HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.sm.Rio Grande Snowmelt.41A-88 CASELOAD SUMMARY SH::z i
City of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED:- _X//a/_ PARCEL ID AND CASE NO.
DATE COMPLETE: 5 PP
STAFF MEMBER: (•
PROJECT NAME: (� !I' U�IXPJ,trruu Qc�� O,14 0/61 � L t C
Proj ect Addre:a:; :
APPLICANT:_-
Applicant Adages : �O^/ 1 rQ b:%lna . :, (-21/'Y
REPRESENTATIVE: ;CZ / /
Representative Address /Phone:
PAID: YES NO AMOUNT: NTG'
1) TYPE OF APPLICATION:
1 STEP: - �� 2 STEP:
2) IF 1 STEP APPLICATION GOES TO: /
P &Z CC PUBLIC -- HEARING DATE:` 4 (
VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO
3) PUBLIC HEARING IS BEFORE:
P &7, CC N/A
6i
DATE REFERRED: ?-1610
INITIALS :
Planning Director Approval: Paid:
Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption: Date:
Staff Approval: Paid:
Consent Agenda: Date:
REFERRALS: - -
\ - - City Attorney Mtn. Bell School District
qty Engineer Parks Dept. Rocky Mtn Nat Gas
Housing Dir. Holy Cross State Hwy Dept(GW)
Aspen Water Fire Marshall State Hwy Dept(GJ)
City Electric Fire Chief Bldg:Zon /Inspect
Envir. Hlth. Roaring Fork Roaring Fork
Aspen Consol. Transit Energy Center
S.D. Other
FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: PPP/ INITIAL:
City Atty City Engineer Bldg. Dept.
Other:_ / r ^
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: � � ' /� / /
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Cindy Houben and Tom Baker, Planning Office
RE: Rio Grande Snow Melt Facility /SPA Amendment /Stream
Margin Review - Public Hearing
DATE: September 20, 1988
APPLICANT: City of Aspen
REQUEST: SPA Amendment approval for a Snow Melting Facility on
the Rio Grande, Stream Margin Review for bank stabilization, and
storm drainage modification.
LOCATION: Rio Grande (Aspen One Property)
ZONING: PUB /SPA
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL: The applicant requests the
placement of a new snow melter facility and its associated snow
storage and upgrading of an existing storm drainage system into
the Roaring Fork River. These activities require a Stream Margin
Review. In addition, bank stabilization on the east side of the
Roaring Fork River and side channel dredging on the east side of
the Rio Grande property require Stream Margin Review.
Since the Rio Grande parcel is designated SPA, and since and SPA
Plan has not been adopted yet for this site, existing conditions
are considered to be the "Plan" for the property. An SPA
Amendment must also be processed concurrently. This requires
processing pursuant to the procedures for a "Final Development
Plan ", which necessitates a public hearing by the Commission.
The Engineering Department staff will be present at the meeting
to answer any technical questions. It is proposed that the snow
melter facility will release approximately 160 gallons per minute
when snow is placed into the machine. The water will flow from
the snow melter to the settling ponds through the existing ditch
system. The applicants also propose to do work along and within
the Roaring Fork River to improve the flood carrying capacity in
the area of the Aspen One property. This is proposed for this
year as well as subsequent years as needed.
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
1. Engineering: The Engineering Department comments are in the
attached memorandum by Elyse Elliott. Her comments have
been summarized below.
1. The statement that there will not be an increase in the
base flood elevation must be certified by a
professional engineer.
In a response from the Engineering Department they
note that they will certify that the base flood
elevation will not be increased by the activity.
2. The impacts of the modification to the ponds and storm
drainage system on the trail system must be addressed.
In a later memorandum from the Engineering Department,
Jim Gibbard states that the 3 new settling ponds will
have the capacity to handle ten times the flow produced
by the snow melter facility, thus the trail will not be
impacted by the ponds or the snow melting activity.
3. The stream channelization and bank stabilization
should occur at low flow periods and revegetation of
the banks should become a condition of approval.
The Engineering Department responded to this concern by
stating that the side channel will be done at a time of
the year when the river is low (between October and
April).
4. The approval is unclear with regard to potential
pollution to the Roaring Fork River and the
maintenance of the ponds.
The Engineering Department responded by explaining
that the drainage from the settling ponds will be
changed from a location at the surface to a location
beneath the surface. This will reduce the pollution of
the river caused by the oil and grease on the surface
of the ponds. The Engineering Department states that
the ponds will be dredged periodically.
5. The application is unclear with regard to how the snow
melt flows from the last pond to the river.
The Engineering Department response to this concern was
that the water will be piped from the last pond to the
river.
6. Prior to development, construction plans should be
submitted to the Engineering Department which indicate
that no pollution or erosion will result from the
proposed construction techniques.
2
The construction procedure will be supervised by the
Engineering Department to insure that the work
occurring near the river will cause minimal pollution.
2. Environmental Health: In a memorandum from Tom Dunlop of
the Environmental Health Department the following concerns
are noted:
1. AIR QUALITY: The steam generated will not cause any
negative pollution to the air, however, odors could
become a concern. There is no evidence as to whether
or not this will occur therefore it may need to be
dealt with after the equipment has been in operation
for awhile.
2. WATER QUALITY: The recommendations outlined in the
attached letter from Jon Kubic, Water Quality Control
Division should be adhered to. The improvement of the
settling ponds and installing an outfall that detains
oil and grease is an important design feature. A
process needs to be developed which will remove and
dispose of the collected oil, grease and other objects
as the melting takes place.
3. NOISE: It appears that the sound level will be between
70 -75 decibels at 50 feet. This is about as loud as a
vacuum cleaner, 10 feet away. It is recommended that
the design engineer for the snow melter company consult
the City regarding the siting and methods of mitigating
noise. The sound at 75 decibels has the potential to
be very intrusive on the adjacent neighborhood.
Landscaping and berming can help but will not totally
mitigate the noise impacts.
4. SOLID WASTE: Solid waste handling should be a part of
the system in order to prevent solid waste from
entering the river or from blowing around the site.
STAFF COMMENTS:
SNOW MELTER:
1. The most serious concern of the Planning Office is the
location of the snow melter. We feel that the proposed
location may impede future use of the site for development
activities such as the arts usage. An alternative site which
appears to meet all of the access needs and associated
drainage needs of the snow melter facility is to the east
of the access road entering the Aspen One property. This
site, however, may present a greater noise disturbance to
3
the neighbors to the east. The Planning Office, however,
feels that if the snow storage pile is located between the
snow melter and the river, it can act as a berm to help
mitigate the noise impacts. If the snow melter facility is
successful and additional machines are purchased then a
permanent landscaping plan which would mitigate the noise
impacts must be developed.
2. The Planning Office does not see a problem with the use of
Rio Grande for staging area for Rip Rap and channel
dredging.
SPA REVIEW: Section 7 -804 B of the Code specifies the Review
Standards for a Final SPA (or an amendment to an SPA). These are
as follows:
1. STANDARD: Whether the proposed development is compatible
with or enhances the mix of development in the immediate
vicinity of the parcel in terms of land use, density,
height, bulk, architecture, landscaping and open space.
RESPONSE: In the staff's opinion the proposal complies
with this criterion. The staff is concerned, however, that
the snow melt aspect of the proposal could be improved with
commitments for landscaping /revegetation of the snowdump
site and commitments for screening the snow melt facility
from view, especially during the summer season.
2. STANDARD: Whether sufficient public facilities and roads
exist to service the proposed development.
RESPONSE: In staff's opinion the proposal complies with
this criterion because storm drainage and access are already
in place.
3. STANDARD: Whether the parcel proposed for development is
generally suitable for development, considering the slope,
ground instability and the possibility of mud flow, rock
falls, avalanche dangers and flood hazards.
RESPONSE: In staff's opinion the proposal complies with
this criterion.
4. STANDARD: Whether the proposed development creatively
employs land planning techniques to preserve significant
view planes, avoid adverse environmental impacts and provide
open space, trails and similar amenities for the users of
the project and the public at large.
RESPONSE: In staff's opinion the proposal complies with
this criterion. Although the proposal complies with this
4
criterion it is the staff's opinion that the applicant
should explain why the snow melt facility should not be
located near the impound lot. In the staff's opinion this
location would allow the remainder of the site to be
utilized more effectively for other community uses (arts
usages).
5. STANDARD: Whether the proposed development is in
compliance with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
RESPONSE: The 1973 Land Use Plan calls for Public uses,
open space and multi - family residential in this area. In
staff's opinion the snow melt facility is a public use which
enhances the prospects of providing the community with
usable open space along the river.
6. STANDARD: Whether the proposed development will require the
expenditure of excessive public funds to provide public
facilities for the parcel, or the surrounding neighborhood.
RESPONSE: This criterion does not apply because this is a
public project.
7. STANDARD: Whether proposed development on slopes in excess
of twenty percent (20 %) meet the slope reduction and density
requirements of Sec. 7- 903(B)(2)(b).
RESPONSE: This criterion does not apply because there is no
development on slopes in excess of 20 %.
8. STANDARD: Whether there are sufficient GMQS allotments for
the proposed development.
RESPONSE: This criterion does not apply because it is an
essential public facility which serves an essential public
purpose, provides facilities in response to the demands for
growth and serves the needs of the City. It should be
exempt from GMQS pursuant to section 8 -104 C.1.b.
STREAM MARGIN REVIEW:
The applicants are requesting Stream Margin Review for several
activities (see attached map). These are:
1. Modification to the existing drainage system.
2. Addition of a settling pond.
3. Rip Rap on the east side of the Roaring Fork River for
Bank stabilization.
5
4. Channelization of the Roaring Fork River along the
east side of the Aspen One property.
Section 7 -504 of the Code has the following review criteria for
a Stream Margin Review:
1. STANDARD: It can be demonstrated that the proposed
development will not increase the base flood elevation on
the parcel proposed for development. This shall be
demonstrated by an elevation certificate prepared by a
professional engineer registered to practice in the State of
Colorado.
RESPONSE: This development will not increase the base
flood elevation on this parcel.
2. STANDARD: Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen
Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks /Recreation /Open Space /Trails
Plan map is dedicated for public use.
RESPONSE: The Rio Grande Trail is within the development
site and has been dedicated to public use.
3. STANDARD: The recommendations of the Roaring Fork Greenway
Plan are implemented in the proposed plan for development,
to the greatest extent practicable.
RESPONSE: Any recommendations of the Roaring Fork Greenway
Plan will be implemented.
4. STANDARD: No vegetation is removed or slope grade changes
made that produce erosion and sedimentation of the stream
bank.
RESPONSE: No vegetation will be removed or slope changes
made that will produce erosion of the stream bank.
5. STANDARD: To the greatest extent practicable, the proposed
development reduces pollution and interference with the
natural changes of the river, stream or other tributary.
RESPONSE: All efforts will be made to reduce pollution and
interference with the natural changes of the river,
especially in the case of the dredging of the side channel.
6. STANDARD: Written notice is given to the Colorado Water
Conservation Board prior to any alteration or relocation of
a water course, and a copy of said notice is submitted to
the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
RESPONSE: Written notice will be given to the Colorado
6
Water Conservation Board prior to the dredging of the side
channel and a copy of this notice will be submitted to FEMA.
7. STANDARD: A guarantee is provided in the event a water
course is altered or relocated, that applies to the
developer and his heirs, successors and assigns that
ensures that the flood carrying capacity on the parcel is
not diminished.
RESPONSE: The purpose of the channel dredging is to
improve the flood carrying capacity of the river in this
area.
8. STANDARD: Copies are provided of all necessary federal and
state permits relating to work within the one hundred (100)
year floodplain.
RESPONSE: There will be no work done within the 100 year
floodplain that will require federal or state permits.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval to allow the placement of the Snow
Melter Facility on the Aspen One property, approval of Stream
Margin Review to stabilize and channelize the Roaring Fork River
along the Rio Grande property in order to increase the flood
capacity, and Final SPA Amendment approval with conditions:
1. All representations of the applicant shall be
conditions of approval.
2. Move snow melter further to the east on the Aspen One
property using the snow storage as a berm between the
facility and the river.
3. The City must come back within one year of the final
approval to review the following issues:
a. Future landscaping and noise control.
b. Operational concerns.
c. Environmental Health review.
4. Prior to the start up of the operation the
Environmental Health Department shall verify that all
their concerns regarding solid waste have been
addressed.
5. The settling ponds shall be monitored and cleaned on an
as needed basis.
ch.rio
7
• .. 'z; ',?, ., • , ..;'.• s s i t 11;;1;,M1 1 $', . f tt s t *! S S i S 3 •
< s f
c� s ,, f t a
t it r s} * t s ",.`,...M.: "„,:',-,.1i:;•••,. i :•,'s; ;;; ;, ,,:•••. '-'' 'M :" :,::
vc f f
•. f. ... . � . . ... . . ...... r., 4ne..Vv,. I:iA.,. • -.... �..- ...... ...... a..�.r.. ...... f. r ....+(a.+... ♦. ... .
,' b�''Y�� Y ' `"� - }� pa «per
17 t 1
f,4:•-,•,1-6„:4,--.,4,43-,. c 3 i a 4r �,�
•
s ' g -
f l't ' 4 K
.iii >
F F' i rat .,s.
a;F :"
4 s
3 :. ..
iiiiii
i ce s i}• ? �
MI r l
f i :''' .. A ,
; d ° `, _ F YY •
: ws 3 R ` k S ,x,sL
m �
• '
:
wt i:'
S K V•PJJ"
X,.• A NI 1
s
k t
4
s t
" f ar
2
i V _ . t2 f ..
K
R '
•
•
* , ,
• , - •
‘• ,e E,-' --- -,- . - V r : -
, .
.. .
, . . .
— * • " ' ' •'• •
,.....,..„ _ _
MC .
'511,,, 'i ;..K.:■ s 'l a t 8
;I pip!! 3 •Zsi11 3 3N+, ‘ i
,ri I
:o i ' " .■8 tlit14,..1, 1*..:••,` , ,, .. ....
[I. •,. i -,: ?.,, :. 1 .., , . . . .
: . .• - i ,,,, /,• •
.: ,..... :,
::::::' •
; % . .A. .
■
.!.
,
■
1 ' '
:,-,,, , i t • ,
4 i
.7 ' ,,.-' ,,.•.- -• ..- ..- --.1- . , :,:-...,..-..
5. ‘
- -:: , .....v„,-,. , -,:-- . .:L....... l• . '.'''.' ..
.0.
•
•
•
•.,',1',7 1 .,"""E...". - .0.-...--- 1 -- t-- - -
0 . ...... ...,.....„.......... r .... ___ _.....
...- , ... , -.1 i ----..--
... ,n.-,..----,,k__[-- — — r .. . . .
,....,-,,i .
. ..
a .i.- , .-;, .. .
!ER leg •••••••••••.-- --- i ...! ..._. _..„. ...— — ...
- - - -- .......__.........„....„......- .... ,
. .-.•
! 4.5, .: '."'. 4"... 1'6 e'r 'i. .,-. ',. . ' ',., ':.. .. . -., - e.cx •
. ,...if„ii.,,,P;14,.:,-,,, . ,r,4.,.....*::::: P. . ;.-„:". Oc r 4 ":'''''''''' ' ' ' '''''''''''''-' ' ' • ''
I.
N.
„
- : A -t , :y 0 .0_0_0,• • • • • 0 1 6 i • 3 4 . • 41 :.* 4.. . 6 .• • • '
s , ' • •• ' •,-'?,', : ■ ! $ ..:*. ii** ** * *. : 4 9 4 1: '.......4•44.41.1 '''.':';
.:,41....1....,VPAVVI • • .. 4 4,..,..•,..,..t .,. le oip,e,..,...: •
.8; '..
. ...%74 i':•.:•;:
'''""
....i.•.r;i;:! ....%':.•....,‘'.',' .'-:•; . efi .:c
; le: :
I ,- . --. .
'. ) . _ ..
-,-,-. , . . '.. .,, ,'.,,,,,-...,-.... - , ...., , ::-:.:44.■'.:::•:•7 •:....:',:',
'7* '', =1' ," .:-:-.>>:::-...' -- ' - ' ':••-• ,...:....... - - • : " : -.: --- -
i ( : .-. •••,.•.,.".„-•,::-..,?..;.;... ... ,. ....::::::::-.......4.;%:."..i..- •
.....,. .• ..,.;%....,-...-,..;!.--:,...-.::::::::' .
. .-
•,.. --,„,, ,•.- ..,,,,,..-.-. ;-,....-64.• .- - ...•-• ■ ...,•;,',.!-..'-.',•••.%•;,.%.-:.••••-•.:• ••"*.'"....A -..' '
',4,..- • - ,. . --.--.., -, . . , ....7„...-,7", 1 ev,• , ..".:1 , ..... , ..,'-'-... ---'.."'!"-'....
' -- . rri‘;«. ' • ' - - 1-,, ....... , -A.: . ..te..:■.Vv..,' , .... •.' .....1.;•./. ' - " - - .."7.
- -- - ..v. -., . - - :"'-' ... . % - - - - '..
.' '' .,. .,'"'■- n ' . . . s - 4... .. 4* -;!: . ' '' ..7... : : * •
„. , . . ,•• '
...
.' .
•
. .. ,
.•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
THRU: Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City Manager R,L /'I
FROM: Cindy Houben and Tom Baker, Planning Office
RE: Rio Grande Snow Melt Facility /SPA Amendment /Stream
Margin Review - Public Hearing
DATE: September 29, 1988
SUMMARY: The Planning Commission and the Planning Office
recommend approval of the application with the modifications and
conditions as listed in the recommendation. In addition, the
Planning Commission strongly urges the City Council to go on a
site visit in order to see why they made the recommendation to
relocate the snow melter to the northwest corner of the impound
lot embankment. The Planning Commission has taken final action
on the Stream Margin portion of this application.
APPLICANT: City of Aspen
REQUEST: SPA Amendment approval for a Snow Melting Facility on
the Rio Grande, Stream Margin Review for bank stabilization, and
storm drainage modification.
LOCATION: Rio Grande (Aspen One Property)
ZONING: PUB /SPA
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL: The applicant requests the
placement of a new snow melter facility and its associated snow
storage and upgrading of an existing storm drainage system into
the Roaring Fork River. These activities require a Stream Margin
Review. In addition, bank stabilization on the east side of the
Roaring Fork River and side channel dredging on the east side of
the Rio Grande property require Stream Margin Review.
