The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.200 Sesame St.11A-86V. 1 J-0, 1 .- iG 1 LrcÂ·uhjaph f h 1 Â· U. f l i i i t .: le A , A- ' f 1 J (E , V / ./14 A k, . -/0-2 . il 1 1 GEOPHYSICAL & GEOTECHNICAL SUBSIDENCE INVESTIGATION FOR LOTS 3 & 5, SUNNY PARK NORTH SUBDIVISION ASPEN, COLORADO May 1986 Client: Colorado National Bank P.O. Box 520 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Prepared by: Western Engineers, Inc. 2150 Highway 6 & 50 Grand Junction, CO 81505 [W.0. # 1656] WORK SCOPE AND STUDY PLAN The purpose of the investigation summarized herein was to attempt to identify sub surface mine workings beneath Lots 3 and 5 of the Sunny Park Subdivision in Aspen, Colorado, and evaluate the effect that any identified - cavities may have on proposed residential structures for the two lots. The purpose of this investigation also included making a preliminary evaluation of soil conditions in order to determine whether it will be possible to construct adequate foundations for the proposed structures. The originally-envisioned study plan generally consisted of the following: 1) Perform a detailed gravity survey to identify any low gravity areas that may indicate the existence of cavities. 2) Perform seismic refraction and normal resistivity surveys at several locations across the site to obtain general information on the overburden character and depth as well as depth to water table. 3) If any suspicious anomalies are revealed by the other methods, perform Bristow resistivity surveys in those areas to try and further identify the cause and location of the gravity anomalies. Although areas of low gravity readings were encountered during the investigation, time and weather considerations prevented use of the Bristow i method for further investigation of those areas. -1- GEOPHYSICAL SURVEYS Microgravimetry Method: Precise gravity measurements were taken at grid points covering most of Lots 3 and 5. The grid points were set by survey methods on 15-foot centers. Elevations of the grid points were determined to the nearest 0.01 foot by differential leveling. Gravity measurements were taken with a LaCoste & Romberg, Model G Gravity Meter, No. 735. Measurements were repeated at an arbitrarily chosen base station at approximately 1-hour intervals. The times of all readings were recorded so the measurements could be corrected for the drift in the measured gravity detected at the base station. The elevation of the instrument was measured to the nearest 0.01 foot from the grid point stake. The position of the instrument relative to the grid point was noted to the nearest 0.5 foot. The instrument was placed as close as practical to each grid point. The average elevation of the ground surface within 3 feet of the instrument was also measured. The elevation of the instrument and the ground surface in the vicinity were used to correct the gravity measurements for the free air and Bouguer anomalies, respectively. The gravity measurements were corrected for drift, latitude, free-air, and Bouguer anomalies and then plotted on the grid map. Grid points for which gravity measurements were obtained are shown on Figure 1. Limitations: The magnitude of the effect that subsurface mine workings would have upon gravity measurements was expected to be in the range of 20 to 100 Mgals. The procedures used in the field were adequate to obtain measurements accurate to 10 - 15 j<gals. Gravity variations in the range expected f or the mine workings can -2- be caused by other subsurface conditions; for example, variable overburden thickness over bedrock, overburden layers of variable thickness, lateral variations in the overburden material, and variable depth to water table. The interpretation of gravity data is then dependent upon knowing which of these conditions are present and to what extent they influence the gravity measurements. The gravity data obtained at the site was supplemented with seismic refraction and electrical resistivity soundings to estimate the subsurface conditions effecting the gravity measurements. The gravity measurements obtained varied several hundred ~gals across the site and therefore, were not in themselves conclusive about whether mine workings exist beneath the site. The range in the gravity measurements was caused primarily by the variable thickness of low density bouldery glacial deposits over denser glacial deposits indicated by seismic refraction data. Also, lateral variations caused by the bouldery and heterogeneous nature of the overburden is believed to have contributed significantly to the variability in the gravity measurements. Seismic Refraction Method: Seismic refraction lines were run at four locations on the site to provide data on the depth and nature of the overburden. Two of the lines were 150 feet long, the other two were 100 feet long. The locations of the seismic lines are shown on Figure 1. The interpretations of the seismic data are shown on Figures 2 through 5. The seismic refraction method permits calculation of depths to near-surface soil and rock layers by determining seismic velocity variations between layers. The survey is performed by producing seismic waves at varying distances from the ends of a line and measuring the time of arrival of the wave at each end. In this survey the seismic waves were generated manually with a sledge-hammer -3- equipped with a switch to start a timer in the seismograph at the instant of impact. Arrival times were detected by geophones at each end of the line and measured in milliseconds. Several times were measured to each geophone from each hammer station to obtain a good average and reduce error. On a time-distance graph plotted from the data, each subsurface layer is represented by a straight line segment representing a constant velocity. Compressional wave velocities of these layers are equal to the inverse slopes of the line segments. Depths to increasingly high velocity material can be calculated from the locations of the velocity breaks on the graph, or by time differences between arrivals to each end of the line. The latter method can be used if there is an overlap between readings to either end from the same velocity layer. This enables the calculation of the depth to the velocity interface beneath each hammer station in the overlap, and provides a profile of the interface over a segment of the center of the seismic line. Limitations: The organization of seismic refraction surveys and the interpretation of the data are generally well-established and straight-forward. There are, however, no inflexible approaches to interpreting the data, and ambiguities and un(ertainties are common. There are also two major potential problem areas inherent in the method: velocity reversals and blind zones. The velocity reversal problem exists when higher seismic velocity material overlies lower velocity material. Refraction data analyses are based on the assumption that seismic velocity increases with depth. The blind zone problem is the inability of the method to discern the existence of layers because of insufficient velocity contrast or thickness. Results obtained from shallow refraction investigations are useful because they rapidly provide information on the bedrock configuration and can be used as a guide for subsequent drilling. Due to the problems mentioned above, it is normal practice to use exploratory drilling in conjunction with the seismic survey in cases where accuracy is essential. Also, it should be remembered that the results of refraction analyses are depths to velocity interfaces and not -4- necessarily depths to soil unit boundaries. Inherent limitations in the seismic refraction method increase the ambiguities in interpretations and decrease the accuracy of the results obtained. Ambiguities and uncertainties in interpretation commonly cau;e errors in calculated depths of 10 to 25 percent. Results: The seismic refraction data indicated two distinct overburden units over bedrock. The upper or surface unit consisting of bouldery glacial deposits had an average velocity of 1225 fps (feet per second) and ranged from 1160 fps to 1300 fps. The depth of the upper unit ranged from 8 to 16 feet on an undulating contact. The second unit had an approximate average velocity of 2300 fps, which ranged from 1900 to 2825 fps. The velocity of this unit is too low to be bedrock and was interpreted as older glacial deposits. At the lower end of the site (SL-2) the second overburden unit had a velocity of over 3200 fps indicating it was partially or wholly saturated and the velocity interface was interpreted as water table. The seismic data indicates bedrock at a depth of 60 feet at the upper end of the site and 40 feet at the lower end. The velocity of the bedrock averaged 7350 fps. Electrical Resistivity Electrical resistivity soundings were conducted near the locations of the four seismic lines. The data was used to corroborate the seismic data and to determine if lateral variations occur in the overburden which would affect the gravity measurements. Method: Electrical resistivity sounding methods are based on the differences in the resistance to electrical current flow of different earth materials. Resistivity is a unit volumetric measure of resistance. In earth materials the degree of -5- saturation, the presence of dissolved conductive solids, and the mobility of these solids within a soil or rock matrix or the presence of voids or cavities all effect the resistivity. Field measurements are taken by the placement of two current electrodes through which an electrical current is introduced to the soil, and two potential electrodes which measure the drop in potential of a distance between the current electrodes. For this survey the spacing ("A" = distance) between the electrodes was equal. This is called the Wenner Array. In addition, a potential electrode was placed at the center of the array and measurements were made from it to each of the other potential electrodes. This is called Lee Partitioning and allows for detection of lateral variations in the resistivity of the soil. The apparent resistivity is then calculated by the formula: V R = 2 Tr A - I where V/I is equal to the resistance across the potential electrodes according to Ohm's law. By progressively increasing the "A" distance of the array the depth of penetration is increased, being approximately equal to the "A" distance. The field measurements were interpreted by apparent resistivity depth plots, and as Barne's layer values. The later is an empirical method. These plots are found following the discussion as Figures 6 through 9. Results: The resistivity data were not quantitatively interpreted in terms of depths to anomalies. Instead, visual confirmation of resistivity anomalies with seismic depths were made. Also, the Lee Partitioning plots indicated considerable lateral variation in the overburden materials, which is believed to have contributed to the variation in the gravity measurements. -6- CONCLUSIONS The results of the gravity survey were very erratic with a number of anomalous areas indicated. The anomalies included areas of both high and low gravity readings. For the Durpose of this investigation only, the areas of low gravity readings were considered since they would indicate the possibility of subsurface cavities. However, it should be noted that an area of very high gravity readings was encountered along the north boundary of Lot 5. The reason for this anomaly is not known. The locations of these low anomalies are shown on Figure 1. A total of 10 low gravity anomalies were encountered as shown on Figure 1 -- 6 on Lot 5 and 4 on Lot 3. These low gravity areas can be caused by conditions other than underground cavities. Some Of these conditions may include variations in subsurface horizons such as the overburden bedrock contact or the contact of two different soil layers, isolated areas of low density material, and buried channels. The concern at this site is based on the possible existence of tunnels. Tunnels should be indicated by the survey as roughly linear trends of low gravity readings. Of the 10 low gravity anomalies, it was seen that 4 were very isolated and localized -- limited to a 10-foot radius area or less. The remaining 6 low gravity anomalies showed a somewhat linear trend. However, of these 6, 4 were found to be completely surrounded by areas of higher gravity readings and were limited in length from 30 to 45 feet. The two remaining anomalies exhibiting somewhat linear trends were found at the limits of the survey, one along the southern boundary of Lot 3, and one along the western boundary of Lot 5. In order to obtain background information on the mine workings in the area, we had several discussions with Mr. Steffan Albouy, a local miner. Mr. Albouy is currently working mines in the area and has the original records of both the Smuggler and Molly Gibson Mines. He provided information on the most likely general trend of the main tunnels and drifts, the probable maximum size of the drifts and stopes, approximate depths to water table, and generally how close the mine workings could be expected to come to the overburden-bedrock contact. Based on this information, the most probable trend of tunnels from the Molly Gibson Shaft No. 1 which could impact the two lots runs SW-NE from the shaft on Lot 7, crossing the lower elevations of Lots 3 and 5. This area is indicated on Figure 1. Mr. Albouy also indicated that there is a possibility of drifts extending from the main tunnel toward the lots. However, he was doubtful that -7- 11 I this would be the case. Mr. Albouy indicated that the drifts were generally about 5' x 7' in dimension and the stopes would be less than 15' in width. He expected that the water table would be about 10 feet below the level of Park Circle. In consideration of the information provided by Mr. Albouy, only one of the - low gravity anomalies which exhibited a linear trend would conform to the expected trend. This is the one along the west boundary of Lot 5. However, this anomaly is limited in extent to the area below the ditch pipeline where no construction is proposed. The anomalous area along the south boundary of Lot 3 originates south of the site and trends in a direction completely inconsistent I with that anticipated based on Mr. Albouy's information. It should also be noted that, of the anomalies which exhibited linear trends, 4 were found to run in a north-south direction similar to the one along the south boundary of Lot 3. These directional trends are all very inconsistent with Mr. Albouy's information. However, their direction is nearly parallel with the valley and would be very consistent with alluvial and/or glacial features. The general conclusion drawn from the gravity survey was that, while numerous low gravity areas were encountered, only one is consistent with the direction and trend expected based on the information available. This was an area along the west boundary of Lot 5, trending NW-SE and limited to that part of the lot below the ditch pipeline where no buildings are anticipated. This conclusion was based on the limit, isolation, trend and location of the anomalies. As was previously discussed, the results of the gravity survey were much more erratic than was expected. The most probable reasons for this variability was indicated by the seismic refraction and resistivity surveys. These surveys showed two layers of glacial deposits overlying bedrock. The contact between these two layers was found to be undulating. Along seismic line 4, the variation in gravity readings correlated very well with the indicated horizon between the two soil layers indicating that this contact significantly I influenced the gravity readings. However, the correlation with the other 3 seismic lines was not as good which indicated that other factors than variations in this horizon contributed to the gravity variations. It is expected that the -8- overburden-bedrock contact is also irregular. Based on surface observations plus geologic knowledge of the glacial deposits in the area, the overburden is very bouldery and heterogeneous. It is also likely that the glacial deposits (especially near the valley bottom) will be intermixed with soils of both alluvial and colluvial origin. The resistivity soundings revealed that the soil conductivity varies unpredictably with both depth and lateral extent. This combined data indicates that the erratic results of the gravity survey were due to the extreme heterogeneous nature of the overburden soils along with the undulating character of the contact between the two soil layers as well as the overburden-bedrock contact. Because of these wide variations, it was difficult to make any reliable and conclusive interpretations based exclusively on the gravity measurements. At the beginning of this project, we anticipated that anomalies would be encountered which may or may not indicate the presence of subsurface cavities. The original work plan included closer examination of any suspicious-appearing anomalies using specialized resistivity techniques. However, due to time limitations based on the submittal deadline and adverse weather conditions which limited the field work, these resistivity surveys were not performed. Seismic refraction surveys and normal resistivity soundings were made at several locations across the sites. The results of these measurements are shown on Figures 2 through 9. The seismic data indicated that the upper soil layer is somewhat less dense than the lower layer and is between 8 and 16 feet thick. It was also found that the depth to bedrock for the portions of the lots higher in elevation than the ditch pipeline are underlain by between 55 and 60 feet of glacial till overburden. The area closer to the valley bottom below the ditch pipeline was found to have approximately 40 feet of overburden. The seismic wave velocities encountered during the seismic surveys indicated that the overburden soils are very dense -- particularly the lower one. The estimate of bulk specific gravity of the soil including voids and moisture based on the gravity measurements was 2.54 -- also indicating a dense, well-consolidated Soil. The resistivity soundings confirmed the existence of 2 soil layers. As previously discussed, they also revealed lateral variations in soil character which helped to explain the erratic gravity readings. -9- Based on the information provided by the seismic and resistivity data, it was possible to estimate soil strength characteristics and make an evaluation of the impact which a subsurface tunnel, of the dimensions indicated by Mr. Albouy and located at the bedrock-overburden contact would have on a residential structure on the surface. The glacial soils at the site are dense, bouldery, clayey materials and could be expected to possess strengths on the order of 500 lbs/sq.ft. for cohesion and an internal angle of friction of 35 degrees. Using these estimated soil strengths along with a maximum cavity width of 15 feet, the critical depth was found to be about 25 to 30 feet. This means that cavities below this depth, 15 feet in width or less, will have negligible impact on the surface. At these depths, the influence of the load applied by the structure foundation is very small compared to the soil loads. For mine workings located at the 50-foot depths the safety factor against surficial subsidence caused by a mine collapse is about 1.5, based on this analysis. A 1.5 safety factor means that the forces resisting subsidence are 1.5 times greater than the forces tending to cause subsidence. Although the gravity surveys indicate the possibility of a mine tunnel on Lot 5, the erratic nature of the readings proved inconclusive. The overburden depth and character indicated by the seismic surveys provided adequate information to evaluate the possible effect that a mine tunnel of the maximum dimensions indicated by Mr. Albouy located at the bedrock-overburden contact would have on the surface. We consider the safety factor of 1.5 adequate for safe foundation support on the surface at the site. Based on the information provided by Mr. Albouy, we believe this to be a conservative number. He indicated that it was very unlikely that a continuous tunnel as wide as 15 feet would exist. A small decrease in the tunnel width would significantly increase the safety factor. Based on the investigations discussed herein, it is our opinion that the subsurface conditions at the site, along with information provided by Mr. Albouy, indicate that there is no significant risk to structures built on Lotsâ€¢3 and 5 due to collapse of subsurface mine workings. Since one possible tunnel was identified along the west boundary of Lot 5 using the gravity measurements, we recommend that no structures be built on that portion of Lot 5 below the ditch pipeline unless further investigations are made. -10- The general character of the overburden at the building sites revealed by the geophysical surveys indicates that, based on soil character considerations, adequate foundations can be constructed at the anticipated building locations for the proposed structure&. We do recommend, however, that a site-specific subsurface soil investigation be performed for each building site to provide more specific data for foundation design -- such as soil bearing characteristics and lateral loads for high retaining walls. It may be possible to perform these investigations after the building site has been prepared. Submitted by: WESTERN ENGINEERS, INC. -&024 Lawrence E. Violett Engineering Geologist ~*STE*j ,GE D. Bruce D. Marvin, P.E. Vice President * 69 14856 : 9% ~ONAL 19Â· 1 LEV/BDM/sr EO~T~~LOB -11- 0 0 0 0 0 1- Bo 19 (MOST PROBABLE TREND / OF MOLLY GIBSON #1 0- 0 0 â€¢ 0 0 0 0 0 4411 Â»// 140 - MINE WORKINGS 9 990 - f.i.Â·If~. 1 / //, / / / / /,/>0 ,///50>~~,2/ 09, Â·2/>.//7/ v , 32/9429*0''C' 9 :/14- MOLLY GIBSON #1 SHAFT / '94>44/1 / /7/42%40 / 4/34 ./ 'i' i.,,j////,/ /i//'///'k 0 0 0 0 0 . \ 5. . *~ " i .024460//f "Â·Â»u.0/ APPROXIMATE LOCATION EXPLANATION , / 2 â€¢ Grid point with gravity measurement /9 O 0 0 090 0 0 0 / / // Grid point without gravity measurement 0 /. , 8010 1 h / i e 1 + i- 1 7, SL-1 Seismic refraction line, Geophone numbers 1 . 0 0 â€¢ .... . ..: 1 1 . 0 - .. / 9 1 .f/ 2 I indicate - RL-1 LOT 3 4< Electrical Resistivity Sounding electrode -- // / 0 / spread 0 0 0 :o / .... / G / 1 11 4 Areas of low gravity anomalies , j f //1 1 1 / / LOT 5 SCALE: 1'= 20' 1 1 / O 0. * O 0 // ...... eD // 0 gz I l 1 25 5 <O E- 0 , <ofÂ»/ '43 4// 2 /7 4 /4 LU Z <23 /3 ... ....... .. r O ~ .. , V 7 003 4 4.6 /6 / / 0. +9 4 1 le 1 I t 9, 0 /. /.. 0 ...... A ' / 0 /0 / 6 / cy O, 0 0 / 44. 0 64:Â· ..00 0 /0 1 1 1% /0 /0 / / 1 10\ o // 0 0 + 4* . e .Bo AO . FIGURE 1 1 0 0 0< / I 1 / 1 0/ of /0/ 1 % GEOPHYSICAL SURVEYS C / 1 0/ . O 0// O 0 0 tw- . 0 0 0 0 0 LOTS 3&5 t \ SUNNY PARK NORTH / 1 1 1 1 RL-1 / / ASPEN, COLORADO / t I C SL-\ 2 1 1 1 0 0 43 < ~~ESTERN ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 L / -2, EM-Hes M . I CLIENT / DESCRIPTION: Sufir'.,Pcv\:49.014'i \-646 4-5 Se(synic Iril-Â«pritod Con W. 0. ILEG PAGE ~ OF Zi 56(srnic Li y. e - 1 By: LEV DATE: 5//8 l8G TIKE#)ltrANCE GRAPH i~_-1,â€žf-1.--_ --, :i 1 1 , 2 1 I r 1 - , t 84-3.TED \ li, &t.% - i .Deetk 4-0 Vq ,~ 1.1 eril<. c . 1 --T-~ c t0-- X.- s ~39 'r . ' , ' *to=tzÂ¢-Â£-t Â·----- 00 -wÂ¥__- ~ ~ 416,1 j '022' ,8531 +5 / V'8-Vz . 2 1- J Yd +V Z Vt= 7492:43 v<101(fps ~97.5 3 Dtp = 6,2.5' x\\ ,3 Dal= 5,Â·Â¥' iltt~~ 729 . > 6 / 67.1 21 Ho.Dz.= 515 \19 ,-2.-- t.0/ 63.9 66 - ** \ Ng.8 -- 0 -....-......,- - .._. -- - ~- --a.-.~.â€ž-*.-*:~ -q. - - 61 1 Meq* Ve(ocil: es 59 7/ - -- Tt = Stfus 51Â·Z 551 - V, 1 1 2.02{ES , 04 - Sil-' 9 1 37*.6(' /VL i Vi--2149 Fps ._ ..1. -**~99 j#jet * f - Â¥3 = 631 7.45 ..-.. ...e-. /Lu , 7 44 5 X32.5 Le*k to 94'4 e,Fue: * 26 8 t.4 V, 2\2&29 0 D = - - 44 =tid + 6.Ir -11 /26 0 , 1 Z CoS 04 3 /,4.5 i --9 1 Ed 9 16.3 14 4 39.4 11,3 14,5 12.4 10 .7 r.- as i .ti f 40\ED 6 115 = 11.8< toi /4.1' /1,=' 10.6 ' 1.0* 7,8 Â£\ _ ..,'/Z Z ve.ED= il,1' 0 '- O :11| 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 10 8'. 10 : 00 Ito t c.0 130 140 tso ar. phoâ€¢e 1 Di slaâ€¢ce (tee# j f 6cophibmell .D41-Eff PETED SECT\ON Â£-Grou.2 p,oF,t~ -4 - Etc u. .23ukery Glcic\U. Deposts _ 8040 Ve 04'4~ ct 12.OCDA i ,3 9 let'/4-0, 8020 Bowldevy C\QAk[ dersils : Ve-10 c M y 25 2-i 60 4> s 8000 t. -60 aftedrock FIGUKE Z- 595 0 ~~77zpep:FUE;~f 14Â£10(\11 *58+0425 /'A /ES~ERN ~ 1 V=V e.....1- 1-1 M e (_,M ~ I l i Secorls j CLIENT / DESCRIPTION: Sunto] PIAA Norlk, Loib 3 +S W. 0. 165 G PAGE Z OF 4 Setomli =Lierpret-4 it>4 Sâ‚¬i-traL U Ae - 1 By: LE V DATE: 5~18.)86 Mear, Ve-loc,-~45 .., ..&_0 -1 ..... _. = 12.354.5 )Y- i 3231fps )Vi=714345 4 ---. - .4- .---- -h. â€ž- - --1- --4---4-- 1/ '1 1:! I t -~- ;/' i' 1 . 1 1 1 4 - . -- .....4----â€ž - im 1 1 ' 1 ITIME-~DIST-ANCE. 'GRApt 1 M ---I--'-- --- - 4-----2--bu. -*LE.ths4-e 6,,v r 5-V3,:-17143_95 1 I Ve! 0 24 7 Brecks .-1 1 1 1 , 1, 46\Kke, '.>0.-lz-2 D X, - fi.I.J~ . - "R 48.7 y * . I 'Mt-*24:304/74 -4 48.1 1--L~ Vil-V, -Â· - .-xte 87 -1 - .-48:7 'S , / Â¥40.:t\38 9 -48Â·1 0 S ./10 & Vul /4Â·4 n - 15 9 .* t 4- . 1 \ g.7 317 ; 1 . X'K= 47.5' \ 2*1 3 1 Iva -'4 1 *M, 24.5 !.2 \ 20.7 Z. bz--1.BED'.f-Ej~.9092 1 '71 1 1 'ex D = 39.6 ---t-- -- -Â· T-- - 4 -- + - 4- Â· '-- - i " ~ 4 \ 97 4. -- - iii 2.6 '1 1 1 1 I I fli , 1 1 2.D BO 'to 52, 60 1 1 80 lt> too D i 44Â£ OfÂ»4-1. 1 t Se'Â¢>01â‚¬ , . 7 1 /4 Â· INTEEPKETED S ELE, 5 11 Death : 1 1 (P) V .Ground PreE le n Y - Ele<lte,17975 -I-Ill---I-----I- Boutclory Gto.ckl deposits , Ve-toctiy st:.12-35Â·Fps 14.4 15.qf '. 4 %2 cy tabl c- Bou-ldery 6''acr~..\-drposit -S be.)04) #14-le/-table 1 Yeloc.31 2 32-50.fps 21 6 77/ 1 / ' A I 777- j i NT j NIN / l EBedrork,Nett>crlj 52:'BsoÂ¥ps El 4 LAKE 3 i AA /*STERN ~ CLIENT / DESCRIPTION: â‚¬u.,\Ry?QÂ¥kblert\A )44534-5 62-(svn-C Ivlterpreted fort w. 0.16,56 PAGE 3 OF 4- Sedmic Unc -8 BY: LdEV DATE.Â· Â©8/86 ~DIST-ANCE- 6RAP~i -I I 2 i Â·Tl ME 14.-cr)-0 -9 63 3 8 , 1/f 1 1 r t ~9 _ ~K='~'4~: -- 78,3,6, ---- De-Â¢-K i, 1%fa Trfte,J~g ce- 11 11 2 1 , st, 1 ' i 1 -r i i :1/-=11.7--2.1-2 Â·-4--- i ' 1 -1. D 20 t. 54 0 1 /X..71 -1-7-- 741 , 66 4 - --2- s J Mea~ Dkh 51 Â·1 ; ,--, ... . .T -1 . 1 -Â» Ersp~/1Â·.1 --44390|01{45 _60-1-- , g X\- 54.1 St- Meal Ye-1 o. 4 -- 7 - * * 2 2 - 4 1 ----p-- -9- -~~ --~ Â·-~- - - +-4 - 1 FS'Â· 54) 9.0 ! *~ Â£3 7~ m Â·gL N s. 5 - - 0 529 - -1 V 1 Yi = 1306 -Eps . 17.2 x44.6-\ CX -=. S 1 4 40 _ YL ~ 262-3426 1 4* 0 1 1 Â· 'le) Vj = 664645 .5 - , 1--_ i.DeÂ¢kto:0/,r~derfi t 4 --~~~\ Ng.1 , 4.~t-l --D,- 24 Vt Â·Â·-t<:Intift,r-TE 4 -00- ---1--, .- + - -4- 1 i -1 - - 2 cosâ‚¬ 1 20.5- ' 2-6 - . -.- ; 1. 8. 5 -"-'- -4. ~ ~~ ....4,-- --0- - ~ .......,- 1 . 1 *\ *41, 1 1/ . id = 22,1 ' .22,1 _11,5 115 ~ \ 4 1 N38 1 2 - D, = 19.3' 1.4' 134' 12.9 -- 1 - - 5.7 0 65 tv,.Ub, - 14.7 ' ; '*~ C. iÂ· 0 -1 1 , 1 lilli 1 1 lilli 6 10 20 30 40 SO 40 70 60 le 100 lie ' 1 2.0 130 /'to ~so 4 D f stunce Ge-43 Geaphone.1(&6â€¢rdpola I-9 I~NTEEPREI-ED SECTLON Ge'hoâ€¢~el- .I -*..,M~ ' r 64-64,/c{ Proc, 11=3 Ejev. 1___31__. Bouldery o la-addcposrU-- _.._8000 Vejoclly 5% 136qffs 1 13.1 12.9-_ _ 14.3, 164. . - - Â· Â·~-t -*-- --T "+ 1-1 -4.- - .-r ,/ $.Fl 7980 t, boulderY' Glacio) de.cosits i 1 % sa.4 uÂ«ted 7 Ne.\0041 0<- 2.82.sl~ s ... 1 - -44 ~- . 5%.9 1 Fl 6,URE LE -4 77~~77- Bedrock, velocity A 6550Â¥ps AA/*smâ€¢N I 1 V=v 9.-E...4 11*te,(Milli CLIENT / DESCRIPTION: Suvity 'PArk Wori-6, Lot, 34-5 5cisMic Ivrtevpreidion W.0.1696 , PAGE 4 OF + 5<(sntic, Ling-- 4 By: LEW DATE: 5~18~86 ; i 1 . i i ie -I- I- i 1 1: PMal DIsT-AllCE-4611APH-; i 1 11 ill , 11:,1 1 1 1.111 1 iiI 6Â£-7 1 1 1 *f (11!.11 1 0/ i T i. ~5,-4 ~ 1 1 Â· ~ ~ ~ #Tg~ a _~-in v A- 554 2 1 1 '0 3 tepl 'do Vel 049 i /i_ _ _ -4- : 3-devfkce _ 1 _ _ __. --k- - Mea*Veloctiest -4- --f-->\1< 6 I - Xe ~VL-Vi . .-1.- I -- 14 / 44.4 Â°< 4--5<â‚¬.1~<-37.7' 2- J Vzj VI _ _.- ve..893 45 -1 1 - 4 'Vt --- -,IC. Â¥23 1010 1 1*5 - 7 ---- - --A, - 33 5. , .--1-Â·--- r 2 [518 1 10.8 1 , U ./6 S \ D' 10\2,3 - 1. 1. . / lo. s . 15 5 \ L A ..1 /96 25.1 --1.-,4 -----'i F-T- ; --1 ~ . , lk,7 , T 41, 94.1 tir Jo.2- U,- -E"z il )1 , ' 1- -; -24 -t- --4 .1 *. I I I .LJ<, Zcosc>< il ! , \ 11.5 1 0 Â·_~ fâ€¢ Â· A /2.5 12. 51 'i 1 1> . Pb \A Dip = 9.4 i J \ 10Â· O - .--4.-4-4-+ -, .4 - 1 1 } & 1 1 4 _Dic.= 14.3' .1..4--- i * #. -I % t 1 1 .i 11 7 1,11,1,11 't O 10 2Â» , 34 40 50 60 70 70 90 100 .-, ..4- . --0--- 4----r- -4-+ 7-Â£,Disht"ce<feri) t , -- 6,0Â¢ 6002 1 Geepl/, 01â‚¬ L Â·Q Gr{ d ?0*t L-1 -Â·b-=-- 4----- 2 141- ...- â‚¬- - i L . 4 I i I . I.- 4.#. I. .'. j , f. Grou,d Proâ‚¬ 121 V 2*L-- E LE\J, ELe v Soll\der;/ 6}qcial de-pos'iS - 8010 --, -9.- -*.--'.--*..Â¥ '.:.- - 80&0 - 9,4t velocely 2 U GO,Â¥Fc --- 6 125, Â£43 1 , 1 - Boulclery 41<cral d cposds : - 3 <-- - -4 79Â°to _ -. 9190 . ; ;. , Ve locill 2 19 06 4 5 ' rE I. i. /. ~- ItÂ· 1 - 2 4 &-. I I Cdeptk -6 bed,ock is Â©yealor-t kqvl 564-3 7170 - - 7190. -- 1 4 1 . 1 AA/EmERN / 1 V=V 1.-6.- decoids) i CL IENT / DESCRIPTION : SWAN Plrk Nplk,Lols 345 rj w.0. \456 PAGE .1 OF 4 kesi-S\(OrrY 500-qid EVIA : E- 1 Appared Res(â‚¬h 0-Ily Plots BY: L.EN DATE: 5~86 i ; ..Bq< Ads Laver-j_ef>fav-ruÂ¢F-rescs-liu,~Cokm-F-+31 1- 1-- r- -t--~- T-iDO . .-1 2,00 , 3â€¢0 ~ 1~3 + ' . 1 ..1 -4. . 1 .__t-_--- L i i 1 1 S 'ii 1 111 1 6â‚¬6-4-3 it 4% C j A red tes(â‚¬b'u 09 *-700 . 1- rOD ~ppa - - IDC>O 7 1200 i -1---t-1400 i i i-1600 -4- i i 1 41 1 3--3.--1--1----1 --9----2-be<-425 LA.Yelt 1 ~ 1 1 -~34Â«l J | i i i Lee Fafti~ S ---- 4-1 :A ~4142:5 1 2 1\k)evl rler-Ankj n- 1 1 1 r- L= leÂ·13 .f C-tr-*,uiliwes# 1----7 R=EY<24-cir Cnwlkeâ€¢vt) 3--~ '12''i! S L~ k 1 :1.lk! $ i | d 11 1 1 1 , 1 ' i /4Illl ; 1 3- 11!i i lili :' It, 0 1 1 , 1 X .' ~ 1 p. -'ll: 1 4 1 - , 1/!i i -f- -4--f--ff_-K ' 1- ! Pri if- 1 1 i AverÂ«te de'+4 \ 04-4=local bve,â€¢k ' X .1 , 1 1 Mse es v. ic\fle 1 : 1 lit L- \K . e ., -m i .: i j ; 1 , i. ; i Â£ 8 / .-#--i -----f + .~ ..4--4---4.-1 - f &.-- I - . t! 1 ' i F ' -I 1.\ . U~ "-'+20 - 0 1 --4 1 . - . A, L I 1 , . r / 1 /- , i / 1 - / .-.~ / . A NX 1 12--* I- --3 0 - Ka . , :44*. 1 - /4 .-- - ,-1.-i . m 1 , - i . , -- -25 - 1 , / 1 \0 7 x \1- FicuRE G t f 1 t AA/*STERN I 40, L K De-pl 4 CÂ·fi) 1 2 5 jicivil CLIENT / DESCRIPTION : SA ny P~KNot- kjlots 34-5 w. 0.1 656 PAGE 2 OF 4 - Rest stivilf 50%*divt: AL-1 Apy-red Xes ost\-217 Flols BY: LEV DATE: 5~9 ~86 6 liji i 'f ! 1iI! II! t!:lili 1 !1,1 ~ 1 1 Appare ~f *estal:241 (pk-,In -JF+) 7--t 7-500 1-10.0 -- ZOm . ''ll '5cx, --tarâ€¢leg 11Â¥e=r i 2 partiois 4[i , 1 $ i i ..__,_...._-_.,_ _ ~ ; 1 4---4_-i_U-__Lezt<5'Ar-Fel --CNe-tk) ~ ~ 1 1 ArravÂ· 1 - 1 Â£ -.- I a ' 1 -- left- OF- Ct, 850.414) . i 1 i 11$~Â· - --- f,r L 1 , 1 1 -1 1 . 1 ---/ji /-- 1 1 4--# 1 $ 3 1 111 01 i /1 iii! 5., X !'. 1 .2 1: li i I '' i':3 1,,1 t :11 i' 1 % 1,1,1, 1 . F ~.T 11 ~ . Ave,Ree bÂ« C -.-: -- 0 1 'ix \ 1 1 40 Ve i Dc dy breclk i i i ~ j 11 i\-1. SL-4 :' i- 1 i '1 1; t, i . . .. 1 -15 - -4-4 X ,} 1 :, ' 4 4 . * -~ #- I I. 1 --Â·-Â·.*- .-Â·.- - Â©-- p-Â·- Â·Â·'Â·Â·Â· Â· 1 1/ 1 20 - . F L -1- I X , . .-I *'/ g. At'- .-. 1 -- L 4 1 4 :1 ---- 1 1 -7 1 I ...â€ž4 -- + i Â· - - * i 51 GUE-7 : 1 ..1.-I AA . /6 -1 /ESTERN~ CLIENT / DESCRIPTION:5*ARY \Nde Nor+k) l.-Di:,34 9 Efes f,tivily 506lndivl~Â·0 KL- 3 w. O.1656 PAGE 3 OF + AppÂ«<54+ tesogriu~47 9\6\ 5 BY: L.E.~ DATE.Â·5~!9~56 1 11 1 :1 1 ; i...1 i 1 1 1 1 Apblr-Ed# Ecsts:Aitjity-054 4--8{ 31 ------ 4 ..4-4--4---â€ž. ':1 1 11. 4 i 1 240 3 -4 , t lilli 1 '1 1, 1 f b.tio 1 M 505 __. r 750 - loo o f--20250--1 1 - 1 i 1 1 2 L./ i # 3Iil lii,i''i L C K Vo\Ille-s .ill , 1.It 1 1!,i ?f' ! 1 ~=-L='efteÂ·FC+rf#ould. ..4 1 : ? : 1 ; 1 1 1 1 :41 . J?Ii!: 52.=rtekÂ·be@Fc.4(Â»erik) IRT.-73 1\,:r- TA+41 46<1#er A*31 ' 1 11; 1- , . ~ 2 ----1.- ~----------- X . 11 i \ , r. ' 1 -Â·-/ I M. Â·Ff- -Â·-/ -~ -~-0.' -~- --Â· -- *--t - --' - -- 1 1 . i i f i i : ' i 11'. .6 1 1 i . 4- %; t1,'' '} 1 1 41 1 + ti, eli 2---t --i--%\LT 1.-4-71 -- .-14. -LI--4.4.-4- , 1 1 1 ' 1 ~ < i ' A.--'-1.- - .... 4..4--li 1 1 - i Avercje icÂ¢k , 64< Â«./4- -.V, .b aâ€ž., rn~'.v.Xt 2,46 ve! C>c.zd: 1Â£redi ~ 4 .'t' 3- SL-3 i :i x\ - i 9.- 4 ~ 1 1 0 + . . .1*.9-- - .- .1 ~ I.) + - 1 i i i 20- Â· iL B 1 /y,--8 -1 ----. 01 1 I 1 1 1 .- r -v-- + + , ,& + -= i--4 T , 1 â‚¬ ' \ i :1,1 1: 1/X 1 - 1--- 1 A i t t.' . I ./ .,I '. I. I' t ' : t , i -5 - + W --4. 1 . 11 1 1. -: Â·--4- tÂ·, 1 1 Vk L #A- 4*Myal->Â»-â€¢/1 --/ -I---p--Iâ€¢-I -- -'.-t-7 . 1./- I.~~I~"-L . I.7-/*--* *. 1 i . . 