HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.1271 Ute Ave.A13-94 I
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED: 02/14/94 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO.
DATE COMPLETE: 2737-184-03-003 A13-94
STAFF MEMBER: r
PROJECT NAME: Nathanson 8040 Greenline Applicatio
Project Address: Ute Park Subdivision '.c), " Ike-
Legal Address: Lot 3
APPLICANT: Linda Nathanson
Applicant Address: 747 Latimer Rd. Santa Monica, CA 90402
REPRESENTATIVE: Ted Guy i455OC. /Rel Ok of i
Representative Address/Phone: Box 1640
Basalt, CO 81621
FEES: PLANNING $ 978 # APPS RECEIVED 4
ENGINEER $ 96 # PLATS RECEIVED 4
HOUSING $
ENV. HEALTH $
TOTAL $ 1074
TYPE OF APPLICATION: STAFF APPROVAL: 1 STEP: X 2 STEP:
P&Z Meeting Date 5/3 PUBLIC HEARING: YES av
VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO
CC Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO
VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO
DRC Meeting Date
REFERRALS:
City Attorney )c Parks Dept. School District
City Engineer Bldg Inspector Rocky Mtn NatGas
Housing Dir. Fire Marshal CDOT
Aspen Water Holy Cross Clean Air Board
City Electric Mtn. Bell Open Space Board
Envir.Hlth. 4 ACSD Other
Zoning / `� �Energy Center Other
DATE REFERRED: 3110 INITIALS: 4 DUE: qi
Y '
FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: //2j'/NITIAL: 727Lc' .
City Atty _g City Engineer ) Zoning 127.. Health
Housing Open Space x Other: G
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: '
ov
X13 ,
• • At r'IT os,._
Aftwiterm a ii
Na fh 07101
_______
cis _ __
________
_ _________
eiltelie (pal /76.4- sf
--
-
• r
Vdt
VA
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMI SION
FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE NATHANSON 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW FOR
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED ON LOT 3 OF THE UTE PARK
SUBDIVISION
Resolution No. 94-
WHEREAS, Gary and Linda Nathanson submitted an application for
8040 Greenline Review to the Planning Office; and
WHEREAS, the application was reviewed for referral comments
by the Parks Department and the Engineering Department; and
WHEREAS, based on the referral comments, Planning staff
comments, and presentation by the project representatives, the
Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-2 in favor of the project
with 15 conditions; and
WHEREAS, the Commission also passed a motion directing staff
to make on-going inspections during the construction process; and
WHEREAS, the Commission passed another motion directing staff
to contact the Nordic Council to require them to come before the
Commission for 8040 Greenline Review for the trail which they cut
through the Ute Park Subdivision.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that it
approves the Nathanson 8040 Greenline Review for the development
of a single family residence subject to the following conditions:
1) Run-off from the site during construction must be prevented
by detention ponds, hay bales, or similar methods to be
approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of any
grading or building permits.
2) Terracing of the ground shall (including any retaining walls)
not extend beyond the line of the deck.
3) Excavation shall occur from the "inside out" from the uphill
side of the property. No equipment is permitted outside of
the building envelope.
4) Prior to any grading or storage activity on the site, a
sturdy, visible barricade shall be erected along the building
envelope lines, and no closer than .5 feet to the aspens at the
northwest corner of the house, to protect the existing grades
and vegetation.
5) The deck outside of the master bedroom shall be reduced in
size to retain the mature aspens at the northwest corner of
the house, in addition to replacing the at-risk trees caliper
inch for caliper inch. .
1
411 .
6) Only native vegetation species as typically found on this site
shall be used for revegetation of disturbed soil along the
east, south and west side of the residence. Any regraded or
disturbed areas must be revegetated and mulched or matted
immediately.
7) Avalanche warning signs as required by the subdivision must
be erected prior to the issuance of any building permits.
8) A detailed landscape plan must be submitted to Planning and
approved prior to the issuance of any building permits.
9) Prior to the issuance of any building permits, tree removal
permits from the Parks Department are required for any tree
6"diameter or greater which will be removed or relocated.
Submit for tree removal permits at least two weeks prior to
submitting for building permit.
10) Colors shall tend to earth tones to make the building less
visible on the hillside.
11) There shall be no future grading on the site without 8040
review. The open field to the west of the residence shall
remain undisturbed except for necessary control. of weed pests
as specified by the 1990 Colorado Weed Management Act and
Pitkin County Land Management Department.
12) The Fire Marshall shall sign off on building permits regarding
fire access.
13) Landscaping shall be planted in front of the private entry
driveway's retaining wall to reduce the visual impact of the
wall. The landscaping plan which must be reviewed prior to
the issuance of any building permit shall show this landscape
treatment. The landscape shall be installed upon completion
of the wall when revegetation takes place.
14) All representations made by the applicant within the
application or before the Planning and Zoning Commission shall
be considered conditions of approval for this project.
APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on June 21,
1994 .
W. Bruce Kerr, Chairman Jan Carney, Deputy City Clerk
2
. - - • •
MEMORANDUM , !
i/-1,1/44e
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission I i L i ,
n
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner < 46'..1 r �t-�"N ;
DATE: June 21, 1994 u
Re: N a t h a n s o n 8 0 4 0 G r e e n l i n e R e v i e w
Summary: The Planning Office recommends approval of the Nathanson
8040 Greenline review with conditions.
Applicant: Gary and Linda Nathanson, represented by Jack Palomino
Location / Zoning: Lot 3 , Ute Park Subdivision. This is a . 744
acre parcel located on the south side of the east end of Ute Ave.
across from the Aspen Club. The zoning is AH Affordable Housing.
Request: The applicant seeks 8040 approval to construct a single
family residence.
Process: The Planning Commission shall make a final determination
on 8040 Greenline review.
Background: This parcel is one of three free market lots created
in the Ute Park AH Subdivision approved in 1992 . Each of the free
market lots must receive individual 8040 Greenline approval. The
Nathanson review has been submitted in conjunction with one of the
other free market lots in the subdivision, the Winnerman 8040
review. The deed restricted townhomes in the development have been
completed and are occupied at this time.
The Ute Park Subdivision is impacted by two avalanche chutes. The
original subdivision review noted red zones (greater hazard) and
blue zones (lesser hazard) on the created parcels. The Nathanson
parcel includes a platted building envelope which identifies a
portion of the envelope in the blue zone. Within the application,
avalanche consultant Art Mears submitted comments on appropriate
building and site design to mitigate avalanche hazards of the blue
zone. A revised site plan was submitted on May 27 showing the
structure to be located outside of the blue zone area.
Referral Comments: Referral comments were requested from Parks,
Engineering and Water Departments. Referral memos are attached as
Exhibit "A" . The summaries are as follows:
Engineering (Chuck Roth) : 1) Run-off from the site during
construction must be prevented by detention ponds, hay bales, or
similar methods.
1
111
• •
2) All activity should be prevented outside the limit of
construction to protect the native vegetation - fencing should be
installed at the building envelope as a minimum measure.
3) Regrading outside of the building envelope cannot take place
without a variance. Driveway grading appears to be excessive,
beyond the scope of the retaining wall. The retaining wall is
shown as rock wall in some drawings, and concrete wall in others.
4) The grading plan within the envelope is not explicit unless
"tie-back wall" construction is employed.
5) The avalanche warning signs as required by the subdivision
approval have not been erected.
6) The Fire Marshall shall sign off on building permits regarding
fire access and building sprinklers (required as a condition of
subdivision approval) .
Parks (Rebecca Baker) : 1) No detailed landscape plan has been
submitted.
2) Tree removal permits are required for any tree 6"diameter or
greater which will be removed or relocated. Submit for tree
permits at least two weeks prior to submitting for building permit.
3) Protection of existing vegetation outside of the building
envelope is critical. A barricade must be erected and inspected
by Parks or Planning prior to any grading or storage on the site.
4) The deck at the northwest corner of the house should be reduced
to save the aspens located there.
Staff Comments:
8040 Greenline Pursuant to Section 24-7-503 of the Municipal Code,
the following review criteria pertain to any development above, or
within 150 ' below, the 8040 ' elevation line:
I. 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: The application states that the building envelope is
located off of 30% slopes. The bulk of the structure is located
in the "unconditional" portions of the building envelopes, out of
the identified avalanche zones. Because the site plan shows the
structure out of the blue zone, it does not have to follow the
recommendations of hazard consultant Art Mears. Staff believes
that the avalanche zones must be shown on any graphic depictions
of the property, ie. building permit site plan, landscape plan,
etc.
2
•
• •
II. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse
affect on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil
erosion or have consequent effects on water pollution.
Response: The development must comply with drainage requirements
which call for an engineered drainage plan stamped by an engineer
and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any building
permits. Hay bales, detention areas or similar methods must be
used downslope of any soil disturbance (at the building envelope
line) to stop loose or waterborne soils. Any regraded or disturbed
areas must be revegetated and mulched immediately.
III. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse
affect on the air quality in the City.
Response: This development will not affect air quality in
significant levels. No wood burning fireplaces are allowed.
IV. The design and location of any proposed development, road, or
trail is compatible with the terrain on the parcel on which
the proposed development is to be located.
Response: This lot does not provide a trail alignment, but a
pedestrian easement exists along its eastern border. Per the
drawings, the private access road calls for fairly extensive cuts
into the hill and retaining walls. As mentioned in the Engineering
referral, the regrading above the road seems excessive. Planning
staff has met with Hans Brucker, the subdivision' s design engineer,
to explore methods of reducing the significant backslope cut for
the private driveway. Hans understands staff ' s concerns about
visual impacts and revegetation concerns. He will work on
minimizing the slope cuts. This may entail raising the retaining
wall somewhat. The original representation in the subdivision
review stated that the retaining wall would be 4 ' -6 ' tall . Staff
continues to recommend that landscaping be planted in front of the
wall to reduce the visual impact of the wall . This should be done
upon completion of the wall when revegetation takes place.
V. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable,
disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land
features.
Response: As mentioned above, staff is concerned about the
backslope above the private drive and its impact to the native
vegetation.
Concerning the regrading plan, the structure has gone through
several designs which have set the building into the hillside.
The extent of downhill intrusion is limited to the edge of the
deck. Parks staff reflects upon the mature aspens which are to be
removed because of the proposed deck at the northwest corner of the
house. Because these trees are some of the more substantial ones
3
/r,,
• •
on the site, staff has conditioned the approval with the
requirement that the deck must be reduced to keep footers and other
related construction from the trees.
All excavation must be done from the "inside out" from the upper
part of the site. Prior to any construction activity, a sturdy,
visible barricade must be erected along the building envelope lines
(east, south and west) and no closer than 5 feet to the aspens at
the northwest corner of the house. Planning must inspected the
barricades prior to commencement of grading or material storage on
the property. Revegetation on the east, south and west sides of
the structure must only use native plant species such as found
elsewhere on this site. Non-native species may only be used on the
northern entry side of the home.
VI. 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: This single structure is within the platted envelope.
The building is located out of the "blue" avalanche zone. The
approximate 60 ' width of the building will be very visible from
Ute Ave. , therefore staff is adamant about maintaining the young
aspens between the building envelope and the pavement edge. It
should be pointed out that the structure was redesigned after
discussions with staff to fit within the narrower "unconditional"
portion of the building envelope.
There shall be no future grading on the site without 8040 review.
The open field to the west of the residence shall remain
undisturbed except for necessary control of weed pests as specified
by the 1990 Colorado Weed Management Act and Pitkin County Land
Management Department.
VII. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure
will be designed to blend into the open character of the
mountain.
Response: The floor area ratio of the four bedroom house is
approximately 5 , 088 square feet. The proposed building has an
approximately 60 foot wide facade. The height maximizes the
allowable 25 ' limit of the AH zone district (with the ridge 5 '
higher as allowed by the land use regulations height definition) .
The applicant proposes to use "modest colors and material" . Staff
recommends that the stucco specified in the elevation drawings and
any other paint colors be medium or darker earth tones to make the
building less visible on the hillside.
VIII. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are
available to service the proposed development.
Response: "Will serve" letters were provided by the water and
4
• •
sanitary sewer utilities during the subdivision reviews in 1992 .
IX. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed
development, and said roads can be properly maintained.
Response: The Ute Park Subdivision participated in the Ute Avenue
Improvement District.
X. 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 private driveway must be constructed in accordance
with the City' s driveway requirements. At the time of subdivision
review, the Fire Marshal requested that the driveway be snowmelted,
but this did not become a condition of approval for the
subdivision.
XI. 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: There were no trails dedicated on this parcel during
the subdivision approval. A 10 ' pedestrian easement allows access
from the upper two lots in this subdivision down to Ute Ave.
Recommendation: The Planning Office recommends approval of the
Nathanson 8040 Greenline review with the following conditions:
1) Run-off from the site during construction must be prevented
by detention ponds, hay bales, or similar methods to be
approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of any
grading or building permits.
2) Terracing of the ground shall (including any retaining walls)
not extend beyond the line of the deck.
3) Excavation shall occur from the "inside out" from the uphill
side of the property. No equipment is permitted outside of
the building envelope.
4) Prior to any grading or storage activity on the site, a
sturdy, visible barricade shall be erected along the building
envelope lines, and no closer than 5 feet to the aspens at the
northwest corner of the house, to protect the existing grades
and vegetation.
5) The deck outside of the master bedroom shall be reduced in 517,E
,• • !" • `7► .- • Awe _ _.u�/^ —' pl ��,." �. _ t to
retain the mature aspens at the northwest corner of the house '
03k1/#4714 ffeb`e \-) ni-;j4 -t112124 eljte".
aJA;p1N -1101-'1 (.6.121t,
•
• •
6) Only native vegetation species as typically found on this site
shall be used for revegetation of disturbed soil along the
east, south and west side of the residence. Any regraded or
disturbed areas must be revegetated and mulched or matted
immediately.
7) Avalanche warning signs as required by the subdivision must
be erected prior to the issuance of any building permits.
8) A detailed landscape plan must be submitted to Planning and
approved prior to the issuance of any building permits.
9) Prior to the issuance of any building permits, tree removal
permits from the Parks Department are required for any tree
6"diameter or greater which will be removed or relocated.
Submit for tree removal permits at least two weeks prior to
submitting for building permit.
10) Colors shall t to make the
buildtg s v s the hillside.
pipe 11i5 t
11) There shall be no future grading on the site without 8040
review. The open field to the west of the residence shall
remain undisturbed except for necessary control of weed pests
as specified by the 1990 Colorado Weed Management Act and
Pitkin County Land Management Department.
12) The Fire Marshall shall sign off on building permits regarding
fire access.
13) Landscaping shall be planted in front of the private entry
driveway ' s retaining wall to reduce the visual impact of the
wall. The landscaping plan which must be reviewed prior to
the issuance of any building permit shall show this landscape
treatment. The landscape shall be installed upon completion
of the wall when revegetation takes place.
14) All representations made by the applicant within the
application or before the Planning and Zoning Commission shall
be considered conditions of approval for this project.
Recommended Motion: "I move to approve the Nathanson 8040 Greenline
Review with the 14 conditions listed in the June 21, 1994 Planning
Office memo. "
Attachments:
"A" Application Information
"B" Complete Referral Agency Memos
6
„ , , , ,
I V. 4.1 I I 1 I I IX
i ; ; ; ; ; 2 a
. I
• . • of .. • -___ _ .
• .
. . u.. .
. .
• . ....•• ..
rt
. , .
. .
. '
• . !iiiiiiiiii! in 4 ti.
- • 1:11:ti, ii -... in c •
4) 1-
. ,. ,. A .,O emu ,.
lit •
7
ll".1
, ' : ..-..••• Ali ' .. ,- ,...,.
*MU
. . 11111Mip ,.
t
. . . • ' —
1:41g.
. .
. .
11 ' • . .
liall.!!!!81
7........!..F.....1. . . .
. , . . .
. ,
• i.
p
•
. -.I • .
. I . 11.40.- i•'-
.,i • . 4-- •.?.-
.
. • .ir41111, .: . - • . 111/41' 1
114.111P1 ,
;.a....
.• . • ' . ti-111)..-. .zi4. . .
. .
....,.._
Or
i \ . -•• , .....
. ,
--,4 IljW
r111111 . .
, .
I 6 ,,
” .
, 4 ‘
. a
4'awmpli ■
\ • ' . lir it
IT
.j .tri-s4ZI
•4ioneito 1 -• 4:i-i., tm 11.. \
Li
• -?t- t`... i f .. .
Ini
v..
10 kiltlt . :
i 6 • 4,-,- ,- , •
.. .-to V- • s
.
. .'..9 9-2' ..4—•.) i . . . m L.. . i .
:•
i S L'isfIt . -.-Al • .
...
4 1
. . .
... •
•
. MLA ' 'Ict...i .. •
... ' 1
• . . -. . • . . tile:9Ni 0 i.
. • immllItta I '
• .
. . --.•,:''..-:•- `.1 HUI
• . . .
. ..
. .
. , .
. .. , .
. .
. .
.. . . . .
. • . . .. . . . •
•
. .
. .
•- , ., .
. , ..
. . ,. ..-. ,.. . .
. ,
•
'Sclet -,,' 1' 1 .
* ci.--1 0
•
I
I .
21
T : • .k.__ __.‘11
iir, . 1 ill
/14 .-- • I -1
., - i 1. ,' . Is.
s . I
• O
•
I W
X
�� a 1 —I
" 1oi LIIIIIIIII! • ' '. . .., \ii elfin '
(III. i■■■; .
iiiiiii • . - •
!MI I
/ '',..-- — I , I
IiiI • • . . .„, . , , ____....
7/ /fl .I i 1y
1- /II iii '
L - Y 'y•m ;.�
' _1 �.. IiP 7700 i 1 1
iaerl:ea
/ �c ;..M• :81r�4ts . .
Ir r-sa�
: : _
•
3-ti. • •i I I • . . . . . . .
• • . .. . . .
,...,..
. . .
input;
.. . . ...,... ;sele
FT . •
11.11.111"
• Mir
111111,
...._4(
..."
ill
--)
Ili
. .
4— ?
—
a
7.-.
vu
--'... '4:---(1. .••=..:...:-..
ij MT
,.... 1
6illIllHlIlltjPAill.:. _1 ,: .,,r,
---a01- _- i
„,;....,4,..... ._......._ .;01 ,,,....„.„.„....„......4.,..____„__.„
.. r_ ri i ,
z vitleivi II , loomill,
.... ..11..,, _,.....,.....;ta....... .
4
. :.::
_, , . .
'--.1
71 1 Villi,I IV-;:;--*'-;- -.7.1-A I al I I illillia a•-— iiiii7111.1 ilid 41
.11....,,....._ siez-il dir=7491--
.1
I will* -1 - •°""".1
VP;
1111111abligil pp
171111n. , , ......! ............
i. lie . . ,i
......
11113131. `1111111
up -•
a
. .
if* 11111111111 k\ Pill
I As.
Noe it .„
£ M.:
■ II •
,
* a; EN Agtilli ...
,... -
i_.. ,..,
\ I si , al
.. .
.1 ri 11.111111111 / ---'1
\ 111.411111111 ---- -I
-i 2111111111112, , i , '
4 \ F. imt
, .
on
1 \\
- I
-
. _ I • . ..,....
1 1
I i k,.:...1 „. .1,1 ,
1
1
., t-1-1E-4q- ..
