The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.304 E Hopkins Ave.HPC30-92$. Â·AbÂ·f = . .U _304 E. Hopkins HPC30-92 1 Renaissance 2737-073-75-001 \ \-J / 80% AP- S C ' 1 1P 1 t7 i Crry OF ASPEN PLANNING DEPARTMENT HISTORIC PRESERVATION FEES 00113 -63335-151 EXEMPTIONS/INSUB MODIFICATIONS -63336-152 MINOR DEVELOPMENT 106.00 -63337-153 SIGNIFICANT DEVELOP. UNDER 1,000 SQ FT -63338-154 SIGNIFICANT DEVELOP. OVER 1,000 SQ FT -63339-155 DEMOIITIONS/OFFSITE RELOCATIONS TOTAL 10 0. Ch Name: R â‚¬ h A f S y GMA l f Phone: 01Â» 140 Address: (TVO W<) A â‚¬ Project :. AA j )Al Id-Â· Al *40-11Â£ - 3%514 11,< r' Sri e , 1 - ..1 j) rL Check #: .8 016 7 -.- Date: U 1 90 2/ Copies Received: / Banked: *d Lo 1 co (p p-a % Ty-u k-410_7 ) lf.'24'. 4.7.1. 4 , RENAISSANCE CHARLES DALE Chef-Owner H , 970 - 190 4 925-2402 304 E. HOPKINS Â· ASPEN, CO 81611 Ct: ARK :OG_ CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen Historic Preservation Committee DATE RECEIVED: 6/8/92 CASE NUMBER: HPC30-92 DATE COMPLETE: PARCEL ID 2737-073-75-001 PROJECT NAME: Renaissance Minor Development Project Address: 304 E. Hopkins, Aspen, CO 81611 APPLICANT: William Sequin Applicant Address: Box 4274 Aspen. CO 81612 REPRESENTATIVE: Charles Dale, Renaissance Representative Address/Phone: 304 E. Hopkins Aspen. CO 81611 TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: X 2 STEP: 3 STEP: Description Awning application HPC Meeting Dates: P&Z Meeting Date: CC Meeting Date: Historic Preservation Officer: Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption: Date: REFERRALS: Planning Building Zoning City Engineer Parks Dept. City Attorney DATE REFERRED: INITIALS: FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: INITIAL: City Atty City Clerks Office Other: FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: COMMENTS: MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer~u 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: "CC" 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 ADplication 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 Seguin 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 Â· Aspen, Colorado 81611 Â· 925-2402 The supporting structure itself is made of aluminum pipe by a reputable professional in the awning business. The structure is screwed into the brick parapet surrounding the deck, and is removeable. The awning is made of fire treated canvas, and attached to the aluminum pipe by means of aluminum clips which are easily 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 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 j C Charles Dale, Chef and President JUN 01 '92 09:39 RADISH COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS 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, A 1 i~ll <-,I ~) C> 7 William L. Seguin =m . . 1 1 1 1 - A <-3 0 I 0 6 L --v---- z /. 0 1 1 * 3) dc vt : Lrd tr i .3/1-11 4 : 1 1 3 1-- A l It 1 11 !11 1 i I - --- ~ U 1-1 1 3 0 4 6/A zIE- 4-(.-3 12* I to 1 i . ' i j P V i '3 '.3 - 1 111 -./\0 ~41-Â§12 *- #- \ -33 Eck- 31<1014 LO ALL | & Si A I Al 2---1 --I 3 04 (Eks-r Â·Ho Px 1 41 Soo -i-4 al-Vkl- 10 Ab _ 762 (Dip jin AA Â»1_ At- lÂ»- %41Â».