HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.HP.520 E Durant Ave.HPC39-94.IV - r _ I.- ¥ - 83% 1-1 2- 5-9
.. CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen Historic Preservation Committee DATE RECEIVED: 11/2/94 CASE NUMBER: HPC39-94 DATE COMPLETE: PARCEL ID#: 2737-182-22-006 PROJECT NAME: Chanel Boutique Minor Historic Development Project Address: 520 East Durant APPLICANT: Chanel Inc. Applicant Address: 5 East 57th Street, New York, NY 10022 REPRESENTATIVE: Brand Allen Architects 713-621-7227 Representative Address/Phone: 1400 Post Oak Blvd. #200 Houston, TX 77056 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:
4 . /@ 0. r. MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer Re: 520 E. Durant Avenue, Chanel-Minor Date: November 9, 1994 SUMMARY: Chanel will be opening a jewelry store, in the shop next to their new boutique. There will not be any physical connection between the two stores. They request HPC approval for a storefront remodel similar to that approved for the boutique, including replacing the existing window frames, constructing vitrines inset in the windows, and a new door. An awning has already been approved by HPC for this shop. This building is not historic, but it lies within the Commercial Core Historic District. APPLICANT: Chanel, Inc., represented by Brand Allen Architects, San Francisco. LOCATION: 520 E. Durant Avenue, Lots L-S, Block 96, City and Townsite of Aspen. PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H, " Historic Overlay District must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 7-601 of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. 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 a "H, " Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark... Response: The new windows will have the same frame, mullion details and finish as those on the rest of the building. A portion of the glass will be opaque, with vitrines (like a small cabinet) inset in them to display jewelry. The new door will be all glass with a "crystal" door pull, as has been approved on the Chanel boutique. The other doors in the building are wood with a glass panel. Staff finds that these changes will not have any negative impact on the rest of the Ajax Mountain building or any neighboring historic resources. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is
.. consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The proposal has no negative affect on the character of the Commercial Core Historic district. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Response: This proposal has no impact on the cultural value of any adjacent historic resource. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The proposal has no impact on the architectural integrity of any historic structure. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: 1) Approve the Minor Development application as submitted. 2) Approve the Minor Development application with conditions to be met prior to 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: Staff recommends that HPC approve the Minor Development application as submitted. Additional Comments:
.. . 4 CHANEL ASPEN, COLORADO 10.27.94
