The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.HP.134 W Hopkins Ave.A007-99 .,-., .~. -PARCEL)6:12'35--7.I.-l;Oi:', . '''Oil'!'E RCIi'o:1:.3C 8; C~SE .N~~E:I' 34 ;.J 11';Pkll'S I.I,r:-"PC' ' P~OJ,AD~:1'31.;'1 !-to:,'s . ,. I. . , . i". , O~NlAPp,: B..i :.:1:'"1':1 Pe.,.:c'" BlIo, . RE~; Bill PO!:iS & ^~sc: DD.i~ Ry::: .. . .; 'FEES}UE:I'25 d,p,,' Ra:~~R'~LSI ":IH:OPIES':~-'" CASE-NOIACJ7-~:' ~ ~ ..' , , i P~NR:.t,..,~,,{ G~t"'r c CASE !T~p:IHPC 1,1,',:- STEPSi ",. . .~ ADR ;3.:5 Dcla"lime A-I(~r... .CISIZ: W m'o"!o' DE . nc 'C/SIZ: A~pen. C~) li"51" ,:ADR: (i05 E r,1a ~ Slrec~ FEES. RCVD:1 ' 7; PIlN~ ~~N' t:2~,-~?55 STAT: r " . ,. . :~EF:I 1.....~1 , :".MTG D:ATE' .1 . I Byl NOl'l~D '. DUE!1 PLAT IB~.PGI:f DATE OF RNAL,ACTIDN: CITY COUN.CIL: PZ: ~OA: DRAC: AD.iI'IIN:J REMARKSI ClO\,EC:j . .' BY: I. i!~A i- S~I!~ITD,' I "i""" A TO: Mayor and City Council :;~~ ' G ~, G~ V"\ s ~~~" 00CZ~ Appeal of Historic Preservation Commission Decision-134 West ~\ Hopkins-Minor Review and V ariances ~ L--'~ ~ .~ MEMORANDUM FROM: Amy Margerwn, City Manager Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Sarah Oates, Planning Technician ~ THRU: RE: DATE: June 28, 1999 SUMMARY: The applicants, Bill and Peyton Budinger, requested approval from the Historic Preservation, Commission for an addition to a designated historic landmark, a sideyard setback variance of 3' 2" and site coverage variance of 3.2% for a shed that has been illegally added on to the back of the subject structure (i.e. without a building permit or HPC approval). On April 14, 1999, the application was denied by HPC. The HPC considered the location of the existing shed, and found that a detached shed located as an "outbuilding" typical of historic property development would be more appropriate. The applicants have appealed the case to City Council on the grounds of "an abuse of discretion, arbitrary and capricious conduct and/or denial of due process by the HPC." Please see Exhibit A for the letter from Chad J. Schmit of Garfield and Hecht, P.C., representing the Budingers, requesting an appeal to City Council. . APPLICANT: Bill and Peyton Budinger, represented by Garfield and Hecht, P.C. LOCATION: 134 West Hopkins. PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: Following is Section 26.72.040(C), the criteria on which the City Council must judge appeals of HPC Decisions: The city council shall consider the application on the record established before the Hl'C. The city council shall affirm the decision of the HPC unless the city council shall determine that there was an abuse of discretion or denial of due process by the HPC. Upon determining that there was an abuse of discretion or denial of due process, the city council shall be authorized to take such action as it shall deem necessary to remedy said situation. including but not limited to ,,-..., ,-, reversing the decision, altering the conditions of approval, changing the length of time during which action on a demolition, partial demolition. off-site relocation, or on-site relocation application has been suspended on the terms of the suspension, or remanding the application to HPC for rehearing. The review of 134 W. Hopkins by the HPC followed all of the Cbde requirements and procedures for a public hearing. The legal notice, and posting and mailing of notices met the appropriate requirements. Affidavits were submitted and are part of the official file. Staff has these available for the Council meeting. Both staff and the applicants' representative were permitted to make sufficient presentations, and the public was invited to speak. The HPC reviewed a single scenario-an illegal addition already in existence, and the commission chose to deny approval of said structure because an outbuilding on the alley would be more appropriate for the site. See Exhibit B for the HJ>C minutes dated April 14, 1999, as they relate to 134 W. Hopkins. The applicants were given the same opportunities as any other applicant, and were denied not because of abuse of discretion or denial of due process, but because HPC felt the addition did not warrant approval baSed upon the standards of review. The merits of the decision are not to be decided by City Council, rather whether procedmp.. were fQ)l"mpd ~C\ that the applicants were afforded the same opportunities as all other applicants requiring His~ric Preservation ComnllSSlOn review. ~ Exhibit A, submitted by the applicants, makes reference to three scenarios which the applicants allege HPC failed to consider. These scenarios were brought before HPC by the applicants in a work session after the decision to deny the application was made (the public hearing took place on April 14 and the work session occurred on May 12). The applicants, represented by their architect, were given the opportunity to explore options which might be satisfactory to both them and the commission. The HPC stated they did not support any of the scenarios and offered the architect suggestions of what they would support. This was done in an informal process in which the applicants' architect and the HPC exchanged ideas. This was not a public hearing and the HPC made no formal decisions on May 12. The formal and final decision, made April 14 at a public hearing, is the standing decision. Attached as Exhibit D are letters from the adjacent neighbors of 134 W. Hopkins Avenue who support the shed at its present location, but are not relevant to the issues at hand which is a question of "process." Staff has supplied these to Council for informational purposes only. The applicants have the opportunity to apply to HPC with an alternative solution after the property has been brought in to compliance, and the illegal structure has been removed. The applicants will be required to pay double the building permit fees for an acceptable alternative that is approved by the HPC. ~ t""\ RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes that the proper and legal procedures were followed on this case, and does not believe the applicants' request for appeal is warranted or adequately addressed. Staff recommends the Council uphold the HPC's decision in this case, and require the immediate removal, via the proper issuance of a demolition permit, of the illegally constructed shed as recommended by the HPC at their hearing on April 14, 1999. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "1 move to uphold the decision made by the Historic Preservation Commission on April 14, 1999, denying the approval of an addition and variances at 134 West Hopkins, and require the removal of the illegal shed within 30 days." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Exhibits: A. Letter of Appeal from Garfield and Hecht, P.C., May 13, 1999 B. Minutes of the HPC Meeting, April14, 1999 C. Staff Report and Findings presented to HPC, April 14, 1999 D. Letters from neighbors '. ~. ."'l c)<~-,b(i A GARfIEUD & Jr:!JECHT, P.C. RONALD GARFIELD' ANDREW V. HECHT' MICHAEL J. HERRON' DAVID L. LENYO MATTHEW C. FERGUSON' KRISTI S. FERRARO' CHRISTOPHER J. LACROIX'" CHAD J. SCHMIT' ATTORNEYS AT LAW 601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE (970) 925-1936 TELECOPIER (970) 925-3008 E.mail: atty@garfieldhecht.com 110 ~IIDLAND AVENUE SUITE 201 BASALT. COLORADO 81621 TELEPHONE (970) 927-1936 TELECOPIER (970) 927-1783 May 13, 1999 BY HAND Aspen City Council 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81612 Re: Appeal of Historic Preservation Commission - Budinger 134 W. Hopkins Public Hearing To Members of Aspen City Council: Bill and Peyton Budinger ("the Budingers") are the affected parties who are requesting this appeal. On Apri114, 1999,.the Historical Preservation Commission ("HPC") denied the Budingers' request for a site coverage variance of 3_2 % fora shed that has been added on to the back of the historical landmark at 134 West Hopkins and a sideyard setback variance of 3'2" for the shed. Pursuant to ~ 72- 040(A), of the Pitkin County Land Use Code (" the Code"), applicants appeal the decision of the HPC denying the Budingers' application. This appeal is made within thirty days of the decision, and thus, is timely. The Budingers respectfully request a hearing pursuant to ~ 72.040(C). ;;:~(;i';~:~:: . . ." . "..; .:,,~~~i~.:~::~'~:..,. By way of same background, the Budingers are the owners of the landmark"~.,C'- property located at 134 West Hopkins. Atthe h~aring, the Budingers were preparecl,:;,'~f::\' to present three alternative proposals to address any concerns before the HPC :..~~~'("t.,_ related to development in an "H," Historic Overlay District, ordeveloPIllf:AL.~<> involving a historic landmark. To gain approval, the development must meet .- . Development Review Standards ("the Standards") found in ~ 26.72.01O(D) of the: L also Jdmitted to 2. :l.bo ;:dmitted :0 J. also :1dmil:ed w 4. also .ldmilleu ~o S. also admitted to 6. ;;.lso adminew(o.....\ New '(ori:; Sar District ;,f Columbia Sac Florida Sat P~tlns:'lvania. Bar lllil'lOis !ht Ccmne~llc\l( air') @ Printed on :yclerl paper ~ ~ GARfIELD &- HECHT, P.C. May 13, 1999, Budinger Appeal Letter Page 2 Code. The Budingers' alternative proposals met all four of the Standards. HPC, however, wrongfully denied the Budingers' application on the grounds that the proposals did not meet all four of the Standards. HPC failed to consi,der the Budingers' alternative proposals. This failure to consider reasonable alternatives constitutes an abuse of discretion, arbitrary and capricious conduct and! or denial of due process by the HPC which should be reviewed on appeal, with a full opportunity to air the record below and provide supporting infonnation to the City Council. /'" The Budingers requests that a hearing be granted on this appeal. Dated May 13, 1999. Respectfully submitted, . GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C. cf$.su (2) . Chad J. Schmit, A.R. #28469 601 East Hyman Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 925-1936 f Attorneys for Bill and Peyton Budinger ^ Certificate of Service I hereby certify thaton May 13,1999, I served an original and ten (10) copies of Garfiel~ &.liec:nt,p.<:/sM~y;13, 1999, letter re "Appeal of Historical . Preservation Commissionpecis~on~Bud.inger 134 W. Hopkins Public Hearing" on following in the following manner: ~:::, ....'",;", ,,:C', '," ":'. ;:.,: ,:::_,.7i,' ,: >:f;\ ,'- ",,:,,,~:'>;, i,::,?~::'i\,;;",,'(;/;:~"7'< , "....., GARfIELD &: HECHT. P.C. May 13. 1999. Budinger Appeal Letter Page 3 .-, ONE ORIGINAL AND TEN COPIES VIA HAND DELNERY TO: Aspen City Council 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 John Worcester, City Attorney 130 S. Galena Street ,Aspen, CO 81611 M:\cschmiIIBudinger\COUNCn.LTR.02 . Debbie Hauer . ,. ASPEN HISTOr"C PRESERVATION COMMInON MINUTES OF. APRIL 14.1999 134 W. HOPKINS - PUBLIC HEARING - (Continued from 3-24) Amy Guthrie recused herself. David Hoefer received the affidavit of notice from the applicant. Sara Oates, Planning Technician presented. At some point between 1988 and 1997 there. was a shed put on the back of the landmark property that was done without permits. The current property owners bought it in 1997 and went into repair the shed and basically ended up tearing it down and rebuilding it and making it larger. What that has produced is going over the site coverage by 3.2% and creating a space between the structure and the structure next door of 22 inches. Staff recommends denial of approving the addition of the shed as well as the variances. This is an opportunity to produce something on this property that is more historically appropriate and compatible with the historic landmark. David Hoefer, city attorney informed the HPC that the existing shed was built without a permit. There is no equity argument. David Rybak from Poss and Associates was sworn in. In 1997 the Budinger's purchased the historic property knowing that they could not expand. They also have purchased other historical structures where they live in Delaware and have done remodels to those homes. The shed was on the back of the building at the time of purchase and this summer it was repaired and added onto. At some point it was red tagged by the building department. If the shed is denied the property no longer functions as a family to live in Aspen. The recommendation from staff for a detached shed impedes upon the use of the land. The location is the least impact from public spaces. It is only visible if you look over the fence. The shed is to store the lawnmower and chairs. Clarifications: The shed