Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.sm.230 N Spring St.1-84 CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen No. / -eV Staff: Q. 0. PROJECT NAME: 1IOLK Betisc. r - Sne.Cf Pv MAR.CsIORWVitW APPLICANT: lichcuvCQ UOlL rnteigfo.,ks ,� rone: REPRESENTATIVE: C?&LM . met-r'_ Phone: fat cPgL TYPE OF APPLICATION: (Fee) I. GMP /SUBDIVISION /PUD (4 step) 1. Conceptual Submission ($1,840) 2. Preliminary Plat ($1,120) 3. Final Plat ($ 560) II. SUBDIVISION /PUD (4 step) 1. Conceptual Submission ($1,290) 2. Preliminary Plat ($ 830) 3. Final Plat ($ 560) III .EXCEPTION /EXEMPTION /REZONING (2 step) ($1,010) IV. SPECIAL REVIEW (1 step) ($ 465) ,// 1. Special Review C‘\`` cu - rt a - 2. Use Determination 3. Conditional Use REFERRALS: Date Referred: //// I /Cy /73 // Attorney Sanitation District School District ✓ Engineering Dept. Mountain Bell Rocky Mtn. Nat.Gas Housing Parks State Hgwy. Dept. Water Holy Cross Electric Fire Chief City Electric Fire Marshall /Building Dept. ✓ Other T;nv• A+- nN., FINAL ROUTING: Date Routed: j 23 Lf_ C/ 1 / Attorney \- Engineering )C Building Other DISPOSITION: 1 � CITY P &Z REVIEW: I ' \ 1'0V:r' � r)� .� 4- 2 t.0l4kput C nr Ckk ;vim CITY COUNCIL REVIEW: Ordinance No. CITY P &Z REVIEW: • CITY COUNCIL REVIEW: Ordinance No. - . . r CHARGES CI UNFAIR IN FLOOD L $Y BRUCE EDGERLY for the Daily News "They can dump hun- Ars. 124'1 Y dreds of tons of An Aspen woman claims city scrap into the river, regulations ire eroding her river- but I can't move a side property, on the Roaring Fork. rocs(." Denise Reich, 40, of N. Spring St. complained to city authorities Denise Reich Monday that the Roaring Fork is " rising and she's drownin In their "The rivers are rising, red tape. the mountains are Last weekend the city shored up falling and everybody its own land Jbtit downstream from thinks I can st0 it." 4“ = < ", • w her at the Aspen Art Museum. She p wants to do the same, Jay Hammond + but claims Moms of Denise Reich was kept dry by inn taps the city approved this winter. But her adjacent pro• w City engineer i Weer party downstream now Is awash In red tape. Photo by Bruce Edgerly. y On't let her. g TAKING IT TO BANK Pegs erode property "W iled in h river" problem Reich until you filled in the river," Reich com- complained. As a result, the water plsined at a heated meeting Tues- level is higher on her land. (Prom P. 1) day with city engineer Jay Ham- WAKE OF FLOOD hiring an engineer, a lawyer and "It's not fair. We'll moot!. Last spring, Reich also had • applying for a permit. She said she get the Whole O I @ The city now uses land across flooding problems. In October she received the permit on February 21, g the river from Reich's house as a had a contractor shore up the river - and subsequently finished con- neighborhood to snow dump. 30 years ago a trailer bank in front of her house with ce- structton. fight it." park was developed across from ment and large rocks. The new dike has proven effec- Denise Reich her house, then torn down five The city stopped her and five in protecting her home this years later. Reich claims both ac- ordered she obtain "stream margin spring. But now the downstream tions have caused the river to review" as required by a city or- part of her land Is being engulfed permanent levee, subject to threaten her land. dinance passed In 1975: The law She doesn't have time for stream stream margin review, he stressed. "The river Is not flowing on its requires that permanent develop - margin review this time. He Invited Reich to do the same, original course," she claimed. The ment within 100 feet of the river be WATER COLOR as long as she removed the tem- river now is half its width of thirty .subject to stream margin review. Last weekend the city, in a porary matter. But Reich claims years ago and has become nar- Reich claims she spent $3500 In similar situation, dumped cinder she can't afford to do that and rower due to the snow dump, she (Please see P. 4' blocks, concrete "pigs,' 50 loads doesn't have the time for a stream of asphalt scrap, and a wrecked margin review. car Into the river to protect the Reich told the Aspen Daily News Aspen Art Museum. she intends to challenge the city. "They can dump hundreds of "It's not fair. We'll get the whole tons of scrap Into the river, but I neighborhood to fight It." She was can't move a rock," Reich com- Joined at Tuesday's meeting by - plained. neighbor Paula Mayer. Hammond said the city shored Hammond, who spearheaded up the riverbank, albeit reluctantly, evacuation and research efforts with the Intention of eventually during a city-wide mudslide threat removing the scrap. "That car's two weeks ago, said later "The not going to stay there, that's for rivers are rising, the mountains are I ; sure," the engineer insisted. falling and everybody thinks 1 can Later the city will construct a stop It." MUSICK AND COPE MEMORANDUM TO: PAUL TADDUNE FROM: MUSICK AND COPE DATE: AUGUST 21, 1984 RE: CLEAN WATER ACT § 404 PREEMPTION OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE (ASPEN 1A) ISSUE Whether compliance with Clean Water Act § 404 (33 U.S.C. § 1334) permit requirements preempts further permit require- ments pursuant to the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen for a person intending to build a retaining wall on a stream within the City of Aspen. CONCLUSION A person intending to build a retaining wall on a stream in Aspen who has a Section 404 permit must submit a develop- ment plan in accordance with a stream margin review under Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen (Aspen Code) in order to get the required building permits pursuant to the Aspen Code. Such a requirement is not preempted by Section 404 because Congress has not intended to occupy the field, as evidenced by its grant to the states of concurrent jurisdiction over water quality matters, and because there is not an actual conflict between Section 404 and a stream margin review. A Section 404 permit exempts a person from water quality control permits under Chapter 11 of the Aspen Code and the Colorado state water quality control permits, but not the stream margin review under the zoning chapter (24) of the Aspen Code. DISCUSSION I. Aspen Code A. Chapter 11: Health - Water Quality, etc. The discharge of any pollutant within the incor- porated limits of the City of Aspen is unlawful. Aspen Code §§ 11 -1.4., 11 -1.5. The term pollutant includes, inter alia, dredged spoil and dirt. Aspen Code § 11- 1.1.(g). Thus, the MUSICK AND COPE construction work necessary to shore up a stream within the city limits would necessarily cause an unlawful pollution of the city waters. However, "[c]ompliance with an applicable permit held by any person charged with a violation of this chapter shall constitute an absolute defense to any such violation." Aspen Code § 11 -1.6. (emphasis added). "Permit" includes permits lawfully issued pursuant to The Clean Water Act. Aspen Code § 11- 1.1.