HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.1125 Ute Ave.04A-89FJ
7%.
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED: 2/9/89 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO.
DATE COMPLETE: 02 2737- 182 -68 -0 A 9
STAFF MEMBER: V-1-L-
b a-rh e r
PROJECT NAME: H9*6 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW
Project Address: 1125 UTE AVENUE,
Legal Address: LOT 3 HOAG SUBDIVISION, S18- T10S -R84W
APPLICANT: JACK BARKER
Applicant Address: LOT 3 HOAG SUBDIVISION
REPRESENTATIVE: JOE ZALUBi
Representative Address /Phone:
925 -4600 OR 925 -4662
PAID: YES NO AMOUNT: $780. NO. OF COPIES RECEIVED: 8
TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: V/ 2 STEP:
1?
P &Z Meeting Date 311 J
PUBLIC
HEARING:
YES
NO
8 a 7
VESTED
RIGHTS:
YES
NO
CC Meeting Date
PUBLIC
HEARING:
YES
NO
VESTED
RIGHTS:
YES
NO
Planning Director Approval:
Paid:
Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption:-
Date:
Aspen Mtn_ --.Bl School District
, Parks Dept. Rocky Mtn Nat Gas
Ho ros- State Hwy Dept(GW)
Wa er- 're Marshall State Hwy Dept(GJ)
City Electric Building Inspector
nvi: - aring Fork Other
Aspen Consol. Ener Inter
S.D. U�
DATE REFERRED:
FINAL ROUTING:
INITIALS:
N
DATE ROUTED: I ULI IA I INITIAL:
City Atty City Engineer Zoning Env. Health
Housing Other: n 1
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:
' J
*K
-!J
ASPEN • PITKIN
December 22, 1993 PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT
Mr. Joseph S..Zaluba
Mr. Ronald C. Collen
1120 Heatherton
Naperville, Illinois 605,63
Dear Mssers. Zaluba and Collen,
Our records indicate that, as the property owners of Lot 3 Hoag
Subdivision, you still owe the Aspen %Pitkin County Planning and
Zoning Department. $3,570.00 for 42 hours of staff work during 1990
and $4042.75 for 25.75 .hours of work done in 1992 and 1993 all
pertaining to the 8040 Greenline review of your property.
.It is our policy to table further development review for property
owners that have outstanding fees to the Department. Therefore,
we would like to request. payment. and no,tify.you that the 8040
Greenline application recently submitted'-by Charif,Souki will not
.be, rescheduled before- the Planning and Zoning Commission until this
office has received payment. .
Sin erely.,
Diane oore, Planning Director
cc: John Worcester, City Attorney
Marti Pickett, Mr. Zaluba's Representative
Brooke Peterson, Mr. Souki's Representative
N
130 SOUTH GALENA STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 • PHONE 303.920.5090 FAx 303.920.5197
Printed on -y�W paper
i
i
April 15, 1991
Marti Pickett
McFlynn & Pickett
P.O. Box I
Aspen, Colorado 81612,
Re:_ Hoag /Barker 8040 Greenline Review
Dear Marti:
On March 1, 1991 I sent Mr. Joe Zalub� r n+� tern fl-eritaga Log
Homes a letter requesting payment due invoice, He
wrote back that an audit had been 'reque� {� f ar never received.
Leslie Lamont was the planner on this `sr* e. I have gone through
her time sheets back to 1989. The times"leets are attached and if
you will look on the back of each one, I have highlighted the
hours worked on Hoag in green.
I've attached all the correspondence I could find regarding the
billing for this project. When I add up the hours that Leslie
indicates were spent, I arrive at 46. This does not count the
hours that Cindy Houben spent on it. I see from the letter sent
by Debbie Skehan on August 1, 1990, that since there had been a
change in planners, 42 hours were to be charged and therefore the
invoice for $3,570.00.
If I can be of any further assistance, please give me a call.
Sincerely,
Pat Belfont
Administrative Secretary
As p en /Pit ping Office
130 treet
Asp 611
(303) 92 920 -5197
March 1, 1991 .
Western Heritage Log Homes
P.O. Box 0 1 �.
Aspen, for o 81611
1
Att: Joe Zaluba
Re: AMOUNT DUE: $3,570 -00
INVOICE`- 7242 - $3,570 BARKER /ROAC .�.ItP�T:fwINE REVIEW
Dear Joe:
It has come to our attention that your acs' ;:nt WIILLi l the City of
Aspen is past due. . If you have *recently wailed itour payment,
please disregard this notice.
A copy of 'the above referenced invoices are available upon
request. If you have any questions concerning your account,
the Planning � please call Pat Belfont at g Office (920 - 5090).
Your prompt attention to this matter is g�-.-eatly appreciated.
cerely,
Pat Belfont
Administrativ Secretary
/Vf
LAl��
f� l .
recycled paper i t {
INVOICE DATE
7/31%90
QUANTITY
p.0. ,ORDER DATE VENDOR # CR
007127. 9561.3 007127
UNIT DESCRIPTION OF SUPPLIES OR SERVICES UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
�_ UYa ina Amoaflt Invoiced 0072421 ._:._ - �,Y . $38 5:00
A!—,ount
3 hours zt ?85 2 . (I C.
DEPT. HEAD OR AUTHORIZED AGENT TOTAL
AMOUNT
i^ .
Aspen/Pil
130 s
aspe
August 1, 1990
Marti Pickett
McFlynn & Pickett'
P. O. Box I
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Hoag 8040 Greenline Review
Dear Marti,,
`i
ing Off`c
treet
81611
Upon receipt of your letter I asked Sara to pull toc, -ther t_ie
timesheets logging. hours to this project. I also :as;-; d. Lem ``.e
Lamont 'to review the time she logged in light of thE� specif,.c
concerns brought up in your letter.
After checking. the timesheets Leslie. feels that her first three
hours were spent in getting up to speed on the project. 'We agree
that your client should -not have to pay additional charges
incurred due to the Planner changing during the process,
therefore, we will reduce our invoice from 45 hours to 42 hours.
Amy Margerum,'the Planning Director,. feels that this project was
very difficult and controversial, the meetings being attended ;by
many of the neighbors and their representatives. She believes
that all the rest of the hours charged are correct., The site "s
a difficult one due to the steep slopes, avalanche chutes on-the
property, and the questionable access to the proper —, and ;N ;::a
the considerable time spent on this project was warre,, Lzd.
I am enclosing a revised invoice in the amount of $3';.x. `;`i.00 which
I am confident is a fair and correct billing for this: Pks?oject.
Sincerely,
Deborah Skehan,
Administrative Assistant
MEMORANDUM
TO: Amy Margerum
FROM: Leslie Lamont
RE: Hoag 8040 billing
DATE: July 24, 1990
Marti Pickett has responded to the billing of the Hoag 8040
application questioning the excessive hours. Debbie and Sara
have.-asked me to review the letter and the hours that I logged
for review of this application.
Mr. Zaluba_ paid for 5.of work. 50 hours of staff time was spent
on this, project. He has been billed for 45 hours. This was. a
very difficult project. It was also very controversial. Many
neighbors and. their representatives attended the Planning and
Zoning commission meetings.
The 8040 Greenline review process requires a one step review by
the P &Z. The site is a difficult one due to the steep slopes,
avalanche chutes on the property, and. the questionable access to
the property.
Cindy prepared a P &Z memo for a meeting in April 1989. That
review was tabled. I took over the project when the applicant
submitted new information and took the project to the P &Z in
August. Again it was tabled for additional information and a
redesign of the. house. Another meeting was scheduled for
November which was tabled- again because two new issues had
surfaced. The P &Z meeting in December, voted not to approve the
project., The applicant returned to the P &Z in January and gained
approval for a substantially revised project.
Review of this project required numerous preparation of memos for
the P &Z meetings. Continual review of new information 'that was
requested and .many site visits and meetings with the applicant,
the applicant's lawyer, neighbors and neighbor's lawyers.
My initial three hours that are shown on Sara's time charts I can
safely say were educational time and could be waived. This
addresses Marti's concern that staff changed in mid- review. But
all the other hours that were .spent on this project I firmly
believe are warranted.
I'would be happy to go through the file with you and /or Marti.
cc: Debbie Skehan.
Sara Jones
LA`"
MESSAGE DISP
TO Amy Marge'rum TO. Leslie Lamont
TO Sara Jones BC Debbie Skehan
From: Debbie Skehan
Postmark: Jul 13,90 2:38 PM
Status: Previously read
Subject: Hoag 8040 Greenline Additional Billing
----------------------------------------------------------.--------------------
Message:
We received a letter from Marty Pickett protesting an invoice for 45
additional hours. I asked Leslie to write something in response to
the specifics in the letter and I asked Sara to pull together
information on the hours charged, what dates were they
charged and how spent them, Lez or Cindy so that we
can respond to Marty. I put a copy of the letter in your mail.
Thanks.
McFLYNN & P,Y= .;:KETT
LAWYERS
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
THE SMITH- ELISHA HOUSE
320 WEST MAIN STREET. SUITE 1
P.O. BOX I
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
TIMOTHY. McFLYNN'
MARTHA C. PICKETT
A so A.—O m C—o —
July 11, 1990
Aspen /Pitkin Planning_ Office
130 S...Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
ATTN: Sarah Jones, Administrative Secl ay
RE: Hoag 8040 Greenline Review: •
Dear Ladies and C,.�; htlemen:
TELEPHONE (303) 925 -2211
TELECOPIER (303) 925 -2442
ljt�f 13:
My client, �'ue Zaluba, received yuul LifIv —,Lcc�, dated June 20,
1990, charging additional fees for 45 err p n..ing hours beyond
the five hours which were allocated for t; rz- "iew of his applica-
tion for 8040 Greenline Approval. It i�;<a k�c it ion that these
additional fees are not warranted riot. sick #' <<ntiated because the
additional time required for review by the ' ylanning -Staff resulted
from circumstances outside Mr: Zaluba's control.
During the review process, a new Cit 'i`lanner was substituted
on the project, which created delay and a tabling of one of the
first Planning and Zoning Hearings because, the new planner, Leslie
Lamont, requested additional informatJ-tn which had not been
requested by the prev'ous planner, Cindy Houben. Most of the site
Vicii anr7. rc�7icc_) �'.nc by the 'Pla. nin-c- .& "nni-ng ('nnmj., 7n w?R fill?
to the City's request that 'the Applicant redesign the access
easement to the property,to avoid the dual- use of the driveway with
the ski trail. The Applicant was wiling to go through this
lengthy, expensive alternative design process, including increased
engineering design fees, drainage design fees and legal ;fees, even
though he had the legal right to imprpve the road �s . it was
originally located. Please note that 13 6T the 15 final- ±:.onditions
of approval relate solely to the relocation of the dri% T.iay.
Aspen /Pitkin- Planning Office
July 11, 1 "990
Page 2
If you would like to discuss this matter further, please do
not hesitate to call me. I believe.that upon your review of the
circumstances in this particular case, you will agree that the
additional planning fees are not warranted.
Sincerely,
McFLYNN & PICKETT, P.C.
By: ha Pickett
M t 11
MCP /kl.m
cc: Joe Zaluba
zaluba \planning.711,
INVOICE NO
I'? i
CITY OF AS No. 0 ? 4 L
130 S. Galena P 1 ann in
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
DEPT...
SOLD TO: SHIPPED TO
• Wester:: iterita�.e cc, t 17i,,mes
'_ Box 9640.
Aspen, CO
ATTN: v
• oe Ea1uba
-
AC COUN T
CODING
ING
DU FUND n DEPT.. FUNCTION
. - -1 r 6l 3 110712'7
INVOICE DATE P.O.. ORDER DATE VENDOR # CRL '0" 13 00000 63230
6J20/90 007127
QUANTITY UNIT
DESCRIPTION OF.SUPPLIES OR SERVICES UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
BarkerJrloa 6reenline- .ne`tie�; .
-
s:uurslicc- =c, SC Tlcu�s rlc�ur,. ,
k,d
4:, c:itional Hours arl85.00 /�oix 3825.G0
DEPT. HEAD OR AUTHORIZED AGENT
TOTAL
AMOUNT
J 2
��_i E;
ASPEN /PITRIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 S. Galena Street,
Aspen, Colorado 81611
June 19, 1,990
Western Heritage Log Homes
Box 9640
Aspen, CO 81612
ATTN: Joe Zaluba
RE: Barker /Hoag Greenline Review
Dear Mr. Zaluba:
In a recent review of our records we found that:' add itnal monies
were due us for the above-captioned application..
Enclosed is an invoice for the additional time, spent by the
Planning Department. There were (5) hours allocated= and (50)
hours have been, on the project to date. being
invoiced for (4-L) additional hours at a rate o f rye ° hour
for a total due of $3825.00.
If you have any questions regarding this bill,, please give .me a
call. a
sin Terely, -
9I&L J A
Sara Jones
Administrative Secretary
encl
0
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner
DATE: January 19, 1993
RE: Hoag Lot 3 8040 Greenline Wall Amendment
SUMMARY: When the 8040 Greenline approval was granted for Hoag Lot
3 in January of 1990 there was a specific retaining wall plan
approved by the Commission.
Since that approval the applicant, together with Randy/Wedum the
architect for the adjacent property owner, have revised the plans
for the retaining wall. A revision of this extent is a substantial
amendment to the original 8040 Greenline review.
APPLICANT: Joe Zaluba, as represented by Marti Pickett and Randy
Wedum
LOCATION: Hoag Subdivision Lot 3, Aspen Colorado
ZONING: Conservation
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Please refer to Engineering comments, Exhibit
A.
STAFF COMMENTS: The 1990 Greenline approval included a tie -in and
boulder retaining wall for the new road cut to access the proposed
single family home. Please see typical section for tie -in wall and
boulder wall, Exhibit B.
During recent non - compliance hearings, the applicant proposed a new
wall design for staff's review.
The original wall was designed for retainage purposes and meant to
reduce erosion of the upper slope. The boulder wall segments were
also intended for aesthetic purposes.
The revised wall is a 32" precast exposed aggregate concrete stem
wall. Please see entry road sketch, Exhibit C.
As the application states, "Its purpose is not to retain; it is
mainly serving as a barrier for water drainage from the hillside,
debris flow from the uphill side, as well as allowing for a
drainage channel for the driveway." The wall will also act as a
barrier from cars and snowplows under - cutting the base of the cut
hillside.
Staff has reviewed this revision with the applicant's
representatives. Based upon the expertise of the engineers working
on this revision, staff understands that the precast wall will
require less grading and cutting back of the upper slope compared
to a boulder wall or any other system. Because of the structural
integrity of the slope, basically dry stacked stones, a strong
retainage system is unnecessary. A tie -in wall would require
extensive cribbing of the slope which is not required. The precast
wall provides :a barrier to undercutting and channels drainage.
With hydromulching and revegetation of the upper slope, erosion
potential will be reduced. In addition the precast wall has a
lower profile than a tie -in wall. The revised wall proposal offers
a physically sound.solution with minimal impact.
RECOMMENDATION; Because less grading of the upper slope is
required and the lower wall is less obtrusive than a potentially
8 foot high tie -in wall staff recommends approval of the revised
wall plan with'the following conditions:
1. Prior to construction of the wall:
a. all !previous approvals that do not pertain to design
shall remain in effect.
b. the 'applicant shall coordinate the tree location plan
and /;or replacement program with the Park's Department.
i
C. details showing final grades and revegetation of the
upper road cut shall be provided.
d. the applicant shall consult with the Rappaport's to
determine whether a large evergreen above their residence
is unstable and should be cut down.
2. A geotechnical engineer shall perform field monitoring during
slope grading and retaining wall construction/ installation.
A signed and stamped letter shall be provided that all
construction was completed in accordance to drawings and
specifications.
i
3. Signage shall be posted warning nordic skiers and drivers that
they share the lower driveway. Only the uphill side of the
shared auto /nordic road shall be plowed.
4. Hydroseeding /mulching shall be provided for any areas
disturbed by the removal of the debris.
5. A guarantee for the hydroseeding /mulching, plus a 30%
contingency for City administration time to compete the
project, shall be provided on or before February 24, 1993 if
this wasl not already included in the original letter of
credit.
•
r
6. The trail width near the lower portion of the access road
shall not be compromised for the access road and shall remain
8 feet wide.
7. This approval is subject to all the terms and conditions of
the Findings and Order Resolution of December 15, 1992.
8. The applicant shall adhere to all representations made during
the Commission's review.
EXHIBITS
A. Referral Comments
B. Section�of the tie -in wall and boulder wall
C. Entry Road Sketch and explanation of wall and revegetation
K.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
EXHIBIT APPROVED ,
MEMORAkgDJJ BY RESOLUTION
To: Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner
From: Rob Thomson, Project Engineer k
Il
Date: January 13, 1993
Re: Zaluba Access Road - amendment
With reference to the drawings submitted requesting precast wall units in lieu of a tie back
retaining wall I have the following comments:
I. All previous approvals that do not pertain to design shall remain in effect.
1. The applicant .shall coordinate the tree location plan acid /or replacement program
with the Park's Department.
2. A geotechinical engineer must perform field monitoring during slope grading and
retaining wall construction /installation. A signed and stamped letter must be
provided that all construction was completed in accordance to drawings and
specifications.
3. The submitted plan did not show locations for the required signage.
\4. There was no mention of regrading and revegetation.of the upper road cut. Details
showing final grades and revegetation should be provided.
5. Apparently the fence separating the trail and the driveway has been deleted.
Warning signs should be placed notifying both skiers and motorists.
6. Hydroseeding /mulching must be provided for any areas disturbed by the removal
of the debris.
7. A guarantee for the hydroseeding/mulching must be provided.
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.l
® PLANNINJ ZONING COMMISSION
EXHIBIT r APPROVED
19 BY RESOLUTION --
EXISTING
SLOPE
v
WIDTH OF TIE -BACK WALL:
3 FT. MAXIMUM
2 FT. MINIMUM
-- I
r
d 12
TOPSOIL AS NECESSARY. PLACE
OF COMPACTED CLASS 6 AGGREGATE
SE COURSE ON COMPACTED SUBGRADE.
77REMOVE
LL TO 95% STANDARD PROCTOR).
4 FT. MINIMUM - -! . EP, ROCK FILLED
DITCH /TOE DRAIN. FILL
DITCH WTH 1 -1/2' SCREENED ROCK.
TYPICAL SECTION, 1 +00 TO 5 +73.35
NOTE:
TIE -BACK WALL CONSTRUCTION WILL BE LET AS
A SEPARATE DESIGN /BUILD CONTRACT TO A
CONTRACTOR NORMALLY ENGAGED IN SUCH BUSINESS.
EXIST.
SLOPE I - -1 /2: I CUT SLOPE
OR EX/ST/NG SLOPE
WHERE REASONABL E
EXIST. ROADWAY BENCH
_ (NOT TO BE WIDENEDI
I T. I2.0• WIDT 1 WR'ES
7�yE MIN.
PLACE BOULDERS ROAD PORRON TRAIL POR77ON
SCAR /FY B RESEED
AGAINST NEW CUT 05 6.00' 6.00'
SHORT (3' TO 6) RETAINING I MIN.
WALL AS 'KEYSTONE" SYSTEM OR
GRAVITY ROCK WALL WHERE NEEDED
TO PROTECT EXISTING TREES OR
STEEP CUT SLOPES.
89 �rOPSOIL ANGULAR BOULDERS TYP. MINIMUM BASE Is +l . SIZE 2 FT MINIMUM ALLOWABLE SIZE REMO
FOR INCLUSION IN WALL IS 1.5 FT. B15�ia
rig � PLACE 4" OF COMPACTED CL. 6
2 FT. DEEP, ROCK FILLED DITCH /TOE AGGREGATE BASE COURSE ON COMPACTED
DRAIN. FILL DITCH WITH I -112" SUBGRADE. (ALL TO 95% STANDARD
SCREENED ROCK. PROCTOR.)
�FACF�. FT' TYPICAL ROAD SECTION
STATION I0 +00 TO 12.52.13, EXISTING ROADWAY
NO SCALE
^i C)
EXIS
DO A
• � f T"^C i � �� ;�
rl
Y= n
v
•
it
F✓A ': ..Fez '3`
ry.� •• � � X�if F Z! � ' yw*"ii ri � � � r Z � � i -
,yam �r,���- z•Y. a�� a � �" 3 n�
._ -.. '. °Gx .: f r'4 .w.. ,, ,f;�.w r'.. +� �, j � s '�" �� '�..� i✓� .r .2- i.�aal�:i1�
_.: -' t , � �,. ti ' �"' .. y �., ' i '" t.iy r �..z'� ; *�,4 F,'�z •. iii
r
kl
►it'. Wit?-: ,• : ,. F� ..
c
are'
M
4 rJ .71
' y t m; ° Kt t11 O
6�. ,ti. �'. ,r �. ;'�. - +��,.,.r�`�,,�yc� �1- .;.',Er -�"v Kati #�. - xi- •.�:y'p-' - �i�.� �'.. �.
'::'1^ l • r r ''kTmy RO.L.- t'�yh$#'..1 ~Gy -
s t.
j
�Y {+ , b ,:=Y <' _ "�- _ e,+ -.,- L � r a`w. ;vim„' .. }$. - .r�,, .E••'
AaWl-T Mir— � :�-' %4. `Sa..4>�•'-y �'` .
S 4�+��•� �3 Z� +u+��v.:�',c+ex*= �a�:na?Ci't� -' �x±:?,�+, 'a�'''....s�'"�`:,+a?�'i� it .s � ;� st���.$•;•�r .��, ysa���������� ,�`' .
'� ,._4ai:,_- "+..a;.y;.. .� 4.:. R�t�y�.S'c' "`n' .�,y"JS+afi,••�^;. - �. r 'c 5 - rr- 'r^- 7.. ra. #, �+,�,.,,ltiar �''�- • �.
tea. k:�4F }y,rx
�+ �;, � ",� �... _ i _ :;% tip � Yom:. • d.
E � �4 ROAD KE w�
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REVOKING THE 1990 8040 GREENLINE APPROVAL
FOR LOT 3 OF THE HOAG SUBDIVISION ASPEN COLORADO
Resolution No. 93 -10
WHEREAS,. on December 15, 1992, the applicant Mr. Joseph Zaluba
entered into a Findings and Order agreement regarding his .1990 8040
Greenline approval for Hoag Subdivision Lot 3; and
WHEREAS, condition (b) of the Order stated that if the
contract purchaser of the property fails to close on or before
February 24, 1993, and no substitute Letter of Credit is submitted
by or on behalf of the applicant from an institution and in a form
approved by the City Attorney on or before said closing date, the
8040 Greenline Approval shall automatically expire and the
applicant shall be deemed to have waived the right to any further
hearings before the Commission; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has failed to comply with condition
(b) : the contract purchaser did not close on the property on or
before February 24, 1993, and a substitute Letter of Credit was not
submitted to the City Attorney before the close of the business day
February 24, 1993; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms of the Findings and Order of
December 15, 1992, the 1990 8040 Greenline Approval has expired on
February 25, 1993.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the Planning and Zoning
Commission affirms that pursuant to the Findings and Order of
December 15, 1993, the January 2, 1990, 8040 Greenline approval for
Hoag Subdivision Lot 3, $kspen Colorado is revoked. Any further
development of the property shall require an 8040 Greenline
approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Entered this day of March 2, 1993.
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
By
Jasmine Tygre, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Jan Carney, Deputy City Clerk
•
MEMORANDUM.
To: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
From: Chuck Roth, City Engineer C
Date: September 12, 1.993
Re: SOL►ki Conditional Use and 8040 Greenline Reviews
•
± SEP 4 3
i
Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site inspection, the
Engineering Department has the following comments:
Review for Accessory Dwelling.
L. This parcel has been the subject of numerous discussions which usually include the
statement that the lot would not be approved as a subdivided lot under current standards.
Therefore it appears to be inadvisable to approve any increased density on the parcel, and
the Engineering Department recommends against approval of the accessory dwelling unit.
This is due most specifically to problems related to emergency vehicle access discussed
below, but also relates to the undesirability of any snore traffic on the access road.
8040 Greenline Review
I.. If and where possible, the access road shall be constructed 28' in width in order to
provide. a 20' wide emergency access width with the Nordic trail located on the inside,
uphill side of the road so that snow removal does not push snow onto the Nordic trail.
A Nordic trail might be aligned through the trees in lieu of alongside the access road.
2. The recent symposium in Snowmass; Transportation Facilities through Difficult
Terrains, provided the information that retaining walls can now be built from the top
down. Thus, retaining walls can be virtually perpendicular and do not require laid back
slopes with increased removal of vegetation. I am working on having materials concerning
this technique for the P & Z meeting. Is suggested that a condition of approval be that
all necessary retaining walls be constructed using this technique and that the architectural
appearance be approved by city staff and /or the P & Z.
3. It does not appear feasible to provide significant improvements for tare truck access
to the intersection of the access road and Ute Avenue. It appears that fire response
vehicles must turn around in the cul de sac at the end of Ute Avenue. This should still
provide response times equal to or better than other locations in City limits.
cc: Bob Gish, Public Works Director M9�31.103
•
TO LESLIE LAMONT
MESSAGE DISPLAY
•
From: Wayne Vandemark
Postmark: Aug 25,93 10:44 AM
Status: Certified Urgent
Subject: SOUKI CONDITIONAL
------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Message:
WE NEED TO SEE MORE ON THIS PROJECT. AS IT IS NOW THE GRADE WILL BE
TO STEEP FOR FIRE APPARATUS. I ---NQT
�L-iT`— E$bI�NIEN�' Tr�zn rTr—vv1mT iyyi nCULrz� THE STRUCTURE WILL HAVE TO BE
SPRINKLERED PER ORD. # 31 DUE TO THE GEOGRAPHICS OF THE PROPOSED
STRUCTURE. I THINK WE ALL BETTER TAKE A CLOSE LOOK AT THIS.
MESSAGE DISPLAY
TO LESLIE LAMONT
From: Wayne Vandemark
Postmark: Sep 02,93 1:26 PM
Status: Certified Urgent
Subject: SOUKI SITE VISIT
------------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - --
Message:
THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WILL APPROVE A THREE POINT ENTRANCE FROM UTE AVE.
THE ACCESS ROADWAY SHALL BE 161. I AM WAITING TO SEE THE PRINTS FROM
ALFRED TO SEE THE ENTRANCE, ROADWAY, AND THE AREA FOR THE FIRE
APPARATUS TO TURN AROUND AND GET BACK DOWN THE HILL. ALL THESE ISSUES
MUST BE COMPLIED WITH BEFORE THE FIRE DEPARTMENT CAN CLEAR THE
PROJECT AND ESTABLISH AN ISO RATING WITH THE INSURANCE COMPANY. WE
HAVE DETERMINED THAT DRIVING PAST THE ADDRESS TO THE CUL -DE -SAC WOULD
NOT WORK DUE TO THE TIME, DISTANCE, AND CARS PARKED THERE DURING THE
WINTER MONTHS.
•
MEMORANDUM
•
i�l
SEP 9
1
TO: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office FROM: Rebecca Rebecca Baker, Assistant Parks Director
DATE: September 8, 1993
RE: Souki Conditional Use and 8040 Greenline Application Lot
Hoag Subdivision
We have reviewed the documents submitted on behalf of Mr. Souki
for development of Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision and have a few
questions /concerns.regarding the application.
0
On page 2, second paragraph, the applicant discusses the previous
approvals of the property. The statement regarding plowing of the
shared auto /nordic road is confusing. It currently reads,
"plowing on the uphill side only if the shared auto /nordic
road... The statement would make sense.if the "if" is supposed
to be "of." However, if the original is correct, then more .
information is necessary to understand the meaning the applicant
intends. Additionally, we would request detailed specifications
for the shared driveway /nordic trail, including surface material,
width of area to be paved (if paved), curb and gutter detail if
proposed, and information on how to separate driveway use from
pedestrian /nordic uses. The method of plowing is also important
so as not to obstruct the use of the nordic trail.
1
0 0
MEMORANDUM
TO: LESLIE LAMONT, PLANNING OFFICE
FROM: LARRY BALLENGER, WATER SUPERINjT LENT
DATE: AUGUST 25, 1993
SUBJECT: SOUKI 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW
The Water Department has reviewed the Conditional Use and 8040 Review for application by
Souki.
The City does have adequate capacities and infrastructure in place in Ute Avenue to serve this
proposal. The applicants design engineer needs to determine if adequate pressures exist in the
City system to supply this residence. If the residence is located at an elevation that minimum
water pressures, as established by the Colorado Health Department, cannot be achieved, the
applicant will have to install a booster pump and pressure tank to compensate for that deficiency.
LB:rl
lab10 /souki.mem
n
.aspen Consolidated Sanitation
565 North Mill Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Tele. (303) 925 -3601
Sy Kelly - Chairman
John J. Snyder - Treas.
Louis Popish - Secy.
August 27, 1993
Leslie Lamont
Planning Office
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Souki Conditional Use Review
Dear Leslie:
I cannot tell from our maps whether
Subdivision is within our district
will need to review his most recent
levy was charged for our District. If
the applicant will need to petition
forms available at our office. Our
through the Hoag Subdivision.
Cc,
11 F
AUG 2 7
1Distrti 41
FAX #(303) 925 -2537
Albert Bishop
Frank Loushin
Bruce Matherly, Mgr.
or not lot 3 of the Hoag
boundaries. The applicant
tax notice to see if a mill
a levy was not charged then
for inclusion. I have the
boundary appears to run
Once membership to the District is established, then service can
be provided contingent upon compliance with our rules and
regulations. If a common service line is to be used to connect
both dwellings to our system, then the line will need to be 6" in
diameter. No clear water connections may be made to our system
such as roof, patio, foundation or terrace drains.
We need to see a site plan
service line locations an
showing the proposed route
connect this-project to
drawings submitted how the
way or our system.
Sincerely,
Bruce Matherly
District Manager
of the subdivision which shows current
d easements and a site plan for lot 3
and easement for the service line to
our system. I cannot tell from the
lot matches up with public rights of
EPA AWARDS OF EXCELLENCE
1976 - 1986 - 1990
REGIONAL AND NATIONAL
MESSAGE DISPLAY
TO LESLIE LAMONT CC BILL DRUEDING
From: Bill Drueding
Postmark: Aug 25,93 10:50 AM
Subject: CONDITIONAL USE AND 8040 GREENLINE LOT 3 HOAG SUBD.
Message:
THE ELEVATIONS SUPPLIED IN THE PACKET INDICATE THAT THE HEIGHT OF
THE BUILDING IS 29.3 FEET WHICH EXCEEDS THE 28 FEET ALLOWED BY CODE
MEASURED BETWEEN THE RIDGE AND THE EAVE..THIS IS ALL I HAVE TO GO ON.
THIS PROJECT IS BEFOR THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ON SEPTEMBER 2ND FOR
FRONT YARD SET BACK VARIANCE ... WE NO LONGER HAVE THE PLANS THAT WERE
APPROVED FOR ZALUBA SO I CANNOT VERIFY THAT THIS BUILDING IS IN THE
SAME CONFIGURATION,I WOULD LIKE TO SEE WHERE THE ADU IS GOING.
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Leslie Lamont, Planning
FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing
0
DATE: September 8, 1993
RE: SOURI CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING
UNIT
Parcel ID No. 2737 - 182 -68 -001
After reviewing the above - referenced application, the Housing
Office approves the proposed attached accessory dwelling unit
pursuant to Chapter 24, Section 5 -510, of the City of Aspen
Municipal Code:
Accessory dwelling units shall contain not less than three hundred (300) square feet of allowable floor
area and not more than seven hundred (700) square feet of allowable floor area. The unit shall be
deed restricted, meeting the housing authority's guidelines for resident occupied units and shall be
limited to rental periods of not less than six (6) months in duration. Owners of the principal residence
shall have the right to place a qualified employee or employees of his or her choosing in the
accessory dwelling unit.
The floor area requirement is for net liveable square feet as
defined by the Housing Office below:
Net Liveable Square Footage is calculated on interior living area and is measured interior wall to
interior wall, including all interior partitions including, but not limited to, habitable basements and
interior storage areas, closets and laundry area. Exclusions include, but are not limited to,
uninhabitable basements, mechanical areas, exterior storage, stairwells, garages (either attached or
detached), patios, decks and porches.
-� Per the applicant's calculations, the accessory dwelling unit is to
be 420 net liveable square feet. which meets the minimum Housing
Office_.Guidelines.l
C
MEMORANDUM
s
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM:. Leslie Lamont, Planning
DATE: June 16, 1992
RE: Zaluba 8040 Greenline Approval Noncompliance
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.
It is the City Attorney's recommendation that the Planning and
Zoning Commission schedule a hearing "with Mr. Zaluba to review his
1990 8040 Greenline approval, with the potential action of
revocation of his 8040 Greenline approval. Staff will provide a
full review of violations prior to the meeting with Mr. Zaluba.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning
Commission schedule a hearing to re- review 8040 Greenline approval
for Hoag Lot 3 with Mr. Zaluba for the July 7, 1992 Commission
meeting.
30
September 3, 1991
Ms. Martha C. Pickett
McFlynn & Pickett
P.O. Box I
Aspen, Colorado 81612
fodicn
Re: Zaluba Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision
Dear Marty:
a
SPEN
et
ey
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
iec yded paper
i
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
0
October 30, 1990
' �
Ms. Martha C. Pickett
McFlynn & Pickett
P.O. Box I
Aspen, Colorado.81612
i,
Re: Zaluba Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision
Dear Marty:
•
ey
7
f 5�.
J #�
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
recycled paper
t
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.
McFLYNN & PICKETT
LAWYERS
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
THE SMITH - ELISHA HOUSE
320 WEST MAIN S - REET. SUITE 1
P.O. BOX I
ASPEN. COLORADO 816111
TIMOTHY MCFLYNN' o YMD 20 925 -2211
x„
MARTHA C. PICKETT TELECOPIES 61D 925 -2442
November 9, 1990
ALSO.DMI -C 11 C.i irp 111
Jed Caswall NO" 1950
City Attorney CITY ATTOFNEY'S
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81,511 OFFICE
RE: Zaluba Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision
Dear Jed:
This letter is in response to your letter dated October 30,
1990, regarding your concern related to the incompletion of the
access "road" to Mr. Zaluba aIs 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 him on this matter.
MCP /ljn
cc: Joe Zaluba
Leonard Oates, Esq.
zaluba \caswa111.109
Sincerely,
MCFLLY,N�N & P,ICKETT, P.C.
BY _LL(4
Martha/d. Pickett
"WK CO) 10A\ 10111u
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planner
RE: Barker /Zaluba Lot 3 - 8040 Greenline Review
DATE: November 14, 1989
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission, at their August 8, 1989 meeting tabled
this application. The Commission directed the applicant to work
on outstanding issues - primarily road separation and building
design.
The applicant has continued to work with the Planning staff and
other interested parties in addressing their concerns. Staff
recommends approval, with conditions, of this application.
The intent of. this memo is to summarize the outstanding issues,
and review the new information that the applicant has provided.
For a more detailed analysis and review of this project please
refer to the attachments including the August 8 Planning memo.
APPLICANT: Joe Zaluba, Western Heritage Log Homes, Inc.
LOCATION: Hoag Subdivision, Lot 3
STAFF COMMENTS: The two primary issues identified during the
Commission meeting were the design of the building and the
separation of the- access road from the nordic trail /utility
easement.
A. Building Design- Criterion 7 of the 8040 Greenline review
states: building height and bulk will be minimized and, the
structure will be designed to blend into the open character of
the mountain.
The: original building had an approximately 98 foot wide facade
stretching across the hillside. Staff strongly believed that the
design of the building was too conspicuous for its natural
mountain setting. Staff suggested an alternative design that was
more sensitive to the mountain setting. The Commission, agreeing
with staff, directed the applicant to rethink the building
design.
The current proposal reduces the building frontage along the hill
and steps the home up into the hillside, similar to the homes
below along Ute Avenue. The facade is approximately 74 feet wide
and articulated to set a precedent for scale that is more
compatible with the topography. Staff does recommend that the
applicant try and break up the large sloping roof. which appears
to have become a prominent feature of the home.
The floor area has remained approximately the same. The
applicant has provided a' computer sketch based upon elevations
taken from the entrance to 1010 Ute Avenue. This will be
displayed at the meeting for your review.
B. Road Separation- The first application proposed to access the,
house using the existing trail /utility easement that straddles
the northern property line. Many problems arose with the
intended use of this road. The Commission directed the applicant
to develop, if feasible, a separate access to the house.
The applicant has designed a new access road using existing
forest as a buffer between the existing and the proposed roads.
