The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19970312AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 12, 1997 SISTER CITIES MEETING ROOM 5:10 5:00 I. Roll Call II. Commissioner and Staff Comments III. Public Comments IV. NEW BUSINESS A. 514 E. HYMAN AVENUE, MASON AND MORSE BUILDING - MINOR C o# 77 Al U ED Tb *9 ~9 9 V. OLD BUSINESS ' A. 17 QUEEN STREET, CONCEPTUAL REVIEW, PUBLIC (4 1 2-0 HEARING (CONT. TO MARCH 26, 1997) 6'20 B. 218 N. MONARCH STREET, CONCEPTUAL REVIEW, PARTIAL DEMOLITION, ON-SITE RELOCATION, ORDINANCE 30, PUBLIC HEARING (CONT. FROM FEBRUARY 26, 1997) APPRoWED 4-1 Â¥ ; 4/5' C. ISIS THEATRE - FINAL APPRoVED 4-1 % : 00 __ D. 1008 E. HOPKINS - WORKSESSION VI. ADJOURN ~~/37Â¢Â£7 Â°441~- = MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission TIIRU: Stan Clauson, Conrmunity Developplent Ilirectof~~2~ Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Director \\A U e FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Oigicer Mitch Haas, City Planner RE: 218 N. Monarch Street, Conceptual Review for on-site relocation, partial demolition, and an addition to a Designated Landmark (also known as the "Half House") DATE: March 12, 1997 (Continued from February 26,1997) SUMMARY: HPC reviewed the proposed renovation of 218 N. Monarch Street on February 26, 1997 and continued the public hearing with several areas for clarification. Staff finds that the applicant has adequately addressed the concerns in the attached proposal and recommends approval with conditions. The applicant requests conceptual approval to relocate a designated landmark structure on-site, to demolish a portion of the existing building, and to make an addition to the existing building at 218 N. Monarch Street. A combined sideyard setback variance, floor area bonus, and waiver of Ordinance #30 standards is also requested. APPLICANT: Barbara and Donald Zucker, represented by Katalin Domoszlay. LOCATION: 218 N. Monarch Street, the northerly 38 feet of Lots A, B, and C, Block 78, City and Townsite of Aspen, together with all that portion of vacated Hallam Street lying northerly of said lots, easterly of the east line of N. Monarch and southwesterly of line 4-5 of the City and Townsite of Aspen. PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development involving an historic landmark must be reviewed in accordance with the provisions of Section 26.72.010 and Common Procedures, Chapter 26.52. The specific sections of the Municipal Code that are relevant to this review include Section 26.72.010(D), Review Standards for All Development Involving Historic Landmarks; 26.72.020(C), Standards for Review of Partial Demolition; 26.72.020(IE), Standards for Review of On-Site Relocation; Section 26.104.030, Nonconforming Structures; Section 26.58.040, Residential Design Standards; and, Section 26.28.040, Medium-Density Residential (R- EXHIBIT 1 it 6). With regard to Sections 26.58.040 and 26.28.040, this memo will include discussions on only those requirements that staffhas determined will not be met with the proposed plans. SECTION 26.72.010(D), REVIEW STANDARDS FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT INVOLVING HISTORIC LANDMARKS: This request must meet the four (4) standards stipulated in Section 26.72.010(D) ofthe Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval; an analysis ofthe proposal with regard to these four applicable standards follows. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site covered by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units, pursuant to Section 26.40.090(13)(2). Response: Staff believes that the proposed addition is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale, and layout with the existing, designated historic structure located on the parcel, as well as with development on adjacent parcels (See Exhibit A- Applicant's submittal). When viewing the street-facing, or west elevation, of the proposed addition it is apparent that the design, massing, volume and scale are attempting to be sensitive and subordinate to as well as compatible with the existing historic structure. For instance, the roof pitches of the landmark structure will be replicated on all portions of the proposed addition, but will be lower in height, and thus subordinate to, those of the existing building. The window forms of the addition have been selected to be compatible with, but not confused with, those of the historic structure. While there will be no question as to which parts are new versus which are old, the two will visually coexist without conflict. The proposed site planning, or layout, of the addition is also sensitive to character of the existing landmark. Part of the addition is proposed for the rear portion of the historic structure in order to maintain the landmark's integrity along the streetscape. This siting allows for the vast majority of the existing exterior walls of the structure to remain intact while only a small portion of those walls that are currently visible from the public realm would be demolished as part of the addition. The location of the other new square footage, in the form of additional living space and an attached garage creates a courtyard area which physically separates the new construction from the old house. Staff finds that the proposed location of the garage compliments the existing structure and is not 2 inconsistent with other outbuildings along alleys in the West End. From a streetscape perspective 0 (i.e., looking north down Monarch Street from its intersection with Bleeker Street), the garage would appear as another building that maintains the West End neighborhood rhythm of building to open area established by the existing structures and their associated side yard setbacks. Because of the various site restrictions, such as the grade falling away at the back of the site, the required setbacks, the lack of alley access, and the existence of a water line easement along the north side of the property, coupled with the desire and need to maintain the integrity of the historic structure and streetscape, the proposed location is the only sensible place for this part ofthe addition. Since the February 26th meeting, the applicant has deleted the ADU above the garage and has moved the garage 3 feet further back from the street, eliminating the need for a front yard setback variance. The garage door is to be covered in clapboards. The deck at the rear of the house has been reduced to eliminate the need for a setback variance and breaks have also been created along the rear wall. Finally, the front porch on the existing house will be retained as an open porch. Other issues brought out through public comment on February 26th focused on the relocation of the historic house and the ability to expand it. Planning Department records and the fact that the house is on a concrete block foundation indicate that the house was moved on this site, however Sanborne Maps and testimony from the public suggest that it is original to the site, even if it is not in the exact location where it was built. The house may be expanded to the maximum FAR allowed for the site through the Land Use Code provisions for non-conforming structures. The applicant has provided a detailed explanation of how the FAR for the site was determined, with reductions for the vacated street and steep slopes. The total floor area allowed for the site is 2,372.4 square feet. With a floor area bonus of 497.6 square feet, the applicant proposes to build a total of 2,870 square feet. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The parcel is virtually surrounded by inventoried properties, historic landmarks and National Register structures. As described above, the applicant has made a very strong effort to respect the historic character of existing development both on its lot and throughout the neighborhood. This project will contribute to the long-term maintenance ofthe historic character of the area. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. 0 3 Response: The existing structure should be considered very significant as an example of a relatively unaltered historic resource and of unusual details and form. The proposal will protect these characteristics while improving the physical condition ofthe structure. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: Minimal demolition is proposed and the project will not diminish or detract from the architectural character and integrity of the designated historic landmark. In fact, significant restoration efforts will be undertaken. REQUESTED VARIANCES: As proposed, the request requires that the HPC approve the following three (3) separate waivers/variances from the requirements ofthe Municipal Code. Section 26.58.040(F)(4)(c), Garages, Carports and Storage Areas The Community Development Department has reviewed this application for compliance with the "Residential Design Standards," pursuant to Section 26.58.040 of the Municipal Code. Staff has determined that the proposal is not in compliance with the "Garages, carports, and storage areas" standard, Section 26.58.040(F)(4)(c), which reads as follows: All portions of a garage, carport or storage area parallel to the street shall be recessed behind thefrontfacade a minimum often (10) feet. The proposed garage is not recessed ten (10) feet behind the front facade; the slopes of the site, the lack of alley access, the existence of a water line easement, the required side yard setbacks, and the desire to keep the garage separate from the existing structure do not allow for a ten foot recess. Staff feels that a variance from this requirement should be supported as such variation would be more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with the above stated dimensional requirements. Pursuant to Section 26.72.010(D)(1)(a), the HPC is empowered to make this determination. SECTION 26.72.020(C), STANDARDS FOR REVIEW OF PARTIAL DEMOLITION: No approval for partial demolition shall be granted unless the HPC finds all of the following standards are met. 1. Standard: The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure. 4 Response: Minimal demolition is proposed. While the application states that 27.9% of the existing structure is proposed for demolition, it should be noted that this percentage includes the basement and attached non-historic lean-to structures. In essence, roughly 22% of the exterior first- story perimeter of the existing structure will be demolished, all of which is located toward the rear of the building. The second story of these walls will, for the most part, be left intact. The applicant will only engage in restoration if an addition is allowed; thus, the partial demolition is required for the restoration of the structure. 1. Standard: The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: a. Impacts on the historic significance of the structure or structures located on the parcel by limiting demolition of original or significant features and additions. Response: Only a limited amount of demolition will occur, at the rear ofthe structure. b. Impacts on the architectural character or integrity Of the structure or structures located on the parcel by designing new additions so that they are compatible in mass and scale with the historic structure. Response: The architectural character and integrity of the historic resource will be preserved through the new development, which is of a similar yet subordinate mass and scale and which is placed to the rear and side ofthe structure. For greater detail regarding the proposed mass and scale of the new addition, please see the response to Standard 1 in the discussion of Section 26.72.010(ID, Review Standards for All Development Involving Historic Landmarks, above. SECTION 26.72.020(E), STANDARDS FOR REVIEW OF ON-SITE RELOCATION: No approval for on-site relocation shall be granted unless the HPC finds that the standards of Section 26.72.020(D)(2), (3), and (4) have been met. These standards read as follows: (2) Standard: The relocation activity is demonstrated to be the best preservation method for the character and integrity of the structure, and the historic integrity of the existing neighborhood and adjacent structures will not be diminished due to the relocation. Response: Given the site constraints, such as the slopes and required setbacks, moving the existing structure ten (10) feet to the south is the best and most sensitive way to accomplish the proposed addition in a fashion that will preserve the character and integrity of the landmark structure. The relocation will not diminish the historic integrity of the existing neighborhood or adjacent structures. The applicant is working with the Water Department to minimize the required water line easement to the extent possible, which might allow the building to shift slightly to the north, however this may result in a more significant cut in the slope at the rear of the site, which may not be desirable. 5 Standard: The structure has been demonstrated to be capable ofwithstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and re-siting. A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation. Response: The applicant must submit a structural report for Final review, or prior to applying for a building permit. (4) Standard: A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond or other financial security with the engineering department, as approved by the HPC, to insure the safe relocation, preservation and repair (ifrequired) ofthe structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation. Response: The applicant must submit a relocation plan and bond prior to Final review or prior to applying for a building permit. SECTION 26.104.030, NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES: The existing structure is nonconforming because the underlying R-6, Medium-Density Residential, zoning requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet per single family dwelling unit or 4,500 sq.ft. per duplex unit. The nonconformity of the structure may continue since the use is permitted in the zone district and the proposal will not increase its nonconformity. As the structure is an historic landmark, it "may be enlarged, provided, however, such enlargement does not exceed the allowable floor area " ~ of the existing structure by more than Ave hundred (500) square feet. Thus, as long as the proposal receives development review approval as required by Section 26.72.010(D)(1)(a), this stipulation, in essence, provides the proposed addition to the nonconforming duplex with an FAR. bonus ofup to five hundred (500) square feet. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the staff recommendation (below), as well as any of the following alternatives: 1) Grant Conceptual approval to the Significant Development application as submitted; 2) Grant Conceptual approval to the Significant Development application with conditions to be met prior to Final approval; 3) Grant Conceptual approval to the Significant Development application with conditions to be met prior to issuance of a building permit; 4) Table action to a date certain in order to allow the applicant further time for restudy (specific recommendations should be offered); or, 0 6 Me 4 12194- 424 g doertt Plogmet\- 0 #Ac. F NOUSE EXHIBIT NO. DESCRIPTION IN DEMO 1 23[AfF MEMO .3//1/9 9- / Al a> CUB,\ \FF l-En:E~~ al5197- 14 3 STAFF Night 0 2/44 (9+ /At 4 5. AN\06-0 LE-rrek /14 5 DRALO /10 48 14 4 JEÂ«J Liot-r- Lar l e=iR- LA~ 3- DORD-TÂ« 1<01*( Â¢~24 lit 8 9]% 9-*D \Al mkC) 1 K) O 9 #PAGE MAP td 10 *42'Vati~r~ 810 lk! - U *N of: #&0% EFELN BL M ia **2*itdfE~Â£ c- Â©Al 13 41*0-n) OF HAL-F P-ouSE {~ 0 t-tpo WITNESS LIST* :3111199- AGENDA ITEM: Â£912 /4â‚¬79+ M 89(/Aft A- HAL F .tib 6(5,2- NAME OF WITNESS: 1. Staff Person AN:/ 404 DDAI 2. 1<*rAY -1 4 130 9 02-LAY j A- _ 1 3. ONA A LES QU,Al Al l FFE 61 9-0'*trEDKS 4. 'All L +40 Dree-804 5. Â¢Ar *noaâ‚¬ SDA 6. SAAeR - 41\1 De [AEK} 7. â‚¬ Ae:Ed D/41 8. ilâ‚¬113 1 FREEDPI, Ad 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. * Includes staff persons, but excludes staff attorney and board members. --:'0554.../will--./.al": 5) Deny Conceptual approval to the Significant Development application as submitted, finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION: Regarding the application/request for conceptual approval of the on- site relocation, partial demolition, and addition of/to the Landmark Designated structure located at 218 N. Monarch Street (the "Half House"), staff recommends that the HPC grant conceptual approval of: 1. The on-site relocation of the existing Landmark Designated structure, subject to the following conditions: a. The applicant must submit a structural report for Final review, or prior to applying for a building permit. b. The applicant must submit a relocation plan and bond prior to Final review or prior to applying for a building permit. c. If it is found that the structure is not capable of withstanding the physical impacts of relocation and re-siting, or the proposed relocation will not work for any reason, the applicant will have to bring the proposal back to the HPC for conceptual review. 2. The partial demolition ofthe Landmark Designated structure as proposed by the applicant. 3. The general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan of this Significant Development, as proposed by the applicant, including the following waivers, variances, and conditions: a. A waiver from the requirements of Section 26.58.040(F)(4)(c), Garages, carports and storage areas, ofthe Municipal Code. b. A combined sideyard setback variance of 4 feet. c. As required by code, all structural features and/or support columns will remain within the required setbacks, or within the limits of variances granted from required sefbacks. 4. A five hundred (500) square foot floor area bonus for the proposed addition to the nonconforming duplex structure, pursuant to Section 26.104.030, Nonconforming Structures, of the Municipal Code. 5. All approvals granted to this application may be rendered invalid if the easement vacation and other issues related to the water line that crosses the northerly portion of the subject lot are not resolved in a manner compatible with said approvals. If final resolution of these issues, in any way, precludes development of the proposal as approved, the applicant will be required to re- submit his/her application for conceptual review by the HPC. Prior to proceeding with Final review, the applicant shall submit legal documentation detailing the resolution of all issues related to said water line, including a signed letter from a qualified representative of the affected water utility company. 7 ATTACIIMENTS: 0 Exhibit "A" - Applicant's Submittal: - Site and Floor Plans - Architectural Elevations - Land Use Application Form (Attachments 1 & 2) - Vicinity Map - Owner's authorization oftheir representative - Memo from the owner's representative - Neighborhood Block Plan 0 0 8 CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS I. 520 E. HYMAN SUITE 301 ASPEN, CO 81611 PHONE (970) 925-5590 FAX (970) 925-5076 ,/3 ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIORS DATE: March 5,1997 PROJECT: Zucker TO: Amy Amidon 218 North Monarch St. Historic Planner Aspen, CO 81611 City of Aspen JOB #: 9702 FROM: Katalin Domoszlay RE: Response to your faxed memo dated March 4,1997 1. Chart of FAR calculation and how the FAR is allocated is enclosed in package 2. No ADU now 3. Garage is moved back 3' 0", so the 15' 0" minimum distance from property line has been met (Now 16' 6") 4. Garage is one story now. No shed dormer on roof and it is 4' 0" lower. 5. Vegetation will be preserved where ever possible. As of now there are 3 trees to be relocated. If not possible, new ones to be planted (2 along driveway and 1 along entry path). In addition to this a growth of 3 more trees in the north east corner of the garage has to be relocated in order to slide garage back. 6. The maple tree on property line (which is actually sitting in 218 North Monarch property about 6") will be preserved to the best of the Owner's ability. The Owner would be willing to give up the full basement at that part of the house if it is determined that this would allow the tree to be saved by reducing the amount of disturbance on the root system. In case of any tree we may lose during construction, it will be replaced in accordance with City standards. 7. The Owner will consider leaving the historic porch open if so directed by the HPC. 8. No variance on rear or side set back needed anymore. Deck, roof and elevation is broken up. 9. We met with Pat & Phil Hudgson (next door neighbors) and gave a 2 hour presentation. We have tried to explore any possibility of not moving the original house. Unfortunately it is not possible with the constraint of the water line easement and the 30% - 50% scope towards the north and the back of the site. However, the impact could be mitigated by not having a full basement at the front part of the existing building (about 23' 0" length) and creating a dense vegetation screen with an appropriate privacy fence (we will work it out with neighbors) and still retaining a total distance between the two houses of 21.6 ' (front part) which is 11.6 ' more than required (5' 0" minimum side setback required from each side of the common property line). Incidentally, I think the neighbors house does have an addition coming closer to property line in the back. Our proposed relocation is 8' 0" from the property line. 10. Please refer to the enclosed surveyors map which shows exact location of the water line. We are still attempting to get the water department to decrease the required easement distance so we can increase the set back as much as possible for the common property line. 0 0 0 0 4 , , ,â‚¬(ACe-GE_ 7225/PeNCe- 41 q 6.5-Â·99- - 551- I 'r - . 34 ip tr C Â· ' i i, ',!lili 'Ii, 44# -,CM KI i n lilli: 1 1 1 9. .9 1,2/4Â»945 1>1 8 +MA Â· I / A 2., t/â€ž, 9 \\ Ii;*FE--1- BA 9-4 i i 1 1 4 - fl | N.4/. 4 Â·*(~1 1 / 't I GrAE.fe. v-- , tEl 91 , //f//, \Â«04 1 // i \ t /- ki_---+$( , i '~t r~~~ ~ 7-3 514 t~~pegvyÂ»Iff- - 'uÂ«Â£-LÂ«k i 42_ J , PA"râ€¢or e er#ce- Â·--_ 1 rwo~ue .,- 04 Trah=-4 .1-*-1 - u ~ 07</SAN~ 69 sme_ 1 6.-7- 15,~2 4_--RLÂ· fir -Wivp 9-LD 1 0 4...1 -1 e. e.c {0>12, -2 - L -------- - >,-4 Â»(Â¥ ; 2. j j ri; 3~- - '7,-&41;7-Lic.47~./4 0* l -- 1 1 - 91/1 Q_ ... A0.04,~~~~~~~ Iti -7. - .-160*Â· 1 - M#:A :942 9 Iia<wr/'fwAL ? 4/ i. \ , .. '11#h 1 ~ '11-3.--1 i. . ., 0- SM,4 . 54,6,2 g. b I. ).u' I , .1/11/11/14 bJ 11'11%El /1,16. i. i. 1 1 135 ,: 1 i r L 1 ---- 414 â€¢ r - .-- , -- rib --- . . I. 4. W Â·Â·Â· , 9 - Â· 11-k + # $ I a : .4 -, '* . .40*1*,48:4.41.-.:&~ . 4. * / . 6~~~. ~~~*i'â€¢'-iÂ»>7 49.LÂ¥1'~Â·i â€¢ , -/ - 1 -- *fl )121 - 90 - Â«:3 -eogr : 5,0%1Â· â€¢Uâ€¢ 2 . . 48'' 0.0.>1:4Â¥ + i - I , . i./gu:4 -1 47 . 46- 2 I 1 * 4- 4 -1.1 1 $ ./h...7.Â» I. 1 . J . / 0 -,4 4* / +. .. -/ , iy . 04...ffi fl ~ F. - .h ... ..=-4- 7*30'J . 4. 419-4 7 * *< .3 &,6, 4 lEo a-Ey-- DALK/MAST ELE>**TION 95Â· 91- 1/5 1= 1-0 40/~ I 1,2- RK- i -{.14 .1 i! 06. 9. !99 1- ~~ S /6 N /9,2/YAA:-c 77' Sr . or Â¥E A.t l;1 607- %(1â‚¬ 3 0 % 9 0 0 3 4- 00 sp - m - G -:,0 Ne Â©,STA, 07- 5 7 96- SP V AcATED H A-GLA M %-7- NOT USâ‚¬-P Fot Act-o wABLE 'FEA.4. TO 7-*C- 407-WEâ‚¬- 1,2-15 97= _________ 75.9 14-___--A â‚¬.1-_Q w_Alhf FI A. g- 60 7- AR-â‚¬ A- 5 4-go SP SEE-AtrAcmr D -- - 78+ SP joo P E PE -00 Crl ON 91 H 0% r 2, G 5-6 W= 0 'FECHITTED 49â‚¬-: hboN- CpN Fok rf/NCT *DUP#.EA - 90 : ('4 G 362 -4- Ioo) p< 50 r Z 374~_.t_ F. A. A fo rkc ~0_(_A B LE E,1.