The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19880112HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Agenda Regular Meeting City Council Chambers January 12, 1988 2:30 p.m. 2:30 I. Roll call and approval of Dec. 22, 1987 minutes II. Commitee Member and Staff Comments III. Monitoring Projects IV. Public Comment V. NEW BUSINESS A. Historic Designation and Conceptual Development Review: 134 W. Hopkins Ave. Roger Kerr, John Kelley Adjourn Kathleen J. Strickland Deputy City Clerk 1/ D 1 (j HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Agenda Regular Meeting City Council Chambers January 12, 1988 2:30 p.m. 2:30 I. Roll call and approval of Dec. 22, 1987 minutes II. Commitee Member and Staff Comments III. Monitoring Projects *ISc- 6,4 6,- IV. Public Comment V. NEW BUSINESS A. Historic Designation and Conceptual Development Review: 134 W. Hopkins Ave. Roger Kerr, John Kelley Adjourn Kathleen J. Strickland Deputy City Clerk HPC Minutes January 12, 1988 HISTORIC DESIGNATION AND CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 134 W. HOPKINS AVENUE ..........2 13 f ' MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: 134 W. Hopkins Historic Designation and Conceptual Development Review (Public Hearing) DATE: January 6, 1988 LOCATION: 134 West Hopkins Avenue, southeast corner of Hopkins and First, Lots K and L of Block 59, City and Townsite of Aspen. APPLICANTS' REQUEST: Julie Wyckoff and Peter Carley, contract purchasers, request historic designation of the subject property and conceptual development review approval to undertake the following project: restore the existing house, move the house presently at 120 N. Spring Street to the property, and add a two story addition and garage to the rear of the house to be moved. SITE, AREA & BULK CHARACTERISTICS: Lot Area: 6,000 s.f. (approx.) Existing House Floor Area: 1,301 s.f. Moved House Floor Area: 748 s.f. Additions Floor Area: 989 s.f. Proposed Total Floor Area: 3,038 s.f. Max. Allowed Floor Area: 3,240 s.f. (excluding 500 s.f. garage) Existing Site Coverage 1,048 s.f. (18%) Proposed Total Site Coverage: 2,556 s.f. (43%) Max. Allowed Site Coverage: 2,400 s.f. (40%) Total Front-Rear Setbacks Proposed: 15 feet Min. Allowed Front-Rear Setbacks: 30 feet Total Side Yards Proposed: 7.25 feet Min. Allowed Total Side Yards: 15 feet HISTORIC EVALUATION RATINGS: 134 W. Hopkins: "2" 120 N. Spring: "1" PROCEDURE FOR PROJECT REVIEW: The applicants are requesting HPC's recommendation for historic designation and HPC's conceptu- 1 6 , 1 al development approval at this meeting. The applicant's next step is review by the Planning and Zoning Commission to obtain their recommendation on historic designation. City Council would then hold first and second reading of an ordinance to accomplish designation. Conditional use review would be held by P&Z regard- ing the placement of a second single-family house on the proper- ty. Finally HPC would conduct final development review, at which time all variations from the area and bulk requirements would simultaneously be granted. Please note that this project would utilize two historic incentives from the recently adopted Ordinance 42 (Series of 1987): the conditional use for the second house on the property and area and bulk variations allowed through HPC's development review approval. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The Planning Office has the following comments in response to the standards for designation stated in Section 24-9.3(a) of the Municipal Code. We will subsequently review the proposal according to the development review standards in Section 24-9.4(d). Historic Landmark Designation Standards 1. Standard: The structure or site is commonly identified 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. Response: The chain of title changes presented in the applica- tion for 134 W. Hopkins gives no indication that the existing house is associated with a person or event of historical signifi- cance; however, we note that the Anderson/Loushin family has lived here since 1950. Similarly, there is no documentation that the house at 120 N. Spring has significant historical associa- tion. 2. Standard: The structure reflects an architectural style that is unique, distinct or of traditional Aspen character. Response: The 1980 Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures states that 134 W. Hopkins possesses historic importance by "illustrating the family/home environment and lifestyle(s) of the silver mining era." HPC gave the structure an historic evaluation rating of "2" considering the asbestos siding, the possibility that the second floor dormers were added, and the assessment that the house does not make a strong contribution to the historic character of the neighborhood, already substantially rebuilt. Hazel Loushin, one of five owners, attended the meeting and reported that the dormers are original and that the front porch had been altered. She also emphasized that the block has a mixed historic/contemporary character. The small dimensions of this house, its cross gable/hipped roof 2 and original