HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19921215
NO AGENDA AVAILABLE
FOR
DECEMBER 15,1992
MEETING
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner
DATE: December 15, 1992
RE: Continued Hoag Lot 3-Noncompliance Hearing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
For this continued hearing the Planning staff does not have
additional packet material for the Commission. However, Jan has
attached Zaluba-related meeting minutes for your review.
Please bring the packet that was prepared a month ago for your
review.
PLANNING & ZONING COMISSION
EXHIBIT AppROVZD
fBY •
BEFORE THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
IN RE THE MATTER OF LOT 3, HOAG SUBDIVISION, A/K/A 11.25 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 80439 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.
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.
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
E.
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, 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
N
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 & 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 21, 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-
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.
7. The tie -wall and boulder wall have not been construct-
ed.
8. Slope stability 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 41 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 stabili a -
ion 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 surround' r� the subj ct
arcel 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 y Sqptember 1, 1992.
A -�� Ail,
j p
2
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.
441
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
, 1992, nunc pro
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION
By:
Jasmine Tygre, Chairperson
3
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, 1992,
Mr. Joe Zaluba was required to revegetate the road cut, remove all
spoils from the bank of the new road cut, -stabilize the road
surface and provide proper drainage mitigation by September 1,
1992. Architectural drawings and plans for the tie-in and boulder
retaining walls were also to be submitted by September 1, 1992.
In addition, a performance bond, or other similar security as
approved by the City Attorney shall be posted based on the -
September 1, 1992 submission. Failure to complete the slope and
road stabilization work, drainage mitigation and removal of all
spoils and construction of the retaining walls by October 15, 1992
shall cause the City to access and draw down on the performance
security to perform and complete all the required work as
specified.
Staff received a packet of information from Marty Pickett, Joe
Zaluba's attorney, on August 27, .1992. The packet contained
drawings and specs for a boulder and tie-in retaining wall only.
Rob Thomson of the Engineering Department did review the
information and found them to be incomplete (please see attached
review). Mr. Zaluba would not have been able to submit the plans
.for a required building permit for the wall.
On September 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.
µ 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-
aw _
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.
s Zaluba has discussed this change with the Planning and Zoning
Commission the requirement for a boulder retaining and tie-in wall
should remain in effect. If concrete wall units are accepted, then
the performance bond will include the cost of removal.
3. Mr. Zaluba would like to renegotiate the October 15, 1992
deadline if the original plans for retainage must be followed.
Staff Recommendation: Staff does not have a problem discussing a
realistic time frame to do the work. However, staff will not
discuss shifting the October 15 deadline until all plans have been
submitted, or there is an organized outline of work to be performed
by October 15 and work that will be delayed. In other words, staff
has been viewing bits and pieces of the work that was required on
September 1, 1992 and has not received a solid plan for completion
of work or an attempt to set a price for a performance bond.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission schedule
October 20, 1992 (the next available meeting) to review Mr.
Zaluba's latest plans for completing the required work.
Unless the Commission directs staff otherwise, staff will follow
up on the above recommendations.
Staff recommends that Mr. Zaluba post a performance bond, based
I
pon work detailed in his original approval, by October 15, 1992
or the 8040 Greenline approval -shall be revoked.
ATTACHMENTS
0
ZalubajHoaa Lot 3
Review of Plan
1. No landscape plan submitted
September 1, 1992: Site visit and talks with Joe Zaluba. He
requested that in lieu of, picking up all rocks below road cut
that he be able to place topsoil and hydroseed. I told him
to proceed with submission of a plan to include
Stabilization of topsoil
Maintenance of seed i.e. watering, erosion etc.
Guarantee that it will take and if not return next
spring (tie it to bond) .
2. Parks shall review trail signs and locations, also the
landscape Plan.
3. The detail depicting the earth berm and split rail shows the
earth to be at almost a 1:1 slope. I do not think this would
last season to season.
4. The drawings only seem to indicate conceptual design for the
retaining walls. It does not seem that there is enough
information for the Building Department. I am investigating
this further with them. In any event anything over 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
WRY% & 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
clarified with Steve Pawlak and Tim Beck their recommendations with
regard to the proposed temporary precast concrete wall units on the
upper side of the driveway on Hoag Lot 3. They have both confirmed
that the recommendation originally from Steve to fill in behind the
wall was only in the event it is to be used as a permanent
structure. For temporary purposes, Steve explained, as set forth
in his letter to Mr. Zaluba dated September 16, 1992, a copy of
which is enclosed, that it is better not to fill in behind the wall
immediately to allow for any ravelling of the upper slope.
Ravelling would then fall behind the wall and not onto the road and
possibly block the drainage on the driveway.
I believe that you can gather from Steve's letter that his
opinion appears to be that the wall units will provide a good
structure which can be installed in our given timeframe this fall.
Further, he confirms that the drainage is working properly except
for where it has been disrupted where the Ute Trail intersects the
driveway on the Forest Service property. According to Randy Wedum,
construction on this lower portion of the driveway is being
commenced in the next few days as part of Mr. Shaffron's approval
from the County and the work that was required by the County on
that portion of the driveway down to the intersection with Ute
Avenue.
