HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.1039 E Cooper Ave.A109-95 CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED: 12/18/95 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO.
DATE COMPLETE: 2737 - 073 -42 - 029 A109 -95
STAFF MEMBER: DM
PROJECT NAME: Chateau Roaring Fork Stream Margin Review Exemption
Project Address: 1039 E. Cooper
Legal Address:
APPLICANT: Chateau Roaring Fork Condo. Association
Applicant Address: (% Coates, Reid & Waldron 720 E. Hyman)
REPRESENTATIVE: Hydro Consulting - Robert Krehbiel
Representative Address /Phone: : - -- • - -
-- Carbondale, CO 81611
FEES: PLANNING $425 # APPS RECEIVED 1
ENGINEER $ # PLATS RECEIVED
HOUSING $
ENV. HEALTH $
TOTAL $425
TYPE OF APPLICATION: STAFF APPROVAL: X 1 STEP: 2 STEP:
P &Z Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO
VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO
CC Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO
VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO
DRC Meeting Date
REFERRALS:
City Attorney Parks Dept. School District
City Engineer Bldg Inspector Rocky Mtn NatGas
Housing Dir. Fire Marshal CDOT
Aspen Water Holy Cross Clean Air Board
City Electric Mtn. Bell Open Space Board
Envir.Hlth. ACSD Other
Zoning Energy Center Other
DATE REFERRED: AO- INITIALS: 4 1. DUE: A.51
FINAL ROUTING: d DATE ROUTED: INITIAL:
City Atty AL City Engineer Zoning Env. Health
Housing Open Space Other:
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:
IIVDR6 CONSULTING, LLC.
0289 SURREY STREET
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
(970) 963-5818
November 12, 1996
Ms. Suzanne Wolff
Aspen Community Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: Chateau Roaring Fork - Building A
Stream Margin Exemption Permit
Dear Ms. Wolff:
Per your request to close out the Stream Margin permit process, we are forwarding to you documents
relating to the completion of the Chateau Roaring Fork - Foundation Protection project. A copy of our May
29, 1996 engineering letter is enclosed which indicates the project was constructed as designed. Also
enclosed for your files are four pictures taken April 25, 1996 which show the work in progress and the
completed project. You should already have in the file the completed permit application, receipt of the
$425 application fee, and letters from the Corps of Engineers and Division of Wildlife indicating
authorization of the project.
We are pleased that an engineered solution could be accomplished to protect the building foundation which
had almost no negative impact to the environment or river corridor. Please call me a (303) 312 -4542 if
there are any further questions. Otherwise, we believe the permit process for Aspen is now complete.
Respectfully,
Hydro Consulting, LLC
ja
Robert D. Krehbiel, P.E.
Water /Civil Engineer
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Kent Kuhlmann, Coates, Reid and Waldron
NOV 1 51996
• HYDRO CONSULTING, LLC.
0289 SURREY STREET
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
(970) 963-5818
May 29, 1996
Mr. Kent Kuhlmann
Coates, Reid and Waldron, Property Management
720 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: Chateau Roaring Fork - Foundation Protection Construction
Dear Mr. Kuhlmann:
Construction is complete on the Chateau Roaring Fork, Building A to restore a firm foundation
subgrade and to provide frost protection cover for the footer. Mays Construction Specialties, Inc.
from Grand Junction completed the injection grouting and frost depth cover for the building
foundation wall adjacent to the Roaring Fork River. Mays Construction is a concrete specialty
construction firm familiar with the use of injection pressure grouting and shotcrete. The project was
completed in a quality and efficient manner with a crew of eight workers. This project was completed
without placing heavy equipment in the river or impacting waters of the U.S. in accordance with
permits obtained from the Corps of Engineers, Division of Wildlife and City of Aspen.
Construction work was performed on April 23 - 25, 1996, and was scheduled for the warmest
possible weather period before high flow in the Roaring Fork River due to spring runoff. Mays
Construction suspended their work on other projects to complete this project during the short
window of opportunity before the river rose too high, and during warm weather so freezing
temperatures would not damage the curing concrete.