windows and dormers make 134 W. Hopkins a good example of a miner's cottage. Removal of the asbestos siding, as intended by the applicants, would better expose the original architectural style of the house and increase its historic significance. It is likely that portions of the original siding are damaged and will need to be replaced by new siding. We think that removal of the asbestos siding is a desireable commitment on the part of the applicant. No information on 120 N. Spring was found in the 1980 Historic Inventory. We note that the house does appear to be in its present location on the 1886 Willits Map. HPC considered the house to have a few alterations negatively effecting its archi- tectural significance, including the partial enclosure of the porch and adding of several new windows. The primary reason for HPC's low evaluation was its location in a neighborhood no longer considered at all historical, overshadowed by the Concept 600 Building and out of scale with the nearby industrial Obermeyer Building and the Eagle's Club. 120 N. Spring possesses some architectural significance because of its simple one story gable end "shotgun" style, largely original porch, and several original windows and doors. Moving the structure into a neighborhood with other miner's cottages would actually make the house more accessible to the public and increase its prominence in the new context, as we see it. In addition, this house is imminently threatened by demolition because of the 700 E. Main multi-family residential project proposed for the site. 3. Standard: The structure embodies the distinguishing character- istics of a significant or unique architectural type or specimen. Response: These houses embody two different styles of miner's cottages. Both are unadorned structures, most notable for their simplicity, harking to the relative austerity of the working class of the silver mining era in Aspen. 4. Standard: The structure is a significant work of an architect whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. Response: No evidence has been presented that these houses meet this standard. 5. Standard: The structure is a significant component of a historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character. Response: The West Aspen Mountain (Shadow Mountain) neighbor- hood, as delineated in the 1980 Historic Inventory, contains some 16 scattered historic structures within 22 blocks (including half 3 t blocks south of Main Street). Seven of those structures are within a block from the intersection of First and Hopkins. We think that the preservation of 134 W. Hopkins and adding another historic structure next door does help maintain and enhance the neighborhood's historic character, even though this is a very mixed neighborhood with low overall density of historic struc- tures. 6. Standard: The structure is critical to the preservation of the character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size, location and architectural similarity to other structures of historical or architectural importance. Response: The typical size and architectural styles of these two houses possess some general community significance, in our opinion. Conceptual Development Review Standards 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel. Response: Alterations proposed to 134 W. Hopkins include removal of asbestos siding and adding a shed dormer to the east. We find removal of the asbestos siding, restoration Of all original siding that can be saved and replacement of other siding with the same width of clapboard to be very appropriate. The applicant has noted that the original stone foundation and the frame structure appear to be in good shape; therefore, these alterations should not cause the house to be destabilized and - consequently demolished or reconstructed. Further details on these plans, based on some structural analysis should be provided at final development review. Adding a shed dormer to the east would not seem to substantially change the character of the house, provided the dormer is approximately the same size as the other two dormers on the house. The Roof Plan on Sheet 4 shows a dormer over twice as large as the other dormers, and we are concerned that this would be out of scale. The most important issues in the development proposal, in our opinion, are location of the moved house and addition, and design of the addition. The moved house on Lot K would be 10 feet from the front (Hopkins Ave.) property line, compared to an 18 feet frontyard setback of 134 W. Hopkins. The houses would be just over 8 feet apart, leaving 5 feet for the eastern sideyard setback. The proposed two story addition is shown to be 25 feet high, the same as 134 W. Hopkins, and is attached to the moved house by a "gallery" extension 14 feet long. As shown in the table of site, area and bulk characteristics on page 1, the proposal is non-conforming in all setbacks and in site coverage. The purpose of the historic incentives is to allow 4 4 1 7- 644:40 1 . 4- 1 41:44 1 1 - 1~ 1. Ii-.-ill 4 - 1 .. - 1 21 . 