HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.716 S Galena St.110A-89 )11 411
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED: 12/12/89 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO.
DATE COMPLETE: /z/ %<'% 2737-182-89-001 110A-89
STAFF MEMBER:
PROJECT NAME: Field 8040 Greenline Exemption
Project Address: 716 South Galena Street
Legal Address: Lot 14, Block 2, Anthony Subdivision
APPLICANT: Fredrick Field
Applicant Address: 716 South Galena Street Aspen
REPRESENTATIVE: Joe Wells
Representative Address/Phone: 130 Midland Park Place F2
(303) 925-8080
PAID: YES NO AMOUNT: $100.00 NO. OF COPIES RECEIVED: 1
TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: 2 STEP:
P&Z Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO
VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO
CC Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO
VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO
Planning Director Approval: Paid:
Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption: . Date: 1,.4/
REFERRALS:
City Attorney Mtn. Bell School District
City Engineer Parks Dept. Rocky Mtn Nat Gas
Housing Dir. Holy Cross State Hwy Dept(GW)
Aspen Water Fire Marshall State Hwy Dept(GJ)
City Electric Building Inspector
Envir. Hlth. Roaring Fork Other
Aspen Consol. Energy Center
S.D.
DATE REFERRED: /a/a7/(4 INITIALS: cti/V
FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: * INITIAL:
City Atty JCity Engineer %/ Zoning Env. Health
Housing Other:
6 )FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: , C
ORDINANCE NO.35 -
(SERIES OF 1991)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
VESTING THE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS FOR THE FIELD 8040 GREENLINE
APPROVAL AT 716 S. GALENA (LOT 14, BLOCK 2, ANTHONY SUBDIVISION)
WHEREAS, on January 16, 1990, the Planning Director granted
approval with conditions for/exemption to 8040 Greenline review for
I
the development of a swimming pool at the Field residence; and ,
WHEREAS, a request for Vested Rights for the development
approval was submitted to the Planning Office by project
representative Joe Wells; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24-6-207 of the Aspen Municipal
Code the City Council may grant Vesting of Development Rights for
a. period of three years from the date of final approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1:
Pursuant to Section 24-6-207 of the Municipal. Code, City Council
does hereby grant the applicant vested rights for the Field 8040
Greenline Review as follows:
1. The rights granted by the site specific development plan
approved by this Ordinance shall remain vested until January
16, 1993 . However, any failure to abide by the terms and
conditions attendant to this approval shall result in
forfeiture of said vested property rights. Failure to timely
and properly record all plats and agreements as specified
herein and or in the Municipal Code shall also result in the
1
s �
forfeiture of said vested rights.
2 . The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of
referendum and judicial review.
3 . Nothing in the approvals provided in this Ordinance shall
exempt the site specific development plan from subsequent
reviews and or approvals required by this Ordinance or the
general rules, regulations or ordinances or the City provided
that such reviews or approvals are not inconsistent with the
approvals granted and vested herein.
4 . The establishment herein of a vested property right shall not
preclude the application of ordinances or regulations which
are general in nature and are applicable to all property
subject to land use regulation by the City of Aspen including,
but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and
mechanical codes. In this regard, as a condition of this site
development approval, the developer shall abide by any and
all such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical
codes, unless an exemption therefrom is granted in writing.
Section 2 : The project is subject to compliance with any changes
in the Land Use Regulations enacted between the January 16, 1991
8040 Greenline approval and the adoption of this vested rights
ordinance.
Section 3 : The City Clerk shall cause notice of this Ordinance to
be published in a newspaper of general circulations within the City
of Aspen no later than fourteen (14) days following final adoption
hereof. Such notice shall be given in the following form:
2
•
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval
of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a
vested property right pursuant to Title 24 , Article 68,
Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following-
described property:
The property shall be described in the notice and appended to said
notice shall be the ordinance granting such approval.
Section 4 :
A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the
day of , 1991 at 5: 00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers,
Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which
a hearing of public notice of the same shall be published in a
newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by
the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of
, 1991.
Joh Bennett, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of
, 1991.
J n Bennett, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
3
i
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council �?
��7/
THRU: Carol O'Dowd, City Manager /17
•THRU: Amy Margerum, Planning Director %
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner
DATE: August 12, 1991
RE: Second Reading of Ordinance 35, Series 1991 - Vested
Rights for Field 8040 Greenline Approval
SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval and Second
Reading of Ordinance 35, Series 1991. This will vest the site plan
for a swimming pool for three years from the date of development
plan approval. The original approval was granted as an exemption
from, 8040 Greenline review.
First Reading was held on August 26, 1991.
BACKGROUND: On January 16, 1990, Planning Director Amy Margerum
approved an exemption from the full 8040 Greenline review process
due to the limited impacts of the proposal and the applicant' s
willingness to comply with staff's recommended conditions. Please
see Attachment "A" for the approval memo. Recently, the applicant
has requested that the development plan associated with this
approval be vested for a period of three years by adoption of a
vested rights ordinance. Pursuant to Section 6-207, vesting of
property rights requires a Vested Rights Ordinance and two readings
before Council.
STAFF COMMENTS: There was concern over the length of time between
the original approval and the vesting of the development plan.
Staff conferred with City Attorney Jed Caswall who feels that the
elapsed time poses no particular problems. However, he wants the
vesting ordinance to contain language that the vesting does not
exempt the project from changes in the Land Use Code which may have
occurred between the original date of approval and the adoption of
the vesting ordinance. At this time, staff cannot identify any
Land Use Code changes which substantively affect the original
approval.
•
When approved, the period of vested rights will remain in effect
until January 16, 1993 .
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends that the City -
Council approve the Field 8040 Greenline-Approval Vested Rights and
have Second Reading of Ordinance 35, Series 1991. -
• •
PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve Vested Development Rights for
the Field 8040 Greenline Approval and have Second Reading of
Ordinance 35, Series 1991.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Attachments:
Ordinance 35, Series 1991
"A"- Planning Director's Approval of 8040 Greenline Exemption
jtkvj/Field.vest.memo
�.
Attachment "A'.'
MEMORANDUM
TO: Bill Drueding, Zoning Officer
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
RE: Field 8040 Greenline Exemption
DATE: January 16, 1990
SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting 8040 Greenline Review
Exemption for the construction of a swimming pool on a shelf of
land southwest of the existing large residence at 716 S. Galena.
Included in the project are the mechanical room, decking, slide,
hot tub and upslope retaining wall.
