HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.planning.291101400005DOCUMENT 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
PuliTic Notice, Acceptance Letter, Referral(s) Letter
Site Plan
Miscellaneous
Plat copies (11xI'~
..
...,,,
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
PITKIN COUNTY
DATE COMPLETE• O1 19/93 PARCEL ID# ;'529 l1-OJ~1-00-OOS/009
STAFF MEMBER•• /TM P10-93
PROJECT NAME: Kessler & McGill 1041 Hazard Review and General
Submission
Project Address: Climax Minina Claim
APPLICANT: SebD Kessler & Donald McGill
Applicant Address:
xY;Yxr;S~N'1'AT'iVE: Gary Wright, i
Representative Address/Phone:
FEES: PLANNING $ 912.00 # APPS RECETVEII 8
ENGINEER $ 55.00 # PLATS RECEIVED
HOUSING $ /,~~Q
ENV. HEALTH $ 55.00 G~~~i'
TOTAL $1022.OOy%~ ~~~
TYPE OF APPLICATION: STAFF A 1 STEP: 2 ST P: ~
P&Z MEETING DATE PUBLIC HE RING: YES$/~f~'V"
BOCC MEETING DATE _ PUBLIC HEARING; YE
DRC MEETING DATE ~~
REF RRALS:
Attorney -Aspen Consol S.D. School District
Engineer -Rocky Mtn Nat Gas USFS (Carbondale)
Housing -Holy Cross USFS (Aspen)
Aspen Water -Aspen Fire ~ Div. of Wildlife
Ehvr.Hlth. -Basalt Fire BLM
Manager -Carbondale Fire Snowmass Village
Zoning -Div. Water Res. Caucus
Airport Mgr. -State Forest Ser. Caucus
Sheriff _CO Geo.Survey Homeowners
City P & Z -State Hwy Dept. Open Space Board
Building Dept Clean Air Board Other:
DATE REFERRED: INITIALS:.. DATE TRUE:
---- ---------------- w._". __~~. ~_ ..,~..~ _~__~_~_~_.
RESOLUTION #: DATE:
PLAT OR SITE PLAN RECORDED AT BOOK PA'G'E(S)
FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED:
INITIAL:
County Attorney -County Engineer Zoning
Housing _Envir. Health Applicant
_ Open Space Bd.
_ Other°
FILED:
(ry~(r~~ [~; Revised 05/18/92
n: o U V.®
.._„ .>. ..,..,, -`:, _.. ~ ..vr ~ku ~s+, as +w yam ~:y~,x,~..w~ ~ ~ ? '
jP iL. ~. ~,-, r.
,.~ ~
MEMORANDUM
TO: John. Ely, Assistant County Attorney
THRII: Suzanne Konchan, County Planning Director Qj~'
FROM: Tim Malloy, Senior Planner
RE: Kessler/McGill 1041 Hazard Review and. General Submission
DATE: August 5, 1994
~. ~.., ., ~..,,~,a ..> ~ m. _... ti .,. ~.,_
------ --- -- - -
REQIIEST: The Applicant is requesting retroactive,. approval for 1041
Hazard Review and General Submission is order to establish legal
~_.... ........ .....„„„~.v...,.~„.~„ ...~„
status for a 528_square foot cabin and 100 square foo s~or~ge shed
' g of Aspen Mountain.
located on the Climax minin claim on the back.
BACKGROUND: This application was submitted in ,response to a law
suit that was filed by the County regarding the construction of
structures on the subject property without the necessary planning
and zoning approvals and building permits. Planning Staff comments
found in this memo have been done based on the contents of the
material submitted by the applicant asLLYwell as"the comment~s'of~theJ,
referral agencies. In addition, staff has reviewed"topographic maps
of the area as well as the hazard ,maps and other information
available in the Planning Office. A site visit was also conducted.
The subject property is 50 acres is size and consists of a
collection of five patented mining claims. The property' is
generally located in a relatively remote area on the backside. of
Aspen Mountain near Hurricane Gulch. Access fo„the property is via
a small unimproved driveway to Little Annie Road. This access drive
is considered a summer only access. Access to;the property during
the winter months is by snowmobile, snowshoe or cross country skis.
There are no utilities on the property.
The improvements on the property consist of a small (528 square
feet) cabin, a small outhouse, and a storage shed (100 square
feet). The text in the letter of application list the size of the
cabin as 400 square feet, however, the survey shows the dimensions
of the cabin as 22 feet by 24 feet or'52S feet. The location of the
cabin, as indicated by the survey, is in the northernmost portion
of the property near the northwest corner of the Climax Mining
Claim. The shed and outhouse are not shown on bhe survey though
they are both near the cabin in the northern portion of the Climax
mining claim. According to the application, the applicants
Curren
tly use the cabin 12 to 18 days per year as a summer getaway.
The Applicants have no plans for expansion of the cabin at this
time.
~®~9~~"'
The property is encumbered by geologic hazards including
potentially unstable soils and steep slopes. The property is also
mapped for potential and historic avalanche hazard as well as low
wildfire hazard. The site does not include big game habitat but
there is a migration corridor running through the area. The
Applicant has provided a geologic report prepared by Nick Lampiris.
APPLICANT: Sepp Kessler and Donald McGill
APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: Gary Wright, Wright & Adger
LOCATION: Back of Aspen Mountain near Hurricane Gulch and Little
Annie Road".
ZONING: AF-1
ACC888: Off of Little Annie Road via a private access drive over
accessgoverMtheninterveningeminpngcclaimas not demonstrated legal
1fATER/SEWER: Wastewater is handled by a traditional outhouse and
potable.waterp is c ~ ried to the property ere is currently no well
or on-site se tic s stem on the
REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS: 'The Referral agency comments are
summarized below. Referral memos are attached for reference.
1) ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH: The Ehvironmental Health Department
addressed four issues with respect to the existing development
on the property; Sewage Collection and Treatment, Adequate
Provision of Water Needs, Air Quality, and Noise.
Sewage Collection and Treatment - Wastewater is currently
handled by an outhouse. Wastewater from' the cabin's sink
currently runs directly onto the ground under the cabin,
according to the Applicant's representative.. The Applicant
oontends that only a small amount of water is run down the
sink drain. When the EHD prepared their. report they were
operating under the assumption that water'f"rom the sink was
collected in a container and disposed of in the outhouse.
Allowing wastewater from the sink to drain directly onto the
ground is an unacceptable situation.
The Environmental Health Department indicates that the
existing traditional outhouse, currently in use on the
property, does not meet the Pitkn County Regulations for
Individual Sewage Disposal Systems. He notes that an unvaulted
pit could create a pollution problem on this property due to
the coarse soils typically found in this area. He recommends
a combination of two separate systems to handle wastewater
disposal on the site. First he recommends a vaulted privy be
®~~~~i
_.:
._
installed. This is basically an outhouse with a concrete or
prest waterdlse tick tankadandlosewagereabmmends that a small
g Y p sorption field be
installed. This system would be used to handle sink
wastewater, thereby increasing the life of the privy. The
Environmental Health Department believes that the above
recommended systems could be sucoessfully installed on the
property and bring the sewage collection and treatment on the
property into conformance with County staii~ards~.`
The Planning Office is concerned about the impact that the
installation of a grey water system will create. The subject
property is located in a subalpine environment. The soils and
plants that typify this type of environment are very sensitive
to any disturbance. In addition it is every difficult to
reestablish disturbed areas in this type of environment. The
is be
amount of water used on this site •cern'lieved to be very
minimal. The Planning Office is con ed that it may be
counterproductive to disturb the sensitive subalpine
environment to install a grey water system in this case. Staff
has discussed this issue with the Environmental Health
De artment and as an alternate the su est that a shallow dry
P Y g9
well could be installed to handle wastewater 'from the sink.
They indicate that site specific soils tests will be necessary
to determine whether this option is feasible. The
Environmental Health Department will conduct this test prior
to approving the dry well. They also recommend that if a dry
well is installed only biodegradable detergent`s should be used
on this site.
Adeouate Provision of Water Needs - The EHD states that the
current practice of hauling water to the site is an acceptable
alternative under the assumption that the use of the property
or the size of the cabin do not change. 1Te also stated that
installing a well on this site is not practical in light of
the fact that there is no electricity on the site. Staff
recommends that the size and the use of this cabin be limited
to the current status. Assuming this restriction is enforced,
no well will be necessary for this cabin. The application
indicates that the Applicant has no plans to install a well
on the subject property.
The subject property is within the newly established
Rural/Remote zone district. The regulations for this zone
district prohibit the drilling of individual wells.
Air ouality - The cabin includes an existing wood burning
stove. According to the Environmental Health Department this
stove is on the certified, clean-burning stove list. The
Environmental Health Department requires that the stove be
registered and permitted.
®®4)~~ ~.
- n
~°"a*
w
Noise -The Environmental Health Department has concluded that
noise generated by the use of the cabin will be minimal.
2) COUNTY ENGINEER: Bud Eylar stated that `the access"to this
property is n ~ acceptable for emergency rssponse. The portion
nottmeet theaa fli able Little Annie Road to the cabin does
pp County driveway standards. According
to Mr. Eylar, the impacts associated`wth bringing the access
drive up to County standards are unacceptable..
3) ZONING DEPARTMENT: Joanna Schaffner notes that no building
w.
permits have been issued for any of t7ie ""structures on this
property. At th time of her review, the Applicant had not
submitted enough information for her to determine compliance
with the height-or setbacks requirements of the Code.
4) SHER2FF: Steve Crockett, Emergeri'cy Management Coordinator, has
reviewed the application and has prepared a memo summarizing
his concerns. His memo is attached for, your review. Mr.
Crockett addresses the wildfire and structure"fire issues as
well as emergency service access and his concerns regarding
the mapped avalanche hazard. This property is mapped for low
wildfire hazard. Steve-Crockett has recommended the standard
wildfire mitigation measures for this property.
5) included wit gnOanOFina ed bi ~. The subject property is not
y pp g game habitat; however, there
is an elk mi ration corridor in this area. Randy Cote has
reviewed this application and has verbally conveyed to staff
P Mr. Cote has not
recommended any mitigation measures forlthis site.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS
1041 REVIEW:
The site is encumbered by slopes exceeding 30 percent in grade,
potential and historic avalanche hazard., potentially unstable
soils, and low wildfire hazard. In addition, the property is in an
area of a known elk migration corridor. Hazards are reviewed in
the following section:
Geoloaic - Section 5-401
Virtually the entire site is encumbered by slopes in excess of 30
percent. The existing building is located in what appears to be
the only feasible location on the property: The building site is
a small, gently sloping bench at the north end of the Climax Mining
Claim. The topographic information-provided by 'the applicant does
not show a great deal of detail, however, site inspection reveled
that the slope in the area of the existing cabin is nearly level.
The slope increases slightly in the area of the 'storage building.
4
®®®Q~~J
4 ; ..
The ro ert is also located entirely within an area mapped for
P Y
otentiall unstable soils. The application st
no unstable soils in the area of the buildin site. The geologic
report provided by Nick Lampiris also states thates that there are
at there is no sign
of instability at or near the site. Tkie~Land'l`Tse Code recommends
several criteria for development within areas that are believed to
constitute a moderate hazard with respect to soil instability.
The existing cabin would most likely meet the criteria established
for development in areas of moderate hazard. The cabin was built
in the vicinity of a preexisting cabin and, therefore, no
additional vegetation removal was required. In addition, no
significant grading or soil alteration was necessary to construct
the cabin.
The code also requires that the design and construction of
structures within moderate hazard areas be approved by a qualified
professional geologist or engineer. No information has been
provided which would indicate that the design or construction of
the cabin was approved by a professional engineer or geologist.
Avalanche
7 prpo ert is located in an area that, is, mapped for both
p Y
T e sub ect y pplcant claims to
historic and otential avalanche hazarcl."The A
have knowledge of snow conditions from his ears of working in the
skiing industry and he describes the building site as well
sheltered from potential avalanches. The Applicant has also hired
Nick Lampiris to analyze the avalanche hazard at the building site.
According to Mr. Lampiris, the only concern on this site is that
it is theoretically possible for a snow slide to reach the log
cabin. Mr. Lampiris recommends that a 4-foot-high wall or berm be
built to the east of the cabin in order to divert snow away from
the cabin. He suggests that the berm or wall be prow shaped to
split snow to either side of the cabin. He also notes that if the
cabin is not used during the winter months then the wall or berm
would not be necessary.
The Colorado Geologic Survey (CGS) has also reviewed this case and
the geologic report prepared by Dr. Lampiris. Jeffrey Hynes, of
CGS, supports the findings and recommendations of Dr. Lampiris
particularly those related to the avalanche hazard. However, Mr.
Hynes recommends that the berm suggested 'by Dr. Lampiris be
constructed regardless of whether 'the County places a winter use
restriction on this property. Mr. Hynes beTiedes that restricting
winter use may be unrealistic. The comments of the Colorado
Geologic Survey are attached for reference.
Section 3-805 addresses the issues related to avalanche hazard.
This section of the Code requires mitigation measures for areas of
theeentrevaronert hisaeffectedabylmoderatehavaode states that if
p p y lanche hazard then
~'' o®L7Q~~>
,., .,.., ~ ~. ., . .,a, ~, ~._ , .., Y: ~; u»ra..... ... aw, r, .,.~,, ~+s,_J.~x~at+~a%a~'s.dk',~r:.
~`
development may be permitted if the hazard can be adequately
mitigated. The Code also requires that~if structural avalanche
defenses are required,. that these defenses be designed by a
certified engineer. According to Dr. Lampris and Jeffrey Hynes,
the avalanche hazards on this site can be mitigated if the
recommended berm is constructed.
The County is concerned not only with the safety of the residents
living in hazard areas, but also with the safety of emergency and
rescue personnel who must travel roads that .pass through these
areas. Access to the property (Little Annie Road) passes through
known avalanche hazards. This fact was punc~izaEed by the avalanche
events of the winter of 1993. The Little Annie Road was covered by
snows from avalanches in several locations and on more than one
occasion.
The application states that the cabin serves as a summer getaway.
The application also includes a statement indicating that the
Applicant understands that in the event of a fire the cabin would
likely be a total loss due to its remote location and the fact that
the cabin is outside the boundaries of the fire district.
Similarly, the Applicant should recognize that due to the remote
location of the cabin conventional emergency services such as
emergency medical aid and search and rescue will not be available.
