Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ex.Mill&Main-Bldg.1977k {o� A C* - b r7 MILL & MAIN BUILDING Recorded 1125 Al� May 19, 1977 Julie Han t300K 328 PACE 98 1,.14,9:3 MILL AND MAIN BUILDING -COMMERCIAL CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, entered into and made this day of 1977, by and between MILL AND MAIN CO., a limited partnership ("Subdivider"), and THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, a Municipal Corporation ("City"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Subdivider is owner and subdivider of a building within Pitkin County, Colorado, which includes Lots K and West � of L, Block 86 Aspen Townsite, City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, WHEREAS, Subdivider has submitted to City for approval, execution, and recording a subdivision exemption of the above -described property, such sub- division to be known and designated as "Mill and Main Building Commercial Condominium", and WHEREAS, the City has fully considered such subdivision exemption and is willing to approve, execute, and accept said exemption for recordation upon the agreement of Subdivider to the matters hereinafter described, which matters are deemed necessary to protect, promote, and enhance the public welfare; and WHEREAS, Subdivider and the City wish to reduce said agreement to writing, NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the mutual covenants herein contained, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows: 1. Subdivider covenants and agrees to and with the City that it will affirmatively consent to and join in the formation of any special improvement district, encompassing all or any part of Mill and Main Building Commercial Condominium (Subdivision), that may hereafter be proposed or formed for the construction of streets, alleys, and drainage improvements or buried electrical improvements. Subdivider hereby waives and further covenants and agrees to waive any right of protest against the formation of any such district. 2. Subdivider agrees to pay to the City prior to filing for record of the condominium map, the sum of $5,400.00 dollars, as full payment for all obligations for payment of cash in lieu of land dedication as required by the provisions of Section 20-18 of the Aspen Municipal Code. 3. The covenants and agreements of the Subdivider herein shall be deemed covenants that run with the land, shall burden the land included within the Mill and Main Building Commercial Condominium (Subdivision), and shall bind BOOK 328 ►PAu 983 and be specifically enforceable against all subsequent owners thereof, including Subdivider, its grantees, successors in interest and assigns. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement as of the day and year first above written. `Tj 11 A'r ,�S/T : ► Kathryn S,,�uter, City Clerk STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss. County of Pitkin MILL AND MAIN CO., a limited partnership By: ROd V ROO CITY OF 'M The foregoing instrument was acknowledged befcre me this � day of / 1977, by Roy Vroom. Witness my hand and official seal. "... Ny .G63mnission expires: My Commission expires January 24, 1978 44 r� Notary Public nr ant. ) ss. County of Pitkin ) The foregoing was acknowledged before me this / f^ay of A, 1977, by Stacy Standley, Mayor and KATHRYN S. HAUTER, City Clerk of the Cifty of Aspen, Colorado. Witness my hand and official seal. •Y`�ycts�en'ssion expires: 'W1 .. My C�- .-,.ss on expires January 24, 1978 n1i4i . Notary Public artt� ffll • MILL AND MAIN BUILDING -COMMERCIAL CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, entered into and made this 2-L day of r. ��' , 2 1977, by and between MILL AND MAIN CO., a limited partnership ("Subdivider"), and THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, a Municipal Corporation ("City"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Subdivider is owner and subdivider of a building within Pitkin County, Colorado, which includes Lots K and West � of L, Block 86 Aspen Townsite, City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, WHEREAS, Subdivider has submitted to City for approval, execution, and recording a subdivision exemption of the above -described property, such sub- division to be known and designated as "Mill and Main Building Commercial Condominium", and WHEREAS, the City has fully considered such subdivision exemption and is willing to approve, execute, and accept said exemption for recordation upon the agreement of Subdivider to the matters hereinafter described, which matters are deemed necessary to protect, promote, and enhance the public welfare; and WHEREAS, Subdivider and the City wish to reduce said agreement to writing, NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the mutual covenants herein contained, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows: I. Subdivider covenants and agrees to and with the City that it will affirmatively consent to and join in the formation of any special improvement district, encompassing all or any part of Mill and Main building Commercial Condominium (Subdivision), that may hereafter be proposed or formed for the construction of streets, alleys, and drainage improvements or buried electrical improvements. Subdivider hereby waives and further covenants and agrees to waive any right of protest against the formation of any such district. 2. Subdivider agrees to pay to the City prior to filing for record of the condominium map, the sum of $5,400.00 dollars, as full payment for all obligations for payment of cash in lieu of land dedication as required by the provisions of Section 20-18 of the Aspen Municipal Code. 3. The covenants and agreements of the Subdivider herein shall be deemed covenants that run with the laird, shall burden the land included within the Mill and Main Building Commercial Con. d;.miriiirn (Subdivision) , and shall bind I • • and be specifically enforceable against all subsequent owners thereof, including Subdivider, its grantees, successors in interest and assigns. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement as of the day and year first above written. MILL AND MAIN CO., a limited partnership By: ROY VROO CITY OF AS ATTEST: B STACY S ND , MAYO Kathryn S. EtAuter, City Clerk STATE OF COLORADO ) Zss. County of Pitkin l� The foregoing instrument was acknowledged befcre me this day of o / , 1977, by Roy Vroom. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: j1 V Cammossion 'Xpires ;S^+:�r�; 2: , 19~3 Notary Public STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitkin ) The foregoing was acknowledged before me this /7 Y1ay of 1977, by Stacy Standley, Mayor and KATHRYN S. HAUTER, City Clerk of the C' y of , Aspen, Colorado. Witness my hand and official seal. My COMission expires: ad, Notary Puii,—: • LI MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Planning Office (HC) RE: Subdivision Exemption - Vroom Commercial Building Condominiumization DATE: February 23, 1977 This is a request by Roy Vroom for subdivision exemption to condominiumize his existing office building located at Mill and Main Street. The building was given a final Ordinance 19 approval on August 22, 1974. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended a subdivision exemption for condominiumization on August 6, 1974 but the request was not forwarded to the City Council for action. The Engineering Department recommends the letter of commitment for improvement districts be renewed in the present standard format for recording so that the commitment is a covenant running with the property. The City Manager has approved the land appraisal of $90,000 for the property which requires a Park Dedication fee payment of $5,400. The Planning Office recommends approval subject to the payment of the dedication fee and proper recordation of the improvement district documents. i O 2, mil/ ��� i • MEMO TO: HAL CLARK PLANNING DEPT. FROM: DAVE ELLIS CITY ENGINEER DATE: February 10, 1977 RE: MILL AND MAIN BUILDING - SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION The engineering department has no new requirements for this requested exemption; however, we would like to have the previous letter commitment for improvement districts renewed in the present standard format for recording so that the commitment is a covenant running with the property. The payment of the dedication fee could also be incorporated in the same document. We recommend approval of the exemption. CIT 1,30 s, aspen Ulloo"� /-'ire kSPEN na street 0 81611 February 10, 1977 TO: Clayton Meyring FROM: Mick Mahoney �y S►^�^ RE: Lot K and West 2 of L of Block 86 I accept James Mollica's appraisal of the above referenced property of $90,000 for the purpose of determining park dedication fees. PSM/pm Attachment APPRAISAL DEPARTMENT James J. Mollica Robb Van Pelt Residential Condominium Industrial Commercial Investment Farm and Ranch Properties Land Use, Feasibility Studies rr Now INCORPORATED � ethos P IST OFFICE BOX O MMIFN, COLORADO 81611 Ph INE: 303 925-7000 August 1, 1974 Dr. Russell Scott P.O. Box 4257 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Lot K and West 'Z of L of Block 86, City of Aspen, Colorado Dear Dr. Scott: Pursuant to your request, I have gathered and analyzed applicable market data for the purpose of estimating the Fair Market Value of the subject property if vacant. As a result of my appraisal and analysis, it is my opinion that the Fair Market Value of the subject land if vacant, as of August 1, 1974, is: NINETY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($90,000.00) Thank you for this opportunity to be of service. Enclosed is a list of recent comparable sales in the Commercial Core and a location map. Sincerely, MASON & MORSE, INC. James Mollica Real Estate Appraiser J J M : k r Enclosures COMPARABLE LAND SALES Sale Lot Block Date Sq. Ft. $/SF Price A '2 O,P 98 9/72 4,500 $13.00 $58,500 B D, E, pt.F 88 3/73 7,800 $12.82 $100,000 C D, E, F, G, H, I 81 3/73 18,000 $16.66 $300,000 D z A, B, C 100 7/73 4,500 $17.66 $79,500 E K, L 90 L11 .4 6,000 $ZO.UO $i20,000 F M 96 4/74 3,000 $20.00 $60.000 G G, H, I, 0, P, Q, R, 94 3/74 24,000 $17.70 $425,000 S LAND SUMMARY Your appraiser has selected Sales E and F as being most comparable to the subject due to their size and location. Sales C and G are both larger and typically larger sales tend to sell for less per square foot. Your appraiser considers the subject to have an excellent location for office space due to its close relationship to the banks, court house, hospital and Main Street. g?n nO per -,n. ff x 4,500 sq. ft. equals = $90,000.00 Indicated Value of Land if Vacant $90,000.00 IPA • % �-. - -�✓' �',�r1y`r Sr g PSQ� !�'�'� �iVt 'rL% N MHO-N-,�P,CN✓� //' U lam. iA Y . i� tPIEEt r--j S,i-- �i��z� t s�• 1 M%L�EGA o✓ S M % C. �L. EN � a ' i AIr !-- 1 I,- yon / 2u ! o ^ S-�a1.►' �A� cat. j •n /' 1 ' k� Z � sOa' � �' a p � l —,we. ri 1 M `• " i „ems' J St' �,r�, � \ I" Yamp V71 I� CITY4 OF ASPEN aspen,e lorado,awn box v March 19, 1975 City of Aspen P. O. BOX V Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Vroom Project Gentlemen: I hereby covenant and agree that, pursuant to the conditions imposed by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission under Ordinance 19, Series of 1973, and as requested by the City Engineer on May 6, 1974, I will join any future Special Improvement Districts, including street, curb and gutter, sidewalk and drainage in the event any such districts are proposed and include the real property upon which this building is proposed for construction. Very 4 yours u %, December 23, 1974 Ar. Roy Vroom Post Office Box TT Aspen, Colorado &hill M M. Dear Mr. Vroom Enclosed are the minutes from P & Z July 16, 1974, and the Planning and Zoning Commission resolution with regard to your building. I hope this iaeets your needs; if not, please let me know. Sincerely I�athryn S. Hauter City Clerk Lliclosures M RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM •1 C. F. M F'MEL 4. 