The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.610 S Riverside Ave.A069-98A- 4069-9$4 - 610 South Riverside Ave. EAS 98 xÂ»Â·VA/1 0 1 Si + U le Z IM L ,~ -L j _- , 1 . 1.. . + .. 19 1' . , PARCEL ID:~2737-181-55001 DATE RCVD: ~8/21/98 # COPIES:~1 CASE NO~A069-98 CASE NAME1610 South Riverside Ave. ESA PLNR:~Chris Bendon ~ ... ~,, . 1 PROJ ADDR:1610 South Riverside Ave. CASE TYP:~ESA STEPS] OWN/APP: Jeffrey A. Marcus ADR~6801 Turtle Creek Blv C/S/Z:IDallas, TX 75205 ~ PHN:~ 1 REP~ Robert Hehall ' ADR:121 5 Columbine Crt. C/S/Z:~Basalt, CO 81621 PHN1927-4432 FEES DUE~ 1080 (d) + 110 (eng) I FEES RCVD11190 STAT: F REFERRALS~ REFI BY| DUE:| MTG DATE REV BODY PH NOTICED +. 1 \0.1.0,9& I I 'PÂ·4 z i -Er-1 h.11 :1 DATE OF FINAL ACTION:| 10. 02,0, 98 1 ' 11 . CITY COUNCIL: REMARK st 12*x,in,4 Onk' 4pp~Ned. 1 pz: 124,1, 33Â·111. BOA: CLOSE 415.1% 1 BY: 1 04-) DRAC: PLAT SUBMITD: | ~ PLAT (BK,PG):~ ADMIN: ' 4'* 4 e . I : Â¢ ./,9/4 * 0 1 L.- RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING A STREAM MARGIN REVIEW AND SPECIAL REVIEW FOR THE MARCUS RESIDENCE, 610 RIVERSIDE AVENUE, CITY OF ASPEN. PARCEL NO. 2737-181-55-001 Resolution #98 - ~ 3 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Jeffrey A. Marcus, owner and applicant. for a Stream Margin Review and Special Review for an existing single-family home at 610 Riverside Avenue; and, WHEREAS, the proposed development is closer to the river than the existing development requiring review and approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission may approve development within the Stream Margin Environmentally Sensitive Area in conformance with the review criteria set forth in Section 26.68.040: and. WHEREAS, the City Engineer. Parks Department. and Community Development Department reviewed the proposal and recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on October 20. 1998, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved by a 5 to 0 vote the Stream Margin Review and Special Review for the Marcus Residence, with the conditions recommended by the Community Development Department. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission: That the Stream Margin Review for the Marcus Residence. 610 Riverside Avenue, is approved with the following conditions: 1. The proposed development for the deck expansion, deck seating, timber steps, and fence as represented in the application is nQI approved. The construction of railings between the two rocks bordering the hot mb patio is approved. 2. The applicant shall record this Planning and Zoning Resolution with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder located in the Courthouse Plaza Building. There is a per page recordation fee. In the alternative, the applicant may pay this fee to the City Clerk who will record the resolution. 3. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval. unless othenvise amended by other conditions. APPROVED by the Comrriission at its regular meeting on October 20. 1998. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 11 9.2. / //1 -2 City Attorney V Jasmine Tygre, Vice Chair UU ATTEST: 4 6 id- - h:Â£49 (Â·Coe_7yl/Â£-ca :c ~ackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk MEMORANDUM To: Chris Bendon, Project Planner Thru: Nick Adeh, City Engin~~â€ž~~;~ Frorn: Ross C. Soderstrom, Project Engineer ~* Date: October 8, 1998 Re: Marcus Stream Margin Review Physical Address: 610 S. Riverside Avenue, City of Aspen, CO Legal Description: Lot 1, Gordon Lot Split, City of Aspen, Pitkin County, CO [Sec. 18, TlOS, R84W] Parcel ID No.: XXXX-XXX-XX-XXX After reviewing the above referenced application and making a site visit, I am reporting the combined comments made by the members of the DRC: 1. Application and Improvement Survey : The applicant will need to submit a complete and current Improvement Survey plat ofthe property with the building permit application. The plat needs to conform to the standards of an improvement survey for stream margin review. The survey provided with the application lacks the following: complete topography between the waters edge and top of slope set back for the entire length of the property; edge of water and identification of water's edge (e.g. mean, mean high, level on a particular date); benchmark and datum information for flood plain delineation; determination and delineation of top of slope; completion of the trail easement across the property; date and number of the title commitment (issued with last calendar year) used in the survey; delineation of wetland and riparian zones; certificate for depositing/recording of the improvement survey with the Pitkin County Clerk & Recorder; identification of found and set survey monuments at each angle point; and the wet ink signature and seal of a currently registered Colorado land surveyor. The Improvement Survey should be recorded/deposited with the Pitkin County Clerk & Recorder before issuance of the building permit. The applicant will be required to complete the standard requirements and conditions associated with the form(s) of development requested in the application. 2. Changes in Conditions: If the proposed use, density, or timing of construction of the project change, or the site, grading, drainage, parking or utility plans for this project change subsequent to this review, a complete set of the revised plans shall be provided to the Engineering Dept. for review and re-evaluation. The discussion and recommendations given in this memorandum apply to the application and plans (received April 10,1998) provided for this review and such comments and recommendations may change in response to DRCM3198.DOC 1 OF 3 Memo - Marcus Stream Margin Review changes in the use, density, or timing of the construction of the project, or changes in the site, grading, drainage, parking or utility designs. 3. Utility Services, Trash and Recycling Areas: The proposed addition does not appear to be significant enough to require any up-grades to the utilities serving the property. Utility service connection points, meters, etc., need to be accessible to service personnel in the completed project and not obstructed by garbage or recycling containers, other structures or landscaping. All existing and any new easements for utilities shall be shown on the final improvement plans submitted for the building permit. 