HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ec.Main St Associates Block 19 54-800
40
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
1. DATE SUBMITTED: 9/11 80
No. 54-80
STAFF: Jolene Vrrhnta
2. APPLICANT: Main Street Block 19 Associates -
3. REPRESENTATIVE: Herb Klein 925-
201 N. Mill
4. PROJECT NAME: Main St (Block 1'") Assoc Subdivision Fxraptinn
5. LOCATION:
6. TYPE OF APPLICATION:
Rezoning
P.U.D.
Special Review
Growth Management
HPC
7. REFERRALS:
x Attorney
x Engineering Dept.
Housing
Water
City Electric
x Subdivision
x Exception
Exemption
70:30
Residential Bonus
Sanitation District
Fire Marshal
Parks
Holy Cross Electric
Mountain Bell
Stream Margin
8040 Greenline
View Plane
Conditional Use
Other
School District
Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas
State Highejay Dept.
Other
8. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS: P & Z t-m, City Counril final approval
r
9.. DISPOSITION:
P & z ✓ Approved ✓ Denied Date lam% 2_ /
Ge*-Gt� �a ���Are ✓� Z� /�9vc�Cd72�rGu llw� • cc7i m _ �i*+• rl� A oy vcr u�t ,
1. Owner/applicant may condominiumize a maximum of 12 office units
subject to language which shall be included on the condominiumization
plat limiting the number of separate interests which may be sold at
any one time to a maximum of ten (10).
2. The phrase "original Aspen Townsite" be added to all property descriptions.
ion).
_ 3. The electric and communication utility easement (trans ormer locat
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.
_ 4. Owner/applicant shall construct a sidewalk with a width as near as
possible to five feet, which may be narrower as necessary to assure
protection of mature trees and to maintain flow of water in the
irrigation ditch; such sidewalk alignment shall be approved by
_ the Engineering Department.
5. The condominium plats shall be supplied to the Engineering
Department for checking prior to recording.
Councild
_ Approve_ Denied Date Nyy: 4 1 17f30
clo k d h, d o
1.
Owner/applicant may condominiumize a maximum of 12
office units subject to language which shall be included -
on the condominiumization plat limiting the number of
separate interests which may be sold at any one time
to a maximum of ten (10).
2.
The phrase "original Aspen Towns.ite" be added to all
property descriptions.
3.
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
Department in conjunction with the applicant, with
a five-foot access easement.
4.
Owner/applicant shall construct a sidewalk with a width
as near as possible to five feet, which may be narrower
10. ROUTING:
as necessary to assure protection of mature trees and
to maintain flow of water in the irrigation ditch;
such sidewalk alignment shall be approved by the
Attorney
Engineering Department.
5.
The condominium plats shall be supplied to the Engi-
neering Department for cgecking prior to recording.
mi
N Ca l /VI E 124 L6
•
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
V�spen City Council
FROM: Jolene Vrchota, Planning Office
RE: Main Street Block 19 Associates Subdivision Exception
DATE: October 15, 1980 / November 17, 198 /
APPROVED AS TO FORM FOR CITY COUNCIL:Z
Zoning: 0-Office with Histori istrict Ov r ay
Location: 715 W. Main St. (Lots ,E,F, Block 19, Aspen Townsite)
Lot Size: 9,000 square feet
Request: Condominiumization through subdivision exception for an
office building currently under construction. There will
be approximately 12 units, though some tenants may occupy
contiguous units. The previously existing Peterson resi-
dence will be removed from the site and a new structure
built.
Engineering Recommend approval subject to conditions being met. See
Comments: attached memo dated October 8, 1980.
Attorney's
Comments: No comment.
HPC Comments: A new office structure will be designed to incorporate
elements of the Victorian structure. FAR (.75:1) will be
maximized. Final approval granted on April 22, 1980.
P & Z Special P & Z granted special review approval for reduction of
Review: parking spaces from 3 spaces per 1,000 square feet to
1.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet on the condition that
there be no more than 10 offices within the structure to
be built to include 10 spaces. See attached minutes from
May 6, 1980, P & Z meeting.
