The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.HP.515 W Gillespie St.HPC027-012735-121-11-007 HPC027-01 515 W. Gillespie Ave. Landmark Desig. Conditional Use \ Bok lip- 45 7 1 1 P . . I ' 4 Â·S Â· , 1- 1, 4 CASE NUMBER HPC027-01 PARCEL ID # 2735-121-11007 CASE NAME 515 W. Gillespie Landmark Designation & Conditional Use PROJECT ADDRESS 515 W. Gillespie PLANNER Fred Jarman CASE TYPE Landmark Designation, Conditional Use OWNER/APPLICANT Pamela and Neil Beck REPRESENTATIVE Randall Bone DATE OF FINAL ACTION 6/25/01 CITY COUNCIL ACTION Ord. 20-2001 PZ ACTION ADMIN ACTION Approved BOA ACTION DATE CLOSED 4/3/02 BY Fred Jarman .. PARCEL ID: |2735-121-11007 DATE RCVD: |2/21/p - - #-COPIES:| CASE NO~HPC027-01 CASE NAME:~515 W. Gillespie Landmark Designation & Conditional Use PLNR:|p*-2~ ~~-~(Â¥-D~'~~Ul PROJ ADDR:|515 W. Gillespie CASE TYP:|Landmark Designation, Conditional U STEPS:1 - -1 -St OWN/APP: Pamela and Neil Be ADR~ Cfs/zi PHN: REP:|Randall Bone ADR:1117 Aspen Business C C/S/Z:~Aspen/CO/81612 PHN~920-9911 FEES DUE:~? ~ FEES RCVD1Bill Them STAT: E- REFERRALS~ REF:| BY| DUE:~ MTG DATE REV BODY PH NOTICED DATE OF FINAL ACTION: -64391Â¢j CITY COUNCIL: . ir,207 - 3300 1 REMARKS~ pz: 121 1 , BOA: CLOSED: IN~Â¥62 BY: I Â«ecl_ 3-&Ve+al\ DRAC: PLAT SUBMITD: ~ 1 PLAT (BK.PG):| ADMIN: /1 .. RESOLUTION NO. #1 - 19, SERIES OF 2001 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL FOR A HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 515 WEST GILLESPIE AVENUE, LOTS 4,5, AND 6, BLOCK 99, HALLAM ADDITION, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, ASPEN, COLORADO Parcel ID: 2735-121-11-007 WHEREAS, the applicant, Pamela and Neil Beck, represented by Randall Bone, has requested Historic Landmark Designation for a property located at 515 West Gillespie Avenue, Lots 4,5, and 6, Block 99, Hallam Addition, City of Aspen, Aspen, Colorado: WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission is a recommending body to the City Council regarding requests for historic landmark designations in the City of Aspen; and WHEREAS, prior to this resolution, the property is currently listed in the City of Aspen's Inventory of Historical Sites and Structures; and WHEREAS, this application for a Historic Landmark Designation meets standards 26.420.010(B) Architectural Importance, Standard 26.420.010(D) Neighborhood Importance, and Standard 26.420.010(E) Community Importance including all of the Development Review Standards in order for the Planning and Zoning Commission to recommend approval to City Council; WHEREAS, the Community Development Department determined the application for a Historic Landmark Designation meets the applicable review standards indicated above, and recommends approval with conditions to City Council; and WHEREAS, at a public hearing, which was legally noticed and held at a regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission on June 5th, 2001, at which time the Planning and Zoning Commission considered and found the application to meet the review standards of 1) Architectural Importance, 2) Neighborhood Importance, and 3) Community Importance, and recommended approval to the City Council for a Historic Landmark Designation with conditions by a vote of four to zero (4 to 0). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission recommends City Council approve the Historic Landmark Designation for the property of 515 West Gillespie Avenue, with the following conditions: 11111 111111111111 lilli 12/10/2001 10:46A 461617 Page: 1 of 2 SILFIA CAVIS FITKIr CCATY C) R 10.00 D 0.00 .. Section 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the requests for a recommendation to City Council for approval of the Historic Landmark Designation for the property of 515 West Gillespie Avenue, is approved by Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission with the following conditions: 1. That the Community Development Department shall adjust Aspen's Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures to include the subject property at 515 West Gillespie Avenue, Lots 4,5, and 6 of the Hallam Addition to be designated as historic landmarks; 2. That Lots "A" and "B" are designated historic landmarks and must receive HPC approval for all development in accordance with Section 26.415 of the Municipal Code, as well at Section 26.410, the "Residential Design Standards;" Section 2: 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 3: 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 o f the remaining portions thereo f APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 5th day of June, 2001. Apprgyed-astto Form: David Hoefer, Assistanttity Attorney PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 4*natua_ C Robe#+Blake, Chair U U ATTEST: Deputy City Clerk , :\My Documents\Current Cases\HPC\515 W Gillespie\515WGillespie P and Z Memo.doc 0 , trÂ· I 111 11 Ill m ill 111111 li ll i 461617 Page: 2 of 2 12/10/2001 10:46 SILVIA DAVIS FI-KIA COLATY CO R 10.00 0 0.00 0 0 AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, JUNE 5, 2001 4:15 PM PUBLIC DISCUSSION WITH STAFF 4:30 PM COUNCIL CHAMBERS I. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Public II. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Ill. BRINIFIES ~6llâ‚¬%4 5/1/01 24/17/0/2 4/3/04 IV, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 413 W. HOPKINS DRAC VARIANCES, Fred Jarman B. 515 GILLESPIE HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION, (cont'd from 5/1), Fred Jarman C. 640 N. THIRD STREET LANDMARK DESIGNATION, (cont'd from 5/1), Amy Guthrie D. 419 E. HYMAN LANDMARK DESIGNATION, (cont'd from 5/1), Amy Guthrie E. 629 W. SMUGGLER LANDMARK DESIGNATION, (cont'd from 4/17), Amy Guthrie, CONTINUE TO 7/10 F. HISTORIC LOT SPLIT CODE AMENDMENT, Amy Guthrie V. ADJOURN 1 0 0 -tt1- Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting of May 15, 2001 ChiefDeputy Clerk opened the meeting at 4:30 p.m. Affidavit ofposting and mailing was presented to the clerk. MOTION: Kathy opened the public hearing and moved to continue the Aspen Alps Condominium Consolidated Planned Unit Development, Rezoning, Subdivision Review to June 12, 2001. Meeting adjourned at 4:35 Kithleen J. Strffkland, Chief Deputy Clerk ASPEN PLANNIN~ZONING COMMISSION ~ Mav 1, 2001 Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk, opened the meeting at 4p.m. with the following staff: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Amy Guthrie, Joyce Ohlson, Fred Jarman, Community Development. There were no P&Z members present. There was no tape recorded for this meeting, the motions were written as stated below for each public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING: 515 GILLESPIE - LANDMARK DESIGNATION Jackie Lothian opened the public hearing on 515 Gillespie and continued it to June 5,2001. Fred Jarman provided the public notice. PUBLIC HEARING: 640 NORTH THIRD - LANDMARK DESIGNATION Jackie Lothian opened the public hearing on 640 North Third and continued it to June 5,2001. Amy Guthrie provided the public notice. PUBLIC HEARING: 419 EAST HYMAN - LANDMARK DESIGNATION Jackie Lothian opened the public hearing on 640 North Third and continued it to June 5,2001. Amy Guthrie provided the public notice. Â»_4*1 11 05*ZiIA,-1 ~kie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk . ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION April 17.2001 Bob Blaich, chairman, opened the regular meeting at 6p.m. in Council Chambers. The following commissioners were present: Jasmine Tygre, Eric Cohen, Roger Haneman and Ron Erickson. Steven Buettow was excused. Staff in attendance were: Amy Guthrie, Joyce Ohlson, Joyce Ohlson, Community Development; DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST None. There was no tape recorded for this meeting, the motions were written as stated below for each public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING: 328 PARK AVENUE -LANDMARK DESIGNATION Bob B]aich opened the public hearing on 328 Park (formerly Shady Lane property) and the applicant provided public notice. MOTION: Eric Cohen moved to approve Resolution #16, Landmark designation for 328 Park Ar, - finding review standard B and E. Jasmine Tygre second. APPi. ,rED 5-0. PUBLIC HEARING: 629 WEST SMUGGLER-LANDMARK DESIGNATION Bob Blaich opened and continued the public hearing on 629 West Smuggler to June 5.2001. MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to continue the Landmark designation for 629 West Smuggler to June 5,2001. Roger Haneman second. APPROVED 5-0. PUBLIC HEARING: 101 EAST HALLAM - LANDMARK DESIGNATION Bob Blaich opened the Land mark designation public hearing for 101 East Hallam. The proof of notice was provided. MOTION: Jasmine Tygre moved to approve Resolution #17, Landmark designation for 101 East Hallam finding review standards A, B, D and E have been met. Roger<Haneman second. APPROVED 5-0. -- *10*.4.- AIE.ect 7.- *kie Lothian 7eputy City Clerk 1 . 1 .d ASPEN PLANNINd'Z ZONING COMMISSION April 17, 2001 DECLARATION OF CONFL]CTS OF INTEREST 1 328 PARK AVENUE - LANDMARK DESIGNATION 629 WEST SMUGGLER - LANDMARK DESIGNATION 1 101 EAST HALLAM-LANDMARK DESIGNATIOT 1 . ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION April 3. 2001 Jasmine Tygre, vice-chairman, opened the regular meeting at 4:35 p.m. in Council Chambers. The following commissioners were present: Eric Cohen, Roger Haneman, Ron Erickson and Jasmine Tygre. Steven Buettow arrived at 4:45 p.m. and Bob Blaich was excused. Staff in attendance were: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Fred Jarman, Joyce Ohlson, Julie Ann Woods, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMISSIONER & STAFF COMMENTS Ron Erickson asked staff if they had heard from Ben Dodge. Joyce Ohlson replied that Dodge was left the city. Ohlson distributed the in-fill proj ect progress report. Roger Haneman asked for an update on the Caribou Alley. Ohlson responded that staff felt that there were violations that were being researched. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST None. MINUTES MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to approve the minutes of February 20, 2001 and March 6, 2001 with changes as follows: page 5 1[2 replace applying to fit the community with extrapolated to fit the local community and page 6the last f replace meant with it was by type of ownership. Roger Haneman second. APPROVED 4-0. PUBLIC HEARING: LOT 11, SILVERLODE SUBDIVISION - DRAC VARIANCES Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing with the Planning & Zoning Commission acting as DRAC on Lot 11, SilverLode Subdivision. Proof ofnotice was provided. Fred Jarman explained that there were two variance requeits and provided the review criteria. The first variance was for the build-to lines on lots under 15,000 square feet had to have at least 60% ofthe front fagade within 5 feet of the minimum front yard setback, porches may be used to meet the standard. This lot was 13,339 square feet but the site had a significant slope to it with an existing boulder retaining wall and the driveway cut. Jarman stated that the secondary mass standard required that all new structures have at least 10% ofthe total square footage above grade in mass, which is completely detached (garages, sheds, ADUs) from the principal building or linked by a subordinate connecting element. He said that secondary mass was meant to break up the mass and the connecting or linking element was 2 story in this case on 1 ASPEN PLANNIN~ZONING COMMISSION ~ April 3. 2001 COMMISSIONER & STAFF COMMENTS 1 DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST 1 MINUTES 1 LOT 11, SILVERLODE SUBDIVISION - DRAC VARIANCEâ‚¬ 1 ASPEN MOUNTAIN AMENDMENT OF CONCEPTUAL PUD, LOT 3 (TOP OF MILL) & LOT 5 (GRAND ASPEN) 3 10 . ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION April 3.2001 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (3/6/01): ASPEN MOUNTAIN AMENDMENT OF CONCEPTUAL PUD, LOT 3 (TOP OF MILL) & LOT 5 (GRAND ASPEN-j Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing on the Aspen Mountain PUD Amendment. Public notice had been previously presented. The commissioners discussed a condition that Lot 3 approval was conditioned upon Lot 5 approval. Ron Erickson asked i f this was changed from the original approval on Lot 3. Sunny Vann replied that there was a condition that would not allow a change in the square footage. MOTION: Roger Haneman moved to approve P&Z Resolution #11, series 2001 finding the amendment to the conceptual approval for Lot 3, Aspen Mountain PUD were consistent with the previously approved plan and conditioned on the approval of P&Z Resolution #14, series 2001. Ron Erickson second. Roll call: Cohen, yes; Erickson, yes; Buettow, yes; Haneman, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 5-0. Julie Ann Woods noted that Exhibit A in the packet addressed the information requested from the previous meeting. Woods confirmed the 1/20th ownership interest instead ofthe 1/12; the unit would be part of an overnight exchange or available for rental ifthe owner did not utilize the unit. Ron Erickson asked i f the project were a piece o f real estate or a security. Vann replied that it was not a security. Vann explained the overview was conceptual and the final application would include the financial data of funding and financing as well as the time-share workings. John Burlingame stated that he did answer "yes" to the ownership question from the last meeting; he proposed the 1/20 interest with a fixed component (a one week interest) and a floating component which can be up to an additional 10 days. He said that both the fixed and floating components were available through the Hyatt's Central Reservation System, which fundamentally operates like a hotel system with the owners having some priority in the interest that they own. Dick Ragatz provided the financial information and answered questions from the prior meeting. He explained that the occupancy rate and rental space was the same as for the hotel industry rate and hotel rate statistics were 56.8% based upon wholly owned condo and hotel inventory with Aspen occupancy rates at 48.6%; therefore the year round occupancy rate projected for the 125 rooms, 51 units, dropped from 87% to 84.5%. 3 ASPEN PLANNINC~ONING COMMISSION ~ April 3. 2001 the front side o f the lot but one story in the back because of the slope o f the lot. He said that staff felt that this design met the intent of the standard. He said that the site contained unusual constraints. Ron Erickson asked that i f the house were moved to the front of the lot would it conform to DRAC standards. Roger Haneman asked ifthe rest ofthe SilverLode building envelopes complied with the setback standard. Jarman responded that the setbacks were determined by the subdivision. Jarman said that some of the properties met the requirements and some did not. Haneman asked if other lots had to go through DRAC as well. Jarman replied that yes, there were other lots that went before DRAC. Gregory Register, architect and applicant, stated that this was a tough design challenge with all o f the restraints o f the retaining wall on the front to prevent the front setback. He said that the original PUL lid not have to abide by the DRAC standards but that original SilverLode PUD expired and the city standards now applied. Register stated that he made an effort to come close to meeting these two standards. Gary Wright, public, stated that he lived across the street from this lot; this was one o f the last un-built lots, so there would not be any precedents set. Wright said that the methods that the architect designed were the best that could be done. He noted that he was surprised about the retaining wall placement because of the problems it may cause with building on lot 11. He requested that the commission to grant the variances. Erickson asked Gary i f the retaining wall from Lot 12 encroached on Lot 11. Wright responded that was what it appeared like to him but that he was not involved in the development of Lot 12. MOTION: Roger Haneman moved to approve P&Z Resolution #13, - series 2001, approving the variances from the Residential Design Standards fo; the build to lines and secondary mass finding that the proposal more effectively addresses the issue or problem with the given standard or provision responds to and is clearly necessary for the specific site. Ron Erickson second. Roll call vote: Buettow, yes; Cohen, yes; Erickson, yes; Haneman, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 5-0. Discussion of motion: Erickson discussed the retaining wall and asked Steven for input. Steven Buettow stated that he did not have a problem with the secondary mass or the build to line especially with the topography. Haneman agreed that the area was a tough one to work with on the topography. Tygre stated that this was a site-specific situation. C4 ASPEN PLANNIN~ ZONING COMMISSION ~ April 3,2001 Writer said that the 48% was the condo market percentage in Aspen instead of the hotel percentage. Ragatz said that there were no figures from the Aspen Market on expenditure patterns for tourism and used a Steamboat Springs Company as a surrogate with a national occupancy rate of $119.00 to $140.00 per night in the hotel industry. He said that over the years, from impact studies a vacation ownership, the occupant spends 18% to 26% more than a hotel guest. Haneman asked where the information came from. Steve Ferrarini stated that 6,000 households were surveyed nationally. Ragatz said that the taxes collected would be more with fractional-share because of sales taxes over a 10-year period collected from consumer expenditures, marketing and services including the lodging tax relative to hotel and relative to vacation ownership project rental space with the Real Estate Transfer Tax. This was detailed in the report. Scott Writer noted that on page 4 of the report there was a breakdown of generated additional new visitors. Ragatz quoted from the executive summary o f his report. There was discussion ofmandatory occupancy, deed-restrictions and SCC issues. Burlingame stated that the Hyatt system had a rule that if the inventory had not been reserved 60 days in advance of use, then it was available for rental. He said that the rental would re-coup some of their assessment. Ragatz said the only way that he knew to legally insure that a person become part of a rental pool was through a hotel/condominium concept, which required registration through the SCC as a security. Ragatz stated that there were over 4,500 vacation ownership projects throughout the world and he said that he did not know of one that was registered with the SCC. Erickson said that there were condominium units that had by-laws that required rental. Tygre noted that at some point there would need to be some legal clarification since the commissioners were interested in the rental aspects. Vann stated that they can say that they share the same interest in renting it; he said that the 1/2 Oth share would be the interest owned in a unit. Vann stated that the time-share component was the next issue to deal with at this time. Haneman asked how the additional 10 days were reserved. Burlingame replied that the days were reserved on a first come first serve basis through the Hyatt system or any other system that they were hooked into. The proposed details of reservations and ownership intervals were discussed tying them to the local reservations systems and the Hyatt reservations. Burlingame stated that reservations could be booked from the inventory with a 60-day advance or general 4 ASPEN PLANNING ~ONING COMMISSION April 3. 