HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.1115 Ute Ave.18A-88 C.
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED: /W;Y PARCEL ID AN CASE NO.
DATE COMPLETE: L,Sf f-88
STAFF MEMBER: k'
•
PROJECT NAME:�Art12/Jf -6 (f �)(7 1 k P� t(�Project Address_
'
APPLICANT: . r
u i l� .
Applicant Add .s. : 5 , RW, �� .,% , f/
in
REPRESENTAT VE. „ /` _
Representative Address/•i one: I / iL .�I �(2 =
( 95.
TYPE OF APPLICATION:
PAID: 461P NO AMOUNT: 44F4 . 67(/
1 STEP APPLICATION:
P&Z MEETING DATE: 3--4'.‘"(1--D- \ PUBLIC HEARING: YESCNO)
DATE REFERRED: 4 ) '
0 INITIALS: /u
2 STEP APPLICATION:
V CC MEETING DATE: PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO
DATE REFERRED: INITIALS:
REFERRALS:
/:- City Attorney Mtn. Bell School District
V City Engineer Parks Dept. Rocky Mtn Nat Gas
Housing Dir. Holy Cross State Hwy Dept(GW)
Aspen Water if Fire Marshall State Hwy Dept(GJ)
City Electric Fire Chief Bldg:Zon/Inspect
Envir. Hlth. Roaring Fork , Roaring Fork
(Aspen Consol. Transit Energy Center
S.D. Other
FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: 0a4)4( INITIAL: G
City Atty ✓ 7 City Engineer ✓ Bldg. Dept.
Other: Enid• 1-)f4- 11/
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:_ e, 1),e r0( ,♦-Y! Y G G[ti6
CASE DISPOSITION
RAPPAPORT 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW
THIS CASE WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
o the applicant shall provide landscaping material,
including trees, between the circular driveway and Ute
Avenue.
o that only one fireplace be installed and that the
applicant conform with the fireplace ordinance which
will go into effect in July, 1988.
o prior to start of construction a fugitive dust control
plan be submitted to the Environmental Health office;
o if mine waste, waste rock or mine dumps are encountered
during excavation the Environmental Health office
should be contacted;
o a geotechnical engineer should be retained to verify
that the Chen recommendations are implemented correctly
and that a Certificate of Occupancy will only be issued
after the geotechnical engineer is satisfied (in
writing) that all recommendations were followed;
prior to construction a detailed storm drainage plan
and a detailed- revegetation plan shall be submitted to
the Engineering Department; and
,ts culverts and improvements to the existing drainage
ditch shall be part of driveway regrading, this shall
be done to the satisfaction of the Engineering Office.
•
•
MESSAGE DISPLAY
TO Tom Baker
From: Michelle Carline
Postmark: Aug 16,88 9 :32 AM
Subject : From Lee
Message:
Rappaport has applied for a fireplace permit for Lot 5 Hoag
Subdivision (1115 Ute) . In the permit application, he stated that
the building was to have one fireplace which would contain gas logs,
and that there were to be no other stoves or fireplaces.
X
it
I
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Bill Drueding, Zoning Enforcement
FROM: Tom Baker, Principal Planner
RE: Rappaport - Zoning Compliance
DATE: August 16, 1988
The attached Certificate of Zoning Compliance outlines what needs
to be checked by your office; what has been checked by our
office; and what deficiencies exist based upon the Planning
Office review. In summary the applicant must do several things:
-meet the basic zoning issues which your office will check;
-pay a Planning Office fee of $127. 50.
Additionally, condition "C" must be met before issuance of
building permit and condition "E" must be met before issuance of
Certificate of Occupancy.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
A the applicant shall provide landscaping material,
including trees, between the circular driveway and Ute
Avenue.
B that only one fireplace be installed and that the
applicant conform with the fireplace ordinance which
will go into effect in July, 1988.
C prior to start of construction a fugitive dust control
plan be submitted to the Environmental Health office;
D if mine waste, waste rock or mine dumps are encountered
during excavation the Environmental Health office
should be contacted;
E a geotechnical engineer should be retained to verify
that the Chen recommendations are implemented correctly
and that a Certificate of Occupancy will only be issued
after the geotechnical engineer is satisfied (in
writing) that all recommendations were followed;
F prior to construction a detailed storm drainage plan
and a detailed revegetation plan shall be submitted to
the Engineering Department; and
G culverts and improvements to the existing drainage
ditch shall be part of driveway regrading, this shall
be done to the satisfaction of the Engineering Office.
I.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Tom Baker, Principal Planner
RE: Rappaport 8040 Greenline Review
DATE: June 16, 1988
APPLICANT: Rappaport Aspen Account
APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: Sunny Vann
LOCATION: Lot 5, Hoag Subdivision (Ute Ave. across from Ute
Cemetery) , see exhibit A.
ZONING: R-15, PUD, see exhibit A.
PARCEL SIZE: 15, 811 sq ft.
NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS: The subject property is located in
a primarily residential area. Scattered single-family residences
are located along Ute Avenue, 1010 Ute PUD is to the west, Ute
Cemetery and Ute Childrens Park are across the street, the
Benedict Office bldg. and the Aspen Club are to the east.
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: 8040 Greenline Review, see exhibit B,
application.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Exhibits C-I are reports and referral
comments. The only referral agencies with significant comments
are Environmental Health (exhibit H) and Engineering (exhibit I) .
In summary, Environmental Health has the following comments:
- the applicant has indicated that they will install only
one fireplace, but has not indicated how this will be
enforced;
- the fireplace must contain and only be used with gas logs;
- a fugitive dust control plan must be submitted to the
Environmental Health office prior to the start of
construction;
- the applicant should contact Environmental Health if mine
waste, waste rock or mine dumps are encountered during
excavation.
The Engineering Department comments are summarized as follows:
- the recommendations of Chen and Assoc. should be followed
411 111
and a geotechnical engineer should be retained to verity
that the Chen recommendations are implemented. Further, no
Certificate of Occupancy should be issued until the
geotechnical engineer is satisfied that all recommendations
were followed.
- a detailed storm drainage plan must be submitted to the
Engineering Depart.
- a detailed revegetation plan must be submitted to the
Engineering Depart.
- culverts and improvement of the existing drainage ditch
must be part of driveway regrading.
STAFF COMMENTS: The purpose of 8040 greenline review is to:
a. - reduce the impact of development on surface runoff, the
natural watershed and air pollution;
b.- avoid property losses from avalanches, unstable slope, rock
fall and mud slides;
c.- aid in the transition of development from urban uses to
agricultural and forestry uses;
d.- provide for the least disturbance to the terrain and other
natural land features of the area;
e.- guarantee availability of utilities and adequate public
access to proposed development; and
f. - enhance the natural mountain setting.
The Municipal Code has a total of 11 review criteria which must
be met in order to comply with the 8040 greenline review
standards. In addition to referral comments the staff comments
are as follows.
CRITERION
1. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be
located is suitable for development considering its slope,
ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence
and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche
dangers. If the parcel is found to contain hazardous or
toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and revegetate
the soils, or, where necessary, cause them to be removed
from the site to a location acceptable to the City.
RESPONSE
This criterion addresses purposes a and b. The slope of the
site is about 30% and clearly needs a sensitive design. The
2
410
Chen and Lampiris reports (exhibits E and F) identify ways
of mitigating potential hazards, and indicate that
potential hazards are minimal if their recommendations are
followed.
CRITERION
2 . 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
This criterion addresses purposes a and b. Based upon the
referral comments and engineering reports the applicant
complies with this criterion.
CRITERION
3 . The proposed development does not have a significant
adverse affect on the air quality of the City.
RESPONSE
This criterion addresses purpose a. Environmental Health
recommends measures to mitigate this concern.
