Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Land Use Case.1125 Ute Ave.GR-1986-01
rCASE bISPOSITION: _ Ocr,7, ;n /VDTA nU Reviewed by r;. n P&Z City Counc : 7' /.P J LJ 1 r{' , ;i'�'�i{�.' , CTy7Y-['is-�J t:n: %! L.,I i �1"lr I-. i-t. ` I . ( .11-- .! • ' ../N:".._r -j . , ' 1 ` f• .. 1 . The trail shall be constructed with the minimum disturbance of land, including the removal of excavated materials, and cutting as few trees as possible and generally on the up-slope of the trail so as not to make it visible. 2 . Revegetation of the disturbed areas shall be accomplished through spreading an appropriate seed mix. 3 . The Nordic Council shall consult a registered engineer to determine the stability and necessary lay back of the trail cut prior to construction of the trail . `ig. The Nordic Council shall post signs and station personnel at entrances to the trail so as to close the trail when it is determined that avalanche risks are high . 1 AC C.'1. 54,j1:C1i:7 7 6 . ;,'A-, special use permit application for use of the Midland right-of- way from the Forest Service shall--be--prepared__by---the -North -Council"and"approved by the USFS prior to use of that segment of the trail. Reviewed By: Aspen P&Z City Council CASE tISPOSIT ION: h ;pr rr"�r, r ,,t / Reviewed by: ;-ASfl PLZ":_> City Council._ P' 1 f .;r` 7 j., ,:� Tr;rr,r :, , ,. , ,.. =gs :x lx-1-1 1. 0 Lo` i,:• The Planning Office recommends approval for the access road for the Barker Greenline Review subject to the following conditions : 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 =14 ---- • 7 8 . 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. 9 . 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 . =7. la . A—f:i=r-e- sprinkler system- sha11 be.==installed-�==im=1the--struct.ur-e.. W-.L1dfire mitigation measures shall be addressed in the site development Greenline review application. t -11 . A draiange plan should be submitted as part of the site develop- ment 8040 Greenline Review. SB. 37 • • " "* 4" FOREST SERVICE USE ONLY USDA-Fores* Service Date Received Region Nur State Code County Code SPECIAL- E APPLICATION AND REIII ,RT Received (Ref.:ISM 2712,36CFR251.54) --`—/-- -- -- --- Congressional Forest Code Unit ID Symbol Dist. Number .. (Admin. Unit No.) (NFFID No.) INSTRUCTIONS Applicant should request a meeting with the Forest Service representative responsible for processing the application, prior to completing this form.This meeting Ranger Dist.No. User Number Kind of Use Code will allow a discussion of the form's requirements and (Reap. Dist.) identify those items to be omitted. PART t— APPLICATION (Applicant Completes) 4 1. Applicant Name and Address• 2 Authorized Agent Name, Title and Address (in- 3. Area Code and Telephone (include Zip Code) dude Zip Code) if different from Item 1. Number a. Applicant's b. Authorized Agent's i 4. As applicant are you? (Mark one box with"X'°) 5. Specify what application is for (Mark one box with "X") Ia. r'i Individual a. El New authorization* Ib. ❑ Corporation* b. l Renew existing authorization c. 0 Partnership/Association~ c. ig Amend existing authorization* • d. Q State Government/State Agency d. 0 Other* e. f. Local Government •If marked"X",provide details under Item 7. f. '0 Federal Agency • If marked"X",complete PART II. 6. if you are an individual or partnership, are you also a citizen(s) of the United States? fYes El 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 Page 3, REMARKS). 1 I I 1 • 8. Attach map covering area and show location of proposed use and/.or furnish legal description of the land. 9. Give statement of your technical and financial capability to construct,operate, and terminate the use for which authorization is requested, including the protection and restoration of Federal lands. (If extra space is needed, use page 3,REMARKS). l i I-revious edition is obsolete. (OVER) _ FS-2700-3 (10/83) 10a. Describe other reasonable alternative proposals considered. • • • • • 10b. Give explanation of why it is necessary to utilize Federal lands and why the alternatives in item 10a were not selected. • • 11. Provide statement of need for proposed use, including the economic feasibility and items such as: (a) cost of proposal (construction, o;,e ation, and maintenance); (b) estimated cost of next best alternative; and (c) expected public benefits. (If extra space is needed,use page 3, REMARKS). 12 Describe probable effects on the area population,including social and economic aspects,and rural lifestyles. 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 soii 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). 14. Describe what actions will be taken to protect the environment from the effects of the proposed use. • :';.5. Name all Federal, State, County or other departrnent(s)/agency(ies) where an application for this is being filed. Attach appropriate license, building permit, certificate or other approval document. • EEY CERTIFY, that I am of legal age and authorized to do business in the State and that I have personally examined the information r=fined in the application and that this information is correct to best of my knowledge. 16a. Applicant's Signature (Sign in ink) 16b. Date 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 ;• false, f;,titious, or fraudulent statements or representations as to any matter within its jurisdiction. —2— • Pr PART III—FORT ON APPLICATION (Forest Offilrompletes) —s. 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 `, A ()LC— ;'d\ i " 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? 0 Yes 0 No b. Has an Environmental Assessment been prepared? 0 Yes(Attach)- No c. Has an Environmental Impact Statement(P.L.91-190,42 USC 4321) been prepared? 0 Yes(Attach) 0 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). 9e. RECOMMEND Approval° or I b. Signature (Sign in ink) c. Title d. Date Disapproval° r: + 10a. FINAL Approvals or b. Signature (Sign in ink) c. Title d. Date Disapproval* t2iete one by lining it out. —�- GPO : 1983 0 - 425-809 • PART 11—sUEMENTAL INFORMATION (Applicant t mpietes) Q MARK "X" IN APPRO- ., PRIATE BOX BELOW 1—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 ❑ 0 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 cf 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. 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. ❑ ❑ H—PUBLIC CORPORATIONS f, Ia. Copy of law forming corporation ❑ ❑ { ! b. Proof of organization ❑ ❑ c. Copy of Bylaws tJ ❑ d. Copy of resolution authorizing filing ❑ I ❑ e. If application is for an oil or gas pipeline, provide information required by Item '°1-f" and "I-g" above. ❑ I ❑ Ill—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 or each participant,partner,association,or other ❑ ❑ d. If application is for an oil or gas pipeline, provide information required by Item "I-f" and "l-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 L) Please indicate the item numbers to which these responses• apply.Attach sheets,if additional space is needed. ■ • S 8040 Greenline Review Criteria §24-62 ASPEN CODE §24-6.3 (b) Review criteria. In reviewing the development plan, the zonif:g commission shall consider the following: (1) Whether there exists sufficient water- pressure and other utilities to service the intended development; (2) The existence of adequate roads to insure fire protection, snow removal and road maintenance; (3) The suitability of the site for development considering the slope, ground instability and possibility of mud flow,rock falls and avalanche dangers; (4) The affects of the development on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion and conse- quent effects on water pollution; (5) The possible