*-Â·.~Arre#t epper me-Duc-77 04 4;\ l EXCLUSION oF- UACATED /~ â‚¬37=. 9- FA Â·E. ~ HALLAM STT -t 90 0.0 F Â·4.2.. 206./46>~ 7 0 7 2. 4 FT A .%. BSep fr A .2Â« /8 6*'57-IN 'BoDST+APP'mon TO TA L Â£ 6 7-0. o SE - + SONU S Apbf CAT'ON BASâ‚¬p ON THE- 72 'uou'q-,7 ON or TRÂ·â‚¬ Heere,ewe Enu,fc-rte,UE + MAU,rtdr -rt LooSâ‚¬= GL/4~ of:Â· -rleâ‚¬ Ag-Â·ru A-4 GoT s t qe -to - UAL#7815 HAe-LAM sE - 950 P â‚¬ tzâ‚¬-DU crl 04 it: .. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Mitch Haas, City Planner~ A.--- i THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development DirectorLV Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Director %Â·Lul RE: 218 N. Monarch Street, ConceptuaW Review for on-site relocation, partial demolition, and an addition of/to a Designated Landmark (also known as the "Half House") DATE: February 26, 1997 SUMMARY: The applicant requests conceptual approval to relocate a designated landmark structure on-site, engage in a partial demolition, and to make an addition to the existing building at 218 N. Monarch Street; the landmark structure is commonly known as the "Half House." This significant development proposal involving a designated historic landmark requires a conceptual development plan review and a final development plan review by the HPC; this is a two-step process requiring an appropriately noticed public hearing for conceptual review. As proposed, the request requires that the HPC approve three (3) separate waivers/variances from the requirements of the Municipal Code. First, the proposal needs a variance from one of the provisions of the "Residential Design Standards" (Ordinance 30, Series 1996): specifically, Section 26.58.040(F)(4)(c), Garages, carports and storage areas. Next, as the two remaining variances pertain to an accessory dwelling unit, under Section 26.40.090(B)(2)(g) of the Municipal Code, the HPC is empowered to vary the minimum front and rear yard setbacks. The project will also require conditional use approval for a detached accessory dwelling unit; this review will be carried out by the Planning and Zoning Commission. APPLICANT: Barbara and Donald Zucker, represented by Katalin Domoszlay. LOCATION: 218 N. Monarch Street, the northerly 38 feet_ of Lots_& Buand_C. _ i_ Block 78, City and Townsite of Aspen, together with all-thjit*drtion-of- vacated Hallam Street lying northerly of said lots, easterly of the east line of N. Monarch and southwesterly of line 4-5 of the City and Townsite of Aspen. EXHIBIT 'PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development involving an historic landmark must be reviewed in accordance with the provisions of Section 26.72.010 and Common Procedures, Chapter 26.52. The specific sections of the Municipal Code that are relevant to this review include Section 26.72.010(D), Review Standards for All Development Involving Historic Landmarks; 26.72.020(C), Standards for Review of Partial Demolition; 26.72.020(E), Standards for Review of On-Site Relocation; Section 26.104.030, Nonconforming Structures; Section 26.58.040, Residential Design Standards; and, Section 26.28.040, Medium-Density Residential (R-6). With regard to Sections 26.58.040 and 26.28.040, this memo will include discussions on only those requirements that staff has determined will not be met with the proposed plans. SECTION 26.72.010(D), REVIEW STANDARDS FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT INVOLVING HISTORIC LANDMARKS: This request must meet the four (4) standards stipulated in Section 26.72.010(D) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval; an analysis of the proposal with regard to these four applicable standards follows. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, messing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parceis when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to fivehundred (500) square feet or the allowed site covered by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units, pursuant to Section 26.40.090(B)(2). Response: Staff believes that the proposed addition is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale, and layout with the existing, designated historic structure located on the parcel, as well as with development on adjacent parcels (See Exhibit A). ---- . . . When viewing the street-facing, or west elevation, of the proposed addition it is apparent __ -=- == that the proposed design, massing, volume and scale are attempting to be sensitive and Ut '-2Â»e _gr-- subordinate to as well as compatible with the existing historic structure. For instance, the- --.._ .2.-, roof pitches of the landmark structure will be replicated on all portions of the proposed - - _L _rr - addition, but will be lower in height, and thus subordinate to, those of the exist(ng building. The window forms of the addition have been selected to be compatible with, but not 2 .... ~ confused with, those of the historic structure. While there will be no question as to which parts are new versus which are old, the two will visually coexist without conflict. The proposed site planning, or layout, of the addition is also sensitive to character of the existing landmark. The addition is proposed for the rear portion of the historic structure in order to maintain the landmark's effect on the streetscape. In addition, this siting allows for the vast majority of the existing exterior walls of the structure to remain intact while only a small portion of those walls that are currently visible from the public realm would be enclosed within the addition. The location of the other part of the addition, the detached garage and accessory dwelling unit (ADU), has been chosen in order to accommodate a complex set of goals and needs. The proposed location of the garage and ADU attempts to close in the front yard and compliment the existing structure. From a streetscape perspective (i.e., looking north down Monarch Street from its intersection with Bleeker Street), the garage and ADU structure would appear as another building that maintains the West End neighborhood rhythm of building to open area established by the existing structures and their associated side yard setbacks. The garage and ADU is set back only three (3) feet further from the front property line than the existing structure on the lot, but since the street curves away from the property, it is an additional eight (8) feet farther back from the street curb; this further helps to maintain its subordinate relationship to the landmark structure. Because of the various site restrictions, such as the grade falling away at the back of the site, the 0 required setbacks, the lack of alley access, and the existence of a water line easement along the north side of the property, coupled with the desire and need to maintain the integrity of the historic structure and streetscape, the proposed location is the only sensible place for this part of the addition. Given the above described site constraints and design considerations, staff feels that the requested front yard setback variance from the dimensional requirements of the underlying zoning deserve support and should be granted. These requests and the associated reasons for staff support will be elaborated upon later in this memo. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. - Response: The parcel is virtually surrounded by inventoried properties, historic- landmarks and National Register structures. As described above, the applicant has made -: c-i_.. -a very strong effort to respect the historic character of existing development both on its lot and throughout the neighborhood. This project will contribute to _the long-term maintenance of the historic character of the area. 0 3 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. Response: The existing structure should be considered very significant as an example of a fairly unaltered historic resource and of unusual details and form. The proposal will protect these characteristics while improving the physical condition of the structure. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: Minimal demolition is proposed and the project will not diminish or detract from the architectural character and integrity of the designated historic landmark. In fact, significant restoration efforts will be undertaken. REQUESTED VARIANCES: As proposed, the request requires that the HPC approve the following three (3) separate waivers/variances from the requirements of the Municipal Code. Section 26.58.040(F)(4*c), Garages, Carports and Storage Areas The Community Development Department has reviewed this application for compliance with the "Residential Design Standards," pursuant to Section 26.58.040 of the Municipal Code. Staff has determined that the proposal is not in compliance with the "Garages, carports, and storage areas" standard, Section 26.58.040(F)(4)(c), which reads as follows: Other provisions applicable to all zoning districts. No portion of a driveway to a garage shall be below the natural grade within the required front setback. All portions of a garage, carport or storage area parallel to the street shall be recessed behind the front facade a minimum of ten (10) feet. Garages below natural grade, garages with a vehicular entrance width greater than twenty-four (24) feet, and garages with a vehicular entrance width greater than forty (40) percent of the front facade in total shall meet one of the following conditions: (1) All elements of the garage shall be located within fifty (50) feet of the rear lot line, or (2) All elements of the garage shall be located farther than one hundred fifty (150) feet from the front lot line, or ~ (3) The vehicular entrance to the--garage shall -be-#dfpendicular-to the front lot i line. 4 It appears, on the submitted plans, that the garage is below natural grade and within the required fifteen (15) foot front setback for accessory buildings. This has been done in order to aid in making the proposed addition appear subordinate to the existing structure (i.e., of a lower height). Next, the proposed garage is not recessed ten (10) feet behind the front facade; the slopes of the site, the lack of alley access, the existence of a water line easement, the required side yard setbacks, and the desire to keep the garage/ADU separate from the existing structure do not allow for a ten foot recess. Finally, as it is below natural grade, the proposed garage is required to meet one of the three conditions stated above, and it does not; given the various site constraints and the size and shape of the lot, none of the three conditions would be desirable or, in some cases, even possible (See Exhibit A). Staff feels that a variance from this requirement should be supported as such variation would be more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with the above stated dimensional requirements. Pursuant to Section 26.72.010(D)(1)(a), the HPC is empowered to make this determination. Section 26.28.040, Variances to Dimensional Requirements (R-6 Zone) Section 26.40.090(B)(2)(g) stipulates that "in the case where the proposed detached accessory dwelling unit is located on a Landmark Designated Parcel or within an Historic Overlay District only HPC may make dimensional variations ...U Pursuant. to this Section, HPC may grant such variances provided that it is found that "such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with the dimensional requirements." The applicant is requesting front and rear yard setback variances (See Exhibit A). The minimum front yard setback for accessory buildings in the R-6, Medium-Density Residential, zone district is fifteen (15) feet. The proposal calls for the accessory building to have a front yard setback of approximately thirteen and one-half (13.5) feet. The garage and ADU would still be set back three (3) feet further from the front property line than the existing structure on the lot, and since the street curves away from the property, it would also be an additional eight (8) feet farther back from the street curb. Granting of this variance would not inhibit the goal of maintaining a subordinate relationship to the - landmark structure. Because of the various site restrictions, suchas the grade failing =-1--r away at the back of the site, the lack of alley access, the diagonal layout of the northerly _F property line, and the existence of a water line easement along the north side -bf -the- 7 --72 -2-2 -2---4-4=-property, coupled with the desire and need to maintain the integrity _of the historic-_ i.-0.-Luni structure and streetscape, the proposed location is the only sensible place for this accessory dwelling unit. 5 . The applicant is also requesting a rear yard setback variance to allow the deck/balcony structure to encroach four (4) feet into the required rear yard setback, resulting in a combined front and rear yard setback of twenty-six (26) feet, as opposed to the required thirty (30) feet. However, staff does not feel that "such variation is more compatib/e in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord w#h the dimensional requirements," as the standard by which HPC may grant variances requires. Staff does not support this variance. The applicant has informed staff that if this variance is not approved, the applicant would likely request that the entire addition be moved four (4) feet toward the front property line, which may likely result in a proposal that is less compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood than is the current proposal. SECTION 26.72.020(C), STANDARDS FOR REVIEW OF PARTIAL DEMOLITION: No approval for partial demolition shall be granted unless the HPC finds all of the following standards are met. 1. Standard: The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure. Response: Minimal demolition is proposed. While the application states that 27.9% of the existing structure is proposed for demolition, it should be noted that this percentage includes the basement and attached lean-to structures. In essence, roughly 22% of the exterior first-story perimeter of the existing structure will be demolished, all of which is located toward the rear of the building. The second story of these walls will, for the most part, be left intact. The applicant will only engage in restoration if an addition is allowed; thus, the partial demolition is required for the restoration of the structure. 2. Standard: The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: a. Impacts on the historic significance of the structure or structures located on the parcel by limiting demolition of original or significant features and additions. Response: Only a limited amount of demolition will occur, at the rear of the structure. b. Impacts on the architectural character or integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel by designing new additions so that they are - compatible in mass and scale with the historic structure. - --- - Response: The architectural character and integrity of the historic- tesource~ will--be - -7.62Â·_-- - -- preserved through the new development, which is ofa similar yet subordinate mass and - -- D- scale and which is placed to the rear of the structure. For greater detail regarding the proposed mass and scale of the new addition, please see the response to Standard 1 in 6 the discussion of Section 26.72.010(D), Review Standards for All Development Involving Historic Landmarks, above. SECTION 26.72.020(E), STANDARDS FOR REVIEW OF ON-SITE RELOCATION: No approval for on-site relocation shall be granted unless the HPC finds that the standards of Section 26.72.020(D)(2), (3), and (4) have been met. These standards read as follows: (2) Standard: The relocation activity is demonstrated to be the best preservation method for the character and integrity of the structure, and the historic integrity of the existing neighborhood and adjacent structures will not be diminished due to the relocation. Response: Given the site constraints, such as the slopes and required setbacks, moving the existing structure ten (10) feet to the south is the best and most sensitive way to accomplish the proposed addition in a fashion that will preserve the character and integrity of the landmark structure. The relocation will not diminish the historic integrity of the existing neighborhood or adjacent structures. (3) Standard: The structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and re-siting. A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation. Response: The applicant must submit a structural report for Final review, or prior to applying for a building permit. (4) Standard: A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond or other financial security with the engineering department, as approved by the HPC, to insure the safe relocation, preservation and repair (if required) of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation. Response: The applicant must submit a relocation plan and bond prior to Final review or prior to applying for a building permit. SECTION 26.104.030, NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES: The existing structure is a nonconforming duplex because the underlying R-6, Medium-Density Residential, zoning - - -- -.requires_a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet. That is, while the lot size islisted- as ___u .-_ ---: -7,215 square feet, more than 1,215 square feet of that area was gained via the vacation i of a portion of Hallam Street, and for purposes of "detennining land available for development, vacated lands shall be excluded from the calculation of allowable floor area, density or required open space," (Section 26.40.020). As such, the provisions of 7 Section 26.104.030, Nonconforming Structures, apply to this proposal. The applicant ~ intends to maintain the structure's nonconforming status while adding an ADU to the site. The nonconformity of the structure may continue since the use is permitted in the zone district and the proposal will not increase its nonconformity. As the structure is an historic landmark, it "may be enlarged, provided, however, such enlargement does not exceed the allowable floor area of the existing structure by more than five hundred (500) square feet. " Thus, as long as the proposal receives development review approval as required by Section 26.72.010(D)(1)(a), this stipulation, in essence, provides the proposed addition to the nonconforming duplex with an FAR bonus of up to five hundred (500) square feet. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the staff recommendation (below), as well as any of the following alternatives: 1) Grant Conceptual approval to the Significant Development application as submitted; 2) Grant Conceptual approval to the Significant Development application with conditions to be met prior to Final approval; 3) Grant Conceptual approval to the Significant Development application with conditions to be met prior to issuance of a building permit; 4) Table action to a date certain in order to allow the applicant further time for restudy (specific recommendations should be offered); or, 5) Deny Conceptual approval to the Significant Development application as submitted, finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION: Regarding the application/request for conceptual approval of the on-site relocation, partial demolition, and addition of/to the Landmark Designated structure located at 218 N. Monarch Street (the "Half House"), staff recommends that the HPC grant conceptual approval of: 1. The on-site relocation of the existing Landmark Designated structure, subject to the 1. .- following conditions: a. The applicant must submit a structural report for Final. review, or prior to - â€ž. applying for a building permit. b. The applicant must submit a relocation plan and bond prior to Einal Â·review___ .-_i-.- r or prior to applying for a building permit. C. If it is found that the structure is not capable of withstanding the physical -- - - impacts of relocation and re-siting, or the proposed relocation will not work for any reason, the applicant will have to bring the proposal back to the HPC for conceptual review. 8 r v N , 2. The partial demolition of the Landmark Designated structure as proposed by the applicant. 3. The general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan of this Significant Development, as proposed by the applicant, including the following waivers, variances, and conditions: a. A waiver from the requirements of Section 26.58.040(F)(4)(c), Garages, carports and storage areas, of the Municipal Code. b. A front yard setback variance to allow the accessory structure (garage and ADU) to be located thirteen and one-half (13.5) feet from the front property line, where fifteen (15) feet is required for accessory structures in the R-6 zone district; this would be a one and one-half (1.5) foot variance from the required front yard setback. c. As required by code, all structural features and/or support columns will remain within the required setbacks, or within the limits of variances granted from required setbacks. 4. A five hundred (500) square foot floor area bonus for the proposed addition to the nonconforming duplex structure, pursuant to Section 26.104.030, Nonconforming Structures, of the Municipal Code. 5. All approvals granted to this application may be rendered invalid if the easement vacation and other issues related to the water line that crosses the northedy portion of the subject lot are not resolved in a manner compatible with said approvals. If final resolution of these issues, in any way, precludes development of the proposal as approved, the applicant will be required to re-submit his/her application for conceptual review by the HPC. Prior to proceeding with Final review, the applicant shall submit legal documentation detailing the resolution of all issues related to said water line, including a signed letter from a qualified representative of the affected water utility company. Staff also recommends that the HPC deny the applicant's request for a rear yard setback variance to allow the deck/balcony structure to encroach four (4) feet into the required rear yard setback, resulting in a combined front and rear yard setback of twenty-six (26) feet, as opposed to the required thirty (30) feet based on the finding that such variation v - would not be more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the' - - ---f -neighborhood, than would be development in accord with the dimensional Â¥equirements/ - = 7 -----as the standard by which HPC may grant variances requires. 9 .. I. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit "A" - Applicant's Submittal: - Site and Floor Plans - Architectural Elevations - Land Use Application Form (Attachments 1 & 2) - Vicinity Map - Owner's authorization of their representative - Memo from the ownefs representative - Neighborhood Block Plan -. 10 1 1 1 11 1 11. ., i, i 1 ..1 - N 11 0 J LL_* _L-le - //2/01 -r- 44 5- / 10 >1. . 3% r p --Tr 1 4 I . ----glj--1;~* 1~9*~-73t - .&12 1 - . - I . . - 1- -* *=L . / . PI:~H~~-f~*;0- 1 . L. IvIHA i /2Â£\Sk K \, *-34Â·V. t/ o~ Or 13928 25 I I ll Â· . -/franÂ·r -M i / . -6,/)24Â»,:. f:c i i Â¥3.1.-4-iÂ» 3 .If4 r=-13: .