CRITERION
4 . 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 criterion addresses purposes d and f. The location of
the development is the best the site has to offer, however,
the size of the development seems to expand beyond into
undesirable areas (to the east and southeast) . This
expansion to the east effectively elongates the structures
north facade, giving the design a more massive look or feel
than may really exist. While, staff is concerned about the
generally imposing nature of the north facade (horizontal) ,
which this design dictates, staff is even more concerned
with the vertical aspects of this design. For example, the
design of the north elevation (exhibit B) accentuates the
vertical nature of the structure. In staff' s opinion the
design, a two story vertical wall and a steep (approx. 1: 1)
roof, is not compatible with the terrain on the parcel.
Although this design meets the technical requirements of the
area and bulk standards of this zone district, the staff
feels that the community could benefit from a closer look at
the relationship between the terrain and the structure. An
important factor to consider is that the subject property
will be the last structure on the south side of Ute Avenue
going to the east and the National Forest. This fact
establishes the importance of a good transition from urban
3
•
uses to forest uses.
Additionally, staff feels that the semi circular driveway is
unnecessary development and that direct access to the
garage is a more sensitive way of dealing with the site.
CRITERION
5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable,
disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land
features.
RESPONSE
This criterion addresses purposes d and f. It is difficult
to say that this plan minimizes disturbance to the terrain,
vegetation and natural land features for two reasons. First,
the structure covers a significant portion of the site.
Second, the ingress and egress to this single-family use is
excessive.
CRITERION
6. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the
need for roads, limit cutting and grading, maintain open
space, and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource.
RESPONSE
This criterion addresses purposes c, d and f. In general
the staff feels that this criteria is addressed with the
exception of excessive grading for the driveway and the
preservation of the mountain as a scenic resource. Staff
feels that both the driveway and the building design could
be more sensitive to the mountain/forest setting.
CRITERION
7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the
structure will be designed to blend into the open character
of the mountain.
RESPONSE
This criterion addresses purposes c and f. Staff feels that
the building height, apparent bulk (view from Ute Avenue)
and design (a very long wall which parallels the street) are
not the best effort at blending into the open character of
the mountain.
CRITERIA
8 . Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available
to service the proposed development.
9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed
development, and said roads can be properly maintained.
10. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed
4
•
development so as to ensure adequate access for fire
protection and snow removal equipment.
RESPONSE
Criteria 8, 9 and 10 address purpose e. This development
complies with all aspects of these criteria.
CRITERION
11. Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan
map is dedicated for public use.
RESPONSE
There are no trails proposed for this parcel.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends tabling of the Rappaport 8040
greenline application in order to address the following concerns:
o the driveway design is excessive, the driveway should
provide direct access to the garage from Ute Avenue and
be minimized as much as possible;
o that the applicant demonstrates that this design or
alternate design aids in the transition of development
from urban uses to forestry uses, (purpose c) ;
o that the applicant demonstrates that this design or
alternate design enhances the natural mountain setting,
(purpose f) ;
If the P&Z finds the current design appropriate or finds an
alternate design appropriate, the staff recommends the following
condition:
o the applicant shall provide, to the satisfaction of the
Planning Office, a driveway design which provides
direct access to the garage from Ute Avenue and
minimizes the driveway, as much as possible;
o that only one fireplace be installed and that fireplace
contain and burn only gas logs;
o prior to start of construction a fugitive dust control
plan be submitted to the Environmental Health office;
o if mine waste, waste rock or mine dumps are encountered
during excavation the Environmental Health office
should be contacted;
o a geotechnical engineer should be retained to verify
that the Chen recommendations are implemented correctly
5
• I
and that a Certificate of Occupancy will only be issued
after the geotechnical engineer is satisfied (in
writing) that all recommendations were followed;
o prior to construction a detailed storm drainage plan
and a detailed revegetation plan shall be submitted to
the Engineering Department; and
o culverts and improvements to the existing drainage
ditch shall be part of driveway regrading, this shall
be done to the satisfaction of the Engineering Office.
6
,
lk,
it
:, ,
:_iii: , H, .. ,.:..„ . :. ..,., ,...,.,..!..,,:.,.„,........., :„...,,,,,:,...„...,.;.,,,„,„.:. ..\. ,,,,,,..,...2,....._,.:„,y.:.:::::::..:.,.:::::1 ::„...,.,.4.::...,.,,,...:.,7 r*-, .:.;;,';'.•;;;*4,.;,',i'i ;."* '''..11141i:::,
tvot
7
iir
/A
4114)
}-4,,--2-4_1_.• aph..---.1".-,-- : ,!. er:i...,-.0.5w.q. ,..„;:i,,T.:,-,--:te4,,,"6.1;:tii.,,,V..g.' !;:r:-...".;,:ga0,,,,:is;,!'&7,,iiiklr7.4 '••••.,,-:...7,,-/._--;;;P,-,Hi`t 'L:'V',i''' '1.;4''''',I,L; .0;:**'"-..-'1'.. g.,,,41
-_.i-1-71 '1111111111111.'44-;144,144V ....-41,•01,ti e4 03,44t5z,g-t, .Ag..Sill* .,•!%I.,:k.:..4,,i," -;.,:ti-k`e.gtirkflit*..,-;; .04,4",w,.:,.-:-..!-..-41-,..4, -,,,,,7i.,44 • . ,. -
, ‘.
1 Di-J-1 ' . ' -'. "tiegiir..„....t'e 47,Nr.zi,,'n7'410Nit-*v 4 r%rilirn.ilf,t4' '':.'1:i4-.4,t4.44' MI .-47:0&-t.i,i,,,:qe:::t' - ;,,,,,,,:,/m. 0,0,:k. -ir^r-°A A -L'
'-Ill.:, 11111 'ir.1"-01..F4''' ,;44,.?.4:;s,„„,--4-,;-*.'s,.--,!,,,,,_,,,,,,,'—',.-lin° .,,,,-"Albh„.'"q<titt-t;t.IY,110","[Y:,!"..-4.i.%.:44.1k-alc:*;., s'-`1.‘,K14,',,,P4::: .,',..-;• ''SN'i, '141.0417,4t,.',.., ''''' 'k ',7j.,-;,:,*14.4 4 . •., --. ,
,__,_i-'----1-7 4 '..?"''. ''"'" .*4.;4:.4`174,:k-141".i?A'',''j'5"-,.7'46=7,;'':',-":fr.dr.D'VAiiit-V1.41.'fieZt115-:;:t.f:,:a;4FP-444.4-0,,Zeq.V.:!1,P1' -•''',,'4, 'iZ .0,,,e'.4,4,--,',44,-40. r.,...., .., .,...,ii,„:,..., .. . t_
, _ -, . ,,,-,.4,,:„,,,414,,,,„,,,,.,,,,,),?05.p.,v14.4.4:::,.0;0,,ko..x4(1.444..,...„04.i.,,,,;,,„,4,:,z,tii,„40,•: ,.4,,, ,:z_,,,is.,i, IT"V*1.4Vitr.44. trfr-,'-t!'-''T;'''.'''''V -
•
•
EXHIBIT B
/ANN ASSCCA;ES
April 14 , 1988
HAND DELIVERED
•
Ms . Cynthia Houben
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Rappaport 8040 Greenline Review
Dear Cindy:
Please consider this letter an application for 8040
Greenline review for the Rappaport residence, a proposed
single-family structure to be constructed on Lot 5 of the
Hoag Subdivision. The Hoag Subdivision is located within
the Aspen city limits on the south side of Ute Avenue.
The application is submitted pursuant to Section 24-6 . 2 of
the Municipal Code by Gary and Susan Rappaport, the owners.
of the property. A commitment for title insurance
evidencing the Rappaport ' s ownership is attached hereto as
Exhibit A. Permission for Vann Associates to represent
the Applicants is attached as Exhibit B.
