The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.716 S Galena St.110A-89Field 8040 Greenline Exemption_~ 7 I 6 5 4,1 me, i>- St ~ 2737-182-89-001 CasellOA-89 ~ I 0 F 110.- -9, 6.99 4 CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen DATE RECEIVED: 12/12/89 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO. DATE COMPLETE: 2737-182-89-001 110A-89 STAFF MEMBER: 217 1 6 PROJECT NAME: Field 8040 Greenline Exemption Project Address: 716 South Galena Street Legal Address: Lot 14. Block 2. Anthony Subdivision APPLICANT: Fredrick Field Applicant Address: 716 South Galena Street Aspen REPRESENTATIVE: Joe Wells Representative Address/Phone: 130 Midland Park Place F2 (303) 925-8080 PAID: YES NO AMOUNT: $100.00 NO. OF COPIES RECEIVED: 1 TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: 2 STEP: P&Z Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO CC Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO '.,3 Planning Director Approval: Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption: 6/ Date: LA /4(, REFERRALS: . city Attorney Mtn. Bell School District \/~ City 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 Building Inspector Envir. Hlth. Roaring Fork Other Aspen Consol. Energy Center S.D. BO DATE REFERRED: /a /2-1 1 83 INITIALS: k A FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: 1 ~ .3Â·0~0 INITIAL:Nij City Atty 4 City Engineer Â«~ Zoning Env. Health Housing Other: /1 1 B A 1 FILE STATUS AND LOCATION : | 2 47~ ( ~:~7 Â· ORDINANCE N0.35 (SERIES OF 1991) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, VESTING THE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS FOR THE FIELD 8040 GREENLINE APPROVAL AT 716 S. GALENA (LOT 14, BLOCK 2, ANTHONY SUBDIVISION) WHEREAS, on January 16, 1990, the Planning Director granted approval with conditions for exemption to 8040 Greenline review for the development of a swimming pool at the Field residence; and WHEREAS, a request for Vested Rights for the development approval was submitted to the Planning Office by project representative Joe Wells; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24-6-207 of the Aspen Municipal Code the City Council may grant Vesting of Development Rights for a period of three years from the date of final approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1: Pursuant to Section 24-6-207 of the Municipal Code, City Council does hereby grant the applicant vested rights for the Field 8040 Greenline Review as follows: 1. The rights granted by the site specific development plan approved by this Ordinance shall remain vested until January 16, 1993. However, any failure to abide by the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in forfeiture of said vested property rights. Failure to timely and properly record all plats and agreements as specified herein and or in the Municipal Code shall also result in the 1 forfeiture of said vested rights. 2. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review. 3. Nothing in the approvals provided in this Ordinance shall exempt the site specific development plan from subsequent reviews and or approvals required by this Ordinance or the general rules, regulations or ordinances or the City provided that such reviews or approvals are not inconsistent with the approvals granted and vested herein. 4. The establishment herein of a vested property right shall not preclude the application of ordinances or regulations which are general in nature and are applicable to all property subject to land use regulation by the City of Aspen including, but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes. In this regard, as a condition of this site development approval, the developer shall abide by any and all such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, unless an exemption therefrom is granted in writing. Section 2: The project is subject to compliance with any changes in the Land Use Regulations enacted between the January 16, 1991 8040 Greenline approval and the adoption of this vested rights ordinance. Section 3: The City Clerk shall cause notice of this Ordinance to be published in a newspaper of general circulations within the City of Aspen no later than fourteen (14) days following final adoption hereof. Such notice shall be given in the following form: 2 Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right pursuant to Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following- described property: The property shall be described in the notice and appended to said notice shall be the ordinance granting such approval. Section 4: A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the day of , 1991 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which a hearing of public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of , 1991. John~ Bennett, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of , 1991. 11, LE,UN-- J <n Bennett, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk 3 28 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Carol O'Dowd , City Manager ~<f l- THRU: Amy Margerum, Planning Dir'ec-t:~~~~~0~~~0~,/ FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner DATE: August 12, 1991 RE: Second Reading of Ordinance 35, Series 1991 - Vested Rights for Field 8040 Greenline Approval SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval and Second Reading of Ordinance 35, Series 1991. This will vest the site plan for a swimming pool for three years from the date of development plan approval. The original approval was granted as an exemption from 8040 Greenline review. First Reading was held on August 26, 1991. BACKGROUND: On January 16, 1990, Planning Director Amy Margerum approved an exemption from the full 8040 Greenline review process due to the limited impacts of the proposal and the applicant's willingness to comply with staff's recommended conditions. Please see Attachment "A" for the approval memo. Recently, the applicant has requested that the development plan associated with this approval be vested for a period of three years by adoption of a vested rights ordinance. Pursuant to Section 6-207, vesting of property rights requires a Vested Rights Ordinance and two readings before Council. STAFF COMMENTS: There was concern over the length of time between the original approval and the vesting of the development plan. Staff conferred with City Attorney Jed Caswall who feels that the elapsed time poses no particular problems. However, he wants the vesting ordinance to contain language that the vesting does not exempt the project from changes in the Land Use Code which may have occurred between the original date of approval and the adoption of the vesting ordinance. At this time, staff cannot identify any Land Use Code changes which substantively affect the original approval. When approved, the period of vested rights will remain in effect until January 16, 1993. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends that the City Council approve the Field 8040 Greenline Approval Vested Rights and have Second Reading of Ordinance 35, Series 1991. PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve Vested Development Rights for the Field 8040 Greenline Approval and have Second Reading of Ordinance 35, Series 1991. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: -4 Co:,cur' Attachments: Ordinance 35, Series 1991 "A"- Planning Director' s Approval of 8040 Greenline Exemption jtkvj/Field.vest.memo Attachment "A" MEMORANDUM TO: Bill Drueding, Zoning Officer FROM: Kim Johnson, Planning Office RE: Field 8040 Greenline Exemption DATE: January 16, 1990 SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting 8040 Greenline Review Exemption for the construction of a swimming pool on a shelf of land southwest of the existing large residence at 716 S. Galena. Included in the project are the mechanical room, decking, slide, hot tub and upslope retaining wall. BACKGROUND: Upon review of the site plan and associated documents, the Engineering Department was concerned about geologic factors at the site. The applicant agreed to implement construction and field observation requirements as part of conditions of approval. Because of the potential sensitivity of the site and surroundings, Planning and Engineering staff decided to place this project on the Planning and Zoning Commission Consent Agenda in case P&Z felt it needed full 8040 review. On January 16, the P&Z met and approved this 8040 Exemption without discussion. Conditions of approval are: 1. Design parameters and construction procedures be followed that are described by the Chen-Northern report dated November 24, 1989 and restated in a letter from Doremus & Wells dated January 16, 1990. 2. Discovery Of different fill, soil, rock or water conditions during construction require immediate reevaluation by Chen-Northern and notification of the Aspen Engineering Department. 3. On-site observation of excavations and foundation bearing strata and testing of structural fill by representative of the soil engineer. FINDINGS: The review standards for 8040 Greenline Exemption (Section 7-503.B.) are as follows: B. Exemption. The expansion, remodeling or reconstruction of an existing development shall be exempt from 8040 greenline review if the following standards are met: 1. The development does not add more than 10% to the floor area of the existing structure or increase the total amount of square footage of the areas of the structure which are exempt from floor area calculations by more than 25% ; and 2. The development does not require the removal of any trees for which a permit would be required pursuant to Section 13- 76 or the applicant receives a permit pursuant to said section; and 3. The development is located such that it is not affected by any geologic hazard and will not result in increased erosion and sedimentation. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Director approve the Field 8040 Greenline Review Exemption with conditions. I hereby approve the above 8040 Greenline Review Exemption with conditions, pursuant to Section 7-503.B. of the Aspen Land Use Code. )*Wllk~- - Amy M#-gerum, Pl ing Director Attachments: "A" - Engineering referral comments "B" - Subsoil study by Chen-Northern "C" - Site sketch of pool location "Dll - Doremus & Wells letter dated 1/16/90 2 Regular Meeting Aspen Citv Council September 23. 1991 9. Councilman Reno requested the light in the back of Council Chambers be fixed. 10. Cindy Wilson, assistant city manager, told Council responses have been coming in on the underground district at Cemetery Lane; 21 in favor, 10 against. Ms. Wilson told Council she will report when more responses are received. 11. Cindy Wilson, assistant city manager, told Council there is a problem with one of the city-owned houses on Cemetery Lane. The roof is leaking. Ms. Wilson recommended taking $1500 from the contingency fund to fix the roof. The parks department does not have the money available. Council suggested this be added to the appropriation ordinance. 12. Bob Gish told Council the professional ski instructors of America contacted him about using the parking garage October 26 and 27. There is a roller blade exhibit, educational event. This is scheduled for the Snowmass Club; however, they would like to use the parking garage as a back up location. Staff feels comfortable allowing this use with a permit and the appropriate releases. 13. City Clerk Kathryn Koch told Council the Aspen Historical Society would like to schedule a work session in order to show Council their plans for the ski museum. Council suggested the Historical Society join them for a Monday lunch. CONSENT AGENDA Councilman Reno moved to approve the consent agenda; seconded by Councilwoman Pendleton. The consent calendar is: A. Minutes - September 4, 9, 1991 B. October Council Meetings C. Request for Funds - Energy Conservation Committee D. Art Museum Stream Margin Review E. Resolution #37, 1991 - 1001 Ute Avenue Lot Line Adjust- ment All in favor, motion carried. LIQUOR LICENSE RENEWALS Councilman Peters moved to approve the liquor license renewals for Skier's Chalet and Aspen Grove; seconded by Councilman Reno. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #35, SERIES OF 1991 - Field Greenline Vested Rights Kim Johnson, planning office, told Council this ordinance vests development rights that were approved last year and vests them through January 16, 1993. The only concern of the city attorney 5 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council September 23, 1991 was to verify the language in the ordinance to require adhering to any change in the code that might affect this project between approval and development. Mayor Bennett opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Bennett closed the public hearing. Councilman Peters moved to adopt Ordinance #35, Series of 1991, on second reading; seconded by Councilwoman Pendleton. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Reno, yes; Richards, yes; Pendleton, yes; Peters, yes; Mayor Bennett, yes. Motion carried. RFTA CROSS TOWN SHUTTLE Dan Blankenship, general manager RFTA, reminded Council they met in a work session about this in August. Council requested new align- ments, better access to the post office area, and refined cost estimates running more than one shuttle. Blankenship presented 5 route alternatives costing from $31,000 to $35,000 for one vehicle depending on which alignment is selected. Blankenship said the Galena/Cooper alternative is the one preferred by the RFTA staff; one reason is this alternative does not have to cross the mall. Blankenship said it is not impossible to use the mall but would require curb cuts and adjustments in the landscaping. Blankenship went over the 5 alternatives with Council. Blankenship explained RFTA tries not to design routes with hills in them. The Mill and Cooper route has a stop light as both an advantage and disadvantage. The route to the gondola is circuitous and takes more time. Blankenship said there can only be 5 round trips on this route. The Spring street alternative is the easiest if the goals is just to get people between the parking plaza and the gondola but does not work as well for pedestrians using the mall. Blankenship said parking will have to be eliminated along the if the cross town shuttle route to enable passengers to get on and off. Blankenship told Council the airport/ABC shuttle will be discontin- ued indefinitely to save money. This service uses 3 vehicles, one of which operates under compressed natural gas. Blankenship pointed out RFTA is somewhat short of funds because of the sales tax shortfall; there are other costs going up like workman's compensation, FICA for seasonal employees. Blankenship said RFTA is looking at reducing Woody Creek service, some reductions to city services during the off-season, and a fare increase for down valley services. Blankenship said RFTA is in a cost reduction mode and would prefer to defer any new services until they are on firmer financial footing. 6 Joseph Wells 4 f : F/L f 0 4% 0, 1.- f / Joseph Wells, AICP Land Planning and Design C,ZA,ti t\~ lfl/tf.