In addition, the applicant has received approval from the Forest
Service to widen the access road on their property (please see
attached letter A). Trees that must be removed and relocated to
construct the new road, have been identified to the satisfaction
of the Parks Department.
In. separating the road, the applicant has preserved the existing
nordic trail for year round use and eliminated the concerns from
home owners whose property abuts. the existing easement. Pat
Duffield, Trails Supervisor, has approved the new road alignment
(please see attached letter B). There remains a conflict between
the trail and the new road on the parcel of Forest Service land
where the two merge together. The applicant has proposed two
solutions to this conflict, either snowplow the south half of the
road on the forest service parcel creating a physical barrier of
snow, or gain an 'additional 5 to 10 feet of land and build a
berm. The second solution would require an adjustment of the
Special Use Permit and result in a 25 to 30 foot wide road cut.
Staff agrees to rely upon the home owner, other than Mr. Zaluba,
to build a snow barrier every year is unrealistic. To construct
a permanent berm is reasonable but the City should work with the
applicant and the Forest Service to acquire the additional road
width.
The following is a review_of additional issues requiring review:
A. Sprinkler Plan'- Wayne Vandermark, Fire Marshall has approved
the installation of a sprinkler system which meets the
requirements of NFPA 13D. Please see attached letter C.
B. Landscape Plan with Tree Replacement - The applicant has
submitted a landscape plan which. indicates the number of trees to
be removed during construction of,the road and excavation of the
house. The applicant has reviewed the plan and walked the site
with George Robinson of the Parks Department. George has
approved the applicant's conceptual plan for removal, relocation
and /or replacement as represented on the submitted plans (please
see attached letter D) .- The applicant and the Parks. Department
still need to identify the number of trees that will be used as a
2
replacement for those lost during construction. The usual
practice is a 2:1 ratio replacement of new smaller trees to those
lost. Often those trees are planted throughout the City if they
cannot be absorbed on site.
Of note: unlike the prominent excavated scars behind the homes on
Red Mountain, the excavation on Lot 3 will not be as large.
Because of the home's orientation and the necessity to protect
from avalanche, there are no windows along the south side
precluding the need to excavate for natural light purposes.
4 C. Slope Stability and Field Monitoring - In a letter to the
Engineering Department, Chen - Northern has indicated that the
information in their previous subsurface study is relevant for
the building foundation and new road grade (please see attached
letter E). Chen has also agreed to monitor the project during
building and road excavation, and' construction. The firm
recommends.that, they review the design drawings, for the driveway
grading, before excavation and perform field - visits, to evaluate
slope conditions, during the construction process.
The Engineering Department concurs with Chen. It is also
important that the Department review plans and recommendations
from Chen as the construction proceeds.
D. Drainage Plan - A revised drainage plan has been submitted
through a letter from High Country Engineering and reviewed by
the Engineering. Department' (please see attached letter F). The
new plan addresses drainage onto the Forest Service property and
a revision of the basin boundary due to the redesign of the
residence. The Engineering Department should review a final
drainage plan prior to. excavation.
E. Vertical Tie -In Wall - It is necessary for the applicant to
construct a retaining wall along the new road cut. Planning and
Engineering staff have, for some time, recommended that the
applicant review the possibility of using a vertical tie -in wall
instead of a boulder type retaining wall. The tie -in wall i.s
more desirable because it reduces the amount of bank that must be
graded for the road cut: Reducing the size of the bank will
preserve a greater number of trees along the road.
The applicant has researched both a tie -in wall and a boulder
retaining wall (please see attached letters G). The consulting
engineers have estimated that the size of the tie -in wall will be
5100 square feet and .cost approximately $306,000.00 to construct.
at $60.00'a square foot. The consultants have also estimated
that the average difference between the two walls appears to be
less than five feet.
Staff has compared the two walls section by section. In two
sections the difference between the two walls was approximately 6
3
feet. . The total area lost by using a boulder retaining wall
verses a tie -in wall is 1587 square feet. Staff still believes
that the tie -in wall is the better solution from an environmental
perspective. However we do not want to appear unreasonable. The
new road will not be as visible because of the vegetative buffer
between the existing trail and proposed road. Staff does not
know, however, the estimated cost of a boulder retaining wall or
the number of trees estimated.to be lost with either alternative.
Summary - The applicant has supplied all the information that
staff required for review. The applicant has also addressed, in
a fairly thorough manner, the primary issues of concern expressed
by the Commission, neighbors, Nordic Council, and City staff.
The redesign and realignment of the road represents a commitment
by Mr. Zaluba to develop a project that compliments the community
rather than creates conflict. The only outstanding issue is the
choice of retaining wall. A project that is 100% environmentally
sensitive.would include the vertical tie -in wall, an alternative
that staff supports.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of the
Barker / Zaluba, 8040 Greenline Review 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 applicant
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 wally shall be constructed by the applicant
unless it is determined by the Commission that a boulder
retaining wall is acceptable.
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..
4
8.* No spoils or fill shall be placed over the
cut. All excavated materials shall be removed
not used.in the construction of the residence..
side of the road
from the site if
I
6'pTS�cX � Ga Vl �p y� -fo
)C) Aj e�A
uwvl-�
c� 6� ,
s�� {
n 5
Aq
0
ATTACHMENT B
I�� iV. r,i wv
Tr: �_e_:lie L.am ^nt
DATE November 2, 1989
FROM�.,a,.. �i r�: rr; ' ' Tr- IC C ", ;-
i. r atl ic. , u:.ii i ieiu, i i Q� i.7 J�Nei V IJUl
�
L: --ioag Nordic Trail
As .roe Zaluba of "Heritage Log Homes" has realigned tiffs access to 'Lot
the only remaining conflict between his driveway and the Nordic: Ski Trail
exists on the parcel of Forest Service land east of Lot I lr. Zaluba has
obtained a special use permit from the Forest Service of a 20 foot wide
access running along the existing road cut to Ute Ave. The road cut is
presently 20 feet in width, hence the conflict of his driveway running with
the current Nordic Trail for some forty yards to Ute Ave.
Mr. Z =;luha acknowledges the conflict and wishes to resolve it. Two
solution >s come to mind in order to separate Nordic Skiers from vehicular
tr of f is to i -Ir. Zaluba's house.
One is to gain an additional 5 or 10 loot wide special use permit from
the Forest Service. If we obtain this permit, Mr. Zaluba has then agreed to
biiid a berm giving the road cut a 25 or _30 foot width. 'e would also berm a
di�Jj. -e:r- J -D i �T 7 C a tl ne sKI ira n is ri e ay With e
V �L.: �,.: ����Ji�l::lY JppGrUl:ng ti I`r .Ji \I t� G�l and his di I��'1. 1.41. TY �t11 the
additional widt`l, room would be provided for bct" entities.
The second option is to have Mr. Zaluba plow the south half of the road
cut through the Forest Service parcel. Plowing south to north would create
another physical barrier, a wall of snow.
T' -ie second option is less costly and would not scar the lend along the
road cut thr ough the Forest Service parcel.
!t is also temporary. The first
option, whi ie more costly, and problematic, le. obtaining a special lisle permit
and the need for re- seedng the berm scar, would be mor e permanent. For
there is no promise from future Lot ti homeowners to plow appropriately,
only from Mr. Zaluba.
One additional thought I might add if the Nordic Council intends to
continue the trai 1 east to' ritz Benedict's land and the Nort'ristar Preserve,
Mr. Zaiuba's driveway wo;id create an. intersection with the ski trail. A
consideration better tal n into account n01 ^!, rather than a t2r ihE I L.
!f you have any further considerations or questions regarding this matter
please contact me at the Parks Dept., ext. 5 120.
ATTACHMENT C
WFLYNN & PICKETT
LAWYERS
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
THE SMITH - ELISHA HOUSE
320 WEST MAIN STREET. SUITE 1
P.O. BOX I
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
TIMOTHY McFLYNN'
MARTHA C. PICKETf
Also A-- ... C---
HAND DELIVERY
Mr. Wayne Vandermark
Fire Marshall
420 East Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
October 20, 1989
TELEPHONE (303) 925.2211
TELECOPIER (303) 925 -2442
RE: Approval of Sprinkler Plan for house located on Hoag
Subdivision, Lot 3
Dear Wayne:
Pursuant to our discussions, this letter is to confirm that
the applicant of the 8040 Green Line Review before the City of
Aspen on the Hoag Subdivision, Lot 3, hereby commits to
installation of a sprinkler plan which meets requirements of NFPA
13D.
This letter confirms that you hereby approve this fire
protection plan and recommend to the City approval of the 8040
Review. Please sign below and return in the enclosed envelope.
Thank you for your continuing cooperation.
Sincerely,
Martha C. Pickett
MCP/k1 valu- wv.ltr
Approved and accepted this ,�L day of October, 1989.
WaynL V ndermark, Fire Marshall
ATTACHMENT D • 0
western heritage log homes, inc.
cs1trG1f.v1' e1197
October 31, 1989
Grorge Robinson
Parks Department
City of Aspen
Aspen, Colorado 81611
REF: TREE REMOVAL PLAN - LOT 3 HOAG SUBDIVISION
Dear George:
In accordance with our discussion yesterday., I am attaching a
drawings showing the trees that will have to be removed to
accarmdate my proposed development.
As I indicated yesterday, I am willing to replace all the trees
removed either in landscaping my home or donating to the City
as long as you or your representative and I make an actual count
before and during the excavation-
Thanks for your cooperation.
Best regards,
WESTERN HERITAGE LOG HOMES, INC.
aJose S. Z luba Nan
JSZ:amj
cc: Leslie Lamont, Aspen Pitkin County Planning Office
Martha Pickett
DENVER OFFICE
8899 William Cody Drive
Evergreen, Colorado 80439
(303) 674 -1435
Telex 710 1111 405 JSZA
Telelax (303) 920 -1642
ASPEN OFFICE
P.O. Box 9640
18 Roaring Fork Drive
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925 -4600
ATTACHMENT E
Chen @NortherAnc.
Western Heritage Log Homes
Attn: Joe Zaluba
P.O. Box 9640
Aspen CO 81612 -9640
Gentlemen:
i
CensuBinq Enq-neers anc c,?-,' sis
5060 Row 1 L�4
Glen,00c Spr -ngs Coivaoc F -60•.
303 9:5 -7458
303 945 -2363 Facs m:ie
October 10, 1989
Subject: Recommendations for
Relocation of Driveway Access,
Proposed Residence,
Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision,
Aspen, Colorado.
Job No. 4 275 89
. As requested, we are providing comments regarding the proposed relocation
of the driveway access to the residence above the existing public trail ease-
ment. We have been provided design drawings of the revised building plans,
Sheets S1, S2, Al and A2, dated September 6, 1989.
Based on the findings of our previous subsurface study and reconnais-
sance, the design information presented in our June 26, 1989 engineering
report should be acceptable for the building foundation and driveway grading
design. We should review the design drawings for the driveway grading before
construction and make field visits during the excavation and grading to evalu-
ate the slope conditions. We understand that the City has stipulated a geo-
technical engineer consult with the developer during the construction and that
we will provide that service for Western Heritage Log Homes.
If you have any questions regarding the information provided or if we can
be of further assistance, please let us know.
EN�� • Pq
STZJ4E *04-f-
15222
�t• A
seal ••�r:::0.'��Q��
f
SLP /ec �F C01-�
Sincerely,
CHEN - NORTHERN, INC.
BY
Steven L. Pawlak, P.E.
cc: High Country Engineering, Inc., Attn: Tim Beck
Design Structures, Inc., Attn: Bill Newell
Martha Pickett, Attorney --
A member of the HIH group of companies
ATT
NT F
October 16, 1989
Mr. Jim Gibbard
City of Aspen
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Hoag Subdivision, Lot 3, Drainage Plan
HCE File Number 9014.001
Dear Mr. Gibbard:
Mr. Zaluba has asked us to comment regarding the drainage plan
prepared by this office, dated June 1, 1989, and the revised access
road plans. It .appears to us that there are two differences from our
previous report, one is that the basin labeled "minor basin containing
residence" on the Vicinity and Basin Map, is now somewhat smaller
and thus should have less impact. The other is that the drywell
locations should change, such that one is placed on the old road (or
trail) just: slightly below the proposed residence, and the other is
placed at the lower end of the new road, just inside lot three, on the
southerly side of the road. The previously submitted calculations
should still be valid, even though the basin boundary has changed
slightly.
If you have any questions, or need additional information, please
contact us.
Sincerely yours,
HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING, INC.
l
Tim thy P. Beck, P.E_
TPB /soe
PA
f
118 W. 6th Street • Suite 205 • Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Telephone 303 - 945 -8676
ATTACHMENT G
E
western heritage log homes, inc.
November 2, 1989
Us. Leslie Lamont
Aspen Pitkin County Planning Office
1:30 South Galena Street,
Aspen, Colorado 81611
orb' -9
REF: LOT 3 - HOAG SUBDIVISION - Alternate Driveway ietaining Wall
Design
Dear Leslie:
As per your request, attached is a retaining wall design using
the vertical steel tie wall approach.
After our preliminary investigation into the price of the steel
tie wall .versus a boulder wall, we have come to the conclusion
that the steel tie wall will cost almost 10 times the cost of the
boulder wall to install. See letter from Higi Country Engineering
attached.
Our engineers also point out that the difference in horizontal
cut between the two types of walls will be less than five feet.
INview of these facts, I would ask you to consider using the boulder
wall or some other type of system that is less costly to install.
I am willing to make the wall correct both functionally and
aethetically, but I feel that an additional. five foot horizontal
cut does not justify the extra expense.
It must also be pointed out that because of the nature of this
road construction, the wall will not be seen from Ute Avenue due
to the tree coverage in front of the wall. The only persons actually
seeing this wall will be the people using the driveway and a user
of the trail below.
DENVER OFFICE
8899 William Cody Drive
Evergreen, Colorado 80439
(303) 674 -1435
Telex 710 1111 405 J5ZA
Teleiax (303) 920 -1642
ASPEN OFFICE
P.O. Box 9640
18 Roaring; D-ivc
A cnc•n i "'�i1��rT..ir, Al K! i
•
Als. Leslie Laurent
'November 2, 1989
Page 2.
•
I will be happy to meet with you and Jim Gibbard to discuss
this situation.
Sincerely,
WESTERN HERITAGE U)G HCA S, INC.
Joseph S. Zaluba
General Manager
JSZ:lak
cc: with drawings
Jim Gibbard
Martha Pickett
HOV 02 - ° -+ 12:03 HI :NTRY ENG. INC. P.1 /2
November 2, 1989
Western Heritage Log Homes
P -0. Box 9640
Aspen, CO 81611
Attn: Joe Zaluba
RE: Hoag Subdivision, Lot 3 Access Road
HCE File No. 9014.002
Dear Mr. Zaluba:
In accordance with your request, we have reviewed the cuts
required and the costs for tieback retaining walls for the road
cut slope. For information, we have made several phone calls to
companies involved in tieback design and construction.
Specifically, the Schnabel Foundation Company, Hartman
Construction, and a local engineer that has worked with Hartman
Construction, were contacted.
Some of the results of those conversations are as follows:
1. The walls would be-two to three feet thick, which would
include beams, a concrete face, and a thin drainage membrane -
2. They recommend extending the concrete face wall below frost
depth, which adds at least four feet of wall "height."
3. Per one estimate, the wall would cost approximately $50.00 per
square foot, in place. Per another estimate, the final cost
would be $60.00 to $70.00 per square foot.
4. "Soil Nailing" may be less expensive, but there are some
concerns about its permanency.
The current access road plans indicate approximately 425 lineal
feet of wall, with an average height above the road surface of
eight feet. Including the additional four feet below grade would
make an average wall "height" of 12 feet. These figures yield
5100 square feet of wall surface. At $60.00 per square foot, the
cost would be $306,000.00
118 W. 6th Street - Suite 205 • Glenwood Springs, GO 81601
Telephone 303 -945 -8676
Li iv. 1+._. j....
Western Heritage Log Homes
Page 2
November 2, 1989
it is of interest to note, that the difference in horizontal width
of area disturbed is not as great as may be thought. The average
difference in width of cut for a tieback wall versus the boulder
wall, appears to be less than five feet.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please
give me a call_
Sincerely,
HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING, INC.
l thy P_ Beck, P.E.
TPB:rjm
i
OV
western heritage log homes, inc.
estaGlis/ed t97'6
November 2, 1989
Ids. Leslie Lamont
Aspen Pitkin County Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
REF: LOT 3 - HOAG SLBDIVISION - Alternate Driveway Retaining Wall
Design
Dear Leslie:
As per your request, attached is a retaining wall design using
the vertical steel tie wall approach.
After our preliminary investigation into the price of the steel
tie wall versus a boulder wall, we have come to the conclusion
that the steel tie wall will cost almost 10 times the cost of the
boulder wall to install. See letter from High Country Engineering
attached.
Our engineers also point out that the difference in horizontal
cut between the two types of walls will be less than five feet.
IN view of these facts, I would ask you to consider using the boulder
wall or some other type of system that is less costly to install.
I am willing to make the wall correct both functionally and
aethetically, but I feel that an additional five foot horizontal
cut does not justify the extra expense.
It must also be pointed out that because of the nature of this
road construction, the wall will not be seen from Ute Avenue due
to the tree coverage in front of the wall. The only persons actually
seeing this wall will be the people using the driveway and a user
of the trail below.
DENVER OFFICE ASPEN OFFICE
8899 William Cody Drive Telex 710 1111 405 JSZA P.O. Box 9640
Evergreen, Colorado 80439 Telelax (305) 920 -1642 18 Roaring Fork Drive
(505) 674.1435 Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925 -4600
Ms. Leslie Lamont
November 2, 1989
Page 2.
I will be happy to meet with you and Jim Gibbard to discuss
this situation...
Sincerely,
WESTERN HERITAGE LOG HOrES, INC.
reraeph S . Zaluba
l Manager
JSZ:lak
cc: with drawings
Jim Gibbard
Martha Pickett
August 31, 1989
Ms. Martha Pickett
315 East Hyman, Suite 305
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Marti:
This letter is intended to summarize the information that the
Planning and Zoning Commission and our staff are looking for to
review the development proposal for Lot 3 Hoag Subdivision.
I have reviewed the minutes from the August 8 Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting. According to the minutes, there are 2 new
matter's of concern that P &Z is expecting information - road
separation and building design. The P &Z also indicated that
information should be forthcoming for those relevant concerns
that I listed in my August 8 memo. Following is a list of
information that a future development application must provide:
New Issues
A detailed plan of the road separation -
X a. a "significant" vegetative buffer;
>(b. a review of what the separation would entail including
tree removal and the anticipated impacts;
X c. a review and the necessary permits from the Forest Service
for expansion; and
the various entities who have expressed an interest in the
road agree to the plan.
A review and redesign of the structure's architectural impact
o� the hillside.
7
Relevant Issues from the August 8 memo to P &Z -
rqQPe Plans for a vertical tie -in retaining wall to be reviewed by
Engineering Department.
?X Incorporation of the geotechnical engineers recommendation
for development regarding slope stability during the excavation.
The Engineering Department must review these plans as committed
to by the applicant.
Assurance that Chen - Northern
during excavation and construction
road.
0
Cry
will perform field monitoring
of the building site and the
0
A drain- a plan that addresses the impact to the Forest
Service property from the drainage along the proposed access
road, to be submitted and reviewed by the Engineering Department
and the Forest Service.
A-�ees A landscape plan that indicates the replacement of as many
as possible on site and where other trees will be relocated
to.
A sprinkler plan for review by the Fire Marshall.
Marti, please call me if you have any questions or would like to
discuss further any matter that I have listed above.
Sincerely,
Leslie Lamont
cc: Joe Zaluba
Tom Baker
Jim Gibbard
Gretchen Merrill, District Ranger
WHY% & PICKETT
LAWYERS
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
THE SMITH - ELISHA HOUSE
320 WEST MAIN STREET. SUITE 1
P.O. BOX 2
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
TIMOTHY McFLYNN*
MARTHA C. PICKETT
A— AD—ED in CALIFORNIA
Leslie LaMont
Planning Office
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
October 17, 1989
RE: Hoag Lot 3 ; 8040 Greenline Review
Dear Leslie:
TELEPHONE (303) 925 -2211
TELECOPIER (303) 925 -2442
Enclosed are documents which you have requested in order to
schedule Joe Zaluba on the November 7 P &Z agenda. Pursuant to your
letter dated August 31, 1989, and our telephone conversations, I
believe we now have all information you need. The following items
are submitted:
1. Four (4) sets of drawings, including:
a. A sketch of the house, drawn by an artist
based upon a computer workup of elevations
taken from the entrance to 1010 Ute Subdivision.
b. Floor plans.
C. Elevations of proposed house.
d. Site plan.
e. Site plan with avalanche wall plans.
f. Lower and upper road profiles.
2. Landscape Plan.
3. Letter from Gretchen Merrill of the Forest Service
approving the road alignment through the FS property.
4. Letter from Steve Pawlak, Chen Associates, stating
that the new road alignment falls within the existing
soils report and, also, that he has been retained
by Western Heritage to monitor the construction
process.
•
5. Letter from High Country Engineering confirming
the validity of the drainage plan with some minor
revisions.
In regards to the sprinkler plan, Wayne Vandermark has stated
that he will approve any plan so long as it meets the requirements
of NFPA 13D. Therefore, the Applicant hereby commits to
installation of such a plan to be designed upon approval of the
current house design and approved by Wayne. (Wayne is signing a
letter to this effect which I will forward to you.)
Please confirm with me as soon as possible that we
are scheduled for the November 7 hearing date. Timeliness is
critical for Joe in his contract relationship with the property
owner. If I can be of further assistance, please call me. Thank
you for your cooperation.
Sincerely /,
a 0. Pickett
Zaluappl.ltr
CITY OF ASPEN
130 south galena street
aspen, colorado 81611
303-925-2020
August 16, 1989
Gretchen Merrill, District Ranger
Aspen Ranger District
806 West Hallam
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Gretchen:
This letter is written in order to follow up on our meeting of
August 8 and to follow up on the Request for Proposals (RFP) for
Mountainside Storm Runoff Control which we sent to you on about
August 1. The two matters are related by the City's needs for a
storm water channel or conduit and Jack Barker's permit with the
Forest Service for access to his property using a portion of the
Midland Railroad right -of -way which is under your jurisdiction.
I am including with this letter a copy of a plat titled Hoag
subdivision. The plat is recorded at Book 4, Page 218, at the
Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office. Please note that the
plat identifies a triangular parcel of land as "BLM to City of
Aspen for Access and Cul -de- sac." I am not sure of the details
of this conveyance, having no other information than the plat.
I would like to reiterate the City's interest in using the
railroad right -of -way for "utility and public trail easement" as
is shown on the plat within the Hoag Subdivision for purposes of
providing storm runoff drainage facilities and the Nordic and
summer trail. We would like to continue such use on the railroad
bed through the BLM parcel.
We therefore request that the Forest Service approve construction
of a separate driveway up the hillside from the railroad bed.
Since this plat indicates a conveyance for access, it is not
clear that the Forest Service would need any further review on
any development of the parcel which is for access.
It is the City's intention to limit visual impacts and tree loss.
On the portions of Lot 3 where the pan handle indicates an intent
to provide for the access to Lot 3 within the panhandle, and not
on the railroad bed, the Planning and Zoning Commission, at it's
Page 2
Use of Midland Railroad Right -of -way
August 14, 1989
meeting of August 8, informed the applicant (Jack Barker and
Joseph Zoluba) that it was unacceptable to widen the railroad
bed, that,the driveway must be separated from the trail. The
current intent appears to be to leave some ten or twenty feet of
the existing evergreen trees in place between the trail and the
driveway and further to prohibit laid back cut slopes, and
subsequent unnecessary tree loss, by requiring vertical retaining
walls, tied back or stabilized by other construction techniques.
We will also see if we can require that no spoils or fill be
placed on the downhill slope of the road and that all excavated
materials be removed from the site.
Could you please review these materials in order to confirm our
assessment that since the triangular parcel appears to be
conveyed to the City for access purposes, no specific review is
needed by the Forest Service for reasonable intended uses? It
does not appear appropriate that earlier decisions were made
which permitted simultaneous vehicular access and public.trail
uses. If such simultaneous use is at all workable during summer
seasons,it is not workable during the winter season as a cross
country ski trail combined with vehicular use. It does not
appear from the Hoag Subdivision plat that access to Lot 3 was
intended to be on the Midland Railroad right -of -way.
If you have any questions that I can provide information for,
please call me at 920 - 5088.
Thanks for your help.
Sincerely,
0446e/l
Chuck Roth
Assistant City Engineer
cc: Bob Gish, City Engineer /Public Works Director
ltr_89.84
_ tMYiYfMl -
l .
nited States Forest White River Aspen Ranger District
department of Service National 806 West Hallam
Agriculture Forest Aspen, CO 81611
Reply To: 1580
Date: June 14, 1990
Amy L. Margerum
Aspen /Pitk in County Planning Director
506 East Main Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Ms..Margprum:.
The enclosed application for use of National Forest System lands on Aspen
Ranger District is forwarded to you in accordance with the February 1989
Memorandum of Understanding between Pitkin County and White River National
Forest.
Mr. Miller's application is for an easement for an existing road which provides
access to Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision, on the South side of the City of Aspen.
This application has a very low priority for processing, but will take little
time. I expect that small periods of time will become available which will
allow us to issue the requested easement timely. Please submit any comments
you may have on this application by July 9. 1990.
Please contact Allan Grimshaw in this office (935 - 3445) if additional
information regarding this proposal is desired.
Sincerely,
GRETCHEN MERRILL
District Ranger
Enclosure: Miller Application
U�$ Caring for the Land and Serving People
JUN 15 jp9O
FS -8200- 28(7.82)
�r
F
A
r�
OMB No. 0596-0082
Expires 9/30/86
USDA Forest Service
FOREST SERVICE USE ONLY
Date Received
Region Number
State Code
County Code
SPECIAL -USE APPLICATION AND REPORT
(mo /day /yr)
(Ref.: FSM 2712, 36 CFR 251.54)
Congressional
Forest Code
Unit ID Symbol
INSTRUCTIONS
Dist. Number
(Admin. Unit No.)
(NFFID No.)
Applicant should request a meeting with the Forest
Service representative responsible for processing the
Ranger Dist. No.
User Number
Kind of Use Code
application, prior to completing this form. This meeting
will allow a discussion of the form's requirements and
(Resp. Dist.)
identify those items to be omitted.
PART 1— APPLICATION (Applicant Completes)
1. Applicant Name and Address
2. Authorized Agent Name, Title and Address (in-
3. Area Code and Telephone
(include Zip Code)
clude Zip Code) if different from Item 1.
Number
Gordon Miller
Herbert S. Klein r P.C.
a. Applicant's
Lowenstein Building
201 N. Mill St., Suite 203
4300 Alton Road
Aspen, CO 81611
(305)532 -1642
b. Authorized Agent's
Miami Beach, FL 33140
(303) 925 -8700
4. As applicant are you? (Mark one box with "X ")
5. Specify what application is for: (Mark one box with "X ")
a. Individual
a. Kj New authorization*
b. Corporation*
b. [] Renew existing authorization
c..FJ Partnership /Association°
c. ❑ Amend existing authorization*
d. ❑ State Government /State Agency
d. :E] Other*
e. ,n Local Government
• If marked "X ", provide details under Item 7.
f. E] Federal Agency
• If marked "X ", complete PART 11.
6. If you are an individual or partnership, are you also a citizen(s) of the United States?
E] Yes E] No
7. Describe in detail the land use, including: (a) type of use, activity, or facility; (b) related structures and facilities; (c) physical speci-
fications (length, width, acres, etc.); (d) term of years needed; (e) time of year of use or operation; (f) duration and timing of con-
struction; (g) temporary work areas needed for construction; and (h) anticipated need for future expansion. (If extra space is needed,
use Pa a 3, REMARKS).
a) iccess Road
b) Road Improvements only
c) Approximately .04 miles in length, 20 feet in width and containing
' approximately .10 acres
d)` Perpetual
e) Continuous
f) Periodic Maintenance
g) None needed
h) None expected
S. Attach map covering area and show location of proposed use and /.or furnish legal es ription of the land. Property is a
USN15 9�' location as in
tented minin ,�ltaim }ucnn v � NrwL &gland same provided
1� mss
terminate the use for which authori is requested,
Ive statement of your technical and financial capability to construct, operate, and ?ation
including the protection and restoration of Federal lands. (If extra space is needed, use page 3, REMARKS).
Applicant's use would be in conjunction with uses being made under existing permits and
does not involve new or substantially increased uses requiring new construction or
greatly increased maintenance.
Previous edition Is obsolete. (OVER) FS- 2700 -3 (10/83)
10a. Describe other reasonable alternative proposals considered.
Reasonable alternatives do not exist. Th access applicant's land through some other
route would require new construction and road cuts through National Forest land
10b. Give explanation of why It Is necessary to utilize Federal lands and why the alternatives In Item 1 Oa were not selected
.Explained in 10a
11. Provide statement of need for proposed use, including the economic feasibility and items such as: (a) cost of proposal (construction,
operation, and maintenance); (b) estimated cost of next best alternative; and (c) expected public benefits. (If extra space is needed, use
page 3, REMARKS).
a) Roadway will already be in place so only expense will be a nani.nal amount for
roadway maintenance.
b) No.other alternatives for access
c) Access to public land with minimal disturbance to the environment
12. Describe probable effects on the area population, including social and economic aspects, and rural lifestyles.
Because the roadway is already in place and in use,
no additional or different effects are anticipated.
13. Describe likely environmental effects that the proposed use will have on: (a) air quality; (b) visual impact; (c) surface and ground water
quality and quantity; (d) control or structural change on any stream or other body of water; (e) existing noise levels; (f) land surface, in-
cluding vegetation, permafrost, soil and soil stability; and (g) populations of fish, plant, wildlife and marine life, including threatened and
endangered species. (If extra space is needed, use page 3, REMARKS).
Because the roadway is already in place and in use, no additional or different
effects are anticipated.
14. Describe what actions will be taken to protect the environment from the effects of the proposed use.
The same precautions and action being taken now will be continued.
15. Name all Federal, State, County or other departments) /agency (ies) where an application for this is being filed. Attach appropriate
license, building permit, certificate or other approval document.
A 1041 review has been filed with pitkin County�as part of the use approval sought
by Applicant,
HEREBY CERTIFY, that I am of legal age and authorized to do business in the State and that I have personally examined the information
contained in the application and that this information is correct to — - -- -- - -- — -- — - -- the best of my knowledge. 1 af_.. Applicant's Fignature (Sign in ink) 16b. Date
- - -- --------------- --------- - - - - - -- — - -- ---- - - -- -- - -- CALL(`: —Title 18, U.S.C. Section 1001, makes it a crime for any person knowingly and willfully to make to any department or agency of the United States
any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations as to any matter within its jurisdiction.
r
r
ib, PART 11— SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION (Applicant Completes) 41
m5c=
MARK "X" IN APPRO-
PRIATE BOX BELOW
I— PRIVATE CORPORATIONS
ATTACHED
FILED*
a. Articles of Incorporation
❑
❑
b, Corporation Bylaws
❑
❑
c. A certification from the State showing the corporation is in good standing and is entitled to operate within the
State.
❑
❑
d. Copy of resolution authorizing filing
❑
❑
e. The name and address of each shareholder owning 3 percent or more of the shares, together with the number
and percentage of any class of voting shares of the entity which such shareholder is authorized to vote and the
name and address of each affiliate of the entity together with, in the case of an affiliate controlled by the entity,
the number of shares and the percentage of any class of voting stock of that affiliate owned, directly or
indirectly, by that entity, and in the case of an affiliate which controls that entity, the number of shares and
the percentage of any class of voting stock of that entity owned, directly or indirectly, by the affiliate.
❑
El
f. If application is for an oil or gas pipeline, describe any related right -of -way or temporary use permit applica-
tions, and identify previous applications.
❑
❑
g. If proposed land use involves other Federal lands identify each agency impacted by proposal.
❑ t
❑
II— PUBLIC CORPORATIONS
a. Copy of law forming corporation
❑
❑ .
b. Proof of organization
- — _ --
❑
0
-__
C. Copy of Bylaws - - - --
❑
❑
d. Copy of resolution authorizing filing
❑
❑
e. If application is for an oil or gas pipeline, provide information required by Item "14" and "I -g" above.
❑
❑ ',
III— PARTNERSHIP OR OTHER UNINCORPORATED ENTITY
a. Articles of association, if any
❑
❑
b. If one partner is authorized to sign, resolution authorizing action is
❑
❑
c. Name and address of each participant, partner, association, or other
❑
❑
d. If application is for an oil or gas pipeline, provide information required by Item "I -f" and "I -g" above.
❑
❑
° If the required. information is already filed with the Forest Service and is current, check box titled "Filed." Provide the file identification
information (e.g., number, date, code, name and office at which filed). If not on file or current, attach requested information.
REMARKS: (This space is provided for more detailed responses to PART I.) Please indicate the item numbers to which these_ responses
apply. Attach sheets, if additional space is needed.
m5c=
-s Adk
r-7
® PART 11F—REPORT ON APPLICATION (Forest Officer Completes)
1. General description of the area and adaptability for the proposed use. Outline area on separate map if needed to clarify proposed use.
2. If previously under authorization indicate:
a. Name of Holder b. Date Authorized c. Date Closed
3. Describe any encumberances on the land, such as withdrawals, power projects, easements, rights -of -way, mining claims, leases, etc.
Show on map provided.
4. State approximate amount and kinds of timber to be cut, recommended stumpage prices, method of scaling; include recommendation
on disposal of merchantable timber: (a) to holder at current damage appraisal or (b) to others than holder under regular timber sale
procedure.
5a. Will proposed use conform to Forest Land and Resource Management Plan? Yes . F1 No
b. Has an Environmental Assessment been prepared? Yes (Attach) E] No
c. Has an Environmental Impact Statement (P.L. 91 -190, 42 USC 4321) been prepared? EJ Yes (Attach) No
(Note: If "No" is marked with an "X" in any of the above.questions, explain in item 6 below.).
6. Recommendations, including any factors which might affect the granting of the authorization or future use of the land.
7. List mandatory and optional clauses which should be made a part of this authorization (See FSM 2780).
8. Fee recommendation (Describe here or on computation sheet attached).
9a. RECOMMEND Approval* or
b. Signature (Sign in ink)
c. Title
d. Date
Disapproval*
10a. FINAL Approval' or
b. Signature (Sign in ink)
c. Title
d. Date
Disapproval'
O Delete one by lining It out. --4 — 4 US. Government Printing Office: 1994 - -429.939/12999 .
20 FT. ROADWAY EASEMENT
fvM
jVll'7
;t d to
13 C04 V) nr
41
CY -j 0
LL V)
Sa
V)
LL
HU - I COUNTRY ENGINEERING, INC.
80F. 205, 118 W, 6th. siperr
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO �'W
(30) 99-6676
O
m
OO
75
`o
th
OT
0
MEMORANDUM
TO: Amy Margerum
FROM: Bill Drueding l ��
RE: Zaluba Permit
DATE: 6/1/90
FYI
3/5/90 Permit applied for
4/12/90 9:50 am. = Zaluba said not to check yet because he was
changing FAR and elevations
4/17/90 New elevations and contour lines received from
architect
5/1/90 Zaluba '- went over, conditions. No signed topo or
survey,. Reviewed the 15 conditions,.etc. He'll supply
info.
5/8/90 Received new info to help fulfill conditions of 1040
from Zaluba
- OK'from Zaluba for drainage plan
5/17/90 Received required-landscape-plan
If it were not for my.recent illness and workload, these would
probably be through here. This piecemeal receipt of information
causes delays.
cc: Buddy Lucero
Leslie Lamont
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Leslie Lamont
RE: Hoag Lot 3
DATE: December 19, 1989
At the November 14 meeting, P &Z tabled review of the 8040
Greenline application.
Two issues surfaced during that review: potential denial of the
project and restricting access to other parcels.
I have asked the City attorney to respond to those two issues.
As of packet deadline the attorney had not submitted his
response. If I cannot present a response to you at the December
19 meeting, staff recommends tabling discussion until a legal
response can be reviewed by the Commission.
Attached is correspondence from the applicant. The letter
outlines the newly calculated square footage of the proposed
single family home.
I have also attached the November 14 memo to refresh your
memories about the outstanding issues as identified at the August
P &Z meeting.
1
® r,
McFLYNN & PICKETT
LAWYERS
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
�1 THE SMITH ELISHA HOUSE
320 WEST MAIN STREET. SUITE I
P.O. BOX I
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
TIMOTHY McFLYNN'
MARTHA C. PICKETT
Also ,�,.,,,�o ,„ C.- MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Martha C. Pickett
RE: Hoag Lot 3, 8040 Greenline Review
DATE:
A.