.. . _ LL-J .611 1.1 4~~0 , •· 9~~ -,+1 Jc.W.~ILLig *>~ . A„ Tnmi/.17~~~M/////1//AN. *IMP. __ 2, C, fid/477*1 „.1.« :2-1 . i ..4. r /-1~&~:~r#J~~PP \-=2~~~~24~,~~~4J&~it . r U=- I JO// 911 T. A. 4 1 - 1/f E 1 '=A: 1 - - --- ~~ ~-~~~;Atti: : e - DAN. •*- . 7 1 1 i '7• 0, 45*lf- 1 - IC_ m 1- 1 -13 . ' 1 T ~ 89-4 %*27.~-4 , ' * /*% ~~li~~~~~~~~~ ; b*lil* Ila«~ ~ ~ P - r m £ CO,e.A. - ,; 9 'f~~,2 -- ~ 0.-...6. I - f% 1 Co,/I ••t ~ Ar-----~4--~='--~--EE=~f~ .1. M ./ 1 (21 . . 8 STORE , 220501 204 1 F-31€37- G~kiuvi,==r =aimie==6=- «:10:1.lift CHANEL i Id ®4. 0, 7 ~ PROPOSED JEWLERY 1 K 0 -= .4/r LEASE SPACE i M 11 22 4 El= -- - 1 0/mjEeliqi F.FE#))13,4,2 , 2/ebm e,14.'it - Scn.-:c-'a / -A. 115,2* 4, 7.-L~ , 5 0800»4.* p ----0/ ~\ 2 1 -* ces.anaao .<..... 1011>1 1 11; 6 E £.-'••E ---- /5*gt Alv .1 -Mt --*-- ~ -- 1 1 -=11 -- .0 . ...SZ - - 2 - j:8 PlRANT AVDLE *~~~0~i~isa~maam ~~ 12_9*4'IN= glimialimizilim!*2 mr,7 r~h SITE LOCATION 0. . 0. -...I . . --.. 22*€A,:ia.1Qn*iir€€NARE*iN*=m@i;~ -0 -~-7-1; =i--- -.1-~ 520 EAST DURANT S [7?DI 1 252 t2 -ASPEN 713 Or-€7..p--#-sm=.13'9426&~ 58,5 EKLB„ EM:ZE ~i --. M. £0-hgo#9.,i cy•an.•,0,==t . -Zi-<2,0-r=--I.-,- ..9--- ..1. --. PROJECT ADDRESS OWNER ARCHrrECT CHANEL BOUTIQUE 520 EAST DURANT CHANEL INC ARCHNECrURE Er DECORATION ASPEN, CO 81611 5 EAST 57rH SIREET amISTIAN GALLION NEW YORK. NY 10022 71 AVENUE MARCEAU OCCUPANCY USE 75116 PARIS. FRANCE GENERAL CONTRACTOR B-2 BRAND+ALLEN ARCHrrECTS. INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN CONsTRUCTION CHRIS HARRELSON. ERIC BRAND BUILDING CODE 418 EAST COOPER SIREEr 900 NORTH POINT SIREEr. SUrrE 400 ASPEN. CO 81611 SAN FRANCISCO. CA 94109 1988 UNIFORM BUn.DING CODE CrrY OF ASPEN AMENDMENTS 4 .
.. - ROOF I l /~ 130'-4 ~ al HEAD 126'-11* ~ 4 1 - SIU 1 11- 122'-C ~ . MEZZANINE 120'-00 ~ := 6 2 I 1 I f 1 : .. HE .·· • PROPSED JEWLERY ./ :: S . ks'. STORE M ··· 11 1 1 ..+ ... I 11 1 1 ...9 1 I 1_ __L ·· · 0 1- - E~ -- IE 1 04 ...... ........................ -/ .................... ··· ···· ••·· ••·,-···· ···· ••·· •· · 1·1 10-617R 4:f- 1 1 110'-f 1.-trz~ 1 1 - 1 : ...... . 4...... ... .......... SOUTH ELEVATION (DURANT AVENUE) ch U IM' • r-0' 2
.. $ ROOF Of'L - 130'-0' / L / :INI / 4 HEAD ~ / 7 126'-11' 1 17 ft SIU 122'-4. i MEZZANINE 0 0 1 0 120'-0, LINE OF EXISTING HEAD HEIGHT- ---------- - - - - TO REMAIN 1 L-7 1 9 1 LINE OFEXISTING SILL--------------------- ---- TO REMAIN =3~ 1 * 1 1 * UPPER LEVEL . 110'-C" 36'r SECTION 3/6"=11-0. Em
/7 1 t 3 i X EX - 1*3*'r Ca)'23-17 f 1 r- e . al-AteD 0000- WITH GTAILEGS ME:eL 9- _t 136 %FA. fpre 6 120; H,uple - e. ---~r 91 f{321~~gers *-- T-(ricA v IT Ne Ger Iki New Gbildl/FlqAMe / F f . 41, I .. Al 1 \ .14 .A 4 .../ NIV /k 11 1 e,(leTING GILL MT· - . il i 11 l · - 3 - -1,2 , . .. 1 € -agleTIkle WK.*Wh*f FLOOR PLAN AT STORE FRONT ___ A
.. E :: TEHIPBRO / /1 - -:mi'%1*tki*£~*W@a be,MS SeT 161 ZING 1 1 1 1 1 GLAGE To tlAVe: be:VeliP JOIWT€ , 1 3%,UpuL#027' JOINT AT 1 A- 1 11 ~ - -4--- Cd) 2»444 elli " 1 "' 0 1 ~Mity&¥9'-Ak~Ntif}#1&:Not-- · 1,1,1,IM. Replk. p *616 AT Ke*T Ocop; r-~==-- i¥Haimatike-Y_19Nk .._ (21,4.0. / 1 maGUNY /1 'i k ! - 1 1 , 0 744 11! , I. -1 11- //l .. . I ez ./ . / 1 j 9 4,04 TorY t 1 "164 4 9/ »~4 K G Poo Fi HK NO'.e 02*12;JitikLOAM:Irt- / IT .»bu Que- Re#T DOOF U ki / 1 1/1 191 2 / ~ , 1 (41 WIWIP,w Op,Aa)/46®Wr / Boull.91,le 1 lili lillit':11! a /1. Cd) Amor e T 1 1 i 1 1 1 111 1 k ' ' 1 1 iiI ' ' , 1 i : , 1 ''1 1:1:. , mi - al 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 -M, 1 ! 1 . /8) 9166• AH= HehO HT OP 1 . J i WINCOW Tb PR*MN i l 1 // -9 1 -. r 5)(IST'kIG 01.KI'G L 4 e:*'gri ~ ave 4 3 t 1 EXTERIOR ELEVATION - 9 1/2-=1'-0'