All work was staged from the property on the opposite river bank to reduce the pumping distance
of the shotcrete and grout. Since concrete segregates when pumped long distances, the use of the
neighbor's property assisted in providing the highest quality concrete for the project.
Work began with injection of grout under the exposed portions of building foundation footer at a
spacing interval of every three feet for a distance of approximately 70 lineal feet. Holes were drilled
through the soil and cobbles under the foundation to pressure inject grout into all voids behind and
under the footer. Fortunately, the river had not scoured away as much material under the foundation
as initially presumed, and therefore, less grout was needed to fill the voids. A firm subgrade has now
been re- established under the building foundation.
After completing the pressure grouting under the foundation, welded wire fabric was positioned
against the foundation and shotcrete was pumped against the exposed face of the foundation wall to
provide a minimum frost depth cover of 24 inches. Shotcrete is a high strength fine aggregate
concrete with fiberglass fibers that is pumped and sprayed into position. The shotcrete and aesthetic
river rock were keyed into the subgrade to minimise the ability of the river to scour under this new
HYDRO CONSIULTING, LLC.
0289 SURREY STREET
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
Mr. Kent Kuhlmann (970) 963 - 5818
Coates, Reid and Waldron, PropertyManagement
May 29, 1996
Page 2
frost cover. Only the exposed areas of the foundation with less than 24 inches of cover were
protected with shotcrete. Areas that withstood the flooding of 1995 have a firm frost depth cover
and were not disturbed. Critical areas along the foundation receiving shotcrete extended a total of
approximately 150 lineal feet.
Mays Construction Specialties, Inc. completed the project generally in accordance with the
specifications and in a quality manner and on budget. Although the design showed more native
cobble covering the shotcrete, as constructed the work will provide a high - strength, visually -
acceptable barrier. The workers found it difficult to obtain enough cobble on -site in the icy water,
and the shotcrete alone will be adequate to resist the river scour. Moreover, the new foundation
cover is generally out of view and well blended into the native rock to meet the design criteria. The
exposed aggregate finish of the shotcrete, along with the placement of assorted cobble, provides an
acceptable appearance while meeting the requirements of the project.
The final task to be completed which will need periodic maintenance is to provide a seal between the
new cover and building. The specifications require the owner to caulk the fillet between the shotcrete
and the original foundation wall after construction to allow for shrinkage of the concrete during
curing. This caulking prevents water from seeping between the foundation and the shotcrete which
can become a problem during freezing conditions. The structural engineer recommends the use of
Sika Flex 1 -A caulk along with a primer to promote bonding. If this caulk is not readily available
locally, the manufacturer can be contacted at 1 -800- 933 -7452, or the local representative (Chris
Sajbel) can be contacted at (303) 337 -1713. The caulking should be inspected annually before winter,
and additional caulking should be applied as needed to maximize the service life of the new
foundation cover.
Please call if there are further questions about the project.
Respectfully,
Hydro Consulting, LLC
.Jjj
Robert D. Krehbiel, P.E.
Water /Civil Engineer
A NT 0p
5<, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY °
at. Z U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, SACRAMENTO
CI'
9 CORPS OF ENGINEERS A. ��`
1325J STREET �
REPLY TO SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95810 -2922 1i MP _r 8 t , ^ >, 3 ,
sines 3* ^ ATTENTION OF - a
March 5, 1996 \
Regulatory Branch (199675090) `',g1 ���?°
rPi'(f
Mr. Robert Krehbiel
Hydro Consulting
0289 Surrey Street
Carbondale, Colorado 81623
Dear Mr. Krehbiel:
We are responding to your request for a Department of the
Army permit to discharge fill material into the Roaring Fork
River for a bank stabilzation project to protect the Chateau
Roaring. Fork. The project is located on Roaring Fork River in
Section 18, Township 10 South, Range 84 West, City of Aspen,
Pitkin County, Colorado.
We cannot give a detailed review of your proposed project.
However, we recognize the need to expedite confirmation for
activities that qualify for our nationwide general permits.
Consequently, we reviewed your information and believe that you
proposed work will qualify for nationwide permit number 13.
