The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutlanduse case.boa.734 W Smuggler St.008-92 Aspen/Pit 130 Asp (303) 9 - ,~ct1 ~ J'o-.V'- L~6 ing Office treet 611 . /' september 8, 1992 Robert Fink P.o. Box 12249 . Aspen, CO 81612 CERTIFIED MAIL Dear Mr. Fink, On April 22, 1992, a red tag was issued for your property located at 734 w. smuggler street, for "not building according to plans and exceeding the city of Aspen's fence/wall height limit." The definition of Fence in chapter 24, Section 3-101 of the Aspen Municipal Code states, "Fences shall be permitted in every zone district provided that no fence shall exceed six (6) feet above natural grade." You subsequently applied to the Board of Adjustment (Case #92-8, July 23, 1992) for a variance to retain the illegal structure. This variance request was denied. It is necessary that you bring your property into compliance with the City of Aspen's building and zoning codes. The requirements to do so are: 1. Lower the block walls in question (as was requested to the Board of Adjustment for a variance) to an elevation of between 100.01 and 97.67. Please refer to Enclosure #A for clarification. 2. The waterfall sculpture may remain with six inch supports of your choosing on either side. 3. The roof cover over the spa mechanical space must be removed. However, you may drape coverings to a minimum area to be approved by the zoning officer. The above corrections must be completed and inspected by me within 30 days of the receipt of this letter. If you need additional time or have any questions, please call me at 920-5090. sections 13-103 A and B of the Aspen Land Use Regulations state: 1 @ recycled paper . /"'-- ~...... Development or use of land in violation of this chapter is unlawful. Theidevelopment or maintenance of any structure or the use of any land which is contrary to any provisions of this chapter is declared to be a violation of the laws of the City of Aspen. Penalties for violation of this chapter. Any person who violates any provision of this chapter shall be punished by a fine not exceeding three hundred dollars ($300.00) or imprisonment for a period of not more than ninety (90) days, or both such fine and imprisonment, for each offense. Each day any violation of this chapter shall continue shall constitute a separate offense. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, william L. Drueding City zoning Officer cc: Jed Caswall, City Attorney Diane Moore, city Planning Director Board of Adjustment ~- '1 Mikd~ ~3 \ttt!/~ Cttt&f " 2 ~ ~ '," r ::'173 ~ ~ 5~ t> .::::: ~ ~ t - ~ ~ ~ ~I~ ~~ = (n ~ ..c ~ -- a z ~ -< ' I ~s /~ ~~ r- ~. / ( ~ 1 ~ " ~" I ~I ~I J1 I I \ c;j'\l ~.\. 0<' I ~ R ~ cr \; I! ~~ 5~ ~~ .,~ CJ '(t\ ("" ~ ~ - o Z ::!;o;l . .... 6"'"' -1 ~~ ~~ -7;1 g.... ~~ I k Ii I~ ~ .... I~ I I ~ I I I! I Ii 'I II II L \~\ I~ \~ 1,,1,,;,' II " ;" ~ _~II I#r; :H, "':!i lL .'1 - - -, '" I ! " .1/1' , I:' ~ ;, >> ~ II :i~ ~z -=::: ~ cP t' ~ .:::z ~o :..70 .,~ q:J: ~ ('l't ~ :;.{ - o :z: ~ , /i ," .' ' . !: ~ ~ ~ ~ 6 ~~ @~ ~7' ~.~. (<I~ c: ""' <"' <:> :c g ~ I . ~ 7' ~ ,/ ~ Al.L~ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CASE #92-8 ROBERT FINK BEFORE THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING OR USE VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW: Pursuant to the Official Code of Aspen of June 25, 1962, as amended, a public hearing will be held in the Council Room, City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, (or at such other place as the meeting may be then adjourned) to consider an application filed with the said Board of Adjustment requesting authority for variance from the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 24, Official Code of Aspen. All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited to appear and state their views, protests or objections. If you cannot appear personally at such meeting, you are urged to state your views by letter, particularly if you have objection to such variance, as the Board of Adjustment will give serious consideration to the opinions of surrounding property owners and others affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request for variance. Particulars of the hearing and requested variance are as follows: Date and Time of Meetinq: Date: JUNE 25, 1992 Time: 4:00 p.m. Owner for Variance: Appellant for Variance: Name: ROBERT K. FINK Address: BOX 12247, ASPEN, CO. JIM WILSON Location or description of property: 734 W. SMUGGLER; LOTS K, L, M--BLOCK 14 Variance Reauested: property is located in the R-6 zoning category. Fence exceeds