HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.CU.320 W Main St.07A-88 '?
ASPEN / PITKIN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
October 1, 2001
Ms. Caroline McDonald
320 West Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: Restaurant Use at 320 West Main Street
Dear Caroline: -
Thank you for your inquiry as to the status of your current land use approval for your
property located at 320 West Main Street, Aspen, Colorado and in the Office Zone
District with a Main Street Historic District overlay. Upon research through city records
and conference with the City of Aspen Attorney, this letter shall serve as a confirmation
from the City of Aspen Community Development Department that your property
continues to maintain a Conditional Use approval for a restaurant as originally
granted. This is also memorialized via a document entitled "Declaration of Restrictive
Covenants," which has been recorded in the Pitkin County Clerk & Recorder's Office in
Book #585, Page 489 on February 7, 1989. (Please see "Attached. ")
Please note, according to the City of Aspen Land Use Code ( "Code "), if you wish to
change from a restaurant use to another use, either a permitted or use, there
are certain land use approvals you may need to seek. I might suggest that you contact the
Community Development Department if you have any questions or requests to do so in
the future.
Feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding this letter (920 - 5102).
Regards,
•
Fred Jarman
City of Aspen, Planner
130 SOUTH GALENA STREET • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 -1975 • PHDNE'970.920.5090 • FAX 970.920.5439
Printed on Recycled Paper
L wf ` v �M
Recorded a< -7" coax 585 Palu489 R:cepbon No t7 1 ` ; .
SILYIA DAVIS MEN COUNTY RECORDER
DECLaRATION OF DR4TRICTIyE COVENANT$ t '.?
The City of Aspen, Colorado, a municipal corperstion, and ( " ,
Scott and Caroline McDonald, husband and wife, as joint tenants, _ " ,?
f �
all as their interests may appear (hereinafter "Covenantors "),' . '
for themselves and their heirs, administrators, successors and _ �+• r ;
assigns, do covenant and hereby restrict the below- ducrlbed real
property as follows:
1. Covenantors are the legal and equitable owners of the T
- following-described real property, and the improvements located -
thereon:
Lots p,R,S, Block 44 of the Original Township of Aspen,
Colorado; ,'
i
4 ' s"
also known as
, 300 W. Main Street s' ',4-.'
Aspen, Colorado 81611 ''
2• The above- described property shall be restricted in the i # *..
following manner: ,r
a) The property shall be granted "historic landmark" p" '4 ;13
designation, and the attached residential unit shall be
restricted as an conditional /accessory use to the
restaurant, primarily for the use of the restaurant �`
owner /manager or an employee; however, the owner will 1 ;
have the right to rent out the unit primarily to ■ 10 4
permanent employees of the community. Further, the • . .'
property shall not be condominiumixed for long as the j*
owners, their heirs, administrators, assigns, and
successors enjoy the conditional use granted
heYeinabova. •
�,;
3 The covenants contained herein shall run with the land u ._
and shall be binding on all parties having any right, title or
t .. interest in the above - described property or any part hereof, and ; '3
their administrators, representatives, successors and assigns, d
for the period of fifty (50) years from the date these covenants
restrictions and conditions are recorded. 1 ,�
i s
4 The covenants contained herein shall not be released or
waived in any respect or modified or amended during the ! � , z
they are binding except by the City of Aspen, which action ;
be reflected by Resolution of the City Council of the City of
Aspen.
,,.;�
S. In any legal proceeding to enforce the provisions of t ?_'
these covenants, restrictions and conditions, the prevailing
party shall be entitled to recover its costs and fees therein, w0 C s „.
�. including its reasonable attorneys fees and expert witness fees.
■
• f• ■ t Ib'Cj °',
• •
;.'gam
r
• - s
,
. .
585 jj
90x 585 'P GE 4...:1
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the pa ies hereto have set their hands
and seals this /0C of , 1988.
COVENANTOR:
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
By j E ;G .
William L. Stirling, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn Koch, City Clerk
AP;•OVED AS TO FORM: -\
•aul J. - -.dune
City Atto - =y
COVENANTOR:
1
Caroline McDonald r ��
Scott McDonald
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
County of Pitkin )
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
,�- day of
`
Jv- --�- , 1988, by Scott and Caroline McDonal h ,,,,,,
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL.
%,. - l Y .,� fi t }
My commission expires: 1 ( �� u' y G \ : ,
c d. c
' rotary Public , '14..
�\ �/'y ' �1 c17, Cg C _
1 ?u /- \ 1 1�,w...� Ir r.rquVU t 1
Address
v0/27/2000 03:16 5032332469
MCDONALD INC PAGE 01
2trJ +gzmaYv 3� L.,- � �
le
1;1 Recoroedad l o'eb L 5 C�
etu .o P2GE4Si) Rxeption No - I t't{ mil` - 7
Slaw DAVIS PR)UN =MY RED)RDER
e DCCURATION OF Rt,� t
N
The City of Aspen, Colorado, • municipal corperrtion, and
Scott and Carolina McDonald, husband and vice, as joint tensat•,
•11 as their Interests may eppesr (hereinafter ^Covenantors "),
for triangle's ! .
a•si a n their has, administrators, successors and
propert es follows and hereby by restrict the below-described real
1. Covenantors ere the legal and equitable owners of the
to llevinq - described real property, and the improvements located
thereon:
Colorado( Lots a,R,a, Block 44 of the Original Township of Aspen,
also known a.
300 Y. Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 01611
2. The sh^- •.._described Property shall be restricted in the
f manner;
3
a) The property shall be granted "historic landmark^
designation, and the attached residentia
restricted as an conditional /accessory unit
use ato be
the
restaurant, primarily for the use of the restaurant
;
owner /manager or an em to ee
have P Y however, the owner wijl
_..e right to rent out the unit •
en ua o
h red f
roperty .ball not be condominius or - I •
ilk Own ers, their heirs, administrators, assigns, and
r( a
sUCCessore enjoy the conditional use r
herelhaboveE
3 The covenants contained herein shall run with t S
and shall be binding on all parties having any right, title or
interest in the above - described property or an
their a v s, dministrators, re resentati Y part and a n
for t • Sod of rift So he date th en designss, ,
� ,
restrictions and con o ) Years on • recorde troll' the Gate thee. covenants,
ed.
e The covenants contained herein shall not be released or
valved in any r. ^ct or modified or amended during the period
they are binding except by the City of Aspen, which action shall
be reflected by Resolution of the City Council of the City of ;
Aspen.
5 . In any legal proceeding to enforce the provisions of
these covenants, restrictions and condition., the prevailing
party shall be entitled to recover its costs and tees therein, .
including its re:—..able attorneys fees and expert with..■ fees,
1 1. 1
1
dn,� ,
h
pn��5 0 r
, / it.
i t) bt-.r i < 17 c"
D 40 Grad.tn�e. 14C IO6" -( � -
. � /{35 -G I go-0 16$ •
., 1 C /v n v.- q7O gag $i-t•k?
I t ,
■
•
•
. 111111
ASPEN • PITKIN
8 1994 PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT
Scott and Caroline McDonald
300 W. Main Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: 300 W. Main Zoning Change Request
Dear Mr. & Mrs. McDonald:
•
Attached are two memoranda written in summary of our meeting on 7 December 1994. The first was
written immediately after the meeting; the second, in response to your letter received shortly thereafter.
I do hope that the memoranda and our meeting serve to clarify that although staff is prepared to
support a development application for the use you have in mind, permitting the retail use without
further review would be inconsistent with the Aspen Code and the Aspen Area Community Plan.
I would look forward to an opportunity to assist you with a development proposal. Please let me know
if I may provide any additional information or assistance.
Very truly yours,
Stan Clauson, AICP, ASLA
Community Development Director
City of Aspen •
•
cc: Amy Margerum, City Manager
• Leslie Lamont, Deputy C.D. Director
Attachments
•
130 SOUTH GALENA STREET • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 • PHONE 303.920.5090 • FAX 303.920.5197
MEMORANDUM
TO: Amy Margerum, City Manager
FROM: Stan Clauson, City C.D. Director
DATE: 8 December 1994
RE: McDonald Zoning Change Request
Scott and Caroline McDonald appeared before Council at the meeting of 28 November 1994.
At that time they presented a letter and commentary alleging staff delay in a review of the
permitted uses in the Main Street "Office" zone, where their property is located. The letter
further requested that the City Manager and Council provide comments with respect to this
request. Staff in Community Development were charged with providing a response.
Stan Clauson solicited a response from Cindy Houben who had been in contact with the
McDonald's following their original request for zoning changes in the district on 8 March 1983.
Cindy states that she had indicated to the McDonald's that the City Council had made GMQS
amendments the priority for her work program, although use changes to the "Office" zone did
need to be made. The McDonald's appear to have been apprised that they could apply for
development approval for their proposal and incorporate into that application a request for any
necessary zoning changes.
It further appears that the McDonald's did not want to apply for conditional use approval and
associated changes. What they wanted was for staff to initiate an ordinance change to establish
a hierarchy of uses such that their existing conditional approval for a restaurant would constitute
de facto approval for a retail use, based on the concept that a retail use was inherently less
intense than a restaurant use.
Leslie Lamont and Stan Clauson met with the McDonald's on Wednesday, 7 December. At the
meeting, the McDonald's discussed the delay which they believed had been imposed on their
change of use request. They referred to a tape which they provided of the public comment
portion of the City Council meeting of 8 March 1993, and repeatedly urged staff to listen to
the tape. They indicated the tape contained a mandate from Council to address their problem
through the review and expansion of possible uses in the "Office" zone. Stan Clauson
apologized for any delay which they had experienced. He further stated that it seemed
reasonable to him to consider an amendment to the zoning ordinance which might permit limited
additional retail uses in the "Office" zone, limited to historic buildings and subject to a
conditional use review by Planning & Zoning.
Clauson further suggested that if the McDonald's wanted to apply for a conditional use permit
to allow a restricted retail use such as they proposed, that he would support the proposal in the
amendment process. This position was based on the fact that some limited retail uses are
presently listed as conditional uses for historic buildings. These include antique store,
bookstore, florist, and other specific retail related uses. The exclusion of general retail would
appear to be somewhat arbitrary, and it is the planning director's opinion that some expansion
of retail use might be included under the historic structure conditional use provision of the
district.
However, in discussion with the McDonald's it became clear that they were concerned to retain
the existing conditional use for a restaurant, even as a new conditional use is established.
Leslie Lamont indicated that under the general provisions of the Aspen Code relating to use,
when a new conditional (or permitted) use is established, the existing conditional use lapses.
The reason for this is that any conditional use is considered to carry sufficient potential impact
on abutters that a public hearing is warranted and these impacts vary from among differing
uses. This interpretation was later confirmed with the City Attorney. In further discussion,
it became clear that the applicants wanted what would amount to three changes to the Aspen
code:
1. inclusion of a retail use such as they propose in the "Office" zone;
2. a provision that if a new use is established, the old use remains vested in
perpetuity; and
3. the development of a use hierarchy such that if a more intensive use has been
permitted, then a use deemed to be less intensive would be permitted of right
without further review, regardless of the zoning district.
It became clear that the applicant's desire was to establish their intended retail use without
further review and, moreover, to be able to revert to their previous restaurant use at such time
as they wished. Staff indicated that the zoning changes implicit in this request went beyond
any revision to the table of uses for the "Office" zone, and would be contrary to the basis for
zoning review in all city districts. The applicant's became quite intent in their belief that
Council had mandated this level of review of the ordinance at their meeting of 8 March 1993,
and urged staff to review the tape they had provided. They indicated that they believed they
had not been dealt with in a fair manner by the city. Leslie Lamont offered several times to
provide the required application materials and information so that they could implement the
necessary zoning changes and development approvals. She indicated that this would permit
them to take control of their proposal for their property. The applicants declined these
materials.
Subsequently, staff reviewed the tape which had been provided. In the exchange during Citizen
2
Comments, Mr. McDonald expresses his interest in developing a retail use for his property and
proposes a hierarchy of permissibility such as described above. The City Manager replies that
zoning amendments based on the Aspen Area Community Plan are in the process of
development. Mayor Bennett asks Diane Moore, then planning director, if these amendments
could be reported to Council at a subsequent meeting. Diane Moore replies in effect that the
range of amendments being contemplated are wide - ranging and would take some time to
prepare. Council Member Frank Peters requests that a simple determination be made as to
whether some expansion of retail uses could be made in this zone. He further notes that, with
conditional use review and HPC involvement, it would be unlikely that inappropriate
development would be permitted. In sum, the mandate from Council is a narrow one: to look
at the possibility of some further expansion of retail uses under the conditional use provisions.
Staff would be pleased to be immediately responsive to this approach. Unfortunately, it does
not appear to satisfy the full request of the McDonald's in their desire for de facto approval
and vested rights to the previous use.
Staff believes that these additional requested changes would result in a radical alteration of the
current review capabilities under the Aspen Code. Staff does not find support for these
amendments in the AACP and does not recommend them to Council.
3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Amy Margerum, City Manager
FROM: Stan Clauson, City C.D. Directoe
DATE: 8 December 1994
RE: Response to Scott and Caroline McDonald's Letter
Dated 7 December 1994
Staff prepared a memorandum to the City Manager summarizing the discussion which took
place at meeting between Stan Clauson, Leslie Lamont, and Scott and Caroline McDonald on
7 December 1994. The memo details the joining changes implicit in the McDonald's request
for approval of a retail use on Main Street, and provides a staff recommendation. Subsequent
to the preparation of the memo, a letter was received from Scott and Caroline McDonald
presenting issues which they feel were raised at the meeting. This memorandum is in response
to that letter, dated 7 December 1994.
The McDonalds summarize the meeting in four numbered points. Listed below are the four
points, along with staff commentary:
1. That the City will entertain conditional change of use from a
restaurant to retail for the Log Cabin.
At the meeting, Stan Clauson indicated that he would provide a report favoring the inclusion
of additional limited retail uses as part of the list of conditional uses for landmarked historic
structures in the "Office" zone. This would support a conditional use designation to which the
McDonalds could direct an application for conditional use approval.
2. The city will require the McDonalds to abide by current ordinance
requirements, to go through P and Z review (parking and housing
mitigation) if change of use from retail back to a restaurant occurs... .
The property is required to abide by current ordinance requirements. Section 7 -303 of the
Aspen Code provides that "each conditional use shall be evaluated by the commission for
compliance with the standards and conditions set forth in this division." This is interpreted
by the Planning Director and the City Attorney to mean that each application for a change in
use, or change back to a former use, requires conditional use review by the Planning and
Zoning Commission. Any review by the Planning and Zoning Commission requires compliance
1
with the provisions of the Aspen Code then currently in effect, including parking and housing
mitigation. There is a provision for an "insubstantial amendment of a development order."
However, as described in Section 7 -308, this is "limited to changes in the operation of a
conditional use." This is not interpreted to include a change in use. All other amendments are
to be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission subject to the provisions for
conditional use review.
3. ... if the Log Cabin remains idle as a restaurant for any length of
time, there is the possibility of losing our conditional use as a restaurant.
At the meeting, the length of time for vesting of a site specific development plan approval was
identified as three years. The Aspen Code is silent as to whether an approved and established
conditional use is considered to be abandoned if discontinued for any period of time.
Therefore, in the opinion of the City Attorney, the use of the property as a restaurant could be
reestablished at any time, consistent with the provisions of the original approval, as long as
there is no other intervening development approval for the property.
4. ... staff members did not address the issues presented by us to the
council on March 8, 1993. The city council's instructions to city staff and
staff's action plan resulting from these instructions were not addressed at
this meeting (12/7/94). We requested staff to review the March 8th, 1993
Grassroots video tape relevant to this issue... .
Staff believes that they did address the issues by explaining to the McDonalds that they would
support a site specific development application, including a zoning amendment which would
provide for additional specific retail uses. The McDonalds desire to accomplish their change
of use without a development application presents a situation which could only be resolved by
major revisions in the scope and concept of the present Code. Staff does not recommend these
changes to provide for (1) a hierarchy of uses with automatic rights to uses which are regarded
as less intense, and (2) the right of reversion, without review, to previously approved
conditional uses. Staff did review the tape provided by the McDonalds and do not find that
Council mandated an investigation of these issues. Rather, Council Member Frank Peters,
asked that a review of the possibility of including specific additional retail uses in the "Office"
zone. Council Member Peters also noted that he felt that additional retail uses might be
permitted without danger to the district because of the conditional use review associated with
landmark structures. He, therefore, appeared to believe that this review would be a valuable
part of any expanded retail use. Staff believes that their response to the applicants is consistent
with this position.
Staff will provide this memorandum and that of 7 December 1994 in response to the
McDonalds request for a summary of conclusions relating to the 7 December meeting.
cc: John Worcester, City Attorney
2
RECEIVED
UEC -7 SS24
c i ty2 9 4 City Mann- der /stayer: Office
Date :Dec . 7 1994 DISTRIBUTED TO:
To: The City of Aspen:
Manager
City Attorney
City Council Response By:
By Date:
From: Scott and Caroline McDonald `or
Subject: Summary of the 12/7/94 meeting with City Staff, Leslie
Lamont, Stan Claussen, and Scott and Caroline McDonald,
addressing the issue brought forth to the City Council on
November 28, 1994.
Reference: Letters from the McDonald's to The Aspen City Council:
dated March 8, 1993 and Nov. 8,1994 , and the Grassroots edited
tape of March 8, 1993.
Written response from The City of Aspen is requested by the
McDonalds for the following summary of conclusions of the
aforementioned 12/7/94 meeting.
Summarizing our meeting with staff Members on Dec. 7, 1996,
we arrived at the following conclusions:
1. That the City will entertain conditional change of use
from a restaurant to retail for the Log Cabin.
2.The city will require the McDonalds to abide by current
ordinance requirements, to go through P and Z review (parking and
employee housing mitigation) if change of use from retail back to
a restaurant occurs. P and Z mitigation would be too financially
burdensome. The requested change of use to retail under current
city polices can not, for our family, be monetarily justified if
return to use as a restaurant is planed at a later date.
3. Brought up at this meeting, that if the Log Cabin remains
idle as a restaurant for any length of time, there is the
possibility of losing our conditional use as restaurant.
Subsequently,while we try to resolve this issue with the City
we must have a letter from the City to us stating our liabilities
in this matter.
4. It is our opinion that staff members did not address the
issues presented by us to the council on March 8,1993. The city
council's instructions to city staff and staff's action plan
resulting from these instructions were not addressed at this
meeting (12/7/94). We requested staff to review the March 8th,
1993 Grassroots video tape relevant to this issue (1st 5 minutes
of tape).
Sincerely, Scott and Caroline McDonald
fr 4/
DRAFT
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PLANNING & ZONING APRIL 26, 1988
MCDONALD CONDITIONAL USE AND SPECIAL REVIEW (CONT.)
MOTION
Jasmine: I would entertain a motion to recommend historic
designation of this property with the dwelling unit being
considered an accessory use to the restaurant operation with the
intention that the dwelling unit be primarily for the use of the
present owner /managers but that they would have the option to
their "employees of the restaurant" and that therefore they are
fulfilling the employee housing requirement although not at any
particular income level and that they would have the opportunity
to have caretakers or rentals in there should it be necessary for
them to leave town.
David: I so move.
Michael: So long as there is an accessory use there that there
will not be condominiumization. There should be that provision
on that.
-- David: I so amend my motion.
Roger: There are other issues we should discuss.
Jasmine: The other issues fall under conditional use.
Steve: Yea. You could just deal with them under conditional use
if you feel comfortable with the designation.
Roger: I second the motion.
Jasmine asked if there was further discussion.
The motion is to recommend historic designation of this property
recognizing that the dwelling is an accessory use primarily
intended for the owners /managers of the restaurant who are also
the employees of the restaurant. And that therefor they are
fulfilling an employee housing requirement but not necessarily
at a particular income level and that they would have the right
to rent out the dwelling unit should conditions arise which make
that necessary and that as long as the property during the period
of this conditional use is not to be condominiumized.
Cindy: So they have the ability to rent it out and it does not
have to be rented out to an employee of the community.
Jasmine: It should be rented out to a long term resident of the
community.
PZM4.26.88
Cindy: It depends on what your intent is.
Jasmine: As opposed to a short term.
David: I think that what we are saying is by are not
condominiumizing it, we are putting it as a dwelling unit of the
business - -kind of an accessory use. And then by not putting any
kind of lease restrictions on it they could if they were in the
off season and they close the restaurant they could rent it out
to somebody. But basically you put it as an accessory use to the
restaurant, it kind of ties in.
Jasmine: We could put more specifically "And specifically not
intended for short term tourist use ".
Cindy: Is it not intended for that or is it specifically really
intended that it somehow is going to provide housing without any
price restriction on it to someone who is a permanent resident of
the community.
Jasmine: Well, the idea that generally it is going to be the
people themselves living in it. And if they have to leave town
and need somebody to take care of it - -they aren't going to be
there for a couple of months and want to rent it out, I don't
think anybody sees a problem with that. Chances it would be a
long term resident. They are not going to hire somebody who just
comes in from Oklahoma to take care of their house.
Cindy: In the guidelines it does talk about - -I have worked with
some condominiumization in the County out at ABC but what
happened there is they didn't want to condominiumize it and let
people just rent it short term or people outside of the
community. They wanted to hold it as housing that would be
providing housing for the permanent residents of the community.
So they just said you have to be a resident of the community in
order to rent this space. But being a permanent resident of the
community really means having been here for 30 days and working
in the community. That is all it means.
Michael: What happens if they hire a cook and he comes in and
they leave to California and he lives there?
Cindy: If he hired him, he lives there and that is great. It
would meet that criteria.
Mari: I am not even sure we should specify all that stuff. I
don't know why we can't just be happy that they are not going to
condominiumize it and just approve the conditional use.
2
PZM4.26.88
Michael: I agree.
Jasmine: We have a motion on the floor and we do have a second.
So we can certainly take a vote on it.
Michael: Does your motion include a long term permanent
resident?
David: I don't think that any of us have wanted to restrict it
any more than just saying it is an accessory use connected to the
restaurant and won't be condominiumized. All those things cover
the short term. It is not condominiumized and can't sell it off
and all the other things that we see that we don't want.
Roger: You left only one thing out and that is that by it being
accessory use of the restaurant that we have found that that
satisfies the employee housing requirement.
David: As an accessory use of the restaurant satisfies employee
requirement.
Steve: One of the concerns about it is the enforceability of it
and the mechanism of creating this animal - -this is a
recommendation to the City Council who is going to take some
zoning action and I think that the most pertinent question is to
ask the applicants if this is something they are basically
comfortable with and willing to volunteer as part of the historic
designation in order to do the restaurant.
Caroline: It is my understanding that saying accessory use isn't
limiting us to if we had to leave town and wanted somebody to
stay in the place it is not limiting us to who we have, how much
we charge, when it is or any of that. This statement is the
criteria in saying that as long as we have conditional use we
will never condominiumize the property which is totally
acceptable and understandable for us.
Steve: So this action assumes that the follow up would be that
at Council level, you would actually prepare a legal instrument
restricting the unit.
Scott: We would present a notarized statement to that effect.
Jasmine: So we have a motion to which the applicant has agreed.
I will submit it to a vote:
All voted in favor of the motion.
3
To: The Aspen City Council.
From: Scott and Caroline McDonald
Date: March 8, 1993
Subject: #1 Creation of a hierarchy of commercial uses . #2 Revision of 0 -Zone conditional uses.
#1 Today there does not exist a hierarchy of uses , for example restaurant use requires more
parking and employees than does retail and so Is a higher use. If an owner of a historical property
wishes to change use of his property without development he presently must go before P & Z even if
the proposed use is equal to or less than before.