%(r March 19, 1991 441 16'ilf d Ms. Amy Margerum 04 4 Director, Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Affl Aspen CO 81611 4316 Dear Amy: Last winter, I filed a request for Exemption by the Planning Director from 8040 Greenline review in order to permit the construction of an outdoor swimming pool at the Field residence, adjacent to Little Nell ski run on Aspen Mountain. On January 9, 1990 the P&Z approved their consent agenda which included this item, in effect endorsing your recommendation of approval for this exemption. In discussing this matter recently, it was your impression that it would be necessary to request approval by City Council of a Vesting Ordinance under the provisions of Â§6-207 in order to maintain this exemption approval for three years from the date of approval. The purpose of my letter is to request that a Vesting Ordinance be placed on the City Council agenda as soon as possible and that I be notified once it is scheduled. If you need additional information please give me a call. Sincaely, . Joseph Wells, AICP JW/b 130 Midland Park Place, Number Fl Aspen, Colorado 81611 Telephone (303) 925-8080 Facsimile GO:4) 925-8275 i 1 Aspen/Pit~~ning Office 130 ~ etreet As~1611 920-5197 May 23, 1991 Joseph Wells 602 Midland Park Place Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Vesting of Field Approval Dear Joe, Please submit a 1 hour deposit fee of $130.00 for processing the vesting ordinance. In most cases 1 hours time is all that is required, however should more time be used you will be billed at the hourly rate. Thanks Sincerely, M 1v9nl__ Debbie Skehan, Office Manager ~ recycled paper MESSAGE DISPLAY TO Kim Johnson From: Diane Moore Postmark: Aug 01,91 3:44 PM Status: Previously read Subject: Joe WElls vesting Message: Jed basically said that for the Joe Wells parcel, we will still use our "interim measure" which is that this item will be scheduled before council as a public hearing item and approved by ordinance. Jed wants to add language that states that the vesting does not exempt project changes in land use code that have occured from the original date of approval to the actual vesting date. Jed also said that the three years is from the original date of approval of the site specific dev. plan. He wants to revise our code and procedures as soon as possible so I'm going to set up a staff workshop on this. .. ---0--- ./ 2-~.' _- 3 Attachment "A" MEMORANDUM TO: Bill Drueding, Zoning Officer FROM: Kim Johnson, Planning Office RE: Field 8040 Greenline Exemption DATE: January 16, 1990 SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting 8040 Greenline Review Exemption for the construction of a swimming pool on a shelf of land southwest of the existing large residence at 716 S. Galena. Included in the project are the mechanical room, decking, slide, hot tub and upslope retaining wall. BACKGROUND: Upon review of the site plan and associated documents, the Engineering Department was concerned about geologic factors at the site. The applicant agreed to implement construction and field observation requirements as part of conditions of approval. Because of the potential sensitivity of the site and surroundings, Planning and Engineering staff decided to place this project on the Planning and Zoning Commission Consent Agenda in case P&Z felt it needed full 8040 review. On January 16, the P&Z met and approved this 8040 Exemption without discussion. Conditions of approval are: 1. Design parameters and construction procedures be followed that are described by the Chen-Northern report dated November 24, 1989 and restated in a letter from Doremus & Wells dated January 16, 1990. 2. Discovery Of different fill, soil, rock or water conditions during construction require immediate reevaluation by Chen-Northern and notification of the Aspen Engineering Department. 3. On-site observation of excavations and foundation bearing strata and testing of structural fill by representative of the soil engineer. FINDINGS: The review standards for 8040 Greenline Exemption (Section 7-503.B.) are as follows: B. Exemption. The expansion, remodeling or reconstruction of an existing development shall be exempt from 8040 greenline review if the following standards are met: 1. The development does not add more than 10% to the floor area of the existing structure or increase the total amount of square footage of the areas of the structure which are exempt from floor area calculations by more than 25% ; and 2. The development does not require the removal of any trees for which a permit would be required pursuant to Section 13- 76 or the applicant receives a permit pursuant to said section; and 3. The development is located such that it is not affected by any geologic hazard and will not result in increased erosion and sedimentation. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Director approve the Field 8040 Greenline Review Exemption with conditions. I hereby approve the above 8040 Greenline Review Exemption with conditions, pursuant to Section 7-503.B. of the Aspen Land Use Code. Amy M*Egerum, Pl ing Director Attachments: "A" - Engineering referral comments "B" - Subsoil study by Chen-Northern "C" - Site sketch of pool location "D" - Doremus & Wells letter dated 1/16/90 2 Â»Acd H ENT 11 A It MEMORANDUM TO: Kim Johnson, Planning Office FROM: Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department (~7 DATE: January 8, 1990 RE: Field Exemption from 8040 Greenline Review Having reviewed the above application and made a site visit, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. A report by Chen-Northern indicates the site is not impacted by significant geologic hazards that warrant mitigation. However, this report also indicates that construction induced slope instability could result from the proposed development and recommends specific construction procedure to eliminate this risk. The Engineering Department requires that this recommendation be followed. 2. The above report also recommends on-site observation of excavations and foundation bearing strata and testing Of structural fill by a representative of the soil engineer. We also require that this recommendation be followed. 3. The Engineering Department questions whether or not this application should qualify for exemption pursuant to section 7- 90 503 B. 3. given that the Chen-Northern report indicated that construction induced slope instability could occur from the proposed development. There is also question of whether or not this structure is appropriate for the proposed location according to section 7-502 C. 7 of the review standards for 8040 Greenline. 111 jg/field cc: Bob Gish Chuck Roth Chen#Northern.II it. - ---DRoa: : 4 Ge-'*(IX; 32' "15 200'aCK :'92* MI-Ac#ME kfi " 6" 512 945Â· -499 323 945Â·2363 Fars rr e November 24, 1989 Subject: Subsoil Study for Foundation and Grading Design, Proposed Pool and Retaining Walls, The Field Residence, Aspen, Colorado. Job No. 4 102 90 Greg Mozian Landscape Architecture Attn: Greg Mozian 117 South Spring Street Aspen CO 81611-2068 Gentlemen: As requested, Chen-Northern, Inc. conducted a subsoil study and made observations of the excavation for the proposed retaining wall and pool addi- tions to the existing residence. This report has been prepared to summarize the work performed and to present recommendations for foundation and grading design. The work was performed in accordance with our Agreement for Geotech- nical Engineering Services to Greg Mozian Landscape Architecture, dated October 2, 1989. Design Information: Two conceptual designs have been provided. Both designs consist of a swimming pool to be located about 120 feet southwest of the existing residence. Boulder retaining walls will be constructed east of the pool. Excavation cut depths for the wall and pool will range to about 15 feet. A shallow fill depth is proposed along the downhill side of the pool. Subsurface Conditions: The subsurface conditions were evaluated by observing one exploratory pit excavated at the location shown on Fig. 1. A log of the conditions encountered is shown on Fig. 2. A fairly extensive cut about 15 feet deep had also been made along the uphill perimeter of the proposed construction area. The subsoils encountered within the pit consisted of 2 feet of topsoil overlying about 8 feet of medium dense clayey gravels containing cobbles and boulders. No free water was encountered and the soils were