The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.1095 Ute Ave.37A-86/.,10,; 1: 1-me , i 1 015 (Ate Ave /abt ; 51 A - 86 -Ilism.~9./P - DAP 195 G A 6%30 LA ACE #Yb.qul 5 8 /10-Â· 0 0 R 0 City of Aspen 4 46 1 - El- 61(- Of)I)-- (-3/R'.1 ll,j DATE RECEIVED: 9 C E NO. 31-A *6 DATE RECEIVED dOMPLETE: beÂ·,*.5- STAFF: 56> PROJ ECT NAME (--t (,1 MA %(40 El Uvill,-41-,0.,w-# tl}-j) ~ APPL ICANT: ~ 1.4 -1~)OÂ£6id /095 Ult Avo Applicant Address/~hone REPRESENTATIVE: 'ft.(9 38->i kbi 1 . POpiN) 108 5- Iltle /0, 1 t Representative Adc~tess/Phoned ( Type of Application: I. GMP/Subdivision/PUD 1. Conceptual Submission 20 $2,730.00 2. Preliminary Plat 12 1,640.00 3. Final Plat 6 820.00 II. Subdivision/PUD 1. Conceptual Submission ' ~ Â·Â·-- - 1 4 $1,900.00 2. Preliminary Plat 9 1,220.00 3. Final Plat 6 820.00 III. All "Two Step" Applications 11 $1,490.00 IV. All "One Step" Applications V 5 $ 680.00 V. Referral Fees - Environmental Health, Housing Office 1. Minor Applications $ 50.00 2. Major Applications 5 $ 125.00 Referral Fees- Engineering Minor Applications 80.00 Major Applications 200.00 . P&Z CC MEETING DATE: DCA D\ PUBLIC-HEARMIG : YES ~ DAT E RE FERRED: ~5*OL 5-- IN IT IALS : UL--0.7 ir REFERRALS: pÂ« City Atty Aspen Consol. S.D. School District ~ v/ City Engineer Mtn. Bell Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas Housing Dir. - Parks Dept. State Iiwy Dept (Glenwd) Aspen Water Holy Cross Electric State Hwy Dept (Gr.Jtn) City Electric Fire Marshall v/' Bldg: Zoning/Inspectn Envir. Hlth. Fire Chief Other: Roaring Fork Transit Roaring Fork Energy Center FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: 11-4-5,2 INITIAL : L 11 f / _L__ City Atty City Engineer Building Dept. Oth er: Oth er: FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: JOHN THOMAS KELLY ATTORNEY AT LAW 117 SOUTH SPRING STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE (303) 925-1216 August 29, 1986 Aspen/Pitkin Planning Department Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Re: 8040 Greenline Review Addition to residence Lot 2, Hoag Subdivision Ladies and Gentlemen: I represent I.G. Davis, Jr. who is the owner of Lot 2, Hoag Subdivision which lot requires 8040 review. Mr. Davis would now like to add a garage, pool and storage room and sun room. The principal reason for the addition is to provide for easy and safe access to the house and provide for indoor parking for Mr. Davis' vehicle. The access to the house, which presently consists of a steep railroad-tie type stairway from Ute Avenue is difficult and dangerous in the winter, particularly in view of the fact that this area gets minimal sun, making ice and snow removal difficult. Copies of the plans prepared by Roger Kerr are attached. As you are all aware, Sec. 24-6.2 of the Code sets for 9 criteria for an 8040 Greenline Review. Regarding these criteria, I would address them as follows: Review Criteria 1, 2, 4 and 5: Since this is an improved site with an existing house, I do not believe that criteria 1, 2, 4 and 5 are applicable. No additional bedrooms are to be added and since all development is between the existing structure and the road, the matters set forth in these criteria are inapplicable. Review Criterion 3: The site is suitable for development. The plans and site have been reviewed by Charles E. Peterson, P.E. of Enartech Inc. and approved by him for development. A copy of Mr. Peterson's letter and his qualifications are attached. Aspen/Pitkin Planning Department Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission August 29, 1986 Page 2 Review Criterion 6: We believe the design and location of the addition is compatible with the existing terrain and no new trails or roads are to be constructed. At a previous review of this house, one member commented on the "mushroom" effect created by the fact that the bulk of the house being on the upper floors. We feel that the garage addition below will balance and mitigate this effect when viewed from Ute Avenue. As shown by the attached photograph, the lot is heavily wooded and the proposed addition will have no visual effect from town. Since the Ute Avenue area contains a large amount of multi-family development (The Gant, Clarendon, etc.) the size of this structure, which is within the permitted F.A.R., certainly is not out of character nor would it dominate the neighborhood. Review Criterion 7: As you will note from the attached plans, great care has been taken to preserve the natural setting. The landscaping makes use of natural rock and with the exception of a group of four small trees from 2" - 3" caliper which will be moved and replanted, none of the many trees on the property will be disturbed. As stated previously, the addition will be constructed downhill from the existing house. The indoor parking will also remove the vehicles from view on Ute Avenue. Review Criteria 8, 9: One of the primary reasons for 8040 review is to reduce the visual impact of development on the mountain from town. In this case the house and addition have been placed in such a way as to take maximum advantage of the existing evergreen and aspen. Since the additional structure sits below at the approximate level of Ute Avenue, and is built back into the hill (thus reducing the bulk of the structure), the visual effect from town is virtually nil. We do not feel that the addition in any way detracts from the open character of the mountain. Aspen/Pitkin Planning Department Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission August 29, 1986 Page 3 In closing, we believe that the criteria for 8040 Greenline approval have been met. This addition would in no way detract from the visually open character of Aspen Mountain, is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and we believe, improves the visual effect of the structure. Respect ulZy submitted, 1 7 JTK/og Â¢ghithomas Kelly Attorney in Fact for I.G. Davis, Jr. cc: I.G. Davis, Jr. Enclosure I , 6 ' ' 4, 3 , .4 ' 1 1 0 6 - , , . , %- I. J , 1 , 'f ; I . , v $ 0 . 