effects on air quality in the area and city wide; (6) The design and location of any proposed structure, roads, driveways or trails and their compatibility with the terrain; (7) Whether proposed grading will result in the least disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land features; (8) The placement and clustering of structures so as to minimize roads, cutting and grading, and increase the open space and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource; (9) The reduction of building height and bulk to maintain the open character of the mountain. (Ord. No. 11-1975, § 1) Sec. 24-8.3. Stream margin review. • (a) Intention. To guide development and encourage appropriate use of land in proximity to designated natural water courses, to promote safety from flooding, to prevent impediment of natural water flow, and to insure provisions for adequate protection and preservation of the designated natural water courses as important natural features. All lands and air space within one hundred (100) feet, measured Supp.No.14 1478.2 To: Steve Burnstein, Planning Dept From: Craig Ward, Aspen/Snowrnass Nordic Council Re: 8040 Greenline Review •3 Lot Hoag Subdivision Driveway 8040 Greenline Review Trail Alignment The Aspen Area Cornphrehensive Plan details a contiguous trail around the base of Aspen Mountain. We are now prepared to construct a trail off Little Neil above the Aspen Alps to the Ute Rock Trail. This trail would pass through the Hoag Subdivision. However, the access to Lot 4'3 and the trail easement through the Subdivision share the same roadway. After much discussion and on-site inspection with the owners of Lot x3 of the Hoag Subdivision, I would like you to entertain the following proposals for 8040 Greenline Review: 1 ) That the trail, corning from the east, follow the platted alignment until the area above Lot 2, as shown on Exhibit From that point it would take a steeper grade alignment, to the • westerly boundary of Lot 4'3, to an approximate elevation of 8085. From this point it would follow an existing four(4) foot wide trail that was pioneered last fail, all the way to the Little Nell ski slope. This entire trail is shown on Exhibit 4'2. Also we have an engineering map from Aspen Earthrnoving, showing the cut slopes and grades of the trail. All earth shall be removed from the site, so as not to create a visible scar. Very few trees will have to be cut to complete the ten foot wide trail. 2) In order to accornodate sole use of the existing roadway for the trail, the owners of Lot 4`3 are submitting a proposal for a new driveway to access the approved house site on Lot 4e3. I believe that the driveway can be constructed without visual or environmental impacts, and that the trail will not be impacted severely by having to cross the driveway near the Ute Avenue intersection. I believe that this is a good solution to a problem that was created when the roadway was platted for both a trail easement and access to the steep house site on Lot Craig Ward cc: Brooke Peterson Jack Barker • • MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: Nordic Council and Barker 8040 Greenline Review DATE : October 2, 1985 • REQUEST: The Aspen/Snowmass Nordic Council desires to complete the segment of the Nordic Skiing Trail extending east from Aspen Mountain (Little Nell) to the Ute Rock Trail . Part of the trail is in the City and part is in the County. The Nordic Council requests 8040 Greenline Review approval from the City for a portion of the trail traversing Lot 3 , Hoag Subdivision to the old Midland Railroad right-of-way. Jack Barker , owner of Lot 3 , Hoag Subdivision requests approval of his Greenline application to build a new access road from Ute Avenue to a building site on his property. The proposed road would pass through Forest Service property in the County, Lot 4, Hoag Subdivision and the Newfoundland Mining Claim before entering Lot 3 . LOCATION: Lot 3 of the Hoag Subdivision is located on the steep, forested hillside south of Ute Avenue, just to the east of the Aspen Chance Subdivision. ZONING: Lot 3 is zoned C - Conservation. BACKGROUND: The Hoag Subdivision was approved by the Aspen City Council on October 18 , 1971 . 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 access provided to Lot 3 , although it was not shown as an ingress/egress access. It should be noted that each of the five lots in the Hoag Subdivision are on steep terrain and contain limited building sites. The slope of Lot 3 varies from approximately 54% to 87% , as calculated from the topographic map prepared by the Cooper Aerial Survey Company. Two identified avalanche tracks go through this property, further limiting location of a building site . On July 20, 1976 , the City Planning Commission approved the "Virden 8040 Greenline Review" for a single-family home on Lot 3 , Hoag Subdivision. Schematics of the design and locations of the house and garage were presented in the 1976 application, in an attempt to help identify and propose mitigation measures for the hazards of develop- ment. An avalanche hazard report was prepared for Lot 3 by Frutiger and Borland. lIn Virden' s plan, the garage was located in the hillside off of the Midland right-of-way and the house was up and to the east ' from the garage . A temporary construction road would be built to the building site and then revegetated. The conditions for the 1978 approval included: 1 . Revegetation of the temporary construction road. 2. Only trees necessary for building construction and utility purposes shall be removed. 3 . It shall be recognized by appropriate. legal documents that the City of Aspen is not held liable for any avalanche damage as a result of the approval . 4. An analysis of the building design in relation to the avalanche danger shall be completed by a registered professional engineer. 4 _ • • 5 . The following comments from the July 9 , 1976 Engineering Depart- ment memorandum were also incorporated into the conditions of ap- proval . a. A water booster system will almost certainly be required to obtain adequate water pressure at the site. b. A condition of approval of the Hoag Subdivision was that no building permit be issued until a commitment for sewer service has been made with Aspen Metro Sanitation District . c. Special consideration should be given to the structural design of the buildings as the garage would be in the avalanche overflow area and the house would be near although outside the main avalanche chute. This 1976 action is relevant to Mr . Barker ' s present application because (1) the issues are still largely the same; and ( 2) if this application were denied, then the prior approval would still be valid. The Nordic Council trail presently extends from the Aspen Mountain Ski Area to just above Aspen Chance at a width of four ( 4) feet . Prior to studying Barker 's proposal, the Nordic Council wanted to construct a trail traversing the mountainside, staying approximately 20 to 30 feet in elevation above the Midland right-of-way. Present plans are to widen the existing trail to ten feet width and to follow an alignment that drops through Hoag Subdivision Lot 3 to a point of intersection with the Midland right-of-way. This intersection is approximately , where the garage was to be located on the 1976 site plan. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE CODE: Section 24-6 .2 (b) describes the review criteria for the 8040 Greenline Review, and is attached for your review. PLANNING OFFICE REVIEW: A. Referral Agency Comments 1 . Engineering Department - In the September 19, 1985 , memo- randum from the Assistant City Engineer (Attachment D) , the following concerns were raised: a. The Barker development plan for the intended structure is inadequate for review. b. Easements through the property that the Barker driveway would utilize must be shown. c. The Nordic Council proposal refers to the removal of all excavated materials from the trail construction . Perhaps the same practice should be used for Barker ' s driveway. d. A registered engineer should address landslide and snow removal issues involved in the building and maintenance of Barker ' s driveway. e. Adequate water pressure and sewer hook-up should be provided to the site. Utility easements appear to be adequate. f. The site is located in the following hazard areas identified on 1041 maps: (i) Severe wildfire hazard; ( ii) Potential avalanche area. g. The applicant may wish to contact the Colorado Geologic Survey for a site specific analysis of potential geologic hazards . 2 S • Vi h. There should be a current . assessment of the avalanche danger to the site and proposed structure. i. A drainage plan and calculations must be submitted for Engineering Department review prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2 . Fire Marshall - In the October 1 , 1985 memorandum from Jim Wilson, the following comments were made : a. There are problems providing fire protection services to the site because of the length (700 feet ) and width ( 14 feet ) of the driveway and the absence of a fire hydrant within 500 feet of the future house. b. If water service can be provided to a future residence, a fire-sprinkler system should be installed, solving the access and fire hydrant problems. c. Substantial thinning of vegetation is required to create a " safety zone" around the building site , mitigating wildfire hazards caused by development. 3 . Water Department - In the September 20 , 1985 memorandum from Jim Markalunas, it is stated that the applicant must furnish evidence of a utility easement and install a meter . A booster pump and pressure tank system may be necessary to increase water pressure . If a fire hydrant is required, than a flow analysis water main extension, booster pump and pumper type hydrant are necessary. 4. U.S. Forest Service - In a conversation with Greg Thompson of the U. S. Forest Service on September 16 , 1985 , it was explained that an environmental assessment will be conduct- ed for the portion of the proposed driveway on USFS land. A _ Special Use application made by the City is required for the Nordic Council 's use of the Midland right-of-way. 5 . Pitkin County Planning Engineer and Attorney - Pitkin County staff determined that a 1041 environmental review is not required for the Nordic Council Trail located in the County' s jurisdiction. However, the Nordic Council must provide more information and a statement of commitments for the project . Regarding the proposed driveway, it was determined that the County would not conduct its own 1041 review and would forward the City' s and Forest Service ' s reviews to the County P&Z for their review and decision- making. STAFF COMMENTS:. The Planning Office has the following comments: 1 . Lot 3 of the Hoag Subdivision is an approved subdivision lot . Given the environmental and service-related problems associated with developing the site , we would have recommended denial if this were a request for a new subdivision. 2. The development plan for the house site is not adequately detailed for Greenline Review. However, based on the avalanche tracks , the terrain and potential access, it is clear that the only possible building site is within the building envelope indicated in Barker ' s proposal . A future Greenline Review should be conducted for a specific development plan of the building site. 3 . In addition to all of the concerns expressed by referral agen- cies, the Planning Office is concerned with the loss of trees and the visibility of the proposed developments. The techniques of making trail and road cuts to minimize disturbance are particu- larly important to the acceptability of these proposals. Based 3 f • • on several site visits, it appears that the trail , drive-way, and house site would not be very visible from the valley floor of Aspen and could mainly be seen from across the valley at a higher elevation. Regarding development techniques and the loss of trees, it is felt that with conditions suggested by referral agency comments and the careful attention of the applicants, we can be assured that the projects will not unduly disturb the hillside and forest . 4. The Nordic Council Trail is proposed to be 10 feet wide in order to accommodate a Piston Bully to groom the trail and set tracks. While this width is in excess of a minimum, more primitive cross-country ski trail, it appears to be necessary in order to create the quality trail system that was envisioned in the approved Trails Element of the Master Plan. 5 . The Barker building envelope is not located within the setbacks of the lot ; and a variance would be required in order to build there . At the time of the Greenline Review for a specific development plan, application for a variance should be made. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval for the portion of the Nordic Council Trail on Lot 3 , Hoag Subdivision , subject to the following conditions: 1 . The trail shall be constructed with the minimum disturbance of land, including the removal of excavated materials, and cutting as few trees as possible and generally on the up-slope of the trail so as not to make it visible. 2 . Revegetation of the disturbed areas shall be accomplished through spreading an appropriate seed mix. 3 . The Nordic Council shall consult a registered engineer to determine the stability and necessary lay back of the trail cut prior to construction of the trail . 4. The Nordic Council shall submit a statement to the City Attorney waiving City liability for avalanche damage and harm to persons using the trail . 5 . The Nordic Council shall post signs and station personnel at entrances to the trail so as to close the trail when it is determined that avalanche risks are high . 6 . A special use permit application for use of the Midland right-of- way from the Forest Service shall be prepared by the Nordic Council and approved by the USFS prior to use of that segment of the trail. The Planning Office recommends approval for the access road for the Barker Greenline Review subject to the following conditions: 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 4 . • 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 . Appropriate legal documents shall be submitted to the City Attorney waiving City liability for avalanche damage and harm to persons using the driveway. 8 . 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. 9 . 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. 10 . A fire sprinkler system shall be installed in the structure. Wildfire mitigation measures shall be addressed in the site development Greenline review application. 11 . A draiange plan should be submitted as part of the site develop- ment 8040 Greenline Review. SB.37 5 in .1 le A• - ,,, .• ; r �( /I 'AVI NI II -.... • A4• I , 1 i / •t— \\ ,' .'� I,..'.. �P a ' t I I Cr rI, r'•-" it .. // ` .ui Rl l• / • 5. • I. pti_ • i _. n: AL / A 'r i • 'f'- .I. co- • • • • • Vin' r r .,n � �.,/.- .� (. • • rf t r i j • • 1 X. • ,,rt q.'„ • • _ i i..