01 1 22_ _=*cok ~Ili<34-- 134 lu Â¥ 4.15*ki ds 2/3-0 At 5 PA, 44 t variations from these requirements so to make historic preserva- tion projects more attractive and workable. The criterion for HPC evaluation of those variations stated in Section 24-9.4(d)- (1)(i) of the Municipal Code is: "...such variation from underlying area and bulk require- ments is more compatible in character with the historic landmark than would be development in accord with the area and bulk requirements." We are concerned that some variations requested are no more compatible than would be development following the dimensional requirements and may result in excessive development of the site. We suggest that the front yard setback be increased from 10 feet to 18 feet so to match 134 W. Hopkins. A larger frontyard would seem to be more in character with this property, the house next door at 122 W. Hopkins and 200 W. Hopkins across the street to the west. Guideline VI.A. states: "The existing setback pattern of the street should be preserved." Site coverage should be reduced to 40% of the site so to be conforming, given no rationale that it is more compatible to be non-conforming. These two changes may effect total floor area of the house; however, we suggest that a full basement could be dug under the moved house to give additional living space. Please note that site coverage and setbacks were two of the most significant issues in the recent area and bulk changes to the R-6 zoe, and should only be varied for good cause. Reducing site coverage of the addition may better address the concern as to whether the two story addition obscures the size and shape of the original house. Placement of the addition to the rear and separated by a long gallery certainly helps preserve the pattern of spacing along the street and helps maintain the visual separation of old and new. In general, we find that this design is successful. We ask whether lowering the height of the addition would further reduce visual competition with the single story old house and whether it is feasible for the design concept. Land- scaping along the front and west side yards may also help to better integrate the addition on the site. e The meager 5 feet ~~ side yard should be given further study to to see if it can be made to accommodate some planting and give the neighbor more breathing space; otherwise we believe that the location of the house and addition is appropriate. It appears impossible for this project to meet all yard setback requirements given the concept of two separate structures on the property, which seems to generally work. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. 5 Response: As pointed out in the application, placing the two houses on 6,000 s.f. reproduces the pattern of small houses on single lots (3,000 s.f.) typical of working class areas of town during the mining era. Staff believes this proposal is principal- ly compatible with the neighborhood. This proposal may also have a positive effect on the neighborhood, encouraging other owners of historic homes to seek historic landmark designation. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic struc- tures located on the parcel proposed/ for development or adj acent parcels. , / Response: Restoration of 134 W. Hopkins enhances its cultural value as an historic structure. Moving the house at 120 N. Spring also generally enhances the cultural value of the structure. 4. Standard: The proposed / development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: Restoration/of ~134 W. Hopkins and relocation of 120 N. Spring generally enhances j the architectural integrity of the property, in staff' s opinion.\ If the addition is made to appear less obtrusive on the site and in relation to the moved house, as stated above, we believe it does not significantly detract form the property's architectural integrity. Please note that a major view of the addition will be from First Street near the alley; --i this elevation should-bi--fllnther-st[IareEr--5--final-reyieri. / ZOMMENDATION ~ The Planning Office recommends to HPC to recom- 1 id historic /landmark designation of 134 W. Hopkins Avenue, Lots l ind L of Block 59, City and Townsite of Aspen subject to the \ idition volunteered by the applicants that the asbestos siding 134 W. Hopkins will be removed, the old siding restored and )laced as necessary with matching new 'ding within one (1) tr after historic designation. ~â‚¬2,< - 94=EL M The Planning Off icealsorecoRmiernlb L to giv ptual â‚¬' \ 34* development approval for the restoration of 134 W. Hopkins, l \4< moving the house at 120 N. Spring to the site and building an \ N.-addition subject to the following conditions: C j. .-/ - *.- 1. Detailed rehabilitation plans for the exisitng ouse at 134 W. ~-Hopkins shall be submitted for final development review includ- ing: Method of removing asbestos siding, restoration of existing ~8~ ~ siding, and replacement_ff_matching__sjld_i_ng '' j -6.