The fundamental purpose of P & Z Is to be a mechanism by which the impact of a development
on the community may be assessed by ordinance. Based on this assessment P & Z Is to determine
what requirements by ordinance are needed by the developer for the specific use.
If a business is proposing a use change equal to or less than the original granted use and is not
proposing development which would add to the properties use load that business should not be
penalized by government and required to go before P & Z again.
We are requesting City Council for a listed hierarchy of uses to facilitate business use change
without P & Z Involvement.
#2 The fundamental purpose of granting conditional uses to historical designated properties is an
Impetus to the preservation of those properties and the Historical character of the town.
Without conditional uses many Historic properties would disappear due to the inherent high
maintenance, inefficient use of area and low Investment return.
In the past decade the business profile of Aspen has changed drastically. Chain stores have
moved in and high end merchandise and T -shirt shops have displaced local businesses and
amendments, at which point we could address our problem.
Cindy Houban was assigned as our contact with the city.
Cindy when questioned by us if her staff employed milestones to
manage and track their workload,replied they used timelines. To
our knowledge the scheduled meetings addressing the code
amendments relevant to us never occurred.
At two month intervals, per Cindy's instructions, my wife
would call planning as to the status of addressing this issue.
She was assured by Cindy that in the next few months we could
meet with staff and begin . This reply by Cindy was echoed each
time to Caroline at two month intervals. After 14 months of
inquiry, Cindy notified Caroline to request from the City Council
an additional planner for she did not have time to attend to this
matter.
We request from the Council and the City Manager their
comments regarding this matter.
Sincerely ,
Scott and Caroline McDonald
2
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission April 19, 1988
MCDONALD HISTORIC DESIGNATION AND CONDITIONAL USE
Ms. Tygre opened the public hearing. Jim Colombo stepped down due
to a potential conflict of interest.
Steve Burstein, planning office, presented a site plan showing the
parking plan, the original house, and the expansion. Ms. Tygre
introduced a letter from the adjacent neighbors supporting the
project. There is a letter from Ruth Whyte, also adjacent, listing
concerns about doubling the size of this structure, including roof
and height, parking and access. Burstein told the Board there are
3 aspects to the application; historic landmark designation,
conditional use for the restaurant, and special review for
reduction of parking. Burstein told P & Z this application is to
convert the existing house of 1400 square feet into a 50 seat
restaurant /bar, and to build a 2300 square foot addition for a four
bedroom residence.
Burstein said HPC has reviewed the application for historic
compatibility. HPC has granted conceptual approval with condi-
tions. The HPC is still working with the applicant on meeting the
conditions of conceptual approval. HPC has recommended historic
designation. This house was built in 1944. There are unique
/ features to the house which make is eligible for historic designa-
tion. It is a good example of rustic architecture. The house is
visible from Main street and contributes to the character of Main
street. Historic designation is a zoning classification, so P &
Z recommends designation to Council.
Ms. Tygre said historic designation does allow certain uses in
order to encourage preservation. The P & Z was concerned about
size of additions to historic structures. Ms. Tygre said she
thought there was a limit to the size of expansions to historic
structures. Burstein said there is no limit. The discussion
focused on the mitigation of employee housing impact. Ms. Tygre
said the P & Z also discussed the size of the expansion. Burstein
said Council discussed putting a cap on the expansion but decided
HPC has the historic compatibility criteria under which to review
each project. Ms. Tygre said above a certain amount of square
footage addition, a project gets into the GMP issues. Burstein
said this is being reviewed under the old code.
Ms. Peyton moved to recommend to Council historic designation of
this property; seconded by Ms. Markalunas.
Ms. Tygre said she is concerned that historic designation opens up
growth impacts that are not controlled by P & Z.
6
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission April 19, 1988
Ms. Peyton withdrew her motion in order to hear the applicant's
presentation.
I Scott McDonald told Council the addition is 1700 square feet of
living space and 160 square feet will be used for the kitchen. The
intent of this project is to use the original structure for a
restaurant. The structure is currently a four bedroom house. The
addition will be a four bedroom house. McDonald said there is
about 6000 square feet open space on the lot. They have enlarged
the garage to accommodate two cars and two small dumpsters. There
will also be 3 parking spaces for the restaurant. McDonald said
there are a number of large spruce trees on the property, which
limit where the addition can go.
Hunt said he feels there should be 10 feet between this and the
building to the west. McDonald went over the storage in the
basement and the service area.
Ms. Tygre opened the public hearing on the historic designation and
conditional use of 300 West Main street. There were no comments.
Ms. Tygre closed the public hearing.
Hunt reiterated his concern about the lack of 10 feet between the
building to the west. White said the housing authority has
requested there be some mitigation of the employees generated by
l this new restaurant. Ms. Tygre said this building is worth
preserving; however, to what extent is the Commission willing to
give other considerations that are applied to buildings that are
not historic. Ms. Tygre said when historic designation is granted
to this building, the city loses control over things like employee
housing generation created by the ability the commission would have
in the code. Ms. Tygre said she does not feel the trade offs in
this project are appropriate because there are great problems in
town.
Herron asked if there is a way the P & Z can make a recommendation
conditioned on employee housing being addressed. Burstein said the
old code does not require the applicants to take care of the
employee housing impact. Burstein said the McDonalds originally
had an employee unit on -site but due to the bulk, they decided to
delete that unit. Burstein said the 10 feet between buildings may
be germane to this discussion and the conditional use concerns.
The HPC is attempting to address the compatibility and are
concerned about the effect of this building on the structure to the
west. Ms. Tygre said her concern with the conditional use is that
this project does not deal with the things she is most concerned
about. Conditional use review does not include those areas of
concern in the purview of P & Z. Ms. Tygre said she does not want
to grant historic designation because she has no other recourse to
\ mitigate impacts caused by the change in use of this building.
7
Aspen Planninci and Zoning Commission April 19, 1988
Burstein said this applicant is in the transition between the old
and new codes. Burstein told the Commission he has discussed with
the applicants that the new code has the intent to have employee
housing mitigation. Ms. Tygre said she is also concerned with size
and bulk. McDonald told the P & Z they also have the option of
constructing a duplex on this lot. Caroline McDonald told the
Board that she and Scott will be running the restaurant so the
addition can be looked at as employee housing. Hunt said the
residence is not now an employee unit. If this residence becomes
designated, the community would be gaining one employee unit.
McDonald said this will not be condominiumized, and a buyer would
be buying the whole unit. Ms. Peyton said in this case the
benefits of preserving this structure warrants action.
White said he would like to figure out a way to preserve this and
mitigate some of the impacts without opening up another area for
the next applicant to come in an do whatever they want to do.
White said a payment to cash -in -lieu for employee housing would
help solve some of the concerns of the Board. Herron said 1700
square feet of bulk is not much of an issue; the question is the
economics. Herron said a cash -in -lieu payment would render the
project beyond the applicants desires. Herron said the Board has
to decide whether they are willing to lose this piece of property
1 or to let the applicants have the restaurant and not address
J employee housing as they are entitled to do under the current code.
Herron suggested deed restricting the 1700 square feet to housing
and for nothing else. Burstein said this could be an accessory
unit of the restaurant.
Ms. Tygre said 1700 square feet is not unreasonable but it is
doubling the size of the existing structure. McDonald said the
intent of the addition is for the owner or someone connected with
the restaurant to occupy the addition. White suggested continuing
this to next meeting in order to give the applicant time to come
back with some conditions that may address the concerns outlined
by the Board.
Ms. Peyton moved to table this to a week from today; seconded by
White. All in favor, motion carried.
Ms. Tygre continued the public hearing.
The meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m.
Kathryn S1/ Koch, City Clerk
8
Aloft A
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
THRU: Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City Manager /� n
FROM: Steve Burstein and Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office
RE: Historic Designation and Auxiliary Reviews for 334 W.
Hallam St., 300 W. Main St., and 134 W. Hopkins St.
DATE: May 9, 1988
SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval of Ordinance 1
(Series of 1988) on First Reading.
INTRODUCTION: During the last several months three historic
designation projects have been reviewed by HPC and P &Z, resulting
in recommendations for historic landmark designation. A single
ordinance has been prepared that would accomplish designation of
all three properties. Case reviews for each application are
presented below.
STANDARDS FOR HISTORIC DESIGNATION: Section 7 -702 of the
Municipal Code, as amended by Ordinance 5 (Series of 1988),
states the following standards for designation of historic
landmarks. A structure must meet one or more of these standards
to be eligible for designation. Staff's comments in response to
each standard are in the case review section of this memorandum.
Standard 1: The structure or site is a principal or
secondary structure or site commonly identified or associated
with a person or an event of historic significance to the
cultural., social or political history of Aspen, the State of
Colorado, or the United States.
Standard 2: The structure or site reflects an architectural
style that is unique, distinct, or traditional Aspen character.
Standard 3: The structure or site embodies the
distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique
architectural type or specimen.
Standard 4: The structure is a significant work of an
architect whose individual work has influenced the character of
Aspen.
Standard 5: The structure or site is a significant component
1
and approved portions of the project, specifically the
greenhouse / "sunspace" addition, which required a minor change to
the east elevation, lower level original window, reconstructing
the opening into a door to permit access into the sunspace. In
HPC and staff's opinion, this minor change does not negate the
historical integrity of the structure and the recommendation for
historic landmark designation stands.
Historic Evaluation Rating: "5"
Note: This property has been deemed eligible for listing on
the National Register of Historic Places.
Response to Standards:
1. The home and carriage house are associated with Eugene Wilder
of the Aspen Lumber Company (one of Aspen's oldest
establishments).
2. This home was constructed c. 1885. The front elevation of
this two story home is notable for its unique two story polygonal
bay with segmental arched windows defined at the top by small
panes of stained glass. The quality detailing throughout the
front facade and its highly visible corner location make this
entire property exemplary of "Victorian" residential
architecture. This home is featured on the cover of the Aspen
Area Comprehensive Plan: Historic Preservation Element. The
carriage house and simple fenestration of the east and west
facades of the main house blend together well. Carriage houses
are commonly found throughout the West End, most being original
and renovated in such a way as to maintain their integrity yet be
utilized for modern living.
3. The Wilder House embodies the characteristics of the gabled
"L" with Victorian detailing elements, identified in the
Guidelines as a historical architectural style in Aspen.
4. The Wilder House was constructed from local lumber and may
have been built by The Aspen Lumber Company, established c. 1880-
1885, according to Barbara Norgren, preservation consultant who
prepared the National Register nomination for this property. The
house displays a high degree of craftsmanship which was available
in Aspen at the time of its construction. Through careful
restoration of the original elements, this house retains a great
deal of its original integrity.
5. The special architectural features of this home and carriage
house represent the historic character of this neighborhood and
Aspen at the turn -of- the - century. Its high rating ( "5 ") expresses
the important relationship this structure has to the
neighborhood.
3
6. The Wilder House is situated near the very center of the
historic "West End" neighborhood on a prominent corner. Its size,
location, and architectural features present an excellent
example of Aspen's history. It has special prominence because it
is viewed by summer visitors enroute along 3rd Street to the
Music Tent.
Historic Designation Grant: Because 334 W. Hallam received an
evaluation rating of "5 ", it is eligible for a grant from the
City of $2,000. The applicant has requested this grant. We have
included this grant within the Ordinance.
300 West Main
Location: Lots Q,R, and S of Block 44, City and Townsite of
Aspen, Colorado.
Zoning: 0 - Office zone district.
Applicant's Request: Scott and Caroline McDonald request historic
designation of the log house property. The project includes
conversion of the existing 1400 square foot house into a fifty
(50) seat restaurant. A two story addition, approximately 2300
square feet in size, would be attached to the north and west
sides of the existing house for a four bedroom residence, garage
and restaurant kitchen. A one bedroom employee unit was initially
proposed within the addition, but has been deleted as a response
to HPC's concerns about the bulk of the addition.
Advisory Committee Actions: P &Z: The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommended historic designation of 300 W. Main on
April 26, 1988 recognizing that the attached residential unit is
an accessory use to the restaurant, primarily for use of the
restaurant owner /manager or an employee, and will not be
condominiumized; however, the owner will have the right to rent
out the unit primarily to permanent employees of the community.
The applicant volunteered such restriction on the property as an
inducement for historic designation and agreed to prepare a legal
instrument establishing the restriction for review before City
Council.
HPC: HPC recommended historic landmark designation of 300 W. Main
on February 9, 1988. On that date HPC also gave conceptual
development review approval to the addition subject to several
conditions. HPC continued conceptual development review to
ascertain whether the conditions of approval had been met. Design
changes have been made following each hearing to address concerns
raised. After five meetings, HPC has directed staff to prepare a
,resolution of conceptual development approval referencing
specific plans for adoption at their May 10, 1988 regular
meeting. It should be noted that HPC is able to grant a requested
encroachment into the rear yard set -back at Final Development
4
approval through Section 9- 103.C.2 of the Municipal Code as
amended.
Housing Authority: In an April 4, 1988 memorandum, Jim Adamski
noted that the new code would require housing for 35% (* Changed
to 60% in Ordinance 5) of the employees generated from expansion
or change in use of an historic landmark. The existing code does
not require any employee housing mitigation for changes in use of
historic landmarks. While originally the applicant had proposed
an employee housing unit, this commitment has been dropped and no
employee housing mitigation would be provided. At the April 7,
1988 meeting the Housing Authority recommended that the applicant
mitigate the employee housing impact that the restaurant will
generate in accordance with the intent of the new code.
Historic Evaluation Rating: The log house was not given a rating
by HPC in January, 1987 because the evaluations focused on mining
era structures.
Response to Standards:
1. The applicants researched Assessor's records and concluded
that the original structure on the site was built prior to 1893
and torn down some time between 1930 and 1940. The log house was
built around 1944. There is no documentation that the house or
site has significant historical association.
2. The house is one of the only log structures remaining in
Aspen, along with the cabins at 205 S. Third Street and 527 W.
Main Street. While it is newer than these other two cabins, it is
in a more prominent location and setting. Log construction with
chinking, the cross gable roof, and the square windows with small
panes are typical of the Pioneer (1850- 1930's) and Rustic (post
1940) styles now rare in Aspen. The 1980 Inventory of Historic
Sites and Structures considered the log house to possess
distinctive characteristics of "type, style of architecture, and
construction" and to be "a noteworthy surviving example of a
style becoming rare in the locale or is identified with a street
scene or other landscape." The fact that it was built so
recently (1944) makes historic landmark status questionable.
However, given the structure's unique status, we feel we can
support the viewpoint that it meets this criteria of
architectural significance. The State Historical Society's
architect, Jay Yanz, reported verbally on April 5, 1988 that he
considered the log house to be a "classic ".
The HPC will review the proposed alterations and addition to the
log house at Final Development Review to assure that the historic
character of the property which is deemed worth preserving is
maintained.
5
3. The log house embodies the characteristics of the rustic
residential building type, which is identified in the "Historic
District and Historic Landmark Development Guidelines" as an
historic architectural style in Aspen.
4. It is unlikely that a house of this type was designed by an
architect. The applicant's research indicates that Leo "Pope"
Rowland, an old -time Aspenite and the brother of "Red" Rowland,
was the primary builder of the house. John Parsons, a mason who
did work throughout the Valley, is credited with building the
stone fireplace and chimney. The stonework in particular is
outstanding; and it may be that Mr. Parsons' work influenced
other use of moss rock in and around Aspen. No research has been
done to confirm this.
5. The log house is considered visually contributing to the Main
Street Historic District, according to the 1980 Historic
Inventory. The major spruce trees give a special, rustic
character to the site and contribute to a sense of maturity,
permanence and visual relief from buildings on Main Street.
6. The log house has a special prominence in the community
because of its visibility on Main Street, in staff's opinion.
Employee Housing Issue: .Both the Housing Authority and P &Z
expressed concern over the effect of this project on affordable
housing. Working with the Planning and Zoning Commission, the
applicant agreed to volunteer a restriction on the attached
dwelling unit to make it primarily an accessory use to the
restaurant as an inducement to the City for historic designation.
P &Z stated that with this agreement, the applicant is essentially
mitigated employee housing impacts. The concept of this
restriction has been stated in Section 2 of the attached
Ordinance based on P &Z's motion. The actual deed restriction has
not been drafted by the applicants at the time of writing, but
will be completed prior to Second Reading of the Ordinance. Staff
will have review comments on that document for Council at the
Second Reading.
134 West Hopkins
Location: Southeast corner of Hopkins and First, Lots K and L of
Block 59, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
Zoning: R -6
Applicant's Request: Julie Wyckoff and Peter Carley, contract
purchasers, request historic designation of the subject property,
conditional use approval and condominiumization to undertake the
following project: restore the existing house on Lot K, move the
house presently at 120 N. Spring Street to Lot L, add a two
story addition and garage to the rear of Lot L, and create
6
separate ownerships of the two houses. Special review for
reduction in required parking from five (5) spaces to four (4)
spaces is also requested.
Advisory Committee Actions: P &Z: On May 3, 1988 the Planning and
Zoning Commission recommended historic designation of 134 W.
Hopkins subject to the following condition volunteered by the
applicants:
The asphalt siding on 134 W. Hopkins will be removed and the
old siding restored and replaced as necessary within one (1)
year after historic designation.
P &Z recommended approval of condominiumization, subject to five
conditions discussed in the condominiumization section of this
memorandum. Conditional use approval and special review for
parking reduction were also granted.
HPC: On January 12, 1988 the Historic Preservation Committee
recommended historic landmark designation of 134 W.Hopkins Avenue
subject to the condition volunteered by the applicants as stated
above. HPC gave conceptual development approval for the exterior
changes to the property subject to a number of conditions. It
should be noted that variations from required sideyard set -backs
and site coverage may be approved by HPC in their upcoming Final
Development approval.
Historic Evaluation Ratings:
134 W. Hopkins: "2"
120 N. Spring: "1"
Response to Standards for Designation:
1. The chain of title changes presented in the application for
134 W. Hopkins gives no indication that the existing house is
associated with a person or event of historical significance;
however, we note that the Anderson /Loushin family has lived here
since 1950. There is no documentation that the house at 120 N.
Spring has significant historical association.
2. The 1980 Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures states
that 134 W. Hopkins possesses historic importance by
"illustrating the family /home environment and lifestyle(s) of the
silver mining era." HPC gave the structure an historic evaluation
rating of "2" considering the asphalt siding, the possibility
that the second floor dormers were added, and the assessment that
the house does not make a strong contribution to the historic
character of the neighborhood, already substantially rebuilt.
Hazel Loushin, one of five owners, attended the meeting. She
reported that the dormers are original and the front porch had
been altered. She also emphasized that the block has a mixed
7
historic /contemporary character.
The small dimensions of this house, its cross gable /hipped roof
and original windows and dormers make 134 W. Hopkins a good
example of a miner's cottage. Removal of the asbestos siding, as
intended by the applicants, would better expose the original
architectural style of the house and increase its historic
significance. It is likely that portions of the original siding
are damaged and will need to be replaced by new siding. We think
that removal of the asbestos siding is a desirable commitment on
the part of the applicant.
No information on 120 N. Spring was found in the 1980 Historic
Inventory. The house appears in its present location on the 1886
Willits Map. HPC considered the house to have a few alterations
negatively effecting its architectural significance, including
partial enclosure of the porch and adding of several new
windows. The primary reason for HPC's low evaluation was its
location in a neighborhood no longer considered at all
historical, overshadowed by the Concept 600 Building and out of
scale with the nearby industrial Obermeyer Building and the
Eagle's Club.
120 N. Spring possesses some architectural significance because
of its simple one story gable end "shotgun" style, largely
original porch, and several original windows and doors. Moving
the structure into a neighborhood with other miner's cottages
would actually make the house more visible to the public and
increase its prominence in the new context, as we see it. In
addition, this house is imminently threatened by demolition
because of the 700 E. Main multi - family residential project
proposed for the site.
3. These houses embody two different styles of miner's cottages.
Both are unadorned structures, most notable for their
simplicity, harking to the relative austerity of the working
class of the silver mining era in Aspen.
As part of HPC's conceptual development review, the concern was
discussed whether the proposed alterations and addition would
negatively effect the distinguished architectural characteristics
of the houses and property. Conditions for HPC's approval were
established with respect to the shed dormers, siting and height
for follow -up at final development review. Staff believes that
the project will consist of compatible alterations and additions
not detracting from the distinguished architectural type and
character of the two houses.
4. No evidence has been presented that these houses meet the
standard of being significant works by influential architects .
5. The West Aspen Mountain (Shadow Mountain) neighborhood, as
8
delineated in the 1980 Historic Inventory, contains some 16
scattered historic structures within 22 blocks. Seven of those
structures are within a block from the intersection of First and
Hopkins. We think that the preservation of 134 W. Hopkins and
adding another historic structure next door does help maintain
and enhance the neighborhood's historic character, even though
this is a very mixed neighborhood with low overall density of
historic structures. Additionally, placing the two houses on
6,000 s.f reproduces the pattern of small houses on single lots
typical of working class areas of town during the mining era.
6. The typical size and architectural styles of these two houses
possess some general community significance, in our opinion.
Condominiumization: Please note that condominiumization may only
take place after Second reading of the historic designation
ordinance. This discussion should take place at Council's
subsequent meeting.
1. Referral Comments:
a. Engineering Department:
1. There is a platting requirement for condominiumization.
The applicant should agree to join future improvements
districts.
2. A final condominiumization plat must be submitted that
depicts both structures and complies with Engineering
Department requirements.
3. The applicant has agreed to join any future special
improvement districts. This project is in the district that
requires sidewalks be installed on both frontages.
-
b. Housing Authority: The applicant has requested to pay the
affordable housing impact fee for condominiumization rather
than demonstrate that approval will not reduce the supply of
low and moderate housing. The fee approach is allowed in the
new code, and may be allowed by the Planning Director prior
to its adoption if deemed appropriate. $11,175 would be
required according to the schedule in Section 7- 1008.c(3) of
the new land use code. (* The fee schedule as adopted in
Ordinance 5 (Series of 1988) would require an assessment of
$14,075.) On March 31, 1988 the Housing Authority
recommended acceptance of the employee housing impact fee.
2. Planning Office Comments: We have reviewed this application
according to Section 20 -22 of the old Municipal Code, with the
exception of the affordable housing issue. Standards for review
are as follows:
9
(a) Standard: Existing tenants shall be given written notice when
their unit is offered for sale and right of first refusal to
purchase their unit.
Response: The present tenants are also the sellers of the
property. This requirement does not appear to be necessary.
(b) Standard: All units shall be restricted to six (6) month
minimum leases with no more than two (2) shorter tenancies per
year.
Response: This rental restriction must be included in the
Statement of Subdivision Exception:
(c) Standard: The applicant shall demonstrate that approval will
not reduce the supply of low and moderate income housing.
Response: The existing unit would appear to fall under the
low and moderate income rental guidelines. If so, the old Code
would require a five year deed restriction to the appropriate
income guidelines. However, the concept for employee housing
mitigation has changed to an impact fee system. Consequently,
charging low rent is not a disincentive to condominiumization.
The Planning Office agrees with the Housing Authority that the
new fee schedule should be applied to this project.
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that the affordable
housing impact fee only apply to the existing dwelling and not to
the house to be relocated on the property. The Commission
believe that a determination should be made that no impact on
affordable housing results from moving this house so to justify
that this provision of condominiumization be partially waived.
Staff's understanding is that the affordable housing impact fee
_ _ provision of the_ new code.appli.es_to all condominiumized units.
