The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.550 Aspen Alps Rd.A058-99-- - 1.- -//A PN: 2737-182-00012 - Case A058-99 550 Aspen Alps Road 8040 Greenline --,~ Review -1 1 10 4 7 1- r' 1 r I. D ' Â·4 PARCEL ID:~2737-182-00012 DATE R-8967-~6/14/99 # 86#li~-- CA-SE NO|A058-99 m I . ... CASE NAME:~550 Aspen Alps Road 8040 Greenline Review ' PLNR: Ct V j '3 T* W r 1 PROJ ADDR:~550 Aspen Alps Road CASE TYP:|8040 Greenline Review STEPSi OWN/APP: Cynthia & George Mi ADR~ Box 4000 C/S/Z: ~The Woodlands, TX PHN:1 I REP:|Alan Richman ADR:~P.O. Box 3613 C/S/Z:jAspen, CO 81612 PHN1920-1125 FEES DUE:|1110 (d) + (160 (e) FEES RCVD: 1270 STAT: F- REFERRALS| REF:| ' BY| ' DUE:| MTG DATE REV BODY PH NOTICED Al/5 3 Â¥{ 1 -- CIA- 14 9:l :FL X e c,~.1. pl -9- /(, DATE OF FINAL ACTION:| B I 1. Clt j CITY COUNCIL: REMARKS| CLOSED: 1 f 1~z-01 BY: ~ ty- t 1 4J { BOA: DRAC: PLAT SUBMITD: PLAT (BK,PG):~ ADMIN: ... : r...t - 4. 7 . 4.' 4 Â· -- - - ------1- -- a loo vi 6 0 4-0 6Â«Â·Â£ n it Vi 99Â¢0 1/10 n. C. 0 :,:--C 3 ' 11* '. T.-f I -0 4 4 4' '6#3 r. UWAAk R Aps 84 - am,104 (44 ~61 9 Aff, â‚¬040 ~Adp. Â«frtU-- 9-4 (Â»J 045) 0, 30 reÂ¥44 44 Fit 44 - 2141 4~ ,â€ž 41) f/94'' 0 . fox DEVELOPMENT ORDER ofthe City of Aspen Community Development Department This Development Order, hereinafter "Order", is hereby issued pursuant to Section 26.304.070, "Development Orders", and Section 26.308.010, "Vested Property Rights", of the City of Aspen Municipal Code. This Order shall expire on the day after the third anniversary of the effective date of the Order, unless a building permit is approved pursuant to Section 26.304.075, or unless an exemption from expiration, extension or reinstatement is granted or a revocation is issued by the City Council pursuant to Section 26.308.010. This Development Order is associated with the property noted below for the site specific development plan as described below. Cynthia & George Mitchell, Box 4000 The Woodlands, TX, 77387 Property Owner's Name, Mailing Address and telephone number 550 Aspen Alps Road Aspen, CO 81611 Legal Description and Street Address of Subject Property 8040 Greenline Review Approval Written Description of the Site Specific Plan and/or Attachment Describing Plan Planning & Zoning Resolution 99-19, October 19, 1999 Land Use Approval(s) Received and Dates (Attach Final Ordinances or Resolutions) October 29,1999 Effective Date of Development Order (Same as date of publication of notice of approval.) October 30,2002 Expiration Date of Development Order (The extension, reinstatement, exemption from expiration and revocation may be pursued in accordance with Section 26.308.010 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code.) Issued this 29th day of October, 1999, by the City of Aspen Community Dex,elopment Director. c--4-Â»â‚¬_ 04 cO cO>v- Jgtie Ann Woods, Community Development Director V G.Planning.Aspen.forms.DevOrder I. -I 14 . 1 1 11'R-k. I Â¥93 1, I --4.-A, 24# tr ''- . ....~ le, .. A, f -10-- 9-0 4.+ Â·,â€¢AE. Â· 17 3-1.: ' /Â·.49 ..: b. V 1 1 / 1 L 4 I . /. 2.94: â‚¬ a.1:16 t 1 -gf.'5%1Â·ry- -'.' -Â· 2..U'â€¢.. ". . 4-14" .. Â· ..../<#At'*P I Â· Â· Â· Â· 4 7.7..1.,..4 :,4~~ -1 11 t. i * 1 &A 1 4 i.â‚¬if 1 t If t. 1 - , I . A, r. . 1. -- 1~110 4 .l t'. I ./ â‚¬.2 V.,k il. C .Ff f 4*1. 394Â·.Â· 1''I ... 1 I 94*22, . 1 .-11. , 1 , . *;12.:IS?:â‚¬ 4. 1 0 : *44% f , 39 14tâ€¢ A -ill : 4,94% . Â·Er:.-.c 71.23* g 4 4 ;Le/ZES:,fi''r:122 ...... 1/I~~~~~~mil~~~5 iwi~~ip , 3*1444:65* 1- . 1 - .2 .~ vi't? 0<4,~ r-5 ~ , . 1- '1 p.: 40.Â¥/,:.4 , LÂ«Â«46 7 1 ..~ .. 1 - .. 1 1 172GSÂ«-y ' 1 1 19 0 A 17 > * 4 44: P 1 1 1 j;?ti*Â·:#flk , 71 - 14 14 ' .frif;J..4 ...9%26-' 1, t , 1 0\,I 1 ...: ..'.1,7 -, .9 . .4 4 5Â· llilr Â¥*% . V : *tr'.3.00 >ftb /1 - , qh â€¢ 1:",1,"'a"'.0.*"i:'"i"lt 1*14. 4 34,1, Â·.fi.: ;v..j..9. 1 -E.. 4.-8.-t 3:' "4**i~. /- , - h. .. "'Li r 1, " limill....,/. k i I r. . b. f.:4 . . I.* - 4 J.:1 I. 1 '. .91 1 Â·Â· OL ,4 -7. I Â·24*':**44Â·-~ j ~ . ~ R.5 1 I ' LM'll/6,1 677:f. 4'falâ€¢'f<*1PlÂ· Â· f .... 7, * - 4 + Â¥ .49. '1- 1. 1. Ill#;6.4-'4 114,~t I . Â¥4 b , .â„¢ S '38'Ld 54*2'*24 . : 290. 1 1 3 - m.il , 1,13 3,-- E TA 3 I I SchainaIiC D#kas- pril, 2001 THA *,i kÂ» .44 W .C d * 434 NA' 110.$,23~,1- - 22. AL --37~ 1/1*964 - =:c,~ V. < â€ž -2. * 4- '2 . Â·.' 7.- 21 ' S-h ---- 4. f 9 L .'-El. 2 6 9EZIET-Â¥~~ili6ii 4,66'Whal rt ---lu-Z - f:lili 'Ii//I//Mizm<w*92/1/1 f. S -1/,r-11~ 42*' . ,- '. 0 --qwpill==713.- .7 23 >.4. r 9,8. . T ., C 2.6 :* , 23,31 6 --f 4/, Â¥4.1. 4244 12- 9~---- 'L-2. emiÂ¥ I .. #I <-12[,gw.W 2-ED,-6 - I *1/3/~1//I'.Ir/"mi Ii/'/6//-1----Idni'/6/MA - 1~4 Grvew 1 â€¢ , '1 'i.'Â· F 21 11 11#'.4, ~_ 7-4 ' Er-za,Al 1- ./. 1 I 1 C - n .AN . . -Tr '.. 41 7. Aj?#712 7.Zir'31 .*.*I.../ I M-~~tbf*~15 MITCHELL RESIDENCE - VIEW FROM ASPEN ALPS ROAD 'a"'.124 1 #4 -Â¥e.J:;.4:u â€ž~ .â€ž,: ' ~ ." 9.. . ~p- '" pl ~ - Â»r =70=.,4...4:*1:918. t.v- 0, r.2 4 - ..1 - 2,2 Â·.*mÂ¢*5051 4 2.1 I 'LbÂ· O +17* *,39* . 11 rÂ·-,Â· ... i. 5, 1. Â·. ,Kf'Pe --41' . â€¢. c I,. '--Aâ‚¬-;}C;Â©*i t Â· i â€žr/*% Af 'S 1 *3' 4- . k--i- 1 4 ..1 ret--- 2 SOUTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION 9=11 '37 ::*1 , r r _~ ; I I I. 1 MITCHELL RESIDENCE - VIEW FROM UPHILL ..,1 .1-1-- 0= , . f.- -1-r *....... #-yel, ... 74 Â·#r;?.71.'lili --~r--~I-~..._ , Â·24 -3 Al..4=. F +4 -- ~tiEM_. -- 1 40 45.... :47 61':E--w,4'4â€¢." -dL'- .48>, 1.. 18 5 .Â«Â£/ r <4Â· Â· Â·Â·Â·Â· <SWiYlr.M.222 -- - 06 A-j .4.2 / De Ii: Â·/ f#27: ~f=un r c. -Â· Â·Â·Â·r Â·22= r... - 1~*5 5 1 ..., W~ -2,4=ZZ=ZIZE-ijKÂ¢1#ti;~.~~4132â‚¬..:ifi. tul.-3.zi . 4% .141 J , . - , ,*:TY"?71Â·.--.,4,%.. i.~ ~-,-t - L I . Pt.â‚¬,alklitv,,73.-7f~.~'.- r . r 1 , ..... --1. 1 . EL-Clf:91-23.14 M 9 'EV Â·.13-.4.- 2Â»19 1 - 1 L--2-12-'Â·- 0-L_11 Pa i MITCHELL RESIDENCE - VIEW FROM REAT__- - - NORTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION U Mitchell Residence Aspen, CO I J.... I Â· --- i Schematic Design - Images Architecture and Planning Bill PoÂ» and Associato March. 2001 A,pen. C-olorado 1 0% e eli 1 1 . 0 f # 20 . 7 /,7-1 D .:0*h. . . 4 20 . ~ ./4 2 WEA CONIFERS - ~ 2 'NER CONIFERS ' SIDE SETBACK / 4 Â»07% 9 0. --------- -- ----- -------- --7 W.%4' _-_MEMPE & 44.4 , O. . / 0 4, Â· / 0 Â·Sh. . I f .0 4 1 , / 41-111/2,1 0 -Effic C ~ , '' , TER'EACT , q'-111/2" 9 1 NOTE: TREE LOCATIONS INDICATIVE ONLY ! 1/ Lf i TO BE CONFIRMED BÂ¥ SURVEY 1 q '. 4 DEMOLISH TREE u f T-DEMOLISH TREE \ tr r \ ~--(AS PREV\OUS) \ r '\ /~ (AS PREVIOUS) \ I , . 1 / / I $ NOTE: TREE LOCATIONS INDICATIVE ONLY - ric-As- A j r. =g-*\2 , ...) \ , ~ ~ TO BE CONFIRMED Bv SUfVEv Â· 2 NEÂ» TREE o \ NEYVI Â£ONIFER ~ 4 NER EONIFER <enÂ» - de. IÂ¥93\ 4 - - EXISTING TREE ty *4-- EXISTINS AOUSE Ll > 4 I .*1 \ -rn:â€ž ~ PROPOSED SCHEME L1 .fr\B ,>t.'~f .2. . 413 6 40 ~ PRO=OSED SCHEME 4 8 + \ 0 j W , 4 + L. n P.* 40 7 . =REVIOUS SCHEME . W *440 2- -Â· 4. ty -77:7 -4 . * Â· i : .62 I '3 L< 1-11- 0 / + : a 9 f 1, . 1. i.,9.3. /1\ 4 i *t f-L'~ - .. /77-7 + :..$ 4 .. - ~~~ ti Â· 3, j $ 1 4-:1, 4 0 0 - 0 1 / 4 / 1 f . 34 -ly:94 . I /2/ 2 . r . ..~-... I r -v<'d ' ~~ / Â»42:8 c ' . 1 I .2.41~/ \\4 \\9, \ Â¢4 4 I 7 6' 5 NEK CONFERS ' 6 1 Â« 4.96 1 1 1 3 i 0 1 11 TOD-99 V- EX V %6 wo.SE a I \ ..2 \ Al 1 . -20-0/ 4.- 11 h . E.1 b 44â‚¬3Â«. 11 2 .:\:6/0""m,* ' : 4,<74-4 47 , / 7-i, A 4-Kr. 1 .433,4 1 8 . a . 1 . 111 -~l-I.~ 1 ... , to . V L D 4 . 4 - 1 4.' 1 u4" .1/ M eÂ© P /44:- ty 4 4 + . k J 1 ./ e '17'1'vi'~'il/ff/lifittiffi 9 4 bl ~ ..d-. . D 2 \ ' -'.fÂ«-DEMOLISH TREE 4-414 ~ P K (AS Â°REViOUS) / 1 1, 11 1 Ar . 1 .49 1 (AS PREV'0,9 .1 7 I 40. I:.$...' I . . I 1-Et'RAO- ' --EfFEAER 1 9 1 , 11 -~ 969 . 9.1 . 'e -' .' W 1 ./ I /,3 1 \ I i \ I , , K ft *-12 -2 . j 442 0 Â·Â·f e ~Â· , ull'Â»,41/' m . ' I I 9 0 4 6,7~/ 1. n k Â· A .4 7 R .!PE %-9.-4- 1-&/: I . m. . I -4 8 4 0.1 1-03% ./.Â« 9.-7- - --- ---- --- ---- -- --- --- - --- ------------- --------------------------=-=. F__1__-_ Â«=42>.-...._.Ie>Â© 1 \--7 SIDE SETBACK 1 1 - 34.- 1 ~2.L 4-x. ~ 4 2<7Â«- *Â· j - I ./ \8 -4*/ #FRE 7 V ~f;'1,Â·4~r,K-.@EA)fif.. '1 2%4 1>f f %14 , -r' A I : ) Â£V . 1%<..J) I ' I~~* 6.1 t \, k . 7 75-7 r. 1 C . F N.6.. .L-W'' _ ~~C~.~~.~4~.~4'~AfI~â€¢ Â· 1 %,~._~: .~~ Â·~ 1 ~ 0 0 9-//8-~ 0 0 8 &32 4 10Â°08 098 .. 0 8 8 9 . 0 3 : 2 2 9Â«-7 9 2 g99 COMIPAQIDON OF NEIA! SCHEME JAITH FORMERLY APPROVED EHEME COMPARISON OF NER SCHEME MITH EXISTING HIOUSE b~ Mitchell Residence r-1-1-1-1-1 1 0 10 20 Aspen, CO Schematic Design - Site Plans Bill Poss and Associates Architecture and Planning March 30.2001 0 Aspen. Colorado ] r 1/4 102 GUmS hAVmbl 1 U -} 1_ TI _f : 1 1 DECK 1 SARAGE 5 0 . 9 9. PRIVEIAAÂ« 18 CEZZL_,_F&- ~,p======57-I ! 2 : : 01 3 1 11 lumÂ»-5> L=*21 5 4 ---------1 EL Cl~l-C)" ~ 11 1 1 fl C 1 -=-- \1 DECK 2 9 =J - 14/ 1 1 , V----------- 11 L -) 0 ~ 16 r sers @ 6 3/41' 1 I 14 ~4 neÂ»1 trâ€¢ae ~ '5 r naM trbae 6 11**Â« 4 ' 5 9 0 9 1 "b 1 STORAE 3 k 0 91-1 a ' 4 m r e 1 la 1-338] - dq F - 1 q 10 \/ i 1 -9 - 110 L m EL 1001-0,1 0 111 -112 I L ~ 12 1 13 0 .- 119 14 C 114 1 SKI i ~15 1 I5 =1 9.. 0\ 0 ROOM -5 116----------2 4-____ f C [365-1 0 1 1 J 01 0-1 COATE O ' '*:4 1 Coats 0g A 2 MESH Fi LOBBÂ« ~ ENTRÂ« io tiÂ« i I 1 '7 PADE 31 I 1, Â©40; . r 1 1 1 4 - Â·-1; 10 tt~ 4 - 2| i577 IW n-1 -1242 1M - * 8 5<~ - iD(l.fÂ«- 14 .1/ 3 : ' ELEV. 9 1 4 STORE - , c f ELEV. iNI}Â» --,2 1 1 1/ 1- EQUIP .- ____ Eni 2 11 o G I - 1 - , 1 1 tD 1 1, L 'per 1 STORE/ ~ | EL. 45'-6" | 9 h HAD ~ GRAAL i 1 :4 1 110- 1 - 1[--- 1 th 1 1 91 Mitchell Residence n_n_r-1 1 Aspen, CO 0 5 10 1,* --- Schematic Design - Level 1/Level 2 Plans Bill Poss and Associates 1 Architecture and Planning March 30.2001 A%pen. Colorado f 11 11 1.6. - 9 / I. r--- 1 ~EL log'-0 ROOM - I $ FAR ni JT [483] - 21 - TV 1 3 1 . 5----11 1 \\ 1 LA C 1 VOID CL pun 1--r â‚¬ - dll 1 rn n 0 -- Â»1 A - \ // I f. --432 P 1 33 01 ~~ ELEVLj; = ~~~ipit N \9/ 3/1 1 01-54 CL > [0 6 24 AVAW OL 1 f=r 221 ~~~DRESSING / 23Â· r 11 25 24 21=_ 4 r al 10 lili 11Â·9394' 19 1 . I 1 1 /Oil I , \ i 1 BATH I BATI{+ 2 L- ~ |EL 104'-e" | (Â» 1 \ ~21 VÂ« 99/ -11 CLOSEâ‚¬ IM VOID ~ 1- I D-i MASTER ~ 1 a 1 1 0--BED 2-0 i ! 1-:[340 f> LEVEL BA/35 ~./, kthy \ 1 / 1 BATIH FÂ»]1 1 [Al DD [-315] 1 U 4- -1 1 Â»- 1 1--- closet closet d f I $--4 1 * ~ Mitchell Residence PU-21-1 1 Aspen, CO --- Schematic Design - Level 3a/3b Plan Bill Pos> and A>sociate+ 2 March 30.2001 Architecture amd Planning AMpen. Colorado [ 1 1 k 483-: 1 L 40.- 1/1 ~ -1 -~ \ h 0 . \ 1 1.- ''EAA+ . \ 8 \ GUEST VOID BED ' 6 21 - l ' EL '18 1.-O " ~ ~== li ZIFI IP-Â»I i 4 Â»31Â« Uttkii CLOSE-r f ELEV.~111~4422 ~Lili~ â‚¬- DRE ' mit-4/54 . 11%- F V BATH ~ , ~ 1 EL NE-1 < 0 1-3(J 69 Wh / 1 \ >r 0 0 0 ' 1 - -- lili I ..1Â¥.9.*JIC ...../.-'ll-* 01 1 -1 H ~' N ~ ~ MASTER 3 BATH- BED I [*ti m.ral [5831 4 11Â§| - t f 6 1~hE] 0- ~LOSET 1 1 9 hal Z i 0 1 11 I ) -Â·â‚¬:62,6% 4 le=- r Â»* ya =z 1 eUES (_) 1 BED 2 1 1 1 ---- --7 1 J- l.12.2.3 SUEST 1 BED 3 Lit 1 f0 , 4 0 9 f ] i . .. a. O M t.,Mt I 1 1 CLOSET HIS BATH 1 1 e 1 U m 43 1 40 ~>PNE MASTE>R - - ' BATH .. A-.I. m Fial le> - LEVEL 4=A/43 : 24 1 7 CLOSET HER BATH 11 1 Â£ 11 U /4, Il 7 11 M- M U 4,k 1 1 -R=...9Â¥.74-Â¥4Â·+ 7 m,5 i ivlitchell Residence FtÂ«17 Aspen, CO 0 5 10 --- Schematic Design - Level 4a/4b Plan Bill 14Â» and A..ociata Architecture and Planning March 3(). 2(X)1 3 Aspen. Colorado 1 IlL-' al-1 ILWIUIIIIIIIIIIIIIW Ill 1 I - 11 1 1 LE-,11-7 52 9 54 . ELEV ~D< y im , r 55 im \ F-, 1 1 [0 Â·Â· 56 = 10 N...%---,/ A 7 - 112 27- in L_ 1 -7 2, 58 11\ 1* 1 - 54 ' -7 K 60 - BTTING VOID 62 B.ALSONY i 9 [3481 - 4 ed 090 \ =Fa 1 -2 , / - 1 r-- 1.11 r EL 126'-a" E- L 6 am ==33- P K 1 'W 11 1 LIVING --- *D DINING 10 - L_ | u In | T 1-*01 1 lu H 1144 1 Â£ 0 m / w U 11 - fl '. C SAS FIRE .1-711 1 IT<-T.. 1 - f --, (c-) 01 i U 1Â¥ 1 . --- -- - 1---: 9-4 :-9 -2- 1 - U 11 1 /3 ---- 1 4. 19 1 i 8 In fil 11 a 6 <ITCHEN- m [5831 0 1 9= 1 - 1 -1 L 1 PO 1 --4 L_ 1 - 112- 1 COURTVARD -nE- 1 -p- 1 <EN OV 443 : LEVEL 3 - Mitchell Residence ru-ar- 1 Aspen, CO 0 5 10 --- 1 Schematic Design - Level 5 Plan Bill Poss and As>ociates Architecture and Planning March 30.2001 Aspen. Colorado 4 1 F 11 ---11-- --it----ir----111--'73.---------------------- 4 2 e. . ... - 2 WEA CONIFEES ' 1--%.. NEA CONIFER 0- 11 e / 8 \ -4Â· /- -7 5 14\ ,.p ..77 1\ . '1 2 I /N I I. I ut 1 64$-be %\\ 'V .L..4.- 60Â« 49 . 11% U. 4 'Â·.8 6 . i I n 0- 0% C MEMEfANE ROOF < /4 - . 4.-9, j. > r m FIJI B 94% . ~L - 3 NEn CONIFERS 044 -2 0 0 m m ~ f 36 - 2\ 3 07% 1 . U- B 0 W -f .goR..4 4: ' ~#74 I I 02,0. U R. 3 4 14 t . j i.* ... I. 54* arti. .:tÂ¢*r .4.k-1 47:4 073 I t y I fl ?1.#+Ilt I ?19 ~. f ~.<22â‚¬9Â§* : 292,1 MEMDKANE fOOF y * \ A.-t Â· '...4 L. : e. . Â«> 9 .49Â»tt. by . ,-1 0 'f- -J~) 1- 1 441. 9 C. 2- t#*'C - 0&-/ 1 1 1 1 i~ 0 0~ ~ Mitchell Residence ru-1_1-1 0 10 20 Aspen, CO --- Schematic Design - Roof Plan 5 Bill Poss and As~ociates Architecture and Planning March 30.2001 A.pen. C olorado ] r J 1 6 A A 1 *>927 1 1 1 4--- t V -%700 a El â€žr// 1 -11 1 1 ~--- Â« g/ REET ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION 11 0-NA 4~ 11 1 1 - -=Ill 21 13 L [I]~Â·= - - 2~=h=2 - - [- El j EvE 1 0 - F- 1. . 11 .11--IN'-'f- - ~~ I -I .t- - 15 -t'/il LÂ»,-1 3 - - th//9 EAST ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION ~~~ Mitchell Residence n_f--1-2-1 1 0 10 m Aspen, CO Schematic Design - Elevations Bill PoÂ» and Associates March 30.2001 6a Architecture and Planning A,ren. Colorado 131 28 above "15/Ing g.1- 28 'Coic C-=I=COS S - CM# C V [7Â©V C& . - oporc ve' ses 0,- < 00. C C. 0'.4 0~5 5 Sciq> /ca ass e. --- ---1 1 10-1- fri i ' 4 - " -- n L H 0 11 1 J 1 1 / 0 . -1/ U U L 1 - 391-/// 1 1 1 1 ATEâ‚¬,1, HEjeHI Llu'T__ ------------ %---- 11 0--- 0-- % -j. 000 2 - /-- 1 1 UftG/ 537/ fl 97 ___J REST ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION r-28 ..ove e. st .9 9 Cpo' C I ........ 1 'er-22-- 23 2.c-,c c.occscs s .3..0/6.... 9. - CroÂ· e J C. I . S,E - 1 - -- 1--4 --- i' 1 - SIO~I /Cl ./9 T 1 -1- --44- \ 1 1 RD - 1 L ______- -4.mRE>t .Pef 5-19Â¢I -1-31!I 1 x f -C] ELU -[333 E-U - ~-7=-11 fit 111 1~~1 ~~fo- ~ ~- 1- 0 i -- 1 U 1/ 0 Lc ... \- h 1 - 1 -1 0 , n ir - \ 1 1 -- 1 1 / EAST ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION 9~ ~ Mitchell Residence 1.-P-LI-1 1 ,0 Aspen, CO -2- Schematic Design - Elevations 6 b Bill Poss and Associates Architecture and Planningg March 30.2001 Aspen. Colorado r t) 1 fe 03 9 8-6 20' 7'-a" l.ot B'-6" JV KELTOHEN (0 n , EL. 126'-8" BATHI (~ T.O.FLOOR ~7-IEL. 115'-2" . 34257' 791 8144% k DECTION A-A Mitchell Residence 1-+1_r-1 1 o Aspen, CO M===1 Schematic Design - Section A-A 131]1 PiNA and A.sociates March 30.2001 Architecture and Planning 7 Ayen. Colorado 09 494 44 0 01-6. 5-4 7-81 4-4 18.4.1 ~ 1 1 1 [liB â€ž 11 H A "Â«L F DZE{ -1 -43 1 1 1 1 U LIVING__ C, 1 -- -- ~ ~~ DINING 1 ./ 1-0, 1 ~ EL. 126'-5" ~ ~ ' **e~~ ~ I Â·i--9â€ž2I 1 .4,WIFF I w~emp- ' i >0**~-~~j 1 ./ T.O.FLOOR 1 1 -I J w It 11 11 11 1 11 11 1 1 . I ' SUEST' BED 1 11 GUEST BED 2 1 1 t 1 11 L. J I â€ž IMASTER BED ~ 1 111 ~ T.O.FLOOR 41 1 EL. 115'-2" 1 -I... % Iii U 942 1 7= == I j 5 ~ BATH IMASTER 2 , ~ T.O.FLOOR WL... ':Mi - EL. 104'-6" idEÂ»:PS 11 4 47~. /Y 1 6* 1 SECTION 3-8 Mitchell Residence -1 1 Aspen, CO Schematic Design - Section B-B Bill PoÂ» and A..oclate> March 30.2001 Architecture and Planning 8 A.ren. Colorado d'll-*1./: i~.6 4*%. 9 39 49 9 18'-6 IC-01, -7 -8 IC-OL 18-6 ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 U " 0 0 E ji STAIR BALCONY 3-1--1 51TTING 12=1 ------- T.O.FLOOR j1 1 -â„¢ EL. 126'-8" 4/ : 2 +04*44-44*44'. - 1 iÂ· BATH Â£~. -- 4 1 3 ~ T.O.FLOOR $ ~ _- 8 EL. Ile'-O"TFT =~ Â·-.440id-0 -4~'~~'i~, ,~'9, 21 [9' . i MASTER BED I T.O.FLOOR .) f.'.'it.&2BRL 4 1 EL. 115'-2" 6/ 6 BATH ~BA =- H t 3 %1 I n , n ri ~ T.O.FLOOR 4 EL. 101'-0" ~ --- , MASTER BED 2 T.O.FLOOR "61,-0-Ka-k - W. i Â·Â¥'*'Â¥DZ-~ ,-.Â·a EL 104'-6" ~ h LDRV ~ EL. 100'-O" ~, -,Â·00,0~*Imma*: ~h~-, -~: TO FLOOR 4 . .7,1, . DRAAL # STORE ~ $ 1,1 1 1 ~ T.O.FLOOR EL. 41'-O" \ i ..I- -- -- 1 1 1 ..0 1 rek 1 1 1 m 1 SECTION 0-0 n_01_17 1 ivt itchell Residence o Aspen, CO 1 .....'- I- '-Il. Schematic Design - Section C-C Bill Poss and Associates Architecture and Planning March 30.2001 A,ren. Colorado 9 1 [ e 3 8 a 1181-6 181-6 v 61-OIl (~) 41-011 ~ |5'-0" Â© 15'-0 25'-01' / * 4 # f - I ' ' I ' d '11 - 11 ~â„¢%-:=:4.77<56,/ 11 111 - \ LI 1 DllNI\(3 BALOON* 1 | KITCHEN - ~ T.O.FLOOR .. EL. 126'-8" C L..1 *&%1- - - 1/ 1 1 13 ------- 5/1/ MASTER BEEP I T.O.FLOOR .i BATH 10 ~1 ~ EL. 118'-0" (/ ~ T.O.FLOOR L-----~ --- EL. 115'-2" t.- MASTER BED 2 T.O.'FLOOR 3 EL. loRia 4- -- 4 - 97 ~ T.O.FLOOR 9/12./+ .. T.O.FLOOR EL. 104'-6" .Nam/* 1....~/9..Im' 40**1?fil~- 4 EL. 100'-O" ~ 1 1 1 ti St 1 4. 11 l T.O.FLOOR EL. 41'-O" 1 1 DECTION D-D [Ul Mitchell Residence 1 Aspen, CO 0. 10 .// 211 M'--- Schematic Design - Section D-D March 30.2(X)1 Architecture and Planning 1 0 Bill Poss and As.ociates Aspen, Colorado ] r 3 181-611 0 181-611 0 15'-011 0 0 15'-O" 25'-0" , 0 ~\ Â¢ i e , 4- D . I . 0 * * 1 --iAL 1 - COURTMARD 4 Ll\/ING AfEAS Ir -~ ~ T.O FLOOR , i i - 16 risers @6 1/2" ~ EL. 126'-8" 12}1: 0,~*Â· I : J t .- C=~ 1 01 1 1 4 T.O.FLOOR ~. i-- GUEST BEEP 3 BATH 1 : , 1| - U EL. 118'-0" c~ ~ T.O_FLOOR 16 ris/8 4-6 3/4 EL. 115'-2" ,""Mill,IN:I'lillill"#All"'/1**IN/t 1 - 1. 1 - L. . 1 0 1. 1 1 T.O.FLOOR /2 EL. 10<'-O" v, 104..1 4.11#k>-22Â«.te-: 45:4**64$2Â·Â·,-'... ....0,4,4.-Â·Â·- 2%5%. i O 0 r,sers @ 6 3/4" 1 ~ T.O.FLOOR 3- _ EL. IO4'-6" ,[ca 1 ENTRY \ 1 . 1 T.O.FLOOR ~7 r.-1 '/// ~4,9,-Â»72=49 2.229***0 .*-G. ta. / - EL. 100'-0" 4/ 1 1 - -â€¢051 1 16 risers @6 3/4" ~ ' 1% NEL. te risers 06 3/4" - STOQE *t 44& 1 1 T.O.FLOOR ~ SECTION E-E .66 initchell Residence . Aspen. CO Pli-1-1--1 Bill Poss and .41*ociate. --- Schematic Design - Section E-E 11 Architecture and Planning March 30.20()1 Aspen. Colorado 0 181-61161 2 9 (23 0 lai-6 U 61-011 (3~,) 4 1 -0. r 151-Oil 15'-01' 251-0 I , 9 L e * D t' 1 ~4=:=22- 93 1 -*/7 64 7 1% 6 1 4%*2 /58 i E-Â· 3'Â·.'124. . 1 COURTMAIRD ~.~ ~ __LIVING *9EAD ~ - 61rTING 03 .1.~- 11.t- ----- 111 -s=*a ~ TO FLOOR Il - EL. 126'-8" ...,L -..'....d :1Rb% i Ii< If 14= 0 0 I 1 i I .Pm/&//- f + BATH t ~ ~ GUEST iROOMI I ~ 6 6JEST 900>01 2 -1 : 1 T.O.FLOOR -......17......../..N -' ~ EL. 118'-O" ~- ~ T.O.FLOOR 11 1.LLU 1 - BATH A DikESSINS FAR OUT ROOIM 1 .r======~ -I- T.O.FLOOR Li* 1 , EL. 109'-0" 1 I U |~1 LE>RY ; DI<I ~ 1907\DER~ I SKI ROOM LOAE;R - UPPER -:- F W. , - 3304 DECK . ,=*0Â»Â»87 T.O.FLOOR F 1 r *-- ~ EL. 100'-0" ~ - 1;Wel ~~n*+ ..A,6 Â»11 - . - ~ 1 - 0 ELEV 83 MECHANICAL Â¢ STORE SARAeE EQUIP 1 T.O.FLOOR ~, Â¥:Iff)***1/*"3'"*-:~0'=. ~ k-i~ EL. '11'_0" d/ SECTION F - F 14| 4 Mitchell Residence 1 Aspen, CO 0 10 .6 --- Schematic Design - Section F-F 12 Bill Poss and Associates March 30,2001 Architecture and Planning Aspen. Colorado 1 [ 0 08 6% 8 8'-6 III-01. 1 -8 1>ob 17-6. L ' 1 1 g ~ TO.FLOOR -E-L. 126'-Â°' - --~ I " --- 1/- 11 111 1 111 SUEST BED I 2_ -_12_I~ ~ | __I 1 T.O.FLOOR ,~L EL. 1181-0" \-, EL. 115'-2" FAR OUT ROOMI -111===P 11 -~Itilili-"~al=. 1 -4.2 1 T.O.FLOOR ~ 1 EL. 104'-O'1 6/ ~FL. a CD :17 ~ T.O.FLOOR 9 i k 11 EL. 104'-6" 11 ! 781 1 SKI ROOM .1 '11 1 T.O.FLOOR ~.1 EL. IOO'-O" 4-~ 1 11 1 1.1 1 1 1 I 1 STORASE 1 1 T.O.FLOOR ~ j :02*%**1*%~ :i i *INI#,Al: .'ti~ i EL. 41'-O" '-~ SECTION 6-6 n-EL--1 1 $5 Mitchell Residence Aspen, CO Schematic Design - Section G-G 1 3 "111'013 and Associate, March 30.2001 Architecture and Planning A,ren. Colorado F 4 2.Â·:27 HY f / 1 'll . I , Â·492/1 1,1 l' 1 . .- Â·,4*'1 12'4 F ' - /45* '%44; >36* '' 1 r 4 1, 5 A- ~ Â»4.' 4. .. Q:itt.:.1 "h,11.11,1 3;4 o :#imily / 9 4 I f *f ~ te.. 1 1 Ir:,112" 1-9 â‚¬ - 1 22 ti .' I '.1 9,3 2 1. 4 4. h - ... ~t.% 1-3 i22*. . , j.â‚¬ - -' 4 117'.. 2/5 ./I. -<4----- - , $:*5% 24.1 1 . *i. . 1. 24, . h .. .% U .u'll \ \%\ . 37 . . /*UlÂ¥1300 > ,/11\ .- . 1 ... -.... view from entry view from courtyard interior view 71-~1~r T.~y~-'r-.77 ~â„¢~i.ili -- ~i~ ~.1,r..m,nr. -'-7 d-qrM-. An' 4 1 ---'1*64 *& Â· v ~~ 9 9 + ' â‚¬ ele?Â» I #'. ~... 9iF;n,Â·Â·Â·. 4 '17 -@C'*tr-T-,~1- 7/*~~y~-Â·-7-- Â»f- -~|Ir-ly. 735.- Slill# 1 f . - -0*,2- u Mky-,14 t e 49? - -6 -"â‚¬ k, . Â«298. -I ..4 5 '*' Â·9 '24 W:.. 9 Â«27%991 - I. â‚¬4*36* : t~.:,>3 9. , - view from Aspen Alps Road view from gondola view from Aspen Alps Road -77rr, #t Mitchell Residence Aspen, CO --, Schematic Design - Images Bill Poss and Abiriates Architecture and Planning March. 2001 AArlen. Colorado 3:5 . ) *U= 1 - 9 1 - NUL p' 1 j 77\511)7 Â°Pt -11,181 +318011 - --n L 14-:,<Acull 'r-pi Mn)<11 - 94. VM i -3 't ,#1 typlac p~27. c ,Â·471 19Â¥M 71 006 p Â·Pr14 *r,1 J 1'0314) PFD 1 Per Wal .m 818709 10'1 g.,Mre 4 pludj- 114*gr 9% '#V w?CLV -w#BMEMT '"d 134 -Flyv,36bMYAU .-5 SWIJ . PY'~2 44 1% â‚¬10113 3~(P?Qth Â¥01 9Â«7 .1 iurl . p*n Cle,4 0Â»>IM W 0 0 .. At* 12iduata. 7 but69 Seward E. 8613 Aaft<*. (34.46 91612 1)40*474* (970) 920-1125 RECE!930 April 11, 2001 APR 1 1 2001 Mr. Chris Bendon, Senior Planner ASPEN / .4 COMMCA.:17 04:A'* Aspen Community Development Department -I Q,Svr 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: CONFIRMATION OF MITCHELL RESIDENCE APPROVAL Dear Chris, Thank you for taking the time to meet today with me, Kim Weil, and Lyndal Williams to review the schematic design drawings that Bill Poss and Associates prepared for the Mitchell Residence. A set of these drawings is attached for your review. As you will recall, the Planning and Zoning Commission granted 8040 greenline approval and certain variances for the re-development of this property pursuant to P&Z Resolution 99-19. During the meeting, we showed you that the revised design continues to comply with the setbacks established by the Resolution, while the key front yard setback from Aspen Alps Road would increase by 4'. We also showed you that the height of the residence complies with the limitations of the Conservation zone district, and its elevations are consistent with the height of the approved design. We stated that the project would comply with the floor area approved for the property, which is 4,277 square feet. Finally, we described some of the residence's exterior materials, including that the roof will have non-reflective materials. Based on the representations we made during the meeting and the commitments made in the drawings, we are hereby asking you to find that the schematic design is consistent with the approval granted by P&Z Resolution 99-19. As you requested at the meeting, I have provided a signature block on the next page for you to make this finding. Thank you very much for your assistance with this matter. Very truly yours, ALAN RICHMAN PLANNING SERVICES 41/M 2-2 Alan Richman, AICP .. Mr. Chris Bendon April 11, 2001 Page Two I find that the schematic design for the Mitchell Residence, prepared by Bill Poss and Associates, dated April 2001, is consistent with the approval gr,~ed to the Mitchell property pursuant to P&Z Resolution 99-19. UlN\M) *[Al\U Chris Bendon, Senior Planner . 0 . . ---- - I , --- I ------ - I 1-- 2-0.~167'E~ I bo -- - : 5 TRANSFORMER-- th. ~ PROPERTY LINE USEâ‚¬10 58.43 1 1PU~3*# r OVI/1 I.-. I aâ‚¬.UGE--'71Â«444,0~ 92~ \ \11 4-90-6 1\1 ~ / 9 12 SPRUCE '~\~4 ~ j 2 4, S.RAT E- 04*/Na AREA - 1 441/ 4 , :\0\ h t \ 44 iti /--- WOOJ eETA/'765 WAL f- 12 SPROCE i 2 1 2%'!il'f'*/21 t /4 7 2 --41 -- / 44~AÂ»/ 3 .- /4/4/ 4.0 TREE LEGEND OCT 483% 2 4 u / 2915 1 Il N ly .1 Â·Ve'Ilr,9 twfs/10 1 . 4/ bj COMER L --2 2 ke 1 V ' .. 1 .\'%\\ 1111.'.7 I --1 4-4044/Â»41.- 1 0 \ , i * s-221#' ~ ~ ~ 1 ' 42"Jiti %%-4/,4 4 ji / \ &.-01 \ 4.65.-344 ~\41, 1 //\1 /// \ 4 \ NOE i -40/ity 4 9 \ + 1 7,99 DRAW NG NECEC-5 ,Â·MPROVEMENTS ' -1------ 0 BuRVEY PEEPARES; Bv ALANE SuRVEYS ~ 34-22 7 293 AN'.3 UPDATED 0/02/98, -ir---- ey>/,/4,\ 9 1 434 7<Â» 1 3.1 ':. ' I. % EXISTI NI G ~..: . r~ ~-4 : 1 H ~ e PÂ«-3 -E*-1 -_ _ - HOUSE .- A. *1191 I I '.1' j \'\ , hu - 7 #REU'CE r A t f ~49" - :Stti~2:0#fâ„¢-*- -:.I.. Â«4,\.-j.. ; i. \0 1 ico -A==124-_--- Al MITCLELL â‚¬ 11\ 7 0 ~ I vups y.. 9 1 1. 0 1 Â°29 14 :... . \. n no, 1 RESIDENCE 1 1 -1- 1/ 9 5015. 2 23 - 8-ASPENÂ· (0 1-449 \ I Aspen Ali* South Road 1 -A--1 Ziyba~NA //4-\ \\ ~ 11 11 ASPEN, COLORADO 1 :26 1 I I 1 \-\ :. \: In' \ -2.4.Â©/112.11% : \ GARY TABASINSKE 1 13--RoopsÂ»;42 -\\ \1 1 1 \ 92 \ i 305 DOF RUN ROAD 10!>EZ 151.AND, WA 9826! I I ./.1 PHONE (360) 468-4088 fax Doo) 468Â·.?vi email *ab/Â·ch/rock,sland com -- UOOSCR,SE~.9 ./ I I I . \ .cal\,ki, I 'd ' 4*+ .. - EXISTING A z -44*1 I *-1 \ r. .. 44/ .34<ft %*n,Â»42214. Â· 42Nrk .....:Ir.\6 CONDITIONS ,29'' 1 \12. *9 4 33/ ./ I /4* /1#Th [2 /[///// 4-3(jit 8Â· ASEN SCALE: 1/8' = r-0' ~ 13~.03~'~\ _iu_~~~41*196%23Â»99%44<f*-994-~~~~~ ~-1.~~~6 Revisions: PROPERTY L,NE 4590'00*, : -9*r N"a T. 41<*40 -iNA C .:ret $<, N.Â«1% .73:kli%(*2\P-x-XE h.~ ~\ \ J N~R \ 110 5 00 I. I. . '\ â‚¬94*r\\ %\\ 80 /94.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS (NORI'/f tf \11 Approved: Drawn by: Date: .Wa,Â·27. 1999 Project No. 98/2 of 7 Sheets PROPE* AE . .. ~6 -_32-91_ -1 - ; REAR YARD , 3 ' i 30 - --~ - ~~ ~~ -2- - BETBACK EX ST TRAAS,ICBMEF - % 58.530'00'E PROPEFTY LINE 912 b Y---1//45 -f Al A-jrd %*Tivy 1 44/, .0 */ \2 . 1 P./ - *57 RE-. W.A..L i. 1 0. I ./ 1- 9--/ -1 . 1 ... . ' ~ X- 1 90/ , 9 l. GARAGU - BELOW, =RON.7 v*6 4Â«24---t 1 GRAD\-4 \-/\ tul 1Â«].121\~ j '' ELa 4 1 11 It -1-\1 W 11 -E)(97 STAR I, lIT &12 6.11 1-_1 0 \ 1 [QI N.. . .\ 1 21. LA: 1/,94 'Â· N -*- - -- - ---Â·- --- ~- -- -2 -- '.-Â· - 4 -< i f- EX.V. 221 Vt A- 1, 2.- 7 \ ,1 11 J. TREE LEGEND ~ tel 2, ar'.4. 1 t~ a}NiFER *~ lil*\ 1 1 .1 1 1.1.... 4 11\ 1 Â».11.1 1 1 ./ 4 A--- - NEDâ€¢Â©AE. RE-. 17445 J 1 ' 14 . Â©4774#/*/ --f-.11 l 'NEE /41(71*712-N CALÂ«LAT/ONS 9Â» --7-~--\1 =r==1 ff- ---44 . 8/Â¥90.1 /7 1 94 /5. -- i t.Â· 3 + ~1 ~ ~S' \ TREES TO BE REMOVE) i N f--~t- -_- Er,S~. VousE FooT/Â£0NT - ~- ~ ; ASPEN @ 8 2! A = 50.3 54 in i --rz-J.<% _ 0 1/, Net f ~ 1 ASCEN' 2 5 04 25.3 59 <71 2 - O f Ir \4= TOTAL = 1,91: sq In ~ 9-91 12Â£*Al i 9%/,/ 411'Ve/JKA ~ ~ ~~ ~1 NEW' TREES TO BE ADDED 0 ' L, 7 CONERg @ 5 5 A = 198 1 54 2 ' 11[i---t-L-mr-Â»=~t=-t--t- AÂ© S 4 '.Tri# 11-':'J $ F1 - 11 0 / pÂ» 2 1 1 1 Â»\ r.91-1 \ A .2 1 E'$. -%---1 DEBT. â€žDOSE FCOTPR,VT Â«~ 1 6/ Â«1 -~ 41 N \ - 11'k \ - MITCHELL ./ '1,1 -, .,,.11116" /\. 1 1 %14.Wk -\ '4/ 1 -90 4 RESIDENCE 20%21 -_ _-*..6 - _--- kris- / PROPOSED - STRUCTURE \ i Aspen Alps South Road 449- Â· -t . 1 ap.-,-t & i 3,14 . \ 1 - ~ ASPEN, COLORADO ~ ~<4971*ex' ,~p212F 'pd')l 544\434 - - - - - - i GARY TABASINSKE h. \\03 ' ARCHITECT, AIA . - \ap- 1 .- --- -=- -= PHON[ (1600 4681 4088 110 . \ ,\ \ \416 105 DOE R[IN RE)AD I OPEZ ISLAND WA 98*u \\1 -~-- ~~ ~ i~ --i--ii_____ Â° i-_i--G--i~_-i--Â»~~----*-i------~ti*tj~i-ii_ ~i~ *14- ..::N\P REVISED SITE PLAN 42Â« 1 \361> 1 Stm el .... i SQUE.Â· 1/81'=11-01' 137-4 ~> *__0.AcuB/LSAL*it#~~~~~~~~~~~<~~~~ ~<~ - -k@Pic*3"G-:-177 v*inÂ»4 1 X \\\AÂ¥-6 \ -biv :12,4,3,zi30, :. . PROPERTY LINE 80 Revisions: PROPOS ED SITE PLAN - REVISED /1 9 A- o k Iii Approved: Drawn by: Date: Od. 02. 1999 ~ Project No. 9812 of 7 Sheets .... - - -- E- 2 KE GHT UMFT ,~-- PROF~.2 - Er,ST,NG '0032 - Â·Â·Â·~ X 'Ila :951 . -- 141;,1.-14 %0111> L f- -~2*4*--L- 2 ~~| ~ U 11 n - AR I f -- - ED<157045 HOUSE PK~ - tip i't,%1 ', 1 1==F=1.1['11'Lit. ------ ---- --- ---------t--- r - 1 11 14 |.~ ~|f|. Al/*Er}'' '-7-11 1 1 1-LE:J]14=-1. =:=L 1 111'Ill' 1111111111111111,#'1 e E â‚¬ &944/FAIFilfiric il I - ' , It} E It lilli ,-A ....1 _1__1 -1 1,4â‚¬00ED*k ~ | v A'E+T_.7--t-46. -- U 4 & 11 - -.- 'fr -tr & i911-1- - , 7 Al ' 1 . 1.-11 /1-1 - 11 1 91 004? F 9 / 141-4-1.-. 1 -6 -1- L- -1 -+11 7 /Nt,1 - 'Ir- i 1 1 AR'AIfwila#52 , 1 -=*==4 1 I Iii 4.Aow - r- - _ ...Â·rÂ·~-r ||| ' -73 7=r==:~ -p 1. __ /7144* 1 1 '' 11 1 /Â«/, / --/ - ---2#F*- 2 NEN CONERS Il 4330 - ./ I IfulotÂ« 6-L. -1 / A- 2~!111- 11 - ) r ~ -- 1 OffÂ« 0332.0.-42.\2\41.-\4\43\-0-- -~~~ ALTj*: -- 7--, -i- 4-- - ~-~<~-~-~ ~~-~36L Ld - f~,9260*,p#RE F'~~ M '1 , â€ž-â€¢-9 -4-11 lili 11 ! 11 - %4~2:FF, - 31249 92 ~ . t.gs --*~~~' t~Â¢*44%3-tjit<%1.~ -1- '' , 3- 1 Jr , 4 . f 12,+7#/1<1 1 - -- ~d-- 2 â€ž NEW 0 CON/ERS %Â·<'Ali 72-0 -7 g.,11*13 M 9 3 1 ---W -4 ~Â£. ~- GARAGE FLOO~Â£ 7243 44==LIL- I- M &2_ ----- 1 EAST ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION - U *L z .,Gl qK, 25 -Â·EGHTUMn-Â·--Â«*.-Â·- 4 - 4+ ? %Â¥94 4- -/ - i '. P taa 4*494 f.., Â¥!1:*FF<&-F 020,LE - Exfq:\3 +OUSE x i 21 --1- 470- tud -'- .-~.w~ i * ay -=4,7 4 '?4 ilt 4 141 $ - - lili , 1 .1 1 /1. I , 4. ' -L 1 r.ti-~ -3. - I ! 1 I , | l I I ! I I l / lil i '281 ' 1 d/,2 /- 6 -1 L 1. N MITCHELL _. ~p -40-|y|F -il , Elliblf-BE,"1 -liLi i : r=--=;g~ A#,11 Inllril-*,1 1- 4,- 22 .B '-4'~M,Â¢,~ 1!' 1 11;1 -0,7 1.1.11 -Rif~~~~,~1Â·k-**711 --111-+1 RESIDENCE 9/ A'!-| |~r r-7Â·2017+UeÂ« - - i -- U.-0 Aspen Alps South Road 1 1 ---1 | ASPEN, COLORADO 44..dili 11 11< 1127.4 lilli. 1,1,11,1,4926-, - - . 9Â· t'Fli~flutix- 1 PROPLE - EXSDNS -025 - ? - ---i , -9& '1 ~1 =t Â¥~~ I fill .11! :Lt Lkil, 1 -- 100-2 GARY TABASINSKE 1 I 4.1[4.,1,94 41,'~Â« 1 *00.---- -------------1 i . ARCHITECT, AIA tt, 1 --Â·--- - EXEIN=FOUNPATON joq DOE RUN ROAD LOPEZ [SLAND, WA 98265 1 <*.2 1 1 1 i PHONE (360) 468-4088 1 11 11 1 1 fax (360) 468-2921 email Xtabarcharockisia[id foiri :-- ---- ---------------------WH- ----- -- L- pO'.70 - -~ - .IIi 19 REVISED ELEVATIONS | | ./.-__ I I. L ' ' 'Â· 1 , i a. SCALE: 1/8"= r-0" 1 1 1. f 1 3 Rensions I i i ~-- EKET'NG FOUNDATON 1 E-- GARASE _EN'E- - 724 1 . . ./ . WEST ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION Approved: Drawn by: Date: 001. 02.1999 Protect No. 98/2 of 7 Sheets 0 0 0 0 27'41/'e. r Ah#-&-4 ' ' #MUMRA 4 1 Il ' aa<M)14 t 2,:.Â·,i,',i,Â·i#Ae,FO ?27Ff f ft>.t 4 k :1111 1,1 L *24*kit ,- i ,4,4~~ ~~ ~-~ 4Â·, -- ---- -- ill 'Â«4 - 111 19 111 11 EliNTIWilf- T Â»- A A '1, 1-W*Â¥/=.1 ~-A-~4~~r ,-lili '~ 11 IF,1 fil -1 , 4 lili Â£ lk- -10%.11 h lil i ' wlf 41 0.11 1 : : I r, 51...:AUâ€ž*Â» -11 4 , 4 ,â‚¬141 11=3>4 , Auir,-lip 11 / '1 7. 11 71! 1 - ~90Â·ENC....wr il--4---M- %z 0 1 1 14. 1 11 1 //3941/1/3/33/29>114/ / // 3/ 2/ SEEakEEEk:SCILICILISS,6235662;kk~.**iff%5---- ---3 11 1 1 -r' 1 ~ ~Lurtraftff-)313~46Â» 1 -Â·', 90-Â« kil, 111 1. 1 . 1 1 1 4 11 1 111 1/ 5922Â»UNDO<Â»2<\2\2\ p + -\ . /3,6.-*.-5---- -Lf..i<r-*I-*.i. I.-. -.I ' '| |, ~ I NII : -lili =- - -7----MI EXISTING EAST ELEVATION EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION 1* - ~*A , 4 00 49%?1 Â£ : f Ent -- #, ***9* MITCHELL .A. P *93*al##11'im/ 1<,ilirllt Al-*44 4%2 _112_i:L_1611758~-- **4*4 ' RESIDENCE â€ž31170.1.-414 li 1(~ 1%' 1 Aspen Alps South Road f I I =lk -'pki'*01â€¢F*' Il IM' 11111111 487 914 Â¢ 4 ' F 41 I '11'. k 1~ ~, .2 i ASPEN, COLORADO W . **Unlium# Fl & b 14~ I i.g.Â·le.:Â·DA &W 4 -- 1,3 + 1 J- 1, --- --- - --- 1 , ~1'je,-3..10..I 1 : *41 . ~~ghS#, * t~*FiÂ¥~-''~'r:p-,Il. 11.. GARY TA BASINS KE ! CZ---lar*~Ph 1 1 1 4.0 Ll ILE 1 .~:=k?,0.Yo ' i - Fri / ..1111.1[. .4,5. e \1...1 11 ARCHITECT,AIA . 9 4 .14' 1 2-40, 1- b 1 11 - {06 [)(* RUN ROAD ILOPEZ ISLAND WA 98.6, PHONF (360) 468-4088 tax '3610) 468 10â€ž em,iII etabar,Â·11.Dr 'i-kil. id aim r. 1-ft' I.1.~ ' 9~ ..014 - 0 1 1-1 ELEVATIONS ~â€¢Â·1 ' lith/:4* -11 f f EXISITING HOUSE -4 SCALE: 1/8" = j'-0" EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION --- r Twk -- -- - ---- - Revisons: EXISTING WEST ELEVATION Approved: Drawn by: Date:MA27 7999 . Project No. 9812 of 7 Sheets .... ROPERT' L NES ----< / 1// L ' 1\ / GARAGE sE_ow | ACE-~73~1=Ted / j GRASE 1. 