Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Land Use Case.533 E Hopkins Ave.0013.2005.ASLU
- -.-;' City of Aspen Community Development Dept. CASE NUMBER 0013.2005.ASLU PARCEL 10 NUMBER 2737-07-3-31-004 PROJECT ADDRESS 530 E HOPKINS AVE PLANNER JAMES LINDT CASE DESCRIPTION ESA-VIEW PLANE REVIEW REPRESENTATIVE HAAS LAND PLANNING 925-7819 DATE OF FINAL ACTION 4/29/2005 CLOSED BY Denise Driscoll - 53 0 93 Koff-. ~ 5 Ave _530 & 532 E Hopkin~ 1 273707331003 & 004 Case 0013.2005.ASLU % 4 0 D 1.09 373}0133) 0054 009 . 1 .Mu. -r Y , . ..11 1 Ionner ¢*41 - -k ... -'-- - 1.-, U *0 Cablns 530 & 532 E. Hopkins Court House View Plane Exemption - Continued Public Hearing 4.18.05 r. Conner Cabins, Aspen, Colorado 11 1 Vie Plan Map ..0, .4 0, i.~, r 82• -1/Flf.rill- 1/0,1 ]Al~ ~ 0-0 -1~'1: /4/413 -#b7-% *Idgitt All I 0 10*2 , .~li --~ 1 4. ./ . vla 1 .... ' 1 -1. -I ./.1 .- 2............ 'r- . 11? .,i f .I-./.i .//':S. - .... ,· · r .~ 81- 4. 1. 0 8 1. ' J <Al 4 2 Ft ' 1, 4 - 90 /1-:<-1 0 1 . , 4 I '--- . i + IIIIIIII'l~ -.-- - J f t. , *A .$.7-/U.'jllqi ''* .* f - - 1- K ....1 1.11 9 1 --9 ~ 0~ € 9~ -- ~l . 1.. . ./:- 1~ 1--'32-3 1 - --/.7/Ir..... 1112-21,%*-1 1 - LA . 4.9 . I ZY, View Plane Ref. Pount #1 View Plane Ref. Pount #2 < - 11 1 I '24 .3 . 4 j F ... - 1 %,Al . 1. I 9 3;1·40•r• -.%%=44 .* 4- .4 -4. . I ) . »4 (40. . ·· - Ew:.4,1 t . , · D /2.- F ,.% I.. 7.2 //4* ... * 1 " 1~,3 4 6 I P . ;; 4 Li '. Wr- I. ' 11 1 '' /4..MP*imt<p., 9 - < ..1 .9.21,1 - 1/ - . f Affil.r.~9 3 c. 4 - - 1 :I . ..4 1.I i.. . 1 -.., 1/1.. 4, + I - 1 - 1 > 6 S. ' U 0 20 .d , .i-i -1-IM-- .1.-I-//4, , 7 i//L.pl/&/F/l ' - 2 ', + /90**1* . *12, f p /1.1.. . -% 10 - -9...IM- - -dy . ...AL- f'Irr.ip, i& I .-9 ~ f,3.4. 0 *: -- ; 0* O -4 E kI~1 e, *-. 1/*- . - 1- a =.'*L . . 14, 1 1 ,, . . 6 4 . E ./' = 1 ,- 1 4 Z . ./. - .4 1 I t 1>~1 * . - 1.* . t - . E I 0 - - 1 , Ill ... ¢ . .f 1* A' ' .... 1 . - I . ' 1. 811 4 c-, e i... - »,0 -. E ./ 19Irt-/ I ..F P. *'* ----11 -1 0 ia. . 1 J ./2 4 1 -- . :,4 + '2 lili I '/ ~ A'lf --- ..rr - - A /1. - · · K .f , '* Al .C- ' 4-EL 4 €... .- , 1~.- ; 1 . lawn., 4 4 - -- U .~. EL .0 . -,•A ~,~ .1, 11 ..., . 1 * 4-» I , '4 7 .P.......I . /.1 . $ -, a a. 1 1. r m® Conner Cabins, Aspen, Colorado 4.18.05 ARCHITECTURE OriOil}al Submittal 4.11.05 Conner Cabins, Aspen, Colorado 4.18.05 Courthouse~iew Plans 4.11.05 Ill Z- , -1956.13 BECTPar Arr~Vec> « --I - -1---- VIEV MANIE *------ -*i.--*.* 19'M .46 I I . - _ *--- - *-i-- -$-i . 1 1 1 I-/ - I--0 ---- COURTCAAD VIEU -/ / -- I.---* PLAklE RFEALAIGE * 1 0-- -- MAMILY /1-)VINE.,44 -- / - -- 79 04. 7911.31 79/ I.84 ti- •00,1 COMMERCIAL 1.1 F- mASEMBJT MAIN 6TMEET Mier " Morose 10LPING" ./. Aol'KINS AVE. COURT+bLISE VIEW PLANE' 1 10. 09 f f 4 24 -- ]1 -1-2- COURTYAIu VIEd - - - - -a=-„ FI.ANE MEFEMENGE -~- - 79,2.16 2 - --ill- --- - 1*MirrAN ING r 1911 ·•1-41. CGA,AUG\•1 J . -- - I ) r- 791%46 teDAH , 2 1.11'.OA- - .,A •Niat , 1.1 1.-1 2=- bASEMEAT MAIN STREET 'ST. MAR'(4 CATHoLI© CHUMGH ~ Autr '4 HopKINs Ave. 1 COUR-rtioUSg VIEW PLANE *2. 20, Conner Cabins, Aspen, Colorado 4.18.05 ARCHITECTURE 0 1 0 0 - ///-1,r 511gillillillillillillill -- +w2.mw1 1 il , - -· 401, .- d- . i. TE' -'1 40.~11, 1 i* 2 7 1 4 00 . lilliE'.liliw-/'ll-/-~ 4 . -- 11 9 41' le#8,1,1/:441(~ - f ·t.; 14~~, /G•••lillill/0 6% ./. let, - 1 I , --.... .- 1 el / --- 2.---- ili' 44 1- 7 1 1 =~-7 -- ¥. 1 - .... 1 1 , . 74 . - -r„ 4 . , 1--- 4 'i C:"Il ..~T~£.~~~~~~.~,4,li,$„~<,:4~~~- ~_ L ___ •(flr,· I W 'b - a 94•~ - --9- 4. - -. .r , ..9.-"... e 6* 'ht 5-Ii.Wil--hilk-al- -4 I I . /*VA#-9,1////m'- 4:'*i - trh.,•10/,f'A ':p - .2 1 . /41 2.. ..... £,1.....~-.-I -ti~ 4 V. 4 .4*t. 0 7 7 -Ir-, 7 Trk. ~ w € 4 1 r, .-- .1. -i't . 10 ' .fl 1 /(r. , 't ~1 r,#3 - -1 -- C:f 1 .\- /71 7-2.Li,•' 01 . -I -# 4 1 . -* 1 . i &:t #k<,)bi,:,IA' 92\-6 *(*11 1 fr-- , F - I . - 3 -,. .2///a/r 'A ~ , ':& 11= 1.4 ~ e - I.K..P-I. , - € t¥-7 ./EF 1 6 4- ..... - ./' EL I W -,I titif~ ill'¢-p i -..... - e i>*7 9 . m 1»'. .I:.-1,.6~9.Ii- p.·iLi#11, *74 W•1 t. .... 1, 7/9 4 11.4, F , 9/VIBILIT'MII:illillimilllII""I""Ili/&~Il~IgmililloK -+O.. f . f..:P -. ' l.„M- . A . . ' . t=.9..a *o.,.1., Elevations 4.11.05 1 1 T 217 1 -1 1-1 11-rrn111= un='170'T.Flk pl ~ „. I p.-,al*Erin i ~~.~a SOUTH REAR 9 r* . 11 .. . .. ./1//1# fli//I//1 1 1 A I , - .\ '-M I , , 1/pll n 1~ It /-1~1 Iflllpr H--11~-21.TLL. Ill - 1.... Le i EAST ELEVATION SOUTH FRONT - . j.[ 31~ 1 1 - ../iliq..Ifre. tg'll./Fill'.Ilip 9 1 I . It. f 11 -- I l# 11 lili 1#-liths'll- r , -T ~ 1 -4 4 1 IIIIEERI;illill IM NORTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION Conner Cabins, Aspen, Colorado 4.18.05 ARCHITECTURE Revised Submittal 4.18.05 Conner Cabins, Aspen, Colorado 4.18.05 ARCHHECTURE Elevations 71¥MY'ff ........... 1 I j .1 11111.1 1. . 3.>11 LLI Li -Ii / 1//'1 / ,/Ini . '1 .lk -1~ ./ - SOUTH REAR i 1~ F f f.4- , 1 -10-1 1 [ 59 ~ 7 „1 I F., ilild,r VIT# JI "" I'l I --~Ed~ -- p. 2 .*.1 I.*a.,r- ./- 7...1/ 1 - IL IN ' 7.TI~ 1 1 -/AE] - -3 4, H h Il -* [ -3 Rh• -'~11 8*t'lin#fnLL-LI - - 1-1 -1 91 LU Lut . 171 EAST ELEVATION SOUTH FRONT Im~ - _iqi'-Elim- : 111 ~97-~ E 42- X-.4 .2 1 9 - - w..2~/m=f-,./1Jrifflu.fj/-73 VE• . a. 1 11~11 . 1 1 . 1 6 | 1 .Fr,42 iMB*611.~1 Li 11 11 1, 91 ip.*....11[-Irl 1 -- -- - -6 11 , . 1, i' P ! M 11 0 - -5.-9-' 119' 1 .Il •m*lM#ft[,Ilrllm=rw:Illiflildlmimmi~~0141@fll' M Pr 111*Ii i ' Lt Ell©*11 111111111 [IED'11]1111~ IQ*.m:Mt**1*""mp41;m 111'11'HP'.-" 21! 1 2 - .1211£1. Ul!11~411.1.-@aii,illilW~il NORTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION „® - Conner Cabins, Aspen, Colorado 4.18.05 A Rtll lIF till R F Courthouse fiew Planes I I EE F 100'-0. 125'-0» C============ * 7938.25 -*<- r931.45'*~_1--- _ - --1 k --- 7913.08' |7911.34' *~4 -~- ~ =~--11W88~~ ~~ ~4 ST. MARY'S CATIOUC CHURCH . ALLEY .. PROPOSED BUILDING E. HOPKINS AVE ASPEN PLAZA BUILDING PLANE #1 COURTHOUSE 03 VIEW PLANE #1 ~~ SCALE. 1/32' = 1'-Or E EE E 125'-0' - --Il-- r * 7938.23 6-2=REF!1 - --- - -- N - T -T- T ./9. 1 12==~ 1 E=== " I.. - --% 4 - 41 |7911.87.; ~ r-8 8 E--* 4* 7913.43' - ~~ 7915.28' ST. MARYS CATHOUC CHURCH . ALLEY PROPOSED BUILDING E. HOPKINS AVE . ASPEN PLAZA BUILDING PLANE #2 COURTHOUSE © VIEW PLANE #2 SCALE: 1/32' = 1'-0' . m Conner Cabins, Aspen, Colorado 4.18.05 ARCHITECTURE . -G- L -«- L .9-,/f Site Composite Photos ./>F 3 , I i ~t,f N .4 r !1/1 /- \ s f Iti-24 1, -, 1 1 , 1. :.4. '. t / 1, - / , -4 lit Ir 4 -7- ·.. -m r , i y, r * 1 ':, r e < I . .<2'. /i·fE#f.~Af' it '·i 'A ~ 1, 4., t, h Q i . / \1 - . /4 4:* •f- 13>-l,6 f f,:. '. . N lili I ~„ . € N . r- .7 1 'f' i 1 11 -4//lil/ L·* . 72 5 4 40' 4. I , . *4 1 - 2.3.-717%1 ... 4 ': .26 • b . . ,;09.1 : < /-; ~ V : A . r , 4 , I -3. <*·' ' )4' W., . 1< 4 0 'r4 1 1.... 1.:1 E .. . IL; i , f ~14'f•12,r | ' c ' 2 ' ' ~.. , . aj ' I. 1"1 ' i I ./' . i' i V. -- ' 1 t....$ 4.-.il- 1 -Al../.-.Ill- .. *?94" I '90. . 1 · M u I k. I . r $ V . ) 4 , r View Plane #1 View Plane #2 ' k i I ' . ' i ' d .1 1 + . 1./. '111 / - -.1 + + 1/ ' fiT . r , . .Ul ..+ f 7., ' W . 3 H 14 a \% 1 rrjir zE I. - , -1-4 . %1 - 1 7 0 . A. 1 t hr·-- A '. '4 .4, 4 - ../0 .1. .... 94. E 1,/r. »f ,- 4 .4 h -4*46 ' 1 $ te 4 41 1 -- 1 -/' ' I X'y. ..~ -, - & I, * . 4 v 9 4,4 ' 11.«2921': , . , ,/ I ir / 1 ·r 't · K . - -7.S ... ...4 12 a , 5, In> 1 ./.T»-Ly» / 4 / .*. -L k. lit& 9, /-1 " A.. . - ·' 2. v ,; p' f.f:Vaj. .6 Im 1, ... = 1 - . -- 6-1 -lier-- A 1 i 0, I. -*<Ii:,I#. - ¢ 1/ .1 l., *elt: 1 , - a. j C -C t'-W. ./ *molm# m. I 4. 12., . '4 1 . 4 . 4 View Plane #1 Study View Plane #2 Sfudy - . Conner Cabins, Aspen, Colorado 4.18.05 ARCHITEDIURE F--~~1 0 O =i i 0 - 0 Plans ec Elevations 1 1 WALK-IN 1 -_ ~ Lj BATH CLOSET I .- WALK-IN | 11 11 WASER 11 11 IASTER -7 ~ BATH CLOSET I 1231 1 WALK-IN i 1 1 0 •ASTER aosET I - ~ Original & Revised Comparissons WALK-IN O ~AS~ ' 1 WALK-IN BAR O IrCLOSET | ~ASTER BA' 1 BAnl e ~ CLOSET MASTER ___1 0 -1 90 ImNG 1 1 --2 L BATH ~~'~-8• L_j 0 ,-J E W x 15-10- 01 1 - 0 1 BEDROON WASTER WASTER BEDROOW BEDROOM 14'-4- X 18'-5' ON ON 15'-10"*18'-5- IN | ON WASTER A 14' X DE 0 0 000 BEDROOM 0 16-6 X 14-6 000 16'-6 X 13' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1--=]==2=7 Ir-=r=r=~ i 'In 1 111--1 I I 'F 1 It=-9 0 1 1 i' 1 -1 1 ff------7 1 1 1 1 1 11 11 11 1 / 3 1 1 1 4 1 1 1111 1/ Ell Ill 1 4 /Illi 2-4 1 Il 111 1 1----11 N-77-3 1 J 1 1==11 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 9----4 1 D--- i E--- I | 1 11 -1111 --4 1 1 ' iL L--2 L__3 ---- 3rd Floor Original 3rd Floor Revised f - B 1 ~=Elmq--CrY--1 4 THIRD LEVEL , 121'-0. -"21-0 -----+-t----- ----- IllmieliciElijlilit&i SECOND LEVEL ~ 6 SECOND LEVEL 1 110.--0. I _-_ '*- *-_-'4-_IL___ - _ I I 1 110'-0- El El El 33 ' _1-1 _ ...1,:.@Ed.Ld-Ld- "EM ' TE 8 11 11 .........1/Ii/0/II1 FIRST LEVEL 4 FIRST LEVEL J 1 - -- 100 -0 - ' 100'-0' p LOFT 530 rh WEST ELEVATION LOFT 530 L.,fuwu;~ rp|WEST ELEVATION Original - -,N -,# Revised m® ARCHNECTURE f 4 DI Elevations Original & Revised Comparissons T T FTT 3 0 6%» 0%«19 02917 ' THIRD LEVEL 2 THIRD LEVEL , 121-0 1-i-liwiliet~-Wiww=- ~121'-0" ---r---- MIMM~~M~K--4---milill~lill:~l ter'-~ I :m: 1 :mi 1 :-: 15:Inni :-: I ~M: I ~m~ I :- SECOND LEVEL ] . SECOND LEVEL J 7 110'-0. -3 0 00 0 »L 00 U FIRST LEVEL 0 ---- --- D ---=0 - 100 -0 . 100 -0 LOFTS LOFTS Original -Ill/1.v .,·.0. Revised [ 1 - 1 1 CA NORTH ELEVATION /-\ NORTH ELEVATION 4 L)=11/. 1.4 1 1 1 1 1 I t~in~ ~fil#*6 ~~ ' "91100 -El- -Li]'5 '00[3'r 1, 1 '1[9@%%*%8***~ r--IN--r-T -1*E--21[1~g~ Il 01 HODUII IHIUlm ILIIDEPLILLIII MLIMM EN#Ell lILLULJIL_Ul 6 THIRD LEVEL ; THIRD LEVEL , _2e?L!_IL UU=U2.!UtiLLL!11-11]~-=-~~~-~¤=~=¤=~~-~-~~:~~*~~E~9~8~====5~1 ' 121'-4 T nl EL__10;*~j~20t~ b UIal ]Mill[[IMEL I®ILL]MLLAL]m[=LE*H]El***1 L IE[IMI Ir I NEEI]Ill[ImONI]1:110[13Nlmj]N[]]f@~114[kij*Il m BLI]Eil 11 I i' 1 Ii' 11= 1 l'*11111*LIUM' 6,=m"EmE//mlat€NLrLAEELL=r~EMiL=1==! rl=12*EEIZ~~11=**/S##=1/#&&/UzAEERLL~!1EE~~~1111111111111111~tl -14!Ilillitillitili,:Ill!...~~##41'N##t==lemag~ir--=Er---9.-„Hm#Imgr SECOND LEVEL SECOND LEVEL ~111[mIE.111~1[i1111-i111111~1+444*21, ' 110'-0. 110-0 ~=====C~ m EL no L L LI L L El 21.21 1 1,900"MORIM 1 EE]L]Liagl Ell[282]LJ-EL]IEI[--JEip-ElpJE-~ b FIRST LEVEL -ID FIRST LEVEL - 100 -0 . DDE#miDEDW~ME~~/L 100 -0 ME=][23[21]~=ariktmmwwmmummwmmwmm- Original Revised 1 LOFTS 1 LOFTS (~\ SOUTH ELEVATION r·~3 SOUTH ELEVATION 41 Il 1 - E.L 1.-,1-, FConner-Cab-ins,-Aspen,-ColoradJT18.05-1 ARCHITECTURE View Pliq€ Pe ft -. AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 536) 4 632 E. 4~>PKNM:> 46., Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 4FR' 6 liz) , 200_5 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) I, ~r-ENELL l-~AAE (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: ,~~ Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official 3~R/kpaper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. / Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the 6~25/05- Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least ten (10) days priouo the public hearing and was continuously visible from the 259ay of ~ f IAR,ul , 200~51, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph Of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. ~ Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Cotornunity - 3~kB~DS'Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least ten (10) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class, postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property - subject to the development application, and, at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency, state, county, municipal government, school, service district or other governmental or quasi-governmental agency that owns property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses ofproperty owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) MImic NOTICE ~ L T r, / $ 4.- 9%52.09 R ~ A Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map has been available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendmentsL----, 1-' £ / Signattlre ~ The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this,6~ day Of ~L.~luJ~ 1 , 2001 by 09/ -7'-,**9>29:Y gf'VR G. 0,€...90 74:*AESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL 4% 1*& /7 : :011 l./ -*- My c ssion expires.C~, ·%67 %oo...