Since the Rio Grande parcel is designated SPA, and since and SPA
Plan has not been adopted yet for this site, existing conditions
are considered to be the "Plan" for the property. An SPA
Amendment must also be processed concurrently. This requires
processing pursuant to the procedures for a "Final Development
Plan ", which necessitates a public hearing by the Commission.
The Engineering Department staff will be present at the meeting
to answer any technical questions. It is proposed that the snow
melter facility will release approximately 160 gallons per minute
when snow is placed into the machine. The water will flow from
the snow melter to the settling ponds through the existing ditch
system. The applicants also propose to do work along and within
the Roaring Fork River to improve the flood carrying capacity in
the area of the Aspen One property. This is proposed for this
year as well as subsequent years as needed.
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
1. Engineering: The Engineering Department comments are in the
attached memorandum by Elyse Elliott. Her comments have
been summarized below.
1. The statement that there will not be an increase in the
base flood elevation must be certified by a
professional engineer.
In a response from the Engineering Department they
note that they will certify that the base flood
elevation will not be increased by the activity.
2. The impacts of the modification to the ponds and storm
drainage system on the trail system must be addressed.
In a later memorandum from the Engineering Department,
Jim Gibbard states that the 3 new settling ponds will
have the capacity to handle ten times the flow produced
by the snow melter facility, thus the trail will not be
impacted by the ponds or the snow melting activity.
3. The stream channelization and bank stabilization
should occur at low flow periods and revegetation of
the banks should become a condition of approval.
The Engineering Department responded to this concern by
stating that the side channel will be done at a time of
the year when the river is low (between October and
April).
4. The approval is unclear with regard to potential
pollution to the Roaring Fork River and the
maintenance of the ponds.
The Engineering Department responded by explaining
that the drainage from the settling ponds will be
changed from a location at the surface to a location
beneath the surface. This will reduce the pollution of
the river caused by the oil and grease on the surface
of the ponds. The Engineering Department states that
the ponds will be dredged periodically.
5. The application is unclear with regard to how the snow
melt flows from the last pond to the river.
2
The Engineering Department response to this concern was
that the water will be piped from the last pond to the
river.
6. Prior to development, construction plans should be
submitted to the Engineering Department which indicate
that no pollution or erosion will result from the
proposed construction techniques.
The construction procedure will be supervised by the
Engineering Department to insure that the work
occurring near the river will cause minimal pollution.
2. Environmental Health: In a memorandum from Tom Dunlop of
the Environmental Health Department the following concerns
are noted:
1. AIR QUALITY: The steam generated will not cause any
negative pollution to the air, however, odors could
become a concern. There is no evidence as to whether
or not this will occur therefore it may need to be
dealt with after the equipment has been in operation
for awhile.
2. WATER QUALITY: The recommendations outlined in the
attached letter from Jon Kubic, Water Quality Control
Division should be adhered to. The improvement of the
settling ponds and installing an outfall that detains
oil and grease is an important design feature. A
process needs to be developed which will remove and
dispose of the collected oil, grease and other objects
as the melting takes place.
3. NOISE: It appears that the sound level will be between
70 -75 decibels at 50 feet. This is about as loud as a
vacuum cleaner, 10 feet away. It is recommended that
the design engineer for the snow melter company consult
the City regarding the siting and methods of mitigating
noise. The sound at 75 decibels has the potential to
be very intrusive on the adjacent neighborhood.
Landscaping and berming can help but will not totally
mitigate the noise impacts.
4. SOLID WASTE: Solid waste handling should be a part of
the system in order to prevent solid waste from
entering the river or from blowing around the site.
3
STAFF COMMENTS:
SNOW MELTER:
1. The most serious concern of the Planning Office is the
location of the snow melter. We feel that the proposed
location may impede future use of the site for development
activities such as the arts usage. An alternative site which
appears to meet all of the access needs and associated
drainage needs of the snow melter facility is to the east
of the access road entering the Aspen One property. This
site, however, may present a greater noise disturbance to
the neighbors to the east. The Planning Office, however,
feels that if the snow storage pile is located between the
snow melter and the river, it can act as a berm to help
mitigate the noise impacts. If the snow melter facility is
successful and additional machines are purchased then a
permanent landscaping plan which would mitigate the noise
impacts must be developed.
2. The Planning Office does not see a problem with the use of
Rio Grande for staging area for Rip Rap and channel
dredging.
SPA REVIEW: Section 7 -804 B of the Code specifies the Review
Standards for a Final SPA (or an amendment to an SPA). These are
as follows:
1. STANDARD: Whether the proposed development is compatible
with or enhances the mix of development in the immediate
vicinity of the parcel in terms of land use, density,
height, bulk, architecture, landscaping and open space.
RESPONSE: In the staff's opinion the proposal complies
with this criterion. The staff is concerned, however, that
the snow melt aspect of the proposal could be improved with
commitments for landscaping /revegetation of the snowdump
site and commitments for screening the snow melt facility
from view, especially during the summer season.
2. STANDARD: Whether sufficient public facilities and roads
exist to service the proposed development.
RESPONSE: In staff's opinion the proposal complies with
this criterion because storm drainage and access are already
in place.
3. STANDARD: Whether the parcel proposed for development is
generally suitable for development, considering the slope,
ground instability and the possibility of mud flow, rock
falls, avalanche dangers and flood hazards.
4
RESPONSE: In staff's opinion the proposal complies with
this criterion.
4. STANDARD: Whether the proposed development creatively
employs land planning techniques to preserve significant
view planes, avoid adverse environmental impacts and provide
open space, trails and similar amenities for the users of
the project and the public at large.
RESPONSE: In staff's opinion the proposal complies with
this criterion. Although the proposal complies with this
criterion it is the staff's opinion that the applicant
should explain why the snow melt facility should not be
located near the impound lot. In the staff's opinion this
location would allow the remainder of the site to be
utilized more effectively for other community uses (arts
usages).
5. STANDARD: Whether the proposed development is in
compliance with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
RESPONSE: The 1973 Land Use Plan calls for Public uses,
open space and multi - family residential in this area. In
staff's opinion the snow melt facility is a public use which
enhances the prospects of providing the community with
usable open space along the river.
6. STANDARD: Whether the proposed development will require the
expenditure of excessive public funds to provide public
facilities for the parcel, or the surrounding neighborhood.
RESPONSE: This criterion does not apply because this is a
public project.
7. STANDARD: Whether proposed development on slopes in excess
of twenty percent (20 %) meet the slope reduction and density
requirements of Sec. 7- 903(B)(2)(b).
RESPONSE: This criterion does not apply because there is no
development on slopes in excess of 20 %.
8. STANDARD: Whether there are sufficient GMQS allotments for
the proposed development.
RESPONSE: This criterion does not apply because it is an
essential public facility which serves an essential public
purpose, provides facilities in response to the demands for
growth and serves the needs of the City. It should be
exempt from GMQS pursuant to section 8 -104 C.1.b.
5
STREAM MARGIN REVIEW:
The applicants are requesting Stream Margin Review for several
activities (see attached map). These are:
1. Modification to the existing drainage system.
2. Addition of a settling pond.
3. Rip Rap on the east side of the Roaring Fork River for
Bank stabilization.
4. Channelization of the Roaring Fork River along the
east side of the Aspen One property.
Section 7 -504 of the Code has the following review criteria for
a Stream Margin Review:
1. STANDARD: It can be demonstrated that the proposed
development will not increase the base flood elevation on
the parcel proposed for development. This shall be
demonstrated by an elevation certificate prepared by a
professional engineer registered to practice in the State of
Colorado.
RESPONSE: This development will not increase the base
flood elevation on this parcel.
2. STANDARD: Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen
Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks /Recreation /Open Space /Trails
Plan map is dedicated for public use.
RESPONSE: The Rio Grande Trail is within the development
site and has been dedicated to public use.
3. STANDARD: The recommendations of the Roaring Fork Greenway
Plan are implemented in the proposed plan for development,
to the greatest extent practicable.
RESPONSE: Any recommendations of the Roaring Fork Greenway
Plan will be implemented.
4. STANDARD: No vegetation is removed or slope grade changes
made that produce erosion and sedimentation of the stream
bank.
RESPONSE: No vegetation will be removed or slope changes
made that will produce erosion of the stream bank.
5. STANDARD: To the greatest extent practicable, the proposed
development reduces pollution and interference with the
natural changes of the river, stream or other tributary.
6
RESPONSE: All efforts will be made to reduce pollution and
interference with the natural changes of the river,
especially in the case of the dredging of the side channel.
6. STANDARD: Written notice is given to the Colorado Water
Conservation Board prior to any alteration or relocation of
a water course, and a copy of said notice is submitted to
the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
RESPONSE: Written notice will be given to the Colorado
Water Conservation Board prior to the dredging of the side
channel and a copy of this notice will be submitted to FEMA.
7. STANDARD: A guarantee is provided in the event a water
course is altered or relocated, that applies to the
developer and his heirs, successors and assigns that
ensures that the flood carrying capacity on the parcel is
not diminished.
RESPONSE: The purpose of the channel dredging is to
improve the flood carrying capacity of the river in this
area.
8. STANDARD: Copies are provided of all necessary federal and
state permits relating to work within the one hundred (100)
year floodplain.
RESPONSE: There will be no work done within the 100 year
floodplain that will require federal or state permits.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Approval to allow the
placement of the Snow Melter Facility on the Rio Grande, approval
of Stream Margin Review to stabilize and channelize the Roaring
Fork River along the Rio Grande property in order to increase the
flood capacity, and Final SPA Amendment approval with conditions:
1. All representations of the applicant shall be
conditions of approval.
2. The snow melter shall be excavated into the northwest
corner of the impound lot (where the existing
embankment is located). The snow storage area shall be
located as far to the south as possible to reduce the
noise and visual conflicts for the Oklahoma Flats
neighborhood.
3. The City must come back within one year of the final
approval to review the following issues:
a. Future landscaping and noise control.
7
b. Operational concerns.
c. Environmental Health review.
d. Trail relocation to avoid conflicts between
pedestrians and the snow melter operation.
e. Ditch relocation.
4. Prior to the start up of the operation the
Environmental Health Department shall verify that all
their concerns regarding solid waste have been
addressed.
5. The settling ponds shall be monitored and cleaned on an
as needed basis.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "The City Council approves the placement of
the Snow Melter Facility on the Rio Grande and Final SPA
Amendment approval with conditions:
1. All representations of the applicant shall be
�)�Vti conditions of approval.
X1 (1'2. The snow melter shall be excavated into the northwest
1�I corner of the impound lot (where the existing
embankment is located). The snow storage area shall be
located as far to the south as possible to reduce the
noise and visual conflicts for the Oklahoma Flats
neighborhood.
3. The City must come back within one year of the final
approval to review the following issues:
a. Future landscaping and noise control.
b. Operational concerns.
c. Environmental Health review.
d. Trail relocation to avoid conflicts between
pedestrians and the snow melter operation.
e. Ditch relocation.
4. Prior to the start up of the snow melter operation, the
Environmental Health Department shall verify that all
their concerns regarding solid waste have been
addressed.
5. The settling ponds shall be monitored and cleaned on an
as needed basis."
8
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ch.rio
9
ai
4
7 /, , ,
I
I I .._�� if I
•
•
°
I
° • I
n �' W u •
J 1.... W
M 2� a 4,i J w I' • 0: t; ki
ii
r 9 60 �- Us I! 3 =•
lb
I)? .........e...............„ g __ _ V W i 3 a
N.
4 e -rr /,------- ,..--d l <z
K.::, \* ' w wsee'.:(: . 9 ,
Li( . (7 ,
n i
yQ / o
• 7 . . W ° O ..,
y � OO cc, a /�
C N R A / a °
cc
OW i -.are .. --.. — a 2
it
/, 41, 61 .. 5. 4 4 , 1
/ /77 r- - • r- - - - ''' - - - ..... " - ' - - - - —. - - . --------- 7 --- - - - - - — - ----- ------- — — --- 7 .
V / .'s
O N a N J 0 2 11j
\ \is W' d u - �� of ° ^ c a a
0 °a h �� \\\ cZ W Z •..
W
\ \
Nab \L. \ C F •
03 0 CC
II. M
I 4 '/
\ \ I- %
a W
j \
e •
a
N -
/ P ` - °
Yti W
o
1 % ‘Th n
.„,.,\c?„. W w J
lig . \ Ili", 1 , / N W
III i (1 W
://,,,/,
' Z
e I a
•
,,, E a
1 CO
( j i
/ 2
,, 11 fi r <
0
° w I . z , ....› i .
•
.. • ,
n , • .......
•
.— - - -- - -- — — t- —
fi b
a f!.
> 0 g;
°m 1
4o` i o 2 -;
7 Z a V u - { 1
•
Q . N 1
•
u •
6 • _
Z _ 6
W . I .
a _
Q e '
1 ^.
C•
h i •
/^' I 7
��I! t
I
I •
. 4y , ♦L v %
`•, ,i tom //
4
^ .
r
■ • -
< ,- 4 I A i " `• r
. .,. " L/ fns. /i ��
•... •.•.., . •. .,Y \ ,� p. 71^. 1 �.
• 111 . /e t { '� ..
•. ✓
-
\' 1 , ,, is d {
•r \ ` ` . re I 1 J - . A 14 ' ' t^ a 1 • ••
_ r \ , ,fir. s >` i gt, ,�. -
ti // '. . N ' a A 1 t r+ 't �Y
N 4
I - ♦ t � N - iii � .✓•
.
•
•
K
I � �j /l /, ♦ e /
• I •
, l +. < / . \ Y '
: / rL
•
l t, c �E r
\
• j
; I. - t • '. Y..rHid .. .e
CIT ASPEN
130
ypsa
asp. a . t 64,10611 1
315- 254020
J
August 11, 1988
Planning and Zoning Commission
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The City Engineering Department is requesting a Stream Margin
Review, pursuant to Section 7 -504 of the Aspen Land Use Regula-
tions of the Municipal Code, for the following projects:
1. The modification of one of the existing sedimentation ponds
and the addition of another on the snow storage area located on
the Aspen One property. This project results from the imple-
mentation of a snow melter on this same property. At this time
we do not anticipate the snow melter to be within 100 feet of the
g high water line.
2. The dredging and removing of approximately 10 yards of
material from the side channel of the river located on the north
side of the Aspen One property to improve the flood carrying
capacity of the river in this area. This is proposed for this
year and for subsequent years as needed.
3. The construction of a berm on the Aspen One Property that will
mitigate the noise produced by the proposed snow melter.
Review criteria for this section of the Code is addressed by the
following information:
1. This development will not increase the base flood elevation on
this parcel.
2. The Rio Grande Trail is within the development site and has
been dedicated to public use.
3. Any recommendations of the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan will be
implemented.
4. No vegetation will be removed or slope grade changes made that
will produce erosion of the stream bank.
5. All efforts will be made to reduce pollution and interference
with the natural changes of the river, especially in the case of
the dredging of the side channel.
6. Written notice will be given to the Colorado Water Conserva-
tion Board prior to the dredging of the side channel and a copy
of this notice will be submitted to FEMA.
7. The purpose of the channel dredging is to improve the flood
carrying capacity of the river in this area.
8. There will be no work done within the 100 year floodplain that
will require federal or state permits.
This development has been subject to Stream Margin Review in the
past. The Aspen Art Museum Stream Margin Review, which included
the construction of the side channel which we propose to dredge,
was approved by P &Z November 6, 1984.
Enclosed also is a development plan pursuant to the requirements
in Section 7 -504 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations of the Munici-
pal Code. Also included is a survey showing boundaries of the
entire Rio Grande property.
Included on the development plan are the footprints of the
performing arts tents which have been proposed. Their placement
on this plan is intended to show that the snow melting facility
will not conflict with their location.
Also enclosed is a letter from the State Health Department in
regard to snow melter discharge and use of snow melters. The
Engineering Department intends to comply with the letter's
request to monitor discharge once the snow melter is in place.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
) 144A C
Jim Gibbard
Engineering Department
jg /AspenOne
cc: Jay Hammond
Chuck Roth
MEMORANDUM
TO: Cindy Houben, Planning Office
FROM: Tom Baker, Planning Office
RE: SPA Amendment for Snowmelt System on Rio Grande Site.
DATE: August 23, 1988
PURPOSE: The purpose of this memo is to meet the application
requirements for amending the Rio Grande SPA to develop a
snowmelt system on the property. The section of the code which
applies to this application is 7 -804 D 1, Final Development Plan.
1. Contents of Application
a. General application information
Name: City of Aspen
Address: 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611
Telephone: 925 -2020 x216
Representative: Chuck Roth, Jim Gibbard, Engineering
Department
Legal description and disclosure of ownership are
identified in attachment 1.
City /County Land Exchange Agreement and easements are
identified in attachment 2.
8 1/2 x 11 vicinity map is included as attachment 3.
b. A precise plan of the proposed development, (see
attachment 4).
c. A statement specifying the underlying Zone District on
the parcel.
The underlying zoning for the Rio Grande site is
Public. The purpose of the Public zone is to provide
for the development of governmental and quasi -
governmental facilities for cultural, educational,
civic and other governmental purposes. Essential
government and public utility uses, facilities,
services and buildings are permitted uses in the Public
zone.
d. A statement outlining a development schedule
specifying the date construction is proposed to be
initiated and completed.
Construction is expected to commence October 1 and end
November 15, 1988.
e. A statement specifying the public facilities that will
be needed to accommodate the proposed development, and
what specific assurances will be made to ensure that
public facilities will be available to accommodate the
proposed development.
The snowmelt system will utilize the same equipment
and facilities that the current snowdump operation
uses: trucks, bulldozer, storm drainage system. In
addition to this the snowmelt system will modify the
storm drainage system which runs through the Rio Grande
property. The existing detention ponds will be
modified and one additional pond may be added to
accommodate the needs of the snowmelt system.
f. A statement of the reasonable conformance of the Final
Development Plan with the approval granted to the
Conceptual Development Plan and with the original
intent of the City Council in designating the parcel
Specially Planned Area (SPA).