4. Site Drainage: The new development cannot release more than historic (pre-development) storm run- off flows from the site and any increase in historic storm run-off flows must be first routed and detained on the site. A drainage report and drainage plan (including erosion and sedimentation control measures) completed and stamped by a Colorado licensed civil engineer will be required for the project to accommodate the drainage flows originating from the site. If a ground injection or re-charge type drainage system is proposed, the percolation rate of the soils will need to be measured and reported in a geotechnical report, and included as the basis for sizing the infiltration field. The drainage report and plan, and the geotechnical report, if any, will be included with the plan set submitted for the building permit application. Precipitation intensity curves for a two year (2 yr.) storm frequency should be used in designing the drainage improvements. The drainage plan should minimize introducing additional drainage on to the riverbank slope, particularly concentrated flows. 5. Access Easement: Clear passage should be maintained for the access easement around the east side of the property. The proposed new landscaping should not impede vehicular access for utility rraintenance. As an alternative, the owner may consider constructing fences and gates to maintain service vehicle access while still providing privacy. 6. Fishing Easement: The property owner should grant a fishing easement along the edge of water in the Roaring Fork River as located and specified by the City Parks Dept. The easement agreement should be recorded prior to issuance of a building permit. 7. Stream Margin Review: Because the proposed addition (as well as the existing building) lies within the top of slope set-back line of the Roaring Fork River, this application must be reviewed as an exception to the stream margin review criteria. Apart from this condition, the proposed addition may meet the criteria for stream margin review. The area below the proposed addition and extending twenty (20) ft beyond in each direction will need to be delineated by construction fencing incorporating sediment webbing or an approved alternate debris and sediment barrier below the work area. The barrier should be erected prior to construction and maintained throughout construction until the later of either the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy or completion and establishment of the landscaping. DRCM3198.DOC 2 OF 3 t Memo - Marcus Stream Margin Review The top of slope delineation should be determined and included in the Improvement Survey delivered with the building permit application. The top of slope is not shown and cannot be verified from the information provided in the application. 8. Sidewalk, Curb & Gutter: Access to this property is through a private access easement therefore any development of curb, gutter or sidewalk would be in conjunction with the adjacent property owners sharing in the access easement. 9. Improvement Districts: The property owner is required to join any future improvement districts formed for the purpose of constructing public improvements which benefit the property under an assessment formula. The agreement would be executed and recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit. 10. Riverside Irrigation Ditch and Pond: The Riverside Ditch, for which the City of Aspen holds the majority water rights, bisects this property. Unless this property owner can provide documentation establishing his water rights in this irrigation ditch, either the owner should obtain a revocable license for irrigation water from the City Water Dept. or cease pumping water from the ditch for the landscape irrigation system. As required by the City Water Dept.. the owner will need to file licensing agreements for the diversion and impoundment o f the water from the ditch which supplies the on-site pond. 11. As-Builts: Prior to C.O. issuance the building permit applicant will be required to submit to the Aspen/Pitkin County Information Services Dept. as-builts drawings for the project showing the property lines, building footprint, easements, encroachments. entry points for utilities entering the property boundaries and any other improvements. 12. Work in the Public Rights-of-Way: Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights-of-way and easements, we advise the applicant as follows: The applicant must receive approval from: City Engineering (920-5080) for design of improvements, including landscaping and grading, within public rights-of-way; Parks Department (920-5120) for vegetation species and placement, and irrigation systems; Streets Department (920-5130) for mailboxes, street and alley cuts; and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights-of-way from the City Community Development Department (920-5090). DRC Meeting Attendees: Applicant: Robert Mehall, architect for owner Staff & Referral Agencies: Chris Bendon, Ross Soderstrom, Rebecca Schickling, Russell Grance DRCM3198.DOC 3 OF 3 Harce au,~ 4/1 0 <0' fO .... ~t-0/ fie 7/ 161 Ab NÂ»Â» i /VL i,g,_ Â£ -1~,CA. , DrD,4 luyr VUL- 4, *OW/6 30=,~.4 1401- 4-eb. el'L- Â·i=Â»lehLNg . 46Â£ *4* 4 246 4 rd* #4 *6. AL 2 Lkwk.