·i 4 .. i U) Cpi Uk ..... . Ov /: 4/l*·-~-/ CotoeB tary Tublic ATTACHMENTS: COPY OF THE PUBLICATION PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED . . . . BY MAIL OS. PUBLIC NOTICE RE: CONNOR CABINS (530 AND 532 EAST HOPKINS) VIEW PLANE EXEMPTION REVIEW NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, April 12,2005 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Austin Lawrence Partners, LLC, requesting approval of a view plane exemption from the two (2) designated Courthouse View Planes to construct additions to each of the two (2) westernmost Connor Cabins. The properties are commonly known as the Connor Cabins and are addressed as 530 and 532 E. Hopkins Avenue. The properties subject to the application are legally described as the eastern 7'6" of Lot P and all of Lots Q and R, Block 93, City and Townsite of Aspen. For further information, contact James Lindt at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 429.2763, jamesl@ci.aspen.co.us. s/Jasmine Tvere, Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on March 27,2005 City of Aspen Account 610 EAST HYMAN LLC 517 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE LLC ALH HOLDING COMPANY INC C/O KRABACHER LAW OFFICES PC 517 E HOPKINS AVE 435 W MAIN ST 201 N MILL ST STE 201 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ALLEN CARROL A REV TRUST ARCHDIOCESE OF DENVER SAINT ALPINE BANK ASPEN ALLEN RONALD W REV TRUST MARYS 600 E HOPKINS AVE PO BOX 19070 1300 S STEELE ST ASPEN, CO 81611 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97035 DENVER, CO 80210 ARNOLD RICHARD S & KATHRYN J ASPEN FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT ASPEN LEGACY LLC 1405 OAK FOREST DR 420 E HOPKINS AVE 17740 E HINSDALE AVE ORMOND BEACH, FL 32174-3407 ASPEN, CO 81611 FOXFIELD, CO 80016 ASPEN PLAZA LLC BAILEY MARCIA UNGREN BALDWIN HARLEY A 11 P O BOX 1709 3215 TARRY HOLLOW DR 205 S GALENA ST C/O STEVE MARCUS AUSTIN, TX 78703 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 BASS CAHN 601 LLC BAXTER DAVID A BOGAERT FAMILY TRUST PO BOX 4060 PO BOX 1112 PO BOX 300792 ASPEN, CO 81612 CRESTED BUTTE, CO 81224 ESCONDIDO, CA 92030 BORCHERTS ROBERT H AND BROUGH STEVE B BPOE ASPEN LODGE #224 BORCHERTS HOLDE H BROUGH DEBORAH A 210 S GALENA ST #21 1555 WASHTENAW 599 TROUT LK DR ASPEN, CO 81611 ANN ARBOR, MI 48104 SANGER, CA 93657 BULLOCK G E GRANDCHILDRENS PTNR BULKELEY RICHARD C & JULIE J BULLOCK WILLIAM G FAMILY TRUST .166% PO BOX 450 PO BOX 282 C/O SUZETTE GOODMA RED OAK, IA 51566 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602- 500 E MARKHAM STE 305 -- LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 CARISCH BROTHERS CITY OF ASPEN COPPOCK RICHARD P CARISCH THEATRES INC 130 S GALENA ST PO BOX 44 PO BOX 391 ASPEN, CO 81611 DEXTER, MI 48130 COLUMBUS, GA 31902-0391 EMPHASYS SERVICE COMPANY DORAN RALPH EMPHASYS SERVICES COMPANY 1925 BRICKELL AVE BLDG D 2600 WOODWARD WAY 4400 N Al A STE 1002 PENTHOUSE 11D ATLANTA, GA 30305 HUTCHINSON ISLAND, FL 34949 MIAMI, FL 33129 FURNGULF LTD FICKE CLARK FOSTER MARTHA LEE LIVING TRUST A COLO JOINT VENTURE 15 W ARRELLAGA ST #3 5000 COAKLEY BAY #N2 616 E HYMAN AVE SANTA BARBARA, CA 93101 CHRISTIANSTED VI, 00820-4561 ASPEN, CO 81611 GELD LLC GILKERSON LINDA GODIVA HOLDINGS LLC MEYER LOWELL C/O UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO 435 E MAIN ST P O BOX 1247 5640 ELLIS AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612-1247 CHICAGO, IL 60637 GOLDSTEIN BARRY J HEYS MARIE L TRUSTEE HICKS GILBERT W & PATSY K 950 S CHERRY #320 2495 ADARE 3674 WOODLAWN TERRACE PL DENVER, CO 80246 ANN ARBOR, MI 48104 HONOLULU, HI 96822 HOLLAND AND HART HOPKINS ST VENTURE HINDERSTEIN FAM REV TRUST ATTN BRYAN DOWER C/O TED MULARZ P O BOX 1576 PO BOX 8749 PO BOX 1328 MERCER ISLAND, WA 98040 DENVER, CO 80201 ASHLAND, OR 97520 HORSEFINS LLC HUBBARD MICHAEL P HUNTER SQUARE LLC 90% C/O PITKIN COUNTY TITLE 10503 SUNSET TERRACE 2900 LOS BALLINAS AVE 601 E HOPKINS AVE CLIVE, IA 50325 SAN RAFAEL, CA 94903 ASPEN, CO 81611 LAMB DON Q JR JACKSON DONNA M .0208% INT KESSLER SEPP H & JANE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO 1730 RIDGE DR 600 E MAIN ST #210 5640 ELLIS AVE GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506 ASPEN, CO 81611 CHICAGO, IL 60637 LAZY J RANCH LLC LEVY FOSCO LLC LOEB PAUL L LIVING TRUST 50% C/O W R WALTON 980 N MICHIGAN AVE STE 400 223 LINDEN PARK PL PO BOX 665 CHICAGO, IL 60611 HIGHLAND PARK, IL 60035 ASPEN, CO 81612 MAESTRANZIBART MANN KATHLEEN A 99% MARASCO BERNARD J 6.1446% 1736 PARK RIDGE POINTE PO BOX 2057 320 DAKOTA DR PARK RIDGE, IL 60068 ASPEN, CO 81612 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81503 - MARASCO EMILY A AK MEYER EMILY A MARCHETTI FAMILY LLC MASON & MORSE INC 6.1446% 1526 FOREST DR 514 E HYMAN AVE 21701 FLAMENCO GLENVIEW, IL 60025 ASPEN, CO 81611 MISSION VIEJO, CA 92692 MCCUTCHIN GENE P MCGAFFEY FAMILY & CO NO C LLC MCNULTY KATHLEEN A .0208% INT 14833 MIDWAY RD 12852 NW SHORELAND DR 12342 WINDWARD WAY ADDISON, TX 75001 MEQUON, WI 53097 ANACORTES, WA 98221 MCNULTY NELSON E .0208% INT MCNULTY RONALD J .0208% INT MYSKO BOHDAN D 2490 DEPEW 380 POINTWINDERMERE PL 418 E COOPER AVE SUITE 200 EDGEWATER, CO 80214 OCEANSIDE, CA 92057-3420 ASPEN, CO 81611 I I. PASSAVANT TOM PITKIN CENTER CONDO OWNERS PITKIN COUNTY GLENN KAREN ASSOC 530 E MAIN ST STE 302 PO BOX 6069 517 W NORTH ST ASPEN, CO 81611 SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 ASPEN, CO 81611 RKJR PROPERTIES LTD PITKIN COUNTY BANK 80% R&R COMPANY 81.5662% 5954 ROYAL LANE 534 E HYMAN AVE 653 26 1/2 RD SUITE 255 ASPEN, CO 81611 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506 DALLAS, TX 75230 ROTHBLUM PHILIP & MARCIA SEID MEL SHERMAN CAPITAL COMPANY 624 E HOPKINS AVE 1104 DALE AVE 5840 E JOSHUA TREE LN ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 PARADISE VALLEY, AZ 85253 SJA ASSOCIATES LLC 60% SIMON JONATHAN H SMITH JAMES F&N LINDSAY C/O STEPHEN J MARCUS 19 W 21ST ST RM 902 6542 WESTCHESTER PO BOX 1709 NEW YORK, NY 10010-6847 HOUSTON, TX 77005 ASPEN, CO 81612 STARMER MARY JOSEPHINE 6.1446% STEWART TITLE CO STONE CATHY PREV TRUST 1/25/99 12738 W 84TH DR 1980 POST OAK BLVD #800 #3 MISSION HILLS CIR ARVADA, CO 80001 HOUSTON, TX 77056 ROGERS, AR 72758 TAYLOR E NORRIS 1/2 TAYLOR FAMILY INVESTMENTS CO 1/2 TROUSDALE JEAN VICK 602 E HYMAN AVE #1 489 ROSE LN 611 E HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 CARBONDALE, CO 81623 ASPEN, CO 81611 US BANK NA & MCNULTY ZELPHA MARIE VIDAL C A VAN WALRAVEN EDWARD C 1% .083% C/O REAL ESTATE AFFILIATES PO BOX 4913 422 WHITE AVE, PO BOX 608 PO BOX 2914 ASPEN, CO 81612 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81501 -- BASALT, CO 81621 - WALD JANET WASKOW SUSAN A WOGAN JAQUELINE T 40% 9762 BURNLEY PL PO BOX 4975 PO BOX 158 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 ATTACHMENT 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 630 n Mott ChAI 4 S , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 4-/12_l D-5 , 200- STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) I, UCX WL €25 I M (name, please print) L' 44 being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: 7 Publication ofnotice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting ofnotice: By posting ofnotice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproofmaterials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed o f letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the day of , 200 , to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph Of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing ofnotice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) ofthe Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency, state, county, municipal government, school, service district or other governmental or quasi-governmental agency that owns property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses ofproperty owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal ofthis Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement o f an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing ofnames and addresses of owners ofreal property in the area ofthe proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map has been available ibr public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. r 11 §~!ature The foregoing "Affidavit ofNotice" was acknowledged b¢fore me thi¥ c=:~ay , 200-5 by -OL-£-3 J--i 'r,Ar~- PUBLIC NOTICE RE: CONNOR CABINS (530 AND 532 F.AST WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL HOPKINS) VIEW PLANE EXEMPTI()N REVIEW NC)TICE ]S HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday. April 12.2005 at a meeting to begin at 4:3(, p.m, before the Aspen d My Commission expire@: 9,< Planning and Zoning Canmission. Sister Cities ... %/ Room. City Hall. 130 S. Galena St.. Aspen. to con- sider an application submitted by Austin Law- re[,ce Partners, LLC, requesting approval of a i -4# i~ SARAH view plane exemption trom the two (2) designat- Notary Public &9. OATES ed Courthouse View Planes to construct addi- tions to each of the two (2) westernmost Connor Cabins. The properties are commonly known as 4 7<% the Connor Cal)ins and are addressed as 530 and 532 E. Hopkins Avenue. The properties subject to the application are legally described as the <- 2-COLO49 eastern 7'6" of Lot P and all of Lots Q and R, Block N.X=:=SSS>-7- 93, City and Townsite of Aspen. For further information. contact James Lindt at the City of Aspen Community Development De- partment, 130 S. Galera St., Aspen, CO. (970) 429.2763. jamesl@ci.aspen.co.us. ATTACHMENTS: s/Jasmine Tygre. Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission , Published in The As] ' ·i Times on March 27.2005. caw, COPY OF THE PUBLICATION PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL fs=33 City of Aspen Community Development Dept. CASE NUMBER 0013.2005.ASLU PARCEL ID NUMBER 2737-07-3-31-004 PROJECT ADDRESS 530 E HOPKINS AVE PLANNER JAMES LINDT CASE DESCRIPTION ESA-VIEW PLANE REVIEW REPRESENTATIVE HAAS LAND PLANNING 925-7819 DATE OF FINAL ACTION 4/29/2005 CLOSED BY Denise Driscoll 11 Ele [dit &ecord Navigate FQrm Reports Format Iab Help ~ i Module Help v 60 01 *1 21 •.. 6 -3 32~ t.j v. 9 43 @ 13 23 J . 1 N 4 R M m 21 ilk » 1 & 4,48 (bar 1%1. Routing History ~ Conditions | Sub Permits | Valuation ~ Public Comment ~ Attachments ~ Main | Royting Status | Arch/Eng J Parcels | Custom Fields | Feet | Fee SummarY | Actions I Permit Type |aslu -~Aspen Land Use 2004 Permit # ~0013.2005.ASLU * Address |530 E HOPKINS AVE g] Apt/Suite ~ City |ASPEN State [Ei--3 Zip I 81611 21 Permit Information Master Permit ~ ~ Routing Queue |aslu Applied |02/25/2005 ~ Ploiect ~ £~ Status ~pending Approved 1 3 Description ~ESA-804 GREENLINE, STREAM MARGIN Issued ~ ~Qj Final I £1 Submitted |HAAS LAND PLANNING 925-7819 Clock ~Running Days f~-6 Expires ~02/XI/2006 -21 r Visible on the web? ~ Permit ID: ~ 33082 Owner -- - Last Name |AUSTIN LAWRENCE PAR £| First Name | 314 S GALENA ST - ASPEN CO 81611 Phone |{970} 920-4988 214 P lowner Is Applicantl ~01 .4 - lit .1 74:-2..2/Mill 1 I Record: 1 oil DEVELOPMENT ORDER ofthe City of Aspen Community Development Department This Development Order, hereinafter ~'Order". is hereby issued pursuant to Section 26.304.070, "Development Orders", and Section 26.308.010, "Vested Property Rights", of the City of Aspen Municipal Code. This Order allows development of a site specific development plan pursuant to the provisions of the land use approvals, described herein. The effective date of this Order shall also be the initiation date of a three-year vested property right. The vested property right shall expire on the day after the third anniversary of the effective date of this Order, unless a building permit is approved pursuant to Section 26.304.075. or unless an exemption, extension, reinstatement, or a revocation is issued by City Council pursuant to Section 26.308.010. After Expiration of vested property rights. this Order shall remain in full force and effect. excluding any growth management allotments granted pursuant to Section 26.470, but shall be subject to any amendments to the Land Use Code adopted since the effective date of this Order. This Development Order is associated with the property noted below for the site specific development plan as described below. Austin Lawrence Partners, LLC C/o Mitch Haas, 201 N. Mill St. #108, Aspen, CO 81611 Property Owner's Name, Mailing Address and telephone number East 7.6 of Lot P and Lots O-R. Block 93, City and Townsite of Aspen Legal Description and Street Address of Subject Property Mountain View Plane Review Exemption- Construction of 2 Single-Family Residences at 530 and 532 E. Hopkins Avenue Written Description of the Site Specific Plan and/or Attachment Describing Plan Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 14, Series of 2005. 