51 - 4/ L J 4, HA, 4., -1 â€¢ 4 ..1 C f , 2 < 4,. f ... . 4. / -4 - &45.1 - % 4-1- '44 ir Â« I 122 - d - 1 f". d tr ' 'l ,/ i, / ,.,; 2 b -3. -.4 i ,Â©cr -72:.Â·26: Cr r: t- i r , , -, C L 5 -0 1 . /l . 7 A- ~Â«~ . /4/ 1 /1 - / - 1 4 4- ..../ 12 60. .-. 4 - - 1 r L# C P -r .. -,- -. Â»..... . 71 1 L , 5 -â€¢rl t Â·,_~~ 1 / - 4 7 1 $ U -VE .7/ G--/N c. 1 -- - --@-PolÂ¢f 1Â»- - L - I I - -.. Cr=,3 1,17 I- _ 1 ,- lit -- U , 'r------- - .--i... .-- .Pil- - 1 141 111\1\ %\ 1 {fgiEFIE-/M--1 \ L\\\\\\\.. h - Â·Tf? OCT 2 8 1986 2 C \ \ \ L 49 0 2%Â£6-4 f,4.K,O - 3 - ~ty -ft 4 i K 4 2 2*W.1 . eÂ«(kf B.B- -FLL 4.77 4 C #/6 411 -ARMak Â£%#tktj .//// l - 60 +01. ~Ilb ~ ~ #4j Â°4 44&* / Ntu)Â· b $~9 . 'UAL ~ / - AN 7% C 0.- ... t/ . Â·r 7 2 2 Â»12 4 7.7, / f het 1 â€ž Q. F l 16 -Re# 7% - , %. x f % 3-Â«13,4-NI -1 A--1.0 , . ..<.,4 t -lou,Â¢4 t,If Nuu *aukU ~ 64 4 04(61- L " ' Â¥ WÂ£24 / -3-116 . :, ..1-/~0*Occuls#~A -laak_ Â£ lt-Â£' fu.-10 4Â»444 3 1/ : ~lat 2 71 fl , 3\ 24 < 30 7777\ f 2%â‚¬yÂ«/ . a \111. \1- . .... At - i ila \ExiA. - . A 1/1 1,4 , F 1 r x * 2 0 . . v./.~%. , . I 1 _1* c.- ) 35 rT .~ ' - 4 ~< 7919 3 4.20 .4 . 1 . 0%. , .~61 1=/ 14 Â»lue -10 *11*47~ d O 280 0*zrk: cNDÂ·. Zo p ~5m#zLTALL ~ â€¢15Â·f~Lt ALisflb 64 1 4 A \ ~ 1 k W %3 / d C -1 -Uo a. 56-nu ' \ i F hi v . 211 pacific ave., # aspen, co. 81811 25 828. CASE DISPOSITION: 0 0 C o F 04 0 01 2, 3 n , 1 U.'Clu,t'A o (21/V' Reviewed by: <11 JiED City Counc On ful g v. LL 119 8 41. Pli/NX.* '44 '71.9,19. CE,fA4 4~N 4/#1~~~-r/,f 11 M~P.t't,22Â·7 414 5 4,9. 241:1 i 4 01,I 10 MultiÂ·'i ,Â£-of i HelÂ·t i,rÂ·.2,01:.p,-r,Â·- 04 3 -4'pk<'i'Â· be,ib~ 244 -llpitit.~f' C,J&,2 AÂ· rwpo-~1~ 94, f# is-4 <fle.n: ilÂ·Â·Â·ic 1, r. r 4-1,- 1,. 06" . 1. A soils investigation by a registered P.E. in geo- technical engineering shall be made and the design of the foundation walls shall follow the recommendations of this investigation to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department prior to issuance of a building pe rmi t. 2. Natural rock shall be used to reinforce the driveway cut as proposed in the application. 3. Three spruce trees shall be relocated as proposed, or new trees of comparable size shall be replanted. A minimum of fifteen (15) new aspens 2 1/2"-3" in caliper shall be planted. And a minimum of four new spruce trees, 8-10 feet tall, shall be planted, all as represented in the landscape plan submitted October 28, 1986, and accomplished prior to issuance of a Certifi- cate of Occupancy. Reviewed EU: Aspen PEZ City Council MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: Davis Addition 8040 Greenline Review DATE: October 29, 1986 LOCATION: Lot 2, Hoag Subdivision, 1095 Ute Avenue. ZONING: R-15 (PUD) . LOT SIZE: 18,366 square feet. APPLICANT'S REQUEST: I.G. Davis requests permission to construct a 1,226 square foot addition to the existing residence containing a storage room, sun room, and garage (*including the garage, 600 square feet of which is exempt from FAR) . The total floor area of the house counted in FAR would be 4,281 square feet. 4,702 square feet of floor area is the maximum allowed, plus a 600 square foot garage. Boulder walls reaching approximately 9 feet high would line the new driveway to the garage entrance. BACKGROUND: On August 5, 1985, P&Z approved an 8040 Greenline Review for the enclosure of decks on the Davis house. This added approximately 600 square feet of countable FAR. APPLICABLE SECTION OF MUNICIPAL CODE: Section 24-6.2(b) which is attached gives the 8040 review criteria that P&Z must consider. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: A. Referral Comments: Engineering Department: In an October 2,1986 memorandum from Jim Gibbard, the following comments were made: 1. The information received on the amount and placement of material excavated and on the revegetation plan was reviewed and considered adequate. 2. In reference to slope stability, a soils investigation by a registered P. E. in geotechnical engineering should be made and the design of the foundation walls shoul d follow the recommendations of this investigation. B. Staff Comments: As a result of the project architect responding to some of the concerns that the Planning Office ' raised, the review was tabl ed and revisions were made. This memorandum deals only with the revised proposal. The Planning Office concurs with the applicant that the 8040 criteria concerning utilities (#1) , adequacy of roads (#2) and air quality (#5) are not applicable to this proposal. With regard to drainage and run-off (Criteria 4) the Engineering Department believes that there are no particular problems. In addition, we note that the driveway will be graveled, giving some ability for absorbtion of run-off into the gr o un d. The main concerns of this proposal are: disturbance of terrain and vegetation (Criteria #7), minimumization of cutting and grading (Criteria #8) and reduction in building height and bulk to maintain the open character of the mountain (Criteria #9) . The hillside cut for the driveway will be approximately 22 feet