Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.planning.264308102002 (2006)DOCUMENT LAYOUT THIS FILE MAY OR MAY NOT CONTAIN ALL OF THE INFORMATION LISTED BELOW IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER Summary Sheet Resolufion for the BOCC and/or P&Z Ordinance for the BOCC and/or P&Z Determination for the Hearing Officer Administrative Determination Staff Memo Application Public Notice, Acceptance Letter, Referral(s) Letter Site Plan Miscellaneous Plat copies (11x17) �i1'KIN cau1vT ADDRESS NOTIFICATION Date: 11/18/2016 Effective Date: 11/18/2016 New Assigned Address: 147 Grange Way (Main Residence) 167 Grange Way (Cottage/Dwelling Unit) Woody Creek, CO 81656 Former Addresses: 167 Grange Way (Single Family Residence); Woody Creek, CO 81656 Reason for Assignment: Reassignment of Existing Address, New Address Parcel ID: 264308102002 Property Owner Name: EIGELBERGER CRISTOF Note: With two addressable structures on this property, the addressing is being updated to match what some of the Utilities have been using. 147 Grange Way should be the "primary" address on this parcel, with 167 transferred to the auxiliary structure. Please contact for any questions or Further Clarification. Thank You, Alex Durant Public Safety GIS Analyst, Pitkin County Government I BITS Phone: 970.429.6113 (0) Email: alex.durant@pitkincounty.com Address: 123 Emma Rd #106, Basalt, CO 81621 Z o 0 �Q oO m° c) m 0 r BNjb, as ,ti � �N J • CD--•yi,• 4r LO s O •r � O (B s(h'. .. O ,r U)�� t ) � fo O f (3)(7-0 a S ` O .'. 5050 1<1 _. 2) c rp c i LO CD J f - 00 _ a coo 0 crop ) �0 cfO�o� �U o �.• � Q m LL ao -0 3 o o c vr C: Q O Wco H 2 `. Page 1 of 2 Michael Kraemer From: Janver Derrington [janverd@cunniffe.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 1:43 PM To: Michael Kraemer Cc: mosteller@skyportco.com; mhaas@sopris.net Subject: RE: Mosteller Mike: As we discussed by telephone recently, the Owner has decided to abandon this project and we therefore wish to withdraw our application for the 1041 Hazard Review. I understand that there will be a refund for the unused portion of the review fee. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Janver From: Michael Kraemer [mailto:michaelk@co.pitkin.co.us] Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 9:23 AM To: Janver Derrington Subject: Mosteller Janver, If you would like to withdraw the Mosteller 1041 Hazard Review request, please let me know in an email. Thanks, Mike QOQ~OC 3/5/2008 PITI~LN COLNTY PRE-4PPLICATION CONFERENCE Sti1~LVI_ARY" PLANNER: Mike Kraemer PHONE: (970) 920-5482 EMAII.: michaellc~aico.oitkin co us LOCATION: 167 Granee w ay, Lot 2 Foxtrot Subdivision APPLICANTS/OWNERS: David Hosteller REPRESENTATIY'E: Janver DATE: 2-16-06 ZONE: RS-_0 PARCEL ID: 2643-081-02-002 PHONE: 92=.5590 ENL4IL: ianverd~a;curutife.com Type of Application: 1041 Hazard Review. Description of Project/Development: Applicant desires to establish a building envelope to redevelop a residence on Lot 2 of the BOCC approved Foxtrot Subdivision (Res. No. 89-7i), The house has been proposed to exceed 5,750 square feet and wIll utilize TDR's for additional square footage. Because the property is in a BOCC approved subdivision, it does not require Special Review to receive the TDR's. Building envelopes were established for the subdivision in 1989 however planning foes do not reflect 1041 Hazard Review criteria used today. Pitkin County Land Use Code: • Subset. 3-80-050: Potentially Unstable Slopes; Development Standazds (applicant should address development on slopes > li% ~ adient). • Subsec 3-80-070: Wildfire Hazard Areas; (mapped low hazard) • Subsec. 3-80-080: Wildlife; (mapped': z mile from Mule Deer A1VD Ell: winter range, critical habitat, and severe winter range. • Subsec. 3-150-040; GMQS Exempfion for replacement unit • Section 3-310: TDR's • Subsec. 3-50-040: Stream Setbacks • Subsec. 3-70.030: Drainage • Subsec 3-70-040: Erosion • Subsec. 3-70-080: Sedimentation • Subsec. 3-70-090: Water Quality • Subset 3-80-040: Floodplain Hazard Areas (Community Development floodplam maps cannot identify if the proposed development will occur in the floodplain. Applicant will need to submit floodplain delineation mapping to show that the proposed development will not be sited within the floodplain) • Subset. 3-80-080(G): Riparian, Sboreland, and Wetland Areas. Review By: Community Development Director Public Hearing^ ?vo. However. the applicant shall post a public notice sign on the propem at ley~t 1 days prior to the heanns and shall mail notice to all adjacent property owners at least 30 prior to the hearing with the ret~ttn address of the Community Development Deparcmer_t i copy of the notice to be obtained from the Community Development Deparment i. The names and addresses shall be those on Lhe OOOOQ3 current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeaz no more than 60 days prior to the date o= the public hearing. Staff Will Refer Applicafion To: Aspen Fire DisL-ict. Woody Creek Caucus, CDOW. TOT.~I, FEE: $2 290 (make check payable to `'Pitkin County Treasurer°), which includes: • Planning Flat Fee: $2,240 (1041 Hazard Review $2.2401 (non-refundable; based on 10 hours of staff tirne; if staff review time exceeds 12 hours. the applicant will be charged for additional time above 12 hours at a rate of 5224 per hour); • `'estedRiahts: 5~0 *Fees for Hearing Officer at $175;'hr* To apply, submit the Total Fee specified above and ~ conics of the following documents, unless otherwise noted: 1. Letter of request, addressing the provisions of the Pitkin County Land U se Code lisied above; 2. 2?" x 36" drafr 1041 Hazard Review Site Plan and building envelope prepazed in accordance with Subsecs. 3-80-0501 C)(1)(b) and ~-70-040 of the Land lise Code; 3 Floor plan and elevation drawings of proposed residence (if available; MUST FOLD); 4. Latter of consent from owner authorizing the applicant (1 copy); 5. Street address and pazcel description, including legal description, and 8-1,'2"x 11" vicinity map locating the subject property within Pitkin County; 6. Proof of ownership of the property complying with the requirements of Subsec. 5-?0-020(D) of the Land Use Code (1 copy); This Pre-Application Conference Summary Sheet; 8. Executed copy of Pitkin County Community Development Agreement for Payment of Land Use Application Fees form (attached) (1 copy 1; and 7. List of all adjacent property owners (1 copy). NOTES: %° PLEASE SUBMIT OBE L'NBOCtiVD.4.ND ONE-SIDED COPY OF YOUR COMPLETE APPLICATION. PLEASE SUBMIT TWO-SIDED COPIES OFALL REM.~I_VG COPIF,S OF YOUR APPLICATION iIF POSSIBLE) 2~1 " _x 36 "SITE PLAIDS MUST BE FOLDED PARCEL ID ~LIL'ST APPEAR ON ALL DOCUIyIENTS INCLUDED IN Y""OC'R APPLICATION. This Pre-.Application Conference Summon Sheet is advisory in nature and not binding on the County. The information provided in this Summary Sheet is based on current zoning standards and the staff's interpretations based upon representations of the applicants. Additional information may be required upon a complete review of the applicaiion. The Pitkin County Land Use Code is available on-line at ~~^titir.asvennat~zn..com.. 000088 HOliGLA'v''D c~: ASSOCL~TES co>\st2;raco~v~~n.D~Ix=r tzSRD!mTIU.5-1on. ARE PROTBCTTO?\ 4>\'D BUIL.DL>\G k PIR'r CODES PHONE (GV013F4-12^i Fn7: !9'/0:~3Na1`: CGhMBh DRi~'E. GLENwODD SPARJGS COLOA4D08100] fireeafeifi~owsnnno~ n°t Apa129. 2006 Mr .lanver Derrinoton Charles Cunni$e Architects 6 ] 0 East Human Ave. .Aspen, Colorado, 51611 Subject: R%ildfire Hazazd Mitigation for David Mosteller Prope*ri~.. located at Lot 2. Foxtrot Subdi~dsion; ] 67 Granee Way, Pitkin Counit.. Colorado Dear Mr Derrineton. Thanhs for meeting with me on site at this property on Monday ,April 24t' and for providing me with a site plan and hazard review map. I remained at the site to take photos and evaluate the wildfire hazard conditions. I will qualify my obsen~ations as those of conditions as they now exist. The building envelope is almost entirely located on a slope of i S°io or less with a small area of 30% to 40% down slope to the south toward the ponds and the Roarin° Forte River. Most of the property to the north of the proposed building site is pasture like. There are scattered conifers on the properly, near the south of the buildine site and down the slope to the ponds there are mature cottonwoods and brush including servicebe:rv as well as aspen trees. I determine the site to be a low Wildfire Hazard. The site provides the opportunih~ to develop and maintain defensible space. Vegetation Management and Modification Recommended: I. Around the house and accessory buildings and beyond the furthermost projection of combustible construction of these buildings for a distance of ] 0-feet. the area should be of prunarily noncombustible hard scape surfaces. A%oody vegetation should not be planted within this area. Firewood or other combustible materials should not be stored within this area. If the owner would like to maintain some vees or small clusters of trees or shrubs in the vicinit}~ of the buildings this may be done if the 10- foot area is extended outward from the furthest growth expected from the mature trees and shrubs. In other words, these trees and shrubs should have defensible space as the buildings do. Crowns of vegetation within these clusters should be at leastl0- feet from any portion of the buildings. Limbo of trees within these clusters shouid be pruned to one half the height of the tree or 10-feet whichever is 1ess..Aspen trees within this area do not present a hazard as ]one zs standing dead and deadfall are removed. The cottonwood and brush Dn the slope between the pond znd the >,roposed ~xh~b~~ ~ Parse( (. D. # ?1043-081- 02 -cn2 buildins site should be throned and the u-ees should have the lower Limbs pruned to 10-feet or one-half the height of the tree whichever is less. 2. Beyond the 10-foot azea for a distance up to 3.-feet maintain natural and~'or irrisated grass at less than 6-inches and thin existine trees and brush into individual or clusters. Limbs should'oe pruned to one half the heieht of the tree or 10-feet whichever is less. No brush or shrubs which when mature will be tall enough act as ladder fuel should be provided or maintained azound the sees. Clusters of bushes or trees should be separated from each other and from those beyond the 35-foot azea by a distance of 2 i= times the heieht of the mature vegetation. The diameter of a cluster should be limited to 2 "•- times the heieht of the mature vegetation. As an example: If the expected mature height of the vegetation is 10 feet then the diameter of the cluster should be no greater than 25 feet and the distance between clusters should be greater than 2. feet. Ideally the plant material growing between trees and clusters of bushes or trees is Brass maintained at 6-inches or less. Thin and remove lower branches of brush or shrubs within clusters or individua(plants to eliminate ladder fuel. 3. For a distance of 100-feet, or to the property line if less than 100-feet, of residential and accessory buildings remove all standing dead and deadfall. Cut and collected materials should be removed, chipped and spread or burned after obtaining appropriate permits. New Construction, Additions: Pitkin County has Structural Design and Construction Requirements, the following aze pazaphrased from -80-0'70 Wildfire Hazard Areas and may or may not contain exact language but it is intended to be consistent with the intent and purpose of the Pitkin County requirements: Roofs shall be constmeted with a Class A roof covering on a Class A roof assembly as defined in the 2003 International Building Code (IBC) Section 1505.2. Wood shake,~shingle roof coverings aze prohibited in all wildfire hazard aeeas. Roofs with less than a 3:12 pitch aze not permitted in wIlditre areas unless they comply wrtlt the following: 1) All roof covermgs shall have a surface that shall facilitate the natural process of clearing the roof. '_) All roof designs shall facilitate the natural process of clearing roof debris. Proa-usions above the roofline, such as parapets, shall be prohibited. 3) Roofs shall be installed as required by the adopted building code and shall have a minimum slope of 1.48. - 4j A11 roof designs, coverings or equivalent assemblies shall be specifically approved by the Fire Mazshal prior to submittal of a building permit application. ~) Vents: 4-Brits shall be screened with eorrosive resistant wire mesh. with mesh one-fourth inch ('<") maximum. QQO~©~ Maintenance: z i Roofs and gutters shall be kept dear of debris. b~ .Brea shall be kept clear of all brier. slash anc flammable debris. c) .All flammable materials shah be stored on a parallel comour a minimum of fffreen feet (1 ~) away from any structure. d) A'eeds and grasses within the fifteen-foot (iS) perimeter and under vees shall be maintained tc a heieht of not more than six inches i 6"~, Miscellaneous: a) Firewood,~wood piles shall be stacked on a pazalle'i comour a minimum of fifeen feet (1=') awa~~ from the structure. b) Fences shall be kept cleaz of brush and debris. c) Wood fences shall not connect to the structure. dl Any outbuildines or additional structures shall adhere to the same standards as structures. e) Each structure shall have a minimum of one ten X10) pound,ABC fire eztineuisher. ,`) Addresses shall be clearly mazked with two-inch (2") non-combustible letters and shall be visible at the primar}~ point of access from the public or common access road and installed on anon-combustible post. I also recommend a publication titled "Firewise Construction Design and Materials" available from the Colorado State Forest Service. If you have comments, questions or require additional information please contact me. Sincerely.. P_rt ~ougland Art Hougland NOTICE. This ~%ilditre Hazard Mitigation Analysis alone with observations and recommendations is intended to be an aid to the owner.. architect and veeetation management and/or landscape design and implementation professionals in the development of defensible space and of fue wise construction documents. The review of the existing wildfire hazazd potential on this property and the observations and recommendations for the mitigation of these hazards does not constitute an acceptance of any responsibilih~ by Hougland & Associates for errors; omvssions or discrepancies. The behavior of wildfire is acknowledeed to be capricious in nature. Hougland & Associates does not proclaim that circ.mistances, including improper maintenance, may not arise that would permit wildfire to ovenn~helm the mitieation measures recommended or implemented. Observations and recommendations are intended to be collaborative with wildfue hazard mitigation guidelines of the Colorado State Forest Service and of other nationally recognized standards and aze intended to be constructive and v~ suppor. of the owners iateres.. V OQOQ !- ... Skyport Companies 4100 E. Mississippi Ave., Ste. 1400 Denver, CO 80246 April 14, 2006 Mike Kraemer Planner Pitkin County Planning Dept. 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: 1041 Hazard Review 167 Grange Way, Lot 2 Foxtrot Subdivision Parcel I.D. #2643-081-02-002 Dear Mr. Kraemer, By this letter, I certify that I am the owner of the referenced property. I hereby authorize Charles Cunniffe Architects to represent my interests in connection with this application. Best regards, Davi ost e President ~Xh~ ~i f ~ 00000$ P?Z'I~:! COLZTY COMiIL.'1'}T•y DEVELOFrt~i "T DE'P.~.RT1'L.~"\'i AGR,EE'.~fE'~"T FOR PAY3fE~T OF LA;~~ USE APPLFCATFOr FEr S PITIC_~i COL'~iY (h_"raj~c;~?er "COLT iT"~ and a v k (neremz$er ".4PPLICA1'P') AGR:;r, A5 cOT? Ow:• ` ~y 1. A.'PLICAti'T su'omitted to COUNTY as applioatloa for ~_ ©~ ~ ~~Z3Y'C~ ~ ,~, i~2T 2r ~,r~ kV'l~s% f `~ Cl~einz$er, the "PROTECT" a• , W 8aj, tt ~ ~ f`~ Cctt.~+~~~ t .R •4-3- o~ t - oa.oc2. 7 z. APPLICANT nnders`r~ds and agr~s that Pita County Czdit:aaoc No. Ol 8.2004 eatab:ishes a fee structure for land use appli:ations and the aaymenL or" al] processing fees is s conditjon prw.edeat to a dete~unatioa of appljeation campleG°ness. The fem. structt~e is based oa the COL?II'X 3 polity t'st development shad pay, is :tell, tie cost of develapy~eot review in the C0:1v iY-, Fe„~s have been set to be c~sistent sad fair m tae public and tc reflect the exneaao iz~ev.^. ed in providing sach s~ vices to r?ae public. • APPLICA'.iT sad COL~*TY ag-ee that because of the size; aettse or scope of the p:nposed PROTECT, rt Say not be possible at the *.ime of apolicatioa to aseertaia eho f~ extent of the costs involved in prxessiag the aaplicatian. 4• APPLICA'v'T and COUNTY agree that fe.=s charged for the procea>inp ofland use applications shat acesmulate if as apnlicatiaa ino]udes Wore t;AT one type ni land use review. 5. COLN'I'Y Arid APPLICANT i;~~ agree that it is impracticebie far COUNt'Y std to comalete processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and~or Board of County Cammissioaers to r.,°t,le the Plante Cammissioa aadlor Board of CaunTy Commissian,:,s to make legally squired `iadings for prof etit etrproval, unless curroat billings are paid in full prior to decision. 