HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.202106151
AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
June 15, 2021
4:30 PM, WebEx Virtual Meeting at www.webex.com
Click "Join" & enter Meeting number: 142 837 6803 Password:
81611 OR Call 1-408-418-9388 Access Code 142 837 6803 #
I.WEBEX MEETING INSTRUCTIONS
TO JOIN ONLINE:
Go to www.webex.com and click on "Join" in the top right corner
Enter Meeting Number: 142 837 6803
Enter Password: 81611
Click "Join Meeting"
-- OR --
JOIN BY PHONE
Call: 1-408-418-9388
Enter Meeting Number: 142 837 6803
Enter Password: 81611
II.ROLL CALL
III.COMMENTS
IV.MINUTES
IV.A.DRAFT Meeting Minutes for May 4, 2021
minutes.apz.20210504.docx
IV.B.DRAFT Meeting Minutes for May 18, 2021
minutes.apz.20210518.docx
V.DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
VI.PUBLIC HEARINGS
VI.A.Lot 11 Callahan Subdivision: Stream Margin Review
Lot 11 Callahan Subdivision_Memo_Stream Margin Review_P&Z.docx
Resolution No. X Series 2021_TBD Crystal Lake Road_Stream Margin Review.docx
Exhibit A.1_Stream Margin Review Standards.docx
1
2
Exhibit A.2_Special Review Standards_Top of Slope.docx
Exhibit B_Application.pdf
VII.OTHER BUSINESS
VII.A.Discuss In-Person vs. Virtual Meetings
VIII.ADJOURN
Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings
1)Conflicts of Interest (handled at beginning of agenda)
2) Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH)
3) Staff presentation
4) Board questions and clarifications of staff
5) Applicant presentation
6) Board questions and clarifications of applicant
7) Public comments
8)Board questions and clarifications relating to public comments
9) Close public comment portion of bearing
10) Staff rebuttal/clarification of evidence presented by applicant and public comment
11) Applicant rebuttal/clarification
End of fact finding.
Deliberation by the commission commences.
No further interaction between commission and staff, applicant or public
12) Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed among commissioners.
13) Discussion between commissioners*
14) Motion*
*Make sure the discussion and motion includes what criteria are met or not met.
Revised January 8, 2021
2
Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission May 4, 2021
Page 1 of 7
Chairperson McKnight called the regularmeeting to order at 4:30 PM.
Commissioners in attendance: Brittanie Rockhill, James Marcus, Rally Dupps, Teraissa McGovern,
and Spencer McKnight. Ruth Carver joined at 4:32 pm.
Commissioners not in attendance: Scott Marcoux
Staff in Attendance:
Amy Simon, Planning Director
Garrett Larimer, Senior Planner
Kevin Rayes, Planner
Carly McGowan, Engineering Project Manager
Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney
Cindy Klob, Records Manager
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
None
STAFF COMMENTS
Ms. Simon announced this will the last meeting for Mr. Marcus because he is moving out of the City. She
added Ms. Brown-Schirato has also moved out of the City and has resigned from the commission. Mr.
Sam Rose was recently appointed by City Council and will be joining the commission at the next
meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
None
DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Ms. Carver said she is very familiar with the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies but feels she is not
personally involved in the hearing for tonight and can be fair and impartial.
3
Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission May 4, 2021
Page 2 of 7
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Mr. McKnight asked if proper notice was made for both hearings. Ms. Johnson replied proper notice was
provided for both hearings. She also noted the ACES hearing had previously been continued and those
previous dates were also noticed.
Aspen Center for Environmental Studies (ACES): Minor amendment to a Planned Development-Project
Review, Growth Management, Stream Margin and Commercial Design Review
Mr. McKnight opened the hearing and turned the floor over to staff for a high-level review.
Mr. Bret Lohr, Forum Phi, introduced himself and Ryan Walterscheid, Forum Phi, as representing the
applicant and the hearing. He also introduced Jim Kravitz, ACES Naturalist Programs Director and Chris
Lane, ACES CEO.
Mr. Lohr provided background of ACES and the application. As part of their 50-year anniversary, they
have raised funds to renovate and upgrade two of the existing buildings for better utilization for their
employees and the public and to renovate the entrance to the property.
He displayed a map of the area and identified the location of the property, its entrance and primary
structures and land features. Of the seven buildings on the property, four house employees and three
are used for public and employee use. One building houses birds. He then displayed a site plan and
identified the three scopes of the project. One is providing a drop-off area and a turn-around area for
buses at the entrance. Another area to be modified is the existing visitor center. The third area is to add
dormers to the bird of prey building where they house birds and staff has office space.
Mr. Lohr displayed pictures of the current entrance at the end of Puppy Smith St. He stated the area
does not drain well and does not have drop-off area for the children. Providing a drop-off area will be
safer for the children. They also want to continue a bike path from the Rio Grande Trail down to the
entrance. He displayed a site plan showing the existing entrance, the proposed turn-around and trees to
be removed.
Next, he displayed a picture of the current front of the visitor center. Then he displayed a rendering with
the proposed addition of approximately 800 SF to the gable to the right of the front entrance and a
proposed deck renovation on the left side of the building. The proposed addition will expand the lecture
hall and provide an improved office space area on the second floor. They are proposing to reshape the
deck on the building to provide handicap access to the preserve and provide a sitting lecture area on
one side of the deck.
Mr. Lohr displayed a picture of Bird of Prey Building, pointing out the location of cages for birds and the
second floor where staff has offices. He provided a rendering showing the location of the proposed
dormers which will make better use of the existing office space on the second floor.
Mr. Lohr displayed a site plan and noted the Bird of Prey Building and the proposed addition to the
Visitor Center is located in the stream margin.
4
Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission May 4, 2021
Page 3 of 7
He then displayed a rendering of the building with the proposed dormers to show the increased office
space and the location of the top of slope which does not encroach on the building.
Mr. then displayed a tree mitigation plan. He stated ACES will be working with the City’s Forestry
Department to avoid all mitigation fees by offsetting the removed trees with new trees.
Mr. McKnight asked if there were any questions of the applicant.
Mr. Dupps asked how many trees will be removed and is there a schedule of the type and size of the
trees. Mr. Lohr stated there is a schedule and they are working with the City to minimize the number of
trees to be removed. Mr. Kravitz said he has been working with the City on methods to replant trees,
documenting this process and sharing it with the City. He pointed out on the Tree Mitigation Plan
Overview the locations where trees are to be removed and where there would be new ones planted
including the East Meadow and Mushroom Property South. Mr. Lohr stated currently they are planning
to remove about 30 trees.
Ms. McGovern asked how many trees would be removed for the parking lot. Mr. Lohr replied the
parking lot is no longer part of the project. Ms. Carver remarked it was in the agenda packet and felt it
would be a great asset. Mr. Lohr stated because the amount of parking gained by the number of trees
that would have to be removed was too great. Many visitors walk or bike to ACES. Mr. Kravitz stated
they realized they needed a turn-around for vehicles to get in and out safely.
Mr. McKnight then turned the floor over to staff.
Mr. Rayes noted the review today is conceptual and the project will return to P&Z in the future of a
detailed review. He wanted to make sure Mr. Dupps understood this regarding the tree mitigation plan.
The draft resolution calls for a tree mitigation plan as well as a landscaping and drainage plan before the
detailed review.
Mr. Rayes reviewed the project, noting it was located in the Academic Zone District and is located next
to the Roaring Fork River. He reviewed the location of the structures and entranceon a site plan. He
stated before 1997, ACES was annexed into the City and memorialized in a specially planned area (SPA)
which is now referred to as a planned development (PD). He stated approval of the conceptual and
detail plan will provide details of the building that are not currently documented.
Mr. Rayes displayed a photo of the entrance showing cars parked and noted walking up to the entrance
can be stressful. There currently is a tight turn-around entrance to Aspen. He provided a site plan of the
proposed turn-around.
Mr. Rayes noted in the current Bird of Prey building the head room is tight on the second floor and not a
lot of natural light comes through the single windows on each side. The dormers will improve the
experience. The existing footprint will not be changed.
5
Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission May 4, 2021
Page 4 of 7
Mr. Rayes then displayed photos of the first and second floor of the visitor’s center. He stated it’s a tight
space. He showed a site plan where the new addition slightly encroaches the Stream Margin Review
Area by 10-15 FT. He also displayed existing and proposed elevations from the north and south.
Mr. Rayes next discussed the review criteria. He noted the Academic Zone District does not have any
dimensional descriptions, so they are evaluated on a case by case basis. He stated there is one criterion
regarding pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. Staff feels this criterion has been met. He noted the
proposed turn-around is located adjacent to the Jenny Adair Wetlands which is intended to remain open
space. He stated there are several easements on the wetlands to accommodate storm water
infrastructure. The City is currently working with ACES on a development agreement.
Mr. Rayes then reviewed the criteria for the Stream Margin Review and stated the application meets the
criteria.
Mr. Rayes stated in regard to the Growth Management Review, ACES is considered an essential public
facility based on decision by the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners which doesn’t typically
require as many FTEs as a private development. FTEs are assigned on a case by case basis. The applicant
is proposing no new FTEs will be created based on the proposed expansion. Staff agrees there will be no
new FTEs as a result of the additions but there is a condition for approval in the draft resolution for the
applicant to provide a baseline calculation of existing employed FTEs on the site and audits at two years
and five years after the certificate of occupancy has been issued.
Mr. Rayes then covered the conceptual Commercial Design Review which establishes the mass, height,
and scale of a project. He discussed criterion 1.12 and stated staff finds the criterion to be met.
He stated in conclusion staff is supportive of all the reviews.
Mr. McKnight asked the commissioners if they had any questions at this time.
Ms. McGovern stated the layout of the stairs appear to be changing. Mr. Rayes responded the stairs will
be a slightly different configuration and may be pushed out slightly. She does not feel there is a good
ADA access inside the building due to multiple levels in the lecture hall. Mr. Rayes was not aware of the
interior step and will make sure it is referred to the Building Department. Her concern is if they had to
mitigate it outside, then it would impact the stream margin. Mr. Rayes responded they would make sure
this is covered in the detail review.
Mr. Dupps asked if this request is part of a larger project. Mr. Rayes stated there is another project that
will be coming forward in the next few months. He added it is on the ACES property and unrelated to
the buildings. He stated the City Engineering department is working with ACES on mitigation efforts for
Hallam Lake. Ms. McGowan, City Engineer Project Manager, responded it is early in the project so there
are no details at this time.
Mr. McKnight then opened for public comment. Seeing none, he then closed public comment.
6
Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission May 4, 2021
Page 5 of 7
Mr. McKnight then opened commissioner discussion.
Mr. Dupps stated he does not see any issues with the Growth Management or Commercial Design
portions of the application. He does have concerns with the tree mitigation, turn-around and stream
margin review. He feels because this property is a beloved community asset, it needs to be held to the
highest standards. He doesn’t feel replacing 30 trees with seedlings is the right move. He is fine adding
the dormers to the Bird of Prey building, but otherwise he is not a fan what is being proposed.
Ms. Rockhill stated she trusts if the City is fine with the tree mitigation, then she is supportive of the
application.
Ms. Carver feels it is a wonderful proposal and is in support of it. She stated it’s a wonderful resource
but it’s dangerous to drop off kids. She is supportive of the turnaround and believe the proposed
changes to the buildings will be a great asset to the public and staff.
Mr. Marcus agrees with Ms. Carver. He feels the entrance is a safety issue with cars backing up and not
seeing the kids and should be addressed. He feels the proposed changes will allow them to reach more
people.
Ms. McGovern thinks the amendment to the PD will allow them to work with Staff to obtain the normal
PD regulations on the record such as dimensional requirements. She has no issues with the Growth
Management review. She has some concern about the Stream Margin Review but feels ACES has spent
the necessary time and effort to ensure the changes are not detrimental to the property and
surrounding environment. She is fine with the Commercial Design Review. She feels the entrance needs
to be addressed but she is concerned about the number of trees to be removed. She hopes trees will be
added for screening and hopes the City recommends larger trees in some locations and not just saplings.
She is supportive of the application.
Mr. McKnight agrees with the majority of the commissioners and is supportive of the application.
Mr. Dupps believes the turn-around will actually increase vehicular traffic to the area including traffic
not related to visiting ACES.
Mr. Marcus motioned to approve Resolution Number 4, Series 2021, as written by staff. Ms. McGovern
seconded the motion. Mr. McKnight requested a roll call: Ms. Rockhill, yes; Mr. Dupps, no; Ms. Carver,
yes; Ms. McGovern, yes; Mr. Marcus, yes; Mr. McKnight, yes; for a total of five (5) in favor – one (1) not
in favor. The motion passed.
Mr. McKnight thanked staff and the applicant.
7
Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission May 4, 2021
Page 6 of 7
Limelight Hotel - Change in Use
Mr. McKnight opened the hearing and turned the floor over to staff.
Mr. Larimer provided a summary of the Aspen Skiing Company (ASC) project stating the original Planned
Development for the North Parcel with 125 lodge rooms and one free market residential unit was
approved in 2006. The applicant is requesting to change the single free market residential unit to a lodge
unit. The previous owners used the unit as their residence. The new owners want to include the unit in
the lodging base. Their proposal would formally reduce the number of free market residential units from
15 to 14 and increase the lodge units from 125 to 126.
Mr. Larimer then reviewed the Change in Use Review criteria and displayed a floor plan indicating the
location of the unit. Staff has found the review criteria to be met. He added there is an active building
permit in for administrative planned development review for the renovation of the lodge that is
separate from this review. Staff is very supportive of the request. He noted resolution was drafted with
the unit identified as number 419 and it was platted as number 414 so this correction will be made in
the final version of the resolution.
Mr. McKnight asked the commissioners for questions of staff. There were none so he turned it over to
the applicant.
Mr. Gert Van Moorsel, Sr. Director of Design and Construction for ASC introduced himself and then
provided a history and the reasons for requesting the change of use which included aligning the unit
with the future Aspen Skiing Company operating practices and uses.
Mr. Van Moorsel reiterated the original owners and their family used the unit when they were in town.
He added they also have an Interior Finish and Furnishings Removal (IFFR) permit from the City. During
the review for the permit, it came to light the residential use was not consistent with how it should have
been, so ASC changed the use for guests for 30 days or more.
He displayed a floor plan and indicated the location of the unit as well as a floor plan of the unit. He
stated ASC will use credit for mitigating the affordable housing requirement.
Mr. McKnight asked the commissioners for questions of the applicant.