1 i , 1 . -3 C ~ i. U -- 1 . --1 1 f - r Flau KE 8 A A As,En N ~ 1 V.av U......4 DepthÂ®et), A CLIENT / DESCRIPTION:50/.rryl)~k North:Loft>~-6 W. 0. )45(. PAGE 4 OF 4 Res ittiv#/5oundit: EL-4 Appvred fet ,-st'ody Plots By: LEU| DATE: 5 ~ 19 ~ 86 iii F!!:-tilillik i- j i 1 1 1 4, t 4950 1 Eec> 1 ' 758 - .....~ 102Â» i i I 1 11 00Â· i 1 1 -'1 ir i /*hill'! i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 !11 Ili f!1 X Lee. ~PaH[tio*s < ~ ~ ~~ ~ 1 *:1 2 1 1< L= leÂ·Ph,Â·FOr (seatkj i , j j ------_~-74--7- ~ 1 J 4 1 1 4.-4.---- 4.- -- \_t E= rfsÂ¥*0.FcirCM*9043 i i i I i i 1 ...-4 . .iiI, p , .BL' al, -, 1.e + e i .1 \1 - 4 ---1 5-'- I.-. -'. -1.- i ; + : 1 :1 1 1 1 1 e Totcd \NepÂ¥\er Al,TA~ ----~------" j ~ 4 1 f rÂ¢t . i , Â· Â· 1 i 1 i --4- / 1 :,1 1.! /i lili ' 1 1 S 1 ; 1 i 111 'I Ii;.ilit. :11 1! , L '' lill i & 1 X i - , -*-p 0---t- - *; 7- '1-!! :- t '; 4 - ---0 - ,, ! 1 1 1 { -- Adc,-42 6211 40 - '141-45 ,-A-- 1 r\ theuetedÂ·ly bre,Â·k .- I--......--1 , Tvl SL- 1 it 1..7, - ' 1. i it , !\ + i 1 A' 7 , .i L~ *C 1 5,1 1 i. - 1 1-Â· * f 1_-,-1 I li I It i -\4 + <:! a 11 1 .it' i 1 1 /1 1 A 1 1 1 1 \ 1~.1 1 : 9-* 1 - ~ -' / I'- / 41 8 11 1 ! 1 "/ Lb 1 / 1.,till 1!i 0 . ti '1!! t.J 1 1 ! 1 -1-- f / Iii 3,1 F 1; L % 1 1 1, :.111 1 , ti It 'lii 'll; *--/. *I E #.-& +1 --.-- / .- - 1 - ' ''E 1 1 111 it: i , 1 1 + . 9 . 1 + . : 11â€ž - * t lili 1 5 Â£ FLGORE-9 - 1 AA /WHERN ~ ctrk crÂ«-3 r 2-73-1- 0-10 -cJZ ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE u23) 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 IIA- 8% (303) 925-2020 LAND USE APPLICATION FEES City 00113 - 63721 - 47331 - 52100 GMP/CONCEPTUAL - 63722 - 47332 - 52100 GMP/PRELIMINARY - 63723 - 47333 - 52100 GMP/FINAL - 63724 - 47341 - 52100 SUB/CONCEPTUAL - 63725 - 47342 - 52100 SUB/PRELIMINARY - 63726 - 47343 - 52100 SUB/FINAL - 63727 - 47350 - 52100 ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS p ~SAS L i - 63728 - 47360 - 52100 ALL 1-STEPAPPLICATIONS REFERRAL FEES: 00125 - 63730 - 47380 - 52100 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 00123 - 63730 - 47380 - 52100 HOUSING il OU, P 00115 - 63730 - 47380 - 52100 ENGINEERING SUB-TOTAL County 00113 - 63711 - 47331 - 52200 GMP/GENERAL - 63712 - 47332 - 52200 GMP/DETAILED - 63713 - 47333 - 52200 GMP/FINAL - 63714 - 47341 - 52200 SUB/GENERAL - 63715 - 47342 - 52200 SUB/DETAILED - 63716 - 47343 - 52200 SUB/FINAL - 63717 - 47350 - 52200 ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS - 63718 - 47360 - 52200 ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS REFERRAL FEES: 00125 - 63730 - 47380 - 52200 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 00123 - 63730 - 47380 - 52200 HOUSING 00113 - 63731 - 09000 - 52200 ENVIRONMENTAL COORD. 00113 - 63732 - 09000 - 52200 ENGINEERING SUB-TOTAL PLANNING OFFICE SALES 00113 - 63061 - 09000 - 52200 COUNTY CODE - 63063 - 09000 - 52200 ALMANAC - 63062 - 09000 - 00000 COMP. PLAN - 63066 - 09000 - 00000 COPY FEES - 63069 - 09000 - OTHER SUB-TOTAL TOTAL *apo. 00 Name: 1-#4-72_ [)067(3/AC / )(/ Phone: 997- 35569 1/ ' ; Address; ~ M 4 . <rkÂ· -- ' i project: 3 /t 6 4-C tilqf 4.1 6 1 Â·)1IF - in r Al lir-,t:,4, fi/t- 1, '1 Check # G [)ate: Additional Billing: # of Hours: r. r A .r r. . INSULATION NOTES FOUNDATION NOTES STRUCTURAL FRAMING NOTES 4 ----- - --q----Il ................................ Roof - 1 1/2" foil faced urethane on sheathing with Wall Footings - Floor Joists - 2X 10 & 2*12 Doug Fir #2 & better R-38 batt insulation between rafters - 8" wider than found. wall %in 16" width - 2X.12 Doug Fir *11 as noted â€¢ Exterior Frame Walls - 1" foilfaced urethane on studs - 10" nominal depth - form w/2*10 . 1 lin - - 5-1/2" batt insulation between - 2 - #4 cont i nuous - - Concrete Walls above Grade - wood siding on 2" - 3 - #4 at stepped footings , Ledgers on Concrete Foundation wall foilfaced urethane w/2X2 nailers at 24" o.c. - Dowels - #4 X 24"V X 8"H at 4'-0" o.c. - 2*10 & 2X 12 Doug Fir bolted to wall with vertical in inner layer Spread Footings - 1/2" round X 8" a.b. at 16" o.c. Concrete Walls below Grade - 2" Dow SM - 4'-0" X 4'-8", 12" deep Girdres - Trusjoist Microlams as shown Concrete Slab on Gradef - 2" Dow SM 4'-0" wide - #4 at 4" 0/c. each way Rafters - 2X 12 Douglad Fir #2 and better ' at perimeter - 6 mil poly on 4" gravel Concrete Columns - Trusjoist TJI 35X Frame Floors exposed to garage or exterior -2'-13" X 8" Roof Beams - Trusjoist Microlams - sizes as shown - R-38 batt insulation between joists - 8 - #5 vert Dimension Framing Lumber - - #2 ties at 8" o.c. - studs - exterior walls - 2X6 #2 & better at 24" o.c. AIR INFILTRATION -dowels - 8 -#5 X 24"V X 16"H - interior walls - 2X4 standard grade ---------------- Exterior Foundation Walls - 2X6 as shown - all at 16" o.c. - Line interior of exterior walls and ceilings Walls less than 4'-0" high '4 + Headers - minimum DBL 2X6 w/full depth continuous under roofs with 6 mil poly, seal by gluing. - 2 #4 top of wall 1/2" plywood spacer at load bearing walls taping or lap seams one stud or rafter spacing Walls over 4'-0" high - others as shown on plans - do not allow interior partitions to penetrate - #4 at 16" o.c. vertical Wall Bracing - Simpson CWB126 or 1/2" plywood bracing poly where possible - repair all tears and - 04 at 10" o.c. horizontal Roof Sheathing - 5/8" CD EXT Plywood minimize punctures Pads and piers Floor Sheathing - 3/4" CD EXT Plywood - T&6 1 , - Install electric boxes backed with poly - Pads - 2'-0" X 2'-0" X 10" Hangers - Dimension Lumber - Simpson Hl)212, HU212-2 install foam outlet gaskets - Trusjoists - LSU135 - 2 - 04 each way - Spray foam insulation around all windows. doors Piers - 8" round w/ 4- #4 & dowels - Microlams - see details on plans and cracks in exterior building skin Foundation Bolts - 1/2" round X 8" at 48" o.c. NOTE: See plans and sections for areas where floor and wall - Wrap e>:terior frame walls with 1-YVEK Barrier by Concrete Slabs - 4" thick - reinforce with c framing at perimeter offset 1" exterior- face of foundation wall Dupont - apply over rigid insulation 6 X 6-10/10 W.W. M. thru-out C below. 0<A\A-120 /42*5 NU-Jkl0 AbSDBAL/5- - After drywall is installed caulk all arÂ·eas that Waterproofing - slab on grade - 6 mil . AN 0 6822*Afs-'OF TO' De #UFf' 1.el) show leakÂ·age with a blower door installed in house polyethylene foundation wal l s - asphal t Â·Â· -10 Flt,1 ort 40:,I,4NjBt '5+IDÂ¢/NI ANC)~ili~+]1&12 EXTERIOR FINISH NOTES Foundation Plates - 2X redwood W IR|At,JOI.* *TeRALV Roof - "Pro-Panel II", 29 gauge. color by Owner Siding - 8" channel lap cedar or redwood ~ ~\~~~ 14 925 ap i 09 " W !72- 1 1 0 r . \ Tri m - rotigh sawn cedar . f Stein - "Cabot's" transparent oil base stain Windows - operÂ·able - Weathershield low Eat south I \ \ , , 1 \ 1 (45 , \,bqr N-Â© ~14( 1 \ 1 / 0 1 \ \I. - Weathershield triple low E elsewhere r ,/ 1 \\ , 9 - fixed - site glazed Heat Mirror < - b -------.- i . , , , % %Â·,r , j \ i \ f t. i'Â·Â·tz f , . t. 1.1 ' f V.Â·, - - . ---*--- 1 ., - - N .0.- 4 -. --- - no'94 , , 914- l. 1 \\ \ \ M Â£513 CO' od w 1379,04-1 ~1~ *A<z tdo218 CD O i -Th 151_Â£Â«1 --- 2/51- COATOLIFS PINISM CONfol|29 ' 0 - . .... , .. ... .. 0 - . - . a .- - - - - .-I . . 0 .. I - . - I F. . 0 , I; 1 4 , .r , .1 .. ' I A. i 0 unu' V I. I . ..... . . , 8 1 1 1. i- I A 0 0 - 1 /.34 46 . . 0 , 1 4 - 4 \ 1 J /1 - lillilima. 1 . 0 t . . I.2-4. 7 1 . Na .. 4 0 A . T 4 4 -*, . b ~. A t .1.-0.-- ' m. 1 1 i .1 11,11 1 4 1 1,Â·1 lilli 1 i |11 i t '!Â·i'Â·it it, 1 1 Iii I,i I ' Â· t 1 11 11 47 - 1 1 j i I/Th ACUR/ 6*F FAÂ« ELEVATION I ll 1 1 ~E.0007 '4"-It-O" , . : Â· 1 7 1 -- h. 1 1/52 1~ - -11 10\1 1 - -*NICE 61AJK , R MP,IN| 01'L:) 41&-r- wift#,096 -it Â£ ' 1 11 Lft 163,- -22/9 AMIP OteR/Â£11 G -C \ Gff @P ob.11.illor/1 L ---- fl*18 fWL) 4' h... A-,2-4. . 1 gooF <10 - . + i. 1 11.1 1 P 5.9, 1 , h , RA 11 06 0 /L- , L d HZ>// up"\3, ~F~~\ GAKPOE /41-IOF MORTN FLEVATI 011 * T.- 1 1- , ~j riot+Orl e =-2~ '5[ofÂ»G LOFT Ae(X. 5 1 - - 1 L h C LINIOLfi,#A ) - . Ug>\ 60#'frER!?3 MI id.O" 1 #13 1 1/1 INA db . .. I4' -1 '2 (110) -- - --- 4 4-J-Qi-Â·44--4!1 ' Â·Â·40 OFF f f Â· ~ pt-rr- 1 h , , .V),1~ f -.P ~71J 11(;1 .1 ~. i . < 1 DOERD+ANY \ r Q.: G 4- I la . 1 : ft'i'AAE> 1 - C J . 1 2 -- MET REDEFIe- :4 1 1 . 1 \ e ---4* C CON C. . 1 , 3 \ 1 .diD' 1 11 1. . ill!1Â£Â· I ' 1 1 1 1 1 -%/1 1 1 , 11-7--11 ' ' , 1 p @U 1 1 : 1 :i 1 , j / 6,Â£>. / %%\0 97 0 1 54 - .il I *-Y ..g...1 ' -1r9.... U 11 . - ___314- - i O architects 1 1 --1 ; 1 - 1 0*:'40:4(. Peter j CHALINECLA,PÂ· ---> Â¢ . ./ 1, 1 _ _ %91 Dobrovolny DCOAR 4'0)#dd -Â·... . -- ------*-_-_-_- - . I *OR 1 1'--2-'' i 611-011 1 4'-0 ', LA Ftz ' *07. ./ AIA 2-- 4-,1, . 4 . \ - 1% . \ 24'-Z" 1 1 ' 1 . . 1% - 1.2.,t'$ /33 64â‚¬469/414:27 FLOOK FLAN \\\ (2 90 68 14>01- .4 .. *.,a,#; - 86@ Otrag 4,51 2 06 014 ~ ( ES ) 144 = 1 &,7' i - 04 R 11 1 ! 1 ._ -al-)1112[IQEL !76elDl c, - -- _ *NAZ?11 48 r lie Â·- +- - =1 Begarâ‚¬E~ ~ ~~ -. IL-- NAÂ¢44: 1112:1184dat4 A 7 9 0*o 1 KIF UL Â· /23 66%*C/ 4HO'7 1457- 21-EVATION \11~ 637Â©Al/2 1411 = 11-0-)11 ID, LOr-1/, 1 /2*' 'D" '~ 4 4 Â£1,(oz. 14.- 4,0 -4--- 1 /1 1 0 0 1.11 ~ / .,E . R.V.lon 904 ., - 1 f.7 2 &-4 D . 1 BL lit ' 162- 1" Â·; .z Â·le JUPÂ·. ~ 4,Â·Â·Â·... Â·Â·Â·Â·.s~Ft Â·1;j~ ' 10, Flt' 17 le ~ ~ ~ 4 21 1.0, coNG toe'-4 1 1 1 24-1-2/ t n'.0.-1 . . 1.-1..... .....1:.1- +To rli , i ' P I i i t 0 51 1 49 4,4- '1 . 1 C 13_l~Â«t-1 11\/E 1-0- FLOÂ®- FLAN , r.% 1- .1 Ne. r 411717-47'44 + 1 l 0- ,=1 4%' fyi ~di. * , 12- I , - 11 1 1 17- , :992 1."..... ; MI .- #42- -' Â·~ :Â·,7Â·'0 'Â·Â·1'~4:ft# ..S'.1,4â‚¬~'~ I 111 .cro FL ..Â¢ Â¢~.'LiÂ¢#GhSp,20ff~:4~:...<t:, # U 6 1 ./0#/ - . .B. - 86 u 1 1 - , 2-406 2Mdn,2-6*40- 1- 4, 11 4,191- '. - 4u,. 0,_~ =42- gld' -6 -i t' 11111 . 54.341*Lat .: i /7 // . 73*.d..t- 7 - -- -9 / ./* r- - 43*48600 Â©29*r -I '1 -,-- gÂ« il"ul.â‚¬75* 21'DO, i F r --#ki-~44*-ii.Â· -42' 4. r --- 11 14-] emf rre . -~11 1071- 1 9 TOMI-- rk.., i-77- --*-.. ;06'1224/ ~ 2 42' M LADIAFF,2 r- "-.- - _ . - -. -_- -2 -I<710 ht 4.Â·3â‚¬Â¥Â·1; * C .., Â·Â·. :.. a 22 OVEK- 205'B- f -1 0 2- 14' rll=LATIS E- Okfo'~ Â· - j*41Â·fiÂ·f~.it?.- F. 2.i ji: '= Ibl? 4 TO. 40>It. 103'- O" - r . . fÂ·< T 3343,92,/ : t- . : '.. 42, Â» )033 4 To. era 911- 91 1 -10 1 r A r J 1-gr lilli L44wwl'1-14 (*2~jaAoe 1 1 - A -1 20..19, Ew f *Cry r.12.23 3,1 - lili -- : 1 3 MI)2021 LEVEL- . lilli FLAfi t GFUL - Â·4 - ij r F--- - 1 ...ch.112-bti__ 4 -- 3 1 1 1 1 r---- 1 4/100-0 Â»av-Mul L--2 + f 04\10 43 |bel-C, 4-# h 2-4''O'' a . / 30 Â»0Â»KT N.,h T.â‚¬LEI-6:-. t F 1 3 l.p 4.-11'd (f-) GARAK / 94--\Cy *DUT!-1 GLEVN ION r.2\ 67*EUE /944>P FC)'JIÂ®ATIOM FLAM < 0 ) '40 = I'-o" /93 691~~- 14*91~- 9*8019 4 4+EfÂ«g /Â«15)1:7 KIL*'48 1-ji,k),1 1 1 1 .X _10.l , k C N h 444 1 91,4 HI,, h //5 f #l 81#41- 1 - 1\.. & 1 111 4 7 Ce.,2 IKA#.. 14*p 1,11 T lTv- 1 -rr- rA 'irirk Po GLE. 0 WALLÂ· , 1 1 1 1 * LI- 3 1 ~ Peter ovolny I Q i.:---jil fl~og AliAÂ· 1 ; I-'..a c CE h + TL- -11 68â‚¬ C F - . I -- I. ~647 date --â‚¬ tevisions 4- - = 0 4 y 1 A 1... !1 1 I iÂ· APLAN FlAN 4 i IlL IIi,l 52.-1' #12- 4 111 1 1471 -111 lei-1 . /344\ 0152Â©2)wl LE\451-5 PI-a:)12 2-,Ak' ~LIVILiV gvÂ» 1-l-.Zzpg RAKI 9 \-;4-17571'-0 FAGE Apos,Jo 441=.mi=..m==.agai~~~1.ZE'*5:.~ ..1."".M..1........ 4 .11 . m~ZI!1 1 Wail I 1 4 1- i 0, M .S./.i#/- 6 0 Ir207E,*i,- 0 , ~~2~115*i~, ... .. . 1 -2-51/filitlag/11641- . 1 . -. 4 r, -~ 1 4 1*4177/Jilkilits.I.51=5Aili~71=67.//.A-W~5t~ . L 0 4 4 -56 Il#olle,p,~~~ - Finv870 , ''6 =Ilillilililir~li ., Mr=-=Â· , . n , '' 0 J, A k ' : -A 0 . . . I * 01 , - PULL \ 1 1 / 1/ \1\ f ... & . 1 0 mifwlitrim.ilic/,Agilin - 4 4 i ./ . . 1 â€¢ 0 ..7 . a - 1-"I."'j'Y Vial . 1 1 i. 0 , A r Aa ro,Fl ' 0 11 -- I % 1 . 1 '' I L 1 'F, - I , 4 . 0. . . mil ... . A . - ' '. D. A * 1 I I 1.1 .- ~ 1- JI 1 , 1. 1 # W *1 0 1 - 0 -=. 1 1 1 IN*limELE . --4- . 0, 9 , 1 1 - 1-1 - 1 , L, --- 1- A m ,~A 1 == \r \ ...:. i I '1111!11 ..... 0 , --"Ill= 1 . . =....... Iâ€ž1 1 , 0 .............. . 1. 1 1 1 0 111 9 40 ill (4 .:0 , , ... "0,60 - : , 5, , A f & A. . A.- Ti------149 ~Xediga- 4/ 1'-j' -*- 4-L_-rop- OF#W) 2(61~ hiC> ---n---~--~ -4.- r# a -.-4- ~11...i '~ E-33:T-E=te-+ r 1 IL=44/ 11 \\ 11~ /1 1 6 7 1 9.30 , I I . 1 ' * L;,2, in , hi, --1 1 1, V I Â· ' CARklel M ALI Â» 11 1 ___10-2 -~ I 1-4~'v 4, )3#'wItÂ»$â€¢/6 Il \ Ix li 1 1 1 1-/ -+ --#. 2.-678 1 3â‚¬ .6,46 0 440 1---1- - IL-dir- - - F~ - - [ rtÂ¢ *AN<1 N1 r Â»f =71[-111 Fl , . 1 1 E-WAU. ovrd =I=*+-1-'.-1 -L--7.1 r~=31 11 1 1--- 1 l '.97 0-4 - FAXIA FLIJ M J , 1 4.1 -1 ->P i , r-r- - li= 1-=U J - ft k h. -- 1 1 1 1 *r.-fl. + . â‚¬> 3/99 Ff:%1 Â»044 : 11 pl D.Et 4 -1HE *fE --A â‚¬24 *4.~9*4 0.Â© . . 1 91 6~W'GE 1-I r-----1 -=-- 1711 ~ QI -il 11 *,4,64(*, omA *HEI,/09 Â©/ENIÂ¥ 41*\6:50 914Â· lo 1 1 2404 IL--~90Â£---- ~4- 0 ---i 14* -- 1 1 1 11 1*yf WALL- 140Â©[HI 6128 Or aol-1 9 ELAKI [7 2044 Wâ‚¬5-6 It \ 4 '' 2, . - /L ~~,8 6- bA ~ AoiNgTe . re--- --- I PRE. 11 I $ Ith 9 f . , -- iII--~7Â·74- Ip _ -- - i /. {1] / \ it ! 3. J . / t' k - 11 flu Â£ - 441 foR- 1 - â‚¬ Th FLY #AftÂ¢90 |K 35 0 V 1 121'- 10" : ..-9'li~'Zisi, 1 ~1 \ 111 \ iâ‚¬/ ~,- 1 1~ 111 ~ , 1 . ' j ' 3 14 - -- . - 1L.- h IL . 1' 1 ---- Lw-.--- -+ .*-. ill ! al'Â£74 1 4 1141 Â¢ L 1 / 20 647 1 01 LL-=111 1 / --+-1â€ž f 6 L. - ~ ~ ~7- Â· Caa,tizp - h v %10@1*R--- - L- 1 9. P 111 1 It. 1 }i - -i- -g -- tliÂ· 1 1 11 1 01. 1 . i t. WI>5-5-4 1 1 f 1 Jl , .. <U.--r#JI HI 11 ... 1 ' 11 , , 11 11 1 1.1 31 P ..1--111 , 1 . VI [ 11 - 4 1 1 1 1 1 . V., rj ' 1 42.7 1-9 --THE *Al,le --> 1,17 019 1-r*6i-1 6549 15'36 !,04<..11 11 - L- 4 1 ; 11 Â»1 1.1 1 1/ . 1 11 t 1 -r. OFf ;, . 4'b'' ~f, 51â€¢El-fE> D.1 # 1,1. ~ r>122 - - 4 rkto calc 1 110 -0 1 ...r 1, . 1. #. ,/ â€ž.* 41>J 60>1 7 , , , *9'j '.2 9 / ; ILF I 27 OXO :' :/ FLARP 140Â©8 141Â»12[4 \+1-1- " 1 14 11 11 - 1. 1' -~ -- 1--*-*I ---1----*-- -J----I- -Will 9 . ~ -Â»I~ - - ......... .-- ---------- --.--Â·- .---- - --â€¢-Â·------ ---4 * CpÂ¢t h]Ef - h|WTH1 At PAID( 4 Lif>HE-14 rAphiler' EGAArFIDIKIe ~~ 11[ . il-=- - , (22 1 =1-O V , â€ž I Â£ 44, 11 1 1 -1, - /-__0%1 4_021 _ 'd, â‚¬ ,' 1 1 F 1.6 1< r # Fi'.Vi f . '. 402 * 6 3- i FAvaA ft,JMED -- , ~ "~y//~, 1 11~ tr- 1 1 ' ~532' 4 it il ,$' r 1 1 1 ./.0 T Â¢ 1:. F /1 1 4%- 1 ; lid 1 @RACK'?-r / .' '1.--,-1 1 -' .1 j f 1 0. 47 q i Â· 154 1 - J 1 1 -1 1 1 1 ' D 1 1 #FAMer5 1 1 4 1 , t. 4.f .1 64-00 0.6 1 - I 2 V. .*47. Â·,â‚¬M 4 :' 11 .11. , 1, 4. I . ''" 1 f 1091,011 f-1 - - 11 " . .tr-7-4*9- Â¢* 4,N - 1 6 1 4,:Dl-JE!â‚¬ {FLE-VN~10[~ 4 401/451 d' =~ i I. i /.. ,414 Al' sr r.7'r- V , -3 1 I./u . . ; I-Â£ -' I. I. r~ grE 1441Â»16/32|40*11. . - 1.. , 7 Â· :Ld . - - + architectd thlic.(Â«16 1 - , -.---KLy-301 :0121 - 1 - ' * . i I.. 444/ Peter< 1 1 N - V 1 11-47 ... ...Ng 1.--111,4 Dobrovotny 11 - 2 411 -1 11141+ lili ....&:. -3124% Ill-]11 1 1 41- f7======--' A fAJ 1 1.- . I . f -- ~ ~* C\I. 1 -erÂ· Â·Â· ,. 1*1 1 1 -5 . 4Â·..'Â· ZÂ·*.. 1 - 1 -% -1--444*WEES# - 11 - #b- 11i 1 ./. . . '1'Ev.'17-J.~.4,0 Â·f,L~ Â· .< -t k. ~1 --------- --- 1 - N... -- - -- -+ -*.+ -+ . - . 'fiFEÂ°- To. Fl.,i ~1- 1 l -*-r - ' 9 ' --------# . -A**on , E '5 - 0>J Jj - F--- 1 t' 1 9 112>0' \ 1' 11 ~ 4'QU<Mb f - I .Ill. r - 1 \ EPA \ i Ai -In FIC -7- 1 10 i 1.-1â‚¬ i -Â·- ----- *13%9829=t --- - Â· R.visioneÂ¢ 1 .,Egtl-229#bda~*~ 4'Di- - - - -F<JeT- 6,2. P .- Aff - . . - 1 tr I ./ 1 i-%%/1-/ - .&.4,10 V ..': 4 -5 8 1 . * :.r''A ;, f ;: ~ DijytÂ·t#%3/33Â·.t-~-Â· ' 3:-'41 j 1 -- i *fole + . ... -* I --- 1 ..i 4 1 -4-- 11 1 1 1111-1011 11 I ~1 -, r:/Â·Â·42* .1 . 1 1 1 ...' 1 1 --- 1 1 'p, '.. ..., U. '11.; ..01:.1...3...1::,3 fF==-...g:Il V i[=~.. [In:---*;---- 4 - } i - .1 k 'It -~-- - - ---- - 7-~ - 1 61 -CO,Ff<r i 1 1 i .1~3 li 1 1 &it. , It 11! 1 1 111 *1 -1 ~ .|~ li . I 1 11 k.!FS-120(0 1 T .16...,4,4 ii ib 11! 1 - 1 j. . 6 1,6,~ 4 04156-- : 71-,+ 1-/4 .r .... 1.2...... 9 -i -- --1-- , , \3 Â· , A.ZE_~_...t:___Mit _..... . t_ Â· -1 " Â»40.11Â¥ ' 1 111 11 - i? -4 il \ . 1 Dif:,tte44.,91.-rh.-'Â· 41 -2 47 - Â·1 Â·' Â· ri.' ~ ~Â·Â· 4. *..4 ,.~~ Â· ' .Â· Â·./5 \l 7 - - 1 fOLOk!6 1 -21 ,brrocak ~ t. -1 N L 1 â€¢ 4/ 108''el' '5@WEINE'' d .. Â· ,Â·. '.~:29*329~Â·Â·25#.;Â· 1. ~:4 . I .1 , ..â€¢...Â· . ....Â·. '.: â€¢Â·:, Â·Â· I 1 FAId 4-- *10'146 014 Mlit.AD!.AM 08*MI -t' L -1 .3,/ 1 1 1.# 7. F .1 -I Â· j , U â€¢ i L EXEKIDA -1 L- ' â‚¬{TEHEr' d#~9~4,~ r 1 -Â·Â·Â· 1 1 ' 3 . LA[)11 25, jairl 1 L. 1 i =01 L-*1 -- 3 Â£ 1 4,~' ~4.- ..../ '... 331 ' i] , ~. 7- U A ~ - Â»- 010129 ON ~169*B graTÂ» - 1 ~ 2 l-240Â¢FICK| 1 -spec--rod 49\22* Id 0. 6, 841662 1 4 1 | s /â‚¬h @01-0 46 FULE>ilde -1*0(,1 gok*2*ELEÂ«Â»- - -~:~1 2 Lt /7% 5/NT 15 L. E~/frÂ»Â·' 1 4 4 46/0=77 - - 0 L J - -I . w /4 .2 7~-31 1 , i l j i i - -- 4, \\\4\\ \ \ I N \ \ \ 1 16' 1 *1 Â·. 1-4 I - -1 -\ I i--U \ \\\\\ 1 \ 3 \\ \ \ -\ 1 . 1 0.0 . \ N Â£522 co' od' W IE;75,Â£*1 4 Lof '9 /13 â‚¬yrre- FLAU ~1417' Ak Â£4020lf - C.L.) *CAL.2 le" =. #0 - - - WK'*r COATOURS - PINISH DON-FOLIA.5 iill RevabETPr[517 K%46 77'-'4 >rm/.' '99.t i .975-Â·.0-/liNe'Â·""--,~1"r -" - .99'r- , 0 . . . .0 1 . i'. 0 '' . I . . .... . I .. .. . . .. . h . I 0 - - 1 ~.. . 0 . . . ... I . m . . I. I ... ..t. - - ' . 0 2 . . 8. - " ' P ... '0 - 2 : . P I -= - . - 1. . , I -I . 9 I - . m .: 0. ' . I .. . . . W - .. . 1 . ... . ..... .- m : C - .1 . - . 'P , ' ' . '' . . .... , I I . 1 ..+ - 0 - I ./ - I . . . - . . . 6 -Irr.. .' . 1. .. . . I , - .... ... -.. ...- .. . I. . , S, I. a . . I . e. - - - I . I. . . ..... I. I -. -Â». ....1 ....1 ... -. I.- - I -... a - .9 - -. I - I . .. . I : I . , I I.-1 . -- m . I .: .i- . - . - I. - . .. .- I - - I - I ' - . - . .- -- . - - - - -a . I . .... .-. -m .. .... . ..- I. - - - -- .... 2 1 . I - -I ... .... e :-. .... -. .. . . h' .. .r - - ... ..-. . I.-*I -- . 0 F 11 .. . .... ... ... -. . -I - - . 4 .... . ..... . . - * * I. *I . . 8 . . . I.----.- -. = '' i 4 . / 0 6.0 I . 4 ..0 .. "' 20 U ' V ''.9,/ :#.':/ Att h . 72 :19Â·4 9 4124 '2Â· i .4,Â»#0tt ~ 9 .5 6 f ir,~.. ; .' ee*.. 31 b%;4~, f ' 4.F . D.. 0 0 - 4 . . T.H. i:. 1~ i8 Â·Â·Â·. 41 9 - 42 . 9 Val""1'A 4 1 - 5 =Â·- P. g. . 0 ~ 1 5 4 ..3 - 05 41'IF .0, 4 - el 4 41 .f .. *334Â· '00-7..1 ' Â» 4 4 r 1.â€¢ .. , h . f . A r ' . --- \. 4, - kL- I . & . %44 P .r / 1/119 0 - I 6.0 0. ' 0 . . . /1/ - - 8 *,24'. 6/< 5 . / I . :017 (82 - .' $ k '92.-ae.mil'=//0 -- 1 Â· 3Â·:? , -. , 14 :. p'*241 .4. 1 . 6 0 .. . -7 ..494,4,6 -I . . L ...2~ 4 2 4.,1 4 -'79- W e , r 1-1 4 . 7 '.44 41.1 : . '1 \ . ..~ .. D, , 4* . 9. 22Â£4 4, . -: ~ Â· witi 961Â·Â· .. . ': 4. 2# , -2 1 3 A , . 2. ..fr :6 :, ~ ,.0 rdâ‚¬.;~3'' tiF ' '~ '~rrv~,1246Â« - k, m'y ~' ~ , N' :Nfl, ..94:45'1-, . ... I'' I INSULATION NOTES FOUNDATION NOTES STRUCTURAL FRAMING NOTES ==:.===================== Roof - 1 1/2" foilfaced urethane on sheathing with Wall Footings - Floor Joists - 2X10 & 2X 12 Doug Fir #2 & better R-38 batt insulation between rafters - 8" wider than found. wall *in 16" width - 2 X 12 Doug Fir #1 as noted Exterior Frame Walls - 1" foilfaced urethane on studE - DIP' nominal depth - form w/2X 10 - " ' 7 -1....r - 5-1/2" batt insulation between - 2 - 04 continuous ,=ttmdrele-Â¢gge.0*6,648* Concrete Walls above Grade - wood siding on 2" - 3 - #4 at stepped footings Ledgers on Concrete Foundation wall foilfaced urethane w/2 X 2 nailers at 24" o.c. - Dowels - 04 X 24"V X 8"H at 4'-0" o.c. Â· - 2*10 & 2*12 Doug Fir bolted to wall with vertical in inner layer Spread Footings - : 1/2" round X 8" a. b. at 16" o. c. Concrete Walls below Grade - 4 ' - 0" X . 0, 4 1 4 deep Girdres - Trusjoist Microlams as shown A . _10 11 1 0,1 Concrete Slab on Gradd - 2â€ž Dow DMw4SMO" wide - #4 at 4" 0/c. each way Rafters - 2X 12 Douglagl Fir #2 and better at perimeter - 6 mil poly on 4" gravel Concrete Columns - Trusjoist TJ I 35X Frame Floors exposed to garage or exterior - 2'-8" X 8" Roof Beams - Trusjoist Microlams - sizes as shown - R-38 batt insulation between joists - 8 - #5 vert Dimension Framing Lumber - - #2 ties at 8" o.c. - studs - exterior walls - 2X6 #2 & better at 24" o.c. AIR INFILTRATION -dowels - 8 -#5 X 24"V X 16"H - interior walls - 2*4 standard grade ----- --------- Exterior Foundation Walls - 2X6 as shown - all at 16" o.c. - Line interior of exterior walls and ceilings Walls less than 4'-0" high / Headers - minimum DBL 2*6 w/full depth continuous under roofs with 6 mil poly, seal by gluing. - 2 #4 top of wall 1/2" plywood spacer at load bearing walls taping or lap seams one stud or rafter spacing Wa 11s over 4' -0 " high - others as shown on plans - do not allow interior partiti.ons to penetrate - #4 at 16" o.c. vertical Wall Bracing - Simpson CWB126 or 1/2" plywood bracing poly where posGible - repair all tears and - #4 at 10" o.c. horizontal Roof Sheathing - 5/8" CD EXT- Plywood minimize punctures Floor Sheathing - 3/4" CD EXT Plywood - T&G Pads and piers - Install electric boxes backed with poly - Pads - 2 '-C)" X 2 '-0" X 10" Hangers - Dimension LumberÂ· - Simpson HU212. HlJ212-2 install foam outlet gaskets - 2 - #4 each way Â· - Trusjoists - LSU135 - Spray foam insulation around all windows. doors Piers - 8" rÂ·ound w/ 4- #4 & dowels - Microlams - see details on plans and cracks in exterior building skin Foundation Bolts - 1/2" round X 8" at 48" o. c. NOTE: See? plans and sections for areas where floor and wall - Wrap exterior frame walls with TYVEK Barrier by Concrete !31 abs - 4" thick - reinforce with ' framing at perimeter offset 1" e>:terior- face of foundation wall Dupont - apply over rigid insulation 6 X 6-10/10 W.W.M. thru-out bel ow. - After drywall is installed caulk all areas that WaterproofÂ·ing - slab on grade - 6 mil 6 show leakage with a blower- door installed ir house polyethylene - foundation wal.ls - asphalt EXTERIOR FINISH NOTES Foundation Plates - 2X redwood Roof - "Pro-Panel II". 29 gauge. color by Owner Siding - 8" channel lap cedar or redwood ~Â·\I 925222 CO"M# 172.Il ' l. \ Trim - rough sawn cedar \ ' 1 1 i i \ \ 1// 1 \ \ Stairt - "Cabot's" transparent oil base stain \ 1 4 1 Windows - operÂ·able - Weathershield low Eat south C \ ' 1 1 \ N \ 249 1.- 1 / \ 1 \ ... Â·- Weathershield triple low E elsewhere ~ Â·~ ~~~9 ~\~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ \ . ff 1 07 - fixed - site glazecl Heat Mirror -1- . Ii' I L~ 4/TE** \ 4 4 INTERIOR FINISH NOTES 3 % < 0 < 4 * <- c \\ C \ \ N \ \2\ 1 1 L Frame Walls and Ceilings - 1/2" gypsum board 1 < Ill w./orange peel finish %-0 < *< -- -- \ Concrete Floors - Quarry tile or unglazed ceramic tile #0 - <550 in living room . 'r Plywood Floors and Stairs - Kitchen - hardwood. - Laundry & mudroom - linoleum, - carpet elsewhere Â· , 08 ' R Concrete exposed to Living Spaces - Q-Bond Butter Coat i \ ~ ~~ N e \7 1, f.%.0,1 Face of Fbouplace Lelln- Car~ler-& tile as per plans ~ \ 4 Â»f~~ -N *, 1 + 74. .* t- 4 1# i 1 \ 65 .1 â‚¬ /8 Trim - Pine screenstop and clear pine \ "50.0 , 1 \ 1- 1 , - 77 4-- - %44 \ , 1/L \ 1 \ \ \ 4145 52*AliON &04 ~ EQUALe Ddll-Pihid . 33>-Â·.429 4 1 \ -7/ , il . 1 /94 Â©66*ricki #colot' ~ 1 Â·Â» 4< 0 11 \ 1 1 1 li i X \ 9\6 O 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0:i :f'M 0/1 4â€¢2 I.. \/ A. 0 .*1'40 @mlild 114 1 1 / \ All' 11 8 11 N li\ ----- .\ /1 1>Â»--*--74 49&1U U eli i Lit,di - .. Â¥Mr-re,7,27. 1.1/4 \4 0 .. ./-- 14 .4 4.,39 \ arch*,Fts ..4 f 4/ %\ h - 1 9/ Peter '7-mer - 1 \ 0 / 1. - /4,12 9% X j v \o g - A . 4 \ 1& , , Dobrovolny \ I - .--I - I .,Â· . ,-c45>5<5 -41-4-22-VILLÂ». ~' i 1-- 1 #A :r* 1 ** ,.- I- 8-gst \7 AIA 215<545).ii .F-.-#-6=86/174* \ - -~- Too -h \\\ 1 i / -1 1 , ., . ' C' \ \ 1 \ 1 1 \ ef' 13, ., \ i I\ / \ 1/ \I r\ . . 04 \ \ R - \\ il \ i - G '. / A IDLE \ - Inty \ \ C< 4 / '1 --2*n--7---- 1. . 1\ 9 /1 0/ Hil #4r . :I . C . CÂ« \ -- i \ - 1 4/2 Â· 4 ./ 1 \4 *234 *.,6 "Â»2==1=*157- .. \ 4 â‚¬44+1Â©H /9 . .... 4 \/ i \ 61 66610- . . Â· 4/.M ..\ \ 4 . I â€¢ 1:7 , 1 1 N - 1 . / - i 1 r. 4, 11\ / o KESIPEPEE .1 *1 - . i \ 1 *,3.15 4 I I Â» - -- I \ \Â» 1\\\ 1 & 4 - \ 0 \..\ \\ 1\\. \\..Rks\ I MAINI *, 190* date $ 8 1. .. , , \\ ; I. IT \ r 11 1. , tk \ '1 0\ 1/.1 \ '4' 1 1 // 1/3, _ --- k + 4- C Revisions . 1 ,-'. \ 1 ' filiD' ' I . , E \ \ . 1 ..4~bl 4 X - 4.-11 2.< :- r' E- I \ flo - -4- .\ 1-1 4 , \ /1 \ 1 \ \ \ 1 \\ \ 006<3 \ f \ \ '(Pre#,5 +, R,Â¥,0,~4'' ~.. .\\ - IÂ·>. /44Â·Â·, Â·Â·Ti'+ -: ; ..1#jitriffiii I I ~ U/L -z- :-1 X : ...t\\Nt <~ '~ , 7 f - 1 4 - Ti \\ \ 1 1 1 -9 1 . /11< t\. \36, t.~992 + r_-A 6 , . 4. $ 9;00 1 Â·~ 4 ./ . . Â£ . /1 \ 1. 8 6. -1 1'344 ~- - .*4)0\ 1 f 04 \Â« + E '44 - 1 1 j \ i 1.4 aL \. -\..F 1 \ N . .9 \ A. b\~ A 5,1,1 LA Â· a~=:~J~ <f-1 -0.-- %\ I 77-/ . N. 1, + " ' At,\ bill sik.- 1 2~*r'' ~ -i -%+ 1 I / \\ i \ c\ \ i U ..24 ; 1 1. 1 00\ \ N .\ 1 -r\ \\ \ 6. (-1 . "41 16 ~ 919 51-evAÂ»J 7972- ~ - 41\ \ -G,j WÂ»" 1 E Â· 44 4 ill MQUN.53 DIJ' 1421 4 8 - , . ~ E-2~~.3 f. - 1.i.... -4. Â· t:.z- :953 -2 '. Â·Â· , \ r., 5/ . . 9- 1 \* 4-+ Ch 4 /14 tâ€¢wh k 'r/,42 .4144 0,9,1 Â«\ \ fiÂ· 060 1/ju'l' N PÂ«vt cipoli *v. , 1 -- .. \ 1 40 , ~ - ; ;l-t# 10. it' 'FkÂ°'C, like Ftz>' r- , 1 1 (1'04M'11 '6 4 \ 14 4 4 -6.-1 .\ \ -\ th Cart,d *i .r - A 1 ..ill I & I 1 1 - 1,5010#TRIC C .0Â·0 -0.- r \ . tvUL<** 1 'P t 0 :.4. . Â« Cow.t,Â«+Pom,- / el-TE nAM \ 1 \ I ..17.4 . 14011WRIC u ... 1.,.. ... 0 ,41 jd~:464%-4*..3-.- . _ _ , .1 -___4 x _5ffÂ» 7*.jt 1---14160, 3 . * p. 1â‚¬1,184 \ - PID'[94 , / 1 91'M-- - \61 . \ 4/ be#Â¥ U -p 1 - 1 x ' 4 Ki 45 .... 1 how PlA,"N J 1 1~1 9~22 60' oci" vy 1 9%,04' i--- I 43 1 0,0 +rr. , 91-9/ FL~ld , lof D ed JUY @AL 140218 ~___ p#14 604-[Di-12,5 - FRISH CON-(0025 .- 0 Â· City of Aspen 2137- 07 4- 0 1 -i ih . DATE RE CE IV ED: 4'- 1,8 E NO. 11 ~~ DATE RECEIVEDi COMPLETE - 17& t+ f - $ A 47,1.k.- t.vf~- STAFF: *RaJ Eer NAME :R7*#L hÂ©*) 6486/4/def ~069 ~ 1 -dAPPL ICANT: 8,Â¢#ll 4.91Mcd 5â‚¬Giâ‚¬t, Applicant Addre~#hone: REPRES ENTAT ]VE: Â·igfEâ‚¬ --lu6040(.Ald -f 500 up) Representative Address/ihone : 3*3(,.er- iÂ¢/D, 25#blitrl0BS i Cl> 3/617~ Type of Applica~~tt;f- 4.1,t~'41" ea / A.J. "Ld/'62,0,ak-- do 2764 ~27-6369 I. GMP/Subdivision/PUD 1. Conceptual Submission 20 $2,79.00 2. Preliminary Plat 12 1,40.00 3. Final Plat 6 800.00 II. Subdivision/PUD 1. Conceptual Submission 14 $1,900.00 2. Preliminary Plat 9 1,220.00 3. Final Plat 6 820.00 III. All "Two Step" Applications 11 $1,490.00 IV. All "One Step" Applications V< 5 $ 680.00 V. Referral Fees - Environmental ~i, Health, Housing Office 1. Minor Applications 2 $ 50.00 2. Major Applications 5 $ 125.00 Referral Fees- Engineering Minor Applications 80.00 Major Applicationsâ€ž~ 200.00 Â·Â·Â·11 t i. t P&Z CC MEETING DATE: m41 1 g PUBLIC HEARING:/ YES NO 1 DATE REFERRED: 41 +6 IN IT IALS: REFERRALS: City Atty -_M Aspen Consol. S.D. - School District City Engineer Mtn. Bell Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas ,/Housing Dir. - Parks Dept. State Hwy Dept (Glenwd) / Aspen Water Holy Cross Electric State Hwy Dept (Gr.Jtn) City Electric 7- Fire Marshall--Â·l- Bldg: Zoning/Inspectn Envir. Hlth. - Fire Chief Other: Roaring Fork Transit Roaring Fork Energy Center F INJL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED:-1 - / INITIAL: _EL_ City Atty - City Engineer --l/~ Building Dept. Other: Oth er: FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: ~ c. ittuDED Reviewed by: C_--MELEEZ City Council 0'â‚¬.'el-am, th Ol)40(>re@hilne. 3 1 0-4, Fl~1 53 liES 14 Fli aA/b 41*r,Â»pl~ tful 5 4 1-:~071 f,24 16 *rfuvt 4 17 ..i P . 4, 37)40 /94LL'rut, /4.-:ow /L 4 1)-uyi :U i.al RioJL,u, 0-,~ 126 3 t-5-, 5** 20Â·Jt OBA Li.-1Â«â€¢4 1 O Â·01J+J (0 46 bÂ·ftlriM cvJ.,1.04, 1. A site specific subsurface soil investigation shall be done by a qualified geotechnical engineer after the building sites have been prepared to determine specific foundation design. The investigation results and designs shall be submitted to the Engineering Department and Building Department prior to pouring the foundation. . 2. Revegetation shall incl ude the type of plantings and procedure ~ of revegetating as represented in the Siegel application. Revegetation shall be accomplished by no later than hne-Ock-- 3 1987. A new revegetation scheme shall be submitted for the Smith site; Lot 3, to the satisfaction of the Planning Office prior to issuance of a building permit. Any changes in the revegetation schemes shall be processed through an appl ication to the Planning Office, and if they are determined to be significant, shall be processed as an amendment to the 8040 Greenline Review approval. 3. Water meters shall be located at or near the property line and the water line shall be sleeved where is passes under the Salvation Ditch, to the satisfaction of the Water Department. 4. All utilities shall be undergrounded. 1 1, 5 , R A-Â·2 6411:Â·40 rok~,41, ",1 r<4 obll lÂ·i e+414.4 a.0 8.Â£.,ritg'Il; 4 ilt- 4fi.kilÂ·r,v: (~3, Access to the property shall be along the Salvation Ditch through Molly Gibson Park. Access easements obtained from Pitkin County shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the City Attorney prior to the issuance of a Building permit. 1 1 0* ('4 , ati,:.b tect'ratul 4 604,0,4 61*e//5 "Ual p.qU & ri<10414 *1%** 4 0* '093~''t/Lit#~ D*#d- * ~* 66NÂ¥,4 }14 2-9, 14 3 6 41-t *484 k,Ui.P J / . M 7 , ~1 7,flvvi al#Lt-, - 410Â«4 B .6+j â‚¬*a/yke,3 ;. _ 42/rivgk i#72 26 5 462/44 j W U Odd #:<.,Â·D~~1144 Q 4, 24/k/)t.4 OfftÂ·'4 21-,/ 4Â·., C.Â·JJ~~'1415#Â®a wtlt 41# - ilifif' 492*4Â»4 01)22'j% . . 494/(/72Â£,-wil~ ./0Â°Â°Atlk/ild, â‚¬62Â©truc loti ,*divzz ~-4 bv,14 P-uvrki~. . j t /7.-h . U , MEMORANDUM mnâ€¢ City Engineer Aspen Water Department Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Fire Marshall FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: Lots 3 and 5, Sunny Park North Subdivision - 8040 Greenline Review DATE: April 10, 1986 Attached is an application submitted by Gary Wright on behalf of his clients Barry and Sharon Siegel and Robert and Glenda Smith, requesting 8040 Greenline Review -for the construction two single family homes, one on Lot 3 and one on Lot 5, Sunny Park North Subdivision. Both parcels are crossed by the 8040 elevation line and therefore must be reviewed pursuant to Section 24-6.2 8040 Greenline Review criteria. Plea se review this material and return your referral comments to the Planning Office no later than May 5, 1986. Thank you. MEMORANDUM TO: Bill Drueding, Zoning Official FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: Smith Revegetation Plan (Siegel-Smith 8040 Review) DATE: March 30, 1987 Condition #2 of the Siegel-Smith 8040 Greenline Review approval by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission required the Smiths to submit a new revegetation scheme thaqt conformed to the type of plantings and procedure of revegetation as represented in Siegel's application. Their revegetation plan does meet this requirement. It should be noted that if the Smiths desire to plant trees on Sunny Park North Lot 5 this would be in keeping of their conditions of approval and would be desireable. The intent of the regetation scheme is to plant as abundantly as desired scattered native species that would enhance the hillside, and to discourage introducing many exotic species that would then call attention to the distrubance of the hillside. CC: Bob and Glenda Smith â‚¬ July 24, 1. 7 (E) (.., . 29. 1 Steve Bursreir Aspen and Pitkin County Planning Department i .7 .Â·. 7 7.- 1 ..Iâ€¢ Â·3 0. i.