The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.198905101 -th AGENDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE May 10, 1989 WORKSESSION ON CODE AMENDMENTS AT 4:30 BEFORE MEETING 4:30 P.M. - 8:00 P.M. FIRST FLOOR COUNCIL CHAMBERS City Hall 5:00 I. Roll Call and approval of April 26, 1989 minutes. II. Committee Member & Staff Comments III. Public Comment IV. OLD BUSINESS 5:15 A. Final Development: 204 S. Mill Street-Collins Block - Phase One B. Conceptual Development, Public Hearing continued: 204 S. Mill St., Collins Block Phase II & III 5:45 C. Rating: 1004 E. Durant Street, Public hearing V. NEW BUSINESS A. Landmark Designation: 1004 E. Durant St. (pre- application to discuss proposed development activity associated with designation) 6:00 B. Landmark Designation: 514 N. 3rd Street. 6:10 C. Minor Development: 134 W. Hopkins, fence 6:20 D. Minor Development: 500 W. Main St., Mesa Store Banner 6:30 E. Conceptual Development: 630 W. Main St., Mountain Rescue, Public Hearing VI. OTHER BUSINESS 7:00 A. Request for HPC recommendation to Bldg. Dept. through Council on Demolition permit extension, 601 W. Hallam, George Vicenzi VII. COMMUNICATIONS 7:30 A. Sub-Committee reports B. Project Monitoring: Elisha carriage house . AGENDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE May 10, 1989 WORKSESSION ON CODE AMENDMENTS AT 4:30 BEFORE MEETING 4:30 P.M. - 8:00 P.M. FIRST FLOOR COUNCIL CHAMBERS City Hall 5:00 I. Roll Call and approval of April 26, 1989 mi-utes. II. Committee Member & Staff Comments III. Public Comment IV. OLD BUSINESS 5:15 A. Final Development: 204 S. Mill Street-Collins Block - Phase One Â·p . B. Conceptual Development, Public Hearing continued: 204 S. Mill St., Collins Block Phase II & III., , +4 3,04 5:45 C. Rating: 1004 E. Durant Street, Public hearing 5- 14- ./ . 1 1- i - u For,,Â» C 9 V. NEW BUSINESS A. Landmark Designation: 1004 E. Durant St. (pre- application to discuss proposed development activity associated with designation) JA co 6:00 B. Landmark Designation: 514 N. 3rd street.APPole#de/3 6:10 C. Minor Development: 134 W. Hopkins, fenceappe . Ual) 6:20 D. Minor Development: 500 W. Main St., Mesa Store Banner , r , - . -4 6:30 E. Conceptual Development: 630 W. Main St., Mountain Rescue, Public Hearing 3 p,/t Av (Â£- b~ VI. OTHER BUSINESS 7:00 A. Request for HPC recommendation to Bldg. Dept. through Council on Demolition permit extension, 601 W. Hallam, George Vicenzi...j/'i'â€ž. c LÂ· VII. COMMUNICATIONS 7:30 A. Sub-Committee reports B. Project Monitoring: Elisha carriage house 17 A MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Final Development Approval: 204 S. Mill, the Collins Block, Phase One only Date: May 10, 1989 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Final Development approval on Phase One of the Collins Block renovation project. This approval only includes the restoration and renovation activity to the National Register structure at 204 S. Mill, and does not address any additions or the infill structure proposed. SUMMARY: To allow restoration/renovation work to proceed on the Collins Block, staff has broken the application proposal into phases, with Final Development approval being sought at this time on Phase One. Phase One includes the near-restorative work on the Collins Block, roof replacement and partial demolition of non-historic metal sheds attached to the rear of the structure. PRIOR COMMITTEE ACTION: Conceptual Development approval was granted to Phase One by the HPC on April 26, 1989, subject to the following conditions required to be met for Final Development approval: 1. A detailed description of all repair and restoration activities to the structure 2. Exact material representation 3. Structural information from licensed engineer, and detailed information on excavation and structural activities to be accomplished on the structure 4. Written guarantee from the applicant to insure repair work should structural damage occur during foundation repair Staff finds that all conditions of Conceptual Development apuroval for Phase One have been met, with the exception of Condition #4, the written guarantee, which is required to be submitted and approved by staff prior to the issuance of a building permit. ALTERNATIVES: Actions the HPC may consider taking are: 1. Final Development approval as prcposed 2. Final Development approval with conditions as recommended by staff 3. Table action, finding further study is necessary 4. Deny Final Development approval, finding the application does not meet the conditions of Conceptual Development appror al. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant Final Development approval for Phase One of the Collins Block renovation, including the partial demolition of the non- historic sheds in the rear lot, subject tc the following conditions: 1. Submission by the applicant and approval by staff of the written guarantee addressing structural damage due to proposed foundation repair, prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. Original arched transom glass panes are to remain 3. Mortar shall be repointed in exact duplication to existing Further, the applicant should avail himself to the Technical . Preservation Briefs in staff's office for information on restoration and renovation methods, if questions arise during construction. memo.hpc.204sm. fd.1 2 ATTACHMENT 3b Â¢#Aff Opr- F\Â© A-0 ---- Specific Submission Contents: Final development plan for signif icant 61 0 51 development to a Historic landmark in Historic Overlay Distr'ici fl? C 1) Written description of proposed development: See Narrative; submitted previously to HPC, with conceptual approval rjackage. 2) No new building materÂ·ials are proposed for the Historic f acades on Mill Street and Hopkins Avenue with the exception of glass and millw'orÂ·k employed in the repair' of existing defectlve or hazardous conditions. The applicant reserves the right to replace existing glass for reasons of repair, safety or thermal ef ficiency. Repair and replacement of said glass and millwork shall be in exact conformance with historic details. The small arched glass panes at the top of the windows shall remain in place. Sandstone and brick on the Historic facades shall be cleaned by scrubbing, with soap and water only. Mortar shall be repointed Â·as required using the sanie style and color as the original. 3) See Mill Street and Hopkins Avenue elevations at 1/8" scale. Note that conceptual approval of- new construction on Hopkins Avenue is still pending. 4) The applicant proposes no change to the Historic facades facing upon Mill Street and Hopkins Avenue other than to restore them to the jr original condition. He feels that the neighborhood can only stand to benefit from the proposed restoration. A color scheme for repainting of the restored structure has been presented at conceptual aoproval hearings and will be offered at the fhal approval presentation. In general, the color proposals are as follows: Shop fronts, doors and millwork: Dark Green Mill street Loggias, columns, and Failing: white, Parapet and Loggia Cornices: Black. Dentil Band: White. Frieze Band: Dark Gray Green. Recessed Loggia wall: Dark Gray Green. Second floor window frames: B lact 'Second floor v indow Lash: Dark Brown. We understand that the HPC has no perview on color, although we wisti to cooperate by maintaining the historical colors, We further request that we be allowed to remove the following structure: a) The side yard sheds lo allow for engineenng investigation. They are presently a fire hazard. b) The interior framing which supports the roof and the roof framing, c) The interior stairway that is entered from Mill Street. The existing steps and doors will remain at this time. 5) A statement of how the Final Development Plan conforms to representations made during conceptual review. Development Phases (See Staff memorandum dated April 26,1989 page 2). Phase One: Collins Block Restoration; see d<scussion above. Phase Two: Third floor propos;iii shall conform to final conceptual ruling of the committee (still pending). Phase Three: Infill Plaza: (still pending) will conform to final disposition of the committee. Phase Four: Affordable housing development (still pending). The applicant intends to continue working with the Historic Preservation Committee on the undecided phases 2,3, and 4 and to incorporate the rulings and contingencies of the committee into his final development plan proposal This application is for final review of Phase las defined by Roxanne Elfin. ' 19,6, MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Conceptual Development Review, continued; Collins Block, Phases Two and Three, continued Public Hearing Date: May 10, 1969 PROJECT SUMMARY: This meeting constitutes the third formal review in continued public hearings of the Collins Block, and the fifth in total including the pre-application and one worksession. As you recall, staff broke the application into sections, assigning "Phase" numbers to each, in order to move the restoration activities along, and organize the review procedure. The HPC is being asked to approve the conceptual development plans, as presented last, for both Phase Two (the 3rd floor structure) and Phase Three (the infill structure). Phase One has already received conceptual approval. STAFF COMMENTS: Phase Two: While the applicant is making an attempt to reduce the size and visual impact of the proposed 3rd floor structure to the Collins Block, we continue to find it inappropriate. The 3rd floor structure is visible even with the reduced height and the raised parapet. The Planning Office finds that the small reductions are relatively insignificant in dealing with the potential negative impacts to the Collins Block, and simply cannot support any structure that is perceived as boldly as this is. We continue to research all Park Service and technical briefs available to find ways to assist in mitigating the impacts to help the applicant reach a negotiated approval; however, we continue to find the proposal unacceptable. The Planning Office recommends that the HPC deny the 3rd floor proposal at this meeting, finding that it does not meet the Development Review Standards or the Secretary of the Interior Standards. Staff continues to avail ourselves to the applicant for revisions, however, unless an invisible 3rd floor proposal is presented, we feel future negotiations are pointless. The applicant has the right to make a separate application in the future for "roof top alternations". Phase Three: At the last formal meeting and during the May 3 worksession, it became apparent to staff that some HPC members believed their onlv purview over