(d). Therefore, compliance with Section 404 permit requirements preempts any further permit requirements under Chapter 11 of the Aspen Code. However, there are also permit requirements under Chapter 7 of the Aspen Code. B. Chapter 7: Building Regulations. Section 7 -140. of the Aspen Code adopts and inclu- des in the Aspen Code by reference the 1979 edition of the Uniform Building Code (U.B.C.). U.B.C. § 301(a) states that it is unlawful for any person to, "erect, construct, [or] enlarge" a structure regulated by the U.B.C. without first obtaining a building permit. U.B.C. § 301(a). Section 103 defines the scope of the U.B.C. as follows: "The provisions of this code shall apply to the construction, alteration, moving, demolition, repair and use of a building or structure within this jurisdiction. . . ." Since the proposed retaining wall is a structure within the. City, it is subject to the requirements of the U.B.C. U.B.C. § 301(b) enumerates exemptions to U.B.C. § 301(a); however, none of these exemp- tions relate to the shoring up of a stream. U.B.0 § 303(a) states that "the application, plans and specifications and other data filed by an applicant for per- mit review shall be reviewed by the building official. Such plans may be reviewed by other departments of this jurisdic- tion to verify compliance with any applicable laws under their jurisdiction." Thus, Planning and Zoning Commission requirements are bootstrapped into the building permit requirements. C. Chapter 24: Zoning. The zoning chapter, chapter 24, of the Aspen Code requires "Special Development Permits" for certain types of development within the city. Section 24 -6.5. requires that plans of proposed development in proximity to a natural water course be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Aspen Code §§ 24 -6.5., 24 -6.3. Further, "the building inspector shall consider the recommendations of the zoning commission and shall approve or disapprove the development within ten (10) days of the receipt of the recommendation and in conformity with said recommendation." Aspen Code § 24 -6.5. The last phrase of the above quoted sentence grants -2- MUSICK AND COPE the zoning commission a veto power over a development plan not in accordance with zoning requirements. Section 24 -6.3. deliniates the zoning requirements for development in proxi- mity to a natural water course, and is called a "Stream Margin Review." Aspen Code § 24 -6.3. The result is that before a building permit can be issued for development in proximity to a natural water course there must be a stream margin review. The question becomes whether or not the construction of a retaining wall is a "development" under the zoning chapter, i.e.; whether § 24 -6.3. of the Aspen Code is intended to over the construction of a retaining wall. The intention of a stream margin review is stated in the Aspen Code § 24- 6.3.(a): Intention. To guide development and encourage appropriate use of land in proximity to designated natural water courses, to promote safety from flooding, to prevent impediment of natural water flow, and to insure provisions for ade- quate protection and preservation of the designated natural water courses as important natural features. Bank stabilization through construction of a retaining wall falls within most, if not all, of the enumerated intents of a stream margin review. II. Federal Preemption. The Supreme Court used a two part analysis to determe whether California fair packaging and labeling statutes were preempted by federal fair packaging and labeling law in Jones v. Rath Packing Co., 97 S. Ct. 1305 (1977). The first step in addressing a federal preemption issue is to determine whether Congress expressly preempted state regulation. Rath, 97 S. Ct. at 1309. The second inquiry is, "whether under the circumstances of this particular case, [the state's] law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress." Rath, 97 S. Ct. at 1310 (quoting Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67 (1941)). In determining whether or not the state law is at odds with the purposes and objectives of Congress, the court must consider, "the relationship between state and federal laws as they are interpreted and applied, not merely as they are written." Rath, 97 S. Ct. at 1310. The Ninth Circuit has expressed a two prong analysis where there is an "absence of express preemption language." Chevron v. Hammond, 776 F.2d 483, 486 (9th Cir. 1984). Thus, -3- M USICK AND COPE in Hammond, the court used a two part analysis for the second part of the Rath test. The Hammond inquiry was whether Congress "implicitly intended to occupy the field," and whether the state statute was "nonetheless void because it actually conflicts" with a federal act. Hammond, 776 F.2d at 486. The test in the 10th Circuit is substantially the same. Upon applying the Rath and Hammond tests to the instant situation, it is clear that there is no Section 404 preemp- tion of the Aspen stream margin review requirements. Congress did not expressly preempt state regulation or impli- citly intend to occupy the field. Section 404 provides: Nothing in this section shall preclude or deny the right of any state. . .to control the discharge of dredged or fill material in any portion of the navigable waters within the jurisdiction of such state. . . . Clean Water Act § 404(t). Further, the legislative history to the 1977 amendments to the Clean Water Act makes it clear that "[d]redging activites. . .should be conducted in compliance with applicable state water quality standards." S. Rep. No. 95 -370, 95th Cong. 1st Session. 67, reprinted in 1977 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News, pp. 4326, 4393. For the control of water pollu- tion within a state, a "federal -state partnership" is intended. Hammond, 776 F.2d at 489. Case law also holds that states have concurrent jurisdiction over the discharge of dredge and fill material. See, Hammond; Bartell v. State of Minnesota, 284 N.W.2nd 834, 837 (Minn. 197g Colorado has a permit system for water quality control and, like Chapter 11 of the Aspen Code, a Section 404 permit will satisfy the Colorado permit requirements. C.R.S. § 25- 8- 501(1) (1973). However, the Colorado legislature has granted to the municipalities power over "water pollution control," C.R.S. § 31 -15 -710 (1973), and "building and fire regulations," C.R.S. § 31 -15 -601 (1973). Moreover, [m]unicipal policy exercised by a Home Rule City in Colorado is the equivalent of 'state action' when exercised in connec- tion with municipal affairs." Pueblo Aircraft Service, Inc. v. Pueblo, 498 F.Supp. 1205, 1210 D. Colo. 1980), aff'd 679 F.2d 805 (10th Cir. 1982), cert. denied 103 S. Ct. 762 (1983). Since Aspen is a Home Rule City pursuant to Article XX of the Constitution of Colorado and since it has been held that ordinances enacted to alleviate local water drainage problems similar to a stream margin review are within the ambit of municipal affairs, Wood Bros. Homes, Inc. v. City of Colorado Springs, 193 Colo. 543, 568 P.2d 487 -4- MUSICK AND COPE Aspen's stream margin review is a "state" control which is concurrent with Section 404 requirements. The Aspen stream margin review requirements are also not an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress under Section 404 and there is no actual conflict between the federal and local regulations. Aspen's stream margin review merely requires the preparation of a development plan for submission to the Planning and Zoning Commission in order to promote safety and the preservation of the Aspen waterways. Compliance with the Aspen stream margin review requirements promotes, rather than conflicts with, the Clean Water Act's goal of protecting the integrity of the nation's waterways. It is possible that the Aspen stream margin review would proscribe developments in proximity to a stream flowing through Aspen that would be permitted by the Clean Water Act; this, however, is