The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.1125 Ute Ave.42A-86l (115 Uke Auw 0062Â·. 41 A 46 1*Ilt 1/ iK ER 1986 - CAAL.All k ~-- -4,4 1 - Joaa*d 7- jo-_ ~ / 0 CLIA) 1"JI.,4 411- 0-'U 1-11 1Â£111. A . C . ~ City of Aspen + n /4 'e -1- ' fvÂ« 9-4 7'f-- 31<A,-st) -Â·- (~3) ~ DATE RECEIVED: 6,00'. /'9,/F r DATE RECEIVED COMPLETE: . , ' St FF: , PROJ ECT NAME: fl D- l.// /'. tt -, < iPPL ICANT: (kir 1)7 tk) /''fl.R,k,t,f ~~~ 1 1 233 61Â·+E. AVe- -- Applicant AddÂ¢/ess,Ophone#7-,f 3331% 00,,11.,to: 02 3/4.43 - 39- 5335,YO. A - REPRES ENTA'I' ]V E: AL'~1,Â·(Â·-1/0 5-' Y, -1.-6,1<j,0- - ' \, . 1 ' Representative Address/Phone: '-1 4.k- l L1~312_~dli-1-211111___:(. Â·9 /(.../.-1--- 1 -Â·41 66 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-Â·.- -Conceptual. SubmiÂ·ssion 14 $4,900...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 &~ 5 $ 6-80-20-0 4 Yul V. Referral Fees - Environmental - Health, Housing Office 1. Minor Applications 2 $ 50.00 2. Major Applications 5 $ 125.00 Referral Fees- Engineering Minor Applications 80.00 Major Applications 200.00 0-0- 1 h n a J t <PaZ ec MEETING DATE: <)r vk ' 6,4 PU B L IC H EAR ING : YES NQ' DATE REFERRED: IN IT IALS: REFERRALS: , City Atty Aspen Consol. S.D. School District , 1/ City Engineer Mtn. Bell Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas Housing Dir. - Parks Dept. State Hwy Dept (Glenwd) Aspen Water Holy Cross Electric State Hwy Dept (Gr.Jtn) City Electric Fire Marshall 31Â£ Bldg: ZAr*rg/In~pecto Envir. Hlth. Fire Chief Other: rGNI//4.Â· (GA /10.Jo Roaring Fork Transit Roaring Fork Energy Center .- .Â·' INAL ROU TING : DATE ROUTED: IN IT IAL: I % \l City Atty v City Engineer Building Dept. ~ Other : 1,2/ 1,- C .3 ,,, fc 0 1 Oth er: 1 i FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: CASE DISPOS ITION: 60,#ir (Â£201 3 DIDi)506&.) Driqeh'ty f' -f 21/,c.Â·.4.:4-1 4,/4... City Cd u r, Reviewed by: 1 J] 4 I I 0;' P,,w Dp[.cv.lf, 2, 1136 7~j, P]~41,>.u?'.i 2.-2~M,1~ c~Â·.4~*1">t.'11 Â£Â«pr.l...Â·'Q# 'Ukj Â·t.~61.-Ly'uu f.:tt,{,(4: A,411~ 1 i Ic'' 0 â€¢174 4 11 (F.' tr.Â·Vt,t.TA â‚¬*.btl'or .MGA 7111Â¢40' '10/4 - m'-,:-lf dil r of:~ff fi 71 Ed- j~~,Â·Â·,7 1 0 10 4 0 t Â· -1 D,afÂ·~ 3 1, il ,/44.UUÂ·wh;: t t~~*k/Jiar>, , V J 1 till 1 VE-,t $! ,\.JU 2-U 6.2 k iÂ·Â·u U U PTÂ°-23 k.,1,/ 41, A.,iâ€žp Lj) 9 c..14}fJ f flÂ·n...â€ž by-11. c..4 r J: ,: f.\rl,64 919(.L .4 b J 4 , 1 .,1 11 1, c 3.j ,1 tki , A A.4,74 94 4 0 0 5 '1 9,11&3 :#-Â· 0;,~,f '1.J' i,nierÂ·*b e. 4. r LiffÂ·11Â·,vÂ·, Dl b.., o ~ty,J LA/1 ~ ~Â· 01i l, ~ i~Ji,A, 4,- 11 i J 1. 3 -1 f li (A f 1 jf\!/,,Fi}j '4Â·~r,,7.4~',rÂ· c.,i 4: ~<s~ 4 a u l,1 2.~., , a.2 ,'.AJ 2Â·271,~LlÂ·-f-,Â·7, 46..â€ž 0$,J~ 4 4 ' b c'- 6,4,~44/ 1 4 fle,a-,+ NicÂ· D' V, 4- J p 5 1 9. 2-FP-4-&,42 D UU, 4.74: 4 ''llf:''' 4 461, 4Â£5+4 443.4( 22.r~r.inlt'tr ~.0.< 4# j r V 6 / 06 41. n .3,71 ' 7 p b: r f ,20 ' , 1- c 541 ,- , Â·fr/1,2.4 3*;,J t.< ,<-, fl ) 1 .. -Â·- f 20 40,2.1- Aft Â£ FUL-i'.01, te- 7, u L.'Al:t. '''o, ~{~filÂ·? '~ .1'29Â·,Â·â€ž,~ 12 ' 1 -- RrIV i '01Â·7r. r; P.â€¢,. ... u .6 L c. hspon PAZ City Council . Ulb FUS ITION#IIIMIII~lv,BlliAFft,- .,ft'rd + ff'Atâ‚¬:C Reviewed by: . k. PLZ City Cou6. 4.-rl Z., r.,2,itÂ· C r-1,1-,7.vi,1.:, 1pli ..' â€¢' ; 17, :}.. Â·:f- Â·- t-id l,Â·: Lot 3 H rt' c. 1 iii . 3 'ded kj.-12)- 14 /5 f<401...h Â·7 )..~0.,- The Planning Office recommends approval for the access road for the Barker Greenline Review subject to the following conditions: 1. No construction of any structure on Lot 3 Hoag Subdivision shall be allowed until a development plan is given approval through a separate 8040 Greenline Review. 2. All access easements for the driveway shall be obtained and submitted in a form acceptable to the City Attorney prior to any clearing or construction of the driveway. 3. Approval from the USFS for access easements through Forest Service property shall be obtained. A copy of this approval shall be submitted to the Planning Office prior to construction. ~1 4. All excavated materials not used for "fill" from the driveway construction shall be removed along the entire length of the driveway. A similar measure for the building site shall be addressed by the applicant in the submittal for the dev elopment plan 8040 Greenline Review. 5. Revegetation of the cut and filled areas of the driveway shall be J accomplished through the spreading of an appropriate seed mix, both uphill and downhill. o. The driveway shall be constructed cutting as few trees as possible and _generally on the upslope of the drivewav .1 4 ----- 0. A registered engineer shall address landslide and snow removal issues involved in the building and maintenance of the entire length of the driveway. A report shall be submitted to the City Engineer's Office prior to construction of the driveway. 9 9. A current assessment of the avalanche danger to the building site, prepared by a qualified avalanche expert shall be submitted as part of the site development Greenline review application. 9, *1Â¥5, ire mitigation measures shall be addressed in the site development Greenline review application. 10 al. A draiange plan should be submitted as part of the site develop- ment 8040 Greenline Review. SB.37 i~{64Â¥Â¥â‚¬~1 MEMORANDUM TO: Fred Gannett, City Attorney's Office FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: Easement Agreement between Jack Barker and the City of Aspen DATE: B November 16; 1987 / In review of the Barker/City trail access easement across Hoag Subdivision Lot 3, I have two comments: 1. The easement and use provisions in paragraphs 1 and 2 clearly give the City and Nordic Council shared use of the alignment with Barker as was a condition of P&Z's December 2, 1986 approval. The arrangement is not specified as to where a nordic track can be located along the 15' wide easement and where Barker will plow snow from his driveway. However, we anticipate that the two uses of the easement can co-exist. Is it possible to add a provision that if within two years it is discovered that the two uses are not able to co-exist on the 15' easement that a more specific use agreement shall be made between the City and Barker, including the possibility of designating a nordic trail alignment within the current easement or a new easement enlarged to 18' wide (an additional 3' to the north)? This concern resulted from a discussion with Craig Ward today. 2. The indemnity and insurance provision in paragraph 5 has changed from the draft agreement the Planning Office received on May 4, 1987. Please refer to the draft to note changes. sb.hoag.easement n - r-. 1-~ 1. Jack 8arker 1iD/r f.0. Bom 3379 \ i * 1 2 1987 66 V Aspen, Co. 81612 'EL--3110 303-925-8580 Nov. 114W89~--~~~~~'~~ Chuck Roth Aspen City Engineer 130 S. Galena Aspen, Co. 81611 Dear Chuck, I have just returned to my office from a meeting at the Hoag lot 3 site where Steve Pawlak of Chen and Assoc. and Rich Cieciuch of I.E.C. were present. We drove to the top of the new driveway and and inspected all cuts and fills. Steve asked me to have a surveyor take a measurement of the largest cut at the top of the switchback. He needs some hard data to determine'if we are still within his original specifications. His comment was that we are very close to his original specification but he felt he should be able to communicate to you specifically about this area. He also said that the soil seems to be inherently stable where the cuts have been made. He also directed Rich & I to eliminate the washed rock along the upper edge of the road; instead he said that a regular bar ditch would be sufficient because of the natural porosity of the soil. We will maintain the culvert as indicated for darainage I will have Aspen Earthmoving to finish the grade on the lower portion of the drive where the Nordic trail made the initial cut last year. They left that cut bank much too steep. As my donation to that cause I will have the bank laid back to 1/1 and draped with matting and sprayed with aqua multch. Of course you will be hearing from Steve Pawlack directly as soon as he has finished his analysis. ' I would like to have the Fire Marshall go up on the road with me to devise a plan for truck access. I will arrange this in the near future as we would like to stay with the current 12 foot width near the top. it would just have a much lower visual impact. Sincerely, ,-1 cc Steve Burstein J UNIFORM FIRE CODE ient or appurtenance belonging to or under the supervision re department without authority from the chief or his ive to do so. 3 Hydrant or Fire Appliance son shall remove, tamper with or otherwise disturb any fire ce required to be installed or maintained under the provi- it for the purpose of extinguishing fire. training purposes, necessary repairs, or when permitted by the fire depart- 3 appliance is removed as herein permitted, it shall be as soon as the purpose for which it was removed has been 'al non shall use or operate any hydrant or other valves ,ystem intended for use by the chief for fire suppression ccessible to any public highway. alley or private way open he public, unless such person first secures a permit for use tion does not apply to the use of a hydrant or other valves y and authorized to make such use by the water company such hydrants or other valves. icades, etc. ,on, except a person authorized by the chief or a public scope of his public duties, shall remove, unlock, destroy, e molest in any manner any lock, gate, door, barricade, [ag or seal which has been lawfully installed by the fire :r or under its control. rrails 1ral. The chief may install one or more gates, cables or urely lock the same to prevent the use by unauthorized at is not a public highway and over which the fire it to pass, whether by easement, license, municipal for purposes relating to fire prevention or control. s not preclude the authorized users of such road or trail :rson, except a public officer acting within the scope of spass upon any road or trail which has been closed and authorized by this section without the express permis- 111 any person park any vehicle so as to obstruct the ail. otection Equipment i shall place or keep any post, knee, vehicle, growth, tterial or thing near any fire hydrant. fire department tion system control valve that would prevent such 1 being immediately discernible or in any other manner ...33 lÂ·iN ./ E ..fÂ·' 0Â· b. 13Â· -A" f . :6..14 2:4 - 4 I .10*1131-11 Cate :1 ;Â·Im#92 - 21 Â· 1.,9*80Â· ..2 Â£* ..â‚¬1 23 1985 EDITION 10.206-10.207 deter or hinder the fire department from gaining immediate access to said equipment or hydrant. A minimum 3-foot clear space shall be maintained around the circumference of the fire hydrants except as otherwise required or approved by the chief. Fire Apparatus Access Roads = Sec. 10.207. (a) General. Fire apparatus access roads shall be provided and i maintained in accordance with the provisions of this section. (b) Where Required. Fire apparatus access roads shall be required for every i building hereafter constructed when any portion of an exterior wall of the first i story is located more than 150 feet from fire department vehicle access. = EXCEPTIONS: 1. When conditions prevent the installation of an approved fire i apparatus access road, the chief may permit the installation of a fire-protection E system or systems in lieu of a road, provided the system or systems are not otherwise i required by this or any other code. E 2. When there are not more than two Group R, Division 3 or Group M Occupan- i cies, the requirements of this section may be modified. provided. in the opinion of i the chief. fire-fighting or rescue operations would not be impaired. (c) Permissible Modifications. Clearances or widths required by this section i may be increased when, in the opinion of the chief, minimum clearances or - widths are not adequate to provide fire apparatus access. For high-piled combusti- 1 ble storage. see Section 81.109. = (d) Surface. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to i support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so 1 as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. (e) Width. The minimum unobstructed width of a fire apparatus access road j shall be not less than 20 feet. 5 (f) Vertical Clearance. All fire apparatus access roads shall have an unob- ~ structed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. i EXCEPTION: Upon approval vertical clearance may be reduced.provided such i reduction does not impair access by fire apparatus and approved signs are installed ~ and maintained indicating the established vertical clearance. (g) 'furning Radius. The turning radius of a fire apparatus access road shall be 2 as approved by the chief. Ch) 'furnarounds. All dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 1 feet in length shall be provided with approved provisions for the turning around of i fire apparatus. 2 (i) Bridges. When a bridge is required to be used as access underthis section. it i shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the applicable sections of i the Building Code and using designed live loading sufficient to carry the imposed i loads of fire apparatus. = (j) Grade. The gradient for a fire apparatus access road shall not exceed the i maximum approved by the chief. = (k) Obstruction. The required width of any fire apparatus access road shall not i be obstructed in any manner. including parking of vehicles. Minimum required 1 41 MEMORANDUM TO: Barker 1986 Greenline Review File FROM: Steve Burstein RE: August 31, 1987 Meeting with Jack Barker DATE: *' August 31, 1987 a Jack and I discussed the memoranda from Wayne Vandemark and Chuck Roth dated August 25 and August 20, 1987 respectively. The following matters were covered: 1. Jack clarified the distance of the rock wall along the bottom of the driveway, as drawn on the plans received July 24, 1987. Revegetation will be accomplished according to plans prior to completion of the driveway this year. Jack plans to build the driveway this season. 2. It was agreed that the driveway would go into the building envelope a short distance (approximately midway) but not to the property line as shown on the July 24 plans. Further development within the building envelope is subject to the 8040 review of the structure. 3. Jack agreed to follow up with the Fire Marshal to obtain approval for the substandard driveway (width and surface), making 5 commitments for fire protection apparati to be located within the building envelope to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal. 4. Jack agreed to comply with the Engineering Department's recommendation that a geotechnical engineer (a) prepare final blueprints for construction, (b) provide letter certifying that plans are correctly prepared, and (C) perform construction management and inspection. Final blueprints and letter will be | presented to the Engineerings Office before construction com- mences. cc: Chuck Roth, Engineering Department Wayne Vandemark, Fire Marshal Jack Barker . l.. -2/6 MEMORANDUM TO: Steve Burstein, Planning From: Wayne Vandemark, Fire Marshal Re: Barker property Date: d5ugust. 25*1987* The roadway to this project is in excess of 150 feet from fire department vehicle access. The current road is about eight feet in various areas. Sec. 10.207 of the Uniform Fire Code requires that if any portion of a exterior wall of the first story is located more than 150 feet from fire department vehicle access, a roadway of with a minimum unobstructed width of 20 feet with an all weather driving surface must be designed and maintained. The water supply fire hydrant is not accessible for firefighting at the proposed site. The grade of the road must be taken into consideration. All dead-end roads must have provisions for apparatus turn around. I am enclosing a copy of the section of the Uniform Fire Code. Please note (b) EXCEPTION: 1. We may be looking at a narrower road with the installation of an automatic residential sprinkler system. We may require a fire hydrant near the property. This office will be glad to visit with you and the owner to satisfy the code. ---=11 1 111 4 li MEMORANDUM i , AUG 24 1987 ~~1 OUL----J'~W V To: Steve Burstein, Planning Office From: Chuck Roth, Assistant City Engineer 81Â§~ Date:Â¥.+, August 20,41987- Re: Barker Access Road This memo concerns the access road only. It is our understanding that the structure will be reviewed separately in the future. 1. The width of the access road as shown on current plans is fifteen feet. This width does not meet criteria as outlined in the Engineering Department memo of November 25, 1986, comment number 3. We have not heard from the Fire Marshall if the width is acceptable, if a variance is needed, or if measures such as sprinklers installed in the structure and/or installation of a fire hydrant at the project site will mitigate the narrower road. Is there sufficient water pressure at the site to service a fire hydrant and/or sprinklers? 2. The current plans on the access road, revision date 6-9-87, do not reflect all of the design criteria. I called Steve Pawlak of Chen & Associates. It appears from the conversation that there are details on the plan which are still not correct. I suggest that the applicant be required to provide a letter from Chen & Associates with final blueprints for construction, which letter certifies that the plans are correctly prepared for constructing the road in order to meet geotechnical concerns on the access road. The Engineering Department should review the letter and blueprints (two sets, please) and sign off that the prints are ready for issuing a building permit for the access road. Additionally, we recommend a condition of approval that a geotechnical engineer be required to perform construction management and inspection of the work in order for the geotechni- cal engineer to be able to sign off on the road when completed, that it was constructed as designed and that any soils situations encountered during the construction procedure were properly addressed. Before a permit is issued for the structure, we should have the certification by a geotechnical engineer of the road construction. 4. The driveway should extend only to the building envelope on the east side of the property and not all the way to the New- foundland Lode MS. . 5. The 8040 Greenline review criteria address the mountain setting. In terms of visual impact, it might be preferable to require installation of soil stabilization mats along the road cuts and fills, seeding with a dryland grass and wildflower mix, and irrigation for two years to ensure growth. This might be less of a visual impact on the vicinity than large rock walls. Some of the rock walls may be designed for structural support of the slopes. Other of the rock walls may be designed for soil erosion, which might better and more aesthetically be accom- plished by revegetation. CC: Jay Hammond, Director of Public Works CR/cr/caseload.11 MEMORANDUM -DATE:: March 9, 1987,0 TO: STEVE BURSTEIN, PLANNING DEPARTMENT FR: FRED GANNETT, ATTORNEY'S OFFICE RE: BARKER 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW I spoke with Brooke Peterson regarding his recollection of the type of easement that Mr. Barker committed to in front of the Planning and Zoning Committee. Brooke stated that to the best of his memory, Barker agreed only to a winter nordic easement. However, Brooke went on to state that the quickest solution to this issue would be for you and Barker to settle the issue amongst yourselves. (Barker, apparently, does not wish to incur any additional legal expenses.) I have reviewed the P&Z minutes concerning what was committed to at the meeting of October 14, 1986, with reference to your notes. Your notes clearly reflect an intent to obtain a year round easement, but the P&Z minutes are less clear. If you would be willing to telephone Mr. Barker on this matter, I will hold off on any further action, until the two of you have agreed on what is to be included in the easement. I can then amend the easement to your mutual satisfaction. ./-/ri MEMORANDUM 2%. i r - <-2 1.2.f-il n q r;5--F#-1 1 1 1 m 42 LM L U g lA\ I Di Il H lili To: Steve Burstein, Planning Office 16 1 ~ Â£~ii MAR 4 1987 .j C'K_ UAL___~ly' From: Chuck Roth, Assistant City Engineer Date: March 4,Â·1987 4 --* Re: Barker 8040 Greenline Review In response to your memo of February 20, no, I do not think that we need to have the report sent to CGS. Regarding Chen recommendations, I concur with their recommenda- tions. Their recommendations should be considered as conditions of approval. As I have said on previous occasions, I do not concur with the current driveway/Nordic trail configuration. I would prefer to attempt to achieve the design which was previously approved which the Forest Service denied. I would prefer to appeal the denial with the Forest Service. As for plans for snow removal, conservation and revegetation, I have no objections to any of the proposals. CR/cr/caseload.4 MEMORANDUM TO: Fred Gannett, City Attorney's Office - FROM: Steve Burstein. Planning Office RE: Barker 8040 Greenline Review DATE: Fe bruar 2%>6'B/1987 + The easement agreement between Jack Barker and the City of Aspen should include pedestrian and bicycle trail 1 j S E in the summer C Paragraph 1, page 1)Â· Craig Ward should review this document and specifically the language in paragraph 1 regarding the setting and maintenance of the trail located on Barker's property and the indemnity and insurance provisions in paragraph 4. I will try to coordinate with Craig since it does not appear that Brooke Peterson sent the agreement to him. In paragraph 4 the responsibility sounds too one-sided t o me Â· What if MrÂ· Barker does something causing the trail to be disturbed or destroyed? What City recourse do we have? Also, avalanche damage should not be the City's responsibility for Barker's use; and this implies otherwise to meÂ· You should be aware that the trail/driveway crosses a defined avalanche path (Hoag Lot 3. not the property owned by the Forest Service) which the Nordic Council has considered dangerous enough to not open 1 the trail this year. This agreement appears to refer only to the Forest Service property and not the segment of trail across Hoag Subdivision Lot 3. This agreement or another should include that private grant of easement. sb.barker --/ 1 EASEMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT,made this /0 day of UVE#(04< , 1987, by and between JACK BARKER (hereinafter referred to as "Barker") , and the CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter referred to as "City"). WITNESSETH WHEREAS, Barker is the owner of certain real property commonly known as Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision, City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado; and WHEREAS, Barker is also the holder of Special Use Permit which affects certain property owned by the United States Forest Service; and WHEREAS, the City is desirous of obtaining an easement across Barker's property and the right to use the United States Forest Service property for the purpose of constructing a recreational trail; and WHEREAS, Barker is desirous of granting an easement across his property and allowing the use of the United States Forest Service property upon the terms and conditions contained herein, NOW THEREFORE, for Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, and in consideration Of the mutual i covenants contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. Easement. Barker hereby grants to the City, its successors and assigns forever, the following described perpetual and non-exclusive trail easement and right-of-way, for multi- recreational use, including but not limited to, cross country skiing, hiking, bicycling, equestrian and other uses, over that property described as Driveway and Trail Easement in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and he hereby grants to the City the right to utilize certain real property which is owned by the United States Forest Service, 1 which Barker has the right to use pursuant to a Special Use Permit. The property to be burdened by the easement and the ' property owned by the United States Forest Service shall collect- ively be referred to hereafter as the "Property". 