this infill structure was the street edge facade. This perception is incorrect. Clearly, every element of this parcel is your responsibility to review, with the exception of "interiors". Any element that is exposed requires review and approval, which means the interior working of the plaza/mall, the individual storefronts, lighting, landscaping, paving, signage, (flags, eagles!), etc. How does the space function design-wise for the pedestrian both a street level and just inside the arched entry? Are awnings proposed? These questions must be answered before a conceptual approval may be granted. The Planning Office feels strongly that this entire plaza proposal requires a great deal more attention from the HPC in review, and a more detailed submission by the applicant. HPC's and staff's attention to date has mostly focused on the 3rd floor addition. The HPC will be reviewing Phase Three for design compatibility only, whici means that if this plaza design concept is inconsistent with the Development Review Standards and incompatible with the Commercial Core Historic District, a denial is appropriate. Significant changes to the street-edge facade have been recommended by the committee to the applicant, which staff has not yet seen a response to. Therefore, we are recommending the HPC table Phase Three conceptual approval, once again, requiring detailed study of all the plaza/mall elements, or deny conceptual approval of the application finding it does not meet the review standards (please refer to staff's memo of April 26). The Planning Office feels that the philosophy of "every other building in the district has been altered, why not be consistent" errors dramatically, and is counter to the goals of Aspen's preservation program. Staff and the entire Committee have adopted a policy of "negotiation" with applicants in an attempt to create a win-win situation. However, we feel that on significant historic landmarks, of both local and national significance, the protection and retention of the original character of those structures is the first and foremost responsibility of the HPC, as stated in Article 1 under the revised HPC By-Laws. We strongly support the applicant's renovation/restoration plans for the exterior of the structure, and are most anxious to approve an appropriate infill design for the vacant lot. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may wish to consider the following action alternatives: 1. Grant conceptual approval for Phases Two and Three as last proposed 2. Grant conceptual approval with conditions for either or both Phases 3. Table action to June 14 on either or both phases, requiring further study on specific elements, as recommended by staff below. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC deny conceptual development approval for Phase Two (the 3rd floor) finding the proposal does not meet the Development Review Guidelines and Secretary of the Interior Standard #1; and table action until June 14 for Phase Three, the infill structure, finding further study is necessary of both the street edge facade (as recommended at the May 3 worksession) and the plaza; a detailed submission of all the plaza design features is required no later than May 26 for a June 14 review. memo.hpc.204sm.3 J -0 0 \ hu..u lu l U 1/~_ 2. Proposed development: The greater portion of the proposed COLLINS BLOCK. development will involve the historic structure and will entail the complete Description of Proposed Development restoration of the exterior as well as the restructuring and renovation of the interior. 1. The existing building. In the performance of this The Collins Block was constructed renovation and restoration the applicant in 1892, immediately prior to the crash of intends to assiduously preserve the existing the Silver Boom in Aspen. It has served as a street facades in all their elements, rooming house and a commercial building Deteriorating or hazardous housing from time to time a mortuary, a conditions which presently exist will be hardware store, and other retail remedied so far as possibe in a manner establishments. identical with the origina, details. The architecture of the building is In addition to the renovation of transitional in nature, combining classic this structure the applicant proposes to revival details with Victorian shop windows construct a low garden terrace level on the and frontier sandstone rustication. roof for the purpose of allowing light and The classic orders and banding give ventilation into the residential units. the facades a strong horÂ·izontal emphasis This proposed construction is set which is enhanced by the sidewalk loggia well back from the roof parapet edges and which was added in the 1950s. The building will be invisible from the principal street suffers somewhat from a weak vertical view, The terrace level is set back 9 feet termination due to the lack of a strong from Mill Street and 16 feet from Hopkins. parapet cap or cornice such as is typical of The entire structure's dimensions of 42' by similar' buildings in the Aspen core; some of 44' will at the corner of Mill and Hopkins be which are surmounted in addition by a only 39" above the present roof. The decorative pediment or similar device, applicant has substantially reduced the The east side of the block was height of this proposal in response to designed and constructed as if to abut an previous discussion with staff and the adjacent building and hence does not exhibit HistorÂ·ic Preservation Committee mernbers the detailing of the street facades. and is convinced it conforms to the letter and intent of the Aspen Historic guidelines (see discussion appendix 2) The proposed garden level does not ownership. interÂ·sect the "Main Street view plane" and A fourth part of this proposal is therefore unaffected by this provision. concerns rent restricted housing which may be required by codes under this proposal. As presently proposed the restricted housing component might be from 246 to 423 square As a third part of his proposal the feet; or .35 to .60 of 1,690 square feet, the applicant intends to replace existing FAR area surcharge; or some portion thereof commercial storage and mercantile areas in as determined by the planning office. the East yard of the property with retail The applicant proposes to shops surrounding a small open space plaza. construct such required housing capacity on In his prior presentation the the attached "lane parcel". He has engaged applicant had proposed to construct a in substantial discussion with planning commercial dry goods/hardware store on staff on this issue but respectfully requests this parcel. He was subsequently advised by postponement of final disposition of this the Aspen office of planning and zoning that component until after the conceptual he would be required to maintain 25% of the approval of the principal development by the yard as open space, even though the use Historic Preservation Committee. until now has been entirely The applicant feels that the commercial.Responding to this ruling the conceptual design before you today applicant has devised the present design. conforms to the letter and intent of the This infill proposal will erect on Guidelines of the Secretary of the Interior, the street an archtype store front and of the historic guidelines of City of compatible with the nineteenth century Aspen. Collins Block and with the modern building to the South. Its design is in direct response to the recommendations of staff and to the Aspen Historic guidelines. Among issues it addresses are, similarity of materials and methods and colors, scale and reinforcement of the 19th century aligned street front. Bowing to comments from the committee the applicant has subdued his original proposal while maintaining a level of decorÂ· and detail consistent with pride of f.) 1 11 1 ke 1 1 - 6- fy @ 0454Â£494\3 l /1 .0 10 -- / {204/ :. ft h 14./ 0 iN 2 k q, A- C- I Iâ€ž- -;---:2 -i~4.3 / 22-9----41 1 14 ; NA 1 !I , 1 F-,-2_ 11--4 -r,A ,<,4 . I -JI : . 1 -- ----- --1 1 'f f *142 C Â£ l; .Pal yt titgâ€ž-* 1 !1 1, 1 --' M - - f 4 1/3] m i / 3 0 //1 4 1. - - O 0 F<444.P .2 trf=~.==42~I-~~--- p i-1 ~ #, r Vy--i~y r p + / . 42 - 11 1, v L-T - / ffi 13Ph~ ' 64\ \ - ' S t. & 4 :N \ 9 2,<i''f,rÂ·q /t'fE./ul--7>t I , L 1 ) I h. 1 411, L_.1 8 -U r -5-e. *1'11 /74 -Pf.-Cool.,p.44 6 '6,04 2, Sfh 1 5.4.6f -O.1-iblidÂ» *1~19-r~/0 6. attl I'fr,00 j il, 5.1-60, 7-1 4,1 1 1 .1 4 1 0 19 : [I " 1 1.1 j ; ; . 1 1 -351-94~ A.Illt.'ili,i,â€¢J:~;,~,;I.,Il,i~~,I..,1~i..ki.,jll t ' ',1 ,1--- - ty - Â· il i! 1: It 1: i. ., : : 1. 1- !1 11 1 hi: A - -1. 1 --26,7.-4-4 -_ A - 1.1 ._.61- ..uâ‚¬57" - ..777. . - -_ 17~14. Â· -1-224 - -- pr -41 H r.. LEU- 11! 1 1. 1 -- 1 it --11 - Ill_. ' --1 11 1~ '9 -f~AE -il IL lit 11 4 - L J --1 - --:F T .L -/ - .- 2 , =1 1. - 1,7- .- 111 6 ' ' 1 Â· 1' p h:P; -=1 + 1-ll=--1/2. ., *=- 1:---1, -4~r1r,~,'UUA u,-. J 41 - r, - . br*rt,-*.r--w-*996 - - -1 .-. 1 1 1 -1 i 10-f. - 9_131i-,-<~r-13 1-EZZ~I= -b=d--. t =2_22121212 2_2_ tuL- 1 $- . 'F~k====--~%~~~7irt-p~(7~~17"2- - H *24i~:-Irrf<4"91!1~T E-- 314~t ~('~ 't-'0[ ff'lll: Â·i-ira-' i i offgITFI~~--c#w - I--# 1[ <f~fl--E LÂ°1-0.-1----- ...... C C 1 1 1, -iÂ«Z -1---/At 01&.6.|h:=L__ L -------if' 75 I , wf-.-Ar--- r---11 , ' r 1 il:1 1&,7,4~ 1 1 4 1, 11] :11 , 1.----- 1 ~ 1 7 1 - -~ ;1 1 1 ~ -Â«11 03-1- r ~' I k-0 , 1 1: 1,; 4 '1 1! ' .' :Â·1Â· 1,1 . 4 ;t I. 1 1 i I ..t Â· , r --== 11 i~ .- , ' ill-211 1 ~ 72 il i - 1 1 1--- - -11 - .'-77 i H t r .1 Ef-F67--jilÂ·---Jin' E--1 223 Zin! --- ...1---- ~r==rh _ t _ _ 21112.. ...f-4 - pt 226_2 a-1 --- y=Â« ff-2.-T---1--9- --=-~ -- , -- 4 +, k i /82 Â¢ 60 - 0-00-/ 9 - -u L a - 411-1 '. '11'., , , i_L T )p. LA'i i,i.'il i - 4,11 11] f' Â®IiÂ®lili 11 '.1 1 111 11 1 1 ''r .1 11!,11'10!~ 11. A --/M-. r 1\ -' ' 1,1 1-11 1 FF.-==*' Il~I ;-i~'~~t ':~=Â£"-f L.c-N#--,-;+, 2-17 - ~ t; I' ;! -4 : 1 :1 4 --1.414 #41 2 1-1 7-r"...Â«, : 41.-7 1 1 1 -1 1 .Mul,lili 11 1 11 n 111 1 1~1!i:111 1.1.111:1 11 - 'Ill 1 1. ~ 11~E] El 5 1 i- HA k-t~-011(9 E-[-1-- ! I ! 1 [-!-1-9-7 '3 I# 1 c~.,~~~-: ' A-=1~ --. r-- - It 'i ' 4 G 4-,-24 . -i .I~ it ~ ~0 ~1~t--,li~ 1 -1-- 9 1 v :22]J--3-Ii -1 - 1 -15:----EaaL-BM*TETI-, p -E- 'T-til~~.-f Â©-611: 1 - --Â·~ 0-r'F~T-:Tur77 ; i t.1~ -FC-tgj'.-#.m -3-1-' -1.1 t i - P~JL~ +4 litlljt n,1-231-]f-11* i --1 7 -- 411--1 11 11~ -32 Ld.[ _-1.1 - 4 1 ill- 1 1 t~*5:' :3~Â® 111111" Fâ€¢'-"~Â£;-99~ r Â·rl I -_1 r=======Ill Ir= 1111 . 1 F-44// % 4, - ... -i_--------In Â»r- I '!I!, ,Â· : f #11 '411'1-1~110 . ..I -U. 1 111_ 3111 - 1 - + 111 1 -111 1. I 11 ' i 11.i .1 r F.37 -7 1 Â©11 i.-1 ~ ,1 i 4. 1 ~1!1$ 4 77 Ici-f:*sTH_11111*# li~ HI .* 1111 2 21 --1 .4-4 1 1.1 qP (-1 . 