HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.253 Silverlode Dr.A021-02
r,
CASE NUMBER
PARCEL ill #
CASE NAME
PROJECT ADDRESS
PLANNER
CASE TYPE
OWNER/APPLICANT
REPRESENTATIVE
DATE OF FINAL ACTION
CITY COUNCIL ACTION
PZ ACTION
ADMIN ACTION
BOA ACTION
DATE CLOSED
BY
i",""
....
A021-02
2737-074-30004
Lot 11, Silverlode Subdivision 8040 Greenline
Lot 11, Silverlode Subdivision
James Lindt
8040 Greenline
John Elmore
Stan Mathis
4/2/02
Reso. #14-2002
Approved
4/3/02
J. Lindt
"
rj
f\
r-,
n
DEVELOPMENT ORDER
of the
City of Aspen
Community Development Department
This Development Order, hereinafter "Order", is hereby issued pursuant to Section
26.304.070, "Development Orders", and Section 26.308.010, "Vested Property Rights",
of the City of Aspen Municipal Code. This Order allows development of a site specific
development plan pursuant to the provisions of the land use approvals, described herein.
The effective date of this Order shall also be the initiation date of a three-year vested
property right. The vested property right shall expire on the day after the third
anniversary of the effective date of this Order, unless a building permit is approved
pursuant to Section 26.304.075, or unless an exemption, extension, reinstatement, or a
revocation is issued by City Council pursuant to Section 26.308.010. After Expiration of
vested property rights, this Order shall remain in full force and effect, excluding any
growth management allotments granted pursuant to Section 26.470, but shall be subject
to any amendments to the Land Use Code adopted since the effective date of this Order.
This Development Order is associated with the property noted below for the site specific
development plan as described below.
John Elmore. PO Box 318. Writesville Beach, NC 28480
Property Owner's Name, Mailing Address and telephone number
Lot 11. Silverlode Subdivision
Legal Description and Street Address of Subject Property
8040 Greenline Review Approval. Variances from the Secondary Mass, Building Orientation. and
Drivewav Cut Residential Design Standards
Written Description of the Site Specific Plan and/or Attachment Describing Plan
Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution #14-2002. 4/2/02
Land Use Approval(s) Received and Dates (Attach Final Ordinances or Resolutions)
April 13. 2002
Effective Date of Development Order (Same as date of publication of notice of approval.)
April 14, 2005
Expiration Date of Development Order (The extension, reinstatement, exemption from expiration
and revocation may be pursued in accordance with Section 26.308.010 of the City of Aspen
Municipal Code.)
Issued this 13th day of April, 2002, by the City of Aspen Community
Development Director.
son, Community Development Deputy Director
~
o
r"'\
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRE" OFPRO"'RTY, Urf II ~(;:~~ Ll',u41 ""~ CO
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: --"-- ,__' ,200 ~
r"'\
STATE OF COLORADO )
) SS.
County of Pitkin )
I, ~~~ Ml:ill-t \ 'S (name, please print)
being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally
certifY that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060
(E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner:
~ Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official
paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15)
days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto.
X Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the
Community Development Department, which was made of suitable,
waterProof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide
and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed ofletters not
less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least ten (~ays
prio to e public hearing and was continuously visible from the y of
" , 00~0 and including the date and time 0 the public
. \ /, earing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto.
~ Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community
Development Department, which contains the information described in Section
26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least ten (10) days prior to the
public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class, postage prepaid
U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property
subject to the development application, and, at least fifteen (15) days prior to the
public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid
U.S. mail to any federal agency, state, county, municipal government, school,
service district or other governmental or quasi-governmental agency that owns
property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the
development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be
those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than
sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and
governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto.
r"'\
(continued on next page)
1'1
n
r'o,
Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in
any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision
of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such
revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use
regnlation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other
sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and
addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall
be waived. However, the proposed zoning map has been available for public
inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days
prior to the public hearing on such amen nts.
,,'h-'l
The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this""" day
of Aj>,..< 1 ,200.,).." by 5Td';?/Y'"") ~'S
f'\
WIlNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
My commission expires: 2.f /.;:r~/::2. c='?,
5: cn::bc:
Notary Public
ATTACHMENTS:
COPY OF THE PUBLICATION
PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN)
LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED
BY MAIL
1""".
~
'" ~ fl
(j:::>\)J \.V 'to..y , ' '_ .:"
~~~ ~, ~ ! ~ & ~ ~~) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~- ~ ~ ~ ~~.~~ ~ dl { ~ ~ ~ ~ ;
W'WW~W~~WW wwwwww w~w~ www~j_~www
~~~~~~.~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~
0000000000000000000000000000000
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WWW~~~WNNNNNNWNNNNNNWNNNWNNWNOW
OOOWIDIDOIDIDIDIDIDIDOIDIDIDIDIDIDOIDIDIDOIDIDOIDOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO~O
~~~WW~~N~NNO~~NONONO~Noooooaooo
~~W~ONNID~m~IDo~moo~m~~OW~~IDNWOO~W~
;:o;:o;:o;:o;:o;:o;:o;:o;:o;:o;o;:o;:o;:o;o;:o;ti;:o;ti;o;:o;:o;:o;:o;:o;:o;:o;:o;:o;:o;:o
0000000000000000000000000000000
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,~~~
~~~~~~~mmmm~mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNmN
mmmww~mw~ww~~mw~w~w~mw~~mo~mowm
mID~m~IDmmmm~m~mwmNW~~~O~NWIDONOO~~
(""'\.
::E)>;:o^~~mO::E~IS:Im~oWO^~I~I::EIOOOOOOOOOZ^
m~mz)>O;:O)>IZOO)>~ o)>m)>oe)>)>)>~~Ie::Emo
Zm~Gl-;:o~~r_Gl~;o;:O~OOI;:orr;:O;:oOS:'Gl')>)>~m<<
rZ ^-,m~ ~~;:oom)>m ^OIO~O~;:OZI <<
O>oImOO~oomms:~-;:o~m~~m<OOe~~O^omZo)>
~-r~;:oI)>OO;:o;:O)>OOOOmI~~Gl;:O< Nr-ZOOr;:o^oC
Gl~~~>c~o<~z;:o::E~s:~~~)>~~~~~ooozc~~R
mm~zoS:)>;:omzmg~o)>~m~~ ~)>s:ooGl~Gl~zo;:o
~~o)>o~zo;:Ooo~mz~~mm~o~;:o~~)>~~~)>s: CO
rs:Imeoz~S:Io;:om)>o;:Oc ~;:OIoom~Gl~O;:o o~
Omz~~~ ;:O~~I~OO= ~~ 1~~~~0)>~~ ~~
zooz_ ~)>o~~~ ~ )>I~OO~~OOmZ m~
~~ mZ ~GlOr m m^)>~ err Os:
rOO )>a ~mZ~ ~ ~ S:zmz~~~)>~ m
dffi ffi~ W E I ~~;:o~ Z~O ~~
~ )>Z I 0 GlO~ )>)>~
)> Z~)> - I~r Z rr
o ;:0 m ~ ~
00;:0
~~~m~~~mo~oom~~~~~~~~~~~M~~~W~~~
~o~~ao~oooog~gg~oO~~oo~ffi~~o~~oO~
OO~~;:O~~~~Gl~~m::EO::EOO::E~::E::E~::Ezoooo~mm~~~
~O)>O-rOGlr)>Or~ m-OO_O__ -,,~0~s:00
<X CX;:OC;:oXCoS:)>F~FXFFoF~~<X~)>XX~
mOO^mGl)>~m)>~oo)>~)>~-;:o-~-_O_rrmw,~~~o
;:00 ;:os:wms: ms:v-~)>-)>~)>)>r)>rr;:oo~r~o
r~<)>oo~zoo::Emoocz::Es:zs:ws:s:Os:oooor~)>m~mGl
Om~z ::E;:o~ ZOOOOOGlOO~OOWZOO~~OmZ::Eoo~m
~ ~~~ 8~~ ~~~8~~~ ~~6~~ ~ ~8 ~
o I~O OO~ O~o;:oZOOZ zz;:OZm 0 0 0
;:0 rrI OI I wOO~O 00 O~;:o )> 0
Z 0;:00 000 ImI II Im < 0
;:0 ;:0 ;:o~ 000 00 0 m ~
w ;:o~;:o;:o;:o;:o
o
~
~
?!
~\}>""-
~ ~..~ ~~
-..J """"'-..J -..J:::O
oocoO
-...!-..J............m
.e::...llo..,t:l.~r-
NOOO
OJooo
DOOO
o.,J:l.o~
1\)011\)0>
,
~,
(
;:0;:0;:0;:0)>
00000
....lo.-.llo-lo.....lo.()
~g:~mO
I\)<DOI\)C
"'......W01Z
~
Z
o
::E:::!:::!::EO
;:os:s:~::E
G5;:O;:O^Z
IOOZm
~~~OO;:o
~IIOZ
~F:GlZ~
;:O~~Glm
emzm
m;:o~o
OO~ ;0
O~ Gl
IO m
S:o s:
ZZ )>
-Z ;:0
Z)> 00
Gl I
r 0
~
::E~~~)>
;:oO~OO
G5~;:O~~
IOOOm
~X~Xoo
GlooI~oo
)>(O)>~....lo.
;:0 r~
~ ~
, ;:0
Q ~
o Gl
g
rJ A ~
'" '" "U :t> .
0 0 0 0
~ ~
Z Z III 0
rJ ~ ;0
0 ~ m
;0 00
-I r- eo 00
:r: r- CD '"
~ 00
-I
r-
r-
oo
-I
m
~
0
0>
:t>:t>Z:t>:t>:t>or-:t>:t>:t>:t>:t>:t>~:t>:t>:t>:t>:t>:t>oo:t>:t>:t>:t>:t>:t>o:t>:t>;o
00000000000 0000000000 00-00 00 00 00 00 oo:t> 00 00 00 00 00 OO:t> 00 00 0
"U"U;o"U"U"Uz"U"U"U"U"U"U~"U"U"U"U"U"Uz"U"U"U"U"U"Ur-"U"Uo
mm-lmmmQmmmmmm~mmmmmm-lmmmmmmr-mm:r:
zZ:r:zzzs:zzzzzzzzzzzzz:t>zzzzzz~zzm
"U 0 Q s: 00-1
:t> Zo -10m
r- -I Z ;0
s: z 0
III :t>:;
~ ~
o 00
:r:
t'""\
OO~OOOOOOOOOOZOOOOOOOOOOOOO><-100S:
oor-ooooooooooooooooo:t>oooooo 00-
oooowoooooooooooooooooooo~oooooooooooowoooooooooooo~oooo~
~~w~~~o~~~~~~oo~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~oo
mm~mmm~mmmmmm~mmmmmm~mmmmmm~mmw
~~o~~~o~~~~~~o~~~~~~o~~~~~~o~~o
~NOO~~NW~~N~~~W~~~N~~~~~~~N~~NNm
I 'I I
N O'l.....lo. I\.)
o W 01 <0
m N 00 0
(Xl N (X) W
f";..
:t>:t>:t>:t> 0
0000 00 00 =i
"U"U"U"U-<
mmmm
zzzz
000000
oooOi!
-I
m
OJ (X) (X) ())N
....lo......lo.....lo.....),,_
~~~~~
....lo.I\.)NNO
o
m
f')
r")
tf""", PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: LOT 11, SILVERLODESUBDIVISION 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW,
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD VARIANCES
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, April 2,
2002 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission, Sister Cities Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to
consider an application submitted by John Elmore, requesting approval of an 8040
Greenline Review and Residential. Design Standard Variances from the following
standards: 26.41O.040(A)(1) Building Orientation, 26.41O.040(A)(2) Build-to-lines,
26.41O.040(B)(1) Secondary Mass, 26.410.040(C)(2)(d) Parking, Garages, and Ca[ports.
The property is described as Lot #11, Silverlode Subdivision, City and Townsite of
Aspen. For further information, contact James Lindt at the City of Aspen Community
Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5095,
jamesl@ci.aspen.co.us.
s/Jasmine Tvl!re, Chair
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Pnblished in the Aspen Times on March 16,2002.
City of Aspen Account
r'\
/"""',
.---.
;
,/"",\
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: Lo+ /) 1 :5:;LJ;o(;/o~e-~~s&cjJ J/':;;O~
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: / ~/ ~/ n -:::::> ,200_
STATE OF COLORADO )
) SS.
County or Pitkin )
I,~TOt lAA. p;s..i~./ ~/!.o;JL.... ,.' (name, please print)
being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally
certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060
(E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner:
~~;Iblication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official
paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (IS)
days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto.
_ Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the
Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, 1
waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches Wide
and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed ofletters not)
less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least ten (10) days
prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the _ da.y of
,200_, to and including the date and time of the public
hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto.
_ Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community
Development Department, which contains the information described in Se~1ion
26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least ten (10) days priofto the
public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class, postage Jtepaid
U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property
subject to the development application, and, at least fifteen (15) days prior to the
public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid
U.S. mail to ally federal agency, state, county, municipal government, school,
service' district or other governmental or quasi-governmental agency that owns
property within three,hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the
development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be
those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than
sixty(60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and
governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto.
(continued on next page)
,~,
~~"
,~,
Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in
any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision
of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such
revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use
regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other
slifficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and
addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall
be waived. However, the proposed zoning map has been available for public
inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days
prior to the public hearing on such amendments.
, . , ~
The foregoing "Affidavit of' Notice" was acknowledged before me this )5 day
of~c..-L , 200~ by 6h---t-';:" L, r>>
-
"'^'"."."".....,.."._-~~-
......"d'!<
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
My commission expires: Lf~/ d{:J[::>~
5- ('
l"tJBLI NQTICE:
RE: LOT,'n, SILVER ,DE SUBQIVISfON' 8040
GREENLfNE', . ,RE'1IEW, "RESIDENTIAL' .... DESIGN'
STANDARJ)VARlIU'fCES' -,,"
-.;N?TlfE)r~~BY:'<:rJ~~Nl~!i.~ publi<:_I:1~ilrlng
wJl!):ie 'held9Iltue_s~ay" April '2,: 200:2'i\t 3:,' m,eet:
ing to begin<.lt "4:39 ~:nl.b~rClre)fie_ASpen"pia"Jl'
ningao_Q Zonlrii(c.ornmjssion~, ~sfer_ Cltie;'~~"%~-'
ing ~oom, City Hiili,'}}pS. Galena'Si:;}.speii:to
consi?,er, 'an, applicatt<?llsublTIItted-,oyJohn '~!,'
more, -reQu~ting approVal,ofan&040_,Greenllne'
R~ew ,and Residentfill oesign,SFn(Jar~:.vai1a~
.ce,~,,; _from >l:1e_:(ollo\Ying_',~tan~n:!s:'
_ .26~4IO.040(A)(Q ... .' '~R:uil<lIng ~ , OrIe'nta,t"rort'"
.26}lg.O~O(A)(2)., e1;lJ(d~7t)lne~, 26.410'.,lPtO(B)(1)
.~,Seco~dary Ma~s, ,~?:,~Jg.Q40(CJ(2)(d) ~llrki,l% Cia-
rage,s, and .Carports: 'i'fje. proJ?~rty is' diitsc~lb'~
as l..oXl}l.Sllv~r,lpde Sub,divislon: CltY'and'T6Wr;" ATTACHIVIENTS
. '~~~:~~~~l$~;o~l~E:~:~~~~~~E COPY OF THE PUBLlC~TION
;,,', .'.':,";<:' ;;'.-,;;,,;.,,>.s/JaSrnin,~Tygre, ~haiT
':- ':.."": >': Al;pen ~l,:mning and ZOllfng',C_omm:lsslon~';
':/':i..~~,~d;n,Th.,,,,p,nTim"onMM'"1t:'Wd2: ~'RAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN)
;, '~'.._'c, ,.:, ,C",' ',_
Notary Public
LlSTOF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED
BY NIAlL
~
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission ~ 10Lt 0
THRU:
Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
April 2, 2002
ApPLICANT:
John Elmore
REPRESENTATIVE:
Stan Mathis
LOCATION:
Lot 11, Silverlode Subdivision
ZONING:
AH-PUD
CURRENT LAND USE:
Vacant Lot
PROPOSED LAND USE:
Single Family Residence
LOT SIZE:
13,329 SF
FAR:
Allowable (without 8040 Greenline
Approval): 3,172 SF
Allowable (with 8040 Greenline
Approval): 3,489 SF
"
Photo: Lot 11, Silverlode Drive. Lot II is the only lot
within the Silverlode Subdivision that has yet to be
developed.
