The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19940323i AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE March 23, 1994 REGULAR MEETING SISTER CITY MEETING ROOM SECOND FLOOR CITY HALL 5:00 I. Committee and Staff Comments Approval of February 9, 1994 minutes. II. Public Comments III. OLD BUSINESS 5:15 A. 130 S. Galena Street, City Hall basement- Minor, (tabled on March 9, 1994) 94-: u._T d L.i u IV. NEW BUSINESS 5:40 A. Resolution No. 2, Series of 1994- In appreciation of Bill Poss' eight years of volunteer service to HPC L, n di, - AV , 1-1 PL_ 5:45 B. 201 W. Francis Street- Minor, (tabled on March 9, 1994) 6:05 C. 706 W. Main- Conceptual Development Review, PUBLIC HEARING 6:50 VI. A. Project Monitoring B. Neighborhood Character Guidelines- ongoing C. Red Brick update- ongoing D. Main Street 7:00 VII. ADJOURN IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING TONIGHT'S HPC MEETING, WE WILL HAVE A SMALL CELEBRATION TO THANK BILL FOR HIS DEDICATION TO THIS COMMITTEE. <91. 1 -t LC. 1'6, lo j ,:4~ U 47 144 /- /107 ( r t-1 1 d 12% C <1 d '; fy*- 6 Â£* 44 d *, i,,-,-o r o LA 5 o /47 //1 4 Â£ Â© 07 06<,;F HPC PROJECT MONITORING HPC Member Name Project/Committee Add Conceptual date to all projects when approved Project Monitor for County Courthouse? 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 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 Jake Vickery The Meadows (alternate) In-Town School Sites Committee 205 S. Mill Larry Yaw 716 W. Francis 442 W. Bleeker (Pioneer-alt.) 204 S. Galena (Sportstalker) City Hall 627 W. Main (residential-Jim Kempner) 232 E. Hallam ACES City Shop 1080 Power Plant Road St. Mary's Church windows Roger Moyer CCLC Liaison 334 W. Hallam Aspen Historical Society 409 E. Hopkins 303 E. Main 311 W. North Farfalla lights outside 210 Lake Avenue (alternate) Karen Day Rubey Transit Center 334 W. Hallam (alternate) Cottage Infill Program 134 E. Bleeker 435 W. Main Swiss Chalet 311 W. North 304 E. Hopkins 121 S. Galena Martha Madsen 620 W. Hallam (alternate) 100 Park Ave. (alternate) 214 W. Bleeker (alternate) 132 W. Main 520 E. Cooper Unit 406 Linda Smisek 134 E. Bleeker 210 Lake Avenue 305 Mill St. Tom Williams -- )30 6 Scott Samborski 702 W. Main - Stape - Conceptual Development approved Sept 8, 1993 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: City Hall, Minor development DATE: March 23, 1994 SUMMARY: As part of the City Hall Master Plan, the City would like to create new meeting space for Council and some additional offices in the basement of this building. The primary access to the basement will by elevator and by extending the existing interior staircase in the south west corner of the building. In order to meet safety codes, a second exit must be created on the opposite end of the basement. The applicants have stated that it would not be possible to use the existing interior staircase in the north east corner of the building as this second egress, because this solution appears to be cost prohibitive and would require substantial redesign of the existing staircase. The City has determined, therefore, that an exterior stair should be constructed on the east side of the building. The proposed stair is meant to be functional and also to be a pleasant area which allows additional light into the basement. The City is also proposing a large lightwell on the south side of the building. The lightwell will be covered with a decorative metal grate. In addition, the City plans to open up the bricked-in window on the south facade and insert a new window. No window has been specified at this time; staff will bring several options back to HPC in the near future. City Hall is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and is an Aspen Landmark. The Colorado Historical Society holds a preservation covenant on the exterior of the building, so HPC's recommendation will be forwarded to them for final approval. APPLICANT: The City of Aspen, represented by Cris Caruso, City Engineer and Raul Gawrys, architect. LOCATION: 130 S. Galena Street, Lots K,L and M, Block 93, City and Townsite of Aspen. Development Review Standards 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an H, Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor areas, HPC shall find that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. Response: Original exterior stairways and lightwells can be found on historic buildings throughout the Commercial Core. (See the Elks Building, the Independence Building and the Wheeler Opera House for examples.) Staff finds that adding a stair and a lightwell to Armory Hall is not out of character with the building or the neighborhood. Staff also recognizes that this is a National Register structure and that it sits in the only city block in Aspen which contains only 19th century structures. City Hall is a very prominent building and is easily visible from all four sides. In order to be compatible with this important historic structure and to limit the impact on the existing park and sidewalk, staff and HPC have recommended that the size of the staircase and lightwell should be minimized as much as possible. The applicant submitted a revised design on March 9 which decreased the overall size of the stairwell by approximately 160 square feet. The applicant has now provided more details on the staircase in the form of a section and a landscaping plan. The applicant proposes to install double hung windows at the basement level. In response to HPC comments, the windows have been lowered and aligned with those on the upper stories. The eyebrow detail has been removed and the entrance has been widened to a double door. The stairwell and basement wall Will be built with colored concrete that will have chamfered corners. The concrete will be given a roughened finish. Snow melt will be installed on the stair treads. The applicant proposes a very simple safety rail. A slightly more varied design would help to visually break up the length of the railing. HPC discussed the proposed lightwell on February 23, 1994, and indicated support for its construction. The exposed wall and windows in this lightwell should follow the same guidelines as specified for the basement entrance. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The proposed elements are in character with the Commercial Core. 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 adjacent parcels. Response: Since the visual impacts of the new staircase and lightwell have been minimized, staff finds that the cultural value of this structure will not be diminished. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: Original building materials will not be affected by this proposal, as most of the work will be new construction. Extreme care should be taken to protect the historic structure during construction. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: 1) Approve the application as submitted. 2) Approve the application with conditions to be met prior to issuance of a building permit. 3) Table the proposal to allow the applicant time for restudy (specific recommendations should be offered.) 4) Deny the application, finding that the Design Review Standards have not been met. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC approve the application, with the following conditions: 1. The applicant should vary the design of the railing in order to visually break up its length. 2. HPC must review exact descriptions or samples of the concrete, windows, doors, railing and grate before issuance of a building permit. 3. No further projects involving City Hall will receive HPC approval until the City restores the historic windows, replaces the roof and repairs the masonry. RAUL GAb]RYS AR t- . . I . 4 m . .. ' ./ r 1, 4 . l . 0 . /1 --- VF. 1 r~ -.2 - . . .\ ..... .... -2. - I. . 6-4 1.1 r'~ - fal ' 8 044-fi *9- Â» .1.1- 4 8% 11 2 2 .. . 11 /1 LF .. /7 B P 8% *F 2% ./. . 6 . â€ž , liu i ./ I ... .L, Â· v. ' fil\V . /1 11 4.. Il 8 . i .71 .I.Y .\1.Â·12...' ' i :.1 1. 1 /1.L ril- . r ' ./ 0 A y RAUL GAWRYS ARCH. TEL:303-927-4069 Mar 17,94 12:30 No.005 A 11.1 .Â» 11 ': 'X 11 ' m r lid 1 . m <' (i>- t - -=Â·24. e -4 1) 12 1 , Hil 3. ' ..'.'SW:ZE :; =7; 29 - 1 Um/qu . J j li'1111!lili 4 11 J I.lili. 1'116 1 2 E--- - 1 11 1 ---1 -1 4,1 j fr; 1 . 11 1 1 1 HI.. -i 1 ilif 1 1 /1 lilli 1 - 1 1 -. ., 11. ..- ....1. ....11/ 111111 il '1 4 h 1 /11 1 7 1 illl 11 1 41111111111 3 .. 1 1 . 1 . . P.. A ../ 8 ! A ./" i;ili . 4 0 .1 1. 6. 8 6 5 .. .7 (13-9. 6 - 1 - 1 i , i rrr.-T-â€¢ i i VI. I 1 11 1 . 41 l . . -1 Â· mfuliumliall RAUL GAWRYS ARCH. TEL:303-927-4069 Mar 17,94 12:30 No.005 P.03 411 m i Â£ 4 ..2-106...~<9-77ir.=-- lki'.421':11&21Â£i,3~4~ - 1 -4 - r .1 b , ) 1 - 4 4* [bAL ' RESOLUTION NO. 2 (Series of 1994) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE, IN APPRECIATION OF BILL POSS' EIGHT YEARS OF VOLUNTEER SERVICE TO THIS COMMITTEE. WHEREAS, Bill Poss first served as a member of HPC on February 11, 1986, and WHEREAS, Bill Poss was Chairman of HPC from November 19, 1987 to February 23, 199~; and WHEREAS, Bill Poss has resigned from this Committee and plans to build a new house which will be in character with the Red Mountain Neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the past and current members of HPC wish Bill Poss well and thank him for his outstanding leadership; and WHEREAS, Bill Poss knew how to make an applicant feel at ease, and wielded his gavel with a little levity; and WHEREAS, Bill Poss' was always polite and waited for all of the other members to speak before he made a single comment on a project; and WHEREAS, Bill Poss' final recommendation to HPC was that the Committee keep its sense of humor. Though HPC's job can be difficult, the Board should have some fun and should always try to help our applicants out as much as possible. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE THAT BILL POSS WILL BE REMEMBERED AS AN EXCELLENT LEADER, WHOSE DEDICATION LED TO THE PRESERVATION OF MANY HISTORIC STRUCTURES, SITES AND OBJECTS THROUGHOUT ASPEN. Approved by the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee at its regular meeting of March 23, 1994. By Joseph Krabacher, Chair Aspen Historic Preservation Committee ATTEST: Kathy Strickland Assistant City Clerk MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer Re: Minor Development- 201 W. Francis Date: March 23, 1994 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant requests HPC approval to remove one window on the west facade. In its place, he wishes to construct a 3' x 7' addition with french doors on the west and windows on the north and south sides. The building is a designated landmark and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places (the Bowles-Cooley house.) HPC must apply the "Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Preservation" (attached) to this project. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The Development Review standards for designated landmarks are found in Section 7-601 of the Land Use Code. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an H, Historic Overlay district or is adjacent to a Historic Landmark... Response: The National Register nomination for this structure describes it as a significant example of local design interpretation of the Queen Anne style. It is noted as one of the few houses in the West End which has maintained its original integrity with only minimal alterations. (The interior of this house also retains many original features and woodwork.) Given its corner location and very large lot, this building is extremely prominent and visible from all four sides. The alterations to date have taken place on the east and south facades. At HPC' s meeting of March 9, 1994, the applicant proposed construction of a two story addition with double entry doors and a balconette on the west side of the house, similar to the one constructed on the south side in 1980. Staff and HPC did not find this addition compatible to the historic structure and encouraged the applicant to minimize the size of the addition. The applicant has submitted a new design, responding to HPC's concerns. Staff finds that this is a reasonable compromise. Extreme care must be taken so that the masonry walls are not damaged by the construction of this addition. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: There are two historic structures on this site, but no other ones on the entire block. Quite a number of historic buildings surround the parcel on adjacent corners. Most of the buildings have been altered, especially to the rear of the parcel. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structure located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. Response: Staff still has concerns about allowing more alterations to this important structure. Even though this is a small change, a number of these types of remodels can add up to a loss of the original design integrity. The new proposal will however, have less impact on the historic character of the building than the design which was submitted previously. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: A stair step crack has formed below the second story window. This may be caused by settling of the foundation or by inadequate structural support above the first story window. As part of this project, the applicant could remove the affected area of the wall and re-lay the bricks using a mortar similar in strength, aggregate size and color to the original mortar. In addition, a new metal lintel should be placed above the first floor wall opening. The lintel will be covered up by the new addition. ALTERNATIVES: HPC may consider the following alternatives: 1. Approve the Minor Development application as submitted 2. Approve the Minor Development application with conditions to be met prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2 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 application with the following conditions: 1. The window and bricks that are to be removed are to be kept by the owner. 2. The mortar mix for repair of the stair step cracking is to be approved by the Historic Preservation Officer. 3. The applicant must submit before and after photos Of the project to the Planning Department. Additional comments: HP.vicenzi 3 Ilie Secretary of the hitcrior is responsible for 4. Most propertics change over time; those Chang,Cs establishi,2 dar,is for at! national preservation. that have acquired significance in their own programs 5 Depannic.,1 tai authority wid for ri'7111 shall be retai: pnsenrd. advig-ng Fe agencies on tile preservation of Note: To be eligible for Federal ta. .ncentivts, a historic properties listed or eligible for listing in 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction rehabilitation project must meet ali ten Standards. The f he National Register of Historic Places. techniques or examples of craftsmanship that application of these Standards to rehabilitation characterize a property shall be preserved. pre,jects is to be the same wi under thit previous The Standards for Rehabilitation, a section Of tile version so that a project previously acceptable would Secretary's Standardc for Historic Preservation 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired continue to be acceptable under these Standards. Projects, cddress the most prevalent preservation rather than replaced. Where the severity of deteri- treatment today. rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is oration requi -es replacement of a distinctive feature, Certain treatinent<, if improperly applied, or certain defined as the process of returning a prope.rly to a the new feature shall match the old in design. color, materials by their physical properties, may cause or state of titility, through repair or alteration, Which texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, accelerate physical deterioration of historic buildings. makes possible (ill efficient contemporary use while materials. Replacement of missing features shall be Inappropriate physical treatments include. but are not preserving those portions and features of tile pro_ substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial limited to: improper repointing techniques; improper perty which are significant to its historic, archi- evidence. exterior masonry cleaning methods; or improper tectural, and cultural values. introduction of insulation where damage to historic 7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sand- fabric would result. In almost all situations, use of blasting, that cause damage to historic materials Rhail these materials and treatments will result in denial of The Secreta.y of the Interior's not be used. The surface cleaning of structures. if certification. In addition, every effort should be made appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest to ensure that the new materials and workmanship are Standards for Rehabilitation means possible. conipatible with the materials and workman.ship of the historic property. 8. Significant archeological resources affected by a The Standards that follow were originally published in project shall be protected and preserved. If such Guidelines to help propertv owners, developers, and 1977 and revised in 1990 as part of Department of the Interior regulation, (36 CFR Part 67, Historic resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall Federai managers apply the Secretary of the Interior's be undertaken. Standards for Rehabilitation are available from the Preservation Certifications). They penain to historic National Park Service, State Historic Preservation buildings of all materials, construction types, sizes, and 9. New addition~ exterior alterations. or related now Offices. or from the Government Printing Office. occupancy and encompass the exterior and the interior construction shali not destroy historic materials that For more information write: National Park Service, of historic buildings. The Standards aiso encompass characterize the property. The new work shall be Preservation Assistance Division-424, P.O. Box 37127, related landscape features and the building's site and differentiated from the old and shall be compatible Washington, D.C. 20013-7127. environment as well as attached, adjacent or related with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features new construction. to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. The Standards are to be applied to specific rehabili- tation projects in a reasonable manner, taking into Niarch 1990 10. New additions and adjacent or related now consideration economic and technical feasibility. construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and 1. A property shail lie used for its historic purpose or integrity of the historic property and its environment be placed in a new use that requires minimal change would be unimpaired. to the defining c;:aracterimics of the building and its site and environment. 2. The historic character of a property shall be *** retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of fuatures and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided 3. Each property shaN be recognized as a physic:.1 i ecord of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural leatures or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. 8 0 1 U.3 - 9,/UNCh> L l. WEST ELEY u /1 / 4 -1 hUNes'-G 4.QauÂ· 14"9(21 53 u.004. tA--to u-te(A ves lov Gr c.le#. (33 Le.0& TE,cwt.4 2 00= . - ]/ ~--- 2Â£25 42 u.>-1 touo ).