Ms. Carver asked if Poss and Worley were the original owners of the Limelight. Mr. Van Moorsel
believed they owned the Limelight since the early 1950’s and built the current hotel in 2006.
Ms. McGovern asked if the plat needs to be updated with the updated unit number. Mr. Larimer replied
it would be in the best interest of ASC and the City if an amended plat was on record. The other
permitted changes should also be wrapped up in an updated plat and could be added as a condition of
approval. Ms. McGovern replied she would like for it to be added to the resolution. Mr. Van Moorsel
stated ASC would be willing to memorialize it in some manner. Mr. Larimer responded it could be
8
Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission May 4, 2021
Page 7 of 7
identified as the ‘platted unit’ in the documentation to clarify it. Ms. McGovern said that would be okay
and seems rolling all the changes from this review and the IFFR permit into one would be appropriate.
Mr. McKnight then opened for public comment. Seeing none, he then closed public comment.
Mr. McKnight opened for commissioner discussion.
Mr. Dupps stated he is in favor of the application without any conditions.
Mr. McKnight asked if anyone was opposed to the application.
Ms. Carver is in favor of the application. She asked the SF of the room. Mr. Van Moorsel replied it is
1,200 SF.
Mr. Marcus stated it meets the review criteria and Ms. McGovern, Mr. McKnight, and Ms. Rockhill
agreed.
Ms. McGovern motioned to approve Resolution Number 5, Series 2021, as amended to include the
platted unit 414. Ms. Carver seconded the motion. Mr. McKnight requested a roll call: Ms. Rockhill, yes;
Mr. Marcus, yes; Mr. Dupps, yes; Ms. Carver, yes; Ms. McGovern, yes; Mr. McKnight, yes; for a total of
six (6) in favor – zero (0) not in favor. The motion passed.
Mr. McKnight thanked staff and the applicant.
OTHER BUSINESS
None
Mr. McKnight thanked staff and the applicant. He then asked for a motion to adjourn. Mr. Marcus
motioned to adjourn and was seconded by Ms. McGovern. All in favor and the meeting was adjourned
at 6:06 pm.
Cindy Klob, Records Manager
9
Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission May 18, 2021
Page 1 of 7
Chairperson McKnight called the regularmeeting to order at 4:30 PM.
Commissioners in attendance: Brittanie Rockhill, Rally Dupps, Sam Rose, Scott Marcoux, Teraissa
McGovern, Spencer McKnight and Ruth Carver (4:39pm).
Staff in Attendance:
Amy Simon, Planning Director
Garrett Larimer, Sr Planner
Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney
Cindy Klob, Records Manager
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Mr. McKnight noted Mr. Rose’s presence at the meeting and welcomed him the Planning and Zoning
Commission (P&Z). Mr. Rose thanked him.
STAFF COMMENTS
Ms. Simon asked Mr. Rose to introduce himself which he did.
Ms. Simon also stated tonight will be the last meeting for Mr. Dupps because he is relocating out of the
City. She thanked him for his many years of service on several City boards.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
None
DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Mr. McKnight asked if proper notice was provided for both hearings. Ms. Johnson stated proper notice
was provided.
225 Smuggler St – Residential Design Standard (RDS) Variations
Mr. McKnight turned the floor over to Staff for a high-level review of the applications.
Mr. Larimer introduced the application as a redevelopment of a single-family residence on a 6,000 SF lot
in the R-6 (moderate density) Zoned District.
He noted they comply with all design standards except two which they are requesting variations for the
articulation of building mass (non-flexible variation) and the window placement standard (flexible
10
Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission May 18, 2021
Page 2 of 7
variation). He noted typically the window placement is an administrative review, but staff is combining
the reviews for efficiency. He then reviewed the two criteria for the RDS variation review.
Mr. Larimer first reviewed the standard for the articulation of building mass. He reviewed the following
three options provided for compliance with the standard and the intent statement of the standard. He
added this standard applies to all lots in the Infill Area.
Option 1: Maximum Sidewall Depth of 50 FT sidewall max and no additional design restrictions
Option 2: Off-set with one-story ground level connector with the one-story connector within 45 FT
of front most wall, setback 5 FT from either side and a minimum 10 FT distance between
the two elements.
Option 3: One story step down at the rear of the property with a step down within 45 FT of front
most wall and setbacks of 5 FT from primary structure sidewall.
Mr. Larimer next reviewed the standard and intent for the window replacement.
He then outlined the three general intent statements for the RDS.
1) Connect to the street regarding residential character
2) Respond to the Neighboring Properties regarding setbacks and context
3) Reflect Traditional Building Scale providing a human scale and not overwhelming neighboring
properties
Mr. McKnight asked the commissioners if they had any questions for staff. Seeing none, he then turned
the floor over to the applicant.
Mr. Carson Davis, EYRC Architects, introduced himself as representing the applicant. He noted the
owners selected this site because they really loved the character of the neighborhood and the scale of
the houses, it’s location adjacent to a park, and it’s views of Red Mountain to the north and Aspen
Mountain to the south.
He displayed an elevation of the proposed front side of the residence from the park across the street
(north). He stated they wanted a house that fits their needs as well as fits the scale of the neighborhood.
The design uses a simple material palette with heavy stone walls at the base with lighter volumes above
to help break down the mass and relate to the scale of the neighborhood. The different masses are built
with different materials to articulate them. He pointed out the large window on the second story and a
smaller window downstairs to provide views of the park with more privacy. He also pointed out the
entrance on the right side and the location of the windows requiring the variation. A set of north facing
windows cover the stairs which are set back from the front façade, providing a one-story element. In
order to bring as much light into the stairs as possible, the stairs are enclosed in glass which is then
covered with a perforated metal to obscure the stairs. He stated there will be a horizontal mullion in the
window, but it will be hidden by the metal screens.
Mr. Carson-Davis next displayed an elevation of the east side of the proposed residence. He pointed out
the length of the mass on the second story that is longer than the RDS guidelines. He added the actual
11
Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission May 18, 2021
Page 3 of 7
enclosed area is only 50 FT long with extensions to accentuate the front façade and articulate the mass.
He pointed out a set of windows on the side.
Mr. Carson-Davis then displayed an elevation showing the back of the building. He pointed out a step
between the upper and lower levels breaking down the mass. He stated the façade will not be visible
straight on except for the next-door neighbor because it is screened by a row of Hemlocks on the
neighbor’s property. There is a mix of materials used and there is a four FT overhang on the back of the
building.
Mr. McKnight asked the commissioners if there were any questions of the applicant.
Mr. Dupps asked if they are pursuing option 2 or 3, they could achieve the 45 FT length by removing the
overhangs so why do they feel the need to request the variance. Mr. Carson-Davis stated the overhang
on the south side will provide protection from the sun and elements. He stated for the overhang on the
front side, it helps to articulate the masses, block the elements, and provides a little privacy on the
second floor.
Mr. McKnight then turned the floor over to staff.
Mr. Larimer stated Staff has not found any site-specific constraints prohibiting compliance with the RDS,
so Staff investigated if a design alternative was provided to meet the intent.
Mr. Larimer displayed a plan view of the proposed residence and pointed out the side wall on the west
side measures just under 44FT before it steps down. There is also a five FT setback measuring at least 10
FT. The west side of the structure complies with Option 2. On the east side, the length measures 54 FT
which exceeds the 45 FT maximum. There is a 13 FT setback from the primary side wall. He noted the
key was determining if the east façade met the overall intent. He believes there are some design
elements to help provide articulation on both sides. He stated there is a one-story garage accessed off
the alley with a primary two-story mass to the front of the building which aligns with Option 3.
Mr. Larimer displayed a couple of renderings of the front and back of the building and an elevation of
the east façade. There is a 79 FT overall length of the first floor including the garage. He pointed out the
multiple setbacks located on first and second floors as well as the stair element and entry.
He then displayed renderings showing the east façade. Staff agrees although it exceeds the 45 FT
maximum, there are design elements including the materials, variation of the wall plane and
fenestration to help break up the façade. Staff also feels the setback to the garage is larger than what is
typically required. In viewing all of this information together, Staff believes this façade and the entire
design does meet the intent of the articulation of building mass standard. Staff is supportive of a
variation for the articulation of the building mass standard.
Mr. Larimer then discussed the variation for the window placement. He displayed a plan view and
pointed to the location of the windows. He stated the standard requires no window exceed 10 FT. The
proposed window measures 21.5 FT. The reviewed the intent regarding expanses of vertical glass on a
12
Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission May 18, 2021
Page 4 of 7
street facing façade. Next, he displayed a few additional perspectives of the window located on the
front façade. He stated Staff has found the screen in front of the window and the mullion provide some
articulation even though it is not enough to comply outright with the standard. Staff also feels the entry
feature helps to provide some demarcation between the stories. Staff feels the intent of the window
standard is met even though the window exceeds the allowable height. Staff is supportive of a variation
of the window placement.
In closing, Staff is recommending approval of the resolution.
Mr. McKnight asked the commissioners if there were any questions of staff.
Ms. McGovern asked if the 54 FT is a little misleading and she feels it should be 59 FT. Mr. Larimer
responded for articulation of mass, the length is measured from the front most wall to the rear most
wall. She asked why the overhang in the rear is included but the overhang in the front is not included.
Mr. Larimer stated the measurement should state 50 FT noting architectural projections are not
included in the measurement. He added he would correct the resolution prior to signing.
Ms. Carver doesn’t see how the massing and articulation conveys form similar to historic residential
homes in the area. Mr. Larimer stated Staff’s finding determined the west side façade meets the
articulation of building mass standard. On the east façade, it doesn’t meet the 45 FT maximum sidewall,
but generally the building form with the step downs at the front and rear and the primary two-story
mass forward, step downs on both the sidewall and height is consistent with residential architectural
development patterns in Aspen. He added it is not consistent with the RDS dimensional requirement for
Option 3. Staff considered other items besides the length to determine the intent was met. Ms. Simon
added Aspen has two Historic Districts, one is Main St and one is downtown. She added these are the
only places in town where there is a requirement for a development to fit into a neighborhood. So, this
house can be developed with any style as long as it meets the RDS.
Mr. McKnight then opened for public comment. Seeing none, he closed public comment.
Mr. McKnight opened commissioner discussion.
Mr. Dupps wondered if length requirement should be increased to 50 FT or if there was another way to
handle these types of applications so the applicants would not have to come before P&Z. He feels it is a
fine piece of architecture. He is supportive of the application. Mr. McKnight agreed the board has been
seeing some good projects, but also feels there is a reason for P&Z to review these projects.
Ms. McGovern stated the comments brought up by Mr. Dupps should be a discussion outside of this
hearing. She does not feel it should be brought up in front of the applicant and as part of the discussion,
she feels the design requirements drive better architecture because it forces them to articulate the mass
to meet the intent. She feels having a defined threshold and the review mechanism helps to drive better
architecture. She doesn’t feel it would be a quick process to change the RDS.
13
Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission May 18, 2021
Page 5 of 7
Ms. McGovern stated in regard to the application, she feels the window and the stairs meet the intent.
The mullion and screen help as well as its position set back from the front of the building. For the east
side wall, she believes it meets the intent with the articulation. She feels it meets the intent.
Ms. Carver agrees with Ms. McGovern regarding P&Z’s variation review process. She believes
applications will always ask for more length than what is allowed. She thinks its an interesting building,
but she cannot agree with the increased height of the window. She believes the architecture could easily
be changed to eliminate the need for a variance. She is not supportive of the window.
Mr. Marcoux agrees with the other commissioners regarding the review process and feels applicants will
always ask for more. He added perhaps if the RDS is modified, a hard no could be used for applications
exceeding the length. He likes the architecture of the project.
Mr. Rose feels the application does meet the intent but agrees with Ms. Carver regarding the window.
Mr. McKnight asked for another image to be provided showing the window. He agrees the applicant did
a creative job meeting the intent. He is in favor of the application.
Mr. Carson-Davis provided another view and stated they are allowed to have the tall windows on the
side of the structure. They have a horizontal mullion on the side, and they intend to plant Aspen trees
on the side. They want to continue the horizontal mullion around to the front. They felt with the metal
screening it wouldn’t be that visible. They could add a one FT band on the front to make it comply with
the standard, but it wouldn’t change the exterior esthetic much and you would have a similar light
bleed. From the interior, they feel it keeps a nice horizontal alignment.
Ms. Rockhill likes the design and feels it meets the criteria for a variance.
Mr. Rose feels it meets the intent and is in favor of the variance.
Ms. Carver stated she will never vote for a variance on windows. The light bleed is fierce and needs to
be addressed in Aspen. She is opposed to the request.
Ms. McGovern motioned to approve the Resolution Number 6, Series 2021, approving a variation to the
Articulation of Building Mass and Window Placement Residential Design Standard, in order to redevelop
the property with a single-family residence, as depicted in exhibit A of the resolution. Mr. Rose
seconded the motion. Ms. McGovern amended her motion to clarify the resolution to include the
correction of the length and was seconded by Ms. Rockhill. Mr. McKnight requested a roll call: Mr.
Dupps, yes; Ms. Carver, no; Mr. Rose, yes; Mr. Marcoux, yes; Ms. McGovern, yes; Ms. Rockhill, yes; Mr.
McKnight, yes; for a total of six (6) in favor – one (1) not in favor. The motion passed.
Mr. McKnight thanked the applicant and staff.
14
Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission May 18, 2021
Page 6 of 7
Silver Circle Ice Rink – Minor Amendment to Detailed Review
Mr. McKnight turned the floor over to Staff for a high-level review of the applications.
Ms. Simon stated the Silver Circle Ice Rink is a public amenity that was required as part of the Aspen
Mountain Planned Development (PD) approval. The applicant was allowed some waived fees and other
items in exchange for the ice rink. The Grand Hyatt owns the site and is responsible for general
maintenance and they lease out to CP Burger. The Environmental Protection Agency phased out the
coolant used for the ice cooler. A synthetic surface was proposed as a long-term replacement and used
for one year. After community complaints were received regarding the functionality and overall
experience with the synthetic surface, the applicant proposed using a chiller which has been sitting in
the corner of the property for the past two years. City Council allowed the use of this chiller under a
temporary use that has been extended a couple of times. The applicant wants to permanently use the
onsite chiller. City Council wants the ice rink to be functional and available.
