The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand 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 , .... , Ell. ~dt Ilocord No_e F~m Reports Format lob tle~ , c"j !.J .!!l 2J +. 4:J.J.<3 ~4'. ~ i iii S> .'1 ).' " ")~-~:.:Jd~~. Rouling~istOfll I ~lion. 1 Subf.lI...t. I \!okJation Main I AOJdting Slotu. I AlchlEng I p.,ce!. I Cu.tom Fjeld. Permit Twe laslu ...:JAspen Lmld Use 2004 Addre..I530 E HOPKINS AVE City IASPEN P.lI.i Irlormation M....r P.rmit 1 .;J Project I ~ De;cripljon I ESA-804 GREENLlNE. STREAM MARGIN Submit.d IHAAS lAND PlANNING 925.7819 r V~bleontlreweb? I!IodUe Help . c.' Ll ~ Ii >> Permit" IOO13.2005ASLU ~ ApVSut.1 S tote rco-:::J ZIp 181611 PuRl< ConvnOtll I Attac:bment. Feej I Fee Summ..-~ I Action; .dji ROlblg Queue I""" Statu; lpending ~___.._c= ! Appied 10212512005 ~ Approved I ..Ell lnued I 1JJ Fi'laIl 1!J I ElIp...10212012OO6 f!l CIoc:k IRuming Doy; ro Permit ID: I 33082 -OwneJ Laot Nom.IAUSTIN LAWRENCE PAR ij Phon. 1(970) 920.4988 214 W iii.~~Ti~j;.E!.;i~!:'~ (. Fir$tN~el 314 S GALENA ST ASPEN CD 81611 _______. J ;j:l ...... -- DEVELOPMENT ORDER of the City of Aspen Community Development Department This Development Order, hereinafter "Order", is hereby issued pursuant to Section 26.304.070, "Development Orders", and Section 26.308.0]0, "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 26.308.0 I O. 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, 20 IN. Mill St. # I 08, Aspen, CO 81611 Property Owner's Name, Mailing Address and telephone number East 7.6' of Lot P and Lots O-R, Block 93, Citv and Townsite of Aspen Legal Description and Street Address of Subject Property Mountain View Plane Review Exemption- Construction of 2 Single-Familv 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) Mav 7, 2005 Effective Date of Development Order (Same as date of publication of notice of approval.) Mav 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 Development Director. by the City of Aspen Community Chris Bendon, Community Development Director ,....,.... - PUBLIC NOTICE Of DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval ofa 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 of 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 in The Aspen Times on May 7, 2005 RESOLUTION NO. 14 (SERIES OF 2005) d\~o. !-I;pYouec( loy ~1---2. OM 9-/;c;jo3 /""'- " A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING AN EXEMPTION FROM MOUNTAIN VIEW PLANE REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT THIRTY-ONEJ'pOT TALL ADDITIONS TO EACH OF THE TWO (2) WESTERNMOST CONN~R 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 In: 2737-073-31-003 Parcel In: 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 four to two (4-2) vote, approved the proposed exemption trom 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 "p"", ~~" """ 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 fmds 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 , , 4. A.aJ fp tMt!) fU Dr-€?;; (}\'\~(~~1V\0 \Utv0 ~(/ ~ieAAJ r~1 Cuti<< - C52 ArcM ,1~dxe. ~. . ~evJ d.rctwl"'~ ~ wI ~ ~0\It~ ,j . L- 'Wbl\u- ArrnV\~ ~~~ - Svp~. lh~l~i:] /VIi,,<v \JP i~ ~d it-P. A WY\; - \jfe.w \f{c,V]es ch<Jd ~ ~-kdco1~ ~'I"'~~ of-- ~t- sy::e.u'c...) VI~- MOcS.- kt\.IIL sK1e;t- l+~, k ~ l:.1v^€j - IV\ ~VO/ k ~ ~k. ~L-.-t -t-k.. 0-t1'l.0/" l%ve. d--\JP> A ~V\I'e- hrrWcAo{ ~ SupP"~ ' c::::~ l+u~ ~WLCVl ~ c::;'M.J1o\ 00fw~ f-t1l<; IS w~~ ('e~ v~ c:::;,1~ VeT ~w~ 4=. ~ Sy\#z, - ~ F rot- , , IS W\~~ l.ea..S00' ~ Nt\V\CA..f ~l - ~, SVv\o.!1 l<:.sv~ free. ~I;r-- .;;.1;1 .bl~ \Jl ~ . A-~ MfN\.c/:r, - ~rwts. [c;"" I,..vt- c;; bed rv~ ~ Ak ~ ~ vM-X. Me.2w-F- . A/U~I~ -~ ~~~~ A-f'P\~ ---&...~. ~:Jb~v"\ ~ - ~. ttrv r!i/f7 rtI~ ~~, 1Vf. ~<I~ f:> ~ ~ h<+. ~~ilr^ f~ - ~. ~~ <;;.,0. += Geb b~ he. J ~~.s ~""'-S ~ f~-:f:,u.(d~ t ,-_.~--~..-. .- ._.....".,-~>----~,-,_.._._-------_..- ~..-._._-- / J A ~ef!J ~I~~ -tff::u ~wds - ~ ~Cv~ ~~ ~ ~JIc. - ~~. 4w<=s=we. rj~ ~-t- P'""j~c.f- ...{;. ~, ~ i::er~ ~1iM::> - <?~~ tt-pc..-. 1M~!:x:r- 4 krz.., Vevh? _ s~. 11 . ~-~~. ~p:;. . ~Mi",e. ..... ~ o~ .-- - ... <)7-;;/l j-vb 1(; + $,^~- ~d 'PTl>j~ ~~ 'I ~ L~ -fv+we. Must-- be.. ~<-f- Wi<; h f'l..~ W:4.5> MDre. ~ iI\~ ~..t- 'Y';',..z RvJio/lMJ. , (I ......L.. _ . ~c.t= . ~ ~F:A<t;'L- '~, ~"'^ .,----- . <.:>-(- c:.4..k ,^^, '~c.v- <---p-<<t- c-... \/p. , ~.ft:ve SOlub;x..." ~dFS . ~pw'h. ~~. -e ~--- ~Hi<- ~~ ~ S\wJJcl -1- ~1A.V\ =~. + J2v~..-=- S'6"";, ksts or ~pur+-. ~ <p~. ~\q~ wi ~k.. i<<x-l--. "tn)'eq- ~ ~V\ 0i6tJ.