HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.19941109>-7 AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE November 9, 1994 REGULAR MEETING SECOND FLOOR CITY HALL 5:00 I. Committee and Staff Comments II. Public Comments III. OLD BUSINESS 5:15 A. 930 King Street- Special Review to exceed 85% of the allowed F.A.R.74. fk rthaL /40 5:45 <<·*EB. 409 E. Hopkins- amendment to Final,Do,i-/4?72< 6:05 C. 939 E. Cooper Avenue-Conceptual review including on- site relocation, Partial Demolition, and Special Review to exceed 85% of the allowed F.A.R.- PUBLIC HEARING, CONTINUED FROM NOV. 2. Revised plans will be delived to you by the applicant before the meeting. IV. NEW BUSINESS 6:50 A. 520 E. Durant Ave., Chanel- Minor 6, s ,- Fo,j 4- 3 4 7:00 B. 210 S. Mill Street, Footloose and Fancy Things- Minor - l_. l K 7:10 D. Project Monitoring 7:20 V. Adjourn NOTE: It is extremely important that you make a site visit to 939 E. Cooper Ave. if you are uncertain about any existing conditions. We have been to the site three times as a group, so no one should suggest at the review that an additional site visit is needed! Please contact me if you have any questions or would like to go to the site again as a group at noon on Tuesday (meet in lobby of City Hall.)
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 k St. Mary's Church windows
Roger Moyer CCLC Liaison 334 W. Hallam Aspen Historical Society 409 E. Hopkins 303 E. Main 311 W. North Farfalla lights outside 210 Lake Avenue (alternate) Marolt Museum Karen Day Cottage Infill Program 134 E. Bleeker 435 W. Main Swiss Chalet 311 W. North 304 E. Hopkins 121 S. Galena Martha Madsen 620 W. Hallam (alternate) 100 Park Ave. (alternate) 214 W. Bleeker (alternate) 132 W. Main 520 E. Cooper Unit 406 715 W. Smuggler Linda Smisek 134 E. Bleeker 210 Lake Avenue 305 Mill St. Su Casa Tom Williams 130 S. Galena - City Hall 300 W. Main - fence McDonalds 323 W. Main St. Aspen Medical Center 702 W. Main - Stape - Conceptual Development approved Sept 8, 1993 220 W. Main - European FLower Market Final April 20, 1994 j
C <917 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee i THRU: Stan Clauson, City Planning Director - 6/ FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 930 King Street DATE: November 9, 1994 SUMMARY: This project is located in the Smuggler Mountain neighborhood, therefore both the general guidelines (Chapter 1 of the "Neighborhood Character Guidelines") and the specific guidelines for Smuggler Neighborhood (Chapter 4) will be applied. The special review process is mandatory, but compliance with the Committee's findings is advisory, because the lot is over 9,000 sq.ft. This project was previously reviewed by HPC as a partial demolition and relocation of the historic resource, and by the Planning and Zoning Commission for the Accessory Dwelling Unit. At that time the applicant represented that the project was under 85% of the F.A.R. for the site, so no Special Review was scheduled. Through the process of completing working drawings and making changes to the design, the project is now at 92% of the maximum F.A.R. Staff has determined that approximately 108 sq.ft. was added to the design in the form of porches in response to HPC's condition that some horizontal elements be added to the north and west facades. Also, the smokehouse and outhouse have apparently not been included in the applicant's F.A.R. calculations, but must be because they are accessory structures and there is no F.A.R. exemption available for them. The proposed project is 4,045 sq. ft. above grade (plus the smokehouse and outhouse), as calculated by the architect and 3,278 sq.ft. below grade as well as in garage and ADU exemptions. APPLICANT: Mac Cunningham. Gibson and Reno are the project architects. LOCATION: 930 King Street. Please see attached metes and bounds description. STAFF COMMENTS: Please refer to the application for the complete , representation of the proposal. Planning staff finds that this j project is not in compliance with several of the general and specific neighborhood guidelines. Rather than discuss each guideline (including those which are met), only the elements of the proposal which significantly warrant further discussion are highlighted below. The applicable general and specific guidelines
have been grouped together by subject. Mass and Scale General Guidelines- 1. Buildings should help establish a sense of human scale that is inviting to pedestrians, 2. New buildings should appear to be similar in scale to those in the established neighborhood, or to the scale that is desired for the neighborhood, 3. The street elevation of a building should be designed to appear in scale with those seen traditionally. Specific Guidelines- 17. New buildings should be similar in scale to traditional residential buildings of Aspen. Response: The applicant responded to a number of comments from HPC during previous reviews and made some very positive revisions to the original plan, however, Staff still has a number of concerns related to this project's compatibility with the existing neighborhood. Although there are some projecting elements, such as a wraparound porch and dormers, the mass of the new house is not broken down into modules or smaller units. The guidelines recommend dividing larger projects into building modules of approximately 1200-1800 sq. ft. and the new house alone is approximately 3,500 sq. ft. Staff finds that the eastern grouping of buildings, the historic house, garage and connector do fit these standards, but that the project would have benefited from a similar concept on the new house. Although there is variety in the architectural character and forms of the surrounding sites, there are three historic resources directly across the street (one of which is a historic landmark) and the majority of the other buildings on the street are one or one and a half stories with fairly steeply pitched roofs. These are some of the characteristics which establish the context for the neighborhood and which should drive future development. The form and dimensions of the main gable of the historic structure have been repeated across the south facade in the form of the entrance to the breezeway and then as a dormer on the main house. Staff finds this creates a somewhat troubling relationship between the new and old, by showing that the dimension of the entire front facade of the historic resource is merely the size of a window in the new house. The central dormer on the south elevation was to be restudied as part of HPC's previous review. Staff recommends that the architects give further thought to reducing the prominence of this element. In addition, a lot of discussion has focused on "softening" the breezeway by making it as transparent and simple as possible, and this could be accomplished further by bringing the
peak of the entryway below the ridge line. Impact on Historic Buildings General Guidelines-16. New buildings should avoid negative impacts on adjacent historic properties. Response: Although the breezeway connector does help to provide a transition between the historic house and the new house, it has also blurred an observer's ability to see this project as a group of buildings as opposed to one large mass. As conditions of approval from HPC's final review on September 13th, the Committee required that there be some differentiation between the building materials used on the breezeway, especially siding and roofing, along with changes in finishes (i.e. paint or stain). They further required that the breezeway have no horizontal siding. These concerns do not appear to have been fully addressed in the attached plans. They are within the Committee's purview as there is a direct relationship between this condition and the partial demolition review standard which requires mitigation of all impacts of the demolition approval on the historic resource. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends project approval with the following conditions: 1) The central dormer on the south elevation of the new house and the entryway element are to be revised so as to reduce their prominence and to alleviate the great difference they cause in the scale relationship of the .t historic resource and new construction. The ridge of the entry is to be brought in line with, or below, the main ridge of the breezeway. The breezeway is to be as transparent as possible, with little to no horizontal siding. This was a condition of 82%7 approval on September 13, 1994 for the "Partial Demolition and Relocation" review. 3) Materials on the breezeway, especially roofing and any siding which is approved, along with changes in material i finishes (paint and stain), are to be different than ~ those used on the historic resource and new main house. - This was a condition of approval from HPC's meeting of September 13, 1994. -X Additional Comments:
ATTACHMENT 1 IAND IJSE APPLICATION F[JIN 1) .Project Name 930 King Street 2) Project location 930 King Street, Aspen, Colorado (-See Attached Legal Description) ( iniicate street ackiress, lot & block Inmber, legal description where appropriate) 3) Present Zoning R15A , 4) Lot Size 13,241 5) Applicant's Name, Address & Phcne # Estate of Joseph L, Candreia - see below 6) Represerrtative's Name, Address & Phone # Cunningham Inves tment Co., Inc, 121 South. Galena, Suite 20-1, Aspen, Colorado 81611 7) Type of Application (please check all that apply): Conditional Use Ccncestual SPA Conceptual Historic Dev. Special Review Final SPA Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline Conceptual PUD X Minor Historic Dev. under 50% Stream Margin Final POD Historic Demolition Mcqmtain View Plane Subdivisicn Historic Designation CorEcminiumization - Text/Map AmerxinErt (XlS Allotment Lot Split/Lot Line - 045 Doemption Adj ustmerrt 8) Descriptian of Existing Uses (rI]mber and type of existing structures; approximate sq. ft.; nmber of bedroans; any previals approvals grarrted to the property). One single family house with one bedroom approximatelv 840 square. feet with substandard additions; outbuildings lininhabf red.- 5-<54- 4;~ 9) Description of Develcptent Aplicaticn Relocation and Partial Demolition of Su~hcandard additions to original structure. 10) Have you attached the following? X Respaise to Attachmerrt 2, Minimlin Sulnissicn Ocntents x Respense to Attachment 3, Specific Sulmission Ocrrtents x Response to Attacbment 4, Review Standards for Your Application
930 King Street Aspen, Colorado Description of Proposal and Compliance with Neighborhood Character Guidelines This property was previously submitted to HPC and P&Z for their review. The relationship of the new structure to the neighborhood and to the existing historic structure were discussed in detail in HPC meetings of September 1, 13 and at P&Z on October 4, 1994. The property is comprised of more than 13,000 square feet in a rectangular shape. As such, we designed a main house as reflected in the minutes of the HPC and P&Z meetings, which is connected through a breezeway to the historic miner's cottage and rear garage. We have also saved the original outhouse and smokehouse on the property. The FAR on the property, exclusive of the porches, is 82.4% of allowable FAR. Mass and Scale: Notes from the P&Z meeting, in particular pages 16, 17, and 18 of the minutes, reflect P&Z's comments concerning traditional residential structures in the East Aspen neighborhood. It is our feeling that it is extremely hard to define the nature of this area of the East End as there are two and three story new structures, old historic miner's cottages, log style properties, single-story ranch style properties, multi-family properties with flat roofs, very modern two-story residences, apartment complexes; all with varying degrees of character, age and design. We have divided the proposed structure into three modules connected by a breezeway. Further, we have stepped the building down in scale as the breezeway approaches the smaller miner's cottage structure. Additionally, we have located some floor area into secondary structures including the breezeway, accessory dwelling unit, and garage. The window shapes and designs are generally similar in shape and design to the historic miner's cottage, this includes the gable pitches on the roof. Building Formb: The building form includes use of porches, as well as pitched gabled roofs. There is a very clearly defined front yard with front steps as well as the separate entry on the breezeway.
(2) Both the front, side and rear yards are clearly defined in their context to the streets. Further, the only paving at the street is the existing paving, which is hidden between the historic miner's cottage and a large cottonwood tree. Our intention is to buffer the edges of the site with the use of lilac shrubbery and minimal fencing. Much of the lilac shrubbery is already onsite and maturing. The entry of the property is at a grade. All primary main floors and all structures on the site are within 1 to 2 feet of grade. Materials: Materials are horizontal clapboard with intermittent stone masonry bases and vertical masonry fireplaces. Trim materials are horizontal and vertical finished wood, accenting the horizontal elements. As previously stated, windows reflect surrounding neighborhood design with the use of double hung windows. Architectural Features: After significant discussion with HPC, additional porches were added to the property. Porches exist along the south face of the breezeway, at the historic miner's cottage, on the east, south, west and north elevations of the main house (including 6 1/2 foot wide porches on the main house). These porches are oriented to the street and as mentioned, scaled in character with the structures they surround. The primary entrance to the property is clearly defined and is a central shared entry for the multi-family ADU and primary residence. All of these design elements are further enumerated by the model and plans which will be presented at the meeting.