The rationale is no longer displacement of affordable housing but
rather is the activity of residential condominiumization leading
to increased employees serving that project. There is a waiver
provision in Section 7- 1008.c(2) if the applicant demonstrates
that "the unit will remain available to employees of the
community... in the form of a permanent restriction placed on the
unit that the unit will only be sold to or occupied by qualified
employees..." We understand that one of the co- applicants is a
permanent employee of the community; however, she is not willing
to make this restriction on the property. Without this
commitment the Planning Office cannot support partial waiving of
the affordable housing impact fee. Additionally, we do not concur
with the applicants' argument that because the unit to be moved
(for which a GMP exemption was granted for reconstruction as part
of the 700 E. Main project) is pre- existing, that there is no
impact on affordable housing and therefore, there should be no
impact mitigation.
10
(d) Standard: The applicant must agree to undergo an inspection
of the building or buildings by the building department regarding
fire, health and safety conditions.
Response: The applicants intend to do significant interior
work to both units. For this reason, no inspection has been done
thus far. If the units will not be renovated prior to
recordation of the condominiumization plat, then the applicants
should agree to have such inspection and abide by fire, health
and safety requirements established by the building department.
RECOMMENDATION FOR CONDOMINIUMIZATION: The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommend approval of subdivision exception for the
purpose of condominiumizing the two residences on 134 W. Hopkins
subject to the following conditions:
a. The applicant shall file a condominiumization plat with
the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office meeting the
requirements of Section 7- 1004.D(3) of the Municipal Code
and to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department.
b. The applicant shall file a statement of subdivision
exception to the satisfaction of the City Attorney prior to
recordation of the plat including:
1. Agreement to join any special improvements districts
formed in the future.
2. Waiver from the "purchase rights of existing
tenants" provision.
3. Six month minimum lease restriction with no more
than two (2) shorter tenancies per year.
-- -- 4. Finding that. -aa -- impact- will result on affordable
housing from the house being moved, assessment of the
affordable housing impact fee shall only apply to the
existing house on the property (three bedrooms)
according to the fee schedule in Section 7- 1008.c(3) of
the Land Use Code.
5. Agreement to relocate the existing evergreen on the
property and to replant a tree no less that one half
the size of the existing tree if it does not survive.
c. The applicant shall agree to have the structures
inspected by the Building Department for fire, health and
safety conditions and to abide by the Building Department's
requirements prior to recordation of the plat if the
applicants do not undertake renovation of the two residences
before condominiumization.
11
If Council agrees with staff's recommendation on Condition b.4,
it shall read as follows:
4. Payment shall be made for the affordable housing impact
fee according to the fee schedule in Section 7- 1008.c(3) of
the Land Use Code.
RECOMMENDED MOTIONS: "Move to read Ordinance (Series -of
1988)."
"Move to approve Ordinance (Series of 1988) on first Reading."
CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS:
sb.134.2
12
ORDINANCE NO.
(Series of 1988)
AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATING 334 W. HALLAM STREET, 300 W. MAIN
STREET, AND 134 W. HOPKINS STREET AS H, HISTORIC LANDMARKS
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 24, ARTICLE 7, DIVISION 7 OF THE MUNICIPAL
CODE
WHEREAS, owners of the real properties described as 334 W.
Hallam, Lots K, L, and M, Block 42; 300 W. Main, Lots Q, R, and
S, Block 44; and 134 W. Hopkins, Lots K and L, Block 59, all
within the City and Township of Aspen, Colorado have filed
private applications for H, Historic Landmark designation
pursuant to Section 7 -704 of the Land Use Code of the City of
Aspen, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, each of the three properties were listed in the
1980 Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures, as amended in
1986, and two of the properties received historic evaluation
ratings from the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee
(hereinafter "HPC) as follows:
334 W. Hallam - "5" rating
300 W. Main - Not evaluated
134 W. Hopkins - "2" rating for existing house and "1"
rating for house to be moved from 120 N.
Spring St.
;and
WHEREAS, owners of the real properties did voluntarily make
the following cominttments YS'37id to the City to accept
historic designation:
334 W. Hallam Conditions:
1. No changes will be made to the south, east and
west elevation windows of the original house with
the exception of the lower level east elevation
window as amended and approved by HPC at final
development review.
2. The carriage house will not be demolished but
rehabilitated utilizing as much of the historic
fabric as possible.
3. Proper maintenance and preservation of the
original facade and architectural details shall be
accomplished.
1
300 W. Main Condition:
The attached residential unit shall be an accessory use
to the restaurant, primarily for use of the restaurant
owner /manager or an employee, and will not be
condominiumized; however, the owner will have the right
to rent out the unit primarily to permanent employees
of the community.
134 W. Hopkins Condition:
The asphalt siding on 134 W. Hopkins will be removed
and the original siding restored and replaced as
necessary within one (1) year after historic
designation.
; and
WHEREAS, HPC recommended historic designation of 334 W.
Hallam on March 8, 1988, 300 W. Main on February 9, 1988, and 134
W. Hopkins on January 12, 1988 subject to the conditions
volunteered by the owners, with the exception of the condition on
300 W. Main; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
recommended historic designation at duly noticed public hearings
for 334 W. Hallam on May 3, 1988, 300 W. Main on April 26, 1988
and 134 W. Hopkins on May 3, 1988 subject to the conditions
volunteered by the owners; and
_ WHEREAS,_City,_Council Wishe.s_to pursue those recommendations
and complete the designation process.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1
That the structure at 334 W. Hallam, Lots K, L, and M, Block 42,
Townsite and City of Aspen, be granted H, Historic Landmark
designation upon the conditions that:
1. No changes will be made to the south, east and west
elevation windows of the original house with the
exception of the lower level east elevation window as
amended and approved by HPC.
2
2. The carriage house will not be demolished but
rehabilitated utilizing as much of the historic fabric
as possible.
3. Proper maintenance and preservation of the original
facade and architectural details shall be accomplished.
Section 2
That the structure at 300 W. Main, Lots Q, R, and S, Block 44,
City and Townsite of Aspen, be granted H, Historic Landmark
designation upon the condition that:
A deed - restriction shall be filed with the Pitkin County
Clerk and Recorder's Office by the owners, or their
successors and assigns, restricting the attached residential
unit to be an accessory use to the restaurant, primarily for
use of the restaurant owner /manager or an employee,; however,
the owner will have the right to rent out the unit primarily
to, permanent employees of the community. The property will
not be condominiumized.
Section 3
That the structures at 134 W. Hopkins, Lots K and L, Block 59,
City and Townsite of Aspen, be granted H, Historic Landmark
designation upon the condition that:
The asphalt siding on 134 W. Hopkins will be removed and the
original siding restored and replaced as necessary within
one (1) year after historic designation.
Section 4
That the Zoning District Map be amended to reflect the rezonings
described in Sections 1, 2 and 3 and the Planning Director shall
be authorized and directed to amend said map to reflect said
rezonings.
Section 5
That the Planning Director shall be directed to notify the City
Clerk of such designations, who shall record among real estate
records of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office a
certified copy of this Ordinance.
Section 6
That if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or
3
unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such
portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent
provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions thereof.
Section 7
That a public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the
day of , 1988, at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council
Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days
prior to which hearing notice of the same shall be published once
in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law
by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of
, 1988.
William L. Stirling, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this day of
, 1988.
William L. Stirling, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
sb.designation
4
'. MAY 4
ti
a
605 EAST MAIN STREET
ASPEN, COLORAD091611
TEL (303) 925 -4755
May 4, 1983
Ms. Roxanne Eflin
Planning Office
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81411
Dear Roxanne:
On behalf of the owners of 334 West Hallam Avenue, Aspen,
Colorado, I am requesting the monetary grant towards the
renovation and restoration of the existing (proposed
historically designated) building on the property. This
applicaiton is made in accordance with Ordinance 42,
Section 14, No. 2.
If you have any questions, please call me.
;inr_e, 1 \
t+flkcc,
Patricia Harris
Project Manager
PH :dem
r( rlq (1
re V t ,4
605 EAST MAIN STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 61611
TEL: (303) 925 -4755
February 12, 1988
Mr. Steve Burstein
Planning Office
City of Aspen
110 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Historic Designation and Conceptual Plan Approval
334 West Hallam Avenue
Block 42, Lots K, L and M
City of Aspen
Dear Steve:
The purpose of this letter is to present our concept for the
above - referenced property. Our program is as follows:
1. Obtain historic designation for the property.
2. a. Obtain permission to demolish portions of the
residential structure.
b. Demolish the carriage house.
3. a. Obtain approval for the conceptual development
plan (addition, enlargement and restoration) of
the house.
b. Obtain approval for the conceptual development
plan of a carriage house, incorporating both a
garage and dwelling.
1 4 2= ■
' / Mr. Steve Burstein
�g :: February 12, 1988
" ''t w ` � ` Page two.
The following outline addresses all the considerations for
this review process:
HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION STANDARDS - Re: 24 9.3(a)
(1) Historical importance
The principal residence is associated with Eugene
Wilder, who came to Aspen in the 1880's and was
associated with the Aspen Lumber Company, one of the
pioneer lumber companies in Aspen. The house was
undoubtedly constructed from local lumber, and might
have been built by the Aspen Lumber Company.
(2) Architectural Importance
Architecturally, the house is significant in that it
reflects traditional Aspen character and the Victorian
style prevalent when it was built. The stained glass
bay window facing Wegt Hallam Avenue is unique to this
architectural style.
We find no evidence of architectural importance in the .
carriage house.
(3) Neighborhood Character
The prominence of the site (Third and Hallam) and
structure is important to maintaining the neighborhood
and community character (the neighborhood consists of
several other Victorian houses of similar scale).
We will demolish portions of the main house and will conform
to the STANDARDS FOR REVIEW OF DEMOLITION, Re: 'Ord. 11,
Sec. 24 9.5(b)4 -6.
( 4 ) Imp act to the Neighborhood
The part of the house planned for demolition is in the
. middle portion of the property and at the rear of the
house away from Hallam Avenue. Because
of this
location, the demolition will have mini impact on the
character of the neighborhood.
, a
MAR 3'
TNIFn 0T - r
-
- ire 1111 1
•
• Illl�llnlllll�l�ll I illl , !!�
c
'h am .,e16 x
F 1 ..� 1 : ;f, 11 k a y 4 ,
1i( =i • ?_
A P, 3
1tir
i
7--j),' 1 , \ . 91a 1 1
IR
Ill
ri
,___,-1 , - _______, ,
I T in /
k , — a 1
ibirrrri
a ______ /
g . iii
ILPM �
—
li En I T ZZ
1.i Z
r Z ZZ s II■�. V\
M In t-
b
Mat
I
a D t ii' � i 5
g8 ; w
t CO < I � . i �l G i SEp�
1
4
th .S
To 1 VENN
I N
M Ell -3 Itliim�L
r V
c m r C ~ la 1 L /t i o �� 1_
Z
fir-- t % I 11 ,n,___,,, Ln 1
.4_
r,,,1/4:. i lk
r
1 ____„/
_La.,
. ,
pL
A 1 ,,
. 1 '? '
i
ii. 1{ e c a 41k
Q i I I i i r d ra - -.
B ;I . j �, Pp
lit . ArzAt
1
R
Ohl
1 0: 44./
) \> ..-,,, NEI
3
��. m
, n ____.,,, ,,
II - ■Ir! ,
1. --
mil c
:ICU �:�
la D r 2 1; 1 ;1,! 1 a -! 7. , T4.1 s= D
r
REQUEST FOR HISTORICAL DESIG ?,TATION
REOUESTOPS: SCOTT AND CAROLINE MCDONALD
PROPERTY: LOG HOnT ^.l 300 W: MAIN ST. BLOCK 44 LOTS Q,R &S,
REFERENCE: ATTACHED CHRONOLOGICAL HISTORY FOR 300 W. MAIN ST.
HOUSE CONSTRUCTION ON 300 W. MAIN WAS COMPLETED IN 11,0214, SIX
YEARS SHORT OF THE 50 YEAR REQUIREMENT,
THE STRUCTURE DOES
MERIT HISTORICAL DESIGNATION FOR TIIE FOLLOWING REASONS:
1. THE HOUSE IS THE ONLY PROMINENT SURVIVING CITY STRUCTURE
REPRESENTATIVE OF TURN OF THE CENTURY LOG HOUSE CONSTRUCTION.
MANY LOG STRUCTURES EXISTED IN VICTORIAN ASPEN AND WERE
LATER SHEATHED WITH FACADES. THIS SHEATHING PRACTICE OCCURED
UP TO THE MID 1060s.
2. HOUSE CONSMC'PION WAS PERFORMED BY OLD TIP.ME ASPENITE LEO
"POPE" ROWLAND, "RED" ROWLANDS BROTHER, AND VALLEY MASON JOHN
PARSONS.
3. THE HOUSE IS ONE OF THE FIRST HOMES BUILT IN ASPEN AFTER
TIIE TURN OF THE CENTURY
{
r J l
•
THE LOG CABIP
300 WEST MAIN
BLK 44 LOTS Q. R.& S.
CHRONOLOGICAL HISTORICAL FACT SHEET
1893 ORIGINAL STRUCTURE ON WILITZ MAP AT EXACT SAME
LOCATION ON LOTS R P; 8, OnIGINAL SHED ALSO AT
MAPS LOCATION
- FRAME AND CLAPBOARD
1893 ASPEN DIRECTORY SHOWS A.B. SHELLEDY, SURVEYOR
AND S.A. SHELLEDY AT 304 MAIN ST. (LOTS Q.R.R-S.)
STRUCTURE REBUILT OR TORN DOWN 193 -1940 ?
1937 - 1944
"ONE OF THE FIRST STRUCTURES BUILT AFTER THE
1890's" RO!::ONA MARKALU ?SAS
BUILT ACCORDING TO RECORDS AND EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS
(WAREN CONNORS, ASSESSORS OFFICE) BETWEEN 1937 & 1944
1. WAREN CONNORS NOTED LEO ROWLAND BUILDING ON IT
IN 1944 (COUNTY RECORDS SHOW L. R.OWLAND TAKING
A LIEN ON VERA WURLS" PROPERTY IN 1937.)
2. MR. CONNORS ALSO SAW JOHN PARSON, THE VALLEYS
MASON BUILDING "THE EXCEPTIONALLY LARGE AND
UNUSUAL ROCK FIREPLACE"
APPLICATION FOR HISTORICAL PRESERVATION
APPLICANTS: SCOTT AND CAROLINE MCDONALD
INTRODUCTION
APPLICANTS REQUEST FOR HISTORICAL DESIGNATION OF 300 W.
MAIN ST. IS PREDICATED ON THE INCENTIVE OF CONDITIONAL USE OF
THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE AS A RESTAURANT.
THE HISTORICAL IMPORTANCE OF THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE IS
ENHANCED ONLY BY PUBLIC VIEWING OF THE INTERIOR.
THE PRESENT HPC, P&Z, CITY COUNCIL REVIEW PROCESS DOES
NOT INTEGRATE HISTORICAL DESIGNATION WITH CONDITIONAL USE OF A
PROPERTY. THAT IS HISTORICAL DESIGNATION BEING CONTINGENT TO
GRANTING AQONDIT IONAL- USEH- -TF4a - I - S - NECESSARY TO ALLOW ALTER-
NATIVE PROPERTY DEVELOPER +ENT. IF CONDITIONAL USE FOR TEE
ORIGINAL STRUCTURE AS A RESTAURANT IS DENIED ALTERNATE DEVELOPE-
MENT OF THE PROPERTY MUST PROCEED. DUE TO THE CENTRAL LOCATION
OF THE STRUCTURE RELATIVE TO LOTS Q, R °a S COMMERCIAL DEVELOPE-
MENT WOULD _NECESSITATE DEMOLITION. UNDER THE PRESENT REVIEW
PROCESS OF BEING HISTORICALLY DESIGNATED FIRST COULD ELIMINATE
TEE EMOLITION OPTION OR ALTERNATE DEVELOPEL.IENT IN A REASONABLE
PERIOD OF TIME. TILLS WOULD BE AN UNREASONABLE ECONOMIC HARDSHIP.
THE DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED ADDITION MINIMfIZES THE VISUAL
IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND IS VISUALLY SUBORDINATE TO THE
s r
ORIGINAL STRUCTURE.
THE ADDITION HAS BEEN INSET ON THE NORTH SIDE RELATIVE TO
THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE AND ADDS APPROXIMATELY 2800 SQ FT OF
FLOORSPACE FOR FAMILY AND EMPLOYEE HOUSING. THAT IS A TOTAL
OF APPROXIMATELY 3880 SQ FT OF EXTERNAL FLOOR SPACE OF WHICH
AP.PROXIIATELY 1400 SQ FT IS THE RESTAURANT. A 9,000 SQ FT
SITE IS ALLOWED 6750 SQ FT OF EXTERNAL FLOOR SPACE.
THE ROOF LINE OF THE ADDITION MATCHES THE ROOF OF THE
EXISTING STRUCTURE,•ROOF APEX AT 19' 10" ABOVE GRADE, 14.5 FT
BELOW THE APEX OF THE ADJACENT CARRIAGE HOUSE. PITCH ROOF APEX
BY CODE (24.7) MAY BE 30 FT ABOVE GRADE. ADDITION OFFSET FROM
MAIN ST. IS 42.8 FT BY CODE (24.3.3, 24.3.7) THIS MAY BE 10 FT.
THE OFFSET FROM THE CA_RRIA.GE HOUSE PROPERTY LINE IS 5 FT, BY
CODE THIS IS 5 FT. THE ALLEY OFF SET IS 5.2 FT., BY CODE THIS
IS 15 FT.
CONSTPUCTIO fl TFP.I. .Fs{-FtTHE ADDI`I'rON THOSE OF THE
• ORIGINAL STRUCTURE TO MINIMIZE VISUAL DETRACTION.
AGAIN IN CONCLUSION THE INCENTIVE FOR THIS MODEST DEVELOPE-
MENT IS TO HAVE HISTORICAL DESIGNATION CONTINGENT UPON CONDIT-
IONAL USE OF THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE AS A RESTAURANT. THE
ALTERNATIVE WILL BE DEMOLITION AND PROPERTY DEVELOPEME ;T PER
"0" ZONING CODES. DUE THAT OUR RESIDENCE ON THE PROPERTY WOULD
NOT BE ECONOMICALLY VIABLE OR DESIRABLE THE PROPERTY WOULD BE
DEVELOPED TO THE ALLOWABLE LIMITS.
1/19/88
/AG c✓ LILI✓TL5
0 --�F /PE / /7/ U ✓T
1 5' PLAAn7). b ST/F /P
5 /G.!=Wit K p
. ,.
y �
Iz 0
T
I
i •
:S j—
:
P W .� 0 t
ritifiiif i . 7
•
i
•
�"— _ o
_ 1
y / A
p a
2 , I j
/ ° a p
f Imo/ v y �f
\l'a m
/
. _ V ... \\ to
s ._L_ I \ • N
r_ 1
a O
•
n T
JOHN THOMAS KELLY MAR 8
ATTORNEY AT LAW
117 SOUTH SPRING STREET - - -��
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 -- - - -- - - - - -J
TELEPHONE (30:3) 925 -1216
March 8, 1988
Mr. Steve Burstein
Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office
Aspen City Council
Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
Re: Historic Designation Application
for Conditional Use, and
Condominiumization of Lots K & L
Block 59, City and Townsite of
Aspen
Ladies and Gentlemen:
This is a three -part application for historic designation
by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the second is an
approval for a conditional use as permitted under Ordinance
42, Series of 1977 and finally a request for approval to
condominiumize the property pursuant to Section 20.22 of the
Code. I will address these applications in order.
Historic Designation.` Applicants request historic
designation for the property as shown in the attached
application from the Planning & Zoning Commission. The basic
plan is to remodel the existing house situate on Lot K, and
then move, pursuant to the incentive provisions of Ordinance
42, an additional historic house to Lot L. Both houses would
be then extensively remodeled in a Victorian motif. Details
of the plans are attached as prepared by Roger Kerr, Mr.
Carley's architect. On January 12, 1988, H.P.C. recommended
designation and gave conceptual approval to the plan. Roger
Kerr's plans generally incorporate the H.P.C. approval. We
believe our plans as attached a unique approach to restoration
and preservation which is of low impact as opposed to the type
of development we have seen in the West End. We are also
requesting relief as permitted under Ordinance 42 for minimum
setback site coverage and minimum distance between building
variations as set forth on Roger Kerr's plans which are
generally within the spirit of what the H.P.C. unanimously
March 8, 1988
Page 2
approved at the January 12th meeting. We feel our plan is low
impact, typical of the type of residential development which
historically existed and fits the neighborhood well. In
addition, two historic structures, which is all likelihood
would be slated for destruction, will be preserved and
enhanced. Accordingly, applicants hereby respectfully request
historic designation approval by Planning & Zoning and
conceptual approval of the plan.
2. Conditional Use Approval. Applicants further
request conditional use approval pursuant to Ordinance 42 and
Section 24.33 of the Code. Under the Code, the principal
matters of concern in granting a condition use are as follows:
A. Compatibility with the neighborhood. As stated
above, we believe our plan is unique and compatible with the
mixed Victorian residential nature of the neighborhood. I
would refer you to our updated plans, our H.P.C. applications
and the Planning Office memo recommending approval of same. I
think that our general plan has been found compatible by
H.P.C. and the planning staff. We would hope that P &Z would
concur. We feel our plan meets the goal of preservation and
restoration of the Victorian nature of our town which was the
whole purpose of Ordinance 42.
B. Parking. Applicants plans show parking - for
o
--
-- - -- - four (4) cars. - This "shaTilB" b @ more - then acTequate in view of
the fact that Mr. Carley, who would own the unit on Lot L, is
a part -time resident and the number of spaces exceed the
number of bedrooms by one.
C. Pedestrian and Vehicular Circulation. The
proposed project would have little or no effect on vehicular
or pedestrian circulation. On site parking is now being
provided which did not exist previously. Again, this is a
low- impact project with little effect on the surrounding
neighborhood.
D. Trash. Trash will be kept in covered bins and
the property shall be covenanted against any storage of trash,
debris or junk other than in the designated area.
E. Water, Sewer and Other Utilities. City water,
sewer and electricity are all currently available to the house
on Lot K and there are no problems for obtaining them for Lot
L.
March 8, 1988
Page 3
F. Topography. The lots are flat and no unusual
problems exist regarding snow removal or drainage.
G. Compatibility with Existing Zoning. The
proposed use - detached residential, is compatible with the
R -6 zone and the relatively minor concessions made via
Ordinance 42 are a reasonable trade off for the benefits of
historical preservation and restoration received by the
neighborhood.
3. Condominiumization. Finally, applicants are
requesting permission to condominiumize the property pursuant
to Section 20 -19 and 20 -22 of the Code. This approval would,
of course, be contingent upon the approval of historical
designation by P &Z, the final approval of designation by
H.P.C. and the approval of the condition use incentives of
Ordinance 42 as requested above.
Obviously, my clients recognize that the proposed
condominiumization represents a subdivision under the
applicabel State statutes and the City Code. However, given
the fact that the primary intent and purpose of the
subdivision is to facilitate orderly and planned development
and (assuming approval of the Ordinance 42 incentives
requested above) the project will be within use and density
requirements and we believe an exception from strict
compliance with code - is - appropriate id his case.