4 , 1 i.-22/22-7/2/una GARAGI~ /1 ~ - 1 \ P - - 4 ---f-ti 1- u~Â«-~ i- i=4\ 1 = 1 ~ ~- A : M. '\ i 11 FÂ«X >42\ \ \. D m n. Â· Â« S I'ORAGE W ' 1 j [<11 1 1' r ~.XI in \Â« POIt< 11 4> ~1 6 -" ~ IC# Nt-$ Pili ..'~ tnA ~ SKI ROOM 23.41 1Â»= ~ 2* -1 1 'LI' L 41 1 F7<1011 M 1 3 S [ORAGE LJ ~ r-- â‚¬.0:72 430\Â·E ~ ~>d/' SKI ~ '~11Â¥ Â· EN IRY m r--91 FOYER i - \ M.Al N \ \ 1 1 NX \. 3 1 Â»- ...53% .30/E --=I : MITCHELL 1 - - 1 RESIDENCE 1 I ~ Aspen Alps South Road 1 \ ASPEN, COLORADO GARYTABASINSKE i ARCHITECT,AIA 14% PHONE (360) 468-4088 305 DO} RUN ROAD iLOPEZ ISLAND, WA 98 9, lax (360/468 24..1 email <tabarch/rorkkand coin i 11. PROPER- 15 REVISED L _ -rez- -----------.I------------------------M..--- FLOOR PLANS SCALE: 1/8' = 140' PLAN-SKI ROOM LEVEL GARAGE LEVEL PLAN Revisions: Approved: Drawn by: Date: Oct. 02,1999 Project No. 98j2 of 7 Sheets . . 0 . 14 I .- GARAGE BELOW -"~ SARAGE SE=OW --1 4 =t\. m i k-/3-LK -1.-14-[ -i \Â£ \1--Al 1 \' \ BELOW/ 2~ ,/ ttilki' I(/1-AR l)IJT' JU)OM Il, / =1-- 4-11-41 1 1. J 1 M[---- Nx-1- iNG N ~---/ SLEEPING 101:T ON 'Ig / '. < IC)/TABC\ E *,t\yO>=- ---4 -[Â«111*1.- U 11 11 9 ri:Â·Â·r - Â·-Â·Â·-- 1 -----1 313*49{ 4-ti--~-k i i If V: --9~-r---1 4-?11 $4 111 ~ \\ --1 .-4--[-1--4- --1 -11*lp-,I-I--iM /N B===: - .2-2 1-1 Z 1,0 COL'W *1 1Â· , li I --- rjf77 Â·Iff--Trl~X 11 -fit* la ' ~ I~ | | ~131~~,~1 lw--111 6-44 1174 4--1 -,e, 1 \\ f ._r--H :~~~' ~~B.|-i ft-~1- pip~r- Lift-~.~gÂ«~1 ~M[(-~il*13~i 1 4~414 <1__~_L ._4 :__~ ~_.~ *.-H_m -91 1 i.1-19' 1 m F-3.<51 ~'' 1, -4/1/ 14* __1.-L . ~~ ~~j~L *127 . '. 1 - Ly'~'1--_1 N : NE \Â». Fi:* 1 U .'ll BWDRPOM 2 |1 Il'X PA ; Rig>IiaoM 4 .}ilit\ 1 ' m v 01- MAI ['ER , ~ BEDROOM 9 +1 1 //a r / I.*Aile L -4 Â©=3 r pâ‚¬ T-it / Gl \ ~ F *brERBAIN T =~I1 8.72~ ~ MITCHELL RESIDENCE 10 1 0% 6 BEDROOM 3 , i 1 / ,, * Aspen Alps South Road I I r- Es,2 433\ E ASPEN, COLORADO 02=41 11 1 / 1 0 4.-/ LA .. / IP -1 1 i GARY TABASINSKE ' -Er- FLOOR ABOVE ~ ARCHITECT, AIA 1 Eog [)0[ RUN ROAD LOPEZ IST AND, WA g8261 PHONE (360) 468 4088 fax (360)40 4 4 email :tabarclia ockisland com REVISED FLOOR PLANS PLAN-BEDROOM LEVEL PLAN-FAR OUT ROOM LEVEL SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0 Revisions: Approved: Drawn by: Date: Oct. 02. 1999 Project No. 9812 of 7 Sheets >4 .... A l PROPERTYLINES- --1 \ ~ ~1 1~ 1~~1/1 Ill f i 1 - 1 1 1 1 11.1 - \\ 1 ROOF BEL DW Il - 1 1 1 - 1 1- r-- 1 - 1 1 ...9/1 ' 4.1,\1 - - \34-pittvt \\ 111 .. Â£ ..7 .... ~1 1 1 1~41-3 ==1, 11 1 1777 0 0 DINING) 41'. . Â· CI 0 2- 4 1 L 1 51 .0 , ..blvi No . ] 1 ~ MITC.-ELL Knall N - W. 1 \ ./ - --Â©01113 ~ : 1 RESIDENCE ~.1 1 1-fl-4-1 4-44--. ~--t--1--t4 17+I -Â·# LI i '1 'DECK i % ~ Aspen Alps South Road . ~I. vi l f.]_I-lutt-3[-T-+--t -iÂ©Â·i Z \*1 El-~ am~4Â©Off- 3--'i-:: i#7:-t )A ,/\ ASPEN, COLORADO Ir I-Il 111 1.1.1 -C[Ul -1 C= ,.' <1 1 6 :/ GARYTABASINSKE lit ,~-R+14667(-i_-pl 1 ARCHITECT, AIA tog DOE RUN ROAD LOPEZ IS[AND, WA 98,6, M ' = ~ PHONE (360) 468-4088 fax {360) 468-2921 eman etabarcharockisiand com 1 REVISED FLOOR PLANS LIVING LEVEL PLAN SCALE: 1/8" = 1-0,1 Revisions: Approved: Drawn by: Dam. Oct 01 1999 0 Project No. 98/2 of 7 Sheets 0 0 32.A. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission 11* THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director,J413 OPPU FROM: Christopher Bendon, Planner 1*0 ./Ch<gp 450/4 RE: Mitchel Residence, 550 Aspen Alps Road - Public Hearing 4,0 8040 Greenline Review NAR+ Front, Side, and Rear Yard Variances Residential Design Waiver for Garage Placement , A , Nir DATE: October 19, 1999 SUMMARY: The applicant, Cynthia and George Mitchell represented by Alan Richman, have applied for 8040 Greenline Review, variances to the dimensional requirements of the Conservation Zone District, and waiver of the garage placement requirement of the Residential Design Standards. The property, 550 Aspen Alps Road, is currently developed with a single-family residence. The Commission reviewed this application on August 3, 1999, and continued the public hearing after several suggestions were made to the applicant' s design team. The design has been modified based on those comments to what staff believes is a very reasonable plan. Drawings comparing the previous plan to the current plan have been provided. These are labled as "August 3" and "October 11." Further analysis regarding site drainage has been provided. In addition, the project Architect has prepared a site model representing the current proposal within the surrounding context. Staff has summarized the amendments requested by the Commission and the applicant's response to each issue under the heading "Issues from Previous Meeting." A memorandum from Alan Richman also details the changes that have been made to the application. Staff recommends approval of the 8040 Greenline Review, variances to the Conservation Zone District dimensional requirements, and waiver of the garage placement standard, with conditions. ISSUES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING: Model. The limitations of two-dimensional drawings hinder the complete understanding of this proposal. Many o f the facades "step-back" although it is difficult to understand from the drawings exactly what effect this may have on the 1 .. final product, especially from the oblique perspectives from which this site is viewed. The applicant has prepared a model of the site within its surrounding context. This model clarifies many of questions posed by staff and the Commission and clearly demonstrates the complicated massing and roof forms of the project. In addition, the applicant has taken pictures of the site from several locations in town to demonstrate the effects of the proposed development upon the natural aesthetic of the mountainside. Structural Capacity. Many of the Commission' s concerns related to possible slope creep and problems experienced by adjacent property owners. Alan Richman' s letter and attached report from HP Geotech provides a response to these concerns as raised by the Commission and the neighboring Aspen Alps. Additional structural analysis of the existing house concluded that the foundation cracks are most likely due to lateral earth loading and differential settlement rather than slope creep. This is important in that it concludes that the flaws of the existing house are due to poor construction techniques, which are easily controllable, rather than external movement of the mountainside, which is difficult to successfully manage. Drainage. The Commission and the neighbors expressed concerns about the drainage of the parcel considering the drainage patterns of Aspen Mountain. Specifically, the neighboring, and downhill property owners, expressed concerns about the use of drywells to accommodate drainage. Jay Hammond, P.E., the applicant's Engineer, has completely redesigned the drainage plan for this house. This revision accommodates the site drainage by use of a containment tank and metered pump system to an existing catch basin on Aspen Mountain. This system, as reported by Jay Hammond, will introduce a "nearly imperceptible" impact on the current drainage on Aspen Mountain. Staff considers this amendment far superior to the previous plan. Drywells are used quite often thought town but some have questioned possible adverse impacts to ground stability problems in the area. It is not clear whether or not the ground stability problems experienced by the Aspen Alps are associated with surface run-off condition or would be negatively impacted by the use of drywells. What can be clearly understood, however, is that the current drainage situation, which provides no accommodation of site run-off, will be vastly improved with this redevelopment. House Size. The Commission raised some concerns about the mass and volume (FAR) of the proposed structure. It is important to note that the project does not require an FAR variance, but that the Commission, in considering both the setback variances and the criteria of 8040, expressed a desire for the house to closer conform to the single family house provisions of the surrounding zone districts. 2 .. In response, the applicant has reduced most of the dimensions of the house. The new proposal has a smaller footprint, reduced fagade widths, reduced setbacks, and an FAR of approximately 791 square feet less. 8040 Greenline. The visual impact of the new proposal The 8040 Greenline standards primarily concentrate on the effects of site grading, the ability for the property to be served with utilities and fire protection, and the visual effects of the resulting development on the mountain backdrop of the City. Staff believes these standards have been met with this proposal and the suggested conditions of approval. Residential Design. The appeal of the Residential Design Standards for the placement of the garage responds to the requirement of the garage being recessed behind the front fagade of the house by 10 feet. Staff supports the waiver as there is no other practical alternative for placing the garage on-site without significant grading or encroachment into the dripline of a fairly significant tree. Fariances. It is important to note that any house on this lot will require variances. The dimensional requirements of the Conservation Zone District prohibit a reasonable use of the land as the setbacks almost overlap and leave literally no location for development to occur. The Conservation Zone District has a minimum lot size of 10 acres. The setbacks (refer to Exhibit "C'Â°) are entirely appropriate for these large parcel but have little relevance on a 10,000 square foot non-conforming lot, such as the Mitchell's. This is a classic case of a justified variance and staff believes this circumstance renders the property useless and necessitates a variance. The question the Commission had at the previous meeting primarily dealt with the extent to which a reasonable use of the property would be achieved. The Commission primary concern was that the variances being requested were possibly beyond what may be necessary for a reasonable use of the property. The applicant has responded to these concerns by reducing the coverage of the structure on the parcel and reducing the requested setback variances. This also has the effect of reducing the overall size of the house, (See House Size, above.) The reduction is site coverage will eliminate the need to remove several of the small aspen trees on the eastern portion of the lot. These trees, while not of legal size for replacement, do contribute to the visual aesthetic of the area and help soften the view from Aspen Alps Road. Staff is appreciative of this tree protection and feels that it benefits the project more than any other modification made. APPLICANT: Cynthia and George Mitchell. Represented by Alan Richman, AICP. LOCATION: 550 Aspen Alps Road. Between Aspen Alps buildings 500 and 700. 3 .. ZONING: Conservation (C). LOT SIZE: 10,161 square feet. LOT AREA (FOR PURPOSES OF FAR CALCULATION): The application was submitted prior to the addition of a maximum fioor area for the Conservation Zone District. Therefore, a lot area analysis has not been performed. CURRENT & PROPOSED LAND USE: Single-Family house. PREVIOUS ACTION: The Commission has not previously considered this application. REVIEW PROCEDURE: 8040 Greenline Review. With a recommendation from the Planning Director, the Commission may approve, approve with conditions, or deny a proposed development within an Environmentally Sensitive Area. Zoning Variance. With a recommendation from the Planning Director, the Commission may approve, approve with conditions, or deny a variance application at a public hearing. Residential Design Appeal. With a recommendation from the Planning Director, the Commission may approve, approve with conditions, or deny a waiver application at a public hearing. STAFF COMMENTS: This application was received prior to the consideration by P&Z of the code amendment to apply a maximum Floor Area to the Conservation Zone District. The applicant has also relied upon the Conservation Zone District provisions and several conversations with staff, prior to the amendment, in planning and designing this house. This application is not subject to the recent code amendment to the Conservation Zone District. This is the last application reviewed under the previous zoning. Conversely, this is the first application under the newly adopted land use code provision which allows the consolidation of zoning variances for applications with the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Commission may now act as the Board of Adjustment in granting zoning variances concurrent with regular planning reviews. The criteria for granting a variance are more strict than the planning criteria the Commission generally uses. These criteria are included in Exhibit "A" and staff will review each of these criteria during the hearing. 4 .. Review criteria and Staff Findings have been included as Exhibit "A." Agency referral comments have been included as Exhibit "B." A zoning analysis has been provided as Exhibit "C." The application addendum packet has been inlcuded as Exhibit "D." (Please refer to the original application.) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the 8040 Greenline Review, Variances to the Conservation Zone District dimensional requirements, and waiver of the garage setback requirement of the Residential Design Standards for the Mitchell Residence, 550 Aspen Alps Road, with the following conditions: 1. The building permit plans shall be in accordance with all requirements of the Conservation Zone District and Residential Design Standards, both in effect on June 14,1999, with the following exceptions: a. Setback requirements for the parcel shall be: front = 14.5 feet; rear (west) = 10 feet; north side = 10 feet, south side = 11 feet. b. The garage setback requirement of the Residential Design Standards shall not apply. 2. The building permit application shall include: a. A permit from the Environmental Health Department for any certified woodstoves or gas log fireplaces (coal- & woodburning fireplaces are not allowed) and an approved fugitive dust control plan. b. A tree removal permit from the City Parks Department for the removal or relocation of trees as per Section 13.20.020 ofthe Code. c. A water tap permit for a tap sized for the required fire suppression system and for the domestic use. The structure shall include a fire suppression system approved by the Fire Marshall. A pump system may be required by the Fire Marshall to accommodate the required pressure for the fire suppression systern. d. A tap permit from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. Sources of clear water may not be directed to the sanitary sewer. e. Written approval from the Aspen Ski Company for the construction and maintenance of the drainage facility proposed in the amended application shall be provided. Any required easements shall be recorded and reflected on the building permit set. 3. The building permit plans shall include: a. Construction details related to the foundation design, foundation walls and retaining walls, floor slabs, underdrain systems, site grading, soil stabolization plan, and surface drainage plan signed and stamped by an Engineer registered in Colorado. This plan must accommodate drainage on-site both during and 5 .. after construction and shall utilize an on-site containment basin and delayed pump system to the catch basin on Aspen Mountain. A 2 year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements. b. An environmental protection plan detailing the limits of disturbance on the parcel and construction access. The limits of disturbance shall be fenced prior to issuance of a building permit and shall remain in place until a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. 4. The applicant shall contain all construction activity, including staging and contractor parking, on-site unless permission is granted by the Aspen Alps Association for use of the parking area east o f the Mitchell property. Adequate width for safe passage along Aspen Alps Road shall be maintained at all times. 5. If evidence of mining activity is discovered during excavation o f the property, all construction activity shall cease until a mitigation plan is approved by the City Engineer. 6. Highly reflective materials shall not be used for the roof material. 7. All utility meters and any new utility pedestals or transformers must be installed on the applicant's property and not in any public right-of-way. Easements must be provided for pedestals. All utility locations and easements must be delineated on the site improvement survey. Meter locations must be accessible for reading and may not be obstructed. 8. These conditions of approval shall be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit set and all other drawing sets used for construction. The primary contractor shall be provided with a copy of this Resolution and shall submit a letter as part of the building permit application stating that the conditions of approval have been read and understood. 9. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. The applicant shall record this Planning and Zoning Resolution with the County Clerk and Recorder. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the 8040 Greenline Review, Variances to the Conservation Zone District dimensional requirements, and waiver of the garage setback requirement of the Residential Design Standards for the Mitchell Residence, 550 Aspen Alps Road, with the conditions recommended in the Community Development Memorandum dated Augb~ 3,1999. \ %/1 ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Comments Exhibit B -- Referral Agency Comments Exhibit C -- Zoning Analysis Exhibit D -- Application Addendum Packet 6 .. Exhibit A STAFF COMMENTS: 8040 Greenline Review 26.435.030(C) 8040 Greenti}ie Review Standards. No development shall be permitted at, above, or one hundred fifty (150) feet below the 8040 greenline unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below: 1. 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. Staff finding: The applicant has prepared two engineering reports on this property analyzing the geologic conditions and the subsoil conditions. The geological study reported no rockfall or avalanche hazards but did make certain findings regarding drainage, potential mining activity, and construction techniques for soil instability, earthflow creep, and earthquake potential. The geologic report sited the need to manage drainage from Spar Gulch. Upon closer review, the applicant's engineer found the Mitchell site to not be in an area impacted by the Spar drainage, even assuming a worst case scenario. This is primarily due to the proximity to the subject property and the relatively confined lower portion of Spar Gulch. Staff concurs that the Mitchell property is not threatened by the Spar Drainage. With respect to mine tailings, the engineering report identifies a mine shaft approximately 150 feet south west of the property with the shallowest mining activity occurring approximately 400 feet from the surface. It is not expected the applicant will discover any mining activity during construction. Staff has suggested a condition of approval for the applicant to mitigate mining activity if discovered during construction. The geologic report identifies the possibility of slope instability but concludes the improvements proposed will mitigate this potential. With respect to subsoil conditions, the recommendations of the geologic report have been incorporated into the application. The original geologic report suggests several construction techniques to address this movement which should be part of the building permit. A further study confirmed the original and also concluded there structural crack n the existing foundation are not likely due to earth creep. Staff has suggested the building permit set include these engineering considerations and be signed by a registered P.E. Staff Comments page 1 .. Staff does not suggest any special considerations be made for possible earthquakes other than the standards of the U.B.C. 2. 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. Staff finding: The existing development has no drainage improvements. Currently the site sheet flows towards the Aspen Alps Road which conveys the water on the surface. The applicant has amended the drainage proposal from a dry well system to a containment system with a delayed pump to the catch basin on Aspen Mountain. This addressed concerns raised by the neighboring Aspen Alps about impacting subsurface conditions and appears to be a far simpler and more effective solution. Staff has included a condition requiring approval from the Aspen Ski Company be inclÂ·uded with the building permit. 3. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the air quality in the city. Staff finding: The replacement of the single-family home with another single-family home should have no noticeable effect on the City's air quality. In fact, there may be an overall improvement of the City's air quality with the replacement of two wood burning fireplaces with cleaner devices allowed by the Environmental Health Department. 4. 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. Staff finding: The parcel is significantly smaller than allowed for the zone district and is already developed with a residence. There is essentially no opportunity and no benefit to cluster or restrict the development to one portion of the property. The single-family use is possible the only reasonable land use appropriate and compatible with the conditions of the site. The design and location of the proposed development replaces the existing development and staff believes this to be appropriate. 5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land features. Staff finding: The final grading of the property will be very minimal. The applicant has stepped the development into the site rather than proposing to re-grade the site significantly. The applicant has proposed removal of three (3) trees which require replacement. Staff coneurs with the applicants tree replacement strategy. Staff has included a condition regarding protection of the natural vegetation (much of which is below the replacement code caliper) during construction. Staff Comments page 2 .. The revised application reduces the need to remove trees along the eastern portion of the lot. While these trees are not required to be replaced due to their relatively small size, they are important to protect. Staff is appreciative of the applicant's amendments in this area as the preservation of these small Aspens will benefit the project. The applicant's proposed access and garage location is appropriate for this site. Staff is appreciative of the applicant' s understanding o f the site constraints by not proposing a new driveway cut to access a garage further into the property. 6. 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. Staff finding: The site is too small to accomplish clustering or restrict development to a portion of the site. The applicant is not proposing any new roads or significant driveway cuts into the slope. Staff agrees with the applicant' s desire to replace the existing retaining walls as they may be reaching the end of their usefulness. The proposed structure will not impact the scenic resource of the mountain more than the existing structure. The site is nearly impossible to see from town and is certainly subordinate to the adjacent Aspen Alps buildings. The site is very visible from the Gondola and from the upper portions of the Little Nell ski run. Staff expressed a concern regarding the use of highly reflective roof materials. The applicant is contemplating a metal roof with muted colors. Staff has included a condition prohibiting highly reflective roof materials 7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open character of the mountain. Stafffinding: The proposed building is lower than the existing building and is one story at the highest point ofthe property. The proposed structure is also broken down into smaller forms, reducing the appearance of mass and bulk. The revised application reduces the bulk and mass of the new house, addressing some primary concerns of the Commission. 8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed development. Staff finding: The exist sufficient utilities to serve this development. However, due to the gross square footage of the house the Fire Marshall will require a fire suppression system be installed. The increased demands for this system combined with the reduced water pressure due to the elevation requires an upgrade to the service line and may require a pump system be installed. Staff has included these as conditions of approval. Staff Comments page 3 .. 9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development, and said roads can be properly maintained. 10. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment. Staff finding: The access to the parcel is sufficient and well maintained by the Aspen Alps Association (private road). The Fire Marshall did not request any special improvements to the access. 11. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan: Parks/Recreation/Trails Plan are implemented in the proposed development, to the greatest extent practical. Staff finding: There are no proposed trails on or near this parcel. STAFF COMMENTS: Dimensional Variations to Conservation Zone District 26.314.040 Standards applicable to variances. In order to authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements of Title 26, the appropriate decision making body shall make a finding that the following three (3) circumstances exist: 1. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the Aspen Area Community Plan and this Title; Staff finding: There is no specific reference to this property in the AACP. The parcel is not identified for public trails, open space, or for any land use different from its current use. Staff believes the proposed development is generally consistent with the AACP. The Interim Citizen Housing Plan also does not specifically identify this parcel. Although the Citizen Plan is more geared towards affordable housing, the plan does support development within the metro area, in close proximity to employment and activity centers, within existing utility provisions, where it does not contribute to urban sprawl, and in a manner compatible with it's neighborhood. Staff believes these criteria are accomplished with this proposed development. The purpose of the Land Use Code (Title) is to ensure the health, safety, and general well being of the citizenry through clear, comprehensive, and consistent regulations on the use of land. The development and use of land should not unduly burden the historic, Staff Comments page 4 .. architectural, aesthetic, and natural environmental character of the City, it' s economic and infrastructure capabilities, or the rights and reasonable expectations of property owners. Staff believes this purpose is maintained with the variance in combination with associated planning reviews and general requirements of the Municipal Code related to the development and use of land. 2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure; and, Staff finding: Staff believes this variance to be the minimum variance to support a reasonable use o f the parcel. In discussing the site with the applicant, several scenarios were contemplated. Rezoning the parcel to the LTR Zone District would create a non-conforming use as a single-family home is only allowed on a lot of exactly 6,000 square feet in the LTR Zone District, This also restricted the use of the property in a manner undesirable to the owner who wishes to retain the single-family home use. Furthermore, the topography of the site and its access do not readily support lodge or multi-family development - the two most common land uses in the Lodge/Tourist Residential Zone District. This logic also eliminated the possibility of rezoning the property to the RMF Zone District - a district in close proximity to the property. Rezoning the property to the R-15 Zone District would also create a non-conformity as the parcel is approximately 10,000 square feet in size - only 2/3 the size necessary for the zone. Lastly, rezoning to the R-6 Zone District would create a slight anomaly on the zoning map being slightly removed from other pareels zoned R-6. Considering the site's constraints, staff advised the applicant to propose dimensional requirements for the site considering the dimensional requirements and development patterns of the surrounding parcels. While the proposed setback requirements do not specifically coincide with either the LTR or R-15 Zones, the applicant meets these regulations in all but aspect - the front yard setback. This setback, however, will be greater with the new house than with the existing house. Staff believes the proposed structure and dimensional requirements represent a reasonable use of the parcel. 3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district, and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the board shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply: Staff Comments page 5 .. a. There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant; or b. Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by the Aspen Area Community Plan and the terms o f this Title to other parcels, buildings, or structures, in the same zone district. Stafffinding: Staff believes both of the conditions exist and that literal interpretation of the zoning would deprive the land owner of a reasonable use of the property and cause an undue hardship. The Conservation Zone District setback requirements provide merely a few square feet for building. This is created by the relatively large setback requirements applicable to all properties in the zone district. On parcels meeting the minimum size for the zone district, 10 acres, these large setback requirements are appropriate and do not render the property un-usable. On this small parcel, however, the setbacks are unreasonable if the land owner wishes to develop the property. The front yard setback of 100 feet combined with the rear yard setback of 30 feet render approximately 1 foot of buildable space on the 131 foot deep parcel. Staff believes there exists a special circumstance unique to this parcel necessitating a variance. Granting the variance will not grant a special privilege denied by the AACP or by the land use code to other parcels in the same zone district. As mentioned above, the AACP does not specifically address this parcel but does not oppose this type of development in this location. The land use code specifically allows for the development of a single- family residence on non-conforming lots. The variance would not confer any additional rights to this property than to other properties in the Conservation Zone District. In fact, at the time of this application the district did not restrict Floor Area. It is conceivable, especially in this market, that a house of 15,000 or 20,000 square feet would be common place on a conforming 10 acre lot in the Conservation zone. The reduction in setback requirements for this property to develop a house of less than 5,000 of Floor Area does not then represent an additional right or special provision. STAFF COMMENTS: Residential Design GARAGE: The applicant's proposed development is not in compliance with the following Residential Design Standard: All portions of a garage, carport, or storage area parallel to the street shall be recessed behind the front facade a minimum often (10) feet. Staff Comments page 6 .. In response to the review criteria for a DRAC variance, Staff makes the following findings: a) in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP; or, Staff Finding: The proposed variance is not in greater compliance with the goals of the Community Plan. b) a more effective method of addressing standard in question; or, Staff Finding: The design is more effective than the standard. The standard would result in either the removal of a significant tree or the re-grading of the site to accommodate a driveway further onto the property. The driveway concept would be too severe of a road cut and might be physically impossible. c) clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Staff Finding: This parcel is extremely steep and providing a garage or merely parking in any other location on-site would require significant site grading. "Pushing" the garage back, even five feet, would require the removal of a large Spruce which the applicant and the Parks Department would like to preserve. Staff believes these represent site constraints necessitating the garage placement waiver. Staff Comments page 7 .. MEMORANDUM To: Chris Bendon, Planner Thru: Nick Adeh, City Engineer han RECEIVED i - 91 Froni: Chuck Roth, Proj ect Engineer (2>R- JUL 0 1 1999 ASPEN/PITKIN Date: July 2, 1999 COMMUNiTY DEp 2-0/MENT Re: Mitchell 8040 Greenline Review The Development Review Committee has reviewed the above referenced application at their June 30,1999 meeting, and we have the following comments: General - (1) These comments are based on the fact that we believe that the submitted site plan is accurate, that it shows all site features, and that it is feasible. The wording must be carried forward exactly as written unless prior consent is received from the Engineering Department. This is to halt complaints related to approvals tied to "issuance of building permit." (2) If there are any encroachments into the public right-of-way, the encroachment must either be removed or be subject to current encroachment license requirements. 1. Site Drainage - The application included drainage design meeting runoff design standards ofthe Land Use Code at Sec. 26.88.040.C.4.f. The building permit drawings need to include a drainage mitigation plan (24"x36" size plan sheet or on the lot grading plan), as well as a temporary sediment control and containment plan for the construction phase. These must be signed and stamped by an engineer registered in the State of Colorado. 2. Water Department - The Water Director has noted that a new water tap will be required in order to meet flow requirements for sprinklering the residence and that water pressure may need to be augmented. 3. Other - The property is not located next to a public right-of-way and therefore is not subject to many of the usual conditions of approval. The property is served by a 20' wide access and utility easement. The applicant is advised that portions of the pavement are not contained in the easement area and are located on the applicant's property without the benefit of an easement. DRC Attendees Staff: Chris Bendon, Chuck Roth Applicant's Representative: Alan Richman 99M99 Phil Overeynder, 12:47 PM 7/8/99 -, Re: Mitchell 8040 Greenline X-Sender: philo@water Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 12:47:17 -0600 To: Chuck Roth <chuckr@ci.aspen.co.us> From: Phil Overeynder <philo@ci.aspen.co.us> 4, 4-Re> Subject: Re: Mitchell 8040 Greenline Cc: chrisb@ci.aspen.co.us Chuck, Yes, if they are planning a fire sprinkler system they will require an upgraded water service line. Also since they are at the very highest portion of our gravity served zone, static water pressure at the building site Will be in the range of 35-45 psi and could be marginal for some sprinkler system applications. The sprinkler system designer should perform a test of the pressure at that location in order to properly accomodate the water pressure conditions at the site. This could be checked ahead of the pressure reducing valve (if one is installed) at the water service line entrance to the existing home. Phil At 10:52 AM 7/8/99 -0500, you wrote: >Phil - FYI - Chuck > >>X-Sender: chrisb@comdev >>Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 14:39:13 -0600 >>To: Chuck Roth <chuckr@ci.aspen.co.us> >>From: Chris Bendon <chrisb@ci.aspen.co.us> >>Subject: Re: Mitchell 8040 Greenline >> >>They are planning on a sprinkler system. The question at DRC was whether or >>not they will need to upgrade their water system to handle a sprinkler >>system. Also, whether a special pump device is necessary due to the elevation. >>Chris. >> >> >>At 08:49 AM 7/7/99 -0500, you wrote: >>>Did I leave you a draft memo? >>> >>>I got an e-mail from Phil about if they are sprinklering, they will Printed for Chris Bendon <chrisb@ci.aspen.co.us> 1 .. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Sy Kelly * Cl iairman John Keleher Paul Smith * Treas Frank Lousliin Michael Kelly * Secy Bruce Matherly, Mgr June 25, 1999 RECEIVED Chris Bendon JUN 2 9 1999 Community Development ASPEN / PITKIN 130 S. Galena St. ~flUM| iNIT-v DF\/Fl OPMFNT Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Mitchel 8040 Greenline Review Dear Chris The residential unit at 550 Aspen Alps Road is connected to the Aspen Alp's private collection system. We are not able to estimate the capacity ofthe Aspen Alp's system but we can say that we do currently have sufficient downstream collection and treatment capacity. Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications which are on file at the District office. A tap permit must be completed once detailed plans are available. The connection fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Please call ifyou have any questions Sincerely, 2--7 Bruce Matherly District Manager 565 N. Mill St.,Asii en, CO 81611 / (970)925-3601 / FAX (970) 925-2537 .. Exhibit C Mitchell 8040 Zoning Analysis: Existing Proposed R-15 Zone LTR Zone Conservation Zone Front Yard 14 14.5 25 10 100 Side Yards 32 S=11, 10 5 30 N==10 Rear Yard 2 10 10 10 30 All measurements in feet Front Yard: The existing building exists approximately 14 feet from the front lot line. The proposed garage would be approximately 18.5 feet from the front lot line while the porch would be approximately 14.5 from the property line at it closest point. Retaining Walls: The site is steeply sloped and significant retaining walls have been developed to mitigate the road cut. The timber construction is proposed to be replaced with concrete retaining walls. The land use code allows for development not exceeding 30 inches in height above natural grade within the setbacks. The code also allows for fences and berms up to 6 feet in height. The terrain has been substantially modified to accommodate the road developed some time ago. Taking this into account, staff is assuming the present grade to be the natural grade for the purpose of measuring the developments within setbacks. Moreover, it would be unreasonable, and possibly unsafe, to permanently remove these retaining structures. The new retaining wall is proposed in approximately the same location as the existing wall. Staff recommends the resolution acknowledge the retaining walls and their proposed replacement. At.,0 1221 /7- PLe sewea At 86/8,Â¢*0.. 6~:.da f/6/2 PUe/7.x (970) 920-7/25 ~~) 1- _Air r~ation 116 October 5, 1999 054(44 Mr. Chris Bendon, Senior Planner TAcket., Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: MITCHELL 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW AND VARIANCES Dear Chris, On August 3, 1999, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider an application for 8040 Greenline Review and Variances for the re-development of the Mitchell residence at 550 Aspen Alps Road. Following a thorough discussion of the matter, the Commission provided the applicant with comments on the application and continued the hearing to October 19, 1999. In response to the comments provided by the Commission, the applicant is submitting the following additional information. 1. A revised set of drawings of the proposed development is being submitted. The architect has made significant revisions to the site plan, building elevations, and floor plans for the proposed residence, including the following: â€¢ The revised site plan illustrates that the building footprint has been reduced in size. The dimensions of most of the forms within the building have been reduced and as a result, some of the proposed setbacks have increased. The front yard setback will be 14.5' (the Planning Office previously measured it to be 12'), and the side yard setback will be 11' (the Planning Office previously measured it to be 10'). The reduction in the size of the deck that faces to the east will allow several additional existing trees to be saved. . The elevations also illustrate how the size of the house has been reduced from that previously presented to the Commission. The original and the revised north and south elevations have been shown side-by-side, to provide a "before and after" comparison of the two designs. They illustrate that the width of the house as viewed from these directions has been reduced. The elevations also show the house will appear to sit lower into the hillside as viewed from the east. .. Mr. Chris Bendon October 5, 1999 Page Two â€¢ The proposed floor area of the structure has been reduced by more than 15% from the original design. The proposed floor area of the revised design is 4,277 square feet, a reduction of 791 square feet from the original design. â€¢ A model has been produced demonstrating the massing and design of the proposed house as compared to the other buildings that surround this property. This model will be presented at the Commission's meeting, and will show how much smaller this house is than the surrounding buildings, how the building has been stepped into the hillside, how its curved roof form replicates the form of the mountain, and how the existing and proposed trees on the site will help to screen the house from view from the ski slope. â€¢ A series of photographs have also been taken, looking up at the property from locations all around the downtown area. The photos show that this property is simply not visible from virtually any location in the core. For example, the house is not visible from in front of the Wheeler Opera House, from the corner of Hyman and Galena, from the corner of Hyman and Hunter, and from the corner of Durant and Hunter. The only places we could even see the existing house were from the intersection of Hunter with Cooper and from the very uphill part of the gondola plaza. At these locations the house can be seen, although it is partially screened by trees. Because the Aspen Alps 700 Building is directly behind the house, the existing house does not impose any building mass upon open character of Aspen Mountain, a situation that will continue to be true for the proposed house. 2. Attached to this letter is a letter written by Steven Pawlak, P.E. of Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. In this letter, Mr. Pawlak reports on the results of a site visit he conducted with Bob Patillo, P.E. of Patillo Associates, Inc., Structural Engineers. This site visit was conducted to assess the condition of the existing building to determine if slope creep movements had damaged the structure, and was a follow-up to their prior geologic site assessment and subsoil study of the property. The site visit was completed in response to a letter submitted by Mr. Allen G. Thurman, Ph.D., consultant for the Aspen Alps. In that letter, Dr. Thurman stated that the applicant should conduct additional analysis to determine whether the Mitchell residence has been significantly damaged by slope creep. Mr. Pawlak's letter states that "The overall building appears to be in a relatively good condition from a foundation standpoint. Signs of building distress were identified at each level of the building that indicate relatively minor foundation movements...Based on our observation, the movements appear quite old and inactive or occurring at a very slow rate." .. Mr. Chris Bendon October 5, 1999 Page Three Mr. Pawlak concludes that "Based on our observations and the previous exploration at the site, the building movement and distress appears to be related to lateral earth loading and possibly some differential settlement rather than long term slope creep." Mr. Pawlak then goes on to recommend that the project can proceed as planned, but with additional consideration given to slope stability. He identifies several measures that should be taken during design and construction to ensure the safety of the structure, all of which are acceptable to the applicant. Among these measures, we would point out the value of evaluating the existing foundation during the demolition process, and making any modifications necessary to the design of the new structure to address the conditions that have adversely affected the existing foundation. 3. Also attached to this letter is a letter from Jay Hammond, P.E., of Schmueser Gordon Meyer, written to Mr. Steve Sewell, the manager of Aspen Mountain for the Aspen Skiing Company. This letter is a follow-up to a meeting Mr. Hammond held with Mr. Sewell to discuss the proposed drainage system for the Mitchell house. You may recall that in the original application for the Mitchell house, we suggested that drywells could be used for on-site detention of drainage. Dr. Thurman objected strenuously to this solution and stated that the applicant must find an alternate way to handle surface runoff. Mr. Hammond presented the applicant's proposed alternative to Mr. Sewell at their meeting. It would replace the proposed drywells with an enclosed tank structure sized to contain a large, low-frequency runoff event. Following containment, runoff would be pumped via a pipe to the existing catch basin on Lower Aspen Mountain Road. This pumping would occur approximately 30 minutes after the storm peak has passed, to ensure that it does not add to the peak flows entering the basin. Mr. Hammond has determined that the maximum flow from the Mitchell site would be about 0.15 cfs, as compared to a fiow from the tributary watershed of about 9.0 cfs. He concludes, therefore, that "The drainage flows associated with the Mitchell residence replacement would represent a very minor additional impact to the storm drainage system on the Little Nell slope. I am also confident that we can configure a disposal system to delay the discharge until well after the storm peak has passed the catch basin inlet and minimize the flow rate in a manner that would render the impact nearly imperceptible." In conclusion, we believe that with these revisions, the applicant's proposal to re-develop this property complies with the applicable City standards for 8040 Greenline Review and for setback variances. As you noted in your original memo on this application, the 8040 Greenline standards focus on the effects of site grading, the ability of the property to be served with utilities and fire protection, and visual impacts on the City's mountain backdrop. .. Mr. Chris Bendon October 5, 1999 Page Four Staff concluded that the original proposal met these standards, and we believe the additional materials we have submitted bring the proposal further into compliance with these standards. We have also demonstrated the need for a variance for this property. The combined front yard (100') and rear yard (30') setbacks of the Conservation Zone District are greater in width than virtually any portion of the existing parcel and leave no area that could be developed. The fact that this is an oddly shaped 1/4 acre parcel in a zone that has a minimum lot size of 10 acres is a special circumstance that also necessitates the variance. To ensure this is a minimum variance, the applicant has limited the extent of the footprint, so it will comply with the setback standards of the surrounding L/TR and R-15 zones. The proposal complies with all of the setbacks of the L/TR zone district, and with the side and rear yard setbacks of the R-15 zone district. It falls slightly short on the front yard setback of the R-15 zone, due to the very odd shape of the lot. However, it is important to note that the front yard setback has been increased from the existing situation by moving the stairs and retaining wall back from where they are currently closest to the road. In addition, the rear yard setback along the Little Nell slope has been increased from 2' to 10'. I believe these materials respond to the concerns raised by the Commission at the meeting in August. We look forward to meeting with the Commission later this month to review these revisions with them. Please let me know if there is anything else you require to complete your review of this project. Very truly yours, ALAN RICHMAN PLANNING SERVICES %1*vi -2-21 Alan Richman, AICP HP Hei~ Getitechnical. Inc. 5020 lountv Road 154 Ccetech (.lenwood Springs. Colorado X1601 Phone: 970-945-7988 Fax: 970-945-8454 September 20, 1999 hpgeo@hpaeotech.com Cynthia Mitchell c/o Gary Tabasinske Architects, AIA Attn: Gary Tabasinske 303 Doe Road Lopez Island, Washington 98261 Job No. 198 609 Subject: Review of Mitchell Residence Conditions, 550 Aspen Alps (South) Road, Aspen, Colorado. Dear Ms. Mitchell: As requested by Alan Richman, a review of the building conditions was made on September 10, 1999 with Mr. Richman and Bob Patti[10. The purpose of our review was to assess if there have been slope creep movements based on the building conditions. We previously conducted a subsoil study for foundation design and a geologic assessment at the site and presented our findings in reports dated November 30, 1998 and January 26,1999, Job No 198 609. The residence is a four level wood frame structure with a concrete wall and spread footing foundation that steps up the hillside. The parking and road grade is about one level below the lowest building level. Based on our inspection, the effective cut slope at [he back wall of each level is on [he order of 0.6 horizontal to 1 vertical. The floors a[ each level appear to be par[ly slab-on-grade and structural behind each of the uphill foundation walls. A circular staircase is attached to the west side of the building and connects the lower to the third level. A central fireplace, which appears to be masonry', goes from top to bottom of the structure. The top and bottom floor levels daylight to the respective ground surface of the hillside. No indications of water seepage from underground were observed although a smali crawlspace access from the mechanical room at the bottom level has a partially undermined footing which could have been from seasonal seepage. The overall building appears to be in relatively good condition from a foundation viewpoint. Signs of building distress were identified at each level of the building that indicate relatively minor foundation movements. The diSIreSS typically consists of interior door racking in the north-south direction, slight tilting of typically east-wesI walls and occasional cracks and separations in the drywall and floor tile. The movement and distress appears typical of foundation wall rotation due to lateral earth loading. The rotation in the laundry chuce between the bottom and third level was measured to be about 1 3/8 inch in 13 feet or about 0.9% of the vertical height. This magnitude of rotation is within the typical range expected by cantilever or lightly restrained walls that can ro[a[e. Based on our observation, the movements appear quiTe old and inactive or occurring at a very slow rate. .. Cynthia Mitchell September 20, 1999 Page 2 Based on our observations and the previous exploration at the site. the building movement and distress appears to be related to lateral earth loading and possibly some differential settlement rather than long term slope creep. We would expect the impacts of slope creep movements on the 30 year old residence to be much more severe and variable than our observations indicate. In our opinion. the project call proceed as planned with consideration of localized and overall slope stability. For example, steps in foundation grade need to be at an effective slope of 1 horizontal to 1 vertical or flatter unless excavation shoring and bracing is provided. Additional safety factor against sliding and overturning can be achieved in the foundation by assuming a higher lateral earth loading and providing additional lateral resistance and support to the foundation walls. During demolition, the existing foundation should be evaluated for foundation configuration, bearing and lateral earth loading condirions. The new' foundation design should then be reviewed with respect to the conditions found and modified as needed. Long term monitoring of the cons[ructed foundation could be provided by internal settlement and plumb measuring points and externally by inclinometer easing that extends to well below the building foundation and into stable soils. The easing depth could be on the order of 100 feet or more. If you have any questions or require further assistance in evaluating the building conditions or additional monitoring, please le[ us know. Sincerely, HEPWORTH-PANd #,21'~QTECHNICAL, INC. tiA steven L. PAw!44 Pl f 222 Y *1 4 : 9 9/1/? 2 2 4 3 Rev. by: DE~Y-;~~ff;:w.:L Eft:~fR:9 14<J~Â»~ SLP/ro-sd CC: Alan Richman Bob Pattillo e -ENGINEERS sURVEYORS ~ 56&\ RO. Box 2155 (970) 925-6727 SCHMUESER FAX (970) 925-4157 GORDON MEYER - Aspen, CO 81612 September 30, 1999 Mr. Steve Sewell Aspen Mountain Manager ASPEN SKIING COMPANY P.O. Box 1248 Aspen, CO 81612 RE: Mitchell Residence Replacement, Drainaqe Design Dear Steve: I am writing in follow-up to our meeting of September 15th regarding a proposed drainage design for a replacement of the Mitchell residence at 550 Aspen Alps Road. As indicated in Figure 1, the Mitchell residence site is located on the east edge of the Little Nell ski slope approximately 800 feet south of Durant Avenue. (Figure 1 was initially prepared to demonstrate the site's relationship to the Spar drainage but also shows its relationship to a nostalgic footprint of the old Little Nell building.) The existing home is located within the Aspen Alps condominium complex although it is an independent property. As I indicated during our meeting on the 15~h, our original drainage recommendations for the Mitchell project were based on the City of Aspen's current Interim Standards for Drainage Design and Erosion and Sedimentation Control for Parcels Smaller than One Acre dated April 30, 1998 and issued by the City Engineering Department. Our recommendations for drainage control and on-site detention included; "..the use of two drywell structures which may be located under the garage structure or under the pavement within the property if they would not be in conflict with easements or utilities." On-site detention utilizing drywells is typical for suitable sites in the Aspen area to promote recharge of area aquifers and minimize additional runoff impacting adjacent properties as a result of new development. Our report in October of last year also noted that; "Over the years, the various Aspen Alps buildings have suffered a variety of problems related to drainage and soils conditions. My belief from prior work in this area is that the site soils are sufficiently porous that water re-introduced into the deep soils at the Mitchell site should not impact the Aspen Alps buildings to the north. I would recommend in this case, however, that a geotechnical consultant be contacted to comment on whether additional water introduction at the Mitchell property could impact the buildings that are downslope to the north of the site." Subsequent to our report regarding drainage design for the site, the Aspen Alps property 118 West 6th, Suite 200 â€¢ Glenwood Springs, Colorado â€¢ (970) 945-1004 .. September 30, 1999 Mr. Steve Sewell Page 2 retained a consulting engineer, Dr. Allen Thurman, to review the Mitchell proposal and provide comment to the Alps. Dr. Thurman shared and reinforced my noted concern over introducing additional water into the deep soils upslope of the Aspen Alps 500 building and indicated that "Some alternative way to handle surface runoff must be found!!". These discussions and concerns led to my contacting you regarding an alternative concept for handling drainage at the Mitchell property. As I noted during our meeting, we have already had some experience in the downtown Aspen area with sites situated too close to downslope structures or subject to excessively deep excavation requirements on a small site where conventional drywell disposal of runoff proves inappropriate. We have designed a couple of systems now that contain the site runoff in a fully enclosed tank and discharge on a delayed basis to the street or adjacent storm drainage facilities. Our concept for the Mitchell residence (as shown in Figure 2) would be to replace the proposed drywells with an enclosed tank structure sized to contain a large, low-frequency runoff event and pump it on a delayed time basis to the existing catch basin on the Lower Aspen Mountain Road above the cul-de-sac at the Aspen Alps 800 building. This concept, obviously, involves piping the runoff from the tank structure onto Aspen Skiing Company property and accessing the catch basin within the ski slope. During our meeting on the 15th,you indicated a willingness to consider allowing the Mitchells to pursue this option provided it could be demonstrated from the standpoint of runoff analysis that the system could be configured soas not to aggravate stormflow conditions for the existing collection system. Attached as Exhibit 1 is an excerpt of the DRAINAGE FACILITY CAPACITY ANALYSIS OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO that is currently being compiled by WRC Engineering. As I had vaguely recalled during our meeting, the Little Nell slope sub-watershed (watershed ID 11) represents a small upper segment of a watershed that lies between the larger Lower Spar and Vallejo Gulch watersheds. The area above the catch basin on the lower Aspen Mountain road represents only about 7.8 acres with a maximum flow distance of about 1,200 feet to the south tip of the sub- basin. Based on a Rational Method Calculation, the maximum runoff for this small watershed from a 100-year storm event should be about 9.0 cubic feet per second (cfs). This figure compares with a maximum flow of about 0.15 cfs off the Mitchell site. The Time of Concentration for the Little Nell slope is just under 20 minutes as indicated on Figure 3, the Overland Flow Nomograph. We would therefore propose to discharge flow from the proposed tank with a time-delay timer on the pump system set to around 30 minutes. Discharge from the tank would therefore occur after the storm peak passes the catch basin and would be limited in flow by the pumping rate, probably about 10 gallons per minute (0.02 cfs). In closing, I would suggest that the drainage flows associated with the Mitchell residence replacement would represent a very minor additional impact to the storm drainage system on the Little Nell slope. I am also confident that we can configure a disposal system to delay the discharge until well after the storm peak has passed the catch basin inlet and minimize the flow rate in a manner that would render the additional impact nearly imperceptible. SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC .. September 30, 1999 Mr. Steve Sewell Page 3 I hope you will find this proposed system acceptable and allow the Mitchell's permission to obtain an easement across Aspen Skiing Company properly to access the existing catch basin. Please feel free to contact myself or planner Alan Richman (920-1125) with regard to this request. I will also be available after October 11 th to answer any questions regarding this issue. Very Truly Yours, SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. Â«312Â« ~ay vv Hammond, P.E. Principal, Aspen Office JH/ih 98121SS1 CC: Mr. Alan Richman SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC L, li ~ ' 'll .... 1 -0Â·4~~ tiz-i.*b .- l<Ii?,~~ 0 .-/ --- (1 - -- 1,-Fl i i r- lt- 6-1~ ~.~ ~Â£--tolt_~[---le.~ a L,3 011@, 11 - -' lilli' L ..1 C '... / ..)#- , i, \ 1 ..1 0-- /1 ., Â» 01'.... f ( 1 0 U 1,..N-'\.Li E--1 0-1-j /~ ir] 'v 5-- 4 c- 5. 98 Ill 1 j >= 1-1: 17 =er /7- Cl j -- 4, L- l ....f.. .... 1 I.- 10 . C l.nt-17:- , 74 1 .... 2 0-2- /Â« 1 1/ rt 0 >7 * I ---0 .-..1... .... .... 1 I - 1 ,_L .. 1 1 r, 2-2-12=Â»-.0/ph:*-4- e. f F.f-.T. 74/1. ~ 1/0 1. -.-4 63519 91-Â«t. -, Cla. 6/1 4 7 /0.. 1/ '' 1 -2 67-21-419*09>. - -1 1, 1 1./ 1 J -4% //4 25 // .. I h. ~ - Â· 6 - 34'0--L.-1 1 11[ 2\F- 95/,44 -I-f -.A -- - -1 Y.4 '11#, 9 ' I, .72-L ....C-~~J-AA'H ' j~~ . 1. z,f<._BM (fl M- C 'u r . 5111 4 41 ,<44%1 <fs--_-A-- 2-24*434 0~-~~ ~----4- ; //00/,/C I ,~1 (- j 1,1.- JI' 4 \ 1 1- r 11 tA]f-J // 9 f 41 1 , - 7 / ( MITCHELL RESIDENCE ~.5 - , w- 4/2- tk- *... â€¢,, .ifj yja - .-ff,112 - \ h... \\\\ \:7-6331 11.- 11\1. 3 ' ...... - 'L- 91/ - 09 --- U 7 V -1 3 I ./ / 1.- 21 1/4<-#5-4-=p - 1- LOWER ASPEN ALPS ROAD 1 . -' i k # , ~ litj & /0, /- 30 -,1 1 -LJ:.14.-4 - 272&44*/1~tr- -bo / h.t/ '. <20J (ult >51#71----s=-- --3=-- 4Â« '' 1. ' 9--~1.,/,413>â‚¬Zra--- --Â«----- - GAARD MOSES RESIDENCE ASPEN CHANCE SUBDIVISION > 1 tx - 9 j ) - B -4- SPAR GULCH _ 1 1,1 #521/2 -abtl .r --0 -p#- -- --- - ,%3323*22422 - -4 - 72" CMP CULVERT CROSSING FIGURE 1 --22#E~P * Ay 17 140,31*,1=,~.-..-$-- CITY OF ASPEN 7~ --- TOPOGRAPHIC MAP Scale: 1" = 200' 24*Â»Â«14 C.I. = 2' k 1. 4931.-1 \\ \6 1 0 w n,42,7 \\ ~ 1 < 4. I AU 4 ~ ASPEN ALPS 800 BLDG. --- ' EXISTING -4 -- * 74 L.J . 7950- ~ CATCH BASIN 411 1 -\\21\\ 1 -- 1 1 X Â»40\ 9 74-6 ~~- \2<%4 \\2 - hal ... I 441\- ~ SMALL DIAMETER 4 GAE#KE< DISCHARGE LINE sOO 6 4<Â» 41Â» *8029.0 g<OG e , \ \ \ - // trrbiti>4 10: \ \C,Rk - \11\ PROPOSED 1 INTERCEPT TANK C. F Â« j i \\ I /\Ill \ 94421 - EXISTING MITCHELL RESIDENCE 1Â«Lf--M.z b. 1)41 I 44 94Â«/0 - FIGURE 2 1/1 I 29-3 i.</1...Wi...T .. DRAINAGE FACILITY CAPACITY ANALYSIS OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO PREPARED FOR The City of Aspen, Colorado PREPARED BY WRC Engineering, Inc. 1963-13 September 1998 Revised April 1999 EXHIBIT 1 1/2 Nk _1-Ar'- 1 /,0 1, , 1 7 - \ 11 ) i:,idftsr.~:w<,.v..r.*..