- ~fW"ls. w\l\ IIS~ (e ovff- ~ ~ \ l 1111 4- ~. o - {l ~f~d. . ~t: :f I :t . ; " . . ',~ ',: , ,{ ,. II ., - ~ r ' I I ~. ~ I" ..... , \.../ /','" ~-' NA-~ P3 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Joyce Allgaier, Community Development Deputy Director FROM: James Lindt, Planner:(v RE: 530 and 532 E. Hopkins Court House View Plane Exemption Review- Continued Public Hearing DATE: April 19, 2005 ApPLICANT: Austin Lawrence Partners, LLC REPRESENTATIVE: Mitch Haas, Haas Land Planning, LLC Michael N oda, Oz Architecture LOCATION: 530 and 532 E. Hopkins Ave. ZONING: Commercial Core (CC) & Historic District Overlay CURRENT LAND USE: Vacant Single-Family Residences PROPOSED LAND USE: Mixed Use Development consisting of office and single-family residential uses. PREVIOUS ApPROVALS: The Historic Preservation Commission granted Conceptual HPC approval for the proposed development. SUMMARY: The Applicant is proposing to demolish the non-historic additions on northern portion of the Connor Cabins and replace them with thirty-one (31) foot tall additions to the sites. Cabin Sites Subject to View Plane Exemption :;~: __ JLX~!*~ REVIEW PROCEDURE The Applicant requests an exemption from the Court House View Plane Review to construct the proposed additions to the Connor Cabin sites because the two (2) westernmost cabins sit on parcels located within the two (2) designated Court House View Planes as are set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.435.050, Mountain View Plane Review. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the requested view plane exemption request. If the Commission does not believe that the proposal satisfies the criterion for exempting it from the full view plane review, the Commission may require the application to r--- ,...."., ''--../ ...." 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 Bui]ding 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 complete]y 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 mav 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 mav 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. r-- \. ~ " ....." P7 RESOLUTION NO. 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 A VENUE, 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 (3]) 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 of2005; 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 _ L--.J 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 proposallmder 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 Conunission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the I""' "",....... -"'"" "-' pg ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk ,"""'~-" ~. ""'" ....; P11 and 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 infringed upon, except as provided in Section 26.435.050 (C)(2). 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 re- redevelopment to re-open the view plane cannot be anticipated, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall approve the development. Lf/1'Z!0S /M+ 51. Vtfe.. 1'0..?<<r-a :J- J:J- .u.. Q. II J#f 1_ MEMORANDUM v' ofe iCJ I n rtCOfAS ,(jell' Jinl v'of- a. +0 ~~h'vt If -to Jt/lf( I 530 and 532 E. Hopkins Court House View Plane Exemption ~ INfOV'tl...l ~ Review- Public Hearing ~ ~I ilL- April ] 2, 2005 ,...-.-." TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission ~AA . Joyce Allgaier, Community Development Deputy Director THRU: FROM: James Lindt, Planner RE: DATE: ApPLICANT: Austin Lawrence Partners, LLC REPRESENTATIVE: Mitch Haas, Haas Land Planning, LLC Michael Noda, Oz Architecture LOCATION: 530 and 532 E. Hopkins Ave. ZONING: Commercial Core (CC) & Historic District Overlay CURRENT LAND USE: Vacant Single-Family Residences PROPOSED LAND USE: Mixed Use Development consisting of office and single-family residential uses. PREVIOUS ApPROVALS: The Historic Preservation Commission granted Conceptual HPC approval for the proposed development. SUMMARY: The Applicant is proposing to demolish the non-historic additions on northern portion of the Connor Cabins and replace them with thirty-one (31) foot tall additions to the sites. Cabin Sites Subject to View Plane Exemption ...-- REVIEW PROCEDURE The Applicant requires an exemption from the Court House View Plane Review to construct the proposed additions to the Connor Cabin sites because the two (2) westernmost cabins sit on parcels located within the two (2) designated Court House View Planes as are set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.435.050, Mountain View Plane Review. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the requested view plane exemption request. ]f the Commission does not believe that the proposal satisfies the criteria for exempting it from the full view 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. ]n 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. In 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 much of the development proposed on the center of the Connor Cabin properties as is illustrated in the photo below. Aspen Plaza Building *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 ".., '...... ".