moist to very moist. The gravelly soils appeared similar in the uphill cut slope. A dis- turbed bulk sample of the clayey sandy gravel obtained from the pit was returned to our laboratory for testing. The results of a gradation analysis conducted on the minus 3-inch fraction of the deposit are shown on Fig. 3. Recommendations: Based on the subsoil conditions observed in the exploratory pit and cut slope, the proposed pool and retaining walls bearing on the Greg A râ€¢er"De, 37 in e ~Iirl grOJP C' 23-ran,es Mozian Landscape Architecture November 24, 1989 Page 2 natural gravels should be feasible from a soils viewpoint. Typically, a heavily reinforced concrete pool is acceptable for bearing on soils like those exposed at the site. In no case should any part of the pool or retaining walls be placed on fill material. The pool walls should be reinforced to resist a lateral earth pressure of at least 50 pef equivalent fluid unit weight. A minimum 4-inch free-draining gravel layer should be placed beneath the pool and surrounding deck for drainage. The free-draining granular material should consist of minus 2-inch aggregate with less than 2% passing the No. 200 sieve and less than 50% passing the No. 4 sieve. Leakage of the pool could adversely impact stability of the very steep slope below the pool area. Therefore, we recommend an impervious liner such as 20 mil PVC be placed below the pool bottom drain gravel to collect leakage. The liner should be bedded to prevent puncture and the drain should have an outlet. A tight joint should be provided between the pool and deck so water splashed from the pool will not infiltrate the subsoils. Cracks which develop on the deck while the pool is in service should be caulked to prevent water infiltration. The pool deck and adjoining area should be sloped to prevent ponding and infiltration of moisture into the subsoils. The proposed retaining walls may be founded with a shallow footing placed on the undisturbed natural granular soil and designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3000 psf. The bearing level should have adequate depth for frost protection. Areas of loose or soft material, existing fill and organic debris encountered at the foundation bearing level within the excava- tion for both the walls and pool should be removed and the excavation extended down to adequate natural bearing material. We should observe the excavations to evaluate bearing conditions. Retaining structures should be designed to resist a lateral earth pressure based on an equivalent fluid unit weight of 45 pcf. A sliding coefficient of 0.5 and a passive pressure of 300 pef can be assumed to resist lateral and overturning loads. Backfill placed to resist sliding and below deck slabs should be compacted to at least 95% of standard Proctor density at optimum moisture content. On-site soils devoid of vegeta- tion, topsoil, oversized rock and debris should be suitable for reuse as structural fill. Surface water should not be concentrated and directed onto steep slopes unless they are protected against erosion. 8040 Greenline Review: We understand an exemption request is being made for the proposed construction. The review consists of geologic hazard impact and increased erosion potential. The site is located along the western limit of the Little Nell earth flow that is characterized by a coarse texture and very steep side slopes. In our opinion, the project site is not impacted by sig- nificant geologic hazards that warrant mitigation. Construction induced slope instability could result from the proposed development. To limit this risk, we recommend cut and fill slopes be constructed no steeper than 1 1/2 horizon- tal to 1 vertical and have a height less than about 10 feet. Retaining walls should be provided to retain cut and fill sections to stay within the recom- mended grading configurations. We should review the grading plans when they L.22-Ta Greg Mozian Landscape Architecture November 24, 1989 Page 3 are more definite. With the proper grading design and drainage precautions, the potential risk from erosion to properties downslope should not be signifi- cantly increased. Limitations: This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices in this area for use by the client for design purposes. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the exploratory pit exca- vated at the location indicated on Fig. 1 and our observations at the site and the proposed type of construction. The nature and extent of subsurface varia- tions across the site may not become evident until excavation is performed. If during construction, fill, soil, rock or water conditions appear to be different from those described herein, this office should be advised at once so reevaluation of the recommendations may be made. We recommend on-site observation of excavations and foundation bearing strata and testing of struc- tural fill by a representative of the soil engineer. If you have any questions or if we may be of further assistance, please call. Sincerely, CHEN-NORTHERN, INC. ,#3/4Â·<G\STE.1.:57~ no)f e .0 0% 1 ~~ 15222 13*~ By ~~.--C~' .~--~4 Steven L. Pawlak, P.E. Reviewed By n Daniel E. Hardin, P.E. SLP/ec Attachments cc: Joe Wells, Land Planning-- i ATFAc-11HEÂ« it 11 EXISTING RESIDENCE TOP OF STEEP / SLOPE Â· ~ k ~~ LITTL NEL TOP OF VERY SKI RUN STEEP FILL SLOPE f nPI T 1 A / C 3 251 \lt-FRoposED -{ \\ 1 BOULDER 1 \~) RETAINING WALL PROPOSED POOL APPROXIMATE SCALE i" = 40 4 102 90 Chen@Northern.Inc L0CATIoN 0F EXPL0RAT0RY PIT Fig. 1 k44Â·te.Ni- a~ p ,/1, r Â·3.4. r , A Li DOremUS & Wells an association of land planners 0 0 January 16, 1990 Ms. Kim Johnson Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Field Residence Outdoor Swimming Pool Addition Dear Kim: My letter is to confirm that we have agreed to allow the Field residence pool addition to be added to the Planning & Zoning Commission's consent agenda on January 16, even though we continue to take the position that the project fully qualifies under the review criteria for 8040 greenline exemption by staff. It appears that no one on the City staff questions the project's compliance with the review criteria for exemption except for the City Engineering Department's concern about possible geologic hazard and slope instability resulting from construction. These concerns apparently result from the relatively standard precautions raised in the report by Chen Northern, Inc., Consulting Engineers pending further design, engineering and site investigations at the time of construction. Specifically Chen's observations include the following: Page 1 Recommendations: "Based on the subsoil conditions observed in the exploratory pit and cut slope, the proposed pool and retaining wall bearing on the natural gravels should be feasible from a soils viewpoint. Typically a heavily reinforced concrete pool is acceptable for bearing on soils like those exposed at the site." Chen suggests a number of design parameters which will be incorporated into the detailed design work and construction documents for the project, as follows: 0 0 608 easthymanavenue maspen, colorado81611 ntelephone: 303925-6866 Ms. Kim Johnson Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office January 16, 1990 Page Two 1. In no case should any part of the pool or retaining walls be placed on fill material. 2. The pool walls should be reinforced to resist a lateral earth pressure of at least 50 pcf eauivalent fluid unit weight. 3. A minimum 4-inch free-draining gravel layer should be placed beneath the pool and surrounding deck for drainage. 4. Chen recommends an impervious liner such as 20 mil PVC be placed below the pool bottom drain gravel to collect leakage. The liner should be bedded to prevent puncture and the drain should have an outlet. 