2. Use. The use of the Property shall include, but not be limited to, the setting and maintenance of cross country skiing K tracks by mechanized equipment or by hand, as well as the construction and placement of information trail markers. The City 1 shall, at its own expense and cost, install such gates, bridges or other improvements as are necessary for the use and mainten- ance of the trail located on the Property and for the passage of track setting equipment in the winter. No construction shall be performed upon the Property except as is necessary to accommodate the purposes of this grant and except with the permission of Barker. The Property hereafter may be used by any person gaining access through authorized access points or trail heads estab- lished and maintained by the City. Any use of snowmobiles, except for those minimally utilized by the City, shall be prohibited. 3. Maintenance. The maintenance of the Property, and all facilities located thereon, shall be done solely at the expense of the City. Anything to the contrary contained herein notwith- standing, any damage caused due to negligence of any person who uses or has used the Property pursuant to the authority of the City shall be the responsibility of the City. 4. No Easement for Access. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to grant as easement across any other property owned by Barker in order for individuals to gain access to the Property. The City shall provide and maintain reasonable access and trail head points in order to minimize the opportunities for entering or leaving the Property. 5. Indemnity and Insurance. The City shall hold Barker harmless and indemnify him against any and all claims, liability, loss, expense, damages or causes of actions including all legal fees, for damages arising after the commencement of the term hereof and any order, decrees or judgments which may be entered therein, brought for damages or alleged damages resulting from injury to person or property or the loss of life sustained in or about the Property, and from any damage or injury of any kind to Barker's Property, or for any matter or thing growing out of the use or occupation of the Property, or any part thereof, or possession occasioned by the City, its agents, employees or assigns, respectively, or which may be occasioned by any person or thing whatsoever or which may be caused by the operations of the City or any of its agents, in the construction of any improvements on the Property. It is the intention and agreement that Barker shall not be liable for any personal injuries or damage to any persons to persons utilizing the Property, however, nothing described herein shall excuse, reduce, release Barker from negligent, recklessness or deliberate acts, claims, expen- ses, damages, or causes of action, including legal fees by himself, agents, employees or assigns which result in claims against the City or Barker. The City shall maintain adequate liability and property damage insurance covering the Property and evidence of the same shall be furnished to Barker. 6. No Interference. The exercise of the rights granted herein by either party shall not unreasonably interfere with the use of the properties burdened hereby. 7. Construction. The rule of strict construction does not apply to this grant. This grant shall be given a reasonable construction so that the intention of the parties to confer a mutually usable right of enjoyment on each other is carried out. 8. Notices. All notices, demands and communications I -- required hereunder shall be served or given to the respective party at its respective address as set forth below or as other- wise designated in the manner set forth herein. All notice, demand or communication shall be given by personal service, or certified mail, return receipt requested with first class postage pre-paid thereon, and unless sooner, received three (3) days after the date of certification. The address of the parties hereto are Jack Barker Post Office Box 3379 Aspen, Colorado 81612 City Manager City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 9. Assignment. This Agreement shall not be assignable in whole or in part, without written consent of the other party, which consent shall be unreasonably withheld. 10. Attorneys Fees. Should any party hereunder be required to resort to legal or equitable process for the enforcement of any of the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to collect from the other party all of its reasonable attorneys fees, expenses and costs. Jurisdiction for any legal proceeding shall be within the District Court, Pitkin County, Colorado. 11. Running of Benefits and Burdens. All provisions of the instrument, including the benefits and burdens, run with the lands owned by the parties herein which are affected hereby, and are binding upon and inure to the assigns and successors of the parties hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands and seals the day and year first above written. CITY OF ASPEN Â· i , j 0<.--N_ BY JACK BARKER STATE OF COLORADO ) :SS COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing document was acknoyle@tged #nd 4worn to before me this /O day of M/60/0/fi~ , 19~07~/bw ~A~K ~ARKER. #Y amâ€¢Â·113SA> d ~*pp// 1 A- a//m: 09 Publi4 1 1/IN )67 .J MEMORANDUM TO: Chuck Roth FROM: Steve Burstein RE: Barker 8040 Greenline Application for Driveway DATE: February '202*19870 On December 2 , 1987 P&Z approved the requested driveway access to the building envelope on Hoag Subdivision Lot 3. Condition *1 is "a geologoical r e po r t Of the avalanche hazards and hazard mitigation associated with the proposed driveway access shall be submitted for review by the Colorado Geological SurveyÂ· A copy of this report and CGS's evaluation shall be submitted to the Planning Office and Engineering DepartmentÂ·" Jack submitted directly to the City and not to CGS the Chen & Associates report dated December 17, 1987 and the Art Mears report dated January, 1987. Both studies conclude that a road can be built there and the risk Of a user Of the road being struck by an avalanche is smallÂ· I spoke with Jeff Hynes of the CGS today and he said that Mears is a respected avalanche erxpert and probably CGS would only rubber-stamp his report. DO you think there is any purpose served having the report sent to CGS Capplication fee:$190)? I'd also like your comments on the Chen conclusions regarding the 1:1 cut and 1.5:1 fill.limiting cuts to a maximum height of 5 feet, and a civil engineer - designed drainage systemÂ· Do you concur? Attached is Barker's letter of Feb- 18,1987 detailing his snow rernova I plan, conservation and revegetation plan and ot he r conditions of approval. I find them satisfactory, and would appreciate any additional comments from youÂ· sb.bark 7/ Clo Cer %1 L LAW OFFICES f BROOKE A. PETERSON 97â‚¬31 APROFESSIONALCORPORATION n <4 4 10 ' 315 EASTHYMANAVENUE ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 '64~r- ~hÂ«) D plyvf/EL rlt.JI- - l k.1 A,E (303)925-8166 -- -ID 1. eki, p'JA:216-0- 4 February 19... 198'fI~ 9~~~~~n puWA'-3- HAND DELIVERED Mr. Paul Taddune City Attorney City of Aspen Re: Barker 8040 Greenline Review Dear Paul, In order to wrap up the Barker 8040 Greenline Review, and pursuant to the conditions imposed by the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, I enclose herewith a draft of the , Easement Agreement between Mr. Barker and the City of Aspen, which allows the City, and therefore the Aspen Nordic Council, the right to utilize a portion of Mr. Barker-s property for the Nordic Ski Trail. Exhibit A will be attached when the Agreement has been approved as to form. It is simply a survey of the easement. Your comments on the Agreement would be appreciated. Please note that this Agreement also grants the City permiss- ion to utilize that portion Of property owned by the United States Forest Service, for cross county skiing purposes, pursuant to Mr. Barker-s Special Use permit. I have been informed by Greg Thompson of the Forest Service that this language will be sufficient to indicate to the Forest Service that the City and the Nordic Council may utilize the existing road as it passes through the Forest Service property. Please advise me of your comments at your earliest conven- ience. Yours very trulv, ~O-OKE A ~ Py'r;RSON,~ Â« A Profey~io at Corpbration 03#44*- BAP:krl Enclosure cc: Jack Barker EASEMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made this __ day of , 1987, by and between JACK BARKER (hereinafter referred to as "Barker"), and 1the CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter referred to as "City"). WITNESSETH i WHEREAS, Barker is the owner of certain real property :commonly known as Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision, City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, and WHEREAS, Barker is also the holder of a Special Use Permit tiwhich affects certain property owned by the United States Forest 1 Service, and r WHEREAS, the City is desirous of obtaining an easement iacross Barker s property and the right to use the United States !Forest Service property for the purpose of constructing a nordic Iltrail, and WHEREAS, Barker is desirous of granting an easement across his property and allowing the use of the United States Forest ~ Service property upon the terms and conditions contained herein, NOW THEREFORE, for Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, and in consideration Of the mutual covenants and conditions contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. Easement. Barker hereby grants to the City a non-exclus- v 'â€¢'rre ive easement, for the purpose of cross country skiing during the ahlt/,Ate,*44, winter months, over that property described as Driveway and Trail Easement in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference and he hereby grants the City the right to utilize certain real property which is owned by the United States Forest Service, which Barker has the right to use pursuant to a Special Use Permit. The property to be burdened by the easement and the property owned by the United States Forest Service .shall collect- ively be referred to hereafter as the "Property." The use of the Property shall include the setting and maintenance of cross country skiing tracks by mechanized equipment or by hand, as well as the construction and placement of information trail markers. The City shall, at its own cost and expense, install such gates, bridges or other improvements as are necessary for the use and maintenance of the trail located on the Property and for the passage of track setting equipment in the winter. No construction shall be performed upon the Property except as is necessary to accommodate the purposes of this grant and except with the permission of Barker. The Property hereafter may be used by any peIson gaining access through authorized access points or trail heads established and maintained by the City and by utilizing cross county or touring skis. Any use of snowmobiles or snow- # shoes, except for those minimally utilized by the City, shall be prohibited. The City shall keep Barker informed as to all matters 1 which concern the trails for which this permission has been granted. 2. Maintenance. The maintenance of the Property, and all facilities located thereon, shall be done solely at the expense of the City. Anything to the contrary contained herein notwith- ~Istanding, any damage caused due to the negligence of any person 1:who uses or has used the Property pursuant to the authority o f (IN h\Â¥jb \ .the City shall be the responsibility of the City. 3. No Easement for Access. Nothing contained herein shall be iconstrued to grant an easement across any other property owned by 1Barker in order for individuals to gain access to the Property. The City shall provide and maintain reasonable access and trail Ihead points in order to minimize the opportunities for entering !or leaving the Property. : 4. Indemnity and Insurance. The City shall hold Barker iharmless and indemnify him against any and all claims, liability, loss, expense, damages, suits or causes of action including all legal fees, for damages arising after the commencement of the term hereof and any orders, decrees or judgments which may be entered therein, brought for damages or alleged damages resulting from any injury to person or _- prg_29-rty or from loss of life sustained-iii-or-abdut the Property, and from any damage or injury 3, of any kind to Barker s property, and for any matter or thing 04 growing out of the use or occupation of the Property, or any part thereof, or possession occasioned by the city, its agents, i employees or assigns, respectively, or which may be occasioned by ErR y. any person or thing whatsoever or which may be caused by the pjick" 61 8,ger operations of the City or of any of its agents, in the construe- 12*10,1 :-I,th <p4 tion of any improvements on the Property, or of any other matter, at any time during the term of this grant. It is the intention rh ti resfDhâ€ž.2.4 .~ and agreement that Barker shall not be liable for any personal ~VA~,r.tr, Ul'#\ injuries or damage to any persons or to utilizing the Property, irrespeâ‚¬_tive_of-how-- the--same ~As caused. The City shall maintain iwit&#-6% 61*f adequate liability and property damage insurance in which Barker ~ (jtic R 'tÂ¥~. shall be the named insured and evidence Of which shall be 447 8,'1[er,j uff / furnished to Barker. 5. No Interference. The exercise of the rights granted herein by either party shall not unreasonably interfere with the 04Â»Â»1 4 use of the properties burdened hereby. 6. Construction. The rule of strict construction does not apply to this grant. This grant shall be given a reasonable construction so that the intention of the parties to confer a mutually usable right of enjoyment on each other is carried out. 7. Notices. All notices, demands and communications required hereunder shall be served or given to the respective party at its respective address as set forth below or as otherwise designated in the manner set forth herein. Any notice, demand or communicat- ion shall be given by personal service, or certified mail, return receipt requested with first class postage pre-paid thereon, and 'unless sooner, received three (3) days after the date of certif- 2 - . (%. :~%. ication. The address of the parties hereto are as follows: Jack Barker Post Office Box 3379 Aspen, Colorado 81612 City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street i Aspen, Colorado 81611 8. Assignment. This Agreement shall not be assignable in whole or in part, without the written consent of the other party, iwhich consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. i i 9. Attorneys Fees. Should any party hereunder be required to resort to legal or equitable process for the enforcement of any of the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to collect from the other party all of its reasonable attorneys fees, expenses and costs. Jurisdiction for any legal proceeding shall be within the District Court, Pitkin County, Colorado. 10. Running of Benefits and Burdens. All provisions of this instrument, including the benefits and burdens, run with the lands owned by the parties herein which are affected hereby, and are binding upon and inure to the assigns and successors of the parties hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands and seals the day and year first above written. CITY OF ASPEN By: JACK BARKER 81Â® 960 /f 1! 3 . . . STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing document was acknowledged and sworn to before me this day of , 1987, by JACK BARKER. My commission expires: Witness my hand and Jofficial seal. Notary Public STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing document was acknowledged and sworn to before me this day of , 1987, by , as of the CITY OF ASPEN. My commission expires: Witness my hand and official seal. Notary Public 4 ' Jack Barker If k. P.O. Box 3379 Aspen, Co. 81612 303-925-8580 t Feb. 18,1987 Mr. Steven Burstein t City of Aspen Planning Office fIE Â© E Oyim IN Galena St. Aspen, Co. 81611 lf' FEB I g 'gm l'~ll Re; Barker 8040 Greenline Application Amendment Dear Steve, This letter will more specifically address remaining conditions of the Dec. 2,1987 approval as well as the original approval. 1) Snow Removal Plan The concern about snow removal is that it should not interfere with the ski trail grooming. So I hereby agree that either myself or the purchaser of Lot 3 shall not move snow onto the trail and that a base of snow will be left on the trail/driveway to accommodate skiers. I know from my previous experience working on this road in the winter during the construction of the Lot 4 duplex that it is almost impossible to plow this road down to the gravel. It is such a shady site that the road is frozen up all winter. Of course it will not always be possible to keep a maintained ski groove in the trail but there will be plenty of snow for the machine to keep a good skiing surface. See the engineers final drawings now being processed that will include a detailed plan on where to dump the snow from plewing. 2) Conservation and Revegetation Plan The concern here is to stabilize the soil as well as make the disturbed soil look natural. My plan is to personally supervise the removal of surface soil during construction of this road. My experience in building here in Aspen for many years is that is much easier to protect the existing vegetation that it is to get new vegetation to grow. Final alignment of this driveway will be made to conserve as many existing trees as is possible. On the uphill side of the road we will expect to have a one to one grade that is very steep. As indicated in the report on cut slope stability by Chen and Assoc., we can expect that the rock formation can provide a very steep and yet stable bank. By keeping to a steep uphill bank we can reduce the amount of natural vegetation that would be excavated and lower Jack Barker P.O. Box 3379 \ -- Aspen, Co. 81612 303-925-8580 the height of the bank to no more than 5 feet. We will add soil along both upper end lower banks where we will plant ground cover plants with good root systems such as Sweet Woodruff (which is the most successful ground cover I have used in shady banked areas), Bluebells C which do well around rocks and shade areas), Lily-of-the-Valley and Common Periwinkle C which like lots of moisture and shade). These are all easy to find nersery stock which I have planted in the Aspen area with very good success. These small ground cover will look more natural than wild grass since there is almost no grass on this exposure. We will end up with a rock garden look to most of this area. This is the method I used successfully in landscaping the Duplex on lot t-our below this site. Some small evergreen trees will be planted around the switch back and at the junction with the old railroad right-of-way where the realignment of the ski trail caused considerable damage. A detailed site plan is being developed that incorporates this landscape plan as well as the drainage system of our previous plans. 3) Sharing of access through Forest Service property & easement across Lot Three. Brooke Peterson is sending a copy of the easement agreement to Paul Tadoon for his review. Greg Thompson at the Forest Service said that he would only need a copy of the executed easement agreement for his file to insure that the City & Nordic Council has been given the right to use this access. So this is in the works and you will be getting copies. 