B.
December 19, 1989
I. History of Hoag Subdivision and Lot 3
M
TELEPHONE (303) 925 -2211
TELECOPIER (303) 925 -2442
The Hoag subdivision was created and approved by the City of
Aspen October 18, 1971.
Lots 1 and 6 are designated open space parcels. Lots 2, 41
and 5 are developed.
C. Lot 3 contains 3 plus acres, (133,219 square feet).
D. Lot 3 is zoned C (Conservation) , permitting one single family
attached residence.
E. Lot 3 received 8040 approval for a single family residence of
2,324 square feet July 20, 1976 (Virden residence).
F. Lot 3 received an additional 8040 approval November 25, 1986,
approving access to a building envelope (located in the
identical place as the proposed house).
II. 8040 Greenline Standards
A. The parcel is suitable for the proposed development,
considering the slope, ground stability statistics and avalanche
dangers.
The applicant has submitted various reports by Chen and
Associates, Consulting Geotechnical Engineers, verifying that the
slope stability can be satisfactorily mitigated for both the house
location and the access driveway. The applicant has hired Chen and
Associates to monitor the entire project to assure sound
engineering practices for the excavation, cut and fill required for
this project to maintain the integrity of the site. The avalanche
analysis made by Arthur Meers (January, 1987) also verifies that
1
•
1
the site for the house is in a very low risk location.
Furthermore, he states that theories and studies have shown that
construction of an "avalanche proof structure is feasible at this
location ". An avalanche proof retaining wall has been engineered
for the entire southern side of the.house which also wraps around
to each side. Note: Meer's report also stated that the major
avalanche risk for the lot is on the western side of the house
site, crossing the originally proposed access driveway. With the
relocation of the upper driveway, exposure to this higher risk
avalanche path is being eliminated.
B. The proposed Hoag Development does not have a significant
adverse effect on the natural shed run -off, drainage soil erosion
or have consequent effects on water pollution
The drainage plan prepared by Chen and Associates, which has
been approved by The City Engineering Department, will be closely
followed to avoid an adverse impact on the drainage for the site.
C. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse
effect on the air quality in the cites
The "fireplace" will utilize a gas burning device to minimize
air pollution.
D. The design and location of the proposed house and access
driveway are compatible with the terrain on the parcel
The applicant has completely redesigned the house at the
request of staff and Planning and Zoning. The applicant has
further redesigned the roof two times at staffs suggestions.The
house is designed to be built into the hillside to minimize the cut
along the face of the mountain. There are no windows on the
exposed south elevation, therefore, there will be no excavation
scar above the house as on some steep building sites. The upper
location for the access driveway is along a natural "bench" in the
hillside. There are only about twenty -five trees to be removed and
relocated for the construction of the driveway. The applicant has
agreed to work with The City Engineering Department to provide the
proper mix of boulder and tie -in retaining walls to create the most
visually aesthetic and least destructive retaining wall.
E. Excavation and grading required will be minimized
See discussion above regarding retaining wall. Furthermore the
footprint of the house has been minimized to 2,488 square feet.
F. The placement of the house and the access driveway have
limited cutting and grading, maintained open space and will
preserve the mountain as a scenic resource
2
•
This 3 plus acre lot will contain only a 2,840 square foot
covering approximately 2 per cent of the entire site. Your
relocation of the access driveway on the upper location, the old
switch -back to the west of the house site will be revegetated.
Furthermore, relocation of trees and addition of new trees will
significantly buffer the driveway and the home from view below.
G. Building height and bulk have been minimized.
The log structure and has been designed to blend into the open
character of the mountain. (See discussion above)
H. There is sufficient water pressure and other utilities to
service the proposed development.
I. There is an adequate road to serve the proposed single family
home, via Ute Avenue.
J. An adequate ingress and egress is available via Forest
service special use permit (20 feet wide) and the new access
driveway to be constructed.
The new driveway will be snow melted to allow for fire
protection if necessary, however, the applicant has committed to
installing a sprinkler system as recommended and approved by the
fire marshall.
In addition, the applicant has committed to providing signage
as needed for the cross - country trail which traverses Lot 3, and
will work with the city and the Forest Service to provide the most
effective coexistence for. the trail and the driveway through the
applicant's special use permitted area on the Forest Service
property.
III. House Design
The applicant has worked closely with the planning staff to
redesign the house, taking into consideration environmental impacts
and site constraints. The house will utilize whole, hand hewn, 12
inch natural logs, stained with a semi - transparent linseed oil
stain, grayish in color. The roof will be a split cedar shake
which will eventually turn a deep brown color blending into the
mountain side.
The house contains 2,840 of floor area ratio square footage.
The lot size is 133,219 square feet. The footprint of the house
1i 2488 square feet so the development will cover less than two
p:rc;nt of the site. In comparison to nearby houses which have
also been through the 8040 Review:
Lot 2, Davis property has 3,945 square feet on an 18,482
square foot lot.
v
E
Lot 4, duplex, has 3,578 total square feet on an 21,832 square
foot lot.
Lot 5, Rappaport, has 5,864, square feet on a 15,811 square
foot lot.
Lot 3 and to the west, Moses property has 3,800 square feet
on a one acre lot.
Also to the west of Lot 3, the Hemmeter house has 13,475
square feet (as of 1984 approved addition) on a 1.8 acre lot.
IV. Access Driveway
The applicant has agreed to construct the upper access
driveway, buffered from the trail and the lower property owner by
natural vegetation and topography. The applicant has agreed to
revegetate the upper portion of the existing driveway from the
switch -back to the east property line. The Forest Service, the
owner of lots 2, 4 and 5 and owner of the Smuggler- Durant property
have agreed that the upper driveway is preferable to using the
existing lower road. The applicant has also agreed with George
Robinson of the Parks Department regarding the trees to be removed
in construction of the driveway which will be relocated on or off
the property as instructed by the Parks Department and the City.
- The applicant has also agreed as,follows:
To assist the city to gain the necessary permission of
the Forest Service to widen the Forest Service access road from
twenty feet to twenty -five feet to accommodate the dual purpose df
the driveway for Lot 3 and a ski trail 12 feet in width.
The applicant has agreed to install a dirt berm
approximately 2 feet high to physically divide the two uses on the
Forest Service portion of the drive.
2
WHY% & PICKETT
LAWYERS
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION j DEC F 4
THE SMITH - ELISHA HOUSE
320 WEST MAIN STREET. SUITE 1
P.O. BOX T
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
TIMOTHY MCFLYNN' TELEPHONE (303) 925 -2211
MARTHA C. PICKETT TELECOPIER (303) 925 -2442
'ALSO AOM,nEO IN CALIFORNIA December 13, 1989
Leslie LaMont HAND- DELIVERY
Aspen /Pitkin Planning Department
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Hoag Lot 3 8040 Review
Dear Leslie:
Enclosed for your reference and incorporation into the P &Z
memo is an updated calculation of square footage of the proposed
house for Lot 3. The total square footage is now 2,455 square
feet, significantly less than houses in the surrounding area, and
only slightly greater than the 2324 square foot house which was
approved in 1976. Also, please note that the footprint of the
proposed house measures 2289 square feet, covering less than two
percent (2 %) of the entire three acre lot.
As soon as a copy of Fred's memo to P &Z is available, I would
really appreciate your calling my office so we can pick up a copy.
Thank you again for your continuing cooperation. We look
forward to final resolution of this review on Tuesday. I believe
Joe has adequately addressed all concerns.
Sincerely,
C:Zalulamt.ltr
Pickett
McFLYNN & PICKETT
LAWYERS
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
THE SMITH - ELISHA HOUSE
320 WEST MAIN STREET. SUITE 1
P.O. BOX I
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
TIMOTHY McFLYNN*
MARTHA C. PICKETT
ALSO ADMITTED IN CALIFORNIA December 15, 1989
Leslie LaMont
Aspen /Pitkin Planning Department
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Hoag Lot 3 8040 Review
Dear Leslie:
TELEPHONE (303) 925 -2211
TELECOPIER (303) 925 -2442
HAND- DELIVERY
Enclosed for your reference and incorporation into the P &Z
memo is an updated calculation of square footage of the proposed
house for Lot 3. The total square footage is now 2,840 square
feet, significantly less than houses in the surrounding area, and
only slightly greater than the 2324 square foot house which was
approved in 1976. Also, please note that the footprint of the
proposed house measures 2289 square feet, covering less than two
percent (2 %) of the entire three acre lot.
As soon as a copy of Fred's memo to P &Z is available, I would
really appreciate your calling my office so we can pick up a copy.
Thank you again for your continuing cooperation. we look
forward to final resolution of this review on Tuesday. I believe
Joe has adequately addressed all concerns.
Sincerely,;
1
i
Ma tha Pickett
C:Zalulamt.ltr
WED 14 : 1 5 WESTERN H E R T_ LOG H O P 0:2
® ..... David A. 8100m
db�Ich
Novlq 'CO 60206
(X31399 -3096. „
Dccembar 13; '1989 -
Western Heritage Log Homes "
p,0. Box 9640 ...
Aepen� Co 81611 -
REt Floor Area Calculations for ;Lbt' 3� � !6,4 Subdivision Proposad Rasidenc.a .. ..
Dear Mr, Z81AM,
As requested, I am enclosing flocr.•:arig' alculutions efinirioribfxommthQicode
reBidotee, based on paragraph (D) of tha Flpox.Area d
for oubgrade areas at each of the 3.'levsls wh1cli'are'03rtly above and partly
below existing grade, the natux$l.grad+3 wss determined by field elevation checks
by High Country Hnginscring on zecamber... Far..purp4se6'.c?f vhl�vne cAl-
oulations, it is our interitxon ro *aiii'tate, a: mRxlmum 1.0.' plate height, in the
Great Room and Gar.agef• and a, maximiM-9' px.8te height ttlrbUg,110Ut the rem,3inder
of the structure.
AREA TABVLATIONS
LEVEL
AF. A, 'L. 0V TOTAL PERIMETER •WALL .:... AP LO �ARt
— - ARP,A COVE NA2'f1RAL, GRAnE w
LOUTR 1690 Sq. Ft,
203 Sq, Ft.
MAIN 1988 Sq. Ft. 45 $95 Sq. Ft.
UPPER 2121 Sq. FL. 64% 1357 Sq. Ft.
TOTAL FLOOR AREA 2435 Sq. ft.
Thank you for the opportunity of•assisting you with this project. Feat free to contact
me with any questions about these Cilcul&tiOns-
Yovrs Truly;
Coln
&Vid A. Bloom y�Q'`
oAVtn
ALLEN
BLOOM
AVI
ATTACHMENT
United States West
/f � a Department of Service
t' Agriculture
Ms. Marty Pickett
Smith Elisha House
320 West Main
Aspen CO 81611
Dear Marty:
White River *Aspen Ranger District
National 806 West Hallam
Forest Aspen, CO 81611
Reply To: 2730
Date: October 16, 1989
This letter will serve to document the Forest Service's approval of the plans
submitted for improvements to the access road over National Forest System Lands
to the Hoag Subdivision. This road, .04 miles in length, is under Special Use
Permit. The right -of -way of the permitted road is 20 feet.
The improvements to the road have been described in drawings which have been
reviewed and approved by Forest Service engineer Bob Berg. These plans may be
implemented under the following conditions:
1. The Aspen Ranger District will be notified of and approve the proposed
schedule of work.
2. All disturbance must remain within the 20 -foot right -of -way authorized
under the existing Special Use Permit.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
ETCHEN MERRILL
strict Ranger
cc: City of Aspen Planning Department, attn. Leslie Lamont/
SO
South Zone Engineering
Caring for the Land and Serving People
U�S
FS- 8200. 28(7 -82)
f _0
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planner
RE: Hoag /Barker /Zaluba 8040 Greenline Review
DATE: August 8, 1989
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Summary: The applicant proposes to develop a 4,792 square foot
single family .home 'on a 3 acre lot ;off of Ute Avenue. The
applicant also proposes to increase the width of a Utility and
Trail easement along the northeast border of the panhandle of Lot
3. The site and access is located on the steep forested hillside
south of Ute Avenue and above the' elevation of 8040 thus
necessitating 8040 Greenline review.
APPLICANT: Joseph S. Zaluba, Western Heritage Log Homes, Inc.
LOCATION: Lot 3 of the Hoag Subdivision, City of Aspen
ZONING: Conservation
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: 8040 Greenline approval for the
construction of a single family home.
BACKGROUND: Following is the history of development proposals of
Lot 3 in the Hoag Subdivision:
October 18, 1971 The Hoag Subdivision" was approved by the Aspen
City Council creating 5 lots south of 'Ute Avenue. Lot 3, is the
highest up the hill and on the steepest: terrain.
On the original plat, the old Midland right -of -way was designated
a "Utility and Public Trail Easement." The Midland appears to be
the only improved access to Lot 3, although it was not shown as
an ingress /egress access.
July 20, 1976 Virden 8040 Greenline was approved. A detached
garage was to be located off the old railroad right of way; and
the house was to be placed with walk -up access only. A temporary
construction road would be built, to be recovered and reseeded
prior to the certificate of occupancy. As part of the Virden
Review, an avalanche hazard study conducted by Hans Frintiger and
Whitney Boland in 1976 was submitted. Three avalanche tracks
were identified across the property. It was concluded that
within the "wedge" of Douglas fir, where the Virden house was
proposed, the probability of avalanche penetration was small.
October 7, 1985 Barker Greenline 'Review was approved in
conjunction with the Nordic Council Trail Greenline Review for
0
the development of an access road to,a proposed buildng site.
However condition #1 of the Greenline approval, was that no
construction on Lot', 3 Hoag Subdivision shall be allowed until a
development plan i's given approval through a separate 8040
Greenline Review.
i
The proposed access road, approximately 690 feet long, would go
from Ute Avenue to the Hoag Subdivision Lot 3 building site,
passing through Forest Service property, Lot 4 Hoag Subdivision
and the Newfoundland Mining Claim. This proposal eliminated the
need to use the Utility and Trail easement that is shared by Lots
4 and 5. Barker however needed a Forest Service Special Use
Road Permit for construction of the driveway on its property.
August 27, 1986 The Forest
assessment of Barker's proposal,
Use Road Permit.
Service, after an environmental
denied the request for a Special
December 2, 1986 A new driveway, approximately 545 feet in
length, providing access to the building site was approved by the
Planning and Zoning, Commission. The road, which has since been
constructed, enters ;Lot 3 off of the Utility and Trail Easement,
runs through the site almost to the western edge, switching back
once, up into the lot, to access the building site from above.
April 4, 1989 Jack Barker and Joe Zaluba request 8040 Greenline
approval to construct a single - family home.
The October 7, 1985 Greenline approval required a separate 8040
Greenline approval for a development plan before construction on
Lot 3 Hoag Subdivision shall be allowed.
The 8040 request was subsequently tabled so the applicant could
submit information that would address issues of concern.
`August 8, 1989 The application before you now is a continuation
of the tabled proposal. Barker /Zaluba have not only submitted
the information requested but have proposed to widen the existing
Utility and Trail easement that borders Lots'2, 3, 4, and 5. The
applicant intends to create an access road that is solely on Lot
3 in an attempt to; decrease the problematic nature of the co-
existence of trail and vehicular use, and to remove vehicular
traffic from the abutting properties.'. Access onto Lot 3 has
historically been through USFS land. Any improvements are
contingent upon review and approval from the USFS.
Please see attached letters of concern, from surrounding property
owners (Attachment A).
The application also proposes an alternate building site. The
new site does not require the use of the large driveway that was
2
cut into the hill pursuant to the December 2, 1986 approval.
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
Engineering: In a memo dated
Department having reviewed the
site has the following comments:
July 24, 1989 the Engineering
additional information and the
1. The applicant needs to follow the recommendations concerning
planning and design for slope stability of the proposed driveway
and residence which were made in the reports by Chen - Northern of
June 26, 1989 and August 1, 1989. Engineering Department needs
to review this planning and design before approval.
2. The driveway plan submitted by High Country Engineering does
satisfactorily follow the recommendations of Chen - Northern in
their report of July 31, 1989. However, the following should be
considered before approval of this driveway proposal:
a. The width of the area which exists within the Utility and
Trail easement across Lots 4 and 5 does not meet existing
standards for trail width. We recommend that there be at least a
12 foot wide area to accommodate the trail. An easement needs to
be granted by the applicant to accommodate this additional area
for the trail.
b. If the driveway and trail are to be in the same location,
there is potential for a problem. The previous owner agreed to
leave a snowpack on' the driveway which would accommodate cross
country skiers. Craig Ward of the Nordic Council indicated that
this snowpack should'be a minimum of 4`inches in depth. If this
becomes a requirement, then some method of enforcement needs to
be determined before approval.
C. The submitted plan calls for widening the existing road so
that the driveway can be located entirely on Lot 3. To
accommodate this widening, we recommend that the cut in the slope
be reduced as much as possible by the placement of a vertical
retaining wall that is tied into the bank. This will reduce the
visual impact as well as the number of trees that will have to be
removed. Attached, Attachment B, is a cross section showing the
bank at station #16 as it exists now, with the proposed boulder
retaining wall and the recommended tie -in retaining structure so
that it can be compared to the plan submitted by the applicant.
d. The City is proposing to place a drainage culvert along this
Utility and Trail easement and this will have to be accommodated
by whatever building and access design is approved. The
applicant needs to make an agreement to this to the satisfaction
of the Engineering Department.
3. The revegetation plan which ha,e been submitted by the
applicant for the building site is acceptable.
3
4. The drainage plan submitted by the applicant is not
acceptable because it does not address the impact to the Forest
Service property from the drainage along the proposed access
road.
PARKS: Bill Ness of the Parks Department submitted the following
comments in a July 24, 1989 memo:
1. Proposed approximately 50 trees, 6" or over in diameter, to
be removed for house, location.
2. Proposed approximately 100 trees, 6" or over in diameter, to
be removed for widening an additional 8' of personal driveway.
These requests have been denied by the Parks Department for the
following reasons, as defined by the City of Aspen Code:
a) Section 13 -76. Paragraph (d) , No. (5). The number and
kind of trees in the neighborhood, the contribution of the
trees to the natural beauty of the area, and the effect of
removal upon the property values in the area.
b) Section 13 -76. Paragraph (e). Requires that the owner
either relocate or replace a tree or trees with comparable
substitutes somewhere within the property lines of the site,
or donate to the City of Aspen Parks Department. Comparable
substitutes is,defined as a tree or trees of equal size and
value to the appraised value of that tree which is to be
removed or relocated.
I
Supplementary to these codes, there are many inherent problems
with the proposed development of Lot #3, Hoag Subdivision, with
respect to the Nordic Trail which already exists North of the
proposed building site.
Firstly, there is insufficient width to allow for both a safe ski
trail and a driveway along the existing alignment. To widen this
alignment to accommodate both ski trail and driveway, the
hillside would have to be excavated 6,300 sq. ft. (4501x14').
This would provide proper alignment widths for both the trail and
the driveway. This would require some function of retaining
system, ie. retaining wall or gabion wall and produce a 12' to
15' scar along 450' of the alignment. This would also eliminate
approximately 100 or more pine trees, 6' or over in diameter.
Mr. Zaluba's current excavation plan allows only a 6' wide ski
trail, which .is totally unacceptable, especially since this
alignment runs along an inclined slope of 4% to 7% grade. Six
feet is not enough room to negotiate skis safely on an incline of
this slope. The excavation of this area and exorbitant tree
removal serves only private access and not the public ski trail
already in place.
4
Secondly, if excavation were to proceed, a physical barrier would
need to be set in place to separate skiers from traffic. This
would further the excavation depth in addition to removing more
trees.
Thirdly, the City ha's purchased two Kassborher piston bullies, at
$95,000 each, to groom the existing Nordic ski trails. In order
for the piston bullies to be able to groom this alignment, even
further excavation would be necessary. The City has also
purchased many land easements to complete the base of Aspen
Mountain Trail, thereby linking this trail across the south side
of town. These investments will be jeopardized by the proposed
alignment of the trail.
A consideration was proposed for a combined use alignment, where
the trail would not be plowed. This runs the gamut of
'Dangerous' to 'Ridiculous'. Dangerous, by sending skiers
downhill to oncoming traffic; Ridiculous, because the unplowed,
packed snow is subjected to warming /freezing temperatures, which
turns the whole path into wheel depth frozen ruts. The liability
problems are self evident.
Furthermore, besides the aforementioned tree loss by excavating
his access, Mr. Zaluba has not agreed to relocate or replace the
approximately 50 or more trees, of equal value, that will be
destroyed by excavating the area where the house is to be built.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: At the scheduled meeting of the Board of
Adjustment on March 23, 1989, we heard and granted a variance to
the applicant Jack Barker: Lot 3 Hoag ;Subdivision (Case #89 -6).
We granted the front yard setback variance to more safely situate
the structure in a denser stand of larger trees, out of the major
avalanche path. In walking the road to the lot, there were
substantial avalanche occurrences that crossed the road. Looking
uphill I noticed major snow movement had occurred in trees the
size and density similar to conditions on the subject property.
While the Board felt a need to further mitigate the potential
avalanche threat, it did not want to encumber the Planning
Commission's role in their 8040 Greenline Review.
4
The Board has asked me to write this memo to express our concerns
and offer recommendations for your consideration. Under the
direction of the Engineering Department.we felt that a deflection
barrier should be constructed uphill to direct any snow movement
away from the structure and toward the°main avalanche path. The
protective barrier should be strong enough to withstand avalanche
impact and deposition loads. Further, that there be a close
monitoring and minimal removal of trees during construction.
5
0 0
ASPEN FIRE PROTECTION: Fire Marshal, Wayne Vandemark, had the
following comments in a June 15, 1989 memo:
This project is approximately five. minutes from the Fire
Department. The access roadway shall be 20 feet in width with an
all weather driving surface per Uniform�Fire Code. Consideration
should be given for the installation !of an automatic sprinkler
system for the greatest degree in fire protection.
ASPEN CONSOLIDATED SANITATION DISTRICT: Bruce Matherly, District
Manager in July 25, 1989 memo had the following comments:
To date we have not heard from the applicant regarding the line
extension which would be required.
ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT: The water department's comments have not
changed since their original referral comments September 20,
1985. In that memo they indicate that it might be possible to
provide water service to this development if certain pre-
conditions required by the Water Department are met.
A service connection for a single family or two family dwelling
could be allowed from the water main in Ute Avenue. The
applicant however, would have to furnish evidence of an easement
to his private tract. He would also,be required to install a
meter at or near the point of connection, outside of the public
right of way.
The Water Department can in no way assure adequate or sufficient
water pressure if the point of usage is to be above the 8040
line; but the applicant can increase his pressure by installing
his own private booster pump and pressure tank within his house.
If these conditions can be met, the Water Department can furnish
water upon application and payment of a water permit.
STAFF COMMENTS: Several conditions related to the construction
of the new road up into the Lot 3 (December 2, 1986 approval) are
relevant to this review.
Condition 1: More detailed information on the possibility of a
retaining wall and 'revegetation plan shall be submitted to the
Planning Office.
Response: Jack Barker indicated in a February 18, 1987 memo that
"a detailed site plan is being developed that incorporates this
landscape plan as well as the drainage system of our previous
plans." A review of the files has not turned up these particular
plans.
Condition 2. The applicant shall agree to allow the Nordic
Council trail and summer trail use along the old right -of -way and
11
• A
trail easements in an arrangement compatible with the Nordic
Council's trail system.
Response: An easement Agreement was recorded February 24, 1988.
Condition 3. Applicable conditions from the October 7, 1985
Barker Greenline review approval shall be conditions of this
approval.
Response: Those 1985 conditions that are applicable to the
construction of the road are:
Revegatation of the cut and filled areas of the driveway
shall be accomplished through the spreading of an
appropriate seed mix, both uphill and downhill.
The construction of the large driveway was intended to access the
building site from above. Because the Forest Service denied the
Special Use Road Permit for a new access road the applicant
proposed to build the new road on Lot 3. In a memo dated October
3, 1986, Brooke Peterson representing Jack Barker stated that "as
with the first alignment, this driveway will enable one home with
an attached garage, rather than a home with a detached garage, to
be built..."
It appears that the` intention of the'road was to access, from
above, the original Barker building site. The building site that
is now being proposed has been relocated. The applicant received
a variance to adjust the front yard setback, to 25 feet from the
northern property line. The proposed' building site is will be
accessed right off of'the Utility and Trail easement across from
Lot 2, approximately 400 feet up from the Forest Service
boundary. Please see the proposed site plan, Attachment C.
Because the newly constructed road cut is not necessary for
access to the building site, staff recommends that the cut be
filled in and revegetated. Jack Barker and the City have
recorded a trail easement up to the switchback. Therefore the
road closure and revegetation should occur from the switchback up
the slope to the end of the road.
On April 4 the application was tabled because of the need for
additional information. Staff has.; the following comments
regarding the applicant's response to the request for
information.
1. The applicant shall submit a report done by a professional
geotechnical engineer registered in the State of Colorado which
will evaluate the site specific slope and ground stability
conditions that will result from this development. The
conclusions and recommendations in the report by Chen and
7
0
Associates which were used in the driveway application do not
address the conditions which will result from the present
proposal. This report should be referred to the State Geologist
for comment before this application is again reviewed by P &Z.
A registered geotechnical engineer is also recommend for
construction management and inspection and a C.O. should not be
issued without his sign off.
RESPONSE: The applicant has submitted a subsoil study dated June
26 1989 which evaluated the slope and ground stability of the
specific building site development. Chen - Northern, the
geotechnical engineers, have made site'specific recommendations.
But, as stated in the Engineering comments, the applicant still
must submit a plan, indicting that the development will follow
Chen's recommendations. Chen has also indicated that they will
be available to perform field monitoring upon request. The
applicant has not assured staff that the particular request has
be made.
2. A site specific revegatation plan which will detail
mitigation of any disturbance to the terrain caused by this
development shall be submitted to the Planning Office and
Engineering Department by the applicant.
RESPONSE: An acceptable revegetation plan for the building site
was submitted.
3. The applicant needs to submit a drainage plan done by a
registered engineer for the purpose of mitigating any impact of
this development to any areas on adjacent properties.
RESPONSE: The plan submitted is unacceptable as the plan does
not mitigate the drainage impact on the lower access road through
the Forest.Service property.
4. The applicant shall comply with the conditions which were
required as a result of the P &Z revieT for the driveway on this
development. The following information shall be taken into
consideration in the determination of the driveway /cross country
ski trail compatibility:
a. an agreement to leave snowpack on the driveway to
accommodate cross country skiing.
b. all weather surface and 20 foot width for emergency
access.
RESPONSE: These concerns are not really relevant due to the
revised road access proposal.
5. Proof of water and sewer service to.the site.
8
• ATTACHM S D
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND EXHIBITS TO THE BART= /2ALUBA 8040
GREENLIIE APPLICATION.
Subject Development: Lot -3 - hoag Subdivision - City of Aspen
1125 Ute Avenue
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. Snow Avalanche Loading Analysis by Arthur I. Mears, P.E.
B. Geotechnical Evaluation of Slope Conditions - Building Site by
Steven Pawlak, P.E., Chen Northern, Inc.
C. Geotechnical Evaluation of Slope Conditions - Driveway Widening by
Steven Pawlak, P.E., Chen Northern
D. Drainage plan for the Proposed Structure by Tim Beck, P.E., High
Country Engineering.
ILLUSTRATED EXHIBITS
Sheet (Cover). Artists rendering of proposed structure
Sheet A. Site Plan
Sheet Al Site Grading & Revegetation Plan
Sheet A2 Access Driveway Lot 3 - Hoag Subdivision
Sheet B Elevations & Floor Plans
Sheet C Elevations
Sheet D Avalanche Wall. Design
Sheet E Drainage system design
Sheet F Alpine Surveys road location survey.
t'
0
RESPONSE: A utility easement exists between Lot 1 and 2 of Hoag
Subdivision up into Lot 3 and has been plotted on the new plans.
A sewer line extension is required by the Sanitation District.
6. The applicant shall verify proof of access to the site.
RESPONSE: Staff has received a copy of the Forest Service
Special Use Permit.
7. The applicant shall provide proof from an engineer that an
adequate "avalanche proof" house design is being proposed for the
site, including specific verification that final design criteria
addresses the avalanche report done by Arthur Mears in 1987; more
specifically the engineering report shall address the following:
a. Specification of avalanche forces (resolved into
mutually perpendicular directions); and
b. Determination of loading criteria (static or impact).
RESPONSE: The applicant has submitted an acceptable report from
Arthur I. Mears, P.E., Inc., dated May 1989. Please see attached
report, Attachment D.
8. The applicant shall specifically address that the fill from
the construction of the structure will be removed from the site.
RESPONSE: The applicant has proposed that some of the fill be
used to widen the existing trail easement in portions where the
trail is only approximately 6 feet wide-. Removal of the fill
shall be a condition of approval.
9. The applicant shall verify that the proposed sprinkler system
for fire protection will adequately address the concerns of the
Fire Marshall.
RESPONSE: The applicant has not submitted a plan for review by
the Fire Marshall.
10. The applicant shall work with the Engineering Department and
Fire Marshall to determine if the access drive is required to be
widened to meet engineering and safety standards.
RESPONSE: The applicant has proposed to widen the road. This
proposal will be discussed during the following 8040 review.
Pursuant to Section 7 -503 the development of this site and the
proposal to widen the access road are subject to 8040 Greenline
review.
The propose of 8040 Greenline review is to:
9
0
1. reduce the impact of development on surface runoff, the
natural watershed, and air pollution;
2. avoid property losses from avalanches, unstable slope, rock
fall and mud slides;'
3. aid in the transition of development from urban uses to
agricultural and forestry uses;
4. provide for the least disturbance..to the terrain and other
natural land features of the area;
5. guarantee availability of utilities and adequate public
access to proposed development; and
6. enhance the natural mountain setting.
Section 7 -503 C. outlines the review standards for 8040 Greenline
Review:
CRITERION 1: The parcel on which the proposed development is to
be located is suitable for development considering its slope,
ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence and
the possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche dangers.
If the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the
applicant shall stablize and revegetate the soils, or, where
necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a location
acceptable to the City.
RESPONSE: If the City were reviewing the proposal as a new
subdivision, this location for development would not be approved
today. This is a very difficult site, at best. Reveiw of
Departmental files reveal very complex development issues
surrounding this parcel. With the rising popularity of nordic
skiing and the new developments along Ute Avenue below the
proposed building site, development must occur in a very
sensitive and guarded manner.
CRITERION 2: The proposed development does not have a signi-
ficant adverse affect on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage,
soil erosion or have consequent effects on water pollution.
RESPONSE: The applicant has submitted a drainage plan and a
subsoil study for foundation and grading design. The drainage
plan is unacceptable as was discussed above. The Forest Service
is concerned about the impact on the lower access road which
passes through Forest Service Land.
Although the applicant's consultant Chen - Northern has made
specific recommendations regarding soil stability, the applicant
has not indicated that these recommendations will be followed.
10
0
The City is proposing to place a
Utility and Trail easement and this
by whatever building and access
applicant needs to make an agreement
of the Engineering Department.
drainage culvert along this
will have to be accommodated
design is approved. The
to this to the satisfaction
CRITERION 3: The proposed development does not have a signi-
ficant adverse affect on the air quality in the City.
RESPONSE: The application has stated that a gas type fireplace
will be used thus minimizing the air pollution. The fireplace
shall be deed restricted with the Environmental Health
Department.
CRITERION 4: The design and location of any proposed develop-
ment, road, or trail is compatible with the terrain on the parcel
on which the proposed development is to be located.
RESPONSE: The building site is located in what is estimated to
be the safest portion of the lot. 'The building site is located
in a "wedge" of Douglas fir thus helping to protect against
avalanche hazard.
CRITERION 5: Any grading will minimize, to the extent practi-
cable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land
features.
RESPONSE: The applicant is proposing to widen the existing
Utility and Trail easement to provide a total road width of 12
feet on Lot 3. The amount of land that is excavated for the
expansion will vary depending upon the surveyed easement, and
actual existing land. There are portions of the platted easement
that have sloughed off of the edge of the road onto the abutting
properties.
Staff recommends using a vertical retaining wall that is tied
into the bank to support the expanded road cut. The applicant
has submitted a soil and grading plan for the proposed road
expansion. Because:. this hillside is very steep, any road cut
requires the use of 'a retaining wall or ,a very wide sloping bank.
The applicant proposes to use a boulder retaining wall. However
using a vertical tie -in support structure, rather than a boulder
rataining wall, will further decrease the amount of bank that
must be graded for a road cut of this size (refer to Attachment
B). Reducing the size of the road cut reduces the amount of
trees that will be removed. According to the Parks Department
approximately 100 trees, 6" in diameter or over will be removed
with the applicant's proposed road cut plan. Maintaining the
greatest number of trees on site will help reduce the erosion
potential on that slope and reduce the visual impact from such a
large road cut.
11
Parks estimates that 50 trees 6" in diameter or over shall be
removed with development of the building site. The size of the
building, and its placement on the site, will require a very
large excavation. The house is very long and narrow across the
hill. The site plans do not show an excavation plan. Staff
believes there is a conflict between .:one of the goals of 8040
review, to provide for the least disturbance to the terrain, and
the amount of excavation necessary for development.
CRITERION 6: The placement and clustering of structures will
minimize the need for roads, limit cutting and grading, maintain
open space, and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource.
RESPONSE: Only one structure is proposed for the lot. The
highest portion of the lot will remain undisturbed. However
because the upper road cut, intended as access to the building
site, is no longer needed, staff recommends, that the road be
filled in and revegetated.
CRITERION 7: Building height and bulk will be minimized and the
structure will be designed to blend into the open character of
the mountain.
RESPONSE: The total square footage 11 living -area is 4,792
square feet. The proposed building has an approximately 98 foot
wide facade stretching across the :hillside. The height,
depending upon which grade is used, is approximately 39 feet
tall. Although the applicant proposes to use "handcrafted and
handpeeled lodgepole pine logs ", the massing of this home will
make it difficult to blend into the hillside. The design of this
building is too conspicuous for its natural mountain setting. .A
less prominent design may better preserve the open character of
the mountain. The original approval for a single family home on
this site is a good example of a design the was sensitive to the
mountain setting. The Virden residence, proposed at 2,324 square
feet with a 24 foot wide facade, was to be built into the
hillside, requiring ,a narrow cut along the face of the mountain.
n
Staff recommends that the applicant submit an alternative home
design for this very,visible mountain slope.
CRITERION 8: Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are
available to service the proposed development.
RESPONSE: Utilities are available to the site. A discussion of
the utilities was included in a 8040 Greenline application that
was approved December 2, 1986. The ;Water Department has not
received information regarding the installation of a booster pump
and pressure tank or a meter. The Sanitation District requires a
line extension.
12
•
CRITERION 9: Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed
development, and said roads can be properly maintained.
RESPONSE: The applicant is proposing to widen the road. Staff
does not agree that a boulder retaining wall is adequate and
recommends a vertical tie -in wall. This type of support will
require less tree removal.
CRITERION 10: Adequate ingress and egress is available to the
proposed development so as to ensure adequate access for fire
protection and snow removal equipment.
RESPONSE: Fire protection will be by providing a sprinkler
system in the house. The applicant must submit a plan for review
by the Fire Marshal.
CRITERION 11: Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen
Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks /Recreation /Open Space /Trails Plan
map is dedicated for public use.
RESPONSE: After very lengthy discussions with neighbors,
consulting engineers, Parks Department, the Nordic Council and
review of past files, expansion of the existing road onto Lot 3
is the best, perhaps only alternative for access (Attachment E).
Using the existing! road is viewed with grave concern by the
owners of Lots 4 and 5. The Nordic Council and the Parks
Department perceive' a dangerous conflict between recreational
trail users and vehicles accessing the.site.
The applicant proposes to widen the road, cutting into the bank
on Lot 3 for a total access width of 12 feet. In some parts on
the trail easement, land has eroded o& the bank, thus making the
trail very .narrow in parts. The applicant proposes to use the
material from excavation to fill in the trail easement to its
fully platted width.
Staff has expressed concern regarding the point where trail users
may connect up with the building site driveway into the two car
garage. The applicant proposes to install in the immediate area
of the house bushes or a fence to separate the two uses.
It appears that the applicant has enough room in the Forest
Service easement to widen the entry point off of Forest Land onto
Lot 3 without requiring a Special Use Permit. However staff
recommends that theForest Service review the proposal before it
is determined that the expansion is allowed.
