HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19921110
.-.-..
(
"-
,.~,
t
\
-
-"'--
AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
November 10, 1992, Tuesday
4:30 P.M.
Sheriff's Conference Room
Basement of the Pitkin County Courthouse
============~====~-==================--=========================
I. COMMENTS
Commissioners
Planning Staff
Public
II. MINUTES
III.
OLD BUSINESS
A. Zaluba 8040 - Non-Compliance Hearing
IV. WORKSESSIONS
A. Text Amendment Affecting FARs for Porches
B. Conceptual Rio Grande SPA Master Plan
V. ADJOURN
I
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM:* Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner
DATE: November 10, 1992
RE: Zaluba 8040 Greenline Noncompliance
SUMMARY: The Commission approved the 8040 Greenline review for Lot
3 of the Hoag Subdivision, owned by Mr. Joe Zaluba, in January of
1990.
The Commission, at their October 20, 1992 meeting, voted to
schedule a noncompliance -hearing to consider revocation of the Lot
--
3 Hoag Subdivision 8040 Greenline approval.
This is the second scheduled noncompliance hearing regarding this
8040 Greenline approval. The Commission held a noncompliance
hearing July 21, 1992. At that time the Commission did not revoke
the 8040 Greenline but delineated a set of conditions of approval
that were,to be adhered to in order for Mr.. Zaluba to maintain his
8040 Greenline approval.
Staff recommends that the Commission revoke the 8040 Greenline
approval for Lot 3 of the Hoag subdivision. because Mr. Zaluba has
failed to comply with the conditions of approval as established
during the July 21, 1992 noncompliance hearing.
BACKGROUND:
Mr. Zaluba received an 8040 Greenline approval for a single family
residence on Lot 3 Hoag Subdivision in January of 1990. Please
see- attached Resolution 90-4 approving the 8040 Greenline,
Exhibit A.
Mr. Zaluba proceeded with site improvements in anticipation of
constructing the single family home on this parcel. An excavation
permit was issued for the new access road. A foundation permit was
also issued. A new access road was cut approximately two years
ago. Shortly thereafter the excavation and foundation permits
expired.
In the ensuing years the City received many complaints from
neighbors regarding the safety and condition of the access road
that was never finished.
Based upon the lack of follow through regarding the road and lack
of compliance with the conditions of approval as stipulation in the
1990 Resolution, the Commission held a noncompliance hearing July
21, 1992 to consider revocation of the 8040 Greenline approval.
Please see the July 21, 1992 memo with attachments, Exhibit B.
3
At that hearing the Commission voted not to revoke the 8040
Greenline approval but the development approval was subject to the
timely and satisfactory compliance with conditions of approval.
Please see attached minutes of the July 21, 1992 meeting and the
Findings and Order Resolution,,Exhibits C and D.
Staff updated the Commission several times between the July 21,
1992 show cause hearing and the October 20, 1992 meeting. Staff
was also working with Mr. Zaluba and his representative Marty
Pickett during that time attempting to comply with the conditions
of approval. Please see attached correspondence and memos Exhibit
On October 20, 1992 the Commission voted to issue a Notice to Show
Cause why the 8040 Greenline approval should not be revoked. Mr.
Zaluba was directed to appear at the November 10,-1992 Commission --
meeting. Please see attached notice, Exhibit F.
Finally, although -it was not included in the Notice for Show Cause,
staff has recently become aware that Mr. Zaluba has not closed his
account with the Planning Department. Mr. Zaluba still owes $3,570
is development application fees for the original review of the 8040
during 1989 and 1990.,
STAFF COMMENTS:
Mr. Zaluba did stabilize the bed of the new road cut and mitigate
drainage problems on the road to the satisfaction of the
Engineering Department and adjacent residences. Mr. Zaluba has
also been working with the Planning and Engineering Departments.to
develop a retaining wall solution that would stabilize the cut in
an effective and aesthetic manner and an effective removal and
revegetation of the lower bank of the road cut.
However, two months have lapsed beyond the deadline for work to
begin or a financial security established or completed plans to be
submitted for review and approval. Therefore staff finds that Mr.
Zaluba has not complied with the following conditions -of approval
in a timely and satisfactorily manner:
1. Revegetation of the road cut, removal of all spoils from the
bank of the new road cut as approved by the City Engineer shall be
accomplished by September 1, 19920
2. Architectural drawings and plans for the tie-in and boulder
retaining walls shall be submitted for approval to the City
Engineer by September 1, 1992.
3. Mr. Zaluba shall post a performance bond, or other similar
security as approved by the City Attorney, in a sum up to
$300,000.00 to secure the successful completion of the
2
ON
revegetation, installation of stabilization, drainage mitigation,
and road surface stabilization. The exact amount of the bond shall
be determined by the City Engineer and City Attorney upon
examination and approval of the plans for the work.
4. Failure to complete the slope and road stabilization work,
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 herein and shall, further, result in the
revocation of the 1990 8040 Greenline development approval.
If Mr. Zaluba's 8040 Greenline approval is revoked no building
permits may be issued for Lot 3 of the Hoag Subdivision prior to
a 8040 Greenline approval for a specific development proposal.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that - -the - Planning and- Zoning
Commission revoke the 8040 Greenline approval for Lot 3 of the Hoag
Subdivision because Mr. Zaluba has failed to comply with the
following conditions of approval as stipulated in the July 21, 1992
Findings and Order Resolution:
1. Revegetation of the road cut, removal of all spoils from the
bank of the new road cut as approved by the City Engineer shall be
accomplished by September 1, 1992.
2. Architectural drawings and plans for the tie-in and boulder
retaining walls shall be submitted for. approval to the City
Engineer by September 1, 1992.
3. Mr. Zaluba shall post a performance bond, or other similar
security as approved by the City Attorney, in a sum up to
$300,000.00 to secure the successful completion of the
revegetation, installation of stabilization, drainage mitigation,
and road surface stabilization. The exact amount of the bond shall
be determined by the City Engineer and City Attorney upon
examination and approval of the plans for the work.
4. Failure to complete the slope and road stabilization work,
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 herein and shall, further, result in the
revocation of the 1990 8040 Greenline development approval.
5. If the Planning and Zoning Commission takes such action to
continue the 8040 Greenline approval staff requests that the unpaid
Planning Department development application fee of $3,570 be paid
as a condition of the 8040 Greenline extension. However, if the
8040 Greenline is revoked the Department will have to pursue other
measures for payment.
3
PLANNING ONING COMMISSION
EXHIBIT , APPROVED ,
19 T BY RESOLUTION
-�> RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
:..� GRANTING 8040 GREENLINE APPROVAL OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME
ON LOT 3, HOAG SUBDIVISION IN THE CONSERVATION ZONE DISTRICT
Resolution No. 90
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and .Zoning Commission held a
public meeting January 2, 1990; and
WHEREAS, the Commission reviewed an application for a 8040
Greenline for Lot 3 in the Hoag Subdivision; and
WHEREAS, -the Commission has reviewed this .application -
several times during 1989; and
WHEREAS, the Commission was concerned about the avalanche
hazards on the site, preservation of the Nordic trail and the
visual impact of a large home on the hillside; and
WHEREAS, the applicant continued to work with the Commission
to present a proposal that the Commission could approve; an
WHEREAS, the applicant agreed to construct a new access
drive in order to preserve the Nordic trail; and
WHEREAS, the applicant agreed to restrict the floor area of
the house to 2,438.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that it
does hereby grant approval of the 8040 Greenline for Lot 3 of the
Hoag Subdivision with the following conditions:
1. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the
applicant shall create a barrier between the driveway and the
trail on the Forest Service property to reduce the potential
conflict bet,•:ee^ trail users and Lot 3 users.
2'. Pricr to the issuance of a building permit, the applican'
J�
I
r-
Resolution No. 90-
Page 2
shall have a confirmed tree -relocation plan and/or replacement
program in place to be reviewed and approved by the Parks'
Department.
3. A vertical tie-in wall and boulder wall shall be constructed
by the applicant and the plans shall be reviewed and. approved by
the Planning and Engineering Departments.
4. The applicant shall adhere to the recommendations of Chen -
Northern regarding slope stability during the excavation•of -the
road and site and -those plans and recommendations shall be
reviewed by the Engineering Department.
5. The applicant shall retain a geotechnical engineer to perform
field monitoring during the excavation and construction of the
site.
6. The applicant shall implement the sprinkler plan as approved
by the Fire Marshall.
7. Prior to the issuance of an excavation permit, the
Engineering Department shall review a final drainage plan.
8. No spoils or fill shall be placed over the side of.. the road
cut. All excavated materials shall be removed from the site if
not used in the construction of the residence.
9. The applicant shall post signage on the utility/trail
easement to prevent vehicular access.
10. The applicant shall revegetate the upper road cut, beginning
at the hairpin turn.
11. The access road shall not be expanded beyond -access for one
single family home on the I1ewfoundland parcel.
Resolution No. 90-
Page 3 ,
i
12. The new access road shall be constructed first to
accommodate excavation and development of the building site -so as
not to use the trail.
13-. No"additional square footage shall be added to the house
without a full 8040 Greenline review.. This building site shall
not be subject to any exemptions pursuant to the 8040 Greenline
review process for any additions.
14'. -The approved revised •plans indicatee-a reduction of square
footage of 402.75 and -approximately a 20 reduction in the facade
of the structure. The calculable floor area of the home was
approved at 2,438 square feet.
15. The applicant shall submit a landscape. plan that shall be
' agreed upon between the applicant, Planning and Engineering
--'`r Departments. The grade on the west side shall be raised to
approximately window sill level.
APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on January
2, 1990.
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
By
C. Welton Ande s , Chairman
ATTEST:
FOA
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
EXHIBIT , APPROVED r
19 BY RESOLUTION
MEMORANDUM
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Leslie Lamont, Planning
July 21, 1992
Zaluba 8040 Greenline Approval Noncompliance Hearing
SUMMARY: In January of 1990 the Planning and Zoning Commission
approved a 8040 Greenline approval for the construction of a single
family residence on Lot 3 of the Hoag'subdivision.
The previous excavation permit for the --new, -access road along- with -
several other permits were issued but have expired. A result of
the previous roadway excavation has been the existence of unstable
soil conditions and this has impacted the surrounding properties.
In addition, there are several conditions of approval that have not
been observed with regard to the excavation of the access road.
The specific conditions of approval that have not been adhered to
are the following (please see the attached 1990 Resolution 14):
3. A vertical tie-in wall and boulder wall shall be
constructed by the applicant and the plans shall be reviewed
and approved by the Planning and Engineering Departments.
4. The applicant shall adhere to the recommendations of Chen -
Northern regarding slope stability during the excavation of
the road and site and those plans and recommendations shall
be reviewed by the Engineering Department.
8. No spoils or fill shall be placed over the side of the
road cut. All excavated materials shall be removed from the
site if not used in the construction of the residence.
10. The applicant shall revegetate the upper road cut,
beginning at the hairpin turn.
Although the conditions of approval to not specify a date by which
the "vertical tie-in wall" shall be constructed or the "upper road
cut" shall be revegetated, Mr. Zaluba excavated a rough road cut
two years ago without a follow through on recommendations from
Chen -Northern regarding slope stability and revegatation of the
upper road cut.
In addition, Mr. Zaluba has not responded to letters of concern
from adjacent property owners and the City complaining about
potential erosion problems with the spring thaws.
1�
Finally, staff has reason to believe that when the new road was cut
"spoils and fill" were allowed to fall over the side and were then
scraped up by heavy equipment potentially damaging hillside
vegetation.
Please f ind attached the correspondence between the City, the
adjacent property owners and Mr. Zaluba and his attorney. Marty
Pickett.
Marty Pickett has recently indicated to staff that Mr. Zaluba has
begun to rectify the rough road cut situation. Chen -Northern has
been retained to stabilize the road cut and the banks and to design
a vertical tie-in wall to support the upper bank. Mr. Zaluba is
also working with the property owner's of the Newfoundland Lode to
secure the road for access to both properties.
If Mr. Zaluba's 8040 Greenline approval is revoked ,-no, building --
permits may be issued for the Hoag Lot 3 prior to a 8040 Greenline
approval for a specific development -proposal.
RECOMMFMATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning
Commission consider one of the following alternatives with regard
to'Mr. Zaluba's 8040 Greenline approval:
1. Revegetation of the upper road cut and stabilization of the new
road cut shall be accomplished by September 1, 1992. The plans for
the tie-in and boulder retaining wall shall be reviewed and
approved by the Engineering and Planning Departments before
stabilization work may begin. Recommendations by Chen -Northern
regarding the stabilization shall be reviewed by the Engineering
Department and shall be adhered to during the stabilization and
revegatation process.
Failure to complete the stabilization and revegatation shall cause
the revocation of the 8040 Greenline approval for Hoag Lot 3.
2. Mr. Zaluba shall post a performance bond for $300,000 for the
stabilization of the new road cut and revegetation of the upper
road cut to be completed prior to the issuance of any
foundation/excavation and building permits. The plans for the tie-
in and boulder retaining wall shall be reviewed and approved by the
Engineering and Planning Departments before stabilization work may
begin. Recommendations by Chen -Northern regarding the
stabilization shall be reviewed by the Engineering Department and
shall be adhered to during the stabilization and revegatation
process.
Failure to complete the road stabilization and revegetation within
one year from this review shall cause the City to utilize the bond
to perform the work required.
2
/0
3. Mr. Zaluba shall post a performance bond for $300,000 for the
stabilization of the new road cut and revegetation of the upper
road cut with work to be completed by September 1, 1992. The plans
for the tie-in and boulder retaining.wall shall be reviewed and
approved by the Engineering and Planning Departments before
stabilization work may begin. Recommendations by Chen -Northern
regarding the stabilization shall be reviewed by the Engineering
Department and shall be adhered to during the stabilization and
revegatation process.
Failure to complete the work required by September 11 1992 shall
cause the City to utilize the bond to perform the work required.
4. Revocation of the 8040 Greenline approval pursuant to Planning
and Zoning Commission Resolution 4, 1990.
5. The Commission may choose; -used upon the facts presented, -to
not take action thus allowing the 8040 Greenline approval to remain
valid.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution 4, 1990
2. Correspondence between City Attorney, staff, Mr. Zaluba and
his representative, adjacent property owners and engineers.