5. A tight joint should be provided between the pool and deck SO water splashed from the pool Will not infiltrate the subsoils. 6. Cracks which develop on the deck while the pool is in service should be caulked to prevent water infiltra- tion. 7. The pool deck and adjoining area should be sloped to prevent ponding and infiltration of moisture into the subsoils. 8. Chen should observe the excavations to evaluate bearing conditions. 9. Retaining structures should be designed to resist a lateral earth pressure based on an equivalent fluid unit weight of 45 pcf. 10. Backfill placed to resist sliding and below deck slabs should be compacted to at least 95% of standard Proctor density at optimum moisture content. 11. Surface water should not be concentrated and directed onto steep slopes unless they are protected against erosion. Chen then comments on the effect of any geologic hazard on the proposal and the proposal's impact on increased erosion and sedimentation. This is the only 8040 greenline exemption review criterion in question. Ms. Kim Johnson Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office January 16, 1990 Page Three With regard to geologic hazard, in Chen's opinion, "the project site is not impacted by significant geologic hazards that warrant mitigation." With regard to construction-induced slope instability, Chen recommends several additional conditions which Will be incorporated into the project's final design and constrution documents: 1. Cut and fill slopes to be constructed no steeper than 1-1/2 horizontal to 1 vertical, with a height less than about 10 feet. 2. Retaining walls should be provided to retain cut and fill sections to stay within the recommended grading configurations. 3. Review by Chen of the grading plans when they are finalized. Chen concludes that "with the proper grading design and drainage precautions the potential risk from erosion to properties downslope should not be significantly increased." If P&Z is not prepared to approve our request as a consent item, based on the conditions proposed above, we request that the matter be tabled and that a meeting be scheduled as soon as possible between staff and the applicant's consultants to resolve appropriate additional conditions regarding geologic hazard, erosion or sedimentation to resolve City Staff's concerns. /Joseph Wells, AICP V a fs ew,â‚¬411 11~-1~1= 4 7-Ill...../.-I-'-I-/Fl...................9.--9 298-*e =10*215*U 4*j) ~ 1-|dÂ»Â¢ â‚¬1-111,01/4 0 J 2'Â»Â» 41-112-01 0% (+1) eprld,1,9 4Â»4&61 -~ r 4/geâ‚¬- 21 -4- 0 4-9 /4148 1+ f -4- 3 0 .: 4 4 p ~ 4 1 + r 0 Â»r 91Â·Â¢rl *401Â·rl ~~ . -32'PI110 0FU71/4-92 14 egat 4/4141>49 r . .1 1 0. 4 4 40 YA , 1, - $ - P A \ -- - 4. .ES .. ar'.4 4. ....'.I - - --- A E00& . , /10 -10:16-91-1- 4 .... 0. 04* f..,17"943"/ - A i '. .. ..4446 - . ... ,~ A ... t 4 . 0 , ... I 1 *4- , 9 f . T + â€¢'F- JAN 1 6 Doremus & weiLs an association of land planners C 0 January 16, 1990 i Ms. Kim Johnson Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Field Residence Outdoor Swimming Pool Addition Dear Kim: My letter is to confirm that we have agreed to allow the Field residence pool addition to be added to the Planning & Zoning Commission's consent agenda on January 16, even though we under the review criteria for 8040 greenline exemption by staff. continue to take the position that the project fully qualifies It appears that no one on the City staff questions the project's compliance with the review criteria for exemption except for the City Engineering Department's concern about possible geologic hazard and slope instability resulting from construction. These concerns apparently result from the relatively standard precautions raised in the report by Chen Northern, Inc., Consulting Engineers pending further design, engineering and site investigations at the time of construction. Specifically Chen's observations include the following: Page 1 Recommendations: "Based on the subsoil conditions observed in the exploratory pit and cut slope, the proposed pool and retaining wall bearing on the natural gravels should be feasible from a soils viewpoint. Typically a heavily reinforced concrete pool is acceptable for bearing on soils like those exposed at the site." Chen suggests a number of design parameters which will be incorporated into the detailed design work and construction documents for the pro ject, as follows: 0 0 608 east hyman avenue Â¤ aspen, colorado 81611 otelephone: 303925-6866 Ms. Kim Johnson Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office January 16, 1990 Page Two 1. In no ca se should any part of the pool or retaining walls be placed on fill material. 2. The pool walls should be reinforced to resist a lateral earth pressure of at least 50 pcf eauivalent fluid unit weight. 3. A minimum 4-inch free-draining gravel layer should be placed beneath the pool and surrounding deck for drainage. 4. Chen recommends an impervious liner such as 20 mil PVC be placed below the pool bottom drain gravel to collect leakage. The liner should be bedded to prevent puncture and the drain should have an outlet. 5. A tight joint should be provided between the pool and deck SO water splashed from the pool Will not infiltrate the subsoils. 6. Cracks which develop on the deck while the pool is in service should be caulked to prevent water infiltra- tion. 7. The pool deck and adjoining area should be sloped to prevent ponding and infiltration of moisture into the subsoils. 8. Chen should observe the excavations to evaluate bearing conditions. 9. Retaining structures should be designed to resist a lateral earth pressure based on an equivalent fluid unit weight of 45 pcf. 10. Backfill placed to resist sliding and below deck slabs should be compacted to at least 95% of standard Proctor density at optimum moisture content. 11. Surface water should not be concentrated and directed onto steep slopes unless they are protected against erosion. Chen then comments on the effect of any geologic hazard on the proposal and the proposal's impact on increased erosion and sedimentation. This is the only 8040 greenline exemption review criterion in question. :4.*MKÂ· VT@'11.17.71'it '. 4 jl f~ .3.'s Â·fl"diA##H A 14*444;:,1 1 0 Â·: â€¢*$4Â· f. i /.. i 212Â·91//1/IME ilf**"al.all'/4//i Ms. Kim Johnson Aspen/Pitkin Plannina Office January 16, 1990 Page Three With regard to geologic hazard, in Chen's opinion, "the project site is not impacted by significant geologic hazards that warrant mitigation." With regard to construction-induced slope instability, Chen recommends several additional conditions which Will be incorporated into the project's final design and constrution documents: 1. Cut and fill slopes to be constructed no steeper than 1-1/2 horizontal to 1 vertical, with a height less than about 10 feet. 2. Retaining walls should be provided to retain cut and fill sections to stay within the recommended grading configurations. 