(g1 1 �' 1• q 3 w , ",. •� • i ‘1 \ :• • it r • 1 r' .. I; \ . . • ' •S ' • • • ` .i 'h 11 I• Q '1+, d J� I J • p. I _ � d %, f' I . i A • / I , • To: Steve Burnstein, City Planning Office From: Craig Ward, Exec. Dir., Aspen/Snowmass Nordic Council Date: Sept 19, 1985 RE: 8040 Review of The Mountain Edge Trail of Ute Ave Dear Steve, Relative to our discussion yesterday, I am submitting this memo to indicate our desire to seek review by the City P&Z on Sept 24. The City has already approved partial funding of the trail excavation and improvements that can be accomplished in October of this year. The following easements going east to west have been obtained and will be in place before construction commences: 1) Mr. Jack Barker is agreeable to giving us an easement on his permit with the Forest Service. 2) The Hoag Subdivision has a trail easement running through its entire length east/west. 3) Mr. Barker is willing to give a new easement through Lot /t3 to join the existing hand-built trail. 4) The existing trail presently goes all the way to Little Nell. Landowners here include Ray Montgomery, Aspen Chance, Inc., Guard Moses, and the Aspen Skiing Co., and they have agreed to the trail and its alignment. I will be prepared to give the Planning and Zoning Commission a thorough presentation on the 24th. Please, if there are any last minute items you might need from me, call 925-4790. • ASPEN PITKINIEGIONAL BUILDING DEPARTMENT SEP 2 4 1985 [1.)) MEMORANDUM Date: September 23, 1985 TO: Steve Burstein, Planning FROM: Patsy Newbury, Zoning SUBJECT: Mountain Green Line Review The proposed trail and access change for Hoag Subdivision lot three appears in the, following 1041 areas , although the City Code is a little unclear on the enforcement of this requirement . The area appears in the following areas of concern: Non-occupancy land Potential avalanche area Moderate to high visual vulnerability Slopes 30% to 40% Faults also appear in this area I guess my main concern for the trail is the potential avalanche area. Some mitigation of the problem should occur. PN: lo offices: mail address: 517 East Hopkins Avenue. 506 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-5973 Aspen, Colorado 81611 1 ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: STEVE BURSTEIN, PLANNING OFFICE FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS SUBJECT: HOAG SUBDIVISION LOT 3 GREENLINE REVIEW DATE: SEPTEMBER 20 , 1985 AOR 1 IP We have reviewed the:rove preliminary application and can only comment, because of lack of information, 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. If the applicant is required to provide fire protection, i.e. , a fire hydrant, an exact elevation would be needed to determine the pressure in order to ascertain what the flow would be from the hydrant. If a fire hydrant is required (not required by the Water Department) , the applicant would have to construct a 6" main to the fire hydrant and would have to enter into a main ex- tension agreement with the Water Department. 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. The minimum pressure for a fire hydrant, if required, should be at least 25 PSI . The fire hydrant would need to be a pumper type in order to hook a booster pump to it. If these conditions can be met, the Water Department can furnish water upon application and payment of a water permit. JM:ab • • LAW OFFICES BROOKE A. PETERSON A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE ASPEN,COLORADO 81611 1303)925-8166 September 9 , 1985 HAND DELIVERED Mr. Steven Burstein County of Pitkin/City of Aspen Planning Office City Hall 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re : Barker 8040 Greenline Review Dear Steve , Please allow this letter to serve as an application on behalf of my client for approval of an access road to be con- structed to his property (Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision) , and for the approval of the construction of a recreational trail to be utilized for cross country skiing and for hiking in the summer along an easement to be granted to the City of Aspen across Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision in the event that the above referenced access road is approved, and for the designation of a building envelope, all as shown on the drawings accompanying this appli- cation. We believe that the design of the proposed road is the best creation of access to the logical building envelope on Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision for a variety of reasons. First, the road will be constructed without any "switch- backs". Given the topography and the vegetation in the area, including many large pine trees, the road will be well shielded from visibility, as it follows the natural slope of the land. The access will be located at the east end of the property and will be less visible from the City of Aspen and from Red Mountain than any other road which may be built on the western end of the property. This road will facilitate the construction of a single family residence on the previously subdivided and approved lot. The criteria referred to in Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Section 24-6.2 were addressed in the review process in 1976 and therefore will not be addressed again here. Contrary to the I • • Mr. Steven Burstein September 9 , 1985 Page Two 8040 Greenline approval which was granted in 1976 for the con- struction of a residence with a detached garage, this access road may allow the construction of one structure rather than two, and therefore should be more compatible with the considera- tion contained in Section 24-6.2 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen. In order to meet the concerns expressed in Sub-Paragraphs 4, 6 and 7 of Paragraph (b) , Section 24-6.2 , the road has been designed by Collins Engineers to take advantage of the porosity and natural stability of the rock in this area, so as to minimize the crossing of avalanche paths in this area , and to provide for adequate drainage of the site so as to prevent soil erosion and runoff. Further, efforts have been made to minimize the number and amount of vegetation which will be removed or disturbed by the construction of the access road. The concerns expressed in Sub-Paragraphs 8 and 9 of Paragraph (b) , Section 24-6.2 will be met by the designation of a building envelope as proposed which will not, by its configuration, allow a spread out, but rather a structure that will "step down" the grade of the mountain, thereby harmonizing with the terrain. The proposed recreational trail will be linked to the master trail system presently being proposed by the Aspen/ Snow mass Nordic Council. As you are aware, Mr. Barker and Craig Ward of the Aspen/Snowmass Nordic Council have spent a great deal of time attempting to find an acceptable location for the trail on Mr. Barker ' s property. As an avid cross country skier, Mr. Barker is sensitive to the needs of the cross country skier. You will note on the enclosed map, that the trail crosses Lot 3 and joins into the presently existing public trail access ease- ment shown on the existing plat for the Hoag Subdivision. The design of this trail will also follow the existing grade, with- out "switchbacks", and should result in the least disturbance to the terrain, again due to the fact that every effort will be made to preserve all large trees, and that the trail will have no "switchbacks". As noted, the proposed trail will also con- nect to, and allow the use of a great deal of the presently existing trail access. As all parties have recognized that this trail use is incompatible with the use for access to Lot 3 , Hoag Subdivision, this proposal minimizes the amount of any new trail construction in this area. Furthermore, a trail along this alignment will be less costly to construct. Again, we feel that the recreational trail meets those considerations expressed in Section 24-6.2 of the Municipal Code. . • Mr. Steven Burstein September 9 , 1985 Page Three Given the topography of Lot 3, both Mr. Barker and the representatives of the Aspen/Snowmass Nordic Council believe that the proposed road and the relocation of a part of the trail easement is the best solution to the dilemma of the incompati- bility of a road and a recreational trail suitable for inclusion in the Aspen/Snowmass Nordic system. Every effort will be utilized to maintain and preserve all existing vegetation and to minimize the visual impacts of both the road and the trial as much as is possible. I would add that the Forest Service has given tentative approval to the realignment of the road for access to Lot 3. I would hope that your site inspection and the discus- sions we have conducted would lead you to be able to make a recommendation that this access road and trail development be permitted, so as to enable construction to begin immediately after approval. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours very truly , BROOK 'ETERSON, A PrOfessi-.nal Co pora , ion i By: i ,/e Ii �- :r••ko A. Peterson BAP: jms Enclosure cc : martin Kahn, Esq. Jack Barker MEMORANDUM To: Steve Burstein, Planning Office From: Chuck Roth, Assistant City Engineer C- Date: September 19, 1985 Re: Nordic Council/Barker 8040 Review Having reviewed the above referenced application, the Engineering Department has the following comments : 1 . The application seems to be suffficient for the Nordic Council request but insufficient for the Barker request. Section 24-6.2 (b) requires a development plan. The submission contains an adequate development plan for comment on the proposed driveway, but there is not an adequate development plan for the intended structure to be able to comment on review criteria (6) , (8) and (9) . 2. There appears to be a misconception about the access to this property. The subdivision plat shows a utility and public trail easement, but this easement is not for ingress/egress to Lot 3, Hoag _ Subdivision. Lot 3 abuts a parcel of "BLM to City of Aspen" land which is for "access and cul-de-sac" to Ute Avenue. See the recorded subdivision plat recorded at Book 4 , Page 218 . The proposed driveway appears to be adequate in terms of alignment and appears to be the intended alignment at the time of subdivision. The 1971 City Engineer comments calls for "proof of ownership across M. S. No. 5190 New Foundland Lode. " The subdivision plat indicates this ownership as being part of Lot 3 , but the submitted driveway alignment topographic map does not reflect this. We need to see this ownership on the topo map to confirm that the applicant has clear title or use rights to all the property utilized for the driveway. The Nordic Council application refers to removing excavated materials from the site, but the Barker application does not make any reference to this construction detail, although their driveway sections seem to indicate that most of the proposed driveway is cut and almost no fill. Perhaps removal of all materials excavated for the driveway should be a condition of this approval. The 1971 review also called for "a letter from a registered engineer ( State of Colorado ) indicating that the proposed dozer road designed will eliminate any danger to buildings or structures on or adjacent to this particular site. " This condition should be carried forward, and in addition the engineer should address the feasability " Aft- Page 2 Nordic Council/Barker 8040 Review September 19 , 1985 of snow removal on the driveway, if there will be room to push the snow off the road or if it will have to be hauled away. Also, the engineer or a consulting geologist should be required to comment on the geologic/soils stability of the hillside after the road is cut and on the need for retaining walls or tied back walls to secure the slope. 3 . There is a note on the plat that "no building permit will be issued . . . . until a commitment has been entered into . . . for an extension of a sewer line. " Also, the Water Department must be checked with to see if there is adequate water pressure to the site or if the developer will be required to perform any water delivery related construction or other commitments. Otherwise, there appear to be adequate utility easements in the Hoag Subdivision. 4 . Section 20-17 (b) (6) states "Fire lanes and emergency access easements twenty (20) feet in width shall be provided where required by the city fire marshall . " The submitted road cross section is only 14 feet wide. The fire marshall will have to be consulted to see if a 20 foot wide driveway is required and also if a. fire hydrant is required. Also, the fire marshall should comment on the need for a turn-around at the structure for fire fighting equipment or other acceptable mitigation such as sprinkler systems or fire resistant construction in the structure. 5 . A review of the Colorado State University Environmental Resources Analysis - 1974 Maps reveals the following informa- tion: (a) "Wildfire Hazard Area Map - Severe Hazard - Trees" (b) "Snow Avalanche Areas - Potential Avalanche Area - Slopes steep enough for small avalanches under certain conditions" (c) "Potential Geologic Hazards" - This area is not indicated as a potential geologic hazard. If the applicant wished to satisfy himself further in this regard, he should contact the Colorado Geologic Survey for a site specific analysis of potential geologic hazard. 6. The files contain a 1973 letter from 'a registered engineer and a Swiss Institute of Avalanche Research representative which discuss the avalanche danger. Since this review is occurring twelve years later, and since there is a new proposed building envelope, we should have a current assessment of the avalanche danger to the site and proposed structure. Page 3 Nordic Council/Barker 8040 Review permit September 19 , 1985 A previous review also called for proof of avalanche insurance which should still be required. 7 . The proposed construction mu st comply Y with Section 20-17 (f) . A drainage plan and calculations must be submitted for Engineering Department review prior to issuance of a building permit. "Short-term on-site detention storage shall be provided to maintain the historical rate of run-off for the 100-year storm from the undeveloped site. " ( Section 20- 17 (f) (2) ) cc: Jay Hammond, City Engineer Jim Wilson, Chief Building Official CR/cr/nordic. barker. 8040 f • • • MEMORANDUM Date: October 1 , 1985 TO: Steve Burstein, Planning FROM: Jim Wilson, Fire Marshal E% SUBJECT: Nordic Council/Barker 8040 Greenline Review The driveway alignment shown as access to. Lot 3 of the Hoag Subdivision is inadequate for fire department access . The length of approximately 700 feet from the east property line to Ute Avenue far exceeds the minimum. A maintained, all-weather road at least 20' wide must be provided to within 1550 feet of all sides of the future building. In a low density area such as this , a fire hydrant is required within 500 feet of the building. Common alternate methods of providing water supply for fire flow may be impossible because of the terrain. However, if a water service can be provided to a future residence, a fire-sprinkler system can be installed within the ,structure, solving the access problem and the fire hydrant problem. Because this lot is in a wildfire area with dense vegetation and steep slopes, a "safety zone" around the building envelope must be provided. Substantial thinning of the vegetation is required. Site design requirements for a "safety zone" are provided in Wildfire Safety Guidelines for Rural Homeowners, published by the Colorado State Forest Service at Colorado State University. Copies are available through the Building Department. JW/ar LAW OFFICES BROOKE A. PETERSON LS © f 0 E A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION D 315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE ASPEN,COLORADO 81611 SEP[n 2 7 1985 13031 925-8166 September 27 , 1985 HAND DELIVERED Mr. Steven Burstein County of Pitkin/City of Aspen Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Barker 8040 Greenline Application Dear Steve, Enclosed please find a copy of the Easement Agreement between my client and Smuggler Durant Mining Corporation, the owners of the Newfoundland Lode. Although this easement has not been signed, Martin Kahn, the Smuggler Durant ' s attorney, has assured me that this is not a problem and that the easement agreement has been completed. Please advise me if you have any questions. Yours very truly, BROOKE . PETER • A P u ess onal orp. ation A. 