Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19920922 ~ , AGENDA '- ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING September 22, 1992, Tuesday 4:30 P.M. 2nd Floor Meeting Room city Hall ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- I. COMMENTS commissioners Planning Staff Public II. III. NEW BUSINESS A. Ute Place Bridge Stream Margin Review, Leslie Lamont B. Meadows Bridges Stream Margin Review, Leslie Lamont IV. PUBLIC HEARING A.. 529 & 531 East Cooper Landmark Designation, Roxanne Eflin B. Aspen Electric Affordable Housing Subdivision and Rezoning, Leslie Lamont V. OLD BUSINESS A. Zaluba Non-compliance Update VI. ADJOURN MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Debbie Skehan, Office Manager RE: Upcoming Agendas DATE: September 16, 1992 AACP Town Meeting - September 24th 5:00 PM Special Joint Meeting with County P&Z - October 8th Aspen Area Community Plan Adoption (CH) Regular Meeting - October 20th Mocklin Rezoning (LL) Rio Grande Conceptual SPA Master Plan (LL) Thalberg Conditional Use Review for an ADU (LL) Special Joint Meeting with County P&Z - October 22nd Aspen Area Community Plan Adoption, continued (CH) a.nex b; MEMORANDUM . TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission J FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planner RE: Ute Place Bridge Stream Margin Review DATE: � September 22 1992 p SUMMARY: The Parks Department has submitted an application for the construction of a bridge crossing the Roaring Fork River. Placement of the bridge utilizes a bridge easement that the City obtained during the Gordon Lot Split in 1983 and the City owned property adjacent to Ute Place (1010 Ute). This bridge is an important link of City-wide trail along the Roaring Fork River from North Star reserve to S aughterhouse Bridge,, Pursuant to Section 7-50 , ream argin eview is required. The Planning Department recommends approval with conditions of the bridge. APPLICANT: City of Aspen, as represented by Gary Lacey and Patrick Duffield. LOCATION: Gordon/Callahan Subdivision and the City park adjacent to Ute Place. ZONING: R-30 and Public APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Stream Margin Approval for one bridge. REFERRAL COMMENTS: The Engineering Department has reviewed the application, please see attached referral comments. STAFF COMMENTS: The 1985 Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Element of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan identifies this bridge crossing to connect proposed trails down the Roaring Fork River and a trail through the Ute Cemetery. The 1991 Pedestrain and Bikeway Plan identifies this crossing as a connection to primary and secondary commuter routes. This delineation was also incorporated into the draft Aspen Area Community Plan. In 1991,. as part of the Gordon/Callahan Subdivision process, the applicant agreed to provide $25,000 for a bridge. Although the City has not obtained the few remaining easements 2 necessary to connect the bridge to a trail downriver to Cooper p Avenue, the City would like to complete the stream margin for the bridge. In—additionf the City has not solidified the plans for trail construction on the Ute Place side of the river. The City is till working with the neighbors to reach consensus regarding a trail `or trails_% _ n his -area_. Therefore, this stream margin review is only applicable for the bridge, another stream margin review or exemption will be required for the trails. The applicant will present the bridge plans at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. A. Stream Margin: Pursuant to Section 7-504 C., development is required to undergo Stream Margin Review if it is within 100 feet from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams, or within the one hundred year floodplain. The applicable review standards are as follows: 1. It can be demonstrated that any proposed development which is in the Special Flood Hazard Area will not increase the base flood elevation on the parcel proposed for development. This shall be demonstrated by an engineering study prepared by a professional engineer registered to practice in the State of Colorado which shows that the base flood elevation will not be raised, including, but not limited to, proposing mitigation techniques on or off -site which compensate for any base flood elevation increase caused by the development. RESPONSE: The project will not affect the existing 100 year floodplain or floodway. The low chord of the new bridge will be more than 21 above the 100 year flood elevation,, reducing the chance of debris blockage. The bridge itself is designed as a "breakaway" bridge which is tethered on one end'in the event of a major flood, it will breakaway and not become debris downstream. 2. 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: All proposed trails and existing trails are dedicated for public use which is consistent with the Plan. 3. The recommendations of the Roaring Fork Greenway. Plan are implemented in the proposed plan for development, to the greatest extent practicable. RESPONSE: This -project will follow the recommendations of the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan. 4. No vegetation is removed or slope grade changes made that produce erosion and sedimentation of the stream bank. RESPONSE: According to the application, no vegetation removal or slope grade changes are being made that will produce erosion or sedimentation problems. All new cut and fill areas will be revegetated. A tree removal permit shall be reviewed for the removal of any tree greater than 611 in caliper. The applicant shall work with the Engineering Department to identify erosion K, mitigation measures during construction. 5. To the greatest extent practicable, the proposed development reduces pollution and interference with the natural changes of the river, stream or other tributary. RESPONSE: The proposed trails. and bridges allow for natural changes in the river to the greatest extent possible. Some areas along the trail will be able to trap urban runoff pollution prior to it flowing into the river.- P 6. Written notice is given to the Colorado Water Conservation Board prior to any alteration or relocation of a water course, and a copy of said notice is. submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. RESPONSE: There will be no alteration or relocation of a water course. 7. A guarantee is provided in the event a water course is altered or relocated, that applies to the developer and his heirs, successors and assigns that ensures that the flood carrying capacity on the parcel is not diminished. RESPONSE: Not applicable. 8. Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits relating to work within the one hundred (100) year f loodplain. RESPONSE: A general permit authorization has been requested from the Army Corps of Engineers. No work will proceed until the Corps has signed off on the project. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recomm ap roval of the stream margin revi w to a bridge over the ork River with the following cond J- tions : f/1N > t (y 0 60 ,,. fib 0-d:;L - � -� 1. Conditions prior construction: a. A construction and site drainage plan and procedure must be submitted and approved to the engineering department. The construction procedures employed must be such that no runoff from rain or snowmelt be permitted to drain to the river from contact with the disturbed earth. The construction procedure used will in no way impact the river. b. Tree removal permits are required from the Parks Department before any trees greater than 6" in caliper may be removed. C. Necessary permits, or written acknowledgement that a permit is not required, shall be obtained from the Army Corps 3 LO of Engineers and/or the Department of Wildlife and provided o to the engineering department. e. The engineering department recommends that either a subsurface soils exploration report or visual inspection of excavation be performed by a registered soils engineer to determine sufficient bearing capacity for the designed concrete structures. f. Stamped drawings by design engineer must be submitted. 