Project Site
As the accompanying survey illustrates , the project site
contains approximately 15 , 811 square feet of land area and
is zoned R-15 , Mandatory PUD. Surrounding land uses
include the Ute Cemetery, which is located directly across
Ute Avenue from the site, a duplex to the west on Lot 4 of
the subdivision, and vacant BLM lands to the south and
east. An existing road, which provides access to Lot 3 ,
parallels the site ' s southeastern boundary.
In general, the topography of the site slopes up and away
from Ute Avenue and towards the existing access road at
the rear of the property. There is a gentle bench within
the otherwise moderate north facing slope on which the
proposed residence will be built. The elevation dif-
ference across the site is approximately thirty ( 30 ) feet.
P.O. Box 8485 • Aspen. Coloraao 81612 • 303:925-6958
S •
Ms. Cynthia Houben
• April 14 , 1988
Page 2
Natural vegetation consists primarily of numerous aspen
and fir trees which are scattered around the periphery of
the site. All major utilities are presently available
within the Ute Avenue right-of-way.
Proposed Development
The Applicants propose to construct an approximately 4, 100
square foot, single-family residence on the property. The
proposed structure is exempt from the City' s growth
management regulations pursuant to Section 24-11 . 2 (c) of
the Code. Lot 5 was created prior to November 14 , 1977 as
evidenced by the Hoag Subdivision plat which was approved
by the City Council in 1971 .
Mandatory PUD
Although the property has been designated mandatory PUD,
compliance with the City' s planned unit development
regulations is not required. Pursuant to Section 24-8 . 13
of the Code, the construction of a single-family residence
on a separate lot is expressly exempted, a PUD designation
notwithstanding.
Subdivision Review
Pursuant to Section 24-6 . 2 (a) of the Code, all development
above, or within fifty ( 50 ) yards below, the 8040 green-
line is subject to the City' s review and approval. The
purpose of this review is to "insure that all development
is compatible with the prevailing slopes; to provide for
the least disturbance of the terrain and other natural
land features ; to guarantee availability of utilities and
adequate access ; to reduce the impact of development on
surface runoff, the natural watershed, and air pollution;
to avoid losses due to avalanches , unstable slopes, rock
fall and mud slides; and to enhance the natural mountain
setting" .
With respect to the specific review requirements of
Section 24-6. 2 (b) of the Code, the following comments are
provided in support of the Applicants ' request for 8040
Greenline approval.
1 . Water service to the project will be provided
via the existing eight ( 8 ) inch main located in Ute
111 Avenue. The Water Department has indicated that connec-
•
Ms . Cynthia Houben
• April 14 , 1988
Page 3
tion to the existing main is acceptable, and that the
municipal water system has sufficient capacity and
pressure to accommodate the project ( see Exhibit C, letter
from Jim Markalunas , Director, Aspen Water Department) .
The project will also be connected to the existing
sanitary sewer located in Ute Avenue. According to the
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, anticipated flows
can be accommodated with no improvements to existing sewer
lines or to the treatment plant ( see Exhibit D, letter
from Heiko Khun, Manager, Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
District) .
2 . As the proposed site plan illustrates , the
structure will be accessed via a circular driveway from
Ute Avenue. The driveway garde is such that fire protec-
tion vehicles can readily access the structure . A fire
hydrant is conveniently located on the north side of Ute
Avenue across from Lot 4 of the Hoag Subdivision. Snow
removal from the proposed driveway should not be a
problem.
3 . As the attached reports from Chen & Associates
and Nicholas Lampiris indicate ( see Exhibits E and F) ,
there is very little potential for geologic hazards to
adversely affect the project site. No indications of
massive instability of the natural slopes were observed in
the immediate site area. The proposed building envelope
is protected from avalanche and rock fall danger by the
dense tree cover on the hillside above the site and by the
existing road which parallels the property' s southern
boundary. To further enhance safety, no windows will be
located at grade at the rear of the structure, and the
site will be graded so as to help divert potential gravity
driven rock fall.
4 . The project ' s storm drainage system will be
designed to maintain historic flow rates with respect
surface runoff and ground water recharge. On-site
drywells and/or surface detention facilities will be
utilized to intercept and detain runoff from roofs and
impervious areas, and to control the rate of groundwater
recharge. All disturbed areas will be revegetated or
otherwise stabilized in order to prevent erosion. In the
event a detailed drainage plan is required, it will be
prepared and submitted to the Engineering Department prior
to issuance of a building permit. The specific recommen-
• dations of the Chen report pertaining to surface and
. •
Ms . Cynthia Houben
• April 14 , 1988
Page 4
foundation drainage will be strictly adhered to in the
design of the project.
5 . Woodburning devices will be limited to one ( 1 )
fireplace. The project complies with the City' s adopted
regulations pertaining to woodburning devices and,
therefore, the structure ' s impact on air quality would
appear to be acceptable. The Applicants will also adhere
to any requirements that may be imposed by the Environmen-
tal Health Department with respect to fugitive dust
control during construction.
6 . As the accompanying site plan illustrates , the
proposed structure has been located on the flattest
portion of the site ' s allowable building envelope in order
to minimize excavation. The proposed driveway essentially
follows the existing topography and will require a
relatively limited amount of regrading in order to
construct. Given the shape of the parcel, and its
topographical and vegetative characteristics, no other
building footprint or driveway alignment is reasonably
available.
7 . The proposed structure has been sited so as to
require a minimum amount of cut and fill given the
property' s existing topographical characteristics. As the
accompanying architectural drawings illustrate, the
structure will be recessed into the hillside. The maximum
cut depth at the rear of the structure will be approx-
imately fifteen ( 15 ) feet. All slope cuts, however, will
be permanently retained, and the recommendations of the
Chen report with respect to cut and fill, retaining walls
and site grading will be strictly adhered to. The
proposed building footprint will result in a minimum loss
of mature vegetation and all disturbed areas will be
appropriately revegetated or otherwise stabilized.
8 . As noted above, the proposed building footprint
is the only reasonable building location given existing
site constraints. The only regrading required will be for
the building and driveway. The remainder of the site will
be retained in its natural state as open space.
9 . The mountain is perceived primarily as the
densely wooded area above the road at the rear of the
site. The proposed structure has been located close to
411 Ute Avenue and designed in such a manner as to minimize
•
Ms . Cynthia Houben
• April 14 , 1988
Page 5
the perception of bulk. As the accompanying architectural
drawings illustrate, the structure ' s roof slopes steeply
back from the street, varies in height along its length,
and is approximately one ( 1 ) foot below the maximum
allowable height limit. Building materials will consist
of wood siding and a non-reflective metal roof . Natural
colors will be employed to help blend the building into
the surrounding hillside.
Based on the above, we believe that the Applicants '
development proposal complies with the requirements of
8040 Greenline review and, therefore, respectfully request
approval of the project as submitted. Should you have any
questions regarding our application, or if we can be of
any further assistance, please do not hesitate to call.
As the Applicants wish to commence construction as soon as
possible , any assistance you may be able to provide in
expediting our request would be sincerely appreciated.
Very truly yours,
• VANN • •SOCIATES,
•
Sunny Va ,/ AICP
SV:cwv
Attachments
•
110 411 EXHIBIT C
CITY OF ASPEN
130 south galena street
aspen , _colorado 81611
303-925-2020
ASPEN WATER DEPT
April 5th 1988
VANN ASSOCIATES
P.O. Box 8485
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Dear Sunny:
Regarding: RAPPAPORT Residence, Lot 5 , Hoag Sub Div, Ute Ave.