We are enclosing a copy of the permit. Please review the
conditions and requirements of the permit. You are responsible
for insuring that your work complies with the permit. Provided
that the work is conducted in accordance with the permit, your
project is permitted under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
This concludes our action on your proposed project. If you
have any questions regarding the use of this nationwide general
permit, please contact Mr. Michael Claffey at the address below,
or telephone (970) 243 -1199. We assigned 199675090 to your
project.
Sincerely,
Grady L. McNure
Chief, Northwestern Colorado
Regulatory Office
402 Rood Avenue, Room 142
Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 -2563
Copy Furnished:
1/Mr. Chuck Roth and Mr. Dave Michaelson, Aspen Community Planning
Department, 130 South Galena, Aspen, Colorado 81611
State of Colorado
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
Department of Natural Resources
February 22, 1996
Mr Chuck Roth, PE
City Engineer
City of Aspen
130 S Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Chuck
This is a letter of comment on a proposal to do riverbank work
at Chateau Roaring Fork. It is in response to a letter from
Robert Krehbiel dated February 15.
Robert has come up with an acceptable plan of action which
satisfies the landowner's requirements while producing the
minimum impacts to the river channel. I am convinced that his
proposal is the least damaging practicable alternative.
He has mentioned the area of deposition upstream of the Cooper
Street bridge as contributing to Chateau Roaring Fork's problem.
I agree with him. I'm not sure how appropriate it would be to
remove bedload at this time, in light of your coming renovation
of East Cooper. Maybe I could suggest that when the bridge is
replaced (I am told that it will be a longer span), you consider
removing bedload, since it will be mobilized anyway by the
removal of the channel constriction.
Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
Si erely,
Czenkusch
Aquatic Habitat Biologist
CC: Clark, Cote (DOW)
Krehbiel (Hydro Consulting)
Michaelson (City of Aspen)
Claffey (USACE)
HYDR 0 CONSULTING, LLC.
0289 SURREY STREET
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
(970) 963 -5818
February 15, 1996
Mr. Mike Claffey Mr. Alan Czenkusch
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Colorado Division of Wildlife
Grand Junction Regulatory Office 0473 Mountain Laurel Drive
402 Rood, Room 142 Aspen, Colorado 81611
Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 -2563
RE: Authorization for Bank Stabilization
Chateau Roaring Fork, Building A - Foundation Protection
Dear Mr. Claffey and Mr. Czenkusch:
I sent both of you a letter on October 30, 1995 detailing the proposal by the owners of the
Chateau Roaring Fork, Building A in Aspen to replace cover over the condominium foundation
next to the Roaring Fork River. Floods have scoured the soil cover away from the building
foundation causing two problems which need to be addressed as soon as possible to maintain the
structural integrity of the building foundation. First, the voids created by scour from the river
under the spread footer foundation must be filled to reestablish a bearing on firm soil. Secondly,
a "frost depth" cover must be reestablished over the footer to protect the foundation from
deterioration due to freeze /thaw cycles. A plan of action to restore this cover was proposed
under the Nationwide Permit 13 for bank stabilization.
On November 13, 1995, I also sent Mx. Claffey a letter from the State Historic Preservation
Officer indicating no known cultural resources for the proposed project of restoring foundation
protection on the Chateau Roaring Fork building in Aspen.
The project did not get completed before the winter as originally proposed, and now the project is
scheduled to occur in late April before a major rise in the river during spring runoff. At this time,
the City of Aspen must have letters from the Corps of Engineers and the Division of Wildlife to
complete the stream margin review process for the city/county permit. Please send your
comments as soon as possible to both Chuck Roth, P.E. City Engineer and Mr. Dave
Michaelson, Community Planning Department, at 130 South Galena Street, Aspen,
Colorado 81611.
Respectfully,
Hydro Consulting, LLC
/ i E //
Robert D. Krehbiel, P.E.
Water /Civil Engineer
cc: Kent Kuhlmann, Coates, Reid and Waldron, Property Management
Chateau Roaring Fork
Condominium Association
November 27, 1995
To Whom It May Concern:
This letter is to state that Hydro Consulting, 0289 Surrey St.,
Carbondale, CO 81623, 970 - 963 -5818 is authorized to act on behalf
of Chateau Roaring Fork Condominium Association, c/o Coates, Reid
and Waldron, 720 E. Hyman, Aspen, CO 81611.
