The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19940928AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE September 28, 1994 REGULAR MEETING SECOND FLOOR CITY HALL 5:00 I. Committee and Staff Comments II. Public Comments III. OLD BUSINESS 5:15 A. 610 W. HALLAM - Iglehart Conceptual - Public Hearing Ttin- 0 09 JY- IV. NEW BUSINESS 6:00 B. 315 E. Hyman - Su Casa - Minor Development A | To ,-v, 3 6:20 C. 309 E. Hopkins - Katie Reid Bldg. Mirabella Minor Development 0 9- 64Â£ fâ‚¬- 4 0-n 4 Ci.Â¢U--nO - 6:40 D. Project Monitoring 7:00 VI. Adjourn ~22 G-.O 01, 3 ~ --i Â»39 Ff<_0-e C T 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 j r 7 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 Rubey Transit Center 334 W. Hallam (alternate) 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. Tom Williams 130 S. Galena - City Hall 300 W. Main - fence McDonalds 323 W. Main St. Aspen Medical Center 702 W. Main - Stape - Conceptual Development approved Sept 8, 1993 220 W. Main - European FLower Market Final April 20, 1994 j MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer Re: 610 W. Hallam St., Conceptual Development- Public hearing I)ate: September 28, 1994 ------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The applicant requests HPC approval to relocate the existing historic structure, construct a new foundation and an addition. This Victorian residence was built in 1988. Landmark Designation is pending approval by City Council. The applicant received HPC approval to demolish the lean-to on April 13, 1994. In light of the quality of this project, the Planning Department has established a new policy wherein breezeways may be used to connect historic landmarks to a new addition. The breezeway cannot be more than 10 feet long. The Planning Department recognizes that allowing more flexibility for the mass to "spread across the property" helps to create a better distinction between old and new construction and avoids the "bustle" solution that has been so common in historic renovations in Aspen. By connecting the whole complex together, the "house" and "garage" are all considered one principal structure and therefore can all take advantage of the principal height (this may not be such an appropriate solution when the maximum height limit, 30' is requested). The maximum height for the Iglehart project is 22'. APPLICANT: Jim and Sandy Iglehart, owners, represented by Bill Poss and Associates. LOCATION: 610 W. Hallam St., Lot P and Q less 7.5' of Lot P, Block 22, City and Townsite of Aspen. SITE, AREA AND BULK INFORMATION: Please see the attached information, provided by the applicant. 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 proposal involves placing the historic resource on a new cascade off of the historic house. Staff finds that the proposed addition is very ' compatible and sympathetic to the historic resource. The detailing and forms of 1 the new construction play off of the Victorian details and the project makes good use of below grade space. A more detailed landscape plan should be provided for final review. /~0~~~\The applicant requests several variances; a 2.5' variance on the sideyard 1 \setbacks, a 9' variance on the combined front/back setback and a reduction of 2 setbacks, a 9' variance on the combined front/back setback and a reduction of 2 -.parking spaces. Staff supports these variances because they allow the flexibility p configure the new mass in a way that has the least impact on the historic resource. Staff finds there are a few elements of the project which warrant discussion. First, the front porch to the house was enclosed somewhat recently. The current proposal shows the porch still enclosed and functioning as the foyer. Staff suggests that the architect may consider opening the porch back up, replacing the posts and railing, etc. Perhaps the porch could then be glassed in so that it is still usable interior space (this has been done on other historic houses in town with varying degrees of success.) There would have to be some other accommodation for the coat closet "lean-to. " Secondly, the architect should consider reducing the dimensions of the new chimney to the smallest that is allowed by code. Historic chimneys on these houses were very small in comparison to modern ones. Staff finds that the large chimney may interfere somewhat with the original scale of the house. The proposed new windows are to be clad. Staff is not certain whether any original windows still exist in this structure. If so, those ought to be preserved. Finally and most importantly, the proposal involves changing the original east- west gable of the house from approximately an 8: 12 pitch to a 12: 12 pitch. The architect suggests that the 12:12 pitch is more typical of the miner's cottages, is important to the interior space and helps to block the development behind the historic building from view. Staff agrees with those comments, but is still concerned about the overall amount of demolition which will result. It is the intention of the preservation program to preserve original structures and not to do reconstructions. The Committee and applicant should discuss this element of the project during review. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: There are a number of historic structures and landmarks in this neighborhood, most of which have been remodeled. This proposal will contribute greatly to the historic character of the neighborhood. 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: The cultural value of this structure will be retained in this rehabilitation, through preservation of historic materials, architectural form and overall integrity as the Victorian will remain the most prominent structure on the site. 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: All original materials which are salvageable on the historic structure must be preserved. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: 1) Conceptual approval as proposed, finding that the Development Review Standards have been met. 2) Conceptual approval with conditions, to be met at Final. 3) Table action and continue the public hearing to a date certain, allowing the applicant time to revise the proposal to meet the Development Review Standards. 4) Deny Conceptual Development approval, finding that the Development Review Standards have not been met. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC approve the project (including the requested variations and temporary relocation) with the following areas of restudy for Final Development: 1) Study re-opening the front porch as described above. 2) Study minimizing the size of the new chimney ~ 3) For Final approval, provide a structural engineer's report on any bracing or other techniques necessary to protect the structure during relocation, provide a -bqnd for the relocation (amount to be set at HPC meeting) and a "storage" plan Â¤ the structure until it is replaced onto a foundation. Additional Comments: 31 ATITCHMENT 1 Â· EXHIBIT 1 IAND USE APPI-ICAECN FEEM , 1) Project Name Iglehart Residence Block 22, Lot P and Q, less 7.5' of P - 2) Project location _ City of Aspen; Pitkin County, .Colorado (610 West Hallum) (indicate street address, lot & block nnrher,. legal descriptinn where appropriate) 3) Present Zoning R-6 4) Iot Size 5250 sq . ft_ 5) Applicant's Name, Address & Phone # Jim & Sandy Iglehart - 610 West Hallum, Aspen, CO 81611; (303) 925-8521 6) Representative's Name, Mdress & 2xxhe # Bill Poss & Assoc.; 605 E. Main St. Aspen CO 81611; 925-4755; Contact: Andy Wisnowski,Keith Howie 7) Type of Application (please check all that apply): Corxiitional use Oonoeptual SPA x x arypptial Historic Dev. Special Review - Final SPA - Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline Cbneeptual PUD Minor Historic Dev. Stream Margin Final POD - Historic Demolition Mountain view Plane ,_ Subdivision x x Historic Designation Â· Corâ€¢hni niumization Text/Map Amerihent GMOS Allotment Int Split/Int Line - GMOS Exemption Â· Adj ust:merrt 8) Description of Existirg Uses (rlmber and type of existingÂ· structures; approximate squ ft.; number- of bedroans; agy previous approvals granted to the property). Existing 1 story, 1 bedroom, 1 bath, 1075 Sq.ft. wood frame residence. (Historic Demolition Right from prior HPC approval.) 