Although no Final Development Plan exists, the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 84 -9
states "...due to its (Rio Grande) being one of the
last large undeveloped parcels in the downtown area,
with proximity to many other key public properties,
this parcel provides a unique opportunity to meet
various public priorities benefitting the entire
community. The intent of the SPA designation is to
provide the design flexibility within which open space,
cultural and transportation needs can be met through a
plan which is sensitive to the Roaring Fork Greenway
Plan and the desire for pedestrian and mass transit
access to this site from the downtown area." It is the
applicant's opinion that the snowmelt system will
assist the City in meeting its goals for the Rio Grande
property by eliminating the snowdump and confining the
City's snow removal operation to a much reduced area.
g. A plat which depicts the applicable information
required by Sec. 7 -1004 (D) (1) (a) (3) and (D) (2)
(a), (see attachment 5).
`26 SPA4,vtlb
2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Cindy Houben, Planning Office
RE: Rio Grande Snowmelt Facility /SPA Amendment /Stream
Margin Review
DATE: September 20, 1988
APPLICANT: City of Aspen
REQUEST: SPA Amendment approval for a Snowmelting Facility on
the Rio Grande, Stream Margin review for bank stabilization, and
storm drainage modification.
LOCATION: Rio Grande (Aspen One Property)
ZONING: PUB /SPA
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL: The applicants' request the
`j placement of a new snowmelter facility and its associated snow
storage and upgrading of an existing storm drainage system into
the Roa ing Fork River. These activities require a Stream Margin
Review. In addition, bank stabilization on the east side of the
Roaring Fork River and side channel dredging on the east side of
the Rio Grande propert ��Z io
SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF EACH PROJECT>
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
1. Engineering: The Engineering Department comments are
in the attached memorandum by Elyse Elliott. Her
comments have been summarized below.
1. The statement that there will not be an increase
in the base flood elevation must be certified by a
professional engineer.
2. The impacts of the modification to the ponds and
storm drainage system on the trail system must be
addressed.
3. The stream channelization and bank stabilization
should occur at low flow periods and revegetation
of the banks should become a condition of
approval.
4. The approval is unclear with regard to potential
pollution to the Roaring Fork River and the
maintenance of the ponds.
5. The application is unclear with regard to how the
snow melt flows from the last pond to the river.
6. Prior to development, construction plans should be
submitted to the Engineering Department which
indicate that no pollution or erosion will result
from the proposed construction techniques.
2. Environmental Health: In a memorandum from Tom Dunlop
of the Environmental Health Department the following
concerns are noted:
1. AIR QUALITY: The steam generated will not cause
any negative pollution to the air, however, odors
could become a concern. There is no evidence as
to whether or not t#ts will occur therefore it
Y
need to be dealt with' \fter the equi has been
in operation for awhil k
2. WATER QUALITY: The recommendations outlined in
the attached letter from Jon Kubic, Water Quality
Control Division should be adhered to. The
improvement of the settling ponds and installing
an outfall that detains oil and grease is an
important design feature. A process needs to be
developed which will remove and dispose of the
collected oil, grease and other objects as the
melting takes place.
3. NOISE: It appears that the -sound level will be
between 70 -75 decibels at 50 feet. This is about
as loud as a vacuum cleaner, 10 feet away. It is
recommended that the design engineer for the
snowmelter company consult the City regarding the
siting and methods of mitigating noise. The sound
at 75 decibels has the potential to be very
intrusive on the adjacent neighborhood.
Landscaping and berming can help but will not
totally mitigate the noise impacts.
4. SOLID WASTE: Solid waste handling should be a
part of the system in order to prevent solid waste
from entering the river or from blowing around
the site.
2
STAFF COMMENTS:
1. The location of the snowmelter may impede future use of the
site for development activities such as the arts usage.
2. Conflict with neighbors to the east.
3. Operational questions /stdm pit /pipes to river /noise.
4. Use of Rio Grande for staging area for Rip Rap and channel
dredging.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions: s
1. Move snowmelter further to the east/, aa ' '40_ ie
2. The City must come back within one year of the final '� 4 � ;
approval to review the following issues:
:7
a. Future landscaping and noise control.
b. Operational concerns. t
fr
c. Environmental Health review.
3. Prior to operation the Environmental Health Department shall
verify that 11 their concex s regarding solid waste '
katt-- K fLt� 4
3
CIT . ' ; F, PEN
130 � ' '$ ' reet
m
asp � — at .1611
3
August 26, 1988
Planning Office
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Attn: Cindy Houben
Dear Cindy:
This is in response to Elyse's memo of August 17, 1988 concerning
the Rio Grande Snow Melter Stream Margin Review. I would like to
address her comments in this memo in the following manner:
1. Chuck Roth will respond regarding the question about the
certification by a professional engineer that the base flood
elevation will not be raised by this development.
2. The three new settling ponds will have the capacity to handle
ten times the flow produced by the Snow Melter facility so the
existing trail will not be affected. The Snow Melter will
release 160 gallons per minute and will release only when snow
has been dumped into it. The water will flow from the snow
melter to the settling ponds through the existing ditch. No new
bridges will have to be built.
3. Whether or not this plan conforms with the Roaring Fork
Greenway Plan will need to be confirmed by the Planning Office.
4. Any revegetation that needs to be done will be done according
to the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan.
5. Drainage from the settling ponds will be changed from a
location at the surface to a location beneath the surface. This
will reduce the pollution of the river caused by the oil and
grease on the surface of the ponds. The ponds will be dredged
periodically.
It has been decided that the construction of the berm will not be
proposed at this time.
It is not known whether or not the four settling ponds will be
necessary but they are proposed in the event that they will be.
Transport of water from the last pond to the river will be by
pipe.
Construction procedure will be supervised by the Engineering
Department to insure that any work close to the river will cause
minimal pollution.
If you have any other questions, please see me.
S� im
e�rely,
Gibbard
Engineering Department
jg /snowmelt
cc: Jay Hammond
Chuck Roth
CITY „OF ASPEN
130 galena Street
asp , lorado 81611
3 '3`925-2020
September 15, 1988
Planning Office
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Attn: Cindy Houben
Dear Cindy:
This is another response to Elyse's memo of August 17, 1988
concerning the Rio Grande Snow Melter Stream Margin Review. I
did not address all of her comments in this memo in my previous
letter of August 26 and would like to do so with the following
comments:
1. The dredging of the side channel will be done at a time of
year when the river is low. We anticipate this to be done
sometime between October and April.
W 2. The snow melter facility, including the snow melter, the
settling ponds and the snow storage area, is not located within
the special flood hazard area and therefore is not subject to the
Code requirement that the base flood elevation not be raised.
The dredging of the side channel is, however, in the special
flood hazard area but the Engineering Department certifies that
the base flood elevation will not be raised.
If you have any other questions, please see me.
Since el ;
Jim Gibbard
Engineering Department
jg /snowmltl
cc: Jay Hammond
Chuck Roth
Elyse Elliott
MEMORANDUM
To: Cindy Houben, Planning Office
From: Elyse Elliott, Engineering Department
Date: September 15, 1988
Re: Rio Grande Snowmelter Stream Margin Review
Jim Gibbard and Chuck Roth, applicants for this project, have
adequately addressed my concerns for this project that I
expressed in my memo of August 17,1988. Therefore, I now have no
problem with this application.
ATTACHMENT 1
f ' • i. .' ✓ LAND USE APPLICATION FORM
1988
1) Project Name 51411 L., KC( ter Fac I I (` 1
2) Project Location 91;T) G rtst)t pro perTr
(indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where
appropriate)
3) Present Zoning P u Q 1/ (5 P4) 4) Lot Size
5) Applicant's Name, A d d r E e S & P h o n e # C i l r � y 0 f A5 p e /A 0 130 t e s t a n /
A5peci Cok raJo $ I ;Di ( `7i i - ?O JO
6) Representative's Name, Address & Phone # ' G` b b a r d C:13 a T
/30 5. 4 Tie i `1a di d ext. /
7) Type of Application (please check all that apply):
Conditional Use _ Conceptual SPA _ Conceptual Historic Dev.
Special Review _ Final SPA _ Final Historic Dev.
8040 Greenline _ Conceptual POD _ Minor Historic Dev.
Stream Margin _ Final IUD _ Historic Demolition
Mountain.Vlew Plane _ Subdivision _ Historic Designation
Condani.niumi nation _ Text/Map Amendment _ G%$ Allotment
_
art Split /Iot Line _ CMS Tho mptsai
Adjustment
8) Description of Existing Uses (number and type of existing structures;
approximate sq. ft.; number of bedrooms; any previous approvals granted to the
Ply) . 1
J etc U . , A u Nt . b 1 C r c . rt , Q a . 0 r a r +h e c._ - r
9) Description of Development Awlicaticn /
S ;W V 1-r. J Pac' [ ' 15 : Sect<<ac...1a ( pciLo{ s berg. -
14A (15c ecio(� oie cka ei fired y ew
10) Have you attached the following?
Resp0ase to Attachment 2, Minimm Submission Contents
Response to Attachment 3, Specific Sutmissicn Contents
Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application
STATE OF COLORADO
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Ao
p F•CO
4210 Lot 11th Avenue N e aci
Denver, Colorado 80220 4` n I
Phone (303) 320-8333
r8 .
Roy Romer
Gove rnur
April 5, 1988 1hun,a, M Vernon M
Executive D'reaoi
Chuck Roth, Assistant City Engineer CERTIFIED MAIL NO: P670 159 341
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Snow Dumping
City of Aspen
Pitkin County
Dear Mr. Roth:
The use of snow melters would not violate our regulations. It would affect
water quantity, but probably not water quality. Our concern is whether the
effluent from the snow melting pollutes the river.
Such discharges appear to be covered under section 405 of the Federal Clean
Water Act, as amended in 1987. This section states that, other than excepted,
a permit for storm water point source discharges shall not be required until
1992. Part (2)(E) states that a permit may immediately be required where "the
stormwater discharge contributes to a violation of a water quality standard or
is a significant contributor of pollutants ". We suspect that discharges from
this site may fall under this section. But, we request the City to perform
effluent monitoring to confirm or deny this.
We request that weekly monitoring for pH, total suspended solids, total
dissolved solids and oil & grease be performed during the current snow melting
season, until such time as discharges cease. Such data should be submitted
monthly to this office. We will evaluate this information to determine if a
permit will be required and/or whether further monitoring will be necessary
next season.
Additionally, as discussed in our April 4, 1988, telephone call, we ask that
you consider performing a demonstration project at the site. Such a project
would consist of evaluating the treatment facilities, determining what changes
would improve the effluent quality (improving settling, installing an outfall
pipe that prevents large objects from being discharged and that eliminates
discharge of oil & grease, etc.), and possibly implementing such changes. An
obvious advantage is that if such changes cause the facility to cease being a
significant contributor of pollution, a permit would not immediately be
required. And, the site would be an example for other cities.
Chuck Roth, City of Aspen
Page 2
Please feel free to contact me at 331 -4752 if you have questions. We would be
happy to meet with you to discuss any proposed changes or evaluate the results
of such changes.
Sincerely,
Jon C. Kubic
Engineering Technician
Permits and Enforcement Section
WATER QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION
xc: John Blair, Field Support Section, WQCD
Local Health Department
Title USA Insurance Corporation
-
ATTACHMENT 1
Commitment
for Title Insurance
Title USA Insurance Corporation, Dallas, Texas, A Texas Corporation, herein called the Company, for valuable
consideration, hereby commits to issue its policy or policies of title insurance, as identified in Schedule A, in
favor of the proposed Insured named in Schedule A, as owner or mortgagee of the estate or interest covered
hereby in the land described or referred to in Schedule A, upon payment of the premiums and charges therefor,
all subject to the provisions of Schedules A and B and to the Conditions and Stipulations hereof.
�� TITLE This Commitment shall be effective only when the identity of the proposed Insured and the amount of the
policy or policies committed for have been inserted in Schedule A hereof by the Company, either at the time of
issuance of this Commitment or by subsequent endorsement.
�� UIJL l This Commitment Is preliminary to the issuance of such policy or policies of title insurance and all liability and
obligations hereunder shall cease and terminate six (6) months after the effective date hereof or when the
policy or policies committed for shall issue, whichever first occurs, provided that the failure to issue such policy
or policies is not the fault of the Company. The Commitment shall not be valid or binding until countersigned by
an authorized officer or agent.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Title USA Insurance Corporation has caused this Commitment o be signed and scaled
as of the effective date of Commitment shown in Schedule A.
Title USA Insurance Corporation
14 Presidmrt & Chief Executive er
kill
.41 ( �i L - 111 pANC.Ee
_
Attest' semen.
,L SEAL
f . l
°_ 1 0
Anhoneed Countersignature
•
I
AMERICAN I AND TITLE ASSOCIA TION COMMITMENT TO IN SURE 1971
Prepared for: CC's t0:
Mr. Chuck Roth
Mr. Chuck Roth
City of Aspen SCHEDULE A
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Customer Reference: Rio Grande Subdivision
In(1:nries should bo din:stied
CF No- 400187 -C to Donald D. Veltch
nl /nl
1 Effective date August 10, 1988 at 7:00 A.M.
2. Policy 01 Policie< he issued kr rc:;n �
ia: ALTA Owners Policy -- Fnrm
Proposed Insured: TO BE DETERMINED
(o) ALTA Standard Loan Policy. Coverage - 19%0 5
Proposed Insured.
3 The estate or Interest i n the land described or referred to in this Comm and cnvered herein :.
L. The to sa estate or interest in said land is at the e date hereof vested in:
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, a Colorado municipal corporation
5. The land referred to in this Commitment is located in the County of Pi tkIn
State of Colorado and described as follows:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION SET FORTH ON SHEET ATTACHED HERETO AND BY THIS
REFERENCE INCORPORATED HEREIN AND MADE A PART HEREOF.
Owner's Premium: $
Lender's Premium: $
Add'I Charges: $
Tax Certificate: $
TOTAL CHARGES: $
AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION COPYRIGHT 1071 (REV.)
SCHEDULE A - continued Order No. 400187 -C
Plat I.D. No.
Covering the Land in the State of Colorado, County of Pitkin
Described as:
PARCEL A:
A tract of land situated in the Southwest one - quarter (SW1 /4) of
Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M., described
as follows:
Beginning at a point at the East side of Mill Street whence the West
one - quarter corner of said Section 7 bears N 38 °06'14" W, 1542.42 feet;
thence S 56 °06'43" E, 120.33 feet;
thence N 33 °53'35" E, 78.32 feet;
thence S 75 °51'14" E, 67.25 feet;
thence N 84 °34'25" E, 121.34 feet;
thence N 81 °39'30" E, 35.44 feet;
thence S 00 °17'28" W, 130.87 feet;
thence S 89 °28'55" E, 184.09 feet;
thence S 00 °58'09" W, 109.72 feet;
thence N 16 °34'56" E, 9.37 feet;
thence S 74 °37'51" E, 141.49 feet;
thence S 09 °26'26" E, 412.25 feet;
thence S 43 °10'38" E, 89.04 feet;
thence 233.41 feet along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius
of 309.26 feet and a chord which bears S 64 °56'02" E, 227.91 feet;
thence S 03 °22'00" W, 100.08 feet;
thence 309.38 feet along the arc of a curve to the right having a
radius of 409.34 feet and a chord which bears N 64 °54'19" W, 302.07
feet;
thence N 44 °54 W, 66.04 feet;
thence N 75 °12'56" W, 15.86 feet;
thence N 75 °11'28" W, 25.48 feet;
thence N 16 °49'23" E, 83.76 feet;
thence N 73 °19'31" W, 271.88 feet;
thence S 16 °37'11" W, 90.78 feet;
thence N 57 °36'26" W, 10.54 feet;
thence S 84 °21'32" W, 164.64 feet;
thence N 87 °31'46" W, 88.97 feet;
thence S 14 °26'08" W, 75.82 feet;
thence N 43 °12'17" W, 408.87 feet;
thence N 19 °50'59" E, 495.73 feet to the Point of Beginning.
PARCEL B:
A tract of land situated in the NE1 /4SW1/4 of Section 7, Township 10
South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M., lying Northerly of the Southerly
line of said NE1 /4SW1/4, Easterly of the Westerly line of said
NE1/4SW1/4, and Southwesterly of the center of the Roaring Fork River,
described as follows:
(Continued)
Commitment No. 400187 -C
LEGAL DESCRIPTION - continued
Beginning at the center of the SW1 /4 of said Section 7, said point being the
same as the Southwest corner of said NE1 /4SW1 /4;
Thence N 01 °04'30" East, 151.71 feet along the Westerly line of said NE1 /4SW1 /4
to a point in the center of said River;
thence along the centerline of said River the following courses and distances:
N 75 °05' West, 76.38 feet;
N 78 °55' East, 60.15 feet;
N 59 °50' East, 94.23 feet;
S 78 °23' East, 80.35 feet;
S 12'33' East, 27.94 feet;
S 10 °27.30' West 42.16 feet;
S 17 °20' East, 48.35 feet;
S 37 °49' East, 43.34 feet;
S 39 °48' East, 86.36 feet to a point on the Southerly line of said
NE1 /4SW1 /4;
thence N 89 °45'50" West, 390.65 feet along the Southerly line of said NE1 /4SW1/4
to the Southwest corner of said NE1 /4SW1 /4, the Point of Beginning,
EXCEPT a tract of land in the NE1 /4SW1/4 of said Section 7 more particulary
described as follows:
Beginning at a survey monument marked 0 -13, which is located at the
intersection of the South line of the NE1 /4SW1/4 of said Section 7, with
the line described in the Deed from John R. Williams to The Hallam Land
Company dated March 26, 1877, and recorded at Reception No. 18598 of the
records in the office of the Clerk and Recorder for Pitkin County,
Colorado, which point is 37.614 feet Easterly of the center of the SW1 /4
of said Section 7;
thence N 0 °11'44" East to the center of the Roaring Fork River;
thence Westerly, along the centerline of said Roaring Fork River, to the
West line of the NE1 /4SW1 /4 of said Section 7;
thence Southerly, along the West line of the NE1 /4SW1 /4 of said Section 7,
to the center of the SW1 /4 of said Section 7;
thence S 89 °30'31" East, 37.614 feet to the Point of Beginning.
PARCEL C:
Lots A through E, inclusive, Block 86, ORIGINAL ASPEN TOWNSITE, City of Aspen.
