The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19890214ilyth 14 7 AGENDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE February 14, 1989 - Tuesday 2:30 P.M. to 5:00 P.M. FIRST FLOOR COUNCIL CHAMBERS City Hall 2:30 I. Roll Call and approval of February 1, 1989 minutes II. Committee Member & Staff Comments III. Public Comment IV. NEW BUSINESS A. Minor Development approval: 435 East Main - Kentucky Fried Chicken V. OLD BUSINESS A. 432 W. Francis, tabled from January 24 Public Hearing Cont'd., Conceptual Development Approval VI. OTHER BUSINESS B. Pre-Application, Aspen Hardware (The Collins Block) 204 S. Mill St. VII. COMMUNICATIONS A. Project Monitoring Reports B. Staff memo - Minimum Maintenance Rquirements (Code Revision) - changes made by P&Z Feb. 7th t 9-9â€ž1 4 5- AGENDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE February 14, 1989 - Tuesday 2:30 P.M. to 5:00 P.M. FIRST FLOOR COUNCIL CHAMBERS City Hall 2:30 I. Roll Call and approval of January 24, 1989 minutes(+0- 06 i/v j 11- U.Â«3 . II. Committee Member & Staff Comments III. Public Comment IV. NEW BUSINESS A. Minor Development approval: 435 East Main - Kentucky Fried Chicken-TÂ« Le/3 V. OLD BUSINESS A. 432 W. Francis, tabled from January 24 Public Hearing Cont'd., Conceptual Development Approval i ~1 ~~7. . 1 U l> f*-2 VI. OTHER BUSINESS B. Pre-Application, Aspen Hardware (The Collins Block) 204 S. Mill St. VII. COMMUNICATIONS A. Project Monitoring Reports B. Staff memo - Minimum Maintenance Rquirements (Code Revision) - changes made by P&Z Feb. 7th HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MINUTES City Council Chambers 1st Floor City Hall January 24, 1989 2:30 p.m. Meeting was called to order by vice-chairman Nick Pasquarella with Charles Cunniffe, Charlie Knight, Zoe Compton, Joe Krabacher, Donnelley Erdman and Chris Darakis present. Georgeann Waggaman and Bill Poss were absent. Charlie made the motion to approve the minutes of Dec. 20, 1988, Jan 3, 1989 and Jan 10, 1989. Charles second, all approved. 520 E. Hyman - Pitkin Center Building Roxanne: This is for a minor development approval for the addition of a new third floor balcony deck at the southeast corner of the Pitkin Center Bldg. We find that the application satisfies all the development review standards. This structure is not historic and the proposal does not affect any neighboring historic structure. The nearest historic structure is on the far corner which is the Elks Building. We recommend that the HPC grant minor development approval for this application. Kim Weil, architect: The building contains a deck and the new owners wish to add a deck at the south east corner. It would be the exact same railing and construction as the deck that is presently there. It would have the same metal detailing at the railing and would appear as if it was there originally. YOU would access the deck by changing two windows into a door. -Nick: The entrance would be from the west side of the balcony. Kin Weil: There would be two entrances from the west. Next we would have to go through a cash in lieu of open space. Charlie: It encroaches on your open space. Chris: I have no objection. Donnelley: It seems appropriate. Charlie: I have no objection to it. Charles: Just as a comment I think the building is better off without the balcony but that is a subjective view so I also have no objection. Donnelley: I think the occupants of the second floor of that corner would rather not have the balcony and have an awning. An awning wouldn't project as far. Historic Preservation Minutes January 24, 1989 Nick: Aesthetically there is a little concern but no real opposition and I will entertain a motion. MOTION: Charlie made the motion to grant minor development review of 520 E. Hyman and allow the addition of the balcony as it has been presented provided the same materials are used as are in the existing balcony. Chris second, all approved. 423 WEST FRANCIS STREET-HALLET HOUSE Charles Cunniffe stepped down. The Chairman opened the public hearing. Richard Klein, architect introduced applicant and individuals involved with the proposed project. Roxanne Eflin, Planning office made the presentation as attached in the records. Roxanne: The application is very comprehensive and it was very educational to go through all the evolutionary steps that have taken place with this uniq ue house in the west end. It is very complex due to the number of changes proposed. I see this first meeting as a dialogue in determining which elements might be appropriate in elevations. The National Register Hallet House is significant historically for three specific reasons: It's historic association with an early mining financier Samuel Hallet. It's original log cabin which exists within the walls and it's architectural evolution of the additions and all the expansions that have taken place over time. Jay Yanz, State Architect stated his review comments on the project. The Hallet house is significant as one of the pioneer log cabins which was incorporated into a wood frame and clapboard house, a change indicative of Aspen's growth and rising fortunes of its residents during the 19th century silver boom. Based upon this information, the original log cabin portion and subsequent historic additions all contribute to the significance of the property. Therefore its character should be maintained and alterations to the physical elements and features discouraged. The proposed work as indicated violates the essential character defining features of the historic property and is not in conformance with the Secretary of Interior's Standards. I have attached in your memo five of the standards that I felt were particularly important in reviewing this project. I do feel that this project is somewhat indicative of modern adaptations to historic structures to meet todays needs. In this memo I have utilized the Development Review Standards in the Landuse Code, the Secretary of Interior's Standard and our own guidelines. l 2 Historic Preservation Minutes January 24, 1989 Roxanne: The applicant is also req uesting variations for side and rear yard setbacks and FAR. To grant those variations the Committee must find those alterations more compatible in nature to the historic structure. Roxanne: The proposed two car garage exceeds the site coverage and that requires a Board of Adjustment approval. The applicant must demonstrate hardship. Also there is a Zero lot line variations that is being requested for that garage. The garage element forces the whole east elevation to be 50 ft. in length without any undulation or stepback and that is an issue the Committee needs to deal with. The partial demolitions proposed need to be reviewed carefully to see if they meet the stondards set in the Landuse code. The majority of the openings are proposed to be changed as well. Due to so many fenestration changes, more study is warranted. The applicant will address the foundation issues. They intend to raise the structure and excavate more of the basement and bring the structure back down into its footprint but it might be elevated some. They are proposing to do some stone work around the new foundations and that is something that should be taken into consideration. We are recommending tabling due to the scope of the project and that we feel further study is warranted on the overall parcel etc. and the changes being proposed. An Historic Presentation on the History of the house was presented with photographs and was distributed in the packet for record. Ken: In 1947 there was an entry room/mud room added across the front of the house and the shed area in back was enclosed. From 1 904 on there were shutters on the house and were removed from the house in the 60's but are still on the carriage house. Nick: When did Hallet leave the house. Ken: In"the 1930's. Richard Klein: Historically there has been a lot of building activity on the site. We have tried to create some space between the carriage house and the main house. We removed the entry that was added in the late 40's and in doing so the porch re-aligns with its historic shape. The log cabin becomes the center, the family room of the house. We relocated the front door to address Francis St. In the 70's the bay window fell off and we want to restore that bay window to the side of the house and replace the bay window element with a door. The existing bedroom space becomes dining room space. The stairs will have to be rebuilt to code as they are too steep. The breakfast room is 3 Historic Preservation Minutes January 24, 1989 Richard Klein: essentially a rebuilt laundry room/mud room and is in that same location. The breakfast room also acts as access to the garage. Along the street elevations we wanted to maintain the existing perception of the house. Existing in the carriage house are two substandard parking spaces and because we are providing parking in the garage our idea is to convert the area in the carriage house to a studio apartment and remove the added on shed which would access a stair to the upstairs which would be a small study space for Mr. Hernandez. Upstairs in the carriage house we propose to take the barn door opening and rebuild the doors as glass to get light and ventilation. We want to restore the street elevations and re-establish the perception where the log cabin is. There are a lot of problems with the fouadation system and a new foundation systems needs to be put in. Tim Pleune, contractor: There is asbestos in the house and we will have to re-support the existing house. It is a matter of putting some large steel girders both ways underneath it and supporting it on wood cribbing while you get the house set up on wheels. We will do that while we put a foundation underneath it. We may have to raise the house a little bit but then lower it to the minimum elevation that the building code will allow for proper drainage. If a basement is a problem we can leave it as a dirt crawl space. Nick: Our concern is that you are not going to make another floor on the building. Roxanne: Is the basement proposed for storage and not habitable space. Richard: We are not quite sure yet. Roxanne: If it is habitable space it requires light wells for egress which is a design issue that we have dealt with before. Tim: The window replacement would be essentially a new piece of glass with a wood strip around it. All the exterior and interior trim if possible can stay in place. This system we chose causes less interruption of existing fibers. Larry Doble, engineer: A lot of the foundation is resting on dirt and is causing problems from the ground up. From a health safety issue there is need for foundation repair. The front porch would have to be moved to get the beams underneath. They area called needle beams that run both directions under sections of the house. You have to support the four walls of each section that you want to build up and you need to get into these different areas. This does require that things need to be moved 4 Historic Preservation Minutes January 24, 1989 Larry Doble: temporarily. In order to accommodate the proposed roof modifications there is going to be need to do structural modifications to the roof as well. Cecil Hernandez, owner: There is a lot of sensitivity in this house and we propose to maintain that. Roxanne: Due to the significant activities proposed for the foundation work a bond is appropriate and I have included that in the memo. Also we need more information regarding the seq uence of what is going to occur in the move. Nick: I understood that he is going to raise the building and lower it but he didn't say he was going to bring it back where it was. He said something about meeting some nebulous number. If you are going to build a foundation when the house comes back down it comes back down to the inch to where it was. Richard: The house slopes and the porch in front used to be wood but now is concrete and there is an obvious drainage problem. That might be the reason why it is concrete now. We ~ would like to correct the drainage problem by either regrating around the front of the house so we can get proper drainage up to the house or when we put the house back down on the foundation if the foundation is 6 inches higher in the air then we can grate properly to it. Chris: There is a drainage problem. Joe: Is this a tax act project. Noelle Hernandez, owner: I have investigated that with my accountant and as far as I know it doesnlt qualify. I understood that residential residences were harder to qualify. Roxanne: It doesn't qualify due to the extent of the renovation. For tax credits the property has to be income producing, it can be residential income producing. Joe: In order to do the foundation work what historic elements are going to have to be torn down and rebuilt. We had talked about the porch. Tim: The porch is cement and we would like to bring it back to its original wood. Richard: To renovate the main body of the house we will have to remove the porch and put it back again. We propose to eliminate the shed in back of the carriage house. We will salvage as much 5 Historic Preservation Minutes January 24, 1989 Richard: of the existing siding as possible. We also intend to reuse the chimney brick. Joe: Do you intend to raise the house all up at once and will it affect the landscaping or fence of the property. Tim: There are still unknowns about the floor construction all of which could effect the sequences. If we get conceptual approval of renovating the foundation then we can give you a specific documentation at the next meeting. Z oe: What is your intention on the use of the basement. Richard: We would like to have some kind of habitable space. Zoe: At the next meeting that is something we would like to have spelled out. Richard: Essentially the concrete porch and overhang has to be taken off so that we can repair the actual house foundation. Charlie: So the roof has to come off. Couldn't you take out the cement and leave the roof intact, support it and raise it. Larry: If it is preferable we could support the roof. Charlie: We have seen Elli's walls taken off and moved around and it did not work very well. What will the carriage house foundation have. Larry: There is no foundation but we would use slab-on-grade. Charlie: What do you intend to do with the chimneys. Richard: We would prefer to eliminate the flu and house the flu in the chimney which would require us to rebuild the chimney which is in bad shape now. In that way we would end up with one chimney which would be the mechanical exhaust of the house. The chimney in back we would like to relocate it and restore it. Nick: How does rebuilding chimneys fit historically. Roxanne: It is one of the many elements that we are looking at including the changing of the windows. Charlie: I don't think the city has a problem with the use of basement space as long as there are light wells and egress. 