2001 booking after then. Ownership of a certain unit would be purchased for the first 10-day intervals and then the next 10-day intervals were floating. Cohen questioned the amount of units that could be owned by one person and suggested that limiting the number of units owned by one person would be one unit. Tygre stated that they were looking for a mechanism for the turn over and prevent a 3-month ownership without the unit being able to be rented. Tygre reiterated that the intent was to limit the accumulated ownerships. Erickson asked for clarification on the Hyatt Vacation Club and asked how it differed from the Hyatt Hotel chain. Burlingame replied that they were affiliates. Erickson asked ifthey would be able to take advantage ofthe hotel chain marketing. Burlingame responded that they were separate but that they would be able to put inventory into that system. Erickson asked what was the estimated sellout period. Ragatz answered 3 years. Erickson asked ifthe numbers were adjusted and factored into the report figures. Ragatz replied that no they had not, except for the Real Estate Transfer Tax. Erickson asked if during that 3-year period would the unsold units be rented. Burlingame replied that they would rent them. Tygre asked for clarification on the Management Company that the Grand Aspen would use for the owners rental program. Burlingame replied that it would be Hyatt Vacation Management Corporation, which was an affiliate of Hyatt Vacation Management. Tygre asked the terms of that management contract. Burlingame replied that they were restricted by state statute and the association would sign that agreement. Tygre commented that the presentation that staff arranged last week with Don Schuster on time-share and fractional ownership was very good. The size of units and unit configuration were discussed at that meeting and how it effected the length of stay. Tygre stated that she was curious about the advantage behind 4- bedroom units. Scott Writer replied that they were re-thinking the unit mix as they evolved down this path and the recent plan had 3 or 4 4-bedrooms with 2 or 3 lock- offs in each unit. Writer said that they might eliminate 2 bedrooms from those units. Erickson questioned the direct and indirect maintenance fees. Erickson asked if there would be a budget presented for management and marketing. Vann responded that the submission requirements under the time-share were a full disclosure statement and budget information on the operations and maintenance as part o f the final application. 5 ASPEN PLANNING /ZONING COMMISSION April 3,2001 Hoefer noted that under the PUD the dimensional requirements were set so that there was no variance requested. Thomas said that the underlying zone district had a different height limit than this 45-foot high building. Thomas said that the 45- foot high building would lessen the surrounding neighbors' property value. , Jerry Monkarsh, public, asked that the top floor be removed, which was a total of 7 units. He said that they were not opposed to the time-share units; he asked the price range for the 1/20th ownership. Writer replied that the projected average price range was $100,00.00 to $150,000.00. Monkarsh said that he was skeptical of the whole project with the height. David Boothe, public, asked where to get the packets. Writer replied that he could supply him with the information and Hoefer noted that the clerk's office also had the information. Boothe said that the neighborhood in general supported the project with the exception o f the height. He said that he would like to see a calculation on the net rental square footage of the hotel verses the salable square footage o f the new project. Tygre stated that to summarize the review conceptually the commission needed to decide i f they were in favor or not in favor of time-share and what conditions would be acceptable for the final review. Tygre asked for concerns in terms of the physical aspects o f height, architecture, access and accessory uses. Tygre asked the commission ifthe time-share aspect was acceptable. Erickson replied that it would be acceptable with conditions. Haneman said that it would be unacceptable. Buettow said that it would be acceptable with conditions. Tygre said that she agreed that it was acceptable with conditions and that the resolution as prepared would not go far enough to satisfy the commission; she said that a lot of work needed to be done on that resolution prior to P&Z approval. Vann stated that it would not be just removing the fourth floor because then it would look like a square; they would have to take out the third floor removing 17 or 18 units and not just 7 units from the fourth floor. He said that maximizing the number of keys was what the community wanted preserving 125 or more rooms. He said that they were not proposing a 3-story hotel at this point. Vann noted the approval was not based on the specifics ofthe time share details but the conceptual conditions. Tygre stated that the commission might not be opposed to the concept with assurances to move forward if there was a limitation on the number of weeks or shares of ownership and units owned by one person. Vann said that the condition could be that the applicant was put on notice and council 7 ASPEN PLANNING~~ONING COMMISSION ~ April 3. 2001 would be aware of that concern. Erickson noted that when conceptual was more defined then final was easier to be accomplished. Tygre expressed concern for the height of the structure as seen from Durant and the restaurant and bar would attract the public; the form of the structure remained the same with the elimination ofthe public spaces. Erickson suggested trying to incorporate the Silver Circle to a public/private space to be shared with the community. Vann stated that there could not be a re-design of the project but more discussion could be on what to do with minor changes on the property. Hoefer stated that there was no requirement on the Silver Circle and the review tonight was on Lots 3 and 5. The P&Z commissioners discussed the ways that the public interacted with the proposed building prior with public space and the new proposal did not include that space. Vann responded that they were not building a hotel per se and were not prepared to build a hotel per se with a restaurant but provided the same benefits to the community with sales tax and the other benefits. Erickson proposed continuing the meeting to prepare a resolution that included all of their considerations and concerns for clarity to the city council. Cohen replied that the he was comfortable with the resolution as it stood with the only change to condition #4 adding after the U or less with a maximum of one ownership share per person. Cohen stated that he bought into the applicant's chart that 80% would be full in October. Erickson stated that he would like to add conditions concerning owner usage that the owners provide calendars by April lst for the summer and August 3 lst for winter or they don't have usage of the units; the units become rental. Erickson stated concern for the large 3 and 4 bedroom vacation ownership type o f project; he said that he would rather see more units of smaller sizes. Vann said that the time-share issue was a conditional Ose and would not have been discussed until the final PUD application but this was at a conceptual level at this time. Vann said that it was imperative that this is moved forward and the P&Z commission's concerns be considered. MOTION: Eric Cohen moved to approve P&Z Resolution #14, series 2001 finding the amendment to the conceptual approval for Lot 5, Aspen Mountain PUD the Top of Mill site, with the conditions stated being consistent with the previously approved plans and adding to condition #4 after the "," or less with a maximum of one ownership share 8 . ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION April 3. 2001 per person. Ron Erickson second. Roll call vote: Haneman, no; Buettow, no, Cohen, yes; Erickson, yes; Tygre, no. DENIED 4-1. Discussion of motion: Haneman stated that he could not confirm the numbers from the other hotels and lodges in town and that the time-share units were at 23% owners of the 69% total occupancy for this past winter. He said that a hotel on this site accomplished more than a time-share could because o f the proximity to Wagner Field with Food and Wine, the Motherlode tournament and fRuggerfest. Haneman noted the property tax numbers would be about one-third o f that for a hotel, which would effect all the sources of income for the school and fire district. He said that would put the burden on the other businesses in town. Erickson agreed that there were problems with the numbers but had a problem denying an owner the right to develop his property how he wanted to as time-share. Erickson stated that the further away the project was moved from a 150-room hotel, the less benefit it was for the community. Haneman commented that this was being sold as an economic benefit. Vann stated that these issues were not appropriate at conceptual. Tygre noted the difference of opinion and there could be an objective motion submitted to council. MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to deny the amendment of the Aspen Mountain PUD based upon not having enough information to make an accurate determination at this time and the applicant preferred to move ahead. Eric Cohen second. Roll call vote: Cohen, yes; Buettow, no, Haneman, no; Erickson, no; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 3-2 to deny. Discussion of motion: Haneman said that the information was presented but he did not agree with it; he voted no. Erickson stated that he did not feel that the project as presented was a benefit to the community. Hoefer stated that the motion should be advisory to council and the P&Z commissioners agreed with him. Erickson stated that there were many issues unresolved. Tygre excused herself at 7:25 p.m. Writer noted that they believed that the time-share or vacation ownership component generated better occupancy for the community from the data that they gathered from accepted the industry sources. Writer said that this project would bring in more new blood than a hotel would, according to the industry figures. Meeting adjpumed_pt 7:35 pm 481kujdp.4.liÂ» (*kie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk ..............................................................................t 9 t . MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission THRU: Joyce Ohlson, Community Development Deputy Director ld~/,/' FROM: Fred Jarman, Planner Frid RE: 515 W. Gillespie St. -Historic Landmark Designation DATE: June 5th, 2001 lm. E -; 44 .. 