In addition, Steve Crockett, Emergency Management Coordinator for
the County Sheriff's Office, raises several other issues related
to avalanche hazard. For example, while the structure itself may
be designed to protect against avalanche hazard, no measures have
been taken to protect residents, guests, or future owners from the
hazards associated with outdoor activities such as skiing,
snowshoeing and hiking. He also voices concern regarding the
cumulative effects of development in hazard areas. That is with
each new residence the number of persons exposed to a hazard
increases. Mr. Crockett states that "his primary concern is that
approval of this cabin will set a precedent that could result in
a proliferation of back-country houses which could overwhelm the
Sheriff Department's ability to provide emergency services.
Wildfire
The site is mapped for low wildfire hazard and is, therefore,
subject to the regulations found in the Section 3-807 of the New
Land Use Code. The Code establishes mitigation standards for
development within low and moderate wildfire hazard areas.
The application was referred to the Sheriff's Office and Steve
Crockett has submitted a memo recommending several measures for
mitigating wildfire hazards as well as structure fire and avalanche
hazards. These measure'a `a're"" very similar to the mitigation
standards identified in the new Land Use Code (see Section 3-
807(c).
-, ®®~~~1~ry 6
. „~~rf r•.~...~.~_~_s,~ .~. .
x __ :_ . , ,
Staff has significant concerns with respect to the impact of the
wildfire and access recommendations identified in Mr. Crockett's
memo. Due to the delicate nature of the surrounding environment and
the fact that many of the wildfire and access recommendations are
either unnecessary (the recommended conditions. already exist) or
_,..
are contrary`to the proposed rural and remote regulations, staff
would suggest that only the following wildfire mitigation measures
be applied to tfiis property:
1. All branches which extend over the roof eves shall be
trimmed and all branches within 15 feet of the chimney
shall be removed.
2. All deadfall within 100 feet of the structure shall be
removed (except where the T°OO foot perimeter may extend
off the property).
3. Roofs and gutters shall be kept clear of debris.
4. All flammable materials shall be kept of a parallel
contour a minimum of 15 feet away from any structure.
5. Weeds and grasses within 10 feet of the structure shall
be kept to height of not`more than 6 inches.
6. The area within 10 feet of the structure shall be kept
clear of all litter, slash, and flammabl'e`debrs.
7. Firewood/wood piles shall be stacked on a parallel
contour a minimum of 15 feet away from the structure.
8. The structure shall have a minimum of one, 10 pound ABC
fire extinguisher.
Wildlife
The subject property is not located within a mapped habitat area,
however, there is an elk migration route that ..runs through the
area. The Code recommends dog control measures where development
occurs within 1/2 mile of an elk migration route. In addition,
fences that would restrict movement are prohibited. No information
has been offered regarding the possibility of dogs on the site. No
fences exist on the site and none are proposed in conjunction with
this application. Randy Cote has reviewed the application and has
verbally informed staff that he has no problem with this cabin.
Staff recommends that no dogs be allowed on this site.
Summarv'of 1041 Review
The Applicant has provided information which demonstrates that the
geologic hazards which exist on the property can be mitigated. The
~'~' ® ®'lf ii V n.
7
"' .... xx ~.~hra i. yvnx v4o.. 'x n..
c-s.wiq: Y w~. Fm ~ . -ri: VL
existing structures are located on the flattest portion of the
property and avoid areas with slopes in excess of 30 percent. The
Applicant's consulting geologist has indicated in his report that
soil stability is not an issue in the area of the existing
structures. The geologist and the Colorado Geologic Survey have
also recommended structural mitigation to protect the building site
from avalanche danger. However, the Applicant has not committed to
this mitigation. In addition, there are known avalanche paths which
cross the access road for this property. the best way'"to mitigate
the avalanche hazard associated with this cabin is to restrict its
__
use during the winter months. Wildfire and wildlife hazards are
minimal on this site and mitigation of these concerns. is possible.
GENERAL SUBM28$IONe
r>uvvclyn v=. cne xuraiixemote zone district - The County has
recently adopted the Rura'I/Remote zone` district. The subject
property is within the boundaries of this zone district. The
Rural/Remote zone district is intended to resolve some of the
issues associated with development in the back country. Ordinance
94-16 outline the uses and regulations which apply to lands
included within the Rural/Reritote zone district. 'The regulations for
this zone district require. a minimum lot size. of 35 acres (the
subject property is approximately"50 acresp. They"also establish
a maximum footprint of 400 square feet and a maximum floor area of
600 square feet. The regulations also allow 20b'sgiiare feet of deck
or porch space over the 400 square fooE footprint.
The cabin on the subject property has a footprint which is
approximately 528 square feet in size. This includes a small deck.
The cabin is a sin le stor structure with a small loft which is
g Y
used for storage. The loft has little, if any, space where the
ceiling height exceeds 5'6". Therefore, the total floor area of the
cabin and deck is rou hl 528 s Tlie subject property
9 Y quare feet
also contains a small. storage shed and an outhouse. The
Rural/Remote regulations allow accessory structures provided their
total square footage does not exceed 100 square feet, inclusive of
outhouses and mechanical enclosures. According to the application,
the storage shed is 100 square feet, thus, the outhouse pushes the
total square footage of accessory structures over the recommended
limit. The outhouse on the subject property is in the range of 20
square feet in size or smaller.
The Rural/Remote regulations also restrict the height of structures
to 20 feet at the peak of the roof. The subject cabin is within
this height limit. With the exception of the total square footage
of the accessory structures, the existing cabin on the subject
property is consistent with the recently adopted Rural/Remote
regulations.
Drainage and Erosion - While the subject property includes areas
with very steep slopes, the slopes in the area of the existing
8
000~~"
;.
structures is relatively flat. However, there are small isolated
areas of steep slopes near the building site. While drainage is not
~g property, Staff w
therenarecareassonethe property in the viciniould point out that
ty of the buildings
where surface vegetation had been removed 'and bare soil was
exposed. Staff would recommend that efforts be'made fo revegetate
these areas as quickly as possible. The Applicant may wish to
consult with Tom Cardamone of ACES for advice regarding to how to
best accomplish revegetation at this elevation.,The County Engineer
has also commented that drainage along the existing access road is
inadequate and that the impacts of bringing this road up to County
standards are unacceptable.
Impacts to Roads - Continued use of this parcel, as proposed, would
have negligible impacts on the County road system. fihe cabin is
used infrequently, thus no significant additional traffic is
anticipated. The driveway and roadway are adequate to provide
seasonal access to the property as intended by the applicant.
However, the existing driveway is rough in some places, narrow and
drops away steeply on one side. This driveway is relatively
dangerous and is not acceptable for emergency response purposses.
p g Y y g cant impacts on the
steepvslope pareas onaeitherdsidee~fethesdriveway. The County road
is also in oor condition in man areas and is not adequate for
emergency response purposes. No additional improvements are
proposed to the driveway or the County road as a result of this
application. Due to the potential impacts associated with improving
the driveway and roadway Staff recoinntend's that" no improvements to
these roads be allowed in this area. '
Scenic Oualitv - The cabin on the_subject property cannot be seen
from any public roadway or other public place.
Utilities - Utilities are not available to the property. The
Applicant is not requesting utilities be extended. The Rural/Remote
zone prohibits the extension of utilities, §taff would recommend
that any agreement with the applicant include a condition that
utilities not be extended to this property.
Compatibility with Existing Adjacent Neighborhoods
There are currently no other cabins or structures in the immediate
vicinity of this property. it can be said that 'the existing cabin
is incompatible with the surrounding open hillsides. However, the
intent of this criteria is to evaluate `the' impacts on other
surrounding properties. The Rural/Remote regulations allow
development similar to that which exists on the subject property.
Therefore, the existing cabin and other structures would be
compatible with the surrounding properties.
SIIMMARY Staff finds the Applicants request to be consistent with
the criteria for 1041 Environmental Hazard and General Submission
®®~®"°1v
review. In particular, the existing cabin and associated accessory
structures are consistent with the rural and remote regulations
recently adapted by the Board of Chanty Commissioners.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff supports the Applicant's request and
recommends that any agreement with Applicant include the following
conditions:
1. This approval is granted for the existing improvements on this
property including the 528 square foot cabin, the 100 square
foot storage shed, the small outhouse,` and the existing
driveway. IN addition, this approval covers the construction
of the berm recommended by Dr:` Lariipirs £o mitigate the
avalanche hazard. No other development shall be allowed on
this property, including any grading or vegetation removal
without further review by the County.
2. The Applicant shall demonstrate legal access over the adjacent
mining claim (Maggie).
Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the
Applicant shall record a 24 x 36`nch mylar 1041 Review site
plan y hich me y s the approvaplan sl~allplannin~ Office and
Count Attorne This site be prepared by a
licensed surveyor and shall include enough information to
verify the heights and setbacks of the existing structures on
this property.
4. The Applicants obtain any variances necessary.
5. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the cabin
shall be inspected by a Colorado registered professional
engineer to verify that the foundation and construction of the
cabin are adequate for the soil conditions. The Applicant
shall submit a letter to the Buildng~Department summarizing
the results of this inspection.
A four foot high wall or berm shall be constructed to the east
of the cabin, as recommended by Nick Lampiris, as mitigation
against potential avalanche danger. The berm shall be prow
shaped so as to divert snow away from the cabin. This berm
shall be inspected and approved by the County Engineer prior
to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
7. There shall be no additional development on the property
except as required to- meet other conditions in this memo
(replacing the existing privy with a 'vaulted privy as
recommended by the Environmental Health Department).
Specifically, no fencing, driveway upgrades, building
additions or expansions, or vegetation removal shall be
allowed on the property without further review by the County.
~y 10
oQ®~i
_.
8. The existing woodburnng stove in the cabin shall be
registered with the Environmental Health.,Department prior to
issuance of a certificate of occupancy. "
9. The existing outhouse shall be .improved by installing a
concrete or lastic vaulted ri with a
g p p y p~ minimum 750 gallon
stora a ca acit and an alarm s stem to warn of the need for
pumping. This privy shall be inspected and approved by the
Environmental Health Department prior 'tq issuance of a
certificate of occupancy.
10. A shallow dry well shall be installed to handle wastewater
from the kitchen sink.. Prior to installation of this„dry well,
site specific soil tests shall be conducted to determine ,the..
design of the dry well. The dry well shall be inspected and
approved by the Environmental Health Department prior to
issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
11. All exposed soils in the area of the building site (except for
the driveway) shall be revegetated as quickly as possible. A
revegetation plan shall be submitted for approval by the
Planning Office and Resource Management Department. The
revegetation plan shall be implemented in the next growing
season.
12. The following wildfire mitigation measure shall be adhered
to:
a. All branches which extend over the roof eves shall be
trimmed and all branches within 15 feet of the chimney
shall be removed.
b. All deadfall within 100 feet of the structure shall be
removed (except where the 100 foot perimeter may extend
off the property).
c. Roofs and gutters shall be kept clear of debris.
d. All flammable materials shall be kept of a parallel
contour a minimum of 15 feet away from any structure.
e. Weeds and grasses within 10 feet of the structure shall
be kept to height of not more than 6 inches.
f. The area within 10 feet of the structure shall be kept
clear of all litter, slash, and flammable debris..
g. Firewood/wood piles shall be stacked on a parallel
contour a minimum of 15 feet away from the structure.
h. The structure shall have a minimum of one, l0 pound ABC
fire extinguisher.
od~S.~i~~, it
... ~. a
,, .. i.. .._. ..
13. All other applicable requirements of the Pitkin County Land
Use Code shall be adhered to.
14. All material representations made in the application shall be
adhered, to.
ATTACHMENTS•
1. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEp"t. MEFtO
2. COUNTY ENGINEER'S MEMO
3. ZONING OFFICE-'MEMO
4. PITKIN COUNTY EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT'COORDII~IATOT2'S MEMO
5. COLORADO GEOLOGIC S~Tl2~EY `hET~"EY2 "" ""
6. APPLICATION AND SUPPOR`"ING MATERIALS '
memo climax 1041gs
00~1Ca`
12
,.. , ,~ a, .. ,.. ~ n...
~..,:,
ASPEN PITK
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPdRTMENT
MEf+f~R1~NDU2+I
To: Tim Malloy, Planning Office
From: Environmental Health Department
Date: March 15, 19.93
~ ~ ~3
`r ~~5~
y'
Re: Kessler/McGill 1041 Hazard and General Submission Review
Parcel ID# 2911-014-00-005/009
The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the
above-mentioned land use submittal under authority of the Pitkin
County Code, Title II, and has the following comments.
SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION: Sections 2-7 and 5-200•
The pit privy or "traditional out house", currently in use,
violates the Pitkin County Regulations__ Oa Individual Sewaae
Disposal .Systems. In the coarse soils typically found in this
area, an unvaulted pit privy creates a pollution hazard. The
replacement of the existing system with a vaulted privy which could
also collect water flows from any cabin sinks. `This would meet the
minimum requirements.
The vault capacity should be at least 750 gallons and have an alarm
system installed to warn of the need for pumping. A properly
screened and rodent-proof superstructure is also required.
Another, and perhaps preferable, alternative to a vault would be
an additional small grey water septic tank and sewage absorption
field of typical design to dispose of the sink wastewater. This
would eliminate the potential of an accidental overflow of sewage
onto the ground when the tank fails 'to get pumped. A standard grey
water disposal system would also minimize the possibilities that
a hole would be drilled in the tank to reduce the cost of pumping,
probably very expensive in this area of the County.
It is our opinion that, on this parcel, such` a system could be
constructed under a permit from this department, and comply with
County regulations. The alternatives should alleviate future
contamination problems.
ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WAmER"NEEDS• Sections 2 6 and 5 205
The application indicates that the owners n'ow bring drinking water
with them. with no utilities to the site, proposing to use a well
as a source for drinking water is not possible'at this time.
Hauling water is an acceptable alternative if the applicant further
demonstrates that there will be no changes in the use or size of
OOOC~.~~
'130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 8'16'1'1 303/920.5070
eryeleppap¢r
,,.:,,
3~EN*PITKIN
d~L 'FI~ALT~=1 1S`
x3E1~If~FtAND~T~2
To: Tim Malloy, Planning Office
From: Environmental Health Department
Date: March 15, 1993
f
y`~ ~ 15199a
Re: Kessler/McGill 1041 Hazard and General Submission Review
Parcel ID# 2911-014-00-005/009
The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the
above-mentioned land use submittal under authority of the Pitkin
County Code, Title II, and has the following comments.
SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION: Sections 2-7 and 5-200:
The pit privy or "traditional out house", currently in use,
violates the Pitkin Count Re ulations On Individual Sewa e
Disposal Sys
terns In the coarse soils typically found in this
area, an unvaulted pit privy creates a pollution hazard. The
replacement of the existing system with a vaulted privy which could
also collect water flows from any cabin sinks. This would meet the
minimum requirements.
It is our opinion that, on this parcel, such a system could be
constructed under a permit from this department, and comply with
County regulations. The alternatives should alleviate future
contamination problems.
The vault capacity should be at least 750 gallons and have an alarm
system installed to warn of the need for pumping. A properly
screened and rodent-proof superstructure is also required.
Another, and perhaps preferable, alternative to a vault would be
an additional small grey water septic tank and sewage absorption
field of typical design to dispose of the sink wastewater. This
would eliminate the potential of an accidental overflow of sewage
onto the ground when the tank fails to get pumped. A standard grey
water disposal system would also minimize the possibilities that
a hole would be drilled in the tank to reduce the cost of pumping,
probably very expensive in this area of the County.
The application indicates that the owners now bring drinking water
with them. With no utilities to the site, proposing to use a well
as a source for drinking water is not possible at this time.
Hauling water is an acceptable alternative if the applicant further
demonstrates that there will be no changes in the use or size of
~' 00001. r
'130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 616'11
r[[y[IeOpeper 3O`~9~~~5~70
,- - ~'
_-.
Kessler/McGill General Submission and 1041
Hazard Reviews
March 15, 1993
Page 2
this structure. However., it is the opinion of this office that
carefully worded approval language be included .that specifically
does not require, in this instance, that a satisfactory domestic
supply be developed is not necessary.
There is no certainty that, in the future, the cabin won't become
occupied for prolonged periods of time, and might then be
considered residential. Therefore, we would suggest that over a
specific period of time that a drinking water supply system be
designed to alleviate possible problems with water supply
requirements. Such a water system should include a minimum of 1000
gallons of storage to ensure adequate supplies during periods 'of
low flow in the Spring, and when the system is not used. for a
while. A properly planned water .supply for a cabin of this size
should deliver a flow of approximately 3 gallons per minute at a
minimum pressure of 20 psi. Any well and/or cistern should be
constructed to provide proper sanitary protection.
g gy 7acent mining claims
The eolo of the area is such that several ad'
have developed a satisfactory source of water. 'There is reason to
expect that a spring or well could be developed on this site `if the
applicant would chose to do so. This is a preferable alternative
because it will provide better sanitary protection for the area,
and a more reliable drinking water supply for users.
Obviously, the decision as to the type of water supply required for
this cabin is one of interpreting its use. If the County is going
to allow recreational cabins, other clear regulatory standards for
water supplies must be developed that allow these and other
applicants to disregard the standard methods of developing a
satisfactory water source. None of these types of dariances to
drinking water standards now exist.
AIR OUALITY• Sections 2-17 and 5-106:
The cabin now contains a wood burning stove which is apparently on
the certified, clean-burning stove list. It is required that the
wood stove be registered and permitted as a certified device.
NOISE: Section 2-23:
Noise which would adversely impact land uses or the occupants of
adjacent properties is not anticipated from the use of this cabin.
pp a rural and remote
The a lication indicates that the cabin is in
area and the noise generated from this use is'negligible: `This
department concurs and has concluded that noise will be minimal and
not significant. In any case, if complaints are received and
violations measured, the noise generated will be regulated to
comply with the Pitkin County Noise Abatement Ordinance (92-06).
®®~~~ 9
TO Tim Malloy
CC Bud
From: Bud Eylar
Postmark: Mar 17,93 3:44
Status: Previously read
Subject: Kessler/McGill 1041
MESSAGE DISPLAY
CC Stan Berryman
PM
Hazard
Message:
comments: 1) The access to this site. is noteekc dtal llowing
p or a short
res onsehavTheeMidnidhthMine RooftCastleoCrtVeroad fle for emergency
distance from the intersection t is maintained
year round. The remining from the ppd of county maintenance to the
top of the mountain does not meet a licable Count Standards. The
drainage is inadequate,some grades exceed our maximums,curve radii
are too small and sight distance is too low (below min's). The
impacts of bringing the access to County standards are unacceptable.
------- ---====X=====___-------
~~ ` o®~~~
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Tim Malloy, County Planner
FROM: Joanna S. Schaffner, County Zoning
DATE: February 12, 1993
RE: Kessler/McGill 1041 Hazard Review & General Submission
Parcel ID# 2911-014-00-005/009
I have reviewed the above referenced application, and offer the
following comments.
ZONE: AF-1, ten acre minimum lot size
No information has been submitted for height, setback or floor area
calculations to be made.
No building permit has been issued for either structure.
March 9, 1994
Jeffrey L. Hynes
Colorado Geologic Survey
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Room 715„ "•
_._
-Denver, Colorado 80203
Dear Jeffrey:
Attached is a copy of a land use application for the Kessler/McGill
property. According to the Applicant's geologic consultant, Nick
• reached by an avalanche.
Lampiris, the cabin on this: site ,can be
I have recently been informed that the `Colorado Geojlogic Survey
will serve as referral on cases involving avalaiic~ie 113ZaYd. While
I do not believe the hazard in this case is particularly
problematic, I would apprecate_it'if you wou'l~d°hade"a look at the
attached information and,: give me your opinion.
In this case the landowner has already built the cabin and we are
in the 'process of working out a settlement. The landowner states
that he was an international mountain guide and he claims that the
site he selected is safe from avalanche hazard. The site is located
_, ._,.~,
on the backside of Aspen Mountain on a taest "facing slope. Nick
Lampirs' report is at the back of the attached packet.
If you have any questions give me a call. My number at cne ~ounLy
is 920-5095. I would appreciate a response at your earliest
convenience.
Sincerely,
Timothy G. Malloy
Senior Planner
®®®~~
i ius b. ma.;<m r lxMYnn ,xb<?,<.rva la~aNU+zks'~,r ^x#:eRe.; q~2?a~
MEMORANDUM
..:
TO: Tim Malloy, Planner
FROM: Steve Crockett, Emergency ManageMent Coordinator
THROIIGE: Bob Braudis, Sheriff
DATE: March il, 1993
RE: Kessler/MCGill 1041
As you may be aware, the Sheriff is responsible for search and
rescue efforts within the county and relies heavily on the all-
volunteer Mountain Rescue-Aspen search and rescue group to
fulfill his responsibilities.
In addition to this, the sheriff is the fire warden for the
county and is responsible for wildfire suppression particularly
if and when it exceeds the capabilities of the. jurisdictional
fire department. In order to fulfill that responsibility and
since the Sheriff has very limited initial attack wildfire
resources in his department, he has reciprocal mutual aid
agreements with and relies heavily on the Fire Protection
Districts in Ptkn County to perform initial attack on wildfires
at his request. The Fire Protection Districts fulfill their
suppression responsibilities with an all volunteer fire
departments. Although the statutes clearly give the Sheriff
responsibility for prairie and grass fires there does not appear
to be any formal mandate for structure protection outside of fire
protection districts.
Ultimately, the sheriff's broad and general responsibility is to
protect life and property.
It isppmportayt to npte that the Kessler/McGill proposal lies
outside of an fire rotection district is within an area that
is ma ed for low wildfire hazard and is within an area that is
mapped for historic and potential avalanches.
Being quite familiar with the area and having visited the site on
numerous occasions in both summer and winter months, my general
concerns with the Kessler/McGill proposal revolve around fire
protection in the form of the increasing wildland/urban interface
fire hazard resulting in the potential increase for a man-caused
structure fire that spreads to a wildfire or vice versa,
access/egress to the area by emergency response personnel, water
supply for fire protection, avalanche hazard and isolation from
emergency services.
~: .,,,
.:
The applicant is seeking a retroactive ap~ir'oval for two existing
structures on the proposal; a 400 square foot "cabin" and a 100
square foot storage shed.
It is my understanding that during the winter months the proposal
may only be accessed by snowmobile or snowcat.
The proposal lies on a small, west facing bench at approximately
the 10800 foot elevation overlooking the lower hurricane gulch
drainage. The surrounding topography is dominated by steep slopes
g p p g g ation varies from
cheatugrass on the openlslopesstormature Aspenttrees to dense
stands of conifers.
Given that this proposal is outside of any fire protection
district, the burden to protect lives and property will
ultimately fall to the sheriff. In this case the Sheriff's
concerns lie not only with the wildfire hazard but structure..
protection as well.
My specific concerns are as follows:
WILDFIRE:
Protecting the structures from a wildfire and
protecting the natural resources from a structure fire
by addressing the location of the building envelope and
defensible space around the structures.
RECOMMENDATIONS: Specific conditions of approval:
1. The building envelope should not be located in
draws, canyons or on slopes 'greater than 30%.
2. The area around the structures should incorporate
landscaping with wildfire defensible space
considerations as follows:
NOTE: Actual vegetation manipulation to meet these conditions
may not be necessary where the natural vegetation
patterns have already fulfilled these conditions. If
the applicant builds away from the oak brush on the
flatter portions of the proposal minimal vegetation
disruption would be Necessary.
a. Brush, debris and non-ornamental vegetation
should be removed a minimum l0' perimeter
around the structures.
b. Vegetation should be reduced to break up the
vertical and horizontal continuity of the
fuels a minimum of 30' perimeter around the
structures built on flat ground. (for greater
slopes ref. CSFS Safety Zone chart pg. 13
®fl ~ ~ ~ ~ Wildfire Guidelines For Rural Homeowners)
c. Spacing between clumps of brush and
vegetation within.. the 30' perimeters should
be a minimum of two times the height of the
fuel. Maximum diameter of the clumps should'
be two times the height of the fuel. All
measurements should be from, the edges of the
crowns of the fuel.
8. Pruning all branches from trees and brush
within the 30' perimeters to a height of 10'
above the ground and removal of ladder fuels
from around trees and brush.
e. Tree crown separation within the 30'
perimeters should have a minimum of 10'
between the edges of the crowns. This does
not apply to mature stands of Aspen trees
where the above recommendation for removal_of
ladder fuels have been complied-with. In
areas of aspen regeneration, the spacing
guidelines (c.) should be followed.
f. Trim all branches which extend over the roof eaves
and remove branches within 15' of the chimneys.
q. Reduce the density of fuels within a 100'
perimeter of the structures where natural
reduction has not already occurred.
h. The applicant shall be responsible for the
continued maintenance of the defensible space
vegetation requirements.
Roofing material should be of a non-combustible
material, Class B minimum roof construction.
(ref. CSFS position paper)
Any additional proposed buildings within the
building envelopes should incorporate wildfire
hazard mitigation measures.
STRUCTURE FIRE PROTECTION:
Protecting the structures from a structure fire and
preventing a structure fire from initiating a wildfire.
RECOMMENDATION: Conditions of approval:
1. Install an approved sprinkler system within
the structure along with an adequate storage
and supply system.
00002
.. . ~~.
In addition to the above ,recommendations, 2 would ask
that conditions of approval be to'~bury~all utilities,
the address be clearly marked and visible, with min. 2"
letters and that current maps of final proposal be
provided to the county.
There are additional recommendations in the two
_.,
referenced Colorado State Forest Service publications
that could be incorporated into the individual
structures' design and building materials. These
additional recommendations would. greatly enhance
wildfire protection. for the. proposal.
WILDFIRE/STRIICTiJRE FIRE"CONCLUSIONS:
Even with the above recommended conditions of .approval:
1. The responsibility for all of these hazards lies,..
with the Sheriff who has very limited fire
protection resources and as a result is totally
dependent upon the Fire Protection Districts in
Pitkin County for assistance. It is important to
note that the fire protection districts reserve
the right to limit and restrict their response to
a mutual aid request by the Sheriff. Under these
circumstances along with the remoteness and
inaccessibility of the structure(s) during both
the summer and winter months, one should
anticipate a total loss of the structure(s) in the
event of a structure fire.
2. In the reverse scenario, the same conclusion would
hold true in terms of the inability to protect the
structure from a wildfire. It is important to note
that both of these scenarios, operate under the
assumption that any individuals in or around the
structure would "self rescue" and not rely on the
Sheriff's Department's resources for quick initial
attack.
3. A third conclusion given the above considerations
is that it would be extremely difficult to protect
the natural resources from a structure fire.
ACCESS:
Access to the proposal is either via the Midnight Mine
or Little Annie roads thence to the "Hurricane" (jeep)
road. It is important to note that the "Hurricane" jeep
road is a narrow four wheel drive, high clearance,
short wheelbase, "jeep road" that would preclude access
to the proposal by virtually all of the fire protection
' q P P
Districtse eiumentnandamostfofhthesShn Ambulance
qu p eriff's Department
and Mountain Rescue, Aspen vehicles.
®~~~~
The concern is for access to the. proposal by emergency
response personnel in both the summer and winter. With
access to the site limited to the. substandard Midnight
.,:,
Mine or Little Annie roads and:_„the "Hurricane" (jeep)
,..H
road along with access to the-site during the winter
months limited to snowmobile or snowcat and at times
foot traffic only, traditional"rapid emergency response '
by law enforcement, EMS and fire personnel is
effectively precluded. In addition, the primary
snomobile/snowcat routes cross known and historic
avalanche paths.
It is important to consider the safety of not only the
residents and visitors to the site, but also the safety
of the emergency response personnel who may be exposed
to the access hazards.
RECOMMENDATIONS': Conditions of approval: Upgrade the
Midnight Mine, Little Annie and
"Hurricane" jeep roads to the
following standards.
1. Where feasible, looped routes of access/egress to
Highway 82 should be incorporated and built to
CSFS and/or NFPA 299 road standards. Where this is
not feasible, all roadways should have pull out
areas a maximum of 750' apart of with a 30'
minimum drivable surface turning radius.
2. Cul-de-sacs turn around pads should have a minimum
of a 30'drivable surface turning radius.
3. The driveways should enter the roadway at a ninety
degree angle for the first 25' of the driveway.
4. Road and driveway standards should meet or exceed
the standards listed in the CSFS Wildfire Safety;
Model Regulations for Protecting People & Homes in
Subdivisions and Developments (revised April, 88)
5. Fuelbreaks should be incorporated into the
roadways of the subdivision for 100' on each side
of the roadway.
