The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.HP.201 E Main St.HP-1991-27-1-* o i Bo W N P- 3 7 17 . I 1 1 MESSAGE DISPLAY TO Bill Drueding From: Roxanne Eflin Postmark: Nov 19,91 11:57 AM Status: Previously read Subject: Main Street Bakery Message: Please touch base with me on this ASAP. I met with Ron in building, and I am clear on this, but want to talk with you about potential FAR expansion - I do NOT consider NET LEASABLE expansion, only FAR, which is exempt from GMQS - requiring only a planning director's sign off - no mitigation, etc. Let's reach a consensus on this, and then I'll call Dinsmore to let him know where we are, and give him a choice as where to go/what to do. - .1 u'lajo A ~ , c*:,U -1 C U R 6 4 L T T ER .d"fy-::- 1 lA In . ..... . Â·41â€¢ A. D 41 11 NAMUN-4 -,aâ€¢ 4 [1'li4twi>y-- I.-10.35' 4 3.8' SIDE V~/ A L'~~~1'r- n ./ 9'00' N:j~* *** 40 9&*1* 4 riu>wr< 1Â°rp< 46*t J~ 9.9' FOUND / Â·,ri -iAN IRON *- 4% 9//r- CAP WITH CAP Li/aâ‚¬- #6â„¢*r# 0084(hAjor)/664 ~ Gra55 - P 1 549 kwAr- * ~ Upira :<: >*Je. In fko,47- , 01/3( 1.:*429(Q,& 32 > EE,E----=--== .. g p .4 430 n - C _/-5~ eci : BUILDING k ~Vt*%Â·EYÂ·&44~ C nind â‚¬0 -1. 04 A 0 'Â·-.~p' Craj<Apple 0.4' 4 Â» --- 11" 4092*8;re FENCE 1-=-_7=-=167.-1 n . . 4 ytifl*(925*402 : rf>.120Â¢t)00 4/ er. 8' '/7,789 1~>a-.- i-,---jll 't, 0, \ ... C 133=EPâ‚¬EM'=ZE- 4 35' -- dilf M.-A IrMA.==--1-=-2; 'REA,ZED 4Â»Câ‚¬v Ln Irâ‚¬3Â£=G-:â‚¬P-=, M 2 1&*' 950Efiali9P x ~grÂ°tos", - J ate 611 J s tat;3 -09- H #141#& 4#Mr . + 8l '0~ K 4 29Â»4'vott 1 )ChnU r 5891 0,~[7 Flowir ~ *C- r-- 25 17' t J S 43% 9%501) Ul I , ~air, it- ~:Jur,~ . - 7 - 5 + 4 | -FEcaN -r- A....r~ 06.l ~*RGBet 00-r--Im~%29&*f===Â·- 1 = 75 30. 4 14-0* T *th - VIA 1 *I'*r-r</f~gÂ£ Â£20&0136 A 3/516 21 1 -== = 0 1 /1 h-'%:~ez =L-: R~RoJE~ /.2.ZE~L~ LÂ¥ \LI\Nfu- 2-EPEPE' ' --- ke~ ~944+ ck A Lfiib-L__ +k 30. b' 7441~16 17,~u1r-;C___~-= b - ' -- r - 114,27;-22=5 0 : Z - 15 25-321.-Il 0 =r...J=51-=.=== + 4 - 3Â« id 1 1%20-Â·*iN -rt:n -2â‚¬--6 .C:-ZIL.22.,-=-f rj 1 -I---I ....4 -I Gru s s Nâ€¢-ta 3--â‚¬59*E - Z Â· uzz===-=-=ZIL_- - 1 -KE-Al . tÂ«-4 19 ' BUILDING =.2.=r :m-.r--7 mr-T-ytr-=c i Â»iN.a-_ LO<r 21-b~h 0 00/jo.r -- -- -- 1- ...4 - -It fvt.15 4 h.. â€¢L.. Ir=-L~lar--7~..72.. 1 , Wi Ct Led-L_ 0/L T- 2-22,11.Z-ZE.inE?==2:F~E:EN Â«1 . NG -:.GRAVEUPEnt..).1 / *D<K44),SEN 27 \m EEZ -1 -2=2- ------ - ---- 9 Aer n ALAÂ·EY + O' ., tâ€¢ 'jil. 'Â·:-44.-:. ' DE>69.13 g Â·10 1 h 4- rb j MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer L Re: Minor Development: 201 E. Main, Main Street Bakery, front porch airlock (two options) Date: * November 13, 1991~~ APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Minor Development approval for a reversible airlock at the front door/porch of the Main Street Bakery. Two alternatives have been submitted for HPC consideration: one is a clear vinyl and fabric system, the other is wood and glass with removable panels during non-winter months. Staff wishes to acknowledge the applicant's desire to improve the historic building's energy efficiency, without destroying the vernacular character of the structure, and its lively sidewalk edge contribution to the Main Street Historic District. APPLICANT: Sally Barnett and Bill Dinsmore ZONING: C-1, "H" Historic Overlay District (Main Street) PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The Development Review standards are found in Section 7-601 of the Land Use Code. The applicable Guidelines are found in Section IV. Commercial Buildings - Renovation and Restoration, beginning on page 19. 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: Due to internal layout of the bakery/restaurant , the front door remains open often as people queue out the door and on to the sidewalk. The applicant is not interested in going through another winter paying the high energy bills, and is seeking HPC's assistance to have the problem solved. The vinyl and fabric proposal was discussed briefly with the HPC last year, with general consensus that it would not be appropriate or compatible with the structure or within the district. Staff and project monitor Glenn Rappaport met with the application earlier this year to discuss options, one of which was to move the actual winter entrance to the east side, or rearrange the bakery counters to eliminate the "out the front door queuing" problems they encounter. Neither works for the applicant. Another option was -4 %-- a more sturdy approach of removable glass (and perhaps wood) panels to enclose the porch as transparently as possible yet allow the original architectural elements to read through. The Guidelines discuss the need for transparency in porch enclosures, so as not