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
--------------------