NOTE: Actual vegetation manipulation to meet these conditions
.may not be necessary where the natural vegetation
patterns have already fulfilled these conditions.
6. Resolution of the issues under the "AVALANCHE"
section of this memo.
®~Q®%
ACCESS CONCLUSIONS:
The above recommended conditions of approval would
.. ~ .uw
address the access issue~in the"summer months but would
not address the avalanche hazards as"sociated with
access in the winter months At the ris~C of overs~ ati
the obvious to lace the burden on t
u radin the access is unrealistic Alongpwithnthisrng
Pg g
it is probably safe to say the county is not
particularly predisposed to upgrade these roads.
Between these two.. conclusions along with the avalanche
concerns, I feel safe in stating that access to the
proposal by any traditional means is, unrealistic and
that the applicant should not rely on any traditional,
rapid emergency response and should anticipate
protracted if not permanent periods of isolation from
traditional emergency services.
It should be noted that in the recent cycle of
avalanche activity in the Castle"Creek drainage, the
Lime Creek Subdivision residents and visitors were
consecutiveedaysmandmtheeresidentsdandf~isitorsednfrom
Castle Creek above the first bridge were exposed to
extreme avalanche hazard and isolated for five
consecutive days.
WATER SUPPLY:
The concern is for adequate water supply and storage
capacity to meet previously mentioned structure and
wildfire hazards. "'
RECOMMENDATIONS: Condtons_of_approval:
1. Install an approved sprinkler system within
the structure along with an adequate storage
and supply system.
2. The proposal should have an accessible to
fire suppression personnel from outside the
structure and above ground "intermediate
storage" cistern with a minimum of 1000 gal.
capacity.
3. The specific water storage and delivery
system specifications should be determined by
a qualified expert.
WATER SUPPLY CONCLUSIONS:
The above recommended conditions of approval would
address the water supply issue but may entail a
considerable and as a result unacceptable disruption to
® ~ ~ ®~ (, the surrounding area.
- r---- ~ __ ----~ _.
nronosed techniaue will create no significant damacte
~''
AVALANCFIE
The proposal lies within an area that is mapped for
historic and potential avalanches. The proposed access
to the building envelope crosses known, documented
avalanche paths on both the Little Annie and Midnight
Mine Roads.
The concerns are for the probability of encounter
between an avalanche and a vehicle or person accessing
the site, the resulting isolation from emergency
servipes in, the event gf ay avapanche, the potential
risk osed to the emer ehc res on
knowingly exposing them to the avase personnel by
lanche threats
associated with the proposal and the normal outdoor
activities associated with any development in or
adjacent to known avalanche areas; specifically,
downhill and cross country skiing,' SnoWShoeinq, hiking
etc.
I understand that buildings may be designed in such a
way as to withstand moderate avalanches but would ask
what are the contingencies for the safety of the
residents, guests or future owners of the proposal with
respect to these outdoor activities. Avalanche
forecasting and control is not a precise science.
Section 5-401.2 (d) (2) of the code states that
°1development shall not be accessible only by crossing
dangerous areas."
Section 5-401.2 {d) (7) of the code also states that
"If roads must cross hazardous areas, they shall be
designed to limit exposure and avalanche control
practices shall be used to reduce the danger along
exposed road segments during periods of high avalanche
danger."
The purpose of the 1041 process is to provide a
reasonable assurance to the public that the hazards
identified have been mitigated to an acceptable risk.
Specifically, Section 5-400.6 (b) (2) of the code
states that "The board shall not grant approval of the
permit unless technical evidence is presented which
clearly and conclusively establishes that. use of the
proposed technique will create no significant damage to
property and the public health, safety and welfare, and
that no adverse effects or damage'to a resource will
occur." In light of the above referenced issues, I do
not feel that the proposal has 1'clearly and
conclusively" demonstrated that the avalanche
mitigation measures proposed to date adequately address
these sections of the code.
AVALANCHE:
The proposal lies within an area that is mapped for
historic and potential avalanches. The proposed access
to the building envelope crosses known, documented
avalanche paths on both the Little Annie and Midnight
Mine Roads.
The concerns are for the probability of encounter
between an avalanche and a vehicle or person accessing
the site, the resulting isolation from emergency
services in the event of an avalanche, the potential
risk posed to the emergency response personnel by
knowingly exposing them to the .avalanche threats
associated with the proposal and the normal outdoor
activities associated with any development in or
adjacent to known avalanche areas; spe`c'ifically,
downhill and cross country skiing, snowshoeing, hiking
etc.
I understand that buildings may be designed in such a
way as to withstand moderate avalanches but would ask
what are the contingencies for the safety of the
residents., guests or future owners of the proposal with
respect to these outdoor activities. Avalanche
forecasting and control is not a precise science.
Section 5-401.2 (d) (2) of the code states that
°'development shall not be accessible only by crossing
dangerous areas."
Section 5-401.2 (d) (7) of the code also states that
"If roads must cross hazardous areas, they shall be
designed to limit exposure and avalanche control
practices shall be used to reduce the danger along
exposed road segments during periods of high avalanche
danger."
The purpose of the 1041 process is to provide a
reasonable assurance to the public that the hazards
identified have been mitigated to an acceptable risk.
Specifically, Section 5-400.6 (b) (2) of the code
states that "The board shall not grant approval of the
permit unless technical evidence is presented which
clearly and conclusively establishes that use of the
proposed technique will create no significant damage to
property and the public health, safety and welfare, and
that no adverse effects or damage to a resource will
occur." In light of the above referenced issues, I do
not feel that the proposal has "clearly and
conclusively" demonstrated that the avalanche
mitigation measures proposed to date adequately address
these sections of the code.
~° 00fl0~'
My greatest concern is that
It is important to take into consideration the
cumulative effects of growth with respect to avalanche
hazards. As you permit additional growth to occur,
there exists an increase in traffic on the roadways and
as a result a concomitant increase in likelihood of an
encounter between an avalanche and a vehicle or person
accessing a site, a concomitant increase in the total
number of people potentially isolated from emergency
services, a concomitant increase in the risk posed to
the emergency response personnel by knowingly exposing
them to the avalanche threats associated with the
proposal and a concomitant increase in the total number
of people potentially exposed to avalanche hazards
while participating in the normal outdoor activities
associated with atay development in or adjacent to known
avalanche areas.
RECO1dMENDATION3 Condition of approval:
1. Resolution of the above mentioned avalanche issues
by a qualified county hired expert.
AVALANCEE CONCLUSIONS:
Given the above enumerated concerns, a safe conclusion
to draw would be that with increased development comes
increased exposure to the hazard.
There exists the additional unresolved concern of compliance and
maintenance of the conditions of approval.
My greatest concern is that approval of this use may set a
precedent which could result in the proliferation of "backcountry
houses" resulting in increased demand for responses. This could
place an additional strain on existing services and thereby
overwhelm the Sheriff's Department's ability to meet the
inevitable increased demand for services.
SUMMARY:
This application represents all the emergency management
concerns associated with continued development on mining
claims in the rural and remote areas of Pitkin County.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is my recommendation that the BOCC initiate a process to
develop a policy and supporting legislation with regard to
rural and remote mining claim development as soon as
possible.
cc: AVFD
AFPD
CSFS
km1041.93
c ®~®43 .G CS
STATE OF COLOI~DO
COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Division of Minerals and Geology
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Room 715
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone (303) 866-2611
PAX (303)866-2461 '
~yq~ ~ cJ
May 10, 1994
Mr. 'I';m Prlalloy
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Mr. Malloy:
Re: Kessler-McGill 1041 Avalanche Hazard Review
Roy Romer
Governor
James 5. Lochhead
Executive Director
Michael B. Long
Division Director
Vicki Cowan
State Geologist
and Director
PI-94-0015
I have reviewed the maps and documents submitted regarding the above referenced matter.
From aerial photography of the area, I would agree with Nick Lampiris' evaluation that
snow avalanches from the east could effect this site.
Since restricting winter access is problematical if not unrealistic, I would recommend that
the protective berm/wall be required regardless of use.
A qualified avalanche expert should design and certify this structure, or at least, concur with
Nick's location and eriertation. I would he glad to review ±his as deemed apgropria±e by
the County.
Yours very truly,
ffr L. e~ ~ (~j~
Senior Engineering Geologst ~"
.in:n:~riaa oovs
pp~~ {,{~~1~ n 't
- -.: ... _. _: ,. ~ ..:.n ~. -I. _.,.':v ..,, Mr ,a:.. ., .,,., hro gals, h, ,.a s.„tL ~h..aha ~. :v..Y u<m+. ,...~.,:ake :Y
GARY A. WRIGHT
ALLEN H. ADGER*
^ ALSO ADMITTED TO
TEXAS AND LOUISIANA BAR
WRIGHT 8L ADGER
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
JEROME PROFESSIONAL BUILDING
20t NORTH MILL BTREET, SUITE t06
ASPEN, COLORADO St 6tt
1 May 1993
TELEPHONE : 303 ~ 92 5 ~ 5625
FACSIMILE: 303~925~5663
... ,
Tim Malloy jvj~~~' _ ~ "1~~ `
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: BOCC v. Kessler and McGill, Case No. 92 CV 31
Additional Information Requested
Dear Tim:
I have enclosed a map which shows the location of the cabin on the Climax
Lode Mining Claim and the relationship of the Climax Lode to the four other
claims belonging to whole or in part to Kessler and McGill.
Consistent with your request, I have drawn a map that shows the access to
the Kessler cabin. The Hurricane Road that crosses the Maggie and the Picayune
is an historic road. I have done my best to show the access from Hurricane Road
to the cabin, and while I do not guarantee it is precise, it should certainly be
sufficient for our purposes. For your information, the Hurricane Road comes off
the Little Annie Road near the Midnite Mine shaft.
In three to four weeks when weather better permits, I will arrange with my
clients to get a geologist to prepare a soils report that deals with the issues
of historic and potential avalanche, unstable soils and steep slopes. At or
about that same time, I will also provide you precise information regarding the
height of the cabin.
Thank you for your continued assistance.
Sincerely,
WRIGHT & ADGER
By: -
Ga Wright
GAW/mf
Enclosure
cc: Sepp Kessler
Don McGill
LIT\RESS_TIM.LTR
ao~~
/ ~.
~.. ~:x... ~:_.~
~
SET: RJ=P'./~R li PLA. G., ~ l.S. Po15/ M.i.IbS^ 56~ l7ET
n
iL.N
~
~ ' N~^
3
.a '"` v n '
~' "- FOUND ~ OLf7 !'bST HOLE
701ZTION QF UN pATENTEp."UTE" WL
.., GMnN ,
SET: FEPygR { ILA. ~ C.S. 2UI51
.'V ~°Ly ~
/9/.
Gq' ' ~
J . wc,
.
x
/
q
In
~ ~~ 8
N ~ ~' N
-~
" J„
(
= aco' ~~ -1 W
~ ~ TIE. FROM Fawn rSwass
CA7 C
rP
"
~
yl
z o
E R
ZD N.W. l1JR
~ CLINI?Jc LOpE ~ 530°OY f/"E
'
a
Q
-4621.4
'~`'C f~rEISY
5ET ~ REp,q(t{ p(,A. Cqp
Q Z2. 3~ 7.97 ~ ~ ys.z L. s. 2-0151
3iB5' .
S 95.1
`SETS 12
13A
E
1C~ PLA. 254
'e
rv a.... ~ CAP L.S. 20151
c c. i r~ ,~ x
(°;;'"~
AREA = 457 r\C.'!' -' ~ 32'r
1
Q O N
1^.
1 ^ ~YP' GP~t~(nl
V m
J .~ ~ W
o V m 3 ~ .~ ~ z . " SET~(W 1Th! SS CORIJEJZ ~ L.S. ?0451
_ m ~
n8 ~~ ~~
J ~
~g ~ ~ Y~ETr~iL MAP
~ - I„ _ SO'
3op•
s fto°E
~q7~ W
904.63 "'
EAST 3~' ~ ? 5UlZVEYOI~'S C~RTI~tCATE
9gO`E ~ S, fiJANfEL ~: M`KENZIE, NEREFSN CE.RTf Fes!
\~+Q RE+''~ THAT TF-t(S MAP ACCVtZATELH 17EPIGTS A
~b~po ••. C/.fj`t `-''VRYE.H f~E2~02M£17 GhLOEK Mh ~~IINY'EKVISIOM
\}~, •• # M~, . F,Pa ON SEPT 9, (187, CF -Ii9E Ml nllr.(C. CLAI MS AS
\~ ~~" ~yrJ~,-.Fa! MOWN%-1--PEKE ON_
~~ ~Wl a 0\ Al"Y(NE' SVRYE%5 I~IC, f3H: p ~I fEL ~ Nk KENZIE
~~ ~\ A(X~(JST 91~ 1488
~~ ! ~ t,.5. 2.otsl
®®Q~s~.~ is'P/ e SJ~
1 n,
.~"
CLTMAY MINING CLAIM LAND USE INFORMATION RE: 91 CV 31
SEPP KESSLER & DONALD MCGILL OWNERS
NAME: Sepp Kessler & Donald McGill
ADDRESS: Gary A. Wright, Esq.
Wright & Adger
Jerome Professi onal Building
201 North Mi11 Street, Suite 106
Aspen, Colorado 81611
TELEPHONE: 925-5625
FACSIMILE: 925-5663
NAME OF PROJECT: Climax Mining Claim
PROJECT LOCATION: Little Annie Road - back of Aspen Mountain
Hurricane Gulch, Pitkin County, Colorado.
TOTAL AREA: undivided interests in:
50 acres, more or less, includes:
Climax Lode, USMS #4338,
Howard Russell Lode, USMS #4338,
Picnic Lode, USMS # 4338,
Idlewild Lode, USMS #4338, and
Wilmington Lode, USMS #4338.
ZONING: AF-1
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Retroactive approval of construction by Owners of
buildings without a permit or §1041 review. Buildings consist of a one-story 400
square foot log cabin and a 100 square foot storage shed o'n the Climax Lode, one
of the above described contiguous patented mining claims.
