Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.HP.134 W Hopkins Ave.A007-99TO: THRU: FROM: MEMORANDUM Mayor and City Council Amy Margerum, City Manager Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director � 46 RE: Appeal of Historic Preservation Commission Decision-134 West Hopkins —Minor Review and Variances DATE: June 28, 1999 C� Sarah Oates, Planning Technician 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 HPC. 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 HPC 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 whet at he applicants were afforded the same opportunities as all other applicants requiring Historic Preservation ommission 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. 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: "I 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, April 14, 1999 C. Staff Report and Findings presented to HPC, April 14, 1999 D. Letters from neighbors RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR MINOR DEVELOPMENT AND VARIANCES AT 134 WEST BLEEKER, ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO./�, SERIES OF 1999 WHEREAS, the applicant, Bill and Peyton Budinger, represented by Bill Poss and Associates, has requested minor development approval for an addition on the structure, and a sideyard setback variance and site coverage variance. The property has historical designation; and WHEREAS, all development in an "H," Historic Overlay District or development involving a historic landmark must meet all four Development Review Standards of Section 26.72.010(D) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval, namely: 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 coverage by up to five (5) percent, 'HPC rYiay grant such variances after making a finding that such. variation is more. compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than wotild'be development in accord with dimensional requirements.. In no event -:sficqll variations' pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed�=under � tbeotta ' Cge Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units pursuant to.Section26.40.090(B)(2). 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. 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. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof, and 431340 05/17/1999 11:34R RESOLUTI DAVIS SILVI 1 of 2 R 11.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITY,IN COUNTY CO WHEREAS, Sarah Oates, Planning Technician, in her staff report dated April 14, 1999, recommended denial, and the HPC agreed with the conclusions of the "responses" in the staff report, thereby not allowing the HPC to make positive findings on all four (4) standards, and WHEREAS, at a regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission on March 10, 1999, the Commission considered and denied the application without conditions by a vote of to 7 to 0. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That minor development denial for 134 West Bleeker Street, Aspen, Colorado, be approved as shown on April 14, 1999. APPROVED BY THE COMWSION at .its regular x eot ng on the 141" day of April, 1999. Approved as to Form: Da id Hoefer, Assistant ity Attorney HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ATTEST: Kathy Striefdand, Chief Deputy Clerk 111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ill 1111111111111 431340 05/17/1999 31:34p RESOLUTI DAVIS SILVI 2 of 2 R 11.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING THE DECISION MADE BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR MINOR DEVELOPMENT AND VARIANCES AT 134 WEST BLEEKER, ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. , SERIES OF 1999 WHEREAS, the property located at 134 West Bleeker is a designated historic landmark; and WHEREAS, the owners of the subject property, Bill and Peyton Budinger , did construct, without building permits or approval from the Historic Preservation Commission, a shed addition to the landmarked structure; and WHEREAS, the building department did "red tag" this illegally constructed addition; and WHEREAS, the applicant, Bill and Peyton Budinger, represented by Bill Poss and Associates, subsequently requested a minor Historic Preservation Commission development approval for the constructed addition on the structure, and a sideyard setback variance and site coverage variance, in order