BACKGROUND: Upon review of the site plan and •associated
documents, the Engineering Department was concerned about
geologic factors at the site. The applicant agreed to implement
construction and field observation requirements as part of
conditions of approval. Because of the potential sensitivity of
the site and surroundings, Planning and Engineering staff decided
to place this project on the Planning and Zoning Commission
Consent Agenda in case P&Z felt it needed full 8040 review. On
January 16, the P&Z met and approved this 8040 Exemption without
discussion. Conditions of approval are:
1. Design parameters and construction procedures be followed
that are described by the Chen-Northern report dated
November 24, 1989, and restated in a letter from Doremus &
Wells dated January 16, 1990.
2 . Discovery of different fill, soil, rock or water
conditions during construction require immediate
reevaluation by Chen-Northern and notification of the Aspen
Engineering Department.
3 . On-site observation of excavations and foundation bearing
strata and testing of structural fill by representative of
the soil engineer.
FINDINGS: The review standards for 8040 Greenline Exemption
(Section 7-503 .B. ) are as follows:
B. Exemption. The expansion, remodeling or reconstruction of an
existing development shall be exempt from 8040 greenline review
if the following standards are met:
1. The development does not add more than 10% to the floor
area of the existing structure or increase the total amount
of square footage of the areas of the structure which are
exempt from floor area calculations by more than 25%; and
•
110 110
2 . The development does not require the removal of any trees
for which a permit would be required pursuant to Section 13-
76 or the applicant receives a permit pursuant to said
section; and
3 . The development is located such that it is not affected by
any geologic hazard and will not result in increased erosion
and sedimentation.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Director
approve the Field 8040 Greenline Review Exemption with
conditions.
I hereby approve the above 8040 Greenline
Review Exemption with conditions, pursuant to
Section 7-503 .B. of the Aspen Land Use Code.
Amy M gerum, P1 ing Director
Attachments: "A" —Engineering referral. comments
"B" - Subsoil study by Chen-Northern
"C" - Site sketch of pool location .
"D" - Doremus & Wells letter dated 1/16/90
2
•
® •
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council September 23, 1991
9. Councilman Reno requested the light in the back of Council
Chambers be fixed.
10. Cindy Wilson, assistant city manager, told Council responses
have been coming in on the underground district at Cemetery Lane;.
21 in favor, 10 against. Ms. Wilson told Council she will report
when more responses are received.
11. Cindy Wilson, assistant city manager, told Council there is a
problem with one of the city-owned houses on Cemetery Lane. The
roof is leaking. Ms. Wilson recommended taking $1500 from the
contingency fund to fix the roof. The parks department does not
have the money available. Council suggested this be added to the
appropriation ordinance.
12 . Bob Gish told Council the professional ski instructors of
America contacted him about using the parking garage October 26 and
27. There is a roller blade exhibit, educational event. This is
scheduled for the Snowmass Club; however, they would like to use
the parking garage as a backup location. Staff feels comfortable
allowing this use with a permit and the appropriate releases.
13 . City Clerk Kathryn Koch told Council the Aspen Historical
Society would like to schedule a work session in order to show
Council their plans for the ski museum. Council suggested the
Historical Society join them for a Monday lunch.
CONSENT AGENDA
Councilman Reno moved to approve the consent agenda; seconded by
Councilwoman Pendleton. The consent calendar is:
A. Minutes - September 4, 9, 1991
B. October Council Meetings
C. Request for Funds - Energy Conservation Committee
D. Art Museum Stream Margin Review
E. Resolution #37, 1991 - 1001 Ute Avenue Lot Line Adjust-
ment
All in favor, motion carried.
LIQUOR LICENSE RENEWALS
Councilman Peters moved to approve the liquor license renewals for
Skier's Chalet and Aspen Grove; seconded by Councilman Reno. All
in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #35, SERIES OF 1991 - Field Greenline Vested Rights
Kim Johnson, planning office, told Council this ordinance vests
development rights that were approved last year and vests them
through January 16, 1993 . The only concern of the city attorney
5
411
•
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council September 23 , 1991
was to verify the language in the ordinance to require adhering to
any change in the code that might affect this project between
approval and development.
Mayor Bennett opened the public hearing. There were no comments.
Mayor Bennett closed the public hearing.
Councilman Peters moved to adopt Ordinance #35, Series of 1991, on
second reading; seconded by Councilwoman Pendleton. Roll call
vote; Councilmembers Reno, yes; Richards, yes; Pendleton, yes;
Peters, yes; Mayor Bennett, yes. Motion carried.
RFTA CROSS TOWN SHUTTLE'
Dan Blankenship, general manager RFTA, reminded Council they met in
a work session about this in August. Council requested new align-
ments, better access to the post office area, and refined cost
estimates running more than one shuttle. Blankenship presented 5
route alternatives costing from $31, 000 to $35, 000 for one vehicle
depending on which alignment is selected. Blankenship said the
Galena/Cooper alternative is the one preferred by the RFTA staff;
one reason is this alternative does not have to cross the mall.
Blankenship said it is not impossible to use the mall but would
require curb cuts and adjustments in the landscaping.
Blankenship went over the 5 alternatives with Council. Blankenship
explained RFTA tries not to design routes with hills in them. The
Mill and Cooper route has a stop light as both an advantage and
disadvantage. The route to the gondola is circuitous and takes
more time. Blankenship said there. can only be 5 round trips on
this route. The Spring street alternative is the easiest if the
goals is just to get people between the parking plaza and the
gondola but does not work as well for pedestrians using the mall.
Blankenship said parking will have to be eliminated along the if
the cross town shuttle route to enable passengers to get on and
off.
Blankenship told Council the airport/ABC shuttle will be discontin-
ued indefinitely to save money. This service uses 3 vehicles, one
of which operates under compressed natural gas. Blankenship
pointed out RFTA is somewhat short of funds because of the sales
tax shortfall; there are other costs going up like workman's
compensation, FICA for seasonal employees. Blankenship said RFTA
is looking at reducing Woody Creek service, some reductions to city
services during the off-season, and a fare increase for down valley
services. Blankenship said RFTA is in a cost reduction mode and
would prefer to defer any new services until they are on firmer
financial footing.
6
•
Joseph Wells ,
Joseph Wells,AICP fd �
Land Planning and Design
` s
March 19, 1991 / ,iff) rtA)
1l"I t
V
Ms. Amy Margerum r A
Director, Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena
P11/11
Aspen CO 81611
Dear Amy:
Last winter, I filed a request for Exemption by the Planning Director
from 8040 Greenline review in order to permit the construction of an
outdoor swimming pool at the Field residence, adjacent to Little Nell ski
run on Aspen Mountain. On January 9, 1990 the P&Z approved their
consent agenda which induded this item, in effect endorsing your
recommendation of approval for this exemption.
In discussing this matter recently, it was your impression that it would
be necessary to request approval by City Council of a Vesting Ordinance
under the provisions of §6-207 in order to maintain this exemption
approval for three years from the date of approval.
