The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.240 Lake Ave.A085-98f PN: 2735-124-07004 Case A085-98 240 Lake Avenue Hallam Lake Bluff Exempt. Greenberg Residence - tuun wid te h R 1.- 4 . .r 14 0 0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970)920-5090 City of Aspen I Land Use: 1041 Deposit 1042 Flat Fee /5 itt. , 1043 HPC 1046 Zoning and Sign Referral Fees: 1163 City Engineer 1205 Environmental Health 1190 Housing Building Fees: 1071 Board of Appeals , 1072 Building Permit 1073 Electrical Permit 1074 Energy Code Review 1075 Mechanical Permit 1076 Plan Check 1077 Plumbing Permit 1078 Reinspection 9 , Other Fees: I 1006 Copy i 1302 GIS Maps 1481 Housing Cash in Lieu 1383 Open Space Cash in Lieu 1383 Park Dedication 1468 Parking Cash in Lieu Performance Deposit - 1268 Public Right-of-way : 1164 School District Land Ded. TOTAL / < .1 A - NAME: 1 t ADDRESS/PROJECT: ' n Â·' PHONE: CHECK# i CASE/PERMIT#: # OF COPIES: *,i- .... DATE: t.> i ''! r.1.03 INITIAL: 10)63 : 0-935-/3.4-09004 CASE STATUS SHEET Case No. /1 0 85 -99 Representative's 'Rarne. 3-kn,Â·, .2 L-/ 0 0 3 6.i, go--:. C a .. ./2 4,- LL.'r__4 Representative's Phone: ~ D. 7~ / -2-,6- '1 2 Fax: DATE ACTION OR ACTIVITY / 9 ... 1 : 37 / 41 (3 4-7. .Z . I . I ' 0 4/1 j 99 Cto.Â£&4 Cipt.. r<'Â· d-i jp.,â€ž h U tf ce...2 C ,Ut,J k.--z...64.=t; 12.f A2 - 3 d.* -1 - *-' 4*-1 h ed t, Â«.44 kfu. + - . . PE r... .4.- :11'.1,11 1 â€¢M'.. r- .1 . 4,-M L. 1 *, * PARCEL ID:~2735-124-07004 DATE RCVD: ~ 10/8/98 # COPIES:F-3 CASE NO~085-98 ~ CASE NAME:~Greenberg Residence Hallam Lake Bluff Exemption PLNRÂ¢Julie Ann Woods ~ PROJ ADDR:~0 Lake Avenue CASE TYP:~Hallam Lake Bluff Exemption STEPS:~ OWN/APP:~ Ronald Greenberg L ADR~44 Maryland Plaza i C/S/Z: ISt. Louis, MO 6310$; PHN:~(314) 361-7600'3 REP<Charles Cunniffe Architects ADR:]520 E. Hyman, Ste. 3 C/S/Z:~Aspen, CO 81611 PHN1(970) 925-55901 l FEES DUE:ri'680 (d) i FEES RCVD:|1080 STAT: ~ @ REFERRALS~ , 1 ... I 1,4,11:1'y -- . #f - + -'4,44'*+Ar'REF~ BY| i DUE:| 1. MTG DATE REV BODY PH NOTICED ' *Â· * 11 1,11 1 11 1. :.1 1 & I . J.' -- DATE OFFINAL ACTION:1 /0/3.0/ '713 CITY COUNCIL: REMARKS| PZ: ... 1 . BOA: CLOSED:| /4,9/9 BY: ~ 301 1,0 DRAC:1 i Â·Â· PLAT SUBMITD: | PLAT {BK.PG):| ADMIN~ ; 4 * Ji #0. 594 All:m!Â£3mlU 1 LAND I]SE APPLIa,mEN FEEM Green--- g Residence 1) 2=ject Name 240 Lake Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611 2) Project Iocaticn Lot 15, Block 103 Cindi=te seeet EMitress, lot & block lunber, legal descriptic= Viere agrogriate) R6 - 14-220 SF 3) Presert Zcning 4) Lot Size J 51 AiplicantÂ°s Name, lkEress & Ehcne * Ronald Greenberg 44 Maryland Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63108 (314) 361-7600 61 â„¢cresectative rs Name, 1kkiress & 2=e # Charles Cunniffe Architects 520 East Hyman, Suite 301, Aspen,CO 81611 (970) 925-5590 71 Type of *Bliatic:n (please check. all that aiply): c=ditic:nal Use - C=rx~tal SEA - an=eptnal Historic Dev. Firal SEA - Firal Hist=ic DeT. 8040 Gramr,1 i ne - Cczx=*=al FED - Min= Hist=ic Dev. 1 Stream Margin Firal alI) Histâ„¢-i c TÂ»rol i t-i ne 1~mtain yiew Plain _ Slkdivisicn Histccic Designaticn MS=nii,iimnizatic=~ _ 14%41129 .Ammhect (XS Allct:CE,t Ict Split/Lat Line ~- li, .,LL i,.- 6.,64-1 wi. 6P - (2,S Exanpticn AdjUSt::lient 8) rÂ»cr-:rtic:n cf Existim Uses (unber ' and type of egisting st=x=tures; a,=mxuzte sq. ft.; I=ber of bedrocms; any previa= agprcvals granted to the P=perty). 2,894.0 SF, 4-bedroom, single story steel and concrete block .construction single-family residence. 9 ) Descripticn of Deâ€¢21Â£<mE=t Aplicatirn Rehabilitation of existing structure including exterior restoration and interior ... modifications, new construction of a two-story addition, two car garage and connecting breezeway 10) Have Yol attached the follading? â„¢Ecrse to At:tad:m=:t 2, Mininun Slitinissirn Ccritpilts ispcnse to Attadmalt 3, Specific al:missirn Occtects Respcnse to At=tadmeâ€¢It 4, Re~iia, Standards far Yarr 14pli=tirn. lillill . ASPEN HISTORIL rRESERVATION COMMISSIv14 MINUTES OF April 8.1998 240 LAKE AVENUE - CONCEPTUAL - PH - Gilbert stepped down. Three exhibits The following individuals were sworn in: Charles Cunniffe Gray Ringsby Jennifer Cohen Herb Klein Charles Cunniffe presented. The main issue is some objection by the neighbor because o f the blockage of the potential effect on some windows tu ASPEN HISTORIC ~ WESERVATION COMMISSIC. MINUTES OF April 8. 1998 next door. There was a site visit today and the HPC needs to decide if this design is a reasonable in order to preserve the integrity of the historic resource and how we added onto the historic resource in a sensitive way. Amy Guthrie, planner relayed that there is a protection for Hallam Lake in that no construction can move too close to the top of the bank. It states nothing can be built within 15 feet from the top o f the slope. From the top of slope point there is a 445 degree angle that is projected up and you need to stay under that height. There are constraints as to where the addition is placed. Amy also indicated that she did research the adjacent building to see ifa variance was ever granted and it was not. The house was built in 1980 and at that time only a five foot variance was required on each side and no combined setback. Now this property has more restringent requirements that are being asked to meet. Charles relayed that the only issue is the windows. There is no other way on this property to reasonably build an area of the house that allows them to have the view of Aspen Mountain. The proposal minimizes the damages to trees. Susan inquired about a letter from Donna Thompson who states that the house will be demolished and it was confirmed by Cunniffe & Associates. Charles relayed that the only portion o f the house being taken off is the shed. There is no demolition anticipated. Jennifer restudied the setback issue which was requested at the last meeting and the impacts are minimal. Charles addressed the height of the clerestory windows and they were lowered once. Herbert Bayer more often than not did clerestory windows. A banding has been incorporated on the drawings. The roof will be rebuilt. Amy asked about the divisions of the windows on the stairwell. ASPEN HISTORIC Â£ RESERVATION COMMISSkÂ» MINUTES OF April 8.1998 Jennifer relayed that three different options were given for the HPC to review, (included in packet). The owner is comfortable with any of the diagrams. The most important issue is that it is a glass grid. Herb Klein, attorney represented the Koatsen family stated there are in fact windows that the two story addition on the east side would be right across. It was determined at the site-visit that half the windows are across and half aren't from the large bedroom and there is also a spa right across from the two story element. When a variance is requested several standards have to be met. You have to find that the variation will result in a building that is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. He doesn't see how HPC could possibly find that it is more compatible with the neighborhood but granting the setback. You are going with a two story element within five feet from the property line. If the two story element were slid toward Hallam Lake and cleared the windows we would have less of a problem and it would not impact the neighbor as much. Another standard which says the proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character o f the neighborhood and at the last hearing it was pointed out that there aren't any other houses that would be separated by what is proposed here. This proposal is putting the burden on his clients. About retaining the integrity of the historic resource, the historic resource doesn't have a two story element so the integrity of the historic resource doesn't require that they put a two story element anywhere on the building and especially on the east side. There is room on the west side to move the square footage over. If they want to deviate from the code requirements they need to do it in a way that doesn't adversely impact us. Chairperson Suzannah Reid closed the public hearing. Commissioners stated that the scheme presented is favorable. Possibly to address the neighbors concerns a portion of the two story could shift toward Hallam Lake. The simplified glazing and clear story element are appropriate. Melanie indicated that she would be more concerned with the one story solid element that is going to be in front o f the neighbors window rather than the two story. The placement of the one story is appropriate and you 4 ASPEN HISTORI- . RESERVATION COMMISSi-- MINUTES OF April 8. 