HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.su.Gordon.19A86
^__~~...:...,..~1It=).;
r"-"".
,..-.....
PROJEct: GO.,J"YI SlJhJiv;j;oYl fUD aM strq"YI-t 1Ij1~ It) R{JvI(frv
APPLICANT'S. REPRBSBH'l'A'l'IVB: St~h fv1_Hi~ f}!1I) T~r., SC!I+-t
REPRESBN'l'ATIVE1S PHONE:
~ A I) q ).flr
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE suMMARY rv\"t~.W/st.~ Pi' '} ~ )~r7
Yv1 t ~ . ~ I T, \'>> A (1' \ \
(} fLV I TA' JoIfl^-
OWNERS NAME: S h.~)hr\ G ()t) ph
v.>d\
1.
2.
3.
has been requested to respond, types of
Policy Area/
Ref~rral Agent
p I il~r1'II\,
Comments
COn({rn~ ovu pUD-r-t'vi'oIJ illV-el1 de51~/1J rn"t~.,;~lf,5it~ (OVfY61f)OptAJp
h-e:~ht) i,Ij'iJ~I'I^"pIJ5Jtt}lJI~IIJsu ;11~, 5 €c;fi<. cDtlc.ntl));.c/vL:
../ .
re'fr!.v,J /; v~1.tt+;A J4 J;t(.~~de\l€I/)pI1\1 ;" tAf rivff-Jilf /11uJow.
fu~~,i"";~t Tll butlJ br) ~ +0 ~ tflil~f
~ ft~d), s~~ 1 rO~Y:i . . I. :
~!I/.~~~;vn 1 (H/lA~'k 5J..d. ftl\~~ / ~ IJrA0f;.'M.I.-J !-,! !;~-,
~~.5'v1'1 ~.~ H.,tJ c,~~ G~J-P'.. >'.>.-1.
bjill-{-!V / Fire JV1P~Il,~j! _ flatt;",.; /AJ~rvi'(rr;,j d-TV.,1\-JH.,IhJ w;J"H~/
~:~w" ~:;{r ~ (~~!o!cblf1.;~;; (PAZ then to CClBOCCI
Public Be.aring: (YES) (lNO) ') r-
_. I b tT (.(1;11 CDt1.t
Did you tell applicant to submit list of ADJACENT PROPBR'!'Yi v - ~ .
OWNERS? (YES) "~. Diac1os.ure of OWnership: (YES) :'~)I' ~:~~':r1fJjI5K
What fee was applicant requested to submit: 18€r~&VJt 10 t{11
IMt~ .
8. Anticipated date of submission: L.:-!.---
9. COMMENTS/UNIQUE CONCERNS': Afplj, tilt ~ Tv k-t< It (N~"Pf.fII~. wHh Pel '1 prio(t~ '"cOI\t;rti/ii\ J j'
+1--.. tJ,pJIL-+;~ ~ '~v~~;it~) vi ~ COY/- k-k I{ li(.~f;oYJ, flVI TI)Jvr.~ 511 e)1~
. t v'
~ ~ ; MT~. wM T/fY1 ~(d1. ~
rl.e I. 1;c,A1";11t1 5~~vIJ~: I. Atpli~/)<.r)) /J. YOI ~ fo\1(tllt~,V1 )I)L). A/'J.aJ,..'(.".T (wk(T Ie Afj()'Ui'l4~t~,
/., CIJ'r. L tvrvl fO(~~ir~.'2. O-IV N ~ IIb""H-d hy tL . 11 Al(t;fj) dr~ it\lJo/Vtl. Wh,.t ,()~j,t!''!'1l1
~ tt- ~ . /.. (/ f (bV".! tf1 {~Ill, ~ 1l-' j", h '/'i/.\ ,IY\., Aq, ~""t":i +e'll~llt f!Y1""'+D 1-hr; rPfP~ t.
1.. v;)u~1 jfIJfld~ to I~SLhU.IJIDlout-{h{. res;;J'pjr.}-?
'3. E ~v'r'n,(\fi.~,\7) i SIN S - fr,uJ f/~r1J j,rdj'''-fdDW) ft,.#o. lt1~U;"GbJI(-(ynL/~V.e\.
'i. lot ./rze.l (Ol(' C;Ii"~H') .
r. Mt)l..FA~'~ "" c.,J~r1 lot... M . r-J
.I.. -I jr .;,l J. Pr.p.t.l),)(lhS;;'
& . S h~w fWfol-4. I )..,) e..,p~ . "'"~j 11.) \ ' I
fJ lhil~1 / 1Jo~J: (, (o>J-,. [I \ / f1r)(f. ...
-
c J7.A 11l>fl'-tj
4.
s.
6.
7.
.~-~-._- ,..-. -- -_..._.~--.._.-.-.--_.__..._>_..~.- -
--- _. ........-.--.-.-..-.---.---...-.--.--
..;&);.-
.~
.~
4-q- ~7
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PROJECT: GrOvi~~1 ~ u'bJilJ;~iDI') Lot ~ ReJuLJiv;')IJ'1
APPLICAtiT'S REPRESBN'l'ATIVE: JT41J fYl..fh;)
REPRESENTATIVE I S PHONE: 0 -" I 'i '3 '/
OWNERS NAME:. S'h~1 4011 ~. orJon
SUMMARY
1. Type of Applic,atioru (D~t1'Tvoll/PreJ;{L4I;f~Vf SllbJiJj~;J''' IfVtJ
2. Describe act.ion/type of. development being requested:
3. Ar.e,as in wbich App1i.cant bas been requested to respond, types of
~eport,s req....estecJ:
policy A.rea/
J~e~er.:ralf\gent ,
Gp_ents
4.
Review is: (P&Z Only)
(CClBOCC Only)
<P'Z then to CC/BOCC)
5.
Public Hearing:
(YES) (NO)
6. Did you tell applicant to submit list of ADJACENT PROPERTY
OWNERS? (YES) (NO) nisclosure of Ownership: (YES) : (NO)
7. What fee was applicant requested to submit:
8. Antic.i,pat.ed date of subm.i.ssion:
9. COMMEtllSIUNIQUf; CONCERNS:, Lj~t 1 Is-sues fOH1/1 A ~l.Jqllq'U Pf2 II/b/iL LfAj/;~l fJ)JJ
tv b, ,tJ,pM-w. svhJ1J-ttJ: AcceSj
>_._ ''''~H''
. -:- ~..-......-.._- _.~- .n_.____.,_y_~_~,.-.__,._ ~.___ .._..____.~.._... .._--:-~~,._~-.-,.-,.~-' -......--..-.'""_.r--__"---_,~"--.:. ".~, ~ 'O_
.~
7
...~.
.~.
DOUG FRANK
2141 EAST HIGHLAND, #115. PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85016
PHONES - HOME: (602) 956-0802 - OFFICE: (602) 955-9690
March 6, 1987
D f"2 ~ ~ Ot\ll ~ rm
..I!~ ~ LE5 \:!.J! t?...n
i r'-. L.:::...,
~ (' I MAR "/987 ,i.!.li.r.'1 d
~~.! d
. I illJi.1 )
L ".' V
-----J
Mr. Alan Richman, Director
City of Aspen Planning Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Mr. Richman:
I reside at 1255 Riverside Drive and my property backs up to the
Gordon Subdivision. This property has been the subject of recent
zoning applications that will have an effect on my property.
Inasmuch as I am out of town a good deal of the time, I would apprec-
iate it if any notices concerning the Gordon Subdivision be sent
to both my address in Aspen and to my address in Phoenix which is
as follows:
Doug Frank
5110 N. 32nd Street, #216
Phoenix, Arizona 85016
consideration..
DEF:clh
cc: Paul J. Taddune, City Attorney
Steve Burstein, City Planner
Robert Murray
..
,....."
r"\
MEMORANDUM
TO:
City Attorney
FROM:
Steve Burstein, Planning Office
RE:
Gordon Subdivision Legal Access
DATE:
February 3, 1987
tk !1\'Vl'A'lJ/
4"e8~J
================================================================
~
Doug Frank questioned the validity of vehicular access to the
Gordon Subdivision through Lots 7 and 8 of the Callahan Subdivi-
sion in his October 1, 1986 letter. This memorandum contains the
Planning Office evaluation of the issue and opinion on how the
problem should be approached.
HISTORY OF SUBDIVISIONS AND ACCESS EASEMENTS: The Callahan
\SUbdivision was approve1 by the City on April 21, 1976. Lots 7
and 8 contain a 30 footw1sewer and water easement along the common
property line; no access easement existed at that time. An
easement was granted from Robert S. Goldsamt to Jack E. Van Horn,
Jr., Jane E. Van Horn and Reuben M. Ginsberg on September 23,
1976 (Book 316, page 961, Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder
records). This easement is referred to as a "Sewer Easement
Across the Van Horn Tract". Granted is "a non-exclusive perpetu-
al easement for ingress and egress and underground utili ties
only, over, across, in, through and under a strip of land 30 feet
in width across a portion of Lots 7 and 8..., Callahan Subdivi-
sion Pitkin County, Colorado, more particularly defined and
described in the attached Exhibit A..." Robert S. Goldsamt,
Fabienne Benedict and Fredric A. Benedict signed the Callahan
Subdivision plat as the owners of the property.
The Gordon Subdivision was approved by the City on _ 1979.
Access to Lot 2 was as described above. Access to Lot 1 was
based on another access easement through pr ivate property (Mock'
309, Page 165). 8001<
In a memorandum on conceptual subdivision/PUD review dated
November 28, 1978 from City Engineer Dave Ellis, the issue of
easements and access was generally discussed. Ellis wrote
".. .from reviews of earlier (Gordon development) proposals, we
would anticipate that there are no significant problems with any
of these easements, and the engineering department recommends
conceptual approval at this time." No follow up on the status of
access easements is evident in the file, and final plat approval
was recommended by both the City Engineer and Planning Office.
\~ ~seqUentlya-single family house was built on Gordon Subdivi-
sion Lot 1. Two separate GMP applications were submitted on
December 1, 1983 and December 1, 1984 for residential development
of Lot 2. Both were approved. The GMP allocation for the former
I""""-.
~.,
project has since expired, while the latter continues to be a
viable project.
Finally in August, 1986 Sheldon Gordon requested conceptual and
preliminary subdivision approval to build 2 single family homes
on Gordon Subdivision Lot 2. This project involved neither of
the priorGMP applications, but instead proposed use of the so-
called "Lipkin TDR's" to develop the site. P&Z tabled action on
August 19, 1986 due in large part to uncertainty over the
legality of access.
~ \),(1 \
..~. The problem of private easement conveyance is nonetheless very
'\.~"" trOublesome. Section 20-5Ccl Prohibited conveya,nces states "No
~y..iv, lot or parcel of land, nor any interest there in, shall be trans-
~~ ~ ferred, conveyed, sOld" subdivided or acquired ei ther in whole or
~ ~"'nl~ in' part, so as to create a new nonconforming use or to avoid or
t>\'t.t\ circumvent or subvert any provision of this chapter." It appears
that the Goldsamt/Van Horn granting of easement was indeed a
conveyance effecting Lots 7 and 8. The 30' road easement effects
the developable area of the lot and sideyard set backs, as well
as to create a use of Crystal Lake Road not anticipated in the
Callahan Subdivision approval. An amendment to the Callahan
Subdivision plat conveying this easement should be reviewed prior
to or in conjunction with any other city reviews of resubdividing
Gordon Subdivision Lot 2.
ISSUES: The private granting of access through the approved
Callahan Subdivision/PUD was utilized for four City approvals:
the original Gordon Subdivision, 2 GMP applications, and concept-
ual review of the 1984 GMP resubdivision. There appears to be
some degree of reliance on the ability to use the accesses
described for development of the Gordon property. The City
Subdivision regulations do not set out specific submission
requirements or review criteria for access to proposed subdivi-
sions. See Section 20-l2(h), preliminary plat contents.
I would be very interested if there is any case law that pertains
to this issue. Doug Frank argues that the Gordon Subdivision
should be considered illegal because of the problem. I am sure a
lawsuit would result if the City took that position, and I do not
know of any precedent in City action for declaring an 8 year old
subdivision illegal because of roads. It seems preferable to try
to undertake simultaneous reviews for an amendment to the
Callahan Subdivision (for access through Lots 7 and 8 or for
another access that the applicants are working on) and resubdivi-
sion of Gordon Subdivision Lot 2.
-5~ . There is another problem- with the access to Gordon's property. A
)~~ -7 ft. wide hiatus exists between Gordon's property and the
/'>"'.shPvIv( Callahan Subdivision which must be crossed by the proposed
l:.v?.$u~"":/....I>I1 driveway. I was told that the- owner, Fritz Benedict, will not
'~ihI;.~ approve an easement across this property.
~
,~\
SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends that the applicant be
required to submit an amendment to the Callahan Subdivision/PUD
for access through Lots 7 and 8 or any other access through this
subdivision along with any request for further review of resub-
dividing the Gordon Subdivision. The applicant must also resolve
access across the Benedict hiatus. No building permit should be
issued for development on Gordon Subdivision Lot 2 until these
access issues are resolved.
sb. 3 4 .1
-!
1"".
130
asp
','r'\
PEN
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 3, 1986
TO~, .Planni:M"Qf€!,aa
-fit~':';i'" :>'?"';~~(::S_::f-W -::Y::':!;~:::5:):>t'X~: _ _. ;,':;.: -'.- :.: ~-~i'-":,-,<~, ,.".,,: .
