Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.planning.273706301009DOCUMENT LAYOUT THIS FILE MAY OR MAY NOT CONTAIN ALL OF THE INFORMATION LISTED BELOW IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER Summary Sheet Resolution 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) Parcel ID: 2737- 06 -3 -01 -009 Application Date: 11/21/07 Description: Wagner Activity Envelope, Site Plan and GMQS Exemption WITHDRAWN Project Address: 200 SABIN DR, ASPEN, CO 81611 Property Owner: 0200 SABIN ROAD LLC Address 301 COMME Owner's REP: JANVER DERRINGTON REP's Email: Referrals: CDOW FIRE DEPT -ASPEN ALL OTHER REFERRALS Comments Due Date: Meetings: 1st Meeting: Meeting Date: Review Body: admin Public Hearing? yes Notice Date: Meeting Notes- RU E ST, #1830 FORT WORTH, TX 76102 Address 610 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 Other Referrals: Red Mountain Ranch HOA 2nd Meeting: Approvals: BOCC Resolution #: BOCC Ordinance #: Admin Determination #: Other Information: VR Approval Date: Plat Recorded Date: VR Expires Date. Plat (Bk, PG): Remarks: app to rep & refer 11130107Hbj Application Type: Activity Envelope Site Plan GMQS Exemption P &Z Determination #: HO Determination #: Planner: Case # Copies: 4 Allocated Hours: 12 % Over Hours. 4.4 Owner Phone: REP's Phone: (970) 925 -5590 3rd Meeting: Michael Kraemer From: Janver Derrington (janverd @Cunniffe.coml Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 2:53 PM To: Michael Kraemer Cc: Charles Cunniffe, jdancy @duerwagner3.com Subject: RE: Wagner Mike, As we discussed in our telephone conversation, this project was abandoned by the Owner and therefore it would appear that you can close this case. Any subsequent proposals for development of this vacant lot will require a completely new land use application. Thank you, Janver From: Michael Kraemer [mailto: Michael .Kraemer @co.pitkin.co. us] Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 20113:55 PM To: Janver Derrington Subject: Wagner Janver— I'm writing because we have a pending land use application named "Wagner Activity Envelope, Site Plan, and GMQS Exemption" from 11 -21 -2007 (Case P170 -07). There has been no action on the case for a number of months so we've decided that if no further action is taken on the case we will close the case two weeks from today — Tuesda October 181h. Thanks, IAfi M- Mike Kraemer Planner Community Development Department Pitkin County 130 S Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 970 920 5482(phone) 970 920 5439(fax) michael.kraemer(Mco.oitkin.co us Email secured by Check Point PITKIN COUNTY PRE - APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY LOCATION: Sabin Drive, Block 3, Lot 4, Red Mountain Ranch PID#: 2737 - 063 -01 -009 ZONING: R -30 OWNER: Wagner REPRESENTATIVES: Joseph Edwards and Joe Krabacher EMAIL and PHONE: 925 -5590; iosephe(aa)cunniffe.com 925 -6300; ikrabacher(d�krabacher.com DATE: August 16, 2006 PLANNER: Mike Kraemer, 920.5482 Type of Application: Activity Envelope, Site Plan, and GMQS Exemption Description of Project/Development: The Applicant seeking approval to establish an activity envelope and record a site plan to develop a single family residence on a vacant lot within the BOCC approved Red Mountain Ranch Subdivision (Book 4, Page 13). Land Use Code Sections to be addressed in letter of request (application): Sec. 2- 30- 20(g): Activity Envelope Criteria for Approval; Sec. 7- 10 -50: Activity Envelope; Sec. 7- 20 -20: Steep and Potentially Unstable Slopes; Sec. 7- 20- 20(e): Grading; Sec. 7- 20 -30: Water Courses and Drainage; Sec. 7 -20 -130: Landscaping and vegetation Protection. Sec. 7- 20 -60: Wildfire Hazard — Mapped Severe Wildfire Hazard Area; Sec. 7- 20 -70: Wildlife Habitat Sec. 7- 20- 120(d): Standards for Scenic View Protection Areas; Staff will refer the application to the following agencies: Red Mountain Ranch HOA, CDOW, and AFPD 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 least 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 be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appear no more than 60 days prior to the date of the public hearing. FEES: $2,822 (make check payable to " Pitkin County Treasurer ") • Planning Office flat fee: $2,772 (non - refundable; based on 12 hours of staff time; if staff review time exceeds 14.4 hours, the Applicant will be charged for additional time above 14 hours at a rate of $231/hour) o Public Notice Fee: $50 To apply, submit 4 copies of the following information, unless noted otherwise: 1. Summary letter explaining the request, providing background on prior approvals and permits, and addressing compliance with the Code sections listed above. 2. 24" by 36" and 11" by 17" Site Plan as designated in Section 2. 1.1 and 2.1.12 of the Pitkin County Land Use Application Manual; 3. Previous Land Use Approvals (if applicable); 4. Scenic View Protection Exhibits as designated in Section 2.1.12 of the Pitkin County Land Use Application Manual; 5. Proof of ownership of subject property; 6. Parcel description, including legal description and vicinity map; 000001 of 7. Total fee for review of the application; 8. Signed fee agreement (I copy); 9. Consent from owner(s) to process application and authorizing the representative (1 copy) 10. List of all adjacent property owners and mineral estate owners (1 copy) 11. Copies of this pre -app form NOTES: • PLEASE SUBMIT ONE UNBOUND AND ONE -SIDED COPY OF YOUR COMPLETE APPLICATION. PLEASE SUBMIT TWO - SIDED COPIES OF ALL REMAINING COPIES OF YOUR APPLICATION (IF POSSIBLE). THE PARCEL IDs SHOULD BE INCLUDED ONALL DOCUMENTSINCLUDED INYOUR APPLICATION • ALL MAPS SHALL BE FOLDED. • This pre - application conference summary is advisory in nature and not binding on the County. The information provided in this summary is based on current zoning standards and staff's interpretations based upon representations of the applicant. Additional information may be required upon a complete review of the application. 00000'2 CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIORS Charles L. Cunnille, AIA Principal Janver C. Derrington, AIA Principal August 3, 2007 Mike Kraemer, Planner Community Development Pitkin County 130 S, Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Activity Envelope, Site Plan and Scenic View Protection Lot 4, Block 3, Red Mountain Ranch Subdivision Parcel I.D.# 2737 - 063 -01 -009 Dear Mike: Pursuant to the requirements outlined on the attached Pre - Application Conference Summary, we are submitting this Application for Administrative Review by the Community Development Director. This parcel is part of the Red Mountain Ranch Subdivision which was platted and recorded with Pitkin County in 1969. More recently, the Applicant submitted a request for a Minor Plat Amendment on February 5, 2007, to reduce the width of the private road access easement from 30 feet to 18 feet with the remaining 12 feet to be a landscaped visual screen. This has recently been approved by Administrative Review and is currently being recorded. Please refer to Exhibit A -1, A -2, & A -3. The Owner of adjoining Lot 3 has signed a letter of consent with conditions to facilitate the required minor plat amendment. Please refer to Exhibits A -4 and A -5. The proposed development of this parcel is to build a Single Family Residence containing 3,645 sq. ft. of living area plus a 650 sq. ft., 2 car garage. This is well below the 5,750 sq. ft. permitted by right. Approximately half of the structure will be below grade on the northerly side and will be earth covered, thus further reducing the visual impact of the structure. This will be addressed in more detail later in this letter. Our response to the requirements of Section 2 -30 -20 (g) Criteria for Approval is as follows: 1. General a. We will demonstrate that this application will comply with the Land Use Code sections listed in the Pre - Application Conference Summary. 00000'1, 610 EAST HUMAN AVE ASPEN ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.5590 fax: 970.925.5076 info @cunniffe.com w .cunniffe.com CARBONDALE STEAMBOAT SPRINGS Mr. Mike Kraemer Page 2 August 3, 2007 b. This application will comply with all applicable Land Use Policies listed in Section 1 -60. c. There are no prior development approvals for this property. 2. Site Plan a. This application will comply with all applicable provisions of the Land Use Code. b. There is no previously approved Activity Envelope. c. This Application is proposing an Activity Envelope as depicted in the attached Activity Envelope Plan and Site Plan. (Exhibits B -1, B -2 & B -3). 3. Activity Envelope The proposed Activity Envelope will encompass the proposed structure, re- grading, landscaping and access driveway. This Application is for a total building size of 4,150 sq. ft., which is lower than the allowable of 5,750 sq. ft. by right in Table 5 -1 for the R -30 Zone. This parcel is serviced by the Aspen /Consolidated Sanitation District. 4. Subdivision Exemptions for Lot Line Adjustments Not Applicable 5. Subdivision Exemptions for Minor Plat Amendments Not Applicable 6. Water Crossing or diversion The existing irrigation ditch is above and outside of the Activity Envelope. It is piped underground and will not be crossed or altered by this proposed development. 7. GMQS Exemptions available through Administrative Review Not Applicable B. Satellite Reception Devices Not Applicable 9. Agricultural Stand Not Applicable 10. Signs Not Applicable 11. Temporary Use, other Not Applicable 12. Temporary Commercial Uses / Special Events Not Applicable 13. Demolition Extensions Not Applicable 14. Certificate of No Effect for Property on Historic Register Not Applicable 15. Certificate for Property Listed on Historic Register or Listed on Historic Inventory with Historic Preservation Management Agreement. Not Applicable 16. Demolition Certificate for Property Listed on Historic Register or Listed on 0000 o1 Mr. Mike Kraemer Page 3 August 3, 2007 Historic Inventory with Historic Preservation Management Agreement. Not Applicable 17. Minor Amendment to a Development Permit Not Applicable 18. Major Amendment to a Development Permit Not Applicable Our response to the requirements of Section 7- 10 -50; Site Plan and Activity Envelope, is as follows: a. The proposed Site Plan and Activity Envelope does not encroach on any "Constrained Areas" that are defined and addressed in subsequent sections of this Application, as required in the Pre - Application Conference Summary. b. The proposed Site Plan was reviewed during the Pre - Application Conference. Although several of the Natural Hazard sections of the Land Use Code were requested to be addressed in the Summary, there are no significant issues to be mitigated as will be discussed in subsequent sections of this Application. c. The proposed Site Plan has defined the Activity Envelope to be large enough to accommodate the proposed structures, re- grading, landscaping and access driveway. It will not be significantly larger than the area needed for this redevelopment. All of the proposed development areas are contiguous. (Exhibit B -1) d. All of the proposed clearing, grubbing, grading / earth moving will be within the proposed Activity Envelope and a Civil Engineer, Mountain Cross Engineering has prepared a Drainage and Erosion Control Plan. (Exhibit C). The actual work will not begin until a Building Permit is obtained from Pitkin County. The Scenic View Protection will be addressed in a later section of this Application. e. Prior to any development activity, the Activity Envelope will be defined by snow fencing which will remain in place until development has been completed. There will be no disturbance of the natural grade, topography, vegetation or drainage outside of the defined Activity Envelope, except as may be required for Wildfire mitigation. f. This Application consists of both the Activity Envelope and Site Plan for the proposed development. g. All of the standards for development as set forth in Table 7 -1 of the Land Use Code will be addressed in this Application and show that the proposed development will be in compliance. Our response to the requirements of Section 7- 20 -20; Steep and Potentially Unstable Slopes is as follows: 000005 Mr. Mike Kraemer Page 4 August 3, 2007 a. The proposed Activity Envelope has shown the slopes within the Activity Envelope with two (2) foot contour intervals. (Exhibits B -1 & B- 2). The Legend defines the graphic pattern for slopes between fifteen (15) percent and (30) percent; thirty (30) percent or greater and (45) percent or greater. b. Development is prohibited on slope gradient equal to or exceeding forty five (45) percent, except 1. Where: a. The lot is in a legally platted subdivision, recorded prior to 1972. The Red Mountain Ranch subdivision was platted and recorded in 1969. b. There is no alternative building site that avoids areas of slope exceeding forty five (45) percent. There is no area on the lot that is less than forty five (45) percent slope except where the proposed residence is located. (Exhibit B -1) c. A licensed professional geotechnical engineer (HP Geotech) has prepared a report which states that with appropriate engineering there should be no hazard posed by the location of development on such slopes. (Exhibit D) d. The proposed development will comply with all standards on subsection (c) (i) below, and 2. As provided in subsection (c) (4) below. c. Thirty (30) Percent or Greater Gradient: 1. No alternative building site. As stated above, there is no alternative building site available on the parcel with slopes if less than thirty (30) percent and the proposed Site Plan may be approved by the Community Development Director subject to the following standards: a.) As stated above, HP Geotech has been engaged to monitor the project and the Applicant intends to also engage a soil stabilization engineer and a structural engineer at the appropriate stage of the work. b.) To the extent possible, the development will be designed so as to: avoid adding water to the site that could cause decreased stability; avoid removing the toe of the slope without adequate mechanical support; avoid increasing the weight on top of the slope; re- contour disturbed slopes so that they can be re- vegetated; avoid steepening of existing slopes. All of these issues will be adequately addressed by the aforementioned engineering consultants. 000 00 6 Mr. Mike Kraemer Page 5 August 3, 2007 c.) Upon approval of the proposed development the conditions set forth by the appropriate sections listed in the Pre - Application Conference Summary and the mitigation measures recommended by the engineering consultants will be fully compiled with. d.) Following the Site Plan Review, and prior to the application for the Building Permit, a precise engineer approved mitigation plan will be submitted by the Applicant that shows the area of the disturbed slope, any re- grading required and the exact size and location of all mitigation devices. The proposed mitigation measures must be determined by the Community Development Director to be the least visually and ecologically obtrusive alternatives. 3. Minor Slope Anomaly Not Applicable 4. Existing Roads and Driveways: The existing rough cut for the driveway to this parcel traverses slopes in excess of 45 (45) percent which is permitted under certain conditions: a. (ii) The rough cut was made in 1969, prior to the co entry's road or driveway permit system in 1993. b. The proposed driveway is legal use under the R -30 zone and will not change with this development. c. The improvements will be limited to the previously disturbed area in the platted access easement and will comply with the Pitkin County Road Management and Maintenance Plan for width, grade and curvature. d. The improvements will be the minimum required to ensure the safety of the general public and safety agency personnel. (e.g. District Fire Department) e. The aforementioned report from the geotechnical engineer states that the slope's ground surface is not prone to instability or failure and that the proposed improvements will not cause greater instability or increase the potential for slope failure. (Exhibit D) d. Less than Thirty (30) percent Gradient: Not Applicable e. Additional Standards: All activity and development on slopes with a gradient of thirty (30) percent or greater 1. Density Slope Reduction Not Applicable 2. Limits on Changing Natural Grade: 00000 Mr. Mike Kraemer Page 6 August 3, 2007 The original, natural grade of areas within the Activity Envelope will not be raised or lowered more than four (4) feet except where: a.) Engineered retaining walls will be utilized to raise or lower the original and /or previously disturbed grade within the Activity Envelope to reduce the steepness of man -made slopes. b.) Retaining walls are necessary to construct the driveway from the property line to the garage and parking area with grade changes that exceed seven (7) feet. 3. Grading for Accessory Building Pads Discouraged Not Applicable 4. Limits on Graded, Excavated or Filled Man -Made Slopes a.) Grading, excavation or filling as necessary will be held to twenty five (25) percent slopes as much as possible. b.) Graded or filled man -made slopes will not exceed fifty (50) percent. c.) Cut man -made surfaces or slopes will not exceed fifty (50) percent unless the geotechnical report states that the site has been investigated and professional opinion of the engineer is that a cut at a steeper slope will be stable and 'not create a hazard to public or private property. d.) All cut, filled and graded slopes will be re- contoured to the natural varied contour of the surrounding terrain. 5. Guidelines for Retaining Walls: Use of retaining walls is encouraged. a.) Retaining walls greater than four (4) feet except as provided below. b.) Retaining walls greater than (4) feet will be supported by appropriate engineering and reviewed by the County Engineer. c.) Terracing will be limited to two (2) tiers. The width of terrace between two — four (4) foot vertical retaining walls will be separated by at least three (3) feet. Higher retaining walls will be separated by at least five (5) feet. Terraces between retaining walls will be re- vegetated with native plant materials. d.) Retaining walls used to support existing road cuts may exceed the height limits of a.,b.& c. above. 6. Standards for Retaining Walls a.) Retaining walls will be faced with stone of earth- colored materials similar to the surrounding natural landscape. 000M Mr. Mike Kraemer Page 7 August 3, 2007 b.) All retaining walls will comply with the currently adopted building code, except that when conflicts occur with any provisions of this section, the more restrictive provisions will apply. 7. Waterways Prohibited Not Applicable 8. Detention /Storm -water Facilities Where detention basins or other storm and erosion control facilities may be required, any negative visual and aesthetic impacts on the natural landscape and topography will be minimized to the maximum extent practicable. 9. Utility Cuts Utility cuts in the slopes greater than fifteen (15) percent will be reviewed through the Site Plan process. 10. Revegetation Required Any slope exposed or created in this development will be landscaped or re- vegetated pursuant to the standards and provisions set forth in Sec. 7 -20 -130 as well as the Revegetation standards in the Pitkin County Revegetation Guide, the Pitkin County Landscaping Guidelines maintained by the Pitkin County Public Works Department, and the Roadway Landscaping Guidelines included in the Pitkin County Asset Management Plan, as applicable. In the event those documents contain inconsistent requirements with regard to a particular area of land, the stricter provisions shall govern. Our response to the requirements of Section 7- 20 -30; Water Courses and Drainage, is as follows: a. Applicability This proposed development is subject to the water resource standards of this section. b. Encroachment or Channeling There are no rivers, streams, ponds, wet meadows or wetlands to be encroached upon within this Activity Envelope. An existing irrigation ditch with underground piping is outside of the Activity Envelope and will be undisturbed by this proposed development. c. Drainage 1. General a.) Historical flow patterns and runoff amounts will be maintained to reasonably preserve the natural character of the area and prevent property damage attributable to runoff rate, velocity increase, diversions, unplanned ponding and /or stormwater runoff. A drainage and sedimentation 000009 Mr. Mike Kraemer Page 8 August 3, 2007 control plan has been prepared by the Civil Engineer and is attached for reference. (Exhibit C). b.) The natural flow of water courses and ditches will be unimpeded by this proposed development. c.) Adequate drainage for all low points (if any) will be addressed in Exhibit C. d.) There is no drainage system for the Red Mountain Subdivision. e.) Maintenance of drainage systems. Not Applicable. f.) On -site treatment of stormwater is not needed because there are not bodies of water to protect from unfiltered runoff. 