The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutcoa.lu.ec.Wedum Associates, 617 W. Main St. 53-80m m 53 80 Wedum Associates (617 West Main St_) " ASPEN/PITKIN-PLANNING OFFICE 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 LAND USE APPLICATION FEES County 00100 — 63711 09009 — 00000 Subdivision/PUD 63712 Special Review 63713 P&Z Review Only 63714 Detailed Review 63715 Final Plat 63716 Special Approval 63717 Specially Assigned City 00100 — 63721 09009 — 00000 Conceptual Application 63722 Preliminary Application 63723 Final Application 63724 -E xem ption 63725 Rezoning 63726 Conditional Use PLANNING OFFICE SALES 00100 — 63061 09009 — 00000 County Land Use Sales 63062 GMP Sales 63063 Almanac Sales Copy Fees Other Name: Project: Address: Phone: Check No. Date: Receipt No. P ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 LAND USE APPLICATION FEES County 00100 — 63711 09009 — 00000 Subdivision/PUD 63712 Special Review 63713 P&Z Review Only 63714 Detailed Review 63715 Final Plat 63716 Special Approval 63717 Specially Assigned City 00100— 63721 09009 — 00000 Conceptual Application 63722 Preliminary Application 63723 Final Application 63724 Exemption 63725 Rezoning 63726 Conditional Use PLANNING OFFICE SALES 00100 — 63061 09009 — 00000 County Land Use Sales 63062 GMP Sales 63063 Almanac Sales Copy Fees Other / Name:— Project:________ — Address:_ _ Phone: --__—__— Check No. Date: Receipt No. P i No. 53-80 CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen 1. DATE SUBMITTED: 9111/80 STAFF: oneyrrhpta 2. APPLICANT: Randy Wedum 3. REPRESENTATIVE:Herb Klein 201 N. Mill 925-8700 4. PROJECT NAME: J edum Assnciatpg Suhdivisinn FxrPption 5. LOCATION: 6. TYPE OF APPLICATION: Rezoning P.U.D. Special Review Growth Management HPC _Subdivision _Exception Exemption 70:30 Residential Bonus Stream Margin 8040 Greenline View Plane Conditional Use Other 7. REFERRALS: x Attorney Sanitation District School District x Engineering Dept. Fire Marshal Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas Housing Parks State Highway Dept. Water Holy Cross Electric Other City Electric Mountain Bell 8. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS: �-d� L_J 9. DISPOSITTION: P & Z 'V Approved \/ Denied Date' AL ,- L JK O_/,-"-f'm_ h_Ja-e✓e_ Cry-.. 1. The phrase "original Aspen Townsite" be added to all property descriptions. 2. The electric and communication utility easement (transformer location) be enlarged to 7 feet by 10 feet with exact location to be approved by Engineering Department in conjunction with the applicant with a five- foot access easement. 3. Owner/applicant shall construct a sidewalk with a width as near as possible to five feet, which may be narrower as necessary to accomodate protection of the cottonwood trees and to maintain the flow of water in the irrigation ditch; such sidewalk alignment shall be approved by the Engineering Department. 4. The condominium plats should be supplied to the Engineering Department for checking prior to recording. Council V � Qy� 1� Approved I / Denied Date ly,6" V J �' �- y C:i TT 1. The phrase "original Aspen Townsite" be added to all property descriptions. — 2. The electric and communication utility easement (trans- former location) be enlarged to 7 feet by 10 feet,with exact location to be approved by Engineering Depart- — ment in conjunction with the applicantswith a five- foot access easement. — 3. Owner/applicant shall construct a sidewalk with a — width as near as possible to five feet, which may be narrower as necessary to accommodate protection of — the cottonwood trees and to maintain the flow of water in the irrigation ditch; such sidewalk alignment shall be approved by the Engineering Department. 10. ROUTING: 4. The condominium plats should be supplied to the Engi- neering Department for -checking prior to recording. Attorney V Building Engineering Other MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission l/Aspen City Council FROM: Jolene Vrchota, Planning Office RE: Wedum Associates Subdivision Exception DATE: October 15, 1980 / November 17, 1980 APPROVED AS TO FORM FOR CITY COUNCIL: d Zoning: 0-Office with Histori D strict Overl Location: 617 West Main Streeti( ots C and D, ock 25, Aspen Townsite) Lot Size: 6,000 square feet Request: Condominiumization through Subdivision Exception for an existing office building with approximately 12 units, all to be used for office space. Some tenants may occupy con- tiguous spaces. A new building is currently being constructed to replace a residential structure. Engineering Recommend approval subject to conditions being met. See Comments: attached memo dated October 8, 1980. Attorney's Comments: No comment. HPC Consideration: To meet five Code regulations, the existing Victorian was removed and the facade duplicated. The building will be built using the maximum allowed FAR (.75:1). Final appro- val was granted on June 17, 1980. P & Z Special P & Z granted