6• Therefore, ADPLICANT agrees that in consideraioa of the COL'NTy'S waiver of its ;ieht to collect full fees prior to a dot~siaation of apoIication coapleteaess, AtipLIC,q~"r shall pay a base €n in the amount of which is hazed on ~? hours of staL time, and €P actual time ~ number of sours 6y more thaw 20%, then the COUI~TX will bill the APPLIC=ANT onarterly for the addi ozsal e Such periodic payaeats shzl be made wi~'un 30 days of the biI1rng date. APPLICANT' S,-,.bee ag, xs that failure to pey such eccrsed oasis sbal be grounds far suspension of oroccssin`e. PTI'KL^' COUNTY Cindy Houben Commaaity Development Dtrector ley: ~av ~ d M.os~f-~f ~- _ Print :game nerd Title (if applicable) Date; Mailing Addr s: u ~ eg j~G10 OQ0009 STATE OF COLORADO BIII Owens, Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WILDLIFE AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Bruce McCloskey, Director 6060 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80216 Telephone: (303)297-1192 June 3, 2006 Pitkin County Community Development 130 S. Galrna Aspen, CO 816] 1 RE: Mostellar 1041 Dear Mike: For Wdddlife- FarPeople The Mostellaz site is a fairly disturbed area which sits above the Roaring Fork River and its associated riparian area. The greatest wildlife value on the property is the steep vegetated bank which drops from the proposed building envelope down to the river and pond. It is a lush bank with cottonwoods and chokecherry. Black beaz will forage along this bank, especially when the chokecherries ripen. Redevelopment of the site by replacing two current homesites with one will not have any additional impacts to wildlife as long as the native vegetation is maintained along the steep bank leading down to the river and there is no encroachment into this area. Loose or uncontrolled dogs can have a significant impact to wildlife through direct and indirect mortality, increased stress, and displacement to less preferred ranges. Control of dogs is vital to minimize impacts to wildlife species utilizing the riparian vegetation. In addition, the site is within '/z mile of important winter range areas for mule deer and elk. The following recommendations will help minimize impacts to wildlife and minimize human-wildlife conflicts: 1. the riparian vegetation along the steep bank leading down to the river from the existing homes should be maintained and not disturbed. There should be no encroachment of the home, decks, landscaping etc, into this area 2. a silt fence should be installed between the building envelope and the steep riparian bank prior to any construction 3. if horses are going to be kept, they should be kept within the building envelope and grazing should not be allowed along the steep riparian bank or on the lower terrace by the river 4. trash/garbage should be kept in an approved bear resistant container or enclosure 5. round handled door knobs should be used for all outside doors instead of lever handles in order to minimize a bear's ability to gain rntry 6. nut, fmit, or berry producing trees or shmbs should not be used in any landscaping in order to minimize an attractant for beazs 7. bird feeders should be discouraged from April 1 -December 15; if feeders are used they should be hung away from any deck or window, be at least ]0' from the ground, and suspended between 2 trees or posts. All seed feeders should have a seed catchment pan to catch discazded seed 8. compost piles should contain yazd waste only, no food products, in order [o minimize an attractant for bears Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, please contact DWM Kevin Wright at 947-2920, ext. 2938. Sincere) `,%~'- erry Will Area Wil ' e Manager Cc; J. Bredehoft, R. Velarde, K. Wright, file DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Russell George, Executive Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Jeffrey Crawford, Chair • Tom Burke, Vice Chair • Ken Tortes, Secretary ~7 Members, Robert Bray • Ride Enstrom • Philip James • Claire O'Neal .Richard Ray .Robert Shoemaker O O V ~ 1 o Ex Olticio Members, Russell George and Don Ament CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS nacwTECtuaE PLANNING INTERIORS Charles 1. Cunni//e, AIA Principal Janvar C. Derringlon, AIA Principal May 8, 2006 Mike Kraemer, Planner Community Development Department Pitkin County 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Mosteller Residence 167 Grange Way Parcel I.D. #2643-081-02-002 1041 Hazard Review Dear Mike: Pursuant to our telephone discussions and the development standards outlined in the revised Pre-Application Conference Summary, we are submitting this Application for 1041 Hazard Review. The existing residential structures on the subject property, which have been there since the mid 1960's, will be demolished or relocated to another property. We will address the Pitkin County Land Use Code development standards in order as follows: Subsection 3-80-050. C: Potentially unstable slopes; The proposed building envelope is almost entirely in the area of the property that is less than 15% slope. Please refer to the attached 1041 Hazard Review Site Plan and Slope Analysis. All foundation walls will be in the less than 15% slope area. The driveway from the circle drive down to the lower level garage will also be in the area of slopes that are less than 15%. Cut slopes for the driveway will be appropriately retained with engineered retaining walls as recommended by the attached soils and Foundation Investigation Report (Exhibit A). Subsection 3-80-070.A.1(b): Wildfire Hazard Areas; This property has been mapped as a Low Hazard Area by the County. We have engaged Art Hoagland, a Certified Wildfire Expert, to visit the site and prepare a report to make recommendations for appropriate mitigation measures (Exhibit B). Subsection 3-80-080; Wildlife Habitat Areas; This property has been mapped by the County as being '/~ mile from Mule Deer and Elk winter range, critical habitat and severe winter range. This proposed residence will replace two existing residential structures and the surrounding area a fairly developed residential neighborhood. Therefore, this redevelopment will not cause any more impact to wildlife than already exists. We have contacted Kevin White, the District Manager for the Colorado Division of Wildlife to get 610 EAST HVMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.5590 fax: 970.925.5076 info@cunniffe.com www.cunniffe.com ASPEN CARBONDALE STEAMBOAT SPRINGS :~• 000013 Mosteller Residence Page 2 Apri, 28, 2006 his assessment and recommendations. Due to a heavy schedule, he was unable to visit the site, but we spoke by telephone. He agreed that one residence replacing two that are existing will likely be less impact on wildlife Also, since the proposed residence is over 100 ft. from the river, it will not disturb the winter range of deer and elk. His recommendations include providing round knobs on all exterior door knobs and bearproof trash containers; no hummingbird feeders hung by windows or decks; dogs must be kept in a fenced kennel area or on leash; no fruit bearing trees in the landscaping and maintaining the cottonwood trees for bird habitat. Subsection 3-150-040;GMOS Exemption for replacement of legally established structures: As stated above, there are two (2) residential structures which have been in place for over forty years. The two-lot subdivision was approved by Pitkin County BOCC in February of 1989. The proposed replacement residential structure will comply with the standards of this subsection. Subsection 3-310: TDRs; As noted above and in the Pre-Application Conference Summary, this property is in a BOCC approved subdivision and therefore does not require a Special Review to receive a TDR. The Applicant has already secured a TDR for this property which will be utilized in the proposed residential structure. Subsection 3-50-040: Stream Setbacks; The proposed building envelope is approximately 115 feet from the identified high water mark of the Roaring Fork River to the south and approximately 75 feet from the mapped 100 year flood plain boundary. There is a pond at elevation 7180 between the river and the building envelope and a steep bank (over 45% slope) between the pond and the building enveloped. The top of the steep bank is at approximate elevation of 7216 and the 100 year flood plain boundary at the edge of the pond is at approximate elevation of 7183. Thus, the proposed building envelope is approximately 30 feet above the river in addition to being well beyond the minimum required setback of 20 feet. Please refer to Exhibit A. The streamside vegetation, wetlands or riparian habitat area surrounding the pond is approximate elevation of 7188, approximately 30 feet horizontally from the building envelope and 50 feet from the proposed new residential structure. Subsection 3-70-030: Drainage; The historic flow patterns and runoff amounts will be maintained for this property. As stated above, there is a large pond at the south end adjacent to the Roaring Fork River. All of the drainage/runoff water is caught by this pond and then released to the river. We have engaged Mountain Cross Engineering, civil engineers, to prepare a report that will verify these existing conditions and approximate measures for maintenance. (Exhibit C) Subsection 3-70-040: Erosion; As stated above, we have engaged civil engineers to study the property and proposed redevelopment plans and prepare a report with recommendations for any appropriate measure that may be needed to control erosion. (Exhibit C) Subsection 3-70-080: Sedimentation; As stated above, we have engaged civil engineers to study the property and proposed redevelopment plans and prepare a report with recommendations for any appropriate measures that may be needed to control sedimentation. (Exhibit C) Graded areas will be revegetated with native grasses and plant materials as part of the overall landscape plan. 000013 Mosteller Residence Page 3 Apri, 28, 2006 Subscection 3-70-090: Water Quality; As state above, we have engaged civil engineers to study the property and proposed redevelopment plans and prepare a report that will address the Water Quality Management Plan for the Roaring Fork Rive Basin (Wright- McLaughlin Engineers May, 1974), the 208 Water Management Plan and State regulations, prior Code 3-709. (Exhibit C) Subsection 3-80-040: Floodplain Hazard Areas; As stated above, the 1041 Hazard Review Site Plan shows that the 100 year flood plain boundary is approximately 75 feet horizontally and 25 feet vertically from the proposed building envelope. Therefore, no mitigation measures are necessary. Subsection 3-80-080 (G): Riparian, Shoreland and Wetland Areas; As stated earlier, the proposed building envelope is approximately 30 feet horizontally and 25 feet vertically from any riparian and wetland areas. The actual proposed new residential structure is approximately 50 feet horizontally and 27 feet vertically from these areas. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required and the native vegetation will be maintained. As requested, we have attached five (5) copies of the above reference materials, plus floor plans and elevations of the proposed new residence, as well as, an 81/2" x 11" vicinity map (Exhibit D) and the Pre-Application Conference Summary. We have also attached a letter of authorization from the Owner of the subject property including address and legal description (Exhibit E), a copy of the Title Certificate as Proof of Ownership complying with subsection 5-70-020(D) (Exhibit F), as well as one copy of the Agreement for Payment form, a check for the Review Fee Initial Deposit, and mailing labels for the Adjacent Property Owners. We believe we have demonstrated that we will be able to meet all required mitigation standards for the referenced 1041 Hazard Subsections of the Pitkin County Land Use Code, current edition. Please notify us if you require any further information. Sincerely, Derrington , AIA 00001= ~^ CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS ®® nacFUrccluae PInNNmI~ iraremoas Chvrles 1. CunnlRe, AIA P~inrinal Janver C. Derrington, AIA PiinciF~l May 8, 2006 Mike Kraemer, Planner Community Development Department Pitkin County 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Mosteller Residence 167 Grange Way Parcell.D.#2643-081-02-002 1041 Hazard Review Dear Mike. Pursuant to our telephone discussions and the development standards outlined in the revised Pre-Application Conference Summary, we are submitting this Application for 1041 Hazard Review. The existing residential structures on the subject property, which have been there since the mid 1960's, will be demolished or relocated to another property. We will address the Pitkin County Land Use Code development standards in order as follows: Subsection 3-80-050. C: Potentially unstable slopes; The proposed building envelope is almost entirely in the area of the property that is less than 15% slope. Please refer to the attached 1041 Hazard Review Site Plan and Slope Analysis. All foundation walls will be in the less than 15% slope area. The driveway from the circle drive down to the lower level garage will also be in the area of slopes that are less than 15%. Cut slopes for the driveway will be appropriately retained with engineered retaining walls as recommended by the attached soils and Foundation Investigation Report (Exhibit A). Subsection 3-80-070.A.1(b): Wildfire Hazard Areas; This property has been mapped as a Low Hazard Area by the County. We have engaged Art Hougland, a Certified Wildfire Expert, to visit the site and prepare a report to make recommendations for appropriate mitigation measures (Exhibit B). Subsection 3-80-080; Wildlife Habitat Areas; This property has been mapped by the County as being'/~ mile from Mule Deer and Elk winter range, critical habitat and severe winter range. This proposed residence will replace two existing residential structures and the surrounding area a fairly developed residential neighborhood. Therefore, this redevelopment will not cause any more impact to wildlife than already exists. We have contacted Kevin White, the District Manager for the Colorado Division of Wildlife to get i61e0 EAST HYMAN AVE ASPEN. CO 81611 970.925.5590 fax: 9)0.925.5076 infoc?cunniffe.com www.cunniffe com OOOU1e ASPEN CARBONDALE STEAMBOAT SPRINGS Mosteller Residence Paee 2 Apri, 28, 2006 his assessment and recommendations. Due to a heavy schedule, he was unable to visit the site, but we spoke by telephone. He agreed that one residence replacing two that are existing will likely be less impact on wildlife. Also, since the proposed residence is over 100 ft. from the river, it will not disturb the winter range of deer and elk. His recommendations include providing round knobs on all exterior door knobs and bearproof trash containers; no hummingbird feeders hung by windows or decks; dogs must he kept in a fenced kennel area or on leash; no fruit bearing trees in the landscaping and maintaining the cottonwood trees for bird habitat. Subsection 3-150-040;GMQS Exemption for replacement of legally established structures: As stated above, there are two (2) residential structures which have been in place for over forty years. The two-lot subdivision was approved by Pitkin County BOCC in February of 1989. The proposed replacement residential structure will comply with the standards of this subsection. Subsection 3-310: TDRs; As noted above and in the Pre-Application Conference Summary, this property is in a BOCC approved subdivision and therefore does not require a Special Review to receive a TDR. The Applicant has already secured a TDR for this property which will be utilized in the proposed residential structure. Subsection 3-50-040: Stream Setbacks; The proposed building envelope is approximately 115 feet from the identified high water mark of the Roaring Fork River to the south and approximately 75 feet from the mapped 100 year flood plain boundary. There is a pond at elevation 7180 between the river and the building envelope and a steep bank (over 45% slope) between the pond and the building enveloped. The top of the steep bank is at approximate elevation of 7216 and the 100 year flood plain boundary at the edge of the pond is at approximate elevation of 7183. Thus, the proposed building envelope is approximately 30 feet above the river in addition to being well beyond the minimum required setback of 20 feet. Please refer to Exhibit A. The streamside vegetation, wetlands or riparian habitat area surrounding the pond is approximate elevation of 7188, approximately 30 feet horizontally from the building envelope and 50 feet from the proposed new residential structure. Subsection 3-70-030: Drainage; The historic flow patterns and runoff amounts will be maintained for this property. As stated above, there is a large pond at the south end adjacent to the Roaring Fork River. All of the drainage/runoff water is caught by this pond and then released to the river. We have engaged Mountain Cross Engineering, civil engineers, to prepare a report that will verify these existing conditions and approximate measures for maintenance. (Exhibit C) Subsection 3-70-040: Erosion; As stated above, we have engaged civil engineers to study the property and proposed redevelopment plans and prepare a report with recommendations for any appropriate measure that may be needed to control erosion. (Exhibit C) Subsection 3-70-080: Sedimentation; As stated above, we have engaged civil engineers to study the property and proposed redevelopment plans and prepare a report with recommendations for any appropriate measures that may be needed to control sedimentation. (Exhibit C) Graded areas will be revegetated with native grasses and plant materials as part of the overall landscape plan. 000016 Mosteller Residence Pane 3 Apri, 28, 2006 Subscection 3-70-090: Water Quality; As state above, we have engaged civil engineers to study the property and proposed redevelopment plans and prepare a report that will address the Water Quality Management Plan for the Roaring Fork Rive Basin (Wright- McLaughlin Engineers May, 1974), the 208 Water Management Plan and State regulations, prior Code 3-709. (Exhibit C) Subsection 3-80-040: Floodplain Hazard Areas, As stated above, the 1041 Hazard Review Site Plan shows that the 100 year flood plain boundary is approximately 75 feet horizontally and 25 feet vertically from the proposed building envelope. Therefore, no mitigation measures are necessary. Subsection 3-80-080 (G): Riparian, Shoreland and Wetland Areas; As stated earlier, the proposed building envelope is approximately 30 feet horizontally and 25 feet vertically from any riparian and wetland areas. The actual proposed new residential structure is approximately 50 feet horizontally and 27 feet vertically from these areas. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required and the native vegetation will be maintained. As requested, we have attached five (5) copies of the above reference materials, plus floor plans and elevations of the proposed new residence, as well as, an 81/2" x 11" vicinity map (Exhibit D) and the Pre-Application Conference Summary. We have also attached a letter of authorization from the Owner of the subject property including address and legal description (Exhibit E), a copy of the Title Certificate as Proof of Ownership complying with subsection 5-70-020(D) (Exhibit F), as well as one copy of the Agreement for Payment form, a check for the Review Fee Initial Deposit, and mailing labels for the Adjacent Property Owners. We believe we have demonstrated that we will be able to meet all required mitigation standards for the referenced 1041 Hazard Subsections of the Pitkin County Land Use Code, current edition. Please notify us if you require any further information, Sincerely, ever Derrington , ncipal/General h 000~~7 PITIiIN COUNTY PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Mike Kraemer PHONE: (970) 920-5482 EMAIL: michaelk(a co.pitkin.co.us LOCATION: 167 Grange Way, Lot 2 Foxtrot Subdivision APPLICANTS/OWNERS: David Mosteller REPRESENTATIVE: Janver DATE: 2-16-06 ZONE: RS-20 PARCEL ID: 2643-081-02-002 PHONE: 925.5590 EMAIL: ianverd(r~cunnife.com Type of Applicafion: 1041 Hazard Review. Description of Project/Development: Applicant desires to establish a building envelope to redevelop a residence on Lot 2 of the BOCC approved Foxtrot Subdivision (Res. No. 89-75). The house has been proposed to exceed 5,750 square feet and will utilize TDR's for additional square footage. Because the property is in a BOCC approved subdivision, it does not require Special Review to receive the TDR's. Building envelopes were established for the subdivision in 1989 however planning files do not reflect 1041 Hazazd Review criteria used today. Pitkin County Land Use Code: • Subsec. 3-80-050: Potenfially Unstable Slopes; Development Standards (applicant should address development on slopes > 15% gradient). • Subsec 3-80-070: Wildfire Hazard Areas; (mapped ]ow hazazd) • Subsec. 3-80-080: Wildlife; (mapped %z mile from Mule Deer AND Elk winter range, critical habitat, and severe winter range. • Subsec 3-]50-040; GMQS Exemption for replacement unit • Secfion 3-310: TDR's • Subsec.3-50-040: Stream Setbacks • Subsec. 3-70-030: Drainage • Subsec. 3-70-040: Erosion • Subsec. 3-70-080: Sedimentation • Subsec. 3-70-090: Water Quality • Subsec. 3-80-040: Floodplain Hazard Areas (Community Development floodplain maps cannot identify if the proposed development will occur in the floodplain. Applicant will need to submit floodplain delineation mapping to show that the proposed development will not be sited within the floodplain) • Subsec. 3-80-080(G): Riparian, Sboreland, and Wetland Areas. Review By: Community Development Director Public Hearing? No. However, the applicant shall post a public notice sign on the property at least 15 days prior to the hearing and shall mail notice to all adjacent property owners at ]east 30 prior to the hearing with the return address of the Community Development Department (copy of the notice to be obtained from the Community Development Department). The names and addresses shall he those on the OOUO~~ current tax records of Pitkin County as they appear no more than 60 days prior to the date of the public hearing. Staff Rill Refer Application To: Aspen Fire District, Woody Creek Caucus, CDOW. TOTAL FEE: $2,290 (make check payable to "Pitkin County Treasurer"), which includes: • Planning Flat Fee: $2,240 (1041 Hazard Review: $2,240) (non-refundable; based on 10 hours of staff time; if staff review time exceeds 12 hours, the applicants will be charged for additional time above 12 hours at a rate of $224 per hour); • Vested Rights: $SO *Fees for Hearing Officer at $17S/hr* To apply, submit the Total Fee specified above and 5 copies of the following documents, unless otherwise noted: 1. Letter of request, addressing the provisions of the Pitkin County Land Use Code listed above; 2. 24" x 36" draft 1041 Hazard Review Site Plan and building envelope prepared in accordance with Subsets. 3-80-OSO(C)(1)(b) and 5-70-040 of the Land Use Code; 3. Floor plan and elevation drawings of proposed residence (if available; MUST FOLD); 4. Letter of consent from owner authorizing the applicant (1 copy); S. Street address and parcel description, including legal description, and 8-1/2"x 11"vicinity map locating the subject property within Pitkin County; 6. Proof of ownership of the property complying with the requirements of Subsea 5-70-020(D) of the Land Use Code (1 copy); 7. This Pre-Application Conference Summary Sheet; 8. Executed copy of Pitkin County Community Development A6~eement for Payment of Land Use Application Fees form (attached) (1 copy); and 7. List of all adjacent property owners (1 copy). NOTES: ~ PLEASE SUBMIT ONE UNBOUND AND ONE-SIDED COPY OF YOUR COMPLETE APPLICATION PLEASE SUBMIT TWO-SIDED COPIES OF ALL REMAINING COPIES OF YD UR APPLICATION (IF POSSIBLE). 24 " X 36"SITE PLANS MUST BE FOLDED. PARCEL ID MUST .9PPEAR ON ALL DOCUMENTS INCL UDED IN YOUR APPLICATION. - This Pre-Application Conference Summary Sheet is advisory in nature and not binding on the County. The information provided in this Summary Sheet is based on czzn^ent zoning standards and the staff's interpretations based upon representations of the applicants. Additional information may be required upon a complete review of the application. The Pitkin County Land Use Code is available on-line at ia~x~taspenpitkin tom. OOOU3:~J Drainage, Erosion, Sedimentation, & Water Quality Report for 1041 Hazard Review of: 1 ! 167 Grange Way, PITHIN COUNTY, CO Prepared for: Charles Cunniffe Architects 610 East Hyman Ave Aspen, CO 81611 Prepared by: ~~'~ MOt1l~lTl~Ily eROSS ENGINEERING, Ilye. Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design ~ / 82612 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 ~--~ ph 970.&15.5344 fa 970.865.5558 www.mournaincroeseng.com Date: May, 2006 MOUNTAIN CROSS ENGINEERING. INC ~ xh`b`-~ G Civil and Environmental Cansulhng and Design ~t-~ ~ ,r O 0 O O ~ O 826 ':Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, COS 1601 Pa 7f (.y. ~vey~3 -Q~'C-o2.-~2 P~ 970.945.5544 F: 970.945.5558 www.mountaincross-eng.com TABLE OF CONTENTS Drainage Report Page 1-5 Drainage Basins Figure 1 Drainage & Erosion Control Plan 24"x36" C1 Drainage & Erosion Control Details 24"x36" C2 Report Calculations Appendix 000021 I (i~ [3rsnyc Way \9 av, ? i Ii Ili Purpose and Scope of Report This study evaluates lb7 Grange Way from a water resource perspective, primarily concerning runoff from storm water. it supplies data, calculations, and design criteria. that will be used to mitigate the sRe concerning drainage, erosion, sedimentation, and water quality per applicable subsections of Section 3-70 of the Land Use Code of Pitkin County. Runoff from snowmelt is typically very )arge in volume but because it happens over a much longer time period, the peak flows are generally less than a rainfall event. Therefore storm water is defined in this study to be surface water that is a direct result from a rainfall event. Storm water management in this study is concerned with managing the quantity of water expected from the site in accordance with typical engineering and hydrologic practices as well as protecting water quality by means of best management practices for erosion and sedimentation control. All tows are listed in units of cubic feet per second (cfs) unless otherwise noted. This study will provide a project overview, a brief description of the methodology, a discussion of the analysis performed, a description of the erosion control anticipated for the site, and the results of the analysis. Project Overview The project is a residence reconstruction at 167 Grange Way in Pitkin County, Colorado. The existing residence will be razed and a new residence constructed. Building plans are available from Charles Cunmffe Architects. The project elevation is approximately 7?00 feet above sea level and located at Latitude 39°17'20" North and Longitude 106°54'20" West. The property area is approximately 2.07f acres and the approximate area of disturbance due to construction activities is less than one acre, approximately 0.751 acres. Storm water will ultimately drain to the Roaring Fork River through a series of ditches, culverts, and a pond. It is the intent of this study to: 1) drain the runoff tows through the project site, 2) provide detention sufficient enough that runoff from the proposed site does not exceed the calculated flows for the existing condition, 3) protect water quality by reducing the pollutants from erosion.. and 4) protect water quality by reducing sedimentation in storntwater discharges associated with construction activity. 'Viethodolo~y The design of a storm water management plan begins with a calculation of the volume of water that will be produced from a rainfall event. The Rational Method was used to estimate the amount of runoff that will occur. This method calculates runoff (QI in cuhic feet per second icfs) from basin area (AI m acres, runoff coefficient IC), and rainfall intensity (Il m inches per hour: Q CSI*A ~NOUNTAIN CROSti ENGINEERING. INC. Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design ' O (1 O (1 ~ ~ 32fi ~~ Crand Avenue, Glenwnrxl Springs, Cfl 91 fi01 ~1 ll P-9~0945.554gF 9v11A455c5~4 www.mounturocrnsv'-rne-mm 1 ' , Ifi' irranne wav Vtav. 300n When acres and inches per hour are used as the units, the conversion into cubic feet per second is 1.008 but is usually ignored and it has been m this report. The runoff coefficient is a dimensionless coefficient. Basin .9 rea Drainage basins have the characteristic that any precipitation falling within that area will drain to the same point of discharge. The project basin was delineated from protect Copography, project site plan, and building architecture. I' Runoff Coefficient A runoff coefficient is assigned to each basin that gives a relationship between the amount of precipitation that becomes surface water and the amount of water that is lost to infiltration, evaporation, or transpiration. The runoff coefficient is a function of surface and/or land-use. Because the land-use and the surface cover often vary through the project and from the pre-project and post-project conditions, a composite coefficient is assigned to each drainage basin, based on the weight of the areas and their respective coefficients. Rainfall Intensity Rainfall intensity is determined from intensity duration frequency curves, or [DF curves. IDF curves are graphs of, more or less parapet.. frequency curves that yield rainfall intensities based on storm durations. Frequency: The return frequency of a rainfall storm is the statistical probability that a given storm event will occur on average in a given period. For instance a 100-Year storm has the statistical probability of occurring once in a 100 year span or it has a 1 °% chance of occurring in any given year. It is important to emphasize that it is based on probability statistics and therefore does not retlect actual storm frequency. Storms of a 100-year magnitude can occur in sequential years, even m the same year. The return frequency of design is chosen and then referred to as the design storm. Duration: The duration of a storm is chosen to coincide with the time of concentration. The kinematic wave flow equation was used to estimate the time of concentration. Length and velocity of flow are used to calculate time. Three flow elements are used: overland-flow, collector-channel flow. and main-channel flow. The parameters needed to detem2ine the tlow elements include length, slope, Manning's "n" value, and channel shape. The theory states that if the duration is equal to the time of concentration, the length of time will be adequate for the entire basin to contribute flow. Analysis Basin areas were determined based on architectural design and project topography. A site visit determined that the project is located below the trail and is bisected by a large irrigation ditch MOUNTAIN CROSS ENGINEERING, INC ?_ ' Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design fl ~ ~ N1fi Grand 4cenue. Glenwood Spn nes. Cn K 1601 ll P 4~0 915 SSyq p~ 9~0 y4° iSSg www moim[ainernce-en e.enm i67 Grange Wav b1av, %IIOfi near the north property boundary. Therefore the project has very little area that would contribute runoff to or through the project. Runoff coeffictents were determined from descriptions of land use and/or ground cover for the basin. The vegetation is mainly pasture grass. Mature deciduous and evergreen trees exist around the existing residence wtth other ornamental bushes and shrubs comprise the landscaping. An existing shared gravel driveway will be paved at or near the property line. The basin concentration path was calculated based on project topography. The proposed condition will not impact the concentration path and existing and proposed have the same length of time. The rainfall intensity of 2.7 inches per hour was determined by using the 100-year storm curve, estimated duration of 27 minutes, and the IDF curve for the City of Aspen. The design storm was determined from Section 4.27.01 from the Pitkin County Assets Management Plan, stating culvert design for a t00-year storm. The flows for the basins were calculated using the Rational method described above. All calculations are attached for review in the Appendix. Basin Description Area (acres) Coefficient Flow (cfs) Existin Area 2.87 0.38 2.94 Proposed Area 2.R7 0.43 3.30 Roof Area 0. l2 0.90 0.47 Roof Area 50°~o 0.06 0.90 0.23 East Swale 2.87 0.43 3.30 Driveway Culvert 2.87 0.43 3.30 Minimum pipe sizes to convey the runoff flows were determined using the Manning's equation for open channel flow. Minimum pipe slope of 2;'o for 4" pipe and 1°.'o for 6" and larger ptpes, smooth pipe material, and project flows were used to compute pipe sizes. On the fare pipe ' diameter of 1 S'. corrugated pipe was assumed. Pipe sizing calculations are attached in the Appendix. Pipe routing is shown on the Drainage Plan. Figure C l . The channel shape used was conservatively estimated as a "V" type ditch with 2: I horizontal to vertical side slopes with a depth of 12". The erosive flow velocity t"or gravel channels is between 4 and ~ feet per second (fps). Slopes greater than 5°o generate erosive velocities and will need to be armored. Riprap is usually the preferred armor due to its natural appearance and availability. Calculations are provided in the Appendix. Existing flows were compered to the proposed project flows. [f proposed exceeds extsting levels detention is necessary. There is an extsting pond that captures all runoff currently and is not hetng change. The current outlet by nature will release flows at the existing rates. The detention volume was estimated using the FAA method and calculated a necessary detention volume of NOUNTAI~V CROSS ENGINEERING INC ' 00011 ~ L (~ivil and Environmental Consulting and DesiKn U Y R26'~(irand 4venue, (ilenwna~Spnnes C~~XIb01 P- 4~f1 945 1544 F 99U g45,'S~X www.mnuntausross-en e.com I F' 6ranec W av xta~, Anne 1,0.?0 cubtc feet This amounts to an increased water elevation of 3.i" dunng the 100 year storm. Erosion, Sedimentation and Water Quality Control Construction activities can be expected to increase the potential for storm runoff to erode the site. Temporary structures have been designed to contain sediment on the site and to mitigate erosion from construction activities Straw bale check dams are placed in drainage swales and ditches. Inlets are protected with straw bales. Riprap is placed on the outlet stdes of culverts and nn ditch slopes steeper than ~°~o. Silt fencing is shown downhill of construction activities. The permanent structures will be nprap protection at outlets and on ditch thalwegs for slopes where velocities are erosive. ,41so, revegetation and landscaping is planned with turf, landscape plants, and/or native grasses per Pitkin County seed mix. The existing pond provtdes an additional layer of protection by capturing storm water and allowing any sediment to settle. Currently the existing vegetative cover is mature native materials. The proposed revegetation Is expected to match the coverage percentage and therefore the quality of the storm water discharge from the site is expected to meet or exceed extsting levels. Results Pipe culverts are sized to accommodate flows from the site. Culverts and ditches convey major contributions through the site. All culvert pipes 6" or larger should have a l°~o minimum or steeper slope, 4" should have a slope of 24.0. Point discharges of concentrated flows from the site have been avoided by means of riprap aprons to spread flows and reduce velocities. Channels are lined with riprap to protect the Chalweg from erosive velocities. Calculations show erosive velocities at slopes of 5:0 or greater. A minimum 4" pipe size should be used for single roof downspouts, but when multiple are combined into a single pipe, the minimum pipe size should be 6". Detention volumes were calculated using the difference from existing and proposed peak flows. The existing pipe culvert that exits the pond will remain to limit outflow to less than 2.94 cfs with an impact of approximately 3.5" of freeboard iD the 100-year storm. This outlet limits the flows from the basin to less than or equivalent to the existing levels. Calculations are attached in the Appendix. The erosion and sedimentation structures will protect water quality. Structures are. both temporary and pernanent to protect the water quality during construction and through the future. Recommendations of the geotechnical engineer are to be used in conjunction with the drainage plan and if a conflict arises should be brought to our attention to revise the recommendations accordingly. Although this study refers to a 100-year storm, it is speaking from a statistical standpoint drat the flood has a 1"o chance of occurring within any given year. [t does not actually relate to the frequency of flood occurrence. Also the 100 year flood can be exceeded in am_ glen year, and it can. occur more than once in any year. and can happen in sequential years. MOUNTAIN CROSS ENGINEERING, INC. .1 Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design ~~~~~~ X?6 brand Avenue. ~ilenwnnd Spnnes. (~ll HIfiOI ~ 9"'U.915 i511 F 9"10.91' <55fl www moein¢+f ncrnsv-en e.o~ni A^, C:ranee W dV \4 av ?nofi Thank you for the oppommity to provide this report. Feel free to call if you have any questions, concerns. or comments Sincerely, ~ ,I~(nwztai 'Cross Engi:~eertng, bu t ` ~ f U.. , ~ = f~ -~ <<.