The purpose of my letter is to request that a Vesting Ordinance be
placed on the City Council agenda as soon as possible and that I be
notified once it is scheduled. If you need additional information please
give me a call.
•
,Sincerely,
Joseph Wells, AICP
JW/b
130 Midland Park Place,Number F2
Aspen,Colorado 81611
Telephone(303)925-8080
Facsimile(303)925-8275
•
•
Aspen/Pit '�� `, ning Office
� � ° treet
As r.■`1,. �. ' IT!� jot' 1611
(303) 9 .S, ,"` 920-5197
May 23, 1991
Joseph Wells
602 Midland Park Place
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Vesting of Field Approval
Dear Joe,
Please submit a 1 hour deposit fee of $130.00 for processing the
vesting ordinance. In most cases 1 hours time is all that is
required, however should more time be used you will be billed at
the hourly rate. Thanks
Sincerely,
Debbie Skehan,
Office Manager
•
46 recycled paper
•
. ®
MESSAGE DISPLAY
TO Kim Johnson
From: Diane Moore
Postmark: Aug 01,91 3 :44 PM
Status: Previously read
Subject: Joe WElls vesting
Message:
Jed basically said that for the Joe Wells parcel, we will still use
our "interim measure" which is that this item will be scheduled
before council as a public hearing item and approved by ordinance.
Jed wants to add language that states that the vesting does not
exempt project changes in land use code that have occured from the
original date of approval to the actual vesting date. Jed also said
that the three years is from the original date of approval of the
site specific dev. plan. He wants to revise our code and procedures
as soon as possible so I'm going to set up a staff workshop on this.
X
Attachment "A"
MEMORANDUM
TO: Bill Drueding, Zoning Officer
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
RE: Field 8040 Greenline Exemption
DATE: January 16, 1990
SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting 8040 Greenline Review
Exemption for the construction of a swimming pool on a shelf of
land southwest of the existing large residence at 716 S. Galena.
Included in the project are the mechanical room, decking, slide,
hot tub and upslope retaining wall.
BACKGROUND: Upon review of the site plan and associated
documents, the Engineering Department was concerned about
geologic factors at the site. The applicant agreed to implement
construction and field observation requirements as part of
conditions of approval. Because of the potential sensitivity of
the site and surroundings, Planning and Engineering staff decided
to place this project on the Planning and Zoning Commission
Consent Agenda in case P&Z felt it needed full 8040 review. On
January 16, the P&Z met and approved this 8040 Exemption without
discussion. Conditions of approval are:
1. Design parameters and construction procedures be followed
that are described by the Chen-Northern report dated
November 24, 1989 and restated in a letter from Doremus &
Wells dated January 16, 1990.
2 . Discovery of different fill, soil, rock or water
conditions during construction require immediate
reevaluation by Chen-Northern and notification of the Aspen
Engineering Department.
3 . On-site observation of excavations and foundation bearing
strata and testing of structural fill by representative of
the soil engineer.
FINDINGS: The review standards for 8040 Greenline Exemption
(Section 7-503 .B. ) are as follows:
B. Exemption. The expansion, remodeling or reconstruction of an
existing development shall be exempt from 8040 greenline review
if the following standards are met:
1. The development does not add more than 10% to the floor
area of the existing structure or increase the total amount
of square footage of the areas of the structure which are
exempt from floor area calculations by more than 25%; and
! .
2 . The development does not require the removal of any trees
for which a permit would be required pursuant to Section 13-
76 or the applicant receives a permit pursuant to said
section; and
3 . The development is located such that it is not affected by
any geologic hazard and will not result in increased erosion
and sedimentation.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Director
approve the Field 8040 Greenline Review Exemption with
conditions.
I hereby approve the above 8040 Greenline
Review Exemption with conditions, pursuant to
Section 7-503 .B. of the Aspen Land Use Code.
`7/ ,,,
Amy M gerum, P1 1,1/VA,
Director
Attachments: "A" - Engineering referral comments
"B" - Subsoil study by Chen-Northern
"C" - Site sketch of pool location
"D" - Doremus & Wells letter dated 1/16/90
2
• .
,�4/ .4T ,
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
FROM: Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department
DATE: January 8 , 1990
RE: Field Exemption from 8040 Greenline Review
Having reviewed the above application and made a site visit, the
Engineering Department has the following comments:
1. A report by Chen-Northern indicates the site is not impacted
by significant . geologic hazards that warrant mitigation.
However, this report also indicates that construction induced
slope instability could result from the proposed development and
recommends specific construction procedure to eliminate this
risk . The Engineering Department requires that this
recommendation be followed.
2 . The above report also recommends on-site observation of
excavations- and foundation bearing strata and testing of
structural fill by a representative of the soil engineer. We
also require that this recommendation be followed.
3 . The Engineering Department questions whether or not this.
application should qualify for exemption pursuant to section 7-
q' 503 B. 3 . given that the Chen-Northern report indicated that
construction induced slope instability could occur from the
proposed development. There is also question of whether or not
this structure is appropriate for the proposed location according
to section 7-502 C. 7 of the review standards for 8040 Greenline.
jg/field
cc: Bob Gish
Chuck Roth
I
Mozian Landscape Architecture
November 24, 1989
Page 2
natural gravels should be feasible from a soils viewpoint. Typically, a
heavily reinforced concrete pool is acceptable for bearing on soils like those
exposed at the site. In no case should any part of the pool or retaining
walls be placed on fill material. The pool walls should be reinforced to
resist a lateral earth pressure of at least 50 pcf equivalent fluid unit
weight.
A minimum 4-inch free-draining gravel layer should be placed beneath the
pool and surrounding deck for drainage. The free-draining granular material
should consist of minus 2-inch aggregate with less than 2% passing the No. 200
sieve and less than 50% passing the No. 4 sieve. Leakage of the pool could
adversely impact stability of the very steep slope below the pool area. .
Therefore, we recommend an impervious liner such as 20 mil PVC be placed below
the pool bottom drain gravel to collect leakage. The liner should be bedded
to prevent puncture and the drain should have an outlet.
A tight joint should be provided between the pool and deck so water
splashed from the pool will not infiltrate the subsoils. Cracks which develop
on the deck while the pool is in service should be caulked to prevent water
infiltration. The pool deck and adjoining area should be sloped to prevent
ponding and infiltration of moisture into the subsoils.