'e ers.n BAP: jms Enclosure cc : Jack Barker • MUTUAL EASEMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made this 4th day of April , 1985, by and between JACK BARKER of Aspen , Colorado (herein "Barker" ) , and SMUGGLER DURANT MINING CORPORATION of New York, New York, (herein "Smuggler Durant" ) . I I 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 � I of Pitkin, State of Colorado; and WHEREAS , Smuggler Durant is the owner of certain real ; property known as .;the New Foundland Lode, County of Pitkin, State jof Colorado; and jj WHEREAS , the parties are desirous of agreeing upon an easement for driveway improvements and ski access on their ( respective properties for their mutual benefit; and WHEREAS, the parties by this agreement wish to make �j provisions for the unobstructed use of the easement, the driveway ! improvements and ski access for ingress and egress and for the maintenance of said improvements for their mutual benefit. • • NOW, THEREFORE, for Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, each in hand paid to the other and in consideration of the mutual covenants and easements herein contained, it is agreed as follows: 1. Mutual Easement. Barker hereby grants to Smuggler Durant and Smuggler Durant hereby grants to Barker, a non- exclusive easement of ingress and egress over so much of their respective property as is necessary to accommodate the ski access and driveway improvements , for vehicular traffic, and for the installation, repair, construction, placement, maintenance, replacement and operation of such underground piPes, lines or conduits as may be necessary to convey water, gas or electricity to any party's property, the exact location of which shall be - designated upon survey to be prepared by Alpine Surveys, and subject to the reasonable approval of the parties, it being their understanding that the easement on the Smuggler Durant property shall generally be in the northerly portion thereof. Both parties further recognize that their driveway shall go across property owned by other parties including but not limited to the United States Forest Service, and that all references as to the sharing of the cost of construction, maintenance and repair shall also pertain to the portion of the driveway on the property of other parties. In no event, however, shall the easement be greater than fifteen (15) feet in width. In the event either party install utilities of any type within the easement and the other party wishes at a later date to "tap on" to said utilities, that party may do so upon the payment 2 S • • to the party installing the utilities in the first instance of an Iamount equal to fifty ( 50 % ) percent of the cost of the installation of said utilities . Anything to the contrary herein notwithstanding, in the event the City of Aspen or Pitkin County requires any maintenance to be performed upon the easement as a condition of any approvals therefore, the costs thereof shall be borne equally by each party. Furthermore, the parties hereby grant to each other , perpetual, mutual, non-exclusive easements over, along and across the land owned by each of them for the purpose of exercising all f of the rights described herein. The parties further agree to execute any and all documents as may be appropriate when the exact legal description of the easement has been prepared by Alpine Surveys in order to evidence the exact location of the easement upon the subject properties. 2. Obstructions. The parties hereto agree not to obstruct, impede, or interfere, one with the other, in the reasonable use of such driveway improvements for the purpose of ingress and egress to and from the respective properties, or with the use of the driveway for ski access by the parties hereto or any other third party. 3. Maintenance. The parties hereto agree to share the cost for the construction and maintenance of the respective 3 I I i driveway improvements. In the event one party chooses to erect improvements upon its property prior to the time when the other party does so, the party first erecting improvements shall bear the entire cost of snow removal until such time as the other party begins the construction of improvements on its property. The improvements shall be constructed in a usable, neat and uniform manner. Anything to the contrary contained herein notwithstanding, any damage due to the negligence of any person who uses or has used the driveway improvement pursuant to authority of either party hereto, shall be the responsibility of the party granting such authority. 4. Future Improvements. The parties hereto agree that if the location of any roads in the City of Aspen or the County of Pitkin are changed,,and such change affects either of the parties hereto, that they will meet for the purpose of relocating any easements , or for the purpose of creating any new easements as may be necessary. They further agree to cooperate with each other if the relocation or the creation of these new easements is necessary to the end that neither will be denied full access to its property for the purposes discussed herein. 5. No Interference. The exercise of the rights granted herein by either party shall not unreasonably interfere with the use of the properties burdened hereby: 6. 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 I I 4 • mutually usable right of enjoyment on each other is carried out . 7. Notices. All notices , demands and communications i required hereunder shall be served or given to the respective , party at its respective address as set forth below or as I otherwise designated in the manner set forth herein. Any ; Inotice, demand or communication shall be given by personal service, or certified mail , return receipt requested with firsti I class postage pre-paid thereon, and unless sooner, received three ; (3) days after the date of certification. The addresses of they � I Iparties hereto are as follows: Jack Barker Post Office Box 3379 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Smuggler Durant Mining •;� Corporation c/o Martin Kahn, Esq. _ . 415 East Hyman Avenue i Aspen, Colorado 81611 li 8. Assignment. This agreement shall not be assignable whole or in part , without the written consent of the other party, ; which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. 