Â·j alena Aspen, CO 81611 m J pear breve: Enclosed are multiple copies of a new access design for Locs 3 and 5, Sunny Park North Subdivision and the topographical survey from which the first was in part derived. These are submitted as part of ongoing 8040 Greenline review of Lot 3. The major areas of consideration at this point appear to be architectural and accE Let me first discuss the architectural 0 CS ./ design. .. .. .1. rhree criteria determined the architectural form ot t.. he r-esldence as presented. Fhe first is the program of the owners, Barry anc Sharon Siegel. Fhe arrangement and disposition of spaces ano floor areas is my professional interpretation of the way the residence will best sat:isÂ·fy their needs and Ii-Â·p=Â·" ..f_*tyle. Secondlyu the design is passive solar, necessitating maximization of south facing glass. Besides resulting in an efficient residence with an auxiliary heating requirement of 21.8 MBTU. $450 annually at current electric rates, this satisfies some commun.ity goals and desires for reduced energy consump'E.ion. Thirdly, the roof form is also in part a response to snow. The meral roof, choice o f the owners, slopes north and south to divert avalanching snow away from, rather than onto. the west deck and main entryway to the house. On the north. with few windows, it may accumulateâ€ž On the south, melting will occur more rapidly than on other exposures. I must also remind you, that the floor area is less than maximum F.A.9 1,1 5 that the building department, in concurrenc reviewâ€ž accepts the roof as beino below maximum building hei g i--j -c . an c i co + Article 24-8.13 (page 1497, Supplement 13) of the Municjpal Code or Hspen, regarding requirement for area and bulk reduction in the R15 P.U.D. zone: "In no event howerver a P.U.D. designation notwithstandingâ€ž i shall compliance with cnis Article be requireo for the coMstr-Llc izi. on of a s,ingle family residence on a .:Â»par C t. L. e lot." Stil[-1/ =jER Peter Dobrovolny AIA 4rawer 340 old snowmass CO 81654 927-3369 LaEglitects_ Regarding access, having failed development of a new subdivision, which would have provided a new building envelope and access from abovel we now provide access from Park Circle Drive. the only i legal access to the lot(s), as shown on the attached drawings. Revegetation will be as previously proposed, including City l'and u , to the edge of Park Circle Drive. Note that neither City or 1 County have revegetated areas disturbed as a result of Pa'rk 4 i Circle Drive construction. t K This access will work. It is not optimum, with sizeable cut and fill at either end and tight turning radii. It also precludes future consideration of a nordic or pedestrian trail along the Salvation Ditch alignment. However, denial of this, our best efforts constitutes taking without compensation. With no threat intended from me personally, denial or tabling on August 5 may well initiate filing of suits from either Siegel and Smith or Colorado National Bank, or both. There is an alternative that I believe comes very close to giving everbody what they want. The alternative is driveway access along Salvation Ditch and a parallel trail easement just to the south and west of the Ditch from Smuggler Mountain Road to the east end of Lot 3. Achieving this solution will take some time and the sincere participation of the owners, the City and the County. All parties will have to give a little: - The owners will have less privacy. - The City will get somewhat less than an optimum trail. - The County will need to allow a private driveway through Molly Gibson Park. However, all parties will get what they want: The owners will get approval to beigin construction, now if desired (more on that below). - The City gets a trail easement without the dilemma of the cost of condemnation to save the trail. - The County, "not in the trail business", has no need to dedicate a trail easement above the lots nor to participate in a land swap to provide improved building envelope and access from , above. It's cogent to point out that the cost of earthwork to prepareÂ·an eight foot wide trail parallel to and slightly below the Salvation Ditch should be in the same magnitude as the 05,000 - $7,000 quoted to us for earthwork for the driveway access presented and significantly less than condemnation. What I would like to see achieved on August 5 is approval of the revised 8040 application with the driveway access as presented, ~. 01' with conditions that all parties begin to immediately negotiate y.-Â·. the alternative and that the Salvation Ditch access be used for .-9 - 22*f.44:41. 4 4.: 1 + ' construction purposes only until such time as the alternative access issue is adequately resolved one way or another. In conclusions this is the best possible solution: - it preserves the opportunity to maintain a trail alignment, which the City Attorney instructs us should never have been an issue in this review, - it completes 8040 review without tabling and/or law suits, - it satisfies the owners' desire to complete purchase and begin construction. Please accept my complete willingness, and that of the Siegels. Smiths and their legal cousel, to do everthing in our power to work with you to achieve a solution that is in everybody's best interests. Sincerely, ~/~ / Enclosures p.c. Wright and Schumacher Barry and Sharon Siegel Ir* 1 4. 1 Page 2 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW Section 24-6.2. of the City of Aspen Municipal Code requires that all development above elevation 8040 or within 50 yards below that elevation be reviewed on the basis of nine items of criteria, as follows: Sec. 24-6.2.8040 Greenline review. (a) Intention. To provide for review of all development above the 8040 greenline within the City of Aspen and all development fifty (50) yards below the 8040 greenline so as to aid in the transition of development from urban uses to the adj acent agricultural and forestry uses; to insure that all development is compatible with the prevailing slopes; to provide for the least disturbance to the terrain and other natural land features of the area; 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. (b) Review criteria In reviewing the development plan, the zonia.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, s now removal and road maintenance; (3) The suitability of the site Â·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 poll ution; (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, Â§ 1) Page 3 The subject property is Lot 3, Sunny Park North Subdivision, located on Park Circle Drive in the City of Aspen. The lot is effectively split by the Salvation Ditch creating a small. steep building site immediately off Park Circle Drive on the lower part of the site and a more buildable building site on a fairly flat bench above the Salvation Ditch. In this part of Aspen the Salvation Ditch is run through a buried four foot diameter concrete culvert. The resulting ground surface is a rough but driveable roadway. Access to the upper building site is provided via the Smuggler Mountain Road and an improved driveway to be constructed over the ditch roadway. The roadway is sufficiently wide enough to require no cut and fill, only minor grading and road base. See attached documentation explaining access and use of both roadway and ditch. A site plan, Sheet 1 of the construction documents for this project is attached. It shows a small garage shop located on the lower poi -tion of the site and the main house located on the upper building site above the Salvation Ditch. An isometric view on the same sheet describes the architectural character of the house. The lot is 18,380 square feet in area. Also attached is description of ownership of the property. This application addresses each item of review criteria as presented above. (1) A verbal indication of sufficient water and water pressure was given by the City of Aspen Water Department and a written request for written verification was made March 27, 1986, copy of letter attached. Written response will be forwarded to the Planning Department upon receipt. City sewer main is located in Park Circle Drive. Electrical power is available at two locations near this property. Holy Cross Electric is currently investigating the location of a transÂ·former- in the vicinity of the south â€¢Â·r west corner of the property to provide service to lots o. 3 and 7 of this subdivision. (2) Park Circle Drive provides access to the lower building site, where the garage shop is located. It is maintained by the City of Aspenâ€ž The City of Aspen will provide road maintenance and snow removal on the Smuggler Mountain Road as far as the upper part of lot seven. See attached plat showing reconfigured lot seven, the result of a land swap to provide for extension of Park Circle Drive. The Pitkin County Housing Authority is the current owner of lot seven. Road maintenance and snow removal will thus be provided to the drivewav to be constructed over the Salvation Ditch, this driveway providing access to the building sites on both lot three and five. Maintenance and snow removal on this private driveway will be the responsibility of the owners of Page 4 these two lotsâ€ž There will be no vehicle access beyond the southern side of lot three. (3) Buildable area for a house is limited to the bench and hillside above the Salvation Ditch. Slopes range from less than 10% on the bench to over 45% on the upper portion of the site. As the buildable area is small, the house will be built on the bench and into the hillside, with the foundation walls acting as retaining walls on the upper part of the site. See attached report from Doctor Nicholas Lampiris addressing slope, ground instability, etc. See also attached portion of geologic map of the Aspen area. showing approximate location of subject propertyâ€ž (4) As the subject property is part of a small hills the top of which is just above the northeast property corner. the only drainage and runoff occurring on the property is that from snow and precipitation falling on the property. No major or minor dr'aimagee occur. See attached report from Doctor Nicholas Lampiris. (5) Being a single family residence, the project will have insignificant, if any, effect on air quality in the city. both during construction and after. (6) As discussed in (3) above, the house is designed for the only available building site on the property. The house is designed to be integrated into the site so that final graded elevations around the site are little different than existing elevations. Access to the building site is along the Salvation Ditch roadway, preventing the need for new road cuts on the hillside. (7) Grading will be limited to the immediate vicinity of the house and areas around it requiring backfill after excavation and construction of foundation walls. Final. grade will be little different than existing grade, resulting in minimal disturbance to the terrain. Existing vegetation is sage brush and small service berry. No trees exist on the building site. Revegetation of disturbed areas around the site will be with native grasses to provide stability, reduce maintenance and need for watering and to create an appearance of natural vegetation around the house. (8) Structures are placed on the only buildable areas of the site. Cutting and grading will be limited to the vicinity of the structures themselves and grades around them will be returned to existing slopes. The Salvation Ditch will be used as an access drive to the house, preventing the need for cutting and filling for a driveway access. Other areas of the site will be undisturbed. (9) This neighborhood is composed of single family and multi-family dwelling units, generally small in scale but densely developedâ€ž A few blocks to the northwest of the Page 5 property is the Centennial housing project, massive and highly visibleâ€ž An appraisal of the property and house as designed. performed bv James J. Mollica and Associates <not attached). states "The neighborhood is considred fair to average in appeal primarily due to the high density of development ..." and "The neighborhood has steadily improved over recent vears as more and more properties have become owner occupied." This project can only improve the neighborhood. This application deals with a single family residence, designed to be in compliance with F.A.R. and building height requirements for the R-15 zone. The house will be built into the hillside and stepped up the hill in order to reduce visual bulk and to create architectural integration with the building site. Exter- i or mater- i als of cons'tr- oct. i on ar-* e wood siding and metal roofing. Colors of both will be earth tones to reduce visual impact. Building sites on lots five and seven of this subdivision are at a higher elevation than the building site on lot three. Residences constructed on these sites (one is currently contemplated on lot 5) will have a much greater impact on the open character of the mountains even if height and bulk are reduced. 44 9. . A ++0,64*,4 0 APPLICATION FOR 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW ON Ier .5 SUNAZY PARK NORTH SUBDIVISION. CITY â‚¬ ASPEN This Application is being submitted pursuant to the requirements of Article VI Special Development Permits. Â§24-6.1 and Â§24-6.2 8040 Greenline review. This Application is being submitted in conjunction with the Appliction of Barry and Sharon Siegel, Lot 3, Sunny Park North Subd ivision, City of Aspen. The Siegels' property is an adjacent property and to a great extent the criteria and ijnpact are similar or identical. REVIEW CRITERIA 1. There exists sufficient water pressure and other utilities to service the intended development. Jim Markalunas of the City Water Department indicated that the City water line, with sufficient water pressure, is available to meet the needs of the proposed home. Heiko Kuhn of the Aspen Sanitation Department indicated that there is a sewer line located under Park Circle which is adequate to service the proposed home. Jeff Franke of Holy Cross Electric stated that there are two different locations that are accessable to Lot 5 for electrical hook-ups. 2. Adequate roads exist to insure fire protection, snow removal and road maintenance. Proposed access is by Park Circle which now connects to Smuggler Mountain Road. Jim Wilson, City Fire Marshall, confirmed that a City fire hydrant is located across Park Circle and is accessable and adequate for fire protection. Park Circle and Smuggler Mountain Road are or will be maintained by the City. After the County sells Lot 7, the City will also maintain the access on Smuggler Mountain Road. The access fran Snuggler Mountain Road along Salvation Ditch will be maintained by the owners of Lot 3 and Lot 5. 3 & 4. The site is suitable for the proposed development of a single family residence considering slope, ground instability, mud flow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. The development will have no negative impact on the natural water shed, run off, drainage, soil erosion or consequent effect on water polution. Please see the report fram Banner and Associates, Nick Lampiris Ehgineer attached as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein for confirmation of the foregoing. 5. The proposed home is a single family residence of approximately 2,400 square feet and consequently will have little effect on air quality in the City of Aspen. ;ccording to Ordinance No. 5, Â§11-2.3 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen the proposed hame will have two certified woodburning devices. It will use the list provided by The Environmental Health Department to select the *vodburning devices so the air quality will not be negatively effected. 6. Park Circle and Snuggler Mountain Road are in place. Likewise, the driveway will be an upgrade of the existing roadway constructed by the Salvation Ditch Company adjacent to their covered culvert. All design will be done in mind with the maximum ccrnpatability with natural terrain and the 1 V owners intend to replace and supplement natural vegetation in an attempt to get the home to blend in with the acl jacent terrain. The proposed single fanily building is designed to conform to the natural slope and terrain of the site (Please see the topographic map and section of building attached as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein). 7. Minimal grading and excavation is proposed looth for economic anc] conservation reasons. No plans are mile to excavate except where it is absolutely necessary and every reasonable effort will be made to preserve the natural terrain, vegetation and land features. In addition planting and landscaping are planned as described above. 'One area that is excavated will be the north wall of the home and consequently such design will offer both visual and energy conservation benefits. 8. The hore is the only structure to be built on the property and it will be placed such that the existing Salvation Ditch Road will serve as a driveway and only minimal cutting and grading will take place. The design of the home will maximize open space and in fact the design of the home (with the north wall set into the slope) will preserve the mountain as a scenic resource ar,1 in add ition the planned landscaping ard planting will substantially enhance the view of this area from the town of Aspen. 9. The current character of the mountain is substantially barren and the neighborhood is comprised of both single family and multi family dwelling units. The high density, highly visible Centennial Housing Project is only a few blocks to the northwest. The Application for this proposed home will in fact will be less than what would normally be allowed within the R 15 Zone as far as F.A.R. and building height. The house will be built into the hillside for asthetic and energy conservation reasons. The si<ling will be natural rock and wood with a wood or shake shingle proposed. The building site on Tnt 7 of the subd ivision will be a higher elevation than the build ing site proposed for this home. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND CONSIDERATIONS This property is presently owned by Colorado National Bank, Glenwood Springs and is under contract to the applicants Robert and Glenda Smith. A Driveway and Utility Easement, will be entered into between the current owner and Salvation Ditch Chnpany, a draft of the Agreement is attached as Exhibit "C" and incorporated herein and it is beleived that in substance it will be accepted by the Salvation Ditch Comppany. A topographical map has been attached to show the approximate location of the property in relation to the City and Tbwnsite of A:pen. Colorado National Bank will be subjecting this property to a restrictive covenant for driveway use and maintenance Which will be affective to deal with all situations of the shared useage that will occur between the owners of Lot 3 and Lot 5. SIBMARY Based on the foregoing the Applicants submits that the intent and specific review criteria of 8040 Greenline Review on Lot 5 Sunny Park North Subd iv is ion have been met and that it is appropriate for the aniths to be permitted to construct the proposed single family hare on the property. Robert and Glenda Smith by their Attorneys Wr ight & Schunacher 1- 10'-b. Wright 201 North Mill Street, Suite 106 Aspen, Colorado 81611 en.smith.app (303) 925-5625 2 4-jt,1, .4 c MEMORANDUM TO: Steve Burstein, Planning Office FROM: Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department 03 Thru: Jay Hammond, City Engineer _N~- DATE: May 20, 1986 RE: Lots 3 and 5, Sunny Park North Subdivision- 8040 Greenline Review The Engineering Department has recieved the additional documenta- tion that was requested April 19, 1986 and based on that informa- tion and the original application that was submitted, we can now make the following recommendations: 1) THe subsidence potential question was reviewed and a report was considered that was submitted by a geotechnical engineering firm, Western Engineering, Inc. of Grand Junction. Based on the conclusions of this report, we are satisfied that the proposed structures can be built without significant risk from subsidence. We will recommend, however, that based on the conclusions of this report, no structure be built near the west boundary of lot 5 below the ditch pipeline unless a report submitted by a register- ed P.E. in geotechnical engineering can offer conclusive evidence that there will be no risk in doing so. 2) The question as to whether or not adequate foundations can be constructed for the structures was also reviewed. Based on the conclusions of the report by Western Engineering, we are satis- fied that they can be. We will recommend, based on the conclu- sions of this report, that site specific subsurface soil investi- gation be done, after the building site has been prepared, to determine a more specific foundation design. 3) The information recieved on depth of excavation and placement of fill for these structures was reviewed and considered ade- quate. 4) The detailed information on revegetation for these develop- ments was reviewed and that submitted by lot 3 was considered adequate. We recommend that the plan submitted by lot 5 conform more to that submitted by lot 3 in the type of vegetation and procedure used in planting. jg/NSunPARK ....- A Â¥14 dâ„¢~0 P MEMORANDUM TO: Steve Burstein, Planning Office FROM: Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department (~d THRU: Jay Hammond, City Engineer _ 4~ DATE: April 16, 1986 RE: Lots 3 and 5, Sunny Park North Subdivision - 8040 Greenline Review The application for the above parcels cannot be fully reviewed until additional documentation is submitted by the applicants. First of all, this documentation should include a more detailed architectual plan which would indicate the depth of excavation and any fill proposed on the sites. It should also include more detailed information concerning the revegetation of the disturbed areas to prevent possible erosion problems. Secondly, this documentation should include a report by a registered P. E. in geotechnical engineering which would indicate the feasib- ility of using the foundation walls for these structures as retaining walls for slope stability after excavation. This report would also address the potential for ground instability by using results obtained from test hole drilling. The following information was of concern in determining the above requirements: 1. A geologic study recently done for the applicants by Nick Lampiris in which he suggests a drill hole to test for underground cavities be done by a soils engineer. 2. A 1983 report on an adjacent area done by then county engineer Pat Dobie and Lincoln DeVore geotechnical engineers in which they recommend "complete avoidance of this zone especially with any permanent structures." 3. A 1980 memo to the Planning Office by Jay Hammond in which he recommended denial of exemption from mandatory P. U.D. for lots 3 and 5 because of concern over reduced soil stability from cut and fill and over possible erosion problems due to removal of vegeta- tion. JG/co/SunnyPkGreenlineRev LAW OFFICES WRIGHT & SCHUMACHER ~ Ii, 1/ JEROME PROFESSIONAL BUILDING 201 NORTH MILL STREET. SUITE 106 ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 GARY A. WRIGHT TELEPIRT)M7996Â·Â·aiata,~25 B. LEE SCHUMACHER ALLEN H. ADGER DAVID I. MARSH 19 May 1986 Steve Burstein HAND DELIVERED Planning Office 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Siegel - Smith 8040 Greenline Review Sunny Park North Subdivision, Lots 3 and 5 Dear Steve: I am writing in response to your Memorandum of 14 May 1986 received several days later. 1. Geotechnical study requirements have been completed for both lots together and will be delivered to you by Peter Dobrovolny. 2. The plans submitted to you for Smith dated 24 April 1986 include a landscape and grading plan. I assume that this request applies primarily to Lot 3 because I am not certain what you want more specifically. The plan indicates the use of ground cover and flowers as well as evergreen shrubs and shows the intended use of railroad tie planters. We will promptly provide more infonnation if you will be specifiy what you need. 3. A visual impact analysis must be considered to balance two factors. The first consideration is to create a structure whose visual impact is mitigated. For both Applications it is believed that the overall design as well as the vegetation and planting will help the hanes to appear minimally obtrusive visually. (Please see perspective view of the Smith house facing downtown Aspen page 1 of 5) This must be balanced with factor two, the impact and effect of excavation. Both homes have done an excellent job of balancing those two factors. Obviously, the extreme with maximun excavation to produce a house that is substantially underground is unacceptable as a residence while a tall, boxy, brightly colored home is equally unacceptable on the other extreme. I am confused about your questions regarding area and bulk requirement of R15 P. U.D. Zone District as the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Â§24- 8.13 (Page 1497, Supplenent 13) states: "In no event however a P.U.D. designation notwithstanding, shall campliance with this Article be required for the construction of a single family residence on a separate lot." WRIGHT & SCHUMACHER Steve Burstein 19 May 1986 Page two You have been supplied some photographs by Peter Dobrovolny at least one of which locates both lots on the photograph. The Smiths are working to get the requested superimposition. Although you are not requesting specific information as to 1 through 4 of your Memo I think it is very important to bring you up to date on 1 and 2 which deal with easement and a trail. Peter Dobrovolny has contacted Craig Ward regarding the Nbrdic Trail System. It is not accurate to say the applicants have no intention to accomodate any trail through Lots 3 and 5, however it is their goal to use the existing Salvation Ditch Road for their driveway if the necessary legal hurdles can be traversed. We have been informed by Mr. Ward that he has same concerns as to the feasability of creating a Pedestrian/Bicycle/Nbrdic Trail following the Salvation Ditch from the Aspen Club to the Hunter Cteek Trail. Tb acquire such a trail requires each and every land owner whose property is crossed by the Salvation Ditch right-of-way to grant an easement. We have been infonned by Mr. Ward that he is meeting same resistance in this concept. The proposed owners (Smith and Siegel) of Lots 3 and 5 would certainly be open to consider other alignments for such a trail. Gary Wright has met with the County Attorney, Thomas F. Smith, regarding the use of the Salvation Ditch Road to access these lots across property owned by Pitkin County. A subsequent meeting is being scheduled with Gary Wright, T'om Snith and a representative of the Housing Authority because Pitkin County is currently the owner of Lot 7. I am curious why this is being considered the "Siegel-Miller 8040 Greenline Review"? The actual owner of Lots 3 and 5 is Colorado National Bank, Glenwood Springs and Jack Kerr is handling the matters for the bank. The prospective purchasers are: Lot 3 - Barry and Sharon Siegel; Lot 5 - Bob and Glenda anith. Gary Wright is working with both prospective purchasers as attorney and Peter Dobrovolny is working with the Siegels in an architect and land use capacity. If you have any additional questions or I can provide additional information please to write or telephone. Sincerely, Wright & Schumacher by Y- $ A. Wright GAW/vs cc: Barry and Sharon Siegel Bob and Glenda Smith Jack Kerr Peter Dobrovolny Thoms F. Smith, Esq. 9*692/ (32;9Â» 5070 (219 0 1 (Pfae *27 â‚¬#a,Â¥tmâ‚¬/710 420 E. HOPKINS STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (303) 925-5532 MEMORANDUM TO: STEVE BURSTEIN. PLANNING OFFICE FROM: ASST. FIRE CHIEF. ASPEN VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPT SIEGEL/,Ml IM/CULORADO NAT'L BANK/ 8040 bHEENLINE REVIEW Ovit: 1"HY 28. 198G On Mav 26. 1986. Barrv Siecel recuested tnat the Fire Deoartment co an onsioht insoection of lots #a & *5. in order to be able to comment on vour concerns exoressed in vour 5/14/86 letter. On "- Mav 28. 1986. one fire officer and two firemen visited1. walked and comoletelv insoected the sicht. mav vou note that we drove there from the fire barn in enoine #six. our first attack truck and one or our laroest vehicles. We nave the followinc comments: 1. access to the lots in case of fire. either structual or wild fire is from three (3) different locations: main roacs. Gri vewav (middle> ana the uooer road. We Grove to each location. backed uo and turned around in the trucK. . 1-. 11 Each truck carries aooroximatelv 1200 callons of water for an immediate attack wnile we are connectino to a nvdrant. rhere is hvorant within 50' or the orooertv line and has verv easv .ccess. In conclusion: cue to the close oroximitv to the fire oeoartment Divina a cuicK resoonse time. a fire hvarant at such a close Doint. ana the three or more different attack ooints it would seem that this woula be a verv easv location to fioht a fire. We aooreclate vour concern for acieouate fire orotect ion aria were haoov to be oive the oogortunitv to visit the siohts orior to construction. Hooefullv this answers anv auestions vou mav have had. and if we can be of further assistance. olease do not hesitate to contact me. Sincereiv. Clifford Little 9 9 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Steve Burstein. Planning Office RE: Siegel-Smith 8040 Greenline Review DATE: May 30, 1986 ZONING: R-15 (PUD). LOCATION: Lots 3 and 5. Sunny Park North Subdivision, east side of Park Circle on Smuggler Mountain. Siegel - Lot 3 Smith - Lot 5 Lot Size: 18,380 sq. ft. 15,858 sq. ft. Proposed IIouse: 2,685 sq. ft. 2,471 sq. ft. Garage: 724 sq. ft. 696 sq. ft. Shop/Garage: 984 sq. ft. Countable FAR 3,793 sq. ft. 2,567 sq. ft. (approx) Allowable FAR: 4,317 sq. ft. 4:136 sq. ft. APPLICANTS REQUEST: The owner of the two lots, Colorado National Bank, and the parties possessing contracts on the lots, Mr. and Mrs. Barry Siegel (Lot 3) and Mr. and Mrs. Bob Smith (Lot 5) have submitted a joint application for permission to each build single family houses. Proposed primary access to the houses is the covered Salvation Ditch as it extends south from the intersection with Smuggler Mountain Road at a higher alignment than Park Circle. The two separate requests are being handled in a single application to save the applicants expense and time. BACKGROUND: The Sunny Park Nor th Subdivision was created through approval of the County Board of County Commissioners on Nov ember 1, 1965 and was annexed into the City through the Berumen Annexation on July 5, 1966. APPLICABLE SECTION OF MUNICIPAL CODE: According to Section 24- 6.3 of the Municipal Code development within fifty (50) yards below the 8040 elevation is subject to special review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. In reviewing development plans. the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the following review criteria: 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 consequent 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) PROBLEM DISCUSSION: A. Referral Comments: 1. Engineering Department: In a memorandum from Jim Gibbard of the Engineering Department dated April 16, 1986 (attachment C) additional documentation of potential ground instability and slope stability in the form of a geotechnical engineering study was required prior to full Engineer Department review. One of the main concerns was the possibility of underground cavities due to mining that could cause subsidence under the proposed development sites. In a May 20, 1986 memorandum the Engineering Department (attachment D) reviewed the "Geographical and Geotechnical Subsidence Investigation for Lots 3 & 5, Sunny Park North Subdivision" prepared by Western Engineers, Inc. and made the following comments: a. The Engineering Department is satisfied that the proposed houses can be built without significant risk of subsidence. b. No structure should be built near the western boundary of Lot 5 unless a report submitted by a registered Professional Engineer in geotechnical engineering can offer conclusive evidence that there will be no risk in doing so. C. Based on the conclusion of the Western Engineers Inc. report, the Engineering Department is satisfied that adequate foundations can be constructed. Site specific subsurface soil investigation should be done after the building site has been prepared to determine a more specific foundation design. d. The depth of proposed excavation and placement of fill for these structures is considered adequate. e. The detailed information on revegetation for I,ot 3 was considered adequate. The type and procedure of revegetating Lot 5 should conform to that submitted for Lot 3. 2. Nordic Council: In a letter from Craig Ward (attachment E) dated May 5, 1986 it is stated that the proposed developments appear to jeopardize the Master Plan trail alignment along the Salvation Ditch. Other options for automobile access to these lots should be explored. A pedestrian trail does not appear to be compatible with a private driveway, especially when the houses for both lots are so close to the trail. 3. County Planning Engineer: In a memorandum from Tom Newland, Pitkin County Planning Engineer (attachment F) dated May 15, 1986 the following comments are made: a. The use Of the Salvation Ditch for vehicular access to Lots 3 and 5 as it crosses the Molly Gibson Park conflicts with the intended Pitkin County trail system alignment. b. The proposed access along the Salvation Bitch conflicts with the 1979 Aspen/Pitkin County Trails Master Plan proposed trail alignment and jeopardize a critical northern link. No alternative alignment was proposed by the applicant. C. This trail has become a reality from Hunter Creek to the applicants' property. 