aspen Land Use Code defines the five standards for local Landmark Designation, requiring that the resource under consideration meet at least two of the following standards: 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 of the United States. Response: This standard is not met. B. Architectural Importance: The structure or ,site ref lects an architectural style that is unique, distinct or of traditional Aspen character, or the structure or site embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique architectural type, (based on 1 building form or use), or specimen. Response: The house is a simple Victorian miner's cottage with some alterations. The applicant has suggested that the building was originally a duplex, which may be supported by the presence of a pair of chimneys and a pair of bay windows. Portions of the rear of the original structure appear to have been removed and an enclosed porch at the rear of the structure must have been added after 1904. A historic outbuilding with it's original siding is located on the alley. From examination of the roof framing, the roof appears to have been changed from "parallel gables" to a hipped roof. Asbestos shingle siding has also been added. C. Designer: The structure is a significant work of an architect or designer whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. Response: The architect or builder is unknown. D. 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. Response: The surrounding neighborhood contains a number of significant historic structures and Aspen Landmarks. This structure represents the historic scale and character of the West End neighborhood. E. 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. Response: This site is representative of the modest scale, style and character of homes constructed during the mining era, the community's primary period of historic significance. j Conceptual Development PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H," 2 Historic Overlay District must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 7-601 of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subj ect site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adj acent 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 by up to 5%, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, 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 5-510(B)(2). Response: The applicant proposes to add a new bedroom on the east of the structure, to widen the front porch, to add a small amount of square footage to the existing non-historic garage and to relocate the historic outbuilding to the east. Some restoration work is proposed, although the applicant does not wish to restore the original roof form. The applicant has placed an addition to the east of the original house. The addition is not large and will impact a small portion of the original house (although an original window is to be removed), but it's placement may be somewhat problematic. It helps to create a private back yard and works with the interior lay out of the house, but it requires a substantial side yard setback variance. The requirement for this lot is a minimum of 5' on each side and combined total of 22.5'. The existing house is 3' from the west lot line, so a variance would be required. As designed, the combined sideyard setback is only 8', so a 14.2' variance is needed. In terms of mass and scale, the addition is compatible, however, the front facade of the building will be approximately 65' long. Staff has attached a 1"=50' scale map of the neighborhood. Several of the surrounding houses have a similar width along the blockfage, although most are new construction. The architect should detail the hardship or reasoning for the location of the addition. 