-%6~--ti-G.:39.39 '~~4-4*-3-34~JO).2*v.L<-.3=~.~:-I:: =Â»291 L. . râ€ž < ,~t ~ ;62Â«92118---96126Â»72432jitprE. ~gp-;,<~ ~/8 ~,1~ f t I 1,01 / 41 1 'ill.i.'' A - -2_-191--â‚¬>10 /Â· 119 -1 2 WI,~id,lull tripsi,ea,- --AtttEw~.70AL"waks. 2442EyE--3.4 f czr- /1 -\U . 11 1 1, li 'E r, r < 1. /{..c:i Â·#4-)~ 4:#W<~~4''t'// t:,#,)'li~ti\11 Â»\i'' 47..LI:~1Â·.di,â€¢t~*p,,- ..:(, , j , lÂ· j ' , 4 -,-rf vr- -1. i, 1 , / ; / f\; C~. ,Wl 4/4/~ttlli~/'//'//~C 1,4/~N,NAP r -1- -- -J lÂ¢ -- --14 -- -il1 ,/ t~-O-j710=i-- 1 1 63,Â·- wel uvt,tiva<AE:3(,LE.*09#.62*k<22 ; tÂ·f -7 Â°i k : 4 Â·:Â·- :vÂ·,Â· ir- 1 / :4/,ijitt' lit Ii"i/4 â€ž , '16,/,Ji/'/ 1 / ., 'i,; / 1 \ j ,% .,4 . F//Pre... -*--0.4 1 0 it '%Â£25*~ lEI drA/ ,â€ž I l r/0~BE#Al*Sif, fLIC<<(Al):Clt,Thff.zifkt>r,-t-j ll&1]5 C '' 2--c-~ ~_ C V r .1 2 li i. ib T--Â·1-1 b 1 1 /1 f ..f - / 1.-1 - lti l \ U>'ta'11*#4 ,)â€žnâ€žâ€ži,7,101:,433,ttt,; fL614.-m - -' 4 fa: 1 Vf.. 222.1 'c v.1 ,\Â·l 3; 4 nÂ· 1 96 4 , 44*jIVIJ)*Ilt'~jjt~4/<//1/~,liti';&59(l'/f :.~ 55 '92-~-ii.smisi;,31.01; ///,f/ /(f~ 1 , /I .Â· ;-- 1~Â·-ii -i~j ~ -1 ---39 71-ji { ~{-f 1 , -1 D 9 i.ll,1 , 2 C~- 1 J ' j ,6 , 1 2 - 4 1 ' Ut..\105:{'W/67/i:Inws:'4-1,4<:505<0071% 2 -/ - 1 . . 1/ f ..</ 1 iii j jill!, ,# 46 1.'lill' /16 ' . 13-~ ,< ~>flrÂ»Lt-Of -i ~ 61. ' ))1041 \(lit~441 #4.44.5942A115 f . .,~,~ Â· c ,~ : re,c ' , J \ .1 ''24--3--(i.1.i-::u-=--rs'. 1:,~.(484,24'j?j}ill~!40'11~{~IIl;%7 j 11~11&&1~ & 1â‚¬ 7 -1 " 20-+1- - , 1 - 3*4 r. -- _f -r' .Ngll@i/119;FE,i'?4ff&' |'12|,Il// luR E L . . 1 55Â°*it>7/li~11. cll'i'~'~7<. 9 <* k-1 Â·' \ & U li ' ',i'j>~t / /,~'/l/Bri AL L j' \ * i 1: 1'2,#'-rf o ~~ik(?)U'l;. ' ~' ' -d'1,1' 1/'5 W I J -1 - 1\ nt \ 1' ' 4.'//'c"gy n / 1 11 1 2, / 1 1 'Ch' 11,/ i , A \ \ -9 .0 T. .IL .$ 4 \ 1 .'W , - .all''i/''j 41 ' 4,#. -. . 1 1/ / 1 1 \ ]44, 5 4 ., 41 \\'it 1/, 111//,11 1 1 > \\14 \ "%1 \ he , 1 . i | M Â¢04'4"1.7-5~ .rÂ·4\2231/,0,/1, '// // 4 1/ /1 . T U') -1 1 . 1 Â£ 1;.~~; % "~j'j"wIn i it \1 1,1. 11 /1, 1 4,1, thili rr'I 711- , 1 '1' , , *34'c >uac.#**wrd#*652 5 Ji ... 74919&9MtÂ£2&24$4272-36Â»,4 / / 4, jl/,3,}Ji j;.5â€ž- 04 u> rÂ·~i * -Â·1, ; I j ,-4;i-~-Fl<J- 1 '-p- 1 /7.-- 0 1). 1\ 1,1.tic, . ...70 . : \ 4 \11.- I 1// %. 1 L %41'4)4,/' * 4 r..0 L Â» / 4 4.1 1, r 1 kbr- \\ - - 1-G-2-3,=AIN"iv"dwh"ll# /"Ve - C m K )1 - 123Â£-11-32;i'%2115 3Â«0~Â»- r_(c Fjif: 14:Â£(r--) t'~~0 1: -(Â·Â·2-~ '.1 4-41 '') 4 r - .- END \ \\X) b. 1 6-2 1 . *a~-~~fzb{'29*i~~$,~~.~J~,~~~~1,1,~~~,'//,;itffity-- Â·Â·Â· 1 ,Ff-1 't 'ilt ,(611~ 1 1 -4: *,42444~~~Wh . 4 F{il,(4&4/"C, in'Ll/4/1//4//,t~-- / , 1 'l 1 25244.*%,41:jhi>9(IM *'47o-- * _-=airl, - ;;Â»-i>~ ~ \ 1 , / \ , Mi ll Y Viff De' - ., 57'' ;53 - 2 V - 1 â‚¬1 \ ft}~l~t~~$@3[%{(~~;41'44) 11.<11 1 Â· . '. l 0...L 44'414;hÂ·.<W 1 Â·-''fr<fiÂ· wi.i. I I jilr I i ' . -I * .-i 444*4~<'BUth'%4 '?' 43/ii, 044 IiÂ¢A- j 1/1-7 f . 4, U ' f / ,/2.==/,dii:;4);M~'/~7+4473Â£*11'(Nioo//1~4 11,4 . ;~~ 14-~HaV,5 c ,- & dj l L, J d TtiDO) LL' 10$*&4?**882 /4#H Ittlt'*09,) u t -1,39 7-, 9 ,+ , k tnL# . 1'. ~ 3 -1 4.-1~ UN j.~...1~1-7-h - + u_ z 3 [5 2-h 6.3 ,- ij~ ) kr---< 1 i 1 / r ffi-- Qt-- ---. j Jj;,>f8t~jj''?412;rj''l 24< 'li{51Â·- #2 : 4 H. I ,%-~lÂ·k 'w / 4. F 3 J I ! ill /1- ld.>4.W ,-11'1 /~T-7 , --- , / / ,// / / 4flift -Â· Y.1,~5~4~~~~~~~,~'â€ži~ ' krt'Ut i.lk It 4,11\&%Â¢910 1 9 j Z. . .<11 : i/* 1 1-cs; 4 2% .,1 9 / -'qui .//07/ / .C -C '4- 41 f l,3 -,2 - 1 V %11 r : J L..1 - --- -4 -&#- . 1/ C.; 41( pJ; /'443,1 2 - './ .'C" -w-O ,/1/ A <%Â·.IV- tf Â·Â· 1,. '> 51 1/ FrÂ·' .4 . '3 1 661 LA Q 4-11 l _1, 1-1 2.4:Â·41 Â·; fbi / C v O./ m 7 27010 409 2. 0 4,0 4 3 'f-4/4/- ' Â·4 33j 0 - 3 6 Jak . 4 ' 1 - Vt -j 1 -} I -1 4 4,r 45,1-2 J .fF L) 11 - 't L_3/ Z u) 1 No , /7 ,.... \: -. ...1 . . -- L-01 ,-., I .-2/f ~\ - ' :&' Â¤ 2 r) -- h 1 1.- 0 - -i-- , . -- 1 0, ... Rf 91. ..., - ... Dm O 71 QU) > 0 mi / S irt, H. -41. A. 4. C-7 r U Â£ 1 1 -7 0.-4 -N-/ / D >< O>< OC 30 C -( , 4- Â·1 .--m, 1 - .L/ C C 0 5(l,4: ; I f ---. 0 CED r .8 (r) Z =.0 n 9 1 1 -1 -1 -1 4 Z 1 -L-:di 1% fl. 1.1,; Egz 02 - 2 â€ž m A -- 0<.. u ' 1/ IJ 0 5 0 >> > > 1 . :.1.1 4.1 //:li. 7 9/0 30 -1 00 O 1 r 6.0 + t /. 1_ lut.-ArtoÂ»23.4, fill ff 3 3 9% 4,4 U .r- I . 6 G.-1 <r o 1 - Â« 9 A g el 1,_EneiVOW .0 0 40 01 Â·-- ull. .--_r#;FEiff-LE-1Â»it) -0 '' Â« -54. ./4/8..4'ft>/.-.i~~-t;,/~t--12 & Rm m r.rl 'tf- i- rn Â·P -4 - O Â·1/ ... Jo r- 0 ) 2. SU US)44.9,; 04(Â·.0...0 4~'-it ; 1 1 i-,6-+ 1-*41.Â·Â·Â· Â· 1 -2 /' ,-Â·.-? Â·Â·Â· %.,343/A, fiti-1 I F ) 1-7- 7 j b , r ~ i 53 u } 1 :. ..1 4 272 \2...Â·, f IV/\CIJ11 11 JI IU I 1 1/Z L lIGIHXB / 1 zoo + . 1000 900 800 700 - 600 -500 - ~ PAVED-0 Z -400 D O 01 -300 0 LL O ARE OC -200 *.-U-1 Ill Z Zo (AI 1/\ . 1- Z 0 - POORGRASS_CE SURFACE ~ 4 O W I , 0.5-0- 0 - 20 _IjO AVER.GRASS 1 - SURFACE - 90 - 00 2.0-H- - DEN SE Â· -Z - 70 GRASS - 5.0- - 60. 10= U- i . Ul' - 50 - a- 20- - 40 3of'Z-Â¥ ~ - 40- - 30 , 50 - -. - 20 - 10 FIGURE 3 OVERLAND FLOW TIME NOMOGRAPH 11 Ililli/-0 ' .. 7O 80 f *t a,57 â„¢.,6,-R-~- -1,#N~ .,0,1*Fao+00'1~ PÂ©PERTY UNE -- NST, RET WALL ' ~1 ' '.- ~Â»r 1 -*4/ 4, GARAGI:7 zur Â·-- f--f 1 /44.1,60 BE[.OW , /4Â©5*.a/% GRADE < I I , taÂ·-6Â· F,rogr, ~~4 â€ž ~ty 1 1 4 1~ , ' CE':.r4.11 - EVIT. 4Â£ WALL L.g// \' \ 1 '-#.=4 2 ; 1/ m--10\= =flf- GONC....UU; r- 20'ST. HousE .Dor=wr _L-Â·Â·' I Ul F ~ 1<754 XI 4440,~.1,r: 2 '= i , r 74/51/3 -/ . ht -1. -IM'inC971*MI + . - I 444142~:~t FF.1---- 1 -&,40...4 ....~4 . *24'.~~~ -1-.- 1-L-6 1--1--mER *219[ 44pbplaklb I.31 , 4 ., 9 00 *-424/Â£ t d f / .Â·*-1--1,4 I . I ::.. , .- â‚¬ / - 91 : '<-p EX~ST.Hole"wolÂ·PRA,r -f .p.:: d- "4â€ž# ~L 114.*341\\\ P -r ~ 4 . 1,;-1/ - 7 + 4,1401 33 '\ \ 0 1 4_1 P '* 2 PROPOSED - ~# t -Â¥<0 1 STRUCTURE ~9'a.h. ..mak -..Â£ \ I . f. . i Â·Â· 9,#Nf-4.. 1,130Rl:MA -\\ I Ii-1 -t-: i 1 \\9.-9-7 -1--t-t--4 1 1-1--4 T i -JIB.*Mi#,r ' 1 1 1 Â¢d#RÂ¢(ARb / 4?02Â¥4~&?2'EÂ·=EAKE- arÂ» -1 7 . E ' 1.1. Y. - i4 1 ~12Â©Y>2447~qls<*31 110 , ,<4#17,5r* 1441 111Â¤iI e AN=:1 411 ..1- r 197.58 siNERâ„¢ LAE $85'300CW 110 100 80 PROPOSED SITE PLAN - REVISED OCTOBER 11, 1999 P~OERTY LINE .. -L_12-0. 6 1 11&*FIL 80 ..Fpli-,# EXIST TR~N6%RMER-Â·-- ~___~85, .0--*000Â·g= ---- -'.LR"-UX.7, 2 - NEW 6- CO-BW T. *'.. WALL 1 17<I' 4 GARAGE f\- >edâ‚¬L Â«44,11,1.9 Bl: LOWE At521B4Ck GRADE I MI l , euer /4 â€ž 4 .1 1,-,-9 n - a~T. A WN 9 = . ,. .0,/1 : \ - 1.k \1\1 W. 2. 1\ \ 1 11 11 / \ E- e ft--k~ 1Â£.' \33-- F--95..n-~ t,0*1\ * \= . kit <1 - ./ + ' le '/44â€¢lit,~~ 5 f '4 .LAL 94% 5 A:'10. ./. I U"*/- I . ':I 1 11 4 , J .*3. s 2%04-1 F.-r-riCT 77 p.. i -4 3%-1 -CW e 64% , 214/ <*110%0 44-4-4 2 1*4 '00 t---1--- V , I.'" - EVST. HOLSE ADOT'FRKI 4 .,44.1.627. f ,/ 4. UE: 0-4+11 \\ + t,;~01\ .\ fo ,evA -v, ' 7*l F= Avel ~ :: * 1/:C' ... , I -9 1 I 4, 1 r- 75 X /\ 0 A \F ..Ad .... 4 ' .Â·41/ Â° El*Rte PROPOSED \1 S 4-,6,1* e ,~.a.Gll##n~ ~ STRUCTURE 92â‚¬3.1-1=.~., , 3317//1/ TA 53442 1 , 442*85(~-.4 %*yop f 11 1 \\1 1 ; MIÂ·CK /41<1& 1 Le-kt 4~ I ~ 1 J ~C~R-r'Alib ;'Ill ~ 110 1- 1- --4 . 1 1 jil!,4 i , T E L. - - ~ _~ U.7- -- - - J.<â€ž@370 ge*1~~. tyÂ·;>Mav-!'~ 44a :4 4 99 ...1 J.. J - 1- 4 -1 1 lilli ~*&-- 47:ki~~~r ~ 11[1 2-:.1.INg Ar #kil .47* 1. 0 , ary 5%JW 34, I. 14 0.-6%:i,NA 1 2.08 220252- _AE 125300504 mlt+ .V . . 4, --r 1 - 110 100 EX*4* St".' 80 PROPOSED SITE PLAN-ORIGINAL AUGUST 3,1999 fPERTY UN'E .. ,(- PROFILE - EUSTING HOUSE -~ 1. 1 ~/!}i'11 . i e'+91'204,..~ ~Â·Â·If 4*0* a#b~Â·1 ,~Â·Â£. f --- 2%41 $44 - ,At' . 4 ' '. >1 Il 1 1 111.111Â£ P A r 1 1 /2/J-l~~1~~1~li~, 111"I 1+1~!1 _ 4- 5 - NEW' 6- CONFERS ~'- ~-\ ' -4--- NEW CONC RETAIN,/NG WALLS ..- 1 J.w ~ i .4 -9.. * - a.1% i _ *-~- 2 - NEW a' CON,FERS h Al j 1 I ' -'31 ; * lili :f,4--, 4- GAEAGE FLOGN ~- 72-6 NORTH ELEVATION-REVISED OCTOBER 11, 1999 wra&cm~- 1 ;~ -.97,40-/ 411% f ,~ A w. 1 1 111 .f.Â·,iblf,; i f 4 -1 lit Â·- e 4 i 1 V '011.El;"M 4 -~1 - i 18, egir-rl Â·- L-- - .WD#hed -I , , At -1 --- , / -- ' ,~66~ 61 I r . 1 1 ---1--1 r. - - 5 - NEW 5Â· CONfâ‚¬25 --HV-~ Rk#A' > jj 1, li<Pt. 4 ~Â»- NEW CONG. REÂ·r#iNING WALLS IDA td- 4 Â·L., 1 *Al x-4- L NEW 0' CONERS ~ ~ GAR,XeE FL~ Ji-- 72-0. N O RT H ELEVATION - ORIGINAL AUGUST 3, 1999 - -------28 PE GHTLMT III PROALE-EXISTING HOUSE - - 1.. .. ..... % '/i . Â£44*Â£0 . & :-' 79&40 . .14,9 , I 4, j I ----:-444.1 H.7&*14Â·*pillitillil I .....Â·. i - --1 1 'Â·Â·lr~- : 2 1 1 1.--1*34.3.... ,.... Nfl-~W>. i PRORLE- EXLETING HOUSE- Â·Â·d : 1 1 j '.* 0:=.1 lop.'-2: .. , 4. 919*~tft 1 01 0,1 4 1 I __,g-%5 -- 1--- --------- --- --1-1- - -T 1 1 1 1 1 - Mâ‚¬ 1 --J b-- ------------------------ I-------1----1 1 , , /- 724 1 1 : SOUTH ELEVATION-REVISED OCTOBER.11, 1999 - --- 28 heart LME PROBLE - EXETING HOUSE ~ 0*6 - Â·. 9 . jf Â£a, â€ž.*AR 1. - 1,4 0 1*itt~f.*. 0 : v,* 2-7111 -ll"j 1 - j I 4. ~ 1 ' i PROF?LE- EXISTING HOUSE- 1 1 / - 1 1 g 2 Â¥,r ?*h 1 1 1 ----- 1 -----1 :lili -- >r .,Â· 9 -1 I -4 1 \ 1 t.- t .44'k ~-- -------- ----- -1- ---- -- -~ 2-_I- - ----&~9OLlc /--87-4. j ' 6-72-6 SOUTH ELEVATION - ORIGINAL AUGUST 3, 1999 .. ACTION: 8040 Greenline Review The provisions of 8040 greenline review shall apply to all development located at or above eight thousand forty (8040) feet above mean sea level (the 8040 greenline) in the City of Aspen. and to all development within one hundred fifty (150) feet below the 8040 greenline, unless exempted by the Community Development Director. 8040 greenline review standards. No development shall be permitted at, above, or one hundred fifty (150) feet below the 8040 greenline unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements setforth below. 1. 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. 2. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse effect on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage. soil erosion or have consequent effects of water pollution. 3. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse effect on the air quality of the city. 4. 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. 5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land features. 6. 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. - over - 7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open character of the mountain. //FI . .. 8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service ~ the proposed development. - 9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development, and said roads can be properly maintained. 10. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment. 11. Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area 4 Comprehensive Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails 2. Plan map is dedicated for public use. Provide access to natural resources and areas of special interest to the community. :Or 0- j?i ... *.i# k QÂ¥,n,~, .Â·*kÂ· f 14% I 2.-12 , I,JitÂ·Â·F u., Â·:4 0.211 4 d. Râ‚¬m ~ &*WRifi,Â·ki.â‚¬ :1 ' ~t~~~ DIMENSIONIAL VARIANCE: The grant of the variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the Aspen Area Community Plan and this Title; The grant of the variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building, or structure, and Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district, and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the board shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply: There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures, or buildings in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant, or Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by the Aspen Area Community Plan and the terms of this Title to other parcels, buildings, or structures, in the same zone district. *MIÂ¥ - Or"Ur ler 4.wii.*R#46 *'.GE-,1 VV.Â·A.=4 ~:221 .1%1523 r- .9/Il/111111 - f-, 0 . RESIDENTIAL DESIGN VARIANCE CRITERIA: %13Â¢1):LS For a variance to be granted, it would have to be based on one of the following *'f-1 . three criteria: The proposed design yields greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan, or The proposed design more effectively addresses the issue or problem the given standard responds to, or A variance is clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. -Ar# th P:ilsÂ· '15Â¢31 Buitia UN"#m""8/Immilim# 0' 40.*~I~.I.~4 MITCHELL RESIDENCE EfiD N*~ APPLICATION FOR 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW AND VARIANCE 1Â¢. 42. SUBMITTED BY ~~~~~~ ALAN RICHMAN PLANNING SERVICES BOX 3613 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 920-1125 JUNE, 1999 441\4 i . 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 PAGE I. PROJECT OVERVIEW Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·................... 1 A. Application Request Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·.................. 1 B. Dimensional Limitations C. GMQS Exemption ......................................... 3 II. 8040 GREENLINE ......... Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·.................... 4 III. VARIANICE IV. VESTED RIGHTS ....... Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·........................ 11 V. CONCLUSION ......... EXHIBITS #1. Title Insurance Commitment #2. Letter Authorizing Submission of Application #3. Pre-Application Conference Summary 1 #4. Geologic Site Assessment, Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. #5. Subsoil Study for Foundation Design, Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. #6. Supplemental Drainage Study, Schmueser Gordon Meyer l #1. Drainage Study, Schmueser Gordon Meyer MAPS/DRAWINGS Vicinity Map Improvements Survey Existing Conditions Proposed Site Plan Existing and Proposed Elevations Proposed Floor Plans 1 . 0 I. PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Application Request This is an application to re-develop a parcel of land located at 550 Aspen Alps Road. The property is presently improved with a single-family residence. The owners of the property, George and Cynthia Mitchell, propose to tear down that residence, which they built more than 25 years ago, and to replace it with a new house. It is necessary to build a new house because the foundation of the existing house is cracking and it cannot easily be repaired. The house is also very wasteful from an energy use standpoint, with single-glaze windows, poor insulation, and an inefficient heating system. Moreover, because the owners of the property have gotten older and because this is a relatively steep site, it is essential that their home be made handicap-accessible. This has 1 become a primary design consideration in the formulation of this proposal. The location of the site in relation to neighboring properties is shown on the vicinity map. As can be seen, the property is located along the edge of the Little Nell slope, near the base of Aspen Mountain. It is surrounded primarily by multi-family dwellings (the Aspen Alps) that are much larger in scale than the existing residence. Access to the property is provided from Aspen Alps Road. An improvements survey, depicting existing conditions on the property, has also been provided. It illustrates that this is an irregularly shaped piece of land that is improved with the existing residence and a surface parking area. It also identifies the locations of the fourteen trees on the property that have a caliper size of five inches (5") or greater. The house is nestled among these and other mature trees that afford the existing residence a sense of privacy, even though it is surrounded by multi-family buildings and by the Little Nell slope. These trees also screen the house from view from neighbors and skiers. This application is being submitted by the owners of the property (hereinafter, "the Applicants"). Proof of the ownership of the property is provided by Exhibit #1, the title insurance commitment. Authorization for Alan Richman Planning Services to represent the Applicants for this application is provided by Exhibit #2. A pre-application conference was held with a representative of the City to discuss this project (see Exhibit #3, Pre-Application Conference Summary). Based on this meeting, it was confirmed that this project would require the following development approvals: 8040 Greenline Review for development above the 8040 greenline; and Faiiance for development within the minimum setbacks of the Conservation zone district. Mitchell 8040 Greenline Review and Variance Application Page 1 1 0 . 0 TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF PROJECT'S COMPLIANCE WITH CONSERVATION ZONE DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS Requirement Code Standard Existing Proposed Site gamaklcd Conditions Plan Minimum Lot Size 10 acres 10,161 sq. ft. 10,161 sq. ft. Minimum Lot Area Per 10 acres Not applicable Not applicable Dwelling Unit Minimum Lot Width 400' 58' 58' Minimum Front Yard 100' 14'* 20' Minimum Side Yard 30' 37'** 10' Minimum Rear Yard 30' 6' 10' Maximum Height 28' Not available 28' Minimum Distance No requirement Not applicable Not applicable Between Buildings Percent of Open Space No requirement Not applicable Not applicable 1 External Floor Area No requirement Not applicable Not applicable Rauo Off-Street Parking 2 spaces per unit At least 2 spaces At least 2 spaces Notes: * This refers to the setback for the existing house. There is an existing retaining wall that is located about 10' from the front property line. * * This also refers to the setback for the existing house. There are existing steps located 29' from one side property line and a retaining wall that extends to that property line. GMQS Exemption C. Since this proposal involves demolition of an existing residence, it qualifies for an exemption from GMQS pursuant to Section 26.100.050 A.2.c. of the Aspen Land Use Code. This section requires that Applicants choose one of three affordable housing mitigation options for projects that involve replacement of a demolished single family house. The option that the Applicants have chosen to comply with this section is to pay the applicable affordable housing impact fee, as specifically authorized in sub-section (1) (c). Mitchell 8040 Greenline Review and Variance Application Page 3 1 . 0 This application addresses the review standards for both of these development approvals, since recent revisions to the Land Use Code now permit the Planning and Zoning Commission to consider both of these applications. B. Dimensional Limitations Table 1, on the following page, provides an analysis of how the proposed development complies with the dimensional limitations of the Conservation (CON) zone district. The table illustrates that the property is a nonconforming lot of record, since it contains considerably less than 10 acres of land and is nowhere near as wide as 400'. Section 26.104.060 A. of the Aspen Land Use Code states that a single-family residence may be developed on a nonconforming lot of record, provided a variance from the underlying dimensional requirements is obtained. The table also illustrates that it is simply not feasible for any development scenario for this property to comply with several of the other dimensional requirements of the Conservation zone district. For example, the minimum required front yard setback is deeper than the width of virtually any section of the lot, while the minimum required front and rear yard setbacks together are as deep as the widest portion of the lot. Therefore, the existing residence and the proposed residence are both nonconforming as to setbacks. This situation necessitates that a setback variance be obtained, since any re-configuration of the structure will cause an increase in the extent of the nonconformity with regard to setbacks. Responses to the standards for a variance are provided in Section III of this application. The proposed development will comply with the other applicable standards of the underlying Conservation zone district. However, when this application was being prepared and when it was submitted, the Conservation zone district did not have a floor area ratio. Nevertheless, the Applicants used the maximum allowable floor area ratio of the neighboring R-15 zone district as a guide, but not an absolute limit, when formulating this application. The R-15 zone district would permit a house containing approximately 4,200 sq. ft. of floor area to be built on this property. The proposed house is approximately 10% larger than would be allowed in the R-15 zone, but will be smaller than the surrounding multi-family buildings, and most of the single-family houses that are located across the Little Nell slope. It has now come to our attention that the City is considering the adoption of an FAR for this zone. The proposed floor area ratio would also permit a house containing approximately 4,200 sq. ft. of floor area to be built on this property. The Applicants would request that the proposed floor area ratio for the Conservation zone district not apply to this application, as they were not on notice of this proposed code amendment at the time this application was being prepared, and they have spent substantial time and money to prepare plans for this house based on the adopted language of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. Mitchell 8040 Greenline Review and Variance Application Page 2 1 . 0 II. 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW This property is located generally between 8,040' and 8,075' in elevation. Therefore, the proposed development is subject to 8040 Greenline Review. The standards for 8040 Greenline Review are found in Section 26.440.030 of the Aspen Land Use Code. Our responses to these standards are as follows: 1. 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: Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. has prepared two reports to determine the suitability of the property for development. One report is a geologic site assessment of the property (see Exhibit #4) while the other report is a subsoil study for foundation design (see Exhibit #5). In preparing the reports, they have conducted several field explorations of the site, including exploratory borings, and have evaluated resource materials. The geologic site assessment states that the proposed residence is not in an area that is subject to potential rockfall or avalanche hazards. There are, however, certain geologic conditions that could affect the project and need to be addressed. The conditions include the need to manage storm water from the Spar Gulch drainage, the potential for subsidence due to past mining activities, the potential for construction-related slope instability, the potential for earthflow creep, and the potential for earthquake. Following are the findings and recommendations with respect to each of these hazards: Storm Water Management: The site assessment states that the Spar Gulch drainage could produce debris floods and flows during periods of unusually intense thunderstorms or when there is rapid melting of an unusually heavy snow pack. In response to this finding, Jay Hammond of Schmueser Gordon Meyer was retained to evaluate whether the existing stream channel can carry the potential water and debris flows. His resulting report is attached as Exhibit #6. Mr. Hammond evaluated the site considering information contained in the Drainage Facility Capacity Analysis for the City of Aspen, Colorado, prepared by WRC Engineering, Inc. in September, 1998. His evaluation finds that "Even assuming a worst case sediment condition for the 100-year event, the Mitchell site is outside the area impacted by the potential flow and deposition from Lower Spar". Mitchell 8040 Greenline Review and Variance Application Page 4 1 0 0 His report also contains the following conclusion: "In short, it is my opinion that the lower Spar Gulch drainage corridor is sufficiently well defined and sufficiently far from the Mitchell residence site that the property is not threatened by flood or debris flow conditions from the Spar basin. The well-defined upper gulch, steep side gradients back into Spar, and the limited nature of obstruction to the lower gulch would not appear to create conditions whereby an overflow condition or flow diversion caused by a debris plug would get to the Mitchell site." Mine Workings: A review of mine maps was conducted. The review demonstrates that the shallowest mine workings are about 400' below the surface in this area, and the closest mine shafts are about 150' and 250' southwest of the proposed building site. The assessment concludes that "the old mine workings should not present a potential hazard to the proposed residence". It goes on to recommend that if evidence of un-mapped shafts or tunnel portals are found during excavation, then stabilization will be needed- aMR'i 62-_ Construction-Related Slope Instability: Because relatively deep cuts in the steep hillside are proposed, there is a potential for construction to induce slope instability. These conditions can be mitigated by following the site grading, retaining wall, surface drainage, and subsurface drainage recommendations contained in the subsoil study. The Applicants agree to follow the recommendations of the geotechnical engineer in the development of the site Le cu.at.U. 6 40,04, iâ€¢ ,&<kv k (c-v Earthflow Creep: The site assessment states that "The Little Nell earthflow appears to be M'+8Â¢44 an old geologic feature that has not experienced large scale movements for some time. The Vâ€¢-fvk. potential for large scale earthflow reactivation is considered to be low." However, the report notes that there have been small scale movements recorded along the western part of the Little Nell slope, in the range of 0.1" to 0.25" per year, that caused structural distress to another building. The Applicants had already anticipated the need to design the structure with this hazard in mind, since the existing residence on the subject property has experience some cracking of its foundation (which is one of the primary reasons for constructing this new residence). The Applicants will follow the recommendations contained in the subsoil study (see Exhibit #5), including those addressing foundation design, foundation walls and retaining walls, floor slabs, underdrain systems, site grading, and surface drainage, to ensure there is no repeat of the failure of the foundation of the residence. ----P â‚¬~.4,-0/4 ~-1- 0 Earthquake Considerations: The assessment states that the residence is likely to experience moderately strong shaking from an earthquake at some time during its useful life. The shaking that is likely to occur would have negligible impacts on a well designed structure. The Applicants agree to design the residence to withstand moderately strong shaking and not to collapse under stronger shaking. '8/4 Vu Mitchell 8040 Greenline Review and Variance Application Page 5 1 . 0 2. 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 proposed development will not have a significant adverse affect on the natural watershed, nor cause increased runoff, drainage or soil erosion. In fact, since there is no evidence of any existing drainage improvements on the site, such as inlets or drywells, the drainage controls proposed in conjunction with this development should result in a considerably improved condition. As is more fully described in the attached report prepared by Schmueser Gordon Meyer (Exhibit #71 drainage is currently routed around and away from the building. Overflow from the northeast end of the property appears to sheet flow to the north across the pavement area, and is routed along the road edge to the south of the Aspen Alps buildings. The engineer recommends that two drywells be installed to accept runoff from the roof, decks, and any exterior drains. The capacity of these drywells will provide for in excess of / / 100% of the City's drainage control standard, which requires detention of the increased 69/0/4,4, runoff volume associated with the 100 year, 90-minute event after development. ..31 COâ€¢,066' -c- 04/11 The engineer also recommends that the geotechnical consultant Take certain that there is not any existing groundwater at the depths planned for the drywells, and comment on any sub-surface concerns due to the introduction of water into the soils at this site. These matters are both addressed in the Hepworth-Pawlak subsoil study (see Exhibit #5), which contains recommendations regarding foundation design and the underdrain system. Additional recommendations made in Jay Hammond's report are: (1) to ensure grading is positive away from the structure; and (2) to not route the footer drains into the same . r A' drywells as the storm and roof drain collection lines. The Applicants will follow these C.~~-Â·00 t-J recommendations, and will also comply with the other recommendations of the civil and geotechnical engineers. The proposed development does not have a significant advene a#ect on the air quality 3. in the City. Response: The proposed development should have a positive impact on air quality in the Aspen area. This is because the existing residence contains two "dirty" wood burning devices, both of which will be eliminated. The proposed residence will comply with all applicable City regulations regarding wood burning devices. In addition, there should be no additional traffic generated by the development, since the project simply involves the replacement of an existing single-family residence. -346<1 Cuu-ckU-Â·,-0, BOdkliALS 4. The design and location Of any proposed development, road or tmil is compatible with the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located. Mitchell 8040 Greenline Review and Variance Application Page 6 0 ~ Covt- dve/vv# Access / &422/ 5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural features. 6. 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: The Applicants have designed the house to compliment the natural terrain, stepping it along the contours and burying much of the mass of the structure below the surface. The proposed development will minimize the need for grading and excavation, by limiting the new residence principally to areas within the limits of the existing excavation. No new roads will be required to serve the proposed home removed, the proposed site plan illustrates that they will be replaced by seven (7) conifer ~ 49 Although three (3) trees on the site with a caliper size of 6" or greater will have to be trees, each with a 6" caliper size. A calculation provided on the proposed site plan illustrates 13 /1 that the cross sectional area of the replacement trees exceeds the cross sectional area of the J wr i J existing trees. The replacement trees will be placed near where the trees to be removed are currently located, to ensure the scenic features of the mountain remain as they are today. 