8. R L. C1. Continued Meeting Aspen Plannin g & Zoning August 22, 1974 The meeting was called to order at 12:10 p.m. by Chairman Spencer Schiffer. Janet Landry, Jack Jenkins and Bryan Johnson were in attendance along with Citv/County Planner John Stanford, City Attorney Sandra Stuller and Assistant Planner Yank Mojo. Vroom Building Roy Vroom had come before the Commission to present Conceptual, Preliminary & plans for moving his present building located on Filial Main Street next to the First National Bank Buildin_ j one-half block north to Lot A of the same block. The hardship felt by Mr. Vroom is that he must move this building prior to construction which is scheduled 10 days to 2 weeks from the meeting date. Van Horn Subdivision Outlying Development Plan- PUD Presentation When he had originally applied for Ordinance 19 review, he learned that the docket for review was full and he could not be scheduled. Johnson felt that there is a hardship and that hearing for conceptual, preliminary and final at one meeting was valid. Johnson moved to combine conceptual, preliminary and final stages of Ordinance 19 review. Jenkins seconded. All in favor --motion carried. Mr. Vroom explained that the building that now houses his real estate office would remain intact but would be moved to Lot A of the same block. This was a temporary move but by no means would the temporariness of the move affect the necessary utility set-up. He would be following the the building code as to the utility requirement. He stated that this office would fill his needs until his new building that fronts on Main was ready. The Planning Department that his referrals were in order and were in favor of approval. Yank Mojo was questioned as to zoning --he stated that the site is now zoned C-1 with the proposed being Office/Multifamily. Landry moved to grant conceptual, preliminary and final approval. Jenkins seconded. All in favor. Motion carried. Outlying Development Plans were presented on the Van Horn subdivision to be located near the Roaring Fork River and bordered on the north and east by Riverside Placer and Riverside Subdivision and on the south and west by the Roaring Fork River. The proposed subdivision, consisting of .0833 acres of land is across from the Ute Cemeta_y and Children's Park. The plans for subdivision plans are to subdivide land only for the creation of 7 lots. The land will be offered for sale with the owner building his own with his only restriction being that of a covenant between the grantor and grantee. 0 • • RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ►O.V4 C. F. M`I I XFL E.!.! L. CV. 100 Leaves Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning August-6, 1974 The meeting was called to order by Vice -Chairman Bryan Johnson at 4:05 P.M., with members Janet Landry, Geri Vagneur, Robert Barnard and Jack Jenkins present. City/County Planner John Stanford, Donna Baer, Yank Mojo and Sandy Stuller were also in attendance. Old Business: Johnson set the date of the study session with the H.P.C. HPC to be tuesday, August 13, at 4:00 p.m. Also in that meeting will be presentation by the students from Colorado State University who did an environ- mental study of Pitkin County. Street Lighting Plan Yank Mojo gave the Commission a look at the progress made in construction of the antique lights. Mojo stated that the lights will -be two per intersection along Galena and Main and surrounding the historic core of and within the Mall. It was suggested by the HPC that two be put on either end of Castle Crk. Bridge and also at the 7th and Hallam intersection. They would also like to put the lights in the center of the blocks on Main Street but Mojo was uncertain as to how many lights would be useable of the 96 given to the City. Mojo stated that he hoped to have at least half dozen of the lights up and operating by mid -month. Stream Margins - Situated in the Black Birch area off Red Butte road Pace garage and along the Roaring Fork, the house had already been constructed 22 feet from the river. Applicant wished to build a garage inside the house. Vagneur made a motion to approve the stream margin anc Jenkins seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Subdivisions: - Applicant requested exemption from the definition of Vroom Building subdivision for a building on platted lots and blocks to be able to condominimize the office building's upper floors. Approval had been given already under Ordinance 19 review. Barnard moved to approve the exemption under 20-C and Vagneur seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Castle Creek Applicant wished to subdivide part of their lot into resubdivision separate parcel, retaining an access road. It was noted that this was an advertised public hearing and the Planning Office had received a letter from member: of the subdivision protesting because of protective covenants barring them, from resubdivision. These people realized that it was a civil matter but wished to appraise the members of the P & Z of their feeling: Ms. Baer advised the members that the application was incomplete since no letter of recommendation had been received. Jenkins moved that they officially table based on the fact that the submittals were not in order and Collin: seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Woerndle subdivision Applicant had received PUD approval and on the final plat there were no changes. Jenkins moved to give final plat approval and Barnard seconded. All in favor (Landry abstaining), motion carried. i:.c ,;.'D O. i-1.6t:.' i_i:t<<GS 100 Curves 11 Woc�rndle Plat and Final. Develop- ment Plan, (7r"•r-1-inued A-Ti •n P1anninor and 2nninq July 16, 1."7 for a pump station, the di t-ch r)rirl n t-rai 1 . Th(- water situation ho _i 1: •c n t i an 1r1 - t-�oi nc7 made to the ,. i ty, Schiffer closed the public hearing, Collins made a motion to approv•� the preliminary plat for the Woerndle Subdivislun. Johnson secoi:dod the motion. All in favor, with the exception of Janet Landry who abstained. Motion carried. RBH Building - Parking Applicant was present to find out what they were Solution requirVd to provide as far as parking was concerned. Johnson stated that the parking subcommittee had recommended that off street parking requirements on all property be retained with the option of lease from the City or providing on site. The committee recommended further that optional parking buy out or lease from City be extended to include the entire commercial area. The applicant could either supply parking on the site or lease it from the City, or a combination of the two. Ordinance 19 Reviews - One of the owner's of the building was present at Poncho Ski Repair, the meeting. There were six units in the building. Exemption