SUMMARY:
The Applicant is requesting 8040 Greenline Review
approval to increase the allowable floor area ratio
from 3,172 SF to 3,489 SF pursuant to Condition
No. II in City Council Ordinance No. 52, Series of
1994. The Applicant is also requesting approval of
several variances from the Residential Design
Standards. This is a one-step review before the
Planning and Zoning Commission.
I
E;
t""1
("\
REVIEW PROCEDURE
Development in Environmentally Sensitive Areas - 8040 Greenline Review: Following the
receipt of a recommendation from the Community Development Department, the Planning
and Zoning Commission shall by resolution approve, approve with conditions, or deny a
development application in an ESA.
Variances from the Residential Desi~n Standards: Following the receipt of a
recommendation from the Community Development Department, and after hearing and
considering public comment, the Planning and Zoning Commission acting as the Design
Review Appeals Committee shall by resolution approve, approve with conditions, or deny a
variance request from the Residential Design Standards.
BACKGROUND:
John Elmore ("Applicant"), represented by Stan Mathis, is requesting approval of an 8040
Greenline Review to construct a 3,489 square foot single-family residence on Lot 11,
Silverlode Subdivision. The Silverlode Subdivision allows for 3,171 square feet of FAR to
be constructed on the parcel by right (without obtaining 8040 Greenline Approval). The
Applicant may increase the allowable FAR on the parcel to 3,489 square feet by gaining
approval of an 8040 Greenline Review from the Planning and Zoning Commission
pursuant to paragraph 11 of Ordinance No. 52, Series of 1994.
Land Use Code Section 26.435.030, 8040 Greenline Review applies to all development
located at or above 8040 feet above mean sea level (the 8040 Greenline) in the City of
Aspen, and all development within one hundred fifty (150) feet below the 8040 Greenline.
Ordinance No. 52, Series of 1994, approved the Williams Ranch/Silverlode Subdivision.
Condition 11 of this Ordinance states that "the allowable floor area for the free market
parcels shall not exceed 90% of what is permitted in the AH zone district (AH Zone
District has since been amended to require the allowable dimensional requirements to be
set through the PUD process). If the proposed floor area for any free market parcel is
over 80% of the permitted floor area for the former AH zone district, then a complete
8040 Greenline Review by the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be required prior to
the issuance of any building permits for the lot."
The Applicant is also requesting variances from the following Residential Design Standards
(Please see Exhibit B for descriptions of the specific standards):
1. Building Orientation
2. Secondary Mass
3. Driveway Slope
STAFF COMMENTS:
8040 Greenline Review
If the proposed 8040 Greenline Review application were approved, the Applicant could build
an additional 317 square feet of FAR. Staff feels that the additional 317 square feet of FAR
would not have a great impact on the visual or environmental character of the lot. The
additional square footage is likely to be subtracted out of the rear of the structure if the
2
n
r'l
, j
Applicant is required to build to the FAR that is vested through the subdivision approval. In
Staff's opinion, the likelihood that the additional square footage would be subtracted in a
manner that would reduce the visual impact of the structure on the most visible, street facing
fa9ade is very unlikely because the front portion of the floor plan is where the most attractive
outward views are. Thus, the front facade is where the architect is going to want to place the
maximum amount of floor area. Therefore, Staff believes that the visible street facing
elevation will not change regardless ofthe outcome of adding approximately 300 square feet.
Additionally, Staff believes that the additional square footage that would be provided by the
proposed 8040 Greenline Review would not increase the site coverage or the necessary
grading on the parcel. In all likelihood, the proposed residence will completely encompass
the entire building envelope regardless of if 317 additional square feet is allotted through the
review. In the past, there have been several 8040 Greenline Reviews approved by the
Planning and Zoning Commission and supported by the Staff that allowed for increases in
the allowable FAR for additions to existing residences in the Silverlode Subdivision. The
common design characteristic in the aforementioned proposals was that the addition was
placed on the rear of the structure and could not be seen from the street. Staff feels that this
is a similar situation to the previous proposals with the exception that the request for the
additional square footage is coming prior to the construction of the residence. Thus, Staff
does not believe that the additional square footage will have any impact on Smuggler
Mountain as a scenic resource.
The Applicant has submitted a soils report that indicates that there are no geologic hazards or
reasons related to the site that would prohibit the additional 317 square feet of structure from
being added to the site. Also, due to the fact that Staff feels that the site coverage of the
proposed residence will not be impacted by the additional 317 square feet of FAR, Staff
believes that there will not be an additional impact on the natural watershed and drainage of
the site. Additionally, there are sufficient utilities to serve the site. Staff feels that the review
criteria is met and recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the
proposed 8040 Greenline Application.
BuiIdinl! Orientation Variance:
The Building Orientation Residential Design Standard (please see Exhibit "B" for a
description of the standard) requires any new residence within the City of Aspen to be
constructed with the front fa9ade parallel to the street. The subject site contains an approved
building envelope that is not parallel to the street due to the existing 20 foot wide pedestrian
access and utility access easement on the north side of the property. Due to site-specific
constraints provided by the off-center building envelope, Staff supports the variance request
from the building orientation design standard. The Applicant has made a reasonable effort to
orient the front door and the front fa9ade to the street and meet the intent ofthe standard.
Driveway Slope Variance:
The Residential Design Standards require that a driveway cut not exceed two feet in depth as
measured from natural grade within the front yard setback. Staff acknowledges that the
subject site slopes up significantly from the front property line to the building envelope.
Staff believes that due to the steep nature of the front of the lot, that there is also a site
specific constraint as it relates to this specific design standard (please see Exhibit "B" for
3
'rJ
~
!
description of the standard). Staff supports this variance request, but requires that a condition
be required that the Applicant snowmelt the driveway.
Secondary Mass Variance:
The Secondary Mass Standard (please see Exhibit "B" for a description of the standard)
requires that all new residences locate at least I 0% of their square footage above grade in a
mass that is completely detached from the principal building, or linked to it by a subordinate
connecting element. In April of 2001, a Secondary Mass Variance was approved on this lot
for a different residence design. The previous design (Exhibit "D") provided a two-story
linking element that broke up the street facing fayade into two distinct elements. Staff
supported the variance request on the previous design because it was felt that it met the intent
of the secondary mass standard on a lot that provided unusual site constraints.
Staff feels that the proposed design does not effectively break up the mass as the standard
intended. The design that is currently being reviewed makes an attempt to break up the mass
of the structure from the side (north) elevation. The proposed linking element is one story in
height but does not remain one story throughout the entire width of the structure. South of
the proposed one-story linking element, a two-story element exists that gives the appearance
that the structure is two stories from the side elevation with no distinct break in the massing.
Staff does not feel that this an effective way of meeting the secondary mass standard and
distinguishing between two separate masses.
Given that the previous design on the site was successful in breaking up the mass and
distinguishing between two separate elements, Staff feels that it is possible to more distinctly
separate the masses in spite of the site constraint of the steeply sloped lot. Therefore, Staff
does not support the proposed secondary mass variance request.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve with
conditions the proposed 8040 Greenline Review Application to increase the allowable
FAR on Lot 11, Silverlode Snbdivision to 3,489 SF. Staffis also recommending that the
Planning and Zoning Commission approve the proposed variances from the Bnilding
Orientation, and Driveway Slope Residential Design Standards. Staff is recommending
that the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the proposed variance from the
secondary mass standard of the Residential Design Standards.
RECOMMENDED MOTIONS (ALL MOTIONS ARE MADE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE):
"I move to approve, with conditions, the Elmore 8040 Greenline Review to increase the
allowable FAR on Lot II, Silverlode Subdivision to 3,489 SF, and to approve variances from
the Residential Design Standards for Building Orientation, Driveway Slope, and Secondary
Mass."
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A -- 8040 Greenline Review Criteria and Staff Findings
Exhibit B -- Design Standards Variance Review Criteria and Staff Findings
Exhibit C -- Development Application
Exhibit D -- Previous Residence Design for Subject Site
4
r'\
r1
EXHIBIT A
ELMORE 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW
REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS
26.435.030 8040(C) Greenline review standards.
No development shall be permitted at, above, or one hundred fifty (150) feet below
the 8040 greenline unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a
determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set
forth below.
1. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is
suitable for development considering its slope, ground stability
characteristics, including mine subsidence and the possibility of mud flow,
rock falls and avalanche dangers. If the parcel is found to contain
hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and revegetate the
soils, or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a
location acceptable to the city.
Staff Finding
Staff feels that the site is suitable for a single-family residence. A building envelope
was established through the subdivision process in 1994. A Geotechnical Report
created by a Colorado Licensed Engineer was conducted and concluded that the
ground stability was sufficient for a residence of the size requested by the applicant.
The aforementioned report did not find any geologic hazards that would make the
site un-developable. The applicant shall not develop or regrade outside the approved
building envelope. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
2. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect
on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent
effects on water pollution.
Staff Finding
Staff does not believe the development will have any adverse affect on the natural
watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion, or have consequent effects on water
pollution. The City Engineer will review the grading and drainage plan for the site
and proposed residence prior to the issuance of building permits. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
3. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect
on the air quality in the city.
Staff Finding
Staff does not believe this project will have an adverse affect on the air quality of the
city. The Environmental Health Department does not require air quality mitigation
for single-family residences. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
5
ti
n
4. The design and location of any proposed development, road, or trail
is compatible with the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed
development is to be located.
Staff Finding
Staff does not feel that the proposal to add 317 square feet of FAR to the site will
have a significant impact on the location of the design and it's compatibility with the
natural terrain of the parcel. The road serving the parcel already exists and is not
required to be improved by the Applicant. Additionally, the proposed residence
design is completely within the previously established building envelope. Staff finds
this criterion to be met.
5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to
the terrain, vegetation and naturallandfeatures.
Staff Finding
Staff feels that the proposed increase in allowable FAR that is being requested by the
Applicant will not increase the grading or disturbance to the terrain on the site. Staff
believes that regardless of whether the proposed residence is allotted an additional
317 square feet, that there will be no increase in the site coverage of structure on the
lot. Additionally, the proposed residence is completely located within the
established building envelope. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
6. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need
for roads, limit cutting and grading, maintain open space, and preserve the
mountain as a scenic resource.
Staff Finding
There is only one structure proposed for the site. As was mentioned previously, Staff
does not feel that there will be an additional need for grading due to the 8040
Greenline proposal. The proposed structure will be completely contained within the
established building envelope. Additionally, Stafffeels that the added square footage
as result of the 8040 Greenline Review will be likely be added to the back of the
structure where it will not increase the disturbance of Smuggler Mountain as a scenic
resource. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be
designed to blend into the open character of the mountain.
Staff Finding
Staff feels that it is difficult to design a residence on a site that slopes as significantly
as the site that is subject to review. Staff does not believe that the building height
will be affected by the additional 317 square feet of FAR being proposed for the site.
Staff also believes that the additional 317 square feet will not have a tremendous
affect on the bulk of the structure. However, Staff does feel that the massing could
be more effectively broken up and has thus recommended denial on the proposed
secondary mass variance. Staff does not feel that the additional 317 square feet are
6
1"'1
~
j
instrumental in keeping the Applicant from meeting the intent of the secondary mass
standard. Staff finds this criterion not to be met, as it relates to secondary mass.
8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service
the proposed development.
Staff Finding
The property is serviced by all public utilities. Staff does not feel that allowing for an
additional 317 square feet ofF AR would affect the water pressure or utilities available to
the site. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development,
and said roads can be properly maintained.
Staff Finding
The proposed development will not require the addition or expansion of the existing
road network to the property. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
10. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed
development so as to ensure adequate access for fire protection and snow
removal equipment.
Staff Finding
Staff has proposed a condition of approval that requires the Applicant to install a fire
sprinkler system if the proposed residence is over 5,000 square feet. The Fire Marshall
was consulted and did not have issue with the ingress and egress. An additional
condition of approval requires the applicant to snowmelt the driveway. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
11. The recommendations of the Aspen Area
Parks/Recreation/Trails Plan are implemented
development, to the greatest extent practical.
Community Plan:
in the proposed
Staff Finding
Staff does not believe the proposed development conflicts with the AACP or
ParksIRecreationlTrails Plan. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
7
f'i
r-.
, -;:;
EXHIBIT B
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD VARIANCES REVIEW
REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS
The Planning and Zoning Commission acting as the Design Review Appeals Committee may
approve a variance from the Residential Design Standards if the proposed application meets
the following:
a) Yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area
Community Plan;
b) More effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or
provision responds to; or
c) Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site
specific constraints;
The following are Staff s findings in regards to the variances being requested by the Applicant.
Variance Reqnested
Buildinz orientation
The front facades of all principal structures shall
be parallel to the street. On corner lots, both
street facing facades must be parallel to the
intersecting streets. On curvilinear streets, the
front facade of all structures shall be parallel to
the tangent of the midpoint of the arc of the street.
No.
Yes.
I!l,-,'" ill /
;K /
'. ./
~
a) Yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community
Plan;
Staff Finding:
Staff feels that the Applicant is making an attempt to meet the intent of the standard. The
front door and front fayade of the proposed residence are as parallel to the street as the tilted
building envelope will allow. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
b) More effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or
provision responds to; or
c) Be clearly necessary for reasons offairness related to unusual site
specific constraints;
8
r--,
,. .,;
()
StaffFinding:
Staff feels tIrat due to tIre fact that tIre front edge of the approved building envelope is not
parallel to the street and that unusual site constraints exist in relation to this design standard,
there is reasoning to allow for the proposed residence to be slightly non-parallel to tIre street.
The Applicant has made a reasonable effort to orient the front fayade of the proposed
residence to the street. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
Variance Reqnested
ParkinJ!., GaraJ!,es, and Carports: For all residential uses that do not have access from an
alley or private road, the following standards shall be met:
When the floor of a garage or carport is above
or below the street level, the driveway cut within
the front yard setback shall not exceed two (2)
feet in depth, measuredfrom natural grade.
D
....-~+-
<2' .-J
a) Yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community
Plan;
Staff finding:
Staff believes that a variance from this standard is required due to unusual site-specific
constraints in regards to the steep nature of the west side of the lot. Staff has proposed a
condition of approval tIrat requires the Applicant to snowmelt the proposed driveway to
minimize any safety issues related to the steepness of the drive. Staff finds tIris criterion to
be met.
b) More effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or
provision responds to; or
c) Be clearly necessary for reasons offairness related to unusual site
specific constraints;
Staff Finding:
Staff feels that the proposed variance to allow a driveway cut to exceed 2 feet in depth is
needed within the front yard setback to provide safe driveway access due to tIre steep nature
of the lot. Staff finds tIrat tIre variance is needed for reasons of fairness and safety related to
unusual site specific constraints of the sloping lot. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
9
r)
,
0,
~ ..j
Variance Requested
SECONDARY MASS
The secondary mass standard requires that
all new structures shall locate at least 10%
of their total square footage above grade in
a mass, which is completely detachedfrom
the principal building, or linked to it by a
subordinate connecting element. Accessory
buildings such as garages, sheds, and
Accessory Dwelling Units are examples of
appropriate uses for the Secondary Mass.
........----
.........."'>-.-.
-'
a) Yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community
Plan;
Staff Finding:
Staff feels that the proposed design does not effectively meet the Secondary Mass Standard.
Staff believes that it is important on this site to break up the roof line and the massing on the
street facing elevation because the lot is so steep. Staff feels that a previous residence design
(attached as Exhibit "D") more effectively distinguished between the masses on the subject
site. Staff finds this criterion not to be met.
b) More effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or
provision responds to; or
c) Be clearly necessary for reasons offairness related to unusual site
specific constraints;
Staff Finding:
Staff understands that this is a difficult site to design a residence that minimizes the massing
appearance. However, Staff feels that the design does not more effectively address the issue
that the secondary mass standard responds to. Staff believes that there are unusual site-
specific constraints in relation to this site, but given the fact that a previous design was
submitted for the subject lot that more clearly defines separate masses and breaks up the roof
lines, Staff does not support the proposed variance. Staff finds this criterion not to be met.
10
I
I
I
~ !