'", Ehgineering Department
FROM: City Attorney
RE: Gordon Subdivision
,,'. ,.-.,.."'....\.h"..",.,>"';,~, ".'
....... - -- .~-
NOV
:i j98Q; ; I
-- ..J~
Please comment on the attached letter from Doug Frank regarding
the above matter.
PJT/mc
Attachment
.",.....,
I~
MEIIORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Steve Burstein, Planning Office
Gordon Property Lot 2 Subdivision Public Hearing
Parcel IDi 2737-181-00-021
RE :
DATE :
October 7, 1986
================================================================
This applicants have requested that you table this case at this
time in order to allow them time to make revisions to the
submission. The Planning Office recommends that you table this
case to a date certain of November 4, 1986.
SB.17
1
~
\
1"',.
r\
~
,
DOUG FRANK
2141 EAST HIGHLAND.lt1l5. PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85016
PHONES - HOME. (602) 95600802. - OFFICE. (602) 9155-9690
;')r"T
\..?v
Rt)
-.I : \tct
Octaber 1, 1986
Paul Taddune
Attarney, City af Aspen
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Paul:
The enclased letter which was written priar to. the appraval af the
Gordan Subdivisian would seem to. indicate that Gordan's attarneyand
athers knew that the easezrent between Lots 7 & 8 could nQt be used far
access to. the praposed SUbdivi.sion~
I daubt that the city was informed' of Gordon's knowledge at the t.irre
af the granting. of this appraval. As the writer af the enclosed letter
indicates, "If a. vehicular easement was . envisianed, . it should have
been dedicated at the time that the Callanan Subdivisian Plat was
filed; ,I haven't the authority to. alter that POD."
I think it is abviaus to ane and all that the Gordon Subdivisian is
illegal inasmuch as the premises upon which it was. based, w,ere not
valid.
It is incumbent upon the city to revoke the Subdivision at this t.irre
Gordon reapply if he . can rreet the proper requirezrents
DEF:clh
Enclasure
cc: Stephen Burstein, Planner
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
.""....."
~; .
September 24, 1986
TO:: THE ASPEN PLANNING & ZOINGCOMMISSION
Welton Anderson, Chairman
Ramona Markalunas Roger Hunt
Al Bloomquist David White
Jasmine Tygre . Mari Peyton
Jim Columbo
FROM:. Bob Murray
1275 Riverside Drive
925-8793 home 920-2268 office
On August 19th I met with you re:: the Sheldon Gordon plans
;for subdividing prope1::y adja.cent to the Riverside SUbdivision.
At that time, Stan Mathis, Mr. Gordon's representative, advised
your panel :that he' wished a decision that date in preference
to the topic being tabled.
Wh~n your panel denied by vote the Gordon plans, Mr. Mathis
asked that you table the topic.
The next meeting when this topic was to have been discussed
wasacheduled for Tuesday, October 7th.
I- rearranged leave plans to ensure that I' would be present
on October 7th.' I also requested that I be included in any
site examinations which Mr. Mathis would conduct for the
Planning & ZOIing Commission.
Today I l~arned that Mr'. Gordon's revised plans are not yet
completed and that the October 7th discussion has been post-
.poned until November 4th. '
Having rearragned my plans to be present October 7th, I cannot
pe present on November 4th.
It seems unfair advantage is being gained by Mr. Gordon
.and Mr. Mathis in changing their request from a decision
on August '19th to atab1~ -- and. then to have extended time
to revise their plans making , it. impossible for me to
Present my point 'of view on November 4th. -b~l!fyV'\I.Lj
I would greatly appreciate YOUr postponing discussion on
this topic until I will be able to represent myself.
(} lit.... , ' .
.,.., I ++).. J111 lI1~-Ihl~
of Xf'-()) rI. ,.F.h TO i;! Iv, J ,,) ,
Many thanks for your consideration.
,;;,,.;
, 0 '('J Liff 1 .
'. l(fhi,,,Ft .'. rt
- J,;V"lti 'v ,rr.~i.h' '..t l'tt l-j
. , ,.' fd7. fx'~;"J ",,'IV\)
h lm '/} - c.v OJ) ~ ')-h~
I"" ,
1"""'\
Aspen/Pit
130 s
ing Office
September 22, 1986
Mr. Doug Frank
2141 E. Highland, #115
Pheonix, AZ 85016
Dear Doug,
In response to your September 16, 1986 letter, I have the
following comments:
1. I confirm your understanding that there is no access
easement on the east side of Gordon Subdivision Lot 1. The
Gordon Subdivision Plat, filed with the Pitkin County Clerk
and Recorder, Book 15 at Page 25, and given City of Aspen
approval as shown by the signature of the Mayor of Aspen on
August 8,1983, is the current plat of record for this
property. This plat shows .a 30 foot wide General utility
Easement along the eastern border of Lot 1~"... distinguished
from the 300 foot wide "Access and General Util ity Easement"
along the eastern border of Lot 2.
2. The current case under consideration, Gordon Subdivision,
has been tabled and rescheduled before the Planning and
Zoning Commission on November 4, 1986 at the request of the
applicant. The applicant is redesigning portions of the
proj ect and has not yet submi tted the new appl ication. If
there is any change in the November 4 meeting date, the
Planning Office will call you at your Phoenix Office.
Sincerely,
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
.~ te to (0~w~~'\
Steve Burstein, Planner
SB: jl r
- ,~
~
~
"
DOUG FRANK
2141 EAST HIGHLAND. #115. PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85016
PHONES - HOME: (602) 956-0802 - OFFICE: (602) 955-9600
September 16, 1986
Stephen Burstein, Planner
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 So. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Steve:
I would appreciate it if you would advise me of the date and time that the
Zoning Commission will have its meeting at the Gordon Property to examine
the new proposal. I would like to attend that meeting and will need a few
days notice inasmuch as I will be in Phoenix during that time.
Stan Mathis stated at the hearing that there is no ingress and egress
easement on Lot 1 on the east side as there is on Lot 2 of the Gordon
Subdivision. You confirmed this fact to me when I spoke to you recently
and indic~ted that you would send a letter to that effect. 1 would
appreciate it if I could receive that at your convenience.
I have also brought up the point at the meeting with you and the City
Attorney, as well as at the zoning hearing, that I felt that the Gordon
Subdivision was not a legal subdivision inasmuch as it had been approved
by the City with the understanding that there was legal access. They
certainly would not have granted the subdivision approval if they were
aware that the access was not legal.
The designation of "Roads for the private use of the owners" in the
subdivision plat of the Callahan Subdivision clearly indicates that this
could not be used for~ublic streets to other subdivisions. In addition,
the error has been compounded because the private granting of the access
easement between two lots in the Callahan Subdivision to the Gordon
Subdi vi si on without a publ i c heari ng also creates ill ega 1 access. If
there was to be an amended road plan in the Callahan Subdivision, a
public hearing would have been requi~ed for citizen inputs on the impact
to the neighborhood. '
I believe that under the circumstances itis incumbent upon the City to
rectify this problem before it is compounded by any further construction
on,the property, and the subdivision should be declared illegal. If
Mr. Gordon wishes to reapply he may do so and the citizens of the communty
1""'\
~.
will have an opportunity to determine the direction of the road systems in
the area, rather than having them bootlegged behind the backs of the
City P1 anners.
consideration.
DEF:cmm
cc: Walter Anderson
Chairman, Planning & Zoning Commission
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Paul J. Taddune, City Attorney
130 So. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Robert Murray
1275 Riverside Drive
Aspen, Colorado 81611
"'!
Lf,CHH;RS.
NGIfJ~ERS
:0:< 40
.SPEN 81611
:OlOP,^OO
303) 925-3481
~~
/"'.,
C G f Y ~..
FITZHUGH. SCOTT III, ATTORNEY AT LAVI
117 SOUTH SPRING STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
RE: G~ROON EASEMENT
DEAR TAtA:
FRITZ ASKED PAT MAOOALONE AND ME TO CONSIDER
THE PROPOSAL FOR AN (f.SEME-t-,T FOR THE GORDON SU8-
o I V I S I () N. ( PAT t.N 0 1ft R:.t E R L Y 0 VIII EDT H E If C ;\ L L A HAt.' "
SUBOIVIS10N WIT~'fR1TZ).
~..-'.,..." .
FR~M ~ LEGAL STAnOF01KT, PAT AND I ARE MOST RELUC-
T A to! T T 0 5 I G NAN Y DOC U :.... E N T VlH I C H \'lO U LOG RAN TAN E A S E MEN T
OVER ~CTS SEVEN AND EIGHT AND UAY ALSO CHANGE THE
CHARACTER trf TKAT ~ART O~ THE CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION.
Ir A VEHiCULAR EASE~:ENT WAS ENYISIO"JED, .IT SHOULD HAVE
. -'-",
B E .EN DE 0 I CAT E 0 AT T Ii E T I r.-: E T HAT THE C ALL A H At: S U 6 o. P L A T
W A sr I LED; I H A V E NIT THE A U HIO R I T Y TO ALTER T I-r A' T P U;:; ·
fROM ANOTHER VIEWPOUH AlTCGETHER, I CANNOT COtlSIDER
ENCOURJ..G I NG A RI GHlor WAY WH I CHM I GHT PROVE 0 IS TURa I NG TO
OUR OLD FRIE~D AND NE1GH80UR, &08 MURRAY.
I. A'.~ SO SORRY AeOUT THIS, TAM; I USUALLY TRY TO CO-
OPERATE .\'IITH NEIGHaOURING LAND OWNERS.
SINCERELY Y':'URS,
+~7,~
SEPT. 4/86
fAstENHE BENEDtCT
.
~,
~'
,~
-~
U f ~ \1'
,-~
-{,
RECORD- OF PROCEEDINGS
REGULAR MB-BTI-NG- PLANHINGAND ZONING CO-lBSION ADGUS'? 19. 1986
Chairman Welton Anderson called the meeting to order at 5: 03 PM
with Commissioners Mari Peyton, Roger Hunt, Jasmine Tygre, Al
Blomquist (arrived late), and Ramona Markalunas (arrived late)
present.
COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS
Hunt commented that he was happy to be holding this meeting in
the old City Council Chambers (on the second floor of City Hall)
and that he felt it was a more appropriate meeting space for this
Commission.
MINUTBS
AUQust5. . 1986:
Hunt moved to approve the minutes of August 5, 1986; Peyton
seconded. All in favor; motion carried.
PUBLIC BEARING
GORDONCONCEP'.rUAL 'SUBDIVISlON
Steve Burstein, planner, explained the applicants request. He
explained that the applicant had been given prior approval for
the lot split creating the Gordon SUbdivision Lots 1 and 2 giving
the applicant the right to build one single family home on Lot
2. One development right has been purchased from Pitkin Limited
for the new lot to be created.
Anderson commented that parcel #2 was originally approved for 3
duplexes and is now going through the process again for 2 single
family dwell ings. Burstein added that a development right had
been bought, therefore, the applicant does not have to compete
for aGMP allocation. Hunt asked how many single lot splits an
applicant could apply for. Burstein replied one. Hunt 'then
asked if this property was a result of a previous lot split.
Burstein showed the original lot split plan explaining the
applicant had purchased a development right, exempting them from
the GMP process.
Burstein explained the access to the property, outlining it on a
map. He explained that there would be neighboring properties
that may be effected by this access. Additionally, a number of
trees will have to be removed.
Burst.ein reviewed other concerns relating to the proposal
1
,""""
~
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
REGULAR-MEETING PLANNING AND.' ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 19" 1986
(Outlined in the Planning Office memorandum dated August 14,
1986). A Stream Margin review will be required, but would be
more appropriate when more definite building plans are complete.
Burstein said the Planning Office recommends approval subject to
l7.co-n'(iiftio-ns, outl ined in the PI anning Off ice memo dated Aug .14,
1986.
Stan Mathis, project architect, gave the Commissioners a brief
history of the previous lot split. Mr. Mathis explained that the
driveway/access could not be a loop road, as suggested, because
they have no easement past their lot line. Mr. Mathis also
remarked that he had been contact~cI. b}1 then~iQ~bors and agreed
to fence off.711~..~9.c.e~s road with ev'e'r:gr.ee'ntrees and stack the
off streetpark.irtg< in a garage, to help in mitiQ~ting their
problems. The Building Departm~I'l7 has said theaiceessr:Octd~a.Y
could be narrowed from the16',}'fee"tr shown on the plans to 12 feet
in width. ,', . Mr. . Mathis said they would also agree to lp.eipl'acea.nd
relocate>alltr:ees disturbed for the access road.
Mr. Mathis said they could agree to all of the approval
conditions, with the exception ofi1*li which they could not agree
to because of a condition of sale when the property was purchase-
d. Blomquist asked what caused the access road to be placed in
its proposed location. Mr. Mathis replied that it was a conditi-
on of the sale, with Mr. Enloe, that there WOUldl)~'I'lo'i~a,~ement
across his property. Blomquist commented if the road' height was
lo-we:r:ed' about 2 feet then there would be no impact with headligh-
ts on the neighboring properties. Mr. Mathis said they would
look into that possibility but he was unsure of the elevation of
the sewer in that area.
The issue of the trail alignment in relation to the property was
discussed. Blomquist suggested adding to approval condition <t4
that "the applicant willco-,1;l..,s'tI"t.l.9-'ta briSi,ge', as shown, sufficient
to accommodate the Piston Bu1ley".