Expansion of the road will decrease the potential for user
conflict on the trail. It will enable ;the City to use the piston
bullies for track setting and there is� a' strong likelihood that
the easement will remain snowpacked at a proper depth. It was
originally proposed that the applicant would leave snow pack on
13
the road, but the condition did not specify a depth.
The proposal to widen the road is very recent and plans were
submitted to this office for review as late as August 1, 1989.
The proposal appears to work, however staff does not feel
comfortable recommending approval until a complete review by
other agencies, including the Forest Service, can occur.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends tabling the
Barker /Zaluba 8040 Greenline Review until the applicant addresses
the following concerns:
1. Staff feels strongly that a vertical tie -in retaining wall is
the best solution for a difficult problem. Plans for this type
of support system must be reviewed by the Planning and
Engineering Department before approval.;-
2. The Forest Service controls the easement onto Lot 3. To
widen the road may require changing the access point on Forest
Service Land. Before approval of the road expansion proposal the
Forest Service must review the proposal.
3. The width of the area which exists within the Utility and
Trail easement across Lots 4 and 5 does not meet existing
standards for trail width. We recommend that there be at least a
12 foot wide area to accommodate the trail. An easement needs to
be granted by the applicant to accommodate this additional area
for the trail.
4. If the driveway and trail are to be in the same location,
there is potential for a problem. The previous owner agreed to
leave a snowpack onj the driveway which would accommodate cross
country skiers. Craig Ward of the Nordic Council indicated that
this snowpack should be a minimum of flinches in depth. If this
becomes a requirement, then some method of enforcement needs to
be determined before approval.
5. Preserving the character of the mountain and encouraging
development, at such visible elevations, that are sensitive to
the surrounding environs is paramount to 8040 Greenline review.
Aspen residents need only look up and around to be reminded of
development that could have been designed in a less discernable
fashion for their elevated locations. 'A redesign of the proposed
single family home is crucial for 8040 approval of a development
on this lot.
6. The geotechnical engineers have made many recommendations for
development regarding slope stability during the excavation. It
is vital that these'recommendations are followed and incorporated
into the design of the site. The Engineering Department must
review these plans as committed to ..,by the applicant before
approval.
14
• 0
7. Chen - Northern has also indicated that they will be available
to perform field monitoring upon request. The applicant has not
assured staff that the particular request has be made.
8. A drainage plan that addresses the impact to the Forest
Service property from the drainage along the proposed access road
shall be submitted for review by the Engineering Department and
the Forest Service.
9. The applicant has identified the trees that will be removed
but has not made a commitment as 'to their replacement or
relocation. Furthermore, besides the aforementioned tree loss by
excavating his access, Mr. Zaluba has not agreed to relocate or
replace the approximately 50 or more trees, of equal value, that
will be destroyed by excavating the area where the house is to be
built. A landscape plan, indicating the replacement of as many
trees as possible on site and where other trees will be relocated
to.
10. The applicant has not submitted a'sprinkler plan for review
by the Fire Marshall.
hoagzaluba
15
ATTACHMENT A
JOHN THOMAS KELLY
ATTORNEY AT LAW
117 SOUTH SPRING STREET
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
TELEPHONE (303) 925 -1216
April 6, 1989
Ms. Cindy Houben
Aspen /Pitkin planning Office
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
I
�i
APR -7.
S
Re: Barker -Hoag 8040 Green Line Review
Dear Cindy:
I represent I. G. Davis, Jr., who is the owner of Lot 2,
Hoag Subdivision, which is directly below the proposed
location of the house for which approval is requested. On
behalf of my client, I would like to register strong
opposition to the application. The principal reasons for the
opposition are as follows:
1. Access. The only document which I am aware of that
would grant any right to use the proposed driveway is the plat
for Hoag Subdivision. The plat clearly grants a "Utility and
Public Trail Easement," not a road easement. The owners of
Lots 1, 2, 4 and 5 purchased their properties in reliance of
the representations on the plat regardless of the original
developer's (Jim Blanning) intention. In short, I believe the
applicant should be required to provide conclusively that he
has the right to use the easement as claimed prior to any
approval. I would also point out that the mere fact that past
assumptions made by P &Z or Council do not create easement
rights; only the landowners can do that.
2. Width. A related issue is width. It is our
position that, even if the applicant has a right to use the
road (which we do not concede), such use is limited to the
platted width of 15 feet. Accordingly, no downhill expansion
of the easement will be permitted by my client. Further, I
can think of no legal theory which would give the applicant
the right to expand the easement to the detriment of my
client.
® 0
Ms. Cindy Houben
April 6, 1989
Page Two
3. Safety Considerations. It is our position that
there are numerous safety considerations, most of which are
addressed in the Planning Office memo, including avalanche
hazard, soil stability and particularly potential drainage
problems. It is our position that approval should not be
granted until the P &Z and the neighbors have had a chance to
review the specific mitigation plans. Granting an approval
contingent upon supplying data at a later date is not
appropriate.
In summary, we submit that no 8040 approval should be
granted until the applicant proves conclusively that he has
the right to use the easement as he desires, and has
adequately addressed the safety concerns set forth in the
Planning Office memo.
JTK:mw
cc: I. G. Davis, Jr.
very tr ly ours,
John Thomas Kelly
0
LAW OFFICES
OATES, HUGHES & KNEZEVICH
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
THIRD FLOOR, ASPEN PLAZA BUILDING
533 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE
LEONARD M.OATES ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
ROBERT W. HUGHES
RICHARD A. KNEZEVICH
JOHN M. ELY April 19, 1989
Ms. Cindy Houben
Staff Planner
Aspen /Pitkin County
Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
AREA CODE 303
TELEPHONE 920-1700
TELECOPIER 920-1121
f�
APR 20.
Re: Barker 8040 Green Line Review for Lot 3,
Hoag Subdivision
Dear Cindy:
This firm represents Gary and Susan H. Rappaport who
are the owners of Lot 5, Hoag Subdivision. The Rappaport
property abuts Ute Avenue and they are presently in the process
of constructing their residence thereon. It has recently come to
their attention that there is an application for the development
of Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision, which proposes the construction of a
single- family residence and which intends to access the
development by use of the area marked on the subdivision plat for
,the Hoag Subdivision as "Utility and Public Trail Easement" (the
"Easement "). The Rappaports were very much aware of the
existence of the Easement on their property at the time they
purchased Lot 5, but they assumed, and rightfully so, that the
designation meant what it said, i.e., that the Easement was an
easement limited for utilities and public trail purposes. Their
assumption was further fortified by the narrowness of the
easement, 15 feet, and the obvious grade constraints associated
with it. In short, it was and is'inconceivable that the "Utility
and Public Trail Easement" would be used.for a vehicular road.
My investigation has consisted of a review of the Hoag
Subdivision Plat and certain historical materials, which I have
been able to obtain relating to the Hoag Subdivision, the results
of which investigation I wish to share with you. Those are:
1. The recorded subdivision plat for the Hoag Sub-
division creates an odd - shaped parcel for Lot 3. You will please
note that it contains a panhandle which falls off the lot to the
east. I have determined that this panhandle was created solely
for the purpose of allowing a portion of Lot 3 to abut property
OATES, HUGHES & KNEZEVICH, P. C.
Ms. Cindy Houben
Staff Planner
April 19, 1989
Page 2
then administered by the Department of Land Management (now by
the USFS) on the assumption that a Special Use Permit could be
obtained for access to Lot 3. In fact, numerous United States
Forest Service permits have been obtained. However, the
alignment thereof appears to attach not to the panhandle but
rather to the Easement itself.
2. The plat itself does not dedicate the Utility and
Public Trail Easement. We view the legal maneuvering and various
self- serving statements of prior owners of Lot 3 and their
counsel as merely bootstrapping. As you are aware, the Planning
and Zoning Commission or the City of Aspen cannot by fiat deter-
mine or constitute private property to be a public or private
right of way. It is the position of the Rappaports that legally
there is no vehicular access easement along the public utility
and trail easement through their property and they will take
whatever legal measures are necessary to prove their position.
We would welcome the opportunity to review our legal position and
conclusions with the City Attorney.
3. The width of the Easement at 15 feet is clearly
inadequate. The Rappaports are unwilling to consider the grant-
ing of any rights which would expand the Easement beyond that of
its intended use as a utility and public trail easement.
4. There are numerous safety considerations with
respect to the use of the road. How is it expected that a 15
—foot road would accommodate the likes of concrete and heavy
earthmoving equipment and trucks?
In addition to the above concerns, which are limited to
access, we believe that the avalanche conditions which exist and
which manifested themselves this past Winter on the property
lying westerly of my clients' Lot 5 (including the Easement)
demonstrate that it would be courting catastrophe to permit the
development of Lot 3. The avalanche activity was of a magnitude
that most certainly would have injured or killed anyone on the
Easement. The Easement was enveloped by the slides. It is
interesting to note that the avalanche study relating to the
property deals with measures taken which will allow a structure
to be built which will withstand the ravages of avalanche
activity. While we understand that buildings can be designed for
such purposes, the simple fact of the matter is that measures to
0
OATES, HUGHES & KNEZEVICH, P. C.
Ms. Cindy Houben
Staff Planner
April 19, 1989
Page 3
protect people cannot. Your attention is called to the recent
very comprehensive article which appeared in Contemporary
Magazine, the Sunday supplement to the Denver Post, which dealt
with this very issue. The article was written in response to the
death of a child, one of three who were buried in an avalanche
behind a condominium project in Mount Crested Butte. The essence
of that story was that the land use authorities simply should not
allow the construction of people- occupied facilities in avalanche
areas. While it may be entirely possible to build a residence
which will withstand the avalanche, will the humans in the yard
or walking up the road be so durable?
In summary, we assert that no 8040 Green Line approval
should be granted to Mr. Barker for his proposed project until
there is no question as to the access rights to Lot 3 and the
safety concerns with respect to the development of the subject
property have been answered. We submit that the applicant will
be unable to satisfy you with respect to either issue. I would
appreciate it if you could contact me to advise me as to the time
and place of the next hearing on this matter. We understand that
8040 Green Line review does not require any public notice.
Otherwise, we will have no knowledge thereof.
Thank you for consideration of this letter.
Very truly yours,
OATES, HUGHES & KNEZEVICH, P.C.
By:
Leonard M. ates
LMO /mw
LTR3- Houben
cc: Gary and Susan Rappaport
•
J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH, P.C.
A Professional Corporation
Attorneys At Law
J. Nicholas McGrath'
Michael C. Ireland
May 2, 1989
Ms. Cindy Houben
Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Cindy:
C
600 East Hopkins Avenue
Suite 203
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Telephone (303) 925 -2612
Telecopier(303)925 -4402
I represent Jack Barker, owner of Lot 3, Hoag
Subdivision. A contract purchaser of Mr. Barker is
processing an 8040 application. It is my unde --standing that
the owners of Lots 2 and 5, Hoag Subdivision, object to the
application not on the merits of it, but rather because they
assert Lot 3 has no access on an easement.
This issue has been raised, addressed and resolved by
the City on at least five occasions:
1. When the City approved the Hoag plat
in 1971, it had to approve access on the
existing easement because there is no
other and because access is a requirement
of a platted lot. Barker bought in
reliance upon that approval and the plat.
2. A 1972 application for a 7 unit
apartment (never built) on Lot 3 was
approved.
3. The Virden 8040 approval for a house
on Lot 3, never built, had as a predicate
access on the easement.
4. Mr. Barker obtained an 8040 approval
in 1985 for a driveway for Lot 3 in which
the easement was discussed and access
apparently resolved.-
5. Mr. Barker obtained an amended 8040
approval for the driveway after the
Forest Service had denied a proposed
different location on the specific ground
that Lot 3 already had access along an
JI existing BLM and Hoag Subdivision
easement. I enclose a copy of a letter
from Brook Peterson on Mr. Barker's
behalf discussing the very same access
issue.
`Member, Colo. (1971), Calif. (1969), and D.C. (1966) bars
r
v �
J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH, P.C.
Ms. Cindy Houben
May .2, 1989
Page 2
Mr. Barker has relied on these five City actions
recognizing and approving access to Lot 3 on the existing
Hoag Subdivision "utility and public trail easement." If the
owners of Lots 2 and 5 object to the access, their remedy is
to sue the owner of Lot 3 - -not to stop the City's normal
processing of an 8040 application.
The City, having passed upon t--.he access in approving the
plat on five occasions, should deal with the 8040 application
on the merits, grant it, and not indirectly assist landowners
who have their own direct remedy.
cc: Fred Gannett, Esq.
Mr. Jack Barker
j3:houb414.ltr
Sincerely,
J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH, P.C.
' 1 .
By N IJI
J. Nicholas McGrath
MAY - 3
0 0
AREA CODE 303
TELEPHONE 920-1700
TELECOPIER 920 -1121
Cindy Houben
Staff Planner
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: 8040 Greenline Review - Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision
Dear Cindy:
I noted Nick McGrath's May 2, 1989 letter to you in review-
ing the file on the Barker 8040 Greenline matter and the position
of the Rappaports on this matter is simply that the City did not
require proper dedication language relating to the access to Lot
3 does not serve to create, by implication, necessity or
otherwise any road easement over what is clearly designated
"Utility and Trail Easement ". Additionally, the legislative
actions of the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council
which have occurred since 1972 do not, in law, serve to create
any access easement where none existed. Indeed, to the contrary,
we submit the following:
1. The only reason that the Hoag Subdivision was every
approved was due to the fact that the original develop-
er of the subdivision held a gun to the City's head,
wherein he proposed to develop the Ute Cemetery as a
lot. As a consequence, the City hurriedly approved the
Hoag Subdivision. Otherwise, I believe it likely would
never have been approved as platted.
2. The developer in the 1972 application recognized and
understood that its access was by virtue of the
panhandle portion of Lot 3 and not the "Utility and
Road Easement ". At that time, that developer
negotiated with all of the other lot owners within the
subdivision to create an easement utilizing the "Util-
ity and Trail Easement ". Documentation regarding such
efforts still exists. The easement was never consum-
mated.
In short, Mr. Barker's reliance, whatever it may have been,
is not sufficient to create an easement. The City of Aspen, in
its land use processes, has an obligation to verify the existence
LAW OFFICES
OATES, HUGHES & KNEZEVICH
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
THIRD FLOOR. ASPEN PLAZA BUILDING
533 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE
LEONARD M.OATES
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
ROBERT W. HUGHES
RICHARD A. KNEZEVICH
JOHN M. ELY
May 12, 1989
AREA CODE 303
TELEPHONE 920-1700
TELECOPIER 920 -1121
Cindy Houben
Staff Planner
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: 8040 Greenline Review - Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision
Dear Cindy:
I noted Nick McGrath's May 2, 1989 letter to you in review-
ing the file on the Barker 8040 Greenline matter and the position
of the Rappaports on this matter is simply that the City did not
require proper dedication language relating to the access to Lot
3 does not serve to create, by implication, necessity or
otherwise any road easement over what is clearly designated
"Utility and Trail Easement ". Additionally, the legislative
actions of the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council
which have occurred since 1972 do not, in law, serve to create
any access easement where none existed. Indeed, to the contrary,
we submit the following:
1. The only reason that the Hoag Subdivision was every
approved was due to the fact that the original develop-
er of the subdivision held a gun to the City's head,
wherein he proposed to develop the Ute Cemetery as a
lot. As a consequence, the City hurriedly approved the
Hoag Subdivision. Otherwise, I believe it likely would
never have been approved as platted.
2. The developer in the 1972 application recognized and
understood that its access was by virtue of the
panhandle portion of Lot 3 and not the "Utility and
Road Easement ". At that time, that developer
negotiated with all of the other lot owners within the
subdivision to create an easement utilizing the "Util-
ity and Trail Easement ". Documentation regarding such
efforts still exists. The easement was never consum-
mated.
In short, Mr. Barker's reliance, whatever it may have been,
is not sufficient to create an easement. The City of Aspen, in
its land use processes, has an obligation to verify the existence
OAVES, HUGHES & KNEZEVICH, P. C.
Cindy Houben
May 12, 1989
Page 2
of adequate legal access and to ensure the property rights of
adjacent property owners that are not physically otherwise
encroached upon. Approval of the Barker application would
clearly violate this basic rule which even this week you and the
City's Engineering Department said you would impose on me in the
case of another land use matter. Contrary to what Mr. McGrath
asserts, if Mr. Barker's position that he has an easement, and
that certainly is far from evidence from anything that has been
shown, and contrary to what all of the evidence shows, then it is
Mr. Barker who should have the burden of demonstrating or
establishing the existence of an easement by
virtue of a court action.
Very truly yours,
OATES, HUGHES & KNEZEVICH, P.C.
By: '141 W ANK'9 G
Le and M. Oates
LMO:klm
P.S. Cindy, We have been contacted by Robert W. Howard and
Carol M. Howard, who are the owners of one of the condominium
units situate on Lot 4, Hoag Subdivision. They have authorized
us to proceed on their behalf in this matter and I would advise
that they wholeheartedly support the position that the Rappaports
have taken in this matter.
cc: Mr. & Mrs. Gary Rappaport
Mr. & Mrs. Howard
MAY 5
(I,�__ - - -- - -
LEONARD M. OATES
ROBERT W. HUGHES
RICHARD A. KNEZEVICH
JOHN M. ELY
LAW OFFICES
OATES, HUGHES & KNEZEVICH
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
THIRD FLOOR. ASPEN PLAZA BUILDING
533 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
May 12, 1989
Cindy Houben
Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Barker 8040 Review
Dear Cindy:
rr
MAY 16
AREA CODE 303
TELEPHONE 920-1700
TELECOPIER 920-1121
I have read Mr. McGrath's letter of May 2, 1989,
submitted to the Planning Office. Regarding the letter, I would
like to state as follows:
1. We do not object to the application solely on the
basis of the access issue. As I stated in Paragraph 3 of my
letter, there are numerous other matters including drainage,
revegetation, engineering concerns, and avalanche danger most of
which are discussed in the planning memo.
2. While it may be that the City made certain as-
sumptions regarding the access issue on several occasions, that
fact alone does not grant Mr. Barker road access. He either has
legal access, or he doesn't, and City approvals do not create
access rights. The plat is clear. The road is clearly designat-
ed "utility and public trail easement." My client relied on the
representations on the plat, and this language was also approved
by the City. Mr. Barker may have other access, but it is not via
the existing road.
Finally, I also dispute the assertion that our remedy
should be to sue Mr. Barker rather than object to the 8040
application. The 8040 process was designed to protect the
citizens of Aspen, including my client. It seems to me that this
application raises many of the issues for which 8040 was enacted
in the first place. Surely the applicant should have the burden
OATES, HUGHES Sc KNEZEVICH, P. C.
Cindy Houben
May 12, 1989
Page 2
•
proving conclusively that he has the right to use the road as a
driveway prior to receiving City approval to change it.
Very truly yours,
OATES, HU ES KNEZEVICH, P.C.
B
Joh Kelly
JTK /pjo
cc: Jack Davis
Fred Gannett
1.22
•
May 18, 1989
ROBERT W. HOWARD
31 DANIEL COURT
RIDGEWOOD, NEW JERSEY 07450
Ms. Cindy Houben
Staff Planner
Aspen /Pitkin County Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
MAY 2 2.
Re: Barker 8040 Green Line Review for Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision
Dear Ms. Houben:
My wife and I would like to add our voices to those of Gary and
Susan Rappaport and Mr I. G. Davis in objecting to permitting any
vehicular traffic on the Utility and Public Trail Easement behind
our property.
The easement passes within a few feet of our home so any traffic on
it would be very intrusive and dangerous.
We have authorized Mr. Kenneth Oates to speak for us on the legal
issues involved but I wanted to write to you directly to express
our strongest possible objection to the development of Lot 3 and
the use of the easement for anything other than its original
purposes.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
Very truly yours,
&e,v+ OQ&O"
Robert W. Howard
1105A Ute Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
cc: Leonard M. Oates, Esq.
0 0
SUSAN H. RAPPAPORT
3940 WALDEN SHORES ROAD
WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391
(612) 473 -3065
FAX # (612) 473 -5369
August 2, 1989
Leslie Lemont
Aspen Planning Department
130 Galena
Aspen, Co 81611
Dear Leslie,
&a-0,
My husband, Gary, and I are the owners of Lot 5, Hoags Addition, and we wish to
voice our very strong objections to the proposal for the house on Lot 3. We
understand that it is coming up for 8040 greenline review on August 8th, and we
will be at that meeting, but I just wanted to write to you about some of the strongest
objections:
I. If the access road to the site is approved as is indicated on the most recent
plans, we have some grave concerns about the road being able to withstand
the enormous amount of construction traffic. To excavate alone would
require at least 300 truck loads. The amount of concrete truckloads is also
enormous. We have spoken to our contractor, Duane Stewart at JDM
Construction, and he suggested that that much weight etc. could compromise
our foundation as well as the foundations of the other homes along the road.
That ski trail was not designed to accommodate heavy construction traffic!
And any new road would have to be designed to accommodate all of that
construction equipment.
2. Jim Gibberd indicated that a drainage ditch from the spar gulch drainage
would probably be built along the road next year. How will that integrate
into Mr. Zaluba's road ?
3. If Mr. Zaluba builds an entirely new road above the existing road, we
believe that it will require major retaining walls, not to mention the physical
and visual damage it will do to the mountain.
3. Additionally, we are concerned that if a vehicular access road is approvedz
there will be many more proposals to develop the property, (ie the mining
claims), along that face. Needless to say, we would oppose this.
While we do not wish to deny anyone the right to build on their own property, the t
difficulty of the site, the avalanche danger, the aesthetic considerations and the
road access make it very hard to support this project. We would hope that you
would not give approval of this project.
Sinc r ly,
LEONARD M. OATES
ROBERT W. HUGHES
RICHARD A. KNEZEVICH
JOHN M. ELY
OF COUNSEL:
JOHN THOMAS KELLY
0 0
LAW OFFICES
OATES, HUGHES & KNEZEVICH
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
THIRD FLOOR. ASPEN PLAZA BUILDING
533 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
August 2, 198
Ms. Leslie Lamont
Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
AREA CODE 303
TELEPHONE 920.1700
TELECOPIER 920-1121
RE: Barker 8040 Greenline Review, Lot 3 Hoag Subdivision
Dear Leslie:
As you are aware this office represents I.G. Davis, Mr.
and Mrs. Gary Rappaport, and Robert W. and Carol Howard all of
whom are property owners on Ute Avenue and heavily impacted by
the proposed development on Lot 3 Hoag Subdivision. We have
reviewed the.latest plans supplied us by Mr. Zaluba, and our
clients' position regarding the application is as follows:
1. Access. As you are aware, it is our position that
the applicant Has no right to use the platted "Utility and
Trail Easement." We do not believe that Mr. Zaluba, at least,
disputes this. His solution, as we understand it, essentially
is to widen the road uphill soley on his property, in order to
avoid use of the trail. He proposes to place a split rail
fence along his property line to segregate the trail from the
vehicular access. We find this solution unsatisfactory-for
two basic reasons.
a. The plan will destroy the cross county ski use
of the trail in winter. There does not appear to as any way
that the vehicular access can be maintained as such without
damaging and perhaps destroying the cross country trail as a
result. Surely plowing will have to spill downhill on the
"trail" portion of the road destroying its use as a cross
country trail. It is also clear that the fence will in all
likelihood, not survive the winter. Even last year, which was
a light snow year, there were several slides which crossed the
road and would have knocked down the fence. In short, the
vehicular access is incompatible with trail use. We think,
Bill Ness' memo sums up the incapability issue well when he
says, "A consideration was proposed for a combined use
alignment, where the trail would not be plowed. This runs the
OATES, HUGHES 8C KNEZEVICH, P. C.
Ms. Leslie Lamont
August 2, 1989
Page 2
gamut of 'Dangerous' to 'Ridiculous.' Dangerous, by sending
skiers downhill into oncoming traffic; Ridiculous, because the
unplowed, packed snow is subjected to warming /freezing
temperatures, which turns the whole path into wheel depth
frozen ruts. The liability problems are self evident."
b. De- Stabilization. The road as it presently
exists may be further de- stabilized by the widening and
particularly by the heavy truck traffic which will be
necessary to move the earth from the large cuts made by both
the road and particularly the building site. All of our
clients' residences lay in close proximity to the road, and we
are concerned about damage to foundations, landslides, and
drainage problems. This road, widened or not, was never
designed to handle that kind of heavy truck and equipment use.
We have also reviewed the Zaluba plan in view of the
specific standards for the 8040 Review criteria which are
contained in Section 7- 503(c). Section 7- 503(c) states that
no development shall be.permitted at, above, or 150 feet below
the 8040 Greenline unless Planning and Zoning makes a finding
that the standards contained in paragraphs 1 through 11 of
Section 7- 503(c) have been satisfied. Even being generous to
the plan, we feel the project does not comply with the
following standards.
a. Paragraph 1. The project is not suitable
considering slope, ground stability, and avalanche dangers.
b. Paragraph 4. Design and location of the
proposed road or trail is not compatible with the terrain, and
may, in fact, de- stabilize the slope.
C. Paragraph 7. Building height and bulk are not
minimized. This is a arge, three story structure in excess
of 6,000 square feet, and it will not blend in with the open
character of the mountain as the slope cut will, by necessity,
be extensive.
d. Paragraph 9 and 10. It is our position that
adequate roads are not available nor can they be adequately
maintained. As stated above, maintenance of the road in
winter will severly damage or destroy the use of the ski
access and nordic trail.
• 0
GATES, H UGHES 8c KNEZEViCH, P. G.
Ms. Leslie Lamont
August 2, 1989
Page 3
In conclusion, it is our clients' view that this
application should be denied. While there may be development
which is appropriate for Lot 3 Hoag Subdivision, this proposal
does not meet the required standards for 8040 approval. In
fact, it appears to be just the type of development that
Section 7 -503 was intended to restrict.
Sincerely yours,
OATES, HUGHES & KNEZEVICH, P.C.
By
''' KIM
J011h T. K&lly— - J
JTK /klh
JTK1.101
cc: Davises
Howards
Rappaports
I tk
144
ATTACHMENT B
150
14C
13(
12
1E
13
12
150
am
30 'v
-Al
16
00
cli.
150
am
30 'v
-Al
IJV
140
130
120
i 0
30 t0 1N IV
- EXISTI
G GRADE, TYPICAL
15-00
PROF
OSED RETAIN
iNG WALL
rnrn
in
30 t0 1N IV
ATTACHMENT C
W
AnIc
M
O
I az'll
Al
Ll --"
/
, \ \ \
/
\ \
r
O
SNOW - AVALANCHE LOADING ANALYSIS
LOG BUILDING, 1125 UTE AVENUE, ASPEN
Prepared For
Mr. Joe Zaluba
Arthur I. Mears, P.E., Inc.
Gunnison, Colorado
May, 1989
1 OBJECTIVES AND LIMITATIONS
This avalanche - loading analysis, which was requested by Mr. Joe
Zaluba of Aspen, has the following objectives:
a. Analysis of design - avalanche energy on the slope
above the proposed building;
b. Computation of design loads on the proposed
structure; and
C. Discussion of the avalanche risk.
This study is site specific, therefore the avalanche loads
provided here cannot be safely transferred to other locations.
The terrain and avalanche conditions may differ significantly
from one location to another.
2 DESIGN - AVALANCHE CONDITIONS
The design avalanches considered in this analysis are of a
magnitude (size and destructive energy) that must be considered
in design and construction of a building located in the avalanche
path. Avalanches above the building site will originate on a
northeast - facing slope at approximately 8,700 feet elevation,
will flow through the forest and stop near Ute Avenue, (Figure
1). The last significant avalanche at the building site occurred
during a warm thaw period in March, 1989, but previous avalanches
have also occurred at the site. The building will be located at
approximately 8,100 feet elevation, therefore avalanches may fall
600 feet before impacting the site.
Avalanches may.result from rapid snowpack warming (such as the
1989 avalanches), or from rapid deposits of dry cold snow during
mid - winter storms. Both types of avalanche releases have
occurred in the past, as determined by inspection of timber
damage on the slopes near and above the building site.
The design avalanche will accelerate to a maximum velocity of
approximately-45 mph on the steep slopes above the building site
and will decelerate to 33 mph at the building. As indicated by
tree damage on the slope, avalanche flow depth will be
approximately 6 feet and the avalanche may flow on a snowpack
depth of approximately 3 feet.
Avalanche energy and impact- loading calculations were based on
a. Observed damage to trees that received previous
impacts; and
b. Avalanche- dynamics calculations, based on an impact
velocity of 33 mph and a flow density of 6.2 lbs /ft .
The analysis determined an impact load of 470 lbs /ft2
would
result on a large, rigid, flat surface located at the uphill side
of the building. This loading figure was based on the assumption
that all of the avalanche momentum was deflected through 900 at
the instant of impact.
3 AVALANCHE LOADS ON PROPOSED STRUCTURE
The design - avalanche velocities and impact energies calculated
were resolved into loads as shown on Figures 2 and 3. The
magnitudes of these loads were based on architectural details
provided me by Mr. Joe Zaluba in April, 1989. These details are
reproduced in Figures 2 and 3. Any changes to these .plans may
invalidate the loading criteria provided here.
Two types of loads occur on the proposed house: 1) impact loads
and 2) static loads as described below.
Impact loads result when the avalanche is suddenly
stopped by the building. They will increase quickly,
loading the entire structure in approximately 1 second.
Static loads result as avalanche debris is deposited
against the uphill building wall and on the roof. If
the avalanche occurs early in the winter, these static
deposit loads may persist for at least several weeks
until the deposit slowly melts in the spring.
The impact loads may require special treatment in final
structural engineering. Special structural - engineering details
are beyond the scope of this analysis and are left for the final
design stage of this project.
The impact load of 470 lbs /ft2 (load Pl on Figures 2 and 3) may
be reduced substantially if the vertical uphill surface is
removed by building into the hill or by extending the roof until
it intersects the uphill ground surface.
4 AVALANCHE HAZARD
During the times when avalanches
are most likely,
persons will
probably be
inside within the
specially- design
building, and
consequently
will not be exposed
to the hazard.
Furthermore,
design of the
building discussed in this report.
is especially
good because
the entrance area
on the downhill
side of the
building will
be protected.
However, any construction within avalanche areas will increase
the probability of an avalanche encounter because the number of
people exposed will increase as 'a result of the development.
This residual risk must be understood and accepted when
development takes place in avalanche areas. The risk from
0
0
avalanches can be reduced even further if those who live within
avalanche areas such as this one understand the avalanche hazard
and heed all official avalanche warnings.
Submitted by,
Arthur I. Mears, P.E.
Avalanche - control engineer
\��•.i \ II II,Im x.11 �(�. \ Q �� (`. 9•'Op --% / '`, \..a
It
980
l\ )
�• �� � \ � � \ \\ �' � / -- "-_9000 -.— �� , �i
'j IN
5 /` ` -�:� � c" At /o h •�t�� ' I � 1, �, +1 ' � �( -!; •r \ I t � \,( (�� . I _ t, ' ;' � I; i .
.• i�^ \ I \' 1 F a \�r kI I Iowa
.t1 1 I I 1� ! r 1 /{�ItI.' \l ♦III! I V.
it
�*, �• n r��' I� ,,,'' "� s wacker'� i
-�.J adlo'halllu ^I ark Regcril --
dam' �fl, I ••�� •� Sp •ri I \ / \, r,T w r' Shalt
\ • \ I. ') \, I e.4t1 Jc oh
S a e. ���, I some
•J„ ati, .,. • J I COwC /Oven Tu of 111
fi y
.. -� DI al C".7 j - r r.
tunne ( . �, ggl
�'�'T'�I: "�. /ll r./ ��• •r `;,1 ' ^� 1 j'Llli' I 1 Sha,I,Y I ,,,
/, n � J� �!I`y.�"'I �� �1 •� '\ ] I ^ i'� njI11 rl`' ,1`I \ \I � r l \�. : /h'!(�, �u.
�� •��. �lr ��.7�i , -' •� ' I�i ��1r,1�^ n I rl u. Im
/ l GI son° 1 ( 11 ° /
\l\\ \`l! J)��� 1;r��r'�+yr yr -••�7y 11 pa;k,
I
l,t�htlrl�\\lu)I� °II +\`t1 I'll �'•.11/ Oo
It— {•.!1�llyi��• . `I; ��• L \. I7 \ \lllr d l•.tii�i'(;'`I \I\ �I' lli I
�Gaging
lLl,�\\�oo V /v��' i• %� ��,Sta: �;t11.,. !I\ ,111' °° III�IjI / % I
�; \ \�� \, \\ `� '�\ /l�•l'1] ••��7�•.�,- �,�•J! cr •9 a •�:��h�•- \\ ., \•, \ I,1 I'•I J (() .1,1 L
r ���1 \,I oh�. � 1 .,.V •Alm 11 iu��'�! I� r � ,c;9, ,i ' ' 1 � v 1 ' I � � ,
I} Ill ,� ' %�. •. I . n, �►.. 4y! 1 ��d.• , Il '� / a\ ,'' �� ` r
,,, �,�' ,, 'fit :4 \\ •, ••�, • � r?'i��, 1 ���� • '. w'
, I 1 'I I' 1 1� 1�., \\ 1'�. I � ' I �.',1';.• 1 1�• rr r• !.:,'� I \,:•:•t•;Ila ; \ ,' �It � I � � (r II: � � / '
f l I' I�' I (,� \`,,~KI,- F�I� `I , � ,,� � ��•� � ` �, ` •. �r1� 7�• • .\4��1�' �I 7.1 • I I 1 • 1\ au�t� � ail ` 1 (1 \ \ � ��'t � ' \ � � \ �� /�
1,1�, \ \\ y \�� •1jK.` �� �• t �lil \ \ \I 1\ l \J)
C� Y' � �f .�` � 1' � ,l 1
.•.:\ ., � Tom, . :� \,\ \'. „
II (�II \� \\�'\ \\`��^ J 4 � 4�� i I� � \� ��rJ'' � -� V(�,' ^`` �•.8 25,\ Q,: \,\
••,GraPits-/'-" �'
` \IN,`.%��.1 �✓ \ \� \� Ui 9 °i �� \\�` \\ \\ \�'� \.� -�'. \C•. �� :Ef'.i 1� r� \ \ \ \\ 1. �,�I• / 11`1,1,\ \ \�`
\�� o \: i %h�l` V ` ��� �i�l ���� �I /� •II� \��1 � V.I' �� 11 I( /! l�j�'• � � rl �! ! II 1� 1�1: �. �1V�. �\ i(` 1 / ' .
°q 1 ilr, I,I•; i111 ,11j j ( �r
M ,h 0� V1 FIGURE 1 . Location map showing 1 j
/ i, J 1� �,1, \�• approximate positions of site
'�! ��r ► ; \l`',1. \';� I ..X and avalanche path.
Scale: 1" = 2000r
I
FIGURE 2. Avalanc* load magnitudes
and directions, Zaluba Log House, P
5
Aspen, Colorado. /
� F
z-
ffAST ELEVATION
11s i on
AVALA
Load
P1
P2
P3
PS
NOTE:
Fin
-* FIN
Tep' To 4RP•C> E r
NCHE LOAD MAGNITUDES
Type Ma nitude
Impact 470 lbs/ft2
Static 330 - 100 lbs/ft2
Impact 100 lbs/ft2
Impact 150 lbs/ft2
Avalanche loads should be added to all
other loads usually considered here.
FIGURE . Avalanc load magnitudes
and dirctions, Za- ba Log House,
Aspen, Colorado.
rl
T-------------- - - - -ru"
W EST E L EYATIO N
Zi GA LC 11841- It o"
AVALANCHE LOAD MAGNITUDES
Load .
Type
Magnitude
P1
Impact
470 lbs/ft2
P4
Static
200 - 100.1bs/f t2
P3
Impact
100 .lbs/f t2
NOTE: Avalanche loads should be
added to all other loads usually
considered at this location.
Z /
o ,
f i
ATTACHMENT E -�
coo
z m i
i
c
z {�
o \
r
z �
v
N �
(n "•;^ q
1p
a m
-r , -+
i'�/ � \
UA
1
7
J /
/
It
m'
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
565 North Mill Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Tele. (303) 925 -3601
I
JulV =5, 1989
Lesl7e Lamont
Planning Office
1:30 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Barker 6040 GrG_nline Review
Tele. (303) 925 -2537
D Le =_lie:
Clue comments, which were submitted on the 6th of March, remain
accurate. To date we have not heard from the applicant regarding
the line extension which would be required.