2. General Conditons: a. As the drawings indicate, construction staking must be in place before commencement of construction confirming that the bridges are located on the properties indicated in the application. The survey as submitted in the application should be expanded to include the eastern abutment currently not shown. Upon, completion of the bridges an as -built mylar must be submitted to the engineering department prepared by a registered land surveyor, that includes new easements, and bridge locations in relation to property boundaries. b. Inspections and testing shall be performed at the direction of the engineer. It is recommended that inspections be performed prior to the placement of concrete, for the placement of concrete and for any compaction of backfill. It also recommended that testing be performed for concrete strength and density of compaction. C. The applicant is required to plant any regraded or disturbed area with species keeping with the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan as well as existing plants in the area. d. The construction site drainage plan and procedure shall particularly address how it will maintain the existing slope and vegetation at the eastern abutment as indicated on the profile view looking downstream. It appears that it will be difficult to prevent the erosion or sloughing of this bank during the course of construction. 3. All representations that have been made in the application and during the presentation shall be adhered to. Attachments: A. Plans 4 s� ain Aean water level O G� P 100 yr. fl oqd - _.bo Pfain = boundar} ....._................ d o I1 11 •• ,` P e� 2n- �g rn.orn� 1 m m o N L • F retention of storm runoff. In addition storm runoff from the trail should be addressed on how it is maintained and prevented from entering the river. 2. Conditions for all three bridges: a. As the drawings indicate, construction staking must be in place before commencement of construction confirming that the bridges are located on the properties indicated in the application. Upon completion of the bridges an as - built mylar must be submitted to the engineering department prepared by a registered land surveyor, that includes new easements, and bridge locations in relation to property boundaries. b. Inspections and testing shall be performed at the direction of the engineer.. _ It is recommended that inspections be. performed prior to the placement -of concrete, for the placement of concrete and for any compaction of backflll. It also recommended that testing be performed for concrete strength and density of compaction. c. The applicant is required to plant any regraded or disturbed area with species keeping with the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan as well as existing plants in the area. 3. Specific conditions for Picnic Point: a. While the drawings indicate that the new trail grade and construction access is to be a maximum of 6%, the grade as the trail is now aligned appears to exceed 12%. The engineer shall comment that the new trail and construction access can be constructed to a maximum grade of 6% within the project boundaries. b. It needs to be' demonstrated that the proposed development will not increase the base flood elevation. This shall be demonstrated by an engineering study prepared by a professional engineer registered to practice in the State of Colorado which shows that the base flood elevation will not be raised, including but not limited to, proposing mitigation techniques on or off site which compensate for any base flood elevation increase caused by development. c. The construction site drainage plan and procedure shall particularly address flow ' it will maintain the existing slope and vegetation at the south abutment as indicated on the profile view looking downstream. It appears that it will be difficult to prevent the erosion or sloughing of this bank during the course of construction. 4. Specific conditions for Grindley Bridge: a. The bridge is conceptually approved. Final approval is reserved upon review of construction drawings. All conditions as stated above shall apply with the exception of 3.b and 3.c; assuming that the construction drawings also indicate the bridge to be above the 100 year flood plain. cc Chuck Roth, City Engineer BRUCE KONHEIM 1130 WILLOUGHBY WAY OR BOX 580 ASPEN, CO.81611 (303) 925-2259 City of Aspen r . Rebecca Baker, Parks Department. 130 South Galena Street =r Aspen, CO.81611 Subject: Dear Rebecca, tr � SEP Planning & Zoning Commission - September 22,1992 Stream Margin Review - Two Bridges over Roaring Fork �W I reside at 1130 Willoughby Way and received your letter regarding a hearing concerning two proposed bridges over the Roaring Fork River from the Meadows. As a homeowner and one who has had a residence in Aspen for better than 15 years, I and my family are against this project. With so many die hard environmentalist and lovers of our natural environment who live hear, I am surprised this proposed project got as far as a hearing. When one speaks about Aspen, you picture the natural beauty of the landscaping as one of our biggest assets. Now, it is proposed to cut that up to provide two bridges which would seriously deter from the beauty we now share along the Roaring Fork path. I can't believe the Planning and Zoning Department will consider such a rediculous proposal. There is no question in my mind that this will have a tremendous negative Environmental Impact on the area. . I will not be in town for the hearing, so please forward this letter to Leslie Lamont and all members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, to all the City Council Members and to Amy Margerum the City Manager. Personally your, Bruce Konheim :► Z!t', T- ir_ :c"�" .. y .r.+e,.��i�.. try ^ 1 lFlQ'' jV`.st. iCe` t.y„EL - ai�..,�.i.•" rr- -r. �� �-r .'�tr,�/ir�.a']6�::�.7�i��.4�X��' "�Y -+^�+• - y�:�:;�'�y,�.tp6r.:�aL'7ir>. ';1:r1-""�_ ,•�a.M�ta is_ r alr-.wT�t':: �`-C+'�+.+'�l+.`•f %'r'_ � .— _, ...._ _• . k.%rn...,.s �, .� �. _� �.,"r,,• �•s- _ �y _ _ _ _ .,r.;�,�.1i5•�.].�.. �y-:'t•-..-.re���� .iTy��• �� ti•.�•-. ._M,> ��+._;1`.:-�. 1- - -.-_ -;. �� =- ��,. _� :.r1iy, ��- _�#� a 1M _ �-'L�11't T . - � ' . �� �y7, '�I'�-�. 't • ' i-r. - - . k� ss+ '� .��K+' r - _- .Tim '!�_w�... ..r_5=®� _ G�■�4• i s rLr. L Ai :b! ice: -3ar� �.:•�. i. -�r17wyT' - p � 4p y . �., �w.i..hwr �"•-L�'�..riw,P ir!'�m� •'� --A-.R 1.. -. .. w-a. : •..$+!^r.a-.'....M i!•. �', as. ... r. :. •`.. j '. �'.� -`4!?7O.!-� _ ' 40 AAV . ._......- - 1000 �K l�!?t. t � - �v IeI ! / • oz� .. 4P 09, 4b le AfUA!Q kAxal� �. Lv j -� 07100 t. k � - - -- -- - -- P• 0. BOX 796 ASPEN. OOLORA00 81S12 U STACK R. COIIRSHON SEP 1 41992 700 CASTLE CREEK DRIVE ASPEN, CO $1611 - (303) 925-1023 Mr. Patrick Duffield September 1111992 City of Aspen Trails Supervisor 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Mr. Duffield: I received a letter dated August 20th from Rebecca Baker, City of Aspen Parks Department, notifying me as a homeowner at 700 Castle Creek Drive, of the Parks Department appearance before the Planning and Zoning Commission on September 22nd to consider placement of a 10-foot wide pedestrian/bicycle bridge on Castle Creek at the Meadows, a 10-foot wide pedestrian/bicycle bridge on the Roaring Fork River at Picric Point of the Meadows and a 4-foot wide pedestrian only bridge at the eastern side of the Meadows on the Roaring Fork River across from the Betty Grindley property. Included with the letter was a Meadows vicinity map, which outlined. the location of the three proposed bridges, as well as proposed trails. The letter refers to the bridges as a priority for "imple- mentation of the Aspen Pedestrian/Bikeway Plan, including develop- ment of the Castle Creek Greenway and Roaring Fork Greenway. I would likes my letter to go on record in opposition to the two proposed 10-foot wide pedestrian/bikeway bridges across Castle Creek and across the Roaring Fork River of the Meadows properties. I am not opposed to the installation of the 4-foot wide pedestrian only bridge across the Grindley property and the Roaring Fork River. The August 20th letter states that "the aforementioned projects were an integral part of. the Aspen Meadows planning approval process to provide greater public access to the Meadows property." It so happens that I was an active participant in the meetings that resulted in the final Meadows/Non-profit land transfers. At the outset of the Meadows land process, the developer wanted to erect 21 townhouses in the area known as Picnic Point on the Meadows property. A substantial number of citizens and citizens' groups vehemently objected to this plan because it was our desire to leave one of the last remaining natural properties in the City of Aspen in its pristine state.