PARCEL D:
That part of the SW1 /4 of the SW1 /4 of Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84
West of the 6th P.M., described as follows:
(Continued)
Commitment No. 400187 -C
LEGAL DESCRIPTION - continued
Beginning at the Northwest corner of Lot A, Block 86, Original Aspen Townsite,
City of Aspen;
thence N 14 °50'49° E, along the extended Easterly line of Mill Street, 65.68
feet;
thence S 75 °09'11 "E, 135.6 feet, more or less, to a point on the line between
Corners 4 and 5 of the Original Aspn Townsite;
thence S 43 °13'20" E, along said Townsite line, 46.53 feet;
thence S 14 °50'49" W, 41.18 feet, more or less, to the Northerly line of Lot F
of said Block 86;
thence N 75 °09'11" W, along the Northerly lines of Lots F to A of said Block 86,
a distance of 175 feet, more or less to the Foint of Beginning;
EXCEPT that part of the SW1 /4 of the SW1 /4 of said Section 7 described as
fol lows:
Beginning at a point from whence the Northwest corner of Lot A, Block 86,
City and Townsite of Aspen bears S 14 °50'49" W, 63.68 feet, which point is
on the extended Easterly line of Mill Street;
thence S 75 °09'11" E, 142 feet, more or less, to a point on the line
between Corners 4 and 5 of the Aspen Townsite;
thence N 43 °13'20" W, along said Townsite line, 4.0 feet, more or less, to
the Easterly corner of the property described in the Warranty Deed from
Harold Pabst to Everett J. Bondhus and Christina Bondhus recorded January
20, 1972, in Book 260 at Page 896 of the records in the office of the
Clerk and Recorder for Pitkin County, Colorado;
thence N 75 °09'11" W, 138.65 feet, more or less, to the extended Easterly
line of Mill Street;
thence S 14 °50'49" W, 2.0 feet to the Point of Beginning.
PARCEL E:
Those portions of Lots F, G, H and I, Block 86, ORIGINAL ASPEN TOWNSITE, Tying
Southerly of Line 4 -5 of the City and Townsite of Aspen, and lying Easterly of
the Easterly line of the real property described in that certain Decree entered
by the District Court in and for Pitkin County, Colorado in that certain action
entitled "James E. Moore, Plaintiff, vs. Adele Babey, et al., Defendants ", and
recorded March 4, 1966, in Book 219 at Page 279 of the records in the office of
the Clerk and Recorder for Fitkiri County, Colorado.
PARCEL F:
That part of Bleeker Street lying Northerly of Lots F, G, H and 1 in Block 86,
CITY AND ORIGINAL TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, lying Southerly of Line 4 -5 of the City and
Townsite of Aspen, and lying Easterly of the Easterly line of the real property
described in that certain Decree entered by the District Court in and for Pitkin
(Continued)
•
Commitment No. 400187 -C
LEGAL DESCRIPTION - continued
County, Colorado in that certain action entitled "James E. Moore, Plaintiff, vs.
Adele Babey, et al., Defendants, ", and recorded March 4, 1966, in Book 219 at
Page 279 of the records in the office of the Clerk and Recorder for Pitkin
County, Colorado.
PARCEL G:
A tract or parcel of land within the SE1 /4SW1/4 of Section 7, Township 10 South,
Range 84 West of the 6th P.M., more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the SW corner of said NE1 /4SW1/4 of Section 7, as established by
Cutshaw 1888 Survey;
thence S 89 °30'31" E along the South line thereof, 222.014 feet to the TRUE
POINT OF BEGINNING, said point also being identified and located by Brass Cap
Monument M -S -M (i.e., Meurer, Serafini, Meurer) "0 -36 ";
thence S 00 °51'26" W along said East line of the SW1 /4 of said Section 7 per
Kimberly 1882 (cancelled) Survey and along the East line of Depot ground patent
dated February 6, 1888, a distance of 109.669 feet to a point of intersection
with the Westerly line of the Castle Creek Mill Site Claim (U.S. Mineral Survey
No. 4097) and a Brass Cap Monument M-S -M "0 -42 ";
thence N 16 °40'00" E along said Westerly Mill Site line a distance of 9.381 feet
to the NW corner of said Castle Creek Mill Site Claim and a Brass Cap Monument
BLM 34;
thence S 74 °34'44" E a distance of 141.300 feet to the Northwest Corner of the
Castle Creek Mill Site Claim to a Brass Cap Monument LM 3 -6;
thence S 09 °21'00" E along the East line of Castle Creek Mill Site Claim a
distance of 168.88 feet;
thence N 80 °39'00" E a distance of 55.44 feet to the centerline of the Roaring
Fork River;
thence the following courses and distances along the centerline of said Roaring
Fork River:
N 19 °22'00" E a distance of 41.56 feet;
N 07 °44'00" W a distance of 202.25 feet;
N 30 °29'00" W a distance of 63 feet, more or less, to a point in said South
line of the NE1 /4SW1 /4 of Section 7;
thence N 89 ° 30'31" W along South line 175.60 feet, more or less, to the TRUE
POINT OF BEGINNING.
SCHEDULE B -I
No. 400187 -C
I. The following are the requirements to be complied with:
1. Instruments necessary to create the estate or interest to be insured must be properly executed,
delivered and duly tiled for record.
2. Payment of the consideration for the estate or interest to be insured.
3. Payment of all taxes. charges, assessments, levied and assessed against subject premises, which
aro due and payable.
4 Satisfactory evidence should be had that improvements and 'or repairs or alterations thereto are
completed that contractor, subcontractors labor and materialmen are all paid.
5. Release by the Public Trustee of Pitkin County of the Deed of Trust
from The City of Aspen for the use of Charles G. Weaver, to secure
$110,000.00, dated December 29, 1978, and recorded January 5, 1979,
in Book 361 at Page 74.
6. Release by the Public Trustee of Pitkin County of the Deed of Trust
from City of Aspen for the use of Richard J. Meeker, to secure
$110,000.00, dated December 29, 1978, and recorded January 5, 1979,
in Book 361 at Page 77.
7. Release by the Public Trustee of Pitkin County of the Deed of Trust
from The City of Aspen for the use of John Villari, to secure
$210,815.00, dated December 29, 1978, and recorded January 5, 1979,
in Book 361 at Page 80.
8. Release by the Public Trustee of Pitkin County of the Deed of Trust
from The City of Aspn for the use of R. P. Fitzgerald, to secure
$119,185.00, dated December 29, 1978, and recorded January 5, 1979,
in Book 361 at Page 83.
NOTE: The Deeds of Trust identified in Requirements No. 5 through 8
above encumber Parcel B.
9. Deed from The City of Aspen, Colorado, a Colorado municipal
corporation, to a grantee or grantees to be determined.
10. Evidence satisfactory to the Company or its duly authorized agent
either (a) that the "real estate transfer tax" imposed by Ordinance
No. 20, (Series of 1979), of the City of Aspen, Colorado has been
paid, and that the lien imposed by Paragraph 9 thereof has been fully
satisfied, or (b) that a Certificate of Exemption has been issued
pursuant to Section 7 thereof.
THE COMPANY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO CONDUCT AN ADDITIONAL SEARCH OF THE
RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK AND RECORDER FOR PITKIN COUNTY,
COLORADO FOR JUDGMENT LIENS, TAX LIENS OR OTHER SIMILAR OR DISSIMILAR
INVOLUNTARY MATTERS AFFECTING THE GRANTEE OR GRANTEES, AND TO MAKE
SUCH ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS AS IT DEEMS NECESSARY, AFTER THE
IDENTITY OF THE GRANTEE OR GRANTEES HAS BEEN DISCLOSED TO THE
COMPANY.
(Continued)
•
Commitment No. 400187 -C
REQUIREMENTS - continued
THE ATTENTION OF THE APPLICANT IS DIRECTED TO THE FACT THAT THE LEGAL
DESCRIPTIONS FOR PARCELS A, B AND G OFTEN FAIL TO PROPERLY TIE TO THE
BOUNDARY LINES OF A NUMBER OF OTHER PARCELS IWEDIATELY ADJACENT THERETO,
AND THAT SUCH OTHER PARCELS APPEAR TO HAVE "PARAMOUNT TITLE" OVER PARCELS
A, B AND G. SUCH OTHER PARCELS INCLUDE, BUT MAY NOT BE LIMITED TO, THOSE
COMMONLY KNOWN OR REFERRED TO AS THE "OBERMEYER ", "PUSTOLKA ", AND "McFARLIN
8 ANDREWS" PARCELS IDENTIFIED ON ONE OF THE MAPS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT,
AND RECORDED IN BOOK 249 AT PAGE 378, BOCK 198 AT PAGE 351, BOOK 342 AT
PAGE 720, AND BOOK 317 AT PAGE 186. HENCE, THE APPLICANT CANNOT BE ASSURED
THAT THERE ARE NO "GAPS" OR "OVERLAPS" BETWEEN THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS FOR
PARCELS A, B AND G, ON THE ONE HAND, AND SUCH OTHER PARCELS, ON THE OTHER
HAND. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE APPLICANT AND REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
COMPANY OR ITS DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT FEET FOR THE PURPOSE OF REVIEWING ANY
ADDITIONAL MAPS AND SURVEYS THAT MIGHT BE IN THE POSSESSION OF THE
APPLICANT, ALL FOR THE PURPOSE OF RESOLVING THIS SITUATION.
SCHEDULE 6 -11
Order No. 400187 -C
II. Schedule 8 of the policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following matters unless the same are
disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company:
I. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records.
• Easements or claims of easements, not shown by the public records.
3_ Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage In area. encroachments, and any facts which a correct
survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records.
Any hen, or right to a lien. for services. labor or material theretofore or hereafter furnished, Imposed by law
and not shown by the public records.
5. Detects, hens. encumbrances, adverse claims of other matters, if any. created, first appearing in the public
records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured
acquires of record for saline the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment.
Exceptions numbered _____are hereby omitted.
6. Taxes due and payable; and any tax, special assessments, charge or lien
imposed for water or sewer service, or for any other special taxing district.
7. Any veins or lodes of quartz or other rock in place bearing gold,
silver, cinnabar, lead, tin, copper, or other valuable deposits,
claimed or known ti exist within the above described premises as of
November 23, 1891, as reserved in United States Patent recorded
December 12, 1900, in Book 39 at Page 136. (Affects those portions
of subject property lying within the Tracts "A" and "B" of the Lux
Placer Mining Claim, U.S. Mineral Survey No. 6786)
8. Right of the Proprietor of a Vein or Lode to extract and remove his
ore therefrom, should the same be found to penetrate or intersect
the premises hereby granted, as reserved in United States Patents
recorded December 12, 1900, in Book 39 at Page 136; June 8, 1888,
in Book 55 at Page 2; and December 24, 1902, in Book 55 at Page
116.
9. Right of way for ditches or canals constructed by the authority of
the United States, as reserved in United States Patent recorded
August 29, 1958, in Book 185 at Pag 69.
10. Easement and right of way for highway purposes, as granted by The
Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad Company, a Delaware
corporation, to Pitkin County, Colorado, a political subdivision of
the State of Colorado, by the instrument recorded August 21, 1953,
in Book 180 at Page 182.
11. Easement and right of way to construct, operate and maintain water
lines, as granted by The Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad
Company, a Delaware corporation, to The City of Aspen, a municipal
corporation, by the instrument recorded July 11, 1969, in Book 241
at Page 987,
12. License that permits the construction, maintenance and use of a
private way or private ways, as granted by The Denver and Rio
Grande Western Railroad Company, a Delaware corporation, to Grant
and Company, a Colorado corporation, by the instrument recorded
(Continued)
Commitment No.400187 -C
EXCEPTIONS - continued
January 14, 1971, in Book 253 at Page 107, said license being 20.00 feet in
width and lying over and across the following described portion of the
SW1 /4 of Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M. :
Beginning in the easterly line of Mill Street northerly of said
Licensor's I.C.C. Track No. 32 -Rv, opposite Mile Post 401 plus about
1560 feet;
thence southeasterly parallel with said track and on curve to left to a
point in said Licensor's northerly property line opposite Mile Post 401
plus about 2010 feet, as shown in yellow on the attached map No. A -233.
13. All right, title and interest in and to said and located at a depth below
five hundred feet (500') beneath the surface and including those portions
of any and all minerals and veins, lodes or ledges which occur below such
depth, as well as the downward or lateral extension of such veins, lodes or
leges from below such depth, the tops or apexes of whilch lie inside the
surface boundary lines of said parcels of land, as reserved by Top of
Aspen, Inc., a Colorado corporation, in the Quit Claim Deed to the County
of Pitkin, State of Colorado, recorded February 8, 1971, in Book 253 at
Page 604.
14. Easement and right of way for sewer purposes in favor of Klaus F.
Obermeyer, as evidenced in (a) that certain Agreement between James R.
Trueman & Company, an Ohio corporation, and The City of Aspen, Colorado, a
municipal corporation, recorded April 6, 1973, in Book 274 at Page 381, and
(b) that certain Warranty Deed from James R. Trueman to The City of Aspen,
Colorado, a municipal corporation, recorded September 17, 1973, in Book 279
at Page 745.
15. Easement and right of way for access purposes in favor of The Aspen One
Company, as evidenced in (a) that certain Agreement between James R.
Trueman & Company, an Ohio corporation, and The City of Aspen, Colorado, a
municipal corporation, recorded April 6, 1973, in Book 274 at Page 381, and
(b) that certain Warranty Deed from James R. Trueman to The City of Aspen,
Colorado, a municipal corporation, recorded September 17, 1973, in Book 279
at Page 745.
16. Deed of Trust from the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, acting by and
through its Board of County Commissioners, to the Public Trustee of Pitkin
County for the use of Robert R. Oden, M.D. and Nancy C. Oden, to secure
$190,000.00, dated October 9, 1975, and recorded October 10, 1975, in Book
304 at Page 64. (Affects Parcels C and D)
17. Assumption of Note and Deed of Trust by the City of Aspen, Colorado. a
Colorado municipal corporation, recorded September 1, 1982, in Book 432 at
Page 106, and given in connection with the above Deed of Trust.
(Continued)
Commitment No.400187 -C
EXCEPTIONS - continued
18. The effect of that certain letter from the City of Aspen to Joseph E.
Edwards, Jr., Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin
County, Colorado, recorded August 27, 1976, in Book 315 at Page 911, and
any and all easements, rights of way and /or licenses for underground
pipelines and open ditches evidenced therein.
19. Agreement between the City of Aspen, Colorado and Roy Vroom and Stephen
Marcus recorded September 6, 1976, in Book 316 at Page 247, and the license
to encroach established thereby.
20. Easement and right of way for the installation, operation, maintenance and
replacement of underground sanitary sewer facilities and their
appurtenances, as granted by The City of Aspen to Aspen Metropolitan
Sanitation District by the instrument recorded October _, 1976, in Book
357 at Page 126.
21. License Agreement between the City of Aspen, Colorado and the Board of
County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado recorded May 21, 1980, in
Book 389 at Page 170.
22. Land Exchange Agreement between The City of Aspen, Colorado and The Board
of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado recorded May 10, 1982,
in Book 426 at Page 249.
23. Easement and right of way to construct, reconstruct, enlarge, operate,
maintain and remove an electric transmission or distribution line or
system, as granted by The County of Pitkin to Holy Cross Electric
Association, Inc. by the instrument recorded May 18, 1982, in Book 426 at
Page 598.
24. Easement and right of way to construct, reconstruct, repair, change,
enlarge, rephase, operate and maintain an underground electric transmission
or distribution line, or both, with the underground vaults, conduit,
fixtures and equipment used or useable in connection therewith, together
with associated equipment required above ground, as granted by The County
of Pitkin to Holy Cross Electric Association, Inc. by the instrument
recorded May 18, 1982, in Book 426 at Page 599.
25. Restrictions, which do contain a forfeiture or reverter clause, as
contained in the Deeds from the Board of County Commissioners of the County
of Pitkin, Colorado to the City of Aspen, Colorado, a municipal
corporation, recorded September 1, 1982, in Book 432 at Page 102, and
September 3, 1982, in Book 432 at Pages 117 and 186, providing
substantially as fol lows:
"The purpose of this grant is to facilitate the construction of a
performing arts center in accordance with the City's Rio Grande Master
(Continued)
Commitment No.400187 -C
EXCEPTIONS - continued
Plan, as it may be revised from time to time. In the event that such a
center is not constructed by April 12, 1992, the above- described real
proeprty shall revert to the County."
26. Encroachment Agreement between the City of Aspen and David L. Pustolka
recorded January 27, 1986, in Book 504 at Page 61.
27. Any question, dispute or adverse claims as to any loss or gain of land as a
result of any change in the riverbed location by other than natural causes,
or alteration through accretion, reliction, erosion or evulsion of the
center thread, bank, channel or flow of the waters in the Roaring Fork
River lying within subject land; and any question as to the location of
such center thread, bank, bed or channel as a legal description monument or
marker for the purposes of describing or locating subject lands.
NOTE: There are no documents in the land records in the office of the
Clerk and Recorder for Pltkin County, Colorado, accurately locating past or
present locations of the center thread, bank, bed or channel of the above
river or indicating any alterations of the same as from time to time may
have occured.
28. Any rights, interests or easements in favor of the State of Colorado, the
United States of America, or the general public, which exist or are claimed
?? to exist in, over, under and /or across the waters and present and past bed
and banks of the Roaring Fork River.
29. Any and all unredeemed tax sales.
NOTE: Upon receipt of a Certificate of Taxes Due evidencing that there are
no existing open tax sales, the above exception will not appear on the
policies_ to be issued hereunder.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ORDER!
If you have any Inquiries, please direct them to:
ASPEN TITLE CORPORATION EAGLE COUNTY TITLE CORPORATION
600 E. Hopkins Avenue 8102 953 S. Frontage Road 11100
Aspen, Colorado 81611 Vail, Colorado 81657
Local - 920 -4050 Local - 476 -6423
Denver Direct - 595 -8463 Denver Direct - 572 -1490
SUMMIT COUNTY ABSTRACT COMPANY THE TITLE COMPANY, INC.