Sincerely,
Bruce Matherly
District Mana—r
`; JUL
•
@A�e� a;' J"ae'w
WAYNE L. VANDEMARK, FIRE MARSHAL
TO: Leslie Lamont
FROM: Wayne Vandemark, Fire Marshal
RE: Barker 8040 Greenline Review
DATE: June 15, 1989
420 E. HOPKINS STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
(303) 925 -2690
JUN 1 5
This project is approximately five minutes from the Fire
Department. The access roadway shall be 20 feet in width with
an all weather driving surface per Uniform Fire Code. Consider-
ation should be given for the installation of an automatic
sprinkler system for the greatest degree in fire protection.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Joe Zal uba
Leslie Lamont
FROM: Bill Ness, Parks Superintendent
DATE: July 24, 1989
RE: 1125 Ute Ave, Hoag Subdivision Lot *3 - Tree Removal Request
The following proposals have been reviewed by the Parks Dept:
1) Proposed approximately 50 trees, 6" or over in diameter, to be removed
for house location.
2) Proposed approximately 100 trees, 6" or over in diameter, to be removed
for widening an additional 8' of personal driveway.
These requests have been denied by the Parks Dept for the, following
reasons, as defined by the City of Aspen Code:
1) Section 13 -76. Paragraph (d), No. (5). The number and kind of
trees in the neighborhood, the contribution of the trees to the
natural beauty of the area, and the effect of removal upon the
property values in the area.
2) Section 13 -76. Paragraph (e). Requires that the owner either
relocate or replace a tree or trees with comparable substitutes
somewhere within the property lines of the site, or donate to the
City of Aspen Parks Dept.. Comparable substitutes is defined as
a tree or trees of equal size and value to the appraised value of
that tree which is to be removed or relocated.
Supplementary to these codes, there are many inherent problems with the
proposed development of Lot *3, Hoag Subdivision, with respect to the
Nordic Trail which already exists North of the proposed building site.
Firstly, there is insufficient width to allow for both a safe ski trail
and a driveway along the existing alignment. To widen this alignment to
accommodate both ski trail and driveway, the hillside would have to be
excavated 6300 sq. ft. (450' x 14}. This would provide proper alignment
widths for both the trail and the driveway. This would require some
function of retaining system, is. retaining wall or gabion wall and produce a
12' to 15' tall scar along 450' of the alignment. This would also eliminate
approximately 100 or more pine trees, 6' or over in diameter. Mr. Zaluba's
current excavation plan allows only a 6' wide ski trail, which is totally
unacceptable, especially since this alignment runs along an inclined slope of
4% to 7X grade. Six feet is not enough room to negotiate skis safely on an
incline of this slope. The excavation of this area and exorbitant tree
removal serves only private access and not the public ski trail already in
place.
Secondly, if excavation were to proceed, a physical barrier would need
to be set in place to separate skiers from traffic. This would further the
excavations depth in addition to removing more trees.
Thirdly, the City has purchased two Kassborher piston bullies, at
$95,000 each, to groom the existing Nordic ski trails. In order for the
piston bullies to be able to groom this alignment, even further excavation
would be necessary. The City has also purchased many land easements to
complete the base of Aspen Mountain Trail, thereby linking this trail across
the south side of town. These investments will be jeopordized by the
proposed alignment of the trail.
A consideration was proposed for a combined use alignment, where the
trail would not be plowed. This runs the gamut of 'Dangerous' to 'Ridiculous'.
Dangerous, by sending skiers downhill into on coming traffic; Ridiculous,
because the unplowed, packed snow is subjected to warming /freezing
temperatures, which turns the whole path into wheel depth frozen ruts. The
liability problems are self evident.
Furthermore, besides the aforementioned trees lost by excavating his
access, Mr. Zaluba has not agreed to relocate or replace the approximately
50 or more trees, of equal value, that will be destroyed by excavating the
area where the house is to be built.
L F'
western heritage log homes, inC.
C
csha/llvAred 076
July 24, 1989
George Robinson
Parks & Recreation Dept.
City of Aspen
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
REF: Review of Tree Removal - Hoag Sundivision Lot 3
Dear George:
Thanks for taking the time to walk this site with me to determine
the trees that will have to be.removed due to our proposed development.
As I have not heard any further word from you, I will assume we have
met the requirements of your department with regard to this matter.
Please let me know if you should have any further questions concerning
our proposed development.
Sincerely,
WESTERN HERITAGE LOG HaIES, INC.
Jo^ ph S. Dual
neral ilanager
slie LipZoning
c C P1
JUL 2 6
DENVER OFFICE ASPEN OFFICE
8899 William Cody Drive telex 7110 1111 405 JSZA 525 South Original Street
Evergreen, Colorado 80439 USA Aspen, Colorado 81611 USA
(303) 674 -1435 / FAX 674 -3855 (303) 925 -4600
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Attorney
City Engineer
:_Aspen Water Department
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
Parks Department
Fire Marshall
U.S. Forest Service
' Leslie-Lamont
Greenline Review
RE: Barker 8040
DATE:
June 12, 1989
the Planning Commission reviewed this
On April 4, 1989, in order for the
application and tabled
r additional indefin
application to P
return your
Please review this additional
tion and
comments no later than July 26th.
14U 1 1 4 t� I
0
IVY
informs
Thank you.
aw
ov
0
C
MEMORANDUM
TO: Leslie Lamont,'Planning Office
i
FROM: Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department iu
DATE: August 3, 1989
RE: Barker 8040 Greenline Review
Having reviewed the additional information submitted by the
applicant and made a site visit, the Engineering Department has
the following comments:
1. The applicant needs to follow the recommendations concerning
planning and design for slope stability during the excavation of
the proposed residence which were made in the reports by Chen -
Northern of June 26, 19891 and August 1, 1989. The Engineering
Department needs to review this planning and design before
approval.
2. The driveway plan submitted by High Country Engineering does
satisfactorily follow the recommendations of Chen - Northern in
their report of July 31, 1989. However, the following should be
considered before approval of this driveway proposal:
a. The width of the area which exists within the trail and
utility easement across lots 4 and 5 does not meet existing
standards for trail width. We recommend that there be at least a
12 feet wide area to accommodate the trail. An easement needs to
be granted by the applicant to accommodate this additional area
for the trail.
b. If the driveway and trail are to be in the same location,
there is potential for a problem. The previous owner agreed to
leave a snowpack on the driveway which would accommodate cross
country skiers. Craig Ward of the Nordic Council indicated that
this snowpack should be a minimum of 4 inches in depth. If this
becomes a requirement, then some method of enforcement needs to
be determined before approval.
c. The submitted plan calls for widening the existing road so
that the driveway can be located entirely on lot 3. To
accommodate this widening, we recommend that the cut in the slope
be reduced as much as possible by the placement of a vertical
retaining wall that is tied into the bank. This will reduce the
visual impact as well as the number of trees that will have to be
removed. Attached is a cross section showing the bank at station
# 16 as it exists now and also showing the proposed retaining
structure so that it can be compared to the plan submitted by the
applicant.
d. The City is proposing to place a drainage culvert along this
trail and utility easement and this will have to be accommodated.
The applicant needs to make an agreement to this to the
satisfaction of the Engineering Department.
3. The revegetation plan which has been submitted by the
applicant for the building site is acceptable.
4. The drainage plan submitted by the applicant is not acceptable
because it does not address the impact to the Forest Service
property from the drainage along the proposed access road.
jg /Barkerl
cc: Chuck Roth
low—
LAW OFFICES
GIDEON 1. KAUFMA4 ! '
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION`S TELEHONE
BOX 10001 AREA CODE 303
GIDEON I. KAUFMAN 315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE. SUITE 305 925.8166
MARTHA C. PICKETT ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEFAX 925 -1090
July 10, 1989
Ms. Leslie Lamont
Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Barker 8040 Review Application
Dear Leslie:
This letter is to formally request that a proposed
driveway on the northeast border of the panhandle of Lot 3 be
included in the pending 8040 Review Application. A drawing
prepared by a licensed surveyor regarding the easement and the
proposed driveway will be delivered to you by Joe Zaluba within
the next few days.
As you are aware, there has been some dispute between lot
owners within the Hoag Subdivision as to whether the existing
trail easement provides allowable access to the house site for
Lot 3. Although several City approvals for Lot 3 have been
granted based upon legal access being available over the trail
easement, the owners of Lots 2, 4 and 5 dispute whether this is
the case. Therefore, the Applicant is proposing a solution
which we believe will resolve the issues for the City, the
adjacent lot owners, and the owner of Lot 3.
Please note that the as- built, existing trail does not lie
within the originally dedicated trail easement, as shown on the
Hoag Subdivision Final Plat. In fact, the trail straddles the
lot line between Lot 3 and Lots 2, 4 and 5. After much
discussion, and various site visits with City staff members,
the Applicant now proposes to construct a driveway along the
northeastern border of the Lot 3 panhandle which will, in
effect, widen the existing "road ". At your suggestion, the
Applicant is also proposing to install a fence on the property
boundary which will effectively divide the driveway from the
trail easement uses. This has been recommended for safety
reasons, as well as separating the uses and the maintenance
which corresponds to each use, including driveway snowplowing,
and track setting for the trail easement. Although the
Applicant will install the fence, it is our understanding that
it will be maintained by the City and /or Nordic Council.
�w
0 s
Ms. Leslie Lamont
July 10, 1989
Page 2
We believe that this proposal is a good solution.
Although an access drive could be constructed anywhere within
the Lot 3 panhandle, there exists a BLM easement which will not
have to.be amended with the proposed driveway. Also, obviously
the proposed driveway will cause the least destruction and
cut - and -fill on the property, and be most appropriate for the
8040 review.
We have submitted this proposal to the adjacent lot
owners in the hopes that any possible disputes can be resolved
prior to the Auaust 8 hearing. Also; at the request of the
Parks Department, we will determine which trees will have to be
removed with the road construction, and what mitigation
measures will be taken.
If you have any questions or comments, please do not
hesitate to call me.
Sincerely,
LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN, P.C.,
a Professional Corporation
By
114rth C. Pickett
MCP /bw
cc: Joe Zaluba
7.
GIDEON I. KAUFMAN
MARTHA C. PICKETT
•
HAND - DELIVERED
LAW OFFICES
GIDEON I. KAUFMAN
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
BOX 10001
315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 305
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
August 2, 1989
Ms. Leslie Lamont
Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
AUG 2
Re: Zaluba /Barker 8040 Review Application
Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision
Dear Leslie:
TELEHONE
AREA CODE 303
925-8166
TELEFAX 925-1090
Thank you for meeting with us yesterday to discuss the Lot
3 project. I believe the meeting was beneficial to everyone.
After reviewing the meeting discussions, my client, Joe Zaluba,
has come to the conclusion that we must try to achieve a
co- existence of trail and vehicular use. It appears that we
are in general agreement that the access driveway for the Lot 3
building site will require widening of the existing road in
order that all twelve feet of the driveway will be on Lot 3.
The other important fact that must be reiterated is that
the existing easement between Barker and the City for trail use
covers only that part of the trail on the upper part of Lot 3
(from Point A to Point B on the attached drawing). There is no
easement granted for trail use on Lot 3 from Points B to C
(Forest Service boundary). This means the trail traffic would
be restricted to the portion of the existing trail that follows
on the easement located on the back of Lots 2, 4 and 5, which
is only about six to eight feet in width.
Joe Zaluba proposes to help this trail situation with the
following improvement proposal:
1. At the Applicant's expense, the existing trail will
be widened to twelve feet, where practicable, from Points B to
C. This will allow the City to use its piston bulley machines
to groom the trail all the way from the west property line of
Lot 3 to the Forest Service boundary. This work will be done
in conjunction with the road widening to provide for the twelve
foot access driveway on Lot 3.
2. At the Applicant's expense, a fence or hedge of
bushes will be installed in the immediate area of the house to
divide the vehicular and trail traffic into two separate areas.
This proposal gives the City a much improved trail, and
provides Lot 3 with its lawful driveway access. Obviously, all
Ms. Leslie Lamont
August 2, 1989
Page 2
of these improvements would be engineered by the Applicant,
with the approval of the City Engineer.
This commitment for the City trail improvement is
expressly contingent upon approval of this alignment for the
access driveway and trail by the Planning and Zoning Commission
at its August 8, 1989 meeting. Your staff memo can best handle
this recommendation by imposing acceptable conditions to insure
proper engineering, as we have discussed, and to which the
Applicant has agreed.
Leslie, the Applicant is trying to make an honest effort
to make this project acceptable to all concerned; however, he
cannot continue in the approval process indefinitely. As
discussed in yesterday's meeting, alternatives for the driveway
higher on the Lot 3 panhandle have been thoroughly
investigated, and previously denied by the City. Therefore,
tabling of the project at this time to further review those
alternatives is futile and unfair to the Applicant. The above
proposal meets everyone's needs, and meets the criteria of the
8040 Green Line Review by requiring the least disruption to the
land.
Also, in reference to the letter from the Parks
Department, the Applicant shall commit to replacing trees
removed for purposes of constructing the house and access
driveway, so long as the Applicant is allowed to accompany the
Parks Department on a site visit to count the trees to be
removed.
We ask that you take this commitment into consideration in
your recommendation to-Planning and Zoning. If you have any
further comments or questions, or would like to discuss any of
the above further, please do not hesitate to call me or Joe
Zaluba.
Sincerely,
LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN, P.C.,
a Professional Corporation
By
artha rO Pickett
MCP /bw
Enclosure
cc: Joe Zaluba
cc: Jack Barker
cc: Brooke Peterson
cc: Fred Gannett
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
Dear Joe,
•
Joe Zaluba
Leslie Lamont
8040 Greenline
August 2, 1989
141 DI 4 Lei 14 pis) 4
and Jim Gibbard
Review
Per our August 1, 1,989 meeting we would like to reiterate what
material and information remains outstanding. Although the
Planning Department and the Engineering Department continue to
prepare for the August 8 Planning and Zoning Commission hearing,
it is vital that we receive this information soon.
We are expecting:
a) an approved design, from Chen Northern, for engineering of
slope stability for both the road and residence;
b) a study both graphically and technically of either a boulder
type retaining wall or a vertical tied -back retaining wall (the
latter was suggested by our assistant city engineer as a
preferable alternative because the required bank cut would be
smaller) for the road expansion effort;
c) a proposal to use excavated fill to replace land that has
sloughed off on thenortheast side of the roadway thus adding to
the width of the trajil easement;
d) any information you may have regarding past proposals for a
separate upper road would be helpful,'% we am in the process of
researching past proposals.
This short list reflects items pertaining to the submitted
proposal that are important for review and options that were
discussed at our meeting August 1, 1989.
cc: Marti Pickett
Tom Baker
June 1, 1989
Mr. Chuck Roth
Assistant City Engineer
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
C
RE: Hoag Subdivision, Lot 3 - Drainage Plan
HCE Job No. 9014.001
Dear Chuck:
Included with this letter are calculations and plans for drainage
improvements related to the proposed residence on Lot 3 of the
Hoag Subdivision.
The proposed improvements are intended to limit the 100 -year peak
flow from the developed site, to what the historic (undeveloped
site) 100 -year peak flow was calculated to be. In addition, the
effect of the proposed improvements on the ground water recharge
was examined, and since the proposed improvements affect such a
small portion of the lot, it appears that any effect on ground
water in the area should be insignificant.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please
give me a call.
Sincerely,
HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING, INC.
Timo by P. Beck, P.E.
TPB: jm
Enclosure
Suite 205, Village Plaza a Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Telephone 303 - 945 -8676
J '� t I`.- I T O
----------
L
/*
LLI
-Zi r
00
Orl
iz
9A 1Y
fir- _ . a Z �'�'`� ,( .. ti, - �' �� ' ' I o rl) cot--
co
Or
% P
AT%
t
i
-t2t-f j5 /A) %ffA % Tk"E^ Pi2O f'O S CZ) W 1 L L.
�F ec--T �S 7J--�,7a- s «f.L-Ly 71�> e�f=,,f-r= O �y-E
lqfGEss fRop4 o (�ja irviq T�oUc1y(- 7-fi46" DoT.
AG66P -,PIA J1 70 PLA�Js
�iV41A)�Wq
V'I C I.✓I Ty /gyp
A72 CA = - 3
Focj-- w Ss.c.E �, e rx1
1/
%y E o/W eoveexJ7947-161v) 11 /N/Af uAI? la ,
�X� 5 ► N VE N t&w $le7z 7U
�yy
M
L C o-M',6Z\ /A -TL-b OJ
_�:-TERAliNIN61 T6AK 4 b),VS
- - ._._.;.... ...... _..__. _� __.._. .... ... _._......_..-
S S P t2�a1 -o G, ► r s
ic�Lo w s iN C o Lo ,-0410 o
IJ/ �!L �2oNP C N'Oli c� E G u,� vE'
/vut wi► -e2 a>_ �4�P2�j(� n'"A7E1 % X0,2 �?C��.✓l� -�--
Cav OI T/ o.v S .
70)
D. 12%
A-K -ow .5Lt A4ivl J
l,�i�-YELoP�v w �/Et -oPE7� 'oFNJ
'ice 1 vP�GR�cPASS �Pese- > OAJ
TF - rI ME To k = 4.84 q 1 IN M! 2 IQC,NoFF ,N INGN�S
-rEAX ,�Low� Iry CFs
I` l
:t;'>Oic_.. CayJSMVAT/Ok) 5E2.VIGE)
NA71&'U'q r
��Aj� o�K, ��-T q-,
-K�i)eoL o� y
d
5
�I
4 . oo g 2
--TiZ c A-t,) C u L- q 2. J+A p Qo 6i RA-P f is -Fo P- 7H15`
7;,?-'EvloLA5 FLz>wS' nAj ;Z>A-rA- /,,I-j
�� SGS l�1A-�io�•1 R-L. �ivl� �� �.�� ,2h4-�tl�Bofl,�. �NEH- 4)
TF
T
Tlo = -2. L'I T[ _ I.30
�l, o"T,S U�l�t -tom, 8 E R'� �-�-o t✓ t�o c.v S =
r
�-. 0.25
T tAE I
.��YELoPE� �Go1 -i/ �JD,ea�P�1P�-
ExisTi•�� FCa,�✓ fd �Io����Pr�
2.0
3
s
S
3i. 1
® ® I
. z5 FT3 D.5 hr ,3laooseG
SSG • In► � n h r
�}�(S 5"�p �AcG, F �� LU �'►'` � Y�/D Lt L D L I M �7 71�
E�4-k
1 coo EI4� 4 F :f 1 "T-E 754's lAr 7"'0
�'4AT � unl DEY� oPEO �E•4� ,��� -✓ 1-s�ou
-P'-eFAK F--wvJ 1541 Ll> 1►'1 �k-TC �" l- r�l�� ✓ELoPEO
TC -CAI= 4--uAP/.
A SAN Z7 1-E" /z / o.5E' L) e y 1.✓Ez,c, o )e,
-FW6 6' .aEEr 17�yW,5-LZ s ,
W,ouL,-q Y/G 5ur-r-tclG/VTa
C-,O A&f> A-R-E -T Z) S TO (z A,\ 1il11z=1L 77aA T1 d,J
iogp,s 7o2-fv, VoLLAVL4-G -' [O 7R -i�TDWA t�uIJbFF = 'f',z5cfiA-P21E
�� •L .v, � -�-� ,�.. 33,�GY� ��ZJ -[�.! /��;ZX33�Gao =- 417D ICj3
12 �n
Y4-
Chen- Nororn, Inc.
-- - - --,- •- -----
-- ....
5080 Road 154 �._.-
Rtlt:nrs---
r..00r col •.
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Boise
Heleno
303/945 -7458 Casper
Phoenix
Fax: 303/945 -2363 Colorado Springs
Pocateilc
Denver
Rock Spr ng$
Elko
Salt Lake City
Evanston
San Antomo
Gillette
Tri Ciae.s
Glenwood Springs
YaKlma
May 30, 1989
Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation of
Slope Conditions,
Driveway Widening to
Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision,
Aspen, Colorado.
Job No. 4 275 89
Wrni:rrn N�ri hn�rr 1.n�► Flmm�r. Tri - ,
Attn: Joe Zaluba
P.O. Box 9640
Aspen CO 81612 -9640
Gentlemen:
Chen- Northern, Inc., has completed subsurface exploration and is in the
prooca. of analyzing ztobilitY foi- wiucnill6 vi t,hc eA1,7L1W6
dri vpway to a nronogad residence at the subJect. site.
One boring- was drilled at the uphill edge of the existing driveway below
t:hw prorxonpri rPgi riPnrP 1 nn.at.inn and annt.hpr hnri nS uaa riri 1 1 pri i iph i 1 1 of .i•ha
residence. The drilling indicates coarse granular soils to the maximum depth
drilled of 30 feet. No free water was encountered. Development on the
property appears feasible with appropriate engineering design and
construction. Our analysis will include foundation design, -lope grading and
retaining wall design criteria. The findings of our work will be presented in
an engineering report.
If you have any questions regarding the information provided or if we can
be of further assistance, please let us know.
SLP /ec
Very truly yours,
CHFN_NQRTHF.RN, TNT:.
By .<� -�( iwU
Steven L. Pawlak, P.E.
A member of the HIH grGUp of companies
,t * T0TF-lL. Ri� 1.i E . 00
Chen- Norlrn, InC. 5080 Road 154
Billings
Great Falls
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Boise
Helena
303/945 -7458
Casper
Phoenix
Fax: 303/945 -2363
Colorado Springs
Pocatello
Denver
Rock Springs
Elko
Salt Lake City
Evanston
San Antonio
Gillette
Tri Cities
Glenwood Springs
Yakima
May 26, 1989
Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation of
Slope Conditions,
Proposed Residence,
Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision,
Aspen, Colorado.
Job No. 4 275 89
Western Heritage Log Homes, Inc.
Attn: Joe Zaluba
P.O. Box 9640
Aspen CO 81612 -9640
Gentlemen:
Chen - Northern, Inc., has completed subsurface exploration and is in the
process of analyzing slope stability conditions for development of a residence
at the subject site.
The drilling indicates coarse granular soils to the maximum depth drilled
of 30 feet. No free water was encountered. Development on the property
appears feasible with appropriate engineering_design —�anrl const action. 07r
analysls wir Zlude fo undation design, slope grading and retaining wall
design criteria. The findings of our work will be presented in an engineering
report.
If you have any questions regarding the information provided or if we can
be of further assistance, please let us know.
SLP /ec
Very truly yours,
CHEN- NORTHERN, INC.
By -:;4 ,��� .,
Steven L. Pawlak, P.E.
A member of the HIH group of companies
IVYIDQ63ZNIZI III Iu�
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Cindy M. Houben, Planning. Office
RE: Barker -Hoag Subdivision Lot 3 8040 Greenline Review
DATE: April 4, 1989
LOCATION: Hoag Subdivision, Lot 3 is located on the steep,
forested hillside south of Ute Avenue, and just east of the Aspen
Chance Subdivision.
ZONING: C- Conservation.
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Jack Barker /Joe Zaluba requests permission
to construct a single - family house.
BACKGROUND: The Hoag Subdivision was approved by the City in
1971 to create five lots south of Ute Avenue. Lot 3 is the
highest lot up the hill, on the steepest terrain, and subject to
the greatest avalanche danger.
The first 8040 Greenline Review for Lot 3 was the Virden 8040
Review, approved on July 20, 1976. A detached garage was to be
located off the old railroad right -of -way, and the house was to
placed with walk -up access only. A temporary construction road
would be built, to be recovered and reseeded prior to the
certificate of occupancy. As part of the Virden Review, an
avalanche hazard study conducted by Hans Frintiger and Whitney
Boland in 1976 was submitted. Three avalanche tracks were
identified across the property. It was concluded that within
the "wedge" of Douglas fur timber, where the Virden house was
proposed and where the Barker building envelope is located, the
probability of avalanche penetration was small.
On October 7, 1985, the Barker Greenline Review was approved in
conjunction with the Nordic Council Trail Greenline Review. The
new access road, approximately 690 feet long, would go from Ute
Avenue to the Hoag Subdivision Lot 3 building site, passing
through Forest Service property, Lot 4 Hoag Subdivision and the
Newfoundland Mining Claim.
Barker needed a Forest Service Special Use Road Permit for
construction of the driveway on its property. The Forest
Service prepared an environmental assessment of Barker's proposal
and on August 27, 1986 denied the request. On December 2, 1986,
the Planning Commission approved a driveway access to the
building envelope pursuant to a new design also approved by the
USFS. The approval was made with the following conditions:
1. A geologic report of the avalanche hazards and hazard
mitigation associated with the proposed driveway access
shall be submitted for review by the Colorado Geological
Survey. A copy of this report and the Colorado Geological
Survey's evaluation shall be submitted to the Planning
Office and Engineering Department.
2. More detailed information on the possibility of a retaining
wall and revegetation plan shall be submitted to the
Planning Office.
3. The applicant shall agree to allow the Nordic Council trail
and summer trail use along the old right -of -way and trail
easements in an arrangement compatible with the Nordic
Council's trail system.
4. Applicable conditions from the October 7, 1985 Barker
Greenline review approval shall be conditions of this
approval.
The conditions from the October 7, 1985 approval are as follows:
1. No construction of any structure on Lot 3 Hoag Subdivision
shall be allowed until a development plan is given approval
through a separate 8040 Greenline Review.
2. All access easements for the driveway shall be obtained and
submitted in a form acceptable to the City Attorney prior to
any clearing or construction of the driveway.
3. Approval from the USFS for access easements through Forest
Service property shall be obtained. A copy of this-approval
shall be submitted to the Planning Office prior to
construction.
4. All excavated materials not used for "fill" from the
driveway construction shall be removed along the entire
length of the driveway. A similar measure for the building
site shall be addressed by the applicant in the submittal
for the development plan 8040 Greenline Review.
5. Revegetation of the cut and filled areas of the driveway
shall be accomplished through the spreading of an
appropriate seed mix, both uphill and downhill.
6. The driveway shall -be constructed cutting as few trees as
possible and generally on the upslope of the driveway
alignment.
7. A registered engineer shall address landslide and snow
removal issues involved in the building and maintenance of
the entire length of the driveway. A report shall be
OAI
submitted to the City Engineer's Office prior to
construction of the driveway. A.report shall be submitted
to the City Engineer's. Office prior to construction of the
driveway.
8. A current assessment of the avalanche danger to the building
site, prepared by a qualified avalanche expert shall be
submitted as part of the site development Greenline Review
application.
9. Fire mitigation measures shall be addressed in the site
development Greenline Review application.
10. A drainage plan should be submitted as part of the site
development 8040 Greenline Review.
Condition #1 states that the house must be approved through a
separate 8040 Greenline Review, this is the application before
the Commission.
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
1. Engineering: Having reviewed the above application and made
a site visit, the Engineering Department has the following
comments:
1. The applicant needs to submit a report done by a
professional geotechnical engineer registered in the State of
Colorado which will evaluate the site specific slope and ground
stability conditions that will result from this development. The
conclusions and recommendations in the report by Chen and
Associates which were used in the driveway application do not
address the conditions which will result from the present
proposal.
A registered geotechnical engineer is also recommended for
construction management and inspection and a C.O. should not be
issued without his sign off.
2. A revegetation plan which will detail mitigation of any
disturbance to the terrain caused by this development must be
submitted to the Engineering Department by the applicant.
3. The applicant needs to submit a drainage plan done by a
registered engineer for the purpose of mitigating any impact by
this development to any areas on adjacent properties.
4. The applicant needs to comply with the conditions which were
required as a result of the P &Z review for the driveway on this
development. The following information needs to be taken into
consideration in the determination of the driveway - cross
country ski trail compatibility:
3
0
E
a. A letter submitted with the driveway application from
Fred Barker agreeing to leave snowpack on the driveway to
accommodate cross country skiing.
b. A memo also submitted with the driveway application
from Wayne Vandemark requiring a 20 foot width and an all
weather surface on this driveway for emergency access. He
indicated these requirements could be modified, if an
automatic residential sprinkler system were installed in the
building.
2. Water: No comments have been received.
3. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District: A line extension is
required to serve the property.
4. Board of Adjustment: At the scheduled meeting of the Board
of Adjustment on March 23, 1989, we heard and granted a variance
to applicant Jack Barker: Lot 3 Hoag Subdivision (Case #89 -6).
We granted the front yard setback variance to more safely situate
the structure in a denser stand of larger trees, out of the major
avalanche path. In walking the road to the lot, there were
substantial avalanche occurrences that crossed the road. Looking
uphill I noticed major snow movement had occurred in trees the
size and density similar to conditions on the subject property.
While the Board felt a need to further mitigate the potential
avalanche threat, it did not want to encumber the Planning
Commission's role in their 8040 Greenline Review.
The Board has asked me to write this memo to express our concerns
and offer recommendations for your consideration. Under the
direction of the Engineering Department we felt that a
deflection barrier should be constructed uphill to direct any
snow movement away from the structure and toward the main
avalanche path. The protective barrier should be strong enough
to withstand avalanche impact and deposition loads. Further,
that there be a close monitoring and minimal removal of trees
during construction.
STAFF COPEMENTS: Several of the above listed conditions related
specifically to the construction of the upper driveway.
Conditions 1, 4, 7, 8, 9 and 10 relate to this approval.
Condition #1: No construction of any structure on Lot 3 Hoag
Subdivision shall be allowed until a development plan is given
approval through a separate 8040 Greenline Review.
Response: The applicant has submitted an application for review
of a specific house design in a specific location within the
4
building envelope. The entire site appears from the site review
to be subject to avalanche danger. In fact, an avalanche
occurred this year on the portion of the site where the house is
proposed. The attached avalanche report done by Arthur Mears
indicates that "a building located here and intended for winter
occupancy must be designed for avalanche impact and deposit
loads ". However, construction of an "avalanche- proof" structure
is feasible at this location." Mr. Mears, however, does note
that final design criteria should be developed in conjunction
with building plans and should include:
1. Specification of avalanche forces (resolved into mutually
perpendicular directions); and
2. Determination of loading criteria (static or impact).
The recommendations by Mr. Mears also include:
1. Avoid placement of permanent structures within the prominent
west avalanche path.
2. Allow residential construction within the timber wedge and
inside the building envelope as specified by Mr. Jack Barker
during our field inspection on December 16, 1986 (see
attached map).
3. Accept the avalanche risk on the driveway because this risk
is small compared with others normally taken in winter
travel.
The applicant has addressed these issues through the placement of
the building on the site. However, the applicant has not
provided proof from an engineer that the "avalanche proof" house
design has been accomplished.
Condition #4: All excavated materials not used for "fill" from
the driveway construction shall be removed along the entire
length of the driveway. A similar measure for the building site
shall be addressed by the applicant in the submittal for the
development plan 8040 Greenline Review.
Response: The applicant has stated that the fill from the
construction of the structure will be removed from the site.
Condition #7: A registered engineer shall address landslide and
snow removal issues involved in the building and maintenance of
the entire length of the driveway. A report shall be submitted
to the City Engineer's Office prior to construction of the
driveway. A report shall be submitted to the City Engineer's
Office prior to construction of the driveway.
u
Response: Even though this was apparently handled prior to
issuance of a building permit for the driveway, the Planning
Office would like to point out that several small slides occurred
along the access right -of -way which if not maintained will block
access to the homesite.
Condition #8: A current assessment of the avalanche danger to
the building site, prepared by a qualified avalanche expert shall
be submitted as part of the site development Greenline Review
application.
Response: (See response to Condition #1) . In addition, the
applicant has verbally informed the Planning Office that Nick
Lampiris is also assessing the site.
Condition #9: Fire mitigation measures shall be addressed in the
site development Greenline Review application.
Response: The applicant has committed to a sprinkler system for
fire protection of the house. This option is preferable to
creating a larger road cut to allow emergency vehicle access to
the site.
Condition #10: A drainage plan should be submitted as part of
the site development 8040 Greenline Review.
Response: To date, this has not been submitted to the Planning
Office or Engineering Department.
The staff has the following comments with regard to the specific
8040 Greenline criteria section.
1. Criteria: The parcel on which the proposed development is to
be located is suitable for development considering its slope,
ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence and
the possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche dangers.
If the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the
applicant shall stabilize and revegetate the soils, or, where
necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a location
acceptable to the City.
Response: It is obvious that the parcel contains significant
avalanche danger and any approvals for this parcel must be based
on sound engineering data that a structure can withstand the
impacts of an avalanche. The avalanche reports which have been
done for this site do not give the staff confidence that the
occurrence and location of the avalanche danger can be predicted.
The site review indicates that in fact an avalanche has occurred
in the exact location which was presented. as the most safe for
construction of the home. Additionally, the roadway which was
approved in 1986 acted as a block for a significant portion of
the avalanche debris. If the roadway had not been in place, the
N.
E
avalanche would probably have traveled further down the slope
carrying a greater amount of debris than reached the lower access
roadway.
2. Criteria: The proposed development does not have a signi-
ficant adverse affect on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage,
soil erosion or have consequent effects on water pollution.
Response: The application states that the development shall
minimize the drainage and runoff of. the existing site, however,
no drainage plan has been submitted.
3. Criteria: The proposed development does not have a signi
ficant adverse affect on the air quality in the City.
Response: Gas fireplaces are proposed and no significant long
term air quality impacts appear to be present with this proposal.
4. Criteria: The design and location of any proposed develop-
ment, road, or trail is compatible with the terrain on the parcel
on which the proposed development is to be located.
Response: The proposed driveway appears to be in the best
location possible, since it reduces the area traveled on the
access road and does not require that the largest avalanche path
be crossed. However, a smaller avalanche has occurred in the
proposed driveway location.
5. Criteria: Any grading will minimize, to the extent practi-
cable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land
features.
Response: The proposal minimizes the area to be disturbed. See
attached grading plan.
6. Criteria: The placement and clustering of structures will
minimize the need for roads, limit cutting and grading, maintain
open space, and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource.
Response: Only one house is proposed and as explained earlier,
minimum use of the access road is proposed. The highest portion
of the lot will remain undisturbed.
7. Criteria: Building height and bulk will be minimized and
the structure will be designed to blend into the open character
of the mountain.
Response: The proposed development will be of minimal square
footage and be constructed of 12" handcrafted and hand peeled
lodgepole pine logs. The roof will be split cedar shakes and the
building will be stained with a greyish brown semi transparent
7
stain to help the development "blend" into the mountain side.
The height of the building will be within City Code requirements.
8. Criteria: Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are
available to service the proposed development.
Response: The applicant notes that utilities to the site were
approved in 1986. The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
notes that the applicant is required to hook onto their system.
No response was received, to date, from the Water Department for
this review.
9. Criteria: Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed
development, and said roads can be properly maintained.
10. Criteria: Adequate ingress and egress is available to the
proposed development so as to ensure adequate access for fire
protection and snow removal equipment.
Response: The application states that access and maintenance
agreements were approved in 1986. The Planning Office, however,
questions the access along the existing right -of -way to the site.
The plat for the Hoag Subdivision shows the access as merely a
utility and trail easement. Prior to the meeting, the Planning
Office will research the access issue in greater detail.
According to the Planning Office files, it was determined in the
1986 review that the trail's utility easement did not preclude
access since that is the only way to access the upper lots. The
Planning Office, however, questions what agreements were reached
between the owner of Lot 3 and the owners of Lots 4 and 5 along
the access road. Fire protection will be by providing a
sprinkler system in the house, removing any concerns about
emergency vehicle access.
11. Criteria: Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen
Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks /Recreation /Open Space /Trails Plan
map is dedicated for public use.
Response: The application notes that trail easements and all
agreements pertaining to road use have been approved and are
attached. The Engineering Department, however, does not agree as
evidenced by their comments above, #4 (a) and (b).
It was the intention of the Planning Office that a construction
permit for the road be issued only after all of the road related
conditions were met.
In general, the Planning Office acknowledges that development of
the site is difficult at best.. The potential safety issues
related to the avalanche hazards on the site are significant and
no approval for development should be granted until the applicant
has proven that the structure can be built to "avalanche proof"
standards. In addition, the issues concerning the legal access
to the site must be adequately addressed by the applicant.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends tabling the
Barker 8040 Greenline Review until the applicant submits
information which adequately addresses the following concerns.
J 1. The applicant shall submit a report done by a professional
geotechnical engineer registered in the State of Colorado which
will evaluate the site specific slope and ground stability
conditions that will result from this development. The
conclusions and recommendations in the report by Chen and
Associates which were used in the driveway application do not
address the conditions which will result from the present
proposal. This report should be referred to the State Geologist
for comment before this application is again reviewed by P &Z.
A registered geotechnical engineer is also recommended for
construction management and inspection and a C.O. should not be
issued without his sign off.