special review approval for reduction in the Review: number of parking spaces from 3 per 1,000 square feet to 1.5 per 1,000 square feet to a minimum of 7 parking spaces for the 4,500 sq. ft. building. Action taken March 4, 1980. Planning Office The Planning Office recommends subdivision exception appro- Recommendation: val (waiving Conceptual consideration by City Council and Preliminary Plat consideration by P & Z). Further, Con- ceptual approval by P & Z is recommended subject to the conditions stated in the October 8, 1980 Engineering memo. P&Z Recommendation: At its regular meeting on October 21, 1980, the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission recommended approval of Sub- division Exception (waive City Council Conceptual and P&Z Preliminary approval) and gave Conceptual approval for condominiumization of a maximum of 12 office spaces con- ditioned on: 1. The phrase "original Aspen Townsite" be added to all property descriptions. 2. The electirc and communication utility easement (trans- former location) be enlarged to 7 feet by 10 feet, with exact location to be approved by Engineering Department in conjunction with the applicant,with a five-foot access easement. 3. Owner/applicant shall construct a sidewalk with a width as near as possible to five feet, which may be narrower as necessary to accommodate protection of the cotton- wood trees and to maintain the flow of water in the irrigation ditch; such sidewalk alignment shall be approved by the Engineering Department. 4. The condominium plats should be supplied to the Engineering Department for checking prior to recording. Wedum Associates Subdision Exception 9 2. City Council Motion: Move to recommend final plat approval for the condominiumi- zation of a maximum of twelve (12) office spaces at 617 West Main Streets (Lots C and D, Block 25, Aspen Townsite) conditioned on: 1. The phrase "original Aspen Townsite" be added to all property descriptions. 2. The electric and communication utility easement (trans- former location) be enlarged to 7 feet by 10 feet,with exact location to be approved by Engineering Depart- ment in conjunction with the applicant with a five- foot access easement. 3. Owner/applicant shall construct a sidewalk with a width as near as possible to five feet, which may be narrower as necessary to accommodate protection of the cottonwood trees and to maintain the flow of water in the irrigation ditch; such sidewalk alignment shall be approved by the Engineering Department. 4. The condominium plats should be supplied to the Engi- neering Department for checking prior to recording. APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS Request is hereby made on behalf of Wedum-617 W. Main Street Associates, a Colorado general partnership (hereinafter referred to as "Applicant") under Section 20-19(a) of the Aspen, Colorado Subdivision Regulations, for an exemption from the definition of the term "subdivision" with respect to the following real property: Lots C and D, Block 25 City and Townsite of Aspen County of Pitkin, State of Colorado It is submitted that the requested exemption is appropriate for the condominiumization of an office building which is constructed on the above -described property. If the requested exemption is granted, the owners of the property will have a common interest in the land and there will be a condominium declaration and maintenance agreement applicable to the property which will not in any way increase the land use impact of the property. An exemption in this case will not conflict with the intents and purposes of the subdivision regulations of the City of Aspen which are directed to assist the orderly, efficient and integrated development of the city to insure the proper distribution of population, to coordinate the need for public services, and to encourage well -planned subdivision. The above -described real property is zoned "0" for office use and the building constructed on the property will be used for permitted purposes. Accordingly, the granting of this exemption application will not undermine the intent of the subdivision regulations of the City of Aspen as this application is clearly within the area intended for exemption. The applicant intends to file a condominium plat for the property which will include approximately twelve condominium units. The building will be occupied, however, by substantially less than twelve tenants due to the fact that some tenants will occupy contiguous units. A copy of a recent improvement survey of the above - described property is attached hereto. The applicant would appreciate your consideration of this application for exemption at your next regular meeting. Dated: September , 1980. SACHS, KLEIN & SEIGLE Attorneys for Wedum-617 West Main Street Associates By: /�- H`erbert Klein 201 North Mill St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-8700 -2- CITY Y-ASPEN 130 sou,`` ';aietaa street aspen, Colorado 81611 MEMORANDUM TO: Jolene Vrchota, Planning Office FROM: Lou Buettner, Engineering Department DATE: October 8, 1980 RE: Wedum Assoc. Subdivision Exception Condominiumization After having reviewed the survey plat, architectural site plan for the above subdivision exception and having made a site in- spection, the Engineering Department recommends approval with the following conditions: 1. The phrase "original Aspen Townsite" be added to all property descriptions. 