- Plans for new roofing, alterations to front porch, and any 1 b Â»\ ~Q-,-C ,(14- re 46) ' Â»D 104 0 CL v ck ~ Jflk L Q L ~ Al L \3 /â‚¬-12---7[16/ 4 Response: As pointed out in the application, placing the two houses on 6,000 s.f. reproduces the pattern of small houses on single lots (3,000 s.f.) typical of working class areas of town during the mining era. Staff believes this proposal is principal- ly compatible with the neighborhood. This proposal may also have a positive effect on the neighborhood, encouraging other owners of historic homes to seek historic landmark designation. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic struc- tures located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. Response: Restoration of 134 W. Hopkins enhances its cultural value as an historic structure. Moving the house at 120 N. Spring also generally enhances the cultural value of the structure. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: Restoration of 134 W. Hopkins and relocation of 120 N. Spring generally enhances the architectural integrity of the property, in staff's opinion. If the addition is made to appear less obtrusive on the site and in relation to the moved house, as stated above, we believe it does not significantly detract form the property's architectural integrity. Please note that a major view of the addition will be from First Street near the alley; and this elevation should be further studied at final review. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends to HPC to recom- mend historic landmark designation of 134 W. Hopkins Avenue, Lots K and L of Block 59, City and Townsite of Aspen subject to the condition volunteered by the applicants that the asbestos siding on 134 W. Hopkins will be removed, the old siding restored and replaced as necessary with matching new siding within one (1) A year after historic designation. Uâ€¢'In.irl , The Planning Office also recommends to HPC to give conceptual development approval for the restoration of 134 W. Hopkins, moving the house at 120 N. Spring to the site and building an addition subject to the following conditions: 1. Detailed rehabilitation plans for the exisitng house at 134 W. Hopkins shall be submitted for final development review includ- ing: a. Method of removing asbestos siding, restoration of existing siding, and replacement of matching siding. b. Plans for new roofing, alterations to front porch, and any 6 B, /Lt,tuit.1 I +Jv]MIL -to LM f .45-(,k 6, , 414' ' other elements of the rehabilitation project: n' A in CZY_1.-5 A ,Â· 1\ 0,- t/4, C. Plans showing the new east-facing dormer reduced in size to more closely match the existing dormers on the house.K- d. Structural analysis of the house sufficient to assure that the proposed alterations will not undermine the structure leading to major reconstruction or demolition. 2. Detailed moving and restoration plans for the house at 120 N. Spring shall be submitted for final development review including: a. Method of moving house to assure that the structure will remain in tact. b. Modifications to the location of the structure such that: t3 1. The front yard setback is increased to 1-8- feet. 4 ;A, 4-3- fCA f 2. The east side yard setback shall be further studied to incorporate in the design sufficient space for vegetation and separation from the next-door neighbor. C. Total site coverage of the proposed development shall not exceed the Code requirement of 40% of the lot area. %10 44 rb bi 61 il, 9. U.--1.LG Mi Do &16(., d. Lowering tile height--7- the addition shall be studied as to how the addition relates to the height and massing of the original house. Y + 4 n j YÂ¥\ 9 Vl sb.134.memo 7 , .- JOHN THOMAS KELLY ATTONNEY AT LAW ' 117 SOUTH SPRING STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE (303) 925-1216 December 22, 1987 Mr. Steve Burstein City of Aspen Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office. HAND DELIVERED Re: Historic Designation and conceptual approval, Lots K & L, Block 59, City and Townsite of Aspen Dear Steve: As you are aware, I represent Peter Carley. The purpose of this letter is to apply for historic designation and conceptual review and approval for the attached project. Mr. Peter Carley and Ms Julie Wyckoff are the contract purchasers of Lots K & L, Block 59, City and Townsite of Aspen. As you know, Ms. Wyckoff's and Mr. Carley's plan is as follows: 1. Obtain historical designation for the property. 2. Obtain conceptual permission to, pursuant to ordinance 42, to bring an additional historic structure on to Lot L, as shown on the attached plan. Ultimately, Carley and Wyckoff would condominiumize the property, pursuant to City Code. The basic idea is to return these lots into a semblance of their appearance in the 1880's. The existing 1886 house would remain "as is" with careful restoration and a historic structure would be moved from another location. The result would be to create two historically designated victorians on West Hopkins. The location, designs and photo image of the two houses are as attached, as prepared by Roger Kerr. Note that the total size of the two houses is approximately 2800 sq. feet Mr. Steve Burstein Aspen/Pitkin Plannning Office December 22, 1987 Page 2 which is smaller than the 3200 sq. ft. permitted