2. Runoff Volumes Runoff volumes and peaks will be addressed in Exhibit C. d. Groundwater The proposed activities and development will not result in the introduction of any contaminants to groundwater or interfere with any recharge area or aquifer. e. Irrigated Areas Not Applicable 1. The proposed activities and development will not affect the exercise of any existing and decreed water right. f. Irrigation Ditches 1.) Access The proposed activities and development is not required to provide access to the existing irrigation ditch and is not a part of the Pitkin County Open Space and Trails System or other public property. 2.) Preventing Leakage The proposed structure is immediately downhill from the existing irrigation ditch. To the best of our knowledge, there has been no problem of leakage or water drainage. However, adequate foundation drainage systems will be supplemented in the proposed development in compliance with the geotechnical engineers recommendations. 3.) Avoid Flooding The proposed activities and development will not involve any flood irrigation. 4.) Avoid Seepage See 2 above. Above and no flood irrigation has or will be implemented. g. Sedimentation 1.) Control During Construction Please refer to the attached sedimentation control plan prepared by the Civil Engineer. (Exhibit C). 2.) Sedimentation 000010 Mr. Mike Kraemer Page 9 August 3, 2007 The proposed activities and development will not be near any water body, wetlands, or riparian area. 3.) Revegetation All cleared and regraded areas will be re- vegetated as soon as possible, but in no event longer than one growing season after conclusion of development on the site. h. Water Quality 1.) The proposed Activity Envelope and development for this Application are within the required setbacks set forth in Table 5- 1. (Exhibits B -1 & B -2) 2.) The proposed activities and development will comply with all state and federal statutes and regulation concerning the protecting and enhancement of water quality. 3.) The proposed activities and development are consistent with maintenance of the Stream Classification for the Roaring Fork River Watershed. This is an established subdivision so no new impacts will be created. i. Efficient Water Use The proposed activities and development will emphasize efficient use of water and to the extent permitted by law, the recycling and reuse of water. Our response to the requirements of Section 7 -20 -130: Landscaping and Vegetation Protection is as follows: The Applicant understands that all development in Pitkin County shall comply with the Pitkin County Landscape Guidelines and portions of development adjacent to public roads shall comply with the Roadway Landscaping Guidelines contained in the Pitkin County Asset Management Plan. In case of conflict between the provisions of these two documents and the standards below, the guideline documents shall apply. a.) Purpose The Applicant understands that these regulations are intended to preserve existing vegetation on development sites to the maximum extent consistent with the permitted development, and to ensure that specific types of man made improvements are screened from view in order to preserve the rural character of the County, and to prevent the use of landscaping on ways that would compromise the rural character of the county. b.) General Provisions 1.) Protection of Natural Vegetation 000011 Mr. Mike Kraemer Page 10 August 3, 2007 In order to protect the rural character of Pitkin County, natural vegetation will be preserved to the maximum extent practicable, and any installed landscaping shall use the species plant materials naturally occurring on the site or on neighboring properties (except flower gardens). Restrictions on removal of natural vegetation, and requirements for Revegetation, are set forth in other portions of this Chapter 7. 2.) Conformance with Wildfire Regulations The Applicant understands that in the event the provisions of this Sec. 7 -20 -130 conflict with any provisions of Sec. 7- 20 -60, as those requirements may be varied by a wildfire expert approved by the County, the provisions of Sec. 7 -20 -60 shall govern. 3.) Berms None are intended for this development. 4.) Landscape Enclosures None intended for this development. 5.) Visibility Clearance Not Applicable 6.) Utility Easements Whenever the provisions of this Sec. 7 -20 -130 would require the installation of trees or shrubs over or on utility easements, where branches or roots might interfere with utility lines or pipes, the required location for such trees and shrubs will be modified to require installation at the closest location that would avoid potential conflicts with utilities and would enable the trees and shrubs to serve the same landscaping purpose. 7.) Financial Security The Applicant understands that the Community Development Department may require financial security in a form acceptable to the County Attorney to ensure completion of installation of all required landscaping and /or successful establishments of plants. 8.) Maintenance All plants will be maintained continually in a health condition in accordance with generally accepted professional horticulture standards and practices. Within areas required to be landscaped with installed plant materials, plants that die or are unhealthy will be replaced. Landscape areas will be maintained to remain free of weeds, litter, junk, rubbish and other nuisances and obstructions. c.) Required Landscaping in Rural Areas 1.) The Applicant understands that landscaping is required for the 00001? Mr. Mike Kraemer Page 11 August 3, 2007 following purposes: (i) to screen satellite dishes and other telecommunication equipment when located within five hundred (500) feet of adjacent public roads and visible from such roads, and (ii) to screen parking areas and service areas when viewed from adjacent public roads, (iii) where necessary to comply with the standards of Secs. 7- 20 -70, 1- 20 -80, or 7- 20 -120, and (iv) to revegetate disturbed areas. 2.) Landscape treatments will cluster shrubs and trees into groupings similar to those naturally occurring on the site or neighboring sites, will use indigenous species of shrubs and trees, and shall not be installed in regularly spaced lines or rows, unless more specific provisions of Secs. 7- 20 -70, 7 -20 -120 require a different treatment. d.) Required Landscaping in Urban Areas Not Applicable Our response to the requirements of Section 7- 20 -60; Wildfire Hazards, is as follows: a.) Wildfire Hazard Map The proposed Activity Envelope is shown on the Pitkin County Wildfire Hazard Area Maps and has been confirmed to be in a "Severe Wildfire Hazard Area" by a certified Wildfire Expert, Art Hougland, as stated in the attached report, (Exhibit E).The recommendations for mitigation set forth in that report will be implemented in the proposed development. b.) Wildfire Hazard Area Delineation and Activity Envelope As stated above, the proposed Activity Envelope and surrounding area is in a "Severe Wildfire Hazard Area ". Recommended mitigation and creation of defensible space will be implemented within the Activity Envelope. There are no areas of this parcel which are not "Severe Wildfire Hazard." c.) Standards Applicable to All Wildfire Hazard Areas 1.) Defensible Space All recommended measures contained in this subsection and the Wildfire Expert Report. (Exhibit E.) Will be implemented. 2.) Access The existing access on Sabin Drive connects to Red Mountain Road, then Mill Street to Main Street in Aspen which is Highway 82. These roads are maintained by Pitkin County and any requirements by the District Fire Marshall will be complied with. 3.) Water Supply for fire protection water systems as required will be obtained from the RMR HOA Water System. The fire protection system will comply with the standards of the local fire 000013 Mr. Mike Kraemer Page 12 August 3, 2007 protection district and the adopted Building Code and will be specified in the Building Permit Documents. 4.) Roofing Materials, Roofing Vents and Projections at and Below Roof Line. Unless the Wildfire Expert has recommended a different method of construction, roofs and projections at of below roof line in this Severe Wildfire Hazard Area will be constructed according to the following specifications a.) Low Hazard Area Not Applicable b.) Medium Hazard Area (to be implemented along with the Severe Wildfire Area Requirements 1.) Roofing Materials a.) Class A covering or Class A Assembly as defined by the current adopted building code. b.) No wood shakes or shingles 2.) Roof Venting a.) Soffit venting will be located in the outer 1 /3'd portion of the overhang. b.)Attic, soffits and other roof venting will be of non - corrosive metal mesh with maximum 1/4" openings. 3.) Projections at the Roofline, including Sofffits, Rafters, Porch or Deck Roofs, Fascias, or Other: a) Sheath with non - combustible materials, or b.)Combustible materials underlain with 5/8" Type gypboard or equal, or c.) Minimum 4 x 6 rafters with 2x T& G decking 4.) Decks, Decking, Cantilevered Floors, or Other Projections Below the Roofline: Minimum 6x6 posts, 6x10 beams, 3x8 joists, 3x decking, and 2x railing, or equivalent log construction. 5.) Other, Not Applicable c.) Severe Hazard Area All requirements for Medium Wildfire Hazard Areas apply with the following modifications: as applicable, except where conflicts may occur with the Wildfire Expert recommendations. 1.) Roofing Materials: a.) Class A covering or Class A Assembly as defined by the currently adopted building code. b.) No wood shakes or shingles. 2.) Projections at the Roofline, including Soffits, Rafters, Porch or Deck Roofs, Fascias, or Other: a.) One (1) hour rated material or any material underlain by 5/8" Type X gypboard or equal, or 000014 Mr. Mike Kraemer Page 13 August 3, 2007 b.) 'Type IV" Heavy Timber materials, per the currently adopted building code. 3.) Decks, Decking, Cantilevered Floors, or Other Projections Below the Roofline: a.) Construction with noncombustible or one (1) hour rated material, or material with flame spread <25 (tested to ASTM E84 and listed for exterior use), or b.) Construction framed deck with waterproof surface and underside protected with 5/8" Type X gypboard or equal (decking as "a" above), or c.) "Type IV" Heavy Timber materials: joist and beams Minimum 6 "x10 ", columns minimum 8"x8", decking minimum 4" in depth, or decking as "a" above; or equivalent log construction, or d.) Enclose projection vertically to ground with one hour fire resistive materials. Decking as "a" above. 4.) Railing Railings will be constructed of noncombustible or 'Type IV" Heavy Timber materials. 5.) Exterior of the Structure, Including All Walls a.) One (1) hour fire resistive rated materials, or b.) 5/8" gypboard underlying combustible materials, or c.) Cement or stucco, minimum 3/4" thickness d.) All glazing to be tempered glazing; and e.) Doors to be metal or wood 1 3/4" thick minimum. 6.) Foundations Foundations, skirting and crawl space openings will be fully enclosed and constructed with materials approved for one (1) hour fire resistive construction on the exterior side of the walls and shall extend from the top of grade to the underside of the floor decking or walls. d.) All Hazard Areas Roofs with less than a 3:12 pitch are not permitted in Low, Medium, or Severe Wildfire Hazard Areas unless they comply with the following: 1.) All roof coverings will be constructed of non - combustible materials and installed on a Class A roof assembly. 2.) All roof coverings will have a surface that shall facilitate the natural process of clearing roof debris. 3.) Protrusions above the roofline, such as parapets, are prohibited. 000015 Mr. Mike Kraemer Page 14 August 3, 2007 4.) Roofs will be installed as required by the adopted Building Code and shall have a minimum pitch of 1:48 5.) All roof design, coverings, or equivalent assemblies will be specifically approved by the Fire Marshall prior to submittal of a building permit application. 5.) Maintenance and Miscellaneous Requirements All requirements of this section as applicable, will be complied with as well as the Wildlife Experts recommendations e.) Additional Development Standards for Severe Wildfire Hazard Areas 1.) It has been determined that there is no alternative development area on the property that is free of "C- Severe Hazard: Trees" or "X- Severe Hazard: Brush" wildfire hazard. 2.) Development permitted in Severe Wildfire Hazard areas pursuant to this section is subject to the standards of Sec. 7 -20 -60 (c) above. f.) Recommendation of the Wildfire Expert in combination with the standards of this Section 7 -20 -60 will be implemented in the proposed activity and development application Our response to the requirements of Section 7 -20 -70 Wildlife Habitat Areas, is as follows: a.) Wildlife Habitat Maps The proposed Activity Envelope for this parcel is just south and downhill from designated Elk and Mule Deer Winter range as shown on Pitkin County Maps. This has been confirmed in a telephone conference with Kevin Wright, District Wildlife Manager. He also noted considerable presence of black bears in this area. b.) General Principals The delineation of the Activity Envelope is primarily dictated by steep slopes as set forth in another Section. The five (5) Principles in this Section will be taken into consideration where applicable. Since this is a long established and mostly developed residential subdivision, there will be little, if any, more disturbance of Wildlife Habitat and Winter Range than already exists. c.) General Standards The Fourteen (14) Standards for development in or near Wildlife Habitat Areas will be complied with, as applicable for this Activity Envelope. The thinning and /or creation of clusters of existing trees and shrubs which may 000016' Mr. Mike Kraemer Page 15 August 3, 2007 be required by the Wildfire Expert will be coordinated with the Wildlife Habitat requirements. d.) General Buffer Standards This land parcel and the proposed Activity Envelope are at the edge of the designated Winter Range Area for Elk and Mule Deer. The Winter Range is in Red Mountain Ranch dedicated common area open space land which abuts this parcel and the dense foliage and steep terrain make a buffer zone unnecessary. As noted above, there will be little, if any, more impact on Wildlife than already exists. There are no endangered species, waterfowl or wildlife migration corridors in this area. e.) General Livestock and Domestic Animals 1.) Wetland and Riparian Areas Not Applicable 2.)Winter Range, Severe Winter Range, Winter Concentration Areas and Critical Habitat. Dogs will be kenneled or leashed under human supervision as required by the subdivision protective covenants and this section. 3.) Wildlife Migration Corridors Not Applicable 4.) Wildlife Production Areas Not Applicable 5.) Predation As stated above, dogs (and cats) will be controlled as required by this subdivision. 6.) Overgrazing Not Applicable f.) Additional Species — Specific Standards Not Applicable g.)Timing of Construction 1.) Winter Range, Severe Winter Range and Winter Concentration Areas. This subdivision has been in existence for over forty (40) years and winter construction has occurred on a regular basis with little, if any, adverse affect on the resident Elk and Mule Deer population. Black Bear mitigation measures are mandatory on all residential properties in this subdivision. 00001'7 Mr. Mike Kraemer Page 16 August 3, 2007 2.) Wildlife Migration Corridors Not Applicable 3.) Wildlife Production Areas Not Applicable Our response to the requirements of Section 7- 20- 120(d); standards for Scenic View Protection Areas, is as follows: d. Standards for Development within Scenic View Protection Areas 1.) The proposed development is visible at a considerable distance from the State Highway 82 through Aspen. It is on steep terrain that is densely covered with mature scrub oak and other native trees and shrubs. To the extent feasible, this native vegetation will be utilized along with some landscape planting as is compatible with wildfire mitigation measures. 2.) As stated in another Section, there is no alternative location for the Activity Envelope on this land parcel. 3.) The proposed structure will be more than 50% below grade and the visible portion will be kept as low as practical. Please refer to Exhibit F -1. It will be well articulated and the roofline broken by opposing gables. 4.) The proposed structure is well below the ridge of Red Mountain and will not project above it or silhouette against the sky when viewed from State Highway 82. Please refer to Exhibit F -2 5.) The proposed development is designed to be compatible with the natural topography of the land and a large portion of the roof will be earth covered on the north (uphill) side to re- establish the natural slope. 6.) Natural vegetation will be preserved to the extent practicable, taking into consideration required wildfire mitigation measures. 7.) All utilities for this development will be underground. 8.) Satellite dishes, if any will be located to minimize visibility and utilize earth tones and screening. 9.) There will be no man -made earth forms in the proposed development. 10.) Not Applicable 11.) Earth Materials; All exterior materials, stains, etc., will be indigenous earth tone colors. Please refer to Exhibit F -1. 000019 Mr. Mike Kraemer Page 17 August 3, 2007 12.) Roofs; The roof materials will be non - reflective, except where solar or photovoltaic equipment may be located. 13.) Revegetation of Disturbed Areas; Disturbed earth areas will be revegetated using native species that are already growing on or near the site. 14.) Driveways avoid Dividing Meadows and Pastures Not Applicable As requested with this summary letter we have attached four (4) copies, unless noted otherwise, of the above referenced Exhibits A through F, including and in addition to the following: 1) 24" x 36' and 11" 17" Site Plans and related information as designated in Section 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 of the Pitkin County Land Use Application Manual (Exhibits B -1, B -2 & B -3) 2.) Copies of a Subdivision Exemption for a Minor Plat Amendment to reduce the existing Driveway Access Easement from thirty (30) feet to eighteen (18) feet. (Exhibits A -1 thru A -5) 3.) Scenic View Protection Exhibits as designated in Section 2.1.12 of the Pitkin County Land Use Application Manual. (Exhibits B thru F) 4.) Proof of Ownership of subject property (Warranty Deed) 5.) Parcel Description, including legal descriptions (in Warranty Deed) 6.) Vicinity Map 7.) Total Fee for review of the application 8.) Signed Fee Agreement (1 copy) 9.) Consent from Owner to process application (1 copy) 10.) List of all adjacent property owners and mineral estate owners (1 copy) 11.) Copies of this Pre - Application Conference Summary 000019 Mr. Mike Kraemer Page 18 August 3, 2007 We believe that we have demonstrated that we will be able to satisfy all of the standards for mitigation for the proposed development in this Application for Activity Envelope and Site Plan Review. Please notify us if you require any further information. Sincerely, Attachments: 000020 0200 Sabin Road, LLC 301 Commerce Street, Ste. 1830 Fort Worth, TX 76102 phone: (817) 335-3338 July 11, 2007 Mike Kraemer, Planner Community Development Pitkin County 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Activity Envelope, Site Plan, and Scenic View Protection Lot 4, Block 3, Red Mountain Ranch Subdivision Parcel l.D. #2737 - 063 -01 -009 Mr. Kraemer; This letter is to confirm that I am the Owner of the referenced property. I hereby authorize Charles Cunniffe Architects to represent my interests in connection with the review process for this land use application. 0000 ?. APITKIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GREEMENT FOR PAYMENT OF LAND USE APPLICATION FEES PITKIN COUNTY (hereinafter "COUNTY') and 0' (hereinafter "APPLICANT ") AGREE AS FOLLOWS: Sabin an application for tLG CJIe 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that Pitkin County Ordinance No. 32 -2002 establishes a fee structure for land use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness. The fee structure is based on the COUNTY'S policy that development shall pay, in full, the cost of development review in the COUNTY. Fees have been set to be consistent and fair to the public and to reflect the expense incurred in providing such services to the public. 3• APPLICANT and COUNTY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed PROJECT, it may not be possible at the time of application to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. 4. APPLICANT and COUNTY agree that fees accumulate if an application includes charged for the processing of land use applications shall more than one type of land use review. 5. COUNTY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for COUNTY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and/or Board of County Commissioners to enable the Planning Commission and/or Board of County Commissioners to make legally required findings for approval, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. project 6. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the COUNTY'S waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay a base fee in the amount of $ 2, f!'22 which is based on 12hours of staff time, and if actual time spent by staff to process the application exceeds the average number of hours by more than 20 %, then the COUNTY will bill the APPLICANT quarterly for the additional time spent. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing. PITIQN COUNTY p p y �Wo Road, ac Cindy Houben Community Development Director and Title (if applicable) r. • MailingAddress- 0000"2 RECEPTION #: 539012, 06/1812007 at 03:07:07 PM, EXHIBIT A -1 1 OF 2, R $0.00 Doc Code ADMIN (4 PAGES) DECISION Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, APPROVING A SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION FOR A MINOR PLATAMENDMENT FOR LOTS 3,41 AND 5, BLOCK 3, RED MOUNTAIN RANCH Administrative Decision N005 %;007 RECITALS 1) Bessemer Trust, 0155 Sabin Road LLC and 0200 Sabin Road LLC (hereafter "Applicants ") have applied to the Pitkin County Community Development Director (hereafter "Director ") for a subdivision exemption for a minor plat amendment to reduce the width of a private access easement across Lots 3, 4 and 5 from 30' to 18'. The easement provides access to Lots 4 and 5. 2) The properties are located at 1673 Red Mountain Road (Lot 3), 0155 Sabin Road (Lot 4) and 0200 Sabin Road (Lot 5); and are described as Lots 3, 4 and 5, Block 3, Red Mountain Ranch Subdivision. 3) The lots contain 66,122 square feet, 108,907 square feet and 147,574 square feet, respectively, and are conforming in size in the R -30 zone district. 4) The Board of County Commissioners (`BOCC ") approved the plat of Block 3 of Red Mountain Ranch in 1969; the plat is recorded in Plat Book 4 at Page 13. 5) The Aspen Fire Marshal finds the narrowing of the easement to be acceptable, as the resulting easement will have adequate width to accommodate the driveway as required by the Fire District. 6) The Director finds that the request to reduce the width of the access easement complies with applicable provision of the Code: it does not affect the degree of compliance with the standards of the Code, change the use of the proposed development or the basic character of the approved use, increase off -site impacts, endanger the public health, safety or welfare, or increase the floor area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT APPROVED by the Pitkin County Community Development Director that approval is hereby granted for a minor plat amendment for Lots 3, 4 and 5, Block 3, Red Mountain Ranch, subject to the following conditions, which shall run with the land and be binding on all successors in interest: 1. Prior to submission of any building or other development permit applications, the Applicant shall be required to submit for approval by the County Attorney and Community Development an amended Plat. The above referenced approvals shall be a condition precedent to finalization and recordation. The plat shall be amended as follows, prior to submission: A. Update with current ownership information. B. Add a note explaining that the purpose of the amendment is to reduce the width of the private access easement. C. Clearly delineate the new 18' wide easement. D. Eliminate the "Community Development Engineer Approval" signature block. 2. The Applicant shall obtain an Access Permit, if changes are made to the driveway or the driveway is extended to Lot 5. 000023 Administrative Decision N6NI 1007 Page 1 3. Retaining walls greater than 4' in height shall be supported by appropriate engineering, and shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Engineer. 4. The Applicants shall adhere to all conditions and material representations made in the application and public meetings except as amended herein. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this JYWay of —, 2007. u (ii�V Ci d Houben, Confmunity Development Director P0021- 07;PID# 273706301008 1273706301009/273706301010 SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION FOR A MINOR PLAT AMENDMENT Summary letter The Applicant is seeking approval to reduce the width of a private road access easement shown on the plat for the Red Mountain Ranch Subdivision, Block 3, recorded in Plat Book 4 at Page 13. The Red Mountain Ranch Subdivision is a Board approved subdivision. There are a number of private access easements shown on the plat, and the subject private access easement provides access to Lot 4 and Lot 5, Block 3, Red Mountain Ranch Subdivision. The easement begins at the westerly end of Sabin Drive, and encumbers Lot 3, Lot 4 and Lot 5, Block 3, Red Mountain Ranch Subdivision. The applicant is the owner of Lot 4 and Lot 5, Block 3, Red Mountain Ranch Subdivision. The applicant has obtained the consent of the owner of Lot 3 to narrow the width of the private road access easement as it crosses Lot 3. The private road access easement does not provide access to Lot 3, but crosses the top of Lot 3 to provide access to Lot 4. The applicant is proposing to reduce the width of the easement from 30 feet to 18 feet as the easement traverses Lot 3, Lot 4 and Lot 5. The purpose of the reduced width of the easement is to allow for roof overhangs and planters along the North side of the residence currently under construction on Lot 5. In addition, the reduction of the width will allow the installation of a stone retaining wall and landscape planters. The reduction in the width of the easement will also result in a smaller hillside cut and fill. A minor plat amendment is governed by the Pitkin County Land Use Code Section 2- 30- 20(g)(5)(a) and (b). The provision applicable to this application states as follows: "The amendment increases or does not affect the degree of compliance with the standards of this Land Use Code; and the amendment is being made to a recorded plat that has been approved by Pitkin County; and the amendment is consistent with representations made during the conceptual and detailed subdivision reviews whichever is applicable." The Applicant is in compliance with the foregoing standards for the following reasons: 1. Compliance with Standards. The narrowing of the width of the private access easement from 30 feet to 18 feet will not affect the degree of compliance with the standards of the Land Use Code. The Applicant has met on -site with the Fire Marshal and carefully reviewed the new width, grade, and the turnaround area as shown on the 000025 (00062304.DOC / 1) proposed amended plat submitted with this application. The Fire Marshal was involved in the layout of the turnaround area, and has approved the narrowing of the width of the road. 2. Plat Approved by Pitkin County. The original plat for Block 3, Red Mountain Ranch Subdivision was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on October 6, 1969, as shown by the Plat. 2. Consistency with Representations. The Applicant has been unable to obtain copies of any records showing representations that were made at the conceptual and detailed subdivision reviews for the Red Mountain Ranch Subdivision. Given the fact that the approvals were granted in 1969, this is probably not unusual. Nevertheless, the narrowing of the width of the private access from 30 feet to 18 feet is consistent with the approvals granted for the subdivision. 000026 {00062304.DOC / 1) �xs .g� N gil -.3 U. m Pi N'A � 9' R§ '0 A 'ix e m� _R> �R> R�'�' b - Ate. rS,m - - r4 ° -- 8 a�R Yz 90. ml o z - Aim e -IZC F� a � zip so rn r m e m m „ - o 49e o S o o i,�mN x o-y i N a A aC I `fir z R11 ZO? y� O, m n� °e mHi .k' mf'n m9 a .�., :�' Nan _ >O�O 00 Puu Ov �TUZ O m Txm °Tm mm o zz XO s~?A 000 2b 9) cS —C p _ gm ix Fo n o o a u u G1 O m m — OM OOm O N mvp O 3 n m Nm y0 �i Z vn y /'J m � G' Im . r ayye o o �x i' yz r t �xi i l Zvi O $ O �" € �li'�N�> -dpi 1S' •! y n'`F° Al m "R v$ z n 0 0 0 c N 00 m \ m \ O o O I C n z I � 4 � z / A O O eo y2c °3` +:., ,%, II II e O \ ,% S m r 0 N O m Z U1 C - p o � m m a _> m A a Z n m x x W D w i i C z 4 O O 4 4 /o 3 i d MN- S m r 0 N O m Z U1 C - p o � m m a _> m A a Z n m x x W D w i i C z 4 O O 4 4 /o 3 i d 100 m O a z 0 & z 0 m i \ \ 7 O u 7 z H b d b b 4 0 0 o n r 9G �y yh� e 5 STO Z ama T z n yTu rnwrn 0T m o„ yam _O 000 TT r - sy Z y �� Gf.am h- 100 m O a z 0 & z 0 m i \ \ 7 O u 7 z H b d b v b 0 0 o n r 9G �y yh� e 5 STO Z ama T z n yTu rnwrn 0T m o„ yam _O 000 TT r - sy Z y �� Gf.am h- i �^'a "oy moo un`n „ G" zmo„ o fimoT pYp O , mvNti O�a a aOln _ T T r e �=4 v EXHIBIT A -4 (s PAGES) GERALD W. PETITT, TRUSTEE BESSEMER TRUST COMPANY N.A. 630 Fifth Avenue New York N.Y. 10111 October 24, 2007 Duer Wagner III 0155 Sabin Road, LLC c/o Krabacher & Sanders, PC. 201 N. Mill Street, Suite 201 Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Landscaping - Lot 3, Block 3 Red Mountain Ranch 1673 Red Mountain Road, Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Mr. Wagner: This letter will reconfirm that the undersigned consents to landscaping and Irrigation of the area within the 12 foot wide portion of the original access easement that is being eliminated pursuant to Administrative Decision No. 054- 2007, and that no landscaping or irrigation will occur in the remaining 18 foot wide access easement, as the Sabin Road easement crosses the undersigned's property at Lot 3, Block 3, Red Mountain Ranch, 1673 Red Mountain Road, Aspen /Pitkin County substantially as shown on the conceptual landscape plan attached as Exhibit A -5. We understand that the conceptual landscape plan will be developed into a final landscape plan design which will be presented to the undersigned owners of Lot 3, Block 3 Red Mountain Ranch for review and approval prior to construction. The final landscape plan design will provide a continuous landscaping screen both above and below the driveway, and the retaining walls will not exceed four feet in height. We further understand that a retaining wall or barrier wail will be constructed along the entire downhill edge of the driveway between the Wagner Residence on Lot 5 and the Guest House on Lot 4. and along the lower edge of the parking area for the Guest House to screen automobile lights from view. Driveway lighting shall be as permitted by Pitkin County and Red Mountain Ranch lighting regulations, and placed on the north face of the barrier walls so as to be screened from view from below. Exterior lighting on the Wagner Residence on Lot 5 and the Guest House on Lot 4 shall likewise be as permitted by Pitkin County and Red Mountain Ranch lighting regulations, so as to screen the light source and prevent casting light upward or outward, We will have the opportunity to review and comment on the lighting plans before installation and you will provide landscape screening below to reduce the visibility of interior lighting in the residences. O000^`? Duer Wagner III Page 2 October 24, 2007 The costs and expense of the above described landscaping, any irrigation systems, and the watering, maintenance, care, and replacement of the landscaping shall be your responsibility, and the undersigned will have no obligation to pay any such costs and expenses, It will also be your responsibility to pay for our legal fees incurred during the negotiation of the terms and conditions of our consent, which is hereby stipulated to be Two Thousand Nine Hundred Eleven Dollars and Fifty Cents ($ 2,911,50). This letter agreement has been executed by the parties to be effective as of the date set forth above. BESSEMER TRUST COMPANY N.A. As Trustee of the Irrevocable Trust Agreement dated 11 /6/92 FBO Mark Wllllam Petitt; and As Trustee of the Irrevocable Trust Agreement dated 11 /6/92 FBO Jess Mathew Petitt, and As Trustee of the Irrevocable Trust Agreement dated 11 /6/92 FBO Eric Douglas Petitt By: Steve Watson Executive Vice President GERALD W. PETITT As Trustee of the Gerald William Petitt Revocable Trust dated March 28, 19(9�6� By W 2dw Gerald W. Petitt Trustee KATHLEEN O. PETITi As Trustee of the Kathleen Overbgy Petitt Revocable Trust dated March 28, 1996 By:,, Kathleen O. Petitt Trustee 000030 Duer Wagner III Page 3 October 24, 2007 This letter agreement has been executed by the parties to be effective as of the date set forth above. 0155 SABIN ROAD, LLC A Texas limited T; any mp By, 000031 § || |- )� w•& 0032 ¥ [% � H• | lu 2 ; [ ( r � § § I §§ § )� .� {\ z z ® ®w /'® ® / � ® 2 \/ �W6 �z z � / 2 Z n ,| � 000034 ! �« �) (I'ly[ / \ LU 1. DO | � { |!! | £4, ) @ 3» / z � { /�® ~ <N! 277 IRz �j\ ; i B / p . \ \ OL I A A � ! . j�� ! ,•R §§ § )� .� {\ z z ® ®w /'® ® / � ® 2 \/ �W6 �z z � / 2 Z n ,| � 000034 ! �« �) (I'ly[ / \ LU 1. DO | � { |!! | £4, ) @ 3» / z � { /�® ~ <N! 277 IRz �j\ ; i B / p . \ \ OL I A A § !m \� / �« } ! a �5 E§HZ Hq ( : \| LU , § § !m \� / �« } ! a UUQU -Jo B. ( : \| LU , UUQU -Jo B. Drainage and Erosion Control Report for: EXHIBIT C Wagner Guest House Lot 4, Sabin Drive, PITKIN COUNTY, CO Prepared for: Mr. Duer Wagner 1830 City Center Tower #2 301 Commerce Street Fort Worth, TX 76102 Prepared by: C MOUNTAIN CROSS ENGINEERING, INC. Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design 82612 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 ph970.965.5544fz870. 845.5558w ..mournaincros"ng.mn Date: August, 2007 MOUNTAIN CROSS ENGINEERING, INC. Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design 009036 P: 97 826 15 Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 0.945.5544 F 970.945.5558 www.mounwincross- eng.com TABLE OF CONTENTS Drainage Report Page 1 -7 Location Map, Drainage Basin & Concentration Path. Figure 1 Location Map, Drainage Basin & Concentration Path. Figure 2 Drainage & Erosion Control Plan 24 "x36' Cl Drainage & Erosion Control Details 24 "x36' C2 Report Calculations 000W Appendix Drainage Report Wagner Guest House August, 2007 Purpose and Scope of Report This study evaluates the Wagner Guest House project from a storm water management perspective. It supplies data, calculations, and design criteria that will be used to mitigate the site concerning storm runoff and erosion control. Runoff from snowmelt is typically very large in volume but because it happens over a much longer time period, the peak flows are generally much 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 site discharge by means of best management practices for erosion control. All flows 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. Proiect Overview The Wagner Guest House project is a building construction on Lot 4 on the west end of Sabin Drive in Pitkin County, Colorado. Building plans are available from Charles Cunniffe Architects. The project elevation is approximately 8,500 feet above sea level and latitude 39 °12'31" north, longitude 106 °48'58" west. The property area is approximately 2.5 acres and the approximate area of disturbance due to construction activities is less than one acre. Storm water will ultimately drain to the Roaring Fork River through a series of roadside ditches and culverts. The project sits at the top of the base of Red Mountain below an ephemeral drainage basin. It is the intent of this Drainage Plan to: 1) Convey the captured runoff flows through the project site, 2) Reduce the pollutants in stormwater discharges from erosion associated with construction activity, and 3) Release runoff volumes at existing runoff rates. Methodolou 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 SCS TR -55 method was used for estimating the amount of runoff that will occur from larger basins. This method calculates runoff from SCS curve number, basin area, precipitation, and time of concentration. SCS Curve Number A curve number is assigned to a basin that gives a relationship between the amount of precipitation that becomes surface water and the amount of water that is lost to MOUNTAIN CROSS ENGINEERING, INC. Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design 926Y Gmnd Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 000038 P 970.945.5544 F' 970.945.5559 www.mounwincross- eng.com Drainage Report Wagner Guest House August, 2007 infiltration, evaporation, or transpiration. The SCS curve number is a function of soil ' type, vegetative- cover /land -use, and antecedent moisture conditions. Because the land - use and the soil types vary through the drainage basin, a composite curve number is assigned based on the weight of the area and its respective curve number. Basin Area Drainage basins have the characteristic that any precipitation falling within that area will ' drain to the same point of discharge. Basins were delineated from project topographic maps as shown in Figures 1 and 2. ' Precipitation Extreme runoff events from urban areas in western Colorado are caused by cloudburst type storms that are characterized by short periods of high intensity rainfall. The SCS ' Type II 24 -hour distribution reflects this and was used for this study. Estimating rainfall for engineering applications is based on the probability of the magnitude of a storm occurring within a return period. Volume III of the NOAA Atlas 2 maps for Colorado was used for defining design storm rainfall depths. The NOAA Atlas Maps are attached in the Appendix. Time of Concentration Manning's kinematic flow equation was used to estimate flow velocity. 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 determine the ' flow elements include length, slope, Manning's "n" value, and channel shape. These parameters were determined from topography. For smaller basins, the Rational Method was used to estimate the amount of runoff that will occur. This method calculates runoff (Q) in cubic feet per second (cfs) from basin area (A) in acres, runoff coefficient (C), and rainfall intensity (I) in inches per hour: ' Q =C *I *A ' 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 in this report. The runoff coefficient is a dimensionless coefficient. ' Basin Area Drainage basins have the characteristic that any precipitation falling within that area will ' drain to the same point of discharge. The project basins were delineated from project topography, project site plan, and building architecture. 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 MOUNTAIN CROSS ENGINEERING, INC. 2 Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design 826'x: Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 0 0 0 0 3 9 p 970.945.5544 F: 970.945,5558 w .mountaincross -eng com Drainage Report Wagner Guest House August, 2007 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 IDF curves. IDF curves are graphs of, more or less parallel, frequency curves that yield rainfall intensities based on storm durations. Feequencv: 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 reflect actual storm frequency. Storms of a 100 -year magnitude can occur in sequential years, even in 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. Manning's kinematic 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 determine the flow 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 Runoff coefficients and SCS Curve numbers were determined from descriptions of land use and/or ground cover for the basin. The vegetation is a mix of Scrub Oak, Sage brush, and Aspen with grass and brush understory. Composite numbers were calculated by weighting the respective soil cover over the basin area. Based on the SCS study, the soils belong to hydrologic group C. The parameters for calculating the time of concentration were determined from the site topography. All the calculations are attached in the Appendix. The following tables summarize the drainage characteristics for the drainage basins delineated: 00004© Off -Site Basin Characteristics MOUNTAIN CROSS ENGINEERING, INC. Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design 826 % Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 P: 970.945,5544 N 970.945.5558 www.mountaincross- eng.com 3 Area (ac) CN I Tc (min) Basin A 21.96 61 24 Basin B 2.61 61 19 MOUNTAIN CROSS ENGINEERING, INC. Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design 826 % Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 P: 970.945,5544 N 970.945.5558 www.mountaincross- eng.com 3 Drainage Report Wagner Guest House August, 2007 Residence Basin Characteristics The rainfall intensity of 4.4 inches per hour was determined by using the 100 -year storm curve, estimated duration of 10 minutes, and the IDF curve for the City of Aspen. The rainfall depth for the SCS TR -55 method corresponding 100 -year storm on the NOAA maps was 3.2 ". The design storm was determined from Section 4.27.01 from the Pitkin County Assets Management Plan, stating culvert design for a 100 -year storm. This is a typical industry standard for an extreme magnitude design storm. The flows for the basins were calculated using the SCS TR -55 method and flows from the residence were calculated using the Rational method. All calculations are attached for review in the Appendix. Minimum pipe sizes to convey the runoff flows were determined using the Manning's equation for open channel flow. Minimum pipe slope of 1 %, smooth pipe material, and project flows were used to compute pipe sizes. Pipe sizing calculations are attached in the Appendix. Pipe routing is shown on the Drainage Plan, Figure C 1. A ac C ]Ain,/hr) Existing 0.46 0.35 4.4 Pro osed 0.16 0.58 4.4 The rainfall intensity of 4.4 inches per hour was determined by using the 100 -year storm curve, estimated duration of 10 minutes, and the IDF curve for the City of Aspen. The rainfall depth for the SCS TR -55 method corresponding 100 -year storm on the NOAA maps was 3.2 ". The design storm was determined from Section 4.27.01 from the Pitkin County Assets Management Plan, stating culvert design for a 100 -year storm. This is a typical industry standard for an extreme magnitude design storm. The flows for the basins were calculated using the SCS TR -55 method and flows from the residence were calculated using the Rational method. All calculations are attached for review in the Appendix. Minimum pipe sizes to convey the runoff flows were determined using the Manning's equation for open channel flow. Minimum pipe slope of 1 %, smooth pipe material, and project flows were used to compute pipe sizes. Pipe sizing calculations are attached in the Appendix. Pipe routing is shown on the Drainage Plan, Figure C 1. The channel shape is a "V" type ditch with 2:1 horizontal to vertical side slopes with a depth of 12 ". The erosive flow velocity for vegetated, earth channels is between 4 and 5 feet per second (fps). Riprap is usually the preferred armor due to its natural appearance and availability. Calculations are provided in the Appendix. Existing flows were compared to the proposed flows. If proposed exceeds existing levels detention is necessary. Detention volume was estimated using the FAA method. This method is also used by the City of Aspen. Erosion 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 at the source and on the site 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 sides of culverts. Silt fencing is shown downhill of construction activities. Erosion control blankets are required on slopes steeper than 4:1. The permanent structures will be riprap protection at outlets and on ditch thalwegs for slopes where velocities are erosive. Detention of storm water is another permanent structure providing erosion protection. 000041 MOUNTAIN CROSS ENGINEERING, INC. Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design 826'/2 Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 P 970.945.5544 F: 970,945.5558 www.mountaincross- eng.com 4 100 -yr Flow Material Conveyance Min. Slope Offsite 1 6.31 1 Riprap Swale - 12" 1.0% Residence 1 1.16 1 Smooth I Pipe - 8" 1.0% The channel shape is a "V" type ditch with 2:1 horizontal to vertical side slopes with a depth of 12 ". The erosive flow velocity for vegetated, earth channels is between 4 and 5 feet per second (fps). Riprap is usually the preferred armor due to its natural appearance and availability. Calculations are provided in the Appendix. Existing flows were compared to the proposed flows. If proposed exceeds existing levels detention is necessary. Detention volume was estimated using the FAA method. This method is also used by the City of Aspen. Erosion 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 at the source and on the site 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 sides of culverts. Silt fencing is shown downhill of construction activities. Erosion control blankets are required on slopes steeper than 4:1. The permanent structures will be riprap protection at outlets and on ditch thalwegs for slopes where velocities are erosive. Detention of storm water is another permanent structure providing erosion protection. 000041 MOUNTAIN CROSS ENGINEERING, INC. Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design 826'/2 Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 P 970.945.5544 F: 970,945.5558 www.mountaincross- eng.com 4 Drainage Report Wagner Guest House August, 2007 Also, revegetation and landscaping is planned with turf, landscape plants, and/or native grasses per Pitkin County seed mix. Currently the existing vegetative cover is native materials with a coverage percentage estimated at 75 %. The proposed revegetation is expected to match this coverage and the quality of the storm water discharge from the site is anticipated to match existing levels or better. Results The project has two relatively large basins directly above it. The flows from these basins are diverted along the easement of the buried ditch directly above the proposed residence. The existing ditch currently spills across the easement at a location just to the east of the proposed residence. The existing drainage flows downhill at this point and directly into the existing residence on Lot 3 that is below and to the south of the proposed residence. This was determined to be hazardous to both the proposed residence and the existing residence on Lot 3. The ditch is designed to carry flows further to the west and past both residences. MOUNTAIN CROSS ENGINEERING, INC. 5 Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design 826'/1 Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 000042 P 970,945.5544 F: 970.945.5558 www.mountaincross- eng.com Drainage Report Wagner Guest House August, 2007 The riprap channel cross sectional shape was designed to convey the entire volume of the 100 - year storm. However the steepness of the hillside makes stability of the riprap channel a concern. The following table gives the riprap gradation and thicknesses required to be stable within the given design storm; the 100 -year thickness and gradation is recommended: Pipe culverts within the property are sized to accommodate flows from the impervious areas of the residence. All pipes larger than 4" should have a 1% minimum or steeper slope; 4" pipes should have a 2% minimum slope. Point discharges of concentrated flows from the site have been avoided by means of riprap used to spread flows and reduce velocities. A minimum 4" pipe size should be used for single downspouts, but when multiple downspouts are combined into a single pipe, the minimum pipe size should be 6 ". Multiple inlets and ease of maintenance justify increased pipes sizing to 8 ", see the plans for locations. Inlets have been placed in low points and in anticipation of flooded conditions. The drainage basins above the residence are intended to be captured by a 12" deep Swale that will need to be improved within the ditch easement. Currently the easement for the buried ditch conveys water to the east and west within the road. However this capacity is limited and discharges directly in the path of the proposed and an existing residence, as discussed above. The improvement of the swale is intended to add capacity and shift the point of discharge to a more safe location to the west of both buildings and mitigate the potential for flooding of the residences during a large magnitude storm. This does not change the existing basin characteristics or flows. Existing flows were compared to the proposed project flows. Generally speaking, if the proposed project flows exceed the existing then detention is necessary. Detention volume was calculated as 274 cubic feet. This volume is obtained in two 4' diameter drywells each l 1' deep. The detention structure outlet is a 6" culvert with a 3" diameter orifice cut in a cap that is designed to release flows no greater than the existing flow rate. A grate on top of the drywells serves as an emergency overflow. Drywells were determined to be less intrusive and easier to construct than above grade detention ponds. Recommendations of the geotechnical engineer speak to grading of the site away from foundation walls and downspouts. These recommendations are to be used in conjunction with those and if a conflict arises should be brought to our attention to revise the recommendations accordingly. The drainage basins above the residence are capable of generating large flows. Mud and debris flows are often generated by runoff from large magnitude storm events. Mud and debris are generally considered to be geologic hazards and have NOT been addressed in this study. MOUNTAIN CROSS ENGINEERING, INC. 6 Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design 000043 P 97 826'/, Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 0.945.5544 F 970.945.5558 www.mountaincross- eng.com Riprap Gradation Percent Smaller Than Layer 100% 1 85% 1 50% 1 10% Thickness 10 year 38" 30" 25" 10" 1 48" 25 year 1 59" 47" 39" 16" 70" 100 year 1 108" 86" 72" 29" 132" Pipe culverts within the property are sized to accommodate flows from the impervious areas of the residence. All pipes larger than 4" should have a 1% minimum or steeper slope; 4" pipes should have a 2% minimum slope. Point discharges of concentrated flows from the site have been avoided by means of riprap used to spread flows and reduce velocities. A minimum 4" pipe size should be used for single downspouts, but when multiple downspouts are combined into a single pipe, the minimum pipe size should be 6 ". Multiple inlets and ease of maintenance justify increased pipes sizing to 8 ", see the plans for locations. Inlets have been placed in low points and in anticipation of flooded conditions. The drainage basins above the residence are intended to be captured by a 12" deep Swale that will need to be improved within the ditch easement. Currently the easement for the buried ditch conveys water to the east and west within the road. However this capacity is limited and discharges directly in the path of the proposed and an existing residence, as discussed above. The improvement of the swale is intended to add capacity and shift the point of discharge to a more safe location to the west of both buildings and mitigate the potential for flooding of the residences during a large magnitude storm. This does not change the existing basin characteristics or flows. Existing flows were compared to the proposed project flows. Generally speaking, if the proposed project flows exceed the existing then detention is necessary. Detention volume was calculated as 274 cubic feet. This volume is obtained in two 4' diameter drywells each l 1' deep. The detention structure outlet is a 6" culvert with a 3" diameter orifice cut in a cap that is designed to release flows no greater than the existing flow rate. A grate on top of the drywells serves as an emergency overflow. Drywells were determined to be less intrusive and easier to construct than above grade detention ponds. Recommendations of the geotechnical engineer speak to grading of the site away from foundation walls and downspouts. These recommendations are to be used in conjunction with those and if a conflict arises should be brought to our attention to revise the recommendations accordingly. The drainage basins above the residence are capable of generating large flows. Mud and debris flows are often generated by runoff from large magnitude storm events. Mud and debris are generally considered to be geologic hazards and have NOT been addressed in this study. MOUNTAIN CROSS ENGINEERING, INC. 6 Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design 000043 P 97 826'/, Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 0.945.5544 F 970.945.5558 www.mountaincross- eng.com Drainage Report Walmer Guest House August, 2007 Although this study refers to a 100 -year stone, it is speaking from a statistical standpoint that the flood has a 1% chance of occurring within any given year. It does not actually relate to the frequency of flood occurrence. Also the 100 year flood can be exceeded in any given year, and it can occur more than once in any year, and can happen in sequential years. The location of the project site, by nature, is subject to danger due to flooding and this study does not remove that risk. Thank you for the opportunity to provide this report. Feel free to call if you have any questions, concerns, or comments. Sincerqly, i MOun+in Cross Engineerin .Inc. ,nO LIC ` OQ10 ?HEq F a 3 964 Chris Hale, PE MOUNTAIN CROSS ENGINEERING, INC. 7 Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design t! 't 826 % Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 P 970.945.5544 F 970.945.5558 www.mountaincross- eng.com i �• _ T<.r �.•.I ! Ij. li' l ti ti .� Mr 'IS 'ty r. �s r,., � � LV� . . tiL � � � i7 ��� �rdl� ��: `_,.v 4 �S 7'i s-o 11� 1 �sz v __ -,._ _• �, / \ - .. art 1 5 � - , 1� t � Y � • ti 4. k /f y � � _ rf �y ,, P ly S I� • t �' � v � CONTI -! 1\ xw __ - P f C, ti CATION s r + 1 .I! t •- Lr' �i, T 'a °..,,� I .1� 1 \% Xti '✓ J ' rte' "'► -:3 -.✓ :rq' �` 5r ,35'+ 'a t t l� ti � S R � i •`, - in.�,.f :. �, �A Ye ♦ a 'gyp '�°a '.� h. +.,r -••i -� -.iv13 ♦ '► - Teti ' �., rey'fiW. \ :s .. r µ�r��� -t•� ... + •,. �.. , I �, f 4 �.. r rv.' �a. G, • 'Y 1 ��'�. ih��it4 .i'• �a 1 e � r � a� a '' � I� f�I � .....x 1 • '•L' h M _4n � yr ° -'.lry m'-^i- .4.�t'vJ �J� ' • }+yvj r I r ��' '' + 7 rrll ( '1 /I dam" S�� --- - -�_, � 41,.. ;�J a .•• , (t.. v'�• �- ,..y..� ter^`. + f�f � !'.,r- ', i 4 fir• a y It �. ±. ��'�I i vi �, l�n)'r . : a . a f(s.. '. � y � � -- � '..`..,hr �`'•t''• 111 �y, 7 , r l I'. t�. ,' i I( ±z -• � ,'f �r, s � a� � �,�.. S � .�' 1 1 w µ 1 �` �1• irl l rr 1 ��.. .° r'1 • r r.!.� • r i ,Y`• � , [ _w_ -� riP � Ifs. ��i • y l ate' ji` 311 YY� 4 ;I a a 5 �5 '�h,.> 2+` ll �.7^ ICI +ri r r y \ I , - �.,.,,+ i ! • `. 1 ,yl Y s s, «i r itJ "+ VA SPe1L .lt2i'i �4 +r '• I i wt Z4 i.{, ° r j •a 1 a. °'i r '� r ✓. 1• I rs 5 -.1 a i� � �� • a ,v.�.��. !,�° •. a �'° �.! �' r�� � ilk � �` �� VII'� a -Ti• A171'.ne � • rr Ug r\ / / /fir *' . iy,,, r?�" i r _ {l.. i Y I •� y� DAM 08'03'07 FIGURE 1 I• - 1000 MOUNTAIN CROSS Project Location Map, ENGINEERING, INC. C"" "°'° Drainage Basin & Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design AS WO9n«cnoioram Concentration Path 826 112 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 492 -020 0 0 0 4 5 ph 970.945.5544 & 970. 945.5558 w .mounWincross�ng.com I °°'03/07 FIGURE 2 1• - 500. Project Location Map, w� QrtN Hda Drainage Basin & DNO ittE „"°°"'�"` Concentration Path 492 -021 AnMOUNTAIN CROSS ENGINEERING, INC. VfCivil and Environmental Consulting and Design 826 112 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 ph 970.945.5544 (x 970.945.5556 w .mounWncross�ng.wm I ' Appendix 1 Report Calculations I 1 I 1 000047 Soil Map — Aspen- Gypsum Area, Colorado, Parts of Eagle, Garfield, and Pitkin Counties N 0 50 100 200 300 [ers A Feat 0 200 400 &10 1,2110 USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2.0 iMl Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey 000048 7/23/2007 Page 1 of 3 11 000049 �-6 o- O o N N M m N m � a r m 2 m N O T U) m Z > (n m `m cR g yU 3� O z U m Z � N 0 c h G C m N y z N C m O 2U c n m m O b W � o E o 0 A v m m 9 N N c o u o m Z a r c m o.E T m E Z a> a O U U 9 m .S d O E S m m ¢ m m m Z Z U o O E m Q B K 3E2 c E O a b O Q,'O O Nr N 3= N U� > 2 C y N -i O m' a 0 LL 2 m �, <� 0 3 a m o E? m m Z N m a m N o O > c (, b n m a E a m m ac v 0 wL m 0 o°Oyd CL J • W a O> 12 O N O Z 2- 0 m aL t„ O E I N C OM 0N:Q • � >mm 0 0 m m m �m Om m . y 0 L k D r o o o w E 2 V nm o m am 9 o 3 m EmE 05 o f N3U Htb, m(7 in g O H 8.E a 000049 �-6 o- O o N N M m N m � a r m 2 m N O T U) m Z > (n m `m cR g yU 3� O z U m Z � N 0 c h G C m N y z N C m O 2U b n 0 N b � T m S m m ¢ O 2 p 0 K B K m m m > J • W b Z V aL t„ OM y 0 am 3 W r J S Q O m n Q O N N d.• b m N g T C E N On O 0 n m a `o 6 a O m m m T m n m m q m '0 C O p N O N N N N m N N O N N N D O 1 O ¢ m 'p m m O U (7 (7 � � f i � a K y m m m m m m r'n m a � m Q N In 000049 �-6 o- O o N N M m N m � a r m 2 m N O T U) m Z > (n m `m cR g yU 3� O z U m Z � N 0 c h G C m N y z N C m O 2U ' Soil Map— Aspen- Gypsum Area, Colorado, Parts of Eagle, Garfield, and Pitkin Counties Map Unit Legend Aspen- (3ypsurn Area;: Cotoredo,: Parts of Eagle, Oartleld, a4d PMIn Counttas (COM) Map UrAtSymbol Map 1144 Fume Agss in AOI I Percent of AOi 12 Arle - Ansari -Rock outcrop 23.5 100.0% complex, 12 to 50 percent ' slopes Totals for Area of Interest (AOI) 23.5L 100.0% 1 Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2.0 7/23/2007 ' Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3 000050 22 This unit is used as woodland, wildlife habitat, or rangeland. It is well suited to the production of aspen. Based on a site index of 60, it can produce about 2.560 cubic feet, or 1,000 board feet (Scribner rule), of merchantable timber per acre from a fully stocked stand of even -aged trees 80 years old. The main concern in producing and harvesting timber is the slope. Applying conventional harvest methods is difficult because of this limitation. The potential plant community on this unit is mainly bearded wheatgrass. fescues, native bromes, and mountain snowberry. Other plants that characterize this site are native needlegrasses, forbs, and shrubs. If the range condition deteriorates, Canada thistle, Kentucky bluegrass, and timothy are among the plants that increase in abundance. The potential production of the native understory vegetation in normal years is about 3,000 pounds of air -dry vegetation per acre. This unit is poorly suited to homesites. The main limitations are the slope, the shrink -swell potential, and the hazard of slumping in areas where excavations or road cuts are made This map unit is in capability subclass Vile, nonirrigated. It is in the Aspen woodland site. 12— Arle- Ansari -Rock outcrop complex, 12 to 50 percent slopes. This map unit is on mountain and valley side slopes and ridges. Elevation is 6,000 to 8,200 feet. The average annual precipitation is 16 to 18 inches, the average annual air temperature is 42 to 45 degrees F, and the average frost -free period is 80 to 100 days. This unit is about 40 percent Arle very stony loam, 30 percent Ansan loam, and 20 percent Rock outcrop Included in this unit are small areas of Morval soils in valley fill areas. Also included are small areas of soils that are similar to the included Morval soils but have a higher content of clay. Included areas make up about 10 percent of the total acreage The Arle soil is moderately deep and well drained. It formed in residuum derived dominantly from redbed sandstone and shale. About 20 to 40 percent of the surface is covered with cobbles and channery fragments. Typically, the surface layer is reddish brown very stony loam about 10 inches thick. The subsoil is very stony loam about 8 inches thick. The substratum to a depth of 30 inches is very stony loam. The depth to bedrock ranges from 20 to 40 inches. The soil is mildly alkaline to a depth of 10 inches and moderately alkaline below that depth. A thin layer of partially decomposed needles, twigs and leaves is on the surface in many places Permeability is moderate in the Arle soil Available 000051 Soil Survey water capacity is very low The effective rooting depth is 20 to 40 inches. Runoff is medium, and the hazard of water erosion is slight to severe on the steeper slopes. The Ansari soil is shallow and well drained. It formed in residuum derived dominantly from redbed sandstone and shale. Typically, the surface layer is reddish brown loam about 8 inches thick. The upper 6 inches of the substratum is loam. Hard, calcareous sandstone is at a depth of about 14 inches. The depth to bedrock ranges from 10 to 20 inches. The soil is .moderately alkaline and calcareous throughout. A thin layer of partially decomposed needles, twigs, and leaves is on the surface in many places. Permeability is moderate in the Ansari soil. Available water capacity is very low. The effective rooting depth is 10 to 20 inches. Runoff is rapid, and the hazard of water erosion is slight to severe on the steeper slopes. The Rock outcrop consists of nearly barren exposures of sandstone This unit is used mainly as rangeland. It also is used as wildlife habitat or for homesite development. The potential plant community on this unit is mainly western wheatgrass, Indian ricegrass, Ross sedge, true mountain mahogany, antelope bitterbrush, and mountain big sagebrush. Bottlebrush squirreltail, Utah serviceberry, and scattered pinyon pine, Utah juniper, and Gambel oak commonly are also included. The average annual production of air -dry vegetation is about 900 pounds per acre on the Arle soil and about 700 pounds per acre on the Ansari soil. If the range condition deteriorates, mountain big sagebrush, rubber rabbitbrush, needleandth read, and annual weeds increase in abundance. Suitable management practices include proper grazing use and a planned grazing system The suitability of this soil for range seeding is poor The main limitations are the slope. stones on the surface, and the Rock outcrop. Brush management improves deteriorated areas of range that are producing more woody shrubs than were present in the potential plant community The slope limits access by livestock. The limited accessibility results in overgrazing of the less sloping areas. Loss of the surface layer severely reduces the ability of the unit to produce plants suitable for grazing. If this unit is used for homesite development, the main limitations are the slope and the depth to bedrock. The cuts needed to provide essentially level building sites can expose bedrock. Erosion is a hazard in the steeper areas. Only the part of the site that is used for construction should be disturbed. This map unit is in capability subclass Vile. nonirrigated It is in the Loamy Slopes range site 11 I, Aspen - Gypsum Area, Colorado m E J y G pO Y E ~ Y >, 3 N Y J .. q F O . q J L % J Y Y O L - y� u ^J G V 0 V U L R N J 0 x c Y N Y .M L ry N 4 U R C N Y W 4 q Y 6 L q J [ J N O L C J R L v w m Y U N N V� L C L T .y N 4 C q 1 c R N q D L V N 7 V N C N N E AG L R v v a � q E J N 4 C N V J Y R E c n q q N L J C J V `f c N n N J J Y N 000052 4 'O I I 1 1 I I t 1 I i I I D J 1 J 1 I I I u I I I I I I I U v I I 1 I I I 1 I I I 1 I 3 U 1 I 1 I 1 L C I 1 I I 1 I 1 I I 1 I . 