in width and extend approximately 60 feet from the edge of Ute Avenue. The revised landscape plan calls for 15 new 2 1/2"-3" caliper aspen trees, 4 new spruce trees 8'-10' in height and replacing 4 existing spruces in new location. No large trees would be removed. The existing parking area would be reduced by reshaping the slope and revegetation. Finally, the driveway lined with boulders would be reduced in width from the original plan to approximately 22 feet. The landscape plan has been significantly improved from the first submittal and staft believes that it com pliments the undi sturbed, heavily forested area next to Ute Avenue and helps to compensate for the added disturbance of this project. The original design of the house displays a sensitivity to the massing and visual impa cts with relation to the hillside and evergreens that would be partially lost by building the addition. Because the garage is proposed to be built into the hill, visual impacts will be somewhat reduced. However, the proposed second floor deck and structure (woodsiding) would give the house much more perceptible bulk from Ute Avenue. The addition would also bring the structure much closer to and down to the same grade as Ute Avenue. De si gn approaches that might better reduce visual impact would be an earthen cover to the garage or creating more transpar- ency. It should be noted that the revised plans reduced FAR by 173 sq. ft., but the bulk visible from Ute Avenue has not chan ge d. Staff notes that the garage is 645 sq. ft. ; and given the bul ging front, has considerable bulk and height as seen from Ute Avenue. It could be reduced in size to better fit with 2 , this site. Also, in our opi nion, the new FAR whi ch would be 420 square feet (9%) less than the maximum all owed for the site is not a significant reduction in bulk and does not meet Criteria 9. RECOMMENDATION: In staff's opinion, the addition/garage is not so entirely out of character with the hillside area that it shoul d be deni ed. The design concept appears to generally work. The applicant has provided an abundant landscaping scheme that we feel helps a great deal to reduce visual impacts of the addition. Reducing the size of the structure and curving the driveway would make this an even more acceptable project. We recommend that the Greenline Review be tabled until a revised design of the addition and garage can be considered. If the Planning Commission desires to appr ove the project as it is proposed, we recommend the following conditions of approval: 1. A soils investigation by a registered P.E. in geo- technical engineering shall be made and the design of the foundation walls shall follow the recommendations of this investigation to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department prior to issuance of a building pe rmi t. 2. Natural rock shall be used to reinforce the driveway cut as proposed in the application. 3. Three spruce trees shall be relocated as proposed, or new trees of comparable size shall be replanted. A minimum of fifteen (15) new aspens 2 1/2"-3" in caliper shall be planted. And a minimum of four new spruce trees, 8-10 feet tall, shall be planted, all as represented in the landscape plan submitted October 28, 1986, and accomplished prior to issuance of a Certifi- cate of Occupancy. 4. The driveway shall be made to curve so to decrease visibility from Ute Avenue. The new driveway design shall be presented to the Planning Office for its review prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. SB.1 3 V.L Phits 4 04/~J 3 0 2 >.< 2.*.r 1 I. , 4 . St - - 0 5 1 . - 6 .A# 2,3-3 --LE ./. C .40 1. . 4 h ,#4 4.942 h 54 427. 44 : 9&.Af#Et b.4 -r"-Ak 0 . 't . . 4 6,2~9 -r 4 , 2 -: . r 4 *22.-7.14 ' '.. 3.k ' -I- - . ' ~1- . r 1.>fe - k --1 1//Mi//4 22=04 r. 2 k .**L , - 1 9 1, 4Â»Er #J. Â¥ 4: 1,0 - .0 - : . . 21 *W+Ft-tr:de' 4 Â¥ ..1 7 Wi. 1. A u 2â€¢ â€¢ * â€¢.9 - I Â·ai// *4/1/04/ . 1 / r. 2 9.... I - =.....1,9. I --1.. #& r ' /-1_1 A K 29*1 I.-IA. . : , -i- '. I -- 2, 911.21,"rf.- '* 1~<7Â£ .N-*- 4 =, 12'.*61 S. .-** .P, jf,I'., ~ ' 11*. Â·0144*TE,9#141I L =*#Li-U ,*IM# 14Â·Â·2:2~~ 91â‚¬05 : -11-, di~>22Â·:r-~I '%'LUY 1*14 :.664*..j~S~3.0 -1 J , Â£ Â·Cs~ Â«i- 33~rhy#.0 i'~12~4 . . .7. . r ..4 .- 4 46Â· .' ,~Â·'A:74~i ~*' *44'5Â·..,z 4 r. , k ..4. . .. r# 1 k Â· *AM+34- .7 1 i . 1 F 4451~//////<~~ - tip-:,4 F . 4 0.. 31. -r - f Â·29 : -/ r . ~. 4 .-i .... P , 6 la 43'y~ 44*~Â»fÂ· :prv.*59~9â€ž, 11 - i. :30,-'' =- - -g~=417.~~U~-~-4 - ' -3 -7â‚¬1 1.1:14 k 1,1 Â·.2 . 2 - 44. -IA:LÂ·. i. ===1:=r a,?~2.-331:ht.S=,5& 1.:~ f. 7.rfirt~45.~ 1 '. . ' 4--6:...,2'/4 1 27'% All 0 - .3 .0 2 'a . . ,- b.- 2 , e.. * 4.0 52 4 #LÂ· t... . ;~. L~.512#4 - ' ...-. 40' .-: I 94 1 22~ %- 1 ' : r .0 f fitul:-43:~3 j. f .':3 ~ ' ~?*60. 1 ..11,16 1*Tr n. - 77.Al ;51 ./t//' r / ~~ I. ~.3/Md. . ire . l'Ai ~9-~71,2 g i 3 f.:"4*4*Â·'Â·, : <$13*"0*~~~M*~L~ 7sl. .*~~IT-Â»il*irM#*BE,zl-4+ .:,14*.A#? --/*,4 2,/2/bit, i f . - *. - eÂ·kEISKh, 3 Â»m~*44./& -4=5. 't-nif.ir1=w.,"- P t. 44 '. 8 01 1 H Eli Il Lo -.-- WX, 1 03 If* [ME o rbilomt-ift) '0' i 00\\\ -- 1 F << -- u . u-Â·, ~~ ~~~ f ff--9 | !\\ i OCT 2 8 1986 ;Il 0 1- \ *31647101 liv& F--0 - 1. ' *MA \ F\ C z d*w,2 \U f NE Â£--) 10<kf K -4 1-1 1 ID 1,/6Â»fl -041Mt,L Â£%447'63,/ S 06- -extÂ«Ens--At Ne b 5*01' f . 41\ i 1 - r---j 4,1 /1j C-- 0. \ .P 0 A 75 1/ - m (Do k uo 00 A.* 1 14 1 I * 4- 93...9.f, * .r L' ... 7 0 9 f 9731 6 r 1 4 /t- 1 1,1 1 / ?r KEL r { 1 Â·1'44"\ 4 . - ./ co Â·t:*607%\ i + 15 + Alatf '2~4 - 31 -- ' T 0 62+ Aspvu -_A_*--Â«Le,&ALAC~ 50424~- 2-~ t 4 . , P --164 17 1 0%./' IJ .