3. Certified Notification of Noncompliance Hearing to Mr. Zaluba
3
PT.ANNINGAING COMMISSION
EXHIBIT , APPROVED
19 BY RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
_�. GRANTIN
G 8040 GREENLINE APPROVAL OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME
ON LOT 3, HOAG SUBDIVISION IN THE CONSERVATION ZONE DISTRICT
Resolution No. 90- !-
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and .Zoning Commission held a
public meeting January 2, 1990; and
WHEREAS, the Commission reviewed an application for a 8040
Greenline for Lot 3 in the Hoag Subdivision; and
WHEREAS, 'the Commission has reviewed- -this .application -
several times during 1989; and
WHEREAS, the Commission was concerned about the avalanche
hazards on the site, preservation of the Nordic trail and the
visual impact of a large home on the hillside; and
T WHEREAS, the applicant continued to work with the Commission
to present a proposal that the Commission could approve; and
WHEREAS, the applicant agreed to construct a new access
drive in order to preserve the Nordic trail; and
WHEREAS, the applicant agreed to restrict the floor area of
the house to 2,438. -
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that it
does hereby grant approval of the 8040 Greenline for Lot 3 of the
Hoag Subdivision with the following conditions:
1. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the
applicant shall create a barrier between the driveway and the
trail on the Forest Service property to reduce the potential
conflict between trail users and Lot 3 users.
2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicar"
Resolution No. 90-
Page 2
shall have a confirmed tree -relocation plan and/or replacement
program in place to be reviewed and approved by the Parks -
Department.
3. A vertical tie-in wall and boulder wall shall be constructed
by the applicant and the plans shall be reviewed and.approved by
the Planning and Engineering Departments.
4. The applicant shall adhere to the recommendations of Chen-
-Northern regarding slope -.stability- during .the excavation -of -the.'..
road and site. and 'those plans and recommendations shall be
reviewed by the Engineering Department.
5. The applicant shall retain a geotechnical engineer to perform
field monitoring during the excavation and construction of 'the
site.
6. The applicant shall implement the sprinkler plan as approved
by the Fire Marshall.
7. Prior to the issuance of an excavation permit, the
Engineering Department shall review a final drainage plan.
8. No spoils or fill shall be placed over the side of_- the road
cut. All excavated materials shall be removed from the site if
not used in the construction of the residence.
9. The applicant shall post signage on the utility/trail
easement to prevent vehicular access.
10. The applicant shall revegetate the' upper road cut, beginning
at the hairpin turn.
11. The access road shall not be expanded beyond access for one
single family home on the Newfoundland parcel.
13
Resolution No. 90-
Page 3
12.
The new access road shall be constructed first to
accommodate excavation and development of the building site -so as
not to use the trail.
13. No additional square footage shall be added to the house
without a full 8040 Greenline review. This building site shall
not be subject to any exemptions pursuant to the 8040 Greenline
review process for any additions.
14. -The approved revised plans indicatee-a reduction of square. _
footage of 402.75 and approximately a 20 reduction in the facade
of the structure. The calculable floor area of the home was
approved at 2,438 square feet.
15. The applicant shall submit a landscape plan that shall be
agreed upon between the applicant, ,Planning and Engineering
---'`r Departments. The grade on the west side shall be raised t(
approximately window sill level.
APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on January
2, 1990.
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
I
By �
d rJ4 , �
C. Welton AndesbW, Chairman
ATTEST:
!C4
s
CITY
September 18, 1990
EN
Ms. Susan H. Rappaport
3940 Walden Shores Road
Wayzata, Minnesota 55391
Dear Ms. Rappaport:
Thank you for your correspondence dated September llth listing
certain concerns 'relevant to Joseph Zaluba's development
activities.
I have reviewed•your letter with the Planning, Engineering and
Zoning Departments and have been advised that the potential
grading and run-off problems as you have identified have been
addressed in the design and engineering plans for the Zaluba lot.
Final grading and -other road improvements can not.be undertaken
until after the foundation work for Mr. Zaluba's home is com-
plete. The foundation work permit was issued last week. The
work is subject to inspection to insure compliance with all
conditions of approval.
I hope this 'information is helpful to you.
Very truly yours,
Edward M. Caswall
City'Attorney
EMC/mc
}}i r�CrNr•(`( A( Pr ! t
CITE
September 18, 1990
SPEN
Ms. Martha C. Pickett
McFlynn & Pickett -
P.O. Box I
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Re: Zaluba :-
Dear Marty: -
Enclosed for your information is a copy of a letter I. recently
received from a property owner who is concerned about Mr.
Zaluba's development activities. I'm also forwarding a copy of
the letter to the Zoning and Engineering Departments for their
review. I trust the concerns noted in the letter are being
addressed in Mr. ZalubaIs design work and -that he will have any
problems with the road resolved prior to winter.
Thank you.
Very .truly yours,
Edward M. Caswall
City Attorney
EMC/mc
Enc.
cc: Engineering Department
Zoning Department
vcicc, nanct
ao
f PLANNING & ONING COMMISSION
EXHIBIT , APPROVED
19 BY RESOLUTION •
MES9AZTE DISPLAY
Bill Drueding.
From: Leslie Lamont
Postmark: Aug 20,90 4:27 PM
Subject: Reply to:•JOE ZALUBA'S BUILDING PERMIT
Reply text:
From Leslie Lamont:
Joe must submit plasn to be approved before he may begin to construct
the reatining wall along the new driveway. Until that time NO
e reatining
permits should be let out PERTAINING to cons
truction of wall. However approval of the wall plans is not necessary for
releasing his building permit. I would request that prior to Final
_Inspection, Jim.Gi.bbard and myselfinspect the site to determine
whether he has complied with all his -conditions as -set out in -the-''
Resolution.
Preceding message:
From Bill Drueding:
ZALUBA'S BUILDING.PERMIT IS READY TO GO IN THE BUILDINGNG AS DEPSOOT.
ASSHOULD
I RELEASE THIS PERMIT????? PLEASE ADVISE IN
POSSIBLE. THANK YOU!!!
PINNING & ZONING COMMISSION
7
EXHIBIT 19L, APPROVED
19 BY RESOLUTION
SUSAN H. RAPPAPORT
3940 WALDEN SHORES ROAD
WAYZATA,MINNESOTA 55391
(612)473-3065
FAX (612) 473-5369
September 11, 1990
Jed Caswell
City of Aspen
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear. Jed,
5� 1 1 1990
CITY ATTO R N E Y'S
E_ OFFICE
My husband, Gary, and I own the home at 1115 Ute Avenue, and
the reason I am writing to you has to do with the road (ski
trail) that runs above our property.
Joe Zaluba has built a new road to access his building site.
The road is about one foot -higher than grade. There is a
big ditch that runs parallel to our property, which would
trap snow, water etc. and the whole road is sloped to run
off directly onto our property. I urge you. to go and take a
look at it, because our landscaping, boulder retaining wall
and perhaps even our foundations are in jeopardy, and both
Gary and I and our contractor, are very concerned.
I spoke to Joe about it, and he assured me that the road was
far from complete, but before he finishes it, he wants to
get the foundation in for his home, and then set the grade.
He said he is. also working with a landscape architect to
design the intersection where his road and the ski trail
meet, as well as the area that runs along our property.
As of today, he still has not received his building permit,
which he said was submitted on March loth, and he is not
going to finish the road until he gets the permit.
The grading, run-off systems and foundation for our home
were designed and engineered to integrate with the original
road, the slope above, and those run-off patterns. If the
new road is not brought into compliance before the rain/snow
season begins, (and on the north slope particularly, it
could be soon!), we could have enormous problems.
/ �o
t � -
I really would not like to get involved with the city or Joe
Zaluba on a legal basis,'and I doubt that you would want
that to happen either, but it is an option if all else
fails. I do -not want the road to remain in its existing
condition through the fall and winter season.
I really hope that you or someone in the city can expedite
the proper regrading of the road within the next thirty days
or so. Please let me know!
Th ks and regards,
Susan H. Rappaport-_ --
cc: Joe Zaluba
Lenny Oates
t7
t,
PEN
eet
611
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 18, 1990
TO: Gary Lyman, Building Department
FROM: Jed Caswall, City Attorney
RE: Zaluba Building Permit
Attached for your information and records is a copy of a
"release" Mr. Zaluba has executed so as to expedite the issuance
of his building permit(s). We talked previously about this
matter and while we agreed we didn't particularly need such a
release, it doesn't hurt to have it. Anyway, you can stick it in
your file if you don't already have a copy.
EMC/mc
Attachment
wil
MESSAGE DISPLAY
Jed Caswall CC Bob Gish
Chuck Roth
From: Jim Gibbard
Postmark: Sep 21,90 11:37 AM
Subject: Zaluba road
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message:
The agreement Joe Zaluba made with Lez and I was that he would finish
the road when he finished his excavation and foundation. He has
received his excavation and foundation permit but will not get his
building permit until the retainage work on the road is satisfactory.
------- -----X-------
l
�z/
SUSAN H. RAPPAPORT
3940 WARDEN SHORES ROAD
WAYZATA, M1NNESOTA 55391
(612) 473-3065
FAX (612) 473-5369
October 11, 1990
Jed Caswall
City of Aspen
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
D �
OCT 5 1990
CITY A7TCRNEY'S
OFFICE
Dear Jed,
To continue our discussion about the Zaluba road above Ute
Avenue: you told me last Monday that the problem of grading
the road properly was not the concern of the city, that it
is between us and Zaluba.
We disagree. The City issued the permit. It has the
authority to extract a bond from the contractor and force
timely conformance with all existing regulations and
approved engineering plans.
You also told me that the City would not issue a building
permit until it approved the final road grade. The
practical problem with this is winter. Mr. Zaluba began
rough road construction to his property during the summer.
For whatever reasons, he did not move along with his
project, and the cuts did not get replanted, and the road
did not get regraded. There has already been a dirt/snow
slough from the first snowfall on October 7th. It looks
like there will be more problems in the coming months.
If, as a result of improper grading, which is not cured
throughout the winter, our property is damaged from run-off,
we think the City bears some, if not all, of the
responsibility. You have the leverage with the contractor,
we don't! Please be on notice.
S' e r
7 ely,
Gary and Susan Rappaport
cc: Lenny Oates
�2 Z
PEN
October 30, 1990
Ms. Martha C. Pickett
McFlynn &•Pickett
P.O. Box I
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Re: 'Zaluba Lot 3. Hoag Subdivisidn. -
Dear Marty:
As you may recall from my earlier. correspondence to you dated
September 19th, there appears to be some continuing concerns and
problems regarding the access "road" Mr. Zaluba recently
installed.to access the property as described above. Those
concerns center upon Mr. Zaluba's apparent failure to adequately
grade and stabilize the road to the detriment of those properties
downslope from the road.
A review of Mr. Zaluba's 8040 Greenline.approval indicates that
he was to "adhere to the recommendations of Chen -Northern regard-
ing slope stability during the excavation of the road and site
and those plans and recommendations shall be reviewed by the
Engineering Department". Additionally, Mr. Zaluba was to "retain
.a geotechnical engineer to perform -'field monitoring during the
excavation and construction of the site". Lastly, no spoils or
fill were to be placed over the side of the road cut.
In that the City had not heard from Mr. Zaluba or Chen -Northern
regarding these matters, I had the Planning Department follow-up
in regard to the road. Chen -Northern has advised us that they
have had no contact with Mr. Zaluba concerning the points set out
in the 8040 Greenline approval. Furthermore, Mr. Zaluba has evi-
dently ceased work on the project leaving the road in a condition
not contemplated nor approved by the Planning and Zoning Commis-
sion.
I would appreciate your review of these matters with your client.
The road needs attention before winter sets in so as to avoid
drainage and erosion problems in the spring. While it would
appear that violations have occurred and are occurring regarding
the existing land use approval and/or permit(s), the City is
willing to remain patient with Mr. Zaluba for a short time
�00c;.,; 23
Letter to Ms. Martha C. Pickett
October 30, 1990
Page 2
further so that he can remedy the situation. Absent his timely
response, I am afraid the City will be forced to explore avail-
able legal remedies as necessary to correct the situation.
Please let me know what Mr. Zaluba's intentions are. Time is
short.
Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Edward M. Caswall,
City Attorney
EMC/mc
cc: Building Department
Engineering Department
Planning Department
Leonard M. Oates, Esq.
2Z/
WFLYNN & PICKETT
LAWYERS
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
THE SMITH-ELISHA HOUSE
320 WEST MAIN STREET. SUITE i
P.O. BOX I
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
TIMOTHY McFLYNN'
MARTHA C. PICKETT
November 9, 1990
Jed Caswall
City Attorney
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: Zaluba Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision
WO925-2211
TELECOPI 11 25-2442
L
NOV i3 1990
CITY ATTOPNEY'S
OFFICE
Dear Jed:._ -
This letter is in response to your letter dated October 30,
1900, regarding your concern related to the incompletion of the
access "road" to Mr. Zaluba's property. I have spoken with Joe
regarding the work being done on the road and he assures me that
he is working carefully and quickly to come up with solutions to
prepare the road for winter weather. He has met with his engineer,
and the Rappaport's engineer from JDM Engineering, Duane Stewart,
on site and.they have all agreed upon a plan to ready the road in
the event it cannot be completely finalized prior to inclement
weather. Joe agrees that in the event the road cannot be "up to
par" by winter, he and his engineers will work closely with the
City Engineer to determine what, if any, temporary measures need
to be taken.
Furthermore, Joe has retained Steve Pollack, of Chen
Associates, to oversee the work and confirm that all of the
necessary measures are being taken to provide stabilization.
Please know that Joe had no intent of violating any of the
requirements set forth in the 8040 Approval regarding the =access
driveway. He has been frustrated in his efforts to begin work on
the property, by virtue of his building permit which was submitted
to the City on March 12. 1990, not having been available to him to
begin excavation until some time in September. Obviously, this has
set his schedule back significantly for work which we had, in good
faith, planned to have completed by now. I hope that you will
understand Joe's position and that you and the other staff members
will be able to work with hi.m.on this matter.
Sincerely,
McFLYNN & PICKETT, P.C.
