The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.20040324ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 24, 2004 CITY COUNCIL MEETING ROOM 130 S. GALENA ASPEN, COLORADO SITE -VISITS: Motherlode, Innsbruck Inn 233 V~. Main St., 616 W. Main Meet at the first site. 5:00 5:10 5:25 5:30 5:50 6:30 ~:00 II. IH. IV. V. VI. Roll call Approval of minutes - March I 0, 2004 Public Comments Commission member comments Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) Project Monitoring A. NONE VII. Staff comments: Certificates of No Negative Effect issued (Next resolution will be #9) VIII.OLD BUSINESS A. B. IX. 1295 Riverside Drive - Cont'd Minor Development _ Public Hearing 514 N. Third Street - Cont'd Minor Development - Public Hearing / 0- NEW BUSINESS A. 616 W. Main Street - Parking Waiver, Public Hearing/~-o/c- B. 233 W. Main, Innsbruck - Major Development (Conceptual) Hearing _ 3- ~ /~--- Public IX. WORK SESSION A. Skier's Chalet B. MotherlOde XI. ADJOURN - V 111- ~) MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Joyce Allg~puty Planning Director THRU: FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 1295 Riverside Drive- Minor Development Review and Variances- Continued Public Hearing DATE: March 24, 2004 SUMMARY: On January 28th, HPC recommended approval of historic designation and lot split for the subject property. The board voted to direct the applicant to finalize the design of the new entry with the participation of staff and monitor, which has been accomplished. The one aspect of the project that remains unresolved is a request to relocate a non-historic shed and receive setback variances. The board reviewed a restudy of the shed issue on February II th The new plan reduced the amount of encroachment into the setback, but still required variances. The majority of the board was still not able to make a finding that the review standards were met. There was significant Concern about the bulky nature of the shed, which is a prefab building. New information has been submitted documenting the existence of other similar outbuildings in the neighborhood, many of which are also tucked into rear corners of the properties. The architect proposes to lower the roof height on the shed and to change its orientation. Staff is supportive of the proposal finding that the building is now complimentary to the house and very secondary in nature. It helps to remove the need to add onto the building or create a larger deck area. APPLICANT: Tony and Kathy Welgos, represented by Consortium Architects and Gilbert Sanchez, architect. PARCELID: 2737-181-17_019. ADDRESS: 1295 Riverside Drive, Lot 20, Riverside Subdivision, Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: R-15, Moderate Density Residential. Setback variances along the new lot line have already been granted for a 10 foot west sideyard variance to accommodate an existing deck and a 7 foot west sideyard setback variance for the SETBACK VARIANCES house. The revised application requests a 6'6" east sideyard setback variance, a 3'6" rear yard variance, and a 6' reduction of the minimum distance between buildings. - The criteria, per Section 26.4I5.110.C of the Municipal Code are as follows: HPC must make a finding that the setback variance: a. Is similar to thc pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district. Staff Finding: The non-historic shed is proposed to be relocated because the applicant is moving a non-historic deck from the west side of the lot to the east. Staff believes that some relief to the setbacks is allowable. The architect's proposal to change the roof form and turn the building has significantly reduced its visibility from the street. It also appears to be more sympathetic to the historic house and the neighboring home, and relieves pressure to add onto the landmark building to accommodate storage. Staff recommends that the requested variances be granted. ~ DECISION MAKING OPTIONS: The HPC may: . approve the application, . approve the application with conditions, . disapprove the application, or . continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC grant a 6'6" east sideyard setback variance, a 3'6" rear yard variance and a 6' reduction of the minimum distance between buildings for the remodeled shed. EXHIBITS: Resolution # _, Series of2004 I A. Minutes of February 11,2004 B. Application ... 2 ~- w,_.__...___~."'.~....__.~w_.__._~ -- ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTESOFFEBRUARY~n::'iO()4"~"" . - .. Michael said he feels the mass and scale of the shedis out of proportion with the two buildtngS th~ked at today. /....~ ' / Kathy asked if a! different design of t e shed would be helpful. Jeffrey also stat d that the commission\!leeds to determine iftheplacement \' ',- . -',.. .. ,. is also an issue. '. MOTION: Dere oved to approve th) location of the shed as proposed in the drawings pres ted on, 2-lJ-2004 ipr 1295 Riverside Drive. Motion died for lac of a second. / / MOTION: Michael m ved to co~ti ue the minor development and variances forI 295 Rive ide Driv to Mqrch 24, 2004 to giVe, the applicant more time to restudy the ropos I utilizing the comments that were made tonight; second by Valeri Alfinfavor, m,otion carried 4-0. Yes vote: Michael, Derek, Pferie, JejJi'ey / Michael explained that the mo 'on.is to ta1:?!e andal!qw the applicant to propose a smaller shed pj;e aps some other mOd, ific,ation of the proposal and to restudy the locatio of the ed in order to comply with Section 26.415.110.C of the code Jeffrey said Michael's explanation is just one , \ option that they could plfrsue. \ ! \ , , Worksession - 435 W.!Main -113 E.~pkins - Guidelines Chapter. 2-7 No minut~ MOTION: Jeffrey moved to adjourn,' second b , motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 5:30 Kathleen J. Strickland, ChiefI>eputyClefk 4 March 24, 2004 Amy Guthrie Historic Preservation Officer City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 RECEIVED - Re: 1295 Riverside Drive Variances for Storage Shed MAR 1 5 2004 ASPEN BUILDING DH'ARTMENT Dear Amy and HPC Board Members: In response to the comments at the previous public hearing for setback variances related to the proposed storage shed location, I am submitting the attached revised proposal for your review, The Owners have agreed to modify the roof of the existing shed to reduce the visible impact on the historic Chalet. The current gambrel roof will be removed and replaced with a shallow sloped roof to match the pitch of the historic building. This lowers the roof ridge approximately 3' 6" and significantly reduces the bulk of the massing of the roof form. In addition, the relocation of the shed to a lower grade results in another 10" -12" of reduced ridge height. Overall, the roof ridge will drop about 4'6" below the existing condition. ;--- i i i , j' " I ~ i; ii '-'---'---"---'1 I I \1 F i q ~' I I; '= 1[' ---...-. i II .