"i "'i
m
~
"'I
i
1"""1
11
: .., (0
,,' '0,0 c,::t. - . " - 'llU" I, \]
o -" . , , ': '! I . '"
'-1 ; r'~!i10 or: II ' 'i [' J I' _ . i
I . II r]Q~ --~J.:,' '-jrlr I
; If' ILQ~ 'i -' =c.__,.. .LJ: " ill
: '. OU:;! I .'1 , l ';
I I, -r'" ."1..1..- I . , I
i, ':L' -Dr --" 'I
' : : -U-W 1 J I !
4'l~O rfJgr' , I,. !I/rill:!'
, " ~D' ,
' , . , ::J ,
' " C,.-I- i' ,
' I i IJ I Ii
II ' 1dU "
, liDo
'ii, ~,
v
11 utA
):~klC
-\ ~z:~
~ Z-t
)J (l\ -:1 ~ -
~~~\~ Ql
'€t~fi\
L..ot
fit S-
g~~ It; _ J
/
0-
~ ~~ ~
---
--r-:
-( ~--4 ::::;
",
. ,
v
to,,,
MEMORANDUM
~
To: Development Review Committee
From: John Niewoehner, Community Development Engineer
Reference DRC Caseload Coordinator
Date: March 13, 2002
Re: Lot 11. Silverlode Subdivision, 8040 Greenline Review
Attendees:
John Niewoehner, Community Development Department
James Lindt, Community Development Department
Tom Bracewell, Sanitation District
Jerry Nye, Street Department
Phil Overeynder, Water Department
Richard Goulding, Engineering
Janette Whitcomb, Environmental Health
Brian Flynn (not present, comments submitted bye-mall)
Stan Mathis, Architect representing owner (fax:419-391-8199,
PMBADDOGS@hotmail.com)
The Development Review Committee reviewed the Lot 11 -Silverthorne proposai at their March
13,2002 meeting, and has compiled the following comments:
General
1. Sufficiency of Submittal: DRC comments are based on the fact that we assume the
submitted site plan is accurate, that it shows all site features, and that proposed
deveiopment is feasible. The wording must be carried forward exactly as written unless
prior consent is received from the Engineering Department. This is to alleviate problems
and delays related to approvals tied to "issuance of buiiding permit."
2. R.O.w. Impacts: Ifthere are any encroachments into the public rights-of-way,
encroachments must either be removed or be subject to current encroachment license
requirements.
3. Greenline Exemption: Per Mr. Mathis, if a Greenllne Exemption is awarded, the owner
would like to build a 3489 sf dwelling. Without the exemption, the size is limited to 3172
sf.
Site Review
1. Enqineerinq Department:
a. No construction material storage or dumpster in ROW unless encroachment permit is
obtained.
b, Existing easements and irrigation ditch need to be shown on plans.
c. Driveway must be designed to prevent storm water from flooding street.
2. Community Development Enqineer:
The foundation drainage system should be separate from site storm drainage system.
Rain and snowmelt runoff must be detained and routed .onsite. These facilities must be
shown on drainage plans and submitted for approval prior to application for building
permit. The drainage may be conveyed to existing landscaped areas if the drainage
report demonstrates that the percolation rate and the detention volume meet the design
storm.
~
n
Page 2 of 4
March 13 2002
Lot 11, Silverlode Subdivision
The City drainage criteria needs to be implemented completely. This Includes but is not
limited to erosion control, soil stabilization, and re- vegetation in disturbed areas. Also,
there needs to be an analysis of where the drainage will flow.
3. Zoninq:
No comments from Zoning Officer at this time.
4. Housinq Department:
No comments at this time.
5. Fire Protection District:
No comments at this time.
6. Parks Department:
Pursuant to the Williams Ranch PUD #16 letter B "prior to any issuance of any building
permits, the applicant shall submit a detailed landscape plan that identifies trees six
inches in diameter and over. Landscaping in any right-of-way should also be included on
the landscape plan. As of 3/12/02 a detailed plan has not been submitted.
A detailed site plan needs to be submitted with the identification of any trees (numbers
and species). If any of these trees located on site are to be disturbed during construction
a tree permit will be required prior to the issuance of a building permit. As of 3/12/02 no
such permit has been applied for. Contact the Parks Department for tree permit: 920-
5120.
Response #4, Parks Department strongly encourages the applicant to landscape the
property to match with the native vegetation currently located on site and around the
neighborhood.
Response #5, Parks will not allow any disturbance beyond the building envelope for any
reason. A construction fence will be required to be placed along the entire building
envelope, except for that area along Silverlode Drive. This fence will be erected prior to
any construction activity begins and kept up during the entire project. There will be no
storage of construction materials, backfill, tools or construction traffic outside of the
protective fence. Erosion control measures may be necessary depending upon the site.
There is no excavation or disturbance of the native area outside of the protective fence.
Any exception to this will require a review by Parks Department Staff.
No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of
equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed within the drip line of any tree on site.
A vegetation protection fence shall be erected at the drip line of each individual tree or
groupings of trees to remain on site. This fence must be inspected by the city forester or
his/her designee (920-5120) before any construction activities are to commence.
A native vegetation protection fencing system shall be installed at the edge of the
construction envelope. This fencing shall consist of a barrier fencing at the edge of the
building envelope. Beyond this barrier fencing shall be silt fencing installed to the City of
Aspen standards. Additional erosion control measures may be necessary depending
upon the site.
7. Buildinq Department:
a. No comments at this time.
~
r'j
Page 3 of 4
March 13 2002
Lot 11, Silverlode Subdivision
8. Citv Water Department
a. The area above the '8040 green line' in Silverlode is served by a private water system
with a pump station.
b. The pipe in the street should be pre-tapped but the tap may be too small to meet the
fire flow requirement. Some people have put in a tank to remedy the problem.
c. All uses and construction will comply with the City of Aspen Water System standards
and with Title 25 and applicable portions of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing
Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code.
9. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
a. Sewer service stub should be in street.
10. Environmental Health
a. No comments at this time.
11. City Communitv Development - Planninll
<<<James - - Did you have any comments??>>>>
12. Electric Department
No comments at this time
13. Holv Cross Electric
No comments at this time
14. Citv Attorney
No comments at this time
15. Streets Department
No comments at this time
16. Historic Preservation Officer
No comments at this time
17. Pitkin County Planninll
No comments at this time
16. County and City Disaster Coordinator
No comments at this time
Approvals
1. Engineering:
The applicant receives approval from the City Engineering Department
(920-5080) for design of improvements, including grading, drainage,
transportation/streets, landscaping, and encroachments within public
right of way.
~
,
r\
,......1
Page 4 of 4
March 13 2002
Lot 11, Silverlode Subdivision
2. Parks: The applicant receives approval from the Parks Department (920-5120)
for vegetation species and for public trail disturbance.
3. Streets:
The applicant receives approval from the Streets department (920-5130)
for mailboxes, finished pavement, surface materials on streets, and
alleyways.
4. Permits:
Obtain R.O.W. permits for any work or development, involving street cuts
and landscaping from the Engineering Department
D:\DRC\SilverlodeLot11.doc
.~
/"""
.
10'.._, ".
i,M'
,~
FEBRUARY 3, 2002
APPLICANT:
JOHN ELMORE
P.O. BOX318
WRlGHTSVILLE BEACH, NC. 28480
910.256.4780
REPRESENTATIVE:
STAN MATHIS
7515 COAL CREEK CIRCLE
WIDEFIELD, CO. 80911
970.618.6636 CELL
719.390.6065
JAMES LINDT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF ASPEN
130 S. GALENA STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
RE: LOT II, SIL VERLODE SUBDIVISION
DEAR JAMES,
MY CLIENT, JOHN ELMORE, THE OWNER OF LOT II, IS REQUESTING AN 8040
GREEN LINE REVIEW THAT WOULD ALLOW A 10% (317 SQ FT.) INCREASE OF THE
ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA OF 3172 SQ. FT. RESULTING INA TOTAL ALLOWABLE FLOOR
AREA OF 3489 SQ. FT. THIS INCREASE IS ALLOWED PER PARA. II OF ORDINANCE 54, SERlES
OF 1994. THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE MEETS THE CRlTERlA OUTLINED IN SEC 26.435.030
(8040 GREEN LINE REVIEW) OF THE ASPEN ZONING CODE.
THE PROPOSED RESIDENCE WILL HAVE 5 BEDROOMS, ASSOCIATED LIVING
SPACES, A TWO-CAR GARAGE, AND A SMALL BASEMENT. THE ENTRY LEVEL AND
GARAGE ARE BUILT WELL INTO THE HILL SIDE, THE LIVING LEVEL IS OFF SET BACK
FROM THE FACE OF THE ENTRY LEVEL AND THE UPPER BEDROOM LEVEL IS AT THE REAR
OF THE BUILDING ENVELOPE. THE STEPPING BACK OF EACH LEVEL WILL RESULT IN A
MASSING THAT HIDES THE ADDITIONAL 317 SQ. FT. REQUESTED. THE ATTACHED SITE
SECTIONS SHOW THAT THE ROOF OF THE LIVING ROOM.AND DINING ROOM SHIELpS THE
UPPER BEDROOM LEVEL. THE MASSING OF THE STRUCTURE AS SEEN FROM THE STREET
(WEST) ELEVATION MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN
STANDARDS. THE RESIDENCE WILL HAVE THE APPEARANCE OF A TWO STORY
STRUCTURE WITH A HEIGHT WELL BELOW THE ALLOWABLE LIMIT. HIE PROPOSED
STRUCTURE MEETS THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ATTACHED SOILS REPORT FROM H-
P GEOTECT.
RELIEF FROM CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS IS ALSO REQUESTED.
THOSE STANDARDS ARE: I) BUILDING ORIENTATION. THERE IS HARDSHIP CREATED
BECAUSE THE STREET FACING BUILDING ENVELOPE IS NOT PARALLEL TO THE STREET.
2) BUILD TO LINES. THE SLOPE OF THE SITE CREATES A HARDSHIP IN THAT THE
DRlVEW A Y BECOMES TO STEEP TO ACCESS THE GARAGE AND PROVIDE THE FIFTH
PARKING SPACE REQUIRED BY THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE. THE PROPOSED SET BACK
IS 9' -0". 3) SECONDARY MASS. THE SLOPE OF THE PROPERTY AND NO ALLEY CREATES A
HARDSHIP CREATING A SECONDARY MASS. 4) PARKING, GARAGES AND CARPORTS. (d). THE
SLOPE OF THE PROPERTY REQUIRES A DRlVEW A Y CUT MORE THAN 2 FT.
THE FOLLOWING EXPLAINS HOW THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT COMPLIES WITH
THE 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW STANDARDS," NO DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE PERMITTED AT,
ABOVE, OR ONE HUNDRED FIFTY (150) FEET BELOW THE 8040 GREENLINE UNLESS THE
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAKES A DETERMINATION THAT THE PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT COMPLIES WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH BELOW."
~
(1
I. THE PARCEL ON WHICH THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS TO BE LOCATED IS SUITABLE
FOR DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERlNG ITS SLOPE, GROUND STABILITY CHARACTERlSTICS,
INCLUDING MINE SUBSIDENCE AND THE POSSIBILITY OF MUD FLoW, ROCK FALLS AND
AVALANCHE DANGERS. IF THE PARCEL IS FOUND TO CONTAIN HAZARDOUS OR TOXIC
SOILS, THE APPLICANT SHALL STABILIZE AND REVEGETATE THE SOILS, OR, WHERE
NECESSARY, CAUSE THEM TO BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE TO A LOCATION
ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY.
RESPONSE: THE LOT HAS A DEFINED BUILDING ENVELOPE IN WBICH ALL
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS CONTAINED EXCEPT FOR THE DRlVEW A Y ACCESS
CUT WHICH IS ALLOWED IN THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE. THE SOILS REPORT
AND LETTER FROM THE SOILS ENGINEER THAT SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSES THIS
LOT IS INCLUDED IN THE APPLICATION PACKET.
2. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE AFFECT ON
THE NATURAL WATERSHED, RUNOFF, DRAINAGE, SOIL EROSION OR HAVE CONSEQUENT
EFFECTS ON WATER POLLUTION.
RESPONSE: THE PROPOSAL WILL HAVE DRYWELLS TO RETAIN RUNOFF AS
REQUIRED BY THE CITY ENGINEERlNG DEPARTMENT
3. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT DOES NOT HA VB A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE AFFECT ON
THE AIR QUALITY IN THE CITY.
RESPONSE: THERE IS NO ADVERSE AFFECT ON AIR QUALITY.
4. THE DESIGN AND LOCATIONOF ANY PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, ROAD, OR TRAIL IS
COMPATIBLE WITH THE TERRAIN ON THE PARCEL ON WHICH THE PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT IS TO BE LOCATED.
RESPONSE: THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE TERRAIN ON
THE PARCEL. THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE IS TO BE BUILT INTO THE HILL SIDE
AND STEP BACK FROM THE STREET AS THE TERRAIN RlSES TO THE EAST AS
SHOWN IN THE ATTACHE]) SITE SECTIONS.
5. ANY GRADING WILL MINIMIZE, TO THE EXTENT PRACTICABLE, DISTURBANCE TO THE
TERRAIN, VEGETATION AND NATURAL LAND FEATURES.
RESPONSE: THERE WILL BE LIMITED SITE DISTURBANCE BEYOND THE BUILDING
ENVELOPE TO FACILITATE ACCESS AND STAGING ])URlNG CONSTRUCTION,
EROSION CONTROL, AND REVEGETATION OF DISTURBED AREAS.
6. THE PLACEMENT AND CLUSTERlNG OF STRUCTURES WILL MINIMIZE THE NEED FOR
ROADS, LIMIT CUTTING AND GRADING, MAINTAIN OPEN SPACE, AND PRESERVE THE
MOUNTAIN AS A SCENIC RESOURCE.
RESPONSE: THE PLACEMENT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS WITHIN THE
BUILDING ENVELOPE AND WILL BE BUILT INTO THE BILL SIDE PRESERVING
SMUGGLER MOUNTAIN AS A SCENIC RESOURCE.
7. BUILDING HEIGHT AND BULK WILL BE MINIMIZED AND THE STRUCTURE WILL BE
DESIGNED TO BLEND INTO THE OPEN CHARACTER OF THE MOUNTAIN.
I""',
n
:)'
,
RESPONSE: HOW THE HEIGHT AND BULK OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE IS
MINIMIZED AND IS COMPATIBLB WITH THE TERRAIN HAS BEEN ADDRESSED
ABOVE IN THIS LETTER. FURTHER, THE ATTACHED BUILDING ELEVATIONS AND
SITE SECTIONS DEMONSTRATE THIS GRAPHICALLY.
8. SUFFICIENT WATER PRESSURE AND OTHER UTILITIES ARE AVAILABLE TO SERVICE THE
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
RESPONSE: THERE IS SUFFICIENT WATER PRESSURE AND OTHER UTILITIES
A V AILABLE TO SERVICE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
9. ADEQUATE ROADS ARE A V AILABLE TO SERVE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, AND
SAID ROADS CAN BE PROPERLY MAINTAINED.
RESPONSE: THE ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY IS OFF SIL VERLODE DRlVE AND
PROPERLY MAINTAINED.
ADEQUATE INGRESS AND EGRESS IS AVAILABLE TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SO AS
TO ENSURE ADEQUATE ACCESS FOR FIRE PROTECTION AND SNOW REMOVAL
EQUIPMENT.
RESPONSE: THE 16-FOOT WIDE DRlVEW A Y OFF SILVERLODE DRlVE IS ADEQUATE
INGRESS AND EGRESS ACCESS FOR FIRE PROTECTION AND SNOWREMOV AL
EQUIPMENT.
THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ASPEN AREA COMMUNITY PLAN:
PARKSIRECREATION/TRAILS PLAN ARE IMPLEMENTED IN THE PROPOSED pEVELOPMENT,
TO THE GREATEST EXTENT PRACTICAL.
RESPONSE: THESE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE IMPLEMENTED IN THE PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT, TO THE GREATEST EXTENT PRACTICAL, AS DEMONSTRATED BY
THE PEDESTRlAN EASEMENT SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED SITE PLAN.
THANK YOU FOR ACCEPTING THIS APPLICATION. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE
CALL ME.
BEST REGARDS
STAN MATHIS
FOR JOHN ELMORE
Mar 06 21 04:56p
MAR-06-2002 10:03
f"\an Math i s
. .-P GEOTECH
7~3S181SS
p_5
P.0<1/l:lS
~ech
Hepwcu'dl-Pawlak GwlecbniC::l'Il\ Inc.