The proposed retaining walls may be founded with a shallow footing placed
on the undisturbed natural granular soil and designed for an allowable soil
bearing pressure of 3000 psf. The bearing level should have adequate depth
for frost protection. Areas of loose or soft material, existing fill and
organic debris encountered at the foundation bearing level within the excava-
tion for both the walls and pool should be removed and the excavation extended
down to adequate natural bearing material. We should observe the excavations
to evaluate bearing conditions. Retaining structures should be designed to
resist a lateral earth pressure based on an equivalent fluid unit weight of
45 pcf. A sliding coefficient of 0.5 and a passive pressure of 300 pcf can be
assumed to resist lateral and overturning loads. Backfill placed to resist
sliding and below deck slabs should be compacted to at least 95% of standard
Proctor density at optimum moisture content. On-site soils devoid of vegeta-
tion, topsoil, oversized rock and debris should be suitable for reuse as
structural fill. Surface water should not be concentrated and directed onto
steep slopes unless they are protected against erosion.
8040 Greenline Review: We understand an exemption request is being made for
the proposed construction. The review consists of geologic hazard impact and
increased erosion potential. . The site is located along the western limit of
the Little Nell earth flow that is characterized by a coarse texture and very
steep side slopes. In our opinion, the project site is not impacted by sig-
nificant geologic hazards that warrant mitigation. Construction induced slope
instability could result from the proposed development. To limit this risk,
we recommend cut and fill slopes be constructed no steeper than 1 1/2 horizon-
tal to 1 vertical and have a height less than about 10 feet. Retaining walls
should be provided to retain cut and fill sections to stay within the recom-
mended grading configurations. We should review the grading plans when they
^'^._`
' .
41111-
� GK
x Y'
��
47//�-i/��/u/
-�~
--~�
EX 1ST ING
RESIDENCE
/
TOP OF STEEP
. \
SLOPE
LITTLE NELL
TOP OF VERY SKI RUN
STEEP FILL /
SLOPE .~
PIT I
PROPOSED
��- BOULDER
RETAINING WALL
PROPOSED
POOL /
APPROXIMATE SCALE
= 40'
Inc.4 I 02 90 «�}0ell��l�oBt1eJnL u LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY PIT Fig.
•
410 "lyl . n17r
•
•
• JAN b
®ore us &WELLS
an association of land planners
• -. ❑
January 16 , 1990
Ms. Kim Johnson
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
•
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re ! Field Residence Outdoor Swimming Pool Addition
Dear Kim:
My letter is to confirm that we have agreed to allow the Field
residence pool addition to be added to the Planning & Zoning
Commission ' s consent agenda on January 16 , even though we
continue to take the position that the project fully qualifies
• under the review criteria for 8040 greenline exemption by staff.
It appears that no one on the City staff questions the project' s
compliance with the review criteria for exemption except for the
City Engineering Department' s concern about possible geologic
hazard and slope instability resulting from construction. These
concerns apparently result from the relatively standard
precautions raised in the report by Chen Northern, Inc. ,
Consulting Engineers pending further design, engineering and site
investigations at the time of construction.
Specifically Chen ' s observations include the following:
- Page 1
Recommendations: "Based on the subsoil conditions observed
in the exploratory pit and cut slope, the proposed pool and
retaining wall bearing on the natural gravels should be
feasible from a soils viewpoint. Typically a heavily
reinforced concrete pool is acceptable for bearing on soils
like those exposed at the site. "
Chen suggests a number of design parameters which will be
incorporated into the detailed design work and construction
documents for the project, as follows:
❑ ❑
608 east hyman avenue o aspen,Colorado 81611 o telephone:303 925-6866
Ms. Kim Johnson
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
January 16 , 1990
Page Two
1. In no case should any part of the pool or retaining
walls be placed on fill material .
2 . The pool walls should be reinforced to resist a lateral ,
earth pressure of at least 50 pcf equivalent fluid unit
weight.
3. A minimum 4-inch free-draining gravel layer should be
placed beneath the pool and surrounding deck for
drainage .
4 . Chen recommends an impervious liner such as 20 mil PVC
be placed below the pool bottom drain gravel to collect
leakage . The liner should be bedded to prevent
puncture and the drain should have an outlet.
5 . A tight joint should be provided between the pool and
deck so water splashed from the pool will not
infiltrate the subsoils.
6 . Cracks which develop on the deck while the pool is in
service should be caulked to prevent water infiltra-
tion.
7. The pool deck and adjoining area should be sloped to
prevent ponding and infiltration of moisture into the
subsoils.
8 . Chen should observe the excavations to evaluate bearing
conditions.
9 . Retaining structures should be designed to resist a
lateral earth pressure based on an equivalent fluid
unit weight of 45 pcf.
10. Backfill placed to resist sliding and below deck slabs
should be compacted to at least 95% of standard Proctor
density at optimum moisture content.
11. Surface water should not be concentrated and directed
onto steep slopes unless they are protected against
erosion.
Chen then comments on the effect of any geologic hazard on the
proposal and the proposal ' s impact on increased erosion and
sedimentation. This is the only 8040 greenline exemption review
criterion in question.
•
III
Ms. Kim Johnson
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
January 16 , 1990
Page Three
With regard to geologic hazard, in Chen ' s opinion, "the project
site is not impacted by significant geologic hazards that warrant
mitigation. "
With regard to construction-induced slope instability, Chen
recommends several additional conditions which will be
incorporated into the project' s final design and constrution
documents:
1 . Cut and fill slopes to be constructed no steeper than
1-1/2 horizontal to 1 vertical, with a height less than
about 10 feet.
2. Retaining walls should be provided to retain cut and
fill sections to stay within the recommended grading
configurations.
3. Review by Chen of the grading plans when they are
finalized.
Chen concludes that "with the proper grading design and drainage
precautions the potential risk from erosion to properties
downslope should not be significantly increased. "
If P&Z is not prepared to approve our request as a consent item,
based on the conditions proposed above, we request that the
matter be tabled and that a meeting be scheduled as soon as
possible between staff and the applicant' s consultants to resolve
appropriate additional conditions regarding geologic hazard,
erosion or sedimentation to resolve City Staff ' s concerns.
S' • -ly,
W
/
Jciseph Wells, AICP
JW/b
. •
JAN 16
®oremus &WELLS
an association of land planners
❑
o_
January 16, 1990
Ms. Kim Johnson
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re : Field Residence Outdoor Swimming Pool Addition
Dear Kim:
My letter is to confirm that we have agreed to allow the Field
residence pool addition to be added to the Planning & Zoning
Commission ' s consent agenda on January 16 , even though we
continue to take the position that the project fully qualifies
under the review criteria for 8040 greenline exemption by staff.
It appears that no one on the City staff questions the project ' s
compliance with the review criteria for exemption except for the
City Engineering Department' s concern about possible geologic
hazard and slope instability resulting from construction. These
concerns apparently result from the relatively standard
precautions raised in the report by Chen Northern, Inc. ,
Consulting Engineers pending further design, engineering and site
investigations at the time of construction.