By
MCP/ljn Martoa C:. Pickett
cc: Joe Zaluba
Leonard Oates, Esq.
zaluba\caswa111.109
M
11-
Chen @Northern Jna
November 12, 1990
Western Heritage Log Has
Attn: Joe Zaluba
8899 William Cody Drive
Evergreen 00 80439
v
AN p S 199p
0 f
FICt
Consuk«ig Engineers arks Sm-oists
5080 Road 154
Gierraood Sprngs, Colorado 81601
'303 945-7458
303 945.2363 FacsmW
Subject: observation of Torporaiy-: Dxiveway Grading, - Tot 3 , Hoag Subdivision,
Aspen, Colorado. .
Job No. 4 275 89
Gentlemen:
As requested, we observed the current driveway grading on Novarber 8, 1990 to
evaluate the existing cut and fill slopes with respect to their stability. Chen-
NorthernInc. previously provided comments and reconmiendations regarding the
driveway grading in a letter dated July 31, 1989, Job No. 4 275 89. Design
details for the roadway construction are presented in Sheets 1 and 2 dated
October 12, 1989 by High Cduntry Enginea- ring, Inc.
At the time of our site visit, the driveway rough -cut had been made for quite
some time. The grading consisted mainly of cut into the hillside to maximum
depths typically between 3 to 4 feet. There was a small amount of fill along
the outer edge of the driveway. The uphill cut was very steeply graded and
almost near vertical. The soils exposed in the excavation consisted of rocky
colluvium, similar to that described in our previous engineering report. There
was no seepage and no indications of massive slope instability associated with
this cut. There was about 6 to 8 inches of snow cover at the time of our site
visit, however, approximately one month earlier, we had observed the site when
clear of snox., and it was in similar cc;zdition to the present condition.
The driveway excavation is mostly all a cut bench and there appears to be little
risk of massive slope instability or erosion that could impact structures below
the site. The driveway cut will tend to collect surface water runoff and
appropriate measures should be taken to ensure that the runoff is contained on
the uphill edge of the road and conveyed down to Ute Avenue. The near vertical
excavation face will probably ravel somewhat but there is little risk that it
will destabilize the uphill natural slope. We understand that the driveway
excavation is temporary, mainly for construction access, and the road will be
final graded during or after the residence construction. The recommendations
presented in our previous reports which are applicable should be observed in the
completed driveway grading.
:�6
Western Heritage -log Hcmes
November 12, 1990
Page 2
If you have any questions the information provided or if we can be of
further assistance, please let us know.
Sincerel ;
Y. .. Fq �C
CHW-10RIHERN, INC. cG;,STE�q ••"9
15222 :*
Steven L. Pawlak, P.E. s;wfss�oy��F;.•�O�
SIP/ec -
cc: High Country Engineering, Inc. - Attu,: Tim Beck
City of Aspen - Attn: Jim Gibbard
CIT
_V
November 15, 1990
Ms. Martha C. Pickett
McFlynn & Pickett
P.O. Box I
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Re: Zaluba Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision
Dear Marty:
Thank you for your correspondence -of November 9th responding to
mine of October 30th on the same subject. I am furnishing copies
of your letter to both the Engineering and Planning Departments.
Mr. Zaluba's cooperation is very much appreciated.
Very truly yours,
Edward M. Caswall
City Attorney
EMC/mc
' Chen ONorthern, Inc
Conwiling Engwneers and S ient(sts
July 31, 1991
Gary and Susan Rappaport
3940 Waldon Shores Road
Wayzata NN 55391
5080 Road 154
Glenwood Springs. Colorado 81601
303 94 5. 74b,8
303 945-2363 Facssmile
Subject: motion of Grading Ooariitions, Existing Residence, IDt 5, Hoag
Subdivision, 1115 Ute Avenue,, Aspen, Colorado.
Job No. 4 4-38 87
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Rappaport:
• As requested by Duane Stewart of JIM Construction, we observed the site on
July 26, 1991. - The purpose of our site visit was to evaluate the ccupleted
grading on the property with ccuplianoe to the reoamriendations presented in our
engineering report for the site develc pment, Job No. 4 438 87, dated Novenber 30,
1987.
The residence has been constructed by cutting into the steeply sloping hillside.
A paved driveway accesses the propertY from Ute Avenue on the downhill side and
the Ute Ski Trail (and driveways borders the uphill side of the property. The
cuts made into the hillside have been retained by the building foundation on the
south and west sides and a stacked boulder retaining wall on the east side. A
drainage Swale directs surface runoff around the uphill side of the structure.
The slope of the graded areas generally ranges between about 3 0 o to 60 0 , similar
to the natural or original slope of the property. The stacked boulder wall has
a slight batter into the hillside. The grading plans for the building
construction were reviewed with respect to the as -constructed grading. In
general, the as -constructed grading is consistent with that shown on the grading
plan except that the stacked boulder wall has been added. The graded slopes are
all re,,,regetated and no signs of erosion or general slope instability were
observed.
The building development and as -constructed grades appear to be consistent with
the reccmiendations. presented in our previous report. Recent grading has been
performed along Ute Trail for uphill residential construction. - Additional
grading of the outside edge of Ute Trail may be needed so that surface water
runoff is not directed onto the subject site.
The conclusions - presented in this report are based on our visual observations
and subsurface conditions presented in our previous report with respect tan3 or
the
design grading. Any variations in the slope grading should be reviewed /
designed by a qualified engineer.
';�q
SUSAN H. RAPPAPORT
1115 UTE AVENUE
ASPEN COLORADO 81611
(303) 9254155
FAX (303) 920-1950
August 8, 1991
Jim Gibbard
City of Aspen
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Jim,
==�lC�
AUG 15 1991
Cii Y 7N" tt
-r:R
I am enclosing the written report from Steve Pawlak's on -
site visit to our home, confirming that the recommendations
outlined in the Chen report have been followed.
I assume that . the Certificate of Occupancy can now be
issued!
I would also like to call your attention to the highlighted
portion of the letter which recommends that additional
grading be done on the ski trail above our home. Since this
is not part of our property, but certainly can and will
affect it, I would like some advice from you on how to make
sure that this is accomplished in a timely manner. Please
let me know.
Agai-n,- sorry that there was confusion on my part about doing
everything we needed to do for our C.O. Thanks for your --
patience and thanks in advance for your help on the Ski
Trail grading problem.
Regards,
Susan H. Rappaport
30
t
MEMORANDUM
TO. Jed Caswall, City Attorney
FROM: Jim Gibbard Engineering De artmentW 0
1 yrI
DATE: August 29, 1991
RE: Zaluba road
Attached is a letter from Susan Rappaport in which she expresses
concern about the need for grading of the above road and the
potential impact to her property from the runoff from that road.
Also attached is a letter from Chen Northern which points out the
need for grading -of that road.
Could you contact Zaluba's representative and find out when this
work will be done? Please let me know what you find out so I can
respond to. Ms. Rappaport.
jg/road
cc: Chuck Roth
Leslie Lamont
31
CITY
September 3, 1991
Ms. Martha C. Pickett
McFlynn & Pickett
P.O. Box I
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Re: Zaluba Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision
Dear Marty:
You may recall that we had some correspondence last Fall concern-
ing drainage/run-off problems associated with Mr. Zaluba's access
road. While Mr. Zaluba did undertake some temporary measures
regarding the road last year, it now appears we are headed right
back to the same situation that caused us concern in the first
place. Apparently, Mr. Zaluba has not followed through*on the
engineering and grading recommendations provided him by Chen
Northern.
Will you please review this matter with.your client. He must put
the access road in an acceptable and safe condition, particularly
in regard to the drainage problems.
Should you have particularized questions concerning the matter,
please feel free to contact Jim Gibbard in the Engineering
Department.
Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Edward M. Caswall
City Attorney
EMC/mc
jc93 5
cc: Jim Gibbard
/CCU <<C" nap('/
3z
September 23, 1991
Joseph S. Zaluba
P. O: Box 9640 - -
Aspen, CO 81612
Re: Building Permit #1058
Dated 3/7/90
Dear Mr. Zaluba:
This letter is to inform you that the above --referenced building
permit application has expired. The plan .check for a permit
application has an expiration date of 180 days after submission.
The expiration date for this permit was 9/7/90. The extension
granted by -Gary Lyman, -Chief Building Official, expired 4/18/91.
The permit has been voided and the plans will be.destroyed if we
do not hear from you by 10/10/91. Thank you for your attention in
this matter.
Sincerely,
Vicki Monge
Aspen/Pitkin Regional Building Department
93
MESSAGE DISPLAY
TO Jed Caswall
From: Rob Thomson
Postmark: Feb 03,92 1:30 PM
Status: Previously read
Subject: Zaluba..lot 3 Hoag Subdivision
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message:
Referencing your Oct. 30, 1990 to Martha Pickett and her reply letter
of Nov. 9, 1990....It appears that Zaluba has not instituted
temporary measures for controlling run-off. I have received a call
from the property owner of lot 5, Rappaport. At this time it is not
a serious condition but she is worried about the landscaping they
did. What do we do, write a stricter letter?
3�
Jed
From:
Postmark:
MESSAGE DISPLAY
Caswall
Leslie Lamont
Mar 05,92 9:08 AM
CC Rob Thomson
Subject: Reply to a reply: Hoag Lot'3 - Zaluba
Reply text:
Frond Leslie Lamont:
let's review the file (rob and I) inspect the site and let jed know
what we've found how about friday afternoon or next monday?
Preceding message:
From Jed Caswall:
I believe my original suggestion on this was to revoke whatever land
use approvals he has on the grounds that he has not complied., with
conditions of approval, i.e., grading the driveway. I"don't care so
much about his bldg permits because they were issued on basis of land
use approvals--that'.s why I suggested the land use approvals be
reviewed for his compliance with same and if he breached them, we
commence revocation of his land use approval(s).
From Leslie Lamont:
a buidling permit was never approved for issuance and is now void a
letter was sent to Joe Sept. 23, 1991 telling him is permit was
'•nid. An excavation permit was issued Sept. 12, 1990 but no
pections have occurred to tell if any work has been done that
ald warrant keeeping the permit. If he hasn't continued work under
his permit then that permit becomes void. We should have the site
inspected to see if his excavation/foundation permit is still
active. Jed if his building.permit is void are his 8040 greenline
approvals still ok. I guess they are until a new buidling design
3s
MESSAGE DISPLAY
TO Jed Caswall CC Gary Lyman
CC Rob Thomson
From: Leslie Lamont
Postmark: Mar 09,92 2:42 PM
Status: Previously read
Subject: Hoag lot 3
-----------------------------------------------------------
Message:
Rob and I did a site inspection on friday. no work has appeared to
have been done under the auspices of the excavation/foundation permit
that was issued the end of 1990. Jed it also appears that no work
have been done on the road however everything is covered in snow. I
have a question about the 8040 Greenline approval whether the
approval expires due to issuance of permits without following the
conditions of the approval. - - --- -
36
CITY
-M
March 18, 1992
Mr. Joseph Zaluba
8899 William Cody Drive
Evergreen, Colorado 80439
Dear Mr. Zaluba:
I am providing this response to your correspondence dated March
loth addressing certain questions you have concerning the street
improvements to be undertaken on Ute Avenue. First,. if I may, I
would like -to correct several factual errors as contained in your
letter.
There is no governmental entity known as the "Aspen. Water Dis-
trict". Municipal water service in and around the Aspen metro
area is provided by the City of Aspen through its Water Depart-
ment. Ms. McKenzie (as identified in Ms. Pickett's letter) is an
employee of the Water Department. Additionally, there has been
no authorized policy directive or mandate issued by the City re-
quiring property owners who wish to tap onto the municipal water
system along Ute Avenue to do so this Spring. Rather, in view of
the upcoming street overlay for Ute Avenue, persons are being
notified and encouraged to have their water tap stubs installed
prior to the street work in order to avoid having to excavate the
new roadway once it is in place. From a design and engineering
standpoint, the new street surface will hold up better if no
excavations are done for five years. Furthermore, excavations to
be performed after the overlay is complete will require a sepa-
rate permit. Hence, it is advantageous for everyone to have new
waterline connections completed at or before the time the overlay
work is to be performed.
In regard to your plans to go forward with the construction of
your residence; and as you are aware from previous correspondence
from this office, you have repeatedly failed to comply with
certain conditions of the 8040 greenline approval issued for the
project by the Planning and Zoning Commission in January, 1990.
(See attached) Specifically, you have.not net the requirement to
maintain the slope stability for your access road v.hich has
resulted in undue runoff and adversely impacted properties,
situated below yours. Previous efforts to secure your coopera-
tion on this issue.have proved futile. It is my understanding
01_i, rPCycled aper 131
Mr. Joseph Zaluba
March 18, 1992
Page 2
that the Planning staff is in the process of instituting proceed-
ings to revoke the 8040 approval due to your non-compliance. You
will be receiving official, written. notice of this proposed action
at a later date.
Finally, and as specified in a letter sent to you on September
23, 1991, your building permits have been voided by reason of
your failure to submit your plans for the necessary plan checks
by the Building Department. (See attached)
I think its unfortunate for everyone that we find ourselves in
the situation that presently exists. Please be advised that
while the City is willing to assist you in seeing your project
through to a successful completion, such a result can only be
achieved by a good faith effort on your part to cooperate and
comply with the conditions of your land use and building approv-
als.
Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Edward M. Caswall
City Attorney
EMC/mc
jw318.1
cc: Building Department
Engineering Department
Water Department
Planning Department
John Bennett.
Martha C. Pickett, Esq.
' PT ANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
EXHIBIT , APPROVED
19 BY ,RESOLUTION --------------
BEFORE THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
IN RE THE MATTER OF LOT 3, HOAG SUBDIVISION, A/K/A 1125
AVENUE, JOSEPH S. ZALUBAI-APPLICANT
1
�J
1
UTE
�l
NOTICE TO SHOW CAUSE
TO: Joseph S. Zaluba
8899 William Cody Drive
Evergreen, Colorado 80439
j PLEASE TAKE NOTICE AND BE ADVISED that oniJune 16, 1992, the
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission voted to ssue a Notice,to
Show Cause why the following land use development approval as
previously granted on January 2, 1990, should not be revoked
and/or modified:
8040 Greenline Approval for a Single -Family House on Lot 3,
Hoag Subdivision, City of Aspen, Colorado.