2. The electric and communication utility easement is enlarged to 7 feet by 10 feet. 3. Owner/applicant construct five foot sidewalk in the location specified by the City Engineering Department. 4. Section 24-4.5 of the Municipal Code requires three parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of building. This building would require approximately fourteen spaces. The architectural drawing says a variance was approved for only seven spaces. This variance was not supplied by the Engineering Department. The parking variance needs to be varified. 5. The condominium plats should be supplied to the Engineering Department for checking prior to recording. 13o s(; street aspen, eolorado 81611 MEMORANDUM TO: Jolene Vr.chota, Planning Office FROM: Lou Buettner, Engineering Department �� DATE: October 8, 1980 RE: Wedum Assoc. Subdivision Exception Condominiumization After having reviewed the survey plat, architectural site plan for the above subdivision exception and having made a site in- spection, the Engineering Department recommends approval with the following conditions: 1. The phrase "original Aspen Townsite" be added to,all property descriptions. 2. The electric and communication utility easement�✓?N�"" enlarged to 7 feet by 10 feet. ce O Z71* & '- '� � -.e J . / . � 3. Owner/applicant construe five f of sidewa in the c�I location L7QY/r�spGecif ied. y'��JEngi�nneering/ Department. 2 4. Section 24-4.5 of the Municipal Code requires three parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of building. This building would require approximately fourteen spaces. The architectural drawing says a variance was approved for only seven spaces. This variance was not supplied by the Engineering Department. The parking variance needs to be varified. 5. The condominium plats should be supplied to the Engineering Department for checking prior to recording. • • MEMORANDUM 11 TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Aspen City Council FROM: Jolene Vrchota, Planning Office RE: Wedum Associates Subdivision Exception DATE: October 15, 1980 APPROVED AS TO FORM FOR CITY COUNCIL: Zoning: 0-Office with Historic District Overlay Location: 617 West Main Street (Lots C and D, Block 25, Aspen Townsite) Lot Size: 6,000 square feet Request: Condominiumization through Subdivision Exception for an existing office building with approximately 12 units, all to be used for office space. Some tenants may occupy con- tiguous spaces. A new building is currently being constructed to replace a residential structure. Engineering Recommend approval subject to conditions being met. See Comments: attached memo dated October 8, 1980. Attorney's Comments: No comment. HPC Consideration: To meet five Code regulations, the existing Victorian was removed and the facade duplicated. The building will be built using the maximum allowed FAR (.75:1). Final appro- val was granted on June 17, 1980. P & Z Special P & Z granted special review approval for reduction in the Review: number of parking spaces from 3 per 1,000 square feet to 1.5 per 1,000 square feet to a minimum of 7 parking spaces. See attached minutes from March 4, 1980, P & Z minutes. Planning Office The Planning Office recommends subdivision exception appro- Recommendation: val (waiving Conceptual consideration by City Council and Preliminary Plat consideration by P & Z). Further, Con- ceptual approval by P & Z is recommended subject to the conditions stated, the October 8, 1980 Engineering memo. U ��- 1 .� J nl.��f� �'- ' IJ; f APPLICATION FOP, EXEMPTION FT,nM SUI'DIVISION i:l GLi1,�,TIONS Request is hereby made on behalf of Wedum-617 W. Main Street Associates, a Colorado general partnership (hereinafter referred to as "Applicant") under Section 20-19(a) of the Aspen, Colorado Subdivision Regulations, for an exemption from the definition of the term "subdivision" with respect to the following real property: Lots C and D, Block 25 City and Townsite of Aspen County of Pitkin, State of Colorado It is submitted that the requested exemption is appropriate for the condominiumization of an office building which is constructed on the above -described property. If the requested exemption is granted, the owners of the property will have a common interest in the land and there will be a condominium declaration and maintenance agreement applicable to the property which will not in any way increase the land use impact of the property. An exemption in this case will not conflict