11 11 1111 1 1 '1 , 11 1% 11 1, 111 111 initinT, 1-,Tri-il-[II-flitIITi-'13â€¢ */di' ' ' 167' " '-9' --kn=Â¤=CE]= d~!~1 --A Â£ r.â‚¬Â«11] 11 - lf'kli' 114U1!.U.LE~IT~j~u ft~~ 46 12, :7;,Â·r,-,-,T,t,iâ€ž~,4~,~7,# ,Â·41461~ .20 1 0 Lil ti\ 0 - 1.i >bv 4 Â»4 1 .1 - 0 k 4 6 0 4- C 6 41 V A â‚¬ 6 1 Q -- - 4 t : - 1 - f , . 1 -2 ~-LI-17-Tf--LF--17~~-Tr-1 rl~t-.I--Lr-U-U----17-Ir~-ir-mr---Lr--r--U :.1 ~ a--U--LCÂ« . i, -111 17 4Â«â‚¬10 1 - - - -I - L --- 1- b[ - - I F-= --L----2_= 6 iaL-.. + - . J,ZE&=- ~: Â· -- 4 .1 - 2.+4'L*44+~ 1_*M-' .... '''U -P,,4 14_ _~44.-4â‚¬%41 -. -fitÂ»41*-WHi~ '.. h'. . 1 I. 1 . 1 . r & i k #-" . -=e--te- Illf. =--- - - - - 1*mypg 1 - . en-- 1 = I .17-,LL. 11 /ircirrgnmE-'_ ~ . 1-,U.1...ikeâ€¢~4 + Ill 11.1:1. Â¢-17--+41~~L ----FÂ»-- ~- --36 zt=02--11 ---- 2-_- - -- -. .-r-BE-F- PI[12:_,-i .-Â©~~-1 L: . T - - -- . .- -1 -4-,-1- 11 3=:3 i -_ KE,7 4-1-Â· - 1 -1 7 2.- i'Â·r i zz ---._- ---td ?11 1:1 F#---2.T-| ~~ ~ 1 ill == 44_-_. I ~4 1 Â· Â· U L L_J Ll 1 1--1-Â·-1 1 AFEL - tfl--- L-.----- 1--1 --* --r- *. 1.- 1 - 1 . --E i NETE. -.- 1~- - Â·~---Â£~1 |~ C J ori 0 - L- U. 1 7-4 5 -- 13 L O C> ?<- 2, 24. --r- A =. L. EL V A -r- 1 0 r-1 A , r A ~3 Â· 7~ 0 -~ 3 9- 746 7-ir- ,Â£~\ 7 9 110' 1 o 1-1 - -CLIE?-â‚¬-- .......- I. -Â·--.- â€¢.I- -W *. .-' -.'m~~~ fIT~-- ---r - -: - . 4-- Â·! 1- 7 1 Â· -. 11. 7-7- -,7 1.TFU-1 1-1'.11 '111''EÂ·tr--- '7â€¢-Â· Â·Â·-Â·-r:-,~-u=--r-.runr :-14 r.'-r.-11-t"-1 ..t-:rl-1-1 ..t-~Te-1 _..Â·... -to - r -7 ~-- ':--- -2 r 7 1- g I Fh -4 -1- re* 41 i 1-Â· .-A' 91 - - --- i-- 5--f=-1-2-1[~~[~1 -- prij _-11 =- -9/1,-71 0%'i Z 24,â€ž~4 - 4 -4 -1 -16.--------- - J -=-4-62=Uir-2--222-~-FI -4 *Â«G-~-F=---1-=--7-Â· - -4 9' ..} ..t----111----JIP] L Â¤22 lift I 'cy t:. 'h 1 i.14 1 4 U=: Ed 1 ii 'li Lt: 1 iÂ·jti ir. 6. i litl 'lli:Lti :11 ' L tz, r -1. 111Â·:i- 9 --Lij Lly I j 2*-30--0- i 1 11 E--- 1 1 'T n 7 AM 7 5 d o 9 * f 0 ,3-r 3 -a -al 5 0 V 7 1 ,-1 6 D L..â€¢> ,- 2 - 1 -- 2/ 26 4 I /3. , V- o . 3 7-#---- - -- -- 4, ....... - - MAL / J - A Figh. I' rH 4 L. Ih - \. 1 Â«1Â»-I~ 41 - 4 dEd i 1 -- - /1 6 F=_2.-1-lLL-- - -4-_int_-liFi-tfiE14 21*c . .-1 - - - met. T-1 -Â¥.f * rtri -=2 ' -'Eff-7F- 42-_7: -1*rÂ·Â¥rr-â€ž=ec==9 : r li ~- L ' 1 1 2 4..f --f-==P*iw- ----2-,2 -1- '- : 1 jil /1 3 ~ Â»--1Â¥Â·tr-4--5--h_r/*WE/FLIA .LU_ 3 i I 1 M , 4 - 1 Rir 1.6, -1- A -_ 1 L --- - 1 U 47/ Â· - 1 ' LI b. i,o[} Pt ':M IEI NE; I 4.gl, El,Ji 77*---- 21 EÂ»-4--[f Â·Â·ti,-11 1~ Fij~ V } .1 ---M uÂ«__iri>Lir , L IMAIi&*It_F-1?W 1 - ~- - - 9 0121 ' 1 , / . - I . - 7 s. t.~ 5 9 2 0 -r- 1 4 â‚¬0- -7* 7-1. - -5 1-- 4 2 a -r- .. --6- -- / I f' -,.27 - /, f- 2 r . '9-,1~14 9 j ; 1 0 4Â»,1.---- 't. . - ./ Jt 1 ! 2 /, I /424*96-- . t , , ..1 4 11 - L -1 Ht- V=1 -2-~a ~ *A*~1131f*21_y----= 74F1 41 1...M . u t'-- - E 1.-. 1,14 200Â¥. \ 0 - -1 #' I 15 - Ee=-- 3 1. ._ __I<*-. . h tz-'1 :,/ 4/~#Ckb 9Â£,kke- -iff,6.1,1$,9..:'/,bificpr- -. ' --r- t Â· # ; p ~-1 p ---- 71 84.-22~ \\W fru nEFFÂ¥---- ~ . CLâ‚¬:P- J Â» - -2- - li.-112*31411 Fzt52-4 L 11,4Â«24 ~ rrA; He 11 Â¢ *19 E- F-<-4-rl \ a . i 0130< 1 :TE titiÂ»---Â«1~ZI-Â·Â·---=ags ' - 441>-~Eh. 01 Uff --14 1 2-_w- i _21 -9- n. 1 - d < 0 52' 0-7 C~ 0- 1-4.5 \ \ --7- -Â»1- I--' '1 . 14* fl - -- N . 1 0 ./4 4.-i , ,~% / 9 - - -. -21Â» - 1 --0.- 1 -,1.- -â„¢Ar-iâ€¢â€¢E GE!liiiiiliZEZZL. -1111,4 '9.-7. , ' & 1.. ...U ./'-I n . . #~LS.vii: 14\ / /. 21;~.1 ry 1 f . r k, L 140/1- 1/ 6.4.44.. . 140,1 - 1 \4-V// 1 )L j i LI. s. i i , k I -=in=.-- 1 ~ 11 9 H : ' , ' I ! 'f LJ.1 1 1.1111. luz _-01 --- - 11 ' 1.1 J i fs 11 lill--U -- 1 =Ir.-- -.I~-~ 20 1 f---~ - il 11 1 T ' ~ 1*1 4 1 /1 / t=.- f â‚¬ IIi -- .- 1 6 | 7-- .. 1 1 111 -.- 5-004 ' L - D , ; 1 . l . . 1 1 ... L. _1 r ... -CA/2.-+It 1 1 1 - 7 r 1 6- 1 re. . r.7 d , L-. - - ---*~ -I--)--gl- -I-----i--, DO'- o . 111-6- D - c c c f (30&, 1- 5 32 - 00 Q / 3 -r- 46 E- Â·r L E-Â· v E- 2 0,3''l l'/0/ 1 EL\ZABE-TH P REF. CAS MAy - a V 32 6 Ck.lm.. ad hin,6, NATnk L.tral,& 41,â€žGuim 1 - - Â¢ /4 C.4 1 43* Ma, j crn.. )11[ A F'â€¢L, i K:&.0 â€¢râ€¢ â€¢Â· p,t,ir.21 Al,4 4, 7. cr* 941,4 .Ad pn, Imp,J,n, 4 74 old 1.,2,@ Min,M . 3.5 4, IL c,k 4 16 tri.~trd 4 Np,1/9 iBulÂ·. 1. pj a -'Add f.d GIC ' W. ke-L nt 1 74 And, hed.to~c 1 LA N. 6*la 44.126 A pol ..L . I. kt 1 *''C - 1 1 '1 . 4 --_ P ./L (,1 #wit, noagoi: , 1 Allok . Hont,4 tic.1,1,4n d.9 ixt.110\ no,lulth, 2~&- c,"d 5 6,4 . 69 ki/1,4 60 6.4 nin,pÂ·.Nd A.s mad. Arp 4 ~ 0.,6- 4//G n.-M m -)ka, _ #uns.. . _-_1, i. (62 do-1 , -,sâ€¢4 a. ,~Â·4rnJ_ do(;4<*a,,f.Al 3.9, __ -_- _-3 of,d_ u.tuf M _-/1. niwi.,ttl~'j ika h,ndwant ila. d _--___ -_-46_100. -/,Ag J w /Un,ed,7 ad d,vul;IA,ki- C , - - 1-lit,L & 144% . OM EXArn,nim A. 8,/Au,ns .a n -11, old LA dol,A~ i 76Â£ 4421 16 dolt a W- 1.1 7;U Ip,il d. 11,4 it em . % 14 9 ewd Â£/'lah/lf f*L CITY OF ASPEN , -~TA& e MO FROM ROXANNE EFLIN torie Prf vÂ·rvation Specialist 632Â§3 PleasE rate 0 -t-Mi ~htâ‚¬.11 Dll 1 yvâ‚¬\'to 6 0 042 13 24 1%3 A-co 0<0,1-jecd.i-04 for loow 6. bumde 3-44. MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Ratings: 1004 E. Durant Ave. and 17 Queen St., Public Hearing Date: ( April 11, 1989-~ SUMMARY: At this meeting, a public hearing, the HPC is requested to assign a numerical rating to two historic structures: 1004 E. Durant Ave. and 17 Queen St. These were add:cd to the of: icial Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures by you on March 14, 1989. PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION: On March 14, 1989, the HPC reviewed these two structures and added them onto the Inventory. T.iese two historic structures were inadvertently missed in thÂ·= original Inventory survey and in the 1986 update. Their official numerical rating is to be assigned at this meeting. Section 7-709 addresses the "Establishment of Inventory Of Historic Structures" as follows: A. . . . "The inventory of historic structures shall include all structures in the City of Aspen originally constructed prior to 1910 which continue to have historic value and such other structures identified by the HPC as being outstanding examples of more modern architecture". C. . . . "all structures shall be evaluated by the HPC as to their current architectural integrity, historic significance and community and neighborhood influence. Structures shall be assigned with a rated value of between 0 and 5, based on guidelines established by the HPC and ratified by ordinance of City Council"... C DISCUSSION:-~-1 621004 E. Durant: As staff's memo of March 14 disc' issed, this f \ small cross-gabled (c.1890) miner's cottage has retained much of its original detailing, form and overall integrity. Importantly, it is the last remaining historic structure on Durant Avenue. The 1893 Birdseye View map of Aspen illustrates Durant Ave. as one literally filled, in every block, with small one and two story cottates. It is amazing to believe that this is the last remaining historic structure on th: 9 histeric Avenue. While tho neighborhood historic contex= is es-entially gone, and the structure has received a sicnificani (though somewhat separate) addition . to the rear, staff finds that a "4" rating is appropriate for this structure. The owner has expressed an interest in landmark designation, and would be eligible for $2,000 designation grant from the City. A "4" rating would mean ~ that any demolition proposal requires' s HPC review and approval. 17 Queen St.: (c.1890) This structure, actually fronting on Neal St., is evidence of serious deferred maintenance, however, has retained much of its original form and (it would appear) materials. It reportedly has its original "two-seater" out back! Its somewhat shabby appearance may be a deterrent from rating this structures as high as staff's recommended "3", however, we find that its original quality may be "discovered" with proper renovation. An even higher rating may be warranted once renovation was accomplished (a possible future review along with the remainder of the inventory). It has received additions to the rear, which we find do not significantly detract from its original "T" gable form. The front porch appears original and is in need of structural stabilization. Staff recommends a "3" rating on 17 Queen St. A "3" rating on a non-designated historic structure does not require HPC's review and approval for demolition, based on the current Aspen Land Use Code. GENERAL STAFF COMMENTS: Both of these structures are best described as "vernacular miner's cottages" and no known association with a historical person has been found. The Planning Office's copy of the 1904 Sanborn Map does not include either one of these two sites, however, the 1893 Birdseye View Map has been researched for original location accuracy. It appears, although it is difficult to determine exactly, that both structures are situated on their original locations. Staff's recommended ratings have also been determined through comparison of other "2" ' s through "5" ' s. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider rating each structure higher or lower, utilizing the standards as outlined above, found in Section 7-709 of the Aspen Land Use Code. ~RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC adopt staff's recommended rating of "4" for 1004 E. Durant Ave. and "3" for 17 Queen St. memo.hpc.ratings 2 1\. MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Landmark Designation: 1004 E. Durant St. (with pre-application of conceptual proposal) Dane: May 10, 1989 LOCATION: 1004 E. Durant St., Unit #1, APPLICANT: Sandra Lore, represented by Welton Anderson APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Landmark Designation for the c.1888 cottage at 1004 E. Durant St. (Unit #1). A Landmark Designation grant of $2,000 is also being requested by the applicant, which will be granted by Council at second and Final reading of the Designotion Ordinance. HISTORIC EVALUATION RATING: to be determined at this meeting; staff recommends "4" SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting landmark designation in order to receive HPC variation approval for the sideyard setback non-conformity due to the proposed renovation/lower level addition. As the structure is (historically) wedged into a very small lot, it does not conform to current code, dimensionally, in sideyard setback. In order for the applicant to expand the structure without 1) increasing a non-conformity and 2) damaging the integrity of the cottage, most particularly the roof form, the architect and applicant have chosen to expand the lower level area, and actually "raise" the structure some 30" above its current level. The HPC variation is necessary for the project to receive a building permit. Note: A drive-by is extremely necessary on this project. The structure is nearly hidden on this dead-end cul-de-sac and sits below street grade somewhat. We find that the proposal is a good all-around alternative. The applicant has requested a pre-application with the HPC at this meeting. PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW: Landmark designation is a three-step process, requiring recommendations from both HPC and P&Z (public hearing at P&Z level), then first and second reading (public hearing at Final reading) of the designation ordinance by Council. The designation grant is expected to be approved by Council at Final reading as well. An applicatior for conceptual development review has been submitted to the Planning Of fice, which will be reviewed at a Public Hearing by the HPC at the May 24 meeting, with variations requested for sideyard sezoacks. mbÂ·n.rd_./ -. Asoen Premier Frooerties To whom it may concern: I, Sandra Lohr, do hereby request the historic designation granted from the city of Aspen for my 101 year old Victorian house at 1004 E. Durant. Sincerely, 6Â»2'.).97# Sandra Lohr 418 East Gooper Suite 20-3 Aspen. Cobrado 81611 . 