-24 Fa 71'w & WY e. !t iii ~ 1 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Interim Community Development Director FROM: Christopher Bendon,Planner ~441 ~ RE: Marcus Stream Margin Review and Special Review - 610 Riverside Avenue DATE: October 20,1998 SUMMARY: The applicant, Jeffery Marcus, has proposed a series of improvements to a property along the Roaring Fork River. Improvements which represent development closer to the river require Stream Margin Review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Development which is essential may be approved by the Commission through the Special Review process. The improvements are: an addition to a hot tub patio, additional seating near the hot tub, steps to some mechanical equipment, and a fence. Staff does not believe the development is essential but does believe the applicant's concern for safety around the hot tub is valid. Staff believes the safety issue can be met with the provision of some handrails which would have far less impact than the proposed deck and seating area. The site has a very clear break in the terrain separating the plateau from the steep bank descending to the river. The majority of the improvements on the property were constructed before the Stream Margin Review regulations and are substantially within the "no development" area. Staff recommends approval of this Stream Margin Review and Special Review for the provision of handrails only. APPLICANT: jeffrey Marcus, owner. Represented by Robert Mehall, Architect. LOCATION: 610 South Riverside Avenue. ZONING: R-15. Moderate Density Residential. LOT SIZE: 39,424 square feet. LoT AREA, FAR The applicant is not proposing additions to the main house. 1 CURRENT AND PROPOSED LAND USE: Single-Family residential. PREVIOUS ACTION: The Commission has not previously considered this application. REVIEW PROCEDURE: Stream Margin & Special Review. The Commission may approve, approve with conditions, or deny this application at a hearing. BACKGROUND: The existing structure was constructed before the current requirements for Stream Margin Review and does not have a prior approved top-of-slope or building envelope. STAFF COMMENTS: There is an "essential development" provision in the Stream Margin Ordinance which allows for such development that is necessary for community well being (for example: sanitary sewer connection) and for development that cannot be reasonably avoided. Staff does not see any of this development falling into the essential development category (please see Exhibit A - staff comments). The current patio is in compliance with the UBC for safety. However, staff does agree with the applicant that safety could be improved. But this goal could be achieved without the extension of the deck further into the stream margin. In staff' s estimation, the applicant should provide a series of metal rails between the two rocks to provide safety with less impact on the stream margin than the deck extension. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve this Stream Margin Review and Special Review for the Marcus residence with the following conditions: 4-8 1. The proposed development for the deck expansion, deck seating, timber steps, and fence as represented in the application is not approved. The construction of-metift railings between the two rocks bordering the hot tub patio is approved. 2. The applicant shall record this Planning and Zoning Resolution with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder located in the Courthouse Plaza Building. There is a per page recordation fee. In the alternative, the applicant may pay this fee to the City Clerk who will record the resolution. 3. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. 2 ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION: If the Commission does want to consider approving the improvements as provided in the application, staff suggests the following conditions of approval: 1. The proposed development for the deck expansion, deck seating, timber steps, and fence as represented in the application is approved. 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide a 12'-wide public trail easement which extends the full width of the property along the river, or demonstrate the existing easement meets this standard. 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall record a "fisherman's easement" to allow fishing access along the edge ofthe Roaring Fork River. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall gain approval from the ditch company for any improvements in or near Riverside Ditch. 5. There shall be no development other than approved native vegetation below, or within 15 feet of, the top-of-slope. The proposed planting beds on the river-side of the house shall be planted with native vegetation. A list of native species is available from the City Parks Department. 6. The existing development within 15 feet of the top-of-slope may be maintained but cannot be expanded. The hot tub shall be drained through the sanitary sewer and not to the river. All outdoor lighting on the property shall be downcast and not directed towards the river. 7. The applicantt shall agree to join any future improvement districts for the purpose of constructing improvements which benefit the property under an assessment formula. 8. The applicant shall record this Planning and Zoning Resolution with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder located in the Courthouse Plaza Building. There is a per page recordation fee. In the alternative, the applicant may pay this fee to the City Clerk who will record the resolution. 9. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the Marcus Stream Margin Review and Special Review to install a railing along the hot tub area with the conditions outlined on page 2 in the Community Development Department memo dated October 20,1998." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit B -- Application 3 Exhibit A STAFF COMMENTS: Stream Margin Section 26.68.040, Standards Applicable to Development within 100 feet of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams. A. No development shall be permitted in the floodway, with the exception of bridges or structures for irrigation, drainage, flood control or water diversion, which may be permitted by the City Engineer, provided plans and specifications are submitted to demonstrate that the structure is engineered to prevent blockage of drainage channels during peak flows and the Commission determines the proposed structure complies, to the extent practical, with all standards set forth below. Staff Finding: No development is proposed within the floodway. B. No development shall be permitted within one hundred (100) feet, measured horizontally, from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams, or within the Special Flood Hazard Area where it extends beyond 100 feet from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams, unless the Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all standards set forth below: 1. It can be demonstrated that any proposed development which is in the Special Flood Hazard Area will not increase the base flood elevation on the parcel proposed for development. This shall be demonstrated by an engineering study prepared by a professional engineer registered in the State of Colorado which shows that the base flood elevation will not be raised, including, but not limited to, proposed mitigation techniques on or off-site which compensate for any base flood elevation increase caused by the development; Staff Finding: No development is proposed within the floodway. 2. Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area Community Plan, Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan Map, or areas of historic public use or access are dedicated via a recorded easement for public use. Dedications are necessitated by development's increased impacts to the City's recreation and trail facilities including public fishing access; 3. The recommendations of the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan are implemented in the proposed plan for development, to the greatest extent practical; Staff Finding: The property has an existing trail easement in place. However, this easement may be faulty by not extending the full width ofthe property as it appears on the site improvement survey. The Commission should require the easement be either verified as the full width or require a new easement be recorded prior to issuance of a building permit for this project. staff comments page 1 The Greenway Plan also requires a "fisherman's easement" along the edge of the Roaring Fork River. The Commission should require compliance with this Greenway Plan by requiring a fisherman's easement along the river bank. 4. There is no vegetation removed or damaged or slope grade changes (cut/fill) made outside of a specifically defined building envelope. A building envelope shall be designated by this review and said envelope shall be barricaded prior to issuance of any demolition, excavation or building permits. The barricades shall remain in place until the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy; Staff Finding: Because the property has not gone through a Stream Margin Review in the past, a building envelope has not been designated for this property. The existing development does encroach on the river outside of where a building envelope would have been designated if the property were vacant and reviewed under today's standards. Staff does not believe it is important to designate a building envelope. This would be done under review for more substantial development. Staff is suggesting the Commission only concentrate on the subject areas under review. The top-of-slope at the subject area ofthe proposed development is apparent by the applicant' s site section. The proposed deck, a fence, and timber steps represent new development within the "no-build zone" which includes areas within 15 feet of the top-of- slope. Staff does not recommend approval ofthese improvements. Because the development activity is expected to be minimal, staff does not believe barricading the site will be necessary to prevent debris from entering the river. If the Commission feels this barricading is necessary, a condition of approval must be added to the motion. 5. The proposed development does not pollute or interfere with the natural changes of the river, stream or other tributary, including erosion and/or sedimentation during construction. Increased on-site drainage shall be accommodated within the parcel to prevent entry into the river or onto its banks. Pool or hot tubs cannot be drained outside of the designated building envelope; Staff Finding: Drainage from the site will not be greatly affected with this additional development. The parking area is currently paved with bricks and the redeveloped driveway is not expected to affect the runoff condition. The hot tub should be drained to the sanitary sewer and not to the river. 6. Written notice shall be provided to the Colorado Water Conservation Board prior to any alteration or relocation of a water course, and a copy of said notice is submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency; staff comments page 2 7. A guarantee is provided in the event a water course is altered or relocated, that applies to the developer and his heirs, successors and assigns that ensures that the flood carrying capacity on the parcel is not diminished; 8. Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits related to the work within the 100-year floodplain; and Staff Finding: The development proposed will not interfere with the watercourse and is not within the 100 year floodplain. 9. There is no development other than approved native vegetation planting taking place below the top of slope or within fifteen (15) feet of the top of slope or the high waterline, whichever is most restrictive. This is an effort to protect the existing riparian vegetation and bank stability. If any development is essential within this area, it may only be approved by special review pursuant to Section 26.64.040(D) Staff Finding: The existing hot tub and hard landscaping are within this area. The proposed development represents an increase in the non-compliance of the Stream Margin criteria. The Special Review provision is to acknowledge development which either is necessary from a community health standpoint (such as utility hook-ups) or development which is necessary for safety concerns or cannot otherwise be avoided. The deck extension, bench seating area, timber steps, and fence are not within this category of essential development and represent more improvement than necessary. The existing deck condition is not in conflict with the UBC. However, the walkway is narrow and could be improved with the addition of a railing between the two rocks. This is a treatment which would have minimal impact on the Stream Margin and could meet the safety concerns of the owner. Staffhas provided an analysis of the Special Review criteria below. 