7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open character Of the mountain. Response: Elevations have been provided for the proposed residence. The elevations show that the residence has been designed as a one-story structure at the highest point on the property, and then steps down along the hillside to reveal more of the structure at the lower elevations. The roof line of the structure has a curved appearance, so it is sympathetic with, and actually replicates the form of the natural mountain hillside. At its highest point, the building will comply with the 28' height limit; at other points it will be well below that limit. Moreover, the form of the structure has been broken into two distinct masses by the introduction of a vegetated courtyard between these building elements. A careful review of the proposed elevations also reveals that the new house will have a 1 lower overall height than the existing house when viewed from every direction. The architect has "dotted in" the existing elevation on these illustration to allow for this comparison. The new house will have a much lower overall height and profile than the surrounding multi- family buildings of the Aspen Alps. As one looks at this site from below or from the ski slope, the most prominent visual image is established by these multi-family buildings and not by this single-family house. In fact, from virtually any location within the downtown area, it is simply not possible to actually see this house, because the existing trees screen it from view, and because there are buildings within town that block views to the property. Mitchell 8040 Greenline Review and Variance Application Page 7 1 1 0 0 The Applicants commit to preserving the vast majority of the existing trees on the site that 0 screen views of the building from below the house, and from both the east (Aspen Alps Road) and from the west (Little Nell slope). As is illustrated on the proposed elevations, these trees, along with the new conifer trees we commit to planting, accomplish more for maintaining the open character of the mountain than any other design innovation we could introduce into this development. These plantings will ensure that surrounding residents and users of the Little Nell slope will continue to enjoy the open, natural view of the mountain that is present today. Height and bulk will also be minimized by submerging the structure into the hillside. This is particularly true as the house is viewed from the ski slope (see Sheet 3, Proposed Elevations). In fact, because some portions of the proposed house will be below grade, and because the stairs at the front of the house (near the edge of the road) will be removed, it will appear to sit further back from the road than does the existing residence. The proposed garage will also be built into the hillside. It will be covered with earth and landscaping, to make it appear that the natural terrain continues beyond the structure. This garage will replace an existing cut where cars are now stored on the ground surface. The massive, unsightly wood cribbing wall that is failing will be replaced with a much mom attractive Val) A that is made of concrete or natural stone materials. uk.AÂ· cloâ‚¬1 -1-4 I tok- lvICÂ¢ 2 8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed development. 74#i cÂ· fL 9 p v.;_kl,e~ Response: The existing house is already served by City of Aspen water service, Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District sewage disposal service, and other necessary utilities. All of these services are adequate and no changes to these services are anticipated at this time. 9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development and said roads can be properly maintained. 10. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment. Response: Ingress and egress is provided from Aspen Alps Road. This private road, which 1 also serves the multi-family units at the Aspen Alps, is more than adequate for access for fire protection and snow removal purposes. 11. Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan map is dedicated for public use. Response: The referenced Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan map has been superseded by the pedestrian and bikeway maps in the Aspen Area Community Plan. Those maps do not show a trail in the vicinity of the subject property. Mitchell 8040 Greenline Review and Variance Application Page 8 i. 0 III. VARIANCE The re-development of this property requires the Applicants to obtain a variance from the front, side, and rear yard setbacks of the Conservation zone district. 1 The standards for variances are found in Section 26.314.040 of the Aspen Land Use Code. Our responses to these standards are as follows: The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and 1. policies of the Aspen Area Community Plan and this title. Response: The Applicants have been unable to find any statement in the Aspen Area Community Plan that would relate to the proposed variance. However, we suggest that the re-development of this property for use as a single-family residence is consistent with the overall intent of the Plan, which is that Aspen continue to be an environmentally responsible, economically sustainable community. For a discussion of how the proposed variance is consistent with the purposes of the Aspen Land Use Code, please see the response to the next standard, in which we describe how the proposed variance has been designed to be consistent with the setback requirements of the City's R-15 zone district. 2. The grant Of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure. Response: Since the setbacks of the Conservation zone district bear no relationship to a property of this size, when the site plan was being formulated for this property, it was necessary to establish what would be reasonable setbacks to guide its development. We looked at the official zone district map and found that the properties along this portion of the base of Aspen Mountain are typically designated into one of three possible zone districts, these being Lodge/Tourist Residential (L/TR), Moderate Density Residential (R-15), and Conservation (CON). The setbacks in these zone districts are as follows: L/TR R-15 CON Front Yard: 10' 25' 100' Side Yard: 5' 10' 30' Rear Yard: 10' 10' 30' The closest neighboring zoning to this property is, in fact, L/TR. A review of the site plan illustrates that the proposed development complies with the setbacks of the L/TR zone. Mitchell 8040 Greenline Review and Variance Application Page 9 1 . 0 However, we concluded that if we could instead develop this site to conform to R-15 setbacks, that would be consistent with the prevailing conditions that apply to most single- family style development in this neighborhood and would constitute a "minimum variance". The Applicants have made every effort to follow the setback requirements of the R-15 zone district in the design of the proposed residence. The one area where the proposed house protrudes into these setbacks is with respect to the front yard setback, as measured in the narrowest portion of the lot. In this area, a 20' front yard setback has been achieved. It should be noted that in the area where the house will protrude into the 25' setback, it will do so to a lesser extent than does the existing house, which is only 14' from the front property line, and to an even lesser extent than does the existing retaining wall, which is 10' from the front property line. It should also be noted that at least part of the area where the structure protrudes into the setback will be for the proposed garage. As described above, the garage will be covered with earth and landscaping, to make it appear that the natural terrain continues beyond the structure. This should help to minimize the visual impacts of this variance. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the board shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply: a. There are special circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions Of the applicant; or b. Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and the terms of this title to other parcels, buildings or stmcmres in the same zone dism'ct. Response: Literal interpretation and enforcement of the setbacks of the Conservation zone district would deprive the Applicants of all use of the subject property. The Conservation zone district requires a minimum front yard setback of 100' and a minimum rear yard setback of 30'. Taken together, this 130' front and rear yard setback is wider than virtually the entire lot (the lot is just 131' wide at its southern boundary). The special circumstance that is unique to this parcel is the fact that it is an approximately 10,000 sq. ft. parcel in a zone district that requires a minimum of 10 acres. This situation makes this parcel so significantly non-conforming that it is impossible for the Applicants to comply with the applicable setbacks, which were designed to apply to much larger 1 Mitchell 8040 Greenline Review and Variance Application Page 10 1 . 0 properties. This problem is compounded by two other unique factors: â€¢ The property is oddly shaped, with a narrow section along its northern boundary, gradually widening in the southern portions of the property. l â€¢ This is a relatively steep lot, and one that is important to the community visually due to its location along the Little Nell run. It is important to locate the house in the portion of the property that has already been disturbed to ensure that views from the ski area will remain open. All of these factors taken together constitute a unique circumstance that cause the Applicants unnecessary hardship and practical difficulty. It would be a particular hardship to the Applicants if they were refused permission to replace this older house, because the house has experienced cracking of its foundation and is also quite energy inefficient, and because the Applicants are unable to enjoy the house today due to their increasing age, which has made it difficult for them to use the existing multi-level house. IV. VESTED RIGHTS Pursuant to Section 26.52.080 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Applicants hereby request that this development be granted vested rights status. V. CONCLUSION In summary, we have submitted all of the materials requested of us during our pre- application conference. We have responded to the applicable standards of the Aspen Land Use Code and have demonstrated our compliance with said standards. Should any reviewing agency request additional information, or need for us to clarify any of the statements made herein, we will respond in a timely manner. Please feel free to contact us as necessary. 1 Mitchell 8040 Greenline Review and Variance Application Page 11 1 . 0 l EXHIBITS 1 1 I 1 I AMERICAN LAND TIT,LE ASSOCIATION OWNER'S POLICY-STANDARD FORM a.1962 ., .. EXHIBIT #1 Title Insurance Policy No. co 229194 -0 Issued by Tpansamepica TItle Insupance Company a California corporation, hereinafter called the Company, in consideration of the premium which has been paid for this Policy, does insure the person, corporation or other entity, designated as the Insured in Item 1 under Schedule A, hereinafter called the Insured, the heirs, devisees, personal representatives of such Insured, or, if a corporation, its succes- sors by dissolution, merger or consolidation, against loss or damage not exceeding the amount of this Policy as shown in Schedule A, together with costs, attorneys' fees and expenses which the Company may become obligated to pay as provided in the Conditions and Stipulations hereof, which the Insured shall sustain by reason of: 1. Any defect in or lien or encumbrance on the title to the estate or interest covered hereby in the land described or referred to in Schedule A, existing at the date hereof, not shown or referred to in Schedule B or excluded from coverage in Schedule B or in the Conditions and Stipulations; or 2. Unmarketability of such title; or 3. Lack of a right of access to and from land; all subject, however, to the provisions of Schedules A and B and to the Conditions and Stipulations hereto annexed; all as of the effective date of this policy, as shown in Schedule A. In Witness Whereof, the Company has caused its corporate name and seal to be hereunto affixed by its duly authorized officers. TpansamericaTItle Insurance Company ..2 4 --P . 1/ / -â‚¬62 . . . #,/ - 5 - By -* . President. 4/ ./ 7, 1 41;1 p 2 . al , fq - , A f)&~ Ati Secretary 516 .7rÂ£. Authorized Officer or Agent ~ SCHEDULE A~ ORDER NUMBER 465383-0 AMOUNT 3125,000.00 ~ Dated this 22nd day of September , 19 il,at the hour of 8:00 0'clock A.M. ~1. The name of the insured and the estate, or interest of the insured in the land described below and cov- ered by this policy isos follows: GEORGE P. MITCHELL and CYNTHIA W. MITCHELL, as Joint Tenants ~2. The land, the tit|e to which is insured, is described or known as follows: LEGAL DESCRIPTION AS SET FORTH ON ATTACHED SHEET SCHEDULE B This Policy does not insure against loss or damage by reason of the following: 1. Rights or claims of parties in possess,on not shown of record, including unrecorded easements. ~. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts which a cor- rect survey would disclose, and which are not shown by the public records. 3. Mechanics liens, or any rights thereto, where no notice of such liens or rights appear of record. ~4. Taxes and assessments not yet due or payable; and Special Taxes or Assessments certified to the office of the County Treasurer subsequent to: Any and all unpaid taxes and assessments. Policy No. CC-220194-0 c ne"-1 0,-2 3 1 ' ' ./'- 1 /2 'll n T'-' 1 C .m-,1-'r"19 O V.~ NFPQ POL'Cv - FTINDAQD FOPY 8-'942 1 . . ORDER NUMBER SCHEDULE B 465383-0 CONTINUED ~ 5. Deed of Trust from George P. Mitchell and Cynthia W. Mitchell to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County for the use of The Bank of Glenwood to secure $80,000.00, dated August 16, 1971 and recorded September 16, 1971 in Book 257 at Page 783. 6. Disburser's Notice filed in connection with the above Deed of Trust recorded September 16, 1971 in Book 257 at Page 786, naming The Bank of Glenwood as Disburser. ~ 7. Easement and Right of Way from H. A. Bornefeld, Jr., and George P. Mitchell to Holy Cross Electric Association, Inc., recorded August 16, 1971 in Book 257 at Page 47, for underground power line easement situated in the M&Y Lode, M.S. 3921 Am. lying 5.0 feet Southeasterly and parallel to the following described line: Beginning at a point on the line between Corner 1 and Corner 7 of said M&Y Lode whence Corner 4 of the Little Nell Lode M.S. 3881 Am. bears S. 85'15'37" E. 116.01 feet; thence N. 04'30' E. 451.20 feet. 0. Mineral reservations as reserved by instruments appearing as Reception No. 111295 in Book 193 at Page 575 and as Reception No. 100677, in Book 133 at Page 598 of the records iIi the office of the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado. (The Company agrees to protect the insured against any and all loss or damage to the improvements situated on subject property resulting from the use of the surface in connection with said reserved mineral rights.) ~ 9. Reservations and exceptions as contained in Patents from the United States for the City and Townsite of Aspen under the provisions of the Act of Congress, approved on the 2nd day of March, A.D., 1867, entitled, "An Act for the Relief of the Inhabitants of Cities and Towns, upon the Public Lands." 'LProvided, that no title shall be hereby acquired to any mine of gold, silver, cinnabar, or copper or to any valid mining claim or possession held under existing laws. t' And there is reserved from the land hereby granted a right of way thereof for ditches or canals constructed by the authority of the United States as reserved in Patents of record. (The Company agrees to protect the insured against any and all loss or damage to the improvements situated on subject property resulting from the use of the surface in connection with said reserved rights.) ~.0. Any tax, assessments, fees or charges by reason of the inclusion of subject property in the Aspen Fire Protection District. 1 Policy No. CO-220194-0 sheet 2 of 3 AMERICAN I AND TITI E ASSOCIATION OWNERS POLICY - STANDARD FORM 8-1962 1 . 0 465383-0 ATTACHED TO AND FORMING A PART OF ORDER NO. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: /~A tract of land situated in the N-,74 of Section 18, Township 10 ~ / South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M., Pitkin County, Colorado, l being part of the MLY Lode, U.S.M.S. 3921 A.M., being more . \ fully described as follows: 1 L Beginning at a point whence the intersection of line 5-6 of the M & Y, U.S.M.S. 3921 A.M. with line 3-4 of the Millionaire, U. S.M.S. 3620 A.M. bears N 04'30'00" E. 72.16 feet; thence S 85'30'00" E. 57.07 feet to the West line of a private road; thence along the West line of said private road 51.36 feet along the arc of a curve to the left whose radius is 35.00 feet, and whose chord bears S 04'04'17" 7 46.87 feet; thence along the West line of said private road S 37058'00" E. 92.98 feet; thence along the West line of said private road 15.50 feet along the arc of a curve to the right whose radius is 115.00 feet, and whose chord bears S 34'06'17" E. 15.40 feet; thence 3 85'30'00" 17 129.86 feet to the easterly line of the Millionaire, U. S.M.S. 3620 A.M.; thence N 04'30'00" E. 127.56 feet along the easterly line of said lode to the point of beginning, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. 1 Policy No. CO-220134-0 sheet 3 of 3 1 . . ATTACHMENT #2 1 1 Mr. Chris Bendon, Planner City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: MITCHELL 8040 GREENLINE AND CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION 1 Dear Chris, 1 I hereby authorize Alan Richman Planning Services to act as my designated representative with respect to the land use application being submitted to your office for my property, located at 550 Aspen Alps Road. Alan Richman is authorized to submit an application for 1 8040 Greenline Review and for Conditional Use Review for an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). He is also authorized to represent me in meetings with City of Aspen staff and the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission. 1 Should you have any need to contact me during the course of your review of this application, please do so through Alan Richman Planning Services, whose address and telephone number 1 are included in the land development application. Sincerely, A , dpAL_ yiza,L-U Cynthia Mitchell 1 1 1 1 1 I . .. ASPEN SHADOW LLC LETTS W JACKSON & JOYCE H MCCLUSKEY DARLENE M JOHN HANCOCK CENTER TWO COVENTRY CT 2700 W 63RD ST 875 N MICHIGAN AVE STE 1560 MISSION HILLS KS 66208 PRAIRIE VILLAGE KS 66208 CHICAGO IL 60611 SPENCER MARGARET R MAUTNER RICHARD & MARIANNE TROTTER WILLIAM E 11 12.3943% 1306 ROYAL STREET 5544 JACQUELINE 600 JEFFERSON ST STE 1202 NEW ORLEANS LA 70116-2515 NEW ORLEANS LA 70124 LAFAYETTE LA 70501 ALPS PARTNERS MEYERS BAKERIES INC BLACK JANE K C/O PETER G MCGUIRE PO BOX 7498 2323 BRYAN LB 145 5910 N CENTRAL EXP #1780 LITTLE ROCK AR 72217 DALLAS TX 75201 DALLAS TX 75206 ARNOLD ISAAC JR VERDESCA SANDRA RAE RIDDELL JOHN F JR & BARBARA B ATTN ROYANN BECKHAM 3601 TURTLE CREEK 1111 FANNIN STREET - STE 1555 601 JEFFERSON #4000 DALLAS TX 75219 HOUSTON TX 77002-6923 HOUSTON TX 77002 MITCHELL GEORGE P & CYNTHIA W MARZIO FRANCES & PETER C OSUNA GUILLERMO & DORIS C/O ALAN P VITALE 101 WESTCOTT #1702 P O BOX 1093 2002 TIMBERLOCH PL STE 260 HOUSTON TX 77007 DEL RIO TX 78841-1093 THE WOODLANDS TX 77380 ASPEN ALPS CONDOMINIUM BRADLEY EDWARD W & JANIE G LODESTAR WEST PARTNERSHIP LLP ASSOCIATION 3006 S HUGHES 175 BELLEVUE DR PO BOX 1128 AMARILLO TX 79109 BOULDER CO 80302 ASPEN CO 81611 ASPEN ALPS HOMEOWNERS BILLINGS PRENTICE BOYD KEATING MICHAEL ASSOCIATION 20 ASPEN MOUNTAIN RD 60 ASPEN MOUNTAIN ROAD 700 UT AVE ASPEN CO 81611 ASPEN CO 81611 ASPEN CO 81611 ODONNELL KEVIN & MARYANN PARIS JAIME I TASH DAVID L TRUSTEES 40 ASPEN MOUNTAIN RD 700 S UTE AVE #205 700 UTE AVE ASPEN CO 81611 ASPEN CO 81611 ASPEN CO 81611 HARVEY CONSTANCE ASPEN SKIING COMPANY COONEY THOMAS E 421 D AABC PO BOX 1248 PO BOX 4517 ASPEN CO 81611-3548 ASPEN CO 81612 ASPEN CO 81612 DEVORE KARINJO & NICHOLAS 111 EBRAHIMI SHAINE S HODGE RON PO BOX O3 PO BOX 8590 PO BOX 1496 ASPEN CO 81612 ASPEN CO 81612 ASPEN CO 81612 I Â¥ .. FRIEDMAN RICHARD L MOSES ASPEN VIEW HOMESITE INC HIRSCH LEON C & TURI L H C/O CARPENTER & CO HIRSCH LEON - C/O 150 GLOVER DR 20 UNIVERSITY RD 150 GLOVER AVE NORWALK CT 06850 CAMBRIDGE MA 02138 NORWALK CT 06856 CARMAN PETER CHIEF INVESTMENT OTTO GERDEAU CO BAECHLE JAMES J OFFICER 82 WALL ST 550 PARK AVE C/O CITIBANK GLOBAL ASSET MGMT N EW YORK NY 10005 NEW YORK NY 10021 100 FIRST STAMFORD PL 7TH FL STAMFORD CT 06902 KENNER JEFFREY L DRAKE L RODMAN 270/1000 INT SALOMON CHESTER B & ROSALIND S 720 PARK AVE #6-B 485 PARK AVE #5A 975 PARK AVE NEWYORK NY 10021 NEW YORK NY 10022 NEW YORK NY 10028 LOSSING JOHN HAROLD & JANE GARTEN HERBERT & SUSAN F KAPLAN JEROME A BLACKMAN 36 S CHARLES ST 6001 MONTROSE RD STE 403 730 24TH NW STE 1 2300 CHARLES CENTER S ROCKVILLE MD 20852 WASHINGTON DC 20037 BALTIMORE MD 21201 OHERRON EDWARD M JR QUAL PERS PUGH JAMES H JR HALGLENN CORPORATION RES TRUST 359 CAROLINAAVE 1428 BRICKELLAVE OHERRON EDWARD M JR AS TRUSTEE WINTER PARK FL 32789 MIAMI FL 33131 6827-C FAIRVIEW RD CHARLOTTE NC 28210 ASCALI CORPORATION AMOS BETTY MCINTOSH HENRY P IV & SUSAN RIGGS C/O MENDEZ-INSUA CPA 13724 SW 92 CT 124 VIA BETHESDA 8300 S W 8TH ST #303 MIAMI FL 33176 PALM BEACH FL 33480 MIAMI FL 33144 PORTER ROBERT A & CHARLYNN CABANISS WILLIAM J LEWIN DON C MAXWELL 3812 FOREST GLEN DR 7101 DIXIE HWY 611 PARKWAY STE F-13 BIRMINGHAM AL 35213 FLORENCE KY 41042 GATLINBURG TN 37738 FORD SIMON JOHN HUBIRD & JULIE DUBIN HOWARD & JEANIE HARRIS NANCY M DERKS 381 CRANBROOK RD 386 S MISSISSIPPI RIVER BLVD 700 LYNCOTT BLOOMFIELD HILLS MI 48304 ST PAUL MN 55105 NORTH MUSKEGON MI 49445 HOPKINS DOUGLAS D TAYLOR WALTER & SHIRLEY 39.296% CHANDLER CLARISSA HAFFNER HEPLER JOHN C PO BOX 595 902 NORTH GREEN BAY RD 911 SURREY LN BUSBY MT 59016 LAKE FOREST IL 60045 GLENVIEW IL 60025 LEBOVITS & MOSES ROIN MAUREEN M SHODEEN KENT WTRUST NO 1 10318 GLENBARR AVE 1225 WESTMOOR RD 17 N 1 ST ST LOS ANGELES CA 60064 WI NNETKA IL 60093 GENEVA IL 60134-2220 .. KELLER KURT E LAMBERTI PAULA PARK TRUST LTD PO BOX 840 PO BOX 8685 PO BOX 940 ASPEN CO 81612 ASPEN CO 81612 ASPEN CO 81612 WINTER HERBERT J PECKHAM THOMAS C UTE CHALET INC C/O ASPEN ALPS PO BOX 9766 PO BOX 1284 PO BOX 1228 ASPEN CO 81612 ASPEN CO 81612 ASPEN CO 81612 BASLO A CO PARTNERSHIP HURT FAMILY LIMTED PARTNERSHIP POLK JOHN V & PEGGY J C/O TERTIARY INC CAPITAL GROUP INC 586 CAMINO MONTEBELLO 600 E RIVER PARK LN STE 205 50TH FL 333 S HOPE ST SANTE FE NM 87501 BOISE ID 83706 LOS ANGELES CA 90071 GELFAND HERBERT M WINKLER REVOCABLE TRUST DEUTSCH COMPANY A PARTNERSHIP 9171 WILSHIRE BLVD STE 610 840 LOMA VISTA DR 2444 WILSHIRE BLVD STE #600 BEVERLY HILLS CA 90210 BEVERLY HILLS CA 90210 SANTA MONICA CA 90403 RONYA REALTY NV PHELPS MARGARET T DAVIS FAMILY TRUST C/O DAVID S ZWEIG ESQ 389 CALIFORNIA TERR PO BOX 1909 4425 BAYARD ST STE 200 PASADENA CA 91105 RANCHO SANTA FE CA 92067 SAN DIEGO CA 92109 HEMPHILL CALVIN R REVOCABLE PAULJAMES FIGI J TODD & ERIC TRUST PO BOX 85515 C/O QUALITY COMPUTER SUPPLIES 9051 C SIEMPRE VIVA RD STE 070-166 55-525 CHERRY HILLS SAN DIEGO CA 92186 SAN DIEGO CA 92173 LA QUINTA CA 92253 THOMSON GARY FRED RHODES MARJORIE S DENNIS K L THOMSON TOM WILBUR TRUST 1913 E 17TH ST #118 PO BOX 190 1401 AVOCADO AVE SANTA ANA CA 92705 COLTON CA 92324 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 AUHLL RICHARD A COX JONATHAN C S ROCKARTHUR C/O CIRCON CORP C/O COX BUCHANAN & PADMORE #1 MARITIME PLAZA STE 1220 6500 HOLLISTER AVE 396 SELBY LN SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111 SANTA BARBARA CA 93117-3019 ATHERTON CA 94027 KLEIN MICHAEL S ISAAC JENNIFER F TRUSTEE HO MARINA M Y PO BOX 626 13461 APPLE RD 4607 KOLONALA ST CORTE MADERA CA 94976 WILTON CA 95693 HONOLULU HI 96816 RULY HOLDINGS PTY LTD KRABACHER JOSEPH & ASSOC - C/O P O BOX 780 MASCOT NEW SOUTH WALES 2020 AUSTRALIA ~ EXHIBIT #3 CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Chris Bendon, 920.5072 DATE: 5.13.99 ~ PROJECT: Mitchel Residence 8040 Greenline and zoning variations REPRESENTATIVE: Alan Richman ~ OWNER: Mitchel TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1-step. P&Z for 8040 and zoning variances. Staff for residential design. DESCRIPTION: Replacement of existing single-family residence on a non-conforming lot in the Conservation zone and within 8040 review area. ~ Land Use Code Section(s) 26.435.30 8040 Greenline Review 26.410 Residential Design Standards ~ 26.314 Variances (See attached criteria) 26.710.220 Conservation Zone District 26.710.050 R-15 Zone District - use as a guide for dimensions ~ Review by: Staff for completeness, DRC (referral agencies), Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing: Yes. Posting and mailing for variance. Referral Agencies: Engineering, Parks, City Water, ACSD, Zoning, Building Department. ~ Planning Fees: 6 hour Planning Deposit ($1,110) Referral Agency Fees: Engineering, Minor ($160) Total Deposit: $1,270 (additional hours are billed at a rate of $185/hour) ~ To apply, submit the following information: Proof of ownership. .1 Signed fee agreement. 3. Applicant's name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant which states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. ~ 4. Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application. 5. Total deposit for review ofthe application ~ 6. 18 Copies of the complete application packet and maps. HPC = 12; PZ = 10; GMC = PZ+5; CC = 7; Referral Agencies = 1/ea.; Planning Staff= 2 7. An 8 1/2" by 11" vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen. ~ 8. Site improvement survey including topography and vegetation showing the current status, including all easements and vacated rights of way, of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the state of Colorado. 9. For Residential Proposals (Ord. 30): Cone copy for staff review unless a variation is sought) a) Neighborhood block plan at 1"=50' (available from City Engineering Department) Graphically show the front portions of all existing buildings on both sides of the block and their setback from the street in feet. Identify parking and front entry for each building and locate any accessory dwelling units along the alley. Indicate whether any portions of the houses immediately adjacent to the subject parcel are one story (only one living level). 1 . . b) Site plan atl"=10'. Show ground floors of all buildings on the subject parcel, as proposed, and footprints of 1 adjacent buildings for a distance of 100' from the side property lines. Show topography of the subject site with 2' contours. c) All building elevations at 1/8" = 1'-0, 1 d) Floor plans, roof plan, and elevations as needed to verify that the project meets or does not meet the "Primary Mass" standard. e) Photographic panorama. Show elevations of all buildings on both sides ofthe block, including present A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the proposed condition of the subject property. Label photos and mount on a presentation board. development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. Please include existing 1 conditions as well as proposed. I Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is ~ subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. ~ NOTES: . Staff recommends applicant configure lot using the R-15 Zone District as a guide rather than seek a rezoning. Zoning variances may be granted by the P&Z, pursuant to newly adopted land use code. ~ ' Applicant may proceed under the provisions of the new code prior to formal adoption date. â€¢ The Special Review procedure to replace a non-conforming structure is not applicable as applicant will be seeking a formal variance. ~ ' Staffrecommends a combined review pursuant to section 26.304(B)(1). â€¢ Applicant is encouraged to contact Parks Department if there are significant trees within the expected building area or access way. 920.5120. ~ â€¢ Building code requires a fire suppression system for structures over 5,000 gross square feet and for smaller structures which are difficult to access. Applicant may want to contact Fire Marshall to discuss requirement 1 prior to application. Ed VanWalraven. 925.5532. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . . HErwoRTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 5020 Road 154 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Fax 970 945-8454 Phone 970 945-7988 EXHIBIT #4 January 26, 1999 Ms. Cynthia Mitchell c/o Gary Tabasinske Architects, AIA Attn: Mr. Gary Tabasinske Lopez Island, Washington 98261 Job No. 198 609 305 Doe Run Road Subject: Geologic Site Assessment for the Mitchell Residence, 550 Aspen Alps (South) Road, Aspen, Colorado Dear Ms. Mitchell: As requested by Alan Richman, we have conducted a geologic site assessment at the proposed residence site. The purpose of the assessment was to review the geology of the area and identify conditions that should be considered for the project. A field reconnaissance of the site was made on December 14, 1998. The site was snow- covered at that time. In addition to the field reconnaissance, we have reviewed published geologic and mine maps and have looked at the site on aerial photographs. We have also completed a subsoil study that included three exploratory borings (Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, 1998). Proposed Development The proposed residence will be a five story structure stepped into the hillside. The residence will have a north-south dimension of about 100 feet and an east-west dimension between 20 and 55 feet. Cuts into the hillside for the proposed construction could be typically up to about 20 feet. Foundation loads are expected to be light to i retaining walls at the proposed building site will be demolished. moderate, typical of this type of residential building. The existing residence and Site Conditions The project site is located on the lower slopes of the Aspen Mountain Ski Area. The Little Nell ski run borders the property on the west. Slopes in the proposed building area are steep. There is about 40 feet of elevation difference across the building site. The hillside in the area slopes down to the north and northeast at about 35 % to 65 %. Major drainages do not cross through the property. Spar Gulch is located about 600 feet to the east. Vegetation consists primarily of oak and other brush. Several multi- family and single-family residences are located on the steep hillside in the vicinity of the property. Geologic Setting The project site is on the lower slope of Aspen Mountain. This part of the mountain is a large earthflow that developed since the late Pleistocene, about 20,000 years ago. The 1 . . Ms. Cynthia Mitchell January 26,1999 Page 2 Little Nell earthflow involves glacial moraine of probable Bull Lake age and overrides glacial outwash of early Pindale age (Bryant, 1979). The earthflow originated in the Vallejo Gulch area to the south. The resulting deposit forms a prominent, lobe-shaped land form at the base of the mountain. Old mine shafts and deep exploratory borings indicate that the lower part of the earthflow deposit is about 100 feet thick. It consists of angular rock fragments in a silty to clayey sand matrix. The formation rock underlying the earthflow deposit is complexly folded and faulted. Regional geologic mapping indicates that the project site is on the eastern limb of the north-trending Aspen Mountain syncline (Bryant, 1971). In this area the limb of the syncline dips steeply to the west at about 60Â¤. Formation rock likely present below the earthflow deposit in the vicinity of the project are the late Cretaceous and Paleocene- age aplite porphyry, the Pennsylvanian-age Beldon Formation, and the Mississippian- age Leadville Limestone. Underground mine working in the Aspen Mining District are located along the eastern limb of the Aspen Mountain Syncline. Mining of silver, lead and zinc started in the mid 1880's and peaked about 1890. Mining in the area substantially declined by 1930 and since 1952 very little mining has been done in the Aspen District. Most of the ore deposits were mined in steeply dipping ore chutes along the contact between the upper and lower parts of the Leadville Limestone. The ore deposits essentially follow the bedding along the eastern limb of the Aspen Mountain syncline (Spurr, 1898). Because of this, the mine stopes should dip steeply to the west in the project area. In most parts of the mining district the stopes are probably less than 10 feet wide, but in places stopes of around 50 feet wide may be present. 