Based upon information made available to the Planning and
Zoning Commission, reasonable grounds exist to believe that the
applicant, Joseph.-S. Zaluba, has violated and/or failed'to comply -
with -the following terms and/or conditions �f the 8040 Greenline
Approval: '
Condition 3. A vertical tie-in wall and boulder - wall shall
be constructed by the applicant and the plans shall be reviewed
and approved by the Planning-and•.Engineering Departments.
Condition 4. The applicant shall adhere to the recommenda-
tions of Chen -Northern regarding slope stability during the
excavation of the road and site and those plans and recommenda-
tions shall be reviewed by the Engineering Department.
Condition 8.• No spoils or fill shall be -placed over the
side of the.road cut.. All excavated materials shall be removed
from the'site if -not used in the construction of the -residence.
Condition 10. The applicant shall revegetate the upper road
cut, beginning at the hairpin turn.
WHEREFORE, you are directed to appear before the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission on July 21, 1992, at 4:30 o'clock
p.m., at the Second Floor Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 South
Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, and show cause why the land use
development approval as set forth above should not be revoked or
3�1
modified. The hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission
will be conducted in accordance with the procedures established
in Section 24-6-205B of the Municipal Code.
Dated this ay of June, 1992.
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION
By: l
City glerk
cc: Marty Pickett
2
qD
P 697 794 969
_ Certified Mail Receipt
No Insurance Coverage Provided
Do not use for International Mail
VMS" SFWW- (See Reverse)
SerX to
4-
St dQNo
.A,L,LP�G�i�
P. tale d ZIP Code
�Q
Postage
Cenitied Fee
Special y Fee
Restricted De*my Fee
rn
Return Receipt Showing
b Whom 6 Dale Dekwered .
M
T
C
Retum Receipt Show*V b Whom.
Date, b Address of Delivery
TOTAL Postage
G
a Fees
00
Postmark or Date
4
tL
SENDER: Complete items 1 and 2 when additional services are desired, and complete items
3 and 4.
Put your address in the "RETURN TO" Space on the reverse side. Failure to do this will prevent this card
from being returned to you. The return recei t fee will provide you the name of the rson delivered to and
the date of delivery. For ad nional fees the following services are available. Consult postmaster or ees
and,qheck box(esTTor additional service(s) requested.
1.QZ Show to whom delivered, date, and addressee's address. 2. O Restricted Delivery
(Fora charge) (Ertra charge)
3. Article Addressed to: 4. Article Number
/. Gam. �&q-, -7c,a qu
Type of Service:
1 ❑ ❑ Registered Insured
T;p
Certified ❑ COD
Kg�
H-Express Mail ❑ Return Receipt
C/W O for Merchandise
-- Always obtain signature of addressee
!� or agent and DATE DELIVERED.
5. n r —Addressee 8.. Addressee's Address (ONLY if
X requested and fee paid)
6. g3mll re Agent _
X
7. e of Deliver q�
F'S Form .50 1 1, Apr. 1989 • U.S.G.P.O. 1989.238.815 DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIP"
PLANNING y ONING COMMISSION
EXHIBIT , APPROVED
19 BY RESOLUTION .
David seconded the motion with all in favor.
OLD LIBRARY SPECIAL REVIEW
MOTION
PZM7.21.92
Roger: I move to table this Special Review at the request of the
Planning Office to date certain of August 4, 1992.
Richard seconded the motion with all in favor.
ZALIIBA 8040 GREENLINE NON-COMPLIANCE HEARING
All* members of the Board except David Brown participated in a site _
visit prior to this meeting.
Leslie: Gave history of this case. (attached in record)
I failed to provide you with the all -encompassing alternative which
is the posting of a bond with a time frame and that if that time
frame is not met we could use the bond to stabilize the road. I
would also add that we would be revoking the 8040 Greenline
approval.
I would add that onto alternative 13 where I say "Failure to
complete the work by September 1st 1992 shall cause the City to
utilize the bond to perform the work required and revocation of the
8040 Greenline approval.
Susan Rappaport is one of the neighbors and she is the one most
concerned about the erosion problem. I contacted her to let her
know we were having this non-compliance hearing. Leslie then read
into the record a letter from Susan Rappaport. (attached in
record)
Richard: There doesn't seem to be a problem with the hillside
above the road at this time. I am concerned with the small amounts
of rock which went down the hill because it does cover some of the
vegetation and prevent new vegetation from establishing itself.
I think that needs to be cleaned up and any drainage problems taken
care of that would affect that bank or the Rappaport's property.
Jasmine: I think note should be made of the hours and hours we
spent on this application and the endless amount of detail when we
first granted the application and the tremendous amount of
discussion of each and every condition. I think that before we do
anything else we either have to find that they are or are not in
compliance with the conditions.
*z
PZM7.21.92
Marti Picket, Attorney for- Zaluba: Joe is not at all in opposition
with what you are trying to do here today. The one thing that we
didn't do was put a time frame on this. Joe was itching to get up
there and get it done and then when the permit didn't get done
until after that building season everything was downhill for him.
Zaluba: The building permit was granted January 190 and I want to
preface this whole discussion with --it is not my intention to have
up there what is up there. I think it is ugly and I think it needs
to be fixed. OK. There is some history here which should be gone
through I think.
In 190 when I was granted this it was January 2nd. I applied for
a building permit to build this house on March 7th in ' 90. The
foundation permit was granted in September lath which was almost
6 months later. I had my f inancing to build this house and do all
of this stuff that we had agreed to do. And because of the delay
in this, and I am not saying this is the only reason that it wasn't
done, but this is one contributing factor is that I lost my
financing I had in place. That was one problem that I had to. deal
with.
The reason the road was that we really went ahead and put the road
in in lieu of waiting until this building permit was issued was
because of the 1041 review going on in Smuggler/Durant. I don't
know --there is a "V" shaped piece of land that was a contested
piece that actually dissected my lot which in some books had been
called Smuggler/Durant and in some books it was called Lot #3 in
Hoag. By that definition it was either in the City or the County.
So while Stan was going.through his 1041 I had heard that the
County had raised the question whether this triangular piece of
land was in fact in the County and that they were going to bring
me in for 1041 review after I had been approved by the City. So
I went ahead and built the road on the basis of the City approval
to the extent that it is today. It was my intention to go ahead
with this project but I was kind of forced on the fact that I
didn't want to�get involved in a County dispute over whether that
land was in the City or the County effecting my 8040 Review.
So I went ahead based on what you guys had approved for me in
January which we did. So I was in a position then of waiting for
my building permit which didn't come out till September which
didn't give me enough time to do the excavation for the house that
winter. So I was like wait until Spring and then I lost my
financing and that is where I am today.
The situation today is that it is a bad situation. I am trying to
at least get the road to the point where it is acceptable to you
and to Rappaports and to all these parties concerned since we have
0
43
PZM7.21.92
worked so hard on'this.
We will propose to you a solution to this problem which is --A. to
obtain a landscape/architectural drawing for the retainage within
30 days to submit to the City Engineer for approval, the Rappaports
the Davises and Stan Shappert. That is for the retaining part of
the wall --the tie wall.
I agreed and we all agreed that we would draw a plan --a landscape
architect would go up there so it would look nice and then that
plan would be engineered by my engineer and then we would submit
it even to you --to the City Engineer to the people concerned with
how that looks up there. That would be our first step in solving
the problem. The second thing is we can pick up the rocks that are
moved over the side if that's the desire of the Commission. We
can clean that up immediately. We can -re --surface the road so it
looks like a road and not like a disaster the way it looks now.
And get the drainage so that the drainage is coming all down to
Ute. That is stuff we can do immediately.
The plan for the retainage I don't know that it can be done this
year because it is going to take a certain amount of time to get
C' a design, it is going to take time for people to approve it. If
it can be done we will start to actually do the retainage. My
position is that I am not happy with what is up there. It wasn't
my intention in January of 190 or any time since to have this
situation continue. But for financial reasons I was not able to,
after I lost my f inancin, get to the point where I could continue
the project.
But I want to rectify the things now that are in bad shape which
I admit they are.
Shappert's approval for the same driveway is different than mine.
The County took the position that the Forest Service land which is
the first 150ft of the drive up to the back of the green house was
under their control. The City didn't take that position. They
said "That is Forest Service. You deal with them on that". That
is what we did. And I have an easement for that drive as well as
Stan. But Stan's approval required the re -building of the entryway
at Ute Ave which really does need to be done. So we will have to
do that based upon his approval.
So you have'to realize too that we are dealing with 2 approvals.
One by the City, one by the County for the same road.
Leslie: But the retaining wall that goes --the majority of the road
is in the City.
Zaluba: Yes. That is correct. That is my responsibility. Stan
10
WAS
PZM7.21.92
is my partner in that and we would work jointly because both of
these houses serve that --those lots that that retainage wall has
to be a.joint effort between Stan and I which we have total
agreement on that and we are sharing the cost as well as the
design. So we are prepared to go ahead with that design work
immediately.
Most of you were up on that back road which Jack Barker built under
a separate approval 6 years ago. That road needs to be re -
vegetated. My intention to revegetate that was to use the
excavation material from my house to run right up there and back
up the trucks and dump the dirt right up on the top to re -vegetate
that road. That would eliminate the necessity of me driving 100
trucks down Ute Ave to who knows where and just traffic wise just
screwing up the town to haul the dirt away. So the reason I _
haven't done that was simply because we haven't excavated the house
foundation.
Leslie: I assume that when you talk about architectural renderings
for our review within 30 days you also are including in there the
recommendations of Chen.
Zaluba: We have a letter from Chen today. They were just up
there yesterday. As far as the question of stability of erosion,
of rocks falling down as addressed in this letter it really says
that the road is stable. That the bank is stable. It i,s not
perfect but it .is stable. And to the .point we have had this letter
submitted in the Fall of 1990. In 1991 this was done. Unfortun-
ately we didn't put anything in writing but the City Attorney had
written us a letter about it in the Fall of 1991 which we responded
to through Marti talking to Jed and Jim Gibbard.
He did go up and look at the road and indicated to us through my
attorney that the road was not in a condition that he felt anything
was necessary to do to it. Notwithstanding the fact that it didn't
look great. But as far as the danger of stability and erosion etc
and drainage the City Engineer visited that site, which I am sure
we can look up the records in the Fall of 191, and reported that
back through Jed to us.
So we didn't react to anything in the Fall of 191 concerning the
stability or having Chen come in. The City had reported back.to
us that they didn't feel anything was necessary. So we didn't do
anything.
I don't want it to appear that we haven't --when we get a letter
from the City that we just throw it. away and say "Well the Hell
with that". That is not true. We did respond to it.
Unfortunately none of that was put in writing but Jed can attest
to that and we could probably pull Gibbard's time records to show
11
44J
PZM7.21.92
that he as up there. So we have reacted to --in a situation that
is not exactly what I would want. But we have reacted to any
concern that was shown by Susan Rappaport or the City through the
Attorney's Office or the Engineering Dept to go up and do what we
had to do to satisfy a situation that.was not my idea but is there
and we got to deal with it.
My proposal is if we can propose something to you folks that is a
plan of action to get this resolved to an acceptable state by you,
by Rappaports, by Davises, by everybody, that is what I think we
need to do. I feel that we didn't have a time frame on this. But
I am still feel that I am obligated to get this thing at least to
the state that it looks like a driveway and make a plan of action.
Leslie:__ It_would seem to me that we still need to have some kind
of time frame of when retainage would be completed. And it doesn't
work to link it to prior issuance of building permits-..
Zaluba: No. And' in my opinion my proposal is that I think the
first thing we need to do is get a plan which I am prepared to do
immediately. If I can do that in 30 days and then have that plan
submitted to you and to the Engineering Dept, Rappaports, the
people that are concerned about this, that is the first step. Once
we get everybody to approve the plan at least we are making the
effort to say "Here is what the retainage wall is going to look
like". Then as soon as everyone approves that, then we would go
ahead. If that is this Fall, great. If it is in January then I
think you have the right to say "You have to.start this in April
and have it completed during the next building season". I am not
opposed to that. I think this needs to be done.
Leslie: Also within this first 30 days we will go in and fix the
drainage.
Zaluba: We will do that. I will commit to fix the surface of the
road, pick up all the rocks on the side and generally clean it -up.
I think that can definitely be done this Fall. But the retainage
part of it does require design and is going to take some time. Not
to say that it shouldn't have been done 2 years ago and it was
certainly my plan to do it in 1990.
I am not blaming it on the Building Dept to say "Hey how come my
building permit took 6 months". But that was a factor. And I
couldn't move and I lost my financing.
Jasmine: I think the Commission is very concerned about
compliance. Unfortunately lots of times we get into situations
where non-compliance is non -remediable. A lot of members of the
Commission had serious doubts about the advisability of granting
the 8040 Greenline in the first place. The fact that the
12
46
PZM7.21.92
conditions that we spent so much time on were not adhered to.
We have a community responsibility and 8040 Greenline is one of our
reviews that says that because 8040 Greenline is a very sensitive
environmental area that there are a lot of conditions and
considerations that have to be taken into account when we grant
this review. The fact that the conditions were not adhered to is
a very serious slap at the Commission in it's regard to the
responsibility that it has to the community. "How can you .approve
this and then look what happened?" We are accountable to the
public for this. We --not you --because we approved this. The fact
that you then do not comply with the conditions of approval is not
really and acceptable answer to the public. Therefore we are
pretty much on the line for having approved this in the first
place. --
I can tell you quite frankly that there are a number of people who
would love nothing better than to see this revoked which we would
have every right to do. And I want you to understand that this is
the basis for what we are eventually going to decide. We are very
.much upset by this just as much as you are. Because we .look like
idiots for.having approved it.
CZaluba : MY approval roval did not have a time frame on it. That is nit-
picking. I understand that. But if you take the approval as it
stands, it does not say anywhere there when'I have to do this work.
There is a reasonable point of time but I can take a position too
and say "Well, I am working on it". Which I am. I am not trying
not to do this. I am trying to do it with the help of Stan and
other people. I agree with what you said about your community
responsibility. If it is taking me longer than ever anticipated,
for whatever reason, it is not'that I have not stopped working on
it.
