The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.1271 Ute Ave.A13-946 /271 dÂ·ie Auâ‚¬ .-I ~ Nathanson 8040 Greenline ~A13-94 2737-184-03-0 0~3==~ 74 /Â»0*0â‚¬ 074 ~ G A 0.0, 4 CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET I City of Aspen DATE RECEIVED: 02/14/94 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO. DATE COMPLETE: 2737-184-03-003 A13-94 STAFF MEMBER: ML t 'f .f PROJECT NAME: Nathanson 8040 Greenline Application Project Address: Ute Park Subdivision 1111 - te- 4/4 9 Legal Address: Lot 3 APPLICANT: Linda Nathanson Applicant Address: 747 Latimer Rd. Santa Monica, CA 90402 REPRESENTATIVE: Ted Guv Assoc -Reb OUÂ·Za.ti Representative Address/Phone: Box 1640 Basalt, CO 81621 FEES: PLANNING $ 978 # APPS RECEIVED 4 ENGINEER $ 96 # PLATS RECEIVED 4 HOUSING $ ENV. HEALTH $ TOTAL $ 1074 TYPE OF APPLICATION: STAFF APPROVAL: 1 STEP: X 2 STEP: j P&Z Meeting Date f-~3 PUBLIC HEARING: YES VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO CC Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO DRC Meeting Date REFERRALS: City Attorney A Parks Dept. School District \ City Engineer Bldg Inspector Rocky Mtn NatGas Housing Dir. Fire Marshal CDOT A< Aspen Water Holy Cross Clean Air Board City Electric Mtn. Bell Open Space Board Envir.Hlth. 4% ACSD Other Zoning Energy Center Other DATE REFERRED : ~ D INITIALS : 914 DUE : '~ ~ / 1 FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: 7///lid 4/INITIAL.Â· -7/f /4 9. , 1 City Atty X~ City Engineer k~ Zoning Env. Health Housing - Open Space ~ Other: ~CUM-- FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: LLC/4 0Â¥L- 43 5- (lid RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMIS~SION l ~ FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE NATHANSON 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW FOR W SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED ON LOT 3 OF THE UTE PARK SUBDIVISION Resolution No. 94- WHEREAS, Gary and Linda Nathanson submitted an application for 8040 Greenline Review to the Planning Office; and WHEREAS, the application was reviewed for referral comments by the Parks Department and the Engineering Department; and WHEREAS, based on the referral comments, Planning staff comments, and presentation by the project representatives, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-2 in favor of the project with 15 conditions; and WHEREAS, the Commission also passed a motion directing staff to make on-going inspections during the construction process; and WHEREAS, the Commission passed another motion directing staff to contact the Nordic Council to require them to come before the Commission for 8040 Greenline Review for the trail which they cut through the Ute Park Subdivision. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that it approves the Nathanson 8040 Greenline Review for the development of a single family residence subject to the following conditions: 1) Run-off from the site during construction must be prevented by detention ponds, hay bales, or similar methods to be approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits. 2) Terracing of the ground shall (including any retaining walls) not extend beyond the line of the deck. 3) Excavation shall occur from the " inside out" from the uphill side of the property. No equipment is permitted outside of the building envelope. 4) Prior to any grading or storage activity on the site, a sturdy, visible barricade shall be erected along the building envelope lines, and no closer than 5 feet to the aspens at the northwest corner of the house, to protect the existing grades and vegetation. 5) The deck outside of the master bedroom shall be reduced in size to retain the mature aspens at the northwest corner of the house, in addition to replacing the at-risk trees caliper inch for caliper inch.. 1 6) Only native vegetation species as typically found on this site shall be used for revegetation of disturbed soil along the east, south and west side of the residence. Any regraded or disturbed areas must be revegetated and mulched or matted immediately. 7) Avalanche warning signs as required by the subdivision must be erected prior to the issuance of any building permits. 8) A detailed landscape plan must be submitted to Planning and approved prior to the issuance of any building permits. 9) Prior to the issuance of any building permits, tree removal permits from the Parks Department are required for any tree 6"diameter or greater which will be removed or relocated. Submit for tree removal permits at least two weeks prior to submitting for building permit. 10) Colors shall tend to earth tones to make the building less visible on the hillside. 11) There shall be no future grading on the site without 8040 review. The open field to the west of the residence shall remain undisturbed except for necessary control of weed pests as specified by the 1990 Colorado Weed Management Act and Pitkin County Land Management Department. 12) The Fire Marshall shall sign off on building permits regarding fire access. 13) Landscaping shall be planted in front of the private entry driveway's retaining wall to reduce the visual impact of the wall. The landscaping plan which must be reviewed prior to the issuance of any building permit shall show this landscape treatment. The landscape shall be installed upon completion of the wall when revegetation takes place. 14) All representations made by the applicant within the application or before the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be considered conditions of approval for this project. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on June 21, 1994. W. Bruce Kerr, Chairman Jan Carney, Deputy City Clerk 2 MEMORANDUM 2 @ 0.,9- -.1 - /Â©#13 W.1 TO: Planning and Zoning Commission 4 Â« ' 2- >,~â„¢---7-ju Â·-31~#t FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner j. .. 0, e \ Aw DATE: June 21, 1994 ft* WH,+P , ~ 01'ry Re: Nathanson 8040 Greenline Review Summary: The Planning Office recommends approval of the Nathanson 8040 Greenline review with conditions. Applicant: Gary and Linda Nathanson, represented by Jack Palomino Location / Zoning: Lot 3, Ute Park Subdivision. This is a .744 acre parcel located on the south side of the east end of Ute Ave. across from the Aspen Club. The zoning is AH Affordable Housing. Request: The applicant seeks 8040 approval to construct a single family residence. Process: The Planning Commission shall make a final determination on 8040 Greenline review. Background: This parcel is one of three free market lots created in the Ute Park AH Subdivision approved in 1992. Each of the free market lots must receive individual 8040 Greenline approval. The Nathanson review has been submitted in conjunction with one of the other free market lots in the subdivision, the Winnerman 8040 review. The deed restricted townhomes in the development have been completed and are occupied at this time. The Ute Park Subdivision is impacted by two avalanche chutes. The original subdivision review noted red zones (greater hazard) and blue zones (lesser hazard) on the created parcels. The Nathanson parcel includes a platted building envelope which identifies a portion of the envelope in the blue zone. Within the application, avalanche consultant Art Mears submitted comments on appropriate building and site design to mitigate avalanche hazards of the blue zone. A revised site plan was submitted on May 27 showing the structure to be located outside of the blue zone area. Referral Comments: Referral comments were requested from Parks, Engineering and Water Departments. Referral memos are attached as Exhibit "A". The summaries are as follows: Engineering (Chuck Roth): 1) Run-off from the site during construction must be prevented by detention ponds, hay bales, or similar methods. 1 125 2) All activity should be prevented outside the limit of construction to protect the native vegetation - fencing should be installed at the building envelope as a minimum measure. 3) Regrading outside of the building envelope cannot take place without a variance. Driveway grading appears to be excessive, beyond the scope of the retaining wall. The retaining wall is shown as rock wall in some drawings, and concrete wall in others. 4) The grading plan within the envelope is not explicit unless "tie-back wall" construction is employed. 5) The avalanche warning signs as required by the subdivision approval have not been erected. 6) The Fire Marshall shall sign off on building permits regarding fire access and building sprinklers (required as a condition of subdivision approval). Parks (Rebecca Baker): 1) No detailed landscape plan has been submitted. 2) Tree removal permits are required for any tree 6"diameter or greater which will be removed or relocated. Submit for tree permits at least two weeks prior to submitting for building permit. 3) Protection of existing vegetation outside of the building envelope is critical. A barricade must be erected and inspected by Parks or Planning prior to any grading or storage on the site. 4) The deck at the northwest corner of the house should be reduced to save the aspens located there. Staff Comments: 8040 Greenline Pursuant to Section 24-7-503 of the Municipal Code, the following review criteria pertain to any development above, or within 150' below, the 8040' elevation line: I. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. If the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and revegetate the soils, or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a location acceptable to the City. Response: The application states that the building envelope is located off of 30% slopes. The bulk of the structure is located in the "unconditional" portions of the building envelopes, out of the identified avalanche zones. Because the site plan shows the structure out of the blue zone, it does not have to follow the recommendations of hazard consultant Art Mears. Staff believes that the avalanche zones must be shown on any graphic depictions of the property, ie. building permit site plan, landscape plan, etc. 2 i4 II. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects on water pollution. Response: The development must comply with drainage requirements which call for an engineered drainage plan stamped by an engineer and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any building permits. Hay bales, detention areas or similar methods must be used downslope of any soil disturbance (at the building envelope line) to stop loose or waterborne soils. Any regraded or disturbed areas must be revegetated and mulched immediately. III. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the air quality in the City. Response: This development Will not affect air quality in significant levels. No wood burning fireplaces are allowed. IV. The design and location of any proposed development, road, or trail is compatible with the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located. Response: This lot does not provide a trail alignment, but a pedestrian easement exists along its eastern border. Per the drawings, the private access road calls for fairly extensive cuts into the hill and retaining walls. As mentioned in the Engineering referral, the regrading above the road seems excessive. Planning staff has met with Hans Brucker, the subdivision's design engineer, to explore methods of reducing the significant backslope cut for the private driveway. Hans understands staff's concerns about visual impacts and revegetation concerns. He Will work on minimizing the slope cuts. This may entail raising the retaining wall somewhat. The original representation in the subdivision review stated that the retaining wall would be 4'-6' tall. Staff continues to recommend that landscaping be planted in front of the wall to reduce the visual impact of the wall. This should be done upon completion of the wall when revegetation takes place. V. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land features. Response: As mentioned above, staff is concerned about the backslope above the private drive and its impact to the native vegetation. Concerning the regrading plan, the structure has gone through several designs which have set the building into the hillside. The extent of downhill intrusion is limited to the edge of the deck. Parks staff reflects upon the mature aspens which are to be removed because of the proposed deck at the northwest corner of the house. Because these trees are some of the more substantial ones 3 67 on the site, staff has conditioned the approval with the requirement that the deck must be reduced to keep footers and other related construction from the trees. All excavation must be done from the "inside out" from the upper part of the site. Prior to any construction activity, a sturdy, visible barricade must be erected along the building envelope lines (east, south and west) and no closer than 5 feet to the aspens at the northwest corner of the house. Planning must inspected the barricades prior to commencement of grading or material storage on the property. Revegetation on the east, south and west sides of the structure must only use native plant species such as found elsewhere on this site. Non-native species may only be used on the northern entry side of the home. VI. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting and grading, maintain open space, and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource. Response: This single structure is within the platted envelope. The building is located out of the "blue" avalanche zone. The approximate 60' width of the building will be very visible from Ute Ave., therefore staff is adamant about maintaining the young aspens between the building envelope and the pavement edge. It should be pointed out that the structure was redesigned after discussions with staff to fit within the narrower "unconditional" portion of the building envelope. There shall be no future grading on the site without 8040 review. The open field to the west of the residence shall remain undisturbed except for necessary control of weed pests as specified by the 1990 Colorado Weed Management Act and Pitkin County Land Management Department. VII. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open character of the mountain. Response: The floor area ratio of the four bedroom house is approximately 5,088 square feet. The proposed building has an approximately 60 foot wide facade. The height maximizes the allowable 25' limit of the AH zone district (with the ridge 5' higher as allowed by the land use regulations height definition). The applicant proposes to use "modest colors and material". Staff recommends that the stucco specified in the elevation drawings and any other paint colors be medium or darker earth tones to make the building less visible on the hillside. VIII. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed development. Response: "Will serve" letters were provided by the water and 4 6& sanitary sewer utilities during the subdivision reviews in 1992. IX. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development, and said roads can be properly maintained. Response: The Ute Park Subdivision participated in the Ute Avenue Improvement District. X. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development SO as to ensure adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment. Response: The private driveway must be constructed in accordance with the City's driveway requirements. At the time of subdivision review, the Fire Marshal requested that the driveway be snowmelted, but this did not become a condition of approval for the subdivision. XI. Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan map is dedicated for public use. Response: There were no trails dedicated on this parcel during the subdivision approval. A 10' pedestrian easement allows access from the upper two lots in this subdivision down to Ute Ave. Recommendation: The Planning Office recommends approval of the Nathanson 8040 Greenline review with the following conditions: 1) Run-off from the site during construction must be prevented by detention ponds, hay bales, or similar methods to be approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits. 2) Terracing of the ground shall (including any retaining walls) not extend beyond the line of the deck. 3) Excavation shall occur from the "inside out" from the uphill side of the property. No equipment is permitted outside of the building envelope. 4) Prior to any grading or storage activity on the site, a sturdy, visible barricade shall be erected along the building envelope lines, and no closer than 5 feet to the aspens at the northwest corner of the house, to protect the existing grades and vegetation. 5) The deck outside of the master bedroom shall be reduced in 5 I 2,6 dâ‚¬pthatÂ»-Â·*ppr-DÂ·*:imf:Eâ‚¬Ty--1762bt_Z li-1-22Â»~â€¢Vicwalczim*ctÂ·--*md to retain the mature aspens at the northwest corner of the house, / 0 1 - '36 Â·Â· d aff-63 k,d Ab~ -fAQ.0 C,a.o~Â« Ld(/PÂ« (41 671)1-n TD -11=P. 641..peÂ« 0 LA 41 6) Only native vegetation species as typically found on this site shall be used for revegetation of disturbed soil along the east, south and west side of the residence. Any regraded or disturbed areas must be revegetated and mulched or matted immediately. 7) Avalanche warning signs as required by the subdivision must be erected prior to the issuance of any building permits. 8) A detailed landscape plan must be submitted to Planning and approved prior to the issuance of any building permits. 9) Prior to the issuance of any building permits, tree removal permits from the Parks Department are required for any tree 6"diameter or greater which will be removed or relocated. Submit for tree removal permits at least two weeks prior to submitting for building permit. 3 ectrit tâ„¢.6. 10) Colors shal. .&8Â«th_/berret- to make the buildipg -FEss ov rs,trRFdran- the hillside. 11) There shall be no futuA grading on the site without 8040 review. The open field to the west of the residence shall remain undisturbed except for necessary control of weed pests as specified by the 1990 Colorado Weed Management Act and Pitkin County Land Management Department. 12) The Fire Marshall shall sign off on building permits regarding fire access. 13) Landscaping shall be planted in front of the private entry driveway's retaining wall to reduce the visual impact of the wall. The landscaping plan which must be reviewed prior to the issuance of any building permit shall show this landscape treatment. The landscape shall be installed upon completion of the wall when revegetation takes place. 14) All representations made by the applicant within the application or before the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be considered conditions of approval for this project. Recommended Motion: "I move to approve the Nathanson 8040 Greenline Review with the 14 conditions listed in the June 21, 1994 Planning Office memo." Attachments: " A" Application Information "B" Complete Referral Agency Memos 6 1 4- ... 1 r. 3 14.+* 4/10-41. 48*YE O 6%:14/1 L -3 F*aci~, TfF: 94Â»,4 Geo#.z -27 - HINA:7W 1121,1, % c===t f.wv g STRL ARC .rY'.: p.0. E 2524 ufle-z~{11 yiI Pri - FIE 0054,26 1621 03) N't C d Uppef . 1 LeveL 34 0 4, 1 4/ JUOUU I ./ .. . 1 Lgroia WATE R 0Â£724.25 //4 y- ~ TA eLe, Tre â‚¬ loweR -: - Â£ U~ Level 1 1 - r--1.-~ OVEK !<-!.ATH, i -Prle LihIE oP - E>< 1â‚¬T. 02400, Noâ‚¬TH ELEVATION -?f?. 6Â»11 .11-011 NaTE: 41.AROPAI U - 41'+200 4 6TMI. Loer IRAILS 1.1/ Â£'14 1-,Â¥4 Fla<ers g teo.C./ Â¢7"+ 60,54 mâ‚¬TG e 41-03 0,4./4*., Tif.> SIL,ele ---- ---- J MP --- - - - NAT Fl=ef' U ': ..Â«/Ulf- _/22&&13/-', ~.~~~~kh em= 41 1 m J * 6940 1 41' [212'Ve C 1 -. ,â‚¬2'- EHIÂ» 3 BÂ®.06 - --- 20/4%64/5 0734. 15 Â£ Ur n Lava &724, 4 l.evel. EOU-EM EL. E v>AT ION liDâ€ž 0 11.oil 1 / U\~ 1 - 11:30 'f /* L- c /.*IEE=11 - D C.4 .....% It-:.....'b= F.. 1. â€¢â€¢ f 1 f------~-17- - 6040.08 1 fli: I i &6;ip-Xr -41 0(*8,<28 9 II - -- -,412,11 - 1.-0,-$=--*I- @Nref â‚¬râ‚¬psiA ZIL.,~~~ L--LINE cp -LINE oF- 1 1-Ih|/ OF- -- 6< IÂ«T. 424.5** 1Â»12TH ELE VAT ION -TY?. .1 '-011 No'TE = CYJARFAIL- - 41'+ te 4 DTM. Loer MAILS 14/ â‚¬"+ 1.45* flcgers g 2"0.45./ e"+ Lair rt>Â·=Trs e â‚¬-O. 0.4.,4*.,lift 'IP:P' 1-2- ~ hyu ;1 . A , , - --1 1 - emEr f 4 ...f ..4., ..Cl 1 6-2 , - JU Em 1 2 - 2 - 1 - 41 N 4 P V ,~ 7-1 43 4 Liti *' ~_~ 4 GIN -i - r n *171-=.- El . .. =1 1/1 '24 2-4 .-,H v - I d It 'm ' I - .. 1 .1, r. -. .~ re-r*FT ,- - .. 112-1- a- 1 â€¢ MAST BLEÂ»TION 1/2.11 â€¢ 11 -O,1 4G al IJ â‚¬00714 E LE VAT ION 1/Dll * 11.Oil 1/30 r '1%:0~~ret ....., r e,j *irÂ¥-â„¢1 - 1 vn='r-~,151 6040.08 1 n.4 ,- ...// 1 1 ill, - :1 111 1 #Ur 05,4;;401 . L .....i-rf - EN-1721 fripsib--4/~ri:,12F1 -.Il- Il---- .--i-. Rleetteurle CMITTED 00'< asT. a,~Ape, 990?oqeo L-LINE OP -LINE op FEA CLAVATY TYF. â‚¬21~AC*/ 7YFÂ· WEST BLEVATIoN 1/. u = 11.011 418- '1 THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC ARCHITECTS AND S CTUERAL ENGINEERS 8040 Greenline Application Review Standards: This project will construct one single-family residence on Lot 3, Ute Park Subdivision which will conform to the laws and regulations of the City of Aspen, Colorado. Each of the specific standards are addressed below: 1. No development is proposed for any location designated by the avalanche engineer as high avalanche hazard (see Avalanche Engineers letter of November 1,1991). Part of the building envelope is designated as being of moderate hazard, and special structural design will be used for that part of the building in this area as prescribed by Arthur Mears letter o f January 11, 1994. No hazardous or toxic soils exist on the site (see attached soils report). 2. The natural drainage of the site has been and will be protected. The building envelope has been carefully sited to avoid 30% slopes and predominant vegetation. Erosion control netting will be used during construction and revegetation of any regraded or disturbed areas will be done immediately upon completion. 3. A single-family residence is consistent with the existing use of the surrounding area. Since wood-burning fireplaces are not allowed, this development will not adversely affect the Aspen air quality. Dust suppresion measures will be taken during construction. 4. The proposed development will be set into the slope of the lot such that the height and bulk of the residence is minimized and is compatible with the existing terrain. 5. Regrading of the site will be minimized by designing the project sensitive to the site and its terrain. 6. Only one structure will be built on the site and it the building envelope is located so to minimize disturbance to the natural vegetation of the site. 7. The design will set the residence into the slope of the lot such that the height and bulk of the residence is minimized and is compatible with the open character of the mountain. From the access above, the home will appear as a one story structure and from below it will appear as two-stories. 8. The subdivision was created in consultation with the Aspen Water Department and the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. Both agencies have provided "will serve" letters. Further, City of Aspen Ordinance 18, Series of 1992 granted an exemption to Ute Park Subdivision with regard to the moritorium to the expansion of the municipal water system. 9. The Ute Park Subdivision has established a private access road which will serve this project and the other single-family residences of the subdivision. This road will be properly maintained by the homeowners association. 10. Ute Avenue and the private access road will provide access for emergency vehicles. A tum-around for emergency vehicles has been provided at the end of the access road. Snow removal will be the responsibility of the homeowners association. 11. No designated trails exist on this parcel. 