* We succeeded in prohibiting the developer from improving that property. In gray opinion, any attempts to impose these 10-foot wide bridges across the Roaring Fork and Castle Creek waters, along with the future proposed expansion of trails along the west side of Castle Creek, would impair and destroy the last remaining pristine wetlands and woodlands in the City of :Aspen and create the very problem we prevented the Meadows TO: PATRICK DIIFFIELD RE: PEDESTRIANJBIKEWAY PLAN 9/11/92 developer from -doing. I can assure you that property along the west side of Castle Creek from Power Plant Road all the way down to the Roaring Fork River is heavily wooded. The principal occupants of this property, besides the trees, bushes and wildflowers, are an extensive population of deer, - red fox, racoons, as well as -a variety of native fish. What are not there are people. What we don't need are additional trails in this pristine area which will bring about the usual people -created trash and disorder to this natural area. A substantial portion of - this area is -wetland and all of .this is wild with the exception of Picnic Point on the Meadows property. There is already ample access by both road and trails to the Meadows property for anyone that cares to visit same. Any expan- sion of access to that property is unnecessary and in my opinion will be terribly detrimental to the natural aspect of the area. Moreover, any attempt to expand pedestrian/bikeway trails, referred to as the development of the Castle Creek Greenway, would absolutely destroy this primitive lowland along the west side of Castle Creek. In my -opinion, all efforts should be directed to maintaining this last remaining pristine wildland of Aspen in its natural state, rather than exploiting same. I am -hoping to attend the meeting before the Planning and Zoning Commission on September 22nd, but if not, I wanted this letter circulated to you and the other recipients noted below to express my views on the bridge proposals. I have already discussed this matter with several other of the property owners along Castle Creek Drive, whose properties include the lowland wooded area abutting Castle Creek and without exception their feelings on the subject are the same as mine. I might add that I .am very much in favor of our pedestrian and bike paths in general, as they now exist, but where they intrude in existing wooded areas and wetlands or directly aside the course of our rivers and creeks, I am very much opposed to their extension in those areas. Cordially, �a,k R. Courshon 2 , _ = Se ptember 8. 1992 . Page 2 bridge redundant and, with its 4-feet width, would cross the river with minimal impact on the river banks during construction. and in its finished state. The Grindlay Bridge accesses the same areas 3 upstream to the Meadows along the North Star trail, and downstream to Picnic Point. Since there is already access to -Picnic Point from the Meadows (utilized regularly, y b locals and visi- tors alike) the cumulative impact of three ways to reach t the same area would be destructive in terms of. people traffic, aesthetics and the environment. Our strong u recommendation, therefore, is to limit the number of bridges to one --the 4-feet wide Betty Grindlay Bridge. As far as the proposed Castle Creek bridge is con- cerned, we cannot understand the reasoning behind a 10- feet wide bridge to nowhere. As pointed out previously, the conservation land on the west side of Castle Creek is composed of wetlands, thick forest and underbrush. Construction alone --would be extremely difficult and _ perhaps not even permitted because of the sensitive nature of the river banks.. The proposed location is slightly upstream from the old foot bridge that was washed out during the 1984 runoff. There are intermittent ditches on the west side that run during high water; the remains of sandbags used in 1984 and 1985 to reduce flooding in Black Birch Estates are still in evidence. The west side of Castle Creek is hone to beaver, muskrat, fox, raccoon, deer, ducks and otter species of birds. They are one of the important reasons the ripar- ian area is unique and they should not be disturbed. .Finally, the north end of the west side is a dead end, comprised of Black Birch private properties: Lots 99 Tract B, newly enlarged Lot 10. and 870 feet of private road leading to Red Butte Drive* We hope we have given you several reasons to re- consider your proposals for this important City property and thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment. Sincerel Felix ogl o c c : Amy Marge rum , City Mgr. Rebecca Baker,Parks Dept, City Council members Tom Ca,rdamone , ACES Gary Lacy, Recreation Engineering & Planning Leslie Lamgz' t, Planning John Bennett, Mayor Hal Clark, Parks Assoc. Alan C2enkusch, DOW Michael Claffey, Army of Engineers Off ice Corps V (J V 110 �W W d C•a(� 100 y/Z• FLOOD �y L too yr. Flood bow roo A. 0 �• l • �' (00 . New 90'x ! 0 Ike/Pedestrian feidge supplied by �o Yf As`pen, Consi E SPA I Ft CA 110Nt9 dory A cces s • tra 11.1v ro 64 _ 1 lilUHIM • r`lood oundary 1911 0- - a t tea. �Zqf v��� O w a. O._ x � J u � t� p th VD _ 4 R. w WtA Q � u�o o C: ca•7g P P-,g t- J V MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planner RE: Meadows Bridges Castle Creek and Roaring Fork River Stream Margin Review DATE: September 22, 1992 ------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Parks Department has submitted an application for the construction of three bridges adjacent to the Meadows property. The first 'bridge crosses Castle Creek accessing City owned open space. The second crosses the Roaring Fork River at Picnic Point but a little up river from the spot where a bridge crossed many years ago. The third bridge is up river from Picnic Point on the Roaring Fork River. This bridge, as proposed by Betty Grindlay, will be a pedestrian bridge only and access a walking path to Picnic Point and a short trail up to Paepcke Auditorium and the tent.. Pursuant tc Sections 7 ,-504, Stream Margin Review is required . The Planning Department recommends approval with conditions of all three bridges. APPLICANT: City of Aspen, as represented by Gary Lacey, Patrick Duffield and Betty Grindlay. LOCATION: City and County owned land on the Meadows property and the Rio Grande Trail. ZONING: The 25.7 acre City -owned parcel (Lot 4, Aspen Meadows Subdivision) is zoned WP (Wildlife Preservation) . The County owned open space parcel (Lot 11 of the Pitkin Reserve Subdivision) is zoned R-30 PUD. APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Stream Margin Approval for three bridges. REFERRAL COMMENTS: The Engineering Department has reviewed the application please see the attached referral comments. STAFF COMMENTS: The Aspen Meadows Master Plan was adopted by City Council as a component of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan in September 1990. By establishing specific goals to guide the development, the Master Plan included a strong commitment to an open space environment and alternative access through trail and bridge development. Identified in that plan were three locations for bridges: two crossing the Roaring. Fork River and one crossing Castle Creek. The purposes for the. bridges are twofold: to access the open space purchased by the City and to provide participants a convenient and pleasant pedestrian/bike access to the Meadows property (Music Tent, Aspen Institute, Physics Institute) and to the center of town. Based on the approved Aspen Meadows Master Plan, a Conceptual SPA (Specially Planned Area) Development Plan was approved by City Council in December of 1990. This Conceptual Plan included the three bridges presented in the Master Plan. The Aspen Meadows Final SPA Development Plan was submitted in the spring of 1991. This plan also included the three bridges. The Final SPA Development Plan was approved by City Council on June 10, 1991. The applicant will present the bridge drawings at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. A. Stream Margin: Pursuant to Section 7-504 C., development is required to undergo Stream Margin Review if it is within 100 feet from the high water line of the - Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams, or within the one hundred year floodplain. The applicable review standards are as follows: 1. It can be demonstrated that any proposed development which is in the Special Flood Hazard Area will not increase the base flood elevation on the parcel proposed for development. This shall be demonstrated by an engineering study prepared by a professional engineer registered to practice in the State of Colorado which shows that the base flood elevation will not be raised, including, but not limited to, proposing mitigation techniques on or off -site which compensate for any base flood elevation increase caused by the development. RESPONSE: According to the application, this project will not affect the existing 100 year floodplain or floodway. The low chord of the new bridge will be more than 2' above the 100 year . flood elevation, reducing the chance of debris blockage. The bridge itself is designed as a "breakaway" bridge which is tethered on one end in the event of a major flood, it will breakaway and not become debris downstream. The Betty Grindlay pedestrian bridge is located well out of the 100 year floodplain and floodway. 2. 