4/19/05 Land Use Approval(s) Received and Dates (Attach Final Ordinances or Resolutions) May 7,2005 Effective Date of Development Order (Saine as date of publication of notice of approval.) May 8.2008 Expiration Date of Development Order (The extension, reinstatement, exemption from expiration and revocation may be pursued in accordance with Section 26.308.010 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code.) Issued this 7th day of May. 2005, Aby the City of Aspen Community Development Director. d®OM Ry, Chris Bendon. Community Development Director PUBLIC NOTICE Of DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24. Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: East 7.6' of Lot P and Lots Q-R, Block 93, City and Townsite of Aspen. by resolution o f the Planning and Zoning Commission numbered 14. Series of 2005 on April 19. 2005. The Applicant received approval of a Mountain View Plane Review Exemption to construct a single-family residence on each of the two westernmost Connor Cabin sites at 530 and 532 E. Hopkins Avenue. For further information contact Chris Bendon, at the City of Aspen Community Development Dept. 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, Colorado (970) 920-5090. s/ City of Aspen Publish iii The Aspen Times oii May 7.2005 9 50, *orovelf hy /42 RESOLUTION NO. 14 09\, * 46 (SERIES OF 2005) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING AN EXEMPTION FROM MOUNTAIN VIEW PLANE REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT THIRTY-ONEgpOT TALL ADDITIONS TO EACH OF THE TWO (2) WESTERNMOST CONNNR CABIN SITES, LOCATED AT 530 AND 532 E. HOPKINS AVENUE, EAST 7'6" OF LOT P, AND ALL OF LOTS Q AND R, BLOCK 93, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2737-073-31-003 Parcel ID: 2737-073-31-004 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Austin Lawrence Partners. LLC, represented by Haas Land Planning. LLC. requesting approval of an exemption from the Mountain View Plane Review to construct a thirty-one (31) foot tall addition on each of the two (2) westernmost Connor Cabin sites located at 530 and 532 E. Hopkins Avenue ; and; WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission granted Conceptual HPC approval for the proposed development pursuant to Resolution No. 7, Series of 2005; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall by resolution approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove a development application for an exemption from the Mountain View Plane Review. after considering a recommendation by the Community Development Department pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.435.050, Mountain View Plane Review; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department reviewed the exemption from tlie Mountain View Plane Review and recommended approval: and. WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 12 2005, the Planning and Zoning Commission denied a motion to approve the view plane review --- exemption by a five to two (5 negative-2 affirmative) vote, and then unanimously voted to reconsider the request and to continue the public hearing to April 19,2005 : and, WHEREAS, during a continued public hearing on April 19,2005, the Planning and Zoning Commission. by a four to two (4-2) vote. approved the proposed exemption from the Court House View Plane Review to construct a thirty-one (31) foot tall addition to each of the two (2) westernmost Connor Cabin sites located at 530 and 532 E. Hopkins Avenue; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein. has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal. with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements ofthe Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION as follows: Section 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves an exemption from Mountain View Plane Review for the construction of thirty-one (31) foot tall additions to each of the two (2) westernmost Connor Cabin sites located at 530 and 532 E. Hopkins Avenue. on the eastern 7'6" of Lot P, and all of Lots Q and R, Block 93, City and Townsite of Aspen. Section 2: All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 3: This Resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence. clause. phrase. or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate. distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Approved by the Commission at its regular meeting on April 19.2005. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney Jasmine Tygre, Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian. Deputy City Clerk lk«-(14 -cli« 146© 0*2 4 ·El.03 PM Cyter - 02 ArTB &*EA« da,0-a»24+ /14«. Wl A.£4 euurp,14 Alt) rulto .-' tot€8 1 4 £84% 64~ MA - C»p« · Lk A l/19 /|A i a 6/ WID i U,f~-t A>Oct 41-R &4 -13-n I - \J l'eA) 34# nes thcd N ie_, '-*Fa teukcd- 4- 1~1'1 414€-- Ot---Alm-~ Spic.111 Vi'644 - AA~*d- hsda <2{1£04-- i 4*7*63 . 4 54€i», Ave .-I ih 44* 6 7*g«4-/ 88.dlk ad-we:pkt -Mi BM 1 *10/ ' 19;Ve d- U P A -2% 4 k. Firt,WA - Suppods · ~3*es:el ®,»4__ LAN~ wux, te.vse- Skculd oufw€pk +669 is ~) i-Hi kn rifcd,ov1 049 9 l is 1/1:+- fik64- 90 \ah' * leila Ehot:[ 2- - CllM«~1 ~r-zjeic4-- tA 141-4 k f*'64-sc,o · - 14Vt ¢2«bul -W af]Tal€ (BRARK- 1 91 6 - tree_ -flizr A W blos-46 01 ke , 4-16€+L /40«47 - G>~'prc,-19. LO M I.+- A 60=(1 Dry.4- £0» 111 *2-1 15».0(£»0 va>< 11€*Atz= I A 43 19,2*01 9'C.N~ CE>ecd rpe' €£-11- d A-tpi ne- Flub# I Al\An CtovA - 41» ftp fykee M4 9- 684 111 INE- 914 -10 30* tall« fvrk. *3» TAft®l 53'ta»5 - cl--Ler Sba "6= Ch~) 4&744 4 60£ 6£46 «°ftiove U.hu tegfeet-- -=k,zi u 415 t A «24 +Au# - 1-#FED Sfrt - 2»e.oL{-- Prege--L 4- A <124 - 9*,0#s. Aw,es=,we. 741£44- tae'- rr,jecd- 41- <arta>. 4 711,re.W- €4.1 6,·0 - Su·ppcA-5 t+PC.2 IM€- ber 4 1·de k,4-62 - ~l.~*s. t_ -*04 - Ued »'lec-, ./04 l~1 ~*Ur e. Mut be_ SW-lup- AKG#fs· W is 6 +ke«. Was More- Akk -LE6144€- = 4™de_ o,fk h 04- p:4 + 7<.2 GE#i e..) 0 <2¥1-fc.*:= 14.0 3* 4 018 9326*L *94. 4:*dz: + *br #juLL ?03 #Mt th,A t -6-OV- -r.cok 0-% Vrn>. IIi 0- I.• .De>V'€51-hue, Sol Ubbn . 4 92&42-- -41RHic- VN:krtivt 4€( ps. 5Ly MA/lt 66(e- Skul Ick be_ A-*-1,,a -'- 313ri 4 K 91 €- A--, - + liv·Ho. %4 906 Nybi of- s.~rfc.*6. +IVL, rproCG#i. derft»4 4 d.006- +ki-, 3/h).d« t*!e,r- -1-1« Oi€Q. - 9Tfurk · Wi 4 1.-12611- rE- b vff- L~ COUU 1 4 K) ful N £1 .-- H %4 - 4 / ¢ I /'h ' 'r 4 ..# 101 -4&: 4 1/ / 2 1 4 /: --1. · - f >1. 4 7 / Ae t c-,5- I \4% 4. 3\ 0 1 //1 .4 4. V. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Joyce Allgaier, Community Development Deputy Director 0.-i - FROM: James Lindt, Plan.ner~:~_~2 RE: 530 and 532 E. Hopkins Court House View Plane Exemption Review- Continued Public Hearing DATE: April 19, 2005 APPLICANT: %/B Cabin Sites Subject to :1 Austin Lawrence Partners, LLC View Plane Exemption ~ REPRESENTATIVE: Mitch Haas, Haas Land Planning, LLC Michael Noda, Oz Architecture LOCATION: 530 and 532 E. Hopkins Ave. --Ii ' till. 1 1 1 111 ..Bil'.U, %#4&11 ZONING: Commercial Core (CC) & Historic District Overlay CURRENT LAND USE: REVIEW PROCEDURE Vacant Single-Family Residences The Applicant requests an exemption from the Court House View Plane Review to PROPOSED LAND USE: construct the proposed additions to the Mixed Use Development consisting of Connor Cabin sites because the two (2) office and single-family residential uses. westernmost cabins sit on parcels located within the two (2) designated Court House PREVIOUS APPROVALS: View Planes as are set forth in Land Use The Historic Preservation Commission Code Section 26.435.050, Mountain View granted Conceptual HPC approval for Plane Review. the proposed development. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall S UMMARY: ' approve, approve with conditions, or deny The Applicant is proposing to demolish the requested view plane exemption request. the non-historic additions on northern If the Commission does not believe that the portion of the Connor Cabins and proposal satisfies the criterion for exempting replace them with thirty-one (31) foot it from the full view plane review, the tall additions to the sites. Commission may require the application to PA ~ go through the PUD review process as is described in Land Use Code Section 26.435.050(C), Mountain view plane review standards. BACKGROUND: th At the previous hearing on April 12 , Staff described the project and the Commission took testimony from the Applicant. The Commission also heard and considered public coniments and provided commissioner comments on the mountain view plane exemption request. Subsequently, the Commission voted to deny the view plane exemption request five to two, expressing that the project did not satisfy the code criterion for granting approval of a mountain view plane exemption based oIl the information that had been provided. The Commission then voted unanimously to reconsider the application with the receipt of additional clarifying information to be provided by both Staff and the th Applicant at the April 19 meeting. STAFF COMIMENTS: Staff feels that it is important to make findings on the following statements in re- reviewing this request in order to determine if the proposal satisfies the requirements for granting a view plane review exemption: • Are the view planes already obstructed by existing buildings. • Will the buildings that exist in the view planes likely be removed in a manner that will permanently reopen the view pl anes. • In the areas where the proposed development will further infringe upon the designated view planes, are the areas of the view planes that will be lost of significant aesthetic value and character based oIl the purpose statement expressed for the Mountain View Plane Review. The Applicant has expressed to Staff that some additional photo-simulations of the court house view planes will be distributed to the Commission at the meeting and that these photo-simulations will more clearly show that the view planes are already obstructed by the Aspen Plaza Building and Saint Mary' s Church. Additionally, the Applicant has indicated that they will also provide more discussion about the intent of the view plane review that they believe is important in making a determination on whether this project satisfies the view plane exemption requirements. The Community Development Director agrees that the purpose statement is appropriate for the Commission to discuss and evaluate to understand the intent of the mountain view plane review and gauge the proposal's compliance with the purpose of the review. The purpose statement for the mountain view plane review reads as follows: 26.435.010(C) - Mountain vie-w planes. Development within designated mountain view planes as set forth iii Section 26.435.050 shall be subject to heightened review so as to protect mountain views jrom obstruction, strengthen the environmental and aesthetic character of the city, maintain properly values, and enhance the city's tourist industry by maintaining the city's heritage as a mountain community. P5 That being stated, Staff feels that there was some confusion at the last meeting as to whether the Commission has the ability to approve a mountain view plane exemption for a project that does encroach into the view plane where there is not currently an existing building obstruction that spans through the entire viewing area described by the view plane coordinates as is the case in this situation. In this situation, Saint Mary's Church and the Aspen Plaza Building do span through the majority of the two (2) designated view planes where the proposed buildings are to be constructed, but there are pockets where these existing buildings do not completely block the entire breadth of the designated view planes that would be taken up by the proposed buildings. In an effort to clear up some of this confusion, Staff has attached the entire mountain view plane code section as Exhibit "A" and offers the following discussion. In the mountain view plane code section. there is additional language that states that the Planning and Zoning Commission may exempt a development from going through the PUD process even if it infringes upon a designated view plane if it is determined that "the view plane does not so effect the parcel as to require application of PUD or that the effects of the view plane may be otherwise accommodated". Staff believes that the above-language in combination with the mountain view plane review purpose statement gives the Commission the discretion to approve the minor infringements on the designated view planes in areas of the view planes that are not of significant quality and aesthetic value. Therefore, Staff feels that the portions of the proposed buildings that will infringe upon the designated view planes that are not already completely blocked out by existing buildings are not infringing upon portions of the designated view plane that are of significant quality and aesthetic value. Staff is of the opinion that the portions of the view plane that will be further infringed upon are portions of the view plane that do not focus on Aspen Mountain and instead focus on a stand of trees to the east of Aspen Mountain base area as careful inspection of the photographs show (please see photo below for identification of subject view area). The development has strived to limit infringements by keeping the height and floor area well below what is allowed. P6 Stand of trees to be blocked ·· in View Plane -~ -··fTE.6*til : ~RAspen Plaza Building I El , b. . -'.