1998 cannot see it from the street but it does impact the neighbor. Right now they look at trees and when this is built they will look at the wall. Mary stated that she went to the site twice and she feels the design is sympathetic toward the historic property and enhandes it and makes the house livable. The horizontal banding which was requested by HPC enhances the addition. Variances should be granted. Roger and the majority o f the board liked option C on the stairway which is a simpler design. It is recommended that the applicant look at sliding the addition slightly to Hallam Lake. Suzannah stated that concentrating the addition into one area for the most part on this house is to the benefit of the historic house. In terms of the neighborhood that house is five feet from the property line and this proposal is five feet from the property line and it is consistent with the neighborhood. Moving the volume back on the two story element might benefit both parties and an incremental amount might do the trick. Charles Cunniffe relayed that the stairs are located in the center of the courtyard in order to maximums the openness of the court yard. There is a room on either side o f the stair. If you shift the volume you loose one room. Suzannah relayed that the HPC is only talking about one foot. Jennifer retayed to the HPC that even moving it one foot will effect the window placements. Charles stated he will restudy that elevation and tweak the plans and then show HPC the best solution at the next meeting. MOTION: Roger moved to grant conceptual approval at 240 Lake Avenue with the folio-wing conditions: -1,) Grant thefollowing variances: 2 feet on the west yard, 10 feet on the east yard, 27 feet on the required combined side-yard setback. an FAR bonus of 250 sq. ft., a site coverage variance of up to 5% to accommodate the design 5 t fâ€¢ ASPEN HISTORIL rRESERVATION COMMISSIV14 MINUTES OF April 8.1998 as proposed, and variances from the "Residential Design Standards" related to volume and garages. 2) Recommend landmark designation to the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council. 3) HPC will loolc at stair-way options for final. 4) Restudy tweaking the east side two story back toward Hallam Lake. 5) HPC finds that in granting the variances firstly it is a new mass in which the HPC does not want ACES affected and the proposal of the new addition is compatible with the neighborhood and historic resource. Motion second by Mary. All in favor, motion carried 6-0. 514 N. THIRD ST. - FINAL DEVELOPMENT Gilbert seated. Amy Guthrie, planner relayed to the If[?C that this project involves making an addition between an existing historic house and an historic carriage house. It basically provides a living room and they are still well under the allowed FAR. Staff has concerns with the treatment o f the paving that walks up to the entry of the house and the applicant needs to work with Engineering on the right-of-way. The site coverage has been granted and the volume penalty waived on the windows in the carriage house and partial demolition has been granted. Staff is also concerned about the proportions of the windows and door in the new addition. Gray Ringsby, architect for the project relayed that on the west elevation the windows proposed are similar to the existing windows. On the east there are large windows that look onto a brick fireplace. The windows would not effect the neighbors as they have no windows on the facade facing the proposed elevation. The same siding and color is proposed to blend in with the existing houses. Changing the siding would draw too much attention to the new element. The idea of the design is to blend in and let the details o f the existing structure stand on its own. 6 S - 11 ASPEN/PrIKIN COMMUNEY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Agreement for P:ryment of City of.Aspen Deveiopment Applic:Ition Fees (Please Print Clearty) CEY OF ASPEN (hereinalier CnY) and _ ROM& 101 4 J" 6â‚¬CM 15:% (herirm~fter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOT T-OWS: 1- APPLICANT bas submmed to CITY an applicion for t.k l E.,vi 60-ke 61 011~ Revi a.,0 hereinafter. ~IHE PROJECT). 7 APPLICANT imders=ds and agress thar Ciry of Aspen.Ordinance No. 13 ( Series of 1996) ... esmbiisnes 3-res smicture :or t=c use applicanons and the ;mvme:Ir of ail crocessing fer is q cordirion precedent =O 1 de:ZImmaIion of applic=tion compiemness. 1 -1.-PPILIC-137 and CIL-L-7 1.gres ilar beccuse of tls size. zarcre cr scone Â·Di te orcuosea 2. - . projec rE is no[ cossiole ]I -his tne TO ascermin Ze iii emen[ or Ule costs kiveived =1 crCceSSing 1. - the moiican on. A-PPLICANT md CITi lirt= 30,=.~ -har k ts in le beres or -me z cies TO tow APPLICANT zo -rlaic raymem of 22 inital decost[ ind zo -nere-:er ze.-r -rÂ·:44â‚¬cÂ·cal Â·costs :o be 1 DOT 70 1\7-7 OIl 1 Clonriliv basis. .1-?PT_IC.-1.>i-0 121-ze; 22 -.Ulll Je Cene-INSC. 0-v ZST,1717':Cr - ==er =h licuidir,- and:pil =ae adatomi paymenrs --mon noticion ov -le Â·62- when rhev -. Ire necessary nS Costs ar= 814.-i--* 611 Z 12:xes 1 -112 :ce Cener:Te-rlrougn Ze , -rp- 22:minry or - 1. recovering LIS 21111 cosm m FIccess APPLICANTS gpii ezzon. f-TTV Â·31.1-tri A Por ICANT fUrtiler 2122. Ular I: IS :IllIXaCCC:1012 for Ll 1--i SmIZ 50 COmpie:2 processing or oresen[ suâ‚¬cie=r InfoIZ=Zion zo cile Planning Commission andor Ch- Councii co - er,ahie zile ?1271'rliTIC' Commission ancier Liry Louncu zo make le<zailv .e*4uired TErdillce for croie= - L . acuroval unless curem billings are oma m Zill mor:o decision. - a=Yors. -APPI.ICANCI 121-zes :har in consiceranon or -ie CTE'1'3 -vaiver or irs ng,hz 00 coil= full fees prior -0 a deâ„¢=+~tarion of applicion Comyte:eneSS. APPLICANT :hail pay on initiai deposit in the amount of S ( Of> 0 wtuce ts zor 0 hours of Plarminc sm= eme. and if -. acmal recorded costs exceed the inital deposit APPLICANT shail pay addidonal mombly billings ro CI-I-Y- ro reimburse the (JIJI'f for the processiIlg of the an'olicion menlioned above. including -- -I pcs[ approval review. Such Feriodic paymenrs snail 'ce =ace Â·,vurnin 30 days of:ne billing AnTP. APPLIC.APE fur[her agrees thar &ilure to pay such accued costs shail be grounds for suspension of processing. COY OF ASPEN APPUCANT 11 A / Sign:1Inre: 4** A C# stan ClausoY Date: 1 1 0 law q,g Communiry Deveicpment Dir=or Printed Name: deNN lf~F~12_- COMEN City of Aspen Mafting Address: *CO e. PEr IMAN Â»FEN, Co. elell 1. LAND USE APPLICATION PROJECT: Name: (37 K.60 1060 fieilde,EC Location: 240 Ullft A\ren (* - Lof- ID Eplook- l03 (Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) APPLICANT: Name Ronald 61-Cal *fl Address: 44 BA#)16(Ad FIAÂ« 9-. LF-uis , MO. 93(00 Phone #: (31 4-) 301- 76 00 REPRESENTATIVE: Name: Aklv Ws Connifft Arohitck Address: (3720 B. Hutvl M AK. -5ui-(1 304*1*, coÂ·81 011 Phone #: (-110)12-6-4610 TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): Conditional Use El Conceptual PUD 2 Conceptual Historic Devt. Special Review g Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) El Final Historic Development Design Review Appeal El Conceptual SPA E Minor Historic Devt. GMQS Allotment E Final SPA (& SPA Amendment) E Historic Demolition GMQS Exemption El Subdivision E Historic Designation ~0' ESA-8040 Greenline, Stream El Subdivision Exemption (includes El Small Lodge Conversion/ Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Expansion Mountain View Plane U Lot Split E Temporary Use g Other: g Lot Line Adjustment E Text/Map Amendment EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) 2,Â©14.0 9 f 4-edrMÂ·,6r'All, 5-Dri~ steÂ£1 0000{ CoÂ»Â·41-, elock Con stru cli on - 9~vt* fkki, 2/4 ke,91 d*!CE. PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) Rth alpilitil-1 Ch of 2% i stilÂ® 37007-0 te. ind udihot .493/1 or Pâ‚¬91Â·o~~ 1 iM+Orioy Modifi (Â£1-i ovis :nal cow#rudial 4 a 2 -98rg oltil i>16*I, 2 OÂ»1* .d C,OVI ME:11 M erCdz- 6*19 Â· HAve yoll attached the following? FEES DUE: S O Pre-Application Conference Summary 3 Attachment # 1, Signed Fee Agreement El Response to Attachment #2, Dimensional Requirements Form U Response to Attachment #3, Minimum Submission Contents U Response to Attachment #4, Specific Submission Contents E Response to Attachment #5, Review Standards for Your Application U El El El U ATTACHMENT 2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project: (3,cul 1Â»3 14~08â‚¬rle Applicant: Rculd 4 Ja,H 2*ecntÂ»,~ Location: ~O lÂ»Â¥45 AVENDE / Hev~ COÂ· 9 (47 ( 1 Zone District: Lot Size: 49 2-20 Â¥ Lot Area: l 2, 116 =P (for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing: ~ Proposed: 1~ Number of residential units: Existing:__1 Proposed: 1 Number o f bedrooms: Existing: ~--- Proposed: 4F Proposed % o f demolition (Historic properties only): 24-~ DIMENSIONS: Floor Area: Existing:'231*Allowable: 4*12~11 proposed: 4,-3 6-9,1 Al r U Principal bldg. height: Existing: l'U Allowable: '233' proposed: 24- d Access. bldg. height: Existing: Allowable: Proposed: On-Site parking: Existing: 1 Required: ~ Proposei 4 % Site coverage: Existing; '2-0.(Â·t ~ Required: 2-BÂ·| 91Â· Proposed. 2 8/~ % Open Space: Existing: Required: Proposed: Front Setback: Existing: ~ C)' Required. \Ot Proposed: (81- 9'w,f/Wot k. . Rear Setback: Existing: 31' Required. (D' Proposed. 31 Combined F/R: Existing: 6,~ l Required: 2>C) Proposed: 6~' Side Setback: Existing. ~ 67' Required.- 15 ' proposed: 13' Side Setback: Existing: 0 Required: L 9' , Proposed: 87 ~ Combined Sides: Existing: \G Required: ~ Proposed: ~~) Existing non-conformities or encroachments M,knivuutn *idÂ£@Ad sit - back I r,ow, bine/1 gicle,~n# 3Â£1-Ack Variations requested: flin i m ojn gioluic[ rd geloack ~ e]~i ned Fiu,lad *back, 641< Don ta. Ord . BO 01*4, x1 FAL-, 40 (648 91Â·a,Ard \JU ATTACHMENT 3 MINIMUM SUBMISSION CONTENTS 1. Applicant' s name, address and telephone number, contained within a letter signed by the applicant stating the name, address, and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf o f the applicant. 2. The street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur. 3. A disclosure of ownership of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names o f 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. 4. An 8 1/2" x 11" vicinity map locating the subject parcel within the City of Aspen. 