SlIZ0 C....ly R.ad J54
Glenwuud Springs, Ct)IO'nldo &1601
Phone: 97(J-94S.7'88
Fax: '"'0.945.8454
bpg.o0bPll",t<eh.cum
March 5. 2002
John Elmore
P.O, Box 318
Wrightsville, North Carolina 28480
Job No. 102 140
Subject:
Geotechnical Conditions for 8040 Greenline Review, Proposed
Residence, Lot 11, Silverlode Subdivision, Aspen, Colorado.
Dear Mr. Elmore:
As requested by Stan Mathis, we made a reconnaissance of the subject site on March 5,
2002. The purpose of our work was to evaluate the geotechnical conditions with
respect to the proposed construction based on our observations alld experience in the
area. We previously conducted a subsoil study for design of foundations at the site and
presented our fIndings in a report dated February 25,2002, Job No. 102 140.
Proposed Coll5truclion: The proposed construction is generally similar to that
described in our previous report. We have been provided plans and sections that show
the proposed residence will consist of a two story wood frame slrncture over a walkout
basemellt level. The wallcout basement level will generally be structural over a
crawlspace except when it is underlain by a partial basement for mechanical equipment.
Cut depths are typically planned to be up to about 16 to 18 feet except in the mechanical
room which will be up to about 22 fee!.
Geotechnical Conditions: The subsoils in the proposed building area consist of glacial
moraine containing poorly sorted gravel, cobble and boulder deposits in a silty sand
matrix (Bryant, 1971) and were encountered in our borings to the maximum depth
drilled of 20 feet. Boulders up to several feet in size are embedded in the deposits and
exposed throughout the property. The natural terrain in the proposed building area
slopes down to the west at grades between about 20 % and 45 %. The hillside on the lot
appears to have had a relatively stable, recent geologic history. Existing residences are
located 00 the adjacent lots. Vegetation consists of scattered aspen trees. There was up
to about 2 feet of snow cover at the time of our site reconnaissance.
Conclusions and Recommendations: Development of the property as proposed should
be feasible based on the geotechnical conditions. There are no geologic hll7.ards that
would make the proposed construction infeasible. The steep natural slopes and
propo~ed cut depths should be considered in the ptoject planning and design.
Generally, cut slopes should be sloped at 1 V, horizontal to 1 vertical or flatter or
retained such as with temporary sboring. Orner recommendations presented in our
previous report which are applicable should also be observed.
Mar 06 21 04:56p
, M~-1il6-2002 113:\34
I")n Mal'h i s
H-P GEOTECH
'1"""'3918199
p.6
P.03/03
lohn Elmore
March 5, 2002
Page 2
Limitations: This review was conducted according to generally accepted geotechnical
engineering principles and practices in this area at this time . We make no warranty
either ellpressed or implied. Our fIndings are based on a site reconnaissance and review
of published geologic maps. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by our
client for planning and preliminary design purposes. We are not responsible for
technical interpretations by others of our information.
If there are any questions or if we may be of further assistance. please let \Ill know.
Sincerely.
Rev. by: SLP
JZA/ksw
cc: Stan Mathis
REFERENCE
Bryant, B.. 1971. Geologic Map of the Aspen Quadrangle, Pitkin County, Colorado.
U.S. Geological Survey Map GQ-933.
!-l-P GEOT~CH
TOTAL P.03
~
,
1""1
~
p.2
FEB. 19,2002
JOHN ELMORE
P.O. BOX 318
WRIGHTSVlLLE BEACH, NC. 28480
970.920.]368
910.256.4780
JAMES LINDT
CITY OF ASPEN
COMMUNITY DEVEI.OPMENT DEPARTMENT
130 S. GALENA STREET
ASPEN, COLORADC B1611
RE; LOT 11, SIL VERLODE SUBDIVISION
DEAR JAMES,
I,JOHN ELMORE, OWNER OF THE PROPERTY REFERENCED ABOVE.
AUTHORIZE STAN MATHIS TO ACT IN MY BEHALF FOR THE 8040 GREEN LINE
REVIEW AND VARIANCE FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN STANDARDS.
THANK YOU,
~
ORE
. ,..
~
,~
CITY OF ASPEN
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY'
PLANNER: James Lindt DATE: ~!~(~'2-.
PROJECT: Lot 11, Silverlode Subdivision
REPRESENTATIVE: Stan Mathis
OWNER: John Elmore
TYPE OF APPLICATION: 8040 Greenline Review
DESCRlPTION: 8040 Greenline Review for Lot 11, Silverlode Subdivision. Silverlode
SubdivisionIPUD allows for 90% of allowable FAR as set forth in the
former AH Zone District to be constructed on the free market lots if the lot is
approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission for the square footage
through an 8040 Greenline Review.
Land Use Code Section(s)
Section 26.435.030,8040 Greenline Review; Section 26.410, Residential Design
Standards
Review by:
Public Hearing:
Referral Agencies:
Planning Fees:
City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission.
No, only a public meeting is required.
Engineering, Parks, Fire, Water, ACSD
Planning Deposit Minor ($1205), covers six (6) hours of review
time.
Engineering, Minor ($190)
$1395.00 (additional hours are billed at a rate of $205/hour)
Referral Agency Fees:
Total Deposit:
To apply, submit the following information: (Also see Section 26.304.030,
Application and Fees)
1. Contained within a letter signed by the applicant, the applicant's name, address
and telephone number, and the name, address, and telephone number of any
representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant.
2. The street address, legal description, and parcel identification number of the
property proposed for development.
3. A disclosure of ownership of the parcel proposed for development, consisting of a
current certificate from a Title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice
in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all
mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the
1'""\
~
.J
parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development
Application.
4. An 8 1/2" X II" vicinity map locating the subject parcel within the City of Aspen.
5. A site plan depicting the proposed layout and the project's physical relationship to
the land and its surroundings. The site plan shall depict, at a minimum, the
following information:
a. The boundary of the property for which development is requested.
b. Existing and proposed improvements.
c. Significant natural features, including natural hazards and trees.
d. Existing and proposed grades as two foot contours, with five foot intervals for grades
over ten (10) percent.
e. Proposed elevations of the development.
f. A description of proposed construction techniques to be used.
6. A site improvement survey certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the
State of Colorado, showing the current status of the parcel including the current
topography and vegetation. (This requirement, or any part thereof, may be waived
by the Community Development Director if the project is determined not to
warrant a survey document.)
7, A written description of the proposal and a written explanation of how the
proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the
development application.
8. Additional materials, documentation, or reports as deemed necessary by the
Community Development Director.
9. Signed fee agreement
10. 14 Copies of the complete application packet and maps. HPC = 12; PZ = 10;
GMC = PZ+8; CC = 7; Referral Agencies = 1/ea.; Planning Staff = 2
11. Copies of prior approvals (Resolutions, Ordinances, Agreements, Covenants,
etc.).
In the event that you should have any questions regarding the foregoing, please do not
hesitate to contact the Community Development Department at 920-5090.
* The foregoing summary is advisory only and is not binding on the City. The opinions
contained herein are based on current zoning and regulations, which are subject to
change in the future, and upon factual representations that mayor may not be
accurate, The summary does not, in any way, create a legal or vested right.
y\c,l~I~~f.,.""",,'LoTIJ, 5rwcAtffie.'SUB.
n Colorado United States
~
Copyright~t988-1999M1croso1tCofporatlonandJorilS$IIlllllieIs.Allrights~ http://www.ellIlediameps.Cllm.
Copyr!ght@l998Geograp!llcOfltllTechnolcgy,AIIrighl5reserved.@l!l98HaYlgationTechnolog\es.AJrightsreselVed.
Oyds
200
400
600
"'''
379604 8-775
SILVIA DAVIS
1~,2 03/09/95 02: 03P PG 1 rr 11
'PITKIN COUNTY CLERK & REL- ;1)ER
REC
55.1210
DOC
"
ORDINANCE NO.S-~
(SERIES OF 199~
AND
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN GRANTING FINAL REVIEW
FOR SUBDIVISION, PUD, GMQS EXEMPTION,
VESTED RIGHTS FOR THE WILLIAMS RANCH PROJECT TO CONSTRUCT
35 DEED RESTRICTED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS AND
15 FREE MARKET LOT ON A PARCEL LOCATED IN SECTION 7,
TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE 6TH PM
WHEREAS,
the
Smuggler
Consolidated Mines
Corporation
("Applicant"), represented by Tom Stevens and Gary Wright,
submitted an application to the Planning Office requesting approval
of the Williams Ranch development which consists of 35 deed
restricted affordable housing units, 15 free market lots, Planned
Unit
Development,
SUbdivision,
Rezoning,
GMQS
Exemption,
Annexation, 8040 Greenline Review, and Special Review; and
/...
WHEREAS, the Williams Ranch property is located immediately
\.
adjacent to the City of Aspen in the AF-l zone district of pitkin
County; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant did file on December 12, 1991 with the
City Clerk of the City of Aspen a petition for Annexation to annex
the subject property to the City of Aspen, and
WHEREAS,
on January 13, 1992, City Council did adopt
Resolution No.4, Series of 1992, finding substantial compliance
with section 31-12-107(1), C.R.S.; and
WHEREAS,
the City Council, by Resolution No. 12, Series of
1992, at its regular meeting on March 23, 1994, did find and
determine, following a public h~aring, said petition for Annexation
to be in substantial compliance with __31-12-104 and 31-12-105,
C, C.R.S, and
c
(
37%04
B-775 r:,23 03/09/95 02:03P PG 2~F 11
WHEREAS, the Applicant and the City of Aspen have consented
to that certain Annexation Agreement dated
, 1994; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning commission considered the
Applicant's request at a public hearing on September 13, 1994, at
which time the Commission recommended approval to City council for
the Subdivision, Rezoning, PUD, GMQS Exemption~ and Annexation.
The Commission also granted 8040 Greenline review and Special
Review for parking and open space, subject to conditions in
Planning and Zoning commission Resolution 94- ; and
WHEREAS, the Commission voted 4-0 to recommend approval of
this project to City Council; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to section 24-7-1004 SUbdivision, section
24-7-901 Planned unit Development,and section 24-8-104 GMQS
Exemption, city council may approve the Applicant's request; and
WHEREAS, City council considered the Applicant's request at
a duly noticed public hearing on November 14, 1994 at which time
council determined that this project complies with the applicable
requirements of the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, city council has found that a multi-year development
allotment for one free market unit pursuant to Section 24-8-103(0)
is appropriate to accommoaate this project; and
WHEREAS, the approvals granted herein are specifically
conditioned upon City Council approval of said Petition for
Annexation by Ordinance duly adopted.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
2
/,"
'-,
(
(
'-
~
~
,<
37%04
8-775 P-824 03/09/95 02:03P PG 3
OF 11
section 1: Pursuant to section 24-7-1004 Subdivision, section 24-
7-901 Planned unit Development, and section 24-8-104GMQS
Exemption, city council does hereby approve the applicant I s request
subject to the terms and conditions of said Annexation Agreement
and upon adoption by the City council of an Annexation Ordinance
annexing the subject property to the City of 'Aspen; and subject
further to t):1e following conditions:
1. The Zoning Enforcement Officer has recommended the following
conditions of approval that shall be adhered to by the
applicant:
a.
Building envelopes on the free market lots shall contain
all development and disturbance proposed for those, lots.
Natural vegetation shall be maintained outside the
designated building envelopes. This condition shall be
noted on the Final Plat.
b.
No development shall be permitted to encroach into any
easement areas identified on the Final Plat. This
condition shall be noted on the Final Plat.
c. Prior to the development of each lot, a separate
topographical and boundary survey with corner monuments
shall be prepared by a registered land surveyor and
submitted with the building permit.
d. The free market units shall provide one parking space
per bedroom.
e. Allowed floor area square footages shall be based on the
lot areas identified on the Final Plat.
f. Pitkin County I s definition for calculating height and
determining natural grade shall be used for this project.
g.
Lots 3 - 15 have received a PUD variance for the front
yard that addresses the requi'rement of section 24-3-101
Yard (A) (5) , which permits driveways or cut slabs greater
than 30 inches below grade within the required yards.
h.
All heights and FAR calculations shall be verified when
3
/"
'.
c:
(
~
3796104
~ "
P-82, '103/09/95 02:03P PG 4
OF~
B-775
,
working drawings are submitted to the Building [)epartment
for building permit review. The drawings included in the
application packet do not contain adequate detail for
this level of review.
2. The applicant shall comply with the following conditions
regarding pedestrian areas:
a. The Final Plat shall identify pedestrian easements on all
lots that are adjacent to roads.
b. Hard surface pedestrian walking areas shall be placed on
one side of all roads within the subdivision and along
one side of the main access road across Mollie Gibson
park to Smuggler Mountain Road.
c.
All hard surface pedestrian walking areas
maintained in a sui table walking condition
round basis.
shall be
on a year,
d. The Covenants and approvals shall specify whether the
Homeowner's Associations or individual property owners
are responsible for snow removal and maintenance of these
walkways.
3 .
The applicant shall complete an ACSD Collection System
agreement, and shall comply with ACSDRules, Regulations, and
Specifications, prior to the issuance of any building permits.
4. The following conditions of approval from the' Environmental
Health Department, shall be adhered to by the applicant:
a. The applicant shall adhere to the fugitive dust control
plan filed in the Environmental Health Department.
b. The applicant shall file a fireplace/woodstove permit for
each structure with the Environmental Health Department,
prior to the issuance of any building permits.
c. Construction hours shall be limited to 7:00am to 10:OOpm
to minimize construction noise on neighboring properties.
5. The applicant shall comply with the following conditions as
they relate to the Housing Office:
a. The applicant may choose the first time purchasers of the
affordable housing units, as long as each purchaser
complies with tr.e Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines
and each purf-haser has been approved by the APCHA.
b.
All resale, affordable housing units shall come under the
jurisdiction of the APCHA and its guidelines.
4
I
I
37%04
I""',
B-775 P-82b 03/09/95 02:03P PG 5
~
OF i.l
"
'.,
The Master Deed Restriction shall be filed and approved
by the Housing Office within 180 days of City Council
approval of the project.
. d. Ten of the Resident Occupied "RO" units shall comply with
the RO requirement for the City of Aspen in the 1994
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Office 1994 Affordable
Housing Guidelines. The remaining five RO units shall
meet all the requirements of the Housing Guidelines,
except there will be no asset or income limitations for
these residents.
c.
6. The turnaround at the intersection of Freesilver Road and
Williams ,Ranch Drive shall be redesigned subj ect to approval
of the city Engineer and the Fire Chief. Alternately, the
applicant shall install residential sprinkler systems in all
residential units.
7 .
Lots 1
installed
drawings.
15 shall have a residential sprinkler system
and these shall be indicated on the building permit
8 .
Development on Lot 15 is limited to eighteen feet in height
(plus five feet to the mid-point), as calculated by pitkin
County's Land Use Code. All other lots 'are subject to the 25
foot height limitation of the City of Aspen, and are
calculated using pitkin County's definition for height.
(
9.
The water pump serving the upper
records of pump maintenance and
inspection by the Fire Marshall.
lots shall have adequate
servicing available for
10. The emergency access road shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide
and maintained in a passable condition on a year round basis.
The improvements agreement, declarations, and covenants shall
specify that snow removal will be provided by the Homeowner's
Associations for the emergency access road.
11. The allowable floor area for the free market parcels shall not
exceed 90% of what is permitted in the AH zone district. If
the proposed floor area for any free market parcel is over 80%
of the permitted floor area for the AH zone district, then a
complete 8040 Greenline Review by the Planning and Zoning
Commission shall be required prior to the issuance of any
building permits for that lot. In the 8040 Greenline Review
process, particular attention shall be focussed on
requirements 7 and 8, which provide for the preservation of
the mountain as a scenic resource and design to blend into the I
open character of the mountain.
(
12. Lots 1
15 shall have an engineer evaluate the site
5
I
!
(
c
/'
\
37%04
8-775 P-82~03/09/95 02:03P PG b
"
OFr-:l
conditions to recommend foundation design, prior to building
permit review on each parcel.
13. A licensed engineer shall submit a report addressing the
foundation design for the affordable housing units, prior to
the issuance of any building permits.
14. As discussed in the referral comments dated August 24, 1994
from the Engineering Department, the applicant shall comply
with the following:
a. The free market units shall be required to provide for
on-site stormwater detention, prior to the issuance of
any building permits.
b. Soil erosion controls and the debris interceptor shall
be indicated on the Final Plat drawings. Construction
drawings for each phase of work shall be designed by a
licensed engineer and indicate appropriate runoff control
measures. The plans shall be submitted and approved by
the Engineering Department, prior to any earthmoving
activities.
c.