& 44/ 9.·ir R \. ..... ~ Saint Mary's Church 1 3.1 .f......... 3 1 ···· 7 1 *Applicant will provide photos that better illustrate the stand of trees at the hearing. ~TAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the additional infringement will not have a significant impact on the designated view planes and that the view planes that will be impacted by the proposed development are already significantly obstructed by the existing Aspen Plaza Building and Saint Mary's Church. Staff finds that the Aspen Plaza Building and Saint Mary's Church will not be demolished and that the view planes will not be re-opened permanently at any point in the near future. Staff recommends that the Planning :ind Zoning Commission approve an exemption from the Mountain View Plane Review for the proposed additions to the Connor Cabin sites, finding that the two (2) Court House View Planes are already obstructed by the existing Saint Mary's Church and the Aspen Plaza building, and that the view planes are not likely to be reopened by redevelopment in the near future. RECOMMENDED MOTION: (ALL MOTIONS SHALL BE MADE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE) "I move to approve a Mountain View Plane exemption from the two (2) designated Court House View Planes to allow for the construction of a thirty-one foot tall addition to each of the two (2) westernmost Connor Cabin properties located at 530 and 532 E. Hopkins Avenue, on the east 7' 6"of Lot P, and all of Lots Q and R, Block 93, City and Townsite of Aspen." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Mountain View Plane Code Section P7 RESOLUTION N0. 14 (SERIES OF 2005) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING AN EXEMPTION FROM MOUNTAIN VIEW PLANE REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT THIRTY-ONE FOOT TALL ADDITIONS TO EACH OF THE TWO (2) WESTERNMOST CONNOR CABIN SITES, LOCATED - AT 530 AND 532 E. HOPKINS AVENUE, EAST 7,6" OF LOT P, AND ALL OF LOTS Q AND R, BLOCK 93, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2737-073-31-003 Parcel ID: 2737-073-31-004 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Austin Lawrence Partners, LLC, represented by Haas Land Planning, LLC. requesting approval of an exemption from the Mountain View Plane Review to construct a thirty-one (31) foot tall addition on each of the two (2) westernmost Connor Cabin sites located at 530 and 532 E. Hopkins Avenue ; and; WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission granted Conceptual HPC approval for the proposed development pursuant to Resolution No. 7, Series of 2005; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall by resolution approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove a development application for an exemption from the Mountain View Plane Review, after considering a recommendation by the Community Development Department pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.435.050, Mountain View Plane Review; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department reviewed the exemption from the Mountain View Plane Review and recommended approval; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 12, 2005, the Planning and Zoning Commission denied a motion to approve the view plane review exemption by a five to two (5 negative-2 affirmative) vote, and then unanimously voted to reconsider the request and to continue the public hearing to April 19,2005 ; and, WHEREAS, during a continued public hearing on April 19, 2005, the Planning and Zoning Commission, by a to (_-_3 vote, approved the proposed exemption from the Court House View Plane Review to construct a thirty-one (31) foot tall addition to each of the two (2) westernmost Connor Cabin sites located at 530 and 532 E. Hopkins Avenue; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the P8 approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WI1EltEAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion ofpublic health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION as follows: Section 1 Pursuant to the procedurds and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves an exemption from Mountain View Plane Review for the construction ofthirty-one (31) foot tall additions to each of the two (2) westernmost Connor Cabin sites located at 530 and 532 E. Hopkins Avenue, on the eastern 7'6" of Lot P, and all of Lots Q and R, Block 93, City and Townsite of Aspen. Section 2: All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 3: This Resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not - affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Approved by the Commission at its regular meeting on April 19,2005. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney Jasmine Tygre, Chair P9 ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk P10 EXHIBIT A Mountain View Plane Review Code Language. Mountain View Plane Review Purpose Statement. 26.435.010(C)- Mountain view planes. Development within designated mountain view planes as set forth in Section 26.435.050 shall be subject to heightened review so as to protect mountain views from obstruction, strengthen the environmental and aesthetic character ofthe city, nictintain property values, and enhance the city's tollrist industry by maintaining the city's heritage as a mountain community. 26.435.050 Mountain view plane review. A. Applicability. The provisions of mountain view plane review shall apply to all development located within the following established mountain view planes, unless exempted pursuant to Section 26.435.050(B) 4. Court House View Plane. There are hereby established two (2) view planes originating from the sidewalk on the northerly side Of Main Street easterly of Galena Street above which planes no land use or building shall project. a. View Plane Number One. The reference point bears S. 79° 43' 29" E. 69.00 feet from the southwesterly property corner of Block 92, Original Aspen Townsite; a plastic survey Cap. Elevation of the reference point is 7,912.32 feet above mean sea level. The view plane consists of spatial components more particularly described as follows: All that space which is within the projection of a sector of 27° 58' 40" described by two (2) radial lines which bear S. 16° 59' 48" E. and S. 10° 58' 52" W respectively from the reference point, and above a plane which passes through the reference point at an inclination of 4° 25' above the horizontal. b. View Plane Number Two. The reference point bears S. 74° 14' 26" E. 131.46 feet from the southwesterly property corner of Block 92, Original Aspen Townsite. Elevation of the reference point is 7,913.02 feet above mean sea level. The view plane consists ofspatial components more particularly described as follows: Atl that space which is within the projection of a sector of 26° 04' 38" described by two (2) radial lines. which bear S. 03° 26' E. and S. 22° 28' 12" W. respectively from the reference point, and above a plane which passes through the reference point at an inclination of 4° 58' 20" above the horizontal. B. Exemption. The Community Development Director may exempt the addition of mechanical equipment to an existing development which protrudes into the view plane only if such development has an insignificant effect upon the designated view plane. The addition of a satellite dish, elevator shaft, or any other piece of equipment whose height Pll und mass have a Significant effect upon the designated view plane shall be reviewed pursuant to the standards of Section 26.435.050(C). C. Mountain view plane review standards. No development shall be permitted within a mountain view lane unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below. 1. No mountain view plane is inftinged upon, except as provided in Section 26.435.050 (C)(2) Pflze/7 any mountain view plane projects at such an angle so as to reduce the maximum allowable building height otherwise provided for in this title, development shall proceed according to the provisions of Chapter 26.445 as a planned unit development, so as to provide for maximum flexibility in building design with special consideration to bulk and height, open space and pedestrian space, and similarly to permit variations in lot area, lot width, yard and building height requirements, view plane height limitations. The Planning and Zoning Commission may exempt any developer from the above enumerated requirements whenever it is determined that the view plane does not so effect the parcel as to require application of PUD or that the effects of the view plane may be otherwise accommodated. When any proposed development infringes upon a designated view plane, but is located in front of another development which already blocks the same view plane, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider whether or not the proposed development will further infringe upon the view plane, and the likelihood that redevelopment of the adjacent structure will occur to re-open the view plane. In the event the proposed development does not further infringe upon the view plane, and re- redevelopment to re-open the view plane cannot be anticipated, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall approve the development. 4/ \1/06 BA+5 , Vote- 1 2 . j.li~r MEMORANDUM Vote 40 c A TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission r ecc As Idev JAA ~)07/ THRU: .loyce Allgaier, Community Development Deputy Director FROM: James Lindt, Planner \61-. +0 59491 IE 4© 7/? RE: 530 and 532 E. Hopkins Court House View Plane Exemption - '4"OFM' 1~M~ Review- Public Hearing DATE: April 12.2005 APPLICANT: ,~~ Cabin Sites Subject to b, Austin Lawrence Partners, LLC ~·, 7~ View Plane Exemption b REPRESENTATIVE: ....ir: Mitch Haas, Haas Land Planning, LLC -1 2.-c· 1h L *01, 1 - 1. Michael Noda. Oz Architecture Illillillill ' In.an/A-f: 4 'illl Illez /1;22 -r..24 LOCATION: 1-)41*ba 1- - 141 , 1 -I. 1.4/efrw. 530 and 532 E. Hopkins Ave. ., .1 till 11 !!r ~ -9-7- 0,43 ZONING: 1+ 1 1 , 11. 1 9,4 . Commercial Core (CC) & Historic . i 1 i.. I til " - ···. District Overlay 111113/66 ....,- - '..0 .. CURRENT LAND USE: REVIEW PROCEDURE Vacant Single-Family Residences The Applicant requires an exemption from the Court House View Plane Review to PROPOSED LAND USE: construct the proposed additions to the Mixed Use Development consisting of Connor Cabin sites because the two (2) office and single-family residential uses. westernmost cabins sit on parcels located within the two (2) designated Court House PREVIOUS APPROVALS: View Planes as are set forth in Land Use The Historic Preservation Commission Code Section 26.435.050, Mountain View granted Conceptual 11PC approval for Plane Review. the proposed development. The Planning and Zoning Commission SUMMARY: shall approve. approve with conditions, or The Applicant is proposing to demolish deny the requested view plane exemption the non-historic additions on northern request. If the Commission does not portion of the Connor Cabins and believe that the proposal satisfies the replace them with thirty-one (31) foot criteria for exempting it from the full view tall additions to the sites. plane review. the Commission may require the application to go through the PUD review process as is described in Land Use Code Section 26.435.050(C), Mountain view plane review standards. STAFF COMMENTS: Austin Lawrence Partners, LLC, ("Applicant"), is requesting approval of a Mountain View Plane Review Exemption to construct thirty-one (31) foot tall additions to each of the Connor Cabin sites. The parcels of land on which the two (2) westernmost cabins are located, exist within the two (2) designated Court House View Planes and the easternmost cabin lays outside of both of the designated view planes. The Planning and Zoning Commission may exempt the proposed additions to the westernmost cabin sites from the view plane review if it is found that the proposed development will not further infringe upon the designated view planes. In considering whether to grant an exemption from the view plane review, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall also consider the likelihood that structures already obstructing the view planes will be redeveloped to re-open the designated view planes. Iii reviewing the request for exemption, Staff agrees with the Applicant's assertion that there are already other structures and significant trees along Main Street within the two (2) designated view planes that obstruct the view planes where the proposed development is to be built. Staff believes that Saint Mary's Church substantially blocks mitch of the development proposed on the center of the Connor Cabin properties as is illustrated in the photo below. ,1Aspen Plaza Building li 4. 