insuf- ficient to warrant preemption. See Hammond, 726 F.2d at 497, 498. Thus, the Aspen stream margin review requirements are not expressly or implicitly preempted by Congress and are not in actual conflict with or an obstacle to the attainment of the full purposes and objectives of Congress in enacting Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. -5- MEMORANDUM TO: Bill Drueding, Zoning Enforcement Officer =- FROM: Jay Hammond, City Engineer - DATE: July 23, 1984 RE: Reich Property I received the attached letter and site plan from Denice Reich today. I would appreciate your comments regarding the denial of her fence permit. I would suggest we discuss this matter before I attempt any response to Ms. Reich. - Thanks -- JH /co - - Enclosure /7- otitte tg1 \ Er'Cn4 Pa St, ad - -- lo 8161 ind: ike to have you clarify the following: am I denied the ability to put a fence sis The permit was denied (survey e nclosed ). Mr. Drueding• on June 13, 1984 by regarding protection of my property rules I need this clarified please. g the stream. Sincerely Device Reich 290 Fillmore Street r“4 4-P 300 ..nonL. Ju -.112:144:14 CITY Mr. Jay Hammoi nd �o ED'.Gii:E6R City Engineer ovGk 130 S. Galena Aspen, Co1orael 81612 Dear Mr. Hamm( nd: I would 1 'Re to have you clarify the following: On what ba sis am I denied the ability to put a fence on my property survey enclosed). The permit was denied for submission a June 13, 1984 by Mr. Drueding. What are thee rules regarding protection of my property from erosion along the stream. I need this clarified please. Sincerely, Denice Reich 290 Fillmore Street Suite 300 Denver, Colorado 80206 1 1 ' 0 23. ► It \ N\ g° a I A.7 12 6 \ cn \ \\ \ I 0. O _ O O_ J t tzl 7 1 - 4(.5:A pin' t CIT ® " SPEN 130° ou I° ` treet asp A r .40! �' `. 1611 ` ' • I 0 r- July :2, 1984 Gideon Kaufman _ 611 West Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Follow -Up on Work at the Reich Residence Dear Gideon: I am writing in an attempt to clear up remaining items relative to the right -of -way adjacent to the Reich residence on North Spring Street. As you may recall, in my letter to you of December 15, 1983 on this matter, it was required that your client remove any fill within the right -of -way to a location at least one foot west of the power poles along the westerly right -of -way line. Recent complaints by Denice's neighbor, Remo Lavagnino, prompted my inspection of the area at which time I noted that significant quantities of rocky gravel remained within the right -of -way. I would again ask that you direct your client to remove this material. In addition, we note that Denice has a dumpster located within the right -of -way immediately adjacent to Remo's driveway. This dumpster creates some inconvenience for Remo and should not be located within the public right -of -way. I would suggest that the dumpster would be better located on Denice's property west of the road but, wherever it is located, I must ask that it be removed from the street. I feel that you and I have been drawn into a neighbor versus neighbor squabble, a role that I do not relish. I will, however, intervene in cases where I feel the public roadway is being obstructed and utilized improperly. . ._" . • Page Two July 2, 1984 Follow -Up on Work at the Reich Residence I would be happy to meet with you and your client to resolve this matter should you so desire. Very Truly Y•urs, W. Hammond C ity Engineer JWH /co cc: Remo Lavignino CITY OF ASPEN 130 south galena street aspen, colorado 81611 303 - 925 -2020 December 15, 1983 Gideon Kaufman Box 10001 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Re: Fill Material in Right -of -Way at Reich Residence Dear Gideon: Pursuant to our meeting of December 5 with Wayne Chapman and Remo Lavaanino, I am writing to recap the major items agreed to at that time: 1. It was our understanding that Denice Reich would make a formal application for an encroachment license to legitimize the retaining wall, berm, and landscaping she has placed in the right -of -way. This license request will involve the submission of an application with a survey clearly indicating the area of right -of -way on which the improvements have been placed as well as that portion of remaining right -of -way necessary for parking. Granting of the license would be considered in a public hearing before the City Council. 2. We noted that fill material had been left on the west side of the right -of -way due to the work along the river bank. Wayne and I pointed out that, whatever the status of the license request regarding the berm, no fill should be left in the remaining right -of -way. I have since researched the platting of the area and returned to the site. The plats indicate a twenty (20) foot right -of -way and my observations and measurements on Spring Street would indicate that the right -of -way boundary is about one (1) to two (2) feet west of the power poles which are on the west side of the roadway. There is also a fire hydrant in the right -of -way slightly west of the power poles. The City of Aspen is hereby directing that your client remove the random fill from the road to i Page Two December 15, 1983 Fill Material in Right -of -Way at Reich Residence a location at least one (1) foot behind the power poles. This will serve to facilitate snow removal and efficient use of the limited roadway in the area. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, Qif`/, mip 9 s W. Hammond istant City Engineer JWH /co cc: Wayne Chapman Remo Lavagnino Paul Taddune LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION BOX 10001 GIDEON I. KAUFMAN 611 WEST MAIN STREET TELEPHONE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 AREA CODE 303 DAVID G. EISENSTEIN 925 -8166 February 1, 1984 HAND DELIVERY Jay Hammond Engineering Department City of Aspen 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Volk /Lavelino Dear Jay: I write to confirm our recent phone conversation and our understanding of my clients' actions concerning the controversy on Spring Street. As I explained to you, after negotiations and discussions with Remo and his attorney, Albie Kern, I believe that it is easiest for Denise to remove the berm. Therefore, on Thursday, February 2, 1984, a loader will be moving the dirt and rock that presently sits in the City's right -of -way. This spring when the earth thaws and allows us to move the berm and save the trees we will be removing the berm and restoring the area to the condition it was in prior to the time Denise installed the berm. This should take care of both concerns expressed by you in your letter to me. Thank you very much for your help and consideration in this matter. Very truly yours, LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN, a Professional Corporation By 2 Gide, Kaufman GK /ks cc: Barry D. Edwards, Esq. Albert Kern, Esq. MAY 25,1983 Po• 5oX 532_ ASt _N, GO. 01612 MCA. CENT lam' t'- NV Q\E e azEa4,tht . 290 Fiu.t.,'ctzm DEWEV_, COLCEW S020S fAd pet.)1c.E; 1 � CAN lag CANpID LUr44 `1Cv IN A AMtcAPt LU'\Y TO Lar Yap tk,.x o wHAAAar TtAt SQR P H �-'-'''H ,V-Inc,1K [_ wtIN-WE2,_ pa' j y j M01/4/ AL. AtJD GrAPPt ZS W AS I t accEctiv D3 . Pg1Mt1Ct1_%? E V3F-421\A AND fl ..ALStit 5j '<e tt O C3 Tr1E T2A atAq 1. "r FALL. TTBE 5t .Wi- Rci Q R Nalp UP'tQ V 1E a 2 N\ AND SCE Q VUt_P tW a)tU 02 9-nzvENIE.D IRE A `t' s pi t CAS p 1 A\i' ML? Cal\ - WAY• MANY CA9Y-Krvist cASZ5 ec5r9Too AND R PA .— catt At2P.5 IS t� �� y � T EtJ PA�?