Planning Office The Planning Office recommends subdivision exception appro-
Recommendation: val (waiving Conceptual consideration by City Council and
Preliminary Plat consideration by P & Z) for the purposes
of condominiumizing not more than 10 office spaces. A
commitment must be made by the applicant to include no more
than 10 office spaces in the condominium plat. Further,
the Planning Office recommends Conceptual approval 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
Subdivision Exception (waive City Council Conceptual and
P&Z Preliminary approvals) and gave Conceptual approval
for condominiumization conditioned on:
1. Owner/applicant may condominiumize a maximum of 12
office units subject to language which shall be included
on the condominiumization plat limiting the number of
separate interests which may be sold at any one time
to a maximum of ten (10).
2. The phrase "original Aspen Townsite" be added to all
property descriptions.
Main Street Block 19 •ociates Subdivision Exception • 2.
3. 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
Department in conjunction with the applicant, with a
five-foot access easement.
4. Owner/applicant shall construct a sidewalk with a width
as near as possible to five feet, which may be narrower
as necessary to assure protection of mature trees
and to maintain flow of water in the irrigation ditch;
such sidewalk alignment shall be approved by the
Engineering Department.
5. The condominium plats shall be supplied to the Engineering
Department for checking prior to recording.
City Council
Motion: Move to grant Final Plat approval for the condominiumiza-
tion of office spaces at 715 West Main Street (Lots D, E,
F; Block 19, Aspen Townsite) conditioned on the following:
1. Owner/applicant may condominiumize a maximum of 12
office units subject to language which shall be included
on the condominiumization plat limiting the number of
separate interests which may be sold at any one time
to a maximum of ten (10).
2. The phrase "original Aspen Townsite" be added to all
property descriptions.
3. 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
Department in conjunction with the applicant, with
a five-foot access easement.
4. Owner/applicant shall construct a sidewalk with a width
as near as possible to five feet, which may be narrower
as necessary to assure protection of mature trees and
to maintain flow of water in the irrigation ditch;
such sidewalk alignment shall be approved by the
Engineering Department.
5. The condominium plats shall be supplied to the Engi-
neering Department for cgecking prior to recording.
APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION
FROM SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
Request is hereby made on behalf of Main Street Block 19
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 D, E, and F, Block 19
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
under construction 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 is
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 Main Street
Block 19 Associates
B
�ierbert S: Klein
201 North Mill St.
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925-8700
-2-
10 -2- •
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
FWM C. F. HWKFL !. !. A L. C,1.
Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission May 06, 1980
the studies that have been made by independent consultants
over the years, so that we have a better feeling. Would
it be suitable to wait until the next meeting and then
have a choice? I talked with Peter Guide before and feel
the Pitkin County P & Z and the Aspen P & Z should have
an informal study session with all commissions concerned
and feel the study session is imperative. The commission
felt that there should be additional wording in this reso-
lution to show urgency of technical work and alignment
from construction feasibilities,and provide a busway. All
agreed to have this proposed resolution brought back at
the next regular meeting with Hans Gramiger's proposed
resolution to look at as well.
Concept 600 Sunny Vann introduced the application of the Concept 600
Subdivision Subdivision Exemption located on Main St. in the western
Exemption portion of the Post Office Facility on the ground floor.
This is a request for subdivision exemption for the pur-
pose of condominiumization. The Engineering Department
recommends approval with no conditions. The Planning
Office concurs with Engineering Department's recommenda=
tion with the added stipulation being subject to appli-
cant's filing of a concominium plat. The Engineering
Department suggested that in keeping with the initiative
taken by the City to construct handicap ramps in the
commercial areas and including the construction of two
handicap ramps for access to the Concept 600 Building.
Perry Harvey moved to recommend approval of exemption
from subdivision for the Concept 600 Building ground floor,
subject to the applicant's filing of a condominium plat.
Joan Klar seconded the motion. All in favor, motion
carried.