1 + . 15 ~ Saint Mary's Church *Please see "View 2" in application for a large scale photo. On the westernmost of the three properties, Staff feels that the Court House view planes are already obstructed by the Aspen Plaza building that is located on the southwest corner of Hunter Street and E. Hopkins Avenue. The Aspen Plaza building is three stories in height and is a structure that has no significant openings from which to view the mountain through. Staff is further of the opinion that Saint Mary's Church and the Aspen Plaza building will likely not be redeveloped in a manner that will reopen the designated view planes. The Church is designated on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures and protected against demolition. As the application pointed out, the Aspen Plaza building was constructed relatively recently and will likely not be demolished any time soon. Therefore, Staff finds the review standards to grant an exemption from the view plane review to be met. RECOMMENDATION: ,Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve an exemption from the Mountain View Plane Review for the proposed additions to the Connor Cabin sites, finding that the two (2) Court House View Planes are already obstructed by the existing Saint Mary's Church and the Aspen Plaza building, and that the view planes are not likely to be reopened by redevelopment in the near future. RECOMMENDED MOT]ON: (ALL MOTIONS SHALL BE MADE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE) "1 niove to approve a Mountain View Plane exemption from the two (2) designated Court 1-loise View Planes to allow for the construction of a thirty-one foot tall addition to each of the two (2) westernmost Connor Cabin properties located at 530 and 532 E. Hopkins Avenue. on the east 7' 6"of Lot P. and all of Lots Q and R, Block 93, City and Townsite of Aspen:' ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Review C.riteria and Staff Findings Exhibit B -- Application RESOLUTION NO. ~~ (SERIES OF 2005) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING AN EXEMPTION FROM MOUNTAIN VIEW PLANE REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT THIRTY-ONE FOOT TALL ADDITIONS TO EACH OF THE TWO (2) WESTERNMOST CONNOR CABIN SITES, LOCATED AT 530 AND 532 E. HOPKINS AVENUE, EAST 7'6" OF LOT P, AND ALL OF LOTS Q AND R, BLOCK 93, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2737-073-31-003 Parcel ID: 2737-073-31-004 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Austin Lawrence Partners. LLC, represented by Haas Land Planning. LLC. requesting approval of an exemptio11 from the Mountain View Plane Review to construct a thirty-one (31) foot tall addition on each of the two (2) westernmost Connor Cabin sites located at 530 and 532 E. Hopkins Avenue : and; WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission granted Conceptual HPC approval for the proposed development pursuant to Resolution No. 7, Series of 2005; and. WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall by resolution approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove a development application for an exemption from the Mountain View Plane Review, after considering a recommendation by the Community Development Department pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.435.050, Mountain View Plane Review: and. WHEREAS, the Community Development Department reviewed the exemption from the Mountain View Plane Review and recommended approval; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 12. 2005. the Planning and Zoning Commission. by a to (_-__) vote, approved the proposed exemption from the Court House View Plane Review to construct a thirty-one - (31) foot tall addition to each of the two (2) westernmost Connor Cabin sites located at 530 and 532 E. Ilopkins Avenue; and, WlIEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein. has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION as follows: Section 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves an exemption from Mountain View Plane Review for the construction of thirty-one (31) foot tall additions to each of the two (2) westernmost Connor Cabin sites located at 530 and 532 E. Hopkins Avenue, on the eastern 7 6" of Lot P, and all of Lots Q and R. Block 93. City and Townsite of Aspen. Section 2: All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 3: rhis Resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: If any section. subsection. sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction. such portion shall be deemed a separate. distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Approved by the Commission at its regular meeting on April 12.2005. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney Jasmine Tygre, Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian. Deputy City Clerk 1 fr (50 MAN. 0 is b #< 40 Megg-9 %0 14-2 ~ '110)410 0 4-0 940/I'l,€- 0 ad< - 44& c,L- /~gue€ -Cq,~ Supp* 4- - f€ Co M.Wl«d _ P litj fs.022 73«+F- 48-4 Stek, - Reed N,oVE 1 vih £ ste* poles 07 194 - 1 i»J 1 is Mil/lol/1 ic #C -2-/awks 'IM U St\V pla,q O, \0~9 Most 40, I q-0\« - vitldp lq~*5701aild 014 MaKY OC©ass *-5 410.SM; n€- - com ce+M,Cl alo ouk Vie-Uj P~QHM-· 4 - '**®6 61=mol € R uilt - + rdy se€ ·011€- M fit'13€wt€41- EXHIBITA MOUNTAIN VIEW PLANE EXEMPTION REVIEW REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS The following section provides land use code language regarding a proposal for development within the designated Court House View Planes. L No mounictin view plane is infringed upon, except as provided in Section 26.435- 050 (C)(2) When any proposed development infringes upon a designated view plane, but is located in front of another development whkh already blocks the same view plane, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider \whether or not the proposed development will jitrther infringe upon the view plane, and the likelihood thcit redevelopment of' the adjacent structure will occur to re-open the t'le W plane. In the event the proposed development does not further infringe upon the view plane, and re-redevelopment to re-open the view plane cannot be anticipated, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall approve the development. Staff Findinus Staff believes that several other structures already significantly obstruct the designated view planes in which the development is proposed. Staff feels that the Saint Mary's Church Rectory already blocks the majority of the development from being viewed from the Court 1-Iouse and the Aspen Plaza building that is located to the south of the proposed development also obstructs the view of Aspen Mountain from the Court House. Moreover. Staff is also of the opinion that the Saint Mary' s Rectory and the Aspen Plaza building will not be redeveloped iii a manner that will reopen the view plane where the Coiinor Cabins development is proposed. Staff finds the review standards for granting an exemption from the Mountain View Plane Review to be satisfied by the proposal. Appkcq.M.·Fs v rescus € fyb<f - 019 0\dd/'h<O 4 D /At U\,st©rie laRI Idksr - 1 1 34\treclw- HO p mcess 0 - fece'Vid *d*s Go M Pipe 1 MAttsed MpoM - AAc~ 5043 qbt- Mq# , 090#,Mune F tki 2 €10©+ *4*ked Floy' 18 15 - ~ Ok/tu. 40}h * (024414-- lost QMotky.r - ept 1/10 k. year -, A -U//0 .5:48 HI ~Wllb..6 ~1401(61-€- /stru4'e, 6 , .4 pody roy 60(AC'CAP-' {. - 415; v¢?1 41 fla -- U.J.r , to Mi (F +lie g Way 61,- 6424 29-Om krehte - 3440+ 200@ -,viass or wld#04 divel opwl. 64 - 0101- - u omt, 01/¥:? rov gupposed 45 *< ¥\D¥, ~-tjA,tti B V i €W - OLEiQ / E157- + cs»r - r4 +44£*SA 44 42*1 Nody *0€*1- 9 4 hage de no 100(Of,E,glf#1#1#*1~~~.~~~€Me HAAS LAND PLANNINg, LLC February 25,2005 Mrs. Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Planner Mr. James Lindt, Planner 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: 530,532 & 534 East Hopkins Avenue (Conner Cabins) Mountain View Plane Exemption Application Dear Amy and J ames: Please consider this letter and the accompanying photo simulations and plan sets to constitute an application for exemption from the Court House View Plane pursuant to Section 26.435.050(C) of the Land Use Code (the "Code"). Background In general, the proposed development involves temporary, on-site relocation of all three structures to allow excavation of new basements and foundations before placing the structures approximately one foot from the front lot lines. After being put back on their on their new foundations, all three structures will be completely restored. Along with the historic restoration of each structure, the non-historic alley structures will be demolished to allow for construction of new residences. The Historic Preservation Commission (the "HPC") reviewed an application for Conceptual Major Development, On-Site Relocations, and Demolition approvals for the subject sites. The HPC considered the application in two work sessions and two formal public hearings before granting an approval on February 23,2005. During the HPC's "commissioner comments" session before the unanimous (6-0) vote for approval, the applicant was commended and the project repeatedly complimented with such statements as, 1 1 outstanding project and process, "great project "100% compliance with the f , • 11 I 1, [HPC Design] Guidelines," "spectacular job and proJect, exceptional, "substantial and excellent contribution to the block, neighborhood and • 201 N. MILL STREET, SUITE 108 · ASPEN, COLORADO · 81611 • • PHONE: (970) 925-7819 • FAX: (970) 925-7395 • downtown," and "exceptional preservation effort." To the point of this particular application, the HPC made a formal recommendation that the Planning and Zoning Commission (the P&Z) approve the Mountain View Plane Exemptions requested herein. As explained in the application approved by the HPC, the applicant determined in consultation with the Community Development Director (CDD) that, while the proposal is under the pre-Ordinance 28a CC zoning, the adoption of Ordinance 28a can benefit the applicant in much the same way as allowed under vested rights doctrine. In simple terms, this means that while the application is protected from the newly adopted CC zoning provisions that could adversely affect the proposal, it can still benefit from those newly adopted provisions that help to accommodate the proposal. As a result, the effective dimensional requirements are a mix of pre- and post-Ordinance 28a CC zoning, as detailed below: 1. Minimum lot size (square feet): Three thousand (3,000). 2. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit (square feet) 1: No requirement. 3. Minimum lot width (feet): No requirement. 4. Minimum front yard setback (feet): No requirement. 5. Minimum side yard setback (feet): No requirement. 6. Minimum rear yard setback (feet)1: No requirement except trash/utility service area shall be required abutting alley, pursuant to Section 26.575.060. 7. Maximum height (feet)1: 46 feet for areas setback 15 or more feet from lot lines adjoining a Street right-of-way; 42 feet for all other areas of the property. 8. Minimum distance between buildings on the lot (feet) 1: No requirement. 9. Pedestrian Amenity Spacel: Pursuant to Section 26.575.0302. 