CODE INFORMATION DAVI D G[BSON, ADDRESS: 930 KING STREET ASPEN, COLORADO AIA ZONING : R-15A (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE) AUGUST RENO, LOT AREA: 13,343 S. F. AIA FLOOR AREA RATIO (F.A.R.) CALCULATIONS SCOTT F.A.R. ALLOWED = 4384.01 S.F. SMITH. F.A.R. PROVIDED : AIA LOWER LEVEL: FLOOR AREA = 1708 S.F. (EXEMPT) t\ •_i. A OPTIONAL BASEMENT = 765 S.F. (EXEMPT) \>.-026%#r~bl...7 MAIN LEVEL: u Ad,11 FLOOR AREA = 1869 S.F. <--1 15%71 - W;zrn • v.--1 A.D.U. (459 S. F. X 50% EXEMPT) = 229.5 S.F. ~~nL----N~~'.-C== GARAGE AREA IN EXCESS OF 500 S.F.= 6 S.F. UPPER LEVEL: GIBSON · RENO ARCHITECTS· FLOOR AREA = 1507 S.F. AREA OF DECKS ALLOW. = 4384.01 X 15% = 657.6 S.F. AREA OF DECKS PROVIDED = 75 S.F. (EXEMPT) AREA OF PROJECTIONS IN EXCESS OF 3' = 434 S.F. 210 E. HYMAN TOTAL F.A.R. PROVIDED = 4045.5 S.F. N° 202 PERCENTAGE OF ALLOWABLE F.A.R. ASPEN COLORADO 92.3% OF ALLOWABLE F.A. R. INCLUDING PORCHES 81611 82.4% OF ALLOWABLE F.A. R. EXCLUDING PORCHES 303.925.5968 FACSIMILE 303.925.5993 P.O. BOX 278 117 N. W[LLOW N°2 TELLURIDE COLORADO 81435 303.728.6607 FACSIMILE 303.728.6658
COMMITMENT Plat id No. SaiEDULE A (antinued) Order No. 403607 -0 5. The land referred to in the Commitment is covering the land in the State of Colarado, County of Pitkin , described as follows: A Tract of land situated in the South one-half (S 1/2) of Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6TH P.M. in, City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado, being more fully described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of a tract of larxl described in Book 645 at Page 892 of the Pitkin County records whence corner No. 11, East Aspen Additicnal Townsite bears North 52° 23'03"E 160.23 feet; 'Ihence South 26°52'00" West, 103.58 feet along the West line of said tract; Thence North 61°57'06" West, 27.78 feet; Thence North 55° 52'50" West, 18.64 feet; Thence North 58°48'18" West, 34.01 feet; Thence North 58°29'54" West, 23.85 feet; Thence North 48° 15'12" West, 34.73 feet; Thence North 23°28'17" Ramt, 81.89 feet; Thence South 65°20'31" East, 142.47 feet to the Point of Beginning. TIOOR TITLE INSURANCE aMPANY
Huntertx \3) .9« F-1- Draw Rd 14« 8d Bennett Bench Rd 4 + doo c. LRunter C Willoughby Wy C a y-, 0 10 ~ 42 J ~ - e St ~ esl»- - 2 Ase en h \ - 0 C. 9 t 'c~~ - 1 f 'Cb'.1 E A I '90. $ Race St 9, 9 1%- ler Mtn Rd -let IRT\, e Smugg *st ¢ 4 2 j¥ Att00 /Eal.re 4 Hallam St Easte/ ~4 ~)\< ~~ ~ Bay St~9658c)„-9~ 7¢ A Bleeker St -,- On t /,qb Main St ,~1 2 0 4 4/ Queen St t33gent st PR m t i Hopkins Av ~ 1 0 0 0 F--- 73 3 F '>- ' / /1-14 1 A\ 0. 0 4 9 13 1 m \ 26 110 e---) - ~f Hyman Av 0 2 2 21 1 Die .*@ )§ i I /04 U - C., 2 65 65 05 a j -111 im n-/4, € c€ ~ 3 2 a.~ Man Ccoper Av ~ 2 3/65 .0, 6#65 u Cncs 1 1 4 Dehn St \ Durant Av \ b Wesivjew.1% JuaniSt 1 1 -_Gjlb,IJunia@ St . ) Q Waters Av 4 E £ 1 .07~/42 jo Ort# Hill St_ ft ~ 9 472 eN#<dR-3 1 2 Summit St CanteAnial I12>43,4 \ ' L /bir 64 Aspen \P 0 9 Alps Rd L-K ci -flsd Lake Rd 2nd St
CUNNINGHAM INVESTMENT CO,.INC. SUITE 201 121 SOUTH GALENA STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (303) 925-8803 August 12, 1994 The Historic Preservation Committee and Ms. Amy Amadon Preservation Officer City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: No Problem Joe Historic Redevelopment Plan Submission 930 King Street Aspen, Colorado Dear Amy, We are very pleased to submit the enclosed application for renovation of the original No Problem Joe home located at King and Neal Streets in Aspen. Both Cunningham Investment and Gibson and Reno Architects have worked very hard to preserve the character and quality of the original No Problem Joe miner's cottage, smokehouse and outhouse. We are especially pleased with this plan because we believe that it meets the primary guidelines of historic renovations as advocated by the National Trust for Historic Preservation. To this end, we propose to restore the original gabled miner's cottage, smokehouse and outhoyse. Unlike many other historic houses in the Aspen area, we have separated the miner's cottage from the new house through the creation of a sixteen foot breezeway. We also made sure that the original house sits forward of the new structures in order to make it the prominent detail along King Street. We have further insured its integrity by restoring it to its original gabled miner's cottage configuration and have separated it from the garage area, again through the breezeway uses. We also ask you to note that we have placed the garage on north of the original miner's cottage, therefore removing vehicles from infront·of the miner's cottage. We have in every case attempted to remain faithful to the original miner's cottage configuration of the structure. This will be done through restoration of the clapboard siding, windows, doors, gabled peaks and by returning the roof to its original shingled configuration, which shingles are currently covered by corrugated metal.
Historic Preservation Committee and Ms. Amy Amadon City of Aspen August 12, 1994 Page Two Also within our plan we have taken the gabled roof pitches found on the miner's cottage and replicated those on the new main structure. Though it is not within the perview of Historic Preservation to review the main structure, we have submitted plans showing elevations for all portions of the structures. We feel strongly that this relationship between the structures greatly focuses on and enhances No Problem Joe's original miner's cottage. We have also saved the outhouse and smokehouse as requested by the Historic Preservation Committee and made them the focal point of the garden area which lies north of the main entry to the houses. We feel that both the outhouse and the smokehouse will help lend feeling and character to the overall site and reemphasize the historic nature of the property. We have also proposed to locate No Problem's bench on the southeast corner of the property under the large cottonwood tree. This in part influenced our location of the driveway and the miner's cottage so that there would be proper separation between this area and the driveway. We also be placing a bronze plague on the front of the miner's cottage, a copy of its wording which was provided by No Problem's daughter, is attached for the committee's edification. We also thought the committee would be interested to know that we are under the 80% FAR, as has been recently proposed by the City. We trust that the Historic Preservation Committee will not only find our plan acceptable, bub-use it in the future as an example of sensitive, compatible restoration of a miner's cottage and its relationship with new structures on the same site. Sincerely, le' v I. McA. Cunningham, President Cunningham Investment Co., Inc. cc: Gibson Reno Architects IMC/pm
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE SPECIAL MEETING Minutes of September 1, 1994 Meeting was called ,to 'order by chairman Joe Krabacher with Jake Vickery, Les Holst; Roger Moyer, Tom Williams and Martha Madsen present. Donnelley Erdman and Linda Smisek were excused. COMMITTEE AND STAFF COMMENTS Amy: The next meeting will be held September 13th. 930 KING STREET - PARTIAL DEMOLITION AND RELOCATION PH Amy: HPC had made at least two site visits as a group to this parcel recently and the applicant is requesting permission to demolish all of the additions on the historic structure as well as the existing barn and garage. In my memo I had found in terms of the additions of the house, that only the western addition where the kitchen is located is of historic significance. It is the only one that I could determine the age of. I feel it is compatible with the original building. The two easterly lean-too's are of a 19~~ more undetermined age. As far as the out buildings go this site is important because it is the only site in town where you have the original historic context. You have the house and the group of out buildings; however, they are in a deteriorating state. The barn could be demolished and the garage is non-historic. The other two out buildings they are planning on keeping. In terms of the relocation I found that the relocation should not be approved. They are requesting to move it back on the parcel and I found that the parcel is large enough to accommodate new development without relocating the·building and also that integrity of location on this site is important as well as the connection of the historic building to the street and so that should not be permitted. In summary I have recommended that you deny the request to relocate the historic house; approve the request to relocate the out house and smoke house; deny the request to demolish the west kitchen lean-to; .approve the request to demolish the eastern lean-to; approve the request to demolish the barn and garage. We also have to request that the applicant submit a temporary relocation plan and bonds to protect the structures. Mac Cunningham: It is important to state as there are members of the public here, that the newspaper article was grossly inaccurate. Our purpose is to take the historic structure and do nothing but move it north 15 feet so that it,is'out of the setback. The house sits into the setback on King Street. I the old days King Street ~ was very narrow and has progressively widened with time. We need to move the house back because there are virtually large trees right on top of the house and causing damage to the porch area and Joe had put a lot of shingles on the base to protect as snow was
~ building up. The other obvious thing from an historic context is that we are sitting with a house so close to the street that if a vehicle is parked on the street you can't even see the house as it is blocked. Within the context of doing something on this my concern as is Gibson Reno that we accentuate the historic structure and return it to its original gable miners cottage. I feel it was 1 a Sears package and you put it together. When we did the investigation of the foundation there is none, not even rubble. It is just plain sitting on the dirt. We have to put a foundation under it in order to preserve the structure long term. That was our first point for relocation, to just move it north. It basically will stay right on the site north 15 feet and we will be out of the setback. Two, we have to pick it up in order to put a foundation underneath it. Mac Cunningham: I was first chairman of the Aspen Historic Trust and helped publish with the trust a recent history of historic structures in Aspen. My background goes back 20 years to rehabilitating historic structures across the country. We have received many awards to do it. One of the design criteria that I placed on the architects when we started working on this is that we separate this house physically from the other structure. One of the big issues in the Neighborhood Character Guidelines was focused that big structures were over powering the original miners cottages. We are asking to relocate the house, rehabilitate it and linking it with a breezeway to the other structure. There was an original T configuration of the house and we would like to maintain and rehabilitate but putting on a new foundation. Also there was stuff added trying to save what was left of the original structure when Joe lived there. The basic idea is bring the structure out of the setback, set it up so that there is a good streetscape to it, link it through the use of a breezeway to the main house and that also gives us the ability to have a garage in the back of the property. There are no alleys in this area and in order to get to a garage we set it up so that the garage is hidden behind the structure. We feel the smoke house and out house are neat and what we have done is do a courtyard so that when you walk up to the front of the house the courtyard focuses back. It is important to save small structures like this and it is also important that we make them usable and functioning within the raw context of the site. One of the other things we did was put new gables on the new residence mirroring the same pitch as the old. You review for the existing structures on the site and does not relate to the rest of the property. We wanted to emphasize that we are trying to do all these things so that they are compatible and work together. We have met all the guidelines for the review process that is now in place. Also for your edification we are under the FAR as adopted by the city in every regard and we have made ti he mass and scale work together. In terms of the relocation the purpose of it is to get it back away and put a new foundation i under it . Amy addressed what was original and what is not. It is very clear from am historic standpoint and from the Willits map 2
) that the original T-shaped house is the same. If you look at the pictures you can see all the additions. Amy's concern relates to the piece that is mow used as the kitchen area. Public, neighbor: The addition was added 25 years ago. Mac Cunningham: Most of the addition in the area that Amy is looking at in terms of history was added about twenty five years ago. We would like to remove the additions because they are recent additions but it lies lower than the original house about eight to ten inches and the north west corner is in very bad condition. The back of the structure is actually broken and it is questionable in regards to salvaging it. One of the advantage of the main structure that has a coal cellar and the timbers sit laterally. The ability to pick the house up, move it to the side and put a proper foundation down and set the property permanently on a base is very much there on this site. There is a lot of junk around because Joe was a big collector as we all know. Our purpose is to restore the cottage to its original context and there is also a metal roof on this structure which is not original. There are the original shingles and we would restore that. I feel in summary that we have met what the objection has been in salvaging or rehabilitating properties of this nature in town. I personally and Dave and everybody at Gibson & Reno. is really happy with what we have put together here. Our purpose is not to build a monster house and we are under the FAR's and our purpose is to move this ) thing along and try and stabilize it before winter. We are here to answer any questions. Pam Doremus presented a letter from Peggy Joe. Attached in records. COMMITTEE COMMENTS Amy: It is difficult to put dates on these buildings but the structural engineer tagged the kitchen and lean-to early due to the way they were built. Jake: My first question is what have you done to analyze the neighborhood context of your project. Issues to address are there any landmarks in the vicinity etc. Second question would be how to describe the neighborhood context of your project. How would you summarize it. The third question would be how have you responded to this analysis. I know you are not directly held to the guidelines but I wanted to pose those questions to you. As I understand it all you are doing is moving the existing house back about 15 feet and then the driveway going through the foreground. Do you have photographs or documentation of the house itself like an east or west view. Mac Cunningham: Yes, they were handed out. 3