In regards to our discussion concerning the RAPPAPORT residence,
• This letter is to advise you that water is available from an 8"
ductile iron main located in Ute Ave . Sufficient Water quantity
and pressure are available to provide adequate service to the
proposed Single Family residence . Your client may obtain Water
Service upon application and payment of a Water Connection
Permit. Should you have any further questions please feel free
to contact me .
kncer y; /
IM MARKALUNAS
•
411 111 EXHIBIT D
l�spen Consolidated Sanitation , ist -ict
565 North Mill Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Tele. (3031 925-3601 Tele. !303) 925-2537
April 7, 1988
Sunny Vann
Vann Associates Inc.
P. 0. Box 8485
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Mr. Vann,
This letter is to verify that the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
can service the single family residence that is being proposed for Lot 5
in the Hoag Subdivision.
S
Sincerely,
44,4g 0: --
Heiko Kuhn, Manager
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
•
•
• Chen&Associates 5080 Road 154 Casper EXHIBIT
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Colorado Springs
Consulting Geotechnical Engineers • 303/945-7458 Denver
Ft. Collins g /
Phoenix
•
Rock Springs
Salt Lake City
San Antonio
SUBSOIL STUDY
FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN
PROPOSED RESIDENCE
LOT 5, HOAG SUBDIVISION, UTE AVENUE
. ASPEN, COLORADO
4
•
Prepared For:
Gary and Susan H. Rappaport
3940 Waldon Shores Road
Wayzata, MN 55391
• Job No. 4 438 87 November 30, 1987
IIO
• 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
GROUND FLOORS 5
FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS 6
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM 7
SITE GRADING 8
• SURFACE DRAINAGE 9
LIMITATIONS 9
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
•
Chen&Associates
•
•
CONCLUSIONS
The subsoils encountered at the site consist mainly of rela-
tively dense silty sandy gravels. The proposed residence should be
founded with spread footings bearing on the natural granular soils
below topsoil and designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of
3000 psf. Precautions should be taken to maintain stability of the •
uphill temporary excavation. Other design and construction criteria
relating to geotechnical aspects of the proposed residence are
presented in the body of the report.
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
This report presents the results of a subsoil study for a proposed resi-
dence to be located on Lot 5, Hoag Subdivision, Ute Avenue, Aspen, Colorado.
The study was conducted for the purpose of developing foundation recommenda-
tions for the structure. The project site is shown on Fig. 1 . The study was
•
• conducted in accordance with our proposal for professional services letter to
•
•
Gary Rappaport, c/o JDM Construction, dated October 27, 1987.
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
engineering characteristics and classification of the on-site soil. The
results of the field exploration and laboratory testing were analyzed to
develop recommendations for foundation types, depths and allowable bearing
pressures, and for site grading. 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 subsurface conditions encountered. Design parameters and
•
•
Chen&Associates
a discussion of geotechnical engineering considerations related to construc-
tion of the proposed residence are included in the report.
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
At the time of our study design of the residence was in progress. We were
provided a site plan by Bentz/Thompson/Rietow, Inc. , dated November 11 , 1987,
that shows the building outline and proposed grading. The building is planned
to be cut into the hillside and daylight on the north side. Cut depths with
full height retaining will he up to about 15 feet. The building location and
contours as provided are presented. on Fig. 1 . The building will be two to
two and one-half stories of wood frame supported on concrete foundations. For
the purpose of this study, we assume foundation loadings will be relatively
light.
If building or grading plans change significantly, we should be contacted
• to provide geotechnical review of the plans and perform additional analysis as
needed. 4,
SITE CONDITIONS
As the contours on Fig. 1 show, the site is strongly to steeply sloping
down to the north. The property is situated between Ute Avenue on the down-
hill side and an access drive/nordic ski trail on the uphill side. Above the
access drive the grade becomes very steep and forms the south side of the
Roaring Fork Valley. Elevation difference across the building site is about
18 feet and about 30 feet across the property. Vegetation consists of grass,
brush, aspen and scattered evergreen trees. A few inches of snow covered the
site at the time of our field work. Scattered small boulders were observed on
and above the property. Indications of massive instability of the natural
• slopes were not observed in the wren of the property.
Chen&Associates
IIO
•
-3-
The property is located near the lower limit of an area mapped as being
• potentially impacted by avalanche. There is an historic avalanche track a few
hundred feet to the west of the property in the Hoag Subdivision. The site
could also potentially be impacted by falling rocks and debris flow. The
rocks exposed at the ground surface are relatively small and no debris flow
indications were observed. The access dirve above the property will help
catch and divert falling debris and runoff. Based on our observations, we
believe the risk of adverse geologic impacts on the site during the structure
life to be low.
FIELD EXPLORATION
The field exploration for the project was conducted on November 11 , 1987.
Two exploratory borings were drilled at the locations shown on Fig. 1 with a
4-inch diameter continuous flight auger powered by a truck-mounted drill
• rig. The borings were logged by a representative of Chen & Associates,oc ates, Inc.
Samples of the subsoils were taken with a 1 3/8-inch I.D. spoon sampler.
The sampler was driven into the subsoils at various depths with blows from a
140-pound hammer falling 30 inches, similar to the standard penetration test
described by AST?! Method D-1586. The penetration resistance values are an
indication of the relative density of the subsoils. Depths at which the
samples were taken and the penetration resistance values are shown on the Logs
of Exploratory Borings, Fig. 2. The samples were returned to our laboratory
for review by the project engineer and testing.
SUBSOIL CONDITIONS
Graphic logs of the subsoil conditions encountered at the site are shown
on Fig. -2. The subsoils consist mainly of relatively dense silty sands and
•
Chen&Associates
•
-4-
gravels with cobbles and boulders. The coarse material is subangular, appar-
• ently derived from the steep slopes above the site. Drilling in the subsoils
with auger equipment was difficult due to the density and size of the coarse
material.
Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained consisted of natural
moisture content and gradation analyses. Results of a gradation analysis
performed on a small diameter drive sample (minus 1 1/2-inch fraction) of the
subsoils are shown on Fig. 4. The laboratory testing is summarized on
Table I.
No free water was encountered in the borings at time of drilling. The
subsoils were slightly moist.
FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS
• Considering the subsoil conditions encountered in the exploratory borings
and the nature of the proposed construction, we recommend the structure be
founded with spread footings bearing on the natural granular soils. Due to
the elevation difference across the site, the foundation bearing level will
vary from a few feet to about 15 feet below the natural ground surface.
The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed
for a spread footing foundation system:
1 ) Footings placed on undisturbed natural granular soils should be designed
for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3000 psf. A one-third increase
in the bearing pressure can be used when calculating maximum toe pressure
of cantilever retaining walls. Based on experience and the assumed foun-
dation loadings, we expect settlement of footings designed and constructed
as discussed in this section will be about 1 inch or less and essentially
occur during construction.
•
Chen&Associates
• •
2) The footings should have a minimum width of 16 inches for continuous walls
• and 2 feet for columns.
3) 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.
4) Continuous foundation walls should be reinforced top and bottom to span an
unsupported length of at least 10 feet. Foundation walls acting as
retaining structures should also be designed to resist lateral earth pres-
sures as discussed in the "Foundation and Retaining Walls" section of this
report.
5) Prior to the footing construction, all existing fill, topsoil and loose or
disturbed soils should be removed and the footing level extended down to
• the natural coarse granular soils. This may require deepening the foot-
ings below design elevation in some areas. Care should be taken when
excavating the foundations to reduce disturbance of the bearing soils.
Voids resulting from boulder removal below footing elevation should be
backfilled with concrete or compacted soil.
6) A representative of the soil engineer should observe all footing excava-
tions to evaluate bearing conditions prior to concrete placement.
GROUND FLOORS
The natural on-site soils, exclusive of topsoil, are suitable to support
lightly to moderately loaded slab-on-ground construction. To reduce the
effects of some differential movement, nonstructural floor slabs should be
separated from all bearing walls and columns with expansion joints which allow
• unrestrained vertical movement. Floor slab control joints should be used to
Chen&Associates
® •
-6-
reduce damage due to shrinkage cracking. We suggest joints be provided on the
order of 15 feet on center. The requirements for slab reinforcement should be
established by the designer based on experience and the intended slab use.