Mr. Bendon, Bendon Adams, stated the original chiller system is no longer usable. The current chiller is a
rental put in place next to the rink and has worked really well. Originally there were concerns about the
noise and the aesthetics of the chiller next to the rink, but it was found to not be noisy because it is air
cooled and the aesthetics is still a work in progress. The Condo Association originally purchased and
used a synthetic surface but the approval for it has been revoked. There is a pending appeal of that
decision which is on hold. Now the temporary rented chiller has been used and the applicant would like
to make it permanent.
Mr. Bendon displayed pictures of the current temporary chiller which is surrounded by a wooden fence.
The applicant would like to make the surround a brick structure similar to other features on the
property. The Condo Association is looking to purchase a chiller because the temporary one is not
available for purchase. The new unit will be installed slightly lower than the temporary one so it will not
be as visible.
He stated this request is to make an amendment to the PD for the location to be permanent. He stated
this unit is much more efficient than the original cooler which was water cooled and located in the
parking garage. He noted you used to see a large steam plume coming out of the CP Burger building
from the original cooler in the garage.
Mr. Bendon identified Bob Weisman as the lead board member for the project, John Brilbeck as another
board member, Jamie Champagne as the interim property manager and Tim Williams as the incoming
property manager. He stated they may be on the call.
Mr. McKnight asked the commissioners if there were any questions of the applicant.
Mr. McKnight asked why they decided to place the new one beside the rink instead of the garage. Mr.
Bendon stated if the new one was in the garage; it would have to be custom built in place. With the
reduced expense and reduced energy usage, the Condo Association decided it’s best to locate the new
unit next to the rink.
15
Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission May 18, 2021
Page 7 of 7
Mr. McKnight then turned the floor over to staff.
Ms. Simon stated Staff is recommending approval and she reviewed the conditions included in the draft
resolution.
Mr. McKnight asked the commissioners if there were any questions of Staff.
Mr. McKnight asked the location of the new wall surrounding the unit. Mr. Bendon stated it will be the
same height as the existing rear wall with similar bricks and cap.
Mr. McKnight then opened for public comment. Seeing none, he closed public comment.
Mr. McKnight opened commissioner discussion.
Mr. McKnight stated the photo of the temporary unit looks terrible, but he admitted it was the first time
he realized it was there. He feels the new situation will be much better.
Ms. McGovern stated she looked at the site earlier in the day and thought it was really ugly and she
hoped they could put a wall around it. She feels the requested amendment is the best solution. She
would like to see the unit in the garage but it’s not possible at this time.
Ms. Carver stated she has never noticed or heard the cooler unit so the new proposal will make it look
much better.
Mr. Marcoux motioned to approve the Resolution Number 7; Series 2021 as presented granting
approval of a minor amendment as identified herein. Mr. Rose seconded the motion. Mr. McKnight
requested a roll call: Ms. Rockhill, yes; Mr. Dupps, yes; Ms. Carver, yes; Ms. McGovern, yes; Mr.
McKnight, yes; Mr. Rose, yes; Mr. Marcoux, yes; for a total of seven (7) in favor – zero (0) not in favor.
The motion passed.
Mr. McKnight thanked staff and the applicant. He then asked for a motion to adjourn. Ms. McGovern
motioned to adjourn and was seconded by Ms. Carver. All in favor and the meeting was adjourned at
5:45 pm.
OTHER BUSINESS
None
Cindy Klob, Records Manager
16
Page | 1
MEMORANDUM
TO:Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM:Kevin Rayes, Planner
THRU:Amy Simon, Planning Director
RE:Lot 11 Callahan Subdivision: Stream Margin Review
MEETING DATE:June 15, 2021
Applicant:
North Clove, N.V., a Curacao Corporation
as successor to North Clove N.V., a
Netherlands Antilles Corporation
Representative:
Chris Bendon, Bendon Adams, 300 So.
Spring St. #202, Aspen, CO 81611
Location:
#TBD, Crystal Lake Road, Aspen, CO
81611, Legally described as Lot 11,
Callahan Subdivision, recorded May 19,
1976, in plate books 5 at page 7 and first
amendment thereto recorded August 17,
1977, in plat book 6 at page 16 and
second amended plat recorded October 4,
1982, in plat book 13 at page 92. County
of Pitkin. State of Colorado.
Current Zoning:
Moderate Density Residential (R-15) with a
Planned Development (PD) overlay
Summary:
The subject lot is located within the Stream
Margin Review area of the Roaring Fork
River and is currently undeveloped. The
applicant is conducting due diligence
regarding the development rights of the
property and requests Special Review for
an alternative Top-of-Slope determination
from what is specified by the City of Aspen
Stream Margin Map,and a concurrent
Stream Margin Review based on the newly
established Top-of-Slope.No development
or improvements are proposed as part of
this application.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends the Planning & Zoning
Commission approve the proposed Alternative
Top-of-Slope and associated Stream Margin
Review with the condition set forth on Page 4 of this
memo. If P&Z approves this application, the new
Top-of-Slope will be recorded in a plat. A
subsequent Stream Margin Review will be required
if any future development is proposed within the
Stream Margin Review area of the property. Lot 11Callahan Subdivision/PUDFigure 1:Subject Property Location
17
Page | 2
REQUEST OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
The Applicant is requesting the following approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission:
Stream Margin Review (Land Use Code Section 26.435.40): An application for
development on a property within one-hundred (100) feet, measured horizontally,
from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams, or within
the Flood Hazard Area requires a Stream Margin Review.Although no development
is proposed at this time, any future improvements on this lot will be subject to
heightened review because of the proximity to the Environmentally Sensitive Area.
An application for a Stream Margin review is typically reviewed administratively, but
because the review is contingent on the Top-of-Slope determination, the applicant
requested to include the review in a one-step review process by the Planning and
Zoning Commission to simplify the process. The Planning and Zoning Commission
is the final review body.
Special Review (Land Use Code Section 26.435.040.E): An application requesting
an appeal of the Stream Margin Map’s Top-of-Slope determination requires Special
Review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning
Commission is the final review body.
BACKGROUND:
The Callahan Subdivision and Planned Development (PD) was approved in 1976. Lot 11 sits
adjacent to the Roaring Fork River and is located within the Moderate Density Residential (R-15)
zone district. The property is currently vacant with
no previous development history.Given its proximity
to the Roaring Fork River, a large portion of the lot
is located within the Stream Margin Review area,
which is considered environmentally sensitive and
requires heightened review for any development
proposed in the area. The City maintains a set of
maps depicting properties that are located within the
Stream Margin Review Area. From these maps, the
Top-of-Slope of each property is identified based on
the location of the 100-foot high water line of the
river. The Land Use Code prohibits development
(other than approved native vegetation planting)
below the Top-of-Slope or within fifteen feet of the
Top-of-Slope or the high-water line, whichever is
most restrictive. This is intended to protect the
existing riparian vegetation and bank stability.
As depicted in Figure 2, two flood zones exist on the
lot. The 100-foot high water line setback and the
Top-of-Slope identified by the City of Aspen Stream
Margin map intersect with Special Flood Zone X.
The applicant requests an alternative Top-of-Slope
determination and Stream Margin Review to provide
clarity on the development rights associated with the
property. No development or improvements are
proposed as part of this request.
Special
Flood Zone X
Top-of-Slope Per
City of Aspen 15’ Top-of-
Slope Setback
Flood
Zone AE
Figure 2:Top-of-Slope Memorialized
Via City of Aspen Stream Margin Map
18
Page | 3
PROJECT SUMMARY:
Properties located within 100 ft. of
the high-water line of the Roaring
Fork River are subject to Stream
Margin Review pursuant to Land
Use Code section 26.435.40,
Stream Margin Review.
According to the application, the
City’s mapping of the 100-ft. setback
does not correlate with the site
topography,vegetation conditions or
the location of Special Flood Zone X.
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section
26.435.040.E, Special Review, the
applicant may request an alternative
Top-of-Slope that more accurately
reflects site conditions and the
topography of the lot.
The proposed alternative Top-of-
Slope is identified in blue in Figure 3.
The applicant posits that the
proposed Top-of-Slope is more
consistent with onsite conditions
because it responds to site
topography, existing native
vegetation and avoids Flood Zone X
and Flood Zone AE.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Staff finds the application meets the Stream Margin Review Standards set forth in Land Use
Code Section 26.435.040.C and the Special Review Standards set forth in Land Use Code
Section 26.435.040.E (Exhibits A.1 & A.2 respectively). The Top-of-Slope identified by the City
of Aspen Stream Margin map is inconsistent with actual conditions onsite. Figure 4 shows the
existing and proposed Tops-of-Slope as they relate to onsite conditions.
The Top-of-Slope identified in the City of Aspen stream margin map is based solely on distance
from the Roaring Fork River but does not adequately respond to the topography, flood zones or
riparian areas of the lot. Alternatively, the applicant’s proposed Top-of-Slope avoids riparian
habitat and maintains several feet of distance from the flood zones on the property. The
proposed Top-of-Slope is based on a report included in the application from SGM Engineering
which comments on the locations of floodplain Zone X and AE,as well as the existing slope and
topography of the parcel. Additionally, City of Aspen staff conducted a site visit with the applicant
to confirm on -site conditions.Top-of-Slope determination was submitted by a licensed survey
and referred to the City of Aspen Engineering Department for Review.
Areas below (riverside) of the proposed Top-of-Slope delineation will not be disturbed. Areas
above (upslope) of this line will be subject to setback limitations.
Special
Flood Zone
X
Top-of-Slope Per
City of Aspen
Flood Zone AE
Proposed
Top-of-Slope
Figure 3:Proposed Alternative Top-of-Slope
Compared to Top-of-Slope Identified by City of Aspen
19
Page | 4
As previously mentioned, this analysis has been conducted as a courtesy to the applicant for
the purpose of due diligence. An official wetland delineation will be required to confirm the
locations of all floodplains. Any development proposed in the future that is located within the
Stream Margin Review Area is subject to all Stream Margin Review standards. A subsequent
alternative Top-of-Slope may be required pending any new findings that were not clear as part
of this review. A condition of approval is included to ensure all future Stream Margin
requirements are met.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) approve this application
with the following condition:
1. A subsequent land use application for Stream Margin Review shall be required for any
development proposed within the Stream Margin Review area on this property. As part of the
application, a professional wetland delineation must be performed to confirm the location of all
flood zones on the property. Any findings that were not clear as part of this review may require
a subsequent alternative Top-of-Slope to be established.
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution #___, Series of 2021
Exhibit A.1 – Stream Margin Review Standards | Staff Findings
Exhibit A.2 – Special Review | Alternative Top-of-Slope Review Standards | Staff Findings
Exhibit B – Application
Figure 4:Existing and Proposed Tops of Slope Compared to On-Site Conditions
20
Page 1 of 4
RESOLUTION # XX
(SERIES OF 2021)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
APPROVING SPECIAL REVIEW FOR AN ALTERNATIVE TOP OF SLOPE
DETERMINATION AND A STREAM MARGIN REVIEW FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT #TBD CRYSTAL LAKE ROAD, ASPEN, CO 81611 LEGALLY
DESCRIBED AS LOT 11, CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION, RECORDED MAY 19, 1976 IN
PLAT BOOK 4 AT PAGE 7 AND FIRST AMENDMENT THERETO RECORDED
AUGUST 17, 1977 IN PLAT BOOK 6 AT PAGE 16 AND SECOND AMENDED PLAT
RECORDED OCTOBER 4, 1982 IN PLAT BOOK 13 AT PAGE 92. COUNTY OF
PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO.
Parcel No. 2737-181-32-011
WHEREAS,the Community Development Department received an application from
North Clove, N.V., a Curacao Corporation as successor to North Clove N.V., a Netherlands
Antilles Corporation, requesting Special Review approval for an alternative Top-of-Slope
Determination, and Stream Margin Review, for the property at #TBD Crystal Lake Road, Aspen,
CO 81611; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department Staff reviewed the application for
compliance with the applicable review standards; and,
WHEREAS,the City of Aspen Engineering Department provided consultation to the
applicant and approved the proposed alternative Top-of-Slope; and,
WHEREAS,upon review of the application and the applicable Land Use Code standards,
the Community Development Director recommended approval of the Special Review for an
alternative Top-of-Slope, and Stream Margin Review; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and
considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as
identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development
Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing on June 15,
2021; and,
WHEREAS,the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development
proposal meets the applicable review criteria and that the approval of the request is consistent with
the goals and objectives of the Land Use Code; and,
21
P&Z Resolution #XX, Series of 2021
Page 2 of 4
WHEREAS,the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution
furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare; and,
WHEREAS,the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution X, Series of
2021, by a X to X (X-X) vote, granting approval of Special Review and Stream Margin Review.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission:
Section 1: Special Review for Top-of-Slope
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves an alternative Top-of-Slope determination via
Special Review as identified in the attached Exhibit A. The applicant shall submit a Site
Improvement Survey/Plat depicting the approved Top-of-Slope to the City for recordation
purposes within 180 days of this approval.
Section 2: Stream Margin Review
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves a Stream Margin Review with the following
condition of approval:
1. A subsequent land use application for Stream Margin Review shall be required for any
development proposed within the Stream Margin Review area on this property. As part of the
application, a professional wetland delineation must be performed to confirm the location of
all flood zones on the property. Any findings that were not clear as part of this review may
require a subsequent alternative Top-of-Slope to be established.
Section 3:
This approval does not exempt the project from compliance with applicable zoning, building, or
any other applicable code regulations within the City of Aspen’s Municipal Code. The applicant
must submit a building permit application demonstrating compliance with all applicable codes
prior to any development on site.
Section 4:
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development
proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before
the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such site development approvals
and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized
entity.
Section 5:
This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any
action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein
provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 6:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held
invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
22
P&Z Resolution #XX, Series of 2021
Page 3 of 4
separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
thereof.
APPROVED by the Commission at its meeting on June 15, 2021.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION:
__________________________________________________________
Katharine Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Spencer McKnight, Chair
ATTEST:
____________________________
Cindy Klob, Records Manager
Attachments:
Exhibit A:Approved site plan identifying Alternative Top-of-Slope
23
P&Z Resolution #XX, Series of 2021
Page 4 of 4
Exhibit A:Approved Alternative Top-of-Slope
Special Flood
Zone X
Flood Zone AE
Approved Top-of-
Slope
24
Exhibit A.1
Stream Margin Review Standards
Staff Findings
Page 1 of 3
26.435.040.C, Stream Margin Review Standards
No development shall be permitted within the stream margin of the Roaring Fork River unless
the Community Development Director makes a determination that the proposed development
complies with all requirements set forth below:
1. It can be demonstrated that any proposed development which is in the Special Flood Hazard
Area will not increase the base flood elevation on the parcel proposed for development. This
shall be demonstrated by an engineering study prepared by a professional engineer
registered to practice in the State which shows that the base flood elevation will not be raised,
including, but not limited to, proposing mitigation techniques on or off-site which compensate
for any base flood elevation increase caused by the development.
