HomeMy WebLinkAbout273512457001_0020.2012.paem8'=rn."' 290
--.m'·322%;.-,-44 :r.•#Ria....
Cover Sheet
Pitkin County Community Development
Permit Number-0020.2012.PAEM
Parcel ID:2735-12-4-57-001
Address.15 LITTLE CLOUD TRL
ASPEN, CO 81611
Owner Name:TERRY R & CYNTHIA E TAY
411
1,1 ri·-7,1..1 ·r·. -ri · .129·-aw#794 7 ¢i ' ':,44*04,MVIA,-Ylitl*wiii„I„I,tl
p 'r
ME,Ne,LhabAL,90464.14,%4*'al=iaia-
iir
0*144'0*71*12)*111*0•1"iq//I/*
ACCESS DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION
130 S Galena Street. · Aspen, CO · 81611
970-920-5524 Fax 970-920-5439 Permit#9000,. 02/0 84*-lih
w,Aw aspenpitkin corn
Receipt #33403 9 10--79.€)
VALID PERMIT MUST BE KEPT ON SITE AT ALL TIMES
Peri -' '/''e year unless other¢)se specified.mt valia ror Rn
1. Address of property to be accessed:90 %(d 1 1
2. Legal description of property to be accessed:LE c li»(UD 4,0,4 15619
3 Owner(s)'s Name·Contact Number:Mailing Address·
terry *4 64-10+D,R -Get jor 15 L']411€ Ljouj) Ihi,e,4 60:4. Owners Authorized Agdht |Contact Number.Mailing Address:
Will·zIN Nu ypphrey 616 -1156 115 Ebe,?wler#YEA M]) 034:510113 Aspef)5. Contractor's'Name Contact Number·Mailing Address/Flve Riv·Er £&4lrc,48 311-11£,to *cK -3175 County &1 '001 6,4 r 6,0'Ak
6. Architect or Engineer on Record:Contact Number-Mailing Address,
vi NUDZ'hr 603-31-7- 21 31 Ff? 6-1-ed 64-.De/\ver
7. Parcel ID number of property to be accessed:Check http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Deparments/Assessor or call the Pitkin
2 -7 SS /1 4 5 7001 County Assessots Office at 970-920-5160 for the parcel ID number.
8. Property also known as: (Provde a detailed mop showing the location at legible scale)Li ttle OlouX 64,4, Lot-4 3-- It
9. Land use approval number(s)
I--u.0 G -·tuj,>J QQ--6£\L.v,evl Af\1€2..v,e-V<-C pk.1444 4.- I I (-Avj l, 1 00'.,7)
10. Is there existing access?Ye»
11.For residences, list the number and type of dwelling units. ····U2- 9 MOLL P*10,\4 4 K.delj.6762.6 w 114 4 44 b A.
12. For commercial buildbg, list the number/sq. f[.6f building(s).
13. Type of material to be excavated or placed on property:
138. Material will be brought from:IN€91€nt 5'67¥86·eb. Is the material possibly contaminated? Yes £40
13c. Excavated material will be taken to:M-1}-6/1 -2 [4
14. Description of work:bu/(4\ao V·.5.31 w....
Total acreage or square footage of disturbance:94 se Max cut depth: 1- Et
Total cubic yards of material moved: '23 a v·tt > ,Max fill depth:75 Ft
15. Will the project result in disturbance of 2 1 acre of land? Yes No V'
15a. If you answered "Yes", submit a copy of your state Construction Stormwater Permit or R-Factor waiver. Information on this permit is
available at: http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/wq/PermitsUnit/stormwater/construction.html.
16. Is any portion of the project already complete?Foggl \t yes,give feason and date(s) of prior construction activity.St¢Id| 9 uggy-4 1 1. .
17. Will the project disturb/result in removal of any ve®tation? Yes No 1/
17a. If you answered "Yes"submit a revegetation plan, including a plant list with scientfic names of species. planting schedule and method
of irrigation. The County's Revegetation Guidelines are available at: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Public-Works/Land-
Management.