with the intents and purposes of the subdivision regulations of the City of Aspen which are directed to assist the orderly, efficient and integrated development of the city to insure the proper distribution of population, to coordinate the need for public services, and to encourage well -planned subdivision. The above -described real property is zoned "O" for office use and the building constructed on the property will be used for permitted purposes. Accordingly, the granting of this exemption application will not undermine the intent of the subdivision regulations of the City of Aspen as this application is clearly within the area intended for exemption. The applicant intends to file a condominium plat for the property which will include approximately twelve condominium units. The building will be occupied, however, by substantially less than twelve tenants due to the fact that some tenants will occupy contiguous units. �1 copy of a i.ecenL improvement survey of the above- d� p1:OP,•rty is attZlchccl The applicant would appreciate your consideration of this application for exemption at your next regular meeting. Dated: September 1980. SACHS, KLEIN & SEIGLE Attorneys for Wedum-617 West Main Street Associates $Y_ - - H'erbert S. Klein 201 North Mill St. Aspen, Colorado 8161.1 (303) 925-8700 4 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Regualr Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission March 04, 1980 Office recommends the City be granted an exception from compliance with full subdivision procedures for purposes of subdiviiding the parcel in question, subject to*the Engineering Department's recommendations in their memoran- dum dated February 28, 1980. The City should be excepted from conceptual approval before Council and preliminary plat approval before P & Z. The City should be granted an exemption from the definition of subdivision for pur- poses of condominiumization of the proposed duplex struc- tures. The City intends to request special review approval upon finalization of its building program. Olof Hedstrom commented that there had been a discussion before the meeting concerning the public's approval and opprotunity to comment on what the City proposes to do with their property and I would like Ron Stock, City At- torney, to tell us what he recommends the action be taken towards the neighbors and their views. Ron Stock commented that what is being asked of the P & Z that a conceptual review be brought before this commis- sion and approval is granted on conceptual review, the applicant be exempted from conceptual group review before the Council and Preliminary Plat before P & Z and go directly to the Final Plat Process before Council. Commissionmembers felt they would be satisfied as long as there would be a Public Hearing before the City Council. Ron stated that the financing has yet to be determined at which time this would be a purchase by employee heads with long term housing and reversion back'to the City when the employee/owner wants to sell, the City will have first right to refusal and there will be deed restrictions to insure employee housing. When the Special.Review is to be heard, we will at that time present the commission with a copy of any deed for examination. Roger Hunt moved for exception of the City of Aspen Sub- division Exemption/Exception Housing #1 from compliance with full subdivision procedures being entered at final plat publ-ic hearing before City Council. This is condi- tioned subject to being deed restricted as to Employee Housing and subject to Planning Office memorandum dated February 28, 1980 and Engineering Department's memorandum dated February 28, 1980 with conditions 1-3 as stated. Nancy McDonnell, seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Roger Hunt moved to exempt the Aspen Employee Housing #1 from strict application of subdivision regulations for condominiumization on the bases this is restricted to Employee Housing. Perry Harvey, seconded. All in favor, motion carried. 617 West Main Street Sunny Vann introduced the 617 Main Street Special Parking Special Review Review and stated the applicant requests to reduce the parking spaces required for this O-Zoned property, which criteria requires 3 off-street parking spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. totaling 14 spaces for the proposed 4,500 sq.ft. structure. The applicant requests that the number be reduced to six in order to accommodate the proposed struc- ture. The Engineering Department recommends the reduction to seven offi-street parking spaces and the criteria con- sidered is outlined in the memorandum dated February 14, 1980. The Planning Office .concurs with the Engineering Department and in addition should the applicant require a Regular Meetin Aspen finning and Zoning Commiss March 04, 1980 further reduction to six spaces, a variance must be re- quested from the Board of Adjustment. Welton Anderson moved to