The applicant shall dedicate public right-of-way or an
easement for Spruce street along the north property
boundary on Lots 1 - 4 and provide a seven foot easement
for snow storage along these lots.
d.
All access roads shall be a
width. This also applies
Williams Court.
minimum of 20 foot driving
to the' "driveway" called
e_ The "grass over paver blocks" or similar system for the
emergency access lane off Spruce Street shall be designed
and engineered to handle emergency response vehicle
loads. This plan shall be reviewed and approved by the
Fire Marshall, prior to the issuance of any building
permits.
f. The applicant shall submit construction drawings and
specifications, stamped by a registered engineer; and
obtain written permission from Engineering prior to any
road work, utility construction, or grading/drainage
construction.
g. Prior to signing the Final Plat, the applicant shall
submit a letter by a registered engineer stating that the
road designs meet the requirements of Section 24-7~
1004(C) (4) (a) (10) and (13).
h.
The Final Plat shall indicate a 20 mph speed limit signs
to be installed by the applicant as identified in the
6
379604
"
,
(
(
\...
8-775 p-EI""'J 03/09/95 02:03P PG 7
~11
Traffic Report.
i.
In addition to the required 100 foot diameter turnaround
for the intersection of Freesilver Road and williams
Ranch Drive, a seven foot buffer shall be designed
outside this turnaround that will be for drainage, snow
storage space plus a five foot pedestrian path. This
shall be identified on the Final Plat. ' ""
,
j. An easement for the snow storage areas wi thin the
development shall be indicated on the Final Plat.
k. The applicant shall provide three single globe antique
street lights for this project, one at the intersection
of Williams Drive and Teal Court, one at the
intersection/turnaround of Williams Ranch Drive and
Freesilver Road, and one at the intersection of Williams
Ranch Drive and Freesilver Road. Intermediate, low level
street lighting shall be provided between intersections.
Design, style and location of these lights shall be
approved by the City Engineer.
1. All utilities, except natural gas, shall be stubbed out
to the property lines prior to paving the access roads.
m.
Any property monuments
construction (including
a land surveyor.
removed or disturbed during
landscaping) shall be reset by
n.
Prior to Final
shall be set
subdivision.
Plat approval, property corner monuments
on the, external boundaries of the
o. The Final Plat and subdivision agreement shall include
a note specifying that trash storage and recycle areas
will be located on private property and not within access
and utility easements.
p. The Final Plat must meet the requirements of Section 24-
7-1004 (D) of the Municipal Code. The Plat shall also
include certificates of plat approval for utility
location and easement width by all utility companies and
approval by all easement holders on the property.
q. The "Final Plat" will consist of all boundary,
certificate, site, engineering/and architectural
drawings approved by the City. All sheets containing
engineered drawings must be stamped by a registered
en9lineer.
r.
The applicant shall agree to join any future improvement
districts which may be formed for the purpose of
7
".
'-.
(
'\,18
\ .
\
'.\.
F
19.
(
379604
[<-775 P.!""'3
03/~9/95 02:03P PG 8
011
s.
constructing improvements in the adjacent Smuggler area
public rights-of-way.
The applicant shall consult city engineering (920-5080)
for design considerations of development within pUblic
rights-of-way, parks department (920-5120) for vegetation
species, and shall obtain permits for any work or
development, including landscaping, wi thin public r ights-
of-way from the city street department (920-5130).
Guest parking areas shall be delineated on the Final Plat
and all pull in parking spaces shall be redesigned to
comply with the requirements of the Municipal Code.
t.
15. No accessory dwelling units are permitted to be constructed
in any of the Williams Ranch residences.
16.
As stated
September
following:
in the Parks Department referral comments dated
7, 1994, the applicant shall comply with the
\\ a.
\
The applicant shall obtain an easement from the ditch
owners for the proposed trail along Salvation Ditch.
Specific information regarding trail standards and
materials shall be included in the application. The
applicant should dedicate this as a public easement.
b.
Prior 'to the issuance of any building permits, the
applicant shall submit a detailed landscape plan that
identifies trees six inches in diameter and over.
Landscaping in any right-of-way should also be included
on the landscape plan. The Parks Department will review
and approve the final landscape plan to be recorded with
the Final Plat documents.
c. The applicant shall comply with ordinance 37 Series of
1991 as it relates to irrigation methods.
17. The applicant shall pay the $157,360 park development impact
fee prior to the issuance of any building permits, unless the
applicant provides a cost breakdown of the park improvements
as specified Section 24-5-608.
The Final Plans shall indicate a small ditch water feature
along the Salvation Ditch alignment to maintain the historic
character of this area.
The applicant shall provide a Final Plat and Subdivision
Improvement Agreement, satisfactory to the City, Attorney,
Engineer and Planning Office, detailing the costs of all
proposed public improvements within 180 days of City Council
review. The guarantee of these improvements shall be in place
8
(
\,
,(
\
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
\:6.
37%04
B-775
Ji130
03/09/95 02:03P PG 9
f1F 11
before the issuance of any building permits. All publ ic
improvements shall be completed, in place and accepted by the
appropriate agency before issuance of any Certificate of
Occupancy's.
The applicant shall explore restricting residential
development on the remaining 30 acres in Pitkin County, with
the exception of ' a night watchman's quarters, not to exceed
1,500 square feet in floor area.
The City Engineer shall pursue a text amendment to allow
variations of subdivision design standards as set forth in
Section 24-7-1004(C) (4) of the Aspen "Municipal Code.
Only Lot 5 shall have access via Spruce Street.
Prior to the commencement of any construction activities on
this property, the applicant shall receive final Annexation
and Rezoning approvals from the City of Aspen.
The applicant"shall comply with the recommendations made by
Bruce Collins in his geologic report dated January 19, 1994.
All material representations made by the applicant
application and public meetings shall be adhered
considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise
by other conditions.
in the
to and
amended
The applicant shall grant a Public Recreation Easement to the
city of Aspen for the open space parcel adjacent to Salvation
Ditch.
27. The applicant agrees not to seek any variances to the 25-foot
height limit for structures, as based upon the Pitkin County
regulation pertaining to the measurement of building heights.
Section 2:
Pursuant to section 24-6-207 of the Aspen Municipal
Code, city Council does hereby grant the Applicant vested rights
for the Williams Ranch Subdivision site development plan as
follows:
1.
The rights granted by the site specific development plan
approved by this Ordinance shall remain vested for three (3)
years from the date of final adoption specified below.
However, any failure to abide by the teJ:;'ms and conditions
attendant to this approval shall result in forfeiture of said
9
c'
(
l
37%1214
.
B-775 P-831
1""\
1213/1219/95 1212:1213P PG 10 OF 11
r')
vested property rights. Failure to timely and properly record
all plats and agreements as specified herein or in the
Municipal Code shall also result in the forfeiture of said
vested rights.
2. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of
referendum and judicial review.
3. Nothing in the approvals provided by this Ordinance shall
exempt the site specific development plan from subsequent.
reviews and/or approvals required by this Ordinance or the
general rules, regulations or ordinances ,of the City provided
that such reviews or approvals are not inconsistent with the
approval granted and vested herein.
4. The establishment herein of a vested property right shall not
preclude the application of ordinances or regulations which
are general in nature and are applicable to all properties
subject to land use regulation by the City of Aspen, including
but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and
mechanical codes. In this regard, as a condition of this site
development approval, the developer shall abide by any and all'
such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical
codes, unless an exemption therefrom is granted in writing.
section 3: The City Clerk shall cause notice of this Ordinance to
be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City
of Aspen, no later than fourteen (14) days following final adoption
hereof. Such notice shall be given in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of .the approval
of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a
vested property right pursuant to Title 24, Article 68,
Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following
described property: '
The property shall be described in the notice and appended to said
notice.
Section 4: This ordinance shall not become effective unless and
until t~,e City Council approves the Petition for Annexation by duly
enacted ordinance annexing the subject property to the City of
10
(
(
";:"(.'-;}c.ll.ILf
, .
~-,,~ P-S3203/09/95 02:03P PG 11 OF 11
~ (""\
(
. Aspen.
Section 5: A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the
K day of ~~, 1994 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council
Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado.
Fifteen (15) days
prior to the hearing a public notice of the hearing shall be
published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of
Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by
the City Council of the City of Aspen on the~
1994.
day of ~"L
,
, 't;; I:;~~
Joh Bennett, Mayor
, 1IIIUij;;...:..
""''''i Q F). 's....,.
.' ,\ .........~
I> ......~ tJ "'. v~,\,
U ATTEST: \~,
.~ -)';'AL:I:j
. - ..... .. ,,'Oi
" . .,..,
.: i'I'
.. ..~
Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this
~, 1994.
~/iday of
~ t3~.. w;/t
John ennett, Mayor
11
,
j
i
,;
;
.~
-'
.......
c-~~
Her;h.Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc.
5020 '-'ounty Road 154
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Phone: 970-945-7988
Fax: 970-945-8454
hpgeo@hpgeotech.com
SUBSOIL STUDY
FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN
PROPOSED RESIDENCE
LOT 11, SIL VERLODE SUBDIVISION
ASPEN, COLORADO
JOB NO. 102 140
FEBRUARY 25, 2002
PREPARED FOR:
JOHN ELMORE
P.O. BOX 318
WRIGHTSVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28480
:~
~ ~
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNlLAL, INC;
, February 25,2002
John Elmore
P.O. Box 318
Wrightsville, North Carolina 28480
Job No. 102 140
Subject:
Report Transmittal, Subsoil Study for Foundation Design, Proposed
Residence, Lot 11, Silverlode Subdivision, Aspen, Colorado.
Dear Mr. Elmore:
As requested, we have conducted a subsoil study for the proposed residence at the
subject site.
Subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings drilled in the proposed
building area consist of about 1 foot of topsoil overlying relatively dense, silty sandy
gravel containing cobbles and lJoulders. About 5 fe,et ?f granular fill was encountered
above the natural gravels in Boring 2. Groundwater was not encountered in the borings
at the time of drilling or when checked 4 days later.
The proposed residence can be founded on spread footings placed on the natural
granular subsoils and designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 psf.
The report which follows describes our exploration, summarizes our findings, and
presents our recommendations. It is important that we provide consultation during
design, and field services during construction to review and monitor the implementation,
of the geotechnical reconunendations.
If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact us.
, Sincerely,
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
JZAlksw
f""'1
f""\ '
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1
SITE CONDITIONS .......................................... 1
MINE SUBSIDENCE ......................................... 2
FIELD EXPLORATION ....................................... 2
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ................................... 3
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ................................. 4
FOUNDATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4
FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS ..........;..........5
FLOOR SLABS ........................................ 6
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6
SITE GRADING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7
SURFACE DRAINAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8
LIMITATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 8
FIGURE 1 - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURE 2 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURE 3 - LEGEND AND NOTES
FIGURE 4 - GRADATION TEST RESULTS
TABLE I - SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
H-P GEOTECH
r",
o
,
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
This report presents the results of a subsoil study for a proposed residence to be
located on Lot 11, Silverlode Subdivision, Aspen, Colorado. The project site is shown
on Fig. 1. The purpose of the study was to develop recommendations for the
foundation design. The study was conducted in accordance with our agreement for
geotechnical engineering services to John Elmore dated January 28,2002.
A field exploration program consisting of exploratory borings was conducted to
obtain information on subsurface conditions. Samples of the subsoils obtained during
the field exploration were tested in the laboratory to determine their classification and
other engineering characteristics. The results of the field exploration and laboratory
testing were analyzed to develop recommendations for foundation types, depths and
allowable pressures for the proposed building foundation. This report su=arizes the
data obtained during this study and presents our conclusions, design recommendations
and other geotechnical engineering considerations based on the proposed construction
and the subsoil conditions encountered.
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
The proposed residence will be a two story wood frame structure over a walkout
basement (entry) level and essentially cover the entire building envelope shown on Fig.
1. A subbasement is proposed below the entry level. Ground floors will be slab-on-
grade. Grading for the structure is proposed to be relatively extensive and involve cut
depths up to about 20 to 22 feet. We assume relatively light foundation loadings,
typical of the proposed type of construction.
If building loadings, location or grading plans change significantly from those
described above,. we should be notified to re-evaluate the recommendations contained in
this report.
SITE CONDITIONS
The site was vacant and covered with about 1 to 1 V2 feet of snow at the time of
our field exploration. An existing boulder wall is located in the southwest portion of
H-P GEOTECH
~
,. i
t"')
-2-
the lot. It appears that some fill is located on the lot due to previous grading. The
ground surface in the building envelope is gently rolling with a moderately steep to
steep slope down to the west at grades between about 20 % and 45 %. There is about 22
feet of elevation difference across the building envelope and about 38 feet across the lot.
The terrain becomes steeper downhill to the west of the building enyelope with grades
up to about 50 %. The base of the steep mountain slope is located to the east of the lot.
Vegetation consists of aspen and cottonwood trees. Scattered cobbles and boulders are
exposed on the ground surface.
MINE SUBSIDENCE
The site is located within the Smuggler Mountain mining district and may be
underlain by old mine works. 'Evidence of surface mining activity was not observed on
the property. The risk of future ground subsidence due to underground mine works in
this area is typically low, in our opinion, but the property should not be considered
totally risk free. If further investigation of the underground mine works is desired, we
should be contacted.
FIELD EXPLORATION
The field exploration for the project was conducted on February 7,2002. Two
exploratory borings were drilled at the locations shown on Fig. 1 to evaluate the
subsurface conditions. Access was limited due to the steep slopes and snow cover. The
borings were advanced with 4 inch diameter continuous flight augers powered by a
track-mounted CME-45 drill rig. The borings were logged by a representative of
Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc.
Samples of the subsoils were taken with 1% inch and 2 inch LD. spoon
samplers. The samplers were driven into the subsoils at various depths with blows
from a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches. This test is similar to the standard
penetration test described by ASTM Method D-1586. The penetration resistance values
are an indication of the relative density or consistency of the subsoils. Depths at which
the samples were taken and the penetration resistance values are shown on the Logs of
H-P GEOTECH
,...,.,
~
- 3 -
Exploratory Borings, Fig. 2. The samples were returned to our laboratory for review
by the project engineer and testing.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Graphic logs of the subsurface conditions encountered at the site are shown on
Fig. 2. The subsoils consist of about 1 foot of topsoil overlying relatively dense, silty
sandy gravel containing cobbles and boulders. About 5 feet of granular fill was
encountered above the natural gravels in Boring 2. Drilling in the dense gravel with
auger equipment was difficult due to the cobbles and boulders and drilling refusal was
encountered in the deposit.
Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the borings included
natural moisture content, density and gradation analyses. Results of gradation analyses
performed on small diameter drive samples (minus 1 Ih inch fraction) of the natural
coarse granular soils are shown on Fig. 4. The laboratory testing is summarized in
Table 1.
No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling or when
checked 4 days later and the subsoils were slightly moist to moist.
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS
Based on geotechnical considerations, it should be feasible to construct the
proposed residence on the site with proper planning and design. The proposed
relatively deep cuts will tend to increase the risk of construction induced slope
instability. The building foundation and retaining walls will need to be designed to
resist appropriate lateral earth (backfill) pressures. The uphill cut may encounter very
hard and cemented bedrock and could require rock excavation techniques, such as
blasting, chipping and splitting. Very large boulders may also be encountered.
Spread footings bearing on the natural soils or bedrock should be feasible for
building support. There could be some differential settlement due to possible variable
bearing conditions. We should observe the excavation to evaluate the suitability of the
bearing materials.
H-P GEOTECH
,,-..,
~
-4-
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
FOUNDATIONS
Considering the subsoil conditions encountered in the exploratory borings and
the nature of the proposed construction, we recommend the building be founded with
spread footings bearing .on the natural granular soils.
The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a
spread footing foundation system.
1) Footings placed on the undisturbed natural granular soils should be
designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 psf. The
allowable bearing pressure can be increased by 1/3 for eccentrically
loaded footings provided the resultant of all forces acts within the central
third of the footing section. Based on experience, we expect settlement
of footings designed and constructed as discussed in this section will be
about 1 inch or less.
2) The footings should have a minimum width of 16 inches for continuous
walls and 2 feet for isolated pads.
