Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ec.Wedum Associates, 617 W. Main St. 53-80 .' 1. DATE SUBMITTED: 9/11180 2. APPLICANT: Randy Wedum No. 53-80 CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET. City of Aspen STAFF: ,lnl"p" l'r':~Qh - 3. REPRESENTATIVE: Herb Klein 201 N Mill Q?5-8700 (Sachs, Klein ann Seigle) 4. PROJECT NAME: Wedum A<;<;odat!'<; SlIhdi'v,'..;on Fxr"pHnn 5. LOCATION: 6. TYPE OF APPLICATION: Rezoning P.U.D. Special Review Growth Management HPC .J( Subdivision x Exception Exemption 70:30 Residential Bonus Stream Margin _____8040 Greenline View Plane _____Conditional Use Other L...ollldo J'k /nihllt:1f"D "'~ 7. REFERRALS: x Attorney ~Engineering Dept. _____Housi ng Water _____City Electric Sanitation District School District Fire Marshal _____Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas Parks _____State Highway Dept. Holy Cross Electric _____Other Mountain Bell 8. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS: P+ ~ , C.f~ , , . 9. DISPOSITION: P & z ../ Approved ,/ Denied Date /)cC 21 /1 g,o I ~~ novA tJ-/PyouJ 1.t!:-.k.UJ,J.J..,.'S/'d>1. /''''1/r<7r''''''-- ~cW.'vt!..- 6..''7 (.,),)""":, (AnCt'ftv",j =x-l p+.:c r:.~j'~",~ jPrn-Ja t) (J...,.. ,1 d;>avC'_ ..J.... J ,J.f;;y-~l""j~,v_'C~';o>-- ~;........,.....dl2-bfilj'-"-"f'd""'$ ~1'/V<V1(J..JlorCH/~ C~7>o-"'LO'n...-: II V , 1. The phrase "original Aspen Townsite" be added to all property descriptions. 2. The electric and communication utility easement (transformer location) be enlargeclto 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 vi A~IIJ 1. The phrase "original Aspen Townsite" be added to llll property descriptions. Approved .J \'2... vv--~\- Denied Date NoVo 2..4 /1/30 I c" vccLr" f,' (j>.J; d lh....-~ o {f..' U2.- C ov...J 0 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. 10. ROUTING: 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. Attorney v Building V Engineering Other ~ MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission ~spen 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: 617 West Main Street ock 25, Aspen Townsite) Zoning: Location: O-Office with Histori 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 Comments: Recommend approval subject to conditions being met, See attached memo dated October 8, 19S0, A ttorney I 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, 19S0, 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, 19SO. 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, 19S0 Engineering memo, P&Z Recommendation: At its regular meeting on October 21, 19SO, 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. fI".......~ Wedum Associ ates Subdi .' ion Excepti on '-.-- 2. City Council Moti on: 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) condit i oned 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 !;I , 1980. SACHS, KLEIN & SEIGLE Attorneys for Wedum-617 West Main Street Associates By.:. ~./ 'lffi'r ert . 1<le in 201 North Mill St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-8700 -2- .....,. " o. CITY O~ .'\ "1 " ," '.i1 130 south galena aspen, colorado ASPEN s t re e t 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. TO: FROM: DATE: RE: /' ", <",_..- r'? ^ C,Try~0~T ( ',' >.' ,,' ...., .. "......_..... ~4. ~l.......4 .., 1 3 0 S 0' ,. , ! \ '.' ", I " '.'" s t r e c t \... .... ...l'''' ..,4. ',' 81611 c ~ ~r\y aspen, colorado MEMORANDUM Jolene Vrchota, Planning Office ~ Lou Buettner, Engineering Departmentp.I// October' 8, 1980 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: /1DJ:.I.'l,};-t-)4& ' 4. " 1. The phrase "original Aspen Townsite" be added to 'all property descriptions. The electric, and co~unicotion utility e"~r.~ 1"."fO.- enlarged to 7 feet by 10 feet. ....,*' 4~ ( (cx...,rl;o-.-.- ,i~z:d1'~ -h> be.- :fi. .1.. Cl I ~ ~ C'->-ti;~ /oVV' -.. S--rf Owner/applicant construc'i:u five fSot sidewa in the ~<<c~ location specifi\"9,El k~~~bY Engineering Department. ~. PYokd~1F.tL""+CJ...--~nl:... Le......--K.a-.5.{4.;f, e-v--;J,~' Section 24-4.5 of the Mun~cipal 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. 2. 3. 5. The condominium plats should be supplied to the Engineering Department for checking prior to recording. 'I ;1 I i~ ,I I MEJ~ORANDUN TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning COlTinission Aspen City Council FROM: Jolene Vrchota, Planning Office RE: Wedum Associates Subdivision Exception DATE: October 15, 19S0 APPROVED AS TO FORM FOR CITY COUNCIL: Zoning: O-Office with Historic District Overlay 617 West Main Street (Lots C and D, Block 25, Aspen Townsite) Location: 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 Comments: Recommend approval subject to conditions being met. See attached memo dated October S, 19S0. 