to "legalize" the constructed addition; and WHEREAS, the application was reviewed at a public hearing at a regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission on April 14, 1999, met all of the noticing requirements pursuant to Section 26.52.060(E) of the Aspen Municipal Code and was denied without conditions by a vote of 7 to 0; pursuant to the reasons set forth in Historic Preservation Commission Resolution No. 19, Series of 1999; and WHEREAS, no abuse of discretion nor denial of due process occurred during the above mentioned hearing; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council affirms that the proper procedures were followed and does wish to uphold the decision of the Historic Preservation Commission as rendered in Resolution No. 19, Series of 1999, by the Historic Preservation Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: City Council affirms the decision of the Historic Preservation Commission denying an application for minor development and variances at 134 West Bleeker, Aspen, CO, finding that there was not an abuse of discretion or a denial of due process by the Commission. APPROVED by the City Council at its regular meeting on this 28`' day of June, 1999 ATTEST: MAYOR: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk Rachel Richards r ' t Zxh,b�i �k RONALD GARFIELD' ANDREW V. HECHT2 MICHAEL J. HERRON' DAVID L. LENYO MATTHEW C. FERGUSON( KRISTI S. FERRARO4 CHRISTOPHER J. LACROIX" CHAD J. SCHMIT' GARFIELD &HECET, P.-i"Cl. Aspen City Council 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81612 ATTORNEYS AT LAW E-mail: atty@aariieldhecht.com 601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE (970) 925-1936 TELECOPIER (970)925-3008 110 MIDLAND AVENUE SUITE 201 BASALT, COLOR.ADO 81621. TELEPHONE (970) 927-1936 TELECOPIER (970) 927-1783 May 13, 1999 2t� MAY 1999 �, Y c, Cit�r Atiorne�s , �'. Office 1 Re: Appeal of Historic Preservation Conunission - 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 April 14, 1999,.the Historical Preservation Commission ("HPC ") denied the Budingers' request for a site coverage variance of 3.2 % for a 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). By way of same background, the Budingers are the owners of the landmark E - property located at 134 west Hopkins. At the hearing the Budingers were prepared a to present three alternative proposals to address any concerns before the HPC s related to development in an "H, " Historic Overlay District, or development t involving a historic landmark. To gain approval, the development must meet four :. .. Development Review Standards ("the Standards") found in § 26.72.010(D) of the 1. also admitted to 2. also admitted to 3. also admitted to 4. also admitted to 5. also admitted to 6. also admitted to New York Bar District of Columbia Bar Florida Bar Pennsylvania Bar Illinois Bar Connecticut Bar Planted OQ :VC1eC 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, wrgngfully denied the Budingers' application on the grounds that the proposals did not meet all four of the Standards. HPC failed to consider 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 information 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. Chad J. Schmit, A.R. #28469 601 East Hyman Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 925-1936 Attorneys for Bill and Peyton Budinger r Certificate of Service I hereby certify that on May 13, 1999, I served an original and ten (10) copies of Garfield & Hecht, P.. C .'s May 13, 1999, letter re "Appeal of Historical Preservation Commission Decision - Budinger 134 W. Hopkins Public Hearing" on the following in the following manner: GARFIELD HECHT, P.C. May 13, 1999, Budinger Appeal Letter Page 3 ONE ORIGINAL AND TEN COPIES VIA HAND DELIVERY TO: i Aspen City Council 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 John 'Worcester, City Attorney 130 S . Galena Street • Aspen, CO 81611 Debbie Hauer M:\cschmit\Budinger\COUNCILLTR.02 n ASPEN HISTO, C PRESERVATION COMMIL iON 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 fora 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 torn down. The size of the home is 1700 square feet. They are required to have a parking space and they have a 7 ASPEN HISTOi PRESERVATION COMMIS. _ SON 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 staffs 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. 