HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ec.Main St Associates Block 19 54-80
...
1. DATE SUBMITTED: 9/11/80
"
."-'......,
{
No. 54-80
!
.
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
STAFF: ,lDl"n" Vr"hnt~
2. APPLICANT: Main Street Block. 19 Associatps
3. REPRESENTATIVE: Herb Klein 925-8700
201 N. Mill
4. PROJECT NAME: Main St. (Block I~) Assoc Subdivis;nn Fx""ptinp
5. LOCATION:
6. TYPE OF APPLICATION:
Rezonin9
P.U.D.
Special Review
Growth Management
HPC
x Subdivision
x Excepti on
Exemption
70:30
Residential Bonus
____Stream Margin
____8040 Greenline
____View Plane
____Conditional Use
____Other
C J '. ' .i{
"'" O~,"",I\)~"l.Q ~
7. REFERRALS:
2.JIttorney
~Engineering Dept.
_Housing
_Water
_City Electric
Sanitation District ____School District
Fire Marshal ____Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas
Parks ____State Highway Dept.
Holy Cross Electric ____Other
Mountai n Be 11
8. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS:
LD ",,-e r~fva- (
P & Z RCCllfIIIlICI'lElatiOlI, City CDunri,1 fin~1 apprG'Jill
f
9. DISPOSITION: !
p & Z V Approved V Denied Date I/f.--.T, ZI.HEn
.r .
fbc/Ju.~",) A-ffY)->/".J ~.f -;7vh/;'v/<X1~ ~1"1P/,I.'~ILUILII/e Cdl
W, Vt-<u ( /;"''''0-,,1'1.;;) ~ ?..J-:r.. fJ'-.el'14'1A'''7 ~"aI<.J ~w
~'1v..1 ~~"..val -Pov- /~du<-,l.uiL-.:?= a...,f">.- Ch.,d,'-j,hJd Ox.~
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
anyone 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 ormer 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 Engineerin9 Department.
5. The condominium plats shall be supplied to the Engineering
Department for checking prior to recording.
Council X Approved 'X Denied Date NoV. 24; 1<180
C-ohd."Ht~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 anyone 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 ~n conjunction with the applicant, with
a five-foot access easement.
Attorney
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 cgeC1<tng prior to recording.
10. ROUTING:
./
6U{L{)/N~
./ eN 6/ /rJ!:EBL;J /--z
""""'"
/"
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
~pen City Council
FROM: Jolene Vrchota, Planning Office
RE: Main Street Block 19 Associates Subdivision Exception
DATE: October 15, 1980/ November 17, 19~
APPROVED AS TO FORM FOR CITY COUNCIL: .z//o.
Location:
715 W. Main St. (Lots ,E,F, Block 19, Aspen Townsite)
Zoning:
O-Office with Histori istrict Ov
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
bu i 1t.
Engineering
Comments:
Recommend approval subject to conditions being met. See
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 punposes
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 anyone time
to a maximum of ten (10).
2. The phrase "or ginal Aspen Townsite" be added to all
property descr ptions.
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 anyone 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-
neeri ng Department for cgecfd"ng pri or to recordi ng.
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
By:
~
ll~;ber; S Klein
201 North Mill St.
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925-8700
-2-
,'''''
,
-2-
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
f(lPM'~ C. r. ~,"HKfl e. e. ~ l. ~,l.
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 feasibi1ities,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
Subdivision
Exemption
Sunny Vann introduced the application of the Concept 600
Subdivision Exemption located on Main St. in the western
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 K1ar seconded the motion. All in favor, motion
carried.
,,,"
Sunny Vann introduced the request for a special review
approval for reduction in the number of required parking
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 mechoniziu.<l 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 u 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.
715 West Main
Street Special
Review
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.
.
"
.~..-...'
MEMORANDUI~
TO: V1G;en 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:
Location:
Lot Size:
Request:
Engi neeri ng
Comments:
Attorney's
Comments:
HPC Comments:
P & Z Special
Review:
Planning Office
Recommendation:
O-Office with Historic District Overlay
715 W. Main St. (Lots D,E,F, Block 19, Aspen Townsite)
9,000 square feet
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.
Recommend approval subject to conditions being met. See
attached memo dated October 8, 1980.
No comment.
A ne~1 office struCture wi 11 be designed to incorporate
elements of the Victorian structure. FAR (.75:1) will be
maximized. Final approval granted on April 22, 1980.
P & Z granted special review approval for reduction of
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.
The Planning Office recommends subdivision exception appro-
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.
App Ac~ '-VIII C.()~-r- ~ /0 R,...AJ,-r-Sh."
41.-Y~ ;;;> s v-" +L- 1<' h-.,.. 4ed C'&--___. th"ea-,
Sv. / ,~ hJu>.i *" &:. 12- j .