4 O J O L � I 1 I I I 1 2 1 U — O O -- _ ------ O — _ - _ a I 1 � � N Y ll a1 Y Y N Y v Q) Y 9 A N N n c O c O c J o n I— n n n y y n 1 n I q T R V q I I I N R T 9 9 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — "_ — _ — — — L V I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I O 1 I I I I I I xc 1 I I 1 I D D T C N I I I i II 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I q II I I I I I I I I I I I N 1 1 I 9 N 9 N j I I 1 I L u I J L N O C O N 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 Y 4 I I 1 I O I i W U I O 1 I I y Y ll w I Y Y Y O � I r O T I rr J J � I U 4 Y I II I 4 I I j O R C I I I I 1 I I I D R S 9 N L Rl J O O o O O O a c b m •D m t0 n w o D v n n n n n n n n ti n n I I n — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — N L y I 1 1 I I I I N C I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I 1 I N O I I I I I I I 1 1 1 I I I I I I 000052 4 'O I I 1 1 I I t 1 I i I I Y G 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I U I I 1 I I I 1 I I I 1 I 3 U 1 I 1 I 1 L C I 1 I I 1 I 1 I I 1 I P L � I 1 I I I 1 2 1 O I O O O O O a 41 G.1 N Y dl a1 Y Y N Y v Q) Y 9 A N N n c O c O c J o n I— n n n n n n n n n n A n n n I N — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — "_ — _ — — — L V I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I O 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I f T C � - I 1 i I I I 1 I I I 1 I II II CD li D 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I N I R I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I O II O a C N O � I O T I rr 253 ,p O v Y O C s 1 I I 1 1 I I t 1 I i I I T 1 I I I U 1 I 1 I 1 C I 1 I I 1 I 1 I I 1 I I 1 � I 1 I I I 1 1 I 41 G.1 N Y dl a1 Y Y N Y v Q) Y 9 N N N c O c O c J c O c 'J O D ] 'J I U 4 p� O 'J O u TN T T � - I 1 i I I I 1 I I I 1 I II II I li D 1 I I 1 o I I I N II 1 11 �I E E I O II C N I 1 I O T I rr J J 253 ,p O v Y O C s Map Number Description Hydrologic Group 12 Arle -Ansan -Rock outcrop complex, 12% to 50% C 000053 Existing Off -site Curve Number Calculation Basin A 956567 96 = Total Area (sf) 21 96 Sagebrush w/ Grass Understory. Fair 65 0% 63 Oak - Aspen, Fair 35.0% 57 Basin B 113609 Sagebrush w/ Grass Understory, Fair Oak- Aspen, Fair 000054 100 0% = Total Area (sf) 65.0% 350% 100,0% 2.61 63 57 = Total Area fac) 41 0 1995 61 = CN = Total Area (ac) 41 0 19.95 61 = CN Runoff Coefficients Existing Coefficients and Areas: Area El Area Total: Gravel Driveway Unimproved Runoff Coefficient, C: Gravel Driveway Unimproved Proposed Coefficients and Areas: Area PI Area Total: Building Roof & Hardscape Unimproved Runoff Coefficient, C: Building Roof & Hardscape Unimproved 000055 19.936 sf 0.46 acres 1,997 sf — 0.05 acres 17,939 sf = 0.41 acres Cl 0.8 C2 0.3 Weighted C — 0.35 19,936 sf — 0.46 acres 8,484 sf — 0.19 acres 11,452 sf = 0.26 acres CI = 0.95 C2 = 0.3 Weighted C = 0.58 00 o 06, 0 0 > v W m x,00 0l0 0', >'I(DO , uw' s Qvrn c (D 10 m m a J R O O 1 ...t. _.!... vtt-'O O 1 in O O' > i C5 W N' L O O J Q c0 C C N N (C @ m m 00005 shallow Concentrated Flow tmp #l.txt N Sheet Flow unpaved Description ..................... 964.0000 ft manning's n ..................... 0.4000 ft /ft Flow Length ..................... 300.0000 ft Two vr, 24 hr Rainfall .......... 1.4000 in Land slope ....................1. 0.4700 ft /ft Computed Sheet flow time ........ .> 0.3686 hrs shallow Concentrated Flow - Description ..................... surface ......................... unpaved Flow Length ................... 964.0000 ft watercourse slope ............... 0.6800 ft /ft velocity ........................ 13.3048 fps Computed shallow flow time .....................> 0.0201 hrs channel Flow ------------ Description ..................... Flow area ....................... 2.0000 ft2 wetted Perimeter ................ 24.0000 in Flow Length ..................... 820.0000 ft Channel Slope ................... 0.5850 ft /ft Manning s n ..................... 0.0280 Hydraulic radius ................ 12.0000 in velocity ........................ 40.5918 fps computed channel flow time .....................> 0.0056 hrs Total Time of concentration ........................> 0.3943 hrs Page 1 000097 e tmp #1 sheet Flow - Description ..................... manning's n ..................... 0.4000 Flow Length ..................... 300.0000 ft Two vr, 24 hr Rainfall .......... 1.5000 in Land slope ...................... 0.6700 ft /ft Computed Sheet flow time .......................> 0.3090 hrs shallow concentrated Flow Description ..................... surface ......................... unpaved Flow Length ..................... 409.0000 ft watercourse slope ............... 0.6800 ft /ft velocity ........................ 13.3048 fps computed shallow flow time .....................> 0.0085 hrs Total Time of concentration .........................> 0.3175 hrs Page 1 000058 M M M M M Ml M M M M M M ! M ! M M M M 0 0 0 c cn cfl V W W A I? cm a " p ' NC— It s ti J I� or a swy�0'd mo e 1. o m m t . m T„�• 'c I yv o, V ,,, S L... -. W! FRI m 2 H r a � _ _ � v , a3' m, P- __----------- .... —-�. }4 - 0 it -----I .c, ;.., I { _-- - - - -rte I �� J � I � 1 ml _ I > •� I � A r r\ r � I a 1 l I I 1 J--- — �.�— — O O N w to ca V OD 10 A A COLORADO: NOAA ATLAS 2, Volume III 2 Year, 24 Hour Precipitation PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO MOUNTAIN CROSS ENGINEERING, INC. Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design 826 112 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 ph 970.945.5544 fic 970.945.5558w .mountaincross- eng.com M= M = == M == M= i M —... m .Op a A - -l� w° r O 40 11 Y co W y NJ 1 '\_,J 23 � 3t� d m � w Ii— i T 1 6 1 _ Mf 2 I �p'4�Yr I 1 Y I I I { 1 I .{- I A- -'77 I _ O N sa w ev COLORADO: NOAA ATLAS 2, Volume III 10 Year, 24 Hour Precipitation PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO MOUNTAIN CROSS ENGINEERING, INC. Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design 82611/2 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 ph 9710.945.5544 fx 970. 945.5558 w .mountaincrosscng.com M M M M M i M M M M M M M M M M M M M COLORADO: NOAA ATLAS 2, Volume III MOUNTAIN CROSS 25 Year, 24 Hour Precipitation ENGINEERING, INC. Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design PITKINCOUNTY COLORADO 82fit/2Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, C0ngxom 'f ph 9'0.945.5544 (x 970. 945.5558 www.mountaincross- eng.com v W W 4. CD CD 4 f' 'j ti 4 �D m rrr rl -4 N} CD mR ^8g a m`tJ.11'II 1 Y U) w ti w a o u l gg o 0 p> 4 I r { K 1 I z- w St v _L- �� z -4 I�i�•3 — I ` i —1- - --4 + 1 T � � r 3 ``5 Ml --.. -- � z. o 7� 7� � A i ..,rte � I •s_ f - ni L ' I -I_; w - -- b. COLORADO: NOAA ATLAS 2, Volume III MOUNTAIN CROSS 25 Year, 24 Hour Precipitation ENGINEERING, INC. Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design PITKINCOUNTY COLORADO 82fit/2Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, C0ngxom 'f ph 9'0.945.5544 (x 970. 945.5558 www.mountaincross- eng.com 0 0 0 c COLORADO: NOAA ATLAS 2, Volume III MOUNTAIN CROSS 100 Year, 24 Hour Precipitation ENGINEERING, INC. Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO 8261/2Grand Avenue Glenwood untains,CD g.com ph 970.945.5544 fx 970. 945.5558 www.mountaincross�ng.com u n 6. j 3 c 1 ` 1 1 1' 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 iVERSION: 1 000863 CITY OF ASPEN STORM DRAINAGE CRITERIA TIME - INTENSITY FREQUENCY CURVES uj�c -t\clNEPi c �c TIME OF CONCENTRATION, Tc (minutes) REFERENCE: CITY OF ASPEN FIGURE 3.1 Page 1 0000611 tmp #3 Graphical Peak Discharge method Given Input Data: Description ........... A Rainfall distribution ........... Type II Frequency ....................... 100 years Rainfall, P (24- hours) .......... 3.2000 in Drainage area ................... 0.0343 mi2 Runoff curve number, CN ......... 61 Time of concentration, Tc ....... 0.3943 hrs Pond and Swamp areas ............ 0.0000 % of Area Computed Results: Initial abstraction, Ia ......... 1.2787 in Ia /P ................ I........... 0.3996 unit peak discharge, qu ......... 395.6668 csm /in Runoff, Q ....................... 0.4440 in Pond and swamp adjustment, Fp ... 1.0000 Peak discharge, qp .............. 6.0252 cfs Page 1 0000611 Page 1 000065 tmp #2 Graphical Peak Discharge method Given Input Data: Description ..................... a Rainfall distribution ........... Type II Frequency ......I.. ........ 100 years Rainfall, P (24- hours) .......... 3.2000 in Drainage area ................... 0.0041 mil Runoff curve number, CN ......... 61 Time of concentration, Tc ....... 0.3175 hrs Pond and swamp areas ............ 0.0000 % of Area computed Results: Initial abstraction, Ia ......... 1.2787 in Ia /P ............................ 0.3996 Unit peak discharge, qu ......... 445.5150 csm /in Runoff, Q ....................... 0.4440 in Pond and swamp adjustment, Fp ... 1.0000 Peak discharge, qp .............. 0.8109 cfs Page 1 000065 [1 tmp #5 TR -55 Tabular Hydrograph Method Input Summary Description ..................... 10 -Yr Rainfall Distribution ........... Type II Ia /P interpolation On Total Area ...................... 0.0384 mil Peak Time ....................... 12.5000 hrs Peak Flow 1.1271. cfs Given Input Data Subarea D/5 subareas Area CN TC Tt Rainfall Description (mil) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- (hrs) (hrs) (in) A 0.0343 61 0.3943 0.0000 2.2000 6 0.0041 61 0.3175 0.0000 2.2000 Support Data: Messages warning: is /p > 0.5 in row <1>. Increase CN and /or Rainfall. Ia /p = 0.5 used. Info: Time of concentration rounded to 0.4000 hrs in row <2>. warning: is /p > 0.5 in row <2 >. increase CN and /or Rainfall. Ia /p = 0.5 used. 000066 Page 1 Page I 000067 tmp#13 TR-55 Tabular Hydrograph method Input Summary Description ..................... 25-yr Rainfall Distribution ........... Type II Ia/P Interpolation ... I .......... On Total Area ...................... 0.0384 mi2 Peak Time ....................... 12.5000 hrs Peak Flow ....................... 2.2509 cfs Given Input Data: ---------------------------------------------- Subarea D/S subareas Area -- CN Tc Tt -------- Rainfall Description (mi2) (hrs) (hrs) (in) A 0.0343 61 ------ 0.3943 ------ 0.0000 ---- 2.6000 B 0.0041 61 0.3175 0.0000 2.6000 support Data: Messages: Info: Time of Concentration rounded to 0.4000 hrs in row <1>, Info: Time of concentration rounded to 0.3000 hrs in row <2>. Page I 000067 I 1 tmp #4 TR -55 Tabular Hydrograph Method Input Summary Description .................... A & B Rainfall Distribution ........... Type II Ia /P Interpolation .............. On Total Area ...................... 0.0384 mil Peak Time ....................... 12.4000 hrs Peak Flow 6.3086 cfs Given Input Data subarea D/5 Subareas Area CN Tc Tt Rainfall Description (mi2) (hrs) (hrs) (in) ----------------------------------- ---------- ------------ - - - - -- - - - - -- A B 0.0343 61 0.3943 0.0000 3.2000 B 0.0041 61 0.3175 0.0100 3.2000 Support Data: Messages: Info: Time of Concentration rounded to 0.4000 hrs in row <1>. Info: Time of Travel rounded to 0.0000 hrs in row <1 >. Info: Time of Concentration rounded to 0.3000 hrs in row <2>. iii Page 1 Rainfall Intensitv: 4.4 in. hr. 100 -vr Area I Basin Description Area (acres) Coefficient Flow (cfs) Area 1 Existing - 100 yr 0.46 0.35 0.70 Proposed - 100 yr 0.46 0.58 1.16 000069 Detention Necessary 8" PVC �a 1 °'0 a tmp #9 Manning Pipe Calculator Given input Data Shape ........................... Circular Solving for ..................... Depth of Flow Diameter ........................ 8.0000 in Flowrate ........................ 1.1600 cfs Slope ........................... 0.0100 ft /ft Manning's n ..................... 0.0130 Computed Results: Critical information Depth ........................... 6.2863 depth .................. in area ............................ 0.3491 critical ft2 Wetted area ..................... 0.2942 ft /ft ft2 Wetted Perimeter ................ 17.4338 in Perimeter ....................... 25.1327 0.2927 in velocity ........................ 3.9422 perimeter .............. fps Hydraulic Radius ................ 2.4304 critical in Percent Full .................... 78.5790 in % Full flow Flowrate .............. 1.2084 cfs Full flow velocity .............. 3.4618 0.7554 fps 000070 Page 1 Critical information Critical depth .................. 6.1262 in critical slope .................. 0.0087 ft /ft critical velocity ............... 3.9637 fps critical area ................... 0.2927 ft2 Critical perimeter .............. 16.8187 in critical hydraulic radius ....... 2.5057 in critical top width .............. 8.0000 in Specific energy ................. 0.7554 ft Minimum energy .................. 0.7658 ft Froude number ................... 1.0737 Flow condition .................. Supercritical 000070 Page 1 Computed Results: tmp #11 Depth ........................... channel Calculator Given input Data: 2.3845 fps shape ........................... Trapezoidal Solving for ..................... Depth of Flow Flowrate ........................ 6.3100 cfs Slope ........................... 0.0100 ft /ft Manning's n ..................... 0.0400 Height .......................... 12.0000 in Bottom width .................... 12.0000 in Left slope ...................... 0.5000 ft /ft (v /H) Right slope ..................... 0.5000 ft /ft (v /H) Computed Results: Critical Information Depth ........................... 11.1256 in velocity ........................ 2.3845 fps Full Flowrate ................... 7.4655 cfs Flow area ....................... 2.6463 ft2 Flow perimeter .................. 61.7554 in Hydraulic radius ................ 6.1706 in Top width ....................... 56.5026 in Area ............................ 3.0000 ft2 Perimeter ....................... 65.6656 in Percent full .................... 92.7137 % 000071 Page 1 Critical Information Critical depth .................. 8.3827 in Critical slope .................. 0.0342 ft /ft Critical velocity ............... 3.7682 fps critical area ................... 1.6745 ft2 critical perimeter .............. 49.4886 in Critical hydraulic radius ....... 4.8725 in Critical top width .............. 45.5308 in specific energy ................. 1.0155 ft Minimum energy .................. 1.0478 ft Froude number ................... 0.5607 Flow condition .................. subcritical 000071 Page 1 Computed Results Depth ........................... tmp #6 Channel Calculator Given Input Data: 6.1206 shape ........................ Trapezoidal solving for ..................... Depth of Flow Flowrate ........................ 1.1300 cfs slope ........................... 0.5000 ft /ft manning's n ..................... 0.0400 Height .......................... 12.0000 in Bottom width .................... 12.0000 in Left slope ...................... 0.5000 ft /ft (v /H) Right slope ..................... 0.5000 ft /ft (v /H) Computed Results Depth ........................... 1.7215 in velocity ........................ 6.1206 fps Full Flowrate ................... 52.7887 cfs Flow area ....................... 0.1846 ft2 Flow perimeter .................. 19.6989 in Hydraulic radius ................ 1.3496 in Top width ....................... 18.8861 in Area ............................ 3.0000 ft2 Perimeter ....................... 65.6656 in Percent full .................... 14.3461 % critical Information Critical depth .................. 3.3690 in Critical slope .................. 0.0428 ft /ft Critical velocity ............... 2.5776 fps Critical area ................... 0.4384 ft2 Critical perimeter .............. 27.0668 in Critical hydraulic radius ....... 2.3324 in critical top width .............. 25.4761 in specific energy ................. 0.7256 ft Minimum energy .................. 0.4211 ft Froude number ................... 3.1505 Flow condition .................. Supercritical Page 1 000072 Steep Straight - 10 yr, total flow Design Discharge 1 13 cfs Qd Design Slope 05 ft/ft S Design Depth 0 143 ft davg Design Velocity 6 12 ft /s Va Manning's Number 004 n degs rads Bank Angle 27 0 471 =2.1 slope Riprap Repose Angle 41 0 716 Channel Bank K1 = 0 722 Channel Bed K1 = 0 722 Generally K1 is equal to 1 for channel beds, however the channel bed is as steep as the slope Stability Factor = 2 Rapidly varying Specific Gravity = 2.65 Assumes specific gravity of nprap is 2.65 Correction Factor C = 2.149 D50 = 001`VaA3 /(davgA.5'K JAI .5)' C Channel Banks D50 2.1 ft 25 inches Channel Bed D50 2.1 ft 25 inches D50 25 inches Riprap Gradation Percent Smaller Than 100% from 38 inches to 43 inches 85% from 30 inches to 35 inches 50% from 25 inches to 29 inches 15% from 10 inches to 15 inches Layer Thickness D100 43 inches Use 48" 2'D50 51 inches 000073 Page 1 000074 tmp #14 Channel Calculator Given Input Data: shape .. ..... Trapezoidal Solving for .. .. • Depth of Flow p Flowrate •.• ............... 2.2500 cfs Slope ........................... 0.5000 ft /ft n 0.0400 ' Heightg.. Height . 12.0000 in ................. Bottom width ........... 12.0000 in Left slope ...................... 0.5000 ft /ft (v /H) ' Right slope ..................... Computed Results: 0.5000 ft /ft (v /H) Deppth ........... 2.5209 in ' Full Fl ........................ Full Flowrate 5257887fpfs Flow area .....................� 0.2983 ft2 Flow perimeter .................. 23.2740 in ' Hydraulic radius Top width 1.8459 in 22.0838 in ................. Area 3.0000 ft2 Perimeter ..................... 65.6656 in Percent full Critical 21.0079 Information Critical depth .................. 4.9197 in critical slope .................. 0.0390 ft /ft ' Critical velocity ............... 3.0156 fps critical area 0.7461 ft2 critical perimeter 34.0015 in critical hydraulic radius ....... 3.1599 in critical top width .............. 31.6788 in ' specific energy ................. 1.0940 ft Minimum energy .................. 0.6150 ft Froude number ................... 3.3022 . Flow condition .................. Supercritical Page 1 000074 Steep Straight - 25 yr, total flow Design Discharge 2.25 cfs Qd Design Slope 0.5 ft /ft S Design Depth 021 ft davg Design Velocity 7.54 ft/s Va Manning's Number 0.04 n degs rads Bank Angle 27 0 471 =2:1 slope Riprap Repose Angle 41 0 716 Channel Bank K1 = 0.722 Channel Bed K1 = 0 722 Generally K1 is equal to 1 for channel beds, however the channel bed is as steep as the slope Stability Factor = 2 Rapidly varying Specific Gravity = 2.65 Assumes specific gravity of riprap is 2.65 Correction Factor C = 2.149 D50 = 001 *VaA3 /(davgA.5 *K1A1.5) * C Channel Banks D50 3.3 ft 39 inches Channel Bed D50 13 ft 39 inches D50 39 inches Riprap Gradation Percent Smaller Than 100% from 59 inches to 66 inches 85% from 47 inches to 55 inches 50% from 39 inches to 45 inches 15% from 16 inches to 23 inches Layer Thickness D100 66 inches Use 70" 2 *D50 79 inches 000075 Page 1 000076 tmp #7 channel calculator Given Input Data: Shape .. ." Trapezoidal Solving for ......... Depth of Flow Flowrate ........ 6.3100 cfs slope ........................... 0.5000 ft /ft manning's n ..................... 0.0400 ' Height 12.0000 in Bottom width 12.0000 in Left slope ...................... 0.5000 ft /ft (v /H) ' Right slope ..................... Computed Results: 0.5000 ft /ft (v /H) Depth ........................... 4.3470 in ' Full Fl Full Flowrate 5.788$ cfs Flow area ................... 0.6247 ft2 Flow perimeter .................. 31.4405 in Hydraulic radius ............... 2.8612 in Top width .. 29.3881 in Area ..... . .... 3.0000 ft2 Perimeter ....................... 65.6656 in Percent full ................... 36.2252 critical Information critical depth .................. 8.3827 in critical slope .................. 0.0342 ft /ft Critical velocity ............... 3.7682 fps critical area ................... 1,6745 ft2 critical perimeter .............. 49.4886 in critical hydraulic radius ....... 4.8725 in critical top width ..... ........ 45.5308 in ' specific energy 1.9478 ft Minimum energy .................. 1.0478 ft Froude number ................... 3.5258 Flow condition .................. supercritical Page 1 000076 Steep Straight - 100 yr, total flow Design Discharge 631 cfs Qd Design Slope 05 ft/ft S Design Depth 036 ft davg Design Velocity 10 1 ftls Va Manning's Number 004 n degs rads Bank Angle 27 0 471 =2:1 slope Riprap Repose Angle 41 0 716 Channel Bank K1 = 0 722 Channel Bed K1 = 0 722 Generally K1 is equal to 1 for channel beds, however the channel bed is as steep as the slope Stability Factor = 2 Rapidly varying Specific Gravity = 265 Assumes specific gravity of riprap is 2.65 Correction Factor C = 2.149 D50 = .001'VaA31(davgA 5'K1 Al 5) ` C Channel Banks D50 6.0 ft 72 inches Channel Bed D50 6.0 ft 72 inches D50 72 inches Riprap Gradation Percent Smaller Than 100% from 108 inches to 122 inches 85% from 86 inches to 101 inches 50% from 72 inches to 83 inches 15% from 29 inches to 43 inches Layer Thickness D100 122 inches Use 132" 2'D50 144 inches 000077 I [l 1 Area I, 100 -yr Detention Time (min.) Time (sec.) I (in./hr.) Existing Release Volume (ft3) Proposed Runoff Volume (ft3) Volume Difference (ft3) 5 300 5.70 211 451 240 10 600 4.40 423 697 274 15 900 3.70 634 879 244 20 1200 3.25 846 1029 183 25 1.500 2.85 1057 1128 71 30 1800 2.55 1269 1211 -58 35 2100 2.35 1480 1302 -178 40 2400 2.20 1692 1393 -299 45 2700 2.10 1903 1496 -407 50 3000 1.90 2115 1504 -611 55 3300 1.75 2326 1524 -80^_ GO 3600 1.65 2538 1568 970 000078 1011 -vr Maximum Volume Difference = Required Detention = 274 Worksheet Worksheet for Circular Orifice Project Description Worksheet Orifice - 1 Type Circular Onfic, Solve For Diameter Input Data Discharge 0 70 Hs Headwater Elevat 11 00 it Centroid Elevatior 0.00 ft Tattwater Elevatio 0 00 R Discharge Coeffic 0 61 Results Diameter 28 in Headwater Height Above 11.00 ft Tailwater Height Above Cc 0 -00 ft Flow Area 1.3e -2 W Velocity 16.23 ft /s 1 -30007' Project Engineer Christopher F Hale flewmasterlwagnerguest rm2 Mountain Cross Engineering, Inc. FlowMaster ,6 1 [6140) 08/01/07 05:03:56 PM � Haestad Methods, Inr 37 Brookside Road Waterbury CT 06709 'JSP, ;2031 755 -1666 Page 1 M 1 1-4 fvm EGtth- HEPWORTH- PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL July 5, 2007 Revised July 18, 2007 Duer Wagner c/o Charles Cunniffe Architects Hcpm,rrh- Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. 