Staff findings: No development is proposed as part of this application. The applicant has
provided an engineering study identifying riparian areas and flood zones. This information
has been used to inform the proposed location of the alternative Top of Slope for the purpose
of due diligence. If development is proposed in the future, an official wetland delineation will
be required to confirm the information that has been submitted as part of this application is
correct. No development will be allowed within any Special Flood Hazard Areas.Staff finds
this criterion not applicable.
2. The adopted regulatory plans of the Open Space and Trails Board and the Roaring Fork
River Greenway Plan are implemented in the proposed plan for development, to the greatest
extent practicable. Areas of historic public use or access shall be dedicated via a recorded
easement for public use. A fisherman's easement granting public fishing access within the
high-water boundaries of the river course shall be granted via a recorded "Fisherman's
Easement."
Staff findings: No development is proposed as part of this application. For any future
development proposed within the Stream Margin Review area, the appropriate regulatory
plans shall be reviewed by staff to ensure the development does not negatively impact the
surrounding environment. Staff finds this criterion not applicable.
3. There is no vegetation removed or damaged or slope grade changes (cut or fill) made outside
of a specifically defined building envelope. A building envelope shall be designated by this
review and said envelope shall be designated by this review and said envelope shall be
recorded on a plat pursuant to [Land Use Code Section26.435.040.f.1.
Staff findings: The proposed Top of Slope is included within the memo and the application.
No development will be allowed below (riverside) of the established Top of Slope. The
approved Top of Slope will be recorded in a plat. If future development is proposed within
the Stream Margin Review area, a subsequent land use application shall be required to for
Stream Margin Review. An official wetland delineation will be required to confirm the
locations of all Flood Zones on the property. A subsequent Top of Slope determination may
be required based on the findings from the wetland delineation. Staff finds this criterion to
be met.
25
Exhibit A.1
Stream Margin Review Standards
Staff Findings
Page 2 of 3
4. The proposed development does not pollute or interfere with the natural changes of the river,
stream or other tributary, including erosion and/or sedimentation during construction.
Increased on-site drainage shall be accommodated within the parcel to prevent entry into
the river or onto its banks. Pools or hot tubs cannot be drained outside of the designated
building envelope.
Staff findings:No development is proposed as part of this application. Any future
development proposed within the Stream Margin Review area shall be subject to a
subsequent Stream Margin Review. A development application will be required to include
details related to grading, drainage, and construction techniques. Certain conditions may be
imposed on the development at that time. Staff finds this criterion not applicable.
5. Written notice is given to the Colorado Water Conservation Board prior to any alteration or
relocation of a water course and a copy of said notice is submitted to the Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
Staff findings: Alteration to the water course is not proposed within this application. Staff
finds this criterion not applicable.
6. A guarantee is provided in the event a water course is altered or relocated, that applies to
the developer and his heirs, successors and assigns that ensures that the flood carrying
capacity on the parcel is not diminished.
Staff findings: Alteration to the water course is not proposed as part of this application.
Staff finds this criterion not applicable.
7. Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits relating to work within the
100-year flood plain.
Staff findings: No development is proposed as part of this application. Any future
development proposed within the 100-year floodplain shall obtain all applicable Federal and
State permits. Staff finds this criterion not applicable.
8. There is no development other than approved native vegetation planting taking place below
the top of slope or within fifteen (15) feet of the top of slope or the high waterline, whichever
is most restrictive. This is an effort to protect the existing riparian vegetation and bank
stability. New plantings (including trees, shrubs, flowers and grasses) outside of the
designated building envelope on the river side shall be native riparian vegetation as
approved by the City. A landscape plan will be submitted with all development applications.
The top of slope and 100-year flood plain elevation of the Roaring Fork River shall be
determined by the Stream Margin Map located in the Community Development Department
and filed at the City Engineering Department.
Staff findings: The applicant agrees that only native vegetation may be planted below or
within 15-ft. of the Top-of-Slope and that City approval is required for plantings along the
river side of the development. As no development is proposed at this time, the applicant does
26
Exhibit A.1
Stream Margin Review Standards
Staff Findings
Page 3 of 3
not have a landscape plan. The property shall remain subject to Stream Margin Review for
any development proposed in the future. Staff finds this criterion met.
9. All development outside the fifteen (15) foot setback from the top of slope does not exceed
a height delineated by a line drawn at a forty-five (45) degree angle from ground level at the
top of slope. Height shall be measured and determined by the Community Development
Director using the definition for height set forth at Section 26.04.100 and method of
calculating height set forth at [Land Use Code Section 26.575.020 as shown in Figure "A"].
Staff findings: No development is proposed as part of this application. Any future
development within the Stream Margin Review area shall be subject to the Stream Margin
Review standards and shall comply with the progressive height limit. Staff finds this
criterion not applicable.
10.All exterior lighting is low and downcast with no light(s) directed toward the river or located
down the slope and shall be in compliance with [Land Use Code Section 26.575.150]. A
lighting plan will be submitted with all development applications.
Staff findings: No development is proposed as part of this application. Any future
development within the Stream Margin Review area shall be subject to the Stream Margin
Review standards and shall comply with applicable lighting standards. Staff finds this
criterion not applicable.
11.There has been accurate identification of wetlands and riparian zones.
Staff findings: The report from SGM Engineering comments on the presence of wetland
species and the riparian zone along the edge of the river and helped to inform the location
of the proposed alternative Top-of-Slope. The information included in this application is
subject to subsequent reviews when development is proposed for this property. Any future
development proposed within the Stream Margin Review Area is subject to Stream Margin
Review standards. A wetland delineation report will be required to confirm the most up to
date location of all wetlands on the property. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
27
Exhibit A.2
Special Review Standards
Staff Findings
Page 1 of 1
26.435.040.E, Special Review Standards
No development shall be permitted within the stream margin of the Roaring Fork River unless
the Community Development Director makes a determination that the proposed development
complies with all requirements set forth below:
An application requesting a variance from the stream margin review standards or an appeal of
the Stream Margin Map's Top of Slope determination, shall be processed as a Special Review
in accordance with common development review procedure set forth in Chapter 26.304. The
Special Review shall be considered at a public hearing for which notice has been published,
posted and mailed, pursuant to Subsection 26.304.060.e.3. Review is by the Planning and
Zoning Commission.
A Special Review from the stream margin review determination may be approved, approved
with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following review criteria:
1. An authorized survey from a Colorado professionally licensed surveyor shows a different
determination in regard to the Top of Slope and 100-year flood plain than the Stream
Margin Map located in the Community Development Department and filed in the City
Engineering Department.
Staff findings: A survey has been submitted from a Colorado professionally licensed
surveyor depicting the proposed location of the alternative Top of Slope. A report was
also submitted by SGM Engineering which speaks to the locations of floodplain Zone X
and AE, as well as the existing slope and topography of the parcel. A site visit with the
Engineering Department and the applicant confirmed the location of existing riparian
zones. The culmination of these documents and the site visit helped to inform the
proposed location of the alternative Top-of-Slope. An official wetland delineation will be
required to confirm the locations of all floodplains. Any development proposed in the
future that is located within the Stream Margin Review area is subject to all Stream Margin
Review standards. A subsequent alternative Top-of-Slope may be required pending any
new findings that were not clear as part of this review. Staff finds this criterion to be
met.
2. The proposed development meets the Stream Margin review standard(s) upon which the
Community Development Director had based the finding of denial.
Staff findings: This land use application complies with the applicable Stream Margin
Review standards. Any new development proposed within the Stream Margin Review
area will be subject to another Stream Margin Review process. An analysis that brings
forth new findings not discussed within this review may require a subsequent Top-of-
Slope to be established. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
28
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
March 22, 2021
Amy Simon
Planning Director
City of Aspen
130 So. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: #tbd Crystal Lake Road; Lot 11, Callahan Subdivision
Special Review for Top-of-Slope Determination
Ms. Simon:
Please accept this Special Review application for
a determination of top-of-slope related to Stream
Margin Review. Lot 11 of the Callahan Subdivision
is a vacant parcel fronting the Roaring Fork River
with no previous development history. The 1.1-
acre parcel is zoned R-15 (Moderate-Density
Residential) and allows for the development of one
or two residences in an attached or detached
configuration.
The application does not include a design or layout of a new home. The applicant is
seeking this Special Review to establish the top-of-slope and setbacks from the Roaring
Fork River prior to engaging in a design process. Once this top-of-slope is established, a
compete design can be submitted for the full Stream Margin Review.
This portion of the Roaring Fork River is less
roaring-ish and the riverbank has no obvious break
in the terrain. However, there is a notable change
in vegetation and soil conditions. Along the river
and in areas that appear to be seasonally
inundated, the vegetation appears to consist of
wetland species and the soil has a higher organic
content. There is a clear change to dryland
vegetation and sandy, loamy soil conditions. The
picture to the right shows this change in vegetation
from wetland species in the foreground to dryland
species in the midground.
29
Lot 11 Callahan
Page 2
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
The property survey reflects portions of the property within the Floodway, the Flood Zone
AE, and the Flood Zone X. This is shown below. This delineation follows the change in
vegetation and soil conditions.
The City’s Stream Margin regulations do not apply to portions of the property more than
100 feet from the mapped high-water line. The map below shows this 100-foot setback
line. This line does not correlate with the site topography or vegetation conditions. It
merely maps a setback from the high-water delineation.
30
Lot 11 Callahan
Page 3
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
An initial site visit was conducted with a
representative of the City Engineering
Department in the Fall of 2020. The site
visit resulted in the map below
(transcribed from site mapping) with the
blue line representing a top-of-slope
reflective of actual site conditions. As the
initial site visit was prior to this
application being submitted, the line
represented in this map is not considered
an official decision by City Engineering.
This line can be staked in preparation for
an official site visit, as snow conditions
allow a closer inspection of soil and
vegetation conditions. This proposed
top-of-slope line is reflected on the draft
Stream Margin Map submitted with this
application.
The sum total effect of this proposed top-
of-slope line is to prohibit development
on the eastern side of the property that
could otherwise intrude into the wetland
area and allow development on the
western side of the property where the
land is dry and not subject to seasonal
flooding. A progressive height limit from
this top-of-slope line would also be
implemented. The map below shows the
areas to be added and deleted.
31
Lot 11 Callahan
Page 4
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
The property is unaddressed and legally described as Lot 11 of the Callahan Subdivision.
The property is owned by North Clove N.V.; Marianela Espinosa de Suarez, Attorney in-
fact. BendonAdams has been authorized to submit this land use application.
This application responds to the Special Review criteria and Stream Margin Review
criteria. Responses to each review criterion are attached to this application as Exhibit 1.
We believe this application contains the necessary information for a complete and
competent review. Please let us know if additional information is needed. We look forward
to your review and will make ourselves available for any questions or concerns you have.
We can also arrange a site visit at your request.
Kind Regards,
Chris Bendon, AICP
BendonAdams LLC
Attachments:
1. Response to Review Criteria
2. SGM Engineering Report
3. Proposed Top-of-Slope Map
4. Application Form
5. Authorization to Represent
5.1 Power of Attorney
6. Proof of Ownership
7. Agreement to Pay
8. HOA Form
9. Pre-Application Summary
10. Vicinity Map
11. Site Improvement Survey
12. Site Pictures
32
Exhibit 1
Review Criteria
26.435.040.C Stream Margin Review standards. No development shall be permitted within
the stream margin of the Roaring Fork River unless the Community Development Director
makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth
below:
1. It can be demonstrated that any proposed development which is in the Special Flood Hazard
Area will not increase the base flood elevation on the parcel proposed for development. This
shall be demonstrated by an engineering study prepared by a professional engineer
registered to practice in the State which shows that the base flood elevation will not be
raised, including, but not limited to, proposing mitigation techniques on or off-site which
compensate for any base flood elevation increase caused by the development; and
Response: No development will occur in the Special Flood Hazard Area
2. The adopted regulatory plans of the Open Space and Trails Board and the Roaring Fork
River Greenway Plan are implemented in the proposed plan for development, to the greatest
extent practicable. Areas of historic public use or access shall be dedicated via a recorded
easement for public use. A fisherman's easement granting public fishing access within the
high-water boundaries of the river course shall be granted via a recorded "Fisherman's
Easement;" and
Response: The Open Space and Trails Board does not have any adopted regulatory
plans that affect this parcel. The Roaring Fork Greenway Plan does not appear to be
effective of applicable. This plan is not referenced in the City of Aspen Municipal Code
or the 2012 Aspen Area Community Plan. A search of City ordinances reflects that this
plan was not adopted as a regulatory document and the plan does not appear on the
City’s website. City staff have not been able to locate a copy of this plan. If a copy of
the plan is located, the applicant will review regulatory aspects for applicability to this
property.
3. There is no vegetation removed or damaged or slope grade changes (cut or fill) made
outside of a specifically defined building envelope. A building envelope shall be designated
by this review and said envelope shall be designated by this review and said envelope shall
be recorded on a plat pursuant to Subsection 26.435.040(f)(1); and
Response: The applicant is requesting the top-of-slope be set as proposed in the
application drawings. Areas below (riverside) of this delineation will not be disturbed.
Areas above (upslope) of this line will be subject to setback limitations. Subsequent to
this review the applicant will file the appropriate plat.
33
4. The proposed development does not pollute or interfere with the natural changes of the
river, stream or other tributary, including erosion and/or sedimentation during construction.
Increased on-site drainage shall be accommodated within the parcel to prevent entry into
the river or onto its banks. Pools or hot tubs cannot be drained outside of the designated
building envelope; and
Response: The applicant is not proposing development at this time, only a top-of-slope
determination. Development on this site will continue to be subject to a full Stream
Margin Review and information regarding grading, drainage, and construction technique
can be reviewed at the time an actual design is presented.
5. Written notice is given to the Colorado Water Conservation Board prior to any alteration or
relocation of a water course and a copy of said notice is submitted to the Federal Emergency
Management Agency; and
Response: Alteration of the water course is not proposed and is not anticipated to
become an issue with actual construction. Notice will be provided if this changes.