The City's concern with condominiumization is reflected
in Section 20 -22. The primary thrust of the Code appears to
be that there is no low to moderate tenant displacement. With
regard to the house being moved to Lot L from Spring Street it
was slated for demolition in any event, so it is essentially a
new structure for this property and there is no tenant
displacement. The existing house on Lot K has been rented by
the Loushin family at a rent of $700.00 per month plus
utilities. The current lease ends April 15, 1987. This
house, after remodel, will be occupied by Julie Wyckoff as her
primary residence. Julie is the owner /operator of "Cheap
Shots" and would probably fit into the moderate income
category. We would argue that there is no low to moderate
income displacement because the lease will terminate in any
event in April. Ultimately, the property will be improved or
the house demolished and removed from the moderate rental
inventory. In the event Council should find that the house
March 8, 1988
Page 4
situate on Lot K does adversely affect the low to moderate
income housing problem, we would be willing to mitigate this
impact (insofar as the existing house on Lot K) with a cash
payment as contained in the new proposed Land Use Code. This
would seem appropriate mitigation in this case particularly
since this will in all likelihood soon be the law in any case.
My clients understand that upon condominiumization, the
units shall be subject to a six -month rental restriction as
provided in the Code. They further agree to join any special
improvement districts which may be formed which affect the
neighborhood.
My clients would request approval to condominiumize,
subject to meeting all of the Engineering Dept.'s requirements
for the Condominium Map.
Conclusion. We would hope that Planning & Zoning, H.P.C.
and Council would look favorably on these applications. My
clients have spent months on this project and have been
involved in the formation of Ordinance 42, Series of 1987,
from the start, and I believe we are among the first to come
before you under the preservation ordinance! While the
interaction of these applications is somewhat confusing, our
goal is not. Our aim is to recreate a historical setting
through the preservation ordinance in such a way as to have no
- -- - - or little - lmpaet 'on" - fYie' 3ieizjfiborhood. " - total square
footage is less than would be allowed for a single family
house, under current zoning. We feel our plan is creative and
unique and could, if approved, encourage the preservation of
some of the lower- ranked historical structures and enhance the
atmosphere of our town.
Per your request, I enclose the following:
1. List of property owners (with stamped, addressed
envelopes);
2. Updated title commitment showing ownership;
3. Plans and drawings of Roger Kerr which include data
regarding our application to H.P.C.
March 8, 1988
Page 5
4. Square footage calculations prepared by Roger Kerr.
5. Checks for fees as requested.
If you need anything further, please contact me
immediately. As you are aware, our time is short and we
request a hearing at the earliest possible date.
Very trul urs,
JTK /og John Thomas Kelly
Enclosures
cc: Peter Carley
Julie Wyckoff
ARCHITECTURAL IMPORTANCE
As one can read on the attached Sanborn map of 1904, the residential
blocks north of Main Street were all 30' x 100' size and for the benefit of
smaller or working class houses.
There are no larger historic houses of any architectural significance
in this immediate neighborhood, and we find no record of notable architects
or builders having designed and built any landmark houses in this immediate
vicinity.
It is interesting to note however that the house constructed on Lot
K is of the same design as that on Iot S, Block 52. It has the same unusual
flat roof and the same roof gables and large living room windows facing onto
First Street. These houses look as though they were designed and built by the
same person, and by conclusion of many of the original single story "miners
houses" could.suggest that the house on Lot K, Block 59 was originally
constructed as a larger two story house.
The construction of the existing house on Lot K has a strong rock
foundation. The entire house is woodframe. The exterior walls were
originally wood siding, but these have been covered with asphalt shingles,
similarly the roof was a wood shingle, but has been covered with asphalt
sheet. There are undesirable wrought iron supports at the front porch.
There is no exterior "Victorian gingerbread" on the house. The windows are
single pane, not insulated. It would be desirable to remove all asphalt
and wrought iron, and recondition and /or replace the wood and roof siding
to return the house to most of its original condition, and this could be
• readily accomplished which will create the true sense of the house when it
was first built.
The existing house on Lot K is not significant when compared with
some of the major historic residences in Aspen, however, it is certainly of
the 1880's era and is also certainly of a design that for that immediate
neighborhood is large and unusual and therefore a historic preservation in
the "as is" condition is an important consideration.
e
TITLE CHAIN SUMMARY LOTS K AND L, BLOCK 59, ASPEN
May 5, 1886
The first recorded deed appears May 5, 1886. On this date George
Pearson sold lots K and L, Block 59 in the official town site of Aspen
including improvements of one two roan house 12 x 24 and one barn 16 x 20
to D.M. Van Hoevenbergh for $1,000.00.
January 15, 1891
Van Hoevenberg and Jerome B. Wheeler became partners. Said lots
K and L, Block 59 along with numerous mining claims came under the ownership
of the J.B. Wheeler Co.
April 1892
Wheeler and Van Hoevenberg sold Lots K and L to Ross Pierce for
$1.00.
LOT K
September 13, 1892
Ross Pierce sold only Lot K to Samuel Gory for $2,100.00. The
selling price indicates the house and barn referred to in the first recorded
deed stood on Lot K.
The next year Goza sold Lot K to S.H. Finely and J.C. Rose for $1.00.
July 21, 1899
Finely and Rose sold Lot K to George James for $650.00.
June 5, 1914
James disappears on paper and Isaac Rosen sells Lot K, all improve-
ments and furnishings except the bed and bedding "now used by me" to Christina
Lindahl for $1.00 and valuable consideration.
September 17, 1917
One can only speculate on "valuable consideration" because Christina
Lindahl Rosen sold Lot K to August Anderson.
•
LOT
December 16, 1895
Ross Pierce sold Lot L and "improvements thereon consisting of
one one -story frame house" to Fred Buckley for $300.00. This is the first
reference to any improvement on Lot L. This would indicate that the original
house on Lot L was constructed by Mr. Pierce in 1893.
March 19, 1896
Buckley sold Lot L and improvements to Mary Cambell for $700.00.
September 6, 1905
Campbell sold Lot L to Julia Tobin for $225.00.
October 18, 1912
Julie Tobin sold Lot L to D. DeMarios for $300.00.
The last deed transfer on Lot L appears on October 18, 1912, and
records show that August Anderson purchased Jot k on September 17, 1917.
July 10, 1950
August and Anna Anderson quit claisrxd Lot L, and recorded both
ownership of both Lots K and L.
Notes to History
- - ° -- -- Ha e ihus%in- !°U:,<y::bers her her pur -h b-L #or $50.04;
and thereafter removing the wooded house on that site.
NEIGHBORHOOD HISTORY AND CHARACTER
Research into the lot subdivisions of Block 59, and in fact several
surrounding City blocks, show that this was obviously a "working class" area
with shall dwellings of the period to house area workers, probably in the
mines.
The lot size of all these dwellings was 30' x 100'.
A title search of Lots K and L, Block 59 is attached (Title Chain
Srimary) and the first records show Lots K and L being owned by a George
Pearson in 1886, and there being two buildings thereon. No location of each
house is given on each lot.
A copy of the Sanborn map, dated 1904, is attached. This shows a
dwelling on each of Lots K and L, and although the dwellings are not
specifically indicated as to their use it would appear that both are
residences. It is absolutely clear that the dwelling shown on Lot K in this
1904 map is the same as exists today.
It is clear also, from the Sanborn map, that this whole neighborhood
was for residential use. We find no designation for different zoning,
commercial, residential, industrial, etc., however, from the lot layouts and all
the individual addresses, we assume that all the buildings were for individual
residences.
■ ll r-a � ' •i �N 1 D J , C
k g
9 i
N F
O L r 6 N / , C u� t c o f 6 N \
c
\ w ��
._ °a mat =as NC s! Q!•, 1�` 111
51 58 t'
-I ' I ' LJ �� a ' 1, Y �
_� N O F e R —�' , N L M N O r P 5 s N-
f
.
. r
0
_
V t23 -70 Lie'/6 P/0-/f P /Pd ?AT 0 Panty /l0 -7 /fa PC Cr -.0 r / /0 //4 / /o-9 /M /OP 1 I
J 'KP.F — ..... - --.!
II
r on P /F/! (if - .v P //-.9 M--5 717..7 in' /SJ-J /J/ - •D /3?£ /73 l/ /49-/7 / /S /3 ///f / r r Lii a /OP
I ai p EF1 Tei „.., ,
a
0 1 F 6 N / \ 3 C I O E F 6 / it
I M .x 1
E
52 59 / ti W
v rL ref an ��
■ ti
N O P R n s B• L M N O P N
ti i ? s J /<e./ co ..
n
724 24.71 ex -.P nee 006 -.0 roe — P4' /30 P /.R'9 29 /360 /f'ZV / /N -/6 mow / /O-d /it,
I. F{ OPKINS AV. — �' --
—
- - - - - —
t.
I
733-1/ P/9 -/7 2/931 7/79 7075 703.ro/ /359 /3/-79 /77-5 /77/ /ro-rl //.P.C ///-9 p)J /OS 70/ r.
2ii , „ _2, „
~ •'1 I r A
0 E F G _R / 1
o
k /J e c O ! F b
53 gp A
�iI "'1I�= o, 1' "!lX� '(
N F P P q S t fff •`.
p y / M /✓ r rr O P G H b
- I r - R 9
s � � I 1 1: � " �4� t I �.�
I I ' I � J , IZ K I 1 J2J v i H1
" 7/ h f K _ .. ,. - i rr /00' • Jr1q c /Vr /f - . ` . . /i // J 1 4'r /CV if r
'LCr7S C4 B u l L ) N CI S ,4 s 2 V N " _ ,1
cc
roger kerr and associates,
I
211 pacific ave., 4t 12 aspen, co. 81611 303 925 -8289
I ALLEY BLOCK 55 I
1
__ . &a.co =p
':9.00' 1 3o,mI vy.
. \
• 3 C/.5 PtJi11o:: a:;
W701 rrud 04K
F- 1
J5 1
N _.
rc _ 1 II I , .
0 4 2 4, 1 E 1 G, l 8, 3I : ,5 0 p ‘V
�Uerrit I n -=—
y 1'4W PPFI`IrIi
-
1. •
ceo,co k'
GJ
134 W HOPKIN5 AVE.,
- r -r GNKISy 4. JLJ14. v/;'KoFF
1
roger kern and associates.
211 pacific ave., #12 aspen, co. 816111 303 925 -8289
i
11� I l
I, Il
I I I I (, 1 I I
I
Ii 111,1,1 1I,,
• ❑L J I II II r.
'1
I
Hid ill I I I
, ilj Ii
I
:_ �'
TZy is
1r'r� Iii ' I I •
TH1' , r J ,r / .
r iI illy. ���Il E
� .rte
. �.
Ih
2`i F 1166
frafr sea' plan -/2r - . _ -la/Oki E /Q•tes-4S -
Air- Car /e y" /e n E
•
frflf
roger kern _ and associates,
211 pacific ave., 4k12 aspen, co. 81511 303 925 -8289
IA
1 it 9
_ _ -4- h
,T IY1 M1
a — - ,d i A it 1
t- s
n\ (
C iil 11 I rh M
I: WI
l y I I i I i
-
'' ' ,-,
.. __ _ ___ .. - _' .. d. — —_1
III i ^ k
_ 141 mo i ' i X
r h ?N
' I11 � 1 I� 1 r
Y ' rT
H i_
t
H ii
.
ft F &I Gift
A-'o oxa Plan ,c,- I ,Ef �4/s77ayl f I
,Frf ('ar /c /TAP w, /•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office
RE: McDonald Historic Designation and Conditional Use
(Public hearings, continued)
DATE: April 26, 1988
The Planning and Zoning Commission tabled action on the McDonald
application to the April 26 meeting. The applicant will present
at this meeting a proposal for the status of the attached
residential unit. Please bring your April 19, 1988 packet to this
meeting.
s^
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office
RE: McDonald Historic Designation and Conditional Use
(Public Hearings)
DATE: April 19, 1988
LOCATION: 300 West Main Street, Lots Q, R, and S of Block 44,
City and Townsite of Aspen.
ZONING: Office zone district.
SITE AND AREA DESCRIPTION: The existing log house is located
towards the northwest corner of the property. Mature blue spruce
trees grow in the front and side yards along Second and Main
Streets. The property is basically flat and lower than the grade
of Main Street and the Elisha House property to the west.
Adjacent properties are residential in use, including the Elisha
House to the west and two residences north across the alley.
Across 2nd Street to the east is the Christmas Inn.
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Scott and Caroline McDonald request historic
designation of the log house property and conditional use
approval to convert the existing 1400 square foot house into a
fifty (50) seat restaurant. A two story addition, approximately
2300 square feet in size, would be attached to the north and west
sides of the existing house for a four bedroom residence, garage
and restaurant kitchen. A one bedroom employee unit was initially
proposed within the addition, but has been deleted as a response
to HPC's concerns about the bulk of the addition.
ACTIONS BY OTHER BOARDS: The Historic Preservation Committee
recommended historic landmark designation of 300 W. Main on
February 9, 1988. On that date HPC also gave conceptual
development review approval to the addition subject to several
conditions. HPC continued conceptual development review to
ascertain whether the conditions of approval had been met. Design
changes have been made following each hearing to address concerns
raised. After four meetings, HPC extended the period during which
the applicant can meet the conditions of approval to April 26,
1988.
The Planning and Zoning Commission and the applicant should be
aware that if any changes affecting the conditional use review
occur as a result of further design changes from HPC's conceptual
1
r
or final development reviews, then the applicant may need to
return to P &Z to amend the conditional use permit, or obtain a
staff sign -off pursuant to Section 24- 3.3(c).
A variance request for encroachment into the rear yard set -back
had been scheduled for the Board of Adjustment. The addition will
extend into the 15' rear yard setback to be 5.2' from the rear
(alley -side) property line. However, Section 9- 103.C.2 of the
revised Land Use Code allows HPC to grant encroachments by
historic landmarks in all zone districts. Consequently, the
variance hearing was canceled; and HPC may grant the encroachment
subject to adoption of the revised Land Use Code and Final
Development approval.
PROBLEM DISCUSSION:
A. HISTORIC DESIGNATION: In order for the property to be eligible
for the restaurant conditional use, the property must receive
historic landmark designation. Standards for historic designation
are stated in Section 24- 9.3(a) of the Municipal Code. Following
are the Planning Office's comments in response to the standards:
1. Standard: The structure or site is commonly identified with a
person or an event of historical significance to the cultural,
social or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado, or
the United States.
Response: The applicants researched Assessor's records and
concluded that the original structure on the site was built prior
to 1893 and torn down some time between 1930 and 1940. The log
house was built around 1944. There is no documentation that the
house or site has significant historical association.
2. Standard: The structure reflects an architectural style that
is unique, distinct or of traditional Aspen character.
Response: The house is one of the only log structures
remaining in Aspen, along with the cabins at 205 S. Third Street
and 527 W. Main Street. While it is newer than these other two
cabins, it is in a more prominent location and setting. Log
construction with chinking, the cross gable roof, and the square
windows with small panes are typical of the Pioneer (1850- 1930's)
and Rustic (post 1940) styles now rare in Aspen. The 1980
Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures considered the log
house to possess distinctive characteristics of "type, style of
architecture, and construction" and to be "a noteworthy surviving
example of a style becoming rare in the locale or is identified
with a street scene or other landscape." The fact that it was
built so recently (1944) makes historic landmark status dubious.
However, given the structure's unique status, we feel we can
support the viewpoint that it meets this criteria of
architectural significance. The State Historical Society's
2
.J
architect, Jay Yanz, reported verbally on April 5, 1988 that he
considered the log house to be a "classic ".
The HPC continues to review the proposed alterations and
addition to the log house to assure that the historic character
of the property which is deemed worth preserving is maintained.
3. Standard: The structure embodies the distinguishing character-
istics of a significant or unique architectural type or specimen.
Response: The log house embodies the characteristics of the
rustic residential building type, which is identified in the
"Historic District and Historic Landmark Development Guidelines"
as an historic architectural style in Aspen.
4. Standard: The structure is a significant work of an architect
whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen.
Response: It is unlikely that a house of this type was
designed by an architect. The applicant's research indicates that
Leo "Pope" Rowland, an old -time Aspenite and the brother of "Red"
Rowland, was the primary builder of the house. John Parsons, a
mason who did work throughout the Valley, is credited with
building the stone fireplace and chimney. The stonework in
particular is outstanding; and it may be that Mr. Parsons' work
influenced other use of moss rock in and around Aspen. No
research has been done to confirm this.
5. Standard: The structure or site is a significant component of
a historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of
the structure or site is important for the maintenance of that
neighborhood character.
Response: The log house is considered visually contributing
to the Main Street Historic District, according to the 1980
Historic Inventory. The major spruce trees give a special, rustic
character to the site and contribute to a sense of maturity,
permanence and visual relief from buildings on Main Street.
6. Standard: The structure or site is critical to the preserva-
tion of the character of the Aspen community because of its
relationship in terms of size, location, and architectural
similarity to other structures or sites of historical or archi-
tectural importance.
Response: The log house has a special prominence in the
community because of its visibility on Main Street, in staff's
opinion.
B. CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW: Section 24- 3.3(b) of the Municipal
Code states the criteria for review of conditional uses as
follows:
3
. 4
*.r.
"(1) Whether the proposed use otherwise complies with all
requirements imposed by the zoning code,
(2) Whether the proposed use is consistent with the
objectives and purposes of this zoning code and the
applicable zoning district and,
(3) If the proposed use is designed to be compatible with
surrounding land uses and uses in the area."
1. Referral Comments:
a. Engineering Department: In a March 28, 1988 memorandum
from Chuck Roth the following areas of concern are
discussed:
1. Parking: The parking requirements for the 1400
square foot restaurant and the four bedroom residence
would come to a total of nine (9) spaces. P &Z may
reduce the requirement through special review to a
total of seven (7) spaces. The plans reviewed by the
Engineering Department indicate there is one (1)
parking space in the garage and five (5) spaces along
the alley, totaling six (6) spaces on site. The Code
requires 7' in height for garage parking spaces.
The intention of the "0" zone district was cited to
support special review or variance reduction of parking
requirements. This may help preserve the visual scale
and character of the residential area. Engineering
noted that on- street parking may be appropriate for
the proposed restaurant and that public transportation
on Main Street is easily accessible.
Diagonal parking along 2nd Street is conceptually
acceptable to the Engineering Department so to provide
three (3) additional on- street parking spaces, for a
total of seven (7) spaces. Curb relocation, grading,
paving, signage and other elements of this conversion
would need to be accomplished at the owner's expense.
2. Trash Dumpster: The site plan does not show a
separate enclosure for dumpster(s). The application
letter indicates dumpsters would be located in the
garage. Sizing and access should be determined by BFI.
3. Service and Delivery: Service and delivery vehicles
have access to the project from the alley. The
structure should be designed to allow for these
vehicles to provide restaurant - related services from
the alley.
4
4. Utilities: The applicants should check with the
Electric Department about whether they will be
responsible for paying for a larger electrical
transformer or other utility extension costs. New
utility extensions must be underground.
5. Drainage: The addition and proposed parking area
would create adverse drainage impacts on the public
alley and streets. The applicant should be required to
provide on -site disposal of excess drainage flows with
dry wells, retention ponds, timed release mechanisms,
or other solutions designed by a qualified professional
engineer.
6. Sidewalks: The construction of a sidewalk along 2nd
Street, a minimum of 5 feet wide, is required. With
angle parking, there must be a 2 1/2 foot wide
landscape area between the curb and sidewalk or a
sidewalk minimum of 7 1/2 feet wide.
b. Environmental Health: Rick Bossingham addressed in his
March 10, 1988 memorandum the following concerns:
1. Sanitary Sewer and Water Services: The applicant
should contact the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
District and the Aspen Water Department regarding
their requirements for restaurant use of service
lines.
2. Air Quality: The applicant notes that a charboiler
will be installed with an electrostatic precipitator.
Please note that controlling particulates does not
control odors that could effect the area.
The applicant will be required to comply with
applicable wood burning device regulations.
3. Noise: There are no adverse noise impacts
anticipated with this application.
4. State Rules and Regulations Governing Sanitation of
Food Service Establishments: Compliance with State
regulations is required, including that food service
operations must be completely separated from living
quarters.
A second memorandum from Rick Bossingham dated April 14,
1988 addresses in more detail how the issue of odor control
might be handled if within one (1) year complaints are
received.
c. Fire Marshal: Wayne Vandemark commented in his April 13,
5
*-
%left/ .✓
1988 memorandum that:
1. Two means of egress to the restaurant are necessary.
There appears to be one means of egress in the proposed
plan.
2. There is adequate water and access to provide fire
protection to this property.
d. Housing Office: In an April 4, 1988 memorandum, Jim
Adamski noted that the new code would require housing for
35% of the employees generated from expansion or change in
use of an historic landmark. The existing code does not
require any employee housing mitigation for changes in use
of historic landmarks. While originally the applicant had
proposed an employee housing unit, this commitment has been
dropped and no employee housing mitigation would be
provided. At the April 7, 1988 meeting the Housing Authority
recommended that the applicant mitigate the employee
housing impact that the restaurant will generate in
accordance with the intent of the new code.
2. Staff Comments: In addition to the above points made by
referral agencies, staff has the following comments.
a. Parking Requirement: Section 24- 4.5(c) of the Municipal
Code establishes that nine (9) parking spaces be provided on
site for this project, which can be reduced to no fewer
than seven (7) spaces through special review approval by
P &Z. After removing the employee unit and further pulling
back the addition from the alley, five (5)) spaces would be
possible along the alley (47' long area) in addition to the
two (2) parking spaces in an enlarged garage.
Section 24 -4.6 of the Municipal code states the criteria for
P &Z's special review as follows:
u...Such review shall be made by the zoning commission
which commission, in making such determination, shall
consider the projected traffic generation of the
proposed development, site characteristics, the
pedestrian access and walking distance to the downtown
areas, and the availability of public transportation."
Factors influencing the need for on -site parking for the
proposed restaurant include: the size (50 seats),
availability of on- street parking, and anticipated
vehicular /pedestrian means of access. The Hickory House
Restaurant on the 700 block of W. Main provides some useful
comparisons. The 50 seat size is approximately half that of
the Hickory House, which is also a family -style restaurant.
The Hickory House generates a great deal of traffic,
6
particularly in the morning when locals stop on their way in
to work and skiers stop on their way to ski areas. The
Hickory House has use of a parking lot that can accommodate
approximately 8 vehicles; however, we have observed that
customers park also in the alley as well as along Main and
Sixth Streets. The Hickory House is approximately 9 blocks
from the Commercial Core, while the log house is
approximately 4 blocks from the Commercial Core. More
pedestrians can be expected to patronize the log house
because of this proximity; however, a major sector of the
clientele for a family restaurant is probably commuting
workers, similar to the Hickory House.
The following table describes the parking situation:
On -site and Off -site Parking (3/31/88 Plan)
Location Use # of Spaces
On -site Residential 4
On -site Restuarant 3
Main St. - parallel Restaurant 3
2nd St. - parallel Restaurant 4
or
2nd St. - diagonal alt. Restaurant 7
Total Restaurant Parking 10
or
Total Restaurant Parking: diagonal alt. 13
Potential problems with diagonal parking include: increased
congestion of the 2nd Street and Main Street intersection,
snow removal along 2nd Street, and removal of additional
green space. Please note that there is head -in parking
across the street next to the Christmas Inn. The diagonal
parking arrangment does not require cutting down any
existing trees. The alternative of providing more above
grade on -site parking would require removal of trees and
negatively effect the character of the property, in our
opinion. There would remain significant yard space even if
the entire r.o.w. is paved. Without diagonal parking, it is
likely that customers will park further down 2nd Street,
creating some adverse impact on the residential
neighborhood. From the point of view of acceptable traffic
flow, the Engineering Department has supported diagonal
parking on 2nd Street.