3) Exterior footings and footings beneath unheated areas should be provided
with adequate soil cover above their bearing elevation for frost
protection. Placement of foundations at least 42 inches below exterior
grade is typically used in this area.
4) Continuous foundation walls should be reinforced top and bottom to span
local anomalies such as by assuming an unsupported length of at least
10 feet. Foundation walls acting as retaining structures should also be
designed to resist lateral earth pressures as discussed in the "Foundation
and Retaining Walls" section of this report. '
5) All existing fill, topsoil and any loose or disturbed soils should be
removed and the footing bearing level extended down to relatively dense
natural granular soils. Voids created by the removal of large rocks
should be backfilled with compacted sand and gravel or with concrete. If
H-P GEOTECH
~
/
f1
-5-
water seepage is encountered, the footing areas should be dewatered
before concrete placement.
6) A representative of the geotechnical engineer should observe all footing
excavations prior to concrete placement to evaluate bearing conditions.
FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS
Foundation walls and retaining structures up to about 15 feet tall which are
laterally supported and can be expected to undergo only a slight amount of deflection
should be designed for a lateral earth pressure computed on the basis of an equivalent
fluid unit weight of 45 pcf for backfill consisting of the on-site granular soils.
Cantilevered retaining structures up to about 15 feet tall which are separate from the
residence and can be expected to deflect sufficiently to mobilize the full active earth
pressure condition should be designed for a lateral earth pressure computed on the basis
of an equivalent fluid unit weight of 35 pcf for backfill consisting of the on-site granular
soils. Foundation walls and retaining structures greater than 15 feet tall should be
, designed for a uniform lateral earth pressure in psf of 24 and 18 times the wall height ,in
feet for the restrained condition and active condition, respectively. Backfill should not
contain vegetation, topsoil or oversized rock.
All foundation and retaining structures should be designed for appropriate
hydrostatic and surcharge pressures such as adjacent footings, traffic, construction
materials and equipment. The pressures recommended above assume drained conditions
behind the walls and a horizontal backfIll surface. The buildup of water behind a wall
or an upward sloping backfill surface will increase the lateral pressure imposed on a
foundation wall or retaining structure. An underdrain should be provided to prevent
hydrostatic pressure buildup behind walls.
Backfill should be placed in uniform lifts and compacted to at least 90% of the
maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Backfill in
pavement and walkway areas should be compacted to at least 95 % of the maximum
standard Proctor density. Care should be taken not to overcompact the backfIll or use
large equipment near the wall, since this could cause excessive lateral pressure on the
wall. Some settlement of deep foundation wall backfill should be expected, even if the
H-P GEOTECH
rj
,~
- 6-
material is placed correctly, and could result in distress to facilities constructed on the
backfill.
The lateral resistance of foundation or retaining wall footings will be a
combination of the sliding resistance of the footing on the foundation materials and
passive earth pressure against the side of the footing. Resistance to sliding at the
bottoms of the footings can be calculated based on a coefficient of friction of 0.50.
Passive pressure of compacted backfill against the sides of the footings can be calculated
using an equivalent fluid unit weight of 400 pcf. The coefficient of friction and passive
pressure values recommended above assume ultimate soil strength. Suitable factors of
safety should be included in the design to limit the strain which will occur at the
ultimate strength, particularly in the case of passive resistance. Fill placed against the
sides of the footings to resist lateral loads should be a granular soil compacted to at least
95 % of the maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum.
FLOOR SLABS
The natural on-site soils, exclusive of topsoil, are suitable to support lightly
loaded slab-on-grade construction. To reduce the effects of some differential
movement, floor slabs should be separated from all bearing walls and columns with
expansion joints which allow unrestrained vertical movement. Floor slab control joints
should be used to reduce damage due to shrinkage cracking. The requirements for joint
spacing and slab reinforcement should be established by the designer based on
experience and the intended slab use. A minimum 4 inch layer of free-draining gravel
should be placed beneath basement level slabs to facilitate drainage. This material
should consist of minus 2 inch aggregate with at least 50% retained on the No.4 sieve
and less than 2 % passing the No. 200 sieve.
All fill.materials for support of floor slabs should be compacted to at least 95 %
of maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Required
fill can consist of the on-site gravels devoid of vegetation, topsoil and oversized rock.
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM
Although free water was not encountered during our exploration, it has been our
experience in the area that local perched groundwater may develop during times of
H-P GEOTECH
,,......,
()
-7-
heavy precipitation or seasonal runoff. Frozen ground during spring runoff can create a
perched condition. We recommend below-grade construction, such as retaining walls,
crawlspace and basement areas, be protected from wetting and hydrostatic pressure
buildup by an underdrain system.
The drains should consist of drainpipe placed in the bottom of the wall backfill
surrounded above the invert level with free-draining granular material. The drain
should be placed at each level of excavation and at least 1 foot below lowest adjacent
fInish grade and sloped at a minimum 1 % to a suitable gravity outlet. Free-draining
granular material used in the underdrain system should contain less than 2 % passing the
No. 200 sieve, less than 50% passing the No.4 sieve and have a maximum size of
2 inches. The drain gravel backfIll should be at least 1 Vz feet deep.
SITE GRADING
There is a risk of construction-induced slope instability at the site due to the
proposed extensive cuts. We have not performed a formal slope stability analysis of the
site. The recommendations presented below are based on our previous experience in
the area and are intended for pre1iminary design purposes.
Cuts up to about 20 feet deep in the gravel soils should be sloped to at least 1 V2
horizontal to 1 vertical or flatter. Steeper and deeper cuts may be feasible and should
be evaluated on a site specific basis. Temporary shoring such as soil nailing could be
needed to maintain the deep cuts within the property limits.
Embankment fIlls should be limited to about 10 feet and be compacted to at least
95 % of the maximum standard Proctor density near optimum moisture content. Prior to
fIll placement" the subgrade should be carefully prepared by removing all vegetation
and topsoil and compacting to 95 % standard Proctor density. The fIll should be
benched into the portions of the hillside exceeding 20% grade.
Permanent unretained cut and fIll slopes should be graded at 1 V2 horizontal to
1 vertical or flatter and protected against erosion by revegetation or other means. The
risk of slope instability will be increased if seepage is encountered in cuts and flatter
slopes may be necessary. If seepage is encountered in permanent cuts, an investigation
should be conducted to determine if the seepage will adversely affect the cut stability.
This office should review site grading plans for the project prior to construction.
H-P GEOTECH
~
n
- 8 -
SURFACE DRAINAGE
The following drainage precautions should be observed during construction and
maintained at all times after the residence has been completed:
1) Inundation of the foundation excavations and underslab areas should be
avoided during construction.
2) Exterior backfill should be adjusted to near optimum moisture and
compacted to at least 95 % of the maximum standard Proctor density in
pavement and slab areas and to at least 90% of the maximum standard
Proctor density in landscape areas.
3) The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the building should be
sloped to drain away from the foundation in all directions. We
recommend a minimum slope of 12 inches in the first, 10 feet in unpaved
areas and a minimum slope of 3 inches in the first 10 feet in paved areas.
4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of
all backfill.
LIMITATIONS
This study has been conducted in accordance with generally accepted
geotechnical engineering principles and practices in this area at this time. We make no
warranty either expressed or implied. The conclusions and recommendations submitted
in this report are based upon the data obtained from the exploratory borings drilled at.
the locations indicated on Fig. 1, the proposed type of construction and our experience
in the area. Our fmdings include interpolation and extrapolation of the subsurface
conditions identified at the exploratory borings and variations in the subsurface
conditions may not become evident until excavation is performed. If conditions
encountered during construction appear different from those described in this report, we
should be notified so that re-evaluation of the recommendations may be made.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by our client for design
purposes. Weare not responsible for technical interpretations by others of our
information. As the project evolves, we should provide continued consultation and field
services during construction to review and monitor the implementation of our
H-P GEOTECH
r"\
,.-,
, $
- 9 -
, recommendations, and to verify that the recommendations have been appropriately
interpreted. Significant design changes may require additional analysis or modifications
to the recommendations presented herein. We recommend on-site observation of
excavations and foundation bearing strata and testing of structural f1l1 by a
representative of the geotechnical engineer.
Sincerely,
~-t.jQ
Jordy Z. Adamson, J ., P
Reviewed by:
Steven 1. Pawlak, P.E.
JZA/ksw
cc: Stan Mathis
H-P GEorECH
(J
~
z
, APPROXIMATE SCALE
1" = 20'
LOT 10
8070
102 140
8090
\
\
\.
"
"
,
--..
---
--
I
I
BORING 1
-_.!_----------,
r----
I
" 1 I
'~ I
" I
1\ LOT 11 I
I " I
\ "--.. I
1 '-----, I
I "" I
I . \. I
I BORING 2 \. I
I \._____~-_
I I
I I
I I
1 I
,
\\ /'--"(
, \ BUILDING / I .......
, --.. ...... ,ENVELOPE / / I
--..~--~ / ~
, --- - ----
-=-----
L_-- ---
8080
...,
I
I
-
......--
---
--
-
-
LOT _-
S<)(JNDARIES
-
-
--
...
....
-
\)'('.\~
'('.\-O\)<<-
S\\-~
8060
HEPWORTH PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
LOCA TlON OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
- - 8090
\.
\
8080
LOT 12
"
"
"-
8070
- - 8060
Fig. 1
n
BORING 1
ELEV.= 8086'
BORING 2
ELEV.= 8079'
8090
8090
8085
8085
29/3
8080
8080
20/6. 58/1
WC=11.8
8075 +4=19 8075
- -200=42 12/12 -
'" WC=8.9 '"
'" '"
"- . 00=121 "-
."
-200=27
c: c:
0 APPROXlMA TE ENTRY l.EIIEL 0
:;:; :;:;
0 8070 8070 0
> 12/3 >
'" "
G:i G:i
APPROXlMA TE LOYoER l.EIIEL FLOOR
42/12
WC=8.S
+4=14
, -200=25
8065
8065
8060
25/12
8060
8055
8055
Note: Explanation of symbols is shown on Fig. 3.
102 140
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL. INC.
LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
Fig. 2
.~'
~
~
~
p
~
42/12
--;0.
NOTES:
f""'\
LEGEND:
FILL; clayey sand with grovel, medium dense, slightly moist to moist, mottled brown, organics.
TOPSOIL: sandy silty cloy with gravel and cobbles, organic, firm, slightly moist. dark brown.
SAND AND GRAVEL (SM-GM); silty, with cobbles and boulders,' dense, slightly moist. brown.
Relatively undisturbed drive sample; 2-inch 1.0. California liner sample.
Drive sample: standard penetration test (SPT), 1 3/8 inch 1.0. split spoon sample, ASTM 0-1586.
Drive sample blow count: indicates thot 42 blows of a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches were
required to drive the California or SPT sampler 12 inches.
T
Practical drilling refusal. Where shown above bottom of log,' indicates thot multiple attempts were
made to advance the boring.
Depth at which boring had coved when checked on February 11, 2002.
1. Exploratory borings were drilled on Februory 7, 2002 with a 4-inch diometer continuous flight
power auger.
2. Locations of exploratory borings were measured approximately by toping from the northeast corner
property stake.
3. Elevations of exploratory borings were obtained by interpolation between contours on the site plan
provided and checked by instrument level.
4. The exploratory boring locations and elevations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied
by the method used.
5. The lines between materials shown on the exploratory boring logs represent the approximate boundaries
between material types ond transitions moy be gradual.
6. No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling or when checked 4 days later.
Fluctuation in water level may occur with time.
7. Laboratory Testing Results:
WC = Water Content ( % )
DO = Dry Density ( pet )
+4 = Percent retained on' No. 4 sieve.
-200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve.
102 140
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
LEGEND AND NOTES
Fig.
3
r,
~
~
o
w
Z
<(
I-
W
a::
I-
Z
W
<.>
a::
w
Q.
H'I'lJROUElER ANALYSIS
1lIlE ..........
U.s. STANDARD SERIES
10
20
Cl
Z
Vi
If)
<(
Q.
I-
.. z
t!
." a::
W
Q.,
30
20
'0
'00
.001
.002
.005.009 .019 .0:37
.074 .150
.300 .800
1.18
2.36
4.75
9.5'2.5 19.0 37.5
o
76.2 152 203
'27
a.AY TO SILT
DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN, MILLIMETERS
I
ANE
GRAVEL 19 %
LIQUID LIMIT %
SAMPLE OF: Silty Sand
SAND
39
SAND I GR..... ___
MEDIUM ICOARSE flNE L ~
% SILT AND CLAY 42
PLASTICITY INDEX %
I coeeu:s
%
with Gravel
FROM: Boring 1 at 9 Feet
I H'tORCIIElER ANALYStS I S1E'JEMALYSlS
n", REAOINGS u.s. STANDARD SERIES I a.EAR SQUARE OPENINGS
2. HR. 7HR t 1/2- 3" 5.8- S'
4S MIN. 15 MIN. ..... ,..... 4WIH. 1 MIN. f200 "00 ,." "" "S ,. ,. '/If' 3/"-
0 '00
'0 oo
20 so
0 Cl
W
Z 30 70 Z
~ Vi
If)
W 40 so <(
a:: Q.
l- I-
Z .. .. Z
w w
<.> u
a:: so ." a::
W W
Q. Q.
70 30
so 20
90 '0
100 0
.001 .002 .005 .009 .00S .0S1 .07' ;150 .300 .600 1.18 2.36 ..,. 9.5'2.5'9.0 37.0 711.2 '52 203
'27
DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MIWMETERS
a..AY 10 SILT I F1NE :u.. ICOARSE I FINE arm COARSE CCIIBl.ES
GRAVEL 14 % SAND 61 % SILT AND CLAY 25 %
LIQUID LIMIT
%
PLASTICITY INDEX
%
SAMPLE OF: Silty Sand with Gravel
FROM: Boring 2 at 14 Feet
102 140
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
GRADATION TEST RESULTS
Fig. 4
<.
. '"
o
u
z
...J
<(
u
Z
::t: f-
U ~
W f-
I- >-
o 0:
W 0
C)Wf-
~aj;:2
<(<(0
...Jf-en
S :S
<(
0-
,
::t:
I-
0::
o
S
0-
W
::t:
f"""
n
-, ~
"
" > " ,
""
> ~ > ,
"' Cl "'
w ~ r" ~
. Cl -;:; Cl I'
>
~ ~ r" .~ .c
0 ~ -;:; ....
~ u .~ .~
i5 0 "0
~
~ 0 to
w "0 "' "0
w to en to
"' >- "'
en en
OJ
>- >- >-
:t:: ",- :t::
'iji U~ '(ii
0 w
w > "
z in
~ ~ ~ '"
z w Z ~
~ w "-
0 . ~
u ~ ~
z 0 ~
~ u
u X
~ w !
~ ~ 0
~ ~ ~
~ ~
.
~
~
~
w
w
~
w
~ 0 ~
~ 5 " !
d ~
~
~ ~ 0 w
Z Z 0 C'l r--- l!l
w in N > C'l
u w o;;!- C'l
~ ~ ci in
w ~ Z , ,
.
,
, .
0 ! OJ ~
z CO
~ C'l
~
z
0
2 ~ ,
0
:::J ~
~
(fl ~ ~ 0;;!-
w OJ
> ! .
~ ~ ~
~ I,
~
~ > ~ ,
~
~ > in u C'l
~ ~
~ 0 z ~ ~
~ w
Z 0
~ w ~
~ z co OJ l!l
~ ~ w ~
~ ~ co
~ ~ z ~ co
i5 0 ~
z ~ u
z z o;;!-
~ . OJ o;;!-
0 . . ~
~ w
~ 0
u
g
~
. ~
~
~, z ~ C'l
~ "'
0
w
o
...
o
z
<Il
o
..,
(fl
f-
-'
:::J
(fl
UJ
0:
LL
o
>-
0:
<(
2
L
....
. .
. ..
...
....
....
11
r\
SilverLode3282002
March 28, 2002
From G. M Wilk Wilkinson, Fidelity Trust Bldg. Inc., The New Consolidated Standard!
FultonlDella S. etc. Mining Company d.b.a. Aspen Free SiIverMining Co., and Aspen
Iv.(t. Construction Co.
Re: Lot 11 SilverLode Subdivision 8040 GreenIine Review, Residential Design Standard
Variances:
To City of Aspen Community Development Dept.
Jasmine Tygre, Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Hearing Tue. April2, 2002
Adjacent Land owner public comment for the Application Record.