9) Description of Developnent Application Application for Historical Landmark Designation for existing residence. Application for conceptual historic development of existing house and addition of 4478 g.s.f. (1829 FAR s.f.). 10) Have you attached the following? Response to Attachment. 2, Minimum Submission Corrtents Response to Attadment 3, Specific Subnissicn Coatents 4 Resporse to Attachment 4, IZeview Standards for Your Application Please see Attached kr. S ~..Â·t . 7:iJRA~j iÂ¥'. - v . _ e./ 244*. il ~ and associates 610 W. Hallam, Aspen, Colorado August 19,1994 do what is becoming commonplace in the West end of town: to design an addition onto an existing "miner's cottage" type building. With this project we are trying to design an addition that is compatible historically with the original building and character of the neighborhood, and yet fits the needs of the modern single family home. The proposed renovation and addition add to the usability of the property. Presently, the property is under utilized, with the house not satisfying modern standards for safety and comfort. Our feeling is that the renovation will restore its viability in today's world while maintaining its architectural integrity and cultural value. Conceptual material selections for the proposed addition to 610 West Hallam are as follows: 1. Roofing: Cedar shingles on all roofs on main house, main roof and cross gables on garage. Metal Roofing on low shed roof and dormers on garage. 2. Siding: Wood, lx6 (to match existing), painted.,1 x4 at garage. 3. Gable Ends: Ornamental wood shingles at main house, painted 1 x2 vertical wood siding at garage. 4. Fascias: Wood trim board w/ 1 x8 wood sub-fascia. 5. Corner Trim: 1 x6 wood, painted, 1 x4 at garage. 6. Soffits: 1 x6 wood, T&G. 7. Windows: Clad Windows, similar proportion and scale to existing windows. 8. Doors: Wood with full or half lights. 9. Handrails: Wood, painted. 10. Base: Wood trellis grid at outdoor terrace, pitched sandstone in 2 3- - 2 ; and associates 610 W. Hallam, Aspen, Colorado August 19,1994 random ashlar course at main house, sunken gardens. 11. Stairs: Wood, painted. 12. Connector Link: Glass in metal frame EFFECT OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ON ORIGINAL STRUCTURE The new addition and renovation are designed to give prominence to the original structure. The entire original collage is elevated on a two-foot stone base to give the house more prominence on a site that slopes down from the street to the house. This base treatment is consistent with other miners' cottages from the same era. The main gable of the house is elevated and the main cross gable left intact to show the original structure higher than the proposed addition. The roof forms, general massing and detailing are derived from the existing structure, but are subsidiary to the original structure. The rear shed roof part of the structure will be demolished. Impacts on the existing structure are minimized with the addition being held back as far as possible from the original facade and main gable. The placement of additional floor area below the original structure, and in a separate addition, allows the original form to remain intact so that the addition does not obscure the historic resource. REVIEW STANDARDS : APPLICATION FOR HISTORIC DESIGNATION B. Architectural Importance The cottage was built in 1888 and has traditional Aspen Miner's Cottage style that is unique and traditional to the Aspen area. "The structure is of historical importance by illustrating the family home environment and lifestyle of the average citizen in Aspen, which was then dominated by the silver industry. " (From HPC inventory) 3 51,- .â€¢Â»~36.. tÂ©/'Â·4' -'4 . 6 1 lfÂ·. and associates 610 W. Hallam, Aspen, Colorado August 19,1994 C. Architectural Importance As previously mentioned, the house reflects the proportions, materials and details that give the house the traditional Aspen Cottage Style, a style that was prevalent during the silver mining era. The house is currently listed as a notable structure in the 1980 Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures prepared by the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office. E. Neighborhood Character The character of the neighborhood is mixed with many nicely renovated Victorian residences and more contemporary structures. Most of the surrounding fabric is one and two story single family residences. The proposed development preserves the historic landmark and contributes to the Victorian aspect of the neighborhood. The site is in the West Bleeker/Hallam Street area, which is currently under consideration by the Aspen, Pitkin Planning Office as a Historic District. F. Community Character The development and character of the house contributes to the Historic West End District and Aspen by showing an example of an Architectural style and specimen from the silver mining era. "The structure is of historical importance by illustrating the family home environment and lifestyle of the average citizen in Aspen which was then dominated by the silver industry." (From HPC Inventory) REVIEW STANDARDS: SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT OF HISTORIC RESOURCES A. Proposed development is compatible in character The proposed development is compatible in character with the original structure, roof forms, general massing, and detailing derived from the original structure. The main gable is elevated and the main cross gable left intact to show the original structure higher than the addition. Impacts on the existing structure are reduced with the addition being held back as far as possible from the original facade and 4 Wa 1~ - =a luu ilivilrifilierlizill 610 W. Hallam, Aspen, Colorado August 19,1994 main gable. The entire cottage is elevated on a two-foot stone base to give the house more prominence on the site that slopes down from street to the house. This base treatment is consistent with other miners' cottages from the same era. The placement of additional floor area below the original structure, and in a separate addition, allows the original form to remain intact so that the addition does not obscure the historic resource. The detailing of the house is consistent in character with other cottages in the west end from this era. The original house will be renovated and brought up to modern standards of safety and comfort on the interior, while restoring the exterior, maintaining its architectural integrity and cultural value. We feel that the variations we are requesting are minimal and help to retain the original historic structure while adding the to usability of the property. B. Proposed development is consistent in character with the neighborhood As previously mentioned, the development and character of the house contribute to the Historic West End District and Aspen by showing an example of a unique architectural style and specimen from the