-44 Ul, . I . I v : OINLq.R.114 D \ 01.1 F.4 1Â«1% / Â· . i:... lt(f,b<. c / . 1 r . L__.1 I .. t.--~\1 r hvlf ... I. .... A-'::7~~9 :51=1\37:>~7 . ~Z:UCINER- ... ...L 1. . *43 k IU-1-~ 44.~1 : . 62~:C -â‚¬-ftk.1.0.. 0 ov< atok 86,4-. t-hi>41.1 . 41Â·re/tâ€¢Trt-0.15, 2.. -1 4 '55 liol Z./2-191 , - , P .- J d~ 2 43- ---iC , ~ 1 1.- . 1 1 I 1 thi I ittlii F 1 1. 2 F 1 ; y , t; 1 ' 1 32:Â«~ N. M ONARCH -Â»REET , fl f..E 1 f 1:~11 \1 < LE)(Efrr .A"1 ,1 d ! 5 uNE ON / Ti# "749* a il\ 11 2 1 11 . .1, Ill ti - . 1 libl :.1 1 1 F-r-1 - \ 1 ~ r-/ aer#goerd r-1 1 11 1 L.., 1 ~k *........'=. 1~-11:, i' 4- -Â» 433 F .\ U ..U \ 4 03 A -1,n call fl--1133 \91 11 UCIE 0- U 0 4 L . LUEERES- dedâ€¢Hp l.'Ey#L Â· ./- FAOPE.2.fr le.,9 ~~,0 lf- 0/ 0-/2 13 \ Y. 11 1, 1 1 1 IiI. 1 4 i# t, :t 11 Â£4 1 e 4 1 1 . i 3- 4 't l . i Ujk --- 1 -- :,ECID"" '' - - /\Pv 41 ulri-M -LT> - >14 A.ZAI~LLL 1 - -bÂ·-=- - 1 - -"--- C --:41 -1 / Affaa 1==r--- 1 :al T-Ellw. - .- UN FIH}6HNP 411 er-C# --1-14 Vw# ..1 4 0) ,: 1 IllÂ¥lm_ , 4 , 1.---,15,â€ž. LIM *)â‚¬111-- 11 .7 -11 f b -9 NÂ«al L-fl"- p. 1 1 1- nuct)>+FA UHFIHISHT P / 4Â¥,Ace. 111 : 1. - 1 - 1 2ht ll/77- 21 u 6 K E le- - rE o p â‚¬147 Y 4-{ M 5- 1-â€¢WEN- LleveL Sqi O , g. /2.97- 60 1 t' '11 11 f., 'r Iii R 11 r ! 1? ..1 11 '1*111 i; b 3. i ; 11+1 1.1 1 L al I NÂ® 11 * 11 M i l ) El l ! 1 I . L 1 1 11 11+l -li 11 Li 111:1 .: .2,0, P 1,1.â‚¬6 . . .- 41.*P., 'T t:?~Â· .t t,t 4,12; . 1.e 4 f - A 4 6.4 .1 . Ill : I '/F#~t>-a I.. 4 k, t. 11 '4..+..4.-ht . a "+ ..Lpx Â«Ift. 2-all ! e. ..2 ~ F 2 -=== Imk\ ~ ~ .. 6 I -I k., ,- '42- -1./,1, - ..4 .t: :*:. 4.t:t - , 2.. I ...., , 4/ *1 - -24, -IM/16,9/vÂ£/IÂ¢ - li Ima .a' . 'r. ?5Â·~:r - F 'I ' 11&2-<4 - h . ' 41.0 ..74 0.271 1 El,*_ U Mil 9.12 4...1 Uâ€¢ .6.iÂ·*..Â·,4-t-Â·J/- Al CS ;4 ., S . , 52 + 2 1 - .. Â»iÂ¢ - alig, mi * Ate< 18 ffcf 2* 1 I - 1,- le,<diadihiNÂ·&811Â·6822#' 2'- Â·' Â· Â· 111*Fidj'.4494:.tÂ·:tit; ..'.sU66/1.in.bllthuae.,1'.DE E U 6Â·142-le- r#0Hf/Reef FL.EÂ»5:.fle H 1 11. â‚¬ -12.- 91 ,4 '= 1-o , ir:~,i 0 0 0 A ; P.il:i 4 ' I j - - 5 */ =7-U--, 1 -- ----- -.--1 - - A-=A-- -% .IK - ----- ----- - _ -L .-' --- 07 *2<4-21~Â· 8 . // 1- -- - - - ---- 1 EQ~ r t ---Â· . -. 1 lili --- i J. - -- -- ... J 4 =m-~4 I O .- -------- . i . t . f 79 17 1 1 _25 U CKÂ·12-2- . '4 1 !1 1- -2-Ultl_r SID B. EELE-VATIOEL_ ; 11; r I Z./.3 Â·7Â¥ ,/,1-1, 0 jiv /6 -,-O 0 0 4'r rl I 4 1 1 11 1 #' 1:/ i: i gl ; t: lf ! 1 , 1 , 11 1 11 1 . *k U. 4- , ,_. - \ /5 , p '-4 ror- / i 3% 1 - 7 ,411 N.- 1 - ./ =9' 1 --- r , U.i--2 t .... Ve- ----- --ueolmEI,imi .... ' 4 I . , -1-1- _ M- I. Â£1 1. '. .1 -Dic r 1 & EL-' I- , 1 --- - - -1--1 1. 1-,1.-1 â€¢ -4*12914-1# .. . 4 .. $ . 1 40011-1 - stpla ELE-VAP 014 -2 Â·I Z .91- kel!-011 4 0 0 1 + ... . . 4 i V 1, 1 11: t 4 1 ' 4. L - r 16 -- i - f ., - . . - J <- V: 4-- w 0 -~4 4 - ---, 40 .A--5 -ll 1 te - - , I.i -4- ~ - #,a 1. -r )3933~~:- :ETFifi 54: ':iâ‚¬ztwy<i Â£9.irp::8!. em#fzm Â· Bqi?â‚¬Z~ Â£-*40 4 - milillirilllillillillimillial.:3.. ...i:Â©416.A .'~~ 44 "f ' Â· 95.99 ... ....,1 , . ry- Â·,Au,prth 1, -11 ~ ~. 3.inf 7 *F -ZI---" + - | stiNY:.: Ei~~ 1 tri-'4~ - 00Â£494 d~.@.1...2 - . - 1 . .... . Â·' J. : C 1, . 1. 1 . 9.-â‚¬21 -1-9-. W. - â‚¬.:1Â·, 459. 1 U 4 : I . Â£, I f t. 4 9.'1- i 4 . i tÂ·â€¢ J dill - . .1. iiI : 1 4 - --I i Â· 00 -i- . a. 1 1 - e e 1,1. .. - . . I - .F" â‚¬ 42/ -1- 1 f 140/Â£268"Lk -- -- - - Z U Â«-E'12- tjACK/EA +F 131*-EVA-~1 0-FF h "** 11- 0 1*1 I N 1 â‚¬ liz. 97 4. :Iti.1 0 0 111 1 1 1 f . 1.. A - - ! ..1 i 71 -Â· 1. & + ./.ELE. tz_LI~~u z -- -- b - _ - r -I 1-p - L - 1 T-J -- --- 40% 1 , 21-7-T-7 .1 -1 0 - - ! 0 1 - i 1-Pifilim 1 + - . -2-82% 2 #031-Al- "- Â«- - 9 1 1 11[ : 1 -- E 1%; 1 1 1 t. 1 j -IC U Â«1*- _HOFIHI=9113)12- tal-EE- VATI Â° 171 /0. 1 .17 1/11 1 11 1'2-14 1-11-1 44- -- -% I ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPUCATiON FORM 1. Project narrle Zucker Residence Restoration and Addition 2. Project location 218 N. Monarrh Street, Aspen, CO 81611 (indicate street address, lot- and block number or metes and bounds description) Â¥ZÂ·ls- 3. Present zoning P.-6 4. Lot size '4@= SF of Total Lot Size 5. Applicanfs name, address and phone number Barbara & Donald Zucker 101 W. 55th Street, New York, NY 10019-5386 212/977-4800 6. Representative's name, address, and phone number Charles Cunniffe Ardhitects Contact: Katalin Domoszlav 520 E. HYman, Suite 301, Aspen, CO 81611 920-6871 7. Type of application (check all that apply): Conditional Use Conceptual SPA x Conceptual HPC Special Review Final SPA . Final HPC 8040 Greenline Corteotual PUD Minor HPC Stream Margin Finai PUD Relocation HPC .- Subdivision Text/Map Amend. Historic Landmark GMQS allotment GMQS exemption Demo/Partial Demo View Plane Condominiumization Design Review Lot SpliULot Line Appeal Committee - Adjustment 8. Description of existing uses (number and type of existing structures. approximate sq. ft., number of bedrooms, any previous approvais granted to the propeny) One existing, historic, Victorian house which was moved to this location. Congi gt nf 1447 qu' p a.m Aft,Mhed ghpd 179.5 RF F.A.U. wl +h a 300 SF F.A.R. basement. Total F.A.R. is 1870 SF. 1- OTA- L ~P . CS 1 11 0.â‚¬ SP (/4 07- 'FÂ· AÂ· 00 .) 1&51-- 9 Description of development application Relocating existing historic building=- = - - - to the right 9'0" then adding a low profile addition towards the back and the i left of exisiting building. This method creates the least amount of-disturbance ' to the existing structure. 10. Have you completed and attached the following? Attachment 1 - Land use application form Attachment 2- Dimensional requirements form , Response to Attachment 3 Response to Attachments 4 and 5 11111111 4, I '4 â€ž .,.,v~...+I - Â· , ,.... .............4 ..Â·i...#-,6--../.-I-I./.: . -- ATTACHMENT 2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Applicant Barbara & Donald Zucker Address: 71 A N. Mnnarrh Street. ASDen, CO 81611 Zone district R-6 Lot size: -791 5 RF Existing FAR: 1870.5 SF Allowable FAR: 3177.4 SF Proposed FAR: _3100 RF Existing net leasable (commerciat): Proposed net leasable (commercial): Exisring % of site coverage: 16.9% Prcposed % of site coverage: 25.6% dS'[ing 96 OR open space: rcposed % of open space: Existing maximum height: Princioal bida: 23'0â€ž Accescrv blda: Proposed max. height: Princioal bida: 24'6" Accessorv bida: 15 2-cposed % of demolition: 27.996 ~ACLug-6 ,As,@Â»la. 0/hyÂ»Â£#02) 622#12, 811&Â¢FWM~ i.Â·:sting number of bedrooms: 3 Prcocsed number of bedrcoms: 3 0 E:Isting on-site pari<ing spaces: Cn-site parking spaces required: (3) 2 house & 1 ADU (1 is a shed to be waived) Sertacks Mw. C -2- Existing: Minimum required: Prooosed: FraTE 1 1 Prone la Front 11 Rear: 19 Rean 1-0 Rear 2 15 (1 ft. Comoined Combined Combined Front/rear: 30 Front/rean in - Front/rear: 0 26 30 44-, Side: 18 Side: 5 , Side: 8 Side: 23 Side: f Side: 13 9 -Ar, Combined Combined Combined Sices: 41 - Sides: Sides: 21 \--1 44-, Existing nonconformities or encroachments: . 1 May, i-z_< 4-ft, cow,Aol u,J QU#yae' a.'U goos~'A. -apov avaa Variations requested: Fnr t.hm arÂ·Â·TBRAnry huil ding aaraae/caretaker the frant Â¥)0 1/1 US yard set back variance ofLE'*. Also a rear yard setback varience of-4# FT, -a.-a-Lincd oide yard octbac]6 (HPC has the abiiity to vary the tollowing requirements: setbacks, distance between buildings, 0 FAR bonus of up to 500 sql, site coverage variance up to 5%, height variations under the cottage infill program, parking waivers for residential uses in the R-6, R-15, RMF, CC, and O zone districts) Uarianco -f # u,1 -,-A-aÂ·-eeR@Dieed-=sid@3'ard__--+~-'19= 'r-Â·-4 -Â·vâ€¢,Â·,1-9*-5-FB and an F.A.R. bonus of up to 500 SF. u Ill t / A \%, k, 4 4|'4:#Al *94Â·Â· 4.12, i- 7 ...(240% s .... m , /97*43 + 4 , Mr 'it %81 ' 119,1 1.., ..18. 1.1.J>: <-i. 444 Vt.. %,1 6~, Ls... MHO i. ' 4*~.~* Â·Â·Â· )1 Zi A 4% 444Â»Â«Â«% 7Â·.:~i ,Â·L> . ....ttiffic' .'' *: A ....'.' 2Â« .* \OF*Â«9 . 1...1.-#./...+5*-41 p ounfain ..Dre#11141 44 ./.:liir *<w1 J -~~ / \ %+32=VA02%3223 -Â¥-4..... ..------\ ~ --- -Creekt.,: ~.~ 1%@i)+~~*~*Â§~344.CiC.:i .~ ~ Â· a 9 'Alt r. . % Rh- ( j. (1/7 3 . 0 ~ ,; 1 -i ... : lii, . .17 f.1: j..4 0.+22, "Mt,lti.!:*t '.~ 4/,0001,4.. ba -Â·Â·, C ,.i t*%/ , \9 A / /1> C 1,3 Aspen ~ \12\ Aspen i f 10 Â· 9 -9 ,~4 1# Institute --- e Hunter w aÂ· 1%Â· e j .......â€¢-V...W.5 I %Â·f a 1% e . I Not al! roads may be shown or named on map Q C 0 Music / 1 4 4 Z 12 '' I ...2 I Tent <_1;pod uqfk Ln \43.1 1 privak. propose,for under construction. ( 4 or lifted in street ide. Some roads maj 14 6 1 #f ~:93.3.82 6. . 1 1 1%4 9 91!lesnle Sk . Â·Â· Lake \/ i Hallam \ 4 : 44, 1 '21. 'lf 1 . C 1 1 p.*!al 3 t....2 .. !30|1 Â¢ouriâ€¢, :4 81((.723kcÂ«72*aticj C.0-1.h.....f..1.-...4 , -jl) i i. ,, 19 ./ 31* - 4 2 g 94Â¥4 ' P W C '+Y 4 . vine St r, .. 1 , ~ - 2 .Â¢ 4 4 - JI-04'st 1-- -, 31 ~ 46 $Â·Â·Â·. '4 02*<' 1 ~ , , 1 2.<1 ////////~ . 0 /- ..1 CAE ..0 1,4 .. fr# 4,>~2465 j / 1 14 .... . 45'-67 4,0 , .t ./.1. EL lai-4-id! 4: -M' I *<2#*3 . 44*# ba i.,w '* 3424*9 46* *PMB#74,7 4'Maroon Creek Rd */ qi, # ) 1 Â¥N-f/464. P &43*~.i09 v tanclgr CD.'' 78'.M/// . 8 1 6%\ E m ) 931 20 #44/' . 4 -3.-R/N/M '. .VE, 4 2. / e - 1' 1/L il. ac ..t. . 9 0 81 11 114 '.16,\ C l/y/ ...4. . - â„¢d"16-44 46 .1 70 Maroon Lake , . 21 - u *,Â·,42!:!4*' 0~Â£42 & + s. 1*14%*â€ž st -<Cre <4 i . 'w' k. ~;f}:,i: ~ edinrostf34>lr' %47 - ) 12 2*. 4, 0/ ..= el# 0 4% 91 Â·PÂ· 3--- - - + e I k # 1 :91 -/ r=...41 h -4- â€¢17-5 4 1. C#09 2.*44 4 & 97#21 Mall 33**4 9 4 '2- I 115 3 le i f PÂ°04,>~Â· 4 5/ 7 m. 0 #9-V-, 0 , 6.69 4 '11 0~ -wimming Rd . ' W ~ , f:& 0,042271 . *170 6-18 , , M /4 1 JiÂ· *,01 <33571 V . , ~ummitr 89 .32& 144#4 \2 ml;mmov. %09.1.:i+Pt}.4-4.i....:... 19 '41#e?"ME'/69 pNot '1...4/it ~ 4Iff, M #~4+~i~ 0, ~=L* :Â·:.- . :. : 1 % i 37--7.ra' lalm Rd :Â·, I . t . 2% 9< ~'ROJECT SITE ~AP 444\, . 721 71,4/1 L~kÂ»-- Independenc. riâ€¢r 2.94-1997 4:18AM FROM . ~ P. 1 .rm DONALD ZUCKER COMPANY 101 WEST USTH STREET , NEW YORK. NY 1001 3,5380 a TEL 212-077-4800 â€¢ FAX 212-586Â·0252 VIA FAX 970-920-4557 February 4, 1997 Aspen - Pitkin Community Development 130 South Galina Aspen, Colorado 4 . 4 Gentlemen: This is to advise you that I hereby authorize Katalin Domoszlay and Charles Cuniffe Architects Agency to be my representative regarding 218 N. Monarch Street They have full authority to act on my behalf regarding the 218 N. Monarch property with regard to all architectural building department and HPC requirements. Very truly yours, Donald Zucker CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS 7. 520 E. HYMAN SUITE 301 ASPEN, CO 81611 PHONE (970) 925-5590 FAX (970) 925-5076 fa ARCHITECTURE MEMO PLANNING INTERIORS TO: City of Aspen Community Development Department FROM: Katalin Domoszlay PROJECT: Zucker JOB #: 9702 DATE: February 7,1997 RE: Development Plan NOTES: The proposed redevelopment of this parcel and existing structure will renovate and revitalize the historic structure and incorporate it as part of an existing non- conforming duplex residence. The existing building will be relocated onto a new foundation and full basement 0 feet to the South side parallel with its existing location. The renovation of the structure will remove the additions found at the back (East) of the building and leave the structure to its original character. The new addition is at the back (East) and to the (North) side of the original structure and is significantly lower. In its architectural character and attitude it is non-competing with the existing building. It also resembles the residential low porch entry front yard character of the Aspen west end neighborhood. The last part of the addition is the detached one car garage/storage with caretaker's unit above closing in the front yard and complimenting the existing structure. This part of the addition is only 3 feet set back from the face of the existing main structure, but it is 26 feet to the (North) side and is also an additional 8 feet farther back from the street curb. Because of the restriction of the site with the grade falling away at the back of the site and keeping the correct setbacks and the water line easement to the right, this is the only sensible location for this part of the addition in order to maintain the integrity of the historic structure and the friendly low scale residential character of the neighborhood. BY: KD COPIES TO: Donald Zucker / CLC / File CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS Â· 520 EAST HYMAN Â· SUITE 301 Â· ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 Â· 970/925-5590 FAX 970/925-5076 - . ~idi#bitiatir&44% e==~a:Am=0Ea=0=15=Ng,=,2,*â€¢ 1 4 --w,Arniff#:Talimizairriz.r.esstrA:5 F*~Mil/Malill . 7 -4. . ' n L t6 iÂ·Â®0Â·Â»- _ 7-, . :M.:D..2Â·1Â·21, i ,â‚¬*70-- i ':':.- .-p . ...... .10 --4. â€¢ +I-.--- I-*I - -- ~ 1--V I A. -Â·IN*j; Â· ---- R-C . . 6- 4.- 0 -. lib 1 e: 0 ./ " p /1 ,- 1 1 11 .it 1 1 -0 - 1 It 11 1 1 - 1 1 1 ort = i 1 L- 2 -------# 1 - FF 09 A â‚¬9 1 1% 1 A 0/0 5 C *0007- . â€¢1% 1 ,- T- 0 (S . i . 8,070 , u,44 =' . .6 . I '. . / 1 1 ./. 1 % . 1 PARKING , -0. \ AREA . I - I - - 1 / 32. o 0 1 - I Â£1 -irrv~--~ -- ; I J t . . . v X '1/ CO t L . - re, 16 04 & 9TO .~ ~E*Â«1 t t 1. - #Alt*(~9-~' C Erâ€¢Â«Vi - -1 1 .Z. , , 1 . - 1 Ul 11 Go-0 / . Nr ... Â·-' 1 07 16=Mncy Ed' 22 6 4 . I . E-Â£21 ~ t. .1 t.- .R'it:ftwe 1%2Â¥1-"- -/'*-=6411,1 ..Â·* ~-~' 7%94 .2.44,2 .. 1. P... .......'..IA..t *Bilit.*=:t,'.ed?,t/,4,2., .4.4.3 i.329*- i; 2-: 3.1 2. +....,,j T.2751 Â·Â·> 2-;~:ant.-.--~itaÂ·Â·t~, t.... ' . Iii = 'ING,Te/9.LTe= . -1/ I B . -,:P :3.%il.2..'-:Â·1' .11:~p~g;*abb'RAN'< > AN:. . . , .w"ailiall:",1.*A'*-1 ' Â·- 1 â€¢e..'2 JOSEPH A. AMATO 222 EAST HALLAM STREET ASPEN, CO 81611 February 25, 1997 Mr. Jake Vickery, Chair ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Zucker Conceptual Review 218 N. Monarch Dear Mr. Vickery: As the owner of a home at 222 East Hallam Street, (one home away from this property) I am delighted to learn that the Zuckers have purchased this property and intend to restore this older home and expand same. It is my hope that you will grant their application for a relocation of the existing structure and the proposed expansion. The granting of the variances will enable them to accomplish what they propose to do. The improvements will be welcome to this property. Sincerely, Joi;eph A. Amato, Owner 22~! East Hallam Street JAA:ml EXHIBIT w *Te- \ 5 1 \4 O 1.-0 W â‚¬-PL (*rVâ‚¬~L 1,1- 1 4.3 11 07 Jp 4 =1.- 11 \ 1 \\/111 \Â»L / \\ 1 -1 N -1 //-9:1 ,.\ , \ \ 12---th'\ . O \ ~~Tr*Off%:b.1 1 \ i \ --- 1 i -Â·ft 7%':7*4., c.:r-p*97#; Â· - - -- - -/1-- =91 1 4 M----trIZIL k NA F 4 1-Â«- \ 1 - .-I \ 917.11 3- 1.-, /111 j 3 _2Â·-A-t--1 ir -r Â·rn i ..0 10 F 7-3 0 CD \ R ' \ H-i- P -t - R Â· m -1 mt. S 9.1 0'p -,11-1 0, ~ \9 ~ IT-Tr--- 2% 2 85 A 9 ir =m=~~ TY 91 ILL\_ - k 1 \ 11- '\ - : 0 1-1 1(11 If -11--17 1 Z ~ ,~* . i z: Unt]Q~ i*g--i , ; \\ 3 1, 6 Â¢ Â° , Ullil i -~ Ibil 1 2 1 9 _ 11# -4 1 \1 . 4, fl [ - <DE #EXIST-162*H/47-0,2-,c #toNSIE \ 1-1 r - - 7 N A- I \ l 'r 0 - d ,Â£~ ~Â«3*:493>*fi/T> *~~- 1, V v--7-Y* liGIHXEI ve crGME~ op 51-+ 10./.-1 11 -1 1.1 1 '' I'" 1Â¥174 ' - - 1-1.'fil I - ~*Â· T 1 1 11 mi#iwilt.***&,&=212"ZI=F= --2-1-41-4- --I--* *lill y j jil,/1 #239# 222=JJ - - ~~ -I --/---f 1 , 1 i 1 /4 -1 / 2. 00 M i n 1 1 , I 'Â·4- tri - -#' rir':t il) rk .DN 17,14; i , -- -44-- i-z-\4111~ - 11't ' 1,1.1 -4* i<H--L145jl...0 1 - -2''i',l#t2-1-r-- - 3-ff*j -* - l I , ' l'il'-i I W.1 t. Illi Y r , 1 +11'mm I lim:~ Wr-.=r, :*'= Um; 4 - 11?184,4 1 *AT-11 /1 4 4Wb 2 -11.= ' i-',-2i -, ___35 .wÂ·l.C. CJ k --E-â‚¬-96Â©EEE 11 #A-Â£1412~~ 1 - 4/#12 Z 'W'l,~U*P 11 Â¤ EED.ooM 6 '11 A Â¢ i 0 f v /4 --Air:I.-Ii. I - t. 11- i :1 j:.*,722_-- 4 ~ --r-,..'*~litE' 1 .1 11 / For"# 1 L 4 - 4 r pa= C 14 - f . - I . - , I 46>31 . .2 - r ,-IF 412 - 6 . 210 4==7 , out-- -1 erm Â£- -1 LAU+40'97 HECH 1 0 CH-L seâ€¢Â·*41:Â· 0-2 --1 UF 1 12 . 'gla'*-lz~ 2-Ed [P. 1-I u-e . lili sksâ‚¬ MeÂ»N r 8. 1 2. 1 11-9- L 01,45-0 LEVE.L- FL-m=- (COULD .cr/VE q. TO 6AYâ‚¬ 772-EE - de.misaÂ® %111 1-lelfilia 1. 0 0 0 w.ta. A A~ 1 .-- ~ AlÂ¥~ 1 4 .*&- C 1\8 4 -2 , 1 - -Ill- I.-Ill'll \ / 1 -1 - I ENZA 1 1 r=- ... .*8'. 261&=21> , . -1 a2~flk ' T.lik 'i *. 9- 4 1 -1 . 'P It, -1 3 8 r w, 94 REN.2052~ - - te'lls. ' . , 1 -- - ty ..p tÂ«'24 .demINEr-- ,0 --4. I #, -1 - - * 3 1 --$41 41 G .4 4 4 .,lp , 4 - 7 -1 . ' \--4 - -- 1 01- 1 9 2.6 %. - â€ž- . Â· i.k r. 4 . 0 , 1 -- 4. 4 . CE, 4 -- - -Eza......J,1 - \ l ,21=JL 3.-1.22/.d~..i:,. ,Â· 4 ./60-0, ....2/2351 .- 1'. .1 4 -* I Y '1 qu. . 802 mibima -' 10 *4 ..th' $ - -I'Il 1 4 *42.r I - Â£'St -4i -- ~ " ~4-4 â€ž- 1 3% U d.r '' eg- Mt.2- 1,-:;1 1 1, & 11 a - . 1135â‚¬1 1 -1.r -14 " .-Il--El Y ..Â·/.4 % - â€ž t." & ./ - . Â·Â·r..Â·#Â·.44644#044;h,%451â‚¬49if- :f~:-i,v.V:~42:*Â·,,â€žÂ·Â·,6 7:, h-EL-+ 44.:262-21221.~--i-w.--L' -'.Â·-73- ' -'1_ .-_ -----=-60*~ua:,u:,i,2,- . 1.-a:4."... .... Â· .Â·...I Â»'1.fier.'i:k :e:.,.a....#,934.0*i,*,.â€ž,-,-=1-:bu - 1 1 - A U OÂ¥-?Ee- PE-0 Fr- /W*Eir ELÂ»jAertoR 1 U 3 Â· 9- 91- % 11- a 'e 11 - :ll F f?-1 9/ 4:/ 4 A ' / \ el- /1-7 / ill f 2/=-3 T - -~ - -4'= u --- 7 I . I *, S D /84*Ma...B r 1.Fll L h -- , A- 71.- f..19-2 1,1.471*Ze=41;ilÂ£~1~:2-1,14.1, -r---- --_.1-=rl 11 t, 1.- '5=.* ' T . -1-L "r ---el&-6-. . '2% . ---2..I- 11' -111 11 1 1 212 I 'Â£ 1 -110-1 1 f.-1 " r i l -, ' ' -. " 2-1- =-1& ;1#V/*Mill=fal)#PAdivotbiliamidM*4*#WA '~ i~.1.2?8=1&"ma0,0a~r 7/ 4 , 1 1 !411--1 -Y It J, 41 13:71 .54.-1 H=â€ž 1 Mi'l ki' 7 - .-p.Â· I I '':~011 4 VJ, 1/. . . -- , r 11-11 . 1. . '91 - 1-1,1-Iii T.>k 1,4.626 '~LI,A. 175-,L,[ --i <I HI ~ -i#Â·2 q,;6& '41,4 4Pt. 11Â¥i-,1 .1- 111~ -LL-~_.-.6~-~'~ EUCAE E BACIC-/n.AST %4--El AtiON 3 40-' 1 3- ~74 - ~LO # \ H.]1 1 EXHIBIT ll 4 1 , March 7. 1997 6*="~ Boulder, Colorado To whom i t may concerns I am the owner of 219 North Monarch across the street from 218 North Monarch, the property under consideration for both a conceptual development plan review and a final development plan review by the HPC. We are delighted that 218 North Monarch will be upgraded from its present condition. It has sat too long vacaht. I do have 1 ..1. four serious concerns that I would like to express to the board at this time.2 ':, 0 1 2 1. Why is thereany consideration of moving the house at all? I was under the impression that Historic Designation of a house ' meant it was to stay exactly where it is. This applies only to . the original 'half-house" . This particular part of the West End , i.... s has space and gardens and trees, and to me Fthat is a very valuable asset to the whole community. Would the new owner be willing to Il~ shorten his house plan to avoid moving the original house the 10 v=v feet South? 2. This decision would eliminate my worry about the maple tree that surely will be root-damaged as well as pruning damage if the house is moved to the South. I am not aware that you can replace a tree of that size, and losing it would be a shame. 3. A major concern of traffic and the.speed of traffic around that corner has long been a problem. Off-street parking should be required for the existing zoning...that is two-family occupancy. We have plenty of off-street parking, but it has been an ongoing headache for our neighbors. I would hope the future does not include the amount of traffic that has been dumped on Bleeker St. being , . 1 ' added to the existing traffic on Monarch to Hallam...the activities of the Red School have added enough for a residential neighborhood. 40 I absolutely appose adding a third dwelling to this limited property. I thought there was an absolute percentage amount of area Al/A Of house or buildings on any given piece of property. Has that law '~~ been changed? What has happened to the R-6 'designation of this area? I think all property owners in this area need an explanation ,+.1 if you rule in favor of all of the above. CP - Sincerel.yUE,*2 C.. L-/7 47 -M L Â»%-4-4, J 997 14" 14Â»977 20) ; I ANÂ»Â«4*29" M462@29/ Ueta,4 0/3.z- k 22'342 4%2439A1.~40 * And- 42432Ud gt Mfze- +PpÂ·yjÂ» AC, 4,112*nA-2 Ke*(,f, 0-PWD mn 0.6,9 --Â·fÂ»yn *22_ Cl,+till ) ?A j 44 19*45 -.99:.en Â»~rÂ»pU- 466 09,Â»-2-u A'71 i Â»W- yL,Â©*Ue.d *AuÂ»->Â® 0 D Gg A- ~,~-~~~~~E â‚¬MAIM,/r.2 4- 144 â€ž7 25>L ADJA O - U- 'Kix wK v r R#*m *uÂ» 01<92:- *t:r k\Â·k . 440*7 ~2#7?g44, >*eU, 7$151 24e0* 85 Â»0722 92#44 91*~- COÂ·+D 9.26*A UÂ»-2- 6*62â‚¬ 760 '~ 9-.,Ut 51(Â·A#a, )Ljyg*Ude. 2444 e oto yher ri n i rtu C/OC JW*A/VUX- p *0 24#clea- 1/ 23)*at /Â»U- ifir:62 Â»1Â«12%*2930-7 41%1 taletrt-121%35/ y- 0% 95*02 *Â·AN 'As .046*0~~â‚¬MÂ· Â»02 Ase,r Â·460 Â»fic,17 LEE- plis.OrtiE:ti Lifie#ZE.17 (Tit.teir /4.1 O P. - m c/V\J VVL 1% Ak ~Acdâ‚¬~ 2 9 9 4 41 - 74 â‚¬ (*Altid 0 g W g g ges .PF/y) OF-m~43-4 /rÂ¥3*193Â·-~~ - --23Y ~-Â«FT? 9-96 9 44 4Â« -3164 -*331 .4 /c279 -a"14;r?MiÂ· ua@ 4 IN 1 a p'39'Â« 'aae,-Ef LL+ y /1 V- ~313 1,0,0~47 !4 -3231 ud K. 'OUR J#= 0 NU'V & 0 UF -72. .9990 â‚¬ 1- v n h dr ~-737%73~ wr qvr- 0 - 9~2927 #AMB -0 4 194 44 -PPPÂ° 0~Â»01 -07* '7Â»60 %Â« .3710Â»bÂ«* RY ,Mi â‚¬ L*/2*84 121/D 'b{L~9~Â« UUD 4 999,0* ~P"Â·Â« 22#cÂ¥~ a'~79 90* 490 614* 1,6443%Ng*5,.13",'wvf<-4,0 )1 I I w * i ** 36:; I Â»34*9Â·../-.:T Â» ..tk.;4./th Â« 39-,9540 .) IC' P. - 11 , , 4 'EÂ« 2/ t - , i*z b 4. ' ..4 :.<194 ' f * :.> -4,*ghii,Fli~...+ - -:, - in '~frE , . +. .. _ _*-/2-*LIFfi*_45.-2131Â¥--2 . - - _ r 4 - - - p- ~r Â·Â· - 004â€¢"'11~# 7,40,-:AriAL.~ , - -rg**C--.-32~L:F:61*f4w.hÂ£ irr:r.*1.,7.17..:rfee e.*3 ' .4 2.2.*21Â£24 . ., ,... :Â·1422 /'3%775.- *'4 .ze. -/0-453-2- rt. 3. - .-I - LE.i##*& . 4, .7 , â‚¬. I & 4 . . 1~. i.. .., P . /PUR ,< ftâ‚¬fr 1054.Ir' . 1 Â£.1... 1" . +I - ./ Â»,fy.- ' ... ....:' ..'~ / ./ Â¥ --1 9 . ' .- -- I . p -- AT. 2 "- 1 .teet,1 . 1 ,~ P bir- .2-'' 77 1<- 4 1.-1 ' :li .t i f<I.*~t~*,~ >Â· 5,~ .A I 624 j. Â·,7"-,4 :0â‚¬20 .... 11?441?3245/fit..fit :,t'.. r: 'El".':33; 7:, e ilÂ· /97/f/,70=23;~9544109%.,lit. . . Â·r, .29#, 43-, - .2 -5 ' â€žte c '-95L.4- v 'Ujau---~~P ---4 : ,-L'- ,: .,- ;395793'-1:1.4~...-.i~69<04' 2 r:>:- ''- ,- 4 37.L.;i;-4/*, - i... 2'-'21>-1 :_f .1 ..' ~-.,._1. , , >:.9134Â»0-,-_.':4<7.- 2 -- . ~Â· . 9 Â«.. 40:0,~' 3/1477%:3/8783'~24943)2'-~34Â«ft-,ft)0*19-, n 3 -:1 I ..4 ..2. te...220 .4.4,2.,5'. -'. A.Ste ~...4, ., 34(t 1Â·4~2''~1.~ ~;2,' ~ 6~Vt' \J~' ~9~;', ~2,;.*IO :0 , , * f .i ~r' ;i~' ,~1~. 2 ~.~774-W,~ 0'~# - ' ... ,2 @r . ie 16 4 ~El - 4 455635*. WILLITS MAP 1896 , LE PguMÂ«,4 49 in . 4 1/t /.--0474-],4 -eL,~~ ..~~9 e 40 / P . Â»SU-4: b. 3 2 204 0 j' ,.0.. a .0- re.. Let,4/,4/LkkeP E- 27/3 lISIHXE] 14 f tr-1--2 ...~-*745 , 4 \9\: 4\-3 + *U f <*32=7;b~lut *37&, Of. NE' 1 11\% kÂ£Â£0* 3 ~~ j 0 ~ r / \70 ~,1 + - - .1 ''Â·-4Â»i~ Jo, j B .Atel i I n \ L 1 O M /#/fE r. Â·r, 6 r.t/ * 4 s 41 f i t Zl ' . A. , '13 E Â»- NAA,1 J. W B.38 .43* ~,' 1 \\ 9 // 1 IrtÂ·U i / 1 -- 145 ~Y ' r ."FOGDAW - 4- ...:V i. .17+ 7377 4 b \ ti ; I.. : I -- - / UN \\ h /4 - j j .4 '--- -%- - I / 2 'k i .. \ L// I. . â€¢44' >7-X J A ' O + > Obto., 1 1 , J - a -0 N - < a | 1-11 1 '.A. 1-252- Â¥ , 1 - . 7. ' 1 t . 4 6 ' Ce .<Â»EL~ 1 .' f 4.1 2.1 4 D. 1 61- r S 1 -Â«-9 #flk . 30 7 + I 8.- 1-4 4 1/ I 1 ; I . 1 14 r 's A . ...F 3- I. : I. -. 1 ' "" I #:Fl.t-+ Â· Â· I . 953%Â«, 6 oun, pÂ·Â·0' 4 -, :; 4.-- 8/ .:~ - + 498 f' 81 - - ...Sk - i. . 5 Dek<* 91 (f ,7 +./AL 64. rky-7 , b. .luiTA'27' Â·*/ <r' 7.zÂ·-4.-1Â· 7Â¥.heÂ·-4 <t' v~6292 ~ ALKA. 0 014-4 $ I A 'R **a 1 4 F.-Â«I'liMI i [19 4 1 1 ~ 41 1 j 22*.1..rT 1.4.10 141 1 .... 31*uPJ; 46914**67Qp .AMN -0 -20,0 22 00 - .cif ij</RHE,TA I k i e 1, '11'.