3 The front porch appears to be original. On the Sanborne Fire Insurance map, it is indicated in its current form and has a tin roof. (Another porch-like element with a tin roof appears to have existed in the northeast corner. The house had a wood shingle roof.) Staff does not support the applicant's request to alter the front porch because it is a historic element. The applicant wishes to add on to the existing garage and to place a studio unit above it. At 24' tall, which is 2' taller than the historic house, the garage will not be visible from the street. It is completely detached from the historic house and will have no negative impacts on it. The garage appears to exceed the height limit by approximately 1'. Under the Cottage Infill program, the maximum height of an outbuilding with an a.d.u. on the second floor is 16'. Under the new regulations, the 16' is measured to the point 1/3 of the way between the eave and ridgeline. There is no limit on the ridge height. The garage currently encroaches on the west sideyard by approximately 6". The historic outbuilding currently sits on the rear lot line. In order to improve the yard area, the applicant wishes to relocate the garage to the east. It will meet the sideyard setback of 51, but is to remain on the rear lot line. A rear yard variance of 5' is required. The applicant has requested a site coverage variance. Because Ordinance #30, the new design standards for Aspen exempt porches from site coverage this variance is not needed. 2. Standard: The proposed Â»development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The overall scale of the new construction is in keeping with the neighborhood and creates an interesting site plan. Staff is concerned with the long front facade. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Response: The structures are unique and the proposed project includes many elements which will help it to more clearly represent it's original appearance. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not 4 diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: Minimal demolition is proposed. ON-SITE RELOCATION 1. Standard: 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. Response: The relocation is not necessary but is desired by the property owner. 2. Standard: 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. Response: The applicant must submit a structural report for Final review, or prior to applying for a building permit. The barn will probably require substantial interior bracing. If the structure cannot be moved, it must be preserved in place. 3. Standard: 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. Response: The applicant must submit a relocation plan and bond prior to Final review or prior to applying for a building permit. PARTIAL DEMOLITION 1. Standard: The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure, or the structure does not contribute to the historic significance of the parcel. Response: The garage is not historic. 2. Standard: The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: 5 A. Impacts on the historic significance of the structure or structures located on the parcel by limiting demolition of original or significant features and additions. Response: The demolition does not impact the historic structures. B. Impacts on the architectural character of integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel by designing new additions so that they are compatible in mass and scale with the historic structure. Response: The architectural character and integrity of the historic resource will be preserved through the new development. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: 1) Approve the Development application as submitted. 2) Approve the Development application 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 should be offered) 4) Deny Development approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. Recommendation: Staff recommends HPC approve Landmark Designation of Lots C, D, and the east 1/2 of Lot E, Block 29, City and Townsite of Aspen, finding that standards B, E and F are met. Staff recommends that HPC table conceptual review with the following comments: 1) Provide more information about any proposed restoration/repair work 2) Provide more support for the location of the addition on the east of the house. 3) Do not alter the front porch. 4) Review the height of the garage. J 5) Verify that the recently adopted residential design standards, namely the calculation of primary mass and F.A.R. are met. 6 -r k 06 ~Â«B LACK 19 95 SHACK STUDIO Historical Preservation Committee Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department 130 South Galena Aspen CO 81611 Re: Landmark Designation for Wyckoff residence and conceptual review for Lots C, D and the west half of Lot E, block 29. Original Aspen Townsite. 525 East Hallam Aspen CO 81611 Dear Committee Members, The residence at 525 East Hallam is a typical Hip Roof style miners cottage with a square floor plan and an appplied front porch. It seems as though this structure was originally a duplex with a small central entry hall. The owner wishes to propose a number of minor changes which are intended to respect the original structure while preserving private outdoor space on the parcel. Presently, this site has a single family residence of 1,624 sq. ft. with two bedrooms and one bathroom, a detached garage of 250 sq. ft., and a tool shed of 243 sq. ft. We are requesting: 1. an east side and setback variance for a two bedroom addition of 432 sq. ft. + a porch of 216 sq. ft. TOTAL = 648 sq. ft. This addition will respect a 5 ft. setback from the east side property line. The existing setback on the west side is 3.3 ft. This lot has a total size of 7,500 sq. ft. This implies a total combined side yard setback of 22.5 ft. with a minimum of 5 R. per side required. Thus, we are asking for a variance of 14.2 ft. 2. a rear yard setback variance for: a) a 40 sq. ft. garage and ADU expansion. b) the relocation of the 243 sq. ft. shed to a position at the south east comer of the lot respecting the same 5 ft. setback mentioned above while maintaining the 0 ft. rear yard setback already existing. 3. a front yard variance for the enlargement of the existing porch by 24 sq. ft. This variance would be utilized in the east and west direction only and not used to move the front porch closer to Hallam street. 4. a variance from the allowable site coverage of 290 sq. ft. The allowable site coverage is presently 40% of ' L 7,500 sq. ft. or 3,000 sq. ft. Â« 14/ - 5% or 375 sq. ft. X J- ft ALLOWABLE TOTAL = 2,625 sq. ft. â‚¬ hÂ°'23 We are asking to increase this number by 290 sq. ft for a total of 2,915 sq. ft.; however, 388 sq. ft. of the u . \~ footpring total will be in the form of covered porches. Y \ LIP We realize that this seems like a lot of variances; however, the net result would be a collection of small scale j structures with a combined floor area of 2,915 sq. ft. (not including the 352 sq. ft. for the garage) on a site with an a#owab/e floor area of 3,450 sq. ft. The interest of the client is to add to the existing house with onl one story massing thereby not overshadowing the original residence. BOX 276 ASPENCO 81612 FAX/TEL 303 920 1134 /4-V .