Specifically Chen ' s observations include the following:
Page 1
Recommendations: "Based on the subsoil conditions observed
in the exploratory pit and cut slope, the proposed pool and
retaining wall bearing on the natural gravels should be
feasible from a soils viewpoint. Typically a heavily
reinforced concrete pool is acceptable for bearing on soils
like those exposed at the site. "
Chen suggests a number of design parameters which will be
incorporated into the detailed design work and construction
documents for the project, as follows:
❑ ❑
608 east hyman avenue❑aspen,colorado 81611 ❑telephone:303 925-6866
i •
Ms. Kim Johnson
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
January 16 , 1990
Page Two
1. In no case should any part of the pool or retaining
walls be placed on fill material.
2 . The pool walls should be reinforced to resist a lateral
earth pressure of at least 50 pcf equivalent fluid unit
weight.
3. A minimum 4-inch free-draining gravel layer should be
placed beneath the pool and surrounding deck for
drainage.
4 . Chen recommends an impervious liner such as 20 mil PVC
be placed below the pool bottom drain gravel to collect
leakage. The liner should be bedded to prevent
puncture and the drain should have an outlet.
5 . A tight joint should be provided between the pool and
deck so water splashed from the pool will not
infiltrate the subsoils.
6 . Cracks which develop on the deck while the pool is in
service should be caulked to prevent water infiltra-
tion.
7 . The pool deck and adjoining area should be sloped to
prevent ponding and infiltration of moisture into the
subsoils.
8 . Chen should observe the excavations to evaluate bearing
conditions.
9 . Retaining structures should be designed to resist a
lateral earth pressure based on an equivalent fluid
unit weight of 45 pcf.
10. Backfill placed to resist sliding and below deck slabs
should be compacted to at least 95% of standard Proctor
density at optimum moisture content.
11. Surface water should not be concentrated and directed
onto steep slopes unless they are protected against
erosion.
Chen then comments on the effect of any geologic hazard on the
proposal and the proposal ' s impact on increased erosion and
sedimentation. This is the only 8040 greenline exemption review
criterion in question.
Ms. Kim Johnson
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
January 16 , 1990
Page Three
With regard to geologic hazard, in Chen ' s opinion, "the project
site is not impacted by significant geologic hazards that warrant
mitigation. "
With regard to construction-induced slope instability, Chen
recommends several additional conditions which will be
incorporated into the project ' s final design and constrution
documents:
1. Cut and fill slopes to be constructed no steeper than
1-1/2 horizontal to 1 vertical, with a height less than
about 10 feet.
2. Retaining walls should be provided to retain cut and
fill sections to stay within the recommended grading
configurations.
3. Review by Chen of the grading plans when they are
finalized.
Chen concludes that "with the proper grading design and drainage
precautions the potential risk from erosion to properties
downslope should not be significantly increased. "
If P&Z is not prepared to approve our request as a consent item,
based on the conditions proposed above, we request that the
matter be tabled and that a meeting be scheduled as soon as
possible between staff and the applicant' s consultants to resolve
appropriate additional conditions regarding geologic hazard,
erosion or sedimentation to resolve City Staff' s concerns.
S - -ly,
o
Joseph Wells, AICP
JW/b
• •
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
/ 14V
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner
OV
DATE: January 11, 1990
RE: CONSENT AGENDA - FIELD 8040 GREENLINE EXEMPTION
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: 8040 Greenline Exemption for the
construction of an in-ground swimming pool.
SUMMARY: The project calls for the construction of a roughly
18 'x70 ' swimming pool on a shelf of land southwest of the
existing large residence. Included in the project are the
mechanical room, decking, slide, hot tub and upslope retaining
wall. This proposal is being reviewed using the 8040 Exemption
criteria (Section 7-503 .B. ) , however Engineering feels somewhat
insecure with the exemption request based on geologic
considerations. Because this situation falls into a "grey" area
regarding appropriate review category, Planning and Engineering
staff felt that P&Z should be given the opportunity to comment on
the project. If P&Z feels the exemption process does not give
adequate review of the proposal, they should direct staff to
conduct a full 8040 Greenline review.
APPLICANT: Fredrick Field, represented by Joe Wells.
LOCATION: 716 S. Galena St. Lot 14, Block 2, Anthony Subdivision
ZONING: R-15 (PUD)
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
A: ENGINEERING: Having reviewed this application, and made a
site visit, the Engineering Department has the following
comments:
1. A report by Chen-Northern (Attachment "B") indicates the site
is not impacted by significant geologic hazards that warrant
mitigation. However, this report also indicates that
construction induced slope instability could result from the
proposed development and recommends specific construction
procedure to eliminate this risk. The Engineering Department
requires that this recommendation be followed.
2 . The above report also recommends on-site observation of
•
excavations and foundation bearing strata and testing of
structural fill by a representative of the soil engineer. We
also require that this recommendation be followed.
3 . The engineering Department questions whether or not this
application should qualify for exemption pursuant to Section 7-
503 B. 3 . given that the Chen-Northern report indicated that
construction induced slope instability could occur from the
proposed development. There is also question whether or not this
structure is appropriate for the proposed location according to
Section 503 C. 7. of the review standards for 8040 Greenline.
(Attachment "A")
STAFF COMMENTS: Section 7-503 . B. outlines the criteria for 8040
Greenline Exemption as follows:
1. The development does not add more than ten percent (10%) to
the floor area of the existing structure or increase the total
amount of square footage of areas of the structure which are
exempt from floor area calculations by more than twenty-five
percent (25%) ; and
2 . The development does not require the removal of any tree for
which a permit would be required pursuant to Section 13-76 or the
applicant receives a permit pursuant to said section; and
3 . The development is located such that it is not affected by
any geologic hazard and will not result in increased erosion and
sedimentation.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of the
8040 Greenline Exemption with the following conditions:
1. Design parameters and construction procedures be followed
that are described by the Chen-Northern report dated November 24,
1989 .
2 . Discovery of different fill, soil, rock or water conditions
during construction require immediate reevaluation by Chen-
Northern and notification of the Aspen Engineering Department.
3 . On-site observation of excavations and foundation bearing
strata and testing of structural fill by representative of the
soil engineer.
The applicant has agreed to these conditions as recommended.
Attachment "A" - Engineering referral
Attachment "B" - Subsoil Study by Chen-Northern
Attachment "C" - Site Sketch of Pool Location
jtkvj/Field8040
2
,47T46'/ J7 //„ //
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
FROM: Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department "
DATE: January 8 , 1990
RE: Field Exemption from 8040 Greenline Review
Having reviewed the above application and made a site visit, the
Engineering Department has the following comments:
1. A report by Chen-Northern indicates the site is not impacted
by significant geologic hazards that warrant mitigation.