INTRODUCTION
Civil Action 9.1 CV 31, BOCC - Pitkin County vs Seoo Kessler and Donald
McGill is now pending in Pitkin County District Court. This information is
provided as a follow-up to settlement negotiations between Pitkin County Attorney
John Ely and the Applicants Attorney Gary A. Wright. It is based on a June 10,
1992 Pre-Application Conference with Randy Strouder who has since left the
Planning Office. This matter has been reassigned to Suzanne Konchan. A copy of
the Pre-Application Conference Summary has been included as Exhibit "A". This
submission addresses §1041 Review criteria including Article 5-400 through 5-405,
as well as Article 6.3 General Submission requirements and Articles 2 and 5
Policy and General Regulations.
000®3:~.
x
,. ..
v
CLIMAR MINING CLAIM - KESSLER & MCGILL
Land Use Information for 91 CV 31
BOCC - Pitkin County vs Kessler & McGill
Page 2
§1041 HAZARD REVIEW INFORMATION
The following §1041 Hazards have been identified:
1. Geologic - (§5-401)
2. Wildfire - (§5-403)
3. Wildlife - (§5-404)
4. Historic & Archaeological (§5-405)
~c ~s a~~itty~ ~ 2xisf~,~.sfizrc:~~r~s ~ /~S ~s®~ ~ r~m/ue
It should be noted tha this project m y qualify for an exemption pursuant
to §5-400.3(b)(3) as construction was performed by Kessler and less than
$5,000.00 was expended for materials.
§5-401 Geologic Hazard Areas, While the subject property has some steep slopes
within its overall boundaries, the building has been situated in the same
location as the previous cabins' foundation. The building site is gently sloping
and within a heavily treed area including some evergreens of significant size.
The cabin is well sheltered from the winds and potential avalanches. The
building site does not in~c~lu"d~e any tan slide ar]e/as or potential) unstable
slopes. ~{f ~ ~ / l f/ww~'I ~~'i'7~ Q<.c,!/~ ~" ~
§5-402 Floodplain Hazard/Areas. Does not a 1 ~~
PP y•
§5-403 Wildfire Hazard Areas. The subject property has minimum underbrush. The
cabin itself has been set back adequately to minimize any wildfire danger. There
is no fire protection at this site and in the event of a fire the owners
understand that the structure would likely be a total loss. No flammable liquids
or other similar substances are stored in the cabin.
§5-404 Wildlife Habitat Areas. The subject property is located on the back side
of Aspen Mountain. While wildlife has been observed in this area, since this is
not a residence and only used for twelve to eighteen days per year, it is
believeg that t has minim if ny impact on wildlife. ~i~,,,,/~
~bcaltCt~a ~ tiaJ' ito`~yy, ~~6~, "_" ~"7 ~O/~ fps /~v/F'~
~ 405 Historic and Archaeological Resource Areas. The subject property is
located on a group of historic patented mining claims. Some evidence exists of
the mining work that took place over one hundred years ago. Kessler has located
some unpatented mining claims in the general vicinity of the patented claims and
has maintained his assessment work and BLM filings for several years.
<sJ~x r~ure~- leil~ocwfc~~s
0000^
,,
CLIMAX MINING CLAIM - KESSLER ~ MCGILL
Land Use Information for 91 CV 31
BOCC - Pitkin County vs Kessler & McGill
Page 3
GENERAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS
(a) - Application Form - Does not apply.
(b) - Title Information - See below, Summary, page 7, second paragraph.
(c) - A Survey to accompany this Application has been ordered from Alpine
Surveys and will be delivered as soon as available. It will contain an
appropriate vicinity map.
-- - ~F'Y11O611 d from Alpine
Surve s be delivere s available. Zt willcontain
information required by this section.
(1) See the survey.
(2) There are typical "back country" natural features. The cabin
is located on a flat area away from potential avalanche or
wildfire dangers.
(3) This parcel is zoned AF-1.
(4) At the present time the property is improved with a very small
log cabin. There is no well, running water, electricity or
septic. This structure generally complies with USFS
requirements for similar structures constructed with
permission on federal lands. Reclamation after use will be
relatively easy.
(5) The structure is a one room cabin with loft. It is
functionally the equivalent of an outfitters cabin. It is
used occasionally by the owners as a back country getaway.
(6) At present there is no well and all water needs are met by
transporting water to the site. The limited sanitary needs
are met by a traditional outhouse.
(e) - The following is provided to show that this Proposal lies within
Article 2 Policies, and Article 5 General Regulations, of the Code, to the extent
necessary for this single-family dwelling. Discussion will be made in order and
with reference to Article 2 provisions and include discussion of Article 5
considerations, as appropriate.
00003"
E"'°
CLIMAR MINING CLAIM - KESSLER ~ MCGILL
Land Use Information for 91 CV 31
BOCC - Pitkin County vs Kessler & McGill
Page 4
§2-1. Conformance with the As en Area General Plan. This application may
not be consistent with this goal because it permits a cabin on the back side of
Aspen Mountain.
§2-2. Conformance with Other Laws. The approval of this small cabin with
appropriate conditions would not be in violation of any County, State or Federal
law.
§2-3. Natural and Man-Made Hazard and Resource Areas. The location of the
cabin effectively minimizes the potential impacts of natural hazards. It is
believed that man-made hazards do not apply. No additional construction is
proposed.
§2-4, Soil Surface Geo1o ical Characteristics and Radiation. The
existing construction is not inconsistent with soil, surface, geological
characteristics or radiation concerns, It is anticipated that any settlement of
the existing litigation will prohibit any future expansion. The site is not
known to have any radiation hazards.
§2-S. Drainaee. No new construction is contemplated by this application.
The small cabin does not substantially alter the present or prior drainage of the
site. The site is located such that future construction will not effect any
rivers or streams (§5-101).
§2-6, Adequate Provision for Water Needs. The current practice of the
owners to bring drinking water with them to the cabin is appropriate for this
type cabin in its location. It is contemplated that future expansion will be
prohibited. (§5-205).
§2-7. Sewage
traditional out hous Treatment and Collection.
G Sewage treatment is by a
e
to be disposed of at .
arbage is
their h collected by the owners and removed by vehicle
omes. (§5-200).
§2-8. Impact on Road Svstem. Since no expansion will be allowed and access
is by extremely rural roads during summer months only there is no impact any road
maintained by Pitkin County. (§5-202).
§2-9. Road Desien and Construction. There will not be road construction
nor do the applicants propose to upgrade any quasi-public roads or thoroughfares
such as Little Annie Road. (§5-202).
§2-10. Logical Extension of Utilities. There are no utilities to this site
and the applicant does not wish utilities in the future. Such is consistent with
the County policy to discourage utility extensions to areas not suitable for
development, (§5-203).
®®il Lb J'i
w-
CLIMAX MINING CLAIM - KESSLER & MCGILL
Land Use Information for 91 CV 31
BOCC - Pitkin County vs. Kessler & McGill
Page 5
§2-11. Erosion. Minimal erosion takes place on the site today. The small
cabin has had minimal effect on historical erosion patterns. The applicant has
exercised great care in dealing with the natural vegetation to assure that there
is no future erosion.
§2-12. Compatibility with Historical and Archeological Resources. The
proposed project will have no effect on historical or archeological resources
(§5-103).
§2-13. Compatibility with Agricultural Lands and Operations. This site was
the locale of extensive mining activity during beginning in the late 1800's and
continuing until World War II. There are numerous old mine shafts, diggings and
dumps. Adjacent areas are not used for agricultural purposes. This is an
appropriate location for a small back country cabin. (§5-104).
§2-14. Impacts on Taxes and Management of Necessary Services and
Facilities. It is not believed that the approval of this small back country
cabin will have any effect on taxes. There should not be any effect on the
quality of services or public facilities or programs provided to the general
community. It will also not have any effect on the financial integrity of
existing County or special district programs, nor will it negatively effect the
revenue base. The County will not maintain any additional roads nor incur any
additional costs related to utilities as a result of approving this cabin subject
to the condition that no expansion be allowed. No police, emergency or fire
protection services are expected to be provided to this location. (§5-204).
§2-15. Housing. The approval of this small cabin will have no effect on
housing.
§2-16. Scenic Quality. The approval of this small cabin will have no effect
on scenic quality. It is not visible from any public road or right-of-way and
can hardly be seen from the air. (§5-105).
§2-17. Air Quality. The limited use of the "clean burning" wood burning
stove in this isolated area will not affect air quality. The stove is made by
Pioneer Castings Division of the Earth Stove and is a model T-100, serial number
NO:W 2092. This model has been tested to UL 1482-83 as of September 12, 1985,
see report no. SS094-4. This stove is certified for solid wood only and no other
fuel types are used by the owners (§5-106).
§2-18. Energy Conservation. Since no public utilities are being used there
will not be any change in energy conservation based on the approval of this small
back country cabin.
®Q®~J~
nnrannr
°'3 c'~
CLIMAX MINING CLAIM - KESSLER & MCGZLL
Land Use Information for 91 CV 31
BOCC - Pitkin County vs Kessler & McGill
Page 6
§2-19. Transportation. No public transportation issues are raised by this
small back country cabin. Access is infrequent. Motor vehicle traffic is only
possible during the summer months. During the winter access in possible only by
snowmobile, snowshoe or skiing.
§2-20. Development or Expansion of Ski Area, Does not apply.
§2-21. Compatibility with Existing Adjacent Neighborhoods. The nearby area
is rural and back country in nature, The existence of a 400 square foot cabin
should be negligible.
§2-22, Water Resources Impacts. There will be no water resource impacts.
The current practice of the owners is to bring drinking water with them to the
cabin and this practice is appropriate for this type cabin in its location. It
is not expected that any future development will be allowed. (§5-107).
§2-23. Noise, The nearby area is rural and back country in nature. The
existence of a 400 square foot cabin should have negligible if any noise impact.
§2-24. Compatibility with Adjacent or Nearby Public Lands.
§24.1. The proposed approval of this 400 square foot back country
cabin will not have any impact on the nearby public lands.
§24.2. No new roads will be constructed in relation to this
requested approval.
§24.3. The proposed approval will not have any impact on water, air
pollution or wildlife.
§2-25. Growth Rate. The proposed approval of this back country cabin will
not have any impact on the growth rate.
(f). Assessment Information and Marketabilit Disclosure. Does not apply.
(g). Application for P U D Does not apply.
(h), For Subdivision and P U D Does not apply.
(i). Other Restrictions. The applicant accepts that it may be appropriate
to prohibit any expansion of the existing cabin or use.
§6-3.3. Drawine and Report Reeuirements. The Survey included with this
Application comply with the requirements of the appropriate sections.
®®~~,n,+
.. ~,,~
CLIMAX MINING CLAIM - KESSLER & MCGILL
Land Use Information for 91 CV 31
BOCC - Pitkin County vs Kessler & McGill
Page 7
SUMMARY
The Applicants, Sepp Kessler and Donald McGill, are providing this
information to facilitate John Ely, the assistant Pitkin County Attorney, to
consider settlement of the pending litigation titled BOCC v. Kessler & McGill,
Pitkin County District Court, Case No. 91 CV 31.
It should be recognized that while the applicants have title policies or
commitments on all of the subject claims, their ownership is only for fractional
interests. As a part of the settlement process it will be necessary to enter
into a voluntary partition.
The foregoing establishes that General Submission and §1041 Review criteria
have been satisfied. While the process and requirements exist for good reason,
under the totality of the circumstances here, the Applicants should be granted
retroactive approval of the existing cabin and storage shed, subject to the
conditions that it may not be further improved or expanded and no road
improvements shall be made.
Dated: l -' ,J ~, ~~~
WRIGHT & ADGER
by:
Ga~, Wright, Esq.
The Jerome Professional .Building
201 North,. Mill Street, Suite 106
Aspen, Colorado 81611
303-925-5625
For the Applicants:
Sepp Kessler & Donald McGill
SEPP\KESSL£R.APp
0®OL~3?
b .~. _...1 i m _
. •. ~n~
PITRIN COUNTY
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SIIMMARY ~~// ~~""~~
DATE: JU11C ID ,1992 Ro~•~o~ PLANNER: T~O(U ~lAV1 CS'~bV~/`~•1~~
PROJECT:
APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: GRiz I~J(Ll I1~I'
REPRESENTATIVES TELEPHONE #: 925 - S~a2
OWNER' S NAME: ~'CF55I C(L ~- ~ov~o-l d MSC, ~ ~ I (Frac~han~.Q L~~s+s)
~1{o0pj ~Ney+l cab+n
q1-cv-3i CP;}~o lfi9efioa~ suririARyyy .
1. Type of Application: Lb41 ~~P,n~) l'1mYgSIOY~
2. Describe action/type of development being requested:
3. Areas in which Applicant has been requested to respond, types
of reports requested:
Policy Area/
R
eferral Accent Comments Fee
//??
~.if~~ -CA • Etwuve.IL SGnd 5umrrt~ A7 I!C DYl ~ ,~S etW .
IC eR.. YPS~~/la J
Do~1
-
~
/
:
~ck~ ~ ~5 _ OIicJ
r Cxt~
~ n5 ~~ I~ .
Acirsy 5-x{00 fhr~ ~-`toS- log{ haza+d5
4. Review is before: (P&Z only) (BOCC only) (P&Z then to BOCC) ~~,/~-no.(7
5. Public Hearing: (Yes) (No) At: (P&Z) (BOCC) (Both P&Z & BOCC) ~Jo
6. The applicant needs to post a sign for each public hearing
pursuant to Section 6-3.4 of the Code: (Yes) (No) ~
7. Did you tell applicant to submit list of ADJACENT PROPERTY
OWNERS? (Yes) (No) Disclosure of Ownership: (Yes) (No
8. Number of copies of the application to be submitted: $_
9. What fee was applicant requested to submit: $ ql2 f ~~(0=~(~22
l0. Anticipated date of submission: ,~~. I`I`IZ ?
11.
oQ~~'~~
;,
'"" SEA- DE-TAi. ~"s~
SET~..REFI~IZ *"r PLa.. GAP l.S 87K1 • ,: N".11o5O°~ N~a ~ ~.
~N',"„", • 3Gb • -- FOUND ° OLO PbST HOLE,
4Cai~N SETS ,CEPn4K ~ 2A. UP L.S. 2(JI51
POKTICN OF UNPArENTEf7 ° UTE" w.c~ • ppJ
N X
,NSW ~ ~.
l9I.Gq..
. w.c.