This project was the expansion of one of the units, coming out under the overhead balcony. Ms. Bear stated that the grounds for exemption were that the project was of insignificant impact. Barnard made a motion that, based on the recommenda- tion of the Planning Office, the project is of such a small scale as to be clearly outside the purposes of Ordinance 19; and to grant exemption for this project. Vagneur seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried. Schwartz Duplex - It was noted that there was no final site plan for Preliminary and Final the project available. This was a requirement. The project would be rescheduled. Vroom Building - Final Ms. Baer stated that the final plans were in order. Schiffer asked about the conditions for preliminary approval. Ms. Baer stated that the applicant had received a variance to buy out parking. However, applicant dons not know how many. The lower floor uses have not yet been designated; the applicant was willing to comoly wi tii t he engineering depart - meat recocmnendations. The brick samples would also need to h•� submitted to the H.P.C. Tht• ni)ulicant was willin,t to comply with all coed.:tionn. Ms. Baer stated that one of the engineering depart- ments conditions was that if the alley has to br_ chanciod to makc, it acco:;sible, it: would be at the expon :c of th(, applicant. The Planning Off it-0 wa.; recommend inq approval of the project. -7- 00 • • 0 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Reqular Meeting Aspen Planninq and Zoning July 16, 1974 Vroom Building Final Barnard made a motion', based on the Planning Office continued recommendation for approval, that the Commission give final approval to thy., Vroom Building under Ordinance 19 conditioned on applicant submitting / brick samples to tho flistoric Preservation Commit- tee. Johnson seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried. Botanical Eye - The applicant was not present at the meeting. Conceptual Villa Condominiums - Schiffer told the applicant that it was a new policy Conceptual of the Commission that meetings be cut at 6:30 P.M. He asked if applicant would like to continue this to another time. Art Dailey asked that the Com- mission consider this at this time. Ms. Baer stated that the applicant had submitted four site plans for the Commission to consider. Applicant's representative stated that in each of the site plans, there were 32 units and 48 parking spaces. IIe stated that it was difficult to get this many units and parking spaces on the site at a cost per unit which was feasible. Two sets of site plans were three story. The other two were two story units. Ms. Baer noted that this would be a PUD. Representative stated that the drawings represent different compromises of the original plan sub- mitted to the Commission. He stated that the 37 .1/2 feet set back required by the Planning Office was impossible with 32 units on the property and 48 parking spaces. The two story units were 1,200 square feet per unit; the three story units are 1,500 square feet per units. The three story units were more economical. Ms. Baer stated that the Planning Office: ,'ill like to see 37 1/2 feet on Seventh Street. Dailey stated that 24 feet was being supplied, ;•:hich was greater than the requirement. Schiffer suggested that the Commission postpone making a decision on this until noxt meeting. Jenkins made a motion that the m---c-esscd and continued on next Tuesday, Jui; -.r 4:00 P.M. Johnson seconded the motion. Meeting 6:40 P.M. r ROY VROOM REALTOR Box TT, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone 925-7151 July 24, 1974 The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Box V Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Lot K + West � of L Vroom Building Dear Sirs: I would like to request that my project, located on Lots K + West � of L in Aspen, be exempted from the City of Aspen Subdivision Regulations, and that this matter be placed on the agenda of the next City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for consideration. I intend to subdivide the building into condominium spaces. Since the above mentioned property was platted into lots and blocks and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder long before the effective date of this ordinance and since it exists within the present boundaries of the City of Aspen and thus fulfills all pertinent design requirements contained in Section 20-7 of this chapter, the property should be exempted under Section 20-10 (c) of the City of Aspen Municipal Code. Respe tfully s mitted, vit VRQ't�M L RV/rin enc: Plot Plan TO: Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Planning Office SUBJECT: Vroom Building - Ord. 19 - Final Review DATE: July 16, 1974 Conditions of Preliminary Approval: Lower floor uses should be designated and restricted to commercial pedestrian uses; compliance with Engineering department recommendations; brick samples submitted to HPC; compliance with parking requirements in effect. Applicant has received a variance to buy out parking. • • RECORD OF PR*D1 100 L(' ves Bd. of Adjustment, 7/11/74, continued ✓ CASE NO. 74-23, ROY VROOM Public hearing was opened by Chairman Dukes on Case No. 74-23, Roy Vroom had two variance requests: (1) request for the deletion of the off. -street parking requirement as provided by the current code, and (2) request for variance of the 25 foot height limitation as stated in Section 24-7. Mr. Vroom explained his hardship in requesting these variances. Application was made five montsh ago in mid -February, 1974 and the difficulty of presenting conceptual and preliminary plans for Ordinance 19 review on a very heavy P & Z agenda docket. He had also been informed by the P & Z Commission that no, further permits would be reviewed due to indecision on off-street parking requirements. He cannot proceed with final plans until a decision has been reached. Iie offered to lease the required spaces at the Trueman property which was only one and a half blocks from the proposed building. Lavagnino stated that the parking variance was not a problem especially because of its proximity to public parking. Mr. Vroom.'s request for variance on the 25 foot height requirement was caused by the slope of