I'm also enclosing for you a copy of the letter submitted to
Leslie yesterday with Tim Beck's letter and cross section of the
proposed temporary wall section. Please let me know if you need
any additional information prior to the hearing on Tuesday. We
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• AAW/
Mar Pickett
MCP/klm
�- Chen Northem,Inc Corrsutting Email .•cri0,�C Sr ni o
5000 R*d 154
cle;1wocci spr1npa, colorwo a 1601
307 945-7450
303 945-2:s53 Fac 4mi4
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 coiluvium 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
Ell material on the outer edge of the driveway is proposed to limit erosion. Hydromulching
the uphill excavation face is not warranted at this time since the cut is temporary and will
A member el the HIH vow of companies
Z00'39dd OMN19 N83H180N-N3H0 W083 62:91 26, St d3S
** I00' 3JHd lUiO1 **
x
i
a •
Western Heritage Log Homes
September lb, 1992
Page 2 -
be flattened for the final grading configuration. We understand that the intersection of Ute
Trail and the driveway will be graded this fall to prevent surface flaw 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, TNC.
Steven L. Pawlak, P. E.
SLP/lr
k!: i 5222
elf ����♦�+��
OF C01-4Q`
,r
cc: Martha C. Pitkett, Attorney
High Country Engineering - Attn: Tim Beck
City of Aspen - Attn: Rob Tomson
ft
Chen Morthorn.Inc.
100'3Jdd
aMN19 N83HINON-N3HO UONJ
b1:02 Z69I d3S
WFLYNN & PICKETT
LAWYERS
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
THE SMITH-ELISHA HOUSE
320 WEST MAIN STREET. SUITE 1
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
TIMOTHY MCFLYNN`
MARTHA C. PICKLTT
September 15, 1992
HAND DELIVERED
Leslie Lamont
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
-- - l:ia S Galiena - Street -
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Hoag Lot 3 Su-RPlemental Information
Regarding 8040 Greenling Approval
Dear Leslie:
TELEPHONE (303) 925-2211
TELECOPIER (303)' 925-2442
Thank you for your cooperation in discussing with me your
concerns on the improvements to the driveway to Hoag Lot 3 pursuant
to the Findings and Order by the P&Z on July 21, 1992. Subsequent
to the hearing, various consultants have visited the property to
determine the best way to stabilize the slope, and given the time
constraints, some new proposals have evolved which we believe will
satisfy everyone's concern for the 1992-93 winter.
First of all, it has been highly recommended that the lower
slope, i.e. the slope below the new driveway and above the trail,
be hydroseeded to more quickly provide a higher quality slope
preservation than merely removing the rocks which were pushed over
the side in the driveway excavation. Because dirt .was also pushed
aside, the hydroseeding should be very effective and can -be donee
immediately so that the slope is well vegetated next spring.
Please .find enclosed a letter ,froze ^-er_ ro=�c =t i
Construction, who would be the person to provide the hydroseeding,
explaining the type of grass mixture that will be used, followed by
a wood fiber mulch. Gene explains that hydroseeding is a technical
term which does not have different standards of performance. His
firm recently provided the hydroseeding along Ute Avenue. However,
if you have any additional comments or suggestions from the Parks
Department on this particular hydro -seeding project, Gene will be
happy to speak with a Park's representative.
More importantly, the issue has arisen as to how to best
stabilize the "upper" slope above the driveway, that was created by
the grading of the driveway. As required by the P&Z, Mr. Zaluba
submitted plans for a railroad tie and rock retaining wall on
August 28, 1992 for the City's review. However, over the last few
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
measire. 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 it Is --easier - now -to design -a. wall - that is
specific for the location. In particular, everyone agrees that
there needs to be special attention given to 'the area where the
driveway and the trail meet.
Lastly Steve Pawlak of Huntington/Chen-Northern will provide
a letter tomorrow morning to further supplement this information,
confirming that the pre -cast concrete wall units will be satisfac-
tory. Also he will confirm that the recent final grading on the
driveway was completed pursuant to the engineered plans and that
the resulting drainage is as recommended, providing drainage on the
southside of the driveway.
If you need any additional information prior to the hearing,
please let me know.
Sincerely,
McFLYNN & PICKETT
By:
HCP/klm
Enclosure
cc: Joe Zaluba
Randy Wedum
Ron Collen
ntulAUM nc i r
Pickett
Post4t 10 brand fax transmittal MeMO 7671 # Of pap$ 0
From
Fax # 22 -!7 '�7
September 15,,1992
Ms. Martha Pickett
320 W. Main..
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Driveway for Lot 4,.Hoag Subdivision and Newfoundland Lode
HCE Job No. 89014.004
Dear Ms. Pickett:
This letter is in response to the City's request for additional information on the initial
temporary stabilization and later final construction of the driveway and associated Sld trail. it
is our understanding that the initial, temporary construction must be in place by October IS
of this year.
After consulting with Steve Pawlak Of Huntington/Chen-Northern, Rob Thompson of the City
of -Aspen Engineering Department, Randy Wedurn and you, we believe 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, proffles,'cross-sections and
typical details, in order to comply with the City Engineering Department's requests.
923 Cooper Avenue • Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
-920-3669 •- FAX,., 303-945-2555
Tollophone: 303-945-8676 *303
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.
1�
Timo y P. Beck, P.E.
Princi Engineer
TPB:rjm
Enc
J
11"i I LL7t<.l I T I-L.UJIM1114to
September 15t 1992
Jos. S. Zaluba
RE: Hoag Subdivision, Lot 3
In reference to Hoag Subdivision, Lot 3,, the disturbed
-areas will.behydroseeded with. the .fol-lowing grass.
seeds: Kentucky 31, Red Creeping Fescuer'Crestwheatt
Smooth Bromer and Canadian Bluegrass. The area will
then receive a wood fiber mulch.
Sincerely,
Gene Cilli
Environmental Construction
A
a