5. A site improvement survey including topography and vegetation showing the current status o f the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the State o f Colorado. (This requirement, or any part thereof, may be waived by the Community Development Department if the project is determined not to warrant a survey document.) February 25, 1998 To whom it may concern: As Owner of 240 Lake Avenue, Aspen, Colorado, I authorize Charles Cunniffe Architects, 520 E. Hyman Avenue, Aspen, Colorado, 925-5590, to represent my interests in the matter of the "Significant Development Review" and "Historic Landmark Designation" for the above mentioned property. Sincerely, Ronald Greenberg - 44 Maryland Plaza St. Louis, MO 63108 314-361-7600 Owner's Policy of Title Insurance Fidelity National Title Insurance Company Policy Number A Stock Company 1312- 80106 OWNER'S POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE SUBJECT TO THE EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE, THE EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE CONTAINED IN SCHEDULE B AND THE CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS. FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, herein called the Company, insures, as of Date of Policy shown in Schedule A, against loss or damage, no[ exceeding the Amount of Insurance stated in Schedule A. sustained or incurred by the insured by reason of: 1, Title to the estate or interest described in Schedule A being vested other than as stated herein, 2. Any defect in or lien or encumbrance on the title: 3. Unmarketabiliry of the title; 4. Litck of a right of access to and from the land. The Compa,8 will also pai the costs. attorners' fees and expenses incurred in defense Of the title, as insured, but otil> to the extent provided in the Conditions and Stipulations. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, FIDELITY iNATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY has caused this policy to be signed and seated by its duly authorized officers as of Date of Policy shown in Schedule A. Fidelity National Title insurance Company BY Â·1'LE President .SEAL Secretary 01 8 U_u.9 1 1.3Ct_- 41 Countersigned: R====k Authorized Signature ~ ALTA Owner' s Policy (10-17-92) FNTIC Form No. 1312 (6/93) 10 SCHEDULE B-OWNERS CASE NUMBER DATE OF POLICY POLICY NUMBER PCT11196C4 12/05/96 @ 2:15 P.M. 1312-80106 THIS POLICY DOES NOT INSURE AGAINST LOSS OR DAMAGE BY REASON OF THE FOLLOWING: 1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records. 2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records. 3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, enchroachments, any facts which a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are 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. Water rights, claims or title to water. 6. Taxes for the year 1996 not yet due or payable. 7. Right of the proprietor of a vein or lode to extract or remove his ore therefrom, should the same be found to penetrate or intersect the premises hereby granted as reserved in United States Patent recorded June 8, 1888 in Book 55 at Page 2. 8. Terms, conditions, obligations and all matters as set forth in Statement of Exception from the Full Subdivision Process recorded January 7, 1987 in Book 527 at Page 710. 9. Easements, rights of way and all matters as disclosed on Plat of subject property recorded December 14, 1989 in Plat Book 23 at Page 69. 10. Deed of Trust from : RONALD K. GREENBERG AND JAN C. GREENBERG, AS TO AN UNDIVIDED ONE HALF, JEANNE BETH GREENBERG, AS TO AN UNDIVIDED ONE THIRD OF THE REMAINING ONE HALF, JACQUELINE KAY GREENBERG, AS TO AN UNDIVIDED ONE THIRD OF THE REMAINING ONE HALF, AND LYNNE ANNE GREENBERG, AS TO AN UNDIVIDED ONE THIRD OF THE REMAINING ONE HALF. To the Public Trustee of the County of Pitkin For the use of : ALPINE BANK - ASPEN BRANCH Original Amount : $1,000,000.00 Dated : 12/05/96 - Recorded : 12/05/96 Reception No. : 399713 Modification Agreement changing various terms of the Deed of Trust above was recorded December 5, 1996 as Reception No. 399714. EXCEPTIONS NUMBERED NONE ARE HEREBY OMITTED. FNT SCHEDULE A-OWNER'S POLICY CASE NUMBER DATE OF POLICY AMOUNT OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER PCT11196C4 12/05/96 @ 2:15 P.M. $ 1,650,000.00 1312-80106 1. NAME OF INSURED: RONALD GREENBERG AND JAN GREENBERG, AS JOINT TENANTS EACH TO THE OTHER, AS TO AN UNDIVIDED FIFTY PERCENT (50%) INTEREST AND JEANNE BETH GREENBERG, JACQUELINE KAY GREENBERG, AND LYNNE ANNE GREENBERG, AS TO THE OTHER UNDIVIDED FIFTY PERCENT (50%) INTEREST. 2. THE ESTATE OR INTEREST IN THE LAND HEREIN AND WHICH IS COVERED BY THIS POLICY IS: IN FEE SIMPLE 3. THE ESTATE OR INTEREST REFERRED TO HEREIN IS AT DATE OF POLICY VESTED IN: RONALD GREENBERG AND JAN GREENBERG, AS JOINT TENANTS EACH TO THE OTHER, AS TO AN UNDIVIDED FIFTY PERCENT (50%) INTEREST AND JEANNE BETH GREENBERG, JACQUELINE KAY GREENBERG, AND LYNNE ANNE GREENBERG, AS TO THE OTHER UNDIVIDED FIFTY PERCENT (50%) INTEREST. 4. THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS POLICY IS SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: AMENDED LOT 15, FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE WOGAN LOT SPLIT, as shown on the Plat recorded December 14, 1989 in Plat Book 23 at Page 69. PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. 601 E. HOPKINS AVE. ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (970) 925-1766/(970)-925-6527 FAX THE POLICY NUMBER SHOWN ON THIS SCHEDULE MUST AGREE WITH THE PREPRINTED NUMBER ON THE COVER SHEET. A. Sett|4"lent Statement S. Depillmene of Ilouillig Urban Development OMB No. 25(12Â·0265 (Exp. 12Â·31 Â·R6) B. Type of Lwn 1. Â¤ FHA 2- [j FinHA J. C] ConÂ¥. Unins. 6. File Number 7. Loin Number 8. Murlgagc Insurn:c Cose Number , 4. Â¤ VA 3. Â£ Conâ€¢. Ins. C NOTE: 1111% hilm h furnished 0 give yot, 1 513(cli,em of iclual sellicme'lit cutts. Amounts puld ki ind by Ihe wilement age,1, are shown. licins niâ€¢iked (p.0 c)- wcle pâ€žJ ouiside Ilic Â£ 105,1,g; 1 licy 2, c diown licie for ilifii, lital, 0,11 pul pot, ind ar c liot ilic ludcd m ihe loilli, D. Ninâ‚¬ .i.1 Add,Ii of 80,10-1 2. N.rne .nd A-e,i of Seller F. N.,1. ind Acklia, of 1.câ„¢jer RONALD K. GREEN8ERG REFINANCE COMMUNITY STATE BANK OF BOWLING GREEN JAN C. GREENBERG JEANNE BETH GREENBERG , JAQUELINE KAY GREENBERG LYNNE NINE GREENE[EEG 0. rli'.ily Lncillon 1 Se'le,ne. Ite/ File# PCT11449 PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. TIN# 84-0971691 240 LAKE ST. 11.:e of Se'llemell 1.5/.'...le ASPEN, CO 81611 601 E. HOPKINS 01/2 7/96 ASPEN, CO 81611 Disbursement 01/27/76 J. Sâ€žIninary of Borrower': Trurnalon K. Summary of Seller's Transaction 100. Gion Amount Due From Borrower 100. Gross Amount Due to Seller ]01. Conliact Sales Plice 40!. Coninct Salcs Price I 02. I'c, 301,01 1â€¢ropeity Â· 402. Personal Propcity 103. Selltement Clia,ges to boriower (linc 1400) 997,509.61 4{0 104. 4()4. 105. 1()3. Adititment, for Itemi paid by seller In idvame Adluilinenn for kerns paid by teller In advince 106. Ciy/Town Taxes 10 406. City/Town taxes to lul. Coul,ly r~cs :0 407. County Ines m 08. Aiscrtmenis 10 408. Assessincnis to 109. 409 1 1 l). 410 111 41 11 112. 4[2. 120. Gross Amount Due Front Borrower 997,509 . 61 420. Gro,$ Amount Due To Seller ZOO. Amounts Paid By Or In Behall Of Bonower 500. Reductions In Aniounc Due To Seller 20[. Depow or calrnes! money 501. Excess deposit (sce in//Uction/) 202. Plilicipil amount of new !02,%0 500,000,00 502. Settlement charges to seller (line 1400) 203. Exisling loan(s) taken subject to 503. Existing loon<s) loken subject to 201. 304. Poyoff of first mortgage luan 205. 3(}5. Payoff of second mortgage loan 2()6. 306. 207+ j(]7, 208. 308 2(19. 309. Adiminienu for liems unpald by seller Adjujcnients for kein, unpaid by leller 210. City/Town wes to 310. Cily/Town taxes to 211, Counly Taxes to 311. Counly taxes 10 212. Assc.mints 10 512. Assessnic,ils 90 213. 513. 214. 514. 2 Ij. 315. 216 316. 217. 5 ll, h. 218. 3 I 8. 219. 319. 220. Total Paid By/For Borrower 500,000,00 520Â· Tocal Redualon Amount Due Seller ~ 300. Club At Lettlement Front/To Borrower 600. Cul, At Setrien,int To/From Seller 301. Grn& Anuim' duc f in, bo nwcr {line 110) 997,509.61 601. Grnss Ai,intimdi,c luseller (lilic /120) )0/ 1.ris Jiliâ€ž,in~ pii.1 hy/finr 1-rower (lime 220) 500,000.00 602. Lcs, â€žducli,ins in @11,1. duc iellcr (linc 320) 303. C.ul, [3 Front j To Barlower 497,509.61 603. Calh [38 To O holli Seller Tlic HUD-1 sclnement which 1 have picpircd is a true and accurate accoumt of 11,1, Ii!,saclion. 1 h,ve caused or will cause ihc funds to be d,sbursed iii accoi lance wilh !1115 'tolell~ellt. Sclilement A,/I Dite Pievi,mi [i,liuu' i, ()1~imete 111Jt)Â·1 RE.SPA. lili 4305 1 L Sememen 700. Total icker's Coniminlon basel on prices 0 1'.Id lilli Pol,1 I'rull Division of Commiu,on Cline 70{)) is Follinvi: Il,irrower': StÂ·Iler': 1-un,1/ al Ful"k al 701. 5 10 Selll.inent Se'|Clic'l 702, 1 /0 701 Culmills~,â€ži, pi, J ,{ Scitlcmetit 71) 1 900. lienâ€ž P,yable ],i Co,inection With Lgin 801. 1-nin Origina:ion Fcc % It(32 [-0,11 Discoun' 1 Ht]3. Appraigl nrc i 80Â·1. Ciedit Report m 8(15. Lcildcr'$ Ins#}cclio,1 1-re 806. M,ing:ge lin"'ance Applicalion rce to Â· 807. Assunirlion I're 8118. 809, Flood Certificate 19.00 RIO, MIl Xll. HIJ. 314. 813. 816. 817. 900. Items Requited by Lender To Be Paid In Advance 901. Imricit fil.m 10 42Â·$ M 'Y 902. Mnitgage Ii,suiance Premium for flion,hs lu 903. }12'ard Insulancc P[emium [ni years ta 901 ycalts In 905. 