~ Jake: Those are not clear to me. I need a frontal view. I am trying to figure out what it looks like right now and where you plan on taking the historical structure. Mac Cunningham: You want to look at each elevation to determine the position of the historic house. Jim Perry: One of the problems in trying to do that is the trees and dense foliage in front that prohibit us from getting a clear shot. You wouldn't even see the house from the street view. We have the other views. Mac Cunningham: Relative to neighborhood context it was one of the things I spoke about during the discussions over the new ordinance. This block has a structure across the street that was historic that had a new modern architectural design built onto it and the property directly to the west of this is a one story ranch house and the house to the north is a house has been there 26 years. Owner of the property to the north: It was erected partly by myself and was a log cabin package. Mac Cunningham: Tom Isaac' s house is partially on the- inventory and the entire area is a conglomerate of architectural designs on the street, some victorian, log cabin etc. During the ordinance frg?'mh discussions I stated that it was very hard to define what anyone 1 block in the city looks like. We have attempted to try and take the context of the original structure and restore it to that. We tried to mirror the roof pitches. I have read the guidelines numerous times and feel we have met the mass and scale purposes, i.e. porches. We tried to break any sense of mass with gables and with the porches. Les: What are the ramifications of the setbacks. You put a new foundation under the house and lift it up and then are you required to conform to the setbacks. David Gibson: Yes we are required to conform unless we went before a board for a variance. Les: If you move it to the existing setbacks what does that look like? David Gibson: We are taking it back 15 feet roughly. Mac Cunningham: Les's question is it right on the setback line. Jim Perry: It is right on the setback line. Les: Can you repair it in its present position? h Mac Cunningham: We have to pick it up in order to put a foundation 4
) under it. Roger: Is the new house a speck house? Mac Cunningham: I have not determined that yet, we may move there. Roger: What is the square footage above the ground? Mac Cunningham: About 37 by 37 and below the ground the same. Roger: If you put a foundation under the existing cottage would that include the front porch or would the porch·be setting on posts or something. Mac Cunningham: We would build a footer underneath the porch and would just build under the T. There is a large spruce tree and an apple tree. Roger: Do you think the mass and scale of the new portion is acceptable for the west end and also acceptable for the east end of Aspen? Did you look like it in both contexts. Mac Cunningham: I looked it in the context of what I feel the overall neighborhood character guidelines are for the whole city. Does the new structure compliment the existing miners cottage and "f~h we really worked off of that. I feel you have to be true to the j site in a neighborhood that has so many architectural elements. You cannot find anyone specific architectural element anywhere along King Street. We tried to do it in the context of the site and the miners cabin itself. Roger: So you read the Neighborhood Character Guidelines regarding the Smuggler Mountain area. Tom: It is my understanding that we cannot review the new structure. I would like to know why? Amy: The way that the code reads right now for partial demolition we can review anything you can tie directly as an impact to the partial demolition. For instance the breezeway causes the partial demolition so you could comment on that because it attaches to the building. Whether we allow. them any demolition or relocation the lot is so large there is room for them to do their new construction so it is not a direct tie. Joe: In Amy's memo it states the standards that you need to apply; impacts on historic importance of the structure or structures located on the parcel. That the applicant has mitigated to the greatest extent possible impacts on the historical importance of the structure or structures located on the parcel. Roger: If you weren't granted any of the things you were asking 5
~ for, what would you do? Mac cunningham: I don't know. Roger: Suppose you were granted everything you are asking for but the HPC asked for design review of mass and scale of the new , alidition, would you allow that? Mac Cunningham: Frankly you would have to ask the owner because the HPC would be setting a new precedent because it is under the 85% FAR and over 9,000 sq. ft. The Committee would have to decide if you can do that relative to P&Z and City Council's instructions to you. Roger: You made an astute point on King Street architecturally. Do you feel that the mass and scale of this new building drastically changes the mass and scale of that particular one block, one neighborhood? Mac Cunningham: No, I do not because if you stand on the site and look around at the other properties around there this is not a big house. The Whipple duplex on the other side is a much bigger structure. We looked at this really hard and did a couple of things that our neighbor from the north requested. We are set back significantly further off Neal Street than the actual setbacks. 1'1~'h We all got together on the property and the request was do not block my view to Ajax and that is why the house sits where it does. We also set it back off of King Street and I think when you see it from the streetscape that this house is actually not going to appear massing or overpowering to any other structure on King Street. I live in Aspen and am very concerned about the house. The setbacks and pitch of the roof and the breaking of the mass with the vertical separation and porch will all make it ready very soft in the overall context. Roger: In the context of the block do you think that the height perhaps of the new portion might be a little excessive or do you feel it still works in the context of the block which is basically single story homes? Mac Cunningham: There are some two story homes visually from the site and I do not think it is out of scale at all. I have worked in many historical communities in the states and do not feel it is out of scale at all with the area. If you take King Street as a singular line I do not think you are taking the context of the neighborhood into account because we are at the corner of Neal and King. We are more on Neal in terms of visual location. Amy: One other clarification when you submitted the application j with ordinance 35 cut off you could go up to 80% of your FAR and over that was special review so I believe you came in at 80 % and it has been changed by council at 85%. Are you intending to go to 6
1 85%? Mac Cunningham: We are at 82.9% on the design that sits here. Roger: Would it be a problem to steak out the. boundaries of the new addition along with a flag showing the maximum height. Mac Cunningham: At this juncture HPC is reviewing the existing structure and if the City Council wants to give HPC the ability to review all structures then we would comply. Amy: At the last meeting you adopted the character guidelines for any project exceeding 85% which is what Council included in the ordinance. You also said that in the future you would like to review these types of projects in terms of mass and scale such as partial demolition. Our Assistant Attorney David Bellack agrees that the motion was not sufficient to become a new policy that it is something that we need to do in terms of a code amendment. Chairman Joe Krabacher opened the public hearing. Chuck Maple: I live on the north side of this property. My biggest concern of course is the fact that Joe always piled his junk in front of me and blocked my view. He had all kinds of cars there and dirt. Year after year he would get another two truck ~71~ loads of dirt so that the height of that property has risen during the 25 years that he and I were neighbors. My point of view is that my view is blocked now and my view will be blocked by any structure in front of me even if it is a fence. I think that the historic people have not got all their facts straight and I am not so sure I have. This is what I know, when I came there people told me that Joe's house served as a house of prostitution during the mining days and even when I moved there 26 years ago there weren't any trees around there to speak off. All the trees have grown in recent times and so they are not historical. When trees get old, tired and wide they have to be trimmed and that is why all the views are dying in town. It is not the tall houses so much as the big tall trees because in the mining days if we go back to history the whole place was barren. There weren't any trees. All the trees were small that were planted. There was a three foot alley - way over to the barn between my property and Joe's property and there would go mules and horses to get shoed. There was a gray line of ashes over to the fence and the most historic was that the mules came to get shoed and to provide entertainment because it was a black smith shop. The man not only made shoes for the animals but also made spears that chickens wore and they had chicken fights. All of these buildings are falling down and I do not know what you can do with them. I Would like to suggest all the buildings be taking to mine tailings and establish a tour of the black smith shop. That would be preserving history. I feel that this man should get rid of all this trash and these buildings and the historic committee should try and deal with the Albouy crowd 7
1 which is really dealing in the history of mining. This is part of mining history not part of residential history. This is not a miners cottage. He could get rid of that property and relevel the lot and build the type of structure that you want to let him build. Mr. Cappelli: I live across the street from Joe for 30 years. I f agree with Chuck if you,want to preserve something like that junk, take it away and let the people see it fixed up elsewhere. I tried to fix his porch many times so that it wouldn't leak and he wouldn't let me do it. He wanted it left alone. Take it somewhere where people could look at it. Jim Mickey: I am Chuck's son-in-law and I live next door on Gibson. I probably have the best view of Joe's property than anybody. I agree with the first two comments. You should just take everything off the lot and take it to the dump. It is not worth saving any of it. All this is doing is causing a property to be built that is totally out of scale that should be built there. It is forcing whoever is going to develop that property into having more square footage on that entire piece of property than they should. It will be out of scale of the neighborhood. I agree it is all piece of junk and should be hauled away. I am sorry to have that point of view. There are three property owners that surround Joe's property who believe that. 1~ Pam Doremus: I have a comment from Lana Trentin who lives in the neighborhood and she approves of the design and it is in character with other places in the neighborhood. David Gibson: We would like to respond to a couple of points that came out in the discussions. After all the junk is hauled away we might have to have to resurveyed as we do not know where the ground really is. I would like to respond as to whether the house should be moved and two whether the structure should be taken away. Our goal is to make this place look like it did when it was first built. We will take off the plastic and metal roof and redo the shingles and reglaze the windows and make it look like a miners cottage. The position on the street is important and when this was platted it didn't have 60 foot wide streets, there were just little horse paths through this area. This area through here which is now called King Street was really never laid out for traffic and sidewalks and therefore some of the buildings are really two close to the road. Right now this building is only 12 to 14 feet from the edge of the pavement. That is really close to have the cars going past. To make it more appropriate we aren't going to give you a 60 foot right-of-way but to make it feel more like a street we would like to move the house back. It would also come into conformance with setbacks. In the public interest we feel the house should be moved back. It Still stands forward of the proposed new structure by over 20 feet. That is our thinking in moving it back, to improve the neighborhood. On the Willits map it showed a T-shaped building and we would like to rehabilitate the 8
i building minus the three sheds. After the silver boom in 1893 most of the new construction was done with recycled materials. Before 93 it was new materials and after 93 it was a poverty center and anything that was built was built with boards taken down from other houses etc. These three structures one put up 25 years ago were really built of recycled materials. We would like to move the house and take off the inappropriate ~heds. Mac Cunningham: This main house actually sits lower than the existing miners cottage which drops it four or five feet of the grade that you see today. Roger: A new sidewalk has been put in on the east side of the street and today when I drove buy the five foot mound is being taken down. Have you thought of where the new structure would be in relationship to the sidewalk. Mac Cunningham: Back about two feet. Joe: Have you studied keeping the ADU as a detached unit and what was the theory you had. Mac Cunningham: From a practical standpoint you need the linkage in order to get access to the rest of the property. In the historical context there has been very strong encouragement to link 7;~ the old with the new in ways that compliment and bring the old cottages forward. Also there is a great big cottonwood of the porch which creates a lot of shading. With the breezeway you will always see the historic building. Joe: Are you saying that it will be transparent and you will be able to read the outhouse and smokehouse from the main house. Mac Cunningham: We spend a lot of time on the south elevation so that when you walk up to the house you either go into the historic house or left into the other and that your whole visual impact is to draw you to the back courtyard with the outhouse and smokehouse. Chuck Maple, neighbor: I do not understand an historic committee trying to save an outhouse. There are outhouses throughout the country that are still available. Mac Cunningham: The purpose is to try and keep an open feel as to where the structure are located. Amy: Is it possible to move the two trees that are in front of the house. I believe you can move a 40 foot spruce tree. Mac Cunningham: This treat is 60 feet tall. ~ Amy: Isn't it the apple tree that is causing the problem. 9