10. All development outside of the fifteen (15) foot setback from the top of slope does not exceed a height delineated by a line drawn at a forty-five (45) degree angle from ground level at the top of slope. Staff Finding: The existing structure is not in compliance. The proposed development is not in compliance as represented by the site section. 11. A landscape plan is submitted with all development applications. Staff Finding: Landscape treatments have been indicated on the site plan. The planting beds on the river- side of the house should not contain non-native vegetation. This is important in maintaining the bank stability and preserving the river corridor from invasive species. staff comments page 3 12. All exterior lighting is low and downcast with no lights directed toward the river or located down the slope, Staff Finding: The Commission should require this as a condition of approval. 13. Site sections drawn by a registered architect, landscape architect, or engineer are submitted showing all existing and proposed site elements, the top-of-slope, and pertinent elevation above sea level. Staff Finding: The site is relatively flat with a clear break where the site then slopes steeply to the river. The Architect has prepared a site section showing the subject area of development which is within the "no development zone." 14. There has been accurate identification of wetland and riparian areas. Staff Finding: The proposed development is not expected to affect wetlands or riparian habitat. STAFF COMMENTS: Special Review No development subject to Special Review shall be permitted unless the Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all standards and requirement set forth below. D. Encroachment into fifteen-foot setback from top of slope or height limit. Whenever a special review is for development above or below grade within the fifteen-foot setback from top of slope as identified on a site specific section drawing or above the height limit established by the ESA, the development application shall be approved only if the following conditions have been met: 1. A unique condition exists on the site where strict adherence to the top of slope setback will create an unworkable design problem. Staff Finding: Staff does not see any unworkable conditions. The existing improvements within the 'no-build' area can be maintained and replaced as necessary. The timber steps, fence, and hot tub area improvements represent unnecessary improvements in the Stream Margin. The Hot Tub is an existing condition but is not in conflict with the UBC. However, safety could be improved with the addition of a hand rail. This existing condition does not require the extension of the deck and seating area. staff comments page 4 2. Any intrusion into the top Of slope setback or height limit is minimized to the greatest extent possible. Staff Finding: Staff does not believe this standard has been meet. If the goal is to improve safety, provision of metal rails between the two rocks would meet that goal and would be less intrusive than the extended deck. 3. Other parts ofthe structure or development on the site are located outside the top of slope setback line or height limit to the greatest extent possible. Staff Finding: The majority of development on this site is within the "no-development zone." 4. Landscape treatment is increased to screen the structure or development in the setback from all adjoining properties. Staff Finding: Staff does not support the additional development in the no-build area. I f the Commission does consider this development essential, there should be a condition requiring revegetation of disturbed areas with native vegetation. staff comments page 5 AUG-13-1998 12:42 FROM ASPEN/PITKIN COM DEU To 9-9274432 P.01 LAND USE APPLICATION t PROJECT: Name: MARCUS RES LPEALCE Location: 6lO SOOTI-1 RIV&26(PE AVENUE, AE>FE 14% COID EADO (Indicate street address. lot & block number, legal description where appropnate) APPUCANT: 1 Name: JEFFREY Ar. MAW.ci.6 Address: 6 801 TURTLE C#GEK- 84.1/D, DALLAS.TX 7920 9 Phone #: REPRESENTATIVE: Name: goe>egr KE WALL /Ayotl Tk:r- Address: 2116 COLL),ABINE (DUPÂ·ZE, FLASACE 40 2>lall Phone #: 410.921.4463- TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply) Â£ Conditional Use O Conceptual PUD O Conceplual Historic Devt 0 Special Review E Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) 3 Final Historic Development El Design Review Appeal El Conceptual SPA m Minor Historic Devt. El GMQS Allotment El Final SPA (& SPA Amendment) O Historic Demolition C GMQS Exemption 2 Subdivision m Historic Designation ~* ESA - 8040 Greentine, Stream ~ Subdivision Exemption (includes Q Small Lodge Conversion/ Margin. Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumizarion) Expansion Mountain View Plane Â£ Lot Split Â¤ Temporary Use I Other: 12] Lot Line AdJustment D TeAUMap Amendment EXISnNG CONDmONS: (description ofexisting buildings. uses, previous approvals, ele.) Egil,G E?<7 5npic, WaigE 1 Pec-lf,6 W 151 IR leD' Ce 64(GH WATEIL t.~E 01= -tl.LE *49 44 Fa"- lil\.4. PROPOSAL: (description ofproposed buildings. uses, modifications. etc.) ADD WOODe:,8 OFT/16-/ 6Ek,CH R EX\ 6'n,14 860 Tb(5 PEr,- Th PAa/log Mf- SABEÂ¢- GlgCULATKA All= INO +4077-06. Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: S El Pre-Application Conference Summary E Attachment # 1, Signed Fee Agreement 0 Response to Attachment #2, Dimensional RequiremenIS Form g Response to Attachment #3, Minimum Submission Contents n Response to Attachment #4, Specific Submission Contents D Response to Attachment #5, Review Standards for Your Application TOTAL P.01 U./ U./ 30 lnU 10.14 r A A MARCUS CABLE CORP. 0002 Aug 03 98 10:572 ". u-hall/ARCHITECT 970-9 4432 P.2 ASPEN/PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARrMENT Agreement for Payment ofCity of Aspen Development Application Fees (Please Print Clearly) CITY oF ASPEN orreinafter CITy) and-JEFFREY MAR<LUS (hereinafter APPUCANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: eriH 1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for 610~KNUASIDE AVIEy NE,?uÂ® C OUDPADS (hereinafter, THE PROJECT). 