After weighing the "trade- off's ", the Planning Office
believes that with diagonal parking, there is sufficient
parking to accommodate the restaurant use and that parking
impacts are mainly compatible with the character of the
neighborhood. The three spaces on site for use of restaurant
7
customers should be signed accordingly. We note that the
sidewalk would be located mainly on the applicant's
property.
The applicant has verbally explained the configuration of
the garage to accomodate two parking spaces and enough space
for a trash compactor and dumpster. Further modifications to
the plan will be explained at your meeting.
b. Trash Dumpster and Service Access: The applicant wrote a
letter dated March 1, 1988 indicated BFI believes a two -yard
dumpster is needed for this size of a restaurant and that
removal through the garage is functional. The garage area,
leading directly into the kitchen, appears to be adequate to
accommodate the dumpster and service access. It appears that
for a small restaurant operation, this is an acceptable area
and configuration. As noted above, the applicant will
further clarify the trash and service plan at your meeting.
c. Delivery: Deliveries should take place from the alley
between the normal working hours of 8 A.M. to 5 P.M. so to
not inconvenience residential neighbors, in our opinion.
Night and early morning deliveries would be incompatible
with surrounding residential properties.
d. Drainage: Drainage impacts from the new addition and
parking area should be addressed as requested by the
Engineering Department.
e. Odors: The Environmental Health Department has suggested
that odors may result from the restaurant, particularly the
charboiler. Mesquite wood has been identified as a
particularly strong smelling burning substance and should
not be allowed in this restaurant because of the nearby
residential neighborhood. While odor controlling devices are
available, Environmental Health believes that because they
are so expensive and odor may not be a problem, it is
unreasonable to require such at this time. A mechanism has
been suggested whereby after one (1) year following
certificate of occupancy if complaints from the neighborhood
are made then the applicant agrees to reappear before the
P &Z to discuss and propose odor mitigation. At that time the
Environmental Health Department can help substantiate
whether there is a problem and suggest options for dealing
with it.
f. Fire and Building Code Concerns: The Fire Marshal
identified the need for two means of egress into the
restaurant. Rob Weien of the Building Department noted
verbally that handicapped access and handicap bathrooms will
also be required. These matters would need to be addressed
in the building permit application and do not require P &Z
8
action for conditional use review.
g. Historic Preservation: One of the purposes for allowing
conditional uses of historic structures on Main Street is to
provide for workable adaptive re -uses of old houses in
order to preserve those houses. We believe that there is
necessarily a certain trade -off between preservation and
neighborhood impacts. In this case, we support the efforts
of the applicant to preserve the log house and we believe
that the restaurant use would be appropriate for the
neighborhood if the scale is kept small enough and the
operation is done sensitively. Visual impacts of the
alterations and addition continue to be a subject of HPC's
reviews. Hopefully a design will be arrived at to the
satisfaction of both the Committee and the applicant. The
April 12, 1988 meeting was very encouraging.
Another concern is that this development could be perceived
as adding to strip development of Main Street. We suggest
that the proposed restaurant should have a fairly quiet
presence on Main Street, given the limited seating, heavily
vegetated site and the placement of the fairly modest
structure on the site. Converting the log house into a
restaurant on Main Street would make this interesting
structure more available for public display and preserve the
building.
h. Employee Housing: The Planning Office shares the concerns
of the Housing Authority that during this transitional
period between the existing code and the revised code, it
would be desireable for an applicant to mitigate a portion
of the impacts on employee housing caused by new commercial
development. However, historically, conditional use review
has not been utilized to require employee housing. The new
code is not in effect at this time and cannot be used to
enforce a future requirement. Therefore, we cannot recommend
that employee housing mitigation be required as part of the
P &Z review.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the Planning
and Zoning Commission take the following actions:
1. Recommend historic landmark designation of 300 W. Main Street.
2. Grant conditional use approval for restaurant use of 300 W.
Main Street subject to the following conditions:
a. The restaurant shall not exceed 1400 square feet in size
or fifty (50) seats, including both the food service and bar
areas.
b. All representations within the "Request for Conditional
9
Use" application regarding saving of the trees, site plan
features and other matters pertaining to the restaurant
operation shall be adhered to.
c. Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy the
applicant shall make the following improvements to the site
and adjacent public rights of way (plans to be submitted
prior to issuance of a building permit have been specified):
1. A parking area containing six (6) standard size
parking spaces shall be installed along the north
property line along the alley with gravel or paving
surface. Signs shall be posted designating three of
those spaces for customer use.
2. The one (1) parking space in the garage shall
conform to the Code required dimensions, including a
height of seven (7) feet.
3. Diagonal parking to accommodate seven (7) parking
spaces along 2nd Street shall be installed at the
owner's expense with the approval of and to the
satisfaction of the Engineering Department. Curb
relocation, grading, paving, and signage shall be
accomplished at the owner's expense. Plans shall be
shown to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department
prior to issuance of a building permit.
4. A sidewalk along 2nd Street shall be constructed at
the owner's expense following the minimum width and
other construction standards to the satisfaction of the
Engineering Department. Plans for the sidewalk shall be
shown in the building permit application and accepted
by the Engineering Department prior to issuance of a
building permit.
5. The applicant shall provide on -site disposal of
excess drainage flows with dry wells, retention ponds,
timed release mechanisms, or other solutions designed
by a qualified professional engineer to the
satisfaction of the Engineering Department. Plans for
the drainage shall be shown in the building permit
application and accepted by the Engineering Department
prior to issuance of a building permit.
d. No mesquite wood shall be burned for the restaurant
operation.
e. A hearing may be called in front of the Planning and
Zoning Commission any time within one (1) year after
issuance of a certificate of occupancy if complaints
regarding odor problems are received. The Environmental
10
Health Department will document and investigate any
complaints and have information available if a hearing is
called. The applicant shall agree to adhere to any decision
made by the Planning and Zoning Commission for mitigating
odor problems, including installation of an odor control
devise.
f. Deliveries to the restaurant operation shall be made only
between the hours of 8 A.M. and 5 P.M.
3. Grant special review for reduction in on -site parking
requirements from nine (9) spaces to seven (7), four of which are
for the use of the four bedroom residential unit and three for
use of the restaurant.
mc.cu
11
PIA Mf S T itci CLIA t5
.0,,,- fire orr�i�AVr
5' PLfV177/ hST/bt
5 / G - - V / K e
- ' r
Irn/
It.
i
I
r (' I N
CP
. e0
N I t it t rilti l li , A Pi'
.�.� wi Ili � . i s 77
' p
zr, : i _
rt. = II n Lc•n
- - � � __
__ _ - _ _ _ _ _ __ - _1 - /
v
I
\ to
t
ti, w
} a
n ph
1-
o
i
MAR 3
MEMORANDUM
To: Steve Burstein, Planning Office
From: Chuck Roth, Assistant City Engineer err_
Date: March 28, 1988
Re: McDonald Conditional Use and Special Review
Having reviewed the above referenced application and having made
a site inspection, the Engineering Department has the following
comments:
1. Parking - The application is unclear as to the intended final
distribution and number of bedrooms. I telephoned the applicant
on March 28, and he indicated that HPC did not accept the bulk of
the project along the alley. He said that therefore their
intended structure will contain four bedrooms in a single family
residence. There will be no employee unit. The parking require-
ments for the use of restaurant and dwelling therefore would come
to a total of 9 spaces in accordance with Section 24 -4.5 with a
possible reduction by P & Z which could result in a requirement
of 7 on -site spaces.
The blueprints show a fifteen foot wide garage. I have already
spoken with the applicant about this, and he has stated the he
does not have enough space to provide the 8.5 foot width required
by code (24 -4.2). I do not know that it is true that the
applicant cannot provide a 17 foot wide garage in lieu of a 15
foot wide garage. The plans do not indicate if the required
parking space height of 7 feet is provided.
The applicant further represents on the blueprints that there
will be 5 parking spaces outside of the structure. This could be
permissible by special review of P & Z. 1400 square feet times
three spaces per 1,000 square feet = 4.2 spaces = 5 spaces + 4
residential = 9 spaces, versus by special review 1400 square feet
times 1.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet = 2.1 spaces = 3 spaces +
4 residential = 7 spaces.
The intention of "O" District as explained in the code refers to
preserving "the visual scale and character of formerly residen-
tial areas ...." It might be questionable if either allowing or
requiring a five car parking lot on the site responds to the
intention. The site is far enough from the central core that it
might not be unreasonable to rely on parking on the streets, or
perhaps the applicants could consider constructing parking
underground. The site is of course located on Main Street and is
therefore easily accessible to public transportation.
If the applicants were to attempt to obtain a variance from this
provision, they should also seek a variance on the width of the
garage. The Engineering Department would not categorically
oppose 7.5 foot width parking spaces in the garage, but it would
have to be made clear that there were no other encroachments,
such as posts supporting overhead structure, and that the 7.5
feet was free and clear for parking use. Since this is a matter
of buildings and blueprints, it would be appropriate for the
Zoning Enforcement Official to examine the application to see
whether or not he concurs with the ability or lack of ability to
provide 8.5 foot wide parking spaces in the garage.
The diagonal parking is conceptually acceptable to the Engineer-
ing Department. This would provide an additional three spaces on
the street. The curb would have to be relocated at the appli-
cant's expense, and all elements of the work would be at the
applicants expense - grading, paving, signing, etc. The appli-
cant must obtain an excavation permit from the Engineering
Department, at which time final details of the plan would be
reviewed and approved.
2. The site plan does not show the intended dumpster(s) loca-
tion. The dumpster sizing must be determined with the help of BFI
based on the intended uses of the property, and the dumpster(s)
must be located on the applicants' property, not within the
public right -of -way (the alley). BFI can also tell the appli-
cants If the intended location of the dumpster.(s) is acceptable
for BFI's access.
3. The vehicle and pedestrian circulation patterns in the area
appear to be adequate to meet the project demands. Service and
delivery vehicles have access to the project from the alley. The
structure should be designed to allow for these vehicles to
provide services from the alley - that is, there should be a door
to the kitchen from the alley so that deliveries are not made
from Main Street.
4. Utility considerations appear minimal, although the appli-
cants themselves should check with each of the utilities in case
f "\
they might be required to pay the cost of a larger electrical
transformer or have any other costs associated with extending any
utilities to serve the structure. New utility extensions must be
underground. No new aerial hook -ups are permitted. By the end
of this summer, all of the aerial utilities in that portion of
the city should be completely underground. The adequacy of water
flow for fire protection needs must be determined by the fire
marshall.
5. Drainage - The additions to the building together with the
construction of the proposed parking lot would create adverse .
drainage impacts on the public alley and streets. It is sugges-
ted that the applicant be required to provide on-site disposal of
these excess drainage flows in the fashion provided for in
Section 20 -17(f) with dry wells or retention ponds or timed
release mechanisms or other solution designed by a qualified
professional engineer.
6. The construction of sidewalk along the Second Street frontage
is required, either through Section 19 -98 or through the Condi-
tional Use process. The sidewalk must be a minimum of five feet
wide. With angle parking, there must be a two and a half foot
wide landscape type area between the curb and the sidewalk, or
the sidewalk must be two and a half feet wider than the minimum
requirement in order to allow for vehicle bumpers hanging over
the curb.
cc: Jay Hammond, City Engineer
CR /cr /memo_88.32
MEMORANDUM
TO: Steve Burstein, // Planning Office
FROM: Wayne Vandemark4` "Fire Marshal
RE: McDonald Conditional Use
DATE: April 13, 1988
Following are my comments on the proposed restaurant use of the
existing house:
1. Two (2) means of egress are necessary. There appears to be one
means of egress in the proposed plan.
2. The Voluntary Fire Department can respond within a three
minute period. There is ample water for fire protection in the
area.
3. The entire structure is accessible to fire fighters.
ASPEN*PITKIN
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM + 7
MAR To: Steve Burstein, Planning Office
From: Rick Bossingham, Environmental Health Departmenigg
Date: March 10, 1988
Re: McDonald Conditional Use and Special Review
Parcel ID# 2735- 124 -41 -006
The Aspen /Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the
above- mentioned land use submittal for the following concerns.
The authority for this review is granted to this office, which is
a recognized land use referral agency, by the Aspen /Pitkin
Planning Office.
SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION:
The applicant should contact the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
District about additional requirements for restaurants using
district lines.
ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS:
The applicant should contact the Aspen Water Department about the
adequacy of the service line for restaurant use.
AIR OUALITY:
The applicant notes that a charbroiler will be installed with an
electrostatic precipitator (as required by section 11 -2.4. of the
Municipal Code) to control particulates. Please note that
controlling particulates does not control odors that could effect
the area.
The applicant will be required to comply with applicable wood
burning device regulations.
NOISE:
There are no adverse noise impacts anticipated with this
application.
CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER LAWS:
The proposed restaurant will be required to comply with the Rules
and Regulations Governing the Sanitation of Food Service
$stablishments in the State of Colorado, which include the
requirement that food service operations be completely separated
from living quarters.
130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81511 303/925-2020
ASPEN *PITKIN
ENVIRONMENTAL. HEALTH DEPARTMENT
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Steve Burstein, Planner
FROM: Rick Bossingham, Environmental Health Office a>
DATE: April 14, 1988
RE: McDonald Conditional Use Review, additional comments.
s
The potential for nuisance odors from the proposed
restaurant must be addressed under the requirement in section 24-
3.3.(d)(2) of the municipal code which requires that fumes, smoke
and odors "be confined to the lot on which the use is permitted ".
However, this cannot be predicted because of the variables
involved (except that the use of mesquite wood in charbroilers
has caused odor problems in Aspen). Requiring odor control
( without knowledge that a problem exists may place an unnecessary
burden on the applicant, while not requiring any would leave us
without redress if a problem occurs.
I suggest that any approval include a provision that a
hearing may be called in front of the Planning and Zoning board
any time within a year of occupancy if complaints are received.
The Environmental Health Department will document and investigate
any complaints and have them available if a hearing is called. In
addition, complainants should have the opportunity to present
information, and the board could then render a decision
concerning odor controls.
130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925 -2020
MEMORANDUM
TO: STEVE BERSTEIN, PLANNING OFFICE
FROM: JIM ADAMSKI, HOUSING DIRECTOR
DATE: APRIL 13, 1988
RE: MCDONALD CONDITIONAL USE AND SPECIAL REVIEW
BACKGROUND: The application is requesting exemption from GMP for
employee housing and is asking to build a 1400 s.f. addition
around the west and north side of the existing house, to contain
one free - market unit. The original house would be converted
into a restaurant. The property is located at 300 W. Main Street
and is zoned 0.
The applicant had originally proposed an employee housing unit
but called the office to say that the Historic Preservation
Committee suggested the site was too dense to hold the unit.
Under the current code if the site is designated HISTORIC no
employee housing is required. Under the new code amendments 35%
of employees generated would be required.
HOUSING AUTHORITY: The Housing Authority understands that if
this applicants site is designated as a historic preservation
site that under the current City Land Use Code employee housing
is not required. However, the rewrite of the code requires
mitigation of the employee generation.
The Housing Authority recommends that the applicant mitigates the
employee housing impact it will generate in accordance with the
intent of the new code.
a SNOVMASS LODGING COVIPA \Y
April 12, 1988
Aspen Planning and Zoning APR 14
Aspen City Hall
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Caroline and Scott McDonald
300 W Main, historic designation /conditional use
Dear P&Z
I am unable to attend the meeting of April 19th concerning the above noted
property as I will be out of the country but I am very concerned about the
proposed designation of the house as a historic landmark and subsequent
application for a restaurant.
The plans which I have seen at City Hall completely change the whole reason
for the location gaining a historic designation. The original log structure
is 1400 square feet. It is my understanding the whole addition will be
another 3296 square feet. The new structure's finish completely hides the
original building under straight roof lines and massiveness. I also question
the reality of 1400 square foot family style restaurant with seating for 50
people being able to succeed in our town anymore. If the restaurant is
unsuccessful in this size, will application follow to expand into the living
quarters? Will this structure work with the historic Elisha House next door?
The impact on Second Street, a residential block, is significant in terms of
parking and noise. Think of the family homes behind Asia and Charlemagnes
on a busy night. Those residents have a difficult time parking adjacent to
their homes or accessing their driveways.
If historic designation is given and restaurant status is obtainable, do we
need another liquor license here?
I hope these questions are completely resolved prior to any finalization of
historic designation and conditional use in this location.
Thank you for your/time
P la Derevensky
333 W. Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P.O. BOX 6077 • SNOWMASS VILLAGE, COLORADO 81615 • (303)923 -3232
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office
RE: McDonald Historic Designation and Conditional Use
(Public Hearings)
DATE: April 19, 1988
LOCATION: 300 West Main Street, Lots Q, R, and S of Block 44,
City and Townsite of Aspen.
ZONING: Office zone district.
SITE AND AREA DESCRIPTION: The existing log house is located
towards the northwest corner of the property. Mature blue spruce
trees grow in the front and side yards along Second and Main
Streets. The property is basically flat and lower than the grade
of Main Street and the Elisha House property to the west.
Adjacent properties are residential in use, including the Elisha
House to the west and two residences north across the alley.
Across 2nd Street to the east is the Christmas Inn.
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Scott and Caroline McDonald request historic
designation of the log house property and conditional use
approval to convert the existing 1400 square foot house into a
fifty (50) seat restaurant. A two story addition, approximately
2300 square feet in size, would be attached to the north and west
sides of the existing house for a four bedroom residence, garage
and restaurant kitchen. A one bedroom employee unit was initially
proposed within the addition, but has been deleted as a response
to HPC's concerns about the bulk of the addition.
ACTIONS BY OTHER BOARDS: The Historic Preservation Committee
recommended historic landmark designation of 300 W. Main on
February 9, 1988. On that date HPC also gave conceptual
development review approval to the addition subject to several
conditions. HPC continued conceptual development review to
ascertain whether the conditions of approval had been met. Design
changes have been made following each hearing to address concerns
raised. After four meetings, HPC extended the period during which
the applicant can meet the conditions of approval to April 26,
1988.
The Planning and Zoning Commission and the applicant should be
aware that if any changes affecting the conditional use review
occur as a result of further design changes from HPC's conceptual
1
or final development reviews, then the applicant may need to
return to P &Z to amend the conditional use permit, or obtain a
staff sign -off pursuant to Section 24- 3.3(c).
A variance request for encroachment into the rear yard set -back
had been scheduled for the Board of Adjustment. The addition will
extend into the 15' rear yard setback to be 5.2' from the rear
(alley -side) property line. However, Section 9- 103.C.2 of the
revised Land Use Code allows HPC to grant encroachments by
historic landmarks in all zone districts. Consequently, the
variance hearing was canceled; and HPC may grant the encroachment
subject to adoption of the revised Land Use Code and Final
Development approval.
PROBLEM DISCUSSION:
A. HISTORIC DESIGNATION: In order for the property to be eligible
for the restaurant conditional use, the property must receive
historic landmark designation. Standards for historic designation
are stated in Section 24- 9.3(a) of the Municipal Code. Following
are the Planning Office's comments in response to the standards:
1. Standard: The structure or site is commonly identified with a
person or an event of historical significance to the cultural,
social or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado, or
the United States.
Response: The applicants researched Assessor's records and
concluded that the original structure on the site was built prior
to 1893 and torn down some time between 1930 and 1940. The log
house was built around 1944. There is no documentation that the
house or site has significant historical association.
2. Standard: The structure reflects an architectural style that
is unique, distinct or of traditional Aspen character.
Response: The house is one of the only log structures
remaining in Aspen, along with the cabins at 205 S. Third Street
and 527 W. Main Street. While it is newer than these other two
cabins, it is in a more prominent location and setting. Log
construction with chinking, the cross gable roof, and the square
windows with small panes are typical of the Pioneer (1850- 1930's)
and Rustic (post 1940) styles now rare in Aspen. The 1980
Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures considered the log
house to possess distinctive characteristics of "type, style of
architecture, and construction" and to be "a noteworthy surviving
example of a style becoming rare in the locale or is identified
with a street scene or other landscape." The fact that it was
built so recently (1944) makes historic landmark status dubious.
However, given the structure's unique status, we feel we can
support the viewpoint that it meets this criteria of
architectural significance. The State Historical Society's
2
architect, Jay Yanz, reported verbally on April 5, 1988 that he
considered the log house to be a "classic ".
The HPC continues to review the proposed alterations and
addition to the log house to assure that the historic character
of the property which is deemed worth preserving is maintained.
3. Standard: The structure embodies the distinguishing character-
istics of a significant or unique architectural type or specimen.
Response: The log house embodies the characteristics of the
rustic residential building type, which is identified in the
"Historic District and Historic Landmark Development Guidelines"
as an historic architectural style in Aspen.
4. Standard: The structure is a significant work of an architect
whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen.
Response: It is unlikely that a house of this type was
designed by an architect. The applicant's research indicates that
Leo "Pope" Rowland, an old -time Aspenite and the brother of "Red"
Rowland, was the primary builder of the house. John Parsons, a
mason who did work throughout the Valley, is credited with
building the stone fireplace and chimney. The stonework in
particular is outstanding; and it may be that Mr. Parsons' work
influenced other use of moss rock in and around Aspen. No
research has been done to confirm this.
5. Standard: The structure or site is a significant component of
a historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of
the structure or site is important for the maintenance of that
neighborhood character.
Response: The log house is considered visually contributing
to the Main Street Historic District, according to the 1980
Historic Inventory. The major spruce trees give a special, rustic
character to the site and contribute to a sense of maturity,
permanence and visual relief from buildings on Main Street.
6. Standard: The structure or site is critical to the preserva-
tion of the character of the Aspen community because of its
relationship in terms of size, location, and architectural
similarity to other structures or sites of historical or archi-
tectural importance.
Response: The log house has a special prominence in the
community because of its visibility on Main Street, in staff's
opinion.
B. CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW: Section 24- 3.3(b) of the Municipal
Code states the criteria for review of conditional uses as
follows:
3
fi
"(1) Whether the proposed use otherwise complies with all
requirements imposed by the zoning code,
(2) Whether the proposed use is consistent with the
objectives and purposes of this zoning code and the
applicable zoning district and,
(3) If the proposed use is designed to be compatible with
surrounding land uses and uses in the area."
1. Referral Comments:
a. Engineering Department: In a March 28, 1988 memorandum
from Chuck Roth the following areas of concern are
discussed:
1. Parking: The parking requirements for the 1400
square foot restaurant and the four bedroom residence
would come to a total of nine (9) spaces. P &Z may
reduce the requirement through special review to a
total of seven (7) spaces. The plans reviewed by the
Engineering Department indicate there is one (1)
parking space in the garage and five (5) spaces along
the alley, totaling six (6) spaces on site. The Code
requires 7' in height for garage parking spaces.
The intention of the "0" zone district was cited to
support special review or variance reduction of parking
requirements. This may help preserve the visual scale
and character of the residential area. Engineering
noted that on- street parking may be appropriate for
the proposed restaurant and that public transportation
on Main Street is easily accessible.
Diagonal parking along 2nd Street is conceptually
acceptable to the Engineering Department so to provide
three (3) additional on- street parking spaces, for a
total of seven (7) spaces. Curb relocation, grading,
paving, signage and other elements of this conversion
would need to be accomplished at the owner's expense.
2. Trash Dumpster: The site plan does not show a
separate enclosure for dumpster(s). The application
letter indicates dumpsters would be located in the
garage. Sizing and access should be determined by BFI.
3. Service and Delivery: Service and delivery vehicles
have access to the project from the alley. The
structure should be designed to allow for these
vehicles to provide restaurant - related services from
the alley.