~f BLACK SHACK STUDIO We are also trying to preserve as much of a backyard as we can given the constraints of the program. We hope that the board will agree with our efforts. Thank you for your consideration. Glenn Rappaport, A.1.A BOX 276 ASPEN C O 81612 FAX/TEL 303 920 1134 BLACK 06 19 95 f SHACK STUDIO Historical Preservation Committee Aspen/Pitkin Community Developrnent Department 130 South Galena Aspen CO 81611 Re: Landmark Designation for Wyckoff residence and conceptual review for Lots C, D and the west half of Lot E, block 29. Original Aspen Town Site 525 East Hallam Aspen CO 81611 Dear Committee Members, The following is in response to Review Standards: Application for Historical Designation: A N/A a N/A C. We believe that the scale and simplicity of the Hip Roof square plan minefs cottage is representative of a basic architectural type common to western mining towns and is worthy of historical designation. D. N/A E. We believe that this structure is significant given the continuing loss of scale and character in the historic west end of Aspen. It will make an important contribution in both scale and character to that neighborhood. F. We also feel as though this structure contributes to the larger community character because its scale massing and simplicity are easily related to the mining era. For the above reasons, we feel that 525 East Hallam deserves historical designation. Thank you for your consideration. Glenn Rappaport Black Shack Architects j BOX 276 ASPEN C O 81612 FAX/TEL 303 920 1134 4 HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL BUILDING/STRUCTURE FORM State Site Number: Local Site Number: 525.WH Photo Information: ASP-E-32 & 34 Township 10 South Range 85 West Section 12 USGS Quad Name Aspen Year 1960 X 7.5' 15' Building or Structure Name: Horace K. Severeux House Full Street Address: 525 West Hallam Legal Description: Lot C and the West 1/2 of Lot D. Block 29 Citv and Townsite of Aspen City Aspen County Pitkin Historic District or Neighborhood Name: West End Owner: Private/State/Federal Owner's Mailing Address: ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION Building Type: Residential Architectural Style: Hipped roof cottage Dimensions: L: X W: = Square Feet: Number of Stories: 1-storv Building Plan (Footprint, Shape): Square Landscaping or Special Setting Features: 2 30" cottonwoods at north side Associated Buildings, Features or Objects - Describe Material and Function (map number / name): 1 shed-roof qarage. board and batten. approximately 200 square feet (contemporary); 1 shed roof livestock shed with original board and batten siding. approximately.200 sa. ft. For the following categories include materials, techniques and styles in the description as appropriate: Roof: HiD with corrugated metal Walls: Asbestos shingles Foundation / Basement: Unknown Chimney(s): 2 at either ends of center peak; both red brick; 1 red brick at southwest Windows: One-over-one double hung bay with simple brackets below and mansard roof above Doors: Transome. direct light. wood panel Porches: Hip gable over front door only; supported bv turned posts General Architectural Description: 1-storv Victorian Cottage Page 2 of 2 State Site Number Local Site Number 525.WH FUNCTION ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY Current Use: Residential Architect: Unknown Original Use: Residential Builder: Unknown Intermediate Use: Residential Construction Date: 1886 Actual X Estimate X Assessor Based On: MODIFICATIONS AND/OR ADDITIONS Minor Moderate X Major Moved Date Describe Modifications and Date: Asbestos sidinq Additions and Date: NATIONAL/STATE REGISTER ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA Is listed on National Register; State Register Is eligible for National Register; State Register Meets National Register Criteria: A B C D E Map KeV Local Rating and Landmark Designation Significant: Listed on or is eligible for National Register Contributing: Resource has maintained historic or Â£1 - architectural integrity. o Supporting: Original integrity lost due to alterations, however, is "retrievable" with substantial effort. Locally Designated Landmark Justify Assessment: Associated Contexts and Historical Information: The significance of this residential structure is not of those who owned it or lived in it. nor of its architecture. although this structure is representative of Aspen's Mining Era. This structure is of historical importance bv illustrating the familv/home environment and lifestyle of the average citizen in Aspen which was then dominated bv the silver mining industrv. other Recording Information , Specific References to the Structure/Building: Pitkin Countv Court- house Records; Sanborn and Sons Insurance Maps j Archaeological Potential: Â·N (Y or N) Justify: Recorded By: Date: January 1991 Affiliation: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee - City of Aspen Project Manager: Roxanne Eflin. Historic Preservation Officer/Planner hi /3 1 _ 1 1 -L 9 1-2211\ r -. A - b Index cour th Intermediate I O. L___~ i 1 . 1 1 -6.8 1 1 1 1 n (21--2-'Â»CD Kil ' ' ' Index Depression- !1 Cw It . ti1 1 1 . Depression --i-l iii \ i 1 1 r--m - , i 2. â€ž 11 _ 11 \3-1 -- J-\9 1 \ ..- ----- . 1 ---I 0 o 1 / i /-/ 1 3 i - f 1//=St - - . Ii- , t.., . 4 0 - \ 24 - f 01 1 loto Vullf - .........41./.ty- .4 . 1 --- :-, yptu*~> , f/' SCALE : 1- = 50' il . - t ?Â·Â°- y- 4 -Di'' 91 ~ - Â·~te 1 50 25 0 __ ___ 50 - N 6--6-7-1 --\,2 0 - - CONTOUR -1 NTERVAL 2 FEET . - L .___ ./ 0,4 61 10 Xi i . 11% 1 1 91Â«1 1 i '11 11 431 1 17*7,~,-.1 1 1 9 22 28 D><2 '@>41 ff r 01 Or) . R. IS. 4 M f K. H ~ *' ~ 1 9-1 1-~ 3-*-1 tr. A 0 11. 1/ L ~ H 7-7 lo 4 - "11 4 0 0 Crt, [ J 4 ~ cb ll 211 --17 4 . 43, 2 0 W. 5 3 r. 4 1 /1 319 .2 , 1/ . 3:7 X 4.6,7-1 11 1-12-f- th 11 ' 11119 81 4 - Lf J 68% 6%0 6/8 6/6 6/4 6/2 610' 608 606 604 600 534 532 530 528 52 524 522 580 6/8 5/6 514 90 508 500 504 502340 1 . . (511) 6506) ' Iii/... - = == -60 = = 42P~/let= --------- ========== . ...1 './.. E- 1 - %3a/l \00 V l/1.Â£2-, W.HALLAM Â® . l/bta,17 -+*. ~7- 4 IT'eL. . ' 62/ 6/9 617 6/5 68 mi 609 607 605 603.61 535 533 53/ 57 527 525 523 82/ 5/9 5/7~2*513 511 509 807 505 50350/. i IF-a *1/ 01 1 -/ I / JL--U 1 * 1 11 Ii- Il - I - - - - lilli 4 rl St *1 '4 _91 R t-1-1 s G. 1. 70 ~ 2~ ~ E- 1 6 1 * 1 /. k i& / 01 123 NOT OPEN 04 m N 41*-i/1 1 47. R. S. A /(; L, .r- 94 mel-Â·91#el,Â·D,L~44411 ,Â· /it ,5: ..3614=84*~Â·'./*4479/.. El i 44- 1 Oil F- a "~041//#444"004 M 30 H, N \\ 43 6 (f) & tff'Fli~MatiuREal/&,1 'A, gN; K. I O Un N 21 b 0 0#2..223*&141 #ERT.Â·4*.42Â£ 0 "~22#~2:-:r= 4/6,07:r.Â· ELEC N. 0Â· lilil- 0 lilli 0 a %3 NOE 906 005 1&02 Dog- -872 "Fy#'6 b/% %17 20% 90% DO,6 2,0,6 Dog 9/5 217 2/9 6/8 6/3 3/3 2/2 //2 60% 60% 903 20% 10% Table of Contents 1 Existing Site Plan 2 Proposed Site Plan A 3 Existing / PlanProposed Plan 4 Existing Elevations / Proposed Elevations rb 4-21/32-1â‚¬ 3, 5 Propof - Garage / Caretaker Building L ~Â»FLJ '9 1 Fil Hol-11:12 -1.2 1Ld < â€¢ Wyckoff Residence 525 East Hallam Aspen, Colorado Historical Preservation Committee Conceptual Review I *Ilack Shack Architects 20 June 1995 Aspen, Colorado FEZO I I - 2 'ALâ€¢ â€¢ Â· 1 , t. , 1.1 1 ' 3â‚¬-al famE - 44<eet - Â£ 9 W 2 0 '1 575Â°01&'17/"LE--- -Â·Â·Â·Â· - 75.00, - L ( 30. c>o,...~ ff, - 30.00' 1 5.00" L. <01 43 ' [-rot C Â· 3 .. 