HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19801103Historic Preservation Committee November 3, 1980
..,.~.,:o.~,,.,:.~....,~,~ ~o., .~,~.,~,~ R E C O R D O F P R O C E E D I N G S
The Historic Preservation Committee held a special meeting in the Aspen City
Council Chambers on November 3, 1980. Members present were Richard Cicero,
Mona Frost, Georgeann Waggaman and William Clark. Planning Staff represntative,
Sunny Vann, was also present.
OLD BUSINESS
Arthur's Chinese Restaurant -
Preapplication Review
Mona Frost made a motion to open the meeting and
the elect Richard Cicero as chairman in the absence
of Jon Seigle. William Clark seconded the motion.
Ail in favor; motion carried.
Sunny said that there is an approved exterior mod-
ification of Arthur's and the adjacent ARI Building.
He said that ordinarily Welton Anderson, architect
for the project, would have proceeded to working
drawings and would submit for a building permit.
As yet, as Sunny understood it, there has been no
submission or request for a building permit. There
was a request for a permit to relocate the ARI
Building consistent with the elevations the HPC
approved. However, that's the only permit that
has been issued to date by the Building Department
other than a permit to go out and make some minor
corrections to keep the building from falling in
based on some legal excavation that took place
a few weeks ago.
Sunny said that Arthur's Restaurant is a conditional
use in the O-Office zone. The City Code provides
that structures which have been historically desig-
nated, as Arthur's has been, that as a conditional
use, restaurants are allowed, the idea being to
maintain the economic viability of the structures
and therefore to protect them for some period of
time. In any event, the code further requires that
any modification of a conditional use, any expansion~
is subject to the approval of the Planning and Zoning
Commission in addition to the approvals required of
the HPC of the exterior modifications. In 1979,
Arthur's received conditional use approval to expand
the restaurant. It was based on a three building
scheme which the HPC has seen drawings of in the
past, which involve construction of a new building
in between the two buildings that are there now.
In checking with the Building Department and the
Planning Office, depending on the degree of modifi-
cation in the new design, they may be required to go
back to P & Z and receive reapproval of their
conditional use expansion. In other words, their
approval now is based on a given scheme, they cannot
arbitrarily change that without going back to P & Z
and getting reapproval. Sunny said that in all
probability the P & Z will approve this application
inasmuch the new scheme represents a less intensive
use than the old one. The appropriate process at
this point is, if Welton decides to change the
restaurant expansion that has already been approved,
then he must have the changes approved by HPC first.
Depending on the extent of those changes, it may or
may not require a public hearing. Once he has final
approval of the HPC, once again depending on the
extent of the change, he may or may not have to go
back to the Planning and Zoning Commission and get
a reconfirmation of his request for expansion of a
conditional use.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
Bill Clark wanted to ask a couple of questions because
he was not involved in the earlier approval of the
expansion. First, who is the owner of record of the
property? Welton said the owner is June Moss Cantrup.
Then Bill asked who the applicant is in this case and
Welton said it was David Moss.
Bill wanted to know the connection between the two people,
other than being mother and son. Welton said that David
Moss is buying the restaurant from her. Bill wanted to
know if Moss is applying as contract purchaser of the
land or the tenant of the building and Welton said he is
buying the land and the building, as far as he knew.
Therefore, Bill said the committee would be looking to
the owner of the property for enforcement of any conditions
Welton was wanting to get a catalogue to show the committee
the size of the bar, which tells the reason why they want
to make the change in their original plans. He said it
is so big that it needs a room large enough so the bar
does not dwarf the room. It is 33 feet long and 11 feet
high.
He said the idea now is to take the plans which have
already been approved and simply transpose the front door
entry with a new porch, take the square tower off the
corner and move it to where the existing front door is.
Then people would enter in a new space created by combining
the ten feet between the ARI Building and the existing
pit.
He said they are going to phase the project. They will
be remodeling the ARI Building into dining now, along
with putting in some adequate bathrooms.
Therefore, the people will be entering in the middle of
the building rather than entering in the existing Arthur's
front door.
Sunny said that since they are talking about changing
the exterior appearance beyond what was originally approved
it is difficult to construe under the guidelines that what
they are doing is a minor change.
Richard was wondering about access to the porch. Welton
said it would be from the interior.
Sunny told the committee that it is up to them whether or
not to schedule for a public hearing. Given the sensitivit
of the Main Street issue and that its a new elevation, he
suggested they do so. However, at a minimum, they should
at least require him to come back and see what's happening
on the side of the building, since it is adjacent to a
vacant lot and there will be some changes in the elevation.
Mona wanted to add that on the original plans, there was
just a nondescript hallway between the two buildings and
now there is a major change by moving it out to the front,
right behind the trees that are supposed to be hiding it.
Bill said that given the sensitivity of Main Street and
the fact that the HPC has required applicants with far
less change to go through a public hearing, he couldn't
conceive of not requiring a public hearing in this case.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
Bill wanted to know about the guidelines in requiring
a model with more detail. Sunny said it was up to the
Board to decide whether one is necessary, but it is not
required by the guidelines. Bill said he, for one, does
need more detail. Georgeann said she thought a section-
through would give him that, and Bill agreed because,
since the buildings are in place, everyone could just go
and look at the site.
Bill asked for a new gross square footage of the combined
building as opposed to the square footage of each separate
building. He wanted to see it on the plans.
Dick Wilhelm, another representative of David Moss, said
at this point that he wanted to thank the HPC for being
so cooperative over the last two years. At the same time,
he said the owners would be willing to do whatever
landscaping necessary, would even put funds in an escrow
account for future landscaping. Welton said the figure
would be $10,000 to insure the landscaping as promised
is done.
Bill said he didn't want any escrow accounts. He isn't
sure that can be imposed as a condition and it is too
hard to try to enforce an escrow account. He thinks this
boils down to two points 19 The holder of the permit
can proceed now on existing approved plans, or 2) He
can ask for a revision of those plans and at that point
the HPC can decide that there are sufficient changes to
allow the public to approve of the changes. Since the
applicant has said he does not want to proceed with the
already approved plans, then the Board needs to get
underway with the second option.
Welton said the applicant wants to proceed under the plans
already approved but with what he perceives as minor
changes.
Richard Cicero believed a public hearing is required
beck.se it is a major change. Sunny said that under the
code definition it is not a minor change. HPC could
waive that requirement if they wanted to. However,
since they would need to go back through P & Z anyway,
the Board would not be delaying him any by requiring
him to go through a public hearing.
The committee asked Welton to make some kind of fast,
easy model or section through to give them some idea
about the elevation.
Bill Clark made a motion to give the project preliminary
approval and that a public hearing be set for as quickly
as legally possible and that the applicant present such
evidence as may be required in their judgement to satisfy
some of the concerns that have been expressed here today,
such as the elevation, the roof lines, the treatment of
the stairway on the porch of the other building and any
other changes that have been discussed. He also wanted
to plan a site visit with Welton and his plans there to
aid the members in their views. Mona Frost seconded the
motion. Ail in favor, motion carried.
The next meeting will have the public hearing on the
agenda with a scheduled visit of the site for the committee
Robin R. Berry