is attached to the exterior wall of the house. The rear yard is fenced. If the shed is denied it must be tom down. The size of the home is 1700 square feet. They are required to have a parking space and they have a 7 "' ASPEN HISTOf2 PRESERVATION COMMIUON MINUTES OF. APRIL 14.1999 /_.. ! grassy area for that requirement. The fence is a little over 5' 6 and the storage shed is a 6'8 plate height and goes to 7'4" due to the slope. Suzannah opened the public hearing. Elizabeth Dodd was sworn in. She represented the owners that live on the east side and they are impacted by the two-foot height increase of the shed and it shadows their patio. Suzannah closed the public hearing. Roger stated that the HPC policy is not to give variances if there are other options. Members felt that there are other options available. The shed is a substantial shed, Historically sheds are on the alley. The majority of members supported staffs recommendation. It would be difficult to grant the variance and allowing a building to be 22 inches away from another building that is historic. David Rybak said as part of the variance it is to look at other options as Staff has asked us to. Suzannah stated that the other proposal need to be brought forth in another application. David Hoefer stated the owner has a recourse against the prior owner if they feel they have damages. MOTION: Roger moved to deny the addition of a shed, and sideyard setback and site coverage variances for 134 W Hopkins based upon staff's responses as put forth in the memorandum by Sara Oates, Planning Technician, dated April 14, 1999; second by Susan. All in favor, motion carried 7-0. Yes Vote: Roger, Gilbert, Suzannah, Mary, Susan, Heidi, Jeffrey. 8 '~ .~ z.x~ ISI+ c MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director C.,/1 !'/, r - / FROM: Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning Director.J<ro Sarah Oates, Planning Technician S() THRU: RE: 134 West Hopkins-Minor review DATE: April 14, 1999 SUMMARY: The applicants, Bill and Peyton Budinger, are requesting HPC approval for an addition to a designated historic landmark, asideyard setback variance of 3' 2" and site coverage variance ,of 3.2% for a shed that has been added on to the back of the subject structure without a building permit. At some point between 1988 and 1997 an addition was made to the subject structure without HPC approval or permits. After purchasing the property in 1997, the Budinger's decided to make repairs to the addition, but ended up tearing down, reconstructing and enlarging the shed, again without HPC approval or building permits. The structures on Lot K an::! Lot L are in condominium ownership. As configured now, there is only 22" between the building on Lot K and the building on Lot L; the required distance is 5'. Also, with the addition, the site coverage is exceeded by 77 square feet. Currently, the shed is used as storage for the house, which has no basement or other storage. APPLICANT: Bill and Peyton Budinger, represented by Bill Poss and Associates. LOCATION: 134 West Hopkins. PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District, or development involving' a historic landmark must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 26.72.0l0(D) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard ~-. -. and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site covered by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage InfiIl Program for detached accessory dwelling units, pursuant to Section 26.40.090(B)(2). Response: Although the storage shed is a modest addition to the house, the distance between it and the structure on Lot L (which is a historic strucmre that was moved to th.e property) is very tight. Further, although a variance may need to be granted to allow some sort of storage for the owners, HPC could take this opportunity to create an addition that is historically appropriate and more compatible with the historic landmark and neighborhood. Attached as Exhibit C is the 1904 Sanborn Insurance Map which shows an outbuilding on the alley. The garden could be reconfigured to allow for the shed on the back of the lot. Another alternative would be to decrease the size of the shed to minimize the need for a variance. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. , Response: As mentioned above, the development does not have a significant impact on the character of the neighborhood. But, having an outbuilding on the alley would be more in keeping with the historic property. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel ' proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Response, The shed does not look appropriate attached to the historic structure. Further, the location of the shed in close proximity of the adjacent building makes the property look crowded and poorly configured. Historically, buildings would not be placed so close together. Although the applicants argue the back of the house is the most appropriate place for the addition, staff feels there would be less of an impact on ,the historic building if the shed were a , separate structure. _...,,~, .'-' 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: See comments above. Staff feels the shed attached to the histonc structure is not an appropriate copfiguration to maintain the architectural character and integrity of the structure. ALTERi.~ATIVES: The HPC may consider any ofthefollowing alternatives: . Approve the Minor Development application as submitted. . Approve the Minor Development application with conditions to be met prior to issuance of a building permit. . Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. recommendations should be offered.) (Specific . Deny Minor Development approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOM1'1ENDATION AND RECOl\1l\'IENDED MOTION: "I move to deny the addition of a shed, and sideyard setback and site coverage variances for 134 W. Hopkins based upon staff's responses as put forth in the Memorandum by Sarah Oates, Planning Technician, dated April 14, 1999, and the Development Review Standards of Section 26.72.010(D) of the Aspen Land Use Code." . Exhibits: Resolution No.-, Series of 1999 A. Staff memo dated April 14, 1999 B. Application C. 1904 Sanborn Insurance Map, Block 59 nay 1',., 1999 Lr-h Ib,' Q I~ ",,"71819<0 ,,-<i:> <7 .t' ~~' ". ....