Â»- dl â‚¬ .._1_ i i ~Ob /IK* 43Â«J..1-0~ A -____ _ 11 /7 Q i l./f- Â»WL yL 1. - 1.- t-- 'b'.- 1 t - rill 1- --- ifi - - ~ JUN 03 '92 14:43 RADISH COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS P. 1 fadish RADISH Communications Systems JUI-4 1701 14:h It/â€¢01, 0â€¢llâ€¢ 104 ...1.0,0 CO .0302 DATE 6/3)12- NUMBER OF PAGES 3 (Including this page) TO: NAME %9% Â£:Inne 64 1 0, COMPANY CITY STATE/COUNTRY TELEPHONE FAX NUMBER j -920-5/ 7 7 FROM: NAME Al\ Segui A TELEPHONE 443 - 22-37 FAX NUMBER 303443-1659 COMMENTS: IF PROBLEMS WrrH TRANSMISSION, CALL (303) 443-2237 Th,-Im,- ./Alblhâ€¢ #*Am./.â€¢006*j,NIâ€¢lk-na-h-â€¢dodo*#of-â€¢Â¢11â€¢D-*mlwâ€¢*nam/*- 1111Â» -1- 01* m-â€¢0â€¢ li not hok-d,dic*14 u b. I*M.. ~04,0.00,IllbÂ»Â» doÂ»- Â» â€¢ mi Nond,d iâ€¢~iri vou =0 h.~bÂ¥ no~Red -any.Im)-,1 dib4on efoop,N W---mi--11â€¢k*pfoh~* N,ou haver--dahcomm--nh =,of,*Mi A-M*no#â€¢14'40.4 -#Im -wea/mi'Flighb-IM--0-38. A-WS,Mo. Ic' Mu JLN 03 '92 14:44 RADISH COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS P.2 I 47 -3/ 7 k . I , . L- ._. /0 i.. /~)(/U/*6., ,45â‚¬//ef. . -217 ... .A*c, on &.1.. pram ?ae .4.,spar- 4...:i... Af-> ... L,-4 ., , . ,.1/E -O-Wa'-lte. 44 ; my. .52 9 5, , -94,23-, 6/ V Dek=.5 i FL c.lp.re il -12.-..>44: ,â€ž 60.t '6% te,#c '>,< 16 45'0-,;Pr -4. 41 Q & 0 6Q. pÂ« 06,1~1 =:Al#*'- a Â¢ 4 1) â‚¬,0 )= *F j..9'Ya=-De~74 - M A.. / a R P*v 42 ..1*jig ~ IRÂ·sÂ·Jvett b D - 31 9.7. , , .......... 1... JUN 03 '92 14:44 RADISH COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS P. 3 PITKIN COUNTY TREASURER SECOND-HALF TAX NOTICE / STATEMENT OF BALANCE DUE FOR TAX YEAR 1991 TAXPAYER NAVE: REMIT TO: SEGUIN, WILLIAM L. PITKIN COUNTY TREASURER BOX 4274 506 E MAIN STREET ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 (303) 920-5170 ASSESSED VALUATION 87,000 SCHEDULE # 0/10856 PARTIAL LEGAL DESCRIPTION: TAX BALANCE DUE 1,487.53 CONOOMINIUM UNIT 2 INTEREST 0.00 THE SEGUIN BUILDING CONDOMINIUMS ------------- TOTAL DUE 1,487.53 PAYMENT MUST BE POSTMARKED BY JUNE 15, 1992. INTEREST ACCRUES AFTER THAT DATE. CONTACT TREASURER'S OFFICE FOR AMOUNT IF PAYING AFTER JUNE 15. TO SAVE TAX DOLLARS, PLEASE USE YOUR CANCELLED CHECK AS YOUR RECEIPT. NO RECEIPT WILL BE SENT UNLESS YOU CHECK HERE. PLEASE RETURN ONE COPY OF THIS STATEMENT WITH YOUR PAYMENT ,. MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officerk 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: "CC" 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: , b 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 & I MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officerk 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: "CC" 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 adj acent 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 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officerk 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: "CC" 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: T. 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 . MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officerk 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: "CC" 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