Â· - *h 29) t I 1 Â«3) f 4 Â· 9 1 Ill /1 FLA-'-- NDEr[ H Elt 1/ NAps : 0 Co act 94, 9 1, (@) AA&*,so. 0~ h llÂ« 404'12e 144.~ , 9*&24 U.,J~&Â°-1 , CD i.Â«Sk& uÂ©04 i>(twe- \. Â® 4.bee & t, i .4. to U e Â·~acite 'C a 4*0 -41-ek \oriek Q, CDt 412 04-0 / 0 0 I r?z. 2,0 latt 'ce L.-1-1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 706 W. Main- Conceptual Development, Partial Demolition and On-Site Relocation, PUBLIC HEARING DATE: March 23, 1994 SUMMARY: The applicant requests HPC approval for a Conceptual Development plan which includes partial demolition and on-site relocation of the historic resource. This structure, the "Celestine Bourquin house", was built in 1894. It is an Aspen Landmark and is located in the Main Street Historic District. APPLICANT: Joseph and Susan Krabacher, owners. Architect is David Panico of Baker, Fallen Architects. LOCATION: 706 W. Main Street, Lot Q and the west 20 feet of Lot R, Block 18, City and Townsite of Aspen. SITE, AREA AND BULK INFORMATION: See attached information, provided by the applicant. ADDITIONAL COMMISSION REVIEWS: The designs submitted to HPC show an FAR bonus of 452 sq. ft. The applicant may request an increase in allowable FAR, from .75:1 to 1:1 by Special Review at the Planning and Zoning Commission. Sixty percent of the "bonus" FAR must be allocated to affordable housing (above grade). The applicant has located the affordable housing almost completely sub- grade, and may find that it does not meet the standards for approval by P&Z. In lieu of the Special Review route, the applicant may request an FAR bonus from HPC, up to 500 square feet. The applicant has indicated that this is an acceptable alternative. Because this would result in a total FAR which is less than the maximum possible on this property, the amount of affordable housing required would decrease. The applicant is also requesting approval for Condominiumization (Planning Director sign-off) and GMQS exemption for addition of new net leasable space and affordable housing (by City Council.) CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Development Review Standards 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an H, Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor areas, HPC shall find that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. Response: During the worksession HPC held on February 9, 1994, several committee members expressed support for a new structure which was modern, did not have a lot of detail and would provide a quiet backdrop for this small historic building. Other committee members felt that the proposed structure has too much of a "downtown" feeling to it. There did not seem to be a real connection or sense of "kin" between the old and new building. Staff has some reservations about placing a flat roofed structure behind the historic resource. Typically, the Committee has encouraged applicants to create an addition which reflects design elements and forms found on the adjacent historic structure. However, the flat roof design would allow the height of the new structure to be as low as about 24 feet at the highest point. (The historic structure is 19 feet high.) In addition, although Main Street is zoned Office, it has historically been a residential neighborhood. Although staff does support the idea that the new addition could be successful by avoiding historical references, it should not completely ignore the character of the historic structure or its residential nature. Staff finds that in its current design the proposed structure is a better complement to the Stapleton building than to the landmark which is to be the centerpiece of the development. (As a small detail, staff would suggest using a different column on the new Krabacher structure than the proposed ones, which are the same as the Stapleton building's.) An interesting suggestion offered at the worksession was to sheath the upper story of the new building with the same shingles as are used on the roof of the historic structure. This might give the illusion that the second story is contained within the roof form. Also, it would provide some visual connection between the two structures. The applicant should study this idea. Along with the siding material, the applicant should restudy the cornice detail. Staff finds that it is a particularly non-residential element. The site plan is well designed and does allow the historic structure to Sit apart from the new construction. The proposed courtyard is very important to the quality of the below grade employee housing units. The applicant has responded to HPC's concerns that the connection between the historic building and new structure be reduced to one story. Staff suggests that this break should relate better to the design of the historic structure (perhaps using the same siding or even shutters), or be more playful, as in the project at 134 E. Bleeker. Although it is generally not appropriate to reconstruct building elements which are long gone, staff feels that the applicant and HPC should consider the idea of placing a porch on the historic structure. Examining the Sanborne Fire Insurance Maps of 1904 (attached) one can see that there was at one time a porch which ran the full length of the house. The exact size of this porch can be determined from these maps, however the pitch of the roof and details on posts and balustrades would all be conjectural. Staff does find though that a porch would add even more visual emphasis on this structure. The historic building has been placed at the edge of the setback line, so are definitely some other issues involved in constructing a porch. If a porch is not appropriate, staff suggests that a fence be maintained around the front of the historic building. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: Fewer and fewer people are choosing to live on Main Street, for a variety of reasons. The future of the neighborhood will be continued expansion of office space as the Commercial Core is no longer able to handle the demand and its rents are unaffordable for many businesses. Main Street is the entrance to Aspen, and HPC should encourage new development in this area to be residential in nature and to distinguish itself from the Core. By highlighting the historic residential building, this project does attempt to maintain the character of Main Street. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not distract from the cultural value of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. Response: The best way to protect the cultural value of this structure as a record of Victorian development is to reduce the visibility of the new addition from the street. This can be accomplished partly by decreasing the height by up to two feet (by awarding the applicant up to a 500 sq. ft. FAR bonus through HPC rather than leaving them to apply to P&Z for a 1250 sq. ft. FAR increase.) 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: Specific issues related to relocating the structure and demolishing the rear portipn are discussed in following sections. The applicant proposes to restore the front section of historic house to its original condition. The applicant should be aware that the inventory form suggests that the original structure might be a log building. This existence of original clapboards or log walls should be verified before the meeting. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PARTIAL DEMOLITION PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW: No partial demolition of any structure included in the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen, established pursuant to section 7-709, or any structure within an "H" Historic Overlay District shall be permitted unless the partial demolition is approved by the HPC because it meets the applicable standards of section 7-602(C). The applicant proposes to demolish the rear wing on this structure. It appears that the building did have a small gabled rear addition by at least 1896. This addition was removed or mostly demolished and incorporated into the existing wing. The applicant suggests that this might have taken place in the 1960's. Standards for Review of Partial Demolition 1. Standard: The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure. Response: The applicant has plans to convert the property to an office development. The footprint of the existing wing covers the majority of the site. In order for the wing to be retained, the applicant would have to construct the additional office space on top of it. This option has not been discussed, however staff has not determined that the wing has any historic significance. 2. Standard: The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: A. Impacts on the historic importance of the structure or structures located on the parcel. Response: The existing wing is not original and the applicant has indicated that only a small amount of original framing Still exists from the previous construction. B. Impacts on the architectural integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel. Response: The partial demolition will not have a negative impact on the architectural integrity of this structure. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF ON-SITE RELOCATION PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW: Under Section 7-602 of the Aspen Land Use Code, no relocation of any structure included in the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen, established pursuant to section 7-709, shall be permitted unless the relocation is approved by the HPC because it meets the standards of section 7-602(D). Section 7-602(D): Standards for Review of Relocation 1. Standard: The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on its original site to provide for any reasonable beneficial use of the property. Response: The applicant proposes to relocate the structure in order to maximize use of the site and also to set the structure apart from new development. 