1 Geologic Site Assessment The proposed residence site is not in potential rockfall or snow avalanche hazard areas. 1 There are, however, several geologic conditions that could have an impact on Ihe project. These conditions are discussed below: Storm Water Management: The Spar Gulch drainage could produce debris floods and flows during periods of unusually intense thunderstorm precipitation or rapid melting of an unusually heavy snowpack. Schmueser Gordon Meyer (1999) has evaluated the flood potential for this drainage and determined the existing stream channel is adequate to convey the design tiood and debris flow potential beyond the Mitchell property. Based on this conclusion, on-site mitigation to protect the proposed residence against flooding is not needed. Mine Workings: The old mine maps show that some development mine workings may be present below the proposed building area, but extensive production stopes are not indicated (U.S. Geological Survey, 1980 and Aspen Mining Company, 1995). These maps show that the Argentium-Jaunita Incline and development drifts of the First and Second Levels of the Homestake Deep Shaft Mine are present below the proposed 1 . . Ms. Cynthia Mitchell January 26,1999 1 Page 3 building site. The shallowest development workings are about 400 feet below the surface judging from the elevations on the mine maps. The closest mapped mine shafts are located about 150 and 250 feet to the southwest of the proposed building site. Judging from the nature and locations of the mapped mine workings, the old mine workings should not present a potential hazard to the proposed residence. The building excavation should be observed for indications of past mining activities at the time of construction. If indications of unmapped shafts or tunnel portals are found, then stabilization will be needed. Construction-Related Slope Instability: Construction for the proposed residence will require relatively extensive disturbance of the steep hillside. The proposed grading increases the potential for construction-related slope instability. Geotechnical recommendations for site grading, retaining walls, surface drainage, and subsurface drainage that can be used to reduce the risk of construction-related slope instability are given in our subsoil study (Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, 1998). Earthflow Creep: The Little Nell earthfiow appears to be an old geologic feature that has not experienced large scale movements for a long time. The potential for large scale earthflow reactivation is considered to be low. We are, however, aware of historic slope creep movements in the western (opposite) side of the earthflow. Slope creep was measured in inclinometers in the western part of the earthflow between 1992 and 1996 when the monitoring was discontinued. During this four year period, total creep displacements were between 0.4 and 1.0 inches with average annual creep rates between 0.10 and 0.25 inches per year. It is not known if the creep has continued since 1996. The 1992 to 1996 creep movements resulted in structural distress to a building that has required maintenance to correct. Based on the available data, it is not possible to determine the area affected nor if similar creep movements have occurred, or are presently occurring, in the eastern part of the earthflow in the vicinity of the proposed building site. Deep exploratory borings and inclinometers monitoring over a period of years would be required to evaluate if creep movement are occurring at the proposed building site. If there have been any creep movements in the project area, they are likely widespread and include the overall Aspen Alps area. Earthquake Considerations: The project area could experience moderately strong earthquake-related ground shaking. Modified Mercalli Intensity VI ground shaking should be expected during a reasonable service life for the residence, but the probability for stronger ground shaking is low. Intensity VI ground shaking is felt by most people and causes general alarm, but results in negligible damage to structures of good design and construction. The residence should be designed to withstand moderately strong , ground shaking with little or no damage and not to collapse under stronger ground shaking. The region is in the Uniform Building Code, Seismic Risk Zone I. Based on 1 . . Ms. Cynthia Mitchell January 26,1999 1 Page 4 our current understanding of the earthquake hazard in this part of Colorado, we see no reason to increase the commonly accepted seismic risk zone for the area. Limitations This site assessment was conducted according to generally accepted engineering geology principles and practices in this area, at this time. We make no warranty either expressed or implied. The assessment was based on a field reconnaissance, review of published information, and our experience in the area. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by our client for identification of geologic conditions that should be considered for the project. We are not responsible for technical interpretations by others of our information. The construction excavation should be observed for indications of mine shafts and tunnel portals. Respectfully submitted, HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 2 046. /, 21 02-1- Ralph G. Mock Engineering Geologist Reviewed by: 1 . n 15222 ~*~ Steven L. Pawlak, P.El : F. :3 N tey; 1 1 RGM/kk lf:,83'ONALÂ¢41, ..12,5 CC: Alan Richman Planâ€¢~ 8:11>9%~ttn: Alan Richman Pattillo Associates Engin~ffMRc. - Attn: Robert Pattillo REFERENCES Aspen Mining Company, 1995, Map of Mine Workings on Aspen Mountain: Date and author of map unknown. Bryant, B., 1979, Geology of the Aspen 15-Minute Quadrangle, Pitkin and Gunnison Counties, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1073. Bryant, B., 1971, Geology Map of the Aspen Quadrangle, Pitkin County, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Map GQ-933. 1 1 . . Ms. Cynthia Mitchell January 26,1999 1 Page 5 Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, 1998, Subsoil Sm* for Foundation Design, Proposed Mitchell Residence, 550 Aspen Alps (South) Road, Aspen, Colorado: Prepared for Cynthia Mitchell (Job No. 198 609, November 30, 1998). Schmueser Gordon Meyer, 1999, The Mitchell Residence, Aspen Alps South Road, Relationship to the Spar Gulch Drainage: Prepared for Mr. Alan Richman, dated January 12, 1999. Spurr, R.E., 1898, Geology ofthe Aspen Mining District.Â· U.S. Geological Survey Monograph 31. U.S. Geological Survey, 1980, Mine Map Compilation and Cross-Sections of Mines at Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado: Map File RO-23 (Maps prepared by R. P. Rohlfing 1928 and 1948). 1 1 I 1 1 1 < EXIBM #5 ~ HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 5020 Road 154 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone 970 945-7988 Fax 970 945-8454 1 1 SUBSOIL STUDY FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN PROPOSED MITCHELL RESIDENCE 550 ASPEN ALPS (SOUTH) ROAD ASPEN, COLORADO 1 JOB NO. 198 609 1 NOVEMBER 30, 1998 PREPARED FOR: CYNTHIA MITCHELL C/O GARY TABASINSKE ARCHITECTS, AIA ATTN: GARY TABASINSKE 305 DOE RUN ROAD LOPEZ ISLAND, WASHINGTON 98261 1 1 . 0 HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. November 30, 1998 Cynthia Mitchell c/o Gary Tabasinske Architect, AIA Attn: Gary Tabasinske 305 Doe Run Road Lopez Island, Washington 98261 Job No. 198 609 Subject: Report Transmittal, Subsoil Study for Foundation Design, Proposed Mitchell Residence, 550 Aspen Alps (South) Road, Aspen, Colorado Dear Ms. Mitchell: As requested, we have conducted a subsoil study for the proposed residence at the subject site. Subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings drilled in the proposed building area generally consist of 1 to 5 feet of fill materials overlying medium dense silty to clayey sand with scattered to frequent gravel. Silty sandy gravel with cobbles and boulders was encountered beneath the sands at depths of 1 and 28 feet in Borings 1 and 3, respectively. Groundwater was not encountered in the borings at the time of drilling or when checked about 4 weeks later. The proposed residence can be founded on spread footings placed on the natural subsoils and designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 psf. There is a risk of construction-induced slope stability at the site due to the proposed deep hillside cuts. The report which follows describes our exploration, summarizes our findings, and presents our recommendations. It is important that we provide consultation during design, and field services during construction to review and monitor the implementation of the geotechnical recommendations. If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact us. Sincerely, HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. (1 41 -*ruvi / ImÂ»Lut Jor* Z. *1*son, Jr. WE. Rey. By:/SLP JZA/ksm 1 . 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION SITE CONDITIONS m FIELD EXPLORATION SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ENGINEERING ANALYSIS DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS FOUNDATIONS . . FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS FLOOR SLABS UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM SITE GRADING SURFACE DRAINAGE LIMITATIONS FIGURE 1 - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 2 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 3 - LEGEND AND NOTES FIGURE 4 - SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS FIGURE 5 - GRADATION TEST RESULTS TABLE I - SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS 1 1 1 H-P GEOTECH 1 . 0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY This report presents tile results of a subsoil study for a proposed residence to be located at 550 Aspen Alps (South) Road, Aspen, Colorado. The project site is shown on Fig. 1. The purpose o f the study was to develop recommendations for the foundation design. The study was conducted in accordance with our agreement for geotechnical engineering services to Cynthia Mitchell dated August 24, 1998. A field exploration program consisting of exploratory borings was conducted to obtain information on subsurface conditions. Samples of the subsoils obtained during the field exploration were tested in the laboratory to determine their classification, compressibility or swell and other engineering characteristics. The results of the field exploration and laboratory testing were analyzed to develop recommendations for foundation types, depths and allowable pressures for the proposed building foundation. This report summarizes the data obtained during this study and presents our conclusions, design recommendations and other geotechnical engineering considerations based on the proposed construction and the subsoil conditions encountered. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION At the time of our study, design plans for the residence were in progress. The proposed building footprint is shown on Fig. 1. The residence is currently planned to consist of five levels stepped into the north facing hillside. Excavation for the building will have a maximum cut depth of about 30 feet below the existing ground surface for construction of an entry level elevator in the central portion of the residence. For the purpose of our analysis, foundation loadings for the structure were assumed to be light to moderate and typical of the proposed type of construction. If building loadings, location or grading plans change significantly from those described above, we should be notified to re-evaluate the recommendations contained in this report. 1 H-P GEOTECH 1 i . 0 -2- SITE CONDITIONS The site is occupied by an existing five story wood frame and concrete house stepped into the north facing hillside. The existing residence will be razed for the new construction. The ground surface slopes steep to very steep down to the north-northeast at grades between about 30 % and 60 %. There is about 40 feet of elevation difference * across the site. A utility easement and Little Nell Ski Slope are located immediately west of the site. Vegetation consists of evergreen and scattered aspen trees. FIELD EXPLORATION 1 The field exploration for the project was conducted on October 8 and 12, 1998. Three 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. Boring 1, in an existing pavement area, was drilled with a truck-mounted CME-55 drill rig. Borings 2 and 3 were drilled with a track-mounted CME-45 drill rig. The borings were logged by a representative of Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. Samples of the subsoils were taken with 13/8 inch and 2 inch I.D. spoon samplers. The samplers were 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 subsoils. 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. I 1 H-P GEOTECH l I . 0 -3- SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 1 Graphic logs of the subsurface conditions encountered at the site are shown on Fig. 2. The subsoils generally consist of about 1 to 5 feet of manplaced fill overlying medium dense, silty to clayey sand with scattered to frequent gravels. Relatively dense silty sandy gravel with cobbles and boulders was encountered beneath the sands at depths of 1 and 28 feet in Borings 1 and 3, respectively. Drilling in the dense gravel 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 density, Atterberg limits and gradation analyses. Results of consolidation testing performed on a relatively undisturbed drive sample of silty sand, presented on Fig. 4, indicate low to moderate compressibility under conditions of loading and wetting. Results of gradation analyses performed on small diameter drive samples (minus 11/2 inch fraction) of the natural coarse granular soils are shown on Fig. 5. The laboratory testing is summarized in Table I. No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling or when checked about 4 weeks later. The subsoils were slightly moist to moist. ENGINEERING ANALYSIS Based on geotechnical considerations it should be feasible to construct the proposed residence on the site with proper planning and design. The proposed relatively deep cuts will tend to increase the risk of construction-induced slope stability. The building foundation and retaining walls will need to be designed to resist appropriate lateral earth pressures. Spread footings bearing on the natural soils should be feasible for building support. We should observe the excavation to evaluate the suitability of the bearing materials. H-P GEOTECH i . 0 -4- DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS FOUNDATIONS Considering the subsoil conditions encountered in the exploratory borings and the nature of the proposed construction, we recommend the building be founded with spread footings bearing on the natural granular subsoils. The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a spread footing foundation system. 1) Footings placed on the undisturbed natural subsoils should be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 psf. A one-third increase in the bearing capacity can be assumed for maximum toe pressure of retaining walls. Based on experience, we expect settlement of footings designed and constructed as discussed in this section will be about 1 inch or less. Additional settlement could occur for footings bearing on the upper sandy soils if they become wetted. 2) The footings should have a minimum width of 16 inches for continuous walls and 2 feet for isolated pads. 3) Exterior footings and footings beneath unheated areas should be provided with adequate soil cover above their bearing elevation for frost protection. Placement of foundations at least 42 inches below exterior grade is typically used in this area. 4) Continuous foundation walls should be reinforced top and bottom to span local anomalies such as by assuming an unsupported length of at least 12 feet. Foundation walls acting as retaining structures should also be designed to resist lateral earth pressures as discussed in the "Foundation and Retaining Walls" section of this report. All existing fill and debris from previous site development, topsoil and 5) any loose or disturbed soils should be removed and the footing bearing level extended down to relatively dense natural soils. If water seepage is H-P GEOTECH 1 . . -5- 1 encountered, the footing areas should be dewatered before concrete placement. 6) A representative of the geotechnical engineer should observe all footing excavations prior to concrete placement to evaluate bearing conditions. FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS Foundation walls and retaining structures up to about 15 feet tall which are laterally supported and call be expected to undergo only a slight amount of deflection should be designed for a lateral earth pressure computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight o f 50 pef for backfill consisting of the on-site granular soils. Cantilevered retaining structures up to about 15 feet tall which are separate from the residence and can be expected to deflect sufficiently to mobilize the full active earth pressure condition should be designed for a lateral earth pressure computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of 40 pef for backfill consisting of the on-site granular soils. Foundation walls and retaining structures greater than 15 feet tall should be designed for a uniform lateral earth pressure in psf of 20 and 25 times the wall height in feet for the active and restrained condition, respectively. Backfill should not contain debris, vegetation, topsoil or oversized rock. All foundation and retaining structures should be designed for appropriate hydrostatic and surcharge pressures such as adjacent footings, traffic, construction materials and equipment. The pressures recommended above assume drained conditions behind the walls and a horizontal backfill surface. The buildup of water behind a wall or an upward sloping backfill surface will increase the lateral pressure imposed on a foundation wall or retaining structure. An underdrain should be provided to prevent hydrostatic pressure buildup behind walls. For a 2 horizontal to 1 vertical upward backfill slope the lateral earth pressures should be increased by at least 25 % for the active condition and 33 % for the restrained condition. Backfill should be placed in uniform lifts and compacted to at least 90 % of the maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Backfill in pavement and walkway areas should be compacted to at least 95 % of the maximum H-P GEOTECH 1 1 . 0 -6- standard Proctor density. Care should be taken not to overcompact the backfill or use large equipment near the wall, since this could cause excessive lateral pressure on the wall. Some settlement of deep foundation wall backfill should be expected, even if the material is placed correctly, and could result in distress to facilities constructed on the backfill. Using a granular material and increasing the compaction to at least 98 % standard Proctor density should help reduce the settlement potential. We recommend granular soils for backfilling foundation wall and retaining structures because their use results in lower lateral earth pressures and the backfill can be incorporated into the underdrain system. Subsurface drainage recommendations are discussed in more detail in the "Underdrain System" section of this report. Granular wall backfill should contain less than 25 % passing the No. 200 sieve and have a maximum size of 8 inches. In general, we expect the on-site soils could be used as wall backfill. 1 The lateral resistance of foundation or retaining wall footings will be a combination of the sliding resistance of the footing on the foundation materials and passive earth pressure against the side of the footing. Resistance to sliding at the bottoms of the footings can be calculated based on a coefficient of friction of 0.45. Passive pressure of compacted backfill against the sides of the footings call be calculated using an equivalent fluid unit weight of 400 pcf. The coefficient of friction and passive pressure values recommended above assume ultimate soil strength. Suitable factors of safety should be included in the design to limit the strain which will occur at the ultimate strength, particularly in the case of passive resistance. Fill placed against the sides of the footings to resist lateral loads should be a granular material compacted to at least 95 % of the maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near *imum. FLOOR SLABS The natural on-site soils, exclusive of topsoil, are suitable to support lightly loaded slab-on-grade construction. To reduce the effects of some differential movement, floor sIabs should be separated from all bearing walls and columns with H-P GEOTECH 1 1 0 0 -7- expansion joints which allow unrestrained vertical movement. Floor slab control joints should be used to reduce damage due to shrinkage cracking. The requirements for joint spacing and slab reinforcement should be established by the designer based on 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 m should consist of minus 2 inch aggregate with at least 50 % retained on the No. 4 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 optimum. Required fill can consist of the on-site soils devoid of vegetation, topsoil and oversized rock. UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM Although free water was not encountered during our exploration, it has been our experience in the area 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 construction, such as retaining walls, and below grade living areas, be protected from wetting and hydrostatic pressure buildup by an underdrain system. The drains should consist of drainpipe placed in the bottom of the wall backfill surrounded above the invert level with free-draining granular material. The drain should be placed at each level of excavation and 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 sieve, less than 50 % passing the No. 4 sieve and have a maximum size of 2 inches. The drain gravel backfill should be at least 11/2 feet deep. SITE GRADING There is a risk of construction-induced slope instability at the site due to the proposed relatively extensive cuts. We have not performed a formal slope stability analysis of the site. The recommendations presented below are based on the subsurface H.P GEOTECH 1 1 . 0 -8- conditions encountered and our previous experience in the area, and are intended for preliminary design purposes. Cuts up to about 15 feet deep should be feasible for temporary excavations. Deeper cuts should be evaluated on a site specific basis and could require temporary shoring such as soil nailing or driven piles and timber lagging. We expect that an internal friction of 32Â° can be assumed for the native soils in the shoring design. Embankment fills should be limited to about 10 feet deep and be compacted to at least 95 % of the maximum standard Proctor density near optimum moisture content. Prior to fill placement, the subgrade should be carefully prepared by removing all vegetation and topsoil and compacting the exposed subgrade to 95 % standard Proctor density. Sloping areas steeper than 20 % should be benched to provide a relatively level base for fill placement. Permanent unretained cut and fill slopes should be graded at 2 horizontal to 1 vertical or flatter and protected against erosion by revegetation or other means. The risk of slope instability will be increased if seepage is encountered in cuts and flatter slopes may be necessary. If seepage is encountered in permanent cuts, an investigation should be conducted to determine if the seepage will adversely affect the cut stability. This office should review site grading plans for temporary excavations and for the project prior to construction. SURFACE DRAINAGE The following drainage precautions should be observed during construction and maintained at all times after the residence 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 compacted 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. H-P GEOTECH 1 . 0 -9- 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. Free-draining wall backfill should be capped with about 2 feet of the on-site finer graded soils to reduce surface water infiltration. 4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all backfill. 5) Surface water should not be concentrated and directed onto the steep hillside without adequate erosion protection. LIMITATIONS This study has been conducted in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices in this area at this time. We make no warranty either expressed or implied. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the exploratory borings drilled at the locations indicated on Fig. 1, the proposed type of construction and our experience in the area. Our findings include interpolation and extrapolation of the subsurface conditions identified at the exploratory borings and variations in the subsurface conditions may not become evident until excavation is performed. If conditions encountered during construction appear different from those described in this report, we should be notified so that re-evaluation of the recommendations may be made. m This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by our client for design purposes. We are not responsible for technical interpretations by others of our information. As the project evolves, we should provide continued consultation and field services during construction to review and monitor the implementation of our recommendations, and to verify that the recommendations have been appropriately interpreted. Significant design changes may require additional analysis or modifications to the recommendations presented herein. We recommend on-site observation of H-P GEOTECH 1 1 . 0 - 10 - excavations and foundation bearing strata and testing of structural fill by a representative o f the geotechnical engineer. Sincerely, HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOT~QMN**~, INC. ~~~~~/ rlt AbbMEFN ADA*2'...'?,Y<~ X44> WO'Â·, 6 0 ft<c> , rt -7729707 lordy Z. AdaI#son,~gP,E. 4, ./Or k W t., 'll Reviewed By~ : - â‚¬2.213-1--2.-\4 ICÂ»+6 -/4 f2 8 f.7 9- E-.5 9/ONAL_~ Citurf./4 /1 .---1- jvÂ« li''Y- 1 . Steven L. Pawlak, P.E. JZA/ksm . ec. Pattillo Associates Engineers, Inc. - Attn: Bob Pattillo Alan Richman H-P GEOTECH i. 0 APPROXIMATE SCALE 1" = 20' 80 --. ~~<BORING 1 . EXIST/NG 1\ WOOD RETAINING WALLS BORING 2 . \ 90 N I-3 -to 7 - - a 0 6 Fl EXISTING \ ~ j 4 1 -j I RESIDENCE \ ~ 9 0% 'f /f. loN 1 100- L /114 71 de) 1 --PROPOSED I -----I-.Â· - -- '4 - .~~- --~ RESIDENCE -~-~ ~ -~ . (SHADEDÂ·j - BORING 3 00 PROPERTY \ 110 BOUNDARY '56 7 0 0 -- 1 ~ 198 609 HEPWORTH - PAWLAK LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Fig. 1 GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 1 1 . 0 BORING 1 BORING 2 BORING 3 ELEV. = 76' ELEV. = 85' ELEV. = 106' 0 -105 105_ -..22 ~~~1 25/12 _ .â€¢ J 100 100- t.:/ 1 - .... .... 29/12 - 1 3 WC=0.9 ;:t: DD=122 95 - 95 Â·:,2 +4=56 tNÂ· -200=12 ,- Â·26 17/12 - - ?F91 - - 90 4.; 90 - .. 1 2 .... t.:/ 57-~ 25/12 - 1 M 1 - g DD=137 85 - +4=33 $,R: -200=28 3 .... 1- - 0 25,15/12 - 80 A. 80- 1- .... ... 9 - > â‚¬.. d.â€¢ ~ 20/0 - .. I- M I= '81 38/12 g. - 75_ 75 4 U> WC= 5.8 0.. 20. -200=19 - 0 61 LL=25 PROPOSED ENTRY LEVEL 36 Â·:fÂ· pl=7 Â£::W ELEVATION = 72.5' - t.., K .... - *I 10/2,10/0 !:~-1 38/12 - 9'.t :6. 70 - - 70 9 2 9Â·:r- WC=10.9 ;A: DD=127 3 fe - ~>; -200=35 00. .... G. 30/0 ~20/ 50/3 .... -42.r 97 50/12 - - 65 1-IT 2.0 1 65 - Note: Explanation of symbols is shown on Fig. 3. ~ 198 609 HEPWORTH - PAWLAK LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Fig. 2 GEOTECHNICAL, INC. : ':'.~...R .... Feet lead uo!}DAa I3 LEGEND: ~ ASPHALT PAVEMENT El BASE COURSE .. ~ MANPLACED FILL: sandy clay with gravel, stiff, moist, dark brown, overlot grading. mixed browns. ~.~ SAND (SM-SC); silty to clayey, scattered to frequent gravel, medium dense, slightly moist 4 to moist, mixed browns. ~~ GRAVEL (GM); silty, sandy, with cobbles and boulders, medium dense to dense, slightly moist, U'51 yellowish brown. Relatively undisturbed drive sample; 2-inch I.D. California liner sample. Drive sample; standard penetration test ( SPT ), 1 3/8-inch I.D. split spoon sample, ASTM D - 1586. Drive sample blow count: indicates that 15 blows of a 140-pound hammer folling 30 inches were 15/12 required to drive the California or SPT sampler 12 inches. - Depth at which boring caved when checked on November 10, 1998. T Practical rig refusal. NOTES: 1. Exploratory borings were drilled on October 8 and 12, 1998 with a 4-inch diameter continuous flight power auger. 2. Locations of exploratory borings were measured approximately by pacing from features shown on the site plon provided. 3. Elevations of exploratory 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 moterials shown on the exploratory boring logs represent the approximate boundaries between material types and transitions may be gradual. 6. No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling or when checked about 4 weeks later Fluctuation in water level may occur with time. 7. Laboratory Testing Results: WC = Water Content (%) DD = Dry Density ( pef ) +4 = Percent retained on No. 4 sieve. -200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve. LL = Liquid Limit (%) PI = Plasticity Index (%) 198 609 HEPWORTH - PAWLAK LEGEND AND NOTES Fig. 3 GEOTECHNICAL, INC. I. 1 . 0 Moisture Content = 10.9 percent Dry Density Weight = 127 pcf Sample of: Silty Sand From: Boring 2 at 14 Feet 0 1 No m ovem en t upon wetting 2 \0 3 1 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE - ksf ~ 198 609 HEPWORTH - PAWLAK SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 4 GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Compression % 1 . 