108 N. Ridge Street 523 Zerex
Breckenridge, Colorado 80424 Fraser, Colorado 80442
Local - 453 -6120 Local - 726 -8077
Denver Direct - 629 -6096 Denver Direct - 892 -1903
CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS
1 T he term mortgage."" when used herein. shall include deed of trust trust deed ur other security Instrument.
2 If the proposed Insured has or acquires actual knowledge of any defect, lien encumbrance. adverse claim
or at her matter affecting the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment other
than those shown in Schedule B hereof, and shall fail to disclose such knowledge to the Company in
writing, the Company shall be relieved from liability for any loss or damage resulting from any act of
reliance hereon to the extent the Company is prejudiced by failure to so disclose such knowledge_ If the
proposed Insured shall disclose such knowledge to the Company, or if the Company otherwise acquires
actual knowledge of any such defect, lien, encumbrance. adverse claim or other matter, the Company at
its option may amend Schedule B of this Commitment accordingly, but such amendment shall not relieve
the Company from liability previously incurred pursuant to paragraph 3 of these Conditions and Stipulations.
3. Liability of the Company under this Commitment shall be only to the named proposed Insured and such
parties included under the definition of Insured in the form of policy or policies committed for and only
for actual loss incurred in reliance hereon in undertaking in good faith (a) to comply with the requirements
hereof, or (b) to eliminate exceptions shown in Schedule 8, or (c) to acquire or create the estate or interest
or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment_ In no event shall such liability exceed the amount stated
In Schedule A for the policy or policies committed for and such liability is subject to the insuring provisions,
the Conditions and Stipulations, and the Exclusions from Coverage of the form of policy or policies committed
for in favor of the proposed Insured which are hereby incorporated by reference and are made a part
of this Commitment except as expressly modified herein.
4 Any action or actions or rights of action that the proposed Insured may have or may bring against the
Company arising out of the status of the title to the estate or interest or the status of the mortgage thereon
covered by this Commitment must be based on and are subject to the provisions of this Commitment.
A' TACHMENT 2
(] � ', 1/ 'Li
241170
a
•
LAND EXCHANGE AGREEMENT
103°TTL GINNER
17(42) PITKIH�CT'. RECORDER
- - THIS AGRLEMENT made and entered into chill* tt4 W��i LL -;. '+ '
April, 1982, by and between THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO P ';
%:T /.: .:7 ..
,.• -: (hereinafter "City ") and THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO (hereinafter "County").
W I T N E S S E T H 1 ' •
WHEREAS, the City and County wish to exchange lands
aLs for the purpose of facilitating the construction of certain rb
r - public improvements all as more fully described herein, -
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits
2
/-1 �..� to be derived herefrom, it i■ agreed by the parties hereto
�` '
as follows:
1. The City will convey by warranty
y y y general warrant deed Y ,.
• a
to the County a tract of land (hereinafter "jail property ")
-�r� ;;• situate in Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 Mast of •"
3 *. the 6th P.M., Pitkin County, Colorado, being more fully
• te
t ` kt, described as follows:
s
0'9 + i1• ;?., Beginning at a point whence the southwest corner
;;,t ., .. o! kot K, B1ocY. 92, City of Aspen, Colorado, bears - -
814 55'44" W 240.06 feet.
Thence N14 ° 50'49E, 55.57 feet)
Thence 875 ° 09'11 "E,180.57 feet; +�
ft, Thence 884 ° 34'00 "W, 115.55 feet;
• Thence N87 ° 17'00W. 73.83 feet; s
To the point of beginning containing 5,621 square feet
+. ° y more or less.
This grant shall be specifically conditioned upon,
-4 (a) Subdivision approval in compliance with the _
. so
` - subdivision regulations of tha Cii.y of Aspen
within a period of one hundred eighty (180) .,.:
days of the date of this agreement. In this
regard, the City agrees to f r 9 y g prepare and submit
the necessary applications for subdivision approval { .r
and to request the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission to consiAer th sam on April 21, 1982.
4 -gip, L. _.. -
, . L. 4 ,
1 , „ -•.::
.fp
Y.,
: �
azIa 42E; r, . 250
r,- :. .
(b) A rezoning of the entire jail site to P- Public -
1
and approval of the jail facility in connection - -
.
f ry: - therewith.
? ic) Compliance with Section 13.4 of the City of _
_M ♦ Aspen Charter to the extent that the requirements r >3f =
q` of said section may be deemed applicable to - _s
.. , ,c- ,
k. this conveyance. In this regard, it is the
f{' r% opinion of both the City and the County that
'
" 4. the aforesaid parcel is not "currently in use
s. for a public purpose" necessitating the approval r -
- z of a majority of the electors voting th'reon
s -. prior to the conveyance. However, in the event =
6 it is determined that a vote is so required,
4 4 the County agrees to underwrite the expens,:s
r n
,,. i of such election. ff.% Z
[' 2. In connection with the conveyance of the aforesaid `
"jail property ", the City agrees that it will vacate that I -- . portion roadway reserved in the deed of record at
0,4 ; ortion of the roadd S .
1... Book 193, Page 320 of the records of the Pitkin County Clerk '
999 i
' and Recorder as the same crosses the jail property. A f; ? --
< ari`
a petition to vacate has been submitted by the Boarc ® "-
simultaneously with the execution of this agreement. - .. 9 ,
r' 3. The City further agrees that it will incorporate 9 ty
i
t
in the SPA plan for the Rio Grande property an area - t,. - s: • g sufficient and appropriate for future County office space;
. - L� r and, further, that the land so designated will on request, t ,
r.
be conveyed to the County without additional consideration. t 1 "'-
��c : This provision shall be effective for the life of the I .4
p
survivor of the present Board of County Commissioners =
t `'Il plus twenty -one (21) years. i _ - ' � rvt
i
4. In consideration for the above, the County will:
{i , , (a) Convoy by special warranty deed to the i:la`
K City or its designee a Lract of land c- .nsiscing _
?,' of ;pproxlmately 13,000 square fret west of the
a"
:rh .01.: -':sl
`1 2 _ j a
.'� -
3i
� r -• �_.
•
e ,
_ . _ - - -
F1.4%426 ,1 1251
Os
f
!' _ Courthouse commcu ly known as the "stable property ".
h<
The purrocn of the grant is to facilitate the -_
�;•' construction of a performing arts center and it „a�
is specifically understood and agreed that in the event . :r{
- ;17,7; the center is not constructed within ten (10) :+
years of the date of this agreement, the staple 'Z _
property shall revert to the County. > --
-,
t ` (b) Convey by general warranty deed to the City that '
fj,
A: land consisting of approximately q `
g pproximatel 40,000 square
z
feet, described in a decree of recotd at I -zip a
it Book 318 Page 429 of the records of the Pitkin -
County Clerk and Recorder, and commonly known s ;'
as the "Aspen One Property ". i
(c) Convey by general warranty deed to the City that - -:
y_;•. _
"Th parcel of land commonly known as the "Oden Property"
described in a deed of record at Book 304 - •
Page 62 of the records of the Pitkin County Clerk
ik <
r .•`�
and Recorder. Thic grant is specifically conditioned
v upon r
oY t
i (1) The approval of the mortgagees, Robert O.
,' " and Nancy Oden.
*'.. F 4
(2) The release of the County from any further -
r .F "1'. {
- ' obligation under the note and deed of trust i f
Z4 and assumption by the City of said obligation; )
provided that the City of Aspen shall not amend
j .
1*4. the terms of the note without County approval - �1
during the period in which the land is subject
to reconveyat.ce to the County pursuant to the
3H.a 1
Ire:* i provisions of paragraph 4(c)(5)• a
(3) The reimbursement by the City to th• County of ;r
Y ' the sum of Ninety-eight
y -eight Thousand Five Hundred
Fifty -three Dollars (S98, 553, 00)representinq h --
<•
1
s.
M - 3 -
t:
_w \
(
"(,(k426 ,i(: Y r
_
:�- F
amounts previously paid on said note. y `
1)./ = (4) The acquisition by the County of the Oealmar '+
1
al' Property adjacent to the proposed rti
% p jail facility 2
- �? on terms and conditions which result in the ``� y
X u
at same financial impact as its obl getiona under ��r
the note executed Cor the Oden Property. `�
- (5) The reconveyence to the County of the Oden 4 ' `if '
p
l• r ' Property in the event a performing arts center AS-,4' fi
4} shall not have been constructed thereon within ,c a -
4r ten (10) years of the date of this agreement. ,p'
a
',j' At the time of such reconveyance the County shall
• /r s
L , ; , ` refund to the City all amounts paid to the County �r e?.
"T ai ' ;. pursuant to paragraph 4(c) (3) and shall also r .
4 2 - e i r`
pay to the City any additional amounts paid
+rl•_ by the City for the Oden property pursuant to
. .: the note subsequent to the date of transfer. y ' • - r
r j ry
' In addition, upon such reconveyance, the City shall , -
ji• ,
. be released from any further obligatic�. to reserve
3 4`
s4 :�+': ,: and convey additional lands to Pitkin County
7.
pursuant to paragraph 3. -
(S). Each of the y
parties agrees to prepare, produce,
•
execute and deliver any and all documents reasonably .+
• as
necessary to implement the provisions of this agreement.
Y
d (6). It is acknowledged and agreed that this contract , ti
. is entered into for the mutual benefit of the parties hereto. ;p-i-
.�f It is further agreed that in the event that the provisions %
•
f
of this agreement (except paragraph 3) are not fully ?'?�
At67r?'; executed on or before June 15, 1 902, time being of the
essence, then this agreement sha,1 be of no further force rj r„
•CJ
and effect and all parties released from any further ',4'11
y s
-.. obligation with respect thereto.
rzt
-5 .
(7). The provisions of paragraph 3, 4(a), 4(c)(5), and _'..4%
1
9 4
. . : I.- . - 4 - • R's
•
r --• _ -. - • _....__
1 Oti . r)-
"At 42G .k: 253 t :4
•r'
c 5 shall nurvlve the execution of any deeds of conveyance
sr A
11" pursuant to this agreement, and shall not he deemed merged 1
therewith. .- =
N 3
9 b r Y IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the pa[[Le• hereto have executed i ., • ;.
s
this agreement on the day and year above first noted.
r,
�- $� THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO F
. - - --
..•-••;" .// i
Herman i.e , Nayor
f
1 Arrga?, f
ar4 i P
8Attityn 8 ., K o ch, City Clerk t - -
STATE OF COLORADO ) 5
- ) ss.
County of Pitkin )
/ The foregoing was acknowledged before me thin .. ' day t
of (tr,�''. ∎ . , 1982, by Herman Edel, Mayor, {; -
X and Kathryn 8. Koch, City Clerk, of the City of Aspen,
r
w ±c Colorado.
i� $?
- WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL.
1 ,, f, M y comsission exptrssl ��,. a ,�jra�
11., ',i r-
„ . M
s b • ! " > c r y address 1.•g Post Office Box 258 _
31.t Aspen, Colorado 81612 F - •
t r —Notary fer4-4-4 � - fly t .
5 , •
i BOARD OF COJNTY COMMISSIONERS
P LN COUtJI'Y0p61oredo
CII . ande[U
^' t Chair man gy
t �.
I •i
1 e±
s# .te y
;
S -
..a
5 _ ti F'.
a .1
F '74-
1
t
-
•
•
f
-
p =: w
#. • 4 ?t; ,.' 454 - _
0 1. . ATTCST i
a
,
yr . Lewis Scanlan - _
?.'. b.rp4ty'Clork and Recorder -
4
t' STATE OF COLORADO )
• Sp 1 ss.
County of Pitkin ) f -
r
The foregoing was acknowledged before me this 28 day gi •
a of April , 1982, by Helen Kalln Klanderud,
• r ,` Chairwoman of the Board of Pitkin County Commissioners,
++ r and Lewis Scanlan, Deputy Clerk and Recorder-
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL.
A f -
1,-,:,: My commission expires November 26, 1983 I fi _
My address is, Post Office Box 2584 y 4
:•'� 3 ,a Aspen, Colorado_ 81612
�
cf
It - Notary Public + Z
p �
a
i
•
5
-1 t s 1: , .." 11 1 11. ,. 2 7, .. , : ". .. ,. .-1 . J
• T *\-
t
Y
.
f _r,
_
Y?
ATTACHMENT .,
` fit( fir ct* *.. 14; 1■ ~ 7t `t1�'
�1� � � a %
<,, , 11 �� rr� \ it t It
p u
A li *Ai orai ilkV,r* ° lie r . ......
isgt -,%.4■■ aValle■nw Vfr N . Or i '
II O .. -, ,` .. �
NA tiT�R�
i r p ; / 4 a 1,0 ' tot GEC '.
r � „ --j\J t Ilk.) a ",� , rcl ..-4 .Il 7 It V% n
. \ L6E �Q � :Illij t �
HIGHWAY 82 O g p� a l � � _ l Il� * \(9
8s� �. - .40 PI I Q
4 = m : fir_ ? . { � _!!.ms. 4- 0 s t y : Ream Aar
,_ r i
1 I \ i . _ L___'
i . 1 \ 1 �` ND E P ENk NGE -
i, 7 -1.\
_i ► PAS
.'J n -te r / ! !:. , a'� S�'L -�-�
1 0 J � J :t � ‘..j t
_
■
l 11 J i .00 �. \
i 1 I .. 1 ( -). : ‘
J\ -) i • .. . jr ', i
Tx
VICINITY MAP E ”
0
z
SCALE: 1" = 1,280 feet (1/4 mile)
26 of 28
r
CIT PEN
130 reet
asp. , _ ;
1611
31 ' S=2ft0
August 18, 1988
Planning and Zoning Commission
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Ladies and Gentlemen:
This letter is an amendment to our letter of application of
August 11. In this amended application, we would like to include
the replacement of alluvial material with rip rap material on the
riverbank across from Aspen One property. Also, we would like
to exclude the berm construction on the Aspen One property
requested on the original application.
The replacement of the alluvial material with rip rap material is
a requirement of the Army Corps of Engineers and will correct a
potentially dangerous condition for residents downstream.
The placement of the original alluvial material was approved by
P &Z on 2/21/84 without meeting the Stream Margin Review criteria.
This criteria requires that a copy of an Army Corps 404 permit be
submitted with the Stream Margin Review application. Subsequent
to the P &Z approval, the Army Corps became aware of this project
and now requires the replacement of the material.
The berm construction requested in the original application was
not funded by City Council so it will not be part of the applica-
tion at this time.
The following is attached: a revised development plan, a copy of
the letter from the Army Corps of Engineers requiring this
replacement, a copy of the engineering report and drawing for
this proposal, a copy of the Planning Office recommendation for
the original project, and the minutes from the P &Z meeting which
approved the original project.
Thank you very much.
/ S�incer n ely� ; ,� p
J'WU - etyLd
Jim Gibbard
City Engineering Department
jg /Aspnlamd
cc: Jay Hammond
Chuck Roth
ssT OF
4 - .. e t , - ,EPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
1 r P SACRAMENTO DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Wj^ I'itti �Mi
-1 1 F4 650 CAPITOL MALL
j
• , ,S SACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA 958144794
( AD — REPLY TO
igrn of 7 ATTENTION OF
May 10, 1988
Regulatory Section (N13 -245. 9900 and 87 -080)
Ms. Denice Reich
290 Filmore
Denver, Colorado 80
Dear Ms. Reich:
I am responding to your letter dated May 3, 1988 as 1 :e11
as other written and oral correspondence in regard to violation
87 -080. We understand that you want to replace dredced
alluvial material that was placed on your banks with 264 cubic
yards of riprap below the ordinary high water mark of the Roaring
Fork River to stabilize the right bank. The length of the
proposed project is 340 feet.
Removal of the unstable dredged alluvial material to an
upland site will end your violation status. Placement of riprap
in quantities given is permitted under Nationwide Permit number
13 (Bank Stabilization). Your project can be constructed under
this authority provided the work meets the conditions listed on
the attached information sheet. This verification is valid for
no more than two years. Your application, 9900, for an
individual permit is hereby withdrawn.
You need to notify this office when the removal has commenced
and has been completed so that a compliance inspection may be
arranged.
Should you have questions, please contact Judy Geniac by
telephoning (303) 243 -1199.
Sinc rely, l VOC _ _ (14C
C G v L. h Nure
h ief, Reg latory Unit 4
764 Horizo Drive, Room 211
and Jun ion, Colorado 81506 -8719
C
•
w 15 3rand Avenue, Suite 212
eclat
SCHMUESER CORM -. MEYER INC.t
t Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
IIor mat (303) 94
N IMLI UMMI ( ) 5.1004
November 24, 1987 t3 UtcY ►
manna; CONSULTING ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS/
Army Cotps of Engineers
Attn: Ms. Judy Geniac
Regulatory Unit 14
764 Horizon Drive
Grand Junction, CO 81506 -8719
RE: Reich Property, Aspen, Colorado
Dear Judy:
Ms. Reich has asked me to forward to you the information requested on
the attached sketch from your office dated October 8, 1987. I have
generated a drawing which presents the site in more detail than your
sketch and I have taken the liberty to re-do your sketch for clarity.
The total amount of riprap material to be removed and replaced has been
calculated to be 264 cubic yards. If that amount of fill causes a
problem frau a permitting standpoint, we have the ability to reduce
that amount in the following manners:
1) We have shown a "toe wall" extending three feet below grade. It
would be possible to remove all or part of that toe wall.
2) Please note the extent of the proposed work on the site plan.
The immediate danger to the Reich property is from the east
property line to a point to the west of the residence. At this
point, the Reich property tends to be on the inside of the curve
of the river and, therefore, the bulk of the impact on the bank
shifts to the opposite side of the river frcm the Reich prop-
erty. We would be able to limit the extent of the project, if
appropriate from the permitting standpoint.
Either Ms. Reich or I will call you after you have had a couple days to
review this information. Please note that the net effect of this pro-
posed work will not increase or decrease the amount of riprap material,
nor will change the contour of the bank. The area of the work is on an
existing riprap slope and we are not impacting vegetation or riparian
area at all.
Thank you for your consideration of this information.
Respectfully submitted,
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
0-an W. L.rdon, P.E.
• esiden
S • - /6138
cc: Ms. Denice Reich w/ attachments
4 Tgr OPT
.x_ of DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Of r , SACRAMENTO DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
i � - 1 ' I 650 CAPITOL MAIL
3 1 7 SACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA 95614 -4794
REPLY TO
-
ATTENTION OF
•
October 20, 1987
Regulatory Section (87 -080)
Ms. Denice Reich
3801 E. Florida, Suite 200
Denver, Colorado 80210
Dear Mr. Reich:
I am writing to you regarding the drawings that you signed
and dated on October 4, 1987. The note that Ms. Geniac had
attached requested that you give, to the best of your knowledge,
the information needed. In other words, to fill in the yellow
highlighted blanks.