� 1 N 'FRaNP� N r7 t,,UttN3't ?. AAp 1-1/4c t xU HPty M T C--A C. N \E E- A D 3=v E EFc , lr tt A ca-A5 ccME czEAS P� � � - AC �NDD �ING`T�. Fit tNrrA -n owls?TrME YoO A t M�ED 15 t - �,� tAe:l .s tt.� 1IRE 9JMn/l�, A Psopta W No c7P+c -'nA ear Ycv'vE. i NVtT�p . TN 1145 FR � 1 �� , � W j� t TAE N AREA You Ae rr t= t= .t/�.J 1-� ID qNp =Ann 11\APPCIED ADVE2aY INSENSIME ww ►TH. �..�,� - ��, y MUCH TRAFFIC AT 2:COAt\A 3:ooAM AND NOSE tt M�` . WIND, ` h3 W E 2- YEAS' tVF LIVED KEPE L h A NM.VEP -- ■oC. HAVi= at._ec MY \- I!tENP5 C2. Gt)C -S 5) pA DIN H-n -Yr Qcut . itoct t Luc taoAr AL? . 1 HAVE AwiA`S Q.a PE 1t Yom t vAC q. - izw YC O 1-'-) LM Z WA5 At3D cr (we1 C c =s j ` lE Lie ''C) n3T - 1 tv -kE eEQM, PP;tJVED ). .\ EO THE AXUAY � OU ms cED'M -vo'ga M'NCEP At t' To t 1T WV. - TFj t\ ` 1cc.$2 t_ 'F •J • fj.1 DePATCC3/4■) crn2e. La■l ECCOCA pcU AS k E1G -HOCR5 z Petrel). 1, u.xx. UJ NW.) LAVE �oAI A E 2w1 C _ ITS OE stt3P L-7 \tNPPT'c ), AND NOT 13EI c2 pw 3r /W\-1 TT E5 - 5‘AcaLieacaY AT` ? a END Cc' 1T; "TME LA R. QE5r 1510 Au00 Tt-4E et S0 TD Fcw-WE SPP.mJPW At•NO ANC Tt- TE•cflu) tN`CDT�E C '- - lag uJtu.- READ THt 5 % ETTh R tN -- FAc enc2cr t N WHICH 1T WA5 t t•- rvENctso AND MAT v.) WAP 4' tocE /a•CAIk.J coonN3E - co 14 1`1‘) O11,A1-Wnk Ft-Pc 1 tQ t - .NU- - BFI ---Acte-M0 ---- --4..{...--- • . en ci critxrco:»T t r11101 coutav l . • !J a•r d, a1. c3:Q2M)O 1.w- -TD7E.--, .ter count IN TIIE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PITIC: 1 AND STATE or C DO Civil Action No. 397/ D.eM1cte 2 e,ci RUCSELL H. VOLTS, ) ) plaintiff, ) ) vs. COMPLAINT G, E. BUCHANAN and JEAN FRANCES ) . BUCHANAN, ) ) .. Dafendanta. ) Comes now the Plaintiff, Russell H. Volk, by and through his attorneys. i I Clinton B. Stewart and Johnson, Volk and Young, for a first cause of action alleges and complains as foliowo: L That Plaintiff hag been and is the owner of the following described real property in PiCdn County. State of Colorado, to -wit: lot 1 and South -half (S!) of Lot 2, Block ' 2 and Loth 1 and 2 and South -half (S2) • Lot 3, Block 1 all in Oklahoma Flats addition according to Willits map dated 1096 and recorded in Pitan County, State of Colorado, and that Plaintiff has constructed or caused to bo constructed substantial impr, ve- • manta on said land, and that said real property and improvements are locatcd a- long and adjacent to the northerly bank of the Roaring Fork River. a non - navigable ■ I stream. 1 IL ` That a portion of tho improvements constructed by Plaintiff on said I i i c -tal property has consisted of work on the npith bank of said Roaring Fork River i to prevent oatd rival- from erroding the bank' and overflowing said bank causing damage from occuring to Plaintiff's property and Improven.ents and to prevent the loss o(Incd by rciictlon. . I III ! That the Defendants claim to be ' :he owners of land in Pitkin County, State of Colorado, on tha southerly bank of the Roaring Fork River opposite i the land of the Plaintiff which lands of the Defendants are described it: &X1 222 li : at Page 359 of the records for *•i Lain County. 1 i • IV • T hat on or about September 7, 1968, the Defendants did begin to fill with dirt and rocks a substantial portion of the natural channel of the Roaring Fork River adjacent to and northerly of the southerly bank of said river and which fill will change the course of natural flow of said river especially during high water flow of said river; and that the Defendants had no right to place said fill in :, the natural course of said river and did continue said work after protest made to Defendants by Plaintiff. V . That the fill placed in said river by the Defendants will cause damage to the land and improvements of Plaintiff in the amount of $50, 000.00 by reason • of flooding and loos of land by reliction for the reason that the work done by the Defendants has changed the natural course and flow of the Roaring Fork River. . ' SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION r . As a second cause of action the Plaintiff complains and alleges: I• That the Plaintiff incorporates the allegations of Prragraphs I. II, III, IV, and V of hie first cause of action as • part hereof. D; That work done by Defendants was done with a wilful and wanton dis- regard to the affect of the change in the natural course of flow of said Roaring Fork River on the property and improvements of Plaintiff on and along the northerly 1 bank of the Roaring Fork River and that Defendants knew that the work they had - •t1 caused to be done in the natural channel of eaid4-river will cause damage to the land and improvements of the Plaintiff, i -z- i and that the Defendants continued with the filling of said natural water channel 1 after protest and notice from Plaintiff to cease said work to prevent damage 1. . 4§ occurring to the property and improvements of Plaintiff on the northerly bank of said river. That be reason of Defendants' unlawful, reckless, and wanton dis h regard of the rights of the Plaintiff, that Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages I �� ; in the amount of $25, 000, 00. I 22 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION i.. • As a third cause of action the Plaintiff complains and alleges: 1 1. y ` . That the Plaintiff incorporates the allegations of Paragraph I, II, W. 4i .• 1V and V of hie first cause of action as a part hereof. Thatby reason of the work done by Defendants by altering the natural ' course of said river. that Plaintiff will suffer irreparable damage to his property r C) I • and improvements unless the river course is restored to its original river bed or r r III. .Y 1 That the Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law for the reason that { 1. . t Plaintiff's land may suffer damage and is in immediate and impending jeopard by i 1 .t reason of flooding as a result of Defendants' acts, which damage would be is. - 1 reparable, and that numerous and independent action may have to be initiated for t r 1 : ' + damage caused by separate floods. IV. 1 ; . I That the Defendants should be enjoined from doing further work in the natural channel of said Roaring Fork River and that the Defendants should be , 4 ordered by this Court to restore the bed and course of the Roaring Fork River to 44 3 its natural condition and that Defendants should be held strictly liable for any • 9 -3- damage caused by Defendants' acts until said river i• restored to its natural l i course. . WHEREFORE the Plaintiff prays for judgement against Defendants I i as f ollowo: 1. The sum c. $50, 000.00 as actual damage to the property and 1l improvements of Plaintiff as claimed in the first cause of action; II !I 2. The sum of $25,000.00 as punitive damages as claimed in the I I second cause of action; • 3. That the Defendants be enjoined from doing further work in the t natural course of the Roaring Fork River and that the Defendants I be ordered to restore said river to its natural and original bed and course as the same existed prior to the work done by the Defendants: j • 4. That Defendants be held strictly liable for any damage to P1a3ntiff's land until the river is restored to its natural course; 5. And for such other and further relief as may be deemed proper by the Court. `� �' [ Clinton 1. Stewart ■ ��/ {{--�-� - , �J P. O, Box 706 lY�'� /G / Aspen, Colorado 81611 6i p D eicY Telephone 925 -3386 ' JOHNSON, VOLK and YOUNG E 8sz - --SY70 1135 Petroleum Club Bldg. als Denver, Colorado 8020 Telephone 266 -3163 < r. Attorneys for Plaintiff Address of Plaintiff: • 1135 Petroleum Club Bldg. Denver, Colorado 80202 Telephone 266 -3163 I .4, . , 1 ■ 1 , < .IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR T HE COUNTY OF PITK1N AND c ' STATE OF CO! M) • Civil Action No. 3877 5 7 L NuSSF.t.1, R. vOI K. ) F ) 9 Plaintiff. ) 4 , S vs. ) ORDER FOR DIS3IISSAL y' t G.E. BUCHANAN and JEAN ) L FRANCES BUCHANAN, ) €, ) . : Def endants. ) t 1. . t . n •' + This matter having come on for hearing upon the Stipulation 7x of the partiers, and the Court having examined such Stipulation !h r T..... a ,.. and now being fully advised in the premises: F ,, IT IS ORDERED that the within action and complaint be and tC - they are hereby dismissed with prejudice, each party to pay his C ■ ' own costs. T T - 7 0 Dated th s y _ day of4 eaeaGer. 