~ I 1;: Ij 11 [i " II H h j, " 1I I " n i Ii I' Ii \1 I"". _II --------, i 1\ iI II EXISTING SHED 11' -1 0" Ridge Height PROPOSED SHED 8' -4" Ridge Height Please note the following with regard to the criteria outlined in the Municipal Code. Per Section 26.415.110.C, the HPC must make a finding that the setback variance: a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character ofthe historic property or district; and! or b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character ofthe historic property, an adjoining historic property or historic district. Responses to Item a: I. The Residential Design Standards for the City of Aspen encourage the use of detached structures for Secondary Mass. Section 26.410.040 B.1 states: "Accessory buildings such as garages, sheds and Accessory Dwelling Units are examples of appropriate uses for secondary mass." """ 2. The use of accessory or secondary buildings is an historic and existing pattern of the -'.' Riverside Drive neighborhood. The attached map titled "Secondary Structures Within Lot Setbacks" illustrates this historic pattern for 8 properties in the neighborhood, (The source for the base map is the GIS department of the City of Aspen/Pitkin County.) 3. The location of accessory or secondary structures within lot setbacks is an historic and existing pattern in the Riverside Drive neighborhood. All the examples identified on the attached map titled "Secondary Structures Within Lot Lines" are located adjacent to property lines and within the original setbacks established for the neighborhood. 4. The proposed east sideyard setback is consistent with variances previously granted in the neighborhood, specifically the 4'-4" setback granted to the neighbor at 1315 Riverside for a detached garage Responses to Item b: I. The proposed relocation of the shed increases the visual separation from the designated historic house. 2. The proposed revision to the roof of the shed lowers the ridge height and reduces the overall mass and bulk of this accessory structure. 3. The replacement of the existing gambrel roof with a simple, shallow-pitched gable roof establishes a sympathetic and subordinate relationship with the historic house. 4. The relocation to lower grade results in an additional reduction to the roof ridge height that will be perceived from the street. 5. The proposed relocation of the shed minimizes its visual impact on the east neighbor's view plane from existing windows. 6. The proposed reorientation of the shed minimizes the visual impact on the east neighbor's view plane by presenting the side with less mass. 7. The proposed relocation of the shed minimizes the visual impact on the south neighbor's view plane since the adjacent wood fence on the property line masks the bulk of the shed. 8. The proposed setbacks permit the Owner to retain two large aspen trees which provide screening from the neighboring properties and contribute to the character of the property. I believe the items I've outlined above provide a valid basis for the approval of the requested variances to permit the relocation of a modified storage shed. This use and proposed location is consistent with the historic and current context of the Riverside Drive neighborhood. The shed modifications and proposed relocation mitigate any adverse impact on the historic house with increased separation and reduced mass. In addition, the adjacent neighbors will also benefit from the mitigating effects of the proposal. Thank you for your consideration. ~ Gilbert R. Sanchez GILBERT R. SANCHEZ \rchitcct p, O. Box 9287 Aspen. Colorado 81612 Phone 970.948.0597 Fax 970.920,7822 grsaia@rof,nef """ I L~ .- sl~ ;: ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ 00 ~O >~ ~o ,~ ~ Q~ ~= H~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~Z ~O ~~ lr)~ 0\> Sj~ ~ ~ = ~ o z -.. "",." I r ~~ "> Qld ~1 + ! ~ U ~ Q Q ~ ~OO >0 ~~ ~O Q~ ~~ Q= U)~ ~~ ~~ ~Z ~O t.n~ ~~ .-<~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 00 < ~ - "'" ........ '.",../ r- '- r '- .. Existing Conditions Existing Shed with New Entry - 10........ Proposed Shed with New Entry ~ ~ == 00 ~ ~ 00 o ~ ~o >~ ~~ ~~ OC-' ~z o~ (;)~ ~OO ~~ >~ ~ .. lrlOO O\~ N~ ,......;~ > Z o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '"""' -' """" .....,..... -- "''''..... \ , ..... '" ~ ::a :e. .. 01 ~ \;' i' ..... '" ~ ::a ~ 01 ~ \;' ~ RIVERSIDE DRIVE NEIGHBORHOOD SECONDARYSTRUCTURES~THINLOTSETBACKS c ./ ./ / \, , , ...... ------ -....... ------ ...... - ...... ...... ----~- ------ -------- - ~~-----T-- -~---- ----1' - -- ------ --- ..---_-f-- ./ ./ ./ ./ - f-___--- I I I I I 1 I I 1 \ 1 I \ " I I \ 1 1 \ I I I \ j I I \ I I I ............ I /1 I \ I / 1 / I / I I 1 / 1 / I / I I / 1/ I ----) I PROPOSED SETBACK N I : 20 II 1 ~ I ~ LOT I, I ~TI ,I I f[!~3 JI / I /, / I 1 I ; ,/1 / I / ,~;__+______~~ ___ _ uu,___,_juu EXISTING(}/ : 6'.ri~~I~ I : . /~_.j:A~9"~' :0/: Ll:::::". ~ I 101 ~ 13'-0" I : I / /. I ~ ! I V /1/ ~ ~ 'u"""""',u"~u r-'" h' '0 F~R~~~ IS~~~ - !j f I ;1' u~'_:'1 I k,-O".. I I I L _ -::::y ! : / /1 I 1 1 / I L --- - ---.I / & I / SHED DOOR _______ / ~__ L_ ~'O""""" _ _ _ _ .fI."- / / -0 ~-~--- - - -y~ - I ~ ~ EXISTING TREE -- -- ./ / ...... <.... \ '-~-- ~ PARKING ~ SPACES ~ --..... ~ NEW LOT LINE IS ':::J PARALLEL WITH 1 r NEIGHBORING b / HOUSE ~~, / 001 _ :3 w z ,- -- r I -- I _/ y~'~~f~::~-~-::~~:,~"'=- ~--, I ---i-- I -, , - ';;;: ,.="=- ._ _'-1'- If I I _=-_=_:;:.: ::;:_~_~~n ___, I I I : ./- ;/./ I I I L_ : ; I 1 r-- ----r I I - ......'\...... ...... WALK -.....~ - -- " 1--- ,,/ 10'..()" 1 I I 1 101 -- ,'---1 i i _ uu uuj I I \ 11:,"-' __L-r I I I I I --- ...... 1 ',,_, I dYE ENTRY TO ~ 'rPOSITE SIDE 'I T 1 ---t .. - --1----,----' ,-,-~ =L l I i i ~ ~ 1--= I I i' ,\, I ~ 1 I 1 I I { \ 1'- I J ---T I I I I I I I i J -' 1 4'47/8" ~, 1- o. ID . , ,- ,- .- - I -' / I / I / I ,I ! / I / I L__ EXISTING TREE HPC MEETING: 03-24-2004 3'-6" ~/,y,,,,,, V ~, \~ I :t ~ ~ , o ~ .... -- -.---.-- .-.-- ...) E9 0 PROPOSED SITE PLAN: REVISED SETBACKS WELGOS RESIDENCE REMODEL 1295 RIVERSIDE DRIVE, aspen, colorado \J ItA fJ,) MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Joyce Allg~puty Planning Director THRU: FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 514 N. Third Street- Minor Development- Continued Public Hearing DATE: March 24, 2004 SUMMARY: The subject property contains a 19th century residence and carriage hOllse, which were linked together with new construction in 1998. In June 2003, the owners installed a fence, unaware of the need for a building permit or HPC approval. A red tag was issued by the Community Development Department. Fences are one type of alteration to a historic property that can be approved by the Community Development Department through the issuance of a "Certificate of No Negative Effect." According to Section 26.415.070.8, the criteria for approval are that: a. It is determined that the activity is an eligible work item and meets the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, and b. Any modifications to the proposed work requested by the Community Development Director are agreed to by the owner/applicant, and c. The proposed work will not diminish, eliminate or adversely affect the significant historic and/or architectural character of the subject property or historic district in which it is located. Fence at 514 N. Third The Community Development Department was unable to make a finding that these criteria were met, particularly due to the precedent set a year ago when reviewing a similar new fence at 218 N. Monarch, the Myrin property. As a result, the applicant was asked to file for Minor Development. ""'" ,,,~ HPC reviewed the fence proposal on October 22, 2003 and continued the project for restudy. In response, the applicant has submitted a letter suggesting modifications for the fence which they hope the board will find acceptable within the guidelines. Staff finds