1 1 7/0,3 g ,/10 1 Â·'. 2 UJ-lu-C'-;U-U HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION STANDARDS: The Standards for Landmark Designation are found in Section 7-702(A) of the Land Use Code. Any structure or site that meets one (1) or more of the standards may be designated as a Historic Landmark. Staff find that the application meets the criteria in both Standards E. (Neighborhood Character) and F. (Community Cnaracter). Standard E. Neighborhood Character. The structure or site is a significant component of an historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character. Response: The Durant Street historic context is lost. The lone survivor of a once extremely puilt-out street, 1004 E. Durant would nov be considered a significant component of an historically significant neighborhood. Dozens of one and two-story cottages lined Durant 100 years ago; it is amazing to find this cottage, now with its condominiumized addition and in such good condition, Still surviving. Its preservation is extremely necessary due to this fact alone. Certainly the historic character of the neighborhood is gone; however, in the larger context of the East Aspen Townsite, 1004 E. Durant is an excellent example of Aspen's family lifestyle heritage. Standard F. Community Character. The structure or site is critical to the preservation of the character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size, location and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or architectural importance. Response: The classic components of an Aspen miner';s cottage are the mainstay of this structure. The front porch, the cross gable roof form and pitch, fenestration, materials and chimney are all elements critical to preserve. The Planning Office is extremely pleased that the applicant has chosen to landmark designate her historic resource, and work with the HPC. PRE-APPLICATION INFORMATION: Elevation sketches are attached for HPC review at this pre-application. The architect will present alternatives, and wishes to enter into a dialogue with the HPC to examine the proposal's feasioility. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC recommend for approval Landmark Designation for 1004 E. Durant St. memo.hpc.1004ed 2 C Welton Anderson & Associates Architects TO: Historic Preservation Committee RE: Sandra Lohr Residence addition, 1004 E Durant, Aspen DATE: 27 April 1989 This constitutes an application for Historic Designation for the Lohr Residence at 1004 E Durant and is also an application for Conceptual Development Review including a request for variations in side yard setbacks by HPC pursuant to Section 9-103 C.2. The primary historical significance of this house is that it is the last of the original miners cottages left on Durant Ave. Its neiahborhood is now a mix of single family and multifamily construction that generally overshadows this little house. It is in good original restorable condition. The applicant wishes to expand the 638 square feet she now occupies but is limited to going up by an attached structure to the rear, existing side yard encroachments on both sides and an existing minimum front yard. The options are as follows: The existing miners cottage can be demolished (or moved) and a new two story structure conforming to setbacks built in its Dlace. An option Dreferable to the applicants which she and I discussed several years ago, is to maintain the cottage on site and build a new second floor that can conform to setbacks. This solution can be seen all over Aspen. A third ootion was suggested this spring--raise the existing house up to become a new second floor and build a new first floor below it. Scheme A attached shows how this could work. Attached Scheme B shows a variation on this method of "exoandina up" which is what I have convinced the applicant is realistic to apply to HPC for approval. In the context of a tight site bounded by tall buildings on both sides and which slopes down from a street heavily congested with Darking, raising the house up approximately 4 feet on a higher foundation wall will maintain its one story character while providing the needed living space below and better light and views on the first floor. Planning / Architecture / Interior Design Box 9946 / Aspen ,Colorado 81612/(303) 925- 4576 Page two Lohr Residence 27 April 1989 This approach will require Historic Designation bv HPC, P&Z, and City Council and design review approval by HPC which will need to include a variation in side yard setbacks that will allow the existing side yard encroachments to remain for the new basement. It is clear that none of the other options mentioned retain the simple one story miners cottage while allowing a modest exoansion as effectivelv as Scheme B and your consideration of this Drooosal is aDDreciated. -. 401 1111% I (21.,.,wapop . -t~164.1*A3131 3-â‚¬K,21 ----- --<---- 41 .1 1 0- - - 1 ./? . .2.1 1-IND . NH 7,43 -0 1 - --- 47 11 l.kilÂ©f > - , ~ L<2 11 ===7 -- -1-- . , 1 , t. L /1 N--\1 1 1 1 1 4/// \\ I *-7 *-E..... lf= - 1 2 //1/ 1 1lk-_-_}~-Ot 2111â‚¬11 . i flÂ·luELLIL--1 EXIâ‚¬-TT 146 60011-1 CLEVATIoh.1 i_Â· ~I~ 1 f -- p.. 4 , N I , Ifill/\ '// 1% . 1 ... i / p .---'nn:LEadi_ __2te-gx-Ent=r I -1-u- --- --------- - 1.--. Ti ====2= 1-31111,1-41- 1-Â«Fr.....1Â» -r , I i r-7-1 K.1 ' I. 1 Â¢000-Fl-1 5.LEVA-no Al 4- r.-lit- 1 1 E A *AL F // 1.1- 90 1-_-1 ,Â¢T>5 1 + : 1 - 71.- 111--11 3. 1 1 1 1.2 ---- --Â· 1 -,-7--ILL-1.--- ~T----T 1 1 1 1 1 f. -------- -- -. ~ i 7 / 1- r- j '; ~fll,16)-4 F-%,7,AC, 4.,JÂ«Fl~ 1 .j 417'244 f ' FE.Ul,Ut,0-i,o,J Doll-TiLI ELE-VATIO Id Â«N I EM 9 03 !6 I . 1.l 26,4 2- i , 1 ; 111 / 97:12- / rj'\1 1 : 1 / 1 I 1 - 1 1 10 1721 1,7 7 0 - i u_) 3 - 1 _1 1 rh /-1 I r--Mr---7- U Ulul 1 1/ - i F 214.4 PÂ» 1[1 ~ Â¢1 1 1 , \ 1 f ~ .' M'11 6-70 9,96*W,-1 1 i' "62.Ef GOA'E- -1 l ,Â»1'CÂ·â€¢roW ' g t. - -/IN ~ ...3 HAUU 1 1---- --- 1 1 ! 1 1.--, , -r Â¥ 1 1-4 .-4 1 . 1 L 221.-18%1 2177 53'224 14Â·L u> r- r-=.1 1 - _-_ . -L- U L L n i 6 - ' -f~ .il - 0 ----1- P 1- - 1 I lilli = 1 1 - c -2 1 1 U =L - <- ~* L. 1 JL] 2 T --1 - -2-4 . \ 4% 1 1 I i LL-4 *. 1 i 11 11 f O it l. I .- - ------ /-1 J 9 + <*$ r-1-_1 1 V i 1 < 1 | L F 1-1 1 ~r- 11 ------- - 11 11 11 1 1 P - U - L A : socle kp'Â·=.1Lo, : delta 4 25- 8 q C 1/1/tzlton Anderson & Associates 'Sah..1 ID 12.4 Lotle FealoedgE ) duwn by CAVA i cheapd Actaâ‚¬cts / Phirrgit Ic= 9946 / Al.r,â€¢n.Coe~,m 8160/(303) 925 4576 1004 6 PJEANT ASPEd L. . 017-04,1 .0 11 -Vel - 91 - 311-4314,9 - - [40[.17913 193/4 ' - Â·=EÂ·271 ------r- 9 1 t. ..r. 1 1 13 8\ 2 k TON -==272 1 -- .. .. 4 -1 , 1 1. 1 -.1 -Â¤~T.1 11- -! - 1 -!-1 .f -I~L L Fl O \6\1 1 5 I [14 49-53 41 1 LLE' 0 15 1 21 - /-*---- \*,4... h -- 1- 1.11 - 1 , 9 -11$4 Ilt' 1 i LE:).4.1-1.11 A'Â»:7 RE 01923 - MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Landmark Designation: 514 N. 3rd St. Date: May 10, 1989 LOCATION: 514 N. 3rd St., (legal description: metes and bounds) APPLICANT: Donald and Karen Kinbgsby APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Landmark Designation for the c. 1884 cottage at 514 N. 3rd St. A Landmark Designation grant of $2,000 is also being requested by the applicant, which will be granted by Council at second and Final reading of the Designation Ordinance. HISTORIC EVALUATION RATING: "4" SUMMARY: This property will become Aspen's 94th designated historic landmark. PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW: Landmark designation is a three-step process, requiring recommendations from both HPC and P&Z (public hearing at P&Z level), then first and second reading (public hearing at Final reading) of the designation ordinance by Council. The designation grant is expected to be approved by Council at Final reading as well. An application for HPC minor development review is expected to be submitted to the Planning Office within the next few weeks, which involves the rehabilitation of attic space into two bedrooms, requiring UBC flexibility by the Building Department for historic landmarks. HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION STANDARDS: The Standards for Landmark Designation are found in Section 7-702(A) of the Land Use Code. Any structure or site that meets one ( 1) or more of the standards may be designated as a Historic Landmark. Staff finds that the application meets the criteria in both Standards E. (Neighborhood Character) and F. (Community Character). Standard E. Neighborhood Character: The structure or site is a significant component of an historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is important for the maintenance Of that neighborhood character. Response: Clearly, the "Hallam Lake District" has long been . considered as one of Aspen's most significant historic neighborhoods. This structure is located within the context of this neighborhood. Its preservation is a critical element in the continued integrity of the historic West End character. Standard F. Community Character: The structure or site is critical to the preservation of the character of the Aspen community becaune of its relationship in terms of size, location and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or architectural importance. Response: The Inventory file in the Planning Office states: "The sign: ficance of this residential structure is not of those who owned it or lived in it, nor of its architecture, although this structure is representative of Aspen's early mining era. This modest structure is of historical importance by illustrating the family/home environment and life styles of the average citizen in Aspen which was dominated by the silver mining industry." Photos indicate that from 1980 to today, the structure has been altered by an enclosed front porch and additional wing added. The original integrity of the simple 12/12 pitch cross gabled roof, projecting front gable bay, chimneys, clapboard and gable peak shingles exists. This structure embodies the small scale miner's cottage style that is indicative in Aspen and speaks to our heritage. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC recommend for approval Landmark Designation for 514 N. 3rd St. memo.hpc.514n3 2 fit 7 .d..~44/tl . 24 Vnvo 1.1 ; -< r,-1--lro ,-Â·.n fa-1-#V- '' innp-n 6 f 0 ,- } o r-yrf-Old '~Â»-0 r-11 O'ZOV-v r,-1-0 770'Â°7~9 -pw>0 0,04.-,0-frfyll 0-0Â«Â«rU 0-~1 1 1 lymyro--rn orn_gA ny-Â·0-0-rv<'40 =- mÂ· . 37 r-vrâ€žÂ»ryr/1 9 I ~Â·Uj"V~7' 0 I . -t FO- 10 47-7 -7-1,0 -f %6 / ~~9 -0-rrhr. ro (vr -r? 77 -/ri . r.) -â€¢-wr*~P d J 1 Â· E>fri) *r-y-vnry o: r. ./11 7Â»zy-0 97 0 râ„¢-0 -tÂ»n.6/4/).7 -9 777.7*77 --yv--71_20~ eryl--2 %4-yn i Â· l ESY-rt rr 01 1 /-9.>.Fr 7277-0 4 9 4/ 'â‚¬ 1 -'--Â°1 u. ,>Â¢9-.-=Fga k Bki AXÂ· 'INTION=a ATZACHMENT 1 - LAND USE APPLICATION FCM 1) Project Name 2, prolect locatign 5\4 k), 3rd (indicate street address, lot & block rn.]mber, legal description where appropriate) - <2 1 C Q.:C 47 r c fry),1 c cr~r 6 Ei' (.43 - 6 ,-, 3) Present Zoning 0 07(01 3 ~ 4) Iat Siz~ eg,/1 .y M-c<re) c:ci i le> Oc'/ / 0 5) Applicant' s Name, Address: & Phone # Eiffe Ct Cal 916 9 A 20 -I & 13 ~~039-ll/Â« - l.,) el 5 officc - 3 20 -639 62,-~) 6) Representative' s Name, Miress & Phone # ~~KO- 7 02"4-3 5 6 9 - 9 20 - 1 6 2 3 7) Type of Application (please check all that apply): Conditional Use Conceptual SPA Cbnceptual Historic Dev. Special Review Final SPA Final I{istoric Dev. 8040 Greenline - Conceptual FWD i ~ Miror Historic Dew. Stream Margin Firal POD Historic Demoliticn Mourrtain View Plane Subdivision Cti37oric DesignaticED Condcniniumization Text/Map Amendment - (NDS Allatannt Lot Split/Lot line _- (NOS E=ption Adj ustment 8) Description of Existing Uses (number and type of existing- structures; approximate sq. ft.; number of bedroams; any previous approvals granted to the property). ' t r â€¢Â· C)(01- lif:â‚¬34 kcTU-4-0 LCUL 2 b.cK.-/Le' c-yns ~ LkÂ·--i-,vu-j Kcnel'yl 1 0-(.Al.L/n c.j V C Cr>,Â» 1/ * l< + ck.ove , " h-u p.G_ 7 6 07Â«3 5 ID 0_FLi 0 enl 3 0 9) Description of Development Application l,06-,41.,9- -Pc~ Â·t,CL(11â‚¬ ft_ 1,2000 -Uy a.3._12fto/~l ~f tpeOL-C (-7775 11â‚¬_ fte,l 26 6 m At'.01(Ad- *0 FOSÂ·Â·A~ (ft,Â·Cl af~fÂ·Â«Â»u 9-4 Â« Â»r 1 0 A) /10) Iiave you attached the following? Response to Attachment 2, Minimum Submissian Contents Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Contents Response to Attacnment 4, Review Standards for Your Application brut 804486-ic) 5 0 -4 0Â« 00 Rju,_<4 jitÂ»-: ga,0,0.0 i. f"cot/~-i . 9, 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Minor Development: 134 W. Hopkins, fence Date: May 10, 1989 LOCATION: 134 W. Hopkins St., Lot K, Block 59, City and Townsite of Aspen APPLICANT: Julie Wyckoff ZONING: R-6, Designated Landmark APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Minor Development approval for the installation of a 6' cedar privacy fence around the rear portion of the Lot K to cut down noise and dust, screen the rear yard/living space, and screen and protect the three parking spaces accessed off the alley via two fence gates. PROJECT SUMMARY: The Guidelines for Fences are found on page 49, Section VI(D) - Residential Buildings - Renovation and Restoration, stated as follows: "Fences were not traditionally used for privacy at the front of the house. Low, open fences of metal or wood pickets were common, as were low masonry walls or hedges. High, privacy fences were used at the rear of the lots. "Fences in front of a residence should be open in character... Avoid using solid wood fences that have no spacing between vertical boards. High privacy fences are more appropriate to enclose the lot at the rear of the residence..." Staff finds the application meets the Guidelines. Similar privacy fences are found in the immediate neighborhood. The applicant states that honeysuckle bushes and juniper planted between the street edge and the fence will screen a great deal of it. A small portion of the fence is also planned to separate the two structures on the parcel. The Guidelines do not address the finish material (paint, stain) of wood fencing materials, however, which the HPC may wish to consider in this proposal. The Planning Office recommends that both owners on this parcel coordinate fence plans, if possible, for some design consistency. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that HPC grant minor development approval for the fence proposal at 134 W. Hopkins St. memo.hpc.134wh.md nA 'r\; , -931 - U JL nÂ·tkiNG_ _ (Mackmed__3 4 9. E, -4 \Ke-0-ppitart\-plar-2 -_Cs__30.-_bodd-a __pribaL~ -- -?cALc- _ donq_-R'#c___se*____s\4 e.__E_lt\_-kjact \1(k__th CL , __ ark_ aok--tt-_threc_p~rkinq_space,_-on_44 067%416 ,_ 14__pcoposci_UL_ki *_Ancc__EM _hc_-coarÂ·adcA ef \" i -6%_c-tio..ut'li cb200 1 4-60(4 EGAcd 30*5 ._-iMAL 10(5__02(_ 41â‚¬\qhc-4_45__\60Â¥__ eÂ¥c-dld_llc_Ac_fenr_â‚¬.. Th.t_J\,0.-bc~Al__*31_l)301.49 --2,&19-(be-ACLOAâ‚¬-'Â· <3 L 0\04)_ALE--_far-&_1 5_1311\61(-to____\N~CklvCO,t=ct ark-3~Ke*c _4_ho_*AU (d-L) Â· 2 ,_-34.-LOU 2122_doloh_Â»:c-- auk -U\CiSt. 1. It \thl,0.1-__1~C-Ouil c-____ O.- _-p\CLLh--te_--blec. 24'(24_d_C-_\-3[Â£Lor\MOU) 641__Sk_Ct_ed__knaÂ«_,_a,4 hang \141(+_02 Ao AFL-~- 1~\_t_Â»C-62660~1 -Jor vamt.%_36__Il~.de_01-__ 04(_ 41Â£. pr LAUn *6 c e J Orr. '. \. Bernl)Â·be- cf 4â‚¬- Aer pr,NUM ACCEOU 4<- al\CH --0.h&___ pe:A-protc-Na,-4-63_Â»Ar.rl ReaN__34_Appli Ca-rA %_lot__\i \Ar-w_Â·Sh c._ibech --46--la--p oull_bc_Â»eA 4 Bu El\(4115___*6__91=__1 C.Qlbor_\ _Acc- bul\&<001Â· 2._3-0--dere-___A\Ac-_ioult__ti~-ot__4214<Unct 0 *c-c-_UCUICL \01___all\CL~OLLS,-bo'Â£{00 -iN-_O,-.-~\~ _ OhECL-,-Cl.~~.-__inl tk D+Aing-a\'\C_z:cd= 4--holky_ -4 _\CA- , _rk=_ Eed -c?____4is _proposed-_.minor _.leudc,prnert_____ on_4Â£_O:Â·ilthcl-_ hi'A criC__ Atudal â‚¬-__and_6\20,6 c/\ h ,\ cw__rmt--ret9vorhoock_ 2>\~oukk_bt _ mini mal. ben 11 "CL- - It _64 enld--bt-_bten-4-DA)_-_4%t-_bbed-_, ani_ ____ 5-_ _ 4Â£~slk~-IL_- ts\jeb_ _ us& __hi de _-_mt Â·4 -_ 4 ii- -6Ate....%33_\At>Mc-b- . 022rb-bb___F'\FL'A__-t.__Â»62 L _4'\C_- - ~53-In t.-. 3>r- .l'D CUL.~ ~3Jp,te.b l\1 9~â‚¬lf-. _&[C.)L uOJ\& 1,- . -. 1 \ 41 Â¥ r. 0-. b r 4 CAVE-l- ALLEY BLOCK 59 dz-1.01' v../ted-) -r g.-497 4 -7- =46 1.1 Â· 11 L-1-El 0,1-7AAÂ« E- -ry/67:14 4/ LUL efro CAÂ«:3- Me.Â·rE Â£ 6.-/ 1.' A .0 A. . .\WAL Â·Â·" i d'-Ry-04 :194 0 6,0 0Â£71 \ 2.....11 0 -Â£0* 49$453 \ / 1 b f 04Â£-Â¢-116â€¢10.. 0 Â· \ uu IÂ« l_ *349 - L -26-C.a-.4 /15.. / UNCT L ~ ~ r U.JPEÂ·-2.. COJ,rrcil=rl CXJ . 1 , 04241-, 9429 ~ Â· %' ~ F 41 A-r -rit E- Mr ' ./.6- OF=- 9 .1 I -nA th v. -. 6 -1 U 1 : .--- , 1- t.,; /0,4 5,000 59 , 2557 6.~t , . t. 4 (24-1 0- 1 - .0 1 .-. r.64-b-CL.-C. 1 14 1 PAÂ«'1 2' 2 12 91 <--- i 1 9, \ 14. lA - - --1 1 0.1- 1 10 1\ 1 1 ./. 1.91 1 S Â· v/'202>02 2 ' .A/ELLI i L.C.E.1 1Â£0 1 45 +1-C'CY L NIT Ks \,doc:>cp pe.Aâ€¢Â·t- -4 1 4 6 1 ,ecÂ»O FaME- 1 i 1 - 4 1 Â©48,2-~,1 e-Or 1 f .100*L- W 1 k 1 < 11 1 1 4.932 1 2*2,6-,1 2-2-r 1 9 1.7.0 | h 1 1 1- 1 1 ~ U,6-4 j~ Mi, 2 ~570'vt.../< 1 3 Â·L ~ - i UNIT - UNIT K L .r 1 2.414 5.p-_ 4 2.4 -1 4 + P Â·S- 1 , 1 N 441 . 1 1 U FS'CP.-4 -0 1 -1 Â¢ -41 - L _42 - 3 Â· 1 1 4 1 i . A 1 - t' i~ --- -r 1 1 1.' 44' 1 0 ic N ... t ' | i ./ '' U IS Z * F~,2/0,-r- Drrl' 'Â«2,1) M,01- 21 Q.CE (110- DO) I N VC.'2Â·ZJÂ· AJ-rAL- a:3*al-C 02 1-77 -- \20 111}VQ 9 4 (9 IdÂ·'60'41'4/ Ice o<yon, -2,. 64.0 6241 IN ) - _ _~ -J /' j ' c.1-7 1. 1 ,1 101 - / \ 42\ tyv / 4 4 *t K /'' , . ... 1 1 i i; Â· t , i 1-3 4 9 i 1 111. 9. i 1 t- :j~; i' r',4- 1 '. 14. \ . 7 i l .C . r 3 1 : \ fl 4.4 -- 1%7 1 Â¥% M 4/ f./. : , 7\ 1 j- MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Minor Development: the Mesa Store Building, 500 West Main St., temporary banner/drapery Date: May 10, 1989 LOCATION: 500 East Main St., APPLICANT: Westec Security and Fire Systems, Eve Homeyer ZONING: "0", Office Zone, Main Street Historic District, Designated Landmark APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Minor Development approval for the temporary banner/hunting for the lower level facade of the Mesa Store. PROJECT SUMMARY: To celebrate the 100th birthday of the Mesa Store, the applicant wishes to "drape" the lower level porch with red, white and blue bunting (as indicated on the attached drawingI. The bunting will remain up for three months this summer. The applicant has received necessary Council approval for the activity. The Zoning Department does not consider this proposal a sign. HPC approval is required due to the structure's location within the Main Street Historic District. Staff finds that the application meets the development review standards; no changes are being made to the structure, and the character of the century-old Mesa Store may in fact be enhanced by the attention- grabbing bunting! The bunting' s design is "turn-of-the-century" in nature, and staff finds it appropriate on a three-month temporary basis. Guideline IV.E.6 (page 25) addresses Awning and Canopies and has been reviewed by staff for applicability. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that HPC grant minor development approval for the temporary banner at the Mesa Store Building. memo.hpc.500em WmAÂ·.2 ,~It Â· ~~~~f~ i 1 -westec 4/ SECURITY & FIRE SYSTEMS April 27, 1985 Ms. Roxanne Eflin Heritage Celebration Committee 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Roxanne: This is to note that on April 10, the City Council did approve our plans for a drapg on the Mesa Store building for approximately 3 months this summer. The drape will be red, white and blue polyester bunting and we expect to have it installed by mid-June and leave it up until after Labor day. A copy of the sketch we showed the council is enclosed. There will be no lettering or "signing" involved. Do we need to make any further representation to your office? If so please give me a call. Meanwhile, we are proceeding with our plan . Thank you for your attention to this information. Very truly P 7 , L.A Eve Homeyer Community Relations /44- 1 encl. cc Bill Drueding 'When you need help. dial 925-HELP." 50't V./est Main â€¢ Aspen, Colorado 81611 â€¢ (303) 925-4357 -iful-U-_LI !--ik/,22-/[--- I====E[IE----3-9- -5:ht-- ' A-u--MS - ........... ............--............. - I Jill =12 1 - -23.LE,Am.Â«i.-2 - TUM - - -5'DEVALK TO 5077-f f==â€ž_~~/%._ u . NOT ---~ i -Â·/Â·uy -Â· Â· AT 1 4 , 1- ALL PAD,19 - 'UJEEIALS - 5ELALL.DE'27-7217-12310-lei--=--=----- /0 1 M....1. ... -47- 1 f __3 1- - 4 =11/Ja-ASEEN. -~Â«Uil==.