~ ,.,.,.. . 'tJ> f:' /J. 114r ~~, ~ \ IftrJr!// .; 9$ ~<c ~~2:L_~SQ't. \ t :'. " '-;'.~'r;se Sy: , . _ :". ,~t t: Aspen CIty C9UliCii -_~_, ....;..;;:=_., Aseen, CO--"'-"-- IJ ~\ ,- , ~I!l: 13~ Wl!l~t HopkiM we ere wrlt1ng In support of 6111l.lncl Peyton BUdingers reQuest to melntaln the shed at the rear of their historic house. We have Hved dIrectly across the street for epproximotely 11 yeers. The rear Of the house wes e shed type structure conteinlng a kitchen before the house was remodeled approximately 10 years ago, During the remodel, the shed structure was rebuilt to tie the kitchen area Into the lines of the histone house and the eX1Stlng small shed was attached. The 3mell shed reQuired repairs which the Budlngers did without cMnglng eny of the cnerl.lctemtics Wl'llCI'l it displayed Slnce its cOMtrYctlon, The smell shed seems totally In character wah tne historic hou~e., partIcularly since many of the historic homes in the neighborhoOd epPClrently had sheds ettached to the rear of the building ell.her at the time of orIginal construction or the early part of this century, We beHeve that maintaining the small shed as a is, rather than moving It elsewhere on the property, WOUld more closely approxImate the look of the house as it appeered during the pest. several decedes, We hope that. we are ell striving to maintain the historic look and charecter of Aspen and preserving the Budinger small shed as a Is carrIes out that hope. . 200W, Hopklns 920- 2157 Sl.'ncerelY'~1 _~ ~..'~ . Saul and ~lY Barnett .s ~ &u1Y';;r( David Melton. CPA. CV A Doreen Dunlop Sarah W. Sadler, CPA .1"'"\ ~. DA\lID MELTON & ASSOCIATI::.S Certified Public Accountants Certified Valuation Analyst 135 W. Main Street, Suite A' Aspen, CO 81611 May 19, 1999 '-DISTRI8~;TEDT'iQ, --I C8~,"(5' \ . ---0 I ~ .) .- 'y , .. Aspen City Council 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 --.--.--'---"'-'- ';'::;:;.20()0:32 b'r Re: Property at 134 W. Hopkins ?}i Dat8' FOi' ---- , -l Dear Council, This letter is in regards to a matter that you will be taking under consideration soon. We have lived in Aspen since 1975 and have owned the property at 135 W. Main Street for twenty years. Our neighbors to the South, the Budingers, have rebuilt an old shed that has been on the property for as long as we can remember. We have been informed by the Bundingers that the HPC has reviewed the rebuilt shed and decided that it should be tom down or moved to the rear of the property. We understand that the Budingersare appealing the decision. We have long appreciated the work that the HPC does in retaining the historical character of the community. Not withstanding our high regard for the HPC's work, we disagree with the HPC's decision on this matter. Our home is immediately across the alley from the Bundingers and the Bundingers' back yard makes up a large part of what we see from our rear deck. We believe that the present shed is consistent with the historical character of the Bundinger's house and the surrounding neighborhood. Since the shed is inside the back yard fence, we are the only people in the city of Aspen that look at the shed on a daily basis. While we understand that people can disagree on matters of design taste,. our preference is to leave the shed where it is presently located. We cannot understand why it should be moved or removed. Moving the shed to the rear of the property would seriously detract from our e!\ioyment of our view. We believe in this case, the HPC has not adequately considered the wishes of the neighbors or the character of the neighborhood. We therefore respectfully urge the city council to not require the Budingers to remove or relocate their shed. Thank you for your consideration, -z=:>........... s ~ ~ David & Susan Melton cc: Community Development, Julie Ann Woods Phone: (970) 925-2979 Fax: (970) 925-7618 FROM W. Tnomas Oliver 1"""\. PHONE NO. 310 470 6080 .,.....", Jun. 28 1999 02:41PM P2 134 V2 WEST HOPKINS ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 ,. May 20, 1999 .Aspen City Council 130 Sooth Galena Aspen, CO. 81t011 Re: Shed at" 134 West Hopkins To Whom i"l' May Cancern. Wti! understand thar "l'he HPC has recentfy i$$I.Jti!d a ruling requiring the removal of a shti!d from the above refti!ren<:ed property, which ad.)oins ours. We would like to <::iClrlfy our posftlon with respect to this Issue. As we e><plained la$"!' Oct9ber to the 6uddlngers. our ol<iection to the shed has cansisreMtly been only 1'0 Its height, as it blocks s~ntficant ligiTr to our patio. The shed. In rrs present Iacation. provides an element of privacy whidl rrs absence would deny. For this reason, we are very much In favor of Clllawlng the shed to remain where It 51'ands at" ifs prami.:;ed reduced hei.ght. AddftlClnally. we know oF no neighbors who oppose its exl51'ence. If we can be oF furii'1er Cl5sO;;tance, please feel free to cOntact us either at home, .310470-7089. or In Aspen. 544-$'1990. where Wti! w1U be ever Memorial Day weekend. Thank you very much for your consld.eration. ::;!n<::erely. ~~ dad~~ Tam and A1n Oliver cc;; Aepen Hi5torlcal PreservCi10n Commi$$lon ~ ~ . June 2, 1999 . ASPEN ' PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Chad J. Schmit Garfield & Hecht, P.C. 601 East Hyman Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Budinger Appeal of Historic Presenration Commission-134 West Hopkins Dear Chad: " Enclosed please find the public notice, noticing requirements and affidavit for the aoove referenced case. The Coinmunity Development Department handles publishing the notice in the newspaper. It will appear in the weekend edition of the Aspen Times on . July 12, 1999. Please return the completed affidavit to me prior to the public hearing. Community Development has public notice signs should you need one. Also, per your request I am verifymg that the order to remove the shed frOl;n: the back 134 West Hopkins is held in abeyance while this case in the appeal process.. Should City' Council uphol<:i the HPC decision then the Budingers will be required to remove the shed (if the case proceeds to court then the order will once again be suspended). For your files. I have enclosed a copy