6 Historic Preservation Minutes January 24, 1989 Nick: We wouldn't have a problem if it wasn't changing what we see now. Roxanne: If there were light wells put in on the east elevation they would be tucked in among the vegetation on the site and probably wouldn't be visible from the street. Roxanne: You are getting the consensus from the Board that we have seen other projects before with the material removed and put back and the character is destroyed. Donnelley: The portfolio with photographs of the replacement sash appears that the replacement sash is single glazed Â·and in order to get the insulating value of a double glaze or insulated window you are putting a second piece of glass outside of the mullions. Tim: You can do it either way. Donnelley: By placing a second sheet of glass outside it changes the entire character of the window if you have wood mullions in the window. Tim: If we are not using divided light it is preferable to use the IG glass then you eliminate the problem that you mentioned. Public Input Steve Whippl e, ne i ghbo r: I feel the word "preservation" is being stretched. Preservation should be protected by the HPC. As an architect, if all that can go on it is encouraging to me as the sky is the limit to me. I didn't realize there was this much freedom as is being presented here today. If the carriage house can have a slab-on-grade then the house could also. Nick: We have established that they are going to raise the house, put a foundation under it and lower it back where it belongs. Dick Durrance, previous owner: I came in 1 947 and bought the log house. We saw the plans and they retain all the warmth and charm of the log house when we lived there. The Hernandez's have done research to preserve in detail the character and appearance. Robert Chamberlain, next door neighbor: I am glad the Hernandez's are undertaking this project and overall I am pleased with the concept and look in general. In detail I have some comments: The garage does not bother due to the barrier of blue spruce trees. The City Engineer told me last year that the 1 Historic Preservation Minutes January 24, 1989 Robert: plans for Francis Street are to pave it and put in curbs and sidewalk and restrict parking. I will no longer have legal parking space in front of my house but this plan addresses that eventuality. The zero setback doesn't bother me because my building on the alley is also a zero setback. the conversion of the carriage house is also quite nice as it is a tradition in Aspen of having carriage houses. The opening up of the central area is pleasing. Leslie Holst: I feel very positive about this. It is a very difficult renovation. It is a unique opportunity for some compromise. The only thing I have a problem with is the sum total ofÂ· all these, as it could change a lot. Maybe the east elevation could be compromised and I am glad they are not here with a demolition permit. Mark Finkle: I echo what has been said and I am glad someone is going to live there. I have one objection, as I look at it there is an existing garage and there are parking regulations. Gretchen Greenwood: It is very difficult to meet the needs of the owners and the needs of the community. My personal comment is that we are getting further away from an historical restoration of that because of the addition of the garage and change of use from the caretakers unit from a garage to a living space. If the existing carriage unit in the house is maintained as is and the garage was placed as it originally is in the caretakers unit and the living space could be put in a habitable basement which is an excellent solution for some of these older houses that can provide for some overflow bedrooms. It would allow the building to maintain itself as is. With the east elevation and the garage on there it is not an appropriate historical addition. Richard: Presently the space in the carriage house is a substandard parking space in other words it is not 18 ft. long. We would-like to see the shed removed so that we have a more historic carriage house form. By doing that we are able to open up a nice space between the house and carriage house. With the historic guidelines it is recommended that garages have access off the alley. Don Swales, neighbor: We live next door 365 days a year and this house will have more impact on us then anyone else in the City. We have looked at the plans and it is a major step in historic renovation for our end of town and is an improvement of what was there. 8 Historic Preservation Minutes January 24, 1989 Nick: It is our job to move in the right direction and please everyone that is in the room and in the town. Noelle Hernandez: The carriage house will be used for both sets of grandparents to come and feel at home and not feel like they are in the way. That is why we want to change it into habitable space and take the cars out of there. Zoe: This is one of the best presentations we ever had. My concerns are not the physical appearances. The way you have done your placements of the additions is in character and in keeping with what is existing. My concerns are old chimneys, restoring them and replacing them; the clapboard siding being kept in its original place and not moved off the site; the house being raised up and put back to where it might be too high and you have to fill it in with sandstone or rock. The minimum height that the house would have to be raised. Richard Klein presented the elevations. Richard: This is our first meeting and we are also looking for information from the Board as to what you think should be done with this house. In concept we feel this is a proper location for a garage. We would like to remove the entry element and restore the old front porch. When the addition was put on the cabin inside lost its architectural form and we would like to restore that form so that as you are walking along the street you can identify where the cabin is. In discussion with Roxanne she felt that the new front door should address the street. We put the new door along the edge of the old cabin so that as you enter you are in a natural circulation of the house. The main roof of the house would be shingles. There were shutters applied on the house around the turn of the century. Possibly we should re- introduce the shutters. They were removed in the 60's and 70's. We also could restore the brackets that were on the house. We have introduced some vertical windows and whether or not they are appropriate possibly you could help us determine that. What we are really after today is to get the concept of the house. We would like to remove the old chimney flu and have it in the old brick chimney and in doing so it would clean up the house. In the livingroom space we would like to remove the ceiling and create more volume in the inside. Charlie: Would the change in the front door be in line with the existing window. Roxanne: It is a new cut in the logs. 9 Historic Preservation Minutes January 24, 1989 Charlie: The window that would be behind the vestibule would be in an existing opening. Richard: At one point it was a door and we would like it opened back up and used as a window. Nick: Our concern is another hole in the log cabin. Roxanne: You could make the existing opening into a doorway. The guidelines are specific and state that orientation to the main elevation is historically correct and should be maintained or put back. Bill Drueding: As a zoning officer if you do touch the carriage house you will be required to get an encroachment license. One parking place per bedroom is required. If you eliminate those two you can return them somewhere else on site. Richard: They are substandard spaces. Bill Drueding: I haven't addressed whether they are substandard or not. If you turn that into a studio that will require additional parking space to be added. Roxanne: Unless they go through review for parking reduction for an historic landmark. Bill: The Board would have to make variations for the garage as you need at least 10 feet in the back. I talked to the Streets Dept. and they are opposed to a zero lot line in the alley due to plowing problems. The existing site coverage is 28 and they are proposing 33.8. You cannot go above 30% without a Board of Adjustment variance for site coverage. Richard: The Fourth St. elevation shows how we would relocate the fireplace. We would like to have that element outside the wall. We-propose to move the closet and beyond it is the laundry room. In the location of the laundry room is where we propose to put the new breakfast room which would also have access to the garage. You don't see this because the carriage house is in front of it. The planning staff indicated objection to this but it is 38 ft. from the street and it also has a fence and shrubs shielding it. On the carriage house we would like to use a asphalt or fiberglass shingl.e to help differentiate the main house from the carriage house. The main house would have a shake roof. The door to the garage could be a panelled door. We would like to put in a bathroom window and utilize part of an interior opening. We are proposing a window in the kitchen. We have not determined anything final in terms of the windows. The carriage 10 Historic Preservation Minutes January 24, 1989 Richard: house has a proposed studio and we are proposing some window treatment for light. We are proposing that the hay loft doors on the second floor be changed into some kind of window element for light. Nick: At this time the Board will give general comments. Chris: I like what is presented but I see some problems with the length of the garage wall on the east elevation but you have left everything open for adjustments. Donnelley: What we have to do is establish and agree upon what aspects are historically significant and by that I means what is architecture and what is building. There is a lot of building that went on here over the years and people tend to mistake building with architecture. It started out as a log cabin and has been compromised about 50% over the years. The suggested relocation of the entry and other amendments compromise it by another 20%. There is only 30% left and it has no structural integrity and do we want the log cabin enough to expose it. This building has a great history. We have many elements built over a period of time and we have to give priorities to those elements. Shutters were introduced at one time as an element to protect you from weather conditions and whether they are appropriate in this case I am not sure. As drawn the shutters look like add on's and shutters make no sense when you have paired double hung windows. If you are going to insist upon paired double hung windows then shutters are really added on as "featurettes" which I think doesn't have anything to do with the architectural significance of this project. Some of the fenestration needs to be restudied as we don't want it too divided up and too busy. I also see a tendency to remove some of the lovely idiosyncratic window placement that has occurred over the years and try to smooth it out. I don't know if that is complimentary or not. Possibly the use of existing openings on the carriage house (north elevation) would be more a better approach. There is a lot of this house that doesh't have any architectural distinction. Joe: On the south elevation of the main house I would like to not have another cut in the original log cabin. I would like to maybe see the original door opening as the entry way to the house and if that is not possible then I would be in favor of using the door entry way that is into the proposed livingroom. In general I would like to see you retain as much of the fenestration as possible. I don't have a big problem with the length of the east elevation given it is not a principal facade and taking the landscaping into consideration but I do have some problems with the fenestration on that addition. On the carriage house I would like to see keeping the shed and get away from 11 Historic Preservation Minutes January 24, 1989 Joe: adding this dormer to the roof and maybe you could use that as some of the living area. That shed was part of the original carriage house from 1898. Maybe you could restudy how you could use that. Overall it is a great project and I am encouraged that it is going to be saved especially in considering the condition of the foundation. I would like to see the window openings and fenestration patterns that we have kept. Nick: I would hope that you would work as diligently as you pqssibly can to keep it .like it was. Shutters had two functions, to sleep during the daytime you closed the shutters and in the heavy winds you closed the shutters to protect the window panes. Charlie: The approach to historic preservation aAd the restoration of what we have is to try and keep intact a lot of what is there. The architects needs to look at the preservation element and I feel it is riddled with new components and I don't know that it has to be. We have to address with you the types of techniques that we use so we are very clear that we are going to get authentic restoration or the look we are after. The windows are also an issue to me; the variety of windows with little square mullions and round stained glass windows. Those are nice features and you begin to pick them up on some of the alternatives on the carriage house. I think they were elements that were originally there. We are interested in seeing as much of the history remain there. Roxanne: We need to get some clear direction on the partial demolitions they are proposing as that is going to force the rest of the design issue of the site planning and everything else. Possibly not all of the proposed demolitions are appropriate when you are looking at the sum total. Charlie: I don't have a problem with the shed or perhaps the carriage house part but I do have a problem with redesigning and recreating the east elevation wall. I think the continuity of what was there, back through the bedroom should stay intact and I don't think there should be any demolition to that. I have several opinions as to what to do beyond there: Possibly a breezeway or off setting the garage further east, something to break it. Roxanne: The consensus is that the Board would like to see a restudy of the east elevation. Fenestration is also an issue and the shed dormers are also a problem. Charlie: Having lived here being 5 ft. off the alley is appropriate because of the snow plow issue. Those problems did not exist at the turn of the century. The issue is the garage. 12 Historic Preservation Minutes January 24, 1989 Roxanne: They might have to have three parking spaces on site. Joe Wells: The building is not in conformance with FAR right now. There is a reduction of FAR in this plan. Under the non- conforming provisions in the code you can alter a non-conforming use as long as you don't worsen it. We are abo ut 135 sq . ft. over on site coverage and that has to go to the Board of Adjustment and may or may not be approved. On parking there are nQ legal off-street parking spaces on this site. It is not reasonable for the city to take the position that illegal spaces are spaces. In the proposal there are five bedrooms. There are presently four bedrooms on the site and we have to address the parking for the incremental increase which requires one additional space on site. In the proposal we are offering two. Richard: The setback is overall 30 feet across. 