4
4. Utilities: The applicants should check with the
Electric Department about whether they will be
responsible for paying for a larger electrical
transformer or other utility extension costs. New
utility extensions must be underground.
5. Drainage: The addition and proposed parking area
would create adverse drainage impacts on the public
alley and streets. The applicant should be required to
provide on -site disposal of excess drainage flows with
dry wells, retention ponds, timed release mechanisms,
or other solutions designed by a qualified professional
engineer.
6. Sidewalks: The construction of a sidewalk along 2nd
Street, a minimum of 5 feet wide, is required. With
angle parking, there must be a 2 1/2 foot wide
landscape area between the curb and sidewalk or a
sidewalk minimum of 7 1/2 feet wide.
b. Environmental Health: Rick Bossingham addressed in his
March 10, 1988 memorandum the following concerns:
1. Sanitary Sewer and Water Services: The applicant
should contact the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
District and the Aspen Water Department regarding
their requirements for restaurant use of service
lines.
2. Air Quality: The applicant notes that a charboiler
will be installed with an electrostatic precipitator.
Please note that controlling particulates does not
control odors that could effect the area.
The applicant will be required to comply with
applicable wood burning device regulations.
3. Noise: There are no adverse noise impacts
anticipated with this application.
4. State Rules and Regulations Governing Sanitation of
Food Service Establishments: Compliance with State
regulations is required, including that food service
operations must be completely separated from living
quarters.
A second memorandum from Rick Bossingham dated April 14,
1988 addresses in more detail how the issue of odor control
might be handled if within one (1) year complaints are
received.
c. Fire Marshal: Wayne Vandemark commented in his April 13,
5
1988 memorandum that:
1. Two means of egress to the restaurant are necessary.
There appears to be one means of egress in the proposed
plan.
2. There is adequate water and access to provide fire
protection to this property.
d. Housing Office: In an April 4, 1988 memorandum, Jim
Adamski noted that the new code would require housing for
35% of the employees generated from expansion or change in
use of an historic landmark. The existing code does not
require any employee housing mitigation for changes in use
of historic landmarks. While originally the applicant had
proposed an employee housing unit, this commitment has been
dropped and no employee housing mitigation would be
provided. At the April 7, 1988 meeting the Housing Authority
recommended that the applicant mitigate the employee
housing impact that the restaurant will generate in
accordance with the intent of the new code.
2. Staff Comments: In addition to the above points made by
referral agencies, staff has the following comments.
a. Parking Requirement: Section 24- 4.5(c) of the Municipal
Code establishes that nine (9) parking spaces be provided on
site for this project, which can be reduced to no fewer
than seven (7) spaces through special review approval by
P &Z. After removing the employee unit and further pulling
back the addition from the alley, five (5)) spaces would be
possible along the alley (47' long area) in addition to the
two (2) parking spaces in an enlarged garage.
Section 24 -4.6 of the Municipal code states the criteria for
P &Z's special review as follows:
"...Such review shall be made by the zoning commission
which commission, in making such determination, shall
consider the projected traffic generation of the
proposed development, site characteristics, the
pedestrian access and walking distance to the downtown
areas, and the availability of public transportation."
Factors influencing the need for on -site parking for the
proposed restaurant include: the size (50 seats),
availability of on- street parking, and anticipated
vehicular /pedestrian means of access. The Hickory House
Restaurant on the 700 block of W. Main provides some useful
comparisons. The 50 seat size is approximately half that of
the Hickory House, which is also a family - style restaurant.
The Hickory House generates a great deal of traffic,
6
particularly in the morning when locals stop on their way in
to work and skiers stop on their way to ski areas. The
Hickory House has use of a parking lot that can accommodate
approximately 8 vehicles; however, we have observed that
customers park also in the alley as well as along Main and
Sixth Streets. The Hickory House is approximately 9 blocks
from the Commercial Core, while the log house is
approximately 4 blocks from the Commercial Core. More
pedestrians can be expected to patronize the log house
because of this proximity; however, a major sector of the
clientele for a family restaurant is probably commuting
workers, similar to the Hickory House.
The following table describes the parking situation:
On -site and Off -site Parking (3/31/88 Plan)
Location Use # of Spaces
On -site Residential 4
On -site Restuarant 3
Main St. - parallel Restaurant 3
2nd St. - parallel Restaurant 4
or
2nd St. - diagonal alt. Restaurant 7
Total Restaurant Parking 10
or
Total Restaurant Parking: diagonal alt. 13
Potential problems with diagonal parking include: increased
congestion of the 2nd Street and Main Street intersection,
snow removal along 2nd Street, and removal of additional
green space. Please note that there is head -in parking
across the street next to the Christmas Inn. The diagonal
parking arrangment does not require cutting down any
existing trees. The alternative of providing more above
grade on -site parking would require removal of trees and
negatively effect the character of the property, in our
opinion. There would remain significant yard space even if
the entire r.o.w. is paved. Without diagonal parking, it is
likely that customers will park further down 2nd Street,
creating some adverse impact on the residential
neighborhood. From the point of view of acceptable traffic
flow, the Engineering Department has supported diagonal
parking on 2nd Street.
After weighing the "trade- off's ", the Planning Office
believes that with diagonal parking, there is sufficient
parking to accommodate the restaurant use and that parking
impacts are mainly compatible with the character of the
neighborhood. The three spaces on site for use of restaurant
7
customers should be signed accordingly. We note that the
sidewalk would be located mainly on the applicant's
property.
The applicant has verbally explained the configuration of
the garage to accomodate two parking spaces and enough space
for a trash compactor and dumpster. Further modifications to
the plan will be explained at your meeting.
b. Trash Dumpster and Service Access: The applicant wrote a
letter dated March 1, 1988 indicated BFI believes a two -yard
dumpster is needed for this size of a restaurant and that
removal through the garage is functional. The garage area,
leading directly into the kitchen, appears to be adequate to
accommodate the dumpster and service access. It appears that
for a small restaurant operation, this is an acceptable area
and configuration. As noted above, the applicant will
further clarify the trash and service plan at your meeting.
c. Delivery: Deliveries should take place from the alley
between the normal working hours of 8 A.M. to 5 P.M. so to
not inconvenience residential neighbors, in our opinion.
Night and early morning deliveries would be incompatible
with surrounding residential properties.
d. Drainage: Drainage impacts from the new addition and
parking area should be addressed as requested by the
Engineering Department.
e. Odors: The Environmental Health Department has suggested
that odors may result from the restaurant, particularly the
charboiler. Mesquite wood has been identified as a
particularly strong smelling burning substance and should
not be allowed in this restaurant because of the nearby
residential neighborhood. While odor controlling devices are
available, Environmental Health believes that because they
are so expensive and odor may not be a problem, it is
unreasonable to require such at this time. A mechanism has
been suggested whereby after one (1) year following
certificate of occupancy if complaints from the neighborhood
are made then the applicant agrees to reappear before the
P &Z to discuss and propose odor mitigation. At that time the
Environmental Health Department can help substantiate
whether there is a problem and suggest options for dealing
with it.
f. Fire and Building Code Concerns: The Fire Marshal
identified the need for two means of egress into the
restaurant. Rob Weien of the Building Department noted
verbally that handicapped access and handicap bathrooms will
also be required. These matters would need to be addressed
in the building permit application and do not require P &Z
8
action for conditional use review.
g. Historic Preservation: One of the purposes for allowing
conditional uses of historic structures on Main Street is to
provide for workable adaptive re -uses of old houses in
order to preserve those houses. We believe that there is
necessarily a certain trade -off between preservation and
neighborhood impacts. In this case, we support the efforts
of the applicant to preserve the log house and we believe
that the restaurant use would be appropriate for the
neighborhood if the scale is kept small enough and the
operation is done sensitively. Visual impacts of the
alterations and addition continue to be a subject of HPC's
reviews. Hopefully a design will be arrived at to the
satisfaction of both the Committee and the applicant. The
April 12, 1988 meeting was very encouraging.
Another concern is that this development could be perceived
as adding to strip development of Main Street. We suggest
that the proposed restaurant should have a fairly quiet
presence on Main Street, given the limited seating, heavily
vegetated site and the placement of the fairly modest
structure on the site. Converting the log house into a
restaurant on Main Street would make this interesting
structure more available for public display and preserve the
building.
h. Employee Housing: The Planning Office shares the concerns
of the Housing Authority that during this transitional
period between the existing code and the revised code, it
would be desireable for an applicant to mitigate a portion
of the impacts on employee housing caused by new commercial
development. However, historically, conditional use review
has not been utilized to require employee housing. The new
code is not in effect at this time and cannot be used to
enforce a future requirement. Therefore, we cannot recommend
that employee housing mitigation be required as part of the
P &Z review.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the Planning
and Zoning Commission take the following actions:
1. Recommend historic landmark designation of 300 W. Main Street.
2. Grant conditional use approval for restaurant use of 300 W.
Main Street subject to the following conditions:
a. The restaurant shall not exceed 1400 square feet in size
or fifty (50) seats, including both the food service and bar
areas.
b. All representations within the "Request for Conditional
9
✓' Al 4
a but) a
Use" application regarding saving of the trees, site plan
features and other matters pertaining to the restaurant
operation shall be adhered to.
c. Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy the
applicant shall make the following improvements to the site
and adjacent public rights of way (plans to be submitted
prior to issuance of a building permit have been specified):
1. A parking area containing six (6) standard size
parking spaces shall be installed along the north
property line along the alley with gravel or paving
surface. Signs shall be posted designating three of
those spaces for customer use.
2. The
parking spaces in the garage shall
conform to the Code required dimensions, including a
height of seven (7) feet.
3. Diagonal parking to accommodate seven (7) parking
spaces along 2nd Street shall be installed at the
owner's expense with the approval of and to the
satisfaction of the Engineering Department. Curb
relocation, grading, paving, and signage shall be
accomplished at the owner's expense. Plans shall be
shown to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department
prior to issuance of a building permit.
4. A sidewalk along 2nd Street shall be constructed at
the owner's expense following the minimum width and
other construction standards to the satisfaction of the
Engineering Department. Plans for the sidewalk shall be
fi b. shown in the building permit application and accepted
0 , �' b by the Engineering Department
TnW , k A L9 ,� 1 building permit. prior to issuance of a
' ` i
� ^ UrJ' , � "+ �. The applicant shall provide on -site disposal of
�, excess drainage flows with dry wells, retention ponds,
timed release mechanisms, or other solutions designed
by - a qualified professional engineer to the
satisfaction of the Engineering Department. Plans for
the drainage shall be shown in the building permit
application and accepted by the Engineering Department
prior to issuance of a building permit.
d. No mesquite wood shall be burned for the restaurant
operation.
e. A hearing may be called in front of the Planning and
Zoning Commission any time within one (1) year after
issuance of a certificate of occupancy if complaints
regarding odor problems are received. The Environmental
10
Health Department compl ints and have in ormati
on available if f a hearing any
called. The applicant shall agree to adhere to any decision
made by the Planning and Zoning Commission for mitigating
odor problems, including installation of an odor control
devise.
f. Deliveries to the restaurant operation shall be made only
between the hours of 8 A.M. and 5 P.M.
3. Grant special review for reduction in on -site parking
requirements from nine (9) spaces to seven (7), four of which are
for the use of the four bedroom residential unit and three for
use of the restaurant.
mc.cu
oS' 1rtut Wwriuh Qliq��D � /n ) ✓o/J
11
4:, ‘.401
f
r,j v
MEMORANDUM ~ ''
To: Steve Burstein, Planning Office
From: Chuck Roth, Assistant City Engineer e'1C.
Date: March 28, 1988
Re: McDonald Conditional Use and Special Review
Having reviewed the above referenced application and having made
a site inspection, the Engineering Department has the following
comments:
1. Parking - The application is unclear as to the intended final
distribution and number of bedrooms. I telephoned the applicant
on March 28, and he indicated that HPC did not accept the bulk of
intended project
dedstructur the alley.
ewillcontain said
that
fourbedrooms therefore
ina single family residence. There will be no employee unit. The parking require-
ments for the use of restaurant and dwelling therefore would come
to a total of 9 spaces in accordance with Section 24 -4.5 with a
possible reduction by P & Z which could result in a requirement
of 7 on -site spaces.
The blueprints show a fifteen foot wide garage. I have already
spoken with the applicant about this, and he has stated the he
does not have enough space to provide the 8.5 foot width required
by code (24 -4.2). I do not know that it is true that the
applicant cannot provide a 17 foot wide garage in lieu of a 15
foot wide garage. The plans do not indicate if the required
parking space height of 7 feet is provided.
The applicant further represents on the blueprints that there
will be 5 parking spaces outside of the structure. This could be
permissible by special review of P & Z. 1400 square feet times
three spaces per 1,000 square feet = 4.2 spaces = 5 spaces + 4
residential = 9 spaces, versus by special review 1400 square feet
times 1.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet = 2.1 spaces = 3 spaces +
4 residential = 7 spaces.
The intention of "0" District as explained in the code refers to
preserving "the visual scale and character of formerly residen-
tial areas ...." It might be questionable if either allowing or
0 O
they might be required to pay the cost of a larger electrical
transformer or have any other costs associated with extending any
utilities to serve the structure. New utility extensions must be
underground. No new aerial hook -ups are permitted. By the end
of this summer, all of the aerial utilities in that portion of
the city should be completely underground. The adequacy of water
flow for fire protection needs must be determined by the fire
marshall.
5. Drainage - The additions to the building together with the
construction of the proposed parking lot would create adverse
drainage impacts on the public alley and streets. It is sugges-
ted that the applicant be required to provide on -site disposal of
these excess drainage flows in the fashion provided for in
Section 20 -17(f) with dry wells or retention ponds or timed
release mechanisms or other solution designed by a qualified
professional engineer.
6. The construction of sidewalk along the Second Street frontage
is required, either through Section 19 -98 or through the Condi-
tional Use process. The sidewalk must be a minimum of five feet
wide. With angle parking, there must be a two and a half foot
wide landscape type area between the curb and the sidewalk, or
the sidewalk must be two and a half feet wider than the minimum
requirement in order to allow for vehicle bumpers hanging over
the curb.
cc: Jay Hammond, City Engineer
CR /cr /memo_88.32
ASPEN•PITKIN
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
I. l 11AR 1 7
To: Steve Burstein, Planning Office
From: Rick Bossingham, Environmental Health Department
Date: March 10, 1988
Re: McDonald Conditional Use and Special Review
Parcel ID# 2735- 124 -41 -006
The Aspen /Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the
above - mentioned land use submittal for the following concerns.
The authority for this review is granted to this office, which is
a recognized land use referral agency, by the Aspen /Pitkin
Planning Office.
SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION.
The applicant should contact the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
District about additional requirements for restaurants using
district lines.
ADE DATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS:
The applicant should contact the Aspen Water Department about the
adequacy of the service line for restaurant use.
The applicant notes that a charbroiler will be installed with an
electrostatic precipitator (as required by section 11 -2.4. of the
Municipal Code) to control particulates. Please note that
controlling particulates does not control odors that could effect
the area.
The applicant will be required to comply with applicable wood
burning device regulations.
NOISE:
There are no adverse noise impacts anticipated with this
application.
CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER LAWS:
The proposed restaurant will be required to comply with the R es
and Re•ulations Governin• the Sanitation
s
Establishments in the State of Colorado, i F.od Service
� the
requirement that food service operations be c mpl tely c separated
from living quarters.
130 South Galena Street
ASPEN*PITKIN
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Steve Burstein, Planner
FROM: Rick Bossingham, Environmental Health Officer
DATE: April 14, 1988
RE: McDonald Conditional Use Review, additional comments.
The potential for nuisance odors from the proposed
restaurant must be addressed under the requirement in section 24-
3.3.(d)(2) of the municipal code which requires that fumes, smoke
and odors "be confined to the lot on which the use is permitted ".
However, this cannot be predicted because of the variables
involved (except that the use of mesquite wood in charbroilers
has caused odor problems in Aspen). Requiring odor control
without knowledge that a problem exists may place an unnecessary
burden on the applicant, while not requiring any would leave us
without redress if a problem occurs.
I suggest that any approval include a provision that a
hearing may be called in front of the Planning and Zoning board
any time within a year of occupancy if complaints are received.
The Environmental Health Department will document and investigate
any complaints and have them available if a hearing is called. In
information, and nthesboardhcould thenorendery aodecision
concerning odor controls.
130 South Galana c
MEMORANDUM
TO: STEVE BERSTEIN, PLANNING OFFICE
FROM: JIM ADAMSKI, HOUSING DIRECTOR
DATE: APRIL 13, 1988
RE: MCDONALD CONDITIONAL USE AND SPECIAL REVIEW
BACKGROUND: The application is requesting exemption from GMP for
employee housing and is asking to build a 1400 s.f. addition
around the west and north side of the existing house, to contain
one free - market unit. The original house would be converted
into a restaurant. The property is located at 300 W. Main Street
and is zoned 0.
The applicant had originally proposed an employee housing unit
but called the office to say that the Historic Preservation
Committee suggested the site was too dense to hold the unit.
Under the current code if the site is designated HISTORIC no
employee housing is required. Under the new code amendments 35%
of employees generated would be required.
HOUSING AUTHORITY: The Housing Authority understands that if
this applicants site is designated as a historic preservation
site that under the current City Land Use Code employee housing
is not required. However, the rewrite of the code requires
mitigation of the employee generation.
The Housing Authority recommends that the applicant mitigates the
employee housing impact it will generate in accordance with the
intent of the new code.
REQ T FOR rn , r ' , I
Etaauiazuzamisi Scott and Caroline McDonald
ADDRESS• 300 West Main St.
Block 44, Lots Q,R,S.
ZONE IM n 0 Zone.
CONDTTTONAT, OSF REQUEST: Restuarant in Historic Designated
Structure.
RESTTJARANT PARTICTIT,AAS: Size: 1400 sq.ft.
Seating: 50.
Fare: Low /moderate cost family food.
Bar: Yes
Ambiance: Rustic Log interior.
Operation: Possible 3 meals /day
Public Access: Original structure
Historical designate.
Operated: By owners.
VT,STJAf, TMPACT TO SURROUNDTNG PROPRRTTFS: Minimal for the
following reasons:
Open space: Large open space ratio:
6100 sq. ft. for a 9000 sq. ft.
parcel. Open space boarders 2nd and
Main Street.
Tzeesi Five existing large spruce
trees shall remain.
T•ivina addition:
Modest size (exterior areas):
Owners living space: 1892 sq.ft.
Owners garage: 270 sq.ft.
Employee Housing 450 sq.ft.
Restaurant Area: 144 sq.ft.
Building materials:
- 1st floor: Log with chinking same as
original
-2nd floor: Balloon frame with
lapstrake siding (stained grey).
- Trim: off -white
- Windows: True divided light.
Addition roof lines:
Addition roofline is offset from the
original structure's roof line
to maintain the identity of the
original structure.The addition roof
elivation is the same as the original
structure's,19 "10 "above grade. This is
low compared to the Elisha carriage
house, 34 "6" above the original
structure's grade.
Adriitinn frnnt p Main St.:21 ft.,2nd St.:18 ft.
r
PTJRT,IC IMPACT:
Pedestrian Circulation: Impact minimal Ref.site plan.
Vehicula Circulation: Impact minimal,some extra
traffic from Main St. to 2nd.
Parking: Impact minimal
- Existing street parking has
low useage, potential, 8 spaces.
- Possible additional 2nd St. off
street parking spaces,ref.site
- Proposed off - street parking:6
spaces,ref.site plan.
Trash: - Dumpster located off the alley
in the garage.
- BEI recommends 2 yd.
dumpster,ref: site plan.
Service Delivery: - Off alley, delivery chute to
basement.
- Off alley access to restaurant
through garage.
Noise: Minimal impact:
- Slight addtion to Mani St.
traffic noise.
- Log walls minimize sound
transfer.
•
Odom Minimal impact.
- Char - broiler supplied with
electrostatic condenser,
minimizing particle ladened
smoke.
?(JB JTC FA Ti TTTFS:
- Fire hydrant exist on the corner
of 2nd and Main St.
- Bus service.
- Walking distance, within six
blocks of downtown.
- Restaurant public facilities per
state and city codes.
300 WRRT MATH RFSTDRNCE ADJ)TTTON ELFVATTON NOT S
REV-13
DATE:3 \1 \88
-1- r X 6" LAPSTRAKE, ROUGH SAWN "NATIVE" OR CEDAR.
-2- 8 3/4" X 8 3/4" ROUGH SAWN SPRUCE OR LOG POLE PINE
TIMBERS, CHINKING = 2 ".
-3- WINDOW/DOOR TRIM: ROUGH SAWN 1" X 6 ", T X 4" "NATIVE"
OR CEDAR.
- 4 - ROOF: TAR AND GRAVEL.
- 5- ROOF: GREEN "PRO- PANEL"
- 6- SKYLIGHTS: BOX HEIGHT = 6" ABOVE TAR AND GRAVEL. FOR
ADDITION FLAT ROOF ONLY, NOT DEPICTED.
-10- TRUE DIVIDED LIGHT WINDOW.
COLOR SCHEME
- 7- GRAY TRANSLUCENT STAIN, MATCHING WEATHERED OXIDIZED LOGS
OF ORIGINAL STRUCTURE.
- 8- NATURAL FINISH SEALER, FOR 8 3/4" X 8 3/4" TIMBERS.
AFTER WEATHERING TO MATCH ORIGINAL STRUCTURE.
-9- OFF -WHITE STAIN: WINDOW/DOOR TRIM HIGHLIGHTS FOR
GABLE/BAY WINDOWS.
:4irr2 1 yg
s`1 aC —
R irs
Cbfrac7c17 - 1&in (o.crucc9
Re - 4�rw� irc via s f� - to wia turr
aregEr pr"-PJC(wc,
uovalLu, L.4 9 ti
l(� cif - PEE - 5?) S Y-t
Com?. ccl W] :put 2 LA-D
Scold SCE' ()VC rVl
c Qust as ` 2
i euncvoi -
a?,(ti — N 3 pccVerhS -
�( e.e AorJrtcd — icl6 rr e +0
'Ccil mot v uA..1.61 i
r 1� A)LQ - Fe 0cy.teg
Cocstacr& , 1 \.ut ecpn6}'•ZQQ
)2:2 {-Q„ tl Lu-- vvs,c}5 — c> K
Hut) ) iu — eon m ' ec �h VI\ P 1 - 1 .∎ I 3
Thieec cC fl- doer;.L fUr ccOb\Eyy\
WI) LCZA* , E- A a (c,-?-).t,c4torl
oalf ciJ r e &1 —
i
MEMORANDUM
i
To: Steve Burstein, Planning Office
From: Chuck Roth, Assistant City Engineer (lie—
Date: March 28, 1988
Re: McDonald Conditional Use and Special Review
Having reviewed the above referenced application and having made
a site inspection, the Engineering Department has the following
comments:
1. Parking - The application 1s unclear as to the intended final
distribution and number of bedrooms. I telephoned the applicant
on March 28, and he indicated that HPC did not accept the bulk of
-yse'the project along the alley. He said that therefore their
LrapM ^' 'intended structure will contain four bedrooms in a single family
q residence. There will be no employee unit. The parking require-
ments for the use of restaurant and dwelling therefore would come
to a total of 9 spaces in accordance with Section 24 -4.5 with a
" " reduction by P & Z which could result in a "�i.� "r P Y requirement
9
-Sil“ , .) °` of 7 on -site spaces.