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director THRU: Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning Directors �p FROM: Sarah Oates, Planning Technician �Q 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, a sideyard 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 and. 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 26.72.010(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 Infill 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 structure that was moved to the 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 historic structure is not an appropriate configuration to maintain the architectural character and integrity of the structure. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following 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. (Specific recommendations should be offered.) • Deny Minor Development approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION AND RECO-TW-VIENDED MOTION: "I move to deny the addition of a shed, and sidevard 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 "._ T T( AspenIse .9 - s _ �.. _ Re. 1 J4 West Hopki�i� fi1ay 1' i 1999 Lis are writing in support of Bill and Pagton 8udi nger's request to maintain the shed at the rear of their historic house, e have lived directly across the street for approximately 1 i years. The rear of the house was a shed type structure containing 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 historic house and th.a existing small shed was attached. The -small shed required repairs which the 8udi ngerl did without changing any of the cMaracteri st i cs wMi ch it, displayed since its constructs on. The small shed seems totally in character with the historic house, particularly since many of the historic homes in the neighborhood apparently had sheds attached to the rear of the building either at the time of original construction or the early part of this century. We believe that maintaining the small shed as it i s, rather than moving it elsewhere on the propert qi, would more cl osel g appro �i mate the look of the house as it appeared during the past several decades We hope that we are all striving to maintain the historic look and character of Aspen and preserving the 8udi nger small shed as it is carries es out that hope. Sincerely, Saul and 9twily Barnett 200- W. Hoped ns 920 i-'121Dt DAVID MELTON .& ASSOCIATES Certified Public Accountants Certified Valuation Analyst 135 W. Main Street, Suite A Aspen, CO 81611 David Melton, CPA, CVA Doreen Dunlop Sarah W. Sadler, CPA May 19, 1999 Aspen City Council 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Property at 134 W. Hopkins Dear Council, L) ' n tv - ------------- , '\,1Ag1920Z�2? VN TQ KA 1 J N N LU ACV 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 torn down or moved to the rear of the property. We understand 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 you for your consideration, OICE L-0� David & Susan Melton cc: Community Development, Julie Ann Woods Phone: (970) 925-2979 Fax: (970) 925-7613 FROM ' U. Tl,-,orfias 01 i,.)#=-r PHONE HQ. : 310 470 GOGO Jun. 2e 1999 02:41PM P2 1341/2 WEST HOPKINS ^5PF-N,G0L0RAD0 81011 r-lay 20. 1-99-9 open :ily Crunch 130 SGUth 00leric open, GO. Re, Shed at 134 West Hopkins To Whom it t-loy Concern, We understand thot the HPG has recently issued ei ruling repuiring the removol of a shed from the abcn/d! referenced property, which adjoins ours. We would like to ciclrffy our pca1tlon with respect to this 155ue. A5 we explained is st Octpber to the 5uddlmgers, our objection to the shed has ,con:5iVemtly been only to Its height, as it blocks sIgnificart light to our potlo. The shed, In Ws present location, provides on element of privacy which ifs absence would deny. For thin reason, we are very much In favor cF allowirig the shed to rernoin where it 5tonds at if-5 prami.5ed reduced height- A6ditlorally, we know of mo neighbors who oppose its existence. if we can be of fur+er assistance, please feel free, to c:cntact us either of home, 31� -70-7069, or In open. 509-';)O- where we WIll be cver- Hemorlat Day weakend- Thorik you very much for your ConzIderction. Torn and Ann ONfer r,c.z Aspen Historical Preservation Comryii-4k,,�ienn Attachment 8 County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT } SS. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS State of Colorado } SECTION 26.52.060(E) I, VAYIP 9MAbb -124 AeTWIA,144, being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements pursuant to Section 26.52.060(E) of the Aspen Municipal Code in the following manner: 1. By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class postage prepaid U.S. Mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, as indicated on the attached list, on the �6 day of 1999 (which is I tl days prior to the public hearing date of APILIL. 41111). 2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously from the �5; day of _, 199 °A to the day of ATA t, , 199(Must be posted for at least ten (10) full days before the hearing date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto. Signature Signed before me this Lt day of n,► t1 1991.by �V . 2 WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My Commission expires: MY Con1miniOn expires 6I27/2000 Notary Public ; s • . V 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 Preservation Commission-134 West Hopkins Dear Chad: Enclosed please find the public notice, noticing requirements and affidavit for the above referenced case. The Community 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 verifying that the order to remove the shed from the back 134 West Hopkins is held in abeyance while this .case in the appeal process.. Should City Council uphold 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. Please let me know.if you have any questions. - Regards, Sarah Oates,=III echnician City of Aspen 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET AsPEN, COLORADO 81611-1975 PHONE 970.920.5090 Rx 970.920.5439 Printed on Recycled Paper PUBLIC NOTICE RE: APPEAL OF HISTORIC 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 28, 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, saraho@ci.aspen.co.us. sy'Rachael Richards, Mayor Aspen City Council Published in the Aspen Times on June 12, 1999 City of Aspen Account DAVID MELTON & IASSOCIATES Certified Public. Accountants Certified Valuation. IAnalyst 135 W. Main Street, Suite A Aspen, CO 81611 David Melton, CPA, CVA Doreen Dunlop Sarah W. Sadler, CPA May 19, 1999 Aspen City Council 130 S . Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Property at 134 W. Hopkins Dear Council, MAY 2 �.� 1999 rots 'i ,IN, , A 0,t1.1 iU'N'l7`( DEVE OPMIENT 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 torn down or moved to the rear of the property. We understand 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 you for your consideration, -- �A-'r* t S L-rs� David & Susan Melton cc: Community Development, Julie Ann Woods Phone: (970) 925-2979 Fax: (970) 925-7618 RONALD GAR)4119LD' ANDREW V. HECHT' MICHAEL J—HERRONI DAVID L. LENYO "ATT'14F,W C. Fl�,IRGUSONI kRISTI S. F15RIZARO' CHRISTOPHER J. LACROIX11c' CHAD J-5CKMrrI Ms. Sarah Oates Planning Tc,ail nician 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 A7f'VDRNBYsR AT LAW E-mail: arty@ garfleldhechf.0i)yn M 601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO M611 TeLSPHONE (970) 92,5- 1936 'rFLEC0PjF,R (970) 025-30ON I 10 A4JVLAND AVENIJ8 SUITE 201 RASALT, COLORADO 91&',) 1 . MLEPRONE (970) 927-19,16 TEUC OPIE R (970) 927,1783 Re: Iftuffingw ApPeal Of Iffisteric Pireservafion Commission - Budinger 134 W. HO&M ftblic Hearing CJS/jt MIkschmiNAA17ger\oAte'sw 1, Muo adrahrad to L AIP0 AdMil(Cd Tf) 0, alui admh[W ju 4. film udmilfej fD 5. JIAU ddMilfed I( 6. zko 410111nud LnNo- York B4r INvux:1 VI columbid Bir Florida Ear PaRAN'41yanict bilf ffliqoji JMr C-namlekit Bar d) PriffiLWI on mycled paper I 'd 9 L P, � 'ON IHDIH 01111M NV(jO:�[ 66611WAM r ll�► xb Ns YX LX rl Ix co s• . eq ?off' 1/9 //7 //S / Y II uz,l STlz 9 o - _ C� II � O V � )n \O 7 �x 1 � x • o x Ik O X) c . k - r� x �. x x L;l c// 20�' 20? 20/ //.9 //7 //.s'. //S (n .CD 1 20' /29 /O,7 /OS /03 z N ST, AW /06 /Oa /Oe /OD IT x � , ro, 1 1 ` tb ' x .J 1 �x x� tx x c � LA d � t /O9 /07 /GLS- /03 /a/ SoCENTER iNt,r., Y x<� N LO Cl C70 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: APPEAL OF HISTORIC 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 April 22, 1999 +_ ASPEN • PITKIN Mr. and Mrs. Bill Budinger COMMUNiTy DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 2306 Delaware Avenue Willmington, *DE 19006 Re: 134 W. Hopkins Dear Mr. and Mrs. Budinger: As you know, your residence was issued a stop work order in September 1908, 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 of this letter. A staff person from the Community Development 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,. 