the fence that has been constructed does not meet the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. Alterations that bring the fence into compliance and allow for a "Certificate of Appropriateness" to be issued are listed as conditions of approval. APPLICANT: D.W. Ringsby Enterprises, Don and Karen Ringsby, owners. PARCEL ID: 2725-124-16-001. ADDRESS: 514 N. Third Street, See application for a full legal description. ZONING: R-6 (Medium Density Residential). MINOR DEVELOPMENT ""'" -,_., The procedure for a Minor Development Review is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. If the application is approved, the HPC shall issue a Certificate of Appropriateness and the Community Development Director shall issue a Development Order. The HPC decision shall be final unless appealed by the applicant or a landowner within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 26.316. Staff Response: The request is that HPC approve the wrought iron fence constructed along the streetfacing sides of this parcel. The fence is a historic artifact, but is not original to 514 N. Third Street or Aspen. - 2 No photographs or information are available to establish whether there was a fence on this property during its "period of significance," the late 1800's. The property has been surrounded by a non-historic white picket fence for some years. All but a small area of this was removed around 1998. The applicants have taken munerous pictures of fences in the surrounding neighborhood which they feel are similar to the one they recently installed. In a quick survey of the West End, staff has fOlmd that some new metal fences allowed over the years are very Victorian in character, and just as many others are more contemporary in design. This history aside, since the adoption of the 2000 "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, HPC has been consistent in its philosophy that new work which occurs on a historic property must be distinguishable from old. This concept comes from the "Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings," . Appendix B of the guidelines, which are identified as the policies that serve as the basis for Aspen's reviews. The standards indicate that "each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, shall not be undertaken." As mentioned above, the board reviewed a similar case recently, when a homeowner asked to install a new fence that exactly replicated Victorian wrought iron. Staffs recommendation, and HPC's decision, was that this would be appropriate only if the work was restoring an original condition. - In surveying historic photographs of Aspen as part of the past discussions on this topic, staff has found that overall, wrought iron fences were far less common than wood on our Victorian properties, even for very high style mansions. For that reason, guideline 1.2 encourages wood as the most appropriate material and metal only if the style is "simple." 1.2 A new replacement fence should use materials that appear similar to that of the original. o Any fence which is visible from a public right-of-way must be built of wood or wrought iron. Wire fences also may be considered. o A wood picket fence is an appropriate replacement in most locations. A simple wire or metal fence, similar to traditional "wrought iron," also may be considered. o Chain link is prohibited and solid "stockade" fences are only allowed in side and rear yards. Guideline 1.3 promotes the use of contemporary interpretations of traditional fences. Staff finds that the proposed fence is neither simple in design nor a contemporary interpretation of a period fence. It would be misleading as to the historic development of the site and would detract fi'om authentic 100 year old wrought iron fences that still exist here as rare pieces of our Victorian past. , J 1.3 A new replacement fence should have a "transparent" quality allowing views into the yard from the street. o A fence that defines a front yard is usually low to the ground and "transparent" in nature. o On residential properties, a fence which is located forward of the front building facade may not be taller than 42" from natural grade. (For additional information, see the City of Aspen's "Residential Design Standards".) o A privacy fence may be used in back yards and along alleys, but not forward of the front facade of a building. o Note that using no fencing at all is often the best approach. o Contemporary interpretations of traditional fences should be compatible with the historic context. """-I '.- Staff is very sympathetic to the fact that the owner has invested time and money in purchasing this fence, and understands that the work was done with the intent to be consistent with the Victorian building on their property. However, this application must be reviewed according to the guidelines, as if it were being discussed before installation. Looking at it any other way could result in special treatment. Two examples of projects that have recently been accepted are shown below, so that HPC may consider whether any modifications to the 514 N. Third fence could bring it into compliance. The rail of the 514 N. Third Street fence is not totally unlike what was used for these properties, however, these posts have no ornamentation. 610 W. Smuggler 218 N. Monarch (Myrin) The applicants have offered to make two alterations to the fence; removing the pineapple finials from the posts and painting it a glossy black. Staff supports that latter idea, but finds that the posts are too ornamental to be consistent with recent approvals and should be replaced with a simple squared or rounded version, with a small finial if desired. In - 4 addition, staff has given further consideration to the issue raised by Sarah Broughton at the last meeting about the transition from metal to picket fence at the front of the property. This complex arrangement is very out of character with what we know of 19th century residential landscapes in Aspen and has resulted in the front yard being divided in half. Had the current fence been brought in for a permit, staff agrees that this would have been another reason why it would not have been issued. The recommendation is that if the wrought iron fence is desired by the owner, then the picket fence along North Street must be removed. The wrought iron should be extended across this area, or end where it does now, with a short return back towards the house to enclose the side yard. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC approve Resolution #_, Series of 2004, allowing the wrought iron fence at 514 N. Third Street to remain with the following conditions: 1. Paint the entire metal fence a glossy black color. 2. Replace all of the post~lllL1he fence with a simple Bquared or rounded version, witlllhe design iobe~approveJby staff and monitor. f:i I ,-} f "c.f:' ./ /?<-- /2,...{ 1L ''- L ~k'S- 3. Remove the white picket fence that remains across North Street and determine where to end the wrought iron fence, with the design to be approved by staff and monitor. Exhibits: Resolution #_, Series of2004 A. Staff memo dated March 24, 2004 B. Relevant Design Guidelines C. Minutes of October 22, 2003 D. Application 5 "Exhibit B, Relevant Design Guidelines, 514 N. Third Street Minor Review" """" "",.,v' 1.2 A new replacement fence should use materials that appear similar to that of the original. o Any fence which is visible from a public right-of-way must be built of wood or wrought iron. Wire fences also may be considered. o A wood picket fence is an appropriate replacement in most locations. A simple wire or metal fence, similar to traditional "wrought iron," also may be considered. o Chain link is prohibited and solid "stockade" fences are only allowed in side and rear yards. 