allowable height. Chapter 24 Sec. 301 "Definition-fence". No fence shall exceed S1X (6) feet above natural grade. Applicant appears to be requesting a fence height variance varying between 8 inches to 2 feet 4 inches. Two walls encroach into the side yard setback. Chapter 24 (Sec.5-201(D)5 Aspen Municipal Code. Applicant appears to be requesting an 11 foot 4 inch and a 14 foot setback variance for two 7 foot plus high walls. Will applicant be represented bv counsel: Yes: No: X The City of Aspen Board of Adjustment 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Remo Lavagnino, Chairman Jan Carney Deputy City Clerk . CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION DATE ,::rUAJ-E-. 'B I 1992- CASE # 1';1-1 PHONE 9Z7- CffY-IC:;" J.A ~I C'n '8162- ( APPLICANT .::nM.. W/I ~ MAILING ADDRESS #7 cetGlMA1 OWNER ~~2:;r- ~ F1k~Y PHONE go?",,- 7J100 MAILING ADDRESS Fa f'Ir-,'x: /7 7 ~9 A-::,pc;::. ~ \, C'O '8/6/ Z- , LOCATION OF PROPERTY 73~ W. ~Lk;G.-1 r;::p ; ~ K~NL ~ 14 (Street, Block Number and Lot N er)' . WILL YOU BE REPRESENTED BY COUNCIL? YES_ NOX- ----------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Below, describe clearly the proposed variance, including all dimensions and justification for the variance. (Additional paper may be used if necessary.) The building permit application and any other information you feel is pertinent should accompany this application, and will be made part of this case. -=-~ '-E-,~ A:r"r~ " ..~~ Signatu~M k ~ F-- ----------------------------------------------------------------- REASONS FOR DENIAL OF BUILDING PERHIT, BASED ON THE ASPEN CITY CODE, CHAPl'ER 24. AN OPINION CONCERNING THIS VARIANCE WILL BE PRESENTED TO THE BOARD BY THE ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF. DATE . PERMIT DENIED ~~ OF APPLICATION ~'1''l-- OFFICIAL ~ DATE HEARING DATE James J. Wilson Building Consultants, Inc. 0047 Original La, Basalt, Colorado 81621 (303) 927-9845 June 8, 1992 City of Aspen Board of Adjustments 130 Galena St. Aspen, CO 8161 1 Re: Variance request, 734 W, Smuggler Ave, DIstinguished Board Members: I am writing this varIance request on behalf of Mr, Bob FInk, full-time resident and owner of Unit A of the Meadow Watch Townhomes, located at 734 W, Smuggler, He has requested my advice and assistance as a "technical representative", primarily due to my experience as a former chief building official for the Aspen/Pitkin RegIonal Building Department. As a code consultant, I frequently rely on that experIence to develop rational and reasonable code interpretatIons. I have agreed to represent Mr, Fink only because, In my opinion, his request is rational and reasonable. We are familiar wIth the Board of Adjustment guidelines and limitatIons whIch are established by city ordinance and strictly adhered to by the Board, Our intention is to justify a variance request within those guldel1nes and limitations, and the general spirit and intent of cIty regulations, As such, the variance request is: 1) Approximately 43 lineal feet of fence (wall) in excess of the 6 foot height limit imposed by definition, in the Municipal Code of Aspen Section 3-301. The actual height ranges from approximately 6'-8" to a maximum of 8'-4" along the east property l1ne, due to the slope of "natural grade", 2) Two "walls", which surround the hot tub equipment to the north of the deck and support a planter, encroach into the required , City of Aspen Board of Adjustments June 8, 1992 Page Two setbacks. The walls are approximately 11 '-4" and 14'-0" in length, and 7'-6" and 7'-8" in respective height The fact that the wall has been constructed may be of consequence to your deliberation of this request, so we believe a brief explanation of the circumstances is in order. Mr. Fink obtained a building permit, with the assistance of an architect and a local contractor, for the deck, hot tub, and a 6 foot wall designed to provide privacy. Upon "topping off" the 6 foot wall, it was discovered that the height of the wall, relative to the deck surface, was insufficient for its purpose - privacy. At the suggestion of the contractor, Mr. Fink quite innocently authorized the addition of two more courses of block, or approximately 16 inches, to obtain an adequate degree of privacy. The height of the wall, relative to the above grade deck surface, is about 5'-4", which, when measured from "natural grade", exceeds the height limits by varying degrees, as previously described, While Bill Drueding, Zoning Enforcement Officer, was investigating a nearby complaint, he evidently noticed the highly visible, overheight