5020 CUUMV Road 154 Glemuad Smn2s, Clorado 81501 Phone. 970- 945 -598S. Fax: 970 -1)45 -8454 email hpeeAhpveotech.com EXHIBIT D (6 PAGES) Attn: Janver Derrington 610 East Hyman Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Job No. 107 0521 Subject: Geotechnical Site Review, Proposed Wagner Guest House, Lot 4, Block 3, Red Mountain Ranch, West of 155 Sabin Drive, Pitkin County, Colorado. Dear Mr. Wagner: As requested, we have conducted a geotechnical review of the subject property. The review was conducted in accordance with our professional services agreement with you dated July 5, 2007. The purpose of the review was to evaluate the exposed conditions at the site and assess the influence of the subsoils and geology on the proposed development. We previously conducted a geotechnical study at the main house site located on Lot 5 just to the east of this site and presented our results in a report dated December 7, 2004, Job Number 104 801. The conditions at Lot 4 were observed during a site reconnaissance on June 25, 2007. We have also reviewed published geologic literature and regional geologic mapping. This report summarizes our findings and presents our conclusions and recommendations. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The proposed development will consist of a 1 story structure with a garage at the east end. The rear (uphill) half of the building will be earth covered. Grading for the structure will be extensive with cut depths up to about 25 feet. Shallow cuts and fills are proposed for the driveway turnaround off of the southeast comer of the proposed residence. If development plans change significantly from those described above, we should be contacted for review and additional analysis as needed. 0 0 0 0 ker 303 -841 -7119 • Colorado Springs 719 -633 -5562 • Silverthorne 970 - 468 -1989 -2- SITE CONDITIONS The project site is located on a southwest facing hillside on the north side of the Roaring Fork River valley about 1' /2 miles northwest of downtown Aspen. The site is currently vacant and is vegetated with native grass, weeds, gambel oak and serviceberry brush in the building area with aspen trees to the west. The hillsides on the property slope steeply down to the southwest and grades are about 50% to 65% in the proposed building area. Cuts and fills on the lot range from about 5 to 10 feet in the area of the existing two track "driveway" and the buried Red Mountain Ditch located about 15 to 20 feet north of the proposed building area. There are exposed cobbles and boulders on the lot. Red siltstone and sandstone bedrock crops out on the hillside northeast of the lot. GEOLOGIC SETTING The project site is located on the northern side of the Roaring Fork River valley, on the southern slope of Red Mountain. The Roaring Fork River valley in the project area was glaciated several times during the middle and late Pleistocene. Four glacial outwash deposits and terraces have been mapped in the Roaring Fork River valley to the northwest of Aspen, representing at least four glacial advances and retreats (Bryant, 1971). Colluvium has been deposited on steep valley sides below bedrock exposures throughout the Quaternary and overlies glacial moraines in some areas of the valley. The project area is underlain by the Permian and Pennsylvanian-age Maroon Formation. Strikes in the Maroon Formation vary throughout the project area but are generally northeast in orientation. The dips in the Maroon Formation bedding are about 45° to 500 down to the northwest beneath the project site (Bryant, 1971). The Maroon Formation consists of red, interbedded sandstone, conglomerate and siltstone. The project site is located near the axis of a large northwest plunging syncline that borders the Sawatch uplift on its western side. The syncline is faulted and downthrown to the east along its axis in this area. Several northwest trending faults, comprising the Castle Creek fault zone, are located about 1 mile west of the project site and several northeast trending faults are located about l' /2 miles to the east of the project site within the quartz monzonite stock of Smuggler Mountain (Bryant, 1971). These geologic structures probably formed during the Laramide orogeny about 40 to 80 million years ago. The faults in the project area are geologically old and are not considered capable of generating large earthquakes. The closest geologically young fault zones to the project Job No. 107 0521 G4E' tech 00,9091 3- area with known or suspected post - glacial activity, movement within about the last 15,000 years, are the Williams Fork Mountain fault zone located about 62 miles to the northeast and the southern section of the Sawatch fault zone located about 43 miles to the southeast (Widmann and Others, 1998). SITE GEOLOGY Surficial deposits in the project area consist of colluvium and middle Pleistocene age glacial moraine of the Bull Lake glaciation. The colluvium and moraine consist of poorly sorted gravel, cobbles and boulders in a clayey, silty sand matrix. The cobbles and boulders exposed on the ground surface of the lot are subrounded to subangular and represent a variety of resistant rock types present in the upstream drainage basins as well as sandstone blocks derived from the Maroon Formation. Boulders exposed near the project site are up to 3 feet in diameter and could be larger in the subsurface. The glacial moraine at the project site appears to have had a stable recent geologic history with respect to landsliding since its deposition about 130 to 300 thousand years ago. GEOLOGIC SITE ASSESSMENT The proposed building site is not exposed to potential snow avalanche, rockfall or debris flow hazards. Conditions of a geologic nature that should be considered in project planning and design are potentially shallow groundwater conditions, the potential for construction related slope instability and earthquakes. Shallow Groundwater: The Red Mountain ditch is located about 15 to 20 feet north of the existing residence. The ditch is piped in this area and no signs of seepage were visible at the time of our reconnaissance. In our opinion, it appears that the potential for groundwater impact to the proposed excavation is low. However, shallow groundwater conditions and groundwater seepage are present in some areas near the project site and the site cannot be considered entirely risk free. If seepage is encountered in the excavation, we should be contacted for further evaluation of the groundwater condition at the site. Construction Related Slope Instability: Deep cuts into the hillside deposits at the project site will have potential for construction- related slope instability if grading for the proposed structure is not engineered properly. Excavation for the proposed residence will be relatively extensive with cut depths up to about 25 feet and should be shored to maintain stability. Grading earth pressure design criteria and foundation bearing Job No. 107 0521 u G<c'tech recommendations were included in our previous site specific geotechnical study for the residence on Lot 5 and can be assumed for preliminary design at Lot 4. Earthquake Considerations: The project area could experience earthquake related ground shaking. Historic earthquake ground shaking in the region has been moderately strong, but has not exceeded Modified Mercalli Intensity VI (Kirkham and Rogers, 1985). Modified Mercalli Intensity VI ground shaking should be expected during a reasonable exposure time for the proposed residence, but the probability for stronger ground shaking is low. Intensity VI ground shaking is felt by most people and causes general alarm, but results in negligible damage to structures of good design and construction. The residence should be designed to withstand moderately strong ground shaking with little or no damage and not to collapse under stronger ground shaking. The U.S. Geological Survey National Seismic Hazard Map indicates that a peak ground acceleration of 0.06g has a 10% exceedence probability for a 50 year exposure time at the project site (Frankel and Others, 2002). This corresponds to a statistical recurrence time of about 500 years. The region is in the 1997 Uniform Building Code, Seismic Risk Zone I. Based on our current understanding of the earthquake potential in this part of Colorado, we see no reason to increase the previously accepted seismic risk zone for the region. PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS The site is not currently accessible to drilling equipment due to the construction trailer and crane on the adjacent site to the east. Until the site is accessible, design can proceed assuming that the soils are similar to Lot 5 to the east. Footings can be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 psf and where footings bear entirely on bedrock, 5,000 psf. Foundation walls acting as retaining structures should be designed for a lateral earth pressure computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of at least 50 pcf for walls up to 15 feet high. Taller walls should be designed for a uniform lateral load in psf of 25H where H is the wall height in feet. Underdrains should be provided at the base of all foundation retaining walls. LIMITATIONS This study was conducted according to generally accepted engineering principles and practices in this area, at this time. We make no warranty either express or implied. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based on our field observations, interpretations of previous geotechnical and geologic studies and mapping, JVV IVV. IV /VSL1 000083 G(;Ttr..0 I - 5 - and our experience in the area. This report has been prepared exclusively for our client to evaluate the potential influence of the geology on the proposed development. The information is suitable for planning and preliminary design. We are not responsible for technical interpretations by others of our information. If you have any questions or if we may be of further assistance, please let us know. Respectfully Submitted, HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Daniel E. Hardin, P Reviewed by: Steven L. Pawlak, P.E. DEH/ksw JOO IVO. IV/ VJGI C,!; tech 000084 M REFERENCES Bryant, Bruce, 1971, Geologic Map of the Aspen Quadrangle, Pitkin County, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey, Geologic Quadrangle Map GQ -933. Frankel, A.D. and Others, 2002. Documentation for the 2002 Update of the National Seismic Hazard Maps. U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 02 -420. Hepworth - Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc., 2004, Subsoil Study for Foundation Design, Proposed Residence, Lot 5, Block 3, Red Mountain Ranch, 115 Sabin Drive, Pitkin County, Colorado: Prepared for Duer Wagner, Report dated December 7, 2004, Job Number 104 801. Kirkham, R.M. and Rogers, W.P., 1985, Colorado Earthquake Data and Interpretations 1867 to 1985: Colorado Geological Survey Bulletin 46. Widmann, Beth L., Kirkham, Robert M., and Rogers, William P., 1998, Preliminary Quaternary Fault and Fold Map and Database of Colorado: Colorado Geological Survey, Open File Report 98 -8. JUU IVU. IU/ VJLI GtL-L 000085 HOUGLAND & ASSOCIATES EXHIBIT CONSULTING ON WILDFIRE HAZARD MITIGATION, (5 PAGES) FIRE PROTECTION AND BUILDING & FIRE CODES PHONE (970) 384- 1221/FAX (970) 384 -1331 /17 GAMBA DRIVE, GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO, 81601 firesafe(a—;souris net June 10, 2007 Janver C. Derrington Principle /General Manager Charles Cunniffe Architects 610 East Hyman Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 Subject: Wildfire Hazard Mitigation for the Wagner Guest house property located at 0200 Sabin Drive, Pitkin County, Colorado Dear Mr. Derrington, I appreciate you meeting me at the Guest house site on Friday June 7th to orient me to the property and the site of the proposed house and provide me with site and conceptual plans. I remained on site to review the site and to take some photos. I will qualify my observations as those of conditions as they now exist. The slope above and below the proposed building site is between 50% and 60% for a considerable distance depending on where measured. The vegetation is mostly oak, service berry, sage brush and native grass. Unlike the main house site there does not seem to have been any thinning done down slope. These conditions create a continuous fuel path from the south as well as from the west and up slope above Sabin Drive. I consider the site to be within a Very High Wildfire Hazard area. I have not seen any conceptual plans for the guest house so I don't know the configuration or construction proposed for the guest house so I cannot comment on these at this time. The property line below the site runs down slope from the northeast to the southwest and the Improvement Survey indicates that the southeast comer of the guest house is approximately 20 -feet from this property line. Although the improvement survey indicates a driveway turn around to the south east it appears as if the property line down slope will be between 30 -feet at the east end to approximately 70 -feet at the west end. These short distances on this steep slope makes it difficult to manage the vegetation since the owner can only manage the vegetation on their own property unless there is a legal agreement with the neighbor to the south that is accepted by Pitkin County. These Wildfire Hazard Mitigation recommendations are made assuming no agreement. 111 :• Vegetation Management and Modification Recommended: Around the guest house and beyond the furthermost projection of decks or other portions of the house for a distance of 15 -feet the area should be of primarily noncombustible hard scape surfaces, low growing perennials, flowerbeds, cut grass and deciduous, well - trimmed and irrigated plants. Woody vegetation should not be planted within this area. Firewood or other combustible materials should not be stored within this area. If the owner desires to have one or more ornamental trees within these 15 -foot areas this is acceptable, except for down slope, as long as the area as described above extends 15 -feet beyond the drip line of the expected mature size of these trees. Other distances beyond the 15 -foot area referred to in these recommendations also apply to distances beyond the 15 -foot area surrounding protected trees. The lower branches of trees retained or planted should be trimmed to a height of at least 10 -feet or '/2 the height of the tree, whichever is least. Beyond the 15 -foot area up to 35 -feet from the proposed house and 80 feet down slope or to the property line maintain natural and/or irrigated grass at less than 6- inches. Down slope within 80 -feet of the house I recommend that no clusters of oak, service bevy, mountain rose or other woody shrubs be created or maintained. The possible exception may be a small cluster of aspen placed at least 40 -feet from any oak, service berry or other native or other woody shrubs. Native and/or irrigated grass in this area should be maintained at 6- inches or less. In cross slope and up slope directions for a distance of 35 -feet thin existing trees and brush into individual or clusters. Lower limbs should be pruned to one half the height of the trees or 10 -feet whichever is less. Clusters of bushes or shrubs should be separated from each other and from those beyond the 35 -foot and 80 -foot areas by a distance of 2 % times the height of the mature vegetation. The diameter of a cluster at the crowns should be limited to 2 '/2 times the height 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 25 feet. No brush or shrubs which when mature will be tall enough act as ladder fuel should be provided or maintained around or beneath the trees. Ideally the plant material growing between trees and clusters of bushes or shrubs is grass maintained at 6- inches or less. Many of the shrubs that will be cut such as oak and service berry are vigorous sprouting plants and the cut ends should be treated with a product named Garlon® or an equivalent by a person licensed to apply herbicides. Cut materials should be either removed or chipped and spread. 3. Remove or chip all standing dead and deadfall for at least 35 feet up slope and 100 feet east, west and south of any portion of the house or protected vegetation, or up to the property line if less than 100 feet. 000087 New Construction: I recommend that the design, materials and construction of buildings conform to the design features and materials required by Pitkin County for safe construction in a severe wildfire hazard area as restated below: Pitkin County has Structural Design and Construction Requirements, the following are paraphrased from Pitkin County Land Use Code, Chapter 7, Section 7 -20 -60 Wildfire Hazards and may not contain exact language but it is intended to be consistent with the intent and purpose of the Pitkin County Requirements. Projections: I recommend that no portion of the building(s) or addition(s) be constructed with unenclosed projections such as decks. Eves should be kept to a minimum on the down slope side and on the sides and should not have ventilation openings unless the design and configuration of the openings are specifically approved by Pitkin County. Projections may include, but are not limited to eaves; cornices; soffits; roofs over open decks, cantilevered floors; bay windows; decks or balconies. Projections may cause heat traps and should be protected as follows: 4. Any projection including guardrails should be constructed with materials approved for one -hour fire- resistive construction, any material underlain by 5/8" Type X gypboard or approved equal or Type IV Heavy Timber materials per the currently adopted building code. Projections should have no inside angles of less than seventy -five (75) degrees. 5. An alternative construction for projections would require the use of non - combustible building materials or materials with a flame spread rating of less than twenty five ( <25 tested to ASTM E84) and listed for exterior use. Areas below projections should be void of vegetation or other combustible materials. The areas below these projections shall be protected from accumulation of vegetative materials by placement of a vegetative barrier covered with rocks or gravel or shall be concrete or stone. There shall be no storage of combustible materials under projections. The walls under projections shall be constructed of materials approved for one -hour fire - resistive construction on the exterior side of the wall. Window openings in walls below projections shall be tempered glass. Doors shall be noncombustible or one and three - fourths inch (1 3/ ") solid wood. Windows and Glass: Glazed openings shall be provided with closing, solid, exterior non - flammable shutters or shall be tempered glass. 000088 Exterior Walls and Siding: Siding and exterior wall construction shall have a minimum of one -hour fire - resistive rating ground level to roof line, 5/8" gypboard underlying combustible materials or cement stucco with a minimum thickness of '/4". Exterior doors shall be noncombustible or one and three- fourths inch (1 3/ ") solid wood. If a hardscape patio and masonry wall has been designed as a buffer, exterior doors having tempered glass may be used if approved by the fire marshal. Foundation: Foundations, skirting and crawl -space openings shall be fully enclosed and constructed with materials approved for one -hour fire- resistive construction on the exterior side of the walls and shall extend from the top of grade to the underside of the floor decking or walls. Roofs: Roofs shall be constructed with a Class A roof assembly as defined in the 2003 International Building Code (IBC) Section 1505.2 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 areas unless they comply with the following: 1. All roof coverings shall be listed for installation as a part of the Class A roof assembly. 2. All roof coverings shall have a surface that shall facilitate the natural process of clearing the roof. 3. All roof designs shall facilitate the natural process of clearing the roof of debris. Protrusions above the roof line, such as parapets, shall be prohibited. 4. Roofs shall be installed as required by the adopted building code and shall have a minimum slope of 1:48. 