Q2. A site specific revegetation plan which will detail
mitigation of any disturbance to the terrain caused by this
development shall be submitted to the Planning Office and
Engineering Department by the applicant.
/
�3. The applicant needs to submit a drainage plan done by a
registered engineer for the purpose of mitigating any impact by
this development to any areas on adjacent properties.
4. The applicant shall comply with the conditions which were �
- required as a result of the P &Z review for the driveway on this
development. The following- - information shall be taken int,
consideration in the determination of the driveway - cross
country ski trail compatibility:
a. A letter submitted with the driveway application from
C Fred Barker agreeing to leave snowpack on the driveway to `
accommodate cross country skiing',-
1 b. A memo also submitted with the driveway application
r l from Wayne Vandemark requiring a 20 foot width and an all
weather surface on this driveway for emergency access. He
indicated these requirements could be modified, if an
�j automatic residential sprinkler system were installed in the
l� building.
i 5. Proof of watery and sewer service to the site.
�6 The applicant shall v e�ify proof of access to the site.
9
�� g
• s
7. The applicant shall provide proof from an engineer that an
adequate "avalanche proof" house design is being proposed for the
site, including specific verification that final design criteria
addresses the avalanche report done by Arthur Mears in 1987; more
specifically the engineering report shall address the following:
-sue
Specification of avalanche forces (resolved into
mutually perpendicular directions); and
2. Determination of loading criteria (static or impact).
8. The applicant shall specifically addressed that the fill
from the construction of the structure will be removed from the
n rsite.
09-/ Thei applicant shall verify that the proposed sprinkler
sstem for fire protection will adequately address the concerns
of the ,Fire Marshall-. -.-:,
10. The applicant shall work with the Engineering
Fire Marshall to determine if the access drive is
widened to me \.engineering and safety standards.
CMH:das
pzmemo.barker -
10
Department and
required to b
MEMORANDUM
TO: Cindy Houben, Planning Office
FROM: Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department
DATE: March 20, 1989
RE: Barker 8040 Greenline Review
Having reviewed the above application and made a site visit, the
Engineering Department has the following comments:
1. The applicant needs to submit a report done by a professional
geotechnical engineer registered in the State of Colorado which
will evaluate the site specific slope and ground stability
conditions that will result from this development. The con-
clusions and recommendations in the report by Chen and Associates
which were used in the driveway application do not address the
conditions which will result from the present proposal.
A registered geotechnical engineer is also recommended for
construction management and inspection and a C.O. should not be
issued without his sign off.
2. A revegetation plan which will detail mitigation of any
disturbance to the terrain caused by this development must be
submitted-to the Engineering Department by the applicant.
3. The applicant needs to submit a drainage plan done by a
registered engineer for the purpose of mitigating any impact by
this development to any areas on adjacent properties.
4. The applicant needs to comply with the conditions which were-
required as a result of the P &Z review for the driveway on this
development. The following information needs to be taken into
consideration in the determination of the driveway - cross
country ski trail compatibility:
a. A letter submitted with the driveway application from Fred
Barker agreeing to leave snowpack on the driveway to accommodate
cross country skiing.
b. A memo also submitted with the driveway application from Wayne
Vandemark requiring a 20 foot width and an all weather surface on
this driveway for emergency access. He indicated these require
ments could be modified, if an automatic residential sprinkler
system were installed in the building.
jg /barker
cc: Jay Hammond
Chuck Roth
2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Cindy Houben, Planning Office
n
FROM: Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department
DATE: March 21, 1989
RE: Barker 8040 Greenline Review Addendum
The above application needs to include a letter from Jim Markalu-
nas of the Water Department confirming that there will -be
sufficient.water pressure available for this development.
jg /barkerl
cc: Jay Hammond
Chuck Roth
0
R
Aspen (Yonsolidated Sanitation District
565 North Mill Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Tele. (303) 925 -3601
March 6, 1989
Cindy Houben
Planning Office
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
RE:
Barker 8040 Greenline Review
Dear Cindy:
Tele. (303) 925 -2537
F � R N_ .
��__11 ,
L
I don't have a copy of the discussion of utilities which was submitted
and approved in 1986 regarding this project. It..-appears as though a
line extension would be required to service this project. I'm enclosing
the section of our regulations which deals with line extensions.
All fees associated with connecting the project to the Districts collect-
ion system are due prior to the time of connection. I would encourage
the applicant to speak to Linda DeLost in our business office concerning
the costs involved..
Sincerely,
Bruce Matherly 'J
District Manager
enclosure
cc: Joseph S. Zaluba
Western Log Homes
SECTION 5
LINE EXTENSION POLICIES
5.1 General. It shall be unlawful for any Person to construct a
Sewer Main within the jurisdiction of the Board, without first
having made formal written application to the Board for approval
and having complied with all the regulations of the Board.
-)No Sewer Main shall be constructed within the Board's
jurisdiction. until final plans and specifications have been
approved by the Board or its Engineer and written authorization
to proceed has been obtained from the Board. No Service Lines
shall be accepted by the Board or placed into operation unless
they have been inspected and approved by the Board's authorized
Inspector or En_a-ineer and written acceptance has been issued. No
excavation shall be started until the required City, County, or
State Street or Highway Permits have been obtained.
All Sewer Main extensions shall be constructed according to the
Board's specifications.
Developers or landowners are required to furnish, without charge
to the District, suitable Easements for District sewer
construction. If land acquisition expense is incurred by the
District, it shall be considered a portion of the construction
contract and billed accordingly.
All plans for development of Collection Sewer Systems shall be
submitted to the Board, along with the application for service.
The area covered by such plan shall be hereafter described as the
"proposed service area."
All plans for development of the collection sewer system will
require a $1,000 plan review fee deposited in escrow with the
District to cover the District's expense of having their engineer
review and approve plans. The applicant will pay the additional
due or be refunded the unused balance, if there is a balance
remaining after review.
5.2 Procedure for Sewer Main Extension Construction. The
following procedure shall be followed in any request for line
extension submitted to the District:
5.2.1 Subdivision Sewer Main Extension Construction. Where
the proposed service area in question is land upon which no
substantial existing development has occurred, but is in the
process of being platted, subdivided or developed, the
preliminary plans for Collection Sewer Systems of the proposed
-15-
r
E
E
service area shall be prepared by the District Engineer or by an
engineer approved by the District of the Engineering layout and
preliminary cost estimate, the landowner, Developer or subdivider
shall enter into such a collection system agreement as the Board
may authorize with the District covering the terms and conditions
of such line extension.
Upon approval of preliminary planning, the landowner,
Developer or subdivider shall deposit with the District, in
advance, with the District an amount equal to the estimated
project cost,: so that the District may contract for construction
of the line. The District will then have prepared detailed
plans, contract documents, and advertise the contract for bids in
accordance with applicable state law. If, upon bid opening, the
deposit is not equal to- the bid of the lowest responsible
bidder, additional monies shall be deposited by the landowner,
Developer or subdivider to cover the deficiency. No work shall
be awarded until the deposit has been made. Upon completion of
the work, final costs shall be certified by the District Engineer
and any overage shall be made up by the landowner, Developer or
subdivider.
MEMORANDUM
TO: WELTON ANDERSON, Chairman - Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: REMO LAVAGNINO, Chairman -Aspen Board of Adjustment
RE: BARKER: Lot 3 Hoag Subdivision -8040 Greenline Review
DATE: March 28, 1989
At the scheduled meeting of the Board of Adjustment on March 23,
1989 we heard and granted a variance to applicant Jack Barker:
Lot 3 Hoag Subdivision (Case #89 -6).
We granted the front yard setback variance to more safely situate
the structure in a denser stand of larger trees, out of the
major avalanche path. In walking the road to the lot, there were
substantial avalanche occurrences that crossed the road. Looking
uphill I noticed major snow movement had occurred in trees the
size and density similar to conditions on the subject property.
While the Board felt a need to further mitigate the potential
avalanche threat, it did not want to encumber the Planning
Commission's role in their 8040 Greenline Review.
The Board has asked me to write this memo to express our concerns
and offer recommendations for your consideration. Under the
direction of the Engineering Dept. we felt that a deflection
barrier should be constructed uphill to direct any snow movement
away from the structure and toward the main avalanche path. The
protective barrier should be strong enough to withstand avalanche
.impact and deposition loads. Further, that there be a close
monitoring and minimal removal of trees during construction.
cc: Cindy Houben, Planner
i
i
j
F
i
j
r AVALANCHE HAZARD AMALYS 1 S, BARKER PROPERTY, ASPEN, COLORADO
s
PREPARED FOR
MR. JACK BARKER
Arthur I. Clears, P-E., Inc.
Gunnison, Colorado
January, 1987
r
1
ARTHUR 1. MEARS, P.E., INC.
Natural Hazards Consultants
222 Fast Gothic Ave.
Gun 6m. Colorado 81230
303 - 641 -3236
January 15, 1987
Mr. Jack Barker
P.O. Box 3379
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Mr. Barker:
The attached avalanche- analysis has been completed in accordance with our
discussions in Aspen last month. The report consists of two parts: (1) text,
and (2) map. The map is being sent in a separate package.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
AM: lc
Encl.
Sincerely,
Li
1
1.
Arthur I. Mears, P.E.
"— Wasting anehet • Avalanche Con(rol Engineering
INTRODUCTION
This analysis of avalanche hazard was requested by Mr. Jack Barker of
Aspen and has the following objectives:
1. site inspection.of avalanche terrain;
2. analysis of avalanche characteristics and risk;
3. review of previous work;
4. recommendations.
The report is site specific, thus the results and recommendations
cannot be extended to other locations.
AVALANCHE CONDITIONS
Avalanches affecting the Barker property in Sec. 18, T. 10 S.,
R. 84 W., City of Aspen, originate on the northeast - facing slope of Bell
Mountain. Avalanche starting zones are located immediately below promin-
ent cliffs at approximately 8,800 feet elevation, as much as 1000 feet
above the valley floor. The starting zones, or areas in which unstable
snow accumulates, are small, steep, and generally discontinuous. There-
fore, avalanches will usually be small and unlikely to reach the Barker
property. However, major avalanches can occur in response to exceptional
weather and /or snowpack conditions at any time during the November -
April snow season. Major avalanches are known to have deposited debris
on the old railroad grade in 1964, 1973, and 1974. The largest and most
frequent avalanches occur in the approximately 50 -yard wide open slope
on the western edge of the property, which is also the site of the
avalanches that are known to have reached the railroad grade. A ski
trail and the proposed access driveway to the Barker property cross the
lower portion of this path.
-2-
The slope immediately east of the prominent path supports a thick,
triangular wedge of Douglas fir with interspersed aspen. This stand of
I trees, which is the proposed site of the new home, shows no sign of
avalanche damage for the life of the forest (approximately 80 years).
ISite inspection showed some damage to aspen within the forest, but this
was apparently caused by an unusually heavy early June snowstorm in 1984.
l
This storm produced similar widespread damage throughout central Colorado.
The avalanche conditions at this site were discussed in a detailed
report to Steve Crowley and Thomas D. McAuley which was authored in 1973
'1 by Whitney H. Borland and Hans Frutiger. In my opinion, the Borland/
I, Frutiger report was a thorough and accurate appraisal of the avalanche
conditions at this site. The present study discusses in greater detail
the nature of the risk involved in building 'I g within the potential avalanche
area.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND AVALANCHE HAZARD
Discussions and a site inspection with Mr. Jack Barker provided
detailed information about the layout of the proposed development. The
development layout and building envelope is shown on the attached map.
The development is subject to avalanche hazard of 2 types:
1. hazard on the access driveway that crosses the open avalanche
path discussed above; and
2. hazard to the house, which will be built approximately 50 feet
east of the prominent avalanche path, within the timber wedge.
Because hazards "1" and "2" differ significantly, they are discussed
separately below.
The access driveway is clearly within the boundaries of the main
western avalanche path. Both upper and lower legs of the proposed
l
a -3-
i
�i
driveway have been overrun 3 times during the past 22 years, (in 1964,
1973, and 1974), as noted above. Smaller avalanches may have also reached
the - driveway alignment, but gone undetected. Although firm data on
avalanche frequency is not available, an average frequency (at the drive-
way) of 3 -5 years seems reasonable, based on vegetation damage and the
sporadic and discontinuous historical record.
j.
Overall risk is based on avalanche frequency and the proposed use of
i driveway. If we assume an exposure time (to the avalanche) of 1 minute
per trip and 10 trips per day on the driveway, total daily exposure is
j 10 minutes (out of 1,440 minutes per day), or 0.7% of the time. If the
avalanche occurs once in every 3 years on the average, the joint proba-
bility, P, that an avalanche will reach someone while he is traveling
j the driveway is computed
P = (3) (10/1440) = 0.23% per year.
This calculation assumes random avalanche occurrence and random driveway
use. In other words, the prevailing avalanche and /or weather conditions
will have no influence on the use of the driveway.
YFrom the standpoint of risk assessment, this 0.23% annual probability
I
should be compared with other risks that are commonly accepted. For
example, daily travel during unstable avalanche conditions is common on
Loveland, Berthoud, and Red Mountain passes each of which is crossed by
numerous avalanches every year. Some of these avalanches occur more often
than once per year. Depending on the route taken through Colorado, the
avalanche hazard encountered on a trip to Aspen may exceed the risk in
ascending the driveway.
1' • •
ME
In contrast, avalanche exposure of the house is less tolerable
because we must assume it will be occupied continuously, especially
during severe weather and avalanche conditions. Although the building
envelope is approximately 50 feet inside the timber wedge (east of the
avalanche path), it probably is exposed to avalanches of exceptional
volume because these will spread laterally as they descend and enter
the undisturbed forest. As a rough estimate, the building site could
be reached by avalanches with return periods of 50 -100 years (1 -2% annual
!
probability). A building located here and intended for winter occupancy
fmust be designed for avalanche impact and deposition loads. Final design
criteria-should be developed in conjunction with building plans and
should include:
1. Specification of avalanche forces (resolved into mutually
perpendicular directions); and
2. Determination of loading criteria (static or impact).
None of these design parameters can be specified at present because
details of building size, shape, and orientation strongly control the
details of interaction with the structure. However, experience at many
4
avalanche sites in North America and Europe indicates that construction
of an "avalanche- proof" structure is feasible at this location.
!
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations consider the avalanche characteristics
and relative hazard as discussed above.
1. Avoid placement of permanent structures within the prominent
west avalanche path.
2. Allow residential construction within the timber wedge and
inside the building envelope as specified by Mr. Jack Barker
during our field inspection on December 16, 1986 (see attached
map).
:i
-5-
3. Accept the avalanche risk on the driveway because this risk is
small compared with others normally taken in winter travel.
r
Although the avalanche risk is small when compared to the risk
accepted at many mountain sites (e.g., Vail, Juneau, Ketchum, Alta),
.ti the potential hazard should-be carefully discussed with and understood
I
by future developers or owners of the site. They may reduce the risk
i even further through learning about the nature and timing of avalanches.
i
I
Chen &Assocs
Consulting Geotechnical Engineers
I
i
r; Jack Barker
0. Box 3379
s;nen, CO 81612
i
Ie-r Mr. Barker:
5080 Road 154
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
303/945 -7458
Colorado Springs
Denver
Fort Collins
Rock Springs
Salt Lake City
San Antonio
December 17, 1986
Subject: Comments Regarding Cut
Slope Stability, Proposed
Residence Driveway,
Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision,
Aspen, Colorado.
Job No. 4 443 86
This report presents the findings of a site reconnaissance to
D± Sin information regarding cut slope stability along the
- oposed driveway alignment. The reconnaissance was made on
ember 8 when there was at least 1 foot of snow depth on the
1'. Comments regarding the grading for the proposed driveway
e presented in this report.
, The work was performed according to our proposal to Mr. Jack
�t---er dated June 28, 1985. At Mr. Barker's request our recon-
issance was limited to the grading aspects
'd rstand that hazards relating go snowao a vala"ncheroe ctbeing
a uated by others.
c-osed Construction: Lot 3 of the Hoag Subdivision is located
r ctly above the abandoned railroad grade and borders the 1001
aim property directly to the west. The driveway alignment is
onosed to begin at the railroad grade, climb along the existing
'e Trail at a grade of about 15% to 18% and switch back to the
s'„ at a grade of about 4% to 8 %. The driveway is planned to be
gut 15 feet wide and have a total length of about 700 feet.
�J design information was provided to us in plan and cross
:lion drawings by Integrated Engineering Consultants, dated
:obey 28, 1986. The cross sections indicate road construction
Pitting on the uphill side and filling on the downhill side.
t
e Conditions: The property lies near the toe of Aspen Mor,;n-
n on the southern edge of the Roaring Fork Valley, The site
t-2avily wooded terrain that is steeply sloping down to the
_: at a typical grade of 2 horizontal to 1 vertical, Eleva-
n difference between the upper and lower segments of the
t -sed driveway is about 70 feet.
J
F,WAPMWV
?fsF'ff1fC`� 'zy\3a�i
Mr. Jack Barker
December 17, 1986
Page 2
Along the northern part of the lot, the Ute Trail, a pedes-
trian ski trail, has been constructed mainly by cutting into the
hillside. The trail width is about 6 to 8 feet. The cut slope
banks are very steep and no indications of large slope movements
were observed. We understand that the trail has been constructed
in_the last year or two.
The property is thickly vegetated, mainly with evergreens.
Uphill of the western part of the property is a relatively small
open area which is a snow avalanche track. The avalanche runout
area is on Lot 2 below the site. The ent }re property lies within
a potential avalanche zone (Mears, 1979) and may be in an area
of potential.debris flows.
Discussion and Recommendations: Existing shallow cuts along the
railroad grade and Ute Trail have been made at very steep
slopes. The soils exposed in the cuts consist mainly of collu-
vial deposits composed of angular rock fragments in a clayey sand
matrix. The rock fragments typically range to cobble and small
boulder size. The soils on the mountainside appear to be fairly
well drained and hold the very steep cut slopes with limited
slope movement when seepage is not present. Considering the soil
conditions exposed at the site, constructing cut slopes at a
grade of 1 horizontal to 1 vertical as proposed appears feasible
provided the cut depths are limited to about 5 feet and are
protected against erosion.
Fill sections constructed on the downhill side of the road
will tend to be less stable than the cut slopes and should be
constructed at a flatter grade and /or be limited in height. We
suggest a maximum fill slope grade of 1 112 horizontal to
1 vertical and a maximum height of 5 feet. Constructing the fill
will be difficult due to the steep terrain. We recommend that
the fill sections be benched into the natural slope after the
topsoil and vegetation have been removed. The fill should be
compacted in relatively horizontal of
lifts to a minimum 9576
maximum standard Proctor density. Narrow sliver fills should not
be constructed. -Instead, the road alignment should be shifted or
a retaining wall constructed.
Collecting and diverting surface runoff will be an important
aspect to the cut -and fill slope stability. The natural heavy
vegetation should be maintained as much as practical. Concen-
trated surface runoff should not discharge onto steep unprotected
slopes. It may be feasible to collect the surface runoff in a
ditch along the uphill side of the road and discharge the water
1 Mears A.I.
1979, "Colorado Snow - Avalanche Area Studies and
Guidelines for Avalanche- Hazard Planning: Colorado Geological
Survey Special Publication No. 7".
Chen &Associates
Mr. Jack Barker
"December 17, 1986
Page 3
at control points. A civil engineer should design the drainage
system. The areas disturbed by the grading operation should be
revegetated or protected by other means to prevent erosion. This
should include areas upslope and downslope of the roadway
alignment.
Localized slumping and raveling of the steep cut slopes
should be expected. This will require regular maintenance so
that the roadside ditch is not clogged. Temporary seepage during
spring runoff conditions may contribute most to the ditch main-
tenance problems. If seepage is encountered during or after
construction or if significant slope failures occur, a geotech-
nical engineer should be contacted immediately to evaluate
Possible remedial action.
The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report
are based upon the data obtained from our site reconnaissance and
the proposed development plans. Variable site and soil condi-
tions may be encountered during construction. We recommend a
geotechnical engineer review the design drawings and perform
observation and testing of the grading operations.
If you have any questions or if we can be of further assis-
tance, please let us know.
L. V Z
,I* v4s.., �
c� : Q4:1
15222
At
SLP /ec
Rev. By: R. m.
Chen &Associates
Very truly yours,
CHEN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Bya� ;(.
Steven L. Pawlak, P.E.
a�
♦ t'
\ O
�1
\ 0 1 a
'.IT`f COUNCIL G�EGRT \F \CA \!
A.PROVeo a. lP_oAY OeC2%i�: »., c .awc.� oET ��"
r ^N� — 9oV
A.
ACC Ie T[O FO0. FIL1M4 IN TNt P.�t1N COrwTY CLLRT.`RtGOROGR �i %����,`' `\ ` ' `\
tt4R Rtco4 R
5g 974 0.
PL.tT DooK _� Pn Gt - nt GGPTaer uYM9tR
�♦ CO,�..O , �tiOw,\4. .
/ 133.219 0
< 1
- - -- J' �\90oDE
i
i
/ .�.�.�•
,4D 9
�F O
.e1
LEGENDS NOTES J
C\ BRASS CAP h01: FOU1.T B.LMI°S�
e CITV m N. -RED CAPVEO vav E.
O LOT COR SC1-u0 SRF -R .i /'�•ge1G E: a -I),. Gn✓
Ri,R,uC APE <NVE rw %'r
O ct q S(,t_ b c� IVlS ion
J
JAMES C. BLANNING JR.
S%ZUATEO IiNTRE NN:q SECI8,TI0S,RSAW C-P"
SY
SURVEY ENGINEERS MCORPORAT"
P.O.SOX 2SO4. ALPE N�COt0 AA00
W.06
ao'OO'w 492.74 _
g.L M. TO G1TY Oi PSPfN FOe - RCEESS
PND m
N e
's -` --
CU, - oE- snc _
15'UTILLTY
. ..... :30
Fy
LOT 3, HO^G 5UOD1V1510N
1. ET.
7!K f.
ISI-f e, -P/O-n
c
/ �p
bT t HOA44 SUBCM510N
Ztl-R f CAP! L J. ql
COMIS op BE-116!
E
1�1
I
L Lmmi-ma
\NF- -1 ELEYATION
(7 6 A t, C 118.4 - I1 C, ..
/�1NI5+k GAAV
C4DM C RF Tal N ( N(; WAIL
ff�5T ELEVATION
(,,A L S
FIN.-FL4z- 80-73110
- — -- ------- FIN. FL.IZ, &06-z'
71Z:PS lb 4RAOE Nor 4AooQ w
Exic,-nN c. GRAD F-
J - APR
ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT
TO: Cindy Houben
FROM: Jim Markalunas
SUBJECT: Barker 8040 Greenline Review
DATE: ' 2 -22 -89
In respect to w ter availability for the tract, the applicant may, if he elects,
connect to the existing water system located in Ute Ave. However, since
this tract does not abut the public right of way, we will require the
applicant to install a meter pit and shut -off valve adjacent to the public
right -of -way, on, or near, the utility easement.
Since the location of the residence is above the 8040 elevation, the Water
Dept. will not guarantee adequate water pressure, and it is our
recommendation that the applicant be required to install a pressure
booster pump of sufficient capacity to maintain a minimum pressure of 40
psi on the top floor of the residence. We have no further recommendations
to make pertaining to this application. Water will be available upon
application of, and. payment of all necessary tap fees.
MEMORANDUM
TO: WELTON ANDERSON, Chairman - Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: REMO LAVAGNINO, Chairman -Aspen Board of Adjustment
RE: BARKER: Lot 3 Hoag Subdivision -8040 Greenline Review
DATE: March 28, 1989
At -the scheduled meeting of the Board of Adjustment on .March 23,
1989 we heard and granted a variance to applicant Jack Barker:
Lot 3 Hoag Subdivision (Case #89 -6).
We granted the front yard setback variance to more safely situate
the structure in a denser stand of larger trees, out of the
major avalanche path. In walking the road to the lot, there were
substantial avalanche occurrences that crossed the road. Looking
uphill I noticed major snow movement had occurred in trees the
size and density similar to conditions on the subject property.
While the Board felt a need to further mitigate the potential
avalanche threat, it did not want to encumber the Planning
Commission's role in their 8040 Greenline Review.
The Board has asked me to write this memo to express our concerns
and offer recommendations for your consideration. Under the
direction of the Engineering Dept. we felt that a deflection
barrier should be constructed uphill to direct any snow movement
away from the structure and toward the main avalanche path. The
protective barrier should be strong enough to withstand avalanche
impact and deposition loads. Further, that there be a close
monitoring and minimal removal of trees during construction.
cc: Cindy Houben, Planner
'
/ lorn
67 LD
Jm
'
GRADI-NG PLAN
» � ''
't
0
MSIDlute);1.1U01 lul
0
TO: Bill Drueding, City Zoning Official
FROM: Cindy Houben, Planner
RE: Barker ;Lot 3 of the Hoag Subdivision
DATE: March 23,1988
The Planning Office has received an application for an 8040
review for a environmentally sensitive area specifically located
on Lot 3 of the Hoag subdivision. The Applicants consulted with
the Planning Office prior to submission and were directed to the
Board of adjustment for consideration of a variance from the
required front yard setback. The Lot is a substandard size lot
located in the conservation zone district which requires a
minimum of 100 feet for the front yard setback. You will notice
from the attached site plan thatthe lot is very step and is
constrained by environmental hazards such as an avalanche path
and by public utility and trail easements. In light of these
hazards the Planning Office feels that the applicant has
established perhaps the best siting for a house on this parcel.
As proposed the house would be within 25 feet of the front lot
line and approximately 8 feet from the existing trail easement.
Allowing the house to be established in this location would
reduce the requirement for a driveway to cut into the hillside.
The driveway already exists but potentially a portion of the
driveway could be reclaimed as a requirement of the 8040 review.
The Planning Commission has the final authority to grant or deny
8040 Greenline review. The Planning Office is only a recommending
body to the Planning Commission in this review which is scheduled
for April 4,1989.
ch.bill
L _
\3 ti
607o j
012, v E -r c�
\ _ 90 oe S \ \ 130 \
W
ISO
tH'•,
� \ ;,�•�:;.t•.;:t:v:;;:•.�,•F•..:. ,•. '�%;t�'�:: 25 SET
.� - - . 1p p .\ � r '\ ." ;•;{' }.�,`k;.� ? }; •�+'s:• .t•'t?x;.• `to.� {:3s,o�'�#F�.it�,s,'a.;. a}�.
\. \ ( }�n. Vii. ? {i {,if'r..•...•• .'t s.:,:...: •t�,Tt {,;].v �
>: \
Sol o
AN AL-A-CHE PATH -AKrN t -801"1
DATED �At�UAR( i_, 1981.
N o
00
I DI V, CQ
00
TO: Barker 1986 Greenline Review File
FROM: Steve Burstein
RE: August 31, 1987 Meeting with Jack Barker
DATE: August 31, 1987
Jack and I discussed the memoranda from Wayne Vandemark and Chuck
Roth dated August 25 and August 20, 1987 respectively. The
following matters were covered:
1. Jack clarified the distance of the rock wall along the bottom
of the driveway, as drawn on the plans received July 24, 1987.
Revegetation will be accomplished according to plans prior to
completion of the driveway this year. Jack plans to build the
driveway this season.
2. It was agreed that the driveway would go into the building
envelope a short distance (approximately midway) but not to the
property line as shown on the July 24 plans. Further development
within the building envelope is subject to the 8040 review of the
structure.
3. Jack agreed to follow up with the Fire Marshal to obtain
approval for the substandard driveway (width and surface), making
commitments for fire protection apparati to be located within the
building envelope to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal.
4. Jack agreed to comply with the Engineering Department's
recommendation that a geotechnical engineer (a) prepare final
blueprints for construction, (b) provide letter certifying that
plans are correctly prepared, and (c) perform construction
management and inspection. Final blueprints and letter will be
presented to the Engineering Office before construction com-
mences.
cc: Chuck Roth, Engineering Department
Wayne Vandemark, Fire Marshal
Jack Barker
LAW OFFICES
BROOKE A. PETERSON Wr 2 2 _%6
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
(303) 925-8166
October 21, 1986
HAND DELIVERED
Mr. Steven Burstein
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Barker 8040 Greenline
Permit Amendment
Dear Steve,
In response to your question regarding the language on
the Plat of the Hoag Subdivision, I have again reviewed that
document which is recorded in Plat Book 4 at Page 218 of the
records of Pitkin County, Colorado. In addition, I have
reviewed the City of Aspen's records regarding this subdivision.
In examining the Plat, it is clear that the only access
to Lot 3 is along what is listed as a "public trail and utility
easement" through Bureau of. Land Management property. In
reviewing the Planning and Zoning Commission minutes of June 1,
1971 regarding the Subdivision approval, I note that" the
Planning and Zoning Commission was concerned about the access
question and Mr. Blanning's (the developer) reply was that he
had provided for "multiple use" of the easement.
It is also clear from the City of Aspen's file that the
City Engineer, Charles R. Gilkey, at the time of subdivision,
required Mr. Blanning to prove that he had access across the
Bureau of Land Management property and on the railroad right of
way prior to his approval of the Plat. From the records it is
clear that Mr. Blanning clearly had to satisfy Mr. Gilkey in
order to be granted subdivision approval.
J,
In fact, all of the minutes of the review boards which
refer to the Hoag Subdivision address the issue of access, those
minutes indicate that the Planning and Zoning Commission and the
City Council mandated that access be established prior to final
approval of the subdivision. The June 1, 1971 minutes also -
indicate that the Planning and _Zoning Commission, after review
of the correspondence from the Bureau of Land Management,
approved the access to Lot 3. One can only conclude that this
conclusion by.the reviewing authorities, coupled with the Forest
Service's position as successor to the Bureau of Land Manage-
ment, that access is already afforded along the existing road to
00C27
Mr. Steven Burstein
October 21, 1986
Page Two
Lot 3, would lay to rest any questions regarding the use of the
existing road as an access road to Lot 3, regardless of the
language on the Plat. In fact, as .noted in the minutes, Mr.
Bartel's concern as the planner in charge of the subdivision in
1971 was only that the use of the access road for a trail be
specifically mentioned on the Plat, so that the public use could
not be questioned.
Lastly, the City records reflect that in 1972, when a
different applicant proposed to construct a seven (7) unit
apartment building on Lot 3, the Planning and Zoning Commission
again discussed access and that the Plat for the Hoag Sub-
division showed access "on the railroad right of way, and across
BLM land," and that it needed to be widened in order to accom-
modate the seven (7) unit apartment building. Once again, the
access question was raised and dealt with.
I would hope that this review of past history would
clarify the use of the existing road for access to Lot 3, as
well as the question of the role of the U.S. Forest Service as
successor to the Bureau of Land Management, which, by their
adverse ruling of our request, reaffirmed that access exists
across its property for the use and benefit of the owners of Lot
3, Hoag Subdivision.
Please advise me if you have any further questions.
Yours very truly,
ARPOro EessJnaA COrpor)tion
By:
BAP: k1
cc: Jack Barker
ri)bkgl A. Ptfitets/on
® Recordeo. �1 n clock M 0
BOOK 557 PAGE�29 F�2cept�on No
{ SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY RECORDER
EASEMENT AGREEMENT!
THIS AGREEMENT,made this day of faRVp'�`L', 1988, by
and between JACK BARKER (hereinafter referred to as "Barker "),
and the CITY OF ASPEN'(hereinafter referred to as "City").
W I T N E S S E T H
WHEREAS, Barker is the owner of certain real property
commonly known as Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision, City of Aspen, County
of Pitkin, State of Colorado; and
WHEREAS, Barker is also the holder of Special Use Permit
which affects certain property owned by the United States Forest
Service; and
WHEREAS, the City is desirous of obtaining an easement
across Barker's property and,, the right -to use the United States
Forest Service property for the P Y purpose of constructing a
recreational trail; and
WHEREAS, Barker is desirous of granting an easement across
his property and allowing the use of the United States Forest
Service property upon the terms and conditions contained herein,
NOW THEREFORE, for Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other good and
valuable consideration, and in consideration of the mutual
covenants contained herein, the parties agree as follows:
1_. Easement. Barker hereby grants to the City, its
successors and assigns forever, the following described perpetual
and non - exclusive trail easement and right -of -way, for multi -
recreational use, .:including but not limited to, cross country.
skiing, hiking, bicycling, equestrian and other uses, over that
property described as Driveway and Trail Easement in Exhibit A,
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and he
hereby grants to the City the right to utilize certain real
property which is'_. -owned by the United States Forest Service,
which Barker has the right to use pursuant to a Special Use
Permit. The property to be burdened by the easement and the
property owned by the United States Forest Service shall collect-
ively be referred to hereafter,as the "Property ".
2. Use. The use of the Property shall include, but not be
limited to, the setting and maintenance of cross country skiing
tracks by mechanized equipment or by hand, as well as the
construction and placement of information trail markers. The City
shall, at its. own expense and cost, install such gates, bridges
or other improvements as are necessary for the use and mainten-
ance of the trail located on the Property and for the passage of
track setting equipment in the winter. No construction shall'be
performed upon the Property except as is necessary to accommodate
the purposes of this grant and except with the permission of
BOOK 557 PAGE73
Barker. The Property hereaftez'm= }�e_used by any person gaining
access through authorized access points or trail heads estab-
lished-and.-maintained-by the City.,---Any use of snowmobiles, except
for those minimally utilized by the City, shall be prohibited.
3. Maintenance. The maintenance of the Property, and all
facilities located thereon, shall be done solely at the expense
of the City. Anything to the contrary contained herein notwith-
standing, any damage caused due to negligence of any person who
uses or has used the Property pursuant to the authority of the
City shall berthe responsibility of-the City..
.4. No Easement for Access. Nothing contained herein
shall be construed to grant :as easement:-across any other property
owned by Barker in order for individuals to gain access to the
Property. The City shall provide and maintain reasonable access
and trail head points in order to minimize the opportunities for
entering or leaving the Property.
5. ..Indemnity and Insurance. The City shall hold Barker
harmless and indemnify him against any and all claims, liability,
loss, expense, damages or causes of actions including all legal
fees, for damages arising after the commencement =:of the term
hereof and any...order, decrees or judgments which maybe entered
therein, brought for damages or alleged damages resulting from
injury to person or property or the loss of life sustained in or
about the Property, and from any damage or injury of any kind to
Barker's Property, or for any matter or thing growing out of the
use or occupation of the Property, or any part thereof, or
possession occasioned by the City, its agents, employees or
assigns, respectively, or which may be occasioned by any person
or thing whatsoever or which may be caused by the operations of
the City or any of its agents, in the construction of any
improvements on the Property. It Is the intention and agreement
that Barker shall not be liable for any personal injuries or
damage to any persons to persons utilizing the Property, however,
nothing described herein shall excuse, reduce, release Barker
from negligent,. recklessness or deliberate acts, claims, expen-
ses, damages, or causes of action, including legal fees by
himself, agents, employees or assigns which result in claims
against the City or Barker. The City shall maintain adequate
liability and property damage insurance covering the Property and
evidence of the same shall be furnished to Barker.
6. No Interference. I The exercise of the rights granted
herein by either party shall not unreasonably interfere with the
use of the properties burdened hereby.
7. Construction. The rule of strict construction does not
apply to this grant. This grant shall be given a reasonable
construction so that the intention of the parties to confer a
mutually usable right of enjoyment on each other is carried out.
8. Notices. All notices, demands and communications
Bou 557 PAC-r 731
required. ,..hereunder.,..shall be- ;served. or given to. the respective
party, its_ respect; ve _;address:, ,_as._ set below or as other.-
wise designated. _in.the manner set. forth herein. 'All notice,
demand or communication shall be.. given by personal service, or
certified mail, return receipt requested with first class postage
pre -paid thereon, and unless sooner, received three (3) days
after the date of.. :- :certification. The address of the parties
hereto are
Jack Barker
Post Office Box 3379
Aspen, Colorado 81612
City.Manager
City of .Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
9. Assignment. This Agreement shall not be assignable
in whole or in part, without written consent of the other party,
which consent.shall be unreasonably withheld.
10. Attorneys Fees.. Should any party hereunder be required
to- resort to legal or euitable- process for the enforcement of
any of the provisions of. this Agreement, the prevailing party
shall be entitled to collect from the other party all of Nits
reasonable_- ,attorneys fees,. expenses and costs. Jurisdiction 'for
any legal proceeding shall .be within the District Court, Pitkin
County, Colorado.
11. Running of Benefits and Burdens. All provisions. of
the instrument, including the benefits and burdens, run with the
lands owned by the parties herein which are affected hereby, ,and
are binding upon and inure to the assigns and successors of the
parties hereto.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their
hands and seals the day and year first above written.
