Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.19920610AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE June 10, 1992 REGULAR MEETING SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM I. Roll call II. Committee and Staff Comments III. Public Comments/Staff Comments DU students to work with HPC, June 22-26 Roxanne on vacation June 29 - July 10 IV. OLD BUSINESS 5:10 A. 17 Queen Street - request for reconsideration V. NEW BUSINESS 5:30 A. 304 E. Hopkins (Renaissance Restaurant) Minor Development - awning 5:40 VI. WORKSESSION: Community Character Design Guidelines Bill Poss Project Review analysis - Staff, full board VI. COMMUNICATIONS 6:00 A. Project Monitoring - ON SITE Van will leave with HPC and Staff from City Hall at 6:00 for a one hour tour of projects under construction and recently completed projects. A routing list of projects to be reviewed will be available at the beginning of the meeting. 7:00 VII. Adjourn MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Ef lin, Historic Preservation Off icer L Re: Request for reconsideration of Minor Development and sideyard setback variation: 17 Queen St., outbuilding Date: June 10, 1992 NOTE: A SITE VISIT BY EACH HPC MEMBER IS NECESSARY PRIOR TO THIS MEETING. APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Reconsideration of the last HPC action taken on the request for Minor Development and side yard setback approval necessary for the construction of wood (board and batten) 3'4" x 8'8" x 8'6" (high) outbuilding with corrugated metal sloped roof. APPLICANT: Henry and Lana Trettin, represented by Geoffrey Harris of Pellecchia-Olson Architects PREVIOUS HPC ACTION: At the last HPC meeting of May 27, the HPC voted 3-2 to approve the architectural design of the proposed outbuilding, but denied granting the setback variation, finding the proposal to not be more compatible with the historic landmark than would be in accord with underlying zoning requirements. Staff recommended approval of the setback variation, finding that it did meet the Development Review Standard. DISCUSSION: A great deal of discussion occurred at that meeting, involving issues unrelated directly to the proposal before the HPC, in particular, the removal of one cottonwood tree that should have received a permit prior to elimination. The applicant was upset when she left the meeting, and has had subsequent discussions with staff regarding the entire development, the tree removal, and representations made by the HPC. Legal procedures allow an applicant to appear before the Board at the next regularly scheduled meeting to request a reconsideration. A motion to reconsider may only be made by one of the board members who voted in the majority of the action taken. Three issues revolve around this proposal, both directly and indirectly. Staff has discussed these issues with the Planning Director, and offers the following information for the HPC to weigh should you vote to reconsider your previous action: 1) Tree removal: Mrs. Trettin has stated in the public record that she did not remove the cottonwood tree in question, nor directly order its removal. The contractor removed the tree, unaware that a city (Parks Department) permit was required. This was after a discussion with the original HPC project monitor, Glenn Rappaport. The tree removal was necessary in order to construct the parking space as required by the code and the HPC. The applicant has apologized for its removal without a permit, however, is prepared to mitigate the impact by planting additional trees throughout the parcel, which the Planning Department finds to be acceptable. The tree in question was a modest sized cottonwood, one of a few found in that section of the parcel. 2) Public notice mailing: The applicant mailed out the original public notice in ample time, according to the requirements in the Aspen Land Use Regulations. The notices were mailed between April 22-24, for the May 13 public hearing. The applicant submitted a certificate of mailing and a list of property owners who received the notice to the HPC at the May 13 meeting. No adjacent property owner has contested the mail out noticing. The Planning Office finds that the mail out occurred as required by code. 3) Outbuilding variation: The design of the outbuilding meets the Development Review Standards and the Guidelines, which the HPC concurred with. We also find that the setback variation is clearly in-keeping with numerous other setback variations granted on many additions and outbuildings within the past three years by the HPC. We find that the outbuilding's small size, siting and minor 2' variation request allows for an important spatial relationship to occur between structures, and does not impact the architectural or historic integrity of the landmark. We find that the proposed siting of the outbuilding is the best for the parcel, vegetation and all, and for the owner's