01 Sarah Oates Russell Grance City Planning Technician Deputy Chief Building Official cc: Aspen City Council David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney Dave Ryback, Bill Poss and Associates 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET • ASPEN, COLORAoq 81611-1975 • PHONE 970920.5090 - FAx 970.920,5439 Printed on Recycled Paper 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 information, 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 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE 9701925-4755 FACSIMILE 9701920-2950 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. 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 L and 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:\9741\9741-033099-hpcsub.wpd 3. Present zoning ,,- 4. Lot size,'• 5... Applicant's name, address and phone number 6. Representative's name, address, and phone number c/s 7. Type of application (check all that apply): Conditional Use Special Review 8040 Greeniine Stream Margin Subdivision GMQS allotment View Plane Lot Split/Lot Line Adjustment Conceptual SPA Final SPA Conceptual PUD Final PUD Text/Map Amend. GMQS exemption Condom iniumization Conceptual HPC Final HPC Minor HPC Relocation HPC Historic Landmark Demo/Partial Demo Design Review Appeal Committee 8. Description of existing uses (number and type of existing structures, approximate sq. ft., number of bedrooms, any previous approvals granted to the property) �P ;�, ���f 17 9. Description of development application evz)A. a- ,211W,:I T) -91;C 4- 29ZAIAL6 m nit ' 3� �� A�i� fJ ! � � : y � e� � t� l 33,d G� d � ` `� e p� � �� J r� ice: J�:�� # 10. Have you completed and attached the following? Attachment 1- Land use application form Attachment 2- Dimensional requirements form Response to Attachment 3 s Response to Attachment 4 Applicant: Address: Zone district: Lot size: Existing FAR: Allowable FAR: '-), S I/ )_ 4 - c-, P-1coosed FAR: 44 A-M, A, L - *SAW P5 U XA P 7 A,5 evT Existing net leasable (commercial): Proposed net leasable (commercial): Al. A�. Existing % of site coverage: Lp5g ego'x ms Proposed % of site coverage: q. se Existing % of open space: 4.4. Proposed % of open space: Existing maximum height: Principal b1da: • Accesory bldg: Proposed max. height Principal b1da: N. Ac,.-.essory b1da: Proposed % of demolition: 6 Existing number of bedrooms: Proposed number of bedrooms: Existing on -site parking spaces: On -site parking spaces required: DOX4.w4s) bll,L J Lf 70W 692140W 19,24 An'. Setbacks Existing: Front: Rear: 11 Combined Front/rear: S i de: q. Side: Combined S ides: Minimum required: Front: Rear: 10 F-r Combined Front/rear: IW S ide: 6, Side: 6 Combined Sides: /6 Existing nonconformities or encroachments: H'Oil' 14IJ3 Variations requested: 6-rf_ r&nnamuj Proposed: Front: Rear: Combined Front/rear: Side: Side: Combined Sides: (IHPC has the ability to vary the following requirements: setbacks, distance between buildings, FAR bonus of up to 500 sq.ft., site coverage variance up to 5%, height variations under the cottage inflil program, parking waivers for residential uses in the R-8, R-15, IRIVIF, CC, and 0 zone districts) ALLEY PROPERTY LINE r A nrNF-w CURB Site Plan March 30, 1999 W. HOPKINS AVE. N 0 0 5 10 20 Aspen, Colorado Bill Poss and Associates Architcam and Planning Asp %Colmxdo MHK . �5. 1 �55e 41.t-JM-._____U 1 I Y MHNHGI- Kbyt- I i UE NO. 472 P. . 2 PUBLIC NOTICE RM 134 WEST HOPIONS VARLANcFs NOTICE IS EMREBY GIN that a public hearing will be held on, Wednesday, April 14, 1999, at a meeting to begin at 5;00 pm before the Aspen Mgtoric 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 requeatAng 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 reg7aired distance between structures. T_ne property is located. at 134 West Hopkins. For further information, contact Amy Guthrie at the Asper,/ Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5096, amyg@ci.aspen.co.us. s/Suzanna.h Reid, Chair Aspen. Historic Preservation Commission MULLINS MARGARET ANN 1909 FOREST PKWY DENVER, CO 80220 NEWKAM CLAIRE M PO BOX 2808 ASPEN, CO 81612 OLIVER WILLIAM THOMAS & ANN GARY 542 WARNER AVE LOS ANGELES, CA 90024 PIETRZAK BOB &SUE LLC PIETRZAK FAMILY