silver mining era. C. Proposed development enhances cultural value of structures on adjacent properties As mentioned before, the character of the neighborhood is mixed with many nicely renovated Victorian residences and more contemporary and lessor quality structures. Most of the surrounding fabric is one and two story single family residences. The proposed development preserves the historic landmark and contributes to the Victorian aspect of the neighborhood. The site is in the West Bleeker/ Hallam Street area, which is currently under consideration by the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office as a Historic District D. Proposed development does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of the designated historic structure The proposed addition and renovation will not detract from the architectural integrity of the designated historic structure. With the placement of additional floor 5 ~ E,Iâ€¢,-Fikâ€¢â„¢F:I{:32- 610 W. Hallam, Aspen, Colorado August 19, 1994 area below and behind the original structure, it allows the form of historic structure to remain intact so that the addition does not obscure the historic resource. The entire cottage is elevated on a two foot stone base to give the house more prominence on the site that slopes down from street to the house. This base treatment is consistent with other miners' cottages from the same era. Impacts on the existing structure are minimized with the addition being held back as far as possible from the original facade and main gable, to further show the original historic structure. The addition is broken down into two structures connected by a subordinate link piece to minimize the overall mass, giving prominence to the original structure. CONCLUSION In closing, we feel we have created a design that satisfies the concerns of all parties involved. We have given the homeowners a modern house, but not at the expense of sacrificing the historic original house. Please review our submission package and contact me if you have any questions or require any additional information. We look forward to your committee's review on September 14,1994 and appreciate your support of the project. Sincerely, Keith Howie Project Architect Enclosures 6 1 EXHIBIT 2 SUPPLEMENT TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS IMPORTANT Three sets of clear. fully_labeled drawings must be submitted in a format no larger than 11"x17", OR one dozen sets of blueprints may be submitted in lieu of the 11"x17" format. APPLICANT: Jim & Sanrly Tglphart ADDRESS: 610 West Hallam St, Aspen, C61orado R-6 ZONE DISTRICT: 5250 s.f. LOT SIZE (SQUARE FEET): 1075.25 sq. ft. EXISTING FAR: ALLOWABLE FAR: -3030 sq. ft. PROPOSED FAR:* - ' . 2904 so .ft. EXISTING NET LEASABLE (commercial): Dnpe nnt a 1 17 PROPOSED NET LEASABLE (commercial): Does not arrli EXISTING % OF SITE COVERAGE: 20.4 % 41.9% 4, PROPOSED % OF SITE COVERAGE: Does not apply EXISTING % OF OPEN SPACE (Commercial): PROPOSED %OF OPEN SPACE (Commer.): Does not apply EXISTING MAXIMUM HEIGHT: Princioal BIda.: 18'-0" / Accessory Bldg: -- PROPOSED MAXIMUM HEIGHT: PrinciDal Bldo.: 22' - 0" / Accessory Bldc: 22 ' -0" 429 s.f. (40%) PROPOSED % OF DEMOLITION: 1 EXISTING NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: 4 + 1 in Garage Structure PROPOSED NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: EXISTING ON-SITE PARKING SPACES: 1 5 ON-SITE PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: SETBACKS: EXISTING: 15 ft. ALLOWABLE: 10 ft. PROPOSED: 16 ft Front: Front: Front: Rear 21.5 ft Rear: 5 ft. Rear: 5- F tr Side: (E)6.5 ft,(W)18 ft. Side: 12.5 fr. ' 5 ' min Side: (E) 5 ' , (W) 5 ft / Combined Front/Rear: 36.5 ft. Combined Frt/Rr: 30 ft. Combined Front/Rear: _21 ft. None EXISTING NONCONFORMITIEW ENCROACHMENTS: ' VARIATIONS REQUESTED (elioible for Landmarks Only: character comoatibility findina must be made by HPC): None None FAR: Minimum Distance,Between Buildnos: SETBACKS: Front: none Parking Spaces: z space Var. 3 Rear: none . Open Space (Commercial): none 2.5 ' variation Side: 5 ft. Height (Cottage Infill Only): 9.7 it/ for Accesso 9.0 ' var 86MbihW-Frt./Rr: 30 ft Site Coverage (Cottage Infill Only): None Bldg W i and associates LI 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE 303/925-4755 FACSIMILE 303/920-2950 August 19,1994 Ms. Amy Amidon Historic Preservation Director City of Aspen Aspen, CO 81611 RE : 610 West Hallam, Aspen, Colorado Dear Amy: Please consider this letter and the enclosed material a formal request for a review of a Conceptual Development Plan for Significant Development in the Historic Overlay District, and an application for Designation as a Historic Landmark. The residence is located at 610 West Hallam. The legal description is block 22, Lots P & Q, less 7.5' of P, City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. STATEMENT OF CATEGORY OF SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT Our opinion is that the project should be categorized as a "Development of a Historic Landmark that 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)" PROJECT DESCRIPTION Located in the west end of town, this property lies in a residential area. The Surrounding blocks contain single family houses built from 1950 - 1990. There are renovated Historic Designated residential structures located in the adjacent blocks. This is a proposal to demolish the one story kitchen addition of approximately 429 sq.ft., to add a one story addition to the main house of approximately 3379 gross sq.ft., and a two-story connecting building of approx. 1746 gross sq.ft. The addition would add a total of approximately 4487 gross sq.ft. to the existing house for a net total of approx. 5124 sq.ft. (2904 FAR sq.ft. total.) The project is a renovation and remodel of the existing "miner's cottage." Expansion will take place both to the west and north of the existing structure. Maximum building height will be approximately twenty-two (22) feet. In this project we have attempted to -4, 1/.1/ 14Â«El -elar]J -93 /601 114[ , 0 ._1=1-4.1-4 9 1 el; -- -- .*2Â·98*Re'*Q<Â»6>.443**'266::*33me:90*te?t**22 439:Â·Pi~1' /. '4.,Ji:*.I Â·~~*Â· MÂ·:'.. '..:.4:â€¢.*4.>. L.RUÂ·.4..18 44Ard,W.ObÂ»~:~NI $ 1-[3~ 31 3~01,1 1 117 y i . 2. W 1% I 7 : C _ - 1 - 21 + h. 1,61 i 1 /2 "/ 1 1 1 31 1 1,1 9- Â· '/ 0 4*41 - -rr~_~ S 2.3 0.+1 [j==:21 1- L +2 iN Nedz,ge N*1 blne I i 1 11; 4 1 7 h 41Â«14; W TEPQTV 19 73 1% 1 1 - i i ~ ~- H.441 l_-4 ~17 1 An E- *7%/4 , I.- 'lik 1 1 4 jay . 1.1 x kel 1.il=-,=47 ---lrÂ·-- Â·r -# t 9...1 '1 . T-- 2 ... 1/11Â»U ~ 6 4 4.-1 f 2 1 1 41.14 9 11 1 N. Â»UG â‚¬Â·4Â·\ Ad <*IWM~p 01 4 4-1 f i . 1 I 2 st.0.Â©opt.>Â·te:Â».Â©17Â»t. ..~ 0. 1__I 01%41 4 . â€ž ... ..1 / Â» \ 111 1% ~ ~ 1 T 14*gq -14_1 -L . C C 1-1231,1 \\ A I NÂ«>7 Nt UÂ»f'kÂ»>// -i L. - 14Â©12 I . 2 -I ~i 0 1.â‚¬Â« .... I % ..* 1 N J 1. 181 1 1Â¢Â·FÂ»*teÂ»43*PutÂ»6634 ~-S . *3 4 "/ 2,Â·%'C\Â»Â·45Â»'XtÂ«-iÂ».Â· ' - -- . ./ M..m/--.-' 'I '' ALLEY BLOCK 22 P. 4 4 r P K L .L- - 2 .. . 001* 1 -10 Â£ V 21 . 1 ~~ ROCK PLANTER > 7 06 A. / 19.45 /// E 0 3 0 0 0 4 0 0. 0 Z kill,i./ 0 3:0 3 O H 74 /0.5 CONÂ¢. / 7 8 O.H. f Ili /6NE STORY/ /// / l 0% O H 0 ,/ i. 4. .F l , 111'flly - + . 1 1 I # 1 1 1 I1 1I Z ///i iffteetal:flf- --% Ilillll I 1 1 1' ill 1- 1 0Â·2F v A.Z O.S -Illl l 0.,11. 1 7 / / 'OH 3.1 ,<i 6 1_ i J OIl I 1 016 ~Â· 11 lei U U FOUND: N 75Â° 09' 11" W 52.50 Qi FOUND NAIL IN FENCE 36 REBAR W/ PLAS. CAP 4 LS. 9018 4. Â·'. i '1'il 4 ki r,12 IR A L LAM O O i VTTV - ' Mâ€ž6#,0901719 50'49"E EXHIBIT 8 EXHIBIT 12 hi_pNÂ»-r r Â· r---4 i .<:?. 11-3-' 71 0 i--1 11 I ------- ~ I---~2Â· I -_'7%37 IL- L--- 0 f i 'jiliWjl4-* ',$0 211 1 111 11 111 11" P 1 1 , --- I ~11 9 1 41 ! 