function purposes. The proposed siting between two trees helps screen the structure from the road, the pavement edge of which is located at least 20' from the structure. Staff reminds the HPC that approval or denial decisions are to be based upon the Development Review Standards, with support from the Guidelines, and staff finds that these have all been met. We recommend that the HPC grant the setback variation RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC vote to reconsider the previous action taken at the May 27 meeting, and approve the Minor Development application for 17 Queen Street as proposed, granting a side yard setback variation of 2' for the outbuilding, finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. memo.hpc.17qs.recon. 2 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer~L Re: Minor Development: 304 E. Hopkins, awning/canopy for Renaissance Restaurant Date: June 10, 1992 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Minor Development approval for the second floor awning/canopy. APPLICANT: William Seguin, owner, represented by Charles Dale, owner of the Renaissance Restaurant. ZONING: "ec" Commercial Core, "H" Historic Overlay District PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Staff has determined that the proposal is a Minor Development review by the HPC, as stated in Section 7- 601(E)(2)(d). We find that the proposed exterior changes are minor in their effect on the character of the existing structure. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an H, Historic Overlay district or is adjacent to a Historic Landmark... Response: The applicant wishes to install an awning/canopy over the second floor deck dining area. This canopy does not encroach into the public right-of-way, is recessed from the facade, and is temporary in nature, used only in the summer. The building is not historic, and staff finds the proposal to be compatible with adjacent historic resources. HPC comments: 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: Due to the canopy's well recessed location and location on the second floor level of the structure, we find that the proposal meets this Standard. HPC comments: 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structure located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. Response: We find the proposal does not detract from the cultural value of adjacent historic structures. HPC comments: 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: This structure is not historic, and is found by staff to be incompatible within the district. We find that the proposed canopy does not diminish or detract from the structure, or adjacent structures. HPC comments: ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following alternatives: 1. Approve the Minor Development application as submitted 2. Approve the Minor Development application with specific conditions of the HPC, to be approved by staff and the project monitor prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3. Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy (specific recommendations should be offered). 4. Deny Minor Development approval finding that the application does not meet the development review standards. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant approval for the Minor Development application for 304 E. Hopkins as proposed, finding that the proposal meets the Development Review Standards. memo.hpc.304eh.md 2 JUN 3 June 2, 1992 Application for Minor Historic Development Subject: Awning over Upper Deck at 304 East Hopkins Dear Members of the Council, 1. For the purposes of this review, the applicant is La Dolce Vita, a Colorado corporation, DBA Renaissance Restaurant, located at 304 East Hopkins, Aspen Co 81611; Tel: (303) 925 2402. One or the other of its chief operating officers should be considered to be the representatives of the applicant, and will be present at the review. Their names are Charles C. Dale, President, and Julie Van Pelt, Secretary. Their common address is 1050 Waters Ave, Aspen Co ; Tel: (303) 920 1901. 2. The Seauin Building. a condominium, is located at 304 East Hopkins Ave; the legal description of the parcel is Lot 1, Block 80, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Co. The legal owner is William Seguin, who can be reached at (800) 666 6001 EXT 7777. 3. Arriving by separate courier. 4. South elevation attached. 5. When we installed a canvas awning on the upper deck of 304 East Hopkins, we were unaware that we were in the historic overlay district (the building itself was erected in 1983). The structure is temporary, and the awning is intended to be in use from June 15 to Sept. 15 only. It is our feeling, as well as the landlord's (please see attached letter), that the awning brightens an otherwise drab brick building. The customers of Renaissance Restaurant also enjoy the view they get of Aspen Mountain, in the shelter of the canopy as they dine. We propose that the canopy is an enhancement to the building of a subtly colorful and useful nature in the commercial core, and that it is completely contained within the premises (i.e. no encroachment on public ways). RENAISSANCE 304 East Hopkins · Aspen, Colorado 81611 · 925-2402 ' ~·· ~ The supporting structure itself is :made of aluminum pipe by a reputable professional in the awning business.