by the existing zoning codes. Also that the set backs of the house of Lot L have been made in the spirit of the codes, allowing distance from adjacent property lines to allow the scale of the buildings to be unobtrusive in the surrounding street scape while providing privacy for their occupants. I enclose with this request the following: a. Photo image of existing house, and superimposed relocated house, together with developmental drawings. b. Architectural importance submission. c. Neighborhood history and character. d. Title chain summary of ownership. e. Sanborn map of location. Please submit this application at the next historic preservation committee meeting. If you require additional information, please advise and I will get it to you as soon as possible. As we discussed last week, the historic designation would become final only in conjunction with the approval by HPC of the conceptual plan. Thank you for your kind assistance in this matter. Very tudly *burs, , JTK/09 John Thomas Kelly Enclosures CC: Peter Carley Julie Wyckoff Albert Kern, Esq. Brooke Peterson, Esq. / lid: efu 1 320 57- 5 + fo %46 other elements of the rehabilitation projeg:~ k * b.c.- crrn â€¢1J 1/3 a 60 v. â‚¬ f -L.A.U.cÂ·,â€¢Â·-4 . C. Plah& showing the new east-facing dormer reduged in size to more-closely-match-the-existing-ggrmers-on-the-house-. -t*ub Sma~er dlorrnÂ·LrS. d. Structural analysis of the house sufficient to assure that the proposed alterations will not undermine the structure Lleading to major reconstruction or demolition. 2. Detailed moving and_restoration plans for the/~ouse at 120 N. - Spring sball be submitted for finaevelopmenteview including: / a. @Method of moving house to assure that the structure will remain\~n tact. F 4/4 '.1- f b. Modifications to the/locatio f the structure such that: '~ sh.Ar~op&I& +6 b,g-7.3 ,Â»,n:*U- .6, 1. The front yard satback ic inc feet. # *-J#*7409*& c e,Â»- p,ctiby.-1 u,/ 8~~,~m~J4A-Â£2.~ ~~14+-1 7 C #sk>&~Â»d , 2. The east Side yard setback shall be further studied to incorporatd' in/ the design sufficient space for vegetation and separation from the next-door neighbor. A ' c. Total site coverage of the proposed development shall'~h~~4~4:7 ex*eed the Co e requirement of 40% of t e lot area. ~ d. /Eowering the /height 'Â·:of the addition shall be studied as to ( how the addition relates to the height and massing of the C original house. f sb.134.memo li 00 \ 04\ n / Ulf 1 10-\ 7 -b ~ i --444 - \ 'C 7 F1412,7 CÂ« \ 0 ciqi--4 pi \ 7 %- U -- --ul* 900 049 /9-0 / 1-7â‚¬~tre 7 5Â¥20 20 @30 7 5 1 3 AA 9/0 4 3 j I =.-- b#MA * , --,2 'rt 4 .4#f .4,4Â» Â· 4 441, 7 41' â€¢*Â·0*49)FAIâ€¢*3-"2 y,41' 4 ./ 0. ---. . - = =- <llit/00 CHT.BBLY~*11 fbi'44Â·5292 A ';Â·,u'dÂ·mVÂ·.IÂ·t' 01'1 % , 1Â· Â·msf. '61 1 , 4%4:A.. t.4*'.:.111Â¢**~4Â¥.â‚¬t ' .b : 44834 Vi. B., 3 1. ,. r.r - * I fie ~,%55: Â·i /-. 'Â· -. .rÂ·Â·t,~~T> t'*243.Ff:f: "J<,4,* *~A~;4*- 6 Attit<342*22~2.9; f '~ i rÂ»li~ ~ . 99#,~ YAÂ© 7,14,6'0:NOÂ·1.4*'Â·. *Â£4 194.'.. ..... ' 1 71*MZ, :.,191#f f:**%52â‚¬2'zy 64 .:.%*. '.,1. A. 9*Â·34 -. r.,th,44 U' â€¢ 1 34%51. , 2 4. . - -'X ., ~ 3,~k- et:214 2-:9Â·,irÂ·---+ ~2'14 -1,,0 4*9Â¥39-;4 NUM#,;A 4 . â€¢BE / le,%* 14,3. I '' ... i... ~44,4.v.-Â·râ€ž* , 4 r'.. 'f ... -~.Â· 11Â·-er,f-4.*itc:Â£Â· Iâ€¢* I. , I. " 1 . .14 .1, 9 a, 7:0 6 / 2 *Â·.< â€¢,6,iN, 4, ri ,f- ' ~' 19>4Â·FtjwrutÂ¢#.=~i~~Rje:YÂ· ,4 ~ :41, 1.ALIG.Z.14.i,4 g.Â£104414.41>~'*-~~i~. l * 4 4 Â·01#*sk**44rfÂ».â‚¬Â·1&*AP 1 4 4.,1 1~4~9*Opit, A f Â·/ RhiBLL#,M~~*.~.~/~40+ ' + V 41 ... 0~2 i.,2 .Af 4-, . .1 fe,uT I I Â· jifi 27,26 : *~***~0 .4 ..4(fir :*habjl 3,4.r?*hy.'**I.4 9 4 ' 1*Â¥'01? i Â©p;,-4,-Â·**:au; Â· lit,2* Â· 4 04Â· . 461*.. 1* 1.1-T 1 49*413*594* .,4 4. 8 b 9,2- 5*- '-"7+44,4/'Â·11'W~ D *, . 'flti,42,C:lil~ 1& , .AS.-~23 Â· :' . ~'1~~ '~t~F~fidS,1 -4*0 -Â·~~; !~:; 1*i~ ~.~3459~-, .~#4.~ ,~.,- .4.39*TY,I~i05, . , *~*.*~41:>f'tÂ©t24'J~~*-0-" * ./..imbi --' 32- r. 2%â‚¬ 4 - ill *4'Â· 484< 6â€¢5@2,Â·be~.r.,~,~~,~~~fe â€¢.p -,91.*fw -4 Â· v svâ€¢'*R#11*; 60'124 - Alft *444 IP!82*~r ;tob22*RiSRI~ R jâ‚¬A>,9 r:Ab,4:Â·/tâ€¢ 2.â€¢~ - 04 &21* .A#Jhat*Â£9~~64~V)19/~Pmvb#~~/.74~,Â»bW~<fa R 941Â·*i, .4941*MÂ·Eâ€¢ . ' 0#'*941rueÂ· '42YZ#EQ; jUM! ~ p.~4/.<~, ~:~~~~.~, 3,~-1,j~Z~<41&4~f$~~....., 4..f#rd*~4 4**6**9.. :1 4 i ~~ *MA:.*1*:*W,t~W.,â€¢AidNEdZ#Lb#~AILÂ·--*Mâ€¢*~'+#2Aft,PT-14; 4.4.6â€¢-61â€¢<' 5-*Â·Â·â€¢r# *~ ?fraÂ»%9:~4~<~~i:rp~,JEWi~.'~,A~~,-#~~*%.0*-tie=*44**4ak .. 11,4 9, ir 4214111tli,fi I + ..1 .1.1/44*1.1jf~~dilliSY~~ilil<Bilit/~842 , 5=##46@eN . I . :. :i(*Ejam*66/1 Clilifulf'ilix*3:kit.C./it,325*16%vidis)28/0%~ilmilmimillib: .Â·*.. fL.qfer~MiaÂ£i;alif: $. 21 Â¥ t .? 1, T . . 4 '. I . =,44. '4 i 1 -? 1 4 0 .., 4 41. 61 . 4.0 1 4: .. . . 1 . I. I 55 . 0 4 , .019. â€¢ ....... roger kerr , associates. -3~33~,07*-mi#KIPPÂ» 4 44* ds'.4 24,21,01.lit:*. i.* 4,2*ijsj':ft 2 9144##20#I/~t.#F,#4rf:Â·~GÂ¢ft7ti,4.#44$*' tArÂ·93%49*i@39 ' 1 * '-F:411.- -â€ž f.4$1*-4 +F.HS.h.1 '40,. 211 pacific ave., it=12 aspen, co. 81611 303 925-8289 4,- 391 0' -1-~ 9918: I~'4 /20 L : # ALKET BLOCK $9 11- 100,00 4)0,00\ 1 367.2,1 - fer.099 -O M tre d ' - 0 1 - E --Â»91%14 1 - -- 14 1,Â»1-Er 1 -- ~VIblpt<P+1 - --- 1 - 134 4 11Â©14Â·t 4004* 1 - M -4 01 f,A .