1.3 A new replacement fence should have a "transparent" quality allowing views into the yard from the street. o A fence that defines a front yard is usually low to the ground and "h'ansparent" in nature. o On residential properties, a fence whi~h is located forward of the front building facade may not be taller than 42" from natural grade. (For additional information, see the City of Aspen's "Residential Design Standards".) o A privacy fence may be used in back yards and along alleys, but not forward of the front facade of a building. o Note that using no fencing at all is often the best approach. o Contemporary interpretations of traditional fences should be compatible with the historic context. ~ '..,...,.' 1.4 New fence components should be similar in scale with those seen traditionally. o Fence columns or piers should be proportional to the fence segment. ~. 6 ,. w_ '~~,_'__._,__~____ D.W. RINGSBY ENTERPRISES 1123 Auraria Parkway #200 Denver, Colorado 80204 303-892-0115 July 23, 2003 Ms. Amy Guthrie Historic Preservation Officer City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 Dear Ms. Guthrie: \ D. W. Ringsby Enterprises, a Colorado partnership is the owner of a residence at 514 N. 3rd Street in Aspen. Thepartners are Karen R.Ringsby and Donald W. Ringsby.D.W. Ringsby Enterprises is the applicant. This letter is being written to apply for a Certificate of Appropriateness- Minor Review of the fence we have constructed on our property. In many ways we comply with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. We replaced a rotten white picket fence with an antique wrought iron fence. The gate on the wooden fence was wrought iron. We have preserved the gate and matched it in color and scale with the wrought iron fence in compliance with 1.1 of the Guidelines. 1.2 states in part "A simple wire or metal fence, similar to traditional "wrought iron," may also be considered." We rely on this in our decision to convert to a wrought iron fence. ~ Our fence has a much greater transparent quality than the former fence allowing for enhanced viewing of our yard and flowers as well as the ornate detail of the house. This is in keeping with I.3 ofthe guidelines. The fence is less than 42" above natural grade. The five posts comply except for the decorative tops that extend above 42" - Attached are photographs of our ,wought iron fence as well as others in our neighborhood. The fence components are similar i4 scale to those seen traditionally per 1.4 of the guidelines. The antique ,waugh! iron fence is compatible with the historic context. Our house has more decorative trim than most other miners' cottages in Aspen and the ,wought iron fence serves to enhance the antique appearance of the property as a whole., It is our belief that we have made a tasteful and appropriate addition to our property. We look forward to favorable review and the issuance of A Certificate of Appropriateness. Yours trul~r' IkIdfRJ! lt1l ~ B~~.~ 6. W. Ring y Flnterprises by d Karen R. Ringsby, partner Donald W. Ringsby, partner - 'J" """-I LAW OFFICES OF LEONARD M. OATES RICHARD A. KNEZEVICH TED D. GARDENSWARTZ DAVID B. KELLY OATES, KNEZEVICH & GARDENSWARTZ, p.e. PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION THIRD FLOOR, ASPEN PLAZA BUILDING 533 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 '" TELEPHONE (970) 920-1700 FACSIMILE (970) 920-1121 rak@okglaw.com OF COUNSEL: JOHN T. KELLY MARIA TICSAY March 16,2004 VIA HAND DELIVERY Aspen Historical Preservation Commission c/o Ms. Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Community Development Department 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611-1975 Re: Ringsby Terminals, Inc. / 514 N. Third Street Minor Development (Fence) Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: The purpose of this letter is to request an approval for a Development Order for the Fence constructed at 514 N. 3rd Street, City and Townsite of Aspen pursuant to Section 26.415.070 of the code. The basis of our request is as follows: 1. Background. Last June a wrought fence, of undetermined age (perhaps from the 1930's) was brought from another location in South Dakota and installed on the property. At the time of construction, the applicant's principals, Don and Karen Ringsby (hereinafter "Ringsbys"), who reside in Denver, were totally unaware of the need for a permit. After "Red Tagging," the Ringsbys made every effort to rectifY the situation by applying for a "Certificate of No Negative Effect" from the Historic Preservation officer, filling out all necessary applications and posting the property. It should also be noted that the Ringsbys have a good track record with HPC. They voluntarily designated their property and completed, pursuant to HPC approvals, a substantial Historic project in 1998. Unfortunately, the Ringsbys improved their property with a fence which they believed enhanced the historical aspects of the property consistent with what apparently has been common in the past. They simply did not realize it required a permit. 2. Position. It is our client's position that the fence, with the possible mitigation discussed below is in compliance with the provisions of Section 26.415.070 based on the following: Citv of Aspen Historic Guidelines 1.2. 1.3. 1.4 .- - 1.2 A New Replacement Fence Should Use Materials That Appear Similar to That of the Oril!inal - This guideline contains three standards. The first is that the fence visible "'" """" ~ ~ ._" - OATES, KNEZEVICH & GARDENSWARTZ, P.C. Aspen Historical Preservation Commission c/o Ms. Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer March 16, 2004 Page 2 must be of wood or wrought iron. Certainly, the subject fence is within this standard. The second standard states that while a wood picket fence is appropriate in most locations "...wrought iron mav also be considered" (emphasis added). The third standard is not applicable. The Ringsbys would submit that the fence is accordingly within these guidelines and certainly within the commissioners discretion to approve the fence. 1.3 A New Replacement Fence Should Have a Transparent Oualitv AIIowinl!: Views into the Yards from the Street. The Ringsbys would submit that they are again within this guideline. As mitigated (see below), the fence is within the 42" lirnit and is certainly more transparent than the prior wood fence (which, according to our clients, was not historical). Interestingly, the guidelines seem to be at odds by promoting picket fences which are certainly less transparent than wrought iron fences. This particular property, the "transparent" quality is particularly important due to the fact that rnuch of the remaining historical details are on the lower portions ofthe windows particularly the window facing 4th Street. In short, the Ringsbys submit that the fence meets the requirements of transparency and historical context. 