J Mac Cunningham: Yes but the spruce shadows directly south of the house. Amy: You could get a variance from the Board of Adjustment. Jim Perry: I feel if you remove the foliage it wquld open up the building right on the street, then you are twelve feet off the street walking out the door. COMMITTEE COMMENTS Jake: I do not have a problem with the relocation of the house as it corrects a non-conformity and it maintains its relationship with the street. I also feel there will be a maintenance problem wit the trees and this helps mitigate that. Relative to the breezeway because of its transparency and lower roof line and it does function as a hyphen to the old house. I do have a problem with the driveway coming across the historical house and would prefer that it be a walk off the street. I think to a certain extent this application need more information such as the location of the trees on the site. If you are going to keep the house I would like to see the treatments that you intend to use, specifically trim. I would like to see at some point that you return to the board with more detailed information unless the Board wants to pass that onto a monitor. 49.~ Jake: Now I would like to make comments on the guidelines. The house that you are proposing is basically a square and very blocky. By doing that it solidifies its mass and there are other L shaped forms and variations that work to break down the massing. The idea that the entry is in the breezeway as opposed to somewhere in the house is an oddity to me. The major volume of the new house does not really address the street with an entry. I do not know how that will work with a breezeway. For future reference with the guidelines if you do a photo board of both sides of the street and a photo board of the alley it helps so much to see what the context is. On the west elevation you have a two story wall.with a band that goes up through the window and doesn't differentiate anything horizontally. It emphasizes vertical with the tall massing. I am sure the architects know how to break that down horizontally that would make it more compatible and the same thing occurs on the north elevation. I think the east L works really well in terms of being playful and complex in what it is doing. Martha: I am basically in favor and sympathetic to this project. In general terms I like the design. I personally do not like the breezeway idea and feel it looks artificial like you are trying to f igure our_ a way to connects buildings. I know it has been accepted but I would prefer to see that outbuilding totally separate from the main building. I know we are not here to approve h these details we are here to approve the demolition and relocations. I feel this project is sympathetic in some way in 10
, trying to relate to the cottage and area. I also feel the property is last due in being cleaned up. I am in favor of the demolition described. Les: I need to know that as much of the old house is being restored and saved and that it Still has context in the neighborhood. I feel the west L is too heavy. I am glad the two buildings are being saved in the back and it is a positive apbroach to this whole project and will add texture and be very good. I could let the house move back as long as I know we are saving as much as possible of the old building and being restored back to its original state. Regarding the breezeway we have been looking at using these to keep the massing down. The mass proposed to me is a little out of context to the neighborhood. It is a little too strong. I feel the driveway is bad the way it is set out in the context of this house. This is setting the entrance into town and so does 17 Queen Street. We need to keep records of the old original building. My main concern is the driveway in front of the house and the massing of the new house. Joe: In general I am supportive of this project and I am in favor of relocating the historic house. I do have a couple of issues that our troubling and one is the review procedure that we have which is a one step procedure and this seems to be a significant project for a one step procedure but I guess that is the way the , code is written and we have discussed this before and maybe the ~7 attorney has a different view than I do. This came up when we discussed the Iglehart house and my view of the standards for review says that the applicant has mitigated to the greatest extent possible impacts on the historic importance of the structure or structures on the parcel. I think that the addition has an impact on the historic importance of the structure. So, I do not limit my review to just to looking at the historic structure and what is going on. I am looking at the whole context based upon the standards. The applicant has to show that they have mitigated whatever the impact is whether it is from the addition or the move of the historic structure. Having said that about how the historic relates to this new building. Originally I did not like the breezeway and I am still not sure I am comfortable or not. I would feel better with the idea of the transparency. It does add a horizontal element that lessens the importance of the historic. Maybe the historic should read a little different not like it is the end of a wing. That is one element that I would like to have further study on. I think I agree with Jake's comments on the west elevation, the two story feel and also you can see it on the north elevation and it seems a little out of sink, possibly using architectural elements to give that a horizontal feel instead of so vertical. I also agree with Jake's comment on the driveway and I can see the problem and maybe that can be restudied with using the breezeway as the center piece of the entrance I can see why you have the driveway the way it sweeps in front of that and across to ) the historic house but Jake's comments are well taken regarding 11
~ that drive location and the way that relates to the historic. The only other issue was Staffs recommending denial for the request to demolish the west kitchen lean-to. It is a marginal structure to start with and I would be in favor of allowing that partial demolition to take place. Roger: I concur with Joe that the review process is absurd; , however, in dealing with the historic we did the site visit and I thought everything should be removed on the property except the footprint of the original cottage. We would take the lumber from all of the sheds and save it and use it on the original cottage and the other buildings. I think it is great that you want to save the other two little sheds. I concur with the neighbors that it has to be cleaned up. Our job is to preserve a sense of history and in doing that you can take an old building and put it in part of a complex and really have quite a stunning situation. You can show that when the buildings were built there was not much too them. When we site visited everyone liked the idea of the cottage on the street as Joe used to sit out there and people stopped to chat. I found that to be a rather pleasant thing to happen as there was a sense of community there. At first I did not want the cottage moved back but in listening to the proposal and comments I could in fact move the cottage back to the setback; however, I find from an historic perspective a gross error on the developers part in putting the driveway in front of the historic cottage. I would ..40,7 also allow the addition to the historic structure to come off and 7 the structure be cleaned up. I would also like to see a detailed plan of the structure because you will have enough original materials to restore it. I feel we should not approve anything to this unless we at least get to review mass and scale over the new structure. I find the new structure goes against everything that we are fighting for in the Neighborhood Character Guidelines. It is a box and we are trying to get rid of boxes. It shows verticality and we are trying to get away from that. I think the breezeway is something we have been wanting and talking about for some time. I also feel it could be softened. The fact that the house has a porch is terrific. I think it is interesting that there is no orientation of the new house to the street. When you read Molly Ireland's commends in the paper about monster homes in the community it is a terrific letter and these houses in which people do not live in is one thing but at least they could look like a house with a human scale. There is an entrance with a standard door size and not a 40 foot door. I feel at least mass and scale of any structure next to an historic structure should happen. The proposed structure is almost workable and very close in design. The neighbors don't seem to have a problem with the height. This part of town needs to be looked at in the context of the block and what will happen in the future. The house seems like it was plopped in and not sensitive to the neighborhood. There are numerous things that could be looked at. Maybe other members feel h~ that this is a insignificant parcel and it is not necessary. 12
1 Tom: I will totally support what Roger said if we approve the demolition subject to having review of the new building I would do it. Mac Cunningham: Let me make a couple comments that might help the committee out. The drawings are not three dimension because our requirement was to address the historic building and we were trying to meet the guidelines that we were told to meet. I agree with the committee on mass and scale and I support that. I had to fight the planning department to do the building across the street and fight to put the sandstone on the building. They told me I was cheapening the building. I measured the store front windows all up Salena and that is the window I chose. My pride in mass and scale is very strong. Our design focus went into the relationship of this structure and its relationship to the rest of the property but I know people are concerned about it. There are a number of very important things. This structure sits way in front of the rest of the property. We went exactly to the setback line to push the house forward so that it is the prominent element. This house is actually lower than it legally can be. The purpose of the porch which wraps around the side of the house is to break the horizontal mass. The problem with elevations they don't read true to what you see. There is the use wood material and a pitched roof. There is broken massing interspersed on the building. A fireplace goes up the side of the house and possibly it could be made smaller. -19\ Those elements we are willing to work with. I am very concerned that we have six people on a committee becoming a design committee. - That is an issue that City Council deals with and you deal with all the time, where is the balance in the relationship. This new house is a direct mirror of my grandparents house. I went and measured when I went back this summer and this porch is deeper than you will find in any other porch in Aspen. On an elevation it doesn't ready that way. The purpose of the breezeway is to get light into it and move the glass through and that it sits lower. I do not feel this house will read high. We have worked hard to break the massing and bring the roof line down. On building form the guidelines said step buildings down in scale as they approach smaller structures and we have done that. On the plan there are steps that come down but we did not present those as we did not know you would be reviewing that. Use of natural materials we have done by using natural clapboard, masonry, window and doors. We also have a porch around the house and that was taken out of the east end guidelines. If we had done a three-D you would see the differentiation. The issue of the driveway we can eliminate. Due to the narrowness of the street we would like to have some kind of means of entering the main house to be able to get off the street. There would be landscaping in the front to soften the house. David Bellack, Assistant City Attorney: Some of you were at the debate about ordinance #35 and some weren't. Council ranged in 1 that debate with the concept of making the Neighborhood Character j Guidelines applicable to all new structures in the historic areas 13
1 in the various zone districts and then making them applicable to structures over 80% of allowable FAR and it was ultimately raised to 85%. In Council part of their final ordinance was to have this committee & P&Z to review projects over 85% and apply the Neighborhood Character Guidelines in determining whether the project should be approved. It seems to be somewhat inconsistent with Council's expressed findings that this committee should apply the guidelines over projects of 85%. To say that when you have a project under 85% at least given our ordinance framework now, the committee will use the Neighborhood Character Guidelines to review a new structure to determine whether or not to approve a partial demolition. In looking at mitigation of the project it is appropriate to consider new structures as part of that mitigation but to allow the Neighborhood Character Guidelines view of a new structure to become the paramount factor rather than an incidental factor maybe inconsistent with ordinance #35 as it is now. I do not know if anyone was going to make the Neighborhood Character Guidelines a review of the new structure be their deciding factor. Jake: HPC has been pursuing the Neighborhood Character Guidelines for over two years and they are attempting to help us identify in a more objective and specific terms what constitutes compatibility and incompatibility and give us a tool to do that. A partial demolition is before us right now and the real issue is that the mass and scale of the addition should be considered. Then the use :f~?~ of the Neighborhood Character Guidelines. It really has nothing 1 to do with ordinance #35. We would have adopted the Neighborhood Character Guidelines regardless of what council did. Timing is an issue with this applicant and we need to be fair just because of that aspect. Joe: I am applying the standards for review of partial demolition, 1 2 (a) 2 (b). It is my understanding that the Neighborhood Character Guidelines are voluntary and are just guidelines anyway and that everyone is encouraged to follow them. The guidelines give architects ideas of where our thoughts were. Jake: This parcel is 13,500 sq. ft. and even if you were going through a full review it would only be advisory. Roger: As a condition would you agree to mass and scale review. Mac Cunningham: That is a pandora's box and you guys have not had projects go through to determine when you deal with mass and scale and what it looks like when you are done at the end. I agree with your intents entirely but I do not want to be sitting here six months from now debating on the angle of the shingles. When I read the guidelines I sited A.B.C.D.E. that I thought we complied with but your reaction is that we did not comply with anyone. That is what I am afraid of. Joe: We need to know what the committees concerns are and address 14