2. Standard: The relocation activity is demonstrated to be the best preservation method for the character and integrity of the structure, and the historic integrity of the existing neighborhood and adjacent structure will not be diminished due to the relocation. Response: The applicant proposes to move the historic structure to the most prominent location on the site and to place new construction a reasonable distance behind it. The proposed location will place the small structure far away from the larger Stapleton building and will showcase the building. 3. Standard: The structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and re-siting. A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation. Response: A report from a structural engineer is to be provided for Final review. 4. Standard: A relocation plan shall, be submitted, including posting a bond or other financial security with the engineering department, as approved by the HPC, to insure the safe relocation, preservation and repair (if required) of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation. Response: HPC must set a value for the relocation bond. In addition, the applicant shall provide details on the relocation activity, describing how the building will be braced, etc. 5. Standard: The receiving site is compatible in nature to the structure or structures proposed to be moved, the character of the neighborhood is consistent with the architectural integrity of the structure, and the location of the historic structure would not diminish the integrity or character of the neighborhood of the receiving site. An acceptance letter from the property owner of the receiving site shall be submitted. Response: The structure is being relocated on its original site. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: 1) Approve the development proposal as submitted. 2) Approve the development with conditions to be satisfied for Final HPC consideration. 3) Table the Conceptual Review with conditions. 1 - 4) Deny the Conceptual Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC table the application to allow the applicant to restudy the siding, cornice, columns on the new structure and the treatment of the connection between the new and old buildings. In addition, the applicant should consider adding a porch to the historic building and retaining a fence at the front of that structure. Staff recommends HPC approve the request for partial demolition and relocation of the historic structure and an FAR bonus of up to 500 sq. ft. Additional comments: 1 IAND USE APPI_ICZYIYEN ]FURM Krabacher Office Building 1) Project Nue -- 706 W. Main Street 2) Project hxation _ Lot Q and West 20 feet Lot R, Block 18, City and Townsite of Aspen (indicate street address, lot & block Iumber, legal description where appropriate) 3) Present Zoning 4) Int Size . 5,000 5) Applicant's Name, ,Mdress & Biocie * B. Joseph Krabacher, Susan S. Krabacher 201 North Mill, SAite 201, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-6300 Dave Penico, Baker Fallin, 6) Representative's Name, Address & Phone # 1280 Ute Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-4252 7) Type of Application (please dieck all that apply): X Conditional Use Conoeptual SPA Concephial Historic Dev. Special Review Final SPA Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline ancent:ual POD - Minor Historic Dev. X Stream Margin Final ED _ Historic Demolition MIXIntain View Plane Subdivisian Historic Designation Cortkniniumization Text,/Map Amer*]mer*. _JL GM@S Allatment Ist Split/Iot Line - Qts Emuption Adjustment 8) Descri~tion of Ebcisting Uses (number and type of eriftingÂ· structures - approximate sq. ft.; number of bedrooms: any previous apprrivals granted tb the property). 1699 Square feet - building approved by special reveiw enr enmmerri Al hi,giness. in Office Zone District; See Application for information on previous approvals. 9) Description of Developnerrt Application See Application for detailed description 10) Iiave you attached the following? Response to Attadlment 2, Minimum Submission Contents Response to Attachment 3, Specific Sulnission Contents 2< Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application 1 .1 1>4 111 1>4 1 . SUPPLEMENT TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS IMPORTANT Three sets of clem-fully labelr-1 drawings must be submitted in a format no larger than 111<17~, OR one dozen sets of blueprints may be submitted in lieu of the 11=x17- format. APPLICANT: D loSeS+ 4 606644 6 KRAE>4046!Z. ADDRESS: '201 61.1/11LL Or- 6urra 20 1 AerÂ°eN ZONE OSTRICT: 4-1 - +4 Â£61-ORAC- Â· LOT SIZE (SQUARE FEET): 15000Â¢ e - EXISTING FAR: , Ilâ‚¬N * ALLOWABLE FAR: 31ao *614 : A oic. 130OCPA : I) WAFEC. IZE*lâ‚¬,A ~ PROPOSED FAR: 420â‚¬ 9 EXISTING NET LEASABLE (commercial): \12) 41 - t. PROPOSED NET LEASABLE (commercian: 8 14-50 * EXISTING % OF SITE COVERAGE: . 4196 PROPOSED % OF SITE COVERAGE: s>lib EXISTING % OF OPEN SPACE (Commercial): 30[070 PROPOSED% OFOPEN SPACE (Commer.): -_ 91,0.1 /D EXISTING MANMUM HEIGHT: AV,Â®aIBIA.: 1 1 ~- 014 /Accessor, Bldg: KIA PROPOSED MAXIMUM HEIGHT: , Princioal BkIN ''28>' - O 11 - / Accemofy 81(Ig: H A PROPOSED % OF DEMOUTION: 11,1% EXISTING NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: 0 PROPOSED NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: EXISTING ON-SITE PARKING SPACES: 1 ON-SiTE PARKING SPACES REQURED: 1 SEIRACKS; EXISTING: ALLOWABLE: PROPOSED: Front 2\Â· 51 Front !O.0' Front 10.01 Rear: 19.5 Rear. ieÂ·04 Rear: Side: #0499,9 Side: 6.0'/5.0, Side: 54 d/9.0 ' Combined Front/Rear: 49.59 Combined Fri/Rr: 24.-C)' Combined Frontmear . L.2140' EXISTING NONCONFORMITIES/ . 140145 ENCROACHMENTS: , ibber-1NOTRAN*fa214Â£20 -TAD fcÂ¢UMMEhlT Lai- -TOWEer VARIATIONS REQUESTED felicible for Landmarks Only: character comoa#bility fnding must be made by HPC): FAR: 462* Minimum Distance Between Buikings: SETBACKS: Front: - Parldng Spaces: '80/1 ping, g Rear. - Open Space (Commercial): .-I Sde: - Height (Collage Inill Only): .-/ Combined Frt.mr: - Site Coverage (Collage InfiU Only): -....I -I APPLICATION FOR SIGNIFICANT HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT, GMQS EXEMPTION, PARTIAL DEMOLITION OR RELOCATION, SPECIAL REVIEW OR F.A.R. BONUS, AND CONDOMINIUMIZATION 706 West Main Street Block 18, Lot Q and the West 20 feet of Lot R City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado Applicants: B. Joseph Krabacher Susan S. Krabacher 201 N. Mill, Suite 201 Aspen, Colorado 81611 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I. Description of Application............................ 1 II. Background of Property ............................... 1 III. Minimum Submission Contents .......................... 3 IV. GMQS Exemption ....................................... 3 V. Significant Historic Development and Partial Demolition/Relocation ...... .................. 8 1. Specific Submission Contents ............... 8 2. Review Standards ........................... 9 3. Historic Landmark Guidelines ;.............. 13 4. Partial Demolition ......................... 16 5. Relocation ................................. 18 VI. Special Review or F.A.R. Bonus ....................... 20 VII. Condominiumization ................................... 22 (i) EXHIBITS 1 Pre-Application Conference Summary 2 Disclosure of Ownership and Title Insurance Policy 3 Permission to Represent 4 Vicinity Map 5 Land Use Application Form and Supplement to Historic Preservation Development Applications 6 Report of Collins Engineering Regarding Structural Soundness 7 Existing Conditions Drawings and Survey/Existing Site Plan 8 Proposed Conceptual Site Plan and Elevations (ii) I. Description of Application. This is a land use application for 706 West Main Street, also known as Lot Q and the West 20 feet of Lot R, Block 18, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado (the "Property"). This land use application requests approval for significant development of an historic resource, partial demolition or relocation, GMQS exemption for a historic landmark, special review or FAR bonus, and condominiumization. II. Background of Property. The Property has received several prior approvals that are relevant to this Application. The Property was originally built in 1894 and appears on the Sanborn and Sons Insurance maps of 1898. The Property was originally rated a "1" on the prior historic rating scale (which was a scale from 0 to 4 plus two additional categories for excellent and exceptional historic resources). The Property has had significant additions to the north (rear) and east. These additions have added a new rear wing and new east wing. The original historic structure was substantially demolished to the north when these additions were added. Based upon the information from the Pitkin County Tax Assessor's records, the additions appear to have been added in 1967. In 1989, the Property received landmark designation by the City of Aspen and received a conditional use (special review) for an antique store. The special review approval for conditional use permitted a change in use from a residential structure to a commercial structure. Accordingly, the existing 1,726 square foot house was approved for an antique store. The Property has been used as a commercial property since 1989. In 1992, the Krabachers submitted an application for amendments to the Municipal Code that would allow a mixed use project in the Office Zone District. The application was approved, and text amendments were made to the Municipal Code in 1992. However, the Krabachers did not proceed with the redevelopment of the Property as a mixed use at that time. The Krabachers now wish to develop the Property for a commercial office building. They are proposing to add approximately 2500 square feet of net leasable commercial square footage and to provide two 2-bedroom affordable housing units subgrade on the Property. The original cross gable form of the historic house is proposed to be relocated to the south (front) and west setbacks, with the new development occurring to the north (rear) and east of the historic house. The Krabachers propose to restore the historic house to its original condition. 