17b, How willyou prevent the establishment of noxious weeds at the project?10/A
18. Will the project result in disturbance of any wetlands or riparian areas? Yes No 1/
18a. If you answered "Yes", submit a description of your revegetation/mitigation plan, including a plant list with scientific names of spedes,
planting schedule and method of irrigation. Also submit a copy of your U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Sec. 404 permit in connection wlth
any disturbance of "jurisdictional waters" of the U-S Contact the U.S Army Corps of Engineers in Grand Junction (970-243-1199) for
information on Sec. 404 permit requirements.
Access Permit 2011.xls 8.1.11
19. Will the project involve work in the Pitkin County Right of Way? Yes No l/"
19a. If you answered "Yes" a County Right of Way Work Permit must be obtained prior to commencing work. Information on this permit is
available at: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Public-Works/Engineering-Road-Bridge or by calling Public Works at 970-920-
5390. ,
20. Will the project disturb/involve work in the 1 00-year fiood plain? Yes No 4
208. Ifyou answered "Yes" a County Floodplain Development Permit must be obtained prior to commencing work. Information on this permit
is available at http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development-Pitkin-County/Planning -and-Zoning/Land-Use-
Engineering/.
Having carefully read the requirements, 1 (Applicant) hereby agree to the terms and conditions described within. This form is a permit
only when validated by County·staff. Work started without a permit will be subject to Pitkin County enforcement action and charged
double 1rrittlfes.
21.7TOffl«'Te, b -tu.Q w. 21a
UUJ V«J
/
22. Signaturhof Property IV«[19481: ,/-22a. Date:
. Date:
/2/FOR STAFF USE ONLY (DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE):
23. Additional Terms and Conditions of Permit (check all that apply):
At the time of issuance of this permit you are required to post $as financial security 10 ensure successful
completion of your revegetation plan. These monies will be held for two growing seasons from the date of completion of the project and
will only be released at that time if a site visit by Pitkin County Zoning confirms that successful revegetation has been accomplished.
Applicant is obligated to contact Pitkin County Zonjng (970-429-2799) to schedule the required two-year site visit. The monies will be
forfeited if successful revegetation is not confirmed after two growing seasons, or if Applicant fails to timely schedule the required site
visit.
Other:
Access Permit Application:
(Flat fee due at submittal)
...
tr>/
The following additional referral fees may be required to be paid prior to issuance of this permit for major projects:
County Engineer Referral Fee: $225
Additional Flat Fee for Applications Involving Large Scale Undergrounding of Utilities & Earthmoving Projects: $225
You will also be invoiced by Pitkin County Staff for any review and follow up inspection time exceeding 3 hours at a rate of $150/hr.
Date Permit Application
Received:
Permit Flat Fee (due at submittal)
Additional Fees (due at issuance):
Check #
Check#
Date Permit Issued:TOTAL FEE (no refunds):
24. Staff Comments:
25. Approved by Pitkin County Engineer:
26. Approved by Fire Department:
NIA
27. Approved by Pitkin County revegetation specialist:K)/A
28. Approved by Pitkin E=*Planning/Zoning TH
/¥CA (Al re_ C -3-pl 14_
Lil -
253. Date:
26a. Date:
278. Date:
283. Date:
1/al,1
Access Permit 2011.xls 8.1.11
David Hach
From:David Hach
Sent:Tuesday, June 26, 2012 12:01 PM
To:'rhalevy@sopris.net'
Subject:15 Little Cloud
Rick,
Thank you for meeting with me today.
The wall is acceptable and the permit (permit # 0020.2012.PAEM) will be closed.
David Hach
Pitkin County Community Development
(970) 920-5359
1
Compliance Letter
CO
Date:June 18. 2012
NEUJAHR
To Mr. Rick Halevy AND
Company:Blue River Const. Mgmt. LLC GORMAN, INC.