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: All proposed trails and existing trails are dedicated for public use which is consistent with the Plan. 3. The recommendations of the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan are implemented in the proposed plan for development, to the greatest extent practicable. RESPONSE: This project will follow the recommendations of the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan. The connection of public open space 2 and the provision of public access to the river, is consistent with the Plan. 4. No vegetation is removed or slope grade_ changes made that produce erosion and sedimentation of the stream bank. RESPONSE: According to the application, no vegetation removal or slope grade changes are being made that will produce erosion or sedimentation problems. All new cut and fill areas will be revegetated. A tree removal permit shall be required for the removal of any tree greater than 6" in caliper. The applicant shall work with the Engineering Department to identify erosion mitigation measures during construction. 5. To the greatest extent practicable, the proposed development reduces pollution and interference with the natural changes of, the river, stream or other tributary. RESPONSE: The proposed trails and bridges allow for natural changes in the river to the greatest extent possible. Some areas along.the trail will be able to trap urban runoff pollution prior to it flowing into the river. 6. Written notice is given to the Colorado Water Conservation Board prior to any alteration or relocation of a water course, and a copy of said notice is submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. RESPONSE: There will be no alteration or relocation of a water course. 7. A guarantee is provided in the event a water course is altered or relocated, that applies to the developer and his heirs, successors and assigns that ensures that the flood carrying ',capacity on the parcel is not diminished. RESPONSE: Not applicable. 8. Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits relating to work within the one hundred (100) year floodplain. RESPONSE: A general permit authorization has been requested from the Army Corps of Engineers. No work will proceed until the Corps has signed off on the project. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the stream margin review to install three bridges, one over Castle Creek and two over the Roaring Fork River with the following conditions: 1. Conditions for all three bridges prior to construction: a. A construction and site drainage plan and procedure must 3 be submitted and approved to the engineering department. The construction procedures employed must be such that no runoff from rain or snowmelt be permitted to drain to the river from contact with the disturbed earth. The construction procedure used will in no way impact the river. b. Tree removal permits are required from the Parks Department before any trees greater than 611 in caliper may be removed. Necessary permits,, or written acknowledgement that a permit is not required, shall be obtained from the Army Corps of Engineers and/or the Department of Wildlife and provided to the engineering department. d. The engineering department recommends that either a subsurface soils exploration report or visual inspection of excavation be performed by a registered soils engineer to determine sufficient bearing capacity for the designed concrete structures. e. Stamped drawings by design engineer must be submitted. f. Additional information is required for item 5 of the application regarding the retention of storm runoff. In addition storm runoff from the trail should be addressed on how it is maintained and prevented from entering the river. 2. Conditions for all three bridges: a. As the drawings indicate, construction staking must be in place before commencement of construction confirming that the bridges are located on the properties indicated in the application. Upon completion of the bridges an as -built mylar must be submitted to the engineering department prepared by a registered land surveyor, that includes new easements, and bridge locations in relation to property boundaries. b. Inspections and testing shall be performed at the direction of the engineer. It is recommended that inspections be performed prior to the placement of concrete,, for the placement of concrete and for any compaction of backfill. It also recommended that testing be performed for concrete strength and density of compaction. C. The applicant is required to plant any regraded or disturbed area with species keeping with the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan as well as existing plants in the area. 3. Specific conditions for Picnic Point: a. While the drawings indicate that the new trail grade and Cl construction access is to be a maximum of 6%, the grade as the trail is now aligned appears to exceed 12%. The engineer shall comment that the new trail and construction access can be constructed to a maximum grade of 6% within the project boundaries. b. It needs to be demonstrated that the proposed development will not increase the base flood elevation. This shall be demonstrated by an engineering study prepared by a professional engineer registered to practice in the State of Colorado which shows that the base flood elevation will not be raised, including but not limited to,,proposing mitigation techniques on or off site which compensate for any base flood elevation increase caused by development. C. The construction site drainage plan and procedure shall particularly address how it will maintain the existing slope and vegetation at the south abutment as indicated on the profile view looking downstream. It appears that it will be diff icult to prevent the erosion or sloughing of this bank during the course of construction. e. The City shall obtain a Trail Easement from the County for the bridge crossing the Roaring Fork River. Specific conditions for Grindley Bridge: a. The' bridge is conceptually approved. Final approval is reserved upon review of construction drawings. All conditions as stated above shall apply with the exception of 3.b and 3 . c; assuming that the construction drawings also indicate the bridge to be above the 100 year flood plain. b. The City shall obtain a Trail Easement from the County for the bridge crossing the Roaring Fork River. All representations that have been made uui-i-ng the presentation shall be adhered to. Attachments: A. Plans B. Neighbor's Letters k in the application and To: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office From: Rob Thomson, Project Engineer I R S I Date: September 16, 1992 Re: Meadows Bridges Castle Creek and Roaring Fork River Stream Margin Review Having reviewed the above application, the engineering Department has the following comments: 1. Conditions for all three bridges prior to construction: a. A construction and site drainage plan and procedure must be submitted and approved to the engineering department. The construction procedures employed must be such that no runoff from rain or snowmelt be permitted to drain to the river from contact with the disturbed earth. The construction procedure used will in no way impact the river. b. Tree removal permits are required from the Parks Department before any trees greater than 6" in caliper may be removed. c. Necessary permits, or written acknowledgement that a permit is not required, shall be obtained from the Army Corps of Engineers and/or the Department of Wildlife and provided to the engineering department. d. The City of Aspen shall obtain, an executed and recorded, trail easement from Pitkin County for the two bridges known .as Picnic Point, and Castle Creek. e. The engineering department recommends that- either a subsurface soils exploration report or visual inspection of excavation be performed by a registered soils engineer to determine sufficient bearing capacity for the designed concrete structures. Stamped drawings by design engineer must be submitted. g. Additional information is required for item 5 of the application regarding the retention of storm runoff. In addition storm runoff from the trail should be addressed on how it is maintained and prevented from entering the river. 