Anderson opened the public hearing.
Bob Murray, neighboring property owner, showed pictures of his ....
property in relation to the proposed development area. Mr. Murr-
ay said his was the oldest house in the area and gave a brief
history of the area. He explained that the impact to his house
was not only the headlights of the oncoming vehicles but rather
the closeness of those vehicles to his door. Additionally, it
will block all of the views from Mr. Murray's house, toward Aspen
Mountain.
2
)
^,
~
r"'"'"'
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
REGULAR HEftING PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AOGOS'l' 19. 1986
Doug Frank , neighboring property <'>\'In.e~'fl,aig,t;~~,~rea in discuss-
ion is an important part of t:he~<Aspeniforest and should be
planned with great sensitiv ity. The property is highly visible.
Mr. Frank thought this proposal was not good planning, us ing a
maximum amount?fpaY'~.l1C3' ,t;~ke s out most of the +pr'~9t area,
creates S'P;'I!a:.w;SJbin,gs:ing'le<sitratc;p:u,re,13. without utilizing the
advantage of the terrain, and creates a street instead of a
forest area behind the neighboring houses. Mr. Frank said the
plat presented, showing the wooded area, misrepresents the extent
of that area in that the area is much larger than shown on the plat
3
~
~,
Frank told the Commission the trees average 15 to 20 feet high
and are not small trees. In 1983, the applicant was granted a
subdivision creating two lots, and the approval was state it was
a one time only approval for a house on lot 1 and a new single
family residence on lot 2. Frank told P & Z in 1985 the
applicant made another request, which was not granted a tpublic
hearing and the neighbors were not notified. Frank said the
applicant cannot develop two houses without destroying the forest
area and he should not be granted approval. Frank contended the
applicant has not shown the Commission what development would be
most suitable for the land. Frank said if this request is
granted, the applicant will be back asking for more lot splits
and density.
Frank showed slides of the area in consideration, the surrounding
area, and the access to the site. Frank pointed out it is
possible the Gordon subd~visionis not a legal subdivision
l:>7cCi.tlse the.fa.<?~.EI,~h7Sity relied upon were not accurate. The
C'alJ:ahScl'Jlcismb<i'ivJ:si6nroa'ois are reserved on the pI at for the
private use of the owners of that subdivision and this road
cannot be used as access to the Gordon subdivision. Frank
submitted a petition from residents in the area stating these
plans for development would be detrimental to the surrounding
neighborhood and to the environment....~~Cl~~sa~;Cll1e. feels the
.Cil?P.~ii?ant has failed to show '. ~h7"~,1~~k1o':Eiadverse effect of the
proposed.d:evei.:J.tE.)'P!'Jl~i];lt.~asiregiuiired 'oy'the@0de., . that this request
should be denied. Frank showed, if the plan should be approved,
where better access could be gained with half the pavement and
not devastate the entire forest area. Frank said the proposed
building envelopes are large and sprawled allover. Frank said
the appl icant should be will ing to abandon any easements not
used.
Taddune said the issue should be addressed and from a planning
perspective this is where it should be accessed. Taddune said if
the project is going to proceed, it should proceed well planned
and as harm~lli~,.usas possible ..A.lld7~~~~, asked what could be done
about the easementsi~t.~eem,ll;~t'sii1kaJ!ld:8;~ but something can be
done about readjusting access within the property that is under
review by P & Z. Taddune asked the appl icant if they would
abandon certain easements to an assurance to the city. Scott
told the Commission that Gordon has nothing to say about lot 1,
which belongs to Enloe. Stan Mathis noted part of the concern is
the thought of further development. The planning, oftic;e,ha.s
asked for a deed restriction for this to be priivatelzymaintained
open'space" for the benefit of the city, and Gordon has agreed to
that. Mathis pointed out at the time this lot split was
approved, no public notice was required.
Anderson closed the public hearing.
1""""-,
.~
.
Blomquist said he is in favor of this application. Ms.
Markalunas said she is not in favor. Anderson explained the
first lot split split off the Enloe house west of this parcel.
Then there was a GMP competi tion and development rights were
granted to 3 duplexes. Anderson questioned how an applicant
could convert aGMP allocation into another lot split. Ms.
Peyton asked how many times an owner could split a lot. Anderson
answered normally only once .....'I'addune explain about Pitkin
Reserve, is this n~c:essary:?.;Ht.t'll:~'{0~e-idh~is.\\,ofrJedabout the
hist;:()!rY'i()~:>i~l1~'aceess'" to'."..tHisproperty .'..aml:woulcr 'l,ike ..:.to,. .se,e,'past~
Pi&iZmi'n.utces. Ms. Tygre said she is uncomfortable with the
situation. It could be true theapplic~ll:t >c:()u~~., condemn access
to, a public road, it~:h()'\l:L8?9(;8.().~~:w;i.1t'h,-eneapproval,."of...<?1the.r
tnemb'er;s.Q~,.1:;.h.e~'\ltlcl.tvisd3on. 'Ms. Tygre said she does not feel the
design of the access is the best for this property and would not
like to see it build they was it is shown. Anderson said he does
not feel the access is as. ~.(;Rst~.ive as it co.ul~ be...ARde:r:sQ.~
~.Clid..'.h~:>~~;~f:L~;,...,1:;.h~",l;:tl99;e;s;t:i~ll:)9~:e:~~;~;~~;~ll:<Jt'~o.t'h... .houses' .....wi~h. one
ro.aGl'<i,sve:r:ywori'thw;hdil'e:~ <AI so'mov"lngtf'1:ehot:lse..downthe' "'hi II'. is
agoodisuggest'J.'on. Anderson said he feels the subdivision should
be denied. The concern~. ,~~:pressed at, the meeting could be looked
at, and add re s.,~ed. AJla:'~'~'o~..'.req1l7.~.;t;::;~,?the,..~omnt.i$s.,.to.~,..,... .g~.t ..". . mp.re
'ba~~~:f:()u~d em ,"bl:ld;s~:B~:Lica:tioFl. . j.Mat;11i~i~~~!~~:t-e(}>?sta'ffse;t"...upa
siteiiv:isit..,..,for 1:;.:l1ec;.ommiS!<$:i;<::>'Iil,' .,..a.n-.cl.i.;{l1;~>~.j;cl.ll;..,...is."ta;k,.-e..,....the .'.... bu il(}ing
'eRvelope,s. . ,
Hunt moved to table this appl ication to October 7; seconded by
Blomquist. Roll call vote; Ms. Tygre, yes; Hunt, yes; Ms.
Peyton, yes; Ms. Markalunas, yes; Blomquist, yes; Anderson, yes.
Motion carried.
.
-
~
- -'
I
I
I
Stan~athls
Architecture and Planning
STISUE-Bt3J2:S-rr;;I!'<l.
-
.
T~ IJlffY)l?>EI2~ A.eE WHAT
I ",,,mE w" WITH AFTEe..
RE.L-/lcc:..K./u0 THE PIZEVIOUS.
FlfrUl2.es. PlZOVI DEO BY
So-lHEU$E1<-, C-.oI2Do...I, HE.YEe.
t:..N6'It-..lELeS, H'....E A/2t
u.H'THIN 1'(0 OF- THEles. IH\"'Y
ARE /3f!SED e>i0 A Z'
COI0~Je.. /I0TtJe.v4L. FROM AU
~1O"'-IAL 5urevE'r. 1ME' FL=-
PL"'I'-' IS F",om THE'. MOST
RlSc..EkJT ~ll)y THAJ" THE
en'" EI0&lu~kJ6- OFF/C-E
$LlPPU E.O mE' lAST ~JQ.IA..J&_
CARRY
....,_ l- .'
i-
,~
.~
'i!~ [3 / I '5 f
if; 6rc:J12-DO!\J PRDPeJe]~y
2- ~ L€:3 z A~ ~_. C; '5 0 1 B r:p
TOTAL-
-
-
-. Pf:2RC.;c;'f_, 1.-:::
II 2-;;;'
~'... .......... ....) r;;:;.) .,:>.... "j~
(;..,., ~....'" -- ~ ~ VI
L~ ?B~ rp
9 'So ~4'8
I 'l, ? 6 3-
-
6 Z' Co(,? '5
~.s OCt 4 '0 ~
? -( -j ~..h
:) \ J--L._.~,- ~.t'
.,..J.'____""',..;......-
BZ~0S
s_G:,._z~~_~_ '
'7;?J7CJ3
'i 5/9 tf B
L-s, 1t.J.~L,...QQD P L..-t\ JJU..
($ '~I_]JiE.- e.l\l.~Je,
2:1 ole
I -:2. cJ 0
- ......;; /1
1 oc;://o
rfi
1&0 I< ru eJe..
l~-"'O.' ,f?l," ~,.,.....',^- a"
t-.". ",'I'- f':'T"\ s;;......
- -
CA'L-"-S
,'""." '_.
e I~-Aec- t L,'
& I( "z..
~..t 01" ./>..L
~ [;bJ2)E-~lCboLu U:::>
b '( r:~rl:f2.-L 'CJG
i;
AJ
1. .
,r
,,,,,.......
(~
y~~
Pf-\ 12. C-oL \ - 5~",.,4,,_:t:>5 ~
..
LE$S_. ,5-307$ JJ.JRI.0ee._. - 5307
uS__Q_~ -~!lS_
- ...d:h.-_,_,_---:,__,;_ C'--"-' ..'._
!:SePt 4 D
L[;56Af3C6 ..t{J -@Plt~~E(' j
"'/0 '$<-OPG- $<i( Fr. " C>~^L.,.(""Ou!~Q
?5> PC-A (.....t....(:)f.",.J.,.>r;::.:12__:
6- 2..0 3cloe:>j IW-
ZP -?o
5J 0'6
29
Z~
~o - 40 4 7 I 3
4 0 .,.. Z. I '2.. 1
t=Af2- P-A t2.GE::l- t
4'G 7~ 2.. t:l1, I I
.0
4'Z1?Z~
_3C{QQJ.. --- --------
1..... ?,?2__.._ '
I 1 78
-
-
_ 4 ~<:.:) 9J~ .
1'S001
-
q
'2. 7 7 c, I ..; 100: Z 7 7 y... G, =- _I ~ G::, '2.. ~
G 0 ~ 1.::c\2.., } CO ~ A\~(::frL lor- A,QEA ~ \ ~ Z- r.p
AL.-LOWA-.BLE.' _F~~_..u~~
I
..,
~ \ ~ ~W
,/
" ..
,~
,~
.l~
P A.;g(~~Gl- 2-
....-4J1 ~
L-&,;;..;.. '797 ~ c:/J
~~7.43 ".~.....~m.._.'_
I ~ R 1\) C;12. - 7" 7.Cc,. ._,.........,._
----...
..h. ._.__......_._.,~_. L .1..1....] ... ,QJ_._;,____..~----
....-
....
3/117 U:S>G:'f\Y2:L6 "tP,~. Pf\~~ 'Z
~k z; c..o P~;::;Q, ;::: r. ~k ' A(..(...QU.,Jet;;;L
~R.F7. Ei~k~~J;;2_
~,,'2...,~ """ ~
2..0 4 Z
l 2.~,
0-2-0 Z 'Z ?~~ 10'"
U>-~:,o 4o'1~ 50
'3Q - -1. 0 z.. q OS '2...?
40 i' "2.. ? 5 ~ (f)
-
t. ~ I '3 '1 l7-?
I=-I\.R... PA K~e.: L
...
Z. 5:)1; ~ ~
1600 I
I O{ "~B -;'
2-
::::..
4'500
~.
.
@ Co '~lj
100 - lO! r.,~: 00 Co
~
APD1l- tOO 1\1 5 / 0 Co P
AL-L..Dw8J~L-~: F'LCXJJc." ~l?'l;i~iA ..
510 G q;
\"/el2-
: ;
~1
.~'
.:f
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Steve Burstein, Planning Office
Gordon Property Lot 2 Subdivision Public Hearing
Parcel IDi 2737-181-00-021
FROM:
RE:
DA TE :
August 14, 1986
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
Loc&TION: Lot 2 Gordon Subdivision, City of Aspen, accessed off
Crystal Lake Road' and Riverside Drive, bordered by the Roaring
Fork River on the south and east'!
ZONING: R-15 (PUD)
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The Appl icant req uests co ncept ual and
preliminary- subdivision approval (excepting the Applicant .frOm
the conceptual steps due to the insubstantial size of the
development )to build two (2) singl e~f amily homes on a 2.187 acre
site. Prior approval for the lot split creating Gordon Subdivi-
sion Lots 1 and 2 gave the applicant the right to build one (1)
single-family home on Lot 2,! One development right has been
purchased from Pitkin Limi ted for the new lot to 'be created.
BACKGROURD: On August 15, 1983, City Council granted to Sheldon
W'! Gordon an exception from the full subdivision process and an
exemption from the Growth Management Qoota System to split his
property into two (2) lots,!
Subsequently, the Applicant participated in the GMP competition
in 1983 and 1984, for addi tional development of Gordon Subdivi-
sion Lot 2'! In February, 1984, Council granted allotment through
Resol ution 84-7 for the development of three (3) duplexes on the
property, consisting of three 3-bedroom free market units and
three I-bedroom employee units,!