As representative for Fidelity Trust Building Inc. and Aspen Free Silver Mining
Company and as an Owner of properties adjacent to the Silver Lode Subdivision and
adjacent to Lot 11 we respectfully summit the following commertts for the record
1. We have no objection the approval of the John Elmore requests as stated in the
Public Notice. John has always built unique and quality homes in the Aspen and
Pitkin County Area. He has always lived up to his commitments, and has added a
great deal to the community of Aspen and Pitkin County over he years.
2. The design standards and request meet the Silver Lode Subdivision approvals, the
historic zone density and F.A.R in place on the property since 1955 County
zoning and Master Planning in 1976 and all amendments there too,
3. It is noted for the record that there are utility easements, rights to access utilities, a
tunnel easement for the Cowenhoven Tunnel and a road access easement which
runs between SilverLode Lot 10 and 11. See Silver Lode Subdivision Plat Book
37 page 6, Book 37 page 7. These rights of way and access easements are for the
benefit of adjacent properties ( Pride of Aspen USMS 7883, General Jackson
USMS 3941, the Ballarat USMS 4438, Glendale USMS 6859, and Parcel E. The
above respondents George M Wilkinson, Fidelity Trust Bldg. Inc., Aspen Free
Silver Mining Company, Aspen Mt. Construction Co. are owners of part of the
mining claims and mineral interests which have use of these easements and rights
of way between Lots 10 and 11. Any changes to the lot grade, house placement,
and easement should take into account the use of the easements and rights of way
for the benefit of the ( Pride of Aspen USMS 7883, General Jackson USMS
3941, the Ballarat USMS 4438, Glendale USMS 6859, andParcelE) properties.
Sincerely
George M. Wilk Wilkinson
tI,,~
rJ'
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
. ":"'u"":><' .,':.....:'...,/.....,....<.,'.'.....:.. -':(':'.<":",' ':':,,:,:'.... .... ": c"':", '.'>:.:.'
Sy Kelly * Chairman
Paul Smith * Treas
Michael Kelly * Secy
JolmKeleher
Frank Loushin
B",ce Matherly, Mgr
March 18, 2002
James Lindt
Community Development
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: I;ot 11, Silverlode Gre.ellline
Dear James:
. ., .. " .." ..
'",:.:. .. ,"
The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District currently has sufficient treatmellt and collecti(Jll
, system capacity to serve this project. Sewer service has been stubbed into the lot. Th~ total
connection fees for the project can be estilllate<i Onc~,?t)tailrd plan forthe development become
available. A new tap permit will be required. All fees rnustbe paid prior to the issuance of a
building permit. '
The landscaping that is shown in the l.Itility easement to the north of the property will not be
permitted.
Please call if you have any questIons.
Sincerely,
~ ~ ",-^.Mk~
Bruce Matherly. ,'.',., '
District Manager
565 N. Mill St.,Aspen, CO 816111 (970)925~36011 FAx (970) 925-2537
'''''.::;,,;::<;
Mar 06 21 04:55p
M~R, 5 2002 1: 26PM
~an Mathis
J ..... ..... ";' ".
(ITKIN COUNTY TITLE
r,3S181SS
NO. 2977
p_2
P.2
<
: CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP
Pitkin County Title, Inc., a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent in the State of Colorado hereby certifies that
JOHN A. ELMORE II is the owner in fee simple of the following described property:
LOT11,
SIL VERLODE SUBDIVISION, according to the Subdivision Plat thereof filed for record in Plat Book 37 at Page
3 and First Amendment thereof recorded August 20, 199B In Plat Book 45 at Page 97.
COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO
Subject to encumbrances, easements, rights of way and recorded maners.
This certificate is not to be construed to be a guarantee of title and is furnished for informational purposes only.
ARY 21, 2002@8:00A.M.
Mar
06 21 04:56p ,~an Mathis
MAR, 5.2002 1:21PM PITKIN COUNTY TITlE._",,__
,
~3918199
NO, 2977
p.3
,I'd, ...
P. 3
C'I.-rY UP' .A oS lo'E1t
'1IXI!:IIPr1'l'o.I1 WJu!rrT
DI." Rl>1" : "o.t.../~\
/l-OJ..-()\ ~
COlW!CTIOIl
WARRANTY OEeO
onv ~ .-....
lDCEMPT FROM HIIl8'tr !
DATE" RE.. NO. l ,.,.,. .
l(~~l ~ -,......,
THIS DEED. """"e October 25, 2001,
Between WILUAMS RANCH JOINT VENTURE A COLORADO GENERAL PARTNERSHIP
'" Ih. CC,,"1y of
.8_ 01 CII, GRANTOR.
ANO JOHN A. ELMORE It. ORl\NTiE
wI1O..ltogal add,..ola: 1900 El\S1WOOD AOAO, S\.IITE 1'. WILMINGTON, NC.28403
"'''''' CCU"1y of . Slate of NC
WfiNESSETH. That for *"d In eon.lderadOn of the lum of ten doll.... and other "god end valuable con.elder.lioR,
the ,e08lpt (tnCl sufftctenc:y at Whlch 1. h....bV acknowtedOed. the grantor hes granted, bergained. ,aid an"
convoyed. end by 'h... p...en.. d_ grant barge/no ...U and con""Y and confirm ""II> Iho gran..o, hi. helm and
ahlgns forever,.U tne N.I prGP8f1Y together WIth ImprO'llementl,l1&ny, situate and ly1no a'l'\d bttlnO In the Counl'y
c:rf pl't1'KIN, State of COLORADO. described as follow.:
tOT I'.
SlLveRLOOE SUBDIVISION. aOCOl'lling \1) !he SubdlvlolOn "'lit tho..", filed fer 'ecord I" Plat Boo. S7 al ".... 3
and Flret ~dn'Ut"t thereof rOCOtdad klgWlt 20. 1898 In Plat Book 45 &1 F'ege 91.
elO
-
:;.
b
~
TOGETHER wtltt au and .lngYl.r tho h..-.clitalNtfttl andappu1t8nVlOM thefoto belengil"'tg, or In anyvrieo
appeneinlng. and the teverston and rev8re1onl.l'Vmalnclere. rente, "BUM and protlta thereof'. and all the est.",.
right. title. Inter._. claim ancJ dam.nd wheteooY.r oftt'l. grenlOl' eltharln taw or equity. of, In and to the above
_'m'd "",mi..., wi.. I'" "",edlt..,II,nllO and ep.......n_. TO HAve AND TO HO~D the .ald p_
&D~ bergalned and described, Wltt1the appurterlef\C88, unto the grantee. nl. htttrs and asSlgns~. ArId the
Gtantor, lor hlrTl8etf. hi. heirs .net ...igns, dOes covel'\BOt. gr."t. batg&ln. and egree ro and with the Grantee. N.
heirs ano asslgna, tha,t at th. tlme of th. ens...ln; and delivery at the preMfits. nets wDlt sOIzed afthe prwntoea
ebov9 QO(1y-v~. 11.. good, """', ~, abSOlUt8 and tndeflNl8lb&e ..tate or Inheritance. In law. in ~&8l11tnple.
and t1.. gooO tight. full power and lawful aU'horilY 10 (Jran'. bargain, .... and convey the lame In Manner and fotrn
IUS &'toreM.td. and V'i..' &he &am. are ftcte and cloer....om IiJlformer .nd other Of8nts. bargain.. Mlos, Mens. 1ID:ee.
aUGAments. encumbr.ance. and resttfctions ofwm.hlVer ktnd Dr nature lOeYIH'. .JlC8plIhO.. maItenI as ....1Onh
on exhibit ~A. ~ched ".rore &nd lncorpotlltOd herein by re't4Jfence. The grantor 1IJ\eU and wiJl WAARANT AND
FOREVER OEFEND m. above llOl\l8iMd p,emla.. In th. quiet .nd peace_ pea_Ion '" the gra...... nia
hen and' uatgns. against ate and ev.", penton or POf"eOnIl. Jawfult~ cfalrni:r1glhe whOle Of llnY ,*r1: th..-.of. The
singular number shall indude the plwaI. the plural the slngu&a... and lP\G us. a' gender a~ be applleable to an
RTNERSI'1IP
YI-"I..... t:..:i:il'"~ ".J(:..."
eoUNTY OF
Thill foregoing InS1rument wu tlCknoW,led re,.". ml_ _day of OC'tOeEA, 2001,
by W'~Ll_S ~I\NC'" JOINT V " COLORIIDO GENEI'U\l PIIRTNER8I11P BY:
ITS,
wtTNESS nd and offtcial seal
my ~on expire.: NOtary PubUc:
S-c..e- .A-\-\"Ct(:~.h rn e f\. t
!11.1I1111'11I1'1."~~~l:.,-
MAR. 5,2002
,
12JPM
I'"">.an Mathis
1lTKIN COUNTY TITlE _....__
P.4
. ."j
rpS181SS
J NO. 2971
.1 . ,:.. .~ I
p.4
Mar 06 21 04:56p
"
I!XHtBIT "A-
1. Twc88forth8yew2QO, natyetdueorpayabt..
2,' Righi of the prop$tor.~ . vcHnor lacIa to .Xh'8:ct Or rwnovehla. ore lheretrom.etloukllhe aame be founCIlo
......otr... 0' ,......- _ promlaea h_ gran"", lIB _ In Un_ ~ P_ l"lIcorrled Oecemll... 22.
1909 In Book 'f38 ...Paoe:!6S, record_ May 20.1948 in Book 175.e Pag8 162 end f'Oecmfea December 24,
11lO2InBook5581P_118.
3. RlaI>t of ...V for d1tcl188 Of ClINlI. -._ by .h. -orttr Of the U_d Slat.. .._.....d In Unhed Sta...
PIJt6nt8 recorded NovembfJr 22. 1910 I., BOOk 139 at Page 3'13. and record~ December 24. '802 hl!look 55 at
P.Q.1iS.
4. P~etu.l right at way,and eaaement'slo D14NIct or drive levels Of tunne18 thrQ\Jgn th. 8ultjec;t pro~ ... e<< fon:h
.net rel8Ned (ndeed recorded March 30,1896 in BoOk 13, at Paoe 425.
5. A..orvatlon by WrIGht & Preuecn MfnSng, Ltd.. 01 any IIlftdlJU SUb-SUrface .nlt mm.ral nghtll below SO fee. below
rh. ~Oft; however. BpectfloallY wift'lovt: any eccompenylng right to ule or In any way buret_" the 8Urface eatal'e
10 obtaln and uae the bef1efit of the own0f8Np of the .ame, aiS Del fOrth In Geed recorded Men::h 22. 1985 in Book
178.at Page 880.
6. Easements. rlgrus of wav anet oil fft4dhtra .. discto.ed Qn ~B.'CI!I Of Sltver10de Subdlvtc)oo and WIUlame RanCh
Sulldlvl.lon. -- May 9. 1995 III PIGI Book 37 ., Pag. 3 and Fr..t amendment "'or801 "''''''decl Auguol 20.
1995 in Pie. Book E at Page 07.
7. U.S. Wevt approveland agreement far Will...... RAn"'" S\lbcII\'teion and S"verhxte SubdM..on ~Of'ct9<S Mcl)' 9.
1995 In BOOk 780 at ""11<I 3118.
8. Term.. candltioM. ptoYl,lona and abllaauana a. 8M forth In Wllflama Ranch. Chy at Aspen Ann.x&tIon
Ag(ee......, rwcolllod MaV g. 1898 In BOok 7lIO at P_ 370.
Q. Thoae ICn11.. liOondldona. provlelons. obngattons. ..a&menta, rven'lCUOna:. aaa...men!ll and .11 mactero ..set font'!
In Cad.....tlon tor SJlverlQde recorded May 12. 1D9S In 8c)oll: 780 flit Ftage 75& U Receptlon No. 381~781 detettng
1he.....orn any r'08tI'tctions I~kadno any p~ce. "rnltatton or dllierimlnatlon bluU!ld Oft race. I:Olor. ret$glon. ,ex,
handJcap, tamll..} "lUll. or n.donal oiIotn.
The abovo Pmtec4ive' Covenillnh ""Ofe 1mt8nded by ~t Amendment recorded November S. 1998 AA AOC8p1lofl
No. 424224.
10, T..",.. COndhlone. "'''''IRion. 8I\d ~"'ona.. aIR fol\llln Easement AII.........ont,fOCOl'dad March 15. '995 In
Book 7711 at Pag. 30'.
11. Encroaehrnent Euement reeatded J\lly 2. '.... Receptto., No. 39438e.
1.2. ConBGnt of Owne... and Mortaa91tB8 to First Amelldmerc to ,... Anal Subdlvreion Plat of Sltv"r~Ode SUbdlYtlllon
.nd W11l1tlMa Ranch SUbdlvl.ron ''''0_ A.llJUlt 20, IIlll8 ... Rec.plion 1l0. 400942_
13. TeJmlS, COndition., ProvtalorMI. ODIigatlone Bftd all maUars .. sat forth In RBIOII.I!Ion Of the ....pen Pfan"ln.g and
Zonlno ComrnlMlon recorded F:'abruery 11, 2000.. ~ecepdon No. 440$91 ,as RMolutlon No, 99-27.
'4. All m......... dlacloaed by Survey of IIIlnn.rAa...Cl....... Inc. _Janu.ry 4. 200. ..Job No. _,011-01.
ll.II'llt'~I".;;=~~I:2,.OP
FEB-19-2002 TUE 04: 50 PI'-'
FAX NO.
f"""\ P' 1
p, 01
c:rol-11A QW'\o~
..'
ASPI!:NIl'ITKlN
COMMUNITY DI!:Vl!:LOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Mrecn'lcnt for Payment or City Dr A~ocn DenloDmcnt ADDlitalion Fte5
CliY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) ond
(bereinaf",r APPLICANT) AGREE AS t'OLLOWS:
1. APPLICANT has submined 10 CITY .n .pplic.tion for
(b;~. THE PROJECl')
2. APPl.lCANT underst.nds .nd .g....s that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 57 (Series of 2000)
est..bli~b.es a fee struCwre for Land Use ;,pplication$ '-'1d the payment of nlJ processing fees. is i.\ condi1ion precedent
to a determination of app~iciltioD completeness.
3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because oflbe size, nalur. or scope of the prop",cd proj...~. it
is not possible f\t thi!t time lo ~s~ertiJin the. fl111 exlen' of the cost.. ilwolve~ in processing t!\c application.
APPLICANT .lId CITY (urlher agree that it Is io Ibe interest of lite parties th.t APFl.1CANT m.kc payment of an
initial deposit. and to tnoreafler permit additional costs to be billed fo APPUCANT on a mont1tJy basis.
APP1..lCANT agrees .Iuditjolla' tosts. may Dcerue fonowing, their hCl\rings andlor appro"'a!,:. APPLICANT a~ee.s he
will he benefited by retaining gr~atu ca~h H<jtJidit)i and will make: additionalpayme:nts upon notifil;~ljon by the
c.ITY when t.hey are 1\~ces~ary as coSlS are incurred. CtTV agrees it will be benefited through the gte:l'ltcr certaulty
of ,ccovering its Ml '0'" 10 process APPLICANT'S application.
4. CITY, and APpLICANT funher agree Ib.t it is impracticable f.r CITY staff to conlplOle
processing ()T present sumcient inronna\ion to the Planni!"g Commission 3ttdfor City Council to enable the praMing
COlluuission and/or Cit)' Council to mue legally required findings for projCl;t considcnlion. un\&ss current billings
arC: paid in (Llll prior to decision.
s. Thercrort. APPL1CANT agrees that in considerarion of Ihe CITY's waiVe!' of ib rigtn to eoUect
full fcc, pri.r t. a determination of applicOlion ,.mpletoness, APPLICANT shan pay an initial deposit in ~"
2lm()\\I\\ of" whicb l.'i (or _ _ hours of Community Developmtnt staff time, and if actual
record.-d costs exceed 'he initial depo,i'. APPl.lCANT ,b.lI pay oddili.nal m.nlllly billing. to CITY 10 reimbu....
dlC CITY for the Pfoccssmg of the application. mentioned abo'Yt, includillg. pOit appro\lal review at a ratt. of $105.00
per pta1')uer ),our aver the initial deposit. Such period;!: puymentsshaJl be made within 30 dilYS o( the billing date.
APPLlCANT fusth~ i\gtees that failure lo pay such accnaect costs shalt bc groupds. for .suspension of proc~s!lillg,
and iu nO case will btdlding pennils be L~'illcd until aU costs a5s()Ci:d~d t.Njth CDse processing. have been paid.