· The structure is o - , screwed into the' brick parapet sOrrounding the deck, and is . removeable. Jhe awning is made of fire treated canvas, and attached 2 . to the aluminum pipe by means of aluminum clips which are easily f : detached:: We chose peach and seabreeze colors for their warm and soothing effect, and the fact that they reflect the decor of ~ Renaissance Restaurant. We hope you agree that this tasteful awning enlivens a i.r commercial block currently undergoing a major construction, and that the outdoor fine dining with a view that it affords is a valuable . - addition to Aspen's many attractions, as well as being critical to the Summer success of our. business. For La Dolce Vita, Inc, DBA Renaissance Restaurant 1 L--/ -----.- Charles Dale, Chef and President , > 01 '92 09: 39 RHDibl-I LUM[¥1UillLH 1 10[15 brbl E-I'lb . F.2 6/01/92 To Whom It May Concern: I would like to clarify my position concerning the second floor awning installed at my 304 E. Hopkins commercial building. It is well planned and professionally installed, and definitly adds to the character and appearance of my building. Everything Charles Dale has done, both to the interior and exterior of my building, has exceptionally good quality and taste. Thank you for your interest. Sincerely, 42,2 CD -9, V- William L. Seguin It 1 1 ~ A l.3 0 / 06 i \ -\ -\ , ---- ID erc k_. n R 1 7 .., j brA i ill 1\ I iii I - Il & - J 304 UFFLE 1-(0 t·* 1 16 1 1 . r 4 1-1.u .tri , 29-1 ' 1 Uft V To Roxanne Eflin: From Lana Trettin RE: Request Dear Roxanne: I am exercising my right per our discussion to seek reconsideration of the 3-2 vote denying my application during the last HPC meeting. As you requested I have had the exact area where the outbuilding would be build staked. I would greatly appreciate any members of the Board who have not been out to the site to please come and examine the space so that they may see why the architect, my husband, and myself feel so strongly about the out building's position. Thank you, Lana Trettin 06/05/92 15:10 2 303 534 4114 Pellecchia·Olson P.01 PELLECCHIA · OLSON ARCHITECTS FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET TO: M.o)<pt.WAW- EfiA\.3 FROM: 4·Scer•ge--~ 8. A.Ar'*2.1 A.,ep'P'Sk) HWO DATE: 6,/5 /902- TEL: TEL: (303) 534-4114 FAX: FAX: (3031 534-3824 PROJECT: MCIJS:02 6 CLOTTT~·C/€_ SUBJECT: Srorah<ke- SHarD VA¥LA AA.ke *Ardaowwir This message will consist of 23> pages, including cover sheet. 16.#193* PAT-%:*CA'A #47 Kkir-fo. 40;-- \\3 CD©-~,093·€- TC> 'i~*M? 1 \::,1444,1CK« 4·*»Flu. *322333.4 *TE->GPC> C.ME.·c, 78,©Tcp + 0%/1\OB,LS K~ALL.-- 823\-A-©~4/ v'\,th. Sincerely, sha A Professional Corporation 1442 Market Street Denver, Colorado 80202 303 534-4114 06/05/92 15:12 2 303 534 4114 Pellecchia·Olson P.03 i\\\\\ 0 1 1 ---4- 1 1 m P *4 O 1 1 1 F. \\ JP-74\ \ 1 11 ------1 / If ----1 / i %. 1 /1 \1 \(t 1 i 18 1 1 1 r 72 9 1 1 5 1/ 11 R E--3 1 / .# 1 , fi 1 | 1 *--1 , 1 - I-- ' 4- e 4- -0- 13 944 1. 1 i y .../ - .. .4,%, 111'L' 114 111 ' ·hi 9 1/ \ L i 8 . \0 / -,4. 1 1; Ct:.~:. 22 - \ 11< , j .. · , , 11 W#1 4~L iCL: e .7.1 - i \ \ 1 V 1 0 m 1 11 1 itiH 1, 1 i f d . £ p r Z g n u * I i I ' . I. - B; 8 1- 46 P .- . 1 I Q 1 -1-_-ij-lf--t-- - Ill P B L A 1 5 ~ 04 3-1 1 - . 441 1 31 k L I , 9 -7 i R i.=9 · 5, 06/05/92 15:11 2 303 534 4114 Pellecohia·Olson P.02 PELLECCHIA OLSON ARCHITEC·TS MEMORANDUM PROJECP: Miner's Cottage TO: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Geoffrey B. Harris DATE: June 5, 1992 SIrBJECT: Miner's Cottage Storage Shed Roxanne: Attached is a revised plan showing the location of the Miner's Cottage (As-Built), the parking and the storage shed. Notes: 1. We rotated the storage shed and moved it slightly northwest in this proposal both to open the parking more to the house and to keep it from directly facing the neighbor. Relative to the current discussions, we feel this orientation is much less confrontational. 2. The current parking on site is not the finished size or configuration. The final configuration will be much more defined along its edges and in its detailing at the stairs, and will be constructed according to the drawings. Geoffrey B. Harris PELLECCHIA OLSON ARCHITECTS, P.C. GBH:shit ,„- ./7. 4 A Professional Corporation 1442 Market Street Denver, Colorado 80202 303 534-4114 U ' e···rL*-p 'U~Unt On I I .h~-0 4 ho Jr ~ Fw 7*« f -70. 16 1¢4- (7- »1 4 31-53 *·-e -% 1' k-r~ *0_ *I- ~o 97~ly~'~ 9- Wrn 7)C 67.-uy" Cld 7/P.e, r-,9 9-v»- F\P- ~90 1 - 4- Od« 70 7 9 Nor 4 '