wall extending to the alley and red-tagged the nearly completed project With Drueding's permission, work unrelated to the wall height was continued while this variance was pursued, Part of that work was to mitigate the visual impact of the wall from the alley by bringing approximately 14 l1neal feet of the wall into compliance with height restrictions. We feel that the existing wall and the nearly completed project may be helpful toward the Board's consideration of this variance request, but should not unduly influence your ultimate decision, By purpose and intent, a variance may not be contrary to the public interest, and must result from special circumstances that would create a "hardship" by the literal interpretation of the code. In hindsight, the hot tub and deck probably could have been designed sunken below grade; but in order to appreciate the air, light, and views provided by his yard, and due to construction practicalities, the deck and hot tub were raised out of necessity, Mr. Fink desires only reasonable privacy for his outdoor living area and local community values and standards entitle citizens to a six ,-'''' City of Aspen Board of Adjustments June 8, 1992 Page Three foot fence, which by Municipal Code definition, is "a structure which serves... to shield or screen view..." Mr, Fink's wall is intended to mutually "shield or screen" his and his neighbors activities from each other. The literal interpretation of fence height limits would deprive Mr. Fink of his privacy as well as imposing him and his lifestyle on his neighbors, It is the neighboring lots that create special circumstances, On the other side of the wall (to the east) is a now vacant lot, which due to it's size is probably a nonconforming lot of record, but it is "bul1dable". The minimum 5 foot setback will be provided, but the juxtaposition of the two lots will result in relatively high density living conditions. In addition to shielding the neighbors, the wall will mitigate noise and light transmission between the properties. The immediate neighbors across the alley (to the north) are two of the infamous "Monster Houses of North Street" that inspired the reform of the zoning codes. Mr. Fink desires refuge from their imposing facades whl1e engaged in the peaceful enjoyment of his own property and has tastefully screened his hot tub equipment from the neighbors across the alley, whl1e not infringing on their views of Shadow Mountain. In recognition of the standards applicable to all variances, we do not believe that the height of Mr. Fink's "fence" compromises community values in any way; is (with the north 14 feet of the wall in compliance) the minimum variance necessary to allow the reasonable use of his yard as an outdoor living space; and as explained previously is necessitated by conditions unique to the property. It is further represented that neither the use of Mr. Fink's yard, nor his fence compromises the following applicable community values: 1. Public health, safety, comfort or welfare; 2. Light, open space or population density; 3. Scenic views; 4. The effective use of land and a higher quality of site planning. In conclusion, we maintain that both the community at large and the Immediate neighborhood have benefitted, without expense, from Mr, Fink's sensitive conversion of his yard to a beautifully landscaped SCUlpture , City of Aspen Board of Adjustments June 8, 1992 Page Four garden, By reducing the height of a significant length of wall that wasn't really necessary for privacy, Mr. Fink has demonstrated his respect for community standards. We are aware that fence height must be regulated, and that a height limit of 6 feet is the established standard. However, the Board of Adjustments is empowered to provide relief from rigid standards under extenuating circumstances, given justification and with proper diligence, We are hopeful that the Board of Adjustments, by its collective wisdom and considerable experience, will afford favorable discretion in this case. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully Submitted, James J. Wilson President AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE BY POSTING OF A VARIANCE HEARING BEFORE THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD .OF ADJUSTMENT The undersigned being first duly sworn, deposes and says as follows: Pursuant to Section 2-22(c) of the Aspen Municipal Code, I, ..=:r-AN\E..