to obscure any details. Staff finds that the second option submitted by the applicants does alter the visual character of this unique facade, obscuring the "duplex-like" double doors that are characteristic of the Terrace Style. We are recommending that the HPC not approve the second (wood and glass) option for this reason, and instead approve either a plexiglass or other Building Department approved transparent material, or proceed with the clear vinyl and stucco-colored fabric approach, which is clearly reversible. HPC COMMENTS: 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: Staff doesn't find either proposal necessarily consistent with the character of the neighborhood, as no other building has this exact problem within the Main Street Historic District. Particularly due to its prominent corner location, adjacent to Paepcke Park, and close siting to the sidewalk edge, whatever airlock solution is chosen may be precedent setting for the neighborhood. Staff cautions the HPC to review this application carefully within the context of the neighborhood. 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: Staff finds that the proposal does not detract from the cultural value of the structure. HPC COMMENTS: 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not 2 diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: Staff cannot go so far as to say either proposal enhances the architectural integrity of the building, however, reversibility is a key aspect for approval. This building is the only "Terrace Style" structure found in Aspen, and the Roaring Fork Valley. Staff is not aware of any others even as far away as Glenwood Springs. The characteristic elements of this style are its front porch protecting the dual doors, modest massing and scale, stepped parapet and material (brick). Altering . the integrity of the porch, and visually obscuring the doors negatively impacts its architectural integrity, in our opinion. We are also concerned about the building code issues surrounding doorswing and an all glass enclosure. 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 conditions to be met 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 Minor Development approval for the vinyl and fabric airlock proposal at 201 E. Main, OR a fully transparent glass enclosure. Either must be fully reversible and utilized only during winter months for energy efficiency. Revised plans are to be submitted to staff and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. Additional comments: _ memo.hpc.201em.md.airlock 3 a~ Â¥1 3 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer L- Re: Minor Development: 201 E. Main, Main Street Bakery, front porch airlock (two options) Date: November 13, 1991 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Minor Development approval for a reversible airlock at the front door/porch of the Main Street Bakery. Two alternatives have been submitted for HPC consideration: one is a clear vinyl and fabric system, the other is wood and glass with removable panels during non-winter months. Staff wishes to acknowledge the applicant's desire to improve the historic building's energy efficiency, without destroying the vernacular character of the structure, and its lively sidewalk edge contribution to the Main Street Historic District. APPLICANT: Sally Barnett and Bill Dinsmore ZONING: C-1, "H" Historic Overlay District (Main Street) PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The Development Review standards are found in Section 7-601 of the Land Use Code. The applicable Guidelines are found in Section IV. Commercial Buildings - Renovation and Restoration, beginning on page 19. 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: Due to internal layout of the bakery/restaurant , the front door remains open often as people queue out the door and on to the sidewalk. The applicant is not interested in going through another winter paying the high energy bills, and is seeking HPC's assistance to have the problem solved. The vinyl and fabric proposal was discussed briefly with the HPC last year, with general consensus that it would not be appropriate or compatible with the structure or within the district. Staff and project monitor Glenn Rappaport met with the application earlier this year to discuss options, one of which was to move the actual winter entrance to the east side, or rearrange the bakery counters to eliminate the "out the front door queuing" problems they encounter. Neither works for the applicant. Another option was a more sturdy approach of removable glass (and perhaps wood) panels to enclose the porch as transparently as possible yet allow the original architectural