Z them in the context of the standards that we have. Jake: I think a restudy of the massing, the box effect so that it is broken down into discrete volumes or apparent discrete volumes. Jake: We could table and give direction. Mac Cunningham: We were told that they are not going to extend the contract. Roger: It is so close that I do not want to see Mac loose it. And all the things that we have been working on for so long need to be addressed so they are not just thrown out the window. Jake: My concern was massing, verticality on the west and south elevations. The cemetery of the south elevation and the tall simple dormer are larger than the pedestrian scale that we are taking about. Make it read as two forms and not just one large one. MOTION: Joe made the motion that HPC table 930 King Street partial demolition to a date certain and ask that the applicant study the following elements: The central dormer on the south elevation to try and get more of a pedestrian feel. The north side of the west elevation to try and get more horizontality and also the north ) elevation. Restudy the driveway in front of the historic house; ~ second by Les. Mac Cunningham: I understand where you are coming from but as the Attorney said our obligation was to address the historic structure and some relation as to how it relates to the property and that was what our presentation was. We were not to address the other structure. Roger: I would prefer to make a motion to where we approve the partial demolition and relocation with conditions and that the applicant accept those conditions and can proceed with the project. Personally I would rather deal with this applicant as I feel he can do a terrific job and I have confidence in him. If we had a model - we would understand completely. This is so close to working that it is not a big deal. I had to make it a big deal when I spoke before to get the point across that these things and falling through the cracks and Council has to do something and at the same time we cannot penalize the applicant because he has played by the rules. We are the ones that are putting all the time in it and are not winning. We need to take a forceful stand and try to make something work for Mac. Dave Gibson, architect: If you could set itiup so that the monitor could review subsequent refinements. Joe: Usually this is a one step application and if you have a 15
~ condition who determines whether the condition has been fulfilled. Roger: Conditions are usually determined in cases like this by monitor and Staff. Joe withdrew his motion. MOTION: Joe made the motion, the same motion to include the approval of the partial demolition and relocation with the conditions that the same elements be restudied and approved by Staff and monitor. Martha: How can this be approved by just the Staff and monitor and so many other projects come in for more review. Jake: I am for having them come back to the committee. Amy: It depends on what the approval means. Joe: Usually a significant development requires a conceptual and a final hearing before the HPC. This project because it is a partial demolition and relocation is just a one step process so technically there is only one hearing before the HPC. Jake: We actually have the ability. to require anything we feel *ma that is necessary. Joe: This is a one step process. Amy: I think it is extremely important on the historic house that the applicant work with Staff and monitor about the preservation of the existing materials and existing boards. Joe withdrew his motion. MOTION: Roger made the motion that the HPC grant partial demolition and relocation to 930 King Street as proposed by the applicant with the following conditions: a) That the applicant provide a detailed plan of renovation of the historic structure to include preservation of boards and reuse of materials on site taken from the other buildings and types of finish. b) That the driveway be taken from in front of the historic structure and moved within reasonable boundaries so to not implicate in front of the building. c) That the linkage from the historic structure to the main house be restudied and softened. d) That the applicant provide a model showing the new house 16
) in conjunction with the historic and I think that will really show that the mass and scale will really work. e) That the applicant deal with the verticality of the new structure that it is shown either through a breakup of large walls and positioning of siding and so on, that it is taken away and it becomes more of a residential type of home. f) That a restudy of the dormers be done and the massing to be looked at but left at the discretion of the applicant as to how to deal with it. The restudy of the massing and dormers should be more consistent with what is in the neighborhood guidelines for residential areas. g) The project will be reviewed with monitor and Staff and brought back to the committee for final approval. Motion was second by Les. All in favor, motion carries. Jake: The dormer on the south elevation, the north side of the west elevation and the north elevation are my concerns. Tom: The model does not need to be detailed just showing the mass. Les: The Board should work with the applicant and if they need a · '1':~~ special meeting we can do one. Mac: Everyone has a different interpretation of the guidelines and I am very concerned that we are the guinea pig to this. I know what you want and I agree 100% and I do not like some of the structures that were done either. We all appreciate your time. I appreciate Rogers comments that we are close and will work together and give you the visual representation that will make you feel good about. MOTION: Joe made the motion to adjourn; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk j 17
( Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of September 13, 1994 out of the temporary overlay will be held Oct 6th and 7th. 930 KING STREET - PARTIAL DEMOLITION David Gibson, architect: We would like to address some of the concerns and conditions that were raised at the last meeting for the 930 King Street application. I would like to present revised materials in the context of the six conditions that you gave us to go home and work on. The first condition was the driveway. We had a driveway that circulated in front of the historic structure and you can see it on the site plan. The historic structure could move back to the existing setback which would be 15 feet. Rather than driving in front of it we zoned the private auto circulation to the east and we have a drop off off the street directly to the south. The historic structure is unimpacted from auto parking and auto circulation. That was the first condition. The second condition was to develop some treatment for the historic building and we have that in the notes. We basically set up six categories. As far as siding what we can rehabilitate we will and what we can't we will match with the same size profile and type of siding so that it all fits together when finished. For doors and windows we are ,. committing to the type, size and details of existing doors and windows for our new doors and windows. For the trim we are agreeing to do the same size type and profile or to reuse the existing where feasible. The fourth category of materials on the historic building is the fascia and corner boards and again we will match existing as far as size, type and detail or we Will rehabilitate the old. And finally on the roof the plastic and metal has been removed and to be re-shingled with wood shingles probably six or seven inches to where it was before. Finally we are restoring the chimney and re-pointing it and getting stone to match it. Those are the steps that we will use to restore it. David Gibson: I will go to the elevations: One of the discussions was the linkage between the existing building and the historic building and what we have done was add a porch. So now it is a negative space instead of a positive form so it is more of a recessive element. It is about 25 ft. behind the house. It is recessive both in plan dimension and a physical character. Another condition that was brought up was to restudy some of the dormers on the front of the house. We have changed the proportion of the central dormer that was very vertical and now it is more square in proportion. We lowered it and fattened it up. Although it was not one of the conditions as far as the height of the house we took that too effect a 104 02 the underlying concerns that we heard so we reduced the house by two feet and this was accomplished by putting a ten and twelve pitch on the main roof so that brought all the roofs down by two feet. It also brought this dormer down by 3
Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of September 13, 1994 two feet and the chimney as well. The whole house settled by a two foot dimension. Another condition was the verticality of the west side. We had some trim boards that went the entire two story and we have restudied that to where we just trimmed around the windows and did the corner boards. There is a lot more balance between horizontal and vertical now where before the vertical was predominant. You now have nice horizontal lines and vertical lines. We opened up the porch as a gesture to the street so that it opens to the lawn. You can see that also on the site plan. We added a buffer along the street which is lower than. three feet. It is a dense hedge below three feet interspersed with aspen and spruce trees. So that again tends to soften the elevation of the house. We didn't draw any trees. In the final condition it was recommended to study the building and do a massing model. Mac Cunningham: We also put porches on the north elevation. David Gibson: The north porches show up here and on the roof plane there are lots of sheds. We were pleased as to how the planes were broken up by the roof architecture. This is eighth scale and the approximate location of King Street is on the plan and Neal Street. You see the historic structure, the new structure, the connecting , link, the garage and the smoke house and outhouse. That summarizes the revisions that we made. Jake: What is going on here. David Gibson: It is not glass and will be a different texture. Mac Cunningham: It will be a wood material. Roger: In an effort to separate the historic cottage from the new addition how do you intend to do that? Do you think the addition of the porch, the link makes the historic cottage appear to be part of what was added on or if you took the porch off it would make the historic cottage stand out more as to what it is. Mac Cunningham: It is best shown on the model. David Gibson: They overlap about six feet. We wanted to minimumize the actual physical- connection but then we felt it was a negative recessive form, this deep porch and the historic house is a salt box form which speaks its own language. Roger: How would you show it when the two buildings are finished either by materials, color or whatever. David Gibson: We were thinking of using similar materials on both and we are not at this point trying to make them starkly different. 4
Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of September 13, 1994 Mac Cunningham: The miners cottage speaks its own language when you look at it in terms of sitting on the site and the fact that it doesn't have other porches associated with it. Because it sits out in front of the rest on the property unlike other houses that have the mass of the larger structure enveloping the little house, this is really distinct except for the one little linkage. The porch issue was raised at the last go around and that is why we went back to that look to try and emphasize the difference between the two. David Gibson: I can give you one specific answer to that and the old roof is made out of 2 x 4's and so the eave is going to be four inches thick where all new construction will be ten or twelve inches thick. Any historian will be able to see the difference. Roger: Does the historic building have a foundation. Mac Cunningham: The plan is not to expose it, to give it the basic look that it has today and historically it sat on rubble. David Gibson: We will have the mandatory six inches of concrete : below. Roger: The windows of the historic building are they double hung? David Gibson: They are double hung and the ropes are all broken etc. They are in sad shape. We can have them fabricated in the exact size and profile except that they will have double glazing and will not have the ropes in the wall. One of the windows has the heads falling off of it. I just think it is not a good investment of our efforts to do that. The proportions are wonderful and we would definitely replicate the proportions and detail of the window and keep the cornice trim. I would really make a case for building new windows. Donnelley: I wasn't here ten days ago when-you first reviewed this so I will give my opinion even though this is basically advisory. Dave, you say that the detailing of the gable ends and the eaves etc. is going to be different in the new construction. I hope it is significantly different as in the drawings we have reduced scale and it doesn't indicate that much of a difference. I was curious about that. Also my first reaction is that you have taken the easy path because the new structure really does overwhelm the historic resource and we know it is going to be larger but when it has a lot of the same characteristics it becomes very hard to differentiate as you drive by. As drawn we see porch railings that look similar and we see windows that could be very similar and we see lap ' siding. I just think it is sad that here is a great opportunity 5
Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of September 13, 1994 and you have a small historic resource which could be quite different and taken a totally different roll in terms of all the building fabric had all the rest of the building been a different nature. I just don't think the nature is different enough and the link is a very active one with petite dormers and it is really a single story space with the dormers lighting up a portion of the ceiling area. It becomes a very active and aggressive attention grabbing element in which we, the board tries to make the link quieter. David Gibson: We did conceive this link as transparent with windows and the french doors opened up the back. It is 50% transparent or more. Mac Cunningham: The purpose was to create a transparency through to separate the structures. The issues that HPC brought up the last time lead us to put the porch on because everyone said the difference between the two structures was too severe and we only responded to what we were told to do the last time. Roger: I asked that the link be softened and more or less made to go away. Really the only thing we can talk about is the link because that directly effects the historic house. I would prefer to see the link almost a greenhouse design so that it were in fact nearly transparent. Whatevet happens to the garage or house happens. Mac Cunningham: The prior drawing had a transparent front. Donnelley: We are also talking stylistically. Roger: I feel you were very close in your original drawing. Possibly bring the glass all the way down to truly differentiate the two. Joe: Any other comments. Jake: I would like to echo Donnelley's comments. One of the things that bothers me is that this connection at the corner disturbs me a lot. I also want to echo Rogers concerns about the transparency. The problem with the porch being put on it moves the front plane of this addition forward four or five feet. I would rather see the historical structure totally detached. When you link everything together the historic structure is washed out here and there is no honoring it. You have done some positive things from last time. I am only looking at this little piece. The ridge is higher than the historical resource and diminishes the value of the historical cottage. Maybe elevate the cottage a couple of feet : to give it some prominence or statement. 6
f Historic Preservation Committee C Minutes of September 13, 1994 David Gibson: Would you prefer the porch to go away. Roger: I think so. Mac Cunningham: The purpose of the upper windows is to get light into it. That was a big portion of the thinking in that area. The other issue following mass and scale design guidelines quoting "buildings down in scale as they approach adj acent smaller structures", and that is exactly what we did. We followed the guidelines to the word. If you remember we had that lower and there were comments about it. Jim Perry, architect: We can bring it down. Mac Cunningham: By taking the porch out which was our original intent we can bring it down again. We can lower the level of the roof to put the scale in. The concern we had was over the issue of creating an element.that wasn't historical to it and we could do some kind of stone veneer approach which was traditional in a lot of victorian houses unless you have another suggestion to that. Roger: Will the roof material on the link be the same as the historic structure or different. David Gibson: We were thinking wood shingles for the whole complex. Mac Cunningham: We cannot do a greenhouse roof as it is totally impractical. I do not want to take the glass over the top. People would be saying that it looked awful. It is also energy inefficient and we couldn't get it through the building department. Jake: How wide is it? David Gibson: Nine feet. Jake: With all the windows on both sides there is no reason to have dormers. Mac Cunningham: We were trying to get the plate down into it so that visually you had the light coming from the inside as well as looking through it. My experience is that it takes the box out of the box and you get light from the top of it. Roger: Suppose you remove the dormers on the south side and put j a dormer on the north side. r Mac Cunningham: We discussed that. 7
Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of September 13, 1994 Donnelley: There is a total misunderstanding here and all this dialogue means nothing. The idea is the link is not supposed to attract attention more than the historic resource and right now it attracts everybody's attention. It should be a quiet transparent element. Having dormers makes it much busier. We are also having a problem with the definition of changes of scale. The link and the new structure are of a new scale and a larger scale than the historic resource. The scale of the elements of the link and the finer scale elements of the historic resource. Dave would agree that the new house has a different scale. The elements are heavier and of a different bigger scale. To make the excuse of the stepping down in scale is incorrect. David Gibson: It sounds like a flat roof would be more amenable. Mac Cunningham: We aren't prepared to do a flat roof. There are too many fundamental problems with doing a flat roof in this environment. constant leak problems and will look awful architecturally. Roger: Would it be possible to lower the height of the roof on the link 1/2 foot? David Gibson: Actually they line up. We could change the pitch. Mac Cunningham: The original was three feet lower and we were just responding to what the committee said the last time. We would be happy to go back to the other way as that was our original intent. Make it more transparent, take the porch out and lower the pitching and lower the roof. Allow the historic structure to stand out. It is preferable to raise the historic structure one foot or more. Jake: The major entry is into that link. Joe: I like the changes that the applicant has made and it has addressed our concerns. I would like to see the porch eliminated and bring down the breezeway and taking the historic house up. Make the connect simple and quiet. Mac Cunningham: I think the dormers on the north side are appropriate. Joe: My comment was directed to the south side dormers. Jake: Let me make one more comment on the dormers.· On the one hand they add complexity to the link and on the other hcind if you take the dormers off you have this long horizontal roof surface. , Which is worse! 8 r-\
Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of September 13, 1994 Martha: How long is the link? Jim Perry, architect: 29 feet all the way to where it attaches to the historic house. Mac Cunningham: One of the things we were trying to do which is in the neighborhood character guidelines is to create linkage between the two structures. We cannot legally separate the structures per code. The issue going on is trying to create the transparency. I would like to see the statement of entry here because it is appropriate, it separates the two structures and creates a common linkage between the two. The entry to the house is appropriate. If the concern is over the dormers, the little window dormers we can certainly eliminate them. I would like to maintain the entry element especially with the living space function of the units. With elevations they don't show the amount of transparency that was evident to us when we first started working on this. It doesn't show the garden area in the back. David Gibson: The two ideas of taking off the porch and dropping the roof will work. Roger: By removing the dormer over the entry link it would soften the link. David Gibson: If we did that it would be way too horizontal especially without the porch. There is a question of internal function. Donnelley: I would like to make a motion. Jake: I am going to make a suggestion. The drawings are more accurate than the.model. I think what might be helpful here if you terminate the porch here and at that point drop the whole line to a lower roof and with new technology you can do a flat roof. The point that I am trying to make is when you have a big form then drop down. Mac Cunningham: That is what we originally proposed, three feet lower the whole way across. Joe: Why not do that? Jake: I am only talking about the, linkage to the historical cottage. What I am getting at is taking ttle lower roof and maybe the top of it has to be flat in ordAr to make the whole thing work. , David Gibson: Cut off the end of it. 9
Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of September 13, 1994 Jim Perry, architect: That one roof Jake is pointing at is not on any pitch. It is irrelevant because we actually dropped the pitch in order to make it work. Mac Cunningham: Before we were three feet lower and everything worked in plane which is what is articulated here. Jake: That is not what I want. Mac Cunningham: I understand what you are saying but it is an awkward detail to try and drop a roof three feet across it span. Jake: I am trying to break down the lines. MOTION: Donnelley made the motion that the approval for partial demolition of 930 King Street be revised to reflect the following conditions: 1. The ridge line of the roof of the link be lowered and if possible be changed as it approaches the historic element SO as to further emphasize the break between new construction and old. 2. The porch or the majority of the porch attach to the link be eliminated. 3. The dormers be eliminated on the link. 4. The cottage be raised if possible to further increase its importance and to further increase the vertical distance between the roof of the link and the roof of the cottage. 5. The roof color of the shingles of the link and the new construction if possible be differentiated from that of the wood shingles of the historic resource and .the same goes for the color of the siding i.e. if a semi- transparent stain is used on the siding throughout that perhaps a different color of semi-transparent stain be used for the historic resource. Second by Jake. - Questions: Joe: Do you want them to eliminate the dormer over the french door entry. Donnelley: I will clarify that, remove the upper dormers on the south elevation only. j AMENDED MOTION: Donnelley amended his motion to state What the dormers to be removed are on the south elevation. Jake amended his second. 10
/ Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of September 13, 1994 Amy: We need discussion on materials, what distinguished the old from the new. If the windows that exist have the original glass I feel they should.be preserved. If they are thick enough to rout out and put a double pane in and keep the original sash they should be kept. It is very important that you save the original materials that you can and just not replace. AMENDED MOTION: Donnelley amended the motion that the applicant has already stated that all siding that can be saved and reused will be done so and if the glazing for the double hung windows in the historic resource can be saved and added to to produce an insulated window that should be done. Jake amended his second. DISCUSSION: Jake: What is the interior height right here. Jim Perry: Nine foot plate with a 12 12 pitch on a 9 foot breezeway. It is 12 1/2 feet to the peak. Jake: I think a roof at this level is good and I would like to quantify it not to exceed 12 or 12 1/2 feet. Donnelley: Why don't we give a quantitive figure between the ridge heights. David Gibson: The historic house is six feet above grade. It is a three foot differential. Mac Cunningham: We can live with a three foot differential. AMENDED MOTION: Donnelley amended his motion that the difference in height between the ridges of the link and the cottage be at least 36 inches and also that the south elevation of the link in as much is possible not contain any horizontal siding i.e. glazing. Jake amended his second. Tom: I am disturbed about this very complicated design and we are complicating it further by changing materials of the roof on the historical cottage. I cannot support the motion, not even the color. I would prefer they be the same. Anything to simplify this building would be a plus in my opinion. Martha: I have to reaffirm that I would prefer the historic building stand alone ari,d not have the connect jeven though it is not possible to do. Chairman Joe Krabacher called the question, carried 4 to 2. 11
( Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of September 13, 1994 Opposed - Martha and Tom In favor - Joe, Jake, Don, Roger Les and Donnelley offered to be the monitors. 323 W. MAIN STREET - ASPEN MEDICAL CENTER - MINOR DEVELOPMENT Amy: This is an existing non-historic building in the Main Street Historic District. They are proposing a new window on the west side and build an exterior staircase on the east side of the building. We did have some discussions a few months ago about requiring that new construction always incorporate fire exits and things like that into their original design but this is an existing building and I am recommending approval as submitted. MOTION: Roger made the motion that HPC approve the application submitted for 323 W. Main Street, Aspen Medical Center; second by Tom. All in favor, motion carries. Tom will be monitor. 610 W. HALLAM STREET - IGLEHART - LANDMARK DESIGNATION Chairman Joe Krabacher opened the public hearing. Public hearing closed. MOTION: Roger made the motion that HPC recommend landmark designation of lots P and Q less 7.5' of Lot P, Block 22, City and Townsite of Aspen finding that standards B (architectural importance) , E (neighborhood character) and F (community character) are met; second by Tom. All in favor, motion carries. ROUND II - INVENTORY OF HISTORIC SITE & STRUCTURES Amy: Every five years the HPC is required to re-evaluate our inventory of historic sites and structures. The process was done in 1991 and consultants were hired and they did a survey of the entire town, photographed ad documented and made recommendations to either add additional resources or delete ones that are on the list now. The inventory has been in place since 1980 and reviewed in 1986 and 1991. At the last hearing their were errors in the public notichs and the,entire project could not be finished before Roxanne Eflin left.i I am ready to finish it. Before us tonight we have approximately 30 resources. I am recommending approval except for those under evaluation that need to be discussed. 12
gic- a MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 409 E. Hopkins Ave.- amendment to Final approval DATE: November 9, 1994 APPLICANT: Kandycom, Inc., represented by Tom Smith, esq. and Bill Poss and Associates. LOCATION: 409 E. Hopkins Ave., the north 80 feet of lots D and E and all of Lot F, Block 88, City and Townsite of Aspen. STAFF EVALUATION: This project received Conceptual approval in 1990, an amendment to Conceptual approval on December 8, 1993, and final approval on May 18, 1994. It is currently under construction. After a good deal of discussion, HPC approved a metal trellis structure in the central bay at the second level courtyard in May. The applicant has since discovered that the original location for the elevator, off of the alley, will not meet ADA requirements and finds that the only option is to set the shaft partly in the central bay opening, filling in that area. For visual balance, a second wall has been added. The metal trellis does not parallel the street in the new design, but runs perpendicular to it, leading into the open space. This is an unfortunate change and will block most of the view from the street into the courtyard. There does not seem to be any other possible location which doesn't require a major reconfiguration of the design. Staff's biggest concern with the revision is the stone facing on the elevator shaft walls. This stone is a much bigger dimension than the bricks or the other stone coursing used on the building and seems to make the second story area look much less inviting. j ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: 1) Approve the amendment as proposed.