of the letter dated April 22 that was sent to the Budingers ,requiring that the structure be brought into compliance. . )1 . Please let meknow.ifyou have any questions: ,Regards, . ~ah- ~eChniCian City of Aspen po SoumGALENA STREET' ASPEN, COLORADO 81611.1975 . PHONE 970.920.5090 . FAX 970.920.5439 Printed on Reo:yded Paper ~. r'\ PUBLIC NOTICE RE: APPEAL OF mSTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION'S DECISION ON 134 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE MINOR REVIEW AND VARIANCES NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Monday, Jlll1e 28, 1999, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen City COlll1cil, COlll1cil Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an appeal submitted by Bill and Peyton Budinger, 2306 Delaware Avenue, Willmington, DE 19806, requesting a review of the Historic Preservation Commission's decision to deny approval of the owner's application. The property is located at 134 West Hopkins Avenue, Lots K and L, Wyckoff Carley Condominiums. For further information, contact Sarah Oates at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5441, saraho@ci.aspen.co.us. slRachael Richards, Mayor Aspen City COlll1cil Published in the Aspen Times on Jlll1e 12, 1999 City of Aspen Accolll1t 1""'\ r-., David Melton, CPA. CVA Doreen Dunlop Sarah W. Sadler, CPA DAVID ME~I()N~:ASSOCIATES CertifieiJ.pub~c;.~~untants Certifie4",aI#tl?9Analyst 135 W. Main Street,SUJl;e;!\ Aspen, CO 81611 ':;;. ;,..~' ,1", ~'!I\V 2 '" 'I"O<.! H:....I U }l.. ,,'..,,;;-., C:C:/i}'Ji\:iT'f :JE'JELC':?MENT May 19, 1999 Aspen City Council 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Property at 134 W, Hopkins Dear Council, This letter is in regards to a matter that you will be taking under consideration soon. We have lived in Aspen since 1975 and have owned the property at 135 W. Main Street for twenty years. Our neighbors to the South, the Budingers, have rebuilt an old shed that has been on the property for as long as we can remember. We have been infonned by the Bundingers that the HPC has reviewed the rebuilt shed and decided that it should be torn down or moved to the rear of the property. We understarid that the Budingers are appealing the decision. We have long appreciated the work that the HPC does in retaining the historical character of the community. Not withstanding our high regard for the HPC's work, we disagree with the HPC's decision on this matter. Our home is immediately across the alley from the Bundingers and the Bundingers' back yard makes up a large part of what we see from our rear deck. We believe that the present shed is consistent with the historical character of the Bundinger's house and the surrounding neighborhood. Since the shed is inside the back yard fence, we are the only people in the city of Aspen that look at the shed on a daily basis. While we understand that people can disagree on matters of design taste, our preference is to leave the shed where it is presently located. We cannot understand why it should be moved or removed. Moving the shed to the rear of the property would seriously detract from our enjoyment of our view. We believe in this case, the HPC has not adequately considered the wishes of the neighbors or the character of the neighborhood. We therefore respectfully urge the city council to not require the Budingers to remove or relocate their shed. Thank yO\! for your consideration, 'L::)....... .. s ~ ~ David & Susan Melton cc: Community Development, Julie Ann Woods Phone: (970) 925-2979 Fax: (970) 925-7618 f"". 1"""\ RONALD (JARP1/iLI>' ANDREW V, !lECHT' MICHAEL), HERRON' DAVID L. LENYQ MATTHr:w C. Ff;RGUSON' KJUSTJ S. FIlIUlARO' CHRISTOPH!,;" J. LACROIX'" CHilD J. SCHMIT' GARf'IELD & HECHT, P.C. A'f'rORNB':L'l\ .(l"T LAW S-mail: arty@giJl."nt:ldhecht.com 601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE A.SPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELBPHONE (970) 92~-1936 'rIiLECOPIIJR (970) 925"300~ May 13, 1999 110 MIOLANI) AVENUl< SIJlTE 201 BASALT, COLORADO 81621 .tIiLEPHONB (970) 921-19,6 TELllCOPIER (970) 927-1783 Ms. Sarah Oates Planning Technician 130 Soutl1 Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 FAX # (970) 920-5439 Re: BudiDger Appeal of mstoric Preservation ColllJllisllion ~ Budinger 134 W. UopkiDs Public HellJ'ing Dear Ms. Oates: As you know, we represent [be Budingers in the above captioned matter. You infunned me today that there ware some minor scheduling conflicts which could. possibly prevent this matter from being heard within 30 days of the filing of the Appeal. After diSCUSSing this situation, we indicated that we would accommodate the scheduling conflicts. This letter is being written at your request to notify you that we agree to waive the 30 day time limitation for the hearing. We are waiving our rights to have the hearing within 30 days based upon our understanding i:hat lhis waiver does /JOt and will not alter the Budingers' rights, if recesslUy, to tile a C.R.C.P. Ul6 Complaint within 30 days of the final decision by the Aspen City Council. Very truly yours, GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C. ~~- Chad J. Selnnit CJS/jr M:\CJebmjt\'B1.1dil1gU\Oi\~tr J, ,th(>~dnlijt~l.. 2.. nl~o.~ulmiJjed..o ~,,)!IlIU~dllJiati:d'It:/ 4. ill,,(l21d:niI'Il(lro S. Jlbll'ad~il~oJlll,l 6. ;1IMI.Q~tl)iikldlll N~""l'lld: 1301V' Dj,rrJ<< IJI C(ll/lm/)/t B~ "'J~rid~ RI.... P~njll~IunllllJ{lr TIIil1(li~ &or CIl..../l:~lJClll Dv *" Primed 00 :wcycled paper l 'd 91Sl'ON lHJ1H mum Vlm:lt 6661 'Sl 'AVl'I ~. '\) . ..--.- - - "~-"^- .' n.;,.; t\lj ~ /-~. ilil ~ . ~1 ~; ~ =:J ~: ~. 'Cl9 ?C77 l?J' Ct'6" -ftH PO? WO ~ r.;~ ~ ~ ;:;, C!i <., III ~ " ~ t) iL- ~ '" ~. ~'. , q' <l\ "'1 ~ .~ '<::> '" ., ~ ." ,ttT7 a:?S 2(7.3 87/ l. . " ~ ~l ",I ""'I ~r- '~I . ~I ~6i .....} ~ ~~ii)k . ~ ~~..... ....~ ~ ~I ~! S! ';s r.:;F0"---'] G, ~~,., //.9 //7 //$" //S /// S.l~T ~ ~. ti, ~ ~~ ~~ U ?:o '}i ~ ~ l' ~ ~ -c:; ., r:o ~;~~ ~3n "'~. ~'\ .'ll,WJ ~ ~ "'I:l x -' //7 //s:. //.!l /// " . //6' ~ .~ i /6'S" /G'S //7/ 1 '" ::) ~ " /<29 /G'? ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ . II II ~ II @I 'II !:::. II . tt ~ . /I . ~ ~ II II n II u J /I II ~ n /I ~ 4 . ~ /I ..~ ~ B It\~ . .p i::I <:s . ;O{". /" i, -'. I .- :.. '. ~_:;';'="~;?