10. Floor Area Ratio (FARY: The following FAR schedule applies to uses cumulatively up to a maximum FAR of 3: 1. a. Commercial uses: 1.5:1, which maybe increased to 2:1 if affordable housing equal to 60% o f the additional commercial floor area is developed on the same parcel. Existing (prior to development) commercial FAR may be replaced, subject to acknowledgement by the City Zoning Officer prior to demolition. b. Lodging, Arts Cultural and Civic Uses, Public Uses, Recreational Uses, Academic Uses, child care center, and similar uses: 3:1. c. Affordable Multi-Family Housing: No limitation. d. Free-Market Multi-Family Housing: 1:1. Free-Market residential FAR shall be accompanied by affordable housing development or mitigation pursuant to the requirements of Section 26.470.040.B.4. Existing (prior to redevelopment) free- market residential FAR may be replaced, subject to acknowledgement by the City Zoning Officer prior to demolition, with no commensurate affordable housing requirement. Requirements of the Multi-Family Housing Replacement Program, Section 26.530, may apply. , Notes: 1: This iiote indicates use of a dimensional requirement effective since the adoption of Ordinance No. 28a, Series of 2004. Where no such note is CONNER CABINS VIEW PLANE EXEMPTION APPLICAT]ON PAGE 2 provided, the applicable dimensional requirement either existed pre-Ordinance 28a or was not changed by adoption of Ordinance 28a. 2: Section 26.575.030 defines "Open Space" but does not specify any amount necessary to comply with the zoning provisions. As such, no actual amount of pedestrian amenity space or open space is required. Of particular relevance to the current request for Mountain View Plane Exemption is the maximum height limitation. The zoning provides a maximum building height of forty-six (46) feet for portions of the property set more than fifteen (15) feet back from a property line adjoining a Street right-of-way. The proposed development does not exceed a measured height of thirty-one (31) feet. Therefore, the tallest portions of the proposed development are some fifteen (15) feet below and utilize only 67% or so of the allowable height provided by zoning. Mountain View Plane Section 26.435.010(C) of the Code provides that development within designated mountain view planes is subject to heightened review so as to protect certain mountain views from obstruction, strengthen the environmental and aesthetic character of the City, maintain property values, and enhance the City's tourist industry by maintaining the City's heritage as a mountain community. In relevant part, there are two established and regulated view planes originating from roughly six feet above grade on the sidewalks located: 1) approximately in front of the Pitkin County Courthouse steps; and, 2) approximately at the location of the flag pole in front of the Rearing Fork Viet-Nam Veterans Memorial between the courthouse and the County Annex building. No buildings or land uses are allowed to project above the established view planes unless an exemption is granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The accompanying Improvement Survey illustrates the breadth of the regulated view planes as they cross the subject property and provides that view plane reference point one (from in from of the Courthouse steps) is the more restrictive of the two. The Improvement Survey also shows the affects of the view planes' ascending height limitation as they project southward across the sites. The view plane height limit at the northwest corner of the 530 East Hopkins property is 20.11 feet; where the view plane intersects the Lot Q property line along the alley, the height limit is 20.39 feet; the view plane height limit at the southwest corner of the 530 East Hopkins property is 25.15 feet; and, the view plane height limit at the southeast corner of the 530 property and the southwest corner of the 532 East Hopkins property is 24.8 feet. CONNER CABINS VIEW PLANE ExEMPTION APPLICATION PAGE 3 While Lots Q and R (the 530 and 532 East Hopkins properties, respectively) are affected by the view planes, the proposed development of Lot S remains unaffected. That is, the only structure on the portion of Lot S affected by the view planes is the one-story historic cottage that does not reach the height of the view plane. Accordingly, the applicant has provided responses to the standards of Section 26.435.050(C) below, as applicable to the proposed development of Lots Q and R. Said section of the Code states that, "No development shall be permitted within a mountain view plane unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all ofthe requirements setfbrth below." 1. No mountain view plane is infringed upon, except as provided in Section 26.435.050(0(21 [Note: no such Section exists in the Code; presumably, the citation is meant to refer to second and third paragraphs below.] When any mountain view plane projects at such an angle so as to reduce the maximum allowable building height otherwise provided for in this title, development shall proceed according to the provisions of Chapter 26.445 as a planned unit development, so as to provide for maximum flexibility in building design with special consideration to bulk and height, open space and pedestrian space, and similarly to permit variations in lot area, lot width, yard and building height requirements, view plane height limitations. The Planning and Zoning Commission may exempt any developer from the above enumerated requirements whenever it is determined that the view plane does not so effect the parcel as to require application of PUD or that the effects of the view plane may be otherwise accommodated When any proposed development infringes upon a designated view plane, but is located in front of another development which already blocks the same view plane, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider whether or not the proposed development will further infringe upon the view plane, and the likelihood that redevelopment of the adjacent structure will occur to re-open the view plane. In the event the proposed development does not further infringe upon the view plane, and redevelopment to re-open the view plane cannot be anticipated, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall approve the development. Based on the foregoing Code language, the view planes only have the effect of reducing the height limit of the underlying zone district if the Planning and Zoning Commission (the "p&z„) will not approve an exemption from the view plane height limit (in such cases, a height limit variance is necessary and only attainable through the PUD review process). The Code language provides that P&Z approval of an exemption from the view plane height limitation shall be granted when another development already blocks the same view plane; in CONNER CABINS VIEW PLANE ExEMPTION APPLICATION PAGE 4 making such a determination, the P&Z is to consider two things: 1) whether or not the proposed development will further infringe upon the view plane(s) than does an existing development; and, 2) the likelihood of the already infringing structure(s) being, first redeveloped and, second, redeveloped in a manner that would re-open the designated view plane(s). If the proposed development does not further infringe on the view plane(s), and redevelopment of the existing structure(s) infringing on the view plane cannot be anticipated, the proposed development is to be exempted from the view planes' height limitation. When P&Z approves an exemption from a designated view plane(s), the effective height limit, by default, is that of the underlying zone district. Further, when a proposed development warrants an exemption from the view plane but complies with the height limit of the underlying zone district (and, for that matter, all other applicable dimensional requirements), there remains no need for PUD review. This is especially true of a development involving a historic landmark property within a historic district for such a development is already subject to HPC review and approval, which entails a heightened level of scrutiny (i.e., "special consideration") with regard to mass, scale, bulk, site planning and design, affects on streetscape and pedestrian experiences, and neighborhood compatibility. As provided in the discussion relative to Commercial Core dimensional requirements (above), the proposed development will not require a variance from any applicable dimensional requirement should the P&Z grant a view plane exemption. The proposed structures have a maximum measured building height of thirty-one (31) feet and reside in areas where the height limit of the CC zone district is forty-six (46) feet. In other words, the tallest portions of the proposed structures on Lots Q and R are some fifteen (15) feet below and only utilize approximately 67% of the allowable height provided by zoning. Further, - the proposal involves development of approximately one-half (1/2) the allowable floor area on each lot. Given the "Purpose" of the City's Planned Unit Development (PUD) regulations, as stated in Section 26.445.010 of the Code, there would be nothing to gain by requiring the proposed development to proceed according to the provisions of Chapter 26.445 as a PUD. That is, the HPC review process is designed to encourage flexibility and innovation in the development of land, while also requiring compatibility with historic resources, by providing for incentives and benefits associated with historic preservation efforts. Furthermore, as demonstrated below, the proposed development already promotes the Purpose of PUD designation; the proposed development: , CONNER CABINS VIEW PLANE EXEMPTION APPLICATION PAGE 5 A. Promotes the purposes, goals, and objectives of the Aspen Area Community Plan. The AACP seeks to promote vitality and an economically sustainable downtown. The AACP dedicates two entire chapters to Historic Preservation and Design Quality related philosophies, policies and goals. A finding of compliance with the review standards associated with HPC approvals inherently implies promotion all of these purposes, goals and objectives. The HPC granted conceptual approval of the proposed development on February 23,2005. The proposal provides a mixed use development to include commercial/ office use along the street front and at the ground level, and residential use in detached structures located at the rear of the lots. As a result the historic cottages will be completely restored without any above-grade additions for adaptive reuse. The site plan and designs reinforce the commercial- oriented function of the street while enhancing its pedestrian character. While the new construction has been designed to be compatible with the historic character of the district, the designs do not copy early styles but instead achieve creative new solutions that convey the community's history of interest in exploring innovations. Nonetheless, the fundamental principles of traditional design have been respected. The Conner Cabins have been neglected over the years and require a relatively high degree of restoration work, effort and expense to achieve any meaningful level of historic preservation. Given the CC zoning and location of the properties, the cost of the sites is substantial. Without the ability to accomplish a development with the promise of economic return, there exists almost no incentive whatsoever for anyone to endeavor a historic preservation effort on these properties, let alone a historic preservation effort as complete and exemplary as that proposed. In total, the building heights proposed herein and approved by the HPC are essential to enabling complete restoration and preservation without placement of additions on the resources. The character and integrity of the cottages will not be adversely affected by the relocations, and the integrity of the historic district will certainly be more enhanced than diminished. Views of Aspen Mountain from in front of the Courthouse will not be compromised or further infringed upon as a result of this development. Moreover, use of the PUD process will not provide any further promotion of the purposes, goals or objectives of the AACP than has already been achieved in the proposal and the HPC review process. B. Achieves a more desirable development pattern, a higher quality design and site planning, a greater variety in the type CONNER CABINS VIEW PLANE EXEMPTION APPLICATION PAGE 6 and character of development, and a greater compatibility with existing and future surrounding land uses than would be possible through the strict application of the underlying zone