-0' 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 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"ofLot P, and all of Lots Q and R, Block 93, City and Townsite of Aspen." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit B -- Application '" ,/;~' - RESOLUTION NO. 11 (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 10: 2737-073-31-003 Parcel 10: 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 of2005; 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 ]2, 2005, the Planning and Zoning Commission, by a ~ to ~ L-_) 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 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 tlllly 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 Apri] 12,2005. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney Jasmine Tygre, Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk ~ " :i-J C OlMvvttSSJOVt. L()wrM~q f} ~ 110. V\ ..... Mol-) I ~ VI +0 t:po/JtrJf)tL ~- cr5d<. -sfl"/c/- Je( fI,5 11 0/3 ~ - c::;q1J(- >t.J(Jfi)!'{- -f'~COMMtlL1c/ _ P /1!J p('C)(J~ n ~ ." ~ J~ r.... '(. - Lt.f Y C I S~~ - V,\~ tM,.()r.e t'V\to - stovy (:Of~..s t'JyllJ.lJ...- i/t'-e.-v L ;S MIIi\OV' ~l<.\AJ 2, -- ,~~~ s L~ U,\tW IJlat1( - 6~~~Most AYOjJ. ~ahlt\ - VI\~klpJQV\tl. vlo/a~~ () fit MQv\Y OCca.~}CV\5 -5 ~ OSM~ V)~ - COV\C't\l'V\~ alooLAI- Vt'p...W pIQ~~~ Otcct~~lt R. U~ - +ruly sefIL fV11(l /VlW,'Vf!JtlNt(!1A.1- ,-.. """"I .~ EXHIBIT A 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. 1. No mountain view plane is infringed upon, except a.1' provided in Section 26.435- 050 (C)(2). When any proposed development inji-inges upon a designated view plane. but is located in fi'ont ol another development which already blocks the same view plane. the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider whether or not the proposed development will further inlringe upon the view plane, and the likelihood that redevelopment ol 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. Staff Findings: 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 House 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, StatT is also of the opinion that the Saint Mary's Rectory and the Aspen Plaza building will not be redeveloped in a manner that will reopen the view plane where the Connor 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. """" r-- . Applicc{'A.tG -fescu.,<" ~mv"f - Y)o ",dclt h 0\(\ to fA'!. V1,'smv /c leu. I'! d ,'vt.9S' - <5 /3 V\ I PI ~ //If I-If) process, - rrfLc~/Jil(,d ricd~ {>('O WI rIfe- - Vj-ew plfAV\{ - ",oJ- I ~~~~~d lIfJOlA. - t41+~ ~Oo.(.s q (\L wt'tl C/ f).~d 1l~ ~ - fI;\I'vd. (1roV' v.f;"'''v.1i~ ,... ~~a:>!.I" '^' 0_ - IS'" /ow't u-li. IA - <' ~ iI' f"Ml1 PJa,) _ ~""~ lq! ,'lnI:1 - lose, a.~of.h-eV' yr;,o.. v- ;s' Po~t~~I~cJ1., - r).,Jo/J,Jo.l-ot. Sfl'/).cju~) I W\ _ J ~ ~f'I~~I.~ /Nl~Y W\ q,~ fJf'Qj e : ~~~rJ ~~V\O/ e1t€.J!a.toI' i4/:)t'~ f~VOJ~'n<rzlA.r)' q~ov'!. f&;f1 Co ~ <<iP'VI' kroVlb~f;3 -$~ !!lad -'ff -:f:o.ss t:)f' w.;.'d/J, d~ 1/ el () fJ M t ,,,,J - tJot -=-~oi I' (Ate~t;~w ~u(Jp~f!-d .p - ~(rBr _1../ 6Q.e- W'109 V\ .... ~tJf' - nor V'l/~I.Q~I?P!'?'-~ fe.ctr;Jf'yj 11Ft IAI~~'" ~ kI~oJf -hI'f,<t.. ",?,^"ady ~ t%./'WI j.r ,1- itp! ';- ~te.'f,$ · 'h> l) 'f. k/ b.Q.~r~_~~~~J-i~'1r)JliJiif;;<rkwc {",..." ....""'. HAAS LAND PLANNINcr. 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 James: 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, "outstanding project and process," "great project," "100% compliance with the [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) I: 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)l: No requirement except trash/utility service area shall be required abutting alley, pursuant to Section 26.575.060, 7, Maximum height (feet)l: 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) I: No requirement. 9. Pedestrian Amenity Spacel: Pursuant to Section 26.575.0302. 10. Floor Area Ratio (FAR)I: The following FAR schedule applies to uses cumu]atively up to a maximum FAR of3:1. a. Commercial uses: 1.5: 1, which may be increased to 2: 1 if affordable housing equal to 60% of 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.BA. 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 note indicates use of a dimensional requirement effective since the adoption of Ordinance No. 28a, Series of2004. Where no such note is CONNER CABINS VIEW PLANE EXEMPTION ApPLICATION 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 Roaring 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 - r-- 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 of the requirements set forth below." 