The Appl icant submitted a second residential growth management
application on December 1, 1984, for Gordon Subdivision Lot 2
merged with six (6) lots of the Callahan Subdivision. This
application called for three (3) free-market units on the Gordon
property and six free market units in the Callahan Subdivision
and was also approved.
For purJ.X>ses of this review, both GMP proposals are defunct'! The
Applicant is using one (1) free-market development right assigned
by Pitkin Limited on April 23, 1986 to Sheldon W. Gordon to
1
'v
.~.
,~,
accomplish this two (2) lot free-market subdivision.
The site consists of four (4) physical sub-areas: (l)a plateau
on the same approximate level as the Aspen Club parking lot, on
the western edge of which runs the Riverside Irrigation Ditch;
(2) hillside area with slopes up to 40 percent sloping toward the
river; (3) plateau area directly adjacent to the river; and (4)
steep river bank in the southwest corner of the land. There are
presently several areas of thick brush and aspen groves.
APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE MDNICIP.&L CODE: The Applicant has
requested that this application be handled as a subdivision
exceptiOn utilizing the preliminary subdivision/PUD review
criteria for P&Z and the finalsUbdivision/PUD review criteria
for Council, because so many aspects of the proj ect have al ready
been reviewed in prior applications~ The Planning Office has
wor kedw i tH the Appl icant to obtain a submittal sufficient in
detail for preliminary review~
Procedures and contents of preliminary subdivision plat submittal
are set in Sections 20-11 and 20-12 of the Municipal Code~ It is
the responsibil ity of th e Appl icant to "show the reasonabl eness
of (his) application and plan, its conformity to the design
requirements of this Chapter, th e lack of adverse effect of the
proposed development, and the compliance with the intents and
purp:.>ses of this (Subdivision) Chapter, n according to Section 20-
6 ~ Planning Commission responsibilities for review are stated in
Section 20-9(b) and (c), as follows:
n (b) The PI anning Commiss ion may deem land premature for
subdivision when subdivision approval would create
growth patterns of such physical form and size that
governmental inefficiencies, duplication of facili ties
and unnecessary public costs and financial burdens may
result from providing the extension of public services,
and planned support facilities cannot be accomplished
in a planned, ordered or efficient manner~
(c) No Subdivision of land shall be approved which includes
el ements not in conformance wi th the provisions of any
appl icabl e zoning ordinance or other ordinance of the
City of Aspen or law or regulation of the State of
Colorado . ~ ~ "
Because the Gordon Property is designated mandatory planned unit
development, the development is also subject to the requirements
of Section 24-8 of the Municipal Code~ While most of the
submittal requirements and review criteria are parallel to
subdivision, there are several areas of concern in the PUD
regulations pertinent to this project review~ ArChitecture,
landscaping and design features must be addressed in the prel i-
minary plan, according to Section 24-8 ~ 9 ~ In addi tion, reduction
2
,""""
^,
in density for slope consideration must be calculated, as
provided for in Section 24-8.l8~
PROBLEM DISCUSSION:
A, Referral Agency CoDlDlents - The following comments were
received regarding this applica tion~
1, Engineering Department - Major ooncerns stated in Chuck
Roth's August 11, 1986 memorandum include:
a. Water rights issues (regarding the Riverside Di tch
that traverses the property and City of Aspen
municipal water) should be addressed by the City
Attorney~
b~ All waterline work must be done in acoordance with
Ci ty waterline specifications~
c~ All util ities should be underground, as was a
oondition of previous approval.
"
d~ The Appl icant should continue to agree to jOin
improvement districts ~
e~ Slope reduction and land under water calculations
should be corrected~
f~ Stream Margin Review must be approved prior to
issuance of a building permit for structures
within 100 feet of the high water line or within a
flood hazard area~
g~ Any modification to the Riverside Ditch or ditch
easements should be approved by the Ditch Company
and such agreements submitted to the Ci ty Engi-
neering Department for acceptance~
2, Water Department - Jim Markalunas stated in a July 10,
1986, memorandum, that he had no further comments~ In
a memo dated December 13, 1985, Mr~ Markalunas stated
that the looping of the water main (still proposed)
will improve reliability of service and upgrade the
existing neighborhood distribution system~
3, Aspen Consolida,ted Sanitation District - In a message
from Heiko Kuhn, it- is noted that the eight (8) inch
oollection line oontemplated must be built according to
District specifications~
4, City Attorney - On August 13, 1986, the City Attorney
stated that the Applicant shall show proof that the
3
~.
i~
conditions of the Access and Utilities Easement across
Callahan Subdivision Lots 7 and 8, made between Robert
S~ Goldsamt and Jack E~ and Jane E~ Van Horn, have been
met, therefore making the easement still valid~ In
particular, Condition No~ 7 of the September 20, 1976
agreement calls for construction of a 22 foot wide
strip of paving by September 1,1978, or else the
easement lapses~ If the Applicant does not have this
easement or a renewed easement, there appe.ars to be no
access which exists to the property ~
S'! Fire Marsha11 - In a memorandum dated August 13, 1986
from Jim Wilson, it is pointed out that the fire access
is inconsistent with minimum fire department access~
Al ternative me tho ds of fire protection, including fire
sprinkled houses should be explored~
Jim Wilson verbally stated that the proposed driveway
width of 16 feet should not be reduced for 'reasons of
emergency access~ In addition, the proposed connection
between Crystal Lake Road, Centennial Circle and
Riverside Avenue is not necessary for emergency access~
B,! PLARRING OFFICE CODENTS: In addition to the above comments
from referral agencies, the Planning Office has the fOllow-
ing comments:
l~ Many of the cx>nditions of approval made by City Council
during conceptual sUbdivision/PUD review on July 8,
1985, are still appl icabl e~ They have been carried
forward in our recommended condi tions of approval for
this application.
2~ The Crystal Lake Road - Riverside Avenue loop could
potentially cause a great deal of traffic from and to
the Aspen Club through a residential area~ This
traffic should be confined to the Aspen Club property
and not routed through the neighborhood~ The Appli-
cant's architect, Stan Mathis, has verbally suggested a
gate system to limit traffic to the use of the resi-
dents of this project and the Gordon Subdivision Lot 1
resident. We have not yet received a specific propos-
al, but anticipate that one will be presented at the
P&Z meeting~ It appears that there is no need for the
loop as Lot 1 already has access, and the Fire Marshall
has not required the loop as necessary emergency
access~ In the interest of minimiz ing pavement and
potential traff ic, we recommend that the drive only
serve Parcel 1 and not complete the connection to
Riverside Avenue.
3 ~ There are advantages and disadvantages to the access
4
..,
r...\
.t"
~,
and driveway shown in this submittal oompared to the
prior 1983 GMP plan given conceptual approval In its
favor, the Plan provides a width acceptable to the Fire
Marshall and shorter in distance requiring less ground
coverage,! Disadvantages include the necessity of
removing more aspen trees, somewhat steeper grade (8
percent) and the need for some retaining wall'! Both
plans remain the same wi th regard to pro ximi ty to the
property lines and the consequent effect on neighbors
backyards and the specific probl em of the Callahan
easement segment allowing car lights shining in the
windows of the 1275 Riverside Drive residence,!
An al terna tive access has been suggested by neighbors
that would entail Mr'! Gordon obtaining an easement
through Callahan Subdivision Lot 9 or the Maddalone
Property, then entering the Gordon Property through the
plateau meadow adjacent to the river,! The potential
advantages of this access are removal of driveways and
par king areas near existing neighbors, cutting fewer
trees on the Gordon property and not needing to
traverse the hillside with a driveway,!
The Planning Office believes that there are ways to
mitigate problems with the Applicant's proposal which
should be implemented,! The driveways should be well
screened from neighbors on the Gordon property,!
Vegetation is preferable screening; some fencing may be
necessary'! Pavement should be reduced to the extent
possible,! While the aspen trees that would be removed
are not especially large, they contribute to the
forested character of this area and should be retained
or replaced to better screen the paved areas and
houses,! The prior landscape plan called for more and
larger trees to be planted, and a similarly abundant
landscaping scheme should be created for this subdivi-
sion appl ication,!
The two 5-bedroom houses do not appear to be signifi-
cantly smaller than the three duplexes given alloca tion
through the GMP process,! The change in total bedrooms
on the site has been reduced from 12 to 10,! Environ-
mental impacts of this proposal on the site appear to
be of similar magnitude and require similar mi tigation
efforts,!
4,! We would like to see the top house sited to take better
advantage of existing grassy areas and require fewer
trees to be removed'!
5'! The Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks/Recrea-
tion/Open Space/Trails Element adopted JUly, 1985,
5
1"..
~
shows a prop:>sed bridge from Gordon r s property to Ute
Children r s Park~ Two trail segments are al so shown
extending north along the Roaring Fork River bank and
extending east across the Gordon Property to link wi th
Riverside Drive. The Appl icant has al ready dedicated
an easement for the bridge and the trail leading north~
The eastern trail segment has not been worked into the
current development plan~ This trail was not called
for in prior reviews because the plan was not adopted~
Several alternatives have been discussed with the
Applicant for compliance with the Trails Master Plan~
a. The Applicant has prop:>sed to pay for construction
of the pedestrian bridge in exchange for not
dedicating a trail easement across his land~
b~ A Trail Easement can be aligned from the bridge,
traversing the hillside, then following along the
northern property boundary. At this border of the
property, the trial ends, because no easement
through Riverside SUbdivision Lots 16 or 17 is yet
in place~
c~ A trail can be constructed following the eastern
boundary of the. Gordon Subdivision located in the
hiatus between the Gordon Subdivision and the
Riverside Subdivision~
These options are still being considered at this time~
The Planning Office w ill have a recommenda tion to P&Z
at your meeting~
6~ The Planning Office agrees with the Engineering
Department that the Stream Margin Review should be
conducted when there are more definite building plans
for the two h6mes~ Given the conceptual nature of the
footprints, and the large building envelopes including
many trees, it is not p:>ssible at this time to evaluate
all factors related to the Stream Margin Review~
7~ The preliminarysubdivision/PUD approval should
establish the parameters of materials, height and bulk
of buildings as required in Section 24-8~15, "Archi-
tectural Review" of the PUD Ordinance~ While there
seems to be no purpose served in requiring final
designs at this stage, the p&Z should be satisfied with
the appearance of the houses, relation of these houses
to their sites and surrounding land uses, and the need
for cl earing of the property ~
The objective of this archi tectural review is, in our
6
,"""'"
~
oplnlon, to encourage the proposed houses to complement
the heav ily woo ded character of the ar ea and the
riverside. Natural building and roofing materials seem
most appropriate, as have been proposed in the archi-
tectural renderings~ The east elevation of the sample
house shows the peak of the roof at 24 feet, which we
feel is an appropriate maximum height except where
screened by trees. Calculation of the maximum allow-
able FARs and the proposed size of houses will be
presented at the P&Z meeting~
8~ As required in Section 24-8~19 of the Municipal Code,
open space should be designated on the Final Plat and a
legal instrument setting forth a plan for the permanent
care and maintenance of open space should be submitted
to the satisfaction of the City Attorney.
RECOIIIIENlJ\~IOR: The Planning Office recommends approval of the
Gordon Subdivision Preliminary Plat subject to the following
condi tions:
l~ The Applicant shall verify with the City Attorney, that the
Grant of Easement allows for the usa ge of the access
associated with the two (2) hOuses proposed to the Gorcbn
Property from Crystal Lake Drive and through Lots 7 and 8 of
the Callahan Subdivision. prior to approval of the Final
PI a t ~
2. A Stream Margin Review shall be ini tiated and conducted
prior to the Final Plat hearing by City Council~
3. Prior to Final Plat Approval, the Applicant shall provide
the necessary documents to convey to the Ci ty of Aspen,
water rights to the Riverside Irrigation Ditch in an amount
corresponding to the additional use of the proposed three
duplexes as far as legally IX>ssible~
4~ Trail and bridge easements shall be shown on the Final Plat.
5~ Prior to Final Plat Approval, open space shall be designated
on the Final Plat and a legal instrument setting forth a
plan for the permanent care and maintenance shall be
submitted to the satisfaction of the City Attorney~
6~ Prior to issuance of Building Permits, park dedication fees
for each new unit shall be paid~
7 ~ Prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, all water
and sewer line work must be accomplished in accordance with
the City Water Department and Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
District specifications, res.pectively ~
7
~,
~
9~ The Applicants shall agre~to join all improvement districts
affecting this property and shall state such commi tment in a
Statement of Subdivision~
10 ~ Prior to issuance of any buildings permits, slope reduction
calculations shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer ~
11 ~ The driveway to the house on Parcel I shall end there and
not continue north to Gordon Subdivision Lot l~
l2~ New site and landscape plans showing less pavement, accurate
building footprints, more abundant vegetation screening of
driveways and buildings and a fence as may be necessary to
block lights shining into the house at 1275 Riverside Drive
shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Planning
Office prior to Final Plat Approval~
l3~ Exterior lighting on the property shall be minimal to reduce
impacts on nei9hbors~
14 ~ Natural building and roof ing materials shall be used~ The
peak of the roof of the house on Parcel 1 shall not exceed
24 feet in height except where there is an existing stand of
trees that provides screening to the east~ FAR shall be
limited to ____ on Parcell and ____ on Parcel 2~
l5~ A Statement of Subdivision shall be submitted to the
satisfaction of the City Attorney prior to recordation of
the Final Plat.