.-_--slc- 1
I
, .........., ........_warm' '•"'".Itt'!""'
4 1 , , it . .,
,.... 1.., ..„,
I' 1. ' POI] ..... ...._
N I Li, ; mrsir. "it ....\
ti _ .............m... ...
," .._.,. ____:,........„,....
1 1: Lin
la I
initIiIti4f1 a 111
Mill
, . .
. , .
,
V
•
•
mil' I .
, ilv'.../ ,,f,
• -4 .. ,
. ,,t ,.) , .
t 1 -_..6...
w
Ill
,+ w
■ d o
- 9% \\ I. 1. .
1
i ‘11;
t�
•
\ •
:,...iii; or•.
• . A /
ar ram
tic likiii
: [Ijr;11:F.111:1:1::,,i,,,,'::.1, . , : , , ,. _ , ,,,, ... , ,.
0d/�!
i.*rr
•
• - THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC
ARCHITECTS AND SOCTURAL ENGINEERS •
8040 Greenline Application
Review Standards:
This project will construct one single-family residence on Lot 3, Ute Park Subdivision which will
conform to the laws and regulations of the City of Aspen, Colorado.
Each of the specific standards are addressed below:
1. No development is proposed for any location designated by the avalanche engineer as high
avalanche hazard (see Avalanche Engineers letter of November 1, 1991). Part of the building
envelope is designated as being of moderate hazard, and special structural design will be used for
that part of the building in this area as prescribed by Arthur Mears letter of January 11, 1994. No
hazardous or toxic soils exist on the site (see attached soils report).
2. The natural drainage of the site has been and will be protected. The building envelope has
been carefully sited to avoid 30% slopes and predominant vegetation. Erosion control netting will
be used during construction and revegetation of any regraded or disturbed areas will be done
immediately upon completion.
3. A single-family residence is consistent with the existing use of the surrounding area. Since
wood-burning fireplaces are not allowed, this development will not adversely affect the Aspen air
quality. Dust suppresion measures will be taken during construction.
4. The proposed development will be set into the slope of the lot such that the height and bulk
of the residence is minimized and is compatible with the existing terrain.
5. Regrading of the site will be minimized by designing the project sensitive to the site and its
terrain.
6. Only one structure will be built on the site and it the building envelope is located so to
minimize disturbance to the natural vegetation of the site.
7. The design will set the residence into the slope of the lot such that the height and bulk of the
residence is minimized and is compatible with the open character of the mountain. From the access
above, the home will appear as a one story structure and from below it will appear as two-stories.
8. The subdivision was created in consultation with the Aspen Water Department and the
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. Both agencies have provided "will serve" letters. Further,
City of Aspen Ordinance 18, Series of 1992 granted an exemption to Ute Park Subdivision with
regard to the moritorium to the expansion of the municipal water system.
9. The Ute Park Subdivision has established a private access road which will serve this
project and the other single-family residences of the subdivision. This road will be properly
maintained by the homeowners association.
10. Ute Avenue and the private access road will provide access for emergency vehicles. A
turn-around for emergency vehicles has been provided at the end of the access road. Snow
removal will be the responsibility of the homeowners association.
11. No designated trails exist on this parcel.
93145 R3
3/8/94
It,
23200 STATE HIGHWAY 82 P.O. BOX 1 640 BASALT,COLORADO 61 621 13033927-3167
ARTHUR I.MEARS, P.E., INC.
Natural Hazards Consultants
222 East Gothic Ave.
Gunnison.Colorado 81230
303-641.3236
4
January 11, 1992'
Mr. Stan Mathis
Theodore K. Guy. Associates, P.C.
P.O. Box 1640
Basalt, CO 81621
Dear Mr. Mathis:
I completed a site inspection of the building sites on Lots 2 and 3, Ute Park Subdivision on
January 6. Portions of both building envelopes are within range of avalanches, as you know.
The western portion of both envelopes are most severely exposed; avalanche exposure and
avalanche loads decrease in an easterly direction.
I offer the following suggestions which should aid in the preliminary design process.
• a. Design the south side of both buildings for avalanche loads. Loads have not been
• determined but will probably be in the range of 150 — 400 lbs/ft2. These load magnitudes
can be reduced if the exposed uphill sides of buildings deflect avalanches through small
angles. Ramp roofs facing the avalanche direction are ideal and recommended.
b. Ideally, windows and doors should be avoided on the uphill building surfaces facing
avalanches. If doors and windows are planned on these surfaces, they must also be
designed for avalanche impact. Small, reinforced glass spans can be designed for
avalanche loads. Avalanches will flow through the forest in the "unconditional" zone and
will probably carry small tree limbs in the flow during the extreme conditions that must
be designed for.
c. Eliminate structures such as decks and patios that will concentrate activities on the
uphill (south—facing) sides of buildings where people will be exposed to avalanches.
My loading analysis can be completed after I receive plan and elevation views of the proposed
buildings. Please contact me if you have questions.
Sincerely,
0. C , nteCtc�J(AAA
Arthur I. Mears, P.E.
Avalanche—control engineer
1
Mass Wading • Avalanches • Avalanche Control Engineering
•
ARTHUR I.MEARS, P.E., INC.
•
Natural Hazards Consultants
222 East Gothic Ave.
Gunnison,Colorado 81230
303-641.3236
•
• November 1, 1991
Mr. Jim Martin
Aspen Properties
215 South Monarch
•
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Jim:
I have reviewed the final site development plan for the Ute Park
Subdivision. This plan is undated but I refer to the version
sent to me on October 28 . The following comments refer to that
• plan and to issues discussed during my site visit of October 23-.
a. Building envelopes on Lots 2 and 3 are located
outside the "Red, " or high hazard avalanche zones.
b. Portions of the building envelopes on -Lots 2 and 3
are within the "Blue, " or moderate-hazard avalanche
zone, however building within the blue zone will
-require a .conditional use permit, as indicated on the
plan. Structures in the blue zone will require. site-
specific design for avalanche forces.
c. The building envelop on Lot 1 is located within
• both "Red" and "Blue" avalanche zones and is partially
outside of avalanche zones. This building must be .
•
specially designed to stop avalanches at the uphill
end, thus modifying the Red zone and preventing
avalanches from reaching Lot 4 . Such design is
technically feasible, but design specifications have
not been developed.
d. The access road to the development passes through
the "Ute Trail" avalanche path. Portions of the access
road will probably be reached by avalanches every 5 to
10 years, approximately. Hazard to road users will be
small because traffic is light.
Please contact me if you have any additional questions.
i Sincerely,
Arthur I . Mears, P.E.
Avalanche-control engineer
•
cc: Tom Stevens
•
•
Mass Wasting • Avalanches • Avalanche Control Engineering
•
•
• • PLANIG & ZONING COMMISSION
EXHIBIT ] , APPROVED
19 BY RESOLUTION •
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mary Lackner,Planning Office
THRU: George Robinson, Parks Director
FROM: Rebecca Baker, Parks Department
DATE: June 14, 1994
RE: Nathanson/Winnerman 8040 Greenline Review
We have reviewed both applications submitted for the Nathanson and Winnerman 8040 Greenline
reviews. The major impacts of both of these projects involve tree removals and landscaping.
The existing landscape of Lot 1, the Nathanson property,is primarily aspen grove. A vegetative
protection zone should be maintained between the building envelope and the 10 foot right of way
parallel to Ute Avenue. No vegetation should be removed from this area and the contractor should
be encouraged to put up snow fencing or similar type fencing to protect this area. Additionally,
several significant aspens are shown on the north west corner of the property which are proposed
to be relocated for the deck construction. We would recommend reducing the deck on that side in
order to save those trees. A tree permit must be submitted two weeks prior to an excavation permit
to insure an acceptable mitigation plan for other tree relocations and/or removals.
e innerman lot,lot 2,is primarily sub alpine forest with many significant fir, aspenn andofither
pines propose to be removed. The proposed plan shows 87 +caliper inches of..eo ii'ferous trees
to be removed 8 cah'per inches of deciduous tree to be removed. The trees are a
significant loss to the area andrrjgation will be required on a comparable worth basis either on
site or dedicated monetarily to the City of Aspens trey a,,.management program. Additionally, a 21
inch fir tree close to the 8070 elevation linjs:own to be removed of which I can see no necessity
for its removal. This tree should be saveddand protected during construction,including setting up
any protective fencing around;.the so no digging occurs within five feet of the dripline of the
tree. Protective fen,,cingiho ld also be provided for other significant�trees close to the construction
areas and o std piling of dirt or other debris should occur around any?e - •A tree permit
s..�l ould b applied for at least two weeks prior to granting an excavation permit.
F,L
r 0
MEMORANDUM
To: Mary Lackner, Planning Office.
Thru: Cris Caruso, City Engineer
From: Chuck Roth, Engineering Department @
Date: April 1, 1994 ,
Re: Nathanson 8040 Greenline Review
Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site inspection,
the Engineering Department has the following comments:
1. The existing PUD approvals that pertain to this property are contained in the
agreement on file at Book 704, beginning at Page 216, at the Pitkin County Clerk &
Recorders Office. The approvals for the subdivision in which this site is located apply
to This application.
2. Storm Runoff During Construction - The application makes,reference to providing for
protection of the site during construction from damage due to erosion. A requirement
that was lacking during the PUD review that should be included at this time is that
protection must be provided during construction so that no runoff from soils exposed by
excavation be permitted to leave the site. This is typically accomplished as suggested in
the application letter by detention ponds and hay bales.
3. Vegetation & Scenic Resource - The application is incomplete in responding to review
standards 5 and 6. The applicant should be required to install construction fencing to
define the limits of construction activity and to protect the existing vegetation, natural land
features, and scenic resource. The applicant is encouraged to preserve as much of the
native vegetation as possible, but in any event, the fencing should protect at a minimum,
the area outside of the approved building envelope. As with the Herron Park Place
condition of approvals, it is suggested that it be stated that "the Zoning Enforcement
Officer shall periodically inspect the site to determine compliance with" construction
fencing, vegetation preservation, and erosion control measures.