~ X
W ~~
~~ 8
~ ~ N
_~
1" ` ~ ' ~ a ~ W nE FROM ~o r3RP.ss
~ O CRY COPPER" ~ N~W CD[Z
O GLIMN~ LOOE' 530°Of•11"E
~ , a f z -~e21.+~
°' ~ I~fE15Y
N ~ ~ ,
5ET ~ REpagK~r PLA, CAP
S- 7.97 L~s, 20151
Q q/2.7g' }as.z 31.35•
t~•~~ 45.1
~• ` SET~I~'Et'~A"C li PCA. 2sq. g
CAP, L.S. 20151
• N ~°W
f°891
cc..ic~~x
yYEST
• aaa.a3'
AREA. = ¢8~7 AC ± 32'. ~
22
1 ~
r
O p N
GAt01nl
VI m
-1 G ~ W
"~ 8g
3 V \ m ~ ~ z ,~SET~ KEC3AI~ ~' PLA. CAP, L. S, 20151
m 5 ~ ~ (W ITffESS CI~htER
,~~ LV WN
U ~ ~ ~ ~ YJST.s.I so M.4P
rt
3e}7~
3 ~°E
~ W
o
EA5T~ ~ ~ 7 5 ~~IE YOR~S G~R7tFlCAT7='.
^' E F M`K1=htZIE, HEREf3"( GEizTfF~(
~yl~arkw THAT TF4(S MAPACCVR:AT E.L~( f7EPICT'7 A
Apo RECS. `~VQVE°f i'EK(=0>;'MEb CJNbER M% C1Jt'EKVISIOhf
~~~ •' ••••• l "` ON SEPT. 9, 1°187, OF "iUE Mlt~llf.lf~ CLAIMS A7
~b~,••\~°~ Mc • F'P~,~ <~+owf~ I-+Et~. oN_
~~ afIf1G1 • o[~ ALPfNE -SVRVE°!5 IIJC, ~~: ni~l~/lEL fr M`KENZI'E
. ®~®n~',~, ~0 L44l1JJj w~ q~~ST jl, IR 08 ~.. <i. 20f51
~.3 ~
.A
w's~iO ®~ SJ~~1
~em~t =;;:e•
1X~p fR7: 07-122
A.
7
f
"S'.
I ' ~- ~ 1 ~ H
III li ~'t~0 1~ ~O C
O
~ ~
l
~ ' 1. \~•\\r
V ~
hi , ~~_ '~'~1
il. ~'
it
4 ~ ~'.
~\'
\~ \ ~'
\ \ ~\~\ \\
S~
i ~ ~~
//~~II x\\ ~l\ \ \~\, ~
4 ~
~~ V ~ ~ ~
/IBS
~\
i
i. ~
o I
i
N
CT
O
~~,~~ o
"'v ., cNn
! / '.
`,
~~I~ O
o m
',.
v, ol~~,~` 1'~
~} ~ ~ ~ •-
may'
Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.D. ~E{ ~,~ : ~~ 2 2 ~~~ _ ~ , ~~
CONSULTING GEOLOGIST 11 ~ ' t'
~t~~L_.__. 'fir
{~'~.. SILT, COLOROADO 81652 =~'~'C'~jV=~ 8~=_-__ __.,_.,,_,_
(303) 876-5400 (24 HOURS) 0 C r ' 2 ~Q93
Yb~RiGN7 ~ A~~~A
October 7, 1993
Gary Wright, Attorney
2171 Marth Miil, Suite iVb
Aspen CO 81611
RE: Kessler Cabin, Aspen Mountain
Dear Mr. Wright:
I have completed my geologic investigation of the Kessler cabin
site off the Little Annie Road (see accompanying map), The
property is near the very northern edge of the Hayden PeaF: 7 1/2
minute quadrangle, F'itF;in County, Colorado. There is presently
a jeep road approaching the cabin and the other out buildings.
This is on a broad ridge in open terrain to the south and east.
Conifers partially rim the north side of the cabin site.
The topography behind the cabin is only moderately steep and does
not pose a hazard to the site from either snow sliding or rock
~ fall. However, snow sliding from the east is a potential and
there is evidence on the trunks of several conifers adjacent to
the site that snow may have damaged them to a height of three to
four feet. It is my understanding that the cabin has been in
existence for years without having been affected by avalanching,
The geology of the site consists bf the Cretaceous age aplite
which was the igneous rock most associated with the mineral
implacement, There is a thin cnlluvial cover at the site, There
is no sign of any instability at or near the site but there are
fault traces mapped in the area. There is na evidence at the
site or near it that there has been any movement on these faults
in historic times,
The only concern at this site is that it is theoretically
possible that snow slides could reach the log cabin. The owner
states that he is unaware of any snow reaching this site as long
as he has had the property, and that. his own experience in the
Alps tells him that snow avalanches cannot reach the site, The
lack of trees and the damaged trunks indicate that snow can reach
the site, even though the topography tends to split slides to the
north and, especially, to the southern slide area,
0000?.
._ ~"",.~
4 ,
~--
If this were a residence I would recommend that a wall or berm b~~
constructed east of the cabin to a height of at least four feel:
with a prow shaped configuration to split snow to either side n
the cabin (see attached sketch). If the cabin is not used during
the winter months, then such a precaution is not necessary to
protect human life.
In short, the site is good from all other geologic points .:.,;~
view. If there are further questions please contact me.
S i nL/~ Y ,
_,~~
Nicholas Lampiris
Consulting Geologist
®QO~~.
#..
fi ~
„~,w+3
~.w±p
.:.~-~^.
rE
rovC
vl
~7
I' 323
~~+, r
aa^
...+-
t' ^
i
i
f
h
~qq
~t
i
N~
1
O
4:~
- w~ 4:J
t
~1
Y
5 ~
~~
[{~ ~~
b gyn. .~..
&> ~`
.-' .~
~ ~ ~' ~
~.1 + ~ ~ ~"
J R:
L'.
i E':
)~
y ,. T
~
~ ~
[ ~ W
~~
{{~~'np N
.(' L ...a~
® ®
~ ~
'~
l1 lJ
~~J ~
r
GARY A. WRIGHT
ALLEN H. ADGER*
ALSO ADMITTED TO
TE%AG AND LOUISIANA BAR
WRIGHT 8z ADGE
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
JERO ME PROFESSIONAL BUILDING
201 NORTH MILL STREET, SUITE '1O6
ASPEN, COLORADO BtBt t.
4 February 1993
Suzanne Konchan, County Planner
Aspen Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena, Third Floor
Aspen, Colorado 81611
John M. Ely, Esq.
Assistant Pitkin County Attorney
530 East Main Street, Third Floor
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: BOCC vs Kessler & McGill, 92 CV 31
§ 1041 & General Submission Information
Dear Suzanne and John:
__'
"-''' ~ ~1
I «. 1 ..
Ft' ; F~~ ~ 3~3
~~ECEPRONE': 30&9256626
FACSIMILE: 303~926~6663
TM
I'~< <~~ may.
SK.
I have enclosed eight copies for Suzanne and one for John of the Survey and
Vicinity Maps recently received from Alpine Surveys. I have also completed,
executed and enclosed the Agreement for Payment of Development Application Fees.
I have sent John a copy of the Planning Office letter to me dated January
25, 1993 as apparently no copy was sent to him.
I note that this case has been assigned to Tim Malloy, who I assume is a
new planner. For the record, Tim is now the third individual assigned to this
case since it was begun less than a year ago. In addition, since by my standards
at least, it is more complicated than most § 1041 & General Submission
applications perhaps this re-assignment is not appropriate.
Please call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
WRIGHT & ADGER
By , ~_'~,~
Gar 'right
GAW/cp
Enclosures: Maps & Fee Agr
cc: McGill & Kessler
SEPP\BOCC_AP2.LTR
~~,
~~'
SET: REP)NG d, PLA. .P L.S. PO"5/ ~ N.9. M5^ N aje wt `..
~N";~• in 3op• ~--FOUN<7~ OLD Pt~ST HOLE,
"F ~ •Qcuim SET= FEfiAK C ILA, CAP" L.S. 2UISt
j POIZT1bIJ OF UNPATENTED "UTE"` ~• WL.. ~
I" 4Gb'
J
•--~
W
J~
m
~ 7
s
f
_\~
S
O
S
X
m
~~
v ~~
TIE PiZOM FCx11~p 1'~K/•i 5
CAP COPO6R" TO N. W ~oIZ
CLI NVVc LOVE' S30'OP^"E
i 4821.4'
\ tJft)SY
5ET ~ REi'aAK~r pLA• CAp
__.~~ L. s. 20151
SET 2EC3At ~ PcA.
GAP, L.5. 20151
c rr i r~ ri. x
V
~ M
L7
U~
,~
904.63
'E.A = 4S'7 hC.*_ '~ ~ a2 r ' 2
I ~ c/
Q p N
GRt~IN
of m
m
J L. VM' W
3 M ~ ~ 8 8 .~SEr: KEf3A1C >s pLA. cAP L. s. zolsr
M (w(Tr\r~ss c~En~)
W w J
N ~
`i ~ ~ 17~T.41L M~J'
L~ , " . 5b'
~W
g
7
20151
5UlZV~YOt2'S GER•7.1F'ICATE
2, f7AN1EL F. M`KEritZ1E, HEREt3"f CE,R-TfFN
7-HAT TN(Z MM ACGVfGAT E.L°t T7EPICT`7 A
~KVE-~( PER~'O>;ME.17 GNDER. M~f ~=Ut'E~VI'~IOIY
ON SEPT. 9, f'187, OF' THE MI NII.IC~ GLAI MS AS
-Ibwf~1 1-f~KE /oN~_y
e:,,
•~
ALPfNE. SVRVE~I S, 11JC, t'~1: 17AN1EL F. NS KENZIE.
AL"GOST 91, IK88 {..~,. 2o1s1
®®~~`Y~
~ _.
,i
Dili II{.~ ~ i_~~;~,'~
~~ ~~
r ~ I. a ~
~~.I IIII I,i ~ I', lT
10 -
~ C
~ ' ~ \•\\ r
~~. ~ r
i' ~ ~ ~ 1
IL1 ~_
~~
~\~~
7Zj ~~ ~`~ \ ~V ~ ,~ ~ i
ti~
~ _ ~,
„V >
V ~ O
~5
,\
1, 4
I ~
F~ V
~~ ~
r
~ J ~ X/
p i' r
i ~ O i+~4\
~~', , ~ ~.
;. ,J.
~, ~ {`
;.; o
O
~I
'
~
~.
' ~
,,
,,
~
~
~~~
~'~ a,
,pi..
N
p
a ,
~~~,
.
,
~
o o
-
m
1
~ '~1
\ ~'. ~
l p
I~~ 1
1 l ~~~ ~ I
~~,.
\.. ~
~~'
N
h
C
WRIGHT 8z ADGER
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
JEROME PROFESSIONAL BUILDING
20t NORTH MILL STREET, SUITE '106
GARY A. WRIGHT ASPEN, COLORADO Bt6n TELEPHONE: 303~925~5625
ALLEN H. ADGER* FACSIMILE: 303925:5663
14 January 1993
• ALSO ADMITTED TO
TE%AS AND LOUISIANA BAR
Suzanne Konchan, County Planner
Aspen Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena, Third Floor
Aspen, Colorado 81611
John M. Ely, Esq.
Assistant Pitkin County Attorney
530 East Main Street, Third Floor
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: BOCC vs Kessler & McGill, 92 CV 31
§ 1041 & General Submission Information
Dear Suzanne and John:
I have enclosed eight copies for Suzanne and one for John of the §1041
Review & General Submission Information. This information has been prepared
consistent my agreement with John and consistent with the August 10, 1992, Pitkin
County Pre-Application Conference Summary prepared by Suzanne after my meeting
of June 10, 1992 with Randy Stouder.
I have ordered and am awaiting a survey with vicinity map from Alpine
Surveys and will provide both of you with copies promptly upon receipt. I have
also enclosed Sepp's check for $1,022.00 with the Planning Office correspondence
to Suzanne as required by the Pre-Application Conference Summary.
Please call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
WRIGHT & ADGER
By:~
G Wright
GAW/mef
Enclosures
cc: McGill & Kessler
SEPP \BOCC_APP.liTR
,' ~•~,+
CLIMAR MINING CLAIM LAND USE INF~ORMATIONRE'~91 CV31
SEPP KESSLER & DONALD MCGILL OWNERS
NAME: Sepp Kessler & Donald McGill
ADDRESS: Gary A. Wright, Esq.
Wright & Adger
Jerome Professi onal Building
201 North Mill Street, Suite 106
Aspen, Colorado 81611
TELEPHONE: 925-5625
FACSIMILE: 925-5663
NAME OF PROJECT: Climax Mining Claim
PROJECT LOCATION: Little Annie Road - back of Aspen Mountain
Hurricane Gulch, Pitkin County, Colorado.
TOTAL AREA: undivided interests in:
50 acres, more or less, includes:
Climax Lode, USMS #4338,
Howard Russell Lode, USMS #4338,
Picnic Lode, USMS # 4338,
Idlewild Lode, USMS #4338, and
Wilmington Lode, USMS #4338.
ZONING: AF-1
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Retroactive approval of construction by Owners of
buildings without a permit or §1041 review. Buildings consist of a one-story 400
square foot log cabin and a 100 square foot storage shed on the Climax Lode, one
of the above described contiguous patented mining claims.
INTRODUCTION
Civil Action 91 CV 31, BOCC -.Pitkin Count vs. Se Kessler and Donald
McGill is now pending in Pitkin County District Court. This information is
provided as a follow-up to settlement negotiations between Pitkin County Attorney
John Ely and the Applicants Attorney Gary A. Wright. It is based on a June 10,
1992 Pre-Application Conference with Randy Strouder who has since left the
Planning Office. This matter has been reassigned to Suzanne Konchan. A copy of
the Pre-Application Conference Summary has been included as Exhibit "A". This
submission addresses §1041 Review criteria including Article 5-400 through 5-405,
as well as Article 6.3 General Submission requirements and Articles 2 and 5
Policy and General Regulations.
®®~~~~~'
~' ,
CLIMAR MINING CLAIM - KESSLER & MCGILL
Land Use Information for 91 CV 31
BOCC - Pitkin County vs. Kessler & McGill
Page 2
&1041 HAZARD REVIEW INFORMATION
The following §1041 Hazards have been identified:
1. Geologic - (§5-401)
2. Wildfire - (§5-403)
3. Wildlife - (§5-404)
4. Historic & Archaeological (§5-405)
It should be noted that this project may qualify for an exemption pursuant
to §5-400.3(b)(3) as construction was performed by Kessler and less than
$5,000.00 was expended for materials.