�� "y` The blueprints show a fifteen foot wide garage. I have already
spoken with the applicant about this, and he has stated the he
does not have enough space to provide the 8.5 foot width required
by code (24 -4.2). I do not know that it is true that the
applicant cannot provide a 17 foot wide garage in lieu of a 15
foot wide garage. The plans do not indicate if the required
parking space height of 7 feet is provided.
The applicant further represents on the blueprints that there
will be 5 parking spaces outside of the structure. This could be
permissible by special review of P & Z. 1400 square feet times
three spaces per 1,000 square feet = 4.2 spaces = 5 spaces + 4
residential = 9 spaces, versus by special review 1400 square feet
times 1.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet = 2.1 spaces = 3 spaces +
4 residential = 7 spaces.
The intention of "0" District as explained in the code refers to
preserving "the visual scale and character of formerly residen-
tial areas ...." It might be questionable if either allowing or
requiring a five car parking lot on the site responds to the
intention. The site is far enough from the central core that it
might not be unreasonable to rely on parking on the streets, or
perhaps the applicants could consider constructing parking
underground. The site is of course located on Main Street and is
therefore easily accessible to public transportation.
If the applicants were to attempt to obtain a variance from this
provision, they should also seek a variance on the width of the
garage. The Engineering Department would not categorically
oppose 7.5 foot width parking spaces in the garage, but it would
have to be made clear that there were no other encroachments,
such as posts supporting overhead structure, and that the 7.5
feet was free and clear for parking use. Since this is a matter
of buildings and blueprints, it would be appropriate for the
Zoning Enforcement Official to examine the application to see
whether or not he concurs with the ability or lack of ability to
provide 8.5 foot wide parking spaces in the garage.
2. The site plan does not show the intended dumpster(s) loca-
loos t<.s 4 r 1"4 , tion. The dumpster sizing must be determined with the help of BFI
r , r ,.�Y� based on the intended uses of the property, and the dumpster(s)
S must must be located on the applicants' property, not within the
R1�c' public right -of -way (the alley). BFI can also tell the appli-
cants if the intended location of the dumpster(s) is acceptable
for BFI's access.
ry
i j,t t . 3. The vehicle and pedestrian circulation patterns in the area
( log" (.. appear to be adequate to meet the project demands. Service and
t '° r M,lss delivery vehicles have access to the project from the alley. The
S++°' structure should be designed to allow for these vehicles to
provide services from the alley - that is, there should be a door
to the kitchen from the alley so that deliveries are not made
from Main Street.
4. Utility considerations appear minimal, although the appli-
cants themselves should check with each of the utilities in case
they might be required to pay the cost of a larger electrical
transformer or have any other costs associated with extending any
utilities to serve the structure. New utility extensions must be
underground. No new aerial hook -ups are permitted. By the end
of this summer, all of the aerial utilities in that portion of
the city should be completely underground. The adequacy of water
flow for fire protection needs must be determined by the fire
marshall.
5. Drainage - The additions to the building together with the
construction of the proposed parking lot would create adverse
�o+ ,, drainage impacts on the public alley and streets. It is sugges-
cAe
ted that the applicant be required to provide on -site disposal of
C *r�� ,,i) these excess drainage flows in the fashion provided for in
W Section 20 -17(f) with dry wells or retention ponds or timed
release mechanisms or other solution designed by a qualified
professional engineer.
cc: Jay Hammond, City Engineer
CR /cr /memo_88.32
S g
CITY = ASPEN
13O 6 ' t'h ' niei[ t reet
a spen,° colorado 81611
303125=2020 March 21, 1988
Mr. Remo Lavagnino, Chairperson
Aspen Board of Adjustment
City Hall
Aspen, Colorado
RE: 300 W. Main St. Encroachment in Rear Yard Set -back
Dear Remo,
I am sending this letter to you on behalf of the Historic
Preservation Committee pursuant to Section 24 -9.8 of the
Municipal Code, as amended by Ordinance 11 (Series of 1987. The
Section reads:
"The Board of Adjustment shall not take any action on a
variance request for development in the H. Historic Overlay
District or development affecting a Historic Landmark,
without receiving a written recommendation thereon from the
HPC."
The Historic Preservation Committee granted conceptual
development approval for Scott and Caroline McDonald's plan to
build an addition to the log house at 300 W. Main Street on
February -9, 1988... Their project, entails historic landmark
designation of the property and the preservation of the forty
year old house.
HPC has held three meetings on the McDonald proposal and
continues to have concerns about several design features,
including fenestration, roof types and massing. Please note that
it is possible that if a solution is not reached at our April 12
meeting, that the conceptual approval may expire. However, the
proposed location of the addition is principally acceptable to
HPC. The reason is that building an addition to the back of the
original structure is more historically and architecturally
compatible than any other approach considered.
The McDonald's general approach is reasonable in terms of
historic compatibility. We believe that the intended size and
location of the addition do not necessarily overshadow the
existing house or neighboring historic structures. Furthermore,
the major spruce - trees on the property would be threatened if
development were. located more to the east and south; and HPC
• finds those trees to make a major contribution to the historic
character of the property and Main Street. -
•
.t. -°
1
Page 2, Letter to Remo Lavagnino
We believe that the intention to save the historic log house
presents a major difficulty for the applicants to design an
addition conforming to the rear yard set -back. HPC recommends
that the Board of Adjustment grant a variance for encroachment
of the proposed addition resulting in a minimum rear yard set-
back of 5.2 feet rather than the required 15 feet.
For your information, Ordinance 42 (Series of 1987) created
historic incentives including the ability of HPC to allow
encroachments into set -backs and limited enlargement above the
allowed FAR for historic landmarks in the R -6 and R -15 zone
districts. Please be aware that HPC will be using this authority
to allow variations from these requirements when it finds that
such variations are more compatible for historic residential
structures than would be compliance. Because the McDonald's
property is in the Office zone district, HPC is unable to grant a
variance; and the Board of Adjustment must decide the case. For
the reasons given above, HPC would have allowed the encroachment
if it had the authority to do so.
Sincerely yours,
Bill Poss, Chairpe son,
sb.300b Aspen Historic Preservation Committee
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Attorney
City Engineer
Housing Director
Environmental Health
Fire Marshall
FROM: - Steve Burstein, Planning Office
RE: •• a • Conditional Use an pecial Review
Parcel ID# 2735- 124 -41 -006
DATE: March 4, 1988
Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted
by Caroline and Scott McDonald requesting Conditional Use and
GMP Exemption for employee housing to build a 1400 sq. ft.
addition around the west and north side of the existing house, to
contain one free - market and one employee unit. The original
house would be converted into a restaurant. The property is
located at 300 W. Main St., that being Lots Q,R,S, Block 44, and
is zoned O.
Please review this material and return your comments to this
Y. office no later than March 25, 1988 in order for this office to
have adequate time to prepare for its presentation before P &Z.
Thank you.
>6
r
/T/ /' /
5 / /n' „ ;^ t /1 . '� '
Nse Nor
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Attorney
City Engineer
Housing Director
Environmental Health
Fire Marshall
FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office
RE: McDonald Conditional Use and Special Review
Parcel ID# 2735- 124 -41 -006
DATE: March 4, 1988
Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted
by Caroline and Scott McDonald requesting Conditional Use and
GMP Exemption for employee housing to build a 1400 sq. ft.
addition around the west and north side of the existing house, to
contain one free - market and one employee unit. The original
house would be converted into a restaurant. The property is
located at 300 W. Main St., that being Lots Q,R,S, Block 44, and
is zoned 0.
Please review this material and return your comments to this
office no later than March 25, 1988 in order for this office to
have adequate time to prepare for its presentation before P &Z.
Thank you.
•
.,. ti
ASPEN /PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 S_ Galena Street •
Aspen, 03 81611
(303) 925-2020
Date ,0 { ) (iJ7eri
`'G1tk ' y'lc if‘_ef
Ou� wat]li.�t1 , •
•
RE: I/ l__ /. /J
(
Dear ,*
-
uv
This is to inform you that the Planning Office has completed its
preliminary review of the captioned application- We have determined
that your application IS NOT complete_
Additional items required include:
Disclosure of Ownership (one copy only needed)
Adjacent Property Owners List /Envelopes /Postage (one copy)
Additional copies of entire application
Authorization by owner for representative to submit applica-
tion
Response to list of items (attached /below) demonstrating
compliance with the applicable policies and regulations of the
Code, or other specific materials
A check in the amount of $
!P+
A. Your application is complete and we have scheduled it for
review by the on _ We will
call you if we need any additional information prior to that
date_ Several days prior to your hearing, we will call and
make available a copy of the memorandum.. Please note that it
IS NOT your responsibility to post your property with a
sign, which we can provide you for a $3.00 fee.
B. Your application is incomplete, we have not scheduled it
review at this time. When we receive the materials we have.
requested, we will place you on the next available agenda.
If you have any questions, please call
the planner assigned to your case_
Sincerely,
ASPEN /PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
CERTIFICATE OF NAILING
I, ereby certiry that on this 41 1 day of
19% , a true and correct copy of the attache. Notice of Public
Hearing was deposited in the United States mail, first -class
postage prepaid, to the adjacent property owners ap indicated on
the attached list of adjacent property owners which was supplied
to the Planning Office by the applicant in regard to the case
named on the public notice.
P
Nancy Caeti
r (5)10.1
"' No(a r (
3o k e wn E-761M
3 I I " CL- J ca 3 c
51 \ 46 v\ `3 33 {C :�
G lsifi�- /7
-5D-0 (fain /S i f
V� / 3
.rN 1vSG 12.(x_.IC o '
9 33 N-(0(,) �
0[ 467014SS _33 920 / ✓i j
t i1 ( T O L2 / of
l/ /( (fl
3R
P / 1
3e� ,7 3
�3��
. �
, <t 37 40 c Pao
Joh n awe e S 2 , 9 n2e& �
» 396 5
;570 Canes ac , /an.5 01'5' 11) 6yz6/
37 Lc 7 \ eA 3 »/ G
m e JJ °ix mO
37 £\ &«
2 C g2At x
to Z W 1" ' ee /6 a�
/5 d o f , / 2
/& Co 6 %
3 7 / K »
wx" »««56xa
d C
. / yo -
[ Dl / c, d935
%7 - % »
W m . C:i C W & @
P 3./ /e7
% . g >
S7 % 4S
CZ6l &O
P.O. /3 Si
/ /en (G
131,6c< ' 3 / /32
53he o J �c++ro A- y- ,10
i17/ mo7(4o/1 kac&
/4t -7P ea /cc/
!1 !' E
P 5MAZ; if? /i) •
r3`x' t
14s : en) COLc 57W?-,
413
Jen as
U; vi CAIN
�
«.0. r_n`_'c c 31
/75- )t) , Go
2-13 c L /9
e4 - &sr- Jac C '4 (Li Go 07'
&) ( 5377
/ PE) -- /l (ED
4 10
1-c ?
/J6 s3 s
, Co Sr &17
4/2 cr
3eQcid , Q,use e
C'CJ L - S
n
k3 ?
/rrsP &r 1 Cc; S l c, l :2
''7`5 Az, L
Pianoii?& PE.5I61) /Zc- xuCii
3u, Y6 /10 0
/T)0 o Sir /7
ue2761) � gGs 7 7cc
,k. C /c( 5iyjitf-
32, G 1 ✓ (?cu
/C e 7E�-L:1 J) 1 f`� at(LC(R D c I1 3 (c)
Lk A
f! (UH
7? 8iC;(2
rn e_ ikZ - kV be
sAi1; £ Cis /Ii/iTe
LI / ci L
(lac CD
l 3 6 /0 . cte CcJ /11 LL-t cX2Jj
6)0-4 ;�=t7c r d a 33q 3:3
Lti L ( i c;
Cant ;re,r c e
/l/ Sote_dcyj
S79-11 D l G'kts eitDC5
c
tic/
t= l/5/7'7 5U z79i f. C77afE
J
11
, 11
,/ Lf c! tv 6,.‘,4{ L c 7 0
33 w l ()0 0-1 Ct
s eit) Co Stco(l
. 23.c - = j>'= to )3.-c;
6 . U -u, / EFi 7
3 2 /276 a dc(> lake lore
`Cu d), 7-at 6S 770x7
_ ./ (7.-1 cry
s C; t /
of =er, . A-
U mice 67(„D�/
/3 57; C.,
/4 , (6 GI(( 2
5?) /9 ; o A)
i3 .
rc'(. 3' iS
�
u L-5/1 a IC ) '/(
-j o C /0 l) CJ /,u :?< 'p
. cc Co n i*
16 ;>., 3d
/95 ?o Co 3 /z-
t
CRS cog- (-
o o / C
S/ ACTS /9 ;r 0,
!V . 1-c/ F
3T3 uJ • 3 ee-ge
7 :✓ e1'n co iF/6
5 7 0
C:2P� 0.
Lc() 6 s ctc-o 9
r
&. KedC /&,) P
/tica i2-(S cLU e
PLc&Io, Co S /6313
%tip ; eir s /Y
3/ el e<, c ace
0 7 ( <a5
7@ C7
5/ 6— P '3oe ch j2Q n
)2c7
Co 576
57 , t f 2r S
cb w /7
l'r�F�7I L (2) S
J r1 t L .*Y) 7 /U
PamvG
W. /i mh <
/7547 i Co s I6 (1
l E /i1 c <(' c1
6ot-A c-( L .
cy 9-t6
Pe-c/ / (6 C rY
a001 0 , 577 eL] yv (- ;zV1 &5
C;G a__ //&(r) Si
A
- -4 1 c Cis (/
233 (u, Miai✓) <
�5 P -eo, CO, c /C%l/
5 lU S G—
C - e;w KMir)
,SIC n..e �dL
. C` h 15
:2 )' C %.(Y) 71 .
/.771)- / C Sl(; l/
51 of
SA 11, Eck (l CG,44le
c'Q GC to ln 60 Te Ai .GL)
ir7LLii (Q Cec.lZC-A Q SG
`j — QY OD 0 C- -(t"l
/ C /- ,6, n,) (n o 6967 cE:
Ccm O(?! 06C /7)c, s5 6=x1
( 4C y< i.kJ , ✓u 1 u-t 6 .r aid c, A-
/✓eceu2fJ5 /17
15cy cj
. C j? L{cun
- 7 1 2) CL)- Alcz �l
/� / Co Srol/
3 -'j C . kc(0 T l""
r et')
p _o t3/41 So ,1 , 6
b /7/ l5 / 3
0) 6 Lurrt 1 1 �. kr > C`•/YL l'u.L1A •
JC;a?E CIcGC
v t c (
n 1
DC`(- (i S &
Cjust em)
cx
Z9z i c. +' , c• P
P -c) _ &r/ c,
PQ-7' Co fL(
e /95 k12 ecifkx min J i (r) — 3 f� t
/t0 6,ul:ES CS5°C - /mac.
/ l 6(/ /Leo !`? 7
/27 /j 0 gtiu day L(
S. C('� -EiU
Jr /Gi 0 /3uts -ir 41. ( x (Li
.Sv f P_ tit dcL 3 73 Y i
• P. /f/7'
3V G2 -- f'o✓K rn S (Lo-e
ft5Pen Lt.)
oi.zon 5.
G 6 . 8ov
/3A2 (t) - r t/ z
Ace?) / -/ G/c c+ s �y ,
4 ( co c //r ) J
t*sP w S76, //
I I K-;a1
! 1 / C 6,t4i ic c aco
4 3 -e 1 (6 776 7
. 07 , fh
/Ct 5 a, 41 1- 6
/ 1 !)b ,2e)r) C u 9'DO
(. C 2Up1) PaC e
Y57 ou. /kf/4 nS
/1 Il Co 5 / (-I
C rk.(Zer Conn ,
{ , Ant - ,-7m &
14 X t , Luck �ze v Pace
L- so n
L1
Gyp u er GO
✓J aercui I
Co- Y-2-),� - u.cH on E
n■ lti\ J � h , J - c37 etc)
r elcu3'' o
`f (cLG RD 5T C c,.LC P (c, cc
ICULGI l x -770a.7
, 3 i 5 21 . vW) cl Cu (2 L 3
As?a n ( CCU
PC-1t6 (us s . 3e Cr- -6 a-L
± H . M��v,III /}
3 5"3 2 . ):,06 -t�" (l -%
m G� . - • •� : r
4/5-' w . 7/5 7/6 n 5 coon PG - - 3 /C L r
7)9C 7)(22/7
t CbroUn
P c/ &p
�ct c1L;- 1?c
e t3L Su Ft I lc
i3 c / tn 64d 34
&c,77 .z,id (ow ��
/Q SY6fl �ac� vt %u il
SCo 7/ 77 37 i Scc// 7 - 7= -6;` Y .
/ -- 2cr 757a Li i
Cep CP0197 it _ � , J -7
�5
71ST I
p (C (/-) Ho &U
A(. ;5
�� ricEieS CC C) LC ��
J
Cf AN tit tk n e >,C•1 -.
,� ; QS
>ii
300 WEST MATN RFSTOFNCF, AT)OTTTON FJ,RVATTON NOTES REV .B
DATE:3 \1 \88
- 1- t X 6" LAPSTRAKE, ROUGH SAWN "NATIVE" OR CEDAR.
-2- 8 3/4" X 8 3/4" ROUGH SAWN SPRUCE OR LOG POLE PINE
TIMBERS, CHINKING = 2 ".
-3- WINDOW/DOOR TRIM: ROUGH SAWN t X 6 ", 1" X 4" "NATIVE"
OR CEDAR.
-4- ROOF: TAR AND GRAVEL.
- 5- ROOF: GREEN "PRO- PANEL"
- 6- SKYLIGHTS: BOX HEIGHT = 6" ABOVE TAR AND GRAVEL. FOR
ADDITION FLAT ROOF ONLY, NOT DEPICTED.
- 10- TRUE DIVIDED LIGHT WINDOW.
COT.OR SCHEME
-7- GRAY TRANSLUCENT STAIN, MATCHING WEATHERED OXIDIZED LOGS
OF ORIGINAL STRUCTURE.
- 8- NATURAL FINISH SEALER, FOR 8 3/4" X 8 3/4" TIMBERS.
AFTER WEATHERING TO MATCH ORIGINAL STRUCTURE.
-9- OFF -WHITE STAIN: WINDOW/DOOR TRIM HIGHLIGHTS FOR
GABLE/BAY WINDOWS.
REQUEST FOR CONDTTTONAI, USE. I
REQJJESTORS AND OWNERS: Scott and Caroline McDonald
ADDRESS: 300 West Main St.
Block 44, Lots Q,R,S.
ZONE DESIGNATTON: 0 Zone.
CONDITIONAL USE. REQUEST: Restuarant in Historic Designated
Structure.
RESTUARANT PARTTCULARS: Size: 1400 sq.ft.
Seating: 50.
Fare: Low /moderate cost family food.
Bar: Yes
Ambiance: Rustic Log interior.
Operation: Possible 3 meals /day
Piahl Access: Original structure
Historical designate.
0 By owners.
VTSJJAI, TMPACT TO SURROUNDING PROPERTTES: Minimal for the
following reasons:
Open space: Large open space ratio:
6100 sq. ft. for a 9000 sq. ft.
parcel Open space boarders 2nd and
Main Street.
Trees: Five existing large spruce
trees shall remain.
hiving addition:
Modest. size (exterior areas):
Owners living space: 1892 sq.ft.
Owners garage: 270 sq.ft.
Employ Ho using} 450 sq.ft.
Restaurant Area: 144 sq.ft.
Building materials:
- 1st floor: Log with chinking same as
original
- 2nd floor: Balloon frame with
lapstrake siding (stained grey).
- Trim: off- white
- Windows: True divided light.
Addition roof lines:
Addition roofline is offset from the
original structure's roof line
to maintain the identity of the
original structure.The addition roof
elivation is the same as the original
structure "s,1910 "above grade.This is
low compared to the Elisha carriage
house, 34 "6" above the original
structure's grade.
Add' .+nn fr- age: Main St.:21 ft.,2nd St.:18 ft.
PUBLIC IMPACT:
Pedestrian Circulation: Impact minimal Ref.site plan.
Vehicular Circulation: Impact minimal some extra
traffic from Main St. to 2nd.
Parkins: Impact minimal
- Existing street parldng has
low useage, potential, 8 spaces.
- Possible additional 2nd St. off
street parking spaces,ref.site
- Proposed off - street parking:6
spaces,ref.site plan.
Trash: - Dumpster located off the alley
in the garage.
- BFI recommends 2 yd.
dumpster,ref.site plan.
Service Delivery: - Off alley, delivery chute to
basement.
- Off alley access to restaurant
through garage.
Noise: Minimal impact:
- Slight addtion to Main St.
traffic noise.
- Log walls minimize sound
transfer.
Odors: Minimal impact.
- Char- broiler supplied with
electrostatic condenser,
minimizing particle ladened
smoke.
?Ur,TC FACTr,TTTF,S:
- Fire hydrant exist on the corner
of 2nd and Main St.
- Bus service.
- Walldng distance, within six
blocks of downtown.
- Restaurant public facilities per
state and city codes.
300 WEST MATN RESIDENCE ADDTTTON FT,EVATTON NOTES REV.R
DATE:3 \1 \88
-1- t X 6" LAPSTRAKE, ROUGH SAWN "NATIVE" OR CEDAR.
- 2- 8 3/4" X 8 3/4" ROUGH SAWN SPRUCE OR LOG POLE PINE
TIMBERS, CHINKING = 2 ".
- 3- WINDOW/DOOR TRIM: ROUGH SAWN t X 6 ", t X 4" "NATIVE"
OR CEDAR.
-4- ROOF: TAR AND GRAVEL.
- 5- ROOF: GREEN "PRO- PANEL"
-6- SKYLIGHTS: BOX HEIGHT = 6" ABOVE TAR AND GRAVEL. FOR
ADDITION FLAT ROOF ONLY, NOT DEPICTED.
- 10- TRUE DIVIDED LIGHT WINDOW.
COT,OR SCHEME
- 7- GRAY TRANSLUCENT STAIN, MATCHING WEATHERED OXIDIZED LOGS
OF ORIGINAL STRUCTURE.
-8- NATURAL FINISH SEALER, FOR 8 3/4" X 8 3/4" TIMBERS.
AFTER WEATHERING TO MATCH ORIGINAL STRUCTURE.
- 9- OFF -WHITE STAIN: WINDOW/DOOR TRIM HIGHLIGHTS FOR
GABLE/BAY WINDOWS.
REQUEST FOR HISTORICAL DESIGNATION
REQUESTORS: SCOTT AND CAROLINE MCDONALD
PROPERTY: LOG HOUTJS5 300 W. MAIN ST. BLOCK 44 LOTS Q,R&S.
REFERENCE: ATTACHED CHRONOLOGICAL HISTORY FOR 300 W. MAIN ST.
HOUSE CONSTRUCTION ON 300 W. MAIN WAS COMPLETED IN 1044, SIX
YEARS SHORT OF THE 50 YEAR REQUIREMENT. THE STRUCTURE DOPs
MERIT HISTORICAL DESIGNATION FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
. 1. THE HOUSE IS THE ONLY PROMINENT SURVIVING CITY STRUCTURE
REPRESENTATIVE OF TURN OF THE CENTURY LOG HOUSE CONSTRUCTION.
MANY LOG STRUCTURES EXISTED IN VICTORIAN ASPEN AND WERE
LATER SHEATHED WITH FACADES. THIS SHEATHING PRACTICE OCCURED
UP TO THE MID 10E0s.
2. HOUSE CONSTRUCTION WAS PERFORMED BY OLD TIME ASPENITE LEO
"POPE" ROWLAND, "RED" ROWLANDS BROTHER, AND VALLEY MASON JOHN
PARSONS.