-~~::'~'<',~-'~~,. ",,' ~ t.",-.. . '<<~;:;-""; .... ST. /tlcf /6'6" /i?4 /i?i" /Ctl \;; ':i <<. ... .[] " :>t 01 t.O " lc !'l, ~ ~165 <l\~ ~~" '- /</7 /Clf /0..1 /tll 5.CENTE:R LXh;b'it 20 /t29 ( ~ '<: ~ ~ ,. ~ i\; (,,'!. . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \(; ~ " '" ~~ ~'\l' J ~ , /, N \l) c .<1 a . .........~ L8,'<:.:..,~ :-:~,:;'.:.:'~: ,"-" """" , ' PUBLIC NOTICE RE: APPEAL OF mSTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION'S DECISION ON 134 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE MINOR REVIEW AND VARIANCES NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Monday, June 7, 1999, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen City Council, Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an appeal submitted by Bill and Peyton Budinger, 2306 Delaware Avenue,Willmington, DE 19806, requesting a review of the Historic Preservation Commission's decision to deny approval of the owner's application. The property is located at 134 West Hopkins Avenue, Lots K and L, Wyckoff Carley Condominiums. For further information, contact Sarah Oates at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5441. s/John Bennett, Mayor Aspen City Council Published in the Aspen Times on May 22, 1999 City of Aspen Account ,...., ,1""\ April 22, 1999 .' ASPEN' PITKIN Mr. and Mrs. Bill Budinger 2306 Delaware Avenue Willmington,DE 19006 COMMUNIIT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ~r ~+7 t:'~ ' Lf/d,~I9'j - hJC'kf Re: 134 W. Hopkins Dear Mr. and Mrs. Budinger: As you know, your resid,ence was issued a stop work order iJi September 19~8, for building an addition without a permit. It was subsequently discovered the house has been historically designated, and any modifications to the house would require permission ' from the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). As your representative, Dave Ryback, has probably already told you, the HPC has denied your application for approval for the shed that was'built illegally on the back of your residence at 134 W. Hopkins. As a result, the 77 square foot addition must be removed from the back of the house within 60 days from the date ofthis letter. A staff person from the Community Developmelf! Department will inspect the property on June 21,' 1999 (the day after the illegal structure must be removed) to make sure the building has been brought in compliance with the directive of the Historic Preservation Commission, and Community . Development Department: Any future development on the property will require review and approval from the HPC. Please call. should you have any question. Regards, f)- 9~> , Sarah Oates City Planning Technician ~~~ Russell Grance Deputy Chief Building Official cc: , Aspen City Council David Hoefer, Assistl'\IltCity Attorney Dave Ryback, Bill Poss and Associates 130 SOLiTH. GALENA STREET' ASPEN, COLORADO 81611-1975 . PHONE 970.9205090 . FAX 970.920.5439 Printed 011 Re.:yded P.'pcr I""". ,..-." PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 134 WEST HOPKINS VARIANCES NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, April 14, 1999, at a meeting to begin at 5 :00 pm before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission in the Sister Cities meeting room, basement of City Hall, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, to consider an application submitted by William Budinger requesting approval for variances for an addition to the existing house. A shed has been constructed on the site without permits or approvals and will. require the following variances if approved: a 3.2% site coverage variance and a 3 '2" variance of the required distance between structures. The property is located at 134 West Hopkins. For further infonnation, contact Amy Guthrie at the Aspen! Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5096, amyg@ci.aspen.co.us. s/Suzannah Reid, Chair Aspen Historic Preservation Commission r'1 ~ 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE 970/925-4755 FACSIMILE 970/920-2950 March 30, 1999 Mrs. Amy Guthrie Historic Preservation Officer City of Aspen 130 South Galena Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Budinger Residence - 134 West Hopkins Avenue Dear Mrs. Guthrie: As representatives for the Budinger's, we request a Variance Hearing before the Historic Preservation Commission, for a storage shed attached to their residence on Lot K of the Wyckoff Carley Condominiums. The property was previously granted Historic Designation by the Commission and therefore the variance request come under the Commission's review. As you are aware a shed was constructed on the back of the residence by a previous owner, and the Budinger's undertook the reconstruction of the shed this past summer. Unaware the original shed had been constructed without a Building Permit, and unaware the reconstruction would require a permit, the Budinger's have unwittingly violated two Zoning Code Requirements. The area of the shed increases the Site Coverage beyond the allowable. The shed's location also encroaches upon the required distance between two structures on one Property. Upon notification from the Building Department of the reconstructions violation of code requirements, the Budinger's examined their options. The shed is important to their use of the residence, providing the only storage facility for their property. The use of the residence during the summer months allows the cultivation of a garden in the North West corner of the site. The shed is used to store the gardening tools and lawn maintenance equipment. During the winter season, lawn furniture is stored in the shed. Removing the shed would leave the Budinger's without this storage ability, and therefore the Budinger's determined a storage facility is necessary. f"'. ."1 Budinger Residence Variance Requests March 30, 1999 Constructing a shed in another location on site was reviewed, however the options would detract from Historic Structure and still require a Site Coverage Variance. A location on the rear or west set backs, were space is available, would create a separate structure on the parcel and compete with the Historic Residence. This location would also result in the appearance of greater density on the small site. The construction of the shed