13 ft. on one side and 17 in on the east. There is a lot we can do to break up that long east wall, such as the roof and siding. Nick: Possibly the Board and Staff can agree on conceptual. Roxanne: We have foundation issues that we have to deal with and material issues that have to be resolved. The east elevation has to be restudied. Do to the scope of this project a tabling action is appropriate. MOTION: Nick made the motion that we table and continue the public hearing and continue the presentation to Feb. 14, 1989. Charles second. All approved. Meeting adjourned 5:30 p.m. Kathy Strickland, Deputy City Clerk 1 1 13 OCEAN ARCHITEC'S BOX 10607 CO. 81612 303. 925-9514 .-. ...3-' Cl -. I Roxanne Eflin HIX S /-Â· Â·Â· .Â·-: i: 0:-'Â·Â·7 r:,1 2-9-89 Planning Dept. i 4 1 1 130 S. Salena St. Aspen, Co. FEBIO .<.7543 ' J Dear Ms. Eflin, 4 3-1 In response to our recent conversation regarding our application before the H.P.C. I am providing additional information to clarify our proposal. The owners of three retail stores are involved in this application, K.F.C.,Nik-N-Willies, and Cleaner Express. The owners of each of these three businesses have requested that I act as their representative. Letters of authorization are currently being sent to substantiate this. The alterations to the existing building involve three separate areas which are outlined below: - 1.--- Existing store front to be moved out away from building approximately 30", increasing the square footage of the building I 75 sq. ft. New canvas awning to be located above new entry. New i store front type window to be added to left of new entry in front of Nik-N-Willies. New store front bay window with seating to be i added to right of entry. A11 store front structure to be anodized aluminum to match existing. {see N. Elevations) 1 2~eanomozl:[spottioafffrdexistitgr Wvngibwlily atf 2021;rat ~1~ street. ( N.El evat ion) 3. New clear story windows and door to be added on rear of ~ building facing alley, with possible addition of doors at center ~ section. ( S. Elevation/ S.W. Elevation) 1 44/fr Sincerely, OCEAN ARCHITEC'S ~ 1 V. A. MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Minor Development Approval, 435 East Main, ("Local's Corner") for Kentucky Fried Chicken Date: February 14, 1989 LOCATION: 435 East Main St., Lots E, F, G, H and I, Block 67, ' City and Townsite of Aspen APPLICANT: Rick Duffy, represented by Robert (Arian) Ocean of Ocean Architects ZONING: ec, Commercial Core APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Minor Development approval for the storefront expansion of a portion of the building known commonly as "Local' s Corner" (previous liquor store site), three windows and an exit door off the alley, and the (sidewalk) wing wall remodeling. PROJECT SUMMARY: To provide for the new 1,480 sq. ft. Kentucky Fried Chicken, an interior remodeling of the building is proposed. This Will relocate "Nik and Willeyls" restaurant slightly to the east, and that in turn creates the need to relocate the Cleaner Express storage area adjacent to the cleaners. The storefront expansion is primarily contained within the envelope of the existing building (not historic), and consists of a new 30' x 3' (approximately) vestibule/entry way and a (not contiguous) window seat area of 14' x 2.7' (approximately). Both of these elements project from the existing storefront alignment. The existing brick storefront arch will remain untouched, with only the storefront structural system and windows projecting. The alley elevation will receive three (3) new fixed pane windows and a required exit door. The wing wall closest to the sidewalk on the north (Main Street) elevation will be modified into a semi-circular cut out. OTHER COMMISSION/BOARD REVIEWS: An application for the enlargement of this commercial space under the GMQS exemption provisions of the code has not yet been received by the Planning Office. The applicant should also be informed that approvals from other city departments such as Engineering (parking), Environmental Health (ventilation and odor), and Zoning (signage) may be required prior to the issuance of a Co. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The Standards for Development Review and staff's comments follow: Standard 1. 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. Response: Neither the building nor the adjacent building is historic, therefore District compatibility is the issue. Staff finds that the remodeling is not out of character with other non-historic structures in the CC Historic District. HPC may wish to consider the curvilinear sidewalk extension, which projects out Ento the parking/driveway area. Although the Guidelines do not address the compatibility issues of this feature, it seems to offer some relief from the very linear elements of this "L" shaped building. Comments from the Engineering Department regarding how this feature effects traffic flow from the adjacent gas station, and parking issues are being sought. Modern materials (anodized aluminum) are being utilized, which match the existing materials. A sense of transparency in the storefront is being maintained, which is preferred in the commercial core district. Standard 2. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. Response: Staff finds that proposal's design does not alter significantly the character of the neighborhood. Standard 3. The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structures... Response: Staff finds this standard does not apply to this proposal. Standard 4. The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure... Response: The structure is not historic, therefore this standard does not apply. However, staff feels that the proposal may help the overall functional 2 design of this building. ALTERNATIVES: It may be argued that this building's simple, non- projecting lines, gentle brick storefront arches, and use of materials strengthen its somewhat non- intrusive impact to the historic district. The changes proposed are designed to bring more attention to the storefront to be occupied by KFC, and may interrupt the established flat, linear rhythm of the building. One alternative HPC may wish to consider is denying approval for the storefront projection, and instead require the two storefronts to remain balanced with one another instead of competing. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that HPC approve the Minor Development application for 435 East Main Street, including the Kentucky Fried Chicken storefront remodel, subject to the following conditions: 1) Staff's and the Zoning Officer's review and approval of signage. 2) The Planning Office receiving letters of approval for the project from all business owners in the building, and the building owner himself. hpc.memo.kfc 3 + 40Â·.1 4.Ul g.1.... 3001=J OD[1672!9 r I 69/4:/1 4 1 1 L [F 'l -Â¥ . OPC. 1 0 .,11 - 61 li* ,i_ -4 Ilt F.,4+19 f â€ž7, 1} 6 9~0,119711~. 119{;/1;.tf .I, );,~14," '~::,r 1 ' P â€¢91' 1' re-,F -1'.9-7T-'p, TE- -,â€¢iÂ·,6 3 i,FI,Â·91" 11 2 Q..0 9711-1--15> / -lxt/asru Â·/IWO 941; 4â€¢111.-0 4 ' 11,11?06,0 41.-( -'* 7rt" , 1-1 70 - 1 1 ~ / m --~-rv7. Lx)~i- r- . . I ' '~ b, t--- :npgus,A marl -1 . 1 < ~~Mmnimi,111,1,UNnji-,ii,immm" M,11,1,1111~111,--W 11 f, r #.t -34 r) ' i~-- 1 / A I 12_ 11 1 1 L .,.... ./1// 1 , 1 t3 i 1 \Dz- ' 1 1 111 1 4 11 1 11 1 2 1 1 11 1 11 I ' 5-1-141 04'IN 1 11 1 1 Â¢ /--- -1-,1... 7 1...1 1 I eli 11 1 ' 11 Â¢ ti_ I' ' 14' 1.4 11 1 1 1 1 r ((I 1 1- 9 / 11 1 11, Â· -Â· 06.0 0 - 1.-imy I 7%10#0 0,31261 'Lotonir'371 1 1 / Â¢1>a~~lirl-p'-71'ri ~ 885% ed-prÂ¥319 11 1 , ~1 111 1 1/ 1 1|_- Â· Ng 4-1191- 1 Ill 1 --10 <23,843,0. Ir I er"i'*1 di 9602 \ W / 11 L _ - _ _ _ - __-_-, 1/ 1 f 1 911'.7-1 '161,9 1"'~'19Â·* - 11 '0~ 11 ~e~o allÂ·ari'1/ ,''Ll trn=/.UN j 11 , 11*1/$ /O./.3 , ,\ \ 11 / / f . I 2------ /1 1 .0 1 Ir-~1 --- \\ - 1 1 - . 0-41 Â« 11 .. 1 1 11 3 111 ' - -U-3 6 7- 11 1 -A.~Myl; 4) 1 ' 1 1 FM,2 1'49 1,1 2l -- .,71*f- ''71.-In 2>13(311\(39 " : 64-ELA 9-:222- - 6 % 50 6 0 41-0 2.&-__ 14Â·. .. 'TID- %. = 1 v E_JA-r 1 - I 90.00 1/ -1 - 9 - m / / r p -I ~- P 1- r. 1 L m Ch Ch 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 2 1 1 4 0 | I c / 1-- tn 1.- -4 1 1 11\ 11 1 1\ 2 11 11 1 \\ // 1 C . .5 11 E 1 1 11 1 L m B 1 11 1 47 1 1 1 mil A . 48 > 7 1 1 1 I r /4 0 k R 'L _r~o J 1 , 1 (/ *F ' /t U - A F \ 1. 0 1 Â£ f 2 2/ ' 4 6 . 1 le 1 - 1 E m I iii \ 9 r L 8-0- 1 9 1 N4 r , 1 m , 2.1 & h 'Of- 1 5 m t C 1 41 4 7 2\ F-------1 1 ' f ic-Ike-lilt--_ _ 2>Zf - r 0 0,1 \422% \00.00 '57'' 6 2 KE kil TuckY -\. 111 TRIED el-UCKER OCEAN ARCHITEC'S - BOX 10607 - 11 1 ASPEN, CO. 81812 303. 925-9614 9 - 2 Ya,IN' 97 -li-, 2 9 A#Ja %.6 4'-2. 6 4,-0 gcoF L 4 p. -011-9. ro ~. 2 - - 133=14 p YA 6 613â‚¬L..... I 'F '63'3 91.01 - L.q 9-19 :atr=Ler 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . r.f 1 \\0\\\ f. I ! f I i~ 1 L O.' 1 ..0 ~ 70 It' - f j 'O -1 it r - / - 11 2 ' 1 f h./ X Fl 0 cr~ -1 1 ~f Gh -\ \\ \# 61= A\\ 1\ h\\ \\~ E cs 9 1 U OCEAN ARCHITEC'S : K E KIT-L C Â©f FRJED CH i C K,Eld BOX 10607 Â· ), ASPEN, CO. 8 l 8 l2 303. 925-9514 .Â·- 51- i 7- 22=22(-~ES---105;Li06~~EX-----11 NVJd 210013 0 NA 1 1 M liIN Ill~Illj *F I~1;1'j'!~Ill"Ij~Ill~~~I'!'!1 ~1'~: 434.1 1 ~ ~~-3 Itt .>,1 Z V.. *b 1 N. 9. 4 5't 9 . b /5 1 9 5 15 1 1 32-7 -----I -1 1 . .- t- *44 Z' , 2-' 4'llk J 1 ' r-71 1 /2 - 0 , Ell M 1 4'1 , L - 1 -Â»0*11.i; 1> 4...,1 7 -1 1 ... 0 - h L Y =2 f -4 1 /3 22 -REP 1 - 1 3 7 . 11 i ' 1 . 1 -4 <2 + T> 2 1 -4 1 1 J t,6 KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEhi BOX 10607 ' , /4 1 OCEAN ARCHITEC'S - '4 Â· 11 , Â· 14 ASPEN, CO. 81812 303 . 925-0514 13Jkj 19 14 4/ I.J.'Â· //'61 1,Â·44'.Â·14 -0 49/ 1 -- Â¢Â·* ..1.' 5- I. 2 - I Â«f...2 4 1 I 24/ 1 7- m 4$ f ;-3 - :1 5 btU r==1 L_Jj , [23 OCEAN ARCHCTEC'S 97 ~~ KENTUCKY TRIED CHICKEW BOX 10607 Â¢ '. 1 V ASPEN, CO. 01612 303 . 925-0514 ..4 -7... 11 , .Ad==~ AOUT >fiff\ TION /9 h---~7 NO11\163 3-3 AA C '1 [22' N. R MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Continuation of 432 W. Francis, a/k/a The Hallett House, Conceptual Development Review, continued Public Hearing Date: February 14, 1989 BACKGROUND: On January 24, 1989, the HPC began the conceptual review process of the proposal at 2:45 p.m., tabling further review and the public hearing at 5:15 p.m. to this meeting. To aid in today's review discussion. please bring to this meeting staff's review memo of January 24 and all supporting documentation. At the January 24 meeting, staff presented the significant issues of the proposal, followed by a overview presentation by the applicant and their support team. General comments on the proj ect were then voiced by the many members of the public who attended the meeting, most in favor of the proposal. The HPC generally reviewed the significant scope of the rehabilitation work proposed, commenting on compatibility and "preservation" issues. Generally, the Committee agreed that the proposal's numerous changes amounted to more than a renovation, and that the applicant needed to restudy certain elevations and aspects of the project. As of the time of this memo preparation, Staff had not received any revisions to the proposal. HPC PROJECT MONITOR: Not yet assigned. Monitor should be assigned at this meeting. STAFF COMMENTS: Staff reminds the Committee that the goals for historic preservation in the community as stated in the Historic Preservation Element of the Comprehensive Plan, Development Review Standards, and the Guidelines generally echo those of the Secretary of the Interior's Standard No. 1, which states: "Every reasonable effort shall be made to provide a compatible use for a property which required minimal alteration of the building, structure, or site and its environment, or to use the property for its originally intended purposes." It remains very clear that the applicants intend a "reconstruction" over a " renovation"; that is, utilizing i sensitively the existing historic elements of the structure(s) and repair rather than replace deteriorated features. Staff is supportive of portions of the applicant's proposal, however, feels that the sheer number of the changes proposed will permanently alter the original historic character of this National Register property. In particular, we support a more sensitive approach in foundation, siding, window and chimney repair. HPC should consider carefully the full impact of the four (4) partial demolitions proposed. The historic evolution of this property is noted as character-defining, and to remove any addition does impact the historic integrity of the structure. Staff, however, feels that the additions proposed for demolition contain individually the least historic importance. The rear "courtyard" area is confined and not very functional for modern living. The proposed site plan indicates a nicely desfgned open space between the main and carriage houses. We can support the partial demolition provided that significant preservation methods are utilized throughout the remainder of the property. SIJMMARY: This project is indicative somewhat of a combination of philosophies of "preservation". Staff has presented a conservative renovation approach in requiring the retaining and repairing of what exists, and allowing new changes and expansions to occur that are sensitive to the historic elements of the structure. Staff also commends the applicant on the historic research aspects of the proposal. ALTERNATIVES: While Staff has recommended Conceptual Development Approval with conditions, HPC should not be hesitate to deny approval or table once again should any questions be unanswered, or unclear aspects of the proposal not be understood at this meeting. This is a significant project which deserves ample time for review on everyone's part. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant conceptual development approval of the proposal for 432 West Francis Street, subject to the following conditions: 1) Review and approval of revisions to the east elevation, as suggested at January 24 meeting, i.e. stepping back the garage, bringing into setback conformity, fenestration, etc., OIL 2) Restudy the "breakfast room", (north elevation) gable roof form, french doors and windows in relation to the existing structure and carriage house.a lt.\ 3) All siding be retained and repaired on the structure, with the exact replacement of only those damaged clapboards due to insulation installation or C C I 2 significant dry rot. A minimum of 80% of the original siding shall be retained. Interior vapor barrier installation methods shall be studied. 4) Complete, detailed foundation, basement and structural studies for both the principal structure and the carriage house shall be submitted and approved at final development review, including either a bond or letter of credit, sufficient to replace elements or repair any damage incurred during excavation. 