2. Conditions for all three bridges: a. As the drawings indicate, construction staking must be in place before commencement of construction confirming that the bridges are located on the properties indicated in the application. Upon completion of the bridges an as - built mylar must be submitted to the engineering department prepared by a registered land surveyor, that includes new easements, and bridge locations in relation to property boundaries. b. Inspections and testing shall be performed at the direction of the engineer. It is recommended that inspections be . performed prior to the placement of concrete, for the placement of concrete and for any compaction of backflill. It also recommended that testing be performed for concrete strength and density of compaction. c. The applicant is required to plant any regraded or disturbed area with species keeping with the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan as well as existing plants in the area. 3. Specific conditions for Picnic Point: a. While the drawings indicate that the new trail grade and construction access is to be a maximum of 6%, the grade as the trail is now aligned appears to exceed 12%. The engineer shall comment that the new trail and construction access can be constructed to a maximum grade of 6% within the project boundaries. b. It needs to be `demonstrated that the proposed development will not increase the base flood elevation. This shall be demonstrated by an engineering study prepared by a professional engineer registered to practice in the State of Colorado which shows that the base flood elevation will not be raised, including but not limited to, proposing mitigation techniques on or off site which compensate for any base flood elevation increase caused by development. c. The construction site drainage plan and procedure shall particularly address how it will maintain the existing slope and vegetation at the south abutment as indicated on the profile view looking downstream. It appears that it will be difficult to prevent the erosion or sloughing of this bank during the course of construction. i 4. Specific conditions for Grindley Bridge: a. The bridge is conceptually approved. Final approval is reserved upon review of construction drawings. All conditions as stated above shall apply with the exception of 3.b and 3.c; assuming that the construction drawings also indicate the bridge to be above the 100 year flood plain. cc Chuck Roth, City Engineer To: From: Re Date: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer/e, 529 E. Cooper and 531 E. Cooper: Landmark Designation (Public Hearing) September 22, 1992 SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting Landmark Designation for the properties located at 529 E. Cooper (Bowman Block) and 531 E. Cooper (LaFave Block). 531 E. Cooper, the LaFave Block, is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. APPLICANT: Stein Eriksen, represented by Jane Ellen Hamilton of Garfield and Hecht LOCATION: 529 E. Cooper, desc.bed as the East 29' 8 3/4" of Lot I, Block 96, City and Town of Aspen; and 531 E. Cooper, described as the East 5' of Lot G, a'l 1 of Lot H and the West 3 1 / 4" of Lot 1, Block 96, City and Townsite of Aspen HPC ACTION: The HPC is reviewing this designation application on September 23, 1992. Landmark Designation Local' Landmark Designation is necessary in order to receive a number of incentives available to historic properties, including the Federal or State Rehab Income Tax Credits and local incentives. Staff wishes to thank the applicant for preparing a detailed and thorough application, which is attached for reference. LOCAL DESIGNATION STANDARDS: Section ? -702 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations define the six, standards for local landmark designation, requiring that the resource under consideration meet F at least one of the following -standards: A. Historical importance: The structure or site is a principal or secondary structure or site commonly identified or associated with a person or an event of. historical significance to the cultural, social or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado, or the United States. 01 Response: We f ind that both of these buildings are associated with personages of cultural and social importance to Aspen's heritage. Both Frank LaFave and John Bowman were early Aspen pioneers, associated with. the commercial and social growth of the community during the mining era. The LaFave building survived as a restaurant well into the Quiet Years (19201s), and the Bowman Block housed Mr. Bowman's unique collection of museum artifacts of the west. In the 1950's, Fritz Benedict and Herbert Bayer were associated with the buildings, which were purchased by them for studio space (and living space for Bayer). And certainly through association with the building's current owner, Stein Eriksen, this standard could be applied. Eriksen's decades -old fame in the world of skiing, and his early association with the Snowmass/Aspen ski area, helped boost Aspen's fame as the internationally recognized resort it is today. Staff finds that this standard has been met. B. Architectural importance: The structure or site reflects an architectural style that "is unique, distinct or of traditional Aspen character. Response: Both buildings meet this architectural standard as they typify traditional Victorian -era commercial storefront architecture in western communities that made the transition from false -fronted mining camp to city. We find that this standard has.been met. C. Architectural importance: The structure or site embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique architectural type or specimen. Response: We find that the architectural quality of these structure, particularly the corner LaFave Block, is a rare representation of Aspen's early 1890's design era. These commercial buildings are small scale, two story structures, that are more modest than the Webber,, Brand, or Collins Blocks. They embody distinguishing characteristics of their time, and previous alterations have been generally compatible. D. Architectural importance: The structure is a significant work of an architect whose ,individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. Response: Our records do not indicate an architect was involved in the design or construction of these commercial buildings. However, through later association with Wright - schooled architect Fritz Benedict and Bauhaus designer Herbert Bayer, the HPC and P&Z, may find this standard has been met. E. Neighborhood character: The -structure or site is a significant component --of an historically -significant 2 neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character. Response: The significance of these two buildings to the integrity of the Commercial Core Historic District cannot be underestimated. They are classic in form, pedestrian in nature, and belong to Aspen as a signature of our commercial heritage and unique character. We f ind that this standard -has been met. F. Community character: -The structure or site is critical to the preservation of the character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size, location and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or architectural importance. Response: Aspen's historic commercial storefront buildings are the trademark of our.downtown historic district. These buildings anchor a corner of the Commercial Core Historic District closest to the gondola and mountain base, and clearly illustrate Aspen's heritage through architecture. We find that their preservation is critical. -to the preservation of our character as a resort community. We find this standard has been met. Conclusion: The Planning Office finds that all Landmark Designation Standards have been met. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the P&Z recommend Landmark Designation for 529 E. Cooper and 531 E. Cooper, finding that all Designation Standards have been met. memo.pz.529.531ec.ld 3 LAND USE APPLICATION I. Introduction. The Applicant, Stein Eriksen, is the record owner of two buildings located in the City of Aspen, the first of which is legally described as the East 29 feet 8 3/4" of Lot I, Block 96, City and Townsite of Aspen (the "LaFave Building") and the second of which is legally described as the East 5 feet of Lot -G, all of Lot H and the West 3 1/4" of Lot I, Block 96, City and Townsite of Aspen (the "Bowman -Building"). The Applicant hereby applies for a historic landmark designation for both buildings pursuant to Article 7, Division 7 of the Land Use Regulations of the City of Aspen (the "Code"). II. Background. The buildings are located in the Commercial Code historic overlay district of downtown Aspen, but never received individual historic landmark status. They were both identified as "excellent" structures in the 1986 update of the 1980 Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures prepared by the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office (in fact, the LaFave Building is featured on the front of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Historic Preservation Element, which contains the Inventory). The Applicant wishes to have these buildings designated in order to protect the structures and to secure access to the incentives available to these properties for their maintenance. The LaFave Building is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. National Register properties receive their designation from the United States Department of the Interior after having been documented and evaluated according to the Department's uniform and strict standards. III. Conformity With Code. Section 7-702 of the Code provides that a structure may be designated as an historic landmark if it meets one or more of the standards set forth in the Section. Both buildings meet several of the standards set forth in Section 7-702. The LaFave Building qualifies as architecturally important because it reflects an architectural style which is traditional Aspen character. The building is typical of the commercial buildings of the mining community of Aspen in the late 19th century. The corner of the building which faces the intersection of Cooper and Hunter Streets contains a typical feature of the era, a triangular pediment which shows the date of construction of the building (1888). The two story brick building was constructed by Frank LaFave and was primarily used as a restaurant until the 1920's. LaFave Vim x Y Mom... 7 ' 1.. ,.