1000. Reserves Depoiked With Lender 10111. ]lazard hisuia,ice 11~01,11'S @$ per mon,11 1002. Moilgage !,isuia,icc Iminchs @f per montli 1{)03. Clly plorcily lixes mul,th' 40$ per inon,11 I(N),1. Counly pir,per,y laxes 11[unlhs 01 permon'h I()05. An,lual 03.3,ier,U Illul,Ills @S Â· per mon,h 1006. 11101,111, 40$ per inonth !001. .0,1!hs @$ per month 1(X)8. 1100. Ilde Chi,ges 1101. Settlement or closi,i: fce 150.00 10 PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. 150.00 1 1(N. Abstr.cl o.lilli 'calch i. 1103. Tlne exainina,ion to 1 104. Title intulance linder 10 1105. Document picia.ation to I !06. Ni),17 (ces to 1107. Altuincy*s fees 10 Oates, Hughes, Knezevich 900.00 (iIcI.des 'hove i'Cll, 5 nu,Tilici: 1 108. Title insula,ice 10 PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. 672.00 (includes above .Ins numb.. 1109. Lender's coverige $ 500,000.00 110. Owner's coll.age $ lili. 1112. Express Charges 50.00 II1]. 1200. Govemmen, Recording and Transfer Charges [2(JI. Recording fcc: Deed S ; Mong le S 31.00 : Rcle: sc' 3 14.00 45.00 Il{)2. City/County la slamps: Oecd $ : Moll,ng. 5 , 1203. Si fix/slamps: Decd $ : Miftgagc $ 1204 Ill)3. 1300. Addlitorial fettlemenc Charge, 1.In . Suriey m I.lt]Z, rest *W& I. 1]03. Payoff Alpine Bank 995,673.61 1 30,1. 13.. 1400. Tont kitlemenâ‚¬ Charges (epter ph Ilne, 103, Sealon J and 502, Se(don K) 997,509.61 i Ilare-Gefully ievic*,1 il,c IlljD-,14:11Â¤4,Ut:bleitient jild to Ilic best of n,y knowledge alid bclier, 11 is a liue alid accurale staic:,icili of all receipts an,1 A i,buiscnient, iuade p,/ my,~Â£6ullu<W by .....s transact,un. 1 further ccr,Ily il,at I ],ave rc~elvcd a copy of [lic 11UD I settlement Matincm. C ~ V\1 .111 (/ - A -t, C w ,>r/ L.----h BorrowchAONALD K. GREENBERG, It>b IVIDUALLY AND Aam" REFINANCEÂ· ATTORNEY IN FACT FOR Jâ‚¬ANNE BETH GREENBERG, JACQUELINE KAY GREENBERG, LYNNE ANNE GREPINBERG AND JAN C. GREENBERG <57 /2 WARNING. Il â€ž 1 Clinle IO knowili â€¢I make ful/3,9([Menit I llillb,nliffrTi,111,11 or any oilicLA,mil:i form. Pcniltics upon conviction cin includc i fille iliti !1111]115!Ii,mell[. IN,r (fctails ${:c: Titl: kl f U.S. C'{0 Section 1001 11.1 Section I{110. / Â»41*19*44{il,~,~ . P Â·4+W.AÂ· 9* 74 I . 11 .2 4 'm 'Â·'#19130Â¢i-W ki'/ *Vt, % ' Â· 3 4 -4 .re. -7:u.1 \ .... - -I .4 - -r.7 -9 h- - - - .-Â· .A.-4 . e-. . -I , - -. ---CM .1 . . ElÂ« 1 ....9--?~ -1 - ..4 - . e... I. -4 2 V ..7-Â¢ . . -- - / I - . 9 r. - --- I - I . / *. ... - 1 - 3 7 trn-Â« i 1 - 1 .- - -- 3.- - - - - .. g I. 1-.0-\\ .... X 1 1 .- .. E---> 1 - ..C . - ' ft--f :794~1 X .*- \ 3 jl i . - 0 I - nf t. - I k. - 1 -a - 1 U 7, ~ 2-Al L. I Â«-rÂ« -4Â»4 47>r 1-4- 0 - :~ ~ 4 - fÂ«_fi i - ~- 43 : 1 0 7/ f .MiJ. . 7 . .In ~j /9( 9.- <r_lf Erv,n-jj ,+4 ./ -- ' 4 4 1 rot, \t 4- 9 - -r ,/ - . .... . 1. V<\ 0% 74â‚¬ I C \ .1 -4 - t 1- ;k - f it 9 Â·-43--17 9Â»Â«il -Â· ~ - -Â·u - 1< ir - <QC EP'.2,+7 ~f - -i il\' j. CE r . OIL \ 14-4 F 1 - - hj 1 j \ - P~ 9 \ W 'MU==LEI ST-- ~ .- *------- - - .4 hi - 11 Â« i t . C- .' -Xy )li: En_ 00-- ~ 1 -1-i. - -*-- -.0. .- ... Twi r-h * \ 6 2-77=X r>- ~* _~j>14 1 g VICINITY MAP 4 r. I 4 - 9 -Â·. . f -5 14- 9 \ f *. -4 _~EL 1 Â·- f , ATTACHMENT 4 Specific Submission Contents Development Application for ESAs The Development Application for development in an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) shall include the following: A. A plan of the proposed development, which shall depict at a minimum the following information: 1. The boundary of the property for which development is requested. 2. Existing and proposed improvements. 3. Significant natural features. including natural hazards and trees. B. In addition, the following ESA applications shall also include: For development subject to 8040 Greenline Review, the plan shall depict: 1. Existing and proposed grades at two-foot contours, with five-foot intervals for grades over ten (10) percent. 2. Proposed elevations ofthe development. 3. A description of proposed construction techniques to be used. 4. Written responces to the review standards (see attachment 5) For development subject to Stream Margin Review. the plan shall depict: 1. The 100-year floodplain line and the high water line. 2. Existing and proposed grades at two-foot contours. with five-foot intervals for grades over ten ( 10) percent. 3. When development is proposed in a special flood hazard area: Accurate elevations (in relation to mean sea level) of the lowest floor, including basement, of all new or substantially improved structures; a verification and recordation of the actual elevation in relation to mean sea level to which any structure is constructed; a demonstration that all new construction or substantial improvements will be anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement of any structure to be constructed or improved; a demonstration that the structure will have the lowest floor. including basement, elevated to at least two (2) feet above the base flood elevation, all as certified by a registered professional engineer or architect. 4. A description of proposed construction techniques to be used. For development subject to Mountain View Plane Review. the plan shall depict: 1. Proposed elevations of the development, including any rooftop equipment and how it will be screened. 2. Photographs shall be submitted by the applicant which show the present improvements which protrude into or are in the vicinity of the view plane. The applicant shall graphically represent on the photographs how the proposed improvements will appear in relation to existing improvements and views. For development subject to the Hallam Lake Bluff Review, the plan shall depict: 1. A landscape plan shall be submitted with all development applications. Such plan shall include native vegetative screening of no less than fifty (50) percent of the development as viewed from the rear (slope) of the parcel. All vegetative screening shall be maintained in perpetuity and shall be replaced with the same or comparable material should it die. 2. Site sections drawn by a registered architect, landscape architect, or engineer shall be submitted showing all existing and proposed site elements, the top of slope, and pertinent elevations above sea level. Attachment 6 One Step Commission or Council Development Review Procedure 1. Attend pre-application conference. During this one-on-one meeting, staff will determine the review process which applies to your development proposal and will identify the materials necessary to review your application. 2. Submit Development Application. Based on your pre-application meeting. you should respond to the application package and submit the requested number of copies of the complete application and the appropriate processing fee to the Community Development Department. Depending upon the complexity ofthe development proposed. Staff may suggest submitting only one copy. This way any corrections that may be necessary can be accomplished before making additional copies 3. Determination of Completeness. Within five working days of the date of your submission. staff will review the application, and will notify you in writing whether the application is complete or if additional materials are required. Please be aware that the purpose of the completeness review is to determine whether or not the information you have submitted is adequate to review the request and not whether the information is sufficient to obtain approval. 4. Staff Review of Development Application. Once your application is determined to be complete, a date for the Commission or Council review will be set. Applications are scheduled for review on the first available agenda given the requirements for public notice. During the staff review stage, the application will be referred to other agencies for comments. The Planner assigned to your case or the agency may contact you if additional information is needed or if problems are identified. The Planner will prepare a review memo which addresses the proposal's compliance with the Land Use Code and incorporates the referral comments. The planner will recommend approval, denial or tabling of the application and recommend appropriate conditions to this action. You will be called to pick up a copy of the memo and the agenda at the end of the week before your hearing, or we can mail it to you if you so request. During the period of staff review, it is essential that public notice be given, when required for your development application. The requirements for notice of your application are provided in Attachment 7. 5. Commission or Council Review of Development Application. Your project will be presented to the Commission or Council at a regularly scheduled meeting. The typical meeting includes a presentation by staff, a presentation by you or your representative, questions and comments by the review body and the public, and an action on the staff recommendation, unless additional information is requested by the review body. Final approval of any Development Application which amends a recorded document, such as a plat, agreement or deed restriction, will require the applicant to prepare an amended version of that document for review and approval by staff. Staff will provide the applicant with the applicable contents for the revised plat, while the City Attorney is normally in charge of the form for recorded agreements and deed restrictions. We suggest that you not go to the trouble or expense of preparing these documents until the staff has determined that your application is eligible for the requested amendment or exemption. 