190`... I` , ' BY THE COURT: C P ! — n;.artct Jud e; } s Y V""` a cam, wa/1 lho � 3 e VV yi n r Y �.y[, ( /� /� ,, /� � /'� 1 ' . ,1a , . .. �S 1 0 4 1 tfc. c t aJ _ � r — I C1sa Muga,11 1 cdsz Iq72. itse05 sivaizs. '73-Seezt it, • • DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY .4� /'�" SACRAMENTO DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS N CIF --",1 s l I „i 650 CAPITOL MALL � j!v:`_ SACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA 95814-4794 \ a/ REPLY TO ATTENTION OF May 10, 1988 Regulatory Section (N13 -245, 9900 and 87 -080) RECEIVE") JUL 29 1988 Ms. Denice Reich City Engineer 290 Filmore Denver, Colorado 80206 Dear Ms. Reich: I am responding to your letter dated May 3, 1988 as well as other written and oral correspondence in regard to violation 87 -080. We understand that you want to replace dredged alluvial material that was placed on your banks with 264 cubic yards of riprap below the ordinary high water mark of the Roaring Fork River to stabilize the right bank. The length of the proposed project is 340 feet. Removal of the unstable dredged alluvial material to an upland site will end your violation status. Placement of riprap in quantities given is permitted under Nationwide Permit number 13 (Bank Stabilization). Your project can be constructed under this authority provided the work meets the conditions listed on the attached information sheet. This verification is valid for no more than two years. Your application, 9900, for an individual permit is hereby withdrawn. You need to notify this office when the removal has commenced and has been completed so that a compliance inspection may be arranged. Should you have questions, please contact Judy Geniac by telephoning (303) 243 -1199. Sinc rely, ( G , .y L. Nure hief, Reg latory Unit 4 764 Horizo Drive, Room 211 s and Jun ion, Colorado 81506 -8719 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Richard Grice, Planning Office RE: Volk Project - Stream Margin Review (Case #1 -84 City) DATE: February 21, 1984 The attached application was submitted by Gideon Kaufman on behalf of Richard Volk for stream margin review on the Volk property in Oklahoma Flats. The application involves stream bank improvements which were made by the applicant at the end of last summer in an effort to re- build the stream bank which was eroded by the spring runoff. Upon the receipt of a complaint by a neighbor, the Building Department advised Mr. Volk that submission of an application for stream margin review was required to bring the improvements into compliance with the Code. The bank was stabilized by "heavy rip rap" cobblestones varying in size from six inches (6 ") to twelve inches (12 ") in diameter. The cobble material was installed at approximately a 45 angle and further stabilized by masonry grout. The water course of the river was not encroached upon by these improvements. The river bank is, in fact, in the same location as it was prior to spring floods. The capacity of the stream channel has not been altered nor have there been any adverse impact on the 100 year flood plain. The applicant's residence, yard and numerous trees varying in diameter from one inch (1 ") to several feet were clearly threatened by the erosion which began last spring. The stabilization of the stream bank is consistent with the intent of the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan and results in a reduction of erosion, protection of the natural vegeta- tion, and maintenance of a reasonably natural appearance for the stream bank. The cobble material used in the retaining structure is consistent with the natural character and appearance of the stream channel. The referral agencies have not identified any inconsistencies with the adopted criteria for review of stream margin reviews. The Environ- mental Health Department noted that the improvements "should reduce bank erosion and sediment deposition in this small section of river." The Planning Office feels that the intent and established criteria for stream margin review are met by this application and therefore recom- mend your approval with the following motion: "Move to approve the Volk Stream Margin review." LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION BOX 10001 611 WEST MAIN STREET TELEPHONE GIDEON I. KAUFMAN ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 AREA CODE 303 DAVID G. EISENSTEIN 925 -8166 December 1, 1983 HAND DELIVERY Planning and Zoning Commission City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Stream Margin Review, Lot 1, South 1 of Lot 2, Block 2, Oklahoma Flats, Aspen, Colorado. Dear Sirs: This letter is a request for a Stream Margin Review in compliance with § 24 -6.3 of the Zoning Code for a Stream Margin Review for Lot 1, South 1 of Lot 2, Block 2, Oklahoma Flats. This particular Stream Margin Review is unique in that there is no development that is being sought for the lot. My clients have a fully developed lot and are merely seeking to make certain stream bank improvements along the Roaring Fork River immediately adjacent to their property. My client spoke with the Building Department and was told by Stan Stevens that a permit was not necessary to make the improvements that they required to the stream bank. Once construction was under way a neighbor's complaint brought Bill Drueding to the property where he stopped the work explaining that while a permit was not necessary, stream margin review was required. We have since met with the Engineering Department and have discussed the best way to proceed. Enclosed please find an engineering report for Stream Margin Review which explains what we have done and why we are in compliance with Stream Margin Review criteria pursuant to the Aspen City Code. You also will find enclosed a log of photos and a survey which I believe sufficiently addresses questions relating to the work that has been done and the review that we are seeking. I think in all fairness to my client since they proceed in good faith based upon the assurances of the Building Department that a permit was not necessary that they should be allowed to complete the work they began. Planning and Zoning Commission December 1, 1983 Page 2 I look forward to discussing this at your next available meeting. Very truly yours, LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN, a Professional Corporation X By Gideo , aufman i GK /kl ENGINEERING REPORT FOR STREAM MARGIN REVIEW Purpose: The purpose of this report is to present observations and professional opinions relating to certain stream bank improve- ments made along the Roaring Fork River immediately