elements to read through. The Guidelines discuss the need for transparency in porch enclosures, so as not to obscure any details. Staff finds that the second option submitted by the applicants does alter the visual character of this unique facade, obscuring the "duplex-like" double doors that are characteristic of the Terrace Style. We are recommending that the HPC not approve the second (wood and glass) option for this reason, and instead approve either a plexiglass or other Building Department approved transparent material, or proceed with the clear vinyl and stucco-colored fabric approach, which is clearly reversible. HPC COMMENTS: 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: Staff doesn't find either proposal necessarily consistent with the character of the neighborhood, as no other building has this exact problem within the Main Street Historic District. Particularly due to its prominent corner location, adjacent to Paepcke Park, and close siting to the sidewalk edge, whatever airlock solution is chosen may be precedent setting for the neighborhood. Staff cautions the HPC to review this application carefully within the context of the neighborhood. 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: Staff finds that the proposal does not detract from the cultural value of the structure. HPC COMMENTS: 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not 2 diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: Staff cannot go so far as to say either proposal enhances the architectural integrity of the building, however, reversibility is a key aspect for approval. This building is the only "Terrace Style" structure found in Aspen, and the Roaring Fork Valley. Staff is not aware of any others even as far away as Glenwood Springs. The characteristic elements of this style are its front porch protecting the dual doors, modest massing and scale, stepped parapet and material (brick). Altering the integrity of the porch, and visually obscuring the doors negatively impacts its architectural integrity, in our opinion. We are also concerned about the building code issues surrounding doorswing and an all glass enclosure. 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 conditions to be met 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 Minor Development approval for the vinyl and fabric airlock proposal at 201 E. Main, OR a fully transparent glass enclosure. Either must be fully reversible and utilized only during winter months for energy efficiency. Revised plans are to be submitted to staff and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. Additional comments: memo.hpc.201em.md.airlock 3 A 0 2 . ./ J - ATI,~â„¢ENI' 14 - , f ''0 -Pl :, I LAND USE APPLIaTICN * 6, Pro-ject Nam M rui /1 1-f *22 ke'31 +LA+0â‚¬~ . 2 ) project I=ation 0-0 4 661 99 '1 al h %4-Â· -, A--5 ft- NOV - Cots -A 1-6 0 660 ok 7 + A-s r-0,Â·, (inlicate strekt ackiress, lot & block ~nober, legal descripticn Viere appripriate) 3) Present Zoning 0 4) Iot Size 5) Applicant's Name, Adiress & Phone # /haA'/1 5-03 /22Â£ 647 Â¥ 6-fe' 00 I Â£30 1-1 M B- j A s r-n - 6) Representative's Name, Address & phone # ~Wt | | LA Ra,r-4-tr / *ill DiAS moor , Dot EL- lu\41 41-Â· , lat--ir>414 7) Type of Application (please check all that apply): Conditicnal Use Conceptual SPA - an~*lal Historic Ie:. Special Review Final SPA Final Histoic Dev. 8040 Greenline Conceptual RJD K Minor Histaric De:. - Stream Migin Final IUD Histoiric Damliticn Mountain View Plane Subdivisicn ------ Historic Designaticn Oc~aniniumization Text/Map Amendmerxt - QUS AlluL=.1 Lot Split/Lot Line - GUS Ebaq:ticn Adjustment 8) Description of Existing Uses (rumber and type of existing str-Â£:tures; approximate sq. ft.; number of bedrooms; any previous approvals granted to the property). -- 8*7 .... Cit 9) Description of Development Applicatian 9447 ?r-~ 0-f- ~~â‚¬4a- tor a-/r-*- -ftbr; c- a r- :cr-4-, 10) Have you attached the following? Response to Attachment 2, Minimum Submission Contents Response to Attachment 3, Specific Sulmission Contents Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards; for Your Applicaticn . Minimum Submission Contents 1. & 2. : This required information is contained in the Land Use ADplication Form. 3. Ownership of the property is legally noted on the Certificate of Occupancy (xerox included in packet). 4. Vicinity mao included 5. Permission requested for a fabric and plastic air-lock entry at the front Main Street entrance to the Main Street Bakery & Cafe. The air- lock will be hung from an existing porch roof and be anchored on an existing oorch floor measuring 120" across and 34" wide. No structural changes or additions to existing building are required. Fabric areas will be minimal (side pieces - front will be mostly clear vinyl) and will be of a color matching the stucco exterior of the building so as not to attract attention. Specific Submission Contents 1. See 5. above. 