The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.HP.514 N 3rd St.HPC023-037.-- Cert of Approp/Minor HPC 514 N. 3rd -2735-124-16-001 HPC023-023 4,1 003 42,5- F A 4 A 0 . CASE NUMBER HPC023-03 PARCEL ID # 2735-124-16001 CASE NAME 514 n. 3RD Cert Appropriateness/Minor HPC Development PROJECT ADDRESS 514 N. 3rd PLANNER Amy Guthrie CASE TYPE Minor HPC OWNER/APPLICANT D.W. Ringsby Enterprises REPRESENTATIVE same DATE OF FINAL ACTION 4/24/2004 CITY COUNCIL ACTION PZ ACTION HPC 10-2004 ADMIN ACTION BOA ACTION DATE CLOSED 05/10/2004 BY D DRISCOLL .. PARCEL ID:~2735-124-16001 DATE RCVD: ~08/04/03 # COPIES:~ ~ CASE NO|HPC023-03 CASE NAME:~514 n 3RD Cert Appropriateness/Minor HPC Development PLNR:~Amy Guthrie PROJ ADDR:~514 N 3rd CASE TYP:~Minor HPC 3 STEPS:~ OWN/APP: D.W. Ringsby Enter ADRi 1123 Aurarie Parkway C/S/Z: ~ Denver/CO/80204 PHN:1303-892-0115 REP:|same ADR:~ C/S/Z:l PHNi FEES DUE:~ ~ FEES RCVD:|$525.00 Receipt 9701 ---3 STAT: ir REFERRALS| REF:~ BY| DUE:~ MTG DATE REV BODY PH NOTICED DATE OF FINAL ACTION: CITY COUNCIL: REMARKS| m PZ: BOA: CLOSED:| BY: ~ DRAC: PLAT SUBMITD: | PLAT (BK,PG):| ADMIN: H posts. . 4/9/04 11:32 AM A.P - .14h EWARf RoN WORKS <MRANY C jUALITY *SINCE * 1886 PO Box 2612 - 20 West 18th Street - Covington, Kentucky 41012 - (859) 431-1985 - Fax (859) 431-2035 Restoration & Product I)esign Photo C '0 111 pan> C .litact I laine Replication ('atalog heri ices References I liNton IJS heri ices Posts Any of Stewart'd posts can be modified to fit your particular need. Please Contact Us regarding any special requirements you may have. See our selection e~ Components for information oA decorative picket tops. About Product F~tishes and Maintenance. Standard F~nce And Line Posts Posts used as li:le, end, corner, and gate posts. ~ Â¢ 4 t' 4 :i % =1 + , * 9 1 0.1 Â¥37 \ 111 1 13 - = 1 1 Q Castbase - ~ i. 1 9 1 ly 1 Â·*4 .14 4 1 tt #160.CD.E ' ...1.11, 1 1, - , #168 : T dan 6 #0 , #1 #2 Â· #16(: 2-1/7' slai #25 Â· 1" square for 37'- 1" spare for 37'- - 6-1/2"across for Â· 6-1/2" across for L.*1604.31*haft Â· 6'base ibr 37" to j 47' ftnce; for48' . 4 41'ftnce, for45' 37" to 77' fence; 37" to 71' fence; <#1Â£: 4" 2h 60" ance fixicewithback tknce,dthback post set ona poi set ona . */TATEN3716' - ase for 37" to baces added traces added diaimndpattem iaimnd pattern 84" fence 84" flnce I-Beam Po http://StewartlronWorks.com/posts.htm Page 1 of 3 11 ICâ€¢- 7 -' '1 hust fence .. 4/9/0411:28 AM SQUARE PICKE~ ...... This fence's simplicity is the very essence of distinction. Featuring square pickets, style 70S has 3/8" pickets, 19;Â¥' 1 71S has 1/2" pickets, 72S has 5/8" pickets, 73S has 3/4" pickets and style 74S has 7/8" pickets. All styles have 1" , ~ kf~ Fl~Â·Â·Â·r~ solid or 2" tubular line posts. For fences 54" or higher, 3" I-beam posts are recommended. SHORDI.ONG PIIKEr â€¢ Short-Long Picket - Styles 94S, 95S and 96S -----11 ~ ~ a ~ $ * - 1 This fence's high-low pattern creates a pleasing design. Featuring square pickets, style 94S has 1/2" square pickets, '- - - - t ~1 6|* 4|* "~ 4 * 1 i - - 1 95S has 5/8" pickets, and 96S has 3/4" pickets. All styles have 1" solid or 2" tubular line posts. For fences 54 or nigher, 3" I-beam posts are recommended. 1 1 1 SCROLL ORNAALINI'll) s Scroll Ornamented - Styles 101S, 102S and 103S ~('~~ * i.*jil A nostalgic look long preferred for Stewart fences everywhere, 18Â¥3~ 117,1M,Yp1r,T I *ptz~;~~31:~, with square pickets and 1" solid or 2" tubular line posts. Style 101S has 1/2" long and short pickets with 1-1/4" x 1/2" rails. Style 102S has 5/8" long pickets and 1/2" short pickets and 1-1/2" x 1/2" rails. Style 103S has 3/4" long pickets, 1/2" short pickets, and 2" x 1/2" rails. 4 ORNAMENrlil)1*KErS, 4 Ornamented Pickets - Style 127R 11111111 i-41+' & 1 1 i i Lid ele,Tele'leIC,1.41:*7*(i:plwiF ?1(0,~qmEF"C.#Tarm* With 1" solid or 2" tubular line posts, ~&\ i .flÂ· 1 .'Â· !1 . Â·T' 115 i ll't I!. el'& 1 ir., 1.c'!':.| ir this fence is elegantly pronortioned formounting Gi,&1Kilil~ 14/Â·DE.i> 11&:131(:i,:AULi on a wall or coping. Style 127R has 1/2" round 1 11 '91'reâ„¢52 pickets. 171-1.71 r The informatio~drawings, designs and specifications provided are the intellectual property of Stewart Iron Works and as such are covered under the Copyright Laws of ;c United States and may not be reproduces, copied or distributed without the authority and written approval of The Stewart Iron Works Company. The Stewart Iron Works Company Â© 2003 http://StewartlronWorks.com/hist . . Ne 3 of 3 1 0 0 4/9/04 9,46 AM BOWAND PICK]E 1 Cho'ne 1 L Safety plus style with bow tops and center pickets. In 1" solid or 2" tubular line posts, style 10R features two rails while style 12R features three rails. - <*- 1 ...c, 12x .... - R L 1 TRADWIONAL Traditional - Styles 40R, 41R and 42R A 1Â» I - 0 --1 4 -et L --444 r--r . This dignified 3-rail fence is ideal for churches and cemeteries. Style 40R has 1/2" round pickets, ' ~' -t 13 .- -2 1 -' style 41Rhas 5/8" round pickets andstyle 42R I has 3/4" round pickets. All styles have 1" ... ., solid or 2" tubular line posts. For fences 54" / 11, 1.. - 1 - or higher, 3" I-beam posts are recommended. VIC,ORIAN : , Victorian - Style 44R - - I -1 1./ . 1 4 7 71 ;101640'94:do4111,4141+i\1 -117,6iGi,3~x6Â·,6,;6Â·,! Detailing adds interest to this long-cherished pattern. 1" solid line posts and 1/2" round pickets. I " 1 IUMMtjtt#IliillÂ·I lii SCALLOPED PICKET ~ ~ Scalloped Picket - Style 54R -Pr - . A garden -lover's favorite for highlighting and ~.-ar protecting plantings. 1" solid or 2" tubular line - --IiLL 1~ I p: Posts. - S te 11 sblâ‚¬- A 'y*fÂ»/4-1@ad to p-ENce 1 <2-AiLE SÂ« 1*1- * 26- ht tp://StewartlronWorks.comihist_ mic.htm Page 2 of 3 It 11 F posts 4/9/04 11:32 AM â‚¬ 1 h f 4 ill i ' 1 I-Beam 'VV<76\ 7#0. BÂ· 3'-available with *=re& Or -/*.. t, (yecarririmded for - --, T 54" flnce or taller) # ''* ~! 1. P'F" llc Cast Iron Prst Collection ,1 1/1 1. 