5) -Retain the existing central chimney, pointing where npprierl o 6) Retain all original windows on elevations not receiving additions. Replace only those portions which have deteriorated beyond repair. Specifically address each window repair or replacement in final development application. 7) Obtain approval from Board of Adjustment for exceeded --site coverage; obta-in-recommendation from--B-.of A on ---serâ‚¬~lot--lins-variatioh for new attached garage 8) Shed dormer proposed for carriage house shall not be approved. All small divided lights in carriage house f /1 to be restudied; revised window plan presented in final ./C development application. Consideration of two Ll O alley-elevation flat roof skylights should be, given in R:.0 '1* place of other, less appropriate new windows.,11;104-ug,2-7 ;4,~.tf~' 1/ All existing landscaping features shall be retained, including the fence.(,)/~ 10) Variations for rear and side yard setbacks, finding such variations to be more compatible in character with the historic landmark, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirement. 11) The south elevation front entranceway be redesigned to utilize an existing opening, preserving as much as possible the original log cabin walls located within the structure 12) Eliminate proposed shutters 13) Either preserving the existing front porch brackets or replace with appropriate, compatible brackets. The applicants should determine exact bracket design through research of historic photos 3 U/ 14) Final Development Approval shall meet all conditions of Conceptual approval 15) Exact material samples shall be included in the final development application and presented at the final review meeting. hpc.memo.432wf.2 4 ' WE ARE ALWAYS PROMPT...NO MATTER HOW LONG IT TAKES! RYBERG CONSTRUCTION CO. "SHORING & STRUCTURE MOVING CONTRACTOR" 9900 E. FLORIDA AVE.#2 DENVER, CO 80231 H. CARL RYBERG President & SON Colorado House Movers Assn. (303) 755 - 3426 13 February 1989 Over 35 years of Service BOA Construction, Inc. First in Mr. Timothy G. Pleune, C.R. Area to P.O. Box 20127 Move Denver, CO 80220 Brick and Masonry Buildings RE: Recommendations for foundatin replacement and general scope of work for the Hernandez residence located at 432 West Francis Street, Aspen, Demolition Colorado. Dear Tim, Excavation Rentention First, I will cover the pro's and con's of foundation replacement. The Systems structures as they now sit are not level around the perimeters nor through- out their central areas. Their existing foundations have settled unevenly and basically have no structural strength left for spanning and/or lateral ing inning movement forces. The uneven settlement around the perimeters of the struc- tures indicate soils that mandate a foundation system capable of spanning and resisting lateral movement (reinforced cast concrete grade beam founda- Structural tion walls.) Reinforced spread footing with dowells should be adequate for Restoration a bearing system for the grade beam walls. The only and recommended way to perform foundation replacement for these structures is to raise the structures up and/or move one or both out Foundation of the way for proper foundation replacement. When I say the only way, Replacement there is an alternative to replacing the existing foundation section by sec- tion. The alternate method will not provide working strength effectively where there is uneven settlement, frost and water problems, and existing Foundation Extension structure elevations that are below extensive yard area elevations. Reason Up or Down #1 - uneven settlement around perimeters and attempting to raise lower set- tled areas of the structures up level section by section will literally rack t and structually destroy the structures; #2 - the existing yard grade eleva- -r Free tions slope toward the structures in approximately 50% of the side areas Estimates causing a water pooling effect along the foundation areas. Sectional foun- in Denver Area dation replacement always has waterproofing problems and most especially when water pooling occurs along sides of sectional foundation replacement; #3 - sectional foundation replacement will not provide adequate bridging Free and/or spanning strength for soils where uneven settlement is occuring. Structure After personally viewing and inspecting these structures and their Relocation existing conditions, my recommendation is not to consider using the alter- Pamphlet nate sectional foundation replacement method. Future liability for end for ers products that are not adequate, most expecially foundation systems that fail or give problems later, will haunt you the contractor, designers, and the entity that allows it as well. My company either raises and/or replaces 15 "WE HAUL OR RESTORE YOUR MOST PRIZED POSSESSION FOR YOU" Page 2 of 3 to 25 foundations yearly and quite often I am subpoenaed into court regard- ing liability from inadequate foundation systems and hear the judgements handed out. A real future liability would exist in this project where a hundred or so thousands are to be spent on these structures' rehabilitation without adequate foundation systems. I realize that historical and/or preservation committees have a fiduci- ary duty to preserve -- to allow some change is always questionable and/or sometimes emotional. However, my experience after working with several hun- dred committees on various historical structures is that their decisions are to preserve in such a fashion for longivity and general esthetics of exist- ing conditions. I understand that the committee in Aspen is concerned about the Hernandez project's foundation replacement. It is my bet that as soon as they realize the benefit of an adequate foundation system that increases the life of these structures considerably their vote would be do it. With- out foundation replacement these structures are not economically viable for use and/or their rehabilitation cost and will sit there continuously deteri- orating. Scope of projected work which includes recommendations are as follows: preserving the trees and the yard areas facing onto the streets will require moving the carriage house east then later move it back to its original site. In so doing you need to replace its foundation with a crawl space reinforced cast concrete foundation system. The wooden garage floor is contaminated with oils and etc. and will need replacement which can be accomplished dur- - ing this phase of work. You supply the materials and we will replace the floor throughout the lower level of the carriage house during our work phase. By moving the carriage house out of the way there is working room to ramp down under the main structure and excavate under it after it is ade- quately supported and raised up some. Excavation would be from underneath the structure and would not affect the yard areas except for over excavation around the sides of the main structure. I need to raise the structure up a minimum of 2-1/2 to 3 feet for initial clearance of the excavating machine and then lower the structure back down after foundation construction is com- pleted. Plan on crawl space area foundation wall height being approximately the same as the basement area due to machine clearance under the structure. The room on the east side will be separated and moved out into alignment with its foundation when the main structure is set upon its new foundation. Tim, to guarantee exact alignment of structures to their original placment, set up offset batter board off the south and west corners of the house and on the north side of the carriage house. Set these in such a fashion that they are not easily moved and/or drive steel pins further out for farther alignment references on all corners. After excavation is completed I will set both structures in exact alignment still raised up for forming and cast- ing concrete clearance then later lower structures onto their new founda- tions. At that time we will place floor support beams and level floors for you. However, we usually do not supply the beams or columns (note adding and/or floor joist replacement should be considered at that time, also.) Re- leveling a wooden structure that has settled and warped the frame structural members connot be accomplished in a single phase of work. During the time of raising the structure some corrections are made. Then during the waiting period for its new foundation further corrections are performed. Upon and after setting the structure down further corrections are performed. Usually over that brief span of time a structure can be releveled almost perfectly to its new foundation. Page 3 of 3 At this time I will not get into how the structure raising and support- ing is accomplished. You have one of the albums which shows the primary methods used by the industry which is self-explanatory. Nor will I firm up the quotes until you have a solid plan. However, I will mention insurance and bonding. Recommendation is for insurance coverage. I carry a special transporation floater insurance for this type of work. Coverage is all risk with a $1,000.00 deductible clause and is in effect from the time the strue- ture is raised off its foundation until it is set back onto the new founda- tion. I can write coverage up to $150,000.00 before going through the com- pany (Safeco); cost is $.50 per hundred dollars. By going through the com- pany this insurance can be acquired as a builder' s risk policy fran start to completion of the entire project. For futher information call my insurance agent - Highland Agency, Ltd. and ask for Denise at 303/233-0787 here in Denver. Time to accanplish the raising and excavation phase will require 2 to 3 weeks, foundation construction 3 to 6 weeks, and several days to set struc- ture down thereafter. Starting target date is late April or early May 1989. Also, due to future contingent liability I will not bid a sectional founda-,4- tion replacement request on this one. Sincerely, PA V r 64 1/0 Â»*1~f ~ darl RAerg Ryberg Oonst. 4:0 FAR CALCULATIONS - ALTERNATE SCHEME PROPOSED STRUCTURE Lot Area - 9,000 s.f. Zone - R-6 Allowable FAR for 2 Detached Dwelling Units = 4,080 s.f. Allowable extensions for Non-conforming Landmarks (9-103(c)(2)) = 500 s.f. 4,582 s.f. Garage Exemption for 2 DU's - up to 1,000 s.f. FAR of Proposed Structures: Main Residence: Lower Level = 2105 s.f. Upper Level = 611 s.f. Above-grade Covered Porches over 3 feet = 207 s.f. Subtotal = 2,923 s.f. Carriage House: Lower Level - 656 s.f. Upper Level = 638 s.f. Subtotal = 1,294 s.f. TOTAL PROPOSED SQUARE FOOTAGE = 4,117 s.f. (390.8 s.f. garage exempt) 1 SITE COVERAGE CALCULATIONS - ALTERNATE SCHEME PROPOSED STRUCTURE Lot Area - 9,000 s.f. Zone - R-6 Allowable Site Coverage = 30% = 2,700 s.f. Site Coverage, Proposed Main Residence & Carriage House (incl. garage) = 3,152 s.f. Porches - 413 Less exemption for 15% of allowable = 405 Net = 8 s.f. Total Countable Site Coverage = 3,160 s.f. C~V~SC~,1 X- X- ALLE=f ZJ 4 bu j'i~~ C~. TEum.~29---Â·-- - , l{-- - . - --Â·---,1 1 iÂ·'i i i iÂ·q :i'' 1 1 f L~ h i ill) 11 . 11 - 11,(. 1 311 1 4 , '4 i i st 1 1 & 1 "4 1 'If Ld A 1 ' 1 --. 1 1 k 31 /f 11 '111 1K-- --571*4 1 / 111141Â»11 '14Â¢ 1 3, 3 Â©diu b Of N 11,1 S ~ 11 * WO 59 OZ ,8 Z Ul : 402 im L We zE / / 6\ X A A t tÂ·1Or 0......,64 1 0 * 10 â€¢5 2. 45 .ce'~C O.T. 9-â‚¬ET ~0 WEST FKALICI 5 STKÂ»T- PROPOSED SITE PLAN - - -ERNATE SCHEME -â‚¬ET C. 103.LIHOHV/S31Â¥1 )OSSV Â¥ 1.1.11NNrE) 531HVH) 0655Â·926/EOE 3NOHA3131 iwle Oc~2O-10) 'NMSV *SE XOEI Od 0 6 TE-----I-----7- 1.8 I r-1 1-----1 r ' 62 E E 0 1 1 IN . 7 ----1 1 . 1 --tjllL 1,1---- . 1 1 rt rqi m Z 0 0 23 â€¢ ~-7 -.0--, ~ 1 ;1 ~ ~ ~ L~ ~Â·-' 20129 C tilLU11 -1 8- _ _ EZZ,LAJ -W.-7 1 m n ./ r 0 0 1 Il VEL . 0- I i ~ 17 1 mm Z 9 P. 8 0 -EZZ~ ~ 1 ~, I Z\ 0\ - r> 1/ 1 HERNANDEZ CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS Â¢ /6 RESIDENCE i g 432 WEST FRANCIS STREET ASPEN COLORADO PO BOX 3534 KSPEN. COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 QU DNINIC] I.~~REAKFAST NV-Id HOO-1=1 73Aal 07 CEIS GARAGE SE 07 St 01Â· A.Dâ‚¬ C'â€¢ ~ @Dâ€¢16 ltd---_--- r-0 . ---- - Elio 0 -11:. 4 ffÂ« ---- -1--4 ---- -- 1- - L-J r- 1 ! Ll=J 1 cio\ 1 031(-i-4 m -8 Cm I F li i, bz 9 -1 0 Z 1 \ ---4 Z 1 1 1 T--]lurl--1 C==1 v 1 -- JOI i - V- III W 09 / -=m 0 .01 / 8 01 / 0 ./1 Z %1~ 1 10 C -0 Il m X1 .JO Â» ZI/ : HERNANDEZ CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS ~ /6 g RESIDENCE Â§ 432 WEST FRANCIS STREET ASPEN COLORADO PO BOX 3534. ASPEN, COLOÂ£ADO 8I6I2 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 1 3 Dâ€¢-6 ' GUEST BEDROOM~ SITTING ROO 1 -----7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1---1 0 1 1 1 El 1 0 1 1 m 1 I 1--------t o C -- 1 % 1 -T 1 , 1 1 1 13 1 4 il 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 t' z 1 1 g 1 1 1 1 '--1 0 I 1 1 0 1 1---------4 1 t 1 1 1 Z p Im m 0 1 -4 1 5 10 -- 1-1 m - 0 22_N i E ------------7 1 Z =-ijim 1 Mcil 1 11 01 1-------7 q 1 DI I 1 0 1 '0 1 1 mi JO 4----4 1 0 I r---4 W lim 0 1.---_____1 0 1 0-.m --- 1 0 m Z m Z u z N 0 u ZI Ul 5 HERNANDEZ CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS ~ 0 6 f i RESIDENCE 9 432 WEST FRANCIS STREET ASPEN COLOAADO PO BOX 3534 ASPEN. COLORADO 81612 TE[ EPI-IONE 303/925Â·5590 aAOSV 3SnOH DNLLS[XB C~N 13 K 9 1- OK 9 7-1 , 1 6 1 1 7 0 -=- * 9I~lt IRRI ~J= 2 1 - PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION ALTERNATE SCHEME NW W0 9 0 ZW <o im WW JJ == -- Rma 0-a~V-G 1-1/.-I~ -= ==2, - -â„¢ NC CA-E PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION 9-â‚¬ E - \D ALTERNATE SCHEME S,â‚¬ET 11)31JH)&1Â¥/531Â¥DOSSV Â¥ 3531NNfl) 53-78Â»12) 11#=11 '2~EVES~CÂ»~ 11 4 r// f---- --- 1 1- Egl [B ORE= 8 1 - Â£.*./.- - .1- 1 PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION ALTERNATE SCHEME N iiI B i 5-~ U OZ ;8 WO E~ ZIll M Â»~ 013 94 40 2 11.1 & 0 5 / C / = 1 == 1 . â€ž'- 7 i-- -/.0----.- aq C).7. PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION 9â‚¬E- u ALTERNATE SCHEME 9â‚¬ET m 5103.LIH]HV/531Â¥IDOSSV Â¥ 3:WINNO) 53-111VHJ 0659-526/EOE 3NOHd3131 21918 Oav21O1O) N3dSV WSE XO8 Od 7..CÂ»I m.1 0=30 72% 4 1 \.b EL p*> ~BE ft QI E l PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION NW 62 R â‚¬ WO 19 QZ ,8 = Z Ill K 40 2 Z- + ~ EIEEIN w Ill 1 5 Â£1= 0 m EBEE /4 Ir 9% - f I - FEEE m E LE- E E 0â€ž.W,40 a0 0~'I PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION 9-â‚¬â‚¬ - ho CARRIAGE HOUSE ALIERNATE SCHEME ,â‚¬.7 g , S.031!H)HÂ¥/531Â¥DOSSÂ¥ 7 1:laINNCD Sal#VH) 0659 426/EOE 3NOHW9131 21918 00901010 J N=]dSÂ¥ -DE SE XO8 O d V. SITE COVERAGE CALCULATIONS - ALTERNATE SCHEME PROPOSED STRUCTURE Lot Area - 9,000 s.f. Zone - R-6 Allowable Site Coverage = 30% = 2,700 s.f. Site Cover-age, Proposed Main Residence & Carriage House (incl. garage) = 3,152 s.f. Porches - 413 Less exemption for 15% of allowable = 405 Net = 8 s.f. Total Countable Site Coverage = 3,160 s.f. .. FAR CALCULATIONS - ALTERNATE SCHEME PROPOSED STRUCTURE 1_ot Area - 9,000 s.f. Zone - R-6 Allowable FAR for 2 Detached Dwelling Unit<: = 4,080 s.f. Allowable extensions for Non-conforming Landmarks (9-103(c)(2)) = 500 s.f. 4,582 s.f. Garage Exemption for 2 DU's - up to 1,000 s.f. FAR of Proposed Structures: Main Residence: Lower Level = 2105 s.f. Upper Level = 611 s.f. Above-grade Covered Porches over 3 feet = 207 s.f. Subtotal = 2,923 s.f. Carriage House: Lower Level - 656 s.f. Upper Level = 638 s.f. Subtotal = 1,294 s.f. TOTAL PROPOSED SQUARE FOOTAGE = 4,117 s.f. (390.8 s.f. garage exempt) ALLA-- 1 - 12 11141'qI,1 Id~ -- . - lIli -I-i 1 Vic/t~: r :. 