adjacent to Lot 1 and the south one -half of Lot 2, Block 2, Oklahoma Flats, Aspen, Colorado. Observations: An on -site inspection was conducted on 9 November 83 an on 5 November 1983; observations made are as follows: A. Heavy "rip -rap" has been placed on the Roaring Fork River bank along the entire south boundary of the property. The rip -rap consists of river rock varying in size from 6" to 12" diameter. This rock has been placed at what appears to be its natural angle of repose (approximately 45° slope) and has been stabilized by placing cement grout in the voids. B. The rip -rap slope does not appear to encroach into the natural stream channel nor does the flow of the river appear to be affected. C. The natural ground cover and trees along the banks have not been affected by placement of the rip -rap bank pro - tection. D. Pollution of the river does not appear to be resulting from the rip -rap bank protection. OPINIONS Based upon the aforementioned site inspection and upon review of various photographs and upon statements made by the property owner, opinions have been formulated as follows: A. Adjacent land and adjacent properties are not being damaged as a result of the subject rip -rap. B. The rip -rap has been placed along the natural river bank in an effort to prevent erosion of the bank and in an effort to protect the trees at the top of the river bank. C. The rip -rap does not constitute a change of the river channel and will not, in the event of a major flood, divert the river onto adjacent lands or onto land across the river. D. The rip -rap has been placed and stabilized in an adequate manner for the purpose intended. E. Since neither the issuance of a building permit nor the granting of subdivision approval are the subjects of this "Stream Margin Review it is the opinion of the undersigned that the concerns of the code are limited to erosion control, vegetation control, pollution control and flood plain con- siderations. F. Based on Opinion "E" above, it is a further opinion of the undersigned that the intent of the Aspen Code Section 24 -6.3 Stream Margin Review has been satisfied by the owners in their efforts to protect and preserve the river bank. G. The history of the subject property and the disposition of the river front should be considered in determining conformance to the Code. The intent of the Code appears to be to preserve the "natural" state of the Roaring Fork River channel. Prior to 1960, the Roaring Fork River channel along this property was such that the majority of the river flow was located considerably south or towards the opposite bank, compared to its current location. The channel was changed by the placement of a man - made embankment on the south side of the river causing the river to cut into the bank along the subject property. H. The recent efforts expended to replace the eroded river bank and to prevent recurrence of such erosion are partly due to placement of the man -made embankment on the opposite side. The rip -rap as placed should adequately serve to preserve the river bank in its natural condition. Roger Hocking P.E. & L.S. SUPPLEMENTAL ENGINEERING REPORT FOR STREAM MARGIN REVIEW NOTE: The subjects discussed herein are addressed in the same order presented in Mr. Chuck Roth's memorandum to the planning office dated February 7, 1984. 1. A copy of a survey with a registered surveyor's stamp is attached. The 100 year flood elevation as inter- preted from the Roaring Fork River flood analysis is indicated on the attached drawing. Also, attached is a copy of a topographic map which shows the location of the residence on the property. 2. Greenway Plan. The "Roaring Fork Greenway Plan" is a document, the purpose of which is to identify certain aspect of the Roaring Fork River eco- system and to present recommendations for preserving and perpetuating such eco- systeM. .` The subject project as constructed is compatible oft this plan in that it's main purpose is to preserve the trees, soils, groundcover and natural • stream bed t its natural condition. Without the river h nb 4mn tr.t- th.- ' - _�';.:- .n:.t. ..r system were being threatened and, in fact, damaged by encroaolamoNps from high river conditions. 3. This item i►at been otherwise addressed. 4. Relative to quality of construction, the following facts are submitted: A. The completed work was performed in a workmanlike manner using standard construction procedures and the mortar used to stablize the rip -rap was a masonry grout consisting of sand, Portland Cement and rater. The same techniques, procedures and Materia s will be used for small amounts of work left to complete the project. B. The work was performed in September and thus no unusual curing procedures were required. No deterioration is expected from the grout system nor from the rocks. v _ •I , _ .7-.-8.54 p• M .. ` ' t , `, ti • RoPr -'R - -` ,t '..r --- t 4t ^J T81 01 • • . . ( i . L� �� Z El I t x 7872.7 - • 7871:1 • l X7864:2 x - a .. •. � y Ii � tiJ f4.3: . - ` .x `86 Lam-. `\ . 1 \ .. .\ .••r - . - • • • - �•.� �~4� >. 7 87 4 . 8 ..: � . _. ......,, • .J � �' � E _ • .... . � `�: �: t• : -. �_� - �•_ - fir--\ ..------ v. 1 7900 v k \ ..,:)._ .______, .... .. • .. x 7900 2 f , • x 7897.0 ; • • • C 1 = , x 7 900 2 1. _ ' . . ` it ii MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney City Engineering Department Environmental Health Department FROM: Janet Weinstein Planning Office RE: Volk Project - Stream Margin Review DATE: January 9, 1984 Attached please find an application submitted by Gideon Kaufman on behalf of Richard Volk for Stream Margin Review on the Volk Project which is located in Oklahoma Flats in Aspen. Please review these materials and return your referral comments to Richard Grice of the Planning Office no later than February 7, 1984, in order for the Planning Office to have adequate time to prepare for its presentation before the City Planning and Zoning Commission on February 21, 1984. Thank you. MEMORANDUM TO: Bill Drueding, Building Department FROM: Janet Weinstein, Planning Office CC: Barry Edwards, Assistant City Attorney RE: Volk Project - Stream Margin Review DATE: January 25, 1984 In accordance with Barry Edwards' request that you receive a copy of the Volk Project Stream Margin Review application for referral comments, I am attaching hereto copies of the application, photographs and plans received by this office in connection with the same. Richard Grice is handling this matter and he will be needing your comments no later than February 7, 1984, in order to have adequate time to prepare for the project's presentation before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commis- sion on February 21, 1984. If you need anything further, please feel free to call. Y 'U , •:y ivAC' ( otti Y i.