1. No mountain view plane is infringed upon, except as provided in Section 26.435.050(C)(2). [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 VrEW 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 all likely 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 DocwnentslCity Applications/Conner CabinsIHPC Conceptual App CONNER CABINS VIEW Pu..NE EXEMPTION ApPLICATION PAGE 10 Fob-Z4-Z00S 04:ZSpm FrQm-AUSTiN LAWRENCE +irOiZ09131 H4S P 001/001 HOS .".,. ......, ....... CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMI!NT DEPARTMENT Al!reement for P.""'lIlII.t of Catv of MMIl neveloDlRent Annladon Fees CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafler CITY) llIld ADitio Lawre..u Partoers. LLC "'0 G.... Hills. Man.mDI! Partaer (he..,inafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: L APPLICANT has !II1bmitted to CITY an application tor MOllntaiD Vkw Plane E..mntion (hereinafter, THE PROJECT). 2, APPLICANT Wldenlllnds and agrees lbat City of Aspen Ordinance No. 57 (Series of 2000) Mlablisbes a fee sttucture for LaDd Use applieations and the paymenr of all processing fees is a condition prccedCDI to a delel1llination of applieanon completeness. '.;' 3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nAlure or scope of1lle proposed project, it is not possible at this time to asc:ertain Ill. full exWlt of the COSlS involved in procl!S$ing die application. APPLlCA....../T and CITY fuIther agree that it is in the interest of the parties that APPLICANT make payment of lib initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional co... to be billed to APPLICANT on a mol1lhly basis. APPliCANT ap-ees additional costs may accrue foUowinll lbeir hearings anclIot approvals, APPLICANT agteOS he will be benetltecl by recaining greater Cll$h liquidity and will make additional pa~ts upon notification by the CITY when tbey are necesslll)' as costs are incurred. CITV agrees it wJ1l be bcDefiled through the gt'll8ter eenainty of recovering its fUll costs 10 process APPLICANT'S applicalioll. 4. CITY and APPLICANT furt:Iler agree thar it is impl8Clicable for CITY staff to complete processillg or present sufficient information to the Pllllllling Commission 8Ildlor City Couw:i1lo enable the PllID1ing Commission and/or Cil)' Council to make leplly requiml findinllll fot project consideration, unless cunent billings are paid in full prior to decision. S. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of tbe CITY's waiver of its debt to Collecl fUll tees prior to a detennination of application coIilpleteness, APPLICANT shall p'y an initial deposit in the amount of 52.648.00 which is for twelve (12) hours of Community Development staff time, lIIId ifaclUal recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional mOlllb!y billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for die Processinll of the application mentioned above, including post approval review at a rate of $2 10.00 per planner hour over the initial deposit. Such perlodic payments ,hall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT ftutber agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be l:!OUlIds for suspension of procllS$ing, and in no case will building permits be issue<! until all costs associated with case processing have been paid. CITY OF ASPEll/ By: eou"uWllty DevelopOl8llt Dlreetor 8y: 8U1i1lK Ad. , au' elepllollc Number: B.eonlred Austin Lawrepce Parmen, LLC c/o Greg Hills, Managing Parmer 314 South GaI_ Street, Ste, 200 AspeJJ, CO 81611 (910) 92lJ..4988 exl, 214 RET~NFORPERMANENTRECORD . , . I 1 I () o ::l ::l (D ""1 () ;>) r:::r -. ::l rJl )> rJl '0 (D ::l () o 0- ""1 ;>) 0.. o ~ ,..... (XJ o \J1 III .. I. " . . I '.. '. I o I I 01 I I I Q I <' ~. ~ o ~ i--l ~ := ~ ~ · ,~J' ~ J~I . --.. ~~~. - - ',. ,'l. :i ~~'r'!U - tlr'- f" ~f;~ . . " ' 11'- ~l..~~ rj t..... :'1' Q '!t i~" · - ~ I~. ~~." , \ >>- :. .. 1\. ) } L '.!I~ -~.. ~ . -.. q,.,-- ...c:II. 11,;;,. I. " n 0 ~ ~ (I) "1 ~ n . p:l f--.l r::r ..... f--.l ~ [fl . >- 0 [fl U1 '1j (I) ~ n 0 >-' 0 "1 p:l 0.... 0 ...j::>. ........ (X) 0 Ul i. 8 . ~. M- M- ~ ~ t '. .. :> ~. ~. -., - ~ ~ , . . . " iI "',j. I I~ ~~ , \ '" "'< .. ~ii \ i ~L "' ... \ 1\ .. ~ \ II \ II c \ ~ \ :> ~ ~ '11 \ ::t \ ~ \ \ 0 c \ \ \ (J) ", \ ~ \ \ < \ \ \ - \ \ "' I J1I \ I L \ . ~ ' \ \ \ \ \ \ \ z:. .~ \ \ f"" f1I \ . \ \ \ J f"3 \ 1" \ It \ \ () I \ \ \ 0 \ ;:l ". \ \~ ;:l i \ ~ '"' ~ \ \ \ () ,... i\ \ ~ I \ \ r::r ...... \ \ \ ;:l [fJ \ \ ~ \ ;;; \ \ \ '0 I ~ \ \ .? \ () \ ~ \ 0 - ---fa- .......... \~ ~ 0 :r \ '"' .~. ~ 0- 0 . --..