Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.304 E Hopkins Ave.HPC57-92:20 4. E. 40€12 LaS ... A. 4 1 Renaissance Rest. Minor Review --~- 2737-073-75-002 HPC57-92 )3 - to¥ Al- 5 l 1 1, P K.\ i L 26= CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen Historic Preservation Committee DATE RECEIVED: 12/21/92 CASE NUMBER: HPC57-92 DATE COMPLETE: PARCEL ID#: 2737-073-75-002 PROJECT NAME: Renaissance Restaurant Minor Development Review Project Address: 304 E. Hopkins, Unit 2 APPLICANT: Charles Dale Applicant Address: 304 E. Hopkins REPRESENTATIVE: 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: ATmalMENT 1 IAND USE APPIICATION FO™ 1) project Name /69JA? Sth:11 6457 Eeg-T--AO 2.-ANIC 2) Project Incation , 3(34- 6*ST- 4-/OPK-/ O-2 , 00,1- 2 (S r~ieerr (-EVEZ-~ NAP DO I C--©Le 12. Ach O (indicate street address, lot & block nunber, legal description wkiere appropriate) 3) Present Zoning C-23 M 12€32 i/\:L 4) Iot Size 5) Applicant's Name, Atiress & Ihone # C H/1-4&5 Q bALE-- 0 1 51 L-©Al J, PI nj r Jth + k-31 - 925 - 2902- 6) Representative's Name, Address & phone # 92-<1 - \90 l 7) Type of Application (please check all that apply): Conditional Use Conceptual SPA Conceptual Historic Dev. . Special Review Final SPA Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline Conceptual POD ~ Minor Historic Dev. 1 Stream Margin Final FUD Historic Demolition Mountain view Plane Subdivision Historic Designation Cor•hniniumization Text/Map Amendment ___ GM33 Allotment Lot Split/Int line (2433 Eboanption Adjustment 8) Description of E:xisting Uses (Immber and type of existing structures - approocimate sq. ft.; nmber of bedrocas; any previcus appravals granted to the property). &5 7*-l),2- h.)7~- 9) Description of Develcunent Application CARVAS Al ALock 00 i n-/ 1~ LAmn L SEE - -·r#£aki-1 PA A €11 - 10) Have you attached the following? Response to Attadment 2, Mininnn Submission Contents Respanse to Attachment 3, Specific Submissian Contents Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application lill'll I . . 4 MINOR HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT Application Package Contents Attached is a Development Application package for submission of your application. Included in this package are the following attachments: 1. Application Form 2. Description of Minimum Contents of Development Application 3. Description of Specific Contents for Submission of your Application 4. Copy of Review Standards for Your Application 5. Public Hearing Notice Requirements Summary 6. General Summary of Your Application Process Generally, to submit a complete application, you should fill in the application form arid attach to it that written and mapped information identified in Attachments 2 and 3. Please note that all applications require responses to the review standards for that particular development type. The standards for your application are listed in Attachment 4. You can determine if your application requires that public notice be given by reviewing Attachment 5. Table 1 of that attachment will tell you whether or not your application requires notice and the form the notice should take. Your responsibilities in this regard are summarized in the cover explanation to the table. We strongly encourage all applicants to hold a pre-application conference with a Planning Office staff person so that the requirements for submitting a complete application can be fully described to you. Please also recognize that review of these materials does not substitute for a complete review of the. Aspen Land Use Regulations. While this application package attempts to summarize the key provisions of the Code as they apply to your type of development, it cannot possibly replicate the detail or the scope of the Code. If you have questions which are not answered by the materials in this package, we suggest that you contact the staff member assigned to your case or consult the applicable sections of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. appcover . IF G G -1 C-r-' 2 11\ ni ~ 7% 1 (rh v, dip -t ! 1 1 211% p 01 - A - 2 7 -0 -O 0, .f- r 42 AMPO -P ,)10% r - i.' 1- i 1 1\ @ 1-rk/,2/Age- '10 K€5*NO'2.00J1- U i.ob C LO i k.1 =FC©,07- a 00 4- ALoil,IOUM 1-Kperlt< CK, 31-,06 42#€12.061 1 *- 11 K. 1 6 0/'t) 12.-r A A€W -1- - - $ I CAN,ki A,a LOCk. 1 PLAN| fr 132-e Posilj C.,f·~8\41 A' C - L.Oc t<t 4 2%(200-84 -1.0 & 3790--7 --311 Y A¢NA iSSADCE . I. December 20th, 1992 Re: Proposed air-lock, street-level, 304 East Hopkins To whom it may concern, Renaissance Restaurant proposes to install a small (4ft x 5ft) canvas air-lock under the existing plexiglass canopy at 304 East Hopkins. The color is seafoam green, which matches the approved sign which has existed since July, 1990. The materials are weather-proofed canvas and see-through plastic for safety of movement in and out of the restaurant. The purpose is energy conservation, and the visual impact is minimal (the structure is set off the sidewalk by 15 ft). We hope you will consider and approve of our aesthetic and functional air-lock... r Yours sincerely, __ ./~ (~~~-· -~- Charles C. Dale President, La Dolce Vita, Inc Dba Renaissance Restaurant RENA 1% SANCE 304 East Hopkins • Aspen, Colorado 81611 • 925-2402 ' 1 4 1 . .. 1 ' 14'. A r 33* a 4 1 .li . 4 ./ 0 41 , i y&+ 1 4 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