^^.ep_ �i •.. - S4 { _ u "' .. ,� �� f ,, '�� f11 � ��� .< { a!J ryas : '"� �.� �,'r• �� �.-... "Alp 09 44 US 16 re , j�q .d 77 ,ur w,.�k3�."YEF7t�� . _ _ .,., _z_ ,..' - . r• r .�, �,�. __ .. _.. _�.,.--.,. „- a.,�.�. �.. ;rem. n _.'..�iC ' ,.. ♦... `ter . s-,. .-.. w _ ... . ._ all i u a. y i Yfa� `'•-} is r x + je,�ts� r •,�i.. .e?` fir { �x7- � t ""�- _ 'r 1 xk� ' i�i..• a' £. # "err`*. +•r�>w' �'�,.. ?rz't �N.i'Al04 s t � �� � s .+... sue•+ �^.-' � 4 1 �. '� '� °.� � , x� .' -� S ems„_.- s rc ": � _ z, r '*z st �,.3 � • ,� -. x, LAQ `+� �s +' "`=" Y ys �" "'°az•'i +_. L' �a. P, -3^., .•tyt •' .s77 � �� �r ; � G°�. �" �.�`�"` `n "c M��t� : �+?' - ��i`` +��tir��is"'�'F,� �+ga�a•;:G�� `� �� �„��� RE: DATE: I TV I DiTy (0) Z4, A " Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Leslie Lamont, Planner Aspen Electric Map Amendment, Subdivision, and Special Review for a Fully Deed Restricted Triplex September 22, 1992 SUMMARY: Barry and Sharon Siegel propose to subdivide a portion of their property, rezone the newly created parcel from R-15 PUD. to Affordable Housing (AH) and develop a fully deed restricted triplex. This is a two step process. The Commission will first review the subdivision and rezoning in addition to Special Review for open space and parking as required for the AH zone district. Recommendations from the Commission to Council regarding subdivision, rezoning and GMQS Exemption for affordable housing will be forwarded for Council's review. The County P&Z will review a lot line adjustment between the Siegel's property and the County owned Mascotte Lode in order to maintain a conforming lot of record. Attached for your review is the full application submitted by the applicant. Staff recommends approval of this application. APPLICANT: Barry and Sharon Siegel as represented by Marcia Goshorn LOCATION: Lot 3, Sunny Park North Subdivision, Park Circle, Aspen, Colorado, 81611 ZONING: R-15 PUD APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Subdivision to create a new residential parcel, amend the Official Zone District map, and Special Review for open space and parking. . REFERRAL COMMENTS: Referral Comments are attached to the memo. Please see Attachment A. STAFF COMMENTS: A. Background - As - part of the * comprehensive approach to the City's housing dilemma,, the City Council adopted ordinance 59 establishing an Affordable Housing Zone District (AH) . The AH zone enables the rezoning of land for the purposes of affordable housing. The Siegel's would like to utilize the AH zone district to provide housing for their employees of Aspen Electric. The Siegel's propose to subdivide their 18,320 square foot parcel to create a 8,000 square foot parcel for the development of a fully deed restricted triplex. Currently, the Siegel's single family home exists on the parcel. A lot line adjustment with the County's Mascotte/99 Lode parcel is necessary to maintain the 15,000 square foot minimum for the Siegel's parcel. B. Site Description - Lot 3 of Sunny Park North Subdivision is 18,320 square feet. The parcel sits atop a steep slope overlooking Park Avenue. The Siegel's residence is on a flat bench on top of the hill and is accessed off of Smuggler Mountain road via an easement from the County. The land area that the Siegel's would like to subdivide fronts Park Avenue at the bottom of the steep slope and is relatively flat. The vegetation consists of native grasses and weeds. Although there are several trees on the site there are no trees within the proposed building envelope. Other than slope stabilization at the rear of the property, no natural hazards, critical wildlife habitat or endangered vegetation exist on the site. The boundary of the site abuts the EPA Smuggler Superfund site. The applicant has contacted Tom Dunlop of the Environmental Health Department to determine what precautions must be adhered to during construction. All public services are in place with the capacity to serve the site. The site is within walking distance of downtown and is served by a bus route within 1/2 a block. The Smuggler neighborhood encompasses a variety of land uses. Multi -family development is prevalent as are duplex, triplex and single family homes. The land uses vary from intensity and architectural styles. In addition, the site has excellent southern exposure and views to the south. C. Project Summary - The applicant proposes to construct a triplex on a 8,000 square foot parcel with two 2-bedroom units and one 4-bedroom unit. The 2-bedroom units will 840 square feet and restricted to Category 2 price and income guidelines. The 4- bedroom unit will be 1,656 square feet and restricted to Category 4 price and income guidelines. A two car parking garage will be provided for each unit. This project has been designed to be consistent with several goals and objectives that have been adopted by the City. The Aspen Electric proposal helps to create a housing environment which is 2 MIDLAND PARK CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION I SEP Aspen Planning And Zoning Commission Re: Public Hearing Barry Siegel Rezoning Lot 3 9/17/92 The Homeowners of the Midland Park Condominium Association have no objection to the rezoning to affordable housing (AH) of lot 3, Sunny Park North Subdivision. However, the Board of Directors wishes to bring to the attention of the Planning Department and the Commission that Barry Siegel has obstructed access to the Salvation Ditch over the SDC easement on his property at Park Circle (see attached letter dated January 15, 1990). The Midland Park Condominimum Association wants a written guarantee from property owner Siegel and residents of the intended triplex that access to the easement for the Salvation Ditch Company will be free of obstructions and remain unobstructed. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, Midland Park Condominium Association P.O. Box 10609 Aspen, CO 81612 Terry Allen, President January 15, 1990 Tom Smith County Attorney 530 E. Main Street Suite 1 Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Access to the Salvation Irrigation Ditch Dear Tom: On November 17, 1989, at a meeting of Bud Eylar, Joe Bergquist, yourself and me, we discussed the concerns of the Salvation Ditch Company (SDC) about accessing the ditch through the Midland Park Condominium Association's (MDCA) property. As you recall direct access to the ditch was impeded by the county closing the old Smuggler Mountain Road access at the east end of the MPCA property. The SDC was offering, presumably at their expense, to remove the boulders which block the road and install a removable/locked column type of gate access. The county had acted on the concerns of MPCA owners due to the hazards created by the old access to Smuggler Mountain Road and I expressed our ongoing concern about any disruption of the closed access.