This information is needed so that a public notice can be
issued. The latter is an important part of the Corps of
Engineers' permit process.
We cannot continue to process your after - the -fact permit
application, until we have the needed information. Should you
have any questions, please contact Judy Geniac by telephoning
(303) 243 -1199. --
Sincerely,,,
; 1
j ZG
(. 11t
Grady' . McNure
Chief, Regulatory Unit 4
764'iYorizon Drive
Grand Junction, Colorado 81506 -8719
Enclosures
- —
I
.
J 71/2
:44,-;„:„....-.2-.• ,. --._ -e fecAy- OCT 0 8 198
$l - c - -- nis s se0,
...
■ralli.""--. '77'
C: •!". , i . : 44 1# - 7. :k ci :. -- I 'Z -. REGULATORY UNIT #4 - GRAND JUNCTION
... :i 1"1„.„,,r,K,451.,,, O a,.; r LI' ,\.._. l3-‘‘c
t: '": -; : -11.". ir- "\----- -
.::-Ft■art471r71 1Vit-i.t0V L \
W5 (j- ‘'
' .
-0 . 1. VS -:
- -- - --
.• < ..?4.7f-i.s.. _
:,',-. 74: • -
14 % •
. tit
C
I NIII
-
J. a. l
if
sp. • N _
hi* ilp ‘
- \
i 1.140
,a 41
4 res - s. - dik
Va.
*1
T t e Atil
N...
i
so ..
1 .1 4sl aN v tels alltabi,\,...,_ .
- _I %I ..< e------A / sic • Z:1
C1/44,na v. •
I VO‘A 1 r 1
• ..
1 1
I eAtkipe
vo Th •
af ititS
■0
II hz MAO, trap : 0 9
4 4 1 4 11 V sa "C
IriptAlkes
qb d a - upe
I I
i .
.
r
1 ,
I
Cti I 11 , - '
- '-. - - -
- - -----
\ tee
,s ir : � 4A,
J `
a
�—_ - c 2
Pr 0
•
CX J
t i
y � V
k
k ,
6 /;�Z
-- - -- --- - --- -- - -- -- - - - - --
MEMORANDUM
• TO: Aspen Planning and ''Zoning Commission
•
PROM: Richard Gr.icc, Planning Office
RE: Volk Project - Stream Margin Review (Case
n-89 City)
DATE: February 21, 1984
.
The attached application was submitted by Gideon Kaufman on behalf of
Richard Volk for stream margin review on the Volk property in Oklahoma
.Flats. The application involves stream bank improvements which were
made by the applicant at the end of last summer in an effort to re-
build the stream bank which was eroded by the spring runoff. Upon the
receipt of a complaint by a neighbor, the Building Department advised
Mr. Volk that submission of an application for stream margin review
was required to bring the improvements into compliance with the Code.
The bank was stabilized by "heavy rip rap" cobblestones varying in
size from six inches (6 ") to twelve inches (12 ") in diameter_. The
cobble material was installed at approximately a 45 angle and further
stabilized by masonry grout. The water course of the river was not
encroached upon by these improvements. The river bank is, in fact, in
the same location as it was prior to spring floods. The capacity of
the stream channel has not been altered nor have there been any adverse
impact on the 100 year flood plain.
The applicant's residence, yard and numerous trees varying in diameter •
from one inch (1 ") to several feet were clearly threatened by the
-
erosion which began last spring. The stabilization of the stream bank
is consistent with the intent of the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan and
•
results in a reduction of erosion, protection of the natural vegeta
•
tion, and maintenance of a reasonably natural appearance for the
•
stream bank. The cobble material used in the retaining structure is
consistent with the natural character and appearance of the stream
channel.
The referral agencies have not identified any inconsistencies with the •
adopted criteria for review of stream margin reviews. The Environ-
mental Health Department noted that the improvements "should reduce
hank erosion and sediment deposition in this small section of river."
The Planning Office feels that the intent and established criteria for
stream margin review are.met by this application and therefore recom-
mend your approval with the following motion:
"Move to approve the Volk Stream Margin review."
•
•
•
-
i
? c eL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission February 21, 1984
-3-
three residential development credits. Penne said yes. Penne noted this
is a complex agreement. Harvey explained it does not increase the density
on any parcel but enables the applicant to buy a condominium -zoned piece
of property and build the condominiums without going through growth manage-
ment. Pardee questioned the initial agreement. Did the applicant agree
with the developers to place twelve units on that site. Why were "x" number
of units just not given to the applicant to do with as he wished. Harvey
said the applicant was given nineteen units. Lipkin stated the settlement
agreement predated any plans for this property. Pardee asked if the number
was nineteen regardless if all units were used. Soweone said yes.
Harvey asked if there are any changes in Penne's recommendations or conditions.
Penne answered no. Harvey questioned the statement "all representations of
previous approvals." Is the commission not dealing with all agreements?
What are "representations ?" Penne concurred "agreements" was a better word.
Anderson questioned if the one story was not representative of one story.
Lipkin noted that the language in the proposals stated specifically there
would be 800 feet of living space above 800 square feet of office space. Har-
vey stated his perception of one story is not vaulted ceilings or maximum
height. One story is eight to ten feet between floors. White agreed.
Hunt moved to recommend approval of the Pitkin Reserve PUD amendment, subject
to conditions one through four being the same as listed in the planning
office memorandum, dated February 21, 1984, page two; seconded by Jasmine
Tyrge. All in favor; motion carried.
VOLK STREAM MARGIN REVIEW
Richard Grice, planning office, explained someone complained to the building
department that there had not been a stream margin review prior to the in-
stallation of the cobblestones to stablilize the stream. Harvey described
the job as man -made. He questioned the description in the memo, dated
February 21, 1984, from the planning office: it is a sensitive, natural deal.
Grice corrected him. The memo states "a reasonable natural appearance."
Pardee said this is the most sensible approach to save the bank.
In Harvey's opinion the question is this action allowable. Can someone come
Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission `cbruary 21, 19-;_;
case, the commission can make an exception because there is a previously
existing dwelling which the applicant is trying to protect. Harvey does or
want to give the impression one can ignore the stream margin review. He
does not want this action by the commission to reflect that approval was
granted after the fact. Pardee suggested the motion reflect this.
Grice presented an argument in the applicant's favor. The applicant did
approach Stan Steven, building department, and asked if she needed a building
permit to build a retaining wall to prevent the stream bank from eroding.
Steven said no. The applicant then built the retaining wall. The applicant':
intent was to save the property.
Harvey reiterated he does not want to set a precedent in which someone else
might come forth and site the Volk action.
Roger Hunt moved to approve the stream margin review. Discussion followed.
Pardee suggested including a statement that the commission is not approving
this because the applicant came to the commission after the fact. Harvey
suggested a statement about meeting the criteria. Edwards suggested siting
when the application was made and does it meet the conditions. Hunt said
keep the motion as is; seconded by Welton Anderson.
White concurred with Sheldon's and Harvey's comments. Harvey suggested the
commission re- examine the stream margin review criteria in the ordinance.
Consider adding a statement which deals with someone channelizing the
river without appearing before a stream margin review. Sheldon said this
needs to be done if this channelization is allowed. Harvey said do not includ
this in the motion. White questioned the stream margin review also.
All in favor; motion carried.
Hunt moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:00 p.m.; seconded by Sheldon. All
in favor; motion carried.
Harvey asked the secretary to include a copy of the stream margin review in
the next packet.
i
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
rowf G [ wn ECNEL 0. 8. 8 L. L1,
-
Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission
February 21, 1984
-3-
three residential development credits. Penne said yes. Penne noted this
is a complex agreement. Harvey explained it does not increase the density
on any parcel but enables the applicant to buy a condominium -zoned piece
of property and build the condominiums without going through growth manage-
ment. Pardee questioned the initial agreement. Did the applicant agree
with the developers to place twelve units on that site. Why were "x" number
of units just not given to the applicant to do with as he wished. Harvey
said the applicant was given nineteen units. Lipkin stated the settlement
agreement predated any plans for this property. Pardee asked if the number
was nineteen regardless if all units were used. Someone said yes.
Harvey asked if there are any changes in Penne's recommendations or conditions.
Penne answered no. Harvey questioned the statement "all representations of
previous approvals." Is the commission not dealing with all agreements?
What are "representations ?" Penne concurred "agreements" was a better word.
Anderson questioned if the one story was not representative of one story.
Lipkin noted that the language in the proposals stated specifically there
would be 800 feet of living space above 800 square feet of office space. Har-
vey stated his perception of one story is not vaulted ceilings or maximum
height. One story is eight to ten feet between floors. White agreed.
Hunt moved to recommend approval of the Pitkin Reserve PUD amendment, subject
to conditions one through four being the same as listed in the planning
office memorandum, dated February 21, 1984, page two; seconded by Jasmine
Tyrge. All in favor; motion carried.
VOLK STREAM MARGIN REVIEW
Richard Grice, planning office, explained someone complained to the building
department that there had not been a stream margin review prior to the in-
stallation of the cobblestones to stablilize the stream. Harvey described
the job as man -made. He questioned the description in the memo, dated
February 21, 1984, from the planning office: it is a sensitive, natural deal.
Grice corrected him. The memo states "a reasonable natural appearance."
Pardee said this is the most sensible approach to save the bank.
In Harvey's opinion the question is this action allowable. Can someone come
to the commission and request an approval in a stream margin review after
rip rapping the stream bank. Sheldon questioned the wording of the stream
margin review. The stream margin review is designed to prevent anyone from
building anything permanent within an area where the stream banks are going
to change. Pardee said if one is losing half of his land, he has the right
to act to save it. Sheldon suggested the house should have not been built
in a place where it will be affected by the course of the river. Edwards
noted other considerations came into place after the house was built. It
was not a natural change in the stream flow, structures built upstream
affected the bank's stability. This applicant does comply with the code.
The applicant was required to get an engineering study, although niann;nn
office did not find +1,4.
Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission tenruary 21, 19c,
case, the commission can make an exception because there is a previously
existing dwelling which the applicant is trying he 'protect. Farvev does not
want to give the impression one can ignore the stream margin review. He
does not want this action by the commission to reflect that approval was
granted after the fact. Pardee suggested the motion reflect this.
Grice presented an argument in the applicant's favor. The applicant did
approach Stan Steven, building department, and asked if she needed a building
permit to build a retaining wall to prevent the stream bank from eroding.
Steven said no. The applicant then built the retaining wall. The applicant'
intent was to save the property.
Harvey reiterated he does not want to set a precedent in which someone else
might come forth and site the Volk action.
Roger Hunt moved to approve the stream margin review. Discussion followed.
Pardee suggested including a statement that the commission is not approving
this because the applicant came to the commission after the fact. Harvey
suggested a statement about meeting the criteria. Edwards suggested siting
when the application was made and does it meet the conditions. Hunt said
keep the motion as is; seconded by Welton Anderson.
White concurred with Sheldon's and Harvey's comments. Harvey suggested the
commission re- examine the stream margin review criteria in the ordinance.
Consider adding a statement which deals with someone channelizing the
river without appearing before a stream margin review. Sheldon said this
needs to be done if this channelization is allowed. Harvey said do not includ
this in the motion. White questioned the stream margin review also.
All in favor; motion carried.
Hunt moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:00 p.m.; seconded by Sheldon. All
in favor; motion carried.
Harvey asked the secretary to include a copy of the stream margin review in
the next packet.
y" ./
Barbara Norris, Deputy City Clerk
ATTACHMENT 4
MEMORANDUM
To: Tom Baker, Planning Office
From: Chuck Roth, Assistant City Engineer e
Date: August 23, 1988
Re: Snow Melter SPA
In response to your request for information concerning the snow
melter facility, this is an approximate project description. If
you need any additional information, please let me know.
The snow melter unit will melt 40 tons per hour of snow. The
water from the melted snow will go into the existing storm
drainage ditch and through the existing settling ponds to the
river. Improvements will be made to the ponds to improve their
performance.
At peak snow hauling times, snow needs to be dumped at three
times the rate that the melter can handle it. An excess snow
storage area will be needed which will be as large as one acre in
the best snow years. When snow is not being hauled, an operator
can use a front end loader to put snow from the storage pile into
the melter. We anticipate operating the melter during normal
snow removal hours, from three in the morning through the day.
There may be times when the melter is operated around the clock.
The snow melter is about seven feet tall by six feet wide with an
eight foot deep by ten by eleven foot concrete pit in front of
it. We anticipate a ten foot high concrete sound barrier fence
on three sides.
With the new system, the Aspen One property will probably be free
and clear of snow from the streets early in April, depending on
the weather patterns of the particular year. Currently the site
is not clear until June or July.
cc: Jay Hammond
Eb Tacker
Jim Gibbard
CR /cr /memo_88.75
MEMORANDUM
TO: Tom Baker, Planning Office
FROM: Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department ` p
DATE: August 25, 1988
RE: Snow Melter SPA
As per your request, the following descriptions are of the two
additional projects that are to be included with the snow melter
project in the SPA review:
1. The riverbank rip rap project is the replacement of the
existing alluvial material on the riverbank near the Reich
property with rip rap material. This replacement was required by
the Army Corps of Engineers and will mitigate a potentially
dangerous condition for downstream residents.
2. The side channel dredging project is the dredging and removal
of approximately 10 cubic yards of alluvial material from the
beginning of a side channel of the Roaring Fork River on the
north side of the Aspen One property.
jg /spadscrp
cc: Jay Hammond
Chuck Roth
MEMORANDUM
To: Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department nn� pp
From: Chuck Roth, Assistant City Engineer C -r
Date: August 30, 1988
Re: Snow Melter Facility Stream Margin Review
This memo is written in response to your request for assistance
with item 1 of Elyse's memo.
1. The certification requirement by a PE is something of a
Catch -22 item. I believe that it mostly originated out of FEMA's
ordinance requirements. As you may recall, FEMA does permit
rises in flood plane elevations, hence the need for qualified
individuals to certify the magnitude of any such elevation
increases. However, in the city, increases in floodplain
elevations are not permitted so that requiring a PE to certify
that there is no elevation increase is to some extent like
requiring every land use applicant to obtain a certificate from
Isaac Newton that the earth is round. More to the point, for
applications from the general public, it is appropriate to obtain
such certification. For an application generated by the City
Engineering Department, it is my understanding that the City
Engineer is qualified to certify such matters without being a
registered PE. You might want to check with Jay and /or Fred
about it.
cc: Jay Hammond
Elyse Elliott
CR /cr /memo_88.77
CIT dOF SPEN
130 " reet
asp ' . al : 1611
31 ',25 -2020
September 8, 1988
Planning and Zoning Commission
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Ladies and Gentlemen:
This letter is the second amendment to our letter of application
of August 11. In this amended application, we would like to
include the use of the Aspen One property for temporary storage
of the rip rap material that will be used for the replacement of
alluvial material on the riverbank on the other side of the
Roaring Fork.
Thank you very much.
9 Sincerely, �� —'""/ "
141C- I
Jim Gibbard
City Engineering Department
jg /Aspn2amd
cc: Jay Hammond
Chuck Roth
A ---
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
IC9M [. HC(f M(I. 9. P. a L, L 1,
Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission February 21, 1984
- 3-
three residential development credits. Penne said yes. Penne noted this
is a complex agreement. Harvey explained it does not increase the density
on any parcel but enables the applicant to buy a condominium -zoned piece
of property and build the condominiums without going through growth manage-
ment. Pardee questioned the initial agreement. Did the applicant agree ./
with the developers to place twelve units on that site. Why were "x" number .;,
of units just not given to the applicant to do with as he wished. Harvey
said the applicant was given nineteen units. Lipkin stated the settlement
agreement predated any plans for this property. Pardee asked if the number
was nineteen regardless if all units were used. Someone said yes.
Harvey asked if there are any changes in Penne's recommendations or conditions.
Penne answered no. Harvey questioned the statement "all representations of
previous approvals." Is the commission not dealing with all agreements?
What are "representations ?" Penne concurred "agreements" was a better word.
Anderson questioned if the one story was not representative of one story.
Lipkin noted that the language in the proposals stated specifically there
would be 800 feet of living space above 800 square feet of office space. Har-
vey stated his perception of one story is not vaulted ceilings or maximum
height. One story is eight to ten feet between floors. White agreed.
Hunt moved to recommend approval of the Pitkin Reserve PUD amendment, subject
to conditions one through four being the same as listed in the planning
office memorandum, dated February 21, 1984, page two; seconded by Jasmine
Tyrge. All in favor; motion carried.
VOLK STREAM MARGIN REVIEW
Richard Grice, planning office, explained someone complained to the building
department that there had not been a stream margin review prior to the in-
stallation of the cobblestones to stablilize the stream. Harvey described
the job as man -made. He questioned the description in the memo, dated
February 21, 1984, from the planning office: it is a sensitive, natural deal.
Grice corrected him. The memo states "a reasonable natural appearance."
Pardee said this is the most sensible approach to save the bank.
In Harvey's opinion the question is this action allowable. Can someone come
to the commission and request an approval in a stream margin review after
rip rapping the stream bank. Sheldon questioned the wording of the stream
margin review. The stream margin review is designed to prevent anyone from
building anything permanent within an area where the stream banks are going
to change. Pardee said if one is losing half of his land, he has the right
to act to save it. Sheldon suggested the house should have not been built
in a place where it will be affected by the course of the river. Edwards •
noted other considerations came into place after the house was built. It
was not a natural change in the stream flow, structures built upstream
affected the bank's stability. This applicant does comply with the code.
The applicant was required to get an engineering study, although planning
office did not find that necessary.
Grice - said the applicant has not altered the location of the stream bank,
has not affected the flow of the river, has not slowed the river, and has •
preserved the vegetation. Had the applicant not stabilized the stream bank,
the applicant would have lost a number of trees and possibly a house. There
is no impact on the flood plain. There is reduced erosion. The applicant
meets the criteria. The applicant did a sensitive job. He presented a
photograph of the rip rap. It is a reasonable natural appearance.