3. Review by Chen of the grading plans when they are finalized. Chen concludes that "with the proper grading design and drainage precautions the potential risk from erosion to properties downslope should not be sianificantly increased." If P&Z is not prepared to approve our request as a consent item, based on the conditions proposed above, we request that the matter be tabled and that a meeting be scheduled as soon as possible between staff and the applicant's consultants to resolve appropriate additional conditions regarding geologic hazard, erosion or sedimentation to resolve City Staff's concerns. S~ cer~ly, ~o-seph Wells, AICP V JW/b MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner ~ l// DATE: January 11, 1990 RE: CONSENT AGENDA - FIELD 8040 GREENLINE EXEMPTION APPLICANT'S REQUEST: 8040 Greenline Exemption for the construction of an in-ground swimming pool. SUMMARY: The project calls for the construction of a roughly 18'x70' swimming pool on a shelf of land southwest of the existing large residence. Included in the project are the mechanical room, decking, slide, hot tub and upslope retaining wall. This proposal is being reviewed using the 8040 Exemption criteria (Section 7-503.B.), however Engineering feels somewhat insecure with the exemption request based on geologic considerations. Because this situation falls into a "grey" area regarding appropriate review category, Planning and Engineering staff felt that P&Z should be given the opportunity to comment on the project. If P&Z feels the exemption process does not give adequate review of the proposal, they should direct staff to conduct a full 8040 Greenline review. APPLICANT: Fredrick Field, represented by Joe Wells. LOCATION: 716 S. Galena St. Lot 14, Block 2, Anthony Subdivision ZONING: R-15 (PUD) REFERRAL COMMENTS: A: ENGINEERING: Having reviewed this application, and made a site visit, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. A report by Chen-Northern (Attachment "B") indicates the site is not impacted by significant geologic hazards that warrant mitigation. However, this report also indicates that construction induced slope instability could result from the proposed development and recommends specific construction procedure to eliminate this risk. The Engineering Department requires that this recommendation be followed. 2. The above report also recommends on-site observation of excavations and foundation bearing strata and testing of structural fill by a representative of the soil engineer. We also require that this recommendation be followed. 3. The engineering Department questions whether or not this application should qualify for exemption pursuant to Section 7- 503 B. 3. given that the Chen-Northern report indicated that construction induced slope instability could occur from the proposed development. There is also question whether or not this structure is appropriate for the proposed location according to Section 503 C. 7. of the review standards for 8040 Greenline. (Attachment "A") STAFF COMMENTS: Section 7-503. B. outlines the criteria for 8040 Greenline Exemption as follows: 1. The development does not add more than ten percent (10%) to the floor area of the existing structure or increase the total amount of square footage of areas of the structure which are exempt from floor area calculations by more than twenty-five percent (25%); and 2. The development does not require the removal of any tree for which a permit would be required pursuant to Section 13-76 or the applicant receives a permit pursuant to said section; and 3. The development is located such that it is not affected by any geologic hazard and will not result in increased erosion and sedimentation. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of the 8040 Greenline Exemption with the following conditions: 1. Design parameters and construction procedures be followed that are described by the Chen-Northern report dated November 24, 1989. 2. Discovery of different fill, soil, rock or water conditions during construction require immediate reevaluation by Chen- Northern and notification of the Aspen Engineering Department. 3. On-site observation of excavations and foundation bearing strata and testing of structural fill by representative of the soil engineer. The applicant has agreed to these conditions as recommended. Attachment "A" - Engineering referral Attachment "B" - Subsoil Study by Chen-Northern Attachment "C" - Site Sketch of Pool Location jtkvj/Field8040 2 Â»441 MEET 'IA-" MEMORANDUM TO: Kim Johnson, Planning Office FROM: Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department ~- DATE: January 8, 1990 RE: Field Exemption from 8040 Greenline Review Having reviewed the above application and made a site visit, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. A report by Chen-Northern indicates the site is not impacted by significant geologic hazards that warrant mitigation. However, this report also indicates that construction induced slope instability could result from the proposed development and recommends specific construction procedure to eliminate this risk. The Engineering Department requires that this recommendation be followed. 2. The above report also recommends on-site observation of excavations and foundation bearing strata and testing of structural fill by a representative of the soil engineer. We also require that this recommendation be followed. 3. The Engineering Department questions whether or not this application should qualify for exemption pursuant to section 7- <6 50-2 B. 3. given that the Chen-Northern report indicated that construction induced slope instability could occur from the proposed development. There is also question of whether or not this structure is appropriate for the proposed location according to section 7-502 C. 7 of the review standards for 8040 Greenline. jg/field cc: Bob Gish Chuck Roth Chen@Northern.In.. 0 2.5 Roac HÂ·- 3 enâ€¢00,3 Sp' :Mos Co'oraai 8'00* MI~-Ac;lf ME M-1- ' ' 8 ' ' -32 945.-458 323 0,45 2363 Facs,m >t November 24, 1989 Subject: Subsoil Study for Foundation and Grading Design, Proposed Pool and Retaining Walls, The Field Residence, Aspen, Colorado. Job No. 4 102 90 Greg Mozian Landscape Architecture Attn: Greg Mozian 117 South Spring Street Aspen CO 81611-2068 Gentlemen: As requested, Chen-Northern, Inc. conducted a subsoil study and made observations of the excavation for the proposed retaining wall and pool addi- tions to the existing residence. This report has been prepared to summarize the work performed and to present recommendations for foundation and grading design. The work was performed in accordance with our Agreement for Geotech- nical Engineering Services to Greg Mozian Landscape Architecture, dated October 2, 1989. Design Information: Two conceptual designs have been provided. Both designs consist of a swimming pool to be located about 120 feet southwest of the existing residence. Boulder retaining walls will be constructed east of the pool. Excavation cut depths for the wall and pool will range to about 15 feet. A shallow fill depth is proposed along the downhill side of the pool. Subsurface Conditions: The subsurface conditions were evaluated by observing one exploratory pit excavated at the location shown on Fig. 1. A log of the conditions encountered is shown on Fig. 2. A fairly extensive cut about 15 feet deep had also been made along the uphill perimeter of the proposed construction area. The subsoils encountered within the pit consisted of 2 feet of topsoil overlying about 8 feet of medium dense clayey gravels containing cobbles and boulders. No free water was encountered and the soils were moist to very moist. The gravelly soils appeared similar in the uphill cut slope. A dis- turbed bulk sample of the clayey sandy gravel obtained from the pit was returned to our laboratory for testing. The results of a gradation analysis conducted on the minus 3-inch fraction of the deposit are shown on Fig. 3. Recommendations: Based on the subsoil conditions observed in the exploratory pit and cut slope, the proposed pool and retaining walls bearing on the Greg A'".ernoe, c' 11-~e ~ group o' cs-sanies Mozian Landscape Architecture November 24, 1989 Page 2 natural gravels should be feasible from a soils viewpoint. Typically, a heavily reinforced concrete pool is acceptable for bearing on soils like those exposed at the site. In no case should any part of the pool or retaining walls be placed on fill material. The pool walls should be reinforced to resist a lateral earth pressure of at least 50 pef equivalent fluid unit weight. A minimum 4-inch free-draining gravel layer should be placed beneath the pool and surrounding deck for drainage. The free-draining granular material should consist of minus 2-inch aggregate with less than 2% passing the No. 200 sieve and less than 