93145 R3 3/8/94 f 1D 23280 STATE HIGHWAY 82 PO. BOX 1640 BASALT. COLOAAOO 81621 [3033 927-3167 ARTHUR I. MEARS, P.E., INC. Natural Hazards Consultants 222 East Gothic Ave. Gunnison. Colorado 81230 303 - 641-3236 4 January 11,199 Mr. Stan Mathis Theodore K. Guy Associates, P.C. P.O. Box 1640 Basalt, CO 81621 Dear Mr. Mathis: I completed a site inspection of the building sites on Lots 2 and 3, Ute Park Subdivision on January 6. Portions of both building envelopes are within range of avalanches, as you know. The western portion of both envelopes are most severely exposed; avalanche exposure and avalanche loads decrease in an easterly direction. I offer the following suggestions which should aid in the preliminary design process. a. Design the south side of both buildings for avalanche loads. Loads have not been determined but will probably be in the range of 150 - 400 lbs/fe. These load magnitudes can be reduced if the exposed uphill sides of buildings deflect avalanches through small angles. Ramp roofs facing the avalanche direction are ideal and recommended. b. Ideally, windows and doors should be avoided on the uphill building surfaces facing avalanches. If doors and windows are planned on these surfaces, they must also be designed for avalanche impact. Small, reinforced glass spans can be designed for avalanche loads. Avalanches will flow through the forest in the "unconditional" zone and will probably carry small tree limbs in the flow during the extreme conditions that must be designed for. c. Eliminate structures such as decks and patios that will concentrate activities on the uphill (south-facing) sides of buildings where people will be exposed to avalanches. My loading analysis can be completed after I receive plan and elevation views of the proposed buildings. Please contact me if you have questions. Sincerely, (lf,(W 4.N pace Arthur I. Mears, P.E. Avalanche-control engineer 19 Mass Waxting â€¢ AvalanchM â€¢ Avalanche Control Engineering ARTHUR I. MEARS, P.E., INC. Natural Hazards Consultants 222 East Cothic Ave. Gunnison. Colorado 81230 , 303-641-3236 November 1, 1991 Mr. Jim Martin , Aspen Properties 215 South Monarch Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Jim: I have reviewed the final site development plan for the Ute Park Subdivision. This plan is undated but I refer to the version sent to me on October 28. The following comments refer to that plan and to issues discussed during my site visit of October 23. a. Building envelopes on Lots 2 and 3 are located i outside the "Red, " or high hazard avalanche zones. b. Portions of the building envelopes on Lots 2 and 3 [ are within the " or moderate-hazard avalanche "Blue, zone, however building within the blue zone will require a conditional use permit, as indicated on the plan. Structures in the blue zone will require site- specific design for avalanche forces. c. The building envelop on Lot 1 is located within both "Red" and "Blue" avalanche zones and is partially outside of avalanche zones. This building must be specially designed to stop avalanches at the uphill end, thus modifying the Red zone and preventing avalanches from reaching Lot 4. Such design is technically feasible, but design specifications have not been developed. d. The access road to the development passes through ' the "Ute Trail" avalanche path. Portions of the access road will probably be reached by avalanches every 5 to 10 years, approximately. Hazard to road users will be small because traffic is light. Please contact me if you have any additional questions. iii Sincerely, Arthur I. Mears, P.E. Avalanche-control engineer " CC: Tom Stevens /1/fa33 Wasting â€¢ Aualanches â€¢ Avalanche Cont,0/Enfineerin, /1~'~ PLAN G & ZONING COMMISSION EXHIBIT '~> , APPROVED -, 19 BY RESOLUTION MEMORANDUM TO: Mary Lackner, Planning Office THRU: George Robinson, Parks Director FROM: Rebecca Baker, Parks Department DATE: June 14, 1994 RE: Nathanson/Winnerman 8040 Greenline Review We have reviewed both applications submitted for the Nathanson and Winnerman 8040 Greenline reviews. The major impacts of both of these projects involve tree removals and landscaping. The existing landscape of Lot 1, the Nathanson property, is primarily aspen grove. A vegetative protection zone should be maintained between the building envelope and the 10 foot right of way parallel to Ute Avenue. No vegetation should be removed from this area and the contractor should be encouraged to put up snow fencing or similar type fencing to protect this area. Additionally, several significant aspens are shown on the north west corner of the property which are proposed to be relocated for the deck construction. We would recommend reducing the deck on that side in order to save those trees. A tree permit must be submitted two weeks prior to an excavation permit to insure an acceptable mitigation plan for other tree relocations and/ or removals. Â®P.1,#SK,+ The Wiperman lot, lot 2, is primarily sub alpine forest with many significant fir, aspen, and Other pines prdposed to be removed. The proposed plan shows 87 + caliper inchesof eoniferous trees to be removed and 18 + caliper inches of deciduous tree to be removed. These trees are a significant loss to the area and mitigation will be required on a comparable worth basis either on site or dedicated monetarily to the City of Aspens tree manigement program. Additionally, a 21 inch fir tree close to the 8070 elevation line ts shown to be removed of which I can see no necessity for its removal. This tree should be saved and protdeted during construction, including setting up any protective fencing around the tree so no digging occurs within five feet of the dripline of the tree. Protective fencing should also be provided for other significant trees close to the construction areas and no stockpiling of dirt or other debris should occur around any tibesâ€ž. A tree permit Â§hould be applied for at least two weeks prior to granting an excavation permit. **- 11 MEMORANDUM To: Mary Lackner, Planning Office Thru: Cris Caruso, City Enginee~~/ From: Chuck Roth, Engineering Department 62 Date: April 1, 1994 Re: Nathanson 8040 Greenline Review Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site inspection, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. The existing PUD approvals that pertain to this property are contained in the agreement on file at Book 704, beginning at Page 216, at the Pitkin County Clerk & Recorders Office. The approvals for the subdivision in which this site is located apply to this application. 2. Storm Runoff During Construction - The application makes reference to providing for protection of the site during construction from damage due to erosion. A requirement that was lacking during the PUD review that should be included at this time is that protection must be provided during construction so that no runoff from soils exposed by excavation be permitted to leave the site. This is typically accomplished as suggested in the application letter by detention ponds and hay bales. 3. Vegetation & Scenic Resource - The application is incomplete in responding to review standards 5 and 6. The applicant should be required to install construction fencing to define the limits of construction activity and to protect the existing vegetation, natural land features, and scenic resource. The applicant is encouraged to preserve as much of the native vegetation as possible, but in any event, the fencing should protect at a minimum, the area outside of the approved building envelope. As with the Herron Park Place condition of approvals, it is suggested that it be stated that "the Zoning Enforcement Officer shall periodically inspect the site to determine compliance with" construction fencing, vegetation preservation, and erosion control measures. Item number 5 of the supplemental materials is unclear. Regrading of the site outside of the approved building envelope is not permitted. Fill is indicated outside of the approved building envelope. Since this is in the area between the driveway and the 11 approved building envelope, it may not be unreasonable to permit the variance. 4. Extent of Cut Slopes - The information contained in the application is unclear. The drawings show the structure set into the hillside as though there were no cut slopes used to accomplish the construction. Current technology does provide techniques capable of such construction, but the application does not discuss the details. The construction process is called "tied back walls," and the walls can be constructed from the top down so that no laid back cut slope is necessary for constructing foundation walls. The limit of grading shown on sheet A5 for the driveway appears to be much greater than necessary. The grading should not need to exceed the space needed for the proposed rock retaining wall. The building permit drawings should include one or more sections through the proposed driveway. 5. Retaining Wall - The plans show a retaining wall alongside the driveway. The plans are inconsistent with the wall which appears to be a concrete wall in some drawings and a rock wall in other drawings. 6. Avalanche Warning Signs - The signs required by item 8, Section 2 of Ordinance No. 18 (Series of 1992) have not been installed. It should be a condition of approval that the avalanche and rockfall warning signs be installed prior to the issuance of any further permits. 7. Hazardous or Toxic Soils - Item number 1 of the supplemental materials states that "no hazardous or toxic soils exist on the site (see attached soils report)." I did not find this information in the soils report. At the same time, it is not a requirement that an applicant conduct a hazardous or toxic soils survey for the property. The building permit drawings should contain a general note based on review standard number 1 stating, "If the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the property owner shall stabilize and revegetate the soils, or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a location acceptable to the city." 8. Please note that concerning the approvals for the entire Ute Park Subdivision, the drainage improvements have not yet been completed for Lot 4, and the escrowed funds for those improvements should be maintained until such time as those improvements have been completed. M94.165 i.0 Ala+ka Fls OAA_ tut"KiÂ¥â€¢M OK 99457/3/71 441&Â£44 18.(2-2 Aotry- CL-3 17rL ___ Ala jAWn SOFL - /*or ktigs 25*ck /977â‚¬AE_ ~(Er 612 - /76+ 3/ 72/yace 79 â‚¬ *pr-(-0*t ____,2&0_ A*Â« 8 ke- 304*la C 3994 f ..PDAL--? 2-6 -y - Goret______Gto -mal_ _ 4-(004- Â¥ PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION D EXHIBIT ~ , APPROVED 4 R 19 Br~RESOLUTION 111 - 1 61 1 + \ I \ \ A 1-el-L 1/ \ \ i 13 \ n \ \ \ ./2 -_2221 I % 4/ i~ Se:' \ 1- \\\ \ \ \ \ \1 \ \ 0 X \ \ \ \ 1- ' 1 HO-10+ ~ \ / 1 1 1 I I -- r I \ \ 2 ' , \ \ \ 1 -M -02.4 , \ il-ziM :1 1\ \ 6*4 --*- \ 1 4 % :1 \\ \1 f a.w l.,4.,1 128. , \ \ \ . 1 \1 \ 1 1\ \\ il\1 Ul \ / \ \ \ \ 1\ \\\ Ill \\ L_ 1 1-4/ \- 21% -4-\ \ \ \ \ 2\ \ \\\\ 1 f ..\ I \ \ \ \ \ 19 L rl Â·'t- \ 11 \ 11 9 \ 11 IR @1,= i 21 \ \\1. 11 -11 G \ / LL--1--1 1* 1 M,\ 6..4 \ -air \ \0 OU $ 0 111 , 3 0*V\/ 1744%- ; Ul ./. 4 111 U + 1 4 8 < 2\* \ 1 1 1 f \\ Â¢4Â£ ..1 - -4/3. 0. 1 1 1 1 . I- -. 11 11 \ 1 18 .Ih a~ M 1 + f 11 1- m $ 11 ' \ 1 1 81 2*4 1---- 4 36% ST ' 1 .t./,/- 44'- &*f#.1 1 \ Utz , 5.23 1 1 M -8 1 ~ ;'Â·~~ 1111 ' I Z. 0 .A 1 1\ - I I _1 / / 1 14 1 1 \ \ ~ j L 7 N, //r 14 4 -t -1-- 6 \ 1 1 , 1 1 1 tEm, \ \ -01 1 44 1.- //4 ''' 1 5 0 i 11 \ ito \ / t , Mr'EL___, 36 .PIW 'cel 1-1 K09 _1 -Z - G7 . 1 .... i --- -4. -...,-* -- 40. eUY PC, EERS -/.0 1 R liLi...- 11 0 Â· LaT 4 - _ _~Un --- -- lei 8050 --____A IRE:Guel-fl-T ----- 84 16,10146 ----- // 1 ----- , to'- O1' retaerge NAGE+ler# *-0- N 1 1 Â·f!=L // efLDIE . 9 po â‚¬-131*, , . 0 , .: , 4 0 . 0 4. 0 0 4% 0 IF ./ .- .. 0 i - - I m ./ .. 0 , - . =. 0 . -. 4,1 .4 , 6 6. :I, . 1 .0 f ..0 - I . 0 ... ...9. ~- . 9 . 0 .. 4 1.N . , I . mam'IR"== Il"/1/" k . . . 0. - 0 0-00. . 1 . .... .. . . - . . .. -. . - 2. -.. A. 0 - ./ ./.I ./ A * I. 0 -- 0 . . .. 0 - . ... b 4 -- -- ---.--- -.--v+,---z -- - - 9 3.1 3 ,-72,-5:IL.23/* I ./.I -- t 1 t 1 . , 04,4 + 94Â· 10-44 THEODORE K 6UY ~9Â¥50 638Â»8 ~ il :47 . -3 ASSOCIATES PO FE,aciA, -TYF: 94Â·,4 oe* t- *WHETS WO 141141:vw Tizil, [-~g, < 3 r 'i STRUCTURAL ENSINEERS TY'0Â· ....1 1.r. , P.O. BOX 1640 12]4 .-i. - 25280 Hnr. 82 13MbM-T, ca-ON,Do 81621 (903) q71-516-1 2054.20 -/T-- ----* -- - -- __ \ FAX (305) q2-1-460 0 UffeleÂ· --_ 1- --- -*I- 1 1 Level 1-luouu ....\ i- 1 . . 1/. V ... . 5-TOH E HATER 0024.26 TA eLa / -pre d LOWBIR Level -4,# sru CLO ~~~ Â¤1___~ 21- Ovalâ‚¬ 1<-LATH, -Prte LINE OF- 85< per. ARAc:a. 1401â‚¬TH ELEVATION. M -rf?. 1,32' m I '-et' - NOTE: (Al,AROFA' 6 - 4"+ 12,9 # ST,4. Leer 64!Le IA, ti'+ 1-60 plocers 2 2, "O.6.. Â¢711+ 1-64 rEpsT5 2 4\-ON O,C. /V,â€¢*.,ria Etâ‚¬7Plf_ EFERN,kiti@_f*912â‚¬zrd'I 12&11 UMN!151 4*9Zlf_ 4Â¥AviliA_19!RY!