approved parking reduction for 617 W. Main Street from three (3) parking spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. of office space to 1.5 spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. of office space to a minimum of seven (7) parking spaces as recommended in Engineering Department's memo- randum of February 14, 1980. Perry Harvey, seconded. Lee Pardee, obstained. Roger Hunt, opposed to future uses being questionable. All in favor, motion carried four to one. Lodge Condominiumi- Richard Grice of the Planning Office introduced the Lodge zation/Lodge Condominiumization/Lodge Preservation, being of two sub - Preservation jects, which the condominiumization should be heard first. The proposed ordinance does answer the Planning office's problems with condition #1 and in condition '#2, deals with employee housing by requiring a minimum of 2 pillows or that amount which existed three years previous to the applica- tion for condominiumization. Condition #3, requires the continuation of amenities previously existing. Condition #4, requires registration with the local reservation sys- tem. Condition #5, requires common areas to be continued in the same character they were previously used, and the condition #6, requires physical upgrading, with changes to 6a of 30o and approved by the City Building Inspector within nine months, and the applicability conditions for the life of the survivor of the present City Council plus 21 years, satisfies the perpetuity of the law, and then the procedures for condominiumization. Alsolthe Sever - ability Claus needs to be included in this ordinance. The Planning Office recommends aodption with the changes outlined. Lee Pardee questioned the covenants in the Condominium Declaration and the personal use and felt the City should be able to attach a lien and the funds go jointly to the Condominium Association and the City and be a devise the City could use to enforce the Association to use it's declarations. The concerns would be with the people leaving and selling employee units so this wording needs tob*-included in this ordinance, to insure retaining employee housing. Olof Hedstrom commented after deliberation, there is no way to write an airtight ordinance of this type and felt with the additions to this proposed ordinance there should be reasonable safeguards in this respect. Perry Harvey commented the intent of this commission is to provide economic alternatives to balance business in this community but the approach here is going to be abused and we could not plug every loophole when the ordinance is first established. Olof Hedstrom entertained a motion to recommend approval on the proposed or on Lodge Condominiumization as amended during the discussion this commission has had at this meeting. Welton Anderson so moved, Perry Harvey, seconded. Roger Hunt, nay. Lee Pardee, nay. All in .orc.pu ruDLISHING CO.. O,MV[n RF:C0V, D_ OF PROCEEDINGS 11is-t:oric Preserv,iti.on Committee May 13, •1980 City Council Chambers The Aspen lIistovic Preservation Committee held a regular meeting on M,-1y 13, 1980, at 1:00 PM in City Council Chambers. Members present were Gaard Moses, Terry End, Georgeann Waggaman, and Florence Glidden. Planning staff represent- ative, Sunny Vann, was also present. Gaard Moses, vice chairman, conducted the meeting in ,Jon Seigle's absence. APPROVAL OF' MINUTES Florence Glidden moved to approve the minutes of April 22, 1980. Seconded by Georgeann Waggaman; all in favor. motion carried. NEW BUSINESS Oasis Petro Energy Sunny Vann introduced the case stating that the Oasis Corp. Station was scheduled to come before HPC for review Main and Galena St. because they want to install a flagpole at the corner of Main and Galena Streets. However, Sunny determined that their request is not consistent with the City's sign code requirements and is therefore an improper ap- plication at present. He said that until application is submitted to the Building Department that is consistent with the sign code regulations, they (Bldg. Dept.) will not issue a sign permit, and cannot issue one before thr case comes before HPC and is approved. Issue is dead for the time being. Final Approval The item was tabled until the next HPC meeting. 