- We also discussed the fact that the SDC has access to the ditch over their easement on top of the underground portion of the ditch at the rear of our property. The SDC had apparently experienced some problems with a property owner, Siegel, who is also subject to the easement, blocking the access with his vehicles and/or building materials. I believe the three of you went to the MPCA site to inspect the problem. Subsequent to that meeting, Bud Eylar indicated he thought that the issue had been resolved with SDC's intention to use the easement to the ditch with access off Park Circle. Please provide me with a written update on your understanding of the issue by mail to: P.O. Box 11583 Aspen, CO 81612 Should you have any questions, please contact me at 925-6700. Sincerely, Midland P rk Condominium Ass41iatioln Thomas W. -Griffiths; President TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Leslie Lamont.. DATE: September 22, 1992 RE: Zaluba Noncompliance Update According to the Findings and Order Resolution of July 21, 1992, Mr. Joe Zaluba was required to revegetate the road cut, remove all spoils from the bank of the new road cut, stabilize the road surface and provide proper drainage mitigation by September 1, 1992. Architectural drawings and plans for the tie-in and boulder retaining walls were also to be submitted by September 1, 1992. In addition, a performance bond, or -other similar security as approved by the City Attorney shall be posted based on the September 1, 1992 submission. Failure to complete the slope and road stabilization work, drainage mitigation and removal of all spoils and construction of the retaining walls by October 15., 1992 shall cause the City to access and draw down on the performance security to perform and complete all the required work as specified. Staff received a packet of information from Marty Pickett, Joe Zaluba's attorney, on August 27, 1992. The packet contained drawings and specs for a boulder and tie-in retaining wall only. Rob Thomson of the Engineering Department did review the information and found them to be incomplete (please see attached review). Mr. Zaluba would not have been able to submit the plans .for a required building permit for the wall.* On September S. 1992, Rob met Mr. Zaluba on -site together with the Rappaports (concerned neighbors). Rob and Joe discussed several alterations to the Findings and Order Resolution of July 21, 1992. Joe has proposed the following: 1. On the down hill slope of the new road a hydro -mulch process will be used to revegetate the slope. Instead of removing the rocks and debris which will expose the soil, a layer of dirt will cover the debris which will be planted. Staff Recommendation: Submit a detailed hydro-mulch/replanting plan for review. Staff will seek referral comments from the parks department as to determine reliability. The performance bond will include the additional cost if the replanting is not successful. 2. From the incomplete submission August 27, 1992 and subsequent changes proposed by Mr.:Zaluba,•the October 15, 1992 deadline for the installation of a boulder retaining and tie-in wall does not appear to be realistic. Therefore, Joe proposes to install pre- cast concrete wall units, a.k.a. Jersey Barriers, to stabilize the slope as a temporary measure for the winter. The concrete wall units will be removed next year prior to the permanent retaining wall. Complete construction plan will be submitted for approval during the winter. Staff Recommendation: Until complete plans are submitted and Mr. Zaluba has discussed this change with the Planning and Zoning Commission the requirement for a boulder retaining and tie=in wall should remain in effect. If concrete wall units are accepted, then the performance bond will include the cost of removal. 3. Mr. Zaluba would like to renegotiate the October 15, 1992 deadline if the original plans for retainage must be followed. Staff Recommendation: Staff does not have a -problem discussing a realistic time frame to do the work. However, staff will not discuss shifting the October 15 deadline until all plans have been submitted, or there is an organized outline of work to be performed by October 15 and work that will be delayed. In other words, staff has been viewing bits and pieces of the work that was required on September 1, 1992 and has not received a solid plan for completion of work or an attempt to set a price for a performance bond. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission schedule October 20, 1992 (the next available meeting) to review Mr. Zaluba's latest plans for completing the required work. Unless the Commission directs staff otherwise, staff will follow up on the above recommendations. Staff recommends that Mr. Zaluba post a performance bond, based upon work detailed in his original approval, by October 15, 1992 or the 8040 Greenline approval -shall be revoked. ATTACHMENTS E WHY% & PICKETT LAWYERS A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION THE SMITH-ELISHA HOUSE 320 WEST MAIN STREET. SUITE 1 ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 TIMOTHY McFLYNN' TELEPHONE (303) 925.2211 MARTHA C. PICKETT TELECOPIER (303) 925-2442 September 16, 1992 Rob Thompson City of Aspen Engineering Department 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Hoag Lot 3 Dear Rob: Pursuant to our telephone conversation this morning, I have clarified with Steve Pawlak and Tim Beck their recommendations with regard to the proposed temporary precast concrete wall units on the upper side of the driveway on Hoag Lot 3. They have both confirmed that the recommendation originally from Steve to f ill in behind the wall was only in the event it is to be used as a permanent structure. For temporary purposes,, -Steve explained, as set forth in his letter to Mr. Zaluba dated September 16, 1992, a copy of which is enclosed, that it is better not to fill in behind the wall immediately to allow for any ravelling of the upper slope. Ravelling would then fall behind the wall and not onto the road and possibly block the drainage on the driveway. I believe that you can gather from Steve's letter that his opinion appears to be that the wall units will provide a good structure which can be installed in our given timeframe this fall. Further, he confirms that the drainage is working properly except for where it has been disrupted where the Ute Trail intersects the driveway on the Forest Service property. According to Randy Wedum, construction on this lower portion of the driveway is being commenced in the next few days as part of Mr. Shaffron's approval from the County and the work that was required by the County on that portion of the driveway down to the intersection with Ute Avenue. I'm also enclosing for you a copy of the letter submitted to Leslie yesterday with Tim Beck's letter and cross section of the proposed temporary wall section. Please let me know if you need any additional information prior to the hearing on Tuesday. We 2alubaZHoag Lot 3 Review of Plan 1. No landscape plan submitted September 1, 1992: Site visit and talks with Joe Zaluba. He requested that in lieu of picking up all rocks below road cut that he be able to place topsoil and hydroseed. I told him to proceed with submission of a plan to include Stabilization of topsoil Maintenance of seed i.e. watering, erosion etc. Guarantee that it will take and if not return next spring (tie it to bond) 2. Parks shall review trail signs and locations, also the landscape Plan. 3. The detail depicting the earth berm and split rail shows the earth to be at almost a 1:1 slope. I do not think this would last season to season. 4. The drawings only seem to indicate conceptual design for the retaining walls. It does not seem that there is enough information for the Building Department. I am investigating this further with them. In any event anything over 41 requires a permit.' 5. The plan only "shows" drainage in a few places it does not address slope of road, and what happens to the drainage at the bottom of the hill.. 6.Further detail is required at the trail driveway transition. 7. How is snowplowing handled,, the fence would not sustain continuous loads against it from snowplowing. RST/sp/M113.92 Post-tt" brand fax transmittal memo 7671 FO of pages ► From CO. CO. Dept, Phone # - .. r.. Fax # � � � � � , � Fait #-:.