â€ž 34: 0# Ilir 4.lit 13:-011 '011<11 -4 U.- CO 1 t nor \ 2 - 0 11 11 N LI' A 00,00 \ 1- 6014*-4 , 1. 2,1 - fÂ«l:Nf 22 6 -4 47 4 -I ---4- I. ''I %4 461% dsÂ»<637/ 2 11[/3 *17/14303, ------------ -â‚¬~ roger kerr I associates, 211 pacific ave., *12 aspen, co. 81611 303 925-8289 At (to 2 jo... 35.00 - '/-4 11 .WEIJI=i[ 1 53 1 h --f-RE- 1 1 -1 tile--Â·-Â· I YEd A \ * ~~~Efi-1-__2Â«11-1 3 ,Tb# rz . U . 1 -Â« n 1- - '11~10 1 f.16 1 it Il 1 I. - 1-7 Â£â‚¬71 J ' IICI LUL i & ,-I KifzL \ 1 7 % 1/* 20 1 Uff=Â«-229 j-]Affl ) 1441 1 2- 1 EcÂ£,ST 4/ Â· D #0 1 41/10 i .---1- Ar Uuals 4 b 1 .12Â« fl %1 1 -39 1: 1 1 Mmb t, 5.G '.' \ 3 :-t' 1 . /7 - m [-i- 6 Tedru)/71 7, 6 -9 1 9rÂ°r503 -a +-NI , i Â· -756 cle iFT. . .1 -- +rj-9 N , 7--- 7 4 . :1- C- u 4 r-1 - ulll- r. Liviv / j .-1-1*37~- r--41 4 . Il T-f 4,44/, 1, Cly. I hz 13-zf El 9==9 7-/ 1 F.Â¢13 L .=*------4 , . 4 4 'r r ! tt j /1 n; r , 5Ii 42-L ir,f: 5" turl Â»1 rh , , 2 21, r. r -; ; 6:, F ~ , 8 r 1_ ' .1/ D rr fe-fer 6~rlen 47u-lit Yvy(\Â°-It V \ 3 8 rs+ 5-1Â¥eel- 1 -9===14 1 1, // 7 '2-Z roger kerr a/IN associates- 211 pacific ave., #12 asper-1, co. 81611 :303 225-8289 Al/4 15' ------------I--1-Ii.V-= .- - r' - - - - -4 -7,-- - 4-/Ciff------7-r---/ -I 1 0 , .-41 111 1 A & 7 '1 L/Il 9 44 Sh ' A #=6- - I -'.1 / 1 4 f*=4 1 =14?kl-*' , *Ef-1 1 fllf d 1, 1 mil- - f B 14 1-2 1 - 457 1 1 g.2- 7 1 11 l./ .ri it 1 1 . 1 MI , L 1 1 - -- - - 1 -- -7 1 - Â£ .. .1 - 1 - 1 - 1 r /1. i \ 4,2,1 ' I . ; i Â»- W , r f #t~ $ 11 1 .4 L - -1 gl= 41.7 Â£ 1 . L I !2n- I ~ 1 i 1 --*Gâ‚¬.22 i Â· :9111 1.. . 11 ' N- 1 \ J j ==1 1 | 1 :1 f B - i [ 41 11. ) 1 1. 04 i G, peres' t- - I. prck ---14 -' ,/ li 1 . 9-j 1 1 -Ensfin 9 66'- fred 4Â»- r _L &. L- U Â£-27 A L --------- -1... .--4--- . .-P- 1/ Â· ffÂ° fk: /9,5 ,1 Ve c frop(54 Plan _fer Uff tr Floor P lan 5 hetf- Peter- CayÂ·165 2-3--ulk Wjkie a j El 27. VirS+ 5-trÂ«-t- . 1 -1-- roger kerr E associates. 211 pacific ave., #12 aspen, co. 81611 303 925-8289 -ANce - - I.- 11-- - -i-.- --I.* - -1 1 t 2 1 ..1 ' 7, A cly- 3- 1 -11/1 1. -f,{11% \ 1 kL - 4'11 1 4- - 41Ili 4 -- - 111'11 J 1 I. 191-7-1 ., .If' 1/ 41-H- -1 1 7Â« , lili Â« TaÂ·Fo 01 44 1 1; i 1 /-- 1 -- i -/Â»11- 1 - --1 11 1 1 1 1 I.. --- - -/7.Â£T 1 Ill-- - ,_79 -4 4 r; C. r r-- 2 n<Lt- 11 7 4 1 / J j rk- 1 1 7-1 , 1 I 2-' U 41 .f / - - 41 L- flit__:-_ 11 -, 11 -9663 1 - -tp_41--~14 W I, f I 22,7 ,â‚¬ 1 1 1_ 4/, -fgAMS 4 Pre , f yoposej f (an -64/- -5-% â‚¬(53~ d ptier 22-Lej 1 3-0 lie. vljkÂ£>f,-4 51 0 .r st St-rect 4 3 ,#NO 4/9-1-- m \{ 4.1(i ,~ ~~~~ ~4 4 m , ELI %7~th ~ .'lf' 2~ I r 4 1/ /2. ,1/ LO . co f C 0] 4 i. 0 73 42 + 1 1, 4 7 07 \17 ~Â· 44-4: 1,01 ItÂ·/ C %-4 \LI 49 I. 001 , //ir..1 -1 > t,21 I f / 4 - _ _--, __ . - 91-- - 49 4 1 , 411 - - 2 + I 1 /2 1,1 # Â· --- -'r , 1-,trf--yajETâ‚¬_ -- 1 - p <1~ - ' -1------L--/for=nate-14203Â«-- - 4 -1 e . \Art --~ hÂ«4 -t < -PA~ i--1.2-2 63<5:19Â«0-4 2- 0 41% m 44-pf# _uu_ 4=--14=f_.a;H.3111 -1 & 1 ALÂ« 34 1 4 0-. i N ./ 1 4 -O 1 ' ~ ~ 9 1 9 ' 14 44 -414 1 - - -j - I -- Z *T -4 - T - - ~ -~ -- - -' 9 2 -- f =14 . \ \U 1 Ob tij J.- Â· 11\ k 4 4 Â»,\ \it 49 211 pacific ave., #12 co. 81611 roger kerr associates - . 'Mr 0-1 T m' al . Â· /5 Cd Â·kÂ· ~ 4 . CIr] 4 11 . CO .1 U kl r / 401 h 3 I QI --, 311=17 - --TI~ _ - ..1.4- 1 A -t--7 1 ---1 44--4-Luff - /17 _ 1 7=+ 'fIf 1 4 1 -5~ Te.1 -3-W 1 4 1 . A . 1-4 1 1 L Â« 2. Â· 1/ Â¥ I \\. -T+L -, . -i 1--I ' f- ! t ... PL- 2 1.1Â» 1~ Ft-IF =r i 1 2 11 2.7- L-Â· ==F---/67--1 'd V 14 .U -*H-1 -- *-'tr ....0 . 41: 1 1 -1- 1 1 .. ..0 \1) 6 (1) 29U/'.7/* /*4Â·05.'11 N F ful DC>-fc-J VICAY;)%1 +40't ~ 62/Â»ip ULA'.Â·~ . 4- 0 1 a 41 9- U 1 Eli aspen, co. 81611 roger kerr E associates t ARCHITECTURAL IMPOIUANCE As one can read On the atta.ched Sanborn nlap of 1904, the residential blocks north of Main Street were all 30' x 100' size and for the benefit of smaller or working class houses. There are no larger historic houses of any architectural significance in this inmediate neighborhood, and we find no record of notable architects 7 or builders having designed and built any landmark houses in this immediate vicinity. It is interesting to note however that the house constructed on Lot K is of the same design as that on Lot S, Block 52. It has the same unusual flat roof and the same roof gables and large living room windows facing onto First Street. These houses look as though they were designed and built by the same person, and by conclusion of many of the original single story "miners houses" could suggest that the house on Lot K, Block 59 was originally constructed as a larger tuo story house. The construction of the existing house on Lot K has a strong rock foundation. The entire house is unodframe. The exterior wells were originally wood siding, but thege have been covered with asphalt shingles, similarly the roof was a wood shingle, but has been covered with asphalt sheet. There are undesirable urought iron supports at the front porch. There is no exterior ' Victorian gingerbread" on the house. The windows are single pane, not insulated. It would be desirable to remove all asphalt and wrought iron, and recondition and/or replace the wood and roof siding to return the house to most of its original condition, and this could be . readily accanplished which will create the true sense of the house when it was first built. The existing house on Lot K is not significant when compared with some of the major historic residences in Aspen, however, it is certainly of the 1880' s era and is also certainly of a design that for that immediate 3 neighborhood is large and unusual and therefore a historic preservation in the "as is" condition is an i.mportant consideration. -24 11.: - ...1.4 .