- 4! , N CONCCAÂ¥--tli,4ae. tto â€ž L 49 f f 4 , ..Â·AL.-1 / 2 .44 eeÂ».izz~~~ i Cf icatâ€¢* ML 3 4111 -- j Â¢**4 (.45~&*,Â·e.z-\ i\ 14#rz#sT e < 3 A 0.Â¥0; -2 7- -1;ki daj/.4~41 - Ly)#Miff % 4.4 44% + 0 >.1131 ~212 Rki, MET;-i '~ *Lilly,C[TWRI Â¥ [4 -1-*44-NUM 2 /1 {Cl .in I J '"fRn & , -7.2- , Â· I JliLI.I. T IF ~~ k... L/ .0.-, 4,43---, , 9-Â»I-All -*11@ r~-7-~9273- L= 11- --, r\- T ..t- . 1, .rt.-1- 1 â€¢ht Â· 11 91 9, f, 1 -7114 41310 L b# re Â·W'-'Zfu-A Â£ N e.-e-4 â‚¬ 1 47-, - --<=--~*1 N 1 - ...al 2>2 1'' P** i,.4~---- 444 /N -C~ ~~b'f'i~ kit' . 1<r --1 .-- 4/# D dian' 2 1 Unt' 1 ..0164*~-- r ..1 rk 14 1 - 7 =21. NTÂ¥ Or,/ct; . il:-1 - Ed 4.1 - $6--4 + . 0 4 2(2 51'. -- 9 + 'z] Â·' ti, t.', â€¢ ~ -42--r /,7.i- . .f Â¥ ~8~ i.~ *~1Â»~Â·-~ l~ ~~F+,R~ ! ~, . r f ~tiÂ«. ~_ill Y - . 4.9 brlie *M Â· -.Ul#.Izmw ..V.1 . - ' ' . -,1 4. k A. 4 but V 1 f J f. 90 7 7 f 4 ' .1 21 ' 1 k - 4 ~- -f *3%4* 11#**4.--~ -\\ 1 1 2 NT 86.- . . A 0 60 ' 44 44- le -7==--250.9/14 2. 0 /Â·' Ar / Prl,=' 1 1 1 1/ r=-4223L- 192 13 e f p h.-= L r- 1 , d / F:Ir.L< [WR~ U ~- U j... 1 i =51:2/1/'/ , m~,&4.=--iMS: 7 8-9 -i . -J â‚¬- 4 =,1 kâ€¢ 141/fill lia,3-- b . -'- -...<feel. 46%/hilifi/564'(i t, 5,/0, i.44 -.1434275:. , 'O p la~ 2-1 <-01 /' 1" --- 1) 1-- 4=U!1 /1*';*fijn> , .. i 1.' . rcr- 2. rt .1 /0 I Ir ,@5'79 i S- I W ~7 - . 1111 .E .. /=398 LAM @t Â£ COLO- 1 901 001 9 9 D 12_~'/" 99.9 775 0ry fe 23/ 733 2%Â¥ 11 4 â€¢12? .Mi-.177 .9,19.9// 3/3 3/25- 6,7 3,9 32/ 329 3,3- Jyy .9%9.f?/ 34*7 385- , 1 | r77ll R 1, & 1/, 4 . 1Â® 4 I/1 0 1 9 5 4 1 44 0 0 A .% P.1 I-Â·-J L_.-A 4 1 0 41 5 ~rn__- C .0. 1 1 0 0 r=-71 1 % 171 1 .1 â‚¬ DE. F. G. H. 1. 0 6, HI 12 1 0 3 0 L._4 a' R /7. 1 179 1 0 &: 0 % 72 78 r R 0 ~ 274~ 3 0 "1' - rs/1 1 0 P. Q. RS.1 0 4 - 2 Z. M.N.OP..RS. 4 4 0 . 14 & e B i FILY. 40 1 - 4 -764 , 1 E D & 1 Â£43 120 222 'Â£24 ~1.6 '48 280132 US* 800 301 344 806 308 NO 3/2 34 86 3â€¢9 310 4512 324 316 318 330 38138% U U - .EKER A @i , 0 1 0 2/9 n; 723 2,5 5(07 219 11/ 79 21â‚¬ D au/ 403 303 807 30 3/1 3,3 3/9 3/7 3/8 3'U lr,M JM ar, 813 11/ 331 335 1 / 4. 1 R? u , " 177 r.fil 771 77=1, i 0 - 1 IT-1 I D ' o Gain no. , U -1 M. 11 %68, 11/1- 51 1 1 : I. a i -JO I Ale' .--Jr * D I L =1 0 1- 1 1 r R x / = .1 1=0 1 8. C. -Pr< E. Fâ‚¬C- 3 G H. , F. G. H. 1 A. 46,1 tz=,+9: Â· 1 1 / Â°Cy' 4 1/0 \ 2 1 4 ~ 78. .4.-11 â‚¬ ,?'Â·S..4 Q. (Nor ope.) 4 U./1 1 - 111/ 1 /1 0 - LJ 'mt, 1 Qdn.â€¢,-v i 32 9 . Lzed' 6 : am~ EMT R S & m e 'f Â£ --K N. O 1 L . 0\ 8, n ds o . p.mwir.. 1 . H $ 9 1-z] i.. ra 8 4 11 t, 1 # 0 0 1*L-20 211Ini~ 8 < Tzr--O i i. 1 1 L. 1 1 *- . 1 12] U ~f'Glva; ol:; 9 063~= 013.91 4 1 =--Eun 294 80 118 130 231 234 8 00 802 80$ 806 308 310 3,2 3,4 25,6 We 4020.*2 324 0631& 335 1@i:63â€¢ ' U #072-4 -7&-ROME. WH I U 1 1 . B 1 1 1 k d LN --------------------1- -.- n â‚¬0* Aol gal *01 108 - ...670~ - #O 42 /0- 1 10 ,-CIE\ .., -======CAS=BE=N=-1- 6_ 11 . -= Â¢31 \ COLO. / 02*' 11 233 23% 1 30! 303 305 307 309 30 38 75 3/7 319 321 - 323 325 327 329 331 133 335 -,1 *. 56- - 2 /J-' 'U i x Â·DA ell{U ,< 0 11 0 11 - . 11 11 N 4 N V 1 r,W~ ty 4 11 1 31Â» c E F G R Ii 1 J N _J Ill 4 e N k N 78 ll 1101*1 9 0 11/1/ gal 41 % 0 l E 6%14 11 K L M NO P Q R 54% 1 9 11 - %2 11 9 1/ 4 1 N 11 9-1 1 11 2- 114*k l li Cv 11 44 1 r= 8 t' It-- 1 <N 11 + 1 1 '32 234 1 300 302 304 306 319 3/0 3/2 3/0 3/8 3/8 320 322 324 326 328 330 -332 334 ~ 1 4 (El :33 235 301 303 305 307 309 391 313 3)5 31? 319 321 323 315 *327 Â· 119 33} 333 335 - 0. 41 1 N 11 m Jpl ly i ~7wy E 44 91~\ 0 L_J 4 11 Ila 4- 11 2 N Ip 40 Fi ' .ll 8 Â£ F- v/ 2 24 990 2 11 l! Â· 4:R [17 '92 / - 4% R Jet/** 79 71 0, , 46â€¢-3 ' ..'al -11,6.,Â©=\ R E. lat-L, J...94Jukre~ *Â·â€¢.r,4 1 8 pabish@. :/#onÂ¥,mi.1-9.:0*402*1 &/,er* -3-; - 3 2 L SM N 0 SrEAâ€¢A NERTER ~ -.-: E#201 - 4 le .-O - 11 9 , li f 11 5.4 Â·, -; t. 7 :11*449_14Â· .02/RO7. 3 4 11 11 n I! 4 3; $41 J 02 902 102 N=.=MGNAR=C+G======= 7 Z loc ict 108 T.P.QI'lli 6.0 Â¥h.*3.=Â». . 4 1 12=â€¢r -r[ 4 Ik.1 -,s 0 1 FAÂ·'ReÂ· -a. - 1 : f / 0 t.'' I , 11&&2Â£4-%tw~PE.Fklk-~-N~-0*1* 22 .1 2 '91:'b â€¢Â· -/Ibl.*f,W.Â· y.-1=1~ph â€¢4 -t Y,/ifkr 4. <ir...Â·.1 -4. rt NEZO ie:WÂ·- g?11'.,O *N. 58 -2 97232â‚¬"th'Â·' . 4 uit:~416=Â·ET liNSK//Sier/Des/4 - -SE?~M- ~ill' ~2~DI~~t tk> <-1 +- G;0*IME~ I . I .... I./ - Â»,6.UAÂ»~-ligk/---~ ~~~. C.,.. ASPEN HOMES TOUR For the benefit of the restoration of the 2. ABELS HOME. 218 N. Monarch Street Aspen Community Church & the Wheeler-Stallard House Museum KNOWN LOCALLY AS THE "HALF HOUSE", A TRUE ASPEN i (Both on the National Register of Historic Places) MINING VICTORIAN ORIGINAL, THE INTERIOR HAS SMALL ROOMS, CRAZY CORNERS AND A NARROW, WINDING STAIRCASE. AT DIFFERENT TIME.S IT HAS BEEN HOME TO MAYOR 9 -Al fwi#48 CHARLES WAGNER (FOR WHOM WAGNER PARK WAS NAMED).ALBERT AND ETHEL FROST (MR. FROST HAULED -74,1,1:-ff - + 6 ORE EROM THE SILVER-RICH MINES ON ASPEN MOUNTAIN .:ah#,1 4 AND ETHEL FROST WAS THE CITY CLERK FOR ASPEN FOR 24 ell- /-m ~ d|~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~ YEARS FOR $5.00 PER MONTH SALARY). FRANK AND DORIS ,~1 1110 IRRIMal,>CpliiM'~RM/Frs Â·-Itit.: WILLOUGHBY (FOUNDERS AND HARD-WORKING MEMBERS ~31~*# . Â·, 4 OFTHE ASPEN SKI CLUB, ALSOLIVED HERE. .&.1/61&21/1/#ilf'/FiA,Ai//Miliz CURRENT OWNERS HAVE EXPERIENCED "A FRIENDLY GHOST" 4-*AM"/EMPh Wi/9,~ 372~~/~~//~~IZW/NI/AgRI WHOM THEY HAVE CHRISTENED KITTY, WHO SEEMS TO MOVE hd'WhiFFIR'.r 931591 bm[:> t 1,11..=ram= /fie ' ALONG THE UPSTAIRS HALLWAY, PLAYFULLY DISLODGING ~4 -941~% ITEMS FROM SHELVES AS SHE PACES BACK AND FORTH -- I =,1/191,/..73,7,L #&4892:J......WI'....M AWAITING WE KNOW NOT WHAT OR WHO ! ! . r V 10/24/96 THU 10:18 FAI 1 970 945 5948 - " - SCHMUESER GORDON MEYE~UgÂ» ' -1 121 CUE .. . -6--SG SURVIVORS .. (970) 945.1004 * - . M-: . 118 WestÂ·6th, Suite 200 SCHNUESER GOADONUGVEÂ» . , . I Glenwood Sprlngs, CO 81601 ~ 945-5948 - _ . 1 4.4 1 ....1 I j l. 61&/ 30 â€¢ f l: 1,~fhA J 1 4 - 86%.6. .. 1 *39&:A l. t'EY*~*tâ‚¬Â· 04. , **:sir:t-0-40:Â·.:A 934*~9::. 7, 1 - h.57:2Â·:.4:.Ath *ket Â· - . .r / %22% faL.. 9â‚¬Gst:*b t:*%' 4 15*15% 4% 52 0 / O. ;9*?*63% B. VACATE ... 0.166 24*Â«..... 9-3<4-f...6. b. / e - 212 42:. # 1 4 ... -/.149 421 42~ 0 - . â‚¬ 2:%$ .t:t 4 .... 101 ,:,k \t... . trÂ·ttÂ·.Â·Â·Â·Â· Â·ttÂ· Ct .-2-8--- ..... --1/1.-$- - I ::t:*41&/ .'Il. t.:Â· 1 \1 1 - 1 210 ill=gh SL C & 4.f. :::A ' . .....t. f 4 0 ..1. I. h ...... <..4.... I .. I. .a...... 69.- 4 %65 0 Qc 64% MAG.s~ 02*9.'.ey.Â· ..q.v l / Lo-rs A -//23/SE trfirei.:Et.41 2*.'Rt .fiE __-_--42,48~.0 6 / A Alavajarv, A _ 43< , ~ - 1 j ...*46. 4.96.:e: 1 I ..4-4.3.1. ; 1 i 1 1 1 1 f T 0- C 1 1 4 0 EXHIBIT 1 ID C . If \ .bj --- l B %0 El XE. 31 131 ill- . . 4 . Â¢4+J, -41 .i~~:. ...'A 97 r r : . 1 A. gs j 0 1. &*0.%Â·CAN .AM*6' 4-, / , 1449, 4 ..fi.; 4 4 , i f~, .Lk-ZA ., 9 I f !: 1111,1 . " I .: .....4 -4 F . ' L JO ..,a.41I//LD ' - .- 1. i ..C '. . , r .4. S....E, 22911 -~ 0 1#r . . * . r /5 1.1 , p Â·.e; V J / . '.. . -4 F.. 0 v. Q ... . , 11'.2,049 r.,2.,1. 1 I. i I . '.-4* , * . . . . f . - I ..t Â·re *4.4 - .Â· .t~~ 4.::i449 " 1 # 4. ' .:- .'t ., .4 * . d ' .,14! & . ze - . 335""" I - t. . 44 3/17>I % . C. 1.-.h , 2.4. '. 1-~ ft .'2 -Â· + '.If': ,.r''I' 4.1/'.17</ .v ..4.,~ :..I < I . 3.. . gi_#j//L,;/ 1 / 3 :.:'4: .. I + 'U Uuwugul:tul~P U, r.16, EXHIBIT F371 LPIIUMIE Eli 11111111 H i. *it 04 .f r W i.- . , l.w HPC NEWSLE, I ER PAGE 3 Aspen Des#gnated Landmarks mmercial Core 706 W. Main House]* 1 734 W. Main 210 Lake 0.0.N Ir...: 21 * 1 + 1 flistoric District Paepcke Park 212 Lake . 0 ,4:3 2,5. L 111 '...~6 ?N- 1 Landmarks Gazebo 220 Lake . 11.0 S Aspen 320 Lake A; i.t- Â· 1 -. -I-, Laa,<.,0% *r. 420 E. Cooper I L 835 W. Main , aks . ,%1#L, [Red Onion]* Designated Landmarkumo~.uiii 501 E. Cooper 212 N. Monarch * Located Outside of - 218 N. Monarch LaFave Block v/.Â· K Eml Â£ 41 nm 104 S. Galena Historic Dist,icts 311 North **f NIW o UU r,Â·Â· 130 S. Malena [Armory/City 500 North Hall] * 525 N. Second (Shilling-1-amb ~~iâ€ž~4..E~~-~-_~ ~_ ~, 203 S. Galena [Hyman-Brand 100 E. Bleeker House]* .LE-ff,*: .I.t,-- .--Ii, --_i-~ ~p- . i,+ Building] * 126 E. Bleeker 400 W. Smuggler e @BassBEBE-3110ngnerl' 210 S. Galena [Webber 134 E. Bleeker ' 406 W. Smuggler '13 --ir -- 7 + :+EÂ·:i Block] * 200 E. Bleeker [Community 513 W. Smuggler ' ill ~Nt=i' 11..7 303 S. Galena Church]* 610W. Smuggler, UnitC e; - 312 S. Galena 214 E. Bleeker 715 W. Smuggler 302 E. Hopkins 131 W. Bleeker 17 Queen 309 E. Hopkins/200 S. 214 W Bleeker 423 N. Second Monarch 'â€¢ 215 W. Bleeker ' 510 N. Third 316 E. Hopkins 333 W Bleeker {DE. Frantz 710 N. Third BOO E. Hyman House] * 205 S. Third [Matthew 328 E Hyman [Wheeler 442 W. Bleeker [Pioneer Callahan Log Cabin}* 1006 E. Cooper Opera House] f Park] * . Boat Tow * 1020 E. Cooper - 413 E. Hyman [Riede's City 500 W Bleeker Lift 1 1012 E. Hopkins Bakery] * 513 W ~Bleeker City Shop 811 E. Hopkins 426 E Hyman 620 W. Bleeker [Wheeler- Ute Cematery 819 E. Hopkins 501 E. Hyman Stallard House]* Holden-Marolt Barns Site and 920 E. Hyman 303 E. Main {Thomas-Hayes 118 E. Cooper Lixiviation Plant Ruins* House)* 135 E. Cooper [Dixon4Vlarkle Opal Marolt House[40176 303 S. Cleveland 09 E. Main, House]* Highway 82] UTE AVENUE: 10 E. Main 1004 E. Durant # 1 1500 Ute Ave. 15 E. Main 505 N. Eighth ~'Inventory of Glory Hole Park 330 E. Main 121 N. Fifth SHADOW MOUNTAIN: [Hotel Jerome)* 414 N. First Â· Aspen Historic Sites & 124 E. Cooper 506 E. Main {Pitkin County 319 N. Fourth 214 E. Hopkins Courthouse) * '135 W. Francis Structures" 135 W. Hopkins 533 E. Main 201 W Francis {Bowles- 200 W Hopkins 100 S. Mill . Cooley House]* 101 S. Mill ~ 234 W. Francis [DavisWaite COMMERCIAL CORE: 325 W Hopkins 204 S. Mill[pollins Block]* House] * 314 E. Hyman 214 W Hyman 208 S. Mill 420 W Francis 433 E. Hyman 216WHyman 432 W. Francis (Hallet ' 423 E. Hyman 311 S. 1 st St Main Street House] * 530 E. Hopkins WEST END: 500 W. Francis 534 E. Hopkins 712 W. Francis Historic District 700 W Francis 308 E. Hopkins 716W. Hallam Landmarks 716 W Francis 635 E. Hopkins 117 N. 6th 311 Gillespie 209 S. Galena 735 W Bleeker 128 E. Main 123 E. Hallam MAIN STREET: *Usted od National Register of 201 E. Main 127 E. Hallam 701 W. Main Historic Places 202 E. Main 131 E. Hallam 709 W Main 208 E. Main 232 E. Hallam 604 W Main [Landmark List Continued on Page 4] 216 E. Main 100 W. Hallam 616W. Main 125 W Main 215 W. Hallam 61 1 W. Main 132 W Main 320 W Hallam 518 W Main The HPC News/etterwas 135 W. Main 334 W Hallam 527 W Main Written and Edited by 211 W. Main 530 W. Hallam 205 W. Main Amy Amidon, 300 W Main 620 W. Hallam 320 W Main [Smith-Elisha 834 W Hallam 227 W Main Historic Preservation Officer. Layout by House]* 113 E. Hopkins ' EAST ASPEN TOWNSITE: 4 Barbara Umbreit, 328 W. Main 208 E. Hopkins 820 E, Cooper Community Relations Officer. 433 W. Main 134 W. Hopkins 824 E. Cooper City of Aspen 4OO W. Main 212 W. Hopkins 918 E. Cooper 130 S. Galena 430 W. Main ' 222 W. Hopkins 935 E. Cooper en, CO 81611 500 W. Main 201 E. Hyman 939 E. Coope 03) 920-5090 612 W. Main Triangle Park - , 700 E. CooP EXHIBIT 627 W. Main 206'Lake {Judge Shaw - . i laÂ·~ - 4 4//W ..2- 441 /4..FG.0 01.A,Lizia.Â».1 0 . 4/13MFF'#imvife)/1/4,-14 :, /Â¥Â«. Aft,viciwimpl /iiHip ..:5*9- 4 -44 10Â· f * P 1 .7 biler#lia.jWNfimi~, -.ma . 3,3.04.3*51.241/4 -L 94 949. v A -â€¢*al *ap#&wvâ€ž.bmi . -I.'.MIÂ¥'P 4. 4#Â®~ 00- , r . :; :Â· leÂ· . I N - â‚¬'' f.: 4 - Â· 0.4 9% -1- P .......liN..r 1 ..34: Me'lia 1.8 ~ 1 --39/R t. 6.11 -794Â»-44 6. ' 26,14424* . . imiliAN'/% 13*-/4*CE-19/* ,"faera~Hair ** * 2*-B.4 47'EX'.4 4--"'.00.BFK Gul' 101Â»Â«voUÂ»1*Â»,~ 5-1-Â·. - ~scr - 4-LE.- 11'limillill, 'E . 3...4 ... - . 1 1, B# 6- 424.-9,4.' Â·*'Le..~0 . 11--02,3.,1,41&11 4 - 'AP<---- .' --2.-Â·i* teff>*&' didr-' -4 m. m ..1 --1..... 0/ :. Â»L 71 7 924".1.,% 1 A .0 ./ #Â£ p 4*4 4. . 4,K'%7-6 A r ./,A':#'tyâ‚¬&%5 9-A-4,7393.1..ta ?Â§45'; 5: '.51% 4-4:2 ' 1, . e 2 - . $ .;2 yet,aiky 3 N ..kr/4.11 I ; 1 V\*2% t Â¢*431Â· ~ely(*Cri. 1.* X - -20%222 -f -1.- _ili_ "> .- 4 16~4:FL-* - fÂ·,4'~ .1. Â·. 1,9 - 4 -7. 0 - 24â€¢b.Â·â€¢â‚¬0:J .- Â· -1 f.2 **'.' I 17/ ' C : #U 6.-:L '25 '*ed* SSWaNE +Ai ftiffi?Â·44,Â·-. Â· " -1 , ., 4 -1-rND= 1/84*ile. a tv. : . :.Ar , 1.0,> - ~WR~~-~'- 1~.I~'9&7'r- ff". p 65< p G?* 1.k- - I aBIDÂ· C :Up?tÂ·* 01 r ../.-4 4 9..05.k.wv:'Zj:.-1-* *1Â£~,:C--4-.r :0.,-7 2 6 f .4..1:Â¥~ 4,1 Â¢134?~ ./ '.) I. - .U ./. - - :.5.1/41Â·6.Â¥11 ' 0*0- -11 u. \I.9.=.--1..<n-: 1. e.,e, .- .t 2 ~---.im~~IXIC,~~f~K<A9F~>lf>,19'2- '~'~4 . 1/7/3/1/:/INE#49'll/,1/imiwile'l//I//I/Amilir .10;2~,Itipt :Ill f Ve.,9, nur 1.-1-. OD-& - -'. deâ€¢ I . â€¢ 4.27 -' ~ '~ -4...: 9,9 4,17 41* :.1-4. 2 .' %21 : '<,Alp '-' 4. 7 ~ ' ~ A~ -Â· Â·Â·1 ..31, 3,â‚¬ .1 . 2. râ€¢ Â· 9 . e *- - - 2 - 1 1.6 41 94 9. 1 4-46 7?>174 3(,9. 78,9.m " -1 0 1 . ...0 e* , 4149.. P >'Â¢1 81,6 : 4 tik '4-pr' >,E, ,& 1. e-' 1-/... T $ 4'Ly:t '6.15 f. el",4 - - 4<* 1 . ~. 1/CON:- .- F 1.- I f I. ..:64040:.2 46 1'% i 1 ('9â‚¬ 91/ EXHIBIT a MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Directtit / xy TIIRU: Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Planning Dire FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer ~ RE: 406 E. Hopkins Avenue, The Isis- Final review DATE: March 12, 1997 SUMMARY: The Isis, formally known as the Webber Block, was built in 1892. It was originally used for commercial shops until approximately 1920, when it was converted to a theater by the Women's Civic Improvement League, for silent movies and minstrel shows. The existing alterations to the front facade are believed to have been made in the 1960's. The application is to convert the existing one theater house into approximately four theaters. Conceptual and partial demolition approval from HPC, landmark designation, Ordinance #30 review, parking waivers, open space waivers, and GMQS exemptions from City Council have been granted. HPC conceptual approval was given on August 23, 1995 with the following conditions: 1. Restudy the free market unit particularly dealing with the south, east and west elevations and the placement and orientation of the unit. 2. A complete restudy ofthe tower and new additions as to materials, detailing, and being more simplified. 3. A complete package of demolition plans and how the demolition will be carried out. 4. A complete plan ofmaterials on the north alley. Numerous site visits and worksessions (minutes attached) have been held since that time to address areas of restudy. On January 22, 1996, HPC granted an extension to the conceptual approval, allowing the applicant to proceed to final review. APPLICANT: Isis LLC, represented by Vann Associates and Charles Cunniffe Architects. 1 EXHIBIT i I LOCATION: 406 E. Hopkins Avenue, Lots L,M, and N Block 87, City and Townsite ofAspen. 0 Conceptual Development PROJECT SU1MMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 7-601 of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to 5%, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units, pursuant to section 5-510(B)(2). 0 Response: The project involves constructing an addition on the vacant lot to the east of the existing structure, adding two affordable and one free market housing units on top of the existing structure, reconstruction of the historic storefront on the existing structure, excavation of a basement and construction of new theater space, and rehabilitation/demolition ofportions ofthe existing structure. In general, HPC has been in favor of the proposed design concept and the program for this project and has indicated support for the continued use of the Isis as a movie theater. The areas of greatest concern have been the visibility of the housing units, extent of demolition/reconstruction required, and material selection for the new construction. The applicant's initial proposal added five housing units on the rooÂ£ By working with the Aspen/Pitkin Housing office, the units were reduced to three, and the applicant and HPC spent significant time restudying the apartments to lower their profile on the roof and pull them in from the existing Isis walls to the extent possible. In terms of demolition, the applicant will remove the board and batten entrance and restore the original storefront to the extent possible, will retain the portions of the 0 2 west wall which are currently visible, and will reconstruct the portions of the east 0 wall which will be visible in the new project (using salvaged materials). The interior of the Isis and the roof will be demolished to allow excavation of a basement and to accommodate the new theaters. Some discussion has been had about the "preservation message" which will be sent to the public during this significant and highly visible construction project. The suggestion was made to drape the building with fabric as is done in many projects in larger cities, however, staff recommends that the applicant create a small story board which may be displayed near the project. Finally, several meetings have focused on the selection of materials for the new construction, but no specific materials have received approval. Staff notes that there are two changes made from the conceptual design; the free market unit has been shifted forward approximately three feet and the elevator tower has been given a vaulted, instead of a flat roof. The applicant should discuss the reason for the relocation of the free market unit. Staff recommends the elevator tower not have a vaulted roof since it is not a typical roof form in the Commercial Core. Staff recommends that HPC grant final approval for the project with conditions. The project has required many compromises to meet all the goals directed at the 0 site, including historic preservation, creating affordable housing, and retaining a community facility. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character ofthe neighborhood ofthe parcel proposed for development. Response: This particular blockface is one of the weaker ones in the Commercial Core from a pedestrian standpoint. The addition fills in a "gap" in the streetscape and creates a gathering area for people waiting for movies. One of HPC's primary concerns has been the visual impact of the housing units from the pedestrian's view. This and the fact that the units will be viewed from above from the ski mountain should be considered when building materials are selected. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. 0 3 Response: The new addition is setÂ· back from the front of the theater and the 0 rooftop addition should be unobtrusive enough to allow the historic structure to remain the predominant element and therefore preserve its historic significance. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The project does involve significant demolition and/or reconstruction of the existing structure. This may be balanced by the restoration of the original storefront. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any ofthe following alternatives: 1) Approve the Development application as submitted. 2) Approve the Development application with conditions to be met prior to issuance of a building permit. 3) Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (Specific 0 recommendations should be offered.) 4) Deny Development approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. Recommendation: Staff finds that the conditions of conceptual approval, with the exception of material selections, have been addressed and recommends HPC grant final approval for 406 E. Hopkins, the Isis Theater, with conditions. Recommended motion: "I move to grant final approval for 406 E. Hopkins Avenue, the Isis Theater, as presented to the Aspen HPC on March 12, 1997, with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall provide samples of all materials for approval by the HPC and label all materials on the permit set. 2. The applicant shall retain the existing masonry wall on the south facade and those portions of the west facade which are currently visible. The applicant shall reconstruct the exposed portions ofthe east wall to match the west wall, using salvaged bricks and matching the coursing and mortar characteristics. A sample panel shall be created for the approval of staff and monitor. 0 4 3. Physical evidence uncovered during demolition which provides more accurate information about the original appearance of the south facade shall be incorporated into the restoration of that facade, with the approval of staff and monitor. 4. The applicant shall retain the existing "Isis" sign and reinstall in its current position. 5. The applicant shall submit specifications for repair of historic materials, including cleaning and repointing of masonry, for approval by staff and monitor. 6. The applicant shall remove the awning from the west side ofthe existing structure. 7. The applicant shall repair and reuse all historic fabric on the south facade of the building, including the windows, comice, and building plague. 8. Any changes which affect the exterior appearance of the building shall immediately be brought to the attention of staff for approval by staff and monitor. 9. The applicant shall create a story board describing the project to the public and place it near the project. 10. Eliminate the vaulted roof on the elevator tower. 5 ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1. Project name The Isis Theater Renovation & Expansion 2. Project location 406 E. Hopkins. Aspen, Colorado - Lots K,L & M Block 87, City & Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin CountÂ¥, Co (indicate street address, lot and block number or metes and bounds description) 3. Present zoning Commercial Core (CC) 4. Lot size 9,000 SF 5. Applicant's name, address and phone number Isis Limited Liability Co. c/o Houston & 0'hearv Inc. 620 E. Hyman. Aspen. CO 81611 925-8664 6. Representative's name, address, and phone number Charles Cunniffe Architects 520 E. Hyman, Suite 301, Aspen, CO 81611 925-5590 7. Type of application (check all that apply): Conditional Use Conceptual SPA Conceptual HPC Special Review . Final SPA . Xy Final HPC 8040 Greenline Conceptual PUD Minor HPC Stream Margin Final PUD Relocation HPC Subdivision Text/Map Amend. Historic Landmark GMQS allotment GMQS exemption Demo/Partial Demo View Plane Condominiumization Design Review Lot SpliULot Line Appeal Committee - Adjustment 8. Description of existing uses inumber and type of existing structures, approximate sq. ft., number of bedrooms, any previous approvals granted to the property) Two story brick/sandstone masonry and timber frame construction containing: Mnvip TIIAâ€¢ter: 1.297 SF net leasable Plumbina Shop: 1.469 SF net leasable Dwelling Unit: 153 SF net leasable (2 bedroom) 9. Description of development application Restoration of the original qtrept facadp;: Additiong and intprinr rennvation to accommddate new screening rooms, lobby and conccilion space, toilets, el.a evalor, affordaule housing units (2-3 bearoom) ana tree market housing (1-3 bedrm) 10. Have you completed and attached the following? XX Attachment 1- Land use application form XX Attachment 2- Dimensional requirements form xx Response to Attachment 3 XX Response to Attachments 4 and 5 EXHIBIT f-71 11111111 ATTACHMENT 2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Applicant: Isis LLC Address: 406 E. Hopkins, Aspen, CO 81611 Zone district: Commercial Core (CC) Lot size: 9,000 SF Existing FAR: 8,044.76 SF Allowable FAR: 18.000 SF Proposed FAR: 17,830 SF Existing net leasable (commercial): 5,669 SF Proposed net leasable (commercial): 11,693.5 SF Exiscing % of site coverage: Approximately 699< Prcposed % of site coverage: Approximately 95% Existing % of open space: Apprnximatply 11Â°Z Prccosed % of open space: Approximately 5% Existing maximum height: Princioal blda: 28'-3" Accescry blda: Procosed max. height: Princ:oal blda: 40'-0" Accessor,bida: Ptposed % of demolition: 70% of extprior wallq Existing number of bedrooms: Two (2) Prcocsed number of bedrcoms: Three (3) plus six (6) Affordable Hsg Existing on-site parking spaces: Four (4) Cn-site parking spaces required: HPC Waiver Serbacks Existing: Minimum required: Prooosed: None Front: None Frcnt: None Front: Rear: None Rear: None Rean None Comoined Combined Combined FronUrear: None Front/rear: None Front/rear: None S ide: None Side: None S ide: None Side: None Side: None Side: None Combined Combined Combined Sices: Nonet Sides: None Sides: None Existing nonconformities or encroachments: None/Eight (8) inches over the westerly horrlpr nntn Int ,1 Variations requested:_ None - (HPC has the ability to vary the following requirements: setbacks. distance between buildings, FAR bonus of up to 500 sq.ft., site coverage variance up to 5%, height variations under the cottage infill program, parking waivers for residential uses in the R-6, R-15, RMF, CC, and O zone districts) LOCATION MAP t. 1. 4 -h c 7 C -L-- / A *4 .* ~ \1*w<442*-+V 441 1 /\\ 1,(94<741 (*-- --/ ft,k,4 El 3 4 FAL#, j .i1 f. x /4--SZ: 44Â£3.----Â»ti>% /, \ .A41 260?4 ./4 -1 \ C-*/.i~s.9 7 l...Afip dr '11 \ 46 ... 11 41 -- l. \ 4 9 -11 0 CM 1 "4-\9 6 02.1* *44; 0 ADÂ«ZÂ»* 5,14,19.- \X L_--j 4'N . 94 r\- ele .R -, I & *mu,4 j i W 'tunt. I 0 /2 51 (,3 1 = r Â£5:Â¢04 0 Â·un 74 / 1 mt:ArlÂ·&294 0!ltâ€¢getâ€¢ 5~ Ilattlit, 4 p. m Ur f ,06' M914, 6 0 *Â·s, d '.,0 c-'~-- l/ 1 4 -4 4 /1% 43*1 00.1 Aspen.3 1 C -1 -4 1 12 -m Ma/n SÂ¢ st , 0 12!AL 87 1 1 "'/Af ,//444.. 1 11 11,1,70 <b i Lj~ ~' 4 4 4 .... 1 44 j <2 ,". -6,1 P.r J - 1 0.& 1 leo\b 8 444 - i-*=p-WEU..... a 4 h 4 40 4Â»11<14- FBod 13 oT 1,-ANÂ«Elori 'i 13 ..21'dtpâ€¢ M 4OG E. 1+019<Irle , - 41*kpi CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS 7-10-95 ISIS RENOVATION 1OTI I.M. & H, Ati EY MIOCK 87 4,wl FA;T linfall; AVIHWF, ASPFIC Co,OR,Do $14 f,4 11Â¥WN All. * Suit 101 ' Acrul, CO 81611 Â· Tul, 3419,"511 â€¢ rAIÂ· 101,15 $0,1 1 310 l. COXOR,ADO Avt ' 11111}0101. CO 81431 ' 1111Â· )0191~-1711 ' 14: 31,1/714 0,4, imi The Isis Theater Renovation and Expansion 1/V %2*11-fitahTEMENTi FOR HPC EINAEREVIE. ..le?..5 1,19*':.1 %â‚¬25'*4ifâ‚¬4{til The proposed plan to renovate and expand the Isis Theater is intended to extend the functional life of this important cultural and entertainment facility. Generations of Aspen's citizens and visitors have patronized this institution since it opened its doors in 1915. Originally built in 1892, the Henry Webber Building was a commercial building before becoming the town's only theater during the silent movie era. The renovation and expansion plans are focused on several objectives for this landmark structure; the most significant being the restoration of the original street facade. This work will include: â€¢ Removal of the wood siding and canopy which conceal the original street level facade. â€¢ New, historically appropriate storefronts, glazing and doors. â€¢ Refurbish or replace as required the second floor windows. â€¢ Cleaning and repair of existing brick facing and sandstone details. â€¢ Repair and refurbish the existing Isis signage. The restoration effort will return the street facade to its original appearance and enhance the overall historic character of this neighborhood. The Henry Webber Building remains 0 the last Commercial Core structure to undergo renovation. Expansion of the original facility will occur in three ways: new basement space to accommodate screening rooms, toilets and lobby space; infill of the vacant lot to the east to provide screening room, lobby space, elevator and stairway; and housing, including affordable housing units, on the roof of the existing building. These new additions are intended to defer to the restored facade of the original building in the following ways: â€¢ The infill addition is set back from the original street facade approximately 18'. â€¢ Materials and detailing of the addition are intended to be distinctive but appropriate and compatible with the existing building. â€¢ The affordable housing units are located along the alley to minimize their impact on the historic character of the original building from the street view. â€¢ The free market unit is setback on all sides to minimize its impact on the historic character of the original building from the street view. The development plan submitted for final HPC approval conforms to all representations made during conceptual review. Conditions placed on the conceptual approval were primarily focused on the selection of the exterior finish material palette. These were satisfactorily addressed with HPC through work sessions which occured subsequent to 0 the conceptual approval. The final material and color selections are to be determined in the field with the designated HPC monitors. CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS FEBRUARY 19, 1997 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 1995 0 Susan: I would think he wouldÂ· want a traditional awning. MOTION: Sven moved that HPC approve the awning for the Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory; one foot skirt awning with materials and paint to match; second by Roger. DISCUSSION Melanie: That means he will have lettering on the street side and the courtyard side. I feel this is too much lettering. Sven: I also agree with Melanie that it is an impact. Amy: We usually say one style per building. AMENDED MOTION: Sven amended the motion to approve the submission with the requirement that the signage only be on one projected face of the skirt awning and that the color and lettering style needs to be the same as the other awnings; second by Roger. Passes 4 to 3. Martha, Susan and Linda voted no. Sven, Melanie, Don and Roger voted yes. 406 E. HOPKINS - ISIS - LANDMARK, CONCEPTUAL, PH Amy: I have listed on the board the conditions that I propose for approval. We have eliminated two units on the roof and there are story polls up. I feel we still need discussion about architecture on the roof top elements. Charles Cunniffe, architect: The main concerns seem to be the second story addition, the ground floor and facade were OK and everyone as comfortable with that. The second story architecture in terms of massing we were directed to look at something more contemporary in contract with. the existing building. Something that would complement the existing building. The S elevation has a less profile than it had before. The two critical places of public view are in front of the Gap and in front of Eddie Bauers. The renderings show the impact. We feel it is subtle yet it is obvious it is not part of the original building and it is a little cleaner. The curved roofs were generated by the view plane issue from the Hotel Jerome. We were able to hold that back by the closet and lowering the plate height. We also raised the front plate height of the units and lowered the back plate heights so the units would get the view toward the mountain. Regarding materials we are probably using a manufactured stone that would be a sandstone product in panels as a way to carry on the stone and the panels would be slightly darker in coloration. Different but subtle. We are retaining the Isis sign and we are saving the metal 0 material in the rear. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 1995 Sunny Vann: We met with the planner and the housing office and it was clear from Dave Tollin, housing head that this could be handled from a staff level because the number of employees generated falls within the purview of the staff. We were able to ascertain that two three bedroom units on top of this project would more than meet the requirement imposed under us on the growth management. We feel the P&Z will recommend the same. This is all still subject to review and approval by the P&Z and from a formal referral from the Housing office. With respect to the theatres we are continuing to evaluate the layout of the theatres with a theatre consultant and it is possible that the seating will change. We heard what you said about wanting a large theatre. This one is less because we do not carry the seats right up to the foot of the stage and we do not have three or four rows of seats that are questionable from a movie point of view but are functional from an auditorium point of view. We will continue to look at those issues. At the last meeting I heard the roof was just too busy. Too muck walkways and too much roof going on. This allows us to pull the two affordable housings units back to the rear of the building. We have cleaned up the court yards and the space between them. We have pulled back part of the free market unit so that it is all uniform 18 to 20 feet from the front of the facade which will make the east side of the free market unit disappear to the same extent that the west side does. Amy: At the last meeting we supported landmark designation, and HPC approved the parking waivers and the open space reduction. CLARIFICATIONS: Roger: What is the recommended material for the third story south, east and west sides. Charles: Manufactured stone in panels and we can make them any size we want. Donnelley: The storage is down below and that makes for the two theatres up above. Previously the free market had a fire place and is there a fire place now? John Wheeler: If there would be a fireplace it would be a gas appliance but currently we are not showing one at all. Jake: One of my big issues is demolition. John Wheeler: We talked with Bill Drueding on how the city views demolition and if it ,is over 50% they consider it total demolition, only as a code issue. If you demolish half or more of the structure then you have to go through full mitigation. He has 5 . ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 1995 acknowledged that it isn't total demolition but it is more than 50% and that is where it was left at. Amy: It doesn't have further ramifications for them and that was what was my concern. Jake: When I looked at the numbers I saw that what you were adding was more than what the existing building was. How is demolition measured? Amy: FAR is the unit of measure but the only time it matters is a residential demolition. With ord. #1 they are worried about 50% demolition. Jake: How much of the existing FAR are you demolishing? John Wheeler: The exterior wall is what is being retained. Jake: As I look at it I see the retainage of the west wall, north wall and a portion of the east wall. The building itself is being demolished. Charles Cunniffe: It is done all over the country. In order to get theatres downstairs we have to get access to the whole body with machinery to get down and dig it out. In order to do that we have to get rid of the building that is there. We also have to underpin the building. Sunny Vann: Maybe I can clarify the regulatory side of it. When the Gap was reconstructed a full basement and roof was constructed and it was a substantial demolition on the building. The current code as far as the growth management is concerned is if we retain a portion of the building and it is not complete demolition and we raised the site we only have to mitigate the additional stuff for net leasable square footage that is added to the building. From a commurcial point of view the only issues in terms of impact are the net leasable square footage, FAR has nothing to do with what we are going to be required to provide in the way of mitigation for our growth management application. In terms of the regulatory side of this we are in compliance. In terms of whether you think there is more demolition that is a separate issue that is not governed by specific regulations in the code. That is a call on your part Jake. Chairman Donnelley Erdman opened the public hearing. Harley Baldwin: I own the building across the street and if any of you remember in restoring the Collins Block there were very strict rules and that was that if there were any additions to the top it could not be seen anywhere through town, not from across the 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 1995 street not from La Cocina not from the Hotel Jerome and that was the rule and I feel we should abide by that rule here. I had to set my addition back 15 feet and push it down ten feet from where I wanted it to be. This building is extremely apparent from the Collins Block, Eddie Bauer and from in front of the Brand Building and half of historic Aspen. It looks like the. new building is eating the historic building . Â· I feel it is much too high and in fact I found I could create a wonderful space on top keeping it out of site. I feel the idea of restoring the theatre is a terrific one. I do not feel there is any reason to have a setback on the side. I feel setbacks on Aspen are terrible and they are not historic and not helpful. If he needs FAR let him put it there. I have noticed that the number of bathrooms here is ridiculous. It is way too high. The code requires way too many bathrooms. It looks like the new building has teeth on it and it is consuming the historic building, munching its way halfway through the building. You cannot see what we put on the roof from anywhere in town and that should be the standard, Thank you. Donnelley: We are in conceptual and we can take Harley's consideration. The Collins Block did have certain advantages with the parapet. Charles Cunniffe: I do not think we can make the addition go away but we have reduced it and that is due to the fact that each side has lower buildings to it and it will always be visible just by the nature of what goes around it. I would like to see this building taken on its own merit. Sven: I feel this is a much improved design particularrly in materials and summation of massing. The building sections on A.4.1 would seem to indicate that perhaps another structure look, the structure that holds up the housing unit floor, it looks like there is plenty of ceiling height in the lobby that could be handled differently. I am wondering if he could compress the roof structure of the theatres and possibly reconsider the ceiling heights of the theatres to further depress the housing units. This is in response to Harley's comments which were valid. Charles: The space there is indicated for mechanical duet work. We are trying to preserve a view. Harley: The standard that it cannot be seen should stay. Les: You building was historically designated and that is the difference here. Harley: It should be designated. Les: We are getting designated with a design control. Â· 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION . AUGUST 23, 1995 Amy: Harley's property is on the national register and we do have complete design review over this because it is in the commercial core. In terms of the historic landmark they are getting GMQS exemptions out of it. There should not be a big difference here in the review. Donnelley: We need to take into consideration that the ultimate building is going to change the perception of the block. Charles: There were numerous comments but not a consensus so what we did was take those comments that would work and tried to work with all the comments in some way such as moving it in a little. Susan: There is a lot of tenant storage and could not some of that space be used to reduce the height. Charles: We need air exchange and the air exchange has to occur up high. Susan: You couldn't use the basement? Charles: The owners wanted storage as well. We are trying to keep the housing impact off the building as much as we can. Roger: Could the duct work be exposed for theatres A and B? Charles: There would be sound problems and vibration transfers. The exposed duet work would have to have insulation worked around it to such an extent that it might not be attractive. We can look at that. Jake: You have created an area in the middle of the roof that is a depressed area and by doing that you pushed the housing to the outside. It seems to me that you would want to concentrate your square footage in the corner and leave areas for setbacks for a more visible size of the structure. I am still concerned about demolition and it seems that you are retaining only 200 sqft. of the historic structure. We aren't saving much of the building. John Wheeler: We are keeping 70% of the exterior fabric of the building and yes the interior of the fabric is being renegotiated. We cannot dispute the interior'fabric. I feel you have to look at the exterior of the fabric and what is being. preserved to the outside. Charles: We feel the exterior fabric and the theatre use are the most important. Jake: If maintaining the theatre use destroys the building then 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 1995 I am perfectly willing to get rid of the theatre. I would rather have the building then the theatre use. What good is it to put in a use that destroys an historical building from an historical preservation point. I feel all possible options for renovation of the structure in its basic form should be explored before we leave that area. Would it be possible to invert the floor plans and in that way you would utilize more of the existing structure than in your present proposal. Charles: This building has an immense egress and to put more people down stairs would requite more impact on the building. We feel the main theatre is more historic where it is. There is no way to renovate this structure without demolishing the floor structures. The use that is there now was not the original use. We made the entrance to the building back to where it was historically. It is a ground floor entrance like all the other buildings in town. Sunny Vann: We need to see if more of the fabric of this building needs to be preserved. Amy: I understand what you are saying Jake but every commercial building in town is gutted just like this one is being gutted. We do not deal with interiors. I am not sure this is a significant interior. Sven: I feel this is close to compatibility requirements. This doesn't have the character of Harley's block but I also feel this should go through a stringent view committee. Having the housing a low impact is better. Harley Baldwin: This is one of the top ten buildings in down town and the theatre use is fabulous. I feel the theatres will add life to the downtown. Their parapets are just as tall as mine are. Peter Kuntz, I have worked for the New York City Landmarks Preservation Committee for several years in setting up guidelines for Greenwich Village and one of the things that maintains historic character at a point when it wouldn't last any longer is that when you do a structure on the roof like this the shape, fenestration those elements announce that it was not part of the original structure. Maintaining the original material, brick or whatever the volume was of the actual building stone, maintained and did not swallow the building. The other thing that we found of vital importance was notÂ·breaking up the city scape itself. In this case it wouldn't matter if the addition were a glass and steel structure again in proportions that were compatible to the building next door itself but it is bringing it out to the street or only having a minor setback that maintained both the historic character of the building because it is part of the urban environment. You do not 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 1995 want to create dark gloomy spaces on the street. I do not know if pulling the addition building forward would allow more space on the roof. Charles: We wanted to take a little bit of the corner and have just enough gesture to make the addition read as a separate entity. We did not want the entrance precieved as an entrance to a commercial business as it is the entrance to the housing. There is a little planting/plaza there to set it back from the facade and it becomes a stage set for the theatre. Peter Kuntz: That was what we found was wrong. By making it a stage set you destroy the point of the stage set to begin with because you have lost the urban experience. It wasn't the corner of the building it was the overall feel. The city itself is an historic preservation feeling and is maintained by the character and quality of the street itself. Chairman Donnelley Erdman closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Les: I wish we had different zoning requirements when we did the Collins Block Bldg. I feel wh have learned a lot since we have done your building. . We are not loosing any of the original building and we are getting the facade back to as close to the original as we can get. I feel there is community support for some compromise here and retaining the theatre is great. I would like to see a further restudy of the ducting if possible. The Fire Dept. will be gone and probably another huge building wi 11â€¢ be put in. Conceptual works for me. If you bring the parapets up then you loose the historical facade on the original building. Susan: Is it possible to put the stairway vestibule between the two units on either side? Charles: We wouldn't have the square footage. Susan: Possibly if they were narrower stairs. Charles: I believe this is the best solution. Roger: The demolition plan has been submitted and if it is an acceptable plan to staff then it is acceptable to me. The concept of demolition that you are proposing on the building since we do not deal with interiors and use of interiors is certainly acceptable. The contemporary history of the building is a theatre and if we were strict preservationists and we dealt with the interior that would be tossed out in the community. We would say that you have to restore the building to what it was originally and 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 1995 if you can squeeze a theatre in fine. That is not what I want to see happen. I probably can not vote for conceptual as I feel we need a continued study of the roof top placement but I feel we are close. If we view this from the street the south west corner is the most dominant. The portion on the other corner due to the addition is not as conflicting to me; however, I feel the mass on the roof can be moved around. I would like more study of materials and I am not sure stone is an appropriate material on the third floor. I myself would prefer brick, a new brick and a different color and sheen. Even a rusted metal could have been used because that was what was on the back of the building. Continuing on with materials the new addition to the right which is inset has some sandstone lines on it which are trying to pick up those of the original building, I prefer that those be removed and that the new addition be simplified more and that if in fact those lines are necessary that they be done in brick not another element to pull out the historic structure. Retain the Isis sign is a great idea. Metal on the rear needs to be studied and keeping the back simple is appropriate. Submit specks for masonry repair is very important particularly on the corner where the piece is going back. Waive Ord. #30 and we have dealt with the issues of housing. In relations to Harley's comments the building to the west could be built out and raised higher and that might happen and the fire station could be sold and maxed out and that might happen. -If that were to happen I would demand that an entrance be in thelittle patio which would then create a sense of messy vitality and would be terrific. Donnelley: As Roger said the new addition rather the tower portion has not been restudied since the last time and there were recommendations made and they were not taken into consideration. I have a great deal of trouble with the roof configuration. The south east corner of the free market unit virtually will never be hidden and will always encroach visually. I would recommend even if we give conceptual approval that the free market unit be turned 90 degrees and somehow pulled back a significant amount in the neighborhood of eight to ten feet in both east and west corners. The AH component is as far enough back so that it will never be effected by the site lines but the free market unit will effect the site lines tremendously for a long period of time and I do not find it acceptable in that southeast corner. That is the main issue for me. I am recommending a restudy in plan of the southeast corner. I also find the tower watered down historism and it has crept into the city very heavily and I would like to discourage that. Charles: We did look at leaving the bands off but it left something to be desired. Sunny: If we go forward with conceptual that is to our benefit even if it is with conditions. 