6. A guarantee is provided in the event a water course is altered or relocated, that applies to
the developer and his heirs, successors and assigns that ensures that the flood carrying
capacity on the parcel is not diminished; and
Response: Alteration of the water course is not proposed and is not anticipated to
become an issue with actual construction.
7. Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits relating to work within the
100-year flood plain; and
Response: No work is proposed within the 100-year floodplain. If work in the future is
proposed, all Federal and State permits will be obtained.
8. There is no development other than approved native vegetation planting taking place below
the top of slope or within fifteen (15) feet of the top of slope or the high waterline, whichever
is most restrictive. This is an effort to protect the existing riparian vegetation and bank
stability. New plantings (including trees, shrubs, flowers and grasses) outside of the
designated building envelope on the river side shall be native riparian vegetation as
approved by the City. A landscape plan will be submitted with all development applications.
The top of slope and 100-year flood plain elevation of the Roaring Fork River shall be
determined by the Stream Margin Map located in the Community Development Department
and filed at the City Engineering Department; and
34
Response: The applicant understands and agrees that nothing other than native
vegetation is to be planted below or within 15 feet of the top-of-slope and that City
approval is required for plantings along the river side of the development. As no
development is proposed at this time, the applicant does not have a landscape plan.
This property will remain subject to a full Stream Margin Review and a landscape plan
will be presented along with the eventual design of the home.
9. All development outside the fifteen (15)
foot setback from the top of slope does not
exceed a height delineated by a line
drawn at a forty-five (45) degree angle
from ground level at the top of slope.
Height shall be measured and determined
by the Community Development Director
using the definition for height set forth at
Section 26.04.100 and method of
calculating height set forth at Section
26.575.020 as shown in Figure "A"; and
Response: The applicant understands and agrees to the progressive height limit
originating from the top-of-slope at a 45-degree angle. As no development is proposed
at this time, the applicant does not have specific architecture. This property will remain
subject to a full Stream Margin Review and confirmation of compliance with this height
limitation will need to occur prior to proceeding to building permit review.
10. All exterior lighting is low and downcast with no light(s) directed toward the river or located
down the slope and shall be in compliance with Section 26.575.150. A lighting plan will be
submitted with all development applications; and
Response: The applicant understands that exterior lighting will need to comply with the
City’s lighting regulations and that lights cannot be directed towards the river. As no
development is proposed at this time, the applicant does not have a lighting plan for this
review. Compliance with the City’s lighting regulations and this criterion will be
demonstrated prior to construction.
11. There has been accurate identification of wetlands and riparian zones.
Response: The report from SGM Engineering comments on the presence of wetland
species and the riparian zone along the edge of the river. A site inspection, when snow
cover conditions allow, will be beneficial.
35
26.435.040.E – Special Review. An application requesting a variance from the stream margin
review standards or an appeal of the Stream Margin Map's top of slope determination, shall be
processed as a special review in accordance with common development review procedure set
forth in Chapter 26.304. The special review shall be considered at a public hearing for which
notice has been published, posted and mailed, pursuant to Subsection 26.304.060(e)(3)
Paragraphs a, b and c. Review is by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
A special review from the stream margin review determination may be approved, approved with
conditions or denied based on conformance with the following review criteria:
1. An authorized survey from a Colorado professionally licensed surveyor shows a different
determination in regards to the top of slope and 100-year flood plain than the Stream Margin
Map located in the Community Development Department and filed in the City Engineering
Department; and
Response: The commentary provided by SGM Engineering and the draft Top-of-Slope
survey provided by Rodney Kiser, a Colorado licensed land surveyor with True North
Surveying, indicate a proposed top-of-slop different from the 100-foot high-water line
setback.
2. The proposed development meets the stream margin review standard(s) upon which the
Community Development Director had based the finding of denial.
Response: See above responses to the Stream Margin Review criteria.
36
www.sgm-inc.com
GLENWOOD SPRINGS 118 West Sixth St, Suite 200 | Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 | 970.945.1004
Engineering Report-LandUse-277DanielsonDr.docx
February 24, 2021
Chris Bendon
www.bendonadams.com
300 So. Spring St. #202
Aspen, CO 81611
(o) 970.925.2855
RE: Address TBD, aka Lot 11 Callahan Subdiv, Pitco Parcel ID 273718132011 – Due Diligence
Engineering Memorandum
Dear Chris:
This report addresses an overview of Civil Engineering aspects of potential development of the above parcel.
This site is an unoccupied parcel off of Crystal Lake road approximately 300 feet west of Highway 82.
Occupied residential parcels are to the west and, across the street, to the north. Farther north is Crystal Lake
itself, the outfall of which impact this parcel. To the east is another residential parcel that is in the County
(the City limit is immediately adjacent to the east side of the parcel in question. To the south and cutting
through the very southern end of the property is the Roaring Fork River.
This report is to indicate the applicant’s approach to comply or, if circumstances warrant, vary from Pitkin
County code sections 7-20-10 through 30 and the engineering elements of 7-30. At this point we see no
reason for variance requests due to any site-engineering related issue. However, at this time, there is not a
specific site plan. This assessment is for feasibility and to determine if there are any obvious hurdles,
administratively or technically, from the development of this site for a new SFR. Therefore, we have made
some assumptions which will be indicated in this report. It is reasonable to assume this information will
need to be reviewed once a specific site plan is proposed to affirm these assertions can still be met.
Driveway & Access
The site is currently accessed via a dirt path off from the pedestrian trail from the adjacent Lot 13. This
would not be continued, with a direct connection from Crystal Lake Road. The target developable portion
is several feet lower than CLR likely requiring elevated construction to keep the driveway at a reasonable
slope. Adding to this necessity is the fact that the overflow outfall pipe from Crystal Lake, an 18” pipe,
empties into this parcel near the northwest corner, under the most ideal spot for driveway access. That pipe
would need to extend, with supporting calculations, and assurances of the continued route of overflow
around and past the desired building area. That pipe is damaged and crushed and would need to be inspected
before extension to determine the appropriate connection method. Ensuring this overflow is maintained and
in good shape should be considered by the potential lot owner so debris does not inadvertently move or
cause other damage to the drainage path through Lot 11.
Exhibit 2
37
www.sgm-inc.com
Page | 2
Grading & Drainage
As noted, the overflow path from Crystal Lake goes through Lot 11, entering at the northwest corner,
crossing and curving southward prior to the east property boundary. Until a site plan would be prepared, it
is unclear how far the culvert extension or what other amendments may be needed, but, at a minimum, we
would recommend the pipe be carried around the main footprint of protected structures.
Following, it is also reasonable that this general channel and flowpath will double as the concentration point
for site runoff prior to entering the Roaring Fork. The south end of the parcel, between the designated
setbacks and floodplain areas, an owner should expect some level of water quality and potential detention
in that lower area above the bank. With the proximity to the creek, a deep drywell is not likely, therefore
shallow or surface controls would be designed to satisfy the CoA URMP criteria.
The south end of the parcel is impacted by the floodplain Zone X and AE and is shown on the and shown
on the stream margin map. An assessment of the precise location of this, along with normal high water line
is underway and will be presented in a separate document from SGM.
The above driveway access, as currently described, would seem to provide for an elevation of a garage or
main floor no lower than an 8010 elevation.
Slopes
The vast majority of the site is at 30% or less slope. Some notable area at the north end of the parcel are
steeper than 30% and would appear to have been associated with the lake outfall construction and associated
access roads. To continue the outfall pipe around the likely home site would entail constructing and filling
to some degree on that slope to cover the outfall pipe and protect the house.
Water and Sewer
Water and Sewer existing in the Crystal Lake ROW and would appear to be accessible through typical
construction methods. It is possible some or all of a proposed house would need an ejector pump for sewer,
but that is not an uncommon circumstance with readily available appurtenances for internal plumbing. A
fire hydrant is to the northeast of this parcel, across the road.
Electric, Phone, Communications
Power and communications are along the north side of CLR and appear to be accessible for typical service
needs.
Gas
Gas is available along the south side of CLR and appears accessible near the trailhead.
38
www.sgm-inc.com
Page | 3
River and Stream Corridors and Wetlands (§7-20-80) – provided by Eric Petterson
The parcel is somewhat constrained by a 100-foot setback from the top-of-bank of the Roaring Fork River,
as well as wetlands. On February 23, 2021, SGM environmental staff delineated the top of bank of the river.
The top of bank was delineated based on topographic benching, indicating of high flow events, as well as a
wrack-line (which consisted of entrained vegetation in willows, which is also indicative of high-flow events).
The attached map shows the top-of-bank as well as the County-prescribed 100-foot buffer.
Wetlands are extensive at the southern and eastern sides of the parcel, but due to snow cover, an accurate
delineation of wetland boundaries was not possible. The County also prescribes a 100-foot buffer from
wetlands, which may be reduced to between 100 feet and a minimum of 50 feet, as long as a reduction in
the buffer would not result in water quality degradation, stream bank erosion and/or a reduction in the quality
of riparian or wetland habitat pursuant to standards in Section 7-20-80(4) of the Land Use Code (see §7-20-
80(a)(2)).
Traffic Impact (§7-30-20)
The typical single-family residential uses are not anticipated to change traffic loading along CLR. We would
recommend landscaping be kept below typical vehicular visibility levels at the driveway as the pedestrian
trail is to the immediate west of the site.
Conclusion
We trust this report is sufficient for the applicant’s review of feasibility on the parcel. There is no obvious
reason or significant difficulty in developing this site. Please feel free to contact us if we may provide further
information or clarification.
Very Truly Yours,
Rick L Barth, P.E., Senior Engineer
Civil Services Sector
SGM
Attachments / Associated reports: Top of bank map
39
Page | 4 40
E E
S
SDYH
G
FOUND MAG NAIL &
ALUMINUM TAG
NO IDENTIFICATION
IN PAVEMENT
SET MAG NAIL &
1-1/2"ALUMINUM TAG
TNC PLS38215 IN PAVEMENT
SITE BENCH MARK
SET REBAR & 1-1/4"
ORANGE PLASTIC CAP
TNC PLS38215
ELEVATION: 8014.92
FOUND NO. 5 REBAR &
1-1/4" YELLOW PLASTIC CAP
TRI-CO LS12707
SET WOOD LATH ALONG
TOP OF SLOPE PER
CITY OF ASPEN MAPPING
65.5' WITNESS CORNER
FOUND NO. 5 REBAR &
1-1/4" YELLOW PLASTIC
CAP ALPINE LS9184
53.7' WITNESS CORNER
FOUND NO. 5 REBAR &
1-1/4" YELLOW PLASTIC
CAP ALPINE LS9184
FOUND NO. 5 REBAR &
1-1/4" YELLOW PLASTIC CAP
TRI-CO LS12707
FOUND NO. 6 REBAR &
3-1/4" ALUMINUM CAP
STAMPED MS890/MS612
BLM 1954
(COR. 1 RIVERSIDE PLACER
MS NO. 3905)
FOUND NO. 6 REBAR &
3-1/4" ALUMINUM CAP
STAMPED MS6120
COR 2 BLM 1954
3.0' BETWEEN CAPSCONCRETESTONE RETAINING WALL
EDGE OF GRAVEL
EDGE OF GRAVEL
PAVED PEDESTRIAN
PATH
PAVED ROADWAY
CRYSTAL LAKE
OVERFLOW OUTLET PIPE
PER PLAT BOOK 6
AT PAGE 18
FL
O
W
L
I
N
E
15' TOP OF SLOPE
SETBACK
L=89.75'
R=375.00'
CB=N84°45'04"E
CH=89.55'
L=21.21'
R=375.00'
CB=N79°36'36"E
CH=21.21'(BASIS OF BEARINGS)S00°14'00"W 456.89'PLAT=457.24'229.76'227.13'S89°03'26"W 70.00'
PLAT=N89°46'00"WN31°54
'08
"W
74
.69
'PLAT=N32°27
'17
"W
74
.05
'PLAT=N00°14'00"EN00°11'30'E 382.62'103.54'213.74'ROARING FORKRIVERWAT
E
R
S
E
D
G
E
JUL
Y
2
0
2
0
JULY
2020HIGH
WATER
L
INE
LOT 11
1.104± ACRES
48,106± SQ.FT.
LOT 13
OWNER
ASPEN CLUB
LOT 12
OWNER
CG CRYSTAL LAKES HOLINGS LLC
LOT 5
STILLWATER
RANCH
OWNER
JOHN BURGESS
LOT 6
STILLWATER
RANCH
OWNER
GERSON TRUSTN15°17'23"W 965.17'(TIE)S85°34'02"E 1174.12
'
(
T
I
E
)
CITY OF ASPEN
2009 GPS
MONUMENT #18
CITY OF ASPEN
2009 GPS
MONUMENT #19
FL
O
O
D
Z
O
N
E
A
E
FL
O
O
D
W
A
Y
FL
O
O
D
Z
O
N
E
A
E
FL
O
O
D
Z
O
N
E
A
E
FL
O
O
D
Z
O
N
E
X
FLOOD ZONE AE
BASED FLOOD ELEVATION 7993
FLOO
D
Z
O
N
E
X
FLOOD ZONE AE
AREA WITHIN FLOODWAY
SPECIAL FLOOD ZONE X
AREA OF 0.2% ANNUAL
CHANCE OF FLOOD
GRAVEL
TURNOUT
8
0
2
0
8
0
1
58020
8
0
1
5
8
0
1
0
80
0
5
8005
800080
0
4
8000
799579908002800580108015 8012CRYSTAL
LAKE ROAD
(24' PRIVATE R
I
G
H
T
-
O
F
-
W
A
Y
)
10' WIDE UTILITY EASEMENT
PLAT BOOK 5 PAGE 7
5' WIDE UTILITY EASEMENT
PLAT BOOK 5 PAGE 7
5' WIDE UTILITY EASEMENT
PLAT BOOK 5 PAGE 7
5' WIDE UTILITY EASEMENT
PLAT BOOK 5 PAGE 7
10' REAR SETBACK
5' ACCESSORY
BUILDING SETBACK10' SIDE SETBACK10' SIDE SETBACK30' ACCESSORY
SETBACK
25' SETBACK
NORTH LINE OF OPEN SPACE
REAR YARD SETBACK LINE
(EFFECTIVELY SUPERSEDED BY
OPEN SPACE BOUNDARY AND
STREAM MARGIN SETBACK LINES
AS APPLICABLE
100'
HI
G
H
W
A
T
E
R
LI
N
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
PRO
P
O
S
E
D
TOP
O
F
S
L
O
P
E
CLERK AND RECORDER 'S CERTIFICATE
THIS STREAM MARGIN MAP WAS FILED FOR RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK AND RECORDER OF PITKIN COUNTY AT ____
O'CLOCK____.M., ON THE ____ DAY OF__________, A.D. 2021, AND IS DULY RECORDED IN BOOK _____, PAGE ______, RECEPTION
NO.______________________.