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that Cily of Aspen Ordinance No. 43 (Series of 1996) establishes a fee structure for land use applications and tile payment of all processing fces is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness. 3. APPL]CANT and CITY agree thai because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed pfoject it isnot possible at thistime to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the applicdon. APPLICANT and CITY fmther agree thatit is in the intÂ¤est ofthe pmties to allow APPLICANT to make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter pe:mit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make addidonal payments upon nodlication by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incuned. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to process APPLICANTS application. 4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY slaff to complete processing or present suffcient information to the Planning Commission and/or City Council to enable the Planning Commission andior City Council to make legally required findings for project approval unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. 5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration ofthc CITY's waiver ofits right to collect full fees prior to a dctermination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of $ which is for _ houts of Planning stafftime, and if actual recorded costs exceed fhe initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review. Such periodic payments shall be made â€¢within 30 days ofthe billing date. APPUCANT ftâ€¢theragrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension ofprocessing. CITY OF ASPEN APPLICANT Signature: (~,1- fltue Stan Clauson Date: - P P 4 A Community Development Director Printed Name: JEâ„¢41 1 A. MAWÂ£25 City of Aspen Mailing Addrfu: 600 1 TutÂ£(,4 864 1411 #, TX -79205 . ATTACHMENT 2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project: MANPS RESIVENCe Applicant: JEFFREY MAeoUS Location: 6 (O SOUTH RIMEUSI 08 AVENLE,A<fkH , Col.01*00 Zone District: g -1 â‚¬ Lot Size: 394:24 â‚¬F-,It Lot Area: 21' mo <p. 1 (for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing: MA Proposed: Number of residential units: Existing: RA Proposed: Number of bedrooms: Existing: 4- Proposed: 0 Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): N.A DIMENSIONS: Floor Area: Existing: RA Allowable: Proposed: Principal bldg. height: Existing.- R A Allowable: Proposed: Access. bldg. height: Existing: 14. A Allowable: Proposed: On-Site parking: Existing. 14.A. Required. Proposed: % Site coverage: Existing: A.A, Required: Proposed: % Open Space: Existing.- 8* Required: Proposed: Front Setback: Existing. N.A. Required. Proposed: Rear Setback: Existing: A.A. Required: Proposed: Combined F/R: Existing: 11-lk Required: Proposed: Side Setback: Existing: RA Required: Proposed: Side Setback: Existing: ~A. Required. Proposed: Combined Sides: Existing: #A Required: Proposed: Existing non-conformities or encroachments: ENTWE 4.Â¤)66 4 6?qMWG \4OT -rva DEU- 1#9 06 loci SEr e/Â» Fl@Â·ch,â€¢~ 61~EF- Variations requested: AOD WDD DEN 'PEK- STRa:ruze AT- UoT- Tlâ‚¬, PEr*. ID Fieovies â‚¬AFEEÂ¥- 21Â£/Ul,Al-lnkl *120*D ed 91184 tier 1-1 6. 15 98 03:15p Robert Mehall 970---7-4432 p. 1 lilli robert Ineliall ARCHITECT Memorandum To: Chris Bendon - Aspen/Pitkin Community Development From: Robert Mehall Date: 15 Sep 98 Re: Marcus Residence 610 S.Riverside Avenue Aspen, Colorado Stream Margin Review Attached please a list ofresponses to the criteria listed in Attachment 5 for Stream Margin Review. 1. Per the site plan and survey, the proposed development occurs approximately 50'-0" horizontally and 25'-0" from the 100 Year Flood Hazard line of the Roaring Fork River. 2. Per the survey, there is a platted easement for a public 1rail that is approximately 20'-0" horizontally and 15'-0" vertically from the proposed development at the hot tub deck. 3. To the best of my knowledge, we shouldn't be impacting the river edge with the proposed development. 4. It is our intent to hand dig four concrete piers to support the main structure for the deck surface, thereby minimizing the impact on the surrounding vegetation. 5. The proposed development is quite a distance form the river such that no pollution or interference will occur in the river. 6. There will be no relocation or alteration to the watercourse, so no written notice has been given to the Colorado Water Conservation Board. 7. See Number 6. 8. See Number 6. 9. We plan to replant the disturbed areas at the points where the structure hits the ground with native vegetation. 10.The height of the rail at the deck is per the U.B.C. building code for a guardrail for life safety. 11.See number 9. 12. We will be repairing and replacing the existing fixtures that are currently on site at the hot tub area to provide low level illumination in this area, again for safety. 215 Cotualbine Court Basalt Colorado 81621 TeDFax 970.927.4432 rm 15 98 03:15p Robert Mehall 9701227-4432 rm 13.See submitted drawing package. 14.The proposed development ocours a significant distance from the river. Please review and call with questions and comments. As we discussed, I am planning on attending the meeting at City Hall tomorrow at 1.30 pm. I will be out of the office for most ofthe day, as I will be in Aspen for several other meetings. I can be reached on my cell phone at 379.7504. See you tomorrow. . y Y,+ 8 e Â·,0 -1 k- 1-2 1 r 4 APPLICANT: Jeffrey Marcus LOCATION: 610 South Riverside Avenue ACTION: Stream Margin Review and Special Review STREAM MARGIN: Standards applicable to development within 100 feet of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams: A. No development shall be permitted in the floodway, with the exception of bridges or structures for irrigation, drainage, flood control or water diversion, which may be permitted by the City Engineer, provided plans and specifications are submitted to demonstrate that the structure is engineered to prevent blockage of drainage channels during peak flows and the Commission determines the proposed structure complies, to the extent practical, with all standards set forth below. B. No development shall be permitted within one hundred (100) feet, measured horizontally, from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams, or within the Special Flood Hazard Area where it extends beyond 100 feet from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams, unless the Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all standards set forth below: 1. It can be demonstrated that any proposed development which is in the Special Flood Hazard Area will not increase the base flood elevation on the parcel proposed for development. This shall be demonstrated by an engineering study prepared by a professional engineer registered in the State of Colorado which shows that the base flood elevation will not be raised, but not limited to, proposed mitigation techniques on or off-site which F compensate for any base flood elevation increase caused by the development. 2. Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area Community Plan, Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan Map, or areas of historic public use or access are dedicated via a recorded easement for public use. Dedications are necessitated by development's increased impacts to the City's recreation and trail facilities including public fishing access. AÂ·XÂ« j# P'.... 7/ 429lt Â£~1 t.Â· -"3 '4' 411/ t#*R 2.-lt . . .,7. *14 4 -b L' 3. The recommendations of the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan are E implemented in the proposed plan for development, to the greatest extent practical. 4. There is no vegetation removed or damaged or slope grade *- -t.2 69 ./1 (cut/fill) made outside of a specifically defined building t. Â· 3. envelope. A building envelope shall be designated by this review and said envelope shall be barricaded prior to issuance â€¢ of any demolition, excavation or building permits. The barricades shall remain in place until the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy. 5. The proposed development does not pollute or interfere with the natural changes of the river, stream or other tributary, including erosion and/or sedimentation during construction. Increased on- site drainage shall be accommodated within the parcel to prevent entry into the river or onto its banks. Pool or hot tubs cannot be drained outside of the designated building envelope. 6. Written notice shall be provided to the Colorado Water Conservation Board prior to any alteration or relocation of a water course, and a copy of said notice is submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. 7. A guarantee is provided in the event a water course is altered or relocated, that applies to the developer and his heirs, successors and assigns that ensures that the flood carrying capacity on the parcel is not diminished. 8. Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits related to the work within the 100-year floodplain. 9. There is no development other than approved native vegetation planting taking place below the top of slope or within fifteen (15) feet of the top of slope or the high waterline, whichever is most restrictive. This is an effort to protect the existing riparian vegetation and bank stability. If any development is essential within this area, it may only be approved by special review pursuant to Section 26.64.040(D). 10. All development outside of the fifteen (15) foot setback from the top of slope does not exceed a height delineated by a line drawn at a forty-five (45) degree angle from ground level at the top of slope. 11. A landscape plan is submitted with all development applications. 12. All exterior lighting is low and downcast with no lights directed toward the river or located down the slope. 13. Site sections drawn by a registered architect, landscape architect, or engineer are submitted showing all existing and proposed site elements, the top-of-slope, and pertinent elevation above sea level. 14. There has been accurate identification of wetland and ripari an areas. SPECIAL REVIEW: No development subject to special review shall be permitted unless the Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all standards and requirements set forth below: 1. A unique condition exists on the site where adherence to the top of slope setback will create an unworkable design problem. 2. Any intrusion into the top of slope setback or height limit is minimized to the greatest extent possible. 3. Other parts of the structure or development on the site are located outside the top of slope setback line or height limit to the greatest extent possible. 4. Landscape treatment is increased to screen the structure or development in the setback from all adjoining properties. ~ E>Â®662 *461*6#TE 42:)06*ETE: -*- NeFWAGE Pe#VELS A.03016'INS , / Ob' ADUNP AÂ®1'-66~7 E) W/ rl,Ar.â‚¬1DNE pkÂ®Ek.TY, Â£35 TO 64Â»PINATB EÂ©*PEIaâ€¢ Â»INEGTION *12't 6.*4Â£&155 104/.264#Zi 7 61DNE FIE,84 4 WALLâ‚¬ a EbrrAY NoocE. 4'EE Prl. 1 / 1,-2- ~ 9 1'-6' ~Rf. W ~A, f-N L ' // VENEE'a 10 HAEH HOUDE â‚¬TDNE \hi/ LIAMT, -26 PTL I /6-2. 61'DUE , k 60 90 \ b \ Illo. - 4'.5 j,(00,~ ,,Itt 00 7 'll' ,11,:, 10' 42:Z~ ,/ , I... \ Â» \N RLOA Fc FC 'v 1 1 1 1, t, //I/.1 f~ .1 ~ 11 92 \ -' .... / 1 9 No ILTH 4 1 1,2, 771161 -ic /4.4 '00 -LA 60.*Ell 4 IWEH Exign.J~ --- 1\49.. 94 1 3 Ill iolg>" ~ // 1 35#d-8 96 .-/99 0 4 i ?b / / /. *0193 i i ter-E i / 1.- PR*AM F+'1 --1 7- :: I I I . . 9707 6 1 T. E PLAN Â©ITE GEOTION L-1 11' , 101-0,1 ( fl=rE>1 1 ,3 . 1,1 I ..- -1. i. 6. : d -9/ mi. . D 41 0 . -' 4 k I .. ...... 1 ~f .. . .:... I . Â·L . .. 11;1 1~' - .. ' 1 â€¢,14//* 40:.m.9 1 4, I ' 1 '04 , B . 4 11* r" < A br 1 41 r ' - I ' ,- . . . 44,vil"/4/ T p 21 . Â·-P 0 - , i. .4 . - i 1 8 r e. 0. . 4 18- I. I , :. . .- I I. '1" .- I D , . -2 .8 .. . ,/. I T .0 1 / *' r 0- 0 - 4, . 6 '$-I Ii: * .. ' I 0 9 .... ... . 1 16 J'/ 02 0 . I . , , .. -râ€¢ m . I I . ...1 a . I. 2-'.I " 0 11 *11- 4, 6 . n . , I . S , - R r, ' 1 4 Â· 4 \ 1 --- 0 . .. ., \ Â£ ' I ' .1 -4- , , I .... I. 6. . \ i\ .. \ 1- 1 4-11 . b 3 1 ' - A l 4 1/1 I 5 I Marcus e , 4 1 Residence b . 4, P D g 610 South Riverside Ave. ... + I â€¢ p Aspen, Colorado , . 4 , . I. 4 -- .. J. I , I 2.t b a 1 / 'X -'f ' Â·Â·.u,4, . . . . . 