` 2(I ,(_ 1 L ASPENOPITKIN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM Richard Grice, Planning Office /*QM/- TO: Chuck Roth, Engineering Department FROM: Robert F. Nelson, Environmental Health Department DATE: February 1, 1984 RE: Volk Project - Stream Margin Review In as much as the project already appears to be completed, there should be no further water quality impacts associated with it. We have no other apparent concerns and would recommend approval as this project should slightly reduce bank erosion and sediment deposition in this small section of the river. RFN /co 130 South Galena Street Aepen, Colorado 81511 303/925 -2020 CIT 1 14 ; " SPEN .,,.,.. ; i 130 • • reet asp � J - —.1611 I " " I MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Office Richard Grice MOO FROM: City Attorne "j b DATE: February 3, 1984 RE: Volk Project - Stream Margin Review We have reviewed the engineering report for stream margin review, together with the correspondence dated November 17, 1983 of Roger Hocking, and your memorandum of January 9, received January 11, 1984. We've also spoken with Bill Drueding, of the building department, regarding his thoughts on the application. Our comments are: 1. No development map has been submitted in connec- tion with the application, in violation of §24- 6.3(b). We acknowledge that the work has been commenced on the project, causing the building department to issue a stop order until the stream margin review process has concluded. However, mere photographs are not substantial compliance with the requirement for a development map. 2. A greenway plan check should be undertaken, under §24- 6.3(c)(3). 3. The applicant should be required to demonstrate that the construction is noeinterfering with natural changes in the stream bed. This is not clear from the application or the information from Roger Hocking. §24- 6.3(c)(6). • MEMORANDUM TO: Richard Grice, Planning Office FROM: Chuck Roth, City Engineering Department C DATE: February 7, 1984 RE: Volk Stream Margin Review Having reviewed the above application, and having made a site inspection, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. The development plan does not respond to any of the requirements of 24- 6.3(b) except 24- 6.3(b)(4), the construction procedure to be used. Section 24- 6.3(b) does not specifically require the signature and seal of a registered surveyor, but this is requested as certification of the correctness of the boundary and other information on the development plan. The southern boundary of the applicant's Property is not shown, so we do not know that the improvements are on the applicant's property. Also implied but not specifi- cally called for is the showing of the 100 -year floodplain line. 2. The letter of application does not address the requirement of 24- 6.3(c)(3) regarding the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan. 3. This project was addressed in a letter from the Building Department to the applicant's representative. A copy is attached. The "piles of rock and dirt" have not been removed, nor has the berm been removed. 4. Although most of the work has been done, the Engineering Department is still concerned about the quality of the work. In response to 24- 6.3(b)(4), construction procedure to be used, we would like a statement from the engineer about the procedure which was used for the existing work and which will be used for the remaining work. We want to know that the correct type of Portland cement was and will be used and that proper procedures for placement and curing was and will be followed. We do not want to accept inferior work or materials. We do not want to see the work spell from freeze -thaw cycles nor deteriorate from Page Two Volk Stream Margin Review • other incorrect construction techniques. We do not want the work to chip or crumble and fall into the river nor present an unsightly riverine environment. CR /co Enclosure - cc: Jay Hammond Louis Buettner Bill Drueding ASPENEWITKINgREGIONAL BUILDISG EPARTMENT • • • November 2, 1983 ' • Gideon Kaufman 611 W. Main Aspen, CO 81611;, Re 230 N Sprang St.' Denise ReiCh ' • • As we dis ' sed,,. youi c- ' ient, Denise • Reich; 'placed • rock 'and fill over the, bank o' :t1e ' ri /' Fork River on September 30,' 198'3.: This construction -s iljY without prior. stream margin review' as required in Section 24 -6.3, Aspen Municipal Code: At that time I issued a stop work. order: However, there are piles of rock and dirt that•was left from that construction. This material' i on City of Aspen Right -of -Way and will have:to be removed no later than November 15, 1983. • Your client has also built a berm on North Spring Street. The • Engineering Department has advised me that since we'.,have winter rapidly approaching, they require that the berm be removed from city property no later than November 15,:.1983. Please advise me within ten (10) days as to when your client will be applying for Stream Margin review and please see that the above requirements are met by November 15, 1983. My desire is to solve thesetproblems by obtaining compliance' with city.of.Aspen codes. and interests. I: believe with. your help', we cap accomplish: compliance without .resorting.to litigation:.' Thank you, l �J; •:William L. Drueding.. - Zoning Enforcement Officer cc: Paul Taddune,'city Attorney Wayne Chapman, City Manager: • — Engineering. Dept,: Patsy Newbury, Zoning Official • • WD /ar • • • • • offices:. mail address: • 110 East Hallam Street 506 East Mein Street . Aspen, Colorado 81611 • 303/925 -5973 Aspen, Colorado 81611 it ASPENOPITKII% /REGIONAL BUILDI. dG DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM r TO: Richard Grice, Planning .,n FROM: Bill Drueding, Zoning �✓� DATE: February 7, 1984 7 RE: Volk Project - Stream Margin Review 0 7 A) Section 24 -6.3 Stream Margin Review ...prior to the issuance of a building permit or any grading, filling or excavation of said land. (b) A development plan shall be submitted to the building inspector which supplies the following information: (2) Two (2) contours; five foot intervals for grades over (10) percent; (3) Existing and proposed improvements; (4) Construction procedure to be used; and (5) Existing trees and shrubs. Requirements (2),(3),(4) and (5) have not been complied with. B) It appears that sometime, in the last couple of years, the applicant has also placed a two foot high berm in Spring Street. Should this be covered during this review? You may check with Jay Hammond as to the status since I believe he has discussed this problem with Wayne Chapman (see attached). C) I don't believe the pile of dirt and rock leftover from the construction has been removed. Enclosed are pictures I took during the construction as well as the memo refering to the red tag. Enclosures WD /ar cc: Barry Edwards, City Attorney Patsy Newbury, Zoning Official Jim Wilson, Building Official offices: mail address: 110 East Hallam Street 506 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925 -5973 Aspen, Colorado 81611 MEMORANDUM TO: Gary Esary, Asst City Attorney FROM: Bill Drueding, Zoning Enforcement Officer DATE: October 20, 1983V RE: Stream Margin Review Complaint 230 North Spring Street On September 30, 1983, at 1:35 p.m., I received a call from Mark Fuller that he had a complaint that someone was dumping rock fill at theabove address. He said that this complaint came from Remo Lavagino. At 2:30 p.m., on September 30, 1983, I went to 230 N. Spring Street and did observe a large dump truck preparing to unload a bedfill of large boulders and sand. There were about 15 workers who were taking the fill and dumping it over the bank of the Roaring Fork River to build up the existing river bank. I spoke with Denise Reich, who advised me that she had 15 men that she hired lust for the day and they were trying to rebuild the stream bank that had been washed away by river damage. I advised her that she had to go through a stream margin review per Section 24 -6.3 of the As;:en Municipal Code. Ms. Reich protested vigorously after I told her she would have to stop all work. Due to the fact that the attitude of the 15 men working there was becoming a little boiligerent, I did call the City Attorney, Paul Taddune, and asked him if it were possible, since Ms. Reich had hired these men just fon the day, if they could continue work until 5:00 p.m.'to avoid any confrontation and then allow Ms. Reich to proceed through stream margin at a later date. City Attorney Paul Taddune did agree that this might be the best course of action at that time, out to be sure to advise Ms. Reich that she was proceeding at her own risk in case the future stream margin review was denied - and that work was only to continue until 5:00 p.m. on September 30, 1983. 