~ .:::r WJI~<::.r'>r-..i.... , being or representing an Applicant before the City of Aspen Board of Adjustment, Personally certify that the attached photograph fai r ly and accurately represents the sign posted as the Notice of the variance hearing on this matter in a conspicuous place on the subject project (as it could be seen from the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously from the IOT/4 day of ;::::n..;I'o,U:: , 199z to j:he Z5"TH day of ~~ , l~~ (Must be posted for at least ten (10) full days before the hearing date). APPLICANT '- {;!?9A b County of Pitkin State of Colorado Subscribe me thi s swor n to bef or e day of I)" . 19 '1.Lby WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My Commission expires . ......-.t 1""; i995. My commb!1or e"l''' -" -. -" .. i;Jj~t&dLo1 . No ary publ ic ~;;> Address o o AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I have complied with the notice requirements of section 6- 205 (E) (3) (e) of the Aspen Land Use Regulations of the Aspen Municipal Code by mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto by first class, postage prepaid, U.s. Mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property on ..:::r1..JME:..,..iL, 199z:.-. Efto~ STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss ) COUNTY OF PITKIN /~ ~he fOregOin~~vit of mailing . --II} day of () (v tJ /99 J.- was signed before me this WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires: My <ommi"ion expir3s Ott. 15, )995. , I I ./ o o James J. \IIil son Building Consultants, Inc. 0047 Original La. Basalt, Colorado 81621 (303) 927-9845 June 10, 1992 Mr, WftYne Vandemark, Fire Marshal Aspen FIre Protection District 420 E. HopkIns Ave. Aspen, CO 8 I 6 1 1 Re: Overhelght fence. 734 W. Smuggler Dear WftYne, I On behalf Mr, Bob Fink, owner of Unit A of the Meadow Watch Townhomes, located at 734 W. Smuggler, I would lfke to thank you for taking time on 5/11/92 to dIscuss our variance request SInce our inlt1al meeting, we've developed some plans for the requested wall (fence) variance and I've provided a copy for your reference, As we originally discussed, there are~ FIre Department oblections to the wall; and in your opinion, no foreseeable threat to pubHc f safety or other fire hazard wfll result from the presence of the wall, nor will the wall unduly impede normal fire fighting and rescue operations, The purpose of this letter is to request your affirmation of the above so that we mftY express your views to the Board of Adjustments at our hearing on 6/25/92. If you have no objections to the above representations, please sign this letter and the plan provIded. Again, thank you for your time, Respectfully Submitted, James J, Wllson President I hereby attest to the truth and accuracy of the statements made herein: .~'A" ~~/hfH/~ f~~~7 ane Vandemark, Fire Marshal Aspen FIre ProtectIon District ~t~ ~ ~~ ~ f\: ~ .5.;0- - :E lil 8V'~ .::::: ~I~ ~ ~~&i ~ iT ~ ~ ~~ ,-~ q -(t\ ~ c:: ~ -- o z. ~ " ~ -< '" ~~3: b .5' ~. / ( ~ I ~" ~" I ~I ~I J1 I I I 571l c.\- 0<' f1 z R ~ cr ~ s:: I! ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ :.~ <:> '(t\ ("" ~ ~ - o Z ~lf ~~ -7;1 0..... ?~ ~ k Ii I; I~ ,~ I I i I II I II II I I' II \\ I II I I, I II / -j I ( ~ II l Ii I -~ _lL -+ !/ =---t ~~ .. ~ , q cD ::!~ .<""' .5 ~ 'Z ~~ q:t: (t1 ("" ~ :a - o :z: ~~ ~~ ~i' z..... ~'" -"l c: ~ <:> ..:::: ~ ..,."":~ - t ~ ~ ~ ~ 5 .:) :> ;I:. c:> c: ~ ) AL.L~ ~ 7' ~ ."....., ....", :;t ~ z Ci' , . TO: Board of Adjustment FROM: Bill Drueding SUBJECT: Robert Fink Case 92-8 DATE: June 24, 1992 After further inspection, it was discovered that the two walls encroaching into the side yard set back are really a covered structure which requires an additional rear yard set back. Any structure over 30 inches in height in the set back requires a variance for the difference. The staff does not support this variance request because we can find no unique circumstances peculiar to this property that would require the additional height. NANCY &: GUY ALCIATORE Box 11582 ASPEN. COLORADO 81612 June 22, 1992 To Whom It May Concern: I understand that Robert Fink has been cited by the City of Aspen for erecting a wall in excess of the 6 foot height permitted by the city code at his residence at 734 W. Smuggler and that he has requested a variance from the code. As the adjacent lot 'owner on the easterly side of his property we are probably most affected by this wall. The purpose of this letter is to go on record that we are supportive of the existing wall which has been tastefully constructed. When our home is built it will afford us privacy as it does Mr. Fink. Furthermore the home we plan to build and its associated landscaping will make the wall almost invisible to outsiders. We