A minimum 4-inch layer of gravel can he placed beneath the slabs to aid in
drainage and facilitate construction. This material should consist of minus
2-inch aggregate with less than 50% passing the No. 4 sieve and less than 5%
passing the No. 200 sieve. All fill materials for support of floor slabs
should be placed and compacted as discussed in the "Site Grading" section of
this report.
FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS
Foundation walls and retaining structures which are laterally supported
and can be expected to undergo only a slight amount of deflection should be
designed fo
• g r a lateral earth pressure computed on the basis of an equivalent
fluid unit weight of 40 pcf for backfill consisting of the on-site granular
soils. Cantilevered retaining structures which are separate from the resi-
dence and can be expected to deflect sufficiently to mobilize the full active
earth pressure condition should be designed for a lateral earth pressure
computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of 35 pcf for back-
fill consisting of the on-site granular soils.
All foundation and retaining structures should be designed for appropriate
surcharge pressures such as traffic, sloping backfill, snow storage, etc. For
example, a lateral earth loading of at least 60
g pcf should be used for a
backslope of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) above a cantilevered wall. The
pressures recommended above assume drained conditions behind the walls and a
horizontal backfill surface. The buildup of water behind a wall or an upward
sloping backfill surface will increase the lateral pressure imposed on the
•
Chen&Associates
-7- •
foundation wall or retaining structure. An underdrain should be provided at
• the base of the wall or retaining structure to prevent hydrostatic
pressure
buildup.
The lateral resistance of foundation or retaining wall footings placed on
undisturbed natural soils will be a combination of the sliding resistance of
the footing on the foundation materials and passive earth pressure against the
side of the footing. Resistance to sliding at the bottoms of the footings can
be calculated based on a coefficient of friction of 0.5. Passive pressure
against the sides of the footings can be calculated using a pressure of
1400 pcf equivalent fluid unit weight. The coefficient of friction and passive
pressure values recommended above assume ultimate soil strength. Suitable
factors of safety should be included in the design to limit the strain which
will occur at the ultimate strength, particularly in the case of passive
• resistance.
Wall backfill should be placed in thin horizontal lifts at near optimum
moisture content and compacted to at least 90% of the maximum standard Proctor
density. Care should be taken not to overcompact the backfill or use large
equipment as this could cause excessive lateral pressure on the wall.
UPDERDRAIN SYSTEM
Although groundwater 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. Therefore, we
recommend below grade construction 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-
Chen&Associates
IIO
-8- •
rial. The drain should be placed at least 1 foot below lowest adjacent finish
grade and sloped at a minimum 1% to a suitable gravity outlet. Free-draining
granular material used in the underdrain system should contain less than 2%
passing the No. 200 sieve, less than 50% passing the No. 4 sieve and have a
maximum size of 2 inches.
SITE GRADING
The proposed ground floor level will require a relatively deep uphill cut
and there is a risk of construction induced slope instability, especially if
groundwater seepage is encountered. The soils in the area can typically be
cut at a 1 horizontal to 1 vertical grade without massive slope movement.
Fill material or other materials should not be placed at the top of steep cut
slopes since this will increase loading and the risk of instability. Surface
• grading should be directed away from slope cuts.
We expect all cuts will be permanently retained. If unretained cut and
fill slopes are used, they should be graded at 1 1/2 horizontal to 1 vertical
or flatter. Surface water should not be allowed to discharge uncontrolled
onto cut and fill slopes or the natural slope below the access drive. Graded
slopes should be revegetated or protected from erosion by other means.
The on-site natural soils exclusive of topsoil and rock fragments larger
than about 8 inches are suitable for use as fill below slab, parking and drive
areas, and as foundation and retaining wall backfill. Excavation of the soils
should be possible with heavy duty equipment typically used in the area. Very
large boulders and deep frost could be encountered. Fill placed beneath slab
and pavement areas should be compacted in thin horizontal lifts to at least
95% of the maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content within about
• 2% of optimum. Pricr to the fill placement the subgrade should be carefully
Chen&Associates
.
-9- •
prepared by removing all vegetation, topsoil and existing fill and compacting
• the natural subgrade to 95% standard Proctor density. Nonstructural landscape
fill should be compacted to at least 90% standard Proctor density. Fill
should be benched into portions of the site steeper than 20% grade. The fill
should be observed and tested for compaction on a regular basis by the soil
engineer.
SURFACE DRAINAGE
The following drainage precautions should be observed during construction
and maintained at all times after the residence has been completed.
1 ) Inundation of the foundation excavations and underslab areas should be
avoided during construction.
2) 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.
3) Free-draining wall backfill should be capped with about 2 feet of finer
grained soils to reduce surface water infiltration.
4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all
backfill.
LIMITATIONS
This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geo-
technical engineering practices in this area for use by the client for design
purposes. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are
based upon the data obtained from the exploratory borings drilled at the
locations indicated on Fig. 1 and the proposed type of construction. The
Chen&Associates
nature and extent of subsurface variations across the site may not become
• evident until excavation is performed. If during construction, fill, soil,
rock or water conditions appear to be different from those described herein,
this office should be advised at once so reevaluation of the recommendations
may be made. We recommend on-site observation of excavations and foundation
bearing strata and testing of structural fill by a representative of the soil
engineer.
• �,� Very truly yours,
I
•1 ' 222 -�
CHEN & ASSOCIATES INC.
Eck
,, ra By
``� t' `_r_ �.- Steven L. Pawlak, P.E.
SLP/ec
• cc: JDM Construction
Attn: Duane Stewart
•
•
;j
• a
Chen&Associates
� ~ - 1111 �N
�0 EXHIBIT F
Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.[}.
CONSULTING GEOLOGIST
0554 HIGHWAY 82
CARBON DALE, COLORADO 81623
(303)963-3600
April 14 , 1988
Sunny Vann
210 S. Galena
Aspen , CO. 81611
RE: Lot 5, Hoag Subdivision
Dear Mr. Vann :
I have completed my geoloqic investigation of the above
referenced lot along the south side of Ute Avenue , Aspen .
Colorado. The property is near the southeast corner of the
Town of Aspen , within the Aspen 7 1 /2 minute quadrangle ,
Pitkin County , Colorado.
The building envelope is in a triangular area below an access
road to another home, with another side of the triangle being
Ute Avenue. There is a gentle bench within the otherwise
moderate north facing slope where the home will be. Much of
the property and the hillside above is covered with conifers'
There is a large outcrop above and to the west of the site to
which the Ute Trail ultimately goes.
The geology of the site consists of a veneer of colluvium
(the geologic quadrangle map by Bryant maps this material as
talus) overlying the Precambrian age quartz monzonite which
is in the subsurface. The front edge of the lot consists of
Quaternary age moraine deposits, but construction of the home
will be somewhat further up the hill and will not be on these
silts, sands, cobbles and boulders. Faults are not mapped
through the site and there is no evidence of recent activity
on those on the hillside above the site.
Although the hillside behind the home is fairly steep , it
only has a potential rockfall hazard further to the east. I
believe that the site is relatively safe because of the heavy
tree cover on the hillside above and the presence of the
access road/Ute Trail above the homesite, which will act to
divert or even stop gravity-derived hazards. Nevertheless, I
think it is important that the rear wall of the foundation
not only act as a retaining wall to the cut toe of the
hillside, but also protrude at least four feet above finished
grade with no doors or windows so that any snow slides or
infrequent rocks which may reach the site will do no damage.