2) Approve the amendment with conditions. 3) Table action, allowing the applicant to revise the proposal to meet the Development Review Standards. 4) Deny the amendment finding that the Development Review Standards have not been met. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC approve the amendment with the condition that the applicant select different materials for the new walls which will be more in scale with the rest of the facade. Additional Comments: j
= ~03 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE 303/925-4755 FACSIMILE 303/920-2950 November 2, 1994 Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer City of Aspen Planning Department 130 S. Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: 409 E. HOPKINS, DESIGN REVISIONS FOR HPC REVIEW Dear Amy: These proposed revisions to the Kandycom, Inc. project, located at 441-465 E. Hopkins, are to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. An elevator is required to be installed at the street front to allow access to the upper floor for handicapped citizens from an equally convenient location of the building as the general public. In the approved design handicap access was provided through the service entry off the alley, but with further analysis of the A.D.A. this access does not meet location requirements. To meet the A.D.A. requirements and minimize the visual impact to the approved design we have located the new elevator within the central stair area of the street facade. The new elevator shaft and a complimentary shaft element flank the stair, and are set back from the street facade 8 feet. As the shaft rise to the second floor they close down the open space to the upper floor court. To differentiate the shafts from the building facade we propose to clad them with stone, as opposed to brick. The trellis which covers the central stairway has been modified do to the reduced open space. Constructed of a steel latticework, the trellis now arcs over the depth of the stair drawing the eye into the courtyard, where previously the design arched across the width of the stair. We wish to meet with the H.P.C. to introduce these required changes and gain their approval for the modified designs. Accompanying this letter please find the new plans and elevations which describe the modifications. Please contact me if you have any questions, or require further clarifications. Sincerely, 1 Ok=) Dave Rybak Project Manager
------------ -1 _ J - EABT ELEVATION -*f LE,~~- )0 0.0 0 0 ¢ 1 l- CA4-21 /2 1 'A~ 2-Lb A51 7<A42/ .xST'L. TRELLIS 1 / 12 1 to i 1 q 31 1 6.1 1 E-H E E E E 0 14 OF'P. -- 5111 -.- 3 -1 E 93 - 66.1 000 000 000 O 0 0 € 1 000 000 00 000 - . - -1- - 1-r I ' 0 1 O --- g C C 0 0 _<D_ 0 0 . 0 - - -1 1- - - 1 - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 1.1 -- rn ' 1 . Ab.11 0 4-F 0 - 0 0 0 .1 . -1 el - 1 1 1 - 01. .1 .13 | Ab.11 /1 . 1 6 1 1 1 - 1 /1 1- Iff[I[Iitill! 1.lili [[Ii[H]] DI®t[-01]I[[0 -_ [I[mIE[[m [®I[i] DIOIDI1TIO EGE] 1 1 ton W{[% - 1 . -- lill - -.I-* I.--- -- Il-- 1 FIN. eRADE -- -la STL. LiaiT TOP•eR ELEV. cle'-to 1/2' • TMellie j g i 4 _ ~<Eli/ *12><*pp~aae.1 9> ~ 6 Of U
MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer Re: 520 E. Durant Avenue, Chanel-Minor Date: November 9, 1994 SUMMARY: Chanel will be opening a jewelry store, in the shop next to their new boutique. There will not be any physical connection between the two stores. They request HPC approval for a storefront remodel similar to that approved for the boutique, including replacing the existing window frames, constructing vitrines inset in the windows, and a new door. An awning has already been approved by HPC for this shop. This building is not historic, but it lies within the Commercial Core Historic District. APPLICANT: Chanel, Inc., represented by Brand Allen Architects, San Francisco. LOCATION: 520 E. Durant Avenue, Lots L-S, Block 96, 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 new windows will have the same frame, mullion details and finish as those on the rest of the building. A portion of the glass will be opaque, with vitrines (like a small cabinet) inset in them to display jewelry. The new door will be all glass with a "crystal" door pull, as has been approved on the Chanel boutique. The other doors in the building are wood with a glass panel. Staff finds that these changes will not have any negative impact on the rest of the Ajax Mountain building or any neighboring historic resources. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is
consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The proposal has no negative affect on the character of the Commercial Core Historic district. 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 resource. 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:
1 CHANEL ASPEN, COLORADO , 10.27.94
I J-- . I - - - -..b b. 1 4, - -- .L 1.2 .-/.... . 1 .9• lam ... 2 e.4, i> 3 *4*92* - . r 1 1==E.=2=1&11 7 -PL_; 1 -'tbra• 0 12*~ 91 .. Tikan ---- - r r Ah ~CLE 5.4,;,".,4 „/ 213.08 / - -- rp:,--:5=Z=-IL~ /1-:, 45,01 yojgns~. 42 1,. 3 1 1 04.4 - 1 / - Cl-NT All £ C...... 1 >**¥J_*.9- A . > -- ~ L_<f - 1. IEI) H 4 2-34-¥.Ia' ' 4: r.- -,¢~*A~ ipl \ ~~ :+* I i g z#i LIJWR 1-fal-ixlE-~4 ~~~~1 124'i'*Ii 12"en -9,1 f#= -- 11.l-- 2 1 2 -=-m 1. 4 4.. 1-44= Lia 0- a.*£ i %41 1 - .: 2 /2 - t 1 fildill## ill --- , Te-ft--kpir~214 I.-I =l~ 11 ~ * r T 1 - £ COC-60 •IL ==- -~13aM,2,-~~Ef~ e 11 ///1 1241 1€33fb' 1134 al' 92.!R JS *2 2 PROPOSED JE\NLERY ~~0,4 CHANEL 9 1 i; 95 = //T LEASE SPACE ..ir/2 11.1425,4 .- i>105'11 204 ~ ~ G STORE -m 1 9/1,4,1/ A - ./.7; .• i.* ,-'... AVE 1~ 43- --T Fo~-~-' ~ . O //dra,~A'# 4 49>Te . %1 mol anao· 137 9 ~ 0 7.c.0 - . I- -. -- - Il. ...0.'~. A. ; £ A«...... - ~9~~~HE/-~~"~~~~*J 1 Igk511~1~~**R--* a~i-1-~ff &~A~ G~:al™ ~ U ., ..2Z~@23/4.~ 1....11 E ail·t--1-z- 1~90 DIRANT AVBLE .....0,£. 1 1 ---*Ill - -. -O mi I. -- -Il.- --- Et~'r:BC*~~ *o~e~gjj~ m==~-~~eFE~mea~ m~91 -= -) SITE LOCATION =r fl) ElinE'Ed:itil.rimz'*flimicifial#Er/21#.izfil/'.'11,2,9:3.'fil* 12 520 EAST DURANT , @ r---~-~~.~.--P~~db£5542'. 4- 20:.2;22-3 ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~51~~~CEA~&2I 45*L :-· -- -higul. -Zekirril/Q';Uu' ... ... 1. 4,1 T PROJECT ADDRESS OWNER ARCIUTECT CHANEL BOUTIQUE 520 EAST DURANT CHANEL. INC ARCHnECIURE Er DECORATION ASPEN. CO 81611 5 EAST 57rH STREET CHRISI'IAN GALLION NEW YORK. NY 10022 71 AVENUE MARCEAU OCCUPANCY USE 75116 PARIS. FRANCE GENERAL CONTRACTOR B-2 BRAND+ALLEN ARCHITECTS. INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN CON5IRUCHON CHRIS HARRELSON. ERIC BRAND BUILDING CODE 418 EAST COOPER STREET 900 NORTH POINT STREET. SUrrE 400 ASPEN. CO 81611 SAN FRANCISCO. CA 94109 1988 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE CrrY OF ASPEN AMENDMENTS .
ROOF /6 130'-¢ 97 2- HEAD 126'-1 f 65 r- . 15 1 SIU. -1. I 122, f ~ --13 - 9 E 1 ./ MEZZANINE i ' ' 120'-f 1 1,1 - 0 1 1 - 11 1 - 1 .................. , iii: .... / PROPSED JEWLERY - 79-3 ::: STORE 1494 :H.... 1* 1 SS ~ SEE ::: iii ~ : I OPO 1 -V 1 110'-0' ~CZ~ 1 - = 1 .................. ............................ .... .......... ............ .... SOUTH ELEVATION COURANT AVENUE) /-1 0 - W • 1'-0' 2
ROOF . * 130'-0' / • T17. L .' fkl, b , A / I * HEAD ~ ' 126'-1 f r SIU Eff 122'-4; T MEZZANINE 0 0 0 I 120'-0' 6 £ #i 18*? LINE OF EXISTING HEAD HEIGHT---------- - -- - ----------- ------- j I TO REMAIN C==1 LINE OF EXISTING SILL - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------- - -- ----- - -- - - - - - li~3 TO REMAIN -1 F -Ill f * UPPER LEVEL . - 110'-0" 31" SECTION 3/81' =11 -0"
7 CLA« 11 Ce ) 21,_j 1- Al.62#0 0000 WITH 7- -r ZiTAIN 1-ees ~-Bel- t pi ~. 96TAL -- ~ -t---liti W %3*Kegem 7- T-fri CAU v ITAN@k~F lk' ~/ NEW *LAZINGr ME= F N. / Al / . I .i / 4-7//- 1 . 1 1 1 .:14 ,>Ii 4 1 .l l/' l \ I.\9 / ; 6(, e,laTING, ¢BILL MT· -04 -f p 14*WN It . + 11/21 // € 1/1 e A " 1~ 2:gleTike W»*Whf 3 4~ FLOOR PLAN AT STORE FRONT (11
4 2 TeMPBRO _ - 6•Le*0- 96•45 2?16+ PAINT£P - - WHITE po G 12 1 /i WITH V1 TIA'2ENLI@ma; 1 ...49 Ser 161 ZING' 1 1 //411 ~ 1 1 61,64 To tAVe &:4:Vel-,EP JOIWT' 1 I ! I ' I _1.,50 coP+le,) -/4 TTPIC, WITH JoINT ~T l' A- 1 /! , 1 1 ' Ce) 2:~;44•• -CS#KE %Ngf*Z~ 1-__ 42 1,4•OVE 29• UNY / =11 21 ~ C**THBF·jUIRMIUM_¥rf,ING#_ . 11 .1 11 2- 43 , /0 1 J J in ,/ '1i 2 z ~ / '' CAL) GLARO DOOF. v./ i leD 7/M P+11.6 0 R i --1 U - A.461.1,9 41WG To r ~ tl 01 - - 1//7 // 11 . 01454,1, POofw H'Note 111 0.6.0 1 goop- TO MATCH P--. #%141-1.GLIH_ CHAWel- .ill u o PmuTioue- 14*T PLIS / Il l 91-\4,4 / / 4 til\.\Ago,4 01• ACNVAAK .Un QUE 0, 0 5. lili!1 '11! / L .1 (d) A.*OVe T 11'1,11;ii '.'' ':I'll i, 161/. ' I I.4 ON-6·ON Y '' ' -1¥ ! 1 6 : - /2 ) 911.6 »IC, MWY' HT OP i WiNCOW Th *®M+IN 1 1/ 2 1 . , 0 . i -1 1 5%[ST'kki OrN'G ~ 4 e:A€Dhle 67+4*9 ; EXTERIOR ELEVATION 1/7=1'-0' - 1»31