the land. The proposed building, located on the northeast quadrant of Mill and Main Streets, slopes down a total of five feet because of the contour of the land. It had been determined that the building height had included the 2.5 feet of the parapet and the request for the additional feet could be reduced to a difference of about 4.5 feet because the height of the parapet need not be included. Smith questioned if the trash insets were okay --they were. Chairman Dukes closed the public hearing. Smith moved to grant a variance to permit the applicant to purchase parking from the City in the amount to be specified by P & Z at Ordinance 19 review - because of the practical difficulties of providing parking on a small lot and due to its proximity to Rio Grande parking lot. Further to grant an additional variance to permit a total height on 30 feet measured at the NW corner because of the hardship of the unusual contour of the property and that special or extraordinary circumstances apply to the subject property that do not apply similarly to other properties in the same vicinity and zone. Paterson seconded. Roll call vote - Paterson aye; Lavagnino aye; Smith aye; Dukes aye. Motion carried. Motion was made to adjourn the meeting. All in favor. Melting was adjourned at 6:00 p.m. Record ng Secretary TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Planning Office SUBJECT: Vroom Building - Ord. 19 Preliminary Review DATE: 6/4/74 Conditions of Conceptual approval: 1. Lower floor and commercial use should be restricted to pedestrian, tourist oriented uses and these should be designated by the applicant. 2. Compliance with parking requirements that may be adopted. Considerations: Referral letters are positive. Engineering Department recommendations (see attachment). Parking: unless parking requirements change before building permit issues, applicant, if he does not provide on site parking may request a variance to allow him to buy out parking; recommend postponing parking decision until final review. HPC requests applicant submit brick samples. CITY4 0 "' "SPEN aspen,colorado, s1sn box V Yay 2, 1974. MEMORANDUM TO: Donna Baer FROM: Jim Markalunas RE: Approval of Roy Vroom's Lot K, West half of L, Block 96 Dear Donna: I have reviewed the situation with Roy Vroom and there will will not be an increase in his monthly water charge. There does not seem to be any problems. Sincerely, Jim Markalunas Director - Water Department JM:bc cc: Roy Vroom 0 r. '? C ITY S P E N aspen,cp o rinirly m: box v DATE: May 3, 1974 • Roy Vroom • Box TT • Aspen, CO RE: Blk 86, Lots K and West � of L This is to say that in the context of the existing system this area has adequate access and water supply for FIRE PROTECTION. Yours truly, William F. Ca' e Fire Marshall CI'T'Y CF ASPEN aspen,colo ado, 81611 box V CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: The City of Aspen hereby guarantees electric service for the project under Ordinance 19 review listed below. Thomas Maddalone Electric Department Director y TCO/cmc 0 • • • RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IF 100 Leaves ra.M •+ e. s. +axu s. .. t. c> Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning June 4, 1974 Vroom Building - All in favor, motion carried. Preliminary, continued Johnson made a motion to give preliminary approval to the Vroom Building, under Ordinance 19, upon the following conditions: that the lower floor and commercial use should be restricted to pedestrian, tourist oriented uses and these should be designated by the applicant; that the applicant agree to comply with all the Engineering Department recommendations which the Commission had on a m(,mo dated May 6, 1974; that the applicant submit brieh samples to the Historic Preservation Committee pursuant to their request; and that the applicant agree to comply with whatever parking requirements may be established. Jenkins seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried. Limelite Lodge Addition - Ms. Baer stated that this was a third story addition Conceptual to the existing Limelite Lodge. Existing zoning was C-1 and AR. The lodge was also restricted in height by the Wheeler Opera House view plane. A variance for about four inches would be required. The request was for fourteen additional units. This would be maximum density for current zoning. Ms. Baer further informed the Commission that if the building was built after 1956, it would need to provide on site parking, which would require 27 spaces. Ms. Baer stated that height and bulk should be ad- dressed. Including the new addition, there would be approximately 15,000 sq. ft. of floor area on a 21,000 sq. ft. lot. Landry made a motion that the project be tabled until the Commission has the Planning Office's recommendations on the square footage and parking recommendation presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission, not necessarily acted upon. Johnson seconded the motion. Jenkins stated that the lodge community needed en- couragement to upgrade this type of facility. Condominiums have really been a problem to these businesses. He further stated that at the concep- tual presentation, the Commission could consider this further, and not table for these reasons but consider them at another stage. Schiffer stated that if density was to be considered, it must be considered at the conceptual stage. Mr. Paas stated that no motel had been built in this town for the last six or seven years, as this type of project was not economically feasible. He further stated that during the past few years, there had been criticism of the qualit of the motel units in town. �3_ } A vote was taken on the motion to table. Commission members Collins, Landry,'and Johnson, yes. Schiffer., Barnard, and Jenkins, no. Motion NOT carried. -7- • IIECO^D OF PROEDIPS 100 Leaves Regular Meetinci Aspen Planning and Zoning_ June 4, 1974 AEM Apartments, Preliminary Collins m;ide. a motion to dive preliminary and final and Final approval to the AEI -I Apartments under Ordinance 19 on the following conditions: that they provide for roof drainage directly into dry wells; that they provide adequate on site drainage retention; that they provide trash storage and removal; that they provide sidewalk, curb