50% passing the No. 4 sieve. Leakage of the pool could adversely impact stability of the very steep slope below the pool area. Therefore, we recommend an impervious liner such as 20 mil PVC be placed below the pool bottom drain gravel to collect leakage. The liner should be bedded to prevent puncture and the drain should have an outlet. A tight joint should be provided between the pool and deck so water splashed from the pool will not infiltrate the subsoils. Cracks which develop on the deck while the pool is in service should be caulked to prevent water infiltration. The pool deck and adjoining area should be sloped to prevent ponding and infiltration of moisture into the subsoils. The proposed retaining walls may be founded with a shallow footing placed on the undisturbed natural granular soil and designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3000 psf. The bearing level should have adequate depth for frost protection. Areas of loose or soft material, existing fill and organic debris encountered at the foundation bearing level within the excava- tion for both the walls and pool should be removed and the excavation extended down to adequate natural bearing material. We should observe the excavations to evaluate bearing conditions. Retaining structures should be designed to resist a lateral earth pressure based on an equivalent fluid unit weight of 45 pcf. A sliding coefficient of 0.5 and a passive pressure of 300 pef can be assumed to resist lateral and overturning loads. Backfill placed to resist sliding and below deck slabs should be compacted to at least 95% of standard Proctor density at optimum moisture content. On-site soils devoid of vegeta- tion, topsoil, oversized rock and debris should be suitable for reuse as structural fill. Surface water should not be concentrated and directed onto steep slopes unless they are protected against erosion. 8040 Greenline Review: We understand an exemption request is being made for the proposed construction. The review consists of geologic hazard impact and increased erosion potential. The site is located along the western limit of the Little Nell earth flow that is characterized by a coarse texture and very steep side slopes. In our opinion, the project site is not impacted by sig- nificant geologic hazards that warrant mitigation. Construction induced slope instability could result from the proposed development. To limit this risk, we recommend cut and fill slopes be constructed no steeper than 1 1/2 horizon- tal to 1 vertical and have a height less than about 10 feet. Retaining walls should be provided to retain cut and fill sections to stay within the recom- mended grading configurations. We should review the grading plans when they E-.~,I' -Tjifif .4'-1.-:-73 '.-i ' Greg Mozian Landscape Architecture November 24, 1989 Page 3 are more definite. With the proper grading design and drainage precautions, the potential risk from erosion to properties downslope should not be signifi- cantly increased. Limitations: This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices in this area for use by the client for design purposes. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the exploratory pit exca- vated at the location indicated on Fig. 1 and our observations at the site and the proposed type of construction. The nature and extent of subsurface varia- tions across the site may not become evident until excavation is performed. If during construction, fill, soil, rock or water conditions appear to be different from those described herein, this office should be advised at once so reevaluation of the recommendations may be made. We recommend on-site observation of excavations and foundation bearing strata and testing of struc- tural fill by a representative of the soil engineer. If you have any questions or if we may be of further assistance, please call. Sincerely, CHEN-NORTHERN, INC. 0. . 0*8 15222 E*@ By go,u__2(. /2-64~ A! 1 Steven L. Pawlak, P.E. ~~DO NAL #fi~~/ Reviewed By b~u,04 1 F Daniel E. Hardin, P.E. SLP/ec Attachments cc: Joe Wells, Land Planning- 16& 211 (41 N E k it 1(Oil EXISTING RESIDENCE TOP OF STEEP / SLOPE k TOP OF VERY SKI RUN LITTL NELL STEEP FILL SLOPE f flpi T i <~ BOULDER ,~ RETAINING WALL PROPOSED PROPOSED POOL APPROXIMATE SCALE 11' = 40 4 I 02 90 Chen@Northern. Inc LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY PIT Fig. 1 MEMORANDUM TO: City Engineer FROM: Kim Johnson, Planning Office RE: Field Exemption from 8040 Greenline Review DATE: December 27, 1989 Attached for your review and comments is an application for exemption from Stream Margin Review. Please review this material and return your comments to me within one week. This is a Planning Director approval. Thank you. ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 920-5090 December 27, 1989 Joe Wells 130 Midland Park Place, F2 Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Field 8040 Greenline Exemption Dear Joe, This is to inform you that the Planning Office has completed its preliminary review of the captioned application. We have determined that your application is not complete. Joe, please submit proof of ownership and a letter from the owner authorizing you to represent him. We will refer this application to the City Engineer, however, approval cannot be granted until we receive the information requested. If you have any questions please call, Kim Johnson, the Planner assigned to this case. Thank you. Sincerely, Debbie Skehan Administrative Assistant ds tus*hy///ES~ Doremus & weLis an association of land planners 0 0 December 12, 1989 Ms. Amy Margerum, Director Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Aspen 00 81611 Dear Amy: My letter is to formally request exemption from 8040 greenline review by the Planning Director under the provisions on Â§7-503(B) of the City Land Use Code. Exemption is requested to permit the construction of an outdoor uncovered pool at the Field residence, on South Galena Street. The project complies with all relevant review standards, as follows: 1. The development does not increase FAR floor area of the project by more than 10% nor the non-FAR floor area by more than 25%. The only new space proposed is an area of approximately 200 sq. ft. which will be entirely sub-grade; this space will include a room for pool mechanical equipment and garden tools as well as a restroom for the pool; the floor area of these rooms is oonsidered non-FAR space. 2. No trees with a trunk diameter of six inches or more (measured four and one-half feet above grade) will be removed in order to install the pool. Approximately eight spruce and aspen of this size are proposed to be relocated within the property in order to be sure they have adequate room to grow in the future. These trees were planted several years ago, and moving them should pose little difficulty as they are probably still within their original rootball. It is our understanding that Â§13-76 of the Municipal Code applies only bo removal of trees, as opposed to relocation. 3. The development is not affected by significant geologic hazards which warrant mitigation and will not result in increased erosion and sedimentation. A letter from Chen Northern, Inc. is attached which identifies mitigation measures which will be undertaken to assure that these issues are adequately addressed. Please let me know at 925-8080 if you need additional information. (SL-'4rely, (r//1 . , 1 I.L<--- 3.