11 14 i.41 1 -=n 1 11 11"1. X --- - -mi-*' < f g),Cr'< It,. 11 1 " 111 1 \222/. 1 l~ 'I i (W i (1,. ~ 11 4 -*rET, 1 \ 272 - -- - i Jul . 7 -7 *7 - /*\ N ul 5 i 1 C. / 43< i / Z 111 y OZ 28 40 2 Z- 4,3-371,- l,41_t_ Â»_j_._- A-A-~41*-k-1 Â» 1 14 , 85% - 6 4 M &5 28 -15 -ce NC C-TI WEST FKAkICI5 STKUT 9.E Â¥ v PROPOSED SITE PLAN ALTERNATE SCHEME -~E' C, 10311HNIV/531Â¥1)055Â¥ Â¥ 3:1.11NNIC) 53=INVH) 0655Â·526/EOE 3NOHd3131 21918 Oov*)10] NEet* *ESE *08 Od KTH- 5-[KEET 0 0 0 i 6.---4 i 10 r r- -7 8 bill 0 III J â€¢ CZE]Czzliq -F .-----6 4 C ' lilli i , 4 ID A.2% / 0 5 ../7/ -I, 0 1 7,- h 0 -[EZZIP-(/=11 -9- Ef Ile . HERNANDEZ CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS RESIDENCE 432 WEST FRANCIS STREET ASPEN COLORADO PO BOX 3534, ASPEN. COLOODO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925 5590 V,18 DNIAn Wal Al'WV=I GARAGE ltd---- -- r-0 . - offh 1--- U ic ill LLJ 1 414>\ i 031614 449 m Â¤ H 8 L- -1 5 1 B pm r 0. 0 0 li l 10 1 3 8 1 0 1 1 - - El F -213 1 t--1-,0 rE-1 1 f -0 i- m Cl .0 Ql - -- 0, \ -7 --m 11 / 2 01 / 0 0 01/ Z mF 0 L.-1_-1 1 Fl C ~0 m 1 Ul 0 . Z\ N o roN N 1 E. 5 HERNANDEZ CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS : 9 .6 9 g RESIDENCE Â§ 432 WEST FRANCIS STREET ASPEN COLORADO PO BOX 3534, ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 GUEST BEDROOM~ d 8001=I laAE11 8 1 ---1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l 1 9 1 1 0 1 1 m 1 I 1--------t o C r--------------- 10 1 T m 1 1,1 1 1 1 101 1 -4 N I 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 Z IE 1 0 1 1 I z 1--1 0 1 0 1 C 0 1 m I & 6 !1 m * Ual 313 1 -- 1 Z m 0 22 1 i ------------7 | Mci 1 1 1 01 3 rl' ' 1 0 1 '0 1 1 1 1 m I 4----4 1 Â» 0 I r---4 0 1 1 v 1 1 0 1--------1. 1 0 1 0-.In ------------4 0 m Z m G Z j z r & 3-0> Ul U y HERN ANDEZ CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS m 6 i RESIDENCE 432 WEST FRANCIS STREET ASPEN COLORADO PO BOX 3534. ASPEN. COL.ORADC) 81612 TFLEPHONE 303/925Â·5590 (iNBWBSV OL 9 4/ISON 1 1 12 1 U 24 =Jt 2 (= 3:/1 Unt = r f ---*--- - PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION ALTERNATE SCHEME NW 1110 0Z 9 4 2 ZW m 0 z gr UJUJ 7 11 -. == == == - = 4-1 == t n X CÂ»TE PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION ALIERNATE SCHEME Sl)311HDHV/511Â¥DOSSV Â¥ 3=1:11NNn) 9-IHVH) 10264:1 ~VISâ‚¬>1 0 C O OTJ Â° Bi = 6 ~ 1- I .-9 PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION ALTERNATE SCHEME NW W0 40 0Z ZUJ cio WLIJ r~~' Im DIAâ€¢V,+40 - 0â€¢TE PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION 6,â‚¬E- t ALTERNATE SCHEME 9.1- Â£103.LIH)8Â¥/SalVIDOSSÂ¥ 7 33:11NNA) SEnHVHZ> rn W '0 r 0 0 11 I -0 o, ET=11 0 m m 0 0 ill Z 0 7it[_1 Â« 0 0 0 - c -1 - I I m m r r 0 . m < 0 0 0 Z Z - 1 '0 n 0 ~0 0 10 0 m m Eld> 0 1 -1 m o FEE r m < 11 I m " o u 0 Z m I 0 C 0 m 0 3, 9 HERNANDEZ CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS RESIDENCE i 432 WEST FRANCIS STREET ASPEN COLORADO PO BOX 3534. ASPEN COVORADD 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925 4590 NOLLVAa-131 -LSEAA ClaSOdObld Â£ ...4 2323HOS 31VN83114 4 MARVIN ~ E-Z TILT DOUBLE HUNG -NDOINSA . 44 DE T A IL ME A S UREMENTS -1 3/4" Sash j~:7 /~,(~ SCALE: 6": 1'-0" L.' L~e-2' 1 1/4" , 4 9/16 t X 1- ff k - - - - Header = 4/ 1 2 2-0 1 1 Dotted line indicates Jamb extending beyond Sill and Header. * The Jamb is cut flush with Header when a Unit is mulled above. 4 1-- j j co 4> (9 / -01Â« (D \ -1 CO Sill W4-5 DAYLIGHT OPENING 3 3/16- FRAME SIZE E-Z TILT DOUBLE HUNG MARVIN -0.- WINDOWS A Je GLAZING OPTIONS SCALE: 3" : 1'0" -T \ - 7 0 23 La 481 = 01 11 1 1 -4 4 l UJ 10. 49 fp Â£3 ) 1 4 Single Glaze Single Glaze A.D.L. A.D.L. Single Glaze Insulating A.D.L with Energy Panel Single Glaze with Energy Panel W4-8 91*1 4 F//Elle'~ 3Â©4 j u b*/ ff L\91* _/ 0% f /1 LitÂ© /1 11%Â©201 4 1 FAR CALCULATIONS - ALTERNATE SCHEME PROPOSED STRUCTURE Lot Area - 9,000 s.f. Zone - R-6 Allowable FAR for 2 Detached Dwelling Units = 4,080 s.f. Allowable extensions for Non-conforming Landmarks (9-103(c)(2)) = 500 s.f. 4,582 s.f. Garage Exemption for 2 DU's - up to 1,000 s.f. FAR of Proposed Structures: i Main Residence: Lower Level = 2105 s.f. +/- Upper Level = 611 s.f. Above-grade Covered Porches over 3 feet = 207 s.f. Sub total = 2,923 s.f. Carriage House: Lower Level = 656 s.f. Upper Level = 638 s.f. Subtotal = 1,294 s.f. TOTAL PROPOSED SQUARE FOOTAGE = 4,117 s.f. (390.8 s.f. garage exempt) 4 Â· SITE COVERAGE CALCULATIONS - ALTERNATE SCHEME PROPOSED STRUCTURE Lot Area - 9,000 s.f. Zone - R-6 Allowable Site Coverage = 30% = 2,700 s.f. Site Coverage, Proposed Main Residence & Carriage House (incl. garage) = 3,152 s.f. Porches = 413 Less exemption for 15% of allowable = 4-23. Net = 8 s.f. Total Countable Site Coverage = 3,160 s.f. AL.Lfrf 1<-3 -1 10 1.1-5 , I- 41.. Â·1~1)-X,IV~'i \ 3.-744 Ir JI -- - il:?il 10--Â».5 -5 .. g ~~Â»-Â«013-~11 , 5~3 T7*7 ~'4Yf / . -=====r==71-=7------- - - ##.- 4- 1 3 -1 1 ) 1 0 -- J C / / 29 1 1 |INX /h' [Bljl k__, /1 N Ul ~ ~ f-/-1/ t) ,0 / 11111,~.111.41 Â£1<j'~d;, ~ =2 24 Zul : 8 i i r. 90 1*) 3- 'JOr -- W. 6 15 le '5 20 .5 WEST FRAUCE STRUI 9-â‚¬6.~0 PROPOSED SITE PLAN A --RNATE SCHEME ...7 - 11)31[H)21'V/5 31Â¥1)OSSÂ¥ 9 3.blINNFE) 210Â¥H) 0655Â·526/EOE 3NOI-633131 219!0 00.41010) 'N119V #EGE XO8 Od T:ou KIM- 51-KEET 0 761 2 27 2 0 0 i--__ _j rt I 1, : c iw-----. LI j Fc' o 143 1 0 -m---11 Z 5 r-t '. 1* i F i o. -----1 IN . 1 2. -72 al M--_--7" 1 1 1. i 47 1 1 V 4 -% 2 lf-7-- 4 0 *3 1 to 90 143 C O1LL<1 I C 0 i ~l ) l -&-,~ - fm CZ*.1 41 1 m 0 r--- m 0 0 0 0 y~ . i 7-7 m 1 Z 'Pl k 0 "- m -1/5 1 1 . A--1 Z\ 03 1/ 1 HERNANDEZ CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS * .6 2 RESIDENCE 6 & 432 WEST FRANCIS STFtEET ASPEN COLORADO PO BOX 3534. ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925 5590 WU ON,All BREAKFAST RM. NV-Id blOO-1=1 -IEIA37 83MC)-1 0/ - AID-/ ---- r-0 . I Â«//-~ -- --- - ---- -2-J --- ---- ---- --- - 1- - O 5 71 - Ll=J 1 4193 0 31614 F- ----4 42) 0 Â¤ 00 mi 14 1 0 8 1 $3 1 ' 0 1 18 1 0 1 - Z I ~ f ~Â£239 1 --1 T--~-'U,r ~ -1 -o E- F 40 0 --m .or g 0 0/ 0 mv 011 I L_~L_.1 C -0 ' t' m Il 1- 1 Q z\ 1 VA HERNANDEZ CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS A ~ RESIDENCE Â§ 6 6 432 WEST FRANCIS STREET ASPEN COLORADO PO. BOX 3534. ASPEN. COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 GUEST BEDROOM~ 1 ---7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1---7 1 0 It m 1 1 3 1 1 0 1 1 m 1 1--------1 0 1 C 1 0 T m 1 1, 1 03 1 0 1 4 M 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 ------1 4 1 1 1% 1 1 1 4-3 1 1 10 1 c 1 1 m Z- 1 0 m 1 * 1 m 0 -- 1 in- --------- 1 ~ 2=_ 1 --- 1- MCI 1 1 1 1 1 mi r It- ~ -- 1 Â» 1 0 1 -0 1 m 4-----4 1 0 1 7---4 j lim 0 0 1 o,M --- 1 -- 1 1 1 m m G Z '0 zi 3 ro \ ZI/ N U, y HERNANDEZ CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS A { RESIDENCE 6 6 6 432 WEST FRANCIS STREET ASPEN COLORADO PO BOX 3534 ASPEN. COIORADO 81612 TFI EPI IONE 303/925Â·5590 UNEWESVS 070) - NEW BASEMENT/STORAGE 01 9 7-7 1 1 5. > 1 2 BEEEIEEI | Â£~ Erri- 2 HI----+ ION 23 i PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION ALTERNATE SCHEME NW W0 0Z 9 40 ZW = a ILIW -*4%6 _- I -7--7 .LI l = - im .....ING .= . 0 ==- -08 W Cla're PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION ALTERNATE SCHEME 9-â‚¬ET 933.UH)HÂ¥/SEUVIDOSSÂ¥ 9 3111NNrE) SinkIVH) 1[*53ill ~â‚¬VISCN .T- =. 4 1 00il t - -= ElID r18 Â° HE = BBL 1 - .- -1 PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION ALIERNATE SCHEME NW 62 WO BE OZ &8 Z 111 9 40 2 Z- , a: 0 E w ul E ~ / / 664*--7 Ior 58 -F : =lm-- - -1 == .f . -1 - r- 7 -2-- -*------ -ce NO SATE PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION 6,-~â‚¬ T NO ALTERNATE SCHEME $1O311HZ)HV/SalÂ¥1.DOSSV , 3:131NN,13 SalkIVH) 0655-526/EOE 3NOHd3131 ZI90 00910103 NidSÂ¥ 'DESE )(08 Od H y /4 - num-= 6 3 Ret BREI â‚¬t F B PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION # NW W0 0Z ZW 21 . I <0 Z- 0:0 WLU -18-3 - I EE EE E].El E E -Â£26W PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION 9-â‚¬E- F CARRIAGE HOUSE ALTERNATE SCHEME - 1031,H)Â¥/SEUVID FV 9 31:WINNRE) S31HVHI) 4.-11_ , R,ZE- j , Lt MEMORANDUM ' , 1 bo to f 1 1 To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Pre-application conference: Aspen Hardware (the Collins Block) - significant development Date: February 14, 1989 SUMMARY: To begin a dialogue between the applicant and the HPC, staff recommended a pre-application conference with the Committee. Staff considers this project, as conceptually proposed, very significant in its potential impact to this National Register historic structure, and to the entire Commercial Core Historic District as well. LOCATION: 204 S. Mill St. ZONING: CC, Commercial Core; Designated Landmark. Property is also listed on National Register. APPLICANT: Harley Baldwin, represented by Wayne Polson, Architect APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant is requesting consultation with the HPC to obtain guidance and feedback on the (at this time very) conceptual proposal. The applicant's offer has been accepted on the property; anticipated closing is later this spring. The applicant wishes to construct a third floor to the 1891-93 Collins Block, and infill the empty lot behind (frontage on Hopkins St. across from the Isis Theatre). Two plans have been discussed with staff for the infill of this lot: one incorporates "open space" and a recessed courtyard, retail and restaurant use; the other includes the construction of a one story storefront-type structure for retail use. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Many elements affect the proposed development of the Collins Block property. Land use issues such as affordable housing, parking, open space impact fees (if any) and GMQS Exemption provisions of the code will be reviewed by P&Z. Although the HPC does not review these issues, it is helpful to understand the scope of the project when reviewing a proposal to increase the FAR. New preservation incentives currently proposed as code amendments may also positively affect this and other commercial landmark projects. Historic compatibility issues are paramount with this project. Staff has deep concerns about the addition of a third floor to this National Register structure. Equally, the remarkably in-tact storefront elements on the first floor should be utilized and sensitively preserved. The significant Tuscan columns on the main level and the Ionic columns on the second are this structure's hallmark and must be retained. The Victorian and neo-classic styling and superb features of this prominent corner structure must be retained and preserved. The Collins Block is the only commercial building in Aspen to contain Neoclassical style elements which became very popular in other cities after 1900. It appears that the applicant has every intent to not alter any original element of the structure, which is applauded. However, the HPC should give clear direction to the applicant at this meeting regarding the compatibility issues of a third floor addition to this structure and the adjacent infill. The applicant's conceptual development application forthcoming will incorporate these guiding comments. The design of the infill structure on the vacant lot will depend greatly, it appears, on the Open Space Cash-in-Lieu issue which has yet to be determined. The applicant has stated that his plans for the interior redevelopment of the Collins Block most probably do not include a hardware store. Should the open space cash-in-lieu provision be required, the applicant has stated that the retail one-story structure designed to contain "a hardware store" could not be built, and the "courtyard plan" would become the proposal. HPC should offer guidance on the compatibility issues of courtyard/retail space as well as an infill structure. The applicant has received a copy of the Development Guidelines. It is suggested that each HPC member bring the-ir copy to this meeting to aid in the dialogue. RECOMMENDATION: As this is a pre-application only, staff recommends that HPC use this meeting time to the advantage of both themselves and the applicant to discuss the design issues. This is a significant project which requires careful thought and consideration. It is anticipated that a conceptual development application with be presented to the HPC at a public hearing some time in March or April. hpc.memo.204sm 1,42_tkil . COLLINS BLOCK Description of Proposed Development 1. The existing building. The Collins Block was constructed in 1892, in-imediatelq prior to the crash of the Silver Boorn in Aspen. It has served as a roorning house and a comtnercial building housing from time to time a mortuary, a hardware store, and other retail establishments. The architecture of the building is transitional in nature, combining classic revival details with Victorian shop windows and frontier sandstone rustication. The classic orders and banding give the facades a strong horizontdl emphasis which is enhanced by the sidewalk loggia which was added in the 12505. The building suffers somewhat from a weak vertical termination due to the lack of a strong parapet cap or cornice such as is tupical of similar buildings in the Aspen core; some of which are surmounted in addition by a decorative pediment or similar device. The east side of the block was designed and constructed as if to abut an adjacent building and hence does not exhibit the detailing of the street facades. . Proposed development. The greater portion of the proposed development will take place within the confines of the existing building and will not alter the existing street facades in any way except to repair or replace defective or hazardous conditions in their original design. A low, garden story structure i s proposed for the roof of the building. This addition is designed to be unobtrusive from the street employing materials subdued in color and conforming in nature to those now to be found on the Collins Block and the Wheeler Opera House building across the street. To further conceal the roof level strucuture from the street view and to strengthen the vertical termination of the facades it is proposed to add a continuous course of peachblow sandstone to the parapet cap. This cop shall be in proportion and detail to the building and to sinillal- Aspen buildirigs of the period and shall continue along the east and south walls along new parapets to be constructed where rione preset-itlq exist. 