Item number 5 of the supplemental materials is unclear. Regrading of the site
outside of the approved building envelope is not permitted. Fill is indicated outside of the
approved building envelope. Since this is in the area between the driveway and the
1 l
• •
approved building envelope, it may not be unreasonable to permit the variance.
4. Extent of Cut Slopes - The information contained in the application is unclear. The
drawings show the structure set into the hillside as though there were no cut slopes used
to accomplish the construction. Current technology does provide techniques capable of
such construction, but the application does not discuss the details. The construction
process is called "tied back walls," and the walls can be constructed from the top down so
that no laid back cut slope is necessary for constructing foundation walls.
The limit of grading shown on sheet A5 for the driveway appears to be much
greater than necessary. The grading should not need to exceed the space needed for the
proposed rock retaining wall. The building permit drawings should include one or more
sections through the proposed driveway.
5. Retaining Wall - The plans show a retaining wall alongside the driveway. The plans
are inconsistent with the wall which appears to be a concrete wall in some drawings and
a rock wall in other drawings.
•
6. Avalanche Warning Signs - The signs required by item 8, Section 2 of Ordinance No.
18 (Series of 1992) have not been installed. It should be a condition of approval that
the avalanche and rockfall warning signs be installed prior to the issuance of any further
permits.
7. Hazardous or Toxic Soils - Item number 1 of the supplemental materials states that
"no hazardous or toxic soils exist on the site (see attached soils report)." I did not find
this information in the soils report. At the same time, it is not a requirement that an
applicant conduct a hazardous or toxic soils survey for the property. The building permit
drawings should contain a general note based on review standard number 1 stating, "If
the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the property owner shall stabilize
and revegetate the soils, or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to
a location acceptable to the city."
8. Please note that concerning the approvals for the entire Ute Park Subdivision, the
drainage improvements have not yet been completed for Lot 4, and the escrowed funds
for those improvements should be maintained until such time as those improvements have
been completed.
M94.165
•
• •
b9 .
. ...., ,. 1,.. ••I.\.. ASPEN COLORADO 81611•(303)9256815 1&v°
.1
•
O (81 Mlrl,
Q0.h/6
1 \\ It 1 _\ 1 1 -j
\ \ 0 1 \ 1 I /I RA .\ \\ i 0 \1 >!\ Z \ — Ir I
%1 , _
�
i,I (.
` I 1 11 s i i„, IE 61
\
1
\ 1 i = @Q;w I ' s„i
, .
in
1 '■i VP m I IZr:rWt. 4 _ �I I
•
sn
•e•�
O Ana \c .;......zsi
. 1114 ,, Ei. , ,
\ . .
\ g_.\-- i, 2 ,,, .
‘ , 1. iiii r
1 �1�a1Mle I0..,- ----„!!-,7..,77„,.
, [\
■
C\q 1 /;'' IL-,\ , ..? :c.11 . \ ,__I7__,,,
__L,„..; .. ,
\ \ , ,_i .
. ‘ / ..„,,, ,\...,2 .. \\ 4. �1 if _
l �'� ���
- [ ? .'t)
\ c. 1i \ s Li 1
\ \ V.. ' '
\ - \ 1 ` \ .`` `1 A .e....
_..,__
\ \ \ z ✓ \ \ v\ \ \ \ \\ \ \ 11\ \ \ I.I
I °” 'I
\ P\ \ \\\ ` \\ \ \\ \ \ 0 +t I
10!011 ■ \ \ \ �3p 1•
\ ■ -i\-- —\ – \ —-�- —\-- 1 yes 11
\ ` ` \ m \ E I Ta1-011 t i•
V'\ jib \`�` \\\ , \\\ Z� \\ i (7.0.1-
\\ i\i' \ \ \ ` \\ Q
1
• MOIn1.1092 II iH i 61 m f
•- QBAOUdY f IIHIaXZ a
•
JM
ROISS119103 IR Z V PHILibreId
NATHAN S ® N
RESIDENCE
E040 GREENLINE APPLICATION
FEBRUARY 14, 1994
THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC
ARCHITECTS AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1640
BASALT, COLORADO 81621
(303) 927-31 67
• •
Table of Contents:
Letter of Submittal
Pre-Application Conference Summary
Minimum Submission Requirements:
Application Form
Letter of Consent from Owners
Legal Description
Certificate of Title
Vicinity Map
Specific Submission Requirements:
Conditional Use Application:
Proposed Project
Site Plan
Proposed Elevations
Proposed Site Section
Description of Proposed Building Techniques
Sheets:
Al Site Plan
A2 Proposed Elevations
A3 Proposed Elevations
A4 Proposed Section
Appendix:
Ordinance 18 (1992)
s •
February 14, 1994
Mary Lackner
Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Department
130 S. Galena.
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Nathanson Residence
Ms. Lackner:
Herewith, please find the 8040 Greenline Application for the Nathanson Residence. This is in
accordance with the preapplication conference Kim Johnson had with Ted Guy on December 15,
1993 and is submitted in coordination with the neighboring Winnerman Residence.
Our project is for a single-family residence to be located on Lot 3, Ute Park Subdivision, Aspen,
Colorado.
Many of the Review Standards regarding geology, soils, drainage, air quality, utilities, roads and
public space have already been addressed in the Ute Park P.U.D. approval as passed by the City of
Aspen in Ordinance 18 (1992). Ordinance 18 placed the following restrictions on this lot:
None, except those applicable to the subdivision, and
- "Any hazardous or toxic soils must be stabilized and re-vegetated or removed to
a site acceptable to the city."
- "Prior to constructions, a fugitive dust control plan must be obtained from the ,
Colorado Pollution Control Division and this office."
These restrictions will be adhered at the when building permit applications are submitted
and through construction.
Erosion control measures such as construction of a holding pond, pinning hay bales and erosion
channels to catch sediment will be utilized.
With regard to issues of the design, building height and bulk, and grading, the residence will be set
into the slope of the lot such that the height and bulk of the residence is minimized and is compatible
with the open character of the mountain. Color and materials will be modest and from the access
above, the home will appear as a one story structure. From below it will appear as two-stories,
but most of the existing vegetation will remain on this side of the home further screening the
building from view. The home is located near the access road and will require a minimum of
driveway length and grading.
Please notify us of our scheduled hearing date and time. Enclosed is a check for $1,074.00, four
copies of this submittal, and one reduced copy, as requested.
Sincere ,
Robert Okazaki
THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC
93145 8040 submission L7 / J
RKO:ipse (l�
i r--
�Z(
CITY OF ASPEN /2/15
APPLICATION CONFERENCE Y
PROJECT: Q 39/0
APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: /� y
REPRESENTATIVE'S PHONE: 7- 3/6p
OWNER'S NAME: Al .. 150/J
SUMMARY
• 1. Type of Application: /Jai?7'
2. •. Describe action/type of development being requested:
• . _ .
3. ' Areas is which Applicant has been requested to respond,
types of reports requested:
Policy Area/
Referral Agent Comments
4. Review is: (P&Z■Only) (CC Only) (P&Z then to CC)
5. Public Hearing: (YES) (NO
6. Number of copies of the application to be submitted: / C-6 5/EL,
"?1.24•5•C - � Luc`:
7. What fee was applicant requested to submit.
146- x' 99
8. Anticipated date of submission: 4
Ifh
9. C RIMENTS UNIQUE CO�N�ERNS Ali
frm.pre_aPP
LAND USE.APPLICIdION ARM
1) Puuject Name Nathn Residence
2) Project Location Lot 3, Ute Park Subdivision
(indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where
apprriate)
3) Present Zoning AH 4) Int Size 0.744 Ac
5) Applicant's Name, Address & Phone # Linda Nathanson
747 Latimer Road, Santa Monica, CA 90402 (310) 459-3463
6) Representative's Name, Address & Phone # Rob Okazaki, Theodore K Guy Associates•
PO Box 1640, Basalt, CO 81621 (303) 927-3167
7) Type of Application (please deck all that apply) :
Conditional Use Conceptual SPA Corx:eptual Historic Dey.
Special Review Final SPA Final Historic on c Dev.
X 8040 Greenli-ne Conceptual PUD Minor Historic Dev.
Stream Margin Final POD Historic D no ition
Irtain View Plane Subdivision . Historic Designation
Ciondominiumization Text/Map Amendment CIIZIS A11otmflt
Irlt Split Lim a Exemption
Adjustment
8) Description of Existing Uses (number and type of existing- structures;
approximate mate sq. ft.; camber of bedrooms; any previous approvals granted to th-
ProPertY) -
None
9) Description of Development Application
• Single Family Residence
10) Have you attached the following?
( Response to Attachment 2, Minimum i m?m S bmi sion Contents
Response to Attachment 3, Speri fic Submission Contents
X Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Yam Application
• •
ASPEII
PERTIE
December 23, 1993
7 71
i
11' .CO.CP 7 1)93
Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office L._
K.GUY ASSOCIATES, P.
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Re:. Lot 3, Ute Park Subdivision
To Whom It May Concern:
As the current owner of the above property, I hereby authorize
THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES, PC to submit the 8040 Greenline
Application for the property at Lot 3, Ute Park Subdivision in Aspen on
behalf of the prospective owners, Gary and Linda Nathanson.
Sincerely,
Jim Martin
General Partner
Ute Park Subdivision
(303)925-8310 • 215 S. Monarch • P.O. Box 10502 • Aspen, Colorado 81611
• •
December 16, 1993
747 Latimer Road
Santa Monica, California 90402
(310) 459-3463
Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Department
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Gentlemen:
We hereby authorize THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC to represent us regarding the 8040
Greenline Application for the property at Lot 3, Ute Park Subdivision in Aspen.