CONSULTING
Fax No.970-704-1966 e-mail rickh@blueriverconstruction. net STRUCTURAL
Phone No.(970) 429-0678 ENGINEERS
88 STEELE ST
Project·Guardrail Wall SUITE 200
Project No: 211079 DENVER, CO
80206-5719
Pages Sent: (including this page) 1 (303) 377-2732
003) 377-4573
Sent By:Stan Neujahr, P.E. (SGN)
Message To Whom It May Concernl
This will serve to confirm that I reviewed the micro-pile test logs dated
5-14-12, observed the footing forming and reinforcing placement on
May 18 ,2012 and reviewed the wall forming and reinforcing placement
on May 23, 2012
Based on these observations and reviews I can confirm that the micro-
pile installation and footing and wail forming and reinforcing placement
was constructed in substantial conformance to the approved plans and
specifications.
Feel free to give me a call if there are additional questions or concerns
regarding our observations.
Stan Neujahr, P.E.
Copy To.
Company
Fax Number:
L.fd 17557 1:
00202012
Re: Little Cloud Guard Wall
Dear Lance:
As you know. I have represented Terry and Cynthia Taylor for several years in
connection with their Lot 1 at Little Cloud Subdivision. Aspen Colorado. I am writing on their
behalf to discuss the installation of the contemplated Guard Wall along the Little Cloud Drive.
On August 16. 2007. the Taylors entered into a Settlement Agreement and Mutual
Release ("First Agreement"). Paragraph 1 of the First Agreement required the LPI Developers
(as defined) to design and build a Guard Wall along an alignment of the Little Cloud Driveway;
generally from the western edge of the Taylor driveway up to a point just next to Lot 2. This
alignment is depicted now in the plans be submitted by Blue River Construction, LLC and Rick
Halevy.
On February 10,2011, the Taylors and Thomas Lewis and LPI Aspen. Inc. entered into a
Partial Settlement Agreement ("Second Agreement"). Pursuant to Paragraph 11 of the Second
Agreement the Taylors agreed to undertake the obligation to build the Guard Wall at their
expense.
It is my understanding that you wanted this communication for your file. It is also our
understanding that with this letter Blue River can immediately pick up an Access Permit so that
they can construct the Guard Wall during the remainder of this off season.
We have previously forwarded you a Letter from BI)DC Trust which is the record owner
of Lots 3 and 4 and signed by Thomas Dundon. Tom Lewis has requested and received a Proof
of Insurance for Blue River and HP Geotech who issued a letter concerning the design of the
Guard Wall approving it. Additionally, the Little Cloud Homeowner s Association has been
named as an additional assured.
We are awaiting another approval letter from Thomas Lewis of LPI Aspen - the owner of
Lot 2. I will deliver the two Settlement Agreements. i believe that you have an e-mail with his
okay pending insurance coverage issues being resolved.
--Very tr yours,Pitkin County
Matthew C. Ferguson MAY 0 2 2012
Community Development
00202012
LPI ASPEN, INC.
1850 SouTHEAST 17TH STREET
SUITE 305
FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33316
May 2,2012
PIA E-MAIL lancec(*co.pitkin.co.us
Mr. Lance Clarke - AICP
Assistant Pitkin County Planning Director
Pitkin County Community Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re:
Property:
Applicant:
Lot 1, Little Cloud Subdivision
Terry R. Taylor and Cynthia Taylor
Dear Mr. Clarke:
LPI Aspen, Inc. owns unimproved real property known as Lot 2, Little Cloud Subdivision,
located in Pitkin County.
LPI consents to the construction of the Guard Wall in the agreed upon alignment and as
designed by Stan Neujahr, P.E., of Neujahr & Gorman, Inc. Consulting Structural Engineers. This
approval is conditioned on the Guard Wall extending no furtherthan the property line between Lot 1
and Lot 2. We understand and approve construction of the Guard Wall this coming "off season".
