Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.325 E Main St.HPC 56-923 1 S £ Wican Legends of Aspen Minor Review 2737-073-29-004 HPC56-92 7~- 1 1 P L .. CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen Historic Preservation Committee DATE RECEIVED: 12/21/92 CASE NUMBER: HPC 56-92 DATE COMPLETE: PARCEL ID#: 2737-073-29-004 PROJECT NAME: Legends of Aspen Minor Development Review Project Address: 325 E. Main APPLICANT: CanAm Development Applicant Address: REPRESENTATIVE: Craig Glendenning Representative Address/Phone: TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: X 2 STEP: 3 STEP: HPO Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption: HPC Meeting Dates: P&Z Meeting Date: CC Meeting Dates: 1st 2nd REFERRALS: Planning Building Zoning City Engineer Parks Dept. City Attorney DATE REFERRED: INITIALS: DUE: FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: INITIAL: City Atty City Clerks Office Other: FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: COMMENTS: 0 0 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer/44 Re: Minor Development: 325 W. Main, Legends of Aspen Restaurant, airlock Date: December 23, 1992 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Minor Development approval for the temporary airlock at the front door of Legends. APPLICANT: CanAm Development, represented by Craig Glendenning ZONING: CC, "H" Historic Overlay District NOTE: The applicant has been red-tagged, as the airlock was installed without approval from the HPC or a building permit. The attached photographs clearly indicate the appearance of this airlock. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The Development Review standards are found in Section 7-601 of the Land Use Code. 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: Staff finds that this airlock installation does not meet this Standard. It is not compatible in character with the structure, especially due to its adjacency to numerous adjacent landmarks (Elli's - next door - and the Hotel Jerome and Aspen Times buildings and across the street.) The Planning Office finds that the size, style and inharmonious color of this airlock is incompatible and out of character with this structure. A great deal of time and effort went into the review of the Elli's addition, and staff finds that this canvas and vinyl airlock attachment detracts from the quality design of this building and of the immediate block. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: This parcel is located within the Commercial Core Historic District, and is prominent on Main Street. We find that this airlock is inconsistent with the historic district, immediate neighborhood, and the character of the Aspen community. We find A I .. that this Standard has not been met, and recommend that the HPC deny this application. 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 design of this airlock diminishes the cultural value of the parcel, and recommend that the proposal be denied. 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: The Planning Office finds that the design of this airlock significantly detracts from the architectural integrity of this parcel. Its size and style is not complimentary to the architectural design of the Elli's addition. It appears out of scale and largely competing with the mostly vertical nature of the building. We find that Standard #4 has not been met, and we recommend that the HPC deny this application. ALTERNATIVE: Due to the apparent energy efficiency needs of the establishment (north facing door), the applicant may desire to present a redesigned airlock for the HPC's review. We recommend the applicant work to devise an interior airlock system that does not detract from the architectural, cultural and character compatible of this parcel within the historic district. If that is not possible, staff would support the approval of a transparent, opening specific airlock for temporary use to be removed no later than April 15, 1993. Staff recommends a 24 hour removal deadline of the existing airlock devise. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC deny Minor Development approval for the airlock at 325 E. Main (Legends), finding that none of the Development Review Standards have been met. We further recommend that the applicant be given 24 hours to remove it. Should the applicant wish to return to the HPC with a revised proposal for a temporary airlock design, an application to the Planning Office will be required. Additional comments: memo.hpc.325em.md.airlock 2 .. LAND USE APPLI Lele/ds- 0.23 ED™ 1) Pmject Name 4 3 2 11: r 2) Project Iocation Ma- t /O (indicate street address, lot & block nunber, legal description where appropriate) 3) Present Zoning 4) Iot Size 5) Applicant's Name, Address & Ehone # ~ € q c-/0 ~/ 0 ~ ~J/r» 71 <1, -31 Y € M 41 A 6) Representativels Nam?, Airess & rhone # ' c p U e,/fl v.1 3 6 0 E#, AUS '1 34 E. 91/-/ 1/1 Type of Application (please check all that apply): 'i Conditional Use Conceptual SPA Concephial Historic Dev. Special Review Final SPA Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline Conc~eptual POD _~ Minor Historic Dev. Stream Margin Final POD Historic Danolition 14ountain View Plane - Subdivision _- Historic Designation Taxt/Map Amendment (20 Allotment Iat SpliVIot Line GM33 E)oemption Adjustment Description of E:xisting Uses · (number and * type of existing structures; approorimate sq. ft.; B mher of bedrocms- any p[[evious approvals granted to the property). A·-20-0;( 1100 sq 'Ted 9) Description of Deyelfpnent Application 451; r. 160k 10) Have you attached the following? Response to Attadment 2, Minimm Sulnission Contents Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Contents Response to Attadment 4, Review Standards for Your Application 3 1 1 l i l l i 4 . 44 ;. (7' I AA I #1 um = 9 4312?6 , . a .1 1 1 ''Ill. I . 1; r ./01 -0 1 -1, f Im'- - 14 IJAI 7.- 1 -1.1. L ·• :-,fAN i:j t~il .1!1~U~-ii - 1 - 0 - . ..1*.. , 1.-% - .F'* b- ** 1 1 P -C•im 1.144.-..~ . 4 44~i ' 73.r-/.'7 Illill lillia 11;~6'IMIMilli 71*! 0- 14 4 L E?GEMDS 1.1 - l. 1 , A 4 -....m 4. . P: • --7? 91~ 1 1. m n - - .. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET Date Received: HP CASE FILE #: Date Complete: PROJECT NAME: Project Address: APPLICANT: Applicant's Address/Phone: REPRESENTATIVE: Representative's Address/Phone: TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step Description: HPC Meeting dates: P&Z Meeting dates (if applicable): Council Meeting dates (if applicable): REFERRALS: Land Use Planner City Attorney Engineer Other Building Other Zoning Parks COMMENTS: .. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of December 23, 1992 Craig: That might work. Jake: The colors need to be compatible. Roger: All three airlocks are placed under an existing overhang. All three at this moment are canvas and I feel for this winter it will work. In the future, Jake's idea of a more solid yet transparent type of structure might work better. If Legends were attached to the inside of the building it would work better. The color doesn't work but if it were clear with a white frame it would basically not detract from the historic structure. Les: I would like them all to be able to get through the winter. Karen: I would not want them to incur any more expense this season until after we have make our decisions in the worksession. Craig: I will take down my masterpiece and the draft something and come back to the HPC. Bill: On Legends carry the character of the windows around to be more compatible. ~ MOTION: Roger made the motion that the minor development request for 325 E. Main, Legends of Aspen be denied in that it does not meet the development guidelines; second by Les. Discussion: Les: I would not mind if they kept it for another two months through the winter months in the spirit of compromise. AMENDED MOTION: Roger made the motion that HPC allow the airlock up at Legends until February 15th and at that time it should be removed second by Linda. All in favor, motion carries. MOTION: Roger made the motion that the application for the Renaissance Restaurant and Kenechi Restaurant airlocks be allowed until April 15th of this year and that the applicant reapply for next winter once we have more specific guidelines to work from; also that Kenechi's airlock be secured if possible; second by Linda. All in favor, motion carries. MOTION: Linda made the motion to adjourn; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 4:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 3 .. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of December 23, 1992 Roxanne: Signs fall under zoning. Regarding samples of material the three are already up. I feel the criteria is in place. Jake: I am uncomfortable with making the decisions without proper guidelines. Bill: Jake is saying that the standards are there but the guidance in the guideline, examples of what we would like to see are not. We haven't done enough study to know what we would like to see or apply. Linda: Trying to find an awning that is in keeping with the building is what we should be observing. Bill: We should state that anything approved here is not on a long term basis. Renaissance: I am concerned about energy conservation. If you do get guidelines you should send us a copy. Linda: Last week we reviewed Silver City Grill which was originally not intended to be a restaurant but a space designed for other purposes and then the restaurant came and suddenly the . airlock was needed. We are trying to work with the entire idea of adaptive uses to structures that are in this town. Greg Glendenning, Legends: The canvas works somewhat but it is ugly. Roger: In the code there will be numerous changes concerning energy efficiency commercial and residential. Les: We have historic buildings and guidelines. We also approved the bakery which worked. We have historic standards for buildings. Karen: What is the cost range for airlocks? Craig: Around $1500. I will comply to whatever the Board wants. Les: One of the ideas of airlocks or additions is that it is compatible and does not catch your eye. This airlock does not meet any of the guidelines. Possibly clear plastic would be better. Linda: Is there anyway that you could do an inward airlock? craig: In order to do that we would have to remove'the bar. Les: What about vertical plastic on the insid4 of the door on a frame. 2 .. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of December 23, 1992 Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Les Holst, Jake Vickery, Roger Moyer, Karen Day and Linda Smisek present. Excused were Joe Krabacher, Donnelley Erdman and Martha Madsen. Roxanne: There are two additional items that need added to the agenda regarding airlocks. MOTION: Bill made the motion to add Renaissance and Kenechi airlock proposals to the agenda; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carries. Jake: I feel we still do not have a policy except our general guidelines regarding airlocks made out of plastic etc. 311 W. NORTH - FINAL DEVELOPMENT Roxanne: Mr. and Mrs. Block are here and they are the applicant. James Weaver is the architect. There are no changes being presented. The condition from conceptual was the distinction from old and new. All parking spaces are on site. Martin Block and Bea Block: We are west north near the tent. We would like to add a duplex in the rear so that it will not impact area as the monoliths go up in the area. the area. It would enhance the area and keep the character in the MOTION: Les made the motion that HPC grant final development approval for the proposal at 311 W. North subject to council's final reading and adoption of landmark designation ordinance finding that it meets the development guidelines; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carries. MINOR DEVELOPMENT - AIRLOCKS, 325 E. MAIN LEGENDS OF ASPEN Roxanne: We are reviewing Renaissance and Kenechi also. Craig Glendenning will represent Legends and this has been reviewed. I am recommending denial of Legends because it does not meet any of the development review standards. Jake: We have been thrown this new duty and one of my concerns is the tenants. There could be several into the same structure and unless there is coordination among the different tenants they could all be different things. I do not know what their legal status is in making these applications. If we are going to be making evaluations I feel we should see the entire facade. I am not suggesting that people have to draw the entire thing but a draft would be appropriate.