9. Attorneys ' Fees. Should any party hereunder be ; required to resort to legal or equitable process for the enforcement of any of the provisions of this agreement , the I prevailing party shall be entitled to collect from the other ; party all of its reasonable attorneys' fees, expenses and costs. ; Jurisdiction for any legal proceeding shall be within the II; District Court , Pitkin County, Colorado. is 5 • • 10. Running of Benefits and Burdens. All provisions of this instrument, including the benefits and burdens, run with the lands owned by the parties herein which are affected hereby, and are binding upon and enure 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. SMUGGLER DURANT MINING CORPORATION By: Y 4000 .AC BARKER STATE OF COLORADO ) COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing document was acknowledged and sworn to before me this day of f , 1985, by JACK BARKER. My commission expires: IC.Z4- b- Witness my hand and official seal . _ 4V/1A.b' j/) Notary Public STATE OF ss . COUNTY OF ) The foregoing document was acknowledged and sworn to before me this day of , 1985, by as of SMUGGLER DURANT MINING CORPORATION. My commission expires: Witness my hand and official seal . Notary Public 6 ,j n4� � ;, • • Jack Barker P.O. Box 33 g Aspen, Co. 6151: 925-6560 Mr. Steven Burstein Sept. 23, 1965 i:oluntq of Pitkin/City of Aspen Planning Office City Hall 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, Co. 81611 Re.: Barker 8040 Greenl i ne Review Dear Steve, • As you requested I have indicated on our drawings (copies attached) where the Pitkin Co. and Aspen City boundries are in relation to our proposed driveway. Because the boundry does not seem to follow the boundry line of Lot 3, i have also shown the Lot 3 boundries in yellow. I have measured the length of the driveway within the County to be 550 feet and within the City it is 140 feet. What is more important is that this driveway will eventually be providing access to a homesite that is within the City. The homesite is where all of construction of any value will occur. The Construction cost estimates for the driveway are around twenty thousand dollars. But the value of the driveway construction is next to nothing when you consider that it is only a narrow track in the earth. As we read the land use code, it refers to the value of improvements and not to actual or projected costs. For this reason our position is that the driveway within the county should not need a seperate review process. This is especially doing valid since the U.S. Forest Service will be doin their own E.I.S. • portion of driveway. on that Fcrt�_n cf the dr� .e�rtiay. Regarding your concerns about the Forest Service having specific standards for roads built on their lard; Greg Thompson did indicate that they prefer roads to be built with a "one to one and a half" angle on the bank, but he said that their engineer may recommend a "one to one angle" after they do an on site inspection. Mr. Thompson made this statemnt in response to our question about their standards and to my explanation that • we would be trying to build this driveway within the smallest possible - path through this heavily forested area. Mr. Thompson did say that it would be October or November befor he could complete their review of our request for a change of easment through the Forrest Service land. Craig Ward was present to explain his needs for the trail system. By_ the end of our meeting, Mr. Thompson seemed to be much more positive about our driveway and trail plan than he was in the begining. /He was very helpful] in getting our proposal on track for their review process now that he really understands our plans. • • • Jack. Barker . P.n. Box 3379 Aspen, Co. 61612 'x•25-6560 I have had meetings last week with the owners of the Newfoundland Load property and they are willing to grand rrie an easment across their property, as i will grant them an easment across rriy property, and we will jointly apply for an easemnt through the Forrest Service property. Brooke Peterson will be forewarding those agreements to your office as prat of our review package. I have just talked to June Howard, the owner of lot 4, who informed me that her partner in the property is out of town for a couple of weeks. As soon a we can get together with them, we should have no trouble completing an easment agreement for the section of driveway that crosses the detached triangle of lot 4. I see no problem in this issue for two main reasons; first is that Ms. Howard likes the idea of having no vehicular access on the old road which comes very close to the bedroom area of her home; and second is that the detached triangle is of no use to their residence. In answer to your quet,tion about the revegetation of the disturbed areas of this proposed construction; we plan to haul away almost all of the rock and dirt so that there will not be any disturbance on the downhill side of an d y we will spread seed the . the driveway; and ,�e ��X11 ti.pr ead an appropriate ,..�ed rr�ih on .he u�lnli bank where there is disturbance. My experience in building and landscaping the home on lot 4 is that it takes very little effort to make the disturbed areas look natural. This is because the ground is composed of small rocks with a few shrubs and flowers growi ng up through the rocks. Because • there is not any soil da deal with, there is little chance for errosion.in the usual sense. I do not propose to add topsoil to the disturbed areas because it would look unnatural and would create an errosion problem where none exists. Because of the natural stability of the interlocking square shaped . rock that extends deep into the hillside ih this area, we are looking at a very simple and stable driveway construction plan. The pine and spruce trees add to the stability of the soil and will also hide this proposed driveway. This is also true of the proposed building envelope which is high enough above the old road so that there will be a large stand of trees that wOuld completely hide any house. Even though we have a building site that is in a sensitive area above the BO4ogreenline, there will be almost no impact. it will be necessary to ask for exemption of the 100' front setback requirement for the "C" zoning on this lot. I would also prefer to use the 15' side setback as indicated on our drawings rather than the 30' required "C" zone. -This will be the subject of a separate application to the City. • • Jack Barker P.O. Box 3379 • Aspen, Co. 61512 925-6560 I am sure you agree that we have picked the best and realy the only appropriate building site on this property given the other natural constraints. As both Brooke Peterson and i have mentioned to you, we are not prepared to design a house for the lot untill we get approval of the dirveway and specific building envelope. We understand that there will be some special requirements because of the proximity to the slide area to the West of this site and the steepness. We have had the Engineers check the existing grade and they say that it all less than 30%. We look foreward to our Oct. 6th review meeting. Call Brooke or me if you have any further questions. Sinc:er-ly, 9_11.2 WAA2, pu a I- 6&6 v+,1 1-f,e, 2: i:: . fire t E C�} h itie.MK Dir�s�.! i rs d ,Iy-It in Y• Loi 'l if irza,o00 b e;t:n,Rtt! Ieay 4 ro.,� 9-`10 —74Z ' Ioti tievATok 1.4w441 j-�. eive"S relt 1.1° ►. 1n44 IZ i mh.rdie6e4 wii-A, ro : Lour„J coils - Wksit V Id r t klJkie IeKOb ft. PtAitifm— ktrutit. s 10/2v 5t4C;1, , • __B 7 Wit ? �nry ��/111�1�Ay atinrirc Ltinf. �'•'/s��6 ()1 w4L41 4,1146,,A. ” b�I kid' cdyva c44,47,44 C '` 2 one 0 0 jsui, iOt w91+1, 0 0 ' cyDid • wt.A od' 3 D' sill y A 3 0 ' rep, y BAR— ►►oreq. ;, gd! S 't 2�— � 1 13.E g_ii, • � � �.. �' � La��O � 141—�m� t� 1 wr:it.{f',�•5 qv rri� rt.-i-tv, 114 .H.