4) Removal of excavated materials There will be no dumping of excess materials from the construction of this road or the homesite on the lot or surrounding areas. All excess materials will be hauled away to appropriate and approved landfill areas. If there are any questions regarding my plans for this project please give me a call. Since,rely, ~*._-; 2 A~~0~~ ociates 5080 Road 154 Casper Glenwood Springs, CO -,601 Colorado Springs Consulting Geotechnical Engineers 303 945-7458 - Denver Fort Collins ~~~Fo f~ Ill San Antonio Rock Springs Salt Lake City 033-3 1 j 0 ~__Recember -17-;-~ -1986 Subject: Comments Regarding Cut Slope Stability, Proposed Residence Driveway, Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision, Aspen, Colorado. Job No. 4 443 86 Mr. Jack Barker P.O. Box 3379 Aspen, CO 81612 Dear Mr. Barker: This report presents the findings of a site reconnaissance to obtain information regarding cut slope stability along the proposed driveway alignment. The reconnaissance was made on December 8 when there was at least 1 foot of snow depth on the site. Comments regarding the grading for the proposed driveway are presented in this report. The work was performed according to our proposal to Mr. Jack Barker dated June 28, 1985. At Mr. Barker's request our recon- naissance was limited to the grading aspects of the project. We understand that hazards relating to snow avalanche are being evaluated by others. Proposed Construction: Lot 3 of the Hoag Subdivision is located directly above the abandoned railroad grade and borders the 1001 Claim property directly to the west. The driveway alignment is proposed to begin at the railroad grade, climb along the existing Ute Trail at a grade of about 15% to 18% and switch back to the east at a grade of about 4% to 8%. The driveway is planned to be about 15 feet wide and have a total length of about 700 feet. The design information was provided to us in plan and cross section drawings by Integrated Engineering Consultants, dated October 28, 1986. The cross sections indicate road construction by cutting on the uphill side and filling on the downhill side. Site Conditions: The property lies near the toe of Aspen Moun- tain on the southern edge of the Roaring Fork Valley. The site is heavily wooded terrain that is steeply sloping down to the north at a typical grade of 2 horizontal to 1 vertical. Eleva- tion difference between the upper and lower segments of the proposed driveway is about 70 feet. L#'ll. Mr. Jack Barker December 17, 1986 Page 2 Along the northern part of the lot, the Ute Trail, a pedes- trian ski trail, has been constructed mainly by cutting into the hillside. The trail width is about 6 to 8 feet. The cut slope banks are very steep and no indications of large slope movements were observed. We understand that the trail has been constructed in the last year or two. The property is thickly vegetated, mainly with evergreens. Uphill of the western part of the property is a relatively small open area which is a snow avalanche track. The avalanche runout area is on Lot 2 below the site. The entire property lies within a potential avalanche zone (Mears, 1979) and may be in an area of potential debris flows. Discussion and Recommendations: Existing shallow cuts along the railroad grade and Ute Trail have been made at very steep slopes. The soils exposed in the cuts consist mainly of collu- vial deposits composed of angular rock fragments in a clayey sand matrix. The rock fragments typically range to cobble and small boulder size. The soils on the mountainside appear to be fairly well drained and hold the very steep cut slopes with limited slope movement when seepage is not present. Considering the soil conditions exposed at the site, constructing cut slopes at a grade of 1 horizontal to 1 vertical as proposed appears feasible provided the cut depths are limited to about 5 feet and are protected against erosion. Fill sections constructed on the downhill side of the road will tend to be less stable than the cut slopes and should be constructed at a flatter grade and/or be limited in height. We suggest a maximum fill slope grade of 1 1/2 horizontal to 1 vertical and a maximum height of 5 feet. Constructing the fill will be difficult due to the steep terrain. We recomniend that the fill sections be benched into the natural slope after the topsoil and vegetation have been removed. The fill should be compacted in relatively horizontal lifts to a minimum 95% of maximum standard Proctor density. Narrow sliver fills should not be constructed. Instead, the road alignment should be shifted or a retaining wall constructed. Collecting and diverting surface runoff will be an important aspect to the cut and fill slope stability. The natural heavy vegetation should be maintained as much as practical. Concen- trated surface runoff should not discharge onto steep unprotected slopes. It may be feasible to collect the surface runoff in a ditch along the uphill side of the road and discharge the water 1 Mears, A.I. 1979, "Colorado Snow-Avalanche Area Studies and Guidelines for Avalanche-Hazard Planning: Colorado Geological Survey Special Publication No. 7". Chen & Associates Mr. Jack Barker December 17, 1986 page 3 at control points. A civil engineer should design the drainage system. The areas disturbed by the grading operation should be revegetated or protected by other means to prevent erosion. This should include areas upslope and downslope of the roadway alignment. Localized slumping and raveling of the steep cut slopes should be expected. This will require regular maintenance so that the roadside ditch is not clogged. Temporary seepage during spring runoff conditions may contribute most to the ditch main- tenance problems. If seepage is encountered during or after construction or if significant slope failures occur, a geotech- nical engineer should be contacted immediately to evaluate possible remedial action. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from our site reconnaissance and the proposed development plans. Variable site and soil condi- tions may be encountered during construction. We recommend a geotechnical engineer review the design drawings and perform observation and testing of the grading operations. If you have any questions or if we can be of further assis- tance, please let us know. Very truly yours, CHEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. i, 91 f 'kF 0 21 &9< i 15222 5 *M t) 14 61 i. P.. a By ~22-2~'. /~_.,~~.- Steven L. Pawlak, P.E. -4.4.1. -: A.JÂ« ' SLP/ec Rev. By: R.M. Chen & Associates 96 AVALANCHE HAZARD ANALYSIS, BARKER PROPERTY, ASPEN, COLORADO PREPARED FOR MR. JACK BARKER Arthur I. Mears, P.E., Inc. Gunnison, Colorado January, 1987 ARTHUR 1. MEARS, P.E., INC. Natural Ha,ards Consultants 222 F. Gothic Ave. Gunnisun. Colorado 81230 303-641Â·3236 January 15, 1987 Mr. Jack Barker P.O. Box 3379 Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Mr. Barker: The attached avalanche-analysis has been completed in accordance with our discussions in Aspen last month. The report consists of two parts: (1) text, and (2) map. The map is being sent in a separate package. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, , Arthur I. Mears, P.E. AM:lc Encl. Mass Wasting â€¢ Amlanches â€¢ Aoalanche Control Engineering I / rl I 1 INTRODUCTION This analysis of avalanche hazard was requested by Mr. Jack Barker of Aspen and has the following objectives: 1. site inspection of avalanche terrain; 2. analysis of avalanche characteristics and risk; 3. review of previous work; 4. recommendations. The report is site specific, thus the results and recommendations cannot be extended to other locations. AVALANCHE CONDITIONS Avalanches affecting the Barker property in Sec. 18, T. 10 S., R. 84 W., City of Aspen, originate on the northeast-facing slope of Bell Mountain. Avalanche starting zones are located immediately below promin- ent cliffs at approximately 8,800 feet elevation, as much as 1000 feet above the valley floor. The starting zones, or areas in which unstable snow accumulates, are smalls steep, and generally discontinuous. There- fore, avalanches will usually be small and unlikely to reach the Barker property. However, major avalanches can occur in response to exceptional weather and/or snowpack conditions at any time during the November- April snow season. Major avalanches are known to have deposited debris on the old railroad grade in 1964, 1973, and 1974. The largest and most frequent avalanches occur in the approximately 50-yard wide open slope on the western edge of the property, which is also the site of the avalanches that are known to have reached the railroad grade. A ski trail and the proposed access driveway to the Barker property cross the lower portion of this path. -2- The slope immediately east of the prominent path supports a thick, triangular wedge of Douglas fir with interspersed aspen. This stand of trees, which is the proposed site of the new home, shows no sign of avalanche damage for the life of the forest (approximately 80 years). 611 *k' Site inspection showed some damage to aspen within the forest, but this pOP' b 4 was apparently caused by an unusually heavy early June snowstorm in 1984. 1184'96 58 This storm produced similar widespread damage throughout central Colorado. The avalanche conditions at this site were discussed in a detailed report to Steve Crowley and Thomas D. McAuley which was authored in 1973 by Whitney M. Borland and Hans Frutiger. In my opinion, the Borland/ Frutiger report was a thorough and accurate appraisal of the avalanche conditions at this site. The present study discusses in greater detail the nature of the risk involved in building within the potential avalanche area. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND AVALANCHE HAZARD Discussions and a site inspection with Mr. Jack Barker provided detailed information about the layout of the proposed development. The development layout and building envelope is shown on the attached map. The development is subject to avalanche hazard of 2 types: 1. hazard on the access driveway that crosses the open avalanche path discussed above; and 2...hazard to the house, which will be built approximately 50 feet east of the prominent avalanche path, within the timber wedge. Because hazards "1" and "2" differ significantly, theyare discussed separately below. - The access driveway is clearly within the boundaries of the main western avalanche path.Â· Both upper and lower legs of the proposed -3- driveway have been overrun 3 times during the past 22 years, (in 1964, \9ib AD \n __Â» 1973, and 1974), as noted above. Smaller avalanches may have also reached the driveway alignment, but gone undetected. Although firm data on avalanche frequency is not available, an average frequency (at the drive- way) of 3-5 years seems reasonable, based on vegetation damage and the sporadic and discontinuous historical record. Overall risk is based on avalanche frequency and the proposed use of driveway. If we assume an exposure time (to the avalanche) of 1 minute per trip and 10 trips per day on the driveway, total daily exposure is 10 minutes (out of 1,440 minutes per day), or 0.7% of the time. If the avalanche occurs once in every 3 years on the average, the joint proba- bility, P, that an avalanche will reach someone while he is traveling the driveway is computed P = (~) (10/1440) = 0.23% per year. This calculation assumes random avalanche occurrence and random driveway <kk -b ~>9}3,4 te, j Unn.5 use. In other words, the prevailing avalanche and/or weather conditions Off# ff/$ rinJ K 1-6 w~~ .,,d,r""wl r. W will have no influence on the use of the driveway. From the standpoint of risk assessment, this 0.23% annual probability 6*.0, (.fy" 0 A*74% At\-Fl 4 6, Plo should be compared with other risks that are commonly accepted. For example, daily travel during unstable avalanche conditions is common on Loveland, Berthoud, and Red Mountain passes, each of which is crossed by numerous avalanches every year. Some of these avalanches occur more often than once per year. Depending on the route taken through Colorado, the prelt>, fl, 6/,m < avalanche hazard encountered on a trip to Aspen may exceed the risk in 1-4 4/46 , ~ ascending the driveway. L -4- In contrast, avalanche exposure of the house is less tolerable because we must assume it will be occupied continuously, especially during severe weather and avalanche conditions. Although the building envelope is approximately 50 feet inside the timber wedge (east of the avalanche path), it probably is exposed to avalanches of exceptional volume because these will spread laterally as they descend and enter the undisturbed forest. As a rough estimate, the building site could be reached by avalanches with return periods of 50-100 years (1-2% annual probability). A building located here and intended for winter occupancy must be designed for avalanche impact and deposition loads. Final design criteria should be developed in conjunction with building plans and should include: 1. Specification of avalanche forces (resolved into mutually perpendicular directions); and 2. Determination of loading criteria (static or impact). None of these design parameters can be specified at present because details of building size, shape, and orientation strongly control the details of interaction with the structure. However, experience at many avalanche sites in North America and Europe indicates that construction of an "avalanche-proof" structure is feasible at this location. RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations consider the avalanche characteristics and relative hazard as discussed above. 1. Avoid placement of permanent structures within the prominent west avalanche path. 2. Allow residential construction within the timber wedge and inside the building envelope as specified by Mr. Jack Barker during our field inspection on December 16, 1986 (see attached map). , -5- 3. Accept the avalanche risk on the driveway because this risk is small compared with others normally taken in winter travel. Although the avalanche risk is small when compared to the risk accepted at many mountain sites (e.g., Vail, Juneau, Ketchum, Alta), the potential hazard should be carefully discussed with and understood by future developers or owners of the site. They may reduce the risk even further through learning about the nature and timing of avalanches. 54 42Â«4Â»91Â« \ 9 / =-*a>-4244\=tz:u -2>% --------- 1 IC> =---------- -/*318-0/0 . E--2 -12--IÂ»22--219=74=22*h k- - --- - %- -- .... \ -lizAX 2 1 -2 --I- -- _azz#-42+37-- -22/:SEEZZI - 3126<-rrITEE- \ - 00>6 - --- W K \ - - ---- -1-4763-3-t-#& =20 - 4 -- % - 91\Â»- - 8030 - - - - i -- .... \ .- - . --- - -4.- --4 - - - -- 1 11 --22 - - i I j k'Er-rect--FL--ZLT-<----T - <%\ 36 71*%27.-2322:Â« 4--- - --*i-i------ 9-L- - Â«--2----- 1 1 -1 -~ - ~ N -\ - - 1 -%--- - . - -< - - ; --0 1-- - .-- *-- - . ---- --I--- - --I- -_-----0--_-46 2-_-331Â« 56--1 93:u- -yu=-~ I - --- - ---3-22- -22 Â»Â»---- 22_in-r-- 6---- - -- fiatpy - - - 2----2- 2--i-222--~-Ii ------ ----- f EE-z--------------ec,415 + -- 1 ... --41464 3.-~ -- /1 3 -749Â»-- pos<21999 1\4343 47\~ - 72-272\- 930 -3%64%g 211- 1962=2123--2-3-2007(jff~~4#Â»'1~YI.- --1 -- \ N --\40\- - % - - I.---- \42-- \1.* - _ _ -.-2--kWAU-- _ 0 - ~7----2 - 1-- ----- - - 7---- - -h-- -- ---9- - -- * - *- - ---- -* ...0- -<-%:- Câ‚¬\ -\ .-/ 701Â«Â»sc--Â«-~21 ----- ----- -1-------2 -2 I-820-1- 44=rÂ«--6~3 i~~-~~ -z._-u_~ Irr<~2> 2 - 7 -7- 119=21 no--2.-27 -2 - i?52Â¤IEL-ZE~p-*0 - Â» 10Â»22 642--1.--2 -----3.69-2 --2---2- 993>- --Utp>*/r,Â· - - N. I N --- .22--KN-14*-- - N 1~i h -- -- --r--- 2-- --.r-- -UZ-17 29:Â»2~ 2- % 1 3 ftpÂ»putÂ» Â«-2 3-40 3 I-_t--- -3 h o\\ C Â«99434Â» 334+43 Â«22644_ -- ---.- - 2-1-222-.<--------2-2-1- 42=242 %-- --\ --3- ----- ---I----22 --4 - - ----YL - - -- - - - . - .1 --Ii-- \412 - - -- - ~ L_ - \ - 1. h -- - 7-- -\- .--- - 22 ~T 6~------4131Â¢~r Fe----C_- - - * -=- --- -- - -- \ ---i -- --- -3Â»40229-2-- -fitt _E-fff 1~~2- ~c.~-1Â«19Â»2~4 4Â»64~iti--~-31(1 -0941---r Â» \ ,4 494,00(J)~ C-~49 2----z# -3- ---il- - 1--*I ----- ir-1--n_=22-2-- -u-2-~~1~/~/~33*x~2<-~Ieri~~f~*f__f-111- =012_33-Â¢-Iipitit~~~~ r .------- -9Â«272Â»2-\ Id=-2-3>--3 A----f-6411 -iaÂ«-23--- -2- - - --- ----- Union--=MS#er:22--43-E~ --7.2-- ---- ---- \ - -0 - - - -- - -- tiipÂ»hyf --21 1-20- =stin gin:*zÂ«f Â»>2-1----r_ -- r p-r<-- -r--- - - -- -I -- 4-- --- - ---- 1 --- - . \\ --- ---% -1-I~i -- -~ - -W - - - - r -9 .i--h -fifÂ«ffijÂ«-2- ----- --- -9- - -- 21\ - - i -- _ f /76-112cfÂ»2 -3 72-0 LIJ--1.-zin ~~- ~-- - - -\- ~Chz-72-21. 0-2 - 7~---2- ---- ---- ~- --U-- -- - -8/9~ --*.- --- -- 1- -Tz--2 -Â»2 --hotacie- 2>11737-_ - ~ -7~~ - - --- - - 020 -~w.I-NE-I~~I------v-Irr-N~-i; 2 9 9 Â»4Â» 4-___..3ItaL--31**nches-- - $-2-' 1 - -- - --2 Â»7 - 1 -2-1234334Â»2---~~~-0*- turn-----1 - --5_--2- 4 1 -2 22-22 - 240 07- 8270 --- ---al 14â‚¬Q r 4-22-~~ rep f-- - -----40.h) 1-/-44Â»Â«Â«L--8280 - IN-\- LU Â» 8290 Â«1113-- I UD - 750 ---------8370 00Â«Â«--- 8300 -/KiiiÂ«LIL- N 493, 0,- -8380 1 \ 1 1--8310 - --8320 - Il -8410 --8330-- 8340- - C lf) f/1/ 7--=1, Chen &1Â»ociates Glenwood Springs, CO v,uv 1 Colorado Springs 5080 Road 154 Casper Consulting Geolechnical Engineers 303 945-7458 Denver Fort Comns Rock Springs Salt Lake City re-=Lki San Antonio December*17* 1986' Subject: Comments Regarding Cut Slope Stability, Proposed Residence Driveway, Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision, Aspen, Colorado. Job No. 4 443 86 Mr. Jack Barker P.O. Box 3379 Aspen, CO 81612 Dear Mr. Barker: This report presents the findings of a site reconnaissance to obtain information regarding Cut slope stability along the proposed driveway alignment. The reconnaissance was made On December 8 when there was at least 1 foot of snow depth on the site. Comments regarding the grading for the proposed driveway are presented in this report. The work was performed according to our proposal to Mr. Jack Barker dated June 28, 1985. At Mr. Barker's request our recor naissance was limited to the grading aspects of the project. W understand that hazards relating to snow avalanche are being evaluated by others. Proposed Construction: Lot 3 of the Hoag Subdivision is located directly above, the abandoned railroad grade and borders the 1001 Claim property directly to the west. The driveway alignment is proposed to begin at the railroad grade, climb along the existing Ute Trail at a grade of about 15% to 18% and switch back to the east at a grade of about 4% to 8%. The driveway is planned to be about 15 feet wide and have a total length of about 700 feet. The design information was provided to us in plan and cross section drawings by Integrated Engineering Consultants, dated October 28, 1986. The cross sections indicate road construction by cutting on the uphill side and filling on the downhill side. Site Conditions: The property lies near the toe of Aspen Moun- tain on the southern edge of the Roaring Fork Valley. The site is heavily wooded terrain that is steeply sloping down to the north at a typical grade of 2 horizontal to 1 vertical. Eleva- tion difference between the upper and lower segments of the proposed driveway is about 70 feet. ,~fiES Mr. Jack Barker December 17, 1986 page 2 Along the northern part of the lot, the Ute Trail, a pedes- trian ski trail, has been constructed mainly by cutting into the hillside. The trail width is about 6 to 8 feet. The cut slope banks are very steep and no indications of large slope movements were observed. We understand that the trail has been constructed in the last year or two. 4 The property is thickly vegetated, mainly with evergreens. Uphill of the western part of the property is a relatively small open area which is a snow avalanche track. The avalanche runout area is on Lot 2 below the site. The entlÂ·re property lies within a potential avalanche zone (Mears, 1979) and may be in an area of potential debris flows. Discussion and Recommendations: Existing shallow cuts along the railroad grade and Ute Trail have been made at very steep slopes. The soils exposed in the cuts consist mainly of collu- vial deposits composed of angular rock fragments in a clayey sand matrix. The rock fragments typically range to cobble and small boulder size. The soils on the mountainside appear to be fairly well drained and hold the very steep cut slopes with limited slope movement when seepage is not present. Considering the soil conditions exposed at the site, constructing cut slopes at a grade of 1 horizontal to 1 vertical as proposed appears feasible provided the cut depths are limited to about 5 feet and are t protected against erosion. Fill sections constructed on the downhill side of the road will tend to be less stable than the cut slopes and should be constructed at a flatter grade and/or be limited in height. We suggest a maximum fill slope grade Of 1 1/2 horizontal to 1 vertical and a maximum height of 5 feet. Constructing the fill will be difficult due to the steep terrain. We recommend that the fill sections be benched into the natural slope after the topsoil and vegetation have been removed. The fill should be compacted in relatively horizontal lifts to a minimum 95% of maximum standard Proctor density. Narrow sliver fills should not be constructed. Instead, the road alignment should be shifted or a retaining wall constructed. Collecting and diverting surface runoff will be an important aspect to the cut and fill slope stability. The natural heavy vegetation should be maintained as much as practical. Concen- trated surface runoff should not discharge onto steep unprotected slopes. It may be feasible to collect the surface runoff in a ditch along the uphill side of the road and discharge the water 1 Mears, A.I. 1979, "Colorado Snow-Avalanche Area Studies and Guidelines for Avalanche-Hazard Planning: Colorado Geological Survey Special Publication No. 7". Chen & Associates . I. Mr. Jack Barker December 17, 1986 page 3 at control points. A civil engineer should design the drainage system. The areas disturbed by the grading operation should be revegetated or protected by other means to prevent erosion. This should include areas upslope and downslope of the roadway alignment. Localized slumping and raveling of the steep cut slopes should be expected. This will require regular maintenance so that the roadside ditch is not clogged. Temporary seepage during spring runoff conditions may contribute most to the ditch main- tenance problems. If seepage is encountered during or after construction or if significant slope failures occur, a geotech- nical engineer should be contacted immediately to evaluate possible remedial action. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from our site reconnaissance and the proposed development plans. Variable site and soil condi- tions may be encountered during construction. We recommend a geotechnical engineer review the design drawings and perform observation and testing of the grading operations. If you have any questions or if we can be of further assis- tance, please let us know. 2C~~174- Very truly yours, yil~hÂ·Â© f.1)P:k 2200 ST24,4.A CHEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1.-26. 9 --6 : 15222 .:' f. 94 :--6 . #3 4 By 927<. ifin *ERPe.. 61..+93.4, Steven L. Pawlak, P.E. Nk<LOF C r.,LJ&1'. SLP/ec -7TE,7- Rev. By: R.M. Chen &Associates - 41 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: Barker-Hoag Subdivision Lot 3 8040 Greenline Review 162 .44 6,0, IA DATE: November 25, 19860 Lf 17 W tz-l , 5,fil 30' i V 1. covag,tal 601Â»4.4 .Jâ€¢+414 A./.1..4 Location: Hoag Subdivision Lot 3, located on the steep, forested 6, 1 'r<'.j 1, v hillside south of Ute Avenue, and just east of the Aspen Chance 01' 6~14 W Subdivision. W,W 1:14 Y. ,Â£*j,#c "4'14' 4 Zoning: C-Conservation. tbilvvill Applicant's Request: Jack Barker requests permission to construct a driveway access to the lot's building envelope following the old railroad right of way and a portion of the city trail. The driveway would make a switchback from the trail and traverse the hillside. Background: The Hoag Subdivision was appr oved by the City in 1971 to create five lots south of Ute Avenue and mainly on steep hillside. Lot 3 is the highest up the hill, on the steepest terrain, and subject to the greatest avalanche danger. The first 8040 Greenline Review for Lot 3 was the Virden 8040 Review, approved on July 20, 1976. A detached garage was to be located off the old railroad right of way; and the house was to be placed with walk-up access only. A temporary construction road would be built, to be recovered and reseeded prior to the certificate of occupancy. As part of the Virden Review, an avalanche hazard study conducted by Hans Frintiger and Whitney Boland in 1976 was submitted. Three avalanche tracks were identified across the property. It was concl uded that within the "wedge" of Douglas fur timber, where the Virden house was proposed and where *the Barker building envelope is located the probability of avalanche penetration was small. On October 7, 1985 the Barker Greenline Review was approved in conj unction with the Nordic Council Trail Greenline Revi ew. The new access road, approximately 690 feet long, would go from Ute Avenue to the Hoag Subdivision Lot 3 building site, passing through Forest Service property, Lot 4 Hoag Subdivision and the Newfoundland Mining Claim. Barker needed a Forest Service Special Use Road Permit for construction of the driveway on its property.; The Forest Service prepared an environmental assessment of Barker' s proposal and on August 27, 1986 denied the request. Therefore, the applicant is bef ore you again to seek alternate access to his house site. Applicable Section of Municipal Code: Section 24-6.2(b) describes the review criteria for the 8040 Greenline Review and is attached for your review. Problem Discussion: A. Engineering Department Comments: In Chuck Roth's memorandum of November 25, 1986, attached, issues are raised regarding: 1. Emergency access effected by the driveway width, switchback radius, and snow removal program. 2. Aval anche haz ard, incl uding the adequacy of mapping so to fully understand the hazard, public safety, slope stability, and aval anche insurance. 3. Drainage along the road cut. 4. Disruption of the landscape that may be reduced by the use of retaining walls so to minimize the road cut width and subsequent loss of vegetation. 5. Interpretation of platting restriction to trail and utility use. B. City Attorney's Comments: The City Attorney recommended that the issue of whether the Hoag Subdivision plat prohibits vehicular access on the old railroad right-of-way (as interpreted by Chuck Roth) or was designated for joint access and trail uses (as held by the applicant) should be presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission for your interpretation. The Planning Office tends to agree with the applicant in this matter. C. Staff Comments: The Planning Office agrees with the Engi- neering Department' s assessment of the technical and safety issues involved in this proposal. We are particularly concerned about the avalanche hazard in the traverse across identified avalanche tracks, and whether there is any suitable mitigation for this problem. It appears that based on this issue that the applicant should prepare an avalanche study/a pplication for review by the Colorado Geological Survey for their eval uati on. This is a standard requirement in Pitkin County under 1041 Regulations; and the City sho uld seek the same level of expertise through the Greenline Revi ew. Criteria 24-6.2(b)(3) specifically requires review of "the suitability of the site for development considering avalanche dangers. " 2 It should be noted that neither the Virden nor prior Barker Greenline Reviews located roads within this avalanche exposure. Last winter (1985-86) the aval anches did run, as verified on a Planning Office /USFS site visit. In addition, there is a concern that criteria (8) and (9) may not be met by this proposal because the road will be quite visible from the valley floor. Perhaps a retaining wall would decrease the environmental disruption and visi- bility. More information is needed to eval uate this aspe ct. We do not believe that this aspect alone is reason for denying the proposal; however, in our opinion both prior approved plans are superior in the effect on the "scenic resource" and "open character of the mountain". In par ticular, the Virden proposal was least disruptive. Mr. Barker has gone to considerable trouble to accommodate the Nordic Council-built trail across his property. This trail should be an ameni ty whether there is shared or separate trail and vehicular access. Of course, "coexistence" appears to be more difficult for the trail users. Because trails had figured heavily into the approval of the Hoag Subdivi sion, as well as in the prior 8040 review, it would be appropriate for both the applicant and the Nordic Council to explore an arrangement for limited snow removal, so to allow for a cross-country track along the right of way. Mr. Barker should also agree to allow the City to share trail use with his present special use road permit for the stretch of the right of way through Forest Service land. Recommendation: The Planning Office recommends tabling the Barker 8040 Greenline Revi ew pending the applicant's submission of: (1) a geologic report of the aval anche hazards and haz ard miti- gation associated with the proposed driveway access for review by the Col orado Geological Survey and (2) more detailed information on the possibility of a retaining wall and revegetation plan. sb.330 3 ' '1 f 3 k OR-~ i U '<j d 1 915* o A - 1- â€¢t O M U 4._ A u e. 44 k ,3 kl- 0-Â¢ w Ay ancl new trgit 4 72 7 . .9 #A r *17 2- P I Vt b R y 0/9 M i lt./ f I.-4 / 1 0 h Lot 3 . Â¥. 4 â‚¬. ~ ~0<032~ ~rl//WAy 4 ., '' : '. 4 s -12 le* tensioh offlf( 1-6 :4 '9Â¢ ft.,~ fl â‚¬ w +-r-â€¢ 1 j 8u.44,4 Egv .49 e }f;* ' MEMORANDUM To: Steve Burstein, Planning Office From: Chuck Roth, Assistant City Engineer 0Â£ Date: November 25, 1986 Re: Barker 8040 Greenline Review Having reviewed the above referenced application, the Engineering Department has the following comments: The Engineering Department memo of September 19, 1985, is referred to and is attached hereto. 2. It is this reviewer's understanding that the only element of the 8040 Greenline - Review which is being addressed in this application is the access road. Comments will therefore be restricted to elements of the 8040 review which would affect the access road. 3. Sec. 24-6.2(b)(2) "The existence of adequate roads to insure fire protection, snow removal and road maintenance." The code requires a 20 foot wide emergency access. Any deviation from that would require approval from Fire Marshall and/or Board of Variance. The switchback would also need acceptance by the Fire Marshall as well as turn around details at the structure for fire fighting vehicles. Clearing snow from the access road may require hauling it away if there is insufficient room for blading it off to the sides. Also, the road and trail co-existence should be designed so that snow which is pushed off of the road will not fall onto, the trail. Regarding fire protection, please note that the Colorado State University Environmental Resources Analysis - 1974 Maps indicates this area to be a severe hazard area for wildfire. The application does not contain statements addressing this criterion. 4. Sec. 24-6.2(b)(3) "The suitability of the site for development considering the slope, ground instability and possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche dangers." - . A map which was submitted with the previous application indicated that the proposed structure is immediately adjacent to a desig- nated avalanche path. The map does not bear a professional engineer's stamp and signature nor an engineering firm title block. The map must be revised to show these items, and a letter from a registered engineer must be submitted with the building permit application which confirms that the building is outside of the avalanche path or that the building is designed for appropri- ate avalanche loads. The letter must also address mud flows and rock falls. A 1973 application for development on this parcel included a memorandum and map prepared by Whitney Borland, P.E. No. 3300 Colorado, P.O. Box 15536, Denver, CO 80215, and by Hans Frutiger, Swiss Institute of Avalanche Research, Davos, Switzerland. The applicant should contact these men/institutions for current _ comments on the site. The map should be overlaid on the topogra- phic map which was submitted with the 1985 application. The Engineering Department recommends against approving the current application.. The access road shown on the 1985 applica- tion is preferable for public safety. The current proposed access road traverses an avalanche area. The submission of 1985 did not traverse or cross that avalanche area. Information from the Nordic Council indicates that there is a small avalanche area on the access road requested in 1985. This information suggests that more complete mapping be submitted for the configuration of the 1985 application, specifically showing the information on the Swiss Institute of Avalanche Research map and showing the Nordic Council information. A retaining wall or other appropriate structure may need to be constructed to prevent an avalanche at the location reported by the Nordic Council. Previous reviews spoke of proof of avalanche insurance. This should still be a requirement if avalanche insurance is appropri- ate. If avalanche insurance is not appropriate, there should be a letter by a qualified individual, such as a registered profes- sional engineer, to that effect. The application does not contain statements addressing the elements of this criterion. 5. Sec. 24-6.2(b)(4) "The effects of the development on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion and consequent effects on water pollu- tion." This has not been addressed in the application. It should be discussed in a letter from a qualified expert, in this case as regards the access road. 6. Sec. 24-6.2(b)(6) --- "The design and location of any proposed structure, roads, driveways or trails and their compatibility with the terrain." The proposed road is not compatible with the terrain because proposed cuts would leave potentially unnecessarily large scars on the landscape. Retaining walls or some other construction technique might be appropriate for reducing the width of cuts and the amount of vegetation destroyed. The Engineering Department is satisfied from a review of the records that a trail was intended to be provided for separately from the access road. It appears that the access road was intended to be located adjacent to the trail. a. First, the plat of the Hoag Subdivision indicates that the existing railroad right-of-way (ROW) was reserved as a utilities and trail easement. This plat also indicates a triangle of land as "BLM to City of Aspen for access and cul-de-sac." It appears from this that a separate roadway for access from the trail use of the old railroad ROW is appropriate and allowed. b. Jan. 26, 1971 -P & Z minutes - "... the City should be sure that all easements that could be used for trails are so indicated on the plat." C. February 9, 1971 -P&Z minutes - "... provision or multiple use of easements, including trail easements be provided." d. February 23, 1971 -P&Z minutes - "... providing for utility easements to also be used for bicycle paths and trails. " e. May 12, 1971 - letter from City to BLM - requests access "used to connect a street and trail utilizing the old railroad ROW .... " This letter is unclear about details. (Copy attached.) f. May 18, 1971 - letter from BLM to City - gives permis- sion to construct easement and makes reference to "Develop- ment Plan ... approved with lease." The "Development Plan" and lease are not contained in the records currently on hand. "The Development Plan was approved with the lease, therefore, no formal application or additional approval is required to construct the proposed access as outlined in your letter of May 12, 1971." g. June 1, 1971 -P&Z minutes - "... Mr. Blanning stated he has provided on the plat 50' easement along railroad right of way." h. July 9, 1976 - memo to Planning from City Engineer- . I "3) The 'proposed trail easement' indicated on the sketch plan is in fact already a platted 15 foot utility and trail easement (Hoag Subdivision)." As to the Forest Service denial of the 1985 application, it is hoped that they will reassess that application in light of current information as summarized above. It appears to be more hazardous to the public to approve an access road which traverses an avalanche area than to approve the road requested in 1985. The Engineering Department suggests that conditions might be appropriate which require the applicant to remove cut materials from the site as opposed to dumping them over a bank and further that requiring the construction of retaining walls, slurry walls, tied-back walls or other construction techniques might be appropriate rather than permitting laid back slopes of 1:1 or 2:1 which would result in large earth scars and the removal of many trees. Another possibility is to provide a new trail alignment developed by the applicant. This might prove to be a narrower "road" than would be needed for an access road and therefore less costly to construct and less of an impact on the terrain. 7. Sec. 24-6.2(b)(7) "Whether proposed grading will result in the least disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land features." This has been discussed above. Approvals- for road construction should be conditioned on using construction techniques such as retaining walls in order to reduce the width of cut and subse- quent loss of vegation. 8. Sec. 24-6.2(b)(8) "The placement and clustering of structures so as to minimize roads, cutting and grading, and increase the open space and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource." This appears to have been done. cc: Jay Hammond, Director of Public Works CR/cr/review.1 9 Dm . 0 9 . 9 LAWOFFICES if NOV 20l BROOKE A. PETERSON APROFESSIONALCORPORATION 315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (303)925-8166 '9 November- 20, 1986 HAND DELIVERED Mr. Steve Burstein 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Barker 8040 Greenline Review Dear Steve, As Chuck Roth requested, I am enclosing copies of Jack Barker's Deed to Lot 3, The Hoag Subdivision, as well as a copy of the Special Use Permit for access issued by the United States Forest Service. Although the copy indicates the permit is in Mr. Shapery's name, Mr. Barker's permit is identical. I would hope that our meeting on Tuesday helped resolve the question as to the use of the railroad right of way. Please advise me immediately as to any comments which you receive as to the actual design of the proposed driveway, or if you require any further information. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Yours very truly, BR 1- - -~-7.--~ PETERSON, A i .l~Corpobation 0 -TV-/ - A. Ptter~so\1 BAP:kl cc: Jack Barker Enclosure .. United State, DeparÂ·ment of Agriculturi ..RECORD NO. (1-2) 6. REGION (3-4) c. FOREST (5-6) Forlit Service 10 0_ 2- 1.-5 d. DISTRICT (7-8) .. USER NO. (9-12) f. KIND OF USE (13-15) SPECIAL USE PERMIT Aspen 2-1 -53 -1 -2 7_ 1-4 Act olock. 21, 1976 (Kood) g. STATE (16-17) h. COUNTY (18-20) k. CARD NO. (21) (PL 94-579)W FSM 2733. co -Q_B Pitkin 09.1 1 Sandor W. Shapery of 8008 Girard Ave, Suite 410 (Name) (Addre,I) La Jolla, CA 92037 (hereafter called thepermittee) ishereby authorized to use National Forest lands for the construction, reconstruction, maintenance, and use of a road within the White River National Forest for the protection, administration, management and utilization of lands and the resources thereof now or hereafter owned or controlled by the permittee. This permit is subiect to the general provisions listed herein and to the special clauses and requirements, items 7 through 17 , on page(s) 2 through 4 attached hereto and made a part of this permit. This permit covers a right of way .04 . miles in length, 20 feet in width ondcontcining approximately - 10 acres, and located upon the ground according to the survey line, figures, measure- ments, widths, and other references shown on the plat attached hereto and made a part hereof.- 1"=50' map dated 1/77 D.ME Permit class D GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. This permit is subiect to all valid rights existing on this date. 2. The permittee in exercising the privileges granted by this permit shall comply with all applic:ble State and Federal laws, Executive Orders, and Federal rules and regulations. 3. The permittee shcll cut only such timber as necessary in clearing for road construction, reccnstruc- tion, and maintenance. Timber so cut shall, unless otherwise agreed to, be cut into logs of lengths speci- fied by the Forest Service and decked along the road for disposal by the Forest Service. 4. The permittee shall do everything reasonably within his power to prevent forest fires, and will not dispose of material by burning in open fires during the closed season established by law or regulction without c written permit from the Forest Service. 5. The permittee shall fully repair all damage, other than ordinary wear and tear, to Nationcl Forest roads and trails caused by the permittee in exercise of the privileges granted by this permit. 6. No member of or Delegate to Congress or Resident Commissioner. shall be admitted to any share or part of this agreement or to any benefit that may arise herefrom unless it is made with a corporation for its general benefit. 1 z :Tbit p g fraU =fal:Mc b R zfg :mine*er+ L E,mi z, eacled& M ucvx bR=c:lke k amt :04 >1 6* gs,n d UE N E k 11 R uqi: 2 XM Ot ZI:132 Iliaxatiocrxrf die:Ergi acrub<Emest Ee<licil~Â£4,lefizlie.*16Â®ENXEX THIS PERMIT IS ACCEPTED SUBJECT TO ALL OF ITS TERMS AND CONDITIONS NAME OF PERMITTEE SIGNATUREOF AUTHORIZEDOFFICER OATE PERMITTEE TITLE Sandor W. Shanerv Nthli AHO,0|GNA ~EPI TITLE DATE ISSUING OFFiCg} ~0ifi&,ard ~~ W o~ Forest Sunervisor \ J.nv v :PO .3.-477.-,CAP 2700-15(11/73 K-Â· â€¢'A ' ' 1 0 <fiti. 0. 1 .- . .. . . . I ./ ..0 1. . .- ..... . J. .- {%...... 4,31 \ . ....: 0,4 -I ' i ..... 00.0 ...... 4'wiâ€¢/LP/ ... . 2...9.94 0,1,- r,-r,Â·â€¢râ€¢.rr, . .7, .74 4 .... . 1 4 .. . I.- \ \ I -- - 7 ' L CT.; : . X :Littxr:.I '* - -./ ......... /Â· -- It ,\ , i ,. . 1 . ILA . 2.90. . .-,9 4 - . â€¢â€¢r- .Â·.L.oel'LOY= . ...12.. %. .... .... , J ,~ ~...;ID. 1.-, I, 11..-'t'.i./I Â·-ek . I . .S'. 1 4- 2.06 AAE.r- ~ \ 464' /1 I P.,f> .Â·:4 +1.. 10F.2.'/:--Â· .'26. .. I .v. I Vil--/-4 0 .. 1. 1. .. . 0. / r k ..... i ... 2, m. /0 ,< V : / i -= Â©64- ... .:19 e //73. :I--- - I I \ 1 . r...... . & 4 - . 1 .. ,.... - J \ , . . e -'. # 1. L - ./2 . / 6.-1 \.44 .\ , ... \*. h. / 1 - _ I CÂ¢*C\ .. ..\ I \ \ 4.4,1 -6 4. ,-0.-O.2. pvull De-/Au 0. -- ...... 01.2219:%3*'iia,1. . f Ji â€¢ /40 P-â€¢44'e-ti" \ -' '.-0....... AOB<h<.4.2'1Â· Â·: f .:-Â· ... r.ii,~.. Â· . r. ~â€¢-4 *bâ€¢ \ .. -4. - D:ZeÂ« 7-L- -.. <5 - ' ~ A - I .... - . -1 1 1 24.V:393>.257'FIC.re J , , -- .- , N .. C-"= 1 Fl'i\1 -1. L rLAT op PLUE ,â‚¬1<Y Â©ljODI\/IÂ©ION â€¢eâ€¢:-; Crâ€¢:'â€¢ r"'9 -6-~ â€¢B- â€¢71 â€¢â€¢-f â€¢ Câ€¢-Câ€¢16 ..- - ... -.0 Vg#2 -ZÂ». AN r CNI, CCI-Ca-11'~lur-) PACIO'I 1 ....-' Â° Â· .9 -I. Â·- ..â€¢- .... -c ./ . 0. ..Â»~%':, 0-5 â€¢, -LAZZ I.)/t 1' .,00 I ............... ~46 ./ U. D ./.0 ry-re.- ..... O'.VtÂ·ICE: Â¢ SUBDIVIDEK; BLUE SKY INC 519 5. ~ 'Le=1<CR ASPLN, COLO. ~ ~ :=AN,2.:T G...63=,=,W=.i= .. ...: ,-0-7- I .2 ~ c-perNe 1\19.0,CK,r'hirT- 1. 9 ... : . ) h. rLAN "NG,NE) 7/â€¢WI,15 Cok.18'llej,0,4 .rrr.J,-4- Ir Ccâ€¢tolia cer-TIFICAT~ I â€¢-43..=C-K LAâ€¢9.4 #Â·1-,; - ~JI n-4Â¥ 61'01%4.)1 Â¥,- A-'t.tr r, n,c Im' Or- Cet,-Ace' 1 -m cOL/4,1 i of- Ill â€¢4Â»1 1.....0. ...... 14,â€¢T i .- .... C. f'llue 5â€¢ V ....Il leâ€¢ i i -9 A-p ./0 ....+I,i,/ .... Ir nce /9 - _._ ./ 91Â· i ke'ihifi ' . . CCL~I *NM tâ€¢â€¢/ m . U -10 â€¢4-~ tu-w "~Le N ,LA i A.O.- CZ -P 'Gt - ' 2~'t'l Ort.aiw rÂ·. Arr,>eAL.60. ACCV?"4QI ,â„¢ - acv'ref CUUÂ· AN' Rcceâ€¢Â·C~tÂ« ' i. C.rÂ¥ C.'1-to'F ./ C-â€¢ 0..-o.,CO-â€¢.â€¢04 '-tr' ... k.n.â€¢â€¢. Arr/,9 TIâ€¢- rul ... . , . , .. :Â£ , .7 . I p . 1 : 0 . . 1 I (i- CO Managernent, Inc., DCSIGGNIK,4 SUKVCPOK t; ".1 Â·LD .w, ,,IN 1 /'t .12 -19 " ' ' Â·liuâ€¢ ,/ A e .3â€¢ 71 D ir,Le 0, 'IATCH 1973 104 . , '-, 1 Box 1730 . ...608 Â· Arr,â€¢m. Colorado 81611 JANUA= 877 0.14, ' , 303Â·925 X88 .. .. 1 1 - . 6 ... - Â»--1.-:...: 4,2 ... '.: ,.,t , .1 1 . 