41 - 1 f , ) No. 13 No. 63 1 No. 5 No. 60 54-1/2"tall, 5"sq.base No. 84 70"tall 10"sq. base 46" tall, 4-1/2"sq. base 50" tall, 5" sq. base 48"tall, 7"sq.base 4 Ill i~, ~ No. 50 No. 25 50-1/2"talk No. 62 49-1/2"tall, 8"sq. base 4 5-1/2"tall,octagon No. 82 No. 9 base No. 20 |36"-68"tall, 6"sq.base / 12"sq.base 47"& 62"tall, 70"tall, 9-3/4"sq.base < 9-3/4"sq base 1 - *Â»*6.94 4*U-/ (f Â»934 ir I No. 4 ; No. 61 livv 41-1/2"tall, 3-1/2"sq.bat~ I 45"tall, 1. http://StewartlronWorks.com/pol*tm Page 2 of 3 il hist_fence 4/9/04 11:29 AM a 1-j~ibwARf_RON *0_ 0 RKS OMPANY E + QUALITY *SINCE * 1886 PO Box 2612 - 20 West 18th Street - Covington, Kentucky 41012 - (859) 431-1985 - Fax (859) 431-2035 S. Restoration & Product l)eÂ·<ign Photi, Compan> Contact 11(, Replication (112102 her, ice. Relerelnes | |isti)]b I 1% Sen ices 1 Historic Fencing Styles Stewart fencing 18 available in a variety of picket and rail sizes at a wide range of fence heights. See the general information below about fen*| sizes and heights for common applications. Any of Stewart'Â§ fence types can be modified to fit your particular need. Please Collact Us regarding any special requirements you may have. â€¢ Compleme g any home, Residential fencing typically utilizes 1/2" or 5/8" pickets and 1-1/4" rails with fence heights of 37", 42" or 48". t â€¢ Combining *ength with visual appeal, Commercial fencing typically utilizes 1/2" or 5/8" pickets and 1-1/2" x 1/2" rails at fence heights of 4;Â·, 48", 54" or 60". â€¢ Embodying ~mplicity, strength, and detail in a fence on grand scale for Security, Cemetery or Estate applications, fencing typically uti~es 3/4" or 7/8" pickets with 2" x 1/2" or 2" x 1" rails at fence heights or 60", 72", 78", 84", 90" or 96". About Product Fi hes and Maintenance. About Fencing M Â·urements and Installation. View Fence Post ils and Options. HAIRPINAND KE' 4 Hairpin & Picket - Styles BR and BR Simplicity with a touch of ornamentation, both styles have 1 " solid or 2" tubular line posts. Style 6R features two rails while style 8R features three rails. . .... 1 ... 1 hitn./ 1 0 1 Â»~ b.=.,;*-:----.LI.------4 2 / 1 i \1 . . ~ 1 of 3 1 .. RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MINOR DEVELOPMENT AND FOR 514 NORTH THIRD STREET, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. 10, SERIES OF 2004 Parcel ID #: 2725-124-16-001 WHEREAS, the applicant, D.W. Ringsby Enterprises, has requested Minor Development approval for a fence at 514 North Third Street, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Aspen Municipal Code states that no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review. An application for a building permit cannot be submitted without a Development Order; and WHEREAS, 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 reviews 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; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated March 24, 2004 performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, and found that the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" were met, with conditions; and WHEREAS, at a regular meeting held on March 24,2004, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application after a duly noticed, public hearing, took testimony, found the application to meet the pertinent standards, and approved the application with conditions by a vote of 3 to 2. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the HPC approves Minor Development for a fence at 514 North Third Street with the following conditions: 1. Paint the entire metal fence a glossy black color. 2. Remove the finials from the fence posts. .. 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. APPROVED BY THE, COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 24th day of March 2004. Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney Approved as to Content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Jeffrey Halferty, Chair ATTEST: '3 Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 0 T-FML 61 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Joyce Allga~ry,EIputy Planning Director 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 house, 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 LIPC 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.B, 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. /1 ~r ~ -lizL# 1 1 -- r.. / 4. $ 2 Mul......mar t . tl'\2.- - '44- ......wil........ --- f"~ . -1 . = Ly *i.~filillf 'iil~ J~11.': 11:1:4 'â€¢ ;:T' .: 111:91!i!;:L.=4 =-,6 * . 1 . . 7 .1. I. I .."...-....... A .' Fence at 514 N. Third 1 .. 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 fulllegal 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 LIPC 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 numerous 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 found 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. Staff' s 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. u 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. 1 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 from authentic 100 year old wrought iron fences that still exist here as rare pieces of our Victorian past. 3 .. 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".) A privacy fence may be used in back yards and along alleys, but not forward of the front facade of a building. Note that using no fencing at all is often the best approach. Contemporary interpretations of traditional fences should be compatible with the historic context. 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. t ... 11 Frrr -:"1~ .. . . 1 Â¥ 1 1.. 1 I ... i vif; 1 + ' ..Mt b ... 1- .1 9 1 Â¢,41 .. :. . . . 4 . I /4 -4. I - " ...4 <.4. 0 1 I FT*: 1 ' 1 , j >igiZ@< . - '!: +I +- .,; 7 ' I:â€¢:>Â· tftÂ·Â·4*1,1/ Â·0*.41i 119Â·' lilti ili - -. 1 - ..~11....'. 3 "44,=.~ Â· .690 FIt .6 4. .. 1 4 1 lilli. i-4Â·Â·i.Â·1*.izjllillillilll:Imilli" . I eq..... i. ............. I , 4. 2 1 + 1* - - 1 ... .it â€¢'I' 61 4 4 4 I . I 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 00 0 .. 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 19tll 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 posts on the fence with a simple squared or rounded version, with the design to be approved by staff and monitor. 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 of 2004 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 " 1.2 A new replacement fence should use materials that appear similar to that of the original. u 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. u 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. u 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 "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".) A privacy fence may be used in back yards and along alleys, but not forward of the front facade of a building. Note that using no fencing at all is often the best approach. 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. u Fence columns or piers should be proportional to the fence segment. 