4. Water Department: In a memorandum from Jim Markalunas dated April 14, 1986 (attachment G) the following comments were made: a. For both Lots 3 and 5, the owners will be responsible for the water line from the point of attachment at the water main in Park Circle. meters must be located at or near the property line, and the water line should be sleeved where it passes under the Salvation Ditch. b. Water pressure should be adequate for residential purposes, however the pressure cannot be guaranteed at 40 psi becuase of other influences such as house plumbing and service line friction losses. 5. Sanitation District: Heiko Kuhn stated the proposed single family homes can be served by the Aspen Consoli- dated District. 6. Fire Marshall: Jim Wilson stated in a Mav 29, 1986 memorandum that the Fire District access and hydrants (one is located in Park Circle) are in conformance with local fire codes. The lots are located in a low wildfire hazard area, so no additional fire precaution will be necessary. B. Staff Comments: The Planning Office has the following comments regarding the two development proposals. 1. Environmental Suitability: a. Subsidence and Slope Stability: The Engineering Department is satisfied that the proposed structure can be built without significant risk of subsidence due to mine cavities. It is still ncessary to undertake site specific subsurface soil investigation at the time of foundation excavation so to design the foundation to act as retaining walls on the upper parts of the houses. b. Excavation and Regrading: The proposed development plans for both Lots 3 and 5 call for excavation of basements and back rooms of the house, stepped into the hillside. The Smiths estimated that approximately 185 cubic yards of dirt will be moved on Lot 5, while no estimate was given by the Siegels. The Siegel excavation appears to be somewhat smaller, as the building site is on a larger bench. The Smiths propose to use all the excavated dirt on the site creating berms and leveling areas. ple feel that this proposal results in a significant disturbance of the terrain, contrary to the intention of review criteria (7) of Section 24-6.2. The Siegels proposal results in minimal regrading of the lot surrounding the house and garage shops and appears to be more compatible with the existing terrain. They will need to move the excavated dirt of the site to a suitable location, and this matter should be arranged prior to the issuance of a building permit to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department. C. Revegetation and Landscaping: The Siegels have presented a plan to provide a native appearance of the revegetated areas surrounding the structures. Given the steep hillside (up to 50% grades), potential erosion/existing natural appearance of Smuggler Mountain, and the visibility of the site, we feel this is an essential component of the Lot 3 proposal. The general approach is highly appropriate and should be closely followed by the applicants to ensure success. There should be some decidious trees planted dow nhill of the house similar in nature to the present trees lining the Salvation Ditch. The Smith's plan calls for rail tie walls, some twenty-one evergreen trees, and eleven deciduous trees. No mention is made of native grasses. This plan does not mitigate the impacts of site disturbance as well as is possible. We agree with the Engineering Department that the type and procedure of revegetating Lot 5 should conform to that submitted for Lot 3. d. Other Environmental Concerns: There appear to be no significant wildlife, wildfire, or avalanche hazards on Sunny Park North Lots 3 and 5. 2. Visual Impacts: Criteria (8) and (9) of Section 24-6.2 encourage techniques "to preserve the mountain as a scenic resource" and "reduction of building height and bulk to maintain the open character of the mountain". Wh il e the proposed houses are quite large it should be noted that they are less than the maximum allowable FAR (see cha rt on pa ge 1) . Reduction in size may be necessary to mitigate visual impacts. Neither house substantially steps back along the hillside nor has roof lines that approximate the slope of the hillside. We believe that if either house is allowed, the predominant roof line which is visible from the Park Circle area downhill should more closely resemble the hillside slope. In addition, roofs should be earth tone to better blend with the hillsides as is represented in the Siegel application. Building materials should be natural materials. Both structures are very close to the 25 foot height restriction. The Smith's structure would rise to approximately the 8050 elevation while the Siegel residence would rise to approximately the 8038 elevation. The Siegels submitted a perspective study to show the structure from different viewplanes. The structure will be most visible from the Park Circle and Smuggler neighborhoods and somewhat visible from a few spots in the center of town as well as on Red and Aspen Mountains. Even though the two immediate neighborhoods contain a variety of newer architectural styles which are not particularly sensitive to reduce visual impacts, we feel that these proposed houses have greater impact as they are on the edge of the open mountain terrain. The steep slope backdrop gives greater visibility to the house. 3. Vehicular and Trial Easement Conflicts: The applicants propose to use the Salvation Ditch for vehicular easement to their properties. B oth pr opo se tw o ca r garages off the Salvation Ditch. In th e Aspen Comprehen- sive Plan: Park/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Element (July, 1985) adopted by both the City and County a long-term priority "Pedestrian/Bicycle/Nordic trail following Salvation Ditch from the Aspen Club to Hunter Creek tract." As noted by the Nordic Council and the County Planning Engineer, there appears to be an inherent conflict between the driveway proposal and trail plans. The trail has already been installed by virtue of considerable effort through Centennial and a portion of the Molly Gibson Park. This trail would make for a loop to the north and east that is easily accessible to dense adjacent neighborhoods. The trail has been a major priority of both the City and County and appears to be feasible even if it may take some time to acquire easements east of Lots 3 and 5. Furthermorer a major segment of the Salvation Ditch passes through the County (Molly Gibson Park) and the County is committed to accommodating the trail while being asked to give a driveway easement for uses of Lots 3 and 5. From preliminary investigation the Salvation Ditch alignment works the best for the trail and realigning up the hillside creates problems of access and snow removal that will severely compromise the trail. The Planning Off ice believes that alternative arrangements should be made on Lots 3 and 5 to allow for the trail to be located on the Salvation Ditch. The Siegels propose a garage off Park Circle and a walk up trail to the house uphill from the ditch. Th i s ty pe of configuration has been effectively used in Snowmass Village, and should suffice without use of the Salvation Ditch on Lot 3. A short term construction easement on the ditch would be necessary. Lot 5 is virtually inaccessible from Park Circle, however, it is accessible from the access road off Smuggler Mountain Road that will serve Lot 7. Further- morer there is a bench at that elevation approximately large enough for a single family house. Building there should cause little or no hillside disturbance and reduced visual impact. The geotechnical study indicatesthisarea isbuildablewith regardtosubsidence potential. Waster can be provided there, although a fire hydrant and pump system may be necessary (for both Lots 5 and 7). We believe that a building envelope should be delineated for Lot 5 on the bench. Variance for setbacks or possibly a lot line adjustment that would trade the Salvation Ditch area for more County (or BLM) land on the bench may be required. This site has more useable level area and better views than the proposed site in Lot 5. The major disadvantage is the winter access up Smuggler Road, although the County has agreed to maintain the road up to the access road for Lot 7 of Sunny Park North Subdivision. - RECOMMENDATIONS: The Planning Office recommends the Planning Commission approve the 8040 Greenline Review of the Siegel Residence on Lot 3, Sunny Park North Subdivision, subject to the following conditions: 1. A site specific subsurface soil investigation shall be done by a qualified geotechnical engineer after the building site has been prepared to determine the specific foundation design. The investigation results and design shall be submitted to the Engineering Department and Building Department prior to pouring the foundation. 2. Revegetation shall include the type of plantings and procedure of revegetating as represented in the application. Ten (10) additional deciduous trees shall be planted east of the house similar in nature to the present trees lining the Salvation Ditch. Revegetation shall be accomplished by no later than May 1987. Any change in the revegetation scheme shall be processed through an application to the Planning Officer and if it is determined to be significant, shall be processed as an amendment to the 8040 Greenline Review approval. 3. Water meters shall be located at or near the property line and the water line shall be sleeved where is passes under the Salvation Ditch, to the satisfaction of the Water Department. 4. All utilities shall be undergrounded. 5. Removal of excavation dirt shall be arranged to the satis- faction of the Building Department prior to issuance of building permit. 6. A temporary construction access easement shall be obtained from the County, City and Lot 5 for building of the house prior to issuance of a building permit and to the satisfaction of the City Attorney. 7. The garage in the house shall be deleted from the design and the predominant roof line of the house, as it is visible to the downhill area of Park Circle. shall more closely approx- imate the hillside slope. Natural building materials and the roof shall be earthtoned, as represented in the applica- tion. The structure shall be located so as not to conflict with the Salvation Ditch Trail. The redesign of the structures shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission prior to issuance of building permit. 8. The applicant shall dedicate trail easements along the Salvation Ditch through his property. Such easements shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the City Attorney prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The Planning Office recommends tabling the 8040 Greenline Review proposal for Lot 5, Sunny Park North Subdivision until the applicant can investigate the possibility of siting his house on the bench to the northeast of the property. Access, building envelope, revegetation, water pressure, fire protection, suitable architectural design and building materials and possible need for variances are all areas that shall be adequately addressed by the applicant and reviewed by the staff prior to further hearing by the Planning Commission of the Smith 8040 Greenline Review. SB.530 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: Siegel-Smith 8040 Greenline Review DATE: August 5, 1986 ZONING: R-15 (PUD). LOCATION: Lots 3 and 5, Sunny Park North Subdivision, east side of Park Circle on Smuggler Mountain. Siegel - Lot 3 Smith - Lot 5 Lot Size: 18,380 sq. ft. 15,858 sq. ft. Proposed House: 2,685 sq. ft. 2,471 sq. ft. Garage: 724 sq. ft. 6 96 sq. f t. Shop/Garage: 984 sq. ft. Countable FAR 3,793 sq. ft. 2,567 sq. ft. (approx.) Allowable FAR: 4,317 sq. ft. 4,136 sq. ft. APPLICANTS REQUEST: The owner of the two lots, Colorado National Bank, and the parties possessing contracts on the lots, Mr. and Mrs. Barry Siegel (I,ot 3) and Mr. and Mrs. Bob Smith (Lot 5) have submitted a joint application for permission to each build single family houses. Proposed access in the amended application is a driveway extending from Park Circle across the hillside to building sites above the Salvation Ditch. The two separate requests are being handled in a single application to save the applicants expense and time. BACKGROUND: The Sunny Park North Subdivision was created through approval of the County Board of County Commissioners on November 1, 1965 andwas annexed into the City through the Berumen Annexation on July 5, 1966. P&Z tabled action on the Smith-Siegel application on June 3, 1986 based on concerns with access to the proposed houses, site considerations and visual impacts. Subsequently, the Housing Authority worked with the Planning Office and applicants to reconfigure Sunny Park North Lots 3, 5 and 7 as well as to create 3 other lots to be accessed off Smuggler Mountain Road higher up the mountain. This new subdivision would have allowed for building sites to be placed on a higher bench rather than on the 1 hillside. On July 21 the Board of County Commissioners rejected the concept of Smuggler Heights. The Siegels and Smiths submitted the amended driveway access proposal on July 14, 1986 which is being reviewed by the P&Z tonight. APPLICABLE SECTION OF MUNICIPAL CODE: According to Section 24- 6.3 of the Municipal Code development within fifty (50) yards below the 8040 elevation is subject to special review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. In reviewing development plans, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the following review criteria: 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 dev elopment 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 consequent 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 theopen character of the mountain (Ord. No. 11-1975,@1) PROBLEM DISCUSSION: A. Referral Comments: 1. Engineering Department: The Engineering Department commented on the new access design in a memorandum dated July 26, 1986 in which the following issues were 2 mentioned: a. A geo-technical engineering study prepared by a registered P.E. should be undertaken for the design of adequate retaining structures associated with the driveway. The steep slope on the upper 100 feet of the driveway is of particular concern. b. Revegetation of the road cut and fill should conform to plans submitted for the Lot 3 site. C. The applicant should comply with any recommendation made by Fire Marshall Jim Wilson. In a memorandum from Jim Gibbard of the Engineering Departmentdated Apri116, 1986 (attachment C) additional documentation of potential ground instability and slope stability in the form of a geotechnical engineering study was required prior to full Engineering Department review. One of the main concerns was the possibility of underground cavities due to mining that could cause subsidence under the proposed development sites. In a May 20, 1986 memorandum the Engineering Department (attachment D) reviewed the "Geographical and Geotechnical Subsidence Investigation for Lots 3 & 5, Sunny Park North Subdivision" prepared by Western Engineers, Inc. and made the following comments: a. The Engineering Department is satisfied that the pro posed houses can be built without significant risk of subsidence. b. No structure should be built near the western boundary of Lot 5 unless a report submitted by a registered Professional Engineer in geotechnical engineering can offer conclusive evidence that there will be no risk in doing so. C. Based on the conclusion of the Western Engineers Inc. report, the Engineering Department is satisfied that adequate foundations can be constructed. Site specific subsurface soil investigation should be done after the building site has been prepared to determine a more specific foundation design. d. The depth of proposed excavation and placement of fill for these structures is considered adequate. e. The detailed information on revegetation for Lot 3 was considered adequate. The type and procedure of revegetating Lot 5 should conform to that submitted 3 for Lot 3. 2. Nordic Council: In a letter from Craig Ward (attachment E) dated May 5, 1986 it is stated that the proposed developments appear to jeopardize the Master Plan trail alignment along the Salvation Ditch. Other options for automobile access to these lots should be explored. A pedestrian trail does not appear to be compatible with a private driveway, especially when the houses for both lots are so close to the trail. 3. County Planning Engineer: In a memorandum from Tom Newland, Pitkin County Planning Engineer (attachment F) dated May 15, 1986 the following comments are made: a. The use of the Salvation Ditch for vehicular access to Lots 3 and 5 as it crosses the Molly Gibson Park conflicts with the intended Pitkin County trail system alignment. b. The proposed access along the Salvation Ditch conflicts with the 1979 Aspen/Pitkin County Trails Master Plan proposed trail alignment and jeopardize a critical northern link. C. This trail has become a reality from Hunter Creek to th e a ppli ca nt s ' pro per ty. 4. Water Department: In a memorandum from Jim Markalunas dated April 14, 1986 (attachment G) the following co mm ent s w er e ma de : a. For both Lots 3 and 5, the owners will be responsible for the water line from the point of attachment at the water main in Park Circle, meters must be located at or near the property line, and the water line should be sleeved where it passes under the Salvation Ditch. b. Water pressure should be adequate for residential purposes, however the pressure cannot be guaranteed at 40 because of other influences such as house plumbing and service line friction losses. 5. Sanitation District: Heiko Kuhn stated the proposed single family homes can be served by the Aspen Consoli- dated District. 6. Fire Marshall: Jim Wilson stated in a May 29, 1986 memorandum that the Fire District access and hydrants (one is located in Park Circle) are in conformance with local fire codes. The lots are located in a low 4 wildfire hazard area, so no additional fire precaution will be necessary. B. Staff Comments: The Planning Office has the following comments regarding the proposed access, site plans, and building designs for the two proposed residences: 1. Driveway Access: The proposed driveway would cut into the existing hillside, then follow, for part of the way, an old largely revegetated cut along the hillside, and finally, switchback onto the Salvation Ditch alignment. The Engineering Department raised a serious concern that retaining structures may be needed for a considerably long distance of the hillside traverse where the hill is presently very steep. It appears questionable that the proposed boulder pil es would be adequate for retaining the driveway. We feel that this proposal is unacceptable because of the cuts and fills necessary, the need for extensive retainingstructures, environmental disturbance (including removal of several cottonwood and aspen trees, as well as possibly undermining the roots of an evergreen), and visual impacts from Park Circle and the Smuggler neighborhood. Greenline review criteria 6 and 7, compatibility of the terrain and minimal disturbance of the terrain respectively, would not be met inour opinion. The Planning Office supports in concept the alternative proposal stated in Mr. Dobrovolny's letter of July 24, 1986 to provide driveway access along the Salvation Ditch and a trail easement parallel to the Ditch. Given that the Smuggler Heights Subdivision proposal is dead without County participation, it appears that this arrangement is the best alternative solution for all parties involved. The Planning Office has begun to work with the applicants and the County to arrange for a driveway easement through the County-owned Molly Gibson Park and a trail easement through Lots 3 and 5. We believe that this approach will both meet the access needs of the applicants and the trail needs of the community without raising the spectre of whether the Planning Commission can require the trail to be accom- modated through the 8040 process. 2. Visual Impacts: Criteria (8) and (9) of Section 24-6.2 encourage techniques "to preserve the mountain as a scenic resource" and "reduction of building height and bulk to maintain the open character of the mountain". While the proposed houses are quite large it should be noted that they are less than the maximum allowable FAR (see 5 chart on page 1). Neither house substantially steps back along the hillside nor has roof lines that approximate the slope of the hillside. We believe that the predominant roof lines which are visible from the Park Circle area downhill should more closely resemble the hillside slope. In addition, roofs should be earth tone to better blend with the hillsides as is represented in the Siegel application. Building materials should be natural materials. Both structures are very close to the 25 foot height restriction. The Smith's structure would ri se to approximately the 8050 elevation while the Siegel residence would rise to approximately the 8038 elevation. The Siegels submitted a perspective study to show the structure from different viewplanes. The structure will be most visible from the Park Circle and Smuggler neighborhoods and somewhat visible from a few spots in the center of town as well as on Red and Aspen Mountains. Even though the two immediate neighborhoods contain a variety of newer architectural styles which are not particularly sensitive to reduce visual impacts, we feel that these proposed houses have greater impact as they are on the edge of the open mountain terrain. The steep slope backdrops give greater visibility to the ho uses. In Mr. Dobrovolry's July 24, 1986 letter, three principal arguments are given in favor of the Siegel house design: (1) spatial needs of the Siegels, (2) solar access and (3) snow fall and meltage. While we certainly respect the spatial needs of the Siegels, it appears that criteria (9) of the Greenline Review, "the reduction of building height and bulk to maintain the open character of the mountain", may require some reorgani- zation of architectural elements so to better conform to the character of this site and surrounding hillside. Placing the principle gable (facing west) out from the angle of the slope with a height to the ridge of 30 feet above the bottom grade (on the Salvation Ditch) does not appear to be in keeping with character of the mountain. Transparency for passive solar access on the south elevation would not need to be reduced by following the "step back" design concept we suggest. With regard to snow fall, minor roofs might be used to direct snow fall away from the garage entrance. In the prior Planning Office review (May 30, 1986 memorandum) it was suggested that the proposed Smith 6 house be sited within a delineated building env elope on the top bench of Lot 5. This part of the lot still appears to be the best building site because of its low visibility and flat grade. How ev er, given the diff i- culties in securing access, utilities and possibly variances in setbacks without the participation of the County in the proposed Smuggl er Heights reconfiguration of lots, the Planning Office concludes that the building site proposed by the Smiths on the hillside is the most workable alternative. Breaking up massing and bringing the predominant roofline to approximate the slope of the hill becomes a very important design modification to make the Smith house more compatible with the existing terrain. 3. Revegatation and Landscaping: The Siegels have presented a plan to provide a native appearance of the revegetated areas surrounding the structures. Given the steep hillside (up to 50% grades), potential erosion, existing natural appearance of Smuggler Mountain, and the visibility of the site, we feel this is an essential component of the Lot 3 proposal. The general approach is highly appropriate and sho uld be closely followed by the applicants to ensure success. There should be some decidious trees planted downhill of the house similar in nature to the present trees lining the Salvation Ditch. The Smi th's plan calls for rail tie walls, some twenty- one evergreen trees, and eleven deciduous trees. No mention is made of native grasses. This plan does not mitigate the impacts of site disturbance as well as is possible. We agree with the Engineering Department that the type and procedure of revegetating Lot 5 should conform to that submitted for Lot 3. RECOMMENDATIONS: The Planning Office recommends that the Planning Commission grant the 8040 Greenline Review of the Siegel and Smith Residences on Lots 3 & 5, Sunny Park North Subdivision, subject to the following conditions: 1. A site specific subsurface soil investigation shall be done by a qualified geotechnical engineer after the building sites have been prepared to determine specific foundation design. The investigation results and designs shall be submitted to the Engineering Department and Building Department prior to pouring the foundation. 2. Revegetation shall include the type of plantings and procedure of revegetating as represented in the Siegel application. Revegetation shall be accomplished by no later than J-unt 0 8,6<r 1987. A new revegetation scheme shall be submitted for the 7 Smith site; Lot 3, to the satisfactionof the Planning Office prior to issuance of a building permit. A ny chan ges i n th e revegetation schemes shall be processed through an application to the Planning Office, and if they are determined to be significant, shall be processed as an amendment to the 8040 Greenline Review approval. 3. Water meters shall be located at or near the property line and the water line shall be sleeved where is passes under the Salvation Ditch, to the satisfactionof the Water Department. 4. All utilities shall be undergrounded. 5. The predominant roof lines of the houses, as visible to the downhill area of Park Circle, shall more closely approx- imate the hillside slope. Natural building materials and roofs shall be earthtoned, as represented in the applica- tions. The redesign of the structures shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Planning Office prior to issuance of building permit. 6. Access to the property shall be along the Salvation Ditch through Molly Gibson Park. Access easements obtained from Pitkin County shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the City Attorney prior to the issuance of a Building permit. SB.530 8 -.*~+ fo Drlte Time. 1 While You Were Out M A 1-2- Â¥4 1 3.~44 1 Of 1203 4 0 + Phone AREA CODE NUMBER EXTENSION TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL WAS IN TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU URGENT RETURNED YOUR CALL Meser,ge 84*ry# G lihi# Operator CHALLENGER BRAND 01761 A QUALITY PARKPRODUCT CITY OF ASPEN MEMO FROM STEVE BURSTEIN S y 6, )( N, -hy f - c/5014 Sm'fll fl .3 /-7 6 A f Â¢ 45 i -I,rdic 4- - â‚¬ &52(r}I* for dyive,0(94lt#t)â€¢,1 01+ll ) h -CAO,rk, 1 $ tzd- c p"'1;lit) - i ,Â« ( 3-4 60,15â€¢n 1 8/4 d Are MA/'Ad J - d r n, NA) 4 - Ufg.#fihgn Cdl,>t,64nu 6- t <60 " ~ p* 4 Â£ 6 J t, ) 11â‚¬4 /49 - V '19 610.1 I t-4 4 J j\A reen, W 4?Mivh' 7 - 5~clin) {31.h --,62 44#â‚¬.34 ANT P lad< Rivtâ€¢,â€¢47 < 'h j h~59 DU 4 rl -EfiEifl Ap /, 1 54,6 b-Â¢ 71 ' 0 0,10 Â·oppt .,m MEPORANDU M TO: Tom Newland, County Engineer FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: Siegel/Miller 8040 Greenline Review DATE: May 14, 1986 Attached is an application submitted by Gary Wright on behalf of his clients, the Siegels and Millers, requesting 8040 Greenline Review for the construction of two single-family houses on Lots 3 and 5, Sunny Park North Subdivision respectively. Access to the houses is proposed along the Salvation Ditch where it intersects the Smuggler Mtn. Road at the second switchback. The Ditch then runs through Pitkin County owned land before entering the City's right-of-way along Park Circle, then Lots 5 and 3. Please note the vicinity map attached and the "Draft Driveway and Utility Easement" within the Siegel portion of the application. I would appreciate your comments no later than May 19, 1986. SB.12 March 27, 1986 Jim Markalunas City of Aspen Water Department 130 So. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 K Dear Mr. Markalunas: h I met with you in your office today to discuss a client f of mine who is contemplating building a single family residence on Lot 3, Sunny Park North Subdivision in the Â£ City of Aspen. R I 9 The subject property and proposed construction on it is close enough to elevation 8040 ft. to necessitate 8040 Greenline review. One of the review criteria is whether sufficient water pressure can be provided to the house. As I indicated to you today, the highest floor elevation in the house is at elevation 8026, making the highest point of water delivery, a shower head on that floor, to be at elevation 8032, below the 8040 line. You indicated that providing water at sufficient should be no problem and that water at a pressure of about 50 pos.i. could be anticipated. In order to expeditiously process this application for my client, I ask that you confirm our conservation of today in writing to me, with whatever conditions for this specific site you deem appropriate, such as water meter location as you suggested. Thank you for your assistance. sinc~~Fely, ~ - 1k- Al $ A.~ /6 In Peter Dobrovolny oct i %11 .. 1,44# Stio Peter Dobrovolny AIA drawer 340 old snowmass CO 81654 927-3369 1_ar#fitect ;_ .~4--NiWEAd/AN#f - I .At.A. *1:G:=%&6241. 4 -1 -24, t- â€ž MEMORANDU M TO: Peter Dobrovolny FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: Siegel/Miller 8040 Greenline Review DATE: May 14, 1986 At the site meeting on May 8, 1986 you requested further information on items of concern that the Planning Office has identified at this time for the development proposals on Sunny Park North Subdivision Lots 3 and 5. Following are the items for which the Planning Office and Engineering Department need responses by May 19 or I will be unable to review this proj ect for the June 3, 1986 Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission meeting: 1. Geotechnical study including (a) analysis of the ground instability potential on the sites and (b) feasibility of foundation design serving as a retaining structure, submitted to the Engineering Department by May 19, 1986. 2. More detailed information on the vegetation techniques and schemes proposed on Lots 3 and 5 to ascertain that the plans will work submitted to the Engineering Department by May 19, 1986. 3. Visual impacts analysis submitted to the Planning Office by May 19, 1986. It has been noted that neither house substantially steps back along the hillside, show significantly reduced heights or bulk from the Area and Bulk Requirements of the R-15 (PUD) zone district, attempt clustering as allowed in PUD, nor have roof lines that approximate the slopes of the hillside. There are some of the possible measures that would reduce visual impacts. I request that photographs from several important perspectives in the City on which the buildings are superimposed (or a similar perspective study) be submitted to the Planning Office. I would like to take the opportunity to mention other areas of concerns which are in the process of being reviewed by the Planning Office and referral agencies. There may be additional information on these matters that you or Gary Wright would like to give to the Planning Office, but I am not requesting specific response at this time. 1. Access to Houses: Easements across Pitkin County and City of Aspen property and along the Salvation Ditch. A "draft driveway and utility easement" has been submitted within the Siegel portion of the appli- cation. It is bei ng reviewed by the County Engineer, City Engineering Department, and City Attorney. 2. Issue of how to meet the long-term priority of a "Pedestrian/Bicycle/Nordic Trail following Salvation Ditch from the Aspen Club to Hunter Creek Trail" (p.38 Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Park/Recreation/Open Space Trails Element, July 1985) Not e: It appears that the applicants have no intention to accommodate a trail along the Salvation Ditch through Lots 3 and 5, nor offer any alternatives to that alignment. 