~--- ~ti"s Hale, PE ~" 000026 MOUM1T.41N CROSS E!VGINEERING, LNC. Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design R?6' Grsnd 4venue, Glenwood Spnogs. (Y1 Albnl p 9~0 9J5 iSIl.1 F 9~0 945,5558 www.moun[amcrnss-en ecom ,~ ., ^,~* ~ SCA:C~ -~ ~ ~ ~t ,~ a rso .xaa rv },~ ~k J 'ip. uTeY. i 'i V'. < f i •~ ~. ~ ~ ~~ ~ ;r ~d ~.~ rx .. ~ ~} ,h ~. 1 ~ - '~'~ ~ •, ~; ~ a~ PA .. ~~~ ~~ ~~~~ r.,, '- ~ +a . .tom ~:k a. 4 dirt °~t •.~ ~ + # * ~ ~~ ^... '~` 1„h ~ y 1 ~ IF W ~~ ~ ~ ~ e j~ ^/~*, ' A"n air ~. 4 } ~e 4 ~~ Wr'ep ^n x~ ~ e 4' y,,~. ,,~[~, y~ „.,.. r ~ ~ gg,~ . M ' v w-..,, q~, w ~ M ~ lea +,jt+ R ~ r1 Y ' F t N k .A O . 4A N A j~ ~~,, } a, h ~« ~ n~ e M1C °°'°°'°° FIGURE 1 '~` '' - ~°°' Drainage Basins MOi1lr1TP~IN CROSS ~~ °°@" q ENGIt~IEERiI`~1G, II~C. °"° "'i ~.i(~(~~((}~~~ L Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design ' ~~ \+11ti1 le$ Cunniffe Architects BZ6 1l2 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 a yx-Dt• Vh 970.945.SSM fz 970.945.5558 www.mounlnincrosaonp.com ' Appendix Report Calculations 1 C 1 J ' OOOU2~ ,y ~~. D 1 ii 1 II 1 i 1 CITY OF ASPEN _ _ .,.,..-c rczt7FRIA TIME-INTENSITY FRE4UENCY CURVES 5 00 5 00 7 O 4 0 L N d L U u ~.. F- N 3 Z W r z J J Q LL Z 2 Q TIME OF CONCENTRATION, T~ (minutes) O~~Qr~,.~ VER IS ON ~-- ~, ~JR,C =NGIt`EEP~NG. ~c. REFERENCE: CITY OF ASPEN FIGURE 3.1 _ - ._5_vFAR --__10-- ___. ?tz' "vwa, dY_ > ~ -fr~'~`.. `~ tt' ~ _ ~ sue. -`~.a E -- si4 ~~ th ~ ~. ~ j 4 w ~ ~, v. ~ X~it r~. 9c px~. ~,~ ~` .x*^.sR / {{ * C ~ ~ _ ~ ~r- V Ya - " rn ,--' y - _ r ~y a ~~ ~~}' _ ~.. r~--f'~ ~ ~ ~-.~! -~,-'- cat E9"''g,„,,._ - ...~~"~Yk`~,.--ems ~'~ ~"V~ ..; Irv- ~ . .f' .r ,: ~ ti , ~~ ass ~ ~~ r .~ j , ~, ; t l{ e' / 1 k N-'v~1 N Y (( a ~,>•` a~,; YE e L ~ 4 ° 3 ^'~.x;~~, ~ k ak a ! Y _ '3"- ~, ~~~~h .. ,{/~ t~ n..« _~ Y of 'i.`fi ~-t'- c' L`>Y'te 'r l ., . a a v ~ I ~/ t"",......-~. ~~~p~ { ~ ~c " wJ~ ~ ~a 3 ~ ,~~~ "4 , ~ , i"` f _.- ~a ~;.4 i8' "M Y~ ~K y- 3' i m '~ ,'{µd~ wv ~ .t,~ 4 \ Rya: v'4~'~'a:& ~fi~r°' k~a ~~-, l,'~,m \ -,R a~ roj ., >a r ~ ' k - I i [p5~ F ]Y~\ 5'" I '_~ x - .J ` ~i~ ~,~ #~%. ~ \ / f~ - J F 1 , ~ Y A ~,, ,f ~ I tI -~~ ;'v 1 ~~ ~ ~ h F Y.'. ~~ ~~. ~ {.. ,.~ ' n~ M ~`1; J a ,, ~~~~.~ ` _` ~ ~,, ~, ~} fs /' ;- 4a 0.C. :'?~'-'_ r, .L; ~. ~ r. ~' _- - '~ - 00003fl Time of Concentration, Tcc Kinematic Wave Assuming turbulent flow ~ = 4.6 in/hr L = 300 ft. S= 0.03 Rift n= O.a Pasture Shallow Travel Time V= 2.6 ft./sec S= 0.153558 Rift L = 267 ft. overland - 25.57 min. tt = l .?l min. from Figure 37, short grass pasture total tc = 27.28 min. ODOV31 Existing Coefficients and Areas: Area Total: 124.941 sf = 2.R7 acres Roofs & hardscape 2,289 sf = 0.05 acres Gravel driveway 7,842 sf = 0.18 acres Pasture 114,810 sf = 2.64 acres Runoff Coefficient, C Roofs & hardscape C 1 = 0.9 Gravel driveway C2 = 0.8 Pasture C3 = 0.34 Weighted C = 038 000032 Proposed Coefficients and Areas: Area Total: 12~M1,94 L sf Roofs &hardscape 1.>,~67 sf = Gravel driveway 4,86 sf = Pasture 104785.0 sf - Runoff Coefficient, C Roofs &hardscape C 1 0.9 Gravel drivewav C2 - 0.8 Pasture C3 0.34 Weighted C - 0.43 Z.R7 acres 036 acres 0.11 acres 2.41 acres oooo~a Rainfall Intensity: 2.7 m.,'hr. 100-~r Basin Description Area (acres) Coefficient Fiow 1'cfsl Existing Area 2.87 0.38 2.94 Proposed Area 2.87 0.43 3.30 Roof Area 0.12 0.90 0.47 Roof Area SO°.o 0.06 0.90 0.23 East Swale 2.87 0.43 3.30 Driveway Culvert 2.87 0.43 3.30 Detention Needed 5" PVC 4" PVC' 8" PVC & 12" Swale 1 ~" CMP OK ~QDU~~1 t v u y c~~ M N W N ^ M O~ [~ ~, ^ f C Q 'i N ~ V N N M ~! 00 ~ ^JJ '~G M CC M ... N tf, y E 7 O 7 O w O M -~ vi M N I~ P A P Vl h O~ M.~ C M ~ ~ M, M lp M [~ ~D ~D ~ C ~~ O N N M O 7 n 7 N vi ~D v~ O ~O ~ ~O O~ ~O O~ ~O t~ N h O a+ 'O C ~ ~ ~ ~ G A O_ L G ~ ~ O ~ ~ C C ~ ~ m _, N N M. ~ Vt ~O L~ h OG O` ~ ~ ~D V N C oo ~ 7 N oc ~ ~-- ~ N M 7 Vl ~O [~ f~ OC O` ,~ bIJ w '^ O O O ~, ~n v~ ~~ O O O ~n ~n C ~ C ~ N 00 vl M N T l~ lp Q M d' M M N N N N N ~ ~ O C O ~ O C O C x C C C J M ~: T N ~i -~ 7 ~ C M. v F . N N N M K. M J '" O v~, ~ O ~, O ~, O ~ ^ .~ ~~ - N N M M, 7 7 v~ Vt A: v 3. u :J n r r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~i L ~ O Q ~ V O C > ,~ -~ ,~ OG 70 L~ ~ r v~ rr, .y J F oOU~~J~ tmp#4.txt Manning Pipe calculator Given input Data shape ................. .......... circular Solving for ........... .......... Depth of Flow Diameter .............. .......... 4.0000 in Flow rate .............. .......... 0.2400 cfs slope ................. .......... 0.0200 ft/ft Manning's n ........... .......... 0.0130 Computed Results: Depth ..................... ...... 2. 9439 in grea ..................... ....... 0. 0873 ft2 wetted grea .............. ....... 0. 0688 ft2 wetted Perimeter ......... ....... 8. 2492 in Perimeter ................ ....... 12 .5664 in velocity ................. ....... 3. 4862 fps Hydraulic Radius ......... ....... 1. 2018 in Percent Full ............. ....... 73 .5973 Full flow Flowrate ....... ....... O. Z691 cfs cull flow velocity ....... ....... 3. 0842 fps critical Information critical depth .................. 3. 4601 in critical slope .................. 0. 0118 ft/ft Critical velocity ............... 2. 8507 fps Critical area ................... 0. 0842 ft2 Critical perimeter .............. 9. 2033 in critical hydraulic radius ....... 1. 3173 in Critical top width .............. 4. 0000 in specific energy ................. 0. 4329 ft Minimum energy .................. 0. 4325 ft Froude n umber ................... 1. 3724 Flow con dition .................. Su perc ritical Page 1 ooou~~ tmp#2.txt Manning Pipe calculator Given input Data Shape ............... .......... circular 5olv~ng for ........... .......... Depth of Flow Diameter .............. .......... 6.0000 in Flowrate .............. .......... 0.4650 cfs Slope ................. .......... 0.0200 ft/ft Manning's n ........... .......... 0.0200 Computed Results: Depth ..................... ...... 4. 4564 in area ...................... ...... 0. 1963 ft2 wetted area ............... ...... 0. 1564 ft2 wetted Perimeter .......... ...... 12 .4663 in Perimeter ................. ...... 18 .8496 in velocity .................. ...... 2. 9735 fps Hydraulic Radius .......... ...... 1. 8064 in Percent Full ............. ....... 74 .2740 Full flow Flowrate ....... ....... 0. 5158 cfs Full flow velocity ....... ....... 2. 6269 fps Critical Information Critical depth .................. 4. 2386 in Critical slope .................. 0. 0217 ft/ft Critical velocity ............... 3. 1045 fps Critical area ................... 0. 1498 ft2 Critical perimeter .............. 11.9019 in Critical hydraulic radius ....... 1. 8122 in Critical top width .............. 6. 0000 in Specific energy ................. 0. 5035 ft Minimum energy .................. 0. 5298 ft Froude n umber ................... 0 .9524 Flow con dition .................. subcrit ical Page 1 00007 tmp#l.txt Manning Pipe Calculator Given Znput Data: shape ............... ......... circula r Solving for Depth o f Flow Diameter ............... ......... 15.0000 in Flowrate ............... ......... 3.3000 cfs Slope .................. ......... 0.0100 ft/ft Manning's n ............ ......... 0.0200 computed Results: Depth .................. ......... 10.0188 in Area ................... ......... 1.2272 ft2 wetted area ............ ......... 0.8709 ft2 wetted Perimeter ....... ......... 28.6994 in Perimeter .............. ......... 47.1239 in velocity ............... ......... 3.7890 fps Hydraulic Radius ....... ......... 4.3700 in Percent Full ........... ......... 66.7919 rull flow Flowrate ..... ......... 4.1989 cfs rull flow velocity .... .......... 3.4215 fps Critical Information critical depth ........ .......... 8.8164 in critical slope ........ .......... 0.0145 ft/ft Critical velocity ..... .......... 4.3958 fps critical area ......... .......... 0.7507 ft2 Critical perimeter .. . .......... 26.1948 in Critical hydraulic radius ....... 4.1269 in critical top width .... .......... 15.0000 in Specific energy ....... .......... 1.0531 ft Minimum energy ........ .......... 1.1021 ft rroude number ......... .......... 0.8046 rlow condition ........ .......... subcritical Page 1 000038 tmp#S.txt channel calculator Given Input Data Shape .................. ......... Advanced solving for ............ ......... Depth of Flow Flow rate ............... ......... 3.3000 cfs Slope .................. ......... 0.0100 ft/ft Manning's n ............ ......... 0.0280 Height ................ .......... 120000.0000 in Bottom width .......... .......... 0.0000 in Left radius ........... .......... 0.0000 in Right radius .................... u.uuvu in Left slope ...................... 0.5000 ft/ft (v/H) Right slope ..................... 0.5000 ft/ft (v/H} computed Results: De th ................... ........ 9. 4686 in velocity ................ ........ 2. 6502 fps Full Flowrate ........... ........ 3. 3000 cfs Flow area ............... ........ 1. 2452 ft2 Flow perimeter .......... ........ 42 .3449 in Hydraulic radius ........ ........ 4. 2345 in Top width ............... ........ 37 .8744 in Area .................... ........ 1. 2452 ft2 Perimeter ............... ........ 42 .3449 in Percent full ............ ........ 10 0.000 0 Critical Information critical depth .................. 8. 4116 in Critical slope .................. 0. 0188 ft/ft Critical velocity ............... 3. 3580 fps critical area ................... 0. 9827 ft2 Critical perimeter .............. 37 .6179 in Critical hydraulic radius ....... 3. 7618 in Critical top width .............. 33 .6465 in specific energy ................. 0. 8982 ft Minimum energy .................. 1. 0515 ft Froude n umber ................... 0. 7438 Flow con dition .................. su bcritical Page 1 000039 tmp#6.txt Channel Calculator Given Input Data shape .................. ......... advanced Solving for ............ ......... Depth of Flow Flow rate ............... ......... 3.3000 cfs slope .................. ......... 0.1500 ft/ft Manning's n ............ ......... 0.0280 Height ................ .......... 120000. 0000 in Bottom width .......... .......... 0.0000 in Deft radius ........... .......... 0.0000 in Rigght radius .......... .......... 0.0000 in Deft slope ............ .......... 0.5000 ft/ft (V/H) Right slope ........... .......... 0.5000 ft/ft (v/H) Computed Results: Depth .................... ....... 5. 6986 in velocity ................. ....... 7. 3166 fps Full Flowrate ............ ....... 3. 3000 cfs Flow area ............... ........ 0. 4510 ftZ Flow perimeter .......... ........ 25 .4850 in Hydraulic radius ........ ........ 2. 5485 in Top width ............... ........ 22 .7944 in area .................... ........ 0. 4510 ft2 Perimeter ............... ........ 25 .4850 in Percent full ............ ........ 10 0.0000 Critical Information critical depth .................. 8. 4116 in Critical slope .................. 0. 0188 ft/ft Critical velocity ............... 3. 3580 fps critical area ................... 0. 9827 ft2 critical perimeter .............. 37 .6179 in Critical hydraulic radius ....... 3. 7618 in Critical top width .............. 33 .6465 in specific energy ................. 1. 3068 ft Minimum energy .................. 1. 0515 ft Froude n umber ................... 2. 6471 Flow con dition .................. Su percr itical Page 1 ~~~~~~ Soils and F~ Proposed Residence Lot 2 Foy Trot Subdivision Brush Creek, Colorado - Charles Cunniffe Architects _ 610 East Hyman Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 ~xhihit~ (~ar~l l,D.#~2(o43-bSl -02-oaz JOB NO. C055025 February 15, 2006 InTEC Integrated Testing and Engineering Company of Denver Nletro, LLC 4501 Wadsworth Blvd. Whzatridge,CO 80033 1303)163-93h far (303)-163-9321 wenv.intec-~eotech.cum 0 O U U "Z ~ ,Austin Houston San Antonio DFW 15 L31352-L'l3 ~'_3lU~1-3.30 12101535-9033 181^1358-0870 ' Fax U L) 'SL l ll9 fax 12811 3? I -3334 fax i 3I01 535-9032 fas (8 L ~ 1 858-0036 InT E C Integrated Testing and Engineering Company of Denver, LLC. Geotechnical & Environmental Engineering .Construction Services • Geologic Assessment February 15, 2006 Charles Cunniffe Architects 610 East Hyman Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Anention: ~Sr. Janver Derring[on Re: Soils and Foundation Investigation Proposed Residence Lot 2 Fox Trot Subdivision Brush Creek, Colorado InTEC Job No: C055025 Mr. Derrington, As requested, InTEC of Denver Metro, LLC (formerly Church & Associates) has completed the Soil and Foundation Investigation fot the proposed residence. The attached report presents the results of the field investigation and laboratory testing and recommendations for foundation type and bearing pressures, basement construction, slab floor recommendations, and recommendations related to the proposed construction. InTEC appreciates and wishes to thank you for the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If we can be of additional assistance during the materials testing-quality control phase of construction, please contact us at (303) 463-9317. Respectfully submitted, InTEC of Denver Metro, LLB`'.` ' Y -./ /l n°` ~~'l ~~ /sib Gabriel A. Burgess, P.E. "°° ' :,`~ Geotechnical Department Manager.,,,`;,' ,;,,,'~~~' r=abeb/a~intec-Qeotech com Copies: Addressee (3 ) 4501 Wadsworth Blvd. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Austin DFW ~Ylerro 0~0('4~ uL')25'_-L'IS i81?)858-08'0 ~~ fas X512) 252-L19 fax Bt7) 858-0030 (303) 463-9317 far (303) 463-93:1 Houston (38Li 3~t-3330 fnx (? 81) 3' 1-3334 www.intec-geotech.com San Antonia ('_1015'_5-90.3 `,'ax QLO) 525-9033 !InTEC'~ Table of Contents L0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................._..............................---•--...............-•----•--.............---... 2 Z.0 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION._ ...........................•--••--•--.................................----•----•--...........-..-............. Z 3.0 SITE COND[TIONS........_- ...................................................................•----......................................... ...... 2 3.1 GEOTECHNICAL LYE"ESTIG.4TION ................__-_-..----..---.._..-------------°•--..........-•-----............. ...---'- 3.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ............................................................................•-----.....................--•--- ...... 3 4.0 D[SCUSSiON &RECOMMENDATIONS .................................._...................._................................ ..-... 3 4.1 ANALYSIS OF RESULTS .................................................................................................................... ...... 3 4.2 BUILDING FOUNDATIONS ................•----.......................................................----------......................--- -.....3 4.2.1 SPREAD-TYPE FOO"CDVGS ..............._......._......................................................................................... ...... 