L.-Ih(c fD /0 ()wIJE:]e.S 8F' L/jJ(,S,
t..UI~ -tv k. ~~
9+=1: /\-2.c--, a.-ttrr~ l' p {) {!Pen ~'
~t E:J'~' ~ '.:
-fl;.-':{~. . 0 oj' ~["~~:~." ~.{2....
~ . ,-. -I, '.". ' ~ .
'1r' J, ~1-S' I .. --6-11 Iff:.' 11, I '. "
. t ~ e-_ ~ ~ C-~l T:'?~ '.
,I," 1'O,.td .....:<,..:./~ h".f~' ",
" .h_~ _ + ....A -+L_ ~ L ",,--f1,j.J!..., C?-'
-
""
......
-
APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION
FROM SUDDIVTSJON 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.
l\ cOI'':' of <J rccC'n L L:l).-n:-oVt'nlun t survey of the above-
dc;;crih,,'rJ p1'opcrty is attached hC'rcto.
'"
-
-
The applicant would appreciate your consideration of
this application for exemption at your next regular meeting.
Dated: September
/;
j
, 1980.
SACHS, KLEIN & SEIGLE
Attorneys for Main Street
Block 19 Associates
By:
A(~'
llerbert S. Klein
201 North Mill St.
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925-8700
~
-2-
,r
;1""""-"
Hi:3toric Preservat ion Committee,
Narch 25, 1980,
City Council Chambers
\,
II
J
II
.Jt"'O,.~""Q "'Ufll...IS'II'IG co., DI'::NVIUll
RECORD
OF PROCEEDINGS
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.
Nevi Business
City Hall Roof:
Proposed Re-Roofing
Postponed until later in the meeting.
Project Review
Architect Randy Wedum gave the Committee vicinity maps
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.
715 W. Main
Preapp1ication Review
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 oj
the dominance of the property in the'City and he had I
tried to incorporate the architectural style of the j
present house as well as to fulfill the density re- I
quirement of the area. He mentioned that one factor in I
favor of the area's development were the large trees 1
which would break up the large Victorian style structurE I
The development would be on three lots. He said he
had spoken with Hans Gramiger, o~ner of the adjacent I
property to the, west, to coordinate their future plans I
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 massing and building would'occur in the future
for the properties acro~s the street.
Sunny confirmed thi::; prediction by,sayi.ng th6.t almost
any remodeli.ng or new building that occurs along Main
Street would be maximizing the FAR.
r-
J
The l'[',;r]cnt hCl[i:'C on tht' property would be moved to the
fdr Cd~t lot; the roof line of the new building would
slope to bc in scale with the older home. The lal'!~e
SPI'UCt' tree th,] L IlOW [:1'0101::; in the back of the 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. Thus, the public hearing could not be before
the second EPC meeting in April. Motion was seconded
by Lary. All members ill favor except Richard, who
voted against the approval.
;
!
J:
.'
,
~ew Business
:i ty Hall Roof:
Proposed Re-Roofing
Sunny Vann opened the discussion of the City Hall roof
by introducing Jay Hammond, city engineer, and Sheree
Sonfield, 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 wo~ld 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.
~') 'here for through research, Jay suggested 101-1 profile
j1I;, ':-sfleet ..eat eam design - similar to the Hhee1er Opera
House =-~ore functional as 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. . ~
.(21.
Lary questioned Jay about the~edge treatment of the
new roof. Jay said it would De a cap system. Lary's
concern for this is the ice and snow build-up curing
the winter and the problems it creates when the snow
or ice slides off the roof. Jay said that he could
research it mor~~~pd come back with optional details for"
an edge/ gutter/.:eve-'-trea tment. . Lary continued stat ing ,
that he felt that the re-roofing was a large expense
and that the problem should be solved.
,:J:
n
1'1
Norm made the motion to approve the 1e~ter addressed to
Mr. Arthur Townsend of the State Historical Society;
that it be signed by HPCChairman, Jon Seigle, and sent
to Mr. Townsend. Mona seconded the motion; all in favor,
motion [,ranted. Letter was said to be sufficient as
drafted; a copy is attached to the minutes.
'e
,,",
, "-
-...."
DMADI'OMD P'UIILISIlING CO., Dl:HYI["
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Historic Preservation Committee
April 22, 1380
City Coun~i1 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
MEMBERS
Jon Seigle introduced the new members who had been
elected by City Council. The new members are: Bill
Clark, Georgeann Waggaman, Florence Glidden and Marjorie
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, motioi
granted.