Sheldon reiterated that if everyone made rip rap along an eroding river bank,
the river would be channelized. Harvey agreed. Sheldon stated this is
a dangerous precedent. It is contrary to the stream margin review. In this
1'
Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission February 21, 1984
case, the commission can make an exception because there is a previously
existing dwelling which the applicant is trying to protect. Harvey does not
want to give the impression one can ignore the stream margin review. He
does not want this action by the commission to reflect that approval was
granted after the fact. Pardee suggested the motion reflect this.
Grice presented an argument in the applicant's favor. The applicant did
approach Stan Steven, building department, and asked if she needed a building
permit to build a retaining wall to prevent the stream bank from eroding.
Steven said no. The applicant then built the retaining wall. The applicant's
intent was to save the property.
Harvey reiterated he does not want to set a precedent in which someone else
might come forth and site the Volk action.
Roger Hunt moved to approve the stream margin review. Discussion followed.
Pardee suggested including a statement that the commission is not approving
this because the applicant came to the commission after the fact. Harvey
suggested a statement about meeting the criteria. Edwards suggested siting
when the application was made and does it meet the conditions. Hunt said
keep the motion as is; seconded by Welton Anderson.
White concurred with Sheldon's and Harvey's comments. Harvey suggested the
commission re- examine the stream margin review criteria in the ordinance.
Consider adding a statement which deals with someone channelizing the
river without appearing before a stream margin review. Sheldon said this
needs to be done if this channelization is allowed. Harvey said do not includ
this in the motion. White questioned the stream margin review also.
All in favor; motion carried.
Hunt moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:00 p.m.; seconded by Sheldon. All
in favor; motion carried.
Harvey asked the secretary to include a copy of the stream margin review in
the next packet.
Barbara Norris, Deputy City Clerk
dL 7
X/ j
f ' C i l
1
, �
//
°4 44 Q . to CE.c_Cv[ kty nz 4-c pf pc GG --
1-0 - F'; G-J kL_A, «r« f'
A ell, "2„.z.----2 /
t'Y t ti6F -ate
r
1 4 ,,, ,,,,___ pL____ fL.._____c_ A ,„ 9 , ,...,t._.,_
- --- 7) .L Jai, -
- in -- 5p --
3I ZA-(4- N 7 3 n®/
Al i, (t
re s
1
, a /--, <-J
4 (:1 each nn 41
cti fi1/2
► g° L) (
‘ 410 .1 /
vL
1 � ' _ C e owe � n l�ti� a� 4/
Av
Tr
!I
Fr
e • 4_ ��
0 _ - YY/c t Pa ‘(c r, - o G )
A
p on " p 1 Q
FUG
•
s a eta e? ¢ � n --)
rYY 1.2-&L2(.3 cl9
7 ‘31 -- rrThe„ 7 zi orn -1
s� .
v ma-r 1 2-u ct—} • gi 0
(Au trbcf_
ez
C r-. �4 °, ..� ‘P .1'Y1 /(A-e-
G 4 e '� J� � ��2 � . / )jai
MEMORANDUM
To: Cindy M. Houben, Planning Office 4 7
From: Elyse Elliott, Engineering Department
Date: August 17, 1988
Re: Rio Grande Snowmelter Stream Margin Review
After reviewing the application and making a site inspection, I
have the following comments in sequence with the review criteria
of Section 7 -504:
1. The application states that this development will not
increase the base flood elevation on the parcel proposed for
development. However, this statement is not certified by a
Colorado professional engineer as required by the Municipal Code.
2. Three new settling ponds will be constructed adjacent to the
existing trail. The applicant should address whether this will
have any effect on the trail. Will the ponds ever overflow onto
the trail? Will the trail have to be relocated? Will the
snowmelter release the water continuously or will it be released
all at once in batches? How will the water flow from the
snowmelter into the four settling ponds? Will new bridges have
to be built?
3. This application does not propose to remove any trees. To
the best of my knowledge this plan will conform to the Roaring
Fork Greenline Plan, this fact should be confirmed by the
Planning Office.
4. The dredging of the stream should not cause erosion of the
stream bank. However, this work should be done at a time of year
when the flow of the river is low, so as to minimize the amount
of silt produced. After dredging, the bank should be revegetated
according to the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan.
5. The applicant should elaborate on how efforts will be made
to reduce pollution of the river. Several points are outlined in
the letter from the State Health Department. Also, once
everything settles out of the settling ponds, what becomes of it?
Do the ponds have to be dredged periodically?
Items number 6, 7, and 8 meet our approval.
There are other questions that arise form this proposal:
- What is the height and vegetation treatment of the proposed
berm?
- Why are four settling ponds necessary?
- Bow will the water be transported from the last settling pond
to the river? By cutting a ditch or pipe?
- The construction procedure should be noted.
cc: Jay Hammond
Chuck Roth
MEMORANDUM
To: Jay Hammond
City Engineer
Chuck Roth
Assistant City Engineer
From: Thomas S. Dunlop, Director
Environmental Health Department
Date: August 11, 1988
Re: Snow Melter Facility
This response is the result of your request for review of the
proposed snow melting facility to be installed at one of three
sites in Aspen, the 1 -A property, Impound lot or Jenny Adair
Park.
The comments of this office will be oriented to the possible
environmental impacts associated with installation of the snow
melter.
AIR POLLUTION:
There theoretically should be negligible impacts on air quality
as the result of burning natural gas in the snow melter as
described in the installation drawing.
As evidenced in the video we viewed there may be steam associated
with normal operation of the device. This is not of concern as
an air quality issue unless odors become a problem. Odors could
be generated from the vaporization of hydrocarbons that are
picked up from the streets and then melted in the snow melter.
There is no evidence at this time that this will or will not
occur, it is something that might have to be addressed in the
future.
WATER QUALITY:
There has been communication between your office and the Colorado
Health Department concerning effluent being discharged to the
Roaring Fork River as part of the normal operation of the
melter. This office would have nothing more to add beyond the
conditions and recommendations outlined in a letter dated April E .-
5, 1988 to you from Mr. Jon Rubic, Water Quality Control
Division. Discharge monitoring and obtaining a discharge permit,
if necessary, are in agreement with policies of this office.
Concerning the use of this installation as a "demonstration
project" for other cities, that decision will be up to the City
Engineering Department.
Improvement of the settling ponds and installing an outfall that
Snow Melter
August 11, 1988
Page 2
detains oil and grease is also a very important design feature.
A process will be necessary to remove and dispose of the
collected oil, grease and other objects as the melting process
takes place.
The ultimate objective is to operate the facility with no
deterioration to receiving streams.
NOISE:
The sound measurements taken by the Engineering Department on the
device in Canada offer a general level of sound that can be
expected during normal operation. Circumstances in Aspen, such
as location, hours of operation, weather, altitude and operation
methods will all have an effect on the actual noise generated
from the machine. Based on the information reviewed it appears
that the snow melter will generate between 70 to 75 decibels
(dB(A)) at 50 feet away. That is about as loud as a vacuum
cleaner, 10 feet away.
It is recommended that the design engineer for the snow melter
company be consulted regarding the actual installation site and
methods of mitigating noise from that site. 75dB(A) has the
potential to be very intrusive on the neighborhood, especially at
night and when generated for long periods of time. Earth berms
will offer some relief, but not total sound exclusion. There are
other sound dampening materials that will work in conjunction
with the berms, they should also be reviewed during the design
process.
SOLID WASTE:
As has been noted in the past, the City should be aware of the
amount of solid waste associated with a snow dump. This is a
reference to design solid waste handling into the installation
plan. The intent would be to prevent solid waste from entering
the river or from blowing around the site.
( F-
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: RIO GRANDE SPA AMENDMENT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Tuesday, September 20, 1988 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 P.M.
before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, in the Old City
Council Chambers, 2nd floor, City Hall, 130 S. Galena Street,
Aspen, Colorado to consider an amendment to the Final Development
Plan for the city -owned Rio Grande property which is zoned Public
with an Specially Planned Area (SPA) overlay. The application
for amendment is being submitted by the City Engineering
Department and includes dredging of the channel and bank
stabilization in the Roaring Fork River on the northeast portion
of the property; locating a snowmelting machine on the current
snowdump site; and the modification of the storm drainage system
which currently exists on the property.
For further information, contact the Aspen /Pitkin Planning
Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925 -
2020, ext. 225.
s /C. Welton Anderson
Chairman, Aspen Planning
and Zoning Commission
Published in The Aspen Times on September 1, 1988.
City of Aspen Account.
PN.1
Aspen/Hain Planning Office
5 4/4" A v_
130 S. Galena 1i
Aspen, CO 81611 ; ° ` R E , `
C .
4/40 1 10 en -1/2 "-- 14 ` .1 -
E4s 4t gli tt
�t ,,, George W & Patricia C
� Piallard Point A �0f''; 6a ngton, IL 60010 4 ir
I1Ut1I►,1,ii11111iiii,,,,,tij l„ilIIl! II ,llll%1il
•
•
C , 0 Pp
MEMORANDUM
AUG 1; 1-
CI FY OF ASPEN
To: Mayor & City Council CCTV m,wrGFR; eFFICC
Thru: Ronald L. Mitchell, Deputy City Manager
Thru: Jay Hammond, City Engineer /Director of Public Services
From: Chuck Roth, Assistant City Engineer Cie_
Date: August 15, 1988
Re: Snow Melter Facility - Design Selection & Project Schedule
SUMMARY: The City's site design consultant, Schmueser Gordon
Meyer, will have preliminary designs and cost estimates completed
on Friday. We plan to have the preliminary designs in your mail
box on Friday or Monday. The project has a tight time frame, and
it was not possible to have this material in time for the packet.
PLEASE CALL CHUCK ROTH OR CATHY OSTWALD AT 925 -2020 EXT 216/214
IF YOU WOULD LIKE THE MATERIAL DELIVERED TO YOUR OFFICE OR
WHEREVER ON FRIDAY OR MONDAY, otherwise it will be in your mail
box.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: The Council has previously decided to
purchase and install a snow melter as an alternative to having
the snow dump. At the Council meeting of August 8, the site
design contract was awarded.
BACKGROUND: Council has been working for four years on solving
the problems associated with the snow dump.
PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Attached for your information are letters
from Colorado Department of Health, Water Quality Division, and
from our Environmental Health Department. It appears that a
permit may or may not be needed for the outflow from the snow
melter. The site design consultant is tentatively recommending
that we utilize the snow dump during December and January as we
have during past years so that we can monitor the water quality
of the outflow as the snow dump has functioned in the past. Then
we could commence utilizing the snow melter in February and
continue to monitor the quality of the flows. It has also been
recommended that we commence sampling the water quality immedia-
tely in- coming and out -going at the existing settling ponds.
This will be done.
Noise concerns continue to be a possible problem to which design
consideration are being given.
Another problem for the project is the review process in conjunc-
tion with obtaining approvals in time for construction this fall.
We have submitted a Stream Margin Review application. It appears
that there may be problems with the Specially Planned Area
procedure. It appears that the project must go through the SPA
procedure.
If Council has a special meeting on September 19 and approves the
Conceptual SPA plan at that time, then we may be able to appear
at a special meeting of P & Z on September 27 for Final SPA
approval of a snow melting facility. However this would delay
the project until October 10 for Final SPA approval from Council.
It has been our conception that construction would commence on or
about October 1. We will continue with construction drawings and
specifications and bid the project conditional on final Council
approval.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The project was budgeted at $125,000.
We do not yet know if we will be able to complete the work at
that price. The preliminary design work from Schmueser Gordon
Meyer will contain cost estimates.
RECOMMENDATIONS: Members of both the Council and the P & Z asked
us to consider using Jenny Adair Park. It does not appear that
this will be a feasible site both for the size of the site and
for the residents who live in closer proximity to that site than
other residents' proximity to the other sites.
The best site design may be burying the facility at the existing
impound lot site. We will have to look at the findings of the
consultant.
Staff recommendation will either have to come as an attachment to
the consultant's report or as a verbal recommendation at the
council meeting.
PROPOSED MOTION: As with the staff recommendation, this will
either have to come with the consultant's report or as a verbal
proposal at the council meeting.
CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATIONS:
CR /cr /memo_88.70
-
STATE OF COLORADO
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH of - cow
4210 East l l th Avenue y c f °4sw .nly
Denver, Colorado 80220 ( -- o
Phone (30 3) 320-8333 �;'
1876
Roy Romer
Governor
April 5, 1988 Thomas M Vernon. M U
Executive Direaur
Chuck Roth, Assistant City Engineer CERTIFIED MAIL NO: P670 159 341
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Snow Dumping
City of Aspen
Pitkin County
Dear Mr. Roth:
The use of snow melters would not violate our regulations. It would affect
water quantity, but probably not water quality. Our concern is whether the
effluent from the snow melting pollutes the river.
Such discharges appear to be covered under section 405 of the Federal Clean
Water Act, as amended in 1987. This section states that, other than excepted,
a permit for storm water point source discharges shall not be required until
1992. Part (2)(E) states that a permit may immediately be required where "the
stormwater discharge contributes to a violation of a water quality standard or
is a significant contributor of pollutants ". We suspect that discharges from
this site may fall under this section. But, we request the City to perform
effluent monitoring to confirm or deny this.
We request that weekly monitoring for pH, total suspended solids, total
dissolved solids and oil & grease be performed during the current snow melting
season, until such time as discharges cease. Such data should be submitted
monthly to this office. We will evaluate this information to determine if a
permit will be required and/or whether further monitoring will be necessary
next season.
Additionally, as discussed in our April 4, 1988, telephone call, we ask that
you consider performing a demonstration project at the site. Such a project
would consist of evaluating the treatment facilities, determining what changes
would improve the effluent quality (improving settling, installing an outfall
pipe that prevents large objects from being discharged and that eliminates
discharge of oil & grease, etc.), and possibly implementing such changes. An
obvious advantage is that if such changes cause the facility to cease being a
significant contributor of pollution, a permit would not immediately be
required. And, the site would be an example for other cities.
Chuck Roth, City of Aspen
Page 2
Please feel free to contact me at 331 -4752 if you have questions. We would be
happy to meet with you to discuss any proposed changes or evaluate the results
of such changes.
Sincerely,
Jon C. Kubic
Engineering Technician
Permits and Enforcement Section
WATER QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION
xc: John Blair, Field Support Section, WQCD
Local Health Department
ASPEN*PITKIN
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM HECEIV ED
To: Jay Hammond
City Engineer MTh 1 1 1388
Chuck Roth
Assistant City Engineer City Engineer
From: Thomas S. Dunlop, Director 1l"
Environmental Health Department
Date: August 11, 1988
Re: Snow Melter Facility
This response is the result of your request for review of the
proposed snow melting facility to be installed at one of three
sites in Aspen, the 1 -A property, Impound lot or Jenny Adair
Park.
The comments of this office will be oriented to the possible
environmental impacts associated with installation of the snow
melter.
AIR POLLUTION:
There theoretically should be negligible impacts on air quality
as the result of burning natural gas in the snow welter as
described in the installation drawing.
As evidenced in the video we viewed there may be steam associated
with normal operation of the device. This is not of concern as
an air quality issue unless odors become a problem. Odors could
be generated from the vaporization of hydrocarbons that are
picked up from the streets and then melted in the snow welter.
There is no evidence at this time that this will or will not
occur, it is something that might have to be addressed in the
future.
WATER QUALITY:
There has been communication between your office and the Colorado
Health Department concerning effluent being discharged to the
Roaring Fork River as part of the normal operation of the
melter. This office would have nothing more to add beyond the
conditions and recommendations outlined in a letter dated April
5, 1988 to you from Mr. Jon Rubic, Water Quality Control
Division. Discharge monitoring and obtaining a discharge permit,
if necessary, are in agreement with policies of this office.
Concerning the use of this installation as a "demonstration
project" for other cities, that decision will be up to the City
Engineering Department.
Improvement of the settling ponds and installing an outfall that
130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 61611 303/925-2020
ASPEN *PITKIN
ENVIflU3NMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Snow Melter
August 11, 1988
Page 2
detains oil and grease is also a very important design feature.
A process will be necessary to remove and dispose of the
collected oil, grease and other objects as the melting process
takes place.
The ultimate objective is to operate the facility with no
deterioration to receiving streams.
NOISE•
The sound measurements taken by the Engineering Department on the
device in Canada offer a general level of sound that can be
expected during normal operation. Circumstances in Aspen, such
as location, hours of operation, weather, altitude and operation
methods will all have an effect on the actual noise generated
from the machine. Based on the information reviewed it appears
that the snow melter will generate between 70 to 75 decibels
(dB(A)) at 50 feet away. That is about as loud as a vacuum
cleaner, 10 feet away.
It is recommended that the design engineer for the snow melter
company be consulted regarding the actual installation site and
methods of mitigating noise from that site. 75dB(A) has the
potential to be very intrusive on the neighborhood, especially at
night and when generated for long periods of time. Earth berms
will offer some relief, but not total sound exclusion. There are
other sound dampening materials that will work in conjunction
with the berms, they should also be reviewed during the design
process.
SOLID WASTE;
As has been noted in the past, the City should be aware of the
amount of solid waste associated with a snow dump. This is a
reference to design solid waste handling into the installation
plan. The intent would be to prevent solid waste from entering
the river or from blowing around the site.
130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925 -2020
c gnl4 . w( o r (�
,t �• Pt o, — ;4--1 ro �c qz `1`
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Attorney
City Engineer
FROM: Cindy M. Houben, Planning Office
RE: Rio Grande Snowmelter Stream Margin Review
DATE: August 15, 1988
Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted
by the City of Aspen requesting Stream Margin Review for a
snowmelter facility. The property is located at the Rio Grande
and is zoned PUB(SPA).
Please review this material and return your comments no later
than August 29, 1988 so we have adequate time to prepare for the
meeting by P &Z.
Thank you.
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: RIO GRANDE SPA AMENDMENT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Tuesday, September 20, 1988 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 P.M.
before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, in the Old City
Council Chambers, 2nd floor, City Hall, 130 S. Galena Street,
Aspen, Colorado to consider an amendment to the Final Development
Plan for the city -owned Rio Grande property which is zoned Public
with an Specially Planned Area (SPA) overlay. The application
for amendment is being submitted by the City Engineering
Department and includes dredging of the channel and bank
stabilization in the Roaring Fork River on the northeast portion
of the property; locating a snowmelting machine on the current
snowdump site; and the modification of the storm drainage system
which currently exists on the property.