CtTY OF ASPEN
APPLICANT
By:
Julie Ann Woods
Commllnity Developmeot Director
d~~
MaWng AddreUl
_~~ '3'6)
W~i~~ U;He'~~c.h
, (l..J.C.
~ ~1{. ~O
o
1::\~pport\form5\ag1'paya5.do'
1110101
~
(j
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Plans were routed to those departments checked-offbelow:
X ........... City Engineer
X ........... Zoning Officer
o ........... Housing Director
X ........... Parks Department
X ........... Aspen Fire Marshal '
X ........... City Water
X ........... Aspen Consolidated, Sanitation District
X ........... Building Department
X ........... Environmental Health
X ........... Electric Department
o ........... Holy Cross Electric
o ........... City Attorney
X ........... Streets Department
o ........... Historic Preservation Officer
o ........... Pitkin County Planning
o ........... County & City Disaster Coordinator
FROM:
James Lindt, Planner
Community Development Department
130 S. Galena St.; Aspen, CO 81611
Phone-920.5095 Faxc920.5439
RE:
Lot 11, Silverlode Subdivision 8040 Greenline Review
DATE:
3/8/02
DATE OF DRC MEETING: 3/13/02
REFERRAL SCHEDULE
APPLICATION SENT OUT TO REFERRAL AGENCIES*
WRITTEN REFERRALS DUE 3/20/02
3/8/02
Thank you,
r'\
()
FEBRUARY 3, 2002
APPLICANT:
JOHN ELMORE
P.O. BOX 318
WRlGHTSVILLE BEACH, NC. 28480
910.256.4780
REPRESENTATIVE:
STAN MATHIS
7515 COAL CREEK CIRCLE
WIDEFIELD, CO. 80911
970.618.6636 CELL
719.390.6065
JAMES LINDT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF ASPEN
130 S. GALENA STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
RE: LOT I I, SIL VERLODE SUBDIVISION
DEAR JAMES,
MY CLIENT, JOHN ELMORE, THE OWNER OF LOT I I, IS REQUESTING AN 8040
GREEN LINE REVIEW THAT WOULD ALLOW A 10% (317 SQ FT.) INCREASE OF THE
ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA OF 3 I n SQ. FT. RESULTING INA TOT AL ALLOWABLE FLOOR
AREA OF 3489 SQ. FT. THIS INCREASE IS ALLOWED PER PARA. I I OF ORDINANCE 54, SERlES
OF 1994. THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE MEETS THE CRlTERlA OUTLINED IN SEC 26.435.030
(8040 GREEN LINE REVIEW) OF THE ASPEN ZONING CODE.
THE PROPOSED RESIDENCE WILL HAVE 5 BEDROOMS, ASSOCIATED LIVING
SPACES, A TWO-CAR GARAGE, AND A SMALL BASEMENT. THE ENTRY LEVEL AND
GARAGE ARE BUILT WELL INTO THE HILL SIDE, THE LIVING LEVEL IS OFF SET BACK
FROM THE FACE OF THE ENTRY LEVEL AND THE UPPER BEDROOM LEVEL IS AT THE REAR
OF THE BUILDING ENVELOPE. THE STEPPING BACK OF EACH LEVEL WILL RESULT INA
MASSING THAT HIDES TfIE ADDITIONAL 3 17 SQ. FT. REQUESTED. THE ATTACHED SITE
SECTIONS SHOW THAT THE ROOF OF THE LIVING ROOM AND DINING ROOM SHIELDS THE
UPPER BEDROOM LEVEL. THE MASSING OF THE STRUCTURE AS SEEN FROMTfIE STREET
(WEST) ELEVATION MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE RESIDENTIAL DESiGN
STANDARDS. THE RESIDENCE WILL HAVE THE APPEARANCE OF A TWO STORY
STRUCTURE WITH A HEIGHT WELL BELOW THE ALLOWABLE LIMIT. THE PROPOSED
STRUCTURE MEETS THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ATTACHED SOILS REPORT FROM H-
P GEOTECT.
RELIEF FROM CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS IS ALSO REQUESTED.
THOSE STANDARDS ARE: I) BUILDING ORIENTATION. THERE IS HARDSHIP CREATED
BECAUSE THE STREET FACING BUILDING ENVELOPE IS NOT PARALLEL TO THE STREET.
2) BUILD TO LINES. THE SLOPE OF THE SITE CREATES A HARDSHIP IN THAT Tlffi
DRlVEW A Y BECOMES TO STEEP TO ACCESS THE GARAGE AND PROVIDE THE FIFTH
PARKING SPACE REQUIRED BY THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE. THE PROPOSED SET BACK
IS 9'-0". 3) SECONDARY MASS. THE SLOPE OF THE PROPERTY AND NO ALLEY CREATES A
HARDSHIP CREATING A SECONDARY MASS. 4) PARKING, GARAGES AND CARPORTS. (d). THE
SLOPE OF THE PROPERTY REQUIRES A DRlVEW A Y CUT MORE THAN 2 FT.
THE FOLLOWING EXPLAINS HOW THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT COMPLIES WITH
THE 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW STANDARDS," NO DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE PERMITTED AT,
ABOVE, OR ONE HUNDRED FIFTY (150) FEET BELOW THE 8040 GREENLINE UNLESS TfIE
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAKES A DETERMINATION THAT THE PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT COMPLIES WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH BELOW."
.~:r' -- .' ,,0 ,,:,,' ,
~C) 8'11- .i.~f . ~~
, '~'~ " " ".'. ',",,',' A~ i: I.~b ' ,~~ H"
Qj~ :, ~ rr;.", ," ' " ' , "~;;3 ,,~N ..-.'
. \I~,. ., .' '. . ." .xa: ".'0 ;fa" ww .i"m'9'
--:s;:-. """", , " "'.il~ .~.' "'8 E,l<
,'--U~._._'. ",..,' ' ' ~ .,C; ,..-g-e' ,,~ ~ol"
" ,~ " -'::-:--"c:-- - ---:--:--:--":f,;-'lr--m-<.--~~ 0 a
.. S .'8 ..~ .. .. .:1 ~l !HI. :! jlt
~ ~ ",~ li' i! ~Ui ,~~ iH '
/' ~ ::::J" 0 ~~ '~~!.tPl ii!U
1'-r-... ~ . -~z s :o'~~' 'OQ' :f'O
",,-, "'J. r~ :l ~~, :~~.. H 5:g"
, ~ ~ ig ~~ ~~.~ '55'~~S
N Q,) ,]. ~o~Uil! ~'1; ..~...
,~ ~,"', ~,',' ~I ~t:.~;"i!tJ~i
Q), K b' ~'" i~.8H~H, d~,
~ ";:::,' ~J~! .11 !;Hi;; \~~~
~ ~ :::l' ,."..j t~ ~~..~ {jj'<,j ,
Q) Q,)' 0"',,, ~ I~ti ~qif~} H ih
~'" ~'G!~fl,Lnl, u U~'
'.~ .'
C)''"';'
~ Vi ,~
~, ~.,,~,~'
',~",.~, ,
'~'
C)
~
~
,.-
-\-
-~
.:..~.
-:..:
~"
X.
U1
........
,":
...; '1
~-L
~ ~d
llg~
tl.s~ g'
~~"o.'"
,'~~' ~ .
h~i
!'i, t ~
l ~
~ l!~ t.
~ttt!
~HU<
h~ ~~
~Pr
~..t!~
" ~tl, :.',
'Ii~~~ "
, ,~~ {~ '
E 1 i~
i,"tl ~ ~
" l} ~
~-~~!
, .'~
. .,. ~
] '~ " ",
',..I.~~l'
, .. ", ~~J 8
!. '{~~~~
,,~..tf~h..t~} .' '
~S"li" }' K" !'u.,
n !!~~ ~i~ ~, .:: ~l~
lt~&&HI~J; '" 'tJ.,l'l!;
i It'''J3l~~.fj q, ~
l"Hi~~SH~' ".
~h~ih~",~",
.~~ i!..i~!"U_..>" .
, .I r ~~E1:li 'i
.jfd,,!~~~1t~~, " ..
, l,ili:sRI~&.11
~ ~'~'l:t!~~ij.G~
.~ Uil~&~~~f&~ "
~~lh~blhn, '
,h~"
"'~ \
, ',<.\
,~oo ' \' ,
.::s,;(~.\
.~ ,.,""\ ~'
, \ ~
"<I' \' ~i
~:6 .'"
. ()t5' \.
'. \oClN ~~
~Oj , <ll~
..." ~..:
~~ . ~,a.:,
'l::'~ ., \,,~, '
~. ~"~._.:~:S,_.~~~
.--- .
--,
~
'~
'W
t=
t/)
,.---,
~
,~
"<IPj
"'<>
"ll'"
Qi:~'
""..
~--,,~
/ .,',.., '," .-,tf~
"\j,
~",.."
,,~
--
"-
'- I ,
" I '-,
.', .~ '.
"t~ i .
" I. ~
", . tn-'T
a~' ':
'" '-.',',L' '
.....1.,
.b
/,
~-
/
,
"
"-
,
,
,
, "t.
, ..................
,\
-'--
~
~
"""-," ~
y/
...
<:l
'-'I
" ' --
'./':-'-
---
--
---
i. .
. '
U
~'
., '
" ',"" "---,'
, '
, .'
'. '. I
. .' \ .
,
,
""
,
4 ' \ '
! )'
k (
I
N Oo.N~'~_"__
,0 "..'
._.~'-40 g
E~ 0
r' f'.l;' ~,----"
.' ",~-"" '
.... .~~~.~... ..... .
~:, ..~'~:i: '
'__.'.'~,' f!!.
NoLlp~ ..........-JJ ~ll-cr.JCJ-'~/e' ~."
-;;u.l~ i----. d'J.Ll~vrl, ': '~'
-:;.. IVe'r10 e . " '<~/// ~. ~:.
.... .. t r"' S.' ,.. ....- 0 I:
____. ,-,,'cofAQi l' :', ,_/-"< ' $' ,'.
~ '~\_:///>/-/:/- -;. ~. -,
....- . '. .
--
/-
.
',.I. .
I
, I id '
, , . j i 3,! ' I
, rhl~ll'!1
. '. go' H l j " tli I
-l O$@rolfliJlB.~
','
h,
....-- .
.,.,.....'~.w.o: .
~~'
a
U~
:: ..
, -
~ <:l
: i d~
,~
~~
,o(l "
::!~
....tI)~
....Ill::!
....,~,.~
Q Q.... "
"4,"" ,
'~~
~.
:;::r '
.'l:Il~
l;
~
!
\
',,'~ ,
, q).
, ~',
'~
:::s
V:) ,
~
~,
,~.
~
c
~
~.
.....
0:: II, .
~ -~
'2" "
,~"
..... ONI?
, ~ ;""10
,". Z~J6X~
8- ~N"',
t: ()Q....
, 11:, --g
, 0" ~g..
, .ilIil,lj'
~ .~.. ~
5~~g~~1
cn-og~u.E
~.
:E, :
(Of
II
,',' Mi
, ~ Iii
tllll
" hi:;ll'
!UN~ "
IlM.,~
. lUll!
Jflm~h
,~'
~"
" ....
'I'
_......,.,.ttx1i......tl'M/l_' ".
':,' .'. __~ZI""'~._""'\~\IOl15'lI\IZW\'D
'. '.
t""'I
0,
~~.
,_.
D
~.
"
..
ii
! ,...,I'!i\ "- ~..........
-:::::::'::=~'-""r.~r--'" "~
......-..,-_._,-~,'--
_=r:,1Yl~~e>et..;~
.~., .'tt"".
~.-
...",~-~'
.J
~
! ii
:.,'.' I' ;
" i
T
('l
~~1,.~...,._'
Ii _~._
PN
i:"1;~
..~,
u. ;:>,""D",,..,,,M
__.l:":.........l;.;...~' i
~.0J-:
t2Jt:m;tQ= .~.._.. ,
. - ....'
..~=
..:. -'-.T-~-::~--"
~]5El2K~LLVX~
Ii JI.; ..'1' "
(t:>.~~a
.$ ~l6fI46',~
o
t'")
t:::::::r
.w,
~e~Wf1.""" _14
"".. '::'~~
--=...=-:\
:t-jUP "
.~,
~._.t.
000
1
I
,
-~'t~:'&f;QH -
~ ~~
p
o D
CJ 0 ftc
C J
uP
II
, 'I
~'-
-e,e~-- : Off[cg..-=
\
~~
~'F- - "~', "-~ :-"-
~ I
I
::~..~.::.-
_:Zf~~"'-
-'--
,
r-~~
I
::::!:!j
J
i
.-€\. I,
__ _.....:..:._1,.,,, ,
. .' ~-;:-...
. .- _._. -:t:<t--~. t 1#\ ~I:
':'i,;kfi,J-~.l:"c,-,--J..J";~)(-'~T--"
, ~J!gJ.=-~: '.0.':-- .'.
\
I""",
o
~Mir '
- -.--
.. ',", .. : "', .. ...... .. .. .- ." '^'~"-^"~"
~o
,r,;
."~------;-
LmmJ
~'"'7C:aE1'$.
~:n,J'::.J.t;-I.~",--.
--~
--.--- ~. ...----.
-- .. .-, "-"-
--.".,.- .. ,.
'"
.....---....,\.. .:....
..,.....,.'. '\
:._---------,.,....,." .
(]
o
o '
11:~ J:1~1l::\'-"-D",'-
o ".
~
PfJ
~:-
~--Cr------
.....,..-,.......-...... .,-..
_.:._ __..H.'.. .,,',. _, .. __ ".',"""
Ur'
c=:t~:~
- - - __1==
-Ij
-~:_:"-_n:-
-,~'
~ 'tiO~-rH
-
=tfQ1t;l.cctf.,,\lEL--,
Il't/ .-.;..,,;...-1'-0"
--=--
t '
"
'( ~I
'I, ":*, t,
)'i-'--,
i 'i
I :
r=IJ!:' I ,
'm 1dE--. --
JI ..
--- ;
c3 :-
, f\\
'1' r-rr.
i., QlnJ,...".
;' i!
ii'
, ,
~
n
~
, ,
;
. !?t1e-~Wl't_-
C}i
",,' ~"',()...~
' ' ".--
-+,~:::' .'.
I,
I
~ f'!'
~~
.
-
0,
-=1
I
t-'""
~
;
~~
r::'~
~ ~1
~~
q
rn
D,...'
~,.;."""".
~
,\2)
!
-------
Lli
"r
=
.<.;
--"-I
~.
(\
c
.t'!
~
@l,
.{))O'!
-+1
~,
.~
,~;\
~-
1'1..;
-! .
i
11
~'~
-:t?
q,
f~
.,,--..,..
(])C
~~
~~
n
B
~
~
~
o
G'
\-
',--
I, . '
j~
Q
7:.,
IT
i\)1
A~ Q'>
Nt
Q-1
:3
C)
z:
.,
-...........:.l---'
~
~
Ct
"
~
,
,
,f""J
r""'l
'\
~-_.._..-
,
I
i
~iz
(:pZ:
jli
~-~
'D
.s:: IJ"
'i'rt'
.-
j'J
~
B
rt'
~
<Y
8
" ,-
~
"
t"
'"
".
"
2S1
R
~
~
:\1:
,(j>
c:;
G"
,-
-
-
7"i\.D
o~
~
@
CP
-
o
~
,-
(}1
."
I "I
~'
\/
<
~
()
f
l'",".,"'.,'
. ...' ':
-,\'.
H;.
Ij
~
g
~
I'
~
\
c;;:>
.~
~
,-
l~""
~
~7"l
\\, IJ
'~
~'I"
--"5
~
. .- ..
(
\
s;'~
~= ti
(
-
,-
..
r--.
51L~lM.P ~e..
'e~'''t'
, _~L.JlJ\:.c'::~-=
OJ/l.,OIlJG ~-
~
!'-
'"
~
.,
g
&
.~~-
! -I
1 ~ I
A
:'Sl!.~I'__ _ t:>lttve.
:'--U-/Y>S>'T'O"'"
:~~ U!!!t....-
~
-2
~
1&n~I,,:!c.~_~
P! 1 ,
l ~~
.. : !"I
~t I
.
.
L
Ip
~
~
,~
~
\ I
,
;
,
, 'l5lflLVW<i~C
, '~P.',/.Jloecc