§5-401 Geologic Hazard Areas. While the subject property has some steep slopes
within its overall boundaries, the building has been situated in the same
location as the previous cabins' foundation. The building site is gently sloping
and within a heavily treed area including some evergreens of significant size.
The cabin is well sheltered £rom the winds and potential avalanches. The
building site does not include any landslide areas or potentially unstable
slopes.
$5-402 Floodplain Hazard Areas. Does not apply.
&5-403 Wildfire Hazard Areas. The subject property has minimum underbrush. The
cabin itself has been set back adequately to minimize any 'wildfire danger. There
is no fire protection at this site and in the event of a fire the owners
understand that the structure would likely be a total loss. No flammable liquids
or other similar substances are stored in the cabin.
65-404 Wildlife Habitat Areas. The subject property is located on the back side
of Aspen Mountain. While wildlife has been observed in this area, since this is
not a residence and only used for twelve to eighteen days per year, it is
believed that it has minimum if any impact on wildlife.
_§5-405 Historic and Archaeological Resource Areas. The subject property is
located on a group of historic patented mining claims. Some evidence exists of
,the mining work that took place over one hundred years ago. Kessler has located
some unpatented mining claims in the general vicinity of the patented claims and
has maintained his assessment work and BLM filings for several years.
000~?~~`
CLIMAR MINING CLAIM - KESSLER ~ MCGZLL
Land Use Information for 91 CV 31
BOCC - Pitkin County vs. Kessler & McGill
Page 3
GENERAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS
(a) - Application Form - Does not apply.
(b) - Title Information - See below, Summary, page 7, second paragraph.
(c) - A Survey to accompany this Application has been ordered from Alpine
Surveys and will be delivered as soon as available. It will contain an
appropriate vicinity map.
(d) - A Survey to accompany this Application has been ordered from Alpine
Surveys and will be delivered as soon as available. It will contain the
information required by this section.
(1) See the survey.
(2) There are typical "back country" natural features. The cabin
is located on a flat area away from potential avalanche or
wildfire dangers.
(3) This parcel is zoned AF-1.
(4) At the present time the property is improved with a very small
log cabin. There is no well, running water, electricity or
septic. This structure generally complies with USFS
requirements for similar structures constructed- with
permission on federal lands. Reclamation after use will be
relatively easy.
(5) The structure is a one room cabin with loft. It is
functionally the equivalent of an outfitters cabin. It is
used occasionally by the owners as a back country getaway.
(6) At present there is no well and all Boater needs are met by
transporting water to the site. 'The limited sanitary needs
are met by a traditional outhouse.
(e) - The following is provided to show that this Proposal lies within
Article 2 Policies, and Article 5 General Regulations, of the Code, to the extent
necessary for this single-family dwelling. Discussion will be made in order and
with reference to Article 2 provisions and include discussion of Article 5
considerations, as appropriate.
00005
CLIMAX MINING CLAIM - KESSLER & MCGILL
Land Use Information for 91 CV 31
BOCC - Pitkin County vs. Kessler & McGill
Page 4
\`~ ~~~ §2-1. Conformance with the Asoen Area General Plana This application may
~~`~yi;Qa not be consistent with this goal because it permits a cabin on the back side of
`~4.~. Aspen Mountain.
§2-2. Conformance with Other Laws. The approval of this small cabin with
appropriate conditions would not be in violation of any County, State or Federal
law.
§2-3. Natural and Man-Made Hazard and Resource Areas. The location of the
cabin effectively minimizes the potential impacts of natural hazards. It is
believed that man-made hazards do not apply. No additional construction is
proposed.
§2-4. Soil. Surface. Geological Characteristics and Radiation. The
existing construction is not inconsistent with soil, surface, geological
characteristics or radiation concerns. It is anticipated that any settlement of
the existing litigation will prohibit any future expansion. The site is not
known to have any radiation hazards.
§2-5. Drainaee. No new construction is contemplated by this application.
The small cabin does not substantially alter the present or prior drainage of the
site. The site is located such that future construction will not effect any
rivers or streams (§5-101).
Fu~vt~~ G~i~~t}k:..,
§2-6. Adequate Provision for Water Needs. The current practice of the
owners to bring drinking water with them to the cabin is appropriate for this
type cabin in its location. It is contemplated that future expansion will be
prohibited. (§5-205).
§2-7. Sewage Treatment and Collection. Sewage treatment is by a
traditional out house. Garbage is collected by the owners and removed by vehicle
to be disposed of at their homes. (§5-200).
§2-8. Impact on Road Svstem. Since no expansion will be allowed and access
is by extremely rural roads during summer months only there is no impact any road
maintained by Pitkin County. (§5-202).
§2-9. Road Design and Construction. There will not be road construction
nor do the applicants propose to upgrade any quasi-public roads or thoroughfares
such as Little Annie Road. (§5-202),
§2-10. Logical Extension of Utilities. There are no utilities to this site
and the applicant does not wish utilities in the future. Such is consistent with
the County policy to discourage utility extensions to areas not suitable for
development. (§5-203).
oon~~5?.
_. ,
CLIMAX MINING CLAIM - KESSLER ~ MCGILL
Land Use Information for 91 CV 31
BOCC - Pitkin Comity vs. Kessler & McGill
Page 5
§2-11. Erosion. Minimal erosion takes place on the site today. The small
cabin has had minimal effect on historical erosion patterns. The applicant has
exercised great care in dealing with the natural vegetation to assure that there
is no future erosion.
§2-12. Compatibility with Historical and Archeological Resources. The
proposed project will have no effect on historical or archeological resources
(§5-103),
§2-13. Compatibility with Agricultural Lands and Operations. This site was
the locale of extensive mining activity during beginning in the late 1800's and
continuing until World War II. There are numerous old mine shafts, diggings and
dumps. Adjacent areas are not used for agricultural purposes. This is an
appropriate location for a small back country cabin. (§5-104).
§2-14. Impacts on Taxes and Management of Necessary Services and
Facilities. It is not believed that the approval of this small back country
cabin will have any effect on taxes. There should not be any effect on the
quality of services or public facilities or programs provided to the general
community. It will also not have any effect on the financial integrity of
existing Cdunty or special district programs, nor will it negatively effect the
revenue base. The County will not maintain any additional roads nor incur any
additional costs related to utilities as a result of approving this cabin subject
to the condition that no expansion be allowed. No police, emergency or fire
protection services are expected to be provided to this location. (§5-204).
§2-15. Housine. The approval of this small cabin will have no effect on
housing.
§2-16. Scenic Quality. The approval of this small cabin will have no effect
on scenic quality. It is not visible from any public road or right-of-way and
can hardly be seen from the air. (§5-105).
§2-17. Air Quality. The limited use of the "clean burning" wood burning
stove in this isolated area will not affect air quality. The stove is made by
Pioneer Castings Division of the Earth Stove and is a model T-100, serial number
NO:W 2092. This model has been tested to UL 1482-83 as of September 12, 1985,
see report no. SS094-4. This stove is certified for solidwood only and no other
fuel types are used by the owners (§5-106).
§2-18. Energy Conservation. Since no public utilities are being used there
will not be any change in energy conservation based on the approval of this small
back country cabin.
®Q~~~"~
.,,_~ ..~ .~:~. g A ;.,
CLIMAR MINING CLAIM - KESSLER 6 MCGILL
Land Use Information for 91 CV 31
BOCC - Pitkin County vs. Kessler & McGill
Page 6
§2-19. Transportation. No public transportation issues are raised by this
small back country cabin. Access is infrequent. Motor vehicle traffic is only
possible during the summer months. During the winter access in possible only by
snowmobile, snowshoe or skiing.
§2-20. Development or Expansion of Ski Area. Does not apply.
§2-21. Compatibility with Existing Adjacent Neiehborhoods. The nearby area
is rural and back country in nature. The existence of a 400 square foot cabin
should be negligible.
§2-22, Water Resources Zmpacts. There will be no water resource impacts.
The current practice of the owners is to bring drinking water with them to the
cabin and this practice is appropriate for this type cabin in its location. It
is not expected that any future development will be allowed. (§5-107).
§2-23. Noise. The nearby area is rural and back country in nature. The
existence of a 400 square foot cabin should have negligible if any noise impact.
§2-24. Compatibility with Adj acent or Nearby Public Lands.
§24.1. The proposed approval of this 400 square foot back country
cabin will not have any impact on the nearby public lands.
§24.2. No new roads will be constructed in relation to this
requested approval.
§24.3. The proposed approval will not have any impact on water, air
pollution or wildlife.
§2-25. Growth Rate. The proposed approval of this back country cabin will
not have any impact on the growth rate.
(f). Assessment Information and Marketability Disclosure. Does not apply.
(g). Application for P.U.D. Does not apply.
(h). For Subdivision and P.U.D. Does not apply.
(i). Other Restrictions. The applicant accepts that it may be appropriate
to prohibit any expansion of the existing cabin or use.
§6-3.3. Drawing and Report Requirements. The Survey included with this
Application comply with the requirements of the appropriate sections.
®Q~~~`
c...- ri,~ e....i ;,..,.,.-...
.. n ~:
CLIMAX MINING CLAIM - KESSLER & MCGILL
Land Use Information for 91 CV 31
BOCC - Pitkin Count vs. Kessler & McGill
Page 7
SUMMARY
The Applicants, Sepp Kessler and Donald McGill, are providing this
information to facilitate John Ely, the assistant Pitkin County Attorney, to
consider settlement of the pending litigation titled BOCC v. Kessler & McGill,
Pitkin County District Court, Case No. 91 CV 31.
It should be recognized that while the applicants have title policies or
commitments on all of the subject claims, their ownership is only for fractional
interests. As a part of the settlement process it will be necessary to enter
into a voluntary partition.
The foregoing establishes that General Submission and §1041 Review criteria
have been satisfied. While the process and requirements exist for good reason,
under the totality of the circumstances here, the Applicants should be granted
retroactive approval of the existing cabin and storage shed, subject to the
conditions that it may not be further improved or expanded and no road
improvements shall be made.
Dated: I - `~ "~ I 1 1~
WRNIGHT & ADGER
by; ~iF~ ~--'~
Ga~~Wright, Esq.
The Jerome Professional Building
201 North.Mi11 Street, Suite 106
Aspen, Colorado 81611
303-925-5625
For the Applicants:
Sepp Kessler & Donald McGill
SEPP \ICESSLER.APP
B
PITRIN COUNTY
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
DATE: h )O a )gg2l R~~~~~ PLANNER: 1'10t~ [klah ~~U~,~
PROJECT: G1
APPLICANT'S REPRESENTA IVE: GRR 41a-~ ti+
REPRESENTATIVES TELEPHONE #: gZrv' SroZ
OWNER' S NAME: cJeb ~C255I C(~• k ~o ~d MSC ~Il~FraG~hv~d.Q ~n~ts-e'
'ADO ~( i`le~r+l [abm
g1-GV-3~ C?~~~ lifige~ho~l~ SUMMAR .
1. Type of Application: Ib41_~r~PnT_~ ~ihYVt~°f~10W
z Tlocrriha action/tube of development being requested:
3.
'J
Policy Area/
Referral Agent Comments Fee
Caeolog,~ -Co • ~ngince~ ~d SumMa~anPll c~o~ ~ 55 ~ .
- Dorf -
~rsy 5 - i az an45
4. Review is before: (P&Z only) (BOCC only) (P&Z then to BOCC)~N~-n~C
5. Public Hearing: (Yes) (No) .At: (P&Z) (BOCC) (Both P&Z & BOCC) /~Jp
6. The applicant needs to post a sign for each public hearing ~
pursuant to Section 6-3.4 of the Code: (Yes) (No)
.~--
7. Did you tell applicant to submit list of ADJACENT PROPERTY
OWNERS? (Yes) (No) Disclosure of Ownership: (Yes) (No
8. Number o£ copies of the application to be submitted:
9. What fee was applicant requested to submit: $ ql2 f $(ID %~I~ZZ
l0. Anticipated date of submission: oLD~•(~~ 2 ~
11.
~.
«-
®~~~~ ,
.. b.~ w _~~,~-~ .....~. ~~: ,..~.,._.
Areas in which Applicant has been requested to respond, types
of reports requested:
,j .. .. ~.
_. fit,
;1~
;,
i.. '~'
, ,~~,,,+,
__ - ~--~
:-_,~,
Z: _ .
~pirl~_
lyo ~t~il~j~.s- --~o:_ ply u~i"//fit,,s --wee
____~
~ - p /~_--
rlf
.. ..,
,..
r
_.~
- ------
n r _.-_-~--...~.~.~ -, _ ..
.~,
5
~._ _.,
...,,.
0
--: L
_. -
_..._......_ _- ...,_._.,,......._ ~.....,....._ ....v.. ..~~..~
/ ~,:,~.~
.~,:,
__-° ---
~_ -
_:.....
~-~!~sf~l'~--arc-~1~~1~s _ .--
_~_/~ or Lctc/ ~,~~re.
_ _ ,..
~5"
j ~, -
..
~ ~ _ ~ ~t ,.,. ~ ~,~: ~;: ~;.~,~
rt ~ ^~
Asp
August 7, 1992
Gary Wright
Wright and Adger
201 N. Mill Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Jffice
RE: Climax Mining Claim/Sep Kessler and Donald McGill
Dear Randy:
I have enclosed a pre-application form requesting information on
the Climax Mining Claim. Pursuant to my discussions with John Ely,
we are prepared to pursue an informal staff/administrative review
of the property and existing development. This will include basic
research and referral comments, and an internal memo on general
Land Use issues and recommended mitigation. I understand that this
information may be useful to the County Attorney alid BOCC in terms
of drafting a potential settlement agreement for the pending
litigation. We will not pursue a normal hearing schedule to the
Planning and Zoning Commission nor the BOCC, unless directed to do
so at a later date.
We have asked, in the pre-application form, for the submission of
$912 deposit for Planning Office fees, and $55 fees for both the
Environmental Health and Engineering Departments. The Planning
Office fee is a deposit based on typical staff hours required to
process this type of development. Actual charges are based on
$152/hour of planner time spent on the case. Please have your
client, or the party responsible f'or County billings, complete the
enclose Agreement for Payment form.