Jasmine: That is not the point I was trying to make. The point
I was trying to make is that there are difficulties with the site
which have to be taken into account. Perhaps they were not taken
into account sufficiently in our original deliberations. Although
it seems to those of us who were there at the time that those
deliberations took at least a year right there at meetings. The
conditions may not have been stringent enough and they were to
protect the City. I think that we have to be very, very careful.
This is the point I am trying to make. As a Commission we have to
be very, very careful to make sure that the conditions are not so
unreasonable -that nobody could fulfil them in a reasonable time.
Or we may have to make a determination that because of these
problems the site is not, in fact, buildable.
This is'something that we have to think about. And I just want to
put this in that framework for your benefit and for the benefit of
13
47
PZM7.21.92
the members of the Commission. This is very serious. People's
properties are being impacted. We are talking about a very
sensitive area as far as building and development. It is a very
visible area and the remedies that we terribly wanted to apply
previously have not been done. We have to determine whether they
can, in fact, ever be done to our satisfaction.
Sara: I disagree. I think there is a time frame that you can
apply. That is that every permit has an expiration date and you
applied for a foundation permit and were granted that permit and
there was an eventual expiration date on that. You applied for a
building permit. It was approved. You never pulled it. So there
is a time frame. I do want to see this resolved. I don't want to
prevent you from building on a lot that you have a right to build
on. But I want to imply some very strict conditions because in my
mind you violated the spirit of co-operation between the City and
you. You violated it in that --I find the road abominable. I find
the situation down the slope hazardous and neglect. There is
stewardship on that land that is horrifying to me and what is a
very delicate situation. So I would recommend to the Board that
we impose a performance bond. I find that a trust of co-operation
was definitely eroded by Mr. Zaluba. He did not respond and the
history that we have here--
Zaluba: That is not true. I responded in 1990 in writing with
Chen. I responded today in writing with Chen. I have responded
to every --not to say that that's a acceptable answer to this
problem. But I have responded.
Sara: Well, I feel that if you were not asked to appear here still
nothing would be done. We have forced you to react. And you have
not been co-operative. We are not responsible for your financial
problems. We don't want to be responsible for any hazard
happening, any accident happening there which I see is very
possible.
I also want to add to these conditions --to whatever we decide that
the thing be roped off. For mountain bikers up there --it is
horrible. The upper road especially. The public doesn't know that
that is private property. We have got to have a "No trespassing"
sign there.
Whatever we resolve I definitely want to see a performance bond put
on this. The spirit of co-operation has been eroded.
Richard: I think that some remediation needs to take place. There
needs to be some sort of penalty attached to it which can either
be a performance bond or simply if it is not done by a certain date
assuming that the plan can meet Engineering approval that the 8040
Greenline approval be revoked --out of date. I am concerned about
14
PZM7.21.92
the approval not sit there forever. I understand it is his
intention to fill it from the house excavation but the house was
never excavated. It is still there and needs to be taken care of.
We have to put a date on that to re -vegetate at some date certain.
I think that the clean-up and retention work should be done this
year. And whether the cut-off be a revocation of permit or
possible performance bond --
Jasmine: That is if #3 is not done then #4 would take it's place.
Richard: Yes.
Roger: First of all I have to say that I found the place --it is
a mess! To put it politely. I was appalled by it --in that it has
stayed in' -this condition for nearly 2 years. My position now is"
I want to get it cleaned up as'soon as possible. 30 days for
architectural for the retainage--well, that may be fine but I want
that slough -off picked up within 45 days.
Leslie: He proposed that within those 30 days the slough would be
picked up and the surface of the road would be re -graded. And the
( drainage would be taken care of in that 30 days while they are
working on architectural planning to be reviewed.
Zaluba: We would start on that immediately.
Roger: So we are looking at getting the architectural drawings for
drainage in 130 days, picking up the slough -off in 30 days and a
satisfactory resurface and drainage in 30 days.
One thing I just read in the Chen report and they say "maximum
depths of cut". I assume that is horizontally into the mountain
is 3 to 6 feet. There was a "small amount of fill along the outer
edge of the driveway up to a few feet deep". Well, is that 3, 4
or 5 feet as a few feet? I don't know. That, to me, is a Hell of
a lot of fill. And that is something'I did not like about it. I
don't know how to correct that. It was my anticipation.that the
cut would be insufficient so that in effect you had top soil nearly
up to the road.
Zaluba: The road would be below the edge of the --
Roger: There are spots there where I see at least 3ft of fill.
You are never going to get anything growing up to the road edge
without putting top soil on top of it. It is a mess and I am very
upset about it. It is not what I felt to be. represented to us.
Zaluba: The road is not at final grade. It has to come down about
another foot or a foot and a half in some places. The intent was
15
I
PZM7.21.92
to not show the road from the low side.
Roger: If those can be addressed in 30 day --the performance bond
with the conditions that if they are not accomplished including the
architectural drawings within 30 days and then I don't know what
a satisfactory time frame would be for the retainage.
Rob Thomson, Engineering Dept: Given the fact that they have
pretty much designed the wall already, I think it is just clean up
and going. back into it that it wouldn't take long. Actual
construction of it, it is a pretty good structure of a road but it
is all the type of stuff that can go on into winter months.
Leslie: You need a permit for a fence.
Rob: The Building Dept looks at anything over 5 feet.
David: Given the fact that there is no deadline for the 8040
review does it make sense or be appropriate for us to discuss
revocation?
Jed Caswall, City Attorney: I think the point has been made that-
-I don't think it would be inappropriate for the P&Z to find that
there was deadlines with the issuance of permits. Those permits
are good for a certain length of time to assume that the work will
be completed during that time. It is not assumed. There is
substantial requirements that is required under those permits. And
I think the testimony you have before you today indicates and in
fact there is admission from the applicant that they failed to
complete the work as initially started and in fact did not even
pick up the building debris.
I think #1 it would not inappropriate for the Board to find that
there were time limits expressly set forth by the issuance of the
building permits. Absent that I think it is also --it would not be
inappropriate for the Board to find that like a lot of documents
where specific performance is not set to be completed by a date
certain, what the courts do is they imply reasonable standards into
that. And in light of the time that has passed I don't think it
would be inappropriate for this Board to find that if you didn't
accept the building permit rational you could make a determination
as to whether or not you felt a reasonable, period of time has
passed in which the applicant should have complied in light of the
fact that he did start. He did excavate the road --what is a
reasonable period of time to address those conditions in light of
the fact that the road work which implicated those conditions.
David: Is it appropriate at this time given the fact there wasn't
! a bond required initially to now institute placement of the bond
for the completion of---
16
s0
PZM7.21.92
Jed: The requirement of a bond is to provide some insurance of
performance. It was not required initially because evidently there
was insufficient information before P&Z to warrant such a
condition. Whether or not you require a bond now is dependent upon
your view as to whether or not the history in performance of the
applicant would warrant that additional condition.
The fact that it wasn't required before, to me, does not present
a barrier to you. If -you feel in your discretion at this time to
impose one, that decision is up to you.
Leslie: The figure in the memo includes an estimate that we did
for the retaining wall, , and revegetation. It did include
the cutting back and the--
Zaluba: Our numbers that we show are $70,000. The $300,000 was
based on a vertical steel tie-in wall.
John Kelly, Attorney: I represent both Rappaports and Jack Davis
and the owner of the lot next to the little park there where you
see some construction equipment. There are a couple of.things.
I think.everybody sort of talked about the aesthetic aspects: We
C are very concerned about that. One of the things we are really
concerned about is the safety --particularly the Rappaports because
of the -drainage situation.
I haven't seen this thing from Chen. I don't know --but I would
like to see a condition in there that both -the City Engineer and
Chen or whoever is doing the work give us an opinion that.both the
Davis and Rappaports houses are safe from rock fall and drainage.
And that enough is done this Fall to make sure that that is safe.
If it goes into the Winter --the dangerous time of the year is
Spring.
The Rappaports did go in and do their own little ditch. But they
are obviously between a rock and a hard place because they don't
want to go in and start messing with the road. Then if something
goes wrong somebody can blame them. So I would like to see an
engineering study done for at least those 2 items.
We would like to see a short a fuse on this thing as is possible.
I think the dynamics of what is happening here --Mr. Miller and Mr.
Zaluba are going to have to get together and make some kind of
agreement on how long this is going to take. I think that now is
an opportunity to see that that gets done. I know they have been
working together. I would like to see a little impetus given to
that because that is another way we could.be sure that this thing
gets done.
I think the bond is an absolute necessity: They made very sure
17
PZM7.21.92
that bond was posted with the Miller application with the County.
I really want to make sure that there is no danger for what happens.
next Spring. I want to see that everything is done that can be
done this Fall and then have a real short fuse on what can't be
done this Fall. I don't want to see this to happen next Spring
because it will be a disaster for everyone if it does.
MOTION
Roger: I move that since the Planning & Zoning Commission finds
that the 8040 Greenline approval has not been complied with in
spirit or time specifically finding that Resolution #4 of 1990,
Condition #3, #4, #8 and #10 have not been complied with.
Further for the 8040 Greenline not to be revoked at this time. Mr.
Zaluba shall post 'a performance -bond of $300, 00*0 for the
stabilization of the new road cut, revegetation of the upper road
cut. Total work to be completed by October 15, 1992.
In addition to that architectural drawings of the retainage shall
be submitted within 30 days. Pick up of the slough -off, the rocks
down the slope shall be completed within 30 days. A suitable road
grade surface shall be accomplished within 30 days and drainage
C problems shall be accomplished within 30 days.
Change those 30 days to September 1, 1992.
The plans for the tie-in and the boulder retaining wall shall be
reviewed and approved by the Engineering and Planning Departments
before the retaining wall work begins.
Recommendations by Chen regarding stabilization shall be reviewed
by the Engineering Department and shall be adhered to during the
stabilization and revegetation process. The applicant shall
certify that the neighboring residents shall be safe from rock fall
and drainage.
Failure to complete the work required by October 15, 1992 shall
cause the City to utilize the bond to perform the work required and
shall also cause the City to revoke the 8040 Greenline approval
pursuant to the Planning & Zoning Commission Resolution #4 of 1990.
The dangerous portion of the road at this interim period shall be
marked "Danger. No trespassing" or satisfactory enough to warn
people to stay off the road as it exists.
Richard: The only question I have is on the revegetation of the
upper road cut --the switchback. I am concerned that revegetation
now --the cut remains revegetated and is not backfilled.
lu
!jo
PZM7 21.92
Leslie: How about revegetation of the upper road cut shall be
completed by July 1, 1993. That time frame then gives Joe the
ability to start working on his foundation and building permit
ready for the next building season when he should have the
foundation done.
Roger: Add that as a condition.
The dates are September 1, 1992 for the architectural drawings for
the retainage. And at the same time everything else is supposed
to be done other than that.
Marti: Then just because the performance bond --I am wondering if
we can say if that work is not completed perhaps by October 15th
at that point we would have to .
Jed: The concern I would have about that is that perhaps the bond
may not be posted at least until the design plan may not be posted
at least until the design plans come in so maybe--$300,000 sounds
awfully high. But it is up to the Commission to set the amount
they feel is appropriate. It is not uncommon in front of Council
that you wait until ,the date hold off until the plans come in, we
get an amount from estimates. The City Engineer can make a
C determination within his expertise as whether or not he feels that
is appropriate that we set that as the amount. Then that would
have to be posted prior to the work beginning. Maybe you would
wish to do that as opposed to set the amount now and have it
posted --
Jasmine: Suppose they don't come in with plans.
Jed: If they don't come in with the plans then they are going to
lose their 8040 Greenline approval.
Leslie: How about "A bond commensurate with the work that is
required to be completed and we will list all the work shall be
posted by September 1, 1992. So we will have the plans by
September 1st 1992 and the bond --
Roger: I will change that wording "The performance bond up to
$300,000--the exact amount to be determined by the Engineering and
Legal Department of the City.
Jed: And also saying the applicant shall be engaged in picking up
the spoils and all that stuff so that if we get to September 1st
and the'bond doesn't come in then we progress, to another --we are
in a different ball game at that time.
Zaluba: Stan is required to put a bond up for this work also.
Jasmine: Stan is not an applicant. You are the applicant. Stan
19
S3
PZM7.21.92
has nothing to do with this. This is your approval. Your review.
Your arrangements with Stan have nothing to do with this as far as
this is concerned. Whatever financial arrangements you want to
make with those people and the County, you are the applicant here.
Whatever you want to work out with them is between you and them.
We have no jurisdiction over them.
Roger: Shall we put this in resolution form?
Jed. Yes.
Roger: I will modify my motion to have the Planning office and
Legal Department write the resolution along these guidelines.
Richard seconded the motion.
Jed: You have before you the packet supplied by the Planning Dept
which is 33 pages which contains numerous documents which I
understand the Hoard. has reviewed. It also includes the
certificate of mailing which was signed by the applicant showing
he has notice of this hearing. He hasn't expressed any objection
as to the holding of this hearing over the notice that he got.
You also have in front of you that has been admitted into the
record a letter dated July 21, 1992 on Chen/Northern letterhead
which was submitted by the applicant which is also in the record.
It is also my understanding that the record should reflect that all
but one of the members of the Board today have been out on site and
viewed the condition of the site and that has also been taken into
consideration in coming to the decision of today.
There was also the letter from Susan Rappaport which Leslie read.
(attached in record)
For the record that is what the evidence is before the Board today.
Everyone then voted in favor of the motion except David Brown who
abstained.
David: I didn't feel that we have gotten all the questions
answered.
Meeting was adjourned. Time was 6:45pm.