It would also be a good idea to have this same design along
the west side of the home so that rocks which pinwheel from
- � ���
���/
III�� ��-
April 14 , 1988
Lot 5° Hoag Subdivision
Page Two
the Ute outcrop toward the site and might net through all of
the tree cover , will not be able to do significant damage to
the side of the home. It is further my understanding that
the home has already been designed , to some extent , with
these factors in mind.
I have reviewed a report by Chen and Associates on the soils
conditions of the site and will defer to their
recommendations in this respect. I would like to reaffirm
that steps should be taken to insure proper and positive
drainage around the home. The driveway above the site should
not act as a conduit of runoff to Lot 5. The borrow ditching
and whatever culverts are present on this driveway should be,
to the extent that you have the ability to suggest
modifications, not be directed toward the homesite.
I believe that municipal water and sewer are available to the
��� site, and access is easily attainable off of Ute Avenue
directly to the proposed homesite. I conclude that if the
preceding recommendations are followed , there is very little
potential for geologic hazards to negatively affect this
site. Snow slides will be minor and will probably be stopped
by the pre-existing driveway/Ute Trail , and rocks are not
likely to reach the site, both because of its topographic
position somewhat to the east of the major rockfall , and the
dense tree cover on the hillside above. If there are further
questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
--.�/ -
Nicholas Lampiris
Consulting Geologist
NL/clk
��
• EXHIBIT G
\ e4'
@_514/1"/17/ /
WAYNE L. VANDEMARK, FIRE MARSHAL
420 E. HOPKINS STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
(303) 925-2690
TO: TOM BAKER, PLANNING
-/ I `k I APR 2 51988 f g;
FROM: WAYNE VANDEMARK E I G;jI
RE: RAPPAPORT, 8040 GREELINE L __
DATE: APRIL 25 , 1988
I have reviewed the application for this project and find that
fire protection in the area is adequate. The fire department can
respond within four minutes to this address .
ASPEN*PITKIN
ENVIARNMENTAL HEALTH DEPAFIPMENT EXHIBIT H
MEMORANDUM
To: Tom Baker
Planning Office
From: Lee Cassin � C
Environmental Health Department
Date: April 28, 1988
Re: Rappaport 8040 Greenline
Parcel ID# 2737-182-68-004
The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the
above-mentioned land use submittal for the following concerns.
The authority for this review is granted to this office, which is
a recognized land use referral agency, by the Aspen/Pitkin
Planning Office.
SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION:
The applicant has agreed to serve the project with public sewer
as provided by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. This
conforms with Section 1-2 . 3 of the Pitkin County Regulations On
Individual Sewage Disposal Systems policy to "require the use of
public sewer systems wherever and whenever feasible, and to limit
the installation of individual sewage disposal systems only to
areas that are not feasible for public sewers" .
ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS:
The applicant has agreed to serve the project with water provided
by the Aspen Water ' Department distribution system. This
conforms with Section 23-55 of the Aspen Municipal Code requiring
projects "which use water shall be connected to the municipal
water utility system" .
AIR QUALITY:
The applicant proposes to install only one fireplace in the
building. The applicant does not say how the project will be
"limited" to only one' fireplace. If this limit is a deed
restriction, this project will cause less air pollution than
allowed under the law since it will not install an allowed
certified stove in addition to the fireplace. How this is to be
enforced needs to be clarified.
The fireplace to be installed will have to contain gas logs and
be used only with gas logs. Wood may not be burned in the
fireplace, under regulations the City of Aspen has committed to
having in effect by June 1, 1988.
130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-2020
ASPEN*PITKIN
ENVI NMENTAL HEALTH DEPAPMENT
A fugitive dust control plan must be submitted to this office and
approved prior to any construction.
NOISE:
Noise is not expected to be a problem except possibly during
construction, at which time, the applicant should limit construc-
tion activities to from 7 am until 10 pm.
CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER LAWS:
Contaminated Soils:
The applicant is advised to contact this office for comment
should mine waste, waste rock or mine dumps be encountered during
the excavation phase of the project. Disposal of such materials
off-site is discouraged due to the possibility of excessive heavy
metals being present in the soil.
This is not a requirement, but simply a request based on past
experience in dealing with mine waste and possible negative
impacts to humans.
130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-2020
EXHIBIT I
MEMORANDUM
TO: Tom Baker, Planning Office
FROM: Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department 4W-
DATE: May 18, 1988
RE: Rappaport 8040 Greenline
Having reviewed the above application and made a site inspection,
the Engineering Department has the following comments:
1. The applicant has indicated that recommendations submitted b
PP by
Chen and Associates will be followed. We would also recommend
that a geotechnical engineer be required for inspection during
construction and that a C.O. not be issued until that engineer is
satisfied that the above recommendations have been followed.
2 . A detailed storm drainage plan will need to be. submitted to.
the Engineering Department.,
3 . The applicant has indicated that revegetation will occur in
those areas that are disturbed. A detailed plan for this
revegetation should be submitted. .
4. The applicant has indicated there will be regrading done for
the construction of the driveways. We will require that culverts
be placed in these driveways and that the existing drainage ditch
along the street be improved to provide for adequate drainage.
jg/rprt8040
cc: Jay Hammond
Chuck Roth
•
EXHIBIT B
April 8 , 1988
Mr. Alan Richman
Planning and Development Director
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Permission to Represent
Dear Mr. Richman:
Please consider this letter authorization for Sunny Vann
of Vann Associates, Inc. to represent us in the processing
of all required applications for the development of Lot 5
of the Hoag Subdivision which is located on Ute Avenue in
• the City of Aspen, Colorado. Mr. Vann is hereby authori-
zed to act on our behalf with respect to all matters
reasonably pertaining to the aforementioned applications .
Should you have any questions, or if we can be of any
further assistance, please do not hesitate to call.
Very truly yours ,
A ..... h' 1�t/�ILI
a y 6'nd 1: ••:'p•aport
SV:cwv
•
J
4110
VANN ASSOCIATES
Planning Consultants
March 31, 1988
HAND DELIVERED
Mr. Chuck Roth
Assistant City Engineer
130 South Galena Street -
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Rappaport- 8040 Greenline Review
Dear Chuck:
The purpose of this letter is to confirm my understanding
of the Engineering Department' s position with respect to
various issues pertaining to the proposed construction of
the Rappaport residence on Lot 5 of the Hoag Subdivision.
As we discussed with Jay this morning, the Rappaports
propose to locate the residence approximately twenty-five
( 25) feet from the ' front property line, the minimum
required setback in the R-15 zone district. It is my
understanding that the Engineering Department will not
require that the setback be measured from the ten ( 10)
foot strip previously reserved for the widening of Ute
Avenue, since sufficient right-of-way appears to exist
should future improvements to the street be necessary.
_Ad, It is also my understanding that you will allow the
„40( 1I Rappaports to regrade the area between their property line
if�'r`�'``) / and the street in conjunction with the construction of the
,psi/ residence' s driveway provided, however, that no berming
U occurs within the public right-of -way and adequate
provision is made for street drainage. The grading plan
should also maximize, to the extent feasible, the reten-
tion of any significant natural vegetation which might be
located in this area.
With respect to the residence ' s western driveway entrance,
it is my understanding that the driveway may extend beyond
the Rappaport' s property line provided, however, that no
regrading of the adjacent property (i.e. , Lot 4) is re-
quired.
P.O. Box 8485•Aspen, Colorado 81612 •303/925-6958
„,
•
Mr. Chuck Roth
March 31, 1988
Page 2
I believe that the above represents the essence of our
discussion. If I have erred in any way, please do not
hesitate to call. It is our intention to base the
proposed site plan for the residence on this understand-
ing, and to incorporate the plan in , the Rappaport' s 8040
Greenline application.
Inasmuch as we would like to submit the application as
soon as possible, we would appreciate a prompt response
should you have any problems with our approach. Thanks
again for your assistance.