11 . ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 1995 Donnelley: I would suggest that a motion be made with a number of stringent condition and then the applicant can proceed and also deal with these conditions. John Wheeler: The story polls- are placed at three points and you cannot see them from across the street. Chairman Donnelley Erdman entertained a motion. MOTION: Les moved that HPC approve conceptual for 406 E. Hopkins with the following conditions: 1) A study session to address roof top materials, setback on the free market unit and the attempt the additionally lower the roof top units through interior ducting. Motion dies for lack of second. MOTION: Roger moved that HPC grant conceptual 406 E. Hopkins with the following conditions: 1) A complete restudy of the roof elements as to mass, scale and height and materials. 2) A complete restudy of the tower and new addition as to materials, detailing and being more simplified. 3) A complete package of demolition plans and how the demolition will be carried out. 4) A complete plan of materials to the north alley; second by Melanie. Discussion: Roger: Rooftop means mass scale and height. Jake: I am against the motion because this is a significant building and there is no reason to rush through this. The conditions that are proposed as part of the conceptual are huge and they are the kinds of conditions that need to be dealt with at conceptual prior to moving forward to final. Les: I feel we are very close to being there. Amy ~- We need the waiver of Ordinance #30. Donnelley: I find asking a restudy of the roof is vague. We need to be explicit. My suggestion was that the free market unit be relocated and reconfigure so that it offers a significant setback on three sides, south, east and west. I personally do not have a problem with the employee units other than perhaps in detail, 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 1995 possibly a stronger break in plane between new and old. AMENDED MOTION: Roger amended the motion to scratch complete restudy and add restudy the free market units particularly dealing with the south, east and west elevation and the placement and orientation of the freemarket units. Also to add the waiver of Ordinance #30; second by Melanie. Sven: What about story polls. AMENDED MOTION: Roger amended that the story polls be retained or replaced until the board has an opportunity to see them; second by Melanie. Sunny: What about materials. Donnelley: I was talking about using brick and I was talking about using brick specifically on the tower which comes to the ground. Sunny: We are looking for mo]?e clarity of whether the materials should be emulation of the original materials or a contemporary material for the solution. Donnelley: That needs to be clarified how the applicant responds to the request to physically move the walls of the free market units back. If they are moved back there is a definite break in plane and it would be less visible then it may be appropriate to continue with a brick expression. Sven: The side theatre and tower at a conceptual level I am approving it in volume and stuff but I am still wavering how appropriate that style is. It is not just a question of materials for me. Depending on how the roof is solved I feel that should integrate into how the stair and housing unit is solved and those two should be visually linked and I would include Â· that in conceptual review. Donnelley: The suggestion is that a revision to the massing and location of roof elements may indicate the need to tie the fabric of the roof more closely with the fabric of the tower. Sven: We can't evaluate that until we see the roof solution. Donnelley: Now we have three different things, the old brick of the historic resource, the new of the tower that comes to the ground and a third dealing with the roof. It maybe appropriate to reduce that to two expressions. Roger: I think that is clear to the applicant and does*not have to be included in the motion. You might use a brick that is 13 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 1995 different than the historic brick but close. Donnelley: I agree with Sven that in addition to just a material study of the tower that it may be wise to incorporate the material of the tower or all new additions into one kind of fabric for all of the additions to the building. Sven: I want this as part of the checkoff list. Les and Sven didn't vote. VOTE ON MOTION: All in favor 0Â£ motion and amended motion. Passes 6 to 1. Jake opposed. 525 W. HALLAM - WYCKOFF - FINAL Amy: I am recommending final approval with the recommendations that they get a letter from the structural engineer stating that the shed can be moved. This appears to be feasible. We need to know how and where the shed will be temporarily stored. The applicant needs to post a bond and I am recommending $3,000. or whatever the cost is to move the shed. They want to make this work and get moving. They also do not have their landmark approval yet and the condition would be that if they do not get landmark that the city would use that money to put the shed back. Work with staff and monitor on restoration of historic materials, remove the cresting on the porch of the new addition and finally assign an HPC member to be a monitor. Glenn Rappaport, architect: We lowered the garage into the ground a foot to deal with the height problem. We took Jake's comment about dropping the roof at the point of the new addition on the north L so it would be a better differentiation. The little metal detail on the roof we don't have a problem with that. The reason we put that there is that we believe there will be a snow problem with the way the snow comes off the main roof. We thought that it would end up breaking the snow and go over the side instead of over the front. The intent would be to make something a little more abstract and we would like to work that out with the monitor as we do think there might be a problem. We have the letter from Mr. Cole the engineer regarding the shed. Regarding the shed thereis an overlap of about 1 1/2 feet from the old position and the new position. We would like to dig under there and form the foundation and slide the building over onto the new foundation. That assures us that if we don't get landmark designation we haven't moved the building. Julie would like to discuss the bond amount. CLARIFICATIONS: 14 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 27, 1995 have to make it an ADU and as a conditional use P&Z will probably require one parking space for that which means we will be required to have three parking spaces and we can only get two in the garage so we would also request a parking space for the ADU. Amy: If they choose to resolve their volume issue with an FAR bonus then you should probably say now if HPC is willing to grant the 500 sqft. bonus. AMENDED MOTION: Roger amended his motion to add a parking space variance for the possible placement of an ADU unit in the basement; second by Les. Les: I don't consider these little mining shacks boring or ugly and I personally love them. They are the essence of what the east end of Aspen used to be. They are re-landscaping next door and what has happened with this extensive landscaping we have lost a building. By requiring a landscape plan I am afraid the building will disappear. Roger: If you require it then you can control it. You can see what the plantings are. VOTE: All in favor of motion and amended motion, motion carries. ISIS - WORKSESSION Donnelley: We did a site visit and observed all the story polls. Sunny Vann: We would like to. make sure we are on the same track before going to P&Z and that is why we are back so soon. John Wheeler: We have extended the existing wall back. We have stayed away from the back units. The four points left from conceptual one was the restudy of the free market unit and we feel we have done that and hope we have met your concerns. Another was the aspects of the tower and we changed the soldier bands and another aspect was the demolition plan. The fourth mater was the material on the alley side and the material on the upper level, brick or stone and the existing metal that is on the back. Regarding demolition the existing wall will stay in place and the walkway in front of the street along the sidewalk will be at six to eight feet high. As the facade is renovated and restored we will put panels in there such as was done with the city hall building. John Wheeler: We also supplied a streetscape elevation from the Caribou alley side which demonstrates how low it is and it will be difficult to see the eave lineÂ· from across the street. 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 27, 1995 Roger: Where will all the mechanical equipment be placed on the roof. John Wheeler: We have discussed this briefly and it will be to the back and vented to the back alley. Roger: It will be through the roof and out the wall on the alley side. Is there additional space for future use such as a restaurant which needs venting? John Wheeler: We have not anticipated that degree of change. Linda: What is the vent that is there now going to be used for? John Wheeler: It is for the projection rooms which are currently located up front. Donnelley: I feel we are defling with details rather than the overall conceptual and I am afraid I am going to drop a bomb. The applicant has attempted in every way possible to accommodate our desires and if I were a lay person coming upon this building for the first time my first impression would be that all that has been saved of the block are the perimeter walls. By dropping the roof top construction and the roof top construction built form is a new event that has been proposed for an historic building in Aspen which we should all be cognizant of. By dropping that the first impression is that you have a shell, The Weber Block and inside that eggshell you have new construction which is poking up above and behind the parapet walls. When you drop and drop you only see part of a facade, part of the volume poking up and by inference we assume that volume could drop all the way down to ground level and that is what I see when, I look at this building. There is an inferred continuation of these volumes that go right down through and we just have a thin paper wall. That is a horrible precedence. Jake: That is what is happening. Les: If you had to solve that what would you do? Donnelley: You would do something that we don't want and bring all of the development to the outside and have a break in materials. Once you pull it all back in which is what we asked for you have a definite change in expression. We do not want it part of the historic resource. You have the cubic volume rising out of the center of the shell. Jake: You will only read that from up above. Donnelley: You see it from several places. 13 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 27, 1995 Sven: I approved conceptual because of the importance of the Isis and the revitalization. This does not look like a renovation project to me. I approved conceptual largely because of the housing program and the theatre expansion. I feel the applicant is responding to HPC's fires and trying to put out single issues but a couple of meeting ago Donnelley pointed out that we were grasping for a coherent overall solution now just a problematic. solution. We still do not have a successful character to the entire project. We have the Isis, the tower, and the housing and not a common thread that ties them all together into a successful solution. It is very important that we resolve the architectural solution before we go to final. Donnelley: The new construction could be more integrated to the wall. New fabric can be integrated. John Wheeler: That is fair input and we struggled with that. Donnelley: We are talking about the expression of new and old. Possibly the top of the tower could tie into the housing etc. by materials. Sven: If you did a clay model of the masses of all of the additions you would see the three different animals and possibly you should only have two. I want to see one visual image of the Isis with these additions. Sunny Vann: At the last meeting we were to make the roof top addition different and to explore contemporary and use color. We need consensus to the character of the addition. We can refine elements and play with materials. We may never get all of your unanimous approval on this. Donnelley: John has already recognized the certain schizophrenia that exists as to the way the new is differentiated from the old. John was opening up the issue so that it could be dealt with. John Wheeler: Exactly. Sven: I do not see the tower and the overall housing on the roof top in a combined theme. Donnelley: Lets go back to the basics you have face brick on the south wrapping around the corner then it is a softer nonfaced brick that is on the east side and some on the west and now another brick needs introduced that works on the new. Roger: Why couldn't the new be cortin or something else. Donnelley: That is the architects decision and we are talking 14 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 27, 1995 about brick A, B and material or brick C. Also the articulation. Can the commission agree thab a material should be chosen that unifies all of the new work between old and new and not several materials. John Wheeler: We would not have a problem with that and we are leaning toward masonry for function and longevity and keeping with the street facade. Melanie: No matter what you say it still looks like a shell. Susan: Regarding building structures on historic roofs I assume that hasn't been done except for Harley's place. Amy: There are a few like the Cantina that have a roof top addition but it is not this much construction and is dealt with in a different manner. Roger: In any other parts of the country are there projects similar to this that you know of that could be used as an example. John Wheeler: We feel that we have come up with an adaptive reuse of the Isis. Les: Conceptual we have agreed that they can build something on the roof. Linda: When I look at this from my own gut feeling somehow the curve on the roof of the three elements and trying to be compatible with the tower are not compatible due to the shape of the roof. Charles Cunniffe: The idea is to have a contrast. It might be too modern. It could be dealt with by a radical change of material. Linda: No, I feel it needs to be the change of the roof line. Charles Cunniffe: One you will never see it. Susan: What if they were more curved. Charles: At one time we did think of connecting the curve between the elements and that would be be a successful solution. Sven: The tower has always been a problem as it stands alone. Donnelley: You could have surface filigree linking the front to the back to pull it all together for privacy. Les: Are you suggesting that the middle units have one roof line that goes from the front to the back or just on the side. 0 15 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 27, 1995 Donnelley: You need to pull all of the new built forms together. Sven: I do not see these elements integrated yet and at a clay model scale level you could work with the issue, a thing growing over the Isis and blending in and integrating. Charles Cunniffe: We are beyond the gestation period. We need to tie the treatments together programmatically. Jake: I am more concerned with the street view. What if you pulled the tower forward. I am concerned about the intersection of the new piece and old piece and how they join. They need a clear dramatic articulation. Roger: On the tower what if the entire plane were glass. Charles Cunniffee: We could draw that up if the Board desires us to go with something that modern. Donnelley: In your housing you have shown that you are pulling the glazing back from the surface of the masonry. There is another area that you want to tie together. Charles Cunniffe: We have a building that we have grown something softly over and in a way the new building is poking out of the softness and I think it would be nice if we can tie that together. Melanie: What kind of material would be softer? Donnelley: Have you looked at a panelized expression. Charles Cunniffe: You get a grid work of panelized manmade stone mix and it is a stone panel and that could contrast witH the original brick. Donnelley: We need a consensus of what the issues are and give precise direction. Charles Cunniffe: We do need something left that we can design architecturally. I do agree that what we have talked about will work. Donnelley: The east and west elevation have the same expression but two different situations. The west is an historic elevation and you are bringing new construction up to it and the east elevation is new. There is no reason for them to be the same. Charles Cunniffe: We thought the manufactured stone had a nice feel to it. 16 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 27, 1995 Roger: I feel it is too massive. You are applying a heavy material on top of an historic building. Linda: I agree it is too massive and you need something lighter. Roger: And with a different expression. Donnelley: Roger has something there that a masonry expression gives us the feeling that this form has to carry all the way down through because it has so much weight. A lighter expression material is needed. Sunny Vann: The character of the addition can be resolved. Are you comfortable with the setback on the free market. Donnelley: I am sure all of the commission would like to see a greater setback for the free market. Sunny Vann: The free market unit is carrying this project. Jake: The old building is pounding the south axis and the top stuff is just pounding it. There is no three dimensional character to it on the top. Charles Cunniffe: Are we OK with what we have for the free market units and the modification of materials for the stair tower. Donnelley: We are talking about dealing with the expression of the building. MOTION: Donnelley moved to adjourn; second by Jake. All in favor, motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland Chief Deputy Clerk 17 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8. 1995 0 Donnelley: We don't want it to look historic. Roger: What are your thoughts on the unit to the left which is the new one regarding materials. John Davis: We were trying to use similar materials brick and lap siding. Jake: Separate the second story mass from the historic resource. You need to be careful that you do not have windows looking into windows on these narrow sites. It will hurt you in terms of selling also. Mark Ward: We can look at turning the garage. Susan: Someone already said this but I feel it is overwhelming to the historic house. ISIS THEATRE - WORKSESSION Amy: We have a new rendering in the packet and they are scheduled to go to P&Z. Donnelley: The changes made will be presented. Charles Cunniffe: The main items of consideration were to pull in the free market unit in front which is in the middle to hold the line with the entry tower and change the curve so that it implies a tie together of the overall shape. Also to press it into the top of the building. John Wheeler: On the east side we had to step in the facade. Charles Cunniffe: On materials we were going to keep the original brick and do a more contemporary brick treatment whether it be a glazed brick or something else. We are showing a jumbo brick but having a different brick treatment that would wrap all of the addition and on the upper level carry it up as a wall then everything inside reads as an internal fabric to that exterior part of the wall. You have basically three materials, original, new and a lighter material that look like it belongs on top of a roof structure. Donnelley: We had talked about a fabricated stone material in a larger scale and what happened to that idea. Charles Cunniffe: That is still open. We haven't actually picked the actual material. We wanted to get your idea. 0 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8. 1995 ~ Linda: Have you spoken to Darryl Grob our new fire chief and they. are definitely considering goibg into a development on the site of the fire station with housing on top for employees. It might be a good idea to review the project with him since you are next door. They do not know what is being proposed. Amy: I just have a question. Is there a great financial advantage to you in building the affordable units on the site as opposed to buying down other units in town. Charles Cunniffe: I can't speak to that but there is no advantage either way and I thought there wasn't an option. We went to a lot of work with the housing office to let us build less. Amy: Originally you proposed more and from the GMQS application there is the feeling that this is more than enough. The reason for bring this up is across the street the HPC said no third story and they bought housing. Charles Cunniffe: I doubt if you could build or buy offsite cheaper than on top of this building. Donnelley: One area that everyone is concerned about is the free market unit and we are all trying to push it back. The restricted employee units back there are not a real problem to me but the free market unit seems to be a problem to everyone. That is the thing ~ that makes economic benefit. Charles Cunniffe: The owners are squeaking about how little free market they got. This will be occupied by the manager and employees from the theatre and that is the reason for putting it on the building. I came in here thinking we have done everything we had to do. There is no way they can keep this project alive without coming back with some resolution. I would have to renegotiate the contract and ask them to find housing offsite. Frankly I wouldn't want to be in anyone's shoes trying to find housing offsite. Amy: You buy down an existing unit and that is what I have been suggesting. Charles Cunniffe: It would be unfair to ask us now to reconsider this entire project. Roger: The issue is to preserve the integrity of the historic building and with that thing on the middle of the historic building is not preserving the integriâ‚¬y. This needs to be looked at and we are asking that it be looked at. Amy: It was a suggestion and it might be to your benefit. 