*12 57 -EN ew'*047~Â« 9/' C m ELI J WÂ£21, ke 4 844- . 14, 44 1 12Â·Et ltÂ£ + 16 - L Qi , 4%40*044 > 12 _m?ff 684~ . 24* 7777 N Â¢ 2 ~4 -- -- - 54* - _ rOn 0 71 U m t O UJ & ..i tra_.13031,21 twiwk 3 * 4 : ~,Lit -fj_ u L -9 1 k.' i. 1% 1 \ . In j. MWPU . - , \1 V 1 .1 1 0044 .AAil ' 67, 1 3 /4 1 a. L D>0 1 4,14 - 1 614446â‚¬ i 1 jmir ; 4 14.5 r 1 904 1 ty) i 4 1. 409 1 1 41,9 .143~ \ -iK 1} : . .t- , ''- 31 'ifil +- - l..%30 6 -1 I. I, ~S< 42. ' \ 1 - *htÂ· t 1.45 6-1.?4 1'. f UÂ· 4Â· Â·40 .. 1 \.Ak, 8 i 4 . Â¢ 4 O 280 >666 7 Â»tat,41-, L.$ â€¢\a 3 10 10 30 6 .4 e Oft ~1 ~ 41.hu- 1 - 1%92 + 61*0044* .Â·E I t, 4 & #t m B-T,~6 f I *7*#42 6:;~Â£,ze p E E \ 6 4 m C - - \ 11\1\1 (~ ird, 1 t:Â» 9 1 ?2 r. r / -hgo 40 56- ' :i 7 71 , . 1 iz \0 0 d - il / f .7 / ~ 07 W O Q . -1 t Ji 11 i {1 143 ...... ... I. 11 -A ff==-11 j.- --1- r 8 01 -' -.1 U - â‚¬3 m 8 - I. al __- . 0 9 8 0 [1] (1) J C / , 2 (D > . + 143 1 L i m ,g 6 o0 m . + Q 0 1 ID 0 g n hl,If, archit c aspen, c . - 3, roger- kernÂ· and assodiates:f *-3. aspen, co. 81611 303 925-82 S 1 - 4 J~- 01- 1 l -4 4 --- 1 119 - , 1 1 1 Â»4,/2 U - 7917 -1- - 7?29 -.-- -7.ifY - 1214 - ; tki -7919 -1~2-2 JA \ .J -270 . -414 mb - 7171. --*I_~ to -779' - 7f1' - 791 0--- t- _ 2 : -722 0 ~ 79/1 - _ - Aa.49- rl 79f 9 - - -2 -,Irt Kf - 11'f7 7 9.N - 1'31 . . >r - 77/6 127; .- Â· - . A. . Â· ./ _99 fl . .. - 71" 7 & 1%9* 13 . f -79j'.3 I 4 - .--fr-31- 4 1 't . 1 171 I ~~ 1F 4- 2 0- f 1 2 ~4 -44 71'/- ye'l f : 8104 6-' 4-' Â· b ' .I:- f 4 7170- . 3 35 # 61 / // ~ lili 33 0 ek' - I 1: /10 '4 - =, e f 94 1 1. ,- f. 71441 1 - i C7Â¥91Â°V 7Le \ - \\43 - - 11.f . 1 4. i roger kerr and associates 211 pacific ave., #12 aspen, co. 81811 303 925-8289 / A / A h +1 .1.:235 52VAL/fir * ,--Â· t .C 2 ,Â» 6 / bp-t:1 - 4 4 \ 9.63 1 7 3 .4< It,. ' il \Â·t==111E rd - - Â· Â· '1 I r . i 1 . !1 ' 1. 3 her 1 / - f i D i , t I , * fil r .. 2 1 .,1 1 > 1 ' 1- . r.- -__,71//f , , f , 31 1 1 1 jil':i 1 'r...I .,-':-'.LAW'*~. ::12//I' 'i 'Ct FT&1~r ~_ * _ 20Â· 1 ,-+VQ .. 0 1 1.- 1 1 . i ~ 9, C '.41.A ' 4 -Â¥ 71 7 : AT ..T; i. 'i 7- 1 1 2 p, Fy , i ~1' ~,2 i t : < 44 I ..â€¢ i . i , 414 0 > 9 ; f t.Â· # . NÂ· N 4 I -' r 4 r- 1 . 1,14 = i- . ' . 2 P 44-Z . - UV . r \ 1. I . <FLY - 1 4 14 I I I 1 A ./ f f /1 1 2/ I. I 4, M~*7Cal .... OJ m !21' i A#,1 al@OlvisioN , Appet 8-[Idd godhkry j 6,0. CU m %04!All : f- 0 10 MIN. 1/Of KKEA : 16,#60 * ffi Â»*AL = 18,3* 2 Ff; al 01 MIN, Ler Ple* 201< OweLIAbl(% : 14 06Â©52Â·Pf Â»rO,t = 18,36+ *F* 8 Mirt ler Â¥/[prlf $ 16 Ff; 1 Â»rok e _ 90 IM; [0 1,11Â£ FleÂ® 91Â¢9 5061<, PNIELI Ndi : b; fr: AÂ»4- s_ 115' Ff; AG@00Â»1% POILpide : 5 fl; Pc,T4~.L g ~ 11/4 --- Mid. 5126 yARP 56-re,GK,-Avel.b *5: oFF MT[AL: 20\Â«40' EM-F PÂ«-0*19 5Uller@$ :_ 5 F AÂ»L: 416 M 1 4 104< Â»19 5%0,61< , PURLI-1 NA# 7 10 M; p,<9'r~L = 38 fr, +6465*OF/ 0\1\\10\Â® 6 - 9 M; poltlke VA /1 0 - . *<, Poileidâ‚¬ HE[4FPE ; ze fr; *ELIAL Â¢ â‚¬.02.4 â€¢ 6/11131. 01Â»46.11 Ve'r*/tebl FRIFIC] PAL 12____i_ - Ab\0_--Aw-t,59-0Â«--06\bo.Â«Sr,_--- \9 fr, Avro-KL,_Â· - -_- *- 1-9_â€¢- -oft#&Â«LÂ«-iaA -6/40- Anwim:_Â» *9\1\Kaâ‚¬* --____ -_ - -_. 0- f\-ooftit*PÂ©-RMOD fÂ°K-"\Der- 5\et; \6,60\. 50, 006 *7*n-*- 2-- - - - - f__i-fi -If--11_ --3_292*,50 _ *' 41-LPLID#EQ _2 te-__ _012. 1--4,Â» 976 - 6 t- -- 2-â€ž-- -- - _- _=. pLI.!5 G m. AT 14-8%47*rrlo *L_ -Â«2 --IL/-1 --0-__-_ -- --- -- - 33 ----1-100 -Â®, f< 1,1 tDT-+46 -OVE# 15;00030Â·~P*--249Â«-- - - --__-__-I_- PA-\04#t0 -*9Â·L =I 4,769 5~ fr; - - *6_ Â«pÂ«t pÂ·\30*le * i &62- -Â»1Â·rÂ· 1. /' _Ue - --PÂ«LtAL- FloÂ«. AREK,t__2459*E-i_46]0611402 -_-__1Â»502-9; fr; - ---__ -_ -2__ _ _ -3~ -Whit_ -_01 <_-7*Â» MtÂ« 7-1 p --fler-di,946 -rn-___ ____40 --Â¢4 fry--11- - ----f-7 -- - â€¢ Â·1 4 (&Dc>02Â·fr,cipâ‚¬NRe; 1 Â· - - ~ -80&01%%- +Ug/tO)- ---- --- 4,4 â‚¬00* /00\-not\ - 313'Wit 'f F,LRNIP*ribl Ili 50.rri-7----0--Ifi- a i - f*-peto 99*Lin__4;447--1*ff,--.- - - ..... 211 pacific ave; #12 aspen, co. 81611 roger ker r. and associates .... N 51Â°53'35"E 186.59 ,, ~ ' FIELD: 185.59 75 2034 /ZIN< cfc; 7 % -i* 5 -+- 11 1.4 / \ r \ Eli / m 1 1 - 11 - \ If] / Ell :/ ~ m 4 1 / 8 / - wak 0 9 1 O :/ Â·Â·0\ ti~ l 1 9 gpo&*6Â¥b Ne,86 7, . --- \.-Pbelm \ P y / . / I. \ 1 - - / '0 \ --- 1 1 â‚¬41\ . 44#p tÂ» s \ ' \ 1 \ % ..\ 4 \ , \\\ \F- - \. 42, 431â€žr, Ir \ ' 11 0 JER , l / Eli 1 \\,4-- l / 44/ *0. 1 16 4% f *4 T- 1 .0 4 15, O 09.50 'Â·FLD : .0003 960Â°05'28"W 7 9 S60Â°00 00"W 62.71 62.98 < - 400. CE*%7.. | 4 ALIâ‚¬. 11#0 80=Eflm 149,0 1-- 1-t \P â‚¬*9 1 01 11=AM 2,Â£11...4 \1 1 490 0 19 0 0 211 pacific ave., # aspen, co. 81611 roger kerr, and associates 1 Dbw 1 0615/. 9â‚¬41?53 .... til k 1 1 C 'A,i,oK\~ m m \ 1 , h \ al \\ F\\ a : P , 1 1 1 \ m \\ 8Â· i X \ 11. 4 \-1 Ill . 7, 1 1 \ [0 I \ 0 [0 yÂ« 1 4, // i h y -7 1/ / -' 1 1 \./i 1, r t ... 73< n :UN i:Â·.d 1Â£10_ . , ,\ I\.'' \ \ if./ i 1 \ \C 11\ 1 7 00 m 0- ' *41 0 -1 ..1,- 1 Pr ' 80 t 1 AN , 0 C 3 11* (Imeâ€¢te'V f 7\ / 4 4 $46, 'A, 0 a:De -4 -I L.----r--1 CE 4t*44Â· locchA \ 1 1 'm . ' / 1 - 4 -t\- 3 2*Â®44 \ (21/ /1.jit{:01 4 7 ~ & flate lie ( 1 ~ X fIk" - 7171 7 9 - Alu I., aiÂ·> / ..r - -t I .Â· ~4 1314* Â° EfÂ· ' . A.*'i' Iii 4,4 , \1 4 4 ~ ' ' 90 r lhi / ari 4 1 1 . 1 r, *,1.7'lU h It , Â£ ? 300.Â£31 :It. fr - 1 f FdolU - 1 4 ~ 0) 00 - C 1 4 I. \ 4- _i .1 . 1 14,4140Â»\ - N. 01 *#444*--~3 3~ 9/.f1k 1 67 21'21 34 -~ _ _- _ 3'f,#Â·t';0) s 'a --~A~46â€¢,1 ~ i, 30 \ , \ * I : v.:Fiff. r 1 F M - Ill. \ p & 1 I \ r- \ 4 It Â· i .1 c. lt> * 464939~ j Y r + * 71f0 . 1 7 do n \ 147 \ r . F/ t \ h 1\1 . A , . 