13.- Â§ 1 1 -- : ill L I liÂ· --3 3-~/1=41 dE__1 -7 >~ a .1 Â¥! 1 J 1 1 1 1 + 1 r === Uu.~f ~: . 1 07- -. -Â·- Â· Ir.,-:+i-*1.11 1 1 , L---. 4 twuridic---"--==Ir An--9 -474 -rt:t ' i r - 1 , 11 40 UTH 56 5Â·VÂ»T 10 14 9 r---1 " Ilililihi! Â»1'1 Nx ibu Illilib\ Â» /X \4\ Â»11 == Al ///, 403Â« u -~97/ -- ---- 77,1 -1 1----- f - -- 4 1 1 1 '1' 1 --f -=-=11111 11: 41. :D. .1,----.=.--- -41 1 :u 172tl--11 '|Â·IiI n 1,!~- --'P~~ 1- .1 1 11- Â· -11 1 - 1 1 41 1- 17~4 . 11. 111 11 +11*-- 1 - -~-- + * - 4 1Â·~:7...1 1 '11 i! 1 !41==2 L 1~: 'Eli ! ' ' It ,~ < l-Â·--Â·--Â· 4 1 ditl' 8 i al Jl=_LI. =_1=1. ,____._. __.-1 11 i , ILE!1 1 - --- n .i-t-to . , ' i: 1.-'.jil ' 1,1 1. 11,1 59-itii-4%~di.T<Bewk#ft ZI-- 6 - i Ill li ullilll '~1 R P 111 il 1 11~ 1 N 1. : i 1 - , Â· 1 t.:1::-Â·ENi' .Bi4:U'-Pwn! 1-Â·.44-1- - VT. 1 - mIT- 1':Er p=-~-r==1- i 22-11. -ri --1_'L .-2,9 21-4 t- -4 - r i--4 --IZZ~IZI -' 4- - - -1 .-CE"III- - . 1 O 3 6 T 8 1,5 vs TIoN yd' 6 6 5 0,Â«T- p-Be'pegoe w -1 01Â· 14 gr Y-\ RE C\\ ...~4 1 111[\ Â» 11 6 ji,A - h 1. -2 raluEN - 1-t=m 1 - - U.-1 1 -T 1 7 ~ ' .17-3:LE,~li,I 41 1 + i i 11 114% 1 1 1 1. 90\\ | IN /\\ 25/971 27 0 6 2 : o i 4/\ / , I â‚¬ 0 2 -1 -- 1 ! 1 11 266 m , Al I I =41 ~ 1 wn' 1 1 L - 1 '''Ill 1 Jr 1 i- 1 k.Â·--1 1 4 'XI...,0 1 11- 1 1 1 -1-'-I .// 111 i \ 11 11 - 1 1 1 11 17,17 --9-2-7-2 :~ ~ L t .i J. L.n_ I 2---- - -791--10Â» lit%\ 69 -fffeil ----- 1 EÂ»C\\ :1-1-4/ ' I 11 -- --/ . \ *eel -1-4 4 1-19 1 47 R.gl /1 EXHIBIT 13 46, LO.1/0 g o rie a l â‚¬59 4 1-4 40 9 1 ka 1 A g 1 1 4 -0 41 1-gl A ae kl 1 -=I QU -, --1-- T . ' ' 4'JIP, 1 1.- 11'lili . 1 111 - I,i Ill 1., 1 1 1 1 L!1 1. I t. '1'i' ~ i 11 1 1 i--- L. -- -4 ' M I' k- ~. I .. f.7.7 2 1 i li422EEE!~9 - -- i 1,3 11 --' ~~~~~~ ~ 1 -~ LU ~ - ------- 11[-3# 1 li .44 #0* 1.7~ZL \- 1 ,\\45935> \.1----- 01[33-9 --7#-- . Â»0, N, >. r==t~ -177,3~ ..1 1 , I ro / , A 0 1,9 4 4 4 5-1 4 (\ 09 4 1 8 0 e 1 '1 ~- r-'---"7Â·.___t===r- ff,3 03 zI--lft -3-- [7==1 - - L=-4 il-J --7=1; --El 1.-- 1 1 T. i- i-:Â· i--3--- 2 1-U th,n- LI -2 Tl.-0-__--11.1 1 ' 1 1 1--F'.1 UE;,E !11 ;1:1â‚¬2 it.:r:, :,1..Â· i.i; : 11,11 ' :E!1.-:!iI .i> IiI t.+ 1 11 Â· 1,11 11.1!11!I!11!]ill''I:2!bil!â€ž '5:",h,iliN-,1.11!g a.11..,--11|q,Ii i | -3 61Â«J 11 11 11 1 E A : 2 r I; 6 7 s 33 2 Ii i r f .Lel _ _-29---T-- i~12 Thi )~- r-- - -,L- 11 1 1 -- li 1 -1 - 5 %=1-4, 4.-4-1#F-j 44-R ' turf: 91 LIMIHXE[ Br! liy/ 1 7 i â€¢ ~4. - -- 92 2 li , U -p r ' 1 3// Fil 7 0 I,â‚¬1 1/ 1 - 5131 1 l I / Â» 7 0 1 f . 11 4 v 1- 1 gr r--1 0% 2 - 1 .-ti _ _~ 12 1 r==7 1 I 1- _- - -'11 1 ACE)-/11 l-- J ~ 69 = - -3 -77 - 1== 1 4 17 Â£ 1 r 3-' 1...1, 1 If i 4 a I Â¤r d 1 N /KLI - -13 2, p 1 / - \ E l 10- r) I 4:,!pt=EmEN-7 - . 01 023 g,i=~ 1 U ---7 GL 3 1. f i *,.11, ir-== 12=JI -1 1 ./-,/PAF=-/,&16* 1 -- .1 . T . 1 - I -0 4 0-2--- 1 Lu-f--7 -il 1 T 1 - -1 iL' n --11 1 9 1 f 4 4 54 .4 1 >*f- 1 4 / it -- - . 0293 1 4. L __ 4 il 1 4 =]cul.- 1.- 1\4 1 1 1 2 1 1 Â«91\ 1 00.1 Ed L 1 1 - 1 1- 1 1 \- / Mai- 1 6 + 64 Â»1 1 1 2 1 1 1 [ 11 -4 -91 L ~~ 1.... ---*---- -------- _ 1 1 I -- -- 12 4 4 5 HÂ» FLT a. !90 V Pr ef- M,2)1~- FL+H 1Â· 1 0 14- mil MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer Re: 315 E. Hyman Ave., Su Casa- Minor Development Date: September 28, 1994 SUMMARY: The applicant requests HPC approval to construct an elevator shaft within the existing courtyard, to shift an existing staircase 9'4" to the west and to construct a new landing on the upper level. This building is not historic, but it lies within the Commercial Core Historic District. APPLICANT: Wheeler Square Assoc., represented by Rod Dyer. LOCATION: 315 E. Hyman Ave., Lots E,F and G, Block 82, City and Townsite of Aspen. 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. 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 a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark... Response: The elevator will be placed in the southeast corner of the existing courtyard and will have a footprint of 9'4" x 7'10 1/2". It will have a brick veneer to match the existing structure. This elevator is required for ADA compliance. It will extend l' above the existing building and will have a membrane roof to match the existing roof. The existing circulation layout requires that a new landing be constructed to provide access to the elevator doors. All new materials should match existing. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The new elevator will not be easily visible from the street. It does have an impact on the character and size of the existing open space. Unfortunately, an elevator which previously existed inside Of this structure was removed years ago and the applicant represents that the only feasible option at this point is to construct a new shaft within the courtyard. 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 proposal has no impact on the cultural value of any adjacent historic structures. The elevator does not violate the Wheeler Opera House scenic viewplane. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The proposal has no impact on the architectural integrity of any 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 as submitted. Additional Comments: . ATI:AaEENT 1 Â· LAND USE APPIICATICN Fret 1) Project Name \\/AFFI _StZ SQUAZE Fkill-r,ING* - ELEVAT-0,2 2) Project location 316 2. FPrMAN AVENUE , A.peRI Co 81Â£,11 Lors KE, F 44 el-CCIC 82Â· Aer*H low#siTE (indicate street a~iress, lot & block Ilmber, 1 Ay,1 descriptirn where agpt-griate) 3) ' Present Zoning <SC 4) Iot Size 92 000 S F. 5) Applicant's Name, Address & Ihcne # \62ELES, SQUAZE AGSOCL. (te#63.0 J. Fieistâ‚¬e 3 05=> E. hUt,4 Â·er A,PEN Co 8 411 89â‚¬919- 2 1Â·22 6) RepreseEtative ' s Nam, Adilress & 2*:ne # 7(P [>,; 6 92 th' eg 4,56600. 1 Zc:g VER-rÂ»e AVE- UN,T S AA.f=â‚¬+l, Co 81*(1 803/9,5--7149 7) itypd of Awlicatign (please check all thft g?ly): 4 Cenditi,xml Use - OcnCeptal SPA - axneptnl Hist=ric Dev. Â®ecial Beview - Final SEA - Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greeoline - angeptial ED _X Minor Histaric Dev. Stzeam Margin Â· Â·- Final ED Historic De=oliticn lamtain ylew Plane - Subdivisirn - Historic Designaticn axvirinini,Enize-irnÂ· TeodyMai) Amelxln=It . - (2*33 Allatient Iot Â®lit/Int Line - (203 Elomptial Adjustlnent 8) Descripticn of E-lting Uses Â· (Inmber ani f type of eristing structures; approximate sq. ft; Inmber of bedroces; arzy previrti: :4~rrovals granted to the pr[perty). (1) MA=NAY Â«rmacn-le.6 3 2 KEVEL,6 w ITA F'#21-IAL FÂ»SEMENT~ loaRK# e.eTAIL + eFACE (~666. 9) Descriptim of Develognent Applicaticn INSTALLATION OF U,e=*4129 El-EVATOÂ¢ 5+6rT 4 ELEVATÂ©(Z 9'-44 1 '- /0Â§4 ' 1,4 (012#602. d>F EXISTI #4 ccUIT WAGZC) 10) Have you attached the following? aesponse to Attachment 2, Minimum Submissian Centents Resperse to Att=admerrt 3, Specific Sul:mission Contents Bespanse to Attachment 4, Review Standards far Your Applicatian lilli SUPPLEMENT TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS IMPORTANT Three sets of clear. fullv labeled drawings must be submitted in a format no larger than 11"x17=, OR one dozen sets of blueprints may be submitted in lieu of the 11-xl r format. APPLICANT: \,Ate/LIEP SÂ©(.1*es 666Â£06-, ADDRESS: 3 16 E Â· bkâ€¢AAN AVE. ZONE DISmICT: 60 LOT SIZE (SQUARE FEET): 91(00 EXISTING FAR: IdÂ·i 782 ALLOWABLE FAR: PROPOSED FAR: 0/9+ 1% SoO EXISTING NET LEASABLE (commercial): Iliulk PROPOSED NET LEASABLE (commercial): 11 1 6. 