1 ,lid advise Ms. Reisch of this and handed her a correction notice stop work order requiring all work to be ended at 5:00 p.m. on that day. Ms. Reisch had informed me that she had spoke with Stan Stevens of the Building Department in August and was advised by Mr. Stevens that the Building Department did not require a building permit to fill in the bank of the Roaring Fork River. If, in fact Mr. Stevens had done this, he failed to explain to her that she, however, did need a stream margin review. On October 3, 1983, at 4:30 p.m., Remo Lavagino, telephoned me and advised me that Ms. Reich had told him that I had told her that it was permissable for her to maintain an approximately 2' high berm located in North Spring Street. I advised Mr. Lavagina that in conversation Ms. Reich had asked if I thought the city would acquire her to remove the berm that she had placed in the street without permission some time ago. I advised Ms. Reich at the time that I could not make that decision and that my own feeling, which is not permission, was that I didn't think the city would require her to remove the berm at this time and that it would probably be brought up at stream margin review. The berm is located just betore the river bank at 230 N. Spring Street, which is a current dead end street. ,. On October 13, 1983, Attorney Gidean Kaufman telephoned me and advised me that he would be representing Ms. Reich in a stream margin review, however, he did not indicate exactly when this review request would be. I did take pictures of the work being completed and the condition of the existing bank at that time, which are available. The workers apparently did complete their task by 5:00 that afternoon. cc: Paul Taddune, City Attorney PaLsy Newbury, Zoning Official Wayne Chapman, City Manager Planning Office Mark Fuller, Co. Environmentalist. • ASPEQPITKIN REGIONAL BUILDING DEPARTMENT CORRECTION NOTICE STOP WORK ORDER Job Located at • • /2 .� I have this day inspected this structure and these premises and have found the following violations of City, County and /or Colorado State laws governing same: Seer L 1 -6, 3(e0S ,a4 -v1- .c4Q. e rl ci , ,U JW) . J aU 1 p " Asdig A! i . ar 411 4) 4 �� �. ..� / • .v� - You are hereby notified that no more work may be done upon the premises until the above violations are corrected: If, you do not communicate with this office now, this matter will be referred to the appropriate authorities for enforcement. Failure to correct the violations may subject you to a civil suit for an injunction, or a fine, or both; or to misdemeanor crimi- • • nal prosecution, which upon conviction may carry a sentence of fine or imprisonment, or both. ZJiht7 l Date 4 / ?d /.3 ' ? 0 rbt Inspector for Buildint a epartment Building Department Address: 110 E. Hallam Street • Phone: Aspen, Colorado 81611 DO NOT REMOVE THIS TAG • I . . ! - • •-‘,--• 4..' -1'. '' •I 4,. ■• „, '... • :„-.',.' ''' - T a. ,.„.,' , . < • - .$ .r.4Ar' '_ , . -e- "s< • • ‘ • 44 2 •••'.''' ■c .-' ,..•. '. - 1 s a ■ ....• . .a. • • 2 .4 . 11. s Al: . .... • , •• • - • , %, it , • v•...t... .- •Av .1...,' - -0'. --. , e.,- . • 4... i 4 - 4 , .: . :,... ...!, ':- ; I '-'. ' - N4'S , '■' - ' ,1 '!", :-:..-... -"'- ' . ' -' 4 -.' -• "'L._ , _._ • .,. 1,..,.,1 ! , .. . .. 1 ;....0 9 , . . • • -. ...1,.. .. 1 , , - .1 * ___- .,.oi : _ - - • .- .,„. ,'"--- ' '.. . • ' 7 'A ;, . , -',... • • ‘A . . • • ..dilt ..L. . - \ '. Y! .- • ' pt. . - , • * k NI •-...i*r" , - -' - - __ 1 .. „fa ;$•// 6 ' . f . N .• • _ 7,, 4 111 % . • I . ,..,.., ,- ... "" ) 111 . 11111W . . • ••' ' 1 :. N. ' ' '' ; ..' 1. • 4_, A ... . • 4. "•• t i .. ' i ' . .• -.••'- "..... ' - 41 - • a...7 ' • ...- ...,-■_:. . . .*,......-- •.---_-.-_ ..: ...-,i, - ... '-'--' _ ' •-■ - , ,, ‘'.,„-...... ' • - .. - .• ". . : ?'”'F.- - ' - - ... * - - ' - . _ ....,..,,•- , ,,.... ...._*re.,..,-,, - -- • '..*"'" ' . .... . • - - ` • V i „ . , •-. A7 , . ..., 1 s,...- Ai"-- .- - ,-- 1'111•V„:"---. ' -e •CP..•) 6 C ' - $... -411001119 - ,.... ,.- ..- . . .. - - - . ., . ,,,-. .,.._ . -:,,7 - - 74 1 1 1,.._`" , ..-7 11111 7 , ,k , 11..,.: .. . .. - • ." .,■._ . , 4 '- ;."---, '--• . --- ..'' _ Ic A: , • ...., 'ci', i.„ 24Z - ''' - --' '-` ' - - • - -'' . . - . .- - - - ''' ' - '-- .. - ---' ' . • - /- ...a- -- -,.•4 - - a .." ' . ., .. ".%:- ti -•-•• . -, • .. • ''''' ,... - ...' • • . •-• , ......; -- / ''.. • - - ' `‘. •••-• • . -, - .411P a • .....` ' . ' a 1/4.a t -, • •••• . . . - ••`. .... -• - , . . , , • r Av ._ . , - .... • - - .. - -.:- - --. . . - - _ -. , -_,.......: .....1„, ,- - - , ..±.-- _ --..._, • -1 . : _.:. • ',". —' '. / , , • . . . • . , , • __ _ . _....- , - - _ .- , - • . .,-.. , . --... . ■ e ......,,,,,,....,.,, 4- , . , . . .. . • - ‘411, -- - ‘. : :-. , • e • , ,..,..,...,. ; ; 4 , 4 ,,,A.:, -,, - .,' .. • '- - - , $ .. i .: :' Y . I 9 - ' - ' . ' - .. ' -4iike. - ... f . , , . ., , .1..,., V • , . %.„.• -, .,• . . — . - . c ..cf•;,*„.f..--•-:—.. T.. --,--__ . • -;„-__._•.,-:-..-,. • _ __ __ - y.,• ; , 4 ..., t ' ,- --..1.„1.,..- — ' - ' - za:47- -- I A $" ..... - - . . . .. ti ... .. . . .....-■." . • • ,... - .,- , ;6. , " .A. .. ,. ., , , .. ...,P 1 ' .4.e '1 .,- 'ft 1 • 4 4 ,1 - ',„ T :_ ' ' - ••41- .•• -.: k .4 ',-.;... . ..- 1 s , • - , r.s416, ..' 7 ,:, , 1 1 1•• ,, 1 '.. ..- .... 14, 1 :Sr. , a ,,... . , :4•I flw •••• 'ma 4.,4. ••• • - V' - a . .‘• ''. IP g ' • '''' t tile il „ i # . • ! • • ,1" f i N6 '. ..- .-. . '..-'*. •• - .•,.* s-. ' A ..''''"‘1.• • . , \ • A. PA i '• \ - '!1/4 ' " - - ■ •fr- . . • Ili . • I i 1 - 2 f ' ti r NIMP. 1 • 4 4.4., ‘ . ,c.... .... ci. • .• . it w .4.,. ...• .,... . c i • . o• ..._ - -, R$14,-, - . — -- ._ ., „.„ t4„,): "... :,*4... , _ .,. ..,... . . . ,-.., . ... — • .s. iP . • I - ..: -..m..- ...s • N.. 8 , . 'T• ....-• . ./-` I .4 11 '' • / , .... . ..... . .... _ . _ s.,-- .4.- .1:. it iv , ..."1gPr 4-1 it 1 .., , ,. ,. I I ".. < • •‘. " 1 0 r . .• ., ' i • • - e . ' ' 1. . - .... . - et- 0 • 1 , ' . I .,... : -: - 11!ffr Ai s . , • , ••• • , avow..., • 4 • - '--- 'Z-`•: •• ,to . - •., ‘ .: - .. -... ..- .• , 'Y (I ,7 '1. 4 i . . r .- '.,.. r- ..•:.-,..-• •,.•• '", .• ," . _ .' )...... ....:.-- . - _/-' - -. -4? - „,(.... -- - • - -,. • -- -_-•-• • . - • "- -5.4---.n-- -• - 4 : '. - • - . --- ---',•; --• .-,_-,- s‘ = . • `-=_-- ---,--_. .= -, - - ---• -42 -=-A ,A..4..__ k- ---- . ....- .....:_.,-;....... _ ---;.....--- . . .._- ., .. . T ..-. -.4 5%., - ... . . --..ider. -:- .;., ,. -__„.....- 1.-- -- • - '• - - 4." - .•-- T:: .c7! .- ' ''''': .4' 70' 0 . ,., ..r, , - - - ' ..4. • -* -.. _ . - , _ I • , alie ."'.-- —• •-, • , ••• . ' •■■•r . _A-1 - vv. i. ` • . . • - . ._ _ - , -, • • ..; ...... - i .. . • - _ ....,. . A • . .„. . - • ..... , _ - • • - .. ' - - l• , --- .... •••;..; —. - . ' • • • -. . '.,,, . • -v-!.'"i-:vi: .-- .. - -- .......). . •