>fi~ 90Â£*tu (- V JosepM Wells, AICP JA/b Enclosure cc: Karyn Parker Greg Mozian c Kim Wyle 608 east hyman avenue o aspen, colorado 81611 otelephone: 303 925-6866 1 January 2, 1990 Ms. Kim Johnson Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: 8040 Greenline Exemption Request filed with the City of Aspen for Lot 14, Block 2, Anthony Acres Subdivision Dear Ms. Johnson: I am the owner of Lot 14, Block 2, Anthony Acres Subdivision, also known as 730 South Galena. I hereby authorize Joseph Wells, 130 Midland Park Place, Aspen, Colorado (925-8080), to submit the above referenced land use application for this property for review by the City of Aspen and to represent the project during the review process. Yours truly, /0 1 Frederick Field 4 ./ STEWART TITLE OF ASPEN, INC. OWNERSHIP AND ENCUMBRANCE REPORT PREPARED FOR: Dorenus & Company ORDER NO.: 00017202 HEREBY CERTIFIES from a search of the books in this office that the owner of: Parcel I: Condominiums Iinits 1 and 2, HIGH ON THE HILL CONDOMINIUMS. according to the Condominium Map recorded May 4, 1979 in Plat Ronk 7 at Page 85 as Reception No. 214169, and as defined and described in the Condominium Declaration recorded May 4, 1979 in Book 367 at Page 942 as Reopption No. 214168. Parcel II: Lot 5. TIPPLE WOODS SUBDIVISION Both Parcels being Situated in the County of Pitkin: State of Colorado, appears to be vested in the name of: Frederick W. Field and that the above described property appears to be subject to the following: A Deed of Trust dated December 30, 1986, executed by Christopher B. Henmeter, to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County, to secure an indebtedness of 91,778,000.00. in favor of Henry Shigekane, Trustee, recorded December 31, 1986 in Book 527 at Page 176 as Rereption No. 284878. NOTE: Said Deed of Trust was not excepted or referenced in the April 1988 Deed to Frederick W. Field, however no release was found of record. (Affects Unit 2 of Parcel T) A Deed of Trust dated September 29, 1989, executed by Frederick W. Field, to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County, to secure an indebtednpqq nf $1,650,000.00, in favor of Citibank, N.A., recorded October 20, 1989 in Rook 605 at Page 491 as Reception No. 316418. and re-recorded October 31, 1989 in Bnok 606 at Page 230 as Reception No. 316416. (Affects Parcel IT) NOTF: Tn addition to the properties described above: Frederick W. Field apparently also acquired interest (by Quite Claim Deed recorded April 29: 1988 in Book 562 at. Pagp 638 as Reception No. 299691) in and to: (1) an elevator and elevator structure appurtenant to High on the Hi.1] Condominiums, (21 an accegg and utility easement, and (3) a right to park two automobiles in the Durant Condominium parking lot. EXCEPT all easements, rights-of-ways, restrictions and reservations nf record. EXCEPT any and all unpaj A taxes and EXCEPT any and all zinpaid taxes and ass;essments. This report does not reflect any of the following matters: STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY - ' . le) Bankruptcies wh' i, from date of adjudicat' n of the most -. recent hankruptcies, intedate the report by mo than fourteen (14) years. 1 2) Suits and judgements which, from date of entry, antedate the report by more than seven (7) years or until the governing statue of limitations has expired, whichever is the longer period. 3) Unpaid tar lienq which, from date of payment, antedate the report by more than seven (7) years. Although we believe the facts stated are true, thi.q Certi.ficate is not to be conÂ«tructed as an abstract of title, nor an opinion of title, nor a guaranty of tit lp, and it is under-st-nod and agreed that Stewart Title of Aspen, Tne., neither asqumes, nor will be charged with any financial obligation or liability whatever on any statement contained herein. Dated at Aspen, Colorado, this 02nd day of January A.D. 1990 at 8:00 A.M. BY: *-24.-7.94 Authorized Signatii~ STEVVART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY Pit 1 - 0 0 - 41-- 3- 5 - - 5 0.0 0 - -,000.EY gt.4---t +4=63 i.,0.0 I -200=12 ,&/Â·9 1 LL=28 -10 1~.., PI=10 10 - LEGEND: ~ Topsoil ; organic silty clay, soft, wet, brown. 90.~ Clayey Gravel (GC) ; sandy, with eobbles and boulders to 3 feet in size, medium B,22% dense, moist to very moist, light brown, subangular rock. ~~ Disturbed bulk satple . NOTES: 1. Exploratory pit was excavated on October 3, 1989 with a backhoe. 2. Location of exploratory pit was measured approximately by pacing from features shown on the site plan provided. 3. Elevation of the exploratory pit was not measured and the log of the pit is drawn to depth. 4. The exploratory pit location should be considered accurate only to the decree implied by the method used. 5. The lines between materials shown on the exploratory pit log represent the approximate boundaries between material types and transitions may be gradual. 6. No free water was encountered in the pit at the time the pit was excavated. Fluctuations in water level may occur with time. 7. Laboratory Testing Results: WC = Water Content (%) +4 = Percent retained on No. 4 sieve -200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve LL = Liquid Limit (%) PI = Plasticity Index (%) Log of Exploratory Pit, Legend 4 102 90 Chen@Northem.Inc and Notes Fig. 2 20=9 >1 lili Depth - D. 4001 - 41daa | -+ -4 -'F.AE- Ec ANA.Y S.S | S.E VE ANA-V E.3 'iâ€¢E ':EALL.4413 L S S-A'â€¢-422 5Â£24Â·.2 2.E-A r- - A -0 2 - 1% Nue 1 1 .lc 451 Jit '5 2% 6'. 4â€¢rN .9 V'% 4 MIN Â· HN Â·2.X MOu -50 *40'30 '16 4P '4 1 3' 5 6 Iii'i~::,1,1:ii , , 4 1 1 1 1 . 1 ; 1 1 1 1 1 9Ct Â· 1 1 1 1 11 . 1 1 /1 '1 |i ''1 l(i 11 1 T j i Z t Â· . 1 '' ' ; 1 1 1 , i ' 1 1 , ~ 1 4 1 1 1 111 6 1 2 1 '/ 1 1 11 li 11 1 1:1 1// 1 I I ' e ' 1.1 1 1 ' i ; ./ 1 1 1 4, , 1 so' ' 1 1 , it 1 1 1 / lili 11 1 ' 1 1 , 1 1 /'< 1 1 1 1 i : i .1, i !'1 I a 1 66 40' 1 Ill 11 1 1/ ' 1 1 1 l 1 11 lu/ . 1 1 ' 70 30: â€¢ 1 1 1 { 11, i g 1 1 ! 20: 1 1/4/r; 8 *1 80 1 1 1, 1 1 1 1 1-7 1 11 1 1 10: 1 1 I i 1 1 1 11 11 ' 1 1 1 1" 11 '' 1 1' 1 ; 1 111 1 ~' 1 It in i t! 1 11 'I 100 ' 1 III t 001 002 005 009 019 C37 074 149 297 1 590 1 19 2 38 4 6 9 52 19 1 381 76.2 127 4 200 42 2 0 152 GRAVEL DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS bMIN. COBBLES CLAY TO SILT FINE | MEDIUM |COAPSE CNE 1 COARSE GRAVEL 63 % SAND 25 % SILT AND CLAY 12 % LIQUID LIMIT 28 PLASTICITY INDEX 10 4 SAMPLE OF clayey sandy gravel FROM Pit 1 at 8 feet to 10 feet 1 WYDACD'V,ETER ANAL YS! S Cl~Â·1- '$''I Yq,0 ~ 0 16- . - .'/ M& u~ 4 1 TIME READINGS US STANLARD SER ES 2-EAR SC.ARE D)ENINGS 24 +R 7 HR 10 3" 5 6 45 MIN 15 MIN 60 MIN 19 MIN 4 MIN Â· MIN -2 )0 100 '5C '4C'30 '16 IB :0 10(; 1 iii ' i 1, i, i '1 -il 111 11 1 , 1 1 1 1 , + ' 1 1 1 1 1 r ].0 1 1 1 , 1 11 90: 1 1 t 1 1 : 1.1 1 ' 1 , 11,1 4 , 111:, T 1 l 1 J Â·'30 11 il 70[ I 1 11 1 1 1 1. 1 : 9 - : , 1, 1, 1 1 1 11 '',1,1 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 I ]!i 1 11 : :; 1 111 11 1 1 1 3*'i~~ ~t~~' 13'11 11' ; 11 . ;CO'' 40; 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.1 1 1 15 ;1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' Il , 1 1,, i 1 1 I 1'~ 1 1 11' 1 [1 1 ' 1 20: . 11:1 11 1 1 11 1: 11 111: 1 1 : 11 1 . 1' ; :90 ; lili 111 lilli 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 . i 6 1 [Iâ€¢!1 1 1600 1 11 1111/1 1 1 1 1 1;lili ; !11 It':':;1 00, 002 005 009 .019 037 074 .149 .297 1 590 1.19 b 38 4.76 9 52 191 381 76 2 127 200 152 42 2 0 1 1 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS SAND GRAVEL CLAY TO SILT COBBLES FINE 1 MEDIUM |COARSE FINE | COARSE GRAVEL % SAND % SILT AND CLAY % 96 4 LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX SAMPLE OF FROM 4 102 90 Chen-Northern, Inc. GRADATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 3 CA+2-79 t' 14 R P x PERCENT PASSING PERCENT PASSING C]3NIVE]tl IN33U3d O3 Nn/13 U 1 N 3 )Ulld --- ,---------------...f- MEMORANDUM TO: City Engineer FROM: Kim Johnson, Planning Office RE: Field Exemption from 8040 Greenline Review DATE: December 27, 1989 Attached for your review and comments is an application for exemption from Stâ€žre~*Margin Review. 50 tu Please review this material and return your comments to me within one week. This is a Planning Director approval. Thank you. RECEIVED DIC 11 1989 oity engw,eer