- ...j:>. - (X! (:) \ \Jt \ \ \ I i J r- !.,' \ \ \ \ \ \ .~~ ... \... .. \ .A - " ., ~ . \;: :> o o ;:: '"1 ~ =- o ;:: 00 ~ (C ~ ~~ . i--rl ~~ t"'"= 5i00 I I l \ \ \ \ \ -- , .- I t ~ z .. ~ i ~ ;. e I , I I < , r - ~ ~ 0 ;<l I 5 I , ~ 0 I ~ I I I ./. n " 0 ::l ::l (1) ..., I n I ~ 0- I ::l ... . . U) I )> I U) '0 (1) ::l , n 0 - I 0 ..., I ~ I 0- 0 ...j::.. . ....... CXJ 0 Vl I J I , I o . .;,1 ) 1 < 1 ;;. ~ N 0 I 0 ;<l 5 . . z I ~ r- OO ~. I r-t- (D 0 I 0 I S I ~ B ~. r-t- (D ~ *"- ~ . 0 ~. """" r-t- """" . 0 0 CI1 rJj . , , . . ' , ' , " I . , I I I I I I I . - I I I Z 0 ~ a ~ I I en I =t ~ I trj trj I I r-c ~ I I ~ I ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ () 0 0 a 0 ;:l z Z I ;:l (l> '"' I () :l.l I u ;:l en Y' 0 I >- (/) c ~ I '0 (D I ? ~ . I () =t 0 I - 0 ~ '"' I :l.l I 0... trj 0 -+:0- ~ -- OJ ~ 0 V1 en I 0 en I ~ C , I trj ~ I 1 r-c =t .... I ~ I l"!j I ~ I ~ 0 I I ~ Z I 0 I ~ I z I --, '...~ ',~jf;iii ~. .... u, ~ . ,aIM. t't~.='.. , )II!I. I~: I , .,. '. :.#~,~: ." '- ;== ,1- .~_ I~' ~ ~ '. " ' ; _ 1!ZiSi]' 'riIW'r_ . -. >(.'t...~~ "I ,~." !"t. ,'\" ~. 8 n ttj ~ (D -< I ~ I ~M-- . '""' . 1-'0 ~= U1 rJJ I I '. ". . I I I I I I ~ I ~. 0 I I n 00 I 0 ::l ::l (D I -; n \ ~ U' I _. ::l I en ~ >- I . . I en ~ I '0 I (D (J) ::l I . I I n 0 0 U1 I - I 0 -; ~ 0... 0 ...j:::>.. ....... Cf) 0 Vl ()I 0 I I ~. M- M- ~ 0 ~ , I I ~. I 8 I I z ~ I 0 ~ ~ I I (f1 ~ ....., tTJ ~ ~ I :j :(! ~ 0 :j z 0 z ,. , . I I I (f1 o c: i ~ z ....., 1 lJ , ~ r . 1I1~ r...)p' ~I~ ~~.. r;'i:. ~"f '~.' . ~~~ r '",..,- ..- _~ . _ "~~"J[ _'- ~ .~ . l W~~ ~Jiii' ; 1. .:~ ;~uu t \~;-==>ll I ~. _'- - . 1 tlill_-.; I~~:: 11-, . ~ .. ;..'; -'- I ..-J ~ . ., n' \' ,", r, . I . ,. .' ....1 It.,;.",:.. I \ I \l_ == . ';/-1". I \ I , . . '- . ""..' . ~.,.~ ? I ' '\;. J r-1ElSJ: t ~,I f,"'] t~ 1':''-: 1 I 01 I I 0 I trj i--' I (0 I -< ~ I r-t- I 1-'- 0 I ~ I fJJ I I I ~ I I 0 0 I 0 ;:l ;:l (1) ..., 0 ~ r.:r -. ;:l ~C/l ;:t> C/l '0 (D ;:l I . 0 . 0 - 0 ..., ~ 0... 0 7'- _1' I I ~ I I , I I ~ (f1 ....., tTJ t""' ~ ~ o z g J IE'- ,-.. .. S-";'t'-- ~.~... .~'~~J . .....' "'1'~'.". . .. . -", ' , ~1Il' . .-r o I I I I I I ~~ 1 I I . . . . .. I I " +-- " +-- \ r- r- )> )> :z: :z: fTl --~ fTl -1------.... "" "'" \ N I \ \ 1 I ~ ~ 0 " \ \ . . ~ ~ ;\ ;\ ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ \ ~ \ 2 ~ ~ 1 1 \ \ 1 \ --~ ~ ---.... ~ \ ~ I ~ ~ I < . 20'-11/4' I ~ ~ 0 I I I I I I n I 0 Ii Ii ;:l , " I ;:l " e (1) ~ ~ I ..., 1 1 n \ \ I I I ~ r::::r 1 1 I ,. \ \ ;:l I rn I ~ )> I rn -- - -- - ~ I '0 (1) . . . 1 · ;:l ~ ~ " ~ . \ ~ .. \ ~ I n 0 1 I - 2"-81/2' 'lS-lJf"" 0 c \ I ..., ~ ~ I ~ I I 0- > 1 ~ 1 0 \ \ -+>- ........ 1 1 (X) \ ~. \ " 0 , 'r' c. " \Jt 1 1 \ \ 1 1 I \ \ 0 I 1 T\) ~ ~ \ 1 ~ 2'- J/'. ~ 0 ~ <0 ~ <0 1'1' * cmO ~ cmO e 0 l; :;EC ~ " :;EC ~ I ' :IJ ~ "'... .. :IJ ~ 32'-6' = 7- "U--i " "U--i ~ "rI "rI ~ I >0 >0 Zc Zc ("'t- I mC/) mC/) ~ =ll:m =ll:m T\) ~ 0 I = rJj (Do $ (D ~ ~ ~ ~ ;. = (D I rJj I . I . . , . . . . . I I I < 0 _. (tl :E ,..-.... "0 - ~ = (tl =Ii: I-' \F) 2 0.. '< () o :l :l ('D ..., .'1 , ~, ,/ .- t. l rl'; '1. o I I () ~ v . t ; 'II,: tlI. -. r f, ../:, -. 1 P" ....-: - ;.L:..__ . I I , I I I I I I - ,..J lfJ ~ )> lfJ '0 ('D :l ~ () o - o ..., ~ 0... o -+::- J , 1.1,< .v ./ ~~.~. i'/ ,.f /I. ~.:> I I I . - !YJ o Vl '. o ;/. ',1 ~ , r.J'). ..~~ IT ~. < \~._~~~. M-- _. (D (tl .~.~~: :E "0 \, .... . (1 - _~ ~i ~ - / (tl 0 - :E I (tl \ =Ii: "0 S I IV - ~ \F) - - ~o ~ (tl ::: I 0.. =Ii: ....: IV 00 ~. I M-- I (D ""C I =:r ~. 0 M-- 0 00 . oJii -." "1' 7';~ ~~ ," O1f=;; 00 o~ , ~ r ( . , .. 10'-0. 11'-0" W ~- I , -~ ., I 0- I I I ~ I I -~-----8 - I I 0 L I 0 I 0 ., I I L -' ., 0 ~- ..... (JQ ., ..... ..... ~ (JQ ..... ~ ~ : I ., - ~ I - I L ..., I I I I I I .J '-- - r , I I 0 ..., I I I QU I I I I -~ ..J ~- I , n I CD! , 0 I bOIl ::; !:E5 ::; iig:]"T1 (1) ,-<-< '"1 ~m~ I n :;;0 < :; I ~ 5 cr z ..... ::; W ~- [/J I, I - --, ~ ., I >- 0- I I [/J ~ I I 'd (1) - I I ::; 0 L I ~ 0 I n ., I I -0 =. " L -' 0 8, ~~ ~ ,- b ....... 0, 00 0 ~ , ~ I '"1 ~ ~ 10'-0. 11'-0. ~- p... ..... 0 ell ~ 'I ...j:::.. 0- I-' (X) L ..., 0 I I VI I I -~-----8 I I ~ .J S. r , 1 I ell ~ 0- ..., I I I I I I I L=_ ___----1 0 g~ .....~ j := ~ I E..= , R'r.r; -~t~-t--~-----8 ~~~ , , ..... I I r6trj , , o..~ IDOl I O~ o ~ , , ~~ I CJDJ I I ! :E5 ~t""1'- ., """,. iiill::!l , C;;'O III .-< ~m~ I I ro ~ = m ~ 5 , ~ r.r; z . I ViEle ~€ p~~, - -. "A'''''' ........ AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 5?D ~ 53?- t, ~,~ ~e , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: ~I\". /).) ,200 s: STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, mrrcM.t:l.,l".