1 Lot p Cote 1 4 1724'-3 N .1.]63 lock 29 , I 8.80 lf:i:W 1. ....1 r b s Cule,S'G ru *cy.1,2 O Rouse 0 Sc.al.<2: i= 20' O i- O t r 3.3/ lil 40.-g --~ 28.3-~4:Ffs' y' . . 14 5 k :} C d.ela-c-ke ck - gar~e 0 17Â· . h 0- O ' rn 24, i 461..... 12 1 -2.- skeoll-... .1 - cl':, .:~â‚¬~.'i?-~~"i:>4, 1 1Â·"W-Â·-'--%, 7~ 'l =K (lt.ted-11.- L....... â€¢ -Guilc-cuLes set reba-M (Dc~:p-"via:rfucti. C..s. 1?-11( i I hereby certify that on May 20, 1983, a survey was conducted under my direct supervision of Lots C, D and the West 3Â· of Lot E, Block 29, City and Townsite of Aspen,. State of .Colorado. A single-story frame house was found to be on said lot as shown on this plato The location and dimensions of all buildings, im- provements, easements and, rights-of-way in evidence or known to me and encroachments by or on the premises are accurately shown to the best of my knowledge and belief, based on corners found in pl@de at the Northwest and Northeast Corners of said Block By: 2*0~'090 /X--c_._ Syd109 Lip#~come P.L.S. 14111 'te?h :*u #CO, ~411 14111 ~ ' I. , U.54' AdtÂ·~ ~ 1 k ~*MENE! ... . , ,: Â»90 roVe'M-24- Serveu -~ 525* 9./dsÂ£ 3;fcillaNÂ© 56â‚¬&4:- 44-*Cls**5 2 ; Colo,radlo BY: LINES IN SPACE SYDNEY UNCICOME (L.S. 14111) BOX 121 CARBONDALE, COLO. 303-963-3852 1 Ed CsÂ« 5-Z i qs 23.Xaw 4983 SCALE:111= 20' U 1 1 . e too.O I. . '90.ocv 0 4'40. b /1,05* 94 'x 10 4-1.0, f . f ... . .1 9 , - 1 3 - 9.60 ,0 60,10 61)46 1 , 1.1!, 1 - - 1.1 , 0 21'11 '. 1 12*64:-TE 98 *L- , - -1 -2, 4-- 4 1 ....OM - 'r- :JAiiiiiliyew:Qi#:46 4-.--, I,OL 3 I ..~ P., ------ - I p t. 1 . 1 1 HALLAM *r: i . ix N<34 1 1 ALL IC Y ,.. f - 1 -1 1 &61 MBAL 04 1 4 r ' c.-- -190*Â£Â· UL A.OVE'h 1 1 1 --p-J - . . - .h 37 99 1 0-_114._. __ -~*1~1.... - . 11 ...: . I ZI- . â€ž .: .1 %! .. - 4/ ., -: ..1-4 14 - - 1 -I n 1 / 1 -- A i L _ -- reorcerr' 1-INE - -- fcÂ¥14'r '6' *rgâ€¢,1*4 .. J -. 5 :00 11 L 011 e. ,=0,0,22 Â¢ 1Â·rc F.444# 2 6 1,7 9 0, . *tY 0.-1.1 . I . 0 0 1 . i . I . 11' n. i ,. 1 n .. ftioi 1( I*f _; ~~J-1 J 1-- .... .:. a.' ,Â·â€¢~'~1 ~ ' ._:Â· -'*- 1 " 1 - .. . r . 1 . 1 i , ~ - - :f : ' -- 2 & 22~~ ~ -0 - Â· Â·:-1 Â£ 31't. .7%5'2*tr 7 D r I + It./'r' ./.'n,â€¢ ...â€ž e,0- ' â€¢ . . 4 f 1 .6 . .. . 3. +-n - . ./.1 .* , , '. ,. 1, â€¢ 0/ . :. I 1 /1 , 3 1 ..0 I . .01%0 tr '. 4,2 1 Â¢ % - 2/ : I.- i Â¥1.. . ': )~prr' I r.-4 I 54.4 -. . 4 fcz: L.J f 1 I ... I." 4 0 r. I . 1 ' *it; 1 /1. 91 --1[ 11. 4 1 - 4 1 1! 11 14'_ , 0 10.) 4 4 -1 . i - - --71*0,{5 <2/114 '' AE W __-1.'lli - - - ./ 1 * r,Â·r'4, 1. ....--'.- 1. , .- 4 4 0 14 - A f 4 1 - . t . .: it - // i t -, 1 . - ' 4_.L 1. i \- / ~'<11~!]-1,[-f.-CIr,Tr-- -~-Â·tacztrlit-r. ..j'-~ *" 04-1 / 1 i, 0.-:>4/ ...,/-Â»ill x nrl- I .- 8 ? -1 -L .,1 I li I: 1 U._ 1 F 1[TtrT1 E-lt I t:**' t -,*2 Â·11Â·Â»1 - .-1 Â· - 1 -â„¢ F-mi i -,932 B --2 2 - .. 1 .. $1 1 .. 1 T . i s < 1 u G N 6 W 1 1 5 0 u f t-- ---- 1/ 1 18:o. ,> -- -..- -.'--*/ 0-*--9---/-*-- # -<3\7 ---*.---1 --- ..1- ------4 ./' >m=â‚¬5-e--1 i _.b. i -! V 1 - -.! 111 f 1 - - t i - 11 11 i 1 : i 1 | A.r f 14=_i .1. - 1 6 x f 4 1- 0 6- M 6 W dew 1 . (4 e X BA&'r tdor-< gov-Ofe '164 -1'.on - ~lim- Ik IN/2223.=9 0 - â€¢7 N 1 0 1 1 71 91 crl 35 21 1 ' 3 2,9 9 - 19â€¢7 1 1 V .7 11 1 Fic),>Â¥ 3/3 13 Â¥11,not 4~~ N Â¥12 13631 36,Â¥,lue 1,91.1,0 8 3 1 9 6443 1 Q ; 0/2 t== -// i f 1201 394~5Â·467 1-1' *1 -1,-1- - 1.-- - - r'11 . 1 L-lÂ· 11=,-..L t. a t--f 1-Â· .-.-t -1|.. ./ 4 -* lbâ€¢/44 T ly ,* 1 0, 4 919 . r- - .J #21-- aw M d}liN I.8 3 it.- t 11- 1 Ual r 4,1019 B"BM C,131â€žEl 7. 1 -1 ;41 1- 67 - 1 . f i 94 \ 7/ 46 Nx i 1. - p/pff . 'N 1-t 7- .<aht. 170:1 2 #002} - -11- ..--I-*i#.+- -1114!4109 314Â¥129Â¥ , t -.1 Â· t Â¢16 13 M 31. 0 1 41 9 19 N o I J. Â¥/1 3 1 3 1 4 31 M Hol>*Al'13 *\13 Ori 1 1 b - 11 4111 1. 