district provisions. HPC review and approval of a development involving a historic landmark structure (let alone three historic landmark structures) located in the Commercial Core Historic District ensures a desirable development pattern, the highest quality design and site planning, and the greatest level of compatibility with existing and future surrounding land uses that can be reasonably hoped for. The HPC review standards and available benefits already allow for variations from the strict application of the underlying zone district provisions. The proposal includes a mix of uses and, therefore, includes variety in the type and character of the development. Use of the PUD process will not provide anything more with regard to these purposes than has already been achieved in the proposal and the HPC review process. C. Preserves natural and man-made site features Of historic, cultural, or scenic value. The project has been found by the HPC to represent an exemplary historic preservation effort preserving and fully restoring not one or even two, but three historic landmark structures that have been the subject of demolition by neglect discussions in the recent past. The scenic value of Aspen Mountain, as viewed from the two courthouse view plane vantage points, will not be compromised or further infringed upon as a result of this development. Moreover, use of the PUD process will not provide any further preservation or protection of natural and man-made site features of historic, cultural, or scenic value than has already been achieved in the proposal and the HPC review process. D. Promotes more efficient use of land, public facilities, and governmental services. While the proposal involves a development that falls some fifteen (15) feet below the zoned height limit and only utilizes approximately half of the allowable floor area, it represents a highly efficient and reasonable use of the land and site. Use of the PUD process would not be at alllikely to result in a more efficient use of land, public facilities or governmental services. E. Incorporates an appropriate level of public input to the planning process to ensure sensitivity to neighborhood and community goals and objectives. CONNER CABINS VIEW PLANE EXEMPTION APPLICATION PAGE 7 The proposed development has been through two (2) work sessions and two (2) sessions of a public hearing (it was continued once) before the HPC to gain its conceptual approvals. This application will result in a public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Final HPC application will also be subject to review at a public hearing. Each of these steps required posting of a public notice sign on the property at least fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing dates, and mailing of notice to all property owners within a three- hundred (300) foot radius at least thirty (3) days prior to the hearing dates. An appropriate level of public input to the planning process is already taking place and already ensuring sensitivity to neighborhood and community goals and objectives. Finally, in an effort to respond directly to the language of the review standard, the proposed development is located immediately in front of other developments (i.e., the three floor Aspen Plaza and Aspen Daily News buildings) and directly behind the St. Mary's Church. The proposed development is located on the far eastern edge of the designated view plane, leaving the vast majority of the view plane area completely unaffected. Just a few years ago, the St. Mary's Church rectory building development was granted an exemption from the courthouse view plane, and the rectory building is more centrally located in and closer to the origination points of the view plane. In the approval of the rectory building's exemption, consideration was given to the fact that the street trees in front of the courthouse very much obscure one's ability to enjoy the views that are supposed to be protected by the view plane, especially during the half of the year when the trees have their leaves. The height of the St. Mary's Church, the rectory building, and the Aspen Plaza and Aspen Daily News buildings, coupled with the affects of the street trees along Main Street, are such that the proposed development will not further infringe upon views of Aspen Mountain from the designated vantage points (see photo simulations provided herewith). Given the relatively recent construction and cost of the Aspen Plaza and Aspen Daily News buildings, and the mitigation costs associated with redevelopment in the Commercial Core, it not likely that the Aspen Plaza Building will be redeveloped in a manner that will re-open the view plane. St. Mary's Church is a designated historic landmark and precluded from demolition, and the rectory building was constructed less than five years ago. The street trees along Main Street have many years of life expectancy remaining and will be replaced upon their perishing anyway. Therefore, in accordance with the language of the last paragraph in the cited standard, since the proposed development does not further infringe upon the view planes and redevelopment of existing structures that already infringe upon the view plane cannot , reasonably be expected to re-open the view plane, the Commission should approve the proposed exemption. CONNER CABINS VIEW PLANE EXEMPTION APPLICATION PAGE 8 The proposal is in harmony with the purpose of the Commercial Core zone district, which includes allowing " the use of land... within mixed use buildings to support and enhance the business and service character in the historic central business core of the City. The district permits a mix of... uses oriented to both local and tourist populations to encourage a high level of vitality." Further, the project promotes the goals of historic preservation in an exemplary manner. Surely, the ability to promote the purpose of the CC zone district and the goals of the historic preservation program (and, in turn, the AACP) was never intended to be limited by the theoretical ability to see the very bottom of Aspen Mountain from the sidewalk in front of the Pitkin County Courthouse --- a view that is largely obscured by existing buildings and street trees. Given the purpose of the CC zone district the historic preservation policies of the City, and the goals of the AACP, it would be unfortunate to preclude or otherwise hinder the ability to achieve the proposal made herein due to a theoretical diminishing of views from two stationary points from which views to the very bottom of Aspen Mountain are already largely obscured by existing buildings and trees. It would be regrettable to allow this extremely limited and only theoretical impact dictate and compromise this proposal's ability to further the purpose of the zone district and the goals of the AACP and the historic preservation program, especially since Aspen Mountain will still be perfectly visible and these views will not be compromised. The Code explains that the purpose of mountain view plane review is to protect certain mountain views from obstruction, strengthen the environmental and aesthetic character of the City, maintain property values, and enhance the City's tourist industry by maintaining the City's heritage as a mountain community. The foregoing has amply demonstrated that the proposed development will not compromise the purpose of the mountain view planes but will, instead, further these purposes by strengthening the aesthetic character of the City, enhancing surrounding property values, promoting economic vitality and sustainability, and maintaining the City's heritage as a mountain community through exceptional historic preservation efforts. CONNER CABINS VIEW PLANE EXEMPTION APPLICATION PAGE 9 It is hoped that the information provided herein and in the attached plan sets proves helpful in your review. We look forward to working with you toward approving this exciting and worthy application. If you should have any questions or desire any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours truly, Haas Land Planning, LLC Mitch Haas, AICP Owner/ Manager CC: Michael Noda, Oz Architecture Greg Hills, Austin Lawrence Partners, LLC Herb Klein, Esq. and Jody Edwards, Esq. c: My Documents/City Applications/Coliner Cabins/HPC Conceptual App CONNER CABIhIS V[EW PLANE EXEMPTION APPLICATION PAG E 10 Hb-24-2005 04:26pm From-AUSTIN LAWRENCE +9709209731 T-043 P 001/001 F-306 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Agreement.for Pavment of Citv of Asven Develonment Application Fees CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafer CITY) and Austin Lawrence Parmers. LLC cio Greg Hills. Managing Partier (hereinafter APPLICAND AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for Mountain View Plane Exemotion (hereinafter, THE PROJECT). 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 57 (Seriei of 2000) establishes a fee structure for Land Use applications and the paymenr of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completedess. 3. APPLICANT and CITY agree thar because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties that APPLICANT make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed ro APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPUCANT agrees additional costs may accrue following their hearings and/or approvals. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make It= additional payments upon notificadon by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to process APPLICANT'S application. 4. CITY and APPLICANT fUrther agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to corplete processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and/or City Council to enable the Planning Commission and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project consideration, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. 5- Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in lhe amount of $2,640.00 which is for twelve (12) hours of Community Development stafftime, And if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburge the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review at a rate of $210.00 per planner hour over the initial depoeit. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shalI be grounds for suspension ofprocessing, and in no case will building permits be issued until all costs associated with case processing have been paid. CITY OF ASPEN APPLICANT BF 7- Community Development Director Billing Addlis and Felephone Number: Reauired Austin Lawrence Partners, LLC 0/0 Greg Hills, Managing Partner 314 South Galena Street, Ste. 200 Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 920-4988 ext. 214 RETAIN FOR PERMANENT RECORD ./ M ¥ 10 K /1 6 , 44~644- , - V ...../- 4.V....g/ 344'I jil),3,4.-.. i , /,. *. 4 *. I - 7 .al-* 7 ....,e f. hp .1:/Ir .6-44* 9- 1,918 4 .1 2,#31 1,4.1~ 0 M. Ag#99,=4¥9,50-0--*Mal#,eNhti't*47'* A .41» :k. Al..........11/fie de'lir k 9,/"PArt:901¥t'*5#21(-0 - 1/1 -E --7-/0-7.== _ i - 1- FA...14-2;..444 ..Mart.--&1&03 W.8 I. I A . - ./ ./ au~ - i . h 4'IN I :• P 4 ik/~ r , f* . 1 I. 2 , r - n *k -r- - 1912,"- - ..... 0 - e.ry d :(' 1 1.4. ' . < 921.m...im /4 1 2 7 ., . m. 4...1/2,/.lb- 1 411 0~ 1 min. i 6~" 4 jr- 1 I & t. 4 F 4, .1/ E, t, id 2 .t'' 6 8#liu 6.4 + 4/ h K 1 A 1.-4 ' I UP I -I -8 . 1 4 , d m 4 0% ¥„'. , . -22€# i , : 1 \ 11==,ki==1-**14 \ . - -4 - --~ V'.I- '~' ~i'¥4:=",j=.U·10~ -- . 4% 14 - 1 --~- ..,'L hem..1.207.. = , =- ~tw~~~~ 1 - ; ;- 31/IN' 1-: 94;*; : 7 4&-Wrf•:,4~lk-£4:4fkwi= 2~,~,<40,911*411;fti»i~:1'.F'l'2 ; - -»~ ,-9'bag ,·' · 912 1,••M· •- v ,%·-- - ."/:P,;1>£; 3~t!.94 , •pt;.2¥~1 ' 5 .ffi, .7,il,Jil:WR~-•17.'01 * · :.' ..'.·,W}*i!4;4,Wi Fobdc_.~i:,/p' I., r ':. 0, 711,49.4, at.; t. P V f.j, 40,*t/ , Id.'' -- - t -1 - j 1.« r: lf, - r ~0 :Al:MI21,~Lp,t,17 f*· r/,5/W////A ~AP,94£ ~ I~~ 4'*,-. .im~ -Em,r~ - - =2.- ..... 