6 00 0 0 0 f . LAWOFFICESOF OATES, KNEZEVICH & GARDENSWARTZ, P.C. PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION THIRD FLOOR, ASPEN PLAZA BUILDING 533 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 LEONARD M. OATES TELEPHONE(970)920-1700 RICHARD A. KNEZEVICH FACSIMILE (970)920-1121 TED D. GARDENSWARTZ DAVID B. KELLY 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 o f our request is as follows: 1. Background. Last June a wrought fence, ofundetermined 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 o f 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 ofthe property consistent with what apparentlyhas 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: City 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 Original - 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 may 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 Allowing 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" limit 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 much 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 o f transparency and historical context. 1.4 New Fence Components Should Be Similar in Scale with Those Seen Traditionally. 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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: "Fences. 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 i f 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. .. 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 o fat 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 o f fence is appropriate based on the proceeding quote from the guidelines. Finally, while the Ringsbys are sympathetic to the intent o f the 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 oftwo things. One, the use ofwrought iron fences was historically common, or two, the HPC has approved numerous wrought iron fences in the past. The City itsel f has also done a great deal ofimporting oldermaterials to enhance, correctlywebelieve, the historical ambiance ofthe 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 ofthe 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 o f this matter. Very Truly Yours, OATES, KNEZEVICH & GARDENSWARTZ, P.C. John T. Kelly, Attorney for D. W. Ringsby Enterprises and Don and Karen Ringsby JTK/elh \\Frontdesl*\Clients\Ringsby\HPC Fence Issues\LTR HPC 3-15-04.wpd .. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Er) 0 FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 514 N. Third Street- Minor Development- Public Hearing DATE: October 22,2003 th SUMMARY: The subject property contains a19 century residence and carriage house, which were linked together with new construction in 1998. This June, 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. ' I t. - 4-'Le:/Â£duvit.*mah'ilr. ----~-'~.-A ..e;Ii//.ENU~ <I t.,//1/'I/:A'I,-*/* ./A .- .Ki'*'..././ 1.9/,acal".I-,4- ~24 t,t n . Ililillilillill lii:11)1 dilfilifi;Aill*milail F,NwrpH-vi K!3 0!,1. Ii,1.1 .,1-34'*1~ ~. j El,; â‚¬:ilinili.j.:644% Ill'll"/Lkj/4~ fill-~;! hil.#tLIA*< 42:.4. _ 1< 4 :bwvt.-rd/- 4-**:-IM:%.t.9" Fence at 514 N. Third 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.B, 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 1 .. 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. The Community Development Department was unable to make a finding that these criteria were met, particularly due to the precedent set by the board last October 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. Staff finds the fence that has been constructed does not meet the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The board may be able to suggest modifications that would allow a "Certificate of Appropriateness" to be issued. 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 fulllegal 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. U 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. No photographs or information has surfaced to establish whether there was a fence on this property during its "period of significance," the late 1800's. The property was surrounded by a white picket fence, which does not appear to be historic, for some years until it was removed around 1998. The applicant has informed staff that the fence which 2 .. has been submitted for this Minor Review is 19tll century, and was purchased from a property in another state and brought to 514 N. Third Street. The applicants have taken numerous 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 found 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." 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. The guidelines which HPC must find are met are: 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. 1 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 "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".) A privacy fence may be used in back yards and along alleys, but not forward of the front facade of a building. Note that using no fencing at all is often the best approach. Contemporary interpretations of traditional fences should be compatible with the historic context. 3 00 0 .. 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. Staff' s 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." 1.3 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, and does not meet the guidelines. It would be misleading as to the historic development of the site and would detract from authentic 100 year old wrought iron fences that still exist here as rare pieces of our Victorian past. RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the fence does not meet "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" 1.2 and 1.3, however a resolution approving the fence is provided as an option for the board. 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. 4- 'Â¥ 4 - ija.t. al - ly . 4 1 4.1 . . t: 1 .. 1 91 0.Â£,7 .14. .. 1 -, I - .. . - ...111* /' I Â· 4~. ' ' t 1/,fi/::41.25OOL--14.; I 1 1 111* 1 1 1 0 4 ' FJ%*' I I - . 1 ..1 . 1 &4 11 -,2. -9-14& Ii, ... .,tlyÂ»{,1,1,t 1 --, 39, .11 1 1 . 1 -1 1 1 1 - 4 47 65Â£/.r.2,}.. 6/6 -11/1./Pi c~.d.s#'mi. 1 1, 4 .. t 91 1. 4........i. 1 .1 1 =In 121 4. .14 -j 4&-41.-4 'r~ : 2, p . - ..; :..?4':. Wy . - ...,1.-9..i .. -*-I .'-"';'- ...~ 'Â·*CLÂ·2':Â·Â·....f~fA:.*n.4 ..4 1 - I I . 1 Al.4.274-1:tle. ~ - Â· Â·44044**Art/.MLOS,PrWseR:2&*21,'4.viAÂ£.Widailk-* 610 W. Smuggler 218 N. Monarch (Myrin) Exhibits: Resolution # , Series of 2003 A. Staff memo dated October 22,2003 B. Relevant Design Guidelines 4 .. "Exhibit B, Relevant Design Guidelines, 514 N. Third Street Minor Review " 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. 3 A wood picket fence is an appropriate replacement in most locations. A simple wire or metal fence, similar to traditional "wrought iron, It 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 "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".) A privacy fence may be used in back yards and along alleys, but not forward of the front facade of a building. Note that using no fencing at all is often the best approach. 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. 