2. See swatch of fabric provided. 3. See scale drawing submitted. 4. We feel that the proposed air-lock will have little or no visual impact on the structure, since none of the historic architectural elements will be hidden by the air-lock, and that the character of the neighborhood will not be affected. /14Â« 2\ 11 4 Jeog vt.3 - tall i C. 2 9 --f 6410,1 --4~-- 1 3 , r 1 . . '111 F i t 51< I,ncts, L.0 /01*1. vi 'Al . / 1 1 I j i or- 1 --0)642 vulf l - f 1 4.)24*#-214 v -;42,-C 1 â‚¬fel p qeour< * 41 '7 %409 â‚¬ U(-47(4 'Â·*43 3 13?;*Â·f.32*ti~~ r ../ 14.e - 4 ./ . - j ECJL. Â· 0V Â· - .=1*.:....:22-494.19 . * 1 -7 - r....f ev. Irrimirilililifillilicillillil 2 . *- -â€¢2/9 I ... ' ./ $ . I 13441 4 - C-, - 40==*21~ --O.) m-f? m= j j [ - 1--~mal.m'.Il/~ . , :El - . 7 - 1 R.0>41- .2 + h I -- 2 :EN - 1 1 -7 i .- â€¢ba-==3 1 t- 1 ----.EE---4= . - 7 1 .... - 1 - -- I. &2-/ , -- . Ell:*M/47'IN'*'vill"vi.,4,3- i .21- . . . Al. ~~~L 62= 1 -- . - 9 W - . 1-61. 4 . ..4 , 1 , , ~ r.* ~ -~- ~- ~ 1 4. / 6.t 3Â·,p Â·Â· ' P r 1 .* I I. '-'=./.- * 8 ') , 2,4.17 '47*1Â·,Â·.Â·>. . ..Â·flt k.i I 4..4 Â·. Â· \ fi tifltfi~;~'e~Â·Â·~%Â·.< AVÂ¢,1:..;.1-.1:, . ..El:> \.1 2 1':4&:h*M. :/1 6 2.T . t . L, t~â€¢~ Â· Â·Â·Y ~ - %:7-q..32..1,1.,. . .1' 2- 7 7 *P- I'lliktkUP,-7 ./. 4': T 10.4 I f ' /1 i 1 - Mift#/WAK f.*3R / \ P 1. L , , 3.. 27.11 4 - 01 Â· It / ie 2.-~i!14* f:~?~ i.*VWVA Â¥ #f-'- T 1 Â¥ 4 ~1 - ' '2 - M ...5'. 75. -- 4-:-t , -, I 1 1 1 1.- Â· U ** i t.i .re i 1 p... . 19 M I f . ~:2!IT//Â£6~/17/I 1.4 --4. - ==X ' ...It- 1,4 - .. -#I I . -- i I -. - , I . I 4-1 I-I 42*4949 -. F -2 :2. 3.-4 â€¢ ..,1 s im 0 1 u - - 11&* 2 -494:. 3- I P.Orthe.6 1 W /Yll,knyEN- .I Â·.1Â·Â¥Itsâ‚¬73.-- I .- . i Li'%*23&1Â·0//IM . wit it It t '1 4..r' 1 14 : F <-3?f>351 21- *Â· 12 : i :-Â· 14 1 R .UZ.. Â· t Â·- '1 1-1 alti -/ - 3 1 - V. Â· 2... 6 . t u.: fUS . 8.- , . I ~4 IL#â‚¬14.-%.. - - mle:* ti Ate 8, ..1 . ' ... A .-. A , Ilf/ 3-94. '6 -Â· '. 4-:I jfl% 16; -,4 . 8 - 1 - i ,~ W.'ll"14*mavamm#~igfu - 1 67 .424+J- , 1-- I. 2.d~ , 4 -,i f- .. 3-_I-#//% - _t~~ . *Elimuniiju lilli 111 11 vt Al ATEMI]MENT 1 7 LAND USE APPIKCATION FORM D . 1) Pmject Name rka 4 9-1 -t~to an f (3 te 2) Project location Rot E. H A 1-0 St, $Â£,rA 4 41#c_ 8,6 el /6 7 9 (indicate street' address, 16t & block nunber, legal description Were apprcpriate) 3) Present Zoning C-~ 4) Iot Size 5 0,1 Norls 5) Applicant's Nan4, Address & Bione # ttixj St. -R,#Lgry Â¢ ClAG goi R MajÂ·w Er 91 5-6 996 6) Representative's Name, Address & Fhone # ~~. //4 3/4)1446Â©.42 3-0 j E. MA ,Â» st . 92 5.- 6946 7) Type of Application (please check all that apply): . 1 anditional Use Conceptual SPA C_--r'ual Historic Dev. Special Review Final SPA Final Historic Dev. Al 8040 Greailine conceptual POD ~'~' Minor Historic Dev. Stream Margin -I--=.0 Final RID Historic Danolition Mountain View Plane Subdivision - Historic Designation -ation Teoct/Map Amendlnent - (203 AllotmerIt Iot Split/Int line - CMOS E)=Iption Adjustment Descri ntion of Existing Uses Â· (r,=ber andf type of ecisting structures; approodmate sq. ft.; umber of bedrocms; any previous appravals granted to the property). Ch Fe,) FL46.Ar di-L -TRo Eulb, - E,q-1-400Â« . 0,ue 0,0 iLE EAst â‚¬Ae Â¢ 09 6 00 1 RE UWL &-,tr (geÂ©JA, U 9) DeSgjption of Develcpnent Application \0 jbdose. 4 A )\Ae-16 52te., v Â©Ul: )â‚¬ 69;14 A Râ‚¬pwov,qlok AR 1 Â·h94_ 9â‚¬Aceâ„¢;Al ~20(~48-G -10 CR.EA-h- A,J ;41. 104<. 10) Have you attached the following? Response to Attadiment 2, Mininim Sulinission Contents Respanse to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Oontents Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application 3 1 i.lilli ./.:Ezii' Minimum Submission Contents 1. 8 2. : This required information is contained in the Land Use Application Form. 3. Ownership of the property is legally noted on the Certificate of Occupancy (xerox included in packet). 4. Vicinity map included 5. Permission requested for a wainscot, wood and plexiglas enclosure to create an air-lock entry at the front (Main St) entrance to the Main St. Bakery & Cafe. The air-lock will be built within the existing vestabule. No structural changes or additions to the existing building are required. Specific Submission Contents 1. See 5. above. 2. See scale drawing submitted. 3. We feel that the proposed air-lock will have little or no visual impact on the structure, since none of the historic architectural elements will be hidden by the air-lock, and that the character of the neighborhood will not be affected. , . U ., ImmI!!Ii I *.. It 1:. . Ea r . 