CITY OF AS EN
� '..
BARKER By
STATE OF COLORADO )
pp :ss
�OfiTF� .PITKIN )
�
�Q�}e•egoing document was ack owledge a sworn to before
m�,f day of /�B��S' , 988, A BARKER
41•F ' fZX
till
e
i
BOOK 557 PAGE 732
STATE OF C.O.LORA -DO_
:ss
COUNTY OF P_ITKIN
The foregoing documt was acknowledged and sworn efore
me this ''t- day of .�j 1988, as
City of Aspen.
No ary Pub 1i �.
� L ,
r
w Unit .d State■ Department or Agriculture
Forest Service
SPECIAL USE PERMIT
Act ofR Oc�. 21, 1976
M 94 -57918 f. FSM X733.
Sandor W. Shapery
a. RECORD NO. (1 -2) b. REGION 00
% 0
d. DISTRICT (7.2) •. USER NO. (4.12)
Aspen 0 1 5 _� J s
q. STATE (16 -17) Ih, COUNTY (18 -20)
CID Q Pitkin 0_ 2 Z
c. FOREST (5 -6)
L.
f. KIND OF USE 1,1.15)
7 3
k. CARD NO. (21)
of 8008 Girard Ave, Suite 410
(Name►
(Address)
La Jolla, CA 92037
(hereafter called thepermittee) is hereby authorized to use National Forest lands for the construction,
reconstruction, maintenance, and use of a road within the white River. _
National Forest for the protection, administration, management and utilization of lands and the resources
thereof now or hereafter owned or controlled by the permittee.
-this permit is subject to the general provisions listed herein and to the soe:cial clauses and recuirements,
items 7 through —17 page(s) 2 through 4 attached hereto and made a part
of this permit.
This permit covers a right of way .04 miles in length, 20 feet in width andconteining
approximately .10 acres, and located upon the ground according to the survey line, figures, measure-
ments, widths, and other references shown on the plat attached hereto and made.a part hereof.- 1 " =50' mau
Permit class D
dated 1/77 D.M4l
GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. This permit is subject to all valid rights existing on this date.
2. The permittee in exercising the privileges granted by this permit shall comply with all opplic:bl.e
State and Federal laws, Executive Orders, and Federal rules and regulations.
3. The permittee shell cut only such timber as necessary in clearing for road construction, rec--nstruc-
tion, and maintenance. Timber so cut shall, unless otherwise agreed to, be cut into logs of lengths speci-
fied by the Forest Service, and decked along the road for disposal by the Forest Service.
4. The permittee shall do everything reasonably within his power to prevent forest fires, and will not
dispose of material by burning in open fires during the closed season established by law or reeulction
without a written permit from the Forest Service.
5. The permittee shall fully repair all damcge, other than ordinary wear end tear, to Nationcl F3re!:t
roads and trails caused by the permittee in exercise of the privileges granted by this permit.
b. No member of or Delegate to Conaress or Resident Commissioner. shall be admitted to any sillare or
part of this agreement or to any benefit that may arise herefrom unless it is made.with a corporation for its
general benefit.
tI iZT,XcctYOCx:rrf Jil e;F.7�yi ❑Ra:ixEv�t t:t.>,t;:EiArc:�Ztg; {zjSlrL`.;* ��ixcx
THIS PERMIT IS ACCEPTED SUBJECT TO ALL OF ITS TERMS AND CONDITIONS
NAME OF PERMITTEE SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED OFFICER I DATE
PERMITTEE
ISSUING
OFF iCEJ
Sandor W. SI
NA3Akj ANDAfGNALV
[tichard G. "J'
TITLE
TITLE
Forest SuDerlri ,or
OArE
/.Z.7,
:PO 039.477 Jt" (V t - 2700-15 111 /:21
Sandor W. Shapery 2
7. Fee Clause, Roads
In consideration -for this use, the permittee shall pay the Forest Ser-
vice, U.S. Department of Agriculture, the sum of two hundred dollars
($200.00), for the period from January 1, 1984 to December 31, 1984,
and thereafter annually on January 1, two hundred dollars ($200.00):
Provided, however, That charges for this use may be made or readjusted
whenever necessary to place the charges on a basis commensurate with the
value of use authorized by this permit.
8. Service Charge
A late payment charge, in addition to the regular fees, shall be made for
failure to meet the fee payment due date or any of the dates specified
for submission of statements required for fee calculation. The late
payment charge shall be $25, or an amount calculated by applying the
current rate prescribed by Treasury Fiscal Requirements Manual bulletins
to the overdue amount for each 30 —day period, or fraction thereof, that
the payment is overdue, whichever is greater. If the due date falls on
a nonworkday, the late payment charge shall not apply until the end of
the next :workday.
9. Termination. Class D Permits
This permit is issued for use of the entire tract and provides for
limited private access to SE!4 of Section 18, T.10S.I R.8414., 6th P.M.
within the 1,1hite River National Forest for the enjoyment of the owner
thereof, his invitees and guests, 'and so long as the property is devoted
to its present use. This permit does not authorize additional access to
portions of the described property which may be transferred to others;
it is not assignable and shall terminate .upon any change in the title,
possession or nature of the use of all or any portion of the said prop-
erty. However, a new permit may be granted in accordance with the then —
existing laws and regulations if this permit should be terminated for any
of these causes.
10. Erosion Control
The permittee shall be responsible for the prevention and control of
soil. erosion and gullying on lands covered by this permit and adjacent
thereto, resulting from the construction or maintenance of the authorized
use. lie shall so construct and maintain his improvements to avoid the
accumulation of excessive heads of water and to avoid encroachment on
streams. Ile shall revegetate all ground where the soil has been exposed
and shall construct and maintain terracing, water bars, lead —off ditches,
or other preventative works than may be required to prevent and control
erosion as prescribed by the District Ranger.
o
Sandor W. Shapery
16. Permit Termination
4
Unless sooner terminated or revoked, this permit shall expire and become
void on December 31, 1993, but a new permit to occupy and use the same
National Forest land may be granted provided the permittee shall have
notified the Forest Supervisor not less than six (6) months prior to said
date that a new permit is desired, and the permittee is willing that his
future occupancy of the premises shall be subject to such conditions and
stipulations as existing or prospective circumstances may warrant and if,
in the opinion of the issuing officer or his successor, issuance of a
permit is .desirable and in the public interest.
17. Superseded Permit
This permit supersedes a special use permit designated: Blue Sky Corpor-
ation, Access Road BLM #C- 25089, 10/12/77.
Illy
0
ri
GI
n I
(1)
c
71
n
O
I M
at G
At
a-•3_
eA
, IN
/ .: '• ,; u` I /X Zia• M,, 'raj i.l
1Y
zc
Ij v
Flo
Ol
IR
. . - .3-x:8. � 1 '} •� • I � � .,. ...;: I •
�F
2 lb-
Ul
to
to
A
IIN,
gr. Az
'I �4
Oil,
1A
eA
, IN
/ .: '• ,; u` I /X Zia• M,, 'raj i.l
1Y
zc
Ij v
Flo
Ol
IR
. . - .3-x:8. � 1 '} •� • I � � .,. ...;: I •
FEE DETERMINATION
Shapery Road
Sec. 18- T10S -R84W
Aspen District
The 3.00+ acres that is accessed by this road was valued at $84,500 in June
1977. Assuming an appreciation of 15% per year.through 1980 when the economic
slowdown occurred the property would be valued at $120,000 or $40,000 per acre.
Therefore, the fee 'would .be. determined as follows:
5% X 0.10 acre X $40,000 = $200.00
4
JOHN ?)
. NEPP
Lands & Mineral Staff
November 1983
MUM&.=
Recorded 4126 Y.N. Aug. 23,1978 Loretta Banner Recorder
Reception/ a1senravta •a
T.i; C- ,25089 -RV
United States Department of the Interior co- 94609)
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
,T
y..
Ld CO1011A00 RTAT[ OPIIr,[
Room 700 CO1011AU0 STAT, DANK aU1l O1NG
1{00 DMOAOW AT '
itt�.d
206,1456 C[N \IA CiJi..14Ar np ry!
Certified Nail August 2, 1978
Amendatory Decision
Blue Sky Corp.
�q'.'' 626.W. Francis
1' "Yn "'' ' Aspen, CO 81611
it I. Rental Determined
.iynt -of -Way Grant Amended
By decision dated October 12, 1977, Blue Sky Corporation was granted
right- of-woy C -25089 for an access road across certain public lands
In Pitkin County, Colorado. The right- of-way was granted with a $25
advance rental deposit, subject to a formal appraisal, which has now
been completed. Fair market rental for the right -of -way has been
determined to be $25 for the five -year period beginning October 12,
1977, and ending October 11, 1982.
Accordingly, Item "H" on page 10 "Details of Grant," of the decision
dated October 12, 1977, is hereby amended to read as follows:
111. loquired Fair Market $25 for each 5 -year
` Value Payment period for the term
of the grant."
?ern and Condition No. 17 on page 4, of the grant document dated
;'It,i,:r October 12, 1977, is deletud•i„ its entirety and replaced with the
h •:
''i following language:
1117. Payment, in advance, at 5 -year intervals, of the fair warket value
of the rightroi -gray as specified in item "H ", "Dstails'of Grant ".
failure to pay said amount in a timely manner results in summary
termination of this grant without an administrative proceeding.
The bureau of Land Management reserves the right to review the
fair m value dutc.rainatiun at ze+. +onabl«t intervals, and to
arket
adjust it in accordance with regulatlonpand procedures in effect
at that time, if necessary to insure the payment of full air
market value of the right- of-way to the United States."
All other terms, conditions and stipulations of the grant dated October 12,
amended by the decision data/ October 21, 1977, remain to full force
and effect.
�6 +; Sew Er erg r sad Yoe Ssrvs merkal
yrw,errviIraamne�e1 . aeARt6Cls°.A���IileirlY�,Iti►B+ � , ,
It
1.
ti ..
Because the right -of -way was granted with a 825 deposit, no additional
payment is required for the first five -year period of the tors of the `'
grant. However, rental charges are subject to periodic revits under
existing regulations.
The grantee has the right of appeal to the Board of Land Appeals, Office
of the Secretary, in accordance with the regulations in 43 cn, ?art 4,
J Subpart E. However, if an appeal is to be taken, the notice of appeal
must be filed in the Colorado State Office, 700 Colorado State Bank
Building, 1600 Broadway, Denver, Colorado 80202 (not with the Board),
within thirty Lays from receipt of this decision] so that the case file
can be transmitted to the Board. To avoid summary dismissal of the
.l.. appeal, there must be strict compliance with the regulations.
r
f' I
n i
Y,11,
&P�CO •,! 5y
Enclosure
cc: DM, Grand Junction (140)
`yt�tt, i•�' �.I�r it
d • r' ! i
l�15�1.1', ��i is •rr '
Rodney A."Aoberts, Leader
Canon City -Grand Junction Team
Branch of Adjudication
ATPAQiMENr 1
IAND USE APPLICATION FUM
1) Project Name Single family residence
2) Project Location 1125 Ute Avenue -Lot 3 Hoag Bbd; v; �; nn - City ty of A,, Pn
situated in the NW? , SPrti nn 1 Q IWep y nc' RADLE 5zAW Ca:th M
(indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where
appropriate)
3) Present Zoning C 4) Lot size 3 acres - 133,219 s. f.
5) Applicant's Name, Address & Phone � _ Joseph S. Zaluba, Western Heritage Log Homes, Inc.
525 South Original Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611. 925 -4600 or 5-4(36
6) Representative's Name, Address ss & Phone # SAME
Lot Split/int Line
Adjustment
8) Description . of EZsting Uses (n dx r and type . of - edsting stns;
approadmate sq. ft.; aanber of bedrooms; any previous' approvals granted to the
Ply) -
VACANT LAND
9) Description of Development Application
Proposal to construct a handhewn log home - single family
10) Hffp you attached the follaairW.
PkMaxilse to Attadnumit 2, Miniram Siftnissi,on Cpl$
Response to Attactmazit 3, Specific Sj* mission Cots
RespoaLSe to Attacimmnt 4, Review Standards for Your Applunti m
7) Type of Application
(please check all that apply):
Conditional Use
Coaxal SPA
OonoeptZial. Historic Dev.
Special Review
Final SPA
Final Historic Dev.
XX 8040 Greenline
Conceptual PUD
Minor Historic Dev.
Stream Margin
Final FM
Historic Demolition
Mountain n View Plane
Subdivision .
Historic Designation
Cpndcmi,riim+i zatian
`Imtt/Map: Amendment
CN,Z6 Allotment
Lot Split/int Line
Adjustment
8) Description . of EZsting Uses (n dx r and type . of - edsting stns;
approadmate sq. ft.; aanber of bedrooms; any previous' approvals granted to the
Ply) -
VACANT LAND
9) Description of Development Application
Proposal to construct a handhewn log home - single family
10) Hffp you attached the follaairW.
PkMaxilse to Attadnumit 2, Miniram Siftnissi,on Cpl$
Response to Attactmazit 3, Specific Sj* mission Cots
RespoaLSe to Attacimmnt 4, Review Standards for Your Applunti m
8040 Greenline Application
Joseph S. Zaluba - Western Heritage Log Homes, Inc.
ATTACHMENT 2
1. Applicant's Name
Joseph S. Zaluba
Western Heritage Log Homes, Inc.
525 South Original Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
925 -4600
925 -4662
See attached authorization letter by Jack Barker.
2. Street address of Parcel:
1125 Ute Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611 aka Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision
Pitkin County, a portion of the NWT, Section 18, Township 10S
Range 84W, of , the 6th MI.
3. See attached current title insurance policy dated 1/3/89.
4. See attached vicinity map.
5. The proposed development is a single family residence to be located
on a legally created lot within the City Limits of Aspen.The location
of.the proposed development on the site minimizes the visual impact
of the development from Ute Avenue as well as the danger from
the recognized avalanche situation.
Real Estate • Rentals • Property Management
February 7, 1989
Planning and Zoning Office
ATTN: Cindy Houben
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision
Dear Cindy:
Please be advised that Joseph Zaluba is authorized to file
and represent me for the application of the 8040 review
process.
Also, please be advised that Joseph Zaluba is authorized by
me to file for an appeal for front yard set back variance.
If you have any questions or need further information,
please don't hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your
cooperation.
Respectfully yours, f
Jack Barker
Owner
Lot 3, Hoag Subdivison
JB:bll
Aspen Office • 720 East Hyman, Aspen, Colorado 81611 • (303) 925 -1400 • FAX (303) 925 -2895
Snowmass Office • Box 6450, Snowmass Village, Colorado 81615 • (303) 923 -4700 • FAX (303) 923 -4198
la4tu ersTide
y
Insurance @r Oration
NATIONAL HEADOUARTERS
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA
i
COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE
SCHEDULE A
1. Effective date: 01/03/89 AT 8:00
/ A.M.
Case No. PCT -3043
2. Policy or policies to be issued:
(a)ALTA Owner's Policy -Form B -1970 Amount $ 265,000.00
(Rev. 10 -17 -70 & 10- 17 -84) or 10/21/87 Premium $ 880.50
PROPOSED INSURED: WESTERN HERITAGE LOG HOMES, INC.
(b)ALTA Loan Policy, Amount $
(REV. 10- 21 -87) Premium $
PROPOSED INSURED:
(c)Alta Loan Construction Policy, 1975 Amount $
(Rev. 10- 17 -84) Premium $
PROPOSED INSURED:
Tax Cert. $ 10.00
3. Title to the
FEE SIMPLE estate or interest in the land described or
referred to in this Commitment is at the effective date hereof vested
in-
JACK BARKER
4. The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows:
LOT 3, HOAG SUBDIVISION, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO
t�
Countersigned at: PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. Schedule A -PG.1
601 E. HOPKINS This Commitment is invalid
ASPEN, CO. 81611 unless the Insuring
303- 925 -1766_ Provisions and Schedules
A and B are attached.
Authorized officer or agent
F 100 Litho In U.S.A.
100-0041/2
ta4tu ers T de
y
. Insurance Coiporafion
NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS
r RICHMOND, VIRGINIA
SCHEDULE B- SECTION 1
REQUIREMENTS
The following are the requirements to be complied with:
ITEM (a) Payment to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors
of the full consideration for the estate or interest to be insured.
ITEM (b) Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be
insured must be executed and duly filed for record to -wit:
` 1. Deed from : Jack Barker
To : Western Heritage Log Homes, Inc.
M 2. Release by the Public Trustee of;
9' Deed of Trust from : Hoag -3- Venture, A Joint Venture
To the Public Trustee of the County of Pitkin
' For the use of : Little Annie Limited Partnership
To secure : $62,000.00
Dated : February 14, 1979
Recorded : February 15, 1979 in Book 363 at Page 435
Reception.No. : 211941
,Ice 3. Correction Deed;
From : Hoag -3- Venture, A Colorado Joint Venture
To : Hoag Investment Associates, Ltd., A Colorado Limited
Partnership
NOTE: The above is necessary to show evidence to the Company
that the Real Estate Transfer Tax as- established by
Ordinance No. 20 (Series of 1979) has been paid or exempted;
as not evidenced by Deed recorded in Book 387 at Page 422.
4. Certificate of Nonforeign Status of Individual Transferor signed
by Jack Barker.
5. Evidence'Satisfactory to the Company that the Real Estate Transfer
Tax as established by Ordinance No. 20 (Series of 1979) has been
paid or exempted.
6. Certificate from the Homeowners Association evidencing the fact
that all fees and expenses currently due and payable have been
paid in full and are not delinquent.
7. Certificate from the Secretary of State or other appropriate
office of , showing that Western Heritage Log Homes,
Inc., is a duly organized and existing corporation under the laws
of
Continued
100 Litho In U.S.A.
aw ers itle
y
jnsurance Crporation
NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA
NOTE: Pitkin County Title, Inc., reserves the right to make
additional requirements and /or exceptions as deemed
necessary.
This commitment is invalid unless
the Insuring Provisions and Schedules
A and B are attached.
too Litho In U.S.A.
•100- 0041/2
Schedule B- Section 1 PQ.2
Commitment No.PCT -3043
Ua4u)yersliue
InguMfice Coiporation
NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA
SCHEDULE B- SECTION 2
EXCEPTIONS
The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the
following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the
Company:
1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public
records.
2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records.
3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area,
encroachments, and any facts which a correct survey and .inspection
of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public
records.
4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material
heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by
the public records.
5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if
any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching
subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the
proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest
or.mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment.
6. Taxes due and payable; and any tax, special assessment, charge or
lien imposed for water or sewer service or for any other special
taxing district.
7. Reservations and exceptions as contained in United States Patent
recorded August 26, 1949 in Book 175 at Page 229 as follows:
Right of Way for Ditches or canals constructed by the authority of
the United States.
8- Utility and Public Trail Easements, and a 10 foot strip reserved
�. for the City of Aspen for the widening of Ute Avenue as shown on
Map of Hoag Subdivision recorded November 5, 1971 in Plat Book 4
at Page 218.
(9- Terms, conditions, reservations and obligations as set forth in
Easement Agreement recorded in Book 363 at Page 433.
10: Terms, conditions, reservations and obligations as set forth in
�-' Easement Agreement recorded in Book 557 at Page 729.
11. Terms, conditions, reservations and obligations as set forth in
Easement and Amendentory Decision, recorded in Book 341 at Pages
11 through 18, and in Book 353 at Pages 316 and 317.
This commitment.is invalid unless Schedule B- Section 2 PG.1
the. Insuring Provisions and Schedules Commitment No. PCT -3043
A and B are attached.
MIMM 100 Litho In U.S.A.
035 -0- 100-0041/2
aw ers itle
y
jnsurance Crporation
NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA
SCHEDULE B- SECTION 2
CONTINUED
Exceptions numbered NONE are hereby omitted.
,The Owner's /Mortgage Policy to be issued; if any, shall contain the
following items in addition to the ones set forth above:
(1) The Deed of Trust, if any, required under Schedule B- Section 1.
\ (2) Unpatented mining claims; reservations or exceptions in patents
or in Acts authorizing issuance thereof; water rights, claims or
title to water.
It
1
1
1
1
1
This commitment is invalid unless Schedule B- Section 2
the Insuring Provisions.and Schedules Commitment No.PCT -3043;
� A and B are attached.
Im 100 Litho In U.SA
035.0- 100-0041/2
� Lw�ersTtle
� jnsurance Crporauon
NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS
RICHMOND. VIRGINIA
COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE
LAWYERS TITLE INSURANCE CORPORATION, a Virginia corporation, herein called the Company, for valuable
consideration, hereby commits to issue its policy or policies of title insurance, as identified in Schedule A, in favor of the
proposed Insured named in Schedule A, as owner or mortgagee of the estate or interest covered hereby in the land
described or referred to in Schedule A, upon payment of the premiums and charges therefor; all subject to the provisions
of Schedules A and B and to the Conditions and Stipulations hereof.
This Commitment shall be effective only when the identity of the proposed Insured and the amount of the policy or
policies committed for have been inserted in Schedule A hereof by the Company, either at the time of the issuance of this
Commitment or by subsequent endorsement.
This Commitment is preliminary to the issuance of such policy or policies of title insurance and all liability and
obligations hereunder shall cease and terminate six (6) months after the effective date hereof or when the policy or
policies committed for shall issue, whichever first occurs, provided that the failure to issue such policy or policies is not the
fault of the Company. This Commitment shall not be valid or binding until countersigned by an authorized officer or agent.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Commitment to be signed and sealed, to become valid when
countersigned by an authorized officer or agent of the Company, all in accordance with its By -Laws. This Commitment is
effective as of the date shown in Schedule A as "Effective Date."
CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS
1 . The term "mortgage," when used herein, shall include deed of trust, trust deed, or other security instrument.
If the proposed Insured has or acquires actual knowledge of any defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other
matter affecting the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment other than those shown in
Schedule B hereof, and shall fail to disclose such knowledge to the Company in writing, the Company shall be relieved
from liability for any loss or damage resulting from any act of reliance hereon to the extent the Company is prejudiced
by failure to so disclose such knowledge. If the proposed Insured shall disclose such knowledge to the Company, or if
the Company otherwise acquires actual knowledge of any such defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other
matter, the Company at its option may amend Schedule B of this Commitment accordingly, but such amendment shall
not relieve the Company from liability previously incurred pursuant to paragraph 3 of these Conditions and
Stipulations.
Liability of the Company under this Commitment shall be only to the named proposed Insured and such parties
included under the definition of Insured in the form of policy or policies committed for and only for actual loss
incurred in reliance hereon in undertaking in good faith (a) to comply with the requirements hereof, or(b)to eliminate
exceptions shown in Schedule B, or (c) to acquire or create the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this
Commitment. In no event shall such liability exceed the amount stated in Schedule A for the policy or policies
committed for and such liability is subject to the insuring provisions and the Conditions and Stipulations and the
Exclusions from Coverage of the form of policy or policies committed for in favor of the proposed Insured which are
hereby incorporated by reference and are made a part of this Commitment except as expressly modified herein.
Any action or actions or rights of action that the proposed Insured may have or may bring against the Company
arising out of the status of the title to the estate or interest or the status of the mortgage thereon covered by this
Commitment must be based on and are subject to the provisions of this Commitment.
Latvwrs Title jns=.Ialalkm
N, c .
President
Attest:
Secretary.
'� AGRE�iiTt
I1 L5 UiE AVE.
\ LTc- mKjwz Tim ic
NE 1 PJPLCK WPLEY,
-- 1 Ei KT
,�'7PEN Cti)8.
1'1010 OrC -HOKE$
_ I-5M TD013.5IA
AL-ONE Oa"IC-
6V4 IN TRAIL
P'6PEN AtV5
cf)m"K
i
L A tTLE N ELL - A� PEN MT•
p'�LXH :11
51LNE1Z ( *RN EaOaDOLA
DC LA 6LZY -- .
"201TH ALPS RD.
Vm twc-
►AEU UTTiZ
NEI.1. ooTEt- I ►�RTN of
D URAty 1J
0
ASPENVIEW 1125 Ute Avenue
A custom log home on Aspen Mountain by
WESTEE;N HERITAGE LOG HOMES, INC.
525 So. Original Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925 -4600
'7
8040 Greenline Application
Joseph S. Zaluba - Western Heritage Log Homes, Inc.
ATTACHMENT 4
1. The parcel contains no known detriments to development other than
the documented avalanche situation. This avalanche situation is
...discussed in. detail in the attached AVALANCHE HAZARD ANALYSIS,
BARKER. PROPER'T'Y, APSEN, 00LORADO, prepared by Arthur I Mears, PE
Gunnison,-.-Colorado dated January 15, 1987.
Other conments regarding slope cut stability of the proposed building
site ate addressed in the attached report from CH EN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Consulting engineers, dated December 17, 1986.
2. The proposed development shall minimize the drainage and runoff of
the existing site. Drainage and runoff will be into existing paths
on both the east and west sides of the proposed development. No new
drainage paths will have to be constructed excepting a culvert under
the proposed driveway.
3. The proposed development will utilize a gas type fireplace and therefore
C9
minimize any air polution considerations.
4� The proposed development will add no new roads or trails to the site.
The driveway will be short, approximately 20' and come off of the existing
drive and trail. There will be minimal impact on the site. Please see
a Sheet A - Site & Grading plan.
-� 5. The proposed development will minimize and create no new disturbances to
the existing terrain except for the house foundation and short drive.
6. As explained above.
7. The proposed development will be of minimal square footage and be
constructued of 12" handcrafted and handpeeled lodgepole pine logs.
The roof will be split cedar shakes and the building will be stained
with a greyish brown semi transparent stain to help the development
"blend" into the mountain side. The height of the building will be
within City & County requirements.
8. Utilities are available to the site.. Utilities were discussed in a
previous 8040 application which was approved December 2, 1986 by the
Planning & Zoning Com1nission.
9. The access drive and maintenance agreements have been approved under
previous 8040 review approved December 2, 1986 by the.Planning & Zoning
Commission.
10. Reference Item ##9. A fire sprinkler system will be installed because of
the distance from the nearest fire hydrant.
8040 Gr
eenline Application
Joseph S. Zaluba — Western Heritage Log Hones, Inc.
ATTACI-IlVIIIVT 4 :continued)
11. Trail easements and all agreements pertaining to the road used
I for access to the site have been approved. Copies are attached.
1
t
A
1
i
1
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
A
1
1
1
f
1
AVALANCHE HAZARD ANALYSIS, BARKER PROPERTY, ASPEN, COLORADO
PREPARED FOR
MR. JACK BARKER
Arthur I. Clears, P.E., Inc.
Gunnison, Colorado
January, 1987
A FHUR 1. MEARS, P.E., INC.
Natural Hazards Consultants
222 Fast Gothic Ave.
Gunnison. Colorado 81230
303 - 641 -3236
January 15, 1987
Mr. Jack Barker
P.O. Box 3379
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Mr. Barker:
The attached avalanche- analysis has been completed in accordance with our
discussions in Aspen last month. The report consists of two parts: (1) text,
and (2) map. The map is being sent in a separate package.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
AM: lc
Encl.
Sincerely,
Arthur I. Mears, P.E.
A'L*a Wmlfng , arches • Avalanche Control Engineering
t
t
1
1
1
L
1,
INTRODUCTION
This analysis of avalanche hazard was requested by Mr. Jack Barker of
Aspen and has the following objectives:
1. site inspection of avalanche terrain;
2. analysis of avalanche characteristics and risk;
3. review of previous work;
4. recommendations.
The report is site specific, thus the results and recommendations
cannot be extended to other locations.
AVALANCHE CONDITIONS
Avalanches affecting the Barker property in Sec. 18, T. 10 S.,
R. 84 W., City of Aspen, originate on the northeast- facing slope of Bell
Mountain. Avalanche starting zones are located immediately below promin-
ent cliffs at approximately 8,800 feet elevation, as much as 1000 feet
above the valley floor. The starting zones, or areas in which unstable
snow accumulates, are small, steep, and generally discontinuous. There-
fore, avalanches will usually be small and unlikely to reach the Barker
property. However, major avalanches can occur in response to exceptional
weather and /or snowpack conditions at any time during the November-
April snow season. Major avalanches are known to have deposited debris
on the old railroad grade in 1964, 1973, and 1974. The largest and most
frequent avalanches occur in the approximately 50 -yard wide open slope
On the western edge of the property, which is also the site of the
avalanches that are known to have reached the railroad grade. A ski
trail and the proposed access driveway to the Barker property cross the
�� lower portion of this path.
-2-
The slope immediately east of the prominent path supports a thick,
triangular wedge of Douglas fir- with interspersed aspen. This stand of
trees, which is the proposed site of the new home, shows no sign of
avalanche damage for the life of the forest (approximately 80 years).
Site inspection showed some damage to aspen within the forest, but this
was apparently caused by an unusually heavy early June snowstorm in 1984.
This storm produced similar widespread damage throughout central Colorado.
The avalanche conditions at this site were discussed in a detailed
report to Steve Crowley and Thomas D. McAuley which was authored in 1973
by Whitney M. Borland and Hans Frutiger. In my opinion, the Borland/
Frutiger report was a thorough and accurate appraisal of the avalanche
conditions at this site. The present study discusses in 9 reater detail
the nature of the risk involved in building within the potential avalanche
area.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND AVALANCHE HAZARD
Discussions and a site inspection with Mr. Jack Barker provided
detailed information about the layout of the proposed development. The
development layout and building envelope is shown on the attached map.
The development is subject to avalanche hazard of 2 types:
1. hazard on the access driveway that crosses the open avalanche
path discussed above; and
2. hazard to the house, which will be built approximately 50 feet
east of the prominent avalanche path, within the timber wedge.
Because hazards "1" and "2" differ significantly, they are discussed
separately below.
The access driveway is clearly within the boundaries of the main
western avalanche path. Both upper and lower legs of the proposed
-3-
driveway have been overrun 3 times during the past 22 years, (in 1964,
1973, and 1974), as noted above. Smaller avalanches may have also reached
the driveway alignment, but gone undetected. Although firm data on
avalanche frequency is not available, an average frequency (at the drive-
way) of 3 -5 years seems reasonable, based on vegetation damage and the
sporadic and discontinuous historical record.
Overall risk is based on avalanche frequency and the proposed use of
driveway. If we assume an exposure time (to the.avalanche) of 1 minute
per trip and 10 trips per day on the driveway, total daily exposure is
10 minutes (out of 1,440 minutes per day), or 0.7% of the time. If the
avalanche occurs once in every 3 years on the average, the joint proba-
bility, P, that an avalanche will reach someone while he is traveling
1 the driveway is computed
P = (3) (10/1440) = 0.23% per year.
This calculation assumes random avalanche occurrence and random driveway
Use. In'other words, the prevailing avalanche and /or weather conditions
will have no influence on the use of the driveway.
' From the standpoint of risk assessment, this 0.23% annual probability
should be compared with other risks that are commonly accepted. For
example, daily travel during unstable avalanche conditions is common on
Loveland, Berthoud, and Red Mountain passes each of which is crossed by
numerous avalanches ever ear. Some of these avalanches y y alanc es occur more often
than once per year. Depending on the route taken through Colorado, the
avalanche hazard encountered on a trip to Aspen may exceed the risk in
ascending the driveway.
-4-
In contrast, avalanche exposure of the house is less tolerable
because we must assume it will be occupied continuously, especially
during "severe weather and avalanche conditions. Although the building
envelope is approximately 50 feet inside the timber wedge (east of the
avalanche path), it probably is exposed to avalanches of exceptional
volume because these will spread laterally as they descend and enter
t e undisturbed forest. As a rough estimate, the building site could
be reached yavalanches with return periods of 50 -100 years (1 -2% annual
probability). A building located here and intended for winter occupancy
must be designed for avalanche im act and deposition loads. Final design
criteria should be developed in conjunction with building plans and
should include:
1 1. Specification of avalanche forces (resolved into mutually
perpendicular directions); and
2. Determination of loading criteria (static or impact).
None of these design parameters can be specified at present because
details of building size, shape, and orientation - strongly control the
details of interaction with the structure. However, experience at many
avalanche sites in North America and Europe indicates that construction
of _an "_avalanche- proof" structure is feasible at this location.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations consider the avalanche characteristics
And relative hazard as discussed above.
1. Avoid placement of permanent structures within the prominent
west avalanche path.
2. Allow residential construction within the timber wedge and
inside the building envelope as specified by Mr. Jack Barker
during our field inspection on December 16, 1986 (see attached
map).
3. Accept the avalanche risk on the driveway because this risk is
small compared with others normally taken in winter travel.
Although the avalanche risk is small when compared to the risk
accepted at many mountain sites (e.g., Vail, Juneau, Ketchum, Alta),
the potential hazard should-be carefully discussed with and understood
by future developers or owners of the site. They may reduce the risk
even further through learning about the nature and timing of avalanches.
0/ 1
.III
y
Chen &Associates 5080 Road 154
Consulting Geotechnical Engineers Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
303/945 -7458
1 . Jack Barker
;.0. Box 3379
Aspen, CO 81612
jar Mr. Barker:
Casper
Colorado Springs
Denver
Fort Collins
Rock Springs
Salt Lake City
San Antonio
December 17, 1986
Subject: Comments Regarding Cut
Slope Stability, Proposed
Residence Driveway,
Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision,
Aspen, Colorado.
Job No. 4 443 86
IThis report presents the findings of a site reconnaissance to
tain information regarding cut slope stability along the
proposed driveway alignment.. The reconnaissance was made on
D cember 8 when there was at least 1 foot of snow depth on the
e. Comments regarding the grading for the proposed driveway
D
presented in this report.
The work was performed according to our proposal to Mr. Jack
ker dated June 28, 1985. At Mr. Barker's request our recon-
laissance was limited to the grading aspects of the project. We
avalanche are being
2`s luated by others.
'r _posed Construction: Lot 3 of the Hoag Subdivision is located
1; ectly above the abandoned railroad grade and borders the 1001
im property directly to the west. The driveway alignment is
)roposed to begin at the railroad grade, climb along the existing
ITrail at a grade of about 15% to 18% and switch back to the
t at a grade_ of about 4% to 81. The driveway is planned to be
bout 15 feet wide and have a total length of about 700 feet.
design information was provided to us in plan and cross
Rtion drawings by Integrated Engineering Consultants, dated
ober 28, 1986. The cross sections indicate road construction
Y cutting on the uphill side and filling on the downhill side.
le Conditions: The property ies
Y near the toe of Aspen Moun-
ain on the southern edge of the Roaring Fork Valley. The site
s heavily wooded terrain that is steeply sloping down to the
0 h at a typical grade of 2 horizontal to 1 vertical. Eleva-
ion difference between the upper and lower segments of the
r Dosed driveway is about 70 feet.
0
J
Mr. Jack Barker
December 17, 1986
Page 2
Along the northern part of the lot, the Ute Trail, a pedes-
trian ski trail, has been constructed mainly by cutting into the
hillside. The trail width is about 6 to 8 feet. The cut slope
banks are very steep and no indications of large slope movements
were observed. We understand that the trail has been constructed
in.the last year or two.
The property is thickly vegetated, mainly with evergreens.
Uphill of the western part of the property is a relatively small
open area which is a snow avalanche track. The avalanche runout
area is on Lot 2 below the site. The ent }re property lies within
a potential avalanche zone (Mears, 1979) and may be in an area
of potential debris flows.
Discussion and Recommendations: Existing shallow cuts along the
railroad grade and Ute Trail have been made at very steep
slopes. The soils exposed in the cuts consist mainly of collu-
vial deposits composed of angular rock fragments in a clayey sand
matrix. The rock fragments typically range to cobble and small
boulder size. The soils on the mountainside appear to be fairly
well drained and hold the very steep cut slopes with limited
slope movement when .seepage is not present. Considering the soil
conditions exposed at the site, constructing cut slopes at a
grade of 1 horizontal to 1 vertical as proposed appears feasible
provided the cut depths are limited to about 5 feet and are
protected against erosion.
Fill sections constructed on the downhill side of the road
will tend to be less stable than the cut slopes and should be
constructed at a flatter grade and /or be limited in height. We
suggest a maximum fill slope grade of 1 112 horizontal to
1 vertical and a maximum height of 5 feet. Constructing the fill
will be difficult due to the steep terrain. We recommend that
the fill sections be benched into the natural slope after the
topsoil and vegetation have been removed. The fill should be
compacted in "relatively horizontal lifts to a minimum 95% of
maximum standard Proctor density. Narrow sliver fills should not
be constructed. Instead, the road alignment should be shifted or
a retaining wall constructed.