However, this report also indicates that construction induced
slope instability could result from the proposed development and
recommends specific construction procedure to eliminate this
risk . The Engineering Department requires that this
recommendation be followed.
2 . The above report also recommends on-site observation of
excavations and foundation bearing strata and testing of
structural fill by a representative of the soil engineer. We
also require that this recommendation be followed.
3 . The Engineering Department questions whether or not this.
application should qualify f or exemption pursuant to section 7-
503 B. 3 . given that the Chen-Northern report indicated that
construction induced slope instability could occur from the
proposed development. There is also question of whether or not
this structure is appropriate for the proposed location according
to section 7-502 C. 7 of the review standards for 8040 Greenline.
jg/field
cc: Bob Gish
Chuck Roth
hen @Northern.In�
Roac'
•,�e,wooc Spr O Co�oraoc'E 50'
fine "e 2
3p3 2363 Facs,m e
November 24, 1989
Subject: Subsoil Study for Foundation
and Grading Design, Proposed
Pool and Retaining Walls,
The Field Residence,
Aspen, Colorado.
Job No. 4 102 90
Greg Mozian Landscape Architecture
Attn: Greg Mozian
117 South Spring Street
Aspen CO 81611-2068
Gentlemen:
As requested, Chen-Northern, Inc. conducted a subsoil study and made
observations of the excavation for the proposed retaining wall and pool addi-
tions to the existing residence. This report has been prepared to summarize
the work performed and to present recommendations for foundation and grading
design. The work was performed in accordance with our Agreement for Geotech-
nical Engineering Services to Greg Mozian Landscape Architecture, dated
October 2, 1989.
Design Information: Two conceptual designs have been provided. Both designs
consist of a swimming pool to be located about 120 feet southwest of the
existing residence. Boulder retaining walls will be constructed east of the.
pool. Excavation cut depths for the wall and pool will range to about
15 feet. A shallow fill depth is proposed along the downhill side of the
pool.
Subsurface Conditions: The subsurface conditions were evaluated by observing
one exploratory pit excavated at the location shown on Fig. 1. A log of the
conditions encountered is shown on Fig. 2. A fairly extensive cut about
15 feet deep had also been made along the uphill perimeter of the proposed
construction area.
The subsoils encountered within the pit consisted of 2 feet of topsoil
overlying about 8 feet of medium dense clayey gravels containing cobbles and
boulders. No free water was encountered and the soils were moist to very
moist. The gravelly soils appeared similar in the uphill cut slope. A dis-
turbed bulk sample of the clayey sandy gravel obtained from the pit was
returned to our laboratory for testing. The results of a gradation analysis
conducted on the minus 3-inch fraction of the deposit are shown on Fig. 3.
Recommendations: Based on the subsoil conditions observed in the exploratory
pit and cut slope, the proposed pool and retaining walls bearing on the Greg
A memoe•c !nef HIH)group o'.com panes
Mozian Landscape Architecture
November 24, 1989
Page 2
natural gravels should be feasible from a soils viewpoint. Typically, a
heavily reinforced concrete pool is acceptable for bearing on soils like those
exposed at the site. In no case should any part of the pool or retaining
walls be placed on fill material. The pool walls should be reinforced to
resist a lateral earth pressure of at least 50 pcf equivalent fluid unit
weight.
A minimum 4-inch free-draining gravel layer should be placed beneath the
pool and surrounding deck for drainage. The free-draining granular material
should consist of minus 2-inch aggregate with less than 2% passing the No. 200
sieve and less than 50% passing the No. 4 sieve. Leakage of the pool could
adversely impact stability of the very steep slope below the pool area.
Therefore, we recommend an impervious liner such as 20 mil PVC be placed below
the pool bottom drain gravel to collect leakage. The liner should be bedded
to prevent puncture and the drain should have an outlet.
A tight joint should be provided between the pool and deck so water
splashed from the pool will not infiltrate the subsoils. Cracks which develop
on the deck while the pool is in service should be caulked to prevent water
infiltration. The pool deck and adjoining area should be sloped to prevent
ponding and infiltration of moisture into the subsoils.
The proposed retaining walls may be founded with a shallow footing placed
on the undisturbed natural granular soil and designed for an allowable soil
bearing pressure of 3000 psf. The bearing level should have adequate depth
for frost protection. Areas of loose or soft material, existing fill and
organic debris encountered at the foundation bearing level within the excava-
tion for both the walls and pool should be removed and the excavation extended
down to adequate natural bearing material. We should observe the excavations
to evaluate bearing conditions. Retaining structures should be designed to
resist a lateral earth pressure based on an equivalent fluid unit weight of
45 pcf. A sliding coefficient of 0.5 and a passive pressure of 300 pcf can be
assumed to resist lateral and overturning loads. Backfill placed to resist
sliding and below deck slabs should be compacted to at least 95% of standard
Proctor density at optimum moisture content. On-site soils devoid of vegeta-
tion, topsoil, oversized rock and debris should be suitable for reuse as
structural fill. Surface water should not be concentrated and directed onto
steep slopes unless they are protected against erosion.
8040 Greenline Review: We understand an exemption request is being made for
the proposed construction. The review consists of geologic hazard impact and
increased erosion potential. The site is located along the western limit of
the Little Nell earth flow that is characterized by a coarse texture and very
steep side slopes. In our opinion, the project site is not impacted by sig-
nificant geologic hazards that warrant mitigation. Construction induced slope
instability could result from the proposed development. To limit this risk,
we recommend cut and fill slopes be constructed no steeper than 1 1/2 horizon-
tal to 1 vertical and have a height less than about 10 feet. Retaining walls
should be provided to retain cut and fill sections to stay within the recom-
mended grading configurations. We should review the grading plans when they
•
Greg Mozian Landscape Architecture
November 211, 1989
Page 3
are more definite. With the proper grading design and drainage precautions,
the potential risk from erosion to properties downslope should not be signifi-
cantly increased.
Limitations: This report has been prepared in accordance with generally
accepted soil and foundation engineering practices in this area for use by the
client for design purposes. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in
this report are based upon the data obtained from the exploratory pit exca-
vated at the location indicated on Fig. 1 and our observations at the site and
the proposed type of construction. The nature and extent of subsurface varia-
tions across the site may not become evident until excavation is performed.
If during construction, fill, soil, rock or water conditions appear to be
different from those described herein, this office should be advised at once
so reevaluation of the recommendations may be made. We recommend on-site
observation of excavations and foundation bearing strata and testing of struc-
tural fill by a representative of the soil engineer.
If you have any questions or if we may be of further assistance, please
call.
Sincerely,
CHEN-NORTHERN, INC.
. !
K. �0\sTEW*.T,�
15222 :*' By
Steven L. Pawlak, P.E.