6,--- -. v . - 1............. 253044Â» f1 . 4 ..l I 3 1.4 1 - Elli -f.- .:f' ' ~ r . f 11 L : * I f --- 11 41 0 - r/4 , , 1 -' b -, Ir . .. -. . 464Â¢04 .. MARK YOUR CALENDARS! r 6th Annual '\ COI,ORRbo STATE PRESERVAT-TON.C~FERENCE! September 13 - 15, 1991 Historic Manitou Springs ### 1 .-1 ~CALL FOR NOMINATIONS! COLORADO PRESERVATION HONOR AWARDS <Nominations deadlihe.:.4-August 15, 1991 \Award-+Presentation: Septei?ibe~ 14, 1991 1 (durmg the~Efsema.tlefl.9nference) 0*%Manitou Springs \\7.-111/#- -SRONSORED BY: COLORADO PRESERVATIOAL INC. Please phone ( 303)-925=4935-far-information 4 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of November 13, 1991 201 E. MAIN STREET - MAIN STREET BAKERY - FRONT ENTRY AIR LOCK Roxanne: Main Street Bakery has a dilema and is loosing heat and do not wish to go another winter. People line up and keep the door open. They need some kind of airlock system. Two proposals have been presented for consideration: one is a clear vinyl and fabric system and the other is wood and glass. This is the only terrace style structure found in Aspen. Staff is concerned that the more permanent solution does not respect necessarly the architecture and that the architecture cannot read through the transparency. That it is block off and changing the visual character that the building projects to the street. The Planning Office ended up recommending either the vinyl and fabric airlock proposal due to its reversibility or a fully transparent glass enclosure. Both must be utililzed only in the winter months. Bill Dinsmore and Sally Barnett, owners: We also added another design which is the waynscott and glazing which would be temporary in the winter as well. Roxanne: Glenn an I talked with Bill and the thought was brought up of relocating the front entrance in the winter months to the east door. The applicant decided that wouldn't be conducive. The porch encroaches into the public right away. Bill Dinsmore: The Bldg. Dept. had a problem with the door opening onto a step. An air lock only works properly if you can close the one door before opening the next. So you need enough space. Roger: They would loose the space where the cookies are displayed. Jake: What about utilizing a fixed door. Roxanne: The Main Street bakery contributes vitality to the street edge and moving the entrance doesn't really work and it takes away from the front entrance and would also look like the bakery was closed. According to the guidelines if you are going to do a porch enclosure it has to be transparent. MOTION: Joe made the motion that HPC grant minor development approval for 201 E. Main in accordance with the recommendation in the memo for the vinyl and fabric airlock or fully transparent glass enclosure. Either must be fully reversible and utilized only 3 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of November 13, 1991 during the winter months. Revised plans to be submitted to Staff and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit; second by Roger. Sally Barnett: That means to me no waynscotting in the front and I feel we should talk about that because I feel nervous about the safety if it is glass floor to ceiling. Roxanne: Could it be tempered glass above and plexie glass below. Jake: The entire thing could be tempered. Roger: Two questions, one have you checked with the Bldg. Dept. to see if this is allowed and if the waynscotting is removable. Roxanne: The Bldg. Dept. has not reponded yet and the waynscotting is removable. Glenn: It would be to their benefit to take it down when the weather gets better. I find that the waynscotting is compatible with the building. I would vote for it even if it was permanent due to the necessity. If the scale of the waynscotting is kept to a couple of feet the doors would be visible and you would know what is going on. Bill: I think the waynscotting is a stronger solution and would be in favor of the motion if it included the waynscotting and a definition of the winter months November through April. AMENDED MOTION: Joe amended his motion to allow for the waynscotting as presented,on the sketch A2 and.that the winter 10-hth-Â§-wourE be defined as November through April) or less; second by Roger. AMENDED MOTION: Bill: I would also be in favor of relocating the door to a north south orientation that would swing back against the fixed door that is there now so that it is not seen. It would be in alignment with the last mullion and open against the back and would have the flow that is necessary for egress. Joe amended his motion; second by Roger. All in