0 a<FbeEP AÂ®KMATE 4DrlsÂ£ETB -PEF#AuT pkIVEd AAJOINING ~95' ADUNp AÂ®B-EMTÂ© W/ 10!ASIbRE Â»It[Tr. 66 73 6,2:*p i tWTE 5â‚¬*PEAS (Z*INELinoN T~Me# ENg> 50Â£0126 W/ woo P 1 67PNE FIE.14 4 WALLO B EMTIA BL11 46 4 61 P 1 NA 13 MATTIA - \Al/ LIBIMTS -986 PTL I /4-2. 5-rDNE 140096. 6% Prl, 1 /1,-2- ) W / DV; 1'-8. 6 / VEWEErâ€¢ 18 HMER HOULE- 6-IDNE 60 90 1 Illo, ' 44 ~36' [ IJ% 6L?. .1 'Ll' 1~,0.10 4, 1 100 ~ - -- li--I.-- -Ir- Il j 2 i' 9 ' 't-f ..-... t l Z . . 1 0 . 1 93 f. . i 16Â·,4 b 'T 9 0.-1 e.. 12. O A k. 1 hi C.i F O 82- 14 f\ K IV E 12- 1 1 'I- 0 Â»Mi ~ / MATE 19 JUL 96 C*AM - 1 SM 9707 Job# 6 1 TE P L A N 61 -TEE 6 66, T ID N L-1 111 , ID 1-0 H 1% D I ....... 1.90. I . 0 1 .3. 01 lA- , I 0,4 ' 1 2, . 0. 46. ,, '. - 9.. - . I . ... I ..... . I ..: . ... v ... t41 1 t 6 - - ' 4 . 0 . i.:. ... I. 0 b. .:~. :'. a. t'lla; .. 01 , 6. . 4 0 . Y. 4 9. L . 1-, . 0 . 6 .Aliff Ar=,r-$r g 44 , .: :A D. - 2 . I 0,1 ., ... ~I.i -' . 1. , 05 . 0'' - ' : 1 ,~ 0 , *. I. , . 0 1 , . ii/4,/3,/ 9 - 0, 1 4 .. ... .0 . f .14 * \ .2. .*. D. , I.- ., . 4. - li, 1 .. 0 4 4 1 1, " '11, .1 -- 4 . I . . -1 , . ' '' I 't ..'' - - ': 0 . . .4 , .. .... I. V. .. .4 .. 1 , I. Marcus 0 . Residence P , 610 South Riverside Ave "' 9: I Aspen, Colorado . 1 1 . . 2 I D , ... - , . ... .r D., f -0 0. . , C. I , 0 ' I * D 'floDYN! POS' .439.794 1 I. . . .1. .. e. '.9-* 1 i Â·1 JURVEYOK'b CEKTI FICATE 1,..,141/IED F NES>EK, k-lfffirer CESJIFT THAT ON FED?<UAF>f- 2-7, 1997 I k~lAIDCA VIâ‚¬XAL IKIDFEETION 01= TKIE F'FOFEIR:17- 3*-MOWN H fyI.ON ANC) EUND NO CHANGED E)<CE-I'TAD Â©HOWN ALJD KICTED HEKEON. 'AL.FINE- EX)110053 IKE, DATE MÂ»r; JAN'lED f. KEDER, L . 5. lit)4 t.Â©Trip Â· 5-1 KWART-PITLE OF Ae>FEN, IKE COMMI TMENT OE.PE,6 1<10 23 4 Gl w - C3 WAD UDED IN THE r'IKEYARATIC.h' OF .1} 115 EUKv fY. Of..5. 45 EXCEFT.IONS 2 /\:. \>d LI'DrED ' RX,32 FYft?WÂ« 5- 0'1F Â£ 7Â© DCI U -150 4-:- FAGE ZOO : NOT 1--litÂ·16 FLOTTIABLE, ' .. 5 09 ~35' CÂ©" E .19 4 \ \ adp . A ' 4Â©/ 100 rk/.IX ASO AI- FALE 374 4 â‚¬512540Â¤:IP IN 0 \ .r I: V' y 3(70+:- 1.59 'll- rASE 2.93 ; EADEN'IE K.]T 4 â‚¬ J w \ \ 1 1 111711 1 1,-- :308Â·. \ \ 1/IlliliI'll ...41\J ZAA<462~74Â¥N.3<*bA h<.Â·. / 4447*pr~763:;- Â· 4, r. y 4 1 3 1 1 \\ li D ~II- 1 71.-INCX 261-1 LOT- 7. AN[9 B ' 1 ' e 1 t'Â£ i if I1 i?99./>91013224>~'94<2244525%fHJ2Lb , , \ 1 , \\ \ 1 I 1 1 E 2<2<>7*9925.X?9< 12< \Y<122 ..~4<'PX:,3<~AÂ·-' ''/0 1. rEr,K. 25<-p AT f'AGE lal 'Â· ACCEDÂ© 4 U-HLI-TY-- \.4 5*DEMENT ACf<OES CALLA1 ..IAN Lk-)DDIVIDIC)11 -'O GOF. [30 4 5(.213)019'150>1 I \ ...00 * 1 \il \Ill\,11 DO C.>chk/\1â‚¬XX44 ..3 . \\ 11\41 lilli 2,UNVEY-D,<6 CERTIFICATE \ e \ 1 1 \ NOTE â€¢ m.,u 1 b.\ * 20 ~~ ~ t~ Â·~ ~ i ~ 1 ~ ' 1 1 \312=Â·I,/~./.,Â·e':./,/f ~ ~ 4 18 ) p 4 **'1,1,1. .SNew , i /' 1'1 li I .; F.*: 4 11 - C00 I JAMIED F fiEDEft, H Ej<Ef,Y C,Em-In- Th-IAT 1.0 1 64 A..GuEST 2Â©. 1997 1 MADE A VIOUAL t.%.t, il ti Jilit' 2 r'-f-- 1-- , : , 1, , f k3-4 ) I Â£ ,~'~,/'./3..) .; I . 49 %04\C 11 1 03 , 'p \ 4 \1 , , , , \ \ \ â€ž8 \ RIEKEON Atd[) DI [1) A DFDGF,Art-1IC 21-E.VET #11 m \ Iht.>F>FC..TlON OF ME ligOTENJV 91-10*'IN I ' ' , , i \ \ \r->1 L_-L , , / *AM,/, 1 hOFC]1-1 APÂ·Â·ID EADT Or THE HaJEJE INo 1 i ~ ~~ ~ ANC) te-ED Fir-ltrJÂ·Â·4. r 8.-8 N \ 5 1 \\ \\ \\ \\\ \\ C,kv*-659 WEKE Ft-1,)ND EX.Err- At) 51-K-X/l/'rÂ·.1 ' i i \ i \\\ 1 6 *446 ...6:. : \\\\\\\ 1 \lA, \ \ \ \/\ 1 1 / IIi' A-rINE St.Â»/50, INC. DI<Â·~~4~d# , N 95 FOND 6 1 ~2 ' 90 Fig 1 20 -BEL \1 j' .1 LV*74!Â·03/0 A. r, 1 .- [ATE Â· ( 0 . I .f ..13.-7 74 ,- Â·:,77. -5 7<5 *xx it 1 i f , t / \ 11 1 _4 1 % 1 .\ 0 \\ 1 ~.2~ /// ///,dow" adh/N :. 1 / L-- 1 \ 4 : 99 j L--- 1 .f \ Rl,413; RE'BAI*FLAOTIC . , % 1 1, l lial /// ': \ A i . ./.- r'00 CAF, L .5 Cll 84 j Â«DEWER MANHOLE 6. _.__- _ __ _- ~2A ic k) \- ~Â»53>4 0048 too 11,/ :. I , 1 / N :.I ... C i 1 N 1 .veoc) De,CM 15 - i F 1 '1454~ / 1 / 93 1 L. jil l 1 I 56:f55'05 . N 38 84' Z GO al ICÂ© F 1 4 1 SCALEÂ· 1' 20' / 189 0,1 4 8 . / E 1515 OF DEAKING. FOUND MONUMENTS *3 31--IOVVIN , DATUM FLANE , A550115[) ELEVATION, ED O FT AT /1 11 11 1 108> , 8 0,Tr / * 11 Y THRESHOLD /,5 5+10?/hi --1% 0 \ Â· 16 / -- - SURVEYOR'S CERT IFIGATE, 91 lA I HER[Mir CERTIFT THAT THIS MAY ACCUMATEL}- DEF'ICTS N 88'30' 00* W 83,00' FCOUND. Rfe,AR W/PLAS CAr 17 , 191 1, Of LOT 1, GORDON LOT ,SPLIT, CITT CF ASPEN. A bURVE? MADE UNDER rly SUPERVISION ON JANUART L S. 9 04 COLOR/\[ID THE TWO STORY HOUSE WAS FOUND TO BE LOCATED ENTIRELY WITHIN THE BOUNDARY LINES OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY, THE LOCATION AND DIMENSIONS OF ALL BUILDINGS, IMPROVEMENTS, EAS EMENTS, RIGHTS- OF- WAY IN EVIDEN CE OR KNOWN TO ME AND ENCROACHMENTS BY OR ON THESEPREMISES ARE ACCURATELY SHOWN. ALF/NE SURVEYS, INS JUNE , I91 / LS'Â· . 1 AREA TABULATIONS : NOTES: 1 LOT AREA = 39424 SQ FT * 1. NO RESEARCH MADE FOR ADDITIONAL EASEMENTS OF RECORD 2 30'ACC. a UTIL. ESMT. . 5500 SQ.FT.* WHICH MAY AFFECT THIS PROPERTY. 3. RIVER AREA = 4792 SQ.FT. * 2. loOYEAR FLOOD PLAIN LINE FROM 1987 FE.M.A. STUDY PANEL 2040F 325 j t â‚¬fF 90-in-2 Â·,Orri Arf â€¢V'..9 Â·o (.O,er' 10~ â€¢4,% 9Ou mus, cominâ€¢,â€¢Ce â€¢f,Â·4 4â€¢gat /mia5ed â€¢,porÂ· 9/,4 (10!ect / 144 Surâ€¢,4 /'14/ /'ee Ye/.s /'Inr /O.1 f,fsÂ· d,Â·.,:o v,Â·Â· bâ€¢J, r (l e'el 1 Alpine Surveys, Inc. Surmed }F 11 014 Revisions 6.21Â·91 Title [Mrfra'E MENT 31.-)fWIT Job NO t)-111 - 3 WOMITHINSK)hi Ir' Â·,0 ever' may ..4 ac'ion b.fierl Jpor a' , 'lple' i Ir Ihic 'Urveâ€¢v De , en,mew ed Drafted 1 18 9/ EX 8 + 11 .eve Ihan '9Â·, reart '10,r rhe laÂ·,â€¢ 7 â€¢ne eâ€¢,Â·lit.Â·inr Â·hu.,r her,lfÂ·. Post Office Box 1730 5 4 92 LOT I Client KIVE.Ke>luft. Aspen, Colorado 81611 3.02Â·17 UPDATE GORDON LOT SPLIT JOI Nl a T T OF /EfEN, CO .4//1 . 303 925 2688 8.17 97 VERITUT . ~ 10 1 5 .1 7 f 'pr-9.<-r-F ~ SN)Â¥73 ................ . . . 0 . 1 , 1/. - , â‚¬ I , I - , t - Â·. -1* , -- -- ' ' i . i Â·rÂ·al"- Â· ' ' I ' 1 -1 " 1 1 - ' 4 / , 1 -I ........ , , , . ' , 1 I , ' I 1 ' , ,. , , , , .4 ' -$-1 ' / --- ,. 1 , t , , ' - I I. I -, I , '' ~ 0: 19 :7~ .''t' ~1Â·~ S and Driveways Ines O feet TA ISA 'KnONOP ED AND lli #TAnON. 'L42 aAV amsÂ·taAD, S OT9 Ip~~ , . 4:I .41â€¢ 1 :. I .- .. 4.. 1 , .13 .c'Â» 142 4 4':~ . 2 : , 0 .r I. .4 't, '.' .~ ,/. 1. 4 e. , I I Â£3#&.Â·+ '..tdl,!Unitc 1~=BLE-I.,I.. kbâ€¢*Il .th. *Â£-4-