0 . . Im m Cll m 16 - al CD / -f---1 1,. [0 0 0] . f - 1 30Â¥; I 60 1 , Â¥ 4,2< . 942 i 1 1 ~ 1 t r 1 %21 - 1 It 0 ket\ - Lvo-% - ' 1,9144 / 6) A . O -- .... 3-% / . 1 -tkÂ« *f .2Â§6~t 4, - Un 1 0 m 61 .1 U.1~4 Lt.. 2 (0 $,1, I , 'ls. J . .. - l~ 06 Exef AL.,1~~ / 2 \ JY - - , flt#u Alonw- .':> .W 14-2 2 /2 C i 794 L / 7111 / (D ,\, / .M / : \ 1,/ -, /7, 2 c . 63 i. 1 , ' - -00-Â£ 1,1 P Â· 0) 1 0 4 -- -- 3 4:t L ---23Â»ky-fÂ» 94$- 1--- 21~-- -- ---- - -jie Â»fri -~I/,1 _ _ 1 7.-: -*W#.1.ip-- --1 1 r--70 -f'--=7' r \ ~ AM, 11Â» -- 1 t. 211 pacific ave., #12 aspen, co. 81611 0 \(Deâ‚¬Y <<2 <C 3 Di ' J MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: Davis Addition 8040 Greenline Review DATE: October 16, 1986 LOCATION: Lot 2, Hoag Subdivision, 1095 Ute Avenue. ZONING: R-15 (PUD). LOT SIZE: 18,366 square feet. 428/ 4 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: I.G. Davis reque(sts permission to construct A 22.6.-7 a 1,392 square foot addition to the ex~i. sting residence containing a storage room, sun room, and garage Mincluding the garage, 600 square feet of whi ch is exempt from FAR).- The total floor area of the house counted in FAR would be 4,447' square feet. 4,702 square feet of floor area is the maximud allowed, plus a 600 square foot garage. Boul der walls reaching approximately 9 feet high would line the new driveway to the garage entrance. BACKGROUND: On August 5, 1985, P&Z appr oved an 8040 Greenline Revi ew for the enclosure of decks on the Davis house. This added approximately 600 square feet of countable FAR. APPLICABLE SECTION OF MUNICIPAL CODE: Section 24-6.2(b) which is attached gives the 8040 review criteria that P&Z must consider. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: A. Referral Comments: Engineering Department: In an October 2,1986 memorandum from Jim Gibbard, the following comments were made: 1. The information received on the amount and placement of material excavated and on the revegetation plan was reviewed and considered adequate. 2. In reference to slope stability, a soils investigation by a registered P. E. in geotechnical engineering sho uld be made and the design of the foundation walls should follow the recommendations of this investigation. B. Staff Comments: The Planning Office concurs with the applicant that the 8040 criteria concerning utilities (#1), 1 adequacy of roa ds (#2) and air quality (#5) are not appli- cable to this proposal. With regard to drainage and run-off (Criteria 4) the Engineering Department believes that there are no par ticular problems. In addition, we note that the driveway will be graveled, giving some ability for absorbtion of run-off into the ground. The main concerns of this proposal are: disturbance of terrain and vegetation (Criteria #7), minimumization of cutting and grading (Criteria #8) and reduction in building height and bulk to maintain the open character of the mountain (Criteria #9). The hillside cut for the driveway and garage/addition will vary from 25 to 35 feet in width and extend approximately 60 feet from the edge of Ute Avenue. Three small spruce trees r would be replanted on the east side of the driveway cut / providing some screening. Nine new aspens 1"-1 1/4" caliper / would be planted directly in front of the house. No large trees would be removed. Staff believes that a more narrow ~ Ct-t-_ and more extensive natural landscaping scli-eme is V,# ,-pfabpropriate. More conifer trees and larger--aspe-ris --woUI-d -1,011 better compliment the undisturbed, heavily forested area next to Ute Avenue and help compensate for the added disturbance of this project. The original design of the house displ ays a sensitivity to the massing and visual impacts with relation to the hillside and evergreens that would be partially lost by building the addition. Because the garage is proposed to be built into the hill visual impacts will be somewhat reduced. However, the proposed second floor deck and structure (woodsiding) would give the house much more perceptible bulk from Ute Avenue. The addition would also bring the structure much closer to and down to the same grade as Ute Avenue. A design approach that might better reduce visual impact would be an earthen cover to the addition. Â¢r Staff notes that the garage is quite large at(7* sq. ft. and could be reduced in size to better fit with this site, Also, in our 4gpinion, the new FAR which would be only (155~ZF i square feet /15%) less than the maximum allowed for the Bit-e is not a sigiifficant reduction in bulk and does not meet Criteria 9. 93 RECOMMENDATION: In staff's opinion, the addition/garage is not so entirely out of character with the hillside area that it should be denied. The design concept appears to generally work. 4~53% Reducing the size of the structure and width -of__driyewayt curving a the driveway, and adding vegetation screening would make this a 2 -. I - 6.1 more acceptable project. We recommend that the Greenline Review be tablÂ·ed until a revised design can be considered. *-- Ifc:*ke-Plannirng--Commission==desires=te--approve - the- project as- is-profosed,-wE~reeemmend-the-following conditions_of approval: 1. A soils investigation by a registered P.E. in geo- technical engineering shall be made and the design of the foundation walls shall follow the recommendations of this investigation to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. Natural rock shall be used to reinforce the driveway .........-__cut as_~i---2-sed in the application. ......Il 5 1,5-. 05 - 0Â£7.