16 ~ A Final Plat conforming to Sections 20-15 and 20-16 shall be
recorded wi th the County Clerk and Recorder' s Office~
17 ~ An improvements agreement and guarantee shall be fil ed
pursuant to the requir~ments of Section 20-16 of the
Municipal Code to the satisfaction of the Engineering
Department and City Attorney for: (a) the provision of water
and sewer line connection; (b) landscaping on the site. The
improvements agreement shall be in place prior to Final Plat
approval~
SB~2
8
,-.,.
~ /1 176'&
~T~
"
-~
CZ}aA 9" ak- -
ft /0 flA:- .
d ~.
~ A- v~
~ C{-~-. "
9(" ~ /d
~~~ .~
.~?a- "~
~ b2~
(j!k"
~~~.
~
~.
~,
;
MEMORANDUM
To: Steve Burstein, Planning Office
From: Chuck Roth, Assistant City Engineer Ci::.....
Date: August 11, 1986
Re: Gordon Property Conceptual Subdivision
-----------------------------------------------------------
1. This property has been reviewed a number of times and has
been granted approvals. The city attorney and the city water
attorney should be consulted as regards water rights issues of
the approval. It appears from the Lot Split agreement dated
August 15, 1983, that the applicant was granted approval to
divide the parcel into Lots 1 and 2 with conditions relating to
water rights, use and supply which should be .carried forward
and/or amplified upon.
2. The Engineering Department requests .that any approval be
conditioned upon agreement to jOin improvement districts with the
current language available from the city attorney's office.
3. Details of waterline extensions as regards the requirement
for looping, the size of the line, and location of fire hydrants
should be obtained from the Water Department. All waterline work
must be in accordance with city waterline specifications. The
plans indicate the waterline extesnions as VCP. This ~eviewer
does not know what VCP pipe is. Ductile iron pipe is required
for city water main extensions.
4. The following utilities should be contacted to see if they
need utility easements: Holy Cross Electric Association, the
City Water Department and the Sanitation District. Since the
City is currently engaged on a utilities undergrounding project,
all utilities installed by the project should be buried. This
was a condition of the previous approval.
5. Since the application is to subdivide Lot 2 of the Gordon
Subdivision, it is suggested that the designations for the newly
created lots be Lot 2A (referred to as Parcel 1 in the applica-
tion) and Lot 2B (referred to as Parcel 2 in the application).
It is further suggested that at the time of platting, the action
be handled as an amendment to the Gordon Subdivision and plat.
6. This application appears to contain similar mathematical
errors as regards to the developable area calculations as
appeared in the Gordon/Callahan application of December 1984.
Per Section 24-8.18(aH2), "for lands between 21% and 30%, the
density shall be reduced to 50%" and "for lands between 31% and
.~
,"-"'.
40%, the density shall be reduced to 25%." The application
showed 75% and 50% respectively for the calculations. It also
appears as though the area under water does not appear to be
correctly presented. This reviewer finds 0.47 acres (20,288
square feet) to be under water on the two parcels. If the
applicant desires to reaccess the allowable area for development,
the Engineering Department would need to see Some additional
calculations and mapping for the area under water and corrections
to existing calculations for the slope reductions. The remainder
of the allowable floor area calculations will have to be checked
and verified by other city staff.
7. The 1973 Trail System Plan shows a riverside trail which
appears to follow the river through Lot 2, Gordon SUbdiVision, to
the lower Aspen Club Bridge. This portion of the trail is shown
on the east side of the river from the Cooper Street Bridge.
8. Note that prior to obtaining building permits for any
development on these parcels which would be considered within 100
feet of the high water line or within the lOO-year flOOdplain, a
Stream Margin review application must be fileCi and approved.
Also prior to any issuance of bUilding permits, the applicants
must obtain permission from the Salvation Ditch Company as
regards modifications to easementswhicl:) agreements shall be
supplied to the City Engineering Department for acceptance.
9. The plans must be reviewed by the fire marshall for accepta-
bilityofaccess and turn-around for emergency vehicles, especi-
ally fire vehicles.
cc: City Attorney
City Engineer
Water Superintendent
CR/cr/gordon.l
,.., '"'\
ASPEN.PITKIN REGIONAL BUILDING DEPARTMENT
~ DI:0' /g ~
~~ ~~OO~.!~
/llEHORAIlDUM
Date:
August 13, 1986
TO: Steve Burstodll, Planning Office
fROM:
JillWllllon,
FireMllrshal
~
SUBJECT:
Gordon Property Conceptual Subdivision
""-+.+.- ._._.,,~-
"-~~+ --.....--..
._-_.~._.-
~._- "---
--
I have reviewed the conceptual lIublliasion for the Gordon
Property Subdivision, and find the fire Depllrt...nt aCCeSs 1,,<:on-
8 istent wi th .illlllllll .telldllrd~. "'''ceas "rOlldwllYlI" for f1 re
equip.ent lIust be 20 feet wide, clear and unobstructed, and
extend to within 150 feet of all exterior wlIlla of sny building.
What hss been proposed is en aCCess ~driveway".
The ...jar diffen'lIce h..tweell " "r""clwlI)'" "lid a "drivew8.Y" is
.BillienallC"; "roadways" lire 1I.lintllined by "public a(eocyaod
"driveweY8" aren't. Snow r".oval is virtually seeured on s
"roadwsy", ..hi Ie this proposed "dri vewaY~ sch..." bs~ no such
ssaurance. 1I11"s118 of th" houses, lis roitullted, are not within
150 feet of II publicly Illiotained "roa<1way". Alt.ernate method..,
to include fire eprinklered houses, can be considered and should
be explored.
JJW:lo
sbgp.j..
offiCI...:
1517 E.." HClpkln.Av..n....
A.p..n, Color..do 81611
303/925-6973
m.U .dd......:
!S06 E.." M.ln St"lII_
A.pen, Color.do 81611
.>' t
'\.'
"
~.
o ~
'I
4
:1
l
'"
~
ASPBN/PITKIN PLAh"LlfG OFFIcE
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorad9 81611
(303) 925-2020
~ 7J1~
lhK I9f~8/?I.:v '
6lA~ ~oI.
RE:~~
. Dear ~
This is to inform you that the Planning Office has completed its
preliminary review of your OtJ!rlivI5/CPI.. application for complete-
ness. We have determined that your application
is com pI ete.
)( is not complete.
The additional items we will require are as follows:
Disclosure of ownership (one c~~~~cD~d&ressed ~
Adjac~/l p~~ :r~;~ist/{One copy only needed) .~~
Additional copies of entire application. . ~A.tis1
1_
Authorization by owner for representative to submit
application.
Response to 'the attached list of items demonstrat-
ing compliance with the a ppli cable policies and
regulations of the COde, or other specified materials.
A check in the amount of $ is due.
", :W_ ~s+
-L._ '7'1(. Since your application isAl::omplete, we have scheduled it
for review by the ::f'..j..Z- ' _on f1W1J.5 \~tp .
We will be calling you if we need any additiohal information
prior to that date. In any case, we will be calling you
several days prior to your hearing to make a copy of the
review memorandum available to you. Please note that it
(is) (is not) your responsibility to post your property with
a sign, which we can provide you.
B. Since your application is incomplete, we have not
scheduled it for public review at this time. When we have
received the materials we have requested, we will be happy
to place you on the next available agenda.
Please feel free to' call Steu'L 12:o-a,{eJ.(\ , who is the planner
assigned to this ca se, if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANN. ING~OFFICE, -n , n
~1ctc.h~~ ~
Alan Richman, Planm.n and
Development Director
AR:jlr
~ Stcu.. ~ -.p.Q,~ 0<Q. -+0 Yl1..L fkM ~(""w'C.-w\ U
'h6..uL-{o flit c5~ ~~ ~s\ ~
:~~'-~"~,"''-!....--.-
~
.~
~, ,
. -~
Dear Friends & Neighbors on Riverside Drive:
It's important that you are aware of Sheldon Gordon's proposal
to develop his property adjacent to Riverside Drive.
Some years ago, Mr. Gordon assured me that only two houses
could be built on his property. .One is now. complete at the
end of Riverside AVENUE and we're all well acquainted with it.
The second house was always presumed to be down along the banks
of the Roaring For~ -- and that house is one -half of his new
plans for SUbdivision.
He. has added a very large house to abut the Riverside Drive"
. lots -- And an access for both new houses to come in from the
Aspen Club (the residences are planned forfiv~ cars each).
This will have profound and detrimental impact upon my residence
at 1275 Riversi'de Drive and will affect; perhaps less drastically"
your residences.
Please read the attached description of the proposed Gordon
SUbdivision and my letter to the Planning & Zoning. Commission)
Aspen City Council.
A:ny Support or; advice on this will be most welcome.
Thank you,
~~
! 1275 Riverside Drive
. 925-8793 home
920-2268 office
'!.
~ .
1275 Riverside Drive
, Aspen, Colorado 81611
August 4 ,. 1~86
,""""'"
Mayor. Bill Stirling & The Aspen City Council
and
The Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
There is a proposal by Mr. Sheldon Gordon to subdivide his property
to accomodate two sUbstantial houses.adjacent to the J<iverside
SUbdivision.
This property is schedUled for two residences only, One Of which
Mr. Gordon has already built. The present proposal. adds another
very large house.
Of concern to the nie~borhood of Ri.er~ide Drive and in particular
to the signature of this letter, iS~e proposed driveway approach
to these new houses: via the Aspen Cl~'s entranee road and
directly into the pr~perty from Centennial Circle.
The EnqineeringDepartment advised llIe SOme years ago that th:l:s"
access was dUbiouSly legal insofar as it was a tangent off a
private road to gain access. The Planning Department's records
don't compound this doubt, but the legality of this road might
be examined.
Nonetheless, this apProach, if approved, will lead cars direCtly into
the windowed face of my residence, passing "ithin a few yards of my
porch. Headlights at night and the relative privacy which my house,
the oldest in Riverside SUbdivision (30 years J will be dramatically
lost. Unless Some alternative is found it ~ll probably make my
house intolerable to live in.
An equally viable approach might be found via Riverside Avenue
(as opposed to Riverside. DriveJ, past Mr. Gordon's eXisting house.
It seems appropriate to enCOurage him to consider that alternative
instead of impinging upon his neighbors.
The houses which Nr. Gordon plans are enormous in comparison to
the Riverside SUbdivision homes and therefore the number of vehicles
COmPlementing such estates will create significant traffic.
The drastic effect it will have upon my residence in particular
can be seen by a visit to the site.
I would appreciate very much your most severe examination of Nr.
Gordon's proposal to subdivide his property aS~ll as ~he effect
his proposed access road will have on one, if not all, of his
Riverside Subdivision neighbors.
925-8793 home
920-2268 office
/.
STAN MATHIS
architecture and planning
p.o. box 1984
aspen colorado 81612
,~
, ,I
~
Kay 30, 1986
Aspen,Pitkin County Planning Office
130 S. Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81612
RE. The Gordon Property
Planning Staff:
This submission seeks to gain approval of 'preliminary ,plat for the creation of two separate
lots to be used for t.he construction of single fami;ly residences' within an exis~ing R15,
P.U.D. zone.
The p~operty is described as lot two of the Gordon Subdivision. It is located adjacent
to the 'Roaring Fork River and west of Centennial Circle and Riverside Dr. It cQntains
approximately 2.19 acres. The parcel is owned by the applicant, Sheldon'Cordon. The
applicant does not own nor have an option to purchase any adjacent property.
,
The applicant bas purcbased one development right from Pitkin Limited, which allows the
construction of one free-market, singlefamilY'res~dence without having to go (a) through
GMP, or (b) provide any employee housing or ,cash in' lieu thereof.
It is the intention of the applicant to develop a residence on parcel, two and put the resi-
dence on the market for sale. The apPl:i~ant intends to then construct a residence on
parcel one and to retain ownership for his personaL use.
Major emphasis in this proposal has been placed on creating two individual units vith
maximum separation and privacy. By creating only two units, both physical and visual
impacts on the sight can be reduced, reinforcing the concepts of separation and privacy.
The main access to the two 'lots will be throu h an existin access and utilit
acrcss,tbe Call1ibanu ,~v~s on rom Centennial Circle,. lIard surface paving wil
provi<i'Od"a'S lSiDciicate<l on alieef'>.lltl1ities 'will be ""tended through the aame eaaement
from Centennial Circle. Water service and fire protection will be provided by connecting
existing water linea aa i1l<licated on aheeta one and aeven. ~gg.XlWl~
aho~...!'~!!~U.!Y~_.h!\Y$,'!\'M'!\9 bat"""t~,wid th,,,.-22' . , adequat e,,'!!>;,~<le"1tJlxkfjf.c"'.~~
"'i~t_ce"O!In,i.l!!!!eJ!!.,t'L.~'l..jlropwy. ~.,acceaa ,dr;!;YJtJJt,p1annecL~<W.~
tem:ial Circle acroa~ the, prOPerty and~onnecrto-1f:[verside Dr., ,The d~be h~~ been planned
so as to provi'de Jl' "K" turn to enable' fire 'and m~d.ntenance equipment".to t'u'rn~arouifd~oii'-"'''''-''-
the property.
Tne site is suitable for this type of development. ; It has few steep sections (see slope
analysis on sbeet two) and there are no apparent g~ologic hazards. The proposed develop-
ment will not have any adverse effects on the natu~al watershed of the site. Detention
ponds have been provided to slow runoff from hard Surface areas and prevent the resulting
erosion and pollution.