--w-- Ms. Martha Pickett ' 320 W . Main_, Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Driveway for Lot 4, Hoag Subdivision and Newfoundland Lode HCE Job No. 89014.004 Dear Ms. Pickett: This letter is in response to the City's request far additional information on the initial temporary stabilization and later final construction of the driveway and associated ski trail. it is our understanding that the initial, temporary construction must be in place by October 15 of this year.. . After consulting with Steve pawlalr of Huntington/Chen-Northern, Rob Tbompson of the City of -Aspen Engineering Department, Randy Wedum and you, we believe that temporary fneasures should be installed this fall, and the existing driveway cut posted to exclude public vehicular traffic. The temporary construction to help stabilize the cut above the driveway, could be as shown on the typical cross-section which accompanies this letter. We understand that this type of construction was agreed to by the parties involved as acceptable, and t'Huntington/Chen-Northern and High Country Engineering, Inc. believe that this will provide adequate stabilization through the winter. Final design should be completed as soon as passible and agreed upon, to allow construction next spring. Final design would need to consist of plan views, profiles,* cross-scctions and typical details,, in order to comply with the City Engmeering Department's requests: 3, 3 923 Cooper Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Telephone: 303-945-8676 • 303-920.3669 • FAX., 303-945-2655 Leslie Lamont Sep�ember'15, 1992 Page 2 weeks, various' consultants have explained to him that the time constraint of having such a wall in place by October 15 is prohibitive. Therefore, it has been recommended that a pre -cast concrete wall unit be utilized which can be guaranteed to be in place by October 15, 1992. Please find enclosed a letter from Tim Beck of High Country Engineering, Inc. who confirms that this wall will adequately protect the slope for the winter as a' temporary measure. Then, Mr. Zaluba, Huntington/Chen Northern and High Count -try Engineering can work together with Rob Thompson to come up with more complete plans for the final wall design. Since the excavation and grading have.been completed, it appears that there are certain sections of the slope. which are .in greater need than - others and therefore it-is--easieZ now •ta design .a- wail -that is specific for the location. In particular, everyone agrees that there needs to be special attention given to the area where the driveway and the trail meet. Lastly Steve Pawlak of Huntington/Chen-Northern.will provide a letter tomorrow morning to further supplement this information, confirming that the pre -cast concrete wall units will be satisfac- tory. Also he will confirm that the recent final grading on the driveway was completed pursuant to the engineered plans and that the resulting drainage is as recommended, providing drainage on the southside of the driveway. If you need any additional information prior to the hearing, please let me know. Sincerely, McFLYNN & PICKETT._F:C. By. MCP/klm Enclosure cc: Joe Zaluba Randy Wedum Ron Collen ntubaWmwntIv Ma . Pickett Ms. Martha Pickett Page 2 September 15, 1992 Please contact me if you have a different understanding of requirements, or have any questions. Sincerely,, 14IGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING,, INC. Tim0 YP. Beck P. E. Princl Engineer TPB:rjm Ene VN W � J W C W Ct y y d zO A ~ Z x0M . 3 -a ao in J • J d W � p W W Jam. � v 3 � V N W I 0 Z O 3Ld Q zw nz �- .Z U Q a W U J� Q W a. 13 WHY% & PICKETT LAWYERS A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION THE SMITH-ELISHA HOUSE - 320 WEST MAIN STREET. SUITE 1 ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 -TIMOTHY M cFLYN N' MARTHA C. PICKETT September 15, 1992 HAND DELIVERED Leslie Lamont Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 S, Ga';lena-Street - - Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Hoag Lot 3 Supplemental.Information Regarding 8040 Greenling Approval Dear Leslie: TELEPHONE (303) 925-2211 TELECOPIER (303)' 925-2442 Thank you for your cooperation in discussing with me your concerns on the improvements to. the driveway to Hoag Lot 3 pursuant to the Findings and Order by the P&Z on July 21, 1992. Subsequent to the hearing, various consultants have visited the property to determine the best way to stabilize the slope, and given the time constraints, some new proposals have evolved which we believe will satisfy everyone's concern for the 1992-93 winter. . First of all, it has been highly recommended that the lower slope, i.e. the slope below the new driveway and above the trail, be hydroseeded to more quickly provide a higher quality slope preservation than merely removing the rocks which were pushed over the side in the driveway excavation. Because dirt. was also pushed aside, the hydroseeding should be very effective and can -be done immediately so that the slope is well vegetated next -spring. Please find enclosed a - otter from ;orb, C''4� i-, Construction, who would be the.person to provide the hydroseeding, explaining the type of grass mixture that will be used, followed by a wood fiber mulch. Gene explains that hydroseeding is a technical term which does not have different standards of performance. His firm recently provided the hydroseeding along Ute Avenue. However, if you have any additional comments or suggestions from the Parks Department on this particular hydro -seeding project, Gene will be happy to speak with a Park's representative. More importantly, the issue has arisen as to how to best stabilize the "upper" slope above the driveway, that was created by the grading of the driveway. As required by the P&Z, Mr. Zaluba submitted plans for a railroad tie and rock retaining wall on August 28, 1992 for the City's review. However, over the last few 4 * 100"390d 1d101 ** Western Heritage Log Homes September lb, 1992 Page 2 be flattened for the final grading configuration. We understand that the intersection of Ute Trail and the driveway will be graded this fall to prevent surface flow across the outer edge of the trail and driveway onto the property. below the site. We will be available for additional observation and consultation when requested. If you have any questions regarding the information provided or if we can be of further assistance, please let us know. Sincerely, CHEN-NORTHERN, INC. 'f Steven L. Pawlak, P. E., SLP jlr .�o.sT� sy i 5222 PA VOF C01.gQ`�4 cc: Martha C. Pitkett, Attorney High Country Engineering - Attn: Tim Beck City of Aspen - Attn: Rob Tomson t 13 Chen rD Northern .Inc, TOO'39Nd QMN19 N83HINON-N3HO 14083 bi:OZ Z6s SI d3S Rob Thompson September 16, 1992 Page 2 look forward to working with you to reach a solution to this driveway not only for the fall but guaranteeing the City that the permanent structure will be installed next spring. Sincerely, McFLYNN & PICKETT, P.C. By. Mar Pickett MCP/klm Chen UP Northem im CoriwlNn9 Engimcn vita Sr.1--niWti September 16, 1992 Western Heritage Log Homes Attn: Joe Zaluba 8899 William Cody Drive Evergreen CO 80439-6631 50130 R16d 1 J4 Gw,'#wow SP(IN4, colorwo 6)601 30.1945•7450 303 V45-2:$1B3 FaeWile Subject: Observation of Driveway Grading for Access to Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision, Aspen, Colorado Job No. 4 275 89 Dear Mr. Zaluba: As requested, we met with you and others at the subject site on September, 8, 1992 to observe the on -going driveway grading with respect to design slope configurations. Chen Northern, Inc. previously observed the driveway excavation and presented our finding in a letter to you dated July 21. 1992, .lob No. 4 275 89. The driveway alignment is identical to that described in our July 21 letter. Additional excavation has been made by cutting down and into the hillside. Cut heights along the uphill side of the driveway were typically between about 5 to 8 feet and mostly near vertical. There was a small amount of fill along the outer edge of the driveway up to about 2 feet deep and consisted mainly of cobble size rock. The driveway surface had a noticeable cross slope into the hillside to contain surface runoff along the uphill side. The soils exposed in the cutbanks consisted of rocky colluvium and there were no indications of massive slope instability caused by the additional excavation. At the bottom of the driveway at the intersection with the Cite Trail, the driveway grading had disrupted the drainage path of the Ute Trail, We understand that construction of a permanent retaining wall and slope grading along the uphill side of the driveway is not practical at this time and that a temporary grading solution until next year is desired. The driveway excavation is mostly in cut and there appears to be little risk of massive slope failure that could impact structures below the site. However, ravelling of the steep cut slope will continue which could block the drainage along the uphill side of the driveway. The erosion could be limited and the drainage maintained by placing a low precast concrete barrier against the toe of the cut along the entire driveway alignment. We expect that a typical barrier about 2-1/2 feet high will be adequate. The back side of the barrier should be left open so that loose material ravelling from the cut face will be. contained without blocking the driveway area. We understand that hydromulching of the fill material on the outer edge of the driveway is proposed to limit erosion. Hydromulching the uphill excavation face is not warranted at this time since the cut is temporary and will Arrwrnt*fofthr. Vwpdcompanies 200'39Ud QMN19 N83H180N-N3H0 WO8A 62:91 26, 91 d3S September 1511 1992 Jos. S. Zaluba ' RE: Hoag Subdivision, Lot 3 In reference to Hoag Subdivision, Lot 3, the disturbed -areas will -be hydroseeded with. the -fol•lowing grass seeds: Kentucky 311 Red Creeping Fescue,,Crestwheat, Smooth Brome, and Canadian Bluegrass. The area will then receive a wood fiber mulch. Sincerely, Gene Cilli Environmental Construction it