-'| - 01&/ - e 31-1--~5*23 FÂ·\_* 40Â« w -1,3 M Â·'-2-3\Ao-1 , I. 0 $ & 1 lid/'LE i . 0 % I I A --Al -9.5 - - 11@411-10 - 6 C G.Vrb< \Â«f Xt:#*, 00 #. 7/05 / 4 - f - \191-0- 24 Â£ 4, /* 11 . ir/1 . 4Â« 0 3- 6% 1 0-= r- f ' ; f / - 1 \/1 l. 4 ** -901 -- - 11 \\4 t-11Â·421& /-4 // - 0 ----- ------- 3- 0= 2/ - 0 9 ,7447 1061- 0 7Â«121 X 1 *â‚¬\ .plwliub#361 1 "14 , \1\\\ \\ /55> \ -\ .11-10 61*73â‚¬:11Â·11321 9'U 'Vt-121..104 - - i \\ *40*4 \Aood/*19 &O #Al-\ 4-*11 C ll 4= i \ 1996 / r_ D 4- i I i.Vt'/ 1 - 1 / b f / / 4Â£ .51 ' 00â‚¬- I / / \ /â‚¬\ . / 1 \\ / 1\ 1 \: / .1 I . .* 1 F i V 11~11'. a 71--L .p'.1 lilli -9 7 0 . I. ./ .,1 1 . / I l 4-1 ----- i 4/ 515*4:4/1--3 J f f N rogerÂ·kerr. and associates/Â· , h .. ~ 1-, 9- <t 1 211 pacific ave., #12 aspen, co. 81611 303 925-8289 91/1 &- ..1 . 1 li 1 1 --1 1 4-4 -1 1 9/Aff< /4 ' -119 v.. - < 1 1 /jr/ , \ 1 Â¢-I -~~ i.. - 7917--r- ~ - 79 -- -- / - 712 5 -- 4 Y 1 714 - ,/ 1' a m * 2\ E j - >9 -- 1 2 2.0 r' 29.4 17 0- 79yt .- -717,- -~ 5-fect - 777Â° -- Â«--19 799 1 75) f,Ma - 7910--- - 77/1 r-7 71 5 7 - -195% 11Â¤ / 1981 1. .. . I .0 / . I - 11.-_ _2711 2 4/ . - r.i- I .. r... v . . - -=-edâ‚¬/ V. . . 9,1~ - 79 ft . 1 1 1; 1.. e Al<M / 1 /1, - t r 86 30' l.je 772,- -19(3 , 2 , )1\31 11/1- Â· I Ar /1 . .. ' b . L, i : st'W\. ,-F?L~-. f ! $ b /4 1 G A . 1 h ~ 4 11 f 93' Pki . 4 1.1 04 1 b , 0 t; lilli 20 1-2.11 11 . 7 *L ra IM- . ' tb 94 74:Ul ~ A 0. '.... - 3 \ . i 19 - A A, .. JOHN THOMAS KELLY ATTORNEY AT LAW 117 SOUTH SPRING STREET ~ SEP -51986 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE (303) 925-1216 . September 3, 1986 Aspen/Pitkin Planning Department City Hall 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Attention: Steve Bursteen Re: Davis 8040 review Dear Steve: Enclosed please find photographs of Davis house which were erroneously left off the application. Very truly yours, &*WAS#GL JTK/og iflohn Thomas Kelly Enclosures =amm .. MEMORANDUM TO: Steve Burstein, Planning Office FROM: Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department (~ DATE: October 2, 1986 RE: Hoag Subdivision, Lot.2, 8040 Review The Engineering Department has reviewed the above application and would like to make the following comments: 1. The information received on the amount and placement of material excavated and on the revegetation plan was reviewed and considered adequate. 3.In reference to slope stability, a soils investigation by a registered P. E. in geotechnical engineering should be made and the design of the foundation walls should follow the recom- mendations of this investigation. jg/hoag2 cc: Jay Hammond - 4 1--\ - -692122 2.- 2 R RE,a -EemJ <EL- MEMORANDUM KK -4~186 TO: lCity Attorney / jcity Engineer Zoning Enforcement Officer FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: Davis 8040 Greenline Parcel ID# 2737-182-68-002 DATE: September 5, 1986 Attached for your review is an application submitted De-0-0~74 Kelly on behalf of I.G. Davis requesting approval (of 8040 ) Greenline Review in order to add a garage, poor, storageD*Â·Qom_~an'f.9 suncroom,to,an existing.,-residence_0*' Lot 2, Hoa~ Subdivision. 1~_ ./- i==.i 4 -1 tte:-I-/1-_IÂ·- ... Â»po.4 Â·r Â· - Please return your gomments regatding~ this cas~ to the Planning Office no later tharlâ‚¬gffber 8, 1986. 1 Than k yo u. 1200 14 ~as i M Bi LL} Ayul , 10/ A M.4 --- '- To: Steve Burstein From: Erin F. Hazen Steve, the only comment I have is that Mr. Petersen,-the aoolicant's ~ engineer, only refers to the addition of a "garage". Further reading of his letter seems to reflect an ovinion as to all the ~ additions prooosed but needs clarification. 1 1 ip. .:. J JOHN THOMAS KELLY ATTORNEY AT LAW 117 SOUTH SPRING STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE (303) 925-1216 August 29, 1986 Aspen/Pitkin Planning Department Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Re: 8040 Greenline Review Addition to residence Lot 2, Hoag Subdivision Ladies and Gentlemen: I represent I.G. Davis, Jr. who is the owner of Lot 2, Hoag Subdivision which lot requires 8040 review. Mr. Davis would now like to add a garage, pool and storage room and sun room. The principal reason for the addition is to provide for easy and safe access to the house and provide for indoor parking for Mr. Davis' vehicle. The access to the house, which presently consists of a steep railroad-tie type stairway from Ute Avenue is difficult and dangerous in the winter, particularly in view of the fact that this area gets minimal sun, making ice and snow removal difficult. Copies of the plans prepared by Roger Kerr are attached. As you are all aware, Sec. 24-6.2 of the Code sets for 9 criteria for an 8040 Greenline Review. Regarding these \ criteria, I would address them as follows: f' <., 17 1 Review Criteria 1, 2, 4 and 5: Since this is an improved b site with an existing house, I do not believe that criteria 1, 7,.b Â· 2, 4 and 5 are applicable. No additional bedrooms are to be 43 ../ 14,1 I, BU 1.,p i added and since all development is between the existing i 1-# F. ' 29 I structure and the road, the matters set forth in these 0. 