=~211-qltd =2-27 i M li-F--lf-J E 1-'-211 1 d --- - 1 M=~~ _u Â«r "___j h 7 k --2.35'JlLITNEUr_11'12 EnT,3. - 14=1- 2----1 2=a=~a:~~Enaaa~W-~MmWI~~-.a---~~Â£E~eaee,~ 1 C===============r-=-- .=-==================, - ~A l 1 1./Wilil 11 lr-;.===T 1 1 E-wa*<z;~IlÂ¢.. - i | p=-=--**t I I F~ I iI' 0 - 11 ! 1-7 j wit~tf~ r~=I~-~f~fIEt0--1- _j_L_f-3~ -1~ - F--7.- 17-Â·--i JOI I fr~-'-- 1 11 i -: 1!1 111 Ir-1 lilli # 111 1F--rd'-sp N L dil'~l &-3 IMU _ Vt -1 1 L B-- ==1 i 1 - tÂ»<33 ulf b' ~ ~ n ff- n ----1 M -1-7/=Ir=/2// i ~ 11 E'\/ E.':'Ry D 0 0 R. 5 1-2.,A fe> O "t <-9 & G-{- 10 ~Lit~* N ~ '/Le /60.T-//9 7 1 - . MEMORANDUM j To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Conceptual Development: 630 W. Main St., Mountain Rescue, Public Hearing Date: May 10, 1989 LOCATION: 630 W. Main St., Lot M, Block 24, City and Townsite of Aspen ZONING: 11 OIl Office Zone, Main Street Historic District APPLICANT: Mountain Rescue, represented by Jane Ellen Hamilton APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Conceptual Development approval for a two story addition to the c. 1960 600 sq. ft. panabode structure, to increase interior space for office and accident staging. The enlargement also includes an expanded garage for vehicle storage. No variations are being sought from the HPC. PROJECT REVIEW PROCEDURE: HPC approval is required for both conceptual and final development. The applicant also most receive approval from P&Z for a re-zoning to "PUB" (public) and for GMQS exemption for essential public facility, due to the enlargement on a non-conforming size lot (3,000 sq. ft.). The land is owned by the City of Aspen, therefore, Council approval is required for any development activity on this site. The applicant has been informed that such approval is necessary, and will be meeting with the City Manager's office, and Council, to receive same. PROJECT SUMMARY: As the application states, Mountain Rescue's space has been severely limited for many years in the existing structure. In order to provide the kind of service necessary for the Aspen/Roaring Fork area, an expansion is necessary. The decision was made to preserve the existing panabode structure for "budgetary and sentimental reasons". All new development is located to the rear of the parcel, requiring no ex'terior changes to the original panabode itself. The attempt is to perceive the small structure, which is appropriately scaled for the District, yet provide the service space necessary. SITE, AREA AND BULK CHARACTERISTICS: Existing FAR, main structure: 600 sq. ft. Existing FAR, detached garage: 480 sq. ft. Proposed FAR, main structures: 1,490 sq. ft. Proposed FAR, attached garage: 735 sq. ft. No changes prc iosed in existing setbacks Proposed Maximum height: 18.6 ft. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STANDARDS: The Standard for Development Review are located in Section 7-601(D) of the Land Use Code. Standard 1. The proposed development is compatible in character with designed historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an H, Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to a historic landmark... Response: This structure, one of very few remaining in Aspen indicative of simple 1960's cottage architecture, currently does not meet UBC code. Renovation activities include bringing the structure current electrically, etc. The existing detached garage, which matches the main structure, will be incorporated into the renovation, by receiving a new second floor. The approximate 18' distance between the two structures Will be infilled with the two story addition, consisting of a "tower" element. This structure is the lowest in profile in this entire block (probably the lowest in the Main Street Historic District); due to the shallow roof pitch and one story construction, we find the second floor addition consistent in scale with surrounding structures. The "tower" element is foreign to the district; staff is undecided as to its potential negative or positive affect to neighboring landmarks and to the district. Materials and Fenestration: The proposed materials will match existing, including the metal roof. The two large upper level facade windows appear slightly out of scale, and the horizontal row of small awning (opening out from the bottom) windows are inconsistent with existing fenestration. However, the HPC should consider whether the existing and proposed fenestration patterns are that significant in the overall character of the stracture. For that reason, we are recommending a restudy of the fenestration for consistency and compatibility, primarily the window treatment on the facade's upper level. Staff finds this two-story addition proposal is as delicate to review as wculd be a similar addition to a historic miner's cottage. The question of preserving the small scale integrity of this structure should be closely examined. While the space certainly needs enlarging, does the proposal do all it can to preserve the scale of the panabode? Standard 2. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. 2 Response: With the possible exception of the "tower" element, we find the two-story addition compatible with other structures in the block. Standard 3. The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. Response: The 600 block of West Main contains the second highest density of historic structures in the Main Street Historic District: 3 designated landmarks, and three rated, non-yet- designated structures. The excellent cross-gabled cottage directly to the east of the Mountain Rescue is undesignated, rated "4"; that parcel contains an outstanding secondary historic structure/outbuilding. The cultural value of this adjacent structure should be taken into consideration by the HPC when reviewing this application. Standard 4. The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The structure is not a designated landmark; however, we find that the addition, pushed well to the rear of the parcel, mitigates to the greatest extent practical, impacts to the small scale panabode. The HPC should consider those elements Of original integrity in the structure, and compare the impacts of the addition to these character-producing elements. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following actions: 1. Conceptual Development approval for the proposal as submitted 2. Conceptual Development approval for the proposal with conditions as recommended by staff 3. Table action finding further study is necessary 4. Deny Conceptual Development approval finding the proposal does not meet the review standards RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant conceptual development approval for the proposal, subject to the following conditions to be presented for Final Development review: 1. A restudy of the "tower" element, in its affect to the character of the Main Street Historic District 3 2. A restudy of the second floor fenestration, south and west elevations 3. Approval by the City of Aspen for the development activity 4. Exact material representation 5. All conceptual conditions met for final appro, al memo.hpc.630wm 4 Â¢ M ?C. . DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 2 P (ea re_ reâ‚¬4 C I. Introduction. /5- . 4144 ac:Fic vâ‚¬ C , 1 This Development Application is submitted by Mountain Rescue - Aspen, a Colorado nonprofit corporation (the "Applicant") . This Application is for a rezoning of the property underlying the Mountain Rescue - Aspen cabin located at 630 West Main Street (the "Property") from Office (0) zone to the Public (PUB) zone pursuant to Article 7, Division 11 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations of the Aspen Municipal Code (the "Code"); for an expansion of the square footage of the cabin by designating the Property a Planned Unit Development ("PUD") pursuant to Article 7, Division 9 of the Code and for an exemption from the Growth Management Quota System ("GMQS") for such expansion pursuant to Article 8 of the Code; and for review of the development in an H, Historic Overlay District pursuant to Article 7, Division 6 of the Code. R II. Background. Mountain Rescue - Aspen was informally begun in the mid-1950's and formally incorporated as a Colorado non-profit corporation in 1965. Mountain Rescue is organized under the jurisdiction of, and is directly responsible to, the Pitkin County Sheriff's Department. The current cabin was acquired through a donation by the Rossetter family at about the same time as the incorporation of the organization. The Property is owned by the City of Aspen and is leased to the Applicant for a nominal sum. As the Aspen and Pitkin County area has grown in the past few years, so has the number of rescues the Applicant performs. Mountain Rescue has approximately 45 missions a year (compared to Vail Mountain Rescue which averages 5-10 per year). The Applicant relies upon volunteers to accomplish eve:-ything it does - there are no paid employees of the organization. As the number of rescues has increased, the strain on the existing facilities and on the volunteers has grown. The Applicant has been fundraising for and implementing a comple>:, $45, 000.00 communications upgrade in order to be better able to serve the entire Pitkin County community. The strain has been most evident, however, on the physical Mountain Rescue facilities. The 600 square foot pan abode cabin (which also has approyimately 480 square feet of garage space) serves as a communications center, staging area, storage facility and headquarters for all rescues. During a rescue, there may be as many as 20-35 people meeting, dressing, eating and developing strategy all in this small area. In addition, it is not unusual for the Sheriff's department to send a dispatcher to work out of the cabin with the Sheriff's deputy, or the Sheriff himself, who officially leads the rescue. The crowded conditions create confusion, inefficiencies and additional strains. Further, the cabin is simply not large enough to store the three rescue vehicles, two snowmobiles, and the thousands of dollars of other rescue equipment needed by Mountain Rescue for its operations. Therefore, the Applicant determined to expand the cabin by approximately 890 square feet and to expand the garage by approximately 255 square feet. III. Request for rezoning. The Applicant hereby requests an amendment to the Official Zone District Map. The present Zone District classification for the Property is the Office (0) Zone, in which an office, such as Applicant's cabin, is a permitted use. Because the Property consists of only 3000 square feet (and was this size when originally