2 III. Minimum Submission Contents. The Applicants' names, address and telephone number are B. Joseph Krabacher and Susan S. Krabacher, 706 W. Main Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611, (303) 925-7818. A letter authorizing Krabacher, Hill & Edwards, P.C. and Baker Fallin, Inc. to represent the Applicants, together with the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of the representatives, are attached as Exhibit 3. The street address and legal description of the parcel upon which the development is proposed to occur are 706 West Main Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 also known as Lot Q and the west 20 feet of Lot R, Block 18, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. The Disclosure of Ownership and Title Insurance Policy are attached as Exhibit 2, which discloses ownership of the parcel. An 8.5 x 11 vicinity map locating the subject parcel within the City of Aspen is attached as Exhibit 4. IV. GMOS Exemption. A sketch plan showing the proposed development of the Property which illustrates those features which are relevant to this Application, together with drawings of the elevations of the proposed development are enclosed herewith as Exhibit 8. The 3 sketch plan and elevations satisfy the specific submission contents for GMQS exemption. Section 8.104.B.1(c) provides a GMQS exemption that may be granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission for the enlargement of an historic landmark intended to be used as a commercial or office development which increases the building's existing floor area ratio and its net leasable square footage. Mitigation of the community impacts of the project is addressed below. FOR AN ENLARGEMENT AT THE MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA PERMITTED UNDER THE EXTERNAL FLOOR AREA RATIO FOR THE APPLICABLE ZONE DISTRICT (EXCLUDING ANY BONUS FLOOR AREA PERMITTED BY SPECIAL REVIEW), THE APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AT ONE HUNDRED (100) PERCENT OF THE LEVEL WHICH WOULD MEET THE THRESHOLD REQUIRED IN SECTION 8-106 FOR THE APPLICABLE USE. FOR EACH ONE (1) PERCENT REDUCTION IN FLOOR AREA BELOW THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED UNDER THE EXTERNAL FLOOR AREA RATIO FOR THE APPLICABLE ZONE DISTRICT (EXCLUDING ANY BONUS FLOOR AREA PERMITTED BY SPECIAL REVIEW) , THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENT SHALL BE REDUCED BY ONE (1) PERCENT. RESPONSE: The Applicant proposes to provide affordable housing at 100% of the level which would meet the threshold required in Section 8-106. Under Section 8-106.F.3, the Applicant is obligated to provide housing for 60% of the additional employees deemed generated by the proposed development. The standard for calculating the number of full time equivalent employees generated by the proposed development is three employees per 1000 square feet 4 of net leasable square footage. Since the proposed development 4 will add 2,500 square feet of net leasable area to the Property, it is deemed to generate 7.5 employees of which 60% must be housed on site, or 4.5 employees. The Application proposes two 2-bedroom units of approximately 995 and 998 square feet each. Accordingly, Applicants will provide affordable housing at 100% of the level which would meet the threshold requirement of Section 8-106. The Applicants are willing to place a restriction on the Property, to the satisfaction of the City Attorney, requiring that if, in the future, additional floor area is requested, the owner shall provide affordable housing impact mitigation at the then current standards. Finally, the Applicant is willing to restrict the employee housing units to the Housing Authority's moderate income price and occupancy guidelines. PARKING SHALL BE PROVIDED ACCORDING TO THE STANDARDS OF ARTICLE 5, DIVISION 2 AND DIVISION 3, IF HPC DETERMINES THAT IT CAN BE PROVIDED ON THE SITE'S SURFACE AND BE CONSISTENT WITH THE REVIEW STANDARDS OF ARTICLE 7, DIVISION 6. ANY PARKING WHICH CANNOT BE LOCATED ON-SITE AND WHICH WOULD THEREFORE BE REQUIRED TO BE PROVIDED VIA A CASH-IN-LIEU PAYMENT SHALL BE WAIVED. RESPONSE: Parking will be provided by surface parking on the site. Based on Section 8-104.B.1.c(2), any parking which cannot be located on-site and which would therefore be required to be provided via cash-in-lieu payment shall be waived by the HPC. The site will provide surface spaces for five parking spots, and each of the parking spots will meet the dimensional requirements of a parking space under the City of Aspen Land Use Code Regulations. 5 THE DEVELOPMENT'S WATER SUPPLY, SEWAGE TREATMENT, SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL, DRAINAGE CONTROL, TRANSPORTATION AND FIRE PROTECTION IMPACTS SHALL BE MITIGATED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE COMMISSION. RESPONSE: The Property is located in the City of Aspen and will be provided with water from the City of Aspen municipal water system. Sewage treatment will be provided by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. Drainage control has been addressed in the site plan for the proposed development. Since the Property is located on Main Street, transportation will be available by the local RFTA service. The Property is also located within the City Of Aspen Fire District which will provide fire protection. Accordingly, all of the development's water supply, sewage treatment, solid waste disposal, drainage control, transportation and fire protection impacts will be satisfactorily handled by the existing utility services and systems available at the site. THE COMPATIBILITY OF THE PROJECT'S SITE DESIGN WITH SURROUNDING PROJECTS AND ITS APPROPRIATENESS FOR THE SITE SHALL BE DEMONSTRATED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO CONSIDERATION OF THE QUALITY AND CHARACTER OF PROPOSED LANDSCAPING AND OPEN SPACE, THE AMOUNT OF SITE COVERAGE BY BUILDINGS, ANY AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR USERS AND RESIDENTS OF THE SITE, AND THE EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE SERVICE DELIVERY AREA. RESPONSE: The Property is subject to review by the HPC, which will review the compatibility of the site design with surrounding projects. The mature trees on the Property will remain and will not be affected. There is no open space requirement in the Office Zone District. Likewise, there is no maximum site coverage in the 6 office Zone District. The service delivery area will be located to the rear of the proposed structure to provide efficient and effective delivery service. Since the proposed development will provide two affordable housing units, the project must also receive a GMQS exemption by the City Council pursuant to 8-104.C.1.c. ALL HOUSING DEED RESTRICTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE HOUSING GUIDELINES OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND ITS HOUSING DESIGNEE. THE REVIEW OF ANY REQUEST FOR EXEMPTION OF HOUSING PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION SHALL INCLUDE A DETERMINATION OF THE CITY'S NEED FOR SUCH HOUSING, CONSIDERING THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT' S COMPLIANCE WITH AN ADOPTED HOUSING PLAN, THE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS PROPOSED AND THEIR LOCATION, THE TYPE OF DWELLING UNITS PROPOSED, SPECIFICALLY REGARDING THE NUMBER OF BEDROOMS IN EACH UNIT, THE SIZE OF THE DWELLING UNITS, THE RENTAL/SALE MIX OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, AND THE PROPOSED PRICE CATEGORIES TO WHICH THE DWELLING UNITS ARE TO BE DEED RESTRICTED. RESPONSE: The proposed employee housing will be deed restricted in accordance with the housing guidelines. The City of Aspen has shown a need for such housing and the proposed two 2-bedroom units satisfy the need for housing. The floor plans for the affordable housing units are attached as Exhibit 8. They are centrally located on Aspen's Main Street and are proposed to be approximately 995 and 998 square feet each. The units will be held for rental and are proposed to be deed restricted to the Category 4, income and occupancy guidelines of the Housing Authority. 7 V. Significant Historic Development - Partial Demolition or Relocation. The Property is located in the Main Street Historic District and is a local landmark. Accordingly, the proposed development must receive significant HPC development approval. In addition, since some of the internal structural elements remain from the original historic house (after the substantial additions were added to the north (rear) and east of the structure), this Application requests partial demolition and relocation approval. 