6 10: 4.40 criteria are inapplicable. Review Criterion 3: The site is suitable for '41 U i ' development. The plans and site have been reviewed by Charles \3 ~Lt b Peterson, P.E. of Enartech Inc. and approved by him for 2-2'6)~ 9\@evelopment. A copy of Mr. Peterson' s letter and his -) 4 Â¢43 6 qualifications are attached. .. Aspen/Pitkin Planning Department Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission August 29, 1986 Page 2 Review Criterion 6: We believe the design and location of the addition is compatible with the existing terrain and no new trails or roads are to be constructed. At a previous review of this house, one member commented on the "mushroom" effect created by the fact that the bulk of the house being on the upper floors. We feel that the garage addition below will balance and mitigate this effect when viewed from Ute Avenue. As shown by the attached photograph, the lot is heavily wooded and the proposed addition will have no visual effect from town. Since the Ute Avenue area contains a large amount of multi-family development (The Gant, Clarendon, etc.) the size i.7. 3 ~tr'' 4 of this structure, which is within the permitted F.A.R. , ri' ~ Â© U' certainly is not out of character nor would it dominate the 4 4. W. 04- f Ae neighborhood. . - 20 Review Criterion 7: As you will note from the attached plans, great care has been taken to preserve the natural setting. The landscaping makes use of natural rock and with the exception of a group of four small trees from 2" -3" 'Â·6 caliper which will be moved and replanted, none of the many J CU,44 trees on the property will be disturbed. As stated previously, the addition will be constructed downhill from the existing house. The indoor parking will also remove the ho ',0 3,4, vehicles from view on Ute Avenue. Review Criteria 8, 9: One of the primary reasons for 8040 review is to reduce the visual impact of development on the mountain from town. In this case the house and addition have been placed in such a way as to take maximum advantage of the existing evergreen and aspen. Since the additional 4 . 15 rkâ€ž A St 411 L ,structure sits below at the approximate level of Ute Avenue, fâ‚¬,OU'â‚¬1- 6.,Ajtfieâ‚¬+4-- and is built back into the hill (thus reducing the bulk of the structure), the visual effect from town is virtually nil. We U.,ff,0[ +6 do not feel that the addition in any way detracts from the 1 i,Â£Â» i open character of the mountain. .. Aspen/Pitkin Planning Department Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission August 29, 1986 Page 3 In closing, we believe that the criteria for 8040 Greenline approval have been met. This addition would in no way detract from the visually open character of Aspen Mountain, is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and we believe, improves the visual effect of the structure. Respect,fully submitted, JTK/og Jbhrf Thomas Kelly Attorney in Fact for I.G. Davis, Jr. cc: I.G. Davis, Jr. Enclosure .. ENARTECH Inc. Consulting Engineers and Hydrologists August 29, 1986 XYVIV"-- Mr. Roger Kerr 406 Pacific Ave, Suite G -0-0.-A#...A-I- Aspen, Colorado 81611 -1. RE: Davis Residence Dear Roger, I have reviewed your proposal for the addition of a garage to the Davis Residence on Ute Ave. As presented, the garage will be located at street level directly in front of the existing residence. The structure will be constructed of reinforced concrete and will be buried into the hillside. Preliminary design calculations have been completed. In my opinion, a structure can be built based upon the concepts displayed in your drawings. Although portions of the existing - foundation Will have to be re-supported, these modifications present no unusual engineering problems. If I can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact me. Thank you. Sincerely, ENARTECH Inc. 3Â«1,94-_- Charles Peterson P.E. Structural Engineer CRP/tlb 134-01 encl. C.C. John Thomas Kelly 302 Eighth Street, Suite 325 P.O. Drawer 160 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 (303) 945-2236 I- 2 /.. .. ENARTECH Inc. Consulting Engineers and Hydrologists PROFESSIONAL RESUME CHARLES R. PETERSON Professional Engineer --maVVYX Colorado License No. 17809 EDUCATION: .... Master of Science (Hydraulics) Colorado State University (1971) Bachelor of Science (Civil Engineering) University of Denver (1970) AFFILIATIONS: National Society of Professional Engineers Western Colorado Society of Architects, Planners, Engineers and Surveyors Rocky Mountain Lift Association AREAS OF QUALIFICATION: Ski Area Engineering Bridge Design Road Location and Design Aerial Tramway Inspection Hydraulic Structure Design Water Transmission Systems Design Hydroelectric Power Project Analysis Computerized Basin-Wide Water Rights Modeling WORK EXPERIENCE: Structural/Hydraulic Engineer (1982 - present): Enartech, Inc., Glenwood Springs, Colorado Vice-President and principal of a consulting engineering firm specializing in hydrology and structural design. Responsible for the structural design of bridges, buildings and hydraulic structures. Designs utilize steel, concrete, timber and hollow masonry. Area of specialty also includes hydroelectric project analysis, permitting and project coordination. Provides professional engineering services to ski areas in road design, environmental analysis, and inspection of aerial tramways. 