1.4 New Fence Components Should Be Similar in Scale with Those Seen Traditionallv. After a site visit to the property by counsel for the Ringsbys and Amy Guthrie, the Ringsbys would concede that the fence columns and the "pineapple" features on the columns may be out of scale with some iron fences in the West End. Hence, to mitigate this problem, the Ringsbys are willing to alter the existing columns so that they do not exceed 42" and remove the "pineapple" features. This will make the fence less ornate and more in keeping with some of the wrought iron fences which have been approved in the past. The Ringsbys would also be willing to consider painting the fence a high gloss back, which along with alteration of the columns, would help differentiate "old" from "new." The Ringsbys would submit, however, that the existing fence is not out of keeping with many traditional fences in Aspen. 3. Conclusion. In conclusion, the Ringsbys believe the following quote from design guidelines is pertinent: .-. "P ences. Originally, wood picket fences enclosed many front yards. The vertical slats were set apart, with spaces between, and the overall height of the fence was generally less than three feet. Wrought iron and wire fences also were used in early domestic landscapes. Where any of these early fences survive, they should be preserved. In a situation where the original fence is missing, a new fence may be used if it is similar in character to one seen traditionally." '-' The fence that was replaced was not historical as the remnants along North Street will attest. ... ~ "*"" ~ ......, _.~;iI - OATES, KNEZEVICH & GARDENSWARTZ, P.C. ",,"'''' Aspen Historical Preservation Commission c/o Ms. Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer March 16, 2004 Page 3 No one knows what was historically on the property. The Ringsbys would submit, however, that this house was not a traditional "miners" cabin, most of which were situated in the easterly portion of town. It was considerably more ornate than a miners cabin and also had a carriage house. The carriage house is shown on the Willets map, and it would appear that this would further indicate that person of at least middle class inhabited the premises. The Ringsbys believe the house was probably owned by a middle class person, but any questions as to what type of citizen occupied the premises before the late 1950's or early 1960's is purely speculation. We do know that the house was fairly well maintained in that it was in good condition (relatively) in the late 1950's and early 1960's. In short, we believe the wrought iron style of fence is appropriate based on the proceeding quote from the guidelines. Finally, while the Ringsbys are sympathetic to the intent ofthe guidelines and consistency in their application, they believe the current application is not dissimilar to fences or other activities that have been approved in the past. As was stated at the last meeting, an informal survey of the West End North of and excluding Main Street indicated approximately 39 "wrought iron" type fences and 12 picket fences. This would indicate on of two things. One, the use of wrought iron fences was historically common, or two, the HPC has approved numerous wrought iron fences in the past. The City itself has also done a great deal of importing older materials to enhance, correctly we believe, the historical ambiance of the Town. Two examples are the antique street lights and the bricks in the mall. In any event, the Ringsbys believe that fence, with the above referenced mitigation, fits within the historical context of the West End and generally complies with the design standards. Simply because a fence is not new, you should not disqualifY it. Based on the foregoing, the Ringsbys would request approval for the existing fence, as mitigated. They believe approval for the fence lies within the discretion of the commission. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Very Truly Yours, OATES, KNEZEVICH & GARDENSWARTZ, P.c. 'i BY~ tt. John T. Kelly, Attorney for D. W. Ringsby Enterprises and Don and Karen Ringsby JTKlelh -- - """" '."..".'T ~ --- '....,~~ a3lO!' 'g/ 'AO~SN3j/, '1V33~D~3M3S 33" 1rII3S.'---. \ .9Lr' s~i)l;~~ / OO~ \ \JUSVld\r- ____:______ ' - ~ .OO'6f-- lON'I~l ~31V~? ~lJ313 3!)DIlJ ... ----- ," Co, ,9 '.' ,00 '01. '---M. II, 60. S<, 1/ 3.II'60,S<, S SS3~aov .P"" 3~V/~~'1J .0,.. 07g 3SfIO/I ,9', ;. .i! ;: .6 ,.'001 ,UN] ,sq', 10\ 10, , . s \ ~ '" '" ""9/ 9 I ~ S~3A'IJ I 1- ~ o ,A o . 10 :.:i o . ,.,. 10 1/ ,,,' I I I I \0 CO , '\ ,~ '" SS3~aa'l .,.. &II I aOOM I.~OlS 3SnOH 3n'l~j , /60" JAYJ z 0') J. ,r,tol :1901/1 -~---- / 111S, .0 001 '/'(;'/ H:JIIDd I / " .'" , SC'g .....,. [ ~l .p ~ 1:; :JI f ~~ \. \ \ .9 .~ .......... 1/ ............ <:"'(5' ............ Cs .......... .......... 30/11, 133:1 S, iN3/'!:J" va' .to 39a3 //LYON I I I , 101 , , I I ! I , ; I I ; I I ! , , ~ I ---- ! 5" j/I 3,.\v3 / 13;1 Vll9 .:10 39Q3 r- ______ ----- r- I I 9 a.L .6 I ............=:] :=I -, 'C' G. r ~.I . r . r 6'(5' I I ~NIWYJ I 13A'I~i> , i ! i I I , ! , I I ~! lli"'t I . ! .L .r! i ; I I I , I I i I 1 I I .. 10 3~/~S Q , aNnOl , I , I I , I I ~ 12 ~ 0'" "'", NI.O ...., ';::: " '" ,... No(!1 '0 ~ , . " ""~ I '" ---- <- dVJ . 9Lfll/~iJl13^ --.... J 11 S 'I , , I I I I , I I , I I~ :~ I -i I j I , '" I l> I Q '" ~ I I , I , , o -0 o . "'0 , 0> '" . "'0 '0 .. 3 ~ .---'--' ~ / 00 d'lJ, . 9Lrz1/~01l3^ ::Jusv " " ,'j fo, 'i i~ ~ :il :Ii Ii .,f~ 'II j~ I , ," li :,'? l l' T. -:.,., :D oj!, W ? 'i 0' ~' ~. 0, m ~ . ~, ~ t CIX ~\ MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Joyce Allgaier, Deputy Director-J.AA- FROM: James Lindt, PlaImer J L RE: 616 W. Main Street On-site Parking Waiver -Public Hearing DATE: March 24, 2004 ApPLICANT: Jennifer Park LOCATION: 616 W. Main Street ZONING: Office Zone District REVIEW PROCEDURE: Parkinz Waiver: The Historic Preservation Commission shall by resolution approve, approve with conditions, or deny the request for a parking waiver, after reviewing a recommendation by the Community Development Director. PROPOSED LAND USE: Frame Shop- Shop Craft Industry STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with Conditions SUMMARY: The ApplicaI1t has requested approval of a parking waiver in conjunction with a conditional use request to operate a fraIne shop at 616 W. Main Street. The Office Zone District in which this property is located allows for shop craft industry as a conditional use in structures that are listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Sites aIld Structures. Staff has interpreted that a frame shop falls under the classification of a shop craft industry since a frame shop is not identified specifically as a use in the Land Use Code. The Planning and Zoning Commission has already reviewed and approved the requested conditional use, However, there is only one on-site parking space for use by the main structure that is to be converted from a single-family residence into the frame shop. The Office Zone District requires that three (3) on-site parking spaces be provided for every 1,000 square feet of net leasable floor area. Incidentally, the proposed frame shop is to contain between 600 and 700 square feet of net leasable floor area, Therefore, under the existing zoning the -., Applicant would have to provide between 1.8 and 2 on-site parking spaces. Given that the ... site is historically designated and has an existing parking deficit, the Historic Preservation ConIDlission has the authority to waive an on-site parking space pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.415.110(C), Parking Waivers. STAFF COMMENTS: As an incentive of historic designation, historically designated properties in the Office Zone District are allowed to house certain commercial uses as long as the operating characteristics of these commercial uses are appropriate and the impacts are properly mitigated. That being the case, Staff agrees with the Applicant's contention that the proposed frame shop use enhaJ1ces the mix of uses along Main Street as long as certain conditions are enacted to regulate the operating characteristics as was established in the conditional use review, It should also be noted that there would be room to provide an additional stacked parking space, but Staff feels that the additional parking would compromise the esthetics of the property to an extent. In addition, Staff agrees with the Applicant's contention that there is sufficient unutilized, short-term, on-street parking on this specific block of Main Street to accommodate the aJ1ticipated parking demand. ~ In conclusion, Staff would recommend that the HPC grant the requested parking waiver of one parking space for the life of the proposed use as a frame shop given that Staff feels that sufficient short-term, on-street parking exists in the in the immediate vicinity to accommodate the use. Applicable Historic Preservation Design Guidelines: 1.13 Revisions or additions to the landscape should be consistent with the historic context of the site, o Do not cover gras~y areas with gravel, rock, or paving materials, Staff feels that the requested parking waiver supports compliance with the above design guideline in that if the Applicant wished to install additional parking in the vacant space to -. ~.__.~,,~..,.," the rear of the structure, it would likely require damaging the grassy area in the backyard or replacing it with a type of material that is more appropriate to park upon, RECOMMENDA nON: Staff recommends that the Historic Preservation Commission waive one required on- site parking space at 616 W. Main Street with the condition set forth in the attached resolution. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution No. _' Series of2004, waiving one parking space at 616 W. Main Street, Lot N, Block 24, City and Townsite of Aspen." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit "A". Review Criteria aJld Staff Responses Exhibit "B". Application RESOLUTION NO. (SERIES OF 2004) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING A PARKING WAIVER AT 616 WEST MAIN STREET, LOT N, BLOCK 24, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID#2735-124-44-008 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Jennifer Park, requesting aIld a parking waiver for one required on-site parking space and a conditional use approval to operate a fraIne shop at 616 W. Main Street; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.710,330(C)(l) of the Land Use Code, the Office Zone District allows for shop craft industry and furniture stores as conditional uses in historically designated structures; and, WHEREAS, 616 W. Main Street is located in the Office Zone District and is designated to the Aspen Inventory of Historically Designated Sites and Structures; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Staff has interpreted that the use of a frame shop is most consistent with the shop craft industry and furniture store uses that are specified in the City of Aspen Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.425 of the Land Use Code, the Aspen Planning aIld Zoning Commission approved the Conditional Use request on March 16th during a duly noticed public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department reviewed the requested parking waiver and recommended approval with conditions; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on March 24, 2004, the Historic Preservation Commission approved, by a _ to _ L-~ vote, a parking waiver of required parking space for the proposed franle shop use at 616 W, Main Street, with the conditions contained herein; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Conmmnity Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public conunent at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards aIld that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area COlmnunity Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Historic Preservation Conunission finds that this Resolution fwihers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. "" "...!" ~ ...."".,v ~ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION as follows: Section 1 PurSUaJ1t to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission herby approves a parking waiver of one required on- site parking space at 616 W. Main Street, subject to the following conditions: 1. Waiver of the parking space is only for the life of the fran1e shop use. Section 2: This Resolution shall not effect any,existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, aJ1d the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of tl1e remaining portions thereof. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on March 24, 2004, APPROVED AS TO FORM: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION: Jeffrey Halferty, Chair City Attorney ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Deputy City Clerk - EXHIBIT A 616 W. MAIN STREET PARKING WAIVER REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS 26.425.040 Standards applicable to all conditional uses. When considering a parking waiver request, the Historic Preservation Commission shall consider whether all of the following staJldards are met, as applicable. 1. The Parking reduction and waiver of payment-in-lieu fees may be approved upon a finding by the HPC that it will enhance or mitigate an adverse impact on the historic significance or architectural character of a designated historic property, an adjoining designated property or a historic district. Staff Response: Staff feels that there is enough space in the back yard to provide the additional parking spaces needed to meet the Office Zone District's parking requirements for commercial properties. However, Staff believes that the proposed frame shop use will not have significant parking demands and that there is sufficient short-term, on-street parking in the immediate area to accommodate the proposed use. Moreover, Staff believes that adding paJ'king spaces in the back yard to meet the requirements would require the installation of more durable materials to park upon than the existing grass, and the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines discourage replacing grass on historic sites with other materials such as rock, pavement, or gravel. Therefore, Staff finds that the request warrants a parking waiver for the life of the frame shop use. - - "---" FEH 10 2004 TO~ ~l: 10 pfl . FAX NO. c.~, ,~4 \ i \\AiI C-x (II I IJ i l' I::) Sri . -, '!