3 4.3 SLAB-ON-GRADE CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................•----------........ ...... 4 4.4 LATERAL LOADS AND SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE ...............°--..--........................................-•--- ...... 5 4.5 SURFACE DRAINAGE .......................................................................•-----........................................... ...... 5 4.6 S[TE PREPARATION ..................................................••-•----....-.........................._...-----•----.................. ...... 6 4.7 EXCAVATIONS ....................................................•---....................................---•--.......-........................... -----6 5.0 L[MITATIONS ....................................................................................................................................... ..... 7 FIGURE 1 -SITE PLAN AND LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORING FIGURE 2 - LOG OF TEST PIT APPENDIX A -IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT THIS REPORT APPENDIX B -TYPICAL FOUNDATION DRAIN DETAILS APPENDIX C -EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS [nteerated Testing and En~ineerino (-'mm~anv {~n~I?<4? - - - - InTEC EXECUTIVE StiNIMARi' This report presents the results of the Soils and Foundation Investigation for the proposed residence to be Located at Lot Z in the Fox Trot Subdivision in Brush Creek, Colorado. The purpose of our investigation was to evaluate subsurface conditions at the site and provide geotechnical recommendations for the proposed construction. The report presents a description of subsurface conditions encountered at the site, recommended foundation systems. and design and construction criteria influenced by the subsurface conditions. The report is based on data developed during the field investigation, laboratory test results and our previous experience. A summary of our findings and recommendations is presented below: • The test pit encountered cobbles and boulders within a sand with some silt and clay from the surface to the extent of the test pit. The material appeared to be a combination of glacial till and fluvial deposits. • Free water was not encountered in test pit during exploration. • Based on the results of the field investigation, the proposed structure can be supported on spread footings bearing on a minimum of one foot of structural fill. Design and consttuction criteria are presented in the body of the report. • There is a minor risk of slab movement at the proposed slab elevations when the slab is supported by a minimum of one foot of structural fill. A structural floor over a void space should be used if the risk of movement is not acceptable. Slabs supported on grade should be free to move vertically, and not connected to the foundation system. In order to m;r,;m;tee the chance for moisture infiltration into the foundation soils and limit the potential for movement of the foundations and/or slabs, Positive drainage down and away from all foundation walls and the structure should be established and maintained at all times. An exterior or interior foundation perimeter drain should be installed below basement elevations to minimize the potential for wet basement conditions to develop. Integrated Testing and Engineering Company 00004: IInTECI Integrated Testing and Engineering Company so~t5 and Eounaadoa tnvestigar~o~, lob uo. cossozs INTRODUCTION This report is submitted pursuant to a geotechnical engineering investigation made by this firm of the site of the proposed residence to be located at Lot 2 in the Fox Trot Subdivision in Brush Creek, Colorado. The object of this investigation was to evaluate the physical properties of the subsoils underlying the site to provide recommendations for foundation design, stab support, and related earthwork. PROPOSED CONSTRh'CTION It is our understanding that the proposed residence will be a combination one and two story structure with a full basement. Although foundation loads aze utilmown at the time of this report, it is anticipated that the structure will be relatively lightly loaded with column and wall loads on the order of 25 kips and 2.5 kips per linear foot, respectively. It is assumed that the basement slab elevations will be at approximately eight to nine feet below existing site grade. Should design details differ form those presented, this firm should be notified so we can provide additional recommendations, if required. SITE CONDITIONS The subject property is located on the western side of the Roaring Forks River approximately'i< of a mile south of the Gabezee Road Bridge Crossing. The site has been developed with three small residences that aze wood framed buildings. It is our understanding that the majority of the residences will be demolished prior to construction of the proposed residence. The site generally slopes towazds the west at a slight slope (about 3 to 4 percent) until the edge of the Roaring Forks embankment is encountered and then the slope increases until the river elevation is reached. Relief on the site is on the order of 25 feet from the base of the river to the east side of the site. There is existing underground gas utilities, two well systems, and a septic system on the site. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION InTEC had originally proposed to perform two auger rig borings; however, due to the large amounts of cobbles and boulders present test pits were substituted for the borings. Subsurface conditions were investigated on February 9, 2006 by excavating one test pit at the location indicated on Figure I. Further test pits were not attempted due to conflicts with underground utilities. The test pit was excavated to approximately 8 feet below existing site grade. The test pit was advanced using a small access, track mounted back-hoe. The test pit was visually logged by a field engineer regarding the soil type(s) encountered. No samples were taken due to the size of the boulders and cobbles encountered. The log of materials encountered are presented in the Log of Test Pit in Figure 2. ODUU4~ 1nT CC 3.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS As indicated on the Log of the Test Pit, the subsurface conditions generally consisted of medium dense to dense cobbles and boulders in a sand with silt and trace amounts of clay that was encountered from the surface to a depth of 8 feet below existing site grades. The boulders ranged in size from about one to three feet in diameter and the cobbles and boulders were subrounded to sub angular. The matrx generally consisted of medium to coarse-wined sand with gravel and silt with trace amounts of clay. The material was generally reddish brown in color and varied from moist near the surface to near dry conditions neaz the base of the excavation. Groundwater was not encountered during excavation activities. The conditions encountered are consistent with glacial till and fluvial deposits encountered along the banks of the Roaring Forks River. It should be noted that groundwater might be encountered during construction from perched conditions not encountered during drilling and/or seasonal fluctuations. The building contractor should be prepared to deal with groundwater, if encountered. 4.0 DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 ANALYSIS OF RESULTS Based on the results of the field investigation and laboratory test results, the soils conditions at the proposed foundation elevations aze considered suitable to provide reliable support for the proposed structure. However, due to the presence of large cobbles and boulders, it is recommended that the foundations aze supported by a minimum of one foot of structural fill to minimize the potential of development of point loads in the foundations and tensile stresses in the foundations. Structural fill should be constructed as detailed in Appendix C of this report. Post-construction moisture increases or decreases in the supporting soil will likely cause differential foundation movements and, thus, cazeful site drainage and moisture protection procedures as outlined in Section 4.5 of this report will be critical for the satisfactory performance of the structure. 4.2 BUILDING FOUNDATIONS 4.2.1 Spread-Type Footings Shallow spread-type footings bearing at uniform depths below finished grade, in conjunction with the recommended site prepazation and moisture protection provisions are recommended for support of the structure. An allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per squaze foot (PSF) is recommended for the design of shallow spread-type footings bearing on a minimum of one foot of structural fill. Structural fill should extend a minimum of one foot beyond the perimeter of the footings. Minimum depths of footings should be 3.5 feet below lowest adjacent :grated Testing and Engineering Company sorts aad Foundacion tavasri~ac;oa, Job No. cossozs OOOU4~ IIn E iCiC finished grade for the perimeter footings and 18-inches below finished floor slab elevation for interior footings in heated areas. Two feet and 133 feet aze the minimum recommended widths of square and continuous footings, respectively. In order to minimize the sensitivity of the structure to differential movement, footings and walls should be reinforced to allow for a degree of load redistribution should a localized zone of the supporting soils become saturated. Stem walls should either be positively separated from floor dabs ~~r reint'ored io prevent cracking at the slab stem wall interface. The bearing pressure recommended above applies to full dead plus live loads and can be safely increased by one-third for total loads including wind or seismic forces. Total vertical movements of footings designed as recommended above, aze estimated not to exceed 1-inch for moisture contents of the materials encountered during test drilling. Differential movements aze estimated to be less than 75 percent of maximum vertical movements if all footings supported by sandstone. Significant moisture increases above these contents could create additional movements and could create excessive movement in some areas of the site. Accordingly, the site drainage and moisture protection provisions recommended in Section 4.5 are critical design considerations. 4.3 SLAB-ON-GRADE CONSTRUCTION It is assumed [hat the interior slabs will be founded on a minimum of one foot of structural fill and will have a minor risk for movement of lightly loaded slab-on-grade construction due to low risk for slab heave. A structural slab system should be utilized for the floors where no slab movement is allowable. The potential heave should be minimal for slabs supported by one foot of structural till. Slabs-on-grade should not be attached to interior or exterior bearing members. The slabs should be constructed as "floating" slabs, which aze free to move in the vertical direction. The following design and construction details are recommended for slab-on-grade construction. Slabs should be separated from exterior walls and interior bearing members. Vertical movement of the slabs should not be restricted. Using brittle floor finishes such as file on slabs in aeeas with expansive soil increases the risk for damage. Exterior slabs near critical entryways should be supported by a haunch with a minimum 12-inch void below the slab. Slab bearing partitions should be minimized. Where such partitions are used, a slip joint should be constructed to allow free vertical movement of the slab. Slip joints should allow at least 2 inches of vertical movement and be maintained following construction. This value is not to be construed as a heave estimate and the partition void should be re-established if the void closes to 0.5 inches. Jntegratea testing and rngmeenng trompany sorts and Foundation tnvestigadoo, Job No. cos_oas ODUU4~ ' InTEC! Page Underslab plumbing should be eliminated where feasible. Where such plumbing is unavoidable it should be thoroughly pressure tested during construction. Plumbing and utilities, which pass through the slab, should be isolated from the slab. If a forced air heating system is used and the furnace is located on the slab, we recommend provision of a collapsible connection between the furnace and the ductwork. The above design and constttirction criteria will not prevent movement, but will reduce damage if movement occurs. 4.4 LATERAL LOADS AND SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE The ultimate passive soil resistance against edges of footings, gtadebeams, etc., with properly compacted backfill, should be considered as being equal to forces exerted by a fluid of 400 pounds per cubic foot unit weight (PCF). Below grade walls must be designed for lateral loads. For "active" conditions, the walls should be designed for an equivalent fluid pressure of 45 PCF for properly compacted backfill. For "at rest" conditions, equivalent fluid pressures of 55 PCF should be used. These loads do not include swelling pressures, hydrostatic loads or surchazge loads such as sloping backfill or vehicles. In the basement, interior or exterior foundation drains around the perimeter of the proposed structure should be installed. Foundation drains will reduce the risk of "wet basement" conditions and the buildup of hydrostatic pressures. Foundation drains should lead to a positive gravity outlet or a sump where water is removed by pumping. Foundation drains should be installed similaz to the details presented in Appendix B. 4.5 SURFACE DRAINAGE The risk for wetting of foundation soils can be reduced by cazefully planned and maintained surface drainage. The following precautions should be observed during construction and be maintained at all times after the structure is completed. Excessive wetting or drying of open foundation excavations should be avoided as much as possible during construction. Backfill adjacent to foundation walls should be moistened and compacted. Any settlement of backfill after completion of the structure should be repaired and positive drainage reestablished. The ground surface surrounding the structure should be sloped to drain away from the structure in all directions. A minimum slope of 12 inches in the fast 10 feet should be achieved and maintained after constmction. Roof downspouts and drains for the residence should discharge to the surface and Engineering Company Soils and Foundation Investigatioq lob No. CU55025 00004 '1nTECl well beyond the limits of all backfill. Irrigated landscaping should not be placed within ~ to 10 feet of the foundation walls. Plastic membranes should not be used to cover the ground surface immediately surrounding the structure. These membranes trap moisture and prevent normal evaporation from occurring. Geotextile fabrics aze a suitable option to control weed growth and allow some evaporation. -!.G SITE PREPARATION Organic material, man made fill, and any debris or deleterious materials should be removed from the foundation area and wasted off site or used for non-structural purposes. Where required, structural fill should be placed in 8-inch uncompacted thickness lifts and compacted to 9~ percent of the standazd Proctor maximum dry density (MPD) within 2 percent of the optimum moisture content (OMC). Structural fill should be non-expansive material that meets the requirements set forth in Appendix C It appears that the soils encountered at the site will be suitable for reuse as structural fill, provided the cobbles and boulders are screened from the material. Coazse-grained material lazger than 3 inches in diameter should not be utilized. Structures supported by insufficiently compacted structural fill may settle. Any fill not utilized for structural purposes should be compacted to 90 percent MPD within ?percent of the OMC. A geotechnical engineer should review earthwork placement activities. 4.7 EXCAVATIONS Excavations should not remain open for extended periods of time, permitting wetting or drying of the bearing materials. Moisture changes of the bearing materials may increase the risk for movement. The materials encountered within the depth of excavations on site are generally categorized as Type C soils according to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Based on published OSHA guidelines, temporary excavations in the near surface Type C soils can have a maximum temporary slope of 1.5:1.0 horizontal:vertical (H:V) or about Z8 degrees. Exceeding these inclinations will increase the chance of deformation, especially over a long time period. Some localized deformation of the bank may occur, especially during wet weather, loading or with vibrations. Caze should be taken when working neaz the sides of excavations at all times, and the slopes should be monitored by onsite personnel during construction for evidence of sloughing, bulging or toppling of the sidewalk or cracking at the ground surface. Surchazge loading at the top of the cut by equipment, materials, or vehicles must be avoided, since surcharge loading will increase the risk of caving. Spoils of the excavation must be placed a minunum of 3 horizontal feet from the edge of the excavation. We are providing OSHA information for preliminary planning purposes only. Final evaluation of excavations, excavation slopes and soil and bedrock materials exposed in excavations should be done during construction by the contractors "competent person" as required by OSHA guidelines. TeStmg and )/nQlnZerlnQ Company soils and Foundation Investigation, Job No. COSS02S ~~~~~ InTECi Page 7 Due to the presence of large boulders and cobbles, excavations may be difficult and require the use of heavy duty equipment and require jack-hammering and possible blasting to remove very large boulders. The contractor should be prepazed to deal with removal of large boulders, should they be encountered. 