715 West Main Sunny Vann introduced the request for a special review
Street Special approval for reduction in the number of required parking
Review spaces for an office building being constructed at 715
West Main involving the renovation of an existing Victo-
rian, creating a series of small offices. The code pro-
vides a mechonizium whereby in the O-Office District, we
may reduce the criteria from 3 spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. to
1.5 spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. Traffic generation is a
primary consideration in reduction of required parking.
The applicant has not indicated the number of offices
the building will be subdivided into nor the nature of
tenants. The Engineering Department has reviewed the
applicant's request and recommends a reduction to 1.5
spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. The Planning Office would be
willing to support that recommendation subject to a com-
mitment as to the number of office spaces to be constructed.
Based on a minimum standard of one space per office, the
maximum number of offices should not exceed ten.
After discussing the parking problem Lee Pardee moved
to reduce the parking requirements for.715 West Main
Street from 3 spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. to 1.5 spaces per
1,000 sq.ft. on the condition that the applicant sign a
stipulation that there be no more than 10 offices within
the structure to be built.to include 10 spaces.
Nancy McDonnell seconded the motion. All in favor, motion
carried.
MEMORANDUM
TO: VRspen Planning and Zoning Commission '
Aspen City Council
FROM: Jolene Vrchota, Planning Office
RE: Main Street Block 19 Associates Subdivision Exception
DATE: October 15, 1980
APPROVED AS TO FORM FOR CITY COUNCIL:
Zoning: 0-Office with Historic District Overlay
Location: 715 W. Main St. (Lots D,E,F, Block 19, Aspen Townsite)
Lot Size: 9,000 square feet
Request: Condominiumization through subdivision exception for an
office building currently under construction. There will
be approximately 12 units, though some tenants may occupy
contiguous units. The previously existing Peterson resi-
dence will be removed from the site and a new structure
built.
Engineering Recommend approval subject to conditions being met. See
Comments: attached memo dated October 8, 1980.
Attorney's
Comments: No comment.
HPC Comments: A new office structure will be designed to incorporate
elements of the Victorian structure. FAR (.75:1) will be
maximized. Final approval granted on April 22, 1980.
P & Z Special P & Z granted special review approval for reduction of
Review: parking spaces from 3 spaces per 1,000 square feet to
1.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet on the condition that
there be no more than 10 offices within the structure to
be built to include 10 spaces. See attached minutes from
May 6, 1980, P & Z meeting.
Planning Office The Planning Office recommends subdivision exception appro-
Recommendation: val (waiving Conceptual consideration by City Council and
Preliminary Plat consideration by P & Z) for the purposes
of condominiumizing not more than 10 office spaces. A
commitment must be made by the applicant to include no more
than 10 office spaces in the condominium plat. Further,
the Planning Office recommends Conceptual approval subject
to the conditions stated in the October 8, 1980 Engineering
memo.
LLrL a S w �Y, 4,- . %d !e • �. o� 4 '''�a
Cr 7—D O w AJ t� S 8 F V V (-FS ,
en
4.
• r q%
Al
ll ►^'1�i7 t..�-'V---tom `4-.-._. 10 •b'E� +S�.a'��'
' APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION
FROM SUBDTVTSTON REGULATIONS
Request is hereby made on behalf of Main Street Block 19
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 D, E, and F, Block 19
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
under construction 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 is
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 c(_-)py of a recent iiiiprovement_ stirvey of the above-
<l�sr.ri.}�, r} 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 Main Street
Block 19 Associates
B
-Herbert S. Klein
201 North Mill St.
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925-8700
-2
•R4D/0%V /URLISKING Co., DI.NVCR
•
RECORD OF
•
P R O C E E D I N G S
ffistori.c Preservation Committee, March 25, 11 , City Council Chambers
The Aspen Historic Preservation Committee held a regular meeting on March 25,
1980, at 1:00 PM in City Council Chambers. Members present were Gaard Moses,
Terry End, Lary Groen, Norm Burns, Mona Frost and Richard Cicero. Planning
staff representative, Sunny Vann, was also present.