1 'QU COLLINS BLOCK Description of Proposed Development 1 The existing building. The Collins Block was constructed in 1892, immediately prior to the crash of the Silver Boom in Aspen. It has served as a rooming house and a commercial building housing from time to time a mortuary, a hardware store, and other retail establishments. The architecture of the building is transitional in nature, combining classic revival details with Victorian shop windows and frontier sandstone rustication. The classic orders and banding give the facades a strong horizontal emphasis which is enhanced bu the sidewalk loggia which was added in the 19503. The building suffers somewhat from a weak vertical termination due to the lack of a strong parapet cap or cornice such as is tupical of sirnilar buildings in the Aspen core; some of which are surmounted in addition by a dec orative pedi ment or similar device. The east side of the block was designed and constructed as if to abut an adjacent building and hence does not exhibit the detailing of the street facades. 0 . Proposed development. The greater portion of the proposed development will take place within the confines of the existing building and will not alter the existing street facades in any way except to repair or replace defective or hazardous conditions in their original design. A low, garden story structure is proposed for the roof of the building. This addition is designed to be unobtrusive from the street employing materials subdued in color and conforming in nature to those now to be found on the Collins Block and the Wheeler Opera House building across the street. To further conceal the roof level strucuture from the street view and to strengthen the vertical termination of the facades it is proposed to add a continuous course of peachblow sands,tone to the parapet Cap. This cap shall be in proportion and detail to the building and to similar Aspen buildings of the period and shall continue along the east and south walls along new parapets to be constructed where none presently exist. The third area of development will be surrounding the existing commercial yard. Here it is proposed to replace the existing commercial space with several small shops in an attractive and intimate place. These shops and fronts will be designed to a street level scale and will incorporate elements of the adjacent building in their design. Among the elements will be the continuation of the heavq sandstone base block around the court Ijard beneath the shop fronts and windows. The shop fronts will be painted wood in muted Victorian tones with awnings and fixtures typical of the period. New roofs of dark gray steel with raised seams will be installed. Above the roofs the upper facade of the building will be restored and completed with the continuation of the bands and dentil cornice. Decorative iron work balconies will be installed overlooking the yard. The paving for the court will be of a herringbone brick pattern with margins of exposed aggregate concrete. It is the intention of the developerto create a setting distinct from the street thoroughfare which preserves and enhances the qualities of the Collins Block. The applicant is one of a number of Aspen property owners who have demonstrated a commitment to the Aspen heritage, breathing new life into decaying buildings with style and in a manner consistent with the highest aspirations of the builders of the Silver Boom. COLLINS BLOCK: VITAL STATISTICS LOT SIZE BOX 90 = 7200 SF ALLOWABLE FAR - 1.5 - 10,800 SF EXISTING COMMERCIAL MERCHANDISING SPACE 5,671 SF UNCOVERED COMMERCIAL MERCHANDISING SPACE 1,380 SF EXISTING COMMERCIAL STORAGE SPACE. BASEMENT: 1,200 SF LOFT. 252 SF TOTAL: 1,452 SF EXISTING COMMERCIAL OFFICE SPACE 576 SF TOTAL COMMERCIAL SPACE 9,079 SF INCLUDING UNCOVERED COMMERCIAL SPACE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL SPACE, SECOND LEVEL: 4,495 SF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: PROPOSAL NO. 1. LITTLE PLAZA PROPOSED COMMERCIAL SPACE 1 ST LEVEL 5,671 SF RESIDENTIAL SPACE 2ND LEVEL 4,495 SF PENTHOUSES 3RD LEVEL 2,000 SF TOTAL 12,166 SF ALLOWABLE FAR = 10,800 SF SF IN EXCESS OF FAR - 1,366 SF EMP. HOUSING REQUIRED @.60 = 819 SF EtlP. HOUSING REQUIRED @.35 = 478 SF PROPOSAL NO. 2. HARDWARE STORE PROPOSED COMMERCIAL SPACE 1ST LEVEL: 7,086 SF (HARDWARE = 1415 ADDITIONAL) RESIDENTIAL SPACE 2ND LEVEL - 4495 SF PENTHOUSES 3RD LEVEL 2000 SF TOTAL = 13,581 Or tf.1 rver,-r or iii cic coo OF FAR = 2,781 EtlPL. HOUSING REQUIRED @ .60 = 1,668 EMPL. HOUSING REQUIRED @ .35 = 973 I 4.E . 04 4\ .-- -- 1 / :- . .,r - A *-4 8 / . 4 rj ' f 17 I . u 1-9,7 1 7- " P '11 1 / .\ / A l I V 1% t. Ii-,spit> petic-7 / 6%41-7- -i +44 '17% ~1 11 rt *,1\iâ€¢..â€ž --124-7. ..3134 4 1 2- / f t - FE - u I . 4 9 Cr ( 4 Ud- ; 1~~Z_-__-21_5--__-Al/HA) / Â·Â· i * Li ... 1,; L Â£ D 4 W ' 1 L-- 4.- \ 4 4-14 3. *--10 - 6 3*42.1 1Â»Â»9Â»Â»ti~ Lpr*i-yk: 2.>- A--.1 j it 1 + '> '1. Â·Â»1 4 =2,2*26,-#-* .,- 20, '~4 9 123 Ea TTE--!Tlitlly 'lill 111,11-I-Ill . 23Â« 1..~29 1 -=. 54 i- -4," , 2 - i I ~ - f- ta ~ f t -- \A 1 1 1 -li k ..4 U 11 rf.1 PX l 19 Â£ 3 119 -4. 11 J - =r-===-1 -i: 4% N. . f - 0 1- rÂ·.\94441,44 - L-- 7 14 Â¢ t, Â·w.0 hal, 1 D 74 : ~FC '41 -4 7 t-Llitt,F,LAE,-â€¢-1-~A - f-. . r. 1.. \ '11 10 ti- 3212,2 011-4-13-T,-76% lf, 1111414 -4011, =4 -ve)<f ic j'(r jic]~*11 j irn ---~~--lf : 6 ,~ v-Â·~ECI-t 1 ..1 1 _U-uull_,l Â»ULÂ¢Lk 1, 1 ~ 11 F ' ~ ' Â· - Â»~~- -1 - 37 ' ' ri 1 lu,H . = 94 ' 1 1-L . 4 r=it i~- 1 ; L L 1-it< ..1 1.- 1.~~~i~523Ullo Il) 1} ~ i-nlt f 1 Iii , 9 ./1 i - 4L==--1 'If, ./ 1 M )30 9 . 4--1.- f -1 1 11 : 1 .- n El \1 P 71 l.-1( 8.Y-1 1--- C Â«r a i.: ly -413==JI i 4 1,& f 4 +7 j - -7 1 Â£ 4.4 + . t 1 Â£;9 1, Ill I i I' ,]L~.Il_~ C Lf}Jl-1311-1 111 1 1 11 - LittficiÂ»'j'Â«11~ -t 1 'T JI_~~711 - , 2.- ----22-1~2- 9 1.k 1 1 Ik -- -IL - -, : T ijn_i ---Â·------Â·15-Â·inis - Â·--1, lit- ---:1 11 r --L. 1 11 Lilli .p- -1 T !1 Lill ff' 37-fR-punnarÂ·-i, 1,--7 1 U fl_i-lrlrfjjna-2[i>K,241 ! d B ly* -1 fal !1 W Ir 0 1& 1,i , 1 1. J LU i 1 104-1 11 2'L 1917 11 1 1 1.7 ----- 4 1 ;1~9 I : J' 11, - .0- 1 - . 4/ 1 t a 934 A f j l-Jj7irc tH-fifid pe L-Â»--4 12 11 1- T, I't 'll .. L- - , . -4-v---u 6 -,~1-L --2-77-2-72 L L..4.1 & I.- I.--T ---7.-/-/.-/.-L 1-14--11--G-U--2 6. I.- 2â‚¬1,2.,f~ 1 . A' 9724 -- %091 9 EW----FUâ€¢E= =re Ezz:9~Â®9 # ri]'1 124;f:pir'RA.* 'b'_- --., 1.L-7: 1.-7 -, - â€¢ rd 3, â€ž < .7= .*4'LU , 11 6. - 1 1 91 . - 4 : 1 1 . n - 1 |=Â· :~~f~fj,~,j '~ Ur' 111- i. I f. 1 ! 11 t-n ~ZT.rT-*~ rl t----r-- 1 ..1 1 LJ Ll, 2.3 L.,1-IN21 b -.--1 L " 1'|-11 ~ i'lzz.*4â‚¬= 11 1 A 4 --i-ry --4 1 \ â€¢-9 - j 3* ,;t~Lj.u .i==%__ 1 ~ rme,, Â· 1 --TrIT + 1 - f L.../ /l f\1\ h 1 .19 1% ~ ,(=1 , -p @\ \\ -LL k , 7- 1111.1 J - 4 jl-/U F J H O ~ g ~ 0 ---~ Â· - - 77 - -.2 u.__; A ilaiii:.&(Trit::18931':ME:.laRI-IZZIE-REED-2-:ttlil-, Â¤ I W' 'M ''Rhil!1'81!31111 ;JEEHEE#Iull!1)0]})(I i -Â·Â·:, 4 111 t]- ]11!~}-243')'jil *tkfil,#Ej 4 l 21'Fll 57 4 44 4 - --u-,2Â£.~--1 211 Ill 1 1 1 lili 1 2.-4 1 1 I dI, i=r-11 - 1 WD CL I Xm , 15 -3-1,-5Â£2= 5 EL -3. - 0 0.- 732=M 1 6- L ~- 1 - 4 & 6 4- =6=26 4-â‚¬-t, AUZZILL r.' . 60 â‚¬ 11Â«.1 [3 BI .. jk*. ft-Upit ,Â»,1.f-' i 7%21>J ' i 1 .)39.. 1 r- ~-~./2--LZi_Â·z. L~_-1-2 1 -7 UU - - -1 -1 - - 4 2 6 4 1.-4 -L. c-7 ~22*1 -. P 71 Â¤ n r -- - --I 1 T---=3:1Â·/33)-Ul y. -4-1 P g h./ 4 - . /r .lÂ»N i 11 1 = L-- - cmut +11 4 - n A s p m >4 4- i./CD 6-1.22 A E 6 -0 6 7 L- 1- 1 p-l 9 6 LaC K. - -r 1-1 ' 1:2 T r t.-*.~, 1 -7~, - S w '2 V A 7- 2 0 4 471 1 A A--14-2 r1 00 2. -. 1 k1 t/ T 46 1 - 09' Q al . *1 1 9 h ---- 1 1- ---- J 4 F - - .bi - r 8. to...0-2 1 . ----- . f -1.,4 r,-1 --4 *. 1 -4-6 -MN<* -=- * I- -+ 1,ji - 1-** L, r.1 - .. 0 * A I J i I ~ ~ ~~~ ~~| ~ ~ lit-i~ ~~-~ ~~~ ~ ifT ~~! i.f - 1 L :: 1 12.21=--_-L~~ - Â· Â·9 r 1 12 1!1 1 4 1 11 1 f'' I 1 1 1C 1 4 I , 7 1 1 h...4 1 6- h.-.1- N.--1- 4Â£--I,-- n , L i 1 9 il i 0 P i 4 1 !21 h " r - -1 r /71 hz 1-14 li' -L - h /--7 7- - -- 63.---. 3-.9.- 3 , tr-- --r---*~ , . 3--*:/ 1 1 1 1 1 1 La U =--0,1-Unk>--,yn C ,--. 7-1 0 7 05- - 1, - 2 r -1-- -4.LC-- I --- -L.,6~7~~ ~ 1 1 I. 1 -5--6. â€ž. .-.'.7 -4 -.4.- U J .*.'.4--- 1 1 -- t 5....I- ' I'll. 4.-. 4 il 1 -$Â· Â·Â· - .- 7-5 --174- 1 ~ 4.2 ' .-:. ~5. , 0137 422, =- .7 1 11 I. ..+ 1 iI UnK=Eq.t-~ -- U --''I 7 09:Â·c-~- 1 .., 1 1 1 ,-. 1 . - 0 4-- - ;/.- i li ./ 'll.-/- it - 1- 11 1 1 11 11 I - .- 1 1 1 7-3 i,6-/.1 â€ž L 1 1 - -41=--7 /--0- - 63..11'. . 9 1 J 1 1 1 ' L==11, 1 1 1 11' lili - - , 1 ~_ Cl J f j I I. Â· .. . .1 I . 1 -- -- - -- ! 2.-:u= 1 - - ._ r -- 1 11/0 72 / 4-3 2- tu:*--1-- - 1 . 24 -kIZE--M2~L-- 1 -N' . .....I- A . I - - - +2]./.el , -Il 4-/IM ~a-r ---- Â· - Â· --- - -4 '' 6.- ---. 1 1 a - L Dr Â«MA7-r-1 .&,-t-!~Aou, e. rs=034 0. .. 1 ..4 , . I - *L - - 2 21.-2 1 -- P +0 - a - :h D Â£ - 1 - -i ..-I 4 11 1 1 -1 1 L r---t. 1 11 1 t h.6 - 1-=Â«r- - \- P--i---m 1 2 gO---1.1 1% 0 ,- -1 93>.- 2-67-1 5 2- 5 )71.1 ; r,1 1 i ju 1 W.: 1 00 0 0 0â‚¬y 12 2-41 - ' ' 4 .t- tl 91Â» - 44 1 4 1 4 , 2- 3 --EyfÂ·-30344> O 4 i...F'E~I. l 441'rÂ· lili , 17~~1-241-9 TY-4 3,11 1 : -/4 - 7: ./7 *.7. 1 . 1 -1 / 1 Â·Â·iA ' .MIT- Lt_" i .,â€¢~~g._L Â·12 -- 11 - 11 1 * ir-r-==1=*--- -- F#3~=-*s,V,-=====--=- 44 -- i 1 p j mimi 1,4 -U--1-4-U-1-Â»CI 111111;lili 3=F-/ ..9 /.rze=--a_ __ 7- 1 r 1/ E . - c, UL. f,Iâ€¢> 141-,G ),2-- , - 0 . ---- * 3 21 - 1 , -6 r 9-6--7 ~ ..... i ! - -07-Fl.yet ='.-%.U,-_ 11 D....11,-1 : L. 4 - ..7 - 1 -66~~0,7 %1 1, - 1 . - '**re + Els.... -1 1 Ii'&74 .., , -1/ i 1 1 Le**(1AAN AS-tkjt ~ ~4792--.7.-3 \AL -F :1 2 11 1 1 /-U .f-1\ , 1 | | -:- i~'ri-=-i i U Ll i ' 1,1 - /7/ 1 1 1# 1 1 t! gre-,-.Â·ril ti-- . 1 .. - ..11 ..1 : 5.-71'k i 1 4-27. Â·- 1 Ef -- LI~Â· ~ - ~ - 1 _ 1 -25/0.-.-t ~ - t.d/-.I. 4164..C,_ twar--p m 7 + g D - L- r U 9 22 -Â·, 6 M- - -M -030,77 t--,t %- - . --------1 :,80 , 1.-o. f -t . O hy /T O r=f- 1 ~ Fl -0... Fy-tl .1 -r tÂ»-zir " --a -- - I- <-I--*.* 1-- ~ - r--- - -- h T r-----i----/..7-4.i_- - Â· ~-(-2,_fx? _? 6-~9:1 45. ...(- C. I.... 2-4$0--1- ~-, Â«uÂ»42--- ~ -~20 ; 3-=I 1 - Â· Â· -2*-r '73Â·â€¢ â€¢.Per,3 , L. _ f -- A ru-~- --$.I~'..1 A-9--O.2,7-&42. 2.1 2--LN-71~ ~ r7---Â·Â·3 -2,~1Â·5Â¢â€¢,rlÂ· --* ,=4121--3-' *-4.0 4 - - -- f-forf .4 *7 4 0 & M <A c U 9 5 1 _ 2~ - - - 1.- 64- t_ Â·43. fr-ni>9 12Â« 0 6 4 ~ D & M P EN- A -w -9 5 --* 9 + 9 â‚¬-3 + - LE - Ll----21 3-------41 1 1-.~93---. - 5 0 > 1-1 -1 .5 3>0& 4 -Li. A f~ 1 6. -1 PBR- A 0 -1 5 t--TJ)Q h ix --. i IA - -- - =1 - " 1 11 /. H k h i 11 -2,9-'.-;! H - , - 6 1 - I 11 1 ' 4 JI 4 1 -I= 1 11__UL- 12 -1 In->r 4/ 5 4 1 li v.-,t }f 1 4\ -4-1 ; 1 ./4-_ _./ Â· 1 -r 1 1. ./2 4 4 11 1 --1 11 1 Iii . 1 6 441 - -3//P==1-----JA ZI- --1 _Ili r --6,=~ 0 -4 56-4 ---4- 34 -5 124.15'A 41 A A r, A - A e ' l r r I J InG --16- A.â€ž-1- 0- i - / 41 1 -4 - 1 fh1 821421 ~,fi- 1. 0 0 U.v ...4 1 3 - 0 0.,1.- ELI ~.~~------,rEZIZ1..,:__ [ZEâ€ž. A-ra-,4.-,49 rl.0.8 3-Am-,-r L...v._ ; 0 0 k UL---0.-- CL~>-Â·tr-6 0 E. . 0 E- 0 â€¢ r 3-CLC- - V/1,A- MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Update on Code Corrections adopted by P&Z by Resolution For information only Date: February 14, 1989 Attached you Will find a copy of the specific historic preservation portions of the Land Use Code which are being amended through the Code Correction Ordinance process, as we have previously discussed. As you recall, I brought these items to you during January, and your comments were incorporated. P&Z has now reviewed and approved these changes, which now must go before Council to be formally integrated into the Code through ordinance. IN PARTICULAR, please review the very recent changes that were made to the Minimum Maintenance Reauirements. I was very pleased that P&Z took such a bold approach in their recommendations to improve this new provision. (Item # 40A and 40B, pages 7-36 and 7-37.) Specifically, you should acquaint yourself with item C of that Section (Sec. 7-606). It reads as follows: "Demonstration of Hardship: Any owner of a structure identified in the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures which HPC and the Chief Building Official finds requires such maintenance and repairs as described in this Section may make application requesting from the City Council a one- time, no interest loan, in an amount not to exceed $10,000.00, which the owner shall agree to pay back to the City within ten (10) years or when the property is sold or the title is transferred, whichever is the soonest. To be eligible for the loan, the owner shall demonstrate economic hardship which previously prohibited these repairs and that the loan amount is the minimum needed to maintain the structure. The loan request shall include a description of the proposed repairs necessary to maintain the historic structure and approximate costs for such repairs. I look forward to your comments at this meeting. #38A Supplement #1 responds to any conditions placed thereon. Sec. 7-602. Demolition. Partial Demolition or Relocation of a Historic Landmark. 0 A. General. No demolition and--bebal=--remove* of an Historic Landmark or any structure within an "H" Historic Overlay District or any structure rated as a "4" or a "5" by the HPC in its evaluation of the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures of the City â€ž of Aspen pursuant to Sec. 7-709, shall be permitted unless the demolition is approved by the HPC because it meets the standards of Sec. 7-602 (B) . tb>---t-hrot2gh /3. A No partial demolition and removal of a portion of any Historic Landmark or any structure within all "H" Historic Overlay District shall be permitted unless the parbiÂ·a-]r-demeftitien-is approved by the HPC as necessary for the renovation of the structure, and approved-by bhe--Heâ‚¬ because it meets the standards of Sec. 7- 602 *B}-449---trh-reegit--*6*(C) , or unless the partial demolition and removal is exempt because it creates no change to the exterior of the structure and has no impact on the character of the structure. No relocation of an Historic Landmark or any structure within an "H" Historic Overlay District or any structure rated as a "4" or a "5" by the HPC in its evaluation of the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen 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) (1) through (4). When deemed appropriate due to the significance of the project, the HPC may require a Performance Guarantee in a form acceptable to the City Attorney as assurance that the demolition, partial demolition, or relocation will be completed as represented. B. Standards for Review of Demolition. No approval for demolition shall be granted unless the HPC finds that all of the following standards are met. 1. The structure proposed for demolition is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure; and 7 -30 ...~ - #38B Supplement #1 2. The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on site to provide for any reasonable beneficial use of the property; and 3. The structure cannot be practicably moved to another site in Aspen; and 4-7 A damolition and redevelopment plan iJ Jubmitted whcn requircd by IIPC, or for any partial dcmoli tion, that mitigatcs to thc grcatcot extent practical, any impact that occura to tha character of thc neighborhood where demolition iJ proposed be -eeeurt -and 4. The applicant demonstrates that the ,proposal mitigates to the greatest extent practical, the following: a. Any impacts that occur to the character of the neighborhood where demolition is proposed to occur. b. Any impact on the historic importance of the structure or structures located on the parcel and adjacent parcels C. Any impact to the architectural integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel and adjacent parcels. 