~ (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; I Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official ~Wt6paper 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. 4. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the '1./s~ 0<;; 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 prioNfo the public hearing and was continuously visible from the.:1~ay of t!../f'JIl.vtJ , 200S" , 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 Community 3Nfbevelopment Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) ofthe 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 of property 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 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 bus'ness hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendmc ESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL I :TT ACHMENTS: I IF THE PUBLICATION I IF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) ~ GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL ,.., "" / 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 TVl!re. Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on March 27, 2005 City of Aspen Account 517 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE LLC 517 E HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 ALLEN CARROL A REV TRUST ALLEN RONALD W REV TRUST PO BOX 19070 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97035 ARNOLD RICHARD S & KATHRYN J 1405 OAK FOREST DR ORMOND BEACH, FL 32174-3407 ASPEN PLAZA LLC POBOX 1709 C/O STEVE MARCUS ASPEN, CO 81611 BASS CAHN 601 LLC PO BOX 4060 ASPEN, CO 81612 BORCHERTS ROBERT HAND BORCHERTS HOLDE H 1555 WASHTENAW ANN ARBOR, MI 48104 BULKELEY RICHARD C & JULIE J PO BOX 450 RED OAK, IA 51566 CARISCH BROTHERS CARISCH THEATRES INC PO BOX 391 COLUMBUS, GA 31902-0391 DORAN RALPH 2600 WOODWARD WAY ATLANTA, GA 30305 FICKE CLARK 15 W ARRELLAGA ST #3 SANTA BARBARA, CA 93101 ~. "' ~~ 610 EAST HYMAN LLC C/O KRABACHER LAW OFFICES PC 201 N MILL ST STE 201 ASPEN, CO 81611 ALPINE BANK ASPEN 600 E HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 420 E HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 BAILEY MARCIA UNGREN 3215 TARRY HOLLOW DR AUSTIN, TX 78703 BAXTER DAVID A PO BOX 1112 CRESTED BUTTE, CO 81224 BPOE ASPEN LODGE #224 210 S GALENA ST #21 ASPEN, CO 81611 BULLOCK G E GRANDCHILDRENS PTNR .166% C/O SUZETTE GOODMA 500 E MARKHAM STE 305 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 CITY OF ASPEN 130 S GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81611 EMPHASYS SERVICE COMPANY 1925 BRICKELL AVE BLDG D PENTHOUSE 110 MIAMI, FL 33129 FOSTER MARTHA LEE LIVING TRUST 5000 COAKLEY BAY #N2 CHRISTIANSTED VI, 00820-4561 ALH HOLDING COMPANY INC 435 W MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ARCHDIOCESE OF DENVER SAINT MARYS 1300 S STEELE ST DENVER, CO 80210 ASPEN LEGACY LLC 17740 E HINSDALE AVE FOXFIELD, CO 80016 BALDWIN HARLEY A II 205 S GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81611 BOGAERT FAMILY TRUST PO BOX 300792 ESCONDIDO, CA 92030 BROUGH STEVE B BROUGH DEBORAH A 599 TROUT LK DR SANGER, CA 93657 BULLOCK WILLIAM G FAMILY TRUST PO BOX 282 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602 COPPOCK RICHARD P PO BOX 44 DEXTER, MI 48130 EMPHASYS SERVICES COMPANY 4400 N A1A STE 1002 HUTCHINSON ISLAND, FL 34949 FURNGULF LTD A COLO JOINT VENTURE 616 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 GELD LLC MEYER LOWELL C/O POBOX 1247 ASPEN, CO 81612-1247 GOLDSTEIN BARRY J 950 S CHERRY #320 DENVER, CO 80246 HINDERSTEIN FAM REV TRUST POBOX 1576 MERCER ISLAND, WA 98040 HORSEFINS LLC C/O PITKIN COUNTY TITLE 601 E HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 JACKSON DONNA M .0208% INT 1730 RIDGE DR GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506 LAZY J RANCH LLC C/O W R WALTON PO BOX 665 ASPEN, CO 81612 MAESTRANZI BART 1736 PARK RIDGE POINTE PARK RIDGE, IL 60068 MARASCO EMILY A AK MEYER EMILY A 6.1446% 21701 FLAMENCO MISSION VIEJO, CA 92692 MCCUTCHIN GENE P 14833 MIDWAY RD ADDISON, TX 75001 MCNULTY NELSON E .0208% INT 2490 DEPEW EDGEWATER, CO 80214 ,. ....' GILKERSON LINDA UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO 5640 ELLIS AVE CHICAGO, IL 60637 HEYS MARIE L TRUSTEE 2495 ADARE ANN ARBOR, MI 48104 HOLLAND AND HART ATTN BRYAN DOWER PO BOX 8749 DENVER, CO 80201 HUBBARD MICHAEL P 10503 SUNSET TERRACE CLIVE, IA 50325 KESSLER SEPP H & JANE 600 E MAIN ST #210 ASPEN, CO 81611 LEVY FOSCO LLC 980 N MICHIGAN AVE STE 400 CHICAGO, IL 60611 MANN KATHLEEN A 99% PO BOX 2057 ASPEN, CO 81612 MARCHETTI FAMILY LLC 1526 FOREST DR GLENVIEW, IL 60025 MCGAFFEY FAMILY & CO NO C LLC 12852 NW SHORELAND DR MEQUON, WI 53097 MCNULTY RONALD J .0208% INT 380 POINT WINDERMERE PL OCEANSIDE, CA 92057-3420 GODIVA HOLDINGS LLC 