1. Specific Submission Contents - Conceptual Development Plan For Significant Development. A sketch plan of the proposed development is enclosed with this Application as Exhibit 8. The conceptual selection of major building material includes the use of wood siding on both of the historic structure and the new addition. The historic structure will be entirely restored. It presently has aluminum siding which has been installed over asphalt siding. It appears that the asphalt siding was installed over the original clapboard wood siding. The Applicants will remove all of the aluminum and asphalt siding and restore, to the extent possible, the existing clapboard siding. There will not be sufficient original siding to re-side the entire historic structure since the addition to the north 8 (rear) and east previously removed all of the siding from the north side and a portion of the east side of the historic structure. The proposed development will enhance the original design of the historic structure by moving the historic structure to the south (front) setback and to the west setback. This will showcase the historic structure. The proposed addition to the east and rear of the historic structure has been designed to minimize its impact on the historic structure and the neighborhood. The significant development application falls into the following categories: (i) expansion or erection of a structure wherein the increase in floor area of the structure is more than 250 square feet; and (ii) the development of the site of an Historic Landmark which has received approval for demolition, partial demolition or relocation when a development plan has been required by the HPC pursuant to Section 7-602(B). A development plan is being submitted with this Application as Exhibit 8. 2. Review Standards. The following are the review standards and responses of the Applicants: THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS COMPATIBLE IN CHARACTER WITH DESIGNATED HISTORIC STRUCTURES LOCATED ON THE PARCEL AND WITH DEVELOPMENT ON ADJACENT PARCELS WHEN THE SUBJECT SITE IS IN AN H, HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT OR IS ADJACENT TO AN HISTORIC LANDMARK. FOR HISTORIC LANDMARKS WHERE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WOULD EXTEND INTO FRONT YARD, SIDE YARD AND REAR YEAR SETBACKS, EXTEND INTO THE MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS ON THE LOT OR EXCEED THE 9 ALLOWED FLOOR AREA, HPC SHALL FIND THAT SUCH VARIATION IS MORE COMPATIBLE IN CHARACTER WITH THE HISTORIC LANDMARK, THAN WOULD BE DEVELOPMENT IN ACCORD WITH DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS. RESPONSE: The proposed addition is compatible in character with the historic structure as illustrated by the sketch plan and elevations submitted as Exhibit 8 with this Application. The historic structure Will be relocated and moved to the front setback, and also moved to the west setback. This will showcase the Property on the site. The proposed addition is designed to be compatible with the historic structure so as not to overpower it. The historic structure is a very simple structure. Unlike most historic structures on Main Street, the gable end does not face Main Street, but the rectangular shape of the historic structure does face Main Street. The proposed addition has been designed with a flat roof in order not to overpower the historic structure. The Applicants have worked with a number of different designs, including pitched roofs and gable ends, but none of the designs would satisfactorily preserve the character of the historic structure. It is intended that the detailing of the addition to the historic structure will be slightly different than the historic resource in order not to duplicate the historic resource. The proposed addition has been pulled back from the historic structure with a one story addition and is stepped back to give respect to the historic structure. 10 The Applicants have attempted to comply with the proposed Main Street Historic Guidelines by creating the proposed addition in modules that step back from the historic structure. The massing of the proposed addition is reduced by using what is intended to be perceived to be three separate buildings. The Applicants are not requesting any side yard or rear yard variations. The Applicants are, however, requesting a 500 square foot FAR variance as described under Part VI below. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT REFLECTS AND IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF THE'PARCEL PROPOSED FOR DEVELOPMENT. RESPONSE: The neighborhood is comprised of a number of historic structures, typically utilizing gable ends and pitched roofs, together with a number of flat roof structures, consisting primarily of lodges and apartment buildings. By utilizing the proposed design, the development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood because it utilizes a flat roof structure that relates to the lodges and apartment buildings on Main Street, while preserving the historic structure in its original gable form. The proposed Stapleton Office Building to be located immediately to the east of the Property is quite large and massive. The Stapleton Building is larger in the front and steps back to the rear of the lot. The proposed addition to the Property preserves the scale along the street while allowing redevelopment of the remainder of the Property as an office building which is the primary permitted use in the Office Zone District. 11 THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ENHANCES OR DOES NOT DETRACT FROM THE CULTURAL VALUE OF DESIGNATED HISTORIC STRUCTURES LOCATED ON THE PARCEL PROPOSED FOR DEVELOPMENT OR ADJACENT PARCELS. RESPONSE: The proposed development enhances the cultural value of the historic structure by showcasing it on the southwest corner of the building envelope. The project is intended to showcase the historic property similar to the Lily Reid project. In contrast to the Lily Reid project, however, the proposed addition will be minimized by the use of a flat roof, which will still provide the necessary ceiling heights for the proposed addition while making the proposed addition disappear behind the historic structure. From the street, a pedestrian will perceive very little of the proposed addition since it is stepped back and the roof of the existing historic structure will substantially shield the proposed addition. The lot is a substandard 5000 square foot lot which provides limited opportunities for utilizing the site, due to its size constraints. The Applicants have viewed the proposed development as an "infill" type of development and have, to the extent possible, moved the mass and bulk of the building to the north (rear) of the site. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ENHANCES OR DOES NOT DIMINISH OR DETRACT FROM THE ARCHITECTURAL INTEGRITY OF A DESIGNATED HISTORIC STRUCTURE OR PART THEREOF. RESPONSE: As described above, the proposed development enhances the architectural integrity of the historic structure by showcasing 12 it on the site. The addition has been stepped back to allow the historic structure to stand on its own. In addition, the proposed development creates a patio area to the north (rear) of the historic structure which will provide a lower level entry into the employee housing units. The patio area will create a very large separation from the historic resource in the proposed addition as viewed from the southwest elevation. 3. Historic Landmark Guidelines. The Applicants have attempted to comply with the Historic Landmark Development Guidelines. This portion of the Application will discuss the guidelines for commercial buildings including renovation and restoration, and new construction. The proposed development maintains the pedestrian environment of the streetscape by stepping back the proposed addition and utilizing the historic structure to block the pedestrian's view of the proposed addition. The proposed development maintains the existing edge created by the building facades at the sidewalk by moving the historic structure up to the front setback. The vertical plane of the building facade at the street edge has been maintained by the relocation and renovation of the historic structure. The proposed addition is setback from the facade so the perception of the original building mass is 13 preserved. The box-like quality of the existing historic structure has been preserved. There will be no addition of balconies, cantilevers, or pitched roofs or any other rooftop additions that would alter this quality. The building elements of the original historic structure which contribute to the horizontal alignment of the streetscape have been retained. With respect to the new addition, the Applicants will use a very simplified version of cornice lines to maintain the established horizontal lines of the streetscape. The historic renovation of the original structure will preserve the historic windows and door located on the south (front) and east sides. The original window on the west side has been replaced with a door, and the renovation will return this facade to its original conditionÂ® To the extent possible, the original windows will be restored. There are no proposals for any new openings in the west, south or east sides of the historic structure, which are the primary facades from Main Street. Since there has been a substantial addition to the north (rear) of the structure, it will be restored, to the extent possible, to its original condition. The Applicant has proposed window openings for the north (rear) of the original historic structure which cannot be seen from any of the primary facades or from Main Street. 