5; Thc dcmolition plan mitigates, to tha grcatcit extent practical, any impact tha propoJcd damoli tion has on the historic importance of the structurco located on the parcel and adjacent pareets; -and- 6, Thc demolition plan mitigatcs to th= grcatcat extent practical any impact on thc architectural integrity of a structure. C. Standards for Review of Partial Demolition. No approval for partial demolition shall be granted unless the HPC finds that all of the following standards are met: 1. The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure; and 7 -31 #38C Supplement #1 2. The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: a. Impacts on the historic importance of the structure or structures located on the parcel. b. Impacts on the architectural integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel. D. Standards for Review of Relocation. No approval for relocation shall be granted unless the HPC finds that all of the following standards gre met: 1. The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on its original site to provide for any reasonable beneficial use of the property; and 2. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be the best preservation method for the character and integrity of the structure, and the historic integrity of the existing neighborhood and adjacent structures will not be diminished due to the relocation; and 3. The structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and resiting. A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation; and 4. A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond 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; and 5. The receiving site is compatible in nature to the structure or structures proposed to be moved, the character of the neighborhood is consistent with the architectural integrity of the structure, and the relocation of the historic structure would not diminish the integrity or character of the neighborhood of the receiving site. An acceptance letter from the property owner of the receiving 7 -32 #38D - Supplement #1 site shall be submitted. E. Procedure for review. A Development Application shall be submitted to the Planning Director before HPC approval of demolition, partial demolition or relocation, within an II, Historic overlay District or involving Historic Landmar]C], a Development Applrieabion - -fer- -demel:+bi:en - sha44- -beÂ· -submitted- -60- -bhe Planning Director and which shall be reviewed and approved by the HPC pursuant to the procedures established in Common Procedures, Art. 6, Div. 2. The HPC shall be authorized to suspend action on a demolition, partial demolition or relocation application when it finds that it needs additional information to determine whether the application meets the standards of Section 7-602(B) or that the proposedal-deme**tien is a matter of such great public concern to the City that alternatives to the demolition, partial demolition or relocation must be studied jointly by the City and the owner. Alternatives which the HPC may consider having studied shall include, but not be limited to finding economically beneficial uses of the structure, removal of the structure to a suitable location, providing public subsidy to the owner to preserve the structure, identifying a public entity capable of public acqui- sition of the structure, or revision to the demolition, partial demolition or relocation and redevelopment plan. The HPC shall be required to specify the additional information it requires or the alternatives it finds should be studied when it suspends action on the development, partial demolition or relocation application. Action shall only be suspended for the amount of time it shall take for the necessary information to be prepared and reviewed by the Planning Director, but in no case shall suspension be for a period to exceed six (6) months. F. Application for Demolition, Partial Demolition or Relocation. A Development Application for Demolition shall include the following: 1. The general application information required in Sec. 6-202. 2. The name of the structure proposed for demolition, or partial demolition or relocation. 7 -33 #38E Supplement #1 site shall be submitted. E. Procedure for review. A Development Application shall be submitted to the Planning Director before HPC approval of demolition, partial demolition or relocation, within an H, Hiatoric Overlay District or involving IIi J toric LandmarkJ, a Development Arrbieat-iren- -fer- -deme]:-ibi:enÂ· - sha@-4- -be- -submitted- -to- -bhe Planning Director and which shall be reviewed and approved by the HPC pursuant to the procedures established in Common Procedures, Art. 6, Div. 2. The HPC shall be authorized to suspend action on a demolition, partial demolition or relocation application when it finds that it needs additional information to determine whether the application meets the standards Of Section 7-602(B) or that the proposedal-deme&*tien is a matter of such great public concern to the City that alternatives to the demolition, partial demolition or relocation must be studied jointly by the City and the owner. Alternatives which the HPC may consider having studied shall include, but not be limited to finding economically beneficial uses of the structure, removal of the structure to a suitable location, providing public subsidy to the owner to preserve the structure, identifying a public entity capable of public acqui- sition of the structure, or revision to the demolition, partial demolition or relocation and redevelopment plan. The HPC shall be required to specify the additional information it requires or the alternatives it finds should be studied when it suspends action on the development, partial demolition or relocation application. Action shall only be suspended for the amount of time it shall take for the necessary information to be prepared and reviewed by the Planning Director, but in no case shall suspension be for a period to exceed six (6) months. F. Application for Demolition. Partial Demolition or Relocation. A Development Application for Demolition shall include the following: 1. The general application information required in Sec. 6-202. 2. The name of the structure proposed for demolition, er partial demolition or relocation. 1% 7 -33 #38F Supplement #1 3. A written description of the structure proposed for demolition, or partial demolition or relocation, and its year of construction. 4. A report from a licensed engineer or architect regarding the soundness of the structure and its suitability for rehabilitation. 5. An economic feasibility report that provides: a. estimated market value of the property on which the structure lies, in its current condition, and after demolition,-er partial demolition or relocation. b. estimates from an architect, developer, real estate agent or appraiser experienced in rehabilitation addressing the economic feasi- bility of rehabilitation or reuse of the structure proposed for demolition,-or partial demolition or relocation. c. all appraisals made of the property on which the structure is located made within the previous two (2) years. d. any other information considered necessary to make a determination whether the property does yield or may yield a reasonable return on investment. 6. A redevelopment plan and a statement of the effect of the proposed redevelopment on the other structures on the property and the character of the neighborhood around the property shall be submitted in cases when the HPC requires a redevelopment plan to evaluate the appropriateness of demolition or when the applicant believes the submission of a redevelopment plan will assist in . the evaluation of the proposed demolition. Sec. 7-603. Insubstantial Amendment of Development order. A. An insubstantial amendment to an approved development order may be authorized by the Planning Director. An insubstantial amendment shall be limited to technical or engineering considerations, first discovered during actual development which could not reasonably be an- ticipated during the approval process. An insubstan- 7 -34 #39 Supplement #1 tial amendment shall be defined as a change in shape or location of a single window, awning, door, staircase or other feature on the structure or use of a material made by a different manufacturer that has the same quality and approximately the same appearance as originally approved. B. All other amendments shall be approved by the HPC pursuant to Sec. 7-601 or 7-602, whichever is ap- plicable. Sec. 7-604. Appeal and Call Up. A. Any action by the HPC in approving, approving with conditions, or disapproving a development order for development or demolition or suspending action on a demolition application or in rating a structure on the Inventory of Historic Structures may be appealed to the City Council by the applicant or a landowner within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property within sixty (60) days of the decision. The reasons for the appeal shall be stated in writing. The City Council may also call up for review any decision of the HPC approving, disapproving, or suspending action on a demolition or relocation of a historic landmark or any structure on the Inventory rated as a "4" or "5" by the HPC by serving written notice on the HPC within fourteen (14) days of the HPC's decision and notifying the applicant of the call UP. B. Within thirty (30) days after the date of a decision by the HPC which is appealed or called up by the City Council, the Council shall hold a public hearing after publishing notice pursuant to Section 6-205 E.3.a. B:C. The City Council shall consider the application on the record established before the HPC. The City Council shall affirm the decision of the HPC unless the City Council shall determine that there was an abuse of discretion, or a denial of due process by the HPC. Upon determining that there was an abuse of discretion or denial of due process, the City Council shall be authorized to take such action as it shall deem necessary to remedy said situation, including but not limited to reversing the decision, altering the conditions of approval, changing the length of time during which action on a demolition application has been suspended or the terms of the suspension, or 7 -35 #40A Supplement #1 remanding the application to HPC for rehearing. Sec. 7-605. Variances. The Board of Adjustment shall not take any action on a Development Application for a variance pursuant to Art. 10, in the H, Historic Overlay District or development affecting a Historic Landmark, without receiving a written recommendation from the HPC. Sec. 7-606. Minimum Maintenance Requirements. A. Purpose. The intent of this Section is to reduce the incidence of "demolition by neglect". B. Requirements. All buildings and structures identified in the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures as described in Section 7-709, and all structures located within a historic district, shall be maintained to meet the requirements of the Uniform Conservation Building Code (UCBC) and the Uniform Building Code (UBC). Said structures shall receive reasonable care, maintenance and upkeep appropriate for the preservation, protection, enhancement, rehabilitation, reconstruction, perpetuation or use in compliance with the terms of this article. Every person in charge of such building or structure shall keep in good repair: 1. All of the exterior portions of such improvements. 2. All interior portions thereof which, if not SO maintained, may cause or tend to cause the exterior portions of such improvements to deteriorate, decay or become damaged or otherwise to fall into a state of disrepair. The Historic Preservation Commission, on its own initiative, may file a petition with the Chief Building Official requesting that said official proceed under the provision of this Section to require correction of defects or repairs to any structure covered by this article so that such structure shall be preserved and protected in consonance with the purpose of this article. C. Demonstration of Hardship: Any owner of a structure identified in the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures PA,a,Withint_ a L itistdritd, 111Listrict which HPC and the Chief Building Official finds requires such maintenance and repairs as described in this Section may make application 7 -36 #40B , Supplement #1 requesting from the City Council a one-time, no interest loan, in an amount not to exceed $10,000.00, which the owner shall agree to pay back to the City within ten (10) years or when the property is sold or the title is transferred, whichever is the soonest. To be eligible for the loan, the owner shall demonstrate economic hardship which previously prohibited these repairs and that the loan amount is the minimum needed to maintain the structure. The loan request shall include a description of the proposed repairs necessary to maintain the historic structure and approximate costs for such repairs. DIVISION 7: HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT AND HISTORIC LANDMARKS Sec. 7-701. Purpose. The purpose of this division is to: A. Ensure the preservation of Aspen's character as an historic mining town because of its importance to the economic viability of the community as an inter- national ski resort and cultural center. B. Promote the cultural, educational and economic welfare of Aspen through the preservation of historic struc- tures and areas and the preservation of the historic character of the community. C. Encourage productive and economically attractive uses of historic structures. D. Support the implementation of the Aspen Area Comprehen- sive Plan Historic Preservation Element. Sec. 7-702. Standards for Designation. Any structure or site that meets one (1) or more of the following standards may be designated as H, Historic Overlay District and/or Historic Landmark: A. Historical Importance. The structure or site is a principal or secondary structure or site commonly identified or associated with a person or an event of historical significance to the cultural, social or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado, or the United States. B. Architectural Importance. The structure or site reflects an architectural style that is unique, distinct or of traditional Aspen character. 