, .
~
.~
MATHIs
itecture and planning
- .0. Pox 1984
pen, colorado 81612
i
I.
i
I
I
Slopes reSUlting from regradiug for dr,veways and buLldings Wi11 be revegetsted to pro-
tect them frum erosion. Regr8diug of "he site hes been Je.,pt tos Dain~. It is sh""",
oulY!where necesssry to provide an gX ~lope st driveways, to sll.w fsr the installation
of detention PSnds and to prov!depositive drainage away ftOal the proposed resid.nce..
I
i
Adve~se effects on the air 'I..ality cauSed by this proposal will be minimal. Pirep1aces
are iUanned for both Usid_es. However, bec....., this propoSal contains fewer units then
may be allOWed in other proposals, tbe:potential for air pol1ution has been reduced.
,
On both parcels, the residences can haye walk Out lower leve1s at the riverside of the
parce1s. ).'his can be aCCompli.hed because th"Jt have been. sited in locations which allow
this with litt1e Or no rogradiug of the -st.fog sit.. The residences are held b.ck
frum the proposed traLl which croSSes ~he site in the northwest corner. This affords
both residents and trail users a desired priVacy along the river.
This proposal for two single family residences prOVides many desired qualities when
compared to a more dense proposal. Gradiag of -st.fog toPOgraphy i. muth less seVere
than woald be like1y w1.th a proposal COntainiug more units. The existing laud--fo_
have heen maintained by setting the residences into the 810_ on the site, thus avoiding
the appearance of multi~.tory structure.. By 11>!dt.fog the -her of. unit. to two, a
large amount of natural terrain remain. unaltered 'on the .ite. This is eSpecially at-
tractive cOn.ideriag the adjaCent use. and the amount of river frontage on the .ite. The
proposed architecture will make USe of ~aterial. with colors and textures appropriate in
.. mountain environment. (ie. earth tones and rough textures) The character of which
Wi11 be s1milar to that which exist. on the adjacent property to the north. See sheet
eight for proposed arChitecture. IfaxiJoum buildiug height will be the ..... a. is allowed
in the R15 zone, 25 feet. Existiug velletation on the site i. indicated On .heet three,
it consist. largely of COttOn~ ~ed with aspen and grOund Cover of native grasses.
The proposed landscape plan 1S indicated on sheet six, it p"""id.s a variety ofpl.nt
materials, coniferous, deciduous and st!1Smenta1. The major focus of. the landscape plan
is to proVide screening betWeen theproPO.ed residences and frum the adj .cent proP.rties.
The existing irrigation ditch may be relocated and incorporated into the design of the
residence on Parcel one. Detention pouds have been incorporated to Irdp prevent erosion
and stre.., POllution by cootrolliug ths rate sf runoff from the impervious COVer on the
property · An irrigation system Wi11 be inst.l1ed to aid in e.tablishing and maint.ining
the prOPOsed vegetation.
'ive parking @Pi!~re-!~!!*t.~~.f!.!'idenc~ It is anticipated that each resi-
ence w1.11 Contain four bedro..... This WOuld .llow tWo spaces for the property OWoer and
ne for each additional bedroom. The total anticiP.ted POpulation i. 10.
"Ve1opment and COIlstruction are scheduled as foUows: Construction of the access drive
ld of the residence to be located On Pared two ahau begin in Spring 1987. It shaU be,
'mplete by fall 1988. Construction of the . residence on P.rcd one .haU begin in the
.ring 1988 and be comPlete by fall 19$9. Installation of .uilit1es and landscaping.w1l1
'incide with the deve1op.....t of the Separate parcels. The proposed driveway connectiag
ntennial CirCle and Riverside Dr. shs11 be inStalled when initial construction begins,
it will prOVide access for fire equipment. .
..,.....' --~~~,..... ., ",',' ,< "
-
-~.
t'
~
,~
PUBLIC NO'l'ICE
RE: GORDON PROPERTY CONCEPrUAL SUBDIVISION
Parcel ID'2737-181-00_021
-ICI! IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Tuesday, AUgust 19, 1986, at a meeting to begin at 5:00P.M.
befor.e the City Council of Aspen, Colorado, in City Council
Chambers, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, to consider an
application submitted by Sheldon Gordon requesting conceptual
subdivi si on to subdi vi de an unimpro sed parcel consi stin g of
approximately 81,900 s. f., into two separate parcels, each to
contain a single family dwelling unit. The property is located
along the Roaring Fork River On Riverside Drive in Aspen.
For further information, contact the Aspen/pitkin Planning
Office, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-2020, ext.
223.
================================================================
sLC.Welton Anderson
Chair per son, Aspen Plannin g
and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on July 31, 1986.
Ci ty of Aspen ACCount.
N.4
-
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
,...",
f
^,
ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT
D &@&OXWfE/iY)
JULI41118 //1
~'}
/, "
v/i
, I
!l;:~~:m;;;;; ;:;;::::A:F::::IVI~fs ~
JULY 10, 1986
----------------------------------------------------------------
We have reviewed the above referenced application and have no
additional comments other than those previonsly stated.
JM: ab
4"
,~
,~
'~.
CERTIFICATE OF MAILINQ
- I hereby certify thatonthisOJ--.:t!J day of ,
1980, a true and correct copy of the attached Noce 0 Public Hearing
was deoosited in the Uni.ted States mail, first-class oost.aae orenaid.
to the- adj acent property owners as indicated on the attaclled -list of
adjacent property owners which was supplied to the Plannaing Office by
the applicant in regard to the case named on the public notice.
.;.
-.--
,-'
-:-
" .- _. ~:
j
~\
I"""\,
STAN MATHIS
PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc.
Title Insurance Company
601 E, Hopkins
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925-1766
DATE: JUNE 26, 1986
Pitkin County Title, Inc., a ~uly licensed Title Insurance Agent
in the State of Colorado hereby certifies the following list is a
current list of adjacent property owners within 300 feet of
the subject property set forth on Schedule "A" attached hereto
and made apart hereof, as obtained from the most current Pitkin
Coun~y Assessors Tax Roll.
NAHE AND ADDRESS
BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION
SHELDON M. GORDON
11611 SAN VICENTE BOULEVARD, SUITE 515
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90049
SUBJECT PROPERTY
RIVERSIDE JOINT VENTURE
C/O ENLOE
P.O. BOX 225644
DALLA, TEXAS 75265
LOT 1, GORDON SUB.
ANTHONY KASTELIC
570 SOUTH RIVERSIDE
ASPEN, COLORADO 816]]
METES and BaUNDS
LUIS SNEIDER
SYVIA SNEIDER LEIZOREK
CARLOS SNEIDER
PATRICIA SNEIDER BEER
EDUARDO SNEIDER
GUTENBERG 23]
MEXICO 5, DF MEXICO
LOT 12, CALDERWOOD SUB.
NORMA J. HcCLAIN
P.O. BOX 832
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
LOT II, CALDERWOOD SIB.
ELIZABETH MARIE JONES
P.O. BOX P
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
LOT 10, CALDERWOOD SUB.
LINDA SOULE PRESTON
2340 GRANDVIEW AVENUE
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45206
LOT 9, CALDERWOOD SUB.
NPtHE ~.n ~,9~ESS
, \-.-. . '.- ...,....
I"""".
HENRY S. HOYT & JUDITH U. HOYT
54 CHAMPLAIN ROAD
CHATHAM, MA~SACHUSETTS 02633
SUZANN L. RESNICK
P.O. BOX 4485
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
JOHN G. SPERLING
320 EAST VIRGINIA
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85004
HERBERT R. MOLNER & PAULA MOLNER
280 CEDAR STREET
HIGHLAND PARK, ILLINOIS 60035
GAIL COTTINGHAM KOCH
P.O. BOX 797
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
FREDERIC A. BENEDICT & FABIENNE, 1 INTEREST
FRED C. LARKIN, ~. INTEREST
1280 UTE AVENUE
ASPEN, COLORApO 8]611
~ BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 8, CALDERWOOD SUB. I"
LOT 7, CALDERWOOD SUB
UNDIVIDED 25% INTEREST.
LOT 7, CALDERWOOD SUB.
UNDIVIDED 25% INTEREST
LOT 7, CALDERWOOD SUB.
UNDIVIDED 25% INTEREST
LOT 7, CALDERWOOD SUB
UNDIVIDED 25% INTEREST
METES and BOUNDS
FREDERIC A. BENEDICT, FABIENNE BENEDICT, 45% INTEREST
FRED C. LARKIN, 50% INTEREST
PATRICIA E. MADDALONE, 5% INTEREST
1280 UTE AVENUE
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
FRED C. LARKIN
ONE COVE LANE
LITTLETON, COLORADO 80123
CITY OF ASPEN
130 S. GALENA STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
COUNTY OF PITKIN
506 MAIN STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
U.S DEPT OF AGRICULTURE
FOREST SERVICE
806 W. HALLAM
ASPEN, COLORADO 816]]
U.S. DEPT. OF INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
50629 HIWAY 6 & 24
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 8160]
,..
METES and BOUNDS
METES and BOUNDS
UTE CEMETARY
UTE CHILDRENS PARK
AND UNKNOWN PARCEL
UNKNOWN PARCEL
"
"
"
"
"
NAME AND ADDRESS
1""',
.~
BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION
POWDERHOUSE ENTERPRISES
P.O. BOX 40
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
LOT 16, CALLAHAN SUB.
r
ASPEN CLUB INTERNATIONAL, INC.
1450 CRYSTAL LAKE ROAD
ASPEN, COLORADO 8161 I
LOT 15,CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION
ANDREW V. HECHT, TRUSTEE
SUITE 20 I
601 E. HYMAN AVE.
ASPEN, COLORADO 8161 I
LOTS 14, 14A, CALLAHAN SUB.
RSG DEVELOPMENT, INC.
1450 CRYSTAL LAKE ROAD
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
I'
LOTS 9, 8, 7, 6, 5
CALLAHAN SUB.
KAY ELLEN HAMRICK
1315 RIVERSIDE DRIVE
ASPEN, COLORADO 8161 I
LOT '21, BLK I, RIVERSIDE
KATHLEEN BUTTERWORTH WILSON
58 HAWTHORNE ROAD
ROCK ISLAND, ~LLINOIS 60201
LOT 20, BLK.I, RIVERSIDE SUB.
PAUL A. CHESLEY
FRANK G. CHESLEY
JEAN M. CHESLEY
P.O. BOX 94
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
LOT 19, BLK I, RIVERSIDE SUB
ERIKA GROB
a/k/al MRS. ROBERT MURRAY
1275 RIVERSIDE DRIVE
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
LOTS 18, 17, BLK.
RIVERSIDE SUB.,
D.F. PROPERTIES, INC.
Clo DOUG FRANK
5110 NORTH 32nd STREET, NO. 216
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85018
LOT 16, BLK. I, RIVERSIDE SUB.
DR. JON WOODFORD STUEBNER
INGRID E. STUEBNER
DR, RICHARD ~AMILTON, 1/8' INTEREST
DR. WAGNER J. SCHORR, 1/8 INTEREST
Clo DR. JOHN WOODFORD STUEBNER
6304 EAST DORADO CIRCLE
ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO 80111
LOT 14, BLK. I, RIVERSIDE SUB
CAROL PHILLIPS
WILLIAM MATTO MATUIK
1245 RIVERSIDE DRIVE
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
LOT 15, BLK. I, RIVERSIDE SUB
NAME fu~D ADDRESS
""
.~ BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION
BETTE J. KALLSTROM
1225 RIVERSIDE DRIVE
ASPEN, COLORApO 8161 I
DOROTHY KELLEHER
P.O. BOX 1
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
CRESTHAUS LODGE, INC
1301 EAST HIGHWAY NO. 82
ASPEN, COLORADO 8161]
JUDITH G. JONES
P.O. BOX P
ASPEN, COLORADO
ROBERT SIMONS
KAY F. SIMONS
]240 RIVERSIDE DRIVE
ASPEN, COLORADO 8]611
MAGILLICUTTY CORPORATION
]28 RIVERSIDE DRIVE
ASPEN, COLORADO 816]1
FOWLER P. STONE, III
RUTH D. FOWLER
6 1 1 FRED
ASPEN, COLORADO 816] 1
GARY A. WRIGHT
DEBORAH D. WRIGHT
1300 RIVERSIDE DRIVE
SUITE ]06
ASPEN, COLORADO 8]6] J
CHARLES MADDALONE
MARLENE POPISH MADDALONE
1325 RIVERSIDE DRIVE
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
CALDERWOOD HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
RIVERSIDE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
CALLAHAN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
I'
LOT 13, BLK. I, RIVERSrDE SUB.
LOT 12, BLK I, RIVERSIDE SUB
METES and BOUNDS
LOT 8, BLK I, RIVERSIDE SUB
LOT,9, BLK. I, RIVERSIDE SUB
LOT ]0, BLK~ I, RIVERSIDE SUB
LOT 7, BLOCK I, RIVERSIDE SUB
LOT 6, BLK. I, RIVERSIDE SUB
METES and BOUNDS
~
~
June 23, 1986
Pitkin County Planning Office
To Whom It May Concern:
I hereby authorize Stan Mathis to speak to you on my behalf regarding the
Gordon Subdivision.
\
-(
11611 San Vicente Blvd, Suite 515 Los Angeles, CA 90049-5193 213-826-7800
412 East 59th St. New York, NY 10022 212-593-0063
,-
f~
,...-..\
,.
"
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ci ty Attor ney
City Engineer
Aspen Water Department
~spen Consolidated Sanitation District
/ Fire Marshall
FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office
RE:
Gordon Property Conceptual Subdivision
Parcel ID#2737-181-00-021 Case No. 019A-86
DATE:
June 19, 1986
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
Attached for your review is an application submitted by Stan
Mathi s on behalf of Sheldon Gordon requesting approval of
conceptual subdivision for the purpose of sUbdividing Lot 2.
Ne bel ieve the appl icant obtained the right to build on Lot 2
through a previously granted lot split application. The appli-
cant is purchasing one development right from Pitkin Limited, for
the new lot to be created from this subdivision request.
Pl ease review this appl ication and return your referral comments
to the Planning Office no later than July 20, 1986, in order to
allow us adequate time to prepare for its presentation before the
Planning Commission at a public hearing.
Thank you.
M.3
wE C,.A'- se"'-IC.s T,i,S ..svP.>",""""O-, HC,-I!!,,#&,<<- A'c.\),lC.I':oI.~
TO "'tN,!' A....Alo-j 11" ~OOkS I-'Ic;..f~ rH,ly ^,^'a c""'''''e,..,,,...,.,,.l',...,
^
9" It C Q...c,../i: c.",.;a...
'" Y So 1"'9 ,., /-# ''/0 I c:,., /"-f v .\ T """1 $ ~
rse
'~"""'r A~Cl,,)"'~/""c:.
iD
t:::./S,TfL.,c..1" ~ ne.c.~ .
~,.. ~
~- ~tl
jj..A t
L\ "" a..... S (,I"" ~ Jt""t
,~ , P e "- l.o-'
$"'JfJ ~, '1' "'7" 0 _ ~ ,,1" "'" c.r
"
I""'-
I~
iJ" ~IAN MATHIS
architecture and planning
p,o, box 1984
aspen, colorado 81612
May 30, 1986
Aspen, Pitkin County Planning Office
130 S. Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81612
~
RE. The Gordon Property
Planning Staff:
This submission seeks to gain approval of 'preliminary .plat for the creation of two separate
lots to be used for the construction of single fami~y residences within an existing R~S,
P. U .D. zone.
The property is described as lot two of the Gordon Subdivision. It is located adjacent
to the Roaring Fork River and west of Centennial Ci~cle and Riverside Dr. It contains
approximately 2.19 acres. The parcel is owned by the applicant, Sheldon Gordon. Thei
applicant does not own nor have an option to purchase any adjacent property.
The applicant has purchased one development right f~om Pitkin Limited, which allows the
construction of one free-market, single family residence without having to go (a) through
GMP, or (b) provide any employee housing or cash in lieu thereof.
It is the intention of the applicant to ,?evelop a residence on parcel two and put the resi-
dence on the market for sale. The applicant intends to then construct a residence on:
parcel one and to retain ownership for his personali use.
Major emphasis in this proposal has been placed oti creating two individual units with
maximum separation and privacy. By creating only two units, both physical and visual.
impacts on the sight can be reduced, reinforcing the concepts of separation and priva9Y.
The main access to the two lots will be through an :existing access and utility easement
across the Callahan Subdivision from Centennial Circle. Hard surface paving will be
provided as is indicated on sheetS. Utilities will:be extended through the same easement
from Centennial Circle. Water service and fire protection will be provided by connecting
existing water lines as indicated on sheets one and seven. The access drive proposed and
shown on sheet five have an unobstructed width of ~2', adequate for access by fire and'
maintenance equipment ,to the property. The access [drive is planned to continue from Cen-
tennial Circle across the property and connect to ~iverside Dr. The drive has been planned
so as to provide a IlK" turn to enable fire and maintenance equipment to turn around o~
the property.
, ,
The site is suitable for this type of development. [ It has few steep sections (see slope
analysis on sheet two) and there are no apparent g~ologic hazards. The proposed devefop-
ment will not have any adverse effects on the natu~al watershed of the site. Detention
ponds have been provided to slow runoff from hard surface areas and prevent the resulting
erosion and pollution.
"'-))'-'
.-,~:!..,,!;::\,
1"",
~
i
STAN MATHIS
arch;itecture and planning
p,o, box 1984
asp4n, colorado 81612
i
i
Slop~s resulting from regrading for driveways and buildings will be revegetated to pro-
tect! them from erosion. Regrading of ~he site has been kept to a minimum. It is shown
only! where necessary to provide an 8% ~lope at driveways, to allow for the installation
of diatention ponds and to provide positjive drainage away from the proposed residences.
~ .t-
Adverse effects on the air quality cauded by this proposal will be minimal. Fireplaces
are planned for both residences. Howe'\ier, because this proposal contains fewer units than
may be allowed in other proposals, the 'potential for air pollution has been reduced.
( :
I :
On both parcels, the residences can ha'\{e walk out lower levels at the riverside of the
parcels. This can be accomplished bec~use they. have been sited in locations which allow
this. with little or no regrading of the existing site. The residences are held back
from. the proposed trail which crosses the site in the northwest corner. This affords
both residents and trail users a desire,d privacy along the river.
This proposal for two single family residences provides many desired qualities when
compared to a more dense proposal. Grading of existing topography is much less severe
than would be likely with a proposal containing more units. The existing land forms
have been maintained by setting the residences into the slopes on the site, thus avoiding
the appearance of multi-story structures. By limiting the number of units to two, a
large amount of natural terrain remains unaltered'on the site. This is especially at-
tractive considering the adjacent uses iandthe amount of river frontage on the site. The
proposed architecture will make use of imaterials with colors and textures appropriate in
a mountain environment. (ie. earth tones and rough textures) The character of which
will be similar to that which exists on the adjacent property to the north. See sheet
eight for proposed architecture. Maxi~um building height will be the same as is allowed
in the R15 zone, 25 feet. Existing vegetation on the site is indicated on sheet three,
it consists largely of cottonwoods mixed with aspen and ground cover of native grasses.
The proposed landscape plan is indicat~d on sheet six, it provides a variety of plant
materials, coniferous, deciduous and ornamental. The major focus of the landscape plan
is to provide screening between the proposed residences and from the adjacent properties.
The existing irrigation ditch may be relocated and incorporated into the design of the
residence on Parcel one. Detention ponds have been incorporated to help prevent erosion
and stream pollution by controlling the! rate of runoff from the impervious cover on the
property. An irrigation system will be installed to aidihestablishing and maintaining
the proposed vegetation.
Five; parking spaces are indicated
dence will contain four bedrooms.
one for each additional bedroom.
for each residence. It is anticipated that each resi-
This would allow two spaces for the property owner and
The total anticipated population is 10.
Development and construction are scheduled as follows: Construction of the access drive
and pf,the residence to be located on.Parcel two shall begin in spring 1987. It shall be:
complete by fall 1988. Construction o~ the residence on Parcel one shall begin in the
spring 1988 and be complete by fall 1989. Installation ofuilities and landscaping will
coincide with the development of the separate parcels. The proposed driveway connecting
Centennial Circle and Riverside Dr. shall be installed when initial construction begins,
as i~ will provide access for fire equipment. '
u
ff,;"':;f,:~._
. ~,_ ilo._~
tl "'''';
. ...
\
,~
~,
"
,
ASSIGNMENT OF FREE MARKET DEVELOPMENT RIGHT
THIS
Apt-I'" ,
("Assignor"), to
the following:
. h' Z3"J.
g~ven t ~s day of
ILIMITED, a Colorado corporation
,["Assignee"), with reference to
i i
ASSIGNMENT is
1986, by, PITKIN
SHELDON GORDON
RECITALS
i
A. By virtue of (i)' ~he Precise Plan and Subdivision
Agreement for Smuggler Mobile Hqme Park recorded in Book 424iat
Pages 780, et seg., of the Pitkin County, Colorado real prop~rty
records ("Records") and the co;mpletion of the development:
'activity contemplated th'erein, and (ii) the P.U.D. and Subdi~i-
sion Agreement for The Pitkin R~serve recorded in Book 423 at
Pages. 417, et seq., and amendmenlts thez;etorecorded respectively
in Book 447 at Pages 59, et ~.r, and ~n Book 468 at Pages 8$3,
~ seq., of the Records (collectively herein the "Land Use
Agreements"), and the development activity contemplated therein
and completed to date, Assignor is the owner and holder of
several freely transferrable anq alienable free market develop-
mentrights ("Development Right~") conferred upon it by the City
of Aspen, Colorado, which repre~ent exceptions to and exempt~ons
from the free market development allotment review processes 'of
the Growth Management Quota System contained in Article XI,
Sections 24-11.1, et ~., of t~e Municipal Code of the City! of
Aspen, Colorado ("GMP"t. i
B. Assignee wishes ito acquire from Assignor and
Assignor is willing to transfet to Assignee one (1) of the
Development Rights.
WIT N Els SET H:
IN CONSIDERATION of the foregoing recitals and the' su
of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and oth~r good and valuable considera-
tion passing from Assignee to A$signor, the receipt, sufficiency
and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, Assignor hereby
assigns unto Assignee one (I) Development Right and, in respect
of the foregoing Assignment, As$ignor warrants that: '
1. It is the owner: and holder of the Development
Right with full and free right to convey, transfer and assign it
to Assignee; !
I i
2. The Development Right hereby assigned represents
a valid and subsisting exemptidn from or exception to the ~MP
I
~... ._~--"""-----''''~''~-''-'''~.-:''lT ,,'~ ___"'_ ._'...~. ~..~_.__v"~..,,....~....... ."..._..............--._.....-.-_.
",J,,!l, ,~~".~,.,\ihw'!r
~
".
~.
,1""'\
..
\
I
i
and is subject to no ~imitations except as may be expressed in
the Land Use Agreement$i
I
3. It has Idone and completed that which it was
required to do under t~e Land Use Agreements to vest in itself
the Development Rights/ and render their use unconditional, and
it will neither do or cause or suffer to be done, by commission
or omission, any act o~ thing that would defeat, interfere with
or impair the Developm~nt Right hereby assigned; and '
4. The Dev~lopment Right hereby assigned will enable
: Assignee to build one free-market t single-family dwelling
wi thout having to go : (a) through GMP, or (b) provide any
employee housing or carh in lieu thereof.
I
IN WITNESS W~EREOF, this Assignment has been executed
and given as of the day and year first above written.
PIT IN LIMITED, a Colorado
cor orati
. '
.'
By
Michael B. L'pkin, President
STATE OF COLORADO
')
ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN
I
~'JAqThe forego~g instrument was acknowledged before
this - day of iPIU'- ,1986, by Pitkin Limited,
Colorado corporation, !by Michael B. Lipkin, its President.
i
me
a
(SEAL)
WITNESs.mY,~and a~d Of~~c}~ s
My comm~ss~qn exp~res:4/~/r
rwh20.58
-2-
~.
,^,
GORDON SUBDIVISION (LOT 2) 1986
.;.
-l1\\1}
~.OO ,
"'" -
~-
..::l
,
,s:..
~-z
hu
,()\,\,
~~
.u.,,", .
ru
,..
.....,,~.!~......,,',.(..."....-:.
r '
..J
I.W
(.)
ex:
<..- ,-~-
c.. t
~{\
,uDt)
~~~
r ..:11:
~~ '
-:1.....
-'""~
~~ -;-
)( .
1.Il~--
\
,\
":'}'::,:iA*~;,.: ;,~,~~ ~"";.": '.' '~":"'~.;~:~'.' ,. , ..:,''':'~~;
." ,_It.,~Z''t!'~''' ~~ ,. ""~a,~/~",~,, .
'~,:11f:Xfzf~Xr,~:;' 't:":J!' ,""'X'
. ~
'. .' . ~ 'at
',' .
','
. .'..
.~ .'
'.
. . ..';' . ~.
; ,\.. ,-'/,
"",'
.......
~
I '
/'
/
I
\~
(t
I
I
I
I
- .............
-1\11
'J, f..r
"
,~'
;i:?/,-', l,'
. '.~) 'r<~4
I
@.i;
w ~.., 'iO;'iJ?'~< '.
e ,~.-.@
t@,3. .'...... ...,.f.."t,~,',,',.;,.',...,
@ jt--->- '
--, I ~.'. (7)
(' ,:, I
"Oq.'~""-.~':!
ID!;'-~t"'.;:'-~~f' .
. ,.'...-.". i .,~r.G.l.I.,.h~)
.1 . {' .OQ'_ ..
)0 ~:~'~.,
~ .: / '
~@ ,f( '.,,~,",:
'J ", .,-.._~. 17A,.:
1"r@.'...~O...,.....2 ...".....'....'.i,;?bk./. /. /("
ElUC/(W~j{T @
. ' -, .,' SUBJIVI ION
';"A' .
, . \;;:JT :~-
It_": '
, 'h 'tol.
@
" l
. :."
~ ~..
'.,
6..(9 .... '.
.J
:c.....)
, '"
I",
..,?/
:f/
/
""'~~/'9
, I
UTE CEMETERY
~
(EXEMPT)
/
'" .... \.
':'~<"'- 1:5 ~x
15 r: '-- ' '~'~A~
: 5U80IVI5,,,, I. ~,;~
~l ~~N f ".j;[!~~i
.. 0 ,,';'",
~.
"'~ /
1 ~v/
... .
r
...
