University Park

Summary of Buchtel House Issue - NOV. 4, 2003

Summary of Buchtel House Issue - NOV. 4, 2003

SUMMARY OF BUCHTEL HOUSE ISSUE - NOV. 4, 2003

As most of you are aware, DU would like to use Buchtel House as office space for up to 6 workers from their events office, currently housed in the basement of the Driscoll building on Evans Ave. Following is a summary of the issues involved:

-- Buchtel House has not been well-maintained, and Vice Chancellor John Coombe feels that by giving it a function, i.e. office space, he can obtain funds from DU to help maintain and restore the structure. He has a particular interest in historic architecture, and seems to be sincere in his desire to upgrade the house. He is not interested in pursuing rezoning or having this become a lengthy, acrimonious issue between DU and UPark. He is willing to work with the neighbors to the point of having a contract between DU and UPCC regarding specific usages.

-- This may be moot, however; the lot is zoned R-l and conversion to office usage would not be allowable under this zoning. I am trying to set up a meeting between DU, the city and UPark to find out exactly what is allowable, what if any variances are possible, and what other options may exist. Specific kinds of historic designation, documentation of non-conforming usage (the house has had many uses - most were non-residential) and creating a PUD or "campus zone" have all been mentioned, but none of these appear to be very possible or suitable. Some of these may bear further investigation, however.

-- next-door neighbors Chris Renda and David Sprouse have expressed concern about parking issues, number of meetings and number attending, and maintenance of Buchtel House as it affects their property value. Chris conducted an informal survey which included neighbors on her block and some adjacent properties (see attachment). Their very legitimate concerns are also UPark concerns. However, the overriding issue seems to be current zoning designation (R-l), and what is or isn't allowed by the city. Even if the neighbors and UPCC were unanimous in their support, the city very possibly could not allow altered usage - without rezoning.

-- DU has no interest in selling the property.