6. Receipt of Building Permit. Once you have received final approval of your development application, you may proceed to building permit review. During this time. your project will be examined for its compliance with the Uniform Building Code. It will also be checked for compliance with applicable provisions of the Land Use Regulations which were not reviewed in detail during the one step review (this might include a check of floor area ratios, setbacks, parking, open space and the like). Fees for water, sewer, parks and employee housing will be collected if due. Any document required to be recorded, such as a plat, deed restriction or agreement, will need to be reviewed and recorded before a Building Permit is submitted. 1 stepsumm ATTACHMENT 4 Specific Submission Contents Exemption from ESA Review By Community Development Director The request for Community Development Director approval of an Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption shall contain the following items: 1. A written description of the existing conditions on the property which are requested to be altered via the amendment or exemption. 2. Such site plan drawings or elevations as may be necessary to adequately evaluate the proposed amendment or exemption. 3. A listing of all previous development approvals granted to the property, with the approximate dates of said approvals. 4. A copy of any recorded document which affects the proposed development, including but not limited to recorded plats, agreements and deed restrictions. If changes are proposed to said recorded documents, these should be "red-lined" onto a copy of the original document. 5. A written response to the applicable review criteria (attachment 5). 26.68.050 base line which bear S. 30Â° 41' 11" E. and S. 66Â° 08' 59" W. respectively and which is above a plane which passes through the reference point at an inclination of 2Â° 50' 38" above horizontal. 6. Main Street View Plane. There is hereby established a view plane originating from Main Street above which plane no land use or building shall project. The reference point bears N. 78Â° 22' 29" W. 92.35 feet from the southeasterly property comer of Block 79, Original Aspen Townsite. The reference base line bears N. 75Â° 09' 11" W. 51.40 feet from the reference point. Elevation of the reference point and reference base line is 7,906.90 feet above mean sea level. The view plane is more particularly described as follows: All that space which is within the projection of two (2) radial lines which bear S. 29Â° 10' 06" E. from the reference point, and S. 80Â° 29' 29" W. from the westerly terminus of the reference base line, and which is also above a plane which passes through the reference base line at an angle of inclination of 6Â° 29' 20" above horizontal. B. Exemption. Development which shall be exempt from mountain view plane review shall include the addition of any mechanical equipment to an existing development which protrudes into the view plane, except for the following types of equipment: 1. Satellite dish; 2. Elevator shaft; or 3. Any other piece of equipment whose height and mass are found to be of such significance in their effect upon the designated view plane that their review pursuant to the standards of Section 26.68.050(C) is required. C. Mountain view plane review standards. No development shall be permitted within a mountain view lane unless the commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below. 1. No mountain view plane is infringed upon, except as provided in Section 26.68.050(C)(2). When any mountain view plane projects at such an angle so as to reduce the maximum allowable building height otherwise provided for in this title, development shall proceed according to the provisions of Chapter 26.84 as aplanned unit development, so as to provide formaximum flexibility in building design with special consideration to bulk and height, open space and pedestrian space, and similarly to permit variations in lot area, lot width, yard and building height requirements, view plane height limitations. The commission may exempt any developer from the above enumerated requirements whenever it is determined that the view plane does not so effect the parcel as to require application of PUD orthat the effects of the view plane may be otherwise accommodated. 2. When any proposed development infringes upon a designated view plane, but is located in front of another development which already blocks the same view plane, the commission shall consider whether or not the proposed development will further infringe upon the view plane, and the likelihood that redevelopment of the adjacent structure will occur to re-open the view plane. In the event the proposed development does not further infringe upon the view plane, and re-redevelopment to re-open the view plane cannot be anticipated, the commission shall approve the development. (Code 1971, Â§ 7-505) 26.68.060 Hallam Lake Bluff review. A. Applicability. All development in that bluff area nmning approximately on a north-south axis bordering and/or overlooking the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies nature preserve and bounded on the east by the 7850-foot mean sea level elevation line and extending one hundred (100) feet, measured horizontally, up slope and there terminating, and bounded on the north by the southeast lot line of Lot 7A of the Aspen Company Subdivision. and on the south by the centerline of West Francis Street, shall be subject to the review standards as set forth in this section. 601 26.68.060 B. Exemption. The exterior expansion. remodeling or reconstruction of an existing stnicture or development, orthe removal of trees or shrubbery, shall be exempt from Hallam Lake Bluff review if the following standards are met. 1. The development tees place more than thirty (30) feet from the top of slope, or the development is obscured from the rear slope by other structures as determined by a site section provided pursuant to review standard (C)(7) below. C. Hallam Lake Bluff review standards. No development shall be permitted within the Hallam Lake Bluff ESA unless lhe commission makes adetermination that the pmposed development meets all of the following requirements: 1. No development. excavation or fill, other than native vegetation planting, shall take place below the top of slope. 2. All development within the fifteen-foot setback from the top of slope shall be at grade. Any proposed development not at grade within the fifteen-foot setback must be approved by special review pursuant to Section 26.64.040(D). 3. All development outside the fifteen-foot setback from top of slope shall 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 zoning officer utilizing that definition set forth at Section 26.04.100. 4. A landscape plan shall be submitted with all development applications. Such plan shall include native vegetative screening of no less than fifty (50) percent of the development as viewed from the rear (slope) of the parcel. All vegetative screening shall be maintained in perpetuity and shall be replaced with the same or comparable material should it die. 5. All exterior lighting shall be low and downcast with no light(s) directed toward the nature preserve or located down the slope. 6. No fill material or debris shall be placed on the face of the slope. Historic drainage patterns and rates must be maintained. Pools or hot tubs cannot be drained down tile slope. 7. Site sections drawn by a registered architect, landscape architect, or engineer shall be submitted showing all existing and proposed site elements, the top of slope, and peItinent elevations above sea level. (Ord. No. 71-1990, Â§ 6: Code 1971, Â§ 7-506) 26.68.070 Procedure for approval of development in ESA. A development application for development in environmentally sensitive area (ESA), shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval by the planning director, and then approved, approved with conditions, or disapproved by the commission at a hearing held in accordance with the procedure established in Common Procedures, Chapter 26.52. A development application for development in an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) may be consolidated with any other development application pursuant to the requirements of Common Procedures, Chapter 26.52. (Ord. No. 71-1990, Â§ 7: Code 1971, Â§ 7-507) 26.68.080 Application. The development application for development in an environmentally sensitive area (ESA) shall include the following: A. The general application information required in Section 26.52.030. B. A plan o f the proposed development, which shall depict at a minimum the following infonnation: 602 26.68.080 1. The boundary of the property for which development is requested. 2. Existing and proposed improvements. 