10 , 1 .. .... X Sandor W. Shapery 2 7. Fee Clause, Roads In consideration for this use, the permittee shall pay the Forest Ser- vice, U.S. Department of Agriculture, the sum of two hundred dollars ($200.00), for the period from January 1, 1984 to December 31, 1984, and thereafter annually on January 1, two hundred dollars ($200.00): Provided, however, That charges for this use may be made or readjusted whenever necessary to place the charges on a basis commensurate with the value of use authorized by this permit. 8. Service Charge A late payment charge, in addition to the regular fees, shall be made for failure to meet the fee payment due date or any of the dates specified for submission of statements required for fee calculation. The late payment charge shall be $25, or an amount calculated by applying the current rate prescribed by Treasury Fiscal Requirements Manual bulletins to the overdue amount for each 30-day period, or fraction thereof, that the payment is overdue, whichever is greater. If the due date falls on a nonworkday, the late payment charge shall not apply until the end of the next workday. 9. Termination, Class D Permits This permit is issued for use of the entire tract and provides for limited private access to SE!< of Section 18, T.lOS., R.84W., 6th P.M. within the White River National Forest for the enjoyment of the owner thereof, his invitees and guests, and so long as the property is devoted to its present use. This permit does not authorize additional access to portions of the described property which may be transferred to others; it is not assignable and shall terninate upon any change in the title, possession or nature of the use of all or any portion of the said prop- erty. However, a new permit may be granted in accordance with the then- existing laws and regulations if this permit should be terminated for any of these causes. 10. Erosion Control The permittee shall be responsible for the prevention and control of soil erosion and gullying on lands covered by this permit and adjacent thereto, resulting from the construction or maintenance of the authorized use. He shall so construct and maintain his improvements to avoid the accumulation of excessive heads of water and to avoid encroachment on streams. He shall revegetate all ground where the soil has been exposed and shall construct and maintain terracing, water bars, lead-off ditches, or other preventative works that- may be required to prevent and control erosion as prescribed by the District Ranger. .. . Sandor W. Shapery 3 11. Area Maintenance The permitted area will be maintained to present a clean, neat, and orderly appearance. Trash and debris will be disposed of currently. 12. Esthetics The permittee shall protect the scenic esthetic values of the area under this permit, and the adjacent land, as far as possible with the authorized use, during construction, operation, and maintenance of the improvements. 13. Maintenance The permittee shall provide maintenance so that at the termination of this permit, the road will be in a condition equal to that normally prevailing on roads of like standard, and unless otherwise agreed to, lead-off drainage and water barriers to prevent erosion will be con- structed on the road as directed by the Forest Service. 14. Road Control Roads constructed under authority of this permit shall be subject to control by the permittee except: 1. They shall at all times be open to use by Forest Service employees on official business. 2. The Forest Service may issue permits authorizing use of the roads to other parties who own resources or lands served by the road; Provided, That such use will not materially interfere with the use by the permittee; and Provided further, That such parties will be required to bear proportionate maintenance costs under a written agreement with the permittee herein, or in accordance with arrange- ments specified by the Forest Service. 15. Nonexclusive Use This permit shall not be exclusive. The Forest Service reserves the right to use or permit others to use any part of the permitted area for any purpose, provided such use does not interfere with the rights and privileges hereby authorized. /7 1 Â¥ Sandor W. Shapery 4 16. Permit Termination Unless sooner terminated or revoked, this permit shall expire and become void on December 31, 1993, but a new permit to occupy and use the same National Forest land may be granted provided the permittee shall have notified the Forest Supervisor not less than six (6) months prior to said date that a new permit is desired, and the permittee is willing that his future occupancy of the premises shall be subject to such conditions and stipulations as existing or prospective circumstances may warrant and if, in the opinion of the issuing officer or his successor, issuance of a permit is desirable and in the public interest. 17. Superseded Permit This permit supersedes a special use permit designated: Blue Sky Corpor- ation, Access Road BLM #C-25089, 10/12/77. t.7 4 CITY *hASPEN ~ 130 louth galena street aspe#~tplorad 4* 1611 MEMORANDUM DATE: ' Octobet' 28, 1986 ' TO: Steve Burstein FROM: City Attorney RE: Barker 8040 Greenline Review If the representations made by Brooke are borne out in fact and can be verified, particularly the representation that Herb Bartel insisted on definition of right-of-way for access to reflect trail use in addition, then I would concur with Brooke on the basis of the history of the approval. PJT/mc MEMORANDUM TO: City Engineer Nordic Council FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: Barker 8040 Greenline Review Parcel ID#2737-182-68-001 Case No. 42A-86 DATE: . October.30,-1986 ' Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by Brooke Peterson on behalf of his client, Jack Barker request- ing approval of 8040 Greenline Reivew to construct a driveway to a proposed building site, Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision. Som e of th e concerns that the Planning Office has identified are construction of road in an avalanche zone, effect on trail and most suitable location of garage. Please return your comments to the Planning Office no later than November 17, 1986 so this office has adequate time to prepare for its presentation before P&Z on December 2, 1986. Thank you. 7 ' f 3 ~[E Â© IN I19[2 TA Jack Barker P.O. Box 3379 \\ 930I Aspen,Co. 81612 U\\1 303-925-8580 010-29-86* * Mr. Steven Burstein 119 East Cooper Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Barker 8040 Greenllne Review Dear Steve, Thank you for taking the time to inspect Lot 3 of the Hoag subdivision with me last week. As you could see, the new ski trail easement changes access considerations for my approved building k envelope. We now have the opportunity to build a very short (245') extension to the existing trail to gain access (see enclosed engineers drawings titled "Preliminary Layout and Cross Sections). These drawings have incorporated some design changes that are a result of the concerns you brought up at our meeting at the Lot. These concerns were as follows: 1) Avalanche path hazard; the strong tree growth indicates a very minimal risk from avalanche. Enclosed are some pictures of the new ski trail that show the relative size of the tree growth in the slide area. Also notice that the trees are not deformed from slide pressure. Our intention is to make sure that no large trees are cut through the slide area. The City and Nordic Council have seen fit to build a ski trail through this area for the public, which will probably result in more traffic than this private driveway. 2) Visual Impact of road, and the stability of the road cut. The cross sections indicate the minimum cut angle possible, and a combination of cut and fill Our engineers have decided that this would not disturb as much of the vegetation that ls holding the snow during Winter and the soll during Spring and Summer. This would also minimize the visual impact. See the enclosed pictures that show the existing bank on the upper side of the ski trail. We propose to use a little more fill on the lower side in order to minimize the cut on the upper side. Our experience from excavating for the Duplex on lot *4 below this site, is that soil conditions are very stable. It is also our experience that there is not any erosion problem from Spring run off. The soil here is almost all broken rock that is very Dorous and never aet saturated. - Jack Barker P.O. Box 3379 Aspen, Co. 81612 303-925-8580 3) Can we coexist with nordic trail in Winter? My experience Is that it is next to impossible to plow a road In this North facing and shady exposure down to the gravel bed once regular snows have begun. We tried this during the constructlon of the Lot 4 duplex. This area is Just frozen solid in the winter and cannot be maintained for other than four wheel drive vehicles. Since it will be in the interest of the landowner to make sure that the ski trail is maintained, he will be willing to make some plowing compromises on the trail section of his driveway. Because the future resident may want to ski to and from the mountain from this location, there may be days of no car use during the ski season. If there is eventually too much skier traffic, we could widen the road to give them more room for a track. On the other hand, what if this is not a popular trail and is eventually abandoned by the financially vulnerable Aspen Nordic Council. Keep in mind that we are proposing a 245 foot extension to the existing road rather than the 690 foot driveway that was previously approved. There Just does not seem to be a better choice than this low impact alternative. Sincerely, / ) 4-t 1 . :/ O Uk LAL /-1 0 M.*1%-fly [Mil LAW OFFICES BROOKE A. PETERSON |A< 1 OCT 221986 ~ d A PROFESS IONAL CORPORATION -,1 315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (303)925-8166 October 21, 1986 HAND DELIVERED Mr. Steven Burstein 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Barker 8040 Greenline Permit Amendment Dear Steve, In response to your question regarding the language on the Plat of the Hoag Subdivision, I have again reviewed that document which is recorded in Plat Book 4 at Page 218 of the records of Pitkin County, Colorado. In addition, I have reviewed the City of Aspen's records regarding this subdivision. In examining the Plat, it is clear that the only access to Lot 3 is along what is listed as a "public trail and utility easement" through Bureau of Land Management property. In reviewing the Planning and Zoning Commission minutes of June 1, 1971 regarding the Subdivision approval, I note that the Planning and Zoning Commission was concerned about the access question and Mr. Blanning's (the developer) reply was that he had provided for "multiple use" of the easement. It is also clear from the City of Aspen's file that the City Engineer, Charles R. Gilkey, at the time of subdivision, required Mr. Blanning to prove that he had access across the Bureau of Land Management property and on the railroad right of way prior to his approval of the Plat. From the records it is clear that Mr. Blanning clearly had to satisfy Mr. Gilkey in order to be granted subdivision approval. In fact, all of the minutes of the review boards which refer to the Hoag Subdivision address the issue of access, those minutes indicate that the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council mandated that access be established prior to final approval of the subdivision. The June 1, 1971 minutes also indicate that the Planning and Zoning Commission, after review of the correspondence from the Bureau of Land Management, approved the access to Lot 3. One can only conclude that this conclusion by the reviewing authorities, coupled with the Forest Service's position as successor to the Bureau of Land Manage- ment, that access is already afforded along the existing road to Mr. Steven Burstein October 21, 1986 Page Two Lot 3, would lay to rest any questions regarding the use of the existing road as an access road to Lot 3, regardless of the language on the Plat. In fact, as noted in the minutes, Mr. Bartel's concern as the planner in charge of the subdivision in 1971 was only that the use of the access road for a trail be specifically mentioned on the Plat, so that the public use could not be questioned. Lastly, the City records reflect that in 1972, when a different applicant proposed to construct a seven (7) unit apartment building on Lot 3, the Planning and Zoning Commission again discussed access and that the Plat for the Hoag Sub- division showed access "on the railroad right of way, and across BLM land," and that it needed to be widened in order to accom- modate the seven (7) unit apartment building. Once again, the access question was raised and dealt with. I would hope that this review of past history would clarify the use of the existing road for access to Lot 3, as well as the question of the role of the U.S. Forest Service as successor to the Bureau of Land Management, which, by their adverse ruling of our request, reaffirmed that access exists across its property for the use and benefit of the owners of Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision. Please advise me if you have any further questions. Yours very truly, BROOKEr.TqETFf?96-3 A Professi Dration By--4<)*bc #11 14 - gr*kfi A. PÂ®te~'on BAP:kl Vii CC: Jack Barker CAbLLUAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen 1-131 -l D- kg toi DATE RECE]VED: ~f~.b-4 ..1 ~~/ CAS E NO. .4 A-86 1 '11 F DATE RECEIVED COMPLET~: - STAFF: 40> ~ /2 A 1 PROJ ECT NAME :Il tet-k~Ad *40 9,46'Lot,/Uj 4 44# ~ 1..Ly APPL ICANT: (~.A.if t'' ~20 &,A'~~5. ~ Applicant Add~f ss~<Phone: REPRES ENTATIVi: 4),4M'h.-*thÂ¢f tht.l ali- , ~ f , Representative REAress/Phone :715 12- Ir_lAYINI.1.j,Al,#Li k) Al,(,v / 1-.0 K/(cll Type of Application: 0 3--3/66 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 SubmisiziiÂ·Â®-PT--Â·v-----1 -1 4 $1,900.00 - 1 - I .- 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 ~ 5 $ 6-80.00 31 0 V. Referral Fees - Environmental Health, Housing Office 1. Minor Applications 2 $ 50.00 2. Major Applications 5 $ 125.00 Referral Fees- Engineering Minor Applications 80.00 K/" Major Applications 200.00 f .':'UL'... â‚¬b ec MEETING DATE: ANU H PUBLIC HEARING: YES #~ DATE REFERRED: IN IT IALS: REFERRALS: City Atty Aspen Consol. S.D. School District -7- City Engineer Mtn. Bell Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas Housing Dir. - Parks Dept. - State Hwy Dept (Glenwd) Aspen Water Holy Cross Electric State Iiwy Dept (Gr.Jtn) City Electric Fire Marshall Bldg: Zoning/Inspectn Envir. Hlth. Fire Chief Other: Roaring Fork Transit Roaring Fork Energy Center FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: IN IT IAL: City Atty City Engineer Building Dept. Oth er: Oth er: FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: 4% LAWOFFICES BROOKE A. PETERSON APROFESSIONALCORPORATION 315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (303)925-8166 October 3, 1986 Mr. Steven Burstein 119 East Cooper Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Barker 8040 Greenline Review Dear Steve, As you know, the arbitrary action of the United States Forest Service in disallowing the creation of a new access driveway to my client's property (Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision) has necessitated a redesign of that driveway entirely on that lot. Accordingly, please allow this letter to serve as an application to amend the existing 8040 Greenline approval for the construc- tion of the driveway. I enclose herewith the revised survey for your review, which shows the revised location of the driveway and Nordic ski trails. As you also know, a portion of this driveway has already been built as a part of the previously approved Aspen/Snowmass Nordic Council cross-country trail. That portion is designated in red on the survey. My client and the Aspen/Snowmass Nordic Council have determined that they will be able to co-exist on this trail given the actions of the Forest Service if the new driveway alignment is approved. The remainder of the new driveway will go from the switchback on the existing trail in a southeasterly direction, as shown on the survey. The new portion of the driveway will continue to be shielded from sight as much as possible due to the large pine tress and existing vegetation in the area. The same reasons which I advanced earlier for the approval of this road still exist. As with the first alignment, this driveway will enable one home with an attached garage, rather than a home with a detached garage, to be built, and will therefore be more compatible with the considerations contained in Section 24-6.2 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen. Clearly since this new alignment, which will be constructed at an eight percent (8%) grade, is substantially shorter than the alignment previously approved by the Planning .r Mr. Steven Burstein October 3, 1986 Page Two and Zoning Commission, the disturbance to the area will be minimized. Instead of a driveway approximately six hundred ninety (690) feet in length and a separate nordic trail of three hundred sixty (360) feet in length, the driveway and nordic trail will have a combined length of approximately five hundred forty five (545) feet, a reduction of forty nine percent (49%) in the total length of the driveways and trails previously approved. The driveway will be constructed to take advantage of the porosity and natural stability of the rock in the area, and to provide for adequate drainage. Every effort will be made to harmonize this part of the driveway with the terrain, as has been done with the nordic trail. Clearly those items 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 by the Planning and Zoning Commission will continue to apply to the new portions of the driveway. Mr. Barker remains, as always, committed to assisting in the construction of the Nordic Trail system, and to a minimal disturbance to this area. He seeks this alternative driveway out of necessity, due to the Forest Service's action. As you know, they were unwilling to sanction an access road across the Forest Service property due to its belief that access already existed. This proposed amendment allows the least practical disturbance to Lot 3 of the Hoag Subdivision. Mr. Barker's driveway and the Nordic Council will have to be able to co-exist given that this solution is the only one which accommodates both uses on the property. I would appreciate it if you would schedule this matter on the Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda as soon as possible. As you know, the Forest Service's delay in reviewing the previous requests has created severe scheduling problems with the onset of winter. Mr. Steven Burstein October 3, 1986 Page Three I also enclose herewith my firm's check in the amount of Three Hundred Fifty Dollars ($350.00) to cover the cost of reviewing this Amendment. Please contact me if you have any questions. Yours verv truly, BROOK]p' A. FETE .Â¥ON, A Pr~/fessi/ona/Corpo~ation BY: Icii fh 14= 1 0~ke A. Pete~srn BAP:kl cc: Jack Barker Aspen Nordic Council Fil -. MEMORANDUM I - TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: Nordic Council and Barker 80 40 Greenline Review DATE: ~1*tober 2,1985 ~ ' REQUEST: The Aspen/Snowmass Nordic Council desires to compl ete the segment of the Nordic Skiing Trail extending east from Aspen Mountain (Little Nell) to the Ute Rock Trail. Part of the trail is in the City and part is in the County. The Nordic Council requests 8040 Greenline Review approval from the City for a portion of the trail traversing Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision to the old Midland Railroad right-of-way. Jack Barker, owner of Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision requests approval of his F Greenline application to build a new access road from Ute Avenue to a building site on his property. The proposed road would pass through 90. Forest Service property in the County, Lot 4, Hoag Subdivision and the i Newfoundland Mining Claim before entering Lot 3. LOCATION: Lot 3 of the Hoag Subdivision is located on the steep, forested hillside south of Ute Avenue, just to the east of the Aspen Chance Subdivision. ( ZONING: Lot 3 is zoned C - Conservation. BACKGROUND: The Hoag Subdivision was approved by the Aspen City Council on October 18, 1971. On the original plat, the old Midland right-of-way was designated a "Utility and Public Trail Easement." P The Midland appears to be the only access provided to Lot 3, although it was not shown as an ingress/egress access. It should be noted that each of the five lots in the Hoag Subdivision are on steep terrain and contain limited Euilding sites. The slope of Lot 3 varies from approximately 54% to 87%, as calculated from the topographic map prepared by the Cooper Aerial Survey Company. Two identified avalanche tracks go through this property, further limiting location of a building site. :i On July 20, 1976, the City Planning Commission approved the "Virden 8040 Greenline Review" for a single-family home on Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision. Schematics of the design and locations of the house and garage wore presented in the 1976 application, in an attempt to help identify and propose mitigation measures for the hazards of develop- ment. An avalanche hazard report was prepared for Lot 3 by Frutiger and Borland. In Virden's plan, the garage was located in the hillside off of the Midland right-of-way and the house was up and to the east from the garage. A temporary construction road would be built to the building site and then revegetated. The conditions for the 1978 approval included: :.i 1. Revegetation of the temporary construction road. 2. Only trees necessary for building construction and utility i purposes shall be removed. " 3. It shall be recognized by appropriate legal documents that the City of Aspen is not held liable for any avalanche damage as a result of the approval. 4. An analysis of the building design in relation to the avalanche danger shall be completed by a registered professional engineer. 