435 E MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 HICKS GILBERT W & PATSY K 3674 WOODLAWN TERRACE PL HONOLULU, HI 96822 HOPKINS ST VENTURE C/O TED MULARZ PO BOX 1328 ASHLAND, OR 97520 HUNTER SQUARE LLC 90% 2900 LOS BALLlNAS AVE SAN RAFAEL, CA 94903 LAMB DON Q JR UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO 5640 ELLIS AVE CHICAGO, IL 60637 LOEB PAUL L LIVING TRUST 50% 223 LINDEN PARK PL HIGHLAND PARK, IL 60035 MARASCO BERNARD J 6.1446% 320 DAKOTA DR GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81503 MASON & MORSE INC 514 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 MCNULTY KATHLEEN A .0208% INT 12342 WINDWARD WAY ANACORTES, WA 98221 MYSKO BOHDAN D 418 E COOPER AVE SUITE 200 ASPEN, CO 81611 PASSAVANT TOM GLENN KAREN PO BOX 6069 SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 PITKIN COUNTY BANK 80% 534 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN,CO 81611 ROTHBLUM PHILIP & MARCIA 624 E HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 SIMON JONATHAN H 19 W 21ST ST RM 902 NEW YORK, NY 10010-6847 STARMER MARY JOSEPHINE 6.1446% 12738 W 84TH DR ARVADA, CO 80001 TAYLOR E NORRIS 1/2 602 E HYMAN AVE #1 ASPEN, CO 81611 US BANK NA & MCNULTY ZELPHA MARIE .083% 422 WHITE AVE, PO BOX 608 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81501 WALD JANET 9762 BURNLEY PL BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210 ,....", '-'" PITKIN CENTER CONDO OWNERS ASSOC 517W NORTH ST ASPEN, CO 81611 R&R COMPANY 81.5662% 653261/2 RD GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506 SEID MEL 1104 DALE AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 SJA ASSOCIATES LLC 60% C/O STEPHEN J MARCUS PO BOX 1709 ASPEN, CO 81612 STEW ART TITLE CO 1980 POST OAK BLVD #800 HOUSTON, TX 77056 TAYLOR FAMILY INVESTMENTS CO 1/2 489 ROSE LN CARBONDALE, CO 81623 VAN WALRAVEN EDWARD C 1% PO BOX 4913 ASPEN, CO 81612 WASKOW SUSAN A PO BOX 4975 ASPEN, CO 81612 PITKIN COUNTY 530 E MAl N ST STE 302 ASPEN, CO 81611 RKJR PROPERTIES L TO 5954 ROYAL LANE SUITE 255 DALLAS, TX 75230 SHERMAN CAPITAL COMPANY 5840 E JOSHUA TREE LN PARADISE VALLEY, AI. 85253 SMITH JAMES F & N LINDSAY 6542 WESTCHESTER HOUSTON, TX 77005 STONE CATHY PREV TRUST 1/25/99 #3 MISSION HILLS CIR ROGERS, AR 72758 TROUSDALE JEAN VICK 611 E HOPKINS AVE ASPEN,CO 81611 VIDAL C A C/O REAL ESTATE AFFILIATES PO BOX 2914 BASALT, CO 81621 WOGAN JAQUELlNE T 40% PO BOX 158 ASPEN, CO 81612 ATTACHMENT 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: Aspen, CO ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: ,200_ STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. Connty of Pitkin ) I, "-Jo.. \N'l~..s L,'I/\d+ (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: ~ublication of notice: 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 ofriotice: By posting of notice, which form was obtai~td from the - Community Development Department, which was made of suitas,]e, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed ofletiers 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 of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from thel20mmunity Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen ~5) 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 of property 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 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 amendments. ~~^ S' ature ~,,~<dJ- The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged ~re ~ ~ay of ~(.. L ,200.5by---::::(oo---L-.~ 1 WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL PUBLIC NOTICE INS (530 AND 532 EAST RE: CONNOR CAB E. ~PT10N RE.VIEW HOPKiNS) V~EW PLA~REBY GIVEN that a public NOTICE IS H.. d April 12. 2005 at hearing will be h~ld on : ~Y'belore the Aspen a meeting to begln.a~ 4(3 P~is'Sion, Sister Cities Planning, and Zomng alenaSt., Aspen, to con- Ruom, CIty Ha~l. 1.30 S. bmitled by Austin Law- Notary Public sider an apphcatH>Il su esting approval of a rence Partners. L~C, ;~o~ the two (2) designat- view plane eXe[]\~~10n Planes to construct addl- ed Courthouse lew {) (2) westernmost Connor tions to each 01 the t~ mmonly known as Cabins_ The properlLes are ~~ressed as 530 and the Connor ~abins and ar~~c properlies subjKt 532 E. Hopkins .Avenue. all described as the to the a~~,\icatlonpar~dl::t olLots Q and R. Block eastern 76 olLot a 93.CityandTownsite.of^S~~~~ct James Lindt at ATTACHMENTS. For further informatlon, c. Development De- . the City of Aspen c.o~mu~~ty Aspen, CO, (970) partment, \30s.~~e co'~s 429,2763,lames\@el,aspi. sh~mineTygre,.Ch,air rOFTHEPUBLICATION . ' d Zoning CommiSSIon AspenPlann gan M h272oo5. published in The As ~ Times on arc . (2530) 'JF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST lVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL ,.., f--fv141/d 10 /vf{ /-r.t1 CM 3/! ?