0 HMÂ»KMETER ANAL,YSES 9Ek ANALYSS | 1 TME READ-GS US STANDARD SERIES | a EAR SaWIE OPE-GS | 24 HA. 7 HR 45 61-. 15 -I. 60 -1.19 MIC 4 Mill 1 -1. 0200 .00 .50 030 .16 - 04 3/rl/Z'3/4- 11/2- r 5=C i , i , i , i , , i ~ Eli 0 i Ni i,ii'111'!1 11,1]11111[ 1,1''il,1 , i ~ i i i i T ~ ~ ~ ~| ~ '~ ~ ~; ;10 il 5 : 1 ( 6 9 ; 5 : : : : /: .... 1 1,]11,1,1,1 6/ : 1,!1 111'I11~1111~ 1111 BO' ' ' ' Â· Â· 1 ' 1 ' I ' 1 4 ' '' 120 ' I . 1 1 ' 1 lilli]11]1 11'1'' 1 ] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ''I'' 1 1 70 ' , 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11.1 1 1 11 130 I, i,i,5,2 5,1 1/1 1,111 1 1,11 1 1 111.11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 [ 1 1/1 1 : 6: 4 60 E ~ ~ i 5 ~ 5 i E ~ i i 7~ i i i i- C 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 /1 ] 1 1 11 1~ , 1 ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 '1] 1 ; 1 1 1 TI[ 1 1 ' 1.Ill i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I.'|1 1 11 11 1 '': i . 1 -1111 1111 1 1 1 1 1 i, 1 1 1 1 11 1 I !,lilli 11,1 , i lili : ! 1 11! ,-1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 .1, 1 00 1 11 , ~ 1 1 J jit-; 11 1 1 1 11 I 1, 1 111/111..-111|11'111 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , 1-1 [ JO ' 1 , 1 1 I 1 1 1- 1 ! 1 111 1 1 : :70 1 1 1 [ 1 1-1 1 1 1 1 1 ! 1 1 {It 1 1/1 1 1 1 1 1 1 lili . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1, 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' I, 1 , 1 1 11 1 1 1 11 1 20' . 1, 180 f 1 1 1 1 1 ./. 1 1 1 1 1 '1'{ I 1, 1 111,1111!11,1,11 I J 1 1 1 -1 1 [ 1 1 1 111 1 lili 1 , 1 ' 1 1-- ' 1 1 ] I [ 1 1 1 1 11 1 10 ~ 1 '90 11!1111,11 [1, 1,111 1 1''lli,1,11 '11 lilli 1,1,11,1,,1111.1,1 1 11 1 1 1 1 ] 1 1 1 : 11! : 0' ' , 1 i , 1 J 1 1 , 1 ' Il ' 100 001 .002 .005 .009 .074 .150Â·300 600 1.18 2.36 4.75 0.5 10.0 37.5 78.2 152 203 .Olg .037 115 127 DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS CLAY TO 9LT SAND GRAVEL COBBLES FNE 1 WEDIUM ICOARSE FINE I COARSE GRAVEL 56 % SAND 32 % SILT AND CLAY 12 % m LIQUID LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX % SAMPLE OF: Silty Sondy Gravel FROM: Boring 3 ct 9 Feet HYDROWETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS 1 i i 1 11)â‚¬ READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERiES CLEAR SQUARE opodINGS I 1 24 HR. 7 HR 45 -4. 15 Mill 60 -1.19 -4 4 -L 1 -4. #200 #too #50 #30#16 B '', , , , , ir~M 11~ f rr r o 1 1 1 1 1 , ' 1 1 ' 1 1 1 /1 1 11 [ 1, 1/,Ill'11'il}'111'il 11 1!11,11,11 11,1 90 1 1 i' 6,5 lillill' : i: :10 't 6/'I''Illl 11/1 11,1 } 1 !1 1 1 Ill ' IIi ' 1 ' ' 1. ' ' 1 '' ' 1 1 1 1 1 , 1 : 1 f 1 1 1 1,1 1 1 1 11 1 1 I I 1 I 1 1 ! 1 1 1 '11 1 1 11 1 1 [11111,!111/1,1 .i:] : 1 11 1 I111I1[I/1}1it1i , , 1 , 1 1 ' 1 ' 1 ' -1 '1' ' 1 '' ' 1 111111,1 1 1,1 11 1 lili 60 ~ 1,1,11'111,1,1 '' '40 i ./i,/i,,1 1 1 11 1111 1 1-' l i / 1 1 1 1 1 1-- [ 1 111 1 1 '1 1 1 1 1 1 1--,1 11 1 Ill 1 -1 50, i ' I T 1 1 I ~1 1 ~ 1 11 1 1 6 'i ; ' i , i - ' i ' 1 1 ! 1 1 li 1 i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 ,1 , 1 1 1 111 1 '1]1 1 1 1 1,) 1 ' 1 11 1 1 1 , 1 1 40' ' ''' ,i-,,<,i,, ,~ ~~ 11 11111 1.i '60 ' ' 1 /T F $ S & B ' 111' 1 1 1 1 111 1 1 1 1 /1 / 1 1 1 1 1 1 :,1 1 ''1,',]/!1' 30 1 1 1 M G. ' ' ' ' 1 11 1 1 1 11 170 11 ' ' 1 ' & ' ' C ! ' a ' 5 ! ' ' ' ' /1 1 1, 1 11,1 111,11111 11 20 11311 111'11180 lif,I,11 1 11 1,11 1,1 11 111: lili i! '11'll,1, ''|/ 1,111111,111,11'1. 10â€¢ 1 1 1 . 1 1 + 1 1 1 1 1 11:lili' ' lili lilli I lilli 1,11 1!J '11111!1 111 1,111 11 111111!1!11 il 11,11 O , 1 I r r L Â£ i i , r I, 1 100 001 .002 .005 .009 .074 300 .600 1.18 2.36 4.75 0-5 19.0 37 5 7&2 152 203 019 .037 .150 12-5 127 DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS WY TO SLT SAND GRAVEL (0881LES FNE 1 WEDIUM ICOARSE ANE 1 COARSE GRAVEL 33 % SAND 39 % SILT AND CLAY 28 % UQUID LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX % SAMPLE OF: Silty Sand and Gravel FROM: Boring 3 at 19 Feet 198 609 GRADATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 5 HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. PERCENT PASSING PERCENT PASSING 03NI 138 1N3083d 03NIV13H 1N30B3d HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TABLE I JOB No. 198 609 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS SAMPLE LOCATION NATURAL NATURAL GRADATION PERCENT ATTERBERG LIMITS UNCONFINED BORING DEPTH MOISTURE DRY GRAVEL SAND PASSING LIQUID PLASTIC COMPRESSIVE SOIL OR 4 leet) CONTENT DENSITY (96) (96) NO. 200 LIMIT INDEX STRENGTH BEDROCK TYPE (96) (pcf) SIEVE (96) (96) (PSF) 2 9 5.8 19 25 7 Clayey Sand 14 10.9 127 35 Silty Sand ~ 3 9 0.9 122 56 32 12 Silty Sandy Gravel 19 7.5 137 33 39 28 Silty Sand and Gravel ENGINEERS 1.--4 P.O. Box 2155 SURVEYORS (970) 925-6727 SCHMUESER ~ FAX (970) 925-4157 GORDON MEYER - Aspen. CO 81612 January 12, 1999 EXHIBIT #6 1 Mr. Alan Richman Alan Richman Planning Services P.O. Box 3613 Aspen, CO. 81611 RE: The Mitchell Residence, Aspen Alps South Road, Relationship to the Spar Gulch Drainaqe Dear Alan: 1 I am writing in follow-up to our conversations regarding the location of the Mitchell residence relative to the Spar Gulch drainage on Aspen Mountain. Based on geologic site assessment work by the firm of Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc., you had asked me to evaluate the flood potential for this drainage and determine if the existing stream channel will convey the appropriate design flood and debris flow without hazard to the Mitchell site. I would begin by noting that I am not specifically a hydrologist but rather a general civil engineer with knowledge and experience relative to hydrology. I offer these comments and observations regarding the location of the Mitchell residence site relative to the Spar Gulch drainage in the 1 context of existing storm runoff studies that have been prepared for the City of Aspen dating back to 1973. In the event that there remain concerns with this issue, further study by a true hydrologist may be in order. 1 Attached as Figure 1 is a 200 scale topographic map of the vicinity showing the Mitchell residence and the Lower Spar Gulch drainage. As noted in the Mock / Pawlak letter, Spar Gulch 1 is about 600 feet southeast of the Mitchell site. Spar Gulch is well-defined directly south of the Mitchell home, becoming more poorly defined as it turns east past Gaard Moses home and into the Aspen Chance Subdivision. The most recent analysis of potential flows in Lower Spar was the DRAINAGE FACILITY CAPACITY l ANALYSIS OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO prepared by \NRC Engineering, Inc. in September of 1998. Excerpts from the WRC analysis are attached as Exhibit 1. Figure 2 in Exhibit 1 shows the Mitchell site in relation to the Lower Spar basin (labelled as sub-watershed 14 on Figure 2). As indicated on the WRC watershed delineation mapping, the Mitchell residence is located well outside the Lower Spar Gulch watershed boundary in a small sub-basin identified as sub-watershed 15. The WRC analysis utilizes a variety of hydrologic modelling methodologies to determine potential design flows for the 2-year, 5-year, 10-year, 50-year and 100-year storm events. WRC also generated figures for rarer rain on snow events, which result in substantially higher flow potential, but goes on to discount those results as a multiple-probability event beyond the scope of their study. For rain events, WRC calculated a range of potential flows from 340 cfs to 532 cfs for Spar Gulch using FLO-2D, HEC-1 and CUHP/SWMM computer analysis methodologies and varying infiltration assumptions as shown on Table 16 of Exhibit 1. 118 West 6th, Suite 200 â€¢ Glenwood Springs, Colorado â€¢ (970) 945-1004 1 . 0 January 12, 1999 Mr. Alan Richman Page 2 Another important aspect of the WRC analysis was to model mud flow (debris flow) and mud flood potential on the major drainages into town. Figure 3 in Exhibit 1 represents a worst-case assumption with respect to sediment concentration (45%) for a debris flow condition out of Lower Spar Gulch (note that Figure 3 is "inverted" relative to the prior figures). Figure 3 demonstrates that, even assuming a worst case sediment condition for the 100-year event, the Mitchell site is outside the area impacted by the potential flow and deposition from Lower Spar. Another source of information regarding the hydrology of the Spar Gulch area is the City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP) prepared by Wright-McLaughlin Engineers in 1973. The older Wright-McLaughlin study also analyzed the Spar Gulch basin which the URMP identified as having a 302 efs peak flow for the 100-year frequency storm event. Figure 4 is a detail from the URMP document showing the potential routing of a 100-year storm event down lower Spar (north is now to the right). Figure 4 is also intended to show a new "Spar Gulch / West Aspen Floodway" improvement but it indicates that a flood / debris flow event is likely to remain within lower Spar Gulch to the vicinity of elevation 8025 which is down-gradient and in the range of 600 feet from the Mitchell site. Based on recent site inspections, there are a few improvements in the lower Spar area that are not well identified on the exhibit figures: 1. At one time, grading in the vicinity of the base of Aspen Mountain Lift 5, indicated on Figure 2, may have interfered with the routing of potential flows down into Lower Spar. The Aspen Skiing Company, in conjunction with other mountain improvements in the early 1980's, re-established the drainage channel past the base of the lift such that Spar Gulch 1 flows should continue down Lower Spar as they did historically. This channel improvement is not visible at this time of year but can be verified following snowmelt in the spring. 2. There is a 72" culvert under a small trail crossing in the Spar drainage about 200 feet upslope of Gaard Moses residence (shown on Figure 1). The culvert has a theoretical capacity of about 250 cfs although the upstream end is damaged and filled with rock and debris to limit the open cross section to about 33% of the full diameter. A 100-year frequency event would likely block this culvert with debris but, based on my site inspections, the flow would then overtop the trail and continue directly down lower Spar Gulch. The trail platform does not offer the potential for diversion of a flood flow east or west from the culvert crossing to any significant degree. 3. The Gaard Moses residence is larger than shown on the older topo maps and has a well- defined channel along the Spar flowline to route the flow to the northeast. Again, if debris conditions caused some flow diversion in the vicinity of the Moses home, such overflows probably would not travel far from the main gulch. 4. The Aspen Chance Subdivision, northeast of the Gaard Moses residence, has constructed a structural flow channel sized for the 100-year event (based on the Wright- Mclaughlin data) out of lower Spar. The Aspen Chance channel would direct the flow toward the lower Aspen Alps Road and Glory Hole Park (noted as the "natural overflow" SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC 1 . 0 January 12, 1999 Mr. Alan Richman Page 3 on Figure 3). At this point, the flow is entirely down-gradient of the Mitchell site. In short, it is my opinion that the lower Spar Gulch drainage corridor is sufficiently well-defined and sufficiently far from the Mitchell residence site that the property is not threatened by flood or debris flow conditions from the Spar basin. The well-defined upper gulch, steep side gradients back into Spar and the limited nature of obstructions to the lower gulch would not appear to create conditions whereby an overflow condition or flow diversion caused by a debris plug would get to the Mitchell site. I hope these observations and comments will be adequate for your application work relative to the Mitchell site. My observation of the site is that it is on a minor ridge between lower Spar and the Little Nell ski slope such that upslope drainage impacts are quite limited. The WRC report also demonstrates that the site is outside the influence of the Lower Spar Gulch sub-watershed. Feel free to contact me if you have further questions or require additional information. Very Truly Yours, SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. / k.7.CL',h /1 / t- --- --7 ~~. Jay W. 'Hammond, P.E. Principal, Aspen Office JH/jh 98121SG1 SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC I tj' 1-111 A # 1 ~ -3 1 I v 41 1 ./ 1 %179 (WN -#Â· ---- ~c-:E)}I--\ *:+1 - W 1 LE----L/'>4#Er-flt-fl,~279.lE~ f-p~ /E-,rk 1 n \ --*3 4 7 - 1 1 - 4 / It Â· v f--4 ti -;/<- 2 f- 91'1~01 /v i ~ Elt=-i-f-1) 2 18 + 3 -1 U --4./ ---~ 6-L .-'fi~-&-4.- P . '- i_-1- 1-.ZIZE>Er- --1 --7 -1 , /-1 .-. + 4//-%)-13 Apr 1 1 1.- -- 0 /3-72-30_----:4 .. -=- /7-- ' 1 -0 *F-r v Â»p n -E 1 1,1-1.*1~ \LI 1= â€ž69- - t. I- .1... ........ 0 2 375-St----22Â»02~-, - -. 6 1 1.1 J A - 404- LrÂ«lLc/l /1 1-1 11 1 $' 1 1 Â·--1 I - 212 -17<43$-2~:5.~~~.1 , ~.; ~~' ./r =1.- JkY--1:"14 :i kilckÂ·, _.7 (141.El . CJ 2- . L +1-11=--1 11 t -- ---- - ---. ~2\ \\\ 1.-3 .... 214 . 1 Â° Ar ...; --- --/7=r--- 1\~\ ...f (.--fal[Fal - -_1 [1 -A %-1 6- 0 \ *- /) 11 JJ 1111 9-1 f =-7 . & I ~ -- 12-2-il,r btr-~-re-13 EL 47 1---<- Nt. 6 Â»\ 9 IT- t; i .2 4, \ 1 ----,1 -FIR.5~ I =*I . h ,, / -- 41, / \ 0/ 1 . - --5:-FAA;~f 6 - N h ---- - & / /IN ' â€¢ 'Â· MITCHELL RESIDENCE _.--, - , , , lcD 1 Y) \ \044\ \\DOOÂ» \\\ ~>9 \ - 02.11 '1 l O.r 3 - .\0 Â· r f. 0,.4:. i (j LOWER ASPEN ALPS ROAD r '~454 ' ~ . - JU-- f--11 & 12 --- 1 1 7 - f<L \ /4/ . ~ 1. - 11 ---\ N / -3- f .3 f . I- 1472,-4.2-0 1 \ GAARD MOSES RESIDENCE ASPEN CHANCE SUBDIVISION --~.-~97 V-- . . . : - 37 j ~ -22-1 - VI- 1 - re- - '2 3\- - . -=-r-44&~ SPAR GULCH --== --- - 1 - - V \ - 11- 1 0 - ---- - -/ill//.-A---2, 4-3--C 72" CMP CULVERT CROSSING i,~% r FIGURE 1 27==" \ CITY OF ASPEN TOPOGRAPHIC MAP 1 -/2227 - Â£ 14*---322- sif------ Scale: 1" = 200' L ~L C.I. = 2' 11 1 . . 1 1 1 1 DRAINAGE FACILITY CAPACITY ANALYSIS OF 1 THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO 1 1 1 1 1 1 PREPARED FOR The City of Aspen, Colorado PREPARED BY WRC Engineering, Inc. 1963-13 September 1998 1 EXHIBIT 1 1 OF4 1 - 9 - - - - tivt, 1 .-Ak>.- i \091-_ - ) k. - --- ''1 - %- '' -Â· 79-z-zar--n:.... 1 J: -71221-4.%-2-Td ..1 + f -1 -22-- Â·--3 l " -1 -,1-- : 'At:---2-41Â· ~.Â·iÂ· u/ A..6 7.- . 41 2 -219 -0 , 1. k.N- '' L.'g #:.' 4 . . F L - -22-2 1 2 lkÂ·. - '11 '.1 .. -- I ' . I. 2 ---40**11 i . I f - 3 '-12:.. .--; i 11 --. 'n -,4 ' 12 1 /) Ct , 1 ' - 24-- ./ A , 1 . U- - H./., 1~-------i 1- -/9 -7'- 1 'k ,-' .'.-- --; r~.-... 121- 2-171-14, . : , 2) Â·' 431'.14 ; 3107lhVi< , . 1 ; r 79.5Ctra.-1- L->4 - 1/32 26;NT~Â· Â°' ffg MITCHELL SITE â€¢--616 A ,'., Â· ,'~ - / -A~'1' f '13 I I . -- *1 ~&11 ,,: - . -0... f 1 0/ 1 . - 1 4 i Â· / dia=h- 1 / 1 11 j , - 1.:...%.'.3-- I .---4-9 -I - .- I. 1-- . '' -7 XE./. 411-+'.4 1 It, 1 UL- i .1 , ' Uftv=) 1. '. 7 - ' 1 , . , r - N 1 .4 r --- 7 ~~Ef? 41-Tz.St .I -1-r.::52 9,~22----2 f rc r f:. 9, . I. _3 7 -9 4 -112?f~Ek-ftio~'.2Afl- -- 17_ 2... . 7ni:*A-iqt:f <*i -- -- ..:* -fi . - . .1 . - V I, ./-- \ , /1 *.024/Â»FS--722-%-}'f-'.5*. -0-4 -i:Z O,4: Di,'.' cofF ' - 31#112924&-E-2-9255 ~/7&503 -27- C'' 1"\.11'111 '1 Â»50 , .3.;41.403*--1.J--pi' c---~7~ Â·Â·-147 1 I m,.-1 7,rÂ»Of;, --- 2 -ily-* a fi:%*ihet-_-2--7, 1 2/4 6-_- . \ .- 'll *Aliet:t Â«91â‚¬-<,9 . I.-z-Â»~~4kfials-' 10(7- r tity'fitiÂ«33** atilâ‚¬ 990 \90' 4 - 4 ..k'. - 1 #4*<5*-1- 3 - .gyXÂ«.1.-ga=23*~54/,Â·4'-2 - -4:kPiOlit>Â¢4Â«4621'74ii?3*k~,2' : _--2 ,| --pj:39-<r ,42 12,- 11 -1.- 1 -I ,03-0 -2-EsÂ©:23*U--= uietrj///' - - . .. ki tu-a, .ruy, ~1419Â»1*29.t:' U.U~LL.~*--tyÂ»ittiÂ»SPGUÂ» % f. 1_,"447-*, c 24â‚¬â‚¬673%2*I Â«~4*.2.2-- 'Â»2443%~Vot~~Â« <1, ' ~ 1~ 37-1-~2 - '11%*litÂ»~4-2931 9*flfb%%ittfÂ«ki~Â»2Â·*%: Â«Â· 20 -- mr 1 -- I - Il#j-/+War-T- 1 J '1 : '41 53431.4649*49- 12-&746Â»125Â»7 24*3*9Â«49.~:3:4493 63Â« 4- c 1 3â‚¬Â§ 72%Â£â‚¬33{Â«331't,~urk*1 762 -_7-p#;~pf,fluÂ».34(3,6Â«222 7.-6.41.yÂ»Â«4.1.=cÂ© 4:6311% , Â· ~~~-~Â»34~% LIFT 5 B~E ~ - ''~-~14'f,3232~4*44Â¢f 4 1 -- ' 1%19/,it,/-câ‚¬/ :,3~Â«U-2.1,'U k -1 , </,1,:,9,62 *4330#2%240.. /211__ ~ ' Mt/*i5/3/64*Â» whal- -2 - ' :Â»<.Â·'\ *22#04:: 02 - R?x= :1'(Â· ~ Â·Â·vot / 4.- /,Â·//?j/i,d"'10,0 j Â· Â· Â·Â·v.,nf=. ''~ Â»E.A~~<.9~-9Ah,Â·â€¢ 'e-ue> "â€¢. 2 OF 4 â€ž bon Â·>>RA-tairk,;026Â¢14Â¢1164 â€¢ ~ FIGURE 2 _,8Â£7 ZF~2*Pe'47f Â·24'Â·OUNÂ·-'49XteÂ·tÂ·,> ,,Â· 1 n ~ EXHIBIT 1 vt'//3/.' /321~~~:/,;;;./.-ri~,~1)11Â§ 3,2.34Â·-f Vilth 'i t I -N- -0....2.. ~c>â€¢.Â»Â·* I Â·Â· : 't 'ir--W <\W.'A =r ve - *,x=z.2 Â·b Â·,r w* 1,44 \ 'llill"1 1.-A-. Â·<tuÂ»!S~ $$ Ut/,IR:*0.304**t - l. ; ~ y< / *2 1 . ' '~~1'2--c le.v ./ # I -*W; \ / , I \ I LOWER / : \ 'Â·'0 ~ ' SPARGUI,CH .\\\ \ \ bli 7////5 ~ f/ 0 250 500 1000 \ 3 \ 1. -1 1 1 r /, \\\ r----7Ir--1 " 1 , ~\1 SCALE: 1 =500' 1 -\ \ 4 0 1 fJO- - / '41 64,4 / ~ . CCD .LEGEND \ J~CH - / , \ / SUB WATERSHED ID \ ~Â· ~?~*---AREA (+CRES) 11 .,- 1 .1 \1 1,! i \ \ - SUB WATERSHED 1, 1 f /11 C ; 1 .1 ../ 1 -. \ BOUNDARY \ , I I / I it .0- \ ,, ~- , ; - -- EXISTING 10 FOOT \ 1 1 liN 1 4// 1/ ./ / / 3/ \ 12 : \ CONTOUR INTERVAL \\ -- EXISTING 30 METER CONTOI IR INTERVAI TABLE 16 : DIFFERENCE IN RUNOFF DUE TO INFILTRATION RATES AND METHODOLOGY TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL 100-YR; 2-HR COMPUTER LOSS RAINFALL LOSS EXCESS PEAK FLOW PROGRAM METHODOLOGY RUNOFF TYPE LOCATION (inches) (inches) (inches) (cts) CUHP/SWMM Horton's RAIN Vallejo Gulch 1.88 1.02 0.86 111 HEC-1 SCS RAIN Vallejo Gulch 1.9 129 061 81 HEC-1 Uniform RAIN Vallejo Gulch 19 0.67 123 229 HEC-1 Holtan's RAIN Vallejo Gulch 1.9 1.18 0.72 145 HEC-1 Green-Ampt RAIN Vallejo Gulch 19 1.14 0.76 154 FLO-2D Green-Ampt RAIN Vallejo Gulch 188 - 158 CUHP/SWMM Horton's RAIN Spar Gulch 1.88 - 477 HEC-1 Green-Ampt RAIN Spar Gulch 1.9 1 0.9 532 4---- FLO-2D Green-Ampt RAIN Spar Gulch 1.88 - - 340 HEC-1 Uniform (K=0.05 in/hr) Rain and Snowmelt Vallejo Gulch 19 280 HEC-1 Uniform (K=0.5 in/hr) Rain and Snowmelt Vallejo Gulch 1.9 243 HEC-1 Uniform (K=0.85 in/hr) Rain and Snowmelt Vallejo Gulch 1.9 215 NOTE: Infiltration parameters were estimated based on the soil types and conditions expected to be found within the two sub- watersheds. When applicable, the values of the infiltration parameters were kept constant for the different methodologies. W 0 m FlowComp. xls WRC Engineering 9/22/98 Infiltration-Table16 PN 1963 3:02 PM L lIGIHXB 1 , U 18.9/ \ ... .... :107..1/ 1 , -- /--h .. 1. Z - a -,AM. ,- . - 2 , I /1 9 1 = Â· . c. ---- :.~~ -t,<42.1.7. ~ :t : 0- i - = ./ - 13 , -I f.': .'* 6 1 } 1,1 52=09 -2-- - .. --6 ~ 4/1 41.5 i. . 1 MITCHELL SITE L. i.4-9. .-1- 4.,'. - 1 -.:-- 6 1 13 * /, .- ., . . 1.- . -* .- . .. 1 ' ... '' C. 2 1'71" ' 2.- rl , . , V 50. 1 -- r , -I 2. . , f 47, 17.1 1 4 4 ..3: i 21 },2'.0,4*j- . .. r 433'~ ,- - ~ ' dORA - - . ..1/ , 9-fÂ¢ ~ ~ ccÂ¢Pet.. 1 111 - - . 1 0 A=0 Â· \YrÂ· Â·:.pr- ll-- .'..ji -,7 . 1 , .. -0 . I. I ..L Â·Â·- ... L. 4 - . 3 ' - . 'PEN. 02-, 1%-s:sft.' ... . ~. - 4. :..G /- :..A--4 Z ..U . - -(47.t' 0 - - 1 1 -r - 2 -9-j4\ 1 -:i 1. J 0 1 . 1 1 - ' . -L - - . '*. 'V I . 1 ... 1 r- - t.l al , 1 I -#. - <b ,>1 *f,il I I ,+4%<J. 91Â· 2 . 1.r . - 1 1 1 . 1 N : :acÂ·YU.. 1-.1 h . I #..r -'71.. . - U V - 1 - 0 1 '.. , I 1 ---Â· r 1 .''l ... .0 - I.:.. lili. - ./ Â· ' 'I, , 1- . f ..3 /.0 A **-. tf t ....i-: 1 18 \ 7 1.-=-2 - ' 1 1 ..04Â· 7. 1 3 116 / ~E33 7 . N 11 11 - 1 1,7,/11,11'f -411.1[ 1.1 . -=-- 11 LEGEND 'lls Â·2 -1.0- - MAX,wuw DEPTH OF Flow (FEET) '1 SUB WATERSHED BOUNDARY i- . 0 ..' 70 EXHIBIT 1 F Â· - INFLOW NODES 0 130 300 600 900 4 OF 4 :AI210/4 -OR!CIMAL SCALE: 1'-3000 Mi) - Ste WATERSHED DEUN[AlloN 1 FIGURE 3 ARE,â€¢ (AD.) --1.9:L/ .,3 950 SOUTH CHERRY STREET DES]CNED BAC NO. HY DATE REVtSION DESCRIPIDN SuItE 404 DRAWN Eju ~ \Uf~ENGIIâ‚¬F~NG, INC PHONE No: (303) 757-8513 REVISED ~ - OENVER. COLO~00 80246 CHEMED - FAX Pe (303) 758-3208 AS-BULT - 1 1 /.1 . \11 , /1 / 1 \P 1 \- -1---413*IL - - \// 1111~( 4.,lio l ~'!.MIL:-ji-- 1 ... ' i 1'.U l,-- Â»----7--tu:.-u Â»., Â·..... l.'. \Â· 43. u 1) 1, \.1\ 14 14 1.10[ 1 1 1 1. MITCHELL SITE L' T , ~-im **"'0 --:--~F~_1 ~-r M 4'1 1 (APPROX.) 1Â«1/ Â«i/41.; I i 1% 1 j'; 69\11 6 1- 41-0 \ 1 / P. '' / t /3/41 f ,\ / ef ' US:~'. -, -43>fiÂ»Ir*- U 1// \\ \ I 1 4/ . /,f 2 1 -Gf ! t' 4, Â·u 4% , , I.\ 11,1 Ill I - 1 1 1 1\2 4~ 1.: - 1 2 91 i ' 9 &1.- 1.111 f. N....m \ -I . r.4-2~22 ~ o Â· , ' I L.- - .... 1 9.-rip<)i~,~,? ; /1. 1 4 I .2,1, - 3Â£36 ~/ 1\ ' 1.\9 /LIt 1=/- 4 rE' *1 -4 L------121-1 AM.. Â·A U 3?)35 . 10)% mia) 1 3 (-f//<i â„¢ .- .-1*~*25 ~2===r=; Ptilim, f 11 -6. 0 .... et t-fi- -C .. L - --==12 -/U t 4/. ' t. 1 1 1 -h , 4. 1,1 1 1 e - , 4 6. 5%*th t.,1,~ p// / 1 j 1 Â£ 11' ~ Ill 11 /4. 4 SCUH/WEST-ASPEFC>FL 4 0 'lit) 1 b. â€¢,-Id .1 416}.Al r //AC j ' ' cO 11? 1 W. 1 *,0.- 4 U Ch= 11*~ , al- 1...1 94 9, 3 , 1 /1 '11: 1,11'ili,444 ~ 1 1 ,- 0- 1- .\ ..11--4 - , c : j , 1 4 \ 3-1) 11 )1. '1,21- /1 c.-r 0/ 1 - . 11111, i r /(1Â¥41; 1% 6/1 ,# Fl 1â€ž Ly## 111 ..,.t . I 7/ - : 1 --Ut 21 , 7 tv d./9-VI C 1 1 . 4 - { 10.\ ~U i/.1 . ---.. 4 - . /937/,< N id.: <TO" AU-*J 1 LA 07>i 312/, _--Mfoil. 1~,3 CD (2 )11 11/1 4 A ' VÂ· j j 24 -><7 0 1 12- .2 12*,i~ 1 8/0 1 , Â»<34 \ -42,-j>7 .j .7 - 1/ - 4 #i -~~=~-~~ 2 -/ 1\ , , 7</ - f/.0 21/ r\) 1 /: f (5,0\JL <i/or_.,0, 1 11, r, , . = -- U '9 1 1 111~ t / - / -, 1 ...1 ~111111 /7 /. Clo. ; . 702. J // 1, 1 N .9. it< f . r .-j \ :r *1 1 / FIGURE 4 17 1 , 413, - 1 & ,I f VYL# - z ,Â«99 / CITY OF ASPEN t:ASS= 1 1 ilf~22>Â« ~< i A '- URBAN RUNOFF /1, r 1 MANAGEMENT PLAN - ' b' V 9Â»28.- .1 3)/ > b (A 01 4935-X //4/// C # 32 - 0/ 1 Scale: 1 11- - 2001 - C.I. = 5' CITY OF ASPEN - EAST URBAN RUNOFF MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 I)/r' A / f .t .-0009 ENGINEERS 1 0 br (970) 925-6727 LIM RO. Box 2155 SCHMUESER ~ FAX (970) 925-4157 fORDON MEYER - Aspen. CO 81612 October 22, 1998 EXHIBIT #7 1 1 Mr. Alan Richman Alan Richman Planning Services P.O. Box 3613 1 Aspen, CO. 81611 1 RE: The Mitchell Residence, Aspen Alps South Road, Drainage Calculations and Recommendations Dear Alan: 1 Attached for your information and submission to the City of Aspen is a copy of my drainage calculation for the Mitchell Residence replacement on Aspen Alps South Road in Aspen, Colorado. For purposes of the drainage calculation, I have used a Rational Method calculation for this "urban" site in conformance with the recommendations of the City's current Interim Standards for Drainage Design and Erosion and Sedimentation Control for Parcels Smaller than 1 One Acre dated April 30, 1998 and issued by the City Engineering Department. The interim standard references the Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual published by the Denver Regional Council of Governments in 1969 and updated to as recently as 1978. The USDC manual is a design guideline that is broad in scope for a wide range of drainage conditions and basin types and sizes. I should note that I am assuming that the City of Aspen has effectively waived any specific requirement for compliance with the 1 973 Urban Runoff Management Plan pursuant to existing Municipal Code Section 26.88.040 C., 4. Design Standards, 1. Storm Drainage. The site is located on the Aspen Alps South road and comprises 0.23 acres. The property has an existing residence that is to be replaced with a new home. A site inspection of the existing structure shows no evidence of existing structural drainage improvements such as inlets or drywells. Upslope drainage is routed around the building and the drainage associated with the ski slope to the west is directed away from the site with a swale channel that stays within the ski slope area. Overflow from the northeast end of the Mitchell property would currently appear to sheet flow to the north across the pavement area and is routed along the road edge to the south of the Aspen Alps buildings. Our calculations, using established Intensity-Duration-Frequency curves for Aspen from the URMP and assuming a 90-minute sustained rainfall as recommended in the interim standard, indicate that 466.45 cubic feet of on-site detention volume is required to maintain estimated pre- development off-site flow volumes for the property subsequent to the construction of the proposed residence and hardscape. 0 should note that we had some internal discussion regarding the interpretation of the 90-minute storm intensity from the TIF curve to 60 minutes. 118 West 6th. Suite 200 â€¢ Glenwood Springs, Colorado â€¢ (970) 945-1004 1 . . October 22, 1998 Mr. Alan Richman Page 2 Our conclusion was to use an extension of the curve tangential to the 100-year curve at 60 minutes. This approach renders an intensity figure at 90 minutes that appears most consistent with the shape of the curve.) This volume would indicate the use of two drywell structures which may be located under the garage structure or under the pavement within the property if they would not be in conflict with easements or utilities. The drywells are to accept roof, deck and any exterior area drains from the majority of the house. To meet design requirements, two drywells 5 feet in inside diameter and three sections, or approximately 12 feet, deep will provide just over 470 cubic feet of capacity or 101% of the calculated requirement for the increased runoff volume associated with the 100-year, 90-minute event after development. We feel that this volume addresses the required design criteria and would significantly improve conditions compared to the existing home on the site (for which there appeared to be no on-site storage structures). Each drywell should consist of an upper, solid wall concrete manhole section and two lower, perforated wall drywell sections backfilled with at least 12 inches (horizontally) of 11/2 - 2 inch washed rock. Due to their locations under structure or paved areas, we would recommend they be founded on compacted base course material and covered with a traffic-rated lid with an offset access manway. The manway would have any necessary riser rings and a grated inlet/access cover where needed to accommodate surface drainage from the site. These structures would provide sufficient volume to detain the increased flow volume due to the development of the property relative to pre-development conditions. I would add one comment for this site, however. Over the years, the various Aspen Alps buildings have suffered a variety of problems related to drainage and soils conditions. My belief from prior work in this area is that the site soils are sufficiently porous that water re-introduced into the deep soils at the Mitchell site should not impact the Aspen Alps buildings to the north. I would recommend in this case, however, that a geotechnical consultant be contacted to comment on whether additional water introduction at the Mitchell property could impact the buildings that are downslope to the north of the site. I would also be concerned that site-specific soils investigations determine whether existing groundwater could exist at the depths at which these structures would be placed. Should site-specific soils investigations determine that the site is unsuitable for deep drywell structures, some design alternatives are available or detention / recharge volumes may need to be reduced. Typically, grading should be positive away from the structure and any potential low spots in the landscape area should have small domed area drains or trench drains routed to the drywells. I would also recommend against routing the footer drains into the same drywells as the storm and roof drain collection lines. I would be concerned about surface runoff backflowing into the perforated footer drain lines and putting water around the foundation walls. The footer drains should have their own small diameter drywell (small precast drywells in the range of 24 inches in diameter are available) to prevent introduction of storm water around the building foundation. SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC 1 . . October 22,1998 Mr. Alan Richman Page 3 During the construction phase, silt fencing and temporary sedimentation swales should be used to prevent sediment from travelling off-site. The site should be revegetated as soon as practical after construction. I hope these items will be adequate for the completion of the drainage aspects of the application for the Mitchell Residence. Feel free to contact me if you have further questions or require additional information. Very Truly Yours, SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. 41/Ft/-u ~ ---' Jay W. Hammond, P.E. Principal, Aspen Office JH/jh MRDR1 1 SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER. INC InA M ;6.2.1~ â‚¬66?de,vule- SCHMUESER GORDMQ MEYER, INC. 118 W. 6th St. Suite 200 P.O. Box 2155 SHEET NO ~ OF L Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Aspen, CO 81612 (970) 945-1004 (970) 925-6727 CALCULATED RY --Â·~ DATE /O. z z - 9 5 FAX (970) 945-5948 FAX (970) 925-4157 CHECKED BY DATF SCAIF fl,Le-1~41 e..SED~t*e.2-, Drol:AMâ‚¬- Calcul Air.*6 6 4411 u rbot.,~ - Ly re- s de 056 A <Rat,Â·00â€žAl Method Colle,061Â¢0-. Q -_ CIA i f I EMA) 14 c-C 5 : fKu-.Leff coe CE>C,Â·8.4- (ChM pot,Plâ‚¬j i Ra:A Â·All i#44>kf fro-vn. 1--IÂ· F~ Cuive_ 1 &40 a.reA -T?e - cluely#**+ c-D.~0[FUD-n - 6>ravt\(9 {en.~ se(I,< Cle.,t get Ck t .1-5- (. 9 6 M~Wi) (le, \-54 4 =) , r z.3 = .ZE 4-000% A /Ar) (10,1-5,1 +2 2 = zoz, 8 s fe V hr 1 0.00 Cfs FCM--r#022 (444* 20-A b vy Cue. 1 -1 0 40 U SOAck:481 152 5 .15 -56- .3-5 +I>â‚¬Â£Â£2 5 ~4(65 1,2 4 1 . 95 lz- . 12- LaÂ«ks Up e 4,-Z-5 5- . 16 43 Â·1\ 9-12 4- 9 40'56 .'to io .0 9 -rb-r A L . 65+ >HPO 1 . M.1 1. 1011 1 1,FC.hÂ£j,/ 4&Â£bN~Qyl/fl, SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. 118 W. 6th St Suite 200 P.O. Box 2155 SHEET NO ~Â·â€¢ op Z_ Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Aspen, CO 81612 1 (970) 945-1004 (970) 925-6727 CALCULATED BY J.]A DATF /O-zz.18 FAX (970) 945-5948 FAX (970) 925-4157 CHECKED BY DATE SCAI F Q =.(05- 0.0% 44/kr~/Oil-b'-1 A- t~ 1 = 5 -2 6,9 7 fÂ· 2 414 r 1 S 0, (5- Cfs DiffU.um, 2 0,04 Cfs (9 90 v,17 4 : 4 (0 6 , L~ 5- CIA 1 Kit, A Â·24 5 ' I D A \2' oU-t~ 1 4(70 CIA. 4 1 1 1 . . 1 1 1 MAPS/DRAWINGS I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 j, 4 ' 7.Â» S~JALIN-QE -. 119 1, 1 71111 2-ld[I] L-F,Li , r , 'f (~-11 Â· 1 {Ifli 1 0 7 :._, v -1 JLâ€ž_J Â· t S GALINA JI Â§ L COÂ·'14 '. f j 1 (-1 52]41/21-F--- 1--1 2-011, r A SPE' 0 0 0 0, 1 I 4 1* 1 L 11_3 66' Er' 5 HUNTER ST 5 2'%' 1 , - i Th, _r_ 3 1; 3 ir-A1 y 01 4[f Â¢) 4~ ir t l C . 0 \ 4_20 *' i 2,Â· , I i.--"-,1.2 /21-2. 1-4,,L_1~ ~r~Jill f liti C ) ,]d 01.3 i.SPRING ST_ 1 c $ SnING ST 0 (_rl 2,#lt .F Ls El. r-1 3 rk. a t. .4 'NO, <-''U glr ..11 4 1 Lim[ Â·D I' J'*1; 43#EN ~iÂ· '1.-4,4 -9 j ORIGINAL li -- -- ,;... - 5-ORIGINAL ST ~ , trÂ·rÂ·Â» , Â· I 33.* 07'; LAJ ; h ' - 3-1. i i / UP,5 4 Â¢f 4 j<'h, <'3 ~ <~; f.1 1 [--1. f-â‚¬1 : rl-, Ch.a l 1-1.1 i.24~~ ~'t..~-1 2 ~ 174. ~_3 + --- (1.-: .11- 1 E--1 ~ 4,[3 A--1 131 7 i 1 4 L ,-0.v -- 11 i.. WISI END W. i : \ 1,4 4 r 44 1 4.' 