5. The Lowing comments from the July 1976 Engineering Depart- ment memorandum were also incorporated into the conditions of ap- proval. a. A water booster system will almost certainly be required to obtain adequate water pressure at the site. b. A condition of approval of the Hoag 'Subdivision was that no building permit be issued until a commitment for sewer ~ service has been made with Aspen Metro Sanitation District, L~ c. Special consideration should be given to the structural design of the buildings as the garage would be in the avalanche overflow area and the house would be near although outside the main avalanche chute. This 1976 action is relevant to Mr. Barker's present application because (1) the issues are still. largely the same; and (2) if this application were denied, then the prior approval would still be valid. The Nordic Council trail presently extends from the Aspen Mountain Ski Area to just above Aspen Chance at a width of four ( 4) feet. Prior to studying Barker's proposal, the Nordic Council wanted to construct a t trail traversing the mountainside, staying approximately 20 to 30 feet in elevation above the Midland right-of-way. Present plans are to widen the existing trail to ten feet width and to follow an alignment that drops through Hoag Subdivision Lot 3 to a point of intersection with the Midland right-of-way. This intersection is approximately where the garage was to be located on the 1976 site plan. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE CODE: Section 24-6.2(b) describes the review criteria for the 8040 Greenline Review, and is attached for your review. i 0-1 PLANNING OFFICE REVIEW: A. Referral Agency Comments 1. Engineering Department - In the September 19, 1985, memo- randum from the Assistant City Engineer (Attachment D) , the following concerns were raised: a. The Barker development plan for the intended structure is inadequate for review. b. Easements through the property that the Barker driveway would utilize must be shown. c. The Nordic Council proposal ref ers to the removal of all excavated materials from the trail construction. Perhaps the same practice should be used for Barker 's Z driveway. t1 d. A registered engineer should address landslide and snow removal issues involved in the building and maintenance P of Barker's driveway. e. Adequate water pressure and sewer hook-up should be provided to the site. Utility easements appear to be adequate. 14'In f. The site is located in the following hazard areas identified on 10 41 maps: (i) Severe wildfire hazard; (ii) Potential avalanche area. g. The applicant may wish to contact the Colorado Geologic Survey for a site specific analysis of potential geologic hazards. 2 h. There should be a current assessment of the avalanche danger to the site and proposed structure. i. A drainage plan and calculations must be submitted for Engineering Department review prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. Fire Marshall - In the October 1, 1985 memorandum from Jim Wilson, the following comments were made: a. There are problems providing fire protiction services to the site because of the length (700 feet) and width (14 feet) of the driveway and the absence of a fire hydrant within 500 feet of the future house. b. If water service can be provided to a future residence, a fi.re-sprinkler system should be installed, solving the access and fire hydrant problems. c. Substantial thinning of vegetation is required to create a "safety zone" around the building site, mitigating wildfire hazards caused by development. 3. Water Department - In the September 20, 1985 memorandum from Jim Markalunas, it is stated that the applicant must furnish 7 evidence of a utility easement and install a meter. A booster pump and pressure tank system may be necessary to increase water pressure. If a fire hydrant is required, than a flow analysis water main extension, booster pump and pum per type hydrant are necessary. 4. U.S. Forest Service - In a conversation with Greg Thompson of the U.S. Forest Service on September 16, 1985, it was explained that an environmental assessment will be conduct- ed for the portion of the proposed driveway on USFS land. A Special Use application made by the City is required for the Nordic Council's use of the Midland right-of-way. 5. Pitkin County Planning Engineer and Attorney - Pitkin County , staff determined that a 1041 env-ironmental review is not required for the Nordic Council Trail located in the County's jurisdiction. However, the Nordic Council must provide more information and a statement of commitments for the project. Regarding the proposed driveway, it was j determined that the County would not conduct its own 10-41_ review and would forward the City's and Forest Service's reviews to the County P&Z for their review and decision- making. STAFF COMMENTS: The Planning Office has the following comments: 1. Lot 3 of the Hoag Subdivision is an approved subdivision lot. Given the environmental and service-related problems associated , with developing the site, we would have recommended denial if this were a request for a new subdivision. 2. The development plan for the house site is not adequately detailed for Greenline Review. However, based on the avalanche tracks, the terrain and potential access, it is clear that the only possible building site is within the building envelope indicated in Barker's proposal. A future Greenline Review should be conducted for a specific development plan of the building site. 3. IIi- addition to all of. the concerns expressed by referral agen- 3 cies, the Planning Office is concerned with the loss of trees and the visibility of- the proposed developments. The techniques of making trail and road cuts to minimize disturbance are particu- larly important to the acceptability of these proposals. Based ...214- 3 on several site visits, it appears th the trail, drive-way, and house site would not be very visible from the valley floor of Aspen and could mainly be seen from across the valley at a higher. 4 elevation. Regarding development techniques and the loss of trees, it is felt that with conditions suggested by referral agency comments and the careful attention of the applicants, we can be assured that the projects will not unduly disturb the hillside and f or e st. 4. The Nordic Council Trail is proposed to be 10 feeâ‚¬'Wide in order to accommodate a Piston Bully to groom the trail and set tracks. While this width is in excess of a minimum, more primitive cross-country ski trail, it appears to be necessary in order to create the quality trail system that was envisioned in the approved Trails Element of the Master Plan. 5. The Barker building env elope is not located within the setbacks of the lot; and a variance would be required in order to build there. At the time of the Greenline Review for a specific development plan, application for a variance should be made. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval for the portion of the Nordic Council Trail on Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision , subj ect to the following conditions: 1. The trail shall be constructed with the minimum disturbance of land, including the removal of excavated materials, and cutting as few trees as possible and generally on the up-slope of the trail so as not to make it visible. 2. Revegetation of the disturbed areas shall be accomplished through spreading an appropriate seed mix. 3. The Nordic Council shall consult a registered engineer to determine the stability and necessary lay back of the trail cut prior to construction of the trail. 4. The Nordic Council shall submit a statement to the City Attorney waiving City liability for avalanche damage and harm to persons using the trail. 5. The Nordic Council shall post signs and station per sonnel at entrances to the trail so as to close the trail when it is determined that avalanche risks are high. 6. A special use permit application for use of the Midland right-of- way from the Forest Service shall be prepared by the Nordic Council and approved by the USFS prior to use of that segment of the trail. The Planning Office recommends approval for the access road for the Barker Greenline Review subject to the following conditions: 1. No construction of any structure on Lot 3 Hoag Subdivision shall be allowed until a development plan is given approval through a separate 8040 Greenline Review. 2. All access easements for the driveway shall be obtained and submitted in a form acceptable to the City Attorney prior to any clearing or construction of the driveway. f 3. Approval from the USFS for access easements through Forest Service pro perty shall be obtained. A copy of this approval shall be submitted to the Planning Office prior to construction. 4. All excavated materials not used for "fill" from the driveway construction shall be removed along the entire length of the driveway. A similar measure for the building site shall be 4 â€¢ addre d by the applicant in the su ttal for the development plan -- 40 Greenline Review. 5. . Revegetation of the cut and filled areas of theÂ·driveway shall be accomplished through the spreading of an appropriate seed mix, both uphill and downhill. 6. The driveway shall be constructed cutting as few trees as possible and generally on the upslope of the driveway alignment. 7. Appropriate legal documents shall be submittedÂ·-to the City Attorney waiving City liability for avalanche damage and harm to persons using the driveway. 8. A registered engineer shall address landslide and snow removal issues involved in the building and maintenance of the entire length of the driveway. A report shall be submitted to the City Engineer's Office prior to construction of the driveway. 9. A current assessment of the avalanche danger to the building site, prepared by a qualified avalanche expert shall be submitted as part of the site development Greenline review application. t 10. A fire sprinkler system shall be installed in the structure. Wildfire mitigation measures shall be addressed in the site J dev elopment Greenline review application. 11. A draiange plan should be submitted as part of the site develop- - ment 8040 Greenline Review. : SB.37 1 1 V 1 Â·r 4~r 'N.' 14 - . f . 5 'lili :r %/...1 i -,r MEMORANDUM 1 Date: October 1.*985 * ' TO: Steve Burstein, Planning FROM: Jim Wilson, Fire Marshal <k/~ 1/ SUBJECT: Nordic Council/Barker 8040 Greenline Review The driveway alignment shown as access to Lot 3 of the Hoag subdivision is inadequate for fire department access. The length of approximately 700 feet from the east property line to Ute Avenue far exceeds the minimum. A maintained, all-weather road at least 20' wide must be provided to within 1550 feet of all sides of the future building. In a low density area such as this, a fire hydrant is required within 500 feet of the building. Common alternate methods of providing water su'pply for fire flow may be impossible because of i the terrain. However, if a water service can be provided to a future residence, a fire-sprinkler system can be installed within the structures solving the access problem and the fire hydrant f problem. Because this lot is in a wildfire area with d.ense vegetation and steep slopes, a "safety*zone" around the building envelope must be provided. Substantial thinning of the vegetation is required. Site design requirements for a "safety zone" are provided in Wildfire Safety Guidelines for Rural Homeowners, published by the Colorado State Forest Service at Colorado State University. Copies are available through the Building Department. JW/ar e r â‚¬I - I. 1 i MEMORANDUM 11 2 ! To: Steve Burstein, Planning Office 31 From: Chuck Roth, Assistant City Engineer CE. r - ''t ' Date: 4 September 19,:1985 0 14 1 ,- %'.. 1 Re: Nordic Council/Barker 8040 Review J .9 4.1 Having reviewed the above referenced application, the Engineering Department has the following comments: - I 1. The application seems to be suffficient for the Nordic Council request but insufficient for the Barker request. . Section 24-6.2(b) requires a development plan. The submission contains an adequate development plan for comment on the proposed driveway, but there is not an adequate development plan for the intended structure to be able to comment on review criteria (6), (8) and (9). 2. There appears to be a misconception about the access to this i property. The subdivision plat shows a utility and public ' trail easement, but this easement is not for ingress/egress to Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision. Lot 3 abutsa parcel of "BLM to City of Aspen" land which is for "access and cul-de-sac" to Ute Avenue. See the recorded subdivision plat recorded at Book 4, Page 218. The proposed driveway appears to be adequate in terms of alignment and appears to be the intended alignment at the time of subdivision. The 1971 City Engineer - comments calls for "proof of ownership across M. S. No. 5190 New Foundland Lode." The subdivision plat indicates this ownership as being part of Lot 3, but the submitted driveway alignment topographic map does not reflect this. We need to see this ownership on the topo map to confirm that the applicant has clear title or use rights to all the property utilized for the driveway. The Nordic Council application refers to removing excavated materials from the site, but the Barker application does not make any reference to this construction detail, although their driveway sections seem to indicate that most of the proposed driveway is cut and almost no fill. Perhaps removal of all materials excavated for the driveway should be a condition of this approval. The 1971 review also called for "a letter from a registered engineer (State of -Colorado) indicating that the proposed dozer road designed will eliminate any danger to buildings or structures on or adjacent to this particular site." This condition should be carried forward, and in addition the engineer should address the feasability - 1 Page 2 -0 Nordic Council/Barker 8040 Review september 19, 1985 of snow removal on the driveway, if there will be room to push the snow off the road or if it will have to be hauled away. Also, the engineer or a consulting geologist should be required to comment on the geologic/soils stability of the hillside after the road is cut and on the need for retaining , walls or tied back walls to secure the slope. 3, There is a note on the plat that "no building permit will be issued .... until a commitment has been entered into ... for t an extension of a sewer line." Also, the Water Department must be checked with to see if there is adequate water pressure to the site or if the developer will be required to 2 perform any water delivery related construction or other commitments. Otherwise, there appear.to be adequate utility easements in the Hoag Subdivision. 4. Section 20-17(b) (6) states "Fire lanes and emergency access easements twenty (20) feet in width shall be provided where required by the city fire marshall." The submitted road cross section is only 14 feet wide. The fire marshall will have to be consulted to see if a 20 foot wide driveway is required and also if a fire hydrant is required. Also, the fire marshall should comment on the need for a turn-around at the structure for fire fighting equipment or other acceptable mitigation such as sprinkler systems- or fire resistant construction in the structure. 5. A review of the Colorado State University Environmental Resources Analysis - 1974 Maps reveals the following informa- -_ tion: (a) "Wildfire Hazard Area Map - Severe Hazard - Trees" (b) "Snow Avalanche Areas - Potential Avalanche Area - Slopes steep enough for small avalanches under certain conditions" (c) "Potential Geologic Hazards" - This area is not indicated as a potential geologic hazard. If the applicant wished to satisfy himself further in this regard,- he should contact the Colorado Geologic Survey for a site specific analysis of potential geologic hazard. 6. The files contain a 1973 letter from a registered engineer and a Swiss Inbtitute of Avalanche Research representative which discuss the avalanche danger. Since this review is occurring twelve years later, and since there is a new proposed building envelope, we should have a current assessment of the avalanche danger to the site and proposed structure. 6 Il 4 page 3 Nordic Council/Barker 8040 Review permit september 19, 1985 ./ ; A previous review also called for proof of avalanche insurance ~ which should still be required. 7. The proposed construction must comply with Section 20-17(f). A drainage plan and calculations must be submitted for ~ Engineering Department review prior to issuance of a building permit. "Short-term on-site detention storage shall be provided to maintain the historical rate of run-off for the i~ 100-year storm from the undeveloped site." (Section 20- 17(f)(2)) 4 , . ce: Jay Hammond, City Engineer Jim Wilson, Chief Building Official CR/cr/nordic.barker.8040 14 42., f.5 . LAW OFFICES BROOKE A. PETERSON APROFESSIONALCORPORATION 315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 (303)925-8166 IA, September 9, 1985/ HAND DELIVERED Mr. Steven Burstein county of Pitkin/City of Aspen planning Office 1 City Hall 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Barker 8040 Greenline Review 4 Dear Steve, Please allow this letter to serve as an application on 4 behalf of my client for approval of an access road to be con- structed to his property (Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision), and for the approval of the construction of a recreational trail to be utilized for cross country skiing and for hiking in the summer along an easement to be granted to the City of Aspen across Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision in the event that the above referenced access road is approved, and for the designation of a building 1 envelope, all as shown on the drawings accompanying this appli- cation. We believe that the design of the proposed road is the f best creation of -access to the logical building envelope on Lot --- i 3, Hoag Subdivision for a variety of reasons. First, the road will be constructed without any "switch- backs". Given the topography and the vegetation in the area, including many large pine trees, the road will be well shielded from visibility, as it follows the natural slope of the land. f The access will be located at the east end of the property and J will be less visible from the City of Aspen and from Red 7 Mountain than any other road which may be built on the western 4 end of the property. This road will facilitate the construction ~ of a single family residence on the previously subdivided and ;4 approved lot. The criteria referred to in Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Section 24-6.2 were addressed in the review process in 1976 and therefore will not be addressed again here. Contrary to the - - 1 . u .~.. ~ -U- r f. Mr. Steven Burstein September 9, 1985 Page Two 8040 Greenline approval which was granted in 1976 for the con- struction of a residence with a detached garage, this access 1 road may allow the construction of one structure rather than two, and therefore should be more compatible with the considera- tion contained in Section 24-6.2 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen. In order to meet the concerns expressed in Sub-Paragraphs 4, 6 and 7 of Paragraph (b), Section 24-6.2, the road has been designed by Collins Engineers to take advantage of the porosity and natural stability of the rock in this area, so as to minimize the crossing of avalanche paths in this area, and to provide for adequate drainage of the site so as to prevent soil erosion and runoff. Further, efforts have been made to minimize the number and amount of vegetation which will be removed or disturbed by the construction of the access road. The concerns expressed in Sub-Paragraphs 8 and 9 of Paragraph (b), Section 24-6.2 will be met by the designation of a building envelope as proposed which Â·will not, by its configuration, allow a spread out structure, but rather a structure that will "step down" the grade of the mountain, thereby harmonizing with the terrain. The proposed recreational trail will be linked to the master trail system presently being proposed by the Aspen/ Snowmass Nordic Council. As you are aware, Mr. Barker and Craig Ward of the Aspen/Snowmass Nordic Council Have spent a great deal of time attempting to find an acceptable location for the trail on Mr. Barker's property. As an avid cross country skier, Mr. Barker is sensitive to the needs of the cross country skier. You will note on"the enclosed map, that the trail crosses Lot 3--- and joins into the presently existing public trail access ease- , ment shown on the existing plat for the Hoag Subdivision. The design of this trail will also follow the existing grade, with- out "switchbacks", and should result in the least disturbance to the terrain, again due to the fact that every effort will be made to preserve all large trees, and that the trail will have no "switchbacks". As noted, the proposed trail will also con- nect to, and allow the use of a great deal of the presently existing trail access. As all parties have recognized that this trail use is incompatible with the use for access to Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision, this proposal minimizes the amount of any new trail construction in this area. Furthermore, a trail along this alignment will be less costly to construct. Again, we feel that the recreational trail meets those considera*tions expressed in Section 24-6.2 of the Municipal Code. - X >' 79;35,3 ., Â· Mr. Steven Burstein l.2. I Â·PÂ· 1-k': September 9, 1.985 Page Three Given the topography of Lot 3, both Mr. Barker and the representatives of the Aspen/Snowmass Nordic Council believe that the proposed road and the relocation of a part of the trail easement is the best solution to the dilemma of the incompati- bility of a road and a recreational trail suitable for inclusion in the Aspen/Snowmass Nordic system. Every effort will be utilized to maintain and preserve all existing vegetation and to minimize the visual impacts of both the road and the trial as much as is possible. I would add that the Forest Service has given tentative approval to the realignment of the road for access to Lot 3. I would hope that your site inspection and the discus- sions we have conducted would lead you to be able to make a recommendation that this access road and trail development be permitted, so as to enable construction to begin immediately after approval. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to cobtact me. Yours very truly, BROOVÂ·/X77ETERSON, A Professid>nal Cotporadion <c144 A i - By: 4,6 ,-,ur~ vurTk~ A<* Petters~ni \ BAP:jms Enclosure CC: Martin Kahn, Esq. Jack Barker 1 rat I .4,195-1 To: Steve Burnstein, Planning Dept j, From: Craig Ward, Aspen/Snowmass Nordie Council Re: 8040 GreenlÂ·ine Review =3 Lot Hoag Subdivision Driveway 8040 Greenline Review Trail Alignment ? The Aspen Area Comphrehensive Plan details a contiguous trail around the base of Aspen Mountain. We are now prepared to construct a trail off Little Nell above the Aspen Alps to the \ f Ute Rock Trail. This trail would pass through the Hoag Subdivision. However, the access to Lot =3 and the trail easement through the Subdivision Share the same roadway. After much discussion and on-site inspection with the i owners of Lot =3 of the Hoag Subdivision, I would like you to entertain the followinrq proposals for 8040 Greenline Review: 1) That the trail, coming from the east, follow the platted 1 . alignment until the area above Lot 2, EiS shown on Exhibit =1. ..f From that point it would take a steeper grade alignment, to the â€¢ westerly boundary of Lot Â·U, to an approximate elevation of WA 8085. From this point it would follow an existing four(4) foot 2 Wide trail that was pioneered last fall, all the way to the Little .Nell ski slope. This entire trail is shown on Exhibit Â·'2. Also we have an engineering map from Aspen Earthmoving, showing the cut slopes and grades of the trail. All earth shall be removed from the site so as not to create a visible scar. Very few trees i will have to be cut to complete the ten foot wide trail. 2) in order to accomodate sole use of the existing roadway - for the trail, the owners of Lot *3 are submitting a proposal for kk AF a new- driheway to access the approved house site on Lot *3. 1 * believe that the driveway can be constructed without visual or environmental impacts, and that the trail will not be impacted - severely by having to. cross the driveway near the Ute Avenue Â· intersection. I believe that this is a good solution to a problem that was created when the roadway was platted for both a trail easement -- and access to the steep house site on Lot =3. . Sincerely, I 7 69 CJal_, Craig Ward % 41rk 6 /(98% CC: Brooke Peterson d Jack Barker -~ 1 9 # 1.7. A.444-C'- r~. ' 1 , 1%/ 9.7.'.#~ 4 /, 4 . alli .t 17= . White River en Ranger District ~\ United States Forest National 806 West Hallam j,~*/ Department of Service Forest Aspen, CO 81611 '25~" Agriculture Reply toÂ· 1950/2720 Date IL August 27, 1 {fl~ e r City of Aspen i SEP -2,%6 / # 1 City/County Planning Office 130 South Galena Street ' Aspen, Colorado 81611 L Attn: Steve Bernstein CERTIFIED MAIL P 553 577 467 RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Dear Mr. Bernstein: Enclosed is the decision notice in conjunction with the Barker road proposal. You have 45 days from receipt of this letter to appeal this decision. If you need to review the appendix material associated with this environmental assessment, there is one on file at the Aspen Office. If you have any other questions regarding this decision, contact Greg Thompson at 925-3445. Sincerely, WILLIAM N. JOHNSON District Ranger Enclosure: I ec: John Nepp, Supervisor's Office Jack Barker Brooke A. Peterson Craig Ward 4 FS-6200-llb (7/81) t:-4/1 ~/bIS POS ITION: 007.7 44#f"E,24, Gfer.1 2.1(tutâ‚¬w ~Le view ed by: , A. :... PhZ--3, City un- . '7,1, PLa.-v'.AÂ·.,Â· 44 -2 --,u'Ilâ€¢ Cal.h,r.'...lut. ifr.,-yj ft #,1 ..062_, 4,0-01Â·Â·4~B l.o# 3. H r~ D .u,h'u 1 0 t 4 2--~ ~ â€ž:-r p. ir;,_ft, â€¢90- 4 wir tr,fre- 3 -jÂ¢y ILA r >04* 4 4, Ad-1. p Â· 64.4.'17 3,37%1(,-*)1. : The Planning Office recommends approval for the access road for the Barker Greenline Review subject to the following conditions: 1. No construction of any structure on Lot 3 Hoag Subdivision shall be allowed until a development plan is given approval through a separate 80 40 Greenline Review. 2. All access easements for the driveway shall be obtained and submitted in a form acceptable to the City Attorney prior to any clearing or construction of the driveway. - 3. Approval from the USFS for access easements through Forest Service property shall be obtained. A copy of this approval shall be submitted to the Planning Office prior to construction. 4. All excavated materials not used for "fill" from the driveway construction shall be removed along the entire length of the driveway. A similar measure for the building site shall be addressed by the applicant in the submittal for the development plan 8040 Greenline Review. 5. Revegetation of the cut and filled areas of the driveway shall be accomplished through the spreading of an appropriate seed mix, both uphill and downhill. The driveway shall be constructed cutting as few trees as possible and -generally on_the upslope of the drivewav p' 4 ----- A registered engineer shall address landslide and snow removal issues involved in the building and maintenance of the entire length of the driveway. A report shall be submitted to the City Engineer's Office prior to construction of the driveway. g 9. A current assessment of the avalanche danger to the building site, prepared by a qualified avalanche expert shall be submitted as part of the site development Greenline review application. 9 3,0. ~AgE------y -Li~ Lli e -St-rEJEEUZE'. $:G:effi re mitigation measures shall be addressed in the site development Greenline review application. 41. A draiange plan should be submitted as part of the site develop- 10 ment 8040 Greenline Review. SB.37 j p / .-r 4 0. 3 1 - .....4 a.,11, -MY. 4 - n 17 W 4 i. Vi-I F-To M Ute* Auâ‚¬- 1 A ' Â£09 ,6, y 4,2 :'.77 ,&514~0 y'-ki,4/ /1.9/0 2.0/" 0,316(~127 06605217308 _fOLARoti 1 44â€¢M#*tâ€¢â€¢4.. -0 DA.-.00 e AL . .%20 Â»t 4 I - 04 3 . * ll,Â·e . 4 .A i i 0 4 14 * 7 I elf t 6 POLACOLOR J315901E Â¥ ,. /2 . 1 0 eâ€ž, I 'F /1 . Â¥1 I.P 'el A V. '..0. - t. 1 POLACOLOR J315901E ,Â· . MEMORANDUM To: Steve Burstein, Planning Office From: Chuck Roth, Assistant City Engineer (1Â£ Date: *September 19; 19850 Re: Nordic Council/Barker 8040 Review Havfhg reviewed the above referenced application, the Engineering Department has the following comments: f. The application seems to be suffficient lor the Nordic Council request but insufficient for the Barker request. Section 24-6.2(b) requires a development plan. The submission contains an adequate development plan for comment on the proposed driteway, -but there is not an adequate development plan for the intended structure to be able to comment on review criteria (6), (8) and (9). 2. There appears to be a misconception about the access to this property. The subdivision plat shows a utility and public trail easement, but this easement is not for ingress/egress to Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision. Lot 3 abuts a parcel of "BLM to City of Aspen" land which is for "access and cul-de-sac" to Ute Avenue. See the recorded subdivision plat recorded at Book 4, Page 218. The proposed driveway appears to be adequate in terms of alignment and appears to be the intended alignment at the time of subdivision. The 1971 City Engineer comments calls for "proof of ownership across M. S. No. 5190 New Foundland Lode." The subdivision plat indicates this ownership as being part of Lot 3, but the submitted driveway alignment topographic map does not reflect this. We need to see this ownership on the topo map to confirm that the applicant has clear title or use rights to all the property utilized for the driveway. The Nordic Council application refers to removing excavated materials from the site, but the Barker application does not make any reference to this construction detail, although their driveway sections seem to indicate that most of the proposed driveway is cut and almost no fill. Perhaps removal of all materials excavated for the driveway should be a condition of this approval. The 1971 review also called for "a letter from a registered engineer (State of Colorado) indicating that the proposed dozer road designed will eliminate any danger to buildings or structures on or adjacent to this particular site." This condition should be carried forward, and in addition the engineer should address the feasability - 9 - + i - Page 2. Nordic Council/Barker 8040 Review September 19, 1985 of snow removal on the driveway, if there will be room to push the snow off the road or if it will have to be hauled away. Also, the engineer or a consulting geologist should be required to comment on the geologic/soils stability of the hillside after the road is cut and on the need for retaining walls or tied back walls to secure the slope. 3. There is a note on the plat that "no building permit will be issued.... until a- commitment has been entered into... for --an extension of a sewer line. " Also, the Water Department must be checked with to see if there is adequate water n pressure to the site or if the devel oper will be required to perform any water delivery related construction or other commitments. Otherwise, there appear to be adequate utility easements in the Hoag Subdivision. 4. Section 20-17(b)(6f states "Fire lanes and emergency access easements twenty (20) feet in width shall be provided where required by the .city fire marshill." The submitted road cross section is only 14 feet wide. The fire marshall will have to be consulted to see if a 20 foot wide driveway is required and also if a fire hydrant is required. Also, the fire marshall should comment on the need for a turn-around at the structure for fire fighting equipment or other acceptable mitigation such as sprinkler systems or fire resistant construction in the structure. 5. A review of the Colorado State University Environmental Resources Analysis - 1974 Maps reveals the following informa- tion: (a) "Wildfire Hazard Area Map - Severe Hazard - Trees" (b) "Snow Avalanche Areas - Potential Avalanche Area - Slopes steep enough for small avalanches under certain conditions" (C) "Potential Geologic Hazards" - This area is not indicated as a potential geologic hazard. If the applicant wished to satisfy himself further in this regard, he should contact the Colorado Geologic Survey for a site specific analysis of potential geologic hazard. 6. The files contain a 1973 letter from a registered engineer and a Swiss Institute of Avalanche Research representative which discuss the avalanche danger. Since this review is occurring twelve years later, and since there is a new proposed building envelope, we should have a current assessment of the avalanche danger to the site and proposed structure. .. 1 f Page 3 Nordic Council/Barker 8040 Review permit September 19, 1985 A previous review also called for proof of avalanche insurance which should still be required. 7. The proposed construction must comply with Section 20-17(f). A drainage plan and calculations must be submitted for Engineering Department review prior to issuance of a building permit. "Short-term on-site detention storage shall be _provided to maintain the historical rate of run-off for the 100-year storm from the undeveloped site." (Section 20- 17(f)(2)) .- cc: Jay Hammond, City Engineer Jim Wilson, Chief Building Official CR/cr/nordic.barker.8040 il li 20-/7 , r-3 -- THIS DEED, Made Â· December 1 . 143'*. between 6 E g ri) lili Thomas Carl Oken, by his deputy Carol L. Foote _ 1Â·: 73 Cl as the Public Trustee, of the County of Pitkin , 2-1 (31 O 51 CO ..3'- Colorado, and Jack Barker % James H. Delman Ln 11 1 ..1- 3-J m Or -3 0 -E 0 -- Purchaser(s), whose street address is 201 N. Mill S treet -- 2' rri - O 33 CityorTownof Aspen, c-0 r.,1 C.. L L. DU County of Pitkin and Stateof Colorado 81611 , WITNESSETH: Whereas, Sandor W. Shapery did, by Deed of Trust dated June 30 ,19 81 , and recorded in the office of the Clerk and Recorder of the County of Pitkin , Colorado, on June 30 . 19 81 .in Book 410 atpage 635 ,(Film No. , Reception No.233864 convey to the Public Trustee in Trust the property hereinafter described to secure the payment of the indebtedness provided in said Deed of Trust; and Whereas, violation having been made in certain of the terms and covenants of said Deed of Trust as shown by the notice of election and demand for sale filed with the Public Trustee, a copy thereof being recorded in the office of said County Clerk and Recorder, the said property was advertised for sale at public auction at the place and in the manner provided by law and by said Deed of Trust and a copy of the notice of sale was in apt time mailed to the persons required by statute, and said property was in pursuance of said notice sold to Jack Barker for the sum hereinafter set forth and a certificate of purchase thereof was made and recorded** Sentember 16, 1983 in Book 452 at Page 88, Reception Number 253234. and said property not having been redeemed from said sale; Now, Therefore, the Public Trustee purs.uant to the power and authority vested in h iln by law and by the said Deed of Trust as such Public Trustee and in consideration of the sum of $ 162,900.45 to the Public Trustee paid by the said Purchaser(s), the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, conveys to the said Purchaser(s), h i S heirs, successors and assigns forever" * all the right, title and interest which the Public Trustee acquired pursuant to said Deed of Trust in and to the following described prop- erty situate in the County of Pitkin , Colorado, to wit: Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision, together with and subject to Right of Way Granted, as amended, and related Amendatory Decision, as recorded in Book 341 at Pages 11-18 and Book 353 at Pages 316-317. 1 1 1 , 't, To Have and to Hold the same unto the said Purchaser(s) h is heirs, successolts god assigris fprever.' 4 0 Executed the day and year first above written. 1 2 f W , 1, /1 t. f t . A #A l< - -Â·Â·Â·Â·*84+d:-ff.-5.-r:........Deputy. [SEAL] As Public Trustee of the , 1, 1 County of Pitkin , 5010Â¥4110..42 â€žÂ·,, STATE OF COLORADO, J ' f SS. County of Pitkin _a - I ... ,. . 4 - '1 . . Ii. Â» I %.11 K 4/ Â· Recorded 3:18 PM January 4 1179 â€¢ ~ 4 Ref't'lleâ€¢n Nâ€¢ loretta Banner R-â€¢r.1. 1 4 .t.*. :tit Reeordr,1 al A: 1 (, 129:20,-6 M 1 -UAJ- THIL DEED. ..4. t.t. 4 Ll *,0,~-11**47, -- 4,- --- Blue Sky Corporatioh, . Im.*bal, or,~ah~! and .....g--Â»08.4 - .- . .- - ..4 dthâ€¢Btat.4 Colotado ....4.4.- . el f"tmot John M. Bruegger 'it 4.t JAN f PAID 00... 4 Pit)tin ..... f ... - /3.741- 1 ,(Xâ‚¬'e 4 . Â·:,21, WITN-SnE, n,t the a l# e!-0,et AW -4 --8-tlea **=d f. ~Â·2.L TEN DOLLARS and other good and valuable conoideration 4 7.054 6...Id.,v 'thâ€¢fir,t -th"li'W'the-W rt 5 ..th- ----- ............... ............- 1 '.YflÂ¥ 4-6-4 -4 -b-!,4,4. h.th g,â€¢ated, har,â€¢1-1. 0.14-1 --ri -4 4.- p... 00-.,4.4 2 Nk-11 .em., ande-~r. -tothâ€¢ mallwt y â€¢ uâ€¢....4 put hie ..1.4..4-4.11. 1.. 1Â·4Â£9Â·. ../.4 â€¢â€¢,4.*-te, 4//-"4./1~ C.... Pitkin 14 61' 91** LOT NO. 3, HOAG SUBDIVISION, CITY OF ASPEN, together with .., 04%2 â‚¬* 13/ 11/1 and eubject to Right Of Way , Granted, as amended, and related \ Amendatory Decision, al recorded ) 4 + ,0:171Â«N . in Book 341, Page 11-11 and Book / 35]. Page 316-317 of tho Pitkip/' *LA- h,Af â€¢ 4/ / 4//fk/" rT Â· County recordi. '44, La... 3% ' ,- 17, , )., Â· Â· U L a . "Oft . . b -Il/,4 I..........8.*-4 -4.- ...4 .' t,4 4 ar, 0. a . - I ./ .......1 .. ..........IN.--*.4...... 4...1 ........8-1.-1.................4 ................ : 't ..T, ..il '"i y +2 44 I. 'I"d i"* -3 hi, 4.42 r.... 2. 74'*Â· 4 1 47 Blue Sky Corporation ",74, 4/ - .........4....4 .-0.---M -1.4 -d--.- 4.-0.1 -ty 9.* b I.-1 -4 , it, 7.. . except,*for 4 0 4 5.' r ... Â¥r: *IWâ€¢. Patent remervation, and exeeptiona, utility eal-ent,Â»4 3: ifit ' Public trall â€¢1â€¢Iment, all ae *hown in thâ€¢ record, of ritkin *Â» i County, and.property taze. for 1,71,;paliblâ€¢ in 1,7I: and Iubjoot' t: Â£14 ayl ete an' tax. a...ement, 2. Or other *Dar~â€¢ attributablâ€¢,to.Iny~ ''' 2 :Â¥*# fapplicabl. local liproll/Int diâ€¢trict#42:PY *H'Ul<-83*Fi':Aur# 41 .1. , f 0.-Ue'.r:/BÂ£:%~Jel:;1~11=~.â€¢e#2ml~61*~6~"Il b , m /m,-1 .... - 0....................0.-al.....0-1. : 4.1 , 4. f ' " .1 BLUE SKY CORPORATION, a p ( r, 1:. .(910Â£842=0=erall= Â· -- 94 0 11 L- . '. 4 ITATE - 00101 AD* 1 f 4-* Le=t~in_r r â€¢I .4 W. E. Smith . Vial-, ,"'Mid- A. Stephen Crciley - ...4,4. ....41. Bluâ€¢ Sky Corporation, â€¢ colorado corporation. , : Of -_-- 1 fb 26 '20 4f k / Zi i ~1 004, IÂ·. .1-. ...4 01,4 eff';M-1. \t : 1.1 .,53\ 'Â·: i ; 1 1 2 4% 04' 0 -LULF/*266#181&,itu4. ; 3 'SFAL~' ~t lillillillillilillilif~L1'FA *.U il N~ 4*8 2*Yaaâ€¢-phi-â‚¬.....1- --I'-//am 0%,9 1 0 It./ ///////////////Fih,1 ~. - 11 11 r =gE#Â¥.0, =r/.4,Â¢f *. - i IN REPLY REFER TO: 'l~ UNITED STATES C-1719 43 ,..L,k.. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR RM?p 94 '9 < -. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT - * Vell'le"1 4 GLENWOOD SPRINGS DISTRICT OFFICE P.O. BOX 1009 GLENWOOD SPRINGS. COLORADO 81601 - T '* May 18, 1971 40 / F ivf Mr. Herb Bartel Regional Planner City of Aspen Box 5 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Mr. Bartel: The development of access across public lands in the vicinity of Ute Avenue (extended), appears to conform with the Develop- ment Plan submitted with the Recreation and Public Purposes ~ Lease Application by the City of Aspen (C-1719). The Development Plan was approved with the lease, therefore, no formal application or additional approval is required to colls-tniclthe_PIRposed access as outlined in your letter of MB#te <I~~y 12, 1971. - Sincerely yours, r 92;1 8, 24.-6 John C. Clark , 1 : District Manager Â¢ C . i i May 12 r 197f'' Mr. Stewart A. Wheeler Bureau of Land Management Department of the Interior P. 0. Box 1009 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Mr. Wheeler: -- The City of Has leased B. L.M. land on Ute Avenue extended (C-1719 R & PP), A portion of the subj ect land is now i being used and maintained as a city street. The City:â‚¬*w wishes to make a request for access. The access will be used to connect a street and trail utilizing the old rail-4 road ROW, and it will serve a proposed subdivision. 1 I have enclosed the description of property for which the access easement is requested and a map showing the general location. Please let me know if additional indommation is ..4:-*+. -: '* needed.Â« Cordially, Herb Bartel Regional Planner HE/db Encl. (2) , 4 - 2720 ' / 1950 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROPOSED ACTION: Bark<. r/Smuggler Durant Road Proposal TITLE LOCATION OF ACTION: Aspen Pitkin RANGER DISTRICT COUNTY ( IES) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: USDA - FOREST SERVICE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: WILLIAM N. JOHNSON District Ranger NAME Tr[-LE Aspen Ranger District White River National Forest UNIT - FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Magwire ~ Forestry Technician NAME TITLE - Aspen Ranger District UNIT 806 West Hallam. Aspen. CO 81611 ADDRESS ZIP (3031 925-3445 TELEPHONE ( 1p: 1Â· .Â· M ...4 / 9, ' . U, it A. 9 . 1 UNC 0-Ahaur,Arri , This Environmental Assessment describes two alternatives for the Barker/Smuggler lurant road proposal. Au rÂ·Â·4\ WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST WR 1950-1 '30 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT DECISION NOTICE and FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT BARKER/SMUGGLER DURANT ROAD PROPOSAL Aspen Ranger District White River National Forest Pitkin County, Colorado I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this environmental assessment is to document the analysis of the two alternatives considered for the Barker/Smuggler Durant road proposal (Appendix A and B). The alternative selected must permit the Forest Service to continue to meet the management obj ectives identified in the Land Resource Management Plan for the White River National Forest. II. PURPOSE AND NEED The purpose of the proposed road is to provide access to lot three of the Hoag Subdivision within The City of Aspen and to the adjacent Newfoundland Lode M.S. 5190 of Pitkin County. This proposal would then allow the existing road access across National Forest land and across the private properties to be reissued to the Aspen Snowmass Nordic Council for a public ski trail. This environmental assessment is not a decision document. It is a document disclosing the environmental consequences of implementing the proposed action and the other alternatives analyzed. Environmental consequences on lands and activities administered by other federal, state, and local jurisdictions resulting from the proposal will not be disclosed in this assessment. The Forest Service decision will relate only to lands administered by the Forest Service and will be documented in a Decision Notice. III. PRIMARY FOREST SERVICE ISSUES AND CONCERNS A. Would this proposal allow for a second access route across National Forest land to the Hoag Subdivision. B. Could the objectives of this proposal be reasonably met on private or other Federal lands. C. Is the construction of this road on Nationa Forest land in the public interest. , D. Would this proposal benefit only private users. E. How would this proposal effect the value of the National Forest land tract for potential sale or trade. F. Could the road construction be carried out to Forest Service standards, with all associated impacts mitigated (Appendix C). IV. GENERAL LOCATION The parcel of National Forest land is situated in the 1105 of Section 18, Township 10 South, Range 84 West, 6th P.M. within Pitkin County, Colorado. V. ALTERNATIVES (including the proposed action) A. No Action Under this alternative the Forest Service would not permit the proposed Barker/Smuggler Durant road construction across National Forest land. , B. Issue A Special Use Road Permit Under this alternative the Forest Service would issue a special use road permit with the following mitigating measures: 1. Complete a cultural resource survey on the affected area. 2. Identify and preserve any witness trees and monuments in the affected area. 3. Reseed and mulch all disturbed areas with the seed mix to be determined by the Forest Service. 