4 A...Ire.. p- ' .i -Il, 4, 4 . 1~13; . 1.d'/'lli''...2 t jibilillill/"A , i Â· 1,-1 I . . . 11 .. 20. . 'r lit M \ - 02Â¢r \1 S ... . ir- .. - 1 i. .m'.1- I. IT ; - - I :lilli b . ..1 . ---- M..2. - *3 ~ > -- f - 11 i L , . --. . . 1 --*./....... *i-4 - I .......Ill-- 62.â‚¬:e.$,5.. 92.2-:4. Â· - :*:Â·3?si........I ///tiL-L - View showing the south fagade of the house with View showing the North and West fa~ades of the the non-historic single-story gable roofed form house. extending off the house. SUMMARY OF REQUEST Pamela and Neil Beck (the Applicant), represented by Randall Bone, is requesting approval for a Historic Landmark Designation for a property and residence located at 515 West Gillespie Avenue, City and Townsite of Aspen. Therefore, the Applicant requests the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval to the City Council for the Historic Landmark Designation. PROCESS The Land Use Code specifies the correct process related to this application. The matrix below outlines this process and decision-making responsibilities according to the appropriate City authorities. In addition, this requested land use approval for the historic landmark designation is evaluated against specific review criteria that are included as Exhibits in the rear portion of this memorandum. Land Use Request Hearing Body Decision Historic Landmark Planning & Zoning Recommendation to City Designation Commission Council Planning & Zoning Commission 1 6/5/01 . 0 BACKGROUND The subject property currently contains a two-story residence (pictured on the front cover of this Staff Report) is situated on a 9,210 square foot lot currently maintained on Aspen's Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures. The house was built in approximately 1887 and was originally located at 100 West Hopkins Avenue. It is approximately 1,681 square feet in size and is used as a single-family dwelling located in the R-6 Zone District. HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION Staff finds this structure meets three of the five standards used to review structures in the City of Aspen to be considered a historic landmark designation including 1) Architectural Importance, 2) Neighborhood Importance, and 3) Community Importance. Historic resources are finite and cannot be replaced, making them precious commodities and defining elements of a town's evolution. Historic resources are, in fact, slices of time, preserved to be appreciated and to help a community understand its past. This house is a strong example of how a valuable resource can be maintained and preserved with the evolution of a community. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend approval to City Council for historic landmark designation for a property located at 515 West Gillespie Avenue, with the following conditions: 1. That the Community Development Department shall adjust Aspen's Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures to include the subject property at 515 West Gillespie Avenue, Lots 4,5, and 6 of the Hallam Addition to be designated as historic landmarks; 2. That Lots 4,5, and 6 are designated historic landmarks and must receive HPC approval for all development in accordance with Section 26.415 of the Municipal Code, as well at Section 26.410, the "Residential Design Standards;" RECOMMENDED MOTION "I move to approve Resolution No, 19, Series 2001, recommending approval to City Council for a historic landmark designation for a property located at 515 West Gillespie Avenue, with the conditions stated herein." EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT A - HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION FINDINGS EXHIBIT B - RESOLUTION No. 2, SERIES OF 2001 EXHIBIT C - ARCHITECTURAL INVENTORY FORM Planning & Zoning Commission 2 6/5/01 .. EXHIBIT A HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION STANDARDS Any structure or site that meets two (2) or more of the following standards may be designated as an historic landmark. A. Historical importance. The structure or site is a principal or secondary structure or site commonly identified or associated with a person or an event of historical significance to the cultural, social, or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado, or the United States. Staff Finding In general, this structure is indicative of an upper middle class lifestyle during the last 1800's silver mining era. It is expressive of the materials, methods, and style of the period. Specifically, neither Staff nor the Applicant has any knowledge of any specific significant historical events or persons associated with this structure. In any event, it should not be dismissed that the Beck Family, who are the current owners, are also the same family that originally built the structure in 1887 (by Neil Beck's grandfather) and the family has continuously resided in the house until this time. While the Beck Family may not be considered as "significant persons" in the context of the City of Aspen and would not qualify as meeting this standard, Staff is aware that there are not too many unique situations such as this in Aspen. Staff finds this standard is not met. B. Architectural importance. Based on the building form, use, or specimen, the structure or site refects an architectural style that is unique, distinct, or of traditional Aspen character, or the structure or site embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique architectural type. Staff Finding Staff finds that the 515 Gillespie structure, built in approximately 1887, originally located at 100 West Hopkins and subsequently moved in 1971 to its current location, is an excellent 114 year old example of Aspen' s traditional Victorian Era architecture from before the turn of the century. Even though the house has been relocated, it has maintained its original form with the exception of a very minor single story shed detail on the rear of the house not seen from the street. A specific defining element of this architecture style includes a distinct roof form called the gable-end. This house style typically has a rectangular "T" shape plan with a gable roof with the ridge running perpendicular to the street as well as a cross gable form running parallel to the street. Most houses of this architectural type, as this house does, have a porch on the gabled end and a smaller roof is attached to the shelter porch. Planning & Zoning Commission 3 6/5/01 .. In Aspen, many of these porches have been closed r - i '219 in and incorporated the space in the interior of the * house that compromises the architectural integrity 9- and the original form. This house has not enclosed - - the porch element that continues to be one of its ; , - /I C 4.2 , ill. defining features along with classic turned posts. (Please refer to the photo to the right). Most 2-3 -~ 1!M - 2 1Â· houses of this era specific to Aspen also tend to be /4= m. 0 6- B wood sided and are 1 to 1 M stories; however this EII/IIL ---.- is an example of one which has 2 stories which is ~ uncommon. View of front porch and turned posts. Another interesting feature includes a small "hip" or "clipped gable" element on the gable roof ends as shown in the photo below. After examining other houses in the neighborhood and throughout the west end, there were virtually no other examples of this interesting architectural treatment. - It is because of all the aforementioned 1 jkÂ· 4 11& Â· li. -r . %. , reasons and defining architectural 1~, et ~ 43%...93.. ~/. i t I elements, that this structure, which is al' i, indicative of an upper middle class lifestyle during the last 1 800's silver A. / fs/fi - 4 I. 1 91 , f 1 V I| i - . mining era and is expressive of the 4 -1 *04* 1* \ materials, methods, and style of the period, that Staff finds this criterion to '41. 3, be met. . . 1,74.t V - .... ' Photo showing "clipped gable" roof forms as well as bay window details C. Designer. The structure is a significant work of an architect or designer whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. Staff Finding Neither Staff nor the Applicant has any information regarding the architect who designed this home; therefore, Staff finds that this criterion is not met. D. Neighborhood character. The structure or site is a significant component of a historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is importantfor the maintenance Of that neighborhood character. Planning & Zoning Commission 4 6/5/01 .. Staff Finding The structure is located in and is considered a very important historic element of the historic West End of Aspen that gains its character from the prominence of historic homes such as the subject home at 515 Gillespie Avenue. It is immediately located among other houses on the same half block fronting Gillespie Avenue that are more contemporary in nature that make this structure even more prominent as an important and historically distinct neighborhood structure. (See photos below) . Pey , 1 .i-J ..