5.0 LIMITATIONS Although u4e test pi[ was located to obtain a reasoaabiy acctuate determination of foundation conditions, variations in the subsoil conditions are possible. If subsurface conditions or the proposed construction differ from those described herein, we should be notified. A representative of our office should observe the excavations to verify field conditions and verify bearing stratum for the foundation elevations. The cost of construction observations is not included in this investigation. Evaluation of the site for past or present contamination of the soil or groundwater or for the presence of wetlands, surface contamination or hazardous materials was beyond our scope of services for this project. In addition, this report makes no engineering judgments regarding the suitability of the river embankment slope in regazd to stability and erosion protection. If these services are required, an additional investigation and fees will be required. If we can be of further service in discussing the contents of this report, or in the analysis of the influence of subsurface conditions on the design of the stmctures, please contact us. Integrated Testing and EngJneering Company Soils and Foundation Investigation. Job No. C055025 000059 LOT 2 FOX TROT SUBDIVISION, ASPEN, CO 8 Associates, Inc. Y501 Wadsworth Boulevard Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Phone'. (303) 4E3-9317 SITE PLAN AND LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY TEST BORING N Test Pit No: TP-7 Project: Lot 2 Fox Trat Subdivision Address: Brush Creek, CO Project No. C055025 Date Excavated: 2/09!06 Location: See Boring Location Plan Small Access Track Mounted Back-hoe Soil Descri lion Depth SN WC PL LL PI PP N -200 DD Uc Boulders and Cobbles in Sand Matrix with Silt and trace Clay: medium dense to dense, boulders about 1 to 3 feet in diameter, subrounded to sutr angular, low plasticity, moist to near dry, __ _ 5 reddish brown I ____. ' I ~ Stopped Test Pit at 8 feet Groundwater was not encountered 10 feet 15 20 feet 25 30 feet 35 S: Sample Not Recovered ® Grab Bag Sample (GB) Shelby Tine Sample (ST) I California Tube Sample (CS) D Water encountered during drilling Refer to Appendix for Additional Information SN=Sample No. and Type DD=Dry Density, pcf CS= Caldomia Tutee Sample GB=Grab Bag Sample WC=Water Content, % PL=Plasbc L~md, % LL=liquid Limit, % P1=Plastlciry Index NP=Non-Plastic N=$PT Blow Counts pp=pocket Penetrometer, tsf "=Blow Counts During Seating Penelratlon -zoo=% pass x zoo sreve Ur-Unconfined Compression Test, tsf 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~~ PR07ECT NO. CO5~0?5 INTEC OF DENVER METRO, LLC. FIGURE KEY TO CLASSIFICATION SYMBOLS USED ON BORING LOGS MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP SYMBOLS DESCRIPTIONS m "' ~*~'~~ Mi m N > C'W ~~~ Well-Graded Gravels, GravelSand xtures, ~ O - U v' m m C_ ~' ~ -~;~ little or no Fines Ul m > Ur O .... .... m (L m ~ G ` ~ ~ ~ m ' c 1° o ~ [~ Poorly-Graded Gravels, GravelSand Mixtures, o y ° m o a o v m ~ GP 0 Little or no Fines o ~ ~ Z c;~;a N Q o c r/1 ~ O z R' p = t r m LL ai LL GM Silty Gravels, GravelSandSilt Mixtures O c m c ~ w _ m o L L CJ 7i N C o ~ ~ ' ' ~ ~ ~ ¢ e Y O GC Clayey Gravels, GravelSand-Clay Mixtures w Z .L C7 n g _° R c7 C Q ~ ~ ~ c Well-Graded Sands, Gravelly Sands, w `-° ~ m c m LL SW Little or no Fines ~ ~ m ~ ~ m '~ ~ `H Q v d Poorly-Graded Sands, Gravelly Sands, OU ° ~ o = ~ y SP Little or no Fines N U = Z Q `o c m c t fn ~ = H c ;~ m LL SM Silty Sands, SandSilt Mixtures ~ w L m _ o ~ m S ~ w 3 a ~ m o ¢ < $C Clayey Sands, SandLlay Mixtures ~ ~, _. Inorganic Silts & Very Fine Sands, Rock Flour, r n ~ ~E s ML Silty or Clayey Fine Sands or Clayey Silts with a O ti ~ ~ ti ~ y 9 N~ Sii ht Plastic y "-' ~ ~ ~° m Inorganic Clays of Low to Medium Plasticity, ~? m y U J J CL Gravelly Clays, Sandy Clays, Silty Clays, w m ~ Lean Cla s _ ~ m o _._. ~ MH Inorganic Silts, Micaceous or Diatomaceous i ~ ^b rn E ~ Fine Sand or Silty Soils, Elastic Silts ° rn } J w Z ~ ~ Q F- J o al u~ o L J_ N v ~ j m m CH Inorganic Clays of High Plasticity, Fa[ Clays ~ ~ c7 jti,4.\ Ytif414~ SANDSTONE YbYY '~'~`~'~ r~'f,'!tii. ~Ziiw. SILTSTONE _ - - ____ J Z p J CLAYSTON E a ~ z f ~ o f SHALE LL IGNEOUS BEDROCK METAMORPHIC BEDROCK - Indicates Finai Observed Groundwater Level GROUNDWATER ~ Indicates Initial Observed Groundwater Location OOOU53 PROJECT NO. CO550^5 INTEC OF DF~IVER METRO. LLC. FIGURE 3 APPENDIX A 000054 Appendix A Important Information About The Report The data collected by InTEC of Denver Metro, LLC during this investigation was used to provide geotechnical information and recommendations regazding subsurface conditions on the site investigated, the effect of those conditions on the proposed construction, and the foundation type for the named client. The stratification lines indicated on the boring log aze approximate, and subsurface conditions encountered during construction may differ from those presented hecein. This uncertainty cattnot be eliminated because of the many vaziabilities associated with geology. For example, material and engineering chazacteristics of soil and bedrock may change more gradually or more quickly than indicated in this report, and the actual engineering properties of non-sampled soil or rock may differ from interpretations. Quantitative conclusions regarding the performance of geotechnical structures prior to construction aze not possible because of the complexity of subsurface conditions. Rather, engineering judgments and experience aze used to estimate likely geotechnical performance and provide the necessary recommendations. Put another way, we cannot be sure about what is not visible, so the collected data and our training and experience are used to develop predictions and recommendations. There aze no guazantees or warranties implied or expressed. The owner and/or client must understand that uncertainties aze associated with geotechnical engineering, and they, the owner and/or client, must determine the level of risk they are willing to accept for the proposed construction. The risks can be reduced, but not eliminated, through more detailed investigation, which costs more money and takes more time, and through any appropriate construction, which might be recommended as a result of that, more detailed investigation. To reduce the level of uncertainty, this report was prepazed only for the referenced client and for the proposed construction indicated in the report. Unless authorized by Church/InTEC in writing, the owner will assume additional geotechnical risk if this report is used for any construction that differs from that indicated in the report. Our firm should be consulted well before changes in the proposed construction occur, such as the nature, size, configuration, orientation, or location of any improvements. Additionally, the knowledge and experience of the local geotechnical practice is continually expanding and it must be understood the presented recommendations were made according to the standazd of practice at the time of report issuance. If the construction occurs 1 or more yeazs after issuance of the report, the owner and/or client should contact our firm to determine if additional investigation or revised recommendations would be advisable. The geotechnical practice in the Denver Region must consider the risk associated with expansive soils and bedrock. The geotechnical practice in the Denver azea uses a relative scale to evaluate swelling potentials. When the sample is wetted under a surchazge pressure (loading) of 1000 pounds per square foot (PSF), the measured amount of swell is classified as low, moderate, high, or very high. Table 1 presents the relative classification criteria for the percentage of expansion based on initial sample height at the indicated surchazge pressure. Table 1 Jource: Colorado Association of Geotechnical Engineers, Guideline for Slab Performance Risk Evaluation and Residential Basement Floor System Recommendations (Denver Metropolitan Area), 1996 D~~U.35 General Geotechnical Risk Discussion Page 2 The relative classification can be correlated to potential slab damage as follows: Low: stab cracking, differential movement, and heave; moderate: slab cracking and differential movement, partial framing void and furnace plenum closure; and high to very high: lazge slab cracking and differential movement, closed voids, closed fumace plenum, and possible pipe rupture. (These effects aze based on monitoring and observations by several firms in the Denver metropolitan azea and aze not limited to the relative classification. More or less damage can occur in all classifications because of the uncertainty associated with subsurface conditions and geotechnical engineering.) It is important to note that measured swell or soil expansion is not the only geotechnical criteria for the type of floor and foundation recommendations. Additional criteria considered include: a. soil and bedrock type and variability, b. stratigraphy, c. ground water depth and anticipated post-construction moisture conditions, d. surface water drainage and features, e. post-construction landscaping and imgation, f. construction details and proposed use, and g. local experience. Post-construction landscaping and owner maintenance will greatly affect structures on expansive soils and bedrock. Typically, irrigated landscaping increases the soil moisture content above the pre- construction water content. Slabs, pavements, and structures significantly reduce evaporation of soil moisture. Therefore, post-construction heave and resulting damage to buildings and other improvements aze likely to occur on sites with expansive soils because of the high probability that subsurface moisture content will increase as the property and surrounding area is developed. Poor owner maintenance, such as negative slopes adjacent to foundation walls and irrigated landscaping adjacent to the foundation, also will significantly increase the risk of damage from expansive soil and bedrock. The property owner, and anyone he or she plans to sell the property to, must understand the risks associated with construction in an expansive soil azea and also must assume responsibility for maintenance of the structure. The owner and prospective purchasers also should review "A Guide to Swelling Soils for Colorado Homebuyers and Homeowners," which is a special publication (SP 43) produced by the Colorado Geological Survey to assist homeowners in reducing damage caused by swelling soils. OOO~J`~6 APPENDIX B OOOU~? In NOTES: I. CRAW PIPE SFCULD LEAD TO SUMP GR POSITIVE GRAVITY DISCHARGE. Z. COMER GRAVEL COMPLETELY WITH GEOTEXTILE .N SANDY OP. SiLi Y SOILS. ~. BD-TOM OF DRAW SHOULD BE A MINIMUM OF 12 INCHES BELOW TOP OF SLAB AT HIGH PCEN ~ GRAVEL SFECIFiC4T~-0NS. CLEAN WASHED GRA'vEL, ICO % F4SSING LS", 6C-IC~O'/a REi 4iNED #a <3% P4SSNlG #Z00 InTEC CHURCH &ASSOCiates Ina o~~,°°o, "'" °T"`°° °~°M°^~,~ ~aom u,~ ~s TYPICAL INTERIOR .r Sr: I¢WaS.EwazH[~.9•~~nrg ~nv~ n131Gm'g9'r-'~~~°~nKr,~g ~"~"'° " BASEMENT WALL DRAIN a501 Wadsworh 9oulevard Whea[ 4ioge. Colorado dcn3a ') fl (1 ~,' A' aro~~e raaal asp-sail SLOPE OF I/~" DER FOOT FOR FLEXIBLE PIPE Ih _~ • ~ aACKriL_ WALL 6"-8" MIN. POLYE?HYLENE SHEETING MIRAFI ILON ~~R EQUIVALEi T CLEAN WASHED GRAVEL GEOTEXTILE FABRIC ~ .Q.DQ ~D~• p ~ ~ SLAB ::: Qo:;,: Q;; Qo .QoQ Q 0 6 O~ da :. Q~ o Q a ~o QO~ i17QoO ~2" ~~ ~ a g~.d MIN a-INCH DIAMETER PERFORATED / I PVC PIPE MINIMUM SLOPE CF J I I/o" =ER FOOT FOR RIGID FIPE j M'.NiMI;M SLOPE OF 1.4" PER FOOT FCR F~_EXIBLE PIFE ~ INSTALL CRAW ABOVE LINE NOTES: I. DRAIN F',PE SHOULD LEAD TO SUMF OR POSITIVE GRAVITY DISCHARGE. ?. COVER GRAVEL COMPLETELY WITH GECTEXTILE IN SANDY OR SILTY SOILS. ? BCTTGM GF .7RAI:V SHCULC BE A MINIMUM CP 12 INCHES BELOW TGP CF SLAB AT HIGH POINT GRAVEL SPECIFICATIONS: CLEAN WASHED GRAVEL, f00 °6 PASSING LS°, 60-~00 % R=TAINEC #4 <~ % PASSi~.G n000 ` InTEC c",uRCHaa~v°;,'at~~I^~o~~"~~, TYPICAL EXTERIOR ,K:.-. ~~~~ ~,.w,., ~-_,~~ y Re",,,~~,~~~ ~.~,"g BASEMENT ""`ems a~ M~g"" WALL DRAIN O o4SC y.~~~~or ~ dculevard Wheat Ridge, ColoraCC 8W.93 UU llJt FJ Phone i3C3)463-9317 APPENDIX C OOOt~~O Page 1 SPECIFICATIONS FOR EARTHWORK 1.0 SCOPE [ncludes all clearing and grubbing, removal of obstructions, general excavating, grading and filling, and any related items necessary to complete the grading for the entire project in accordance with these specifications. 2.0 SUBSURFACE SOIL DATA Subsurface soil investigations have been made, and the results aze available for examination by the contractor. The contractor is expected to examine the site and determine for himself the character of materials to be encountered. No additional allowance will be made for rock removal, site clearing and grading, filling, compaction, disposal, or removal of any unclassified materials. 3.0 CLEARING & GRUBBING A. General: Clearing and grubbing will be requued for all areas shown on the plans to be excavated or on which fill is to be constructed. B. Clearing: Clearing shall consist of removal and disposal of trees and other vegetation as well as down timber, snags, brush, existing foundations, slabs, utilities, and rubbish within the areas to be cleared. C. Grubbing: Stumps, matted roots, and roots lazger than 2 inches in diameter shall be removed from within 6 inches of the surface of azeas on which fills aze to be constructed. D. Grass & Topsoil: Grass, grass roots, and incidental topsoil shall not be left beneath a fill azea, nor shall this material be used as fill material. Grass, grass roots, and topsoil may be stockpiled and later used in the top 6 inches of fills outside roadways and building pads. 4.0 EARTH EXCAVATION A. Earth excavation shall consist of the excavation and removal of suitable soils for use as embankment or structural fill, as well as the satisfactory disposal of all vegetation, ~~~~~1 [nTEC Project No. C055025 ^ Page 2 existing man-made fill, debris, and deleterious materials encountered within the azea to be graded and/or in a borrow azea. B. Excavated aeeas shall be continuously maintained such that the surface shall be smooth and have sufficient slope to allow water to drain from the surface. 5.0 STRUCTURAL. FILL & EMBANKMENT A_ General: Embankments shall consist of a controlled fill constructed in areas indicated on the grading plans. B. Materials: (1) Physical Characteristics: Structural fill material shall consist of soils that conform to the minimum following physical chazacteristics: Sieve Size Percent Passing square OpeninQS) by Weight 3 inch 100 No. 4 50-100 No. 200 15-55 The plasticity index of the material, as determined in accordance with ASTM D4318, shall not exceed 20. Results of our investigation indicate that most of the near surface on-site soils will meet these requirements if the material is screened. Some importation of fill or blending of materials may be required. The fill materials shall be free from roots, grass, other vegetable matter, clay lumps, rocks lazger than 6 inches, or other deleterious materials. The existing site soils will be suitable for fill azound the exterior of the building and aze recommended for this use. (2) Borrow: When the quantity of suitable material required For all excavation and grading activities is not available within the limits of the jobsite, the contractor shall provide sufficient materials to construct the grading requirements to the lines, elevations, and cross sections shown on the drawings from borrow aeeas. The contractor shalt obtain from owners of said borrow areas the right to excavate material, shall pay all royalties and other chazges involved, and shall pay all expenses in developing the source, including the cost ofright-of--way required for hauling the material. Q 0 O ~ C ~ InTEC Project No. C0~5035 Page 3 C. Construction: (1) Building Area Treatment: Any existing man-made fill, clay or other deleterious material encountered shall be removed in its entirety and replaced with structural fill. Prior to placement of foundations, slabs or ftll; the building area shall be cazefully inspected by a representative of the geotechnical engineer to verify bearing stratum and insure satisfactory removal of native soils and the removal of any deleterious material or existing man-made fill. All building foundations and slabs must be supported by a minimum of onz foot of structural fill. Structural fill should extend a minimum of one foot beyond the perimeter of the footings. Subgrade soils shall be protected during installation of foundations, fill or slabs to minimise moisture loss. The exposed cut surfaces in soil, as well as surfaces to receive fill, shall be scarified to a minimum depth of 10 inches and moisture conditioned as necessary to bring the upper 10 inches to optimum moisture content or above. The upper 10 inches of the native soils shall then be compacted to a minimum of 96 percent of maximum dry density as determined in accordance with ASTM D698. Where soft, wet soils aze encountered at the bottom of cut surfaces, the surface may be stabilized by working large rock into the subgrade or utilization of lime stabilization or biaxial geogrid reinforcement layer placed on the subgrade. This shall be done only at the discretion of the geotechnical engineer. Where vibratory compaction equipment is used, it shall be the contractor's responsibility to insure that the vibrations do not damage neazby buildings or other adjacent property. (2) Compaction: Fill shall be spread in layers not exceeding 8 inches, watered as necessary, and compacted. Moisture content at the time of compaction shall be 1 percent below optimum moisture or higher. A density of not less than 96 percent of maximum dry density within the building pad shall be obtained for the backfill azound the footings and stem walls. A density of not less than 96 percent of maximum dry density within the building pad shall be obtained for structural fill. Structural fill, as well as the native soils, outside the building pad azea shall be compacted to a minimum 90 percent of maximum dry density. Optimum moisture content and maximum dry density for each soil type used shall be determined in accordance with ASTM D698 for native soils and for structural fill. Compaction tests on exposed surfaces should only remain valid for 48 hours if there is no drastic change in existing weather conditions. DOn~C? InTEC Project No. C055025 Page d (3) Weather Limitations: Controlled fill shall not be constructed when the atmospheric temperature is below 3~ degrees F. When the temperature falls below 3~ degrees, it shall be the responsibility of the contractor to protect all areas of completed work against any detrimental effects of ground freezing by methods approved by the geotechnical engineer. Any aeeas that aze damaged by freezing shall be reconditioned, reshaped, and compacted by the contractor in conformance with the requirements of this specification without additional cost to the owner. D. Slope Protection & Drainage: The edges of the controlled fill embankments shall be graded to the contours shown on the drawings and compacted to the density required in paragraph S.C (2). Slopes steeper than 1 vertical to 3 horizontal shall be protected from erosion. 6. INSPECTION & TESTS A. Field Inspecfion & Testing: The owner shall employ the services of a registered, licensed geotechnica( engineer to observe foundation excavations and verify the bearing stratum. The geotechnical engineer shall provide continuous on-site observation by experienced personnel during construction of controlled earthwork. The on-site observer shall maintain a daily field log of all operations, observations, and test results. The contractor shall notify the engineer at least two working days in advance of any field operations of controlled earthwork, or of any resumption of operations after stoppages. Tests of fill materials and subgrade will be made at the following suggested minimum rates: (1) Daily written field observations of construction activities, not limited to, but including: weather conditions, equipment used by the contractor, moisture conditions of on-site soil, soils encountered during excavation or drilling, processes used by the contractor, daily progress, and deviations from specifications. (2) One field density test for each 500 square yards of original ground surface prior to placing fill or constructing floor stabs. (3) One field density test for each 500 cubic yazds of till placed or each layer of fill for each work area, whichever is the greater number of tests. (4) One moisture-density curve for each type of material used, as indicated by sieve analysis and plasticity index. InTEC Project',Yo. C055025 Q~~~~~ Page ~ B. Report of Field Density Tests and Construction Observations: The representative of the geotechnical engineer shall subnut, daily, the results of field density tests and construction observations required by these specifications to the geotechnical engineer of record, structural engineer, civil engineer and owner, within 48-hours of tests or observations. C. Costs of Tests & Inspection: The costs of tests, inspection and engineering, as specified in this section of the specifications, shall be borne by the owner. D. Scheduling of Tests & Inspection: The contractor or subcontractor whose work will be monitored shall provide the representative of the geotechnical engineer a minimum of 48 hours notice before commencement of earthwork activities, and 24 hours notice of cancellation of earthwork activities. 000065 InTEC Project No. C055025 HOUGLA1vTD & ASSOCL~TES CO?~SLrLTL*ly O>\ V~'Ii..DFIR`c NAZ SRD MITlG 9Ti 0'~. r1RE °RCTECTI Ot~ 4NI7 BL'S:.DT~G S F-I3tE CODFS PHONE (°v0i aR4-:'?i EAY.!ovpi 3N4-li311'GhMBA DWVE GLENP'OOL SPRINGS COLOP.hD05160] RI'.°$afBIGt4WSOIln oc Dei .April _^9. ?006 Mr Janver Derrington Charles Cunniffe.Architects 610 East Human Ave. Aspen_ Colorado, A1617 Subject q%ildfire Hazazd Mitigation for David Hosteller Property. located at Lot ~.. Foxtrot Subdivision; ]6' Crrange Way. Pirkin County, Colorado Deaz Mr. Derringtor,, Thanks for meeting with me on site at this property on Honda}• April 24x' and for providing me with a site plan and hazard review map. I remained at the site to take photos and evaluate the wildfire hazard conditions. I will quahfc my obsen~ations as those of conditions as they now exist. The building envelope is a.imust entirely located on a slope of li°.io or less with a small area of .0°i° to 40% down slope to the south toward the ponds and the Roaring Fork River. Most of the pmpem to the north of the proposed building site is pasture like. There are scattered conifers nn the property. neaz the south of the building site and down the slope to the ponds there are mature cottonwoods and brush including serviceberr}- as well zs aspen trees. I determine the site to be a low R'ildfire Hazard. The site provides the opportunit<~ to develop and maintain defensible space. Vegetation Management and Modification Recommended: 1. .Around the house and accessory buildings and beyond the furthermost projection of combustible construction of these buildings for a distance of 10-feet, the area should be of primarily noncombustible hard scape surfaces. Woody vegetation should not be planted within this area. Firewood or other combustible materals should not be stored within this area. 1f the owner would like to maintain some trees or small clusters of trees or shrubs in the vicinity of the buildings this maybe done if the 10- foot area is extended ourix~azd from the furthest growth expected from the mature trees and shrubs. In oilier words, these trees and shrubs should have defensible space as the buildings do. Crowns of vegetation within these clusters should he at least] 0- feet from any portion of the buildings. Limbs of trees within these clusters should be pruned to one half the height of the tree or 10-feet whichever is ]ess..Aspen trees within this arez do not present a hazard as long as standing dead and deadfall are removed. The cottonwood aad brush on the s]o~e between the pond and tie pronesed ~xh~b~~ $ Parcel I . D. # ZCo43-o81- 02 -ca~2 fl~~~66 buiiding site shouid be thinned and the ¢ees should have the lower limbs premed to 10-feet or one-haif the height of the tree whichever is less. 2. Beyond the 10-foo[ area for a distance up to ~=-feet maintain natural ancL'or irriga[ed eras at less than 6-mches and thin existing Qees and brush into individual or clusters. Limbs should be pruned to one half the height of [he tree or 10-feet whichever is less. Ne brush or shrubs which when mature will be tall enough act as ladder fuel should be provided or maintained azound the trees. Clusters of bushes or trees should be separated from each other and Iiom those beyond the ~ ~-foot azea by a distance of 2 `~: *imes the height of the marure vegetation. The diameter of a cluster should be limited to 2 '~_ times the height of the mature vegetation. As an example. If the expected mature height of the vegetation is 10 feet then the aiameter of the cluster should be no greater than 2~ feet and the distance between clusters should be greater than 2~ feet. Ideally the plant material growing between trees and clusters of bushes or trees is grass maintained at 6-inches or less. Thin and remove lower branches of brush or shrubs within clusters or individual plants [o eliminate ladder fuel. ?. For a distance of 100-feet, or to the property line if less than 100-feet. of residential and accessory buildings remove all standing dead and deadfall. Cut and collected materals should be removed, chipped and spread or burned after obtaining appropriate permits. New Construction. Additions: Pitkin County has Structural Design and Construction Requirements, the following aze paraphrased from 3-80-070 Wildfire Hazazd Areas and may or may not contain exact language but it is intended to be consistent with the intent and purpose of the Pitkin County requirements: Roots shall be constructed with a Class A roof covering on a Class A roof assembly as defined in the '_003 International Building Code (IBC) Section 150.? Wood shake,~shingle roof coverings are prohibited in all wildfire hazard areas. Roofs with less than a 3 12 pitch are not permitted in wildfire aeeas unless they comply with [he following: 1) All roof covenngs shall have a surface that shall facilitate the natural process of cleazing the roof. _^) All roof designs shall facilitate the natural process of clearing roof debris. Protrusions above the roofline, such as parapets, shall be prohibited. 3) Roofs shall be installed as required by the adopted building code and shall have a minimum slope of 1 ~48. 4) All roof designs, coverings or equivalent assemblies shall be specifically approved by the Fire Mazshal prior to submittal of a building permit application. ~) Vents: Vents shall be screened with corosive resistant wire mesh, with mesh one-fourth inch ('~d") maximum. 000067 Maintenance 4, Roofs and gutters shall be kept c';eaz of debts. h 1 Area shall be kept clear of al] litter. sash and Eammable debris. c i All flammable materials shall be stored on a parallel contour a minimum of fifreen feet (li'1 away from any' strucmre. dl weeds and Brasses within the ffreen-foot (1.'1 perimeter and under vees shall be mainuined to a height of not more than six inches i 6"), Miscellaneous: a) Firewood wood piles shall be stacked on a parallel contour a minimum of iifreer. feet (li') awac from the structure. h i Fences shall be kept clear of orush and debts. c i wood fences shall not connect to the structure. dj Anv outbuildings or additional structures shall adhere to the same standards as structures. ej Each structure shall have a minimum of one ten (1 O 1 pound .A3C fire extinguisher. f) Addresses shall be clearly mazked with two-inch (2"j non-combustible letters and shall be visible at the p,-imam point of access from the public or common access road and installed on anon-combustible post. I also recommend a publication titled "Firewise Construction Desigr. and Materials" available from the Colorado State Forest Service. If you have comments, questions or require additional information please contact me. Sincerely, P_rt Hougland ,An Hougland NOTICE. This wildfire Hazazd Mitigation .Anah~sis along with observations and recommendations is intended to be an aid to the owner, architect and vegetation management and/or landscape design and implementation professionals in the development of defensible space and of fire wise construction doeumen*s. The review of the existing wildfire hazard potential on this propem~ and the observations and recommendations for the mitigation of these hazazds does not constitute an acceptance of any responsibdih~ by Hougland 8; .Associates for errors, omissions or discrepancies. The behavior of wildfire is acknowledged to be capricious in nature. Hougland & Associates does not proclaim that circumstances, including improper maintenance, may not arise that would permit wildfire to overwhelm the mitigation measures recommended or implemented. Observations and recommendations are intended to be collaborative with wildfire hazazd mitigation guidelines of the Colorado State Forest Service and of other nationally recognized standards and aze intended to be constructive and fr support of the Duvets interest ~~~V~~ VICINITY MAP A 9y~ 9qa 3 U R V . ~. ~. . ~.~ \~ \ ~`?~ \'~\ 4 •` .\ '` BA's'9CT Q '\. ~ E°~ a ~. ~ ~ -g. ~~ off`' ~~ ~ '~~~. 16~ GRANGE WAY PARGEL LD 2643-081-02-022 \ •\ `•\ \.'\ ~__ EXHIBIT D ASPEN VA!!EY RANCN AD ~, \ ~. ~ \\ ~ \ oooo~ COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURAT~'CE SCHEDULE A Effective Date: July 2; 2004 at 7:30 a.m. Order Number: 42786-C2 2. Policy or Policies To Be Issued: ( ) ALTA (1992) Owner's Policy Amount: ( )Standard (X) Extended Premium: Proposed Insured: David Mosteller (X) ALTA 1992 Loan Policy Amount: ~ ( )Standard (X) Extended Premium: ~ Proposed Insured: Guaranty Bank and Trust Company, its successors and/or assigns 3. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment and covered herein is: Fee Simple 4. Title to the estate or interest in said land is at the effective date hereof vested in: Patrick M. Fox, General Partner of the Patrick M. Fox Family Limited Partnership 5. The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows. Lot 2, Foxtrot Subdivision, according to the Fox-MacKenzie Lot Line Adjustment and Minor Plat Amendment to Lot 2, Sterling Subdivision and Lot 2 Foxtrot Subdivision recorded September 13, 1999 in Plat Book 51 at Page 20 as Reception No. 435434. County of Pitkin, State of Colorado Statement of Chazges Policy premiums shown above, and any chazges shown below aze due and payable before a policy can be issued. Reissue Rate Tax Certificate $ 20.00 Form 110.1 (Owners) $ 150.00 Form 100 $ 50.00 Form 110.1 $ 75.00 1 $ so.oo OOOU78 Examiner Name: Chuck Dom EXhihif ~ {parcel I . D. ~ 2(04-3-oP~l -o2-OO2 SCHEDULE B -Section 1 REQUIREMENTS Order Number: 42786-C^_ The following are the requirements to be complied with: Item (a) Payment to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors of the full consideration for the estate or interest to be insured. Item (b) Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be insured must be executed and duly filed for record, to wit: I . Release of Deed of Trust Dated: April 14, 1999, Executed by: Patrick M. Fox, to the Pitkin County Title, Inc., as Trustee, to secure an indebtedness in the amount of: $100,000.00, in favor of. DiTech Funding Corporation, Recorded: May 11, 1999 as Reception No.: 430930. NOTE: The beneficial interest under said Deed of Trust was assigned of record to GMAC Mortgage Corporation by DiTech Funding Corporation recorded August 11, 1999 as Reception No. 434336 and re-recorded October 18, 1999 as Reception No. 436716. 2. Release of Deed of Trust Dated: June 26, 2003, Executed by: Patrick M. Fox, to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County, to secure an indebtedness in the amount of: $780,000.00, in favor of: Chevy Chase Bank, F.S.B., Recorded: July 1, 2003 as Reception No.: 484856. 3. Certificate of Limited Parhership issued by the Secretary of State in which said Certificate is filed, OR Certificate of Good Standing issued by the Secretary of State of Colorado, identifying the Patrick M. Fox Family Limited Partriership, a Colorado limited partnership, as a limited parh~ership in good standing. AND Trade Name Affidavit disclosing the names of the general partners and other information required by'73 CRS 7-71-101. NOTE: If any general partners are themselves partnerships, trusts or corporations, additional documentation for said entities will be required. 4. The following is required with respect to Duv Bear Productions, LLC, a limited liability company: ~~~~?~ a. Satisfactory evidence furnished by the Secretary of State in which Articles were filed, confirming that said Limited Liability Company is in good standing. (i.e., Certificate of Good Standing, or copy of Articles of Organization bearing file stamp from the Secretary of State.) b. Copy of the Articles of Organization of said Limited Liability Company. c. Copy of the Operating Agreement of said Limited Liability Company. NOTE: If any Managers aze themselves partnerships trusts, limited liability companies or corporations, additional requirements will be necessary. 5. Improvement Survey of the subject property, completed in the last six months approved by Stewart Title of Aspen, Inc., this survey is to be retained in the files of Stewart Title of Aspen, Inc. and Stewart Title of Aspen, Inc. reserves the right to add further requirements and/or exceptions to this commitment upon receipt of said survey. 6. A. Certificate ofnon-foreign status, duly executed by the seller(s), pursuant to Section 1445 of the Internal Revenue Code AND B. Satisfactory evidence of the seller(s) Colorado residency (or incorporation) pursuant to Colorado House Bill 92-1270. NOTE: Section 1445 of the Internal Revenue Code requires withholding of tax from sales proceeds if the transferor (seller) is a foreign person or entity. Colorado House Bill 92-1270 may require withholding of tax from sales proceeds if the seller(s) is not a Colorado resident. Detailed information and Forms aze available from Stewart Title. Z Indemnity and Affidavit as to Debts, Liens and Leases, duly executed by the seller and buyer and approved by Stewart title of Aspen, Inc. 8. Deed, executed by all current general partners of the Patrick M. Fox Family Limited Partnership, a Colorado limited partnership, conveying fee title to the Duv Bear Productions, LLC, a limited liability company NOTE: If the Partnership Agreement for said the Patrick M. Fox Family Limited Partnership, a Colorado limited partriership requires less than all of said General Partners to execute said Deed we must be provided with a copy of said Partnership Agreement. 9. Deed from Duv Bear Productions, LLC, a vesting fee simple title in purchaser(s). limited liability company, 10. Deed of Trust from the Borrower to the Public Trustee for the use of the proposed lender to secure the loan. 0~~~~~: SCHEDULE B -Section 2 EXCEPTIONS Order Number: 42786-C2 The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: I . Rights or claims of parties in possession, not shown by the public records 2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records. 3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, and any facts which a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafrer furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. 5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof, but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this commitment. 6. Unpatented mining claims; reservations or exceptions in patents, or an act authorizing the issuance thereof; water rights, claims or title to water. 7. Any and all unpaid taxes and assessments and any unredeemed tax sales. The effect of inclusions in any general or specific water conservancy, fire protection, soil conservation or other district or inclusion in any water service or street improvement area. 8. Right of the proprietor of a vein or lode to extract and remove his ore therefrom, should the same be found to penetrate or intersect the premises hereby granted, as reserved in United States Patent recorded January 3, 1898 in Book 55 at Page 78 as Reception No. 61549. 9. Right of way for ditches or canals constructed by the authority of the United States, as reserved in United States Patent recorded January 3, 1898 in Book 55 at Page 78 as Reception No. 61549. 10. Right of the proprietor of a vein or lode to extract and remove his ore therefrom, should the same be found to penetrate or intersect the premises hereby granted, as reserved in United States Patent recorded January 30, 1917 in Book 55 at Page 545 as Reception No. 78454. 000073 11. Right of way for ditches or canals constructed by the authority of the United States, as reserved in United States Patent recorded January 30, 1917 in Book 55 at Page 545 as Reception No. 78454. 12. Easement and right of way to lay, maintain, operate, repair, remove and replace pipelines, valves and other gas distribution facilities as granted to Rocky Mountain Natural Gas Company, Inc. by Nino F. Hirsig and Samy B. Hirsig in the instrument recorded. October 19, 1961 in Book 195 at Page 440 as Reception No. 112287, affecting the following described property: That certain tract of land more fully described in Book 190 at Page 349 of the Pitkin County records. 13. Terms, conditions, obligations and provisions of Easement Agreement between James P. Fox and Patrick M. Fox recorded June 3, 1985 in Book 487 at Page 100 as Reception No. 268622. 14. Terms, conditions, obligations and provisions of Grant of Easement recorded June 3, 1985 in Book 487 at Page 105 as Reception No. 268623. 15. Grant of Easement as conveyed to G. Gary Gidley recorded June 12, 1985 in Book 487 at Page 786 as Reception No. 268887. 16. Grant of Easement as conveyed to The Fox Partnership recorded July 10, 1989 in Book 597 at Page 76 as Reception No. 313183. 17. Terms, conditions, obligations and provisions of Resolution No. 89-75 of the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado recorded August 29, 1989 in Book 600 at Page 734 as Reception No. 314611 and Resolution No. 095-2001 amending said resolution recorded May 24, 2001 as Reception No. 454750. 18. Terms, conditions, obligations, provisions and easements of Easement Agreement by and between Patrick Fox and Alred Braun as set forth in instrument recorded April 2, 1998 as Reception No. 415194. 19. Terms, conditions, obligations and provisions of Administrative Decision of the Community Development Director of Pitkin County, Colorado, Granting Approval to Bill and Nancy MacKenzie and Patrick Fox for a Subdivision Exemption for a Lot Line Adjustment and Minor Plat Amendment, Administrative Decision No. 99-31 as set forth in instrument recorded August 10, 1999 as Reception No. 434297. 20. Easements, rights of way and other matters as shown and contained on the Plats of the subject property recorded September 14, 1989 in Plat Book 23 at Page 39 as Reception No. 315027, and recorded February 13, 1997 in Plat Book 41 at Page 89 as Reception No. 401776 and recorded September 13, 1999 in Plat Book 51 at Page 20 as Reception No. 435434. 21. This policy does not insure title to land comprising the shores or bottoms of rivers and is subject to any build up or loss of property along Roaring Fork River and Woody Creek, caused by the processes of accretion and reliction, or caused by man made changes in the flow of water or in the course of the river bank or river channel; also subject to the free and unobstructed flow of the water of said river. ~~~0~~ 22. Easement and Right-of-Way for Walthem Ditch insofar as it may affect subject property. 23. Encroachments of houses and decks outside of building envelope as shown on Improvement Survey prepared by Aspen Survey Engineers; Inc. dated 6/04 as Job 25106D. NOTE: Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 3-5-1, Paragraph C of Article VII requires that "Every title entity shall be responsible for all matters which appeaz of record prior to the time of recording whenever the title entity conducts the closing and is responsible for recording or filing of legal documents resulting from the transaction which was closed." Provided that Stewart Title of Aspen, Inc. conducts the closing of the insured transaction and is responsible for recording the legal documents from the transaction, exception number 5 will not appeaz on the Owner's Title Policy and the Lender's Policy when issued. NOTE: Policies issued hereunder will be subject to the terms, conditions, and exclusions set forth in the ALTA 1992 Policy form. Copies of the 1992 form Policy Jacket, setting forth said terms, conditions and exclusions, will be made available upon request. 0~0~75 DISCLOSURES Purruant to C.R.S. 10-11-122; notice is hereby given that: A. The subject real property maybe located in a Special Taxing District:. B. A Certificate of Taxes due listing each taxingjurisdiction shall be obtained form the Count}' Treasurer or the County Treasurer's authorized agent; C. Information regazding Special Districts and the boundaries of such districts may be obtained from the Board of County Corntnissioners, the County Clerk and Recorder; or the County Assessor. Note: Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 3-5-1; Pazagraph C of Article VII requires that "Every title entity shall be responsible for all matters which appear of record prior to the time of recording whenever the title entity conducts the closing and is responsible for recording or filing of legal documents resulting from the transaction which was closed." Provided that Stewart Title of Aspen, Inc. conducts the closing of the insured transaction and is responsible for recording the legal documents from the transaction, exception number 5 will not appear on the Owner's Title Policy and the Lender's Title Policy when issued. Note: Affirmative Mechanic's Lien Protection for the Owner may be available (typically by deletion of Exception No. 4 of Schedule B, Section 2 of the Commitment form the Owner's Policy to be issued) upon compliance with the following conditions: A. The land described in Schedule A of this commitment must be a single family residence, which includes a condominium or townhouse unit. B. No labor or materials have been famished by mechanics or materialmen for purposes of construction on the land described in Schedule A of this Commitment within the past 6 months. C. The Company must receive an appropriate affidavit indemnifying the Company against unfiled mechanic's and materiahnen's liens. D. The Company must receive payment of the appropriate premium E. If there has been construction, improvements or major repairs undertaken on the property to be purchased, within six months prior to the Date of Commitment, the requirements to obtain coverage for unrecorded Liens will include: disclosure of certain construction information; fmancial information as to the seller, the builder and/or the contractor; payment of the appropriate premium; fully executed Indemnity agreements satisfactory to the company; and; any additional requirements as may be necessary after an examinarion of the aforesaid information by the Company. No coverage will be given under any circumstances for labor or material for which the insured has contracted for or agreed to pay. NOTHING HEREIN CONTAINED WILL BE DEEMED TO OBLIGATE THE COMPANY TO PROVDE ANY OF THE COVERAGES REFERRED TO HEREIN UNLESS THE ABOVE CONDITIONS ARE FULLY SATISFIED. File Number: 42786-C2 Srewzrt Title of Aspen, lnc. Disclosures( (~ w~ Pa6o~gfil`1 V I PRIVACY POLICY NOTICE PURPOSE OF THIS NOTICE Title V of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) generally prohibits any financial institution, directly or through its affiliates, from sharing nonpublic personal information about you with a nonaffiliated third party unless the institution provides you with a notice of its privacy policies and practices, such as the type of information that it collects about you and the categories of persons or entities to whom it may be disclosed. In compliance with the GLBA, we are providing you with this document, which notifies you of the privacy policies and practices of Stewart Title of Aspen, Inc.. We may collect nonpublic personal information about you from the following sources: • Information we receive from you, such as on applications or other forms. • Information about your transactions we secure from our files, or from our affiliates or others. • Information we receive from a consumer reporting agency. • Information that we receive from others involved in your transaction, such as the real estate agent or lender. Unless it is specifically stated otherwise in an amended Privacy Policy Notice, no additional nonpublic personal information will be collected about you. We may disclose any of the above information that we collect about our customers or former customers [o our affiliates or to nonaffiliated third parties as permitted by law. We also may disclose this information about our customers or former customers to the following types of nonaffiliated companies that perform marketing services on our behalf or with whom we have joint marketing agreements: • Financial service providers such as companies engaged in banking, consumer finance, securities and insurance. • Non-financial companies such as envelope staffers and other fulfillment service providers. WE DO NOT DISCLOSE ANY NONPUBLIC PERSONAL INFORMATION ABOUT YOU WITH ANYONE FOR ANY PURPOSE THAT IS NOT SPECIFICALLY PERMITTED BY LAW. We restrict access to nonpublic personal information about you to those employees who need to know that information in order to provide products or services to you. We maintain physical, electronic, and procedural safeguards that comply with federal regulations to guard your nonpublic personal information. File Number: 42786-C2 Stewart Trtl< of Aspen, Inc. Privacy Pohcy Notice Page i of l OQO ~7 J PRIVACY POLICY NOTICE PURPOSE OF THIS NOTICE Title V of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) generally prohibits any fmancial institution, directly or through its affiliates, from sharing nonpublic personal information about you with a nonaffiliated third party unless the institution provides you with a notice of its privacy policies and practices, such as the type of information that it collects about you and the categories of persons or entities to whom it may be disclosed. In compliance with the GLBA, we are providing you with this document, which notifies you of the privacy policies and practices of Stewart Title Guaranty Company. We may collect nonpublic personal information about you from the following sources: • Information we receive from you, such as on applications or other forms. • Information about your transactions we secure from our files, or from our affiliates or others. • Information we receive from a consumer reporting agency. • Information that we receive from others involved in your transaction, such as the real estate agent or lender. Unless it is specifically stated otherwise in an amended Privacy Policy Notice, no additional nonpublic personal information will be collected about you. We may disclose any of the above information that we collect about our customers or former customers to our affiliates or to nonaffiliated third parties as permitted by law. We also may disclose this information about our customers or former customers to the following types of nonaffiliated companies that perform mazketing services on our behalf or with whom we have joint marketing ageements: • Financial service providers such as companies engaged in banking, consumer finance, securities and insurance. • Non-financial companies such as envelope stuffers and other fulfillment service providers. WE DO NOT DISCLOSE ANY NONPUBLIC PERSONAL INFORMATION ABOUT YOU WITH ANYONE FOR ANY PURPOSE THAT IS NOT SPECIFICALLY PERMITTED BY LAW. We restrict access to nonpublic personal information about you to those employees who need to know that information in order to provide products or services to you. We maintain physical, electronic, and procedural safeguards that comply with federal regulations to guard your nonpublic personal information. File Number: 4286-C2 S1ewaY Title of Aspen, Inc. Privacy Policy Nonce Page i of 1 oooo~~ Impression antibourrage et a sechage rapide ~ www.avery.com U AVEi2Yo s16o~ Utilisez le gabarit 5160` 1.800-GO-AVERY t~ GAECHTER ANN E PO BOX 285 WOODYCREEK,CO 81656 GRABER GAR`/ JESS & JANE L PO BOX 233 WOODY CREEK, CO 81656 MCKENZIE WILLIAM HURRAY 1l2 INT PO e0X 249 WOODY CREEK, CO 81656 HOSTELLER DAVID 4100 E MISSISSIPPI AVE #1400 DENVER, CO 80246 ~~OQ~~ WOODY CREEK PASTURES C/O WILLIAM ODONNELL 144 GREEN BAY RD WINNETKA,IL 60093 AN3AH-O'D-008-1 ®0915 31b'1dW31 ®tiany asD ®09L5 'JA~~d ~ ~ wortiane•nnnnm 6ugw~d aaij a6pnw5 pue wed PITHIN COi1N'I~OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1;~ARTMENT 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 . (970) 920-5526 FAX# (970) 920-5439 May 26, 2006 Janver Darrington 610 East Hyman Ave Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Mosteller 1041 Hazard Review (CASE P129-06; PID 2643-081-02-002) Deaz Mr. Darrington: The Planning Office has completed its preliminary review of the captioned application. We have determined that this application is complete. After a more detailed review of the submittal information, additional information specific to the application may be requested in order to adequately review and process the application. The planner in chazge of the review will request the information from you directly. If you have any quesfions, please call Mike Kraemer, the planner assigned to your case, at 920-5482. Sincerely, Bonnie Waechtler Administrative Assistant UUUU~C~ PITKIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 920-5526 FAX# (970) 920-5439 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Fire District Woody Creek Caucus Colorado Division Of Wildlife FROM: Mike Kraemer, Community Development Department Re: Mosteller 1041 Hazard Review (PID 2643-081-02-002, Case P129-06) DATE: May 26, 2006 Attached for your review and comments are materials for an application submitted by David Mosteller. The Pitkin County Community Development Director will review the application. Please return your comments to me by Friday, June 16, 2006. PLEASE RETURN APPLICATION MATERIALS TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT IF YOU HAVE NO FURTHER NEED OF THEM. Thank you. Q~0~~~1 CO ~ NITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTME~ 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 920-5526 Pitkin County Land Use: 172 Board of Adjustment 159 County Land Use Code 174 Flat Fee 162 Zoning and Sign 169 Public Notice 160 Planning Enforcement 175 Hearing Officer Referral Fees: 210 Airport LUCO1 County Clerk 211 County Engineer 194 Environmental Health 208 Historic 198 Housing 190 Land Management 209 Redstone HPC 206 Wildlife Officer Building Fees: t70 Board of Appeals 105 Building Permit 120 Electrical Permit 195 Energy Code Review 115 Mechanical Permit 150 Plan Check 110 Plumbing Permit 130 Reinspection ]52 AVFD Fire Mazshal 158 BFD Fire Mazshal Other Fees: 155 Use Tas 165 Copy PZ005 Master Plan Copy 185 Park Dedication 186 Parking Cash in Lieu IS GIS Requirements 161 Housing Impact Fee B1202 Road Impact Fee B1203 School Impact Fee TOTAL ADDRESS/PROJECT CHECK# 22 9 CASE/PERMITq~ D ~ INITIAL. i PITKIN COUNTY CHECK REQUISITION (Please attach any appropriate papers) DATE: 3/5/08 AMOUNT: $2,240 CHARGE ACCT. Short Code: BI 174 GL Account: 002.02.00000.63342 PAYMENT MADE TO: Janver Derrington 610 East Hyman Ave Aspen, CO 81611 REASON: Did not conduct review. DEPT. HEAD APPROVAL: Lance Clarke (PLEASE SIGN AND BATE) 00003