favor except Jake. Motion carries. Roxanne: No new door is visible from the street edge. Bill: Right. Bill Dinsmore: What about another door of canvas floppy where the door is shown down just in case the Bldg. Dept has a problem with the door. I am not going to be able to put a door there because 4 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of November 13, 1991 it doesn't come onto a landing but they may consider a fabric. Bill: Even if that is so I feel it should be alignment and not visible from the street. Would give a more transparent look to it. Roxanne: He is saying in addition to that have a clear vinyl sheet. Glenn: They make a light weight metal frame with a clear plastic window. I would be willing to allow flexibility to work out with the monitor. 5 A January iii 1991 Mrs. Sally Barnett Mr. Bill Dinsmoor Main Street Bakery 201 E. Main St. Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Minor Development awning/air lock application Dear Sally and Bill: I wanted to let you know that at the last HPC meeting, time was given to review your application for a temporary air lock at the bakery. The HPC had a number of suggestions for alternate designs, none of which were exterior. Their basic problem was the visibility of the air lock, understanding that it was mostly Of clear plastic and tan acrylic, seasonal and attached to the existing structure. The entire board felt is was too incompatible, and recommended that in lieu of an internal air lock structure (which obviously takes up space), or the side entrance idea we tossed around earlier, that you attach the air lock material just inside the door so it is not visible. Although I hesitate to compare this example to the Main Street Bakery, Boogies has installed a clear plastic strip system at their door (perhaps you've seen it?). I'm sorry your idea was not approved, and recommend you keep brainstorming ideas. I know interior floor space is at an extreme premium, but I suppose heat is too! Please submit a new application if you would like the HPC to take another look. Sincerely, Roxanne Eflin Historic Preservation Officer 1 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1) Project Name MA n tf- EZE Ide-,O + aye- 2) Project Iocation 0 0 4 60 90 k{ aâ€ž h %-tÂ·, 0-Â£ FL<h Cot-4 -A ,-6 6 CLo ok_ 74 4-1 92-Â« (indicate streat address, lot & block Alimber,' legal description where appropriate) 3) Present Zoning O 4) Lot Size 5) Applicant' s Name, Address & Phone # /4 AN n -9-# Baker 4 + aft 90 I -Ca %-1- M At_- , A & r-Â·4 6) Representative's Name, Address & Phone # 3* 1 #1 6-/1-p.\rt-1- 3 6.7 1 1 131 n & moo r 20 i n. Mil n th . 91 C-- 6+1 (e , 7) Type of Application (please check all that apply): corxlitional Use Conceptral SPA Cbnceptual Historic Dev. Special Review Final SPA Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline Conceptual RJD ,\ Minor Historic Dev. Stream Margin Final IUD Historic Demolition Mountain View Plane Subdivision Historic Designation Condigniniumization Tect/Map Amendment GUS Allotment Lot Split/Lot Line - (M,3 Ebaption Adjustment ' 8) Description of Existing Uses , (rumber and type of existing structures; approximate sq. ft. ; number of bedroans; any previous appruvals granted to the property). ... 81*I,Ce - rl.42.e-, j 9) Description of Development Applicatian a <1 44 Â» Of- e-teÂ« t or Cur--bA- -Â¢z:t, 6 r; c-. Al' r - Co C-04-, U . 10) IIave you attached the following? Response to Attadrnpnt 2, Minimmt Stihnission Contents Response to Attachment 3, Specific Sukinission Occrtents Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application f ~~~- 9â‚¬+ - C#kilâ€¢LCI\*Q : /10~ / A ~'plt?el * *,A.Â£4 ij#, c <sal Ee,-4 3 . # 14< (156 Â¢ 6 4Â£ 14113 046+ l 0 j'003 0%/10 1*r yo purl QUALI ploÂ°\9\,0 'p +43 4- 0 p U A O/J -f V.b 9 " ,21 -4 - -4 s,IJ,;4 7'31 3 ~KDC.] ~rl /4 01411-jo (9)101 u 17(y )3011 'LJO +36)) 2 (fl /4 4 41401 /-371.,9 4 .4-14 4 f , r , 1, #~, & 2 01, / : 1 & 1 A hA 93 4 - r -r --- li ..1 5 1-71 1 - 0 , -Il- 11 ; L .-- 1 I lit <11. /1 i I * 19-al:"F#:(7\J '1 ' -V, j 1 1 1 1< i 1; C C .lk \1 \ ~ ' i 337*7 5 11 4 -1 -1 il. 11 / j 1 # Â»L 1 j i\,2 -697 '24 0-0 (no (A 439 U 3,;1 /LAU -rt, 4 . F. TF- 48 13,2, c i Â¢ F t M L \/ 4 #l - 1,\ ty//,22(~ It Jex + 6 0 4 1 1 4 11 1 1 /1 \1, .A.)' tj DOk, , \1 1 bOOL j . i . 11 11 Q f 1 (3.-D ht 51 0 /3 5 F A ovT illuai 61-ftÂ· '1,-Lt * r - ta - 1 0 i 21.-J - >L-- 4. 76 4 52 1 - C 4- F C . . , 1~ (4 4 r) 2,-1 5 0 3 62 1 K.-n 7-upÂ·-Â·- V 1. i :P I ~/f I r- 3, I 1 1 -mw-./ 1 d 1 i I r \ 12/6. 64/17 3 ' 1 2, A 7 $~ 1 1 ~ /l \\11 I j lil'' 1 / ---71 -- - . f' L j Â· L., 9,W-3 0 Â£.