â€¢ . p. ..CE Z#Im'.p 7.0 -2161Â¥,t- 14*14/'103 1 - 7 * 4. r-,1--"ImIIC *4 --115*1~ Residence to the east. Residence to the west. In the blocks that surround 515 Gillespie, one finds a wide variety of house styles, ages, sizes, and so on. The preservation effort sought by the Applicant through this application will continue to allow this structure to add considerable value not only to the specific block but also to the traditional west end neighborhood. When viewed in context of the surrounding blocks, there are ten houses currently listed on Aspen's Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures; three of those structures maintain landmark status. This structure at 515 Gillespie Ave. is clearly a neighborhood-defining element that is complementary of the other three landmarked houses. Moreover, it is one of the better examples of Aspen' s historic past due to its uncompromised form and detailing which is an asset to Aspen's historic West End. Staff finds this criterion to be met. E. Community character. The structure or site is critical to the preservation of the character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size, location, and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or architectural importance. Staff Finding: In a similar perspective of neighborhood character, Staff finds that the 515 Gillespie single-family home is a critical site for preservation as it is already established as a home on the inventory and is an important and defining historical element in Aspen's Historic west end neighborhood as it relates to and adds to community character. The City of Aspen takes great pride in the fact that it has been able to preserve a great deal of its past so that future generations will be able to actually see the evolution of this small mountain town into what it is today. This structure is an important and original slice of time Planning & Zoning Commission 5 6/5/01 > .. showcasing an example of an upper middle class lifestyle during the last 1800's silver mining era and is expressive of the materials, methods, and style of the period. This structure and site is important because of its relationship to the existing neighborhood and other similar homes in terms of size, location, and architecture. Given that this unique two-story Victorian Era gable-end home is in excellent condition and remains as an excellent example of Aspen' s 19th century Late Victorian Age homes, it is a "city wide" resource that should not be lost to demolition but rather preserved as a historic structure. Essentially, there are a few homes in Aspen that have remained fairly true to original form with little modification to them. This house is one of the few that has maintained a true original form and design in its architectural elements defining its period of origination. So this house can be considered among the handful of very strong examples of Aspen's historic past. Staff finds this criterion to be met. N ~ GILLESPIE AVE S â‚¬44 9-6- 2 449~ PEARL CT bRTH ST 4Â»2 9-47 1 Â».â‚¬ 61.-inÂ« Ne,B sr Geographic Information System coverage showing the subject lot outlined in a heavy black outline. Planning & Zoning Commission 6 6/5/01 .. EXHIBIT B RESOLUTION NO. ~, SERIES OF 2001 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL FOR A HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 515 WEST GILLESPIE AVENUE, LOTS 4,5, AND 6, BLOCK 99, HALLAM ADDITION, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, ASPEN, COLORADO Parcel ID: 2735-121-11-007 WHEREAS, the applicant, Pamela and Neil Beck, represented by Randall Bone, has requested Historic Landmark Designation for a property located at 515 West Gillespie Avenue, Lots 4,5, and 6, Block 99, Hallam Addition, City of Aspen, Aspen, Colorado: WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission is a recommending body to the City Council regarding requests for historic landmark designations in the City of Aspen; and WHEREAS, prior to this resolution, the property is currently listed in the City of Aspen's Inventory of Historical Sites and Structures; and WHEREAS, this application for a Historic Landmark Designation meets standards 26.420.010(B) Architectural Importance, Standard 26.420.010(D) Neighborhood Importance, and Standard 26.420.010(E) Community Importance including all of the Development Review Standards in order for the Planning and Zoning Commission to recommend approval to City Council; WHEREAS, the Community Development Department determined the application for a Historic Landmark Designation meets the applicable review standards indicated above, and recommends approval with conditions to City Council; and WHEREAS, at a public hearing, which was legally noticed and held at a regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission on June 5th, 2001, at which time the Planning and Zoning Commission considered and found the application to meet the review standards, and recommended approval to the City Council for a Historic Landmark Designation with conditions by a vote of ~ to ~ (_* to ~__). 1 olD NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission recommends City Council approve the Historic Landmark Designation for 515 West Gillespie Avenue, with the following conditions: Planning & Zoning Commission 7 6/5/01 .. Section 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the requests for a recommendation to City Council for approval of the Historic Landmark Designation for 515 West Gillespie Avenue, is approved by Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission with the following conditions: 1. That the Community Development Department shall adjust Aspen's Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures to include the subject property at 515 West Gillespie Avenue, Lots 4,5, and 6 of the Hallam Addition to be designated as historic landmarks; 2. That Lots "A" and "B" are designated historic landmarks and must receive HPC approval for all development in accordance with Section 26.415 of the Municipal Code, as well at Section 26.410, the "Residential Design Standards;" Section 2: 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 3: 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 the 5th day of June, 2001. Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Robert Blake, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission 8 6/5/01 .. ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Deputy City Clerk H:\My Documents\Current Cases\HPC\515 W Gillespie\515WGillespie P and Z Memo.doc Planning & Zoning Commission 9 6/5/01 .. Exk , 6,1- C 1. . OAHP1403 Official eligibility determination Rev. 9/98 (OAHP use only) Date Initials COLORADO CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY Determined Eligible- NR Determined Not Eligible- NR Determined Eligible- SR Architectural Inventory Form Determined Not Eligible- SR (page 1 of 4) Need Data Contributes to eligible NR District Noncontributing to eligible NR District 1. IDENTIFICATION 1. Resource number: 5PT.272 2. Temporary resource number: 515.GIL (515.G) 3. County: Pitkin 4. City: Aspen 5. Historic building name: 6. Current building name: 7. Building address: 515 Gillespie Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 8. Owner name and address: Neil H. & Pamela Beck 515 Gillespie Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 11. Geographic Information 9. P.M. 6 Township 10 South Range 85 West SE 1/4 of SE 1/4 of NW W of NE M of Section 12 10. UTM reference Zone 1 _3_; -3_ -1- -2- 1_ -0- -2-mE -1__3 40060mN 11. USGS quad name: Asnen Quadranale Year: 1960, Photo Rev. 1987 Map scale: 7.5' X 15' Attach photo copy of appropriate map section. 12. Lot(s): 4,5, & 6 Block: 99 Addition: Hallam's Addition Year of Addition: 13. Boundary Description and Justification: Site is comprised of Lot 4,5 & 6, Block 99 of Hallam's Addition, Citv of Asoen. Assessors office Record Number: 2735-121-11-007 This description was chosen as the most soecific and customarv description of the site. 111. Architectural Description 14. Building plan (footprint, shape): T-Shaped Plan 15. Dimensions in feet: Length x Width 16. Number of stories: Two Story 17. Primary external wall material(s) (enter no more than two): Horizontal Wood Sidinq 18. Roof configuration: (enter no more than one): Hip-on-Gable Roof 19. Primary external roof material (enter no more than one): Asphalt Roof .. . Resource Number: 5PT.272 Temporary Resource Number: 515.GIL Architectural Inventory Form (page 2 of 2) 20. Special features (enter all that apply): Porch 21. General architectural description: A two storv wood frame structure. The street front has a clipped qable end facing the street, with a symmetrical window arrangement below. The first level principal window is a shallow bay with a pair of double hung windows, surrounded by wide flat trim with trianqular pediments above each window, and brackets supporting the hipped roof of the bay. A single double hung is centered above, on the second level. A shallow porch sits to the right of the front qable and has a low pitch shed roof infillinq the corner of the cross clable. The Dorch has turned posts with brackets to each side and to the front. A solid board runs across at the frieze level. The entrv door with transom, and a single double huna sit under the porch roof. A simple brick chimnev sits on the ridge of the cross qable and another one sits on the rear of the front gable. The cross aable roof continues down to the first level at the back of the house. Horizontal clapboard sidinq throughout with corner boards. Simple window openings on the east side, and a similar shallow bay sits on the west side. 22. Architectural style/building type: Late Victorian 23. Landscaping or special setting features: Three historic cottonwoods scattered in the front yard: one medium sized willow specimen also in front vard: original sandstone steps at Gillespie street: open irrigation ditch runs from northeast edge of side yard past northwest corner of house and continues along west property line. 24. Associated buildings, features, or objects: A single story, flat roof, garage sits at the back of the site. Horizontal wood sidinq with an overhead door on the alley. IV. Architectural History 25. Date of Construction: Estimate 1 880's - 90's Actual Source of information: Based on building style 26. Architect: Unknown Source of information: 27. Builder/Contractor: Unknown Source of information: 28. Original owner: Unknown Source of information: 29. Construction history (include description and dates of major additions, alterations, or demolitions): Building was relocated from Lots R & S, Blk 59 in 1971. Sidinq was covered with false brick, dates unknown, all pre 1980. New sidinq, other minor work, all earlv 1990's 30. Original location Moved X Date of move(s): 1971 .. . 'Resource Number: 5PT.272 Temporary Resource Number: 515.GIL Architectural Inventory Form (page 3 of 3) V. Historical Associations 31. Original use(s): Domestic 32. Intermediate use(s): 33. Current use(s): Domestic 34. Site type(s) Residential Neighborhood 35. Historical background: This structure is indicative of an upper middle class lifestyle during the Late 1800's silver minina era. It is expressive of the materials, methods and style of the period. 