9 4- EXISTING % OF SITE COVERAGE: PROPOSED % OF SITE COVERAGE: EXISTING % OFOPEN SPACE (Commercial): 2170 PROPOSED % OF OPEN SPACE (Commer.): 2 316 EXISTING MAXIMUM HEIGHT: Princioal Bldo,: /+C o // / Accessory Bldo PROPOSED MAXIMUM HEIGHT: Princioal elda. A*~'45!di Accessov Bido- PROPOSED % OF DEMOLITION: 4/4 EXISTING NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: NoN E PROPOSED NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: 1404 8 EXISTING ON-SITE PARKING SPACES: Klow E ON-SITE PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: SEIBACKS: EXISTING: , ALLOWABLE: PROPOSED: Front: a Front: Front: AO CU Rear: 0/ Rear: Rear: " Side: Side: Side: Combined Front/Rear: 0, Combined FrURr: Combined Front/Rear: EXISTING NONCONFORMITIES/ ENCROACHMENTS: VARIATIONS REQUESTED (elioible for Landmarks Only: character comoatibility finding must be made bv HPCE FAR: Minimum Distance Beiveen Buildings: SETBACKS: Front: Parking Spaces: Rean Open Space (Commercial): Side: Height (Cottage Infill Only): Combined Frt./Rr: Site Coverage (Cottage Infill Only): â€¢ ---FIA-TH 1,17*-/----1.- 'i 1 5.1 1 - Â·+ -+ : kkpr* 4 Â£ Avt&'MILIS - -'I-_I .-- - I 4. 1 111 0 : 1 1 *Av-11.1â‚¬ \NAOIHEM- il k . t 11 -----AVEHUE - -' 7 13.7.1 1 I --*.- DYER & ASSOCIATES <64 46â€¢624 DETAIL VA:NHITÂ¥ HAM SHEET ARCHITECTS me?Â£118+17 SCALE - - ||- 6/3271 NO. j 2Â£'95 3-te*mag.,ws. --91.6Â¥Ac~212-_Appri DATE 8.80.14 V H Aspen, Colorado 81611 DRAWN BY 12~I:>rtEM. --1- 1 303/925-7149 REVISIONS ' HoN=lt--3--- >J-4.LHUP ~ YER & ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTS 209 VENTNOR AVE., APL S, ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 303/925-7149 800/372-7149 303/920-9546 (FAX) August 31, 1994 Ms. Amy Amidon Aspen Historic Preservation Officer City Hall 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Elevator for Su Casa Restaurant Wheeler Square Building Dear Amy, The following is in response to Attachment 3 of the Historic Development application: 1. The Applicant proposes to add a three story, four stop elevator and elevator shaft of CMU construction with Brick veneer to match the brick of the existing building, in the southeast corner of the existing Courtyard. The elevator shaft will be approximately 9'-4" x 7'-10 1/2" in plan, and will extend from the partial basement to approximately 1'-0" above the existing roof of the top floor (approximately 15'-0" above existing grade). The roof will be a flat, membrane roof to match the ~ existing roof structure. 2. Photographs of the location of the proposed elevator are enclosed. 3. Scaled drawings of the proposed development are attached. 4. The proposed development will have little or no effect on the character of the design of the existing building and will create limited impact from the street. The following is in response to Attachment 4 of the Historic Development application: a. The proposed development is located within the confines of an existing building not historically designated and will match as close as possible, the construction, design and color of the existing building. b. Because the existing structure is not historically designated, there has been no attempt to make the addition look like an addition. j Rod Dyer, Principal Architect, Consulting Architect, Designer C. The proposed development does not detract from the cultural value of the existing non-designated structure. d. The proposed development does not detract from the architectural integrity of the existing non-designated structure. The proposed development is in response to a requirement of the Aspen/Pitkin Regional Building Department to satisfy handicap access requirements to the existing structure. Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have any questions concerning this application. Sincerely, Rod Dyer ~ Dyer & Associates Architects . -- 1'.4 - . -3-:929. 6 1 Â· t.... f.:.312~ . 1*U Elav,41912 1*332; f:63 j 11â‚¬14 . ~ *42Â·,u- 4 4 Â·94+'# 47* 0 0 Mu|f#AE#T *70 - , :./ 1241 ' 1. Â·4*2. 2.#' 4/ TR- - 44 - Â¥ Illftl.... .7 /:4: Â£ . 464 7 434.M. e :*t. 11661 401â‚¬'. f~M.1,40,~ Ckj ~ .~---... 3$4?.2... -> - --7- .0 -.0 A: 6.0..4 ; 3. ./. 1. 4,--J' C.LOE=6125 fo Acca,lt,taPA'[D - 1. .. 1 ,- 1: B. i ' Felt;LK Exterl 4, Â«ciDA-~2â‚¬ %tri&%&6*iue) ELEX/p<(dic -2 - *t'~7 - ,r .99~JE W EGEÂ¥A<[EF 22:% L.a.,4- I i CM 1 4+42[ - <AYir>Iftt:A -~y~ ..ef 1*04.-y â‚¬ ...2...F % 94'it I fÂ·149 :04:,44 Â· 9.1... <@d 1 %32,5--~~ .. - 1-&, 1 1 . 1 1 6%'*Fl'Â·14:' Z.0/f-* 1 SbURIC*['Al A l 7 -12.32*443.,-2 1 9 1./.5. 4Â· Â· - - iii Â·Â·-nukul' 4 1'<4 . I 1 .1. fl 4-------- ---- - â‚¬43.I 1-621 ~4 8 == C 1 431 / 1 d -19 Â¥V ' Ff ' m Â¥ lf +1 E.J . ' I, I :Â·fl.79: Â· - e $ ' Â· : f ) 412<R,Pit Â£&;tit'4-93(f~; 99'0'-r'. '- , ': , d<:Imdliti,<ENIA'tiÂ®*Â» w-#milin:IIGNIIII---,1M.,T,flr'ievlRI/Zkl -1, If 1 , 1 PE,04:T Ul C ' 1 / 1Â¥ 9 Hitil ' Pr~ 11 - 4< I 110-11 4/# 1(kix 21 - /4/ I 3 4 ) 4 -\ / I-- LE d.f 13 22* N# 2 - . 7 j 4 -r 1 21 1 -11\ 4 i 1 -Ill. r + -:~71~t;'~fft-- 1,114 1 2 CDC? 1--1 1 9 r yn *."Â£14 1//3 Â«-1 ''t z 1 -(-...%145*i~.'-i. . 14-. 79.&.,1~ k L.t.,-1-2..L .1*.56#4.64 ?M :*Â¢:~.2,;6. -- --- 1.2/Air'..~I__i - r'ri.. ~ 4/ 9,303* Â¥-52- 42 :r ... I Â· .2 - .6/7. 1.**f l. 2,1 +246-,1 '2.CÂ»- A.f- - i .y j ,..:. int: 2 - ..2 4 f.:Â»... f I i -020'. 0 ' (rla-119 ) &*Al*09 4 mad) 4.2 J 1 1/- ra-, demp *I ' "6 4 ~# ~fl. 5 I + 8Â£-5 44'Â· 1.r ' .AU. Ils l>Â¢3 HZ'*1-0 7119 1011699 â‚¬ .. .~ . t . ; .... .- - 7 ..33:3222 4 -0 *I r ro *aligA,10194 71911 r ~: . . /.i.i,-4 4 -. t- '. 9 =* 0 : / 4-::-#- Â· %....2. Â· 11Â¥M,LdÂ·rk,3,H â€¢7141.1*17{1Ft: P 4 >04*k k -7\ .- Â· 2 *12 lt, i 2 4/ 1 , v Mt : -1 04- -- $,rl I.Wi >62 -HÂ·zDhth, i. J.~Â¢He .40 1 +19*9\ 111211 1 #11(911,1 1~13 ~ |~1 % 21 . 5. ta:..:-1.:3.1 -7 Â· 1- 4.' .bl:- * .- .-Â· ( ~,mltÂ¥9 0 1.1.W lei>a/3/3*lad .. 019 7 1,19\ %4014 1 /1 1.. 12 L 11 t ?t., 211' fi..'.1 7% ,Â¥401.1, 445 , Â· . ill 4 :f-- 1.. 4. 1 '704%444; i. 1 , . ae;*2264..>c U.,> 36,3/ 'liely..1,#3. 1.0.9Â«Â·Ret 120 58| 1 11 T 9/4<61/ 1 'r / u . ~ WBW PFICK VENEER (-47 9.-4992/ -- 7 644 1291-t, 6%. h<1\ \â€ž.:r *Z*Â£ 0.... (92*.*fllp + 1 - 911141! b.Â·i. â€¢Â·f ;t.4:l' 1:EI~#Â· 1 f /:*1#24 , .1-;Â¥1 ~SY'Â· i~ 1 i.,Ilitj 11 4 4.1. 1 :.1 1 . 1 11 a e +law EleeÂ¢1* 1 ait , 8,a# 8813#p Râ‚¬,A T Â·SUE>/. 109:14" Ski L.Â·iND, 9 Â¢ 1,1 V, 1, F. i 11 111- 'll FLa,la f.O.6.. L 11 ~J Â·Â·r..Ue-~...4,3. 649. 12*le" Il Ill ' lilf 11*4 v.t,F, '--it-' â€¢r,- -AÂ·- 04,1 1, 1 14 . r 14.5, *a :~P~.:Â·-Â¢&1:13 *4< 1441+16' APUFIYAF-0 /71 .4.11,9-61 5-4- 1*.9 Â· il Â©.r.24 AN'-. L.- H, B 0.1 LA*49114*, a . . -7'ze 1.L~e- .. 7 ' 1 ,~RE.KI 12 7 -4 2 Hew 121 - . pla'FÂ· BE/-AVO EleÂ«VIL 4 FAI 1--1Kbe - 1 1 r 1---~ NEW gobtÂ·. 1<- Carbdiffi .1 2% ..16 .2 Â· 6 64:i. Afkn*122'1 *1 k--416# FIASONpr - lilli WL - 9 1'1 244*Â·i i 51,Eh/; 9 9 L eli WIN,5, #*Ur -11~3'11 -4, ,- , 04â‚¬40,2 3-5.. - 'râ€¢. rt,-: 9 . ~ . 11 - - - Â·A.Iiâ€¢â€¢ttle#~4,LA. 92-TI-...5 ' V."f, '1 1 , 1 *- I - .. 11. F 44.JÂ·f' - F>(115[. ->ft;fs Â£*--7 FLW (445.. fufrt fprA , 77 I >2&Â«- ra 1- --1 F - 3 4 ~ 1/5 E)41,& ~~C,J -77 2. L /1 <5-,1 -/ZO L.2 V' A-'-7/ a-i," C-,1 74,03 iftlt :'.~,0 ...1. ... EfÂ· 1. 19,1Â£1 d l Catict>ae) '144 Ma -/'' '11143 o 2Â·e F'95 2 ~ L, 1 1 1 , 4,0 - t 21--19 - . -r---I. ./--I-- 1-4 - - ATT - , 1 lili _!LÂ·'i- 1 Iv2014*4 1194 0*1.ldne 011,16 i XS M - jill 11 5 99 109Â¥111314 2-- m 1 1 11 1 - 1 11 1 | 1 - M'311 -9 1 1 1 22/*2â‚¬2~ I .4 ~ ' 1 11 1 . - r 04 t- 1 1 ' 4318 101>(3 -7 00%*A) - j JA>At? -601Wt<&'va -*2210 '5Â¥10 rE' (dhettzzyf)(02 L 5= 091+3'\ Gtotz)2 i~+ 11911 2 - .. 1 -- - * - I .. I. . it *4>41 --Â· Â· ii 4% 37*14 9 671Â«313 'Â»lfll Hilii# 9 91*1 -mÂ«- -119 M 1-1.ati L.-> -4 -4 2E t It Tlawi 1=f*il. .rIC, LIÂ»Irt:4 o,M '091*22 Mgpl 1 113 5 / .~-,IN/<,pm~--7 1'1 L Â·asle :001>43 d.