3. Fire protection standards for water flow, length of driveways, turn radii and wildfire mitigation. The applications have been referred to Jim Wilson, Fire Marshall and comments have not yet been received. Jim Markalunas' comments are attached. 4. Steepness of slopes as relates to site disturbance, excavation, stability, drainage and erosion. Statements have been made by the applicants that all of these concerns would be minimal and some mitigation measures are discussed. CC: Jack Kerr, Colorado National Bank, Glenwood Springs Gary Wright, Attorney Jim Gibbard, Engi neering Department Jim Wilson, Fire Mar shall SB.514 MEMORANDUM TO: Sunny Vann, Planning Office FROM: Jay Hammond, Engineering Office 34Â·\ DATE: May 1, 1980 RE: Sunny Park North Lots 3 and 5, Exemption from Mandatory P.U.D. Having reviewed the above application and made a site inspec- tion, the Engineering Departinent has several comments regarding the application. First of all, the applicants reference to previously approved exemptions from mandatory P.U.D., specifically lots 2 and 4 of the Hoag Subdivision is not entirely appropriate due to notable differ- ences in the two sites. Both lots in the Hoag Subdivision are in an area of good water service, both lots are far less obtrusive than the Sunny Park North sites, and the slopes on lots 2 and 4, while subject to the fringes of snowslide activity, are inherently more stable due to well established pines on both sites. Secondly, both Sunny Park North lots are subject to 8040 Greenline review and the applicants contention in an earlier let- ter dated June 8, 1979 that the 8040 Greenline was principally intended "to protect the environment and visual integrity of Aspen Mountain" is incorrect. The Engineering Department also has several problems with the application in terms of the specific criteria of both the P.U.D. and 8040 Greenline as follows: 1) As noted in a memorandum from Jim Markalunas dated July 9, 1979, water service to the building site is marginal due to their altitude. 2) Traffic on Park Circle is already parti-cularly heavy. The County has proposed interconnecting the dead-end as it now exists around the trailer park into the Spruce Street area in an attempt to relieve congestion through- out the area. Construction of two additional duplexes would only serve to increase the existing problems. 3) The development plan fails to adequately show how pro- posed cut and fill to accomodate the road and buildings will be accomplished. I am inclined to feel that sub- stantial cut and fill would be required resulting in re- duced soil stability, possible erosion problems due to removal of vegetation, and a substantial visual impact. Inclusion of retaining walls and/or rip-rap type slope stabilization would result in substantial site distur- bance and, due to the highly visible nature of the lots, considerable eyesore. In view of these concerns, the Engineering Department recom- mends denial of exemption from mandatory P.U.D. for lots 3 and 5 of the Sunny Park North Subdivision. We also feel that, should the applicant wish to pursue this construction, that he submit a more detailed development plan addressing the above concerns and be subjected to both P.U.D. and 8040 review. - -91Â¢t~>ttyÂ» 4./=34 Is I ' , tzÂ«xx---- <li c~,_...__ ._. 4,5=f Dj I \ ... 1--0.- I I - .. 1 .1 - $ 6-- -~ Â·Â· V 00 1 --I \ ~. ~ 1.\~ ~ e \1 '1: \02 01 =79'l~<~ ... I ./. , i I . h , oal -- - .r I . Lpt\, . 5 . I -*trut'<i *E~ = 4-4:- 1,>.14 1 .Â» ..; 7.- .1930-- 1 I..:,Â·., r ---0:u vs, cy -1 : \3040- 4 04.<.62*424,-- 4 1- - ~8Â·1(VÂ·. Qga 1 <<33.~. fj /3414 i g-. , A- 4 -I,1, Â·, LI , C U --1. -\ 1 ..1 Â· . il d - .//i Â£4.- 1 i . ;1 < + *#T#*fl LI---Fr- %' -- '. ... / Â¥//%42, C . .4- 47 47 2.9// 13?(41(Â«Â«f:.---3.- ' Jr . ogb . Â·~ ...' Â·;11 0d Zer" 1.1 6'A ---- . ; et COURSE, Â·\ Ut':lf -1 4 4 tr,trr.1\\ 0' ,<b-la~brAVI I I ,~ i ~ 1 , 4/ i ///. 7 . I ..a. 4\ i "' c b, -.2 .. he.ff. ' -ppa,rF_'Nei;I~~ 094 .- 4.-- / 1 r R }A - -S- - -Â«.-:th '-f:".I--3'62-Â·29:42:\Asy' itj,;9 , Lix tÂ«632% tti~ Clge'04 1~.14-k,at- \,\6 1\,~\ ht-Â·>~ 94Â·J:..,~.--4.94.A... -- 0200- . 1 ... Â·owe 7 -/.r-1.94*I'Wriz.,TEF I ..r . . lp. ..9â„¢Ima, 4, (<l: PÂ·/ ; i/0< '4.9'' - Â«.AA.-t'-":*Oy.';Ull/.,99.-Â·>.Â· ' .. 1 61- 04 ..71 S!44\\1 Â·hi 1 61.-27 V ' - ~Luettlt . \ , 6... .., A. j 4 P 16 5,n -*-t:> :040 i .044 .... .\ 1, 1 + P I . - 1 U..1 â€ž . ./ L d L 1:'. 4 3. I /â‚¬ 6 ,/ 4,Â· - - - t..4,W ':' '- / ' .. ' . ' 1 1 : . 1 RIP.%-3<ti..En: r': O%.:. ,Â·,Â·. '-2 .., 1. t Qge' t.th,j~ ' A j '. 0 , 7 ..I... 1. 1.-1 -iR 03 . oille' al ore M ' I Â© ' j 1 \. .- 1 %Â«g,Â« . . 1 â€ž 0%.t: U\'. ..\ \ \ ... Ph*t' Â· e. 4 1 %1 <74 : --~Y O:il,-\ 9 -- 1.1 ''' f . , 1 O.1 4 -d -0 \ U.\U .6. , t 'lt . it ' _3---~~-~ea * 'r .... .- e ---1 -1.1.-n 1,- Â«04% I ~;. 3% 1 \ 21/ 0 - 1 Qa O - ' r., \ .. \ O. Vs > Li,i Off 0 ..r 'CS . 6 /\ di 1 1 . .. 2 ' . 0 . A * 1 1 11111 .> .0 .. \ . 7 I x Viater ,2 i ' ~ ,,g~~&~~:ticg., .,:7 : -=. 'w::~'~4-4 RE daifloccE A 4.- -- ... C . giL. ... I jul u . .. 1 r\ AÂ·+ AN- .Â·Â«-1â€¢ - . . -Tank.< ; . 1 ,-:':0**~2Â· '}=4:;~~ -- < ~5 .~42'IxÂ«~I<~~~ ~ 49, ~ . -2 1 0 . - : 2,4 , 1,04,7 'f.4* 11 111>.1 , U /-/ -A . , i "q 'TIN,({ i, ir 1 r Â·Â· d . ..~~ Â·icÂ·r- 0 2 K ..2 ,Â· 4\ T: Â· 21 Y , ' f i \ 1 k , J .10/ 7, N,F.:-71'94 1--*L,=r..-" '\ i... A) 3':'*fAriff lilli \19} N (.\%.1 9.r,4,er Qf,6 .'-'Â·~., .'1' 1 4 qu ; 0 0 7, 1 C....... -- -~; Â° ~ (~ -9Â»1-2 feff , l 21 j.- k -l < 1-7'., 4,74 : 1 i " 7: Â·cARP =OrÂ·6NX ,Â·'..' C Â·likeâ‚¬' 7 Ut eÂ·i ; Â£ \ 4 1 - - .0-=. .I=b= 04/ \04/43 ~.1, f' A---- 10Â«2} < f <f N 2, <Q~y 1 7.-- 17 7' i ..'J '; ~1 094 i L'C dir \ , 1-i ~ ~ ~IÂ« n..+ \ 0- , . !14 : 2 34~ I . ....,0 0 ~. - - ~ igt ,1Â« , -' * ~ '63442 QfAN..Â·,0' ' 6:G,ravel F1,Â·5 ~ , Arriv) *315 LeÂ· 1 14 ,\St i , 91?f/,6.. Â· ~2 1 Qmc< i~~ir- C 5L .%. L r li , D q L 5 7 l~-f '.h \ . 1 :\ 2\-7 Â£ \1 f .4 - .'i h =32 't Ill-1 11 - --4.- . t- 99- / I '.40 Qb ' ' r Â· '...: tio 3 I .. / -1 Q \ 1 4 9 . f f,/f .1 , 4 4 1.- : . h . .A ' QI . - 1 IjA,j 0.9/, ,~4~i~~<2 ... ~.. ~ . ~ . 0- 14 . 6 ..1,1 : : 1 C . 1Â·//,l'(249# .#, :2 Qal ~'~T~t,j~ p..I,â€ž~Ij~~4- f -- *22-Â· f N ' - L. Â· A. #2'-2-In:644,%)0~ ..?i, - .341 f \,2<\\ r#,--. -4 \ L /5 1&7--*..2, \ ir Al, illi,VT- .' 1 \ 1 16 I t t .1 41 W <Th \6 f MEFORANDOM TO: Karen McLaughlin, Assistant City Attorney FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: Siegel/Miller 8040 Greenline Review DATE: May 14, 1986 Attached is the "Draft Driveway and Utility Easement " prepared by Attorney Gary Wright to accomplish access to the proposed building sites on Lots 3 and 5 of the Sunny Park Subdivision. A vicinity map showing the Salvation Ditch along which the access easement would be created is also attached. I request your opinion with regard to the legality of the easement and whether further documentation is necessary to demonstrate proof of access to the building sites. If you would like additional background information on this ca se, please call me. SB.13 1 3- \ / SMUGGL ER \ \ \ 1.. '. - t-- C h \ C r ----- \4\ \ 9 1 \\\ \ \ \\ \\\ \ .. \ \ 4 1 0 \ \ \ \ \\ . \ 23- .-/ \ \4.\ \ \\\\ r \ tÂ». r. 1 \ \1\ OWNER \ 111 L00 - _-46'Vuy Â£4%*77 I/- L d'd7/> ~i ~\ ~~Â· 70 LOT -7 84 A, \Â»Dll, PARCEL BEING TO 7ME C/77 5 --/ - . ill --* 5 4 \ . 3, /1./.i . S \ 404 01./1 OWNER \ \ /2.0Â· r 4, V J< / "p..., ti 4 /5/,Dr,04 COU,4 b 16111 - ~" LjiliTS N 61. ~ 4. 0 Ty\ , 1 N 429Â¥00Â·W Mt.' \ 2 60./0.11 LOT 7 34.5*1/Â·00'.4/ 85 N 4 r 15 W AD. 04' /72'10 h \ 15,/31 34 FT. /Â·flaw' v De jb t.0 -4 3 3, , /WACZ-L BE/NG --A 4- : \ \1 9 9 â€¢5487/rAC TED FAOM , Â»h . '~~~4 **14 -tr, / \1?. OWNER , LOT 7 , 6300 SQ. FI 4Â· ~174 4 }Â¢/7*NE GMESJK '0 9. R L, 441/ d Â· ~~ ~65 H 1. LOT 4 LOT 6 J212;91/GeW 22,P77:R/,9.f SUNNY PARK NO?171-1 Â·' U80!VINON OWNER 3:UCCLEK RACOUET CLUB -==1 I ' OWNER -33 F MMER- Di MELVKLE LOT 3 - ' El I OWNER Â· Ch MOUNTA}A INVESTMER-7 . r LOT 4- OWNER PENNY EVANS 94=4+ Â· M Or.949 April 4, 1986 City and County Planning Department City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen re: 8040 Greenline Review application for Siegel residence, Lot 3, Sunny Park North Subdivision, submitted April 1, 1986 Attached are copies of a letter from the City of Aspen Water Department to be included with the above application. rely .<Peter Dobrovolny~ 6, 1 2704 Peter Dobrovolny AIA +JL.J - 4rawer 340 old snowmass CO 81654 927-3369 \<arpHitects_ ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: STEVE BURSTEIN, PLANNING OFFICE FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS SUBJECT: LOTS 3 & DATE: APRIL 14 986 tr- P.4 #_~~ ~ \t#'AI' / F l'*,414.40 ' In response to yoltr mâ‚¬~mo of April 10, 1986, we have indicated as stated in your attached letter, that water would be available to Lot 3 of Sunny Park. In respect to the structure to be located on Lot 5, which appears to be below the 8040 line, this structure can receive water from the Water Department provided it meets the same conditions as set forth in our letter of April 1, 1986 regarding Lot 3, and that is, the owner will be responsible for the water line from the point of attachment at the water main located in Park Circle. The meter must be located at or near the property line. The water line should also be sleeved where it passes under the Salvation Ditch. Exhibit B (drawing showing Topo line and location of house on lot) is not entirely clear as to what portion (if any) of the house might be above the 8040 line. I assume that the top left of the drawing represents a profile. This profile is not clear as to the 8040 line. In attempting to interpret the drawing, it appears that the fixtures in the bedroom would be at or near the 8040 line. Therefore, the pressure would be adequate for residential purposes. City water main pressure should be approximately 40 psi at or near the 8040 elevation. However, we cannot guarantee this pressure because of other influences such as house plumbing and service line friction losses. In summation, the same special conditions should apply to both lots 3 & 5. The applicant may apply for a water tap permit in accordance with standard procedures. JM:ab 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW CITY OF ASPEN March 31. 1986 SIEGEL RESIDENCE LOT THREE SUNNY PARK NORTH SUBDIVISION Application Prepared by Peter Dobrovolny AIA Sunup Ltd., Architects Drawer 340 Snowmass, CO 81654 (303)927-3369 ~0 0 4' SAY 4% A *434 A - -7 1 6 + 1/l k~,1 k 1 5.tic.Adl*Â»9 -3 11Â¥ Page 2 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW Section 24-6.2. of the City of Aspen Municipal Code requires that all development above elevation 8040 or within 50 yards below that elevation be reviewed on the basis of nine items of criteria, as follows: Sec. 24-6.2. 8040 Greentine review. (a) Intention. To provide for review of all development above the 8040 greenline within the City of Aspen and all development fifty (50) yards below the 8040 greenline so as to aid in the transition of development from urban uses to the adjacent agricultural and forestry uses; to insure that all development is compatible with the prevailing slopes; to provide for the least disturbance to the terrain and other natural land features of the area; 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. (b) Review criteria In reviewing the development plan, the zoning commission shall consider the following: 0 (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 poll ution; (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, Â§ 1) Page 3 The subject property is Lot 3, bunny Park North Subdivision, located on Park Circle Drive in the City of Aspen. The lot 1% effectively split by the Salvation Ditch creating a small, steep building site immediately off Park Circle Drive on the lower oart of the site and a more buildable building site on a tairly ,lat bench above the Salvation Ditch. In this part of Aspen the Salvation Ditch is run through a buried four foot diameter concrete culvert. The resulting ground surface is a rough but driveaole roadway. Access ro the upper building size fs provided via the Smuggler Mountain Road and an improved driveway to be constructed over the ditch roadway. The roadway is , )*'.I .N D sufficiently wide enough to require no cut and fill, only minor grading and road base. See attached documentation explaining access and use of both roadway and ditch. A site plan, Sheet 1 of the construction documents. tor this project is attached. It shows a small garage shop -:. located on the lower portion of the site and the main house located on the upper building site above the Salvation Ditch. An isometric view on the same sheet describes the architectural character of the house. The lot is 18.ouu square feec in area. Also attached is description of ownership of une prop ... rty. This application addresses each item of review criteria as presented above. (1) A verbal indication of sufficient water and water pressure was given by the Lity Of Aspen Water -epartment and a written reque- - for written verification was made March 27, 1986, copy of 1 -tter atrached. Written response will oe forwarded to the Planning Department upon receipt. City ~p sewer main is located in Yark Circle Drive. Electrical power is available at two locations near this u : property. Holy Cross Electric is currently investigating the location of a transformer.in the vicinity of the south west corner of the property to provide service to lots 3, 5 and 7 of this subdivision. (2) Park Circle Drive provides access to the lower building site, where the garage shop is located. It is maintained by the City of Aspenâ€ž The City of Aspen will provide road maintenance and snow removal on the Smuggler Mountain Road as far as the upper part of lot seven. See attached plat showing reconfigured lot seven, the result of a land swap to provide for extension of Park Circle Drive. The Pitkin County Housing Authority is the current owner of lot seven. Road maintenance and snow removal will thus be provided to the driveway to be constructed over the Salvation Ditch, this driveway providing access to the building sites on both lot three and five. Maintenance and snow removal on this private driveway will be the responsibility of the owners of Page 4 these two locsâ€ž There will be no vehicle access beyond the southern side of lot three. (3) Buildable area for a house is limited to the bench and hillside above the Salvation Ditch. Slopes range from less than 10% on the bench to over 45% on the upper portion of the site. As the buildable area is small, the house will be built on the bench and into the hillside, with the foundation walls acting as retaining walls on the uoper part of the site. See acrached report from Doctor Nicholas Lampiris addressing slope, ground' instability, etc. See also attached portion of geologic map of the Aspen area, showing approximate location of subject property. (4) A c. the subject property is part of a small hill, the ., top of which is just above the northeast property corner, the only drainage and runoff occurring on the property is ,< j that from snow and precipitation falling on the propert.y. 1 No major or minor drainages occur. See attached report from Doctor Nicholas Lampiris. (5) Being a single family residences the project will have ' insignificant, if any, effect on air quality in the city. both during construction and after. (6) As discussed in (3) above, the house is designed for the only available building site on the property. The house 1~ i s designed to be inte grated into the site so that Â·final ibi- Â·graded elevationg. around the site are little difterent than 1-r,\ w"' m v , c. 1 nn el evations . AY,flblYÂ·tj Accesb to the building site is along the Salvation Ditch roacj way, preveny ing_the _need -for new 4 road cuts on the hill U.ge . pce . (7) Grading will be limited to the immediate vicinity of the house and areas around it requiring backfill after excavation and construction of foundation walls. Final grade will be little different than existing grade, resulting in minimal disturbance to the terrain. Existing 1 vegetation is sage brush and small .V cp-vice berry. No trees L.. exist on the building site. Revegetation 01 disturbed areas 0-1 ' arouncl the site will be with native grasses to pr'ovide c stability, reduce maintenance and need for watering and to A ~ : create an appearance of natural vegetation around the house. (8) Structures are piaced on the only buildable areas of the site. Cutting and grading will be limited to the vicinity of the structures themselves and grades around them will be returned to existing slopes. The Salvation Ditch will be used as an access drive to the house, preventing the need for cutting and filling for a driveway access. Other areas of the site will be undisturbed. (9) This neighborhood is composed of single family and multi-family dwelling units, generally small in scale but densely developed. A few blocks to the northwest of the t, '&.1':426'mfm'2*ft~~'92*,,er ~: n....:Â·7 : Page 5 property is the Centennial housing projects massive and highly visible. An appraisal of the property and house as designed, performed by James J. Mollica and Associates (not attached), states "The neighborhood is considred fair to average in appeal primarily due to the high density of development ..." and "I-he neighborhood has st:eadi ~.y impr-oved over recent years as morÂ·e and more properties have i become owner occupiedâ€ž" This project can only improve the ' neighborhood. This application deals with a single family residence, designeo to be in compliance with F.A.R. and building height requirements for the R-15 zone. The house will be built into the hillside and stepped up the hill in order to reduce visual bulk and to create architectural integration with the 4 building siteâ€ž Exterior materials of construction are wood 4<net,1.7 /4 \\siding and metal_j'-g)c)Â·fin<6 Col cx s oÂ·f both wi 1-1-be_earth / 1-11 . r J 4 1 Â·Â· v tones to reduce visual impact. Â¢< A t. .D Building sites on lots five and seven of this subdivision are at a higher elevation chan the building site on lot three. Residences constructed on these sites Cone is ,currently contemplated on lot 5) will have a much greater impact on the open character of the mountains even if height and bulk are reduced. >.2 17 Â· BANNER N Â· March 31, i986 it Peter Dobrovolny P.O. Box 340 1 Snowmass, CO. 81654 RE: Lot 3, Sunny Park North Subdivision Dear Mr. Dobrovolny: I have completed my geologic investigation of the above referenced lot near Smuggler Mountain, Aspen, Colorado. 0 Â» The 18,000 plus square foot lot lies above Park Circle, 1Â· roughly between the Park Circle Condominiums to the west. and > the Mollie Gibson Shaft to the northeast. The Salvation Ditch 91. Pipeline runs approximately north/south through the lot as 11 shown on the accompanying map. Â·.M' The site slopes from oently to st.eeply west, and is covered 3 ..1 - j '-Air with sagebrush and other* dry].and shrubbery and grasses. 2 0/,1 1,~; Large boulders, mostly granitic, are scattered about the r<,1-,9.9,2 site. The buried Salvation Ditch Pipeline is overlain h 1/ n n c... 4-. access road through t.he property. There is a fairly flat corner of the property which is ~fii bench near the - -.... - 4 cons i dered to be the building envelope. This property lies 12}; along a minor ridge connected to the main body of Smuggler The .- f *;. Mountain to the east. .0 4- 1.. is a depression behind. this . ~5; ridge whicli collects ariel contains standing w ater. -73.J The geology of the site consists of a fairly thick sequence of, glacial moraine material (Qmc, of the third valley glacier which moved down the Roaring Fork Valley in Quaternarv time. This material consists of unstra tified and unsorted clays, silts, sands, cobbles and boulders. Without a drill hole, it 1 is impossible tio predict which bedrock unit underlies this - site, but it appears that it could be any unit between the Permian age Beldon Shale, and che Precambrian age quartz monzoni te. There are fault traces running from northeast to southwest in this portion of Aspen, but oecause of the c i Ir 4 Â·i r- i ..1 "- '*,ver t of clacial deposits, their exact position and number are unknown. In any event, there is no evidence of Neogene (recent) movement on these faults. BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC. * CONSULTING ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS SUITE 302 CITY PLAZA BLDG. 2777 CROSSROADS BOULEVARD 517 E. HOPKINS AVE. GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO 81506 â€¢ (303) 243-2242 ASPEN, COLORADO 81511 â€¢ (303) 925-5857 â„¢913~ 4 i . 0. BANNER Lot 3, Sunny Park North Subdivi ;ion March 31, 1986 r-'age Two 4 .t i I I tÂ·-Â·2 1" 8 Â·E. I -42 61 I-1 umber of mine shafts on the hillside above the 9 site which enter the Smugg 11-:..... i .. 1 et- 1 1'....k..i i t... <:1 1 1 9 min i , I t..i l- l..mti.J .1. t..Â·.': . net work of t. unnels i s known to pass under the lown O + Aspen ana connect with the Aspen Mountain mining area. The tunnels beneath the cit are full of water. There is no evidence of mining acti~ity near Lot 3, but Enere ar- r- m r r n Â·inl 9 y tunnels wall oelow rhe property within the bedrock units. 1 UU -L:< ..pE,L a subsldence problem, but to be more certain, I suggest that, durina the site coecific soils 11+ .. invest i gation f c] r + rulru~ i i.4 -i Â· Â·i ,-Â·un ,-1 i.Â·.-, .::S Â·i 'h to Cl n , Oil t.Â·.Â·.' l..I tÂ·r.'L.:iÂ·J t I U J. 12 '. l.1 6.' U .1. be decided oy rhe soils engineer) be drilled at the homesite to test for any cavities in the material beneath thp sitm. The hillside shows on evdence of instability, but these are 4 \10 4 unconsolida'ted deposits so that surface and subsurface waters , E- houl r-' be diverted ar'our-1 d t.he 1 1 0 me ana undue we t. t. ina of the 0~k<% ' solis through faulry irrigation practices should be avoided. 1 . )4 41â€ž , The Sal. vat].on Ditch Pip y o line is topographically below -the, si~e and therefore should not adversely affect the proposea home. The soils engineer should provide you recommendations and designs for the advised drainages, or our firm can design the drainages for you. Domestic water and waste oisposal will be provided by the Town of Aspen. Access to the site may need to be improved, 4 but is already available. If there are further questions. please do not hesitate to connact us. Sincerel- ' 41.., 7 5 BANNER ASSOCIATI=-0 , 1 L...0, INC. 1.1 t i 1 uUâ‚¬ lÂ»te : lit,Â·u+Ulll Nicholas Lampiris, PhD. . 1 I 1-' r o j e c t b e o .1. (3 g 1. s t encl. NL/clk ..1 1Â·Â·1 L Â¥. L ..de.. X Y FÂ·h'*,0,,4 k '4 ID. 4 J.- . C~~ COLORADO NATIONAL BANK 91 GLENWOOD 44,mai# March 31, 1986 City of Aspen Planning Department 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Sunnypark North Subdivision, First Filing, City of Aspen To Whom It May Concern: By virtue of the Public Trustee's deed dated January 28, 1986, Colorado National Bank - Glenwood is owner of both lots referenced above. With reference to these lots, both have been sold under approved contract to Barry and Sharon Siegel (#3), and Robert and Glenda Smith (#5), subject only to receipt of a non-exclusive easement from the Salvation Ditch Company and an approved building permit by the City of Aspen. _Y-QK~s truly, E-<LA, LA 44Â«j ~01-#A. Kerr Vite President JAK/bjm Ninth and Grand Mailing Address: Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 RO. Box 520 (303) 945-7422 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Naul' m 4 i DRAFT WIW M 6 1 Wt. ~ 1~ ; 10, Â· i , 1 4 4 -6 A-ki . 4 DRIVEWAY AND UTILITY EASEMENT - MAO s 41.U Q.20,0 *ubed THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day of March, 1986, by and between Salvation Ditch Company, a Colorado corporation, ("Grantor") and Colorado National Bank, Glenwood Springs, a Colorado corporation ("Grantee"). 1. Salvation Ditch Company by Easement Agreement recorded 16 September RECITALS: 1977, Reception No. 197440, in Book 335 at Page 80 was the Grantee of an easement which encumbers Sunny Park North Subdivision and is twenty-four & feet in width, si:_x_ff_4 -9-0.-the East side and eighteen_f-eeL.enÂ·-3he West side - of the ditch and pipeline as constructed in place, together with the- perpetual, nonexclusive easement and right-of-way over a road as constructed in place which Ar-Ailels- the ditch described above and is within the eighteen feet West of the center line described above. 2. In that Agreement Salvation Ditch Company agreed that only one road crossing this ditch and pipeline easement and right-of-way shall be permitted on each of the following lots: Lot 3, Lot 5 and Lot 7. 3. Colorado National Bank, Glenwood Springs, is the owner in fee simple of Lot 3 and Lot 5 pursuant to a duly executed and issued Public Trustee's Deed. 4. This Agreement is to affirm the rights of the owners of Lot 3 and Lot 5 pursuant to the Easement Agreement recorded in Book 335 at Page 80. NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby admitted and acknowledged it is agrred as follows: 1. Description. The Salvation Ditch Company hereby grants onto ' 1 Colorado National Bank, Glenwood Springs, its successors.and assigns a 'i , nonexclusive easement eighteen feet in width located on the West side of the 4 4 Ir,4 center litie or-tielitch--Aiia- wip@iine as now constructed in place, subject expressly to the Salvation Ditch Company's absolute nonexclusive right of |'Ab tEL access to inspect, maintain, operate, use and repair its ditch and pipeline , 1-6 jill - as required for the transportation o f water across and under the above / described lands, together with the right to use so much of the above â€ž~0U/J /â€¢'6' described road as shall be reasonably necessary to enable workmen and 5 6 5,4 to .91 7 . tlÂ» 41 "o'n+~ 81 1 014,4 7 DRAFT equipment to properly and conveniently inspect, maintain and repair said ditch and pipeline, and together with the right of ingress and egress to said road over a road as now constructed. 2. Mutual Easements. The Grantor and Grantee acknowledge to each other for the easement of ingress and egress over a roadway in place for vehicular traffic in connection with their respective properties and the properties of Lot 3 and Lot 5 as described above. 3. Obstructions. The Grantee agrees not to obstruct, impede or interfere, with the reasonable use of such roadway for the purpose of ingress and egress to and from Lot 3 and Lot 5 and the Grantor agrees to make a reasonable effort not to interfere with the rights of the Grantee for ingress and egress except as is reasonably necessary for pipeline maintenance, inspection and repair. 4. Maintenance. Salvation Ditch Company shall have absolutely no cost whatsoever concerning this easement except as it elects in its sole facility. discretion for the purpose of its pipeline and water transportation 5. Effective Term. This Agreement shall be effective in perpetuity and be a covenant that shall run with the land. 6. Binding Effect. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs, successors and assigns of the Grantor and Grantee T and the Grantee is hereby specifically authorized to convey the rights and duties pursuant to this Agreement to any successors in interest. 7. Whole Agreement. It is expressly agreed that this Agreement U contains the entire understanding of the parties relevant to the subject : matter hereof and that there are no verbal or written representations, 1 1 agreements, warranties or promises pertaining to the subjectÂ·matter hereof not expressly incorporated in this writing. RY 8. Modification. It is agreed that neither this Agreement nor any of its terms, provisions, conditions, representations or covenants can be modified, changed, terminated, amended, superseded, waived or extended except by an appropriate written instrument duly executed and subsequently recorded by the parties. P 9. Attorneys' Fees. In the event that this Agreement or any of the provisions contained herein become the subject of litigation among the parties the prevailing party shall be awarded its reasonable attorneys' fees and costs as a part of any j udgment. , 10. Severability. If any provisions of this Agreement shall be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, it shall not affect or impair the validity, legality or enforceability of this Agreement itself or any other provision hereof; and there shall be substituted for the affected provision 2 k DRAFT 'Â·99Â¥f<~ "'Â»*%. . 1'1:~9.5'I Â· -7 .. a valid and enforceable provision as similar as possible to the affected provision which shall ,to the maximum extent possible, provide for the intent of the parties as set forth in the original provision. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement effective the day and year first written above. Colorado National Bank, Glenwood Springs, a Colorado corporation by: John H. Kerr, Vice President Salvation Ditch Company, a Colorado corporation by: George S. Stranahan, President # State of Colorado ) )SS. County of Pitkin ) The foregoing was acknowledged before me this day of , e 1986 by John H. Kerr as Vice President for Colorado National Bank, Glenwood Springs, a Colorado corporation. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: My address is: Notary Public 4 State of Colorado ) )ss. County of Pitkin ) : The foregoing was acknowledged before me this day of , 1986 by GepigLS._Stranahan as President for Salvation Ditch Company, a Colorado corporation. --. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: My address is: Notary Public in.salvat 3 DRAFT *Wr ..'~Â·.Â·I- S~# -I â€¢- 199*~sh~ 4 '/ < 0-* I .21Â»-39293;99 . â‚¬707ix~~basz~a~qf~*P-~Tjf----&TL~-r.~~tw~L~~-rfpe,-3*<42~~:6.< 3 . A < r. T,' C= -O --A+9-6 7-.--~4 .2. V&k- ~.~600 ..4- - 1= .- -- \93 ic-- 1 4,2.- \ "1 F --h ~%2NR~3?F\M<pric*041i 4.,Â·,3 - Â·, 1----5 - ---i~_f 1 #Â·Â·.~.i;. ~,1~ d~~1rx \ . -- - I . b <\4 Â·,I . \-\ 80 : - >L - .-0.1 .~~{- .*--tutt~..2297# j{ \ /- ---mr / CS ' \. -4-\ - Qal'.-0 0 t.- \ ~FR90mt_ Nal-:ir--%% 1,1/.:~ C C~~~ 4~* ~- .., ..7/ \.V:*SL ~2 -.<<2522:4 1 0 C ./ . L eaao hf_ .c ~ C . [44/Â·,3-3*EfiERV ...?Â·<972**DAÂ·Â· ~4Â« *dbadil:WI:>40/ \.ST&;-' =-- 0 \- - ~ '' \ 1-- . Â£ Al ' -90 XI. I - .:I.,~--:4.1-:2-':'.:.. Â·J.1 ,Â»7,h'~i..:%(1 (71- -2/ 34 (19,4 ,Clt 9 y. 4520- ' / \ 1, . h.ki.11.9Â¥<f.f (.ft ~ <6- >Â·tt~~-~N~FI- ---if~NOÂ¢4,~ LifC. ;f, *: f /- -*s--2-<31.9, : ji~;~:_:*2LdM~3 i J.1 X. 74- A ,_-- teh..... ept sOURSE, -79'{i~ii?~ et Â£.1: .:Â·~. .,. ..: .. 1-:-5.A ~4Â»?.294 4. ~ 15=40 1/ 9,(,22347 j ,/;,f-p~4 2'r,,4~- Ili '2< UV~~~'~~~ ' : 04,/3 f , 1/, . 'i '- +29, , Â»u.-cs~'. 021 . 9/ //,6,/; f Â·â€¢T '/2/1 I 10* ~.. , h.-I'll . 1 1 . Â· . "'I * . I b 4 1 . - 7.71,1 . 449.,1... ./. ,~Â· 849 Â·Â·Â¥acker'.htâ€¢ # I ,-2 f'c\A k. , .t-rt, 1 ft-Â·4Â·<'t :7.7,Â·.r: i:-.2-.3Â·4.431%72,\Asp#ch\Â·~..9 . ~LiF <*A<539) toll,;249 fl>fl.,~t,Air<,IP ,;, Abvt '~k *.*.: , . === 4.4-~624f~*.~ . 200- - -- :1-Ms*â„¢lie- 1 , J, -F *..1 * .-- %(4 ~~t oh &00#i , /- . - 1. . F ----7- f- . S a. 0 . , .. 1 flo . . .~ -M 7--0. 44.2 6--Â·~4-41*'*.1-,7-,~~p Q.ga 3-t-'Â·'Â» '4-~'Â·., 9211.2 ,4,~b, *26 ,~:11 b .rÂ«./.03 " A.A. ...'. ....% . -**,_.0-.07:--~ii)'i â€¢34'~-Â·Park-/i~~Â·4Fi-1:36 1.''bÂ· 1 ''. 14/- 'pi . . c '.1 f --3 cy g ~ -Et\X-~-4-i Pft -re,$ 1 44:> 1 1 - , 0 -1, 1, 1/, 0/ // C hN 0 lilli * i Â£Qa . 11/' AÂ»t_h I. 0/ 1 , , ' UT*/mMT --Tank.4 ; i 415\._1\7. ~::fÂ«/39'=,Â·fi:.Â·,0Â·9.-54: -Â·Â· ~~,Â·, -,95'I ,;>J jÂ»It> 90 , u 324\ - ... 4'l\EJF- . 1 I J '- . Â· 212Â·--1 I .> /4/14 3 Â·~ I / 56 44 2/f'/'/VK\ . fea J f N / 6 . \. 'I k -9 .0. 1 4,1'' Â£ 0' c n 7- . 1(1/4,11(11#1-~:f .\ t< i,- 1 - , .â€¢ I; 1.1 6. 0,/ A // Ian k- :,0 â€¢ U ..V , - . 0 ' 1/ 1 *41 f Ch 4zpÂ·'( â‚¬47-rÂ·â€¢~ r \N. %1 ' 24 I. I X ' i <Â·*-2 Â»=Ome-X , > c Â·'Lo~ 3, Utel Â¥t L_A. / - 1 0 4 p ... mtÂ·.li~Â£~~6,- ,Â· f C \t 4 :<(Tivittfust< ff/Â· t~o 4 ./ 1 . Pm 11 40,4 7,) I 4 ' " .... , .4- Â·: U. 1 44594 : 4 I.< 0/ p / \. 176.1-2, / 1 1 N, si '-h ~ ~Qt\< ti~~ ~ ~~~ ~ 1 ' < .R. 41 1 1 .-. - 4.-,fl~ , ' ' ' 1(92 >3 -Off < 1 - /,b / Â· 91 OR ~mc, j//2 <C , Â¢F i ..p q'll\, 4.1/51.34 : - a / 4\ 1 1 0 -6 Q A'' 2 1 AGrant Fjti â‚¬:5Â« 4'Et:7 .,. : 0 1 LÂ« \ -) C '<7YA /J 3 1 111. 1 . 4 . - 0 14\\ [L- 11 0 1 , 4-7.3 , 45' C -- 1 4. . V *A#fil/. - -' : ,(0 \ ... 9 Q b .4 - .e 'r C Y Z. c :. , jj) fl 1. , Vi 1 0 / (i \97)- ' 1 ' /3, M ' 1 6 4 'r~ r' 2 . 4 11 It .. 44 1 1 1 .\ 14:\4 - L ~r.' 'J 4 4. 7. \.QI'l 4. ; ,i v, ?Â·, \%4. \\ Â· . 1/0 , ..7 9. . t. + - ic . - - 6 QI 7 1 3,Â· %1 32.7: 2. e. . I . 1 . Â·Â· Â· .- :Y'; 3~17%44:X. L ihilt *1. A.'