5. All roof designs, coverings or equivalent assemblies shall be specifically approved by the Fire Marshal prior to submittal of a building permit application. 6. Vents shall be screened with corrosive resistant wire mesh, with mesh one- fourth- inch (% ") maximum. Maintenance: 1. Roofs and gutters shall be kept clear of debris. 2. Yards shall be kept clear of all litter, slash and flammable materials and debris. 3. All flammable materials shall be stored on a parallel contour a minimum of fifteen -feet (15') from any structure. 4. Weeds and grass within the fifteen -foot (15') perimeter and under trees, bushes and brush shall be maintained at a height of not more than six - inches (6 "). Miscellaneous: 1. Firewood /woodpiles shall be stacked on a parallel contour a minimum of fifteen - feet (15') from any structure. 2. Swimming pools shall be accessible to the Fire Department. 3. Fences shall be kept clear of brush and debris. 4. Wood fences shall not connect to structures. 11 5. Any outbuildings or additional structures shall adhere to the same standards described herein. 6. Each structure shall have a minimum of on one ten -pound (10 #) Class ABC fire extinguisher. 7. Addresses shall be clearly marked with two -inch (2 ") noncombustible letters and shall be visible at the primary point of access from the public or common access road and installed on a noncombustible 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, Art Hougland Art Hougland NOTICE: This Wildfire Hazard Mitigation Analysis 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 documents. The review of the existing wildfire hazard potential on this property and the observations and recommendations for the mitigation of these hazards does not constitute an acceptance of any responsibility by Hougland & 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 hazard mitigation guidelines of the Colorado State Forest Service and of other nationally recognized standards and are intended to be constructive and in support of the owners interest. II11 "1 u 'v i uj a p �o Q = A LL 1-i N LL 1�- m X W R '. i ■ Documentary Fee $ 335.00 jjjj+�N�l( II��j�j��N�l 5 2292 Of 3 IN CDt/N {r CO It 11118. 14/2000 04:15 0 335.00 WARRANTY DEED THIS DEED, made December 11, 2006, Between HAR ADOM LIMITED, A COLORADO CORPORATION of the County of State of--�— __,GRANTOR, AND 0200 BASIN ROAD LLC, A TEXAS LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, GRANTEE whose legal address is: 301 COMMERCE STREET, STE. 1830, FT, WORTH, TX, 76102 of the County of State of TX WITNESSETH, That for and i the n consideration of the sum of ten dollars and other good and valuable consideration, receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the grantor has granted, unto bargained, sold and conveyed, and by these presents does grant, bargain, sell and convey and confirm the grantee, its heirs and assigns forever, all the real Property lying and being n the County of PITKIN, State of COLORADO, described as follows: if any, LOT 4, BLOCK 3, RED MOUNTAIN RANCH, according to the Plat thereof recorded October 7, 1964 in Plat Book 4 at Page 13. TOGETHER with all appertaining, and the reversion and the reversions, emain remainders, rents ssues and tprofifs thereof, belonging, all thse estate, right, title, interest, claim and demand whatsoever of the grantor either in law or equity, n in and to the above bargained premises, with the hereditaments and appurtenances. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said Premises above bargained and described, with the appurtenances, unto the grantee, its heirs and assigns forever. And the Grantor, for its, its heirs and assigns, does covenant, grant, bargain, and agree to and with the Grantee, its heirs and assigns, that at the time of the ensealing and delivery of these presents, its is well seized of the premises above conveyed, has good, sure, perfect, absolute and indefeasible estate of inheritance, in law, in fee simple, and has good right, full Power and lawful authority to grant, bargain, sell and convey the same in manner and form as aforesaid, and that the same are free and clear from all former and other grants, bargains, sales, liens, taxes, assessments, encumbrances and restrictions of whatever kind or nature soever, except those matters as set forth on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The grantor shall and will WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND the above bargained premises in the quiet and peaceable possession of the grantee, its heirs and assigns, against all and every person or persons lawfully claiming the whore or any part thereof. The singular number shall include the plural, the plural the singular, and the use of gender shall be applicable to off genders. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the grantor has executed this deed. Return to: KRABACHER SANDERS PC SIGNATURES ON PAGE 2 201 N. ILL ST. #201 ASPEN, CO 81811 8. JOSEPH xRABACHER 532292 TRANSFER DECLARATION RECEIVED 12/1412006 000093 jIIIII�III�I�I�I CAUDILL I�I�IIII��I�IIII Page: 32296 Co R SIGNATURE PAGE TO WARRANTY DEED D 335. Parr 2 STATE OF Co p v Q d0 COUNTY OF ��`7 W The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 14 `day by HAR DOM LIMITED, A COLORADO CORPORATION, j7N [fS 1 WITNESS my h hand ofcal seal Gn my commission expires: PCT20697F3 000094 JOY S. 81GEN5 NOTARY t'UBL1C STATE OF COLORADO tar canra..� �.. oerou:o+o 3 04 :18 00 4 2006, rvl.a- vs EXHIBIT "A" 1. Taxes for the year 2006 not yet due or payable. 2. 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 and right of way for ditches or canals constructed by the authority of the United States as reserved in United States Patent recorded April 24, 1922 in Book 55 at Page 263. 3. Those terms, conditions, provisions, obligations, easements, restrictions, assessments and all matters as sat forth in Protective Covenants for Red Mountain Ranch Subdivision recorded December 15, 1966 in gook 224 at Page 347, and Pro tect ve Covenants for Red Mountain Ranch, Bkx k 3 recorded November 18, 1968 in gook 244 at Page 553, deleting therefrom any restrictions indicat ng any preference, limitation or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin. 4. Terms, conditions, provisions, obligations and all matters as set forth in the Articles of Incorporation of Red Mountain Ranch Homeowners Association recorded December 15, 1966 in Book 224 at Page 329, incorporated by reference in instrument recorded in Book 224 at Page 347, and Amendment thereto recorded June 1r rate in Book 594 at Page 753, and Certificate recorded December 7, 1993 in Book 733 at Page 897 and Settlement Agreement regarding Hunter Creek recorded October B, 1993 in Book 726 at Page 148, Grant of Easement recorded October 8, 1999 in gook 726 at Page 166, Settlement Agreement recorded October 8, 1993 In Book 728 at Page 170 and Grant of Easement recorded October 8, 1993rn Book 726 at Page 1 B5. 5. Easements, rights of way and all matters as a age 13. disclosed on the Plat of subject Property recorded October 7, 1969 in Plat Book 4 t P 6. Easement and right of way for an electric transmission or distribution line or system, as granted to Holy Cross Electric Association, Inc., in instrument recorded February 9, 1973 in Book 272 at Page 482. 7. Terms, conditions, Provisions and obligations as set forth in Easement Agreement recorded March 5, 1973 in Book 273 at Page 246. B. Terms, conditions, Provisions and igations as set forth in Declaration of Restrictions, recorded December 2006 as Reception No �, deleting therefrom any restrictions indicating an limitation or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.' i NNllllf it III 5322006 IP1111111111111111111111111111 15 .7nNI CE K VOS CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R Is. so D 335.00 000095 RECORDING REQUESTED BY: WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: Bank ofAana,4h loo J��II"N(Ir�I�III + ��lnl�p�lll��l i�� Attn: Ms. Toinette Cole I INIIJ�IIjfjl �Ijl I 'I III +I 532293 700 Louisiana, 4u' Floor PaOe: t of 24 Houston, Texas 77002 J DYICE K Vey CgUpny pr MIN COUNTY CO i2/14/2000 04: 16 it 121.66 6 0." SECURITY AGREEMENT, OF STATEMENT AND ASSIGNMENT OF RENTS AND LEASES THIS DEED OF TRUST, SECURITY AGREEMENT, FINANCING STATEMENT AND r ASSIGNMENT OF RENTS AND LEASES, ( "Deed of Trust "), is dated December 13, 2006, regardless of the date of execution, is made and given by 0200 SARIN ROAD, LLC, a Texas limited liability company ( "Grantor "), whose address is 2}3g�efln PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO ("Tmstee ") for the use end benefit of BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. ( "Beneficiary"), whose address is 700 Lou 4" Floor, Houston, Texas 77002. ARTICLEI� l @3e (� GRANT TO TRUSTEE Sot Co« .,,r.,.�._ Sr �, U �t wo.•lt.. TX ?btoz 1.1 In order to secure repayment of the Note and each and every of the other obligations (= described in Article III below, the performance of every covenant of Grantor under this Deed of Trust and the payment of any and all sums advanced by Beneficiary to protect the security of this Deed of Trust Grantor does wit: grant, bargain, sell and convey unto said Trustee the following Real Property ( "Real Property ") to wit: A fee simple estate situated in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, legally described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, SUBJECT TO AND EXCEPTING only those matters set forth on Exhibit "B" attached hereto TOGETHER WITH: 1.1.1 All structures, buildings and improvements of every kind and description now or at any time hereafter located, erected or placed on the Real Property and all materials to be used or intended for the construction, renovation, reconstruction, alteration, repair or replacement of such buildings, structures or improvements to the extent any of the foregoing are now or hereafter owned by Grantor, 1.1.2 All machinery, apparatus, equipment, fittings and fixtures, whether actually or constructively attached, including all trade, domestic, and ornamental fixtures now or hereafter located in, upon, or under the Real Property or imp connection with rovements thereon and used or usable in air-conditioning, any present or future operations thereof, including, but not limited to, all heating, freezing, lighting, solar, laundry, and incinerating equipment, systems or apparatus, all pipes, fittings, pumps, tanks, motors, conduit, switches, plumbing, lifting, cleaning, fire prevention or extinguishing, refrigerating, ventilating, air handling, cooking, humidification, telephone, computer, and communications apparatus or systems, satellite dishes, all security devices, equipment or systems, outdoor lighting, coils and snowmelt systems, swimming pools, Jacuzzis, saunas and all related apparatus, garage door systems, stoves, refrigerators, boilers, water heaters, ranges, furnaces and burners, built -in appliances, vacuum cleaning systems, elevators, escalators, alann systems, shades, awnings, screens, storm doors and windows, 000096 g IIII�IIIIIIINIIIIIINI h�NIIIINNIIINIIIII�I 82,a;,2aof 31.27 WORTH NATIONAL BANK 520440 P.pe 7 of 01 Fort Worth,'Texas 76102 cOUNry Co R 161.80 o a 89 Attention: Giant James NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY RIGHTS: IF YOU ARE A NATURAL PERSON, YOU MAY REMOVE OR STRIKE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION FROM THIS JNSTRUMENT BEFORE TT IS FILED FOR RECORD IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS: SOCIAL SECURrrY NUMBER OR YOUR DRIVER'S LICENSE NUMBER YOUR SECURITY AG W DEED OF Tltun� EMENT - FINANr nvn eTA TAI ENT THE STATE OF COLORADO d COUNTY OF PrrKIN liability Th as of the 19°i day of January, 2006, 0I55 SABIN ROAD LL C, a Texas ty COmp�Y (hereinafter, whether one or n1o1s, join and limited mailing address is 1830 City Center Tower, Fort Worth, severally whose and mutt here inafter mention rth, Texas 76102, in consideration of the debt S mentioned, does hereby itmvocably and unconditionally GRANT, BARGAIN OF PITICIIJ CONVEY ,,= T� PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF THE COUNTY STATE OF COLORADO, IN TRUST, with the power of sale, for the benefit and security of Beneficiary (as defined kn Section I.1),the following described property (ail of which is sometimes referred to collectively henna as the' op 2muv ): 0 the real estate situated m Pitkin County, Colorado, which is more particularly described forth her -bit A attached ha�eto and made a part hereof for all purposes the same as if set forth herein verbatim, together with all right, title and interest of Grantor in and to (a) all sheets, roads, alleys, ""Ments, rights -0f - -way, licenses, rights of ingress and egress, vehicle parking rights and public places . existing or proposed, abutting adjacent, used in connection with or pertaining to the real property or the a"=d tong or adjacent herd defied)' (b) any dips or gores between the real prope* end abu ditches and ditch rights, ���: and (c) all water and water rights, water courses, rights, , reservoir rights and storage rights, wells and well rights, Wary armor nntrigs � �g lights, groundwater right whether tnbutaM tary), water contract, water allotments, was, stock certificates, shares in ditch or reservoir or water ter tap companies, and all other rights of ally land or nature in or to the use of water, whether or not adjudicated, which are appurtenant to, historically used on or in connection with, or located on or under the Land (collectively, "Water Rights "), together with any and all associated structures and facilities for the diversion, carriage, transmission, conveyance, measuranent, storage or use of said Weser Rights, timber, crops and mineral interests pertaining W DEEDOFTRUSTSECURITYAGREEMENT- Fg4A,YC1NGSTATEMENT Page 1 of32 00009! Easy Peel Labels ® 1 • See Instruction Sheet { 1 Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® 1Feed Paper for Easy Peel Feature ® �AVBiY ®5160® 1 0155 SABIN ROAD LLC PETITT GERALD W TRUSTEE RED MOUNTAIN RANCH HOME OWNERS 301 COMMERCE ST #1830 C/O BESSEMER TRUST CO ASSN FORT WORTH, TX 76102 630 FIFTH AVE PO BOX 8277 NEW YORK, NY 10111 ASPEN, CO 81612 WEXNER LESLIE H 8000 WALTON PKWY STE 100 NEW ALBANY, OH 43054 00009'S °es a peW • A \ /CO\I® Consulte:Is feuille www.averycom C16/1® Gone do �6a.nn:nnnt z O Q 0 J W 0) Z) 2 H w Ee ii �i 000099 a Z PUBLIC NOTICE RE: Wagner Activity Envelope, Site Plan and GMQS Exemption (Case P170 -07) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that an application has been submitted by Duer Wagner (301 Commerce Street, Suite 1830, Fort Worth, TX 76102) is requesting approval of an Activity Envelope and Site Plan to develop a single family residence. The property is located on Sabin Drive and is legally described as Lot 4, Block 3, Red Mountain Ranch Subdivision. The State Parcel Identification Number for the property is 2737- 063 -01- 009. The application is available for public inspection in the Pitkin County Community Development Department, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 81611. For further information, contact Mike Kraemer at (970) 920 -5482. Published in the Aspen Times Weekly on December 16, 2007 Attention Adiacent Property Owners A property owner receiving this public notice shall provide comments or objections to the PitIdn County Community Development, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611, By January 16, 2008. If any objections to the development application are received the Community Development Department shall continue the application to a public hearing before the Hearing Officer. PITION COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 920 -5526 FAX# (970) 920 -5439 Novembet 28, 2007 Janver Denington 610 East Flyman Ave Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Wagner Activity Envelope, Site Plan and GMQS Exemption ( ID #2737 - 063 -01 -009; Case# P170 -07) Dear Mr. 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 informati n specific to the application may be requested in order to adequately review and process the applicatio . The planner in charge of the review will request the information from you directly. Please note that it is your responsibility to mail notice by certified U.S. Mail to all adjacent property owner with the return address of the Community Development Department (copy of notice will be maile ( to you by the Community Development Department) by (15 days out) December 16, 2007. Then mes and addresses shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no mo e than 60 days prior to the mailing. Please submit the enclosed Affidavit of Notice by Mailing and a photograph of the posted sign as proof of compliance with the Code. A property owner receiving the public notice shall provide comments or objections to the Community Development by (30 days oat) 16 day of January, 2008. If any objections to the development application are received by this date, the Community Development Department shall continue the application to a public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. 2. By po ting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from the nearest public way) on the 31 day of December, 2007, which is at least fifteen (15) days prior to the (30 day out) J uary 16, 2008. This must be submitted prior to any approvals being granted. If you have questions, please call Mike Kraemer, the planner assigned to your case, at 920 -5482. Sincerely, Bonnie Assistant Encl: Affidavit Code Section 2 - ?0 -100 PITKIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 920 -5526 FAX# (970) 920 -5439 MEMORANDUM To: Red mountain Ranch Homeowners Association Colorado Division of Wildlife Aspen Fire Department FROM: Mike Kraemer, Community Development Department Re: Wagner Activity Envelope, Site Plan and GMQS Exemption (PID 2737 - 063 -01 -009; Case P170 -07) DATE: November 28, 2007 Attached for your review and comments are materials for an application submitted by Doer Wagner. The Pitkin County Community Development Director will review the application. Please return your comments to me by Wednesday, January 16, 2008. PLEASE RETURN APPLICATION MATERIALS TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT IF YOU HAVE NO FURTHER NEED OF THEM. Thank you. .� ■ � -16 -2888 13:58 From:IJILLIRM LUKES RIR w I L L I A M Wednesday, January 16, 2008 Mike Kraemer Pitkin County Community Development Department 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 via fax to 920 -5439 C L I N-r O N L U A R C re: Wagner Activity Envelope, Site Plan and GMQS Exemption Reviews Block 3, Lot 4, Red Mountain Ranch (P!D 2737 - 063 -01 -009; Case P170.07) Dear Mike: I am writing on behalf of the Red Mountain Ranch Homeowners Association and their Architectural Committee. Farrell Kahn, the HOA President, asked me to respond to the public notice and copy of the application that were furnished to the HOA in December The applicant has not started the architectural review process with the Red Mountain Ranch Homeowners Association for any development on this vacant property, but from conversations with Janver Derrington at Charles Cunnlffe's office, we understand that they plan to submit drawings and start that process shortly. We also understand that County reviews such as these often occur before building plans are developed and SO will comment as best we can at this point in time Wildfire Hazard Mitigation: We noted that the Activity Envelope Packet from your office contained wildfire hazard recommendations for vegetation removal that extend significant distances from the proposed house The extent to which those recommendations would affect existing vegetation and limit new plantings is not shown graphically and has not yet been reviewed with the Architectural Committee. We can say, however, that preservation of the natural environment and setting to the greatest extent possible is required of homeowners by the Red Mountain Ranch Protective Covenants and is of primary Importance to the RMR community, as is addressing wildfire safety. It Is the intention of the Architectural Committee to achieve a proper balance of wildfire safety, visual integration with the surrounding environment, and other community objectives rather than having the balance tilted to one extreme or the other, and we will ask the designers and wildfire experts to be very creative in meeting what can be conflicting objectives. For this property and project, the Committee will be concerned that wildfire safety be addressed while still preserving important vegetation and incorporating appropriate amounts and types of new landscaping in orderto mitigate visual impacts and address the requirements of the Protective Covenants. The Committee will also be concerned about protecting vegetation by means of construction fencing. r �/ /J THE- Ak,i ^IDE STU'll FO1 I_AIt Ei1DE UPl a! "RBO11D Ai, f:ULUFAID0 nI" -. IOq Fg1338o2s P 171)''k'ir112- JAN -16 -2008 13:58 Fron1:WILLIAM LUKES AIR Access and Easements: We understand that access is provided by means of private easement agreements and it appears that there are some design and landscape requirements associated with those agreements. It is also our understanding that there may be landscape requirements or development limitations applicable to this lot that were established by the person that sold the property to Mr. Wagner. While we do not have the benefit of all of that information at this time, we plan to review those commitments and agreements during the Course of the Association's architectural review process to ensure conformity with the Covenants and other RMR requirements. We will have to rely on the applicant to ensure that the information he has submitted to you in this package, and the designs that he submits to RMR in the future, are consistent with those other obligations. Front Yard Setback: According to the RMR Protective Covenants, the front yard setback Is to be determined by the Board based on site specifics; the 30 foot setback shown on the enclosed plan may or may not be the setback determined by the Board. Determination of this setback will occur at Preliminary Review In the RMR process. Drainage and Red Mountain Ditch requirements: The application materials seem to identify significant drainage concerns and improvements. RMR will expect the applicant to completely mitigate any possible off -site impacts to other RMR lots or lands, but cannot comment further since the review process has not started and we do not have that engineering expertise. We trust that the County will not approve a plan or application which does not adequately address drainage issues and safety We also noted that the location and proximity of the improvements may or may not comply with the 25 foot setback from the centerline of the Red Mountain Ditch that Is included in the Protective Covenants for this lot. and also cannot tell if these plans meet a requirement that grades not be changed in this same 25 foot setback These aspects will be considered during the RMR design review process. Other than the above, we really can't agree or commit that the materials submitted to your office will be approved by RMR as the process has not started yet, and RMR reserves the right to apply whatever requirements it thinks are appropriate in order to comply with the Association's governing documents Although necessarily general at this preliminary stage, thank you for your consideration of these comments. Please feel free to contact me at 963 8025 if you have any questions. Cordially, THE LAKESIDE STUDIO William Lukes AIA Red Mountain Ranch Consulting Architect copies Jerry Bovaiu Marty Flug Farrell Kahn Cafy Haycs / RMR Joe Bronosky \ THE LAe E:acl! jTULiIO 801 1 AKI'.Inr EIPIVE IAFBQNDq LE GULiI¢nutU 8 1 C_3..! 