5 00 0 .. RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MINOR DEVELOPMENT AND FOR 514 NORTH THIRD STREET, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. , SERIES OF 2003 Parcel ID #: 2725-124-16-001 WHEREAS, the applicant, D.W. Ringsby Enterprises, has requested Minor Development approval for a fence at 514 North Third Street, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Aspen Municipal Code states that no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review. An application for a building permit cannot be submitted without a Development Order; and WHEREAS, 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 reviews 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; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated October 22, 2003 performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, and found that the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" were not met; and WHEREAS, at a regular meeting held on October 22,2003, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application after a duly noticed, public hearing, took testimony, found the application to meet the pertinent standards, and approved the application by a vote of to . THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the HPC approves Minor Development for a fence at 514 North Third Street. ~ Land Use Application ~ RETAIN FOR PERMANENT RECORD THE Crf oF AspEN PROJECT: Name: Location: 5 1 4 w t <3 R D 5 45+1 C * g- bloc-~K 1 0 H-ALLA Ef ED )3-1 Dkj (Indicate street address, lot & block number or metes and bounds description of property) Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) -271 39 - 1 2.4 - (Le -ODI APPLICANT: Name: DI W, R) L) 62)77 8/ TERâ‚¬K\,9 6 Address: 1 Fl-3 4-R ~ztfa A- 961-Ak nr 6}0~~ .+t= ~po DEN VER( Cp *20Â¢ phone #: 309-(992-B/(-50~ Fax#: 90..7-842-01(4 E-mail: Cbw-sv|duv,(@ *el, Copi REPRESENTATIVE: Name: Address: Phone #: Fax#: E-mail: TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): U Historic Desig:nation U Relocation (temporary, on or off-site) 3 Certificate of No Negative Effect ~ Demolition (total demolidon) [2~ Certificate ofAppropriateness D Historic Landmark Lot Split -Minor Historic Development -Major Historic Development -Conceptual Historic Development -Final Historic Development -Substantial Amendment EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses. modifications, etc.) 4* W @d\,1&4T rkbN FOUCE- FEES DUE: S 9% 5 .. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 22nd day of October, 2003. Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney Approved as to Content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION jeffrey Halferty, Chair ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk .. 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. The partners 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 o f 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 ofthe 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 1.3 of the 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 wrought iron fence as well as others in our neighborhood. The fence components are similar in scale to those seen traditionally per 1.4 of the guidelines. The antique wrought iron fence is compatible with the historic context. Our house has more decorative trim than most other miners' cottages in Aspen and the wrought 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 o f Appropriateness. Yours truly, w AM.*tin f V V U i v- D.W. RingEÂ¢Ky Enterprisesbyk' '2' (2/(/UL(~/0 67 Karen R. Ringsby, partner Donald W. Ringsby, partner ~AN FORPEMAIENT RECOIO 0 2 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Agreement for Pavment of Citv of Aspen Development Application Fees CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and p W, RIN6587 601-6.RPREES (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for M iN nfi W Pc (hereinafter, THE PROJECT). 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 57 (Series of 2000) establishes a fee structure for Land Use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness. 3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties that APPLICANT make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees additional costs may accrue following their hearings and/or approvals. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to process APPLICANT' S application. 4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and/or City Council to enable the Planning Commission and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project consideration, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. 5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to collect full fees prigr to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of $ 625 which is for hours of Community Development staff time, and if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review at a rate of $205.00 per planner hour over the initial deposit. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing, and in no case will building permits be issued until all costs associated with case processing have been paid. CITY OF ASPEN APPUCANT D.W. RING:51?>' EA;TE#FRLSES By: By: 6**Af&0'144/1 -7*J7-â‚¬1 Julie Ann Woods Community Development Director Date: 7 lt- 1 6-3 Billing Address and Telephone Number: Required I I 23 A-M 120}02.)0 FARkh/h-7 /4-2Â£10 TD C_|JVG-72/ C 0 802-04 g:\support\forms\agrpayas.doc 903 -942-0) 15- 6/05/03 090099 â„¢3!4*Mi39}101 Ht*~ ~ Land Use Application ~ RETAIN FOR PERMANENT RECOZ THE CrrY oF ASPEN PROJECT: Name: Location: 5 1 4 Iv t <3 R D ; Lets < 12 K- b Look 4 P ki-ALLA YK ED mok) (Indicate street address, lot & block number or metes and bounds description of property) Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) -2/1 69 - 12.4 - ( (0 - OD I APPLICANT: Name: P, W. R) 062 )27 8-8/1Â«fic-\S 6-s Address: t13 4-fABBYa A- reÂ©knf@1,41= 2 00 DEA/FER CD 802Â©f phone #: 309-39 2--0/lf- Fax#: 90_7-972-0 1 (9 E-mail: ch,vs,Iduvt(@ *-ot, 60,1 REPRESENTATIVE: Name: Address: Phone #: Fax#: E-mil: TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): E Historic Designation 2 Relocation (temporary, on or off-site) E Certificate of No Negative Effect ~ Demolition (total demolition) 2~ Certificate ofAppropriateness 2 Historic Landmark Lot Split -Minor Historic Development U -Major Historic Development O -Conceptual Historic Development -Final Historic Development O -Substantial Amendment EX[STING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) r.Â·- .' PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses. modifications, etc.) ,443) W* 1,166*T .11 84 Â«AICE- FEES DUE: S 975 .. 