Approval of Minutes Correction in the minutes of March 11: Gaard Moses was
also present at the meeting. Norm made the moticn to
approve the minutes; Lary seconded them. All in favor,
motion granted.
Addition to Agenda Don Ball, architect, said he had contacted Sunny Vann
and that it would be possible for him to give his pre-
sentation on 409 E. Hyman remodel. - Tuesday Morning
building. Lary made the motion to add this item to
the agenda; Gaard seconded it. All in favor; motion
granted.
New Business._.
City Hall Roof:
Proposed Re -Roofing
Postponed
until
later in the meeting.
Project Review
715 W. Main
Architect
Randy
Wedum gave the Committee vicinity maps
Preapplication Review
and photographs
of the property in question. He also
---_----
presented
architectural
drawings of the proposed
----
Victorian
house
to be used for office space on the
property
in question.
The property
is
located between 6th and 7th Streets on
the south
side
of Main Street; the house now on the
property
is the
Peterson residence.
Randy said it was difficult for him to design because of
the dominance of the property in the*City and he had
tried to incorporate the architectural style of the
present house as well as to fulfill the density re-
quirement of the area. He ;mentioned that one factor -Ln
favor of the area's development were the large trees
which would break up the large Victorian style structur(
The development would be on three lots. He said he
had spoken with Hans Gramiger, owner of the adjacent
property to the.west, to coordinate their future plans
of both properties. Three floors are planned for the
building: the lower level about 3/4 below grade, the
main level about three feet above grade, and the third
story.
Randy stated his purpose before the HPC was prelimin-
ary approval of the.concept, the massing, and refining
the elements that were weak.
Sunny asked if Randy had drawn the plans with maximum
FAR (Floor/Area Ratio)? Randy said yes, that approx-
imately 6,700 square feet of floor.space was being
planned, or that he was anticipating about• .75 floor
area ratio to the land area. Randy predicted that
similar :passing and building would occur in the future
for the properties acro3s the street.
Sunny confirmed this, prediction by.saying th,t almost
any remod��lirig, or new building that occurs along Main
Street would be maximizing the FAR.
The pv-_,serit hou.,c on the Eroperty would be moved to the-
far east lot; the roof line of the new building would
slope to be in scale with the older home. The large
spruce tree that now grows in the back of thc,. property
would be moved to the front to break up the massiveness,
according to Randy.
Mona made the motion to approve the preapplication
review of 715 West Main and set a public hearing date
for regular review, published 15 days prior to the HPC
meeting. Titus, the public hearing could not be before
the second HPC meeting in April. Motion was seconded
by Lary. All members in favor except Richard, who
voted against the approval.
few Business
.ity Hall Roof: Sunny Vann opened the discussion of the City Hall roof
'roposed Re -Roofing by introducing Jay Hammond, city engineer, and Sheree
Sonfiel-d, city finance, who gave historical background
information and future plans on the subject.
Sheree and Jay have been working in coordination with
contractors and Welton Anderson to determine what kind
of roof should replace the present one. Sheree said
that plans for the rehabilitation of City Hall have been
before the HPC since 1975-76 and that third floor has
been renovated, but funds have not been available to
proceed any further than that. Colorado Historical
Society's new funding program may allow up to 50% of
the funding to be paid by the State. The estimated total
cost is $54,000.00. She said that what the City of
Aspen was requesting from HPC was a letter of support to
be sent to Colorado Historical Society and approval of
plans for a new roof.
Jay gave historical background stating that it was orig-
inally an armory 'with a wood shingle roof. He pointed
out that using wood shake shingles would pose several
problems: fire hazard, subject to leaks with all the
seams. The leaking is already evident on the third
floor; staining of the acoustical tiles and removing
some of the drywall on the north side of the building.
'heref-�-t`-_-ore
hrough research, Jay suggested low profile
X
eeteain design - similar to the Wheeler Opera
ouse functionalas far as water and weather
resistance and not subject to staining. Suggesting
Duranar, a prepainted color metal roof, matte finish
neutral bronze, Jay showed a sample to the Committee.