14 The architectural details of the original structure will be preserved. Based upon research regarding the original historic structure, the front porch is not original and is not proposed to be retained. Trim materials will be subordinate to the major facade materials which will be wood. Any external light fixtures will be simple in design. A lighting plan will be submitted with the final development application. To the extent possible, the existing historical materials will be preserved. If replacement is necessary, new materials will duplicate the scale of the historic materials. The historic structure Will be repainted in substantially the same color pattern as exists. The use of bright colors will be reserved for accents. As to the new addition, there will not be any plaza or court that will break the continuity of the facade alignment along Main Street. A patio is proposed to the rear of the historic structure but will not be visible from the main facade. The front facade will not be altered by the proposed addition which will be stepped back to the rearÂ® The massing of the proposed addition has been broken up in order to reduce its perceived bulk. The design is not intended to imitate historic designs found in the Main Street Historic District, but is intended to be a very quiet addition that will not detract from the simplicity of the original historic structure. 15 4. Partial Demolition. In addition to the specific submission contents described above, this Application includes a report from Collins Engineering regarding the soundness of the structure and its suitability for relocation, which report is attached as Exhibit 6. The substantial additions that have been made in the past to the north (rear) and east of the historic resource have resulted in prior demolition of substantially all of the historic structure in those areas. While very little of the historic structure remains (other than the gable and structure facing Main Street), there may be structural members that will need to be removed in order to complete the redevelopment of the Property. Further, the Applicants propose to relocate the historic structure to the southwest corner of the building envelope, as described above. THE PARTIAL DEMOLITION IS REQUIRED FOR THE RENOVATION, RESTORATION OR REHABILITATION OF THE STRUCTURE. RESPONSE: The partial demolition already occurred when the substantial additions to the north (rear) and east were accomplished. In order to renovate the structure it will be necessary to rebuild the north (rear) portion of the original historic structure. This reconstruction will be accomplished in a fashion that will attempt to duplicate the original detailing of the rear of the structure. It may be necessary to remove 16 insubstantial portions of the original historic structure that may remain to the north (rear) of the historic resource. It is difficult to ascertain what, if any, of the original historic elements remain, but there may be interior wall joists or other structural elements. However, the substantial addition to the north (rear) and east previously removed any visible historic elements. The only thing that might remain would be internal structural members that cannot be seen by a visual inspection of the Property. THE APPLICANT HAS MITIGATED, TO THE GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE: a: IMPACTS ON THE HISTORIC IMPORTANCE OF THE STRUCTURE OR STRUCTURES LOCATED ON THE PARCEL. b: IMPACTS ON THE ARCHITECTURAL INTEGRITY OF THE STRUCTURE OR STRUCTURES LOCATED ON THE PARCEL. RESPONSE: The Applicants have mitigated the impacts on the historic structure by restoring the original historic structure and moving it to the front setback. Likewise, the impacts on the architectural integrity of the structure have been mitigated to the greatest extent possible based upon the redevelopment plan, the sketches and elevations of which are enclosed with this Application as Exhibit 8. 17 5. Relocation. This Application requests relocation of the historic landmark. As described above, it will be moved to the south (front) setback and the west setback. THE STRUCTURE CANNOT BE REHABILITATED OR REUSED ON ITS ORIGINAL SITE TO PROVIDE FOR ANY REASONABLE BENEFICIAL USE OF THE PROPERTY. RESPONSE: The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on its original site without impairing the historic integrity of the structure. If it were to remain on its' original site, the remaining portion of the site would bear a disproporatinate amount of the mass and bulk of any addition. As a result, the historic structure should be relocated on-site SO as to allow full utilization of the site. It is questionable whether review standard applies to a relocation on-site or a relocation off-site. THE RELOCATION ACTIVITY IS DEMONSTRATED TO BE THE BEST PRESERVATION METHOD FOR THE CHARACTER AND INTEGRITY OF THE STRUCTURE, AND THE HISTORIC INTEGRITY OF THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD AND ADJACENT STRUCTURES WILL NOT BE DIMINISHED DUE TO THE RELOCATION. RESPONSE: As noted above, the historic house is being relocated on site. It will be moved approximately 10 feet to the south (front) of the site and less than 5 feet to the west. A basement will be provided for the structure, and Applicants will restore the original historic cottage. 18 THE STRUCTURE HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED TO BE CAPABLE OF WITHSTANDING THE PHYSICAL IMPACTS OF THE RELOCATION AND RE-SITING. A STRUCTURAL REPORT SHALL BE SUBMITTED BY A LICENSED ENGINEER DEMONSTRATING THE SOUNDNESS OF THE STRUCTURE PROPOSED FOR RELOCATION. RESPONSE: The structural report of Baker Fallin is submitted as Exhibit 6 hereto demonstrating the soundness of the structure for the proposed relocation. A RELOCATION PLAN SHALL BE SUBMITTED, INCLUDING POSTING A BOND WITH THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, TO INSURE THE SAFE RELOCATION, PRESERVATION AND REPAIR (IF REQUIRED) OF THE STRUCTURE, SITE PREPARATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE CONNECTIONS. THE RECEIVING SITE SHALL BE PREPARED IN ADVANCE OF THE PHYSICAL RELOCATION. RESPONSE: The interior of the historic structure will be secured and the property will be lifted from its existing concrete/rubble foundation. A new basement will be excavated under the historic house which will then be relocated on the new foundation. The historic structure will move approximately ten feet to the south (front) of the site and less than five feet to the west. The Applicant is prepared to post a bond in the amount established by the HPC to insure the safe relocation, preservation and repair (if required) of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. As noted above, the receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation. THE RECEIVING SITE IS COMPATIBLE IN NATURE TO THE STRUCTURE OR STRUCTURES PROPOSED TO BE MOVED, THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL INTEGRITY OF THE STRUCTURE, AND THE RELOCATION OF THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE WOULD NOT DIMINISH 19 THE INTEGRITY OR CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF THE RECEIVING SITE. AN ACCEPTANCE LETTER FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER OF THE RECEIVING SITE SHALL BE SUBMITTED. RESPONSE: This standard does not appear to be applicable since there is no receiving site since the Property is to be relocated on-site. However, to the extent that this standard may apply to the proposed development, the relocation is consistent with the architectural integrity of the structure and the character of the neighborhood because it allows a design solution that does not overpower the historic resource. If the structure were not relocated, any addition to the rear of the structure would create greater bulk and mass due to the limited area available on the site. VI. Special Review or FAR Bonus. The Office Zone District allows the floor area of the Property to be increased from .75:1 up to 1:1 by special review. As applied to the Property, which consists of a 5,000 square foot site, the special review increase in floor area would permit an additional 1,250 square feet, provided at least 60% (or 750 square feet) are dedicated to affordable housing. This Application requests a special review increase of square footage, of which 60% will be incorporated into the two affordable housing units. The exact square footages are detailed in the Historic Supplement to the Land Use Application Form, Exhibit 5. 20 As described above, and as illustrated in the sketches and elevations enclosed with this Application as Exhibit 8, the mass, height, density, configuration, landscaping and setbacks of the proposed development are designed in a manner which is compatible with and enhances the character of the neighborhood. The proposed increase in floor area will not have any adverse impacts, or those impacts will be mitigated based on the proposed design. If the HPC determines that the additional square footage that would result from special review approval creates bulk and massing that are undesirable for the site, the Applicants request that the HPC grant an FAR bonus increase in floor area. The HPC would be required to make a finding of historic compatibility in order to grant the floor area bonus. In this situation, the finding can be made. If the Property is developed with the special review bonus, it would result in an additional 750 square feet added to the Property. On the other hand, if the floor area bonus were granted by the HPC based on historical compatibility, there will be 750 square feet less that will need to be accommodated on the site. This will allow the proposed addition to the rear to be lowered by approximately two feet since the affordable housing units located partially subgrade could be reduced in size. The Applicants would prefer the FAR bonus because it will reduce the overall height of the addition substantially. Since concerns have been expressed by the HPC regarding the maximum floor area allowable in the Office 21 Zone District, by granting the FAR bonus, the Property will be developed at 15% below the maximum FAR, at a minimum. VII. Condominiumization. This Application requests approval for condominiumization of the net leasable square footage and the affordable housing units. The Land Use Code does not set forth any specific procedure for condominiumization Of commercial space, but addresses only residential and lodge condominiumization. Ordinance No. 53, Series of 1993, has been adopted by the City of Aspen to incorporate the provisions of the recently enacted Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act. The Applicants will submit a proposed condominium subdivision exemption plat map as soon as possible. The approval for commercial condominiumization is an approval that may be granted by the Planning Director in accordance with Ordinance No. 53, Series of 1993. krabacher\docs\application.1 22 Sow 45 Ila ,. Ovi 75 2 7/3 /1 7-~U*z'[7 5-~ ' 1 F- cm o). 