Very truly yours,
Thomas 67£@wis. President
Pitkin County
MAY 0 2 2012
Community Development
THE BDDC TRUST
3232 MCKINNEY AVENUE
SUITE 1400
DALLAS, TEXAS 75204
March& 2012
PZ4 U.S. MAIL AND E-MAIL (where available)
Mr. Lance Clarke - AICP
Assistant Pitkin County Planning Director
Pitkin County Community Development Department
130 South Gatena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re:
Property:
Applicant:
Lot 1, Little Cloud Subdivision
Terry R. Taylor and Cynthia Taylor
Dear Mr. Clarke:
The BDDC Trust owns unimproved real property known as Lot 3, Little Cloud Subdivision,
located in Pitkin County, Colorado, as well as improved Lot 4.
The BDDC trust consents to the construction ofthe Guard Wallin the agreed upon alignment
and as designed by Stan Neujahr, P,E., ofNeujah.r & Gorman, Inc. Consulting Structural Engineers.
We understand and approve construction of the Guard Wall this coming "off season",
Very truly yours,
, Truste
G*Etech
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL
Hepwith-Pawl.ak licitel|Ink.,1. till
5020 Counn· Road 1 54
C ilemvoid frring& lt)|,11,1.|l' %1(.01
1 Ikine: 970·045 -798,%
Fax: 970·945·8454
l·lirail: 1]gr.r/hpue•,rech ujni
May 30,2012
BIue River Construction
Attn: Rick Halevy
3275 County Road 100
Carbondale, Colorado 81623
Job No. I 10 071B
Subject:Observation o f Excavation for Proposed Parapet/Guardrail Wall, Downhill
Side ofExisting Access Drive above Lot 1, Little Cloud, Aspen, Pitkin
County, Colorado
Dear Rick:
As requested, the undersigned representative of Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, 1nc. met
with you at the site on May 16,2012 and observed the excavation near the top of the
existing boulder wall. The purpose of our visit was to evaluate the excavation with regard
to the existing slope and boulder wall stability. The services were performed in
accordance with our agreement for pro fessional engineering services to you, dated April
25.2012. We previously provided a review of the proposed parapet/guardrail wall in a
letter dated April 26, 2012, Job No. 110 071 B.
Proposed Construction: The new parapet/guardrail wall is proposed along the
alignment of the previous guardrail for a length of about 140 feet. The new wall will be
set on a concrete grade beam supported on micropiles.
Site Observations: The excavation was cut in multiple levels stepping down with the
road at the back of the existing boulder wall. The original micropiles were installed at
about 8 tbot spacing. Additional micropiles had been recently installed between the
original micropiles so that the spacing is now about 4 feet. The depth o f excavation is
generally between I and 2 feet. The micro pile bars extended at least 8 inches above the
subgrade. Some grinding of the tops of boulders was being performed to provide a full
depth grade beam/pile cap. We observed no evidence o f instability associated with the
downhill boulder wall, such as ground cracks, excessive erosion or apparent movement of
the boulders.
Conclusions: Based on our observations at the site and our understanding ofthe existing
and proposed construction, the excavation for the grade beam appears to be in general
conformance with the structural plans and does not appear to have adversely affected the
existing boulder wall or stability o f the roadway,
Parker 303-841-7119 • Color:i,Ic, Spring> 719-633-5502 • Silverthorne 970-468-1989
Blue River Construction
May 30,2012
Page 2
The conclusions submitted in this letter are based on our understanding ofthe existing
conditions and proposed construction. We should be informed o f variations in subsurface
conditions encountered during construction which could change the recommendations
contained in this letter.
If you have any questions or need further assistance, please call our office.