~- APPLICAN'r: AlTACHMENT 2 -LAND USE APPLICATION Name: Location: :Jennifev Pa.vk 10111 WeST vYlOln Sweet dicate street address. lot & block number. legaJ descri tion where a .l735 -l~ -'f -roe riate) lQ;PRESENT AT/V[: Name: Address: Phone #: PROJECT: Name: Address: . Phone #: TYPE OF APPLICATION: (Please check all that apply): D?J Conditional Use D Conceptual POO 0 Conceptual Historic Devt. 0 Special Review 0 Final PUD (& PUD Amendin<:nt) 0 Final Historic Development 0 Design Review Appeal 0 Conceptual SPA 0 Minor Historic Devt. D GMQS Allotment 0 Final SPA (& SPA Amenclment) '; 0 Historic Demolition 0 GMQs Exemption 0 Subdivision 0 Historic Designalion 0 ESA - 8040 Green!ine, Stream D Subdivision Exemption (includes D Small Lodge Conversion! Margin. Hallam Lake Bluff, condominlumization) Expansion MOlll!tain View Plane 0 Lot Split 0 Tc:mpornry Use 0 Other: 10 Lot Line Adjusiment 0 TextlM"p Amendment EXISTING CONDITIONS: main house w 01'1 st>ed" I1ave you attached the follOwing? FEES DUE; S 'B Pre-Application Conferencc,Summazy @ AttachmCllt #1, Signed Fee Agreement 'btJ ROlSponse to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requiremen!$ Form '@ Response to Attachment #4, Subminal :Requirements_ Including Written Responses to Review Standards All plans that are larger thiln 8,5" x 11" must be folded and a floppy disk with an electronic copy of all Written t, ~crosoft Word Format) must be submitted as part orthe application, ! ~2/eS/2e05 ,5:59 750854,453 MAILBOXPLUS PAGE B1/Bl February 9, 2004 To: Placnlng and Zoning Commitrcc: William :and Darleen Mancl.3rk .now Jennifer Parks to submit a. change of U!e form for the main house located at 616 West Main Street to change the use frQm single family to commercial use, William anzen Manda-It Trust ' ) //1 ' ;!Jt1/4 - ~~ ~~J1t j rj1~Jz- B}~ William :and Darler:n Manclark Date ' (J .-. ....e' ~ - ~ --'~'""-'-'.'".'''''~._~- Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission 130 S,Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 To Whom It May Concern: I am writing this letter to request a conditional use permit for the main house located on the property at 616 West Main Street in Aspen, Colorado. My name is Jennifer Park. I reside at 999 Fender Lane in Carbondale, Colorado. My mailing address is PO Box 1608, Basalt, Colorado, 81621. My home phone number is (970)963-3975 and my cell phone number is (970)948-7160. I am applying for this conditional use because I would like to open my own framing business in Aspen, This property would suit the business' needs perfectly for the first year. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Respectfully, UQA1..YUJ Lv p~ d II otf Jennifer Park 6 D- Owner/operator Frames and Finds "i.. .-. ........y". COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE A 1, Effective Dale: January 26, 2004 at 8:00 AM Case No. PCT18621C 2. Policy or Policies to be issued: (a) ALTA Ownllr's Policy-Form 1992 Proposed Insured: PROFORMA Amounl$ 0.00 Premlum$ 0.00 Rate: (b) AL T A Loan Policy-Form 1992 Proposed Insured: Amoun1$ 0.00 Premium$ 0.00 Rate: Tax Certificate: $10.00 3. TItle to the FEE SIMPLE eslate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment is at the effective date hereof vested in: WILUAM and DARLEEN MANClARK TRUST DATED JULY 23, t 977 4. The land referred to in this Commitment is situated in the County of PITKIN Slate of COLORADO and is described as follows: .-. ""~"" LOTN, BLOCK 24, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN Prl'KIN COUNTY TTILE,INC. 601 Eo HOPICINS ASPEN, co. 81611 ~1766 Phone 97l>925-6527 FAX 877-217.3158 Toll Proo AtmiORlZED AGENT Schedule A-PG.1 This Commitment is invalid unless the Insuring Provisions and Schedules A and Bare altached. Countersigned: """" Aspen Street Map 3 Q o 112 Scale in miles ,.. ~~ "%~ Not all roads may b~ shown or nAmed on 7/'I4p or /~d in strm J:UiIk. Somr T'tJJIIir miZy b~ private, proposed; or under constrJlCtiqn. Maps byChicagll CartoGraphies HumlilrTolIRd J;I?!!~:: Cir(k ~-':::'--:-:~.:;;::>-- WlritsRil'fK NflCifJrlal ,."', ;;<111, fR t.>'1E1 '~ MAP KEY AK AitPttwy AP AlpilHlCt Bl Brownln cw Cottanwood ln CC CowentllMln Ct FS FrancisSt HR H,roIdRossCl r:!N KathrynsWay LS LuUShOl1Ct Me Mayflower Ct MT M"Kl8rs Trail Rei RR flobinsonRd 56 SmuggllrGroveRd we WOlilms Rlnch Cl WD WaJiarRd WR WilliamsRlllchDr :.~f gj f Wbill'River Nlt/or/al ForeST J! "'i 'I ~' , ~ i Aspen ,~ To Twin Lakes.vfa , Independenoe'Pass Iclosed in whiter) . --:0 '.\ ", 41 "': '.,,,,,,,,,. ,'~' -:/ '-, FEB-IO-2004 rUE 03:02 PM .---' G~V1~';heV' AV'k- FAX NO. P. 01 ~~;?.;20 0 / ;;? ;t- "3 SZ;:2..v C/~oo ;z. ~ 575'0'l'Il'E' ~.O' ,.; /lI,C' .-., "',".,y~ I I M N 27 ~ ~ 0.... o 'Iu u ~ lC '--c Q ~ . 'I ',OZ' """ ....,.; o B , IlJ . ~ " ~ , :r i. .e' I I ~.I59,'16') '! o. 'Z7' CALcuLATED ~ACHHENT lo: ... " ~, '"" ~j~;~'\n:'\1 ;f'tl..~~:-_~ ., ...~ JUL 27 ?nCl ASPEN J ?IT~IN ...to", ,~......, .......ll'""ll"\l"IUC"rt ~ .. Response to Review Standards A. The conditional use is consistent with the purpose, goals, objectives, and standards of the Aspen Area Community Plan, with the intent of the zone district in which it is proposed to be located, and complies with all other applicable requirements of this title · Managing Growth- we will use an existing structure in the city limits · Affordable Housing- our small business does not really have an effect on this aspect of the AACP · Managing Transportation- the property is in a location that is easily accessible, people will not have to drive around to find parking, there are several convenient RFTA stops in the vicinity, the owners will be carpooling unless special circumstances exist · Economic Sustainability- this supports everyone of your policies in the AACP o Foster a high quality, well trained, service-oriented, educated work force- these are goals we are dedicated to within our business o Encourage local ownership of businesses- because we are just starting out, rental of this location will enable us to launch our business and if we enjoy success we may be able to relocate to the commercial core in time o Create opportunities for entrepreneurs so that local residents can start businesses and move beyond wage-earning jobs- again, one of our goals, this may be much more difficult to achieve if we have to start in the core. Starting the business in this location is a prime opportunity for us as entrepreneurs to thrive in Aspen o Ensure government support of a diverse business and nonprofit community- Aspen needs another frame shop. A little competition is healthy and contributes to diversity and makes owners strive to do their best for the Aspen community o Utilize our public and private infrastructure(transportation, parks, buildings, businesses, etc.) to full capacity to ensure the maximum return on existing investments( though we also understand the value of the off-season) this building has been empty for several months, we will be generating income for the realtor, the owners, and ourselves, not to mention a few dollars for Aspen in the form of licensing fees and taxes - .""o;l;. o Support partnerships- this business is a partnership between the two owners and also a partnership between the city and the business o Encourage resource efficiency, environmental responsibility, and cultural and community sensitivity in local organizations- we are believers in recycling and reuse. Any materials( such as matboard) we do not use will be donated to local schools or artists. All packing materials will be recycled - . Managing Parks, Open Space, and the Environment- supported in the above paragraph . Maintaining Community Character & Design- we will be making use of a historic location without a need to alter the structure, maintaining the original character and integrity of the building's design. Who doesn't know "the purple house on Main Street"? That is how we