*4*2 '914119 1>49 .Uvflk; *447\11 11 - 1 4 1 Jitiopt# 91 9$ ~ 11111111111'f .111.1 eMIdtiÂ¥1 1191-1 //// ,/ li r i~ -4/ 073 11 11 --a 11 ./4 ; '2 J| Â· f:7 2 , Â·'~.~TT~TE,4 4 1 1 0. . 1:11111 010~ Â·'111 .1 5 : 111 11 :;114. '12#imittic.Jilli, 41*1-41 6%{11 1 .1 *VA.13 4*1 Â·prl vzl444 1198 f. - - .--- j11 1i u f j l 1 1.taBMIgs:tj.fi~?ft; i~11! . Jf- -- - - Cx-2 . j' Elli - ]1 11 1 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer Re: 216 S. Monarch (Katie Reid)- Minor Date: September 28, 1994 SUMMARY: The applicant requests HPC approval to install an airlock outside of the Mirabella restaurant for the winter season. Airlocks are not specifically covered in the existing design guidelines. Attached is a memo to HPC from 1993 when this type of proposal and potential standards were discussed. Staff was unaware of these standards before the Mirabella application and does agree that they should be formally adopted. APPLICANT: Aspen Arcade Ltd, represented by Janet Lightfoot. LOCATION: 216 S. Monarch, Lots A-C, Block 81, City and Townsite of Aspen. 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. 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 a "H, " Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark... Response: As noted in the proposed standards, HPC should make a strict policy requiring that airlocks be included in the design of all new commercial structures. When this has not been done, an applicant should be asked to seriously consider placing the airlock within their interior space (this obviously takes UP valuable commercial space.) In the Mirabella case, the applicant has indicated that there is not enough room between the entrance and the bar to allow an interior solution. The proposed airlock is to be placed in a recessed area and will not project out from the most prominent vertical building plane. The treatment of the airlock, with its tent motif is creative and directly tied to the restaurant, but is not in keeping with HPC's goal to avoid having the airlocks themselves make a design statment. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: There are a number of airlocks which have been installed on restaurants throughout the Commercial Core, although Staff is not aware of any in this immediate area. 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: The airlock standards discussed by HPC are aimed at mitigating these types of impacts. Although Mirabella is located in the new portion of the Katie Reid complex, it is adjacent to a number of historic sites. The main focus of the Katie Reid project was to be the cottage, with the new structure serving as a "quiet backdrop." A very ornate airlock design might detract from that concept. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: There will be no impact on the architectural integrity of any historic structure. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: 1) Approve the Minor application as submitted. 2) Approve the Amendment to the Final 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 the Amendment finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC approve the airlock in concept, but require the applicant to simplify the design eliminating the "awning" form. The airlock may be installed from November 1 through the end of March. ADNARC# VIEW 4 - 1 4 4 I . ic-)911 1 0 >/D- 9 1 - I-Â»h' 1 ffi - .I - r i 1 1 1 1 te "' 1 1.~ -- 1,1!11 Â£ 14 1 1 1_*-? 23 - 1 - 9- 3- 31 i 9,01 bli.w //99 4 *6.- 1 4-.-*....I- il i â€¢ i 1 1 i 1 1 t i 1 1 T i 2: 1 1 - 9 / 1 I - 1 I 1:1 i 1 - lop v,Â£44 f ,IÂ· 3*' f 1. '. Â· --Â· 440.4.-15,2-44*:;6.SÂ·~e*R- 9% 1. :. I --- :. I -- .r EXHIBIT A (SHEET 2) U --- -- 71 1 1 0 1 9 /1 1 271, i 01 *494*Â»Â»9 1 34%*f:.1% ~40.*1~5,~~~~~9*661:.,...E):f~~:S~949:MI:Ii...,.2...,~ t m) 0:. IÂ«jii?jitti~%1%%3*i?jizi*it:%.....~~.:jijjj..:1~:~<...,..~.:ME:.93..........3}.%3-~ 86:22.3582:i:â‚¬:I:i:i:f:.ESS:E:E:2:zE:?:M=.:E:I:i:.:3:2:~::83:43:26:43==S.X:Zi:*:x-x->---1 rh u p.ja,33/~DEEFE/6~4663;ilE/CEEE,ki@f#44%~Fiilifililif.lilififf~%32?fir'U23.'R.1........ .... 1.1./ . 7. 1 1 '~235:.~<95..........~~..ij...Efkjkj....,..........,.ijjijij~~j;6}ijiij?ijijj?ijji ~ i ~ 411 111IE, Ul,0 lit ril 27 a.* 1 1 1 U 11== Â»r.\- m . 7 * A li 'r-0--'-~ [6= r==12 .4 MAIN LEVEL 1/B' . lie, 31 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee CC: Aspen Energy Committee Diane Moore, City Planning Director Bill Drueding, City Zoning Officer Building Department From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: Worksession: Airlocks Date: January 13, 1993 SUMMARY: The City has recently seen numerous requests for, and actual installations of, temporary airlocks at entrances of retail and restaurant establishments. The proliferation of these has concerned the Planning and Zoning Office and has created the need to examine the land use regulations that apply. Concerns regarding expansion of FAR, net leasable, building and fire codes and general character compatibility/design are but a few of the issues that need to be addressed. Within the two historic districts (Commercial Core and Main Street), the HPC has full review authority over all exterior changes under the provisions of the land use regulations that address historic preservation (Sec. 7-601 on.) Outside these districts, no design authority exists, however, the Planning Director is requiring that all airlocks go to the HPC for design referral back to the Zoning office. The need for airlocks, as we are told by the applicants, is to serve mostly as a wind break. They are not heated or lit inside. Restaurants in particular are finding these wind breaks helpful to shield seated clientele from a blast of winter. The problem arises when size, design and safety issues are not addressed, and we are seeking assistance from the two city committees that are directly involved: the Historic Preservation Committee (the City's only design review board) and the Energy Committee. DISCUSSION: Design and process - Within the historic districts, the Design Guidelines help guide appropriate development. Section IV - Commercial Buildings, page 25, offers the only section in today's Guidelines that relate to airlocks. This awning/canopy section provides the same basic design principals that the HPC reviews for airlocks. It reads as follows: "Consider using awnings or canopies to provide color and depth to the facade. On many storefronts and upper story windows awnings are appropriate. These awnings should match the shape and width of the opening it is covering. They should not obscure important details. The awnings should also be aligned with other awnings on a building. Canopies are appropriate only on the ground level and should match the width of the storefront. Awnings or canopies made of aluminum, fiberglass and other rigid materials are not encouraged. Awnings that do not serve as useful sheltering from sun, rain, or snow are not encouraged." In addition, HPC member Jake Vickery (architect), offers these additional review considerations, which the HPC is encouraged to adopt as an addendum to the Guidelines: 1) Airlocks should become a necessary interior function of the building. Every attempt to incorporate an interior airlock within the commercial space shall be made. (i.e. Bentley's and The Gap.) Applications for exterior airlocks shall discuss in detail the existing interior space constraints. It is strongly encouraged that all new infill buildings include an airlock design. 2) The airlock must be temporary, however, rigid materials (i.e. Pour LaFrance and Main Street Bakery) are encouraged over canvass and vinyl. Should a soft material be desired, the applicant shall address how the airlock fabric will be stretched or held rigid. Sandbags anchoring down flappy material will not be approved. 