36. Sources of information: Pitkin Countv Courthouse records: Sanborn and Sons Insurance Maos; 1990 and 1980 Citv of Aspen Survey of Historic Sites and Structures VI. Significance 37. Local landmark designation: Yes No X Date of designation: Designating authority: 38. Applicable National Register Criteria: A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history; B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; X C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory. Qualifies under Criteria Considerations A through G (see Manual) Does not meet any of the above National Register criteria 39. Area(s) of significance: Architecture 40. Period of significance: Late 1800's Silver Minina Era 41. Level of significance: National State Local X 42. Statement of significance: This structure is significant for its position in the context of Aspen's mining era. It describes the nature of the life of an upper-class family or individual durina that period. as well as the construction techniaues. materials available and the fashion of the time. 43. Assessment of historic physical integrity related to significance: This structure is intact in its original form with reversed inappropriate sidinq materials. While the move does affect the integrity, the new location of the structure maintains a similar context and relationship to the street. VII. National Register Eligibility Assessment 44. National Register eligibility field assessment: Eligible Not Eligible X Need Data .. . Resoufce Number: 5PT.272 Temporary Resource Number: 515.GIL Architectural Inventory Form (page 4 of 4) 45. Is there National Register district potential? Yes No X Discuss: If there is National Register district potential, is this building: Contributing Noncontributing 46. If the building is in existing National Register district, is it: Contributing Noncontributing Vill. Recording Information 47. Photograph numbers: R9: F21, 22 and R18: F15 Negatives filed at: Aspen/Pitkin Communitv Development Deat. 48. Report title: Citv of Asoen Undate of Survev of Historic Sites and Structures, 2000 49. Date(s): 6/29/2000 50. Recorder(s): Suzannah Reid and Patrick Duffield 51. Organization: Reid Architects 52. Address: 412 North Mill Street, PO Box 1303, Aspen CO 81612 53. Phone number(s): 970 920 9225 NOTE: Please attach a sketch map, a photocopy of the USGS quad. map indicating resource location, and photographs. Colorado Historical Society - Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation 1300 Broadway, Denver, CO 80203 (303) 866-3395 0 0 515 Gillerpie fif 1/4 -:.1 f-1 ~ ~~ 1 - vical. 3 ill--IL. G M?*If .,L'*. 1- ~,=.- 4 F 7*U j 14.1 1 N e . A. 1 / - p D' 1 03=1~~\Â·Ezzz::~tz-~~Q---~- 42-231p dllÂ·4Â·%40*7-4=:gis-=>WA, .(Â· , %4,~n-1:3731>t Â·70f,,-i-@~P,Â·1(~/d//0/'/32!771 }-6,41-2 : r ~---423-OF-Ja 9 bm:% .FL?hil~ MUWAI' . ' Â·CO~~ Nj/hÂ» ~Of'lp/----// 0-1 C. 129%240*Â·49Â»Â«13Â»Â«+~ ~- 4441{9~Â»-0 1 I â€¢ / -''h. lan 1 0 1 , 2'Ekâ€¢ 1 NUC CA \4336, / / /jilttil~%4 022.:..S% 2-/Sifte/#NizI'ir./:.-Int~Nzili<El::.2.Ers./-/Z.tr:.1\-\: . I~~ 1*i - -- / h 1=25.13 1 11- _ 11* A G \1â‚¬=iN 2//457-7- *'14 /0 - 1.L#MI - -7121;* : 4-4 (473 ,~/ \ Awk~< ''jj f.) 546' \- A 4 \ 0 {AN.\ X . ' *r 1 4\- / 4. C=.1 â€¢.1Â«4 ' 9>~ -4 1 #1 9'e . C=~>- .6--ip 1:41'\ r-\â‚¬. 1 i' . 1/. 1 . 1 â€¢. 1/ P 0 4 - I & flot--- eiv,; ~ V-~ 4Â»===h*â‚¬:=:23:5.\. 4.- 4 { Â·7. :S 1 1 -91% ) '-Nac, 7-1.Ch~ ----L.10%4'. <==5~h . O /i Ork- /.'... 1 , \ -/ '1 1 /. / le '2 : *.i T ]Rpd jelltte~- f 42 - .t i \. UU eh OLE COURSE \'.~37 ~etlry~~ ..\4 1 L X Â·n l e, rk - Â·*~1<-a :f 2 ~ 5<---i,/&A r rr/f/Â«/~ 0/-2 % 1 'h 1- ./11 l El 1 1 l , 92 44: '6 9918 A 1,Â·94 3 /\\ I 1Â·\K'' 1 Â·f;:' ..44 11 Uff , 1 1 .CÂ«Â·1 4/ Â·92 1 .'''' r- . 1 . 't/\ ~21 3- i: Â»- Â·1. 11 '11/ 1 . 494 n Pil W. 0/ 4,7 1 4 059 O , l.11.i'~ek, . wag~ A j L/0 - 1 C .. efll -/CA LU /:ft....114*jc 79:....p-11 9 \ - 0 O V.â€ž 7/, 2 1. TE-\J*2\~\*4\11\~ ~g'+71~ ttwÂ· p~. 1 4 82 441 ' 31 r .. .../...3.2*C3Â· 1 f .3.\ 1 f -17 4.4 ' '"AL,420.93 -/ ~4==/*ID' ~ at . it.., I â€¢ U 1. U ... 8 411 / .:.. fÂ»-1.- r---7.21.:4 49'j W, / 03 144 f{~f / K. - 1 9,\ r L... .h \..1 . ft-- Â«-a + ~ Â«Â» .-h 1 O\'l . -1*4(: .t,Â·- - +-4 '~ 24{/1/10 // "\ f /7~ b - 1 14$61 J E . M ~ t, -- 'ci~F- ,. P 11)77'-1 1- 1.1.-1.\ 1 .S:)NgÂ£~..... .#â€¢i=w -- 8/7 /% 3=e - 111 1 ~, ,lÂ· ' .., , '<\~*d Hb~~C;fu 3 4 F:'4 2**cÂ·Â·24(: , 1 \ -n - .,6_Â·Watea==4* cl,fli : . 1,1,Â·1 i, IP .P 5 10 . 35:-T3*22*=4-Taril; .... #'.1. "* 4-b--- . : Ill \ 1 .â€¢-Â¥UA=:2 -0 - -- -7.1 \ / 11 11: 11/ 1.11 1 Â·Â·Â· Ill:uâ€¢I â€¢ â€¢'VI 1~ - Â« .. C -1-1 lit..= 111\ :1 2 . ... 1 111 11 44*f~Our\---\. /,24 . .- ..1.. r - $ \ 49% \ 1~ >~46 J)11(2,~Â·,1 ' '1' 10-f-21 N' .0 BR .... 1.-.... r.. 44% -+ J 1 1 it 1 1.-P) - w .1 ((11#: 4 3 / ' "''~ill,. art<~F/,BAÂ·14 44:- i C--. -*s' /&,11 1\1 fri )\ 1, All Survey Sites are included within the City of Aspen limits, Aspen Quadrangle See Sketch map for identification of specific location and building context Colorado-Pitkin County 1960, Photo Revised 1987 Scale: 1:24 7.5 Minute Survey GN ~ ~120 1 - O 1 MILE SCALE 1:24 000 2 ~ F-----1 ++ H.-) 1 Â°09' I 213 MILS 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 FEET -Erf AtÂ»-4- lili 1 .5 0 1 KILOMETER H-HHHI 7 UTM GRID AND 1987 MAGNETIC NORTH CONTOUR INTERVAL 40 FEET DECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929 3 4/)11(.- .. 515 West Gillespie Historic Renovation Proposal To: The City Of Aspen CC: Pamela and Neil Beck Date: February 12,2001 Planning and Zoning Commission Subject: 515 W. Gillespie: From: Randall Bone Landmark Designation and Conditional Use for a (Representative) Duplex or two Single Family Dwelling Units. A Brief History of the Historic Home at 515 West Gillespie The historic home at 515 West Gillespie was originally built by Neil Beck's grandfather around 1887. The home was originally located at 100 West Hopkins. Neil's Beck's grandfather raised Alta and Henry Beck (Neil's father) in the home. Neil and Pamela Beck raised their four children in the home as well. In 1971 the Beck's decided to move their home to its current location at 515 West Gillespie. The house was remodeled during the 1971 move but the primary elevations of the exterior (except the rear) remain essentially intact (new siding and roofing were installed but architecture and historic trim remain intact) Project Description: Property consisting of Lots 4,5 and 6 of Hallam's addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, also know as 515 Gillespie. The property is proposed to be designated an historic landmark. Property is proposed to be split into two lots per attached plan. One lot of 3,540 square feet to contain the historic home and one lot of 6,000 square feet to contain a duplex or 2 single family dwelling units. The 4,612 available FAR (including the Historic Lot Split Bonus) is to be divided between the properties as follows: New Lots Gross Lot Square Feet Allocated FAR Lot A 3,540 1,712 (including the Bonus) Lot B 6,000 2,900 Subsequent to the lot split and duplex conditional use approval, the historic home now located on the property will be move west onto the newly formed lot. Pending final design approval by the Historic Preservation Commission, the historic home will be restored with a minor addition to the rear of the home (the home will actually be reduced in size closer to its historic size). In addition, two single-family dwellings will be built on Lot B both ofwhich will be subject to design review by the HPC. .. The matrix below outlines all the proper procedures for the different requests and the appropriate decision making body for the applications Steps Land Use Request Hearing Body 1 Landmark Designation Historic Preservation Historic Landmark Lot Split Commission 500 SF FAR Bonus Request House Moving Permit Conceptual Design Approval Requested Variances 2 Landmark Designation Planning and Zoning Conditional Use for 2 Single Family Dwellings 3 Landmark Designation City Council Historic Landmark Lot Split 4 Final Design Approval Historic Preservation Commission Review Criteria: The project meets the criteria for the landmark designation and duplex conditional use as follows: Historic Landmark Designation: a. Historic Importance-. Although the home was built and continuously occupied by the Beck family since its construction, there is not know to be any historic significance to the cultural, social or political history of Aspen associated with the site. b. Architectural Importance: The site represents an unique, significant and intact architectural style of the historic Victorian tradition of Aspen. c. Designer: The home is not know to be a significant work of an architect or designer whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. d. Neighborhood Character: The home is a significant component of the historically significant West End neighborhood of Aspen. Preservation ofthis structure is important for the maintenance of this character. e. Community Character. Because it represents a unique and intact piece or Aspen history which are relatively few in number, preservation of he home at 515 Gillespie is critical to the preservation ofthe character ofthe Aspen Community. The 515 Gillespie home qualifies for Historic Landmark Designation based upon satisfying criteria B, D and E Criteria for Historic Landmark Lot Split: 1. The original parcel is a minimum of 9,000 square feet and located in the R-6 zone district. 2. The total FAR for both residences (4,112 not including 500 square feet for historic lot split) does not exceed the floor area allowed for a duplex on the original parcel (4,112 SF based on lot size of 9,540 square feet). 