0 13 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8, 1995 Charles Cunniffe: They have tried to look at this with no rooftop development from day one. They couldn't find anything that made economic sense. If you can tell me where there is something that can be built for less than $90. sqft. and bring a manager in. Roger: I am not saying we would deny the entire thing I am asking that it be looked at. Charles Cunniffe: I am saying it was looked at getting the roof top off. Amy: We have all struggled with what is on the roof. Linda: We need people living downtown. Roger: We are not trying to put Charles back into the loop. Charles Cunniffe: The drawing shows how much of the addition you can see from an empty street corner. With the suggestion of stepping the unit back some and going to a darker color and softer material that addition looks subservient to the overall building. Donnelley: We are familiar with how the massing is going now and the last discussion we had was that the interior materials which are all new work would reflect a likeness which would be a metal panel aesthetic though the specific material has not been chosen. Charles Cunniffe: We looked at vertical copper sheathing, non reflective. I would like to come in with samples and meet with individuals and go over to the building and look at how the new brick could look next to the old. Roger: Copper seems to be used frequently and it might be interesting to look at one of the Folensby products with a soft patina similar to the mining buildings. Charles Cunniffe: In looking at the roof form in a way with this being a darker material it is almost like an assemblage of buildings and this building looks like a building beyond. Les: I can live with this and my only concern is the materials and we will have to look at those and it will take some time. Donnelley: We don't want it to be a heavy material. Amy: They are going to P&Z and asking for a FAR bonus for affordable housing and it is really P&Z's final decision. We possibly need something in writing that shows how you have considered it. 14 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8, 1995 Linda: How soon can you get materials together? Charles Cunniffe: In a week or two. Jake: I do feel this has progressed significantly from earlier but I did vote against it in the beginning. I still feel the free market is problematic. Linda: If I were an employee I would enjoy a view just as the free market unit has. Roger: What if P&Z says take the housing off what will you do then. Jake: Can they go to P&Z saying that HPC feels this massing is compatible. Roger: I have never been comfortable with it but that is the best they could do. The design is great. The concept of not having it there is very interesting. Charles Cunniffe: I understand it that we have an OK except we were to push down and pull back the center unit where it was and come back with the new scheme and that is what we have done and it has made it a better building. In an ideal world no addition would happen on the building but given the direction we got we followed that and I feel it is a successful solution. We like the results of this. Donnelley: The question was asked have you thoroughly explored the employee housing off site and have the free market occupy that space. Charles Cunniffe: I will be happy to explore it further and that is a valid question. Donnelley: We are not denying that the preliminary approval has been granted for the massing so your next step is materials but still if you could explore that option it would be great. Charles Cunniffe: I can see the advantages also. I can turn it over to Sunny Vann and have them give HPC a letter giving their feedback on that. Amy: All I am saying it isn't done until it is built and if any ideas come in lets address them. Charles Cunniffe: If it pencils out cheaper I am sure they would go with it. They might not have thought that they could get that 15 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8, 1995 reading. Amy: P&Z may say they want that unit off site. Sven: You got conceptual because a lot of us like the program. Melanie: We were talking about what could be done to cover up the building while you were working and when I was in Charleston I took some pictures that might be incorporated. Charles Cunniffe: Another plan could be wrap something up that relates to the movies. Linda: That would make it inviting and interesting so that people would have a positive feeling about the project. Charles Cunniffe: Where do we stand? Donnelley: You are going to find out why or is their any compelling reason why your program is locked into providing all of the housing onsite and then materials. Donnelley: You might preface to P&Z that although we gave preliminary approval we would be much happier if there were housing on the roof that the one forward element were removed. John Wheeler: Conceptual was given and the conditions have been met. Donnelley: If the aspect of less housing i.e. only free market were on the roof we would really be delighted to see the free market replace the present location of the housing. Charles Cunniffe: You all have sanctioned this with final choice of materials; however, your druthers would be not to have the housing on top. Donnelley: We have always had reservations about that mass that is forward and directly over. Charles Cunniffe: Can I have a straw poll to refer to P&Z that there was consensus. Â· Aside from P&Z being able to remove housing the only condition that I feel we are down is that the final choice of materials will be done at a. worksession on site. Amy: That is the only issue left but you have conditions like keeping the Isis sign. Les: The only other issue left is materials. 16 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8, 1995 Donnelley: There are other issues but the main one is materials. Linda: I agree. Jake: I cannot agree. 801 E. HYMAN Amy: Some of us did a site visit today. This project was approved in 1989 and John Elmore owner and Stan Mathis, architect came to HPC and there was a house on this property, a little green building that was rated one ' on the HPC inventory and there was also an historic garage on the alley. At first HPC wanted to keep the entire thing and then the house could go away and keep the shed and then the shed went away. Basically it was a completely empty parcel but as a condition of the demolition they got to review the new project. I reviewed all the minutes today and there was definitely a discussion about wanting to retain the form of the original one story house on the side and have that one story element at the corner. There was also the discussion of wanting this building to differentiate itself from the next door building which I believe John Elmore also built. They would like to eliminate the gabled roof on the one story element and switch to a porch form. My only comment that I feel is that HPC felt it important and you should keep that in mind before you change it. Stan Mathis, architect: This house and the outbuilding was rated a one and what became important to the committee at that time was the mass and bulk and keeping that as low as we could. As the house has been built I made a mistake by not arguing to lower the gable end. There is a deck. Donnelley: You are talking about altering the one gable end. Stan Mathis: There is a deck and we would continue the porch roof element. What was finally approved had no windows and it was all mass and bulk. Melanie: The fireplaces have been switched and this is massive and everything is on the street side. Stan: The drawing may or may not be what was finally approved. What was finally approved had to do with the mass and shape of the house only. Les: I do not remember all this detail. Stan: That is correct because we said we weren't going to show you the materials because you didn't have to. 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEB.14. 1996 Chairman Jake Vickery called the meeting to order at 5:15 p.m. with Roger 0 Moyer, Martha Madsen, Melanie Roschko, Linda L.E. Smisek, Susan Dodington and Sven Alstrom present. Les Holst and Donnelley Erdman were excused. MOTION: Moyer moved to approve the minutes of January 24, 1996 as amended; second by Dodington. Motion carried 5 - 1. Smisek opposed. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Smisek stated that she visited 939 E. Cooper regarding the lack of siding to complete the proj ect. Amidon stated that she talked to the contractor and they will use all the old siding as best possible. Madsen seated at 6:30 p.m. 0 ISIS - REVIEW MATERIALS Roschko stated that she would like to see a material that isn't solid in color rather than another new solid material. The Isis is one color except for the side. She also stated that she oppoged the color and would rather see a brick shape instead of a 8 x 8. She is not opposed to a ceramic finish on the brick. From the front of the building another solid material color would not be appropriate. Dodington stated that she would like to see more color and material options. Alstrom stated that the 8x8 tile is not compatible in color or shape. The dark iron spot in the brick material is OK and the use of copper is OK but he would like to see a sample of zinc at the next meeting. The mortar color should match whatever the masonry is. 0 Roschko also stated that the mortar color should match the masonry. 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEB.14. 1996 Smisek stated the iron spot brick is significantly compatible with the tones of the old brick and that the gray tile worked well. The acid down copper is compatible and would blend in with the tones of that block and the block across the street. Moyer stated that the applicant responded mainly to Donnelley's concerns and he felt a consensus should be attained by the Board. Does the Board what the attachment to be totally modern or a continuation and blending to the building. The architects thought we wanted it more different; however, my feeling is that we need a worksession to look at more materials. He also stated that the copper material presented is not particularly historically beneficial to a landmark building. The patina of the copper is appropriate and I would like to see other materials along with the copper. The smooth 8 x 8 is not appropriate in this building unless the philosophy of the HPC is to do something real modern. Various lineal brick should be presented. The darker brick is good for a solid foundation. Vickery stated that it is difficult for him to offer information on color and material because he voted against the project. He also stated that the Board needed to give consensus to the applicant. â€¢ Do we want to see something radically modern. â€¢ More detail use of 8x8 as opposed to a linear brick. â€¢ Use of cooper vs options. Vickery stated at the next meeting that the applicant should come back with a drawing indicating where the materials will be used, particularly viewed from the street. Roschko stated that the new building should look like it is part of the old building but new. Dodington stated that she was opposed to totally modern but possibly the use of a different size of brick and color would differentiate between old and new. It should flow either by the size of the brick or color choice. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEB.14. 1996 Alstrom stated that he wanted the project to look new but he was opposed to the use ofthe 8 x 8. Straw Poll No 8 x 8 tile Color of 8 x 8-no 50 - 50 thought the use of the iron spot brick could be incorporated. patina of the copper is appropriate See more materials match materials with drawings. Alstrom stated that he liked Donnelley's theory but not the use of 8 x 8. 918 E. COOPER AVE. - LOTS M&N Amidon stated that the issues from the last meeting were to lower the plate heights on the second floor and that has been reduced to eight feet and the ridge line is now 25 1/2 feet which is lower than most of the surrounding buildings. There was discussion about articulating the duplex as two separate units and a recessed wall has been placed between the two units. There are two windows on the alley facade that violate the volume standard and that can be resolved easily. The mass and scale is complete for Lots M &N. Dodington stated that she was concerned about the stone. John Davis, contractor stated that he was looking at a random stone in gray. The stone will be either rectangular or square. Field stone will not be used and they intend to stay uniform with the depth ofthe stone. Roschko stated her only concern is the material. She is concerned that it willlook massive. Davis stated that the plate heights were reduced from ten to eight feet. Moyer asked if the railing that is drawn in stone could be changed to an iron railing which would soften the area. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 10. 1996 MOTION: Roger moved to continue the public hearing and conceptual 0 approval for 706 W. Main until a date certain, July 24, 1996; second by Susan. All in favor, motion carried. ISIS - 406 E. HOPKINS - PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CONCEPTUAL Amy stated that the issues are the east and west walls of the building and under the approval they were required to be retained. The west wall is mostly hidden by the Fox Photo Bldg. and will not be exposed to the public. On the east well that is currently facing an empty lot the mortar is squeezing out and they are considering whether that wall should be reconstructed to be a more pleasing surface. John Wheeler, architect for Cunniffe and Assoc. met with a mason on what best serves the building. If the Board maintains that you allow us to not have to maintain the west wall, approximately ten feet does project past the back of the fox to the alley. We are asking to have the ability to dismantle that small portion that does project and boat wrap it and build it back to its 0 original intent. On the east side it is clear that it is not faced brick and we are unclear as to what should happen to that brick. Thirty feet on the west wall will be kept in place and worked on. It is in good shape. On the east exists utilitarian brick and a rough face and it is in bad shape. Reconstruction with hand chosen bricks could make for a better product. Roger asked what the applicant wanted to do on the west wall. John Wheeler stated remove what is behind the Fox photo bldg. On the east they want to dismantle it and reconstruct it in keeping with what the rest of the brick looks like. He also stated that it is more expensive to leave the brick on the east wall. The Fox photo bldg. would have to be underpinned. Melanie asked if the east wall could be built with face brick to match. John Wheeler stated that there would be a sufficient amount left and they could select the best pieces of brick. He also stated that you can see through 0 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 10. 1996 the east wall and it would be very costly to rebuild and tuck pointing it in 0 place would be difficult. Amy stated that this is an aesthetic issue. Suzannah asked if they would keep the keying in of the street facade to the side in the brick. John Wheeler stated that they would not have to get into the keying portion ofthe brick and they fully intend to maintain the main facade. The brick on the front facade is in the best shape of all the brick. There are stress cracks but that can be brought back in. Jake asked how they would support the front facade when all of this work is done. John Wheeler stated that steel beams are sandwiched together and incorporated somehow to the street. The walls are then underpinned. The significant portion of the project is the foundation and excavation work. 0 Sven stated that soil tests should be conducted. John Wheeler stated that three soil tests have been conducted. Susan stated that the west wall brick is of a different color and the front facade brick is all the same color. She stated that the west wall brick looks older. John stated that some of the bricks have been water stained and some are more exposed than others. He also stated that the quality of the brick causes color changes. John also stated that the face brick on the front facade was intentionally to be different. It was not unusual to have a more expensive front. Susan asked about the brick pattern on the edge which is the key. 0 John stated that they will retain that key pattern. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 10. 1996 0 Amy stated that the awning was placed on the building by the Fox photo and the Commission would like to see it removed permanently. John stated that the awning would have to be removed during construction. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Susan stated that when buildings are taken down and put back they never look old, they look new when put back even with different mortar. She feels the walls are going to be the only thing left beside the cornice. The walls are the oldest looking part of the building. She feels it is important to save the walls. She also feels the east wall is critical. She also stated that the community would rather see the wall stay old to remind them of how old the building really is. Charles Cunniffe, architect stated that the brick would have to be washed and repointed. Roger stated that he would allow the walls to be removed. He also stated at 0 some point a building will be against the east wall and that wall will not show. Suzannah stated that she also had no problem with disassembling and reconstructing it. It is not feasible leaving it stand while excavating as you risk the chance of caving in problems. She would rather have the materials be saved. Sven stated what they are proposing is better for the long term life of the structure and more of an urban solution. In response to Susan's concern one issue is compatibility. Melanie asked if the east wall would look like the west? John stated that the east would look like the west but they could photograph it and make it look like what the east used to look like. 0 Amy stated when the wall is removed we will loose the (ghost of Aspen). 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 10. 1996 John stated that the wall has to be cleaned. Mark stated that he would be in favor of rebuilding the wall with the condition that a mock up is done and utilizing the same bricks. John stated that the wall can be put up to match the west or it could be different. Roger stated that the east side is being added onto and it is stepped back 18 to 20 feet. The only part of the east wall that will be visible is the 18 feet or so. Why not leave the 18 feet there. John Wheeler stated that the area is very tight and it would be hard to get around. Roger stated that the applicant should be allowed to take the brick down and clean it up. MOTION: Sven moved to approve the reconstruction of the walls using 0 selected and designated brickfrom the existing building, second by Roger. DISCUSSION Jake stated that the applicant represented that the east wall would be rebuilt to look like the west wall and a mockup will be provided. John Wheeler stated that they can work with a monitor to determine which wall is best suited to match when reconstructing the east and west walls. Mark stated that there will be different colors of the brick and the mortar should be addressed. John Wheeler stated that a sample panel will be provided. Amy stated that a photograph of existing building should be displayed in the building. 0 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 10. 1996 Roger stated that the bricks will come down, cleaned and put back up. The mortar color can be addressed by the monitor and staff. Amended motion: Sven amended the motion to state that the coursing of the east wall when it is reconstructed should rejlect the current coursing that is existing on the east wall. The mason on the project should have demonstrated historic experience. Texture and color of mortar to be determined by Staff and monitor; second by Roger. Motion carried 6-1. Susan opposed. Melanie asked about the back part of the west wall. The west wall will be reconstructed, the front part in place. The rear part they want to take down and reconstruct and will it be reconstructed as the west wall or as a new part of the building. John stated as the west wall. 517 E. HOPKINS - MINOR Amy stated that this is a minor review to construct a new facade basically. There is no increase in FAR. New veneer will be on the bldg. All the windows and doors will be replaced. A section of the roof will change. There are no other historic buildings on that entire half block. Staff recommends approval with conditions that information on doors, windows, and light fixtures be submitted. Charles Cunniffe stated that they are trying to clean up the building and attract business. Roger asked if the windows and doors will be clad. Charles stated yes. Sven stated that they want to contrast the stucco and slate mass against the existing brick. Charles stated that they want to emphasize the area in front. 6 Page 4 ASPEN DAILY NEWS, Thor,day, March 13, 1997 Â· ..4-; 1 .7 7.-1 1 1 9,7....- U - .1. .A -,44.-- L.1 3.--f-.lk. Aspen historic commission rejects Victorian 'drehs' 1, But preservation group will consider a mix of styles for Mason & Morse building ' By Ben Gagnon Starodoj were less than pleased with imitation. We feel that it detracts from tural stylds. Aspen Daff, Niwi Editor the commission's decision not to the true historic buildings." "It's a real tontlie-in-eheek kind'of 4 accept the design, and noted several Architect Jim Colombo said the approach," Colombo said, referring to The Aspen Historic Preservation times that neighboring buildings con- new facade would not be an imitation, the mixing of architectural styles. z Commission rejected a proposal structed since the Mason & Morse but would fit in with the Victorian Amidon said there is a "problem in 1 Wednesday to transform the front of building was erected in 1980 have styles used in two neighboring build- applying historical detail to a modern 1 the ultra-modern Mason & Morse Victorian styles. ings. building." , : A building at 514 E. Hyman Ave. into a George acknowledged that the George added that *'we have been a Commission member Gilbert N neo-Victorian facade. Mason & Morse building is "ugly," victim of what happened (the Sanchez said he is opposed to "apply- + 1 Commission membet Suzannah and said he and Starodoj are trying to Victorian style buildings) next to us." ing any historical detail of whatever Reid summed up the commission's make it more compatible with the Commission Chairman Jake period on a very modern building." view of the proposal. neighboring buildings. Vickery said he "welcomes the soft- Vickcry and commission member "You've chosen four (Victorian) "If we proposed building this ening of the building," but would pre- Roger Moyer were more receptive to elements that are extremely recogniz- today, you would say no," Starodoj fer to see more modern styles used. the alternative plan and Moyer moved able and familiar for anyone who said. "We're just trying to change the "It's sort of an odd combination to to table the matter for future consid- looks at Aspen," she said. "When you facade to bring it more in concert take a modern building and add his- eration. The motion passed 6-1. attach them to such a modern build- with the rest of the block." torical elements," he said. "The new proposal is very close, ing, you're saying, 'I know I'm not Historic Preservation Officer Amy Seeing the commission was but not quite there," Moyer said. Victorian, but I'd like to have a Amidon had recommended rejection staunchly opposed to the plan, "This is a really tough one, it's very Victorian dress. ,- of the new Victorian facade, saying Colombo offered an alternative, unusual. I've never seen anything like Co-owners Bob George and Bob the commission has been "opposed to which added some Classical architec- it." , WITNESS LIST* H-FE, AGENDA ITEM: Itt<5 F i MAL Re/ 1 a/ 404 E *10 804/5 NAME OF WITNESS: 1. Staff Person AÂ®17 * 1 Dod 2. Ckt AELE 5 044 N dj, f-2 3. 