020 go E 91, Ag F] 17#r. r 14 ...2 ------- -1. r- 1 1 1 1-' Â·,-4 -Â·Â· '.1_J 1 VE P 6 Â·-2 2.1 1 z. T -1 1 I- â‚¬J#' - 1 U.7 i ~J q> 11 1 11 9 111 Riw' 8 2,pcl , .- 1 I l.7, 0 / O 0/ r r 0 0 .0.>An rÂ· 4 k i '4. f */ L .- ' ir f.. :3, J-J b' DO r~ 'j / Cl tÂ¢Z " 00 1... I. %/ Â· - ' il>Â· . 1 ./&./ ~â€¢ ~ 1~~~2_ ij i 242*Fr,N ,. 17Â·'' 34 Â·. . t ir' F#.., 1 ' 4 d ?AVE 1 14 1 . a 1 $ 11#VERS,DI 4, ' ... U -Â» .0 , r'irt-7 A . .. , L' 15\ B ' 4j L.,1-A 1,4 -- , 9/ 1 ' '4; r-----1 _1 r E HY.MAN -A.Vf - DIAN h*i .. Ajgl 01 w )1r 50Ib 62 I. VAF 4 102 wk m.u) 4 situ, Â· -10 1 0'boYL 4 Slofe le(,4 . 344 (tuMBJ) 1 ' 3- f Yof vn,4 2 95 Â»-w#4 â‚¬wt#b * '48*-611 44*41,1- dit#44 9+ y 4/ #'* 1 47 Â®" 4 14 HoptiA *MT 70*A f*-_1*' CA#@44 8124 42 1 -dn.el#100 L â€¢ 4241 V 01(h~M~. Ap * b 40â„¢4 0?NAWN-: 3 4 *f *44 mel + 4. wl fir Â»9* fri 9Â«0 01 *od WID*Me43 4, 41,425 Â· f- ~ ~ * â‚¬ 00#'W fÂ« 4 + *~ 0<kn> 6/7 / + ark, %0 - 14*, 94 A-40 40 â‚¬9:~ b f~lip 'WK!#01 **40Â· --9.l ) 9-Po 9 + , 54 ~ -- 4 - 4 001 l 7'jM *M 14 :: -Â¢14 +11 4 141 - 6 419 4 990 21 1.+F#2 9 408 4 * Â· 4 wit -17 .el 9 " 99\04 91,3 1Â° 918 f 4%1 wut 1 409.91 9 %2> wel\ M -20* 4 f 1.42 47, 90 f *1122 .vu OU .. .. MRS, HENRY T. CHANDLER 902 NORTH GREEN BAY ROAD LAKE FOREST, ILLINOIS 60043 July 28,1999 Pamela Cunningham Aspen Alps 700 Ute Avenue Aspen, Co 81611 Dear Pam: , As owners of two apartments in the 500 Building of the Aspen Alps Condominium Association, we would like to go on record with some concerns about the proposed plans for demolition and reconstruction of the George Mitchell house, directly above our building. 1. Size of proposed building and relation to its lot: The existing house on the lot is non-conforming under the Aspen Land Use Codes and 8040 Greenline regulations. To construct a larger house, covering almost the entire oddly-shaped lot, will only compound the situation. When the 400 Aspen Alps Building burned down several years ago, the reconstruction was mandated to the exact footprint of the original building. A larger house on the Mitchell property will certainly impact the views from below, above, and to the west on Little Nell. ~f~~~. 2. Stability of the slope: Our building, 500, has already experienced some damage 40 from ground shifting, as have other buildings in the Alps complex. The existing Mitchell house itself has had foundation problems. A 30-foot excavation on this hillside will certainly affect the adjacent terrain. ~C~ 1 3. Drainage: We question not only the efficacy of three large underground dry-wells on that property, but also the effects of their construction on the land below, including the road. We hope that you, as the representative of the Aspen Alps owners, will present our views to the appropriate governing body. ~lcerely, j f. Ch â€ž r. f , 1 -=./ ., Bu'--lu 4 ' 27*v:Z~L'-0---377 ~\ r , 0 f/' . ./.9 Henry T. Chandler Clarissa H. Chandler Owners. 504 and 508 Aspen Alps South m .. DAY NO 1.270 0794 uu- 2-3: MON 9 43 AM [~ l' AA 4. , . 6 16 HALGLENN CORP. 1428 Brickell Avenue / Miami, Florida 33131 Tel (305)371-4112 Fax: (3051 579-9724 FUMMER RESIDENCE: August 2, 1999 ASPEN ALPS, #503 700 UTE AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 Mrs. Pamela Cunningham General Manager Aspen Alps Condominium 700 Ute Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: George Mitchell Proposed Zoning Variances Dear Mrs. Cunningham: The purpose of this letter is to request that you express to the proper authorities our concerns about the proposed demolition and reconstruction of the Mitchell house. As you know, our corporation is the owner of Unit 503 in the five hundred building which is adjacent to the Mitchell property, and I believe will be adversely affucted by the proposed reconstruction. Our concerns are as follows: ~ ~ 1. Slope Stability - construction ofthis oversized house will adversely affect stability and contribute to ground shifting. 2. Drainage - we are very much concerned about the effect the construction will have on the drainage of the contiguous areas, the 500,400 and 300 buildings as well as the Aspen Alps Road. ..A ..3. S ize of the proposed home - the home already crowds the road and appears to occupy I. -/ 1 the entire lot. A larger home will obscure views from all directions. 4. Staging of the construction - construction of this home will require heavy equipment, trucks and workers vehicles and will cause hardship and parking problems for the residents of the 400 and 500 buildings, as well as traffic hazards on an already ~~ Ov' overcrowded Aspen Alps Road. We respectfully request that you vigorously represent our concerns to the hearing authorities. hincerely, F 1 , -Ernest M.hillpryn /11 / 1 4 -4 President 07 f EMH.mc 22 n 73 1 2,6 FIC :32 :AE 579 9724 m v 10. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohison, Deputy Direct(~~-*C) FROM: Christopher Bendon, planner 1 1 A AA /1 RE: Mitchel Residence, 550 Aspen Alps Road - Public Hearing 8040 Greenline Review Front, Side, and Rear Yard Variances Residential Design Waiver for Garage Placement DATE: August 3, 1999 SUMMARY: The applicant, Cynthia and George Mitchell represented by Alan Richman, have applied for 8040 Greenline Review, variances to the dimensional requirements of the Conservation Zone District, and waiver of the garage placement requirement of the Residential Design Standards. The property, 550 Aspen Alps Road, is currently developed with a single-family residence. The 8040 Greenline standards primarily concentrate on the effects of site grading, the ~ ability for the property to be served with utilities and fire protection, and the visual effects of the resulting development on the mountain backdrop of the City. Staff believes these standards have been met with this proposal and the suggested conditions of approval. The appeal of the Residential Design Standards for the placement of the garage cÂ»., responds to the requirement of the garage being recessed behind the front fagade of l ~ ) the house by 10 feet. Staff supports the waiver as there is no other practical L./ alternative for placing the garage on-site without significant grading or encroachment into the dripline of a fairly significant tree. Zoning variances have been historically reviewed by the Board of Adjustment. The newly adopted land use code allows for the consolidation of the review when there are other associated planning reviews. This process is similar to the consolidation of DRAC cases and provides applicants with the ability to present one case and receive one finding, simplifying the process for both staff and applicants. An adverse finding by the Commission, however, may be appealed to the Board of Adjustment. The variance request is to provide zoning setbacks to accommodate a reasonable use of the property. The Conservation Zone District has a minimum lot size of 10 acres. The setbacks (refer to Exhibit "C") are entirely appropriate for these large parcel but have little relevance on a 10,000 square foot non-conforming lot, such as the Mitchell's. The 100 foot front yard and 30 foot rear yard requirements result in 1 .. approximately 1 foot of developable area on the 131 foot deep parcel. Staff believes this circumstance renders the property useless and necessitates a variance. Staff recommends approval of the 8040 Greenline Review, variances to the Conservation Zone District dimensional requirements, and waiver of the garage placement standard, with conditions. APPLICANT: Cynthia and George Mitchell. Represented by Alan Richman, AICP. LOCATION: 550 Aspen Alps Road. Between Aspen Alps buildings 500 and 700. ZONING: Conservation (C). LOT SIZE: 10,161 square feet. LOT AREA (FOR PURPOSES OF FAR CALCULATION): The application was submitted prior to the addition of a maximum floor area for the Conservation Zone District. Therefore, a lot area analysis has not been performed. CURRENT & PROPOSED LAND USE: Single-Family house. PREVIOUS ACTION: The Commission has not previously considered this application. REVIEW PROCEDURE: 8040 Greenline Review. With a recommendation from the Planning Director, the Commission may approve, approve with conditions, or deny a proposed development within an Environmentally Sensitive Area. Zoning Variance. With a recommendation from the Planning Director, the Commission may approve, approve with conditions, or deny a variance application at a public hearing. Residential Design Appeal. With a recommendation from the Planning Director. the Commission may approve, approve with conditions, or deny a waiver application at a public hearing. STAFF COMMENTS: This application was received prior to the consideration by P&Z of the code amendment to apply a maximum Floor Area to the Conservation Zone District. The applicant has also relied upon the Conservation Zone District provisions and several conversations with staff, prior to the amendment, in planning and designing this 2 .. house. This application is not subject to the recent code amendment to the Conservation Zone District. This is the last application reviewed under the previous zoning. Conversely, this is the first application under the newly adopted land use code provision which allows the consolidation of zoning variances for applications with the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Commission may now act as the Board of Adjustment in granting zoning variances concurrent with regular planning reviews. The criteria for granting a variance are more strict than the planning criteria the Commission generally uses. These criteria are included in Exhibit "A" and staff will review each of these criteria during the hearing. Review criteria and Staff Findings have been included as Exhibit "A." Agency referral comments have been included as Exhibit "B." A zoning analysis has been provided as Exhibit "C." A location Map has been included as Exhibit "D." The application has been included as Exhibit "E." RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the 8040 Greenline Review, Variances to the Conservation Zone District dimensional requirements, and waiver of the garage setback requirement of the Residential Design Standards for the Mitchell Residence, 550 Aspen Alps Road, with the following conditions: 1. The building permit plans shall be inaccordance with all requirements of the Conservation Zone District and Residential Design Standards, both in effect on June 14,1999, with the following exceptions: â€¢ Setback requirements forthe parcel shall be: front = 12 feet; rear= 10 feet; sides = 10 feet. â€¢ The garage setback requirement of the Residential Design Standards shall not apply. 2. The building permit application shall include a permit from the Environmental Health Department for any certified woodstoves or gas log fireplaces (coal- & woodburning fireplaces are not allowed) and an approved fugitive dust control plan. 3. The building permit application shall include a tree removal permit from the City Parks Department for the removal or relocation of trees as per Section 13.20.020 of the Code. 4. The building permit application shall include a water tap permit for a tap sized for the required fire suppression system and for the domestic use. The structure shall include a fire suppression system approved by the Fire Marshall. A pump system may be required by the Fire Marshall to accommodate the required pressure for the fire suppression system. 5. The building permit application shall include a tap permit from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. Sources of clear water may not be directed to the sanitary sewer. r9 +44, Geâ€¢403'Af-\ ftpyt, 6. The building permit plans shall include,construction details related to the foundation design, foundation walls and retaining walls, floor slabs, underdrain systems, site grading, soil stabolization plan, and surface drainage plan signed and stamped by an Engineer registered in Colorad.gThis plan must accommodate drainage on-site both during and after construction F-- - and must confirm the drywell system can be constructed without causing damage to down gradient propertiet:IA 2 year storm frequencysheckl be used in designing any drainage improvements. 414 1 .. .1. /.l .,/ 1 A.et ./100- ft E i Â£4, be. mt'e.)ed awl cm,& 1.1 3 tIAL CU,4- 84&41 01-ku..1 .. 7. The building permit plans shall include an environmental protection plan detailing the limits of disturbance on the parcel and construction access. The limits of disturbance shall be fenced prior to issuance of a building permit and shall remain iii place until a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. 8. The applicant shall contain all construction activity, including staging and contractor parking, on-site unless permission is granted by the Aspen Alps Association for use of the parking area east of the Mitchell property. Adequate width for safe passage along Aspen Alps Road shall be maintained at all times. 9. If evidence of mining activity is discovered during excavation of the property, all .~ . 41.9.1 COVe F construction activity shall cease until a mitigation plan is approved by the City Engineer. V*~~~ VINA' . 10. Highly reflective materials shall not be used for the roof material. 11 All utility meters and any new utility pedestals or transformers must be installed on the applicant's property and not in any public right-of-way. Easements must be provided for pedestals. All utility locations and easements must be delineated on the site improvement survey. Meter locations must be accessible for reading and may not be obstructed. 12. These conditions of approval shall be printed on the cover sheet ofthe building permit set and all other drawing sets used for construction. The primary contractor shall be provided with a copy of this Resolution and shall submit a letter as part of the building permit application stating that the conditions of approval have been read and understood. 13. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. The applicant shall record this Planning and Zoning Resolution with the County Clerk and Recorder. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the 8040 Greenline Review, Variances to the Conservation Zone District dimensional requirements, and waiver of the garage setback requirement of the Residential Design Standards for the Mitchell Residence, 550 Aspen Alps Road, with the conditions recommended in the Community Development Memorandum dated August 3,1999. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Comments Exhibit B -- Referral Agency Comments Exhibit C -- Zoning Analysis Exhibit D -- Location Map Exhibit E -- Development Application 4 .. Exhibit ~ Mitche118040 %-2 l-Ll-1.77 1 il ~---k f 7- i j / - 1 IF I. i , f / 1 /~/ , P. I. . i 4 5 â€¢ 1 9.1 I . f/. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~0*ndola Building] ./.f 2 , 429< 1 0 + I - ------ i. ke> ,;1% k.....' A / 4 -0- . 4..Frtz#,4 ' 114< 11 I li i - 11 r -----4 9 \ - < < ~ Mtchel I -1 -1.1/ :/b /.ve - .,OugugggE 1 \ Residence ~ /J--- -- ~ I. 1 j -11-L=-2---- 4.- ~~ . ) ~ Aspen Alps / -j , \ ~3 7 i-f_y) .9 - 1 f 4 / .- 0. 200 0 200 400 Feet ~h\\ ~~~j Location Map .. MEMORANDUM TO: Plans were routed to those departments checked-off below: City Engineer 0........... Zoning Officer 0........... Housing Director 4~.......... Parks Department O........... Aspen Fire Marshal City Water Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District *dt.......... Building Department O........... Environmental Health O........... Electric Department O........... Holy Cross Electric 0........... City Attorney 0........... Streets Department v........... Historic Preservation Officer 0........... Pitkin County Planning FROM: Chris Bendon, Planner Community Development Department 130 So. Galena St.; Aspen, CO 81611 Phone-920.5090 Fax-920.5439 RE: Mitchel 8040 Greenline Review and Zoning Variance 550 Aspen Alps Road - 2737.182.00.012 DATE: June 18, 1999, 1999 REFERRAL SCHEDULE DRC MEETING DATE:(note time: 1:30-3:00) June 23, 1999 OTHER REFERRALS DUE TO PLANNER: June 30, 1999 ENGINEERING REFERRAL DUE TO PLANNER: July 2, 1999 Thank you, Chris. .. ASPEN/PrrKIN COMMUNrry DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Agreement fur Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees (Please Print Clearty) CITY OF ASPEN (hereinater CITY) and <-- .Av,34, A Â¥k,A A,~. ll.l (hereinafter .APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: l. APPUCANT has submitted to CrrYan application for 90 L.U) Gcto-L.t 1\YA. Ul~e-IA-,â‚¬2 *ereinafter, THE PROJEC'ID. 2. APPLICANT unde=mds and agrees thai City of Aspen.Ordinance No. 43 (Series of 1996) establishes a fee smicture for land use appiicatons and the payment of ail processing fees is a condition precedent to a deIerminarion of application completeness. J. APPLICLANT and CIT': agres tilt because of rhe size. nart:re or scope of the orcuosed f - project. it is nor possible 01 this titne to asc=tain le fuil exten[ or :ne costs invoived irt processing the application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree thai 1 is m The inreres[ of-he James to allow APPLIC.ANT to Inake payInen[ of an ininal deposir ond:0 Ule:=rrter per:mir addirional COSTS zo be biiled to .APPLIC.A_>fT on i mondtiv basis. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by reminlng grecrer cash Hquidin- and 'vill make addirionai :aymems upon norilicarion by le Cim when chey are necessary as costs =e incunta. CIJI-f lgress LI ':Viil be cenenrect tough le greater cermlnry OY recovering irs full costs to process APPLICANTS application. 4. CITY and ,APPLICANT furriler agree ihar r[ is impracicabie for CITY SUIT IO COmpie:e processing or presem sumcien[ informaton zo che Pianning C JInmission and'~or C in- Council to enable the Planning Commission and/or City Council to make iegaily required indmgs for project approval. unless currem biilings are paid in fuil Prior to decision. 1. Therefore. .APPLICANT igreÂ·es Clar in consideraten o f The CI'ii's waiver Ofirs right ZO collect full fees prior to a de=mina:don of#pplica~on comnie:eness. APPLICANT â‚¬hall pay an initial deposit inthe amounr of S \PV" which is for 6 hours of Planning staff rime, and if acmal recorded costs exceed the inital deposit APPLICANT shail pay addiâ‚¬onal monthly billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the appiicion menioned above, including. post approvai review. Such periodic paNments shall be rnArie Â·wiÂ·rhin 30 days of the billing daIe. APPLICANT further agrees tbat failure to pay such accued COSIS shail be grounds for suspension of processing. CITY OF ASPEN APPUCANT MfIT I (34 A, 7-2 71GELLâ€¢1~ Signature: /b Stan Clausolr Date: F 24 1- r,/9 Te Community Development Director Printed Name: Cxt W4~l iA VV~ 0Â·ko\.E 1 1 City ofAspen Mailing Address: 80, 4000 6'Lt WAS la.1-4, 14 11391 .â€ž .. ATTACHMENT1 City of Aspen Deveiopmenr Application Fee Policy The City of Aspen pursiiant to Ordinance 43 (Series of 1996),has establisheda fee structure forthe processing oflanduse applicadons. A flarfee ordeposir is collecred for land use applicatons based on tile type of appiication submitted. Refemi -fi=s for other City departmems reviewing the appiicadon will also be collected when necessary. One check including the deposit for Planning and refermi agency fees must be submitted will each land use applicarion. macie payable to the Aspen/Pitkin Community Deveiopmem Deparmlenc Applications will no[ be acceuted for proceSSing Witheur Zile mquire4- applicaIi{)Il Yee. A flaI fee is collected by Planning for StagApprovals which normaily zake 1 ITÂ·linimai and predictable aII101.1Ilt of suuf Zirrle :0 process. The 22 is not refUndable. A deposit is collected by Planning -vilen mc)re extensive stalf revierv is required. as hours are likeiv zo vary substantailv *cm cne an'plication zo inotile:. Acnlai sullfrime spent '.Vill be charged agains[ ile deposil After tile deposic has been expended- ile appiicant Will be billed mon-[hly based on actual ira.fF hours. Curmmblilings must be paidwiIhin 30=ys or processing of:heapplication will be suscencied. 3 an gplicam has pmvIOUsly :alle<1 to pay appli CCIion fees as =uired. 2.0 Dew or additional appiications will oe accepred for processing lintii the oustanding fees are paid. In flo case Mil Building Permirs be issued unti ail coSts associaIed with cose processing have been paid. After the tinai action on le projeca any remaining biance from:he deposir ivill be refunded zo Elle appllcana Appiicatons which require a deposir must include on AgreemenT for ?avment of DeveiopmenT Application Fees. The Agre=enr estabiishes ihe applicam as being responsibie for payment of ali costs associared with processing the application. The Agreement must be signed by the party resconsible for paymem and submirred wirh the appiicarion in order for ir zo be acceprei The complete fes schedule for land use appiications is available at the Community Development Department 0 0 0 4 0.11 - E /046el _ 14â‚¬2â‚¬Ul 1 944<at 6 L ---) -= ppr*:4 4.-*b 4 ,- lieu 1- 416.4eff),) -- C 4Â£Â» 4 <09â‚¬_ 01-1,0 I 0Â©75Â«40 14 MOM 004.-Cdt, Use- 2- 19 Â» loida 0 Â»fla Ull rk 7 4 2. - Ya~els, 744[2 Re 6 15 4*. 04, ttvolve. .,fart< 0*o 0101 7*4& I - i.1 Hi 1!1 tii lii .il ~i i iii iii .. CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Chris Bendon, 920.5072 DATE: 3.12.98 PROJECT: Mitchel Residence 8040 (and ADU) REPRESENTATIVE: Alan Richman OWNER: Mitchel TYPE OF APPLICATION: 0 step for staff level review. 1-step for planning and zoning review. BOA Variances are a separate application from Sara Thomas, Zoning Officer. DESCRIPTION: There are several land use scenarios depending upon the amount of renovation, expansion, and demolition. Generally, any redevelopment altering the exterior will require at least a staff level 8040 review. Redevelopment within the same 3-dimensional envelope will not trigger the need for a variance. Expansions beyond the existing 3- D envelope will require a BOA Variance and either a staff level 8040 or P&Z 8040 depending upon the percentage of expansion. With any scenario, demolition over 50% will require a growth management exemption which may be accomplished with an Accessory Dwelling Unit. Land Use Code Section(s) 26.68.030 8040 Greenline Review f -0 -------7---- 26Â§{L---_Conditional-Use 26-:40:090 ALLebbuly-Dwelliflg-Units-_ Review by: Staff for completeness, DRC (referral agencies) Public Hearing: for 8040 process - no. For ADU process - yes. Referral Agencies: Engineering, Parks, Building Department + additional depending upon application Planning Fees: Planning Deposit ($450) 8040 staff level Planning Deposit ($1080) 8040 P&Z level Flat fee ($245) ADU Referral Agency Fees: Engineering, Minor ($110) (any application); Housing, minor ($70) (ADU application) Total Deposit: Depends upon applicition. Contact planner before submitting application. (additional hours are billed at a rate of $18*hour) To apply, submit the following information: 1. Proof of ownership 2. Signed fee agreement 3. Applicant's name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant which states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf ofthe applicant. 4. Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners ofthe property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application. 5. Total deposit for review ofthe application 6. _? Copies of the complete application packet and maps. Contact planner HPC = 12; PZ = 10; GMC = PZ+5; CC = 7, Referral Agencies = 1/ea.; Planning Staff= 1 7. An 8 1/2" by 11" vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen. 8. Site improvement survey including topography and vegetation showing the current status, including all easements and vacated rights of way, of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the state of Colorado. (This requirement, or any part thereof, may be waived by the Community Development Department if the project is determined not to warrant a survey document.) i,iâ€¢m=Ii#@@iguk.i 0 . 9. A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. Please include existing conditions as well as proposed. 10. Copies of prior approvals if applicable. Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. PROPERTY UNES / 1 4%04&0'#Slen,#N**R'R,1/9/Wlle*:2!1429#1'4010*l'Baâ‚¬l Â©unle**pa 1 1 0-1 1 /1 1 - GARAGE 16 .//\t-47_:k-ji'.C-j f i \ BELOW i; GRADE 1 1 6 6---C'll-7_44-1/ 1 1 1 N -1 /1 :I A- b GARAGE 1 1 \ 1 . C l 1 1 142-~ 1 ..'*,-/4- :Mr., 1 1 1 / A ...X--// R / 1- FLOOR ABOVE . 1 1 \ \ 40<01 \ 1\\ PC)RCH /1 { STORAGE ~ 41,1' 8 // 114 . r... ; 54 1 1 1/ 1/ Or up . III-fisit. H i 1 \ SKI ROOM F 1 F 11 -Â»1 1 1 LI MECH. --1-1 1 \ 4 .~- BENCH 1-Â»1- 11 4 SK/,5 - =L ~ 11 I 11 \ : 1 1 , 11111 7 - -,1.~06 1 1\ \ TO L_-2 + STORAGE Â© 4 i 0 7, 7-309%\ 1 r- FLOOR ABOVE A 31 ' 1'}Â»1<647. 30 SKI FOYER,19 /5 142 .A 1. 7< 4: A :Al \ 14 11 44 '14 h LEV ~ ~, . i.=71Â« v Â» ha 17 4' tl.EVÂ· |~ ~1 \ 1 . \ . 1, \ 1 \ \ 1 \ i 1 \ I l \ i i \ G . I. \ r-- FLOOR ABOVE \ \ \ I \F \ h - 1 1 u \ \ 1 1 i \ h MITCHELL 1 3 RESIDENCE 1 C 1 1 Aspen Alps South Road ASPEN, COLORADO k GARY TABASI NSKE ARCHITECT, AIA | 305 DOE RUN ROAD LOPEZ ISLAND, WA g826I 1 PHONE (360) 468-4088 PROPERTY LINES L__2______________________________________ fax (360) 468-292I email: gtabarch@rockisland.corn FLOOR PLANS PLAN-SKI ROOM LEVEL GARAGE LEVEL PLAN L0WER LEVELS SCALE: 1/8" = 11-0" Revisions: Drawn by: Date: May 27,1999 Project No. 9812 of 7 Sheets Approved: 5 E- - - 1 1 1 GARAGE BELOW 1 1- GARAGE BELOW 1 1 1 1 1 1 L ---- 6 UP UP \ AR OU ROOM FAR OUT ' BELOW ROOM II -~- LOFT ABOVE i DN SLEEPING LOFT I '91'111If/}' .:' \0; COURT ABV U '1 iÂ·jÂ·.'%< .4 1 1 /94Yf./ ,Â»4 \ L MECH \ 0 .0 11 - 1 ED OM 1 i BE ,OM 4 zINBAT i ~ BAT i BEDROOM i 0 i | 1 1 0.43 TH 1 V~ ~ TH 4 l/ - BEDROOM 2 , BEDROOM 5 STER BATH \ \ 1 - \ 1 MITCIIELL - 00 F=1 64 IC3Ell L. i 'L , IIIE] I , i L---9--.-. -.--.-----------.-.----.- LAB*/1 1+RAL * 439 04# RESIDENCE 1 \ 1 i BEDROOM 3 1 1 1 \ 1 \ * Aspen Alps South Road \ 0 \ I TH 3 L ' ASPEN, COLORADO \ \ 1 \ \\P--- FLOOR ABOVE 1 $ 1 1 X \ 0 \ 1 \ ne 1 1 - GARY TABASINSKE ' ARCHITECT, AIA 305 DOE RUN ROAD LOPEZ ISLAND, WA 9826] PHONE (360) 468-4088 fax (360) 468-292I email: gtabarch@rockisland.corn FLOOR PLANS PLAN-BEDROOM LEVEL PLAN-FAR OUT ROOMLEVEL MIDDLE LEVELS SCALE: 1/811 = 1'-0" Revisions: Approved: Drawn by: - 6 Date: May 27,1999 Project No. 9812 of 7 Sheets 3 PROPERTY ONES / . 1- ~1 1 - M I 1 It - 1 1 9 .2OOF BELOW i 1 44 |r \ E------------------4 X I ~ ~\ MASTER BEDROOM * r ~ 2 -'\IIiÂ·...9& 1 1 \< COURTYARD BELOW 1 -I : Ill / 4= 1 ,=mil 'r Â·7 , I m 1 0 Â© 2 I 4 \ Iii \ DEN - O / 0 \ I ' 1 . / XXXX, ' \ \ ININ I \ \ 1 - - 1 1 1__ \ Elli , MITCHELL IX / 00 1 RESIDENCE . 4446%;=2 / 4 h,\11,11141'!LIM-Amill, m- 1. lili lili 41116 1.- ---7 - / li li F liLli 1% 1 1 1 11 'Ill ~11111111~ Aspen Alps South Road 1 lilli lilli'11.1.1......11,4 ' ' 5W #'4~]p-I ~ A ITA: \ ASPEN, COLORADO . COURT-YARD 1 Ik 1 \\ 1 / / 1 1 1 %\ \\ ~ GARY TA BAS IN S KE 1 - 1.1 11 11/ ~ ARCHITECT, AIA 305 DOE RUN ROAD LOPEZ ISLAND, WA 98261 1 1 PHONE (360) 468-4088 fax (360) 468-292r email: gtabarch@rockisland.corn . . 1 - FLOOR PLANS LIVING LEVEL PLAN UPPER LEVEL SCALE: 1/8" = 11 -0" Revisions: Approved: Drawn by: 7 Date: May 27,1999 Project No. 9812 of 7 Sheets . + - CP-22 82Â·08 SCHEDULE OF EXIDTING -1-M.EED 1 2-0" AÂ©FEN 2 23' bril.LE Â«\\ 3 12.-0 'Drlt-,KLE 4 â‚¬3" AffEN AD\\ -4Â· cP-QI 6 9 11 0.74 7 1 2 " 9 FRLE-,6 0 10 6 011 11 \ / / . ' 05 10 20 30 40 EOFT 9 2- O" Aâ‚¬pfth! ~ .. / 10 Â© " 9 FKLCE -I / Il 1111 . 1 1 1 1 1 / t \ - , ECALS ~ rll= IO 11 5" AfprE-HI * .. 12 7" 0 FALE 5\ \ h \ 13 6" 11 IDADID OF DEAâ‚¬11Â·4* ~ \ I.4 60" ,<orgb-I - . . \ . 570Â°Ill"F E- 944.70 fbETWEEN A Of IKE, \ \ \ ' ' [3'-ING 510025'55'45- 402.20' FROM TRIE -\\ \ 1+Mjl-!WEOT COARJES OF T-HE. 11EVIOCED h BO --- -- 1 . MITal-'ELL KNOODE SITE, Al\12 A XEDAR AT 0 -- \3 1 ~ 1 Â· E[EGE OF UTE AVENUE bIKE.rATH . -tÂ«He>FOâ‚¬h/lit \// E.L.822. h.'1Â£21-ER. ~ 4 1 A 535~3%22 ~Z]*I) *;5~ SUAVETOKS CEATIFIC,J-E CADLE L --Â»-170 \ -Law.179.4 , \ \\5543 ---7. l â€¢2 i Â·e- 4 Â· 1 7/37 l, JAMEÂ© E ItEDEIS, HEME]Dy-CrmT-IFY-TE-07 ON JUNE 3, IllÂ© 1394Â» '<--- - * \ 4 -0 1 1 VIA[DE A DUAVEY- OF ' 0. EASEMENT- 1 9 REVIDED WITGWELL E-louer_ SIT-Ev *5 51-Â·IONN ON TRIE .0 91477/ 31\ 1 03 - Â· 4 liEFLAT OF LOT- 2 IVIODED LOT Â©FLIT (A LOT U him AOJUSTIVIENIT) AND FINAL SUBPIVIDION FLAT OF THE 19 ... 6EOREE M K/11101-IELL AND H.A. [30&NEFEL.[3 JK. 1Â°ROFERY; \ 11 1. - ACCOM.OING TO THE FLAT THEFEOF> FLECONDED 4 2315 Fl-EVIDER 3, Illl IN FLEE [XEDK 21 AT F>Aâ‚¬BE 65. ASPHALT CONZATETE 2 1 k j Â¢ 0 .~ Â· ,TO.W.. .RE ~ THE FIVE- LEVEL WOOP Â»413 CONOMET-E- t--ICUDE WAD Rl)NIPTO It/ODD 81..5. 1 13:E L.CkÂ»IED ENT}Â«ELY- WITE-Ilrl TklE IMUN[2Â«gy UNEt OFTI--IE 1- E r r..73.0 Â·. ~ Ah ACOVE DESCFJDED FIKOf'ErKTS TRE 1-OCATION Â«412 \ B Q . Dr MENISIONÂ© OF ALL 11)ILIPIKED 11Â«lflt/Z lvIEfÂ·Â·1752 1 r. 9 4 4 - b 4 ~~Â·~ E,ADE-VIE-1-41-% AG-[37 oF #05Â¢r IH 6109-ICE Olt i<rÂ·*5Nhl -10 ME- 1 1 5 - t ... AMID EKOOX}--1IVIENTS DY OK ON -GIEOE- 11<.EÂ»11*ED ARE /7 .. 0 /CULATELy Â©HOWN S p LANTEA 1 3 4#* 1 ~22>7=--- 2- - 72.4- - 2 Al_FINEL .Â©Ult/EY'Ep, Itt, Spr 14}.40 1 1 L,/ L.Â©. 1 I Â©4 JAMEÂ© 5 FFÂ©ElÂ© 1 -I.--0-- 90 --- -- 2 3 l A i . Tow 21 4 0 .82, 4 4 ..94...0 #lid \ 1 10 79 ~ 4.81Â·<3 - - ~74* NOTE -- \8 li FIll<IN COURJTVTI TIA liNe. COVIEITIVIENT- NO. tr-2Â©53>(22. TÂ·aw. 84,2 1/ / 1 1 1 lib WAO UOED 11\1 T-k-I E Fl:iE SAKAT-ION OF T]-l i e> 04.AVE>N equ \\78 Â« % /4 K O % 0 4 / 4 - 14--4--f '11'ff ~33 9% 11 1 --1 \K 10 \ -It# 01 / \ 4 / F m Le;, ill 1 \ \ --- 1\ 3 \ 6 7*- 7 , 000 A D/ , 1 ./, /-2 0 -- V 1 1/ 41 88% . \1 43 / / 40\ .13 1 \ e O- \ \ Y . 4 23 K4 1\ 10 < 4 110 /00 - 2 \ 12 N . / 5 ./\\ r / \ TO.W - -.ls I .--Ii-- / .11.06 1 4 0 0// . \\ \ 1 \ \ \\ % 1 / 0 ' . - . Lâ‚¬32- _ LE-1. : 2 .5 f. 46 /03.28 \\ - i./ \\ li ... 0 --4 A / \ \ ---~ PLAN TER -- \\\. 0 \ 1 \ i Â¢$ -- \\ --yf ' 6 --\\ \ \\\ \ -1 \ / I .5 \ \\\\ .e f \ A-% l.f -- 0 .. \\\\ \\ \\ :\ \C\\~\\\ \\\ \\ 1 .\ \ \ C 7~*- _ REGE--- 400 \ \ \ \ \ \\\ M \ \ \ \\ \\.0 \\\\\\\ \ ---1 \\\\\\ \\ \\ \\\ \\ \\ \\ \ P 110 - -- \ - 5701â‚¬AGE ~ - --Â» 0 - L/ ; \\\ ./\\. 1 \\\\\ \ \ \\\\\\ REVISED MITCHELL 1 ---h \\ \\ \\ \ \\ \ 16 HOUSE DITE \\ --- 4 IGI Â©Q. F -13 + 1-23 -4-- 4 \1 \ //2-44 1 . I / 77*rE /0 11-0 , 8 /6.31-5 â‚¬ S //(0.00 WATER r- h \ /465.30'00"W . 6 4 obÂ°05'45" /3/.06 24 4 33Â°56'(3Â© " \ALVED ~h~ / M<-- --I -6 . - . RE F. 12 -1 IKER 72- 105 NOTICE According to Colorado law you must commence any legal act,on based Job No 87- 1 59 upon any defect in this survey within three years aftef you first discover such defect Alpine Surveys, Inc. Surveyed 6. 03.1 b J Flt Revisions 10.02.9 Â© 14-IEPULE OFTNEEâ‚¬P Title Client MITCHELL In no event may any action based upon any defect in this survey be commenced Drafted 7 0Â©.1Â© JI-]ID 1 IVIFFCk'EMENT .DUM.9'Er- r more than ten years from the date of the certification shown hereon Post Office Box 1730 Aspen, Colorado 81612 REVIOE.2 91110.1-IELL 4-Â·a-Â»E SITE FEFLAT OF LOTA , 970 925 2688 MODEÂ© LOT Â©FLIT + FINAL Â©l-)021VIDIOK] FLAT, 91 ITG-!ELL- COKNEFE!-[P FIKOFESIT- SLOPE 677 9'M ILOTTLE NE#, 2 gop>