OLD BUSINESS
715 \~. Main
Public Hearing
Sunny Vann restated the proposal for the remodeling and,
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. I
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
not felt that this should be changed or a turret added.:
'I
Discussion followed concerning the trees and their sur-'
vival if moved; and this led to questions about how mucJ
bearing trees and shrubbery have or should have on the !
approval or denial of a building design or plan. The I
Committee was somewhat divided on their opinion of thiSj
Before any more comments were made, Randy said he was :
before the HPC at this meeting for final approval of JI
the design and to decide upon which plan was most satisl
factory.
Jon Seigle opened the public hearing; no one was preseni
to make comments, therefore hc closed the hearing to :
the public and opened it to comments from the Committee
members.
Marjorie Brenner stated
scaping should have any
denial of a building.
that she did not feel that
bearing on the approval or
land'
i
I
I
Jon refuted her statement saying that many applicants
did come before the HPC with renderings that included
certain land,~c:Jpjng plans and that the Committee had
condiTioned thoir approval on what was represented ori
paper.
Sunny. interrupted th(? COllllnittec's ci~~cusf3.i.on saying he
fel t UhTt L]1C2Y should baSL~ their' d(,~c5sil)n on the build-
inij ill,>!,,,, ;,U l thzlt: it cuuld b," included to cnh..lnce the,
. build ing with ll'l' l'Jlld"c"pLn);.
,;,~,1'11:11'1',) L<i-~)Iil((_"-J- All
~, " ; )
OS!) [
,-/ (;
1,.ldV
d')l--l-~1!l1!:O;)
LI"').-,l~l:;~;,),[ J ----
I' _ ")J,f;'I~;!IT-
--_::..~-=--=----
.- ~- -.. _... -.-.
. ~ ..-...-,.,..... ~'.'-" "........... . -.,.
_._-~:._---:.~--~-.~._-'--=-- ^-';"':._~~ '-'':-'':':'':~--..:::.=:
S~NIQ~j~OUd ~O aUO~J~
----
U'IA"_h.l . n.) ".lNIHlIII..rt" 'Hj:~'~~~~~
-<'-
Mona Fros t said that the future of the cottQO\%od trE'e~;
in front of this property should also be conGidered;
they are very old tr'ee:; and likely not to live much
longer.
Georgeann Waggaman made a final comment that she 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 t(
the rendering drawing as is possible. Mona seconded
the motion. All members in favor; motion granted.
Jon requested that Randy bring back the finn1 working
drawings to be stamped for approval. They (liPC) and
the Planning Department will hold the present revised
working drawings until he comes back with the revisions
including the turrets, straighter roof and landscaping.
~
I'
r
Sunny said that he had been contacted by appraisers in ~
town about the log cabin located at the corner of t
2nd and Main. He stated that the appraisers werewant-i,
ing a consensus from the HPC members as to whether they'
would entertain a request to remove the structure. t
, '[
Sunny provided some statistics concerning the cabin;
that it was built in approximately 1940 on three city. !
lots and that it was in the O-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 Corrunittee members.
NE~l BUSINESS
Log Cabin at
2nd and Main St.
"
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 (logo).
Georgeann asked if the present building could be shifte
forward on the lot and build another building behind itl
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 HPe 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 glve
their best indication of its future.
PROJECT REVIEW
Prospector Lodge
301 E. Hyman Ave.
Preapplication Review
Dave Gibson of Pie1stick and Gibson architectural firm,
presented the Committee with elevations and photos of
what was b~ing planned for the Prospector Lodge at
301 E. Hyman Ave.
CITY OF ASPEN
130 south galena street
aspen, colorado 81611
MEMORANDm1
DATE:
Jo1ene Vrchota, Planning Office
Lou Buettner, Engineering Department~
October 8, 1980
TO:
FROM:
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 Code 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.
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE.:
ME~lORANDUM
Jolene Vrchota, Planning Office
Robert B. Edmondson, Acting City Attorney
Main Street Block 19 Associates
October 8, 1980
------------------------------------------------------------------
No Comment.
.--..,
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
63712
63713
63714
63715
63716
63717
City
00100 - 63721 09009 - 00000
63722
63723
63724
63725
63726
PLANNING OFFICE SALES
00100 - 63061 09009 - 00000
63062
63063
Name:
<N l,\<, ~,jr"\
Sn~ LL
)
Address:
Subdivisi m/PUD
Special Review
P&Z Review Only
Detailed Review
Final Plat
Special Approval
Specially Assigned
Conceptual Application
Preliminary Application
Final Application
,. I
Exemption-"'iu "
'- r
Rezoning
Conditional Use
County land Use Sales
GMP Sales
Almanac Sales
Copy Fees
Other
Project:
j, Xi ltV'.
Phone:
~
~
\( V--'"
-
Check No,
l~ 7 4-(
,
Receipt No. P
17~IID
Date:
,
II'I ',I!
I .. I .
I