4. 5. 6. 0 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 0 * Includes staff persons, but excludes staff attorney and board members. Ape 3 li el 91-~ / 5 6 7-#64-FRE F/A/AL O 406 E. -domcid s EXHIBIT NO. DESCRIPTION IN DEMO 1 Co-M DEV 64 840 44- , J A \*kA\D WSâ‚¬ APP 3-~'4 1 gr bAI 3 DRAa/NETS 11% i-*- N 4 8001 Er friturs A) 0 0 .:V '. '. I.'I .' 1 IS . U ... 1 1 3 1,4 , *â€¢~ ' '~,1,4 . 4 ':1 . 'i . A j.f '1'~F.:1Â·'Â¥t #Zp#*44~.9* 3/4; :;' : /' , t>â‚¬:it'.51: .: dre#lif:t ' I t. 4 4... â€ž Â·40 4 4 ..01 2. F.Â¥10 4 t ~,~i' il'f ~Â·,f~*',';~~'ttl.1.1 .1>.,1,Â¢.75'*6 '1'~~4*Iwv,ki~. 44:45&~AtÂ·;Â·*}4(~~;tfÂ¢~*41;,,~,4,4 â€ž. ~4/~*44: 4 ..4 , 1 . , '. .,6 ' , 6., . r:, fi.'.. .1" .P , 64, ..,\, . .1~1. tr". 411; 4 - . ,-,....1. . . ... *9... . . r 43 . .f''m -:/,2, 4,4 14*; lt;*i 1 EU'.,f.f f...1 tr. 2 Â· ''t ''i. ,1'Â·.â€žf ,'.;' 4,8.%,4>7-j't.Nfte<~20/fABAA~11'tâ€ž1/,4'..Wr try,5..., It - 4.,1 + 4 li ... 4.''i...4 - d YeR. & 1 .Ilt / A..p-. 4 Â· Â·Â· ..' .1/ ..4* - ., .p '- . I 4 , , i. â€¢-Â· r Â· , I .r :L:. Â· 44* :<; 04#-Â·41.1,Â·t + : â€¢ 4â€¢,â€¢. J Â· - 4 - 11'#A'gy[T 4 4, 1<..4,48{w.,mak'424~#4~.3%2:.Â·.2:k0 ....fi)*- -- D '11 0 '44,44 , Â£ a b ,.; rle, â‚¬1**,821~~W~($2)15~~#Ef ;E:~E f~~Â·(* ~0;*}:f*3%~fil?Jj4 'itiÂ· (1.t:>Â¥* 5 : ; ir< 14#25.;**tgr. . k 2 44':%61*iwmo5~2ZY,4 m n E% 37- .1 f 5,1 t, 41***i a,u , ,~ :, .,Â·, 9' , 4'.42*:'.*.Â·:Â¥Â·40 . 4 ':. f - '41 . , 0 ' Al,4 1.- 14 4 F '. .1 <126,01' fwiastip / '~Â·, tâ€¢1:~, r, 16 x.1,2.. $ rM '15 .u," f~ ,,0 Â·,49,* , r .f flitÂ©, ....: 14.. ''LA:!,8.,TI/~1 . â€¢'1 â€¢â€¢.6.1.9, .l.- 8 . 4:f" 4,.,414:.41 in }Â¥* . :4 I ~ft,~8; . , 4/2 i J t . Â¥ - ' '121~ (116,4"t-,k'f#, ~ Â· 9 V. â€¢ . ., . f 44. W),4 , ,, ,, e ,~.:4'M{1233,Gy:4 * '.Li. '0* . A Â».1.Â£. tkte:.:A" 0,..ir.' re ......,fk '. ' t'%' . ) I ....1 A'. I :,f Â·l; a "11-3.TYPV,41'n .,1,1>Mit': ,f ' e ..:40 *;17'FiÂ¢~,.:'.1 ... 14; f. 5*747~*.' Â· './ 6. 1C :,P ,) . '11 , 4, 1 '' - 'Â· 4 . A Â·i ..' 4 , 7. '. 110Â¥<1 kiÂ¥.4 .&2 4. 31. f .* rwelot! 7.... 0 -'~ ': â€¢ t :4 "' , . 1 1, 1 '..f 9 0 40 1,= i r.. jBTQ' ' t,46 .1 '., , , 4 - '' *4;*1~'.: Â·7-- â€¢- â€¢Â·4't $44:.8 104Â· v 4, .8 1 D 4. 4 4. 61â€ž :.O.j~,1'11.8 I 4#~. pti;*Rff,<4. +44~:~y.~.~~w~8*. L#*M ~~~431 v\;*t'l~k*0*3.*-1 40 + 6~d*Jl#fA~44'32., .. 4, J ..I lt,!Â·.4 ..~t '.*'~ E .d.,,,1 â€¢c.â€¢ " Â¢ .'. t.f4. ''i' â€¢~ .i~:UL.,pÂ·t- '... , . :.r~ .4 4 r,.14Â· 4 '' . 4 '40 4 7.4 . 9 4 l,k, J 0 - 1.int , 1 4 + r .0,Â·â€¢ ii-31 1 15, 64 4 b : S.. }r~ 41 431.41; 77Â·â€ž4.,6~:~~:9:~I,'+~+~ ~9'~.,v,#'A :~ Â¢\41~~:f,:~~:t,f.V.,~.,I-Jr~,~.t,f .,: *44443ft K.r~-~i'<4:4.34~,~~~.flÂ»940 41}1~ 4 1~14>944</143&4; 1'.2.,.'f~vij., f.,k'.1 1 '41%,Â£4:mi.~,4~24}i>i. 4?. '..&, 4~ 1 h 74.3- .,tit , , 1.1.'. , - 5 -, O.1 I '-i â€¢.*1 2 & ' . L-, + . 0. I .1 1 1/ . Ii:'.,49.. . â€¢ 7, ,.It .ApÂ·$24'jÂ¢ bilid , Â· Â· r %+; Â·--L---1...22: L) 9 / J 'it .4. 4 " !20.. r .... , t,Â· Â· i i'4:....tll, 1 â€¢L'(11, t; I I'. Vy:24Â¥~;rt.%'=Â¢&,1.Â·~ A .. I I .' '.' r.., W,/.1. 1 i 4.4 :t' 4/1 er. .â€ž ..' h 1f 1 '44 'Â·4Â»* .*R .1 ...1,4,/ > rl. ' ' ..1 1 . 1. -6 4 â€¢r â€¢tÂ· . 0'6 t. 9 . . ' ..4 1 V.,40'. 4,4.,4..V.':, r:,Â·.A 't ',f'-,iA' -Â·-:.â€¢ P'~: . ... ....., , I. ., , Â·,Â·;!br 'C ,<ALwAAN ~ 1, ~ ...it r '11 , >" * it:i~'/7 - , ..7 , f %0 - . 11 " 1, 43' 1 14 4 . " .... . 6 71~ . I *t.07*':,A 0. 4 49 1 , 7,429 j . . '.41 . I .4, 41 . t . '1 LD,AN 4 . Â·Â·Â·, . 4 in> - Er,0 f i 10 4 r., 6 AL . 4 ./ . '1 Â¢ t * * , 0 Â£ ..1 1 ./ t. .,., A 10"97., ' 1 I + ,Â·. *,.Â· 4 'Â· ' '*Af#~'f?$44 ':'11 4- icl 7 2 "/ ' I 'll .., 24k:<: :41Â·2:4-b44Â· 0,1 Â·. '1 Â¥. 05.1, itf Â·til-~. p m . e,Â· .t Â·Â· Â· Â· ....... M., '44, 1.... 12 111:1''el' 11.%,4 , ' '05Â· i,r 1..Mt', -, #$1 dl;i~ ':' Â·'Â· '''t t'l,Â·.1,i>~%4 4 .zi Â· 3 TA.,2 b ?'444' Â·1 444 ; â€¢Mn.eh,t: urÂ·' R '. ' 1 ...1 4.. .{ .1 .' 9,1 ",4, f . ,. 10~~:% 4*, . r . :i 4,2,54"4~1<; r * '4 713'.-rr .4.,5 -.*t -Â·i Â·4Â· '' .9~* .,0:4* : 4! &Â·,~i ,'~44.P)Â·.6.f 1 ''Â·Â· :Â·/ irri ; 142 4,; 1 .'.1 1, y - -8 -'v- +. ..b #B â€¢7. ' . 1 1./ 1 ' , Â¥: ..,4, ' . I ..1 Â¥ . I , -0 .... ... , '.11-, . . 1 4 , ,,. 4, â€¢ 1 I . 1 . Â·â€¢ 4' - .. :-0. . . 1 . ., aa . ~ 4, r a -7. b.9;, 4..' .4. ' Â·â€¢7 4. . I. I ; 1. I A Â·N. 7 .rT - ~ , , ..t. . . 1,-1 .. -/1 . ...4 J . 0 .. .4 1 e.â€¢. 4, . ,17 1.-7 -2 V t, f '2 4 4.44 Â· =n I. ' 4, .~'. 1. 4 / 1 .1. 3.1., 1144;42;, . I ... a ' 1, -:1 I., . .. 1, I f . , . I i ..., i,# , 4 . . .:...9 . , .'. . f t'E*t ''Â¢ ... .' 'I i ,f + r â€¢ A Â· 1 ..Ct 4 4Â· .. 1 . . :... ' .i:..4,Â»4.1 3... 4. 4 .,JÂ¥ , Â¥7,111 .1â€¢ It Â· . . I ../.t. , 1, J 4 1 1. 4 f 1 :44' L Ta. . '.45.-, , >. ., . t..14 . 1,4 ./ . . . 1 , .1. " 2 - ib. 724 f 4 -j'Â·Â¥45 1 ...h E 1 , .t'' . ..~."I, ..:, - , 1., .. d , I. - t. . S ..'' ..1 ' 't. ./ ''' 1.4..1 - t ... I . 1. .., I .41 Â· U ar.; 9,1 . . 2 2 , I :rE#t .. ' ' ' 1 '54 ,. 'Â· A- . 4 Â·'6: 'Â·*-Â· 74 4Â· 1 1- . i , 4...1.. .. t... .... , 1 .. . . ... , . ~ . . 5 ------,V..3-1~- , . .- . - 1 ..1.. '1:7 4 -* . , .. . '%' I â€¢ 4.. 1-â€¢. 11, ) .':5/ :,3 :. 6: . I , P Iii J. , I . 1 I A .4 '1 Â· - 4 ........ . P -- 1,4-Â¥ ..fs '.: ,~ ,.Â·79 trf,- 31'1:Ir,i~tit-6I '.,r,4.'' ''.1..... - .0.. .UÂ· ": 4271*.rp,- ~ ~ ' 5~'.~3 12. 41 , i F, ' t -, 34 .. .. , 1., 6,31.4 . ,~ > 1, . ., I , ,â€¢ Alâ€¢ it, I ... I .0 6 - P. 99 46 1 . ' 6 '' t.' , .1'. . 2 ...... ... . I 41 . . 9 1 J .1. 1/ 1 , . . ; â€¢..lk,.. "â€¢41 ' I. '.1 1 Â¢ 4 1 ~ '' , ~ ' 4tt 113 , . , : , 11'Â¥ 1,4 ' 3 '. f . I , 4'' 41. ..........7. 4 .... .C Â·Â· Â· 9 '''Al "'It' 67'-Â·Â· ...APÂ¢ *.4% . . 12 '24 *t * I ' 4 â€¢' I f , . 1 %. " .T .. . It. .., t,,4 . V ... . Ir. , " Â¥ 17 '. '1-1. .. .4 . .. I 1 4' Â· â€¢ .1,1, :Â¥ 1.,4 #tz'. 4 2 .: f ,/ ... . -4., ~ j J, Â· >7. , .1.40 . I. t,"t ' . ' , ,. , 0 1. 4.1 , ~ , ,: t .'. d. 4:2*1,19 +Ify'- er'j>~ 'it 1 0 ; â€¢.ba, ,4 . ...t~ ,;% 70, , 4.it, 11 1 ..te I ./ ~ 1 '' 4 / 4 9. 4 .1 2. 0 ' f.#Â·#A K ' 4'V'; Â·Â·,< 96', i '4, . .. 1â€¢ . , 'â€¢ . 1. .. .... 9,% '' y 'A:t , Ir . ::C; -... . .7 ..; 6 !.4.P. t. I . 4 i F r '. .. . 1 .,2 . .1 .4 Â· Â· ~ fe '4 ' ':it,1 2. 1 , ' 9 R:,fill.L R /1.,i , t, . 44 . .l , 44,Â·, .Â·1 1 :':6 . '4 - &9;. i.frÂ·Â· bum . 1 . A _ i tâ€¢ ". .. . I. a . .I ..740 Â· 2 wi ', :, '044'1 4. 4 ' r ... Â· Â· Nt 4., 1.1 '' tÂ¢ . 454 , 61 l'~ GJ 1Â· .. Jr V â€¢ r 1 .'. A ./-' 4 9, 212.0:4,22 8â€ž44~4 4~~ ~~~~~3 4.. . I 1.4 . - o' bFir v. . PEI',~;lt;jÂ¢kÂ·;i,&Â·44124 ,>i. 2~4: :t ~.. ~:,#{t,ug#. , Â·t',*. 1... C.-, 01).4 . 4 , I : t . h I e 'et . 1. .. I â€¢'t ' , 4. 44 it . -' : ' ~ Â·Â·t~, 'd I VhIT..., ...4. 41 ' 0 .â€¢$. I' .. ' 1â€¢ IÂ· 4'+ I , r 4 - I ....1 4 .6 1. 14' . I . 1 .4 .... : ~ 4 ' .4 -FA. 4~,' H, Â· '. r:;Â·2"Al - ~~*~*ht;~ ~.4 7~.<i44,~~f~ 4Â·24'~~ '0 atÂ¢ 40,1 k,4 .K A iA ' Ii,4;4 Â· -, I /vish 'ty 6 1 . 4.1 r' ' . .A . ... '.1 4/,3 ' 1 I 4 4 1 4 'u ,-,4: r 6, t' L.. .' 4,; . t..1 - ~ *Â· u.Â·i. .~ Â· 1Â·il*i;fâ‚¬v-%75,&14/,-Â¢ffl 6 d :.. 1. 04 .4-t~,~~~.; . A. 14'. 5, P ," ' I'' I fâ€¢ 4/44 4 ; 5/ I , , "t ..'4 I 1 jit/ 21 64 . i '$. . . ... '4 1 .' 1 . 1 4 . 4 4 .4.Ah ... , . 1 I A, 1 . . , 't. i ....1~ < . 4, */.. h.4 ...f 1. T.f .... , â€ž. lfâ€¢ 11 =4': .I '.., .1 ' : $ ' : q 4 .. I. 4, .ti t. .i,Â· pli .1, p /qh,1, . 9 .U ...if , S . ... 14 r. r I 4. . , 1â€¢' ' 4.0, r-,a , Â·? 41 .1 0.. . r.. 4 1 41 - .- r ,.,4.136~;J,4;23,%*,4 . .yr '4 i.,CU..t'.11}11..f '1 . ' Â·~,,1 . I. t;941 '' r.4 " A tÂ¢.., . k .. .1 .. 1, vt. r.Â¥ % It ..1 4,1 74. ~' P~ ) 4ff'.1:-.t A ,- ''4 8*"At 47 9 Â·B ' .L,L, '0 . I.,1 t~* If ;tilwh,niÂ¢ 1 . ET,/v , AÂ¢1 .. 't 'tf~F09Â¥L. ,* 45#AM*Xff, '.11 44 1 Â·1,0~.,!'b.-,1 ;1 . Â·Â· '4 ' '0" :.'L). -p-1 '- 4'T'-IR/ip. v ' "- 4 ....'.4 4. , f ...~t'*lit %! Â· 4 ir *hi t;t.14â€¢11(R Y# 4. 01 Â· tâ€¢.t- P I .. . 1.,4 . 1 â€žR t . 0 vt:' -I -.).' . e lb . 1 , 0 71 61 $ 1 . - . s . F 'â€¢IL V..: I ...... '32' veit??9414Â£*4Â£1%1Â£04.1140:Â· ,Â· -.--*87 .~â‚¬'Â·12; ' *.z- .'. ,;,2, 4 4 .. '4.4.4 2.. 4 - . et . r. - r , 1 1, 6,1 ... K 'itt, 43Â¥ .; Â·f444~gai~;*Â®; " Â· Â·Â·,: r'.~ 4 ':~9 -~,; 4,1 p 16 ,% b ./.1â€žr, It 4., " :a=JU 1 ~ 1 2 . L, ' 1 . . b DE.4,2,3. 4 Â·~ ./0. . ' 4. Â· v 1;4'Â·Â·t#,1 "Â· i %9 â€¢ 9' ~ 61' "' "iiiÂ·'?, Â·Ap 4 ./ 1011 . .0 .... Â¥ :AL i,hdri- Â·* t, , v ' '4't! 1, .9/ l. 0 , 10 .. A. " flam' t. 1 1, 4$,4,14â€ž0.*4 ic - 4 ' f . 4 ' ; 9 1 . .1 - a#/4-5-2461'04; 1. . 2. Â»,0 01, '3 4 H pl' ..' , '. ... t, , 'f .re /4 '0Â¥f ' " - 4*gr,1,3 4,11:* 4.9 ' ,4~' 124~r '47 3 2442*,3'~ 5, eq<( 11'r 44 ..0.... . 1 '5 1 4"9p'4'.-1 .9-li.Â·Â·Â· . ' ~AlydÂ·t <9:~4&~C Â·ge . t, 4 "'."'.4.A:,4 "Â¥ P r.Â¢19 if '44 1.,b: , 4 .. . 4. 7. t. 4 .. . 8,1: 1" f. 1. A C .. , .0 4. Â¢:I6 1*Mlir ..0...r. .,0 . r"A , a /~ 2'14 *NÂ·Â· :.(1'..9,4 ~44't' ,#1' ~b,7~~ 'tt . 4, N4Â¢11~,: .C , a '. .,.014*t. , t .. +4, . 0 4 '074 1. A f K . 0 - i .,Â· 21,19.'B wpÂ· 4 .- 4 .ri:42,pÂ¢~0* r '' 93:,6 f#>1 ./. 44 4 '' ' ./31 . .â€ž ...1 & f . " l.,141 Jr: fet- . 0 3Â·Â§4 . . I 4 .11 It . 'f t.: 4, . de . k 'Â¢.#98'?4 ' Â£t" U.~~->1 ~ .F,Â·Â· , Lr~ 0 *r ' ' ' :'. e ~4;,p~<.,Â·ti~> 9 S .1 . 0 - 7 1. 4 .â€¢ I , i. t., â€¢, 44 'L 4. i . i ..4 , :&â€¢7.,â€ž:.tl,7 4.r .44( Di>Â¥ r Â·r 'h:,% 5:Â·'w ''0 14 1 4 2%,4, ' ' (. 2,/'ll 'I /' " , 1â€ž ' '31VY 4,1;.â‚¬Zr''pt'L.*.t#.WÂ·* .4 ./ 04*. ,*; :i " . 15 -< #*. .. 11,.;f dkÂ·.4,6.+At ''. ,â€¢,t~1 r' .A..6/ :Â·: t...F - ..4 A , Jv"9 . .. . .. . .tr . :1,211: MY,; Â·4.. 10 0 .It 4#Â· 4, 0 . 4 6 . . t . ,. A .- ., 4.' . '9''f *14 9 . Â¢ ; .. 1 '4 4' f '' 4J .a # Vit >S 40:, Â·:s , ..,1 .2. m.:44 1 .1 1 7.2 1 ,' 10 7. f . r , ; 1 .1 ,24 ' 1 Â·:Â· Â· 937.41 ,Â· . 1 . . JI . r. f ' Aff - ' p m : 0 f~ -1... 1.14 P . 2 '.. .:t. r 2 097'fi' f : , .C J *A 4 N ;, t. 41 r ' 922|E;Ft*#4.#*.2.% . v; . - Â· "" ../ey G . I., . 140 9 . . ~ 0 .~~ ~* * : ~ ~**~~<.1 ~ f <1 1Â·i-V .Aki.,1;,l ,#'.;6 443.<, ~ Â¢- T .... '1~,4, . : Â·Â·..deÂ·, t.,~ ., :*/ . if ' ~i: .'I I '..' '' ' . < P i tr 'r A ,"/32'-" '4*- , ' 1' '' , I . 14 : , 'Â· iâ€¢7Â· ''.'>Â·'f.Â· , 84. , ... r, 5 W...,,./. i , .:,r I. 1 . I :t V. '.I ' ' .4 .A aw *44, "1 ./.. P. 42#* 02. 9â€ž . j, ~, .. $4.. V ..'.41 I '. b I .. , ./ .. 't- 1 3*0'ir t.. ., 17 1 :14 4. ....rf . . A, 2 r.Â· Â· . Â·â€¢1*t '. i â€¢ ' 45'i ,- D 4. ., 41:7 â‚¬ r ,, . 0" k.1 . 4. *.2 '" A ./ 4 ' t:.t.1/ ./ , l ,~ :, t,1 , A1; J~ 9. ,*;, iL it C.. . 4,1 .. 1 4 . 1 4 I , 1, 1 .'. $ 1 , â€ž 4 /1 1 e att ..., . 4,44'.1,4,0>'...'. .f~...C'.':#f la ..J,4 ..t. , 9 4 t.. ... I' . U 4.6 ' 1 1. , â€¢ ''' t I â€¢.* ,. .. ~.4 t', 4<~9 ~., 1, ...4: . ; '74,4Â¢ , 4 . ; .....,i r . " ' ~4 ,' '- t,~ L' ~ ,- 2 M f - M.41,2 . y"p i .z 0 ~~~2 .$,1,.3,4,44:4*.i~~:..-. Â· . Â·* f TE,bvf:E+#*-<*xif- .r,4. 9.v '. 1 ..'.. , 4 . - .,1 - I ':.* . 6. t ..547.4/ 4 â€¢. IL ... '1 4.Â·Â· ... 1 . :â€¢ :f ~i F:, ~if ' "lt f' I . f 1 1.' 4 14'ti 3.4. L . 11.. . '. 4, . '0' ' : 0,9. i..'..4.7.5 ./ . 0 I .., f. ..... .. ... .6. ......, : , - $, ;i.KiÂ·(&.5. r*.1 * -0.-/ *'A f 4 ,r' . 4 ' 4 /1 2,) .4.,4, 1 .. . 4 ...' '. A . , A ...6."Cl, 4 R t. h ..N,~i 11 .'. 4 . t.,AC ./ t.* .15. 1.1 ;h .t 1, 6 't " Â·dÂ·.' 44: , 3 1. 2 4,1 1 .6 11 11. ,. 94. 1. I Y. $ Â¥ 4 45 Â· V .8 .t, Â¢ ' , _ ,.1.12 ##69,- 'S ' 2.4 . 9,0.. 7,. ., 4:;1. i.9-'.t ..., r 4.464;.1.1. â€¢ 4'. I .. $ ' I /' 1..., 11,19/f I.% tâ€¢' . , r . t.;41 .?:511. 4 L. 91 2 â€¢49 . ,Â· .,4, 4:â€¢'â€¢â€¢,t:Â·~,s., ~. <1* 1 ' 1 . . I , U L Nit : ~ , 4 10 4 :'Â· .,t-,f,;, .Vi' 7 .. 1 . , .0 , .L - 1,7 ..MIMW I 7:.tlt:....4* it:1,-i, 4, 4 . ' . I 9 A. , â€ž I. 4 44, /.. 4:te,.. 11, .> ' $,Â·t . 4 * A- .. , #, . 1 6 ...i f -1 , tâ€¢ â€¢ .4 . .. 14, ,, fl ,. , . I L ' I )/4 *3) 'ff :'1' I :.14'f#. ~ 1. . 60 7 ,'Â·.iâ€¢ '',t, <A ' 5 ti} 6 .2.4.1 . 41/~ . t" .,iâ‚¬~'~,~,3., , , ~4, 4 ' . 1. $ f .1,2 ..... 1 -4 ..... 41. 2, '' . I '. , , '/,''i''t-. $,Â·Â·:'1.:'2Â¢:Atio et Â·, Â·.*v.Â·zi,~- â€ž -- I .., ;.7.. 4?'.. . It'; 3-'(...1.,A..4 , . r 19, 4 "Â·6, 2 i ' . , 1 ,""tÂ· il~ Jit ,Â¢l Â·~'1 . 4 . 2 ~' .f. 1 :**:*4 9, .., 1. ..:, .FA, , â€ž,ir,..241~:, .: , ;,c.*64.*Il:. ,v~ 1 , . 4...p,.Mi, 1 .# - , **;. .30., ; ,* 4 t .. .VÂ· 0,45 2. 3.45/ 2 2Â£ . , 0' i'. p . 4,- * 9 M J:i~ 19' , ~ 1 . 4 f b .' 0 .4. ...414 Â·r''V' ' ' ..1 I . .. .0 .4. H ; 1.. ..'' 1. 3 , A . .4 'f.. 1 , Al? . I .. .lve , 4 '1 - ' , , Al} 1%%-' A 1. : I .4 t I I. * 4 ~*24 ' f,11. 1 It ., , 4 4 T..A 4.<,1. 56 .4 . .& 1, .,1 I ./ . 4 .... . I . ,/ f , , 1 ./%1 119 r. 46 k.. r : ?&.4:Â¢ 4 3,5 ..: , 4, : , 44. .. ./ â€¢â€¢IL ' .4 , , 1- C,4..7 .1 1. :-192:1:7:'Â·,L 7,141 14' 1.1,6 11 11 r',tf .4 4â€¢ ... 1 . .., , " VA r r,,1 Â· 4 '..t , f' I 1 . 1%, I W '. 1... 0 th: t.,%, -- â€¢t 4 , 141 .' i j'Â· 4 '4. I . , '. Â· 4% < .' " i;~*i'*~ . ..: '- 4 . 4,'r i~j~.'10 JI.1.:hN I I Â· 'ty 1, 'pll .. A,1.1 , 4 0, U. 1., . 1 p...&.1 ...1 '. f., ... , ...... 4 1 1 1 . , tb 1 '4 . t 1, . 4,& it Â· , .. .., 5 D J 04.: 4 . k 'T .1.. . . , 1 M 9 9, f U. Â· Â·. Y '4 % I . ,, : f Â· 2.i. 48~ 0, :t' . 7 . , 1 J.t > 4 3 :,Â·, ,â€ži #i:Â·.; .. ../. I. 4'Â·,i.~Â·1Â¥?4~J..' 4 it' 4 . &44, 4 7-4 p' .t , i,4 4 4*' 844 ,' 21 4'92,:iMPâ€¢,4' Â· i.;tr. 'r '. '0 m .. 14. r':. M, : ,14 4%0 4 .9 ." I t., .1 .... , '.... 4. . .421 ,, . t . . T . 6 1 861 1 â€¢ **lf li ' .. k .1 â€ž ; A : , 0.1 1 , S, I ./ ' 4," I . .... I â€ž ' 46 2,-14 4 r. .1 4 â€¢1~,11, 2' 0., ~ L blkw ' t. 0 Â¥ W ./ 5 4 q & a . I, "ir.. i.*, W ... ... '. 1 ..1. r. I ''. . it 1.35 - - I ' " I"*.1. ' Â· . . 1 .'.3. i~.: . , 1 . 1, Â·# JG nt . I V I. .. ;210"543~Â·' Â· A.%(e' ' : 'flt ..1.,6. 1.~. .4 , :. '. . ..20. . tr-Â·41 .16 ':i 'f I. '.4 5 'd, 4' -01?':#4,,j, 10:.r-i<:t.,i:, Ii. i.t,,.~11% ,, 41 I. ., .. P.A 4 1, :/1.. ...10.5,4 , , . ~4,4. 19*b" e r. y ,% 4 . 411 4. ... . . t!. . -. ' v- 1.{A 3 '1â€¢t' f , 4 1-: . .4 .0 . re -r , 4, I ~ 'Pl!12 .. , ,- 'i b l. CW. 4,1 511?41 - 1 - .40. 4 , ... -.I , , /6 6 L t.ti er 0 4 * ft 1â€¢ft. , '1' , 1 - : * 0 9 1.1.4 9 4 ' t.. â€¢' 0 0 14 ..,4 ,p 4 -- 11 1'. .1,44Â»4., , 14 .%412'1',7 1. . . I * '14! . re 'S , 4. 3,.0.* 4 Lt 14 '4 Â·';;6'~ 2% ; L t'-1 ' -, . V , .0 Â¥ . m , , .'.1 4. '6 4 4 - tr 10 14 , , Vt 9 . , , .41 , , 1 . ,(...Y 4, 949 49. , ' '18 4;. ' Â« ' " f 4 ,. + /1 * , 4-5 7# . .â€ž. ".1, f .7 , 4% h 4:, U - Â·Â·t . .. i / ,Â· 44' .04 ; rith: - ~ t * f,;9 , â€¢ r .bri ' a . 4 i ....)6 31': . 22 . . . 14' . , 9:,4,4;Ii.*544.:r.4/ Â·1,q, f k.~ V 67 + ...t' 70* t" . " I .... 4 1 . I 1 . 4'. 4:.f .11"fJ '4: F.~ 3 Â· J - ' . ~'* :Â£6 2 ., â€¢1 â€¢ i~'~*1R#~,i . Â·Pf~i~b~6 411;4~AÂ·j'~ ' . r â€¢ M ..... â€¢ n . ... E . 9 4 4 AY'..7 Â·1 0 m,10 '' " r,; 4 & 40 9.4/ m â€¢ *349.â€¢Itx >'fp?%.a..1. 16 :, 11' pl , t K 5, Ide' k . , e ;, 1 . 4 k 1.4 ~. ,,1 3 , . 1 ... 1. r I. .. 4.1,99,14'14~ '' "Fl,.1 '. 4 .r P . It /1 4, t., , %- ,.: :' ~,4*" 1# h&:f**Â·~ ' . , C . . 4 .2 '4 .4 ... â€¢k' , P o. 6 - M %75. W.1 9 f . . Ek *ft,Â·41Â¥Â£46*?4*29.4-**fet*4.64 t. , 41'4"/U; 7 0 .41 ./ . Wilim#: A' 1,2,1~1 '2, 00 . , 0 1 1 4 .,3 4. 1 ..1 I I. r . -, 4, v ~ Â· Â·Â·. Â·18â€¢mi Â·Â·Â·~ ' ,*j*GreaMWA#Ur 1 -fi,Â£4*ji';f:%4:4*'4*i. â‚¬Â·0 v"*70!*11Â®0,12'~'Ailitl*',140'*3' 4* ~Â·'9.*%'1 3.- ... j,.~rt:) i.*Â¢J. .'.,1'.f~.12.4*7'(; ~~;*%;Â·M9*AW#9Â·*gu.ti<*1Â£4 441; . .7.j, Tii#~MA#10~/UM~EF .1 0 1 i,Gny#15..a , 51*'R' . 1 . 1 WFUJ~#~94Â® 24,.'f jivi .V.p,~6**Â· Â· , 1.~*A .6 . 1 1 205Â£*#*St'4.6.~Mti ,,. A. A,,2@i;Me>iWâ‚¬*.Et'SFL , .'u:Â· 3 ..3 - I. I. 1/ mi -k:6 I.. -m X=64 Im 96 Im la:-1 1 i'11191'lilli 8 I i ---11 1- ..p- 1 r 1 Pri -Ip ' -'/4-'- 1 9/. 1 - ' - ' 61 6 FIE =JN= -1 !! i m I ~1 Il n .11 Le>99- Fi li 1 /11 113 // / // - .1 - - t. , SOUTH COURTYARD ELEVATION . 0 SOUTH aEVATION 3 1,2 0 0 2 6 16 1. - .. . ... 4 I -0(i.f-,UU..i.%f . I. . I. ........../.I---I /2.- LL==1.2ndi-#~.&:&.Li~Jau--13 2.L, .. ...1 , 26-En -lill--Ill-- 94:- * ...1 - 1 0 Â· I - ~ 25~~t . I. ..11 .. .01 . 1 1 16 - . I /11 â€¢ - :1 , 1--7 2. â€¢ Â· . - .... D . ...ME.=72 ..r I . I . .. . /1 EAST ELEVATION 77~.--3~ CÂ¥ ':/"V. ,-7,;Irr-ZIT ..CH. :7.- -'.*'/*1-WI'll:2"*'R."*.I.*- 31*0*Â¥ 334!NNn I ./ 1 I " 31 1 . 4 . .4 1 4 11:i;I";il'' ,1-, i 7 - . , billiii Um H.~i:illililill:11; 1 1. 1114.11 1.1 1.'' . . i Â¥ 11.1 1 .902=. il 1 e . Flat S~NJOU 1 1 1 i IEEE 1 ...,1,11, ..'' -- 82 0-9 1--d 1 9 -- ----J 1 0 NORTH ELEVATION & Â¥ 0 2 6 16 f ii Z MAIN STREET VIEW PLANE * ~ 1 JI'll,JUIIJ"' -394,66.ihi 81 6% 0 - ~ \*Â·40<Â¢e<xÂ«Â·.Â·I.'.39Â·0.>orÂ·Â·:,I.."4<-3:0Â·439-42Â¢393<2:42!~~ B 0 ./310,NE: - 11:)3111403Â¥ 33:1!NNrE) 4 n l 0 . i,0, Wi 0 1 CO 1 144 1 . B Itt ~ 1 1,03 - i rk:.1 j 3...4 1 1 4 *41. 1, 0 f " , 4 494= 9 C) 1,43.4 84.' -Â· 1 Â· r 1 644: . --*- - Pâ€ž.r . 1 V Â¢ Â·. ' Â¢ 0 *6% %.4: ./ .Fv.: 0 4 4 191 . 1.11 1 -1 Z 640Â·Â·.64 Â· I Â·:)44 9. . Â·Â· 1 14 * 04- i 4#b.4, i.3 4 1Â¥ 2. 1.4.'.. . :C n Â» A + 411:4% A=471. ti, .tâ‚¬ 1 : +.8*Ut- *14- l. - ..; >Met v . EL_-1 4 ' 4 i 6.21 - 1:<f Â¢Ai A . . NA 1 .. r yi.:.; $ 1/ E-7 4 Â®L 1 2 f t.kt . ....... --1 41 49*1*'*. NAN f, . 1 Â· 4..44% I e 11%*1 * ' it i 1 1.- l :14.32 Â·7479 . 4 ..a tid i *,2 . 42.* 9. r r.... ..lr 31.!,AliÂ·TZ,+ 18~31U Â· 1.$4'# 2319 . , r 1 - ...1. ...,1. - U K *~'U* '214.~, 1 , t. 49'Â£14,Â· - 4~'lli' 48.t,11131 ,, 4.5 --i- IN:46%,4 LA. I. N.: . :. 1 02 - 'lllÂ»Â¢4'4.1 613(tirj R .31 91*..1 1 i :Ii 417Â¥*iI .toker,Â»*,7Â·ls-~ YipÂ¢~ .. 1 *3 9, *Â¥* f...444,4 11 %0.92. 4% elltÂ· , 1 4 1 9.0 Â·30â€¢4iLki:'*.Peâ€¢ h 46, Il f . *.Â·.Ai**I..:iii * 011Â·' 0,:.ax-Â»>. Â·:.1Â·>:alÂ·. he.v . i- : b...2.6 ..4 1 4..MÂ», "'. ,.~,1 .: 10 41.Gl. I I ... A +...4 14:Â¢.,t, I 0 , ! PLICATION EXHIBIT 1 1 -/'--/./'I-- 1 .1 : 1 1 ! R ISIS RENOVATION CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS H Tiji B -1.0, 181 FOX PHOTO .. 4 : 9. i . 4'..,Â· 4Â· h,DAN ' . 4. , %.Â·,i~!TE!' f ~ ' I . L I , I . ... i:i Â· it*' . ... ... ' ...-21 1111 11:fi 1- ''C, :i"72 4, 9 q. - 1, 12â€¢' 5.4.46 i i 1 e iwk i -TRA- -4*=r#An i 0 I "m&Ll 11~1 1 1 ill 61 ./,9 1 1 1 ':ir:;"-L-â€¢u-â€¢=â€¢L....-22,El O, 1:.:*Sk, -3 1 12031' P 1.'92' 1 bd :4474.444 41 . I. ve i. /,au MN#6 0 tr.,2rr 1/ '.12.-/ e 44 5- 1 4*. 96 .4.9 4 ye 2.4/74 Z z 'ew: 3 \ t?.L, b- - O i 1.76 i k : rrli ..44 1 bal - 1 02Â·:al 1 .lit.9 1 *t tit; 9 4 ne â€¢&4)1 te >, 13.a== 44:+, 1.71 1 Ili, 193;1 k.f.' ttll ,.. , :. IA â€¢ - 1 Ill,r . 1 lit. ...4 F .1 }1 1. ti t '11 149 . I . I â€¢. . t r -_llf. YE' :4 01 &6 t ill- I.. 1 1 ., 1 .4 1, f #1 144...4 O D.,14 1 1/6 1----2 1 ; 11Â§ irce. I ':4. 6 941 73/ --Ill- , 1 V . t. 4 + mp \ 1 114 1 i i 4,/ar MU\ 1 1 41 1 y y. ----Jl. e' 2 , Lit 45*t=-79 \ ~ El' 19,5 ii,im,~.#unar i 1. :.. 1:f:i:I::;i:::f: i::Iffi~ 1 14 41 lE 1: ==== === f 'FL 1 + 12 1. 1.,11,1,1 / 1 2 " th)#*MIN M $18:12 .13 \ 1 . ls K t . '!~ili:.14BM:?,-- ~ 1 Im 3 j Â¢ ie 1 1 1,-71 / I Â· -M~ 17 El 4 140 1 1 \ 4 1. L ; 1--14 U 1 . 11 i 1. 11. 1 f /1 0 r 1 11 Â·- eM 1==========* I 1 - P G #4 im 1 . ., 8 ' li' i : lill: 1 afl i :ri' _---1 t \TION EXHIBIT I | E 11 ISIS RENOVATION CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS A- p E ll liwi/:. LOTS LM, & N, ALLEY BLOCK 87 52#Hm HÂ¥Mw AVE â€¢ StmE 301 â€¢ Aj*N m 1,16,1 â€¢ rnâ€¢ m.*r er,vâ€¢ .'.../....... _ Z ap/.7/8*a . ..r 1 . 1 7 2.- . 62.4 -2- 2.a= 'r C .....t.-4~':~,4/.1./.MI'l- . f f d'b ciA f I - . r ... 1. I â€¢ ... .. L - i i _ 6 : 1 .1 -718.3 - .. - I AL L- -- -1 7. 1 -1 . . 6 - I.t.na Flâ‚¬!!Dil - -7 *-- - I U i 9 - i firk-:. ~ - - I. ... 1 1 ..5. --9 ... 4-:.-:,t..0 . * .. 9 - . ,% AH 52- - Â· Â· .... .1 . I. - . I. Il I. 1- . 9 . t/*Ad U -% .--=Ii . ZE~ . I. ..r.. . Â· 4 I I. Â· Â· "IM Â· -r~ 1 1 + I ~==-=---4.-8--- . A .10Â«T B . . . +4 ... 1 ..1/0.. . t. . . .11*3~ NX, . ' -2- + 9 -. '- -7. -ii.47. + . 5 -Tr-r-1-Il 1 .IICI . . ' '/:iÂ·/- Â· -Â·214; T ..:.- . J . i...4'.. ALâ‚¬â€ž1~Â¢ A- . .. . *.. - 4,/I.-- . --I- r-_.....â€¢-~0â‚¬3â€¢â€¢ ---fi- .- 1 .. wel"k--' :d. -7 ..> ..4- . Â· ---,1 - I - .r . . . ., I*'0=L:Ard..1 -f 1 7.-{ fÂ°kiLU;:t.f: fifil .6.:.fi Â·-FÂ·1-Â· /*-U] 11 l iALUTI .- Â· 3 -4 Â· tn~U - 4.-.1= .. 9,Â· - -- --- .......1 ./ .-Il *I- =~1.-Â·,Â·. p".Â» 1 1-1 .1. P + i' :r 1 1.4 .42Â·t- .1 -Pl.. -*/ : ::-: I..*: *.m;..:. i -~I- - .*6.- . , . ...9 L. i : .4 :t, ..7 2 ....ru. .1- '-''M. Â· -2*,13 - F -1 1 - F - . 4 ~11 1.~ ' ..... - - I. 4 --:* . . . I -I - I I ... . 4 -. . ... ..2. *- ' / I I .- ./.i. -' / .1. *R .. .. X >M 1 -. 4 , I L >Ve/\ A .- . 1 X f.-1- mop - X X GAN= F Â· . ><X I . X X * + . 1 - - 5 - E + b*<' >' 4,Â·- 7474.6. PlmEE MAmâ‚¬r '1.-- VADED ROCF -1 - : . - - 2 >< 4/. 19 . . . . 6 1 0. ... -C XcÂ·29< . 0Ur Aook - . 46: .ZA. LA DA --- 06,4 - - -4 -Un-, */'\0 1 lili . . - k - 2 k /. 7(,4 7Â·11 --7 . 0 4 J .... . - : t. . X . IC, . ' - RAT CNIOPY ' ..Â· ..lo I 2- r , .4 r 9 A. ~--=r- A ' Xf 1 '7 7- V"Â¥ -e.. - '03>. r;47 11Â·.0:20~32'-,f>fy :il< y~ v. 1 r 1 i -- ., . R 1 , X N. Ji i : 800â€¢ mow- e-t 11 mill ... 6 Ill Â· - 1 Â·Â· - f..4. 1.. - - I .- I . /7.6 ' I. . -1 - 1. 4,1 - 4 . - .1---4 4 4 . 7. . :A... i :. .~~1 - 6 *. ~ :. ...r. 24ii<' *23:.......2..J.1.v'-1- ~..:-c~-*.*-:-7.::i:.Â«LitritrijliINA~. '- -tâ€¢nner at-Aild 4 r-, < ..... 7- - re *< - 0 '.~~* ~9~~-~.'~~ ~*,-Â· ~<v~;.~-~ ~t,~22 '. 27.'70Â¥44~t';Sf-*C*'~ . p w *" . â€¢ 7 rt %%*I. - - E Â·i- ' .' >ff-Â·.-'.3';ia, 2 14:0 ..4 ...92: ->.. --1 -:.3.i. â€ž. ~,4.i..:1 Â·1:2â‚¬92:*:2 E .~2ji4&*I.i,Jey~iffi~;~ i~# Â·- h -/1 - 93 k -4/ I- C ./:*.7-.. =6 .9 **.FyÂ·--Â·t. ~1'.~'~*':y.i L.i~ If.: ~~~~ Â· ' ir-5Â· * 4%Â· '..: -â‚¬Â·-t..:'~~1~. Â·i:,.:~Â© i.- .. Â·~4,â‚¬If.1Â£it:Nifil'~622.14Â£-f~ i frt**f..3*--? ~433-:.j:.-*f ~ ..q~-f*'43.'0" '~-7:51.*Jix-fÂ·*E:~~~~~~~*~~29~-17*574~~ , 2 '* 13:34!R,03.E :' ?.4 -'.t~* BF.. ... . 4 * ~ ~ ~ * ' * - . ... . -2- .......Il./.-- ... 34*-- 44*Â¢i)&39?Z,7 ~ - ciumbi?EGE'.luck)*ABriW 11 C 4521 fr~fil '01. 44- 20â€¢Did>â€¢~i,wi<*+ 1' Â· '1Â· I<*16~661",Vnfaba~ew/. Â· 43. 4.. a 1 j , Â·Â· rt .. ..Al. 1.- .1 ' LÂ¥&41. 41 'rhillillit//721/Fliiâ€ž~p + 1--9.4~4" . YF<* I . C 't:,nlri- Â·.Â· : mi iUAilli~B* ~#348-IEUR;20,1\&6- .i*2~rE=*=am U &41 - Pf,BILV,41 lilly 40 1/Unt," 1%;130Â¤ <432*:1 lili .'.5.:11 ,.a ex 449 11')1~i<itek A Â¥19 1.GATOMF.+FLY, Â¢., a.f .â€ž39,5 ati. 4.111... r '111.1. Â·--i 111111~ 8 1.....: . 1 :rt . fg U "0:â€¢11 f~*i.43.- 1 9 .4*. 1 49/2 1 0012*41 4 Im.:4474 0 4/14?2*rit Â·F I i.- all gÂ· iwid..Maj" I.41[1|151*=OS=/84 1 f.:itill, .A Efld I *1111 ...il,i . r 4 '.1,91., 1 %* 0, *1208* Aer,7 - A J, ...'..4.8. I -: 4 ~972 r,j~%36 'i Â©94' l; 11 e. 7 /1 .' eÂ»