302 Eighth Street, Suite 325 P.O. Drawer 160 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 (303) 945-2236 . f 0 0 CHARLES R. PETERSON Professional Resume Page Two Structural Engineer (1981 - 1982): Schmueser & Associates, Glenwood Springs, Colorado Structural engineer responsible for the design of commercial and residential buildings. Designs utilized concrete, steel, wood and masonry. Duties included bridge design, modification and load analysis. Design projects included road location and design. Ski Area Engineer (1979 - 1981): USDA Forest Service, Glenwood Springs, Colorado Served as the primary engineering contact between the Forest Service and eleven major ski areas. Responsibilities included reviewing the design, construction and operations of ski lifts, buildings, bridges, snowmaking systems, utilities, water and sanitation systems, roads and large earthmoving projects. Involved with a project team in the preparation of a new ski area environmental analysis. Supervisory Civil Engineer (1975 - 1979): - USDA Forest Service, Carbondale, Colorado Supervisory civil engineer, responsible for all engineering activities on the southern half of the White River National Forest. Duties included program development and management, contract administration, cost estimating, environmental analysis and project co-ordination. Design experience included road systems, water transmission, solid waste disposal, buildings and bridges. Mountain Road System Engineer (1971 - 1975): USDA Forest Service, Glenwood Springs, Colorado Project and design engineer for mountain road systems. Responsible for transportation and environmental analysis, location, survey, design and construction of various design classes of roads to access timber sales and energy development sites. Emphasis was placed on location, environmental control and progressive design. Hydraulics Engineer (1970): Wyoming Highway Department, Cheyenne, Wyoming Developed computer software for the simulation of design rainfall and the design of large storm sewer networks for the Wyoming Highway Department. .. JOHN THOMAS KELLY ATTORNEY AT LAW 117 SOUTH SPRING STREET ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE (303) 925-1216 August 29, 1986 21'-31986 L 109 Aspen/Pitkin Planning Department L- City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Attention: Steve Bursteen Re: Davis 8040 Greenline Review Dear Steve: Enclosed herewith is the application for 8040 review for the Davis garage on Lot 2, Hoag Subdivision which we discussed on the phone. Please let me know if you need anything further and I would appreciate being advised of the hearing date at your earliest convenience. Thank you for your kind cooperation in this matter. very truly''~*drs, 1 9 JTK/og John Thomas Kelly Enclosures .. ENARTECH Inc. Consulting Engineers and Hydrologists PROFESSIONAL RESUME CHARLES R. PETERSON Professional Engineer Colorado License No. 17809 -0.YKIfil.M~.V EDUCATION: -1- Master of Science (Hydraulics) Colorado State University (1971) Bachelor of Science (Civil Engineering) University of Denver (1970) AFFILIATIONS: National Society of Professional Engineers Western Colorado Society of Architects, Planners, Engineers and Surveyors Rocky Mountain Lift Association AREAS OF QUALIFICATION: Ski Area Engineering Bridge Design Road Location and Design Aerial Tramway Inspection Hydraulic Structure Design Water Transmission Systems Design Hydroelectric Power Project Analysis Computerized Basin-Wide Water Rights Modeling WORK EXPERIENCE: Structural/Hydraulic Engineer (1982 - present): Enartech, Inc., Glenwood Springs, Colorado Vice-President and principal of a consulting engineering firm specializing in hydrology and structural design. Responsible for the structural design of bridges, buildings and hydraulic structures. Designs utilize steel, concrete, timber and hollow masonry. Area of specialty also includes hydroelectric project analysis, permitting and project coordination. Provides professional engineering services to ski areas in road design, environmental analysis, and inspection of aerial tramways. 302 Eighth Street, Suite 325 P.O. Drawer 160 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 (303) 945-2236 0 0 CHARLES R. PETERSON Professional Resume Page Two Structural Engineer (1981 - 1982): Schmueser & Associates, Glenwood Springs, Colorado Structural engineer responsible for the design of commercial and residential buildings. Designs utilized concrete, steel, wood and masonry. Duties included bridge design, modification and load analysis. Design projects included road location and design. Ski Area Engineer (1979 - 1981): USDA Forest Service, Glenwood Springs, Colorado Served as the primary engineering contact between the Forest Service and eleven major ski areas. Responsibilities included reviewing the design, construction and operations of ski lifts, buildings, bridges, snowmaking systems, utilities, water and sanitation systems, roads and large earthmoving projects. Involved with a project team in the preparation of a new ski area environmental analysis. Supervisory Civil Engineer (1975 - 1979): -- USDA Forest Service, Carbondale, Colorado Supervisory civil engineer, responsible for all engineering activities on the southern half of the White River National Forest. Duties included program development and management, contract administration, cost estimating, environmental analysis and project co-ordination. Design experience included road systems, water transmission, solid waste disposal, buildings and bridges. Mountain Road System Engineer (1971 - 1975): USDA Forest Service, Glenwood Springs, Colorado Proj ect and design engineer for mountain road systems. Responsible for transportation and environmental analysis, location, survey, design and construction of various design classes of roads to access timber sales and energy development sites. Emphasis was placed on location, environmental control and progressive design. Hydraulics Engineer (1970): Wyoming Highway Department, Cheyenne, Wyoming Developed computer software for the simulation of design rainfall and the design of large storm sewer networks for the Wyoming Highway Department.