1
v
'~~
"',~, J ,f)"" '.
.1,?;?,;.1 --
.'o'(jA.I'i{)lJ".,
ti ~ II q
~OlJ",!G"" ,c,>411~"tl 0,
4/!y ')p_'I/'?1.14D
,JR
'"
I-tljy 1'1
4S'1J} ~ rl.}
€V
318 AC
CITY LIMIT
LOT 18
36.3 AC,
@
t
PRE-APPLI CATIOltCONFEkENCE SUMMARY
~ ,~
PROJECT: Gor4tJh SIibJivi..i'ol,.
AfPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: 51,,, "'lf~l~
REPRESENTATIVE1S PBONE:
1'-:)--1-16
OWNERS NAME: 5'AelJlh' fI~
SUMMARY
1. Type of Application: ScA,Jivi)iblll stre~1tJ MAVJ;Jo fl~vJ'(t.J
2. Describe action/type of development being reques~ed:
W()IJIJ. Jjrt'o bt;;JJ two 5;1) /.t-fAnti/, h,1lJjt~ dh Lilt7. '-llrJtJh Svi,dlvijlPt.. c-~iA
Oilt iLlR creJ;tfr-fJih fth:l" t1~ !MiJ,u Li leiI') aiJ d~;. tJS'JG-l4fJ
4 ~~wiJ; ~~.
3. Areas in which Applicant has been requested to respond, types of
reports requested:
Policy Areal
Referral Agent
f /\'pIDY't't fJ ou~ in,
-/
Did you tell applicant to submit list of ADJ~ROPERTY
OWNERS? (YES) (NO) Disclosure of Ownership: ~ : f.NO)
11 pre ,"'- , 1 I
What fee was applicant requested to submit: [(of. C4rrt-Ollerftu,^> t;ttrPreVietil re111fS ea
Anticipated date of submission: tu;+L;,., a w~~i(.s
Tr,; I An' {J,j 'j.(E.be~.,;tf' _
S IIbJ iiliJ;Oh PrDUS!.
~~ ft.14ffJJlI rtv}-tY
4.
Review is: (P&Z Only)
5.
6.
Public Bearing:
(})
8.
Comments
WoviJ fnv!tiJ I"v ~ k~ J d)1-J, di 1f-~ I
~ nvif ~J,~ ~M pw1~,
toOt/II ~; ~ uJ ~ Ix ~ -k ~k~j~ .
8~ ~ ~J~. ~ ~tk ttrw:rtJ
~ put'Yb-Gt -tk"'l8~'Mf-tffrd~ tJ~ ~~JJ~ lS)
u.J ~ mvJ, 1 ~ ~ J ~ivh wrJJJ a it. l' r;,kt t"
Prl-littl;(\Ati SvbJ. reI/if,", .
+7>!u ~ hfW,~ ~. PAt~
(CC/BOCC Only)
(P&Z then to CC/BOCC)
(YES) (NO)
9. COMJ.IENTS/UNIQUE CONCERNS:
I7~ :G, ~ Mt a ~~v~J. :J'J~ ~ '" M~~ tJt ~
flu 61kf . ~ f., ~ '(~ I b;;U;1I .~1.! l(eh.H(~1 dfpkrx,,;.iJ
a~J sb; i rtJ,l with;" fJ,.. flfr",,( U+a,fif!o rejtJl~1t1}..,5AfIN'. ,
!lW
1.:IIPlj xii'
ty!'
,I
i i _
fCLaJ..^~-Z"-_jJ~J~' ~
o '<*=~~~!"'----'P-- b ~L!~_
: i
~ j J ~ ~ ~A-Q
i I
~~- A- J~__-,Qd~g..J
44~;~jJ~;:~~~
ii CAJ,~ .
Ii Q----;;;d-~ ~
----1 jl~ ::.-. L;;';:~~t~-
. I '
f?~ .JJe.r;,~_ ~(
ii'
II 0J tJfL- r-/~ ~
&P~A'~~ ~~
i:
15~/)~~_- L~€ ~~^-
rfA-~1( 0
I , _....L..-_____..___..___.____.___._________
II ~~_~
!i-~~ MosS-
I!
-------LL 7 d-C /;;r-J --1.
i!
j!
-,--,-----------+-+---------------------
, I
_~_____.~~___.__C__J..._.__._.________._____________.._________.___._______________~____________~________.._____________._~._~__
../)
c:-
/::'
~ \
\ lS\
\ ~ \
\' ~~ \
%~ \
\ ~-
\ ~\\
\ '-~ \
--\ " t~y c,c.
\ ~~ \
...L.N'v7c/ ,,\ \ ~~ \
~ \ ~~\
O€-a CldNOz C7t>'OY .iNV']./ ~-:. . .., " ~ .....~.....:' \
. --t"\-~ .)Id"Y~;)d' 1 ,,, ~ ~ -z.:. . ................ ..............----
t't";~ ,e, . I'YC'/Jg YdYrl . .., ~~~i"~.' \ ,. .
I - ~ , . ::i.4-. ," , "'- '\. \V~
I .<..J~ '.' .,', ~t..~<<:<~."., ~~ \""'" \ .
II. ...".',.'. ~,./'1.,..,i:i.Lf"..,~,:><,.,.,,:"" ,.. T-.(..\~\\ ~ \
" '. ":",:-:, CfjJ'C , "..;;,' "'.' ';..L. cz_ '7 ~ 0
:..' /- 0<;\ , ,:. ,~~,.:'.>~~-~ '.'.., .. ' G'/"':';'-::n, >.7'\ .<~
: .' 0 5B' e.., ~\q".. UJ', ' ',..,..', /,N.' <~!."'~~':"$S0..'><'Cb" · - , ..... .,...:'!)U ~~ ""~e. -<"L " \' , ~~\
I \0...\02> ,<' <>:>'.A-:',:~:,'.:.~~:,':..~"-:;,',:..." 'b g.gZ;....l n7tjJ::\::..",b.t.~ r-.,y 'Y~ ,....'.\\
I .\"4, '.', :::;":h,>r.;Ll2~, .'. ",:'" /I GIG&:,...O h "'""Vob,>' 'fi-'::::-., ...;>~ ~\_ ...... \ .
I .{, "'1(p""::::"i:.}~.:,c.::'" ' 0'1:,. =a y c; '" p...... I :"'" I/i ~ .-.. ...0....
r-, ~::'<t.:.~~::{~,~~:~::(~%~~~~~~:'::<:,~'r~c '..;.' ., ...._.....~.?...o...-;,:..r;i'R;.~OAi5.._...._....e.....:;;..::~~...... ~','" ~'?~~~.~. ,:\ ~;ac'
....' '-'". -' ............... Er,..".;;;;;n;. , t.." \ A / r-- 'V . L \
.... ~ ....._..-.....~............... · . 5 ~v v ~ ::;;> ~ \ " , \ "":
" .......................7'A.NE. '~~ CAf}L~ . ~O. ~~~
..-.......--r-..... LI \ CASEMeNT .:::-=~'ff1.rU.~~._._.-:- · . ~ ~~ .....~ \
I -r-I' I r y' ~ t::---= ~.::::::.~.......................... . !;c-~!>~6)'" \'
' U I J,...o ..----::t ~~:~:......".......- ............f=)''-'o ' "C'" ~ ' \
I v ~ ~ ~~:::::........ - , ".r.~'~.L~ ....'o<J>.",.\ ~
~~---.-:....~............ ........c>...... .... /(;1 ..'_ '-... .~ y\
~o ..:....................... _---- ,-~ .,," ....;;(h2.. ri?-~ . ..... / ~
..............7~ - ---- '-~ --t::t....... ....... ....... . . .X?.i,... I '
-- '. 7/qy-~" ()~
· ';"--\;--\\S'.'2.f>, "',, &> .... .......L.... \$'", /.~
, --- oB~ \...- .." _F .-:::1100. ^((), .r.~
~-l- "-\0'3>' . , \I ..' ::J.I ~""'~.," \\f<<~.JJ:
'7- /. '" . "--)" ~. 6 _' /. . '''''./';!:N ......_... ,?p/#
I ~/ /' /.' he ~ HZ . "'''"<1 t
''1 ," ~~D~~' ~
~ / ' 3~~
--I ~ ~zo
I / CZ~~~;h
>1 t l'~.' ~~2~~
) ~ ~ ~~ '
I d (i' l-~TI-
I \D If) t\ ~ 61\.:F 5,
'T \~ U\ ~ ~ ;?"5 t-: Z ::2
~12:~ ~ ~~~E~
'T 0 t') ~ = 1U1U~:>lLJ
I""" ~ ~i:' Q-J n'
':f I ! r. ~
i
!
2~~~ 2~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~.~~~~...~
9 ~ ,~
~ g- l't: z~~ ~ 8
i< 1u <<( 1--
r= :1:0lllJ - >-
<0 F<DS'w.35:
.JI- IlJDL
~ ~~~
~'
~,
~~~
~7""~
S~
>b
~f
~~~
~Z;>-
~~6
bILl
1(E;
~u~
~ D~~
'i. U> ~~8
~ ~ ~e~
~ f g~~
Q U ~<t()
I
. lLl 6 ....
~I- 0 ~ ILl 0 ~""'rhJ ~8~ ~
>tLJ - Q -I Z ~ . 51-~DL!UUlZF?:
o 1lJ ,~ ~, :JD <!) .....2 ~F~~~aD~ ~
~o ~; ~ ~~~ U-!~t'J b~~ ft~1L.. ~~ if) (j ~
~ g~. t= zQ tCi~ ~z~ Ci f~' , '" '..'
~ n 00\" 6 'J C\ A P 2 -. z ) ~ 1r 1;- ~ ~-1 ' &J ~
q (\1 - 1:-' ~ ~.:-'~ --. ~ ~1-0 ,'~~'; ~:'ll', ;Dfi.,:;,:, ,> ..
. ,. - . -- ~~ ' - It, ,',' , uJ u.. ~ C4 :>-'z l:. ~ ki . ~
r" - -, ~ It - J ttI'T- f- 18 u.. l.O Ul 2 PI Z F 0 ~ z 8 0...
/~ ~..{) ~ u,. E 1d q E]~ ~ '-~ ~ ~, ltZ lLJ ~ ~ {do ~ 08 . \.. IlL....} lLJ
~Q u e~3~ ~ 'S~ ~~~ ~ ~~F8~~~D~~ '.~ -aoU
~l 0 lLJ r-- 0 (J' - is) l\-..9:> ~ ..- ~:: Ci I:-: \D r:~;( <f iLl' 9 ~ -fl Z <:
~JS~ '3"~klt(i ~-uJ-:ro\O _0~~. ~~~ nL ffi-~~ tCSD~8g ~ ~
~'; u ~ D,,: ~~ i; lU tU R C) -\:!L1'> ~\p r:::. ~ J .. t5 ei $ '-.,Gz ~ ~\O ~ Oz
~~~ N~~~BRH~z~R~~~~~~~ ..~ ~FS~<~5~~~ - <
~~IW 'Z"T~~t:o 0 ~1Y-~(.~l\J,.>-~p()C'! \II IW'>- &:r.lL1l.L 3: .... '>-
:z~ tz- ~-~ z " z ~~! LU u- n(l, ~~ to ~h(,) F ~ - ~, gl. > g ;j:2 ILl \() F- ...-l
lUUI xllilW"'I.l.Jvor-IL..IWOnF"'l1.-UJI'"""' .... - ~'1:T IU~ ~./
U U) tj - \U to () dJ u Z Z Z 0 ~ z 1 ;; u 3; z ~ ~ . ~ 2 &2~) F ~ ~ ~ u ~
\d ~J t~ ~jpl lLllLl lU~. ~ ' 'I' hn hJ tiX\(; ~&F Z [d
!..? -'~ -'? " . ~ s.J ~ Q ~: f( , "' ~ to >- a ~ ~ Q l\t lJ n.:
~ ~ ~ ~i ~~ ~~J I.ill ~ '5.~i~~~~~~~ ~~,
t:"",.q \\
v.. I '1~..,.
\:">)1 \"f _
j. 11 \oj \'::-
~S:.Ji ,"., S
~ll.\\ CJ
'. /...
....~J! ~ ~
> lID ~ ~ 21
\, (H~ ~ r- ~I~
. ;:!'@ ;~~;II~
i G ~...l.:J (\' !4 X
Ii'?;!::; 1& <<:s ~ ~
0:!~1D- Z 3~...l . -..Jlh
__ _ _"_ !?J-.'" cnN~2 OV?Y..-:"'~"(~~l ~'1:~1~'7'""--~-~ I~.
~..... i<7,y....1 ~ I ,-c..---...~
""".,
~~~
b f!
.,...{ .J '
~~t:
~ r-- I'-- :
ri~o2:
Ci<(~ _'
~ '
l1- ~" ;
oz~
\U
r::2lL1
,~~if
'7 ~
Ru- ~LL i
SO C).
~Ei~ ~ I
. <( t)'-'
&Q
Q)<r
~l1JD
I1:Z
rF<t
~
,:S;
.t""-'
.0 V 0 i!!/
/~~......--
~
-1
~
IU
z
~,...tD ..
~ ,z
I() ~
. ~Z
-uTO,
-
~~
Z
~~
0-8
q
o ~
Z l\
:5 ~
]
D ~
l.J.J -
~ " ~
~ tl.:: ':"
<( lU'
~ 72
z S't
:) 0 Ii
1/
II