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, 19S0. 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, 19S0, 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 in the October S, 1980 Engineering memo, /1t..r-Io ~ fJI<3)(, /2 V.......:.:~ - SOL<-.A- 0 k C"'~-"'-- o/''"~' - ~ oV',,--eI"O> ~ &~ ;"'"re. ~~ 0"-'- Uc.o.-..T. ~ Qog~; proble....... ,--,,'.u-. red.0d:';o-- ~'-- pav~;'-& Sf'd='S'-' i,,-soJ-{f;C-<.'or~+j' h-o +0 a.d.e('-'4.-k -fb-.,.... it- w....<.~ ~ ~ a..f k;;,d- t!>.A..y...=-/v....,+ 10""- ~s ~ C-oulJ. ~"- n---.."-e. 'i5V~;C!T b---+ b<.J~ 'S,~"'""lof~ I__~ gfr-=-...... 'Sfo>~ 1S"b7J&f.f-t, -+ 3cro H ItU-s,,",-, = C4.., IS f","ork \,i..r;l[\(t;, k-i'(3:i l/~g:iy~d k"-., T,J c.....J.J. be. ..k./..:J ()'- ~--;) ~f~-c.JL. LJ,.'tt. C<; ~ ' {~ k ~ .ft, ~ ~ - +L--.("~~ ~ p...rc- (ee, tl-f(yro-v-a..Z t:--<h.-J._al'~~ ~ ~ :~~- ~.' , .. . .t , , , " /'''. '" "" APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM SUDDIVISION REGULATIONS Request is hereby made on bchalf 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 rcccnt improvcment survcy of the above- a,'"crllJcc1 pl:op,-'rty is attachcd hereto. . , ,,-. -, The applicant would appreciate your consideration of this application [or exemption at your next regular meeting. Dated: September ;'! // , 1980. SACHS, KLEIN & SEIGLE Attorneys for Wedum-617 West Main Street Associates By,;. ,.~~-.-/ Reroert S. Klein 201 North Mill St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-8700 . ~2-, . '''''M.. t.', ",,':wtl..'. ~ t. C.,. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves March 04, 1980 Requalr Meeting " , , 617 West Main Sbreet Special Review Aspen Planning and Zoninq Commission 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 Deeartrnent'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. Commissionmernbers 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 sundivision procedures being entered at final plat pub11c 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 NcDonnell, 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. Sunny Vann introduced the 617 Main Street Special Parking Review and stated the applic~nt 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 .~...." c.". .mf'!(fL 8. R. ~ L Ll . . Regular Meeting Lodge Condominiumi- zation/Lodge Preservation IIL-VG.'..... '-JI 1.......""........_....__ Aspen i _anning and Zoning Commiss_ ,.1 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. Richard Grice of the Planning Office introduced the Lodge Condominiumization/Lodge Preservation, being of two sub- 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 30% 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. Also, the 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 to~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 h~re 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 ordinance on Lodge Condominiumization as amended during the discussion this commission has had at this meetina. Welton Anderson so moved. Perrv Harvev. .O"A~U rUDLlGHING co", DI'NVIEIt ---- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Historic PrcC'ervilti.on Committee --------- May 13, ,1.980 City Counci.l Chambers The Aspen !Iisto!'ic Preservation Committee held a regular meeting on H.1Y 13, 1980, at 1: 00 HI in City Council Chambers. Membcrs presen t were Gao.rJ Hoses, Terry End, Georceann Wo.ggaman, and Florence Glidden. Planning staff represent- ative, Sunny Vann, was also present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Gaard Moses, vice chairman, conducted the meeting in ,Jon Seigle's absence. 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 Co1"'[;. ~~ Ma~n and Galena St. Sunny Vann introduced the case stating that the Oasis Station was scheduled to come before HPC for review 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 requir.ements and is therefore an improper ap- plication at present. He said that until application i' 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 the case comes before HPC and is approved. Issue is dead for the time being. Final Approval 617 \oJest Main- The item was tabled until the next HPC meeting. ~ 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 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 Main Street. Basically what is and has occured is that new buildings or renovations are built with maximum FAR because it is more econpmical; most then do not meet the parking requirements for a building of that scale. So the people then petition P & Z for a reduction of the parking requirement. City Hall Roof Renovation Public Hearin~ and -fInal Approval Jay