leased by Applicant from the City of Aspen), the Code prohibits expansion, or renovation to a significant degree, of the cabin. Because the Applicant is an essential public entity, it is appropriate for the Property to be zoned Public (PUB), for such zoning more accurately reflects the usage of the Property. This proposed amendment to the Official Zone District Map is not in conflict with any portions of the Code and will not adversely affect traffic generation and road safety. The existing land use in the area is a high-traffic, mixed commercial and residential neighborhood bordering Main Street. The Applicant has, as discussed above, been located on the Property for approximately 25 years, and thus its use should be assumed to be compatible with the neighborhood and consistent with the community character of the City of Aspen. Although the use of the cabin during a rescue is of a high intensity, involving much activity and some traffic, this usage only occurs approximately 45 times per year. The remainder of the year (with the exception of the meetings held on the first Monday of every month), the cabin is vacant. The proposed amendment to the Official Zone District Map will not result in any significant increase in demands on public facilities and will not result in any impacts on the natural environment. The proposed amendment will not be in conflict with the public - nterest, rather it will further the public interest by allowing Mountain Rescue to stay within the Aspen city limits and increase the size of its facilities to better serve the Aspen and Pitkin County community. IV. Request for Growth Management System Quota Exemption. The Applicant hereby requests that the Aspen City Council exempt its proposed developmer.t from the necessity of securing an allotment through the GMQS pursuant to Article 8, Section 8- 104 (C) (b) , construction of essential public facilities. The development serves an essential public purpose in that it will enable Applicant to better serve the Aspen community through increased efficiency and enhanced response time to emergencies. As discussed above, the development is necessary because of the steadily increasing number of rescues resulting from the growth in Pitkin County's population as well as the increase in summer tourist visits and the increase in winter backcountry use by Aspen residents and visitors. The expansion of the cabin will not spur additional growth, rather it is in response to growth. Applicant will mitigate any impacts which may result from its development to the full extent possible. No new employees will be generated by the expansion for the Applicant has no employees. The development will not create additional demands for parking or transit services or result in any additional demands on local roads. The cabin expansion will have minimal impact on basic services, including sewage treatment and solid waste disposal, water supply and police and fire protection. In addition, it will have no adverse impact on the City's air, water, land and energy resources. Tlie cabin addition will be visually compatible with the surrounding areas (see plans attached and discussion under Section VI, herein). V. Planned Unit Development Application. The Applicant's request that the development of the Property, as described above, be reviewed as a PUD conforms with the review standards set forth in Section 7-903 of the Code. The development will be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, for Main Street is a mix of residential and commercial uses, and Applicant does not propose changing or expanding the use it has made of the Property for approximately 25 years. Further, the proposed development is consistent with the existing land uses in the surrounding area and will not adversely affect future development of the surrounding area. The development will comply with the existing FAR of the Office Zone, in that the O Zone FAR is 75:1, allowing a building of 2250 on the Property and Applicant proposes that following the expansion of its cabin, the cabin's square footage will be 2225. If the Applicant's request for a rezoning of the Property to a PUB zone is approved, the dimensional requirements of the Property will be set by the adoption of this Conceptual and Final PUD Development Plan. Applicant requests that its off-street parking requirements be the number of places provided for in the plans submitted with this application, for the City of Aspen has designated a space in front of the Property on Main Street as parking fer Mountain Rescue, thus the ipplicant has parking available for all three of its vehicles and two snowmobiles and trailer. Plenty of parking is available on Main Street for volunteers when a rescue is n progress. Applicant requests that there be no open space requirements for the Pioperty, as there are none for the Office Zone. None of Applicant's proposed development will affect the landscaping already in place in front of the cabin, so no landscaping plan has been submitted. The architectural site plan is attached herctc. Although Applicant recently received a generous donation toward the costs of expanding its cabin, it is still necessary to secure a contractor who will donate a portion of his services to the construction of the addition. As soon as this application is approved and Applicant has located such a contractor, the construction will be commenced. Applicant anticipates completing its development by the end of 1989. ~< VI. Request for Approval of Development in an H, Historic Overlay District. Section 7-601 of the Code requires that any development. in an H, Historic Overlay Distric: must be reviewed in accordance with the provisions of that section. The Property is located in the Main Street Historic District. The cabin is not a designated historic building, it is simply a pan abode built in the mid-1960's which does not conform to current Uniform Building Code standards. Further, the cabin is not located adjacent to a designated historic structure. The proposed addition to the Applicant's Cabin was specifically designed by the Applicant's architect to take into account the historical significance of the Main Street corridor. Accordingly, the addition will be compatible with development on adjacent parcels. The use of the building materials proposed by the Applicant as well as the design of the expanded portion on the cabin will reflect and be consistent with the neighborhood of the Property. The condominiums on one side of the Property and the home located on the other side of the Property both have similar building materials and design, therefore the proposed development will not detract from the cultural value of other buildings located in the Main Street historic district. The major building materials the Applicant proposes to use include metal roof to match the existing roof, wood siding and clad windows. In addition to the expansion of the cabin, Applicant intends to renovate and repair the existing cabin by fixing the electrical wiring, upgrading the heating system, replacing the floor and generally bringing the cabin up to UBC standards to the extent possible. Therefore, the Applicant will be restoring an example of building which was popular in the Aspen area in the mid-1960's, few of which remain today. VII. Conclusion. Applicant respectfully requests approval of this Application so that it may continue to deliver a high quality level of service to the Aspen/Pitkin Countr community. Submitted by: (16, flit- WhcÂ«~ Jqi,4 Ellen Hamilton, Vice President MOdntain Rescue - Aspen , f 1 1 Dd .- j 1 n U..01 1.1, 7.4-11 1-rirj /9740 2,2,1 7 3-1/-2-/ 1 IL.6 *374 5 75 7/':2902 -TJ-,i~l.. .moo.C; 99,wvd O 1 01 0 Â·lrooci: 'll Of ' 3 11 /-?937)11/~ 2.174 7.19.4'3 -7972)UA '' 0 ~il#Y)-V~ Â·Â·Â·p, 0, NE)-13 39 1730>2 -3-1) 5-3.4 '419/gle -0-ti-1. /702.1 foll I N - A c 11.\31 1 -k,M ' :U t. ]:L y..6.1 nt-,3,1 31 11/ .3 14/ ; 2,0Â·\.fl.=l 0-1.11 Wl i/8 ' plÂ·\1 dir) /.3 UnAVME Â· -249+94 75.9- -=Cbxlb' 4 9.4 -31.1 NO 5,7 0.51%Â·-4 3-rd, -FU '-4.f -31 -9 1 1 91{ 3- ., i F i...1 Â·Â·9 ,-Â·,1.1 4.Â» , , r,on[ 7-\:1,3â€žÂ·719J (32->} * el Cm r.31102- U -3-V J". ' & ...'I.1 - , . 1 ..1.1 - ..... I / 9-0-+Â°./ ) -0 ~8_r* v // 73 0 1 2131Â£ * _~ ... L , 6 ' 1:NG, 79 0-1 9 z? Ld 719 4 4-1-2.1. Vol *f 4 0 71-Â·4 4.91 ). Â·3 i 0 )7 P/OD N. i Â·il 2 0 1 9.3 0 0 4-1-1.1(3 3 - 31 4 ...19 -9/9.l.24-L,,3/kip 44 34/ 3-741 33)233 371 Â» -, 9 0 42 rf)91!ralÂ«.7.1 -Nlll do 10961&7 9 4,4 74 110:7 9,77 R 1 g '717 97 . r {3 2 - -1 t,1 ' ck /1651.1. Â»/\:A 4:1 '1~74 9/)/10,0Â·1,4 7 1./.4,-) 3 D.Jb 2 71.- 4 . -I - . 6 3 *..:Â§5 01')\/ 4.-7 '331'16375 :-1) Wi 341 31,FLA @L ~96Â·fl CIA,/7 4 - m 4100-71 0 Â·Fl fl-H --- 2:j--Â·./0.~tj -34 N ~9 E/ 1 0 ClÂ·:210:gil /1 31149 \ 0-l- S-\,0-[-l -IN 1.1 1/.A ...; 1-31 lf-3 n)01 -211-LL LLF] 61.~1 -31NV.d 4 S . U k -T- 7,1 Al m 07 (EN 9 4 3.7 .~ 4 ' : '-+ ~-? 372.771 9 UÂ·Â·?2,-'Lar)NA-9 =4.U ,13 Vitil.j.. 1 4 4 1- '- /'.4 2,11. '3 i ' 61 614-1 1 0 ~71 009Â·4 1. 10)741 -3-KJ. 4.0 77-Vro 111-1- 1.-4 . '4 J 12 14 t. 71 9 3 1. 1 -d 0 9 - 9 9. rjiM A V ; 1 1 70 9 ./0 /h: /1Â¢.47}/.lqI fâ€¢â€¢ LL -12 1 0-8 4 34.ll , j O) 61 -3 T -,%\ fi -11 1. 6:i 11 <' 4.0 -3:-) -4Â·7 3 0 341201*El -9 n.1 4.24 11 -'zi 42 2~21Â· : 1~ --4 - g ..9 7 040 h / -242\-V l-1 2.3Â·< 2./..'3: 9;-/03331 -014-(1 No 331711 12\4131 -7114,1 4(0 rb-1 0, 1 in -t L'?,11"J'Al ..â€ž-I- 4 -Â· 1 , i (3-Â·4 -=-7.11 f~ dis /v ,)1.,;. 003/1 >1Â·Â·\1.219 > Zt .1 4-970.1- 43--3-0; cas '-7 40135 01.,7 V 13114 44-jog.~ R G r; 011 .Â·3 11'$13.2.,Â· f--V, 319 11-y g 7-ZPH -71/Yvi-1 8.(9 ~ * ' \P .4 -7 7 V WO 57 f /-1- : , L ,<1 /\ f 1 4 4~6 /1\ rd ,-1 --71 1 .1 .t -1 6 79 7 w 3 -" 4-41 r J.,4/ r " 4 0 63 0 4-- a.. 7. I .... N -1- ' St; 05~.31-21 --7 91 re:j VJ )-1. 11 36~ <911 -9 2 4 U_-4:-6 1,.?.-Jd d. 6/ - 7 NUM 48 1,11 1 1.-1 * 07 1-fu i. I r, 11)-U-, C C-- U 311â‚¬2127(J;3 - 7 1,1.7 14/ 34/07 11/0/913<2(1 -~/ ' 3/10! i,-Â·V 3-Â·Nc~ 9 a ta >': 0 a h 744 3 9 v lu i 7.13 43 07.71*70 .071 3-9.f/ 2143 193<2 (7203@jaid Tj if_L _ 3 -& nojmt N lt-prn@â‚¬ - r %40 2 Spi-WO[76 31.PA-!1-3433 Fbi . ' 4 ir-' 'i' , jit D. l l.. JEL "; I./. f M t UL!91+.7- ill UL 5112 11/5 1 ruilf D ' ' P/2.'c- ft ),2/7 L gao F-2/,4(~ ~ EL PLE,/iÂ·s:,t,.~-: 7(0 Ar /t, 6.1 l/,1 C U.- e a ; 0 1 -1-- 4 1 f f LL h ' , 1 , f. AÂ«Ar te ' #M Y ' '' # 71 1 - CON 7-1 )JUITh -to rild- 1.--7 +1. i i y.' t A i.Â·iD O r- /L: /4./. i.r C 1, '' 47 L.' 2 17AtÂ·\ i u -fle./ 1 0,-:c-i - L cofs 11 . i.:7 L./ .1 â‚¬ l , ,...; -,... ~ c.-TH A \KNÂ» .-713: :A.i; ic- 2 ./ ~)(1-Â£-10 9 4~t 4- 16 71Ff1 / r., i ./ Nao_) A-Dairto,j ?DER,vm-Â·L P/40) 3,L TUL 1! 1.-t N.(iz':tr~Â·-Lâ€ž tity ci,U! 1107\.1.~:it.C*i~ OR. .{.-t-f- IS- but.â€ž*-ji,Â»i.. 4,. 