•o ��;
't sl essionA0.*:•°<
Reviewed By
Daniel E. Hardin, P.E.
SLP/ec
Attachments
cc: Joe Wells, Land Planning
\ -
•
EXISTING
RESIDENCE
TOP OF STEEP
SLOPE
LITTLE NELL
TOP OF VERY SKI RUN
STEEP FILL
SLOPE
PITI
P
N BOUPROLDER OSED
RETAINING WALL
PROPOSED
POOL
APPROXIMATE SCALE
I" = 40'
4 102 90 Chen @Northern.Inc LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY PIT Fig.
• S
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Engineer
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
RE: Field Exemption from 8040 Greenline Review
DATE: December 27, 1989
Attached for your review and comments is an application for
exemption from Stream Margin Review.
Please review this material and return your comments to me within
one week. This is a Planning Director approval. Thank you.
•
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 920-5090
December 27, 1989
Joe Wells
130 Midland Park Place, F2
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Field 8040 Greenline Exemption
Dear Joe,
This is to inform you that the Planning Office has completed its
preliminary review of the captioned application. We have
determined that your application is not complete.
Joe, please submit proof of ownership and a letter from the owner
authorizing you to represent him. We will refer this application
to the City Engineer, however, approval cannot be granted until
we receive the information requested.
If you have any questions please call, Kim Johnson, the Planner
assigned to this case. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Debbie Skehan
Administrative Assistant
ds
i w
Doremus &WeLLS
an association of land planners
❑ ❑
December 12, 1989
Ms. Amy Margerum, Director
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena
Aspen CO 81611
Dear Amy:
My letter is to formally request exemption from 8040 greenline review by the
Planning Director under the provisions on §7-503(B) of the City Land Use Code.
Exemption is requested to permit the construction of an outdoor uncovered pool at
the Field residence, on South Galena Street.
The project complies with all relevant review standards, as follows:
1. The development does not increase FAR floor area of the project by more
than 10% nor the non-FAR floor area by more than 25%. The only new space
proposed is an area of approximately 200 sq.ft. which will be entirely sub-grade;
this space will include a room for pool mechanical equipment and garden tools as
well as a restroom for the pool; the floor area of these rooms is considered
non-FAR space.
2. No trees with a trunk diameter of six inches or more (measured four
and one-half feet above grade) will be removed in order to install the pool.
Approximately eight spruce and aspen of this size are proposed to be relocated
within the property in order to be sure they have adequate room to grow in the
future. These trees were planted several years ago, and moving them should pose
little difficulty as they are probably still within their original rootball. It
is our understanding that X13-76 of the Municipal Code applies only to removal of
trees, as opposed to relocation.
3. The development is not affected by significant geologic hazards which
warrant mitigation and will not result in increased erosion and sedimentation. A
letter from Chen Northern, Inc. is attached which identifies mitigation measures
which will be undertaken to assure that these issues are adequately addressed.
Please let me know at 925-8080 if you need additional information.
(Sinc rely,
� '
Josep Wells, AICP
JW/b
Enclosure
cc: Karyn Parker
Greg Mozian
❑ Kim Wyle ❑
608 east hyman avenue❑aspen,colorado 81611 ❑telephone:303 925-6866
I
I
January 2 , 1990
•
Ms. Kim Johnson
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen , Colorado 81611
Re : 8040 • Greenline Exemption Request filed with - the City of . ,,
Aspen for Lot 14, Block 2, Anthony Acres Subdivision-
Dear Ms. Johnson:
I am the owner of Lot 14 , Block 2, Anthony Acres Subdivision;
also known as 730 South Galena . I hereby authorize Joseph Wells ,
130 Midland Park Place , Aspen, Colorado ( 925-8080) , to submit the ..
above referenced - land use application for this property for
review by the City of Aspen and to represent the project during
the review process.
Yours truly,
7257 .
Frederick Field
•
.b. . .
STEWART TITLE OF ASPEN, INC.
OWNERSHIP AND ENCUMBRANCE REPORT
PREPARED FOR: Doremus & Company ORDER NO. : 00017202
HEREBY CERTIFIES from a search of the hooks in this office that
the owner of :
Parcel I : Condominiums Units 1 and 2 , HIGH ON THE HILL
CONDOMINIUMS, according to the Condominium Map recorded May 4 ,
' 1979 in Plat Book 7 at Page 85 as Reception No. 214169, and as
defined and described in the Condominium Declaration recorded •
May 4 , 1979 in Book 367 at Page 942 as Reception No . 214168 . •
•
•
Parcel II :' Lot 5, TIPPLE WOODS SUBDIVISION
•
Both Parcels being Situated in the County of Pitkin : State of
• Colorado, appears to be vested in the name of :
Frederick W. Field
•
and that the above described property appears to be subject to
the following:
•
• A Deed of Trust dated December 30 , 1986 , executed by
Christopher B. Henmeter, to the Public Trustee of Pitkin
County, to secure an indebtedness of 51 , 778 , 000 . 00 ; in favor of
Henry Shigekane, Trustee, recorded December. 31 , 1986 in Book
527 at Page 176 as Reception No. 284878 .
NOTE: Said Deed of Trust was not excepted or referenced in the •
•
April 1988 Deed to Frederick W. Field , however no release was
found of record. (Affects Unit 2 of Parcel I )
A Deed of Trust dated September 29, 1989, executed by • •
Frederick W. Field, to the Public Trustee of. Pitkin County, to
secure an indebtedness of $1 , 650 , 000 . 00 , in favor of Citibank ,
N.A. , recorded October 20 , 1989 in Book 605 at Page 491 as
• Reception No. 116418 ; and re-recorded October 31 , 1989 in Book
606 at Page 230 as Reception No. 316416 . (Affects Parcel II ) •
NOTE: In addition to the properties described above : Frederic k •
W. Field apparently also acquired interest (by Quite Claim Deed
• ' recorded April 29; 1988 in Book. 562 at Page 638 as Reception No. •
299691 ) in and to: ( 1 ) an elevator and elevator structure
•
appurtenant to High on ,the Hill. Condominiums , ( 2 ) an access and
utility easement , and ( 3 ) a right to park two automobiles in the
Durant Condominium parking lot .
•
•
EXCEPT all easements , rights-of-ways, restrictions and •
reservations of record . EXCEPT any and all unpaid taxes and
EXCEPT any and all unpaid taxes and assessments .
This report does not reflect any of the .following' mat.ters:
•
• STEWART TITLE
GUARANTY COMPANY
nnn i cnn.A 1 n_QO1
,..II ) Bankruptcies whimb, from date of ad 'udicat ' *i of the most
Tecent bankruptcies ntedate the report by moArthan 'fourteen .
Ti - .( 14) years.