3. Significant natural features, including natural hazards and trees. C. In addition to these minimum plan contents, the development plan submitted for development in each type of ESA shall also include the following: 1. For development subject to 8040 greenline review. the plan shall depict: a. Existing and proposed grades at two-foot contours, with five-foot intervals for grades over ten (10) percent. b. Proposed elevations of the development. c. A description of proposed construction techniques to be used. 2. For development subject to stream margin review, the plan shall depict: a. The 100-year floodplain line and the high water line. b. Exisling and proposed grades at two-foot contours. with five-foot intervals for grades over ten (10) percent. c. When development is proposed in a special flood hazard area: Accurate elevations (in relation to mean sea level) of the lowest floor, including basement, of all new or substantially improved structures; a verification and recordation of the actual elevation in relation to mean sea level to which any structure is constructed; a demonstration that all new construction or substantial improvements will be anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement of any structure to be constructed or improved; a demonstration that the structure will have the lowest floor, including basement elevated to at least two (2) feet above the base flood elevation, all as certified by a registered professional engineer or architect. d. A description of proposed construction techniques to be used. 3. For development subject to mountain view plane, the plan shall depict: a. Proposed elevations of the development, including any rooftop equipment and how it will be screened. b. Photographs shall be submitted by the applicant which show the present improvements which protrude into or are in the vicinity of the view plane. The applicant shall graphically represent on the photographs how the proposed improvements will appear in relation to existing improvements and views. (Ord. No. 6-1989, Â§ 9; Ord. No. 71-1990, Â§ 7: Code 1971, Â§ 7-508) 26.68.090 Conditions. The planning director may recommend and the commission may impose conditions to its approval of development in an environmentally sensitive area (ESA), which includes but is not limited to means for: A. Minimizing any adverse impact of the proposed development upon lands, including the use and operation and the type and intensity of activities which may be conducted; B. Controlling the sequence or timing of proposed development, including when it must be commenced and completed; C. Controlling the duration of use of development and the time within which any structures must be removed; D. Assuring that development is maintained properly in the future; or E. Establishing a more detailed record by submission of drawings, maps, plats or specificalions. (Ord. No. 71-1990, Â§ 7: Code 1971, Â§ 7-509) 603 Fk ' 290 Ld< MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Julie Ann Woods. Interim Community Development Director ~Â·..jkf'C v J RE: 240 Lake Ave.. ESA Hallam Lake Bluff DATE: October 20. 1998 SUMMARY: The applicants recently landmarked their home and have received approval from the HPC to extend the height of the existing rear elevation by 3' (raising the root). This development is located within 30' of the top of slope and therefore is required to be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. In addition. the applicant is proposing to create a raised planter at the base of the existing rear patio and back from the top of slope. The purpose of the planter is to create a "safe landing place" if someone accidentally steps of the patio. The owner's pet apparently fell down the slope and did not recover from its injuries. The owners do not want the same thing to happen when children visit. The planter will step down approximately 6" from the top of the patio. and will be contained by a dry-laid stone wall. The planter will then be planted with native shrubs (see attached landscape plan). Because the property is within the Hallam Lake overlay, ESA review is required. None of the proposed development conflicts with the ESA review standards. The owner and staff feel that the low proposed planter is fairly unobtrusive and this approach is preferred over adding a railing to the patio edge. The applicant has provided a sketch of what the railing would look like vs. the low planter for your consideration. Note that a railing would extend into the 45Â° angle from the top of slope. Staff recommends approval of the proposed planter as indicated in the attached drawings. APPLICANT: Ronald Greenberg, represented by Jennifer Cohen of Charles Cuniffe Architects. LOCATION: 240 Lake Ave. ZONING: R-6, Historic Landmark. CURRENT LAND USE: Detached single-family residential. LOT SIZE: 14,220 s.f. 1 REFERRAL COMMENTS: No City agencies expressed concerns with the proposed development. The application was forwarded to Tom Cardamone, of A.C.E.S.. who expressed his concern that a planter wall had the potential to be undermined and cause further damage to the slope. He was most concerned that a footer for the wall may impact the top of slope. The applicant has indicated on their plans that the dry-laid stone wall will be placed back from the top of slope, and that there will not be any need for a footer with this kind of wall. The planter will also step back away from the closest aspen tree, approximately 4' from the edge of the patio, in order to reduce any potential damage to the tree. The applicant has also agreed to have all the work done manually without equipment which could potentially impact the bluff. Staff has included this as a condition of approval. REVIEW PROCEDURE: 26.68.060 Hallam Lake Bluff review. Hallam Lake Bluff review standards. No development shall be permitted within the Hallam Lake Bluff ESA unless the commission makes a determination that the proposed development meets all of the following requirements: 1. No development. excavation or fill. other than native vegetation planting. shall take place below the top of slope. Response: No land disturbance is proposed below the top of slope. 2. All development within the fifteen (15) foot setback from the top of slope shall be at grade. Any proposed development not at grade within the fifteen (15) foot setback must be approved by special review pursuant to Section 26.64.040(D). Response: The proposed planter is located at grade. 3. All development outside the fifteen (15) foot setback from top of slope shall 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 zoning officer utilizing that definition set forth at Section 26.04.100. Response: No new development exceeds the height of the 45 degree angle from the top of slope. 4. A landscape plan shall be submitted with all development applications. Such plan shall include native vegetative screening of no less than fifty (50) percent of the development as viewed from the rear (slope) of the parcel. All vegetative screening shall beÂ· maintained in perpetuity and shall be replaced with the same or comparable material should it die. Response: The applicant has submitted a landscape plan for the proposed planter. The planter itself is considered development. Because the existing vegetation of the slope will be unaffected, the development should remain screened by 50% vegetation The plan 2 indicates low-growing shrubs with native species within the planter. Staff does not recommend additional landscaping in front of the planter as it would then be below the top of slope. Staff believes the existing native vegetation adequately addresses this standard. 5. All exterior lighting shall be low and downcast with no light(s) directed toward the nature preserve or located down the slope. Response: The applicant represents that all exterior lighting shall be low and downcast with no lights directed towards the nature preserve or located down the slope. 6. No fill material or debris shall be placed on the face of the slope. Historic drainage patterns and rates must be maintained. Pools or hot abs cannot be drained down the slope. Response: The applicant represents that no fill material or debris shall be placed on the face of the slope nor will historic drainage patterns be disturbed. 7. Site sections drawn by a registered architect, landscape architect, or engineer shall be submitted showing all existing and proposed site elements. the top of slope. and pertinent elevations above sea level. Response: Said drawings have been submitted by an architect and reviewed by the City Engineering Department. STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: Community Development staff finds that the application meets the Hallam Lake Bluff Review Standards and should be approved with the following conditions: 1. The dry-laid stone walls are approved as proposed. 2. For the purpose of maintaining the integrity of the Hallam Lake Bluff slope and to minimize the visual impacts from construction, the applicant shall observe the following construction process for the dry-laid stone planter: a. Silt fencing shall be erected on the down-slope side ofthe planter prior to construction activity and shall remain in place until completion and sign- off by the Building Inspector. b. Existing vegetation within the construction area shall be tied back to prevent damage. c. All demolition, digging, and construction shall be accomplished manually, not with the aid of mechanical equipment. In the event mechanical equipment is necessary, the Parks Department shall be notified and placement of the equipment shall be approved by the Parks Department. 3. Before issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall record this Planning and Zoning Resolution with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder located in the Courthouse 3 Plaza Building. There is a per page recordation fee. In the alternative, the applicant may pay this fee to the City Clerk who will record the resolution. 4. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the Hallam Lake Bluff ESA for 240 Lake Ave. with the conditions stipulated in the Planning and Zoning Commission's Resolution No. 98- dated October 20. 