-0~ 1 /l j /4 ' /34- T 9\ 0Â«14 - 1 il i 1 i I r \Â¢ 'v 1 FtilÂ¢,5 \ 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 Id- . M 7\ -2-- r-99 . Â«7 ' // f Exce- Stru~In , f -/-0--/4~__-jlÂ»~~ ~'i designated. ~-L ' 1 U-----1- , not yet designated a -'10 -NAa--IM- -A-- V, 46----------- Notable..St[1MZ11nl . designated e too . .00 \ not yet designated o 1-9 41, \ \ 0 . . Â· gr ~02%Â« j ,Il--1 : \1 Con.*-a Â§,100 0 200 400 EXISTNG HSTOAC DISTIETS 1. Inan street 1.Â« \ ; 22Â«45 4 * tâ‚¬2*2-QmIEE:IalME~QUSE*BAI**1 1 aA . . 2. comnercial core 0 j 0 -90\ 1-7/ 1 ~ 5.community church - 4 haltam take 3.west bleeker/halam street aA\(...,-1 Â·, 6.lift 1 / \-,Â·1 a P' i â‚¬ c.=7 7/ 3--- 1 R. 0( <le ..4...~~- .1//9 1---1- / b?C 21 1 93h --1 Â·. .-I 9 .*rE-M\\. 266\ .6Â»< Â»,k / 947/1/ ,/4-14 -1-12-2 1*vilkkE \r.-3:-11 .....1.t ... 7 --f-Zil-1- */ 1.-_-2,'Zillill tki'VE,<J ; r--- 1 4/2Â«j J _ LA' 1 1,0.--1 1.1 \ ,. 5 r / )10 1111 1 diâ€¢i 12.E.... :i'. 'Jf Â·-Â·Â· - ' 1, 1 11 1 i{ 11 1 1. 9 R , i liu,1 .:', rui'.1 01'111, lifilili~B,i'''.. \ 4 1-EME].,11 4 6\ ill'pilh 11!1111!J! ill,0 1.,Z 1. 1, 1. 1 1 1 .1., ) 1 4 4~ - v ii~ ~1~~ ''.-~1'i. .~144 1111 IR<.0 1 1:1' 1~Jlr , !14~~~1 i,T'TE.'i'@181'ILL'r il ~ ~~frt, ~ ,Â£ -2-126432,/49 ./.9 11- 1 , Â· 1 11.:. 0 ' . . P ....?11, 'n z.Â¢0/j 1,1,1,4 -W== 1 -,11'llt,~ t'Â£},41 f ..,*<r -4 . l ~ 1 ~ 1~ I itf 39-Â·Â· j~ -~ ~"- .1 1 11.~Illtl fti'!0,0 1,~'.. t/, , Fili---1 - liii i|iw z 1141; il'M F*41,9 *1;'Ii,ilil.liMUI'] .5211~1#1" , 4Â£8llAER .114 11Hht 2- ' 9 -444"1 E '444 4Â» i pill 1111111~' 1 lillig 1 01111 4 111,1 '1. In,}149(Ulll11, 014""1' 'gaMHu46FiAH '4* fi~~~~-1'ilf~'Iht''~1''ll" 11'1~lic.i. -- -... ,=- = --- I * ij' lii[Un:1 lillai'IF'L~i.MI IMTILIFill:Il!4,Il'll liN,4 C /,4 , 43:J V IN I|11 21 39111!42! 1!11DAI~.1111'lij 16:ile,11:5-63:'2:JT~li il 1.Iguu[Imil!111'1,8 1.-.. - â€ž, 0,.1 92 , ... 9*d: UITilil] Â· 11<11111-~1 ffllÂ·{11*lili I Ii'fill ;IfiwÂ® 1249# [Er,JIi[.1 ~4 ~.1 -ME.lt EÂ·RII!illÂ· FWIill ?Illill MI Ir[Wl[Il Illwilh ' 10=.Â·. : milÂ·11111 11'1111!ililili IIi ili.lilillzi j jiu.911. iii:66:Â·lia'Ililll-~ IpE]Ii Wl'll' Ilidl"Il 'WI'llot 1111111(114Â·lll#Lul 1111!1Mlit[ 1111- lilli lili 11 Â£ 2 1 1)1' r r , --4111 111.14111111>%[Ift'll'W!1111'111,9 18,18WNH lit Widi INWHII 111'11.1 111 %411!111, 11IWINI {1110?Im ITIWITIA 111}111Uil!11 11'WI ~1 19'' 38=&474 :iii.UNII I~1111!111 . lj!: Â£1E1|*11]11#8 . 11!Ill![!1 Â®11111 1Â®01 16' 111111* 811!illil. 111111111] 111!Ii!11]~~1~ 11 411#111-1 Â·11111 . , 4 7 1 11*""Bilb 1-'.1......., I ... - -442 1@~â€¢i< 'il Â·: IÂ·[liTI]!1-'TIC?il [II*III] ' 1-1116.1 , ., : - .... //4361#11+14/ [IDE EÂ®El (rl Inii.4 - - ]ENHE [Imii] Mt,BID u [wyâ‚¬~*UB fwill] ~*0* .Al'/,O.- - - .Â·;â€¢Illy/Kipli . Â· i :9; 84 i--~Jmtif[itt].amil-i mflil. i~ -in rilt* - . . ..41: . ' c~= . . Â· 96* \~ >.A XJ UP Er. il 0/174 t x<72>* m *1 WA 41 i Xt. A 1- litiz\ CittIA-1=4* A .-4 ---lli,~,i:.Ua~,~ --- - 8% 4 - -. - :F Â¢mt <'' 2, '2 ky- - *0 Â¢rrtifirate of @rritpattig a Â£ 4 992 .@ 4 -Ilt f.Â» 35.1 r 3% t.5 ASPEN*PITKIN .* . g.:33- 4 9 =i REGIONAL BUILDING DEPARTMENT -= 0.52 Â·361-Â»za Â· 02 451 ... ... * *,4 *â€¢f % This Certificate issued pursuant to the requirements of Section 301 i ~A 2 04* 2/ 02 6'- ofthe 1979 Edition of the Uniform Buildig Code It certifies that at the date of Cre . ..Â». 24 4. 241$7 9* =G- iss.ance, th2 structure as described below was in compliance with the warious resolutions =Â· â‚¬ .2 g and ordinances regulating building construction and use in this jurisdiction- i tle. Cnimerrinl (Rpkpry/C=~p': RkE Prrnlit 869 ,= 2 7 .:4 -- -0 Leg:21 Ap75/*ion Lots A, B, C, Block ,4, Aspen Town_site Al" fi BuiklnÂ¥ 4/thrjo 201 West Main Street .:PÂ« Claude Conner - ' Owner d Bujking F *2 d>Y~ 3 f .1- f ~*Der AkheÂ¥ 1480 W. Sierra Dr., Aspen, CO 81611 st:;X e i Gr~ 3-2 L E,6 0-9 Trpe Construction r-N Use Zone 0 i *f'* bfit 34 *34 4 Descrip~n 2430 square feet; remodeled to add cafe store area, 14 2 - ..1 two bathrcens, kitchen, bakery. 42.23 - t- ba 242 %04- .I~'* A 4 gr 7% #i RAA VÂ» 4% <46 Comments & Ratrictiocs: F **270 t-- 1 6 :4&94-Â» 2 =Â¥. apr: 32Â» 04 E -6 4 4,P 94 0.50 * *le.7 2 i~-al \,9 t - 4- -~ 6 4:~ 69 i Ct- 2-70~ Date Ls a r / a. Lâ‚¬ Â» 2 - 33' 1 / 8-kin z OfF ciat - 2 7 44% Fig - Â» W# 4 >â‚¬%44 1 3' Note. Any alteration e: use change of these described premises or pot 31 the reofwithout T &23 .:.SuÂ·,-w:.: .1 - the wri:zen approval of the Building Official shall neizate this C.O. and subject it to mi -*g. '04. A -e * 309 revcratier ...1 4 Â«73 POST IN A CONSPICUOUS PLACE Ult /4. 39 * fil! 111 .-..--I.--- ..W--=.=V-U--.i .- .- - -- 11--EE--1529'i=4~ 1-- 1./.- 2.-24 tÂ»/1-4 D.. 30 De 4. - Â» 4.<6 Jsb 07 .'â€¢411..