___________________________________________________________
CLERK AND RECORDER
BY:________________________________________________________
DEPUTY
WATER LINE
SEWER LINE
TELEPHONE LINE
GAS LINE
ORF
R
EV I E W
UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC LINE
TELEPHONE PEDESTAL
DYH
S
FIRE HYDRANT
SANITARY MANHOLE
ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER
ELECTRICAL METER
LEGEND
E
WATER VALVE BOX
VICINITY MAP
NOTES:
LOT 11 - CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION
SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE 6TH PM
COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO
STREAM MARGIN MAP
TRUE NORTH COLORADO LLC.
A LAND SURVEYING AND MAPPING COMPANY
P.O. BOX 614 - 386 MAIN STREET UNIT 3
NEW CASTLE, COLORADO 81647
(970) 984-0474
www.truenorthcolorado.com
PROJECT NO: 2020-240
DATE: March 18, 2021
DRAWN
RPK
SURVEYED
DJB
SHEET
1 OF 1
TRUENORTH
A LAND SURVEYING AND MAPPING COMPANY
20'
10'40'
SCALE: 1" = 20'
N
0
NOTICE: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY
LEGAL ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN THREE
YEARS AFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT MAY ANY
ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE
THAN TEN YEARS FROM THE DATE OF CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON.
SLOPE LEGEND
0% TO 20% (36,939± SQ.FT.)
(EXCLUDES AREA BELOW HIGH WATER LINE)
(3,808± SQ.FT.)
20% TO 30% (2,630± SQ.FT.)
30% & GREATER (4,729± SQ.FT.)
SCALE: 1" = 800'HIGHWAY
NO
.
82
CRYSTAL LAKE
ROAD
WESTVIEW DRIVE
LUPINE DR
IVE
CITY OF ASPEN
ROARI
N
G F
ORK
RIVERSITE
PURPOSE STATEMENT
TO ESTABLISH THE TOP OF SLOPE
ALONG THE ROARING FORK RIVER
CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP
THE UNDERSIGNED, NORTH CLOVE N V, A CORPORATION, AS OWNER OF LOT 11, SECOND AMENDED PLAT OF THE
CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT RECORDED OCTOBER 4, 1982, IN PLAT BOOK 13 AT PAGE 92,
AS RECEPTION NO. 244589, CONTAINING 1.104 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THIS STREAM
MARGIN MAP.
NORTH CLOVE N V, A CORPORATION
1333 SOUTH MIAMI AVENUE SUITE #100
MIAMI, FL 33130
_________________________________________________________
AUTHORIZED AGENT
STATE OF COLORADO )
) SS
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
THE FOREGOING STREAM MARGIN MAP WAS EXECUTED AND ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME ON
____________________________________________________, 2021 BY ________________________________________.
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL.
______________________________________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR APPROVAL
THIS STREAM MARGIN MAP IS APPROVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
THIS _________ DAY OF_____________________________, 2021.
BY:___________________________________________________________
PHILLIP SUPINO - DIRECTOR
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT REVIEW
THIS STREAM MARGIN MAP WAS REVIEWED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT THIS ____ DAY
OF_____________________________, 2021.
BY:___________________________________________________________
TRISH ARAGON, PE
CITY ENGINEER
SURVEYOR 'S CERTIFICATE
I, RODNEY P. KISER, COLORADO REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE PREPARED THIS
STREAM MARGIN MAP, THAT THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY BOUNDARIES ARE BASED ON A FIELD SURVEY
PERFORMED JULY 1 & 2, 2020 UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND RESPONSIBLE CHARGE AND THAT IT IS TRUE AND
CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE.
IN WITNESS THEREOF, I HAVE SET MY HAND AND SEAL THIS ________ DAY OF ________________________, 2021.
____________________________________________________________________________
RODNEY P. KISER
LICENSED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR
COLORADO REGISTRATION NO. 38215
Exhibit 3
41
CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5090 April 2020
LAND USE APPLICATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTIVATIVE:
Description: Existing and Proposed Conditions
Review: Administrative or Board Review
Required Land Use Review(s):
Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) required fields:
Net Leasable square footage Lodge Pillows Free Market dwelling units
Affordable Housing dwelling units Essential Public Facility square footage
Have you included the following? FEES DUE: $
Pre-Application Conference Summary
Signed Fee Agreement
HOA Compliance form
All items listed in checklist on PreApplication Conference Summary
Name:
Address:
Phone#: email:
Address:
Phone #: email:
Name:
Project Name and Address:
Parcel ID # (REQUIRED)
#tbd Crystal Lake Road; Aspen, CO 81611
2737-181-32-011
North Clove N.V.; a Curacao registered Limited Liability Company
1333 So. Miami Ave. #100; Miami, FL 33130
marianelae@mac.com
BendonAdams
300So. Spring St. #202; Aspen, CO 81611
970.925.2855 Chris@BendonAdams.com
Existing 1.1 ac. vacant lot. Proposed top-of-slope determination for
placement of residential development
na na
na na
1 or 2 (existing rights)
x
x
x
x
3,475
305-577.3094
Exhibit 4
42
Exhibit 5
43
Exhibit 5.144
45
Land Title Guarantee Company
Customer Distribution
PREVENT FRAUD - Please remember to call a member of our closing team when
initiating a wire transfer or providing wiring instructions.
Order Number:Q62012351-3 Date: 03/16/2021
Property Address:TBD CRYSTAL LAKE RD, ASPEN, CO 81611
PLEASE CONTACT YOUR CLOSER OR CLOSER'S ASSISTANT FOR WIRE TRANSFER INSTRUCTIONS
For Closing Assistance Closing Processor For Title Assistance
Kimberly Szczesny
533 E HOPKINS #102
ASPEN, CO 81611
(970) 925-1678 (Work)
(303) 393-4870 (Work Fax)
kparham@ltgc.com
Contact License: CO414945
Company License: CO44565
Marc Obadia
533 E HOPKINS #102
ASPEN, CO 81611
(970) 925-1678 (Work)
(800) 318-8202 (Work Fax)
mobadia@ltgc.com
Company License: CO44565
Land Title Roaring Fork Valley Title
Team
533 E HOPKINS #102
ASPEN, CO 81611
(970) 927-0405 (Work)
(970) 925-0610 (Work Fax)
valleyresponse@ltgc.com
Buyer/Borrower
TO BE DETERMINED
Delivered via: No Commitment Delivery
BENDON ADAMS
Attention: CHRIS BENDON
chris@bendonadams.com
Delivered via: Electronic Mail
Exhibit 6
46
Land Title Guarantee Company
Estimate of Title Fees
Order Number:Q62012351-3 Date: 03/16/2021
Property Address:TBD CRYSTAL LAKE RD, ASPEN, CO 81611
Parties:TO BE DETERMINED
NORTH CLOVE, N.V., A CURACAO CORPORATION AS SUCCESSOR TO NORTH
CLOVE , N.V., A NETHERLANDS ANTILLES CORPORATION
Visit Land Title's Website at www.ltgc.com for directions to any of our offices.
Estimate of Title insurance Fees
"TBD" Commitment $217.00
TBD - TBD Income $-217.00
Total $0.00
If Land Title Guarantee Company will be closing this transaction, the fees listed above will be collected at
closing.
Thank you for your order!
Note: The documents linked in this commitment should be reviewed carefully. These documents, such as covenants
conditions and restrictions, may affect the title, ownership and use of the property. You may wish to engage legal
assistance in order to fully understand and be aware of the implications of the effect of these documents on your
property.
Chain of Title Documents:
Pitkin county recorded 10/15/1982 under reception no. 244786 at book 434 page
64
Plat Map(s):
Pitkin county recorded 05/19/1976 at book 5 page 7
Pitkin county recorded 08/19/1977 at book 6 page 16
Pitkin county recorded 10/04/1982 at book 13 page 92
47
Copyright 2006-2021 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved.
The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing
as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the
American Land Title Association.
Property Address:
TBD CRYSTAL LAKE RD, ASPEN, CO 81611
1.Effective Date:
03/05/2021 at 5:00 P.M.
2.Policy to be Issued and Proposed Insured:
"TBD" Commitment
Proposed Insured:
TO BE DETERMINED
$0.00
3.The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment and covered herein is:
A FEE SIMPLE
4.Title to the estate or interest covered herein is at the effective date hereof vested in:
NORTH CLOVE, N.V., A CURACAO CORPORATION AS SUCCESSOR TO NORTH CLOVE , N.V., A
NETHERLANDS ANTILLES CORPORATION
5.The Land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows:
LOT 11,
CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION,
RECORDED MAY 19, 1976 IN PLAT BOOK 5 AT PAGE 7 AND FIRST AMENDMENT THERETO RECORDED
AUGUST 17, 1977 IN PLAT BOOK 6 AT PAGE 16 AND SECOND AMENDED PLAT RECORDED OCTOBER 4,
1982 IN PLAT BOOK 13 AT PAGE 92.
COUNTY OF PITKIN,
STATE OF COLORADO.
ALTA COMMITMENT
Old Republic National Title Insurance Company
Schedule A
Order Number:Q62012351-3
48
ALTA COMMITMENT
Old Republic National Title Insurance Company
Schedule B, Part I
(Requirements)
Order Number: Q62012351-3
All of the following Requirements must be met:
This proposed Insured must notify the Company in writing of the name of any party not referred to in this
Commitment who will obtain an interest in the Land or who will make a loan on the Land. The Company may
then make additional Requirements or Exceptions.
Pay the agreed amount for the estate or interest to be insured.
Pay the premiums, fees, and charges for the Policy to the Company.
Documents satisfactory to the Company that convey the Title or create the Mortgage to be insured, or both,
must be properly authorized, executed, delivered, and recorded in the Public Records.
THIS COMMITMENT IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY, AND NO POLICY WILL BE ISSUED PURSUANT HERETO.
49
This commitment does not republish any covenants, condition, restriction, or limitation contained in any
document referred to in this commitment to the extent that the specific covenant, conditions, restriction,
or limitation violates state or federal law based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender
identity, handicap, familial status, or national origin.
1.Any facts, rights, interests, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records but that could be
ascertained by an inspection of the Land or that may be asserted by persons in possession of the Land.
2.Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records.
3.Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the Title that
would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land and not shown by the Public
Records.
4.Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by
law and not shown by the Public Records.
5.Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the
public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date of the proposed
insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this
Commitment.
6.(a) Taxes or assessments that are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that
levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the Public Records; (b) proceedings by a public
agency that may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown
by the records of such agency or by the Public Records.
7.(a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the
issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or title to water.
8.RIGHT OF THE PROPRIETOR OF A VEIN OR LODE TO EXTRACT AND REMOVE HIS ORE THEREFROM,
SHOULD THE SAME BE FOUND TO PENETRATE OR INTERSECT THE PREMISES HEREBY GRANTED,
AND A RIGHT OF WAY FOR DITCHES OR CANALS CONSTRUCTED BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED
STATES, AS RESERVED IN UNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED JUNE 17, 1894 IN BOOK 175 AT PAGE
246.
9.TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS AND OBLIGATIONS OF RIGHT OF WAY FOR PIPELINE FLUME,
DITCH OR WATERWAY AS SET FORTH IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED JANUARY 30, 1893 IN BOOK 93 AT
PAGE 527.
10.TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS AND OBLIGATIONS OF EASEMENT FOR A TRAIL RECORDED
SEPTEMBER 25, 1975 IN BOOK 303 AT PAGE 452 AND AS MODIFIED BY INSTRUMENT RECORDED JULY
29, 1977 IN BOOK 332 AT PAGE 540.
11.EASEMENTS, CONDITIONS, COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS, RESERVATIONS AND NOTES ON THE PLAT
OF CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION RECORDED MAY 19, 1976 IN PLAT BOOK 5 AT PAGE 7 AND FIRST
AMENDMENT THERETO RECORDED AUGUST 17, 1977 IN PLAT BOOK 6 AT PAGE 16 AND SECOND
AMENDMENT THERETO RECORDED OCTOBER 4, 1982 IN PLAT BOOK 13 AT PAGE 92.
ALTA COMMITMENT
Old Republic National Title Insurance Company
Schedule B, Part II
(Exceptions)
Order Number: Q62012351-3
50
12.TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS AND OBLIGATIONS AS SET FORTH IN SUBDIVISION AND PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION RECORDED MAY 19, 1976 IN BOOK
312 AT PAGE 110 AND NOTICE RECORDED APRIL 29, 1977 IN BOOK 328 AT PAGE 79.
13.TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS AND OBLIGATIONS OF EASEMENT AGREEMENT RECORDED MAY
19, 1976 IN BOOK 312 AT PAGE 158 AND MUTUAL INDEMNITY AGREEMENT RECORDED MAY 19, 1976 IN
BOOK 312 AT PAGE 165.
14.TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS AND OBLIGATIONS OF RECIPROCAL EASEMENT GRANT
RECORDED MAY 19, 1976 IN BOOK 312 AT PAGE 196.
15.(THIS ITEM WAS INTENTIONALLY DELETED)
16.TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS AND OBLIGATIONS OF ORDINANCE FROM THE CITY OF ASPEN,
NO. 43, SERIES OF 1982 RECORDED OCTOBER 4, 1982 IN BOOK 433 AT PAGE 561.
17.TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS AND OBLIGATIONS OF ORDINANCE FROM THE CITY OF ASPEN,
NO. 44, SERIES OF 1982 RECORDED OCTOBER 4, 1982 IN BOOK 433 AT PAGE 566.
18.TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS AND OBLIGATIONS OF VACATION OF EASEMENT RECORDED
OCTOBER 15, 1982 IN BOOK 434 AT PAGE 66.