and gutter; that they pro- vide snow removal facility or programs satisfactory to the Planning Department; and that there be a restrictive covenant recorded such that the property will only be rented on six month or longer leases. Landry seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried. Vroom Building - Ms. Baer stated that the conditions of conceptual Preliminary approval were (1) that the lower floor and com- mercial use should be restricted to pedestrian, tourist oriented uses and these should be designated by the applicant, and (2) compliance with parking requirements that may be adopted. The first con- dition need not be done till final approval. All referral letters were positive. Engineering Department considerations included delivery access should be made from the alley side, and have a screened trash storage area accessible at alley grade; if regrading of the alley was antici- pated, approval would be necessary and costs for regrading or relocating utilities would be the res- ponsibility of the developer; site improvements should provide for on site retention capacity in accordance with the Urban Runoff Management Plan; developer should covenant to join any future special improvement districts including street, curb and gutter, sidewalk, and drainage. Ms. Baer stated that these were basically routine, and applicant had agreed to these. Parking was the only unresolved question. Ms. Baer stated she had suggested that Mr. Vroom request a variance to buy out under the present code require- ments. He is located in the c-1 zoned area. Plan- ning Office was recommending that in line with the Commission's proposal, applicant would possibly be. in a buy out area. However, exact figures were not as yet determined for the new parking policy. Would applicant be required to buy out under the old code or the new? Jenkins noted that other had been re- quired to abide by the new parking requirements. Barnard stated that it was unfair -to ask people to agree to unadopted figures. Ms. Baer further mentioned that the historic Preser- vation Committee would like to l.obk at brick samples when the building would reach that stage. Johnson made a motion that the Commission require that Mr. Broom buy out rather thin to provide off street parking on the site, and -tl�at.in accordance with that, the Commission make a recommendation to the Board of Adjustment that he be granted a var.iancc so that he may buy out. Landry seconded the motion. Nil SPEED LETTER© TO Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM Aspen Sanitation District Box V Box 528 Aspen, Colorado _01611 Aspen, Colorado b1611 _ SUBJECT Roy Vroom Lot K West 1/2 of hot L Block 86 -NO. 9 6 10 FOLD MESSAGE DATE MY 1 1974_ mhQ Aspen Sanitation District has been asked to comment on the proposed WIIII slim -No. 9 FOLD -NO. 10 FOLD SIGNED Clint Sampson Executive Secretary REPLY DATE 19 SIGNED ii llne "SNAP•A•WAY- FORM 44-902 3 PARTS WILSON JONES COMPANY • CC) 1961 • PRINTED IN U.S.A. RETAIN WHITE COPY, RETURN PINK COPY 973 • • Z Memo To: Donna Baer Planning Dept. From: Dave Ellis City Engineer ) C' Re: Vroom Building- Ordiance 19 Comments for Preliminary Review Date: May 6,1974 All delivery access should be from the alley side and provisions should be made to have the trash storage area screened and accessible at alley grade. If any regrading of the alley is anticipated, approval will be necessary and all costs for regrading or relocating utilities will be the responsibility of the developer. The site improvements should provide for on -site retention capacity in accordance with the Urban Runoff Management Plan. The developer should covenant to join any future special improvement districts including street, curb & gutter, sidewalk, and drainage. Aft • i n RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ay 7, 1974 Moran questioned if the downzoning would affect the de- c:sion of the Commission. 'tidal stated that the issues that remain do not include density. eluestioned if there would be a bias relative to the other issues because of the downzoning. Ms. Baer pointed out that this was building permit review. Pointed out that you can not approve a subdivision that is not in conformity with zoning. .:ohnson stated that he did not feel that he could divorce himself frog the fact that the area had been downzoned in any deliberations that he made. Stated that he would try to review it under the ordinance. Ms. Baer stated that the subdivision regulations- require a designation of the zoning on the subdivision plat. Moran stated that if the Commission was going to consider the downzoning in relation to this project, the applicant would be willing to table this project, both under subdi- vision and Ordinance w19, and apply to the court for a declaratory ;udgr..ent asking how does the recent ordinance affect the applicant's status and relationships with the City in respect to the application which are in process. WrIuld combine th•, request for a declaration with a request to enjoin the Commission from applying or considering it. 'lice Chairnan Schiffer stated that he was going to suggest that since, the applicant has a new proposal which they will be bringing before the Commission that will concern this project, why not table. Vidal stated that the applicant is on the agenda to make a conc,e—pt presentation on the new proposal on the 4th of June. ?e uested that there be a study session prior to that concept presentation. Stated that that proposal has no fficial status at this point, so must proceed with t`.e Clarendon and protect themselves if, in fact, that p.reposal never ;oes beyond anything but a proposal. Vidal stated that there are certain tirr.e clocks that are running relative to their obtaining declaratory judgments that -gay nit be: able to wait for this other sequence to happen, r,",_ t•, tba •!..•)r•a: r.L.,r fl.•:y ,:.rn w„il, applicant awwl,l w.,il. 'lice C!:airnan Schiffer stated that his recommendation would %e t, table this for a period of time and see what happens with the: e,the:r proposal. '!,r;.n q,;esticned if they could table this subject to it b:inq ,.:+ra,•i the. agr:nda as old buninnss at the request of t:,e applicant. 