617 West Mainin Sunny did present information from the City Council meeting that was held on May 12 concerning the property., Tom Sommers, owner of the property had approached City Countil offering to give the original structure to the City. City Council thought that it would be cheaper E to duplicate the facade than to renovate and move the ! present structure to another location. Sunny said that their decision sets a precedence for removing any struc-; ture along the Main Street corridor. He also discussed the relation that parking has to restoring or building new buildings along P-lain Street. Basically what is and has occured is that new buildings or renovations are ; built with maximum FAR because it is more economical; f most then do not meet the parking requirements for a building of that scale. So the people then petition P & 7, for a reduction of the parking requirement. ; City Hall Roof Jay Hammond of the Engineering Department and Sheree Renovation Sonfield of the Finance Department gave the_pr.esentatior. Public Hear_in:* and for the re -roofing of City Hall. Final Approval Sheree began by stating that she had spoken with the Colorado Historical Society who said they would not finance the renovation for two reasons: 1) cost, 2) the historical appropriateness of the Perma-Seam Metal Roofing. They felt that there was never a stand- ing seam roof so why should one be installed now. In Sheree's opinion, after talking with Jay and Welton An- derson, an architect, the standing seam is most appro- priate because of its dull color; matte finish, and durability. Burr the llistori.cal Society .said they wantec it to be either a wood shingle roof or a corregated metal roof. Terry risked. .if they would fund a corregated metal roof. Jay said yes, they would fund one-half the cost of the corrf-;;,ited rie Lal. He adc.led, "If we wanted to do a st,_triding .room, wo w,)ul(l only get one-half of the co^t of doi.ricT -it in the cc,rrof*,iterl met-�1 (n�� - one-half .0 • PPS Oliphant 210 Lake Historic C -2- Jon opened it to Florence Glidden designation. Committee discussion. Terry End and said they had no objection to the Terry made the motion to approve the application for the Shaw residence to be historically designated, subject to the receipt of the letter from the owner requesting that the residence be historically desig- nated. Seconded by Marjorie Brenner; all in favor, motion carried. Residence Welton Anderson, architect, was present on behalf of Ave. the owner to request historic designation for this Designation residence. He first presented a hanwritten letter from Nancy Oliphant requesting the designation. The Committee asked if she owned the property. Welton said that she was their daughter. Sunny said that the letter was sufficient for the time being but that the final approval would be contingent upon receipt of a letter from Dr. and Mrs. Charles Oliphant. Welton then gave historical background for the desig- nation. He said that it was built in 1688 by Judge Dean who also built Henry Pederson's house at 212 Lake Ave. which had recently been historically desig- nated. According to Welton and his research, it was apparent that it had been just a rental property until it was acquired by the WPW Joint Venture in 1975. Terry said that according to this information, that it was not historically significant. Welton said that because it was built and owned by Judge Dean, this made it historically significant. Welton then said that some construction work was being done currently on the house, but it did not change the architectural design. Sunny brought up the point that City Council, in the subdivision approval of 1977, did not say that the residence be historically designated, but that they (the owners) seek historic designation. Terry questioned why the house should be designated when it was not, in itself, historically meritorious. Sunny said the most influential factor in this in- stance would be its geographical location; this neigh- borhood did have several historically designated structures (in the Hallam Addition area). Marjorie Brenner made the motion to approve the application for the Oliphant residence to be histori- cally designated, subject to the receipt of a signed letter from the Oliphants requesting historic desig- nation. Terry seconded the motion; all in favor, motio: carried. PROJECT REVIEW 617 West Main Randy Wedum brought final working drawings of the Final Approval residence at 617 West Main,.including the color select- ions. He said that he had selected the colors from a book of Victorian color samples. He said that it would be natural weathered cedar siding with lavendar, violet and white trim. • -3- ,•l, JIYLI•N'NG Co.. DINVLR RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ;r, Historic Preservation Committee May 27; 1980 City Council Ch,�mhers Andre's Club 312 S. Galena Preapplicaiton Richard Cicero asked about the ramp and railing drawn in the front of the house shown on the final working drawings. Randy said the ramp and railing were on the prior drawing and had been approved; he said the ramp was required by the Code. Other members of the Com- mittee did not remember opproving the ramp; it had been passed as presented, without a ramp. Sunny Vann brought the approved plans from the Planning Office and they did not show any ramp. The Committee did not react favorably to the ramp as drawn on the working drawings presented today. They asked if there were any other design solution. Richard asked if something could be redesigned to conceal more of the ramp. Sunny said that a solution to the ramp problem was necessary prior to approval of the working drawings. Committee asked Mr. Wedum to come back before the HPC with color and ramp alternatives. Because of fire code regulations, the present building ' must be torn down and the building reconstructed. They; would be starting over with a new building saving the front windows. It would be preserving the architectu- ral character not the physical shell. Andre Ulrych came before the Committee with his pro- posal to add windows on the south side of Andre's Club Review building. He said that he had been before the Board of Appeals for the windows and it had been approved. He was now before the HPC to gain approval for the location of the windows. 