19.TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS AND OBLIGATIONS OF RESTRICTION RECORDED OCTOBER 15,
1982 IN BOOK 434 AT PAGE 68.
20.ANY QUESTION, DISPUTE OR ADVERSE CLAIMS AS TO ANY LOSS OR GAIN OF LAND AS A RESULT OF
ANY CHANGE IN THE RIVER BED LOCATION BY NATURAL OR OTHER THAN NATURAL CAUSES, OR
ALTERATION THROUGH ANY CAUSE, NATURAL OR UNNATURAL, OF THE CENTER THREAD, BANK,
CHANNEL OR FLOW OF WATERS IN THE ROARING FORK RIVER LYING WITHIN SUBJECT LAND; AND
ANY QUESTION AS TO THE LOCATION OF SUCH CENTER THREAD, BED, BANK OR CHANNEL AS A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION MONUMENT OR MARKER FOR PURPOSES OF DESCRIBING OR LOCATING
SUBJECT LANDS.
21.ANY RIGHTS, INTERESTS OR EASEMENTS IN FAVOR OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE
STATE OF COLORADO, OR THE PUBLIC, WHICH EXIST OR ARE CLAIMED TO EXIST IN AND OVER THE
PAST AND PRESENT BED, BANKS OR WATERS OF ROARING FORK RIVER.
ALTA COMMITMENT
Old Republic National Title Insurance Company
Schedule B, Part II
(Exceptions)
Order Number: Q62012351-3
51
LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY
DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS
Note: Pursuant to CRS 10-11-122, notice is hereby given that:
Note: Effective September 1, 1997, CRS 30-10-406 requires that all documents received for recording or filing in the
clerk and recorder's office shall contain a top margin of at least one inch and a left, right and bottom margin of at least
one half of an inch. The clerk and recorder may refuse to record or file any document that does not conform, except that,
the requirement for the top margin shall not apply to documents using forms on which space is provided for recording or
filing information at the top margin of the document.
Note: Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 8-1-2 requires that "Every title entity shall be responsible for all matters
which appear of record prior to the time of recording whenever the title entity conducts the closing and is responsible for
recording or filing of legal documents resulting from the transaction which was closed". Provided that Land Title
Guarantee Company conducts the closing of the insured transaction and is responsible for recording the legal
documents from the transaction, exception number 5 will not appear on the Owner's Title Policy and the Lenders Policy
when issued.
Note: Affirmative mechanic's lien protection for the Owner may be available (typically by deletion of Exception no. 4 of
Schedule B, Section 2 of the Commitment from the Owner's Policy to be issued) upon compliance with the following
conditions:
No coverage will be given under any circumstances for labor or material for which the insured has contracted for or
agreed to pay.
The Subject real property may be located in a special taxing district.(A)
A certificate of taxes due listing each taxing jurisdiction will be obtained from the county treasurer of the county in
which the real property is located or that county treasurer's authorized agent unless the proposed insured provides
written instructions to the contrary. (for an Owner's Policy of Title Insurance pertaining to a sale of residential real
property).
(B)
The information regarding special districts and the boundaries of such districts may be obtained from the Board of
County Commissioners, the County Clerk and Recorder, or the County Assessor.
(C)
The land described in Schedule A of this commitment must be a single family residence which includes a
condominium or townhouse unit.
(A)
No labor or materials have been furnished by mechanics or material-men for purposes of construction on the land
described in Schedule A of this Commitment within the past 6 months.
(B)
The Company must receive an appropriate affidavit indemnifying the Company against un-filed mechanic's and
material-men's liens.
(C)
The Company must receive payment of the appropriate premium.(D)
If there has been construction, improvements or major repairs undertaken on the property to be purchased within
six months prior to the Date of Commitment, the requirements to obtain coverage for unrecorded liens will include:
disclosure of certain construction information; financial information as to the seller, the builder and or the
contractor; payment of the appropriate premium fully executed Indemnity Agreements satisfactory to the company,
and, any additional requirements as may be necessary after an examination of the aforesaid information by the
Company.
(E)
52
Note: Pursuant to CRS 10-11-123, notice is hereby given:
This notice applies to owner's policy commitments disclosing that a mineral estate has been severed from the surface
estate, in Schedule B-2.
Note: Pursuant to CRS 10-1-128(6)(a), It is unlawful to knowingly provide false, incomplete, or misleading facts or
information to an insurance company for the purpose of defrauding or attempting to defraud the company. Penalties may
include imprisonment, fines, denial of insurance, and civil damages. Any insurance company or agent of an insurance
company who knowingly provides false, incomplete, or misleading facts or information to a policyholder or claimant for
the purpose of defrauding or attempting to defraud the policyholder or claimant with regard to a settlement or award
payable from insurance proceeds shall be reported to the Colorado Division of Insurance within the Department of
Regulatory Agencies.
Note: Pursuant to Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 8-1-3, notice is hereby given of the availability of a closing
protection letter for the lender, purchaser, lessee or seller in connection with this transaction.
That there is recorded evidence that a mineral estate has been severed, leased, or otherwise conveyed from the
surface estate and that there is substantial likelihood that a third party holds some or all interest in oil, gas, other
minerals, or geothermal energy in the property; and
(A)
That such mineral estate may include the right to enter and use the property without the surface owner's
permission.
(B)
53
JOINT NOTICE OF PRIVACY POLICY OF
LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY,
LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY OF SUMMIT COUNTY
LAND TITLE INSURANCE CORPORATION AND
OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
This Statement is provided to you as a customer of Land Title Guarantee Company as agent for Land Title Insurance
Corporation and Old Republic National Title Insurance Company.
We want you to know that we recognize and respect your privacy expectations and the requirements of federal and state
privacy laws. Information security is one of our highest priorities. We recognize that maintaining your trust and confidence
is the bedrock of our business. We maintain and regularly review internal and external safeguards against unauthorized
access to your non-public personal information ("Personal Information").
In the course of our business, we may collect Personal Information about you from:
applications or other forms we receive from you, including communications sent through TMX, our web-based
transaction management system;
your transactions with, or from the services being performed by us, our affiliates, or others;
a consumer reporting agency, if such information is provided to us in connection with your transaction;
and
The public records maintained by governmental entities that we obtain either directly from those entities, or from
our affiliates and non-affiliates.
Our policies regarding the protection of the confidentiality and security of your Personal Information are as follows:
We restrict access to all Personal Information about you to those employees who need to know that information in
order to provide products and services to you.
We may share your Personal Information with affiliated contractors or service providers who provide services in the
course of our business, but only to the extent necessary for these providers to perform their services and to
provide these services to you as may be required by your transaction.
We maintain physical, electronic and procedural safeguards that comply with federal standards to protect your
Personal Information from unauthorized access or intrusion.
Employees who violate our strict policies and procedures regarding privacy are subject to disciplinary action.
We regularly assess security standards and procedures to protect against unauthorized access to Personal
Information.
WE DO NOT DISCLOSE ANY PERSONAL INFORMATION ABOUT YOU WITH ANYONE FOR ANY PURPOSE THAT
IS NOT STATED ABOVE OR PERMITTED BY LAW.
Consistent with applicable privacy laws, there are some situations in which Personal Information may be disclosed. We
may disclose your Personal Information when you direct or give us permission; when we are required by law to do so, for
example, if we are served a subpoena; or when we suspect fraudulent or criminal activities. We also may disclose your
Personal Information when otherwise permitted by applicable privacy laws such as, for example, when disclosure is
needed to enforce our rights arising out of any agreement, transaction or relationship with you.
Our policy regarding dispute resolution is as follows: Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to our privacy
policy, or the breach thereof, shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration
Association, and judgment upon the award rendered by the arbitrator(s) may be entered in any court having jurisdiction
thereof.
54
Commitment For Title Insurance
Issued by Old Republic National Title Insurance Corporation
NOTICE
IMPORTANT—READ CAREFULLY: THIS COMMITMENT IS AN OFFER TO ISSUE ONE OR MORE TITLE INSURANCE
POLICIES. ALL CLAIMS OR REMEDIES SOUGHT AGAINST THE COMPANY INVOLVING THE CONTENT OF THIS
COMMITMENT OR THE POLICY MUST BE BASED SOLELY IN CONTRACT.
THIS COMMITMENT IS NOT AN ABSTRACT OF TITLE, REPORT OF THE CONDITION OF TITLE, LEGAL OPINION, OPINION OF TITLE, OR OTHER
REPRESENTATION OF THE STATUS OF TITLE. THE PROCEDURES USED BY THE COMPANY TO DETERMINE INSURABILITY OF THE TITLE, INCLUDING
ANY SEARCH AND EXAMINATION, ARE PROPRIETARY TO THE COMPANY, WERE PERFORMED SOLELY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE COMPANY, AND
CREATE NO EXTRACONTRACTUAL LIABILITY TO ANY PERSON, INCLUDING A PROPOSED INSURED.
THE COMPANY’S OBLIGATION UNDER THIS COMMITMENT IS TO ISSUE A POLICY TO A PROPOSED INSURED IDENTIFIED IN SCHEDULE A IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF THIS COMMITMENT. THE COMPANY HAS NO LIABILITY OR OBLIGATION INVOLVING THE
CONTENT OF THIS COMMITMENT TO ANY OTHER PERSON. .
COMMITMENT TO ISSUE POLICY
Subject to the Notice; Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; and the Commitment Conditions, Old Republic National Title Insurance
Company, a Minnesota corporation (the “Company”), commits to issue the Policy according to the terms and provisions of this Commitment. This Commitment is
effective as of the Commitment Date shown in Schedule A for each Policy described in Schedule A, only when the Company has entered in Schedule A both the
specified dollar amount as the Proposed Policy Amount and the name of the Proposed Insured. If all of the Schedule B, Part I—Requirements have not been met
within 6 months after the Commitment Date, this Commitment terminates and the Company’s liability and obligation end.
COMMITMENT CONDITIONS
1. DEFINITIONS
2. If all of the Schedule B, Part I—Requirements have not been met within the time period specified in the Commitment to Issue Policy, Commitment terminates
and the Company’s liability and obligation end.
3. The Company’s liability and obligation is limited by and this Commitment is not valid without:
4. COMPANY’S RIGHT TO AMEND
The Company may amend this Commitment at any time. If the Company amends this Commitment to add a defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim, or
other matter recorded in the Public Records prior to the Commitment Date, any liability of the Company is limited by Commitment Condition 5. The
Company shall not be liable for any other amendment to this Commitment.
5. LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY
i. comply with the Schedule B, Part I—Requirements;
ii. eliminate, with the Company’s written consent, any Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; or
iii. acquire the Title or create the Mortgage covered by this Commitment.
“Knowledge” or “Known”: Actual or imputed knowledge, but not constructive notice imparted by the Public Records.(a)
“Land”: The land described in Schedule A and affixed improvements that by law constitute real property. The term “Land” does not include any
property beyond the lines of the area described in Schedule A, nor any right, title, interest, estate, or easement in abutting streets, roads, avenues,
alleys, lanes, ways, or waterways, but this does not modify or limit the extent that a right of access to and from the Land is to be insured by the Policy.
(b)
“Mortgage”: A mortgage, deed of trust, or other security instrument, including one evidenced by electronic means authorized by law.(c)
“Policy”: Each contract of title insurance, in a form adopted by the American Land Title Association, issued or to be issued by the Company
pursuant to this Commitment.
(d)
“Proposed Insured”: Each person identified in Schedule A as the Proposed Insured of each Policy to be issued pursuant to this Commitment.(e)
“Proposed Policy Amount”: Each dollar amount specified in Schedule A as the Proposed Policy Amount of each Policy to be issued pursuant to this
Commitment.
(f)
“Public Records”: Records established under state statutes at the Commitment Date for the purpose of imparting constructive notice of matters
relating to real property to purchasers for value and without Knowledge.
(g)
“Title”: The estate or interest described in Schedule A.(h)
the Notice;(a)
the Commitment to Issue Policy;(b)
the Commitment Conditions;(c)
Schedule A;(d)
Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; and(e)
Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; and(f)
a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form.(g)
The Company’s liability under Commitment Condition 4 is limited to the Proposed Insured’s actual expense incurred in the interval between the
Company’s delivery to the Proposed Insured of the Commitment and the delivery of the amended Commitment, resulting from the Proposed
Insured’s good faith reliance to:
(a)
The Company shall not be liable under Commitment Condition 5(a) if the Proposed Insured requested the amendment or had Knowledge of the
matter and did not notify the Company about it in writing.
(b)
The Company will only have liability under Commitment Condition 4 if the Proposed Insured would not have incurred the expense had the
Commitment included the added matter when the Commitment was first delivered to the Proposed Insured.
(c)
The Company’s liability shall not exceed the lesser of the Proposed Insured’s actual expense incurred in good faith and described in Commitment
Conditions 5(a)(i) through 5(a)(iii) or the Proposed Policy Amount.
(d)
The Company shall not be liable for the content of the Transaction Identification Data, if any.(e)
55
6. LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY MUST BE BASED ON THIS COMMITMENT
7. IF THIS COMMITMENT HAS BEEN ISSUED BY AN ISSUING AGENT
The issuing agent is the Company’s agent only for the limited purpose of issuing title insurance commitments and policies. The issuing agent is not the
Company’s agent for the purpose of providing closing or settlement services.
8. PRO-FORMA POLICY
The Company may provide, at the request of a Proposed Insured, a pro-forma policy illustrating the coverage that the Company may provide. A pro-forma
policy neither reflects the status of Title at the time that the pro-forma policy is delivered to a Proposed Insured, nor is it a commitment to insure.
9. ARBITRATION
The Policy contains an arbitration clause. All arbitrable matters when the Proposed Policy Amount is $2,000,000 or less shall be arbitrated at the option of
either the Company or the Proposed Insured as the exclusive remedy of the parties. A Proposed Insured may review a copy of the arbitration rules at
http://www.alta.org/arbitration.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Land Title Insurance Corporation has caused its corporate name and seal to be affixed by its duly authorized officers on the date shown
in Schedule A to be valid when countersigned by a validating officer or other authorized signatory.
Issued by:
Land Title Guarantee Company
3033 East First Avenue Suite 600
Denver, Colorado 80206
303-321-1880
Senior Vice President
This page is only a part of a 2016 ALTA® Commitment for Title Insurance issued by Land Title Insurance Corporation. This Commitment is not valid without the
Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; and Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; and
a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form.
Copyright 2006-2016 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved.
The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are
prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.
In no event shall the Company be obligated to issue the Policy referred to in this Commitment unless all of the Schedule B, Part I—Requirements
have been met to the satisfaction of the Company.