. r E (crel-liNG,) l . . : i 1 / 1 1 1 1 1 1 i i ! III li il . 1 /06.ISH®0 %**@G elli " „ Ne -0=-imel H T. O WMAI H l.-LU <MT*YA~~ --1 / (6 ) ,~t L 8% te<1 KIG H€,0 , 2*:prl~4* 801-UNY -5111 1 '' ~ Q _ _6J) D,90 IN(e) 4 \ /4 45 ././ f 414 i #26'te:*/ 1 /4,9 k 711111 - , 14 1111" /7 1. 3Z 1 T .11111 e %4' 551$% Col*Ae·G 2* 1 .Ill . 1 1111 . .,11 / 1 WINDOW Hilu.WH 7-0 i ' remAU#%*O - -:f-,- 4 1,9- 1 OfAZIUG. 123 TGB+1 61£~FNEPS ./ 7/ 3 E ,«1 , /'f (Fl*H• 11 1·*Tut (d) 17 / 4 PINISH #66·OF) 1/ &04€T16160 GILL /. 11% 1ll1lllllll lilli, il' | | i I .!1 '11 1 1 ,-M,~ 65) A®.Over Gl HT. To pet·'IAIN BULON Y 11 1 1 111 1.11 1 En- 1.11 III --L . 1 1 1 lili 1 1--I-- 1-1 1 1 1 1 'x |4TING o FH' 6 TO FeMAIU L . 1 -(8 -- 22 EXTERIOR ELEVATION /'h EXTERIOR ELEV. 1/2'=10-0' 1/ 2-= 1 0-0~ 6
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 9, 1994 520 E. DURANT AVE. - CHANEL - MINOR Amy: This is a Chanel jewelry store as opposed to the boutique that we reviewed previously and they are proposing to make similar changes to the door and window. They are not lowering the window ceil. I recommended approval as submitted. Brand Allen Architects: The window is opaque and is 288 sqft. MOTION: Les made the motion to approve the minor deve16pment application submitted at 520 E. Durant Ave.;second by Roger. All in favor, mation-carries. 210 S. MILL STREET - FOOTLOOSE AND FANCY THINGS Amy: There are awnings on the building and these will match the existing except they will be collapsible. I recommended approval but the awnings are going to be at the second floor level and there aren't any on the basement level. It is not an historic building and it is inside the courtyard. Les: It might even make it interesting. MOTION: Roger made the motion that HPC approve the minor development application as submitted to 210 S. Mill; second by Les. All i favor, motion carries. 939 E. COOPER Amy: The committee was generally in favor of the site plan and asked for some restudy of the treatment along the sides , the setbacks because we have an historic resource on one side and neighbors on the other side that were concerned about loosing their light and air. There was a request for restudy of the new buildings B and D and those are provided tonight but Staff has not reviewed them. The board thought that the houses could be contemporary and playful and did not have to try and replicate the historic house next door. Bob & Darnell Langley, owners: We have a project that we feel is in absolute harmony with the best intent of the Aspen Area Community Plan and the Neighborhood Guidelines. We have been working with the HPC for 1 1/2 years. Les touched at the last meeting that the process has worked. We have come to point .that we need conceptual approval and we have done everytl;linO to accommodate the concerns of the HPC generally. I'm the developer and I will be living there. Recommendations at the last meeting were to remove the gingerbread and we have done that. The Villager 11