%1289 ------------- ------------- ------------- *13 EÂ«- NATHANSON 1.1 . , 0 . Â»1Â» RESIDENCE ' i t1 - ------# .#fil a IN:!Ell 1 ~ 3 Ler 9 6 UTE PARK SUBDIVISION t__]El[it 1. /:5>' - w 7 1 11 1 ![~14 . 1 ASPEN, 00 TITE[Er-3 -> ..~ = 4 Trnr Ell Ei> . f.r 44 . 'i I -__l _Jil]21 -1 -' -3-E -1 r-1- IE UNC-INE ORA'*1: J. I- 0094.28, .)013 11: 48145 . . 1,0 1 47 \4 / Fq. P r---'Â§ 4 P/' f/ F V 2@m CHEC*:EC>t --- PRD(TED: 5/21/94 -- 8â‚¬24 28 ELEVATIONS - T -. 1 - 2 601,1/9:2 6*ve,- - R . . 1Â· 1 t--1~1 . 111911 I / 2 . -4 . r 1. L 4 ..1 A29 MAST ELEVATION 1/0,11.11.011 I ..'* I ' 1 , TD,BODOME K 6/f,8806#ATED Fu 1 < P.:'34:1: ?<.11 4 Â·Â·-? 116 -$:.ii "F". .Â·Â· I .. )*$'.". t i THEODORE K eUY ASSOCIATES PC 1 ARGHITECTS *p t q OBJVS STRUCTURAL ENSINEERS - E PO. BOX 1640 . p BAâ‚¬,~LT, CGA.01Â«ADO 25280 HFNY'. 82 81621 %&..FER/129 Â«Â»Â« FAX eOS) 021-46ce J,- - . 2=,= =. =4 41 (309) ccnelb-1 tele.oe .-.- ---- *...* -.--N1 i - 8 0,phae: - 1 . --1 2034,25 i 0 2 UFFE@ LEVEL 2024, 96 : --El- 0 LokieR - L.E:VEL â‚¬,OUT N E LE VAT ION 1/2,11 0 11.011 2811 82888&1 ed,=721â‚¬ 401Â©~IdiE_42@PUed'I ey'*Â£11 @9*71,21- 85:~1*191*6 ----- -------1------- ----- ---.-1--------- ------------- ---- -----------al-- . 1 ---- Ip- ..i-~#- .i------ -i ---- NATHANSON 1 W RESIDENCE .." U.0.-il-' r kx =1- 9 UTE PARK SUBDIVISION t 1-6<TJ ;ePEN, GO . 7,3#,rf,*r 6040.08 -,1 - --. 179'w - 4 ..1 - . I. 1 IN 1,3 . -Ph =4 2 64*<28 467 ) 1-41. &734. 25 ,= U-,4 kil .-I -- -- ---- JOS 11: â‚¬145 ENT,2Â¥ Â£/TE:fle 'H - 1 I. 1 11 1--LINE op -LINE op 01~.1: .P e urreg 1-evel- FE:,Fee~ FeUH 9 aliTTED a:>< i sT. 0*#ANTL Â¤20'04 20 CHECKED: F*90 626*12.ITY TYF. (*BA[PE:, TYFÂ· PRI[TED: 0/2734 SHEET TITLE: .. WEST ELEVATION ELEVATIONS A 09 4 -i~Al f . .-.--- 0 'f , ' K ~t CorN/"16%1T . 2Â· tÂ· I ?M--:.4' , : .4 1 4 1,Â®OPORE K GUY *8051â€¢les Po ...74.6 M . ' 6 * I 'Câ€¢ ~EfEZ~lL..... W N F I .1 t <Eb 80 70 / 1 / X231 - / -0 -# V . / 1/0 -1 THEODORE K GUY ------- 0-0-4 ASSOCIATES PC, / 3 / r- i.i /--3-- / / r.. h ARCHITECTS AND - 3/ STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS 1- I /- 1 ,7 /1- - -'0" i-- -~- 1 ~Ce 0 30&0 , j f P.O. BOX 1640 25280 HÂ¥*. 82 / . / -, 1 r W BMT, Ca-CRADO 81621 (303) q27-516-1 8069:, & f \ Y 8*111-71#01 e '/' f- Url fi op ht , FAX eos) 921-4606 93.\0 / /r //f / Nvel-oFE >419. 1 /8, OWÂ£5750,9,4 / ' p Skit -1 %031.0 / tp-io T,J<M##95/ . ' Me, 8.- / 60 9 0 - -21 - 4 PAT/O - - / HArD - 4\ 80600Â»-3. 3,"p'll ::' ././ '4714,3 / LOT 2 8045, S .* I - LiviN 4 . / ,-4 4. p - E- 140 / t- - V ~-- 3034.0 c 8061.45 fAS f.,11Â£-MT I - - - r) / . - MORml . ' \ 4 WAN j -I . --- .-- 04 \ / \.0 . -- . I 3 904.4 --4- li Â·i - k. ~- 460 Boo 1- Rerm, -1_ L I Ft I T o p ARAGE *7 //to 97-- 1/ I /9 1 4 1 .9. P WAI,+ 410â€¢CÂ»leÂ¥ /'i + 4 - ,-~4&79-r- 2.-4/1 4- r:;44%44#-4 -)22 1 SLoPE WP / / t/- Crh-' il f+-*7 - A -+- 2 3_*A:.1~Na)3uuultti~34/ 1 3 L Â¥.4..> - ------ 1~2_-1-IZZE.1 1-,â€ž-.< 137~-~-Tr- 2---1-0 3-~ 1 4.Je ., -- 1 4 / LI . /- 7 h> \.-Uks=---791--77 L.1 p,gVNAâ‚¬1*5 2<1- -141 lÂ£i*- -* -*gl~*_ _ -. -Xr- # PrTUH l - /3 --V.2-Â·C '1 1 \ . - 1- I -W y - -- -- /4 - - '3 2/3711 98%9 - Â¥- 29 -1 0 4 fv, 4 1 . .3, \1, 44/ /4 ----- ------------- 55 1 98 ..4/ .t' J I /-1-*-* - .I.... .- #' . - -lrÂ·--Rt- __. 1 t*:2/VE - -- ----I------ - . . I_ ___ _ ' 36% 3 2/- 00 , 08 1 /- V-7--- / k -- 9 1- Â£ 7440(fJ j44 i. - -f /, *44 fo -- --- , - '. N- EAÂ»') T ,-C_ f - -- --- - 6njesT ------ -- --/ 1 r #1- - --- f 6 7, 0 FARK(il, -I KL---23 1 - r . 1 / j #. / 1 If e 85"39 0 / - 147 to . UP /,1 - 1 1 -- %00/ - 24/ , L / 1 -3*i. ./0 Â¥ 4 -4- 0 /-7 NATHANSON 1 k... ///// RESIDENCE -. 0031G F _- j -- , / / r. - MARM m t J 1 60'36,0 Lor 9 6230 -./- -91 - --- LI VI N 61 4 -- --UNE 1 --I ASPEN, CO / UTE PARK SUBDIVISION 970'20,0 / 4 -Â· 15*8/86095 1 BU 1 1-01146, l,07 6, 44 EAQ,EMENT -.Ir .//*-/1 - 1 / / / \ ./I- . -j f 1 --- 48145 -- - 10 27, 6 1/ --- 4.- } TEâ‚¬~KE / -9 - .---- JOB * \- 19 1 91 CHECKED: b 32:S PRNTED 3-944 , / 44/PT i ITI /Â· I // I / / / 1 / /-/ â‚¬/ 1 ...... ./ \ / PRELIMINARY / 6010 eRADINS PLAN -- I ./ + 4 . 14 ? 1 0- -- / r 5 -I....I/.0 .../*.- I.*I .-V / ...â‚¬. -, ./: / rk-37 U18, AVE -- 50/4 - 1 , ' AEDÂ¢Gn?/A/Â¥ ~~~/~ ~ 8 I BANS '11 8NT , \434 i A5 I .1 1 71 j j i / I 4 .t i-/-3 Nal H AriÂ·*'Y 4 r fPt=LIK,4119\12Â¥ (*BAC)11'Â·431 11'L,ArÂ·4 v1 COPYRIGHT LA i N r,i 16 TZ At 814 TIEODORE K BUY *SOGNATES PC 5 1 \ f~l ; LOT Z e LeT 8 > lei u-1-1Ne Â¢5215 r/LA)<, .82 4 1-AAIL ~ FuRREk HPIA~ ~ B,Â»EMENT 5-9,0 0 Â¤1-114 e 01= 1-1Ax. ASSOCIATES PC, k Â· THEODORE K GUY -70 - ., PKIVE - ~ 6,4043 82.\AH-T > 23 ARCM\TEOTS AND - Â£22 0 60 -1 1--- 411'ER FLA, 0069.0 --4-1 1 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS ~ I - 1 1 23 1.110 FLF. P.O. BOX 1640 - 2080 HPW. 82 MAINFLI. 4- - 60 9 0046.0 -- 1 946Â£9 BAâ‚¬>ALT, COLORADO tÂ« 1 1 - i- 81621 AA'*46- ---- -4-- _ 4 0 2,IC' f:~LF o (305) q27-316-1 204- 2.6 Â£ caA'2048 , 1 FAX (309) 421-460 40 1 Low 6% AR | d 4 8959.5 0 , LITa Ae., .- - e ANTAA e (2 . 4 .. 43 Llidia oFL....~ - 4% . 1 1 fle>rbs e.2 C=1 3 2 Ate.ve 6-rÂ»--Â»-___ 1 Lirle OP-4 - --L - 8:1 1 ST. 631 1'<A c:' E - /0- . 0 0 22000- 1 " = ZO'- O 11 I. 1 U . 1.â€¢ .ill:*Skp=-=.'Â·+ ..'.%.'*-': --'% .,4---*.-*.*...'-* . MAIE 2/MASK# ------------- ------------- 4 lai TAN t. LoT 2 Lo T 6 ----- ------------- BAG,eM'814T < ------------- LINE op MAX, -92 Blca:2:re Hele,HT NATHANSON 1 1-114 e or viA,<. RESIDENCE -I .- - hAtij , 4;202. . 00 - < ~ UTE PARK SUBDIVISION f FAÂ°&11Jf 1 1 Lor 9 - - cir P 9 - ASPEN, 60 3049. â‚¬ 11 --9 1 MIN H PLF. L.....1 -th . , U 0:FÂ«' hh -- I -%*- - -0-1 -ir--11 6983.0 8058. & ..9*Nfl- +- - UTE AVE. h -rr.-11 5 UVI HA , ./ 1-oWef:z Fl-12 1-4 JOB Ok â‚¬145 30 - 'JL - _u71 4 -4 - ta 1 7-L ORAÂ»I: .710 1 -- -1- â‚¬ 23 6.-1 -- ...I --1 t-1 - 0 ~9811811 DE, AC CHECKED: 20 - 1-1,7 9 0 F - i r--- -11 C s, ..in,A 3.9-94 - 9120 FE>elat:7 U 11 - - ->--- -4. 69+Â«99= / .- SHEET TITLE: 10 - LI r.1 e oP , .. Px 10% 4 12,418 - GRADING SECTIONS 800Â© In 111 2 Sol-Oil 1 AB COPYMÂ»HT THEopolle K GUY *80Â©6~Tes po THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC .. ARCHITECTS AND STRUCTURAL ENSINEERS P.O.BOX 1840 2200 HYÂ« 82 BAE>ALT, C.CLORADO 81621 (305) 427-316-1 FAX (309) q2-1-42,GB LoT 2 LoT 3 F -FRAIL I eAse,1 eNT- 4 1 20020 '. 1 I :# I Â·-4 t -Â« . *- 4- I- . 70 - Â· -lk- 712 IVA-F e + Nk 60 - 0099.0 - M - + UP,Fee l.eVE:u h'.--- e = 1- 3040,0 ~ -- ~ - - - UTE Ave. 1 1 HA IN Le,/21- 1 i I _ -LA*=H 90*E. 0 ==1 71- -- L , 1 80165,0 110. -1-,214-- 4 1 Lowe,2.1.384% 1- 1. 6----21.4 -P 1 91*fi. JI . w i go ---1 q â‚¬ 28â„¢ 828889 1 /8 7- 12 ---i-- --Ill-------il-- 7 --rl 20 A#&00*Fec /J : ~9 --___ _-___-__-_-__ f 1 - ABAge --' ----- ------------- i 1 -- 10 - LIN# op --2 3. a,< i er. et FAC:'e 1 - 9 - .1 ---- - ------------- -- 9)000 - Â»ta 6 710 N ------------- 111 s /201 -011 NATHANSON e . RESIDENCE Lor 9 UTE PARK SUBDIVISION - ASPEN, GO JO13 1 â‚¬145 oR.AF+1: If CHECKED: FRNTED: 8-9-1+ SHEET TITLE: .. eR,101146 SECTIONS .f... A7 COPÂ¥~IGHT neot,ORE K GUY *soc,â€¢Tes PO All 311 HII hsÂ· 4 1 1 -- =El-i- - - 4~ ,. c 9---Int - -~ - - 4 1*'AO THEODORE K eUY - + 9 2 ASSOCIATES PC, - rn - 4 4 4 ARCHITECTS AND ___l-- STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS . - P.O. BOX 1640 , ,-, 1 25280 HYÂ« 82 , 3NbALT, Ca-ORADO 1 1 '22'-oIl f ,'. i 1 I 81621 I / / CO /40/1 10'H" L / SON 6 00' FAX (303) ct21-4643 / 1 1 ----f v / / 1 41 2 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 --- I -- / I / \ #-1 , I /\ 4- 1 / i /- / \ /~:r~ 1-/ /f-- BUILD'klet \ --n 2-----S- - I . ENVe L.pe E 7/. I \ 1 / / \ r.- --- (BILIEGT - -- ..11.-- --I.i t *p~cl Ng_ ----_- - 1 S / \1 - Il-- -- 1-. / / / -- -1 - , / / -Qzl_ / / / / / - / / LoT 4 - -- /... / / / /1// 0,42.08 - - LoT 3 / i--- 20*0, 6 / / / '1201 1 / / * 1 / / l/ / / / 147 - - 6'1111 % - --W- 'f---1 < --* --- I ' 2,030 - - --- -9,9 1// flaort,eacp - - 263 2201Â§852 - 937/311 @9-133'kIHE Iâ‚¬rie-91*CM - 1 -- .1 / -- Feei OENCE / - -1010 ----- ------------- / /1/ / /-1 ------------- / - L-// / /,Asper '4 / 1 --0- 1 / / -- , .(M'AffiN 1 /''@ 4"Rfs NATHANSON / 101- OH / 1 4 / / /Y % %6?re'EA RESIDENCE / / 9Â»62,1 214-f - 1 Epsac ./. 1 %-68,"EN 9 / / Fe'41 / /- , fi>af~t,1 LoT 9 / / 1 / / . / 1- 1/ UTE PARK SUBDIVISION / (&1,817.-- 1 1 ASPEN, CO 1 ./ / 79.// 1// / / / / / / .- -- / M / / // 4 64Â¢4'EA / ./ / JOB #.. â‚¬3145 I. - % , / DRAF+1: , 4... ., 1 / -- --- .- CHECKED>: ds--- / / / /// /,1. 41'AGISEN -//% i PRNTED: 8/27/9+ -. ... 9 / -. -. - lilli / - - SHEET TITLE: --- -/ - It - / / ./ , 1 / SITE PLAN -- -- V / / Â©2 / / / / -I- / 1 .- / - 4 / / pBELIMINAB-Y GITE/mtÂ«PINER FLAN 10.101-00 A 1 Le gah.10 Â® IED< *ST. 7742 15 2,8 BELOCATEO 0 e,<190[ 15 BeliAIN -- - EXIST. O:PNTO'.1 f2 .*:.:3 ---- t COPYRIGHT THEODORE K GUY,eSOCIATES PC Z 3 - - 9,3 -, 1, I./. -r tl~,7 2 3 14.4 #. *ID -7 h&+gy= THEODORE K GUY . C U ASSOCIATES PC 19Â¥66 lA , Trfl r - 94 x 4 66042 -0-<f~-fly-*-*!*# MMAA\IEOTS AND - - Fir 141Ntst,W 112' Pl, 14-1==r rÂ· 8.- -1 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS TY'0Â· 9 1 07 ' -- - - fi -5 P.0- BOX 1640 -- 25280 Hnr. 82 3,6,LT, COLORADO -. .... -- - 81621 JU.- (309) 421-516-1 Â£ th/ING; FAX 80% 427-460 ==atfuu-2. - | d 91 80< I.J UUUU . 570Â·12 INATE A i â‚¬ 846* 1 . .. i 11.. TAgue , Trle J j -4,11 6Td 00 I __.1~ _ ovef FLATH, Trf i \6~ . L-1~'2BACE PIll. 14 OFTH ELEVATION <602%4 As Beae 1,Â»11 =11-011 L NoTE: 4UAROPA 11- - -- 44Â»F 4 6â„¢10 1-4 RAILS 14/ â‚¬14+ 1~00 ?~ocers 6 20 0.0 Â·, 4711+ Lir' rew,Tri d â€¢50-0" O.9. pANA. , Tle 1261. 81888&1 â‚¬rell*- Â£18@â‚¬1*1_N-@_ERPk'@19'I 1 ------------- ---- -----I--1------ ------------- 1 1 M 1 â€¢1 NATHANSON Â»ji;b - RESIDENCE L --F .. 11 i; i LOT 9 2 .ug \JTE PARK SUBDWBON ' 444*m ' Â· 148$11 ~ 3 apeN. 60 ---.1--- JOB *: 43148 - ---1 -- i DRAFW: , 1===>= 1 f P / p 7 9 . 9 1 CHECKED: g Ltv 1,40 PR~ITED: 6/'27/94 1 1 6,46* 4 -21 F 4 1 ? SHezi),ILE; L ELEVATIONS 121 -i-'-i. I.-**.-Il â‚¬ 604*A 6*VEL. I ' i ../. . .. 0 1n r \ A2 WAST ELEVATIOK] 1/0,11 . 11.011 cormÂ»,cr T~OPORE K OVY *13066~28 PO 41: 3..71. -. %-'4ZJÂ·â‚¬ I ... THEODORE K GUÂ¥ ASSOCIATES PC ARCHTEOTS MAD STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS 1 P.O. BOX 1640 25280 HFYr. 82 3 BAMLE Col-0~00 81621 809) 421-3161 FAX BOS) '12-1-460 E \/ TE.vt - 16 1 -2 61**52,ip-- Â£ 6 IV INA f' r 8 Lokleg I -4 1 .-E 10*LaveL eoUT H E LEVAT ION 1261: MEMAEKS elâ‚¬7fli (WRed!â‚¬d_e-22/5#J'3+11.T 1 ------------- ------------- - Ii-* --- - - ---- - - -1-- --- -i-- --- ---Al- -- ----- -- --* ---- ------------- 11 11 NATHANSON RESIDENCE /5Â«4\ 6/8, UTE PARK SUBDIVISION LOT 9 I \021 ruc13 ,â€¢SPEN, CO 1 111 \4\ I k.% \- I.-1 v01Fz:--vir F lk]Fi . i.=~=:It 9040. e r- - ob -11 2 6,4444/4 .1013 14 â‚¬145 OR,-4: -P 1 1 7 ~EFL- \\\. CHECKED: - .4 PRHTED. 