Sincere!
fa
Gary & L' •. lathanson
•
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees
CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and Linda and Gary Nathanson
(hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for
Nathanson Residence
(hereinafter, THE PROJECT).
2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance
No. 77 (Series of 1992) establishes a fee structure for Planning Office applications
and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination
of application completeness.
3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or
scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full
extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and
CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties to allow APPLICANT
to make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to
be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees he will be
benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments
upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred.
CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full
costs to process APPLICANT'S application.
4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for
CITY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the
Planning Commission and/or City Council to enable the Planning Commission
and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project approval, unless
current billings are paid in full prior to decision.
5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's
waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of application
completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of $
which is for hours of Planning Office time, and if actual recorded costs
exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to
CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned
above, including post approval review. Such periodic payments shall be made
within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay
such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing.
CITY OF ASPEN APPLICANT
•
By: By �! / I"' •
Diane Moore Mailing • c I ress:
City Planning Director q4-1 '7 L cy-j-;r- ,- 7ztol
Q rt a� Pt o(h r o\ aft- q'0((00)
Date: Pk. a.;-/r3
2
S •
Legal Description:
Lot 3,
UTE PARK SUBDIVISION,
according to the Plat thereof, filed February 22, 1993, in Plat Book 30 at Page 86.
Form No.1343(CO-90)
ALTA Plain Language Commitment-
•
COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE
ISSUED BY
agent for
FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
AGREEMENT TO ISSUE POLICY
FI RSTAMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY,referred to in thisCommitment as theCompany,
through its agent,identified above,referred to in this Agreement as the Agent,agrees to issue a policy to
you according to the terms of this Commitment When we show the policy amount and your name as the
proposed insured in Schedule A,thisCommitment becomes effective as of theCommitment Date shown
in Schedule A.
If the Requirements shown in thisCommitment have not been met within six months aftertheCom-
mitment date,our obligation underthisCommitment will end.Also our obligation under thisCommitment
will end when the Policy is issued and then our obligation to you will be under the Policy.
Our obligation under this Commitment is limited by the following:
The Provisions in Schedule A.
The Requirements in Schedule B-1.
The Exceptions in Schedule B-2.
The Conditions on the reverse side of this page
This Commitment is not valid without SCHEDULE A and Sections 1 and 2 of SCHEDULE B.
First American Title Insurance Company
BY PRESIDENT Akt E •//Se/ 11
• o' 3'p
`v v �• ,
gy �� ; • EFTi �-
),/ a,11..- SECRETARY 1 263
t/FOR∎
BY _ COUNTERSIGNED
•
• • COMMITMENT
SCHEDULE A
JIM MARTIN
ASPEN PROPEI'IES
215 SOUTH MONARCH, SUITE #G-101
ASPEN CO 81611
1. Effective Date: May 6, 1993 at 7:00 AM Order No. 402790-C
PL/at Customer Reference Ute Park Pr
2. ALTA Owner's Policy Amount: $ 525,000.00
Proposed Insured:
GARY NATHANSON AND LINDA NATHANSON
3. ALTA Loan Policies Amount: $
Proposed Insured:
Proposed Insured: Anxxn t: $
4. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment and
covered herein is:
FEE SIMPLE
and title thereto is at the effective date hereof vested in:
UTE PARK PARTNEE2SHIP, a Colorado general partnership
issued by:
Owner's Premium: $ 657.00 Aspen Title Corporation
Lender's Premium: $ 600 E. Hopkins Avenue, #102
Add'l Lender Chg: $ ASPEN CO 81611
Add'l Charges: $ FAX (303) 920-4052
Tax Certificate: $ 10.00 (303) 920-4050 Denver 595-8463
Endorsement Chg: $ 45.00
TSD Charges: $
TO , CHARGES: $ 712.00
FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE CCMPANY
® COMMITMENT
Plat id No. 17/95
SCHEDULE A (continued) Order No. 402790-C
5. The land referred to in the Commitment is covering the land in the State of
Colorado, County of Pitkin , described as follows:
Lot 3,
U E PARK SUBDIVISION,
according to the Plat thereof, filed February 22, 1993, in Plat Book
30 at Page 86.
a
FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
•
® COMMITMENT
•
SCHEDULE B Order No. 402790-C
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 UTE PARK PARTNERSHIP, a Colorado general partnership to GARY
NATHANSON AND LINDA NAT HANSON.
NOTE: Duly executed real property transfer denlaration, executed by either
the Grantor or Grantee, to acnpany the Deed mentioned above, pursuant to
Article 14 of House Bill No. 1288 - CRA 39-14-102.
NOTE: Trade Name Affidavit or Partnership Agreement for Ute Park
Partnership, a Colorado general partnership, recorded August 24, 1989, in
Book 600 at Page 300, discloses that the names and addresses of the partners
• of said partnership are as follows:
James T. Martin Howard G. Stacker
215 South Monarch 300 Shepard Park Office Center
Aspen, Colorado 81611 2177 Youngman Avenue
St. Paul, Minnesota 55116
2. Evidence satisfactory to the Company or its duly authorized agent either (a)
that the "real estate transfer taxes" imposed by Ordinance No. 20 (Series of
1979), and by Ordinance No. 13, (Series of 1990), of the City of Aspen,
Colorado have been paid, and that the liens imposed thereby have been fully
satisfied, or (b) that Certificates of Exemption have been issued pursuant to
the provisions thereof.
3. Partial Release by the Public Trustee of Pitkin County releasing subject
P roperty from the lien of the Deed of Trust from Ute Park Partnership, a
Colorado general partnership for the use of Pitkin County Bank & Trust Co.,
to secure S475,000.00, dated July 19, 1991, and recorded August 15, 1991, in
Book 654 at Page 217.
NOTE: Modification of the above Deed of Trust recorded May 5, 1992, in Book
676 at Page 814.
NOTE: Modification of the above Deed of Trust recorded DeceMber 2, 1992, in
Book 696 at Page 167.
(Continued)
FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
rRDA (continued) • Order No. '402''90C-
4. Duly acknowledged partial release by The City of Aspen, releasing subject
property from the lien of Mortgage from Ute Park Partnership, Mortgagor, in
favor of The City of Aspen, Mortgagee, to secure Planned Unit Development
Subdivision Improvements Agreement, dated February 22, 1993, and recorded in
Book 704 at Page 256.
A CERTIFICATE OF TAXES DUE LISTING EACH TAXING JURISDICTION SHALL BE OBTAINED
FROM THE COUNTY 'TREASURER OR THE COUNTY TREASURER'S AUTHORIZED AGENT PURSUANT
TO 1983 C.R.S., 39-1-102 (14.5) AT A CHARGE OF $10.00 EACH TO THE CUSTOMER.
THE OWNER'S POLICY, WHEN ISSUED, WILL NOT CONTAIN EXCEPTIONS NO. 1, 2, 3 AND
4, PROVIDED THAT (A) THE ENCLOSED FORM OF INDEMNITY AGREEMENT OR FINAL
AFFIDAVIT AND AGREEMENT IS PROPERLY EXECUTED AND ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE
PARTY(IES) INDICATED AND RETURNER TO THE COMPANY OR ITS DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT,
(B) THE COMPANY OR ITS DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT RECEIVES AND APPROVES AN
IMPROVEMENT LOCATION CERTIFICATE PROPERLY CERTIFIED BY REGISTERED SURVEYOR OR
ENGINEER, AND (C) APPLICABLE SCHEDULED CHARGES IN THE AMOUNT OF $45.00 ARE
PAID TO THE COMPANY OR ITS DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT.
FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
• COMMITMENT
•
SCHEDULE B
Section 2
LIONS Order No. 402790-C
The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following matters
unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company:
Any loss or damage, including attorney fees, by reason of the matters Shown below:
1. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims which are not shown by the public records
but which could ascertained by an inspection of said land or by making inquiry of
persons in possession thereof.
2. Easements or claims of easements, not shown by the public records.
3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, and
any other facts which a correct survey 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 assessments, charge or lien imposed
for water or sewer service, or for any other special taxing district.
7. Right of the Proprietor of a Vein or Lade to extract and remove his ore therefrom,
should the same be found to penetrate or intersect the premises hereby granted, as
reserved in United States Patent recorded June 17, 1949, in Book 175 at Page 246.
8. Any vein or lode of quartz or other rock in place bearing gold, silver, cinnabar,
lead, tin, copper, or other valuable deposits, claimed or known to exist within
subject property as of March 23, 1885, as expressly excepted and excluded in United
States Patent recorded June 17, 1949, in Book 175 at Page 246.
9. Easement and right of way for pipelines, flume, ditch or water way purposes, as
granted by Lew D. Sivyer and George C. Vickery to D.W. Brunton by instrument
recorded June 17, 1892, in Book 93 at Page 527, said easement being ten (10) feet
in width as more particularly described therein.
10. Easement and right of way for roadway purposes, as granted by Frederic A. Benedict,
et al. to the City of Aspen by instrument recorded May 19, 1976, in Book 312 at
Page 154, said easement being more particularly described therein.
(Continued)
FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
D CE.IONS (continued) Order No.' 402790-C
11. Easement and right of way for roadway purposes, as granted by Frederic A.
Benedict, et al. to Robert S. Goldsamt by instrument recorded may 19, 1976, in
Book 312 at Page 200, said easement being more particularly described therein.
12. Easement and right of way for access and utilities purposes, as reserved by
Frederic A. Benedict and Fabienne Benedict in the Deed to Robert S. Goldsamt,
recorded February 23, 1979, in Book 363 at Page 887, said easement being sixty
(60) feet in width along the Northeasterly boundary of subject property.
13. Easements, building envelopes, rights of way and avalanche and falling rook zones
as shown on the Plat of said Subdivision.