1998." EXHIBITS: A. Resolution No. 98- B. Application with drawings *planning/aspen/cases/esa/2401ak.doc 4 Jackie Lothian, 0 I PM 10/20/98, 10/20 p&z X-Sender: jackiel@commons Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 16:30:29 -0600 To: kathys@ci.aspen.co.us, kathrynk@ci.aspen.co.us, juliew@ci.aspen.co.us, chrisb@ci.aspen.co.us, davidho@ci.aspen.co.us From: Jackie Lothian <jackiel@ci.aspen.co.us> Subject: 10/20 p&z Here are the P&Z resos from last night's meeting .... . 98-32 ~~Aspen~Planning and Zoning denied the Hallam Lake Bluffs ESA,.for 240:4~ Lake Ave. with conditions (#2735-124-07004) 3-2. 98-33 Aspen Planning and Zoning approving Stream Margin Review and Special Review for the Marcus residence, 610 Riverside Ave. (#2737-181-55-001). bye-bye jackiel Printed for Julie Ann Woods <juliew@ci.aspen.co.us> 1 MEMORANDUM To: Julie Woods, Deputy Community Development Director Thru: Nick Adeh, City Engineer From: Ross C. Soderstrom, Project Engineer Date: October 16,1998 Re: Greenberg Hallam Lake Bluff Review 1 OF 2 DRCM3498.DOC Memo - Greenberg Hallam Lake B view Physical Address: 240 Lake Avenue, City of Aspen, CO Legal Description: Lot 15 Amended, Wogan Lot Split, City ofAspen, Pitkin County, CO Section 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West, 6th P.M. Parcel ID No.: XXX-XXX-XX-XXX After reviewing the above referenced application and making a site visit, 1 am reporting the combined comments made by the members of the DRC: 1. Survey and Landscape Plan: The survey provided with the application lacks the following: date and number ofthe title commitment (issued with last calendar year) used in the survey; and the wet ink signature and seal of a currently registered Colorado land surveyor. The plans submitted with the application did not indicate additional landscaping below the top of slope to help mitigate the visual impacts ofthe proposed landscaping planter. The applicant will be required to complete the standard requirements and conditions associated with the form(s) of development requested in the application. 2. Changes in Conditions: [fthe proposed use, density, or timing of construction of the project change, or the site, parking or utility plans for this project change subsequent to this review, a complete set of the revised plans shall be provided to the Engineering Dept. for review and re-evaluation. The discussion and recommendations given in this memorandum apply to the application and plans (dated August 31, 1998) provided for this review and such comments and recommendations may change in response to changes in the use, density, or timing of the construction of the project, or changes in the site, parking or utility designs. 3. Proposed Landscape Planter: In place of the concrete masonry block wall with concrete footer proposed in the application, the City Engineer requests that the landscape planter box be constructed of timbers as a crib wall so as to avoid excavating a foundation into the top of slope and erecting a structural retaining wall at the top of slope. (It appears the excavation required for a masonry wall may coincide with the top of slope.) The timber cribbing would fulfill the strength requirements of the planter box while also providing some aesthetic relief (as viewed from Hallam Lake below) for the encroachment into the top of slope setback. This will also minimize the need to excavate into the root zone of the existing tree below the patio. 4. Drainage: The proposed platiter box will not increase the site generated drainage and will serve to detain part of the drainage which presently runs off the stone patio and over the face of the bluff. No additional drainage improvements are necessary. 5. Underground Storage Tank: As indicated on the Improvement Survey, there is an underground storage tank located near the northwesterly property boundary. If this is no longer in service, we recommend that it be removed and any required mitigation work completed. 1 OF 2 DRCM3498.DOC ' . Memo - Greenberg Hallam Lake B eview . 6. Work in the Public Rights-of-Way: Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights-of-way and easements, we advise the applicant as follows: The applicant must receive approval from: City Engineering (920-5080) for design of improvements, including landscaping and grading, within public rights-of-way; Parks Department (920-5120) for vegetation species and placement, and irrigation systems; Streets Department (920-5130) for mailboxes, street and alley cuts; and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights-of-way from the City Community Development Department (920-5090). DRC Meeting Attendees: Applicant: none Staff & Referral Agencies: Julie Woods, Rebecca Schickling, Ross Soderstrom, Nick Adeh, Mitch Haas, Lee Cassin 2 OF 2 DRCM3498.DOC # MEMORANDUM ~ CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS ,/1 520 E. HYMAN, SUITE 301, ASPEN, CO 81611 970/925-5590 970/925-5076 FAX PLANNING ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS TO: Review committee FROM: Jennifer Cohen DATE: October 15,1998 PROJECT: Greenberg JOB NO.: 9746 REGARDING: Hallam Lake Bluff Review NOTES: Under the Hallam Lake Bluff review standards the following items were to be addressed. 1. No development, excavation or fill, other than native vegetation planting, shall take place below the top of slope. - The proposed planter does not occur below the top of slope, and no excavation will be required. 2. All development within the fifteen-foot setback from the top of slope shall be at grade. - The proposed planter is at grade. 3. All development outside the fifteen-foot setback from top of slope shall not exceed a height delineated by a line drawn at a forty-five (45) degree angle from ground level at the top of slope. - Please see the site section. As is shown, all development proposed for the home is within the allowed forly-five (45) degree angle. 4. A landscape plan shall be submitted with all development applications. - The required landscape plan has been submitted. 5. All exterior lighting shall be low and downcast with no light(s) directed toward the nature preserve or located down the slope. - All proposed lights will be low in intensity and not cast down the slope or pointed at the nature preserve. 6. No fill material or debris shall be placed on the face of the slope. Historic drainage patterns and ratfs must be maintained. - Our proposed planter does not place any fill material or debris on the face of the slope and the drainage pattems will not be disturbed. 7. Site sections drawn by a registered Architect, Landscape Architect, or Engineer shall be submitted showing all existing and proposed site elements, top of slope and pertinent elevations above sea level. Please see both the 24X36 site section sheet and the 11X17 sheet for these items. , / I. Other issues that have been addressed. 1. There is an aspen tree approximately four (4) feet out from the deck on the East side of the patio, - We have no intention of removing or damaging this tree, and the owner is willing to do what is necessary to preserve it. 2. What material will the planter "wall" be made of? -The material we plan to use to hold in the planter is stacked rock of a local or historic nature. The existing wall of the patio is made of concrete block. We understand that this may seem too solid and therefore propose the stacked rock. All of the "wall" will stay behind the top of slope and there will be no cutting into the slope. BY: jc COPY TO:Ronnie and Jan Greenberg, CLC, file 4 ki i ' 7 STLe 5 - f f ill 1. ..X Â£ 1 2 1 4 I - d 4.2...1 ,â‚¬ \ . .2:. . , I + a .---Cl~-.. j lz' 1 - AdLA' - 1. 6,4,0..... . :24 =Â·7 tr:, =ru -tr Â£ " 89 1 1 11 m -- - i . 1/ 2 .7 17 4 " I [il , '4 1 2.. rl Â£4 b . =2114- --*.-- - --- .â€¢ I.~ .... I l I . . .rn tÂ·-fÂ· 0" 'Â· . . , *4- - 4. * r -~ -~,- ,- < -: - /2 /- - 4 '432491, . .. 4 K.~-- 1 - - '8 7 A. / --r. - 2- -F # . p 0 & - 1Â¥ 4 A:. - *'48+ 4 . ..91 . 1.4,- 19 - . - .- I. ' Â£ -2*~ht ..41.49 -. -'~-ff- 4. â€¢ 014. 1 -,dp.1 0.1Â£~ -1 4 I ... I %94 4, . 4/ .r 4. AD ; - :P "t-+ 14' , - . ...., 74 2- 1 f ,.1 -d -7 k.. 0 24..9- . 'Ult-.=t i , I ./ ./ - I. I 1-4 Â· Â·t L. 47// 4â‚¬yfey : -r . - â‚¬1...- -'' 4:f'..Â· . & ./ f . 4,2 .3 + 9 .' I - I 24,2-4,0 9.t,-17'.2 ..fly: R.2 -41 -25 " -41:t >,j-- - p-Ii~'U: .1.4*22,-rk ..Taf-i: Â·-.ye-:i' 9-:. 7.7f.e; 0 2,/--273i:71.~'. - .... â‚¬ ~ f.i - - - A' C; 2 42: 2-0? 14 Â· 1... . 9 - j* Â· :..1 iffYâ‚¬4Â»hk-*'- I .;V 1 j.r *w -tz:,-:g~,4, 50-:frf j :5 .-25:,fe#-7 4 - :1ILI* 497 - LAT.k ' ,% :---7' --Â·Â·:~ 4*99 Â·r , r S - 7-9...21.- . 2. Â·Â· f. _ 0.-4 42 r 1.u.-Â·,4;.2~0' 29*i' t .r,J , 4 - 'J .... I ..I . ...r- - .- 4 4 . 4 I TH F 10 ON-E> cjFT, DN 1..14[JI'.4 -. a Oi C- /0-4 L fiÂ« 1 -a 4\ 1112'- , 1.1Â¥*,476Â«&4 1 4.14 -I'll"/1 *A,1.9.~brillilifiell'PEE;2~9 Â¥lilimilillill 4: 14 Â·4 Â¥ 1. .. 1/ ..1 0 If.'..; P ~ lIZ=- m 0/ %8-\ 1 IfF-,C-, .2 i ...1 - /1 I-,lt 1 r .ir.- 221-1.*C f . .Ap.~ V / 1 1 1-kleÂ° 0800-8â‚¬ ANG,LE - . ==-= --r Toe 08 960'e 4 4 lr EX{qUNG rAna Â·r . 14*lut Ne 1.1 Crigo 980-28 Peate - ~-xNATI\)â‚¬ veeerANON l <Ama \\<71 f /58~ 9 9\-09% c\%/c 1 62- 0' ~ 3 L<&11 0~ - EXIST[Me FAFRO M IMIMAL LÂ·16ATI N6 - Mo-r TO SHINE TDWAR-C> N*TUBE FFESE@NE 012- Dow N Sl,01'5. PLANreg -- I \ --I---I. Iliq-1 l--- - - --49---- /71\ -I 2 ~ 3 6 - C .-- d 1 4 F 1 - J- 1 --s - f 1 . *1, 1~ j 13 . 1 - / 03 - 01 ~ 1\1 ; 1 '- 0r 1 1, 1 1 \ 11 r 10 1 \ ~r- \1 - r 1 -..=-,L I 0 1 f , 1 - 7 t- ---ill ... 1> I . 0 0. r , G =Z -db-- - -, 1 - , - -r â€¢ - 1 C--- - ScHE Re * 1 . 