1 Od 1 11.y H026 r Din en2= CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS 610 E. HYMAN AVENUE, ASPEN, CO 81611 970/925 -5590 PHONE 970/925 -5076 FAX LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIORS TO: �/ � W, _ i �fi1-IMQ. FROM COMPANY W, DATE: O� TELEPHONE- � _ Z JO #: � �� ADDRESS: f '20 s .C1- a1-64a pug /6o I PROJECT: u)Nkee- C�►uP�, 2� , S %fie�1,t Re,r��J REGARDING: Fk * 5 s l-� u ►ti► - a�ow"d ��a�,ra u i WE ARE SENDING YOU: kAttached Via: "Al the following items: ❑ Shop drawings knnts ❑ Originals ❑ Computer Disc(s)Fl Samples ❑ Copy of Letter ❑ Change order ❑ Other: DESCRIPTION: I— L1 X1-% THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: af or approval ❑ Approved as submitted Or %y 'ruse ❑Approved as noted A� s requested ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ For review & comment REMARKS: COPY TO: / a �' 2- ❑ Prints returned after loan to us ❑ Specifications ❑ Resubmit copies for approval ❑ Submit_ copies for distribution ❑ Return corrected prints ri Pitkin County JAN 2E2006 Community Development Memo TO: Mike Kraemer, Community Development Department From Ed Van Walraven, Fire Marshal CC: Date: January 4, 2008 Ito Wagner Activity Envelope, PID 2737 - 063-01 -009, Case P170 -07 Mike, This project shall meet all of the codes and requirements of the Aspen Fire Protection District. This includes but is not limited to Fire Department Access (International Fire Code 2003 Edition Section 503), Turning around of fire department apparatus (f access is a dead end and in excess of 150 feet) (IFC Section 503.2.5), Due to location an approved fire sprinkler system shall be provided in all structures regardless of size (IFC as amended Section 903), Water supply, a minimum of 20,000 gallons (IFC Section 508), and detailed wildfire mitigation plans for both landscaping and structural standpoints shall be submitted. Please note confirmation of proximity to the nearest fire hydrant shall be provided to mitigate the 20,000 gallon water requirement. Please have the applicant contact the Fire Marshal's Office for specifications on the above requirements. Thank you, Ed /o/' / STATE OF COLORADO Bill Ritter, Jr., Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WILDLIFE AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Thomas E. Remington, Director 6060 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80216 Telephone: (303) 297 -1192 wildlife.state.co.us December 14, 2007 Pitkin County Community Development 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Wagner Activity Envelope, Site Plan Dear Mike: For Wildlife - For People The Wagner parcel lies along the edge of elk winter range. A few tracks and trails were observed upon a site visit on December 14, 2007; however, the majority of elk winter range use lies above the Red Mountain Ditch. The home site also lies within black bear fall concentration area and human - conflict area. Human-black bear conflicts have been significant on Red Mountain and the homeowner will need to take precautions to minimize conflicts. Due to the home site's proximity to adjacent homes and their associated disturbance and activity, additional impacts to wildlife should be minimal with implementation of the following recommendations: 1. maintain native vegetation outside the activity envelope, especially that above the Red Mountain Ditch 2. implement measures outlined under section 7 -20 -70 of the land use code, especially those regarding black bear. 3. construction site must have a designated wildlife proof refuse container that receives refuse edible by wildlife. Compliance with this county ordinance has been very poor at construction sites and strict enforcement is needed in order to minimize conflicts with bears as well as help prevent habituation of bears to human related food. 4. 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 entry 5. contractors /construction workers should not be allowed to bring dogs on site during construction. The Division has had problems with construction worker dogs chasing wildlife. This is important, especially with the home being constructed within and adjacent to elk winter range. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, please contact DWM Kevin Wright at 947- 2920. Sincere erry W' Ar ildlif e e Manager Cc: R. Velarde, K. Wright, file Id DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Hams D. Sherman, Executive Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Tom Burke, Chair • Claire O'Neal, Vice Chair. Robert Bray, Secretary Members, Dennis Buechler • Brad Coors • Jeffrey Crawford • Tim Glenn . Roy McAnally. Richard Ray Ex Officio Members, Hams Sherman and John Stulp esa6- OU,otc:%Vd . x[esrso,s l��, mw o�'walmn.W omamm a Ott 6D" MG IN . Oa5PSM6:ai3a . a910 M'wdW 3AV aM'lAH a93 M woa'ayryuno•nuw. S1O31IHD8Y 3-44INNnD S97YVHO I q Q } Qu� u�Q 4pw�w w�wz�.� vq >Q ZQ N�aua� Oa On i i oG"o -JOJ 9JNf10J NDWd HJN" NW-LNnOW 03x'6 )0016* 101 3AIN0 NIBdS OOZO 3SnOH 1S3nJ 83NDYM 1N �1 Qm N a �I CL F2 Q3 a I qc� In � Ja J v' L MUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARWNT 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 920 -5526 Pitkin County 155 Use Tax 165 Copy PZ005 Master Plan Copy 185 Park Dedication IS GIS Requirements \ 161 Housing Impact Fee B1200 B.E.S.T. Test B1202 Road Impact Fee B 1203 School Impact Fee B1212 Code Books EH025 Air Quality Impact Fee Other TOTAL Z ADDRESS /PROJECT: CHECK# CASE /PERMMIT #: V- DATE: ./ ( ? _ INITIAL: 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 LUC01 County Clerk 193 County Engineer 194 Environmental Health 208 Historic 198 Housing 190 Land Management 209 Redstone HPC 206 Wildlife Officer Building Fees: 170 Board of Appeals 105 Building Permit 120 Electrical Permit 195 Energy Code Review 115 Mechanical Permit 150 Plan Check 110 Plumbing Permit 130 Reinspection 152 AVFD Fire Marshal 158 BFD Fire Marshal Other Fees: 155 Use Tax 165 Copy PZ005 Master Plan Copy 185 Park Dedication IS GIS Requirements \ 161 Housing Impact Fee B1200 B.E.S.T. Test B1202 Road Impact Fee B 1203 School Impact Fee B1212 Code Books EH025 Air Quality Impact Fee Other TOTAL Z ADDRESS /PROJECT: CHECK# CASE /PERMMIT #: V- DATE: ./ ( ? _ INITIAL: 0 0 re 0 um M as fri CCIA 1 It 9 DATE 08/03/07 SCALE 1 >,- 10, V ENGINEER C. HALE DWG FILE _e WagnerGuestDrain dDe 492 --021 SHEET cl T N , too 0 3 \J ryr' Now 4 er iJ1 LO c N N �ry : � V > iO C ', Ir1MM L) CQ 0 0 re 0 um M as fri CCIA 1 It 9 DATE 08/03/07 SCALE 1 >,- 10, V ENGINEER C. HALE DWG FILE _e WagnerGuestDrain dDe 492 --021 SHEET cl L ---- -• A PIPE CULVERT SEE PLAN MEW FOR SIZE D ffi PIPE DIAMETER DOSE RIPRAP D So= 1/3*D 3D A' PLAN VIEW ho LOOSE RIPRAP D50 1/3*0 D EXISTING GROUND CLASS 2 NONWOVEN FILTER FABRIC OUTLET SEC110 A—A' RIPRAP APRON 'P USE A 4"OVIRIAP WHENEVER Iwo WIUMS OF UIANKFF ARE All"IIED SIDF UYSIDE, SfAfU IAlflYN: MINIMUM 3 PE E R QUkRF YARD. (D USE. A 6' QWMAP (4) CHECK SIUS SMSAO D Of D BIRE. E WE D&RY % E WIR.Ri ONE ROII, OF WANKEL INIO A IRENCH 6' WIDE MARRO ENDS AND BY 6' DUE AND IAMP HIRMIFF ANOTHIffl BEGINS. LAY 1111 DIANKET SMOUINLY ON PIE SURFACF 01 IflE SOIU DO NO[ E SIR[CH UW' HLANKCT, AND DO NOT ALLOW ON WRNKLFS, INSTALL 51A]i 29' ON ChNIER IN TRENCH. V SILT W RK ANCHORLD `�, APHRUAW - 6' x 6' IN TRENCH,,,. , U. TRENCH PIACE BLANKET PARAL11.1- W 04, DIRECTION Of 1 O AND ANCHOR 5ECUREI.Y. SRI% BLANKET W A FEW[. AREA MIND. II RMIRAUNO THE INSIAUATION, (jZN SOIL RETENTION BLANKETS 'lUf 10 SCAP NYLOPLAST INLET BOX W/ REMOVEABLE CAST IRON GRATING, OR APPROVED EQUAL 12* PLAN VIEW PIPE CULVERT (TYP) VARIES PIPE CULVERT (ALT) SECTION VIEW INLET DETAIL (' � NI '10 TOP WIDTH KEY K Ur MIN' I SIDE SLOPES KEY I INTO SIDES 2:1 (1W) 20--MIL PVC LINER WHEN ON SLOPES 595 WITHIN 10' OF BUILDING OR GREATER: EROSION PROTECTING GEOSYNTHE*nc OR W OF RIPRAP D50=6" DRAINAGE SWALE NO, 10 ,,CAl ENCASE WYLSL IN CONCRF.,T- i Q 0 il[AC, AND STAKE EROSION SALES. BACWIF MATERIAL ((>OMPACI SOIL TO PROANT PIPING) SW (2" X 2' NOMINN) WEDGE, I=I S!RAW HOW N BALER 0) IIALIS MUST BE IIGNRY AffhHNG NIII NO NAPS SIAKLO AND ENTRINCHFO SIAKI, EROSION BNE RUNOFF IIIARIO WNW> if f t "M 12" MIN 4 MIN. STRAW, BALE STAKING • N ALM29 3: = U - i. ♦•a CLEANOUT DETAIL Not to Scale CONCRETE SUPPORT PIPE SIZES TO MATCH SEE PLANS FOR SIZES > m 1 *00 DOW UPSLOPIF END or is HIANi IN A TRENCH 6' DEEP fly 61 WIDE. 0 z BEDDING w ANCHORED 0 0 IN TRENCH USE A 4"OVIRIAP WHENEVER Iwo WIUMS OF UIANKFF ARE All"IIED SIDF UYSIDE, SfAfU IAlflYN: MINIMUM 3 PE E R QUkRF YARD. (D USE. A 6' QWMAP (4) CHECK SIUS SMSAO D Of D BIRE. E WE D&RY % E WIR.Ri ONE ROII, OF WANKEL INIO A IRENCH 6' WIDE MARRO ENDS AND BY 6' DUE AND IAMP HIRMIFF ANOTHIffl BEGINS. LAY 1111 DIANKET SMOUINLY ON PIE SURFACF 01 IflE SOIU DO NO[ E SIR[CH UW' HLANKCT, AND DO NOT ALLOW ON WRNKLFS, INSTALL 51A]i 29' ON ChNIER IN TRENCH. V SILT W RK ANCHORLD `�, APHRUAW - 6' x 6' IN TRENCH,,,. , U. TRENCH PIACE BLANKET PARAL11.1- W 04, DIRECTION Of 1 O AND ANCHOR 5ECUREI.Y. SRI% BLANKET W A FEW[. AREA MIND. II RMIRAUNO THE INSIAUATION, (jZN SOIL RETENTION BLANKETS 'lUf 10 SCAP NYLOPLAST INLET BOX W/ REMOVEABLE CAST IRON GRATING, OR APPROVED EQUAL 12* PLAN VIEW PIPE CULVERT (TYP) VARIES PIPE CULVERT (ALT) SECTION VIEW INLET DETAIL (' � NI '10 TOP WIDTH KEY K Ur MIN' I SIDE SLOPES KEY I INTO SIDES 2:1 (1W) 20--MIL PVC LINER WHEN ON SLOPES 595 WITHIN 10' OF BUILDING OR GREATER: EROSION PROTECTING GEOSYNTHE*nc OR W OF RIPRAP D50=6" DRAINAGE SWALE NO, 10 ,,CAl ENCASE WYLSL IN CONCRF.,T- i Q 0 il[AC, AND STAKE EROSION SALES. BACWIF MATERIAL ((>OMPACI SOIL TO PROANT PIPING) SW (2" X 2' NOMINN) WEDGE, I=I S!RAW HOW N BALER 0) IIALIS MUST BE IIGNRY AffhHNG NIII NO NAPS SIAKLO AND ENTRINCHFO SIAKI, EROSION BNE RUNOFF IIIARIO WNW> if f t "M 12" MIN 4 MIN. STRAW, BALE STAKING • N ALM29 3: = U - i. ♦•a CLEANOUT DETAIL Not to Scale CONCRETE SUPPORT PIPE SIZES TO MATCH SEE PLANS FOR SIZES > m 1 *00 w w is z: CG 1 0 N HAUNCHING 0 z BEDDING 0 0 Merl C W w w LL z: CG 1 0 N HAUNCHING 0 z BEDDING 8" TO 12" 8" TO 12" CULVERT TRENCH 24" DIAM. CAST IRON GRATE FLUSH W/ OR ALUMINUM FRAME FINISHED GRADE, AND GRATED INLET LID \SEE PLANS BACKFILL. SHALL.. BE COMPACTED TO 95% BENEATH HARDSCAPE AND 9095 IN OTHER AREAS INITIAL BACKFILL AND HAUNCHING MATERIAL 3/4!' MINUS ROAD BASE OR WASHED GRAVEL COMPACTED TO 95% MAX. DENSITY. EXISTING PIT-RUN MAY BE USED WHERE APPROVED BY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. SPRING LINE: BEDDING MAnR-IAL, 3/4- MINUS ROAD BASE. OR WASHED GRAVEL COMPACTED TO 9595 MAX. DENSITY UNDISTURBED SOIL BACi AROUND THE !11 jSET' THE MANN d1 LEVEL ON,kj hi PERFORATED MANHOLE i I 11 13"-6# OF SCREENED ROCK 1 11 � ! WITH AMINIMUM OF 12* ill J(j J THICK OF 1-1/2- SCREENED ROCK DRYWELL DETAIL nor 10 ',CAII INSTALL. COARSE FILTER FABRIC AROUND Ali. SIDES AND OVER THE SCREENED ROCK RIF FINCI VAURAS IN AND AIIAGIIED LW IS tO UL KLYI 1) INIO t ILL SLOpr vos] {y, x Z NOMINAF) --- SILT PENCE FABRIC ANCHORED IN IRENCH 10' AND HRMIY AIIACH-D I'D I'mif K t 1, x MIN. IRINCII low 42" MIN to�rncrrD 1' ftACK11U MI 'TRENCH 0 RN ) SILT FENCE (D NO'' 10 ' )CAI CUIVIRD HIRRUD RUN 24 OF, WOOD SIAKES (2" x 2" MINIMUM) ' '- - FROSION ONES Ali TO BF I.NIRENCHEO 4 INCHES INTO Off. SOIL, 1NflEY ABURIING WIfH NO GAPS, STAKED AND RACKIRIFID AROUND DIF ENPRE OUTS'101: PfRIMErfliI. -j� PIPE INLET PROTECTION LOOSE RIPRAP SEE DRAINAGE REPORT FOR THICKNESS AND GRADATION 60 OF FILTER ATOM WIDTH 12* MINIMUM 12, MIN CHANNEL DETAIL c)—!f — l,� 0 �CAI I ()(Ll of C)o9 DATE 08/03/07 SCALE Not to Scale ENGINEER C. HALE DWG FILE WagnerGuestDrain JOB WEIR* a � 1 z: CG 1 0 0 1 0 O WN$ L) -0 m (0 0) J 0 0 Merl C W q >( > Lu M M IJ c z: > to N 00 DATE 08/03/07 SCALE Not to Scale ENGINEER C. HALE DWG FILE WagnerGuestDrain JOB WEIR* W A1.. 'T 0 5> -JEO .1� e / tiA PR F05E D RESIDENCZ 5,645 50. FT. D V I NG AREA 650 50. 1 f"T. OARAC:7E AREA ti \ \ E39 7, , B B % 1 r ' u B l 4i 401 / 44Y e h 5 t` LLj Will ul � �YY!llfff t 1^• h Si 4� * ie�'iy 9Y 4 h � Q n ca �•,J [Y c o i ca m LLJ a y W C J ulip C°I V) u 0 .L... 4 V) GENERAL NOTES: a 1 U I. TcQP0 RAPHIG INFORMATION Ida E.3A5EI7 ON +�., � A rF- RTIFIED `�URVEI r E;P FRAREV 0Y 1m.J u z A5FEN 5URVE"T' ENOINEER5, ING ., PA'TFEP 5/15/200 -7 0 MANE:NT , t Pml-OVED c,H MARK DRAWING: ISSUE i DATE: 1 ) DESIGN VVEL(WENT 12.14.07 JOB NO. 0629 SHEET NO, (c)COPMGNT CPINiiPS CUNNIPEE Mtt'.AMC1'5 WATER r. ANK. c 11 sHEO {, I Pta_ 1 I\IE:- \ \ �o \ \ kv, \ 7 ET a� 5TORY SINCvLE FAMILY °tee PARTIALLY EARTH COVEREP PROF05ES� RE5I]�ENGE 5,645 50. FT. LIVING AREA \, � 650 50. FT. 6ARA6E AREA � r V V 1 rsT�° \ y ! i 8 / B / / / \ / N, JKI \\ \ /I GENERAL NOTES: I. TOP06RAi"HIC INFORMATION 15 BA5ED ON A CERTIFIED 5URVEY PREPARED E3Y ASPELN `51JRVEY EN6INEER5, INC., DATED 5/15/200 -7 e e e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ /�( ��"r.1""�� "•� C:1(A:�..�/ � COY A V +N - c v «> en c9 erg h o C3 c ui 54 ul u 4 N # W LM G9 Z CV M SHEET NO. CZ)COPMGHT G WFS CUNNIFFE MCIVEM, 0 SO 60 2 FOOT CODINTOURS 41,1 A! , 1, FI, (' E 14 D MON D N Ort, s FAUND SURVEY MONUMENI AS DESCRIBED 110N14MEN9 S FOUND FOR YH15 SUBDIVISION FIT POORLY Willi EACH OTH0 1,1111-miss ICE FEFlL,E PO',,f SURVEY CONTROL 1111E INFOIOIAM10Il FTJF�NISHED w,,Vf: PITKIN C(A)T,01 I l t l.rd"i A i t,K� CASE I,K), KI 206Q71�: r,"iA r IA) 1,P,Y 1 2 OXX5 UTILITY POIE WATER VALVE FENCE 1041 SITE REVIEW PLAN RE(TUIREDFOR RUILDINO E14VELOPES TH 15 PROPERTY L TIES IN 'ZONE X r, AREA OUT S IDE Ql� 500 F,% 000' AS FEIIA T1 OiLIO INSURANCE RATE MAP FOR P I rK I N COUNTY COLORADO PANEL 204 OF 325/ (X)TIPIUNITY 140 08097(':)04 C, (VAIERl JUNE 1,1, 1007 S 1, 0 P �) ", L E kG E 14 1) CONTIAJREET AREAS ONLY ,AYF'JT t3i)i SL OAP F.3 P-5 R:, St-01TS 15 SO% (131-4 0-40) xA, < 1 Ox ,, ,� S I, P(,� S 3 0, 4 5 1 13 7. 4 D 12 15f fdli5 A L A P F 6 J 45'N' 13,11 11 0 - i 4 1 218 86 CONTOURED AREAS THAT ARE NOT HAICHED ARE SLOPES < 15% m CERTIFICATION THEUNDERSIGNED STAN' S THAT THE PROPERfY FIELD SURVEYED DURINQ,,,,,d BA�A'J) 011,i THE FIrtf) EVIDENCTE T,13 'AAOWN AN DISCREPANCIES OF PRE C(,m ROAMI)ARY I IMM c Er —��IENTS OR 111014TS OF OAY iN FIEL.5 EVID E0,104fang SHOWN. UNIDER(PROUND US. A Il,� Eg NMEN75 OF Pfl�,( ORD N, s 'NIIS SURVEY I$ VO w 6"'irpt, W:, 8194VE"YO R BELOW. CR !RED HEREON WAlI 06 AND I S AC(URA I E AT IlIERE,: ARE NO ICTS ENCRL 1 IJPSE 11P5 >s 6R KDoWN "to ME t J1111 NO ABOVEdROT",A) UPPI I D TO THE NiLES$ WEI SIARIPE,,b I Ad IS R () V-E Ng E K, r S I) A, 51' E, Y EXHIBIT B-2 OF 1..01 4 Ot OCK0, IRED lid UN RANIAI POtORDING TO 1HE PLAI THEREOF RECORDED OCTOBER 7 1964 IN PT AT BOOR 4 AI� PAYH,' 1,,S, COUNTY OF P11KHN HATE OF COLORADO CONIAH,HL,K 108r907 SO P''P , RECORD p1b v75-7-00-01-000/ 04 5e. p 1-7 0 - 0-7 PREPARED R't MPH SURVEY ENGINEERS? 210 SOU'Pi GALF,14A, STREET ASPEN, C00RAE�() 81,011 PHONE/rA'X (970l 7107 32& 11 M01 W1,100,10", 1�1111 1 " -30 "V) 12 I INKY l "PI '1 C I N I "Yfi°° Y M A P ,AL Ni24:. 2 P4 rii�Nll "pad to , +gIgAYd "erh lrW�u1�^IP iA^u Yli �MN4ll�eud ANi� ^lMNIlIam, pp a i!u v rlt dli vlu !ro avt��l iP�lCma ggwvllN „!! { {u P lyl yy Etodl m MR ��,O N,# G14'A 4R Pltlltl l� V -0lMNhl” ^^ 1 IX U'I M1� 4fr�h V tVMM lWI6i P RNt k4 luPgY TIN Ell R 4M10 ^iR^ V { W yM1PU1 if J01^ 11'1Miu'IaX iWtltl V 3 Pdllll lld, d('NA "MMlAt �V N tla !" iu,9 tlIP �! !Nr itl JUYY 4lIR M' Ip$APAi °d66+ ?li' hR VbR I�aaYwPrunA AI A.r r {f r ^. is, 1�...' @i " 1i (( ,f ,4" I, V h �i! ! �1 s„ r" �..:.. ... . / 7 IF t� 4p{ ,rm �. i” )� p "n!1 ,.i,. „r „,'�4 c ! �,rm l! ill, IPrd: ,,r, , (. ,..,, "'17 IN d "i..1� �. n:. ,' ^j^ "!R, „. p ( n1f" � A'I:.. ill n�l ,. ( "� yiR lii .. 1,,: o�iry ^ (4A., �1A ' P RI � 1hM1 r d.:: �i "IS f � M .M,n an., ,ArnnV ,r�.:, ,„ y ,.. .....: A. ".. m , nm,:i ^!Il 1 ) Nl'• 0 I P I C,i� N Fi Frt dlNlri AnP:.,A li'A rti,a () F BLOCK R I:) Ot iiJl�:I A 1 to !)!LOCH ACCORD! yo �A f i�a', pl-,V l 1 { 6(-REd A9" R`F: ORO ) 0 (,,I.� }G4i� R 7 I l n I R 11)(54 1 !'!.R "NI Orlt'::K ) Is 1IGE� 1 CA) &.1N!Y I::: >F, ti I fK!N1 l 1 A1 il CA' N!01 rT!„)Fhl')ta U11 11, IN 1 NG ! OPx 1f07 ,6O . FIT l'r'E CA) R [ I I'AR CIE 11) PE1r 2M1f3 7 0 6S 0 1 0019 2 M9 . N6 LEGEND 11 IAA E) N M E S co 1 +lt040 9fag.lf'VEY" MVJNLIlE.d^I'I AS DESCRIBED 41alPNllp91'EQaBTS FOUND FOR THIS ^UBDIVI }ION PIT POORLY WITH EACH (7Y944MR h.J Ml "flLi "FIE;"1 I f I L Ej'. 1 N ORPIA 9' F)Nl i q RNI I N,CI IED W'9" Y i Y l K l PN A (C(dbll 1, f I 1 L.f`: DA, Y ET) � I ^Ae I'^ 21ov, 0 UTILITY h4t:,E WwA I f' !A VALVE P i NCE I I l t I' (R4' >C 4 R{ y IIES I N ZONE r- ITE A QUfSIAX OF 500 f (4:1(,YiY AS 3 1 MA, FLOOD INSURANCE RAfE MAP FOR PI {"M4', i N . OUN9 "A R YgOR ADO "ANEt 204 li 2S uCM IaHl NO, MR11,a:04 r kED #t 4 1907 SEE APRfII )8 34272 5 E Y IW 'hiF'8": °W tl A E:E ' wti fl E! EP "? ° h (,,A A", W W"A:NW 114E ClPdNl;iR5IGNED STAlliro "Y "HAT P1iE PRi46"I•RIY Ll >l!8' I NG lAI (IE, + v r 200? AND 15 ACCURATE BASLE O 'HO PI ,INK) It3r1O' lP9R RIh ARE h) DISCREPANCIES OR R I GH'F1 Ni WAN A M1P N i q "AAdA II AghI QIYTlE @;1,tld4.N „lhjdY U 11. 11 P,PfI x , 4VRD NO ^,11PPLi9!) 414 TH A_1: RAI M rr AMP ED NlITH 711E TA., At YV N:W '1 S SCRIBED HE.deP "A:N WAS I fV #41 `CiWVW'PFaD IN4 ITIE L iYl!1 EVIDENCE Al OF RECORD WIRI,MRIIIAR l LINE rNr 4 oti d, i t f, N (OR141 EVIDENCE OR KNOWN TO 'IYgM ES W 17H NO ABOVEGROUND A4 "PURFEN4APNt E ",S llg� SURVEYOR BELOW 140; 00M M AC 14OWL.E D E D 1 "MdAI ENV I ROhINMk N 1,A „, I4,NZARE) Ad'R A' EXIST IHA'f . f jRNj M A w Ef py MIWtGERrY ANY IAPROVp@S M i' Ala) TI L E AND P:,9P MYI)i,R'IWPRIK III 6PI`PB49tl6afN4'ad:V6P: W IC r M N.N NMI 9 IE V EW 1 A° NN EA) P EIW A if "`N 1D N It W C T a & R A P N' S J")' "W W. N.. 'fill , ACTIVITY ENVELOPE OPE PLAN HAS BEEN REVI V4 D ANI,) "'!¢ "PROV1"D BY lldf,,: AND IS y. SUBJECT THE 1�R)N!RV Y ilMf».fYl1EM1l^OT 91 IIE'iR ON Yi�l ,.. ._.,,,...., T41t5;S °,,, 9;llPlEmhliNiN;M I,11d "h.l,2tC "VfEhd! {YIh'P,If 1\,id, "�.:_ .,,..m.. V: N E6 W. NdVE ANY) 9 N9 ( M E NR ) z NA ICl n N;„ W Clm At ,RNW'A IGrm 1'r 1f71 P ACTIVITY ENVELOPE PLAN 4 P BEEN N A; „dxE I D FOR C {f INN IN T14E: OFFICI OF THE CL ENK AND RECORDER Cs4"DE l! ^1 8 K I N TJOUN4 Y! IN tfVlkDO a984 THIS DAY O "+ +0 Ohl 0LAI BOOK ...."Al PAGE AE 4i`9 C I W I I4PlN 7110 ., .. cii E' +M4 11fAt4;;r !P{ t �ltl aMi ": RM j /,A X73.7- (JOS- o/,00? EXHIBIT 13-1 PREPARED B'I' ASPEN SHVEY YH) E"'6VNUTH (LAIENAI STREET AS Pl V4 19ld Ad ➢iADO Ad6 t p i OPIE RW''!A { ,r70) 9"2' ':AflS A AM €'7A i JOB tb: 1s' 31�Ia.r 8 mtlraMAU n^ n i m. om mmuoen n. nlwelw mu,o,mwo ml a n. uura mmmo .mm An mill ioAAa i l f114( . W ()r 1- AI` sI -IED p1f'I_L_1PdE 7\ \ e \\ \ \ s� ONE I DRY 51NOI�E AMll._Y ONE ��1 5,645 5a. FT. 1_IVINO AREA ~ \\ 650 50. F"r. OARA6E AREA 1 I \. / e j f j Q a .,> r I• _ r u u 1^1 R h rC# p e�e W t�Njy tx1 of C? � h i r n w o r v a o D N � w ra N r4 n�N U Q w > J Z GENERAL NOTES; C4 0 LLI 0 U I. TOF'06RAPHIG INFORMATION Ida 5A5ED ON A CERTIF'IF -P 5URVF-Y F'REF'AR t7 E3Y (""y U A5F EN SURVEY EN&INEER5, ING., ATED 5/15 /200'1 CL. Rt 0 M,4N N'T PPROVED 6H MAR< � DRAWING: SITE PLAN ISSUE: DATE: DESIGN O VELOPMENT 1214 07 JOB NO. 0629 SHEET NO. ()C(VMGNT aiAKM CUNNIM ARCIIRTUS