4-1 & x L-7 |i| rf-7-1 D D D Ll- 4 k \'ll t-; D--~~-8 FT' 4 0 - -Me. 1 1 0 1 -0 9 1.I .O /X Z 4 1 -- X Y \ 1 <DZ 4 i Zil ..L-1 -a O. 5. 11./. e\' -1 -K. \L* 8 41. C. v. E. E -11. F B. 0-9 ,/41 [url N '30 1 9 7 'b E 3Â«l Irl. - t 12 / Shed.*/ 0 - \21 11.4 3><â‚¬ 325/ 3>41 18 ~0~ )14 / x I / x I A / 1 X 0. IX N. P. Q. R, 5. K. L M. N. R Q. R. P \ 7-71 1/1 /2 .1 ./. 11 6 71 & ix -- -1-31 -g .D 1 1 L. - y 5 xt C-7 XI, -1- 7 , 17 / rEi -2--- 4 Â«f 322 816 800 h 1 3, }4 1.1 7.- l\ ':, 39 1 1. 1,2 1 1 *4( 4 -04 727 42 7/2 m OL. . 0 000) 70* u./, 1-140 - -- -=--==N W. MAI N Â«/ 232 .66 v vtÂ£) -t--1 v..Â£, C HSO va,l,10â‚¬2 Plulp .-. 1704 <819) 785 \ 713 75 70 Â· Â· 703 < 101 824 815 811 +NI 735 b X A , 1 1 1- --ill-'.-- - -9--, 1 / K D Lk 17-pl 6 17 Ntti| CD 8 4 ,-T,- 71 / LL_L / A / lÂ£32 / 1-4- 1 D r-_~/ , 1 1 ri D ,\ DJ' D-7 D * D A-- D --9 1 1\Â»/L < 1 13 'Lt 'I- 1 , 1 / 77.- c 24 1 1 1 1 11 ,/1.- - / TN---2-. PJ . r 4 1% 4.~ DJ i. 9 Er-28 1 L; _r_ 0 -d - \/1 A ,ool Mid h HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL BUILDING/STRUCTURE FORM State Site Number: Local Site Number: 706.WM Photo Information: ASP-A-29 Township 10 South Range 85 West Section 12 USGS Quad Name Aspen Year 1960 X 7.5' 15' Building or Structure Name: Celestine Bourquin House Full Street Address: 706 West Main Legal Description: Lots Q & R, Block 18 City and Townsite of Aspen City Aspen County Pitkin Historic District or Neighborhood Name: Main Street Historic District Owner: Private/State/Federal Private Owner's Mailing Address: ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION Building Type: Residential Architectural Style: Victorian Miner's Cottage Dimensions: L: X W: = Square Feet: Number of Stories: 1 Building Plan (Footprint, Shape): Rectangular Landscaping or Special Setting Features: None Associated Buildings, Features or Objects - Describe Material and Function (map number / name): None For the following categories include materials, techniques and styles in the description as appropriate: Roof: Cross-gabled; asphalt shingles Walls: Horizontal aluminum siding over original; sym. facade Foundation / Basement: Not visible Chimney(s): Red brick at intersection of gables Windows: Two-over-two double-hung with wood shutters Doors: 1/2 light with wood panel below Porches: Front stoop over central entry; hip roof supported by turned posts with scroll brackets General Architectural Description: Victorian Miner's Cottage, one- story with substantial alterations. Exterior siding is contemporary. Horizontal clapboard siding may be beneath or even an original log house. Page 2 of 2 State Site Number Local Site Number 706.WM FUNCTION ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY Current Use: Residential Architect: Unknown Original Use: Residential Builder: Unknown Intermediate Use: Construction Date: 1894 X Actual _ Estimate X Assessor Based On: MODIFICATIONS AND/OR ADDITIONS Minor Moderate Major X Moved Date Describe Modifications and Date: Additions and Date: Side additions on east and north sides of original (dates unknown); no additions since 1980 NATIONAL/STATE REGISTER ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA Is listed on National Register; State Register Is eligible for National Register; State Register Meets National Register Criteria: A__ B C D E Map Key Local Rating and Landmark Designation Significant: Listed on or is eligible for National Register Contributing: Resource has maintained historic or Ll - architectural integrity. O Supporting: Original integrity lost due to alterations, however, is "retrievable" with substantial effort. Locally Designated Landmark Justify Assessment: Associated Contexts and Historical Information: The historical signi- ficance of this residential structure is not of those who owned it or lived in it, nor of its architecture, although this structure is representative of Aspen's Mining Era. Other Recording Information Specific References to the Structure/Building: Pitkin County Court- house Records; Sanborn and Sons Insurance Maps 1890, 1893, 1898 Archaeological Potential: (Y or N) Justify: Recorded By: Date: March 1991 Affiliation: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee - City of Aspen Project Manager: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer/Planner 1- 3-~ 4 WArrEEâ‚¬ SERV lab -4 t- 7 9 U /-aAS L INE - - 10 1- ) bt MtÂ»JAOLE 6 a 0 - 55 st - (35 95 - 5F -55 55 6 5--a EL-261-Rl,161.- L.-INE j - an te E- 0-1 0 - -lu e AN 1 -TARY SEWEE ~ C-TRÂ»145FfeMEN It.1 , 1 li I Z i :PRE?PÂ¢'bEO~:~il> :ii ~ EXID-TINA ~ m axi 5-Tirva _ 1%12= 1 fI 1 1 5TRL.laTURE STÂ·glu Cr L-IRE . '5 5-TRUCTU RE -- A 47-2 i ill ... il 52 ExISTINe 5-11%1.-lan-1 REE::~:::5:11 2 k X 1 E 9 : -9 4*-* -*. 71 r , . r - 0 0 ..... 1 1 1 21 3 1 . I ' LUE OF r- | 6 0 ~ Ex [5Tlk,15 5 T!21.1~rURE ~~ lfI 10 !.. W ./ ~| T L!1 - ELED-~FEIGAL-, TELEPHONE - 4342, LINE 4 LABLE -TÂ·v; 1- I NED MAIN 5 -r R E E-r ./ ~ EXHIBIT 7 / 1 1 KRABACHER BU I LD IN 6 EXISTING CONDITIONS- MAF I " = 30'- 0'21) MARCI-1 1 D , 1994 EAKER - FÂ»LLIN INC. jf) / 1 6 7 C j~ i /Â«3-3 r l Un r I r N i r-Â« frk/ t:26299. / 1 2 Ur-4 -,=,-D,ti/,ifdt'.45*17 3 r J'1Â»01 â‚¬ 1 1 /159,>3'llaweisi~:- 1 â‚¬UZZE-*- i 1. I : 1, 4410:, , 1440?~ i ../ . /:4. 7 7.2- 1 I r C 2 2 f A \ill f /1--\ 2 1 \ i 1 0,/9.41.4.. 0/MA44.2124/0 - --\ '11 NU Â» b. ---- I . r.7 5.32.12 \E'%1- < -14'bl. r~py~-11/ 1 2<f'.12 F :, f ? lf;-Â·i t .1 f.' I.-Â· i --H --.--2 '1 '.f :1> if.1 4 -7 Â·Â·3.f - Ut - A-.-*-*-*i-I-K- --7 l.'AldfÂ·.f,/~>t *:, f - -31--1-1A 1 1 -7 01 5 r i. -Ill- - --#Ar:.' . 1 -7 , - 1 : . 3 1 - ' , Trb,5.4 V : 5 ) ------ 1,// 121 - 14> - - -- .-,A / 1 \\ 4-<P-- .1. .1.. r?. 7.i./di 0. 5 - * 11-41* - W....1, 3./.- HE.. / 1~--T ..... C K 1 L , -tÂ· , - ~I---r1F-- *Nimmaigril 1- I . li 1 - 11 1 ..1 24 1(4 11 1 - 1 1 11 1 - 13[L- =5. 1 - - 1 1 1 --~2---- -- - -t* 7 1/,1.4 - 1 .1 | : f 4 F U.j f -- I..X-~ ,(49{ .,4/t.:t' I :"<4 ;~ .; 2 5 I C -* ~ f , -- - ~ _-- - - T .18 ' ' U Â· ' .:,O.9 ,~ ... , 1. %914 .I -> r 1-. p .reft --- ------ m 1 % N. -~ -yo Â· â€¢ l -22-- f<1234Â©AC-1-[E1:dJ~If rl-C-E---1- 13>UI LDIt~iÂ·Ct - -- -- --- _ 1<EM 1~2*TRZETÂ» - ----- MA-Kert-- 17, 1114 EXHIBIT 8A 4 EÂ»#Hi*9--,-1 r--4 4 1- 1 ET-11 ~ -Ial' 11 lilli 11 1]g . -1 ~~ , p:=4mt=4E#=14!7 - 1 f. 1 A 1; 1 . --4 /24 - - - 1-111 111-41 11112111 1112= , 1 27 7 --11 k--1 01 11â€ž...11 iII r- 1, 11 r-- ' 1 -- 1-4 -11 11.-111 lit- 1 - - I ..22.-2 - -32123 -----kil#LLURN"" j -- 1 - tri, i - L~FEI] 11111Eoft[~1 A,mtÂ«31114-lifff'E. -------1.--- -- --- -----:43 ---Mi Â·026~ ~.1 1~ Â«2 -2 1.11 4=9-' E-tril 1~7. lural!1 mi 111-=41.l .lili 11*2 : ~ =I= 1 1 1 12 1 --1 11 i -- - 1 _- --1 i| || r= -- - 1 1. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - i -772_fliEST_ BLE.VAFTON - 1- ----------- .-f -f ------- - - -- SOUTW *LE:A/4-[-16)KIN IKADACi#CK-2.-OFff [-CEI----910.11101-1422(---- --- __ff. - f....-F--- ---F --___--_-9----_i_-L-F __- -__------_ ------- ---_--7037_K.- t~lARCH--1--1-Jlfl4-_ -21/&1#-JILLULPIN-22727222.12Ii.LI--L_--_-_-_ - EXHIBIT 8B -T 0--1 i 14 1- ........M/**##///:.f - ' "-lf' 11 ~ ---4 ~1 -- . * - iti .4--- -0 --5--..t-Im//,djrld'-1/02,;Ed'*/ i -- irlrl i - =Zzilm/64/&---1---aGE_11 - 1 1! ==1 11 11 11 K=-u -- - 21!-1-11BIRE--3 1 [ imu-#Wal'31 'Ll_ IL- ___________ ____ _ -r=-Â·-Ir--1-T~~~'VT~11~ PA P V EF/1 1 -- - Il i;-L__di 211(DRT14- _ELE Â¥,6il,57,41-2-1 i -1-33--I---132271 -2-I -__-J_i . .3 f -_-- .-_. fl---2. - -----f--_.1C-Ael~__.ELEVAT16?4 .--.._â€ž.. .._.--- ......~._-. - -- _ir . ._..INI i.--5..f.... -7.1 -- - -- --- -3--- --- _ACAE-AC:fiEX--fOFflog--15?UILI?!1743 -97._- -I--1-_Ii.--i- - _-r--- 1 _--- . _ T_ ."-- 93---- 1-------------_-MARCH-- rh Plg-4-- 3%=91=22-1722-2-2-2-- ------rn ----- ---- - EXHIBIT 8C -- Â· f - 1 4*257 -22 - 6- i!Â· I j - t- k=_t j i 'L=Y - ---- - 'aiul--1614 11 1 1 1 4 4 - jilv i . 1 / 11 ge 0 S \ /, 11 11 1 1rrr i i l[ '12] 4/*fl L+-t I + 'i ~C - : 1 . 1 . - -1 1 VI 7 - 101-r,HEN 211 1 1 11 L --294 1 31 7- 1 -77 1 /" 1 -/21 1 --LIMIT- A . .._ .. / / ! UP it' / ||!UP /7- 790 -7.- i 11 k Â«222748)[0 -- - ~ 1 1 1 41&46 Ill T- Â· r-' - - 1- 1 - -_-21 7-M-Alwâ€¢UT --CJL...1 ' - IL-Jv')144 2- - 3 - fb:770 11_____21 phT-10_--- -7-7-=... Ll,w,184 ; ;3 , L.' U 11 1 1 14â€ž-=1-~ . 1 1 1 1 - 1 . 111 1 i.,Ar ki !1 1 1 ' 4 4- 2-rÂ·, h ~-4 -~- ~ ' -' -- ~ 1 %12Se621)â‚¬ S-- BU] 1.121NE, - f--LOHEâ‚¬ LEVEL- FLOC>le FLAN 2-46Â© I~ 1144 KA.2. MAWL+4 11 A114 3*=clot--i---_ ..i- .' 5. -2 - -i. -A) EXHIBIT 80 l 4 -- -- il ' . --it--4 1 1 92 1 ! ' FI 1 1 = 1 . 1 , 1 1 1 1 l -_ I _ 1 5+-4 r I . ' 1 i (~7 1, 1 4 L - tup 1 1 If - -- --- i b 4 : ~ =57- MALUNU 1 9 1 t - li F -1:L 1-Itt l :T '.11,111//1 11 --Â©Fbs. E.â‚¬7 1 : -- FlaÂ¥ 1 41! 1!11,Â«-7 11 - i ,/1!I i'~1 ' il _ - il 1 11 1 -231----1 - 1 1 1 1 + 1 '-- I 1 -= - 1 - 1 -, 1 11 1 1 11 1 +--1-1 r-- i -1--1 . i â‚¬ - -- t.22526614 52 EUILDING ENTeY' LEVEL f- LOOK. f LAPI 2 1 en 'P MAACH: n , I 114 P ~ 10' - (<N ) EXHIBIT 8E 1 3 _ 9 9 1 -- 4- f--1 4--t i ---4 1--t K---4 P -11--4 ~_ - il-Â·---t I 1 1 1 1 1 /1 H 7------ -t-- T -4 0-41 -- =-fbrow 1 r 1 1Â»-7-1 41 , 11 , / 'iii , -: T ./f Ill - i 1 2 1 , -- 1022*EÂ»LUE.E. ~SUILPINCI UFFER LEVEL lee I * MARCH _17., 1194 _114__.lot--- - *._ -I-- .--'-- - .-- - ~j EXHIBIT 8F C