at the rear of the home by the previous owner was obviously the least obtrusive location on the parcel, as it had gone unnoticed for quite some time. To meet the required side yard setbacks for the combined parcel, the development of the Wyckoff Carley Condominiums minimized the distance between the two dwelling units. As constructed the Garage on Lot L was 5' from the residence on Lot K, the minimum required per the U. B. C.. The construction of the original shed at the rear of the Lot K dwelling reduced the distance to 22", and a fence was built off the edge of the garage to complete the separation of the two Condominiums. The reconstruction of the shed lengthened the structure by 3' - 7 1/2", and further exaggerated the proximity of the buildings. A Variance is requested for an increase of 3.2% in the Allowable Site Coverage. The Allowable Site Coverage is 2,400 sf. for both Lot Land K combined. The coverage with the shed is 2,477 sf. (1,060 sf. on Lot K, 1,417 sf. on Lot L); the 77 sf. overage calculates to 3.2%. This overage is less than the 3.6 % Site Coverage Variance granted to the Property in 1988. This reduction in overage is possible due to the change in calculation of coverage, porches no longer being calculated as Site Coverage. A Variance is also requested for a decrease of 3'-2" in the allowable distance between structures on a Parcel. The actual distance between the shed and the Garage of the Residence on Lot L is 22", The required distance between structures is 5'-0". Please accept the accompanying package as a formal submission for the requested Variances. We look forward to meeting with the H. P. C. on April 14th. Sincerely, David Rybak, Principal 2 C:\97 41\9741-Q33099.hpcsub. wpd ,-,. ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPLlCA TlON FORM I""'\, ~: ~~~j:~~ ~~~t~o~g~/~~1:r r:,~~~UJ~~. 1.41' k ~f 19l kl'l~"ff t~LfJ &,ilMMIIWJ'1 . (indicate street ad ress, lot and block number or metes and bounds description) 3. Present zoning l<.-~ 4. LotsiZetl,MOt,f-{!..bT/t.:?lq7'/iIAL;;,~2.6) 5.. Applicant's name, address and phone number tJ,u! f/t,'fT!)JJ Bt/1J1Alb'J. 1.~& D/!..l.~WMJ!, AVf.,flltF. i W'~LM/4J(;.-nNI DE; . I1U'; 6. Representative's name, address, and phone number 17,u- P4~ " ~~(" u/lo t. MfrlJJ If(. Mp!tN, tI) ~/vlh 1')5- '!75tS" AmI: OINt J<:(13AA I ~ . " 7. Type of application (check all that apply): Conceptual SPA Final SPA Conceptual PUD Z Final PUD Text/Map Amend. GMQS exemption Condominiumization_ Conceptual HPC Final HPC Minor HPC Relocation HPC Historic Landmark Demo/Partial Demo Design Review Appeal Committee Conditional Use Special Review 8049 Greenline Stream Margin Subdivision GMQS allotment View Plane Lot Split/Lot Line Adjustment 8. Description of existing uses (number and type of existing structures, approximate sq. ft., number at bedrooms, any previous approvals granted to the property)fWo t7wM4_ IAMI"''' (D",*,AluJ R.i!./"~~. ur /<. ,~h!UIl.CdMt, i..tJ-r L ~ M...tJ1.MM~. 'pM.purr UG/itAllUJ 11 Y*'1.JI11UI. 71J'l/(.c.i.ic NX/JAVA! ~I~ tlJV~lrht IN JtIJ~ BY s.t<%. 9. Description of development application VIrI.I,wa. !1.!f..11)K.4,1 T~ [J1LiUA) ~'m. biVif/-A-h1. 8," ~.1.J.4 , MAl I~ !/1/1.IIrlJUl. .1...!(,.i/IJi~;r ,FbI/.,f- f)I!.CUJY.i. "f :l-2~ 1!17H6.. flrUlwtrel..."- bl'iljlfNu. M-rAJltlu/ mJ,ItnJ/Z4J? ~J/ If "":d.tv~. , 1 O. Have you completed and attached the following? ,; Attachment 1- Land use application form ./ Attachment 2- Dimensional requirements form -:!.. Response to Attachment 3 --:L Response to Attachment 4 " !"", !"", ATTACHMENT :.2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Applicant: 8nt.- J flt'l~" fJUOlilGlf. Address: /':;4 'l/J1Ihf' lIo/kJJJ!1 MI.. Zone district: !::.. iL Lot Size: 1..;Mb ~t (trr ~: '1.,q~1/ ~D1: ~ ~u,~ Existing FAR: '?) ;4~h.F-. I bf k . 1171 . U i I ~ I) t; -a) ~ CH iM III ~5.6tJlF!l~)h Allowable FAR: ~l ?'Ib ~'F' Proposed FAR: N6 ~A1.41Jb6..' t?H~ I~ ~ ~p:. "'''> ~1!Jw.! "Jpi/U. Existing net leasable (commercial): N. ,4.. I Proposed net leasable (commercial): N. ~. Existing % of site coverage: ~~. b % (fJ.fl. 'tiN. ~P4 I!AtMJIAJ7PN~ 1 '1h..I~dj Proposed % of site coverage: . '1~. 1.'~ Existing % of open space: iJ.a.. Proposed % of open space: N. 1-. Existing maxImum height: Princieal bide: tJ. If. Proposed max. height: Princieal bide: N. fr. Proposed % of demolition: 6 Existing number of bedrooms: . Proposed number of bedrooms: Existing on-site parking spaces: On-site parking spacas required: t.{ (1. fU 1)fA)iUt.liJ~) Accesory blda: Accessory blda: ib CHIrNbft. I' h Setbacks Existing: Front: Jf,.5 ;:.r, Rear: 1.~ i-r. Combined FronVrear.~f1 Side: ,,/.If. M' Side: Combined Sides: Minimum required: Front: I~ I'r. Rear: Ie f1' Combined FronVrear: ~F1' Side: <5:1"f' Side: (5 H Combined Sides: 15 1'1: . Proposed: Front: tip tJ.i!J1JJ,I5~ Rear: Combined FronVrear: Side: Side: Combined Sides: \ Existing nonconformities or encroachments: f.,4. I.. J~m tN!f~a.. J "J!!rMti<!, - &ft.A-1J11PD 'i"r1l.IMJu~ fi,'f NJPt. IN 11U Variations requested: t6rTfi.. tNpf~(f... 1 DI-r.7:P<lItif. . bfJ-"fWu,V BtJltDlN6<; dJ/ .4 P~i~. '. , . (HPC has the ability to vary the following requirements: setbacks, distance between buildings, FAR bonus of up to 500 sq.fl., site coverage variance up to 5%., height variations under the cottage infill program, par'.<ing waivers for residential uses in the R-o, R-15, RMF, CC, and 0 zone districts) r" ALLEY .-, o _ ""'_ UNE1 ~ 0 Vl . . l- ~ 0:: vi I LOT'; 1 LOT'L,I TOTAlsm:CO'IEAAGE: l.417SQJT, AllOWABlE COVEPAG8 2,<<10 SQ,FT, N'1OONT O\ffi 77 5O,FT. = 3.1% \ CURB W. HOPKINS AVE. (!) rO_-"", I .. 'I OSlO 10 Budinger Residence Site Plan Match 30, 1999 Aspen, Colorado Bill Poss andA.ssociates ArcllitccIlRmdPlIlllDiog ....~ I""'" .~ ~ . ~ .:;: -.! "$ ';' ~ ;;l "..f.. hi. ~ :E' '::) .'";Z, - ::E I ! ~ D 2 3 N'r- ....... ..' ~ d <; \; ~ lC. C- . c:::. 4::~~ . ~ <c)- ..s- "3 "2. 'r- -...J. ~'r- ::. c:..' <:l :z ::t:-J - .