He said though would be an upgrading of the roof
materials along historic lines.
Lary questioned Jay about the eve edge treatment of the
new roof. Jay said it would be a cap system. Lary's
concern for this is the ice and snow build-up during
the winter and the problems it creates when the snow
or ice slides off the roof. Jay said that he could
research it moreN�I�nd come back with optional details for
an edge/ gutter/-_uZ "freatment. Lary continued stating
that he felt that the re -roofing was a large expense
and that the problem should be solved.
�i
i�
;i
n
rf
Norm made the motion to approve the letter addressed to
Mr. Arthur Townsend of the State Historical Society; ,e
that it be signed by HPC..Chairman, Jon Seigle, and sent
to Mr. Townsend. Mona seconded the motion; all in favor,
motion granted. Letter was said to be sufficient as
drafted; a copy is attached to the minutes.
•
•
ORADFORD PueLIS14I G co., oLwvu
RECORD OF
PROCEEDINGS
Historic Preservation Committee April 22, 1980 City Council Chamber:
The Aspen Historic Preservation Committee held a regular meeting on April 22,
1980, at 1:00 PM in City Council Chambers. Members present were Jon Seigle,
Gaard Moses, Terry End, Mona Frost, Richard Cicero, Bill Clark, Georgeann
Waggaman, Florence Glidden and Marjorie Brenner. Planning staff representative,
Sunny Vann, was also present. !
INTRODUCTION OF NEW Jon Seigle introduced the new members who had been
MEMBERS elected by City Council. The new members are: Bill {
Clark, Georgeann Waggaman, Florence Glidden and Marjorif
Brenner.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mona Frost corrected the spelling of "metal" on page 2,!
and "eave" on pages 2 and 3 of the minutes of March !
25. She then made the motion to approve the minutes as;
corrected. Seconded by Bill Clark; all in favor, motioT'
granted.
OLD BUSINESS
715 W. Main Sunny Vann restated the proposal for the remodeling and;
Public Hearing expansion of the existing Victorian dwelling at 715 W.
Main and construction of new offices at that location.
Preliminary approval had been granted to the applicant
on March 25; Randy Wedum, the architect, had returned
for the public hearing and to present changes suggested
by the Committee at the last meeting.
Randy presented -the Committee with corrected plans, in-
dicating that he had added a turret to one corner of
the building making it more dominant. He had made this'
change because of the feedback he had received at the
last meeting.
The Committee disagreed with Randy and said they had -I
not felt that this should be changed or a turret added.!
Discussion followed concerning the trees and their sur—
vival if moved; and this led to questions about how mucl
bearing trees and shrubbery have or should have on the
approval or denial of a building design or plan. The j
Committee was somewhat divided on their opinion of this!
Before any more comments were made, Randy said he was
before the HPC at this meeting for final approval of
the design and to decide upon which plan was most satisl
factory.
Jon Seigle opened the public hearing; no one was present
to make comments, therefore he closed -the hearing to
the public and opened it to comments from the Committee
members.
Marjorie Brenner stated that she did not feel that land
scaping should have any bearing on the approval or
denial of a building. I
Jon refuted her statement saying that many applicants
did come before the HPC with renderings that included
certain land: carpi n}; plans, and that the Committee had
conditionod th..!ir approval on what was represented on
paper.
Sunny .i.ntevrup Leal t:hc� Commit tee' saying; he
felt thaL Lhey should h,a,3o tlieir dec.i lion on the build-
ing alp iw, l)ut that i L could b,. included to enhance
buildint, with Llir 1.•3nd: c t1>in},.
iId l 096 C LC 1T,.tc V .�a. run c -
) 1 1 ,) uo 1 ; vA,1-5!; 3,r I
,
%
•il
D 0 Z 1 0 1 0 A N7ANJ,l ''1)J 7NIN ■1'IUIIJ 4UlIJ,fYNr
NEW BUSINESS
Log Cabin at
2nd and Main St.
i
Mona Frost said that the future of the cottonwood tree;
in front of this property should also be corl;;idered;
they are very old trees and likely not to live much
longer.
Georgeann Waggaman made a final comment that slie pre-
ferred the flatter roof plan if Randy would incorporate
this into his final design.
Gaard Moses made the motion to approve the revised plan:
conditioned upon the landscaping remaining as similar tc
the rendering drawing as is possible. Mona seconded
the motion. All members in favor; motion granted.
Jon requested that Randy bring back the final working
drawings to be stamped for approval. They (HPC) and
the'Planning Department will hold the present revised
working I
drawings until he comes back with the revisions
including the turrets, straighter roof and landscaping.
Sunny said that he had been contacted by appraisers in
town about the log cabin located at the corner of
2nd and Main. He stated that the appraisers were want-
ing a consensus from the HPC members as to whether they
would entertain a request to remove the structure.
Sunny provided some statistics concerning the cabin; '
that it was built in approximately 1940 on three city j
lots and that it was in the 0-Office District. ."He said;
that future possibilities were that it could be'torn "
down to become a single family home, a duplex, office
or small multi -family dwelling: 'It was'not currently
historically designated. He asked -for opinions from
the Committee members.
Mona said that regardless of whether the cabin remained
or not, she did want the two large fir trees to stay.
Gaard wanted the cabin to remain; if expanded to expand
it in the same medium (logs).
Georgeann asked if the present building could be shifte
forward on the lot and build another building behind it
Sunny said that it was in such poor shape that it would
be difficult to move.
Before Jon makes any decisions, he wants the appraisers
to come before the HPC with more definite plans of what
could happen to the property and building.
Sunny stated that the HPC should not prevent its re.
moval depending upon the validity of what is proposed i
its place. However, he would report to the appraisers
that the Committee was of mixed feelings about the
cabin and that they (the appraisers) should try to give
their best indication of its future.
PROJECT REVIEW -
1
Prospector Lodge Dave Gibson of Pielstick and Gibson architectural firm,
301 E. Hyman Ave. presented the Committee with elevations and photos of
Preapplication. hevi.ew what was being planned for the Prospector Lodge at
301 E . Ilyman Ave.
CITY C.-,�' ASPEN
130 south, Ualena street
aspen, colorado 81611
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jolene Vrchota, Planning Office
FROM: Lou Buettner, Engineering Departmento�
DATE: October 8, 1980
RE: Main Street Block 19 Assoc. Subdivision Exception
Condominiumization
After having reviewed the survey plat, architectural site plan
for the above subdivision exception, and having made a site
inspection, 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 the southerly ten feet of the westerly
seven feet of Lot D Block 19, original Aspen Townsite
or equivalent size located elsewhere.
3. Owner/applicant construct a five foot sidewalk in the
location specified by the City Engineering Department.
4. Section 24-4.5 of the Municipal Cede requires 20.25
parking spaces for this development. Architectural
drawing says a variance was approved for ten spaces.
This variance was not supplied to the Engineering
Department, this parking variance needs to be varified.
5. Condominium plats should be supplied to the Engineering
Department for checking prior to recording.
•
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jolene Vrchota, Planning Office
FROM: Robert B. Edmondson, Acting City Attorney
RE: Main Street Block 19 Associates
DATE.: October 8, 1980
No Comment.
CJ
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Attorney (Acting)
Dan McArthur, City Engineer
FROM: Jolene Vrchota, Planning Office
RE: Main St. Block 19 Associates Subdivision Exception (Condominiumization)
DATE: September 16, 1980
The attached application requests approval for the condominiumization of an
office building under construction located on Lots D, E and F, Block 19
(Main Street). It is scheduled to come before the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission on October 21, 1980; therefore, may I please have your written
comments concerning this application no later than October 8, 1980? Thank
you.
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
LAND USE APPLICATION FEES
County
00100 — 63711 09009 — 00000
Subdivisi )n/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 StCp��It�
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: ,x ['�s rU,IV} A" ' Project:
Address
Phone:
Check No. Date: —
Receipt No. P
E