are hopeful that the requested variance will be granted. , Gaston Alciatore :t~~~ June 23, 1992 To \Jhom it may concern: ] understand that Robert Fink has been cited by the City of Aspen for erecting a wall at his residence at 734 Hest Smuggler which is in excess of the 6 foot height limitation permitted by the City Code. Since the wall is completed Mr. Fink is requesting a variance for the structure. My residence is situated behind t1r. Fink at the Northeast corner. The wall under review is directly visible from the rear of my home. ] woul d 1 i ke to express my full support for t1r. Fi nk. ] do NOT bel i eve t1r. Fink should have to remove any portion of the wall. The wall is well designed, provides desireable privacy and does not block any of our views. ] hope you will approve the variance requested by Mr. Fink. ~ Le Ray Digiglia North Street Subdivision June 23, 1992 To Whom it may concern: I understand that Robert Fink has erected a wall on his property at 734 West Smuggler whiCh exceeds the 6' height limitation required by the building code. I live directly across Smuggler facing the wall. The wall as it is presently constructed, even before a house is built o~ the property, is unobtrusive. Further- more, Mr. Fink has landsc)ped his property beautifully which enhances our neighborhood and hides the wall from many angles. In my opinion Mr. Fink should be permitted to retain th,e, wall as i tis pre s e n t 1 Y con s t r u c t e d . Si","'~ -=f l\L@u Ann F. t,lill er 1(..) W~s-"""""'\\~ 6/29/92 To l,hom it r'ay Concern: I understand that Robert Fink has been cited by the City of Aspen for building a wall that exceeds the 6 foot height limitation. From my property, I can see the wall that extends out to the alley (which r,1r. Fink has voluntarily lowered to 6 feet) and the wall and the door behind which the equipment for the hot tub and snow melt are stored. It is quite obvious that Mr. Fink has taken great pains to design the redwood fence and stucco walls, with the neighbors in mind, for they are both aesthetically beautiful. It would be a shame and a loss to all of us - the neighbors and Mr. Fink - if any more of the wall had to be lowered, since the aesthetics would deteriorate and mutual privacy would be lost. Nobody would gain! I hope the board will approve the variance request. Sincerely, J~~ Ticia Choumas 800 \'lest Smuggler Aspen, Colorado 81611 June 29, 1992 To whom it may concern: I understand that Robert Fink has been cited for building a wall which exceeds the 6' building code restriction, and is requesting a variance to allow the wall to remain. I respect the rules for city codes, but I also feel that sometimes exceptions are warranted. This wall affords privacy to all neighboring homes and has been tastefully executed. I feel Mr. Fink had good intentions for building this wall around his hot tub; unfortunately, the standard height would not have afforded much privacy to anyone. I understand that when the Baptist Church was built on Francis St., that the peak was 3' above code. Unfortunately, I was not contacted regarding a variance for that building, although it greatly obstructed our view. I appreciate being contacted regarding this variance application, and hope that it will be approved. Sincerely, ~~~~ Kathleen Albert 725 West Smuggler Aspen, CO 8161~ "1: < , July 18, 1992 To Whom it may concern: lIe understand that r1r. Robert Fi nk has been ci ted by the Ci ty of Aspen for erecting a wall in excess of the height permitted by the City Code. My wife and I have lived in Aspen for 26 years. We live within 300' of Mr. Fink's home and often walk past the property. We admire the good taste that has gone into the landscaping of Mr. Fink's home. The wall is hardly noticeable. It is our strong belief that Mr. Fink's outdoor design should be applauded not criticized. We are writing this letter in order to express our unequivocal support for Mr. Fink. \'!e bel ieve the varience request should be approved. Sincerely, QI,~ m R/I~ Charl es iJarqusee d- 520 ~.J. 8th. St. c,-".t 'ii'-~ t-,)-o~ S~~~ Aspen, CO He 1 ga 11arq 520 N. 8th and 828 N. St. Aspen, CO June 23, 1992 To Whom it May Concern: We have received notice that Robert Fink has been cited by the City of Aspen for erecting a wall at his residence in excess of the 6 foot height permitted by the City Code. We have viewed the wall and the landscaping of Mr. Fink's residence. In our opinion there is ample justification to approve the variance request. Everything that Mr. Fink has done to the exterior of his home has been executed tastefully and