-/0 , ......." 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 TVl!:re, Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on March 27,2005 City of Aspen Account o o :l :l (1) ... n '" cr -. :l Vl >- Vl '0 (1) :l n o 0- ... '" 0... o o N . N -+:>. o VI S tTj ~ III .. .. <: .... (il ~ ..j'~~... .... l--' o ~ CJ ~ I , r PUBLIC NOTICE RE: CONNOR CABINS (530 AND 532 EAST HOPKINS) VIEW PLANE EXEMPTION REVIEW , (! f- - tv1C<II-ecA1 1-0 ).)iU1 0;,1 3/!?-/C!5 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 Tv!!re. Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on March 27,2005 ---------------------------------- ---~ --- City of Aspen Account 'is~~ ~f ~r ~g? ~[ ~( ~( "., . . . 'i8 '. . -T . ~ ~ ~ 1 .: '~ , , ~ ~ n ~'" U>~ cI~ ",Iii ,.z ~~ o ~ ~ n ~'" ,. u>U> cI~ ",Iii ,.z ~~ :;:'" NO: i::::J ~;S O.S .,. XZ n '" X'" ,"'" '" U> ~O >:; ~ [J J:~ D] ~O .0 ~ ,,,, 0>'" "' 0 '" .,. ~ X'" ~ [JDD] ~. ij OQ:QO c ~ ;;; " ~'" Q"8 X'" ;;;~ [QjJDD~ N .", X~ n _I 0. o ~[l Ogg .:I'~ X'" ~.~ , I I Ell -'" ~.~ " X'" ~~ ~ D i'; z ~ D -< D ~ D i'; U> Z " cI ~ '" 1< I " ~ '" r ~H+ I rT I I - ~ II -< ~ II "><:. ~ I Ir~ - - C5<:, - -1 " o '" '" r l ~~ I _ Ir><:::11 ~ "' ~ ~1'l -> ~-c 'IIII~ 1[5<11 ~ ....---- ~~ HOD ~1\j'Nl !!U:::J!'J ":><11 o e. icy, "TI 1m ;! b~' L !';'~ ' I ~\-i1~--~ ,p(~' U ~~F ~r ~~ ....J .c; n f\j tr~ fr? ~~ X ~~~=t- ~ 1/ \ [@b~~gJ I .1 II I @] .-/ I _I IT~ "" / I I^ ~ -<> x""$j~ >> ~~8 '-- "' IL_ c: Ie::..-- ~ ~ ~ " o '" '" r '" ,- 0>0 '3] x", :::~ - c: r. -~ 00 ~~ Ii- 1........J - D = 1-- ., : I LJ L 0 r-y Q~; lJrG Z rr ~ ~--., 'ii~ ~ ~ i-T _ 11/ [@D 0, ~ct --'-,.. E..... "- D@] rr - ITI 1\/J.'!!lQD@]~CI- It W IA ""=::: 1:--- ,. ~ I '---I~~ ~[I · -8 'T-"' @ r::=:J=l _ /1"r-.. r:= '6...r.., I f--+--I ~G')::J: ->~ x~:> ~~a I +-, ~~~ xC'~ I I 'I I c c "'Z " I qz >< I x'" I o~~ I I I ( I L -- I "cDO~ I I c 00000 'S D ~ ":z c L __..J X'" z ~ -0 'j"-!i' ": 0 I L ......, I I I I I I -___.J [[J "'~ O U,z x'" ~ [[J '<~ o ~ o c z ~, " , '" I I I~ ~I "'", I ~-=< I x~ ",m -z I - L____ .. _ ~ r--f-~DJ t -, ~ I I I I I I I I I I L I I ..J L_ I L I -----1 -, I I I I I I .J /" - LJ" I~ O~ '" r", o ~.8~ J'\ C .;o~ Oxo," c;j~;;Q ;0:: ," '" "'''' ~. "''" ,"", II J\1: ~I - -+ 99; - I L .. I I g~ 0 z - I "'r ~- =r ~z I - - - illU L____ , I ..., C>~ I I []I\ j, ',= ~i 0 .~<lI1 CJ 0"", ~ = 0'" r;o:: II m '" Q O' ~~ II II ,"", ~ I (y ~ ~~ I -rt .. I i '-...... g~ I I ~-f I ~l!, .J + L_____ L m . .l..Ll. ~ [19l j ~ - f..l+I --L ~ n 1_ --I- Q - ~", -I- (J] w c ~. , ~ . r (/1 W Iv ~iT "Ii .. I ..... [ ~..:i j i ,. 1 " fl 1. '... .r ~ "'l- 'l".! . :I. :..J => ~] I J i I! . J 1 :n :.J \) . (II W ... (JJ W Iv !l ';'" t. ~ .<' r ~-j ~, 7JI ~. "" , 'o,j .. i'i ~~. ~ ,r J "r ~ .,."., I I r n i~ ~ t!! ~, I~ ".. :... ~ i i IoJ O. -. ~ I i/'- i .- ~ I ~. ~ i3 . ,,( s .~~ \. . I~ \ \~F- \ i: : ;i , Ii \ '., ! 1 : ,I: i \ ' \ ::i , \ \ \ \ \ \ \ , \ \ \\ \ \ \' \ \ \ \ II \ ' , , ! \ " i i , I \ ' , \ Ii \ \ \ \ ..... \ \ \ Ii \H, . ,-, .: - .' . pi \ 12!.(, · ,. ! ~~ I ~~ !~ ~~ ;a;i m~ "'. i ;C '" " ~J:.. ,I a ' 1m. i I" , .... ! h \ \ \ . \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ , \. \J;':. .,i. . \ ;: \ \ : \ \ \ \ \ ; \ \ t , I ill I \ , '... \ w\ : :;... . -;:----tt pi ::~ \ ~ \ \ : ~ I :,,It f' \ \ \ \ \ , I I 1 1\ ~ \ " , ,,'I . ~ \ ~' ~ . f ill \ I ...l~~. \ \ \ \ I t I ;, ' .''ift I!' \ .., .~ \ \ \ \ 1 . 'J;U \ \ \ \ till . Oo!"i ! \' ~ \ 1;1 oJ \tt" ~II , 1 \ \ \\ \\ \ '\ \ \ ; .' \ !: \ '. ' i \ I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ , \ \ \ \\ , .J - ~ ,~Il ~ \ 'I.... . 1'". ::. ~ ...a ~ . \ I I. I 5 b ~ I \ i, I II \ \ \ , \ \ i \ I \ i \ i; \ II,' \ \ \ \ ~ \ . \ \ \ \ \ \ , \ d . ! fII 2 iZ .... -i ~ or r .... I' I \ I ~ I i ~ ~ -j $i ~ ~ .; ~ .~ ~'!. ' ' i I , ,,'.' ~~ ~ ~IE ~ ((~,~ i <~:\,~o~ ~.,nO ~ i' 1& ~ "'0 . ", Q 'D NI'--N ., '-r-.o "E Q) 8 P< o ~ Q) !; Q o ....-1 .- ..... ...-I Sm", " "'~ '" ;:: 00 820 o '" U u" . ;:: .;:: Q) m Q) 0..0 fE- "''''..... <~....., In 11I0 D:WD: WD:<l 003 ZOD: W<lO III h. I- .. OZO I-WI- H ZUIrI 0 lI:HJ C) o :lh.lil l'l III I-h.([ 0 I'- IrI:lZ Il D:1II:l .. Z .._ H ,., OIl " CD III o " o C) " C) o o ,., W H X H Z Q. ~ WOo Za:::f?5 W>-,,- Cl-o:: ;?;~P :I:O . (.)-z ""'::;;0 :J",IJ) ()C")Q (.)000 ~~<( l'I <f I (\! ('! I I'- 01 II} ('I o I 01 " <f " ~ - U iii Il'l' r(1l' !\7l1 ~, .li. ,..., iii, ~' Applicant: Payee: Type: Permit Number 0013.2005.ASLU Permit Receipt RECEIPT NUMBER 00014671 Date: 2/25/2005 AUSTIN LAWRENCE PARTNERS February 2005 check # 1860 Fee Description Cal fee to Receipt Deposit Total: . Amount 2,640.00 2,640.00