Sincerely,
S u~o ~DYI G~s--_
County Planning Director
cc: John Ely
o®Q~S~
m
~Sc- ,e~ v~ r, e o>uE.
- , . ~r
r ~,~:., ,, ,,. ..
MESSAGE DISPLAY
TO Suzanne Konchan CC TIM MALLOY
From: John Ely
Postmark: Jun 09,93 3:27 PM
Subject: Reply to: Forwarded: Reply to a reply: Emergency
Reply text:
From John Ely:
PROCEED WITH YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS RE; THIS CASE, THIS YS FOR
POTENTIAL LITIGATION SETTLEMENT'NOT}TYPICAL APpLIC1~,T3ON "REVIEWS AL$6
ALL THAT IS NEEDED IS STAFF OPINION P.N_D'Wfl"2{T~ER"~REFERP.LS YOU HAVE
RECEIVED; NO PUBLIC $RGS, P&Z 'ETC. '
Preceding message:
From Suzanne Konchan:
this isn't an application but litigation. any direction?
Previous comments:
From Tim Malloy:
I have the Kessler/McGill case.
From Suzanne Konchan:
so we believe. let me know what you have
From Tim Malloy:
will this include applications alreadt submitted but wick are
incomplete?
From Suzanne Konchan:
As many of you have heard, the BOCC approved first reading last night
of an emergency ordinance and a regular Resolution affecting the
richmond hill/little annie areas. Per Tim Whitsitt's advice, the
BOCC could not adopt the moratorium on applications by emergency, so
a first reading of a resolution was approved, with 2nd reading
scheduled for July 27th. In the interim, an emergency ordinance was
approved on 1st reading limiting development in this area to a TOTAL
of 300 s ft. ~ °° °~°
q. (NO`EXEMPTIONS AT AhL ) 2nd reading will occur next
tuesday. Copies in your box, Cindy H. has map of the area. questions?
----------=====X=====___---'----
r.
.., ~~bL,Ll` fly °"~/! ~K.3~_..... `~^~-W..I, A - ' .,-
' ~ y-~ ~ ~
~~~-1~,..-.f° -
,.... ,
',. _. _ ,~
J--~
-:., .....e....
...
~~
~, ,.;, .
DATE• cif lf7 1R9a- PLA~NyNERi~~e~, sy~'~~
PROJECT: ~~/w.~nn K~_ ~ !~i~4..Rn,'t ~~ DCo e+, c1?~Aa/
APPLICANT ~ 8 REPREB~'I~fRrAT`I\Y~;'~ ~"` ,, ~y
REPRESENTATIVES PHONE; ° S a
OWNER ~ S NAME E __ ;~.e.1~,o ~LQSS ~~~' 9y ~Q NA~yG,f //1/~Lr ® ~`~~ ~/d~I ~°r°
'7 ~ ` Z CL-~ .1~ ~``'`fje suMMARY '7~ ~/ - G t/- 3 l''
i. Type of Applicaton:1'p~/`/ `~ jr~.P' .~e.~s ~„ ~-e~ <'"`°~
.,
2. Describe action/type of development bein re'
q cni`estei:
3. Areas in which Applicant has been requested to respond, types
of reports',requested:
Policy Area/
Referral Aaent Commenytsd~`~' 1
L~sfld~OhYjlii+~ An.~ ~ ~ .. _A // ~~ '~~uct7~S
4. Review is before: (P&Z Only) (BOCC Only) `(P&Z & BOCC) ~~~~~ ~
.... ~...
5. Public Hearin
q: (Yes) ~ At; (P62) (BdCC)"`(BOTH'P8Z & BOCC)
6. The applicant needs to post a sign for each public hearing
pursuant to Section 6-3.4 of the Code. (YES`j~ ('NO)
~. Did you tell applicant to submit list of ADJACENT PROPERTY
OWNERS? ,(YES) (NO) Disclosure of Ownership: (YES) NO)
8. Number of copies of the application to be submitted: ~_
9. What deposit was applicant requested to submit: f~-f"'
~~ Rio - /t~zz.
10. Anticipated date of submission: _~~
~;~ i1NT /~ UE CONCERNS: t/'
h', ~ f
/~q~. ~4
V .. . ..
Q ~ . ~-/~ T
y~ ~ Y`r'~/"pp~04°~~~ y/~(C ~~Y ~ IJf /r~ry it~..y/ny ~.~..~P
~ff"~9-'~PSf F°~P'C~wS - S~s,s er~) ~dG.J~~...a-f~t*-f/°~,q /'(~v~t_v'I /..P.f,,~~w
A ^P!~~
i'
C~-t~C7GL'is? ~'O~t. COTLP.C.~?'tAN
Sit Plan:
- Site boundaries
- Existing Structures (including # of stones, use, etc) ' Proof of Ownership
Letter from Owner letting
_
- Watercourses, drainages, streams, creeks, floodplain, etc, agent represent them
- Topography/contours at scale with site Envelopes of adjacent
_
Existing easements (purpose, width, etc) property owners
- Proposed easements , - .-,
- Building envelope - . Survey w/tegal description
- Access driveway
_ Vegetation (canopies) _ _..... ., , _ ~~, ;`
- Adjacent roads (including widths) • - ~""`
- Site size (acreage)
- Slopes + 15%-30%
- Vicinity Maps
' Floor plans may be required and date of construction
Type of Application: Location:
~.~
...-. ... ,•. :.:.. .w .:n+51:p1 x mi ~. ww.~r:..x .+_.. rv.r ....r, .~.N-F /riYilxFn Yti"..In :.....
...
~. i.. ~. ~
-..., .,.._ < < Engineer/Surveryor:
Site Size: .. •r.. Ins. .. .. ... i s •...•~::....
Comp Plan Area:
Zoning: - t/owner.
ScenicOverlayMapping: GJ~ l,A-
Address: dot ~1~~ r~- r.-rr~r Odd
Phone: ~ 9-~~ c. e ~i , y
-
l ~
_
Adjacent Ownership List: aa r : ~ ~g
Public Notice Date: Representative:
Site Photos Address: ' T °'
Phone: _( 1 ~ ... s - ~ ~ ~~
Other comments:
'.. ~:. p. .P ,..'~6. a... ... r t f, vey
_~'.. .. .+v't .. Y~.. .. .tti..,~. .,.
OQ~l~6?,
~:
tee. ~.. .. .. ~:.....~~., w w 1:. ~"v+'~wti•AF~"nCW.FG'"xi~v':: l^0~'^MM'SYC£$i
1041 Hazard Ma c/Araac
/~ / g ~ ) n `
l/ ~ SP/:.~/C O~ ~l~(... ~/C~C~44~'L.Q! ~ P2C,C. ~ ,/®e +
~• `l~~ ~/typd ~ ~+4(J~S ~e/ ' 00~" ~ +eMSi/L"- ou,~8'TIC. ~~-d
C~t~C9GL1S? f'OR `C09'LPL~?T.U9Y
Pa7.Cti£ 2
Calvin ~ _""~~ aPi~- r/vw s~`~- Pad~li'~.Q ~~ v<^^~ --1 0 ~ i ~yrP r~r~-P
g .~;... „~ ~ ...,_ . t . , . ~ .. ~. ~;,, ~.. ;., .
Critical Winter Range ° °`
Migration Roufe
Big Hom Sheep
Normal Winter Range
Riparian
Wildt'ue
Fkxxiplain
Historic or Archaeologic
Geologic:
Slopes > 15%
Slopes > 30%
Avalance. -~/~'
Landslide slry~es
Potentially Onstable Slopes ? `~ . `"' ~°" "~ `~' u u ~, '~``'~ '°
Rockfall
Alluvial Fans
Talus Slope
Mancos Shale
Faults
Expansive Soil & Rock
Ground Subsidence
1041 A tivity/Area Around!<gy F^ ility
Airport Impact Area
Mass Transit Area
Water orSewer System .
Solid Waste System
Airport Site
Mass Transit Site
Arterial Highway Interchange or
Major Public Utility Facility
New Community
General Submicc~nn
Water
Legal Access
Merger
Housing
Trails Plan
Sewer
. ~ . ,~ ~., w~ >~ ~ a
,;
®Q~~~~,~
-' i v tk err- .
,... ,.
a,..'N'. ~..y 0 ,t. 3 Lin , i'.' ~ .. .F
.,,.. 'r`.~.4". Ta .,t„r,n:~+r ~.+y,~~.rS~~,`: ~'~.'`v1 °'. h'+'
A .....N N
x...yr. e'~w..a..~:..~s3.nikV.~NkYu,'~*u~,~a"~~...ku" ~ r"i3 »:'~}';"s~?4~'":,
~6 _ w..._
ASP). J/PITKIN ~LANNIlVG AND ZONIl~.T OFFICE.
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado .$16;11..
(303) 920-5090 FAX#f (303) 920-5197
January 25, 1993
Gary Wright
Wright & Adger
201 North Mill Street, Suite 106
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Climax Mining Claim
Case #P10-93
Dear Gary,
The Planning Office is in receipt of your information packet regarding the Climax Mining
Claim. We are unable to send it to the referral agencies until receipt of the survey map which
you are waiting for from Alpine Surveys. Referral comments will take approximately 4 weeks
from date of receipt of the survey. At that time an internal memorandum will be prepared.
Please return a signed copy of the Agreement for Payment of Development Application Fees
form which I have enclosed.
If you have any questions; please call Tim Malloy the planner assigned to your case.
Sincerely,
/fG~ ~~~
Debbie DuBord,
Office Manager
ppz. nosh
®~~~6`rs
' +{
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING AND ZONING OFFICE
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone 920-5090 FAX 920-5197
MEMORANDUM
TO: County Attorney
County Engineer
Environmental Health Department
Zoning Administration
Pitkin County Sheriff
Randy Cote, Division of Wildlife
FROM: Tim Malloy, Planning Office
RE: Kessler/McGill 1041 Hazard Review & General Submission
Parcel ID# 2911-014-00-005/009
DATE: February i l , 1993
Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by Sepp
Kessler & Donald McGill.
Please return your comments to me no later than. March 5, 1993. No DRC
meeting is scheduled for this case.
00~?''
ASPEN/PITKIN PLAr1I°®TING OFFICE
Agreement for Payment of Develoument Annlcation Fees
n _.~~_ . _ ~. .
Pitkin County (hereinafter COUNTY) and xessler & r~cGill
(hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. APPLICANT has submitted to COUNTY an application for
.. . __ __
,.... ,~~. ~ ~~, .., n ;...
(hereinafter, THE PR07ECT).
2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that Board , of County
Commissioners Resolution No. 91-08 and ordinance No. 92-1 established a fee
structure for Planning Office applications (including consultant costs) as part of
the application fee charged for THE PROJECT and the payment of all processing
fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness.
3. APPLICANT and COUNTY agree that because of the size, nature or
scope of the proposed project, it is impossible to ascertain the full extent of the
costs involved in processing .the application upon initiation of case processing.
APPLICANT and COUNTY further, agree that it is in the interest of the parties
to permit payment of an initial deposit and to permit additional costs to die billed
on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited, by retaining
greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the
County when they are necessary as costs are incurred. COUNTY agrees it will
be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to process
APPLICANT'S application.
4. 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 project approval, unless current billings are paid in full prior
to decision.
5. 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~sliall pay'an initial deposit in the amount
of $ i o~z.ao which is for ?~ hours of Planning Office time, and if actual
reco P~ costg exceed thabove aIn depdosie, API~LICANT shall pay add;tional
monthl billin s to COUNTY to reimburse the COUNTY for the processing of
the a lication mentioned , ' ng post approval review. 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.
PITKIN COUNTY'
APPLICANT
By:
Suza a Konc~ian
County Planning Director
By.
Date: a_`-(_ l99 ~
., For Planning Office Use
Case Number
Case Name
w,.~ , ~,~.~>,~~. .:._h:
Deposit or Flat Fee Amount:
Referral Fees: Engineer:.
2
ooaoo~
.,
~ '
/~~ V '~ / 3
130 South Galena Street `
..;
. ..
,
",,. •- Aspety Colorado SiSii .,. .,
.
-...
..
... ,..
k
.
.
. ... (303) 920-5090
} LgNd USE APPLICd71ON FEES
CITY:
-83250-i3d GMP/Conceptual ...
-63270-138 GMP/Final
,
t
r
-63280-137 SUB/Coricep4ual _
,,
63300-139 SUB%Pinal _
-63310-140 Ali-2 Step dpplications - r ,
' -63320-14i` All1 St"e `Applications'
P
;
-63330150" ~, .. ~ ~,
,_
Staf)gApproWal" _ w,,. , .~.. - a.. ,-w
-63432-`157"' Zoning Plan Check '
~ ~:~~,~;... 63432 1~7 ~ ~:,
-001"00-6 0 000-31 070 :5lgn PermA; ~~ ~ ~;.~n~,~
lase Tax`for Sign hermits ~ m ... ;; ... . _ W
HISTO'FiIC PRESERVATION:
.
-83335-151
Exemption v
~r
rf
-63336-152 Minor '>G
`'. -63337-153 Major Devel. ~;'
"' -63338-154 $ign'rf. Devel. ;.. ;
_,,, -,.
-63339-155 Demolition
f ..'..COUNTY: `
-63160-126
-63170-127
-63180-128
-63190-129
-63200-130
-63210-131
-63220-132
-fi3230-133
-63240-149
-63450-146
-63235-148
REFERRAL FEES:
-63360-143
00115 -63340-163
-00123 -63340-190
OOi25 -63340-205
PLANNING OFFICE SALES:
-63080-122
-69000-145
Address:
Check u: ~' ~'+'_~-
~,M
Ali 1 Step Applidations
Staff Approval
Board of Adjustment
Zoning Plan Check.
Engineering -County
Engineering -City
Housing
Environmental Health
County Code
Other (Copy Fees)
.G.. ;j r
A~ .1 ,., _-,.. ~ -, .,
-
.,-, ~.
~. a .. ,., ~,„.~ ~,,,~.,,~-,~..~,.,~ .~.~~.
1y.~ ~ %:
; .
ry„4
~ ,,,,
1,
TOTAL
_. _
~ ._.
~
> ~ :.
~~ ~ ° ~(.~ Ti
'~`~"%' Phone:
dd- Project:
i
~ I
~ `
~
p
N'}5 of Copies: