HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.550 Aspen Alps Rd.A058-99
~
t-"
)
P~Ri::ES ID;V':;:'.' ~2-0C012
. ,... .# COPIES:~ . CASe NoIAc5a.~"
PLNR:lf :,' I' ':, 'P'"
. . .........., .. J
STEPS~
; "DATE RCvD: IG '1. en. ,
'" . .' "
C:AS.E.NA:ME 550 A~p~;", ,),1:::5 R::.ad 8':'~~) Grocn "'e Revlt~..\.
~~OJ'.~'~~'~:J5!;~ A5.p.~r1 ~1;~::;'Rca::: " CASE TVP:,IS04C G~c~"'lin::: I~e'.' C~'.
QWNIA~P C:\"'lh" & G"~r~c I.li._ . AD~I Box 40:0
REP: A .~n Ri::"'W'c:n ADA:: ? 0 8.:x ~l~ i 3
, " '-., .
.' FEES"DU~:ll'10...,.+.,;50'"' , FEES RCVPj127C
R.~fEI:UlA~SI
PHN:~
PH'~ 9;;C-'12~:
,STAT: I
C/SIZ: Thl': V"co:::l.m::~,; TX .
:' CIS,/Z: ~.;pel1. co W612
. . " REF1
. , .
~~~~
: BYl
'DUE:I
REMARKSI ,.
<:LOS.~D:l (l'pt': :'SY:l ::L
~Ll\~SUBM\TD"1 .
'. ".";" . .
'~"\ jt-. "
, PLATIBK.~Gn
DATE OF FINAL ACTION:
CITY.COUNCIL:
PZ:
,BOA:
ORAC:
ADMIN
----------- --------
CAlooV'l:.- ~o4--D ~\I:~
tl'LDV'.. CO.,...."fuVVv\:ra- Lo-t oJ
/
v e,CA) v'(,t
OZG
----
1::<\0 V" ~ Pv At~ ~-
~tu(I\O'~\ ~~ ~ ~ Ary,
~ L; auJff1 .
~vlf,. r€f~ eA,\~
M.w
'~~
.....,\\
'"''
I So .fL
\
A
<Eo 40
or 70
(t3~ ~ Mwt ~
~~ - Mtthl ~ ~ ~
~f~'
1'~ s~.
if. 3613 A4f-, ~ 8'1612
;D~'9- (970) 920-1125
lfeCI:1"l!O
APR77?
C.VOl
""""" JlBPI',"; h
,",vrs'jiv/(jAtl7y"''t! ,.."
lli, !:~, "tIN
""~
April 11, 2001
Mr. Chris Bendon, Seniol' Planner
Aspen Community Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: CONFIRMATION OF MITCHRT.T, RESIDENCE APPROVAL
Dear Chris,
Thank you for taking the time to meet today with me, Kim Weil, and Lyndal Williams to
review the schematic design drawings that Bill Poss and Associates prepared for the Mitchell
Residence. A set of these drawings is attached for your review. As you will recall, the
Planning and Zoriing Commission granted 8040 greenline approval and certain variances for
the re-development of this property pursuant ,to P&Z Resolution 99-19.
During the meeting, we showed you that the revised design continues to comply with the
setbacks established by the Resolution, while the key front yard setback from Aspen Alps
Road would increase by 4'. We also showed you that the height of the residence complies
, with the limitations of the Conservation zone district, and its elevations are consistent with
the height of the approve,g design. We stated that the project would comply with the floor'
area approved for the property, which is 4,277 square feet. Finally, we described some of
the residence's exterior materials, including that the roof will have non-reflective materials.
Based on the representations we made during the meeting and the commitments made in
the drawings, we are hereby asking you to find that the schematic design is consistent with
the approval granted by P&Z Resolution 99-19. As you requested at the meeting, I have
provided a signature block on the next page for you to make this finding.
Thank you very much for your assistance with this matter.
Very truly yours,
ALAN RICHMAN PLANNING SERVICES
'~,~ "L:....R,'
.Alan Richman, AICP
Mr. Chris Bendon
April 11, 2001
Page Two
I find that the schematic design for the Mitchell Residence, prepared by Bill Poss and
Associates, dated April 2001, is consistent with the approval gr ed to the Mitchell property
pursuant to P&Z Resolution 99-19.
~
i'l
/to~
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
shall expire on the day after the third anniversary of the effective date of the
Order, unless a building permit is approved pursuant to Section 26.304.075,
or unless an exemption from expiration, extension or reinstatement is
granted or a revocation is issued by the City Council pursuant to Section
26.308.010.
This Development Order is associated with the property noted below for the
site specific development plan as described below.
Cynthia & George Mitchell, Box 4000 The Woodlands, TX, 77387
Property Owner's Name, Mailing Address and telephone number
550 Aspen Alps Road Aspen, CO 81611
Legal Description and Street Address of Subject Property
8040 Greenline Review Approval
Written Description of the Site Specific Plan and/or Attachment Describing Plan
Planning & Zoning Resolution 99-19, October 19, 1999
Land Use Approval(s) Received and Dates (Attach Final Ordinances or Resolutions)
October 29, 1999
Effective Date of Development Order (Same as date of publication of notice of approval.)
October 30, 2002
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 29th day of October, 1999, by the City of Aspen Community
De: elopment Director.
vc.J"
Ann Woods, Community Development Director
.Planning.Aspen.forms.DevOtder
iii
11\
III ~
II Mt~i~ (t!~~}
II~cJJ'
II ^-'\ .\.
i ~. ~S.
II ~~I~I.
Ii!
Iii
III~} f
Iii LAv'\6 foot
J~~ ~K~
I
ill~b~' mC\M~
11,1% fu Mr.
\il
Ii' ,
Iii <;:J ~tVlC: ~tk.
Iii
.1,
'4M ClM~iy(~W\- ~ Aff?'
I!,I no JtCtlt\~k -ltfAbl ~1 cMl~ bJ. tJ,OlillJM8
ill WNt ~ o.dd.~.
\
il,1 MdithuA,( r[t!~t~~ NoM... 6t 900 1JUp.
'il:l
,d
111w.otv. R~( J 'F,-zd
!:I
;:j
ill
i>l
Hi
il{},~l~ :tIc{~. ( ~f WAf.
\') ,
iW~vb - 'f'(uV\ 0~' "'tfror""'"'~
iir~ - ~~ hllt'l.j.. ~...tu lAdts\u\t 4"'. S" /M114;l"l/~.
nl v . J
j1! I f'.f
;,:,i1fIR ~ I
III
:;,\
:::,
iq
1. i ~
"
"I
d!
:il
'i\
!'i
iil
ill
\:
lH
,\1
!il
Ui
\\1
;:1,
Iii
Iii
III
!)I
HI
','
W
''I
'j':]
ill
~,
,~
~111
$J~ . ~(~kl veJfedw\ .
r; - f
P-(frN4 ( .
r-,
,~
Jr. A .
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
&~!f,
~\~ / ~t-
~~~ V(~
'\ ~i'/
~
~~
THRU:
Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director~
FROM:
Christopher Bendon, Planner
RE:
Mitchel Residence, 550 Aspen Alps Road - Public Hearing
8040 Greenline Review
Front, Side, and Rear Yard Variances
Residential Design Waiver for Garage Placement
DATE:
October 19, 1999
SUMMARY:
The applicant, Cynthia and George Mitchell represented by Alan Richman, have
applied for 8040 Oreenline Review, variances to the dimensional requirements of the
Conservation Zone District, and waiver of the garage placement requirement of the
Residential Design Standards. The property, 550 Aspen Alps Road, is currently
developed with a single-family residence.
The Commission reviewed this application on August 3, 1999, and continued the
public hearing after several suggestions were made to the applicant's design team.
The design has been modified based on those comments to what staff believes is a
very reasonable plan. Drawings comparing the previous plan to the current plan have
been provided. These are labled as "August 3" and "October 11." Further analysis
regarding site drainage has been provided. In addition, the project Architect has
prepared a site model representing the current proposal within the surrounding
context.
Staff has snmmarized the amendments requested by the Commission and the
applicant's response to each issue under the heading "Issues from Previous Meeting."
A memorandnm from Alan Richman also details the changes that have been made to
the application.
Staff recommends approval of the .8040 Greenline Review, variances to the
Conservation Zone District dimensional requirements, and waiver of the garage
placement standard, with conditions.
ISSUES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING:
Model. The limitations of two-dimensional drawings hinder the complete
understanding of this proposal. Many ofthe facades "step-back" although it is
difficult to understand from the drawings exactly what effect this may have on the
I
A
~
final product, especiaJIy from the oblique perspectives from which this site is viewed.
The applicant has prepared a model of the site within its surrounding context. This
model clarifies many of questions posed by staff and the Commission and clearly
demonstrates the complicated massing and roof forms of the project.
In addition, the applicant has taken pictures of the site from several locations in town
to demonstrate the effects of the proposed development upon the natural aesthetic of
the mountainside.
Structural Capacity. Many of the Commission's concerns related to possible slope
creep and problems experienced by adjacent property owners. Alan Richman's letter
and attached report from HP Geotech provides a response to these concerns as raised
by the Commission and the neighboring Aspen Alps. Additional structural analysis
of the existing house concluded that the foundation cracks are most likely due to
lateral earth loading and differential settlement rather than slope creep. This is
important in that it concludes that the flaws of the existing house are due to poor
construction techniques, which are easily controJIable, rather than external movement
of the mountainside, which is difficult to successfuJIy manage.
Drainage. The Commission and the neighbors expressed concerns about the drainage
of the parcel considering the drainage patterns of Aspen Mountain. Specifically, the
neighboring, and downhill property owners, expressed concerns about the use of
drywells to accommodate drainage. Jay Hammond, P.E., the applicant's Engineer,
has completely redesigned the drainage plan for this house. This revision
accommodates the site drainage by use of a containment tank and metered pump
system to an existing catch basin on Aspen Mountain. This system, as reported by
Jay Hammond, will introduce a "nearly imperceptible" impact on the current drainage
on Aspen Mountain.
Staff considers this amendment far superior to the previous plan. Drywells are used
quite often thought town but some have questioned possible adverse impacts to
ground stability problems in the area. It is not clear whether or not the ground
stability problems experienced by the Aspen Alps are associated with surface run-off
condition or would be negatively impacted by the use of drywells. What can be
clearly understood, however, is that the current drainage situation, which provides no
accommodation of site run-off, will be vastly improved with this redevelopment.
House Size. The Commission raised some concerns about the mass and volume
(FAR) of the proposed structure. It is important to note that the project does not
require an FAR variance, but that the Commission, in considering both the setback
variances and the criteria of 8040, expressed a desire for the house to closer conform
to the single family house provisions of the surrounding zone districts.
2
/""",
r"\.
In response, the applicant has reduced most of the dimensions of the house. The new
proposal has a smaller footprint, reduced favade widths, reduced setbacks, and an
FAR of approximately 791 square feet less.
8040 Greenline. The visual impact of the new proposal The 8040 Greenline standards
primarily ~oncentrate on the effects of site grading, the ability for the property to be
served with utilities and fue protection, and the visual effects of the resulting
development on the mountain backdrop of the City. Staff believes these standards
have been met with this proposal and the suggested conditions of approval.
Residential Design. The appeal of the Residential Design Standards for the placement
of the garage responds to the requirement of the garage being recessed behind the
front favade of the house by 10 feet. Staff supports the waiver as there is no other
practical alternative for placing the garage on-site without significant grading or
encroachment into the dripline of a fairly significant tree.
Variances. It is important to note that any house. on this lot will require variances.
The dimensional requirements of the Conservation Zone District prohibit a reasonable
use of the land as the setbacks almost overlap and leave literally no location for
development to occur. The Conservation Zone District has a minimum lot size of 10
acres. The setbacks (refer to Exhibit "C") are entirely appropriate for these large
parcel but have little relevance on a 10,000 square foot non-conforming lot, such as
the Mitchell's. This is a classic case of a justified variance and staff believes this
circnmstance renders the property useless and necessitates a variance.
The question the Commission had at the previous meeting primarily dealt with the
extent to which a reasonable use of the property would be achieved. The Commission
primary concern was that the variances being requested were possibly beyond what
may be necessary for a reasonable use ofthe property.
The applicant has responded to these concerns by reducing the coverage of the
structure on the parcel and reducing the requested setback variances. This also has
the effect ofreducing the overall size of the house, (See House Size, above.) The
reduction is site coverage will eliminate the need to remove several of the small aspen
trees on the eastern portion of the lot. These trees, while not of legal size for
replacement, do contribute to the visual aesthetic of the area and help soften the view
from Aspen Alps Road. Staff is appreciative of this tree protection and feels that it
benefits the project more than any other modification made.
ApPLICANT:
Cynthia and George Mitchell. Represented by Alan Richman, AlCP.
LOCATION: '
550 Aspen Alps Road. Between Aspen Alps buildings 500 and 700.
3
~
'<"""\
ZONING:
Conservation (C).
LOT SIZE:
10,161 square feet.
LOT AREA (FOR PURPOSES OF FAR CALCULATION):
The application was submitted prior to the addition of a maximum floor area for the
Conservation Zone District. Therefore, a lot area analysis has not been performed.
CURRENT & PROPOSED LAND USE:
Single-Family house.
PREVIOUS ACTION:
The Commission has not previously considered this application.
REVIEW PROCEDURE:
8040 Greenline Review. With arecommendation from the Planning Director, the
Commission may approve, approve with conditions, or deny a proposed development
within an Environmentally Sensitive Area.
Zoning Variance. With a recommendation from the Plarming Director, the
Commission may approve, approve with conditions, or deny a variance application at
a public hearing.
Residential Design Appeal. With a recommendation from the Plarming Director, the
Commission may approve, approve with conditions, or deny a waiver application at a
public htaring.
STAFF COMMENTS:
This application was received prior to the consideration by P&Z of the code
amendment to apply a maximum Floor Area to the Conservation Zone District. The
applicant has also relied upon the Conservation Zone District provisions and several
conversations with staff, prior to the amendment, in plarming and designing this
house. This application is not subject to the recent code amendment to the
Conservation Zone District. This is the last application reviewed under the previous
zonmg.
Conversely, this is the first application under the newly adopted land use code
provision which allows the consolidation of zoning variances for applications with the
Plarming and Zoning Commission. The Commission may now act as the Board of
Adjustment in granting zoning variances concurrent with regular planning reviews.
The criteria for granting a variance are more strict than the plarming criteria the
Commission generally uses. These criteria are included in Exhibit "A" and staff will
review each of these criteria during the hearing.
4
I"""
~
Review criteria and Staff Findings have been included as Exhibit "A." Agency
referral comments have been included as Exhibit "B." A zoning analysis has been
provided as Exhibit "C." The application addendum packet has been inlcuded as
Exhibit "D." (please refer to the original application.)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the 8040 Greenline Review, Variances to the
Conservation Zone District dimensional requirements, and waiver of the garage
setback requirement of the Residential Design Standards for the Mitchell Residence,
550 Aspen Alps Road, with the following conditions:
I. The building permit plans shall be in accordance with all requirements of the
Conservation Zone District and Residential Design Standards, both in effect on June
14, 1999, with the following exceptions:
a. Setback requirements for the parcel shall be: front = 14.5 feet; rear (west) = 10
feet; north side = 10 feet, south side = 11 feet.
b. The garage setback requirement of the Residential Design Standards shall not
apply.
2. The building permit application shall include:
a. A permit from the Environmental Health Department for any certified
woodstoves or gas log fireplaces (coal- & woodbuming fireplaces are not
allowed) and an approved fugitive dust control plan.
b. A tree removal permit from the City Parks Department for the removal or
relocation of trees as per Section 13.20.020 of the Code.
c. A water tap permit for a tap sized for the required fire suppression system and
for the domestic use. The structure shall include a fire suppression system
approved by the Fire Marshall. A pnmp system may be required by the Fire
Marshall to accommodate the required pressure for the fire suppression
system.
d. A tap permit from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. Sources of
clear water may not be directed to the sanitary sewer.
e. Written approval from the Aspen Ski Company for the construction and
maintenance of the drainage facility proposed in the amended application shall
be provided. Any required easements shall be recorded and reflected on the
building permit set.
3. The building permit plans shall include:
a. Construction details related to the foundation design, foundation walls and
retaining walls, floor slabs, underdrain systems, site grading, soil stabolization
plan, and surface drainage plan signed and stamped by an Engineer registered
in Colorado. This plan must accommodate drainage on-site both during and
5
/""",<,
~
after construction and shall utilize an on-site containment basin and delayed
pump system to the catch basin on Aspen Mountain. A 2 year storm frequency
should be used in designing any drainage improvements.
b. An environmental protection plan detailing the limits of disturbance on the
parcel and construction access. The limits of disturbance shall be fenced prior
to issuance of a building permit and shall remain in place until a Certificate of
Occupancy is issued.
4. The applicant shall contain all construction activity, including staging and contractor
parking, on-site unless permission is granted by the Aspen Alps Association for use of the
parking area east of the Mitchell property. Adequate width for safe passage along Aspen
Alps Road shall be maintained at all times.
5. If evidence of mining activity is discovered during excavation of the property, all
construction activity shall cease until a mitigation plan is approved by the City Engineer.
6. Highly reflective materials shall not be used for the roof material.
7. All utility meters and any new utility pedestals or transformers must be installed on the
applicant's property and not in any public right-of-way. Easements must be provided for
pedestals. All utility locations and easements must be delineated on the site improvement
survey. Meter locations must be accessible for reading and may not be obstructed.
8. These conditions of approval shall be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit set
and all other drawing sets used for construction. The primary contractor shall be provided
with a copy of this Resolution and shall submit a letter as part of the building permit
application stating that the conditions of approval have been read and understood.
9. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public
meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adheredto and considered
conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. The applicant shall
record this Planning and Zoning Resolution with the County Clerk and Recorder.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to approve the 8040 Greenline Review, Variances to the Conservation Zone
District dimensional requirements, and waiver of the garage setback requirement of
the Residential Design Standards for the Mitchell Residence, 550 Aspen Alps Road,
with the conditions recommended in the Community Development Memorandum
dated AU~' 1999.
~\l
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Comments
Exhibit B -- Referral Agency Comments
Exhibit C -- Zoning Analysis
Exhibit D -- Application Addendnm Packet
6
r.
~
Exhibit A
STAFF COMMENTS: 8040 Greenline Review
26.435.030(C) 8040 Greenline Review Standards. No development shall be permitted at,
above, or one hundred fifty (150) feet below the 8040 greenline unless the Plarming 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 falis and avalanche dangers. If
the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shali 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:
The applicant has prepared two engineering reports on this property analyzing the
geologic conditions and the subsoil conditions. The geological study reported no rockfall
or avalanche hazards but did make certain findings regarding drainage, potential mining
activity, and construction techniques for soil instability, earthflow creep, and earthquake
potential.
The geologic report sited the need to manage drainage from Spar Gulch. Upon closer
review, the applicant's engineer found the Mitchell site to not be in an area impacted by
the Spar drainage, even assuming a worst case scenario. This is primarily due to the
proximity to the subject property and the relatively confined lower portion of Spar
Gulch. Staff concurs that the Mitchell property is not threatened by the Spar Drainage.
With respect to mine tailings, the engineering report identifies amine shaft approximately
150 feet south west of the property with the shallowest mining activity occurring
approximately 400 feet from the surface. It is not expected the applicant will discover
any mining activity during construction. Staff has suggested a condition of approval for
the applicant to mitigate mining activity if discovered during construction.
The geologic report identifies the possibility of slope instability but concludes the
improvements proposed will mitigate this potential.
With respect to subsoil conditions, the recommendations of the geologic report have been
incorporated into the application. The original geologic report suggests several
construction techniques to address this movement which should be part of the building
permit. A further study confirmed the original and also concluded there structural crack n
the existing foundation are not likely due to earth creep. Staff has suggested the building
permit set include these engineering considerations and be signed by a registered P .E.
Staff Comments page I
I""
'l
Staff does not suggest any special considerations be made for possible earthquakes other
than the standards of the V.B.C.
2. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affecl on the
natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects on
water pollution. '
Staff finding:
The existing development has no drainage improvements. Currently the site sheet flows
towards the Aspen Alps Road which conveys the water on the surface. The applicant has
amended the drainage proposal from a dry well system to a containment system with a
delayed pump to the catch basin on Aspen Mountain. This addressed concerns raised by
the neighboring Aspen Alps about impacting subsurface conditions and appears to be a
far simpler and more effective solution. Staff has included a condition requiring approval
from the Aspen Ski Company be included with the building permit.
3. The proposed developmenl does not have a significant adverse affect on the air
quality in the city.
Staff finding:
The replacement of the single-family home with another single-family home should have
no noticeable effect on the City's air quality. In fact, there may be an overall
improvement of the City's air quality with the replacement of two wood burning
fireplaces with cleaner devices allowed by the Environmental Health Department.
4. The design and location of any proposed development, road. or lrail is compatible
with the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be
located.
Staff finding:
The parcel is significantly smaller than allowed for the zone district and is already
developed with a residence. There is essentially no opportunity and no benefit to cluster
or restrict the development to one portion of the property. The single-family use is
possible the only reasonable land use appropriate and compatible with the conditions of
the site. The design and location of the proposed development replaces the existing
development and staff believes this to be appropriate.
5. Any grading will minimize, 10 the extent practicable. disturbance to the lerrain,
vegetation and natural land features.
Staff finding:
The final grading of the property will be very minimal. The applicant has stepped the
development into the site rather than proposing to re-grade the site significantly. The
applicant has proposed removal of three (3) trees which require replacement. Staff
concurs with the applicants tree replacement strategy. Staff has included a condition
regarding protection of the natural vegetation (much of which is below the replacement
code caliper) during construction.
Staff Comments page 2
1""'\
~
The revised application reduces the need to remove trees along the eastern portion of the
lot. While these trees are not required to be replaced due to their relatively small size,
they are important to protect. Staffis appreciative of the applicant's amendments in this
area as the preservation of these small Aspens will benefit the project.
The applicant's proposed access and garage location is appropriate for this site. Staff is
appreciative of the applicant's understanding of the site constraints by not proposing a
new driveway cut to access a garage further into the property.
6. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit
cutting and grading, maintain open space, and preseNe the mountain as a scenic
resource.
Staff finding:
The site is too small to accomplish clustering or restrict development to' a portion of the
site. The applicant is not proposing any new roads or significant driveway cuts into the
slope. Staff agrees with the applicant's desire to replace the existing retaining walls as
they may be reaching the end oftheir usefulness.
The proposed structure will not impact the scenic resource of the mountain more than the
existing structure. The site is nearly impossible to see from town and is certainly
subordinate to the adjacent Aspen Alps buildings.
The site is very visible from the Gondola and from the upper portions of the Little Nell
ski run. Staff expressed a concern regarding the use of highly reflective roof materials.
The applicant is contemplating a metal roof with muted colors. Staff has included a
condition prohibiting highly reflective roof materials
7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and lhe slructure will be designed to
blend into the open character of the mountain.
Staff finding:
The proposed building is lower than the existing building and is one story at the highest
point of the property. The proposed structure is also broken down into smaller forms,
reducing the appearance of mass and bulk. The revised application reduces the bulk and
mass of the new house, addressing some primary concerns ofthe Commission.
8. Sufficient waler pressure and other utilities are available to seNice the proposed
development.
Staff finding:
The exist sufficient utilities to serve this development. However, due to the gross square
footage of the house the Fire Marshall will require a fire suppression system be installed.
The increased demands for this system combined with the reduced water pressure due to
the elevation requires an upgrade to the service line and may require a pump system be
installed. Staff has included these as conditions of approval.
Staff Comments page 3
1""'\
~
9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development, and said roads
can be properly maintained.
10. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to
ensure adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment.
Staff finding:
The access to the parcel is sufficient and well maintained by the Aspen Alps Association
(private road). the Fire Marshall did not request any special improvements to the access.
11. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan:
Parks/RecreationlTrails Plan are implemented in the proposed
development, to the greatest extent practical.
Staff finding:
There are no proposed trails on or near this parcel.
STAFF COMMENTS: Dimensional Variations to Conservation Zone District
26.314.040 Standards applicable to variances.
In order to authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements of Title 26, the
appropriate decision making body shall make a finding that the following three (3)
circumstances exist:
1. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals,
objectives, and policies of the Aspen Area Community Plan and this Title;
Staff finding:
There is no specific reference to this property in the AACP. The parcel is not identified
for public trails, open space, or for any land use different from its current use. Staff
believes the proposed development is generally consistent with the AACP.
The Interim Citizen Housing Plan also does not specifically identify this parcel.
Although the Citizen Plan is more geared towards affordable housing, the plan does
support development within the metro area, in close proximity to employment and
activity centers, within existing utility provisions, where it does not contribute to urban
sprawl, and in a marmer compatible with it's neighborhood. Staff believes these criteria
are accomplished with this proposed development.
The purpose of the Land Use Code (Title) is to ensure the health, safety, and general well
being of the citizenry through clear, comprehensive, and consistent regulations on the use
ofland. The development and use ofland should not unduly burden the historic,
Staff Comments page 4
1"""',
,~
architectural, aesthetic, and natural environmental character of the City, it's economic and
infrastructure capabilities, or the rights and reasonable expectations of property owners.
Staff believes this purpose is maintained with the variance in combination with associated
planning reviews and general requirements of the Municipal Code related to the
development and use ofland.
2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the
reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure; and,
Staff finding:
Staff believes this variance to be the minimum variance to support a reasonable use of the
parcel. In discussing the site with the applicant, several scenarios were contemplated.
Rezoning the parcel to the L TR Zone District would create a non-conforming use as a
single-family home is only allowed on a lot of exactly 6,000 square feet in the L TR Zone
District. This also restricted the use ofthe property in a marmer undesirable to the owner
who wishes to retain the single-family home use.
Furthermore, the topography of the site and its access do not readily support lodge or
multi-family development - the two most common land uses in the LodgelTourist
Residential Zone District. This logic also eliminated the possibility of rezoning the
property to the RMF Zone District - a district in close proximity to the property.
Rezoning the property to the R-15 Zone District would also create a non-conformity as
the parcel is approximately 10,000 square feet in size - only 2/3 the size necessary for the
zone. Lastly, rezoning to the R-6 Zone District would create a slight anomaly on the
zoning map being slightly removed from other parcels zoned R-6.
Considering the site's constraints, staff advised the applicant to propose dimensional
requirements for the site considering the dimensional requirements and development
patterns of the surrounding parcels. While the proposed setback requirements do not
specifically coincide with either the L TR or R-15 Zones, the applicant meets these
regulations in all but aspect - the front yard setback. This setback, however, will be
greater with the new house than with the existing house. Staff believes the proposed
structure and dimensional requirements represent a reasonable use of the parcel.
3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions ofthis Title
would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the
same zone district, and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship or
practical difficulty. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be
deprived, the board shall consider whether either of the following conditions
apply:
Staff Comments page 5
,1""'\
,~
a. There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel,
building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or
buildings in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the
applicant; or
b. Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege
denied by the Aspen Area Community Plan and the terms of this Title to other
parcels, buildings, or structures, in the same zone district.
Staff finding:
Staff believes both of the conditions exist and that literal interpretation of the zoning
would deprive the land owner of a reasonable use of the property and cause an undue
hardship.
The Conservation Zone District setback requirements provide merely a few square feet
for building. This is created by the relatively large setback requirements applicable to all
properties in the zone district. On parcels meeting the minimum size for the zone district,
10 acres, these large setback requirements are appropriate and do not render the property
un-usable. On this small parcel, however, the setbacks are unreasonable if the land owner
wishes to develop the property. The front yard setback of 100 feet combined with the
rear yard setback of30 feet render approximately I foot of buildable space on the 131
foot deep parcel. Staff believes there exists a special circumstance unique to this parcel
necessitating a variance.
Granting the variance will not grant a special privilege denied by the AACP or by the
land use code to other parcels in the same zone district. As mentioned above, the AACP
does not specifically address this parcel but does not oppose this type of development in
this location. The land use code specifically allows for the development of a single-
family residence on non-conforming lots.
The variance would not confer any additional rights to this property than to other
properties in the Conservation Zone District. In fact, at the time of this application the
district did not restrict Floor Area. It is conceivable, especially in this market, that a
house of 15,000 or 20,000 square feet would be common place on a conforming 10 acre
lot in the Conservation zone. The reduction in setback requirements for this property to
develop a house of less than 5,000 of Floor Area does not then represent an additional
right or special provision.
STAFF COMMENTS: Residential Design
GARAGE:
The applicant's proposed development is not in compliance with the following
Residential Design Standard:
All portions of a garage, carport, or storage area parallel to the street shall
be recessed behind the front facade a minimum of ten (10) feet.
Staff Comments page 6
f"""\
''''l
In response to the review criteria for a DRAC variance, Staff makes the following
findings:
a) in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP; or,
Staff Finding:
The proposed variance is not in greater compliance with the goals of the Community
Plan.
b) a more effective method of addressing standard in question; or,
Staff Finding:
The design is more effective than the standard. The standard would result in either
the removal of a significant tree or the re-grading of the site to accommodate a
driveway further onto the property. The driveway concept would be too severe of a
road cut and might be physically impossible.
c) clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site
specific constraints.
Staff Finding:
This parcel is extremely steep and providing a garage or merely parking in any other
location on-site would require significant site grading. "Pushing" the garage back,
even five feet, would require the removal of a large Spruce which the applicant and
the Parks Department would like to preserve. Staff believes these represent site
constraints necessitating the garage placement waiver.
Staff Comments page 7
.,-,
"'1
MEMORANDUM
To: Chris Bendon, Plarmer
NickAdeh, City Enginee~u
Chuck Roth, Project Engineer ~'1<.-
Date:
July 2,1999
IiECEII/EO
JUL 0 9 1999
COMM~/~~/P!!i{'1V
c, J::LQPME;Nr
Thru:
From:
Re: Mitchell 8040 Greenline Review
The Development Review Committee has reviewed the above referenced application at their June
30, 1999 meeting, and we have the following comments:
General- (1) These comments are based on the fact that we believe that the submitted site plan is
accurate, that it shows all site features, and that it is feasible. The wording must be carried forward
exactly as written unless prior consent is received from the Engineering Department. This is to halt
complaints related to approvals tied to "issuance of building pennit." (2) If there are any
encroachments into the public right-of-way, the encroachment must either be removed or be subject
to current encroachment license requirements.
I. Site Draina2e - The application included drainage design meeting runoff design standards of the
Land Use Code at Sec. 26.88.040.C.4.f The building pennit drawings need to include a drainage
mitigation plan (24"x36" size plan sheet or on the lot grading plan), as well as a temporary
sediment control and containment plan for the construction phase. These must be signed and
stamped by an engineer registered in the State of Colorado.
2. Water Department - The Water Director has noted that a new water tap will be required in
order to meet flow requirements for sprinklering the residence and that water pressure may need to
be augmented.
3. Other - The property is not located next to a public right-of-way and therefore is not subject to
many of the usual conditions of approval. The property is served by a 20' wide access and utility
easement. The applicant is advised that portions of the pavement are not contained in the easement
area and are located on the applicant's property without the benefit of an easement.
DRC Attendees
Staff: Chris Bendon, Chuck Roth
Applicant's Representative: Alan Richman
99M99
.
,-..,
,~,
Phil Overeynder, 12:47 PM 7/8/99 - Re: Mitchell 8040 Greenline
X-Sender: philo@water
Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 12:47:17 -0600
To: Chuck Roth <chuckr@ci.aspen.co.us>
From: Phil Overeynder <philo@ci.aspen.co.us>
Subject: Re: Mitchell 8040 Greenline
Cc: chrisb@ci.aspen.co.us
V\)~~.f1~
Chuck,
Yes, if they are planning a fire sprinkler system they will require an
upgraded water service line. Also since they are at the very highest
portion
of our gravity served zone, static water pressure at the building site
will
be in the range of 35-45 psi and could be marginal for some sprinkler
system
applications. The sprinkler system designer should perform a test of
the
pressure at that location in order to properly accomodate the water
pressure
conditions at the site. This could be checked ahead of the pressure
reducing
valve (if one is installed) at the water service line entrance to the
existing home.
Phil
At 10:52 AM 7/8/99 -0500, you wrote:
>Phil - FYI - Chuck
>
>>X-Sender: chrisb@comdev
>>Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 14:39:13 -0600
>>To: Chuck Roth <chuckr@ci.aspen.co.us>
>>From: Chris Bendon <chrisb@ci.aspen.co.us>
>>Subject: Re: Mitchell 8040 Greenline
>>
>>They are planning on a sprinkler system. The question at DRC was
whether or
>>not they will need to upgrade their water system to handle a
sprinkler
>>system. Also, whether a special pump device is necessary due to the
elevation.
>>Chris.
>>
>>
>>At 08:49 AM 7/7/99 -0500, you wrote:
>>>Did I leave you a draft memo?
>>>
>>>Igot an e-mail from Phil about if they are sprinklering, they will
Printed for Chris Bendon <chrisb@ci.aspen.co.us>
1
/"",,\, "'"
i
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
SyKelly',Chairman
, Paul Smith' Treas
Michael Kelly' 'Secy
John Keleher
Frank Loushin
Bruce Matherly, Mgr
June 25, 1999
RECEIVED
JUN 2 9 1999
Chris Bendon
Conununity Development
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
ASPEt~ 1 PITKIN
......r,.~,:,~I_:"jl1"Y r:EVF:LOPMFN1'"
Re: Mitchel 8040 Greenline Review
Dear Chris:
The residential unit at 55() Aspen Alps Road is connected to the Aspen Alp's private collection
system. Weare not able to estimate the capacity Of the Aspen Alp's system but we can say that
we do currently have sufficient downstream collection and treatment capacity. Service is
. contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications which are on
, file at the District office." '
, '
A..tap permit must be completed once detailed plans are available. The connection fees must be
,paid prior to the issuance of a building permit: Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
. ',., ~~rv.~..J6
" :Bruce Matherly ,
District Manager
565 N MillSt.,Aspen, CO 816111 (970)925-3601 / FX'{ (970\ 925-2537
,.......,
''l
Exhibit C
Mitchell 8040
Zoning Analysis:
Existing Proposed R-15 Zone
L TR Zone
Conservation Zone
Front Yard 14 14.5 25 10 100
Side Yards 32 S=ll, 10 5 30
N=IO
Rear Yard 2 10 10 10 30
All measurements m feet
Front Yard:
The existing building exists approximately 14 feet from the front lot line. The proposed
garage would be approximately 18.5 feet from the front lot line while the porch would be
approximately 14.5 from the property line at it closest point.
Retaining Walls:
The site is steeply sloped and significant retaining walls have been developed to mitigate
the road cut. The timber construction is proposed to be replaced with concrete retaining
walls. The land use code allows for development not exceeding 30 inches in height
above natural grade within the setbacks. The code also allows for fences and berms up to
6 feet in height.
The terrain has been substantially modified to accommodate the road developed some
time ago. Taking this into account, staff is assuming the present grade to be the natural
grade for the purpose of measuring the developments within setbacks. Moreover, it
would be unreasonable, and possibly unsafe, to permanently remove these retaining
structures. The new retaining wall is proposed in approximately the same location as the
existing wall. Staff recommends the resolution acknowledge the retaining walls and their
proposed replacement.
~
'P14~1I9- sew.<<u
.........'...._:..,,:.'.".:. ,_", ....... d"-
-.. ',.. .. .'...,:,....',. .....'. ',. ',.. ,..... .
. ", ,'" ". ......,. . ......,
S'_ 9613 A4f-, ~ 8'1612
,',- --""" ..-, .... ','
,_ .'0.....:.-. ....,.. '.' " . . '..
~~~i?~~J!ft~;(~ .~~
~\~iJ~ =
, ,A-Jj.@U41
1?~.
OctolJer 5, 1999
, Mr. Chris Beridon, Senior Planner
Aspen COmmllnity..Develdpmt;ntDepartlI1~nt
, 130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CoJo,rado 81611
'. .' " . . " .'
RE: MITCHELL 8040 GREENLlNE ItEVIEW AND VARlANC.ES
Dear Chris,
.. .. . ,. . .
','" . ",: '
OnAugllst 3, 1999,tJreAspt;nPJannil1g andZo1}ingCommission coriducted a public hearing
toconsider,llIl application for 8040 Grt;enlineRevi,ew and Variances for the re-development
of th~Mitchell residence at 550 Aspt;nAlps Roag. Foll(jwing athorouglidiscussiono~"tAJ,e
matter, theColllmissio~providedtheapplicant with comme1}ts on the applic~tion~d
continued the hearing to October 19,)999.' ,.",'"'.
..\,-~.j
In. respoIlSe to the comm~ntsprovided I?Y theConl1nission, the applic~rttis 'submitting,ti'l~
'following additioMI information.
1. A revised set of dra'\vings of thepr()po~ed developmentis being submitted. The
architect has madesigpificant revisions to the site plan,huildingelevations, and floor
plans for the proposed residence, incJudingthe following: ' '
~ .. , "
, ., The revised site plan mustratesthat the hUildingfootpri1)thasbeen reduced
in size> The dimensions of most of theforllls within the building havt;)Jeen
reduced and (j,s a result,someoftheproposedsetb~cksh~veincreClsed. The
front yardsetbClckwi!l be 145' (the Planning Office previouslym~asured it to
be,12'), andthe~ide'YClrdsetback Will be 11' (thePlanning'Office,previously
measurei:1}t tobe 10'):. The reduction in the ,size of the de,ckthat faces to the
eastwill allow s~veral additional existing trees t()be saved. '
. The elevations also illustratehowthe size of the house has been reduced from
that previously presl:nted to theCOInmlssion., The original and the revised
northal1c! southel~vations~av~ bel:TIshownside-by-side, to provide a "before
and. after" comparison of the two designs. Theyillustrate that the \Vidth Of the
houseasyiewedfromtl1ese directions, has been reduced. Tl1e elevations ,also
shO\vthe house wiH appear to sit lower into the liillside as viewed from the e~st.
1"""\
:"""'\
Mr. Chris Bendon
October 5, 1999
Page Two
, '
. TheproposedfioorareaofthestI}lcture has1Jeenredllc~Qby more than 15%
from the ()riginaldesign; " Theproposedfioor, arellofthe revised design is
4,277 squl,lreJeet, a reductioridf 791Sqlll,lre ,feerfrom the original design.
, ( .,
. A model has been proQuced 4e1Il.()ustratingthemassing and design of the
proposedho,i1se . as compared to "tl1e other. buildil1gsthatsurround this
propertyo'Thismodelwillbe presented at the GomlIlission's meeting, and wiH
'sh9WhowlIlucbsmaIlerthishouseis than the surrounding buildings, how the
, building has i:leen stepped intothe~illside, how its ,curved rooHormreplicates
the form of the mountain, and how the e1dsting and proposed trees on the site,.
will help to screen the house from ,view from the ski slope.
. A series of photographs have also been taken,lookingupatthe property from
locations all around the ,downtown area. The photos show that this proPerty
is simply not ,visible, from virtually any location in the core. For example, the
house is notvisible from infr()DtofJheWheeler. Opera House,. from' the
cornerofI-Iyman ,and Galena, from the cornero! Ryman\andHunter, ,and
frolIlthe comer of pur ant and Hunter:<The only places we could eveti see
. theexistinghousewerefromthe intersection of Hunter with Cooper and frOm
thevery.uphillpart ofthegqndola plaza, Attheselocationsthehouse. qan,be
se~n,alth(mghit is partiaHy screened by trees. ,Bec~use the Aspen Alps\700
Building is directly behind Jhehouse, the e1dstingl!ouse does IlQt impose any
bllildingmassup()n .open character of A.speriMountain, a situation that will
continue to be true, for the proposed house.
2. Adached,to this letter is a lett~rwritten,by.Steven Pawlak,P.E. of Hepworth-Pawlak
Geotechnical, Inc., In,this letter, Mr.l'awlak reports on the results ofasite visit he
, conducted with .' Bob Patillo, P.E..,of. Patillo, A.ssociates, Inc., Structural Engineers.
This site visit was conducted to . assess, the, condition oftheexisting1:milding to
determinejf slope creep m()vements hadda.llll,lgedthe structure; ,and was a JoHow-up
to their prior geologic site assesslllent and subsoil study of thepropetty. "
. The site visit was completed in responsetoia letter subIlliuedhyMr.Allen.G.
ThuirnaIl,Ph.D., cO.llsultantfor the.Aspen Alps. In thatIetter, Dr. ThurIllim stated
.that the '. applicant should, condllct acjditional analysis fOdetermine whether the
~itc1:).ell r.esidencehas been significantly damaged by slope creep.
, Mr. Pa:-vlak'sleuer st:atesthfit"l'heoveraHbuilclingappearsfo beiIl arelalNely good
condition from a founclationstandpoillt ',Signs of building distress were identified at
each level ofthebuilding that indicate relatively lllinorJoundation movements,..Based
oIl,our observation, the movements appear quifeold and inactive or occurring at . a
. ",ery slow rate." '
(\
/~
Mr. Chrjs Bendon'
OctoberS; .,1999
Plj,geThree
Mr. Pawlak coIlc1udes that "Based on ourobservatiOns and the previous exploration
, atthesite, the building movement and distress appeal's to be related to lateral earth,
loadingandpossiblyso~ediffeientiaj settlemel1t ratherthanlong terIll slope creep."
Nfr. P~wlak then goes on torec9mmendthat thep~ojectcanproceed ,as planned, but
withadditionaLconsiderationgiven tos-Iope stalJility., He identifies several measures
that should b~taken duting des-ignand, Cl)/lstruction to ensure the safety of the,
structure,' all ofwl1iCh Me acceptable to the applicant. Among, these measures, we
would point outthevlj,lue of eva11l~tingtheexisting f9undatjon during the demolition
'process, and making any modifications necessaty to,the d~signofthe new structure
to address, the',conditions, that' have adverselyaffeptedthe,existingfoundation.
3. Also attache.dto this, letterisaletttlrfromJayHammond,P.E.,qf Schmlleser"
(Jordon Meyer, .witten to Mr.Steye Sewe!1, the manager of ;\spenMountain for the
;\spen Skiing Company.' This letter isa fOllow"up to a meeting Mr. Hlj,~m9nd held
. with Mr. Sewell to discuss the proposed drainage system for the Mitchell house. '
," .
- - ,', . "
You,maYl'ecaIl that mtheorigiIlalapplicatiOn for the Mitchelll1()Use, ~esuggested
, that dryweIlscojlld beusedJoron:sitedetentibn of drainage; l)r. Thurman objected
,s,trenuouslyto this solution and stated that the, appliCll!Jf must fjndanalternllte way
to handle surface ruIloff. . .' '
, , '
" ,-' ',',
M~, flammongpresented the appIicallt'sproposed alterrtative, to Mr.Se\VeILat their
meeting. It would replace the proposed drywells witharlenclosedtank structure
sized to contain a large, lo~-fr.equtlncy runoff event. Following containment, runoff .
would be pumpc;:dvia a pipe to the existiIlgcatch basin on Lower Aspen Mountain
Roa:d.This,pumpingwould occur approximately 30 minutesaftertJje storm peak has
passed, to ensure thatit does not add to the peak flows entering thebasip.
Mr. Hammond has detel1l1inedthatthe maximllm flow from the Mitchell site would
be .about 0.15,cfs,.ascomparedtoa flowiiomth~itributatywatershed of about 9.0
cis., Heconcludes,tllerefdre, that'''l'he drainlj,ge flo~s associlltedwitll the Mitchell
residence replacement would representavetyminor addjtional impact to the storm
drainage system on ,the.T.JttieNellslope. Ia~ also,confident that we can configure
a ,disposalsyste~ to delay the discharge untilwellafttlT.Jhe storm peak has passed
the catch' basin inlet and minimize tile flow rate in a maIUlerthat would render the
impact Ilearly imperceptibfe."
In conclusion, weqelieve that with tliese revisioIls" theapplh;ant's.,ptoposal,to re-develop .this
property complies with the appliclj,bleCity standards for 8040 Greenline ;Review and for
setback i v!iriances. As ,you noted in your origiIllj,1 memo op. this . application, the 8040
Greenline standards focus on the effects of site grading, the ability9fthe property to be
serv'ed with utilities and fire protection, and visual impacts on the City's mountain backdrop. . '
,'-"'"
,~
Mr, Chris Bendon "
October 5, 1999
. " ',' -,
Page Four
, ,', '-,
Staff concluded thattheoriginalproPOSCilmet these standards; Md we believe the lJ.,dditional
lllaterials we.have submitteqbringthe r>roposalfurther,into compliance With these staIidlJ.rds.
, ,
,Wehavealsc:Jdem~nstr~tedtheneedfor~ vari~nceJor thi~proPllrtY.,Tl1e combined front ,
yard (100') and rear yarq(30'~ setbacl6; qfthe Conserv~tion ZoneDistrictaregreater.in
widththan."virtually. anypqrtion' of the . existing plJ.rcel and"leave ,. no . area, that could b(l
developed. Tl1efact that this is an oddly shaped 1/4 acre parcel in azone>that ,has a
minimum lotsjze of 19 acr~sjsaspecial 'cirPIlIllstance that Cilso necessitates the variaIice.
", ,'.. ,- . ,
To ensure this" isa minimllIll. variance, the. applicant has liIllitecf the extent of the footprint,
soit.,WilLcomply with the setback standards of the, surrounding urn . Cind, R-15 zones. The
proposal<:omplies with all of thesetb~cl<s of theL(fR zone district, and withthe side and '
rear yarqsetbCicks of the R-15 zone ,district.' It falls slightly short on the front yard setback
of the R~15 zOne, due to the very odd shape of the lot. I-Iowever,it is important to note
that the ftont yard setback 4as been increased frqm the existing situation by moving the
stairs and retaining wall back from where they are currently closest to the road. In addition,
,the r~aryardset1;>ack along the Little Nell slope has been increased from 2' to 10'.
. . - . -
, lbelievethesematerialsrespond to the concerns raised by the ,Commission at, the meeting
in August. "Vie look forward to meeting with the Qominissionlater this. month to ,review
. these reviSions with them. <Please Iet me know if there is Cinything else you require .to
cOmplete your review,of this proj~ct. .
Very trulyyours,
, ,
;ALAN', RICIIMAN,PLANNINGSERVICES
.~'..',".,."..,"",',."'"",,~'.,.'.,"...'.'..,,...'..,.,'""',,
........ " ',' ' .' ' ,
~--:-~, ,-,.,
, Alan,Richman,'AICP
t....
~tech
.,.-".,
Hep/h-PawlakGt:otechnicaJ. Inc.
5020 C(mntvRoad 15.J
Glenwood Springs, Colorado Nlhill
Phone: 970-945.7988
September 20, 1999
Fax: 970-945-8454
hpgeo@hpgeotech.com
Cynthia Mitchell
clo Gary Tabasinske Architects, ALA
Attn: Gary Tabasinske
305 Doe Road
Lopez Island, Washington 98261
Job No. 198 609
Subject:
Review of Mitchell Residence Conditions, 550 Aspen Alps (South) Road,
Aspen, Colorado.
Dear Ms. Mitchell:
As requested by Alan Richman, a review of the building conditions was made on
September 10, 1999 with Mr. Richman and Bob Pattillo. The purpose of our review
was to assess if there have been slope creep movements based on the building
conditions. We previously conducted a subsoil study for foundation design and a
geologic assessment at the site and presented our findings in reports dated November
30, 1998 and January 26, 1999, Job No 198609.
The residence is a four level wood frame structure with a concrete wall and spread
footing foundation that steps up the hillside. The parking and road grade is about one
level below the lowest building level. Based on our inspection, the effective cut slope
at the back wall of each level is on the order of 0.6 horizontal to I vertical. The floors
at each level appear to be partly slab-on-grade and structural behind each of the uphill
foundation walls. A circular staircase is attached to the west side of the building and
connects the lower to the third level. A central fireplace, which appears to be masonry,
goes from top to bottom of the structure. The top and bottom floor levels daylight to
the respective ground surface of the hillside. No indications of water seepage from
underground were observed although a small crawlspace access from the mechanical
room at the bottom level has a partially undermined footing which could have been
from seasonal seepage.
The overall building appears to be in relatively good condition from a foundation
viewpoint. Signs of building distress were identified at each level of the building that
indicate relatively minor foundation movements. The distress typically consists of
interior door racking in the north-south direction, slight tilting of typically east-west
walls and occasional cracks and separations in the drywall and floor tile. The
movement and distress appears typical of foundation wall rotation due to lateral earth
loading. The rotation in the laundry chute between the bottom and third level was
measured to be about 1 3/8 inch in 13 feet or about 0.9% of the vertical height. This
magnitude of rotation is within the typical range expected by cantilever or lightly
restrained walls that can rotate. Based on our observation, the movements appear quite
old and inactive or occurring at a very slow rate.
.r-"
~.
Cynthia Mitchell
September 20, 1999
Page 2
Based on our observations and the previous exploration at the site, the building
movement and distress appears to be related to lateral earth loading and possibly some
differential settlement rather than long term slope creep. We would expect the impacts
of slope creep movements on the 30 year old residence to be much more severe and
variable than our observations indicate. In our opinion, the project can proceed as
planned with consideration of localized and overall slope stability. For example, steps
in foundation grade need to be at an effective slope of 1 horizontal to 1 vertical or
flatter unless excavation shoring and bracing is provided. Additional safety factor
against sliding and overturning can be achieved in the foundation by assuming a higher
lateral earth loading and providing additional lateral resistance and support to the
foundation walls. During demolition, the existing foundation should be evaluated for
foundation configuration, bearing and lateral earth loading conditions. The new
foundation design should then be reviewed with respect to the conditions found and
modified as needed. Long term monitoring of the constructed foundation could be
provided by internal settlement and plumb measuring points and externally by
inclinometer casing that extends to well below the building foundation and into stable
soils. The casing depth could be on the order of 100 feet or more.
If you have any questions or require further assistance in evaluating the building
conditions or additional monitoring, please let us know.
Sincerely,
SLP/ro-sd
cc: Alan Richman
Bob Pattillo
,~,
'.
ENGINEERS
SURVEYORS
,~
(970) 925-6727
FAX (970) 925-4157
SG
M
SCHMUESER
GORDON MEYER
P.O. Box 2155
Aspen. CO 81612
September 30, 1999
Mr. Steve Sewell
Aspen Mountain Manager
ASPEN SKIING COMPANY
P.O. Box 1248
Aspen, CO 81612
RE: Mitchell Residence Replacement. Drainaoe Desion
Dear Steve:
I am writing in follow-up to our meeting of September 15th regarding a proposed drainage design
for a replacement of the Mitchell residence at 550 Aspen Alps Road. As indicated in Figure 1,
the Mitchell residence site is located on the east edge of the Little Nell ski slope approximately
800 feet south of Durant Avenue. (Figure 1 was initially prepared to demonstrate the site's
relationship to the Spar drainage but also shows its relationship to a nostalgic footprint of the old
Little Nell building.) The existing home is located within the Aspen Alps condominium complex
although it is an independent property.
As I indicated during our meeting on the 15th, our original drainage recommendations for the
Mitchell project were based on the City of Aspen's current Interim Standards for Drainage Design
and Erosion and Sedimentation Control for Parcels Smaller than One Acre dated April 30, 1998
and issued by the City Engineering Department. Our recommendations for drainage control and
on-site detention included;
"..the use of two drywell structures which may be located under the garage structure or
under the pavement within the property if they would not be in conflict with easements
or utilities."
On-site detention utilizing drywells is typical for suitable sites in the Aspen area to promote
recharge of area aquifers and minimize additional runoff impacting adjacent properties as a result
of new development.
Our report in October of last year also noted that;
"Over the years, the various Aspen Alps buildings have suffered a variety of problems
related to drainage and soils conditions. My belief from prior work in this area is that the
site soils are sufficiently porous that water re-introduced into the deep soils at the Mitchell
site should not impact the Aspen Alps buildings to the north. I would recommend in this
case, however, that a geotechnical consultant be contacted to comment on whether
additional water introduction at the Mitchell property could impact the buildings that are
downslope to the north of the site."
Subsequent to our report regarding drainage design for the site, the Aspen Alps property
118 West 6th, Suite 200 . Glenwood Springs. Colorado' (970) 945-1004
r".
I""l\
September 30, 1999
Mr. Steve Sewell
Page 2
retained a consulting engineer, Dr. Allen Thurman, to review the Mitchell proposal and provide
comment to the Alps. Dr. Thurman shared and reinforced my noted concern over introducing
additional water into the deep soils upslope of the Aspen Alps 500 building and indicated that
"Some alternative way to handle surface runoff must be found!I".
These discussions and concerns led to my contacting you regarding an alternative concept for
handling drainage at the Mitchell property. As I noted during our meeting, we have already had
some experience in the downtown Aspen area with sites situated too close to downslope
structures or subject to excessively deep excavation requirements on a small site where
conventional drywell disposal of runoff proves inappropriate. .Wehave designed a couple of
systems now that contain the site runoff in a fully enclosed tank and discharge on a delayed
basis to the street or adjacent storm drainage facilities. Our concept for the Mitchell residence
(as shown in Figure 2) would be to replace the proposed drywells with an enclosed tank
structure sized to contain a large, low-frequency runoff event and pump it on a delayed time
basis to the existing catch basin on the lower Aspen Mountain Road above the cul-de-sac at the
Aspen Alps 800 building.
This concept, obviously, involves piping the runoff from the tank structure onto Aspen Skiing
Company property and accessing the catch basin within the ski slope. During our meeting on
the 1S'h, you indicated a willingness to consider allowing the Mitchells to pursue this option
provided it could be demonstrated from the standpoint of runoff analysis that the system could
be configured soas not to aggravate stormflow conditions for the existing collection system.
Allached as Exhibit 1 is an excerpt of the DRAINAGE FACILITY CAPACITY ANAL YSIS OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO that is currently being compiled by WRC Engineering. As I had vaguely
recalled during our meeting, the lillle Nell slope sub-watershed (watershed ID 11) represents a
small upper segment of a watershed that lies between the larger lower Spar and Vallejo Gulch
watersheds. The area above the catch basin on the lower Aspen Mountain road represents only
about 7.8 acres with a maximum flow distance of about 1,200 feet to the south lip of the sub-
basin. Based on a Rational Method Calculation, the maximum runoff for this small watershed
from a 10o-year storm event should be about 9.0 cubic feet per second (cfs). This figure
compares with a maximum flow of about 0.15 cfs off the Mitchell site.
The Time of Concentration for the lillle Nell slope is just under 20 minutes as indicated on Figure
3, the Overland Flow Nomograph. We would therefore propose to discharge flow from the
proposed tank with a time-delay timer on the pump system set to around 30 minutes. Discharge
from the tank would therefore occur after the storm peak passes the catch basin and would be
limited in flow by the pumping rate, probably about 10 gallons per minute (0.02 cfs).
In closing, I would suggest that the drainage flows associated with the Mitchell residence
replacement would represent a very minor additional impact to the storm drainage system on the
Uttle Nell slope. I am also confident that we can configure a disposal system to delay the
discharge until well after the storm peak has passed the catch basin inlet and minimize the flow
rate in a manner that would render the additional impact nearly imperceptible.
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
1""\
~
September 30, 1999
Mr. Steve Sewell
Page 3
I hope you will find this proposed system acceptable and allow the Mitchell's permission to
obtain an easement across Aspen Skiing Company property to access the existing catch basin.
Please feel free to contact myself or planner Alan Richman (920-1125) with regard to this request.
I will also be available after October 11th to answer any questions regarding this issue.
Very Truly Yours,
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
wcrl~ <<
C
Jay . Hammond, P.E.
Principal, Aspen Office
JHllh 98121SS1
cc: Mr. Alan Richman
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
L...I .d ...1-
0:i'[',,\,,
l~~,/ ~
._.. 00.0.....
l .
" . -.j
',~.-
. k
-:~~
~
. (
,.....-:"'-./
-
"It-\-
''W
~ ~~~Q('o.~.:... ~ ~f~',) -jL1'- .~~. -)
\ -, U--. r) . L.
-;.' . ,.:."'~ I 1;"- . : r ~ ",- .-t''"''\
:"<'J <f.--. >
----
FIGURE 1
CITY OF ASPEN
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
-t-'
'~~~""~'~' ,.".
-.
.
"" ",
~
- --
~
FIGURE 2 1/1
; f 0
Of
1
-'-"--
CfWTnI" .MTtr_. .. -.-
("'\
DRAINAGE FACILITY
CAPACITY ANALYSIS
OF
THE CITY OFASrEN,
COLORADO
PREPARED FOR
The City of Aspen, Colorado
PREPARED BY
WRC Engineering, Inc.
1963-13
September 1998
Revised
April 1999
~
EXHIBIT 1 1/2
6""';.Q
8 ;;5
~'~'I-\
"~'
II -
.[;1111 J' h~
" //1(, ~._', ..'
-
'-.....
) i (
I I '
'-..1___.,\',' "
\ '::.::-~
\ \ "-
--
\
{
-
'"
,.
X/I,!,!I
~O~ER
SiA~,GUJCH
J / / / /......
,
,
/
o
I
250
I
SCALE:
500
,
1"=500'
1000
I
"':::-.'.
"'----"
....
\ ~i
'!(
\
,
'-
"
"
:,1
~
I
>
/
SUB WATERSHED 10
AREA (ACRES)
-
-
\
1 \
I I
I;.
I
\
/
/
/
/
'-
.."r--
SUB WATERSHED
BOUNDARY
EXISTING 10 FOOT
CONTOUR INTERVAL
EXISTING 30 METER
('(\~ IT("\l In H ITrl""l\ I" I
\ \
'-- VALLEJO-
\ GUt.CI::L
'-- -
\
,
~ .
,I.
:'/
/'
I'
~ ,
/'
",
'-
'-,
,
,
/
/........
EXHIBIT 1
2/2
'-,
L
10
FIGURE 3
OVERLAND FLOW TIME
NOMOGRAPH
7
6
I
()
o
"u ______.__
--------
..
---------
--'-
---------
-'..
.
I
-..............
I
I
~
.
.
,
/'.-<"
I'T---.
,
:1
f' .'
'."t j'
'\1 i', .
~1Il: $;'.,-- _ .......0-"\
r,l-----<,,/,..l'" \~'.,
~._~,.""'----._.-.....;~_.
,
.
PROPOSED SITE PLAN - REVISED
OCT08ER ll, 1999
I
()
o
I
I
I
I
--
..__._u__?
--,.....- ,
,
I
.
---"".? /
.....""'J;.,o;;;,-,.
.
It,~
'I"
.........
I-.*~
,
,
,
...---",-
.
,
\
~
.
"
PROPOSED SITE PLAN. ORIGINAL
AUGUST 3.1999
I
I
I
n
Q
,----,
,
"; ':_,..",~~:"':~~~"'"
NORTH ELEVATION, REVISED
OCTOBER n. 1999
I
,
,
---7
,
---+'._r_
_~,_4~=~r"''''
NORTH ELEVATION. ORIGINAL
AUGUST 3. 1999
-
-
(
._-------~""-....,Q
'-
-',-.
"
-......_""""---.... ,..
r''''''".I...
,..+
",
"
'.
u'__",
.,--',."""-~,
,F ,,_,.._
~'~-':;:'-~""c.,:
, :',_, .n..,.,;.;!
+.~=:.~;_7:::,=-.C=_'_-::-:-::::~:':'::~:-:_":.":-:_~=i_
,
iI,
-:-::::~'~'~--::-_~1'"~_'L"J--=--;:-_:=---='_-:-:;'"
,
,
,
,
-j.=---7:::.-=::-:::--..=.~::t~,-------
, ,
, ,
, ,
: ,
-_._.~~
,
,
,
, ,
-"--~,--_,_-,-.......o..-__
-"<
------'-'-'-.-"-
SOUTH
ELEVATION
REVISED
OCTOB~RlI, 1999
". ...__->t_"..,.
---.-.---.
-~'-
,
,
i~._';;';'7L"
: '-',
1--.-.-.--..._ _n'__n',,_
,
,
,
,
, , ,
. , .'
-F=-'---=:;=:_-=:=--'=---=::F:-~:_~:_~_:=.-.'~-
, ,
....,..
--...._-~ ,
._-.
,L
;'
___.,f'
-"U~n_'_n,u'_n.
, .
,
,
,
,
-j.=-----=:--=:=:-=;.=::--:-:--~-:-:::_r__.- ---
, , ,
' , .
' ,
,
,
,
,
-"
---------
----._+
, ,
, ,
~_.-'-------
-..
--------
SOUTH
ELEVATION
ORIGINAL
AUGUST 3. 1999
r
!""'""
"
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
~i
~
R
,//""
,
,
,
,
,
,
/
/
,
,
/
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
:
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,--
. -
,
,
,
,
/
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
:
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ 5
~~@
~!/) ,
~n
ffmo
"~~
-,,'
~,.~
~.~
~h
~ON
l!J~~~
lS:r"':>~
:C:l'=mi!:i
..~"'"
..~ go
~Z~~
=~ ;50
~=~8
'!;..",-.f5-< -
J:""" "-l ..,., ffi
=~ aJg,
II!!!;=~<
~ < i ~
tn - < -g
Z <( 3=. ~
;;; ~: ~~~
< u ~i~
J:O "'-!G:l....'"
--" !- s]~
~ a"
~ ;; ~~ ~
~!:il'"
>-u~o..%
0::: 0::: <>:: ';.
< -=::3 ~
"" ~ ~
~I
~I i
I
~ "
~~
1 ~ ~ ~
o , .. 11
~ ~1~ f
'"
Z
,,0
z-
~~ <:r
-~
l-<_-"
",- i1!1
_z ~
;.<0 ::i
~~ ~
~!
~
"
~
'(-<)
'f-O
,
,
"V:-
OV
o /
,
/
v:l
Z
0
......
f-<
......
Q
Z
0
u
c..?
Z
......
f-<
v:l
......
><
I ....
,
I
,
,
,
,
,
10
'v
~ '(- ,
1 <v <JjO'J/
"",0 ~~~~~
T'" ,70
)~~,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
\\'"
l' '
,
/
'l!', '
~I "-j'
~: /,,/--
1,//
,/
"
l
:'
,
-,.;".,ttr=-.'?J__...--....
,'rft:IC"Og=l
~
~
U
~~
~
,--.._ I
I -- ~
! 151.
, ",\:I
! J.J~.I:lj
I ... \!> ~l
/ ,',.:. I
. .
, .
, '
, '
, '
, '
, '
, '
, '
, '
, '
, '
, '
, '
, '
, '
, '
, '
, '
, '
, '
, '
. '
<:
8
2
1""".
r'
\,
\
\,
,
,
:
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
:
,
:
,
,
,
:
,
:
,
,
,
,
r
r--
~I -~~o '" li !
~ '" '" ~ ~
_~O~ '" Z ~ "
:s H< .S < ~ ]l ~
~ ::::) i'l1if"-'S ~ ~ZP:: z cl ~ ~<
\j "'"'~I~ a~ = .,so f-' j~~ ~
~ ~ ~~~ ~ i!{~ ~5-:l '" u ~e3l.l ~.... ,
'" 0(
~ ~ !o( " (..1..l ~.::~ 9
IS \'M~~ ~ ~=~8 '" <'-)=-
;:j '" '" ~:-> l- 0 $= "
~ <3 " ll!~.!'l) ~~ 0( ; ;~ - " tli ~I"
1~69 :'!: ~<l.)\\) I-" p.c_ 0.. _ ;...
\!1 ~ 18li!1~ ~<Z " 00;:; ~~ ~~
:n~ .". ........~
~ ~h~ ... <=:5:; ,.. u ~o..~
~~ =~ 00", '" '" 8 $ ~ ' j;i 'I~
~~m iG8 ~< ..., '" ~ =:~ ~ 2 ; .. ~
,,~ '-' I: , ~ -tld ~ ;f
~()
~O
,
,
,
, ;/~.
" <(V
~0"""
,
,
:
Ill"-" ,/
~\ ' "' I
~I "'<
~, ,/ -1 .po --
ii( ,/1;
~ [q i ~
,; g l..",,"
~
,
,
,
,
R
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
"-
"Q~.J.!
"'>",
2;>0
",9;2
C3~,9
i,nH:~~~U,~~r: "
'fr~*
"
-- ~------- - ~ ~-;~~__~~~_ _ _ _ ~'j_ _ _ L \
J _____-/-::=t,,~,,/>/ / ' :,.,'~ ",,', ~r-- -~r--\\---\ h~_\~_
~..-~-~ ;/ /,' ,I I ,') \ \ \ \
In\.\')r ~ / i I I I \ I \ \
~____ /____(... ,_ I SSiZt J J r f \ \ \ ~
/ aNI1~3dc>>JcJ /~~~~1~*/F--7---E1"7f50S'fc5"Ri-G--if :-A2)~I'-'''~I-----'~- - \
/ IS" I /. I 4l.\IIII~ I 'l\.]'!f I \
/ /ir: I ~ i f<.""" \ \ I 'Uit ! I .f'" if; \
I ,':;.;._____ ' -;;. I *' {~ I ::. \~ \ \
/ " :'ll~., ~ t ~ I ~: 1 ~: ~ I \ ;
I i_I _ ~_ I ~;-.:~ ~ , , 1
I J:!: .",' 0/ I ~ I, 4JI,'jl4.\\\' L \
! 1 ~\ '" /1'" I , I
i 1 '>.,:. "'/;,j I ~'" [ I I 'I , '
10l il,t,,(, 1'1\' , , 1
II "j1,,* , B
2
';-- - -
,
\~$
\C,ljV',.l.;OIG
\ "O-.LL
,
,
"
,
i,;
If.
";!
":::=':
,
I",
13
~ ,~
,\:l;:i~
'''"''"i I
, ,
,
"
,"":;".
o
,
,
\
,
"
--~-
,
,
,
,
,
"
,
,
,
"
,
,
.
.
.
!
,
,
,
,
,
,
~
Cl
....
Vl
-
>-
....
r::z::
z
-<
....l
p..,
....
f-<
-
Vl
Cl
....
Vl
o
p..,
o
r::z::
p..,
i--i
, :
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
, '.
-~-----j, ~
" z
.: ~
!i ~
~i I Z
ifi} ~ ~
Ii.. ~I ~! 'I ~
" +,)jlll, f:?':
I --~ I ;: . ...,:", \J-
\\ i Ii !""""".... i ~
'!\jiL_~m-;l' i i ~
'_'..'.' Ii.," ,...", ~ i ~
, " J ::: !il I>:>
'. i I' :'. ~ I ;>
: : . J
i iii/ i
:....,, Ii ..".. !
'. J'i.. I
.~.t~,~.. ,...~.h-----l
. I" i
--~ i
, '
, '
, '
, '
, '
l :
,
~ i
i i
lJ
,
,
______J
~.....
I .'
i
~
k.
~
~
\I) ~
, ~
~ '
-"--~ Z
~Ii 0
Ii! ;:
l:l. -<
i:: >
"
:; ~
:: ~
I: ~
_~1il
-~~~
~Z..c:;:;:;
=~::;o
~Q~8
p.c- ~ -
........C'-)"""z
_~ c:~
==i~
I""""
,
\
,
,
,
,
\
,
,
,
,
,
,
(\
c \,
~ \
~
~-
::c
.~
'r;.::
o
Z
f"
I
~
<<
r-.
(
~
~
~
~
~
t.o.:l ;0"
~ < i e~
V'l -..; ]
Z <::: Vi
- f-~ @$l~
V'l .:5~<O
-< U ~.]
l:tl I.Ll ""~s
-< r- g~i
l- ....... ~ ~ ill
::E:: :il ~;,
>- u 50..';'
=::: 0::: '" ~
< -< 8 :g
,. a
""'" ~"
_ z
~
;Z;
_Co
....~
~~7
- i> ~
i> ~
~::3 :.'il
=~~ ~
"
a
~
~ ~
I I
I I
,"~~Ir"."""+r I
; E,: ,i
.) ~Ii II I
.:.......,'! Iii I
, I f
:,: .:
I: I: I ~
l I: I -<
" " n
'-c,jJ I rm---i~-'-- l' ?':
I I ,-~-
, i f----- j i I': -'
" ,: -- ,i------, '----- '-'-'
.., , ,--,
I Ii I: Ii I"'"
~ ' " " ......
~ I: Ii Ii I' ~
. ~ ii ii I't ,~
. I: : : I 0
,'I .< I,
~ I' " I' '
. ~: I: : I V)
_______~L--jL- ill
. . t,'! i --Tm_--i
I
~
~
~
~
"
I
l/,....
\.
; .
;.'
;
;
/
,
;
, .'
~ /
~ /
~ :
\ /
~/
;
,
i
,
,
,
,
-
.,-.,
\'
i
, ;
~ .
V
.'
.'
;
//
;'
~
V)
-<
'-'-'
~!
~
'5
l!l!~
;;I~
~ :e ~ (f
~ 1f ;,; 'i!
~ g ~ Ig
~I
~
I
I
I
Z
o
,-...
,-..
-~ -go
-~a~
IIii1 Z -B 0
=~ 8ls
~Q",u
~.....~z
l:::l ~ >=: if
is ~ ~~
l.lJ ~ ~
~ :: ~ j
VOl < ~ :;;;
z .
;;; b' !~~
-< ~ ~!i
a:l f- 9~..g
-< ....... c!E:~
t-< :r: g g ~
>- u ~ <>'ffi
0:: ~;;: i
< < 8 ~
t-' !a ~
~
1;;1
o
1:'->=
:z: ,.. '"
0-.'
~Z'7;
t"" E:.
~-~
~;!:i~ !
~~$llll
I I I
~~
z
o
,
I~ ~
~~
.. "I~ d
] J: . Z
! i ! ~ I
z
o
t-
-<
>
""
,...J
""
t-
V>
""
~
l?
Z
-
t-
V>
><
""
z
0
t-
t""""'. -<
>
"" z
,...J 0
""
t- t-
V> -<
-< >
"" ""
,...J
l? ""
Z :r:
t- t-
V> :::J
- 0
>< V>
""
l?
.r'" z
t-
V>
><
""
\
-
t-
-<
>
""
,...J
""
:r:
t-
~
o
z
l?
Z
-
t-
V>
><
""
t""".
"
/
/"
,
/
t"""
"
,
/
,
/
,
/
,
,
['--- . /
v-------- - - -- ,----' //
! I
, m
I 5
: ~
I ~
,
,
I
,
,
I
I
L
---------------
'"
u
~
:E
~
o
t;;
("'"'
-~-go
_~ 09
~Z~.z
=~gS
~Q~8
'l:....o.... 0.. -
r"'" ~_ :;;:: z
..""" <::"'"
~~Cl.>o...
II!'!;=~~
"
"
"
/
,
,
/
"
/
"
/
/'.;------n-1
, '
/ '
/ ~ '
" ,
, '
/ '
, ~,)
-I //
"
/r//
/
//'
~
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
:
,
_____...1
~A!
~<~ 1 ~
~ ~hl ~
-< " ~" :l '
'" w ~.~ Q =- :'?
<( I- "",:::;'", .....
- Q~I 0Iil- "
!-::r::Cifi:;::; ~....~
>-<u~o..~ ~C~
=:e<::!><: .... ~ 0
~<~fOlil...~1
=~ ~ &
I
I
I
,
,
I
,
,
I
,
,
I
, z
,
I --<
,
, .......
I p..,
I .......
, ~
,
I >
, ~
,
I .......
I ~
0
I --<
0:::
I --<
0
I
.......
~
>
~
.......
~
o
o
0:::
......
~
Vl
z
-<
.......
p..,
1
lI) .1
"
"I
~!
'I
,
I 1>1\ i
I I'~ ~
I ~. i'R
] ~\~ ~
, ,I, ,
~ .5 ~iE
-~ '"go
-~~~
~z .,so
=~5"'"
~Q~8
T;.....,.. ~z-
r""" <:'-) ~
i~ =:0..
&~
.;fj
~ :5 ~
~ ~ ~ i
Vl -<;l:: 11
Z C ~
- 1-<" 3~~
ton U ~ i~
-< U-l E.=:a
l:C. l- 93~
'<...., S!~...
l- ::c g@;.
>- u s""~
=: 0::: i
-< < 8 ~
C ~ ~
r--.
('"
I
~
~
,
---
-----1
,
,
~ 1
~ \
I :
rm,/j
,
,
,
,
I
,
,
,
,
,
,
~ I
~ i
-------_._-~
,
~ /
I;;
(; //
~/
I~
1""".
/;-...,
,//// "'"''''''
, ,
, ,
, ,
,
~
i
c
.J
------,
,
,
,
,
~ \
~ i
h
Lj
r
,
,
,
,
,,'///
/
, --
L__~~
r'\
~
==-~
~ ==}'
_O~
... o. .
;s:~,j
I \C;
i
~
,
I"I~
-I'"
.. "' ~ i
] ~ -:5'~
o . "I'
'I f!! ~ '0'1
~ cooS::
....J
>J;..l
>
>J;..l
....J
~
o
o
~
r---
~
o
~
-<
>"-
z
-<
....J
0....
....J
>J;..l
>
>J;..l
....J
~
o
o
~
o
>J;..l
~
I
z
-<
....J
0....
... ii, ~ ,.--. I
:::,c:; ""I: ~ ~. _.J
~:;(~ 1 ~
z -~ @"~;,:;
- Eo- 5 ~'@
'" u "t. "" =- ~
< l.t.l ~~; .....
"''''~''i ~= n
<-~~- r'-lC'"
~ ~ i"i ;: C; II
"''''.. ta~G l
<<@, -g ~ "':l 0:
~ s.-
-~-go
-~a8
. ~Z.;:;2>;
-~;:;3
=_ 0550
~~""'" ",U
--~Z
P. "-l O;S:
i~t~
/1
/1
/ I
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
f"
I
1
I
I
I
I
I z
I -<
I ~
p..,
1
I ~
;..l..l
I >
I ;..l..l
, ~
I
I 0
I z
I -
>
I -
] ~
I
I
]
,
.J
f"
V~--j/
I .
I
I ~
I i
, a
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
L._._. .
I
,
,
,
,
,
L.._____
..I~---
-~
~
,
/"""
~
~
-
-
r
'""'\
ACTION: 8040 Grrenline Review
-
The provisions of8040 greenJine review shalJ appJy 10 all development
located at or above eight thousand forty (8040) feet above mean sea
JeveJ (the 8040 greenline) in the City of Aspen, and to all development
within one hundred fifty (150) feet below the 8040 greenEne, Uflless
exempted by the Community Development Director.
8040 gfftallae review standards. No development shall be permitted at,
above, or one hundrcd tifty (150) feetbelowlhc 8040 greenline unJess the
Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed
development complies with all requiremellts setforth btlow.
1. The parcel on which the proposed deve!opment is to be located is
suitabJe for development considering ils slope, ground stability
characteristics, Including mine subsidern;e and the possibility of
mudtlow,rockfallsandava!anchedangers.lfthepal'Celisfound
to contain hazardous or toxic soi19. the appHcant shail stabilize and
.revegetatelhc.'lOils,or,wherenecessary,causethemtoberemoved
from lhe site to a location acceptable to the city.
-
2. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse elfect
onthenaturalwatershed,runoff,drainage,soilerosionorhave
consequent effects of water pol!ution.
3. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse effect
on the airquaHty of the city,
4. The design and location of any proposed development. road,ortrail
is compatible with lhe terrain on the parcel on which the proposed
devdopment is to be located.
-
5. Any grading wiD minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to
tbeterrain,vegetationandnaturallandfearures.
-
6, The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need
for roads,limit cotting and grading, maintain open space, and
prescrvethemOWltainasascenicresoorce.
-over.
7. Building height and bulkv.ill be minimized and the structure wiJI
be designed to blend into the open character of the mOlUltain.
-'-"'-
-
-
0(
,
~
"'"
8_ Suffidenl water pressure and other utilities are available to service
the proposed development.
9. Adequate roads are avai.lable to serve the proposed development,
and said roads can be properly maintained.
10. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed
development so ilS 10 ensure adequatc access for fire protection
and snow removal equipment.
11. Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspo:n Area
Comprehensive Plan: ParksIRecreationlOpen SpacetTrails
Plan map is dedicatcd for public use. Provide access to natural
resources and areas of special interest to thecornmunity.
- .~.-~_.
"I<;
.
r
"
DIMENSIONIAL VARIANCE:
-
The grant oftbe variance will be generally eDmistent with the
purposes,goab,objeclives,andpoliciesoftheAspenArea
Community Plan and this Titlc;
The grant of the variance is the minimum ....riance that will make
pOMibletherell5onablelneofthepancl,building,orstructun,llnd
Literal Interpretation and enforcement oftbe terms and pnl\"isions
of tbis Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly
enjoyed by other pareel'l in the same:rone district. and would cause
the applicant unnecesury hllrdship or practical difficulty. In
determining whether an applicant's rights would he deprived, the
board shall eODsiderwbether either of the following conditions app Iy:
There are Spel:ill! conditioDS and eircumstance5 wbicb are
1I11iqueto the parceJ. building or strueture, whieh are not
applieableto Gtberparcels,structure!, or building! in the
same zone dbtrlct and wbich do not rr~ult from the action~
orthe applicant, or
Granting tbe variance will not confer upon the applicant any
special pri\'ilege denied by tbe A'pen Area Community Plan
and the term, of tbb Title to otber parcel~. buiIding~, or
~trudure..inthesamezonedistrict.
....
""
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN YARIANCE CRITERIA:
For a variance to be granted,itwould hllve to be bll5ed on one oflbe foJl owing
three criteria:
The proposed design yields greater complillDce with the goab oftbe
Aspro Area Community Plan, or
The proposed design more effectively addresse1I the issue or problem
tbe given standard responds to, or
A variaDce is dearly necessary for reuOlu offaime35 related 10 unusual
sitespedficcoDstrllinb.
.'
,
P" ..-...... T"
I:""" -:;'''-K', .~": '",,';. '.ii'./:..:: ".>:" i.:; ". 'TJ""':: "'.c'",,;::CO')., ';"'.,""", .:.'..,'.::......,' .
-r:';>',~iy... . .;)..'~;~.).:,..:.:.:;,...:,.....:::.'.. ..,;....:....\i::.....<:,~};,;>~',':":~.,. ..... ~~Kt~l~,'~:~,::;.~:
..'. ...<,..'..' ".i;;., ,'.'.....::;........ ." .... ..... ...~... "',')',
::"'rr'" i"" '., '.,'., .' ...... ' ...... . . .....'... . ' '.- _. .... :{)-::..
, .'.'...... . .,'.,.. J. .. :"" " '.' . ".. . . ..,. '. .'. ""
... .....; i;'. ,'.. ".' .,.... . . . :'..".." ..,,':....
: :'"'' .,'.:: ,: .': :;:, . : . :, . :"," 'i;' I'
"..... ,...;.'.) <:'i;:';.'\i'.;:r::;:' . '. .... ?:;":,:.......'
Jr":,'; "':",'}h~'L?'~,:" ...... ....., .' ...... .., .... .'. '.' ". ..' ..... . flr'::<:,::
:;';';"'."':', I;') .:.: ;,.;':!::::',:<, ", ". " "':' </., )'", :', . '.' . :,;," ..,' .' :'.:.:' 'i ':',:-:
),:,r.:':,':, I , ..:i:,.:,:.,,:.,. ,', '.r.......,'.. ..:.>:;:..,..... "...,.""...:'.,,; ....'f.:: :<'>:""",.,,;.:::,.:";:.,"";;'., :,;"'.': ":","'.:""
.. "" >"'. .:'. ....: '.,":...., 'j:" ..' '. . ."x", .'. :'. ':."'... .... . .' .' ..,......,': "::;'V~.;'::5': ::> ",:. ....: :.j .'.'< ;,' .,......
. . ,i.. ." 'i'i.;.",;',"" '. " . . . , ... '. '. . ". ' ,";'"
'.:,Y;:i:' "..," ;, MITCHELLRESII;:>ENCE" . ", ", :.,/
, .' ",: ,,Y;' . ,:., ',. ,:' '::.
'. :/\"':".;, ,., ,... .: .. '. :....., .....i. .:
)':, ";.,, ,:"., ,", ,.., :..... . h
, .r'. '. ,",,''', ",C :", ","'0>, , . . :',....:;
,,> ~:~...i\ .:}.' '.: :.:,,;,........... ..': ,; ::... .. ','" '''''... ,.:,~,: ;;.
'.' ....... '''',';' ':." 'APPLIC:A.TIONFOR ',':,;.. <::
'.:....r..";:.),;:: <>.' .... ....':.~.:; .'."/:..,.::
. .... ,.:':. . ...::....,: .,....:,.... ,.,....
',. .' :".'..' . . . ':';:<:.'..., :ic':.." "". .".' .... .'.
~{:',:,. I) ;': . .:,'. ; 8040GREENLINEREYIEW,.: :.' '., ........"......:
Ii;:,; '. .... .. .......... . '.' '."" <,Y,.. ..,.::\
;:">, . .. AND.. . '. VAR.IANCE..' ,....,.. ;.':,....., :.J;:,"':.';:":
.r-.......'~..:..,..
" ,', '. .. '. . '" ..' . ,:.,....'., .'.
.. I .. ,\,:" .., . '.' ....",.., ..'. ".,'.. .: ":' "', ..,'
',: . .... . '.. " .'. . . . ".. . '.,
..
.:~: · .11t'~'~' '#!f1r':" ...
..i;;...... .,.' '. .... ..'..... .., ." '.' .......... ' .,..,. .(~;;I:';'" ..., ,
{.;\~:....\\.Jf~\t;' .... ..... .;:. .',~ '. .;....<:lr
r;~, "~ ~ ' ' ' " <"
,,:," ," . .. .' '. '. .. . ". " '.
',;:. ....':C\M'.. ..... ......, "~~~.... ':',.:.:;'.:.,'.'
.' .' '. 'V'" . '" ". . SUBMI'[TED BV ' ~j ..' .';.>:
,)';);. '. ..... . . .......... .. .. ........ ". ....,:....',...::....
. :: '.. ..' '" ' ALANRIC~ pLAMilIN(jSERViCES
,;:,,<.,. . ". .'. " ., ". BOX~613.. .. .' .' I. .,'
~I j' ',' ASPEN;COLORADO:81612 _ .. . .... . .
"1",<. '..:' '. . ..' "?20.1125 ' ." .": '<
~r: .. ";i',:,:: "
,:::" L..... .......:,..., '." .. ,JUNE; 1999 .;., . I. . .':. : :..~'..:;V ..
': ~:::. ,". . '::::.;f'" '..",
. r..:, .., "." . .... .. .~::.
'if' ." " '~y~, ~611f'
f', ' ~~~ ~~~" f~{~t .
"I:
TABLE OF CONTENTS
_.
PAGE
I. PROJECT OVERVIEW .................,....................... 1
A. Application Request ....................................... 1
,....,
B.
Dimensional Limitations .................................... 2
C. GMQS Exemption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3
-
II. 8040 GREENLINE ............................................ 4
_.
III. VARIANCE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9
IV. VESTED RIGHTS ............................................ 11
-
V. CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11
~.
EXHIBITS
#1. Title Insurance Commitment
-
,
#2. Letter Authorizing Submission of Application
#3. Pre-Application Conference Summary
"..
#4. Geologic Site Assessment, Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc.
f'"" #5. Subsoil Study for Foundation Design, Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc.
#6. Supplemental Drainage Study, Schmueser Gordon Meyer
-
#7. Drainage Study, Schmueser Gordon Meyer
-
MAPSIDRA WINGS
,..
-
Vicinity Map
Improvements Survey
Existing Conditions
Proposed Site Plan
Existing and Proposed Elevations
Proposed Floor Plans
-
-
....
,...
-
I. PROJECf OVERVIEW
A.
Application Request
This is an application to re-develop a parcel of land located at 550 Aspen Alps Road. The
,- property is presently improved with a single-family residence. The owners of the property,
George and Cynthia Mitchell, propose to tear down that residence, which they built more
than 25 years ago, and to replace it with a new house.
"'"
-
"'"
-
,...
~
,""
...
-
-
-
,...
....
.-
-
It is necessary to build a new house because the foundation of the existing house is cracking
and it cannot easily be repaired. The house is also very wasteful from an energy use
standpoint, with single-glaze windows, poor insulation, and an inefficient heating system.
Moreover, because the owners of the property have gotten older and because this is a
relatively steep site, it is essential that their home be made handicap-accessible. This has
become a primary design consideration in the formulation of this proposal.
The location of the site in relation to neighboring properties is shown on the vicinity map.
As can be seen, the property is located along the edge of the Little Nell slope, near the base
of Aspen Mountain. It is surrounded primarily by multi-family dwellings (the Aspen Alps)
that are much larger in scale than the existing residence. Access to the property is provided
from Aspen Alps Road.
An improvements survey, depicting existing conditions on the property, has also been
provided. It illustrates that this is an irregularly shaped piece of land that is improved with
the existing residence and a surface parking area. It also identifies the locations of the
fourteen trees on the property that have a caliper size of five inches (5") or greater. The
house is nestled among these and other mature trees that afford ~he existing residence a
sense of privacy, even though it is surrounded by multi-family buildings and by the Little Nell
slope. These trees also screen the house from view from neighbors and skiers.
This application is being submitted by the owners of the property (hereinafter, "the
Applicants"). Proof of the ownership of the property is provided by Exhibit #1, the title
insurance commitment. Authorization for Alan Richman Planning Services to represent the
Applicants for this application is provided by Exhibit #2.
A pre-application conference was held with a representative of the City to discuss this
project (see Exhibit #3, Pre-Application Conference Summary). Based on this meeting, it
was confirmed that this project would require the following development approvals:
8040 Greenline Review for development above the 8040 greenline; and
Variance for development within the minimum setbacks of the Conservation zone district.
Mitchell 8040 Greenline Review and Variance Application
Page 1
,...
-
,
r-
,....
,....
~.
...
....
,~
,""'"
,...
,...
I""
-
-
,..
....
,...
,...
This application addresses the review standards for both of these development approvals,
since recent revisionS to the Land Use Code now permit the Planning and Zoning
Commission to consider both of these applications.
B. Dimensional Limitations
Table 1, on the following page, provides an analysis of how the proposed development
complies with the dimensional limitations of the Conservation (CON) zone district. The
table illustrates that the property is a nonconforming lot of record, since it contains
considerably less than 10 acres of land and is nowhere near as wide as 400'. Section
26.104.060 A. of the Aspen Land Use Code states that a single-family residence may be
developed on a nonconforming lot of record, provided a variance from the underlying
dimensional requirements is obtained.
The table also illustrates that it is simply not feasible for any development scenario for this
property to comply with several of the other dimensional requirements of the Conservation
zone district. For example, the minimum required front yard setback is deeper than the
width of virtually any section of the lot, while the minimum required front and rear yard
setbacks together are as deep as the widest portion of the lot. Therefore, the existing
residence and the proposed residence are both nonconforming as to setbacks. This situation
necessitates that a setback variance be obtained, since any re-configuration of the structure
will cause an increase in the extent of the nonconformity with regard to setbacks.
Responses to the standards for a variance are provided in Section III of this application.
The proposed development will comply with the other applicable standards of the underlying
Conservation zone district. However, when this application was being prepared and when
it was submitted, the Conservation zone district did not have a floor area ratio.
Nevertheless, the Applicants used the maximum allowable floor area ratio of the neighboring
R-1S zone district as a guide, but not an absolute limit, when formulating this application.
The R-1S zone district would permit a house containing approximately 4,200 sq. ft. of floor
area to be built on this property. The proposed house is approximately 10% larger than
would be allowed in the R-1S zone, but will be smaller than the surrounding multi-family
buildings, and most of the single-family houses that are located across the Little Nell slope.
It has now come to our attention that the City is considering the adoption of an FAR for
this zone. The proposed floor area ratio would also permit a house containing
approximately 4,200 sq. ft. of floor area to be built on this property. The Applicants would
request that the proposed floor area ratio for the Conservation zone district not apply to this
application, as they were not on notice of this proposed code amendment at the time this
application was being prepared, and they have spent substantial time and money to prepare
plans for this house based on the adopted language of the Aspen Land Use Regulations.
Mitchell 8040 Greenline Review and Variance Application
Page 2
,...
,...
,~
"'"'
-
....
...
""'""
JiI"'(,
,..
....
~-
-
...
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF PROJECT'S COMPLIANCE WITH
CONSERVATION ZONE DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Requirement Code Standard i EXisting Proposed Site
,...-........~_.. . Conditions PlIln
Minimum Lot Size 10 acres 10,161 sq. ft. 10,161 sq. ft.
Minimum Lot Area Per 10 acres Not applicable Not applicable
Dwelling Unit
Minimum Lot Width 400' 58' 58'
Minimum Front Yard 100' 14'* 20'
Minimum Side Yard 30' 37'** 10'
Minimum Rear Yard 30' 6' 10'
Maximum Height 28' Not available 28'
Minimum Distance No requirement Not applicable Not applicable
Between Buildings
Percent of Open Space No requirement Not applicable Not applicable
External Floor Area No requirement Not applicable Not applicable
Ratio
OfT-Street Parking 2 spaces per unit At least 2 spaces At least 2 spaces
Notes:
* This refers to the setback for the existing house. There is an existing retaining
wall that is located about 10' from the front property line.
** This also refers to the setback for the existing house. There are existing steps
located 29' from one side property line and a retaining wall that extends to
that property line.
C. GMQS Exemption
- Since this proposal involves demolition of an existing residence, it qualifies for an exemption
from GMQS pursuant to Section 26.100.050 A.2.c. of the Aspen Land Use Code. This
section requires that Applicants choose one of three affordable housing mitigation options
,... for projects that involve replacement of a demolished single family house. The option that
the Applicants have chosen to comply with this section is to pay the applicable affordable
housing impact fee, as specifically authorized in sub-section (1) (c).
....
....
,...
Mitchell 8040 Greenline Review and Variance Application
Page 3
--
r-
II.
8040 GREENLINE REVIEW
_ This property is located generally between 8,040' and 8,075' in elevation. Therefore, the
I
I proposed development is subject to 8040 Greenline Review.
- The standards for 8040 Greenline Review are found in Section 26.440.030 of the Aspen
Land Use Code. Our responses to these standards are as follows:
-
,....
-
....
,...
,....
-
-
....
...
....
!"'"
-
,...
,...
I
1.
The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for
development, considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine
subsidence and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. If the
parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and
revegetate the soils or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a
location acceptable to the City.
Response: Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. has prepared two reports to determine the
suitability of the property for development. One report is a geologic site assessment of the
property (see Exhibit #4) while the other report is a subsoil study for foundation design (see
Exhibit #5). In preparing the reports, they have conducted several field explorations of the
site, including exploratory borings, and have evaluated resource materials.
The geologic site assessment states that the proposed residence is not in an area that is
subject to potential rockfall or avalanche hazards. There are, however, certain geologic
conditions that could affect the project and need to be addressed. The conditions include
the need to manage storm water from the Spar Gulch drainage, the potential for subsidence
due to past mining activities, the potential for construction-related slope instability, the
potential for earthflow creep, and the potential for earthquake.
Following are the findings and recommendations with respect to each of these hazards:
Storm Water Management: The site assessment states that the Spar Gulch drainage could
produce debris floods and flows during periods of unusually intense thunderstorms or when
there is rapid melting of an unusually heavy snow pack.
In response to this finding, Jay Hammond of Schmueser Gordon Meyer was retained to
evaluate whether the existing stream channel can carry the potential water and debris flows.
His resulting report is attached as Exhibit #6.
Mr. Hammond evaluated the site considering information contained in the Drainage Facility
Capacity Analysis for the City of Aspen, Colorado, prepared by WRC Engineering, Inc. in
September, 1998. His evaluation finds that "Even assuming a worst case sediment condition
for the 100-year event, the Mitchell site is outside the area impacted by the potential flow
and deposition from Lower Spar".
Mitchell 8040 Greenline Review and Variance Application
Page 4
,....
,..
His report also contains the following conclusion:
- "In short, it is my opinion that the lower Spar Gulch drainage corridor is sufficiently well
defined and sufficiently far from the Mitchell residence site that the property is not
threatened by flood or debris flow conditions from the Spar basin. The well-defined upper
,... gulch, steep side gradients back into Spar, and the limited nature of obstruction to the lower
gulch would not appear to create conditions whereby an overflow condition or flow diversion
caused by a debris plug would get to the Mitchell site."
-
-
~
,...
,-
,....,
,""
-
....
-
....
,
."....
...
-
,...
Mine Workin!!s: A review of mine maps was conducted. The review demonstrates that the
shallowest mine workings are about 400' below the surface in this area, and the closest mine
shafts are about 150' and 250' southwest of the proposed building site. The assessment
concludes that "the old mine workings should not present a potential hazard to the proposed
residence". It goes on to recommend that if evidence of un-mapped shafts or tunnel portals
are found during excavation, then stabilization will be needed.-- ~ aMoCth.~
Construction-Related Slope Instability: Because relatively deep cuts in the steep hillside are
proposed, there is a potential for construction to induce slope instability. These conditions
can be mitigated by following the site grading, retaining wall, surface drainage, and
subsurface drainage recommendations contained in the subsoil study. The Applicants agree
to follow the recommendations of the geotechnical engineer in the developlI1ent of the site., I.. {
~ c~t ~ (, C4~,. /<( s"'stz."~t ~""y
Earthflow Creep: The site assessment states that "The Little Nell earthflow appears to be AJ'~~~
an old geologic feature that has not experienced large scale movements for some time. The , -, .
potential for large scale earthflow reactivation is considered to be low." However, the report
notes that there have been small scale movements recorded along the western part of the
Little Nell slope, in the range of 0.1" to 0.25" per year, that caused structural distress to
another building. The Applicants had already anticipated the need to design the structure
with this hazard in mind, since the existing residence on the subject property has experience
some cracking of its foundation (which is one of the primary reasons for constructing this
new residence).
The Applicants will follow the recommendations contained in the subsoil study (see Exhibit
#5), including those addressing foundation design, foundation walls and retaining walls, floor
slabs, un?erdrain systems, si!e grading, an~ surface drainage, to ensure ti!!.. is no repeat
of the failure of the foundatIon of the reSIdence. ~ ~ .
Earthquake Considerations: The assessment states that the residence is likely to experience
moderately strong shaking from an earthquake at some time during its useful life. The
shaking that is likely to occur would have negligible impacts on a well designed structure.
The Applicants agree to design the residence to withstand moderately strong shaking and
not to collapse under stronger shaking. flJf'V'V1PIf f/1!tj
Mitchell 8040 Greenline Review and Variance Application
PageS
,...
,...
-
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 proposed development will not have a significant adverse affect on the
natural watershed, nor cause increased runoff, drainage or soil erosion. In fact, since there
r- is no evidence of any existing drainage improvements on the site, such as inlets or drywells,
the drainage controls proposed in conjunction with this development should result in a
considerably improved condition.
/,....
f><
-
t-
,....
...,
,""
,...
....
-
,...
,""'"
...
,...
,...
As is more fully described in the attached report prepared by Schmueser Gordon Meyer
(Exhibit #7), drainage is currently routed around and away from the building. Overflow
from the northeast end of the property appears to sheet flow to the north across the
pavement area, and is routed along the road edge to the south of the Aspen Alps buildings.
The engineer recommends that two drywells be installed to accept runoff from the roof,
decks, and any exterior drains. The capacity of these drywells will provide for in excess of -.f I
100% of the City's drainage control standard, which requires detention of the increased ~--{.
runoff volume associated with the 100 year, 90-minute event after development. Jj C'~~ ,'.p;:.-
u...~~
The engineer also recommends that the geotechnical consultant ~akeC certain that there is
not any existing groundwater at the depths planned for the drywells, and comment on any
sub-surface concerns due to the introduction of water into the soils at this site. These
matters are both addressed in the Hepworth-Pawlak subsoil study (see Exhibit #5), which
contains recommendations regarding foundation design and the underdrain system.
Additional recommendations made in Jay Hammond's report are: (1) to ensure grading is
positive away from the structure; and (2) to not route the footer drains into the same _ r A '
drywells as the storm and roof drain collection lines. The Applicants will follow these C-1..J.Io-oI"" f'--I
recommendations, and will also comply with the other recommendations of the civil and
geotechnical engineers.
3.
The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the air quality
in the City.
Response: The proposed development should have a positive impact on air quality in the
Aspen area. This is because the existing residence contains two "dirty" wood burning
devices, both of which will be eliminated. The proposed residence will comply with all
applicable City regulations regarding wood burning devices. In addition, there should be no
additional traffic generated by the development, since th~ pr9ject simply involves t~ J,..,.
replacement of an existing single-family residence. -"'S~cA. 6.Jv...J.~ ~~6oJiNl.)
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.
Mitchell 8040 Greenline Review and Variance Application
Page 6
,...
C covtt1v~:"'^ ~s I slUb\::'~
Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation
and natural features.
1"""
5.
-,
6.
~
.....
I""
-
,...
-
-
,...
"...
"....
-
-
-
....
,...
-
The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting
and grading, maintain open space and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource.
Response: The Applicants have designed the house to compliment the natural terrain,
stepping it along the contours and burying much of the mass of the structure below the
surface.
The proposed development will minimize the need for grading and excavation, by limiting
the new residence principally to areas within the limits of the existing excavation. No new
roads will be required to serve the proposed home
Although three (3) trees on the site with a caliper size of 6" or greater will have to be .J
removed, the proposed site plan illustrates that they will be replaced by seven (7) conifer ~7
trees, each with a 6" caliper size. A calculation provided on the proposed site plan illustrates r;)I.Ar ItS
that the cross sectional area of the replacement trees exceeds the cross sectional area of the fL.,
existing trees. The replacement trees will be placed near where the trees to be removed are
currently located, to ensure the scenic features of the mountain remain as they are today.
7.
Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend
into the open character of the mountain.
Response: Elevations have been provided for the proposed residence. The elevations show
that the residence has been designed as a one-story structure at the highest point on the
property, and then steps down along the hillside to reveal more of the structure at the lower
elevations. The roof line of the structure has a curved appearance, so it is sympathetic with,
and actually replicates the form of the natural mountain hillside. At its highest point, the
building will comply with the 28' height limit; at other points it will be wen below that limit.
Moreover, the form of the structure has been broken into two distinct masses by the
introduction of a vegetated courtyard between these building elements.
A careful review of the proposed elevations also reveals that the new house win have a
lower overall height than the existing house when viewed from every direction. The architect
has "dotted in" the existing elevation on these illustration to allow for this comparison.
The new house will have a much lower overall height and profile than the surrounding multi-
family buildings of the Aspen Alps. As one looks at this site from below or from the ski
slope, the most prominent visual image is established by these multi-family buildings and not
by this single-family house. In fact, from virtually any location within the downtown area,
it is simply not possible to actually see this house, because the existing trees screen it from
view, and because there are buildings within town that block views to the property.
Mitchell 8040 Greenline Review and Variance Application
Page 7
,....
-
,-.
~
-
r"'""
--
....
-
,...
-
1.
The Applicants commit to preserving the vast majority of the existing trees on the site that
screen views of the building from below the house, and from both the east (Aspen Alps
Road) and from the west (Little Nell slope). As is illustrated on the proposed elevations,
these trees, along with the new conifer trees we commit to planting, accomplish more for
maintaining the open character of the mountain than any other design innovation we could
introduce into this development. These plantings will ensure that surrounding residents and
users of the Little Nell slope will continue to enjoy the open, natural view of the mountain
that is present today.
Height and bulk will also be minimized by submerging the structure into the hillside. This
is particularly true as the house is viewed from the ski slope (see Sheet 3, Proposed
Elevations). In fact, because some portions of the proposed house will be below grade, and
because the stairs at the front of the house (near the edge of the road) will be removed, it
will appear to sit further back from the road than does the existing residence. The proposed
garage will also be built into the hillside. It will be covered with earth and landscaping, to
make it appear that the natural terrain continues beyond the structure. This garage will
replace an existing cut where cars are now stored on the ground surface. The massive,
unsightly wood cribbing wall that is failing will be replaced with a much mqrf flttractive \fll1J '"
that is made of concrete or natural stone materials. ~ cltte.l -t-\'\~~ \ bole. Lvl{{1 ,/
8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed
development. ~ ~ ~ C;;'T,)V':-\J...cr-
Response: The existing house is already setved by City of Aspeb water service, Aspen
Consolidated Sanitation District sewage disposal service, and other necessary utilities. All
of these services are adequate and no changes to these services are anticipated at this time.
Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development and said roads can be
properly maintained. .
9.
"...0;
10.
,-
-
-
-
~
-
-
Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure
adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment.
Response: Ingress and egress is provided from Aspen Alps Road. This private road, which
also serves the multi-family units at the Aspen Alps, is more than adequate for access for
fire protection and snow removal purposes.
11.
Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan:
Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan map is dedicated for public use.
Response: The referenced Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan map has been superseded by
the pedestrian and bikeway maps in the Aspen Area Community Plan. Those maps do not
show a trail in the vicinity of the subject property.
Mitchell 8040 Greenline Review and Variance Application
Page 8
-
~
-
-
,...
....
-
,""'"
-
-
"*'
....
-
...
-
-
-
...
m. VARIANCE
The re-development of this property requires the Applicants to obtain a variance from the
front, side, and rear yard setbacks of the Conservation zone district.
The standards for variances are found in Section 26.314.040 of the Aspen Land Use Code.
Our responses to these standards are as follows:
1.
The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and
policies of the Aspen Area Community Plan and this title.
Response: The Applicants have been unable to find any statement in the Aspen Area
Community Plan that would relate to the proposed variance. However, we suggest that the
re-development of this property for use as a single-family residence is consistent with the
overall intent of the Plan, which is that Aspen continue to be an environmentally responsible,
economically sustainable community.
For a discussion of how the proposed variance is consistent with the purposes of the Aspen
Land Use Code, please see the response to the next standard, in which we describe how the
proposed variance has been designed to be consistent with the setback requirements of the
City's R-15 zone district.
2.
The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable
use of the parce~ building or structure.
Response: Since the setbacks of the Conservation zone district bear no relationship to a
property of this size, when the site plan was being formulated for this property, it was
necessary to establish what would be reasonable setbacks to guide its development. We
looked at the official zone district map and found that the properties along this portion of
the base of Aspen Mountain are typically designated into one of three possible zone districts,
these being Lodgerrourist Residential (LrrR), Moderate Density Residential (R-15), and
Conservation (CON).
The setbacks in these zone districts are as follows:
L/TR
CON
R-1S
Front Yard:
Side Yard:
Rear Yard:
10'
5'
10'
100'
30'
30'
25'
10'
10'
The closest neighboring zoning to this property is, in fact, LlrR. A review of the site plan
illustrates that the proposed development complies with the setbacks of the LtrR zone.
Mitchell 8040 Greenline Review and Variance Application
Page 9
....
,..
However, we concluded that if we could instead develop this site to conform to R-1S
setbacks, that would be consistent with the prevailing conditions that apply to most single-
- family style development in this neighborhood and would constitute a "minimum variance".
The Applicants have made every effort to follow the setback requirements of the R-15 zone
- district in the design of the proposed residence. The one area where the proposed house
protrudes into these setbacks is with respect to the front yard setback, as measured in the
narrowest portion of the lot. In this area, a 20' front yard setback has been achieved.
-
.......
,...
,....
,...
,....
.....
-
-
,....
.....
-
-
....
,..
It should be noted that in the area where the house will protrude into the 25' setback, it will
do so' to a lesser extent than does the existing house, which is only 14' from the front
property line, and to an even lesser extent than does the existing retaining wall, which is 10'
from the front property line.
It should also be noted that at least part of the area where the structure protrudes into the
setback will be for the proposed garage. As described above, the garage will be covered
with earth and landscaping, to make it appear that the natural terrain continues beyond the
structure. This should help to minimize the visual impacts of this variance.
3.
Literal intetpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this title would
deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone
district and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty. In
determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the board shall consider
whether either of the following conditions apply:
a.
There are special circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building or
structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the
same zone district and which do /lot result from the actions of the applicant; or
b.
Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege
denied by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and the terms of this title to other
parcels, buildings or structures in the same zone district.
Response: Literal interpretation and enforcement of the setbacks of the Conservation zone
district would deprive the Applicants of all use of the subject property. The Conservation
zone district requires a minimum front yard setback of 100' and a minimum rear yard
setback of 30'. Taken together, this 130' front and rear yard setback is wider than virtually
the entire lot (the lot is just 131' wide at its southern boundary).
The special circumstance that is unique to this parcel is the fact that it is an approximately
10,000 sq. ft. parcel in a zone district that requires a minimum of 10 acres. This situation
makes this parcel so significantly non-conforming that it is impossible for the Applicants to
comply with the applicable setbacks, which were designed to apply to much larger
Mitchell 8040 Greenline Review and Variance Application
Page 10
.-
!-
properties. This problem is compounded by two other unique factors:
~
.
The property is oddly shaped, with a narrow section along its northern boundary,
gradually widening in the southern portions of the property.
/""'
.
This is a relatively steep lot, and one that is important to the community visually due
to its location along the Uttle Nell run. It is important to locate the house in the
portion of the property that has already been disturbed to ensure that views from the
ski area will remain open.
-
-
All of these factors taken together constitute a unique circumstance that cause the
Applicants unnecessary hardship and practical difficulty. It would be a particular hardship
to the Applicants if they were refused permission to replace this older house, because the
house has experienced cracking of its foundation and is also quite energy inefficient, and
because the Applicants are unable to enjoy the house today due to their increasing age,
which has made it difficult for them to use the existing multi.level house.
,...
,......
IV.
VESTED RIGHTS
,......
Pursuant to Section 26.52.080 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Applicants hereby request
that this development be granted vested rights status.
,-
v.
CONCLUSION
In summary, we have submitted all of the materials requested of us during our pre-
_ application conference. We have responded to the applicable standards of the Aspen Land
Use Code and have demonstrated our compliance with said standards. Should any reviewing
agency request additional information, or need for us to clarify any of the statements made
,... herein, we will respond in a timely manner. Please feel free to contact us as necessary.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Mitchell 8040 Greenline Review and Variance Application
Pagell
,...
-
-
-
~
,....
-
.....
'""'
-
-
,
'""'
,..
-
-
....,
,.....
....
-
,...
EXHIBITS
J!
~
~
.Uo,iUtfCAN &.AND TITt.E A..OCtATION OWNElIII'. P'QL1CY-STANOAIIIIO,.OItM ..1...
. (-
('
EXHIBIT #1
Title Insurance Policy
No. co 220194 -0
Issued by
Transamer.ca Title InsurancaGompany
a California corporation, hereinafter called the Company, in consideration of the premium
which has been paid for this Policy, does insure the person, corporation or other entity,
designated as the Insured in Item 1 under Schedule A, hereinafter called the Insured, the
heirs, devisees, personal representatives of such Insured, or, if a corporation, its succes-
sors by dissolution, merger or consolidation, against loss or damage not exceeding the
amount of this Policy as shown in Schedule A, together with costs, attorneys' fees and
expenses which the Company may become obligated to pay as provided in the Conditions
and Stipulations hereof, which the Insured shall sustain by reason of:
1. Any defect in or lien or encumbrance on the title to the estate or interest covered hereby in
the land described or referred to in Schedule A, existing at the date hereof, not shown or
referred to in Schedule B or excluded from coverage in Schedule B or in the Conditions and
Stipulations; or
2. Unmarketability of such title; or
3. Lack of a right of access to and from land;
all subject, however, to the provisions of Schedules A and B and to the Conditions and Stipulations
hereto annexed; all as of the effective date of this policy, as shown in Schedule A.
In Witness Whereof, the Company has caused its corporate name and seal to be hereunto
affixed by its duly authoriied officers.
Transamerma Trfle Insurance Company
By
President.
Attest
d'~~~lP ", ...
,01 \}"l'I". '" ".' " .........._ ......
"p'-'" "~:~ ::,.,Yi';:;
.. ~. :g1:-":~'
'.'. "_: ,~~ ''''.-:C'
'''',",,,'':,.
'.," ,:y'
I '":,'-' i' ;':.."" ;'i./:
4l;? Secretary
\EW
Authorized Officer or Agent
;
-
I"'"
~
~
....1.
-
....
-
-
-
-
SCHEDULE A
ORDER NUMBER
II
II
II
".
465383-0
AMOUNT
S125, 000. 00 II
OotlfCl this
22nd day of
September
I 19...1.l., at the hour of 8:00 0' clock A.M.
The namo of the insured and the estate, or interest of the insured in the land described below and cov-
ered by this policy is as follows: .
GEORGE P. MITCHELL and CYNTHIA W. MITCHELL, as Joint Tenants
'2.
The land, the title to which is insured, is described or known Os follows:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION AS SET FORTH ON ATTACHED SHEET
SCHEDULE B
This Policy does not insure against Joss or darnoge by reason of the following:
1. Rights or cJoims of parties in possession not shown of record, induding unrecorded eOSe~nts.
;~. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in oreo, encroachments, or any other facts which a cor.
fect survey would disclose, and which ore not shown by the public records.
3. Mechanics liens, or any rights thereto, where no notice of such liens or rights appear of record.
~. Taxes dnd assessments not yet due or payoble; and Special Taxes or Assessments certifjed to the office of
'he County T,easu,e, subsequent to: Any and all unpaid taxes and assessments.
-
.-
-
_.
-
...
PoHey No. CC-220194-0
s.'~et I of 3
~,'.'F=Qt."':.'\) r A!';~ .,.,-,
-,<<,,~'t."'C'''' OW"'F~S POLICY ~ ST.o.,NDA~D FORM 8.1962
-
....
I'-
-
-
'7
.- ..
....
...
,...
...
...
.-
....
,...
...
. lO.
r-
-
-
""
ORDER NUMBER
SCHEDULE B
CONTINUED
II
II
465383-0
5.
Deed of Trust from George P. Mitchell and Cynthia W. Mitchell to the
Public Trustee of Pitkin County for the use'of The Bank of Glenwood
to secure $80,000.00, dated August 16, 1971 and recorded September 16,
1971 in Book 257 at Page 783.
6.
Disburser's Notice filed in connection with the above Deed of Trust
recorded September 16, 1971 in Book 257 at Page 786, naming The Bank
of Glenwood as Disburser.
Easement and Right of Way from H. A. Bornefeld, Jr., and George P.
Mitchell to Holy Cross Electric Association, Inc., recorded August
16, 1971 in Book 257 at Page 47, for underground power line easement
situated in the M & Y Lode, M.S. 3921 Am. lying 5.0 feet Southeasterly
and parallel to the following described line: Beginning at a point
on the line between Corner l'.and Corner 7 of said M & Y Lode whence
Corner 4 of the Little Nell Lode M.S. 3881 Am. bears S. 85015'37" E.
116.01 feet; thence N. 04030' E. 451.20 feet.
3.
Mineral reservations as reserved by instruments appearing as Reception
No. 111295 in Book 193 at Page 575 and as Reception No. 108677, in Book
188 at Page 598 of the records in the office of the Clerk and Recorder
of Pitkin County, Colorado.
(The Company agrees to protect the insured against any and all loss
or dm~age to the improvements situated on subject property resulting
from the use of the surface in connection with said reserved mineral
rights.)
9.
Reservations and exceptions as contained in Patents from the United
States for the City and Townsite of Aspen under the proviSions of
the Act of Congress, approved on the 2nd day of March, A.D., 1867,
entitled, "An Act for the Relief of the. Inhabitants of Cities and
Towns, upon the Public Lands." "Provided, that no title shall be
hereby acquired to any mine of gold, silver, cinnabar, or copper
or to any valid mining claim or possession held under existing
laws." And there is reserved from the land hereby granted a right
of way there or ror ditches or canals constructed by the authority
of the United States as reserved in Patents of record.
(The Company agrees to protect the insured against any and all loss
or damage to the improvements situated on subject property resulting
from the use of the surface in connection with said reserved rights.)
Any tax, assessments, rees or charges by reason of the inclUSion of
subject property in the Aspen Fire Protection District.
Policy No. CO-220194-0
sheet 2 of 3 AMERICAN ~ANO TilLE ASSOCIATlQN OWNERS POlley - STANDARD FORM B-1962
....
,....
-
-
....
,....
....
,....
,...
,....
-
,...
....
,...
,...
,...
-
,...
ATTACHED TO AND FORMING A PART OF ORDER NO. II
II
465383-0
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
A tract of land situated in the mv! of Section 18, Township 10
8outh, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M., Pitkin County, Colorado,
being part of the M & Y Lode, U.S.M;S. 3921 A.M., being more
fully described as follows:
Beginning at a point whence the intersection of line 5-6 of the
M & Y, U.8.M.8. 3921 A.M. with line 3-4 of the Millionaire,
U.8.M.S. 3620 A.M. bears N 04030'00" E. 72.16 feet;
thence 8 35030'00" E. 57.07 feet to the West line of a private
road;
thence along the West line of said private road 51.36 feet along
the arc of a curve to the left whose radius is 35.00 feet, and
whose chord bears 8 04004'17" 'if 46.87 feet;
thence alo!lg the West line of said private road 8 37058'00" E.
92.98 feet;
thence along the West line of said private road 15.50 feet along
the arc of a curve to the right whose radius is 115.00 feet, and
whose chord bears S 34006'17" E. 15.48 feet;
thence N 85030'00" W 129.86 feet to the easterly line of the
Millionaire, U.S.M.S. 3620 A.M.;
thence N OLl030'00" E. 127.56 feet along the easterly line of said
lode to the point of beginning,
County of Pitkin, State of Colorado.
,... Policy No. Co-220194-0
sheet 3 of 3
-
,....
,....
...
,....
,....
-
,...
,-
,...
,....
-
-
,...
-
,...
....
...
,...
ATIACHMENT #2
Mr. Chris Bendon, Planner
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: MITCHELL 8040 GREENLINE AND CONDmONAL USE APPLICATION
Dear Chris,
I hereby authorize Alan Richman Planning Services to act as my designated representative
with respect to the land use application being submitted to your office for my property,
located at 550 Aspen Alps Road. Alan Richman is authorized to submit an application for
8040 Greenline Review and for Conditional Use Review for an Accessory Dwelling Unit
(ADU). He is also authorized to represent me in meetings with City of Aspen staff and the
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission.
Should you have any need to contact me during the course of your review of this application,
please do so through Alan Richman Planning Services, whose address and telephone number
are included in the land development application.
Sincerely,
\'
C~~~
Cynthia Mitchell
.
{
ASPEN SHADOW LLC
JOHN HANCOCK CENTER
875 N MICHIGAN AVE STE 1560
CHICAGO IL 60611
LETTS W JACKSON & JOYCE H
2700 W 63RD ST
MISSION HILLS KS 66208
SPENCER MARGARET R
1306 ROYAL STREET
NEW ORLEANS LA 70116-2515
MAUTNER RICHARO & MARIANNE
5544 JACQUELINE
NEW ORLEANS LA 70124
MEYERS BAKERIES INC
PO BOX 7498
LITTLE ROCK AR 72217
BLACK JANE K
2323 BRYAN LB 145
DALLAS TX 75201
VERDESCA SANDRA RAE
3601 TURTLE CREEK
DALLAS TX 75219
ARNOLD ISAAC JR
ATTN ROYANN BECKHAM
601 JEFFERSON #4000
HOUSTON TX 77002
MARZIO FRANCES & PETER C
101 WESTCOTT #1702
HOUSTON TX 77007
MITCHELL GEORGE P & CYNTHIA W
CIO ALAN P VITALE
2002 TIMBERLOCH PL STE 260
THE WOODLANDS TX 77380
8RADLEY EDWARD W & JANIE G
3006 S HUGHES
AMARILLO TX 79109
LODESTAR WEST PARTNERSHIP LLP
175 BELLEVUE DR
BOULDER CO 80302
ASPEN ALPS HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION
700 UT AVE
ASPEN C081611
81LLlNGS PRENTICE 80YD
20 ASPEN MOUNTAIN RD
ASPEN CO 81611
ODONNELL KEVIN & MARYANN
TRUSTEES
700 UTE AVE
ASPEN CO 81611
PARIS JAIME I
700 S UTE AVE #205
ASPEN CO 81611
HARVEY CONSTANCE
4210 AA8C
ASPEN CO 81611.3548
ASPEN SKIING COMPANY
PO BOX 1248
ASPEN CO 81612
DEVORE KARINJO & NICHOLAS III
PO BOX 03
ASPEN CO 81612
EBRAHIMI SHAINE S
PO BOX 8590
ASPEN CO 81612
MCCLUSKEY DARLENE M
TWO COVENTRY CT
PRAIRIE VILLAGE KS 66208
TROTTER WILLIAM E II 12,3943%
600 JEFFERSON ST STE 1202
LAFAYETTE LA 70501
ALPS PARTNERS
CIO PETER G MCGUIRE
5910 N CENTRAL EXP #1780
DALLAS TX 75206
RIDDELL JOHN F JR & 8ARBARA 8
1111 FANNIN STREET - STE 1555
HOUSTON TX 77002-6923
OSUNA GUILLERMO & DORIS
POBOX 1093
DEL RIO TX 78841-1093
ASPEN ALPS CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION
PO BOX 1128
ASPEN CO 81611
KEATING MICHAEL
60 ASPEN MOUNTAIN ROAD
ASPEN CO 81611
TASH DAVID L
40 ASPEN MOUNTAIN RD
ASPEN CO 81611
COONEY THOMAS E
PO BOX 4517
ASPEN CO 81612
HODGE RON
PO BOX 1496
ASPEN CO 81612
.
,
FRIEDMAN RICHARD L
C/O CARPENTER & CO
. 20 UNIVERSITY RD
CAMBRIDGE MA 02138
CARMAN PETER CHIEF INVESTMENT
OFFICER
C/O CITIBANK GLOBAL ASSET MGMT
100 FIRST STAMFORD PL 7TH FL
STAMFORD CT 06902
KENNER JEFFREY L
720 PARK AVE #6-B
NEW YORK NY 10021
LOSSING JOHN HAROLD & JANE
BLACKMAN
730 24TH NW STE 1
WASHINGTON DC 20037
OHERRON EDWARD M JR QUAL PERS .
RES TRUST
OHERRON EDWARD M JR AS TRUSTEE
6827-C FAIRVIEW RD
CHARLOTTE NC 28210
ASCALI CORPORATION
C/O MENDEZ-INSUA CPA
8300 S W 8TH ST #303
MIAMI FL 33144
CABANISS WILLIAM J
3812 FOREST GLEN DR
BIRMINGHAM AL 35213
DUBIN HOWARD & JEANIE
381 CRANBROOK RD
BLOOMFIELD HILLS MI 48304
TAYLOR WALTER & SHIRLEY 39.296%
PO BOX 595
BUSBY MT 59016
LEBOVITS & MOSES
10318 GLENBARR AVE
LOS ANGELES CA 60064
HIRSCH LEON C & TURI L H
150'GLOVER DR
NORWALK CT 06850
OTTO GERDEAU CO
82 WALL ST
NEW YORK NY 10005
DRAKE L RODMAN 270/10001NT
485 PARK AVE #5A
NEW YORK NY 10022
KAPLAN JEROME A
6001 MONTROSE RD STE 403
ROCKVILLE MD 20852
PUGH JAMES H JR
359 CAROLINA AVE
WINTER PARK FL 32789
AMOS BETTY
13724 SW 92 CT
MIAMI FL 33176
PORTER ROBERT A & CHARL YNN
MAXWELL
611 PARKWAY STE F-13
GATLINBURG TN 37738
FORD SIMON JOHN HUBIRD & JULIE
DERKS
700 L YNCOTT
NORTH MUSKEGON MI 49445
HOPKINS DOUGLAS D
HEPLER JOHN C
911 SURREY LN
GLENVIEW IL 60025
ROIN MAUREEN M
1225 WESTMOOR RD
WINNETKA IL 60093
MOSES ASPEN VIEW HOMESITE INC
HIRSCH LEON - C/O
150 GLOVER AVE
NORWALK CT 06856
BAECHLE JAMES J
550 PARK AVE
NEW YORK NY 10021
SALOMON CHESTER B & ROSALIND S
975 PARK AVE
NEW YORK NY 10028
GARTEN HERB.ERT & SUSAN F
36 S CHARLES ST
2300 CHARLES CENTER S
BALTIMORE MD 21201
HALGLENN CORPORATION
1428 BRICKELL AVE
MIAMI FL 33131
MCINTOSH HENRY P IV & SUSAN RIGGS
124 VIA BETHESDA
PALM BEACH FL 33480
LEWIN DON C
7101 DIXIE HWY
FLORENCE KY 41042
HARRIS NANCY M
386 S MISSISSIPPI RIVER BLVD
ST PAUL MN 55105
CHANDLER CLARISSA HAFFNER
902 NORTH GREEN BAY RD
LAKE FOREST IL 60045
SHODEEN KENT W TRUST NO 1
17N1STST
GENEVA IL 60134-2220
.
KELLER KURT E
PO BOX 840
ASPEN CO 81612
PECKHAM THOMAS C
PO BOX 9766
ASPEN CO 81612
BASLO A CO PARTNERSHIP
C/O TERTIARY INC
600 E RIVER PARK LN STE 205
BOISE ID 83706
GELFAND HERBERT M
9171 WILSHIRE BLVD STE 610
BEVERLY HILLS CA 90210
PHELPS MARGARET T
389 CALIFORNIA TERR
PASADENA CA 91105
HEMPHILL CALVIN R REVOCABLE
TRUST
9051 C SIEMPRE VIVA RD STE 070-166
SAN DIEGO CA 92173
THOMSON GARY FRED
THOMSON TOM WILBUR
PO BOX 190
COLTON CA 92324
AUHLL RICHARD A
C/O CIRCON CORP
6500 HOLLISTER AVE
SANTABARBARA CA 93117"3019
KLEIN MICHAEL S
PO BOX 626
CORTE MADERA CA 94976
RUL Y HOLDINGS PTY L TD
KRABACHER JOSEPH & ASSOC - C/O
POBOX 780
MASCOT NEW SOUTH WALES 2020
AUSTRALIA
LAMBERTI PAULA
PO BOX 8685
ASPEN CO 81612
UTE CHALET INC
PO BOX 1284
ASPEN CO 81612'
POLK JOHN V & PEGGY J
586 CAMINO MONTEBELLO
SANTE FE NM 87501
WINKLER REVOCABLE TRUST
840 LOMA VISTA DR
BEVERLY HILLS CA 90210
DAVIS FAMILY TRUST
PO BOX 1909
RANCHO SANTA FE CA 92067
FIGI J TODD & ERIC
PO BOX 85515
SAN DIEGO CA 92186
RHODES MARJORIE S
TRUST
1401 AVOCADO AVE
NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660
COX JONATHAN C S
C/O COX BUCHANAN & PADMORE
396 SELBY LN
ATHERTON CA 94027
ISAAC JENNIFER F TRUSTEE
13461 APPLE RD
WILTON CA 95693
PARK TRUST LTD
PO BOX 940
ASPEN CO 81612
WINTER HERBERT J
C/O ASPEN ALPS
PO BOX 1228
ASPEN CO 81612
HURT FAMILY L1MTED PARTNERSHIP
CAPITAL GROUP INC
50TH FL 333 SHOPE ST
LOS ANGELES CA 90071
DEUTSCH COMPANY A PARTNERSHIP
2444 WILSHIRE BLVD STE #600
SANTA MONICA CA 90403
RONY A REALTY NV
C/O DAVID S ZWEIG ESQ
4425 BAYARD ST STE 200
SAN DIEGO CA 92109
PAUL JAMES
C/O QUALITY COMPUTER SUPPLIES
55,525 CHERRY HILLS
LA QUINTA CA 92253
DENNIS K l
1913 E 17TH ST #118
SANTAANA CA 92705
ROCK ARTHUR
#1 MARITIME PlAZA STE 1220
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111
HO MARINA M Y
4607 KOLONAlA ST
HONOLULU HI 96816
-
-
....
EXHIBIT #3
CITY OF ASPEN
PRE-APPLlCA liON CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PLANNER:
Chris Bendon, 920.5072
DATE: 5.13.99
PROJECT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
-
OWNER:
TYPE OF APPLICATION:
DESCRIPTION:
Mitchel Residence 8040 Greenline and zoning variations
Alan Richman
Mitchel
I-step. P&Z for 8040 and zoning variances. Staff for residential design,
Replacement of existing single-family residence on a non-confonning lot in the
Conservation zone and within 8040 review area.
-
-
,...
--
-
-
-
- I.
2,
3.
-
4.
-
5.
- 6.
7.
- 8.
9,
.....
-
-
Land Use Code Section(s)
26,435.30 8040 Greenline Review
26.410 Residential Design Standards
26.314 Variances (See attached criteria)
26.710.220 Conservation Zone District
26.710.050 R-15 Zone District - use as a guide for dimensions
Review by:
Public Hearing:
Referral Agencies:
Planning Fees:
Referral Agency Fees:
Total Deposit:
Staff for completeness, DRC (referral agencies), Planning and Zoning Commission
Yes. Posting and mailing for variance.
Engineering, Parks, City Water, ACSD, Zoning, Building Department.
6 hour Planning Deposit ($1,110)
Engineering, Minor ($160)
$1,270 (additional hours are billed at a rate of$185/hour)
To apply, submit the following information:
Proof of ownership.
Signed fee agreement.
Applicant's name, address and telepbone number in a letter signed by the applicant which states the name,
address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant.
Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, 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 parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application.
Total deposit for review of the application
18 Copies of the complete application packet and maps.
HPC = 12; PZ = 10;GMC = PZ+5; CC = 7; Referral Agencies = Ilea.; Planning Staff= 2
An 8 1/2" by 11" vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen.
Site improvement survey including topography and vegetation showing the current status, including all easements
and vacated rights of way, of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the state of Colorado.
For Residential Proposals (Ord. 30): (one copy for staff review unless a variation is sought)
a) Neighborhood block plan at I "=50' (available from City Engineering Department) Graphically show the
front portions of all existing buildings on both sides of the block and their setback from the street in feet. '
Identify parking and front entry for each building and locate any accessory dwelling units along the alley.
Indicate whether any portions of the houses immediately adjacent to the subject parcel are one story (only one
living level).
-
-
b) Site plan at 1" = 1 0'. Show ground floors of all buildings on the subject parcel, as proposed, and footprints of
adjacent buildings for a distance of 1 00' from the side property lines. Show topography of the subject site
with 2' contours.
c) All building elevations at 1/8" = 1 '-0.
d) Floor plans, roof plan, and elevations as needed to verify that the project meets or does not meet the "Primary
Mass" standard.
e) Photographic panorama. Show elevations of all buildings on both sides of the block, including present
condition ofthe subject property. Label photos and mount on a presentation board.
A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the proposed
development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. Please include existing
conditions as well as proposed.
-
-
10.
,...
,...
,...
Disclaimer:
The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is
subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that mayor may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or
vested right.
"...
NOTES:
· Staff recommends applicant configure lot using the R -15 Zone District as a guide rather than seek a rezoning.
Zoning variances may be granted by the P&Z, pursuant to newly adopted land use code.
. Applicant may proceed under the provisions of the new code prior to formal adoption date.
· The Special Review procedure to replace a non-conforming structure is not applicable as applicant will be
seeking a formal variance.
. Staff recommends a combined review pursuant to section 26.304(B)(1).
. Applicant is encouraged to contact Parks Department if there are significant trees within the expected building
area or access way. 920.5120.
. Building code requires a fire suppression system for structures over 5,000 gross square feet and for smaller
structures which are difficult to access. Applicant may want to contact Fire Marshall to discuss requirement
prior to application. Ed VanWalraven. 925.5532.
,...
..-
..-
,...
,...
,...
-
,...
-
-
,...
....
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
5020 Road 154
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Fax 970 945-8454
Phone 970 945-7988
-
EXHIBIT #4
"""
January 26, 1999
...
....
Ms. Cynthia Mitchell
c/o Gary Tabasinske Architects, AlA
Attn: Mr. Gary Tabasinske
305 Doe Run Road
Lopez Island, Washington 98261
Job No. 198 609
...
Subject:
Geologic Site Assessment for the Mitchell Residence, 550 Aspen Alps
(South) Road, Aspen, Colorado
...
Dear Ms. Mitchell:
-
As requested by Alan Richman, we have conducted a geologic site assessment at the
proposed residence site. The purpose of the assessment was to review the geology of
the area and identify conditions that should be considered for the project. A field
reconnaissance of the site was made on December 14, 1998. The site was snow-
covered at that time. In addition to the field reconnaissance, we have reviewed
published geologic and mine maps and have looked at the site on aerial photographs.
We have also completed a subsoil study that included three exploratory borings
(Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, 1998).
,...
-
...
...
Proposed Development
The proposed residence will be a five story structure stepped into the hillside. The
residence will have a north-south dimension of about 100 feet and an east-west
dimension between 20 and 55 feet. Cuts into the hillside for the proposed construction
could be typically up to about 20 feet. Foundation loads are expected to be light to
moderate, typical of this type of residential building. The existing residence and
retaining walls at the proposed building site will be demolished.
...
...
Site Conditions
The project site is located on the lower slopes of the Aspen Mountain Ski Area. The
Little Nell ski run borders the property on the west. Slopes in the proposed building
area are steep. There is about 40 feet of elevation difference across the building site.
The hillside in the area slopes down to the north and northeast at about 35 % to 65 % .
Major drainages do not cross through the property. Spar Gulch is located about 600
feet to the east. Vegetation consists primarily of oak and other brush. Several multi-
family and single-family residences are located on the steep hillside in the vicinity of
the property.
...
'"'"
-
,...
Geologic Setting
The project site is on the lower slope of Aspen Mountain. This part of the mountain is
a large earthflow that developed since the late Pleistocene, about 20,000 years ago. The
-
-
I""
Ms. Cynthia Mitchell
January 26, 1999
Page 2
-
...
Little Nell earthflow involves glacial moraine of probable Bull Lake age and overrides
glacial outwash of early Pindale age (Bryant, 1979). The earthflow originated in the
Vallejo Gulch area to the south. The resulting deposit forms a prominent, lobe-shaped
land form at the base of the mountain. Old mine shafts and deep exploratory borings
indicate that the lower part of the earthflow deposit is about 100 feet thick. It consists
of angular rock fragments in a silty to clayey sand matrix.
.-
-
The formation rock underlying the earthflow deposit is complexly folded and faulted.
Regional geologic mapping indicates that the project site is on the eastern limb of the
north-trending Aspen Mountain syncline (Bryant, 1971). In this area the limb of the
syncline dips steeply to the west at about 600. Formation rock likely present below the
earthflow deposit in the vicinity of the project are the late Cretaceous and Paleocene-
age aplite porphyry, the Pennsylvanian-age Beldon'Formation, and the Mississippian-
age Leadville Limestone.
-
...
,...
Underground mine working in the Aspen Mining District are located along the eastern
limb of the Aspen Mountain Syncline. Mining of silver, lead and zinc started in the
mid 1880's and peaked about 1890. Mining in the area substantially declined by 1930
and since 1952 very little mining has been done in the Aspen District. Most of the ore
deposits were mined in steeply dipping ore chutes along the contact between the upper
and lower parts of the Leadville Limestone. The ore deposits essentially follow the
bedding along the eastern limb of the Aspen Mountain syncline (Spurr, 1898). Because
of this, the mine stopes should dip steeply to the west in the project area. In most
parts of the mining district the stopes are probably less than 10 feet wide, but in places
stopes of around 50 feet wide may be present.
"'"
...
...
-
Geol(lgic Site Assessment
The proposed residence site is not in potential rockfall or snow avalanche hazard areas.
There are, however, several geologic conditions that could have an impact on the
project. These conditions are discussed below:
,...
...
Storm Water Management: The Spar Gulch drainage could produce debris floods and
flows during periods of unusually intense thunderstorm precipitation or rapid melting of
an unusually heavy snowpack. Schmueser Gordon Meyer (1999) has evaluated the
flood potential for this drainage and determined the existing stream channel is adequate
to convey the design flood and debris flow potential beyond the Mitchell property.
Based on this conclusion, on-site mitigation to protect the proposed residence against
flooding is not needed.
-
,...
,...
Mine Workings: The old mine maps show that some development mine workings may
be present below the proposed building area, but extensive production stopes are not
indicated (U.S. Geological Survey, 1980 and Aspen Mining Company, 1995). These
maps show that the Argentium-Jaunita Incline and development drifts of the First and
Second Levels of the Homestake Deep Shaft Mine are present below the proposed
-
,...
,...
Ms. Cynthia MitcheII
January 26, 1999
Page 3
,...
,...
building site. The shallowest development workings are about 400 feet below the
surface judging from the elevations on the mine maps. The closest mapped mine shafts
are located about 150 and 250 feet to the southwest of the proposed building site.
...
Judging from the nature and locations of the mapped mine workings, the old mine
workings should not present a potential hazard to the proposed residence. The building
excavation should be observed for indications of past mining activities at the time of
construction. If indications of unmapped shafts or tunnel portals are found, then
stabilization will be needed.
-
...
Construction-Related Slope Instability: Construction for the proposed residence will
require relatively extensive disturbance of the steep hillside. The proposed grading
increases the potential for construction-related slope instability . Geotechnical
recommendations for site grading, retaining walls, surface drainage, and subsurface
drainage that can be used to reduce the risk of construction-related slope instability are
given in our subsoil study (Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, 1998).
,...
,...
...
Earthflow Creep: The Little NeIl earthflow appears to be an old geologic feature that
has not experienced large scale movements for a long time. The potential for large
scale earthflow reactivation is considered to be low. We are, however, aware of
historic slope creep movements in the western (opposite) side of the earthflow. Slope
creep was measured in inclinometers in the western part of the earthflow between 1992
and 1996 when the monitoring was discontinued. During this four year period, total
creep displacements were between 0.4 and 1.0 inches with average annual creep rates
between 0.10 and 0.25 inches per year. It is not known if the creep has continued since
1996. The 1992 to 1996 creep movements resulted in structural distress to a building
that has required maintenance to correct.
,...
-
-
-
Based on the available data, it is not possible to determine the area affected nor if
similar creep movements have occurred, or are presently occurring, in the eastern part
of the earthflow in the vicinity of the proposed building site. Deep exploratory borings
and inclinometers monitoring over a period of years would be required to evaluate if
creep movement are occurring at the proposed building site. If there have been any
creep movements in the project area, they are likely widespread and include the overall
Aspen Alps area.
-
-
-
Earthquake Considerations: The project area could experience moderately strong
earthquake-related ground shaking. Modified MercaIli Intensity VI ground shaking
should be expected during a reasonable service life for the residence, but the probability
for stronger ground shaking is low. Intensity VI ground shaking is felt by most people
and causes general alarm, but results in negligible damage to structures of good design
and construction. The residence should be designed to withstand moderately strong
ground shaking with little or no damage and not to collapse under stronger ground
shaking. The region is in the Uniform Building Code, Seismic Risk Zone 1. Based on
-
-
,..
...
Ms. Cynthia Mitchell
January 26,1999
Page 4
-
our current understanding of the earthquake hazard in this part of Colorado, we see no
reason to increase the commonly accepted seismic risk zone for the area.
,..
...
Limitations
This site assessment was conducted according to generally accepted engineering geology
principles and practices in this area, at this time. We make no warranty either
expressed or implied. The assessment was based on a field reconnaissance, review of
published information, and our experience in the area. This report has been prepared
for the exclusive use by our client for identification of geologic conditions that should
be considered for the project. Weare not responsible for technical interpretations by
others of our information. The construction excavation should be observed for
indications of mine shafts and tunnel portals.
-
,..
-
Respectfully submitted,
,..
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
t a/-;d< 4: ~
Ralph G. Mock
Engineering Geologist
-
-
,..
~
ttn: Alan Richman
, nc. - Attn: Robert PattiIlo
Reviewed by:
Steven L. Pawlak, P.
-
-
RGM/kk
cc: Alan Richman PI
PattiIlo Associates Engin
-
REFERENCES
...
Aspen Mining Company, 1995, Map of Mine Worldngs on Aspen Mountain: Date and
author of map unknown. '
-
Bryant, B., 1979, Geology of the Aspen 15-Minute Quadrangle, Pitldn and Gunnison
Counties, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1073.
,..
Bryant, B., 1971, Geology Map of the Aspen Quadrangle, Pitldn County, Colorado:
U.S. Geological Survey Map GQ-933.
-
....
I'"'
Ms. Cynthia Mitchell
January 26,1999
Page 5
....
....
Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, 1998, Subsoil Study for Foundation Design, Proposed
Mitchell Residence, 550 Aspen Alps (South) Road, Aspen, Colorado: Prepared
for Cynthia Mitchell (Job No. 198609, November 30, 1998).
-
Schmueser Gordon Meyer, 1999, The Mitchell Residence, Aspen Alps South Road,
Relationship to the Spar Gulch Drainage: Prepared for Mr. Alan Richman,
dated January 12, 1999.
I'"'
Spurr, R.E., 1898, Geology of the Aspen Mining District: U.S. Geological Survey
Monograph 31.
-
....
U.S. Geological Survey, 1980, Mine Map Compilation and Cross-Sections of Mines at
Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado: Map File RO-23 (Maps prepared by R.P.
RohIfmg 1928 and 1948).
~
....
....
....
""
-
...
-,
....
-
...
- .
EXHIBIT #5
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
5020 Road 154
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Fax 970 945-8454
Phone 970 945-7988
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
SUBSOIL STUDY
FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN
PROPOSED MITCHELL RESIDENCE
550 ASPEN ALPS (SOUTH) ROAD
ASPEN, COLORADO
-
.....
-
JOB NO. 198 609
. NOVEMBER 30, 1998
,...
....
,.,
PREPARED FOR:
-
CYNTIllA MITCHELL
C/O GARY TABASINSKE ARCIilTECTS, AlA
ATTN: GARY TABASINSKE
305 DOE RUN ROAD
LOPEZ ISLAND, WASHINGTON 98261
-
-
-
~
HEPWORTH. PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
!""
November 30, 1998
-
Cynthia Mitchell
clo Gary Tabasinske Architect, AlA
Attn: Gary Tabasinske
305 Doe Run Road
Lopez Island, Washington 98261
Job No. 198609
....
!""
Subject:
Report Transmittal, Subsoil Study for Foundation Design, Proposed
Mitchell Residence, 550 Aspen Alps (South) Road, Aspen, Colorado
-
...
Dear Ms. Mitchell:
"'"
As requested, we have conducted a subsoil study for the proposed residence at the
subject site.
-
Subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings drilJed in the proposed
building area generally consist of 1 to 5 feet of fill materials overlying inedium dense
silty to clayey sand with scattered to frequent gravel. Silty sandy gravel with cobbles
and boulders was encountered beneath the sands at depths of 1 and 28 feet in Borings 1
and 3, respectively, Groundwater was not encountered in the borings at the time of
drilling or when checked about 4 weeks later.
...
-
...
The proposed residence can be founded on spread footings placed on the natural
subsoils and designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 psf. There is a risk of
construction-induced slope stability at the site due to the proposed deep hillside cuts.
~
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 recommendations.
...
If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact us.
~
Sincerely,
-
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
-
'"
FJ
-
-
,...
....
TABLE OF CONTENTS
"'"
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. I
~
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . " 1
SITE CONDITIONS ...........................,............., 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . , . . . . . 7
SITE GRADING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
SURFACE DRAINAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
....
"'"
LIMITATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . 9
.-
,...
FIGURE I - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURE 2 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURE 3 - LEGEND AND NOTES
I""
FIGURE 4 - SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
I""
,
FIGURE 5 - GRADATION TEST RESULTS
TABLE I - SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
...
....
-
-
H-P GEOTECH
....
,...
,..
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
...
-
This report presents the results of a subsoil study for a proposed residence to be
located at 550 Aspen Alps (South) Road, 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 Cynthia Mitchell dated August 24, 1998.
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,
compressibility or swell 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 summarizes 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
,-
,...
At the time of our study, design plans for the residence were in progress, The
proposed building footprint is shown on Fig. 1. The residence is currently planned to
consist of five levels stepped into the north facing hillside. Excavation for the building
will have a maximum cut depth of about 30 feet below the existing ground surface for
construction of an entry level elevator in the central portion of the residence. For the
purpose of our analysis, foundation loadings for the structure were assumed to be light
to moderate and 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.
...
~,
"'"
,...
....
-
H-P GEOTECH
1"",
- 2-
,...
,..,
SITE CONDITIONS
...
r*'-
The site is occupied by an existing five story wood frame and concrete house
stepped into the north facing hillside. The existing residence will be razed for the new
construction. The ground surface slopes steep to very steep down to the north-northeast
at grades between about 30% and 60%. There is about 40 feet of elevation difference
across the site. A utility easement and Little Nell Ski Slope are located immediately
west of the site. Vegetation consists of evergreen and scattered aspen trees.
,...
"'"
....
,
FIELD EXPLORATION
....
The field exploration for the project was conducted on October 8 and 12, 1998.
Three exploratory borings were drilled at the locations shown on Fig. 1 to evaluate the
subsurface conditions. The borings were advanced with 4 inch diameter continuous
flight augers. Boring 1, in an existing pavement area, was drilled with a truck-mounted
CME-55 drill rig. Borings 2 and 3 were drilled with a track-mounted CME45 drill rig.
The borings were logged by a representative of Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc.
Samples of the subsoils were taken with Pia inch and 2 inch I.D. spoon
samplers. The samplers were driven into the subsoils at various depths with blows
from a 140 pound hanuner falling 30 inches. This test is similar to the standard
penetration test described by ASTM Method D-I586. 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
Exploratory Borings. Fig. 2. The samples were returned to our laboratory for review
by the project engineer and testing.
,...
f'"
-
,.,.
.....
....
"...
!""
-
H-P GEOTECH
-
,....
- 3 -
-
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
fii'i'":
,....
Graphic logs of the subsurface conditions encountered at the site are shown on
Fig. 2. The subsoils generally consist of about I to 5 feet of manplaced fIll overlying
medium dense, silty to clayey sand with scattered to frequent gravels, Relatively dense
silty sandy gravel with cobbles and boulders was encountered beneath the sands at
depths of 1 and 28 feet in Borings 1 and 3, respectively. 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 moismre content and density, Atterberg limits and gradation analyses. Results
of consolidation testing performed on a relatively undisturbed drive sample of silty
sand, presented on Fig. 4, indicate low to moderate compressibility under conditions of
loading and wetting. Results of gradation analyses performed on small diameter drive
samples (minus 11/2 inch fraction) of the natural coarse granular soils are shown on
Fig. 5. The laboratory testing is summarized in Table I.
No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling or when
checked about 4 weeks later. 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 stability.
The building foundation and retaining walls will ne,ed to be designed to resist
appropriate lateral earth pressures. Spread footings bearing on the natural soils should
be feasible for building support. We should observe the excavation to evaluate the
suitability of the bearing materials.
,...
I'"
-
-
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 subsoils.
The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a
spread footing foundation system.
1) Footings placed on the undisturbed natural subsoils should be designed
for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 psf. A one-third increase
in the bearing capacity can be assumed for maximum toe pressure of
retaining walls. Based on experience, we expect settlement of footings
designed and constructed as discussed in this section will be about 1 inch
or less. Additional settlement could occur for footings bearing on the
upper sandy soils if they become wetted.
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
12 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 and debris from previous site development, topsoil and
any loose or disturbed soils should be removed and the footing bearing
level extended down to relatively dense natural soils. If water seepage is
-
.
,-
.",..
...
"""
....
-
,.,.
....
"'"
,.,....,
-
-
...
H-P GEOTECH
....
- 5 -
_.
6)
encountered, the footing areas should be dewatered before concrete
placement.
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 50 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 40 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 20 and 25 times the wall height in
feet for the active and restrained condition, respectively. Backfill should not contain
debris, 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 backfrll 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. For a 2 horizontal to I vertical upward
backfill slope the lateral earth pressures should be increased by at least 25 % for the
active condition and 33 % for the restrained condition.
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
....
,....
,..
.....
....
.....
".
r-
"'"
......
-
...
...
H-P GEOTECH
-
- 6-
,....
-
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
material is placed correctly, and could result in distress to facilities constructed on the
backftll. Using a granular material and increasing the compaction to at least 98 %
standard Proctor density should help reduce the settlement potential.
We recommend granular soils for backfilling foundation wall and retaining
structures because their use results in lower lateral earth pressures and the backfill can
be incorporated into the underdrain system. Subsurface drainage reCommendations are
discussed in more detail in the "Underdrain System" section of this report. Granular
wall backfill should contain less than 25% passing the No. 200 sieve and have a
maximum size of 8 inches. In general, we expect the on-site soils could be used as wall
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 0.45,
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 material compacted to at
least 95 % of the maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near
optimum.
-
....
.,..-
....
-
...
,....
....
,
-
.1"'<
,...
...
-
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
,...
H-P GEOTECH
...
--
- 7 -
,...
,...
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 soils devoid of vegetation, topsoil and oversized rock,
...
-
,,..
-
...
'""
VNDERDRAIN 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
heavy precipitation or seasonal runoff. Frozen ground during spring runoff can create a
perched condition. We recommend below-grade construction, such as retaining walls,
and below grade living 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 I % 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 '12 feet deep.
,...
...
.-
"...
,....
".,..,
-
...
SITE GRADING
There is a risk of construction-induced slope instability at the site due to the
proposed relatively extensive cuts. We have not performed a formal slope stability
analysis of the site. The recommendations presented below are based on the subsurface
"""
H-P GEOTECH
....
-
- 8 -
-
,-."
conditions encountered and our previous experience in the area, and are intended for
preliminary design purposes.
Cuts up to about 15 feet deep should be feasible for temporary excavations.
Deeper cuts should be evaluated on a site specific basis and could require temporary
shoring such as soil nailing or driven piles and timber lagging. We expect that an
internal friction of 320 can be assumed for the native soils in the shoring design.
Embankment fills should be limited to about 10 feet deep 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 the exposed subgrade to 95 % standard Proctor
density, Sloping areas steeper than 20% should be benched to provide a relatively level
base for fill placement.
Permanent unretained cut and fill slopes should be graded at 2 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 temporary excavations and for the
project prior to construction.
...
-
,...
-
....
,....
-
,
-
...
,.....
/'00,
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.
-
-
....
....
.....
H-P GEOTECH
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
infonnation. As the project evolves, we should provide continued consultation and field
services during construction to review and monitor the implementation of our
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
-
....
,..
....
-
.....
-
I
....
-
-
-
-
-
"...
fi*iA...
.,...
....
,...
- 9 -
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.
Free-draining wall backfill should be capped with about 2 feet of the
on-site fmer graded soils to reduce surface water infiltration.
Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of
all backfill.
Surface water should not be concentrated and directed onto the steep
hillside without adequate erosion protection.
4)
5)
LIMITATIONS
,...
H-P GEOTECH
-
- 10-
,...
"'"
excavations and foundation bearing strata and testing of structural fill by a
representative of the geotechnical engineer.
~..
Sincerely,
,...
....
(
.~
-
-
Steven L. Pawlak, P.E.
-
-
JZA/ksm
cc: Pattillo Associates Engineers, Inc. - Attn: Bob Pattillo
Alan Richman
-
.....
-
I-
-
lI*oiO
-
H-P GEOTECH
.-
...
,....
,...
....
-
,.oJ:
-
....
-
-
-
-
-
-
,....,
1"'"
~
-
,....
80
BORING 2
90
100
BORING 3
110
198 609
~
...... .
. -. -""'.
EXISTING
WOOD
RETAINING
WALLS
. - -.......
. . . . . . . . .
............ -
- -. -.... -"
..,. '""-."'-' ' '-'-'1'
::f::::/:),> -1
. . , ' , ' . . . ' , ' .' , , , . ' I
(
I
I
.. . "X" ' ..
. . - .. .. - .
.. - _.' _' 0.'
~""",~,
~ 12
o 1)
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL. INC,
APPROXIMATE SCALE
1" = 20'
PROPERTY
BOUNDARY
LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
Fig. 1
-1&
~
-'V
~rO
\S'
..l'a
~~
1>0
'9'0
....
-
BORING 1
ELEV. = 76'
BORING 2
ELEV. = 85'
BORING 3
ELEV. = 106'
,-
105
105
....
25/12
-
100
100
- 29/12
WC=O,9
95 00-122 95
H=56
'"" -200..12
17/12
l"""""
90 90
"... - -
" "
" "
u... u...
25/12
.... c WC=7,5 c
,Q 85 00-137 85 0
- +4=33 ""
0 0
> - 200-28 >
" "
w w
....
15/12
,... 80 80
.... 20/0
38/12
75 .;. WC=5,8 75
,... .- -200=19
LL=25
PI=7 PROPOSED EN1RY LEVEL
,... ElEVA nON = 72.5'
10/2.10/0 38/12
70 WC=10,g 70
00=127
.....- -200=35
50/3 30/0
- 50/12
65 65
Note: Explanation of symbols is shown on Fig, 3,
-
198 609 HEPWORTH - PAWLAK LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Fig. 2
GEOTECHNICAL, INC,
,...
-
,....
~
~::o.
.'
...~
~
~..
'"
.,
"
'.'
~
~
p
-
,....
,...
-
....
~
-
,...
LEGENO:
ASPHALT PAVEMENT
BASE COURSE
MAN PLACED FILL; sandy cloy with grovel, stiff, moist, dark brown, over/ot grading.
mixed browns.
SAND (SM-SC): silty to clayey. scattered to frequent gravel, medium dense, slightly moist
to moist, mixed browns.
GRAVEL (GM); silty, sandy, with cobbles and boulders, medium dense to dense, slightly moist.
yellowish brown.
Relatively undisturbed drive somple; 2-inch I.D. California liner sample.
Drive sample; standard penetration test ( SPT ), 1 3/8-inch I,D. split spoon somple, ASTM D - 1586.
Drive sample blow count; indicates that 15 blows of 0 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches were
15/12 required to drive the California or SPT sampler 12 inches.
---+ Depth at which boring caved when checked on November 10, 1998.
-
..-
T
Practical rig refusal.
NOTES:
1. Exploratory borings were drilled on October 8 and 12. 1998 with 0 4-inch diameter continuous flight
power auger.
2, Locations of exploratory borings were measured approximately by pacing from features shown
on the site plan provided.
.... 3. Elevations of exploratory borings were obtained by interpolation between contours on the site plan
provided.
,....
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 and transitions may be gradual.
,.... 6. No free water was encountered in the borings ot the time of drilling or when checked about 4 weeks later.
Fluctuation in water level may occur with time.
7, Laboratory Testing Results:
WC = Water Content ( % )
DD = Dry Density ( pcf )
+4 = Percent retained on No. 4 sieve,
-200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve.
LL = Liquid Limit ( % )
PI = Plasticity Index ( % )
,...
-
-
....
198 609
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Fig. 3
LEGENO ANO NOTES
-
r-
....
,-
0
l<:
c
0
'in
III
"
~
Q.
E 2
0
()
3
,...
-
r-
,...
r-
....
-
....
-
,-.
,...
198 609
Moisture Content = 10.9 percent
Dry Density Weight = 127 pef
Sample of: Silty Sand
From: Boring 2 at 14 Feet
~ -- .....
"'-, No movement
"- upon
wetting
"\
.
I
0,1
1.0 10
APPLIED PRESSURE - ksf
100
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL, INC,
SWELL-CONSOLlOA TION TEST RESULTS
Fig, 4
,...
-
..
,...
eo
(.') '"
,... z
in ..
en
<
c.. 50
- 0-
Z
W 40
<.>
0::
w JO
c..
,...
20
I.
-
.
-
,...
,....
,.... ..
eo
,.... '"
(.')
z
in ..
en
4:
,.... c.. 50
0-
Z
W 40
<.>
0::
,... W JO
c..
2.
,.... I.
.
,...,-
-
-
198 609
,...
,
ff'IllRGE1tR ANAL"f'SIS
- ........
5IE\lEAH.AL'Y'SIS
u.s. - STAHDMD SERIES I QLM SGUNIE ~
24 HR. 1 HR
..
100
..... 15wtt. 10 YlN.1...... 4 WIN. ,.... .... 00 "' au . .. .. 3 ,- 4- 111'r T .....
~
,001
.005.009 .011
.074 .150 .300 .800 1.18 2.31 .U5 1.5'2.5 '1.0 37.15
DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS
I FM =.... ICOM!iE I FINE T awtSE
CllIlI!US
.002
,037
111.2
CLAY "TO SlT
GRAVEL 56 %
LIQUID LIMIT
SAND 32
%
SILT AND CLAY 12 %
%
PLASTICITY INDEX
%
SAMPLE OF: Silty Sandy Grovel
I
FROM:Boring 3 et 9 Feet
H"flROME1tJf-AHALl'SIS
- ........
SlEW! ANAL'rSIS
U.s. STN4DARD SERIES I Q.EAR SClIJNE ClF'OIHCS
:HHR. 7HR
..
100
..... 1~ MlN. 10 ".18 .... ... MfH. ,.... .... 00 50 "'" . .. .. 3~WJ '.- 111>'" .. ....
.001
.005.008 .011 .0:57 .074 .150 .JOQ .aoo 1.18 2..31 4.15 &.5'2.5 '1.0 37.5
DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS
CLAY TO SILT I FWE ~ ICOARSE I FINE CRt,\€} c:xJMSE
100
1IU 152 203
'27
.002
COIIIll.ES
GRA VEL 33 %
UQUID LIMIT
SAND 39 %
SILT AND CLAY 28 %
PLASTICITY INDEX
%
%
SAMPLE OF: Silty Send and Grevel
FROM: Boring 3 et 1 g Feet
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
GRAOATlON TEST RESULTS
r.
,.
20
.'10 0
W
Z
.. ;;;:
0-
W
50 0::
0-
Z
.. w
<.>
0::
70 W
c..
eo
eo
'00
,.. 203
127
r.
,.
20
JO 0
W
Z
.. ~
W
50 0::
0-
Z
.. w
<.>
0::
70 W
c..
eo
..
Fig, 5
-
-
u
.., ~ en
. ~
-l ...J
<r: :)
(.) en
.... LLJ
- a:
Z
:I: ~
(.) en
LLJ
,... W ~
I- >-
0 a:
w 0
- " LLJ~
...J<(
~ ala:
<r: <(0
-l ~al
- 3= <(
...J
<r: u..
Q.. 0
.
- :I: >-
I- a:
a: <(
0 :2
3= :2
- :)
Q.. en
w
:I:
-
-
,...
.......
-
,...
a;
>
a; '"
~
f > c.:1
= >- '"
~ ~ "tl
0 ~ c.:1 c
~ <.l "tl
~ 0 >- '"
= C
c '" "tl "tl "tl
ill en c c c
'" '" '"
>- en en en
.,
>- >- >- >-
'" :: :: ::
U en en en
0 w
w > ~
z ;;; ~
~ 0 C '"
z l:! ~ 1:
0 ~ =
<.l ~ ~
Z 0 0
" <.l
<.l ~
~ w t
0 0 c r--
~ S <:
~ ~
"
l;1
ill
=
w
S c ~ L.O
5 ~ t
0 N
" "
\; c 0 w
z il 0) L.O N CO
~ ;;; >
0 ,; w ~ C? ~ N
f ~ z ;;;
c ! N 0)
z
< C? C?
z 0
9
i ,
c ~
w CO C?
> !
< L.O C?
=
c
~ >-
< ~ r-- N r--
= >-
" = ;;; 0 N N C? .
~ c z ,.
~ ~ ~ ~
z
~ w ~
< = z CO 0) 0)
= " w ! L.O
" ~ \;
~ 0 L.O 0 0 r--
< c 0
z ~ " ~
Z ~ ; <t 0)
0 t . 0) 0)
:i w " ~ ~
C
"
0
~
i 0
< z N
0 ii! C?
0
0
...
ENGINEERS
SURVEYORS
SG
M-
$CHMtJESER
GOROON MEYER
P,O. Box 2155
Aspen, CO 81612
(9701 925,6727
I"'"' FAX (970) 925.4157
...
-
...
...
I"'"'
-
-
j
J
j
J
j
J
J
j
EXHIBIT #6
January 12, 1999
Mr, Alan Richman
Alan Richman Planning Services
P,O, Box 3613
Aspen, CO. 81611
RE: The Mitchell Residence. Aspen Alps South Road. Relationship to the Spar Gulch DrainaQe
Dear Alan:
I am writing in follow-up to our conversations regarding the location of the Mitchell residence
relative to the Spar Gulch drainage on Aspen Mountain. Based on geologic site assessment
work by the firm of Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc., you had asked me to evaluate the flood
potential for this drainage and determine if the existing stream channel will convey the
appropriate design flood and debris flow without hazard to the Mitchell site.
I would begin by noting that I am not specifically a hydrologist but rather a general civil engineer
with knowledge and experience relative to hydrology. I offer these comments and observations
regarding the location of the Mitchell residence site relative to the Spar Gulch drainage in the
context of existing storm runoff studies that have been prepared for the City of Aspen dating
back to 1973, In the event that there remain concerns with this issue, further study by a true
hydrologist may be in order.
Attached as Figure 1 is a 200 scale topographic map of the vicinity showing the Mitchell
residence and the Lower Spar Gulch drainage. As noted in the Mock / Pawlak letter, Spar Gulch
is about 600 feet southeast of the Mitchell site. Spar Gulch is well-defined directly south of the
Mitchell home, becoming more poorly defined as it turns east past Gaard Moses home and into
the Aspen Chance Subdivision.
The most recent analysis of potential flows in Lower Spar was the DRAINAGE FACILITY CAPACITY
ANALYSIS OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO prepared by WRC Engineering, Inc. in
September of 1998. Excerpts from the WRC analysis are attached as Exhibit 1. Figure 2 in
Exhibit 1 shows the Mitchell site in relation to the Lower Spar basin (labelled as sub-watershed
14 on Figure 2). As indicated on the WRC watershed delineation mapping, the Mitchell residence
is located well outside the Lower Spar Gulch watershed boundary in a small sub-basin identified
as sub-watershed 15.
The WRC analysis utilizes a variety of hydrologic modelling methodologies to determine potential
design flows for the 2-year, 5-year, 10-year, 50-year and 100-year storm events. WRC also
generated figures for rarer rain on snow events, which result in substantially higher flow potential,
but goes on to discount those results as a multiple-probability event beyond the scope of their
study, For rain events, WRC calculated a range of potential flows from 340 cis to 532 cfs for
Spar Gulch using FLO-2D, HEC-1 and CUHP/SWMM computer analysis methodologies and
varying infiltration assumptions as shown on Table 16 of Exhibit 1.
118 West 6th, Suite 200' Glenwood Springs, Colorado' (970) 945,1004
....
-
....
,...
,...
,-
-
,....
...
-
....
-
-
....
I
;-1
...
....
-
-
January 12, 1999
Mr. Alan Richman
Page 2
Another important aspect of the WRC analysis was to model mud flow (debris flow) and mud
flood potential on the major drainages into town. Figure 3 in Exhibit 1 represents a worst-case
assumption with respect to sediment concentration (45%) for a debris flow condition out of Lower
Spar Gulch (note that Figure 3 is "inverted" relative to the prior figures). Figure 3 demonstrates
that, even assuming a worst case sediment condition for the 100-year event, the Mitchell site is
outside the area impacted by the potential flow and deposition from Lower Spar.
Another source of information regarding the hydrology of the Spar Gulch area is the City of
Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP) prepared by Wright-Mclaughlin Engineers in
1973. The older Wright-McLaughlin study also analyzed the Spar Gulch basin which the URMP
identified as having a 302 cfs peak flow for the 10o..year frequency storm event. Figure 4 is a
detail from the URMP document showing the potential routing of a lOO-year storm event down
lower Spar (north is now to the right). Figure 4 is also intended to show a new "Spar Gulch 1
West Aspen Floodway" improvement but it indicates that a flood 1 debris flow event is likely to
remain within lower Spar Gulch to the vicinity of elevation 8025 which is down-gradient and in
the range of 600 feet from the Mitchell site.
Based on recent site inspections, there are a few improvements in the lower Spar area that are
not well identified on the exhibit figures:
1.
At one time, grading in the vicinity of the base of Aspen Mountain Uft 5, indicated on
Figure 2, may have interfered with the routing of potential flows down into Lower Spar.
The Aspen Skiing Company, in conjunction with other mountain improvements in the early
1960's, re-established the drainage channel past the base of the lift such that Spar Gulch
flows should continue down Lower Spar as they did historically. This channel
improvement is not visible at this time of year but can be verified following snowmelt in
the spring.
2.
There is a 72:' culvert under a small trail crossing in the Spar drainage about 200 feet
upslope of Gaard Moses residence (shown on Figure 1). The culvert has a theoretical
capacity of about 250 cfs although the upstream end is damaged and filled with rock and
debris to limit the open cross section to about 33% of the full diameter. A lOO-year
frequency event would likely block this culvert with debris but, based on my site
inspections, the flow would then overtop the trail and continue directly down lower Spar
Gulch. The 1rail platform does not otter the potential for diversion of a flood flow east or
west from the culvert crossing to any significant degree.
3.
The Gaard Moses residence is larger than shown on the older topo maps and has a well-
defined channel along the Spar flowline to route the flow to the northeast. Again, if debris
conditions caused some flow diversion in the vicinity of the Moses home, such overflows
probably would not travel far from the main gulch.
4.
The Aspen Chance Subdivision, northeast of the Gaard Moses residence, has
constructed a structural flow channel sized for the 1 DO-year event (based on the Wright-
McLaughlin data) out of lower Spar. The Aspen Chance channel would direct the flow
toward the lower Aspen Alps Road and Glory Hole Park (noted as the "natural overflow"
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC,
.-
-
January 12, 1999
Mr. Alan Richman
,... Page 3
,...
-
-
-
,...
,...
on Figure 3). At this point, the flow is entirely down-gradient of the Mitchell site.
In short, it is my opinion that the lower Spar Gulch drainage corridor is sufficiently well-defined
and sufficiently far from the Mitchell residence site that the property is not threatened by flood
or debris flow conditions from the Spar basin. The well-defined upper gulch, steep side gradients
back into Spar and the limited nature of obstructions to the lower gulch would not appear to
create conditions whereby an overflow condition or flow diversion caused by a debris plug would
get to the Mi1chell site.
I hope these observations and comments will be adequate for your application work relative to
the Mitchell site. My observation of the site is that it is on a minor ridge between lower Spar and
the Little Nell ski slope such that upslope drainage impacts are quite limited. The WRC report
also demonstrates that the site is outside the influence of the Lower Spar Gulch sub-watershed.
Feel free to contact me if you have further questions or require additional information.
Very Truly Yours,
,... SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
,...
,...
,...
,...
-
-
...
~
t~/]j~~
~
ay W. Hammond, P.E.
Principal, Aspen Office
JH/Jh 9S121SGt
..
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC,
-' , -. ' ...-. L J.
~~r.-;-. ~ 1.. l.Q. ~frh~~P .. ~~-,'/ ~J:~=- t
- '. ~ .-- - '-'-- . .w
...... .... .- ,/', -
.,
--..,
.-
-
~
'-~l
r;
L
,
.'
-
"It-\-
I-
-
-
.' \--
\
FIGURE 1
CITY OF ASPEN
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
-
~
-\-
....
"--
:~':~~~:~:';
'--
-
-"..'..
~:; . --
"--...-.
,...
,...
,...
,...
....
,-
DRAINAGE FACILITY
CAPACITY ANALYSIS
OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO
....
,...
,...
,...
,...
....
....
-
PREPARED FOR
The City of Aspen, Colorado
....
....
PREPARED BY
WRC Engineering, Inc.
1963-13
September 1998
-
EXHIBIT 1
1 OF 4
..
L ~-,C'=-- ' , .'-l-..
'~.:.' -- :~ ~-,~
. _ ---'"'- !:'Si .~-~
I "', ' '-.,..-:.~
r ~ - ~~:-' ~._L~?--.~.~:::i
".. ,
.,.:.:-:_~...;
.~
-""-';
"'-'..-~-.....
""- .
~~r~~-~~~ ~ :::,
, or", ,.
........I"~:...'--,-.......'I
-~
J
~
,_ --1/
..;..../-
,
..
,
-.....,,;
,.
EXHIBIT 1
20F4
FIGURE 2
.....
(
/ J
f I
J i
---
..........
-I
,
'-
\
\::
\
.' \
"
1:'
Hj
," I
'r
\;.'
, /
'v
,
,/
,
,
/
/
'~',::-.
"
,)
~
I '
,'''\
\
....
\,
.:~t ~---
LOWER /
~)A~/GU.7CH
\
\
...
\ I
i ' ',I
j-' J
I 'I
I I
\ \
\ \
l/\
'I
,J (., J'
, , \:.,'
1/
i'
,I
J
I
/
,
,
/
"
/,-'
\
\"
\
\
)
"
o
I
250
,
SCALE:
500
,
1"=500'
1000
I
,
'-
-------
.:>."
~I..EJO-
u..CI::L
,
,
\
",
,
,(
:'
/:
" I
/
.'
"
,
/
''',
,
,
, \ ."-..
", ..9c
00 ,LEGEND
',-.
" ",. ", ',-. 8=" ,'!. SUB W!\TERSHED 10
" " .' .... AREA (ACRES)
,
...., '/"""'- SUB WATERSHED
\. BOUNOARY
EXISTING 10 FOOT
CONTOUR INTERVAL
EXISTING 30 METER
CONTO! IR INTFRVAI
\
'-
---
--
t
\
,
/
~',
/
"
!
/
-
;
J
"
,
,
,
/
..
,
~,
l
./
,
/
,
/
i
/
.I,
I
,
/ I
, /
I ,
,
.I
i
;
....
0$>.
~'"
-0
,
,
,
\
\
,
.1
I
/i'
:' I
;'
,/
,/
f
,
I
,
"
,
,
,
\
\
'....
...
....
...
r"'
>-
Cl
o
...J
o
Q
o
:r
J-
UJ
:a
Q
Z
<
t.n
UJ
J-
<
0::
Z
o
;::
<
0::
J-
...J
u::
Z
-
~
UJ
::>
Q
u.
u.
o
z
::>
0::
Z
-
UJ
()
Z
UJ
0::
UJ
U.
11-
B
....
,....
,....
,....
"""
.-
.-
....
...
...
....
,...
....
(0
.....
UJ
...J
II)
~
-
-
a: 3:
=70
"''''~
...u.. U)
"_13
r--
,<(
Ow
~o.
...oo~
<oo'"
f-Wl1
aU I..)
f- >< .S
w-
...JCI)U1
~(I)l1
001..)
f--lg
...
.....j~
<<m
f-1J...c
OZI..)
- C
J-~c,
>-
Cl
o
(I)'"
(1)0
00
...0
J:
f-
lU
:E
a::a
~~
:JCl
0.0
:Ea:
Sa..
~_tn\t')'q":8
::co~:!~_
<O--MNC,O
Q]CON""''''''1
cJo"';oo
Ncn,....CV'l1'
ONCO__"r-1
,...:~o,...:.,..:
g;~0?0?0?~
,..;...._-,....~
Z
o
~
U
o
-'
~.r::.c.c~..r::
u u U u 0 u
"3"5"5"5"5'3
ClClClClClCl
o 0 0 000
]f:i"~~$:F
~~~~~~
. ~ .
""m""
~~~
~ ~
.c.c.c
I..) I..) u
'3'53
ClClCl
~ ~ ~
.. .. ..
a. a. a.
WWW
ZZZ
<<<
a: a: a:
ac..
.'" E E
c<<(
o , ,
'l: c c
o <IJ <IJ
J: <IJ <IJ
t5t5
:E
~~o
UJUC';4
-wO
o.J:-'
:z: IJ..
:J
U
~
0..,,,,
""..,.~
"'''''''
Ol
, ,
o
,
,Q
"
Ul ,
o Ul
~~
<IJ.Q
:S 0
c:""
._ 0
:5:5
.- <IJ
:l E
'O_
S ii
s :v
.8~
;9 cD
'0=
<IJ ...
'0..9
<IJ_
a.c:
)( ..
<IJiij
'" c:
c 0
~ (,2
:o~
6.>:
if
'" l!!
'" <IJ
~1il
:::; E
'0 e
'" ..
<IJ Q.
.c <:
- 0
c::::
o ..
"01::
"'0;::
'" c:
.. .-
,Q <IJ
"'0:5
<IJ_
1ii 0
,5 ~
Cii.3
<IJ ..
'" ,.
i6~
~-
'" oi
... -
<IJ,Q
Ui ~
E""
~ ~
.. ..
Q.c:
C <IJ
~~
... .
"" '"
""'0
.5~
we
f- '"
alii
Z :l
w
a.
r:
u.
IJ..
o
Z
:J
a:
zzzzzz
<<<<<<
a:a:a:a:!l:!l:
D?~~
~ ~ ~
.c.c.c
I..) U u
'533
ClClCl
000
]f]f~
1ii"iii1O
>>>
- --
QiwQi
E E E
JI JI :l
000
c c c
(/)(/)(/)
"'0"'0"'0
C C C
.. .. ..
<: c c
';0 'ffi 'm
a: a: a:
'C'_'C'
.c....c
c=Ec
.- c:._
lD~cn
o ,""
dOd
If ~ II
X _x
E'EE'
\.0 0 \-
S:=.E
'- c:.-
c~ c
:J~:J
~ ~ ~
, , ,
UUU
www
J::Z::Z:
EXHIBIT 1
30F 4
--
a. a.
In E,UlEE
C:CIJ"-C:<<
.@(J~~cc:
oCl)c:o<u<u
:t :J:C~~
ClCl
:;:
~'7~~~~
(QUUUU6
a.!#!#!#!#""
J:----_
:J
U
"":E
!1?o.
"'N
~o
en ..
..,
Ol
c
'<:
<IJ",
~'"
,- en
Ol~
Jiz
Ua.
~
'"
.....
<IJ
..:0
- ..
'!f-
a. ,
E 5
o .-
()~
JI""
0,<=
l1:.E
...
....
...
~
....
...
-
-
....
-
...
-
-
-
.
.
~~
,
_1
f~
'~
i.
;!
'I
Ii'
.lW
I
;:oS
...:.:,:"
,,..-..,
( 1 6\.'
\107:),1'.. ".
~:\:'
,oA . '. .~, ':; ::-..'
j
/., .,'
: '.
..
....
. .~~
;'/;:":'':.:','.
" ""
.,:~.~..:..'" .~ ,_.~.
....}?"
-t42.IY
'~'.:.
.-.:"
,-.,),.
.,.....,-'
. '. ~"-"
:.~...:~:;.;;::.~...-.
~J1~~;:
..A.. .....1..... ,''''\r'
'~>f . ... ' :.~.. \i: r::
"
.1"
j~
v
. ';. ~.w'.",
~:~.:., ~:~:;;:.
.-::.',
.?
'::>
.,\.
,'....
,'l. '.~ ~~-...~:
"'".=- ',::.;,-~.
..,~.r:~ 'fr-
oJ
;;?~,
- . ""'J .'
(W) ,~:::..
~,(':"l."
.>:=~"
'.
'.
"
,-
"
.'
.,..'
~
\;:\
,
;,'
'.
,,:,:.~;:,:~~:i,:'. 7/
~ 1);r;,;:
. i1rl ~;
f!! .~~
i, ..~,
Ii
\:
"
.. -"" . ' . . ". "." ,,..,,'" . - --_..~- -:::..."'. .
\.,?.:,:~.:..'-'.:,,;_..:.....,~ '..,.,-.'..-.';...:::,."j..'.':
_ _. ......., . ..'. \ ,''-.:;./~<.'.:~.':.',:''.~..,:.~..;:__,'".:-.;:=t-,,~ ':::'::::~..'-""""-'- ..'"
"_;'':~;\;:i~;i'' /'~C_'.'..;.:/:.::} :_,\ ',i:..
-t.('\ ". "" , ". -"-'
-1.0-: ~.w:: ~(Fm) ".'" ~<~..~.::~.'.,...,._~S'r::~'i ~~:; ..;~
-1Mf\.OW tfOClES '~".'"
~ - sue WAmwc 0[tJN[ATl0H
~""'(4cJQg1
LEGEND
/
J
EXHIBIT 1
40F 4
FIGURE 3
"'"
,
o
I
. -ORlClNIL srA!: '--.JOO"
~
'!i~(.~Ite=f\lNG.'INC.
!SO:soupt CHCIffl' S'nllET
"'" ...
D!I'M:It. COLO~ 80%"
Pf<<lN[ NO: (JOJ) 157-151.3
r/4:( NO: (JOJ) 75a-J208
="'~.
"'""""-
Rt'o1SED _
....1lUl.T_
NO. '"
"\TO:
AEYISDf OESCRIPlIOH
"
....
-
-
,...
,...
-
-
-
,...
-
-
.-
-
-
-
-
i'
--
;.--
-
CITY OF ASPEN
URBAN RUNOFF
MANAGEMENT PLAN '"
-
Scale: 1" = 200'
C.I. = 5'
"-
-
Clr( OF ASPEN - EAST
URBAN RUNOFF MANAGEMENT PLAN
-
ENGINEERS
SURVEYORS
-5
GM_
SCHMUESER --
GORDON MEYER
P.O. Box 2155
Aspen, CO 81612
(970) 925.6727
_ FAX (970) 925,4157
-
"'"
-
...
"'"
-
.,
I
I
J
J
I
-
J
J
J
1
1
1
October 22, 1998
EXHIBIT #7
Mr. Alan Richman
Alan Richman Planning Services
P.O. Box 3613
Aspen, CO. 81611
RE: The Mitchell Residence, Aspen Alps South Road. Drainaae Calculations and
Recommendations
Dear Alan:
Attached for your information and submission to the City of Aspen is a copy of my drainage
calculation for the Mitchell Residence replacement on Aspen Alps South Road in Aspen,
Colorado. For purposes of the drainage calculation, I have used a Rational Method calculation
for this "urban" site in conformance with the recommendations of the City's current Interim
Standards for Drainage Design and Erosion and Sedimentation Control for Parcels Smaller than
One Acre dated April 30, 1998 and issued by the City Engineering Department. The interim
standard references the Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual published by the Denver Regional
Council of Governments in 1969 and updated to as recently as 1978. The USDC manual is a
design guideline that is broad in scope for a wide range of drainage conditions and basin types
and sizes. I should note that I am assuming that the City of Aspen haS effectively waived any
specific requirement for compliance with the 1973 Urban Runoff Management Plan pursuant to
existing Municipal Code Section 26.88.040 C., 4. Design Standards, f. Storm Drainage.
The site is located on the Aspen Alps South road and comprises 0.23 acres. The property has
an existing residence that is to be replaced with a new home. A site inspection of the existing
structure shows no evidence of existing structural drainage improvements such as inlets or
drywells. Upslope drainage is routed around the building and the drainage associated with the
ski slope to the west is directed away from the site with a swale channel that stays within the ski
slope area. Overflow from the northeast end of the Mitchell property would currently appear to
sheet flow to the north across the pavement area and is routed along the road edge to the south
of the Aspen Alps buildings.
Our calculations, using established Intensity-Duration-Frequency curves for Aspen from the URMP
and assuming a 90-minute sustained rainfall as recommended in the interim standard, indicate
that 466.45 cubic feet of on-site detention volume is required to maintain estimated pre-
development off-site flow volumes for the property subsequent to the construction of the
proposed residence and hardscape. (I should note that we had some internal discussion
regarding the interpretation of the 90-minute storm intensity from the TIF curve to 60 minutes.
118 West 6th, Suite 200. Glenwood Springs. Colorado' (970) 945,1004
...
...
...
....
...
...
...
....
...
...
....
....
r-
...
....
...
...
-
....
October 22. 1998
Mr. Alan Richman
Page 2
Our conclusion was to use an extension of the curve tangential to the 1 DO-year curve at 60
minutes. This approach renders an intensity figure at 90 minutes that appears most consistent
with the shape of the curve.)
This volume would indicate the use of two drywell structures which may be located under the
garage structure or under the pavement within the property if they would not be in conflict with
easements or utilities. The drywells are to accept roof, deck and any exterior area drains from
the majority of the house. To meet design requirements, two drywells 5 feet in inside diameter
and three sections, or approximately 12 feet, deep will provide just over 470 cubic feet of
capacity or 101 % of the calculated requirement for the increased runoff volume associated with
the 100-year, 9Q..minute event after development. We feel that this volume addresses the
required design criteria and would significantly improve conditions compared to the existing
home on the site (for which there appeared to be no on-site storage structures).
Each drywell should consist of an upper, solid wall concrete manhole section and two lower,
perforated wall drywell sections backfilled with at least 12 inches (horizontally) of 1 Yo - 2 inch
washed rock. Due to their locations under structure or paved areas, we would recommend they
be founded on compacted base course material and covered with a traffic-rated lid with an offset
access manway. The manway would have any necessary riser rings and a grated inlet/access
cover where needed to accommodate surface drainage from the site.
These structures would provide sufficient volume to detain the increased flow volume due to the
development of the property relative to pre-development conditions. I would add one comment
for this site, however. Over the years, the various Aspen Alps buildings have suffered a variety
of problems related to drainage and soils conditions. My belief from prior work in this area is that
the site soils are sufficiently porous that water re-introduced into the deep soils at the Mitchell
site should not impact the Aspen Alps buildings to the north. I would recommend in this case,
however, that a geotechnical consultant be contacted to comment on whether additional water
introduction at the Mitchell property could impact the buildings that are downslope to the north
of the site. I would also be concerned that site-specific soils investigations determine whether
existing groundwater could exist at the depths at which these structures would be placed.
Should site-specific soils investigations determine that the site is unsuitable for deep drywell
structures, some design alternatives are available or detention 1 recharge volumes may need to
be reduced.
Typically, grading should be positive away from the structure and any potential low spots in the
landscape area should have small domed area drains or trench drains routed to the drywells.
I would also recommend aaainst routing the footer drains into the same drywells as the storm
and roof drain collection lines. I would be concerned about surface runoff backflowing into the
perforated footer drain lines and putting water around the foundation walls. The footer drains
should have their own small diameter drywell (small precast drywells in the range of 24 inches
in diameter are available) to prevent introduction of storm water around the building foundation.
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC,
....
....
October 22, 1998
Mr. Alan Richman
.... Page 3
During the construction phase, silt fencing and temporary sedimentation swales should be used
.... to prevent sediment from travelling off-site. The site should be revegetated as soon as practical
after construction.
I"" I hope these items will be adequate for the completion of the drainage aspects of the application
for the Mitchell Residence. Feel free to contact me if you have further questions or require
additional information.
-
....
Very Truly Yours,
-
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
....
I ~ (jj(f) 3-
(/ I / ~ ~
, /
\"-.-/ Jay W. Hammond, P.E.
Principal, Aspen Office
.-
-
~ JHJjh MROR1
-
....
....
-
-
....
....
.
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC,
...
...
...
j
J
J
J
1
1
1
1
L
L
L
L
~
I
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
118 W. 6th St. Suite 200 P,O, Box 2155
Glenwood Springs. CO 81601 Aspen, CO 81612
(970) 945,1004 (970) 925-6727
FAX (970) 945,5948 FAX (970) 925,4157
JO...1:1 il-:l.L,~ II RP_,s:..'dt'.A<I.il.
SHEET NO. \ OF z..
CAWU""TED.Y~ DATE If). 7, 'Z.. '1 f)
CHECKED BY DATE
SCALE
t/PQ,l-.~t1 eo.~N.L~
1)r-OllM.1€.. CalCul A-h~
.sMd\\ v.bGlvv\.' 1 fQ., ::'~(<2.
U~t- 0.... -:Ro.Jl~l Me.~k.bJ. Clllwb..h'O-r\
o -:. c.., :r A
Q:. -Cl f>.W 1>'\. e.J' ~
t: ~lri\.Btt C~e ~t;-C:I'~+ ((;JMpot>i'.J.e). .
I: ~lr\..f'U.1l \r'\~-+i ('\"~ -t.:c. F ~...r'L
A:. Z>;{Q... tLr-e.~
~fe. . dQAe.l<f~+ (lM"\lhti'o-n . Grt.>Jt.Ui l~ bod,=-, d~~ \Je~.
Q -:. .t-'5 (.qlo ;,../(;..r)(If:J,l"!>'1 I't'Z)
:: .Z'5l 0.0$ ~il"\(') CII~,I;.t.( tf-;
:. l.oz:.. (a <g tt 'J/kr
:. 0,010 C.J~
\>rllf~e ~ CM'dA.H\
L",,\ ~ ~~ Cue.. ~+: c., $- CvJ\~
~..:li\~lr\.~ ~5Z'5" .~s z,t) .~~
Ytt.~'",) t t\k.~ I,t.lo i . l\S" IZ . I z..
I ~7..~5" .1_.'5
L~tl ~ c.A~ e.. '-l3 I 1\
,
~lMl: '^ i \\0'50 .'10 \D .0'\
\o-rA\.. . lo5"
"O~O In 'Of I "".'0 <.,.", '0<' ,r,.,,-,
!'""
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
118 W. 6th 51. Suite 200 P,O, Box 2155
Glenwood Springs. CO 81601 Aspen. CO 81612
(970) 945,1004 (970) 925,6727
FAX (970) 945,5948 FAX (970) 925,4157
J08J!'M~ kQ I \ ~b'rloNl.rl't
SHEET NO. 1-
CAlCULATEDBY ~
,...
OF 1-
DATE /O-ZZ.<jl>
CHECKED BY
DATE
-
SCALE
,...
Q :. . (Q '5" L o<{, ++/'1-\(") 60, I'"t>y ft z)
:. '5'2.lo. crjl t-t') llrl("'
:; 0,(5 cr:~
,...
i"'"
bdr~
-::.
o.oq
cJ "=>
,...
e ~o Wl/I\
" "-{lPw.15 0).. fT:.
,...
,
t...-w..
.:;':I:.D
-;.. \'Z..' ~
110
tv.. tf-
,...
,...
I
J
J
j
j
I
...
1
1
1
...
....
-
,...
MAPS/DRA WINGS
~
...
-
-
-
....
...
...
-
....
,...
-
....
,...
...
-
~". .;.....I./'. ~o.
-, e1:'-i.... ~ ,f)-..,' '~"~:CVIci&i;' l~D' E.<!"ffiJA-t,\t ":(lb.;'~
~ ,~-~~-:!::::' -r~, ~ q) 0' '-, , ')J :J'~ ,',', ~ \, tv IT"., l',
"'" '" ~_.-J "L/,$"~,:_~ j 06 h>',!'9?4i/'" ':. c~.
' ~-.,., .~!,..,-,';' '~, :,{~~:??::: r-z r-...,':r... I!)j;,':j, . (/fo.PK/I/S", ' ':~I--'!J
........ ~ t=:VI ,,,{' - '-'"""p ; ..})r-, .,,(~;, ,.. ~':.c~ I I' b
'M .,,, of ~'.V'>\lO.. ;"'" >C;J,.!DQ~~~"",
- < ."", ~ .'~ in ,,', ~ 0iJr,-, :.::rz.o ~iJi~",!'-!U OD ?f;
_/~, ,j , , ~.,,~O-C '~"" \.o.Jw. -'r, '. ~-, ",_..~
~. I..;" ~ ~ '~~~'~~ "-.:,,,~,..'.!!!:,ItANAjit<" 7....J1.,J{j{),.!;1, 1:;--, -'J./..!!,,,,, " ".
1.J::::;.-, ~'U:~1>",j~,"":~. " ~ -.. _ , .'rI'''?..,CJ!J''7t'7.. 0r
-. / .. ""'~ '" ""'" '~""'" '. , ,-,,, 0 ""
: ~ .. ,'~, r---fA.f3j" "" '. 'eL!!.. ~ ,.., 'hi' IJr'T'r", "",",";:' ,C:J'J/] 6
........,.--' ~ '-"'", 'VI'; r ,I ~O>." , <....),:,e 7r::J1..?::.,,;:];"'O' ;::",.., ~ I:::J
J, .. - ~, ~-.JW '" r. '_ "" ' '. "0 t; ...... "__
-r -.J /""'r-,~ '~.I ",,-fl r., 7'{21,-;-, / ! ,'_CaR-lOPEk ~VE"~"":;;"", (j[?:::~ ~p1..J "" ~ 1:t:;j'7h'", ...
"'. ~U(/ ." L, '-N .' ,. "...,n_.._ o'r;",~, "-''1 ,.,
1:::-1,!;;.'~ ./)" '~""""':~"':~7" 1:-'\", ;:;:!. .J:,&iit;'tl.&Oj;;/~~'..'Z1 J
' '. "'" '..." ~ . .~- ^"-,, ",~ .
-'-'Oi, "- [,' '-..:. '........... ~'~' "..""'1.....J r;, {,.j!.J r-,J -:', ""
--~, -, ! "'\.1':'-'........... ~n I' """"" , .. ,1......./ ,:' ;""v ~_, ':"JyYl(-
,!,i ::: , l::..:::'~,;,--,~;!i>-'7<' ,"':) /. ; r:-'::;~ '. ,r~~ Q':......lt:j;;~...
:::5 '.... " ,:r . <::....j. Q 'I '(~ 1../...., ~ 'I ,-~,., ~Q'-, ""~11 . .
~- ~ u ' ,,_, r . '_.' . ....., !I)! ....,.,
" "'- "" '" ~, ~'. ~ ". '". ~'c';!;;I" '
~S,l:1kkS >....<;.........~! """ f:t;._<,;(.~ 1.'_' ,/ '...............~.../ $....::.., --'"f.J '/'''j''''J~,!BiY;''''J(:_ >'-f I,
- " ,. , . < .". '- u ~ 9j' ,,"'>J i
I' , I .r-o; ~. ,", """ ......, '",,< v "",0, ~'. " ". "
"""'-..... .... '-.J '> '; '""",, C:<-. 'Ml Il'-'-.),
' -......., i...J - I ....", I.'i: ...., '\-l r:..\~\' \ '''j' ., fzp ''1 -, '~u'--+---' /
~ ' -r---., I) ~ /j' _,."'1 fj' f .... [\ \, ',/ ''i:' C::!::j' ! __, f , ,...,~.;
, ..~. V' 'i" .. ,', 0,." , f ' ., ._"".." "A:;J-A
I ..:."".. :,,'" ~ ,_ , ..., "ON"' ~""',. ~
. 'I'!. 'r ~ _"'.J ,~. ["~<1., ("1, \;0 '.. ,'\,.' ~ <,I:..J.;I-; ,~,'
-.. "~v',J .~. I'" _" ~~" '"
- "'~;'/S'''''"' p:::, ';~,() ,,,," \ ,( R f.:!;:(::;;:~ ';~,~ :~
~, ~ -.c l ".....,;. . v 'JJ! L~ ->C ":[,.D
.. ~'J ';: \f'i.. tV! ""'~ ci:~-,:'J
Ii." I',;y~ ';"'" 'iY',-" '1:0 \l
i j' .! I .-t " '_\'\ .0- ,\.' ir ,,5 " ::"";'..~;,~. '
:,' . :_i ,'- ... r '>", '" "" ,.~. .' J 8._.
'-1.. {o'., ", -....r .... ~, '-...i'r-'
....,..,~.,:..'.'..::.: r...,".-",.,~).. Li "-"-, -'i~ r-:-'i "'^ '.! :\'~J
. - -,.., . ,.i -:.""", <. '''".~ <..., '\ l ..... .:_)
t.j " '-' Q ''i?~, '~;JA,,~..~~. :2:~;>ff'-'-I"-'J~;~/€i
(",-" . WI.t~. '_ \J1., ~ '"
~..,. D ' "'i, '>':".' , '",-;)\
A-v..'r.,..' ,.:--. .,,"'... _.^
- "" .'"~
/"... ?"1...~ '.
'........ .'''''''-i'-,."...",,)
,-
~~
00: 1lJ
~-:J
'ED
~ _,~
.~..:ot:""'_1
,f':
J:i,f..;
"f:("'i"
~:.
:; ~
, ~)/
. Iill'o,,-
, ~ ,
'.
'\~'"
Ir'..
:">:.
~ ..,.,
il::<
o
'1'
4'
;r;
V
,""-'.~
P'I'
.' ,
'-'
-
\;
,<
<>
......~\_\'t.
\:Jo.;',\
';""'1'
. ,
.....
::'1
-
,~;~' ~
',,...-
. >??-\ .',
.,rI~
n.. '...
~;,....:. r.... "~':>'"''
"', '.:,
,',. ,~
,
',\>;,
-
'"=~':".",.,"",,,,;
~
.......:
.
1
>(i'r .'
r---, "
~ "-m r ;;".,)
~" ~-J
<"'>.~""
-
-
..(
'....
-
/
-
!J
~
/'
il!
l:j
ii!
f~(t 11\\?9J ~ ~ ~.
('!iI
N'04J V\ 1111),.."" 1 '" .~ :~ ~Ir;
,i\{.JV()A J (..~ I,.
III 4 bb c-lQNt:; .1UW lk '71'V- .
li'l ~ID ~ O<~O'<<. ".II ~~fle {~.
"I
11!r?tkl. kL~. ~ ~ / eloI,,-I.t (J""- ~ f>>.~-,
Iii
\PH \~J, ~ [
li!ili \ II Z- yat( l/M~ ~,~ ~~ ~fJ.
1!1 + ~-ta~~W\4~~. &lfJ,1 1P4~.
\1 kI~ ~ -Uf(A ~l)4.
II Jfr #'U~ft4 ~vtAtf!'. '
~\ .
f i!li~ ~i'tk~.~Air'
\ I, I 4'J..'fJlVA~' ,
I': t ~~~, .
ii . + vrJ.cf' ~ f:X~ ~
ill 1J ~~'t
1'1\ t. f'4i~ ~ ~
1:1
:ij
\'1;\ ~'t1 ~~~ ~. vii Alr:v WbMW \ ~ . .
\\1 f1/) 1JrtflMl'jj ?/( f;t'e [t;Yl~ '7t, ~t7'vtt .
. l~. bf,/~t W/~~~0mvl~'
'I!~~~ ~V\J'p -- 1v CPrk,
Il\~~~'
',II '{\ - \
i'l
II~-~f- ;~( ~1~~
'iii ~~ ~hWW1 ~.
.'1 ~
:q UVIV , 1 ;
I
^
,.-,
Iii
Iii
'I
Iii
1'1
JIIM. ~ ~ 'tfRJ _
1\.11 ~rcJt~ at ~.
!il r ~ L ~ ~ [#l.
il +> 1ft!
II
'loO I' - \1 fdt1
'i . ~
'II qj~ J 1Ja~~ ~!irt:J.
'I
II~. ?r ~I~~..
I 1xJ. ~'W. at 0lr1 ~
'!I l.+ri>>l ~ ~ L ~
II 7J!W ot er~ ~~ wPl1[P{ 1(/ .
,I
II
~ 41, !IV~.
~Ilzn~ 'tWl- I..... I~~j
r ~ LN~ VJIM(J V ~'.1M'
III ~~ aP.
il
I,
II
111'i tJt '
II \
,I
I!I \
111\\\ - \\\\
III
, d
Ii
fit :. y1 · 1.. ~ -l--
, ~ -!'u Q1AK._
II
III
lit
ill.
~,
'}
~
i~
MRS. HENRY '1'. G.HANDLER
902 NORTH GREEN BAY ROAD
LAKE FOREST. II,LINOIS 60045
July 28,1999
Pamela Cunningham
Aspen Alps
700 Ute Avenue
Aspen. C081611
Dear Pam:
,
,
As owners of two apartments in the 500 Building of the Aspen Alps Condominium
Association, we would like to go on record with some concerns about the proposed
plans for demolition and reconstruction of the George Mitchell house, directly above
our building.
1. Size of proposed building and relation to its lot: The existing house on the lot is
non-conforming under the Aspen Land Use Codes and 8040 Greenl/ne regulations,
To construct a larger house, covering almost the entire oddly-shaped lot, will only
compound the situation, When the 400 Aspen Alps Building burned down several
years ago, the reconstruction was mandated to the exact footprint of the original
building. A larger house on the Mitchell property will certainly impact the views from
below, above, and to the west on Little Nell.
~ _ 2. Stability of the sloDe: Our building, 500, has already experienced some damage
\;f,J1 from ground shifting, as have other buildings in the Alps complex. The eXisting.
~\tI Mitchell house itself has had foundation problems, A 3D-foot excavation on this
hillside will certainly affect the adjacent terrain.
~,
~
3. Drainaae: We question not only the efficacy of three large underground dry-wells
on that property, but also the effects of their construction on the land below, including
the road.
We hope that you, as the representative of the Aspen Alps owners, will present our
views to the appropriate governing body.
s~nCerelY, /1 P n . /; ()
/~~J .~ >i1:jZ)~--f:7
W.~.~7( /~./ '-'~~
Henry T. Chandler",
Clarissa H. Chandler
Owners, 504 and 508 Aspen Alps South
AUj- 2-99 MON 9:43 AM rrD
FAX 1/0, n:79 9724
, ~
.. '"
IG
HALGLENN CORP.
1428 Brickell A venue I Miami, Florida 3313 I
Tel. 13051371,41 12
Fax: 1305) 579-9724
SIJMMER RES/DENCE,
ASPEN ALPS, #503
700 lITE AVENUE
ASPEN, COlORAPO 8/6/1
August 2, 1999
Mrs. Pamela Cunningham
General Manager
Aspen Alps Condominium
700 Ute Avenue
Aspen. Colorado 81611
,
,
Rl:: George Mitchell Proposed Zoning Variances
Dear Mrs. Cunningham:
The pUl'pose of this letter is to request that you express to the proper authorities our concerns
aboullhe proposed demolition and reconstruction of the Mitchell house.
As you know, our corporation is the owner of Unit 503 in the five hundred building which is
adjacent to the Mitchell property. and r believe will be adversely affected by the proposed
reconstruction,
~ Our concerns are as follows:
~ 1. Slope Stability - construction of this oversized house will adversely affect stability
\ and contribute to ground shifting.
2. Drainage - we are very much concerned about the effect the construction will have
on the drainage of the contiguous areas, the 500, 400 and 300 buildings as well as the
Aspen Alps Road,
~~'3.
- ,/ V 4 Staging of the construction - construction of this home will require heavy eqUipment,
~~~. ",' trucks and workers vehicles and will cause hardship and parking problems for the
~ '--. residents of the 400 and 500 buildings. as well as traffic hazards on an already
overcrowded Aspen Alps Road,
~ We respectfully request that you vigorously represent our concerns to the hearing authorities.
Size of the proposed home - the home already crowds the road and appears to occupy
the entire lot. A Jarger home will obscure views from all directions.
, ij--
.
o::~ ~? 1 cr;;c; i/!.Q':::1!/.
~V1~ S7g 9724
PRGE.0;J
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
r".
~.
N . J).
MEMORANDUM
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
J"" 0",,,,, ""my D_nl.':',
Christopher Bendon, Planner \)JVW J
Mitchel Residence, 550 Aspen Alps Road - Public Hearing
8040 Greenline Review
Front, Side, and Rear Yard Variances
Residential Design Waiver for Garage Placement
August 3,1999
SUMMARY:
The applicant, Cynthia and George Mitchell represented by Alan Richman, have
applied for 8040 Greenline Review, variances to the dimensional requirements of the
Conservation Zone District, and waiver of the garage placement requirement of the
Residential Design Standards. The property, 550 Aspen Alps Road, is currently
developed with a single-family residence.
\D
o
~
The 8040 Greenline standards primarily concentrate on the effects of site grading, the
ability for the property to be served with utilities and fire protection, and the visual
effects of the resulting development on the mountain backdrop of the City. Staff
believes these standards have been met with this proposal and the suggested
conditions of approval.
The appeal of the Residential Design Standards for the placement ofthe garage
responds to the requirement of the garage being recessed behind the front fayade of
the house by 10 feet. Staff supports the waiver as there is no other practical
alternative for placing the garage on-site without significant grading or encroachment
into ,the dripline of a fairly significant tree.
Zoning variances have been historically reviewed by the Board of Adjustment. The
newly adopted land use code allows for the consolidation of the review when there
are other associated planning reviews. This process is similar to the consolidation of
DRAC cases and provides applicants with the ability to present one case and receive
one finding, simplifying the process for both staff and applicants. An adverse fmding
by the Commission, however, may be appealed to the Board of Adjustment.
The variance request is to provide zoning setbacks to accommodate a reasonable use
of the property. The Conservation Zone District has a minimum lot size of 10 acres.
The setbacks (refer to Exhibit "C") are entirely appropriate for these large parcel but
have little relevance on a 10,000 square foot non-conforming lot, such as the
Mitchell's. The 100 foot front yard and 30 foot rear yard requirements result in
I
r".
f""",
approximately 1 foot of developable area on the 131 foot deep parcel. Staff believes
this circumstance renders the property useless and necessitates a variance,
Staff recommends approval of the 8040 Greenline Review, variances to the
Conservation Zone District dimensional requirements, and waiver of the garage
placement standard, with conditions.
ApPLICANT:
Cynthia and George Mitchell. Represented by Alan Richman, AICP.
LOCATION:
550 Aspen Alps Road. Between Aspen Alps buildings 500 and 700.
ZONING:
Conservation (C).
LOT SIZE:
10,161 square feet.
LOT AREA (FOR PURPOSES OF FAR CALCULATION):
The application was submitted prior to the addition of a maximum floor area for the
Conservation Zone District. Therefore, a lot area analysis has not been performed.
CURRENT & PROPOSED LAND USE:
Single-Family house.
PREVIOUS ACTION:
The Commission has not previously considered this application.
REVIEW PROCEDURE:
8040 Greenline Review. With a recommendation from the Planning Director, the
Commission may approve, approve with conditions, or deny a proposed development
within an Environmentally Sensitive Area.
Zoning Variance, With a recommendation from the Planning Director, the
Commission may approve, approve with conditions, or deny a variance application at
a public hearing.
Residential Design Appeal. With a recommendation from the Planning Director, the
Commission may approve, approve with conditions, or deny a waiver application at a
public hearing. .
STAFF COMMENTS:
This application was received prior to the consideration by P&Z of the code
amendment to apply a maximum Floor Area to the Conservation Zone District. The
applicant has also relied upon the Conservation Zone District provisions and several
conversations with staff, prior to the amendment, in planning and designing this
2
,r-,
i-"
house. This application is not subject to the recent code amendment to the
Conservation Zone District. This is the last application reviewed under the previous
zoning.
Conversely, this is the first application under the newly adopted land use code
provision which allows the consolidation of zoning variances for applications with the
Planning and Zoning Commission. The Commission may now act as the Board of
Adjustment in granting zoning variances concurrent with regular planning reviews.
The criteria for granting a variance are more strict than the planning criteria the
Commission generally uses. These criteria are included in Exhibit "A" and staff will
review each of these criteria during the hearing.
Review criteria and Staff Findings have been included as Exhibit "A." Agency
referral comments have been included as Exhibit "B." A zoning analysis has been
provided as Exhibit "C." A location Map has been included as Exhibit "D." The
application has been included as Exhibit "E."
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the 8040 Greenline Review, Variances to the
Conservation Zone District dimensional requirements, and waiver of the garage
setback requirement of the Residential Design Standards for the Mitchell Residence,
550 Aspen Alps Road, with the following conditions:
1. The building pennitplans shall be in accordance with all requirements of the Conservation
Zone District and Residential Design Standards, both in effect on June 14, 1999, with the
following exceptions:
. Setback requirements for the parcel shall be: front ~ 12 feet; rear ~ 10 feet; sides = 10 feet.
. The garage setback requirement of the Residential Design Standards shall not apply.
The building pennit application shall include a permit from the Environmental Health
Department for any certified woodstoves or gas log fireplaces (coal- & woodbuming
fireplaces are not allowed) and an approved fugitive dust control plan,
2.
3.
The building pennit application shall include a tree removal pennit from the City Parks
Department for the removal or relocation of trees as per Section 13.20,020 of the Code,
The building penn it application shall include a water tap pennit for a tap sized for the
required fire suppression system and for the domestic use. The structure shall include a fire
suppression system approved by the Fire Marshall. A pump system may be required by the
Fire Marshall to accommodate the required pressure for the fire suppression system.
The building pennit application shall include a tap pennit from the Aspen Consolidated
Sanitation District. Sources of clear water may not be directed to the sanitary sewer.
The building pennit plans shall includ~~u~W'i~ :;~J to the foundation design,
foundation walls and retaining walls, floor slabs, underdrain systems, site grading, soil
stabolization plan, and surface drainage plan signed and stamped by an Engineer registered in
,_ <:;olorado/This plan must accommodate drainage on-site both during and after construction ~,,{(O\
and must confinn the drywell system can be constructed without causing damage to down ~:.ft)
?radient pr.operties# 2 year stonn frequenc]~ be used in designing any drainage f ~
Improvements. ~it ~\\ 'F'~ ~~ ..w.\\ ~ IY'.
\::e, 'fOt'~cl CI...J. G\ffillle~ II; 3 .
~ ~ ~~\\A.t cHiu/..)
4.
5,
6,
7,
8.
9.
f"";.
,.-,.,
10.
11.
The building permit plans shall include an environmental protection plan detailing the limits
of disturbance on the parcel and construction access. The limits of disturbance. shall be
fenced prior to issuance of a building permit and shall remain in place until a Certificate of
Occupancy is issued.
The applicant shall contain all construction activity, including staging and contractor parking,
on-site unless permission is granted by the Aspen Alps Association for use of the parking
area east of the Mitchell property. Adequate width for safe passage along Aspen Alps Road III
shall be maintained at all times. ~ JV1JL ~
If evidence of mining activity is discovered during excavation of the property, all / \VJ;N'l) CP~
construction activity shall cease until a mitigation plan is approved by the City Engineer. II'P'~ \fI\1
Highly reflective materials shall not be used for the roof material.
All utility meters and any new utility pedestals or transformers must be installed on the
applicant's property and not in any public right-of-way. Easements must be provided for
pedestals. All utility locations and easements must be delineated on the site improvement
survey. Meter locations must be accessible for reading and may not be obstructed.
These conditions of approval shall be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit set and
all other drawing sets used for construction, The primary contractor shall be provided witb a
copy of this Resolution and shall submit a letter as part of the building permit application stating
that the conditions of approval have been read and understood,
All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings
with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of
approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. The applicant shall record this
Planning and Zoning Resolution with the County Clerk and Recorder,
12,
13.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"1 move to approve the 8040 Greenline Review, Variances to the Conservation Zone
District dimensional requirements, and waiver of the garage setback requirement of
the Residential Design Standards for the Mitchell Residence, 550 Aspen Alps Road,
with the conditions recommended in the Community Development Memorandum
dated August 3, 1999.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Comments
Exhibit B -- Referral Agency Comments
Exhibit C -- Zoning Analysis
Exhibit D -- Location Map
Exhibit E -- Development Application
4
.r>.,
~.
..
200
,
o
200 400 Feet
,
(\
,~
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Plans were routed to those departments checked-o[[below:
~........... City Engineer
0........... Zoning Officer
0........... Housing Director
~.......... Parks Department
o ........... Aspen Fire Marshal
Ajj;............ City Water
~.......... Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
~.......... Building Department
o ........... Environmental Health
o ........... Electric Department
o ........... Holy Cross Electric
o ........... City Attorney
0........... Streets Department
o ........... Historic Preservation Officer
o ........... Pitkin County Planning
FROM:
Chris Bendon, Planner
Community Development Department
130 So. Galena St.; Aspen, CO 81611
Phone-920.5090 Fax-920.5439
RE:
Mitchel 8040 Greenline Review and Zoning Variance
550 Aspen Alps Road - 2737.182.00.012
DATE:
June 18, 1999, 1999
REFERRAL SCHEDULE
DRC MEETING DATE:(note time: 1:30-3:00)
OTHER REFERRALS DUE TO PLANNER:
ENGINEERING REFERRAL DUE TO PLANNER:
June 23, 1999
June 30, 1999
July 2, 1999
Thank you,
Chris.
t""'\
.,-"
ASPENIPITKIN COMMUNITYDEVELOPl'v1ENTDEPARTMENT
Agreementfor Pa.ymeu.tof City of Aspen Dt;velopmeut.AppJicatioJ1 Fees
(p!ease Print Clearly)
CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and (. V. V\ ~'A ""', -\- tL. \l
(hereina:J:l:et APPUc..'\.i."IT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: .
L APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for "8'-0 I-\.\l b (2u..... \ ,~
p..~ \1fl<l!,.\A"-l-(. (here'.nafter, THE PROJECT).
2. APPLIC.'\.i.'IT uncie:stands and agrees that City of Aspen. Ordinance No. 43 (Series of 1996)
establishes a fee sr:ructU1:e for land use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a
. condition precedent to a de<..enninarion of :lpplic::nion completeness.
3. APPLICA..i.'IT and err! a=e that bec:lUSe of the size.;lll!Ul"e or scoue of the orouosed
..... . ..... .......
project, It is not possible at this time to ascenain thefui1 extem of the costs involved in processing
the a1l1llicanon.APPLIC.~"rr and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the Dames to allow
APPUCA.i.'l'T to make paymem of an initial deposit and to the.-emer pe..,mt add.itio~ costs to be
billed to APpLIC.~'fT on a monrhly basis. ,\PPLlC.~'IT agrees he will be beneri!ed by ,era;,,;,,;:
greurer =h liquidi-ryand will make additional payments upon notiiic::nion oy the ell Y when they
are necessary ::is costS are inC".l~d. CITY agrees i!.;vill be be:J.e::1!ed throll!:" the ~!er ce:taimy of
recovering its full costs to process ,\PPLIC.~'lTS applic::nion.
4. CIT! and APPLIC.~'l'T further agree that ii: is impracticaiJie for ell '{ 3taifro complete
processing or present suificiem.iniormation to the Planning Commission and/or City Council to
enabie the PJ~nn;"g Commission and/or CIty Counc'J to make legally required finri;n;:s for project
approval, unless c=l:Jji1i,,;:~ are paid in full prior to decision.
5. Therefore. ,-\PPLlC.~'ll agrees that in consideration of tile CITY's o;liaiver of its right to
collect full fees prior to a detemrinarion of~lic::nion completeness; APPLIC.~'l"T shall pay an
initialdeoosit in the aIllount ofS ~\\'whicb. is for (" hours ofPIancing staff time, and if
actUal re~orded costs ~ceed the initial deposit, APPLICA.l'\!T shall pay adciitionai mo!tthly billings
to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application meJ:ltioned above, including.
post approval review. Sucb. periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the b;mn~date.
APPLIC.<\J.'IT further agrees that fuilure to pay such ac=d COsts shall be grounds for suspension
of processing.
CITY OF ASPEN
s~
Co=unity Development Direct.or
City of Aspen
APPLICAJ.'IT
.
Signature: 4-1.'~ n~.l. tI
. Date: ~. ~ (,I , 1'~
Printed Name: L.'{ '" ~:A ~ ,..\-(j~ It
lVlailing Address: ~ GJ<.. '-\ 00 ~
6\...CL "'"'OQ!l....4. IX: '11~ir1..
^
~
ATTACHMENTt
.~
City of Aspen Development Applieation Fee Policy
The City ofAspeD. pu'rsllantto Ordinance 43 (Series of 1996), has established a fee structure fortb.e
proc~ing ofIand use applications. A. flatfee or deposit is collected for land use applications based
on the type of applicarionsubmitted. Refer:raJ. fees for other City departmentS reviewing the
appiic:xtion wiil also be collected when necessary. One checl, including the deposit for Pbnning
and refe:ml.. agency fees mu.st be submitted with each land use appiication.lIllll'ie paylWle to the .
Aspen/Pitkin Commumty DevelopIXlent De!'.....u.uenI. Applications will not be accepted for
processing without tile required application fee.
A flat fee is collec""..ed. byP1:'lnning .for Staff Approvals which noo:naily rake :J. miniin'li and
predictable amount of Staff time to process, rue fee is not retUndabiec
A denosit is collec""..ed bv Planning when more e..'l:tensive staU review is reouired. :J.S hours Jre likely
~ ...,.. ...... ........ - ,'" .. "', ,.."" ~.. .. ..
to 'far} sUbstllntiauyfrom one applic:ltion to another. Acmal sraif time spent ',vill be charged
against tile de?osit. .-I.iter tile deposit has been expended. the applicant will be billed monthly based
on ac:.ual s-..affhours. C=ent bii1in~s must be paid within 30 daYs or processing ofilie applic::uion
will be susue::1ded. [f an aotlllcant has meviously failed to oav aonlication fees :J.S =uired. no new
~ ~ . "', ' -.'~ ~... .
or additional applications ',vill be accepted tar processing until theo\ItStllI1rHn,?: reesJre paid. In no
case will Building Pe.'1Di.ts be issued. umi1 ail costs :J.Ssocia:red. with c:J.Seprocessing have been paid.
After the final. action on tile project. any rem"ining balance from :he deposit 'Niil be refunded io the
applicanr.
Applications which require a de:;osiI must inchuie an A~ement for Payment of Development
Awlication Pees. The Agre=ent establishes tb.eapplicanras being responsibie tor payment of al:i
costs associated wItb. processing the appli~oo.. The Agreement must be signed by the parry
responsible for payment and submitted ?liTh :he applicatiouin order for it to be accepted.
The complete fee schedule for land use applications is available at the Commumty Development
Department.
-",1---
.~
......."
..,
M~__ .
d . \ tJ&J~-~
. cw--
,.. ~ -' S--~~-~~~-' ------,----,--.-
~>..~., /l n I
~~ ..:t:::-_____
O'iZ- ~.
4.(o.~~
~~~cMQ. --,
. .--, V\Olr^ (!.(,~_GLL
\jSZ__~ @..s._~i1e. _,___,____
.~- ------------
b \)fML~ ~-+~~ - 'tcudS-,-
. ,__ ~)'o ll6-._hPu li ~
.~-Q~-~~~---~ ----,
...
i~.
^
0.'
CITY OF ASPEN
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PLANNER:
Chris Bendon, 920.5072
DATE: 3.12.98
Mitchel Residence 8040 (and ADD)
Alan Richman
Mitchel
o step for staff level review. I-step for planning and zoningreview. BOA Variances are a
separate application from Sara Thomas, Zoning Officer.
DESCRIPTION: There are several land I\se scenarios depending upon the amount of renovation, expansion, and demolition.
Generally, any redevelopment altering the exterior will require at least a staff level 8040 review. Redevelopment
within the same 3-dimensional envelope will not trigger the need for a variance.. Expansions beyond the existing 3-
D envelope will require a BOA Variance and either a staff level 8040 or P&Z 8040 depending upon the percentage
of expansion. With any scenario, demolition over 50% will require a growth management exemption which may be
accomplished with an Accessory Dwelling Unit.
PROJECT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
OWNER:
TYPE OF APPLICATION:
Land Use Code Section(s)
26.68.030 8040 Greenline Review lfI'I:1 ~u_ J'j 11.;;
2~0 ~nndjtional ~e
26.40.096 A""d,,"uIY Dwelling U",it$
Referral Agency Fees:.
Total Deposit:
Staff for completeness, DRC (referral agencies)
for 8040 process - no. For ADU process - yes.
Engineering, Parks, Building Department + additional depending upon application
Planning Deposit ($450) 8040 stafflevel
Planning Deposit ($1080) 8040 P&Z level
Flat fee ($245) ADU
Engineering, Minor ($110) (any application); Housing, minor ($70) (ADU application)
Depends upon applic~on. Contact planner before submitting application. (additional hours are
billed at a rate of$l84Yhour)
Review by:
Public Hearing:
Referral Agencies:
Planning Fees:
To apply, submit the following information:
1. Proof of ownership
2. Signed fee agreement
3, Applicant's name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant which states the name,
address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant.
4. Street address and legal description of the parcel on wbich development is proposed to occur, 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 parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application.
5. Total deposit fotreview of the application
6. ? Copies of the complete application packet and maps. Contact planner'
HPC = 12; PZ = 10;GMC = PZ+5; CC = 7; Referral Agencies = 1/ea.; Planning Staff= 1
7. An 8 1/2" by 11" vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen.
8, Site improvement survey including topography and vegetation showing the current status, including all
easements and vacated rights of way, of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the state of
Colorado. (This requirement, or any part thereof, may be waived by the Community Development Department if
the project is determined not to warrant a survey document.)
"....
~.
;""'"
.
9. A written d~scription of the proposal and an explanation in written, grapbic, or model form of how the proposed
development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. Please include
existing conditions as well as proposed. .
10. Copies of prior approvals if applicable.
Disclaimer: .
The fo~egoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is
subject:to change in the future, and upon factual representations that mayor may not be accurate. The stimmary does not create a
legal ot vested right.
I
I
I
I
I
Ii
"" :: I
19- I ,
I I . , I
- = -. I ,
. - I I' !
- n ,
". 1 . r
::r , ,-
" Ii "
. n> I!
. I~ I Ii
~ - ,I
, - ,
~ , "
" . -
- '. , .
= _ I
I n> !. . ,
-
. " . .
~ ~ "
I . Ii I Ii
. -.
Q.
I,
n> ] ,
, .
= I "
I" II
n I
n> I Ig
I I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
<
.
.
I i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
" >
B ~
f! l ~
iii 8
I
,
.
-
.
<
,
,
,
,."
.>'.
!
"
t
.
!
#
,I
,!
t1
I'IA'
I
;'~,'"
";?zrr~~' ',','
,~~""""'"i';~':'
.'~ . .".~' .
''"''
.
-
.
<
.
,
,
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
<
.
,
,
I
!
.
:f
.
I
I
I
I
I
UISTINGHOUSE
I
I
I
'.
"
"
"
.,
.f',
I
.
I
I
I
. .,
,
';1 j
, ;;'1
\:\
I :j I
,
I ~ I
. ,
0
,
, I
I
I
__..1---=--
,~
--- ..
, -J~-:- .
___ -=- _ ~ t> .
---,----------- ---:.-:-~~
1
I", """"""t :1
."", -. I
,.' I
/'__ __.-7-~------ I
, ,i ! ,,'
':.#
...
c;;/' .'1"
, y/~---::---------- ,~
/' ~
/~,1
.,,/ -"--
// "
,., "
" (f
;/
/~ ifiaDO .
ffA:,' .",j
0~ _" R~
! l ~ j Ii
; i ' . I
!! i ' ;!
~ 1 ~
.-
l!
.
.
,
~
.
I
I
I
I
0
I 1
,
I ,
,
~
z
0
,
I h
, -
~
Ii
, -
n I
,
~
< -
M .I
x
"
I
G;
<
~
. ffi
-
o
I
-
I
,
I .
!
I
I
.
i Q .
. / - DC-
' l
{ .. , t
, Ii
,
" ! ,
> .
!! . I !!
~ I
Il' .
, l 'I
ul .
" 1-
0 ~~
.
- .
. ,
- ~
I <
/
-
-
-'0---
-
<
-,..^""
\
-----,-,
L' /--- ,
" ,
" ,
.
" .( I. I
I, 'I' ,.'8
. ..
'I I' j .
" I <
'I < .
" I .
.1 , ,
'I ! ,
" I
"
I
---~ ',;
\:~
!
p
4
.
-
:
,
,0',''''._
I
G 6'-0,,0) '1'-0" ~ 15'-0" 0) ]5'-0" Gf) 25'-0" 0
Ii --~--------/-------------1-----------------------(-----------------------/---------------------------------------/-
t "....... : : :
1 .... I I I
~ II I
, I I
I I
I ,
I I
;: 'XJ. ::
~ n
::r
w ('l)
.0
N a ....
c "'""'"
'" ~
- ~
_. --------
n =-
t:=' ~[]
('l) ~ (f\
~ --I
-. ....- mm 7
IJCl ....- ~C) r ~~[] ~()
= UTem fJ 71 (j\
~ ('\ -< 0)> ~~
71 ll. (j\
t'"' )> .'-, m o )>
('l) ~ 2: \ (j\
-< r \ m
('l) l:I.l
- c -------
.... ....
?< Co CD
('l) ~
-<
('l) =
-
~ ~ RISER
'"d
- ~
~
=
~
'"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
--1---------
,
I
I
I
I
,
::>
(\)
2
'"
~
(\)
G 61-0,,0) '1'-0" ~ 15'-0" 0) 15'-0" Gf) 25'-0" 0
--~--------(-------------1-----------------------(-----------------------(---------------------------------------(-
I 1 I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
: : I
I I
I I
I ,
, ,
,.... "
.~:.,/'
: I~ .
'~i
-.:
~
_L
I
I
,
I
,
I
,
I
:~",
I '
L
,
I
I
,
I
,
,
o
(f\ I
~~~ i
m I
-----~-+
---------1-
> IE "'-
<'l = jIIlII""'"
[. a' l'IJ
~ ~ "'C
2. ('l)
> ~ 6. =
j 5. ~ ~
(j "Q '" "'"
~ ~ ~. \. 1
~~. ~ 0
I _
I
,
I
I
I
Ii
~
:;:: 00- ~
. n
"
~ ::r
w ('l)
p
~ :3 .,..
0 f""'to.
:= l:Q
- ~
-.
n =-
=
('l) (D
~
-. ....
I1CI ....
=
t"' ~
('l) (D
<
('l) ~
-
~ .,..
l:Q Co
~
C" (D
'"C =
-
l:Q ~
= (D
N
>~
d ::::
~."
;;" a
~ .
:> ;:; ~
. . Q.
~ 5. ~
~ ;:; g
5' 6' ;.
ri 5' (t
o ~ .
,;
>
~
'CI
('l)
=
~
("'l
o
~ 18'-6" G 61-0,,0) '1'-0" 0) 15'-0" 0) 15'-0" ~
----~---------------------------~--------/-------------/-----------------------/-----------------------~----------,
I I I I I 'I"
I I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I 1 I
, I I
I I
I
I
I-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
",
\
ffi~
r <
,
iii I I,
-----~----------------------------
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r
m
<
m
r
Ul
}>
"-.
Ul
OJ
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-----r----------------------------
c-
o
u>
(i>
~
o
~ ~.
,
~
/ ~
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
'-./
c-
o
u>
(i>
~
~
o
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
'l
I
!
.J
<
()
\J
,
:[
m m
~8~ i
l.2J"'70 I
~c: 0
H ~
I
I
I
I
I
r-'-j
c
,
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
,
I
I
I
,
"
---------,-----t-----l-r--
I I I I
I '
I
I
,
I
,
I
I
. -:::-~___L____..c,..:..____
~ - ~-~ ~:~-_~_t-'---;~''-~i~/:7-~:~.7-~,~i - --
",I; .//
\:\
\, !
. I
I
,/ /
. \
/' /
//
//
//
//
//
// /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
( /
v
Ii
~
a: rJ). ~
. n
"
,. ::r
w ('l)
9 .....
~ =
~ = ~
- ~
-.
n =-
~
('l) ~
~
_. .....
IJQ .....
=
t"' ~
('l) ~
-<
('l) CI.l
-
... .... .
= Q.
--
... ~
1;1'
"'d =
-
= ~
= ~
w
). !:P.
;::l =
,...,
:::: 0
. .
> ~ ~
. ~ 0-
, 0. '"
P ~ is
c ::I 9.
~~. ~
0;
>
~
"Cl
('l)
=
~
n
o
o 18'-6" ~ 18'-6" G 6'-0,,6 '1'-0" ~ 15'-0" ~
-{-----------------------------r----------------------------r--------{-------------{-----------------------{-------
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
: " ::::
I I I I
, I I
I I
I 1__
, I
I '1~
I Ii
I I!
, I'
: '" :
, I
---i-------~----------------~ ...:
I ------------
, {!) Ii
I 'I:
, I"
i r I!
: ~ 0
I r
[ ~ ~
I )>
, '-....
: ~
i CD
I
---,---------------------------- --------------
___L____________________________
,
,
I
,
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
,
0lCi'
~mc
@iJ,q]
W-;
(\
~~
-;
~Ol~
"mm
()Q<))
--;
ffi
(\
r
()
<))
m
--9- -
ITJ,
r I
m I
I
RISER
@]
\
"-.,
g'
I
0lCi"
~mc'
~t:Jml
- <))1
__~_~J
-----------~-------
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
!
I
,
I
,
-----------1-------
- - - - - - - -:- - - - - - - - - - t -~:-~--~~-:-::-:::-:::-:::-::::~, ~H:::::::-=-:::-:::_:::-:::--:::.--
, ' I
I I
I ,
I I
,~ ~
I ~"
I
:; ~I
,I
"
,
~
G
(\
r
()
<))
m
-;
DR
,-$1'
I
I
I
,
I
,
I
:<:
~~~
() Q-;
() m
-IQ
-5::---:
rm :
ill "
~ i
)>:
+-I:
:t .
/
/
/ .
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
" /
/
,
j J
//
//
/ /
//
//
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
//
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
V
:: 00
~ n
;;;::r
so ('l)
~ ~
-
_.
n
o
('l)
~
-.
I1Q
=
~ ,;
> !!' >,...
d= '"
~~ -e
~: ~
~ ~ a =
~ at;'" -..
Q ~ g n
'O::l _. 0
' =,"
8- ~ ~
~
~
~
_.
f""to-.
~
=-
~
~
~
t""
('l)
~
('l)
-
~
~
f:'-)
_.
Q.
~
=
~
~
r
m
<
m
~~~~n~lnn~
U!
VI
'"C:l
-
~
=
~ 18'~6" e 18'-6" G 61-0,,0) '1'-0" 0) 15'~0"
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1~~~~~~~~~~~~-~-------~~-----'
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
+.. I I I
I .........----.....-----..._ I I I
T ' I ',', , I
,I I __ .1
I I rioT ITn
: : : III 1,-- _:.i.
I I I Ii I
I I :11 I
1:1 I
I I ,
I I I
I I I
BENCH
l^<INDOl^< SEAT
nD,l
~,
-f~~-------~-,--
I
I
I
,
I
,
,
I
illi!! :
I'
-~I--------------
--- - -- --1- -- - - - -- __ _ __ __
I
,
I
,
,
1JJ
)>
r
(\
C)
Z
"
i
//
//
//
//
//
//
/ /
//
///
/ /
, /
''0,/
,
/
Ii
~~
"::r ~
~~ ~ ~
~ a .,...
8 ~ .......
::;~
~=-
~ ~
_. .....
~.....
I
~~
Q ~
....(1.2
::s! .,...
~ c.
~
=
~
~
Ul
>~
a =
=."Q'
~ ~
2 .
>- @ ~
~ '" 0-
.~ 5. ~
() :2'"
S g 8.
i 5' !!:.
o O'<l ~
>
.c
('l)
=
~
I :?<::G,;ON,'
1__~;~C.TIOf,; E
I__~['C.~:ON D
c
"
o
("l
o
v
~
I f~
i ('\
.1
Q
/:
>
-
I' ~~
oj
z
i u;
~I."
III
"
I .J
\)
z
('
~"
iii
"
1
"
~tAkRO,
_1l:1$_~J"IJ.:;,r+
l'IIIII,.la
~ .",,,..,,,1..'2
'" ....",..s"'".
. ~ ,~~~?>'/
w '. , "' .,' /c;/r~
~j.~.,.,"~.~ ...4ffI/Y/./ '1. '
. ~ ..... .., 'J/'"' J,-%I
,"~'.' ( ~~~
,~~..".. . 01 I
.,....,.
;\~'W'
.r ~ "'
, I ffffJ
'~t.
,
!
i'_i_iHlL I
I) ~ ,~l "~ " I
'~!"\(:
'. g Ii
'1'~'1;~
I/~;/:"
/~//
/ / /
///1
/~y/ I
/"/:y
/ 'i/
(rY
,
w\
ffi.1
".....~
z
~.. .
~ ..
.,.1
''''k~#
m
~i{.l ~
g. =- ~
:5 t'tl _.
;,.,:; t""'I'-
~ ~ ~
~. =-
~~
~. ....
(1el""",,"
:;' ~
~~
<: l':'-l
~ ".....
o. Q.
; ~
=
~
~
0'\
=
~ ~ >
[.~ ~
~ ~ tD
~ g =
> . 0-
~ ~ > ,...
g Q.. '" """
;., '" g , 1
2. g j;r 0
! e,,,
g.J5 '"
z
()
j(J
-l
I
m
r
m
<
)>
-l
()
Z
.
"
"
o
m
)>
U1
-l
m
r
m
<
)>
-l
()
Z
2-
m
U1
-l
m
r
m
<
)>
-l
()
Z
U1
()
c
-l
I
m
r
m
<
)>
---l
()
Z
I I
I I
':\1:1
~g.
~~ ~
~ ~
-
_.
n
o
('l)
~
_.
IJQ
=
0\
~
>~
" -
~ "
-, 0
" .
> ~ ~
$ . 0-
X = >
= Q. .
2 ~ 8.
i ::!. e
<:> ~ II
Ii
~
....
~
~
=-
~
....
....
t."l
-
('l)
<
r=
-
-.
=
=
~
~
~
l':'-l
....
Q.
~
=
~
~
"
N
o
>
~
"Cl
('l)
=
~
~
o
1
1
I
I
I
1
,
('f
!'
I "
"
o
"
~
,
~
.
,
i
,
.
'"
1
I
L
" !:" "" , ~'~-'
'I:', '(,",',]' I"
'I""l'I"'I!
:I~d, tll~I+)
,.1[,- , ____
1.1 FIll 1]
fl' LJ
II
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I),
1]1
1;0
/0
IX
/Ii
I,
I",
If"
'ii>
I",
1-;
'r-
/J
1-;
I
I
I
I
'\: /
/
",/
m
)>
\JI
---l
m
r
m
<
)>
---l
C)
Z
2:
m
\JI
---l
m
r
'm
<
)>
---l
C)
Z
L_
"
'3
'1::"
~ \oj"
"
.-
"
~. ~
c:; ~
<
\JI
z C)
c
C) ---l
70 I
---l m
I r
m m
r < Ii
m )> ,.
, ,
< i.! ---l
, F"
)> 1 C) i
---l I
" Z ---m'l
C) I u ,I
Z ,A
l
.~ ~
D
-I
,~
~~
~ ~-
"
.'
f}]
~' ~
~
1
"
"
'l~
~ 0"
"
.'
"
"
'd
~g ~.
"
" "
~ \'iI
\ g- ~
\ Ii ~
, .~\ \II
\ ~ ~
;g,E"
'(l.1.p
;: rJ:J.
~ n
;:;::r
.0 ('l)
~ ~
-
-.
n
~
('l)
~
-.
IJll
=
~
>!:?
;;:l =
~ "
~. ~
. .
> ~ E..
~ So it
n " ~
S!. ;;; g
[ 2. ~.
o tiS ~
Ii""
~ -
~
~
_.
~
~
=-
~
~
~
rJ:J.
('l)
n
-
-.
=
=
>
I
>
~
~
CI.l
_.
Co
~
=
~
~
:;
>
~
"Cl
('l)
=
~
("':l
o
PI b
_ 'll
~~
PI b
... 'll
~~
~ ;0
1JI
m
o
-I
()
Z
)>
,
,
,
I
I
I
I
,
,
I
,
I
,
I
I
-- -r
I
I
I
I '
------~-~----------~--------------------------~--
I
,
I
,
,
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
,
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
,
I
,
I
I
I
~==============================================I
I
,
,
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
,
________1_________________
)>
,
------~----------------------------
81-6"
7\
--I
(\
I
m
z
i
i-------------------------------
m
a: rL:J ~
~ n
'" ::r
w ('l)
.0
N :; ....
c t""'!'-
'" ~
- ~
_.
n =-
~
('l) ~
~
-. ....
IJCI ....
=
rL:J :;=
('l) ~
n
-
_. CI.l
=
= ....
= C.
I ~
=
=
~
~
QO 0
> ~ >
g. ~ ~
~' 'tl
~ . ('l)
> , =
~ . Q.
il. iJ: ~
Q ~ g ("'l
;; . .' 0
01 E.
. . ~
o ~
P' b
o '"IT
~ l;
<l: ~
If\
m
(1
-l
()
Z
OJ
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
,
I
,
I
I
I
, ,
I '
~ -= ~ ~ ~ =- =-~; ~ ~ ~ =- =-; =-; =- =- =- =- =- =-; ~ =- =- =-;; {~;. =-;. ~ =- =- =---
I
I
I
I
,
,
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I :
I
r-------------------
L__~________________
OJ
~------c~--------------------
H
~ b
~~
~ ~
IJl
)>
--j
I
(]I
c
m
____lJl_____n__
- - ,"'1 - - 11
----~--mr-
t..l
:r
)>
~Ir::'r::'=l
10' L.""l""Jj
:'=.:'=~===-~=J==
-t;.~--'.--G
-i-~:
I I
, I
, I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"
I.'
,~
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
,
--~-4,-0
--t--1'L?-\
-.I I ~
I
I
I
17
,.
I'
,
'~
' , ~
--~-{,-.-
--~-1B
, ,
I
,
,
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
,
I.
"
I~
,
,
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
,
I
I
-~-~G
Ii
t -
J
is: rF.1 ~
~ n
,. ::r
w ('l)
.0
N a _.
~ III ~
- ~
-.
n =-
~
('l) ~
~
_. '""'"'"
I1Cl '""'"'"
=
rF.1 ~
('l)
n ~
-
-. rI..l
=
= _.
('1 Q.
I ~
('1
=
~
~
\C c
,.51 .",
;:) - ",
g:;o rIJ
~. 't:l
". ('l)
>;;::l =
H~ ~
2:g g n
'" g -. 0
i il ~
o '" _
pi -l pi -l pi " pi "
0 8 0 . 0 0
~ ;n ~ ~~ = '11
q Ii ~ - 0 'l! ()
q ~ q ~
(j)
m
('\
-l
()
Z
('\
I
I
,
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
,
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
, ,
r'--------~----
-------~r----
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
,
I
('\
(\
JIl
);>
::;:
r
r
D
JIl
-<
ITT""I-~I~"' 'I'=c -- -1-1--
I "" I: I
.J.LLI I'
t II.
I
~--
~--
I
,
1---------------------
:r
);>
(f\
--1
m
JIl
OJ
m
D
10
:r
);>
(f\
--1
m
JIl
OJ
m"
D
______--.-:_____.:1
pi -l pi b pi -l
" 0 0
o;n ~;n j;j ~
H Il! 0 ..
>l ~ ~
------------~~
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I.
:~
I
I
I
,
I
,
I
I
I
I
,
I
------------~~
-------------1--~
I
I
,
I"
I.
,.
I
'c;J
I ~
- ---I
-------~---{,-
-------~---~
, I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I.
I.'
I~
,
,
I
I
I
I
,
I
, '
, I
, I
, I
--------1---+-0
;::00
~ f")
:;;::r
.0 ('l)
~ !
-
-.
n
=
('l)
~
-.
(ICl
=
~
=
;::~
o -
[.~
g .
2 .
:> ~ ~
" . Q.
g 5. ~
~ ~ g
<:> 1:1 _.
R ~. a
o Jg ~
Ii
~
_.
~
~
=-
~
....
....
oo~
a ~
S. rIl
= _.
=Q.
6~
=
~
~
.
"
>
~
('l)
=
~
n
o
J!! ,.,
. ()
~~
o
f----------------------------L----
,
I
I
I
,
I
,
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
,
I
I
I
I
,
I
,
I
I
\Jl
m
(\
--l
(J
z
IJ
------
T-------------'---------
I I
I I
I I
, I
, I
I '
I I
I '
I '
I I
, I
I I
, I
I '
I '
I I
I I
I '
, I
, I
I I
I I
-T----------
I
I
,
,
I
,
I
I
I
I
,
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
IJ
,
~-- :
I ----i--
I I
I
J!! b
~;n
~ ()
q ~
J!! b
:... ~
88
q '"
J!! ,.,
. ()
= '11
H
'l ~
J!! ,.,
. ()
- 'n
~~
~ Jj
7\
-;
(\
I
m
z
--------':<-0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I-
I\)>
1,-
'Cl'
3:
)>
(j)
"~"~4';;'. ---- --oo""il
'm
71
"....B}.".jj
m
\J
10
3:
o ~
m
o ~
m
\J
I
()
\II
1-
()
10
\II
1-
()
J!! ,.,
. 9
_ '11
H
m -l
,... 0
:... '1t
iji ~
q~
~
~ "
> ~ >-
M
~ " ~
g" ~ "Cl
[ ('l)
> . =
j ~ ~ ~
~
n " 0 n
~ ~ O.
[ ~. . 0
o ~ 1i
Ii
l:: 00 ~
~ n
::r
w ('l)
9
" = .-.
~ ~ fI"to-
- ~
_.
n =-
=
('l) ~
~
-. .....,
(JQ .....,
=
00 ~
('l) ~
n
-
_. fI..l
Q
= .-.
tJ!j Q.
I ~
tJ!j
=
~
~
o
pi -I pi ;-I pi ;-I
9 0 0
- 11 in ;n ~ ;n
2 !i
H ~ ~ ~ ~
I I ,
I I ,
, , I
---~------------------------~-------_________L_________________~--__
I I
I I
I ,
, I
I I
I I
I I
, I
I I
I I
I ,
, ,
I I
I ,
, I
, ,
I I
, I
, I
, ,
I I
I I
, I
, I
, I
I I
, I
I I
1 "
~----------------------------r-----
, ,
,
,
I
I
I
r----
,
-----------------------~~
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
,
:~
I I
'<1'
A =
Ii]
/,:;'7( ,i/i
, ,
I
; [:-_-:_--::-~_-:::::::::~-";:2:~~<::~:-:::::--::::::,/' l':--,n_'i::::::--::- - i
~LiP=li=I"'=I-1 +1" ~=ir*=IF'f =======)-~--+0
:L.IL.Jl_____..L____l' I! " 1,1 i;' I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
/ I
! i I I
Ii .I I
,Ii i I-
I' IC'P
// 1.-
I' ! 1(3'\
1/ ! , -
i/ ,/ : -
i/ / I
/i / :
// /' I
II ! I
,/ ,I :
1/ ! I
I I
(I ! ~ ~
+-+--------~
\/ I
, '<1'
I jq
, I
/ I~Lm-m--_+_e
,
I
I
'.<I
I -
I I
, " , ()
ill : 0
A~11~------------~
,., - ,. I
I
I
I
,
,
I
I
:~
"
_H: / :Q
I / I -
I I
" I
: ,I i I
----------- __---1---- -- 1- ------ ---J--- ----- -~,i- -----------------______ ~,@) 0
] I I /
I I Ii I
Iii I
I I : // I
Y I'! / i
,/li :i--- ,? / i ~
"fi.;/ : :1 / :q
,I I I ;/,/ :
I I I. I
11 ! r :, I
-- -- Jl_~ ----~- -- -1+- -- -- -- t- -- --- --- -- - J- ----- !-/-- ---- - -- - -- -- - -- - -- -- - -- --- -- - -+-@
! II .,L ,...l\~~j / I
I I !,'
, I '/'
I I I I
I I (
I I .;
: : 1/'
I I
: : I!\J
I I : V1
I I 1.-
: : :0
I I I =
I I I
: III: :
I I I
I , I
: I,: I
I 'I I I
I i I :
ill':! i
.-. :. :: I
\ I: I I :
-~\\--------~j~=~~IT-tr-------~-------------t----------------------------------------~
\ I I I
('\
()
c
^'
-j
-<
j>
^'
\J
G\
c
'-m
U\
---' ,:
-'"
II
ull
r
;;;
z
G\
j>
^'
m
j>
U\
~----
\]1
m
~----I;d ,.. 1-01.;..6JI..-
1'-10"
1----
,
I
'ltJ'
lj)
m
(\
---l
(J
Z
m
,
,
31.
m
lJ'
-;
()
III
m
rm-
,
pi -I pi ti pl ti pi ti
0
.. .. ~;n ..
,!! ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ &
q 0 q ~
q
1-&
N
>~
o -
~ "
:::: 0
. .
o .
> ~ ~
. . 0-
g 6.. a-
n J! ~
~ g ;"
~ or 8
~ ~ .
Ii
!:: rJ1 ~
~ n
~ ::r
w ('l)
.0
N a .,..
8 ~ ~
- n
_.
n =-
~
('l) (D
~
-. .....
(JQ .....
=
rJ1 ~
('l) (D
n
c: r;I..l
Q
= .,..
~ C.
I (D
~
=
n
(D
"
>
~
"0
('l)
=
~
n
o
I
I
I ,
'----~--------------------------------------r~r.=================
I' I '
, I
I
I
I i
I
, ,
I :
I
I
,
,
I
I
,
,
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
,
I
~----------------------------------
1-
r
n '\J
J(l
-(
------T------------
UI
m
(\
-\
()
Z
II
II
~----
I
I--n
IL
[!II,J"'.'."
11',',': 1''11
" )>
.J- --- Al
'J 1 --- ------
.! a
k: : :~
r')':J(l
"I["~llrl,8,,
II' :r
:i " :
"""[' .,.,
1~lll
I.eo-=;-,
I
I
I
I
,
I
,
I
I
I
I
,
,
,
I
I
I
I
I
,
,
,
I
, " I
~ 'lii'll i
(\ llml :
7\, ' ,
,j(J'i I
III!: :
i : I I I
I !' I I I
-~-------~-------------+----------------------------------------~
, I
I ,
, ,
mm
or
em
'ij<
81-0"
:r
m
(\
I
)>
Z
(\
)>
r
f!! :<
. 0
ijj~
~ ~
f!! :<
. 0
~~
~~
U\
-;
o
J(l
m
yI~[[][;.,
J(l
o
o
:r
i I
, I
1
-----------------------~~
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I-
I\)>
11-
IC)<
\Jr
mO
(\ 2-
--7\-.fll------
J(l
(\
o
e
J(l
-;
-(
)>
J(l
\J
--+0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I-
I\)>
, ,-
IC)<
I _
I -
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
,
,
I
---------tG
I
IC)<
, -
I I
10
I "
,
-----------~
I
,
I
I
'.i\
, -
, I
10
I "
I
I
,
-----------~
I
I
I
,
I
,
I
I
\J1
,-
o
----------------------------~
I
I
IJI
..JI.....J
\J1
,-
o
10
\J1
,
o
f!! .... f!! .... f!! .... f!! ....
<:> <:> <:> <:>
. 'tt 8 ~ . 'tt ~~
~l) -r
~ ~
~ ~ q q
(j\
)>
J(l
)>
(j\
m
~
I,
I, II
, I
Iii
J
1: 00 ~
~ n
" ::r
w
p ('l)
" a _.
~ = f""'to.
- ~
_.
n =-
t:i
('l) ~
~
_. ..
IJQ ..
=
00 ~
('l)
n ~
:to tI1
~
= _.
C'l Q. pi " PJ8
. ~ m -l
I - '11 It)
C'l ~ 0.... = '1r
a <J1 .... ~~
= ~ 0
. ~ ~
~
~
.
I
I
,
I
I
---r-----------____
I:! I: I II
"I: II I
I,; I I i I
I'll; I I:
I; I I II
, I
I
Cu-
I ---
I
I
'I: I:
I'l"
111'1
" I! II
III; I I
,-+..;--!-.L.L L
,
, ,
"::l:
IJI
m
C\
-I
()
Z
(j\
(fI
7\
.-n)(J-
n cr
()
3:
(j\
(fI
-i
()
;u
)>
(j\
m
pi 8 pi 8 pi 8
~ ~'1t :...;n pl8
~~ :... '1t
8 ~ ~~ :"''1r
(.U ~ <>~
" ~ ~
>!:P.
" =
g:~
. "
& :
> @ ::l
~ . ~
Jl a a-
n ~"
% ~ 8.
R g. *
o ~ "
>
~
'C
('l)
=
~
("')
o
I
1 <
I Ii ..
.
~
=
~
I ,CI> :: .
I ' " l
' ~
, . ,
- = _. ~
. - i
" n
" ::r ~
" 0
. ('l) .
. 0.
.. -
'.l -
. ~
-
3
. ('l)
'a ~
-.
I Q.
('l)
I =
n I
('l)
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I ,
I
l
I
I
<
.'
.
I
I
,
I " >
~ "'
1I .
~
I" .
0
] I' .
'J' "
I ; 0