1:' 1 4 1 1 41 i=U : ;1 i : 0,141,41 .L 11 1 ..r 14[B tur V + - _ 3.2h.-, .Muls . 2*ZOI-7 0313,10 t 4 #4 1 --Â·Mall.'4) 1 <12*021 - -- - -- FLQI ' Â« 41 91 12 2 -- NX 9.2 4,46/f' - 1\ 9 .. ~ /,1 /139 Jilt â‚¬\ A- i - --U-gL J~ \40 r-- 1 â€žon dij 1 1 \\ 1 Â£ TUJ! _- Â«1 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission From: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer Re: 217 S. Galena- Minor Date: June 28, 1995 SUMMARY: The applicant requests HPC approval to install a hot tub on the roof of the structure. This structure is listed on the historic inventory and is located within the Commercial Core Historic District. APPLICANT: Barry Cox. LOCATION: 217 S. Galena Street (formerly the Mark Justin building). PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 7-601 of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. Section 7-601 has recently been amended through Planning and Zoning Commission, Resolution 6, Series of 1995. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale, and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subj ect site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark... Response: The proposed hot tub will be located near the center of the roof and is 8'x8'x3'. Other elements already exist on the roof, which are somewhat visible from the street. Staff feels that the hot tub will not be easily visible. No parts of the unit are reflective. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: HPC has been jcoAcerned about the visual impacts of rooftop equipment. This item does not appear to be intrusive. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated 0 historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Response: The proposal does not detract from the significance of the historic structure. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The proposal does not impact on the architectural character or integrity of the historic structure. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: 1) Approve the Minor Development application as submitted. 2) Approve the Minor Development application 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 should be offered) 4) Deny Minor Development approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC approve the Minor Development application. Additional Comments: 0 6-19-1995 2:12PM FROM MODERN DISTRIBUTING 417 862 0573 P. 1 L 1 . \42 0 ATmCHMENP 1 IAND USE'APMICATION FORM ,. 1) Emlect= m.a . Wke,ltâ€¢t- iblee.AL -Rul l.d,1,5 Project Incaticn Zl-7 S. GALâ€¢-â€¢u. a Sp,2--, C.0 (iridicate stÂ£*@t address, lot & block n=ber, legal Â·description,here a.progriate) 3) ' aesent Zoning 61 5, _ 4) Iot Size 25 Â¥ Go' 5} Applicant 's Name, Address & 2=n # 'Râ€¢,- r r &jÂ· (2036 . 1 8 14 5. Pic.C.,tfjcd<_ Spa-t~'50, tLL , Â¢VU. tor<D+ w 4,7- 265- 39?Y .3 4,1- gul/ztz,f 6) BÂ¥Â¥aase=tatim'= Rame, Addrcss & mxne # 1 A#e- 7) 93pd of *plicaticn (please *eck all that mely) : . ... .. ConditiÂ¢nal Use emoeptinl SPA .. 0=0,*nal Histacic Denr. - SÂ©ecial 1â€¢mder u__ Final SPA Final Nist=liC De,- 8040 Gree,line C==ptual ED . r ..1---- r.4..A-I---- . A St=reemt Margin a - Final POD ,*clv,rin W'/+4'.1 -I'll-*. _ *xmtain Via, PlaneÂ· aildivision - nist=dc nesignation Ccpâ€¢f.nin,1.nivatiÂ£,1 - ft,dVmp Ameaxâ€¢aâ€¢2 - - (3409 Allot=It I - Int Split/Int line ~ Â· ~_ <242@ ES=ptian Adjustment 8) Desderptia of Ebcisting Uses Â· 0=2=' anlf.Â· type of existing stzmtizzes; apecoxinate sq. ft; Immher of bedto<=s; any previals approvals granted to the property) -- C#*â€¢-Ard-Ji (Sk.,-puL IM.tl~ 2 1,4,-L ptâ€¢v, h=USL 14PSTÂ»<AS .. 9) DeÂ«:ripticâ€¢: of Devel*ment kelicatim Se,l~ C.-4*$0Â£,i hoi- +0 10 ... 