Very truly yours,
VANN ASSOCIATES, NC.
Sunny n, AICP
SV:cw
cc: Cindy Houben N
Gary Rappaport
•
•
•
•
. :11T ENT. ,
EXHIBIT A
•
•
lluyers Tile Insurance rpo:ution
National He3ccuarters
rich oc !:romma
COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE
SCHEDULE A
E`fe... .e Date -i, v•I'I i5N i N - .1%-"j
i
2 Police or o:,: Cies to „e Issue
1a1 �mn_'r S �.���7�d.l Y�7On{ri�. '+'i.�i�
A�7A Q.:ne 's°ol.cy—worm? 197C(Rev 10-• -70$Rev. 1C- -34'
ALTA =vsden;ial Ttie insurance Policy—1979
Proposed Insured GARY B. P?.FFAPORT and SUSAN H. RAPPAPOFZ
bl ALTA Loan Policy, 1970 iRev. 10-17-70&Rev. 10-17-84) Amount $
Proposed msurea•
• tci Amount S
Proposed .nsured TAX CEPZIFICATE S 5.00
3 Title to the fee simp'e estate or interest in the land
In described or referred to in this Commitment is at toe effective date hereof vested in•
AVID C. CC OKE a-)d T"U I 1 i CL E ARD
4 The and referred to in this Commitment Is described as follows:
LCf 5,
HCAG S_BDIVISION,
COUNTY CF PITKLN, STATE OF CCLIRAD0
• PItkIn County Title, Inc.
601 E.Hopkins
Minn,Colorado 81611
/'puntersigned'- t_ - Commitment No. PCT-1065-87
t \ Schedule A—Page 1
•
This commitment is invalid unless
Author zed Offic or Agent the Insuring Provisions and Schee.
cn„n r el•881SCH.Al vies A and B are attached
• •
buyers -Flute Insurance G)rporation
Naponal Heangualers
R■chrronn. Vi,0:013
SCHEDULE E—Secticn 1
Requirements
are tno wdh
,a; ,--Thyme^:!to account Ci ,-:lantors 0 ■nort:-.acrs f toe uh cc.r.s“Jerenon for the estate cr mte,est
o tie insurr->c!
hero■!:• Pre:;er rnstu7,-en:fy oreat rt tie :state or interest to be•nsurec must ce executed and duly filed for recorc.
! !) Release by :he Public Tr.is:ee of the Coun:v of Ptkin of:
Deed c.f 7rusc frm : DAVID C. 0C(gE and IT= C=0
too Lee ci : EANX CF FORT rxTmi
to secure : $250,j)0.00
dated : May 2 , 985
recorded : June .0, 1985 in Boo!t. 487 a: Page 509
reception no. : 258798
(2) Deed ft-art : DAVID C. COOKE and =ITT CLINARD
CO : GARY B. RAPPAPORT and SUSAN H. RAPPAPORT
(3) Certificate frm the iiareomers Association evidencing the fact that all fees and expenses•curren:ly
due and pay,:ble have been aaid in full and are not delinquent.
(.4) Evidence sa.tisfacttpry to the Company that the Real Estate Transfer Tax as established by
CTdinance No. 20 (Series of 1979) has been paid or exempted.
(5) Certificate of Ncnforeign Status, signed by DAVID C. CCUtT and 7171.7. CLIN.ARD.
Tt.:s co-mtmen1■s;-.aid unless
the insunn:1 Prnyts!c,ns and Sched- Schedule B-Section 1-Page 1-Commitment No. P—r-
tiles A and B are attache('
• •
•
Leuiyero Title Insurance Corpo:rution
NATIONAL HEADOL•.:.RTEFS
RICHMOND. VIRGINIA
SCHEDULE B—Section 2
Exceptions
The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the follow;ng unless the same o e disposed of tJ
the satisfaction of the Company
1. Rights or claims of parties n possession not shown by the public records.
2. Easements, cr cicims of easements, not shown by the public records.
3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in crec. encroach^eats, cod cnv foots wnich
a correct survey and inscection of the premises would aisclose and wnich are net shown by ire
public records.
4. Any lien, or right 'c a Iten, for services, lobor or material heretofore or Inereafter furnished,
posed by low and not shown by the public records.
�. Defects, :ens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters. i coy, created, first oopearing in
the pubic records or attaching subsequent to the effective dote hereof but prior to the date t:^e
proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered
by this Commitment.
• Taxes due and payable; and any '_ax, special assessrents, charge or lien itttpased for
water or sewer service, or for any other special taxing district.
7. Reser:ati,oc.s and exceptions as contained in United States Patient recorded August 25,
1959 in Pock 173 at Page 229 as fo11a-;s: right of way for ditrses or canals constructed
by the authority of the United States.
5. Utility and P blic Trail casements, and a IC foot strip reserved for the City of Aspen
for the widening of Ute Avenue as sna.n on Mao of Hoag Suadivisicn recorded i;ove:ner
5, 197: in Plat 'Book 4 at Page 218.
Exceptions numbered `(1 ore hereby omitted.
'He Owner's Folio ra on issued. :r coy, snail contain the fci'o.,•inc itex^s in addition to the ones set forth above:
'he Deed of host, ■1 pry, required under Schc•du e °_—Section 1, rem
Unpaten•ed miring ciditms, rese•va'■O^s or exceptions in extents or (n Ac's authorizing i ssuo"ce
•-_roof. .vote- roots. claims a• '.te to water.
Any and a!I npaid tcxes cssessments and un•edeemed tax soles.
Schedule B—Section 2—Page 1—No.
rote c'-96_52 Rocky MI
• •
•
I uye Title insurance Corpo. lion
'Iationul re=p:carters
COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE
_AWYERS TITLE INS'JP,ANCE CORPORATION. a Virginia corocraoon. herein „a.lea :ire Company, for vaivanle
consideration, hereby commits to issue its col cv or policies of title insurance.as identified in Scheaule A,in favor of:-e
proposed Insured named in Schedule A. as owner or !mortgagee of toe estate or interest covered hereby in toe land
cescribea or referrec to in Schedule A.upon payment cf the premiums and charges therefor:all subject to the provisions
cf Schepules A and B and to the Conditions and Stipu,ations hereof.
This Commitment shall be effective only when the identity of the proposed Insured and toe amount of the policy or
policies commuted for nave been inser.ee it Schedule A hereof by the Company,either at toe time of the issuance of this
Commitme^• cr by subsequent un.aorsement
This Commitment is pre:lmirary to he issuance of such pcccv or pcl cues of title insurance ana all liability and
obligations hereurder shall cease a-•,a terminate Six of montns after the effective date hereof or when the policy or
policies committed for shall.ss.cti,wnicbever first occurs,provided toe:the,a iu e to c;sue such policy or policies is no:me
fault of the Comoany This Commitment shall not be valid or binding urn countersigned by an authorized officer or agent.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused :,his Commitment to be signed and sealed, to become valid omen
countersigned by an authorized officer or agent of the Company,all in accordance with its By-Laws.This Commitment is
• effective as of toe eats shown in Schedule A as "Effective Cate
CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS
1 The term "mortgage," when usea herein. shall include deed of trust, trust deed. or other security instrument.
2. If the proposed Insured has or acquires actual knowledge of any cefect. lien.encumbrance.aaverse claim or otner
matter affecting the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered ev this Commitment other than those shown in
Schedule B hereof,and shall tail to d sclose sucn knowledge to the Company in writing,the Company shall be relieved
from liability for any loss or damage resultina from any act of reliance hereon to toe extent the Company is pre,udicea
by failure to so disclose such knowledge.If the proposed Insure,:snail disclose s Bch knowledge to the Company,or it
the Company otherwise acouires actual knowledge of any such defect. ::en,encumbrance.adverse claim or other
matter,the Company at its optics may amend Scheaule B of this Commitment accoroingly,but such amendment shall
not relieve the Company trom liability previously incurred pursuant to paragraph 3 of these Conditions ana
Stipulations.