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 parmership is the owner of a residence at 514 N. 3rd Street in Aspen. The partners 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 o f 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 ofthe 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 omate detail ofthe house. This is in keeping with 1.3 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 wrought iron fence as well as others in our neighborhood. The fence components are similar il scale to those seen traditionally per 1.4 of the guidelines. The antique wrought iron fence is compatible with the historic context. Our house has more decorative trim than most other miners' cottages in Aspen and the wrought 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 ofAppropriateness. Yours truly, Â·~iA\-rl Imi*Nth U 1 W *lf7107u/ D.W. Ring#by Enterprises by Karen R. Ringsby, partner Donald W. Ringsby, partner Y 07/28/2003 MON 16:37 FAX 970,-5 62 43 LAND TITLE-ASPEN 0002 .. LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY OWNERSHIP AND ENCUMBRANCE REPORT Our Order No. Q384664 This report is based on a search made of documents affecting the record title to the property described hereinafter, searched by legal description and not by the names of grantor or grantee. Consequently, the information as to record owner is taken from the most recent recorded Vesting Deed, and the information as to existing encumbrances retlecti only those documents of record which specifically describe the subject property by legal description. Encumbrances not included are those of record which refer to the owner or the property or any other person having an interest therein which are filed by name only and do not include the legal description of the property. No information is furnished relative to easements, covenants, conditions and restrictions. This report does not include the results of any search under the names of the property owner(s) or the general index. Should such a search be desired please contact us for a Reparate general index report. Liability of' Land Title Guarantee Company under this Owner and Encumbrance report is limited to the fee received. This Report is dated: July 23,2003 at 5:00 P.M. Address: 514 NORTH 3RD ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 Legat Descriptiom SEE ATTACHED PAGE(S) FOR LEGAL DESCRIPTION Record Owner: D.W- RINGSBY ENTERPRISES Recorded date or deed in to above owner: OCTOBER 26, 1983 Documentary Pee on above deed: $41.25 We find the following documents of record affecting subject property: DEED OF TRUST DATED APIUL 10, 1995, FROM D.W. RINGSBY ENTERPRISES TO THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF PITKIN COUNTY FOR THE USE OF COLORADO NATIONAL BANK TO SECURE THE SUM OF $500,000.00 RECORDED APRIL 20, 1995, UNDER RECEPTION NO. 380707. 93' jil - +32-- AEt#Gized Officer or Agdilt 07/28/2003 MON 16:37 FAX 970 ,-5 62,13 LAND TITLE-ASPEN 0003 .. Our Order No. Q384664 LEGAL DESCRIPTION A TRACT OF LAND IN THE NE1/4SE1/4, SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH. RANGE 85 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, KNOWN AS LOTS 1 & 2. BLOCK 40 OF THE UNRECORDED HALLAM'S ADDITION TO THE CITY OF ASPEN MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NW CORNER. LOT 1, BLOCK 40, HALLAM'S ADD[ITON, BEING A POINT 1017.31 FEET S. 81 DEGREES 21' W FROM THE El/4 CORNER SECTION 12, TOWNSH[P 10 SOUTH, RANGE 85 W'EST OF THE S[XTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN (1954 BRASS CAP) AND 224.32 FEET N. 03 DEGREES 23' E FROM THE CTTY MONUMENT ON THE NE CORNER OF SM UGGLER AND NORTH 3RD STR-EET (1959 APPROVED CITY PLAT); THENCE S. 00 DEGREES 08' W. 103.38 FEET ALONG THE EAST UNE OF NORTH 3RD STR.EET; THENCE S. 75 DEGREES 09'11" 2.48.14 FEET ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE ALLEY IN BLOCK 40. TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF LOT 2; THENCE N. 14 DEGREES 50'49" E. 100-00 FEET ALONG THE EASTERLY UNE OF LOT 2 TO THE NE CORNER OF LOT 2; THENCE N. 75 DEGREES 09'11" W. 74.40 FEET ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF LOTS 1 &2 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. ALSO A TRACT OF LAND 30.0 FEET LONG AND 1.2 FEET WIDE WHICH TRACT IS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS POLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF LOT 1, BLOCK 40 OF THE UNRECORDED HALLAM'S ADDITION TO THE CITY OF ASPEN; THENCE S. 73 DEGREES 09'11" E. ig.14 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGLNNING BEING THE COMMON SOUTHERLY CORNER OF LOTS 1&2 OF SAID BLOCK 40; THENCE S. 75 E. 30.00 FEET ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SATD LOT 2 (SAD LINE BEING TILE NORTHERLY LINE OB THE ALLEY IN REAR OF LOT 2 OF SAID BLOCK 40): THENCE S. 14 DEGREES 50'49' W. 1.2 FEET; THENCE N. 75 DEGREES 09'11" W. 30.00 FEET; THEN(ZE N. 14 DEGREES 50'49" E. 1.2 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. ALL TN THE COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO 07/28/2003 MON 16:37 FAX 970.I85 6243 LAND TITLE-ASPEN 0 001 .. Land Title Guarantee Company CUSTOMER DISTRIBUTION Date: 07-28-2003 Our Order Number: Q384664 Property Address: 514 NORTH 3RD ST ASPEN, CO 81611 DONALD W. RINGSBY 1123 AURARLA PKWY.. #200 DENVER. CO 80204 Phone: 303-892-0115 Fa 303-892-0119 Copies: 1 Sent Via Fax -*. t. , .- MAuNEr#hDEN *Pâ€žIll,Ii.--- , - *---,rk- 4 1 - .- , Al/f A~j\. t '1041 ;, /4.L .4184 + A l . I , 42., k ., T : 91 ** 4- XII #t~ 0" "* .J,# \ 1 1.ft, 4 - '. .Ok, I - 4 R ,, F. 1 V- .IL 4.4 ..... . 1 ' AÂ¢+ i - , L k , 0. I A - 4 41 .: is : ~ -3. - A >.8 - ~S i:*341,4351&*I : 7 / 4 - 1,"IM' V## 3 3.02#al ..k M*UN, . 64 t.4. ~ ' 34 FUGJWS; r 2 4 ' , 1 Schools p #Aspen Â«~ ~~ 1 04 ,'r,I=mi:inp h~~.' it it 1, 1,9, , d- u - 114,0 1 Â¥ 9 14 - mA; /4,1, ...m.ill.gh, 1 i it i .fÂ· P.j'' 1 . aa . 'skili' 'Â¥ '.. , This oren shown in Â· ft: 0. t ,/ greater detail below ' : , 2. 4~; ~ ounq ~ Aspen Alps m Fifth Mountain Holland | . , oil host own alr 4. Condominiums Ii.- Avenue Queen House Mountain condos . 1!miles 7 Toklat W ratâ€¢; , 1lmiles 6.-4- DE=Umliju Skiers GILBERTSt. ..0,7 1 A. .2. p rry . Condominiums Alpenblidt Chalet j v *./ 11212- ,Â· i.. 1 1 d â€¢ 2 - 4, - P Fos'Ili!!C!=1 Aztec Condos JUAN ST 4 - Tipple Lodge 4 , :Ap, liu . c * : 43*wa Tipple inn St. Regis Aspen 1 Ainee Mpuntoin ,.0.. itjt 1, 1' 4 /6. North of Nel Sâ€¢v. ard. Mountdi. Ch.let Undommiums Lift One Condominium ,7 14 . $ DURANT AVENUE ' 1.....All.Al Chateau Roaring Fork , .r - Â£ . - , , -- . ,Â· - 0 1. Rub* Adqi 1 Deep Ppwoer 1 Hotel 4 42 lur 1 l~~\ DURANT AVENUE â€ž-1- Poss (des.,1 h wi.1.] HWY 82 , C..p.. T.Ull i Wagner ~ COOPER AVENUE . ..B 1 - ... 2, er=9 Aspen Cluby ,# .: . Â·Â· ;4.4)-1 Chate.u U ~% Â·Â·7 ,- . - m BUS INFORMATION 1 W Park , limette i~~-it snow Queen lu 44 #,Ui i i ,, Q = parking 6 Â¥=r Â¥45@444. 1 24 I#-,*-p~~-(g.:9 -1 Â· i.:A,e! 1 :Â· u,Qi..j Â·..5. : : P.ge -9 W. 1 â€¢L-Â¢34.3 B|â€¢â€¢c . 