Sincerely,
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTCHNICAL INC.-4-r &'20* '
e....0 %00: fDaniel E. Hardin, P.Ii* 1£' 24443 3 1
1 4% /*f
Rev. by: SLP %%>.-...1*f
4 0/ONAL EN e*44„,111,11,1%,twl,0
DEH/ksw
Job No. 110 071 B
(34Etech
1 [,1.u,irli t':14,114 (ie.re.·hrii„ 11.113.
x020(:,unt, 1.,id 154
Ph·,n.·970·943-796·i
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL P Ix. 070·045.4454
un.iiI. hre·,4'14,2„?rech u'113
April 26, 2012
Blue River Construction
Attn: Rick Halevy
3275 County Road 100
Carl)ondale, Colorado 81623
Job No. 110 071B
Subject:Review ofProposed Parapet/Guardrail Wall, Downhill Side of Existing
Access Drive Above Lot 1, Little Cloud, Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado
Dear Ricki
As requested, a representative of Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. observed the
existing guardrail and boulder wall conditions at the subject site with you on April 25,
2012. The purpose of our visit was to evaluate the proposed construction with regard to
the existing slope and boulder wall stability. The services were performed in accordance
with our agreement for professional engineering services to you, dated April 25,2012.
Proposed Construction: A new parapet/guardrail wall is proposed along the alignment
ofthe existing guardrail. The new wall will be designed in accordance with CDOT
specifications including the ability to withstand a 6,000 pound load at 27 inches above the
roadway. The new wall will be a reintbrced cast-in-place concrete wall clad in a stone
veneer. The length of the new wall will be about 140 feet. The original design was for a
frost-depth concrete footing and stem wall supporting the above-grade portion ofthe wall.
The proposed wall would not retain the driveway subgrade.
Site Observations: The existing access drive is a gravel-surfaced single lane road cut
into the hillside, The sides of the road are supported with boulder walls. The downhill
side of the road is supported with a 3 to 6 foot high boulder wall with boulders of 3 to 6
feet is size. We observed no evidence of instability associated with the downhill boulder
wall, such as ground cracks, excessive erosion, seepage, slumping or bulging of the wall
or apparent movement of the boulders.
The existing guardrail consists of a double 2xl 0 pressure-treated wood rail supported on
steel posts bolted to concrete piers set into the edge of the roadway. The top of the rail is
about 2% feet above the road surface. The piers are about 8 feet apart. We understand
that each ofthe concrete piers is a formed pile cap for two nlicropiles drilled about 20 feet
into the underlying soils. One ofthe micropiles is vertical and one is battered back into
the roadway at about 30 degrees from vertical.
Rick suggested that the new wall could be supported similar to the existing guardrail
rather than excavating a trench 3!4 feet deep along the entire wall alignment to install a
Parker 303.841-7119 • (1,1,}radii Sprilit.> 719-613-35(12 • Silverthorni· 970-468-1989
GUEtech
Blue River Construction
April 26, 2012
Page 2
traditional footing type tbundation. Rick suggested installing additional micropiles
between the existing piers so that the new pier spacing would be about 4 feet. The same
micropile company would drill the new piles. The existing pier caps would be removed
to expose the top ofthe micropile bars. A continuous grade beam would then be placed
joining the piers together and providing a base for forming the parapet wall.
Conclusions: Based on our observations at the site and our understanding of the existing
and proposed construction, we agree that placing additional micropiles to support the new
wall with piles on 4 foot spacing would not reduce the overall slope stability or stability
of the existing boulder wall. The slope on the downhill side ofthe access drive is retained
by the existing boulder wall and the new parapet wall is not designed to provide
additional retaining support.
The conclusions submitted in this letter are based on our understanding of the existing
conditions and proposed construction. We should be inibrmed of variations in subsurface
conditions encountered during construction which could change the recommendations
contained in this letter. If needed, the design of subsurface elements could be changed to
reflect the changed conditions.
If you have any questions or need further assistance, please call our office.
Sincerely,
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GE*ggNICAL, INC.T*
( 1»U-•nf & 1 8:vDaniel E. Hardin, P.E,• i 24443 3 3
1 4 4/2-7// 31-4 f
Reviewed by: SLP 5.401' .«f
, ONAL VV
DEH/ljg
Job No. "0071B
GNEtech