3) Creativity in design is encouraged: each building and entrance is different, perhaps requiring a unique approach. However, the airlock itself must not attempt to make a design statement, or compete with the building's architectural details or general character. The airlock must be "opening specific", and reasonably sized to lessen the appearance of clutter and visual impacts. 4) Airlocks may be installed anytime after November 1, however, must be removed no later than April 15 of each year. We encourage their use only during the coldest portion of the winter. 5) Process: When possible, staff (with the assistance of the HPC sub-committee) shall review and approve temporary airlock applications, provided all of the above requirement are met. Applications shall include , at a minimum: a) Site plan b) Building owner's agreement to the proposal c) Color photographs (minimum three different 2 angles) indicating entire facade and adjacent storefronts. 5x7 or larger photos are preferred, for ease in review. d) Facade elevation e) Material sample(s) Should all design and energy considerations be met, the applicant may continue to reinstall the temporary airlock for up to three years, after which time an application for review and further approval shall be made to the Planning and Zoning Office. 6) Energy issues: Saving energy has grown into a primary concern of the Aspen community. Addressing basic energy issues should be the concern of every citizen. Simple acts such as keeping front entry doors closed in winter and caulking around windows held reduce the amount of energy waste. An air curtain (blower fan mounted to the inside upper portion of the entry door that is activated when the door is opened, reversing the flow of cold air in) may be an alternative to consider. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC adopt the six points described as above as an addendum to the Historic District and Historic Landmark Development Guidelines, and direct staff to forward these to City Council for their endorsement. 3 - 4 - p#leÂ» & 1 4 1 1%..421 1 ~1 1. Elâ‚¬94*41'f , 1 ..AL ... I 1 Â»â€ž--71........ 0*t. 1 r .C 1 6 17.1, 1 - i./,4 1 1 1 . 1 ! p 14(. i ' .4, 1 ) U. 1 - 1 31 U . Â·'1-,t.- 1 ... . 1 1 1 1 , - *% 1 f 1 1 \ Ul, IW7. 1 4 - 1 *1,1 '. 1 1,j 'ly . 3 1 _L- / / 3 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer Re: 216 S. Monarch (Katie Reid)- Minor Date: September 28, 1994 SUMMARY: The applicant requests HPC approval to install an airlock outside of the Mirabella restaurant for the winter season. Airlocks are not specifically covered in the existing design guidelines. Attached is a memo to HPC from 1993 when this type of proposal and potential standards were discussed. Staff was unaware of these standards before the Mirabella application and does agree that they should be formally adopted. APPLICANT: Aspen Arcade Ltd, represented by Janet Lightfoot. LOCATION: 216 S. Monarch, Lots A-C, Block 81, City and Townsite of Aspen. 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. 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 a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark... Response: As noted in the proposed standards, HPC should make a strict policy requiring that airlocks be included in the design of all new commercial structures. When this has not been done, an applicant should be asked to seriously consider placing the airlock within their interior space (this obviously takes UP valuable commercial space.) In the Mirabella case, the applicant has indicated that there is not enough room between the entrance and the bar to allow an interior solution. The proposed airlock is to be placed in a recessed area and will not project out from the most prominent vertical building plane. The treatment of the airlock, with its tent motif is creative and directly tied to the restaurant, but is not in keeping with HPC's goal to avoid having the airlocks themselves make a design statment. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: There are a number of airlocks which have been installed on restaurants throughout the Commercial Core, although Staff is not aware of any in this immediate area. 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: The airlock standards discussed by HPC are aimed at mitigating these types of impacts. Although Mirabella is located in the new portion of the Katie Reid complex, it is adjacent to a number of historic sites. The main focus of the Katie Reid project was to be the cottage, with the new structure serving as a "quiet backdrop." A very ornate airlock design might detract from that concept. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: There will be no impact on the architectural integrity of any historic structure. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: 1) Approve the Minor application as submitted. 2) Approve the Amendment to the Final 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 the Amendment finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC approve the airlock in concept, but require the applicant to simplify the design eliminating the "awning" form. The airlock may be installed from November 1 through the end of March. DARRCtl ~E W .6Â» i d' 44 1 i r. 8,1 :Â£ 1 1 - 1 1 9 ' 4 s /--#/ - 1Â«L .. .. - 1 r L I#/ t - 1 6 39 Â£ 51 5,Di Vitw .~Ffy02*'â€¢aÂ· '.,-gel 47 3*. At 1 bug,6 , d , I * 1 l i 1 1 ' 1; 1 1 lDp Vilw 4-' - -.tt t.- . . EXHIBIT A (SHEET 2) J ! --- --d m 0 0 -1 11 L~ .- --;..1 i:::::i:i:.EEE:i:#:ii~Et >< ~lf.~{ ......:1 91 ......... 0 :~::I::::~:~di:{iii}#R*giij{2**iii:~I~Ii}iiii~~tiIii~Â§~I~i~ii~.... ...~i~lt-Rj 27/1-2,424 e:..:::t:.%:05:2:5:65.E:i:2....~:.:.:8%:Mi..:ifiij..*Â§.c.*:i:i:I:I:~:i:i::fri~{**:i~}~~ N ~ *it:Â»9*44%48%44%44#jigig*jift=:002%541*44*3%54%98*ij Â° ~ =*94*?f@%43*40*3fgMeJE..~~~1:SENg-j...........jifitiiii?ji~04%fji.fij;jif.t#~ / Lkieigfi;*fiEfff...i. ......i.....:i:49.EifiEE.=ffisiE-EMEIVE::EfficsfigimfififfifikY.:-:EFF.Fi: sic ! / 9*0%9*443% Al Ill 1*' 0 Ycrol, - f 1. . . I r U PH Â·. Ukl / / 6 D 1 - i rfAIN LEVEL 1/16' Â· py MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee CC: Aspen Energy Committee Diane Moore, City Planning Director Bill Drueding, City Zoning Officer Building Department From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: Worksession: Airlocks Date: January 13, 1993 SUMMARY: The City has recently seen numerous requests for, and actual installations of, temporary airlocks at entrances of retail and restaurant establishments. The proliferation of these has concerned the Planning and Zoning Office and has created the need to examine the land use regulations that apply. Concerns regarding expansion of FAR, net leasable, building and fire codes and general character compatibility/design are but a few of the issues that need to be addressed. Within the two historic districts (Commercial Core and Main Street), the HPC has full review authority over all exterior changes under the provisions of the land use regulations that address historic preservation (Sec. 7-601 on.) Outside these districts, no design authority exists, however, the Planning Director is requiring that all airlocks go to the HPC for design referral back to the Zoning office. The need for airlocks, as we are told by the applicants, is to serve mostly as a wind break. They are not heated or lit inside. Restaurants in particular are finding these wind breaks helpful to shield seated clientele from a blast of winter. The problem arises when size, design and safety issues are not addressed, and we are seeking assistance from the two city committees that are directly involved: the Historic Preservation Committee (the City's only design review board) and the Energy Committee. DISCUSSION: Design and process - Within the historic districts, the Design Guidelines help guide appropriate development. Section IV - Commercial Buildings, page 25, offers the only section in today's Guidelines that relate to airlocks. This awning/canopy section provides the same basic design principals that the HPC reviews for airlocks. It reads as follows: "Consider using awnings or canopies to provide color and depth to the facade. On many storefronts and upper story windows awnings are appropriate. These awnings should match the shape and width of the opening it is covering. They should not obscure important details. The awnings should also be aligned with other awnings on a building. Canopies are appropriate only on the ground level and should match the width of the storefront. Awnings or canopies made of aluminum, fiberglass and other rigid materials are not encouraged. Awnings that do not serve as useful sheltering from sun, rain, or snow are not encouraged." In addition, HPC member Jake Vickery (architect), offers these additional review considerations, which the HPC is encouraged to adopt as an addendum to the Guidelines: 1) Airlocks should become a necessary interior function of the bailding. Every attempt to incorporate an interior airlock within the commercial space shall be made. (i.e. Bentley's and The Gap.) Applications for exterior airlocks shall discuss in detail the existing interior space constraints. It is strongly encouraged that all new infill buildings include an airlock design. 2) The airlock must be temporary, however, rigid materials (i.e. Pour LaFrance and Main Street Bakery) are encouraged over canvass and vinyl. Should a soft material be desired, the applicant shall address how the airlock fabric will be stretched or held rigid. Sandbags anchoring down flappy material will not be approved. 3) Creativity in design is encouraged: each building and entrance is different, perhaps requiring a unique approach. However, the airlock itself must not attempt to make a design statement, or compete with the building's architectural details or general character. The airlock must be "opening specific", and reasonably sized to lessen the appearance of clutter and visual impacts. 4) Airlocks may be installed anytime after November 1, however, must be removed no later than April 15 of each year. We encourage their use only during the coldest portion of the winter. 5) Process: When possible, staff (with the assistance of the HPC sub-committee) shall review and approve temporary airlock applications, provided all Of the above requirement are met. Applications shall include , at a minimum: a) Site plan b) Building owner's agreement to the proposal c) Color photographs (minimum three different 2 angles) indicating entire facade and adjacent storefronts. 5x7 or larger photos are preferred, for ease in review. d) Facade elevation e) Material sample(s) Should all design and energy considerations be met , the applicant may continue to reinstall the temporary airlock for up to three years, after which time an application for review and further approval shall be made to the Planning and Zoning Office. 6) Energy issues: Saving energy has grown into a primary concern of the Aspen community. Addressing basic energy issues should be the concern of every citizen. Simple acts such as keeping front entry doors closed in winter and caulking around windows held reduce the amount of energy waste. An air curtain (blower fan mounted to the inside upper portion of the entry door that is activated when the door is opened, reversing the flow of cold air in) may be an alternative to consider. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC adopt the six points described as above as an addendum to the Historic District and Historic Landmark Development Guidelines, and direct staff to forward these to City Council for their endorsement. 3 i -V- 1 V f t,VV 1 q r V. 97 Nt r VA 2-Ti 11-t 1,Â·-494@04 li Y <Â· Â·'14 , I 4 1 r,_ 1/72 / j t* 2 1 â‚¬ 34 i J 4 P 11,1 : f 41..l f 1 1 - Â» . . 1 i 1 Â» f 1 .. 1 , 1 ' 1 1 1. 44 1 44.91 liu 1/ '1 1, %/T 1 1, j i fle -- 1 -Â·11*32Â®Â¥Â»:7 p ~kt 4 14 - - R E--111 1 1 1 4 J.2 .. 2- te."1 1 IL 4 I to *:g==zit . 24 X Por ' iii 1 I , - 1 14% 1//FI*&-=7/ 1 1 MeR, 4 -.64 1 X ' l ir 15*, i- '3 0 : .e 1 1.1 1).I-/ I kâ‚¬:PF:,1 41 4/ - ...r +--1 N ' . â€¢1 . 1 n --;SE*G,G*%22:2@kye'~LI~---,2- - . . - ~ 1-27)~ iw --14 2/ 1 1 LA/9. 1 . 1 & I. 9 5 m - 11 4 .K (1 - FÂ».,11'--r UU+:4/ Lâ€žLY ..1 41 1 57 44 Ill -1 1 0 1 7, C i t>14 ~Q- -t- #3â€¢r , 't-=1=-:4 -1 42<Â«-> 1 -2 -- --3 Â· 3 1 1 . 4 -1 4 4,1 Z 14/-3 44.9-1 Â· Â·Â· 1 ... 4 2 '91- -i 1 .IN 24 1. 5Â»e,0 H# fi â‚¬Loi.Â·b 879 H rekl /4&.FV:1EAN 1 1 , 4-,-Â·14 :tu-4,0 - 3Â»F-PEN 1' W 4 =. W , --a.4 - !*Â« 1 257\41 1 10, Â· 41 i --il- - F 1 i R ..2 , 1 Au 030/1â€¢9 41 , . 1.......â€žL .......C .9 Dep,f'1*4 1.4 1 ' 1 ,Â· . 14 1 j 1 - i~0 137 1 il. - , 1 ,/ 99' i ' r--1 3 T ... 0 [A ; : 1 1 1 1 7 -â€ž72 .. IF -i i =- '1 r fr -,1 i 4-Â» 1 14 Â· 8 -4.,SE . : 4. ! ' 6.4. 6117 /5.-60 2' i 1 1, ! 24% :1 12+0*34.....$44-he-#&*Aory*%82/0 12 1 , N ' ~2...Â£1.1 11 t! ,/. 121 ,/M 1110 1-i.L--.---1.1 8 1- I. - -- - ' 1,Â»le, L E V 6 L FLA 14 I - eÂ·13Â·94- 1 e t!/ e H Â» P T 489Â·@*422'Â·179,2 . . fr . t.1 ...2 1 - L i J.&;,Ill~f 1 --4 & 1 \ 1 ~-IL-- I 1 j / REI < --- - k , 1 1 -3 0/ 0 1~ 'Ij ~/ 1 1 i X M Ny ?f--1 1 1 r.1 / / 1 -F--4. J -79* 11 r I __1 1 1 1 1 --- ~ 4Lr - - 3.1 .._ .. -VE -, --- ~2- &~7 . ~41-12_31 232 11 1 -3 - 0 U 11 % 1 r==i - 1 v~ 1 ---/ 15 - - U:H L, R -+4= P.37:srq ...U=ha- - 1001 Ill m g El 3 I 1.1 [k=JI 1*14 1 r -il n f? - 3 '--1 r.- i: - csÂ·Â·ir:-11*-.1--77*-.1- ' ---1 I }COU ! 1- 1 Ili -027-1--- - f LJ--7 ~ 1 14 91 1 ; \ 1 *13 9 2 E-4Â·p,Npr*17-m 1 F-4 --9 9 f t. 31 7 If f 1 --- LL+ T $ i; dl -1 1 1 9 -Ea.1 - L_ f 4 t=-- 1 m * E L- 4. 1 kâ‚¬24Â· 0/ tr - 49 / , -2 7--1- -44 -IL 11 __ 1 rs, p 4 1 Â·Â· -2 r I T F-- 1 cou i 11.1 ./11 N ---1 1 29 2-0 - LÂ» ..'/// Ma 1 :02&7 . It 81 19= Efi= ti fir ,7- 7 --4 di fi-9 lu n 2/ 7Â· IT 8 k 2- U 1_-_1 1 18 1 ..< - 1 22 rEl-l-/.Ii# 1 45 -0 - h.41-VA 1, i' b 62% HS,1910 1 -- --- -- Il- ' ill 'r--11_li- 4 1- 1-Luri 3' TH 7 i T 1 1 1 - L --1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 0 4 31!Il!'! A..1 +-1 0 e i t ty-4- 1 PN - 1 1 \\ 113 11 . h \CLAN f~ te43'Â·-Â¥-,U.Â£ Â·echur L_ fit:' tr //4f 1 4: y:,en E i fl .- 1 &098 1 1 14 1 U -I--it--il- 1 <- <- 64 41 le-lt i Ve- 1 1 b #- Â· -Â·.1...2-6212'< I 1 1 L lilli !!.. i 11:!;{ti h -- 11 -1 1 - -I - I -- 1/FPE,P L EVEL FLA 4 1, D 10 __ _ U 45 Â· 155 â‚¬4 1 9 L 6 -HAFT =59== u - 00911 5, 1/ 5 %/M 1-10 Al 1! %0'U 1 i . -0.1 77 4- 9-6 ' -=E--es 452,0 1 ------L - _CÂ£_2_Â«I__-16_Lit-LLe=L 1 0,5 Â· 1 1 ~ 41 eLE HEPT- 1 1 1 11 lili 1 1111111111 11 11' 11~ 111'11 1 lilli 1111'111' 11111111'11 11 11'Ell'll' 1 11 / 1 Ill ./'/ \\ 1 - --1 ~J.// 1-12 r T. 21 C L EV /'- 7 12 M ~,Iii 2.,4 1 --- il;~11~i'il'11:11',1111 IIi 111 lili:'|| - 1 1 -7./21 .r~ZI= 51= T-- 1 =ZZL U .-I -_-5 = '-I cule=E:=1 - -- - - - 1- 9 L 5 H Â» -b - T ------1- --1.- ---- I ' ,\li A.T./ E \%40 - 1- 07 k -4-9--Mu UL'mjl,111-9 It f- =-1 f - - = Li! 0-- - Â· = Ir ~ b/ N it/ =0 2==P-- 1 1.- - 1.-- -1-1 44 -- Iii tb U. - Il..= 1; I 1_i ji _ 1 1 =t= r' 0,7Â¢11 0 â‚¬- u FT f Â» 2 1 5 L C V Jpl 3 -- 0 0 11Â·61 I el E M. t F T m 111118 Â· 1481Â®Â®1 Â»\ 115 \1 AL 01==lk 004 12**E 8 --2 3 - 1 b&54Â·Â£ 2 Ill .1 2 A -0 , In 11 11 b 1, lili I I IIIN 1 14 1 I1119 1 1 k I--- - Il-- , 4 Do 1% De u.rT r,rD ELEV * 45' 51Â· 31 1 6 / 5 M ti 2 1