6/27/94 d MBA SHEET TITLE: WEST ELEVATION ELEVATIONS j .b" s I 'Â·ou .. Â·iti,ths : 47' itt.:- ; COrriumrr 11Â®OPORE K 61,1 Aeeoc,â€¢Tes PG A. -W:' .9; , 21(4-30,2. y NATHANSON RESIDENCE 8040 GREENLINE APPLICATION FEBRUARY 14, 1994 THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC ARCHITECTS AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS P.O. BOX 1 640 BASALT, COLORADO 81 621 [303] 927-3167 V 1,0 AA Table of Contents: Letter of Submittal Pre-Application Conference Summary Minimum Submission Requirements: Application Form Letter of Consent from Owners Legal Description Certificate of Title Vicinity Map Specific Submission Requirements: Conditional Use Application: Proposed Project Site Plan Proposed Elevations Proposed Site Section Description of Proposed Building Techniques Sheets: Al Site Plan A2 Proposed Elevations A3 Proposed Elevations A4 Proposed Section Appendix: Ordinance 18 (1992) February 14,1994 Mary Lackner Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Department 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Nathanson Residence Ms. Lackner: Herewith, please find the 8040 Greenline Application for the Nathanson Residence. This is in accordance with the preapplication conference Kim Johnson had with Ted Guy on December 15, 1993 and is submitted in coordination with the neighboring Winnerman Residence. Our project is for a single-family residence to be located on Lot 3, Ute Park Subdivision, Aspen, Colorado. Many of the Review Standards regarding geology, soils, drainage, air quality, utilities, roads and public space have already been addressed in the Ute Park P.U.D. approval as passed by the City of Aspen in Ordinance 18 (1992). Ordinance 18 placed the following restrictions on this lot: None, except those applicable to the subdivision, and - "Any hazardous or toxic soils must be stabilized and re-vegetated or removed to a site acceptable to the city." - "Prior to constructions, a fugitive dust control plan must be obtained from the Colorado Pollution Control Division and this office." These restrictions will be adhered at the when building permit applications are submitted and through construction. Erosion control measures such as construction of a holding pond, pinning hay bales and erosion channels to catch sediment will be utilized. With regard to issues of the design, building height and bulk, and grading, the residence will be set into the slope of the lot such that the height and bulk of the residence is minimized and is compatible with the open character of the mountain. Color and materials will be modest and from the access above, the home will appear as a one story structure. From below it will appear as two-stories, but most of the existing vegetation will remain on this side of the home further screening the building from view. The home is located near the access road and will require a minimum of driveway length and grading. Please notify us of our scheduled hearing date and time. Enclosed is a check for $1,074.00, four copies of this submittal, and one reduced copy, as requested. Sincerelv ~Robert Oka2aki THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC 93145 8040 submission ; 1 \ U RKO:ipse L,v :,L 1 f /,L' u :i f. .Â· f Â£ C . 9 ! - 0/ 1 0 CITY OF ASPEN l-qlb lE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE CMARY PROJECT: 4 +AN+RM 3040 APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: laa. ~ c REPRESENTATIVE'S PHONE: OWNER'S NAME: 4 U+42,1450,J SUMMARY 1. Type of Application: 1 54 N 2 1 2. 5 Describe action/type of development being requested: 14 Al Lkt 3 40 -9.-R , C. 3. Areas is which Applicant has been requested to respond, types of reports requested: Policy Area/ Referral Agent Comments * 41 4, (b.3 A FOAJAA, _ - 4. Review is: (1:23_22.ly)3 (CC only) (P&Z then to CC) 5. Public Hearing: (YES) diii? 6. Number of copies of the application to be submitted: Vtlg-(5 5-/ Le Â£941+55- i 'bduc.4 7. What fee was applicant requested to submit 2/46- 249 9 7- 8. Anticipated date of submission: r AG. _ 9. CpMMENT*<UNIQUE CONCERNS * \4 ?01 DÂ·U.,)tS.kAy . TAGSÂ· Mut- t. /70 i v f) /;0~h Afh . ~~*'6~1,(dr& 11<iC;r -F 9 44 0- ' - frm.pre_app 1 IAND USE APPLEZATION FOIM 1) Project Name Nath on Residence 2) Project Iocation _12111_Ute Park Subdivisign (irrlicate street address, lot & block ntmher, legal description where appropriate) 3) Present Zoning AH 4) Ict Size 0.744 Ac 5) Applicant's Name, Address & Phone # Linda Nathanson 747 Latimer Road, Santa Monica, CA 90402 (310) 459-3463 6) Representativer s Name, Address & Phone # Rob Okazaki, Theodore K Guv Associates PO Box 1640, Basalt, CO 81621 (303) 927-3167 7) Type of Application (please check all that apply): axditional Use Conceptual SPA . Conceptual Histork Dev. Special Review Final SPA Final Historic Dev. X 8040 Greenline Concephial POD Minor Historic Dev. Stream Margin - Final FOD Historic Derolitien Mountain View Plane Sabdivisicn Historic Designation Corxhninimnization Tbxt/Map Amerxlment GSS Allotment Iat Split/Int Line Ges Exanption Adjust:merit 8) Description of EXisting Uses (rnmber and type of existingÂ· struchmes; approximate sq. ft. ; number of bedrooms; any previous appravals granted to tbe prepertiy). None 9) Description of Develognant Application Single Family Residence 10) Have you attached the following? r Response to Attachment 2, Minimum Submissian Conterrts r Response to Attad=ent 3, Specific Submission Contents M Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Appli.catian ASPEN PROPERTIES December 23, 1993 72: 7~- ro: L - A r k. 2.. 2 .: ' 3 n i * 21! i i i i 1 i L DEC 9 7 1993 Hil 11 1 1 li. 9 W . 11'1 -t.%.... '4--7 4. 4 - Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office L .r-Â·r,%,COGRE K. GUY ASSOCIATES, P, 130 S. Galena - Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Lot 3, Ute Park Subdivision To Whom It May Concern: As the current owner of the above property, I hereby authorize THEODORE K. GUY ASSOCIATES, PC to submit the 8040 Greenline Application for the property at Lot 3, Ute Park Subdivision in Aspen on behalf of the prospective owners, Gary and Linda Nathanson. Sincerely, ~Ltd- Jim Martin General Partner Ute Park Subdivision (303)925-8310 â€¢ 215 S. Monarch e P.O. Box 10502 â€¢ Aspen, Colorado 81611 December 16,1993 747 Latimer Road Santa Monica, California 90402 (310) 459-3463 Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Department 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Gentlemen: We hereby authotize THEODORE K GUY ASSOCiATES PC to iepiesent us regarding the 8040 Greenline Application for the property at Lot 3, Ute Park Subdivision in Aspen. Gary & LifffQ,Milthanson ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and Linda and Gary Nathanson (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for Nathanson Residence (hereinafter, THE PROJECT). 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 77 (Series of 1992) establishes a fee structure for Planning Orfice applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness. 3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties to allow APPLICANT to make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to process APPLICANT'S application. 4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and/or City Council to enable the Planning Commission and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project approval, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. 5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit ill the amount of $ which is for hours of Planning Office time, and if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing. CITY OF ASPEN API?LICANT 1\ . 1 %14 7-0# G U By: Â£Â»Â«_. ~ 1 15812_. By 7-002310;09Â£----~~~~ Diane Moore Mailing Address: City Planning Director 914 9 Loth; r-rer -Rpd 'Eporl-UX Nonda 0% 90430 Date: FK ~17- ~93 2 Legal Description: Lot 3, UTE PARK SUBDIVISION, according to the Plat thereof, filed February 22,1993, in Plat Book 30 at Page 86. Form No. 1343 (CO-90) ALTA Plain Language Commitmentr COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE ISSUED BY agentfor FIRSTAMERICAN TITLE INSURANCECOMPANY AGREEMENTTO ISSUE POLICY FIRSTAMERICAN TITLE INSURANCECOMPANY, referredtointhisCommitmentastheCompany, through its agent identifiedabove, referred tointhis AgreementastheAgentagreesto issueapolicyto you according tothetermsof thisCommitment When weshow the policyamountand yournameasthe proposed insured in Schedule A, thisCommitmentbecomeseffectiveas of theCommitmentDateshown in Schedule A. If the Requirementsshown inthisCommitmenthavenot been met withinsix monthsaftertheCom- mitmentdate, ourobligation underthisCommitmentwillend. Alsoourobligation underthisCommitment will end when the Policy is issued and then our obligation to you will be under the Policy. Our obligation under this Commitment is limited by the following: The Provisions in Schedule A. The Requirements in Schedule B-1. The Exceptions in Schedule 8-2. The Conditions on the reverse side of this page This Commitment is not valid without SCHEDULE A and Sections 1 and 2 of SCHEDULE B. First American Title Insurance Company BY / PRESIDENT .-----f\1 LE i N .Ii L V. 1 .. % 32.2 d<'- Et Al 4.- th (Rv,342 SECRETARY -4 - : SEPTE.MEER 1363 -.Â· ~ j - 4 & Fh~*~1 l/FO R *~:~/= BY COUNTERSIGNED 3/Â· N.130 :j Â·Of, c.0 M.Pif COMMITMENT SCEULE A JIM MARI'IN ASPEN PROPEFIES 215 SOUTH MONARCH, SUITE #G-101 ASPEN CO 81611 1. Effective Date: May 6, 1993 at 7:00 AM Order No. 402790-C PL/at aistomer Reference Ute Park Pr 2. ALTA Owner's Policy Amount: $ 525,000.00 Proposed Insured: GARY NATHANSON AND LINDA NATHANSON 3. ALTA Loan Policies Amount: S Proposed Inslired: Proposed Insured: Amount: S 4. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Ccimitment and covered herein is: FEE SDIPLE and title thereto is at the effective date hereof vested in: UrE PARK PARTNERSHIP, a Colorado general partnership issued by: Owner's Premium: $ 657.00 Aspen Title Corporation Lender's Premium: S 600 E. Hopkins Avenue, #102 Add' 1 Lender Chg: S ASPEN 00 81611 Add'l Charges: $ FAX (303) 920-4052 Tax Certificate: S 10.00 ( 303) 920-4050 Denver 595-8463 Endorsement Chg: $ 45.00 TED Charges: S TrAL DIARGES: $ 712.00 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY COMMITMENT Plat id No. 17/95 SCIEDULE A (contimed) Order No. 402790-C 5. The land referred to in the Commitment is covering the land in the State of Colarado, County of Pitkin , described as follows: Lot 3, UTE PARK SUBDIVISION, according to the Plat thereof, filed Febnlary 22, 1993, in Plat Book 30 at Page 86. 1 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY COMMITMENT SCHEDULE B Order No. 402790-C Section 1 REQUIREMENE THE FOLLOWING ARE THE REQUIREMENIS TO BE CEMPLIED WITH: Item (a) Payment to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors of the full consideration for the estate or interest to be insured. Item (b) Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be insured niust be executed and duly filed for record, to wit: 1. Deed fran UrE PARK PARINERSHIP, a Colorado gernral par'trership to GARY NATHANSON AND LINDA NATHANSON. ICIE: Duly executed real property transfer declaration, executed by either the Grantor or Grantee, to acocmpany the Deed mentioned above, pursuant to Article 14 of House Bill No. 1288 - CRA 39-14-102. NCI'E: Trade Name Affidavit or Partnership Agreement for Ute Park Partnership, a Colorado general partnership, recorded August 24, 1989, in Book 600 at Page 300, discloses that the names and addresses of the partrers of said partnership are as follows: James T. Martin Howard G. Stacker 215 South Monarch 300 Shepard Park Office Center Aspen, Colorado 81611 2177 Youngman Avenue St. Paul, Minnesota 55116 2. Evidence satisfactory -to the Canpany or its duly authorized agent either (a) that tle "real estate transfer taxes" iniposed by Ordinance No. 20 (Series of 1979), and by Ordinance No. 13, (Series of 1990), of the City of Aspen, Colorado have been paid, and that the liens irrposed thereby have been fully satisfied, or (b) that Certificates of Exemptian have been issued pursuant to the provisions thereof. 3. Partial Release by the Public Trustee of Pitkin County releasing subject property fran the lien of the Deed of Trust from Ute Park Partrership, a Colorado general partnership for the use of Pitkin County Bank & Trust Co., to secure $475,000.00, dated July 19, 1991, and recorded August 15, 1991, in Book 654 at Page 217. NOPE: Modi fication of the above Deed o f Trust recorded May 5, 1992, in Book 676 at Page 814. NOTE: Modification of the above Deed of Trust recorded December 2, 1992, in Book 696 at Page 167. (Ccntinued) FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE CCMPANY RECRJIREMENIS (contimled) Order No.'402790C- 4. Duly acknowledged partial release by The City of Aspen, releasing subject pruperty from the lien of Mortgage from Ute Park Partnership, Mortgagor, in favor of The City of Aspen, Mortgagee, to seaire Planned Unit Development Subdivisicn Improvezients Agreement, dated February 22, 1993, and reoorded in Book 704 at Page 256. A CERTIFICATE OF TAXES EUE LISTING EACH TAXES JURISDICTION SHALL BE OBTAINED PRCM THE COUNTY TREASURER OR THE CCUNIY TREASURER' S AUIHORIZED AGENT FUFEUANT TO 1983 C.R. S., 39-1-102 (14.5) AT A CHARGE OF $10.00 EACH TO THE CUSTOMER. THE OWNER'S POLICY, WHEN ISSUED, WILL NOT CONTAIN EXCEPTIONS NO. 1, 2, 3 AND 4, PROVIDED THAT (A) THE ENCLOSED FORM OF INDEMNITY AGREEMENT OR FINAL AFFIDAVIT AND AGREEMENr IS PROPERLY EXECUIED AND ACKIEWLELUL) BY THE PARrY( IES) INDICATED AND REIURNED 'ID THE OCMPANY OR ITS DULY AUIHORIZED AGENT, (B) THE EMPANY OR ITS DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT RECEIVES AND APPROVES AN IMPROVEMENT LOCATION CERTIFICATE PROPERLY CERTIFIED BY REGISTERED SURVEYOR OR ENGINEER, AND (C) APPLICABLE SCHEDULED CHARGES IN THE AMOUNT OF $45.00 ARE PAID TO THE CCMPANY OR ITS DULY AUIHORIZED AGENI'. FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY COMMITMENT SCHEDULE B Section 2 EXCIFn.CNS Order No. 402790-C The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following matters imless the same are disposed of to the satis faction of the Company: Any loss or damage, including attorney fees, by reason of the matters sinwn below: 1. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could ascertained by an inspection of said land or by naking inquiry of persens in possession thereof. 2. Easements or claims of easâ‚¬ments, not Sham by the public records. 3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, and any other facts which a correct survey ~uld disclose and which are not shown by the public records. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. 5. Defects, liens, erannbrarÂ£es, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof, but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Caimitnent. 6. Taxes due and payable; and any tax, special assessments, charge or lien inposed for water or sewer service, or for any other special taxing district. 7. Right of the Proprietor of a Vein or Lode to extract and remove his ore -tierefran, should the same be found to penetrate or intersect the pmmises hereby granted, as neserved in United States Patent recorded June 17, 1949, in Book 175 at Page 246. 8. Any vein or lode of quartz or otlier rock in place bearing gold, silver, cinnabar lead, tin, copper, or other valuable deposits, claimed or known to exist within subject property as of March 23, 1885, as expressly excepted and excluded in United States Patent recorded June 17, 1949, in Book 175 at Page 246. 9. Easement and right of way for pipelines, flune, ditch or water way purposes, as granted by Lew D. Sivyer and George C. Vickery to D.W. Brunton by instrument recorded June 17, 1892, in Book 93 at Page 527, said easement being ten (10) feet in width as more particularly described therein. 10. Easanent and right of way for roadway purposes, as granted by Frederic A. Benedict, et al. to the City of Aspen by instrument recorded May 19, 1976, in Book 312 at Page 154, said easement being more particularly described therein. ( Cartinued) FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE OOMPANY EXCIFneNS (contiI]ued) Order No. ' 402790-C 11. Easement and right of way for madway purposes, as granted by Frederic A. Benedict, et al. to Robert S. Goldsanrt by instrunent recorded may 19, 1976, in Book 312 at Page 200, said easement being more particularly described therein. 12. Easement and right of way for access and utilities purposes, as reserved by . Frederic A. Benedict and Fabienne Benedict in the Deed to Robert S. Goldsant, recorded February 23, 1979, in Book 363 at Page 887, said easement being sixty ( 60) feet in width along the Northeasterly boundary of subject property. 13. Easements, building envelopes, rights of way and avalanche and falling rock zcnes as shown an the Plat of said Subdivision. 14. Planned Unit Development and Subdivision ts nt between 'Ihe City of Aspen and The Ute Park Partnership, a Colorado general partrEship, recorded February 22, 1993, in Beck 704 at Page 216. 15. Any and all unredeemed tax sales. NOTE: Upon receipt of a Certificate of Taxes Due eviderning that there are no existing open tax sales, -the above exception will not appear cn tie policies to be issued hereunder. FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE OOMPANY Vicinity Map: .. .4 . . 11 .. ad \ 0 0 P 0 .#61 .. .. . 00 . . .. 4 -' Ch + 0 .. ....9:....:.: --294. .... /: .. ... . I. . . i. . .. 44.. - I 4 - G-:-6-J .-i-:/4 .. . A. . . . ... 5 . L .. \.. re .4 . 0 . . . .. . . 0 a U . I. . it# . 9 L n r Â»i -~32Â»5- 2 X ./: - 1 .. . .... 0 C V . *Chib,30 - /.... 71 C Â£ 1 .. -- fit - , '~~ ~ fil/1.7., f..1 1. L .... .In . // f.\ f vel ' / Pit,/ Â· ... / /\1 3. 1 < L j Â·,ji \11:\ ~ ti:i:Â»:i::-:~-e.: -**i:Â§i~t3*:&4:802::::fi:::::*i:~~Â·:- . i... . ../.32> I .<........ :. r Bid:4 73Â·4:2 bf ~.~.f#.4-:--:-2~4:9-2~ L.Zx:A-n 06; -- -_r Â«\ Ii:.. - --- - .1/ . . OÂ¥. 9/KE.SU-- - a.. 'Autfly..2.~:4 .. .. I. . ... ......... Â«Â«~-l \\ - ---- r .. . \4.. 4 3\ %0*Â»~*Ft- ff Â«3 %941 1 Â«- N .1.Irri/:2 - -. 9<41Â·hit W 1 ...4 . r. ...'.....'. *.*.~ ./:I.I.Â·.... . 8040 Greenline Application Site Plan: See Sheet Al. Proposed Elevations: See Sheets A2, A3. Proposed Sections: See Sheet A4. Description of Building Techniques The new single-family residence will be constructed in the building envelope, part of which has been identified as being of moderate avalanche hazard. Structural recommendations by the avalanche engineer, Arthur Mears will be adopted into the design of the residence and the landscaping. Other than the concrete foundation and walls, the remainder of the home will be of approved wood- frame construction. During construction, measures will be taken to protect the site from damage due to erosion. ORDINANCE N0.18 (SERIES OF 1992) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING REZONING FROM (RR) RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO (AH) AFFORDABLE HOUSING, SUBDIVISION, FINAL PUD, GROWTH MANAGEMENT EXEMPTION FOR FREE MARKET HOUSING IN AN (AH) AFFORDABLE HOUSING ZONE DISTRICT AND FOR DEED RESTRICTED HOUSING, CONDOMINIUMIZATION, VESTED RIGHTS, AND WAIVER OF THE WATERMAIN EXTENSION MORATORIUM FOR THE UTE PARK SUBDIVISION, A FOUR LOT SUBDIVISION ON A 3.8 ACRE METES AND BOUNDS PARCEL SITUATED IN THE NW 1/4 SE 1/4 OF SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. WHEREAS, in September 1989, the (AH) Affordable Housing zone district was created to promote private sector development of deed ----restricted affordable housing by allowing limited free market residential development within a project; and WHEREAS, in April 1990 the Ute Park Partnership (Applicant) submitted an application for rezoning of a 3.8 acre parcel on the east end of Ute Avenue from (RR) Rural Residential to (AH) Affordable Housing in conjunction with an application for Conceptual PUD review; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of a Conceptual PUD Plan with conditions on July 3, 1990; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the Conceptual PUD Plan and the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendations, discussed rezoning of the parcel to (AH) Affordable Housing as a threshold issue, and approved the Conceptual Plan with conditions on August 13, 1990; and WHEREAS, in December 1991, the Applicant submitted an application for Rezoning, Subdivision, Final PUD Plan, Growth 3 Management Exemption for free market development in an AH zone and 1 for affordable housing, Condominiumization, Vested Rights, Special r -7 Reviews for Open Space and Parking in an AH zone, 8040 Greenline Review, waiver of Park Development Impact Fees, and Waiver of the Waterline Extension Moratorium for the development of seven deed restricted affordable townhome units and three free market lots for single family residences; and WHEREAS, the applicant also requested an extension to the one- year filing deadline for submission of a Final PUD Plan; and WHEREAS, on January 13, 1992, upon staff' s recommendation , the City Council granted a 160 day filing extension effective retroactively from August 1991; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council having reviewed the development proposal for the Ute Park Subdivision and the recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission and f Planning staff, approved Rezoning from (RR) Rural Residential to (AH) Affordable Housing, Subdivision, Final PUD Plan, Growth Management Exemption for free market residential development and affordable housing, Condominiumization, Vested rights, and waiver of the waterline extension moratorium. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1: That it hereby grants the following approvals for the Ute Park Subdivision pursuant to the applicable sections in the Aspen Municipal Code: Rezoning from RR (Rural Residential) to AH (Affordable Housing) (Chapter 24, Section 7, Division 11) ; 2 Subdivision (Chapter 24, Section 7-1004); Final PUD Plan (Chapter 24, Section 7, Division 903); Growth Management Exemption for Free Market Development in an AH Zone District, and Affordable Housing (Chapter 24, Section 8-104.C.); and Subdivision Exemption for Condominiumization (Chapter 24, Section 7-1007). Section 2: The following conditions shall apply to the approvals: 1. The Applicant shall include within the Subdivision Agreement financial assurances for the construction of the affordable housing component of the project. This shall consist of placement of First Deeds. of Trust of $10.00 value on Lots 1,2 and 3 in the name of the City of Aspen. Upon the sale of the first free market lot, the deed to Lot 4 will be placed in escrow for the City of Aspen. In addition, a letter of credit payable to the City of Aspen shall be provided by the Applicant which covers the construction costs of the townhomes. Upon delivery of the letter of credit and placement of the Lot 4 deed in escrow, the City shall release the remaining First Deeds of Trust. If construction of the townhomes by the Applicant has not begun within two years of recordation of the Final Plat, the City shall take possession of Lot 4, the architectural plans ot the townnomes shall be turned over to the City, and the City shall redeem the letter of credit in order to construct the townhomes within one year. 2. The applicant shall include within the Subdivision Agreement specific provisions for the mitigation of avalanche dangers 3 for the seven deed restricted townhome units. Protection of the townhouses (by retaining wall or residential structure) must extend the entire length of the "conditional zone" on Lot 1 unless the unprotected townhouses are designed to standards established by Art Mears or similar avalanche expert. Avalanches shall not be deflected onto neighboring properties. 3. The home on Lot 1 shall be constructed prior to or simultaneously with construction of the seven townhouses. If built simultan-eously, the structural framing of the Lot 1 house and any necessary retaining walls must be complete and approved by the Building Department prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy for the townhouses. 4. In the event that the Final Plat and Subdivision agreement have not been filed prior to issuance of any Building Permits - for the Ute Park lots, the financial assurance and avalanche protection documents must be approved by the City Attorney and recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder prior to issuance of any building permits on Ute Park parcels. 5. The applicant will continue to coordinate roadway design, drainage, snow storage, etc. with City staff. Any improvement work must be done in accordance with City specifications. Alternative on-site parking locations for the townhomes shall be noted on the PUD Plan and Final Plat. 6. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for the townhomes, the applicant shall satisfy the City Engineer regarding storm drainage calculations. Storm drainage 4 calculations must be provided for the free market homes at the time of individual building permit application. 7. The applicant shall indicate the entire avalanche zones on the Final PUD Plan. 8. Avalanche warning signs shall be indicated on the plat along the property boundaries along Ute Ave. and along the nordic trail. 9. Any hazardous or toxic soils must be stabilized and revegetated or removed to a site acceptable to the City. 10. Prior to constructions, a fugitive dust control plan must be obtained from the Colorado Pollution Control Division and this office. 11. If the water line in the proposed utility corridor is i dedicated to the City of Aspen a water main easement must be executed between the Applicant and the City prior to issuance of any excavation or building permits. 