14. Planned Unit Development and Subdivision Improvements Agreement between The City
of Aspen and The Ute Park Partnership, a Colorado general partnership, recorded
February 22, 1993, in Book 704 at Page 216.
15. Any and all unredeemed tax sales.
NOTE: Upon receipt of a Certificate of Taxes Due evidencing that there are no
existing open tax sales, the above exception will not appear on the policies to
be issued hereunder.
FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
Vicinity Map:
•
t_ Aftliffiq , '1 . * ■
...„ - if mlif: \• ` of•
•,„,....'SN.,... , . Ay •di.. a•• 4 *-__ .,..1,400.
ir
--:_,......:>,-,--,•-vN■ - ..... Ault , . iit... i \s.
„.„----:\;\:,.•• ' ...."7.17
... • .:•maii *iiiii41*.iiies -,• .__.. - _ .
'------ \ Ilk''',46dAl■ 6•°lir '1; .7.'..1111rillifilititliMO •.-
'' . \, C..•.,1 ' -.-: -N . .dir tali , 771 lfr7.2.-"--•: ii •• 1,- 4/
1 :V\• ',.. N:-:.,:, . - - ° - --;
IT. gormor • •Alif- ...._, 444 1,4
.. . 8, e I , ti . :•.•_ : •'`' 1 .;.. ` \ 11 _vet
‘-,-• I'1 i/ : 1 1 ,`1"
i :. . .. : : ri Pit Ii2i .
_____71...., c( • / -
1 \ r...:::: ::::::::i:::--i. -::E44i:::;::: :::::::: :- .:.:-:.::::.:.1?.,, _..,
it
.. ..:.....:..:
. . .. Ism...
: :..::;...:::::::::::::::::.: ..,......,::::::::-.:.,..:::::..:.:,.:„:„.....:.:._,7-;:::::::::.:::::::::::i:.1..::i.:.:.:..:!:..:.--................. .. . _....
, .,....4 \. :::::::.:::_:.....1,...:::::::::::i;:::::::::..:.,:.... ...:.:.:.:....1::.. •.•• A..... ,,sl...,,,,, -`•\
#: . .-*::::.-. . •.:- -.- --:. :-::::::.:.:,..:ft::::::_::-..N:.:..- :::::-1:..:.;.. - ' -. .,... ___N.. . .......:.......4. .:::.:....::3:.....-...
.• - •--ok , .....:..,..:. •,.,..:: .. ,......• ..•..: ..„,....;..:... „it 0 - F'A. `-'`..- --.--- ‘111,..„.,,‘\-\ - . • -%•.-..--,.-• :-,;.-.:.:-.-.:........:.:.....:
o ...__\• . ..4
,, .i. i. 4:::-!u::::,::::::: ::.:: :.:„:„.:4,:k.„.„,:,:_-::.:::,,;),.,../...• :.
-.- 1---:- ..„ -\ \\ ilb,--:- •.;.:.- ::.:..•
77;•• • 16. ,k.-iz--:,:•:"7:... -,-:::':. :;;;:t. -,._.,_,.-.,,i 1:1:Et- : :):.1-I- .:::::.?-• ....7:7, 4,a- . ■-i \ .
I :. :::.:.".:::•:: ii.e7. 4.-Tt:_._.,.r--7„.. .. . i 'I- :.-:70,..-:.:.•-' ..:-:-.?7.
.• .. : •••• A.: .8.:-:.::.;:.::- : ::.A): ,. !_s:-:.:;:-41:1 •*/ ---
L'•'•' :i:• ..•a-:�^a.• '114:::: . ■
'. • '�
II
• . ...... s .....,."..-4.—:"..i... ....-„,„,............ .i. ) 1 .. .:..1.--. • '.. : . 24.
\I
8040 Greenline Application
Site Plan:
See Sheet Al.
Proposed Elevations:
See Sheets A2, A3.
Proposed Sections:
See Sheet A4.
Description of Building Techniques
The new single-family residence will be constructed in the building envelope, part of which has been
identified as being of moderate avalanche hazard. Structural recommendations by the avalanche
engineer, Arthur Mears will be adopted into the design of the residence and the landscaping.
Other than the concrete foundation and walls, the remainder of the home will be of approved wood-
frame construction.
During construction, measures will be taken to protect the site from damage due to erosion.
,-- ORDINANCE NO. 18
(SERIES OF 1992)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING REZONING FROM
(RR) RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO (AH) AFFORDABLE HOUSING, SUBDIVISION,
FINAL. PUD, GROWTH MANAGEMENT EXEMPTION FOR FREE MARKET HOUSING IN
AN (AH) AFFORDABLE HOUSING ZONE DISTRICT AND FOR DEED RESTRICTED
HOUSING,CONDOMINIUMIZATION, VESTED RIGHTS, AND WAIVER OF THE
WATERMAIN EXTENSION MORATORIUM FOR THE UTE PARK SUBDIVISION, A FOUR
LOT SUBDIVISION ON A 3 .8 ACRE METES AND BOUNDS PARCEL SITUATED IN
THE NW 1/4 SE 1/4 OF SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST
OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, in September 1989 , the (AH) Affordable Housing zone
district was created to promote private sector development of deed
------restricted affordable housing by allowing limited free market
residential development within a project; and
WHEREAS, in April 1990 the Ute Park Partnership (Applicant)
submitted an application for rezoning of a 3 . 8 acre parcel on the
east end of Ute Avenue from (RR) Rural Residential to (AA)
Affordable Housing in conjunction with an application for
Conceptual PUD review; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended
approval of a Conceptual PUD Plan with conditions on July 3 , 1990;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the Conceptual PUD Plan and
the Planning and Zoning Commission' s recommendations, discussed
rezoning of the parcel to (AH) Affordable Housing as a threshold
issue, and approved the Conceptual Plan with conditions on August
13 , 1990 ; and
WHEREAS, in December 1991, the Applicant submitted an
application for Rezoning, Subdivision, Final PUD Plan, Growth
i Management Exemption for free market development in an AH zone and
1
1
for affordable housing, Condominiumization, Vested Rights, Special
Reviews for Open Space and Parking in an AH zone, 3040 Greenline
Review, waiver of Park Development Impact Fees, and Waiver of the
Waterline Extension Moratorium for the development of seven deed
restricted affordable townhome units and three free market lots for
single family residences; and
WHEREAS, the applicant also requested an extension to the one-
year filing deadline for submission of a Final PUD Plan; and
WHEREAS, on January 13 , 1992 , upon staff' s recommendation, the
City Council granted a 160 day filing extension effective
retroactively from August 1991; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council having reviewed the
development proposal for the Ute Park Subdivision and the
recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission and
Planning staff, approved Rezoning from (RR) Rural Residential to
(AH) Affordable Housing, Subdivision, Final PUD Plan, Growth
Management Exemption for free market residential development and
affordable housing, Condominiumization, Vested rights, and waiver
of the waterline extension moratorium.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1:
That it hereby grants the following approvals for the Ute Park
Subdivision pursuant to the applicable sections in the Aspen
Municipal Code: Rezoning from RR (Rural Residential) to AH
(Affordable Housing) (Chapter 24, Section 7, Division 11) ;
2
L' qr • _
•
Subdivision (Chapter 24 , Section 7-1004) ; Final PUD Plan (Chapter
24 , Section 7, Division 903) ; Growth Management Exemption for Free
Market Development in an AH Zone District, and Affordable Housing
(Chapter 24 , Section 8-104 .C. ) ; and Subdivision Exemption for
Condominiumization (Chapter 24 , Section 7-1007) .
Section 2 : The following conditions shall apply to the approvals:
1. The Applicant shall include within the Subdivision Agreement
financial assurances for the construction of the affordable
housing component of the project. This shall consist of
placement of First Deeds. of Trust of $10. 00 value on Lots 1, 2
and 3 in the name of the City of Aspen. Upon the sale of the
first free market lot, the deed to Lot 4 will be placed in
escrow for the City of Aspen. In addition, a letter of credit
; payable to the City of Aspen shall be provided by the
Applicant which covers the construction costs of the
townhomes. Upon delivery of the letter of credit and
placement of the Lot 4 deed in escrow, the City shall release
the remaining First Deeds of Trust. If construction of the
townhomes by the Applicant has not begun within two years of
recordation of the Final Plat, the City shall take possession
of—Lot 4 t h e—a r c h i t e ural plans of the t-ownnomes ski Y—be
turned over to the City, and the City shall redeem the letter
of credit in order to construct the townhomes within one year.
2 . The applicant shall include within the Subdivision Agreement
specific provisions for the mitigation of avalanche dangers
1 3
411 111
for the seven deed restricted townhome units. Protection of
the townhouses (by retaining wall or residential structure)
must extend the entire length of the "conditional zone" on Lot
1 unless the unprotected townhouses are designed to standards
established by Art Mears or similar avalanche expert.
Avalanches shall not be deflected onto neighboring properties.
3 . The home on Lot 1 shall be constructed prior to or
simultaneously with construction of the seven townhouses. If
built simultan-eously, the structural framing of the Lot 1
house and any necessary retaining walls must be complete and
approved by the Building Department prior to issuance of
Certificates of Occupancy for the townhouses.
4 . In the event that the Final Plat and Subdivision agreement
have not been filed prior to issuance of any Building Permits
for the Ute Park lots, the financial assurance and avalanche
protection documents must be approved by the City Attorney and
recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder prior to
issuance of any building permits on Ute Park parcels.
5 . The applicant will continue to coordinate roadway design,
drainage, snow storage, etc. with City staff. Any improvement
work must be done in accordance with City specifications.
Alternative on-site parking locations for the townhomes shall
be noted on the PUD Plan and Final Plat.
6. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for the
townhomes, the applicant shall satisfy the City Engineer
regarding storm drainage calculations. Storm drainage
4
•
•
calculations must be provided for the free market homes at the
time of individual building permit application.
7 . The applicant shall indicate the entire avalanche zones on the
Final PUD Plan.
8 . Avalanche warning signs shall be indicated on the plat along
the property boundaries along Ute Ave. and along the nordic .
trail.
9 . Any hazardous or toxic soils must be stabilized and
revegetated or removed to a site acceptable to the City.
10. Prior to constructions, a fugitive dust control plan must be
obtained from the Colorado Pollution Control Division and this
office.
11. If the water line in the proposed utility corridor is
dedicated to the City of Aspen a water main easement must be
executed between the Applicant and the City prior to issuance
of any excavation or building permits.
12 . The Final Plat and PUD Plan shall indicate that the homes on
Lots 1 and 2 must be sprinklered for fire protection. The
Applicant shall satisfy the Fire Marshal regarding emergency
access prior to filing the Final Plat.
1r. The S-tI division Yinal-P"rat shall i`ric� sate trie�an�eptu
alignment. The County Open Space and Trails Program (COSTP)
may act as assignee of the City of Aspen for the construction
and maintenance of the trail. Upon completion of this trail,
the COSTP will be responsible for surveying and filing the as-
built trail easement. Plat note #7 shall be amended to:
5
remove the one year deadline for trail construction; state . �
that conceptual trail alignment and subsequent trail easement
will run with the land and bind future heirs and assigns of
the developer; the trail alignment may be amended by mutual
consent of both parties (lot owners and City/COSTP) . The
year-round trail easement shall be 15 ' wide with side slopes
not to exceed 6%. The Nordic Council and the applicant shall
work together and verify the trail alignment as shown on the
Plat and PUD Plan complies with the most workable alignment
for skiing and trail connections. Signage shall indicate
avalanche and rockfall hazards to trail users. These signs
shall be installed prior to commencement of any site work.
14 . The seven townhomes shall be deed restricted as four Category.
4 units and three Category 3 units in accordance with Housing
Authority Guidelines. The restrictions shall be approved by
the Housing Authority and filed with the Pitkin County Clerk
and Recorder prior to issuance of City approval of the Final
Plat.
15. All material representations made by the applicant in the
application and during public meetings with the Planning and
Zoning Commission and City Council shall be adhered to and
considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended
by other conditions.
16. The Subdivision Plat and Subdivision / PUD Agreement shall be
recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and
Recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the
6
• . •
Plat and Agreement within. a period of one hundred and eighty
(180) days following approval by the City Council shall render
the Plat and PUD Plan approval invalid and reconsideration and
approval of both by the Commission and City Council will be
required before their acceptance and recording, unless an
extension or waiver is granted by City Council for a showing
of good cause.
Section 3 : An exemption from the moratorium on expansions to the
City' s municipal water system as imposed by Resolutions 12 and 45
(Series 1991) be and is hereby granted so as to allow the extension
of the municipal water delivery system for three single family
residences in the Ute Park Subdivision.
Section 4: Pursuant to Section 24-6-207 of the Municipal Code, the
City Council does hereby grant the applicant vested rights for the
Ute Park Subdivision and Final PUD Plan as follows:
1. The rights granted by the site specific development plan
approved by this Ordinance shall remain vested for three (3)
years from the date of final adoption specified below.
However, any failure to abide by the terms and conditions
attendant to this approval shall result in forfeiture of said
-vestedprop5e-rtyrigfffs. r'ailure to imely and properly record
all plats and agreements as specified herein and or in the
Municipal Code shall also result in the forfeiture of said gg
vested rights.
2 . The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of
referendum and judicial review.
•
3 . Nothing in the approvals provided in this Ordinance shall.
exempt the site specific development plan from subsequent
reviews and or approvals required by this Ordinance or the
general rules, regulations or ordinances or the City provided
that such reviews or approvals are not inconsistent with the
approvals granted and vested herein.
4 . The establishment herein of a vested property right shall not
preclude the application of ordinances or regulations which
are general in nature and are applicable to all property
subject to land use regulation by the City of Aspen including,
but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and
mechanical codes. In this regard, as a condition of this site
development approval, the developer shall abide by any and
all such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical
codes, unless an exemption therefrom is granted in writing.
Section 5 :
The Official Zone District Map for the City of Aspen shall be
and is hereby amended to reflect that rezoning as set forth in
Section 1 above and such amendment shall be promptly entered on the
Official Map in accordance with Section 24-5-103 B. of the
Municipal Code.
Section 6:
This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and
shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now
pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended ' 11
as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded
s. 1
J 8
i
under such prior ordinances.
Section 7:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or
portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or
unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and
shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Section 8: The City Clerk shall cause notice of this Ordinance to
be published in a newspaper of general circulations within the City
of Aspen no later than fourteen (14) days following final adoption
hereof. Such notice shall be given in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval
of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a
vested property right pursuant to Title 24 , Article 68 ,
Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following
described property:
The property shall be described in the notice and appended to said
notice shall be the ordinance granting such approval.
Section 9 :
That the City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this
arena-nce_,—to_r.e.rcard a__copy of this ordinance in the office of the
Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
Section 10:
A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the /3 day
of ap. ` _ , 1992 at 5: 00 in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City
Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a
9
• .
public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper, of
general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law,
by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the �� day of
Tj_2.2.26/ 1992 .
John Bennett, Mayor
Attest:
Ar :4( /442/--
Kathryn . Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved -this day of
, 1992 .
John ennett, Mayor •
Att-st:
Ade---2(
Kathryn . Koch, City Clerk
� I
1 I �
10
•
• •
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 920-5090
February 24, 1994
Rob b Okazaki
Ted Guy Associates
P.O. Box 1640
Basalt, CO 81621
RE: Nathanson 8040 Greenline Review
Case #A13-94
Dear Rob,
The Planning Office has completed its preliminary review of the captioned application. We
have determined that this application is incomplete. The application will not be scheduled for
review until the following items are submitted:
1. Co of the Ute Park Subdivision plat.
Copy P
2. Individually address items 1 - 11 of Section 7-503(c) of the Aspen Land Use Code.
3. To address these criteria, please also include the geologic/avalanche/soils reports from
the original subdivision review.
4. Submit a grading plan and cross sections through the building envelope which illustrate
the extent of the cut slopes.
Please submit four copies of the requested information. If you have any questions, please call
Mary Lackner, the Planner assigned to this case, at 920-5106. Thank you.
Sincerely,
51A4p4-Jz----
Suzanne L. Wolff
Administrative Assistant
ji /,
THE CITY OF ASPEN
FROM THE DESK OF
MARY LYNNE LACKNER
WOU C-e'L- tC1 -.Q'V' '-
U ±e_ Pa 7 lv r V v 1 V _ ii r .VJ6
c&-aeA 419 e l 014Sute e r) (4(4,0 k4,d
Ga( a,213e_ece,L_ +0 r e_acd , NQ-(2-0 ,Q. -.)i s
yU [ --4(o-j �_01,a0_.ak-tao*f
C C +roS s
Lo f 2 . . . - f
aoo;eo Y\o f coo tk mizQir ---o
130 SOUTH GALENA STREET
ASPEN,COLORADO 81611
C hen Northern.h. •
SUBSOIL STUDY
FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN
PROPOSED MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING
SOUTH OF UTE AVENUE
ACROSS FROM ASPEN CLUB
ASPEN, COLORADO
ai
Prepared For:
Aspen Properties
Attn: Jim. Martin
P.O. Box 10502
Aspen .CO 81612-7344
Job No. 4 188 90 January 30, 1990
.,uot ,,,,..
{
•
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONCLUSIONS 1
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY , 1
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION 2
SITE CONDITIONS 2
FIELD EXPLORATION 3
SUBSOIL CONDITIONS 3
FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS 4
FLOOR SLABS 5
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM 5
SURFACE DRAINAGE 6
LIMITATIONS 7
FIGURE 1 - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURE 2 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURE 3 - LEGEND AND NOTES
FIGURE - 4 - GRADATION TEST RESULTS
TABLE I - SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
C
ter;
t;
.1
•C . � .. ..
. •.
CONCLUSIONS
The proposed multi-family housing should be founded with
spread footings bearing on the natural granular soils and designed
for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3000 psf. Other design
and construction criteria relating to geotechnical aspects of the
proposed building are presented in the body of the report.
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
This report presents the results of a subsoil study for the proposed
multi-family housing to be located across from the Aspen Club on Ute Avenue,.
Aspen, Colorado. The project site is shown on Fig. 1 . The purpose of the
study was to develop recommendations for the foundation design. The study was
conducted in accordance with our agreement for geotechnical engineering ser-
vices to Aspen Properties, dated November 22, 1989.
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. 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 =
discussion of geotechnical engineering considerations related to construction
rf
of the proposed project are included in the report.
.
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
The proposed multi-family housing will be a two-story wood frame struc-
ture with a building footprint of approximately 60 feet by 80 feet. The
ground floor level will be structural over a crawl space or slab-on-grade.
Grading for the structure is expected to be relatively minor with cut depths
•
between about 4 to 8 feet. We assume relatively light foundation loadings,
typical of the proposed type construction.
If building loadings, location or grading plans change significantly from
those described above, we should be notified to reevaluate the recommendations
contained in this report.
SITE CONDITIONS
At the time of our field work, the site was vacant and covered with about
2 feet of snow. The topography of the building envelope is moderately sloping
down to the northeast at grades of 15 to 20 percent. The slope steepens to
the south of the building area. The steep slopes above the site have been
characterized as having snow avalanche potential on the Pitkin County Snow
Avalanche map by Colorado State University (1974) and on the Environmental and
Geologic Constraints map prepared for the Colorado Geological Survey (1974).