�/ 14)prel■d U? ranii y irk' • CDvk(o I Lid iiri.t Aivp 10r p'(1''t+l.l 03F5 11,4i~1p tat 4IDpfCM :If JostbQ 6.,„_e 4 it ki4 47 bwaIiw;,1 fl►+Y ti” Z Q-41a ft 5.4 I)tt iceA4l0" Must r✓r,t on,f'1,04.,i TSH))Off— p,16,11)) hot FL-i-, — — 1414 t o bplc If pi exj_fios,) 4.'54444 1 1 ; I 1 .1) /2"V— s l or h V _ ,,,,i ,fir yif ywth c J wfi 14,4 fif l LA _ Y,d441 11 of dam , 1A;q 1k-#. J3 lull( )a Vnrn 0-1/25 rrf yir{l trirtIviat ;Ise / 1 -ki,wirkjio,yC - v y4SN1Yio- /lvr — ww)in1 ✓rtrpp oc, 6v/ 4erc5rfrikx ivpr/j, ("ail — ' d,,A v, rim'1 Il ,o, yi 1 1 4 e r 4 1 ih cv✓plewv'• 1 D • p"Lt4 h i t i `it;)j I(.4 p. v 4,441:7, 1 114.1° — eliktif4.)1 C/' Pwitnillip slow — 6t1Y4k pk79-41; law i i.41,-itt d- afwi ,1- 4 Cr y Vie c. — �� We, ti M-Sb w �� we ��e psk�„,�cor ion, f 61f f /A vl �rrti r � To ,444 Ifvt. p1AN` r o r�4'° idJ ►,e }PC41;•1 i 510,1jrz, ° DtKilyrne4 044 10)4 cksierly5 .f rohlo (A4))).i4 (4) r,1„1-;ok ,, 1-61 K ( 1i,„ At\)$ z) / t .- IYiY 3 Col '. rp / - y) rev,s fIAh , 1�'Prh1,1.h1v? 4041, 66h , c}- /Qi P. f )q1' 7) if) I o+-ti it 1'irc k 43a) _ / re)kPV4 j 4 vm,tiviiti TL) r_114.71_ ffrki 1141 tv-al ? 6� ��� r� L�ti '0 �.n (PATER , M4 ��� f RDa s rf'e re ypeiefo+iby, 1)161-m444 (L )C I e+€v] rEVe, T5') GAvuol ^02‘40,..J-44.triti-prAll -61/4/ rto 65 P114 ti t4ritii 1044/0,141/tt 71 ,1/14 A I le , o f-r.rA,Cork`►'” 1 • • D E © COWE SEP 1 3 1985 ib MEMORANDUM 348-85 TO : Steve Burstein, Planner Alan Richman, Planning & Develop7yt Director FROM: Harold L . Schilling, City Manage RE: PLANNING FEE WAIVER -- 8040 REVIEW DATE: September 11 , 1985 Council agreed at meeting September 9 , 1985 that filing/proces- sing fees for 8040 Review in re : Nordic Council Ute Trail application be waived. klm . -----.. •-- - • 4 • • MEMORANDUM • • TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission • • FROM: Alan Richman, Planning- Office RE: ifenmreter 8040 Greenl i ne Amendment • DATE: July 14, 1981 i • • Zoning: R-15 Location: Lot 14, Block 2 of the Anthony Acres on the lower portion of Aspen Mountain ua-bovesthe� Durant Condominiums near the top of Galena Street. Lot Size: • 78,408' square feet (1. 3 acres ) Background: On February 10, 1981 approval to Chris Henmretergtonremodel�tGee8l i tz eHous The conditions .of your approval were as follows : House. 1. That the applicant install the following fire safety measures : STAi�, r, o - • tairs at both the northeast and �� /ter 1 southwest 'ends of the structure to allow °i�/ 5or-1°'HwS�e- c�ivr> o�- access -o the fire Hydrant on the northeast peOpO5 O A 0 of Ti Gk„(. Property line; and • - A fire box in the vicinity of the fire hydrant • on the northeast property line supplied with one (1) - two and one-half inch :(2-1/2") to one and one-half inch (1-1/2") grated 2 of one and one-half inch. (1-1/2") sring00 feet hose, two 9 le jack((2) - one and one-half inch (1-1/2") adjustable nozzels and one (1) - forceable entry bar. • y� y3� �2e�Vi ��2. That the applicant mitigate the impacts associated with grading. and construction activities through erosion controls and temporary and permanent land- scaping of the site. • 3. That the applicant execute any documents deemed necessary by the City Attorney to provide a hold harmless clause for the City with regard to fire protection. • • Since the time of that approval , the applicant has r - • pared several alternatives which have been discussed e informally with the Planning Office. The applicant has • now come forward with a revision which differs sufficiently ing from the design you approved to require another review by rior P & Z. lie have attached, for your information, a copy of the applicant's proposal and architectural renderings n ` of the exsiting house, the aproved and proposal you have previously the current proposal . Review Criteria: Section 24-6.2 of the Code establish , which an applicant must address innJ8040Greenline request. These criteria include the following: 1. Existence of Sufficient water pressure and other utilities. 2. Existence of adequate roads for fire protection • and Snow renloval . • , • S- • . Memo: Hemmeter 8040 Greenl i nc Amendment July 14, 1981 Page Three criterion 9, "The reduction of building height and bulk to maintain the open character of the mountain". An addition of 2500 square feet of decking to the existing house dons not appear to be in keeping with the intent of the 8040 Greenline review criteria. The Planning Office recommends that you require the applicant to reduce the magnitude of the expansion of the exterior decks proposed for the Hemmeter residence. Planning Office • Recommendations : The Planning Office recommends that you amend your approval of the Hemmeter remodel by adding the ' • following condition to your three previous conditions of approval : • • 4. The applicant agreeing to reduce the magnitude of the expansion of the exterior decks by eliminating those portions which are most visually obtrusive from town and the ski slope. • • • • • • • • • • •fsr • • • • • • • $q •,f,;• ss t 4 ,•m `> L.,e>r x.: ° 3 • 5 * r . ' ;IC C% .. r L�g. n "sc 5 r . a c1a � � ' ' W� � � �,s �� e W ?K7 �� 441 � � 4 �3,� . � t . , ,.' —� 9. DISPOSITION: � o - P & Z I Approved 2 - Denied Date �' 1 • LO v.,R) n (� kV!' 1. Installation of the fire safety measures described in the Engineering Department's memo dated February 4, 1981, — attached for your review. 2. Mitigation, by the applicant, of the impacts associated with grading and construction activities. Said measures _ should include erosion controls and temporary and perma- - nent landscaping of the site. - • ^9-11k^9^9-11k CD �' ' is • • Council Approved Denied Date Lt.13A-kj:"11 • • • • 10. ROUTING: 4 Attorney Building Engineering Other • • • • • • Aspen/PitkitinoR atnning Office 130 south° �aLena street aspen ,c}olo°ra°dto 81611 To: Jim Wilson, Fire Marshall Chuck Roth, Assistant City Engineer From: Steve Burstein, Planning Office Re: Nordic Coucil Greenline Review, Hoag Subdivision Lot 3 (Barker) Greenline Review Date: September 12, 1985 Attached for your review are two applications for 8040 Greenline Review. The two applications, submitted by the Nordic Council and Jack Barker respectively, both pertain to Lot 3 of the Hoag Subdivision and it was felt that they - should be reviewed together. Due to the special request made by the Nordic Council to have this review undertaken before the end of the Fall season (with the intent to buidid the trail this season) I ann requesting a shortened review period. Please review these applications and return your referral comments no later than Tuesday, September 17 , 1985 in order for this office to have a little time to prepare. its prese, tation .before_.the Planning_.and'_Zoning Commission°:5PIM wii'f hand deliver these applications to you to make them__known to you as soon as possible. Thank you for your prompt response. LAW OFFICES BROOKE A. PETERSON A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE ASPEN,COLORADO 81611 (3031 925-8166 June 19 , 1985 HAND DELIVERED Ms. Cindy Houben City of Aspen/ County of Pitkin Planning Office City Hall 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re : Barker Road Dear Cindy, In accordance with our conversation this morning, accompanying this letter are two ( 2) of the proposed road construction maps as prepared by Collins Engineers. I would appreciate it if you would have these documents reviewed by the City Engineer ' s office and inform me as to whether or not they will be adequate for the purposes of the review of this proposed construction by the County. As I explained to you on the telephone, we were most anxious to proceed so in the event that we do receive the requisite approvals , that we are able to commence construction during the present building season. Your assistance and cooperation in expediting the review of this document would be most appreciated . -- Should you have any questions or should I be ab]..e to assist you in any manner whatsoever, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours very truly, BROO. " A. PETE' • , A r ofess ' on. Corpo ation B, • /c .Fr 1:r.oks A. 0e er; .n BAP: jms Enclosure