1
2 ) Suits and judgements which, from date of entry, antedate
the report by more than seven ( 7 ) years or until the governing
statue. of limitations has expired, whichever is the longer
period .
3 ) Unpaid tax liens which , from date of payment , antedate the
report by more than seven ( 7 ) years .
Although we believe the facts stated are true, this Certificate
is not to be constructed as an abstract of title, nor an
. opinion of title , nor a guaranty of title, and it is understood
and agreed that Stewart Title of Aspen, 7nc . , neither assumes,
nor will be charged with any financial obligation or liability
whatever on any statement contained herein .
Dated at Aspen , Colorado, this 02nd day of January A.D.
1990 at 8 : 00 A.M.
BY : 4 -I,,..
•
Authorized Si.gnatul
•
•
•
•
•
•
STEWART TITLE
GUARANTY COMPANY
Pit 1
0 0
'?se v
5 5
•
r �
''•9� +4=63 —'.Q
o I -200=12 _
--
C.6*.•�! LL=2 8
10
PI=10 10
LEGEND:
LEG ND:
F7Z Topsoil; organic silty clay, soft, wet, brown.
•
71.ffii. Clayey Gravel (GC) ; sandy, with cobbles and boulders to 3 feet in size, median
dense, moist to very moist, light brown, subangular rock.
Disturbed bulk sample. •
•
NOTES:
•
1. Exploratory pit was excavated on October 3, 1989 with a backhoe.
2. Location of exploratory pit was measured approximately by pacing from
features shown on the site plan provided.
3. Elevation of the exploratory pit was not measured and the log of the pit is
drawn to depth.
4. The exploratory pit location should be considered accurate only to the degree
implied by the method used.
5. The lines between materials shown on the exploratory pit log represent the
approximate boundaries between material types and transitions may be gradual.
6. No free water was encountered in the pit at the tine the pit was excavated.
Fluctuations in water level may occur with time.
7. Laboratory Testing Results:
WC = Water Content (%)
+4 = Percent retained on No. 4 sieve
-200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve
LL = Liquid Limit (%)
PI = Plasticity Index (%)
4 102 90 Chen @Northern,Inc Log o Exploratory Pit, Legend Fig. 2
and Dotes
.•!v2'„1ME E? ANALYSIS SIEVE- AN AIL 1
71M5 READINGS L 5 S7A'.JA�^ "IIE_ �.-E'' SC:-.AE^ �-•E NIN3.j 1
ct•-F .+F .. -.
t WIN •°M:N 67 MIN `9 VIN t MIN • VIN '300 •100 •50 '40'30 •16. .1P P - 1' 3' 5 6 8-
102, --_
��- -- =_0 -- .14■4144m
imMomm■- I_1■40•441■1 �. oa���
�� .
�� 0
9, ---■4= - -M114■_���--rata--
���-����� ��� =�--NIM
���. M>r_20
8, ...11144414414• anomm.. �ss -- I ����
����-��---- -r,MINNI■INE■JIII -r_
MIMMISMIIIIEMSEMENDENION__ --30
• ■INEMINIIIMIIIM0111■111■1■IMEMMIMS■Milil■INE■11INEMOINNUMEN■N■r/S/INNENIVNONNEIONIIMI -,
(J) -MMEM--MOMN -IM■MMMMIOMMIENEIMMMMEsm Q
n ■IIIONMEIMMEI-EEISMINEMENINNEMMUMPOINILIMI ____
_ �� M��- w a
50- --_ --��- ----- ■••∎∎
• -����- -------�� W •
U U -�-�� ��� O��60 U
C 4G --���IMM4 ! ��Smi W
W � ��-lE■11.-- --mss_∎� -ONNED a •
• s∎■'EIMMINMEEM�IMIIIIIIMEMI■MINNEBM_M�/1 70
■∎ •v
MMM■ 0NN MMrNM■ _ ■. 80
27 MMM _ NIOMEMEMOMME ��- ■ -sue •MMIMOMMOMM■1111■
mINOMNEr_�s--N■1M-- --- •milmm-
N■imEs ! MMIIMMMM■ ■ UI∎ MMEMIIM _ MM■
10 AEI4MMM ■E-•-- ■-mMM ■ IUMNMO 90 ,
0 1■11MNIINNIMININESMMMEIMI.MIEEDIwMM.EM.SEMINMUM∎MM.aNIMMS∎MI INNEIMMMMIIE SUMMONED 100
.001 .002 .005 .009 ;010 .037 074 149 .297 4Z 590 1 19 22038 4 76 9 52 19 1 38.1 76.2 127 200 •
I DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS l
SAND GRAVEL
COBBLES
CLAY TO SILT FINE I MEDIUM ICDARSE_ FINE j COARSE
GRAVEL 63 % SAND 25 % ' SILT AND CLAY 12 %
LIQUID LIMIT 28 . % PLASTICITY INDEX 10
SAMPLE OF clayey sandy gravel FROM Pit 1 at 8 feet to 10 feet
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS
'.IME READINGS
U 5.STANDARD SERIES ._EAR SQUARE OPENINGS
1.
24 HR. 7 HR. 10 4 .. 1, • 3.. 5..6..
4E MIN 15{MIN. 60 MIN. 19 MIN 4 MIN ; MIN '200 '100 '50 '40'30 '16 1 6 0
100 1 I I 1 I I 1 I [
93 Ili i , ' , f t i ' 1 �G
80 r
i 20
t 1 .f 1 ,•
:
t
+ ' : '30
70 .• . r j ; i
C 1 ; 4°C .■
Z GO• E • 1 ,; } I
a50 4 i _ . I } � ' i l , SOc
r ; �� 1 i _
I
W
_ 1 r 60U•
C 40 � + I 1 1 W
0. , }i 70 a
30 - •
t , +
I 1 ; t
t
i
10 I • _• , . i ' -,90
i ' I
f
0 lemelmomaw■■ _SEEMMUS■ENNOMrMEMENEINEMOISNMINENII WM 4NININIPMMO NIM 100
.001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .074 .149 .297 42 590 1.19 2 . -4.76 9.52 19 1 38 1 76.2 127 200 152 1
I DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS
SAND GRAVEL
COBBLES
CLAY TO SILT FINE I MEDIUM !COARSE! FINE I COARSE
GRAVEL % SAND % SILT AND CLAY %
•
% .
LIQUID LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX
SAMPLE OF FROM
4 102 90 Chen-Northern, Inc. GRADATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 3
CA-2-79
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Engineer
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
RE: Field Exemption from 8040 Greenline Review
DATE: December 27, 1989
Attached for your review and comments is an application for
exemption from. in Review.
O
Please review this material and return your comments to me within
one week. This is a Planning Director approval. Thank you.
IRECtIVED
pct 11;�g89
GitY rg`lleel