-2 - . r rv Uk--:6 \211\\6,1 ...... 1 ~ it\ 13 4 /2.Â», 4\ 3 : J 16-.... 00201 /3 144 -/- . March 27, 1986 Q Jim Markalunas City of Aspen Water Department g 4 130 So. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 9 Dear Mr. Markalunas: r $ I met with you in your office today to discuss a client of mine who is contemplating building a single family residence on Lot 3, Sunny Park North Subdivision in the City of Aspen. The subject property and proposed construction on it is close enough to elevation 8040 ft. to necessitate 8040 Greenline review. One of the review criteria is whether sufficient water .pressure can be provided to the house. As I indicated to you today, the highest floor elevation in the house is at elevation 8026, making the highest point of water delivery, a shower head on that floor, to be at elevation 8032, below the 8040 line. You indicated that providing water at sufficient should be no problem and that water at a pressure of about 50 pos.i. could be anticipated. In order to expeditiously process this application for my client, I ask that you confirm our conservation of today in writing to me, with whatever conditions for this specific site you deem appropriate, such as water meter location as you suggested. Thank you for your assistance. Sinc~ely, ~ iffliffÂ» - i T ./.:I I'- 24Â»14/P A#Al (~i r -"ir ~ . Ai,# n Peter Dobrovolny AIA \4_arphitect ; drawer 340 old snowmass CO 81654 927-3369 , 'iÂ·,Â·.- Â©Â·01.2*6*1:er:.5*jA~.#LATEL/3*>~ 1. 2,4Â·Â·w . 4 INDEX 1. Application for 8040 Greenline Review on Lot 5 Sunny Park Nbrth Subdivision, City of Aspen 2. Exhibit "A" - Report from Banner and Associates, Nick Lampiris Engineer 3. Exhibit "B" - Tbpographical Map and Section of Building 4. Exhibit "C" - Draft of Driveway and Utility Easement Agreement F. 4 51190 F 9. 1 r DRIVEWAY AND UT'I UTY EASEMENT DRAFT THIS AGREEMENT Li ent.nred inLo this dav of March, 1986, hy and between Sal.vation Ditch CO'lpÂ·VU, a Colorado corporat-loni ("Grantor") and Color,id,1 National B,ink, Clenwood Springs. a Colorado corporation ("Grantee"). RECITALS: 1. Salvation Ditch Company by Eacement Agreemont recorded 14 Sâ€¢ptemher 1977, Reception No. 107440, In Hook 135 at Page 80 waq the Grantee of an easement which rr,rumhers Stlrun, Park Mort.h Subdiviston and 19 twenty-four fent i.n ,Â¢1.<ith, six feâ€¢,t 09 1 he E.let q f de and r. f ghteen feet. on the We.Nt mide of the ditch and pipeline as ennfltrueted in r:]nre, together with the perpetual , nonexcl nqi ve racBMAnt :141 r Li'hf-AfÂ·-Â·,my ovrâ€¢r n rortrl :IR conâ€¢Atructed in rl Ace whic.h parn[ 1,Â·19 t.!w ditch descrihel Rhove nrul 1.9 within t.hn eightenn feet West nf the cent.er 1 Ine degeril,"rl :ihovn. 2. In that AgreemAnt Salvition Bitch Complny agreed that only one road crogAing thiq ditch and pipel tne easement and ripht-of-way shall he perm.it..ted on each of tlin frill.ciwing 1.01:q: Lot 1, Lot. 3 and 1,82 7. 3. Colorado Natinnal. Bank, Glenwood Springs, iR the owner in fee s-Imple of Lot 3 and Lot 5 purittiant to a di,ly exect,ted .ind iqqued Public Truitee'g Dned. 4. Thi.q Agrpement. 18 to affirm the right< nf the ownerâ€¢ of Lot 3 and Lot 5 riirâ‚¬:tiant tr, the E,g,ment. Agreement rf,cordnd bl Book 335 at Page 80. NOW THEREFORE, for good nor! valitable consideration, th receipt and sqfficiency of whirb nre herehy alm Lt:ted and acknowledged f.t it; agrred ag follows: 1. Description. The Salvgtion Pitch Compnny hereby grants onto Colorado Nition:Â·71. Biâ€¢lk, C.leriwind Springs, JI-Â¢: surÂ·cocsors and asqigns a nonexclugive eaqement et.,ght-een fnet i.n width lorÂ·tted or, the Wrst side of tho center line of the rlitch And rippline As now construct,ed in place, subject expreqgly to the Salvation ntfrh Company--s .Â·-1~~q,bl.itte notierel.,igive right of acress to Lnepect, maint,liq, oper:,fF, i,Re and r,â€¢palr its ditch an,1 pip*line 89 required for the trangen,Â·f 1'.Ing of unter acroqq and under the nhove describnd land ': , tneether wifh the rijyh, r.r, nop go murh of the above degerthed rold as â‚¬hall he reinonnhlv neregsarv F.n enable workmen anl 1 equipment to properly and conveniently inspect, maintain and repair said ditch and pipeline, and together with the rieht of ingregs and egregs to said road over a road as now ronstruc,ted. 2. Mut.ual Easement,1. The Grant or and Grantee acknowledge to each other for the ensement ot Ingress and egress over a roadway in place for vehicular traffic in connâ€¢,ction with their rempective propertips and the properties of Lot 3 and Lot 5 aq described above. 3. Obstructions. Tile Grantee :igrnes not to obstruct, impede or interfere, with the reamonable une of mich roadway cO r the purpose of ingress and egresR to and from Lot 3 and Lot 5 and the Grantor agrees to make a reasonable effort not to interfere wl.th the rights of the Grantee for ingress and egregs except As tq reasonably necesgary for pipeline maintenance, inepection and repair. 4. Maintenance. Satintion Ditch Company shall have abgolittely no cost whatgoever concerning thts enmement. except AR Lt elects in f tn Role discretinn for the purpose of its pipeline and water trannportation facility. 5. Effective Term. Thiq Agreement shall he effective in porpetuitv and he n covenant that Hhall run with the land. 4. Binding Effnet. Thts Agreement shall be binding opon and inure to the benefit of tiÂ·,2-he-Gs, Nureec.ger, and aggigns of the Cr,antor and Grantee and the Grantee Is hereby sperifically authoriznd to convey the rightR and dutiest purs,tant to this Agrf:",ment tr, any 9Â·,c.ressors in interest. 7. Whole Agreement. It iq expre.9917 agreed that this Agreement contains the entire underqtanding of the parties relevant to the subject matter hereof and that there gre rio verbal or wrltten representations, agreements, warranties or promiseB pertaining to the subject matter hereof not expressly incorporated in this writing. 8. Modification. It 14 agreed that neither this Agreement nor any of its termq, provistong, condi tion,t, repre.gontations or covenmnlq can he modified, chang~d, terminated, amonded, quperseded, waived or extended excrâ€¢pt by an appropriatÂ· p written instrument duly exect,ted and quhqequently recorded by tho parties, 9. Attorneys' Fees. 1,1 t.he event that thin Agreemrâ€¢nt or any of t.he proviftions cont.li.ne,1-h,Frein herÂ·ome the sub,ject of litigation among the parties the prevalling party shall he awarded its r,ingonable attorneys' fees and costs as a part of anv judgment. 10. Severability. If any provigiong of thIR Agreement Rhall be invalid, illegnl or unrnforcenhlr, 1.t qhall not affect or impair the VAtidity, legality or enforce.abil.tty of this Agreement itself or any other provision hereof; and th,re Rhal I be qubstituted for the affected provision 2 DD K CT a valid and enforceable provivion as similar as possible to the affected provision which <hall ,to the maximum extent ponsible, provide for the intent of the parties as set forth in the original proviqion. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed thiA Agreement effective the day .ind year firet wrltten above. Colorado National Bank, Glenwood Spring,q, a Colorado corporation by: Jnhn H. Kerr, Vice President Salvation Ditch Company, a Colorado corporation hy: George S. Strannhan, President State of Colorado ) )88. County of Pitkin ) The foregoing was :icknowl edged before me this day of , 1986 by John H. Kerr as Vice President for Colorndo-FTE-ional Rank, Glenwood Springq, a Colorgdo corporation. Witness my hand and official seal. My commiggion explreg: My address iq: Notary Public State of Colorado ) )59. County of Pitkin ) The foregoing wan acknowledged before me this day of , 1986 by George S. Stranahan as Prevident for Salvation Birch Company, a Colorado corporation. Witness my hand and official Real. My commission expireq: My address is: Notary Public in.salvat 3 DRAFT 1 1 04 )9 1Â¢IonA Ay '1Â¥41 A,7 MEMORANDUM TO: THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY COLORADO FROM: JAMES LUCAS ADAMSKI, HOUSING DIRECTOR RE: SMUGGLER HEIGHTS: A LAND USE PROPOSAL DATE: JULY 17, 1986 ISSUE/BACKGROUND: During recent 8040 Greenline reviews being conducted by the City of Aspen for lots 3, 5 and 7 of the Sunny Park Sub- division, it was determined that several problems existed with these potential building sites. Lots 3 and 5 are presently under contract to local citizens, and lot 7 has been obtained by the County through a "land swap" which took place during the development of the Centennial project. A flk, #14 IAL Â¢â€¢Ak.4 < The lots traverse a steep hillside on the southeast side of ~wj~*.l,+740Â» Aspen, and houses placed on the lots as presently con f igured would cut against the visual intent of the 8040 Greenline i, klewâ€¢.1 6,11,1 1,5 review process. 1 - . %=18#9 The extension of City utilities up to these three building 1/lill 4/14' ' sites would result in very high installation costs to the landowners. Access to lots 3 and 5(,i,J proposed along the Salvation Ditch. The Nordic Council would like to install and maintain a cross-country/pedestrian trail along the Salvation Ditch, eventually connecting the Hunter Creek trail to the Northstar preserve. This trail is listed as a proposed trail in the Trails Master Plan of 1979 as amended to the 1966 Aspen Area Master Plan. Easements for the trail alignment have been granted from Hunter Creek to Molly Gibson Park. All of these concerns add up to serious construction delays on lots 3 and 5, as well as the inability of the County to sell lot 7 with a bonafide, approved building envelope. Previous discussions with you and others concerning the downvalley comprehensive plan indicated that the County may not be fulfilling all the desired housing needs of local employees. The apparent excess of multi-family dwelling units shows that the condominium approach to the local housing problem may not be the complete answer. Small deed- restricted building lots, located close to town, are what local residents prefer. These lots could enable employees to buy affordable land located close to town that single family dwelling units could be build on. In an effort to maximize the utilization of public assets, and with the cost of running local government rising, Pitkin 14 County is attempting to put it's present assets into more f.â‚¬ W. productive use. E-\f 51' 'i j re* R . STAFF PROPOSAL: These issues could be resolved through a single land use proposal called Smuggler Heights Subdivision. The proposed subdivision would eliminate the 8040 Greenline concerns that have been hampering development of the Sunny Park North lots, reroute access to these lots away from the Salvation Ditch through access above the lots and develop some deed- tell 5 iejel> 5 3., 44. Ihe~., 4/,4.~ 1 5 1% 016# 24 5114" 14+ rg' restricted employee lots close to town. This land use proposal would benefit the County government by developing single family residential sites for the local employee. Figure 1 shows the existing conditions around the proposed subdivision. The lots would be located on a small bench near the middle portions of the Mascotte and 99 mining claims (currently owned by the County). These mining claims were used to create the Midland Park Subdivision, an employee dwelling unit project completed in 1977. Although the Midland Park proposal stipulated that the remaining sections of these mining claims were to be deeded to the County as open space, this idea was never persued. In addition to the Mascotte and 99 Lodes, the county owns an adjacent claim, called the Silver Brick Lode, immedeately above and contigous with the Mascotte Lode (see figure 1). As a result, these 30-plus acres have remained County owned, non-restricted and partially P.M.H. zoned. The Sunny Park North subdivision is located immediately to the west of the proposed subdivision (see figure 1). Lot 7 presently has deeded access through the Mascotte lode off of Smuggler Mountain Road (county road #21), and the County has agreed to maintain this access in the winter. Lots 3 and 5 could also be accessed through this road, but property line adjustments to these lots would be necessary. Figure 2 shows the area with the proposed Smuggler Heights Subdivision in place. Lots 3, 5 and 7 of the Sunny Park North Subdivision would be adjusted to include portions of the bench within the lot boundaries. This will allow the owners of these lots to place their building envelopes on the bench, reducing the potential visual impact of their future dwelling units. Access will be granted to all three lots through the existing Lot 7 access. In addition to these lot line adjustments, three additional lots could be created on the bench and accessed by the same cul-de-sac created for the Sunny Park North lots. By deeding additional property to the owners of lots 3, 5 and 7, the County Will receive granted easements to the Salvation Bitch across lots 3 and 5.. This will allow the Nordic Council to pursue it's cross-country trail. Exten- sion of utilities to these new building sites becomes more affordable when there are six lots dividing the costs of hook-ups instead of three. This proposal will bring three deed-restricted single family lots onto the employee housing market. The monies received from the sale of these parcels Will Pay for the project development (see Figure 3 cost estimates). ACTION NEEDED: The Smuggler Heights Subdivision land use proposal is now in the beginning stages of development. A vote of conceptual approval is all that is requested from the Board today. 2 FIGURE 1 SMUGGLER HEIGHTS: EXISTING CONDITIONS r \ . I D Â¥ 1 // /j '/ . " I 1 l. ~ I ~~ Silver Brick / / Lode (PITKIN COUNTY) / 2 -C~eritennial 1 -- ;4 > .2 /N n ' Il...2..,27 V fs ( -r- . *43- - :..2 1.1.ffy; Â·p/-~~ MIffljfj/fll) ~'~11'b:iff~~41 4-- 2 9-4- rn. - \r , f ~.U~?~ -n. 11'.1.......:\\ .... L, 1,2 ' -1 i ~ f 4--Ut -\ Xâ€¢k / .4 <)1 1 &/49~ ElÂ«\4104 49. -\144 4 \\ 0 .] XI? \ v = .,~ Molig Gibson gpark 3 9~>1 f , 3 1-,1 ,\ 111, 1.4(\ 4- \ ) . 07 . 1 1 \ \\ I I L .. lA r I .- - , \ \ T ..\\ v ' 4,4,# ' . 1~ T..I 4 t\~\ V equal# 200' \ 01 Il\I 1 ' lei. l 4,1) I e , I , )(i 1 7 31'j.32/ %0.. ./ )1 . 1 l'Â¥1. 0 .4 \\1Â·r,4,~ '.. 41 -Eh-,(1:&4,>'4:7' ' 0 3.4 -, /; lili f -Â·l / Mascotte( i~ / n x- 1 -* 1 Lot'.277 81:1Â· ; -1 Lf - 1 I r -- (PITKIN COUNTY)/ \.\4 .1- 1-1--92\\ . -23.../.l; '24 ly . L r~ 1 U Lg~ 7 . I. ..r ./ 1 4 Il / /1 1~ Â» ~ Lot 4 ~ N Lots . k *~ Lot 1/\JII~-~~ ~9~(P~~KIN-90~NTY)93 - 34 1- , illk 1 '\ 1 -=-*2 .... - 4 ' / 7 / t.o~ 9 '. / w99' Lode ZED-~ - -tA- Lot 2 / r~Â·<L '/ < \ ... - 4. 1 , u I A 7 %. . 1 --- /11\11. .- %,\3\.h \ ....\31. 3 .-- .. %\ .1, - --1 L Midland Park 9 1/ 5 3. ---- p 227---7-1. .\ 1 1 4 . f.r 0- \191 4 1 # 9- 4 .. FIGURE 2 31vi' zt,~GILi .. HEIGHTS: PROPOSED SUBDIVISION A. 3 09 . - k -7 1 I .\\X \ ----': 41,121~~4~UA, f...1 .\1 \\1\\ \ \ ' \>\4\ 1.3- \ I 1 < 5441 \11< 03,1/// / ./.j \\-h.-J...1./ r < 442,1 W< 9 l'~ ~~ Â·- --m 24.-- IP \~ \j h ~ ,\ l .\ 1 ' C 13 M -- 021.-# I 7./... . ..- ..--.Â« _-----71 // ' C I < -(Pentennial : i 41 v r l- . ' . â€¢â€¢'0~ * 1 4 \, 1 f TÂ·t L~'1 1 . 1.7 ,-ca*.*9 ' ~ OPEN SPACE / 7\ ' Pt -2- Â·~43Â«0 Z-*-2 ~ 4-_. ' 9/46Â»94 1 %' 1.-0 - A 1 3 3 0 (l~' f ~17 /, i, ~ . . 1~ .4 tr - -4 -4 1 ./ 1. 11 1 U .. 1. . . ..0 '1~1~ 4 , . ,- 1 <~P-,1 |C| : i'/1 â€¢Iii Â· ' # h 4 -- & 11 / 1 1 . my bj. '~- I M.,/ <-2, 1 - 4:11 .3./ 1 9~ 1 7- . , \ . /74 11 - 1 ' ht i * F , 1 Â·f 2 ClAA Â» I .. '' 'Vt 2,%/ 11 17 --f -Lit .3 \- ~ 4,11\11 32 1 i , \ 173644Â¥48 200' -. U < V. /711 ' '-f.1 j '0'-- 0 Â· ~Â·' , ' b 1 1 !4,1.1 t~ --- i' . ;~ Â·~~/4, j' 9 5 .~ ii' ASmw*glar4' 30/:tzÂ¢~/~ 2 .Â· 4-Â· ~2.'Â·: A. 2*Zi ~~4 i... - . -4/ ": / ...44 4 ; 11, . 1 ' 1 / 1 W f ' 'di-1 34 ./ ' /1 I i/; r 7,> '- 1 Aft H*johts-~94-154Â·Â·~i ,,~;,4.Â· 1 PO/. V m. \ . ~. ~-- 2'rey - < , -1 3.11 : P y.,1.1 11 \ J.>1'plt Â·.~~Â·Â·':\;,Â·EÂ·ft . 1 1, 1 11. 1,=F%&4 1 4 /1''rit'.1.12/ f L i 0 . I.-3*tÂ». -1.- ----11,1.6 0-/. - 4'V / t , .> . -41-... ~Â«11111 7 v I- ~ /,LOT 7 . 41 111 - .Ir-@<- 14. / . ... 4 I. - kle iÂ·iÂ·Â·:--1.42/%.4. 1* #r. . 96=#2-$.i -- \ 2 %' 41 B-*20&- f..ff ...... ~ ~ ~~~ , ~ r \ ?4'6"PE.N..op*cit litchiltift~'ir. A t /-11 1,,0 ' (2., 1~073. 90Â· 1. 1.1,11 791 r, ' - , 1\':11 111:.P --- r 1. \ T' -2 /4 /r 7, ' -m-. 3/407 8 Â£4 c.- -- - 7 lOT 1 '' ' '.Â·4,6 frfl'..litÂ·->3 0 7 \_A 3 / .... - % -<-- xtÂ·-474- $4~44.6..C~Â·Â· ~ ,~ %, k*1 4-~97 -4 ..I. -I L al 2 i' Fâ‚¬439--04--12~~ c ...~N~ t. Â·w#lf> 4 . --T:i.- 1% , th\144>I..~..>b~~34-Sity.7'~*4 Â» = .Â°> ~N~idland-Park * f~ fo\,11 (,/ti -iftÂ« 2.-'t:Â·:L. 4 .<. 74 I ' *-r-.- _ - - c... . ,----UN//i /\1 4 lÂ·<. 1.4Â·'/ 3,- ~s.xy n.. ._ 3 ------- ) #Mul\' l, 4.,1.-1-0. IlÂ£'L:..... f<Lir-0 - 1 t Â« 1-:14 51 -1 1 : 3: 1 , 49: -4.--- - Figure 3 - ESTIMATED COSTS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SMUGGLER HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION 1) PLANNING a) Conceptual and Detailed Design ................. in house b) Surveying and Final Plat $ 2000.00 c) County Planning Submission: - Subdivision Review... $ 1680.00 - 2-step Land Use Review ..................... 1400.00 - Referal Agencies.. 500.00 - Final Plat... 700.00 TOTAL............... $ 4280.00 d) City Planning Submission: - Annexation Review/Approval $ 1490.00 TOTAL.. ............ $ 1490.00 TOTAL PLANNING COSTS. $ 7700.00 2) ENGINEERING/LAND DEVELOPMENT a) 12" Sewer Line w/2 drop structures......$ 60 - 75000 b) 8" Water Line w/ 1 fire hydrant.. ....... 40 - 50000 c) Raod Upgrade w/ cul-de-sac ............. 12 - 15000 d) Engineering.. 9- 11000 e) Legal Fees for Crossing Salvation Ditch. 6 - 7000 f) 15% Profit Margin..... 16 - 19000 TOTAL ENGINEERING/LAND DEVELOPMENT COSTS.....$141 - 177000 3) TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS.... ............ $146700 to $184700 4) DEFERRED COSTS a) Sunny Park Lot 3 Participation ....... ... $ 7500 b) Sunny Park Lot 5 Participation .......... 7500 c) Sunny Park Lot 7 Participation... ...... 10000 TOTAL DEFERRED COSTS.... ............... $25000 5) TOTAL COSTS TO FORM 3 DEED RESTRICTED, SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ................. $121700 to $159700 OR $40500 TO $53000 PER LOT 3 y \ ixt ... *Â·041 .# /4 -- JA \ 9 *f \ \ \ \ \ 4 \ \ tegiljitilI0iill ~li ~~~1--ift \ \ N *001001 9% 1 \<00\ 1 44 1Â°,2/ 1,\ e \. \ 1, & N 520%'00~'W T66 A \64) C Jibll A ~ 24Â© 1 A I. 4 I '' 4 1 L & CITY OV t#/7 ASPEN 130 south dalenajstreet aspe'n, color.ado>111611 303-925-2020 MEMORANDUM DATE: August 28, 1986 TO: Building Department FROM: City Attorney RE: Trail Easement - Sunny Park North Subdivision Attached for your information please find a copy of an Agreement to Grant Nordic Trail Easement for sunny Park North Subdivision. Please be advised that no c/o should be issued until a site specific easement is granted. PJT/mc Attachment CC: Engineering Department S Planning Office City Clerk (w/ original easement) 4 .... AGREEMENT TO GRANT NORDIC TRAIL EASEMENT Made and entered into this /44 day of August 1986 by Barry and Sharon Siegel as owners of Lot 3, Sunny Park North Subdivision and Robert and Glenda Smith as owners of Lot 5, Sunny Park North Subdivision, City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. This Agreement is given for the use and benefit of the City of Aspen. NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby admitted and acknowledged the owners of Lot 3 and Lot 5 hereby covenant and agree to and with the City of Aspen that they shall and will execute a Easement Agreement with the City of Aspen which will cause and effect a ten foot wide Nordic Trail as set forth in the July 1985 Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trail Element. The owners of Lot 3 and Lot 5 shall give a good and sufficient easement, ten feet wide, in perpetuity over their lots, running more or less adjacent to the Salvation Ditch Road as is now in place. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have set their hands and seal this ,â‚¬9Â§ day of August, 1986. 0 - ~ /3 >~fO/)011 Â«' U. t.a q 1.j~ Sh~ Siegel " U i l/ Barry SiÂ®,1 L 914- 1-3 Robert Smith 1, 7 Glenda Smith State of Colorado ) )SS. County of Pitkin ) The foregoing was acknowledged before me this /'40/1 day of August 1986 by Sharon Siegel and Barry Siegel. Witness my hand and official seal. My conmission expires: jwu :3. i4 Â¥ 9 My address is:ac- 797 999-a/5 4 410 6 ' , 141%412 0-,LFU.- 'C-& 4.t.,1 4-7 ) M L_0.0014Â« drol o t.14 Q -. * r.6 1.- (0- re, V I. Notary Public' 4. , State of Colorado ) 9//- 40 ... )SS. County of Pitkin ) The foregoing was acknowledged before me this I Â£i th day of August 1986 by Robert Smith and Glenda Smith. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires:~Â»ny , 3, 1 9 2,7 My address is: 40 / 7-) MO-Â£-6-/ 5/ 4 "'t ELLE;Â·r C.Â© i> /10'f ~ 104 ize Notary Public 4 <%/.b' t?It .: Vinrstâ‚¬gel. agr 2 4,+ f r. A- 1 BANNER Aoril 1, 1986 Peter Dobrovolny P.O. Box 340 Snowmass, CO. 81451 RE: Lot 3, Sunny Park North Subdivision Dear Mr. Dobrovolny: I have completed my geologic investigation of the above referenced lot near Smuggler Mountain, Aspen, Colorado. This lesy than one half acre lot lies above Park Lirc104 roughly between the Park Glrcle Condominiums to the west. and the Mollie Gibson unatt to the northeastâ€ž The Salvation Ditch Pipeline runs approximately north/south through the lot as shown on the accompan 7 1. rig ma p . The site slopes from Dentlv to steeolv west, and is covered with sagebrush and other drvland shrubbery and crasses. Large boulders mostly granitic, are scattered about the site. The buried Balvation Ditch Pipeline is overlain by an access road through the propertyâ€ž _ . There is a fairly flat bench riwaiÂ· the center of the prooerty which is considered to be the building envelope. Th i q r i i- n n ,Â·n i. 1 .. i -2, lies along a minor ridge connected to the main bodv of Smuggler Mouptain to the east . There is a de pression b Thind this ridge which colloct <-:. and contains standing water. Ing geology of the site consists of a fairly thick sequence of clacial moraine material (Pme) of the third valley alacier which moved down the Roarina Fork Vall ov in Quaternary time. This material consists of unstratified end unsorted clavs, gilts, sands, cobbles and boulders. Without a drill hole. it is impossible to predict which bedrock unit under)ies this site, but it appears that it could be any unit Detween the Permian age Beldon Shale, and the Precambrian age quartz mon z uniteâ€ž There are fault traces running from nor....1- heast to southwest in this portion of Aspen, but because of the surficial cover of glacial depo ...Â·s, their exact position anfl nu,mber are unknown. in any event, there is no evidence of Neoclene (r' ecen 1-Â· '1 ;n (7 ./ ,Â·. ment on the q:. c caults. BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC. BANNER ASSOCIATES. INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS CONSULTING ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS SUITE 6. 605 EAST MAIN 2777 CROSSROADS BOULEVARD ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 â€¢ (3â€ž 3) 925-5857 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506 â€¢ (303) 243-2242 I - BANNER lot 5, Sunny Park North Lubdivision Aoril 1, 1986 1 .. TWO There are a number of mine shaft<: on the hillside above the site which enter the Smuggler Mountain mining complex. The ne twork of tunne j. s is known to pass under the Town 04 Aspen and connect with the Asoen Mountain mining area. The tunnels beneath rhe city are full of voter. There is no evidence of mining activity near Lot 3. but there are certainly tunnele below the propertv within the bedrock I do not expect a subsidence problem, but to be more certain. I suncest that, during the site specific soils invoftigation for foundation design, one deep hole (deoth to be decided by the foils engineer) bp drilled at the homenite anv cavihies in the material beneath the sine. The hillside shows no evidence of instability, but these are unconsolidited Foposits so that sur- i ace and subsur-Â·fec:+ e waters. sbc)(-1 1 d be dj ver' 'c. ec; around the nome and .1.1 nc.lue wetting O+ t. re 901]9 through faulty irrigation practices shoula oe avoided. The balvation Ditch Pipeline is topographically below the site and therefore should not adversely affect the propoued home. The soils engjneer should provide vou recommendations ana designs for the advised drainaces, or our firm can design the drainages for vou. Domestic water and waste disposal will be provided bv the Town of Aspen. Accese to the site may need to be improved, but is alreadv availableâ€ž There is a supplementarv report ed wor Piti:in County which addresses the subsidence prooiem just north of this site. This report should also be referred to the soils engineer If there are fur 1- h0.3 r questinnc. nlpane do not nesitate to contact us. PANNER ASSOCIATES. INC. el t /1*0'64'UK Il/.tlect/,4 hp 7 1... 1 1 r , c PH n - Nichol a. ':3 La m p i , . .... i Â· Â· i .... 0. Project Geologist . i-- - - / 22.4 CITY.*MU~SPEN 130 Emlmfaa*ameÂ¢*ree t aspel~611 MEMORANDUM To; Planning Office Fr: Attorney's Office Re: Siegel and Smith Easement Date: November 6, 1986 Enclosed is a draft of the Siegel/Smith easement. In order to complete Exhibit "Al' I need a plat of the area depicting the easement. Is this something you can help me with? Any further comments would be appreciated. TRAIL EASEMENT AND RIGHT-OF-WAY THIS GRANT OF EASEMENT, made and entered into this day of , 1986, by SHARON AND BARRY,SIEGEL, as owner ~o-f Lot 3, Sunny Park North Subdivision, City of Aspen, and GLENDA AND ROBERT SMITH, as owners of Lot 5, Sunny Park North Subdivision, City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado (hereafter referred to as "Grantors" and THE CITY OF ASPEN, a home rule municipal corporation, Pitkin County, Colorado (hereafter "Grantee"). WITNESSETH WHEREAS, Grantors are the owners of certain real property being part of Lots 3 and 5, Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian in the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado, and; WHEREAS, the Grantors are desirous of conveying to Grantee a perpetual and non-exclusive trail easement and right-of-way over and across that part of said real property described below under certain terms and conditions hereafter enumerated, and; WHEREAS, the Grantee is desirous of accepting said easement and right-of-way under the terms, conditions and agreements hereby specified; NOW THEREFORE, in consideration Of the waiver of Park Dedication Fees pursuant to the Aspen Municipal Code, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, it is agreed as follows: - 1. DESCRIPTION Grantors hereby grant and convey to Grantee, its successors and assigns forever, the following described pgrpetual and non- exclusive trail easement and trail right-of-way located ten feet in width located on the West side of the center line of the ditch and pipeline as now constructed in place, and depicted in Exhibit "A", with the additional right to Grantee to deviate from said trail easement and right-of-way to the extent necessary to construct and maintain a trail and irrigation improvements hereafter described, and to provide, if necessary, a retaining wall on the westerly edge of the aforementioned trail easement and right-of-way. II 0 USE The trail easement and right-of-way shall be for multi- recreational use, including but limited to,cross country skiing, hiking, bicycling, equestrian and other uses. III MOTOR VEHICLES The use of motorized vehicles (except for the construction, maintenance, repair of improvements, creation and maintenance of nordic ski trails) and camping and campfires is prohibited. IV COMMERCIAL USE The trail easement and right-of-way shall not be used for commercial purposes. - V DEDICATION Grantee recognizes said trail easement and right-of-way as a dedication pursuant to the provisions of Section 7-143(2)(a) (b), Park Dedication Fee, (or any amendment thereto), of the Aspen Municipal Code in lieu of payment of a park dedication fee. VI ACCESS Grantors expressly retain the right to traverse said trail easement and right-of-way with vehicular traffic for the purpose of accessing the property encumbered hereby, provided however, that said reservation is contingent upon Grantors failure to obtain an access easement from Pitkin County (or any other person or entity) providing an alternative access to the property encumbered . hereby. If necessary, the location of said access shall be jointly determined by Grantors and Grantee. Grantors agree, upon obtaining alternative access to the property encumbered hereby, to refrain from crossing said trail easement and right-of-way with vehicular traffic. VII OBSTRUCTIONS Grantors agree not to obstruct, impede or interfere with said trail easement and right-of-way, and Grantee agrees not to interfere with the rights of Grantor for ingress and egress to the property encumbered hereby. -1 - VIII MAINTENANCE Grantee shall police and maintain the trail, and , further adopt and enforce reasonable rules and regulations for the use of the trail. XI INDEMNIFICATION Grantee agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Grantors from any claims or losses arising from the construction and maintenance of said trail, except those claims arising from the negligent or careless acts of the Grantors, their heirs, success- ors and assigns. X CARE Grantee agrees to use reasonable care in the construction of said trail and to avoid damage to the land and improvements thereto, and further agrees to restore such land and improvements to their condition immediately prior to such construction by 0 appropriate grading, planting and repair. XI WHOLE AGREEMENT It is expressly agreed that this Agreement contains the entire understanding of the parties relevant to the subject matter hereof and that there are no verbal or written representa- tions, agreements, warranties or promises pertaining to the subject matter-hereof not expressly incorporated in this writing. XII MODIFICATION It is agreed that neither this Agreement nor any of its terms, provisions, conditions, representations pr covenants can be modified, changed, terminated, amended, superseded, waived or extended except by an appropriate written instrument duly executed and subsequently recorded by all parties. XIII SEVERABILITY If any of the provisions of this Agreement shall be held invalid, illegal or unenforceable, it shall not affect or impair the validity, legality or enforceability of this Agreement itself or any other provision hereof; and there will be substituted for the affected provision a valid and enforceable provision as similar as possible to the affected provision which shall, to the maximum extent possible, provide for the intent of the parties as set forth in the original provision. XIV TITLE Grantor warrants title to the property encumbered hereby is in the names of Grantors, and further warrants that said title is good and sufficient as against all the world, and covered by a general title commitment policy issued by a local title company. XV ALL 1-2-2-0 2-1 tiCLU i"Â·12- ' CALÂ·.a L 0 r.3 -1 Grantor warrants that the property encumbered hereby is free of lienholders who have not consented to this grant of a trail --M easement and right-of-way to Grantee. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereto set their hands and seals on the date and year shown. CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO By William L. Stirling, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch City Clerk Sharon and Barry Siegel Glenda and Robert Smith ATTEST: - MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council THRU: Robert Anderson, City Manager U FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office Â£4<- RE: Sunny Park North Lots 5 and 7 (Siegel-Smith) Request to Waive Park Dedication Fee DATE: September 3, 1986 APPLICANT' S REQUEST: The Siegels and Smiths request Council to waive the park dedication fees in consideration for dedication of a iJail easement across their properties. APPLICABLE SECTION OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE: Section 7-143 establishes the procedures for land dedication or cash payment at Council' s election for the purpose of acquiring park lands. BACKGROUND: The Siegel and Smiths residences were given 8040 Greenline Review approval by the Planning Commission on July 5, 1986. Condition #7 of that approval states "the applicants shall dedicate a trail easement generally along the Salvation Ditch acceptable to the Planning Office and in conformance with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Park/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Element prior to the issuance of a building permit". Pl anni ng and Zoning did not make any recommendations regarding how park dedication fees be handl ed. The applicants have begun working out the terms of the trail easement in conjunction with their request for an access easement from the County for use of the Salvation Ditch. PLANNING OFFICE COMMENTS: The Salvation Ditch trail is an important segment of the trail system; and the dedication of trail easements through the Smith's and Siegel's property is a communi ty benerit. The dedication of the trail, while required by the P&Z, more properly constitutes a voluntary grant by the applicants which would not typically be obtained in an 8040 Greenline Review. Therefore, we believe that waiver of park dedication fees is reasonable. We support the waiver of park dedication fees if it can be shown that the value of trail easements is at least as much as the park dedication fee (estimated at $2,400 for each house). We recommend that the Siegels and Smi ths demonstrate the value to Council's satisfaction. SB.39 0- 0 Barry and Sharon Siegel Bob and Glenda Smith Sunny Park North Subdivision Lots 3 and 5 -Mayor Bill St irling City Council Members Charlotte Walls Pat Fallin Tom Isaac Charles T. Collins 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Acceptance of Trail Easement For Park Dedication Fee Dear Mr. Mayor and City Council Members: Finally, after two months in Planning Office review stages and two more months being tabled, our 8040 Greenline Review for the above homesites has been granted conditional approval by the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission. As you may be aware, the major delay in the 8040 Greenline Review process was caused by questions arising related to the proposed Nordic Pedestrian Trail planned to follow the existing Salvation Ditch Road. Unfortunately or fortunately, the Salvation Ditch Road crosses our property and thus the trail issue. For us, the trail has postponed construction such that it is questionable whether we will be able to occupy our properties this year. In addition, we have incurred substantial fees for interest expenses, lawyers, architects and the Planning Office. All of this was to accommodate the trail easement, which became a condition of our building permit - even though the former City Attorney told us and the Planning and Zoning Commission that this was not a proper criteria for 8040 Greenline Review and if the City or County wished to acquire that land, a condemnation process was appropriate. We are sure you can imagine our frustration! The value of the trail easement and the ability to maintain the continuity of the trail far exceeds the required Park Dedication Fee. This is certainly an appropriate situation for the City to accept land in the form of an easement in lieu of money. Section 7-143, Park Dedication Fee, permits the Council to accept a land dedication and we i-Fe requesting that is what you do. We would appreciate if you have any questions that you contact us directly; the Siegels may be reached at 925-6227 or 925-7791. The Smiths may be reached at 925-3937. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. ff/<T A : Sin erely. . A ~ / 30- n x 0%=Fcahil D - - Birry & Sharon Siegel Bob & Glenda Smith ' cb.mayor.ltr Â§ 7-142 ASPEN CODE Â§ 7-143 3 Sec. 7- 142. Violations and penalties. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to erect, construct, en- large, alter, repair, move, improve, remove, convert or demolish, equip, use, occupy or maintain any building or structure in the City of Aspen or cause the same to be done, contrary to or in violation of any of the provisions of this code. (b) A violation of any of the provisions of the code shall consti- tute a misdemeanor, punishable upon conviction by a fine not ex- ceeding three hundred dollars ($300.00), or by imprisonment not exceeding ninety (90) days, or by both such fine and imprisonment. A separate offense shall be deemed committed on each day or por- tion thereof that the violation of any of the provisions of this code occurs or continues unabated after the time limit set for abatement of the violation. (Code 1962, Â§ 4-1-4; Ord. No. 7-1971, Â§ 7; Ord. No. 9-1974, Â§ 4; Ord. No. 12-1977, Â§ 4; Ord. No. 33-1981, Â§ 4) Sec. 7-143. Park dedication fee. No building permits shall issue for the construction of any residential building within the City of Aspen, Colorado, until there shall have been paid a park dedication fee, either by land dedication or cash payment in lieu thereof at the election of the city council for the purpose of acquisition of land for active and passive park and recreation purpoM' and for capital improvements to such park and recreation lands: (1) If council electz a cash payment, the amount of such payment shall be calculated by multiplying one per cent of the current market value of the land by the number of residents attributable to the residential building. The number of residentz attributable to the residential building shall be calculated in the follow. ing manner: Number of Residents Type of Dwelling per dwelling unit Studio 1.0 One-bedroom 1.5 Two-bedroom 2.0 Three-bedroom 2.5 Supp. No. 28 470.6 r 1 7-143 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS 1 7-143 Number of Resident Type of Dwelling per dwelling unit Four-bedroom 3.0 and .5 for each additional bedroom (2) If council elects a land dedication, the following procedure shall be utilized to compute the amount of land to be dedicated: (a) The amount of the cash payment that would have been required had council elected, shall bi computed pursuant to sub-paragraph (1) above. (b) The developer shall dedicate that amount of land whose current market value equals the amount of the cash payment computed above. Supp. No. 25 470.7 1 Reviewed by: 6 Aspen _f~)- City Council JILL'O V.'Â· -. -4- .- r---- -- 1 0 ,- 1 4 1 04<444 bid W Vt 1-l. . d.Â·Z014/# WM~ PÂ»<~~ t,fo,4 54 (vvs Â£ opy,tâ€¢0-~ d liÂ· dpfic i t . ' 40 I J v 2: J 319 i .4 3'Pcl c /Juad..k, 8-04, L'9 Y.1 1~ 0-4.1,:1,/ i,fy..1./ /ti,t{;.;'..c, 4 1.C 3,6, 5,14; FL:â‚¬ 14'.7.;, ,~(Â·AÂ·-Â·-,; v 0 /v) 4,1,PJ 4 46 4<4;:7'2/+A<4 , .L . A site specific subsurface soil investigation shall be done by a qualified geotechnical engineer after the building i sites have been prepared to determine specific foundation design. The investigation results and designs shall be submitted to the Engineering Department and Building Department prior to pouring the foundation. , 2. Revegetation shall include the type of plantings and procedure of revegetating as represented in the Siegel application. l Revegetation shall be accomplished by no later than 3-one-Â¢~b< 7- j 1 1987. A new revegetation scheme shall be submitted for the Smith site; Lot 3, to the satisfaction of the Planning Office prior to issuance of a building permit. Any changes in the revegetation schemes shall be processed through an application to the Planning Office, and if they are determined to be significant, shall be processed as an amendment to the 8040 Greenline Review approval. 3. Water meters shall be located at or near the property line and the water line shall be sleeved where is passes under the Salvation Ditch, to the satisfaction of the Water Department. 4. All utilities shall be undergrounded. 11 1 1 1 . ., 4 .A j 1, 1 5 . 12Â·12.1.1 13%241,~, 4'jui,c,Â·,t.9 MA j-*~ okil 4.2 24,4}Â·ft.-1,>4 A.. r.-.rt-zil':r:/ *,Â·, ik. i.i~Â·* 5. v. ..,~-o,: ( 62) Access to the property shall be along the Salvation Ditch through Molly Gibson Park. Access easements obtained from Pitkin County shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the City Attorney prior to the issuance of a Building permit. i lu ('.1 ,I'Â·''OUÂ·% 4,17,2 ,. 1 C,AAJ 4 #644Â·-,Â·J 1-4* <t-'luc/t) Acto. FjÂ· Ma -i l :,-' : f,fl.1, *3:Â£Â·1 1.44 1 1 ., 1% I C'JYMÂ¥~3 4 1.k < 7--' j'fl;.1.l'.'1 ~ti~4,~~*f .6~ <~V,D i.0 'i, v'. 1, -jt.ti'. -i'l iti 5,1.1'-4 -1.4'Â» U ji ,; 4 1 1 . 9 1 ,! r 0 7 6 w. Â£11,6..â‚¬3Â£.4t. alt/,4 Â· 3.,act. 5, It:.j â‚¬ 40Â»: .-1 + IL / 1 1,1 - U 1 . Ii#41, 56#ftl ri 4, 91.1Â·44..7+i Di ;.Â·,, in.1 41- vIÂ·,v~,- .' ~.4..4. i ..il.. 1 L f.,ci, 1<,j ; t ..r-~i.r 'r.p'7Â·:i: A Â¥ LG St I-.- V ':l j ./ 456/ A,~i t/-L,; ~ti~/Cd;dfvy(44 142.,Wfu~ Url .~4-:7'~. ~4 54hÂ£4~~/~~ J . f j 33--- f , 0 cmeed 27? 5 29 i. \ - ..1.1 .A C \ \ \ \ -E \ \ \ / 1\ \ \ \ \./\\ C %\Jj\ 1 0 /\ \ \\ i \\ / 1 .-. \ \ I \\ \\ \ \ ....1 \ Ul i \ 1 -2-1 1 - 0Â¥1NEA , 91\ -_ _ -_-PRWUN COUNTY \33 ~ *F LOOP i IÂ»\ PARCEL DECNG , tO LOT 7 & AN, TO 7/lE C/77 08 ... T - /6 4#01/i /41<+Trrh~ OWNER b .0 / / //2. C N PiTA:U COUN 7 , 11 /- .//1 v 1 4 \ *61 -- -- Â£(\ Y h 5 ~0' 1/011'5 0 41 / 4 8 4rZO'06Â·W 1.4(2 0/7.yx, ./0./330-4/ - 1/ h 4 .\ /93 DC k N42.15 W LD-T 1 ' 5 43*Al' 00Â»-14 853 40. azl'*1\% Â· 1.Â·1 75,351 44. FT PAACrl 825044:7 -3 4---*' ~ i\Â·&:33% . t ~1Â· OWNER â€¢5867/rACTED FROM . 11 , ~ WAYNE . LOT 7,6500 622.,FI h h.~ 2 1 GMEGJK 70 LOT G rt Â£â€¢,2.e 'd. 1â€¢ 111, 42 , 1,1 t. \ Al> .SALVATION 0Â£7Â©rpFELINE OWNER SUNNY ~ARK. NORTH . Â·' 480!VIJION 0-11 , MUGGLEK RACOUET CLUS OWNER th ' re , -I FMMER - -X MELV/L LE LOT 3 I I OWNER Da .n Mot.INTA#M INVESTMENT LOT + OWNEA PENNY EVONS BELL* w HOC.9,9 . 93 05* BANNER iND 'ffs 0 302, March 31, 1986 Peter Dobrovolny F, n Box 340 Snowmass, CO. 81654 RE: Lot 3. S Fark North bubdivision ' Dear Mr. Dobrovolnv: I have completed my geologic investigation of the above referenced lot near bmuggler Mountain, Aspen, Coloradoâ€ž The 18.000 plus square foot lot lies above Park Circle, roughly between the Park Circle Condominiums to the west. and the Mollie Gibson Bhatt to the norrheast. The Salvation Ditch Pipeline runs approximately north/south through the lot as shown on the accompanying map. The site slopes from gently to st:eeoly west, and is covered with sagebrush and other dryland shrubbery and grasses. Large boulders, mostly granitic, are scattered about the t. site. The buried Salvation Ditch Pipeline is overlain bv an There i- - access road through the property. # a fairly flat bench 9ear the east corner of the property which is considered to be the building gmvelone. This property lies along a minor ridge connected to the main body of Smugg Annression behind. this Mountain to the east. rhere is a --7 93. ridge which collects and contains stanaing water. The geology of the site consists of - fairly thick sequence CA of glacial moraine material (Qmc, of -re thir d vallev glacier which moved down the Roaring Fork Vallev in Quaternary time. This material consists of unstratified and unsorted clays, silts, sands, cobbles and boulders. Without a drill hole, it ' which bedrock unit underlies this is impossible to predic site, but it appears that it could be any unit between the Permian age Beldon Shale, and the Precambrian aae quartz monzonite. There are fault traces running from northeast to southwest in this portion of Aspen, but because of the surficial cover of glacial deposits, their exact position and number are unknown. In any event, there is no eviuence of n <r: ...71 Â£ n 1 11 t,- Neogene (recent) movement on the ..8... 1 '..% ... - '.. n . BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS SUITE 302 CITY PLAZA BLDG. : 2777 CROSSROADS BOULEVARD 517 E. HOPKINS AVE. U. GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO 81506 â€¢ (303) 243-2242 ASPEN, COLORADO 81511 â€¢ (303) 925-5857 , 27'.9 90 p Â· 79# f /4 *i BANNER 4 Lot 3, Sunny Park North Subdivi ;ion March 31, 1986 Page Two Ther e are a number of mine snafts on the hillÂ·s i. d e above theÂ· i site which enter the Smuggler Mountain mining complex. The network of tunnels is known to pass under the Town of Aspen and connect with the Aspen Mountain mining area. The 2 tunnels beneath the city are full of water. There is no evidence of mining activity near Lot 3, but there are RAD certainly tunnels well below the property within the bedrock units. I do not expect a subsidence problem, but to be more certain, I suggest that, during the site specific soils investigation for foundation design, one deep hole (depth to be decided by the soils engineer) be drilled at the homesite to test for any cavities in the material beneath the site. The hillside shows no evidence of instability, but these are unconsolidated deposits so that surface and subsurface waters should be diverted around the home and undue wetting of the mit soils through faulty ir-*rigation practices should ID e avoided. The Salvation Ditch Pipeline is tiopographicallv below the site and therefore should not adversely affect the proposed home. The soils engineer should provide you recommendations 41' and designs for the advised drainages, or our firm can design I , the drainages for- you. Domestic water and waste disposal will be provided bv the Town of Aspen. Access to the site may need to be iMproved, but is already available. If there are further questions. please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, BANNER ASSOCI@TES. INC. i , Nicholas LampiriÂ· , PhD. Project Geologist e iiCI. NL/clk 1 4* 4 /81%1 ' R ~74#. Â·4':. + '44# =.1 ---(/253 2 LRJITTIEEE:ji . / t-r AU L.- -/ \ uvme- /02 / â€¢t 0.,1 ' 64.402 -w --' -. ', \ W .. ... .... , t --- la'.p' / . ... . 1 0,1 . .. , . , ... . 0 .... I.,> ,l .. : I ' ... . '' , . / I .. . . I , . 0. ... ' -, . I /3 / '' 2010'. I ./ , / .. ... . D . I 4 . I 4. . 1 ''.... I .1 /1 . , 4 1 ... . , 1 . . ./ ,. .... * k --0- - /1 :- / : 1 . 1 -, / . 1 0.:*. . -//, . 3.- - , - -- .. -- -r 0-/I-- -. , 1 ... - .3 - / / -- -- . ..0 SALVâ€¢KrioN th~CH FIPBOAâ‚¬ --- / '-I .- SUNNY PARK NORTH SUB'M - LOT 5 PROPOSED 8. SANâ„¢ RESIDENCE imÂ© IN OW[2 0 Jl 29 8* MEMORANDUM TO: Steve Burstein, Planning Office 01 FROM: Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department V DATE: July 29, 1986 RE: Sunny Park North Subdivision, Lots 3 & 5, 8040 Review The Engineering Department has reviewed the new access design for the above application and would like to make the following comments: 1. A study should be undertaken by a registered P. E. in geotech- nical engineering to determine whether or not the proposed retaining structures will adequately provide slope stability for the cut and fill areas and whether or not any additional retain- ing structures should be provided in this proposed access design. The area of particular concern is the steep slope on the upper 100 feet of the driveway. 2. Revegetation should conform to the plan last submitted by lot 3 in type of vegetation and planting procedure. Particular care should be taken in the excavation for the driveway so that root damage to the large pine tree and the aspen trees is minimized. 3. The site plan showing the proposed access design was sent to Jim Wilson for referral on fire and emergency access. The appli- cants should comply with any recommendations he will make. jg/slpstbl cc: Jay Hammond 4' ~ 3â€¢if -1. ..IN %49 1 lilill 1% 0.1UL- ASPE~ SNOWMASS NORDIC COUNCIL Mr. Steve Burnstein City Planning Office BOARD OF DIRECTORS 130 S. Galena Bob Wade, President Toby Morse, Vice President Aspen, CO 81611 May 5,1986 Jim Mollica, Secretary/Treasurer Peter Forsch Skip Hamilton Tom Isaac Greg Mace George Madsen Dear Steve, Carolyn Moore Jeff Tippett After visiting the Sunny Park North subdivision last week I + ' 7 have concerns that the proposed develpments for lots 3 and 5 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR will jeopardize the Master Plan trail alignment along the Craig Ward Salvation Ditch. I believe that we must explore other options for automobile access to those lots in order to preserve the trail alignment. I do not believe that a pedestrian trail is compatible TRUSTEES with a private driveway, especially when the houses for both Executive Committee Bill Mason, Chairman lots ore so close to the trail. Tom Blake Jim Chaffin Arthur Pfister I would like to attend all City P&Z meetings concerning Frederic Benedict Ruth Humphreys Brown developments in this subdivision. D.V. Edmundson Elizabeth Fergus Jack Frishman CM. Kittrell Sincerely, Charles Marqusee Barry Mink KenMoore + 9 Robert Oden Tage Pedersen Marjorie Stein Craig C. Ward Executive Director ADVISORY BOARD Bob Beattie Bill Koch P.O. BOX 10815 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 303/925-4790 041|4&*ff' f 'r . 1./30 9 1% m MEMORANDUM ~ 1. MAY 1 5 1360 IU\\ 1 TO: Steve Burnstein, Aspen/Pitkin Planning Offi~e FROM: Tom Newland, Pitkin County Planning Engineer RE: Siegel/Miller 8040 Greenline Review DATE: May 15, 1986 I have reviewed the material you have furnished me on the appli- cant's submission, and would like to forward to you the following advisory comments: Effect on County Park and Trail System: Title IX of the Pitkin County Code defines the rules and regulations concerning use of the Pitkin County Trail System. This title has been amended to have these rules apply to parks as well as the trail system (Article 3 of Title IX). Sub-section 2-1.1 of this title states "That no motorized vehicles whatsoever including automobiles ... are permitted to use the Pitkin County Trail System." In order for the applicants to use the Salvation Ditch easement as access to their properties, they must use Smuggler Mountain Road (county road #21) and part of the Salvation Ditch easement as it crosses Molly Gibson Park. I believe that a use of this kind on Molly Gibson Park, which is owned by Pitkin County, is in direct opposition to the rules and regulations mentioned above and in the Pitkin County Code. This proposed access along the Salvation Ditch also goes against the trail alignment proposed in the 1976 Aspen/Pitkin County Trails Master Plan. This trail, called the Salvation Ditch trail, is considered a critical northern link to the trial system that will eventually encircle Aspen. Use of any portion of the ditch for vehiclular access will place serious constraints on the development and operation of this proposed bike/cross-country ski trail. It is interesting to note that the applicant has not addressed this important issue by proposing an alternate route through their properties that could accomodate the trail. For your information, this trail has become a reality from Hunter Creek to the applicant's property, and is really an uncompleted trail, not a proposed trail. Allowing vehicular access to use the Salvation Ditch would undo several trail easements already obtained to build the trail, and would probably disrupt the completion of this public facility. 4-04 i 11 nve C G ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: STEVE BURSTEIN, PLANNING OFFICE FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS SUBJECT: LOTS 3 & DATE: APRIL 14 986 c *,11 / F l(**,tu,â€ž,c> , In response to yolir m*o of April 10, 1986, we have indicated as stated in your attached letter, that water would be available to Lot 3 of Sunny Park. In respect to the structure to be located on Lot 5, which appears to be below the 8040 line, this structure can receive water from the Water Department provided it meets the same conditions as set forth in our letter of April 1, 1986 regarding Lot 3, and that is, the owner will be responsible for the water line from the point of attachment at the water main located in Park Circle. The meter must be located at or near the property line. The water line should also be sleeved where it passes under the Salvation Ditch. Exhibit B (drawing showing Topo line and location of house on lot) is not entirely clear as to what portion (if any) of the house might be above the 8040 line. I assume that the top left of the drawing represents a profile. This profile is not clear as to the 8040 line. In attempting to interpret the drawing, it appears that the fixtures in the bedroom would be at or near the 8040 line. Therefore, the pressure would be adequate for residential purposes. City water main pressure should be approximately 40 psi at or near the 8040 elevation. However, we cannot guarantee this pressure because of other influences such as house plumbing and service line friction losses. In summation, the same special conditions should apply to both lots 3 & 5. The applicant may apply for a water tap permit in accordance with standard procedures. JM:ab MEPORANDUM TO: Tom Newland, County Engi neer FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: Siegel/Miller 8040 Greenline Review DATE: May 14, 1986 Attached is an application submitted by Gary Wright on behalf of his clients, the Siegels and Mill ers, requesting 8040 Greenline Review for the construction of two single-family houses on Lots 3 and 5, Sunny Park North Subdivision respectively. Access to the houses is proposed along the Salvation Ditch where it intersects the Smuggler Mtn. Road at the second switchback. The Ditch then runs through Pitkin County owned land before entering the City's right-of-way along Park Circle, then Lots 5 and 3. Please note the vicinity map attached and the "Draft Driveway and Utility Easement" within the Siegel portion of the application. I would appreciate your comments no later than May 19, 1986. SB.12 . MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Office Files FROM: Steve Burstein RE: Siegel-Smith 8040 Greenline Review DATE: June 4, 1986 Meeting with Ron Mitchell, Karen McLaughlin, Craig Ward, Gl e nn Horn, Paul Taddune (briefly) and Steve Burstein. The following steps were decided to be taken: 1. County will be approached to ask if they have made arrangements with Lots 3&5 owners to provide vehicular/- driveway access across Molly GIbson Park to Lots 3 & 5. If not, is the County willing to dedicate a trail easement along the Salvation Ditch? What steps must be taken to dedicate each trail easement? 2. Is the County willing to relocate the driveway to Lot 7 so that is does not encroach on Lot 7 and extend this same easement to serve Lot 5? 3. Is the County willing to accomplish a "trade" in which Lot 5 can be reconfigured so to give Lot 5 a larger area on the upper bench for siting of a house in exchange for an easement on the Salvation Ditch? 4. City Council should be asked whether it is willing to condemn trail easements on the Salvation Ditch through Lot 3 & 5, and will give the City Attorney and Planning Office the power to negotiate on the price for purchase of trail easements or proceed to file on condemnation. This matter will be discussed at the June 23, 1986 meeting of City Council. 5. The City intends to act on the issue of trail easements as quickly as possible and schedule a rehearing of the Siegel-SMith 8040 Greenline review at the earliest possible date of P&z. Prior to the P&Z meeting, appropriate progress will be made on this issue and other issues relating to the proposed placement, inclusion of garage, and architecture of the Siegel residence. 6. To the extent possibler we should ensure that there would be adequate grounds for the Board of Adjustment to grant a variance on set-backs for siting a house on the bench of Lot 5, especially if no lot reconfiguration will be allowed. CC: Glenn Horn Karen McLaughlin Ron Mitchell SB.65 1 C ' / SMUGGL ER \ \ \ C h 3 \ \ -7- r- \ 00 \ 4 \ 2 \ O/+J h \=1 \ \\\ / -r\ --- \ 1.\ \ / 13 \ \ \ \ . \ . r.. . j \ -P \ \ (h\ 0 . / 2 1 \ R \ \ 41 I I C \\1 IÂ· \\ \*\ \ \\. ---- - -2X \ M- 1 L~ A,Â»27 , -2- b . -- _ ._/:rA'wy taa,Â¥77 -- - * \ 41 Â·. IE LOOP \ *Al , 11-4 \ PARCEL DEIN . 229 72*E Â£:77> I-/ -A \ 70 LOT 7 4 10'/1 P i o \ OWNER 4' Al U PITA:74 Ock ~~CITy\\ --~ N 42-13'DOÂ·W /.44 ~. :. L /011'5 N b 1- N 4 r 25 W - 133. OC N 41-2500-W /72Â·10 ... 64Vll'00"W J /33.64' 4.200*\4' LOT 1 13# 44 FT 1\41 ~i<.~.0 -4 /5, 1 0 Â· PAACEL OEING -22% 4- ..\ 11 1 - /.3.13 . '\1 Ark 0 OWNER . LOT 7, 6900 22. FI' h '9 .,1 Â»7/NE 3' 4 J>Vt-jvh' tÂ· ~ 1 '65 ~* of 5 11 i\% t; | 22&05,~43.%*; 4,1 : N 14.0 . . Ce) 1 3 t. '' 80 SALVATION Di.ps -Pirt. Ade/f . 1 SUNNY PARK NORTH UBDIVIJJON AUGGLEK MACauET CLUB , OWME K . f -31 - FlaMER - X MELV/LLE . .07 J f â€¢ oWNER In MOUNTAIN 'NVESTMENT L 07 + rt. OW,4 2 Pt PENNY EVANS N 31'43'01 fRA COLORADO NAT-IONAL BAN K ~~~ GLENWOOD March 31, 1986 City of Aspen Planning Department 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Sunnypark North Subdivision, First Filing, City of Aspen To Whom It May Concern: By virtue of the Public Trustee's deed dated January 28, 1986, Colorado National Bank - Glenwood is owner of both lots referenced above. With reference to these lots, both have been sold under approved contract to Barry and Sharon Siegel (#3), and Robert and Glenda Smith (#5), subject only to receipt of a non-exclusive easement from the Salvation Ditch Company and an approved building permit by the City of Aspen. IQurs truly, A V rf,1,41,9 - 4((./vt-/ /1/ Johd A. Kerr Vicle President JAK/bjm Ninth and Grand Mailing Address: Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 RO. Box 520 (303) 945-7422 Glenwood Springs. CO 81602 DRAFT DRIVEWAY AND UTILITY EASEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day of March, 1986, by and between Salvation Ditch Company, a Coloradocorporation, ("Grantor") and Colorado National Bank, Glenwood Springs, a Colorado corporation ("Grantee"). RECITALS: 1. Salvation Ditch Company by Easement Agreement recorded 16 September 1977, Reception No. 197440, in Book 335 at Page 80 was the Grantee of an easement which encumbers Sunny Park North Subdivision and is twenty-four feet in width, six feet on the East side and eighteen feet on the West side of the ditch and pipeline as constructed in place, together with the perpetual, nonexclusive easement and right-of-way over a road as constructed in place which parallels the ditch described above and is within the eighteen feet West of the center line described above. 2. In that Agreement Salvation Ditch Company agreed that only one road crossing this ditch and pipeline easement and right-of-way shall be permitted on each of the following lots: Lot 3, Lot 5 and Lot 7. 3. Colorado National Bank, Glenwood Springs, is the owner in fee simple of Lot 3 and Lot 5 pursuant to a duly executed and issued Public Trustee's Deed. 4. This Agreement is to affirm the rights of the owners of Lot 3 and Lot 5 pursuant to the Easement Agreement recorded in Book 335 at Page 80. NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficlency of which are hereby admitted and acknowledged it is agrred as follows: 1. Description. The Salvation Ditch Company hereby grants onto Colorado National Bank, Glenwood Springs, its successors and assigns a nonexclusive easement eighteen feet in width located on the West side of the center line of the ditch and pipeline as now constructed in place, subject expressly to the Salvation Ditch Company-s absolute nonexclusive right of access to inspect, maintain, operate, use and repair its ditch and pipeline as required for the transportation of water across and under the above described lands, together with the right to use so much of the above described road as shall be reasonably necessary to enable workmen and 1 DRAFT j~ equipment to properly and conveniently inspect, maintain and repair said ditch and pipeline, and together with the right of ingress and egress to said road over a road as now constructed. 2. Mutual Easements. The Grantor and Grantee acknowledge to each other for the easement of ingress and egress over a roadway in place for vehicular traffic in connection with their respective properties and the propertign of Lot 3 ind Lot 5 as described above. 3. Obstructions. The Grantee agrees not to obstruct, impede or interfere, with the reasonable use of such roadway for the purpose of ingress and egress to and from Lot 3 and Lot 5 and the Grantor agrees to make a reasonable effort not to interfere with the rights of the Grantee for ingress and egress except as is reasonably necessary for pipeline maintenance, inspection and repair. 4. Maintenance. Salvation Ditch Company shall have absolutely no cost whatsoever concerning this easement except as it elects in its sole discretion for the purpose of its pipeline and water transportation facility. 5. Effective Term. This Agreement shall be effective in perpetuity and be a covenant that shall run with the land. 6. Binding Effect. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs, successors and assigns of the Grantor and Grantee and the Grantee is hereby specifically authorized to convey the rights and duties pursuant to this Agreement to any successors in interist. 7. Whole Agreement. It is expressly agreed that this Agreement contains the entire understanding of the parties relevant to the subject matter hereof and that there are no verbal or written representations, agreements, warranties or promises pertaining to the subject matter hereof tlf) t expressly incorporated in this writing. 8. Modification. It is agreed that neither this Agreement nor any of its terms, provisions, conditions, representations or covenants can be modified, changed, terminated, amended, superseded, waived or extended except by an appropriate written instrument duly executed and subsequently recorded by the parties. 9. Attorneys' Fees. In the event that this Agreement or any of the provisions contained herein become the subject of litigation among the parties the prevailing party shall be awarded its reasonable attorneys' fees and costs as a part of any judgment. .O. Severability. If any provisions of this Agreement shall be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, it shall not affect or impair the validity, legality or enforceability of this Agreement itself or any other provision hereof; and there shall beÂ·substituted for the affected provision 2 DRAFT a valid and enforceable provision as similar as possible to the affected provision which shall ,to the maximum extent possible, provide for the intent of the parties as set forth in the original provision. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement effective the day and year first written above. Colorado National Bank, Clenwood Springs, a Colorado corporation by: John H. Kerr, Vice President Salvation Ditch Company, a Colorado corporation by: George S. Stranahan, President State of Colorado ) ' )SS. County of Pitkin ) The foregoing was acknowledged before me this day of , 1986 by John H. Kerr as Vice President for Colorado National Bank, Glenwood Springs, a Colorado corporation. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: My address is: Notary Public State of Colorado ) )SS. County of Pitkin ) 1 The foregoing was acknowledged before me this day of , 1986 by George S. Stranahan as President for Salvation Ditch Company, a Colorado corporation. Witness my hand and official seal. , My commission expires: My address is: Notary Public in.salvat 3 DRAFT 1 7- ., 3.7Â»24-2.,9:936:4â‚¬ 4> 1\9~,â‚¬#:~ 0~*~~68â‚¬--9*1~~.~~~2~ i \C===-La, y -7,0514 ,,2 -- 73-1 -10</.ir A IS 2 . -- , 43 1 b .-2.-* t. . U.. ' . . --23#492-1-35-55>3/ 1 .til'. ' . _'-j'- -3<. ... ...... -2 1 X K-z" 4 e 1 - .--- . Â·crÂ·Â·Â·Â·-Â· ~< 5 --7M .Â« 4 4 Qal 4 / ........... 1\ \2SZ*7 1,Â¥ - 2 4 r D:u Ne / .. \ 4 6 -- 'Al.41\ Pkh;24 , - 12 th * Of Â· t -31 1 1, gga \ . I Â»:-t<(1 4 Lamo-~- . ...43'L 474 1 , %114 -\. '-9,~ Sh. Â«/ X 5 . ---~..--_Â«9--1~:Â·-./. - 0-/ )152ffi( -----90 0>1\ :. A , XI r:Dilt.. UA.. ~ A -4.01 /409:*\ r 4 ..., - -- -795 . 1. r- , . 4-1 . r ... J.. ti :AÂ·t.: 4. ' 1 -I,$ ~ . a A ~47 - - - ~9 04" 1 1 - e- I I 6 -~~ ~ COURSE. * \ i.wiÂ·Â· : . . 3\ . 4.-Â·6 .4.... ----7-7 ikiti? i,4,&-44:%*ll \-1 Ioh H,//ing/b \. '' ' I -<h ' .\1 4%\ . J '' 1. . '1 - - ' ...A.1 2 1, . 1 18' .0. .. I )10 2 <-970:..29 -4---4.ck;~c-f;t-Â·..., citÂ·:..,,:w ./ i - I . J.ill.' 6, , Â·Â· ~16'04~' QfÂ·. ~ 4(t~, 44''f'. '1:t. A'0.fl.0 'ff~QJ/~~J~ 4'~ ~~'~~ 0 - . 1 .... 1 -ts ti-Â· Â·Â· =h,= . 200- - Ir + oWE /7/ '1 - 4 ... u 4 1 .- ' .4.#C 41*AÂ·t}:ate: . 0 . : - 7,1~unr01( : sni '0 rk, 6<, â€ž09 ' , - 31 - I. flitiar"'Arit, Â¥ 'yED, 5 9 \ 1.7.yykeÂ·. h.:.4 - - -1.-1 -1-1.-. \\42\\-Â«4124Â»2 ;111111 . (3/9.. L. 1. 2~ 2 bob. ..tâ‚¬*biLI:nu/*9/*a:KiÂ«44~CS:ZA'7*421:3-,ttvw<%#26--At ,--1.4;:aZTigEEprb,<<A.~(,<5 /11: Wafer .2 'i ' / ljOI- ~47 A ' 4 - - 4 + 2..% ... 0 i: * {AllP'84*Wh Ul~ " w . 0, . . ' 4 ' ..0 . C, Â· 31'11(11\9,36 luti- 1 10 . r ...f-I 9%00Â· i :A l...2 Vn P f:!,1%'ilr~1:,Bal:,UE ..953(.>j er Qf:.3 +934' pit~/~l p 7Â· Â· Â·,~ f : f v 0 11 /. ,/3. AD, r,..fa ..\ 14.4.6:i*k- 2. k f < U.,4,4 Â·Â· /1.; ft\ 1 - 2.4.Â£=F=:on*t<-4\.Â·'>-'3 1 L~O "<i Utex it \ N:# .*43_-*9 0 r ./.0. 