1 4.11 l. 1.; 22=46 -14. 1.-' 1. 6 M'ic. 4.1 ...i i Â· 1 I .... Col-tollcorcit (,un 3-87\ -T- 71; 1-2- 12- y( 171 u r j 0- d 'rt r:- M. Ir H-Â· /Q . . la<ST N EM_ ELS 20..Â·.R. L 11 JJ i~bf unic i'.4 1 - r t /1 /,1'r.'' 10 -Ju(, c - LOO ILT-bl- 12- M ULATI /34 , --/ H761 Alit -1 /3/2LL) /3 q 'C@J/t~r :' i j Â·' p Â·id' i' / 6 -int N- M &:.Lu i c. 0 7 1 0 04 fl F â€¢ 4 2-; 111 . ME 'f .OF MÂ»- 6.U l l-.Cl ut k.) rn GB- 5,&-/-3 !75 0 GJ tv' Eld Elic/ L~ CD . UL\(R.L. 1 FIDE PTY 0 -4.-â€¢77- op" 1142,-. Tif~:29"N .1 lr/ u tÂ·\I,-Â·~ ibi 724 331 6.Jl-fiLE 17 DEF:Ff ~PtÂ· -"r:h -1,-4 77 -'Ar A- / N o F.1 1 Nli P A-- N A G uct t.43, HO 11 =â€ž*/1 I-Â«lul_I--Â»Al---1-21 192/4\ . - 1 - 1 - 6 - : 1J --7.---3- -1--f LEI L Â· L. ; i b e j' 1 1 1 1 11 11 0 1 1 --- r 11 . 1 1 . 6 INÂ©41 11 3 1 1 111.--1+- -f -- 4 11 N 1 3-rz p.>GE - 4 ) -- 4 4 N / 7--111 11 11 1 11 1 1.1 I 1 - -4 k.4 IC !9 090,44 4 -- - ~ -* rÂ·1 42'7021 -1 ~41 + LA />4. H C ' 11 1 ''V J . 9 .,5 / 1./ I U , er. 11 - 1 4 111 1 11 1 1 1 1 r 1 i i 1 h F -h f / lit E_Â«tifiE-_-_E L=-11Â«62[Flo [-1 1 . i >1 vâ‚¬/ MI.-TAL U.Â¢>e , d Il i E 11 li 0 / 42) SICINGr + -- , 2 11 11|.!!11'!19:111'11:1,1!'11 '111:l'i'1111 ' 31 ., ...: S % ,1 .4 11 1 EI 11 !1 KIE Â«; r.---2 Rt i [1-3_2_3 -I---- 21< ~~ ~1Â«glk<-33-- 9-7129 -_ - 0-Â»x 21 4 1 1- ! -t _ -~M -- --- . 1 6-- -./ 44- 1 h n 21 ---Â· 50 L_IT k--t FL__~1 (2>1 I , . Ik . - i 1 - li 'i"lit'' '';14.....*. ~*Embillil~ =====3.4 1 1 j i - t f 20 ' 43 / - .--Â·1 1 = 12.---1 . r -_23 L .i i k J 1 1 ' -1 . 211 : - .7 7 7. 1 -11 r . 111 . . 4 1 1 1-1 6- 1---," .-. %40 423\ 7 24 E_ LEÂ»AIT- ION 1, 1 r,I -- lf; 1-1 -1 9-1 rt U 1.1 . .W:.4 lu i '41 I / ~~_7 --1 .. - 1 1 1 2 1 11 9.2 , 11 ' * i DPÂ·'tilÂ·Z.4,771,:LD KLE; / 7 ~ E Clipl 11:41-410Â·a--161Â·155 1-lmEL-1-11*,Ci- / STA~-1 h-1 6~- - , 1 d 1 1 C 10 G rk B.Av Er E- 01 - 0,1 -4 1.- 6 \ 1:1 - 0 ~~ Â»I - . 1.-Ctit 1- ; 01 - , 11 1 ; 1 Â¢... 1 ~ 34TH 0. E] 1 I f , = '-' ~1-- F.'Â·Â·- ..$.5 'NiC-4 Â·.+44:CCD: p,1 r----ill-----19. t'Â·6,Â£22*Â·10*A#'424.2,42,2,-~ I ".- .41"t"" ~f~'.1----1. '~JÂ·Â·'. .. .- Â· ~, :~ .... , . -94=11=2~~T~Â«Fl--OOFâ‚¬. E-1-OOR AREAS iT- IF49 : . 2 - - .t 1 . T 4?1. i .. . p H EATED 600 VT'- 1 4 FAR,Â«61-~ 400 PT-1- _13100517341-4 FRI â‚¬[00Â· , 14:S; Clt\1,CD _/ -21 b - , .,.. .. : I ; ~0 6-9 f-1 i 7,â‚¬ .~4 . \ : . P. I 1 J rilli , 7 1 Al : -1 2 11 r '7~ 1.. . L ., 1 . r. . . , .- - - 4 , . . 1.-,4-1 a.1- NgdO .''f:Â·4,'r,v - 11.' ./ 1 ui. 1 it--1--i=*r. 1 ' ,; >Â·,u' 'C:ir"~12*7rw1Â·20,7 TJ,:1*, .4.%1;...1-, , 4"-2 1 : ~Â·I' 4'.f,1.. 11 1 % , ' 1 Â£ 1 1 1 P i . 1 1 P 1-11 1 iii t 4 1 f 1 ! ..1 11 1 1111_ 1 11 b E l V r . 11 11 if i .. 1 04 I 1Â»Â«1420[453- '4 E- UOUian_.EL-_!1\,*â‚¬101Â£>bl-_ 1/+11. 11 -0-003Â«3223 3- r/Â«SOM----6---- ff) -fiftlt --1 1- -15~- N<- 1 ST-1 14 Gr BUILDIN(is LOT 1-1 13 LD C K. 1-4- - L_ k-J___â€¢----4- _4.___ ,__--Â·t--__~. ____ , ,-__ _ AS PILIN COL.-0 1 - Â·Â·~Â· Â· _,5.-C?ly!-ILL 33-LE>,213-laN 1 - ... r 'A i ' 1:.-11 ..1. ti v ; Â·.I Â·' ''Â·ti ~7----rim'275~ -75-;,7-I '----22 40 -.--Â·F-=--==-Â·- --1UL-ZLZn---, - . 'd Â· 4 iii , IJ ' 4 r 1 Â£ t ..Â£ il ' 11 ' < 1 F,4 1-J A.BOLLEE Ci-AR~#4-12 ; 1 , -T 7--- - --11 T 8 If-- 1 0-3 \ 1 - 4 4 R , ?F-1 F:LzE>01:24 . PLA1-AS 1/+11= 11 .. - 'Ill:.:-...... 76&21 ./ .4.-,4 Cli,le :... 031/WA< ''pâ‚¬.1,;tedji - 0 I r -Na,pi~*.,91:-4.i.vi-462:.44 *.Â·.rÂ·Â· 3.1.Â·-fl'.:I '4 -9 ' 4,913.7 2/ 4.- 2.0â€¢r.Di t.'....1. c h ..1. U. 1 i , 10,4~~46, 04.4- W ~~ :lia~~4~~~pjÂ¢tjj:2.4:.,.irÂ·4.ttl~3jfft*%~~'*~ ~ ~:~; ~ ~ Â·lt f# .4. 2 45: 41 :Ii,211 t... - Mk#*FF}A#Â§443-~*4 6*442340#f-*1. 2,~*~*4~'161*1 Â·'1 . LS;p.>Â·*,~631".9*.42%13.461.t;,'14.Â·43{~XMUU;> 44*447#fr/&24'.~1*l~'*~~Alia .' I - 4 1 c ir 9 / 0,~ 9,/ r /y-,b- i . 27Â·44 !,ft* -:-1.43:..324,46A.. 44,â€¢ - 41&. I . 1 9â€¢â€¢ - , 11'-4~*EÂ«5211*~%*:~9"Fii,IC- 4.0.14*. , Ci r.:,121 ?j- - jbmi#,0.4481$**/1 !0;1~01::1.:4.913*1~X*'i :4.--I 9%111 - , I. 2 4'-i,1.-1-'.0,4~*2.94'1Â·ji*.4 AD 351-41219447:{:9;;fif:.T:j:*'GI-u.~N?*~24& 'Â£Â·4 24.5 tft>*,3225*4Â·11&72, . ..Sk,- 1. . . *UNFE-*u/At-*g<%*1 4%~ WAE***$4#Mt -Â·f~>t:Â·2 JASS#Lr, lit~44'4*lifilf.Mt!>11'kk!*i 4,1 :fil@acir. - - .. , 2 4Â£64.-rfÂ·â€¢ .Â· Â·a 'Â·r.t,% 4. #~ 1,121$*54 9 8*90+~Fijip::.Â¢4%12 f i' * 34-f; 24 --7 :.t.+ *::- ..1 1 4.1 .%*429782 #E K#*W*i*i> .4 JARka#-48-uaÂ· 1 :4% ift 48290* i.. .. r,:.Â·' 00â€¢ fi- Â·'dyÂ· Â·Â·--r 0. V. V m :- . .L..9:. . 9 1 1. - -C med,-% ''AU#r,%1?4 I 4 - 1[Hard'k Â·Â· Â·' 1Â·' ' Â·â€¢ ..â€¢ Â·Â·.R, "' ... CITY OF ASPEN J 6- <6-71 [EMO FROM ROXANNE EFLIN Historic Preservation Specialist - 4 : 6- lis fiÂ«~ 4 Clr~i t~~ tiou-S L Cing 1-f~ccjiop\L 31 91 43 9 4 QU~r- CRLE 9- cA.\Octle 2 06- M. 1 1]AL t..23 15(.4-~ eâ‚¬pÂ·64 4 adio \ 9, e.i M faie--tArâ‚¬ +6 5 09 U_ D N,_ thL Cb.f v - k,~1 2- I -R_ I IL C Welton Anderson & Associates Architects TO: Historic Preservation Committee 4 21 - 9 0 h, i Â· L. v RE: Update of Restoration of Elisha Carriage House DATE: 27 April 1989 The original plan to shim up the peremeter walls to level with non-shrink grout and repair those parts of the grade beam/foundation that were settled or cracked is not possible due to conditions that were uncovered. A half dozen sections of the interior floor were removed in mid ADril 1989 to expose the floor and wall framing which both rest directly on the peremeter grade beam (typical of baloon framing). The bottoms of many of the wall studs have rotted completely away and been shorn up by 2x4's three feet long nailed to the sides of the rotted studs. Likewise the floor joists, which have been resting on earth are rotted and crumbling. Our original plan to true and level the roof and second floor with a new interior support framework is not changed--we've only discovered the main reason for the racking and settlement is not due to true settling of a foundation into soil but to loss of anywhere between 1" and 4" of the leanth of the wall studs due to rot. In addition, the rubble sandstone foundation/retaining wall on the East side which projects out 12" beyond the East face of the carriage house (and about 9"over the property line) is headed for completely over the property line. It is tipping over onto the McDonalds' property. PROPOSED SOLUTION: The soundest solution is to correct the original design flaw that caused the rot: keep water away from the wood. We propose to remove the rotted portions of the stud bottoms and add new bottom plates and redesign the footing to be not a grade beam but a spread footing with foundation wall so the wood framing will stay above the soil and moisture. To accomplish this and to true, plumb, and level the carriage house, we Dropose to engage a qualified house mover to raise the structure approximately five feet above its present position. We then prooose to remove all the rotten framing as well as all the existing grade beams and stone foundation. These new foundations Planning / Architecture / Interior Design Box 9946 / Aspen,Colorado 81612/(303) 925- 4576 Page two Elisha Carriage house 27 April 1989 will then be built on all four sides and the carriage house structure will be lowered onto its new foundation. The interior reframing will be done as well as relaying the rubble sandstone along the East wall to restore its original appearance. On the exterior, only the bevel siding which cannot be rehydrated with li i seed oil to a reasonable condition and must be removed, will be removed and replaced with identical material. Unlike the high quality windows that were used in the house, the windows used in the carriage house were of poor quality and cannot be reused. Here we will replace the windows with wood double hung windows that match the existing in size and generally in frame profile. We hope this clarification of proposed restoration proceedures based on our more complete knowledge of existing conditions meets with your aDproval. + *10 CLAS/[A~I 09\C i... .*.-9.. I .633.24 City of Aspen, Co[orado Incorporated 1880 A; '14'.7-(Â£905.15, Niftoric preservation Bives .Americans a dkeper und'crstanding of their richl) diverse A -u.-- iÂ·1Â· m ElI:r. ' i .,- :10 21-1 arcfritectura[ and cufturaf Rcritage; and i - Â·Ely.4 -Â· Â·2 t~= 6. C.,; 4.0, ; , 4.4 94)2+St.AS, 9-fistoric preservation contriButes to tAc [ivabifity of America's town, cities and ruraf y,=15:Â·.- 3-:- 4 areas and promotes [ocaf pride and community se[f-Ac[p; and 1Â· - e;git Il- Re.- ..f 'O 91)9Â·Â·fEEEAS, 9Â·fistoric Buifcfings provick Better qua[ity p[aces to [ive for af[ Americans; anc[ , ::. 4-4 --4 11.41-(TguE.RS, 9<ationa[ 9-fistoric Trescruation week. 1989 provides an CK.ce[[ent opportunity for aff ~.1 4-01 , Americans to /ic* maintain, preserve and protect our nationk heritage; and Le; 99 1 .-Ef)*-62: -:.403 749Â£Â£92-<EAS, 'Look. 9-fomeward, America' is the theme -for -Niltionat 9-fistoric Treservation 'Weeâ‚¬ ' ~: 444 1989, cosponsored 61! t.ht 9@tionat 'Trust -for Mistoric Treservation, the Afpen 4,; L.-B. Sfistoric Treservation Committee, tfiâ‚¬ Aspen *istorica[ Society and the Aspen '. :---9* 2 gfistori.c 'Irtut; an.d p.> 3%*, 395=Ujâ‚¬ z M,FÂ·VOY-t Q i --91% 81-Â· i -0--2 718Â£:EguE.RS, Aspen's heritage 0 evident in its Â«uberant 9104 style Victorian-era structures amf h: 2, D.:0 sma[[ worÂ©ing-c[ass miner's cottages a[24; our compreflcnsive historic preservation t .,+4 1 ' program is a criticaf efement in the preservation of Aspen's heritafe. Mistorie ..24 0 1 - -,-423;& Trucrvation is tfle souf of our community. :- 7 2*h- - .....5 itÂ» 'let. i ' '*:t -:---. 9<prv, tflerefore Be it reso[ved tiat tfit Mayor and Councif 14: ...7-an:. i I. / 1.1 :.1. 1 do fier(633 proc[aim May 14-20, 1989, as . 9\Lational-.7(Lstoric Trescrvation Week ! 1 -4,0././. re -4. p and encourages tfle support and participation of tfle citizens. m. -lei 2 7433; . M.I--- --. ...ts 1 ~ 1.1 6 11 111+-2:2 (By order of 11% attl Councif . il -IJ.:, 1- ..1 -- 2., Attest: 'mis 8tfi 'Dali cd Nal{, 1989 -- 239:: - 90:th,yn S. 9<poft, Citj C[CÂ·rk 1.-:11 04' .1Â» 14.8.- i 'r- 1- f. r i Wiffiam L. StiT[ing, Mayor 1/ .:lia I 9 733[ j' .:Ch i Â· r-- -1 â€¢ tâ€¢f 1 1 / 4%.4.4 -'-I- 2 ..---A- HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of May 10, 1989 FINAL DEVELOPMENT 204 S. MILL - COLLINS BLOCK PHASE I 1 CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW - COLLINS BLOCK PHASE II & III .......................... 3 RATING OF 1004 E. DURANT ....... 6 1004 E. DURANT - LANDMARK DESIGNATION .... 6 514 N. THIRD STREET - LANDMARK DESIGNATION ... 7 MINOR DEVELOPMENT - 134 W. HOPKINS - FENCE ... 7 MINOR DEVELOPMENT - 500 WEST MAIN. MESA STORE BANNER . 8 CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT - 630 W. MAIN - MOUNTAIN RESCUE 8 601 W. HALLAM - HPC RECOMMENDATION TO BLDG. DEPT. . 10 t 12