4. Road construction to Forest Service standards, with a verticle cut slope reinforced with a retaining wall. The subgrade will be widened to provide adequate width for a retaining wall. 5. Submit a road construction plan for approval prior to construction which adequately addresses all engineering concerns (Appendix C). -2- VI. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES A. Alternative A This alternative would have no environmental consequences to National Forest land. B. Alternative B This alternative would have negative environmental consequences. Soil and vegetation would be adversely impacted for a short term under this alternative. Visual resources would be negatively impacted for the long-term as a result of the project. This parcel of National Forest Service land is highly visible from the City of Aspen. There is also a potential for increasing the avalanche hazard due to vegetative clearing associated with the road construction. VII. DECISION NOTICE It is my decision to select Alternative A. Alternative B does not meet the objectives identified in the Land and Resource Management Plan for the White River National Forest for the 'following reasons: A. The road construction would create a second unnecessary access route across the National Forest to the Hoag Subdivision (*L.R.M.P. Page III-63, Item 06). B. It is feasible to construct in access road on private land as a spur frim the existing road without further impacting National Forest System land (L.R.M.P. Page III-61, Item 02). C. Construction of the second road would allow the existing road to be used for track skiing as part of the public ski trail. However,- the benefit to the public in providing 700-feet of eki trail is not as great as the loss to the public due to loss in land value to the Forest Service parcel resulting from construction of the second road (L.R.M.P. Page III-61, Item 01-C and 02). The public interest is currently served by foot access to the ski trail on the existing road. VIII.AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED Forest Service Bill Johnson Aspen District Ranger Ray Langstaff Civil Engineering Technician Hollis Johnson Civil Engineering Technician Bob Berg Civil Engineering Technician Craig Magwire Forestry Technician Greg Thompson Forester * Land and Resource Management Plan, White River National Forest -3- Others Steve Bernstein City of Aspen Brook A. Perterson Law Offices representing Jack Barker Craig Ward Aspen Snowmass Nordic Council VIIII.FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT This decision will have no significant impact on the quality of the human environment and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement is not needed. There are no adverse cumulative or secondary effects created as a result of this decision. This decision is subject to appeal pursuant to 36 CFR 211.18 (Federal Register, Vol. 48, March 31, 1983, pages 13420 to 13426). Notice of appeal must be in writing and submitted to the District Ranger. Aspen Ranger District, 806 West Hallam, Aspen, Colorado, 81611, within 45 days from the date of this decision. A statement of reasons to support the appeal and any request for oral presentation must be filed within the 45 day period for filing a notice of appeal. . 110 1 o L. 71(11 (6-"1 9 7 ,} 9.0 6 'WILLIAM N. JOHNSON /4/ DATE / Aspen District Rangor -4- r .' 0 To: Steve Burnstein, City Planning Office t From: CrÂ·aig Ward, Exec. Dir., Aspen/Snowmass Nordic Council : 40~~~ Date: Sept 19, 1985 1 1 M i RE: 8040 Review of The Mountain Edge Trail of Ute Ave Dear Steve, * Relative to our discussion yesterday, I am submitting this 1 memo to indicate our desire to seek review by the City P&Z on Sept 24. . Â·The City has already approved partial funding of the trail , excavation mci improvements that can be accomplished in OctoberÂ· of this year. The following easements going east to west have been obtained and will be in place before construction commences: 1) Mr. Jack Barker is agreeable to giving us an easement on his permit with the Forest Service. 2) The Hoag Subdivision has a trail easement running through its entire length east/west. 3) Mr. Barker is willing to give a new easement through Lot *3 to join the existing hand-built trail. 4) The existing trail presently goes all the way to Little Nell. Landowners here include Ray Montgomery, Aspen Chance, . Inc., Guard Moses, and the Aspen Skiing Co., and they have agreed to the trail and its alignment. I will be prepared to give the Planning and Zoning Commission a thorough presentation on the 24th. Please, if there are any last minute items you might need from me, call 925-4790. t . ................ . i .. - <9 - 147 -/,71'99 - \ S.Â®'0 994Â»H- 1 P- 11 :A :'F Â°11' S 'V:wpive 1 x941- 9 , J'Â£* ro 642Â· - -:....: -1 - - - 4 =-- e/ 1 C...... 1 \493Â©Z:*A---4,#Sq . ..Le . I â€¢./. li r. . 4 721 I , -r- -t ./444 . Aep Â°\.9 1/ - E- 5 03~ 3.- ..4 124 , i -1853 ' 1. . - I - - 9.... t,0 ..4 9 I ---- t.:l I , 1-â€¢ue...l ' '/' -- --- - -- I r. - / ,-0--0 .7/ â‚¬4 - 1.-- I V * 1 . 0-3 1. Â¢ 44: I - , - 3. I A. 1. .4 . . p .6 - . . i ./. 1- . I - i . & 4 1 , ' ,Â· i. . I. I. 4. -r- ... ../. .... =â‚¬ I -2-2 -U I " . 1 3 u 7 I - - r . - 1 i : P . 3: - 0.3.07 0 Â·11. I R 1- ;.- . 4, / -. 3 ; , 4 Â·. .u' , â‚¬ . 1 -. . .. - . .1 / . 0 1 Â·iÂ·,36 13 - * , i 6 ,< .. 7< Â¥&317 ' . .A . < 4 . a . . . 5 . . ..,: ..... 90- 10- 00 - 00- =AleTI NG, 6 trA,17 E LI N IE --1 / / 50 - 10 - 2-4 k 11-5, 0 ' Lm Fil 1 -< ' \ ./. #-li - 4 9.C>AP 2,/8.*% WL 40 - 10,-" 6 Kxt,6.6Pt EP Elli < V O 12'AVE L 31 31 1 .. -C 0 12..,k I hi a 2,4,;AdecifERS*:., al U <grv 3%1))lajulaw/ )111 11\11 1 *1 1 1/1 30- E:>41*T-1146 612.APE. LINE ~X-,0/ 211 _- -411Â·~ _LEI.2!MET: 50 - -6- -kin 98 v O A *11/15 C.UT Cou./ E~,8-'~'laND 9 450 -11)1 Ill- lili -11\\ 4 0 Ill) 1 1)2@11 all It).. / / / 40 -= 1,~Er?A~E Pl)941â‚¬ 10 - dALV. ST-EE L ~, 141 - oIl ,~ I j â‚¬#(18 #1 - fl 1/54 11 x 1 4 - 71 1 G ' -0" v. 1.1:E ' 10 - 30- T YPlc A L ROADWAY SECTION 0 10 O (b Â·23 90 46 053 00 15 40 900 ib â‚¬0 40 43 50 (00 70 so ec I/2"=I'-0" SECTION STA. 0+48.72 SECTION STA. 5+59.22 1" = Id HORIZ. a VERT. 1" = Id HORIZ. 8 VERT. 10 - NOTES SITE PREPARATION < 1. CONTR~TOR SHALL MAINTAIN AND PR~(:T NATURAL VEGETATION 0 . /. 100- ~ Â· WHEREVER FEASIBLE. //. 2. ALL LARGE ROCKS, TREES, STUMPS, BRISH, DEBRIS, STRUCTURES \ AND ALL OTHER,UNSUITABLE MATERIAL Â°HALL BE CLEARED. TREES EXCEP~~1'HOSE DESIGNATED TO BE ~SA ~ AMID ALL STUMPS SHALL AE p<44 T I hi A 6 F- A[7 E U 1\~ ~ 90 - BE PROTECTED CAREFULLY DURING CLEARING ANIÂ· SUBSEQUENT REMO~ TO A DEPTH OF AT LEAST 18 i NCHES BELOW- THE FINISHED SUBGRADE ELEVATION: ALL TRINES DESIGNATED TO BE SAVED SHALL 50 - Al CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS. l Nx'Â«rINg,1 0112*PE LIN N /" 3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL AT ALL TIMES TAKE PROPER Pl.?CAUTIONS TO 'I\ / 1 ASSURE THE PROTECTION OF UTILITIES, SERVICE LINES, OR OTHER PUBLIC OR PRIVATE INSTALLATIONS. 1 . , 30- ) SUBBASE PREPARATION 40 - / ~ 14'-O" 1 V 1. SUBBASE MATERIAL CONSISTING OF FILL OR EXISTING SOIL SHALL E><'67-1 h.lth 14'-O" BE WELL MIXED, 'FREE OF VEGETABLE MATTER A'iD LUMPS. 02 BALLS / < '' OF CLAY, AND SHALL CONSIST OF SOUND AGGREGATE P Â®1'1(3LES AND 10- SUITABLE FILLER OR BI VDING MATERIALS WHICH WHEN PL.ACED AND 30 - COMPACTED WILL RESULT IN A FIRM, DENSE, UNYIELDING , FOUNDATION. I ILL SHALL BE COMPACTED TO 93% PROCTOR DENSITY. 6" MAX. DIA. STONES AND 8" MAX. LIFTS. 2. ENGINEER SHALL BE CALLED IN FOR INSPECTION DURING COMPACTION PROCESS. 00 10 - BASE PREPARATION 1. BASE MATERIAL SHALL CONSIST OF HARD, DURABLE PARTICLES OR FRAGMENTS CF STONE OR GRAVEL CRUSHED TO 3/4"0 AND A FII LER OF SAND OR OTHER FINELY DIVIDED MINERAL MATTER. BASE to - 50- MATERIAL SHALL BE FREE FROM VEGETABLE MATTER AND LUMPS OR BALLS OF CLAY. 911%. 1. C.MI.19 *HALL AP 14Â£12Â£ TO COLO RAOO ' o b -20 4 4 40 Jo 13 4 40 40 -0 ib 6 040 46 40 03 76 00 40 9Â£97. Or AlÂ».,Â»r- eF:'Eulf:OATION'S. SECTION STA. 3+63.22 SECTION STA. 7+19.22 1" = IO' HORIZ. & VERT. 1" = 10' HORIZ. 8 VERT. SUMMARY OF QUANTITIES i-EM a DEERIPTION UNIT TOTAL 206 EXCAVÂ»~TION 0,6 2500 10 F Fl LL O.X, 50 * 1 1 - RO,60 64+E- 1 - 605 1 72 11 + 4/AÂ» PI Et:7 01 R.Â»>V' EL L CTÂ¢. G5 12." Mth). / 707 1011+ ALUMIN.CULVE12.I FIFIE L.*0 100 \ 1 - 1 LIZÂ·-03- tz"- MIW. 18" PIA. COLVEQ.T 0 12" Mw f _ . \1 C.MI.19 61.JLV EAT PETAI L / UTE Â»S/E. N. T- e. ~ INSTALL " EN KAMAT" EKOSLON CONTROL MATTING ON ALL OUT Sl,OP93 00 - *U' lo'~ 1120 lo~ , . 7 06 9 0'. 9' 1%121\(EL ' Â¥ t HOH VEGETATION , STRUCTURES EARED. TREES, ;TUMPS SHALL BE 7 THE FINISHED 3E SAVED SHALL 3SEQUENT PRECAUTIONS TO INES, OR OTHER AG SOIL SHALL JMPS OR BALLS PARTICLES AND 3 PLACED AND .,DING ZOCTOR DENSITY. ZING COMPACTION PARTICLES OR AND A FILLER 2. BASE LND LUMPS OR JAY' S & cg IN OVIM -a ~ JUL 2 4 1987 -=2 201 Ill lilli 9 i Q 10 30 40 50 00 10 00 00 6ECTON e ETA. 0 + 04.53 P : CQ' HORI 1 , 4 VERT', ... I A . . '. 0 , P ./ 1 I A A . . Â· 4 , AÂ·' . 6 - . 7- .. P . .. ... . A I . .. .. . A ..., 6 D 4/ D 0 V . . A, D '. 9, ....... 9. ............. . a ...: .. .. I . .. ,:. 1. 0 . .. ... . I .. 0 0 ...: D ... . D liD. 0 : : ..D . ... D . ... D .. . . .. 1 .. . ... 0 ...... I . ... 0 ... , .......... .. .... . . 4. ...D . ..D I ...: D . - I . . D 0 : .. . . . . .. O ..: .. D .. . . . ... - .. I. .... 0 Â¥00., 0 .I . 0 0 ... .. . 0 0. . D . - ... - 8 ....... . D D ' ' i , A 4 ...:.. . - I I . 0 . . . ..... . . ...... 0 I . A- A . ... '' 1 .6 , .... " . . D . A. . 4â€¢ . . . 0 . .. 0 .. .. A A , . *A. D - . t D A- 1 - 9 . r. . I./. 0 . 1080 - - ----- -.I-- - AVENUE 1.9 (MIP CUIV22--- - ---7--- - 7,5'- - *I-Ill-. tr=fl% *EES 2 FT- *H-E 4*Z 0000 0 --~ - -i----i.-li- li--- ~ *-- .-. -/.-- E)(16TING ---i-I---I--I- %-Illi--1 i-- eofo R56'DENCE 1' . --* 0//////- 3 - O +27- 0 -7 â‚¬ - 0010 --- --- - 0*8-7.1 - 1"* OMP -zur_ 0 ---202Ii2ur -----1- ./L 93LvaFT PIPE 14 6 Â°- 12'-00" W 0.43.72 -------- - 0080 IN----- V .-I - -- ~i, VT' (TY*PUBLK-FA$NMEMENT--- -<*9959 CH 9 16)1 11.44 49.0 1 - Â«got-~Â»Â« - Un-022-54351~>07 900% 1,0/1/ - 609-31'-10'5 144.01' (FIELD= 609.0 10';5 14,0.0'C ) --* EdÂ·lâ‚¬r. 1+54. - *-i 2 + 3.72 7-le'-032-3EBT- 41.5/ 34631 OFBEAt~Ne FIELDÂ· 5039' --- - 874'-42 - - A *- O It 0-- '' ~222222221-- 11 2+ 59.2 Â°- Al - .-US 11 N ' .% 4 0.5. - 0030 - - -----22--==FEEE==2___--- :.61 0050 ------ - OF B,Pe, L ~* ywr- - S S:. 0 - 01 //104.01 2 I - - 5+09,22 - 0000 ' WOUT-- - h -2/22.L-_- - + 1 .21 - + 54.22 â€ž - Â°- 71 "VJ O â‚¬ OAD / {4' 0" --*&6/Wivt- -54811 53,70' N \Â°- \2.16 "v~ 11 0. . ,54 0070 -222222~ _ 1/ NÂ£$5Â°- I~';2~/ /550- 48L50",0 . 9Â»41 600.11 - 7+I9. Z 11 - --- \05Â· --I 1-. 00* --- , ------ i -------- 6 *70 0O422212zn - ' ---NO~L -lill---I- .-. SITE PEAN --- i in *Ill---* O / N a 0000- - -I---*-I- -Il--il--Il- ~Ili-I----- 0-- ----22--- 1" = 20' - %0 - 8090 ~000 - - - -I-%-3 .-. ------ --I- 808 2,07 11. O .. #5 806 7. OO 12 - 80 8040 35 8 27 2030 8 1 8020 1 I c 11 0 solo 9 = 0 SCoe 7+19.22 4,+14.22 5+59.22 5+01.22 3+63.22 2+59.22 2+03 7 2 1 + 54.2 2 0 + 97.22 0+4372 0+17.0 ' 2+C~ O too 7+00 4,+00 5+00 4 +00 3+00 PROPOSED ROAD PROFILE_ C = 20*, HORIZ. 1 = 10 VERL i ff / f//43 Off///4 6 PGAH-r eMAUG EVER DREENS-- - i 07.4 /7-Ya-- 4 ,< ' ~-~~-p: M *foK;P wweR-r â‚¬*Br. 00.100 01<6 DO HOT - s 7206,~:*awr i~ ~76ANT 4MAU, 8/ER@REEN; KE'FUECT E}cler. MiNE . 8, f 2 68 0"-1 8 SHArF 001 -- --~-- --<~~~-----~- - ; - V-' B litolf 29.4, 006323 .9 + - 4 E-Â·L .7' 039, 7419 Z Â·~~~ NEWBOVGPER WAw VeE MÂ® ONE ./ 0- N Ri v *40 &. TRAI 82-0 I ' W EA MEN .. h OV. *P. 6%189 809\.PE~ MA#. <\ 22 73>9- --- --- , x X 66,2 6 46075 â€¢ 1 < 1 4 930 2%649*k== ~-9352. 650 I. Â».. 234 ..00140Â» 2/0, -4...PX - N. e \\//7 \ ./ 3 -/ I - . & .. .....ip ... ...Ar/.2....2..1 X 1.%40)4<3 . 4 ;,2-&/ 504% ..hi.04. ' -- - - 2# \ / 2 6242Â« *% & N'. I %\\\.*\ .'...JzTEr:Z. . \.2.., .\%% ~% . " \ ; h \ \\\ 6-e %34 .4. h. 4 3 N. I. ... 40> 4 $ - 4,4. ' U . '... \ /0.-- \. I . %4& 414 340 . --- . . IN \. * \ 1491 * - 13 Â»4 /:.1 $ \ \~ ~\ \- 9- . & .--- . ...% 31 - k V f $ & g & \..t + l \\. 0 \ >61%:.% I , 4 .... . I. * 2 I I * .. I I FOUNP' REBAR Â¥ GAF; L. 6, 94-76, - -% -1. : f 2 +4 '\~:$-1 + I l l. . K \\ l. h I. %/ 0 .. )42....-\ I V... - .-*/.1.. 4. .: \, -kz) - --7Â»n-NÂ» h -- . ..... .... . I \ ./. h. -- ... .1.\ I $ 0/1 b '%'A \ (BASIS OF BEARINGS) .f...- - I.*...#i- ----* & I h - . & h $ I - N N. \ .X $ . - .-- \*H. - .../. ---- ----- 09<-*IX:. . di ~ 4 \\..% \ - - i - Â©\\\ 1, 114 N \\ 10\\ 4 $ 92 10(0 *4.Â» v ~ ~~ - 4 \. N in + 4 --- .-*K . . / I h i \ I $... ./ ---Â»- --j 0. . ..42Â·>:*4Â«~u---I -- - ---- ---- -- . ..... N.*. ./. U 3Â»07-4 1 9 6 4~41 1 . 3\ 1\44 + \~~' \:~ 1.> \~\ \\\\.\\\\ 4 \1 \6~ 4> I I \\ I I -- ./. & I . I. . - 1 \ --1-W K ,-# %%4.%, ~4~ h & \ \0\ \ I . .\ I --- :..- 7.-9 ---- U 4 - r.34:.\> .- /\/ \' \\ \\\\\.4~ / . /:. I I . - ./ 1* \ N /<4 4 \ \\< -*. . 3 \. it I I N. \\\ \ 8 46/ \. X. k~ . \* \ i 4. -/. 9:. * \ g /.3 / \41\ \\0~ \ 1 4 - 1: I I X \ \ 0\44 , 0,0 . i l. h .\0-~-9-0.- -hh~..\~~- - - --- . / -"0-0- . h.~/-- --3- f - \4 .\ 1 \\4 0 \\ '1 /\ \\\ ~ . 1. I\\ 1 \: \23\2. . . I .\\ .: e Y *fs 1 7 # i ./ 14 k h h \40 .4 .h I.\ I h A, I $ .. r \*Â· . Â» N . I. I . e ...4 6. I ./. 1 \ 1 LOT 97+10*6ISUBI)91610. 2Â«9 * 79 4 900 /\ + .\ 4% h.. ' 42- m: , kit * 4\0 94. ' \6 ~\& \ \\\I ... N .... 4 / Â£ 4 //. w i \\ i \ \ 37 . X \\~ .~ \ .4 :4~ ., . 546.0 , . 974 - 4 \ --- x05~4 Sh. Fyi.f\- h\ \ 00% h .\ 0 \: \\ I $ \\ . 4 \ e /0 \ -.b=2-222-2-\\22--- ---\22-=27--- ~4 9'.6. -N 0.-1.-4- INK- 30*N- . I - & . I. - 9. . \ -Il- X . A \ N -Il 4 1\\0\0 I --41& 7.%- k .4 h.--- -44 .... 6 N Â£ V. .. V.--e.h. NI .* -. x#-222-~Zl- 21â‚¬~lz----IZEr-- -~------- . :. I 0/4 .\ I. .. . t ; .. I \ , % - .% \ #h \ \4 V 1%\ \\ ..5 \. 4. ~Â«441 -- x,%.... 013 -~4 -N U % M. / h .. I. 18. * \ ..- -~ -* -:N) '- \ x N - - . & ....$ . *I ... - h + h\\ X J...4 :\ \\44 Nk \1 '\ .. I ... 3% - ./ . . 1 . : . w-----=27---7.-*.-- ...- .-* *.- .4\ I .Â» \, /\ \.. \Â»\ \&\Il.h..~t ..4.h. \\.4 - . - ... \\. -- -2 ---I.-I----- .---0- --- . -- - --- : 4. \ 4 5 9% \ X S 3 \I , %1'k/ ist~5<6 ---.*.*-~---=2--LIN -- --=. *.. I .h# : \42% ~ ONÂ©Nh\%\ 4.@L , \ \ 4 \\164 4- - - X - GO G' % \ th .. #I 944. . \ I. - -Tr..,Â£92- -- . ~-- %* /6, , 1. 0 -# * -*Â· ***-----Â·-~016*144ttÂ«5:Tiful-.3 w-x:*-ov<r-*x. \ I Z N - \ -~Â«4.0020 Jortz 2360\Â«\~\-T.Izz<,zv~: ..fzlÂ«\-th~ - Â·Â°-3<245-*ARV~of>~~ - 7 So 4 ;' 02-/ I l \<bl / -irk-*- -*-9/7&~.BAA c. *- ~~ 39. 0\\-1 6... I e .*. /2 tr '.244?~~h (b tÂ·*.. 1 1 + ~ Â· *t./ Flo.\ /04.,- ----Nxihz>Â«\ Â»/ / .-' 81'TB PLAN -\\ 8/90 . Notok '.----2-*%rb,4,1-- N,1. 2\ Â«43%1% -CASE==m- 7 ~4145'X{LITY EASEMENT --~ 4,80 - 40\ 34/0 \ N -06\...~~I.tr i TO- \04> 1" 1 301 3.../%1/\ ~ %~ 4 9 0 BOL , - V*. $ 1 / WEST \ -44. ./ ........ i p y.t' f . 1 81 / 2.GG .. .... 01(0 - 8% '4*Â·-041â‚¬r-, @RAVE e i 0100 60,0 -- -0--I-'I- 8090 / 00*r0 , 2088 0000 0000 0010 0000 - Â£801 -4,29Â« 0050 - 0040 0030 / 1 1 1 1 1 0080 1+40.10 4445 4+47.2I 8+04.05 0+00 1+00 0+00 64- 00 4+00 8400 1+00 1+00 0- 00 h PROFILE 2 ROAD vtgrr, 111 - lo' MORn., P' = 30 1 . ~ CZ-'06+1 'V.le 1 ! rn ,$ 91 11 03 , Â·EDGE MATdH TO SHEET H -16 4 N 494,250 . ( -r . 27- E-- r EfÂ« I ~ dol5.2~x \ 1 \ <t*-1 1\/WN-VE< i.\Â»/ f j // 1 < l,7*.4 \\\41) \,/ --U L r- --L---.- / - / N 494000 01 -*8013 8 , 11 7-- , --* , i j \p -Rl w , , -9 14 / Â» << ---- f \ A 1 79950 - 13 1 \ 1\\1/ x \\*3,046Â£7993.* f / G : / ./ K // , \ C.\ \ 1 Â«h \ 1 C 4 . 1 1 -- 11 ( 0- -I -/ \U C-W . 1 \I - - \ \ 4, -\4~1 1 4 11 kic \1 \ 1\\ 1 ----- 1 1 I i A.~/ 1-4 127980.<--- , \\\ \\\ .C. \/ A *7974.5 \ -- .\ *8026.4 - ZNTE-__. r \c \ 1'430 . -- ''~ 1-9-----a- N-- 7.-*-/ 1 -li-- 1 1 1 .-1 /6/ 6.-- \ 242Â» 4 \- - f .0/1 U. -\ 34 -1 1 ___090 ---- ---- r ~ v F-h ~.....~-- - 1 8009.3x f x 8010.4 1 .s,63-Â£-k ; \ \ 1. .1 f , \ -------- -------- --\2-_- v i h -X\-filtif. >N\~f/2. 1 ) f) 1 Ff--Lr~_/ * -A-- 1 -* T. 1 N 494,250 ~---~~~~---~~-r- --09 Â»/f r (-- 1 1 11 , /Â»11 / N f K / rt-X---/.2--p--------- --------- ~ -L- 1 l --- ./3 7/1) ~ 22:99%**IÂ»3----42\ Â«Â«0409--- 2===27-- - -=-== -1*110----320iptur--0-92:Fir....L--- -2==23Â»2292â‚¬3:Z Se=Q>SÂ«\023 222\ *...r..< _ - -Â«34*344Â«3~Â«Â»421 2\07Â« tr\LfÂ» - -. 7 2 1 WI--- -1- . < 8050.~ ~ 7 In=X -Â«23%22- \\2 - 3\29\1 \3443Â»\- ~44 ~ . .-1- ES-2--izilimW->-CEJE> 033~ -- -- OULO --2-240321- ~~ . UT E CÂ»\ 4\\ \\ 1 - al' 41 -%*W - \ MI----H --- ,- -12Â« 1 3x -\7.-â€¢ . / ___---un_____ , --i 8030- - \11) \ \\ \41Â«\%--01 - h --1 \Th~ - 1.- ------1- / - --223640577-z/x - --finzi- 92\ 1-us Trr.2.ZE#&-SE..*12-Z E:(:T I -fitutur- _- pito--------Ocifc, r--2-- -- ------- z=-- L~~~- i-i---3- N.-< -1 NL-/.'- - - \4Â«2- i~9Â«32--- 7990 r.-- I-- - 9-291 249224 ii-<2* 4*Â»2--Â»:04- ---~- -il-Ii- ~ ~ .-- - \ -----1//-*1--*--mi *~EXZZLL--C- -- # - 8000 \ - , N 1-- -.4 ---1 -- '' 8 -/ #- --~121---2222~~ - .Chur &' -I Â· ---,- I.- - ----)--Tr~A---- 222*ft ~- foo---- zz~GE~ 2Â«24*:2- 29=Â»- Â»Ear Â» --azzÂ»---=~ -4- , \ ) an- i- ~7~__*li-U-1____~~ ~ t.5, 6, -- k Â»49Â»Â»1 ----- zz~g -----8<)E4O--2--- - --9-4. -I---f - h-- -IM- 7996.12 ~ - \D<<2~2<Zeâ‚¬~raÂ¤~~y~m~z~ - __ -Â«cutil>~- 1 ---,%----* -%--------------- *I<---,--------1=Â« 1 V x 7996.9 CAP-23 0 0 7-42 -1-\ -TS*b=k -CÂ«\-\\\\ - 22 -------x-~-~Tri--- -------%*WI-- ., ------- 62222 -21%1 33* 22 =====ZE------- =EzzliaÂ¥- --27/11 - G,ZZL --2-:-/......i-_22 <27---*-- ' \-2- --X -212& - P 4--%-- 1 -- CE -----8070 ~< -22---1- --- 2-2-- -rt>=14Â«4Â«2 23 -- -\--\- ~99- u.-:---.--*i-i~0 ---Â·- n. rÂ«JN 493,750 -e- ~ 29=-unk-_z~28~ 8 ~~411isplutil 2--2227 ___--r -213'231- 173Â¤:442.4 p-cr-atitti*~ -4-f~<23334/4244>-- -~ / \\ --I -12-- SÂ» -<--2---- ---22-2->2-- 4/er- / tÂ»*Â«4 Â»ZÂ«z \-En Uz-22--' --(6 -----m-LQ90-Ii----- (-ER -24 5--29-22-2-221 =m>22\\ 23 zas---*.t-K-*dici r --)-*#St/-*X- c NOE \ \ ---2-2*-3--\>C=Zzzz 12-3Â»Â« 3442- 22Â¤4 Â«op~- - 21141 -R--dir~al, r <3<#~-i-42-------- - \ \421Â«4323Â«11--99Â»Â·.- -1------------- ' 1- -3241--17 -%---N-<1 --Â·c:23*223=\ \--3-432---7 =InfEEÂ»Â»42*%Â»34Â«2122- \\ -\0. N --7.-11 --- \ 8020 -- ..--- -- m:*92<4-223 3--- --A- -Â«F-- -\NÂ¢ .7 \i ./ \\2 F=<L- -i- ~232>1 --- - - --Â«tr ~ 3- - - 1-% --1 3 \ 8/f \Â« --- - - -- 1-x-#%X < )-#- 0 - -923Â»7-Â«4 \ / --1 - ---------I- ---.I.--I - -- N -1; -- ---gyÂ« 74Â»\ - - 22\.- %4 -< --6-- -u ~ * -- X--~ - ._..I------V-.../4-____ 4--_----0-- 1 n-\2213 -- Z--2--<Â») -\ ---12Â«AÂ» - - 3---m-----Ii- Ii-77-___ --/7.-*N--1-- T.- k.. . 2- *49219%374Â»4 frfEÂ»3 ~~- 1 -- ./ -- ---k .* 80 Z~~~k--_I - 214- IL- - h \ --- -\ - - --- - --- N -- WI:nazi_ - -- 74- ---- -- 2--ZZ--,*1912---42 - -- -- ----2-- ----lea _ ----- -â„¢-3*Â» - InE .7/W#/ZEET---o-i Â»*-- -- 21<Ir ------ \ % I ----===LEZIED-chno-- c ---~~~ -- --- -4.. - - ------- _--- + Tbr--* ---<z-- - ---- - -\ 8 494,ooo--2-----F4J --~r~z~~~~*~.2. 2:---2-1- 8050 2 \ C ~i - .- \ -- - - ---- --1 \ .0 - - --1 . I - r..028040 - - --... - *. - -1-~ -221-25~- 12=2 -- - r Â«19-4>1 f litt EÂ»44 1- - -- -- -Â° Â»=44 Â»Â«u tt ILL- - - --- 1.-I- - - * - _ - 222-4.:Â° 312 - - - - -\ --- - - 2 - -- - - 1 -- A N - 1494424 -2~- * -----9-I--.Il- -------i- % - --- - -- - --\7\ \<42.-2-222 222-21*442 -27--2-23 22> -- \ \ --J\- N - N - - ---E- ----- - -- 4â‚¬d \ - \J--- - -\--NI- - -\ --2- - N-N --% ---7201 1--570--- ---Ref,3,1 -2- ff ---f\32>124._ -. 3 2Â»20 -- - ---- Rex - - ... c ---- -4:z- %--806-0----- ------- - -- - -1--IN 1-- -E------I-- 21_ ---- V- -1 N.- --0-/- - -2<frian>:z~-1- ~ ~ _c~ujuÂ»inÂ« 99%496Â« 334423>42{i --2=Â»~ ~~~ 1-26 -2.22-- - ---1 -- \-\ 4\\ - - - ----- )-2232>--22 ---- --- --- -- - \2\-/- - - 1 ?070 ~ - -1 -- %-- \ -- -- -- - --- I - ~ - 44 -- -X 021 \% - 3 - 'p --r-/-- --. --1- --0-- 1 8 1 60- 22-- \42~ 41-21 -174 -31 ---1-2=2-2 - -W- -- --. -1-x -- \\2 ----- - \ - \ - -- -1- - - \ ---Ii Â«~-2--2 2Â»_9 ----- ~_<~~---~~---808(~--------~-~~-~ -~9~--~ 7~ -- - - \% - - Ce=17=ZE --2- - _aipA-2-- 6-/ - --- \---- - -- - 0\ - -\ ~ \ 73<17- - 8090------ -- -- ~ --~~~ ------~ -\7-<Cho- 2 -~ 3 - ~-- TZ 7 - 1- - *%N . I * %-X %_-- 7*0- N i------ - I -I- -- - I -- \- \-- N. - X --- 3 --2 - g - % - ----- - -\4 - \ - 8/90 r __ ii --_ - 3 fi.EKf-l--EL.------LW- Z-----'-rrf:r:ZI~~2-2-ir*-----~-- - - 2 2----2-i-m<z*:22--zz- -2--in -e\- \4. -1>42 - 2- 22 - \ i.- I.= . %-- 820 ---- - - \ --1--*- --- 8210 -4- \24\. 8220 3 8126 K --- -- IN --- --- ----i- - - Â»422 --1-22-zzihil-14~429***13Â»40Â«Â» \ -Tr_fical_-8219"c bes turh 8/3042>132-3<41 \ - N -.*- -% 8/452 2-* 1 - --1 64 493,500 - -8240 ---lu-- 1--=EFT---------2---r--- ~~-fr--216.TriME~-ELL-.-381,4,2.1 .r.2.22.Zirill..+TE......2/.- .7... f-/.$/*-1 ---f \ 1 Â·m ~--I~~ 22Â¤~ 22ti--50-~~~~Â£2.,erÂ£4Gree----IL~2~12u Luu----LIit-4-u--_ --- ~~4~--titt~ .0 ' CD .. m \ C,-----...- -----t\ ~ - - U. ~Ze- - - I %2-<24 1 -...*- .. \ 8270 1 86 1> 8280 - ~144400 44Â«\\64 \ Lft ~~~xLÂ»e,Â«~ ~ - *. ) 0 N \ 0 - 0 8290 %- .- .I U)1 --- 1 750-3 70 8 Ago, 2----- 31111 . OV \\ 8320 . 11 Clill....Il-- -; ' ......../..*ilill.-- - ---, apeo.-0...222221:22:(rGIEGI+LiTIC:..ZIZMMMIFIT.*..2 3 2.44-4-4-\\\f\\1\ 3l-- O- . : Tr 1 ' M \ 1 li=Â£-ze=- 1-1 1 1 h. \\ ~m ~01-8330 I U 40 ,-\\0\\--212Â«3-9230\1\\\\\\ttil~~~ lf-221FEL..$..---%74it~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~8113....0- . I - -0.- -*-*-- 8340 41. 3\ \ \\ - 1 1 0 \Â«50 0 -N-\ wa. \N ~~ \, \90 1 \" \ \ <K ' . 1 ////319\\\ 1 I 1 4 1 N 493,250 A. f 1 0 , N 493,500 m 90. I 9 - --I --1 N 493,000 4 - f 4 + N 493,250 50 25 0 50 100 rn 1% CONTOUR INTERVAL 2 FEET &6> 'to 42 8 1 Co. I , City of Aspen __AVALANCHE_ANAL,/1~S_z_ Â§ARKER PROPENT_4 - , J, 4 5 Arthur I. Meors, P.E. ' p m . m . m 1 8 493,0 , t / , ASPEN, COLORADO E Gunnison,Co %1230 b . , * , 1,0 ' , e ~21 l 00 . S 6 . -% Jor) 6-'-,, 1987 1'0 -0 '-4 , O$ 8 5 8 SHEET 6-16 1 '' J 1 1 -11 i 856-22 00*29'1 3 2Â£34\3 E 4628,250 E \,628,90 092229'1 3