1 "AP/Ch>:<2 - -2. /:.. LÂ·U 1Tunr, - CeÂ¢4 . Jmb-Â· 74 4\U. ;4 "/ -illi~jill vit AÂ·/ 41 i <+1 8025 -%19*9041 7 "P %Â·-yfj '>90;6 .631~.4 Â·l p/3.Â· E Â» (57'\ 00\LD.. ' / 1 C )% C \ Â· V.7Â©4Â·[je runner 9:. 0 . 4.Gravo ts , Al: 1 ., 1 Â· Qmc~,f \'// f , i >fri,1 0\ C Ak; A / i â€¢ . i. \ l,/Al , t' -p - 7 , 1/1 ,Â· U' Â·VA,â€¢ 9 f -- 3- :.:199121 1 3.4 44/ 0 U Â·er- 0 L./ .2,Â· peq Â·r. .A i 4/ 1 .11 . ~ 1 ' //,fle,0 .r ... .\L=-9 'l - - .3 â€ž C ' .11/ Â· : â€¢ -1 -7#- 4 ,/2Â·LD j \ \, ~ i -- *6 :,ky--<49* 43 06..1/.1,9 -EfEEE,#pti U ~4 3 1,0 f - .01 44\ 1 / / . t. Q b <,f't I lie o A IN \ ,-. 0 8 11111 .....4 - f â‚¬ * lo , -46 -<40 6 Â·-. 35, . 1 \ 1 P ' Qal WN b \11 " \ pl I. L 1 A - e . '1 + 2 - . t . n Ic 11.4 March 27, 1986 Jim Markalunas City of Aspen Water Department 130 So. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Mr. Markalunas: I met with you in your office today to discuss a client of mine who is contemplating building a single family residence on Lot 3, Sunny Park North Subdivision in the City of Aspen. The subject property and proposed construction on it is close enough to elevation 8040 ft. to necessitate 8040 Greenline review. One of the review criteria is whether sufficient water pressure can be provided to the house. As I indicated to you today, the highest floor elevation in the house is at elevation 8026, making the highest point of water delivery, a shower head on that floor, to be at elevation 8032, below the 8040 line. You indicated that providing water at sufficient should be no problem and that water at a pressure of about 50 p.s.i. could be anticipated. In order to expeditiously process this application for my client, I ask that you confirm our conservation of today in writing to me, with whatever conditions for this specific site you deem appropriate, such as water meter location as you suggested. Thank you for your assistance. Sinctpely, (1 Â«64'll Peter Dobrovolny F -'Ir.1 FZE '~:d,0.74. L 91-; ry 41 1Â¥ 1 1 4 4.1 If 1. :' 4 16 0 Peter Dobrovolny AIA 4- 1 I L.. r=J Jb:B-- \44-arg:Mtect drawer 340 old snowmass CO 81654 927-3369 4i./.74. ...:~ '*42&64,4:&*it .7 . 14 t . .... . 2.14$ '19*::1. r.:~ , 10 '~'61~2-.1. cr-'.2:~. .;1*0//MW#0074' 2 ' ' 933 4... .. -67Â· ",4,t.,-,k I L :,iÂ· ('1 7'IN'Â£'~6'; , ... , jzy.4 <-Â·, ~ ~ ' v '~:~1: - >,F..., 4. 1 t. . . - 4 .- i. ./ . 42%' 591 f . I.LF.hz.7 , ..2.94,4.- 3 9 -I I '4 14 I 1 ..tity:6~751ij?,U"JA.efig,99'r --1 "ak Â¥ Lit-_M.L I â‚¬., .1,% " I."ll'"I"-I'...'..1. #FPM'".'.A ~2 f -4 , 1.-40 5=,9 40 k. 4 .i....0 1 9,1 1. 1. . .. -<Â£.I.-'. . . ... ... '644, ..Â· 44 Â·, 3 44. 1.. 4 h. I MEMORANDU M TO: City Engineer Aspen Water Department Aspen Consolidated Sanitation-District. Fire Marshall FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: Lots 3 and 5, Sunny Park North Subdivision - 8040 Greenline Review DATE: April 10, 1986 Attached is an application submitted by Gary Wright on behalf of his clients Barry and Sharon Siegel and Robert and Glenda Smith, requesting 8040 Greenline Review for the construction two single family homes, one on Lot 3 and one on Lot 5, Sunny Park North Subdivision. Both parcels are crossed by the 8040 elevation line and therefore must be reviewed pursuant to Section 24-6.2 8040 Greenline Review criteria. Please review this material and return your referral comments to the Planning Office no later than May 5, 1986. Thank you. 1/4 ESE 16- 3 0/Foroser, S/A-Â£66 FAM/Â£-v /90+,es CA,- 82 S e Â£ ver> BY 7-Ne Pâ€¢%Pe- CO P Jut-IN Are 6 S A -ir,vr,0- r> C S T k , 0 1-3 #1,467/ /41,8.-- C o *- 30.{ 6 Arp 6 S Aâ€¢-i. a-r, â€¢- Pti 7*1,-E- 4 A h.h-G-â‚¬ A.. MEMORANDUM TO: Steve Burstein, Planning Office FROM: Jim Wilson, Fire Marshal ~*t>/ RE: Lots 3 & 5, Sunny Park North Subdivision 8040 Greenline Review DATE: May 29, 1986 I have completed my review of the 8040 Greenline submittal for Lots 3 & 5, Sunny Park North Subdivision, and find Fire Department access and hydrants location to be in conformance with local fire codes. The lots are located in a low wildfire hazard area, so no additional fire precautions will be necessary. JW/ar 4 It) 1â‚¬. CITY OFLSPEN 130 south gal~~*~reet aspen, colorald'*~ih611 303-92541Ufb April 1, 1986 Peter Dobrovolny AIA Sunup Ltd Architects Drawer 340 Old Snowmass, CO 81654 Dear Peter, This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter of March 27, 1986 which confirms our basic understanding as to availability of water to Lot 3 of Sunny Park. I would like also to include the need to provide a meter pit and shut off valve, at or near the property line adjacent to the public right of way. Since, no doubt, the water service line will cross the Salvation Ditch, our regulations require that the owner of the premises be respon- sible for said service line, including any water that might be lost due to leakage should the line be damaged because of ditch work. I believe the Ditch Company will require you to "sleeve under the ditch". You may apply for a tap permit at <our convenience. dincerely-7 A / )1 <-. C Jilm Markalunas, Director ---Afpen Water Department JM:ab 14 July 1986 Planning Office f[%Â©3091*FI 130 South Galena -1. 1 -1 Aspen, Co. 81611 A \ JUL 141986 ~ J\\i Re: Driveway Access d Sunny Park North Subdivision, Lots3 and 5 Siegel - Smith 8040 Greenline Review Enclosed please find the new Proposed driveway access for Lots 3 and 5, using this access we will not have to use the salvation ditch as an access to our property as originally planned. Please consider this amendment to proposal with all other aspects previously submitted. We expect to be on the Aug 5, agenda to have our 8040 Greenline Review. - If you haze any questions please contact us at 925-3937. Barry and Sharon Siegel Bob and Glenda Smith CC Gary Wright Jack Kerr *#Tr:% COLOIed_,O NATIONAL BANK B 9 4 GLENWOOD 4/mi,AA# March 31, 1986 City of Aspen Planning Department 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Sunnypark North Subdivision, First Filing, City of Aspen To Whom It May Concern: By virtue of the Public Trustee's deed dated January 28, 1986, Colorado National Bank - Glenwood is owner of both lots referenced above. With reference to these lots, both have been sold under approved contract to Barry and Sharon Siegel (#3), and Robert and Glenda Smith (#5), subject only to receipt of a non-exclusive easement from the Salvation Ditch Company and an approved building permit by the City of Aspen. Y.ours truly, ~1414 -IiÂ«/ Y fohy/A. Kerr \tide President JAK/bjm Ninth and Grand Mailing Address: Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 RO. Box 520 (303) 945-7422 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 1 IN,787*4~ COLORADO NAI-IONAL BANK 9 1 GLENWOOD r, r ':3 9 OFEIE 'ral b ... -Er-~ HI ~1 1 JUL 2 3 1986 I~ ~ ~ ~ 1--_10 July 22, 1986 Steve Burstein City of Aspen Planning Department 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Siegel/Smith 8040 Greenline, August 5, 1986 Dear Steve: Per our recent phone conversation, please accept this letter as bank authorization for the 8040 review with alternate access to lots 3&5 via Park Circle. Should you have any questions, contact the writer at your convenience. Yours truly, -414 -L J A. Kerr ~ 1 Â¥ide President JAK/bjm Ninth and Grand Mailing Address: Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 P.O. Box 520 (303) 945-7422 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 *CAL.8 11190 -n 1 P L./ --I-- *Mr Ng Ld)Kf[8)02'9 - FOR 601Â»Rt-TY OF FeeiNTMON| Ok!10/ 10'-0" LOKMPUR5 94*41 - -FIRIP514 6,04100@6 -2.LO'~ lk|-[ER IAL - 5.NIP OF CoN-FOLIA Llk|EÂ·5 14 WhIBRC FIK|1*H ANJ G EX 1511 k6 600KfFO L I R~5 Ml ER6E 6 40 0 C' 0 \ . 1 4 0 t \ 1 1 \ -1 1 0 1 1 + t.1 1 \ 01 \ c X \ 1 11 1 1 1 V \ 1 1 \ 1 \ 3 \ 1 \ \il AN \1 \ I /1 N \ , MEDIUM MD LARG,& 1 1-- - \ i i \ . n,+POKIDER#A -[D M \ t.4 + 316\ ekvep \ 4 C \ I \\ 1\ 1\1 2929.8.*5 \9 x \ \\ - ; FINFU PRIVEÂ« 50Rm<.2 \I ~ ~1/Di~j * . i \\ \ \ i\ 19 80 - -4 1 1 0 4601 2 x - Â« bl \ \ \ \ - - - i i * 4 i. N \ \\ R li 4/t Abiout i 4. 0 \ \ h 1 4 \ 4 9/ \ 20'/ .0/ 4 \\ \ \\ . I Ge lut 4 93 1.4- i /7. 2...<3 1 1 -1 \\ (4 . . \ 0\ i \ a \,04 \ \-P \ ---- \ i. 251 gtolu \ Â£ ft -r- -I-- 'Ae/*De Ji W - - - --- t --- 0.4 -kkh======- 4 -0 a .... 1110/ i \ .~- ---- \ 90 -*-K E 12~342Af+Pr * a.IRD Lourrlokl +Afi A COMPILKFIOKI fRCAREe FRoM 724 - A ell@Vef Pf/4-PINESUR\*4 oF KefENICF12%04220 FAM AN Ae@04- 7PMMUM Flu- DEPTH 42 ~ PllcrreGRAphlf *LIFWer),"r#NeiVE -[RANÂ»rr 416+FrING,9 F~FEEMED floPE 0.5/ 1 3â‚¬ ME Able mered*IVE'91>*4NG A> A F,2~ OF BWTÂ»Ihllo - 6.0451RlerED F#orl ANGULAR 144*9nWÂ¢800 M 51.IR* Er],1 k|BER#~9~1921*f~&~.trk _00!JLPER# exCAVATW Okl SI-TE FRI\&%04 654~056 -ED 1-015 Â© AKID 6 oF 01-lklklf FARK KOKER' *l]501\/19104 eaR\1? TrD t<RCArr419 - PWTER 006%0\(09( Alk JULY 961 Flee I ...2 a =.E- r -2/6-Â» < - - Â· -Â· . . '%--Â·w L' 'I. ' -.0.-I~~-4.---=-I -. ..+ I- - ...... ZONINa : le -15 PUP 61EGLE - SANTH eMO 61=eENU NiE FRVIGÂ·W - AFF~MOVE.2 ALIQUeT D, 15'29 Ae Fou-FWS 5 LOT' â‚¬'IZE : 18,0 Oe 8,61. Pr; 1- 'bITE *PECIFIC, al.leÂ·PugrACE epoIL INVE,37'[*ArioN 4441.L ept 9098 APTER PUILPING 5ITE HAD *EEN F<ErÂ»3282 97 PE10â‚¬4142 FOUNPATION FFOF'20212 146>Uâ€¢DE *IZE : 2 0* 962 FT PEâ‚¬>1*14. Keâ‚¬,UL:re AND VEÂ«GN -ro ELE Â¢:DUDIBJ-TTEF 10 EN,% 1 N PEKIN@r ANP *U 1 82+16 22?14. Frioe -ro Â¥'OUK IKGr FOUWPA:rjOK Balea m : 7 10â‚¬2 94Â· le Z. lee-VFG,!2TknON -ID M Al? PEr 418,6121- AFFUCATIOk - 5'EE eel-OVP. KevaGETA-rION -TZ) PIE. ACCOMFUÂ¢,1, EP IDN Z:Or. 1907 Gal.INTADLE FAF- : 1,6 97 647* & WATER METE.Ke -ID DE. 1-09.ze NEAT FROPERTX UNE AND WATEK UNE To PE *LEE:YEP UNPRK 1115 641.VATION P/SH TB TWE *TeFACTION OF -IRE NATWr 'DBA ALLOWABLE FEAg : 64'T/,4 E.Rpr al-AZINQ RAT jv : 11.0 76 . 4 ALL UITILITIED â‚¬;HAU- PEE UNWEIUr-~UND eu 11-PIN@r 4-r r 30' MAX. Cal gr: ANala To AAIPPpot N'f**F N*Tlre.L.- 5 NKILIKAL BU ILPINQ NAT@!riALE, AN'C> 1Â«?Fe *HALL 2,5. a:AirTltfuNEP Ae 129Fgeo ENT'02 IN 114â‚¬ APFLICATIOK Supvs DeÂ· UM> 1 9820 I |1.0- '7 ~ e 1,2 00 00* TA \ 1 96 1 \ / 1\ 1 (r 16 1 1 1 It \ 0 / 1 1 i '1 \ I 15 Â· 0' SALVATION P {TCH 1 C if i 1/ 1 1 \ \ 0 ; PIPELINE 5465/'AENT 1 \ 1 .1-Or 9 1 AT 2 i li K FE,~ 2 ' i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 \ \ 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' 1 1 - 16. 1 , li,l al: 111 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 . 1 1 t \ 1 Ill \\ \ - . 1 i 11 1\\ t\\ \\ 1 ,\ I 1 1,1! 1 '. 1 /1 ,/ \ 1 1 3, 1 / / 1 \ 1 1 4 / f. , / ''' \ 1 1 \ - I , '' '' & f i 1'. . le U 1 , 0 \ \ /'' i \ \ Le , i f, ,/i' \\\ \ i A %\ \ . '1 1 1 .' .. , \ 1 o - - 1 1 40 1 1 . /1 1. . - I I I , 1, i :1 fill 4 -- . \ , \ \ I ' a \- 1 M, 1 , 11 i r. 4 4 ..i 0. i Al 1 1 ./ * I 1 i : 1\ ...1 \$ \ \ \ \ ,\\ 1 \ \I.I.\ \ 1 \\ b 41 \ 1 1 1 \ I --0 . 1 + \ \N.-\ I. ' h' 0 . I - . \ 1 \ 3 1 ' 1 \7 + - f \ . 1, i \ .1 / \ 0 ./ 1 1 .IT 1 . u , . !/1),E-PE /1%7'w 12\ / , 1 1 \ 9, I . 1 \ 41.43 i 4 m ; (1 0 \ Al al \\ 4 4 6, A \ L,/1 -3// /1 e i M l MAR 2 4 1987 Ill// Â¢ rÂ« ,. 0 X , /'.t... 4 - \,# C< 1/ L ./.it'j4. 41 ~ Â»tie~ ~ \ \ , 2. 0 02----3@ /4-7 I 19 % / ~Â» 26,9 ~ \ \ 4.81â€¢ .,-tw .A. . -*. , A.,2 64Â·. \1 \ 1 / 2 1 , - Â« ,\ , 1 i 1, .. .//1 \ I 12.- \ , 1 2 / 1 /. -.1 1 \ 1- - 111 1 11 1 Â¢ , 11,1 \ \ 1 N . \ '.: 11, f D / \ 1 1,1, : \ \\ 1 f 1 1 . / 1----~ \ 1 1,1.t k 1 \ 1 - Ptl \ 1 0 1 1/ I .:ri . ....r It, \ , .~-.Â·~.~ Â·. ~ 1 \ i 1 -, *44961.4.-1...,.1 .,. / \\ \ 85 1 1 r\ . * I , 11' ' i . 4 1 \ 12' - i ) f -f. 2.~I,~ :-~itfi~~:- / 1 .1 .1.31?42.9,4.44.- 1,1 \ \\ : .... 6 \ 0 9 1 . 1 1 l \ 1 -4 ' 4/ ' \ \ N \ \ 1 7. 1 I. 1 .i 1 f *\\ 1 0 1 -1 1 , , ,\\1 01 \ t'\ \ 1 \\ 1 1 i WL.i ' b 1 4 ,9,\ 1 . *49 It Etce, i 1 \ / j \ 1 \\ N t:t-, o a~ 111, 9, \*r./* $ \ \ 1 1 1 ' 1 1 I.\-%, 1 , I , \\/Ill \ \ \1\. \ .4 1111 .-4. / 12%327 ~- \:%41 - 'lli 1 j; 4 . 1 - 1 X --Â·4 ' ' ~ \ \ 1 \\\illic 1 44 , 174 67' 1 \ \ 1 1 / 72. /1 ' \ 1 \ \\ 1 1 *HAPap ,NEEA INPICATEG NIEW GRAPINGi \ 1 \\\\\ 1 1 le E-VEGE-TATION OF 2157LITâ‚¬03â€¢89 042&4<3 (g#APS.P') AS ta:061-0,Ve S '~ \ 1 \ \ \ ( \ i l.4,94,\X)%1,\\*\1\\3'b.,. Â· Arree' grIZMO:T-UÂ»,4 PABLRU- 'RETU RN Al.1. BOULPEN* fL,2,1 *02 -707Â»4NAe. \ 1 ~ -, 1 \ \ 1 \ t. l\6,):11>\Nilt,r.....4134*>2@* '% i \ /-1 epgaM:2 972:ESKPILEP eMALL SIZE '~164. AN'P 1DF' 5â‚¬311- 8'en/VEEN eâ‚¬5'WA4285â‚¬9 \ 6 ~ ~ ~ - \ ~ LOT 3,1 \ \ A.427\1\4\\71 4 124*CE â‚¬â‚¬316 AT 121~ ANG,L-m Tt) 66Â·OFE 1/ PREPARE 1:%9% ee:SPIN,St - eFREAP \ r \ VÂ¢'PrÂ£296.64-1-Fft 10 Le. NerlVE AAD< AE; FOU.OW#: CÂ·leEEPIN<9 KEEP %1566Â·Ula/ ; \46 \ \ 9 WmEArr Ste6Â£6, HAR:P FEOCUES, CANar B'LUEE GRÂ©*6Â·, Grle;bEN NEEPA.,6/ AATf 50,$,11, , 46 $ ti \ - AMP WILP#WWEIK MIX + 96 89 Walarr. ANS< 1 9% IPEN'TICAL *TW THAT PDFÂ· i FIT-KIN 462Ukin-' AierkpgT' \ â€¢ AA/EK 4%#D)EP LizleA W/ JUTE MA-riNa el<SLIN:tat; â‚¬,Ef'IKE,S, PAAAFFNE*) Patty EK 80 1;876 1 INSTALL 44#TTEREP PLAN-~INGÂ» OF -PE~"nEN-FILLA, 6,+01Â¢&: C,48%f ANIP brHEFL N~TIVE: 1 0+41â‚¬ueâ‚¬; L.a=ArrE[2 -TE' Fle>VI PEL A NAT-!Va AFÂ¥Â»,22bfANCB . 130!5 ANP <ALEN PA â‚¬AAITH 8210 tiflMI ~IMSHIDWRIMI@IK LOX D Â· *UNNY PAKK HOIâ‚¬11-1 elle>Plvtâ‚¬>loN *ITE FLAW 1" = 10'0" Aâ‚¬'PEN, COLOMAVO 814,11 AFAPING PLAN - LANPOCAP/blet Â¢2~el ..... 1 ---4 4 FLZE PRI kk N 29'60 E 447' ZOAP - - 8 caa oP LAN Pe i Jel q. 914Â·j Â¢(shill j-\Dir 1404 sc# 1/\Mâ‚¬4 11Â·4 +64 1~M~ ~ 1- ....... -E.I i . AM . p 1/3/r .ms,i.i ... -hi . 9, .'*. . , Fi . .. , .. - -=-1 . P r . .... - 29; 2 .. 0 i LF Lt. 4 , . 1 -. j..1 '27 a . 191. - - A .4 â‚¬8Â¢ ~* S 1 J. 1 *32 . - 1 -1.9- t.-1. . --f 6 Â· -â‚¬â€¢. 6 // 9.--W. 1 0 -Â·<121bw i - 1 I- 4-ln~ 3-n I .1 =*177- - Â¥t- . . - 4-1-k - Ff . - .Fâ€¢2...ii ./- 4- ..... , *f. 1//. . - iupv. -- 1 ' ./9//&911- .-*I. I. ~.,9... *impl. Pro.%~f= - ' 2~#:447IF~ - :,14.Zonjk.YAL,Qi.*d -1 C 11\-1--r. t.. 40 - 14 + - .. - 1,#/Gi -9 - - . - . 7-- I. - .U- , 1 ./ fir , ***tatin f. ~~ 4/.Ill To AÂ·~b KE-) Dn~ 41)D Time / 2/ 5-- While You Were Out M *u KIL) ~Li- Of Phone 62 i 7 AREACODE NUMBER EXTENSION TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL WAS IN TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU URGENT RETURNED YOUR CALL Messag. 4.irl (4844 + 30%(frt-%%>PU Operator CHALLENGER 01761 TS .1 a.1 ./ 9.0/ Drlt@, . 1 /vt Time 1 1 While Yo~~ere Out M R,lu lok j- of g,â„¢-, ~~- pa f~~06{fti ~ ,/ Phone loÂ»*1 AREA CODE NUMBER EXTENSION TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL 4 WAS IN TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU URGENT RETURNED YOUR CALL Snge , 73%13Â·r~ b joi 1 --00 1(47 04_ ) 4 +N- ) 0 (}CM 4 12 (ttlt,i{ ) , r 08 i * 1 30 J MJ1 6:00 0 1-,1 9 )T :0024# f 0.-,A.Â»f Châ€žT Tvo, U DV) i 6'â€¢4 â€¢'4' 1; 4 1 (F k 44.1,--1 Operator P 6 riL 1 A f)* 1 f CHALLENGER' BRAND 01761 A QUALITY PARK PRODUCT Ffvâ‚¬ ; ~di,+P,614,-4,,t.6;4,4 1.silis - Cow,177 40,J ,/L Tij â€¢. S.AlvA'i,~ - fil - 1 3, D C robf hoes - 1 I/â‚¬ 4 Iscrienâ€¢,4 6. PA+, . dâ‚¬544â‚¬+4# -_ cowke An,J,Â·k 44" 11 80,14Â£4..0,9, Uerry Jerbaz - 6 DA 14,Â¥ d. A t, ertws 44*4#J F# 1 t. Aun - f 6-1 tcp f.,444 4,1 /â€¢L..5 /42 :L- 7/ /23 ~ Dr-~te 1 C .. Ditj Time While You Were Out M *Ul 0~ rÂ»Â»- ,1 of - 6 -56 915 Phone AREA CODE NUMBER EXTENSION TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL --* WAS IN TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN j WANTS TO SEE YOU URGENT RETURNED YOUR CALL Message 86*1-, 32- r--F lAÂ»05 1 6- 4-0 +UL 0 6* aAO-1 +Ul- 30 4-0 2,4,_~~ Â· / Atii- 416Â«- A--r;*4 Â«16- 1 -t y Operator CHALLENGER BRAND 01761 A QUALITY PARK PRODUCT ~ - 4 -17 nAMA Time VVHILE YOU ~/VERE OUT M 3-Ack XYÂ¥ 4 C Q jegwoU 64hk j of i.unki FK, k A ditÂ». to# 3,0.5 74517422 Phone Area Code Number Extension TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CALLED TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU URGENT RETURNEDYOUR CALL Me==mo. f'~444 f #162 . BA,df t: â€¢. 02514Â«, t, joryr 441 4 i./0:JNÂ·~9. 5 '}wil 144 #Â·7 + 444 ,-.d-:111 1 3 01~f, (1 J 14 6olk f,#,1, 946, crjr.& - Q"her rek:â‚¬10 : 10 + 4 71-11, 1 Operator -~ AMPAD 23-000 50 SHT. PAD EFFICIENCYÂ® 23-001 250 SHT. DISPENSER BOX :-'1~ ' Â·1~.Â·f..9 . -- Â· Â· -- 1 . 1 8 . ., - 4 1 , Y - 4 0 - . . . A LW . , ../. - %42 0 - .44-ititl/3,-Â· .- 9 1 . . -r-- f â€ž 4 00 1 ~r...N~ ' -,0 - . , . - lei U.*1--â€¢â€¢- -. *.../ r ..4:Â· & . zilliasiltififfeIiL//' . 44 -92Â»1~, I .. .... ... lv,~ V . . .4- P..,dullin" --- .- rn, /4,_ - . - .. . 11 eRH - 14~.1 +4~-Â·.' 450 : 11154*rk,<r 1 "Ell:j' 164=E:=:1 - - 12Â· I.-. ... 1[ Â·Â· 0. . t.i DG 11 __-r -~DZ~~-~~ It J--W- I EM Â· C-imibil -0 - V i - 'Esfifie. t- 1. L . 1 t- 1 1 h h. 6 4 14;irâ€¢. ., 1 *@>/13:*3~my#-, I -1 -'-4 0,~-_1:3~. . - 25- nron 7 - 7- - --tl--a =-1 25=-- .r j.2- , XXL --*.. 1-4491Â» . "ry,+ 21, 1 2 -t. 4 VIBW OF HOLIEVE FAGINN FOWNTOWN .43,PEN "1 , \\ 0 trw 1 0. 4/7/0, BOB S GLENPA Â©MITH KE*IVENCB Â· LOT 5, *UNNY YAMic Nogn-1 eueplvieioN, AÂ©PEN, COLOKARO FEKeraGTINg vIEW 1 of 6 f 9?.'Â·~ fy: Frer.. - Â·It fi- I 'p~er= ,- '4 . . - . k - 025, 6040, ' 2 . 8030 HEIGHT 'ReergICT-101**: .. l\ . . 1 MAXIMUM HE -ID PE 0. 361 ATA KIGHT ANGLE / Â·: S NORâ„¢ 14 .. MIPFOINT- OF Â£ , t *: , I ewr , . . . 0 ... 2 1 . D : .%... THS NATUWAL *LOPE . ur _ I ,-2 . , 2 1 OF 1148 LAN-2 --r--- - -1 ---4-~ I ExterINOr % 4 - L -- - 7 -5,-*-_ 6*:ASÂ¥ (-TNW) 1 71 -NON ., ' A*DPEN MOUNTAIN t . . 1 1 . 1 Â· .1 EXCAVATION : #EGFION ~ 1 - .1 0 AFF'Iâ‚¬OXIMATely 10,5 :..1. t 0 I.0010/1 1 , . 1 . 1 Cubic YAgue OF 12'frl- f 36' ' ! TO BEE WYEP, ALL- , . i :I:Â·211' 96/f~ . r E:E â€¢ i Wl-THIN THE elTE, -r27 -d 074/ , 0 . 1 1 . . 1 l IMPROVE -THE -gOAE, M' -t< . .1. I . B ' 1 9% IYEWAY A EN-114. m~1 1 . Â· 1 . . 31. 0 I : -1 : ,.. - . ..1. i , . 4 . <. ~~ - - -- I ' m I I ' ~' 2 *3 Ill 0 . . 4 . 94=, f - / f \ ) 83*1+rrowN I i; et-eVAr~N OF toNG 01.0 : " - 4/1.~. --9-1 - -AL .. 1 17 1 43â€ž.4 t / Aâ‚¬'rEÂ·N I I -- i ...1 I I I ,$ l' . . 42?04- . , % ..I ,..%, 6- 1 . .% 44 1 / 1.....- % . I . I . 2<. % . i , .4 Â· : Â·C. ' Â·I'>c ' Â· ' eacrION ~ I. , 6 \ 2 : f 3 . 2 f *0 '~: X Â·2~/0 , , I. I 1 . 1. .. . 1 . I // . i ! . I , 0040 - -/ . 1 I . . ' . ,. : I i :. r i i : : . I ! , 0020 i 10, f 12<1â‚¬1-IrÂ·ks -12211A9~&4:'HY eHOWN 8020 I ., .. . : 'r , / 000 I MOUNTAIN , 4 , 1 r. 1 - /-31.1--- '11 4.Al-YAn-WN vrTZ:+1 71Â¥,RUNC laA,MEBAAMIN~r- eMOTION ~ 4/ /eG BOB 0 GLENDA eMITH KEel'PENCE â€¢ LOT 5, euNNY FANK Not<TH euÂ»DivieloN, AeFEN, doloiiAvo el-re FLAN 2 49 19 = co '00 1- -35Â¥73.4; - Â·00'119 - 444:243Ta 4 . Â· 4 44'0" . Â¥21 0. ' 22' 0" . 40'# 10'0" 4 d. . 1â‚¬ 0" 11'Go" r---- ...- /311[g il WINCPOWeeAT~PEEK ~ -A~ 1 BATH 2 -2 - FAMICT- W. CHRIerr ft/J = = 0. eLi* 2 0 -4 -- 0 71 1 - - 114 0" el.INeF5â€¢,S~- . S . - - PH 4,0,1 ~ 04, OIl -UP wmoe-rov.* --- AR - . 1 - 1 14< . 1 W.Â· / --r - 1 1 1 0 0 4 1:2_ --1 I â€¢~, 0 1' 1 A Z r- 0 03. BtreMId = LIN.,4 k I KITCHEN 11 I u r-- 4 If 0 1- 1 * 1 1 0 --1,- -1 ~1 ~J-3~ 1-0 NOOK 8 c i rn c u~,â„¢* 13-I T u. O 3.-j G UP . - 1 - 1 .. 1&=19 _El i 4fici R ' '' 1 1,1 w.perovi ' 1 2- CAR GiAN:Aamt -2 1 1 / 0 ... 1 '' b.. | 1 * 0 C 1 = . il e . 1 1 UT]UTY ENTMY -1 1. 1 X. 1 ' T 12 1 r tplh INGr r-11 20 99 ~ I L : *aR curran 4 '- * 1 IT I r. / - 4*7 1. L.11 , -O 1 -0 ttz'Â· 1 1 f 1 0 WINI=04 *EAT <COVEâ„¢lat=' 1 Â· 1 W '- /NerEEK *Utra Al,OVE 41Â» 4/ N 221 0,1 1 .-1 LOWEF. 1-12'VEL MAIN LEVE.le LIP'PeR L.EYEL-9 1Z' O" L '162. . 1 1 ' SallARIE FaPTAÂ£ala: MAIN t.*VELe, te,a~ 4 ' Uy'rEEK 1-,EVELS 11 2â‚¬5 $ 2471 Â¢ RATUala GeG tt $014*PALNE 1 94 Â¢ 4/3j )04 -POP A GiLENPA 0/'AIT+4 KEâ‚¬,)PENDE Â· Lor e, *UNNY rAâ€¢K NON:TH le,Ue,Plvle,loN, AerjaN, 650L0RAFv FLOOR FLANe 3of5 Ve"= 1'00' gr \ .. . E: 4,1 % 1 ...9.3 V 1684:2,0,4. 'At ~.- 00.1 .2-5 111':6'*1:12 . 01 1,1 1:41 .,-illill'll'll'll'll'll'll'll'll'll/:///m Il 22~ Izil.â€¢ P' - :923. 1,2 31 Irmi- .,4.......dv 15.31.-, r 1--I 1/.ze: -/-- ...A - -flf.'.--*'=t- --.- * ~-1 ==2 22_ - -I--- 1 6....e~. -iall -30 - i 1 ~Imi/Wgil 1- .Le&* .. .- .--1- 'Immxhil 1/ 1.11?4 MI f 1 . 96~93 //// Wif*6/#4111 . .1- 11 1.'A- 11./FR/1 15. - 163.20%*Il =5=-2-4.-U ..$. 3Â· 1-f . 1 .....~==*~ 11/1/9/ F 1111111.11 - -Â¥Â·47"E.*, li .L- "1 54 ~.4.#, 21- .--Ill- 6- ./4>121 1- 0*:Â·-420*# fill -r. I- 1.*en .*B' 22...~~*--I-lil l ... Witi.i I â€¢16.01 ./ 0 . -4 Aâ‚¬- 8951â‚¬.e .-7----7/ Zy:de'"18: .Iiff q. 0 /. 29% .' - 11 'f--15 1~ [tÂ¥-3.f~ 4 ..........g . y .Â·le Â·i,Â·It .'11Â·y'l-Â·-'=. . Â· '1 L~ 1,#a -in . ..7-1 / F ' 0 . 0 . e. ..1. 11:mu râ€¢9572=M~E;Â· .r-'."9.-----v. 2.-. -~~ ~?,Er., -3'~'9%m/~~~~~~~+~FT <~- -7 . Â¥- r 7'W'.2 A c Â·.Â· 1 Â·1Â·19~1n.,7.4 2.,=4%301~2;ti =,92-i~i;;E'T- - ...~ ~~30*MPÂ·~-?!*~0~ 4-- f':Â·9 *14.%*i'.~~.AUR. ~ 0*f )- A~;/74--Â·>.Â·~> . Â· M*p' 79 4 . 0 , 0 ' . - LFJ NOR-nt /11030 4 1, CM) /4013 1, 1 ' / Al, 4% / 4 / /lt r , i .2 MVE< GREEN -TNEE# j / \/4 fs 31* f 1/ ,/1 r <4 il) VE,5117Uout 71021*9 / '/44 1 / 91\ 4 1- â‚¬, 4....7 6<eÂ»962 Coe~ Â¥=+ree, 1 1 / / 1 illi - 4=79 EN/KeK/EN e,Me.uree 4 1 Xyp - , \ NA I a . ' 11. , iliE r-- - ext*T-INA 6%%41$ 129 -m@NUIN~~ - I -f U --------- NEW diIA:71)46r ir / /.5,0------- ---- - - . 1 4 ;71 , gy \ Ch.â‚¬ 3 kÂ¥.: I JA i. 4 4 t---- 73;1 1 . I 1 91 3 I I A I 2 - 91 ... C , 14 I -4 . 4 . / 4 1 â‚¬21.-- . 2â€ž41 ..tow +0016 6.. . 1 '2': Â·Â·Â·01 C'Â·7 ' --- '1 .k 1 r / 74 --- >~_ -lio'> 34 . i 4095 'Euvrp' 41011: 1- c .' ' w LI,v~ t $ 0 0/ imillilillills..1.)12,0 / 3 ./604 =me 1 At N /.--,9,4. 1 , \ /W %,4, / /- â‚¬ 1 I 44 - / / // '4 \DoÂ°: // , I li 1 463> I -rte- 1 - - IIi ELAbrmle 2 1 + 9011 L / _ 8#1*'INQ WAUte 1 -9020 -Ul' . .A . 1--_ J I +7005 ::..I:. y'.- 1 Â£ a iow \\ . uP..%1 f .6 i \ 11 90/4 2 f L.0-5'2 , .3*m:IVZâ‚¬â€¢, 0 -,2- f.. 1 -Ma,/pm.E~ESÂ¥ 31.3 1 +000Â¢ , \1 0~6 4 ~ ~ % 1 , , , 1 //////anll t . \ I '4*~ #. -+8020.' -'1 - ,' , '. .. , , 1 41 // ----- / 11 - 1 - V '' , 1, . . . b.. - / -- d(- I I. -N. (1 , . . ..I- -- foot. -8121* A. eveleale-t . --- - Â¥/161Â¢7.e=0*WN- Fef __- - Woo# 1 5-0 LAMP coVEK 81Â·CT~ *-- -- 12:ETÂ»dN 114<Gr WAU- '004 - 1â‚¬13 - 71-MAT KOUNF HOUâ‚¬E - -- -12> AU-TZ:H #11â‚¬11,1& V#4rrA-rkSN 8004 = ~696Â·' ~~ Â·_,~:0 4Â°9 140'1 "iNge /Â·aaÂ¥51*61NÂ¥ 1 ' Wa.ke,91 N >177& Â»INne '6 101 . 19Nadleabl H.LIWe Â¥dN315 1 409 e I I INSULATION NOTES FOUNDATION NOTES STRUCTURAL FRAMING NOTES ================ Roof - 1 1/2" foilfaced uretÂ·hane on sheathing with Wall Footings - Floor Joists - 2 Xl O & 2X 12 Doug Fir #2 & better R-38 batt insulation between rafters - 8" wider than found. wall min 16" width - 2*12 Doug Fir #t as noted Exterior Frame Walls - 1" foilfaced urethane on studs - 10" nominal depth - form w/2*10 -=...aX.1 2~~lalilmiER,ImelilE,151*EES*tBR -f-1 ejer - 5-1/2" batt insulation between - 2 - #4 continuous -1' '' ' 4â€¢-nd-g-Cund..4.484, Concrete Walls above Grade - wood siding on 2" - 3 - #4 at stepped footings Ledgers on Concrete Foundation wall foilfaced urethane w/2X2 nail.ers at 24" o. c. - Dc,wels - #4 X 24"V X 8"H at 4'-0" o.c. - 2 X 10 & 2X 12 Doug Fir bolted to wall with vertical in inner 1 ayer Spread Footings - 1/2" round X 8" a.b. at 16" o. c. Concrete Walls below Grade - 2" Dow SM 0 - 4'-0 " X 4'-8% 12" deep Girdres - Trusjoist Microlams as shown Concrete Slab on Gradd - 2" Dow SM 4'-0" wide - #4 at 4" cac. each way Rafters - 2X 12 Douglad Fir #2 and better at perimeter - 6 mil poly on 4" gravel Concrete Columns - Trusjoist TJ I 35X Frame Floors exposed to garage or exterior - 2'-13" X 8" Roof Beams - Trusjoist Microlams - sizes as shown - R-38 batt insulation between joists - 8 - #5 vert Dimension Framing Lumber - - #2 ties at 8" o.c. - studs - exterior walls - 2X6 #2 & better at 24" o.c:. AIR INFILTRATION -dowels-8 -#5 X 24"V X 16"H - interior walls - 2*4 standar-d grade ------- -------- Exterior Foundation Walls - 2X6 as shown - all at 16" o.c. - Line interior of exterior walls and ceilings Walls less than 4'-0" high , Headers - minimum DBL 2%6 w/full depth continuous under roots with 6 mil poly, seal by gluing, - 2 #4 top of wall 1/2" plywood spacer at load bearing walls taping or lap seams one stud or rafter spacing Walls over 4'-0" high - others as shown on plans - do not allow inter-ior partitions to penetrate - #4 at 16" o.c. vertical Wall Bracing - Simpson CWB126 or 1/2" plywood bracing poly where possi ble - repair all tears and - #4 at 10" o.c. horizontal Roof Sheathing - 5/8" CD EXT Plywood minimize punctures Pads and piers Floor Sheathing - 3/4" CD EXT Pl ywood - TZ<G - Install electric boxes backed with poly - Pads - 2'-0" X 2'-0" X 10" Hanger* - Dimension Lumber - Simpson Ell)212. HU212-2 - 2 - #4 each way - Trusjoists - LSU 135 install foam outlet gaskets - SprÂ·ay foam insulation around all windows, doors Piers - 8" round w/ 4- #4 & dowel s - Microlams - see details on plans and cracks in e>:terior building skin Foundation Bolts - 1/2" round X 8" at 48" o.c. NOTE: See plans and sections for areas where floor and wall - Wrap exterior frame walls with TYVEK Barrier by Concrete Slabs - 4" thick - reinforce with framing at per-imeter offset 1" exterior face of foundation wall Ditpont - apply over rigid insulatior, 6 X 6-10/10 W.W.M. thru-out below. - After drywall is installed caulk all areas that WaterÂ·Â·proofir,9 - slab on grade - 6 mil polyethylene show leakage with a blower door installed in house -- foundation walls - asphalt EXTERIOR FINISH NOTES Foundation Plates - 2X redwood Ridfn~ 'P80-Phnelle~Ilip2923:292; color~Sy Owner 4â‚¬T.25:.9.3' Of) 11\6/ rolll Rtin--r"Klot:wn t~ansparent oil base stain \ \ C \ 1 /1 \1\1 ~\Ul,-, ' ~ 1 1 1 1 - ' 1 \ Windows - operable - Weathershield low Eat south C 4 l < f i Weathershield triple low E elsewhere I ' _-1- X.h 1\1 \ \ i \#*/I \ 1 \ \ 1 :\ \ - fixed - site glazed Heat Mirror , : , 1 f C % 161< 6F -1_ -' 2%-~ -T*-+ / 4 1 I 1 \ % \ // 1 1 <* Fol \1 .1 INTERIOR FINISH NOTES ~ \\\ C \ \\ , L. Frame Walls and Ceilings - 1/2" gypsum board \\ 1 1 I. \ i \ \ 1.-/. 67. w/orange peel finish \ Concrete Floors - Quarry tile or unglazed ceramic tile N - '~ \ 1 li \ il 1 \ in living room \Â»1Â»9/4., ~ Plywood Floors and Stairs - Kitchen - hardwood. < i \ \\ 1 9 1 /\ \ 0 - Laundry & mudroom - linoleum, - carpet elsewhere . .5 \ i Concrete exposed to Living Spaces - Q-Bond Butter Coat % <6 /1 N or Thoroseal cement plaster \ \ X X / \ 41. \ \ \-i <81 Face of Fireplace wall - marble & tile as per plans â€ž- \I Trim - Pine screenstop and clear pine 4 Y 6 \..ni .4. \ \ / 5 ) t \ :. I. 0 -// 1/- ... elfe ElÂ·.FArialÂ·-1 54Â£3+ ' , Â· 5611%. DUIL-PING al /, 1 V .5 101 1 \ 14 1 /0 , 36 1 X SUEVA-(j j ;cu'-CP" C # 11 \ .\ L k 1 1 4 ill 1 L L 1 ./ 7 Â·c \ 6 - \ 1 14[1[Fl'!j.~11(:LTCOU - \Ch \1 0 \/9% \/ 1 4 OF NJEl i 1 0 L 0 0 4 . . . 0 110 - ./ architects -*/ 4 h 9/ \ b \ 011 Peter \ \ 7 4% L /// ik - 9*b \ . 1, \'. 4 N \ . /la\ / Dobrovolny <4Â»85:343zaaEONX - \ AIA i \ .7 2504*46 : pri*~ELH - . \ 7% i <1 . ll' \ -=~29.Â·TED-Â·con,-g.~ .9-~ . \ 0 0 6 , 64 -4.- . 4 #14% \ f \\ 6 \ I. . ' --7 tij 2 \ --. -- -- \ \. 1 1 ..\ N , 1 5%227't 4 DLE / , inÂ· OHNEDpi , 4 X / - . I - ' I \ 1 \ 3 u \ .I.3 \ /xI \ \ \ , MAE[ 1 R, 1 90 4 date \ / 4 11 = \ 44 if~ rks<455.11 , . - M ;CA / 8 -- -i#FET: 9 4.-- -- 1 -9?51Peru /%1 S# U - . i . 4\\. 4\ \W 0-- .--\ Â·f L p X * - fib - -* QI -*.- Revisions . 1 \ t. 1 ./ 1 \,r U. . \ \\ - r - ---31 10 \1 1 0 4 \ \ 1 \ .1/ OP \ \ 77; 6- :t \ i - Â¢,f *1 + F . h :\ i i \ 3 .62 l... 4 % tallit>1.11Â« . , 1 6 43 0 \ 3 . 1%14 Â· . Nox x 0% Â£ 1112Â» \- 1 4- \ \. I \ 4,1 1 1 ), -Â· 50 Iii 1 Â·-- 0-< .6 1 - \ \ . --J P--- ._tea Il It It b . ...~eâ€¢7. v 1\ I ' % i \ \ 1 1.-~ .1 4\ 1 ' t ./ -1 \ 1 %4 \1*53 27 -- 1 elle 560#1424 7972- \ $ \i 1- \. \ MSIJA.fi; D'.11 143)11~16 4 ch. \\ En.VA<Okt la:P'-cl 9 Â·Nt -- - r,â€ž Â·Â»./W \ lili'al- \ -11.. 14%:tir.. .: 1.4,// . 4 + 0 # I h <4 0 I vi \\ i / . 40 \ -\ '9-4 11 1 I \ . j Â»OMETRIC, - 1 \06 \ \ f. 4\ .. 611-5 n-All -41Â·,-'9Â·141 Â· -~Â· BuÂ·. ...'34.~34*2 .i.x:*gri \%- 4 \% i i -19 6 K - .. _ \ 1 leoliEF-la Plor{2:> Wtf Â£*09 p-lw. Â·,&31. ;..Â·.2.:,i~.hf#-WVS+M : Â«Tj*,4. \\ 0 1 \ \. S \\ \ \ I \ 14 922 CD' oIl' 4 1 90 04-1 Lof -5 ed k'Kly AAIC iÂ·Â·.13010 ri.-3 01 -1. p_Â»J ~~ 64*lt w Ov - 2-0 - - - -- @*197- ceÂ·2100@5 -- PiN'5,4 CONÂ®OBS J .. . 1,/1, I lit R 1114/r-~ A / . I * 0 / -1...ls do 9,314 011.100.1.k; SN .LWHIXM 22141 94% w IMAw - Â¢W021 Nf 2-Age '0 *BLMA eNI 191*7 ~ *-- .-;fg< ----- 2 -.it= ----- - -2- I - - 6 4,4 . ..=:@W=**11#&~r-.,:,-.1...,r 2.: -, 1 4* 0 e . - N . . Â· 99*fler?40 1 UL,Mal=t ' 4959,1215 3,11181*2 ~A ~akÂ¢.19*2A-83 : , 42-70 14,41Ai1d -ram.9 f - - -- 2 1 .4 - mane % . gayle aM.L- NO 41,Niag 17*M.1-'PN MO-1-104 111~A .Â»,Matuad /7/. f' 31.-2.7- 0 - -- 3 , '' Slat,â€¢azu- 19 -711,6 A.K*A\21(1 B,WMÂ¥ 96,Â¥NIMje 111@16 r ,/4./14 lilli . :. 9 14/0/. . ... - - N r. 1% 4 42= - #2-41\ A ..4 + . 2- , 4 J -1. 1 D - t 1- I ./Inb-** L C -0- A-t."3 'i--EJE/*thf . r-- 482*Mlold,In ff -- - .I 4. A 7 f -2 /Za 1 V ------- - 4 k 14 . ./W lilli . I , ....... ... -3 I . . .... .. . I ...===, a . ~11,11,11 QUA' .3 .4 F Oft .9 ,.7 y i *tr.. (,M - E FR 12~99Â§05+I Â¢ AA'ty" 1 L. 1 11, 2. 0 - 2,1- \ 1- 1 1 980+161 92rmal r)042 far 16 E \ 79all.rnl~A Nlvial 4,1*47172 i 1 1.LIAL t- 4 1,Â£Â£ i 1-,4. 1\. , -1 -- 0,1 , *3271.-1/1/.g-~52Â¢T ..,4 3 3 1/0/'/ lfLI/02/. d:3/. . f y L, â€¢- 2 t..1..~..f , I 0 -4 f / 4 E 4*0 x.-- .. . *4 .,w/ i --,1. rtu:juii, I yfa y,% W.4 11 l Lt * if A Man201OP ' Na.le# r 1401*#UdenÂ¢* 712~4 ANNne eaoHâ€¢ateas Huwe - 97,9â€¢19 AVMEIA121Â£3. datioaok{& 1 - t' 00 . SPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFI - 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-2020 *dem Ibbrou6 % 7Draiu- 340 67,5,97(6,0 6 TILÂ¢4 RE : \-0 U 6 4 5 - i J 4941 &"- kc VIL_ i )0 4 0 61:_C Â·1 1 , t. Dear 14/ This is to inform you that the Planning Office has completed its preliminary review of your '2048 Grun li'n,- application for complete- ness. We have determined that your application >< is complete. is not complete. The additional items we will require are as follows: Disclosure of ownership (one copy only needed) . Adj acent property owners list (one copy only needed) . Additional copies of entire application. Authorization by owner for representative to submit application. Response to the attached list of items demonstrat- ing compliance with the applicable policies and regulations of the Code, or other specified materials. A check in the amount of $ is due. .~_ A. Since your application is compl ete, we have scheduled it for review by the"Fla/,pwÂ»('/Tyvvm,01,(IMen LU_r, AC) We will be calling you iÂ©we need any additiona~ information prior to that date. In any case, we will be calling you several days prior to your hearing to make a copy of the review -memnrandum available to you. Please note that it (is) <is-not-9 your responsibility to post your property with a sign,-wnich we can provide you. B. Since your application is incomplete, we have not scheduled it for public review at this time. When we have received the materials we have requested, we will be happy to place you on the next available agenda. Please feel free to call 6~2IA)& ~~.Pre-IÂ·â‚¬,4 71 , who is the planner assigned to this case, if you have any questions. Sincerely, ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE Al*IR(ch,~aÂ»- 4. 9*w,89%2 Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director AR:jlr 220 Â·' Ga.* 6.,)~OP + LAW OFFICES WRIGHT & SCHUMACHEN JEROME PROFESSIONAL BUILDING 201 NORTH MILL STREET, SUITE 106 ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 GARY A. WRIGHT TELEPHONE 303-925-5625 B. LEE SCHUMACHER ALLEN H. ADGER DAVID I. MARSH 3 April 1986 Steve Berstein Planning Office City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: 8040 Greenline Review for Lots 3 and 5 Sunny Park North Subdivision, City of Aspen, Pitkin Oounty, Colorado Dear Steve: I am writing to request that the attached Application in behalf of the Smiths be reviewed concurrently with the Application of Barry and Sharon Siegel on Lot 3. I am the representative of both the aniths and the Siegels in the purchase of this property fram Colorado National Bank and although Peter Dobrovolny prepared the Appliction in behalf of the Siegels you are authorized and instructed to include me in all comnunications regarding either Application. I realize that this is a very busy time of the year and many Applications are pending. I would request your help and I will offer my complete cooperation to have this Application presented as soon as is reasonably possible. I am informed that the earliest date is May 21st but I would appreciate anything you could do to schedule an earlier review. If you have any questions or require additional information please give me a call. Sincerely, Wright & Schumacher by: ~~~- Gatt-K. Wright GA?â‚¬vs Encl. CC: Robert and Glenda Smith Barry and Sharon Siegel Peter Dobrovolny Jack Kerr, Vice President