For further information, contact the Aspen /Pitkin Planning
Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-
2020, ext. 225.
s /C. Welton Anderson
Chairman, Aspen Planning
and Zoning Commission
Published in The Aspen Times on September 1, 1988.
City of Aspen Account.
PN.1
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: RIO GRANDE CONCEPTUAL SPA APPROVAL
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Monday, September 26, 1988 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M.
before the City Council of Aspen, in the City Council Chambers,
1st floor, City Hall, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado to
consider approval of a conceptual plan for the city -owned Rio
Grande property. The Rio Grande property is zoned Public with a
Specially Planned Area (SPA) overlay. The conceptual plan is
being submitted by the City of Aspen and includes a library,
parking facility, improved surface parking, and improved
street /circulation system on the south portion of the site; an
area for arts usage, snowmelt facility and modified storm
drainage system on the north portion of the site; and expanded
trail system throughout the site.
For further information, contact the Aspen /Pitkin Planning
Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-
2020, ext. 225.
s /William L. Stirling
Mayor, Aspen City Council
Published in The Aspen Times on September 8, 1988.
City of Aspen Account.
RGCPNCC
Rio Craease SP#
A
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
I hereby certify that on this 12th day of September, 1988, a
true and correct copy of the attached Notice of Public Hearing
was deposited in the United States mail, first -class postage
prepaid, to the adjacent property owners as indicated on the
attached list of adjacent property owners which was supplied to
the Planning Office by the applicant in regard to the case named
on the Public Notice.
By: Debbie Skehan
Administrative Assistant
frm.mailing
c c
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: RIO GRANDE CONCEPTUAL SPA APPROVAL
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Monday, September 26, 1988 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M.
before the City Council of Aspen, in the City Council Chambers,
1st floor, City Hall, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado to
consider approval of a conceptual plan for the city -owned Rio
Grande property. The Rio Grande property is zoned Public with a
Specially Planned Area (SPA) overlay. The conceptual plan is
being submitted by the City of Aspen and includes a library,
parking facility, improved surface parking, and improved
street /circulation system on the south portion of the site; an
area for arts usage, snowmelt facility and modified storm
drainage system on the north portion of the site; and expanded
trail system throughout the site.
For further information, contact the Aspen /Pitkin Planning
Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-
2020, ext. 225.
s /William L. Stirling
Mayor, Aspen City Council
Published in The Aspen Times on September 8, 1988.
City of Aspen Account.
RGCPNCC
Gross, Jenard M Metcalf, Joan L Trupp, Beverly
2700 Post Oak Blvd P.O. Box 8542 c/o The Wright Connection
Suite 1670 Aspen, CO 81612 173132 Sunset Blvd
Houston, TX 77056 Pacific Palisades, CA 90272
Volk, Richard W & Russell D Kallenberg, Jeffrey
5847 San Felipe Phillips, Fred Pitt, Murray C
Suite 3600 2900 Mansfield Road 4760 Wendrick
Houston, TX 77057 Shreveport, LA 71103 West Bloomfield, MI 48033
Gerald & Christine Goldstein Beckwith, David E Barton, Dr Morris M.D.
Industrial Real Estate Group c/o Foley and Lardner Suite 1005
208 King William 777 East Wisconsin Ave 6245 North 24th Parkway
San Antonio, TX 78204 Milwaukee, WI 53202 Phoenix, AZ 85016
Coates, Neligh C Jr Trueman Aspen Co. McKay, S.E.
720 East Hyman Ave 4355 Davidson Road 2219 Orrington
Aspen, CO 81611 Amlin, OH 43002 Evanston IL 60201
Weinstock, Ruth E McFarlin, Clyde L & Patricia R Sun Lakes Marketing
c/o Anywhere Travel P.O. Box 289 25612 Ej Robson Blvd
339 Anzac Parade Snowmass, CO 81654 Sun Lakes, AZ 85224
Kingsford 2032 N.S.W.
Australia 663041
Mayer, Howard & Pauline Garwood Janet Kasper, Theresa D
P.O. Box 333 Pletts, Sarah A P.O. Box 12061
Aspen, CO 81612 P.O. Box 3889 Aspen, CO 81612
Aspen, CO 81612
Weiner, Brian Fuller, Victoria B Smith, Deborah L
P.O. Box 7608 P.O. Box 1131 P.O. Box 4745
San Antonio, TX 78207 Aspen, CO 81612 Aspen, CO 81612
Gillman, Robert P & Eleanor L Martin, Michael S Fisher, Thomas
P.O. Box 1090 545 Third Street 236 Pleasent Rt Td
Sunset Beach, CA 90742 Brooklyn, NY 11215 Branford, CT 06045
Heath, Jesse B Jr & Hetta S Fayez, Zuhair H
c/o Jenkens, Gilcrist &Heath c/o SSI Snyder, Stanley
3850 Texas Commerce Tower 4th floor -777 29th Street P.O. Box 10177
Houston, TX 77002 Boulder, CO 80303 Aspen, CO 81612
Cano, Larry J & Susan D Pace Industries Inc Farson, Elizabeth L
45 Belcourt Drive North P.O. Box 309 P.O. Box 10602
Newport Beach, CA 92660 Fayetteville, Ark. 72701 Aspen, CO 81612
Lancaster, John L III Parke Sally Penne, Collette
Lancaster, Robert P 13 Virgin . -.' ive P.O. Box 2505
4300 Interfirst One Or'-.., CA 945. Aspen, CO 81612
nal1ac Tx 7c9n7
Greene, Stephen A Kidder, David S Holland & Hart
Ficke, Clark 3928 University Blvd 600 East Main Street
1407 Huntington Drive Dallas, TX 75205 Aspen, CO 81611
Richardson, TX 75080
Juaquin F McGaffey, Jere Aspen 600
Blaya, .•- 777 E Wisconsin Ave P.O. Box 3159
540 -. aden. . Drive Milwaukee, WI 53202 Aspen, CO 81612
.ral Gables, FL 6
Leppla, John L & John F Mann, Kathleen A Smith, Galen B
4040 Dahl Road P.O. Box 2057 601 East Bleeker Street
Mound, MN 55364 Aspen, CO 81612 Aspen, CO 81611
Wakefield, Patti Marchetti, Joseph A Gignoux, Natalie A
9501 Summerhill Lane 8532 W Berwyn Ave Trustee under Gignoux Trust
Dallas, TX 75239 Chicago, IL 60656 251 Tainter Drive
Litchfield Park, AZ 85340
Brough, Steve B & Deborah A Shanks, David S Obermeyer, Klaus
599 Trout Lake Drive #9 Rivo Alto Canal P.O. Box 130
Sanger, CA 93657 Long Beach, CA 90803 Aspen, CO 81612
Borcherts, Robert H & Holde H Shirley, Con C & Leigh L Bevan, Albert W Jr
1555 Washtenaw 7805 Briaridge 1719 Sanderson Avenue
Ann Arbor, Mich 48104 Dallas, TX 75230 Colorado Springs, CO 80915
Ross, Lloyd L Sommer, Melvin L & Dorothy K Ware, Ardith Louise
5637 Bent Tree Drive Trustees of Sommer Family Trst Gallegos, Alice Juanita
Dallas, TX 75248 Box S -3 P.O. Box 132
Aspen, CO 81612 Aspen, CO 81612
Newell, W R & Mary Helen Waag, Linda Levin
600 East Main, Apt 301 P.O. Box 1624 Volk Richard W
Aspen, CO 81611 Aspen, CO 81612 584 5847hh , neFe C
5847 San Feli pe Suite 3600
Houston, TX 77057
Doussard, Rita Coppock, Richard P Lavagnino, Remo
2235 South Hoyt Court 11603 Pleasent View P.O. Box 532
Lakewood, CO 80227 Pinckney, Mich 48169 Aspen, CO 81612
Heys, Donald R & Marie L Foster, Martha Charla Brown
2531 Essex 3601 Turtle Creek Blvd 135 West Francis
Ann Arbor, Mich 48106 Dallas, TX 75219 Aspen, CO 81611
Foster, George W & Patricia C Mitchell, Robert H Hanson, Eileen R
351 C Mallard Point Suite 222 L Hanson & Co
Barrington, IL 60010 5934 Royal Lane P.O. Box 1690
Dallas, TX 75230 Aspen, CO 81612
Hodgson, Philip R & Patricia Draco, Inc Schainuck, Lewis J
212'North Monarch St 210 North Mill St 3805 Sandune Lane
Aspen, CO 81611 Aspen, CO 81611 Corona Del Mar, CA 92605
Aspen Savings & Loan Assoc First Aspen Corporation Seguin, William L
P.O. Box 8207 P.O. Box 3318 P.O. Box 2067
Aspen, CO 81612 Aspen, CO 81612 Aspen, CO 81612
Elder, Reinhard N Chitwood Plazza Co Larson, Karl & M Madeleine
202 North Monarch 1505 Bridgeway Blvd Suite 129 #101
Aspen, CO 81611 Sausalito, CA 94965 201 North Mill St
Aspen, CO 81611
The Hotel Jerome Limited Maddalone, Jesse J & Esther M Abels, J. E.
Partnership The First National Bank of Box 4707
c/o Market Corp Real Estate Chicago Aspen, CO 81612
285 Riverside Avenue 2265 Tanglewood Road
Westport, Conn. 06880 Grand Junction, CO 81503
Mountain States Communication M & W Associates. SKHS Associates
P.O. Box E 205 So Mill Suite #301A 201 N Hill Street
Aspen, CO 81612 Aspen, CO 81611 Suite 201
Aspen, CO 81611
Bergman, Carl R & Catherine M Jenkinson, Marjorie P Klein, Herbert S & Marsha L
P.O. Box 1365 403 West Hallan St 201 North Mill St
Aspen, CO 81612 Aspen, CO 81611 Aspen, CO 81611
Can Am Aspen Developments Ryanco Partners Ltd Edwards, Joseph E Jr
135 East Cooper Ave Suite 109 Jerome Prof. Bldg.
Aspen, CO 81611 201 North Mill St
Aspen, CO 81611
Beaumont, William L RBH Schumacher, B Lee
Beaumont Florence R Reid, Royal S & Katherine K Wright, Deborah D
Box 4695 P.O. Box 566 Suite 106 Jerome Prof. Bldg.
Incline Valley, NV 89450 Aspen, CO 81612 201 North Mill St
Aspen, CO 81611
La Cocina Inc Conner, Claude M & Warren J Muller, J.D.
Box 4010 Johnston, Margie A P.O. Box 4360
Aspen, CO 81612 534 E Hopkins Ave Aspen, CO 81612
Aspen, CO 81611
Johnson, Duane R & Margaret W Conner, Mrs Margaret A S & A Equipment Company
1116 E Cinnabar Ave 534 E Hopkins Ave 2425 South 162nd Street
Phoenix, AZ 85020 Aspen, CO 81611 New Berlin, WI 53151
The Bank of Aspen Callahan, Elizabeth Borstner Stahura, Richard
119 So Mill St Zupancis, Louis J P.O. Box 17101
Aspen, CO 81611 540 East Main Street Pittsburgh, PA 15235
Aspen, CO 81611
Hennig, Leonard Fiorello, Albert F Jr William David & Beth Lee Arnett
P.O: Box 4951 P.O. Box 8746 4805 South Kimbark Ave
Aspen, CO 81612 Aspen, CO 81612 Chicago, IL 60615
Slater, Lawrence J Sonfield, Sheree James J Aylor, Phillip C Nolan.
P.O. Box 8329 #A -6 John W Clark & Craig Johnson
Aspen, CO 81612 155 Lone Pine c/0 #505
Aspen, CO 81611 8370 Greensboro Road
McLean, VA 22102
Muhlfeld, Bruce Danielson, Mark A William Wesson
Tiege, Joan M #A -7 632 East Hopkins
P.O. Box 9836 155 Lone Pine Aspen, CO 81611
Aspen, CO 81612 Aspen, CO 81611
Greenwood, Gretchen C nnolly, Stephen ,,i- Eugene Mitchell Fry Jr
P.O. Box 10599 P.O. 3183 1 - � / Mary Elizabeth Fry
Aspen, CO 81612 Aspen, CO 61 �U 3101 Mexico Ave N.W. #1111
Washington, DC 20016
Fraser, John Bethold Jerome D Ginsberg
450 S Galena St Kaelin , Stefan 122 East 42nd Street
Aspen, CO 81611 557 North Mill New York, NY 10168
Aspen, CO 81611
Mohwinkel, Cliff Mill Street Venture Ginn, John C
P.O. Box 3281 c/o FUMC P.O. Box 256
Aspen, CO 81612 117 So Spring St Aspen, CO 81612
Aspen, CO 81611
Lund, Ron BCS Properties Partyka, Vincent K
P.O. Box 10034 c/o Howard Bass #B -1
Aspen, CO 81612 P.O. Box 5078 155 Lone Pine Drive
Aspen, CO 81612 Aspen, CO 81611
Hays, Gale Zucco Mocklin, Peter & Monica M Chaloupka, Patricia
0155 Lone Pine Road P.O. Box 807 #B -2
Aspen, CO 81611 Aspen, CO 81612 155 Lone Pine Drive
Aspen, CO 81611
Smythe, Arthur Michael A & Sally B O'Neil Sanchez, Susan
#A -2 1500 Diamond Shamrock Tower #B-7
155 Lone Pine Drive Dallas, TX 75201 155 Lone Pine Drive
Aspen, CO 81611 Aspen, CO 81611
Rich Wagar Jean -Paul Aube Sharp, Dorothy Ann
#A -3 522 Algonquin Blvd. East Leibowitz, Neil Alan
155 Lone Pine Drive Timmins, Ontario CANADA #A -9, 155 Lone Pine Drive
Aspen, CO 81611 P4N1B7 Aspen, CO 81611
Kulzer, Dennis Ralph C & Elizabeth B Doran Braudis, Robert C
P.O. Box 10340 2500 Woodward Way #A -12
Aspen, CO 81612 Atlanta, GA 30305 155 Lone Pine Drive
Aspen. CO 81611
Lukes, William C
Garn, K Roulhae
#A -16 155 Lone Pine Drive
Aspen, CO 81611
Maines, Peter
#A -18
155 Lone Pine Drive
Aspen, CO 81611
Guglielmo, Paul
#A -19
155 Lone Pine Drive
Aspen, CO 81611 --
Robert D & Ruth Jane Miller
P.O. Box 4157
Aspen, CO 81612
Hicks, Gilbert & Patsy
3674 Woodlawn Terrace Place
Honolulu, Hiawii 96822
Elizabeth K Manny
2427 North Gower Street
Los Angeles, CA 90068
Edward I & Irene Patton
Box 264- .
Cruz Bay, St John VI 00830
Don Q Lamb, Jr
Linda Gi1kerson
5640 S Ellis Ave
Chicago, IL 60637
Barney F. Oldfield
#A -1
155 Lone Pine Road
Aspen, CO 81611
, .
Aspen/PM& Planning Office
130 S. Galena
AsPen, CO mem • _ Til,
illa To • t '
, . ... ...
(
t : S ENDeo :.
INSUFFir 1 „
— A , • i i A A 1 ; „
"-AUNT%
l it"
dri V
Hays, Gale Zucco e 1
0155 Lone Pine Road
Aspen, CO 81611 • — •
r
-
•
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
R. u : .. .. , O. <:15.1:A/11:81: s fi . 2'33 I7 :. :
NUL g
RULZER
Kulzer, Dennis :DX LLUSED
P.O. Box 10340
Aspen, CO 81612 V-
. Agen/Pitkin Maiming Office
S. 130 S Galena
, .
Aspen, CO 111811
.. ,
(
)
Muhlfeld, Bruce \_
Tiege, Joan 14
10 P.O. Box 9836
Aspen, CO 81612
HUH 36 J 08TAY1 09/08/08
MLIFILFM)
RENJRN TO SENDER
BOX CLOSED
: .
r WNW Planning Office
s. Galena
Aspen, 81611 SLA - .±9 Iii 062C31. 09/06/ _
NOT1FN SENDER OF NEW ADDRLou
' srt :.;?, -::'"`":
SLATER'LARRY 1 „k
P 0 bOX 2304 \:
ASPEN CO 61.61.2211 C
-.
' \
J \
Sla r, Lawrence
p.O. 8329
12
Aspen, CO
---- 1
1 ii t i --.
_
.. 1 th illf2-)' —
1 MO iteekt-e- WA)
A n r0 ASCLI*9
..._._._.___
10
Aspen/ham Planning Mice
130 S. Galena
. .
.. . . ,
Aspen, CO 81511 .41
421 416
mr.
43/441117444 4 Ir bil
Snyder, Stanley
4 P.O. Box 10177 SiTY ?2' E OEIN:WEL 09/08/88
ID V Aspen, CO 81612
I RETURN 10 SENDER
NO FORWARDING ORDER ON FILE
UNABLE TO FORWARD
SEP — 9 1988
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 S. Galena i
Aspen, CO 111611 ,
\ 7. r --
;
r 3208567 FWD TIME EXPO
1337 YOSEMITE CT
E E 1228
1 —
Fisher, Thomas
236 Pleasant Rt Td
Branford, CT 06045
V kAIL
iti 6V SW 1 3
‘1
filindhulalliohluldil
Asp:, k4111 Planning Office
- --
.. ,
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611 /
,,_ (tti,.ii,
io
n Schainuck, Lewis J
3805 Sandune Lane
Corona Del Mar, CfflA2jj ,,■
qie
sEp I 3 r (.
Nbp.
OdunhlillunkhhhudhlInullhdhdull
_ __.:
Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
j
x
c o k e 83 F 1.4L S1.1 09/1.' 1.1/88
CONNOLLY
RETURN *T O E;E:NDER
NOT DELIVERABLE: AS ADDRE:fiiSED
Connolly, Stephen
P.O. Box 3183
Aspen, CO 81612
As en/Petldn Planning Office
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81811
P O O nol1 , 3 stephe (1iaiV £3:3 I EFR. 1� " /ilc>,'£3(i;
Aspen, CO 81612
IVEPALLE A6 ADDRESSED
f;ClidllC EINU(981011:i17_1
14(T DIS:L.IVI :P:AE:11.11 AE. ADDh;E b f::G