3. THE HOUSE IS ONE OF THE FIRST HOMES BUILT IN ASPEN AFTER
TIIE TURN OF THE CENTURY
TILE LOG CABIN
300 WEST MAIN
BLK 44 LOTS Q. R.& S.
CHRONOLOGICAL HISTORICAL FACT SHEET
1893 ORIGINAL STRUCTURE ON NILITZ MAP AT EXACT SAME
LOCATION ON LOTS R R; 3, ORIGINAL SHED ALSO AT
MAPS LOCATION
-FRAME AND CLAPBOARD
1893 ASPEN DIRECTORY SHOWS A.B. SHELLEDY, SURVEYOR
AND S.A. SHELLEDY AT 304 MAIN ST. (LOTS Q.R. &.S.)
STRUCTURE REBUILT OR TORN DOWN 193 -1940 ?
1937 - 1944
"ONE OF THE FIRST STRUCTURES BUILT AFTER THE
1890's" ROMONA MARKALUNAS
BUILT ACCORDING TO RECORDS AND EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS
(WAREN CONNORS, ASSESSORS OFFICE) BETWEEN 1937 & 1944
1. WAREN CONNORS NOTED LEO ROWLAND BUILDING ON IT
IN 1944 (COUNTY RECORDS SHOW L. ROWLAND TAKING
A LIEN ON VERA WURLS" PROPERTY IN 1937.)
2. MR. CONNORS ALSO SAW JOHN PARSON, THE VALLEYS
MASON BUILDING "THE EXCEPTIONALLY LARGE AND
UNUSUAL ROCK FIREPLACE"
APPLICATION FOR HISTORICAL PRESERVATION
APPLICANTS: SCOTT AND CAROLINE MCDONALD
INTRODUCTION
APPLICANTS REQUEST FOR HISTORICAL DESIGNATION OF 300 W.
MAIN ST. IS PREDICATED ON THE INCENTIVE OF CONDITIONAL USE OF
THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE AS A RESTAURANT.
THE HISTORICAL IMPORTANCE OF THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE IS
ENHANCED ONLY BY PUBLIC VIEWING OF THE INTERIOR.
THE PRESENT HPC, P&Z, CITY COUNCIL REVIEW PROCESS DOES
NOT INTEGRATE HISTORICAL DESIGNATION WITH CONDITIONAL USE OF A
PROPERTY. THAT IS HISTORICAL DESIGNATION BEING CONTINGENT TO
GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE. THIS IS NECESSARY TO ALLOW ALTER—
NATIVE PROPERTY DEVELOPEMENT. IF CONDITIONAL USE FOR THE
ORIGINAL STRUCTURE AS A RESTAURANT IS DENIED ALTERNATE DEVELOPE—
MENT OF THE PROPERTY MUST PROCEED. DUE TO THE CENTRAL LOCATION
OF THE STRUCTURE RELATIVE TO LOTS Q, R °a S COMMERCIAL DEVELOPE—
MENT WOULD NECESSITATE DEMOLITION. UNDER THE PRESENT REVIEW
PROCESS OF BEING HISTORICALLY DESIGNATED FIRST COULD ELIMINATE
THE EMOLITION OPTION OR ALTERNATE DEVELOPEMENT IN A REASONABLE
PERIOD OF TIME. THIS WOULD BE AN UNREASONABLE ECONOMIC HARDSHIP.
THE DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED ADDITION MINIMIZES THE VISUAL
IMMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND IS VISUALLY SUBORDINATE TO THE
ORIGINAL STRUCTURE.
THE ADDITION HAS BEEN INSET ON THE NORTH SIDE RELATIVE TO
THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE AND ADDS APPROXIMATELY 2800 SQ FT OF
FLOORSPACE FOR FAMILY AND EMPLOYEE HOUSING. THAT IS A TOTAL
OF APPROXIMATELY 3880 SQ FT OF EXTERNAL FLOOR SPACE OF WHICH
APPROXIMATELY 1400 SQ FT IS THE RESTAURANT. A 9,000 SQ FT
SITE IS ALLOWED 6750 SQ FT OF EXTERNAL FLOOR SPACE.
THE ROOF LINE OF THE ADDITION MATCHES THE ROOF OF THE
EXISTING STRUCTURE,.ROOF APEX AT 19' 10" ABOVE GRADE, 14.5 FT
BELOW THE APEX OF THE ADJACENT CARRIAGE HOUSE. PITCH ROOF APEX
BY CODE (24.7) MAY BE 30 FT ABOVE GRADE. ADDITION OFFSET FROM
MAIN ST. IS 42.8 FT BY CODE (24.3.3, 24.3.7) THIS MAY BE 10 FT.
THE OFFSET FROM THE CARRIAGE HOUSE PROPERTY LINE IS 5 FT, BY
CODE THIS IS 5 FT. THE ALLEY OFF SET IS 5.2 FT., BY CODE THIS
IS 15 FT.
CONSTRUCTION MATFR.IALS OF THE ADDITION MATCH THOSE OF THE
ORIGINAL STRUCTURE TO MINIMIZE VISUAL DETRACTION.
AGAIN IN CONCLUSION THE INCENTIVE FOR THIS MODEST DEVELOPE-
MENT IS TO HAVE HISTORICAL DESIGNATION CONTINGENT UPON CONDIT-
IONAL USE OF THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE AS A RESTAURANT. THE
ALTERNATIVE WILL BE DEMOLITION AND PROPERTY DEVELOPEMENT PER
"0" ZONING CODES. DUE THAT OUR RESIDENCE ON THE PROPERTY WOULD
NOT BE ECONOMICALLY VIABLE OR DESIRABLE THE PROPERTY WOULD BE
DEVELOPED TO THE ALLOWABLE LIMITS.
1/19/88
MR
ih 1 ) c od
mac- —
2E =%
ani aubIflCi4'.Iluj, (Cr6,ua) -6 std "to wi4vtir
Pie - 2i a1Y PP?-eXmVc, —
U l tific UJ U`c ‘0€1K1
- Pie t \)^- KaSi/ \
Com? cr. H Ou l 21, is
cwt VLe 6 C t Yl
c oAo ( t Qum our i
revncs Lca -
0,?UU )Q C. 1 '2 — VU c L,Ailern Y1J
ceciu
U1111 — No cc; \91e, vvs up
ao- roc
�l(t i\AO r d — kt1c me to
Coc■ 1'A: V wit/ c&c
A)EQk- 'Pe- C °Ca'tcA
.261 u - nfLAMu — c> K
{'Dti PJ v — earTh mew ?) h ! C P i •u 3 to
Drte i cC Aaorts.K No Qcc b\evvl
4)12 usi, C& £ s n»
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED: 3/4T PAR p AND E NO.
DATE COMPLETE: X135- 1 'f -/Vo 0 7 8A
A J � / STAFF MEMBER: S- 2
PROJECT NAME r ( '3 --A R l QL ( Wi t *e eta � Y��
Project Address:
APPLICANT: , r 1 , c I 4 , fie L
Applicant Address: 3
REPRESENTATIVE:
Representative A.* ress /Phone:
PAID: OP NO AMOUNT: 0 8
1) TYPE OF APPLIICATION:
1 STEP: v 2 STEP:
2) IF 1 pTEP APPLICATION GOES TO: �
J P &Z CC .PUBLIC HEARING DATE:(Q "
o r Vrn -4-Q)
3) PUBLIC HEARING IS BEFORE:
12'1Z) CC N/A
DATE REFERRED: INITIALS:
REFERRALS: sir. - ra..c$ e
Jat
/ City Attorney Mtn. Bell School District
v ! City Engineer Parks Dept. Rocky Mtn Nat Gas
J t Housing Dir. Holy Cross State Hwy Dept(GW)
Aspen Water '1 Fire Marshall State Hwy Dept(GJ)
\j( City Electric Fire Chief Bldg:Zon /Inspect
Envir. Hlth. Roaring Fork Roaring Fork
Aspen Consol. Transit Energy Center
S.D. Other
FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: INITIAL:
City Atty City Engineer Bldg. Dept.
Other:
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:
REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE.
REpUFST0RS AND OWNERS: Scott and Caroline McDonald
ADDRESS: 300 West Main St.
Block 44, Lots Q,R,S.
ZONE DFSTGNATTON: 0 Zone.
CONDTTTONAT, USE REQUEST: Restuarant in Historic Designated
Structure.
RESTUARANT PARTICULARS: Size: 1400 sq.ft.
Seating: 50.
Fare: Low /moderate cost family food.
Bar Yes
Ambiance: Rustic Log interior.
Operation: Possible 3 meals /day
Public Acce.a: Original structure
Historical designate.
Operated: By owners.
VISUAL IMPACT TO SURROUNDTNG PROPERTTF,S: Minimal for the
following reasons:
Open spare: Large open space ratio:
6100 sq. ft. for a 9000 sq. ft.
parceL Open space boarders 2nd and
Main Street.
Treasi Five existing large spruce
trees shall remain.
I,ivina addition:
Modest. size (exterior areas):
Owners living space: 1892 sq.ft.
Owners garage: 270 sq.ft.
Fmplovee Housing: 450 sq.ft.
Restaurant Area: 144 sq.ft.
Building materials:
- lst floor: Log with chinking same as
original
-2nd floor: Balloon frame with
lapstrake siding (stained grey).
-Trim: off - white
- Windows: True divided light
jdition roof lines:
Addition roofline is offset from the
original structure's roof line
to maintain the identity of the
original structure.The addition roof
elivation is the same as the original
structure"s,19 "10 "above grade.This is
low compared to the Elisha carriage
house, 34 "6" above the original
structure's grade.
frrint Main St.:21 ft.,2nd St.:18 ft.
pORI,TC IMPACT:
Pedestrian Circulation: Impact minimal Ref.site plan.
Vehicular Circulation: Impact minimal, some extra
traffic from Main St. to 2nd.
Parking= Impact minimal
- Existing street parking has
low useage, potential, 8 spaces.
- Possible additional 2nd St. off
street parking spaces,ref.site
- Proposed off - street parking6
spaces,ref.site plan.
Trash: - Dumpster located off the alley
in the garage.
- BFI recommends 2 yd.
dumpster,ref.site plan.
Service Delivery: - Off alley, delivery chute to
basement.
- Off alley access to restaurant
through garage.
Nnise: Minimal impact:
- Slight addtion to Main St..
traffic noise.
- Log walls minimize sound
transfer.
Odors: Minimal impact.
- Char- broiler supplied with
electrostatic condenser,
minimizing particle ladened
smoke.
FURL FACTT,TTTF,S:
- Fire hydrant exist on the corner
of 2nd and Main St.
- Bus service.
- Walking distance, within six
blocks of downtown.
- Restaurant public facilities per
state and city codes.
900 WEST MATM RESTDENCF ADDITION ELEVATION NOTES REV.B
DAT E:3 \1\88
- 1- 1" X 6" LAPSTRAKE, ROUGH SAWN "NATIVE" OR CEDAR.
-2- 8 3/4" X 8 3/4" ROUGH SAWN SPRUCE OR LOG POLE PINE
TIMBERS, CHINKING = 2 ".
- 3- WINDOW/DOOR TRIM: ROUGH SAWN 1" X 6 ", 1" X 4" "NATIVE"
OR CEDAR.
-4- ROOF: TAR AND GRAVEL.
-5- ROOF: GREEN "FRO- PANEL"
-6- SKYLIGHTS: BOX HEIGHT = 6" ABOVE TAR AND GRAVEL. FOR
ADDITION FLAT ROOF ONLY, NOT DEPICTED.
- 10- TRUE DIVIDED LIGHT WINDOW.
COLOR SCHEME
- 7- GRAY TRANSLUCENT STAIN, MATCHING WEATHERED OXIDIZED LOGS
OF ORIGINAL STRUCTURE.
- 8- NATURAL FINISH SEALER, FOR 8 3/4" X 8 3/4" TIMBERS.
AFTER WEATHERING TO MATCH ORIGINAL STRUCTURE.
- 9- OFF -WHITE STAIN: WINDOW/DOOR TRIM HIGHLIGHTS FOR
GABLE/BAY WINDOWS.
APPLICATION FOR HISTORICAL PRESERVATION
APPLICANTS: SCOTT AND CAROLINE MCDONALD
INTRODUCTION
APPLICANTS REQUEST FOR HISTORICAL DESIGNATION OF 300 W.
MAIN ST. IS PREDICATED ON THE INCENTIVE OF CONDITIONAL USE OF
THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE AS A RESTAURANT.
THE HISTORICAL IMPORTANCE OF THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE IS
ENHANCED ONLY BY PUBLIC VIEWING OF THE INTERIOR.
THE PRESENT HPC, PB :Z, CITY COUNCIL REVIEWW PROCESS DOES
NOT INTEGRATE HISTORICAL DESIGNATION `•.WITH CONDITIONAL USE OF A
PROPERTY. THAT IS HISTORICAL DESIGNATION BEING CONTINGENT TO
GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE. THIS IS NECESSARY TO ALLOW ALTER-
NATIVE PROPERTY DEVELOPEMENT. IF CONDITIONAL USE FOR THE
ORIGINAL STRUCTURE AS A RESTAURANT IS DENIED ALTERNATE DEVELOPE-
MENT SENT OF THE PROPERTY MUST PROCEED. DUE TO THE. CENTRAL LOCATION
OF THE STRUCTURE RELATIVE TO LOTS Q, R Pz S COMMERCIAL DEVELOPE-
MENT WOULD NECESSITATE DEMOLITION. UNDER THE PRESENT REVIEW
PROCESS OF BEING HISTORICALLY DESIGNATED FIRST COULD ELIMINATE
THE EMOLITION OPTION OR ALTERNATE DEVELOPEMENT IN A REASONABLE
PERIOD OF TIME. THIS WOULD BE AN UNREASONABLE ECONOMIC HARDSHIP.
THE DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED ADDITION MINIMIZES THE VISUAL
IMPACT ON THE 'NEIGHBORHOOD AND IS VISUALLY SUBORDINATE TO THE
D
ORIGINAL STRUCTURE.
THE ADDITION HAS SEEN INSET ON THE NORTH SIDE RELATIVE TO
THE ORIGI "AL STRUCTURE AND ADDS APPROXIMATELY 2800 SQ FT OF
FLOORSPACE FOR FAMILY AND EMPLOYEE HOUSING. THAT IS A TOTAL
OF APPROXI ^LATELY 3880 SQ FT OF EXTERNAL FLOOR SPACE OF \HICH
APPROXIMATELY 1400 SQ FT IS THE RESTAURANT. A 9,000 SQ FT
SITE IS ALLOWED 6750 SQ FT OF EXTERNAL FLOOR SPACE.
THE ROOF LINE OF THE ADDITION MATCHES THE ROOF OF THE
EXISTING STRUCTURE, ROOF APEX AT 19' 10" ABOVE GRADE, 14.5 FT
BELOW THE APEX OF THE ADJACENT CARRIAGE HOUSE. PITCH ROOF APEX
BY CODE (24.7) MAY BE 30 FT ABOVE GRADE. ADDITION OFFSET FROM
MAIN ST. IS 42.8 FT BY CODE (24.3.3, 24.3.7) THIS MAY BE 10 FT.
THE OFFSET FROM THE CARRIAGE HOUSE PROPERTY LINE IS 5 FT, BY
CODE THIS IS 5 FT. THE ALLEY OFF SET IS 5.2 FT., BY CODE THIS
IS 15 FT.
CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS OF THE ADDITION MATCH THOSE OF THE
ORIGINAL STRUCTURE TO MINIMIZE VISUAL DETRACTION.
AGAIN IN CONCLUSION THE INCENTIVE FOR THIS MODEST DEVELOPE-
MENT IS TO HAVE HISTORICAL DESIGNATION CONTINGENT UPON CONDIT-
IONAL USE OF THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE AS A RESTAURANT. THE
ALTERNATIVE PILL BE DEMOLITION AND PROPERTY DEVELOPEME.;T PER
"0" ZONING CODES. DUE TIIAT OUR RESIDENCE ON THE PROPERTY WOULD
NOT BE ECONOMICALLY VIABLE OR DESIRABLE THE PROPERTY WOULD BE
DEVELOPED TO THE ALLOWABLE LIMITS.
1/19/88
• P A1- 1c�T 1 Y 0 .
^F u— x �---r C I 4 - / 1,1 w , 4
�11d 15 ,, @
/ 1 � .
.
- ��LIS -
J I I
0 .7 5 , '� / N�-� S I i i
II ° �� �:' r
' Y / Fi:'.lt.IPATIf _
0. 5 — k'LT. WALL i4. �;
u
�'� n) =
- I Or. C- S C n -
Z -
( ' ; D LOG HOUSc 4.0'
,_',,,, . 1\ q z, ill 44 0; 1
J O m I .
• . I • .'AIL FF_ I. r • I r }
n 26.L •.• f ` I 1 PLANTErt f
n - U
U �
f kl -' u c 7O II
0 ! L I 1,1E I? U ,
I U
.G
W /EFL _ ALLL!
4 ) ( 1 Fr,OF: UWE
O .4G' .
20 ��
k W
i- CHISELEVX''5E -) ' 75•09'II "1n/ "9c).(7 CFiISELEL X "FCI!�_
!GONG. S /w:
4 MRDSL) Q X0)1. MAIrl ST
IMPROVEMENT SURVEY •
Lots Q, R, and S, Block 44, City
()tivG and Townsite of A spen, County of .
Pitkin, State of Colorado.
(3')r) W. Main St., Aspen, CO 81611)
SURVFYOR'5 STATEMENT
I, JAMES W. SEXTON, STATE THAT THE IMPROVEMENTS ON THE ABOVE- DESCRIBED "A•R-
CEL ON THIS DATE, OCTOBER 7, 1987, EXCEPT UTILITY CONNECTIONS ARE ENTIRELY
WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PARCEL, II ANY ADJOINING UPON THE DESCRIBED
PREMISES, EXCEPT AS INDICATED, AND THAT THERE IS NO APPARENT VIICEXOR�T
SIGN OF ANY EASEMENT CROSSING OR BURDENING ANY PART OF SAID PARCEL,
AS NOTED.
I FURTHER STATE THIS MAP AND THE SURVEY ON 6• ?HICH IT IS BASED WERE MADE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE MINIMUM STANDARD DETAIL REQUIREMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENT
AND JOINTLY
MAP WAS FOR 1. ADOPTED
SCOTT AND M. CAROLINE
1961,
CAROLINE
AND THAT THIS
MCDONALD FOR THE USE OF STEWART TITLE OF ASPEN.
NOTES
1. Survey was based on monuments at the intersections of 1st and Main Street
and 3rd and Main Streets, which were field - checked and found to be
\ \111�1 / /ry!
substantially correct. • ,, .:``� 1IA W:to,���„
�' � "'°
2. Chiseled "X" at southeast corner of property is eztr`�srpe� eet from
. 0
true property corner. ; ,
aE a 1634_ ., 1
BY: ,Ir ."..:. .._a1
am s s•. y' - • RI'J f,R° -
Job u mber : � ' � f ' M 1rk m kt \ -85
HIGI' COUNTRY
--V - - ,-/_./.
.___,---____,--; SUR TIETORS
f
1 r ; ;fl • J ,1. , 7 -, c ( ;1,J WWond cnrInps, CO p16 01
1 ,i
fill:
N--
V
F O ' L C
I N
i
3 I 0
k
2a lfart . t
5 7:9,6<'fr 1 r„
7
� sm■
I 1,,,.
Z
s
1
al- c S s,
-.e.„ -t- \
a
? tid
3� z o
k
0
‘
si
#, . \ k. 0 -s"
s NE
t
^' b
a 4 C
ac z
//i/EY
f ( 1 i _ J L1
/2 c jci- 1
'r
— - -� �';
r .._ f
i /70
1 ,
NSIMI
czt i STS /!7S � H £
qty,
@ , r
P�
-•-•-- w-,-----
1 c ly
O
C,
`\NC IS
\\\ —
O $1
0 11 � ? r i p
cc
ti
1f1 4, b
Th. k
1,b
.;-
EST COPY
PRE — APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PROJECT: 300 W.Main 5 t. 9--25-8,._.
APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE:
REPRESENTATIVE'S PHONE: 915 8743
OWNERS NAME: C c oft wfrd i;w'tr( Ai, 0, •• i
SUMMARY
1 . Type of Application: COn) f' °c1 for EnnployeYHovs
2. Describe action/type develop
'' / ype of } ment being requested:
A ,,-jnt A Lb;IA AA P�(414:Ein, ay On "i,r Area n auk ,j tt shn ,in l
I en,* {, t 1 1 fL e 7C i 4"tin ) kook into t `
t Lfl�,t n..r uhf ^- /n- ;V'w0'2C nN nu ". � f , [. rl�M� 1 Q� N GOn� OWL f
a, , ' *vt - d d m.*sJ he nr r w rJ Us OWL m 4,
nta.�0:r��ti•f �,,1.dtrn.(, " nn., �; .c air
-A
) P ly pedal/ ill { 1/4 nevi. to redut.e on }i +. parkinj
�, 1, =n,��, q t0 Pus 1 er rrVlrWSw
3. Areas in which Applicant has been requested to respond, types of
reports requested:
Policy Area/
Referral Agent Comments —
I_ P C - Oh fi o. I W PC rfconh. ld c(ta.y -r: J hot cantthod terpr•v.l
m +I, .-rL,l+,ar, v . tI ca"pc+.ons, On K.6.7 -3,!I Pc d i,crsi'^ oa...df•i
pia' DFfic _ I Ni• c t c F( oddrfssed ih contl. we app. Inch/fit :(I) hei ?l,6orl
— (t "tal ilt I 4 rest AV. Adt Ose) 01) v ,.pt its.j3) pavk;ny, fras
I (A L s
-) U"'-t vtkitit ti i. ftdrstriAh circui.(;0h A ')oplot t i ,r..
Ehe ihfYrin7 — L, [encwns in.lodi : (I)PArki1 c (2)tre51, c h)scwin deli.{ry,
4a vfI)i cc r/ p °L circ.I.,tioh,(5)d rinvit,b(C)v ,Irhes
1 re Wtarsla 1 — +;re pro tech on eh•evyency servicts fitness
4. Review is: (P&Z Only) (CC /BOCC Only) (P&Z then to CC /BOCC)
5. Public Hearing: (YES) (NO)
6. Did you tel applicant to submit list of :At s.`r. PROPERTY
OWNERS? Q) (N0) Disclosure of Ownership: ( :(NO)
tvitAin fn
was applicant requested to submit :16801•xb(Gni,),400 i " 11tAN6)
7. What fee
IlTir
8. Anticipated date of submission:
9. COMMENTS /UNIQUE CONCERNS:
f n t,ic:nmrhh.l I . 1ealtl, - Oys head + k re.{ virenwit . Col ;t;rr Alt c)ur'1„ cOnst'O
NDUSIn7 CiTIC t Lrhg'D yfr 9PNera+' ohc es.piDy, t OW• )h+O)Srarrii.ht o-nwwwatl -
i-n ce „si/If, Ii„ ni wc olt recon es/,hoh toy'” 55 ' !. enp.l , b.(h.i. (M lsrey,'
:iii indltrn+rnt oor consldcrAKoh4 l n 1 Chilli? nU5Q
City Fitt aril e — hr^i'A rpuit.� enst,iby el I, Dvsin) 41.1 rrstridoh
7 cop ses 4 apelie.fion 1hclvrlin, s %fe plah a ndconctyrtval tlevati8ns