3. The proposal meets all the dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. Other Criteria for Lot Split: a. The property has not been subdivided since March 24, 1969 b. No more than 2 lots will be created by the lot split c. The lot was not previously subject of a subdivision exemption d. No additional subdivision will be undertaken on the property. Units in addition to the duplex units will be subject to growth management allocation. e. Subdivision and exemption agreement will be recorded within 180 days following approval by the City Council. f. The historic dwelling will not be demolished but rather will be moved on site. g. Proposed project includes no more than 3 units, consisting of 2 single family dwellings (or a duplex) and a single family home. Conditional Use: As described above, the proposal for 515 Gillespie is compatible with other permitted uses in the zone district while creating significant benefits for the community of Aspen and its residents through preservation of an unique historic structure as well as increasing the supply and diversity of resident housing within the City. a. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Community Plan, and with the intent of the zone district in which it is to be located. The design is consistent with the historic scale and relationships found within the West End, including streetscape patterns and alley access of all homes. A 3 home design rather than 2 allows for the massing of the homes to be balanced, reducing the development added to the historic home while keeping the new home(s) from overwhelming and diminishing the visual importance and impact of their historic neighbor. b. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for the development and the surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for the development. The homes immediately surrounding the parcel are a mix of a large Victorian renovation/addition, a mid size "rear home" of contemporary styling which was subdivided from the large Victorian lot, and a large corner home built in a contemporary style on the 60's. Given these surrounding uses and the compatibility with the overall .. scale and massing of the West End, the proposed development is compatible and complimentary with the character of the immediately surrounding uses. c. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties. By designing the proposal with 3 homes rather than 2 and placing the 3rd home in the rear, the critical visual streetscape impact is minimized and the traditional massing and relationships between the homes can be preserved. Impacts to pedestrian and vehicular circulation are minimized by allowing for alley access for all homes. Trash, service delivery, noise, vibration and odor will be accordance with typical existing residential uses. d. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems and schools. Existing public infrastructure is sufficient to serve the property. Development and building fees are intended to cover incremental demand on facilities. e. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use. The development of the duplex/2 single family site will be subject to payment of the affordable housing mitigation payments based upon the FAR used in that development. The payments are expected to be approximately $84,000. General Review Criteria in the "H" Historic Overlay District: 1. By building 3 small homes on the site (including the historic renovation) an additional family will be housed in Aspen as opposed to a more common design approach with 2 larger homes. This will reduce automobile traffic and congestion into town as well as providing a greater diversity of smaller, more affordable housing options for Aspen residents. As evidence, all 3 of the proposed homes are currently being built by Aspen locals as their homes. All three of these Aspen residents are currently residing in condominiums. 2. The proposed development provides for two lots that are approximately 40 feet wide at the street. While this is in excess ofthe traditional 30' lot widths common in the historic west end, the extra space will enhance the integrity of the historic structure while preserving the traditional massing and relationships of historic homes in the west end. 3. The addition to the historic structure is planned to be relatively small in comparison to the existing historic structure, will be less than the existing height and width ofthe 0 . structure and will be added to the rear of the structure minimizing any visual impact on : the appearance ofthe historic from Gillespie street. Prior Resolutions: No deed restrictions are recorded with the County Clerk's Office and a complete search by the Clerk's Office of the City of Aspen found no record of any prior resolutions or agreements pertaining to the property. Variances Requested: Due to the extra depth of this parcel and the unique lot configuration required to create the historic lot split which preserves the historic structure with minimal additional development (it is actually being reduced in size), the applicant is requesting the side yard setback for the front home be reduced from 10 feet to 5 feet. The 15 foot side yard required by a 6,000 SF lot is generally associated with much wider lots of 60 or more in width and homes much larger than the 2,000 square foot home proposed for the front of the lot. The 5 foot variance will allow for the development ofthe two front homes in a relationship which is in accordance with the traditional 5 foot side yard setbacks typically found throughout the West End for homes of this size. ATTACHMENTS: Site Plan as Existing Site Plan as Proposed Streetscape Rendering . 7 .. 515 West Gillespie Historic Renovation Proposal To: The City Of Aspen CC Pamela and Neil Beck Date: February 12, 2001 Planning and Zoning Commission Subject: 515 W. Gillespie: From: Randall Bone Landmark Designation and Conditional for a Duplex or (Representative) two Single Family Dwelling Units. A Brief History of the Historic Home at 515 West Gillespie The historic home at 515 West Gillespie was originally built by Neil Beck' s grandfather around 1887. The home was originally located at 100 West Hopkins. Neil's Beck's grandfather raised Alta and Henry Beck (Neil's father) in the home. Neil and Pamela Beck raised their four children in the home as well. In 1971 the Beck's decided to move their home to its current location at 515 West Gillespie. The house was remodeled during the 1971 move but the primary elevations of the exterior (except the rear) remain essentially intact (new siding and roofing were installed but architecture and historic trim remain intact) Project Description: Property consisting of Lots 4,5 and 6 of Hallam's addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, also know as 515 Gillespie. The property is proposed to be designated an historic landmark. Property is proposed to be split into two lots per attached plan. One lot of 3,540 square feet to contain the historic home and one lot of 6,000 square feet to contain a duplex or 2 single family dwelling units. The 4,612 available FAR (including the Historic Lot Split Bonus) is to be divided between the properties as follows: Newtot/?41. .: .:,14 0 04% 1Â· ~tf Loâ‚¬Squard Febt,3.,?ff Â· :ff~Yr~CelCZg 2.,8..oLI I,(:-<1~- Lot A Lot B 6,000 2,900 Subsequent to the lot split and duplex conditional use approval, the historic home now located on the property will be move west onto the newly formed lot. Pending final design approval by the Historic Preservation Commission, the historic home will be restored with a minor addition to the rear ofthe home (the home will actually be reduced in size closer to its historic size). In addition, two single-family dwellings will be built on Lot B both ofwhich will be subject to design review by the HPC. .. The matrix below outlines all the proper procedures for the different requests and the appropriate decision making body for the applications Steps , Land Use Request i - , Heaung Body 1 Landmark Designation Historic Preservation Historic Landmark Lot Split Commission 500 SF FAR Bonus Request House Moving Permit Conceptual Design Approval Requested Variances 2 Landmark Designation Planning and Zoning Conditional Use for 2 Single Family Dwellings 3 Landmark Designation City Council Historic Landmark Lot Split 4 Final Design Approval Historic Preservation Commission Review Criteria: The project meets the criteria for the landmark designation and duplex conditional use as follows: Historic Landmark Designation: a. Historic Importance: Although the home was built and continuously occupied by the Beck family since its construction, there is not know to be any historic significance to the cultural, social or political history of Aspen associated with the site. b. Architectural Importance: The site represents an unique, significant and intact architectural style of the historic Victorian tradition of Aspen. c. Designer: The home is not know to be a significant work of an architect or designer whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. d. Neighborhood Character: The home is a significant component of the historically significant West End neighborhood of Aspen. Preservation of this structure is important for the maintenance of this character. e. Communi(F Character: Because it represents a unique and intact piece or Aspen history which are relatively few in number, preservation of he home at 515 Gillespie is critical to the preservation of the character of the Aspen Community. The 515 Gillespie home qualifies for Historic Landmark Designation based upon satisfying criteria B, D and E Criteria for Historic Landmark Lot Split: f. The original parcel is a minimum of 9,000 square feet and located in the R-6 zone district. g. The total FAR. for both residences (4,112 not including 500 square feet for historic lot split) does not exceed the floor area allowed for a duplex on the original parcel (4,112 SF based on lot size of 9,540 square feet). h. The proposal meets all the dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. Other Criteria for Lot Split: a. The property has not been subdivided since March 24, 1969 b. No more than 2 lots will be created by the lot split c. The lot was not previously subject of a subdivision exemption d. No additional subdivision will be undertaken on the property. Units in addition to the duplex units will be subject to growth management allocation. e. Subdivision and exemption agreement will be recorded within 180 days following approval by the City Council. f. The historic dwelling will not be demolished but rather will be moved on site. g. Proposed project includes no more than 3 units, consisting of 2 single family dwellings (or a duplex) and a single family home. Conditional Use: As described above, the proposal for 515 Gillespie is compatible with other permitted uses in the zone district while creating significant benefits for the community of Aspen and its residents through preservation of an unique historic structure as well as increasing the supply and diversity of resident housing within the City. a. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Community Plan, and with the intent o f the zone district in which it is to be located. The design is consistent with the historic scale and relationships found within the West End, including streetscape patterns and alley access of all homes. A 3 home design rather than 2 allows for the massing of the homes to be balanced, reducing the development added to the historic home while keeping the new home(s) from overwhelming and diminishing the visual importance and impact of their historic neighbor. b. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for the development and the surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for the development. The homes immediately surrounding the parcel are a mix of a large Victorian renovation/addition, a mid size "rear home" of contemporary styling which was subdivided from the large Victorian lot, and a large corner home built in a contemporary style on the 60's. Given these surrounding uses and the compatibility with the overall scale and massing of the West End, the proposed development is compatible and complimentary with the character of the immediately surrounding uses. c. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties. By designing the proposal with 3 homes rather than 2 and placing the 3rd home in the rear, the critical visual streetscape impact is minimized and the traditional massing and relationships between the homes can be preserved. Impacts to pedestrian and vehicular circulation are minimized by allowing for alley access for all homes. Trash, service delivery, noise, vibration and odor will be accordance with typical existing residential uses. d. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems and schools. Existing public infrastructure is sufficient to serve the property. Development and building fees are intended to cover incremental demand on facilities. e. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use. The development of the duplex/2 single family site will be subject to payment of the affordable housing mitigation payments based upon the FAR used in that development. The payments are expected to be approximately $84,000. General Review Criteria in the "H" Historic Overlay District: 1. By building 3 small homes on the site (including the historic renovation) an additional family will be housed in Aspen as opposed to a more common design approach with 2 larger homes. This will reduce automobile traffic and congestion into town as well as providing a greater diversity of smaller, more affordable housing options for Aspen residents. As evidence, all 3 of the proposed homes are currently being built by Aspen locals as their homes. All three of these Aspen residents are currently residing in condomimums. 2. The proposed development provides for two lots that are approximately 40 feet wide at the street. While this is in excess of the traditional 30' lot widths common in the historic west end, the extra space will enhance the integrity of the historic structure while preserving the traditional massing and relationships of historic homes in the west end. 3. The addition to the historic structure is planned to be relatively small in comparison to the existing historic structure, will be less than the existing height and width of the structure and will be added to the rear of the structure minimizing any visual impact on the appearance of the historic from Gillespie street. .. Prior Resolutions: No deed restrictions are recorded with the County Clerk's Office and a complete search by the Clerk's Office of the City of Aspen found no record of any prior resolutions or agreements pertaining to the property. Valiances Requested: Due to the extra depth of this parcel and the unique lot configuration required to create the historic lot split which preserves the historic structure with minimal additional development (it is actually being reduced in size), the applicant is requesting the side yard setback for the front home be reduced from 10 feet to 5 feet. The 15 foot side yard required by a 6,000 SF lot is generally associated with much wider lots of 60 or more in width and homes much larger than the 2,000 square foot home proposed for the front of the lot. The 5 foot variance will allow for the development of the two front homes in a relationship which is in accordance with the traditional 5 foot side yard setbacks typically found throughout the West End for homes of this size. ATTACHMENTS: Site Plan as Existing Site Plan as Proposed Streetscape Rendering GILLESPIE AVE. 1 i . 2 00~, NET REBAR Â¢ CAE L 6 104 (113j ) EAST 77 83'\ 1 \ 0 A 0 13.51 3 Â¢ 1 r e K * 1 '. 1 10 opi r- ,r-- ~ i 7 1- 7 71 5 47 f 3 1 9 / /1Â»3 ~./~3'I 11 | ._- vvaDO DE.< 01 0 / 11 - 1 i /i11l1jil'i //// \0 I 1 1 1 Il f ./ 1 " r : /'Â»No 5Togr 0~12-~ 49 T HOUSE | I 1I 1 //// // I // 1 /1 ./ 05 OH .-- 07 to////4/3 01 Q rl 1 1.3.3 ./5./ ' 112 8'r -- De OH lo C fÂ·Â· r rÂ· u-r + -/5. 7- 1 1 1 1 l o. e O. H. 1 D 1- 1 1 / / f / / Â»9 O1 oll Fl 1% 13 --4Â»913 7~ /1 it 1 9 ff//1/11\ 1 1 / / i / if\ 1 1 1 T... J 1 / / .. ~13 fiff-~ i-~ 0 10 313 - T- - -5-8-23-07---1 1 1/ 17 gi 00 1 '75 - I .1 1 61- 4F - 4 82u Â° - 02' 10" 7/ 78.50' Q RDUND: RE# L.9. ALLEY OOH . NOK 1 H 11 / Â·'14.' , 99 Â£31 I . , A County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PIJRSUANT } ss. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS State of Colorado } SECTION 26.304.060(E) 1, --~4-04,32.-E , being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements pursuant to Section 26.304.060(E) ofthe Aspen Municipal Code in the following manner: 1. By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class postage prepaid U.S. Mail to all owners ofproperty within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, as indicated on the attached list, on the 2 l day of ~24/U-1 , 200 f (which is 9/ days prior to the public hearing date of 4pwl ,* ,o 2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously from the 2/ day of 1~1.'-7 , 2001, to the Â¥-' day of Ap,4 , 200 1 .(Must be posted for at least ten (10) full days before the hearing date). A photograph ofthe posted sign is attached hereto. 1 /+0 t- Signature (Attach photograph here) Signed before me this2 1 day of f@~FBEt.lnA-~ 2001. by <1(2129- WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My Commission expires: My Corr,nbsion B,ires Notary Public August 28. 2001 12~ Nolm, Puble Slate of Colorado . , I PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 515 WEST GILLESPIE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, April 3rd, 200 l at a meeting to begin at 5:00pm before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen to consider an application submitted by Randall Bone requesting Landmark Designation and Conditional Use for a Duplex or Two Single Family Residences. The property is located at 515 West Gillespie and is described as Lots 4,5 and 6 of Hallam's Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen. For further information, contact Fred Jarman at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 970 920 5102 fredi@,ci.aspen. co.us Robert Blake, Chair Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times City of Aspen Account . PRAZER WILLIAM R & JANE Z KAUS PETER & EVA ~ PETERSON JAMES D FAMILY TRUST PETERSON HENSLEY R 8401 VISTA LN . 433 W GILLESPIE PO BOX 1714 PRESCOTT AZ 86301 ASPEN CO 81611 ASPEN CO 81612 DURAND LOYAL m DR & BERNICE NORTH FOURTH STREET ODOM JOHN A JR BLACK ASSOCLATES ODOMLORRIEFURMAN 4314 FAWN CT RT 1 C/O MIKE CONVISOR 11490 W 38TH AVE CROSS PLAINS WI 53528 PO BOX I I WHEATRIDGE CO 80033 ASPEN CO 81612 UHLFELDER NAOMI COLLINS CHARLES & JANICE S AARONSON JEFFREY C PO BOX 1165 PO BOX HH P O BOX 10131 ASPEN CO 81612 ASPEN CO 81612 ASPEN CO 81612 SALTER JAMES BECK NEIL H & PAMELA CHRIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH P O BOX 765 515 W GILLESPIE ST 536 NORTH ST BRIDGEHAMPTON NY 11932 ASPEN CO 81611 ASPEN CO 81611 KNURR GOLDIE P & WERNER HODGES ELAINE C O'SHANA CATHY 603 W GILLESPIE ST 2020 S MONROE #118 108 ROBBINS ST ASPEN CO 81611-1242 DENVER CO 80210 OSTERVILLE MA 02655 ELGART ALICE CLARE GOLDSMITH GOLDSMITH ANDREW LUBIN 1/3 GOLDSMITH JOHN JOSEPH 1/3 1/3 - 1344 N DOHENY DR 733 25TH ST 27 E 62ND ST 6TH FL LOS ANGELES CA 90000 SANTA MONICA CA 90400 NEW YORK NY 10001 LUETKEMEYER JOHN A JR & ELLIOTT ELYSE A MCCARTY DANIEL L SUZANNE F 610 NORTH ST SCHREIBER EUGENE H & STANFORD PO BOX 4051 ASPEN CO 81611 17 W PENNSYLVANIA AVE ASPEN CO 81612 TOWSON MD 21204 MCCARTY DANIEL L MUSIC ASSOCIATES OF ASPEN INC ASPEN INSTITUTE INC PO BOX 4051 2 MUSIC SCHOOL RD 1000 N 3RD ST ASPEN CO 81612 ASPEN CO 81611-8500 ASPEN CO 81611 STUNDA STEVEN R NITZE WILLIAM A RICHARDS ANN K 515 5TH ST 1537 28TH ST NW 1537 28TH ST NW ANNAPOLIS MD 21403 WASHINGTON DC 20007 WASHINGTON DC 20007 LEWIS ADAM HELZBERG SHIRLEY BUSH TRUSTEE SMALL ALBERT H & SHIRLEY S C/O KATHLEEN HONOHAN QUALIFIED PERSONAL RESIDENCE 7116 GLENBROOK RD @NATIONAL CITY BANK TRUST BETHESDA MD 20814 1900 E 9TH ST LOC 2030 5805 MISSION DR CLEVELAND OH 44114 SHAWNEE MISSION KS 66208 ATUSGRAVE MARJORY M ~ FOX SAM ~ HOFFMAN JOHN L FOX MARILYN 629 W NORTH ST 1035 W 57TH ST 7701 FORSYTH BLVD STE 600 '0 ASPEN CO 81611 KANSAS CITY MO 64113 CLAYTON MO 63105 GREENWOOD JIM COHEN ROGER L 1035 W 57TH ST 1035 W 57TH ST KANSAS CITY MO 64113 KANSAS CITY MO 64113 .. d r 4 1, 4" 1 t,A ' k -. - I tr .