Â· . 79.- - NEIG]-I]*)lt}IG)I) HISIDRY AND CH.Al tACIER Research in-to thie lot subdivisions o.f Block 59, and in fact several surrounding City blocks, show that this was obviously a "working class" area with small dwellings of the period to house area workers, probably in the mines. The lot size of all these dwellings was 301 x 100'. A title search of Lots K and L, Block 59 is attached (Title Chain Summary) and the first records show Lots K and L being owned by a George Pearson in 1886, and there being two buildings thereon. No location of each house is given on each lot. A copy of the Sanborn map, dated 1904, is attached. This shows a dwelling on each of Lots K and L, and although the dwellings are not ' specifically indicated as to their use it uould appear that both are residences. It is absolutely clear that the dwelling shown on Lot K in this 1904 map is the same as exists today. It is clear also, from the Sanborn map, that this whole neighborhood was for residential use. We find no designation for different zoning, commercial, residential, industrial, etc., however, from the lot layouts and all the individual addresses, we assume that all the buildings were for individual residences. 14 .. . t TITI_E CI MIN STIMMARY T_CPS K ANI) 'I,, BI OCK 59, ASPEN May 5, 1886 The first recorded deed appears liar 5, 1886. On this date George Pearson sold lots K and L, Block 59 in the official town site of Aspen including improvements of one two room house 12 x 24 and one barn 16 x 20 to D.M. Van Hoevenbergh for $1,000.00. January 15, 1891 Van Hoevenberg and Jerane B. Wheeler became partners. Said lots K and L, Block 59 along with numerous mining claims came under the ownership of the J.B. Wheeler Co. April 1892 Wheeler and Van Hoevenborg sold Lots K and L to Ross Pierce for $1.00. LOT K September 13, 1892 Ross Pierce sold only Lot K to Samuel Goza for $2,100.00. The selling price indicates the house and barn referred to in the first recorded deed stood on Lot K. The next year Goza sold Lot K to S.H. Finely and J.C. Rose for Sl.00. July 21, 1899 Finely and Rose sold Lot K to George James for $650.00. June 5, 1914 James disappears on paper and Isaac Rosen sells Lot K, all improve- . ments and furnishings except the bed and bedding "now used bv me" to Christina Lindahl for $1.00 and valuable consideration. Septanber 17, 1917 One can only speculate on "valuable consideration" because Christina Lindahl Rosen sold Lot K to August Anderson. '14 4Â·Â· */ ...4-,7 Im L December 16, 1895 Ross Pierce sold Lot L and limprovenents thereon consisting of' one one-story frame house" to Fred Buckley for $300.00. Thi,s is the first reference to any improvement on Lot L. This Kould indicate that the original house on Lot L was constructed by Mr. Pierce in 1893. March 19, 1896 Buckley sold Lot L and improvements to Mary Cambell for $700.00. September 6, 1905 Campbell sold Lot L to Julia Tobin for $225.00. October 18, 1912 Julie Tobin sold Lot L to D. DeMarios for $300.00. The last deed transfer on Lot L appears on October 18, 1912, and records show that August Anderson purchased Lot K on September 17, 1917. July 10, 1950 August and Anna Anderson quit claimed Lot L, and recorded both ownership of both Lots K and L. Notes to History Hazel Loushin remembers her father purchasing Lot L for $50.00, and thereafter removing the uuoded house on that site. 4.4 ./ 1. 11 '/3Mvrl t 4 1.63 1 , 1 MICAFT/1 l.1/. & A.,lit.,11/,-â€¢-,1/ IMIâ€¢- - L/-> 1-1 3/ I \ 7 - + 't.- 00 'M ... I. - 7 3Â¢.... r..... - Â¢â€ž RL " Y '11~ 11!-' 1 \ -/ C- ~Urt~ c#ric <-7 \, i\\ O .,i- â€¢ C..Â¥ 0..6.,7 *.* iâ€¢. i..â€¢rvâ€¢ m . ,--1 1 5.1 \.-3 t~~~ ~ ..p câ€ž, cv .â€¢*rre r,i, 0 â€ž- iwâ€¢,râ€¢ ,'V '4â€¢ â€¢ y &Â»4-1 6 C.Â·atâ€¢ 5/. 69 /,c., 0â€¢ â€¢.Â· /: 0 /-, 11 /0/n, / 63 At Â«3/ tia//am 1 - ..0-5 :~FF 1 / "9 , D :-0. 9\ \ C L. la.4-e. - - --1 \#72\. f 1 1. A OffL-:' \ \..1\ 41> 7-7110 OÂ»/Â·â€¢Â·Â»eÂ·Gf.l aâ€¢,- R.1 -r f-' .) l... i .- i.. ?4 1, ' I ./. 1 I." -0-. I .. ) PeÂ©. 0-{74,7ON, * W W*â€ž* 3~, PÂ¢('le Me Â£ 0 1 .1 Irct 'â€¢ ~Â·-0~ cr-,0Â·r~cÂ·â€¢' .r ~-.Â·4t7 ...... 9â€¢ , F=2456-~_Â«~~j U~-tr~\ L.R\\<OJ -6 9 00 .. J.â€žâ€ži er ~â€¢~~ Pe,t< /--r, 7 r L-' 73 i .5.-pu66/rn 1-Â«Â«all F ---- 9/ 9 1 1 + '1 0 1 03 4 - râ€¢-1 f- 1 [- 1 f J 8TR E ET 8. J . 1 3 .. 11 â€ž1 /7 7"~ 1 F u _ .r--2.-1=1 -" lipu , -Y 0 tF L____J ill-- k i 1 12 E--1 k. Â· - tr--180--am.7112;KiÂ¢,1 4 ~ L__331 C neÂ·-. ~ ' ':-iljit-jag-u---11?t:1 '[323 -4 - 1 , [3 n tbo Ll]AL_134[UL]E- r . I I . I. f Bl.