'tidal reg,.ie.ste:•1 a study session prior to the 4th of June ar.d sue seque_nt t, next Monday. A.tre.;'peat e,f the: applicant_ the presentation for the ry cr•lin:,rice. •1i approval is deferred until the sip:icar.t re?vests consideration. 3artel—;esti,nrd if the applicant would be prepared for -.._ .... / s.s5ion as early as the following Tuesday. that the: applicant would try to be prepared -7- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Lewes RrrLuInr Mtr•tinq AsLn Plannina 8 tonini may - a" / for a study session on Tuesday, May 14th. Conceptual / Ms. Baer stated that this would be located at the cTrner Reviews "`VVV of Mill and Main on a 4500 square foot lot S,:`n•tted Vroom Building site plan. Would have approximately 60DJ square of total floor area and would be 2J-25' hich. Stated that the uses propesod are com.-nercial and office. State: that com- mercial uses are by right. Stated that the HPC has re- viewed the building and approved it with recc-_en_-ation of a wrought iron fence to enclose landscape' areas fro= sidewalk because of high pedestrian traffic at this cor- tier. Basis for approval: compatibility in materials, mas- sing and detail similarities. Stanford stated that a design analysis had been done on this section of ?fain Street and felt the Vroom !�::ilding would be computable with the Epicure building, it has similar proportions and detailing and has basically ver- tically oriented windows, sinilar materials and cemcata- ble color. Primarily massing was the reason it was ap- proved by the HPC. Stanford stated that the HPC had suggested to Vroc-,, and this was not contingent on whether or not it was histori- cally compatable, but since it was a busy intersection had suggested the possibility of a wrouah iron fence coming out to the sidewalk to protect the landscaping. Vice Chairman Schiffer questioned how nary units would be in the building. Vroom stated that at the present time it was petitioned for four spaces and the basement. Stated that the base- ment would be used for storage. Basex.ent to _e 2S31 s;. ft. Stated it would be either warehouse storage or sto- rage for the tenants. Vice Chairman Schiffer questioned if they were consider- ing .a commercial -type storage where one rents space. Vroom stated that that was a possibility. Collins questioned if the basement would have outside ac- cess. Vroom stated that it would. Two interior stairs and one exterior. Jack Lawlor, architect for the building. pointed out that the zoning does allow 9,000 square feet in the total gross area above grade. Stated that the plan sulmitte.: does meet with the open space requiremments, trash re=coal, setback requirements, etc... Vroom stated that he felt the commmercial uses would be software, tourist oriented. Did not anticipate a res- taurant or anything with that high of intensity use. Vice Chairman Schiffer requested that the applicant des- cribe how the project would comply with the reco-- enda- tions of the land use plan and Ordinance f19. Stated that this is one of the requirements of Ordinance s19. Johnson questioned if the applicant would aoree to jcin- a parking district or buy out parking from the City of -8- C • 0 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1(h7 Lewes Regular Xset=no :..seen Planning & Zoning May 7, 1974 Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning Yav :373 Aspen. Applicant stated that they feel they need some sort of access from either :lain Street or from across ;=.e alley. 'lzo,:r, stated that it would be difficult to commit himself co-pletely without knowing what system would be required. Vroom stated that the open space required is 1125 sq. ft. and have provided 1150. Ms.Baer pointed out that this would apply to anyone in the district. Main Motion All in favor, motion carried. '!zoom ;rated that he had made no provisions for on -site Vroom questioned the possibility of conceptual and pre - parking. Further questioned if the City planned to use liminary approval at this meeting. the former Srueman property for the space. Vice Chairman Schiffer stated that would be one of the Schiffer stated that under the ordinance, the Ce-:issicn places, but there were also some other places under con- can combine all three stages providing there is unnfces- sideratior•. sary hardship. Stated that the only problem is that i was not on the agenda for the other states. Su=tested that Johnson stated that it is highly likely that the parking it would be to the applicant's benefit to told back and needs, as the Commission sees them, would probably be see what comes out of the parking situation. greater than they are in the present Code. Stanford suggested that the applicant sub: -it brick sap=ples Vice Chairman Schiffer pointed out that the parking re- to the HPC. quirements would depend on the use, and until the uses were determined, could not determine the amount of re- Vroom stated that he would be willing to bring in several quired parking spaces. alternatives, but it was too early to determine exactly which brick would be used. Vroom stated that the uses will he primarily professional office-. Stat,:d that if the Commission would prefer re- Fred Smith Ms. Baer explained that this would be an addition to the tail space there, then that is what he would provide. Remodel Chateau Blanc - adds manager's apartment and -air s quar- ters. Submitted plans of the proposed addition. '/ice r:..irman Schiffer questioned how many employees the Ms. Baer pointed out that the Chateau built was gilt with building would generate. B a tunnel through the center of the uildina_ at :rase level, '/room stated that based on the professional uses, would the purpose being originally for parking. Stated that t`.e guess approximately 8 - 10, but would he difficult to request is to build a manager's unit, maid's roc=, laundry say at this point, and storage within the tunnel area. Vice Chairman Schiffer questioned, in the event the Com- Smith stated that the parking space in the tunnel is new mission were to come up with a recommendation that people unuseable because other cars block the tunnel. Stated whri build ntw buildines will have to provide housing for that it is only possible to park in the tunnel when there the erq,l,yra•s of that building, would Vroom be willing to is no one parked in the front parking. provide housing for the employees of the building. Smith further stated that it was his censi..ezat:on that V.