F Collecting and diverting surface runoff will be an important
ect to the cut and fill slope stability. The natural heavy
etation should be maintained as much as practical. Concen-
ted surface runoff should not discharge onto steep unprotected
pes. It may be feasible to collect the surface runoff in a
ch along the uphill side of the road and discharge the water
Mears, A.I. 1979, "Colorado Snow - Avalanche Area Studies and
Guidelines for Avalanche- Hazard Planning: Colorado Geological
Survey Special Publication No. 7,,.
Chen & Associates
il
Mr. Jack Barker
December 17, 1986
Page 3
at control points. A civil engineer should design the drainage
system. The areas disturbed by the grading operation should be
revegetated or protected by other means to prevent erosion. This
should include areas upslope and downslope of the roadway
alignment.
Localized slumping and raveling of the steep cut slopes
should be expected. This will require. regular maintenance so
that the roadside ditch is not clogged. Temporary seepage during
spring runoff conditions may contribute most to the ditch main-
tenance problems. -If seepage is encountered during or after
construction or if significant slope failures occur, a geotech-
nical engineer should be contacted immediately to evaluate
possible remedial action.
The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report
are based upon the data - obtained from our site reconnaissance and
the proposed development plans. Variable site and soil condi-
tions may be encountered during construction. We recommend a
geotechnical engineer review the design drawings and perform
observation and testing of the grading operations.
If you have any questions or if we can be of further assis-
tance, please let us know.
L. P q
. v
��� � G�STfR •;y
15222
CO���`�O
SLP /ec
Rev. By: R. M.
Chen &Associates
Very truly yours,
CHEN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
By -
Steven L. Pawlak, P.E.
P.O. Box 3379
' Aspen Co. 81612
303- 925 -8580
Feb. 18, 1987
Mr. Steven Burstein
City of Aspen Planning Office
tGalena St.
Aspen, Co. 8161 1
Re; Barker 8040 Greenline Application Amendment
Dear Steve,
This letter will more specifically address remaining conditions of
the Dec. 2, 1987 approval as well as the original approval.
1) Snow Removal Plan
The concern about snow removal is that it should not interfere
with the ski trail grooming. So I hereby agree that either myself or the
purchaser of Lot 3 shall not move snow onto the trail and that a base of
snow will be left on the trail /driveway to accommodate skiers. I know
from my previous experience working on this road in the winter during the
construction of the Lot 4 duplex that it is almost impossible to plow this
road down to the gravel. It is such a shady site that the road is frozen up
all winter. Of course it will not always be possible to keep a maintained
ski groove 1n the trail but there will be plenty of snow for the machine to
keep a good skiing surface. See the engineers final drawings now being
processed that will include a detailed plan on where to dump the snow
from plowing.
2) Conservation and Revegetation Plan
The concern here is to stabilize the soil as well as make the
disturbed soil look natural. My plan is to personally supervise the removal
of surface soil during construction of this road. My experience in building
here in Aspen for many years is that is much easier to protect the existing
vegetation that it is to get new vegetation to grow. Final alignment of
this driveway will be made to conserve as many existing trees as is
possible. On the uphill side of the road we will expect to have a one to one
grade that is very steep. As indicated in the report on cut slope stability
by Chen and Assoc., we can expect that the rock formation can provide a
very steep and yet stable bank. By keeping to a steep uphill bank we can
reduce the amount of natural vegetation that would be excavated and lower.
JaCV, barKer
P.O. Sox 3379..
Aspen, Co. 81612
303- 925 -8580
the height of the bank to no more than 5 feet. We will add soil along both
upper and lower banks where we will plant ground cover plants with good
root systems such as Sweet Woodruff (which is the most successful
ground cover 1 have used in shady banked areas), Bluebells ( which do well
around rocks and shade areas), Lily -of- the - Valley and Common Periwinkle
( which like lots of moisture and shade). These are all easy to find nersery
stock which I have planted in the Aspen area with very good success.
These small ground cover will look more natural than wild grass since
there is almost no grass on this exposure. We will end up with a rock
garden look to most of this area. This is the method I used successfully in
landscaping the Duplex on lot four below this site. Some small evergreen
trees will be planted around the switch back and at the junction with the
■
td railroad right -of -way where the realignment of the ski trail caused
■ nsiderable damage. A detailed site plan is being developed that
incorporates this landscape plan as well as the drainage system of our
previous plans.
3) Sharing of access through Forest Service property & easement across
Lot Three.
Brooke Peterson is sending a copy of the easement agreement to
Paul Tadoon for his review. Greg Thompson at the Forest Service said that
he would only need a copy of the executed easement agreement for his file
to insure that the City & Nordic Council has been given the right to use
this access. So this is in the works and you will be getting copies.
4) Removal of excavated materials
There will be no dumping of excess materials from the
construction of this road or the homesite on the lot or surrounding areas.
All excess materials will be hauled away to appropriate and approved
landfill areas.
If there are any questions regarding my plans for this project
please give me a call.
Sincerely,
L�
F,
� � r
"i
' :;`„yw�Rrtw- wr.+�-- .wr�.�� ��.,..�: �"''':� s : <�"�!+e�..�a'#y e .. •. rq � <�Y�d'".d:.�
kat -ssdeo .y( 10:15 c'clock_A K. ieDtW ry 15 1919
- r
heception > ,. 214110 Lomtta Banner
.SNORT FORM OPTION FOF�EASI�IENT ,k
Th i R 5tir)RT YOM OPTLON' PI FR C"CMCI:T dated Lbu ` „
da; r l•_Lruary...1979 Ss between HOAG- 3- V[NTnrRS, la.at
venture !'Nuao Y nture'1, whose. address ►s
11s'te 41.► fit �t _... y.. .
and LP A, LE AMMIE. LIKZTED A tTNERSB D'{ itlTe % , `��
T.rhoAe address is Box 1 As
pea, Colorado "81611
1. Boaq Venture hereby grants to Little An11! d
'e -
u: the eraiusive right, privilege and option to purchase,' '
n
easement and right -of ray above Certain :real property''
ccspriainy..approsiaetely 0.116 acres, more or less, Locatad�. .
A Ln the CatY, oi:•Aspen. Pitkir. County. Colorado. 'as>d sore
particularly described: as follows
1.
A POP=GN Or LOT 3 NOAG SUBDItISION;'CITY OP ASPEIi
y;. COLORADO, BEIMO MORE FULLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOW
a ^ BEGINMING AVA POM ON'TSE SOCTB LIME or':SA2fi IAl`'Sri
WMCY TEE :1NOSr EASTERLY COR>IE>t OF;SAID. LOT; 3
eMT; 1S1:98• -rm7 y
THENCE'S 55 °48'90• W 4.46 'FEET ALONG THE SOOTK LIgE.OT ','
SAID Wr :2`TO °'M TRUE POIMT BSGIDIRZDNiipk =3i h . }1 �Ca x.t
i TBEpca.N:5514615'r N 83,99- FEE1'71LQKf8 SAID.:BOiM17! ?SAEfY
a
THEME -11 01'49'1h`:.E 11.04 FEET To A, -POINT OOt Tlid x
fiORTB BIER [ OF. SAID L LOT. ..3 t
' THENCE S`SS 18'50 E'81.99.FEET ALONO SAID'lIORTN LINN)ip ,.
TBENCL S''O o49 ?18'- M 71:04 FEET TO•TM RES TRUE'�`POINT � f�
9 r BEGIMING CONTAINING 0.116 AC, NORE OF LESS *`4
- ;.i .•. -.... � 'E ]�L:• X144 ?R�.
Z .'^The easement and rightro ,- described above tx
o i
8h411 be for purposes of maintainiaq an9 operaunq akl .}
lifts, cables, 'as,rove, •aerial trasaays,asd atl . i °�
devices•siailar . os iacident.•thetetol boww r, no';.A rOdtOleM.
-.
or devices such as supports,., col stanchions,
r= bPtlgtrta.
butsxeases and`the like or other lmpsovewnts
located ,on3iai8 Property
The. option dull term lnate'tvo iZ yoars.•Lkw
the e:feetiva:date.hereof or :February 1, I981..:whlcbovrr.
{ �� >s ::,ngrr. 'Thc ettectsve date hereof Raana tbe'daRa this tf r-
sE� tha instru>.eat is ,duly,
by .'all the parties hereto
# , 4. The optr,on payMats aric 311 other ter>•s, s
prov_sions, and ooad3taona of .che OpLaon:,are sot,orth
1 `t {a. ful "l.ar.'tha"- < :certain',apt ion for Easssent datod Psbn+atcy ♦i "'�"
k 1979 mace between the parties.hereto and Jncor osatedrhere Ki4
by this =refsl066eT1ns Snsesosea4;is wsrelY • shosrt tosf/ �'
t soesal sad crs ot:. the 4Hticn !or Ease>weet to be I filed -for notice a�
S;
Purposes 3 a.;the. reala-catate room s,.,ot the Clerk and ReQpida
t r v o f P tk to Cxatslty. Colorado a t F x Y -
K ♦t ` iN WITSMS 1BiUMF, the Parties: have mteauta+d this VA
k t f Stort Mors s�ptioa�tQ! Easssts,.It the dap: and year iilat vrittslYa
r � p � :IEQAG >ff.ZiTtJREtr: ��r f' LI'llii S1A4 1 f�.�,��a s� ��.
"Wture . LIlTLE IC:
',G-. y- - : 1► � ' � tin ; , r^
;73
ti • t v pale
/ z
�1: . 1!y a . � ✓ �1 ..' �t. '� q � , .S'.. +'�+yKt v4.
4' }µ
�-'�
kk, ` ' ,_* * t `y�� , t•`+F�..- a4,-. ♦
r4out
}�}, r s •�� -�'�y s •�` "� ?�, �y '�fia�, 'la `T :. .x '� � .Yt'G's i�s'�•�+�fM�r'EdpAe �� '
q s`� t�,.➢ ja *- riQK4i i .T''� `,� Y : t,�� r, `yr'`� t .h 4 � k' .,
V
7 7
7
STATE OF COLOJJ.4=
c
OUXTY or P ITKTII
instrument •►oa aw
me thL* day of F
ebruary , -1979, bp I
IF of L L
'tt'e Antli* Ulftited Partnersk
.'.'W'TNM My -'"Wd-Aad 0 .*Lci&: -*ad
KY
commaston expiv-s: -7".Vq
4 q
If ota a
STATE or
COUbITY Qr'PTkTEjX-
T? f
-day., of rebt 1979. DU
IIS my hAtod -&nd� of
19
I�CAYAMY or PITRIN
a" Eq,jjj*tj*jjRftt:
d*y of :rebertary 1979 by/ J111
WITMM VV bajbd:, t
And 10 mea4
ii ivy ;saw My Zmiss*"." p I . . . . . .
p yrt-T
iA
),J
The"'far"mna 4
We
day of row.ua". 1979 Ij
rea'S
c
7e
3
rC
j,
J
N
WiC
Pe-corded at-LL
oWDek . .
A A4 r
;wceptun No
SILVIA DAM il[NN CUM 1tECW,=
I& E_C.Nj_&0ZM=
THIS AGREMENT,made this Al my of 1988, by
and d,
between JACK BARKER (hereinafter referred
to as "Barkere),
and the CITY OF ASPEm (hereinafter referred to as *City*). ; ,'
WHEREAS. Barker is the owner of
commonly known as Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision, Certain real property
of Pitkin, state or Colorado; and City 01 Aspen, County
WHEREAS, Barker is also the holder of special Use Permit
which affects certain Property Owned by the United
Service; and States Forest
4"
WHEREAS, the City Is d@;1XOUS of obtaining an easement
across Sarker-a Property and the right to use the United States
Forest Service roperty for
the purpose Of Constructing a
recreational trail; and S
WHEREAS, Barker is desirous of granting an easement across
his property and allowing the use of the United States Forest
Service Property upon the terms and conditions contained herein,
NOW THEREFORE, for Ton Dollgra ($10-00) and other good and
valuable Consideration, and in consideration Of the mutual
covenants contained herein, the Parties agree as follows,
1. ZA&AMA=. Barker
hereby grant* to �. the city,
and j described perpetual
successors and assigns Zraver, the following
non = exclusive trail easement and right-of-way,
recreational use, including but not limited to, for multi-
equestrian and other -uses, over that
kiing,. hiking, bicycling, cross country
skiing, described as Driveway and Trail Easement in ZxhLbit A,
attached hereto and incor-por-a-t-i'd-,
h6etin-by-thIg reference, and he-
hereby grants to the City- the right to uti-
which lfifi� COftALn Mal
Property
is Owned by the United States Forest Service
which Barker has the right , to Use pursuant -to a special use
Permit. The property to be burdened by the easement and the
iVely be referred to hereafter as the
Property owned by the United States Forest Service shall collect-
*Pro"fty'. 'o
2. MM- The use or the Property shall include, but not be.
limited to, the setting and maintenance Of cross country skiing
tracks by mechanized equipment or by hand, as well as the-..;
construction and placement of information trail marks".
.The
shall' at its Own expense and Cost, install such gat", --bridges
or other improvements an are necessary for the Use and mainten-
are* of the trail located on the Property and for the passage :of
track setting equipment in the Winter. So construe
performed upon the Property except as is name
the purpoe" "ry to SocommodatA
Of this grant and except with the perniselon,
of
-P
K7 Y
T,
557 73t1
'
Barker. The Property hereafter -say be used by any person gaining
access through authorized access points or trail heads estab-
lished and maintained by the City. Any use of snowmobiles, except
ij-7
for those minimally utilized by the City, Mall be prohibited.
.4
3. Maintenance. The maintenance of the Property, and all
farilitiPn located thereon, shall be done solely at the expense
Of the City. Anything to the contrary contained herein notwl th.
standing, any damage caused due to negligence of any person who'.
uses or has used the Property pursuant to the authority of the
T,
557 73t1
'
Barker. The Property hereafter -say be used by any person gaining
access through authorized access points or trail heads estab-
lished and maintained by the City. Any use of snowmobiles, except
for those minimally utilized by the City, Mall be prohibited.
3. Maintenance. The maintenance of the Property, and all
farilitiPn located thereon, shall be done solely at the expense
Of the City. Anything to the contrary contained herein notwl th.
standing, any damage caused due to negligence of any person who'.
uses or has used the Property pursuant to the authority of the
City shall be the responsibility of the City.
4. No Easement for Access. Nothing- contained '' herein
shall be construed to grant as easement across-any other property,
owned by Barker in order for individuals to gain access to the
Property. The City shall provide and maintain reasonable access
and trail head points in order to minimize the opportunities for,:.
entering or leaving the Property. ,
S. I ity and InsuranCe. The City shall bold Barker'
harmless and indemnify his against any and all claims, liability,
lose, expense, . damages or causes of actions including all legal
fees, for damages arising after the commencement of the term
hereof and any order, decrees or Judgments which may be entered
therein, brought for damages or alleged damages resulting from
injury to person or pr_,operty or the 1098 Of life sustained In or
about the Property, and !rOR any damage or injury of any kind to
Barker's Property, or for any matter or thing growing out of the
use or occupation of the Property, or any part thereof, or
possession occasioned by the City, its agents, employees or
assigns!, respectively, or which may be occasioned by any person
or thing whatsoever or which May be caused by the operations of
ee
the City or any of its agents, in the construction of a"
improvements on the Property. It is the intention and agreement
that Barker shall not be liable for any personal injuries or.
damage to any persons to persons utilizing the Property, however,
nothing described herein shall excuse, reduce, release Barker
from negligent, recklessness or deliberate acts, claims, -expen-
ses, damages, or causes of action, including legal fees by':
himself, agents, employees or assigns which result in claims
against the City or Barker. The City shall maintain adequate
liability and property damage insurance covering toe Property and
evidence of the same shall be furnished to Barker.
6. No Interference. The exercise of the rights granted
herein by either party shall not unreasonably interfere with-the
use of the properties burdened hereby.
7. Constructio . The rule of strict construction does not
apply to this grant. This grant shall be given a reasonable
.
constrection so that the intention of the parties to confer a.'v:
mutuaily usable right of enjoyment on each other is carried out.
�J.
a. Mica Ali notices, demands and COMmunications
man
ado
�_S
IN
ram 55 r!-,:731
required hereunder shall be served or given to the respective
party at its respective address as set forth below or as other-
w1se designated in the tanner set forth herein. All notice,
demand or communication shall
be given by personal service, or
certified mail, return receipt requested with first class postage
pre-paid thereon, and unless sooner, received three (3) days
after the date Of Certification. The address of the parties
hereto are
Jack Barker
POst Office Box 3379
Aspen, Colorado 81612
City Manager
City cf Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
9• At* L_qnMnt_ This Agreement shall not be assignable
in whole or in part, without written consent of the
which consent shall be unreasonably withhold. other party,
10. Attorneys Fess. Should any party hereunder be rewired
to resort to legal or equitable process for the enforcement of
any Of the provisions or this Agreement, the prevailing party
shall be entitled to collect from the other party
all of its
reasonable attorneys fees, expenses and costs. Jurisdiction for
any legal proceodinq shall be within the District Court, Pitkin
County, Colorado.
11. Running of Benefits and Burdens. All -rovisions -of
the instrument, including the benefits and burdens, run with the
lands owned by the parties herein which are affected hereby, and,-
are binding upon and inure to the assigns and successors of the
parties hereto.
IS WITM 9 WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto get the&r
hands and seals the day and year first above written.
CITY OF AS
BY
J2CX BARKER
STATE Or COLORADO LC
1% PITKIN
morn sworn
014be tbregoing document was to bet
(4. day of 'C"nowl
1988, AA
'Pbrpub lib
V:.
�j try q!ljp
i iv jfv? tai
mmc 557 -wTJ*l
STATE OF COLORADO
COUNTY OF PITKIN
The foregoing document was acknowledged and sworn-t
Me this
Aspen. day of 1988 9Z!Ore
City or 4A41-A , as
'21
Notary public
'o
16
%
:T
Chen - Northern, Inc.
Job No. 4 275 89
5080 Road 154
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
303/945 -7458
Fax:303/945 -2363
SUBSOIL STUDY
FOR FOUNDATION AND GRADING DESIGN
PROPOSED RESIDENCE
LOT 3, HOAG SUBDIVISION
ASPEN, COLORADO
Prepared For:
Western Heritage Log Homes
Attn: Joe Zaluba
P.O. Box 9640
Aspen CO 81612 -9640
A member of the HIM group of companies
Billings
Great Falls
Boise
Helena
Casper
Phoenix
Colorado Springs
Pocatello
Denver
Rock Springs
Elko
Salt Lake City
Evanston
San Antonio
Gillette
Tri Cities
Glenwood Springs
Yakima
i
June 26, 1989
1
0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONCLUSIONS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
SITE CONDITIONS
PREVIOUS GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
FIELD EXPLORATION
SUBSOIL CONDITIONS
FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS
FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS
FLOOR SLABS
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM
SITE GRADING
SURFACE DRAINAGE
LIMITATIONS
FIGURE 1 - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURE 2 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURE 3 - LEGEND AND NOTES
FIGURES 4 AND 5 - GRADATION TEST RESULTS
TABLE I - SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Chen - Northern, Inc.
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
11
CONCLUSIONS
The proposed residence should be founded with spread footings
bearing on the natural granular soils and designed for an allowable
soil bearing pressure of 2000 psf. Excavation into the hillside
for the building foundation and driveway could induce slope insta-
bility. Recommendations to limit the risk of instability are
presented in the report. Other design and construction criteria
related to the geotechnical aspects of the proposed development are
also presented in the report.
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
This report presents the results of a subsoil study for a proposed resi-
dence to be located on Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision, Aspen, Colorado. The project
site is shown on Fig. 1. The study was conducted in accordance with our
agreement for professional services letter to Western Heritage Log Homes,
Inc., dated April 13, 1989, and amended to include snow removal and a second
exploratory boring.
A field exploration program consisting of exploratory borings was con-
ducted to obtain information on subsurface conditions. Samples obtained
during the field exploration were tested in the laboratory to determine their
engineering characteristics. The results of the field exploration and labora-
tory testing were analyzed to develop recommendations for foundation types,
depths and allowable pressures for the proposed building foundation and the
site grading design. The results of the field exploration and laboratory
testing are presented in the report.
This report has been prepared to summarize the data obtained during this
study and to present our conclusions and recommendations based on the proposed
construction and the subsoil conditions encountered. Design parameters and a
Chen - Northern, Inc.
-2-
discussion of geotechnical engineering considerations related to construction
of the proposed residence are included in the report.
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
The proposed. residence will consist of a fairly large log structure
located approximately as shown on Fig. 1. A site grading and vegetation plan
dated May 16, 1989 by J.S. Zaluba & Associates was provided for our use. The
building is proposed to be cut into the hillside with fairly extensive cut
depths ranging to a maximum of about 20 feet. The driveway into the basement
level garage will be accessed from the existing lower driveway into the Hoag
lots. Widening of the existing access by cutting into the hillside a maximum
depth of 8 feet is proposed to the west of the building site. Retaining walls
will be provided in some parts of the site to transition the cut grades. We
assume foundation loadings for the residence will be relatively light to
moderate and carried mainly by continuous walls. Due to the proposed cut
depths, lateral earth loading on the structure will be substantial.
If building loadings, locations or grading plans change significantly
from those described above, we should be notified to reevaluate the recommen-
dations contained in this report.
SITE CONDITIONS
The property lies near the toe of Aspen Mountain on the southern edge of
the Roaring Fork valley. The site is heavily wooded terrain that is steeply
sloping down to the north at typical grades of 50% to 60 %. Elevation differ-
ence across the proposed residence is on the order of 35 feet.
The access road into the property is along the Ute Trail, a pedestrian
ski trail, that has been constructed mainly by cutting into the hillside. The
Chen - Northern, Inc.
-3-
trail was apparently constructed about five years ago and was originally 6 to
8 feet wide. The trail was widened for the subdivision improvements to about
12 feet. The cut slope banks along the uphill side are very steep and no
indications of large slope movements were observed. There has probably been
some shallow creep of the topsoil layer as indicated by the "pistol butt"
shape of some of the tree trunks in the area.
The property is thickly vegetated, mainly with evergreens and scattered
aspen. The building site is situated near an existing snow avalanche track
that has a runout onto Lot 2 below the site. The proposed building site lies
within a potential avalanche zone. and could be impacted by debris flows. We
understand that mitigation for the potential geologic hazards is being
designed by A.I. Mears.
PREVIOUS GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
Chen & Associates, Inc., (now known as Chen - Northern, Inc.) previously
conducted a reconnaissance of the subject property for design of the existing
driveway off of the Ute Trail and into the property. The findings of our work
were presented in letters and memos between December 17, 1986 and January 7,
1988, Job No. 4 443 86.
FIELD EXPLORATION
The field exploration for the project was conducted on May 23, 1989. Two
exploratory borings were drilled at the locations shown on Fig. 1 to evaluate
the subsurface conditions. The borings were advanced with 7 -inch diameter
continuous flight hollow stem augers powered by a truck - mounted CME -55 drill
rig. The hollow stem auger was used due to caving of the subsoils when the
solid stem auger was withdrawn. The borings were logged by a representative
of Chen - Northern, Inc.
Chen - Northern, Inc.
-4-
Samples of the subsoils were taken with a 1 3/8 -inch I.D. spoon sam-
pler. The sampler was driven into the subsoils at various depths with blows
from a 140 -pound hammer falling 30 inches. This test is similar to the
standard penetration test described by ASTM Method D -1586. The penetration
resistance values are an indication of the relative density or consistency of
the subsoils. Depths at which the samples were taken and the penetration
resistance values are shown on the Logs of Exploratory Borings, Fig. 2. The
samples were returned to our laboratory for review by the project engineer and
testing.
SUBSOIL CONDITIONS
The subsoil conditions encountered at the site are shown graphically on
Fig. 2. The subsoils consist of about 1 foot of topsoil overlying loose to
medium dense, silty to clayey sandy gravel colluvium containing angular
cobbles and boulders. Drilling in the gravel colluvium with conventional
flight auger equipment was difficult due to the coarseness and looseness of
the deposit. This soil is similar to that exposed in the existing Ute Trail
and driveway cuts on the property. The deposit appears to be highly porous as
indicated by small voids between the coarse material observed in the existing
cuts. Below a depth of about 27 feet in Hole 1, a fairly clean sand and
gravel was encountered to the drilled depth of 31 feet.
Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the borings con-
sisted of natural moisture content and gradation analyses. Results of grada-
tion analyses performed on small diameter drive samples (minus 1 1/2 -inch
fraction) of the natural coarse granular soils are shown on Figs. 4 and 5.
The laboratory testing is summarized in Table I.
Chen- Northern, Inc.
5'!
No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling and
the subsoils were slightly moist to moist.
FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS
Considering the subsoil conditions encountered in the exploratory borings
and the nature of the proposed construction, we recommend the building be
founded with spread footings bearing on the natural granular soils.
The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed
for a spread footing foundation system. The construction criteria should be
considered when preparing project documents.
1) Footings placed on the undisturbed natural granular soils should be
designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2000 psf. Based on
experience, we expect settlement of footings designed and constructed as
discussed in this section will be about 1 inch or less and essentially
occur during construction.
2) All existing fill, topsoil and any loose or disturbed soils should be
removed and the footing bearing level extended down to the natural granu-
lar soils.
3) The footings should have a minimum width of 16 inches for continuous
walls and 2 feet for isolated pads.
4) Exterior footings and footings beneath unheated areas should be provided
with adequate soil cover above their bearing elevation for frost protec-
tion. Placement of foundations at least 42 inches below exterior grade
is typically used in this area.
5) Continuous foundation walls should be reinforced top and bottom to span
an unsupported length of at least 10 feet. Foundation walls acting as
Chen - Northern, Inc
IM
retaining structures should also be designed to resist lateral earth
pressures as described below in "Foundation and Retaining Walls ".
6) A representative of the soil engineer should observe all footing excava-
tions prior to concrete placement to evaluate bearing conditions.
FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS
Foundation walls and retaining structures which are laterally supported
and can be expected to undergo only a slight amount of deflection should be
designed for a lateral earth pressure computed on the basis of an equivalent
fluid unit weight of 40 pcf for backfill consisting of the on -site granular
soils. Cantilevered retaining structures which are separate from the building
and can, be expected to deflect sufficiently to mobilize the full active earth
pressure condition should be designed for a lateral 'earth pressure computed on
the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of 35 pcf for backfill consisting
of the on -site granular soils.
All foundation and retaining structures should be designed for appropri-
ate hydrostatic and surcharge pressures such as adjacent foundations, traffic,
construction materials and equipment. The pressures recommended above assume
drained conditions behind the walls and a horizontal backfill surface. The
buildup of water behind a wall or an upward sloping backfill surface will
increase the lateral pressure imposed.on a foundation wall or retaining struc-
ture. An underdrain should be provided to prevent hydrostatic pressure
buildup. Walls having a maximum backslope grade of 50% should be designed for
a horizontal earth pressure of 60 pcf for the building foundation and 50 pcf
for a cantilever condition.
The lateral resistance of foundation or retaining wall footings will be a
combination of the sliding resistance of the footing on the foundation materi-
Chen - Northern, Inc.
-7-
als and passive earth pressure against the side of the footing. Resistance to
sliding at the bottoms of the footings can be calculated based on a coeffi-
cient of friction of 0.5. - Passive pressure against the sides of the footings
can be calculated using an equivalent fluid unit weight of 400 pcf. The
coefficient of friction and passive pressure values recommended above assume
ultimate soil strength. Suitable factors of safety should be included in the
design to limit the strain which will occur at the ultimate strength, particu-
larly in the case of passive resistance.
Fill placed against the sides of the footings to resist lateral loads
should be a granular material compacted to at least 95% of the maximum stan-
dard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Backfill placed
behind walls should be compacted to at least 90% of the maximum standard
Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. The backfill should
consist of the minus 6 -inch on -site gravel colluvium or approved imported
granular soil. Care should be taken not to overcompact the backfill since
this could cause excessive lateral pressure on the walls. Some settlement of
deep foundation wall backfill should be expected even if the material is
placed correctly. Therefore, slabs, decks, etc., should not be located on
deep wall backfill.
FLOOR SLABS
The natural on -site soils, exclusive of topsoil, are suitable to support
lightly to moderately loaded slab -on -grade construction. To reduce the
effects of some differential movement, nonstructural floor slabs should be
separated from all bearing walls and columns with expansion joints which allow
unrestrained vertical movement. Floor slab control joints should be used to
reduce damage due to shrinkage cracking. We suggest joints be provided on the
Chen - Northern, Inc.
-8-
order of 15 feet on center. The requirements for slab reinforcement should be
established by the designer based on experience and the intended slab use. A
minimum 4 -inch layer of free - draining gravel should be placed beneath basement
level slabs to facilitate drainage. This material should consist of minus
2 -inch aggregate with less than 50% passing the No. 4 sieve and less than 2%
passing the No. 200 sieve.
All fill materials for support of floor slabs should be compacted to at
least 95% of maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near
optimum. Required fill can consist of the on -site gravels devoid of vegeta-
tion, topsoil and oversized rock.
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM
Although free water was not encountered during our exploration, it has
been our experience in mountainous areas that local perched groundwater may
develop during times of heavy precipitation or seasonal runoff. Frozen ground
during spring runoff can create a perched condition. We recommend below grade
construction, such as retaining walls, crawl space and basement areas be
protected from wetting and hydrostatic pressure buildup by an underdrain
system.
The drains should consist of drain tile placed in the bottom of the wall
backfill surrounded above the invert level with free - draining granular mate-
rial. The drain should be placed at least 1 foot below lowest adjacent finish
grade and sloped at a minimum 1% to a suitable gravity outlet. Free - draining
granular material used in the underdrain system should contain less than 2%
passing the No. 200 sieve, less than 50% passing the No. 4 sieve and have a
maximum size of 2 inches. The drain gravel backfill should be at least 2 feet
deep.
Chen - Northern, Inc.
SITE GRADING
The hillside on the site could become unstable as a result of construc-
tion operations. Design and construction considerations must be given to this
potential instability in order to successfully construct and maintain the
proposed structure. A detailed slope stability evaluation and resultant
recommendations a yond the scope of this report. However, general guide- /
lines are presented below so planning and design of the structure can be
performed. After the initial planning and design, we should be contacted to
review the information so recommendations for additional investigations or
analysis may be made.
1) Maximum cut slope grades of 1 horizontal to 1 vertical appear to have
performed satisfactorily on the site for the driveway construction.
Excavations for the residence should be kept shallow to reduce the risk
of instability during grading. Generally, cuts not exceeding .6 to-8 feet
below the ground surface are recommended. Deeper cuts which are retained
as part of the building construction and not left open for prolonged time
before backfilling appear acceptable.
2) Potential slope instability during excavation of the foundation can be
reduced by constructing the excavation during relatively dry periods of
the year. Excavations constructed in the spring or early summer may
encounter water seepage through the soil which will be adverse to the
slope stability above the site.
3) The risk of slope movement during construction can be reduced by exca-
vating, bracing the constructing foundation wall and backfilling to the
final configuration in a short time period. This entire process should
be carefully monitored.to warn of potential slope instability.
Chen - Northern, Inc.
-10-
4) Permanent unretained cuts in the colluvial soils less than 10 feet in
height should not exceed 1 112 horizontal to 1 vertical. The risk of
slope instability will be significantly increased if seepage is encoun-
tered in cuts. If seepage is encountered in permanent excavations, an
investigation. should be conducted to determine if the seepage will
adversely affect the cut stability.
5) Fills up to 5 feet in height can be used if the fill slopes do not exceed
1 1/2 .horizontal to 1 vertical and they are properly compacted and
drained. The ground surface underlying all fill should be prepared by
removing all organic matter, benching into the hillside and compacting
the subgrade to 90% of the maximum standard Procctor density prior to
fill placement. Fills should be benched into slopes exceeding 5 horizon-
tal to 1 vertical.
6) Good surface drainage should be provided around all permanent cuts and
fills and steep natural slopes to direct surface runoff away from the
slope faces. Slopes and other stripped areas should be protected against
erosion by revegetation or other means.
7) Site grading, drain details and building plans should be prepared by
qualified engineers familiar with the problems in the area. A construc-
tion seepage plan of excavating, wall construction and bracing and
backfilling indicating the time required should be prepared by the con-
tractor. A representative of the soil engineer should evaluate the
suitability of proposed fill materials and test compaction during its
placement.
Chen - Northern, Inc.
-11-
SURFACE DRAINAGE
The following drainage precautions should be observed during construction
and maintained at all times after the residence has been completed:
1) Inundation of the foundation excavations and underslab areas should be
avoided during construction.
2) Exterior backfill should be adjusted to near optimum moisture and
compacted to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density in
pavement and slab areas and to at least 90% of the maximum standard
Proctor density in landscape areas.
3) The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the building should be
sloped to drain away from the foundation in all directions. We recommend
a minimum slope of 12 inches in the first 10 feet in unpaved areas and a
minimum slope of 3 inches in the first 10 feet in paved areas. Free -
draining wall backfill should be capped with about 2 feet of the finer
grained soils to reduce surface water infiltration.
4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all
backfill.
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 borings drilled at the
locations. indicated on Fig. 1 and the proposed type of construction. The
nature and extent of subsurface variations 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,
Chen- Northern, Inc.
-12-
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 structural fill by a representative of the soil
engineer.
>� Q d •
' 15222
po w o
SLP /ec
cc: High Country Engineering, Attn: Tim Beck
Chen - Northern, Inc.
Very truly yours,
CHEN - NORTHERN, INC.
By
Steven L. Pawlak, P.E.
EXISTING
DRIVEWAY
APPROXIMATE SCALE /
1 = 60,
LOT 3 /
off".
�o
UTILITY &
PUBLIC TRAIL
/ EASEMENT
UTILITY
EASEMENT
LOT /'l
HOLE 1
A
/HOLE 2
PROPOSED
RESIDENCE
FA
/t
f 7 �
4 275 891 Chen - Northern, Inc.
LOT 2
LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS I Fig. I
..
`
^
�
o
8105
N 105
1101C I
Hole 2
FICv. 8102,
Flev. 80341
—8100
8100—
0
—8095
8095—
—8090
8090—
1 13/12
—8085
8085
—8080
8080
—8075
8075
—8070
8070
Driveway
Residence
—806.S
8065
Main 1:1001, Level
—8060
8060
—80SS
8055
—8050
8050
Carage Floor Level
—8045
8045
8040
8040
Note: Explanation of symbols
Presented on Fig. 3.
8030
8 03 0
Lower Driveway
LEGEND
RTopsoil; organic sandy silt, soft, black.
®Man- placed Fill; silty sand and gravel, cobbles, moist, light brown, driveway
construction material.
Gravel (GM -SM); and sand, silty to clayey, cobbles and small boulders, loose to
A medium dense, slightly moist, light brown to brown, angular rock, open graded.
Sand and Gravel (SP -GP); slightly silty, medium dense, slightly moist, light
brown, rounded rock.
Drive sample; standard penetration test (SPT), 1 3/8 -inch I.D. split spoon
sample, ASTM D -1586.
18/12 Drive sample blow count; indicates that 18 blows of a 140 -pound hammer falling
30 inches were required to drive the SPT sampler 12 inches.
NOTES:
1. Exploratory borings were drilled on May 23, 1989 with a 7 -inch diameter contin-
uous flight hollow stem power auger.
2. Locations of exploratory borings were measured approximately by pacing from
features shown on the site plan provided.
3. Elevations of exploratory borings were obtained by interpolation between contours
on the site plan provided.
4. The exploratory boring locations and elevations should be considered accurate
only to the degree implied by the method used.
5. The lines between materials shown on the exploratory boring logs represent the
approximate boundaries between material types and transitions may be gradual.
6. No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling.
Fluctuations in water level may occur with time.
7. Laboratory Testing Results:
WC = Water Content (o)
+4 = Percent retained on No. 4 sieve
-200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve
4 275 89 1 Chen - Northern, /17c, I Legend and Notes I rte. 3
Chen - Northern, Inc.
4 275 89
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
SAMPLE LOCATION
NATURAL
MOISIURE
CONTENT
( °�)
NATURAL
DRY
DENSITY
(fxl)
GRADATION
P[RC[NT
PASSING
NO. 200
SIEVE
ATTERBERG LIMITS
UNCONFINED
COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH
(psl)
SOIL OR
BEDROCK TYPE
HOLE
DEPTH
peCl)
GRAVEL
(%)
SAND
( %)
LIQUID
LIMIT
PLASTICITY
INDEX
1
10
9.3
38
37
25
silty sand $ gravel
20
5.8
44
.35
21
silty sand & gravel
30
2.0
39
51
7
sand and gravel
2
10
5.1
67
23
1.0
silty sandy gravel