There are historic avalanche tracks located on the Hoag Subdivision to the
• west of. the subject site. We are not aware of historic avalanches that have
impacted the project site.
The proposed building area is vegetated with small aspen trees, brush and
weeds. An old overgrown cart path crosses the building area from east to
west.
( , '
®' -3-
FIELD EXPLORATION
The field exploration for the project was conducted on December 21
and 22, 1989. Two exploratory borings were drilled at the locations shown on
Fig. 1 to evaluate the subsurface conditions. The borings were advanced with
4-inch diameter continuous flight augers powered by a truck-mounted CME-55
drill rig. The borings were logged by a representative of Chen-Northern, Inc.
Samples of the subsoils were taken with a 1 3/8-inch I.D. spoon' sampler.
j
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 sub-
soils. ' 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 2 to 4 feet of topsoil overlying mainly
medium dense, silty sand and gravel containing cobbles and possible boulders.
Drilling in the gravels with auger equipment was difficult due to the cobbles
and boulders and drilling refusal was encountered in the deposit.
Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the borings
included 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 Fig. 4. The
laboratory testing is summarized in Table I.
• , ^ 1
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 '"'"'41 ^^n^;t=^ns encountered in the exploratory 7or;ngs
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 1 ) Footings placed on the undisturbed natural granular soils should be
designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3000 psf. Based on
experience, we expect settlement of footings designed and constructed as
discussed in this section will be about 1 inch or less.
2) All existing topsoil and
g soil any p any loose or disturbed soils should be removed
and the footing bearing level extended down to relatively dense natural
granular 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
1 retaining -structures should also be designed to resist a lateral earth
pressure corresponding to an equivalent fluid unit weight of 45 pcf.
1
1
r j
• •
6) Sliding resistance of the footing on the bearing soil can be taken as 0.4
times the dead load weight on the foundation.
7) A representative of the soil engineer should observe all footing excava
- tions prior to concrete placement to evaluate bearing conditions.
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, 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. The requirements for control joints and 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. a 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 sand and gravel devoid of
lvegetation, 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
i
-6- ,
III • .
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. a sieve and have a
maximum size of 2 inches. The drain gravel backfill should be at least 2 feet
•
deep.
SURFACE DRAINAGE -
The following drainage precautions should be observed during construction
and maintained at all times after the building 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 com-
pacted 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. It may be
necessary to create a swale on the uphill. side of the building to route
surface water around and away from the development.
t
.. i
-.�-
• • •
1
1 4) Roof downspouts. and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all .
backfill.
1
LIMITATIONS
This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted soil
-1 and foundation engineering practices in this area for use by the client for
design purposes. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report j
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
.1 evident until excavation is performed. If during construction, fill, soil,
rock or water conditions appear to be different from those described herein,
this office should be advised at once so reevaluation of the recommendations
may be made. We recommend on-site observation of excavations and foundation
1 bearing strata and testing of structural fill by a representative of the soil
engineer.
•
1 ..,u,,,„ Sincerely,
\� 0 REC/s�i�iy
�0 c§1-.........H.'ie,,p ''� CHEN-NORTHERN, INC.•1 :.=, -,-.. -
•Q y• -,,, r, c... \ /
° 24443 '•
' ow�ti BY 1 �: < i\--,L,L,-_
o •. .• �. c� Daniel E. Hardin, P.E.
Reviewed B Y - ---'02----
Steven L. Pawlak, P.E.
DEH/ec
. cc: David Finholm & Associates, Attn: David Finholm
1 • .
. , .
.
' . . _--
•
•
,
APPROXiti..+• SCALE
ASPP • i
PROPERTY
i� BOUNDARIES ------.2- —
i
+1 UTE AVENUE — —
—
il _ _- - -- -- _._ ___ _
_. __--
-_ __ ___ _- ,
J 1 ,
RIGHT OF WAY a EASEMENT LINE
„I , ----I BORING 2 - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ -
i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - -
-I __- - - j.
___ ___ _ __ _ ____ _ _ _._ ___ ,05.
�°
sol / / — — — — — — — — — - - — — — — — — — — — — — — -- — — _
A —
i
Til _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , — — — — — .....
BUILDING ` BORING 1 A . 004 _ _, .......
-
___...--'
ENVELOPE \
�' - i
° / . -.
A . _ - _ _ _ - _
_ _ _ _
_.
..... _ _ -
, _
- _A I
• ,
4 188 90
Chen Northern:Inc.
LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS, 1 Fig. 1
{ . • •
1
Boring 1 Boring 2 .
Elev. . 8040' Elev. = 8028'
8040 8040
___ .
ra
. .
___ .
! ---- 8035 8035
24/12
• WC=4
. +4=43
— _• -200= 16
' u — 8030
w , 25_ 5 0 0 8030
/ ,2 /
•
litI O ^- O gl
'u 8025 8025
3.
I _ , 32/12
8020 •.'... 40/1 8020
,_ •,> +4=51
-200=12
'�
8015 ∎4 8015
a -
Note: Explanation of symbols presented on Fig. 3.
4 . 188 90 ChentliNorthern,Inc. Logs of Exploratory Borings Fig. 2
LEGEND: •
ElTopsoil ; organic silty sand and gravel , with cobbles , loose to medium dense, -
moist , black.
Sand and Gravel (GM) ; silty, with cobbles , possible boulders , medium dense to
dense , moist , brown .
()rive sample; standard penetration test (SPT) , 1 3/8-inch T .D. split spoon
sample, ASTM D- 1586.
24/12 Drive sample blow count ; indicates that 24 blows of a 140-pound hammer falling
. 30 inches were required to drive the SPT sampler 12 inches.
Practical rig refusal.
NOTES:
1 .- Exploratory borings were drilled on December 21 and 22, 1989 with a 4-inch
diameter continuous flight power auger.
2 . Locations of exploratory borings were measured approximately by taping from
features shown on the site plan provided.
I3. Elevations of exploratory borings were obtained by interpolation between contours
on the site plan provided.
I 1. The exploratory boring locations and elevations should he considered accurate .
only to the degree implied by the method used.
i S. The lines between materials shown on the exploratory boring logs represent the
approximate locations between material types and transitions may be gradual.
6. No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling. Fluctu-
I • ations in water level may occur with time.
7. Laboratory Testing Results:
i WC = Water Content (o)
+4 = Percent retained on No. 4 sieve ■
-200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve
i
_
4 188 00 Chen0Northern,Inc. Legend and Notes Fig, 3
I
•
.
•HYDROMETER ANALS—1 SIEVE ANAL I rIME READINGS I U S STANDARD SERIES 1 CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
74 4411 7 MR 't0
45 MIN 15 MW 50 MIN 19 MIN 4 MIN I MIN '?'3 '+00 •50 '40.30 ••5 I• •4 1� 7 5..8.. 9•
100 0
90 -
1 /
MilonSoN220
—' 30
70��� -- ��
Me 0
Z 60 111=EIMMINIIINIMIMIIMIIMBIMIMI—IIIIIMINIIII - - ��� 71�
N 1♦�4■��� �� W
4
til �4�� �—
2 W ===.
=
.
♦0 00 U
CC —�o■M�� 41
0. -
30 .�4■4.m.sismonm■mil lo �— s_•∎ •�70
• �
■111111■I∎■16■1.���_∎�����/���� �gym-
• ��
��1∎—�� e����
t0=∎���� �������eIMI∎11 � 30
0���� �M�/G.1■10•
.001 002 .005 .009 019 03! 0/4 149 297 42590 1.19 270.78 4 16 952 19.1 381, 767 177152 ••
DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS
I SAND GRAVEL COBBLES
CLAY TO SILT FINE I MEDIUM (COARSE FINE I COARSE .
GRAVEL 43 % SAND 41 % SILT ANO CLAY 16 % .
•
% 5'
LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX •
SAMPLE OF silty sand and gravel FROM Boring 1 at 6 feet and
10 feet combined
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS (` SIEVE ANALYSIS
I IME HEADINGS I U S STANDARD SERIES I CLEAN SQUARE OPENINGS
241111 7118 't0 •4 y- v,^ re" r • 5"6,
45 MIN 15 MIN 50 MIN IS MIN 4 MIN 1 MIN '2110 '100 '50 '40'70 '16 18 0
100 } t { i—.-----4,4 I ■ 1
•
T
( i I ,
• 1 I I-}
80 ) 1 } t t 11 i T 20
` r ( 1 .
` i L r• L. I 30
1
LI 70, i _ 1 1 ; T_ t t } a
F I W
2vv I }
1 1 `
Z 1 F 1 i I ( W.
W 1
Cr 40 i
a.
W• U a
r
30 I
I
•
``
1 ! ! r 1. i 1 I
i
1pI
1 j IT
me i 0 1��UE� '�I�4NISM1////e∎t�4�MO•rMI/ t����4/MOW*//1�11�Ms•mo�awV•4.•••■•■■•100
.001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .03! .0/4 .149 297 590 1.19 38 4.76 9.52 491 381 162 127 14
42 2 0 152 1
— . I DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS
SAND GRAVEL LOBBIES
CLAY TO SILT 11NE j MEDwM II.DAn;E' FINF. 1 COARSE •
• GRAVEL S 1 4• SAND 37 % SILT AND CLAY 11 %
LIQUID LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX
SAMPLE OF Silty sand and gravel FROM Boring 2 at 8 feet
is
j.
_ -i t ss 9n ChcnONorthcrn,Inc• GRADATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 4
r—I r•••1
(i)
:74
{-4
=
ct,
•
(n
CI)
-.J
CO z -
LJ.1
CC o
-
1—
LU
7 X
cal 7 A
z
-
-
= -
)- A
CC
0
LI
c■I
Er•-■ 1-4
0
<
5 •Zr
>-
CC
4`C Z
2
< z
crj e
55—
z u
C.
F.z
oo
,C)C
C.
z
•
C,I