Janice/M. Carney, City De"uty Clerk
ME
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
EXHIBIT D , APPROVED ,
19 BY RESOLUTION •
BEFORE THE -ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
IN RE THE MATTER OF LOT.3, HOAG SUBDIVISION, A/K/A 1125 UTE
AVENUE, JOSEPH S. ZALUBA, APPLICANT
FINDINGS AND ORDER
THIS MATTER came before the Planning and Zoning Commission
for hearing on July 211 -1992-,-=and upon --written notice to--Joseph-
S* : Zaluba, to determine whether Mr. Zaluba has failed to comply
with or has violated the terms and conditions of land use devel-
opment approvals awarded to him on January 2, 1990. Mr. Zaluba
appeared before the Commission, represented by legal counsel, and
was heard. The Commission also heard evidence from interested
persons and the staff of the Planning Department. Having consid-
ered the testimony and the documents presented, the Commission
finds as follows:
1. On June 24, 1992, written notice to show cause was
issued by the Commission to Joseph S. Zaluba alleging that
grounds existed to believe that he had violated or failed to
comply with certain terms and conditions of his 8040 Greenline
development approval issued by the Commission on January 2, 1990,
to wit, (1) Condition 3 (a vertical tie-in wall and boulder wall
shall be constructed and plans shall be reviewed and approved by
the Planning and Engineering Departments); (2) Condition 4
(applicant. shall adhere to the recommendations of Chen -Northern
regarding slope stability during the excavation of the road and
site and the plans and recommendations shall be reviewed by the
Engineering Department); (3) Condition 8 (no spoils or fill shall
be placed.over the side of the road cut. All excavated materials
shall be removed from the site if not used in construction of the
residence); and (4) the applicant shall revegetate the upper road
cut, beginning at the hairpin turn).
2. Mr. Zaluba received notice of the above -noted hearing
on June 29, 1992.
3. Mr. Zaluba commenced development of the subject parcel
in the fall of 1990 by excavating and cutting an access road and
securing an excavation/foundation permit for the planned resi-
dence. Mr. Zaluba also filed for a building permit.
4. During the two years since Mr. Zaluba commenced devel-
opment of the subject parcel, he has ceased work on the develop-
6:
ment, has allowed his permits to lapse, and has failed to com-
plete construction of the access road.
5. The existing condition of the unfinished access road is
hazardous, has created run-off and drainage problems, and is
unsightly.
6. Spoils have been allowed to fall from the access road
and accumulate below the road cut.
ed.
7. The tie -wall and boulder wall have not been construct-
8. Slope stabil-ity has not been obtained.
9. Revegetation of the upper road cut has not been effec-
tuated.
10. A reasonable period of time has elapsed during which
Mr. Zaluba should have and could have corrected or remediated the
conditions as listed above.
11. Taking all of the evidence and information together,
Mr. Zaluba has failed to comply with and has violated Conditions
31 4, 8 and 10 of the 8040 Greenline development approval awarded
to him on January 2,. 1990.
NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the foregoing findings, IT IS
ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:
1. Mr. Zaluba's 1990 8040 Greenline development approval
shall not be revoked at this time, but shall be subject to his
timely and satisfactory compliance with the following new condi-
tions.
2. Revegetation of the road cut, removal of all. -spoils
from the bank of the new road cut, stabilization of the road
surface, and proper drainage mitigation as approved by the City
Engineer shall be accomplished by September 1, 1992.
3. Recommendations by Chen -Northern regarding stabiliza-
tion shall be reviewed by the City Engineer and shall be adhered
to. Mr. Zaluba shall secure certification from Chen -Northern or
another licensed engineer that properties surrounding the subject
parcel shall be safe from rock fall and drainage.
4. Architectural drawings and plans for the tie-in and
boulder retaining walls shall be submitted for approval to the
City Engineer by September 1, 1992.
0
5. Revegetation of the upper road cut shall be completed
by July 1, ,1993.
6. Mr. Zaluba shall conspicuously post "Danger -No Tres-
passing" sign(s) to keep persons from entering or traveling upon
the access road until after completion of same.
7. Mr. Zaluba shall post a performance bond, or other
similar security as approved by the City Attorney, in a sum up to
$300,000.00 to secure the successful completion of the revege-
tation, installation of the retaining walls, slope stabilization,
drainage mitigation, and road surface stabilization. The exact
amount of the bond shall be determined by the City Engineer and
City Attorney upon examination and approval of .the plans. for. _the__ _
work.
8. Failure to complete the slope and road stabilization
work, drainage mitigation for the new road cut, the 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 herein and shall, further, result in the
.revocation of the 1990 8040 Greenline development approval.
Entered this day of
tunc, July 21, 1992.
ATTEST:
Jan Carney, Deputy City Clerk
jc85.4
Im
3
, 1992, nunc pro
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION
Jasmine Tygre, Chairperson
57
PLANNING b ONING C4mISSIQ�i
EXHIBIT , APPROVED
i9 BY RESOLUTION
MEMORANDUM
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, 19921
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-.hy_ S_eptember_l�.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 8, 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-
S4
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.-.aq 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 Is 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
I
pon work detailed in his original approval, by October 15, 1992
or the 8040 Greenline approval -shall be revoked.
ATTACHMENTS
K
5�
ZalubaZHoaq 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 Pl4n.
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 4'
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
TIMOTHY MCFLYNN`
MARTHA C. PICKETT
WFLYNN & PICKETT
LAWYERS
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
THE SMITH-ELISHA HOUSE
320 WEST MAIN STREET. SUITE 1
ASPEN. COLORADO 61611
September 16, 1992
Rob Thompson
City of Aspen Engineering Department
130 S. Galena Street
---Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Hoag Lot 3
Dear Rob:
TELEPHONE (303) 925-2211
TELECOPIER (303) 925-2442
Pursuant to our telephone conversation this morning, I have
clarif ied 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.
Rdyelling 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
Leslie yesterday with Tim Beck's
proposed temporary wall section.
any additional information prior
copy of the letter submitted to
letter and cross section of the
Please let me know if you need
to the hearing on Tuesday. We
61
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/kim
62
COrKJttin� Chen Northern,Ine. Fni7inr:c rL F:rr<. Cr,:i tr:
5080 A-�Sd , SA
UerrwocaSpriNs, Colorado 61601
303 945-7450
3o:i 945-2sE3 Facsrmrti
September 16, 1992
Western heritage Log Homes
Attn: Joe Zaluba
8899 William Cody Drive
Evergreen .CO 80439-6631
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, Job 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 Ute Trail, the driveway grading had disrupted the drainage path of the
U to 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 Nvarranted at this time since the cut is temporary and will
A mernc-xor of 111'. F3IH ryovP of companie-
63
��tf1—I1_DH. f.1" _J F,- .01 f:'r S1 ?
Western Heritage Log Homes
September 16, 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. N.�-�''p:l:?<
15222
Steven L. Pawlak, P. E.
SLP%Ir ��� OF C01-a�`�
cc: Martha C. Pitkett, Attorney
High Country Engineering - Attn: Tim Beck
City of Aspen - Attn: Rob Tomson
WFLYNN & PICKET F
LAWYERS
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
THE SMITH-ELISHA HOUSE
320 WEST MAIN STREET. SUITE 1
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
TIMOTHY MCFLYNN`
MARTHA C. PICKEiT
•�^o...m.m CALmvow4A September 15, 1992
HAND DELIVERED
TELEPHONE (303) 925-2211
TELECOPIER (303)*925-2442
Leslie Lamont
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
_ - 130- .S.4 Galena Street --
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Hoag Lot 3 Supplemental Information
Regarding 8040 Greenling Approval
Dear Leslie:
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 letter frL..om ^P--` Ci?-1� �� A-^; = -���L-'
i, r i • .r i •..%1L'.r. L V .t 1
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
Leslie Lamont
September : 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
Country 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 design. .a- wall that r,
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
Martha ►tX. Pickett
MCP/klm
Enclosure
cc: Joe Zaluba
Randy Wedum
Ron Collen
zaluba\6mont.ttr
66
post -it"` brand fax transmittal memo 7671 # o(pages .
j
^
From-
CO1
Go . i
Oapt.
Phone #
Fax
September 15, 1992
Ms. Martha Pickett
320 W. Main'..
- -- Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Driveway for Lot, 4, Hoag Subdivision and Newfoundland Lode
HCE Sob No. 89014.004
Deal- Ms. Pickett:
This letter is in response to the City's request for additional information on the initial
temporary stabilization and latex fuel 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 Pawlak of Huntington/Chen-Northern, Rob Thompson of the City
of Aspen Engineering Department, Randy Wedum and you, we Relieve that temporary
measures 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
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 possible and agreed upon, to allow construction
next spring. Final design would need to consist of plan views, profiles, cross -sections and
typical details, in order to comply with the City Engineering Department's requesLs.,
923 Cooper Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Telephone- 303-945-8676 303-920-3669 • FAX- 303-945-2555 7
Ms. Martha Pickett
Page 2
September 15, 1992
Please contact me if you have a different understanding of requirements, or have any
questions.
Sincerely,
HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING, INC.
Tim y P. Beck, P.E.
Princi Engineer
TPB:rjm
Enc
M,
. f
Q
a^
o
W �
�
�
H
�1W
c
two
�C��
zpyy
~
A i
xoa
-
,
Q
d
2
~
In
Ld
CK
U
La
N W
i-
Z�
-� LO
Q
z �
�- a
U
Li~
1 �
�-r
U Q
F-
Li
0.
6�
c,'EP 15 '92 01: -D'4PM INTEGRITY PLUMBING
September 15, 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-lo.wing grass -
seeds: Kentucky 311 Red Creeping Fescue, Crestwheatil
Smooth Bromer and Canadian Bluegrass. The area will
then .receive a. wood fiber Tnulch.
Sincerely,
Gene Cilli
Environmental Construction
70 I
TIMOTHY MCFLYNN"
MARTHA C. -PICKL I I
. kso ^owmo w C^LJFO"U
Rob Thompson
City Engineer
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
WFLYNN & PICKETT
LAWYERS
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
THE SMITH-ELISHA HOUSE
320 WEST MAIN STREET. SUITE 1
ASPEN. COLORADO 61611
September 24, 1992
RE: Hoag Lot 3 Recxuire.aents
TELEPHONE (303) 925-2211
TELECOPIER (303) 925-2442
Dear Rol) :
This letter is to confirm my understanding of your require-
ments of Joe Zaluba for compliance with the 8040 Greenline Approval
for the Hoag.Lot 3 driveway.
11. Resurvey of the existing grade of the driveway. The
f irst survey provided by Tim Beck needs to be updated to
conf irm that the existing grade is as recommended in the
original survey. If the new survey indicates a substan-
tial change, the driveway will need to be regraded, if
recommended by Tim Beck, or the plans need to be amended
to reflect the accurate grade.
2. The issue. of the width of the trail on the Forest. Service
property needs to be clarified. You noted that it has
been your and Leslie's understanding that there would be
a 12--foot right of way for the driveway and an 8-foot
right of way for the trail. Please note that the Forest
Service easement is a total of only 20 feet in width and
i_lLat W,: it ..:'� .'tom .. ai w •./ cl-L ��..... �.rl
copy of the easement, recorded in Book 6:;'9 at Page 154
for your review:
3. Stake Boundary of Trail. You noted that there has been
some concern by the neighbors as to where the actual
location of the trail is in relation to their property
lines. You requested that when Tien Beck does his
resurveying that two stakes be placed on the edge of the
Rappcpc)rt/Davis properties so that they can see where
their property boundary ends and the trail begins.
4. Plan. By October 12, Joe is to summit an engineered
drawing, setting forth the final plan for the permanent
retaining structure along the driveway. This plan should
7�`
Rob Thompson
September 24, 1992
Page 2
consolidate the original plan, the August 27 submittal
and any additional changes. Along with the submittal,
you would like to have the engineer's estimate of the
costs of the final solution, broken out into categories
for retaining wall, drainage, etc., for purposes of
setting the amount of the performance bond.
5. Hydromulching. Also by October 12, Joe must submit a
proposal for how the hydromulching will be performed on
the outer edge of the driveway. The proposal should
indicate how many cubic yards of soil material will be
placed over the side for the hydroseeding and how the
hydroseeding .will,- -be maintained' to ensure survival
through the winter: We also need an estimate of cost for
this hydroseeding Ls well as the preparation required for
the hydroseeding for purposes of the performance bond.
6. Performance Bond. By October 19, Joe needs to have the
performance bond in place or evidence that we have
applied for the bond and it is in process. [Rob, you had
stated that the deadline for this bond was October"151
however, if you aren't able to approve the plans and
estimate for the wall and hydromulching until the 15th,
we won't know of the bond amount in time to apply for one
by the same date. Theref ore, I have suggested October 19
as our deadline for having the bond in process. Please
let me know if you have any better suggestions.]
7. Letter from. Chen. On or before October 12, Joe also
needs to obtain a letter from Steve Pawlak, of Chen,
recommending any steps which need to be taken to winter-
ize the existing driveway.
If any of these requirements are not what you intended to
convey or if you need to clarify or add any other requirements,
plec��: let me kno:� immediately...
Thank you very much for your cooperation and immediate
response in letting me know how you wish for us to proceed. We
look forward to working with you and Leslie to resolve the City's
concerns on the state of repair of this driveway and believe that
we will be able to have a mutually agreeable solution. Thank you
7,;7,
Rob Thompson
September 24, 1992
Page 3
particularly for giving me the name of a different performance bond
company which I will contact so that we can have the bond in a
timely manner or at least have it in process.
Sincerely,
McFLYNN & PICKETT, P.C.
By:
MCP/klm
cc: Leslie Lamont
Jed Casewall, Esq.
Joe Zaluba
Ron Collen '
Randy Wedum
Stan Shaffron
uluba\thompsm.hr
73
6
Cj
130
As
September 29, 1992
Martha Pickett
The Smith-Elisha House
320 West Main Street, Suite 1
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Marty,
Rob Thomson has reviewed your
and I have also updated Jed
comments and recommendations.
letter of September 24, 1992. Rob
Caswall., We have the following
Our concern regarding the trail on Forest Service property is the
final width of the trail. We understand that the Forest Service
easement is 20 feet. Upon completion of all road improvements
there must be at least an 8' trail paralleling the 12' road. ,The
easement from the Forest Service clearly states that the road is
also to be used for recreational use. Inadequate trail width will
not be accepted. It may be necessary for Joe to increase the width
of the road cut to maintain a 8' trail.