24 5 -Â·L. -6 - - 5.. ~;42 ,*.. V 1~ 2 '6- A.nie'l? B1Â·Â· ' . f... S Prospector I snowfide Inâ€¢ I = Valley & Highlan .' Â· 1. ' M ~ Vislor - U 44 -=-4-(00105 R A. H Hyman Mall h,/2,nnation ~ HYMAN AVENUE 5 Aspen Ice Garden St. Mo:tz MFI) t = ASC Skier .1 *rth. â€¢ 1 Bus Stop elli 09"1:WimÂ·es,24'9 . 6.ki:FF*WIC!*PY<*.,.,I i i/2 As .cr ,q Heorthstone E ' Shuttle Stop Mouse 8 v ; - /:Â· 8.,U:.. 60 --AS.c:Â£28-1-2,2/:...41--2 . Lu:'91:a Pit~ park Le-INE Chale, Us' 3 MollÂ¥:&4 1 1 .4 5 , a r. HOPKINS g x HOPKINS 0 HOPKINS AVENUE -1 Moly Gbson !0dge i.:,1 i b...4 Boomerang fodge . Asoen Be, t'Auberge - ** A~ . Al .. . , 1.9./14 1 ,#IMA:=4-â€¢0â€¢, <i u'* ' . Mo~Glion lo* I>t-1 --T;--d &*e~~10$1 , As".4 7 Cari. 4 0- -;:Â¥~9; /Â·- .*.?13~FE Alm=f. tÂ®~ ..Â·: 4.-12 u. I Â¥ F.,4, . T~iÂ¥* ~k'~aN''~- ~~~e~t~ 0 ..., Ullr 0 41 .1. House # r ./Â· Ifckory 799, E. e 1 . li I. ASSOC Â· - -I ..9.,1 014:,0. ...,2., i.,uEKER~. .~r .-p..-CO~0.~j~IY-BÂ»its p. ~.-- 1," ,. '12--I ' ~ ~ ~~~~ :~_: j:~:;~~:~ y. 7 k <24 M.- , ATM BLEEKER'STREET . 0 - ... 4 MitteJ~*NE* " .4 - Community N -9 S Methodist <TWN/AO :.I ChurchÂ¥ ,-1 rn,4. C , 4 2 - ' Â·Â·'~ Â· â€¢:- Â·' U,4 -I- . . B , 1 '-A. 1 . , 1 ~ Clark's ...+ A . . . - t-' -~ ~ - R#41'RrIN-- m ~ ' , - 1 I 4.'Â·. 1,mmmI~!~mâ€¢:4.-*** i-- 2.-4Â©' sÂ· ..t Â·,Â·Â·.-r.-1-4-- ...,t-6 f >.:M.se.milt,Â·t, u,Â·~-uÂ·~.ses..0.. .., ?. 09'.*5 -71 . A -' mi: â€¢ - . ' -7.-Â·.Â·././ d ... *#.gvt ~~Â»1â€¢u-"07 *17219&a :CREE,Banmiing ' HALLAM STREET~vvyi . COF Â·~.tÂ·it*294*44..1 ast,&91:yÂ»**41.,4. 4.7 .:.Ay ed$-*477,3,i; 1 2 . ,/ ~ ''~ . 4 ' 9 :. 2 4. ->.L ' ' - Â· :.c AtRip Gran e Patk Â· 21. I Â· IÂ· - - Centennial 3 ' ' Â·SthÂ· r >r- .,tÂ·.Â»u. 51:Â·NlÂ·..'..u-Â»* Posr.,Â·'.4 Em:-,Â·2.243.7:-6.0. 4 buu?:r?Â·.::~ t...4.- . , :& ..&#.9/R...# a U-< =.# P... I'#. I + 2*. :4 -- p.il ./ /q. I . . 2. ..E.A. AW -.#..fri-Â· 65&,43 <1.~ :M. 11'slitw'S Â·):,:Â·~ '9:Â·.Â·34 1- f..2.-'. 1.k & 9.Â· ~ guselli~r-Â·Â· I - : f. w.-1. i. 1 :ty, 11. First Baptist - 6[ . I - . / I.' 1 . ./ SMUGGLER'~TREET \ ~ 1... .. *t>-e,+Ape5cL-*sf- 3k .,Ar.,i*.All,~12745%416*UNC N. Vt 'Â·Â», a",2,\. c 1:224 lily,51 ' -%.I . 1 5Â£Â·'Â·2. Cbndominiumâ€¢â€¢41. 4 , ~ : -~~ 63-likrfA,:ra~- NbR*I STREET I. ... 'r . . - -- . I ' ./&'.~i.-I.. - . .Vi I r -~ Hunter CreekÂ« Bia.' lilÂ£*diUiLI. 1 1 --394 *90. :- ~:- 2-- do I,424*31:171.tic-:-0-41Â¢~ktz-eze2**6=F-kibiv1&5*~- A ~ /2...le. I-- . r-1 0..</443:.91 W.-I;Z: 1~. \ - - 0 - 1-2.F....up Physics institute ' - mr --90.--:. a I './ h v z.' 211 , -- .Ak- www.Asvenactivities.comff.-*' 3Pit 2..2 .-4 7 Hunter Creek -u- A I ~,/M-MUV 4 r ROARINd FORK RIVER.* z MN:*Jir--L~I-:-:SJ;ukjart-f~~ t~iftfijÂ·>1Â·%~2.~:42.9,4:â‚¬.is;iff--~i. L - - 24+4<.: 4.6.44Â·J-4143Â· 1,41>iffit;2Â°J :4.4- Â£~-~911166 2Â¢2't'.~FQ;*~b~jfj i,-/fi .-: S i- *1 . :*I.k ~fvÂ»9~1â‚¬77#.~ .*:0 ~Â·1~,~~ i..Â· t~Â·Â« -- 2 / ~Â· , /,7. I 't- ..Â¥. i 4 12 0. .. General Information Please check the appropriate boxes below and submit this page along with your application. This information will help us review your plans and, if necessary, coordinate with other agencies that may be involved. YES NO F. 0 Does the work you are planning include exterior work; including additions, demolitions, new construction, remodeling, rehabilitation or restoration? 0 14 Does the work you are planning include interior work; including remodeling, rehabilitation, or restoration? 0 g Do you plan other future changes or improvements that could be reviewed at this time? S In addition to City of Aspen approval for a Certificate ofAppropriateness or No Negative Effect and a building permit, are you seeking to meet the Secretary ofthe Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation or restoration o f a National Register o f Historic Places property in order to quali fy for state or federal tax credits? 0 1. If yes, are you seeking federal rehabilitation investment tax credits in conjunction with this project? (Only income producing properties listed on the National Register are eligible. Owner-occupied residential properties are not.) 0 0 If yes, are you seeking the Colorado State Income Tax Credit for Historical Preservation? Please check-all City ofAspen Historic Preservation Benefits which you plan to use: 0 Rehabilitation Loan Fund O Conservation Easement Program 0 Dimensional Variances 0 Increased Density 0 Historic Landmark Lot Split 0 Waiver of Park Dedication Fees 0 Conditional Uses 0 Exemption from Growth Management Quota System O Tax Credits 71â‚¬45?,Â·-Â·Â·Â·:4:1 : 31 2- I Â· Â· 1.1 ' Â¥4 1 AL. | /1. 1 4 NORTU A 1 Vii 21% \ /1 0 0 GE OF PAPEDENT AS, 7 75 FEET B e 1/ /-1 4 WIDE z c 1, 2 / i 1 \ 3-- 9- f \ \ f 9-1 ~~P' 5 - ,\ FOUND 4 OLD SPIKE , (411 2 5' 0 1 \ '11 1 TH/A; 6 0 \ 1% 4- \ YELLOW PLASTIC 0 1 . 5- 1 c CAP LS 2376- ~ 0 C 24 5- --28%14 M:.1 1 N 75'09 11 1 0 %*r \ )2- 74.400 4/N L-4 vAI 1 1 31 2, 1 9- 1 1 S , ODK , .7 3- 4 - 71 1 1 1 I LOT / s 3 - / 9 1 i 1.11 1 1 1-Â».7 ->- / * PORCH 1 1 1 1-1\ (03 4 1 1 : 77 10-1 -42.L ~ 1 1 23 1 SILL - 100 0' ~ \1 1 12.1 , PA V Ems -7 ~T1 , e RIDGE LOT 2 , '1 J, t 1 . /1 ~3-- EAVE I /8 9 11\\\ 1/1 - ~ * Il ~3 - 4 \ 1 }/2 STORY WOOD FRAME HOUSE 11 1 1 /1 'U, 8. ADDRESS '514 u 1.-4 t-L Â° i - W , .8 - 00 U Ch 0 .. /1.130 1 1 1 9 / 1 .4 11 1 it I P 2001 /7 496 00 f 21 6-v o c ~ 8. GRAVEL A PARKING R~ 5- 8 Â«7 A tÂ·32 8 -1-34 A /0. 1/1/\\ 74 , 'Lb - Â¥ 6-7 'i /0.r Fli j PAVERS r 1 1 A "r- 16 #5. 6 ' VA,0 k/P .#WA*. 44** 1 6 i<#EXP 1 f 85Â· YELLOW PLASTIC --~ ENNY #00,4. O) 1. CAP US 2376' Â· 18,/4 i lj-- CARRIAGE HOUSE 3 6. ~, RIDGE 119.6 ADDRESS -510' 1-- -- 3 75 6 J .09.1/.E 30.00 -- f J ~ eaw -IP-4-4- - -1~- - -- 09.11- N 75. c , ELECTR#C 1 05 ~ TRANSFORMER 5,6 W 016 - - _ -Nf49. 00 . 'Of r,? EAVE ill.5' -l L..... / !6 91, r --- ' 1- Oo yELLOW PLASTIC 1 U SEE SEWER yERÂ¥ I CAP -LS 2376 , LICENSE AGREEME ~ DATED NOV. /8, S 00'08 00-W ' CURB CUT .. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF October 22, 2003 6. Everything on the addition is fine. Also included in the motion are the conditions recommended by staff 1 - 14 eliminating #10. Motion second by Derek. Yes vote: Valerie, Derek, Sarah, jeffrey No, Neill Motion carried 4-1. 811/819 E. HOPKINS - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT - PH - CONCEPTUAL - ON-SITE RELOCATION AND VARIANCES Valerie stepped down. Mitch requested continuance to a date certain. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened and closed the public hearing. MOTION: Derek moved to continue the public hearing and conceptual development on 811/819 E. Hopkins to Dec. 10, 2003; second by Sarah. Motion carried 4-0. Yes: Derek, Neill, Sarah, Jeffrey 514 N. THIRD STREET - MINOR DEVELOPMENT Valerie was seated. John Kelly and Donald Ringsby were sworn in. Amy said the owner of the property installed a fence without realizing they needed HPC approval for a fence permit. As a result they received a red tag. This property is a Victorian and a Victorian fence from another location has been placed on the site. This could pose a conflict with some of our previous decisions and policies so it is before the HPC. Staffs concern is by bringing an historic fence on the property it alters your perception of the true history of this site. A fence of this type was found more often than not on larger mansion type buildings such as the Court House. We do not know what kind of fence might have been here in the 19th century, if any. 6 .. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF October 22, 2003 When we approved a similar fence on the Mryin property we required that certain elements be simpler so it didn't have such a Victorian quality in the design of the fence. We need to distinguish new from old. Staff has concerns about putting wrought iron fences on miner's cottages. Staff does not feel the guidelines are met. John Kelly, attorney for the Rigsby's stated that they voluntarily had their house designated. They are not full time residence and it was totally innocent that they installed the fence. The fence is a mish mash. Some of the corner posts are new. The gate is the gate that was on the old property. The old fence was a wood fence. John said he understands the issue of confusing old with new. In my clients view the fence actually helps delineate the historic portion of this building from the non-historic addition on in 1998. The fence runs on 3rd Street and around the corner on North Street and then it runs perpendicular to 3rd right down to where the new was added to the old. If you look at the remaining portion of the white fence in the back it is much more visible. John said he found 39 wrought iron fences of variance degrees of ornateness throughout town and only 12 picket fences. The Ringsby's put the gate perpendicular to Third St. so the gate isn't a central function from the street. John addressed the guidelines 1.2 A new replacement fence should use materials that are similar to that of the original. We do not know what the original was. It also states it must be built of wood or wrought iron. This fence is made of wrought iron. It also states that the new fence should be transparent. The white existing fence is less transparent. The fence encloses a small patio area where they have a table and lawn; it was installed to make the property safer. The fence came from a farmhouse in the Dakota's that was built in the 20's or 30's. The gate and corner posts came from different places. John said he feels they are within the range of discretion for approval. Amy said photos were provided by the applicant of the old picket fence and showing the gate. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. 7 .. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF October 22, 2003 Donald Ringsby said two posts are from South Dakota and four are new posts that are replicas of the pineapple design. Mr. Ringsby said his house is more ornate than your typical miner's cottage. There is quite a bit of details. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty closed the public hearing. Commissioner comments: Sarah said in terms of guideline 1.2 and 1.3 she feels the wrought iron fence is in compliance. Sarah said she has no problem with the fence but her concern is the transition o f materials. Amy reminded the board that they couldn't require them to take out the picket fence that is already there. Derek said he is in agreement with Sarah. He said he walked the West End and could not find a reason for a particular fence to be associated with this property. Neill said consistency is very important. This has to be taken very seriously and cannot be summarized in two sentences. We do not know i f there was anything around this house originally. Probably if there was a wrought iron fence there it would still be there. In alllikelihood this house did not have a wrought iron fence. Neill addressed guideline 1.2, which states that any new replacement fence should use materials that appear similar to that of the original. There is no comparison between the wood fence and very elaborate iron fence. It also states that a wood picket fence is an appropriate replacement in most locations. Neill said he does not see any compliance in guideline 1.2 or 1.3. The iron fence is too elaborate for this particular context. Valerie said she is sorry to be seeing this after it has been installed. She agreed with staff that the fence is not what you would have traditionally seen on the property. 8 .. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF October 22, 2003 Jeffrey also agreed with staff on the ornateness of the fence and precedence setting. Our goal is to preserve and not distract. The fence confuses the distinction on this historic miner's cottage. The jog that is in the fence would not historically be there. The existing wood fence is the only thing that we have any relationship to. Jeffrey stated that he does not support the installation of this fence. John Kelly said almost all of the houses in the West End were of a higher quality then houses in the East end. John said there are 39 wrought iron fences to 12 picket fences and someone is approving those iron fences in the West end. The white fence that is there is not an historical fence, it might be 20 or 25 years old. That should be something to keep in mind. If you are going to say people cannot have any fences at all, fine but because there is a non-historic white picket fence there you shouldn't base your decision on that issue. It is speculation to think that a picket fence existed here. We are willing to talk about mitigating things and we have some ideas about that. Neill said he still feels the fence is to elaborate for the context. It fools you from the historical period. John said the visibility of this house from the road is increased by this fence as opposed to what was there before. This fence delineates the historic portion of the building because it is in an L shape. The fence wraps around the corner on North Street to the back yard. We might be able to do something with the corners or paint it to make it look newer. The fence that was approved by HPC on Smuggler certainly has a Victorian look to it. John requested that the application be tabled until a date certain rather than get a denial so he can work with Staff. Valerie said she couldn't find any guideline that says they cannot use this particular fence. Amy said the applicant would like to restudy the fence to simplify it and then come back to the board. 9 .. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF October 22, 2003 MOTION: Valeriemoved to continue 514 N. Third until Dec. 10, 2003; second by Sarah. All in favor, motion carried. Yes vote: Derek, Neill, Sarah, Valerie, Jeffrey WORKSESSION - 1295 RIVERSIDE DRIVE NO MINUTES MOTION: jeffrey moved to adjourn; second by Derek. All infavor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 10 r-- PUBLIC NOTICE DATE=<.:* TIME--12 PLACE -. C 7 ?+ALL PURPOSE NE ARING FIEDE 4'570%16 , J Â»4%773& COMM 3 â‚¬54-3 4 ' 2 -,Ab.1 -1 â‚¬ OP . / 11_U N)'/j 73,K ~~,4 *Cht,F;UYil OPLAM- .-'4 A- .'1127&.a-Mair: 121-2.Â·-4,1 - l- PUBLIC NOTICE DATE rÂ» ~ --- V U."17 -2 > 3 El= TIME_37~ PLACE - 0 7. 4A L PURPOSE Â«~ARING REErs AJ/JAIL- 1 -1%9430& r~ -- *MM ?53,0.AvÂ·' 1* :7 5 '124'1225 â‚¬ 9Â» 31-L--14/t 773/J roft ,4 Cth//'r/41Â¥1 OFAM Â·Â»,43-PA'255-MNIP RE-v'.3* ., ,-r r i BEDER -ORMATION. CONTACT THE ASPEN/PITKIN PLANMNG OFFICE ~6 14*1 SOUTH GALENA. ASPEN. CO (9701 920-5090 .Y PUBLIC NOTICE DATEÂ«21_212 TIME- PLACE - A iÂ¥ y _- 1 f -1/....-I.'- 1 . *......... PURPOSE Â·33 r:-/\,22 '211 :-1.-Â· ,Â£ f.11.~2m-1-hÂ· - Â«Ok. 99, a. pEi.305 A- FOR FLEnER INFORMAnON, CONTACT THE ASPEN/PITKIN PLA-NG OFFICE, 130 SOUTH SALENA, ASPEN CO (970) 920-5090 ... :7. 4 - .. t,4/~0,- 4 :It':*ST .. . m .. /4/ 4. - 1 4 6== i 14 L. 4. I .. , 7. r lul- ./ 4 7 -1..,<7.- f. e. I -St; ' - 3,5: .., i - I, , 4 -1. . 612Â·Al, _ . L i 1 -- i., .d MII'~Imile'. -1//13; I - 1. 4- .. . .1, r - I ...2.4... *1 - eh. . 'he.j 1. 44*.,A.,12 Â¥ 1 2. N~tz Â¥47/1* 7.~ Acry--'v#z I $.-r Trjah./v.- b., 5.4. 2.L'~2let252.jkh,2Â¥,= :t .y'.. .21:r. .1, 0. 2 I , 9 72 -- 291 . 91 11UU111111 JUF' - -"tj Â· - 4 - ~; Oill. - I ttz. 4- rr,41 Iii.bl . . - I, I - - . Ely J.Â· . .7 754 4-ze@ fe 4 . , 5 . - a y. . . I .b. f .e". I - .4 Ar. r h --E 5.,...3.---* Â¥ 494 .2.9~ . 2 M.90; 10.~ .8. - ~... "-J - , . 1-. 1 --Ll- r kil.1.14 i . f:. 5.1--a Â· 19!Mâ€¢ , 6 0 . . atÂ·./. 0 0,1 ii t.'70,4 .,DZ<- â‚¬â‚¬.... .M. J / 7 4 1 r WN te 11 MENIf I /*'.1 _PUBLIC_NOTH DATE101224 TIME_54Â©Lk PLACE~ 57*80 PURPOSE Me; __DeVELDPHO#rt F(NAL .. AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (ED, ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 9 It N. IRD STR-6-61- , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 0 Cr; 0*A , 200.3 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin . ) I, DONALD Rikreâ‚¬Fy (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City ofAspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: \A\9 Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official l paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting ofnotice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted in a conspicuous place on the subject property at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the Gllylay of Octot= r , 200 3, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph Of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. \A ~7 Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class, postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners ofproperty within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application, and, at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency, state, county, municipal government, school, service district or other governmental or quasi-governmental agency that owns property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject P totheÂ·deve}opment appli:catioÂ»: Thenames, and.ad,kesses ofepmperty-owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the z Â·- owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) .. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision o f this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners o f real property in the area o f the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map has been available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. Signature o l The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this 7 ' day Of O â‚¬ 7-0 <SC/C , 1001'by 0044.0 2,4618 f WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL *fuummw#" 40'SjoIA A My qpm*ssion expires: jo-27-03 'hu.....~:Qi% AOTARYI, i i +0+ 1 1 Cauo (v-- : 5 Notary Public ~ PUBL\0.4 f ..0 Â» /4,4.Ellil*f ATTACHMENTS: COPY OF THE PUBLICATION PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL . '. 44., T 6 Tt _:,/ -/...-- t. >Mlit l-.C 1-jÂ·'I.gÂ·:. 1 Â·'1Â·.: ' ' i;11., u.:. all.2. ..i) i)(.EF''. c 5Â·' ,Â·. .. July 7,2003 . Karen Ringsby 1123 Auraria Parkway, #200 ASPEN/PITKIN ~ Denver, CO 80204 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Dear Mrs. Ringsby; Enclosed are building permit forms and an application for Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) review for your fence at 514 N. Third Street. As I mentioned on the phone, I am concerned about how the HPC will view the fence that you installed. While it is attractive and a nice artifact, in recent discussions on this topic they have indicated concern with the idea of placing an ornate fence on a property if there is no .factual evidence to show that it is the type that would have been used when the house was built. Although your house has more decorative trim on it then some other . miner's cottages in town, it seems from the research we have been able to do that if there was a fence there historically, it would likely have been wood pickets. (If you have any ' old photos of 514 N. Third that would prove this wrong, you are welcome to submit them). I am attaching the guidelines that they will use in their decision-making for your information. You will be applying for a "Certificate of Appropriateness- Minor Review." While my department is sometimes able to approve fences administratively, I do not feel that is possible in this case given th@ philosophy described above, so the matter will have to go before HPC. Once I receive your application J can schedule a hearing date. Someone will need to post a public notice sign at your house, and you or a representative needs to attend the meeting. The board meets on the 2nd and 4th Wednesdays of every month. Please deliver a complete application to me within the next 30 days. , After HPC approval is given, you call submit for a building permit. With regard to the requirement that you turn in surveys that are no more than one year old, the Zoning Officer, Sarah Oates, may be willing to accept an older version (perhaps from when your addition was constructed) if that is all that you have. You can check with her directly at 970-920-5441. Sincerely, . , Amy Guthiie Historic Preservation Officer CC: Sarah Oates, Zoning Officer - 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611-1975 PHONE 970.920.5090 Â· FAx 970.920.5439 Printed on Recycled Paper