LTD PARTNERSHIP 1796 E SOPRIS CREEK RD COLORADO LTD PARTNERSHIP BASALT, CO 81621 1796 E SOPRIS CREEK RD BASALT, CO 81621 PIETRZAK ROBERT J & SUSAN R POTAMKIN ALAN RANCE CAROL 1796 E SOPRIS CREEK RD 4675 74TH ST FLAT 4B MOUNTAIN LODGE BASALT, CO 81623 MIAMI, FL 33143 44 MTKELLET RD THE PEAK HONG KONG, CHINA ROSS PAULINE SEGUIN JEFF W SEIDER DENNIS J & LEAH E PO BOX 9969 SEGUIN MADALYN B AS JOINT TENANTS 26642 LATIGO SHORE DR ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 8852 MALIBU, CA 90265 ASPEN, CO 81612 SHADOW MTN HOMEOWNER ASSOC SMITH CHRISTOPHER H SPEARS NANCY M C/O HAL MORROW BEUTTAS DIANA H 530 MEANS ST #405 232 W HYMAN AVE PO BOX 12366 ATLANTA, GA 30318 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 STRAUCH ELAINE B TIPTON JOHN K TRUST NUMBER ONE VAUGHAN HEID1 1996 TRUST 4327 S YOSEMITE CT 6477 E MANOR DR N2322 SYLVAN LN ENGLEWOOD, CO 80110 ENGLEWOOD, CO 80111 LAKE GENEVA, WI 54137 WARSHAW MARTIN R & ALICE M PO BOX 8976 ASPEN, CO 81612 WILKE JOHN H AND BONNIE K TRUSTEES OF WILKE LIVING TRUST 153 S BEACHWOOD DR LOS ANGELES, CA 90004 PIETRZAK FAMILY LTD PARTNERSHIP HOTEL ASPEN LTD COLORADO LTD PARTNERSHIP ASPEN HOTEL PARTNERS LTD 1796 E SOPRIS CREEK RD 250 MARTIN ST STE #100 BASALT, CO 81621 BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009 SMITH CHRISTOPHER H BEUTTAS DIANA H PO BOX 12366 ASPEN, CO 81612 HOTEL ASPEN LTD ASPEN HOTEL PARTNERS LTD 250 MARTIN ST STE #100 BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009 HOTEL ASPEN LTD ASPEN HOTEL PARTNERS LTD 250 MARTIN ST STE #100 BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009 i CRAWFORD THOMAS B JR DACOSTA MAUREEN C DE TURRIS EMILIO PO BOX 8110 PO BOX 1 31 BRAMBLE LN HORSESHOE BAY, TX 78654 ASPEN, CO 81612 MELVILLE, NY 11747 DEAN MARY EMMA DIMITRIUS RALLI DURANT AND ORIGINAL ASSOCIATES PO BOX 8035 HUEBNER-DIMITRIUS JO-ELLAN INC ASPEN, CO 81612 200 S SIERRA MADRE BLVD 730 E DURANT ST PASADENA, CA 91109 ASPEN, CO 81611 ERB JANE FABER ROBERT G & EUNICE N FARLAND MARISA J PO BOX 3207 1921 BOULDER DR PO BOX 3542 ASPEN, CO 81612 ANN ARBOR, MI 48104 ASPEN, CO 81612 FRIEDLANDER &SINGER LTD GODFREY PAULA GROSVENOR DENIS SINGER & FRIEDLANDER 505 N 8TH ST PO BOX 3071 12-4 RIDGEWAY ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 DOUGLAS ISLE OF MAN, GUERRA DONNA HAAN R E TRUST HARE TERESA J 4220 GLENWOOD AVE 7115 LEESBURG PIKE STE 309 20 E 74TH ST PHB DALLAS, TX 75205 FALLS CHURCH, VA 22043 i NEW YORK, NY 10021 HITS HENRY H & ANGELA R HOTEL ASPEN LTD� JDJ GROUP LLC PO BOX 155 ASPEN HOTEL PARTNERS LTD 300 PUPPY SMITH ST #205-220 WOODY CREEK, CO 81656 250 MARTIN ST STE #100 ASPEN, CO 81611 BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009 KING LOUISE LLC KAUFMAN GIDEON KEY JOHN A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY CO 315 E HYMAN AVE #305 6476 MIMOSA LN PO BOX 1467 ASPEN, CO 81611 DALLAS, TX 75230 BASALT, CO 81621 KOENIG RAYMOND J AND TRAGGIS ELIZABETH G P 0 BOX 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 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 LEWIS BRETT H 548 FRANKLIN ST DENVER, CO 80218 MARK CAROL KRAUSS PO BOX 9283 ASPEN, CO 81612-9283 MENDELSON ROBERTA L & MEL 1 5412 FRANCISCA WY AGOURA HILLS, CA 91301 ASPEN KAY ASSOCIATES DURANT AND ORIGINAL ASSOCIATES 0/0 KAY MARTIN L INC 5610 WISCONSIN AVE APT 1403 730 E DURANT ST CHEVY CHASE, MD 20815 ASPEN, CO 81611 DURANT AND ORIGINAL ASSOCIATES INC 730 E DURANT ST ASPEN, CO 81611 I 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 307 S 21 ST AVE HOLLYWOOD, FL 33020 r. BUTT CYNTH]A W 944 HARMAN AVE DAYTON, OH 45419 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 C/O 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 BENJAMIN B PO BOX 1262 ASPEN, CO 81612 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 C/O 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 1NT 205 W MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 CHRISTENSEN ROBERT M & CANDICE L COLES ELLIOT L COLORADO AZURE LTD 204 W HYMAN AVE 2929 E HARTFORD AVE PO BOX 11236 ASPEN, CO 81611 MILWAUKEE, WI 53211 ASPEN, CO 81612 CASE STATUS SHEET Case Case Assigned To: Representative's Name: os Phone:—ff Fax: Activity: Date Assigned: Date Applicant Contacted: Date of Site Visit: Date of Determination Of Completeness Date of DRC Meeting:_ P&Z Date(s): ETC Date(s):_ Council Date(s): Date 9 Action/Activity -C 41-.1 1.12 1 d-) 0�j - �j --------------------