0 . . . . . . 1 & r Native Shrub Mix: , Sen icebernÂ·. ChokechernÂ·. 1()-15' tail I. \ Shrub Replacement: so M Hallam Lake -- Recently removed shrubs to be Ay \ I. 11/1 \ ~ .-1 replaced to help screen the patio. - . \2 1 4 1 4 94 \ \ 30-A.i\\ 1 \ 0,14<1424, 4.,\\\ 11 \ \\ 1 1 - .1 1 + . 1 1 1- I \\ \\1 - .. N \ 1 \\ \\\\ UP 4\ ri 1 1.3 1.ilil Â·/ Existing 40-60' Spruce at lake edge k\ 1 21 0.\\\ 01\ 1\\\\ 1 111 0 1 .4 \ 0 1. 4 1 1 i.\ \ Uit . i \ i.:\ \\ / / 1 x< 1 2 1 j .LAA~Ji; 11 x /0 7 0 \ I. 1 . 7 44- 1 6 . .:\\ . 11 i \ 34 11\ 1 1 0 Sod Â·- ' ~ ~ -i ~ 1\ ./. 'h>, / - 1. ' Â·,'Native Grass 04 me \ . \ 2 te \ \\ \i\\ \\ 4, 10 \\ \4412*Vid~ I .\\ \ â€¢ f . .. \.. \ 1 t. 0 \\\\ \10>b Â«21 Patio . .. -- \. Â». 1 1 \ El. 72.(r .. \\\\\\ 1 2,1 1 0 \ 1 f.' zfr,:4 e.$ r Â· a& <6 \1 4\1\ i .0 .h' 40 - 1 Â£ 7,3 434#u4 /> 4 I.....9 ...I g . :il'il .....3 U G 6 61.- 17 .. f......tizilj \-44. 0 0 C \\\944,/ 0 ~. -17% c.\ 1\ \ AK' 414 O 01 4 % Sod:Â· 4 "61 Courtyard r 140 4 ''lv o A.4 .. 4 -9 -1 - O t Shrub Mix: w . k.,l, 0 9 E Existing \00 Purple Leal Plum, Hone) sickle. Dogwood (71 6 U 5/ 1- Residence 0 o o Â£ I' F /0 1 ( El.72.5') 0 . *4-U 0 a yu o c * L. , 9/ 41'E <3 - <40 1 0 0~70/ 4 O 14 1 *r rN o 1) 0 Shed f ~Â·linneated ]Le@ 2% 0 . 00 . r-Plant Key 0 1 0 09 0 . J 0 0/ O ~ Existing Deciduous Tree O .fo 46 09 I 0 7 E c -9 Â£9%- Existing Evergreen Tree 477 ~ 0, r--c,%3C~Mt Existing Deciduous Shrub *% O 0 4 .4 0 G n~r~ 4 N 00 r O\ -Â° -LL) 53 . 0 G Let 116 Existing Evergreen Shrub 0 9 9 A u 8 0 0 D O .q c Â° 80 v o ~~> histing Native Shrub Gravel Parking 60 0 0 1 00 0 . 1 3 90 \ D . 00 0 Date: September 25,1998 r 7 : \/0 01) .lop , db D 6 0 \ 1. 1 7 0 \Â© b /6 A D , -1- V 61 Sheet: --0/ North Scale: 1"= 10'- 0" ........ 1.. 1,4...1 33UgPISali Blaqugalf) 341 FE,1 19 0:) Â·irlitioqi rE 1 L t'96 f (12 6 ) 00 UUId uouulabA But}Spe[ opeioloc) 'uadsv ........ Native Shrub Mix: J-je Senicebern'. Chokechern, 1()-IS tall 1/Ezz 1 -24- . r~ Shrub Replacement: 4 - Recently' 1-cmcned shrubs to be 1 Ar.10Â»ll : M 5 2 11 Hallam Lake -. replaced to help screen the patio. 4, 1 5 41-1 31 \ i, ip -(,#' 3 , 4-,fLF ' f ;, 1F Y \ 1 Efr \ 11 1 \ /1 1 11 X Z -1 U 1 1\ \ I<\ \ C\ 1 \ \\ 1 \\ 1 Uk \\ tor ,':04 1 L 9 1 Ericting 40-60' Spruce at lake edge Â° tic r \ 11 \\ \ 1 1 \\ il t .. P. ). /3 /41 7-0 1 ~ 1 1 \11 1 1 ti LC co 70 \ 1.. . 1 1 XXX N \;41\\\\ 1 -1 9 - Â· .. . 1 \ 1 ..9. 1 1 \ 1 1 1 1/71~1~r,~\ 1 \\ \ 1 \ 1 \ . 0 \ \\ 1 \ 4401 j) . 31 sod i \4' 186- x I Native Grass ~01 1-1 c \ \ 'ru \ \ 44 .. 4 ... 19 4 . NO \ N i \ / 0 \ 1 - -1. 1 L \ 0 1 \\\ \\\\ 1 2% 1 1 Patio . 3\ ./ \\ 1- i \\ 1 \ \ 2%, El. 72.0' *< 4. * ** *. -*4- i, \ 1 1 i \ i 1 i. 0 0 fi ''=Â»17'~ a fc.-Â·Ap 160~5 -14 11 4 2% 1. k .., V..., ./ I . ... 'll &$ 1-0 C 1 'TY) > , 30 / 1,4 0 . \- \ \ 0 1 0 \ 14 1 +-Â·< 7.27) %:01137~~~~~-4~ . 0 -7.-1 0 1 1 1 /4 . 0 0/ 1 7 Sod 11- 1 0 3Â»Â«\0 0 t Courtyard A -1 0 2 14 '5 a -1 ---4, 0 01 14 Shrub Mix: r h. li & E Existing \00 Purple Leal Pluni, lic,ne) suckle, Doy\, ood 1 .1 4/ Residence 1 0 0 (/0 i en j L ( El.72.5') o .i-- ~~ Il-* 113 0 _1 0 C /j 117 9/ hi 0 0 -- -ilf -4 y . Shed Q05 0 4 0 kmmendie 331 14 0 00 0 _Â»-Plant Key 0 o Existing Deciduous Tree /31 . 1 0 0 1 0 Sod . h 0 1/--CÂ« CliG 0/ 0 ~ - JY 0 0 I L , 9 1/ i in F 6 0 y L ~~:- Existing Evergreen Tree 4 a # I 101 00 0 G I Â» \4 V <* Existing Deciduous Shrub 0 0 0 \ 0 O lo IT .B 4 'C /4 10'( 12 W) 6 1: up Existing Evergreen Shrub OÂ° 0 0 047 r# c 0 ) Existing Native Shrub 0 Gravel Parking 01 0 4 00 : '4 8 P. 0 0- 0 . Date: September 25.1998 . \ le. 09\ C Â°p w r A p 1. C i. \ 7 0 \r 1 9 4 I \\ ,/48\ 13 y Sheet: -0~ North Scale: 1"= 10'- 0" ........ 1 .., 1 1 4 '.1 33UgPISaM BlaqU331<) 341 00 ulvId uo!11113131~ Nu!16!xl[ opelolo) Guadsv Z996-9U/026 :XV:I * 9â‚¬ZE-9Z*0Z6 :3131 * 5â‚¬,LF? 00 'ElaIMnl-131 * *3AV OC]Vkl0100 '3 OZE OaÂ¥10103 'N3dSV SK q/nq-CZAn/K :Yvi . AGÂ«*76,41/6 .1111 . LLAIR 01 'Nlrlâ‚¬V . Inf 11Inâ‚¬ a '1AV NVINAH 1-CV' OZS cni \Inr,70 + i : rn 2 700. i 1 / 1 1 1 ' 1,114 .... .. . 0. . .. . .. . 4. . - .. . . V . V 4 ,. .. . 4 1 I . " t . . 1 0 0 0 0 .. :..; 2. ./ r 4. 4 '1,1 '44....: 4, 4.toy>KE',*2' 4 . ./ I '. ..''i./ 4 4 1=*A<%41*A " i - ros Â¥2 f:' I m-1-St/4 JÂ· 14 ~t?~3 ..~ .1 4 - m+*t \ 1,-Â·Â· *Z ./.-.-/ I Â£ - XGA lk.. 4. IA>NE'Â·_ DEPOSI 'ED THIS-__.-DA- Of:___.-+-=...___. 1998. -IN 900,2____.OF T.-E 16 :IARKING COUNTY, CLERK-'S LAND St.i' VE. Y FLAT<1/RIGHTÂ·26 WAY SUAO'S A, - M.,1-_.- ccrri,Â», 1. V' /*I Il L ' L. 'U ANSUIP 10 SOUTH. RANGE 85 Wtb: Or :Ma Â·,Tn -.9- - , COON-' CLERK- AND RE JORDEP \ i?]A . . - . Â·: 4 Â· MA:Er 98 1 %14 .4 '- AL'OVINIUM 2376.. EL 7871.T r. 1 T- P*REÂ·VE.MENT/TOPOGRAPPICÂ· SURVEN- 6. >- X OF - 1 cr .ne F.!ot rector.ded Dece,nber 14. 1929 In P:,3- Book 26Â·0+ Poge â‚¬9. 2= CONTAININGÂ·.4.22'' +/- bQ. E Â· 1 - 2.1-7 OF ASPEN 01-4 i.N COUNTY COLORADO , . . I. . - AS RECEPTION NUMBER _- _ . _-_____.-1. -____._. T.;S *a:.0 Â·SUP'Â·161- Pr-AT COMPLIES WITEÂ·SECTION 3.8-51--102 50:ORADO REVISED STATUES. AMENDED LOT 15...FIRST AMENDMEN-T-TO THE-'WOGAN L.-0,1 5912!T.' ils.'Sit,wn t RR.PARED B' --ASPEN. SUR\/Ev'ENG.IN.EERS. PE. 2-8. ' F- 6 Â· r . ':' '-21'lfSgt:TH.Â· GALENA STREET . -0.:rtÂ·Â·.TR %01 .1% . ASIEN. COLOrADO 8FAil rn - z. I n 1 '*1 - ., - A a .,C, 7,91 r .3 '-Â· r --% R 1 6 ' Writ t.. ' I i I , 4 Â¢'3 - 41 Â·. â€¢,OTICE: ACCOR.!ING ~0 -COLOR.ADD i AW :0,- Mil' COM,VE'4(DE ANY LE641 5 1' f.-tl;N BASED--*CN ANY DEFECT 04 -MS PLAT .W,P.]fâ€¢ -i,REE YEARS .. ap TER Â¥21 7 tel 0:099Â£4 S.,CN DEFECT. :N NO EVE'vT IAAÂ·t ANÂ¥ ACY.ON DAÂ·TE 1.- . . 9.--J JOE? - f~ .. 2- <BASW LPON ANY DEFEr. IN THIS FLAT FE l,Â»ENÂ·ZED y.83â‚¬ 19*4 TEN . - 1. - 5/98 -- 4 329#A -3 'E:45 FRCM TME OAIE OR THE CEÂ°Tlf:CA':01 4OWN â‚¬REON. TE - . . CENT'pMAT re# 15Â· .0.0 I NDT GET VAAIN.0 WI Â·, THE 391. 51- rf t.w -2 SL:VEY:,R. .Â· ... ... .0, .... C:-in,ricâ‚¬Lts'.97464.tâ‚¬-Clgn. 7. 1998 14. CDÂ· 22 Â· 016 I /:. . :ed,**4/1*764* . 6 19 20 37:29 L.J 2.Le ~-1 7 99. ./ . Â·+3 1.-mit 43. 2 A .to r . . i .Â» 1 ,2 Â·tiÂ· . 0 @34 .. -- ---1- - - . 0 re?* j . /1 % 4,7,4 ~ * I . . . 1 I . 4 - N> I 4 -- 4 - "44 0,6. , . *4 21 . I , D 1 i g. - a . . 3.1XRAV GIN'El m% . M L- 11 - 46.40 / 26-46-, -3 -6 \. I le/le 10 -7---41 I .-& l ---- 1 i.zi i 1 1 i.mt ' /01 11 1 /1 1 . 1 A 1 93 44 i i 1 2 1 6- l-1 ..Ae.. 1 4---1 -fi . 7 1! -7------v------1-7 - i: 1 r- L- 1 0 11 p - I. ~ J I J 31 --- 0 -1 1 1 3/69 1 1 L - Â· 66 1 1 l Â£ rHS r.l------, 1 iÂ·L $ '21 9 1 7377+FTEr r : th-M-hit - 4 ,- E.0.-,- 1 eÂ·r ./90.....'...... :4...1 ...77(7777 '01 - 10.93 6 ftÂ») 1 ,/ 9--~-------=--------, 0- 0~= 1 '1 -1 / 1 1 - I 2 7181Â· 13 '0 Iird mr 00 11 1 . . 1. ty 0 1.N = Al il 1 . , 1 1 1 Â¢0 1 - 6 6 00 - 3 =m -- O -- 96 -C 0- --- Z -- - - - f 1 - GREENBERG RESIDENCE CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS 4/ 1, 35 0 {2 iz . , %2 1 2% :91 ~'*12241'tÂ·~,4. F .1 . ibi IiI'.'.1. 4'**11 LOT 15, BLOCK 103 520 EAST HYMAN AVE.* SUITE 301 * ASPEN, CO 81611 * TELE: 970925-5590 * FAX* 970925-5076 Â· *62 042 ASPEN, COLORADO 212Â£*: 220 E. COLORADO AVE. * TELLURIDE. CO 81435 * TELE: 970/728-3738 * FAX: 970728-9567 ...w C*.Gâ‚¬. : ....... :EAR............................... 4-BUILDING ENVELOPE 1\\\ \\ \ \ i 1\ Ill . 1 2:2Â» V GRA VEL PAT# .f; 0 NV-Id 31IS 45 DEG.ANGLE \ i \\ \\ \\ 16%\\\\\~\ TOP OF SLOPE 111111 61 i i i / i i i-Â£71 i i ~ Â«6 litiljll)/ 4-BUILDING ENVELOPE - - i., - - - - \ . 44':1'.i.1.1// ~ g.' ~ Â· JOHN -M. HOWOR+TH P:Â·L. S . 25Â·94'7~ ' .9Â· Â·Â·i'. 74 9 . 1.0 'tri. , f / 14 ./ ....4 - , ~xPARKING / < 1./. r 61..,LE ./. >r 1#41. .i. :p AVEl . ' DEPOSI-ED THIS___-DAY OF___..._-._.__;:....u.-'998. i N Bt,06.-_-_-OF.THEÂ·.' Couto CLFRF '< LAND SURVEY- PLATS'RNal UF WAÂ¥ S JFV'rq. AT PAGE_* :S RECEPHON LAMBER . Â· Â· _- .., THIS Lf'.6 quRA. 9 Af /4-9 ./ --- ---------1-- -- -COMPL 'PE WI- ' Cin T'r.le 7---g -1 AP COLER'-,1 2.-2Â· f<=r. CT.#Tri:C- 'Â·- Â· 9 \ I . 1 - 1 U- J I --SECTION,-12, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH,, RANGE 85'WEET OF Tâ€¢it.. Â·34- : A-\. COUNT Y.. CLERK I AND RECORDER - 4 -- 1915 NX - Al.U'JINLUM'UÂ·~6, EL 7874Â·36 . blÂ» -,IvPROVEMEN-T/*.OPOGRAPHICÂ·-SURVE oF t. AMENDED LOT 15,:F.IRST -AMENDMENT.-:Tb THEÂ·WOGAN LOT SPLIT, Â·06 6:-:own 1 on ine .2!07Â· recorded Decemcrer 10 13-59 In P'u- 000Â·< 26 di or],36 69Â· ' CONTAINING 1 0,220 +/Â·, SQ. F T. .. n i T Â·/ 0.- â€¢ ..or- .Â· 1 ' I LI'- P. 2 11*N , ~ Pl TkiN COUNTY-COLESADO .. 7Â· . PREPARED BY p . / d h 5 PEN S U RVE Y E N O L NE EP S . . -1 N C . 1,1.- 1 e. i OÂ·SOLJTH- G.kENA -ITPEET . Â· 34: .. ....16 a ..0 ASPEN. .COLC.2 ALDO 81.61.1-4.: Â· -Â·--'- ' -- --~ NOT:LE': ACÂ·Â¢#i*)ING TO ClÂ·@PADO VA 73Â·.-Â· MliS' ~9!ME:,CE A~N LECAL 240)lf/.FAX is70 )- 925-38 1 6 A'-<04' bASED 6-5 , ANY DEFECT. iN iFJ FLAT vt:.HIN 'HREE h'FAPS AG TER Â¥09 F 145< 0 1 1:4Â¥fÂ·R .LuCH DEÂ¢ECT. .IN NO EVENT ,!AY ANY ANION BASED UPON ANÂ¥ DEFEC, IN THM R .AT BE .00'ENCED woRE THAN TEN - 11.1 DATE .. Â· JOE '-: 2< jiG- ~~ YEAIM FP.:-1.4 '4E 'DATE 29 -7.iE CEFÂ·NF liA'-ION <HOWN MEREON. THEÂ« 1 , 8.4- 3% :329:A : . CE,iliFICAThhi !5 *D!5) IC NOT *ETÂ·S'Aâ€¢Joip â€¢:Ip TME SE:Â·- Cr THE Â· ' ~' ;m 5 4 Â· - , 5798 i 4.M. , . . --,-11.--*-#i--*9 6- 6: \Prij*:G\974(\btt,2 310: I 7, 169: :4Â·-93 02 7 -- -- ~ ' ' A- - ....."-t. '-:5 0.'~ 1-8~ __-. . ' Â· Â·Â·- Whe. -4 Â·_ I .'I . - C./. Â· 1 9 ,/ i 1 1.% 4 * ; 9 IP \-7.-91 1 Ill 1 7 10 6,''2 31.26 1 Â·-Â· - Â· -Wpqle- - '.1 -k:itff-4. TE - 4 06 -2 '*41 . Â» 3.4. r ./ . I k b. 1 '/ 41. * 6N mÂ» :j: . . '*4, % . V. , " ty# *t 1 2*4/ *f . , O.lk 1 0 e 1 .IR... 41. : t:Â·54* D . D. ,