'ie said that they could not be operable at this time, they would just have to be fixed windows with safety glass. However, at some future time, they would be converted to operable ones. Sunny asked if the Board of Appeals placed any other conditions on the windows other than they not be operable. Mr. Ulrych said that the only other condit- ion was that in total, they not exceed 2S% of the total wail. area. Mr. Ulrych said that the problem at present was that there was almost no natural light except from the .front windows on the first floor and two small windows on the north (alley) side. He said that he wanted to install the windows in two stages: the first stage being done this summer of the lower four windows. The upper windows would be installed at a later date. He said the design would be the same as the front windows except they would be in a fixed position; they would not have awnings but would have interior shutters Mr. Ulrych said that he had had to go through this approval process because the building code does not allow openings in four-hour walls. He said they had to go to the "intent" of the code which was not to have fires spread from one building to another. He said that they have sprinklers throughout the building as well as above each window being installed. Florence Glidden asked about lighting for the new windows. She said that she would not be in favor of any exterior lighting because it would be additional signage in a way. �` 1 H P G Mr. Ulrych a s second request...to construct an "airlock" for wind protection by building two front C' doors. This past winter he had hung a drape to cut t wind drafts that blew in the front door. This proved insufficient. The change would allow more light in the restaurant, give more seating and more wind pro- tection. The Committee asked Mr. Ulrych to come back" for this request. i Marjorie Brenner made the motion to proceed with the lower four windows this summer, subject to the window materials being the same as the front windows except that they will be inoperable; and to approve that the upper windows can be done in the second stage. Florence seconded the motion; all in favor, motion carried. 617 West Main Randy Wedum returned to give another solution to the Final Approval ramp problem. His solution was to put the ramp along one side of the building to the main lobby. Randy said he would see Clayton Meyring in the Building Department to obtain approval for this solution. If tie did not obtain approval there, he would return to HPC to present another solution. At this time, HPC I could give approval for a ramp on the sidecon the sid(4 contingent upon its approval from the Building Depart- ment. Randy said that a lift could also be considered instead of a ramp in that new location. I Marjorie Brenner moved to approve the new design solution -contingent upon it being approved by the Building Department. If not approved, Randy would come back before HPC for review. Seconded -by Florence Glidden; all in favor, motion carried. Richard Cicero made the motion to adjourn the meeting;i seconded by Marjorie, all in favor, meeting adjourned at 2:15. r Deputy C • y Clerk r C` 46 MEMORANDUM TO: Jolene Vrchota, Planning Office FROM: Robert B. Edmondson, Acting City Attorney RE: Wedum Associates Subdivision Exception (Condominiumization) DATE: October 8, 1980 ----------------------------------------------------------------- No Comment. • 46 MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney (Acting) Dan McArthur, City Engineer FROM: Jolene Vrchota, Planning Office RE: Wedum Associates Subdivision Exception (Condominiumization) DATE: September 16, 1980 The attached application requests condominiumization of an office building located at 617 W. Main. It is scheduled to come before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on October 21, 1980; therefore, may I please have your written comments no later than October 8, 1980? Thanks. m 0 Go t:-L- F-Y LINE Ca Pat.E I t-A P, t.. L r-t( 7- 1 F- o ro r lie 14s y• oq r� l . < TS L:) 12!�, L 0 C- K- NA 41-, 1 1-4 k/ 41 !" -r- CV- i- 1 *4 F- -rq C-ITY "(NG- ir-1 f-Ap"N. ST. ? 5.6 FkwPRorrr--r'( L-J"c- 15 T R- 7- 3 0 0 %a c aL ti CC c Zo 0 IL uj.. %0 11 Oft • 0 zz 0 cc Zz Cc AT _0 c O c .r- 0 140 c c 0 o 1