Regarding the final plan for the permanent retaining structure, the
date for submitting the plan was September 1, 1992. We will not
accept October 12, 1992 as a deadline for submitting another plan
for our review. Three days to review and ask for additional
information (if necessary) is too tight for us. The same concerns
apply for the hydromulching, and the letter from Chen Northern,
Therefore, the bate of October 15, 1992, will remain as the
deadline- for either establishment of a performance bond or
documentation from a bonding agent that preparation of a
performance bond is underway. Our reasoning for adhering to the
October 15,, 1992 date, instead of setting interim dates, is a plan
for the retaining wall, hydromulching, revegatation of the hairpin
turn, and winterization of the road all need to be in place before
an amount for the performance bond is established.
There has been plenty of time to draw up plans and pursue costs
estimates. Establishment of the October 15, 1992 deadline was July
211 1992. Joe already has a plan for a retaining wall (plans that
were used when the original 8040 was granted), it appears as if
hydromulching parameters have been set, and there has been
considerable discussion about the condition of the new road
regarding whether emergency' actions are needed for this winter.
We believe that it should not be difficult to set a bond price and
agree to the conditions that the road should be left for the
winter..
Unless a bond price is presented to staff, the City will recommend
to the Planning and Zoning Commission on October.20, 1992, that a
$300,000 performance bond (based upon the Engineering Department's
initial costs of the project) to be established by October 15,
1992, or revocation of the 8040 Greenline due to noncompliance.
The performance bond shall include, but not limited to, the
following items:
* revegetation (based upon one full growing season after
revegetation is complete); and
* construction of boulder and tie-in retaining wall; and
* revegetation of old road cut; and
* drainage improvements; and
* signage.
Marty, I know this has been a very difficult project and you are
trying to satisfy our concerns as best you can. I do not think we
are that far away from a final resolution.
sincerely,
Leslie Lamont
Rob Thomson
cc: Jed Caswall
7�
ChenONorthern, Inc.
October 16, 1992
Consult uig Eng,•)eefs and Scientists
5080 Road 154
Glenwood Spongs. Colorado 81601
303 945-7458
Western Heritage Log Homes 303 945-2363 Facsimile
c/o Randy Wedum, Architect
616 East Hyman - Suite 102
Aspen, CO 81611-1981
Subject: Review of Retaining Wall Design for Access Road, Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision,
Aspen, Colorado.
Job No. 4 275 89
Dear Mr. Wedum:
As requested by you, we have reviewed the retaining wall details prepared by High Country
Engineering dated October 12, 1992 with respect to compliance with our grading
recommendations. Observations and recommendations previously made for temporary
grading were presented in a letter to Joe Zaluba dated September 16, 1992, Job No. 4 275
89.
The current plan of driveway improvement is to leave the rough cut slopes as they were
observed on September 8, 1992 through this winter and final grade the slopes next year.
The proposed retaining wall at the toe of the cut (and at the transition of the Ute Trail into
the driveway) will consist of 2 1/2 foot high precast wall sections with a backslope at 1
horizontal to 1 vertical. Cut heights should be on the order of 3 to 8 feet based on the site
topography and cross sections. The backside of the wall should be filled with crushed rock
and the backslope cut and fill graded to achieve the 1:1 design grade. Some modification
in ' the final slope configuration may be needed depending on the tree cover of the natural
uphill slope.
Based on our review, the slope grading and wall design are in accordance with the
recommendations for driveway grading presented on Pages 9 and 10 of our subsoil study
report for Lot 3, Job No. 4 275 89 dated June 26, 1989. We understand that the final
graded slopes will be hydromulched and revegetated according to recommendations by Greg
Mozian. We should observe the final slope grading during and after the retaining wall
construction.
If you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance, please let us know.
Sincerely,
CHEN-NORTHERN, INC.
Steven L. Pawlak, P.E.
SLP/bjs
N� L. P l
���•�G,ST�RF•��
15222
�TE'�.F• C O�'��P
cc: High Country Engineering, Attn: Tim Beck
Martha C. Pickett, Attorney ✓
Joe Zaluba
76
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner
RE: Zaluba 8040 Greenline Noncompliance
DATE: October 20, 1992
Staff received an application for a Performance Bond regarding the
work necessary to comply with the Hoag Lot 3 8040 Greenline
approval.
Upon research of the -bond,=-staff--will set --a- deadline for- when the
amount shall be determined and the bond in place. Staff will
inform the Commission as to the progress with Mr. Zaluba.
WFLYNN & PICKETT
LAWYERS
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
THE SMITH-ELISHA HOUSE
320 WEST MAIN STREET. SUITE i
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
TIMOTHY MCFLYNN"
MARTHA C. PICKETT
•AU, OADWTrco» CAU"W.A October 15, 1992
Stapleton Insurance Agency
533 E. Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Joseph Zaluba Performance Bond Application -
Greetings:
TELEPHONE (303) 925.2211
TELECOPIER (303) 925-2442
Enclosed please find a Performance Bond Application for Joseph
Zaluba. Please call me if you have any questions regarding this
application.
Sincerely,
McFLYNN & PICKETT, P.C.
By:
ar ha C ickett
MCP/klm
Enclosure
cc: Joseph Zaluba
Randy Wedum
Ron Collen
zaIuba\staplcton.1br
10/•15i 1 y,32 10: 39
7U611 r i'bi4 OFFIC;EtY1tiX INC; #204
HUSEBYAND A550CMTE5
Insurance Agency
1 NO South Albion, Suite 222: '
Denver, Colorado a
Telephone: (303) 891
CONTRACTORS OPERATIONS C
ter's Tower
ONNAIRE
t
PAGE 01
z- 2-4¢-L
We welcome the opportunity to secure bonding credit for your company. The
purpose of the questionnaire is to ansi.at the bonding cpmpanies in evaluating
your qualifications. Please complete this form as accurately as possible.
Every question is important; Please answer each one.'
CONTRACTOR UJE`-j^TC YLm t-�=_ aATIA Ca e<
c„ Co, r NC l
AD D R.ES S: 0573
G �JEIt G �i ku/ h M O
CITYISTATEIZIP CODE:
CONTRACTORS LICENSE Zl"BER , Nobej4r TELEPHONE WZ ME 6-+4 -14435
GENERAL INFORMATION
Form o Business: (check one) ( ) Proprietoretip ( ) Partnership,
( -Corporation ( ) Sub Chapter S Corporation
pe of Constructionperformed* co<,m `^ LO (A t+a`'' t (�
( ) Uaion (Y,) Non -Union ( ) Merit/Open Shop
Geographical Arta of Operations! 5-rATtr aF 60L-OPIA pZ)
wwwww.�w■ . i. w i. i i w��
States in which licensed to do business:
t�J co C.L-k cjL_ ti) S e o24�F al, t7 , i tV Co L4 IA PC)
What percentage of work is your contract directly with? Owner ;oD z
General Contrsctor.,� Subcontractors.%
What percentage of work is normally subcontracted to odhers%
What Trades?_ !.-tr �--u •4-� l'� µ� , T� _.�, .
Under what conditions do you secure bonds from your suWcontractors?_,_,�
US U INL-LL-f NOT RC-Q0 I aE- -�
o you ever engage in Joint Ventures? ( ) Yes ( %d No
How often are you required to provide bonds:
( ) Frequently ( ) Occassi.onally (Y,) Very Seldom
-LUi. -. le 1 % /� l 1 �i 1 1l�Ll Iru� 11 1_,�11_UI -i i�IL U
�/
1j S EB Y t a.D ASSOCMj4TES
HISTORY
Date Business Established: JApi � � -r-+ Incorporated•
APB,
Name of Predecessor Company: WO � E
When did current management assume control' ,rt
ORGANIZATION - OWNERS AND KEY EMP40YEES
h of
Name Age Stock `tame Of Spou*e
Are the owner's personally active in this business? () Yes
Social
Position Security
i r 31, 4 0c-S
( ) No
Have any of the principals declared bankruptcy? ( ) Yes (x) No
Name
t".)o r")E,
Parent, Affiliate:'and/or Subsidiary Companies
Location Ovndd By
scope, of
Operations
Has any entity in which the contractors stockholders br related companies
have financial interests engaged or intends to engage its any form of real
estate investment, development, or building or any other related activities?
( ) Yes ( g No if yes, describa:
In addition to contracting, what other business activities are you or do you
intend to engage in?, hjo L
VISO
Page 2
1OZ15/1992 10:39 7087177574 OFFICEMAX INC #204 PAGE 03
t
t
/
Is them a formal Buy -So 11 Agreement in a ffeet?
How is the Buy -Sell Agreement funded?
Who is it between?
Insured
NaN
( ) Yes (} No
Amount of Life Insurance Payable to tht Corporation -
Amount
Ins, Co. Amount Borrowed Benaficiary
What arrangements have been made to assure contracts acre completed in the
event the owner(s) are not available?
-rt-t 0_006 %4 $o e5 O r- D t 1VA Tt .$
What inc*ntives are given the key employees to follow through ( Bonuses,
pro fic sharing, etc.)?25 156LEIDEW PE&. i 6W(t ,
BANK REFERENCES
Name of Bank. 5^-1` it- OF &i EK(� aeE N with Since • 11990
Address: �''DX-1-1'2-u
city/state/zip code:
Name of Loan Officer:
Phone Number: &T 4- - 4-4-64
Amount of Bank Line;,j Unsecured .� �"' '�'c' o „ ,secured
Description of Security: ( ) Accounts Receivable
( ) Inventory
( ) Contract Rights
( Equipment/Real Estates
( X} Personal Endorsement
( ) other,. -
Expiration Date- �- +1 !' Amount of Bank Line currently in use: �S' `> � �
µsal
Page Q�
10/15/1992 10:39 7087177574 OFFICEMAX IIAC #204 PAGE 04
JOB EXPERIENCE
Largest
Single
Job Completed: $_ 900,000
Year ( I
g S-
Largest
Single
Program Assumed: S"7p"^C' _
.Year (C,�
Largest
Single
Job Bid: $ �'� M
Year (�
Largest Program Under
Bid:
Average Single Job: $
Sb1q. 00 n
Average
Program $ '"
Please list the sirs
s contracts completed in the last
five years:
1. Job Deecripition: �'►'��+ � -` 1 !'Lo �Nawwt SS
tic . (Zp.FAtMrLLf
-
Owner:J,
fFone umber:
-
Contract Price: $ Sr
Amount
of Profit:/Lose:
0 Q Q f'/L4DP
Architect/Engineer; A.
Date Completed: M ft-tj
2. Job Descripi.tion:__
5 t naU 1,V rA t z�g
O�-.Wcr
Owner: . Ol-01'o c-4
Phone Number: (AC15
7(a 3 ' 60 (6 U
Contract Price: $ CaSf
Lk"s Amount
of Profit/Loss: $
+0 P PCP,tr
Architect/Engineer; J.
EA L_0 F3A,•
Date Completed: a ONG
115 0
3. Job Deecripition:
S tN -t.4E FAw+i L-Lc'St
f roc
Owner-
Phone Vumoer :
(Dlq- Z i
Contract Price:. 5, %T
PL015 - Amount
of Profit/Logs: $
50 4 000 ({ CK-- j-`
Arichiteee/Engineer:
Date Completed:
S. Job Deecripition
iaL-W- MT• L-,00a-,E
Owner :o wi C A
Phone Number:
Contract Price:
ount
of Profit/Loss: $
-cG rtc �f t
Architect/Engineer:
/-��
Date Completed: a(it0
! S
6. Job Descri,piti,on:
Owner.
Phone Number:
Contract Price; S
Amount
of Profit/Loan: S
Architect/Engineer:
Date Completed:
Page 4
( , .r.. µo.
UFF 1UE1v1A-X 11AU #2U4 PAGE 05
11 V �..J Lt1 1 d 11 I LJ L 1+•.� t,.a �l.Ll'� 1 LJ
CUR.R.ENT WORK ON HAND
�� Unco�n sated Work" for concurrent Frith the latest fcal
,it tack a Schedule of P if the latest financial
year end statement furnished and a current report,
statement is more than three moonths old.
The Poll� questions uestions pertain to the latest "Schedule of Uncompleted" t► for.
Explain on a separate shoat of paper and "YES" answers.
Was our bid on any project more than 102 below that of thesyescond( SC) Ncs
Y (. )
bidder:
Any projects behind schedule to cotAplete?
Any delaya or disputes oa any projects?
Any in penalty for late completion?
REFERENCES
List your 5 Major Suppliers:
Name/Address
(
yes
( NJ
No
( )
Yes
( ",<)
No
( )
Yes
( se)
No
Tele. No.
f= rL 1S Co , C�
A�- P l N c Locr t c ra ►2 OA
Credit Mgr.
At present, your firm is:
( ) Discounting Bills ( >() paying within Terms C ) 0-30 Days Late
( ) 30-60 Days Late ( ) Over 60 Days Late C ) Special Terms
List 5 Subcontractors (Contractors if you are a subcontractor) with whom you have
worked in the last 2 years:
Name/Address/Contact Tele.No.
V" 00 /.S 7 A I N P2 Fr?-1 sco , C0
�Z M t-L A-rU J IM v V may^ S %-4• o M.
Page 5
10/15/1992 10:39 7087177574 OFFICEMAX INC 0204
ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL REPORTING
Name/Address of Accounting Firm:
/N'T Pc .
w L c.-1-0 LAJ Dry .
I,J C.x L e W v 0 0.
PAGE 06
(� CPA
( ) Public Accountant
( ) Other
This accounting firm is ( ) Indapeodent
( ) Internal and/or accountant is an officer
or partner of the construction company
( ) other_
How many yea -re has this -firm prepared your financial statements?
Tax Returns?
Fiscal Year End Date: 1 0 1 °i �-- This statement is prepared:
( ) Fully audited (Unqualified)
( ) Partially audited
( ) Review basis
(� Compilation basis
Are Interim statements prepared? ( ) Yes ( X), No
How often? ( ) Monthly ( ) Quarterly ( ) Sami-annually
Basis of preparation, if different than fiscal?
Method of accounting: % of Completed
(Check one each line) Completion Contract Accrual, Cash
For Financial, Reporting
For Tax Purposes*
*If taxes are paid on a Subchapter S basis, show the basis the earnings are
reported on the 1120S Federal Information Return for Ux purposes,
If a Subchapter S Corporation, What Amount of the undistributed income shown
as of fiscal year end has now been distributed?
Date of your last IRS clearance Results:
Have your oparati.on been profitable since last statement date?