//. 1. . 1/./. 4 1 .*00-635 I HALLA,1 W. e l., - t. 1, w. ..100-335 1 ._' ,â€¢ ' '~ ~:.. 706-*77 1 3~ CoN'.'ANÂ·Â· E-' .-~~~~III&1Z 71 1 + C.,Ui, M i .....10*.m 9 . . . Ljt-J. . . L=47,1, . l . O BLE EMER i - 11&211~ 7~ 1 12444-- 9 1,1 " " L. ...19*-// 1 Irk / 1 : .0 Â·Â· .... ]00-615 1 - T&7 [Ylu_r__A[323-;134-41~~9 40223:[f-]*Â·Fi-'It 9&16]41Â¢44Lulg#_ 4 -* 9.0.----r i--7*Â· 1.1-,1, 9 1--1.-3. y.---] MAIN E~ - 62.. F ,- t . - iÂ·, -- L._11 --<g-yE~IjLIÂ¢1*~:.vT~FS*ELI* Off@Fqp[--2--b i 1- Iv-- 1 -~ fFE# 4 - '--1~_1 ~ â€ž Â·Â· . .........700-Wt Il .i .1 fliff Â¥ MIÂ· -co~oi ~f.â‚¬* % RK â€¢ tÂ¥ 44*~ILI T---1 r--h .r----- f AVE. ,â€¢Â· 1 -. 1 / D 1:Ter: ]ES-03 1 r - .... .1.Â»-1041 14 .100-1]0 1 , 1 Â»235 1 L. -- /613'.- F 4 1 /2/3, I 0 ' r.'4 44,4=-,~-'1 Ar 6/ Al U. 14[_lj . â€ž ,0..... i F,10,9.0 R R EQ: - .Too-*40 â€¢11 - Mountain ..f -'U--ij~ LTI--ll F:~-- FF-]F[72~i[-1-le:-~ Â· % 191.114 -T~F, '1,6iil ~jaf IME_bi -L~ irpr j .V \1,1 ..1-141 '13 Cant ~~ x~ 1 ' Â·~' P;' l.or.Â·14~ 1Â·Â· til---~~~~~~221=21Â·~~ I~' 3 - '' ' ~333- t ,- W I Jr: f--Â·'5 Cht?RER' 1 5 /1/bt'. I . ]*-3 t' 4 I.-7 - - 741 ... -5/ 1 11 ~ 16-11 -Ill. @-71 1 * 1,/11 â€ž 11 4 E--13~ 7 81 ...to.-11,1 /4 100-31 8 /00-4!1 1, mURA -- . 'LF- Â·-19 dt't - ~ â€¢ ~~~~~~9 5 ..:Mt: li - - .25*git 0 K 1 " 4 . 14 E Ii-/ Â·Â· 9.,-, ..100+Ill . ..100-1 /0 /1 .7, ...100-/33 13 .4/16)4'~1 401Â·633 4 '- 1.,ti #6:1*Â·.9,3., â€ž .. ...701.*33 14 / '.,-pâ€¢.41\,;UR--)"~~i .: .. - L'* 106.-11~ I 27 /1 3 -0*RjifmmriMMAL.. Â·. KITY- 4-- --1â€ž.: I. 1 7.201 0- eD . , \44 ~0*,.~pulâ€¢fib@.4.4Â» gile.:,rer.:..-.- .4/ *- i '/ 1 .I~ -209- -1-1.-,~ L -- E QI I .m - - .. 'STANDARD Matflf*-Ilt~â€¢Fy 3 04Â·râ€žÂ«-r Krr-ri .â€¢enÂ·â€¢â€¢3 3â€ž9.0 "1,( , I ~â€¢00'*~0. 3 f.IEN. FL ?. $ ..â€¢ /â€¢catria kr *I . ,â€¢rE,wl' â‚¬â€¢7â€žr â€¢ Hural. Ort' ...Ill 3./C. Illf I.,6- -f- -/DO-il,loâ€¢/â€¢Vt./. .,â€¢DO-â€¢I-*3.*,C-Il, , "/. I. ( 86 ..0 J. i. 7 2'f Y.,/G ;AN/6 1,4 C, 3,1, C,CEâ€¢ , Cr.'râ€¢ b. ~ 0.1,/C 1.â€¢â€¢Il' Â»'â€¢T.ICâ€¢"â€¢ .li'il â€¢ '~1 V~h 2 E-7-Â·â€¢, ~Â·:C~# f~vo% - - ./I- I C./. 0. <I,8 000 6Â».5 ..,...... 73 .. 6â€¢â€¢21' & 1141 CINE= -1 -A.le â€¢wâ€¢'Iiâ€¢o, coLO~10 Y~LLO-Aâ€¢r f,A- 4 Re< eâ€¢. r '. 30.O.0 6. ' 1 I. tor' *" 2.3 ' ........ 0. CEâ€¢'7 1 â€¢ 5, 61 Mut.\ 0, 4 ,2 1 . / 1 It' *I f 1 ..t. &3 0 ...., - MED ~~XZM : 2 : 49% 1.0. ieâ€¢r ~ ~,RE ,?,/F Z P,/0 &4/ 307* 47:6â€¢â€¢ret.3 "ov 1 / M-*i-â€¢*t,Â· 0, 7, 4, 6-â€¢f-,i, 0â€¢5 4Â»â€¢,â€¢3,/1- ~ A ASPEN. - h . ...M .... 0 4-' â€¢'"a Gr.Â·, pâ€ž... #tri~ â€¢1 Lâ€¢.6.Mi Ho I-2 ,#Me. ~4 rj Ft'Mul COUNTY. . o.rrâ€¢ ..IC,A~. (i .*fc, 1~613-*14 f 2, 00 hle'CAÂ¥1 -UTIâ€¢â€¢f -'~Mâ€¢' C./.â€¢â€¢,r-â€¢or H ll IM & 1 JÂ«Ut /40". I /0/51 Hil 94% 0 0 1.01 â€¢92.Di â€žTr Inet'â€¢.3 -,7â€¢ fro Fl â€¢4>.ff \ COLORADO, 5 + M frATION,uâ€¢--â€¢â€¢â€¢.â€¢â€¢ - 4 nv'. 0,-W, 'r " w.rr HIT,/7/ ArÂ¥.1 /, -â€¢,-A. /1-Kr~ #--r~.- .â„¢. - In,i i. iâ€¢,in* c.r-O,7,0,4 â€¢7 f.,1 " N .â€¢â€¢1 Â»0 22 .. /12Â«7 /'< CZ4'DJW;~i?---IME*'# ., Mise, 'rw. "irÂ» Mir frl" 3.14 . i MO",6 \ N. 71 ST. I- . 4 flo 3 #,r U ': r-3 143-Tl 1/3.N NUB-Â£3 .Â¢r m -J /.4 .,aw, i i L . [3211 r 2 3 nup [pli' i.-1-- 6% 44'5 L.__2 + lul j E U. DEf6NI 8 C , 6 4 / ~ [3 FT] IT-T r-1â€žJ 3 p@><31 F-:1 1 1777 7-R K f"-r~F'-:-r--3 4 1, A, 'J j 51 58 e A 1 1/ .1 / - E--1 1 7 :,1(j., 1 r-41 ~ % 2% 1 2 M I 1 62â‚¬ 1>Efti e 0 â‚¬ 1 #r 1 MR 0 1, If J . -LL-1 1 2 rbi 4 .1. Â¢'--1 2 01-1 1 A hi -1 r- ne/M t . 0 Z 1 / . Ezij Lzrri 2_ni 0- UN- 1 1 1 1 111 - 1 v 02- N tj EÂ·M Â£10-12 Efo-6 700 0 fc? t'co (50-t 20 & i 2-6 -0 ' I 116 ng-It 1,0 7 100 202 \ ;23 211 ,/-4 -C/9 6.Â¥4.F, Pi --- 7-0,1 REA' M.MAIN \20/ r 223- 1 213>~ r? rie 2)1-9 F07Â· 5 803-20; 135-3 131-:9 ins )73-2, )19-17 !15-13 /7, 9 /27745- ~ - m }03- 1% 4 1 9 "1 y-t .1 7-21114 7-76= ! -13 -4/1 7% i 41 1 0 ./f 3 K '1 ----h 1-111J N __fil 122 % 0 \ Dt F G H 1 \ IC_en CDEFGâ€ž, 52 - 59 / / 0 t,1 ' --~23><5-~' [17-2-5 liA li-LL.5 I $ / I LO 4 . 6 4 - L 213 0 Yl /1 1 ROPQ s# \ l.zy -1 Â£ M NO M zir 3-- 71 e /3,- A 9 r 41 , 0 /1 16 1/ n 7-<-7 -4 0 1 -3 12 k e L Nh/f Ul) Ek!.f- W -LI ~ A, 6, ,~ d..112 _61 0 ~ _17 ~ ~ -~ rie 121141066 4 2 1' : 3 /1 . 22220 2/6/6 2<-2 2/04 toG-0 202 290 DN~60-2 130-28 126-0 frato /fE-/5 1#4-27 //0-d ,/0 los C Z 8. 4 9,pi W. HOPKINS , AV. --F- -,- 723-71 tls-11 215-13 211-9 20-1 E 7â€¢03Â·rot 135Â·3 131-29 127.5 123-~ f/9 n Â·//543 0/ /09.3 /0 3 /0. & 2 4 i 4 - f - 4 4-' LLI , 1% ' /5-9 el 11 4 L- i 2-J DEF G M 1 B CD E-\F 6 N , i,-7 13< -1 1 -zit -. 4 31-3.3 041 6:43] E R i f Nh 53 60 4 L 1Â»Â«1 12 __1 -3 1 8 1,Â£,11 L--2 liz E><J NE-11 -%Â¥95 A L=-3 . NG p Q h J Q 557 OIl L M N-oP Q L -17- 4 L.U.J , 4 fu~t:~1 . | 171FG L._2 1 - /7 , F K CLL -- 77 7 -. -, =--~f/3 L.=; -1.-5;~I--11 LIn--~ 1270/ 9 ~ ,73-' 3 *~ L*Z~ A--- F - 100 . {0 Ck (10 2.1 c; 1 An Â· 18? tÂ· 9 1/Â·t' IC. t- 1 1 ~Â· > 'r,t -C ltd H r UDTS 4 30)L/NGS AS J 4*v 41 CM A 1 1 TZ> .0.-Â·-Â·~ rn .1 2 k /h - \ 1 Â£2 t, /1 -14 W vt m , 59/ SDI 101 (01 S W pot tol Got All /11 y/1 LU Gil /44 202 9412 604 60 1/2 0 2 392 4 12 6/2 -ST.F- Ul-LN~ON------- U]IN]0'S L--21. "-C ' 1-J 1 2 /06 /03 f/ !01 )03 )05 @bejolf