- E (oper"AdING,) *. 2 i ... f 1 1 -1 1 1.11 11 1,11 1-_4 1 11 1 1 1 -11 1, 1 610 HEAD ~~fa~' P.e:MAI 1•1 FOUIGH®= 160.AGG , i. b W' IN64 - 1 ,/3/ 228:,F0%~•10 1- -- -tk:Mul•tte) le,Al-UNY iii. :i' :t '1 / 4. lilli 9 , . , , 1. , 3 A . *5$/ - 1, 1 / . 1 :111 $ 1 , 2Z 1 3 1,66 1-:AT JDINTS ./ ail | ~ 81 FJODW MULLON . 01 rALe ONLY 22 2 FUN AT ~b /. i il la TU!41 COFNERS 3 2 1 ( Fla.He 12 HATU+ 21 7 1 11 Pl N M H /UL,of) . 1 1/ 6 efl€TING, 4161- Cd)**OVer T HT. fo peHAIN AAUC.ON Y I '1 .'' I ' TEL i''I 1 r _' i '' -7 . 1- 1 1 1 1. 1 ; ' lt, 11 1 1 1 1 -1 1 LI 5%14TING op,46 TO PeFI*IU 1 -- EXTERIOR ELEVATION C-) EXTERIOR El-EV, 1/2-=1'-00 1/2-=1'-0~
4 A --- -1_L 's J MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer Re: 210 S. Mill, Minor Date: November 9, 1994 SUMMARY: The applicant requests HPC approval for the installation of awnings over the shop windows at "Footloose and Fancy Things." The awnings are to match the ones that already exist on the building, except that they will be collapsible, which is currently required in the Code. This building is not historic, but it lies within the Commercial ---- Core Historic District. APPLICANT: "Footloose and Fancy Things, " represented by Steve DeGouveia. LOCATION: 210 S. Mill Street, Unit A-201. 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 proposed awnings are located in a courtyard and will match awnings which already exist on the building. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: Awnings are common along the Hyman Avenue mall. 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. 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: j
1 C (1 (9 4- To whom it may concern, I would like to place an awning above the windows ofmy store that are south facing, and above the common patio ofthe Tom Thumb building, which is located on the corner ofHyman and Mill Street's. I propose to use the exact same style, shape, color, and material as already exists on awnings on many of the other shops in this same building, thus giving a more finished look to the whole structure. TIle only difference in the awnings that I am proposing is that they will constructed in such a way, that they will be easy to collapse against the building in case of a fire. The addition ofthis awning will, I feel, greatly enhance the visual appearance ofthe building when viewed, both from Mill St. and from Hyman Ave. I already have a bid from a company who can complete the project before the ski season, providing I am able to get approval from the city in time. I would greatly appreciate a speedy review and approval. Sincerely, Steve DeGouveia 14«L/»-
- *174*9 Steve DeCouveia FAYEP 1»if / ...1_17*n-r-- _~%--.1-_- _.-~__-LII Ul- k -----r*</71·-r-l£T1----/-1 -11 . ~948%,ew.A17(Ig·Jih~, 4fAW;CIY;,09*2 ~ i k./298'(14413/ -f·*S':;*2.4 439X . I =/*bati/.hT,/1 ~. - ---*..=.Id I. 4- 9.-:Il=./fl'£- /1, ---j inizzil-- t - 11./.1/ -1 r.mir -, ¥ P 4 3 . 1,~3... '....0-/ - 1 .,1,1# . il *....4>\- 9 1 P- u.* - »- ,(- u-r s ,-r> 2- A)275-rFU V c 4.*L- VL- c 7 6+ /¢ 7-Z- 4,4- 0 2- 45 u f c Z= . C..r >-66 761 4.9 b e Ke<i- t,4.46 A- f f-'- rkS . TAM (57 f L-G- 04 (*f 4 f A-€r : C. 1-tl /1/1 f C <- 12 . 9- t¥ Y#,4 6 6- /VE, C G. c+Abc,71-t *-6- 47-7- - er LE- 1 104, Tr:RN: T.v -w / 14\4 ov«f ·-~:229,~ - , 44 3#Trlg:50*Vf#2< F - - - = 1 V 23«f . 42242 , »\ - r.. D. ,1 4 0 -1-4 1, I . . ..~-I ' h.lcy K719 V lo- atz f aA »11 ( 6 77.- 1 VE<r'-02 /4 174fte)- Aa=Sm@*81 Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-9155 1 2/ 0 9. *-14 / c 2
2 --4 441,; ..32+21 i ,- 1149 , 4 , 6 . .- - -: 4-- €,9 .c*1:,7....1, r.j~; ·*-- ,. *-~ - - I.- - • 4 C .4.2 ¥ .. 9 1 21.2 . 4 ... .... :.7. '..L I. ./ . . h. ' . -- ... ..1.... ... '' .. t I . :, .'... 0 » .E -- *. .- . 4* *14 - . - 4.3 , H * . '- ;.h/.---- ./.I- . .-f -*.I-I -* . -*Il . . ...4 j . I 5*- ' -. . 46 . .... I ..r-% - I t - 1.. 1 . · - 2 -- 4 .-i 4· 3 . ' .-*-- -*.$*..-Il .W-I.~Ip.#* ; ... ) .94< · - - -1 r-- ' I ·-··v. .... 4 --7 - - .1 ./ i. - l; ·i: :1 - - · 1 1, inf-1 -2 ---ar.1 1 ., lin-.31 9 - - 4· r---- 1 1 .. ..4 1. , . f r-- 11 12-35- a b .L , ....1 \ P : !----11, . 1-4 . - -- 1 t I. - - :.- . I - -I ' &.: I | ir -4 .. --1 , 1 - ..Ill 11 4 , -* -I W ,/ r / 4 1, 4 - P I , , Af I Z *-. . 1 1 · 4{ .2 '' i.li- - -1---1.. 'i '9 -- 111'Z-&+AbpID.V. 04 ./ ~-fill/-'' 4 1 7 42J7 3-~, . 1 fi·."· 7 :44 ! 1,04 , € 4 624 - b 11, ,-A . t . --L-J' t k-:- r-14. . i l. :. ' l,3 . ~~i·.. t. t . T.: 01:~-~iuttal· · · r 4 •f- 1 lit - :. . --1 tz==. i , : A . r , .S -Air--·,4 i I ·.91-p* .... ..#. 6--.... ' 14 1' ·i. hi 1 -4 . 4.- ; ~ ---0. . .11. - f. ......1-1 -.. -- K ./ . .... . 4.7'.12.L :7-6:Y~ --/- . ' -1 ·u, 1 7- . · - - - '---4 - *- 2:. .. ; 0... . 46 ./ . . · r T r.· 17 ¥1 2'11 --.- * ,- - . .320Lirr.-*~ L. ig j ;*lf 7 1 -= . 4 : -*4* . 11 -- 1.. I-113,11 4* 3 K L k/4 4<L --I- .--I , . . - 2.. . --- A.AL, /:.5 . 4'.. . 4 . . . - 1.02 1.41~.471==4:,CUL,lt/4 1 ·. - D . - ... 14 -&19 . 7 3.- ft.,-~ .aor 1:-·.~_ :1/2*112t .3 - .- I - -1,*<r' 14 F .. -, . -, - - ..... , : ......, 4, 7:AG?~1 + --- -- --41..'.:C' 7- ¥1 .r -1 r. 21 ./.- --- + I. -:f,--00---. ---- ._ _ .. i. 4,8 J· + . r ..4 ... ----1- -, . -r- I -DP ¥ -1.--4 -32: I. 4.. ./ I. -2... t "- ..2,4 Vir. . 1.:7 4 4 p :11! - *--1 1/6.,· .r.-i·h . .--r- :,- .. Ar r . -, f"i c 7 , .4 4 - I e...:N · 252 4.KHi 'C...4'41 -- - '52, -rt -Z:.. . 1-, . - tv" 43. I .- - ' - /,4 . -r kt /4 $ 1·0 ''.:rES, -; .· 1, -i~ ·. - .. o.~ -. M - ---e 4 . 3 / b + /1- A- 1,.I .41' . 471 , ··· 41- 11.. .- .·903\- I - -4 -3 - · \ED; 6 - - -- '=91= [p » 59. ---- r- 7 ' I * 11"1& . j. 1¥-eti - 4. .1 - r--,1 - -0 i.. 1 . .---1,1 b.42 kk.-Ldl ~Eir~ W It , ; -4 . - 4 !1 ... . .-- I .. a - 2 L r - 1 .... I ·>·TTib.·~b. <1 -- : r -9 i 6 0 0 4 ' _ * //- -Il --~---~ #-I-- ~ -1 - 41Mt=--2 . ~ .' I . .~- .* #It'./4,0. ' 11>tt,;SCL._ - ..- 1-1 .:~~~~~~~'~lkw~ - ~ - . ., AL '11. C. - -7 . -•V tt 4 1 ... - ..., ... .... 7... . ¥2 -- , lk=7-5 -1 I --' 1. _1 -:i-Ent.$- - 2 , : nIZ~. 4- - - -1---* - .-.. 1 ~ ~ ~ ~~"~ 7~1111 1: j ' i t·OU „ · 1. 9-711E i. 5..€' : - ' 91/ . -Vi#f - -fru aL'~ficri Zon =--1-- ' ti' h »U « 71.- 1 1.11?14 -1--_ 4.- 7 -.....7 -:2*'.71=.. -1- L.1 .r - - - --.--- i -* I / -- - .- -4 1-- 1 1. 1:1-- I ..1 ./ 11 1 46 , I. i --„. . ~4 -7. 2-~'2~-ff - 14 .' -" 4 --4 ....i .4 #1#3-Yyr i ---~ ' · -4 -C .i - - 1.22 - et. #, . ' i~ · .A• -' ·+ ~ t,p 7...tri .. P ji/'33-
21 2441 __ ' /~ f~-3 ip" __ _ 71 ' JJ-.1-4- 1-1 4 -BAL In - --I 9 21-7~- -~~ I. r - f 95- ~31-1.-CO d - -4 cp 3 % ~. ~t~~~ EL E V /1, 7- 1 ON corr>«E B
/t4 - \NI Ill 41 1 1 J 111- R 11 9 17 1 1111 11 -F 1 r I~ 11 r.4-4.-11 '' r--31 =- I - '-1 1 1 2 7 4 t' All 1 1 2 1 5 2, i 1 1-1 )-1 j 1 ; 11 // L. 1 1 11 Il -- ' 10 .11 -- - 7 11 9 --EL- -31 1 - 1 ----_31 -*-1. 1 3 1 1 1 0,4 L -- ,«1 -//1.- \N 6.ST- E L- )64 A T 1 0 N 60 TrMr E ~LE:>f 1 1]_I I i I el,Ll.
. /2$*=41 j '93 NE#HA~ 11 C j =1= I.~n~*7 1 1 - 417 Iii 11 R''£l 1 & I n r 11-Ii ' M R t il !11 : 1 J I n 1 1 I k id i i u . u u j 1 , L ~ZI~~_- I,il. 17 4 -224'1=Ed 4- =- tizzfF »7=1 1- t. 4 D -13 lit_., NO R. T H ELF.v /4 - ~ON 6 0 T-1-AGE B
r. - . I. . . :'.'t ... . Ill-Il *il.lil -...I--Il- -*-ill-I - Il-lil-- i---- .--- , - - - - -- -rpi=il- 1 ~ - -Ja~lddaaEEI----2 --- - - f . 5 * 0 88 D 7:47 " L- V<'k_ --' - 1 -1 1-1 L. 2 NO F.T 14 ELEVATION 2 6 ST- E-LE V /VT ION LOT-T-htr E b LOTTAZTE D + . / 1 1 111 1 1 . I - - -1- -1 6 eur ,-i ELEVAT-l oN LOT T A a E P *1 2 5 T E LE V A r ION C.OT T A 6 fi D 1
- r \ 1 r 1 1 ll .i 11 1 0 1 11 ti' 1 1- 1./- I- O · 1 .. ~~~~ ______ i i L - V / 1, -!11 11 1; i NE , 1 1 -1-1-#. t:i 1- --4 4- --':; 1 , - / 11 I I -1 1 1-1 --4 i jUILI LE-,I--~ 4 'itit , '1 ;1 L-~ 1 - i ; . r. - ' -1 - - -1 ~ 111 iii; ili:1! lilli 11 1 : t»Prd *DE>·/Af \ 09 (4#8694 --__--_ _ -\NS«- .40,809*8 QH (174 24 1 ,1 / 1 161 1 ' £ -- 1 - --- 1,3 41 .1 1 1 9 lip 1 '1' 1,1; 1 1 11 M 11 1 --! r : tililli It i h 11/ 111 1 1.11 lili )) 11 1 1 1 1 .111 1!1111 li 1 1 1!iII i-------r ;l illi i 1,1 11 / H! 111 11 1 11!IN 1I Al '!it III il: 11 . 1 1!1 1 .~ Nt" 11- 1 |] 1--1 61 1 - 1 11 '1' 111 11 - - -===1 1111 - 1 .1 - '1 1 i lili 0 - . \ 1.11 ,!!11! Iii 111 Ii- i : 1, 1,1111 1 ( Iilil|||i,t ' t .,1 i,:Illilil - -1=1 1 1 ;Il - --- \ 411114 1 1/ *11 -Ill -, 11,1 1 _11 1. - ' 41' ull- 1 1 --1...2 , -leA-ar-- -ALE-«»162.5---719**4.9-1 -Lfrk. 9/LE<*Af 1 2-1 --_ - p 939 EAST COO_PER_ HISTORICAL COTTAGE A Pay/*0 82114 2,4/'
1 49 0 r. ., aa L h.\In - 1 1-117-1 0-1 1 1- 1. • 1 3 ' 1 1 , 1 f 1 J t i - 1 ' 1 I i.L . JJ' f ~ 1--fi 32-I :t -!19\~;r L 1 /1 -3 Q M - r: , 91(ir)9 : lt'vll | ~ ' ~' K 83(41 (1 / *r~1% 1, e ft >,i- Ar +P,3/11 . , Lk- L il :/23 \ 4_44 01-3>03 -0/13(1 --- ~ ' 0 ' , .1 0.4,13 t~»%4099;'kil- - - .- 7-- -- 7€2021*y4721 .i / -- ! »:BUJON _0*/?23 j i L, 01 0 / .. 1 1 1 1 1 1 11• V . 2 i - 4 1 hz z £ 4 1 1 . : ; 4 7- t- El- , . /0, \
\ \ 4. 1 141 9 1 11 i :11 1 i ; 1 1 1 fu---/4/ -' ! .1 I - -1 1 1/lili lisil j ' 1 111 t,1 + i i 't'.1 6'lii» ii uNL Ilifilli 'i! I E 111 1; 1 1 TiT i r----- Tll·ni iLl INLi i lifilli Iii I qii ill p '' 1 ---*--~ · · 1 ·!11'·i tif ,. ------ 09'31-I-~P pl~R*erl G<4_-17-7--f -2-f -__--2--- -_-- -BA-/1-F - :PuewArloA--2-------2--1---- 1_-3€i»20-1~ 4 - -__HSA/__*M__*1- -2-