Sincerely,
Kent G. Kuhlmann,
Associations Manager
:rcf
}
c/o CRW Property Management
720 East Hyman Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611, (970) 925 -1400
HVDR? CONSULTING, LLC.
0289 SURREY STREET
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
(970) 963-5818
October 30, 1995
Mr. Mike Claffey
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Grand Junction Regulatory Office
402 Rood, Room 142
Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 -2563
Mr. Alan Czenkusch
Colorado Division of Wildlife
0473 Mountain Laurel Drive
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Mr. Chuck Roth, P.E.
City of Aspen Engineering Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: Permit Application
Chateau Roaring Fork, Building A - Foundation Protection
Dear Mr. Claffey, Mr. Czenkusch and Mr. Roth:
The owners of the Chateau Roaring Fork, Building A desire to replace cover over the
condominium foundation next to the Roaring Fork River. Floods have scoured the soil cover
away from the building foundation causing two problems which need to be addressed as soon as
possible to maintain the structural integrity of the building foundation. First, the voids created by
scour from the river under the spread footer foundation must be filled to reestablish a bearing on
firm soil. Secondly, a "frost depth" cover must be reestablished over the footer to protect the
foundation from deterioration due to freeze /thaw cycles. Pitkin County Building Code requires
36 inches of frost depth protection cover over the base of the foundation footer. Although this
requirement will not be enforced on existing development, frost depth protection is recommended
by the structural engineer. A plan of action to restore this cover is proposed which is can likely be
permitted by the Corps of Engineers under the Nationwide Permit 13 for bank stabilization and by
the City of Aspen in the stream margin review process.
APPLICANT
The applicant is Coates, Reid and Waldron, attention Kent Kuhlmann at 720 East Hyman Avenue,
Aspen, Colorado 81611, telephone (970) 925 -2347. The designated agent is Robert Krehbiel of
Hydro Consulting at the address shown on the letterhead.
N I 0 13 15
Mr. Claffey, Mr. Czenkusch and Mr. Roth
October 30, 1995
Page 2
LOCATION
The project is located within the City of Aspen, in Pitkin County Colorado. The site is in the
NE1/4 of Section 18 (protracted), Townchip 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M. The
property is located along Highway 82 (Cooper Street) on the upstream, west side of the last
bridge over the Roaring Fork River leaving Aspen toward Independence Pass.
SCOPE OF WORK
The City of Aspen can likely provide an exemption to the stream margin review for restoration
work within the floodplain if construction can be completed without the use of heavy equipment
in the river. Therefore, restoration of fill over the foundation using hand labor, small tools and
pumping of fill material to the site is the only action proposed under this permit application. The
use of heavy equipment in the river is not requested under this permit application.
Approximately 150 lineal feet of the total building length of 273 feet along the river will need
restoration of foundation protection. Fill is needed against the building foundation to a maximum
depth of 36 inches, however, not all areas will require a full additional new three feet of cover. At
most 0.33 cubic yards of fill material is required per lineal foot. Therefore, only 20 to 40 cubic
yards of fill will be needed.
s
PROPOSED PLAN OF ACTION
The proposed action involves the use of concrete mixer trucks, pumps and compressors located
next to the buildings, in the upland yard areas. Only 2 -inch hoses and laborers will be positioned
in the river corridor. First, the area along the exposed building foundation will be cleaned of
debris and loose material using hand labor and air compressors. Next, a brown - tinted, low -slump
concrete will be pumped against the foundation to provide a frost depth of cover of 18 inches
minimum, 36 inches maximum. The very low slump mixture, called "shotcrete," will used which
will minimize spread of the pumped fill material away from the foundation. Native river cobble
from the river bed will then carefully be placed in the wet concrete to provide a scour protection
barrier and cover the shotcrete to provide a "natural" appearance. Assuming the rock cobble
cover is no more than 0.5 feet wide this will amount to approximately 10 cubic yards of native
rocks removed from the channel and placed in the wall. The use of rock from the channel will
minimize the addition of new material into the channel cross section.
Where willows exist, the plants will be protected to maintain existing bank stability, and the fill
material will be discontinued or placed carefully around the vegetation and separated by the use of
filter fabric. Therefore, we do not anticipate impacts to existing wetland vegetation.
Mr. Claffey, Mr. Czenkusch and Mr. Roth
October 30, 1995
Page 3
With the shotcrete frost protection cover in- place, non - shrink grout will be inject through this
added material to fill the voids created by scour under the footer. (The grout is injected after the
backfill is complete so the voids can be filled under pressure without it flowing out from under the
foundation.) The amount of grout required under and inside the foundation cannot be determined
at this time without exploratory testing since scour over the years may have washed away the fine
material from inside the foundation wall under the building floor.
ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
Over time, existing conditions will cause irreparable damage to the building foundation. This
project is a maintenance issue to replace foundation cover material that once existed. Corrective
action must be undertaken as soon as possible to protect the structural stability of the building
foundation. Therefore, to protect the existing building and its occupants, the "no action"
alternative is not considered an option.
Another option is to have a front end loader working in the river which is loaded with off -site
material by an excavator stationed on the top of the river bank. A loader hauling an average of
2.5 cubic yards per load would need to make approximately 20 round trips in the river to
complete the restoration work. Fill material could be placed to a depth of three feet above the
bottom of the footer at a 2:1 slope extending toward the river six feet. This option was rejected
due to the permitting problems associated with heavy equipment in the river.
A final option to consider is lowering the floodplain elevation. The Cooper Street bridge has
created two problems which impacts the level of flood water at the Chateau Roaring Fork
building. First, the constriction of the channel at the bridge increases the normal depth of the 100 -
year flood from an average of 6 feet to a depth of 11 feet according to floodplain mapping. The
increased flood depth impacts the channel a distance of 300 feet upstream from the bridge
entrance which includes the reach in front of the Chateau Roaring Fork building. Secondly, the
constriction reduces the velocity of flood water upstream from the bridge and causes sediment
deposition, thereby raising the river bed elevation which further elevates the flood water level and
causes a widening of the channel upstream from the bridge. This is evident by the changes in
channel slope and unnatural steep channel slope immediately upstream of the bridge. These two
impacts can be reduced by removing the flow restriction of large boulders and huge chunk of
concrete that have fallen into the main channel on the upstream side of the bridge. Originally,
these objects were used to stabilize the river bank, but now only block the flow. In addition to
removing or repositioning these concrete blocks and boulders, which are likely within the highway
right -of -way, removing material from the river bed would increase the channel cross section and
lower the flood water level in front of Chateau Roaring Fork. This option again requires the use
of heavy equipment in the river channel.
Mr. Claffey, Mr. Czenkusch and Mr. Roth
October 12, 1995
Page 4
TIMING OF WORK Pu Pacr- - s r�P7
It is understood that a major disturbance to the channel bottom cannot occur during spawning and
hatching of the brown trout from October through February. Removing boulders from the stream
channel by hand is not considered to be a major disturbance. The use of concrete and grout
should be completed when the temperature is above 40 °F which may require that heaters be used
during construction if work is completed this fall and winter before the next spring runoff
Restoration work is strongly encouraged to begin as soon as possible, before heavy snowfall and
before next spring runoff. Therefore, prompt attention to this permit application is appreciated.
The proposed action using pumped shotcrete and native river cobble for frost depth cover will
likely be completed within one week. The injection of grout under the foundation footer to fill
subgrade voids can be completed in three days. Therefore, the total project is anticipated to be
completed in less than two weeks.
Please review the enclosed design drawings and call with any questions or comments. Your
expedient review is appreciated for issuance of the necessary permits.
Respectfully,
Hydro Consulting, LLC
Robert D. Krehbiel, P.E.
Water /Civil Engineer
Attachments: Site Plan Drawing
Foundation Profile Design
cc: Kent Kuhlmann, Coates, Reid and Waldron, Property Management
_ , . ' •'6 / 1 , �� ;
jam
V. Cl 11 �c�_�i II W Pr .1 .--''. tsr 4-42)11.
1 . ' --' // — L , te
It
1. I vli 8 600 ii \�
I \K_5\-MK(.97-,_______ , ,: - ''' t ___ \__,' , 4. Wilairit , .,.. j i ( . 1 1: \
— __��,;I - �. ' __;r i ` g 9
-•i-1� . , , o° �,.�
'\ 3 c " :17. 1 E. � .' ••� H /27L , /�, •
_ �! /, � A � ! 1 �I� i �v � � ° /� •4 I . N QU 0
� h� i- � ul v /i y 4 Z S = 0.
A \ I � t ° • ' / < o p
h� i 11— ; /- O �/ �� r, , p h i Q U 3 p L O -_
ii �i i ` •/ o00 / -- I a'4_■ , 4 : � / W � O _ •
i\ 1 �. I go ) " �� � , i Need 2
r,. 5 9 / 1 i l � a •
i' /f ■ ,`' -4-,,i: •.b j� Fr d), -1 ll_i "� \ / 1
jry]lJ U ar7' /0 o Yip,' ce
� :.
.� / / �� i � i // ----,,.,_,_.,l.:\--x---7\NI--:.:T--;1 7:: 1 -177;71 ,\,: ii - L 17:: :
✓ / ice • II �Ih_� i' /
I •
u -Lim E�'�. �/ c 9 = � Q l ^� v ��0
c r° __,, ___ Zt„..::
H"9R6 CONSULTING, LLC.
• 0289 SURREY STREET
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
(970) 963 -5818
— — 273 Fr
Cat. fµ
AREA ,� n � ._ — a .!
ro"
130 Fr.' lD"
I
,
1 I
,
CHArk44 :.. Ro A #Wl. Fo0.14
µµ 15T,
' nosy, s ' - N .� /T • I Co..Ict?P WALL.
w e
8
to
to
�- PROJECT" PLAN VIEW
10'
TYPICAL CROSS SE�.T�o 1 Srep 3t 1 "4 ecr G2o\ar
SCALE 1 " , leg o Voib.
%10 N tA\JY CQUIPMeN47- y./SLL BC 4t -cowf It-1 r71'r AWE*.
Cot) q .V C
ROVID F2osr bePrM 02 / 8 n eid• r
36., ` , 4 T" :
r i
r� ,r , l i s w ,
• ^
Srtp / at Loose D 613 /( . at r
B Y S+A..,b kerb ,.u 44
`' rt • • a
kow Slu/••\P SNcrcePrC n 0
• 0
AGA , Nsr roe- A ri 4)? 7?
Fo,k A F/l 17 r De " ' , „011T/Ak.. .. r,t ,,.. ° c t G^ • I
CUO tl2 /8 T"'..,, - 1, " H j Or
STEP A.4, pcnCC ` J
g csh.te nc ftoc °
%IJ ro -Slip rckee!'
to /Ai& 47-1 24cK= a c Yv�r y
FRot.A R1YLR
• •
* -, T" y se
KEY w
Ok K NEYIST /N ► ::i
R
ro k S c0rah DRO recnaJ / a , , i'14.1.4 ��' :. ,,. �; e 1 ,/ a* -� . ,.
RoaR146 FORK ' / / "AVcre S W 4 ” !� NK ` <_ 7
s/ /cY/✓ / /�• )�tv✓q �J t a rt� > \.9h sh 1 « " Q rl = t ra� ? i
a.�. •' k. ° nT : VI , 9. • �d , P , rs = . {. i• ✓ { . t y i i r:} (� -? : :� �':'
%;z. • • ' r ^ : a,v 3., : ,�.S,I( r • yt ; . r z
r.•: i• :,:,; • ' • _ :'':::
�,••:�.Y <• a �1 . J, � � ; . .,'Z • • Y. :j"•y ' • 1 . { =. •:�.. •. y: =.. j(:: . / ..ii :` ,
_•v s YL . : f:S 1/... •. '•u. • A• • ..��ll •i..iw'f+. .. :'SV al • .�'.V t�i . :�)`:ltil4�'� ,. _ .. ...: 4' 4 .. .. =:.•l.'. . ..�... ... ... • _ • _ . - .. .. .....
. .
Ira iris It -
."
II
k Nil -
1 i. yjl - I �_ - i a I 1 l I
1 11 1 y _
r _ L� •
.:q�- > `' `.... .. ii • -�J B Ilt'.� ' , *! . ♦ �[ ( 7
' A y
it / - .,. i , . 4,,, .
I II 1,
, ,
, 11,
, ....
_ ,
..,
II
. 7 _
i -1 11
Z e . '��i= - if _..a it II I'M 11
A ■ Mil _ _ NM
4.
__ +1:' tom- .- :, ,
s
t I
.. T r f tTT ,// . x J Y' t 1
1
I i I ,y .tttt c.,,„ , f
i' /7 e ! ' V ' r • • -
• t •• ii ,: k
• s��F �+r a Y.
•
y �� ^,` v t i s r ,
/ . 4.41 / 41 1 1 04 'N Mit - " 1. 1.. 4 •11;,- , , s • ' JJ if:
• - _ ii.
- - NOV 16 '95 09 03 MCLF]IGF-1._IN LATER ENG 303 - 4587015 P.2
GCT -26 -1995 0947 FPOil ASPEN /7!TKIN BLDG DEPT. TO 9- 963924: F'.
AWIAS r tN1' 1,
' int USE APPL:C7TIoN'FO 4
a) Project Name . ( 447ars- Rs2.41 L g__ Foyr.i a a P(/..or' - cr7o4
. 1
2) Project Location _JD 3 9 . - _ C. _o_P.. 2 �.. S.E. . 0 I L //
& or Sccriai iii [ /QS_, fi c/ 42- P.A.A.
(indicate street addfess, lot & block niter, !legal doscriptiori ;w bete
appropri.. ,e)
3) Patent Zoning /1 4) Lot Size
5) Applicant's Name, Address & Phone t CM are . 4 Conic
Co./oo.••tra,n , . Assoc. % Co4l 5r ,.,. cp c L/4 tab 204 7s D. t . NY'* +'✓
' ASPrr+y, co 81611
6) Representative's Name, Address & More ; , NYDa o Co../w t.rnl /,
Q oa ker u4t,E t_ oz89 Sant Sri C frir4 2.2 % 3 -58/$
7) Type at Application (please deck all that apply):
Conditional Use Conospthal SPA i _ Conceptual Historic Dev.
—
Spacial Review Final SPA Final Historic Day.
8040 Grerrtline _ conceptual PUD — Minor Historic Div.
Stoma Margin _ i
Piral PUD em
� Historic Dolition
Mountain .'View Subd vision — tdstorio Dic,�7ation
CordoesLninimiya Text/Map Arcerek acts Allotment ._ _ rat ' 1pt 11o t.� --- Rd.�usth tt 4i 1 47c00
8) Descrip't;ibn o f Fisting Uses (rasher and type of tdz'incg st ores;
approxiaate sq, ft.: timber of bedrooms; any previous approvals granted to the
P?'.rty) •
' ScuLDr.tt• 4 ;s 4 30- u - r e - x of V ca -now (c.1uo.,,./rwss
/3uic.J1.1 c. Slzr /s adP4pxru%rt-¢a -., I.6 sq.Ir.
A LsL 4/o/trc t./ /LL Ac our a'•14._. rile C Arr vi t ppj4.
n
9) sot of Development A,pp is ticn ST72 .... A.44422./a1 12-Ew t. I gk e.., Pf7ts-
1c/oa TDB r r. 7r /" ,Lr�gG .C?n?.orar _Lis:_
room Uf a ../o) then./ Flu ,SLow.ab r� Ponta. 4� ! / b -t,. 36 4c1/4444 14//n/ rrRE7 4r.4A QOGK T PRou}I.D Harr P..arrenoul
Fog rrt Fou.•/banet -/. L /.nuc „ Dace. / a/ TIC # rr4 -cN 1
10) Have you: attached the following? EA/C. tai &et/wt. .2FPc,tr
_LC Response to Attar 2, minima Sutni.,ksit7n contents
Response to Attad'wn.nt 3, Spectcic Submission contents
Resporsa to Attaddment 4, Review standards tor Your Application'