( ) Yes (x5 No
Have there bean any major changes in your financial, condition since last
Statement data with respect to ( ) ownership, ( ) major loans or refinancing,
( ) major equipment purchase or leases, ( ) withdrawals or ( ) other? If
so, describe:
Page 6YOU
jI►O l h
lUll�r'1'3'31U: �'�
IU6iiiiJiL4
U-F iLEMA'-X 11Jk..; #l1U,4
•
PAGE p7
Internal cost accounting records provide job status raporti ( )daily,
( x) weekly, ( ) monthly, ( ) quarterly ( o y,
. I ) ther:
Please provide. your Federal I.D. Number: O
PRIOR SURETIES
Name/Adress of present surety:
Name/Address of present agent:,I p lip'
How long -have ,you been with your present surety"
for changing;
Number of bonds issued,.- N'J),•J8: Bond Numbers:
ears.
rl c
eaaon_
S-Q T.> .
As an inducement for bonding are you currently providing
( ) persondl indemnities, ( } additional Corporate indemnities;
t ) collateral
Piave
you
Yes
been refused
(�
by your present or prior 8.urnt ?
y
No
If yes, explain.,
Page 7
_-i i II-L-1-i",, IIil- Ai_U 1 ri11�1L U
Property
Equipment
Installation
Floater
Builder Risk
Liability incl.
Complete Operat.
Umbrella Liab.
Professional
Liability
Fidelity/Forgery
Accident Insur.
Other
INSURANCE CURRENTLY IN FORCE
Insurance Co. Limits
(N F* 2-c-E
SUITS, JU DCEMENTSt DEFAULTS AND CONTINGENT LIABILITIES
Expiration
Has your company or any officer or any partner ever failed
in
business or
compromised With creditors?
(
)
Yes
( >e)
No
HAS your company ever failed to complete a contract?
(
)
yes
(X)
No
Have you ever failed to qualify for a band after an award?
(
)
Yea
(>0
No
Has your bond credit ever been terminated by a surety?
(
)
Yes
( A
No
Are you acting as surety car- bondsman for others?
(
)
Yea
No
Are you acting as endorser for others on their notes or
accounts',(
)
Yes
( )
No
Does your company or any officer or partner owe any money to
a bonding
company?
(
)
Yes
( 'y
No
Has your Company or sty officer or partner ever required any
financial assistance or borrowed any money from a bonding
company?
(
)
Yes
( )()
No
Page 8
10/15/1992 10:39
e�
PRINCIPAL
7087177574 OFFICEIAAX INC 0204
RESUME
.�d5 c—pH S. -7�- t-v 4A
HOME ADDRESS 1 k `7'S e 0 erL cor Q-c k r-1
BUSINESS ADDRESS
HOME PHONE t ' BUSINESS PHONE Sir
PERSONAL DATA
Date of -Birth
4F -- (, 4- L.
Haight
r
weight ) 55-
PAGE 09
Marital Status
I N R I C Health Military Service C0"'AP«
EDUCATION
Grammer School. 61- t 4='- r-J. 1,:� Art c7 W kF 5, -- . 14 , S . � C- ,t e ► j C—LL,4-1 N , .Z"L �
High School L/I --
College lt/. ' c i Nar 5 r.JN� tl. r �,•4�t. l3. -.`c -
BUSINESS PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
From 19 to to 19 "+
From 19 to 19 ` ?- aew-1,jr. - ownitrri ! �'`'oyr<.1 at-�� 4.J , r}r n r^cr
From 19 to Present
Current Contractor's Licene
Volunteer Activities
PERSONAL REFERENCES
T. r-/U , Q L
To: Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner
From: Rob Thomson, Project Engineer 1?
I St
Date: October 29, 1992
Re: Zaluba Access Road
After reviewing the submitted drawings and cost estimates for the above referenced I have
the following comments:
1. The applicant should submit the approved (by the Park's Department) tree location
plan and/or replacement program with associated costs. This was a condition of
the original approvals that needs to be incorporated with the overall plan.
2. The plan does not include any costs for a geotechinical engineer to perform field
monitoring during slope grading and retaining wall construction/installation.
3. The submitted plan did not show locations for the required signage, nor was there
any estimates of costs.
4. The estimates for the earthwork, precast units, and crushed rock appear to be
reasonable. There needs to be further detailing on the appearance of the joints
between the units or consideration given to a cast in place system.
5. There was no mention of regrading and revegetation of the upper road cut. Detail
and costs should be provided.
6. Further detail and associated cost estimates should be provided for the separation
fence.
7. There needs to be an estimate added for landscaping. It appears that the
earthwork number given would only consider the rough grading and installation of
the precast units. The undercutting and final grading above the precast units needs
to be taken into consideration.
8. Cost estimates need to be provided for area two. Included in the estimate must
be hydroseed/mulching for any areas disturbed by the removal of the debris.
Man
9. The hyudroseed/mulching number should be doubled to cover the cost of having
to come back next spring for anything that did not vegetate. It is important to note
that the applicants landscape designer has made a note in the specs that the
hydroseed/mulching needs to take place the last week in September to the second
week in November.
10. There should be a contingency of 30% on the total ' agreed costs to handle City
administration time should they have to complete the project.
11. As a general comment I have concern that the trail width near the lower portion
of the access road will be less than eight feet. The width of the trail should not
be compromised for the access road.
mzaluba
Fi
ng Office
treet
1611
:0-5197
November 4, 1992
Martha Pickett
The Smith-Elisha House
320 West Main Street, Suite 1
Aspen, Colorado 81611 -
Dear Marty,
Please find attached Rob -Thomson's comments with regard to the
latest plans for Hoag Lot 3. It is my understanding that you will
use his comments to formalize the letter of security.
To summarize, we are expecting by November 10 the following items:
1. The security shall include:
* Costs for tree location and/or replacement; and
* Cost for a geotechnical engineer to perform field
monitoring during slope grading and retaining wall
construction/installation; and
* Signage costs; and
* Costs for earthwork, precast units, and crushed rock for
retaining wall; and
* Costs for regrading and revegetation of the upper road
cut; and
* Costs for landscaping the undercutting and final grading
above the precast units; and
Cost estimates for area two including hydroseed/mulching
for areas disturbed by the removal of the debris; and
* Double the cost for hydroseed/mulching; and
* 30% contingency for City administration time if the City
must complete the project.
2. Before the plans will be considered complete they need to
include:
* approved tree location and/or replacement plans; and
* location of signage; and
* further detailing on the appearance of the joints between
the units or consideration given to a cast in place
system.
3. We are still concerned that the width of the trail will be
compromised by the need for vehicle access. I have reviewed the
trail situation with the Parks Department including the personnel
Arecycled paper
�v.
that maintain the nordic trails. They have concluded that either
a fence and/or curb separating the trail from the driveway down to
Ute Avenue would be more problematic for trail maintenance than it
would help. Without a fence or curb snow that is plowed off of the
drive for vehicle use could be easily packed or smoothed over with
the snow cat that will set nordic track.
However, we all agree that it is important to secure a 20 foot
width on the road for trail and vehicle use. . We will need to
continue to work with the Parks Department regarding tree removal
and revegetation. The option of cutting through the bank to access
Ute Avenue instead of widening the road to better accommodate the
trail and driveway was not considered a good idea because of the
steepness of the bank and visual impacts.
It will help our review is the 20 foot width on the combined
trail/driveway portion of- -the road is flagged and trees- that- we- may
lose are marked.
I trust you will pass these comments onto Joe and Randy.
Marty, I feel really good about the progress, we have made in the
last couple of weeks. Let's keep the momentum going!
Si erely,
Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner
cc: Rob Thomson
George Robinson
V
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSIONQ'
EXHIBIT ___, APPROVED ,
19 BY RESOLUTION
BEFORE THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
IN RE THE MATTER OF LOT 3, HOAG SUBDIVISION, A/K/A 3.125 UTE
AVENUE, JOSEPH S. ZALUBA, APPLICANT
NOTICE TO SHOW CAUSE
TO: Joseph S. Zaluba Copy to: Martha C. Pickett
8899 William Cody Drive Smith-Elisha House
Evergreen, Colorado 804-39 - 320.West-Main Street
Suite 1
Aspen, Colorado 81611
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE AND BE ADVISED that on October 20, 1992,
the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission voted to issue a Notice
to Show Cause why the following land use development approval as
previously granted on January 2, 1990, should not be revoked
and/or modified:
8040 Greenline Approval for a Single -Family House on Lot 3,
Hoag Subdivision, City of Aspen, Colorado.
Based upon information made available to the Planning and
Zoning Commission, reasonable grounds exist to believe that the
applicant, Joseph S. Zaluba, has violated and/or failed to comply
with the following terms and/or conditions of the 8040 Greenline
Approval as modified by the Commission at the July 21, 1992, show
cause hearing:
1. Failure to revegetate the road cut and remove all
spoils from the bank of the new road cut by September 1, 1992.
2. Failure to submit architectural drawings and plans for
the tie-in and.boulder retaining walls to the City Engineer by
September 1, 1992.
3. Failure to post a performance bond, or other similar
security as approved by the City Attorney, in a sum up to
$300,000.00 to secure the successful completion of the revege-
tation, installation of the retaining walls, slope stabilization,
drainage mitigation, and road surface stabilization.
4. Failure to complete the slope and road stabilization
work, the removal of all spoils, and construction of the retain-
ing walls by October 15, 1992.
9�
WHEREFORE, you are directed to appear before the Aspen
Planning, and Zoning Commission on November. 10, 1992, at 4:30
o'clock p.m., at the Second Floor Meeting Room, City Hall, 130
South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, and show cause why the land
use development approval as set forth.above should not be revoked
or modified. The hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commis-
sion will be conducted in accordance with procedures established
in Section 24-6-205B of the Munici al Code.
Dated this day of , 1992.
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING*
CO SSION
By:
De ty. City Cler,
jc1030.1
q3
To: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer
Re: Worksession: Text Amendment for "Porch Incentive" (FAR
exemption)
Date: November 10, 1992
SUMMARY: For many years now, the HPC has been discussing the need
to motivate property owners and developers into designing
residential structures that contribute to Aspen's neighborhood
aesthetic. Front -porches are considered to be -a single..key design
component that link residential architecture to itself, and to the
community. Currently, porches are penalized as they count in FAR
calculations. Consequently, they aren't being built, and the
community is losing an important, nearly indigenous design element
that relates to our heritage. The Planning Office is proposing -a
text amendment to offer an incentive to allow porches on both old
and new structures an exemption from FAR, subject to staff review
and approval.
DISCUSSION: Attached is a copy of a memo staff prepared for the
initial HPC worksession discussion of this text amendment proposal.
The HPC offered numerous alternatives for staff to review and
incorporate, specifically in the definition of porch design that
would be eligible for this FAR exemption/incentive.
You should also note that this text amendment is specifically
discussed in the Aspen Area Community Plan, on page 38 of the Final
Draft.
We are seeking your input at this early stage, and have scheduled
a formal public hearing for your first meeting in December.
memo, pz. porch. far
9�
4
P
MEMO
To: Planning, Zoning, HPC
From: Roxanne Eflin, HPO
Re: Draft Front Porch FAR Exemption; code amendment language
Date: August 5, 1992
Purpose: To encourage better, more compatible design of
residential dwelling units in Aspen.
Background: Within the last 10 years, FAR and site coverage
requirements and definitions.have been amended to discourage the
incorporation and design of front porches on residences. This is
due a combination 'of reasons: porches and eave overhangs are
counted (less 15%) within the overall FAR and site coverage
calculations of the. parcel, and land values are so high that
developers aim to maximum building on their site. The HPC and
staff has been concerned about the design practice of leaving off
front porches entirely, or minimizing, their contribution to the
overall design by making them very small and appearing as after
thoughts. We are recommending a text amendment in the Aspen Land
Use Regulations to exempt front porches from these calculations,
m
in order to encourage theto be built on new inf ill structures,
and be retained on historic structures.
The design guidelines used by the HPC state:
"Porches are a common element of the residential streetscape,
marking the point of entry. The porches protected entrances
from snow and provided shade in the summer. While the details
varied with the type of residence, porches were characterized
by a transparency that allowed the main building facade to be
seen."
For centuries, porches have been a single unifying element of a
community, provided a functional space for neighborhood and
pedestrian interaction with the home. They also serve to provide
embellishment and interest to otherwise vernacular facades (i.e.
Rocky Mountain mining towns), which helps break up facade massing
and contributes to compatible scale and human proportion. Porches
help define patterns and rhythms of a streetscape, and help anchor,
or ground, Victorian -era structures which are defined by. their
verticality. Importantly for Aspen, porches lend character to our
neighborhoods, and are a welcome architectural addition, blending
design with our historic conte}:t. to want front porches, a,na
are proposing the following requirements be met in order
project to receive an FAR and site coverage e}:emption:
Requirements: #1: When is a porch NOT a porch? When it is a
porte�cochere or coverage patio. These will not be exempted, nor
will enclosed porches. The design must meet the following
guidelines in order to be exempted from the FAR and site coverage
requirements:
o Must be attached to the principal f acade , at f irst f loor
level
o Must be viewed from the public right-of-way
o Must be consistent with general HP design guidelines
o May not encroach into setbacks, and on corner parcels it
must be consistent with front yard setback (unless
variation is granted to Landmark via.HPC process)
o Must be open - not enclosed
o Full facade and/or wrapping verandas will only be
considered on a site -specific basis
Process: Article 3, Section 3-101, Definitions, must be amended
under "Floor Area" (B), and "Site Coverage" to include the above
language. It may be necessary to amend each residential zone
district to include the exemption language as well, or refer the
reader back to the definition section.
Should a conflict occur between an applicant and the -Zoning Officer
regarding interpreting whether a project has met the above
requirements, a request for a Planning Director interpretation may
be made, which should then be reviewed with the Historic
Preservation Officer, and perhaps Chair of the HPC (referrals).
Recommendation: Your consensus on the direction we are taking with
this code amendment, plus any additional comments or suggestions.
The HPC is asked to move to direct Staff to prepare an Ordinance
for City Council adoption, which will come before both the HPC and
P&Z prior to first reading by Council.
memo.porches
U