Haoonond of the Engineering Department and Sheree Sonfield of the Finance Department gaye ~he_presentatiol for the re-roofing of City Hall. Sheree began by stating that she had spoken with the Colorado lIistorical Society who said they would not finance the renovation for 1;:wo reasons: 1) cost, 2) the historical appropriateness of the Perma-Seam Metal Roofing. They felt thilt there was never a stand- ing Beam raof so why should one be installed now. In Sheree's o?inion, after talking with Jay and Welton An- dcrson, an architect, the standing seam is most appro- priate because of its dull color, matte finish, and durabil ity. RUe the f1istoY'1cal Society said they wantec: it to be either a wood shingle roof or a corregated metal roof. TC'rJ'y Ciskc:'d. ,if th.'y would fund a corl'''gated metal roof. Jay S'J id yes, they would fund one-half the cost of the (,OI""'.;"t,,<.I r:lcl,:ll. fIe added, "If we wdnted to do a st.,tlldiniO ::;,.,tf'l roof, ,!e' WOjuJr! only f~,-,t one-half of the cost (\f.d()jrl,rr, :~t in thr-' ('or'y'r':?"l1.:r'rj Iflf.t,Jl (nnt." orl<;-rl\"ll( If PL _'5')'2- T Iso Oliphant Residence 210 Lake Ave. Historic Designation PROJECT REVIEW 617 West Main Final Approval ';". (.:) <;;J , , . o , o . o , . . ; , i " o o -'"...... " -2- Jon opened it to Committee discussion. Terry End and Florence Glidden said they had no objection to the designation. 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. Welton Anderson, architect, was present on behalf of the owner to request historic designation for this 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 1888 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 theWPW Joint Venture in 1975. Terry said that according to this was not historically sigriificant. because it was built and owned by it historically significant. information, that it Welton said that Judge Dean, this made 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. 'Randy We dum brou~ht final working ,drawings of the 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. ,!"...... .... (1,<,.0 ,.U>>L.I.I-4ING CO.. DENVeR -3- RECORD OF PROCEED)NGS .;:--- A';:)f'n Historic Preservation Committee Ma 27 1980 Cit Council Chambers 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 approving 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 I must be torn down and the building reconstructed. Theyl would be starting over with a new building saving the I front windows. It would be preserving the architectu- I ral character not the physical shell. Andre's Club 312 S. Galena Preapplicaiton Review Andre Ulrych came before the Committee with his pro- posal to add windows on the south side of Andre's Club 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. He 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. Unoych said that the only other condit- ion was that in total, they not exceed 25% of the total wall 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. ~ ........, , -~- HPC- 5/1-1-/80 Mr. Ulrych a~cond request...to construct an "airlock" for wind protection by building two front doors. This past winter he had hung a drape to cut t wind drafts that ble w in the front door. This proved insufficient. The change would allow more light in i the restaurant, give more seating and more wind pro- , tection. The Committee asked Mr. Ulrych to come back II' for this request. Marjorie Brenner made the motion to proceed with the I 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 ' I the upper windows can be done in the second stage. I Florence seconded the motion; all in favor, motion I carried. I Randy Wedum returned to give another solution to the ! 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 he did not obtain approval there, he would return to HPC to present another solution. At this time, HPC \ could give approval for a ramp on the side(on the sid~ 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. 617 West Main Final Approval 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; seconded by Marjorie, all in favor, meeting adjourned at 2:15. !~ ,~,J";)F .. GlO' ,1 Deput~y Clerk -- TO: FROM: RE: DATE: MEMORANDUM Jolene Vrchota, Planning Office Robert B. Edmondson, Acting City Attorney Wedum Associates Subdivision Exception (Condominiumization) October 8, 1980 -- - - - -- -- - - -- -- -- -- -- -- - - -- -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -.- -- - - - - - - -- No Comment. ~~ , , MEMORANDUM City Attorney (Acting) Dan McArthur, City Engineer FROM: Jolene Vrchota, Planning Office \ TO: 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, IgaO; therefore, may I please have your written comments no later than October 8, 19aO? Thanks.