4421 'tÂ»Of. Have yai attadied the fonowing? Response to Attadment 2, Minimm Suhnission Contents Respanse to Alladm.ant 3, Specific SUbmission Contents 7~ Response to Al:t:ad=mt 4, Review St=axx3ardS far Your Awlication 44 11. Lt,# |1 47 1 $ 0Â°' .2-4 6 9 1Â»Le-t e,- A tock 2..,14,45 cle. CL ~:*14&0 -/2- -4 ...,(L 1 4. e., 04 7-4 Ot,Aâ€¢-,-is i J ftwirk 1,41+-- +to-f d- 1 ,. f- . J. 9 -4 . A. . trLO,61 p a 6-16-1995 2:14PM FROM MODERN DISTRIBUTING 417 862 0573 P. 3 Af - 6-44,0.4L S f. Â· Ii: .: Â· h â€¢ +.ru, j.. . 8'48 '43 , r. â€¢'Â· 44+ 1: 0 1-*4. Â· 16Â·Â·el o. t 05. .. RÂ£ Ace.04 61 â€¢cAL h /0 10. . 2 1 :E *56=c 2 s Fc; e 1,"Y ,. 7 4+ ya ft , f.Â· 6 /. .. j . Vi AJ "' "2 '4%05'- ~ 0 5-- AJâ€¢'/45 w.ti 6-16-1995 2:14PM FROM MODERN DISTRIBUTING 417 862 0573 P. 4 SUNDANCE SPAS Even Ai AValue Price, You Get A Great Spa. Here's WA. . 1 - â€¢ 4.E - :1 'imMErpolil,tiguletifitttff,fi.5.191&2; .. ,;~44:9Â· â‚¬26, 1 -223:.34' k,.4,/:4.4 1:4.. A t We back every Sundance -. . And because our 100 Series spa with a strong, no-nonsense . , ~ engineers developed this warranty And unlike many other spas on the process, you i End it on spas made by The Rigid Bond narker, the Sundance warmnly isn'[ pro-mted. an*ody dse. Laminate System. A Sundance exclusive. For the life of the guarantee, if something And every parr of every spa Mls because of a defect in materials or workman- has the same thought and com- hip, we solve the problem widiout asking you mioncn[ to occellence built in. Min.-mi=-*red,WR: ira co-payment. That's why; in 1991, [he National .143,~"â€žE=.::<*4161â€¢â€¢/ How can we be so confident? Because we Spa & Pool Institute presented ~AfÂ¥.1.â€¢ iuild our Sundance spas to last. Take our eoclusive Sundance with the John Holcomb Silver Award, tigid Bondâ„¢ Laminate System, for example. Devel- the industry's top honor for outstanding technical SUN[rNCE SPAS 4(ng-.RIES oped in conjunction with a contribu[ions. **** *31 r, A.rrrâ€¢"DUCT nT RFÂ» IWI[Il AN Â¥ ream of aerospace, chemical And why a leading Â£9tWVgt#tith#%4 .LI~ and mechanical engines, i['s consumer magazine named a Sundance spa a Best Sc toughesr, most durable spa shell ever In fact, Buy And why there are so many satisfied Sun- ver eight times stronger than ordinary shells dance spa owners. Just ask one b- 10-1 25255 2: I =SYM rKUM MULJOKI\I Ulb I KltSU I ll\IL. 4 1/ 862 05/.5 p. 1 . ... . . 0 - AmncEMENT 3 Specific Submission Contents: Minor Development to Historic Landmark or in Yixtoria Overlay District A Development Application for a Minor Development Plan shall include the following: 1. A written description - of the proposed development. 2. An accurate representation of all major building materials, such as samples and photographs, to be used for the proposed development. 3. - A .scaleÂ· drawing- of the proposed development in relatiozi to any'existing structure. .. 4.. A statement of the effect of the proposed development on the original design of the historic structure (if applicable) and character of the neighborhood. ~le-,r w,61,â€¢4 44 pOÂ¥ * S.10 C--u e 14 93Â£ 5 tf - b.+ 44' b -- 414 cooe. 1-1... .2*lerio.. ts itd- A,4004. 46,6- 4.,4- Câ€¢Uâ‚¬.2- 4 brn.no viN~~2- â€¢ 1-1. .2.4 i'â‚¬0 +Ut) 13 wow-refte.UlfuL. 0-0-- C..wor- ht Getâ€¢.3 4;r-â€¢- 4*,_- 544.u+ . -r tu. 4.u-6 -1 al Ale'r k.6 e.obth.62,4//0- 40 +1.*=- 6,1 l d..bâ€¢~,s. 2+ as. A.. â€¢7- -h be- SUA- ah a- b.. LeÂ¢.4 0 8 p,ff,".+. 4 Il 44.,-Â¥ 63 ~Me-<--0-,1 " += Â°pl #14 ,+ r. 44.4 r.â€¢6, hoole Up 4-tâ€¢.44-; C.2 4.,~ 0 41Â¢ 14- ...,&44 ,41,4.62.. - 0 V 02*0 6/ C 1â‚¬11 000 . V :,1 0... Clifele ... ./ O. 0 Post# Fa* Note Â¢/4 4.0 7 JUN 1 6 1995 ~ 10 .'.. -1 1 .. 1 4 1 ** 10 . 47 fs . 9 -5 ' .. 2 + -4. > , Â©?0. / --Â·..:~V/piN?t>4