enhances the surrounding neighborhood. \'Ie support the approval of the requested varitl11ce. Jam s Order No. A-92022 ADJACENT OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE ASPEN TITLE CORPORATION, a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Colorado, HEREBY CERTIFIES That is has made a careful and diligent search of the records in the office of the Clerk and Recorder for Pitkin County, Colorado, and has determined that those persons, fi rms or entit i es set forth on the Exh i bit "A" attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein and made a part hereof, reflect the apparent owners of lots, tracts, p~rcels and condominium units lying within 300 feet of the following described real property situate, lying and being in the County of Pitkin State of Colorado, to-wit: Lots K, L, and M, Block 14, City and Townsite of Aspen This Certificate has been prepared for the use and benefit of the above named applicant and the City or Town of --A:iP.~lL in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. TIlE L1MILlTY ur TIlE CUMP^NY nmEUNiJER IS EXPRESSLY LllmED TO THE AMOUNT OF THE FEE PAID FUR 1I1IS CERTIFICATE PLUS $250.UU DATE: ASPEN TITLE CORPORATION, a Colorado corporation '~~ ~.' . . . ynn ~yc 0, resident Block 8 Charles B. Helgo Marqusee Drawer X Boca Raton, Florida 33431 Robert W. and Anne W. Pullen 710 North Post Oak Road, Suite 305 Houston, Texas 77024 John and Robin Norton P.O. Box 1248 Aspen, Colorado 81612 A.T.,Dickens and George Kress 23945 Calabasas, Suite 208 Calabasas, Calforniii 91302 John James and Patricia G. Choumas 401 Pi azza Li da Newport Beach, California 92663 Block15 Robert C. and Sally B. Saunders P.O. Box 25821 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125 Gary and Kathleen Albert 725 West Smuggler Aspen, Colorado 81611 Ann F. Mi 11 er 715 West Smuggler Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Leslye D. Sugar 828 West North Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Joseph W. Bellina 1 Galleria Blvd, #810 Metairie, LA 70001 EXHIBIT A -1- Heather H. Tharp P.O. Box 1293 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Douglas J. and Susan L. McPherson P.O. Box 4412 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Block 14 Iselin, Ellia and James Daggs 707 North Street Aspen; Colorado 81611 JOCOCO c/o Joe Cook 111 Mountain Shadows West Scottsdale, AZ 85253 , Porter House Stake 155 Gilpin Street Denver, Colorado 80218 Laurene B. Books and Susan B. Sheridan 155 Gilpin Street Denver, Colorado 80218 Block 20 Robert D., Marybelle and R. Dobie Langenkamp 633 North Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Marjory M. Musgrave 629 West North Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Block 21 Stephen Marolt P.O. Box 82 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Francis W. and Charlen E. Kalmes 627 West Smuggler Aspen, Colorado 81611 Robert D. and Renee Nespeca Ritchie 701 West Francis Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 -2- Block 98 James J. and Ramona I. Markalunas 624 West North Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 LB~ Condominiums I. MCA Cunningham 121 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Rosemary W. and Stirling A. Colgate 422 Estante Los Alamos, New Mexico 87544 Treehouse Condominiums John Doremus 608 East Hyman Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Belton & Elizabeth Fleisher 592 Indian Summer Drive Columbus, Ohio 43214 Tent Condominiums Vincent Galluccio P.O. Box 8065 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Smuggler Condominiums Anne W. Burrows 505 North 5th Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Marcia A. Corbin P.O. Box 9312 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Oliver Carr Condominiums Koehler, David R. 618 West Smuggler Aspen, Colorado 81611 -3- Richard Seth Staley and Donald Keltner 12100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 730 Los Angeles, California 90025 Thomas A. and Nell F. Waltz 10666 North Torrey Pines La Jolla, California 92037 North Street Subdivision Charles W. Brady 740 Fairfield Road Atlanta, Georgia 30327 Le Ray Digiglia John William Digiglia P.O. Box 4305 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Block 9 U.S. Forest Service -4- , Aspen Meadows Aspen Institute 100 East Francis Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Music Associates of Aspen 1000 North 3rd Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Aspen Center for the Physics 700 W. Gillespie Aspen, Colorado 81611 Savannah Limited Partnership 350 Dean Street Aspen, Colorado 81611