intend to keep it. ~ B. - The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development · The use is consistent and compatible with the immediate vicinity and enhances the mixture. This use is similar to that of a furniture store, which is permitted. There are several types of offices and the Hickory House. We will be adding another element, although similar in visitation, since framing is destination shopping C, The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts on pedestrian and vehicular ciculation, parking, trash, service, delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties . Any effecUimpact we have will be very similar to a residence or office. Trash will be routine, no more than a household. We will have two service deliveries a wee, similar to UPS. Signage will be based on what the city will allow ( a small identifying sign) similar to those in the immediate vicinity. We will not alter the outside of the property, other than signage. As far as noise goes, framing is generally a quiet business, other than the occasional hammering and routing (similar to the sound of a vacuum). This will not generally happen past 6 pm unless there is an abundance of work (i.e. holidays), but never past 8pm. We will have no impact on pedestrians or vehicle circulation --- ..... 0,- There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems, and schools · Our use will in no way alter or inhibit existing access to the aforementioned facilities and services ."i" E.- The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the need for increased employees generated by the conditional use · No need is generated by our use. Both employee! owners currently work in Aspen and live Downvalley. We do not anticipate growth of the business at such a rate to include another employee for at least 2 years, at which time we would hope to be in a different location '"' These are our responses to your review standards. We hope you find them in order and we thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully submitted, Jennifer Park -, lX- ~.) MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Joyce All~:'3'eputy PlaJming Director THRU: FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 233 w. Main, Innsbruck Inn- Major Development, Conceptual, Public Hearing DATE: March 24, 2004 SUMMARY: The lnnsbruck hm is a non- designated building within the Main Street Historic District. The ApplicaIlt is proposing to construct all addition on the west end of the building, to reconfigure the interior, aIld to complete aJl overall "facelift." paJ'king access will be removed from Main Street and the front area laIldscaped. New spots will be added along 2nd Street. Staff finds that the project complies with the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and recommends approval. APPLICANT: lmlsbruck Suites Development Company, LLC. Represented by Mitch Haas, Haas Land PlaIlning, and Jeffrey Halferty Design. PARCEL In: 2735-]24-54-00] ADDRESS: 233 West Main Street, Lots A-E, Block 52, City aJld Townsite of Aspen. ZONING: Office (0) with a Lodge Preservatiori Overlay, Main Street Historic District CURRENT AND PROPOSED LAND USE: Lodge MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with ( conditions and tlte reasons for tlte recommendation. Tlte HPC will revIew tlte application, tlte staff analysis report and tlte evidence presented at tlte Itearing to determine tlte project's conformance witlt tlte City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. Tlte HPC may approve, disapprove, approve witlt conditions, or continue tlte application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. """ - Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by tlte HPC of a Conceptual Development Plan, and tlten a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual Del'elopment Plan sltall be binding upon HPC in regards to tlte location and form of tlte envelope of tlte structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in tlte Conceptual Plan application including its Iteigltt, scale, massing and proportions. No cltanges will be made to tltis aspect of tlte proposed development by tlte HPC as part of tlteir review of tlte Final Development PIIIII unless agreed to by tlte applicant. Staff Response: Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a proposal. A list of the design guidelines relevant to Conceptual Review is attached as "Exhibit A." This building, although Chalet in character, has not been identified as historically significaIlt. Built in 1967, it was constructed just after the end of the period of significaIlce that has been defined for this style in Aspen. It is not as strongly connected to the classic character-defining features in that the decoration is toned down considerably aIld the upper floors are not clad in wood siding. In terms of Conceptual review concerns, the applicaIlt proposes a modest addition on the west side of the building, and reconfiguration of some roof forms and building circulation. Vehicular access will be removed from the front of the site, Staff has no concerns with the project and does not find it to be in conflict with aJ1Y of the design guidelines. Architectural details, laIldscape and lighting plaJ1s will be discussed at Final review. ~ DECISION MAKING OPTIONS: The HPC may: . approve the application, . approve the application with conditions, . disapprove the application, or . continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. ........ 2 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC approve Resolution # _, Series of 2004, granting Conceptual approval for 233 W. Main Street with standard conditions. EXHIBITS: Resolution #_, Series of2004 A. Relevant Design Guidelines B. Application ""=~ 3 Exhibit A: Relevant Design Guidelines for 233 W. Main Street, Conceptual Main Street Historic District '"'"""I , 12.6 Minimize the use of curb cuts along the street. o Provide auto access along aJl alley when feasible. o New curb cuts are not permitted. o Whenever possible, remove an existing curb cut. 12.9 Orient a new building in a manner that is similar to the orientation of buildings during the mining era, with the primary entrance facing the street. o The building should be oriented parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid pattern of the block. o A structure should appear to have one primary entrance that faces the street. The entrance to the structure should be at an appropriate residential scale aJld visible from the street. 12.15 On larger structures, subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to single family residences or Victorian era commercial buildings seen traditionally on Main Street. o Other, subordinate modules may be attached to the primary building form, o Each identifiable mass should have its own entraJlce. Drivewavs & Parkin!?: ~ 14.20 Off-street driveways should be removed, iffeasible. o Non-historic parking areas accessed from the street should be removed if parking can be placed on the alley. ",....# 14.24 Large parking areas, especially those for commercial and multifamily uses, should not be visually obtrusive. o Locate parking areas to the rear of the property, when physical conditions permit. o An alley should serve as the primm-y access to pm-king, when physical conditions permit. o Parking should not be located in the front yard, except in the driveway, if it exists. - 4