3 Liability of the Company under this Commitment shalt be only to the named proposed Insured anc such parties
included under the definition of Insured in the form of policy or polices committed for and only for actual loss
incurred in reliance hereon in undertaking in good faith la}to comply with the requirements hereof.ortbl toeliminate
exceptions shown in Schedule B.or(c)to acquire or create the estate or interest or mortgage:nereon covered by this
Commitment. In no event shall such liab lily exceed the amount states .n Schedule A for the policy or policies
committed for and such liability is subject to the insuring provisions anc the Conditions and Stipulations and the
Exclusions from Coverage of the form of policy or policies committed for in favor of the proposed Insured which are
hereby incorporated by reference and are made a part of this Commitment except as expressly modified herein.
4. Any action or actions or rights of action that the proposed Insured may have or may bring against the Company
arising out of the status of the title to the estate or interest or the status of the mortgage thereon covered by this
Commitment must be based on and are subject to toe provisions of this Commitment.
lawyers Title Insuce Grporetion
• No-irev, a,�J
President
Attest: 4-7'
Secretary.
•
• •
•
09/23/87 10:01 T5512 931 2402 N.4?C0 INTL 003
Ih•n�nit•�t:y�,�—.�'.I.�A__NI.. -
R:ecpc,m No, Recorder.
WARRANTY DEED
TI RS DEED.hl.t: :ltis ,ay of •
9?,h•„s;en DAVID C. COOKE and TRUITT CLINARD
4100 International Plaza, Suite 500, Ft. Worth
.�I Ihr r Cauni of seta State of
Texas r ,?
N){!X}(o.er.tnt.r.uo.l CARY B. RAPPAPORT and SUSAN H. I (
RIPPAPORT
ah.•.cl;eal:f.un�.t. 3940 Weldon Shores Road, Wayzata,
Minnesota
t.t;he County of and State of r0(s44.11,grantee:
I I, h.t the lrtnuor for nod In consideration of the cam of
Ten and C0/100ths ($10. 00) Ixtu.:\RS.
t h..roril,t:oul sure ict,i y.d nhirh i.Iw rJ v,.A u.n.ttU L'rI,h:a graotpl,1.ug;r.nsnl,M.Id .t'owI.rvscnts ti.l'.4 ran.ICrrglnn,
�w.\\�n;yi r�ntnnn,uwa ii
gintwe.his boil,anti.1s.i;ns G.nver.all the rest pntltny together ssuh impn v:inents.if any..rttate,lying and bin_in the
• Coons v of P i tk i n and State of Coluradn dcscrihrl u.f,olltarc
Lot 5,
Hoag Subdivision
as known he street and number ac
7YIf i1•:Tll ER with all and singular the hcrrJitarntnts and apputtc narccs Motto bclrmging,or in anywise appcnalning.and the reversion and
reunion.,n•n.ainda•r and reon.irnicn.rents.issues and pmiits Ihenr•f.and all the estate,right,title.iutetect.claim and demand whatwracr of the !j
gent.,,cohs•r in I.nv n•calmly.of.in and ttu the show bargained premises.with the hertdttaments and appwrtcnantta. !
TO ItAVY.AND TO 1101.11 the old premises show bargained and ste•cribcd.with the appurtenances.unto the grantee.his heirs and aistens
I..rever Ansi thy grantor,t.e!ttmseti.his hcin.and personal representatives.does e.secant grant.hargaln.:sad agree to and with the g.aorre.his heirs and
m..ga..sirs:o the tits'of tlw eme;,Iiig and delivery of these presents.he is well scixed of the premises atone conveyed.has god.sure.perfect.absolute
sod Inuki'e;elide estate of Inheritance.In hint.in fee simple,and has goad right.fall power and tnwMl authority in grant,hargaln,sell and convey the same
in nt:uttY and fonts it utoresnld.:Ind 111:11 the same are free and clear fruits all former and other grant'..bargains.sales.liens.IasCs.assessments.
cr•.vm)•anew and restrictions of whatever Lind or nature striver,except as shown on the attached Exhibit A.
II
'rite Cantor chill and will\VARRANT AN I)IOREVER DEFEND the above-bargained premises in the quiet and peaceable possession of the grantee,
hits hN.',and assigns,against all and esvi y person or persons lawfully claiming the whole or any put thereol.The'linguist number shall Include the p:anl,
• it,•plural the slnFulur.and the use of any gender shell be applicable to all genders.
t t 11'lll'Yt s.S N'It1;RECM tits gf:...W.has enev.uted this deed sett sia date sus fu.1L dares.
I,
Cav3d C. Cooke 'Truitt clinard 4i
Texas
STATE OF kxse9p 1 5
ta.
ettUMY of f
• •
_'9,2::;:' 1, L402 :A?CG I:NTL 006
EXXISIT "A" TO WARRANTY OE1ED
BETWEEN
DAVID C. COOKE ANL) :'RUITT C;INARD
AND
GARY B. RAPPAPORT AND SUSAN H. RAPPAPORT
1. 1997 taxes due and payable in 1988 ; and any tax, special
assessments, charge or lier. imposed for water or sewer
service, cr for any other special taxing district.
2 . Reservations and exceptions as contained in United States
Patent recorded August 26, 1949 in Book 175 at Page 229 as
follows: right of way for ditches or canals constructed by
the authority of the United States.
3 . Utility and Public Trail Zasenents, and a 10 foot strip
reserved for the city of Aspen for the widening of Ute
Avenue as shown on Map of Hoag Subdivision recorded
• ;:ovember 5, 1971 in Plat Book 4 at Page 218.
•
All 411
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Attorney
City Engineer
Environmental Health
Fire Marshal
FROM: Tom Baker, Planning Office
RE: Rappaport 8040 Greenline
Parcel ID# 2737-182-68-004
DATE: April 18, 1988
Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted
by Sunny Vann on behalf of his client, Rappaport Aspen Account,
requesting 8040 Greenline review for a proposed 4, 100 sq. ft.
single-family structure to be constructed on approximately 15,811
sq. ft. of land, Lot 5 of the Hoag Subdivision. The property is
located within the Aspen City limits on the south side of Ute
Avenue and is zoned R-15 (PUD) .
Please review this material and return your comments no later
than May 23, 1988 in order for this office to have adequate time
to prepare for its presentation before P&Z.
Thank you. •
•
ASPEN/PITRIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
(30A) 925-2020
Date: Or//`e/
QA),A(Ulaj) (1,4(2
( ;(
( jy, Co770/. —
RE: ' i..1I r (milr''lll�/ 4J14u A C
Dear 9:7170)
This is to inform you that the Planning Office has completed its
preliminary review of the captipned application. We have determined
that your application IS N.0 oomplete.
Additional items required include:
Disclosure of Ownership (one copy only needed)
Adjacent Property Owners List/Envelopes/Postage (one copy)
Additional copies of entire application
Authorization by owner for representative to submit applica-
tion
Response to list, of items (attached/below) demonstrating
compliance with the applicable policies and regulations of the
Code, or other specific materials
A check in the amount of
A. Your application r1s- complete and we hay e sc epuled it for
review. by the f `� L� on 0.11-11-1 . ---1 We will
call you if we need any additional information prior to that
date. Several days prior to your hearing, we will call and
make available a copy of the memorandum.. Please note that it
IS NOT your responsibility to post your property with a
sign, which we can provide you for a $3 .00 fee..
B. Your application is incomplete, we have not scheduled it
review at this time. When we receive the materials we have
requested', we will place you on the next available agenda.
If Y ou have any questions, please call O
the planner assigned to your case.
Sincerely,
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE