Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19920326 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 26, 1992 4.00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS A G E N D A I. MINUTES October 24 , 1991 October 30, 1991 II. CASE #92-3 Aspen East Condominium Association III. CASE #92-4 James & Gail Merriam and Joan Merriam Crete IV. ADJOURN I RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 26, 1992 Vice Chairman Charlie Paterson called meeting to order at 4 : OOpm. Answering roll call were Ron Erickson, Bill Martin, Rick Head and Charlie Paterson. CASE #92-3 ASPEN EAST CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION TO BE CONTINUED Charlie opened the public portion of the hearing. Charlie read into record request for variance. (Attached in record) Ron: I noticed that you posted in the alley. I think it should be at the front of the building. So even though he has posted for the period of time I would like to extend it and move to the front of the building for the time of this continuance. MOTION Ron: I move that this case be continued to date certain of April 9, 1991 and that the notice be moved to the front of the building and kept up until this date. Drueding: I am requesting that this be continued because after some discussion with this applicant they may not need the variance. Rick seconded the motion with all in favor. There was no public comment and there were no letters from the public. CASE #92-4 JAMES & GAIL MERRIAM AND JOAN MERRIAM CRETE Charlie opened the public portion of the hearing. Charlie read into the record request for variance. (attached in record) Warren Palmer, architect for the applicant and Paul Taddune, attorney for the architect were present. Affidavit of notice by posting and affidavit of mailing was presented. (attached in record) Palmer: The placement of the house on The site--the house was built in the 1940s and it was placed at the very back of the lot. What the Merriams would like to do is do a small 2-stall garage addition. With the encroachment going toward the front yard setback the alternatives on doing the addition that they want would be going to a 2-story or going to the southerly direction which is into the open space towards the river and towards ACES. You can see that with the Environmentally Sensitive setbacks the actual building envelope that is available to them is fairly limited. We have a stand of very tall Spruce and Aspens. What we would like to do is continue the existing line of the house in a 1-story fashion and match the materials and everything--come up to the edge of the trees and let the trees screen the garage addition without getting into the other vegetation. And we would like to stay away from the bank with ACES and not do the 2-story solution. This seemed to be the most reasonable approach for what they wanted to achieve and we have lessened the size of the building to stay out of the trees. Charlie: This garage, I take it, is being converted into a bedroom. Palmer: Exactly. It is an existing 1-stall garage. It is about 12ft wide. On the original project data I had a mis-calculation. You end up with 16. 58 instead of 13 . 58. Charlie: Read into the record a message called in on this day from Elizabeth Paepcke in protest of this variance. She has just gotten back to town from trial elsewhere which is the reason she didn't write a letter. Jeff Johnston: I represent my parents who acquired the Lot next to the Merriams. Our position in it is that we have no objection to their addition. In fact we like it because it pulls their cars out of the existing driveway and moves them over and in behind the existing trees. And so long as the existing trees won't be damaged or hurt, we don't have any objection to it. Bill Drueding, Planning Dept: My point of view representing the Planning Office is a yes. We don't have any problems with this variance. With regard to the ESA and trying to keep things away from the back--we prefer going to the front. We don't prefer a variance but we don't mind this variance. This is reasonable. Ron: When did Merriams acquire this property? Taddune: Before the zoning--before 1975. It has been the family for a very long time. It may be that the family built it. Palmer: It was constructed for Alec' s Dad in the 40s. So they have had it since 146 or 148 . Ron: Is it an historic structure? Taddune: I asked Roxanne if there was any historic designation. There isn't. I was surprised it was not on the list. I checked into that. The reason I checked into it is that I thought that since the application was an effort to preserve the historical character that the historic preservation would be in favor for that reason. Ron: Now the current garage the way it is currently situated is in the setback? Palmer: Yes, it is. Ron: So the thing is that is why it is a non-conforming structure because it is in the current setback. Rick: It is not in the setback. Taddune: The hardship is for the fact that the house was located in a portion of the lot prior to the existence of zoning regulations. And any of the options that are available would only create more difficult problems--either the ESA in the back or perhaps intrude upon the neighbor and because of the location of the house before the zoning code was enacted. We feel that that presents a practical difficulty. Rick: These people have lived with a 1-car garage for 40 some odd years. Why couldn't they just go to a 1-car garage? Taddune: They could build quite a bit more. Rick: They could build a 4-car garage somewhere else on the property. But they could in this space and not encroach on the setbacks with a 1-car garage. Taddune: I think that Mr. Johnson made the point well. This would take cars off the street. It benefits everybody. Rick: As far as I know--when is a garage or the lack thereof a hardship? Charlie: It is considered a convenience. Taddune: I think not to have it presents a hardship. I think it presents a hardship not only for the property owner but for the neighborhood in general. This is something that would enhance the neighborhood. A lot of effort has gone into trying to do something that is-- Palmer: Their Daughter is an owner on the house and uses the house and so they do actually have 2 vehicles now which they want to store at the house and a 2-stall garage gives them the ability to put both cars in the garage instead of having one parked in the driveway. Charlie: Now you really need 3 spaces anyway with 3 bedrooms. If you had a 1-car garage you would have to have 2 spaces on the property in the driveway. And I don't know that you have the space. Ron: I think they have it there now. Palmer: The space is dotted in there on the driveway. Ron: There is enough room to park 2 cars in the driveway today plus 1 car in the garage. Charlie: I am concerned about those trees. If you start digging close to those trees I think you are going to hit some roots. Do you think--have you had anybody give you an opinion as to the survival of those trees? Palmer: What we are looking at there is the offset on the tree to the structure. We did that in anticipation that the structure would not get in--it will get into the spread of the tree but the ripall should be at a location below the footings. And so that- -until you open it up you don't know in that instance. Taddune: The Merriams are concerned about preserving the trees. They don't want to remove the trees or have them damaged. Charlie: That would be a great loss to the neighborhood if you lost either of those 2 trees. Johnston: I have spent almost 50 times out on my folk' s lot which is going to be my lot and I am going to build a home and live in it. This will be my permanent residence. And I have had lots of opportunity to drive around it and pay attention to who does what because it is tight quarters in that area out there. I have been thinking what is going to happen when the music thing goes on in the summer. I can certainly see that if there is a lot of people parking, they may go around and start parking out there. And a lot of thought has gone through all of that. The main thing I saw about it was I like the idea of getting cars out of the street. When you drive by that is such a beautiful area that when you pull the cars out of the street that was one of the biggest pluses I liked about it. At first I was going to say "Well, I am not sure about this" . But when I went out and looked at the architecture plans yesterday I thought they had a good idea. Our real concern was the trees and one of the things that lead me to believe that they cared about the trees was that the house was originally designed around 2 trees that they put tree wells in the roof that allowed the trees to go up and go through it. So that clued me in to say the people really cared about the trees which is one of the big pluses about that whole area. Bill: What is the proximity from the garage to the trees? Palmer: The first tree is about 2 to 3ft in proximity as we measured on the site to the edge of the building. Bill: That means you are going to have to trim the trees? Palmer: Trim the lower branches around the garage structure. Bill: So that you will be seeing the trunk of the tree up 10 feet or 15 feet. Palmer: The garage itself is less than loft tall. And so you would have a portion on one side that would be notched for the garage about loft tall. You would still have the canopy over the top. Johnston: I was really concerned about that same thing when I looked at the trees. There is a number of trees that are out in that area. And to lose a major tree would be substantial. But there are so many trees in that area and it sits back away from the street. And again we have buffer trees out in front of it and then these trees kind of fall and filter in behind it. Ron: Did you say you are building a house on your lot now? Johnston: Yes. We are in the plan check process. Ron: You can't cut down trees more than 6 inch in diameter. You need a permit which is difficult to get. Taddune: In fact the Merriams have installed quite a bit of landscaping--sizeable trees. Charlie then closed the public portion of the meeting. Rick: I am not convinced in my mind that a 2-car garage is a necessity. It is more of a convenience for the applicant. It is something that we have always tried to stay away from. It is not creating a hardship as far as I can tell under our guidelines. I probably would not pass this. I think they could live with a 1- car garage which wouldn't impact that tree as greatly as this plan does. And they could just replace the garage that they have lost. Short of that there are many other places on the property that may or may not be appropriate for a garage but they certainly have the land to do it. It may not be what they want. I can't see a hardship or practical difficulty that has been demonstrated here that is not caused or created by the applicant. Ron: I look at this lot and the first thing I notice was that the lot size is 6 times larger than needs to be for a house this size or to be within--I guess 15, 000sgft. And I am looking at what the building envelope is and although it was stated it is not a very big one I think this is a tremendously large building lot. And we are being asked for all future generations to give an easement into a setback. I see all this land here that could be developed and there is nothing that says it won't be developed in the future. I don't think that the current owners or even maybe their Daughter is going to want to develop that property. But they will sell it and if someone were to come in next year, we can't stop them from adding a lot of square footage on that and they have already got a structure on a setback. So my concern is that they are not asking for a big addition but the addition is in the wrong place. I think there are plenty of opportunities to put it someplace else. So I wouldn't grant the variance. I am also concerned about the trees and partial damage to the trees and I don't think that a garage is a hardship so I would not grant the variance. Bill: I think that these people built what they thought that they needed at the time at which they built. And sure there is a lot of land. But this area is all glass. I have been in the home. Their ability to build a garage and add it onto this property is really within eye view and would destroy the useability of the house as it is. Now as far as developing the rest of the land, I don't know that that is possible. Because they have changed the FAR and changed the rules, I think it has imposed a hardship on the fact that the house was designed like it was at that point in time. I think treating the tree--on 3rd and Gillespie there are 2 trees that have been trimmed up so that you can view the house up 10 feet. The people elected to do it. I see no reason why we shouldn't approve it. I think it is a good solution. The view from the street is protected. It gets the cars off the street and it satisfies the requirement. It also gives this family that may need another bedroom to avoid having to do something strange to the house to accommodate the increase in the family size. The parents are gone and the children want to develop it. I think it is reasonable. Charlie: Bill, from the Planning Dept, do you have any comment? Drueding: I have no objections. We have this ESA thing and have to stay away from that bank and I have no problem with this. Charlie: The way I feel about it, I am sort of on the fence. But basically I am more in favor than not in favor. The reason why I am more in favor is because it is not an impact on the neighborhood as much as the second story would be if they had to build a second story. And to have a garage here and another little garage here- -I agree with Bill as to this area here because that is their entire southern exposure and their view. That is the positive aspects of this. The negative the way I feel about it is nobody says you have to have a 2 car garage. And a 1-car garage would solve the problem. They wouldn't have to come in for a variance. And I don't really feel enough hardship has been shown for us to grant a 2-car garage. If it was for a 1-car garage and they need an extra foot, I would be willing to grant that to make an oversize 1-car garage so that they could have a little storage space and open the doors and have a little more comfortable space in the garage. On the basis of that I would deny the variance the way it was presented. But I would be in favor if they did come back and come back with a little different plan and if they needed another foot or so I would be inclined to give it to them but not for a 2-car garage. Charlie then re-opened the public portion of the hearing. Taddune: Obviously I am going to request that there be a continuance. But what you are doing is you are imposing a hardship on the rest of the neighborhood. You are saying that a garage is not something that is required as a matter of necessity. But if you go into that neighborhood you would see that there are probably 2-car garages in every house in that neighborhood. Every house in the neighborhood was not built prior to the enactment of the zoning law. It wasn't configured in an unobtrusive way the way this house is. So what these people have done is look at all the options and this works the best for everybody. There is absolutely nobody in this room who is against this and everybody is in favor of it. So the thing that is disturbing about the way you are looking at this is that here we have proposed a solution that is in the best interest of everybody but may not be in your minds completely consistent with hardship when if we looked at the total picture this proposal would achieve the best result. Rick: There are lots that are 1/10th this size capable of having a garage without a variance. So it can be done. I think a lot this size it can be done. It may not be exactly what the applicant wants but it can be achieved with minimal impact. Taddune: There is no question about that. Rick: I feel that on balance we are hurting other people with smaller lots who are providing a garage and off-street parking where these people have ten times the size lot and have to have a variance. I find that imbalance unfair. Taddune: What you are finding is that you are forcing them to a solution that has a greater impact on the neighborhood because they have the right for it. Ron: That happens all the time and doesn't necessarily make me happy when I see that happening but there are certain things that you can do with this lot. You can tear that building down and build a 5, 000, 6, OOOsgft house that goes up 28 . 6ft high. I can't stop you from doing that but that is within your rights. I don't like the alternative if that is your alternative. But I can't do anything about that. Taddune: Yes, you can. Ron: No, I can't. By granting a variance? Taddune: Yes, you can recognize that in the totality of the circumstances this is a minimal variance. There is not a big encroachment. It is at the end of what practically is a cul-de- sac and that it is a solution that works for everybody. The hardship is on the whole neighborhood. Charlie: If you choose to table this to another date certain and we have a full board present and you re-present the case, you may be able to sway the Board into a different decision. We haven't made a decision. We have only just talked about it. So this will give us some time to think about it and it will give you time to come up with an alternate solution that might be more compatible for the Board. That is our suggestion at this point. Taddune: Keep in mind that there are all kinds of options. They have the land to do it but it just has a negative impact on the historical character. It intrudes into the open space and the viewplain of ACES. It has a greater impact on the neighbors. This solution was presented because it mitigated all the impacts as much as possible. Charlie: My suggestion would be that you show us alternate solutions whether they are better or worse when you come to the next meeting. Let the Board see the alternatives we have to accomplish a 2-car garage either there, somewhere else or whatever. And let's look at all the aspects that are possible. Bill: I would suggest that the members of the Board be permitted to go in that house because I have been in it and I think you have certain constraints. You have got plenty of land and you are right that they could tear it down and build another house. But in my opinion that is not the fair way to approach the problem. Rick: In that respect anything could happen. And then the next land owner enjoys that area that we have given as a variance and also blows it out as well. Charlie: They still have a right to build a second story. So there is no guarantee just because a 2-car 1-story garage goes here that they can't--a new owner can't go in and build whatever they want. Ron: I, for one, refuse to grant a variance on the basis of future goodwill. My point of view is that you are asking for a variance that is going to live with that house for the rest of it' s existence. And you cannot deed restrict that you can't add any more square foot to it. You are asking for a variance, yet you have all this available square footage and FAR left to build. Taddune: And then they impact the historical nature of the structure. Ron: There is no historical nature of this property. You told me there isn't. I think a lot of people are fighting historical designation so that they can do what they want. They are purposely not seeking historically designated signature for a property so that they are not restricted in what they can do in the future. Taddune: This house was built in 1940. It was positioned on a place on the lot when they had an expectation that they could do anything that they wanted with it. And then the zoning was imposed upon it and the setback was created. And then in addition to that the ACES Environmentally Sensitive Area was imposed upon them. Now what they are doing is they are saying "We recognize that. We feel this has a unique nature. It may not be historically designated but a unique nature. We don't want to impact the neighbors. We don't want to impact ACES. We have all kinds of land and all kinds of options. What we are asking for is a little bit of relief so we can do something that works for everybody" . Charlie: That is your hardship. That is what you re-represent at the next meeting. It was decided among the members and the applicant at this point that a site meeting would take place at 3 : 15 on April 9, 1992 . MOTION Ron: I make a motion to continue this hearing to a date certain of April 9, 1992 at which time we will meet at 3 : 15 at the site. Rick seconded the motion with all in favor. MINUTES OCTOBER 24, AND 30, 1991 NOVEMBER 22 , 1991 Ron made a motion to approve minutes of October 24 , 1991. Rick seconded the motion with all in favor. Bill made a motion to approve minutes of October 30, 1991. Ron seconded the motion with all in favor. Charlie made a motion to approve minutes of November 22 , 1991. Bill seconded the motion with all in favor. Rick made a motion to adjourn meeting. Ron seconded the motion with all in favor. Time was 5: 05pm. Ja "ce M. Carne City Depu Clerk NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CASE #92-3 ASPEN EAST CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION 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 Meeting: Date: March 26, 1992 Time: 4 : 00 p.m. Owner for Variance: Appellant for Variance: Name: Aspen East Condo. Assoc. Ocean Architects Address: Box 10607, Aspen, CO. Location or description of property: 980 E. Hyman St. Variance Requested: Property is located in the R/MF zoning category. It currently exceeds the allowable FAR and thus is non- conforming. A non-conforming structure cannot be enlarged or expanded. Chapter 24 Sec 9-103 (C) (1) A non-conforming structure shall not be extended by an enlargement or expansion that increases the non-conformity. Applicant want to expand the non-conformity by 920 square feet of exterior covered space. Will applicant be represented by counsel: Yes: X No: The City of Aspen Board of Adjustment 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Remo Lavagnino, Chairman Jan Carney Deputy City Clerk AFFIDAVIT OF�NOTICE g�RING TING OF A V BEFORE THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT The undersigned being first duly sworn, deposes and says as follows : -22 (c) of the Aspen Municipal Code , I , Pursuant .to Sect' on , being or representing n A; licant before the City of Aspen Board of Adjustment , a Applicant the attached photograph fairly Personally certify osted as the Notice of the accurately represents the sign P icuous place on the variance hearing on this matter in a consp public way) subject project (as it could be seen from the nearest p from that the said sign was posted and visible �4ontinuouslY and to the 2 °�� - the l � ' day of nr - 1g71 Z (Must be posted for day of s bef or e the hearing date) . at least ten (10) full day APPLICANT Signature 1 County of pitkin State of Colorado Subscribed sworn to before day of d 19 `F by x' 7 WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL ° - Comm, sion expires ary p 1 c �- (.� �• rya � , l Address A. r AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I have complied with the notice requirements of Section 6- 205 (E) (3) (C) 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 ithin three hundred (300) feet of the subject property on i STATE OF COLORADO ) SS COUNTY OF PITRIN ) The foregoing Affidavit of mailing was signed before me this day of WITNESS my hand and official seal. ley commission expires: GJ - 1(o" 1 �— Notary Public v NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CASE #92-4 JAMES AND GAIL MERRIAM AND JOAN MERRIAM CRETE 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 Meeting: Date: March 26, 1992 Time: 4 : 00 p.m. Owner for Variance: Appellant for Variance: Name: James & Gail Merriam and Owners, by and through Joan Merriam Crete Warren Palmer, Architect Address: 1884 Mtn. View Dr. Tiburon, CA Location or description of property: 850 Roaring Fork Rd. Lot 1 Subdivision Exception Plat for Merriam Subdivision. Variance Requested: Property is located in R-15 zoning category. Front yard setback requirement is 25 feet. (Chapter 24, Sec 5202 (D) (4) Aspen Municipal Code. Applicant appears to be requesting a 8. 42 feet front yard setback variance for purposes of construction of a garage addition. Will applicant be represented by counsel: Yes: X No: The City of Aspen Board of Adjustment 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Remo Lavagnino, Chairman Jan Carney Deputy City Clerk ' ALBERT AND SUSAN KERN i C/O LORRAINE RICHARDS 202 WOODSIDE ROAD WEST BARNSTABLE MA 02668 ANNE F. FARISH 2200 WILLOWICK #16E HOUSTON TX 77027 ASPEN CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES 100 E. PUPPY SMITH STREET ASPEN CO 81611 BERMUDA PROPERTIES C/O POLLNER, MEZAN, SIDNEY & SCHWARTZ 360 LEXINGTON AVE. NEW YORK NY 10017 BRUCE BERGER i 342 MADISON AVE #604 NEW YORK NY 10173 CHARLES B. & ROBIN H. MOSS B.S. MOSS ENTERPRISES, INC. 7 CHATEAU RIDGE DRIVE GREENWICH CT 06831 DAVID H. KOCH C/O KOCH INDUSTRIES, ATTN: LEGAL DEPT. 6& r P.O. BOX 2256 WICHITA KS 67201 ELIZABETH GRINOLAY P.O. BOX 2154 ASPEN CO 81612 ELIZABETH H. PAEPCKE 105 WEST ADAMS CHICAGO IL 60603 JACK S. & GESINE A. CRANDALL P.O. BOX 1066 ASPEN CO 81612 JAMES A. MERRIAM, GAIL ANGOTTI MERRIAM AND JOAN ALEXANDER MERRIAM 1884 MOUNTAIN VIEW DRIVE TIBVRON CA 94920 SELIM K. ZILKHA TRUST 750 LAUSANNE ROAD LOS ANGELES CA 90077 THE EDWARD ARTHUR GOLDSTEIN TRUST 416 COMSTOCK AVE. LOS ANGELES CA 90024 THE WHIPPLE-BREWSTER CORPORATION A COLORADO CORPORATION 121 SOUTH GALENA STREET ASPEN CO 81611 /-s- y► PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc. Title Insurance Company 601 E. Hopkins Aspen,Colorado 81611 (303)925-1766 ALBERT AND SUSAN KERN LOT 1 , BLOCK 1 , GREEN C/O LORRAINE RICHARDS ACRES SUBDIVISION 202 WOODSIDE ROAD WEST BARNSTABLE MA 02668 ANNE F . FARISH PART OF LOTS 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 & 9 AND PART OF LOTS 10 & 11 2200 WILLOWICK #16E OF BLOCK 4 , SECOND ASPEN HOUSTON TX 77027 CO . SUBDIVISION ASPEN CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL TRACT 12-10--85 STUDIES 100 E . PUPPY SMITH STREET ASPEN CO 81611 BERMUDA PROPERTIES LOT 4 , SECOND ASPEN CO . C/O POLLNER , MEZAN , SIDNEY & SCHWARTZ SUBDIVISION • 360 LEXINGTON AVE . NEW YORK NY 10017 BRUCE BERGER WESTERLY AND EASTERLY TRACT OF C .F . MURPHY 342 MADISON AVE #604 ASSOCIATES , INC . NEW YORK. NY 10173 CHARLES B . & ROBIN H . MOSS LOT 16 , SECOND ASPEN CO . B .S . MOSS ENTERPRISES , INC . SUBDIVISION 7 CHATEAU RIDGE DRIVE GREENWICH CT 06831 DAVID H . KOCH LOTS 9 & 10 , SECOND ASPEN C/O KOCH INDUSTRIES , ATTN: LEGAL DEPT . CO . SUBDIVISION P .O . BOX 2256 WICHITA KS 67201 ELIZABETH GRINDLAY LOT 2 , BLOCK 1 , GREEN ACRES SUBDIVISION P .O . BOX 2154 ASPEN CO 81612 s ELIZABETH H . PAEPCKE LOTS 5 , 6 , 7 & 7A , SECOND ASPEN CO . SUBDIVISION 105 WEST ADAMS CHICAGO IL 60603 PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc. Title Insurance Company 601 E. Hopkins • Aspen,Colorado 81611 (303)925-1766 JACK S . & GESINE A . CRANDALL LOT 3 , BLOCK 1 , GREEN ACRES SUBDIVISION P .O . BOX 1066 ASPEN CO 81612 JAMES A . MERRIAM , GAIL ANGOTTI MERRIAM LOT 1 , MERRIAM SUB . AND AND JOAN ALEXANDER MERRIAM METES AND BOUNDS 1884 MOUNTAIN VIEW DRIVE TIBVRON CA 94920 SELIM K . ZILKHA TRUST TRACT IN THE SE1/4NE1/4 OF 12-10-85W 750 LAUSANNE ROAD LOS ANGELES CA 90077 . THE EDWARD ARTHUR GOLDSTEIN TRUST LOT 8 , SECOND ASPEN CO . SUBDIVISION 416 COMSTOCK AVE . LOS ANGELES CA 90024 THE WHIPPLE—BREWSTER CORPORATION TRACT IN 12-10-85 A COLORADO CORPORATION 121 SOUTH GALENA STREET ASPEN CO 81611 �,i