12. The Final Plat and PUD Plan shall indicate that the homes on Lots 1 and 2 must be sprinklered for fire protection. The Applicant shall satisfy the Fire Marshal regarding emergency access prior to filing the Final Plat. 13. The subdivision Final Flat shall indicate the conceptual trail alignment. The County Open Space and Trails Program (COSTP) may act as assignee of the City of Aspen for the construction and maintenance of the trail. Upon completion of this trail, the COSTP will be responsible for surveying and filing the as- built trail easement. Plat note #7 shall be amended to: :l 5 remove the one year deadline for trail construction; state /DN that conceptual trail alignment and subsequent trail easement will run with the land and bind future heirs and assigns of the developer; the trail alignment may be amended by mutual consent of both parties (lot owners and City/COSTP). The year-round trail easement shall be 15' wide with side slopes not to exceed 6%. The Nordic Council and the applicant shall work together and verify the trail alignment as shown on the Plat and PUD Plan complies with the most workable alignment for skiing and trail connections. Signage shall indicate avalanche and rockfall hazards to trail users. These signs shall be installed prior to commencement of any site work. 14. The seven townhomes shall be deed restricted as four Category 4 units and three Category 3 units in accordance with Housing Authority Guidelines. The restrictions shall be approved by the Housing Authority and filed with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder prior to issuance of City approval of the Final Plat. 15. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. 16. The Subdivision Plat and Subdivision / PUD Agreement shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the \- -9. 6 Plat and Agreement within a period of one hundred and eighty (180) days following approval by the City Council shall render the Plat and PUD Plan approval invalid and reconsideration and approval of both by the Commission and City Council will be required before their acceptance and recording, unless an extension or waiver is granted by City Council for a showing of good cause. Section 3: An exemption from the moratorium on expansions to the City's municipal water system as imposed by Resolutions 12 and 45 (Series 1991) be and is hereby granted so as to allow the extension of the municipal water delivery system for three single family residences in the Ute Park Subdivision. Section 4: Pursuant to Section 24-6-207 of the Municipal Code, the j City Council does hereby grant the applicant vested rights for the Ute Park Subdivision and Final PUD Plan as follows: 1. The rights granted by the site specific development plan approved by this Ordinance shall remain vested for three (3) years from the date of final adoption specified below. However, any failure to abide by the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in forfeiture of said --- --vaste-el-pr-0-party-rigifti#.Fai-Iure--tot-im-ETy-and-proper Iy--r-â‚¬252~E1~ all plats and agreements as specified herein and or in the Municipal Code shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested rights. 2. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review. 7 3. Nothing in the approvals provided in this Ordinance shall exempt the site specific development plan from subsequent reviews and or approvals required by this Ordinance or the general rules, regulations or ordinances or the City provided that such reviews or approvals are not inconsistent with the approvals granted and vested herein. 4. The establishment herein of a vested property right shall not preclude the application of ordinances or regulations which are general in nature and are applicable to all property subject to land use regulation by the City of Aspen including, but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes. In this regard, as a condition of this site development approval, the developer shall abide by any and ) all such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, unless an exemption therefrom is granted in writing. Section 5: The Official Zone District Map for the City of Aspen shall be and is hereby amended to reflect that rezoning as set forth in Section 1 above and such amendment shall be promptly entered on the Official Map in accordance with Section 24-5-103 B. of the Municipal Code. Section 6: This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now it iiI pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended 1. as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded 4) li 8 under such prior ordinances. Section 7: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 8: The City Clerk shall cause notice of this Ordinance to be published in a newspaper of general circulations within the City of Aspen no later than fourteen (14) days following final adoption hereof. Such notice shall be given in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right pursuant to Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following- described property: The property shall be described in the notice and appended to said notice shall be the ordinance granting such approval. Section 9: That the City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this --ardinancer- t n rornrd a cnpy of_t.bls_ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 10: A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the /3 day of L , 1992 at 5:00 in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a 1 9 public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of .n general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 015 day of 71~4 1992. John Bennett, Mayor Attest: UJuÂ» 4 L- Kathryn ~. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this =Co day of , 1992. 41 /3- John dennett, Mayor Attest: jur.-3 14< n Kathryn 8. Koch, City Clerk h ) 1: 10 ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 920-5090 February 24, 1994 Rob Okazaki Ted Guy Associates P.O. Box 1640 Basalt, CO 81621 RE: Nathanson 8040 Greenline Review Case #A13-94 Dear Rob, The Planning Office has completed its preliminary review of the captioned application. We have determined that this application is incomplete. The application will not be scheduled for review until the following items are submitted: 1. Copy of the Ute Park Subdivision plat. 2. Individually address items 1 - 11 of Section 7-503(c) of the Aspen Land Use Code. 3. To address these criteria, please also include the geologic/avalanche/soils reports from the original subdivision review. 4. Submit a grading plan and cross sections through the building envelope which illustrate the extent of the cut slopes. Please submit four copies of the requested information. If you have any questions, please call Mary Lackner, the Planner assigned to this case, at 920-5106. Thank you. Sincerely, Suzanne L. Wolff Administrative Assistant 4/\ THE CITY OF ASPEN FROM THE DESK OF MARY LYNNE LACKNER Re- ber c~ 654 - U fe Pal E - 8040 6-Â¥den liho raâ‚¬Q<N \2-ob Â® 16(f\243(' efg Flotto k_-44(/ %71 Lu l.< C Cd ( 8-46â‚¬ e Ca_ 00 r e ot d , AQ--0 el (94 7 3 6 Â® 3 44 3 0 k tral_0 tu to l & _troi-.2 9 ane ,Â«-i ' - o c To S .3 L 01 4 4 par + 4 8,1 40 + -2- .~. 1Â°- 1- t ke vi 04 20 1- + 40.0 /1 A.Q CA ~0 4 7 .4 1Â«< & 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 . ChenÂ©Northern.Ii . - SUBSOIL STUDY FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN PROPOSED MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING SOUTH OF UTE AVENUE ACROSS FROM ASPEN CLUB ASPEN, COLORADO f. 4. Prepared For: Aspen Properties Attn: Jim Martin P.O. Box 10502 - Aspen CO 81612-7344 Job No. 4 188 90 January 30, 1990 .. I 0% TABLE OF CONTENTS CONCLUSIONS 1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY 1 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION 2 SITE CONDITIONS 2 FIELD EXPLORATION 3 SUBSOIL CONDITIONS . 3 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS 4 FLOOR SLABS 5 UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM 5 SURFACE DRAINAGE 6 LIMITATIONS 7 FIGURE 1 - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 2 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 3 - LEGEND AND NOTES FIGURE 4 - GRADATION TEST RESULTS TABLE I - SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS -- I t: - +f '.: 11 1 * .1 CONCLUSIONS The proposed multi-family housing should be founded with spread footings bearing on the natural granular soils and designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3000 psf. Other design and construction criteria relating to geotechnical aspects of the proposed building are presented in the body of the report. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY . This report presents the results of a subsoil study for the proposed multi-family housing to be located across from the Aspen Club on Ute Avenue, Aspen, Colorado. The project site is shown on Fig. 1. The purpose of the study was to develop recommendations for the foundation design. The study was conducted in accordance with our agreement for geotechnical engineering ser- vices to Aspen Properties, dated November 22, 1989. A field exploration program consisting of exploratory borings was con- ducted to obtain information on subsurface conditions. Samples obtained during the field exploration were tested in the laboratory to determine their engineering characteristics. The results of the field exploration and labora- tory testing were analyzed to develop recommendations for foundation types, depths and allowable pressures for the proposed building foundation. The ' results of the field exploration and laboratory testing are presented in the report. ; This report has been prepared to summarize the data obtained during this study and to present our conclusions and recommendations based on the proposed construction and the subsoil conditions encountered. Design parameters and a - discussion of geotechnical engineering considerations related to construction of the proposed project are included in the report. *I~Â·/'"l:/4.1/,leâ€¢*i;â€¢ir,Â·1Â· . / - , I. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION The proposed multi-family housing will be a two-story wood frame struc- ture with a building footprint of approximately 60 feet by 80 feet. The ground floor level will be structural over a crawl space or slab-on-grade. Grading for the structure is expected to be relatively minor with cut depths between about 4 to 8 feet. We assume relatively light foundation loadings, typical of the proposed type construction. If building loadings, location or grading plans change significantly from those described above, we should be notified to reevaluate the recommendations contained in this report. SITE CONDITIONS At the time of our field work, the site was vacant and covered with about 2 feet of snow. The topography of the building envelope is moderately sloping down to the northeast at grades of 15 to 20 percent. The slope steepens to the south of the building area. The steep slopes above the site have been characterized as having snow avalanche potential on the Pitkin County Snow Avalanche map by Colorado State University (1974) and on the Environmental and Geologic Constraints map prepared for the Colorado Geological Survey (1974). There are historic avalanche tracks located on the Hoag Subdivision to the west of the subject site. We are not aware of historic avalanches that have impacted the project site. The proposed building area is vegetated with small aspen trees, brush and weeds. An old overgrown cart path crosses the building area from east to west. f : 0-1 1 .1 . FIELD EXPLORATION The field exploration for the project was conducted on December 21 and 22, 1989. Two exploratory borings were drilled at the locations shown on Fig. 1 to evaluate the subsurface conditions. The borings were advanced with 4-inch diameter continuous flight augers powered by a truck-mounted CME-55 drill rig. The borings were logged by a representative of Chen-Northern, Inc. Samples of the subsoils were taken with a 1 3/8-inch I.D. spoon sampler. The sampler was driven into the subsoils at various depths with blows from a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. This test is similar to the standard penetration test described by ASTM Method D-1586. The penetration resistance values are an indication of the relative density or consistency of the sub- soils. Depths at which the samples were taken and the penetration resistance values are shown on the Logs of Exploratory Borings, Fig. 2. The samples were returned to our laboratory for review by the project engineer and testing. SUBSOIL CONDITIONS The subsoil conditions encountered at the site are shown graphically on Fig. 2. The subsoils consist of about 2 to 4 feet of topsoil overlying mainly medium dense, silty sand and gravel containing cobbles and possible boulders. Drilling in the gravels with auger equipment was difficult due to the cobbles - and boulders and drilling refusal was encountered in the deposit. Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the borings included natural moisture content and gradation analyses. Results of grada- tion analyses performed on small diameter drive samples (minus 1 1/2-inch fraction) of the natural coarse granular soils are shown on Fig. 11. The 7 - laboratory testing is surnarized in Table I. . .... No free water was encounterea in the borings at the time of drilling and the subsoils were slightlv moist te mcist. FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS Considering the subscil conditions encountered in the exploratory gorings and the nature of the proposed construction, we recommend the building be founded with spread footings bearing on the natural granular soils. The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a spread footing foundation system. The construction criteria should be considered when preparing project documents. 1) Footings placed on the undisturbed natural granular soils should be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3000 psf. Based on experience, we expect settlement of footings designed and constructed as discussed in this section will be about 1 inch or less. 2) All existing topsoil and any loose or disturbed soils should be removed and the footing bearing level extended down to relatively dense natural granular soils. 3) The footings should have a minimum width of 16 inches for continuous walls and 2 feet for isolated pads. 11) Exterior footings and footings beneath unheated areas should be provided with adequate soil cover above their bearing elevation for frost protec- tion. Placement of foundations at least 42 inches below exterior grade is typically used in this area. 5) Continuous foundation walls should be reinforced top and bottom to span 1 an unsupported length of at least 10 feet. Foundation walls acting as J retaining structures should also be designed to resist a lateral earth 4-1. pressure corresponding to an equivalent fluid unit weight of 45 pcf. , 1, .: 1 1 - -' - - -I - ' -7- 6) Sliding resistance of the footing on the bearing soil can be taken as 0.4 times the dea load weight on the foundation. 7) A representative of the soil engineer should observe ail footing excava- - tions prior to concrete placement to evaluate bearing conditions. FLOOR SLABS The natural on-site soils exclusive of topsoil are suitable to support lightly to moderately loaded slab-on-grade construction. To reduce the effects of some differential movement, floor slabs should be separated from all bearing walls and columns with expansion joints which allow unrestrained vertical movement. Floor slab control joints should be used to reduce damage due to shrinkage cracking. The requirements for control joints and slab reinforcement should be established by the designer based cn experience and the intended slab use. A minimum 4-inch layer of free-draining gravel should be placed beneath basement level slabs to facilitate drainage. This material should consist of minus 2-inch aggregate with less than 50% passing the No. a sieve and less than 2% passing the No. 200 sieve. All fill materials for support of floor slabs should be compacted to at least 95% of maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near 71 optimum. Required fill can consist of the on-site sand and gravel devoid of vegetation, topsoil and oversized rock. UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM Although free water was not encountered during our exploration, it has been our experience in mountainous areas that local perched groundwater may develop during times of heavy precipitation or seasonal runoff. Frozen ground during spring runoff can create a perched condition. We recommend below grade 11 . ... .; 1. -0- construction, such as retaining walls, crawl space and basement areas be protected from wetting and hydrostatic pressure buildup by an underdrain system. The drains should consist of drain tile placed in the bottom of the wall backfill surrounded above the invert level with free-draining granular mate- rial. The drain should be placed at least 1 foot below lowest adjacent finish grade and sloped at a minimum 1% to a suitable gravity outlet. Free-draining granular material used in the underdrain system should contain less than 2% passing the No. 200 sievel less than 50% passing the No. 4 sieve and have a maximum size of 2 inches. The drain gravel backfill should be at least 2 feet deep. SURFACE DRAINAGE ) The following drainage precautions should be observed during construction and maintained at all times after the building has been completed: 1) Inundation of the foundation excavations and underslab areas should be avoided during construction. 2) Exterior backfill should be adjusted to near optimum moisture and com- pacted to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density in pavement and slab areas and to at least 90% of the maximum standard Proctor density in landscape areas. 3) The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the building should be sloped to drain away from the foundation in all directions. We recommend a minimum slope of 12 inches in the first 10 feet in unpaved areas and a minimum slope of 3 inches in the first 10 feet in paved areas. It may be necessary to create a swale on the uphill side of the building to route surface water around and away from the development. C i ii. i ; t. / 7 1 4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all backfill. 1 LIMITATIONS This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted soil 1 and foundation engineering practices in this area for use by the client for design purposes. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report 1 are based upon the data obtained from the exploratory borings drilled at the locations indicated on Fig. 1 and the proposed type of construction. The - nature and extent of subsurface variations across the site may not become evident until excavation is penformed. If during construction, fill, soil, 1 rock or water conditions appear to be different from those described herein, 1 this office should be advised at once so reevaluation of the recommendations may be made. We recommend on-site observation of excavations and foundation 1 bearing strata and testing of structural fill by a representative of the soil 1 engineer. 1 *sitÂ¢TEP'** Sincerely, 4-y/:3:Ni,996>. CHEN-NORTHERN, INC. 2 ..2 ,/22>. 0 5 1 sâ€ž 4% 1 1 2 1- 24443 3 2 k, . E A\ BY u <2,-~LV c %1%&:... ...yof 44. E Daniel E. Hardin, P.E. 4.40 NAL EN ,0 *mmum 1 Reviewed By 90_izi - All Steven L. Pawlak, P.E. 1 . cc: David Finholm & Associates, Attn: David Finholm I.-I- .1 1 1 APPROXIN, SCALE "ASPE 3" 11 1 1 1 = 16 / 1 /-- '.I- f <. PROPERTY / ~*BOUNDARIES - 1 \ /- I - / 1 - / / / UTE AVENUE -- --- 1 - RIGHT OF WAY 8 EASEMENT LINE -. BORING 2 ----- --I- --- --- --- - -- **; 209 00-50 - - ---- - -- -- --- - ---- -- -1- 1 -- - -------- -- -I- 0- $ -1-/.I-* --- ./ - - -- -- BUILDING - ENVELDP'E ~ - - BORING I -0-i .- - 2040 ---- - - -- -- - - -/ 4 188 90 Chen@Northern,Inc. LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY 80RINGS Fig. ! Bo-ring 1 Borlng 2 Elev. = 8040' Elev. = 8028' 8040 8040 4.J D.Â·9 8035 8035 ~24/12 ..... O.c C WC=4 2 +4=43 ~ -200=16 8030 8030 ..A. / Â©1 25/5,20/0 9-V t.q /V â€¢:C 3'. M 8025 8025 Dt f 1/7I 32/12 81}20 40/12 8020 ~+4=51 WC=3 -200=12 8015 8015 Note: Explanation of symbols presented on Fig. 3. 9{) Chen#Northern,Inc. Logs of Exploratory Borings Fig. ms ilim , LEGEND: ~ Topsoil; organic silty sand and gravel, with cobbles, loose to medium dense, moist, black. Fal Sand and Gravel (GM); silty, with cohhles, possible boulders, medium dense to 171 dense, moist, brown. Drive sample; standard penetration test (SPT), 1 3/8-inch I.D. split spoon sample, ASTM D-1586. 24/12 Drive sample blow count; indicates that 24 blows of a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches were required to drive the SPT sampler 12 inches. ~Practical rig refusal. NOTES: 1. Exploratory borings were drilled on December 21 and 22, 1989 with a 4-inch diameter continuoiis flight power atiger. 2. Locations of exploratory borings were measured approximately by taping from features shown on the site plan provided. 3. Elevations of explorato-ry borings were obtained by interpolation between contours on the site plan provided. 4. The exploratory boring locations and elevations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. 5, The lines between materials shown on the exploratory boring logs represent the approximate locations between material types and transitions may be gradual. 6. No free water was encountered in the horings at the time of drilling. Fluctu- ations in water level may occur with time. 7. Laboratory Testing Results: WC = Water Content (%) +4 = Percent retained on No. 4 sieve -200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve 1 1,98 9(l Chen#Northern,Inc. Legend and Notes Fig. 3 HYDROMETER-ANAL. Jls Â·SIEVE ANAL. -Â·S ~ TIME READINGS US STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 24 P<A 7 HA .10 45 MIN 15 MIN 50 MIN 19 MIN 4 MIN 1 MIN '7-0 Â·Â·Do '50 Â· 40 Â·30 Â·Â·5 1.0 .1 4,.. 3, llc 3- 5 8. 3- 1000 ' ' I i Â· r I I Â· ' 'to 90; 1 1 1 1 1 ' 1 1 ! 80: 1 1 1,1 Â· Â·Â· 20 I 1 1 , r Â£' I Il Y i / 1 1 ' 130 1 . 1 1 11 1 1 ; 1 40 CO, 1 1 , 1 1 1 7 1 50 50; 1 1 1 1 1 , 1 ' 1 1 &O 40~ i '11 / 11 1 1 1 11 1 11/ 11 1 1 1 lili 1 1, 30: 1 1 1 L!, 1 1 1; 1 11 70 Â· i i : ' ..1 11 , 1 1 1 11 1 : 1 11 t't F i 80 20: , 1 1 1: / 1 1Of :t f i Ii, C, 0, 1 1 1 111111 6 1 11 l i l it 1 111 1: l i l ill 1 , 9 11!11 , U 1 Illl 11 100 001 002 005 009 019 UJ/ 0/4 149 291 1 590 1 19 2 38 4 /6 9 52 19 1 381 76 2 121 A ZO t52 42 2 0 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS SAND GAAVEL CO88LES CLAY TO StLT FINE ~ MEDIUM |COARSE FINE | COAASE GRAVEL 43 9% SAND 41 $ SILT AND CLAY 16 * % LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX SAMPLE OF silty sand and gravel FROM Boring 1 at 6 feet and 10 feet combined HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS ~ 1 IME READINGS ~ US SIANOARD JERES CLEAA SQUARE OPENINGS ~ 74 1 111 7 "A .10 45 MIN /5 MIN 50 MIN 19 MIN 4 MIN 1 UIN Â·2(,0 '100 50 Â·40'10 Â·,6 1 8 .. 4 I." 1,6- 0- 5 6 ;0 100! , 1 1 ., 11 r Ii|! ; 1 I i ' , 1 3 1 1 1 1 : 1:3 806 1 0 il: I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 L' ''/ 1 1, , 11 ; 70j 1 I I I Ir' 11 'I 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 . , 1 1 1 : jew 60' 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 11 i ,! , 1 , 1 ~1 f 1 Ir 50, 1 1. / 1 r 1 1 1!/ 1 1/ L 1 1 1 160 40; i ' i'' ' 11 Â· r i 11 i I T III 1/% 1 1 1, 1, ! . .: 1,1/-- 11 /1 1 i : ' 1 :'fo JO: 1 ' r 1/ 1 ' , 1 1 1 1 /1 1 11 1 1 i I '!b' , 'i ' 1 '80 1 1 1 1 1 - M 1, ~ ~~ I 1 .1 1. 190 1 r 1 1 10: 1 i & 1 It 1 1 1 111 1100 Aâ€¢ I I'lilli : 11 ' 1 /111 r 1 1 11!11'11, 1.1 1/1111. 1:U 1 Â·1511 00" .002 005 009 019 03/ 0/4 .149 297 | 590 1.19 I2 38 4 16 9.52 19 1 J81 762 121' 200 152 42 2 0 . DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS 1 1 SAND GRAvEL CLAY TO SILT COBBLES }INE | MEDIUM ~COAIiSE â€¢INF ~ COARSE ~ GRAVEL 51 s SAND 37 % SILT AND CLAY 12 96 96 LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX SAMPLE OF silty s and and grave 1 FROM Boring 2 at 8 feet 1 182 90 Clien@Northern.Ilic. GRADATION TEST RESULTS Fig. d PEACENT PASSING OJNIÂ¥13hj 1N3383d I 1N33213d PERCENT PASSING TABLE I SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS MurIF ((*.AlioN 6 fl Af)A l ION NATURAL NATURAL i.f fiG f 11 1 AT 1 1 rtnE nG l IMI IS UNCONf INED MOI S 1 l)11 E {)1~Y fÂ·ASS,IJG COMPHESSIVE Soil Ott [li rl '1 CONIEN[ DENSITY 110 .410 Stil,NG'll O[[)11(K.K 111'1 8 ORIN. GfIAVE 1 SAN&) SIEVE i lot jil) PLASTICIIY 1,11) ItCeI1 1.41 (Pd) (-41 t..1 1 Â»Att INt)E X 1-.1 1.-1 6 6 10 1 4 43 41 16 silty sand 6 gravel combined 2 8 3 51 37 12 silty sand 4 gravel 1 l