~ ~.. \ ~.' u. ~ ;;~ )--:;: _ ~ 9.. __ ~g ~~ '.In!"';. ':::'::;1. .1,::;1':1':;_ d: '71r'M_t..:l1 Y r1HN14~l::...l-<:; Ur l- lC!: NO. 472 P.2 1"""\ ~ PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 134 WEST HOPKINS V ARIANCES NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held 011 Wednesday, Apri114, 1999, at a meeting to begin at S ;00 pm before the Aspen H'istoric Preservation COJ:I1lIlission in the Sist~ Cities meeting room, bas"","'ut of City Hall, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, to consider an application submitted by William Buding~ :requeQng approval for variances for an addition to the existing house. A shed has been constructed 0!1 the site without pemrits or approVals and will require the following variances if approved: a 3.2% site coverage variance and a 3'2" variance of the required distance between structntes. The property is located at 134 West Hopkins. Por further ' infonnatiOl1, contact Amy Guthrie lit the Aspen! Pitkin CommlJtlity Development Depart:ment, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-S096, amyg@ei.a.speu.co.us. slSuzmmah Reid. Cbair Aspen Historic Preservation Commission MULLINS MARGARET ANN 1909 FOREST PKWY DENVER. CO 80220 PIETRZAK BOB & SUE LLC 1796 E SOPRIS CREEK RD BASALT, CO 81621 PIETRZAK ROBERT J & SUSAN R 1796 E SOPRIS CREEK RD BASALT, CO 81623 ROSS PAULINE PO BOX 9969 ASPEN, CO 81612 SHADOW MTN HOMEOWNER ASSOC C/O HAL MORROW 232 W HYMAN AVE ASPEN. CO 81611 STRAUCH ELAINE B 4327 S YOSEMITE CT ENGLEWOOD, CO 80110 WARSHAW MARTIN R & ALICE M PO BOX 8976 ASPEN, CO 81612 PIETRZAK FAMILY L TO PARTNERSHIP COLORADO LTD PARTNERSHIP 1796 E SOPRIS CREEK RD BASALT, CO 81621 SMITH CHRISTOPHER H BEUTTAS DIANA H PO BOX 12366 ASPEN, CO 81612 !"" NEWKAM CLAIRE M PO BOX 2808 ASPEN, CO 81612 POTAMKIN ALAN 467574TH ST MIAMI. FL 33143 SEGUIN JEFF W SEGUIN MADALYN B AS JOINT TENANTS PO BOX 8852 ASPEN, CO 81612 SMITH CHRISTOPHER H BEUTTAS DIANA H PO BOX 12366 ASPEN, CO 81612 TIPTON JOHN K TRUST NUMBER ONE 112 6477 E MANOR DR ENGLEWOOD, CO 80111 WILKE JOHN H AND BONNIE K TRUSTEES OF WILKE LIVING TRUST 153 S BEACHWOOD DR LOS ANGELES, CA 90004 HOTEL ASPEN LTD ASPEN HOTEL PARTNERS LTD 250 MARTIN ST STE #100 BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009 ~ OLIVER WILLIAM THOMAS & ANN GARY 542 WARNER AVE LOS ANGELES, CA 90024 PIETRZAK FAMILY LTD PARTNERSHIP COLORADO LTD PARTNERSHIP 1796 E SOPRIS CREEK RD BASALT, CO 81621 RANCE CAROL FLAT 4B MOUNTAIN LODGE 44 MTKELLET RD THE PEAK HONG KONG, CHINA SEIDER DENNIS J & LEAH E 26642 LA TIGO SHORE DR MALlBU, CA 90265 SPEARS NANCY M 530 MEANS ST#405 ATLANTA, GA 30318 VAUGHAN HEIDI 1996 TRUST N2322 SYLVAN LN LAKE GENEVA. WI 54137 HOTEL ASPEN L TO ASPEN HOTEL PARTNERS L TO 250 MARTIN ST STE #1 00 BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009 HOTEL ASPEN L TO ASPEN HOTEL PARTNERS LTD 250 MARTIN ST STE #100 BIRMINGHAM. MI 48009 CRAWFORD THOMAS B JR PO BOX 8110 HORSESHOE BAY, TX 78654 DEAN MARY EMMA PO BOX 8035 ASPEN. CO 81612 ERB JANE PO BOX 3207 ASPEN, CO 81612 FRIEDLANDER & SINGER L TO SINGER & FRIEDLANDER 12-4 RIDGEWAY ST DOUGLAS ISLE OF MAN, GUERRA DONNA 4220 GLENWOOD AVE DALLAS, TX 75205 HITE HENRY H & ANGELA R PO BOX 155 WOODY CREEK, CO 81656 KAUFMAN GIDEON 315 E HYMAN AVE #305 ASPEN, CO 81611 KOENIG RAYMOND J AND TRAGGIS ELIZABETH G POBOX 284 NEW LONDON, CT 06320 \ \ LEWIS EILEEN 108 W HYMAN AVE #9 ASPEN, CO 81611 MARKLE JUDY 70% C/O JUDY POOL 10 MEADOWVIEW LN LITTLETON, CO 80121 f"", DACOSTA MAUREEN C PO BOX I ASPEN. CO 81612 DIMITRIUS RALLI HUEBNER-DIMITRI US JO-ELLAN 200 S SIERRA MADRE BLVD PASADENA, CA 91109 FABER ROBERT G & EUNICE N 1921 BOULDER DR ANN ARBOR, MI 48104 GODFREY PAULA 505 N 8TH ST ASPEN, CO 81611 HAAN R E TRUST 7115 LEESBURG PIKE STE 309 FALLS CHURCH, VA 22043 HOTEL ASPEN L TO ASPEN HOTEL PARTNERS L TD 250 MARTIN ST STE #1 00 , BIRMINGHAM. MI 48009 KEY JOHN 6476 MIMOSA LN DALLAS, TX 75230 LEE DAVID W LEE DORA 13562 CAMINITO CARMEL DEL MAR, CA 92014-3849 LUBIN RICHARD G 1217 S FLAGLER DR 2ND FL FLAGLER PlAZA WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33401 MELTON DAVID 135 W MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 .~ DE TURRIS EMILIO 31 BRAMBLE LN MELVILLE, NY 11747 DURANT AND ORIGINAL ASSOCIATES INC 730 E DURANT ST ASPEN, CO 81611 FARLAND MARISA J PO BOX 3542 ASPEN, CO 81612 GROSVENOR DENIS , PO BOX 3071 ASPEN, CO 81612 HARE TERESA J 20 E 74TH ST PHB NEW YORK, NY 10021 JDJ GROUP LLC 300 PUppy SMITH ST #205-220 ASPEN. CO 81611 KING LOUISE LLC A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY CO PO BOX 1467 BASALT, CO 81621 LEWIS BRETT H 548 FRANKLIN ST DENVER, CO 80218 MARK CAROL KRAUSS PO BOX 9283 ASPEN, CO 81612-9283 MENDELSON ROBERTA L & MEL I 5412 FRANCISCA VVY AGOURA HILLS, CA 91301 .^ ASPEN KAY ASSOCIATES 0/0 KAY MARVIN L 5610 WISCONSIN AVE APT 1403 CHEVY CHASE, MD 20815 DURANT AND ORIGINAL ASSOCIATES INC 730 E DURANT ST ASPEN, CO 81611 DURANT AND ORIGINAL ASSOCIATES INC 730 E DURANT ST ASPEN. CO 81611 DURANT AND ORIGINAL ASSOCIATES INC 730 E DURANT ST ASPEN, CO 81611 BACON SHIRLEY R 3 GROVE ISLE DR #1608 COCONUT GROVE, FL 33133 BARZELL WINSTON 7360 POINT OF ROCKS RD SARASOTA. FL 34242 BIRDMAN DIANE 307S21STAVE HOLLYWOOD, FL 33020 BUTT CYNTHIA W 944 HARMAN AVE DAYTON,OH 45419 CHRISTENSEN ROBERT M & CANDICE L 204 W HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 DURANT AND ORIGINAL ASSOCIATES INC 730 E DURANT ST ASPEN, CO 81611 DURANT AND ORIGINAL ASSOCIATES INC 730 E DURANT ST ASPEN, CO 81611 DURANT AND ORIGINAL ASSOCIATES INC 730 E DURANT ST ASPEN, CO 81611 . ASPEN MAIN LP ASPEN PROPERTIES CIO PO BOX 10502 ASPEN, CO 81612 BEAVER R HART AND JOAN S 937 WILLOW ST PO BOX 1140 LEBANON, PA 17042-1140 BOWMAN AL 3580 NW 10TH AVE OAKLAND PARK, FL 33309 BROWN MICHAEL HAYDEN 2/3 250 MARTIN ST STE 100 BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009-3383 CASSIDAY BENJAMINB PO BOX 1262 ASPEN, CO 81612 COLES ELLIOT L 2929 E HARTFORD AVE MILWAUKEE. WI 53211 ~. DURANT AND ORIGINAL ASSOCIATES INC 730 E DURANT ST ASPEN, CO 81611 DURANT AND ORIGINAL ASSOCIATES INC 730 E DURANT ST ASPEN, CO 81611 DURANT AND ORIGINAL ASSOCIATES INC 730 E DURANT ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN SKIING COMPANY PO BOX 1248 ASPEN, CO 81612 BARNETT SAUL H & SALLY A 403 WEST HALLAM ASPEN, CO 81611 BERNSTEIN POLLY A CIO STRAZZ 212 W HOPKINS AVE ASPEN. CO 81611-1708 BRENNAN JAMES C 417 ROYALE ST NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130 BUDINGER WILLIAM & PEYTON 2306 DELAWARE AVE WILMINGTON, DE 19806 CHISHOLM EDITH 1/2 INT 205 W MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 COLORADO AZURE L TO PO BOX 11236 ASPEN. CO 81612