-I /-,-k. 115EE -â‚¬2% , - 44 & \,1 ~11///4,49 Â·Vi, Minimum Submission Contents 1. & 2. : This required information is contained in the Land Use ADplication Form. 3. Ownership of the property is legally noted on the Certificate of Occupancy (xerox included in packet). 4. Vicinity map included 5. Permission requested for a fabric and plastic air-lock entry at the front Main Street entrance to the Main Street Bakery & Cafe. The air- lock will be hung from an existing porch roof and be anchored on an existing Dorch floor measuring 120" across and 34" wide. No structural changes or additions to existing building are required. Fabric areas will be minimal (side pieces - front will be mostlv clear vinyl) and will be of a color matching the stucco exterior of the building so as not to attract attention. Specific Submission Contents 1. See 5. above. 2. See swatch of fabric provided. 3. See scale drawing submitted. 4. We feel that the proposed air-lock will have little or no visual impact on the structure, since none of the historic architectural elements will be hidden by the air-lock, and that the character of the neighborhood will not be affected. , A a. 91 a - 0 - A .* ...'I -1..= - 11* (!Irrtifirate of @frivattrat -1 10- * 'Ai ASPEN*PITKIN * 39 9,t 4 Â» : REGIONAL BUILE]ING DEPARTMENT >~5 2 9 - --ZE- - E.* , 22 4â€¢= 1 415 Certificau issued pursuant to the requiremenm of Section 307 - , *-1. -t=- ofthe 19,9 Edition of the Uniform Buildig Code Itcertijies that at thedate of 4 . 1# *f t. 1 4,2 ~ =-t iss.Â£1Ace. [kt structure as described below was in compliance with the various resolutions = ~Va and ordinances regulating building construction and Uu in this jurisdiction- 22_â‚¬ X Â¢Â·1 bc (3=NArxion CommerriAl (RAkery/(bfe) RkÂ¥ Permit 869 Lots A, B, C, Block 74, Aspen Townsite 10 /0 42 - -1 Buikjing-* 201 West Main Street Claude Conner -4 J Of,-t*=r o~ Buiking_ 4 0â€¢-rhel= Â¥kirrx 1480 W. Sierra Dr., Aspen, CO 81611 ~1. adz -= -1-9 ' - t,f Grel~p 3-2 D-pe Construction V-N 1 4 Zone 0 14 i 2430 square feet; remodeled to add cafe stere area, :7, -**~i two bathrocos, kitchen, bakery. 10 5 SE R *VE 4 9 4.21 f 4 9 Q 4 9 1 1 -4-70 8*ing Of!icial Date 1 6 i- 9% <F / gw '. > --- & L~CbLI1~XIAI -<7 r. C , IiI- â‚¬= t t i .4 Not= Any akeratecer usechange ofthese described premises or ponion thereofwithout - -12* 2 CE=r appÂ·ro, al of the Building Official shall negate this C.O. and subject it to 1 â‚¬11 rei-Ceazix . fl,;dI POST IN A CONSPICUOUS PLACE w - ~s----- 6 4 Y di -. 2.--2-,8--wJLO-wig :606000-Mjew:19H/'6*6(0.6*t~,C .., -v--. --1--.-.- --P *~4, ale,â‚¬.3,Â· 44 --2022 4.2.> - .0- t i -9.-i 1Â« /4% , 1 Â¥ 4 -4 \ . 1,7 W 49,34% - / ;. - 1 - ./.; 71--ir Ix . P -Â»0<t )1 -- --- i FIGURE 111.2 1 1/ -2 1 (1980 INVENTORY 141-*ieRic SffS AND STRUCTURES : LEGEND -0- 4__ --- -- 21 <1986 UP[)~ ~1~ / m,1 yet ded.ted o 1 ///F - Exceotional Structures \Â»UÂ»Â«Â»11\-2 1 ASPER COL 3 designated . MEEPA~ED IY TYE ASPE*1/linc- M.A--G ACE 0-U ~ ~1 , ' designated a not yet designated A N21&12!9__2fugtu[513 designated e '00 \Â· Cg!*buting Structres o 1 i not yet designated o \\\M~\3 0 200 400 / 'Clus \\ 1 1. man street 2- corâ„¢nercial core 0 - 1 3.west bleeker/hagam street 1- 341Â« 6 0--1 1-V. /LAv| . !1@IQ~_PÂ§IBÂ¤iLE{)ER-CQtisaBAI]0 4.hallam lake T< \ 1 6.lift 1 5.community church 1 1 1 \ i '19'-60 \ ' 0_Ii ' 16 9 l=-13 0-- \3 81 \Liu<< .....///1 1 / 1 \L .,4 Â»/ 1 )-- /<--=\\ 7\\ \\22Â¤4// -3~ Â·r-3 -2~1-Â·ift; A-Â«n ~tr.~ FRK .. ~~)') m: :I j / /t / . 1 FIt IN \ -44/Â»1\ 4 / \\ - 4 ./ r,T= 1 /--1-- V / 11.It< m '12'::11.11.-4. '/ f .. . . ... r LF#1 4 111}Rlit 1 :11, 3,.91 20' .. 0!41 1 'r'Ii',1 :S L_in_.__lillii-â€¢:11:144- r .. - -1-1-1--1 3-Jk_ fn Â· , . 14, , 0 N./ r C i:.1 45~ . ... , ..1- --19.-; L. .9.i'PUU N F-~i 111~NLN Â·Â· . 44{ 1 4 - - +Viii j tj f--111*i '1107 :JITIVU:!11415119 L@20i-'lf}2.~1 -T@31 ;03?6 :i [[Im-JI] ig~ [3~ e.,EL, --- - Ii- i I Wr 11 1 1 1 1 1 , [IiI~E NTPYT[I Fimie LI e 1 l,2 iL. 1 19 ; I Â·. 1 ! ! L ' 1 Ull.11 ~ . -- - - - - e -0~.----*2> t[[ [[[WE n]Will' [RÂ®Rj ;ELLEDi[BWI m RW]JI]t [3IMifi ~UI!' i[I'lll i-IN ![~ITI[Fi]1 [8-WIiI] i Ui]4[[ - - - C~ ~.~g . i 141 ! Ill r Ic ~411 M 1 ! OIWIth --0-3 [ZifT ~ I[WIE 1~ Â· [ITIHII 1 !4; i il; [it-11 LLjouu.~ u~.4-d l -3 6 21~ Xi*:441 lili 181- 33 -p ~-14:!flifil rmiimir [FIESM'112 -caltto. 111111!m dmn: , lu pi iâ€¢ IE[1*' &111[l]11, 11IIBI[Il LUM11121 â€¢ -Â· - â€¢ i i i i i i i , i r~TTT -- -Lit*Emi [Id{11| i [[F[IÂ®B .fEE] OWEII M]]11-mi rm[[im [[[* - 1 HE ULLLE. ULL:. 8.*x,Â· -- - [-lilkb!Â·.1.u.1 81*Fm-Â·Â·{IUm] JIÂ®I]] -*] ~ ' ji=m.T.-1 '74*-1-Kir~[m [IP' , 1 PU 1.Â»Mâ€¢!,f-1-2&1 V U{:1 1 ' -- - 1 - - Nao/4 . . 9 1 3/2 --.- <04>6 :11~ii- Â· - - 8% diME mul-1- 1 . 7- -.1_11 i -/ - 0 M E- 2511 - 1 . Amy y ! 31'.7 1 1 3-- - (1 ---- / . q- 111.19 --.--- 1 --eÂ·