7 -37 #41 Supplement #1 Architectural Importance. The structure or site embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique architectural type or specimen. D. Architectural Importance. The structure is a sig- nificant work of an architect whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. E. Neighborhood Character. The structure or site is a significant component of an historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is important for the maintenance of that neighbor- hood character. F. Community Character. The structure or site is critical to the preservation of the character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size, location and architectural similarity to other struc- tures or sites of historical or architectural impor- tance. Sec. 7-703. Procedure for Designation. Amendment, Rescindinq. A Development Application for a proposed designation, amendment to a designation, or rescinding of a designation, H, Historic Overlay District and/or Historic Landmark, shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval by the Planning Director, at public hearings by the HPC, and the Commission, and then approved, approved with conditions, or disapproved at a public hearing by the City Council in accordance with the procedures established in Common Procedures, Art. 6, Div. 2. Sec. 7-704. Application. The application for Historic Designation shall include the following: A. The general application information required in Sec. 6- 202; and B. A boundary description of the site; and C. If the applicant intends to request a grant from City Council, a letter making the request shall be submitted, provided the structure meets the eligibility criteria for a landmark designation grant and provided the program has been funded in the annual City of Aspen budget. 7 -38 #42 Supplement #1 B. It shall be the responsibility of the HPC, based on the recommendations of the Planning Director, to evaluate the inventory of historic structures at least once every five (5) years, and to hold a public hearing to solicit comments on its evaluations. The purpose of the evaluation shall be to determine those structures which are to be removed from the inventory, any structures which should be added to the inventory, and to rate all structures which remain on the inventory. . C. The HPC evaluation process shall proceed as follows. < The structures on the inventory shall be categorized as to whether or not they are Historic Landmarks. No jr further action need be taken with respect to Historic Landmarks. All structures which are not Historic Landmarks shall be evaluated by the HPC as to their current architectural integrity, historic significance and community and neighborhood influence. Structures shall be assigned with a rated value of between 0 and Â£ 5, based on guidelines established by the HPC and ratified by ordinance of City Council. Structures , , which are rated 0 and 1 shall be deemed to have no historic value and shall be removed from the inventory. Structures rated 2 through 5 shall remain on the inventory and periodically be re-evaluated as provided above. Sec. 7-710. Development approval for historic landmark desiefnatien= Whenever development approval is conditioned upon a structure receiving historic landmark designation, such condition shall be deemed satisfied only if the particular structure has received individual designation pursuant to Art. 7, Div. +6; inclusion of the structure within an historic overlay district shall not be sufficient to satisfy the requirement of historic designation. No final development approval conditioned upon receipt of historic landmark designation shall be granted until the designation ordinance is adopted by City Council. DIVISION 8: SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA (SPA) Sec. 7-801. Purpose. The purpose of a Specially Planned Area (SPA) is to: A. Provide design flexibility for land which requires innovative consideration in those circumstances where traditional zoning techniques do not adequately address 7 -40 1,Â·....'CZE.r~.Il-'Â·. 4 â€¢ "G *Â·r#-'~ ~ ' 414*T ' E--4 -7 1 1 '", / 1-al-li 1 - , t., 1.1.4 4 4 i Ali 1- .-5 ~ 1 e 23 , - - 4 / - 4 . ./ , L,e,/ 4 44- 4 , I. 4-*' 1 - , 4 - ./ , /94- ,Wr 2 W.Â· 4. ./.--- ..I /' COLLINS BLOCK i Proposed development 4. Descri ption of Proposed Development The greater portion of the proposed development will take place within the confines 1. The existing building: of the existing structure, In the performance of The Collins Block wiss constructed in this renovation the applicant intends to 1892, immediately prior to the crash of the assiduously preserve and to restore the existing Silver Boom in Aspen. It has served as a street facades in all their elements. rooming house and a commercial building Deterlorating or hazardous conditions housing frorn time to time a mortuary, a which presently exist will be remedied, so far hardware store, and other retail establishments. as possible in a manner identical with the The architecture of the building is original details. transitional in nature, combining classic revival I n adljition, the applicant proposes to details Y,*ith Victorian shop windows and continue such details along the upoer east frontier sandstone rustication. facade of the block as it is unlikely, given The classic or-ders and banding give the modern building restrictions, that an adjacent. facades a strong horizontal emphasis which is three story structure willeverbe bui it. enhanced by the side walk loggia which was A low garden story structure is proposd added in the 195()s. The building suffers for the roof of the building. This level will somewhat frorn a weak vertical termination due contain kitchen and living are as for the units on to the lack of a strong parapet cap or cornice the second floor and will take advantage of the such as is typical of similar buildings in the views offered by the roof level. The concept is Aspen core; some of which are surmounted similar to the roof garden structures of the in addition by a decorative pediment or similar 5 rand Bull dingi, the Bowman, and severel othst- device. properties in town. The east side of the block was designed This addition is designed to be and constructed as if to abut an adj acent unobtrusive from the street and employs building and hence does not exhibit the detailing materials subdued in color and conforming in of the street facades. nature to those now to be found on the Collins El lock and the Wheeler Opera House building across the street. To further conceal the roof level Decorative iron work balconies will be structure from the street view and to installed overlooking the yard. strengthen the verticel termination of the The paving for the court will be of a facades, it is proposed to add a continuous herringbone brick pattern with margins of course of sandstone cornice to the parapet cap. exposed aggregate concrete. It has been deterrriined that the proposed The above contemplated renovations and structure will be well below the Main Street addition are intended to comply with the Mountain View Plane. published guidelines of the Secretary of the The t. hird orea of development will be Iriterioi-both in regard to restoration ariel in the surrounding the existing comrnet-Cial yard. stated permissibility of new construction Here it is proposed to replace the It is the intention of the developer to existing commercial space with several small create o setting distinct frorn the street shops in an attractive and intimate place. These thoroughfore which preserves and enhances the shops and fronts will tie designed to a street qualities of the Collins Block. level scale and will incorporate elements of the It should be noted that the "Little Place" adjacent building in their design. Among the proposal described is one of two proposals elements will be the continuation of the heavy which are being explored by the applicant The sandstone base course around the courtgard alternative scheme under study would house a beneath the shop fronts and windows. large hardware store in the commercial yard on We believe that this area presents ati the east side of the building. This structure opportunity to create an imaginative ariel diverse would be one story in height with a full pedestrian space which the Aspen plan seeks to basement. Its street facisde would be treated as: prornote and which Hopkins Street *ill benefit a nineteenth century "storefront" in a manner from. compatible at-chitecturally with the adjacent The shop fronts will be painted wood in Collins block. We believe that a muted Vi c 1. c! Man tones wi t. h awni ngs arid hardware/genet-al store, serving the cor-nmercial fixtures typical of the period. New roofs of dark core and domestic and generel construction gray steel with raised seems will be installed. needs, would be appropriate to the Hopkins Above the roofs the upper facede of the Street address. We find, however, that building will be restored and cornpleted '0,'ith the enormous "cash in lie u" exactions b W the c i t. 4 for continuation of the bands and dentil cornice. open space, employee generation, and parking preclude this as en option, The applicant is one of a number of Aspen Property owners who have dernonstrated a comrnitrnent to the Asnen heritage, breathing new life into decaging buildings with style and in a mannerconsistent with the highest aspirations of the builders of the Silver Boom. gl,40113 .6 1 -LE 1 Â»x IJ (04 ri- -- 73- XÂ» 44/ Et- a-, 61 ,/-1-(3 -- - 7---5 :- ---2 STREET x7905.4 *Und 210.31 0_.--1 L ______13.3--' 6/ \ 1 0 ~ --- \ \ 4 \ 1 az f - L_2122ZO-*L__-2 1 7904.7 x ~__~~------- x 7908. -7 -- 0- - ri- i 0 N 0 J\ 1-1 1 344 1/2 M#1/\ 41:- 61 O 3 76 0 1 4 Â»/ - X 1-1- 1 4/ 3 1.42/1 926 0 NÂ»_t__.~ 10- - 7 rt---1 1 --*2 -1 0 --- 1--- 05.4 - AVENUE x7909.0 11 11 111 1 ~~/2 1, It 1, 1 -0 L- -- --- - - -- -Â·=-,0 4-7 ft- I I 'f \ /\ 7906.Ix 1 - '10019 ~ -, 1- -1 \ZI~ s N'-1-100 1 / . - 2 119\0-j/1 7---7 ' n -x C I 7913.Ox 0 _1 LI X 7910.9 2 7- / 0 1% K4- ...V %- --1, _ â‚¬-" $ 1. , UN 4 )r-r : - 9/ ti 4 J 19-,1 1 ' ..4>V_t 2 1 7.- OFFF~1\#.1 14*3\,, 3.0- 1) r.:- / ~r-- - ---- 96**40#J Ba ... - 4-- W M .6,1 M - Nat't ' 344(CD * 11 14 1 Vi 94~'40*3'&/. *-- 1:4,/:61r5'L";A/-.--3#- - =Z=...==ESSIV. - Â·4. -/- 2,2/ Al / ' I.L Â·Â· D Jk, fi Â».--*;244--- ... - ..=_i -11&,3 -'Â·55> 00 1 ----11_# NU s 6 -- '' / --- -----W-h / -- - -I / -- â€¢V- 1 -/..I ------ * ~LKA F lit]Ffl-- _lk:J -*7a~EdÂ»Ep itritlkâ„¢~ - 4 1 /4*:D ~ i k=*=teuum- ==Lps :1 T 647 Fxt - KT.F 7- I f~92__*_ 1 HI 1 / 1 L 'f>. rd .2 , 1,int.EAP -=84 E.r' - i T--M 1VJ>--Cal 11144 .11 1B ii_# T=t-1 l , 1 1 .t-4 %1 r/ -1 44$74011 M #aÂ¢ AL -= =fip fi:44- 1 1- Z=Z= . ( - _CO- - Â· i 0-/. - - - p e 0 -T i ,/ 2- g. *- - 9 f -2- a. .r ------ \\ A 4 6 N u L 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 , /0-11 M==5 ~ itrj i *A r!1 - 94,1 - 4 1 , 11 -\ - .../2 46 11|< 2 . 1, 1 1 - 1-J - ,Â¢,4, 1, --, 1 7 1 7 4 r â€¢ 11 1 H ; 11 4 2 3 1 Fll ~ f _ 105- ~0Â·Â· t I f.001 2 1 [--3.-=1]===Â·iu?~41-_ --if Â· 1- 1 *4. g KN T -3 1 [i -56<ic:~A~#FU+11 1 1.1 -1-1 1__ .iff .lA 1-1, 1 /7 4/700. 1 11 1 . tilli - 1-I -@EF - Â·>1Â·: 2.j. X.1 I . . 9 1 , p 1 1 R 3 ''' u< 1 0 1 '4 1-4 a 1 4 . 1, 2-) 7-/ - A ... .1- r . ~ ~Fwil---1--4 , Tr *1.- I' 9 91Â· 6,-1_'JÂ«4 1, 9 7 1 - / 5.1 k B W Â¥ F.-â€¢TFN r 11 , r~*_~~Ailil, S--1"7~ WiJEll*-Ir VilmitIE~7* mli111*--~m'M f ~ .-t , Er, 4 10 L i,6 16'i 71% % . 0 . 1 ALI ~ ~ i 0 i. /1 1 17. . V 11 1 i 71 A- 1.11 P , - . ' -16â€¢~ 1 L 47 - 1 - -1 hi 11 9-' 1 4 V 1 ~ E- 41 - 2.- . : MiT-[ 1%0*itÂ° 1-1-flf, 1 -3 f7 6 I A ./ V>:Â·ry>fic,>4 1 III . *9 . '' I '{ 1 1 1 '1â‚¬;2(177~ _-.- ---~ D 11'1 4 1 1. 4 /3 1 1 9/f -=- ' ~11 t 7-r 1 -1 12-lt :451,5/ . -- 1 T 6 - I - 1 J 1.-till a .i '1/ 0 - / . L 7 i ' 3 -\ 1 1. 9/,7 1.1 . I . (11' 1 " _..I~6_1 .4 /*- /,F 4 1 1 . 1 ' 11 19 v , . fÂ» -rd r---1 % i -M 1 1 0 h k ' 11 l 1 11 l.r 0 lo' 1 1/ a Hi 1 1- L g..4 *.l.-7 - 71, 1 I r " 01)cT 0 e.fâ€¢ -- -4 1 11 7 Q ....< Â·r. I.... 11 'U r t. , =11 1 I Â£ I--. 1.- ~ i - -4 : 27_* ty--2 4-r 1".69.3 1 41-- '*-2-5 .*ILL-3 - 0- 61- -1 F=71 -U,f lr--4 C Llf 6).p- p + rÂ·l Â·f- Aou., 6 .....4- - " -,0,; D . 4 Cl' 3 1 ..\-1// f 6.Ir-06-1-PLM-A,u_se * 1 .~ L.117 - -6,-:,U#HU' 3>â€¢MK- r * 40 imt Per.4-r-JA,UÂ·â€¢5 85 - 1 :1 1* Â·Â· 21 46 Â· 1-- 0-1 .?1 evork -- et . 0..ble-; 1 f- Cw 0 ' 4 - c.. k.,1 94...' 2 Â· 02 1 - 7 . ...6 --U -4 r.4 .AL. 2-_-- â€¢44 0 /*. 191-01>ff -1 -71Â»-41+ -1 i.~4 j* , . , ,-~000rr .C -3>42icl 2 ''111 ~ 9 iE- 1 ~'57(2/33 1 27-13:63-pr.-5FIL-712-55~ , 1 6- i :. ~ ,, - . - -- -- < 4 -L.- 3.- .. Â·E 7 -;14 6- .4 i - -- tivmt 1 1 . - , ~ Â· EL :. dfil 1.1 *r X .'C --L 7<' --- i - / _ t===1 L~ ar-1 11 1 .1 1 24 r 1-1 44*.-r----- ---LTEr~20314- ---626-----2- 32 1 ,; 2 i~-4 2.F --. -I-- -=- fill,-, - Â£5 2~*,~9 -E==1---L----Lftw*--r n -82 t F 9â‚¬3 -r,in ~-cu CL-Ul~F.1 4 + 1411'LJ#/-<771 rli:,il~ Ii 141~:iNÂ¢uU*JI 141'111 1 BekiLLE 1 + itt)*C--r=3,9244'..~ 1 < *,1 2:-4- CCE) C=="F:A. =31% , 1 . _-2 -4- f.Â© 66 NEUL-- =5222 CE) neal.1111 111 C-=La 4 : - / A.I.--- *7~-*--1- -TE =11.202= 1 1 *6VT,IR-nisr#31 7.-1 .26-Câ‚¬Â»9921 0 59 -1 2293 1 :d 1 111: 96434:3 ~ n 4 1,1 11 1 - .111 - LÂ·-' 1 !1 LUZ ' 111 1 -- r . 170-1--Ir--7... ==.1 A... -49:â€¢04 ---%(21. &' - - / - /2 L Ftp .-Â· . 0 MI-- ./ t.4 - ra-- --- -4 - F .--- 4 - d 19... .\ , e .ift 5/,i\9.4,1 &;3-1 #LITI :InT 4 74 Â·t~J~ 1117 1-Jil]HIF-Jit-14 ,43 , * Y K ,2 ~0,# 4 _ 1 41 , 4 4 17'.m-r ---: - 1 . g v ...~~- _ gwh~41=-i H'11'~ii 111- tE-t- 3111 1111]11911*11 1,~- _LiÂ«- --_- - F I( u L 1.r U ... 1.1 -6,1 w- 1,2.-4-,1277-LÂ· i-7 1---4Â£4:41.,1 -4~; 4 -1'li J':14.~ :i~Â· fi, -u u u w . W L=-n- 1.1- -a -u-u 6 5 -6, w ...,~, U - 'r Nit-r . ... i .14 ..........7 -- _1 ' Irl~71 Â¥2 -p TI'F~~9 ~--T-rf[- -- - '/ 4 ' ' 1 --4 4Â»=Â·1'+4ii k-+41 1 - -* i . U E--91 1 -"-11 ~1 i'll til CE -/ ht L.-11 77 1 j r--1 r--1 11 11 1 1/111; WM 1=41 ~ '4**It En-j UPj~4*1 tr. A -N. #2-: P. 1 . 7.Â· Â·Â·-Â·Â· u k 12 -4... 11 u y. ,-U / p j 14.4. LE.; - - r - . 1 9 I 11 it p f H li , r 1 , '1 1 1 . I 1 11 :1 , 11 1,7_ ' -. g - 111 \- E==7 1 11 - 30 14 r 1 -1 + 1,11 - 0, 4-,-1,-4-1.15 4-0 0 G k.. 7--Ct-s N = A , r *-6. 2. 4 ,6 -r-1, p.1 . 11 1 9,4. tpl-- - jr 1. 4 t - P _.111*E-3.' 014 ' f 21 3 U-3 IT F VulI r & r / r 1 TE 2 1.1 r= i 14 - 1 3â€ž1 - 44-3,-4 F 1 1-4- 1 u 11 P L â‚¬1 :,ic=- L--1 rd T- 12-29 -- 2-22 2 77.-1 Â¤ i 1!11 - d --rt r --*-r---.72* 1 t 1 --* ,i Lound i ; 1 1 -2.11 4-1 -1.-h . .-LY= 1=-'1 E 1 El-LING- ' 7= r 3 r -' i-, 4-11 Â· t Fi-=-1 -1 1=t *at E ' t. . 1 F - 71 - -7 4 -- ---,-2k- nt ' ~~~~213 1 - 0 -4 mY 4-4 1;-$ Irli - t- ~-~IT ,/ - I - 1 4 r P i *4541_) -10[UJUd i. ' L 6 -=11%-41 /En LB A 11 r 1 '1 t!.-&---_1~~02-24_l- -1 C - iii Coni li F-3 -~ 1 Er - 2----> i f-1 13--/1.13 --22.-24Â· 1- 2131> rrC Â·Ii - F - - -7-0 2 1-1----9---rlf]Â» 1 ~ F - -ir :=i=Â© 1 4 It J. '1, 11I ~ 40 1 1 1/, 0 1 (I Y - , ,- 66-uu-666-6â€ž66 --66.;-u.-4.64,666,6.66.64U'-,f r , 1 1 91 1 - 3~- --IÂ·.SE- I ./ I Ill h 3211 lib jail ~~ll Â· Â· r==AS=PLUJWL-=--6 i <.i * ~ 1--I-Ill ,-4- - fLAÂ·se arÂ·l 14,~0 6.-1=1.E ar-,6 6,6-L- T46 56.69 1<.-- =+14, -P Â¥= rA# - ff. 2 2. 6- 2 V & 7- b. -1 A 7 2 4 4 A 1- 1 V S rl O 12 3 6. A / P 4- I .1 2 Ay.YUL .. im m m f - A El --ft. fire 7 711Â·:lic ! 1. InÂ£.- 1 m 2Z 3 1--.6 - - LL-7 f- 11%- 7 1 1 b r - 1 r 0 1 r 1 1 *-717 LA~kE-, 9 1 1 1 - p 1 1 1 1 1-r- 7 i 1/ 1 1 1 4-1 0 - P n--1 i ir . li 1 - 1 1 1.4 V 7 1 E .lp . rl 4 0 1 4 I 0 . . Â£4~.i