(f)
In any event, the Company’s liability is limited by the terms and provisions of the Policy.(g)
Only a Proposed Insured identified in Schedule A, and no other person, may make a claim under this Commitment.(a)
Any claim must be based in contract and must be restricted solely to the terms and provisions of this Commitment.(b)
Until the Policy is issued, this Commitment, as last revised, is the exclusive and entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject
matter of this Commitment and supersedes all prior commitment negotiations, representations, and proposals of any kind, whether written or oral,
express or implied, relating to the subject matter of this Commitment.
(c)
The deletion or modification of any Schedule B, Part II—Exception does not constitute an agreement or obligation to provide coverage beyond the
terms and provisions of this Commitment or the Policy.
(d)
Any amendment or endorsement to this Commitment must be in writing and authenticated by a person authorized by the Company.(e)
When the Policy is issued, all liability and obligation under this Commitment will end and the Company’s only liability will be under the Policy.(f)
56
Exhibit 7
57
Exhibit 8
58
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
DATE: 8/17/20
PLANNER: Jim Pomeroy, jim.pomeroy@cityofaspen.com, 970.429.2745
PROJECT NAME AND ADDRESS: Lot 11, Crystal Lake Dr
PARCEL ID# 273718132011
REPRESENTATIVE: Chris Bendon, chris@bendonadams.com
DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is Lot 11 of the Callahan Subdivision Planned Development. It is an undeveloped
platted lot located off Crystal Lake Dr in the R-15 Zone District and borders the Roaring Fork River. The
Applicant is applying for a Stream Margin Review in order to create a building envelope for future
development of the lot. Where the property intersects with the River, there is a revocable Protective
Covenant “overlaying” a portion of the lot.
The property is located in The Stream Margin Review Area, which is inclusive of both the 100-year flood
plain and 100 feet from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River. Because of the scope of the
proposed project, this application does not qualify for an exemption, but instead requires a full Stream
Margin Review subject to the criteria in Sec. 26.435.040.C.1-11. Additionally, because the proposed top
of slope is altered from the Stream Margin Map’s Top of Slope determination, the application will require
a Special Review by The Planning and Zoning Commission for approval and memorialization of Top of
Slope for this property.
The Applicant’s representatives have worked with the City of Aspen’s Engineering Department in
establishing a new top of slope determination. While the approval of this alternative top of slope
determination could be reviewed as part of a full Stream Margin Review, the applicant has decided to
pursue this approval in two separate steps.
The first step, and the subject of this Pre-Application Summary, is a Special Review by the Planning and
Zoning Commission in a public hearing of the alternative top of slope determination. Please note that
the Special Review is subject to the notice requirements of a public hearing. If approved, this new top
of slope will be memorialized and can then be used as an essential component of a second land use
application for the Stream Margin Review.
Required for this review will be a clear depiction of the existing top of slope determination on the parcel
from the City of Aspen’s Stream Margin Map and the proposed, new top of slope as identified by the
City of Aspen’s Engineering Department on an authorized survey from a Colorado professionally
licensed surveyor.
RELEVANT LAND USE CODE SECTIONS:
Section Number Section Title
26.304 Common Development Review Procedures
26.304.060.E.3 Public Notice
26.435.040 Stream Margin Review
26.435.040.E.1-2 Stream Margin – Special Review
Exhibit 9
59
For your convenience – links to the Land Use Application and Land Use Code are below:
Land Use Application Land Use Code
REVIEW BY: Community Development staff, Engineering Department.
PUBLIC HEARING: Yes, with Planning and Zoning
PLANNING FEES: $3250 deposit for 10 hours . Additional planning hours beyond the ten (10) hours are
billed at $325 per hour
REFERRAL FEES: $325 for deposit for 1 hour of Engineering review (Additional engineering hours are
billed at a rate of $325/hour).
TOTAL DEPOSIT: $3475
APPLICATION CHECKLIST – PLEASE EMAIL APPLICATION TO: jim.pomeroy@cityofaspen.com
Completed Land Use Application and signed Fee Agreement.
Pre-application Conference Summary (this document).
Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur,
consisting of a current (no older than 6 months) certificate from a title insurance company, an
ownership and encumbrance report, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing
the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts
and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner’s right to apply for the
Development Application.
Applicant’s name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant that states the
name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the
applicant.
A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how
the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development
application and relevant land use approvals associated with the property. Please include
drawings/diagrams of the proposed equipment, the distance in which the equipment will be setback
from any street-facing facades and the total height of the equipment at the point in which it is
attached to the roof.
A site improvement survey (no older than a year from submittal) including topography, existing
structures, and vegetation showing the current status of the parcel certified by a registered land
surveyor by licensed in the State of Colorado. This survey also is required to depict the 100-year
flood plain, the high-water mark of the roaring fork river and any ditch easement that cross the
property.
HOA Compliance form (Attached to Application)
Once the copy is deemed complete by staff, the following items will then need to be submitted:
Total fee for review of the application.
Disclaimer:
The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on
current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may
not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right.
60
Exhibit 10
#tbd Crystal Lake Road
Lot 11; Callahan Subdivision – Vicinity Map
61
S
SDYH
FOUND MAG NAIL &
ALUMINUM TAG
NO IDENTIFICATION
IN PAVEMENT
SET MAG NAIL &
1-1/2"ALUMINUM TAG
TNC PLS38215 IN PAVEMENT
SITE BENCH MARK
SET REBAR & 1-1/4"
ORANGE PLASTIC CAP
TNC PLS38215
ELEVATION: 8014.92
FOUND NO. 5 REBAR &
1-1/4" YELLOW PLASTIC CAP
TRI-CO LS12707
SET WOOD LATH ALONG
TOP OF SLOPE PER
CITY OF ASPEN MAPPING
65.5' WITNESS CORNER
FOUND NO. 5 REBAR &
1-1/4" YELLOW PLASTIC
CAP ALPINE LS9184
53.7' WITNESS CORNER
FOUND NO. 5 REBAR &
1-1/4" YELLOW PLASTIC
CAP ALPINE LS9184
FOUND NO. 5 REBAR &
1-1/4" YELLOW PLASTIC CAP
TRI-CO LS12707
FOUND NO. 6 REBAR &
3-1/4" ALUMINUM CAP
STAMPED MS890/MS612
BLM 1954
(COR. 1 RIVERSIDE PLACER
MS NO. 3905)
FOUND NO. 6 REBAR &
3-1/4" ALUMINUM CAP
STAMPED MS6120
COR 2 BLM 1954
3.0' BETWEEN CAPSCONCRETESTONE RETAINING WALL
EDGE OF GRAVEL
EDGE OF GRAVEL
PAVED PEDESTRIAN
PATH
PAVED ROADWAY
CRYSTAL LAKE
OVERFLOW OUTLET PIPE
PER PLAT BOOK 6
AT PAGE 18
FL
O
W
L
I
N
E
15' TOP OF SLOPE
SETBACK
L=89.75'
R=375.00'
CB=N84°45'04"E
CH=89.55'
L=21.21'
R=375.00'
CB=N79°36'36"E
CH=21.21'(BASIS OF BEARINGS)S00°14'00"W 456.89'PLAT=457.24'229.76'227.13'S89°03'26"W 70.00'
PLAT=N89°46'00"WN31°54
'08
"W
74
.69
'PLAT=N32°27
'17
"W
74
.05
'PLAT=N00°14'00"EN00°11'30'E 382.62'103.54'213.74'ROARING FORKRIVERWAT
E
R
S
E
D
G
E
JUL
Y
2
0
2
0
JULY
2020HIGH
WATER
L
INE
LOT 11
1.104± ACRES
48,106± SQ.FT.
LOT 13
OWNER
ASPEN CLUB
LOT 12
OWNER
CG CRYSTAL LAKES HOLINGS LLC
LOT 5
STILLWATER
RANCH
OWNER
JOHN BURGESS
LOT 6
STILLWATER
RANCH
OWNER
GERSON TRUSTN15°17'23"W 965.17'(TIE)S85°34'02"E 1174.12
'
(
T
I
E
)
CITY OF ASPEN
2009 GPS
MONUMENT #18
CITY OF ASPEN
2009 GPS
MONUMENT #19
FL
O
O
D
Z
O
N
E
A
E
FL
O
O
D
W
A
Y
FL
O
O
D
Z
O
N
E
A
E
FL
O
O
D
Z
O
N
E
A
E
FL
O
O
D
Z
O
N
E
X
FLOOD ZONE AE
BASED FLOOD ELEVATION 7993
FLOO
D
Z
O
N
E
X
FLOOD ZONE AE
AREA WITHIN FLOODWAY
SPECIAL FLOOD ZONE X
AREA OF 0.2% ANNUAL
CHANCE OF FLOOD
GRAVEL
TURNOUT
8
0
2
0
8
0
1
58020
8
0
1
5
8
0
1
0
80
0
5
8005
800080
0
4
8000
799579908002800580108015 80121
23
4
6
5
7
8
9 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 21
22
23 25
30
24
26 27
29
28
33
38
36
35
37
34
31
32
39
40
41
42
43
4445
46
47
48
49 50
51
52
54
53
55
56
5758
59
60
61
62
63
64
6566
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124125
126
CRYSTAL
LAKE ROAD
(24' PRIVATE R
I
G
H
T
-
O
F
-
W
A
Y
)
10' WIDE UTILITY EASEMENT
PLAT BOOK 5 PAGE 7
5' WIDE UTILITY EASEMENT
PLAT BOOK 5 PAGE 7
5' WIDE UTILITY EASEMENT
PLAT BOOK 5 PAGE 7
5' WIDE UTILITY EASEMENT
PLAT BOOK 5 PAGE 7
10' REAR SETBACK
5' ACCESSORY
BUILDING SETBACK10' SIDE SETBACK10' SIDE SETBACK30' ACCESSORY
SETBACK
25' SETBACK
NORTH LINE OF OPEN SPACE
REAR YARD SETBACK LINE
(EFFECTIVELY SUPERSEDED BY
OPEN SPACE BOUNDARY AND
STREAM MARGIN SETBACK LINES
AS APPLICABLE
100'
HI
G
H
W
A
T
E
R
LI
N
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
WATER LINE
SEWER LINE
TELEPHONE LINE
GAS LINE
UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC LINE
TELEPHONE PEDESTAL
DYH
S
FIRE HYDRANT
SANITARY MANHOLE
ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER
ELECTRICAL METER
LEGEND
WATER VALVE BOX
VICINITY MAP
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION
SURVEY NOTES:
LOT 11 - CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION
SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE 6TH PM
COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO
IMPROVEMENT & TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
TRUE NORTH COLORADO LLC.
A LAND SURVEYING AND MAPPING COMPANY
P.O. BOX 614 - 386 MAIN STREET UNIT 3
NEW CASTLE, COLORADO 81647
(970) 984-0474
www.truenorthcolorado.com
PROJECT NO: 2020-240
DATE: JULY 11, 2020
DRAWN
RPK
SURVEYED
DJB
SHEET
1 OF 1
TRUENORTH
A LAND SURVEYING AND MAPPING COMPANY
20'
10'40'
SCALE: 1" = 20'
N
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
0
TREE TYPE SIZE DRIP
TREE CHART
NOTICE: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY
LEGAL ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN THREE
YEARS AFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT MAY ANY
ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE
THAN TEN YEARS FROM THE DATE OF CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON.
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPENASPEN
ASPEN
20'
18'
20'
18'
16'
16'
16'
22'
20'
16'
18'
16'
18'
16'
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPENASPEN
ASPEN
16'
22'
18'
20'
16'
16'
14'
20'
28'
16'
28'
28'
20'
14'
22'
32'
16'
20'
30'
24'
26'
16'
14'
14'
14'
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
CONIFEROUS
ASPEN
ASPEN
CONIFEROUS
CONIFEROUS
CONIFERUOS
CONIFEROUS
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPENASPEN
ASPEN
16'
30'
18'
18'
14'
10'
22'
18'
12'
12'
12'
10'
30'
36'
28'
26'
26'
24'
18'
32'
28'
20'
30'
20'
34'
6"
5"
5"
4"
4"
4"
6"
6"
4"
5"
4"
5"
4"
4"
7"
7"
5"
4"
5"
5"
5/4"
9"
5"
8"
8"
6"
6"
8"
5"
7"
9"
6"
8"
4"
4"
4"
5"
4"
4"
7/4"
5"
5"
4"
5"
9"
5"
11"
4"
5"
5"
4"
10"
9"
9"
8"
7"
4"
8"
9"
6"
8"
5"
11"
TREE TYPE SIZE DRIP
TREE CHART
1
2
10" 18'
6" 20'
CONIFEROUS
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
ASPEN
6/4" 20'ASPEN
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
ASPEN
16'
20'
16'
18'
20'
24'
24'
22'
26'
24'
20'
28'
22'
28'
26'
16'
24'
30'
26'
20'20'
24'
16'
16'
18'
32'
24'
22'
30'
30'
28'
20'
20'
26'
24'
20'
20'
20'30'
24'
24'
20'
24'
16'
16'
28'
20'
24'
16'
28'
30'
16'
30'
16'
22'
20'
26'
28'
28'
26'
16'
26'
6"
7"
5"
6"
7"
10"
8"
7"
8"
6"
5"
9"
7"
7"
7"
4"
8"
9"
8"
6"
7"
4"
4"
6"
8"
5"
5"
10"
9"
8"
5"
5"
7"
6"
5"
5"
9"
6"
6"
5"
6"
4"
4"
7"
5"
6"
4"
9"
9"
4"
9"
4"
7"
7"
9"
8"
9"
7"
4"
8"
SLOPE LEGEND
0% TO 20% (36,939± SQ.FT.)
(EXCLUDES AREA BELOW HIGH WATER LINE)
(3,808± SQ.FT.)
20% TO 30% (2,630± SQ.FT.)
30% & GREATER (4,729± SQ.FT.)
SCALE: 1" = 800'HIGHWAY
NO
.
82
CRYSTAL LAKE
ROAD
WESTVIEW DRIVE
LUPINE DR
IVE
CITY OF ASPEN
ROARI
N
G F
ORK
RIVERPROPERTY ZONING
MODERATE-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-15)
CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE: 26.710.050
SETBACKS:
FRONT YARD:
A. RESDIENTIAL DWELLINGS: 25 FEET
B. ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND ALL OTHER BUILDINGS: 30 FEET
SIDE YARD: 10 FEET
REAR YARD:
A. PRINCIPAL BUILDING: 10 FEET
B. ACCESSORY BUILDINGS: 5 FEET
MAXIMUM HEIGHT: 25 FEET
Exhibit 11
62
Crystal Lake RoadexisƟ ng conditions aspen | coloradoExhibit 1263