-con, stated that he did not see how he could. they do have ample parking for their short term tenants. Vice Chairman :.chiffcr stated Lhat th.:re are so many things Vice Chairman Schiffer questioned hew many spaces are cur- aon�r:rnin'l r•mplr,y,•r• h,u.^,inq that are contingent on so many rently provided. other t:.inq s, that it becomes a problem that seems to have solution, and felt that he was inclined to disregard Smith stated that there currently 13 spaces - six across no the front and 7 in the back. Will not to elininating any that-u�stion altogether. parkinq spaces, but will, in tact, Leaain:n: one space. Ms. aaer stated that she felt the warehousing use question Lidicated one parking space which was concerted into a 0,l•7 ba tia,l down. storage spaco which would be reconverted into a parking space if the addition were built. Collins made a motion to give conceptual approval to the Ms. Baer stated that you could not reduce the nz ber of /neon B•iildir.g conditioned on the lower floor and the -.ter _ rnez^ial u r_s bninq dedicated to basically tourist and parking spaces but must at least retain the nu. at u;es and that the_• applicant come back which approval was given. at -r.-c• stage ant indicate what uses he intends to provide Smith stated that he thought the building was approved fur•...,:r tb:,t to. a,lre,e tr, 'join any future parkinq di.- -___ or c,,mply with the parking requirements as they are for 15 parking spaces. _or�Iatei at a later date. Motion seconded by Landry. Jack Jenkins arrived. " •:�c•sti�.nerl the possibility of increasing the set- •or, it is :,u _... we;t slob: and cutting down the setback on the Smith pointed out that tourist accommodations and the concensus is that you do not need one space per apart- si:•..r -10- -9- 0 • 0 • TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Planning Office SUBJECT: Vroom Building DATE: 5/7/74 Main & Mill (site of Food Factory) Central Area 4500 sq. ft. lot � area approximately 6D00 sq. ft. total floor area; 20-25' high. Uses: Commercial & office; commercial uses are by right. Historic Preservation Commee has reviewed the Bldg. and approved it with recommendation of a wrought iron fence to enclose landscaped areas from sidewalk because of high pedestrian traffic at this corner. Basis for approval: compatability in materials, massing and detail similarities. Considerations: Commercial uses should be tourist oriented. Parking: generates approximately 20 cars Employees: Economist needs additional information in the form of an impact study in order to calculate number of new jobs and additional population. Isir ROY VROOM REALTOR Box TT, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone 925-7151 March 11, 1974 Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission City Hall Aspen, Colorado 81611 Subject: Vroom Building Location: Corner of Mill and Main Streets Lot K and West Half of L, Block 86 Reference: ordinance 19 Review The subject building will be two stories above grade with basement, of bit brick construction and Victorian design. The function of the subject building shall be one or two shops on the ground floor and one or two offices on the second floor. The basement shall be storage. It is anticipated the shops shall be software such as men's and women's clothing, and the offices of a professional nature. fvom Box T Aspen, Colorado 81611 ASF Li - (4✓&S) 2 B.I. BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT CITY OF ASPEN -COUNTY OF PITKIND, COLORADO. ,f..::t 7 zq 5 fpLDRESS GENERAL PI CONSTRUCTION �OF �O� Lj 400 E. Main (Mill & Main Bldg. L PERMIT -` I WHEN SIGNED AND VALIDATED BY BUILiDANG INSPECTION DEPARTMENT THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES THE WORK DESCRIBED BELOW. ) CLASS OF WORK: NEW I< ADDITION ❑ ALTERATION ❑ REPAIR ❑ MOVE ❑ WRECK ❑ .OWNER — - - NAME Roy Broom ADDRESS PO TT PHONE 7151 ac LICENSE LICENSE ! O NAME (AS LICENSED) CLASS NUMBER V INSURANCE i°- ADDRESS PHONE - ❑ 10 SUPERVISOR V FOR THIS JOB NAME DATE CERTIFIED LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT NO. BLOCK NO. ADDITION — SURVEY ATTACHED ❑ DESIGN BY Tri Co BY A LIC. PE NO _ -Sy_erause-Lawler NO. TOTAL _ OCCUPANCY AREA (S.F.) HEIGHT ,AT GkADE 5000 (FEET) STORIES 2 UNITS 0 I GROUP DIV. E ATTACHED FIN. SINGLE TOTAL FA.SEMENT ❑ GARAGE ❑ ❑ UNFIN. ❑ DOUBLE ❑ DETACHED ❑ ROOMS 6 max. TYPE FIRE CONSTR. ZONE DEPTH FIRST SIZE SPACING SPAN AGENCY AUTHORIZED DATE BELOW BY Z GRACE FLOOR 1EIEW Q RVG t- EXTERIOR I' FOOTING N CEILING Q SIZE Q ZONING FUN EXTERIOR WALL CONC. ❑ ROOF PARKING Q THICKNESS MAS'Y ❑ PUBLIC HEALTH - E THICK ❑ CAISSONS ❑ ROOFING SLAB & GR. BEAMS MATERIAL ENGINEERING — - ' CXTERIOR MASONRY ABOVE ABOVE ABOVE THICKNESS 1ST FLR. ZND FLR. 3RD FLR. WALL STUD SIZE ABOVE ABOVE A60VE 6 SPACE IST FLR. 2ND FLR. 3RD FLR. I- - (REMARKS Removing present buildings. Auilding new structure. For profess_onal offices & - retail stores. NOTES TO APPLICANT FOR INSPECTIONS OR INFORMATION CALL 925 - 7336 FOR ALL WORK DONE UNDER THIS PERMIT THE Pt*MITTEE ACCEPTS FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR I VALUATION COMPLIANCE WITH THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE THE COUNTY ZONING RESOLUTION OR CITY OF WORK 100,000. ZONING ORDINANCE, AND ALL OTHER COUNTY RESOLUTIONS OR CITY ORDINANCES WHICHEVER APPLIES. SEPARATE PERMITS MUST BE OBTAINED FOR ELECTR*C.AL, PLUMBING AND HEATING, SIGNS, - -- PLAN TOTALFEE SWIMMING POOLS AND FENCES. PERMIT EXPIRES 60 DAYS FROM DATE ISSUED JNLM WORK IS STARTED. T P �, FILED 226.50 REQUIRED INSPECTIONS SHALL BE REQUESTED ONE WORKING DAY IN ADVANCE. ALL FINAL INSPECTIONS SHALL BE. MADE ON ALL IFKMS OF WORK BEFORE OCCUPANCY IS PERMITTED. DOUBLE CHECK i J $ - 113.29 FEE CASH ❑ f ` THIS BUILDING SHALL NOT BE OCCUPIED UNTIL. A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BFFN ISSUED. ❑ -.�----- BUILDING DEPAi T; E VT ~- � PERMIT SUBJECT TO REVTC ION OR $USPEWiON FOR VIOLATION OF ANY LAWS GOVERNING SAME. IiSIGYNATURE / ' O F APPLICANT' APPROVAL BY DATE AMOUNT DATE PERMIT NO. THIS FORM IS A PdMIT ONLY — - LICENSE RECEIPTS CLASS — - ------ WHEN VALIDATED HERE 2_22_74 63-74 INSPECTOR'S COPY Ilc.