12=Flifj'.2 7,17 .. A / 1 . . .. A ... .0 , 0 r k LL- 210\ l€CK le; /04 241 CM 3936 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: CONNOR CABINS (530 AND 532 EAST HOPKINS) VIEW PLANE EXEMPTION REVIEW NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, April 12,2005 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen P[anning and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities Room. City Hall, 130 S. Galena St.. Aspen. to consider an application submitted by Austin Lawrence Partners, LLC. requesting approval of a view plane exemption from the two (2) designated Courthouse View Planes to construct additions to each of the two (2) westernmost Connor Cabins. The properties are commonly known as the Connor Cabins and are addressed as 530 and 532 E. Hopkins Avenue. The properties subject to the application are legally described as the eastern 7'6" of Lot P and all of Lots Q and R, Block 93, City and Townsite of Aspen. For further information, contact James Lindt at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St.. Aspen, CO, (970) 429.2763, jamesl@ci.aspen.co.us. s/Jasmine Tvgre, Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on March 27,2005 City of Aspen Account 1 201, Y. Ri b - ~,Vak - ,; $ - 4 0' 1 4644 - 1 - t=J »04 0 1 I - 1 . $ w= . , 9 4 0 114' - :,I, '' i -i 9 1.* 1 I ~~me . r 4 1. , .b '11 kit. J . .... 1 . - ELi•*4, r 948 BA#- f ilro 2 ;.9 i,;2,="-94\Il EJuilil<L.L.m.. . :- ' I ..4 3 . ¥· . 1 - i ./ , . 1 . : '1 ; ..41 . -- - -- --- - 620 . 2 1-4 18 2*,&*M-6 24 . 1 -0 -lart--*1~-, '--a~70./ ..6./1>J' 4 ' ' ./FLJ~~~ '~~~1~~~~, ..w., 7~ U , d.* ' 7. Wwb:. Wa. 4~ i 28*2 .1 - : 4.16 1.411 - -T - '32;1 I I. - e.. , 0 41 . -/ 2 i -*~ 3€f' a,M. 4 £ 1. ..2 .1 6. :28 'il, 1.pi ./ ... 4 H .4,~321, Ull »4~ . - 0 . 197 1,/t :i j., '- -: 'll"* L. 43 11, 111 01 ' .:. r d 4 -- 42 PL. 2 = *%O ¢ SW!- I - , IN .*:4 r P 1 A.:I=-3 'e-*%·, h F = C 1 . 1 9 5 ./--. : /1,1.,1 -cfp./.' 3 21 9 - t *t¥« 1,3 le'llilllili~Illipllmwilill'Illillillik u '7 49 4 -_. 1-Li ;Wili~ -_ - k reab- ~#t~'~~~~~mill»~Ifi,691¥10~ £ 4* ~143,1 3 1<1©2 6 + r.r 'E;~b;/.91#~~- =~ - -'.. 1/0 'Fist?f I -'Imil.-Ilic - 452=immelid":=a : 0 -~- ME'~ =~ - 0/6., t//'ll-WI *22 )ME=- ...././......F----I. 0 A , 0 1 1 .. . , =22 - 1 44-1 ' 1. 7 Ii.31 ----· 1 r - . .F l -- 1 r 1, 1 - j 1. 19 7 4 4.-1 i- f. / -: , - . 4 ,-€ 0 . ar r ' 78 p / . I .r -1 1 t. *p £ 41 . -4 0 ' 1 . 277. f- r.; = 6. 4._,/2_ .'& _€j 2;. Viti'' <-· 41, &..- V 'dr -. f ...4, - / - i 1, r i 7- ..1 4 9 . 1 - ---9 4 ¥ I " ~14 · c t. 1, ~ ~ ~2 - K i Lie - 4 - · 4 -\ ¥- 13 --2. 4 - 4 A J A. . , A¥- .7 7 4 . 2 - 1, A r- :1 , .Ze= -L .r , -_ 70 - 1 ..1 ' 1 Fi :~. - ,%1' - 1 - 15 - t- -4 - \ 1: 7-In -. 4 4 4#- - ~1 ~' ' - : 1, I. u -L ~A-X - . 1 1/ Jl . 1. , .i :7 16 - "/17 4, 6 - t.1/ , \ 1 - i,1- 'j' .4 21 - 1 4 , ; - gul-*-inli -:PAR-</0-"9 -. e 2-,-4- - -1 57%6* .te*. G I.,4.- . - » 82 4 e . 6 - ./ -4.- -4 . . - .....e- 111:'„*4 27.v,:G ·eA4,» - -· f?1- ~_ ~ - -•U _ - - -. -*M; ... -- ~ =4Wk£ = -42121£*2-1-AdiA*w*4#~1*iki/' -~#All#1#tr --- t. , 1../0&90£141 9- #....&/ r 4-flf ' -i,i:,EL&&:*78*tiyel 4/4,$ H- 1 5 3 2- 31 .r 6„1 2. *·, . + -2=.W.L ; F t :2 + w/%: 6 '- 1 -7 - .. .re 1 e.' .1 . . : _ - -.,4/750*.7 I - ./ ..3//.L 4 ..0 I .... - . tv 7 # f I - ~ . : 1--.7 A 044 L.„g, Z- 49171., 4- d.r -d M'p . _ * - - t .Ges- .. 2 F=. = ,-4- 41 - ..913-•-a . #f . 9 --14 j**.*'.mal*=f View 2 ORIGINAL r~=~ Conner Cabins, Aspen, Colorado 02.24.05 VIEWS ARCHITECTURE -- F t. i %14.11, i J . i 393 . , ... ' % Ill . D , . 0 - .am.4 -, 1 A lf. . 3 = 2 4 > ..0 .... 1 , 4 . w y. - .4 -14. 1 £ I 7,; 2 - · . LA. . t; - 7 G . . 1 ,- --1 .1 4, - .K., =J- 4 1 .... 2 - 1 - , = ..A , ..... - -- 17= -i...' ' i \4 ,-t€. r. . 1 - 7 ' < 1,0 £ 1 : =~ - - k I . 1 4 - - .. .12-5 - 1, -!inf m r I -,4 d . -- 2 , i 52=F-- J-' 04.42 - - A 1 7-** E. - I . I - -e - 0., - r.!- ./.2% *4- - 1 ' C .......... I , . ilf..n-V- I. -7 - 12 , 1 - ... 1 -. *. 1 - a n . 11 ah S ·.: , 4 2- 16 4 1 4 12 .- - 1- - -~ - C-t ~~ A~*L = $:=Ae=-6 1 - X - - 9 -~•C·•04/34. t 1-1 .- A- . .4/ym~//2*Uis&-m - : _ ff-W#k•·~3~~~~.~~'4:g--~ - - U *. 4 - . 0, " . .p 1 / I 102 t ..1-2.-4, - _ . --2 -15« -- a. ~." 1- Ell.* .,9*.0.-~B~ =22= 1 -2 . 1<-3-- ,¥ - -= 42-miwip = View 2 Conner Cabins, Aspen, Colorado 02.24.05 VIEWS ARCHITECTURE /.1 - "-h . , 3 . ,/ 3 42 ' ·]'91,3~ER Iormer .' I .' : ... +.,. + . 9 I - . . t - --.1 /4 .~t 9 ' 1+«-+ cabins ~•L. i Conner Cabins, Aspen, Colorado 2.09.05 , Site Plan Lw lk# La aad -- · / 15 /r--F . . 7.- lott- r» JT 11 ... . 1 11 .. 34 .. - ... ....... - twets, PLFJMS I ..F .. 4. 1 + -0. - < 7Alt - fleb 4~4e, 0, or //0/1. MA , 4 if€e,4. 14 _*<29011~~ 2-~ -. t: 5 9 • i. . i -t>Vap 0 12 -r / ra© Pt ~ .. . S , I " I. .. .. -. 4 ..... 0. - ... . ... . 1 t. 0 ... /7/V+0 4/. NORTH loMa-4 .-3> . - € 04 + m. Conner Cabins, Aspen, Colorado 2.09.05 ARCHIT itt URE 4 lic Floor Plans 1(223 MECH Lower Level MECH MECH STORAGE ¤~ MEDIA/ 21' X 11'-4" FITNESS / 16' X 14' BATH r STORAGE UVING ROOM CRAFTRI'_~~~- 16'-4" X 26'-6" & fle E An . 0 8 0 2 LAUNDRY LAUNDRY LAUNDRY - 4-1 Al» t z 2 2 3 B 11=Elr Ilm I 1911 = 7 >1 3 1 UP --- - ~ BEDROOM up UP OUU 13' X 15' LD -023 6 - L LIVING ROOM~--~ - ~~ ~-~< E-1 1 L 20' X 17'-61__I - Ual- / . UVING ROOM 15' X 21' BATH ~,_ 7- d i (731 ~ / BEDROOM ~ 111 - J IL_/ BEDROOM ~ ~~ 4-[EU MEDIA ROOM 10'E 0 - j BATHN 14'-6" X 9'-9 C E_ @] BEDROOM I -~ 14' X 12' 11'-10" X 13'-10" BEDROOM -1 L - j ii »7117 10« fl STORAGE MECH STORAGE 18' X 9' 12' X 10' 11' X 10' L-- 1 UP in 2 - f -4 UP UP BASEMENT/ BASEMENT/ BASEMENT/ OFFICE STORAGE ~ - OFFICE STORAGE 1 OFFICE STORAGE ~ --41 NORTH Scale: 3/32" = 1' ~-~-~ m® Conner Cabins, Aspen, Colorado 2.09.05 ARCHITEDTURE 1 - 1 1 - 1 1 - 1 Floor Plans 04 9 0 First Floor HEATED HEATED HEATED MUD ROOM ~ GARAGE GARAGE GARAGE 21' X 21' 21' X 21' 21' X 21' MUD ROOM ~* ~_ 10' X 12'-4" -P~ MUD ROOM Jil p - 711»4 || 5-1 BEDROOM~ UP - UP -- UP 13'X 10' 1 i /. 1 ~ 6 6 EVEEL- - En ,-1 # 1~42 FOYER - 13'-10" x 12'-10" P \6 -1>~% -ye L A . ./ 1 -- . DN -~ 1 / 9'-8" x 11'-4" I OFFICE DN DN ~ BATH 8 -lu 1 YAN JR i =4- _211 FOYER 7-1 9'-6" x 13'--7" ~ _re==== ~ _____- C 1 .1 •= [1 0 BEDROOM 1 13'-10" x 8' ~ BEDROOM - BEDROOM FOYER 10 7 f ~ 11'-10" X 10'-10"1 ___j 11'-8" X 9'-9"1* 41'-6" X 10'-10 "[El *111 BEDROOM 1.._~ 4-T- '-10" X 10'-10" 11 2 1 ja tcll -- 0 U ~| ~~ BEDROOM [~ PORCH [© 11 11' x 12'-5" 1%- Ul PORCH r ~ 1--, «11« -1 1- 8 1 f 4 COMMERCIAL/ fCOMMERC\KIL OFFICE OFFICE f DN =11»-1 - 1 DN 1 1-1 1 f f - 4 1 PORCH PORCH . PORCH i, rii , ,-i-, i | i-i- m® Conner Cabins, Aspen, Colorado 2.09.05 )) AmliwinE Floor Plans 0 05 411 1201 1 --1 1 3 ®% 1 1 1 BBQ BBQ '11 iii L_J L_-3 | L.1-3 DE K Second Floor FAMILY I ROOM e 1 6- 10-h 0 1 r 1 1 0 [p --1 : ©O »O-2TCHEN | 1 : 11 00 KITCHEN 17'-10"X 16' ~ 0 2- -1 22' X 21' O ITCHEN | ~ 21' X 21' I ~ r. /1 . 11 HI \ / ® DINING ROOM 23'- " X 15'-3 I I Illh / 11 20' X 16' O ______2 19'X 18' 1 L FAMILY ROOM DINING ROOM UP UP UP 1 VO DN DN DN OFFICE D\REA 0~0 0~0 mon UVING ROOM UMNG ROOM 25' X 17' LIVING ROOM gog gou 20'-6" X 15'-6" E- 1- 0 -n I -7 - -- E-- - - 4 1~~ 11 ~~ | | | 1 F --- | | E-- - NORTH L----1 L _ _ Scale: 3/32" = V m - IIU Ul- Lot 530 Lot 532 Lot534 [-Conner-Cabins,-Aspen,-Colorad0-234341 ARCHITECTURE Floor Plan s 7-------n 91 8----7 14 L WALK-IN ' Third Floor CLOSET | - 1 1 L_ | _~ ~ BATH ~-__CLOSET ~I__- ~ ' ~-~~ _~ MASTER V I WALK-IN --7 1 -L- 1 MASTER -3 10 r WALK-IN 1 1 WALK-IN ~-~L MABSA~ _ ~_ _ _ -~ AIICD<10 CLOSET C33 11 MASTER 1 BEDROOM 21 " 14' X 15'-10" 2 0/ZICIi@ .-- MASTER + 220 41 BEDROOM - 14' 4"" X 18'-5" LA DN 11-- MASIER 1000 j-r. -- BEDROOM -'lum / 16'-6" X 14'-6" \ 000 .j - Ill 111 - 1-1. / DECK DECK Dtl:K fE 1 1 1 1 1 7r J 1 11 1 1 1 /.I--- 1~ 1 ~i---f I 11-- 1 11- 11 1 1/ 11/ 1 1 1 1 \»--1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9-- -d i 1 1 - 11 NORTH 1 1 1 t- --1 1 LI---3 L - - -~ L___j Scale: 3/32" = 1' ~~-~ Lot 530 Lot 532 Lot 534 Conner Cabins, Aspen, Colorado 2.09.05 ARCHITECTURE ]Revations - Hopkins Street 530,532,534 South Elevation ~170.1,27 3- - 1,1".79.1 2~6 F_ .///*,2-='-:11=115////#Lbof 1 4. i~ F- -- -----1i - -----* '- -=-2 i --1 #===11- 1 .7 -1 17 .*3=6x -41 9 9,~ ~2 |~ _ 39r - ~~~2IILE -b --2 -- 1 Ir-- - -- k-1 17 -" 1- 1 - 1,=r--= - ,-41=ey,igr~..1~f. =72-27 4.-- - 1 11 1 1 Ilt·eLL _-2 1-1 - -=2- Elld 4 ~ i===1 -.,.24& •442Lf<..2- 1 Z 1 1 r 1 81 11 - - =E Q- =22< -_ -9.------:1- r=n =--:-- -..t- 2-- y:.,...4.0=---UidE---€3~12/ 32- - 7 -271-; 21 - ..2.EEZE'-; *El - 7 44- 92 ·-r - - - -- - -- . 11. I .- ~ - . _~ _*-5 % - p - ti C. V .2= 5-4 ...7. D- L l_-2-1 93IEL--.i~ 1 - . *= E-- - N aer i 8- -1~l =*. *f@-71* --f -1, 1 1 ~ i ..f>r :, ,a 19 - Illi flu EA M ..~r- .i FF L = .. pw 0,1 - , ,33 =.. _ - ...~ 1 r -1 MC . 4 j ' t ... - - I 184.4 + 2 4 r / L - 1- ~- .f =- £10. . : - =4 -1.5.......c I :I. \ - - -- 'A~ h .= u -- i. -7 \\ - A .i' 41.1.- - '*71 .406 '1. ...1-lt.I 'Ill; --F .= 9 74 -2 - 1 r -- .==ee~ = ~I~ A... tt.-r~..: , .- -1 --- --~ 1 fj 33- ~ - il 1 00 f i 1 . 2-2 00 --1 1 -1=-3 - - f_ [I 0 1--i- -_- lar -ij ~- ~- -f ~ I' -- - -3 --,1,9 - .-f'00#i-4-f ~ L. - 2 , 4_ fe 2, - - I ~.I- I I · ~- ~ ' ~. 530 532 534 -Conner-Elins'-Aspen'Colorado 23935-~ ARCHHECTURE ti .' 4% 11, 1 e I .it k, '1 . 1 4¥ . 4 .6 :l f 1,11 d.. . .9 - I '1~ 4.1 '1 , A. 1.-1 - 1 1...: »..4 1 ' +4/ tjrl 1 1 . 11 1 1 111 1 '1 1.111'ium'.111 lilli - - .J 'l':" &Uh~ht#'u:t~,~It~~~11*F 7-2,1 11,1 -1 L LL lilli 14'..4 m' b I , 7 - 6.1 1. 7 'A ~ J 11 1 1 41 11, 1 0, 1 > ---LE: 1 ': ~ii ~;4.,IL.-W 2.11/ = 11 .'-Ill .1 11 - 1.6-J»11111, ;lE 7 711 I - & 4. 1 ' 992 4402 L.I ' . LI '1111 1,1.1~, 1 1 1 liT, k'Z 3 1-1 &114:" f " I h Allf ~ ill.di 1 - 11 -77 Qi/4~ i I 11 14,1, M•h E F 'll D t ~11.111 1] 1 1 . - lili' i 1 401:4~ .W,/. il 1r.. -L' 111.1,011 , 11 . 1 J Ii. 1 1 111,11111111 1 -2 '"lililll ,•I •Ill„• I t¢' 1 If 1 1 lili- 0 1 4 / 1 t. 1. . ./4 ]F 'i Ii."//.'/, 1 11'01. . 1 4 /1 be .E 19.. ,: 1 111 11'11 M- 1 1 d =lim= m 1 1 01 1 1+ ., rl ./439/4. 4. 11111. f 1 ..it U~111~ 1 1 'w·r , 1, 1 1 ' Dr ,· I 111 12, 1.1.191$1 44. 92* 1 m 1 V R -life A r j -1 1 -311- = 1 - - ==-1 d ~~ rmiT[*IrTrlmmr·' i, · -1~~'9 ~ / 1 PIN E.94 2-1, T T-TTTITHFVT'11 1-~//R/, //L 1,4- 4 '!1 tfl#MIF]{[1Illl~~11® -1,11}( ~77-7-7-1 L1evations - Hopkins Street 53u, 532,534 South Elevation PCS ~ 50*60 Z optioloo 'uadsv 'su!ql33 13UUO~~) ~ E1evations - Hopkins Street 534,532,530 North Elevation P. 11.111 ..1 1 1 1 1,1 1 lil ; 1 =2- c_=~ 9 ~2 - - ..../ - - *2 - 7• - 110 - ---- 1 11 - - 1 11.- ... dillulille~,F If ...1 E t-1.11 O - i ~ L-1 7 1-' 'ET-1 rT-, --- . -32+ £ -i~_- --El-~El- I I ' Irs-\ &' *.X€ED I im -11 1 ' - I------ I - - i 1 - * --.; p '"ZiL"' 1-- 1.1 11 1 .¥s -2.- 1.1 . a - I ... € -4* '. . L. 1 #.....#k.,ir=.; -- - - -- 1 . d 111 11 11 1111 11 1 111 -. €244-~~Ti- i , . 1, - - -i-- -- 1 1 I 11 ..r -- -- - -1 . E./ ' 1~ . -'4:. - r - - --- - - - 11~111:111=,1, 1 -- 01 - - I. - - -ea - 1 1121 621 -- 534 532 530 [-dinner-Cabins,-Aspen,ColoradJ-2.09.35-1 Alt HHECTURE d . 41 8,r· . 4411 I.ly .. . t.,11 4 . 1, ~ 1/ I. I . 10 41; ., 4 A•l'~ *4.2¢-P·tiv. ,i ' Ike ' . t'I-' - '' · 4- r, 1 1.4/ 12 t 141 ., L IJ t.. 1414 . 1 1 .142 /4,¢. 1 4 1 I 111 4 1 111 1 .-1 F 11 lilli-711111% 11 T ~ ~ i *Ict -' 1, W m.1®11®~t~ 1 P -Ili~ 1 1 1 Irp~ I. I, i #Frf.'91 1 - 17,77 Tri ~ 111 1 ~ '_=Agia,@2!01 F. .Pr ../ 111,111, 11;11111111 11111:(;f,~1;1~11~1 A. Ir-- A - 41 1 1·'. R'-7 11~--4~14 ~ op 64 * 1 1 1 1 --- 4. -t 1 1 '4 - 1. '4141 = M·, 2 14 B V .- * A..4 ]L. 1.9, 1'.1 . @1 9 P - 411 t.6 f 'Ibll 42 * 1.0 'P" 1 '4% 11 i ,-,€443@1 h 1 1, LI,4 11,11.44:1 1 1 , , :. '1 .4.1, 1,1,~,1111 * 1 .~1 1 4 11 k . i 1 iii 1 1 il I im 1.. 11 I , '' , 1 4 k : -t-' I 1- 1111; .: K 9 1 r ft + 1. 4 .1 , . , -1. ~k 1 4% 1 4 .61 1 ...B .,~1.1. 1 * . h., 2 1 4, > 4 116 - 1 . 44 1 2..1 ;, ~€ I '.. 1,25 1 11 - 4 2 .. 1 ./6 'A . E P.' 4 *.4 11 '. Elevations - Hopkins Street 534 East Elevation 1H 011 li l H 1 HV ~ 50'60'Z optioloo 'uadsv 'suaql33 131IUO~) ~ Elevations - Hopkins Street 530 West Elevation 2 28.-- 2 02.- '2:Il:. I.&/in<.-:Eae =2~ ~ta Ee- A. 72-2 - i f. · .-~fu': - ' * 1 *k~ *I .*tr - .7 -$/ : 1 CIrz] 17] = - _ -1 ..14 . 4 - 4 - I. --- 1 -/2--I ... - r J .4 -22 7- 431. . ·- 1/lill. ". I . 0 . 9 ~ tr ~"i Li' 1 7= t..,4©.. - ' - - = 2.- *.. 3- -2 - - Ul. .44 -- 7 7 .£ . .11 6. . e - ; . -' . - . - $ r- _t 1,€ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0-- 4 . S, 1 - : ... > '. .-r._ _ I I /= - -- En - 4 5--2---=1 - \~-- -- A "' Og-1 1 .~. m® [ConnerEabins,-Aspen,Coloradi-2.09.05 ARCHITECTURE ill - IL - /9-1938113__ _.- 1mtv45 - . #.Ill.*. 4 COURTCABD VIEU -- --- 2 I- - - - tr- trgle,Mit--- i fLAK~E BEFEPEKIGE * 1 *.--I./ I-.I. - ----- -1.111.84 -coMMERRAk____ EZL- - - ----rec~--23 ---- -=mec-=m . - GIl--A.-.%,1.=>/0-23!~ 1 . MEMT --2 it 9 Aol'KINS AME. MAIA' e'llver--2- 1 ALLEr I - -IDUNT+bUSE VIE'-1 --A•~ts:-* 1 :L 1 1 1 - .-. -- 2--COURTYAND VIEd -I--*--- -/-0- 7942.26 f _Inn,AKIE REFEMENOF -- - ---2 1 ~*Mler/LIVING- - e - - 14[I.87- E-71-1'.4, - -I--li ...U.......1.,- ZztEDMI~5 - -_coMMEW#L - - -- - B 2 9191'5.02 - .I-.. 1 -- | | *sEMWT _1. --MAIN.STREET 5r. MAR¥4 CATH<>LI© cNUS¢14 7Rap./.P--*-a-1.... HoP FINS AVE . I . 4 - 1 1 -I:oulrrtio USE VIEW PLANE *2 - 20'